Read Online A History of China by Morris Rossabi - Free Book Online Page B

their division of functions were vague. It is perhaps too much to expect a precise table of organization at this early stage of culture, and it is true that the Zhou distinguished between household personnel, or the inner court, and the various ministries. However, the confusion concerning these offices probably reflected the lack of true Western Zhou centralization. The scanty evidence confirms the informality of the political structure, as those close to the king (who were not an officially designated bureaucracy) often wielded power and increasingly dominated the court ­aristocrats. The Zhou’s financial administration was as vague as its political system. Though the land, in theory, belonged to the king, the peasants generally did not pay taxes to the court. Whatever revenue reached the court derived from the vassals whom the king enfeoffed and from taxes on commerce. This imprecise financial system initially fulfilled the Western Zhou’s revenue needs. Yet, as the court continued to decline, its reliance on so-called tribute from its vassals revealed its vulnerability because these very same retainers sought to supplant the king and were not willing to meet his revenue demands.
    This decentralized system eventually offered vassals the opportunity to dominate on the local level, to garner taxes from their subjects, to administer justice, and to raise and command their own military forces. Nonetheless, some scholars have argued, on the basis of inscriptions and early texts, that the kings still maintained power during the Western Zhou and that they mandated a feudal system. Such a system was essential because the Zhou adopted a ­process of incorporating many non-Zhou peoples and needed help from their relatives and retainers, the feudal lords, to do so. Since definitions of “feudal” vary in the histories of “feudal” China and Europe, it may seem pointless to characterize the Zhou as “feudal” rather than as a decentralized political ­system with its own unique characteristics. The sparse materials on the early Zhou, in contrast to the relatively more abundant extant sources on medieval Europe, compound the difficulties of using the term “feudal.” Yet, since ­comparative history, on occasion, proves illuminating, a few distinctions as well as several similarities between the two ought to be mentioned.
    Like the lords in medieval Europe, the kings in Zhou China played pivotal roles. The kings enfeoffed their vassals (who were relatives, retainers, or allies and numbered about a hundred or so), giving them various ritual objects of authority and entrusting them with lands over which they had considerable control. As in Europe, the ceremonies for such enfeoffment became increasingly more elaborate as the dynasty developed, but at first the kings generally did not demand an oath of allegiance. This may indicate that the kings were so confident of their retainers’ loyalty that they could not have conceived of demanding such a pledge. In the Western Zhou, these enfeoffments did not take place at the altar of the god of the soil (as in the Eastern Zhou), another indication of the lack of ceremonies or perhaps of the appointment of ­trustworthy retainers to positions of local authority. On the other hand, this may imply that these enfeoffments were only a formality and did not entail subservience and loyalty. The contractual obligations of European feudalism did not appear as clearly in the Zhou system. Nonetheless, once the vassal was invested, he was, in theory, obligated to provide tribute and to supply laborers and soldiers when requested to do so. Again, in theory, he served as the king’s representative to ensure peace and stability on the local level.
    Some of the practices of enfeoffed vassals resembled practices in the European system but others diverged. Like their European counterparts, vassals perceived themselves to be distinctive, tended to marry among themselves, and had a code of conduct