LAODICEA,the name of at least eight cities, founded or renovated in the later Hellenic period. Most of them were founded by the Seleucid kings of Syria. Seleucus, founder of the dynasty, is said by Appian to have named five cities after his mother Laodice. Thus in the immense realm of the Seleucidae from the Aegean Sea to the borders of India we find cities called Laodicea, as also Seleucia (q.v.). So long as Greek civilization held its ground, these were the commercial and social centres. The chief are Laodiceaad Lycum(see below);Combustaon the borders of Phrygia, Lycaonia and Pisidia; a third in Pontus; a fourth,ad mare, on the coast of Syria; a fifth,ad Libanum, beside the Lebanon mountains; and three others in the far east—Media, Persia and the lower Tigris valley. In the latter countries Greek civilization was short-lived, and the last three cities disappeared; the other five continued great throughout the Greek and Roman period, and the second, third and fourth retain to the present day the ancient name under the pronunciation Ladik, Ladikiyeh or Latakia (q.v.).
Laodicea ad Lycum(mod.Denizli,q.v.) was founded probably by Antiochus II. Theos (261-46B.C.), and named after his wife Laodice. Its site is close to the station of Gonjeli on the Anatolian railway. Here was one of the oldest homes of Christianity and the seat of one of the seven churches of the Apocalypse. Pliny states (v. 29) that the town was called in older times Diospolis and Rhoas; but at an early period Colossae, a few miles to the east, and Hierapolis, 6 m. to the north, were the great cities of the neighbourhood, and Laodicea was of no importance till the Seleucid foundation (Strabo, p. 578). A favourable site was found on some low hills of alluvial formation, about 2 m. S. of the river Lycus (Churuk Su) and 9 m. E. of the confluence of the Lycus and Maeander. The great trade route from the Euphrates and the interior passed to it through Apamea. There it forked, one branch going down the Maeander valley to Magnesia and thence north to Ephesus, a distance of about 90 m., and the other branch crossing the mountains by an easy pass to Philadelphia and the Hermus valley, Sardis, Thyatira and at last Pergamum. St Paul (Col. iv. 15) alludes to the situation of Laodicea beside Colossae and Hierapolis; and the order in which the last five churches of the Apocalypse are enumerated (Rev. i. 11) is explained by their position on the road just described. Placed in this situation, in the centre of a very fertile district, Laodicea became a rich city. It was famous for its money transactions (Cic.Ad Fam.ii. 17, iii. 5), and for the beautiful soft wool grown by the sheep of the country (Strabo 578). Both points are referred to in the message to the church (Rev. iii. 17, 18).
Little is known of the history of the town. It suffered greatly from a siege in the Mithradatic war, but soon recovered its prosperity under the Roman empire. The Zeus of Laodicea, with the curious epithet Azeus or Azeis, is a frequent symbol on the city coins. He is represented standing, holding in the extended right hand an eagle, in the left a spear, thehasta pura. Not far from the city was the temple of Men Karou, with a great medical school; while Laodicea itself produced some famous Sceptic philosophers, and gave origin to the royal family of Polemon and Zenon, whose curious history has been illustrated in recent times (W. H. Waddington,Mélanges de Numism.ser. ii.; Th. Mommsen,Ephem. Epigraph.i. and ii.; M. G. Rayet,Milet et le Golfe Latmique, chap. v.). The city fell finally into decay in the frontier wars with the Turkish invaders. Its ruins are of wide extent, but not of great beauty or interest; there is no doubt, however, that much has been buried beneath the surface by the frequent earthquakes to which the district is exposed (Strabo 580; Tac.Ann.xiv. 27).See W. M. Ramsay,Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, i.-ii. (1895);Letters to the Seven Churches(1904); and the beautiful drawings of Cockerell in theAntiquities of Ionia, vol. iii. pl. 47-51.
Little is known of the history of the town. It suffered greatly from a siege in the Mithradatic war, but soon recovered its prosperity under the Roman empire. The Zeus of Laodicea, with the curious epithet Azeus or Azeis, is a frequent symbol on the city coins. He is represented standing, holding in the extended right hand an eagle, in the left a spear, thehasta pura. Not far from the city was the temple of Men Karou, with a great medical school; while Laodicea itself produced some famous Sceptic philosophers, and gave origin to the royal family of Polemon and Zenon, whose curious history has been illustrated in recent times (W. H. Waddington,Mélanges de Numism.ser. ii.; Th. Mommsen,Ephem. Epigraph.i. and ii.; M. G. Rayet,Milet et le Golfe Latmique, chap. v.). The city fell finally into decay in the frontier wars with the Turkish invaders. Its ruins are of wide extent, but not of great beauty or interest; there is no doubt, however, that much has been buried beneath the surface by the frequent earthquakes to which the district is exposed (Strabo 580; Tac.Ann.xiv. 27).
See W. M. Ramsay,Cities and Bishoprics of Phrygia, i.-ii. (1895);Letters to the Seven Churches(1904); and the beautiful drawings of Cockerell in theAntiquities of Ionia, vol. iii. pl. 47-51.
(A. H. S.)
LAODICEA, SYNOD OF,held at Laodicea ad Lycum in Phrygia, some time between 343 and 381 (so Hefele; but Baronius argues for 314, and others for a date as late as 399), adopted sixty canons, chiefly disciplinary, which were declared ecumenical by the council of Chalcedon, 451. The most significant canons are those directly affecting the clergy, wherein the clergy appear as a privileged class, far above the laity, but with sharply differentiated and carefully graded orders within itself. For example, the priests are not to be chosen by the people; penitents are not to be present at ordinations (lest they should hear the failings of candidates discussed); bishops are to be appointed by the metropolitan and his suffragan; sub-deacons may not distribute the elements of the Eucharist; clerics are forbidden to leave a diocese without the bishop’s permission. Other canons treat of intercourse with heretics, admission of penitent heretics, baptism, fasts, Lent, angel-worship (forbidden as idolatrous) and the canonical books, from which the Apocrypha and Revelation are wanting.
See Mansi ii. 563-614; Hardouin i. 777-792; Hefele, 2nd ed., i. 746-777 (Eng. trans. ii. 295-325).
See Mansi ii. 563-614; Hardouin i. 777-792; Hefele, 2nd ed., i. 746-777 (Eng. trans. ii. 295-325).
(T. F. C.)
LAOMEDON,in Greek legend, son of Ilus, king of Troy and father of Podarces (Priam). The gods Apollo and Poseidon served him for hire, Apollo tending his herds, while Poseidon built the walls of Troy. When Laomedon refused to pay the reward agreed upon, Apollo visited the land with a pestilence, and Poseidon sent up a monster from the sea, which ravaged the land. According to the oracle, the wrath of Poseidon could only be appeased by the sacrifice of one of the king’s daughters. The lot fell upon Hesione, who was chained to a rock to await the monster’s coming. Heracles, on his way back from the land of the Amazons, offered to slay the monster and release Hesione, on condition that he should receive the wonderful horses presented by Zeus to Tros, the father of Ganymede, to console him for the loss of his son. Again Laomedon broke his word; whereupon Heracles returned with a band of warriors, attacked Troy, and slew Laomedon and all his sons except Priam. According to Diodorus Siculus, Laomedon aggravated his offence by imprisoning Iphiclus and Telamon, who had been sent by Heracles to demand the surrender of the horses. Laomedon was buried near the Scaean gate, and it was said that so long as his grave remained undisturbed, so long would the walls of Troy remain impregnable.
See Homer,Iliad, v. 265, 640, vii. 452, xxi. 443; Apollodorus ii. 5. 9 and 6. 4; Diod. Sic. iv. 32, 42, 49; Hyginus,Fab.89; Horace,Odesiii. 3, 22; Ovid,Metam.xi. 194.
See Homer,Iliad, v. 265, 640, vii. 452, xxi. 443; Apollodorus ii. 5. 9 and 6. 4; Diod. Sic. iv. 32, 42, 49; Hyginus,Fab.89; Horace,Odesiii. 3, 22; Ovid,Metam.xi. 194.
LAON,a town of northern France, capital of the department of Aisne, 87 m. N.E. of Paris on the Northern railway. Pop. (1906), town, 9787, commune (including troops) 15,288. It issituated on an isolated ridge, forming two sides of a triangle, which rises some 330 ft. above the surrounding plain and the little river of Ardon. The suburbs of St Marcel and Vaux extend along the foot of the ridge to the north. From the railway station, situated in the plain to the north, a straight staircase of several hundred steps leads to the gate of the town, and all the roads connecting Laon with the surrounding district are cut in zigzags on the steep slopes, which are crowned by promenades on the site of the old ramparts. The 13th-century gates of Ardon, Chenizelles and Soissons, the latter in a state of ruin, have been preserved. At the eastern extremity of the ridge rises the citadel; at its apex is the parade-ground of St Martin, and at the southern end stands the ancient abbey of St Vincent. The deep depression between the arms of the ridge, known as the Cuve St Vincent, has its slopes covered with trees, vegetable gardens and vineyards. From the promenade along the line of the ramparts there is an extensive view northward beyond St Quentin, westward to the forest of St Gobain, and southward over the wooded hills of the Laonnais and Soissonnais.
The cathedral of Laon (seeArchitecture, Romanesque and Gothic Architecture in France) is one of the most important creations of the art of the 12th and 13th centuries. It took the place of the old cathedral, burned at the beginning of the communal struggles mentioned below. The building is cruciform, and the choir terminates in a straight wall instead of in an apse. Of the six towers flanking the façades, only four are complete to the height of the base of the spires, two at the west front withhugefigures of oxen beneath the arcades of their upper portion, and one at each end of the transept. A square central tower forms a lantern within the church. The west front, with three porches, the centre one surmounted by a fine rose window, ranks next to that of Notre-Dame at Paris in purity. The cathedral has stained glass of the 13th century and a choir grille of the 18th century. The chapter-house and the cloister contain beautiful specimens of the architecture of the beginning of the 13th century. The old episcopal palace, contiguous to the cathedral, is now used as a court-house. The front, flanked by turrets, is pierced by great pointed windows. There is also a Gothic cloister and an old chapel of two storeys, of a date anterior to the cathedral. The church of St Martin dates from the middle of the 12th century. The old abbey buildings of the same foundation are now used as the hospital. The museum of Laon had collections of sculpture and painting. In its garden there is a chapel of the Templars belonging to the 12th century. The church of the suburb of Vaux near the railway station dates from the 11th and 12th centuries. Numerous cellars of two or three storeys have taken the place of the old quarries in the hill-side. Laon forms with La Fère and Reims a triangle of important fortresses. Its fortifications consist of an inner line of works on the eminence of Laon itself, and two groups of detached forts, one some 2½ m. S.E. about the village of Bruyères, the other about 3 m. W.S.W., near Laniscourt. To the S.S.W. forts Malmaison and Condé connect Laon with the Aisne and with Reims.
Laon is the seat of a prefect and a court of assizes, and possesses a tribunal of first instance, a lycée for boys, a college for girls, a school of agriculture and training colleges. Sugar-making and metal-founding are carried on, but neither industry nor trade, which is in grain and wine, are of much importance.
The hilly district of Laon (Laudunum) has always had some strategic importance. In the time of Caesar there was a Gallic village where the Remi (inhabitants of the country round Reims) had to meet the onset of the confederated Belgae. Whatever may have been the precise locality of that battlefield, Laon was fortified by the Romans, and successively checked the invasions of the Franks, Burgundians, Vandals, Alani and Huns. St Remigius, the archbishop of Reims who baptized Clovis, was born in the Laonnais, and it was he who, at the end of the 5th century, instituted the bishopric of the town. Thenceforward Laon was one of the principal towns of the kingdom of the Franks, and the possession of it was often disputed. Charles the Bald had enriched its church with the gift of very numerous domains. After the fall of the Carolingians Laon took the part of Charles of Lorraine, their heir, and Hugh Capet only succeeded in making himself master of the town by the connivance of the bishop, who, in return for this service, was made second ecclesiastical peer of the kingdom. Early in the 12th century the communes of France set about emancipating themselves, and the history of the commune of Laon is one of the richest and most varied. The citizens had profited by a temporary absence of Bishop Gaudry to secure from his representatives a communal charter, but he, on his return, purchased from the king of France the revocation of this document, and recommenced his oppressions. The consequence was a revolt, in which the episcopal palace was burnt and the bishop and several of his partisans were put to death. The fire spread to the cathedral, and reduced it to ashes. Uneasy at the result of their victory, the rioters went into hiding outside the town, which was anew pillaged by the people of the neighbourhood, eager to avenge the death of their bishop. The king alternately interfered in favour of the bishop and of the inhabitants till 1239. After that date the liberties of Laon were no more contested till 1331, when the commune was abolished. During the Hundred Years’ War it was attacked and taken by the Burgundians, who gave it up to the English, to be retaken by the French after the consecration of Charles VII. Under the League Laon took the part of the Leaguers, and was taken by Henry IV. During the campaign of 1814 Napoleon tried in vain to dislodge Blücher from it. In 1870 an engineer blew up the powder magazine of the citadel at the moment when the German troops were entering the town. Many lives were lost; and the cathedral and the old episcopal palace were damaged. At the Revolution Laon permanently lost its rank as a bishopric.
The hilly district of Laon (Laudunum) has always had some strategic importance. In the time of Caesar there was a Gallic village where the Remi (inhabitants of the country round Reims) had to meet the onset of the confederated Belgae. Whatever may have been the precise locality of that battlefield, Laon was fortified by the Romans, and successively checked the invasions of the Franks, Burgundians, Vandals, Alani and Huns. St Remigius, the archbishop of Reims who baptized Clovis, was born in the Laonnais, and it was he who, at the end of the 5th century, instituted the bishopric of the town. Thenceforward Laon was one of the principal towns of the kingdom of the Franks, and the possession of it was often disputed. Charles the Bald had enriched its church with the gift of very numerous domains. After the fall of the Carolingians Laon took the part of Charles of Lorraine, their heir, and Hugh Capet only succeeded in making himself master of the town by the connivance of the bishop, who, in return for this service, was made second ecclesiastical peer of the kingdom. Early in the 12th century the communes of France set about emancipating themselves, and the history of the commune of Laon is one of the richest and most varied. The citizens had profited by a temporary absence of Bishop Gaudry to secure from his representatives a communal charter, but he, on his return, purchased from the king of France the revocation of this document, and recommenced his oppressions. The consequence was a revolt, in which the episcopal palace was burnt and the bishop and several of his partisans were put to death. The fire spread to the cathedral, and reduced it to ashes. Uneasy at the result of their victory, the rioters went into hiding outside the town, which was anew pillaged by the people of the neighbourhood, eager to avenge the death of their bishop. The king alternately interfered in favour of the bishop and of the inhabitants till 1239. After that date the liberties of Laon were no more contested till 1331, when the commune was abolished. During the Hundred Years’ War it was attacked and taken by the Burgundians, who gave it up to the English, to be retaken by the French after the consecration of Charles VII. Under the League Laon took the part of the Leaguers, and was taken by Henry IV. During the campaign of 1814 Napoleon tried in vain to dislodge Blücher from it. In 1870 an engineer blew up the powder magazine of the citadel at the moment when the German troops were entering the town. Many lives were lost; and the cathedral and the old episcopal palace were damaged. At the Revolution Laon permanently lost its rank as a bishopric.
LAOS, a territory of French Indo-China, bounded N. by the Chinese province of Yun-nan, W. by the British Shan states and Siam, S. by Cambodia and Annam, E. by Annam and N.E. by Tongking. Northern Laos is traversed by the Mekong (q.v.) which from Chieng-Khan to a point below Stung-Treng forms the boundary between Laos (on the left bank) and Siam and Cambodia (on the right). French Laos constitutes a strip of territory between 700 and 800 m. in length with an average breadth of 155 m., an approximate area of 88,780 sq. m., and a population of about 550,000. Its northern region between the Mekong and Tongking is covered by a tangle of mountain chains clothed with dense forests and traversed by the Nam-Hou, the Nam-Ta and other tributaries of the Mekong. The culminating point exceeds 6500 ft. in height. South of this is the extensive wooded plateau of Tran-Ninh with an average altitude of between 3000 and 5000 ft. Towards the 18th degree of latitude this mountain system narrows into a range running parallel to and closely approaching the coast of the China Sea as it descends south. The boundary between Laos and Annam follows the crest-line of this range, several peaks of which exceed 6500 ft. (Pu-Atwat, over 8000 ft.). On the west its ramifications extend to the Mekong enclosing wide plains watered by the affluents of that river.
Laos is inhabited by a mixed population falling into three main groups—the Thais (including the Laotions (see below)); various aboriginal peoples classed as Khas; and the inhabitants of neighbouring countries,e.g.China, Annam, Cambodia, Siam, Burma, &c.
Laos has a rainy season lasting from June to October and corresponding to the S.W. monsoon and a dry season coinciding with the N.E. monsoon and lasting from November to May. Both in northern and southern Laos the heat during April and May is excessive, the thermometer reaching 104° F. and averaging 95° F. With the beginning of the rains the heat becomes more tolerable. December, January and February are cool months, the temperature in south Laos (south of 19°) averaging 77°, in north Laos from 50° to 53°. The plateau of Tran-Ninh and, in the south, that of the Bolovens are distinguished by the wholesomeness of their climate.
The forests contain bamboo and many valuable woods amongst which only the teak of north Laos and rattan are exploited to any extent; other forest products are rubber, stick lac, gum, benjamin, cardamoms, &c. Rice and maize, and cotton, indigo, tobacco, sugar-cane and cardamoms are among the cultivated plants. Elephants are numerous and the forests are inhabited by tigers, panthers, bears, deer and buffalo. Hunting and fishing are leading occupations of the inhabitants. Many species of monkeys, as well as peacocks, pheasants and woodcock are found, and the reptiles include crocodiles, turtles, pythons and cobras.
Scarcity of labour and difficulty of communication hinderthe working of the gold, tin, copper, argentiferous lead, precious stones and other minerals of the country and the industries in general are of a primitive kind and satisfy only local needs.
The buffalo, the ox, the horse and the elephant are domesticated, and these together with cardamoms, rice, tobacco and the products of the forests form the bulk of the exports. Swine are reared, their flesh forming an important article of diet. Imports are inconsiderable, comprising chiefly cotton fabrics, garments and articles for domestic use. Trade is chiefly in the hands of the Chinese and is carried on for the most part with Siam. The Mekong is the chief artery of transit; elsewhere communication is afforded by tracks sometimes passable only for pedestrians. Luang-Prabang (q.v.) is the principal commercial town. Before the French occupation of Laos, it was split up into small principalities (muongs) of which the chief was that of Vien-Tiane. Vien-Tiane was destroyed in 1828 by the Siamese who annexed the territory. In 1893 they made it over to the French, who grouped themuongsinto provinces. Of these there are twelve each administered by a French commissioner and, under his surveillance, by native officials elected by the people from amongst the members of an hereditary nobility. At the head of the administration there is a resident-superior stationed at Savannaket. Up till 1896 Laos had no special budget, but was administered by Cochin-China, Annam and Tongking. The budget for 1899 showed receipts £78,988 and expenditure £77,417. For 1904 the budget figures were, receipts £82,942, expenditure £76,344. The chief sources of revenue are the direct taxes (£15,606 in 1904), especially the poll-tax, and the contribution from the general budget of Indo-China (£54,090 in 1904). The chief items of expenditure in 1904 were Government house, &c., £22,558, transport, £19,191, native guard, £17,327.
See M. J. F. Garnier,Voyage d’exploration en Indo-Chine(Paris, 1873); C. Gosselin,Le Laos et le protectorat français(Paris, 1900); L. de Reinach,Le Laos(Paris, 1902) andNotes sur le Laos(Paris, 1906); and bibliography underIndo-China, French.
See M. J. F. Garnier,Voyage d’exploration en Indo-Chine(Paris, 1873); C. Gosselin,Le Laos et le protectorat français(Paris, 1900); L. de Reinach,Le Laos(Paris, 1902) andNotes sur le Laos(Paris, 1906); and bibliography underIndo-China, French.
LAOS, orLaotions, an important division of the widespread Thai or Shan race found throughout Indo-China from 28° N. and the sources of the Irrawaddy as far as Cambodia and 7° N. in the Malay Peninsula. This Thai family includes the Shans proper, and the Siamese. The name Lao, which appears to mean simply “man,” is the collective Siamese term for all the Thai peoples subject to Siam, while Shan, said to be of Chinese origin, is the collective Burmese term for those subject to Burma. Lao is therefore rather a political than an ethnical title, and the people cordially dislike the name, insisting on their right to be called Thai. Owing to the different circumstances which have attended their migrations, the Thai peoples have attained to varying degrees of civilization. The Lao, who descended from the mountain districts of Yunnan, Szechuen and Kweichow to the highland plains of upper Indo-China, and drove the wilder Kha peoples whom they found in possession into the hills, mostly adopted Buddhism, and formed small settled communities or states in which laws were easy, taxes light and a very fair degree of comfort was attained. There are two main divisions, the Lao Pong Dam (“Black Paunch Laos”), so-called from their habit of tattooing the body from the waist to the knees, and the Lao Pong Kao (“White Paunch Laos”) who do not tattoo. Lao tattooing is of a most elaborate kind. The Lao Pong Dam now form the western branch of the Lao family, inhabiting the Siamese Lao states of Chieng Mai Lapaun, ‘Tern Pre and Nan, and reaching as far south as 17° N. Various influences have contributed to making the Lao the pleasant, easy-going, idle fellow that he is. The result is that practically all the trade of these states is in the hands of Bangkok Chinese firms, of a certain number of European houses and others, while most of the manual labour connected with the teak industry is done by Ka Mus, who migrate in large numbers from the left bank of the Mekong. The Lao Pong Kao, or eastern branch, appear to have migrated southwards by the more easterly route of the Nam-u and the Mekong valley. In contradistinction to the Lao Pong Dam, who have derived their written language from the Burmese character, the eastern race has retained what appears to be the early form of the present Siamese writing, from which it differs little. They formed important settlements at various points on the Mekong, notably Luang Prabang, Wieng Chan (Vien-Tiane) Ubon and Bassac; and, heading inland as far as Korat on the one side and the Annamite watershed in the east, they drove out the less civilized Kha peoples, and even the Cambodians, as the Lao Pong Dam did on the west. Vien-Tiane during the 18th century was the most powerful of the Lao principalities, and was feared and respected throughout Indo-China. It was destroyed by the Siamese in 1828. The inhabitants, in accordance with the Indo-Chinese custom of the day, were transported to Lower Siam. The Lao Pong Kao below 18° N. are a less merry and less vivacious people, and are for the most part shorter and more thick-set than those of Luang Prabang and the north. If possible, they are as a race lazier than the western Lao, as they are certainly more musical. The “khen,” or mouth organ, which is universal among them, is the sweetest-toned of eastern instruments.
After 1828 the Laos became entirely subject to Siam, and were governed partly by khiao, or native hereditary princes, partly by mandarins directly nominated by the Bangkok authorities. The khiao were invested by a gold dish, betel-box, spittoon and teapot, which were sent from Bangkok and returned at their death or deposition. Of all the khiao the most powerful was the prince of Ubon (15° N., 105° E.), whose jurisdiction extended nearly from Bassac on the Mekong northwards to the great southern bend of that river. Nearly all the Laos country is now divided between France and Siam, and only a few tribes retain a nominal independence.
The many contradictory accounts of the Laos are due to the fact that the race has become much mixed with the aboriginal inhabitants. The half-castes sprung from alliances with the wild tribes of Caucasic stock present every variety between that type and the Mongolian. But the pure Laos are still distinguished by the high cheek-bones, small flat nose, oblique eyes, wide mouth, black lank hair, sparse beard, and yellow complexion of the Thai and other branches of the Mongol family. In disposition the Laos are an apathetic, peace-loving, pleasant-mannered race. Though the women have to work, they are free and well treated, and polygamy is rare. The Laos are very superstitious, believe in wer-wolves, and that all diseases are caused by evil spirits. Their chief food is rice and fish. Men, women and children all smoke tobacco. The civilized Laos were long addicted to slave-hunting, not only with the sanction but even with the co-operation of their rulers, the Lao mandarins heading regular expeditions against the wilder tribes.
Closely allied with the Lao are a number of tribes found throughout the hill regions of the upper Mekong, between Yunnan and Kwangsi in China and the upper waters of the Menam in Siam. They have all within recent times been partakers in the general movement towards the south-west from the highland districts of southern China, which has produced so many recruits for the peopling of the Indo-Chinese peninsula. Of this group of people, among whom may be named the Yao, Yao Yin, Lanten, Meo, Musur (or Muhso) and Kaw, perhaps the best known and most like the Lao are the Lu—both names meaning originally “man”—who have in many cases adopted a form of Buddhism (flavoured strongly by their natural respect for local spirits as well as tattooing) and other relatively civilized customs, and have forsaken their wandering life among the hills for a more settled village existence. Hardy, simple and industrious, fond of music, kind-hearted, and with a strangely artistic taste in dress, these people possess in a wonderful degree the secret of cheerful contentment.Authorities.—M. J. F. Garnier,Voyage d’exploration en Indo-Chine; A. H. Mouhot,Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China, Cambodia and Laos(1864); Holt S. Hallett,A Thousand Miles on an Elephant in the Shan States(1890); A. R. Colquhoun,Amongst the Shâns(1885); Lord Lamington,Proc. R.G.S.vol. xiii. No. 12; Archer,Report on a Journey in the Mekong Valley; Prince Henri d’Orléans,Around Tonkin and Siam(1894); M‘Carthy,Report on a Survey in Siam(1894); Bulletins, Paris Geographical Society: H. Warington Smyth,Notes of a Journey on the Upper Mekong(1895);Five Years in Siam(1898); Harmand,Le Laos et les populations sauvages de l’Indo-Chine(1880). See also bibliography to preceding article.
Closely allied with the Lao are a number of tribes found throughout the hill regions of the upper Mekong, between Yunnan and Kwangsi in China and the upper waters of the Menam in Siam. They have all within recent times been partakers in the general movement towards the south-west from the highland districts of southern China, which has produced so many recruits for the peopling of the Indo-Chinese peninsula. Of this group of people, among whom may be named the Yao, Yao Yin, Lanten, Meo, Musur (or Muhso) and Kaw, perhaps the best known and most like the Lao are the Lu—both names meaning originally “man”—who have in many cases adopted a form of Buddhism (flavoured strongly by their natural respect for local spirits as well as tattooing) and other relatively civilized customs, and have forsaken their wandering life among the hills for a more settled village existence. Hardy, simple and industrious, fond of music, kind-hearted, and with a strangely artistic taste in dress, these people possess in a wonderful degree the secret of cheerful contentment.
Authorities.—M. J. F. Garnier,Voyage d’exploration en Indo-Chine; A. H. Mouhot,Travels in the Central Parts of Indo-China, Cambodia and Laos(1864); Holt S. Hallett,A Thousand Miles on an Elephant in the Shan States(1890); A. R. Colquhoun,Amongst the Shâns(1885); Lord Lamington,Proc. R.G.S.vol. xiii. No. 12; Archer,Report on a Journey in the Mekong Valley; Prince Henri d’Orléans,Around Tonkin and Siam(1894); M‘Carthy,Report on a Survey in Siam(1894); Bulletins, Paris Geographical Society: H. Warington Smyth,Notes of a Journey on the Upper Mekong(1895);Five Years in Siam(1898); Harmand,Le Laos et les populations sauvages de l’Indo-Chine(1880). See also bibliography to preceding article.
LÂO-TSZE, orLaou-Tsze, the designation of the Chinese author of the celebrated treatise calledTâo Teh King, and the reputed founder of the religion calledTâoism. The Chinesecharacters composing the designation may mean either “the Old Son,” which commonly assumes with foreigners the form of “the Old Boy,” or “the Old Philosopher.” The latter significance is attached to them by Dr Chalmers in his translation of the treatise published in 1868 under the title ofThe Speculations on Metaphysics, Polity and Morality of “the Old Philosopher,” Lâo-tsze. The former is derived from a fabulous account of Lâo-tsze in theShăn Hsien Chwan; “The Account of Spirits and Immortals,” of Ko Hung in the 4th centuryA.D.According to this, his mother, after a supernatural conception, carried him in her womb sixty-two years (or seventy-two, or eighty-one—ten years more or fewer are of little importance in such a case), so that, when he was born at last, his hair was white as with age, and people might well call him “the old boy.” The other meaning of the designation rests on better authority. We find it in theKiâ Yü, or “Narratives of the Confucian School,” compiled in the 3rd centuryA.D.from documents said to have been preserved among the descendants of Confucius, and also in the brief history of Lâo-tsze given in the historical records of Sze-ma Ch’ien (about 100B.C.). In the latter instance the designation is used by Confucius, and possibly it originated with him. It should be regarded more as an epithet of respect than of years, and is equivalent to “the Venerable Philosopher.”
All that Ch’ien tells us about Lâo-tsze goes into small compass. His surname was Lî, and his name Urh. He was a native of the state of Ch’û, and was born in a hamlet not far from the present prefectural city of Kwei-te in Ho-nan province. He was one of the recorders or historiographers at the court of Chow, his special department being the charge of the whole or a portion of the royal library. He must thus have been able to make himself acquainted with the history of his country. Ch’ien does not mention the year of his birth, which is often said, though on what Chinese authority does not appear, to have taken place in the third year of King Phing, corresponding to 604B.C.That date cannot be far from the truth. That he was contemporary with Confucius is established by the concurrent testimony of theLî Kîand theKiâ Yüon the Confucian side, and of Chwang-tsze and Sze-ma Ch’ien on the Tâoist. The two men whose influence has been so great on all the subsequent generations of the Chinese people—Kung-tsze (Confucius) and Lâo-tsze—had at least one interview, in 517B.C., when the former was in his thirty-fifth year. The conversation between them was interesting. Lâo was in a mocking mood; Kung appears to the greater advantage. If it be true that Confucius, when he was fifty-one years old, visited Lâo-tsze as Chwang-tsze says (in theThien Yun, the fourteenth of his treatises), to ask about theTâo, they must have had more than one interview. Dr Chalmers, however, has pointed out that both Chwang-tsze and Lieh-tsze (a still earlier Tâoist writer) produce Confucius in their writings, as the lords of the Philistines did the captive Samson on their festive occasions, “to make sport for them.” Their testimony is valueless as to any matter of fact. There may have been several meetings between the two in 517B.C., but we have no evidence that they were together in the same place after that time. Ch’ien adds:—“Lâo-tsze cultivated theTâoand virtue, his chief aim in his studies being how to keep himself concealed and unknown. He resided at (the capital of) Chow; but after a long time, seeing the decay of the dynasty, he left it, and went away to the Gate (leading from the royal domain into the regions beyond—at the entrance of the pass of Han-kû, in the north-west of Ho-nan). Yin Hsî, the warden of the Gate, said to him, ‘You are about to withdraw yourself out of sight; I pray you to compose for me a book (before you go).’ On this Lâo-tsze made a writing, setting forth his views on thetâoand virtue, in two sections, containing more than 5000 characters. He then went away, and it is not known where he died.” The historian then mentions the names of two other men whom some regarded as the true Lâo-tsze. One of them was a Lâo Lâi, a contemporary of Confucius, who wrote fifteen treatises (or sections) on the practices of the school ofTâo. Subjoined to the notice of him is the remark that Lâo-tsze was more than one hundred and sixty years old, or, as some say, more than two hundred, because by the cultivation of theTâohe nourished his longevity. The other was “a grand historiographer” of Chow, called Tan, one hundred and twenty-nine (? one hundred and nineteen) years after the death of Confucius. The introduction of these disjointed notices detracts from the verisimilitude of the whole narrative in which they occur.Finally, Ch’ien states that “Lâo-tsze was a superior man, who liked to keep in obscurity,” traces the line of his posterity down to the 2nd centuryB.C., and concludes with this important statement:—“Those who attach themselves to the doctrine of Lâo-tsze condemn that of the literati, and the literati on their part condemn Lâo-tsze, thus verifying the saying, ‘Parties whose principles are different cannot take counsel together.’ Lî Urh taught that transformation follows, as a matter of course, the doing nothing (to bring it about), and rectification ensues in the same way from being pure and still.”
All that Ch’ien tells us about Lâo-tsze goes into small compass. His surname was Lî, and his name Urh. He was a native of the state of Ch’û, and was born in a hamlet not far from the present prefectural city of Kwei-te in Ho-nan province. He was one of the recorders or historiographers at the court of Chow, his special department being the charge of the whole or a portion of the royal library. He must thus have been able to make himself acquainted with the history of his country. Ch’ien does not mention the year of his birth, which is often said, though on what Chinese authority does not appear, to have taken place in the third year of King Phing, corresponding to 604B.C.That date cannot be far from the truth. That he was contemporary with Confucius is established by the concurrent testimony of theLî Kîand theKiâ Yüon the Confucian side, and of Chwang-tsze and Sze-ma Ch’ien on the Tâoist. The two men whose influence has been so great on all the subsequent generations of the Chinese people—Kung-tsze (Confucius) and Lâo-tsze—had at least one interview, in 517B.C., when the former was in his thirty-fifth year. The conversation between them was interesting. Lâo was in a mocking mood; Kung appears to the greater advantage. If it be true that Confucius, when he was fifty-one years old, visited Lâo-tsze as Chwang-tsze says (in theThien Yun, the fourteenth of his treatises), to ask about theTâo, they must have had more than one interview. Dr Chalmers, however, has pointed out that both Chwang-tsze and Lieh-tsze (a still earlier Tâoist writer) produce Confucius in their writings, as the lords of the Philistines did the captive Samson on their festive occasions, “to make sport for them.” Their testimony is valueless as to any matter of fact. There may have been several meetings between the two in 517B.C., but we have no evidence that they were together in the same place after that time. Ch’ien adds:—“Lâo-tsze cultivated theTâoand virtue, his chief aim in his studies being how to keep himself concealed and unknown. He resided at (the capital of) Chow; but after a long time, seeing the decay of the dynasty, he left it, and went away to the Gate (leading from the royal domain into the regions beyond—at the entrance of the pass of Han-kû, in the north-west of Ho-nan). Yin Hsî, the warden of the Gate, said to him, ‘You are about to withdraw yourself out of sight; I pray you to compose for me a book (before you go).’ On this Lâo-tsze made a writing, setting forth his views on thetâoand virtue, in two sections, containing more than 5000 characters. He then went away, and it is not known where he died.” The historian then mentions the names of two other men whom some regarded as the true Lâo-tsze. One of them was a Lâo Lâi, a contemporary of Confucius, who wrote fifteen treatises (or sections) on the practices of the school ofTâo. Subjoined to the notice of him is the remark that Lâo-tsze was more than one hundred and sixty years old, or, as some say, more than two hundred, because by the cultivation of theTâohe nourished his longevity. The other was “a grand historiographer” of Chow, called Tan, one hundred and twenty-nine (? one hundred and nineteen) years after the death of Confucius. The introduction of these disjointed notices detracts from the verisimilitude of the whole narrative in which they occur.
Finally, Ch’ien states that “Lâo-tsze was a superior man, who liked to keep in obscurity,” traces the line of his posterity down to the 2nd centuryB.C., and concludes with this important statement:—“Those who attach themselves to the doctrine of Lâo-tsze condemn that of the literati, and the literati on their part condemn Lâo-tsze, thus verifying the saying, ‘Parties whose principles are different cannot take counsel together.’ Lî Urh taught that transformation follows, as a matter of course, the doing nothing (to bring it about), and rectification ensues in the same way from being pure and still.”
Accepting theTâo Teh Kingas the veritable work of Lâo-tsze, we may now examine its contents. Consisting of not more than between five and six thousand characters, it is but a short treatise—not half the size of the Gospel of St Mark. The nature of the subject, however, the want of any progress of thought or of logical connexion between its different parts, and the condensed style, with the mystic tendencies and poetical temperament of the author, make its meaning extraordinarily obscure. Divided at first into two parts, it has subsequently and conveniently been subdivided into chapters. One of the oldest, and the most common, of these arrangements makes the chapters eighty-two.
Some Roman Catholic missionaries, two centuries ago, fancied that they found a wonderful harmony between many passages and the teaching of the Bible. Montucci of Berlin ventured to say in 1808: “Many things about aSupposed harmony with Biblical teaching.Triune God are so clearly expressed that no one who has read this book can doubt that the mystery of the Holy Trinity was revealed to the Chinese five centuries before the coming of Jesus Christ.” Even Rémusat, the first occupant of a Chinese chair in Europe, published at Paris in 1823 hisMémoire sur la vie et les opinions de Lâo-tsze, to vindicate the view that the Hebrew name Yahweh was phonetically represented in the fourteenth chapter by Chinese characters. These fancies were exploded by Stanislas Julien, when he issued in 1842 his translation of the whole treatise asLe Livre de la voie et de la vertu.
The most important thing is to determine what we are to understand by theTâo, forTehis merely its outcome, especially in man, and is rightly translated by “virtue.” Julien translatedTâoby “la voie.” Chalmers leaves it untranslated. “No English word,” he says (p. xi.), “is its exact equivalent. Three terms suggest themselves—the way, reason and the word; but they are all liable to objection. Were we guided by etymology, ‘the way’ would come nearest the original, and in one or two passages the idea of a way seems to be in the term; but this is too materialistic to serve the purpose of a translation. ‘Reason,’ again, seems to be more like a quality or attribute of some conscious being thanTâois. I would translate it by ‘the Word,’ in the sense of the Logos, but this would be like settling the question which I wish to leave open, viz. what resemblance there is between the Logos of the New Testament and this Chinese Tâo.” Later Sinologues in China have employed “nature” as our best analogue of the term. Thus Watters (Lâo-tsze, A Study in Chinese Philosophy, p. 45) says:—“In theTâo Teh Kingthe originator of the universe is referred to under the names Non-Existence, Existence, Nature (Tâo) and various designations—all which, however, represent one idea in various manifestations. It is in all cases Nature (Tâo) which is meant.” This view has been skilfully worked out; but it only hides the scope of “the Venerable Philosopher.” “Nature” cannot be accepted as atranslationofTâo. That character was, primarily, the symbol of a way, road or path; and then, figuratively, it was used, as we also useway, in the senses of means and method—thecoursethat we pursue in passing from one thing or concept to another as its end or result. It is the name of a quality. Sir Robert Douglas has well said (Confucianism and Tâoism, p. 189): “If we were compelled to adopt a single word to represent theTâoof Lâo-tsze, we should prefer the sense in which it is used by Confucius, ‘the way,’ that is,μέθοδος.”
What, then, was the quality which Lâo-tsze had in view, and which he thought of as theTâo—there in the library of Chow, at the pass of the valley of Han, and where he met the end of his life beyond the limits of the civilizedThe doctrine of “the way.”state? It was the simplicity of spontaneity, action (which might be called non-action) without motive, free from all selfish purpose, resting in nothing but its own accomplishment. This is found in the phenomena of the material world. “All things spring up without a word spoken, and grow without a claim for their production. They go through their processes without any display of pride in them; and the results are realized without any assumption of ownership. It is owing to the absence of such assumption that the results and theirprocesses do not disappear” (chap. ii.). It only needs the same quality in the arrangements and measures of government to make society beautiful and happy. “A government conducted by sages would free the hearts of the people from inordinate desires, fill their bellies, keep their ambitions feeble and strengthen their bones. They would constantly keep the people without knowledge and free from desires; and, where there were those who had knowledge, they would have them so that they would not dare to put it in practice” (chap. iii.). A corresponding course observed by individual man in his government of himself becoming again “as a little child” (chaps. x. and xxviii.) will have corresponding results. “His constant virtue will be complete, and he will return to the primitive simplicity” (chap. xxviii.).
Such is the subject matter of theTâo Teh King—the operation of this method orTâo, “without striving or crying,” in nature, in society and in the individual. Much that is very beautiful and practical is inculcated in connexion with its working in the individual character. The writer seems to feel that he cannot say enough on the virtue of humility (chap. viii., &c.). There were three things which he prized and held fast—gentle compassion, economy and the not presuming to take precedence in the world (chap. lxvii.). His teaching rises to its highest point in chap. lxiii.:—“It is the way ofTâonot to act from any personal motive, to conduct affairs without feeling the trouble of them, to taste without being aware of the flavour, to account the great as small and the small as great, to recompense injury with kindness.” This last and noblest characteristic of theTâo, the requiting “good for evil,” is not touched on again in the treatise; but we know that it excited general attention at the time, and was the subject of conversation between Confucius and his disciples (Confucian Analects, xiv. 36).
What is said in theTâoon government is not, all of it, so satisfactory. The writer shows, indeed, the benevolence of his heart. He seems to condemn the infliction of capital punishment (chaps. lxxiii. and lxxiv.), and he deplores the practice of war (chap. lxix.); but he had no sympathy with the progress of society or with the culture and arts of life. He says (chap. lxv.):—“Those who anciently were skilful in practising theTâodid not use it to enlighten the people; their object rather was to keep them simple. The difficulty in governing the people arises from their having too much knowledge, and therefore he who tries to govern a state by wisdom is a scourge to it, while he who does not try to govern thereby is a blessing.” The last chapter but one is the following:—“In a small state with a few inhabitants, I would so order it that the people, though supplied with all kinds of implements, would not (care to) use them; I would give them cause to look on death as a most grievous thing, while yet they would not go away to a distance to escape from it. Though they had boats and carriages, they should have no occasion to ride in them. Though they had buff-coats and sharp weapons, they should not don or use them. I would make them return to the use of knotted cords (instead of written characters). They should think their coarse food sweet, their plain clothing beautiful, their poor houses places of rest and their common simple ways sources of enjoyment. There should be a neighbouring state within sight, and the sound of the fowls and dogs should be heard from it to us without interruption, but I would make the people to old age, even to death, have no intercourse with it.”
On reading these sentiments, we must judge of Lâo-tsze that, with all his power of thought, he was only a dreamer. But thus far there is no difficulty arising from his language in regard to theTâo. It is simply a quality, descriptive of the style of character and action, which the individual should seek to attain in himself, and the ruler to impress on his administration. The language about theTâoin nature is by no means so clear. While Sir Robert Douglas says that “the way” would be the best translation ofTâo, he immediately adds:—“ButTâois more than the way. It is the way and the way-goer. It is an eternal road; along it all beings and things walk; but no being made it, for it is being itself; it is everything, and nothing and the cause and effect of all. All things originate fromTâo, conform toTâoand toTâoat last they return.”
Some of these representations require modification; but no thoughtful reader of the treatise can fail to be often puzzled by what is said on the point in hand. Julien, indeed, says with truth (p. xiii.) that “it is impossible to takeThe Tâo and the Deity.Tâofor the primordial Reason, for the sublime Intelligence, which has created and governs the world”; but many of Lâo-tsze’s statements are unthinkable if there be not behind theTâothe unexpressed recognition of a personal creator and ruler. Granted that he does not affirm positively the existence of such a Being, yet certainly he does not deny it, and his language even implies it. It has been said, indeed, that he denies it, and we are referred in proof to the fourth chapter:—“Tâois like the emptiness of a vessel; and the use of it, we may say, must be free from all self-sufficiency. How deep and mysterious it is, as if it were the author of all things! We should make our sharpness blunt, and unravel the complications of things; we should attemper our brightness, and assimilate ourselves to the obscurity caused by dust. How still and clear isTâo, a phantasm with the semblance of permanence! I do not know whose son it is. It might appear to have been before God (Ti).”
The reader will not overlook the cautious and dubious manner in which the predicates ofTâoare stated in this remarkable passage. The author does not say that it was before God, but that “it might appear” to have been so. Nowhere else in his treatise does the nature ofTâoas a method or style of action come out more clearly. It has no positive existence of itself; it is but like the emptiness of a vessel, and the manifestation of it by men requires that they endeavour to free themselves from all self-sufficiency. Whence came it? It does not shock Lâo-tsze to suppose that it had a father, but he cannot tell whose son it is. And, as the feeling of its mysteriousness grows on him, he ventures to say that “it might appear to have been before God.”
There is here no denial but express recognition of the existence of God, so far as it is implied in the nameTî, which is the personal name for the concept of heaven as the ruling power, by means of which the fathers of the Chinese people rose in prehistoric time to the idea of God. Again and again Lâo-tsze speaks of heaven just as “we do when we mean thereby the Deity who presides over heaven and earth.” These last words are taken from Watters (p. 81); and, though he adds, “We must not forget that this heaven is inferior and subsequent to the mysteriousTâo, and was in fact produced by it,” it has been shown how rash and unwarranted is the ascription of such a sentiment to “the Venerable Philosopher.” He makes theTâoprior to heaven and earth, which is a phrase denoting what we often call “nature,” but he does not make it prior to heaven in the higher and immaterial usage of that name. The last sentence of his treatise is:—“It is theTâo—the way—of Heaven to benefit and not injure; it is theTâo—the way—of the sage to do and not strive.”
Since Julien laid theTâo Teh Kingfairly open to Western readers in 1842, there has been a tendency to overestimate rather than to underestimate its value as a scheme of thought and a discipline for the individual and society. There are in it lessons of unsurpassed value, such as the inculcation of simplicity, humility and self-abnegation, and especially the brief enunciation of the divine duty of returning good for ill; but there are also the regretful representations of a primitive society when men were ignorant of the rudiments of culture, and the longings for its return.When it was thought that the treatise made known the doctrine of the Trinity, and even gave a phonetic representation of the Hebrew name for God, it was natural, even necessary, to believe that its author had had communication with more western parts of Asia, and there was much speculation about visits to India and Judaea, and even to Greece. The necessity for assuming such travels has passed away. If we can receive Sze-mâ Ch’ien’s histories as trustworthy, Lâo-tsze might have heard, in the states of Chow and among the wild tribes adjacent to them, views about society and government very like his own. Ch’ien relates how an envoy came in 624B.C.—twenty years before the date assigned to the birth of Lâo-tsze—to the court of Duke Mû of Ch’in, sent by the king of some rude hordes on the west. The duke told him of the histories,poems, codes of rites, music and laws which they had in the middle states, while yet rebellion and disorder were of frequent occurrence, and asked how good order was secured among the wild people, who had none of those appliances. The envoy smiled, and replied that the troubles of China were occasioned by those very things of which the duke vaunted, and that there had been a gradual degeneration in the condition of its states, as their professed civilization had increased, ever since the days of the ancient sage, Hwang Tî, whereas in the land he came from, where there was nothing but the primitive simplicity, their princes showed a pure virtue in their treatment of the people, who responded to them with loyalty and good faith. “The government of a state,” said he in conclusion, “is like a man’s ruling his own single person. He rules it, and does not know how he does so; and this was indeed the method of the sages.” Lâo-tsze did not need to go further afield to find all that he has said about government.We have confined ourselves to the Tâoism of theTâo Teh Kingwithout touching on the religion Tâoism now existing in China, but which did not take shape until more than five hundred years after the death of Lâo-tsze, though he now occupiesThe Tâoism of to-da.the second place in its trinity of “The three Pure or Holy Ones.” There is hardly a word in his treatise that savours either of superstition or religion. In the works of Lieh-tsze and Chwang-tsze, his earliest followers of note, we find abundance of grotesque superstitions; but their beliefs (if indeed we can say that they had beliefs) had not become embodied in any religious institutions. When we come to the Ch’in dynasty (221-206B.C.), we meet with a Tâoism in the shape of a search for the fairy islands of the eastern sea, where the herb of immortality might be gathered. In the 1st centuryA.D.a magician, called Chang Tâo-ling, comes before us as the chief professor and controller of this Tâoism, preparing in retirement “the pill” which renewed his youth, supreme over all spirits, and destroying millions of demons by a stroke of his pencil. He left his books, talismans and charms, with his sword and seal, to his descendants, and one of them, professing to be animated by his soul, dwells on the Lung-hû mountain in Kiang-si, the acknowledged head or pope of Tâoism. But even then the system was not yet a religion, with temples or monasteries, liturgies and forms of public worship. It borrowed all these from Buddhism, which first obtained public recognition in China betweenA.D.65 and 70, though at least a couple of centuries passed before it could be said to have free course in the country.Even still, with the form of a religion, Tâoism is in reality a conglomeration of base and dangerous superstitions. Alchemy, geomancy and spiritualism have dwelt and dwell under its shadow. Each of its “three Holy Ones” has the title ofThien Tsun, “the Heavenly and Honoured,” taken from Buddhism, and also ofShang Tior God, taken from the old religion of the country. The most popular deity, however, is not one of them, but has the title ofYü Wang Shang Tî, “God, the Perfect King.” But it would take long to tell of all its “celestial gods,” “great gods,” “divine rulers” and others. It has been doubted whether Lâo-tsze acknowledged the existence of God at all, but modern Tâoism is a system of the wildest polytheism. The science and religion of the West meet from it a most determined opposition. The “Venerable Philosopher” himself would not have welcomed them; but he ought not to bear the obloquy of being the founder of the Tâoist religion.
Since Julien laid theTâo Teh Kingfairly open to Western readers in 1842, there has been a tendency to overestimate rather than to underestimate its value as a scheme of thought and a discipline for the individual and society. There are in it lessons of unsurpassed value, such as the inculcation of simplicity, humility and self-abnegation, and especially the brief enunciation of the divine duty of returning good for ill; but there are also the regretful representations of a primitive society when men were ignorant of the rudiments of culture, and the longings for its return.
When it was thought that the treatise made known the doctrine of the Trinity, and even gave a phonetic representation of the Hebrew name for God, it was natural, even necessary, to believe that its author had had communication with more western parts of Asia, and there was much speculation about visits to India and Judaea, and even to Greece. The necessity for assuming such travels has passed away. If we can receive Sze-mâ Ch’ien’s histories as trustworthy, Lâo-tsze might have heard, in the states of Chow and among the wild tribes adjacent to them, views about society and government very like his own. Ch’ien relates how an envoy came in 624B.C.—twenty years before the date assigned to the birth of Lâo-tsze—to the court of Duke Mû of Ch’in, sent by the king of some rude hordes on the west. The duke told him of the histories,poems, codes of rites, music and laws which they had in the middle states, while yet rebellion and disorder were of frequent occurrence, and asked how good order was secured among the wild people, who had none of those appliances. The envoy smiled, and replied that the troubles of China were occasioned by those very things of which the duke vaunted, and that there had been a gradual degeneration in the condition of its states, as their professed civilization had increased, ever since the days of the ancient sage, Hwang Tî, whereas in the land he came from, where there was nothing but the primitive simplicity, their princes showed a pure virtue in their treatment of the people, who responded to them with loyalty and good faith. “The government of a state,” said he in conclusion, “is like a man’s ruling his own single person. He rules it, and does not know how he does so; and this was indeed the method of the sages.” Lâo-tsze did not need to go further afield to find all that he has said about government.
We have confined ourselves to the Tâoism of theTâo Teh Kingwithout touching on the religion Tâoism now existing in China, but which did not take shape until more than five hundred years after the death of Lâo-tsze, though he now occupiesThe Tâoism of to-da.the second place in its trinity of “The three Pure or Holy Ones.” There is hardly a word in his treatise that savours either of superstition or religion. In the works of Lieh-tsze and Chwang-tsze, his earliest followers of note, we find abundance of grotesque superstitions; but their beliefs (if indeed we can say that they had beliefs) had not become embodied in any religious institutions. When we come to the Ch’in dynasty (221-206B.C.), we meet with a Tâoism in the shape of a search for the fairy islands of the eastern sea, where the herb of immortality might be gathered. In the 1st centuryA.D.a magician, called Chang Tâo-ling, comes before us as the chief professor and controller of this Tâoism, preparing in retirement “the pill” which renewed his youth, supreme over all spirits, and destroying millions of demons by a stroke of his pencil. He left his books, talismans and charms, with his sword and seal, to his descendants, and one of them, professing to be animated by his soul, dwells on the Lung-hû mountain in Kiang-si, the acknowledged head or pope of Tâoism. But even then the system was not yet a religion, with temples or monasteries, liturgies and forms of public worship. It borrowed all these from Buddhism, which first obtained public recognition in China betweenA.D.65 and 70, though at least a couple of centuries passed before it could be said to have free course in the country.
Even still, with the form of a religion, Tâoism is in reality a conglomeration of base and dangerous superstitions. Alchemy, geomancy and spiritualism have dwelt and dwell under its shadow. Each of its “three Holy Ones” has the title ofThien Tsun, “the Heavenly and Honoured,” taken from Buddhism, and also ofShang Tior God, taken from the old religion of the country. The most popular deity, however, is not one of them, but has the title ofYü Wang Shang Tî, “God, the Perfect King.” But it would take long to tell of all its “celestial gods,” “great gods,” “divine rulers” and others. It has been doubted whether Lâo-tsze acknowledged the existence of God at all, but modern Tâoism is a system of the wildest polytheism. The science and religion of the West meet from it a most determined opposition. The “Venerable Philosopher” himself would not have welcomed them; but he ought not to bear the obloquy of being the founder of the Tâoist religion.