140 J.K.FAIRBANK AND S.Y.TENG in tribute,in the minds of the tribute bearers,was merely a formality connected with trade;at Macao and Canton,indeed,the Europeans in their concentration upon the substance of commerce eventually forgot all about the formality which theoretically still went with it. This economic interpretation,however,is made from the point of view of the barbarians.The motivation of the Court is a different matter. The argument that the tributary system was developed by the Court chiefly for political defense has been succinctly stated by Dr. T.F.TsIANG:"Out of this period of intense struggle and bitter humiliation [the eleventh and twelfth centuries],the neo-Confucian philosophy,which began then to dominate China,worked out a dogma in regard to international relations,to hold sway in China right to the middle of the nineteenth century....That dogma asserts that national security could only be found in isolation and stipulates that whoever wished to enter into relations with China must do so as China's vassal,acknowledging the supremacy of the Chinese em- peror and obeying his commands,thus ruling out all possibility of international intercourse on terms of equality.It must not be con- strued to be a dogma of conquest or univeral dominion,for it im- posed nothing on foreign peoples who chose to remain outside the Chinese world.It sought peace and security,with both of which international relations were held incompatible.If relations there had to be,they must be of the suzerain-vassal type,acceptance of which meant to the Chinese acceptance of the Chinese ethic on the part of the barbarian.... "It must not be assumed that the Chinese Court made a profit out of...tribute.The imperial gifts bestowed in return were usually more valuable than the tribute...Chinese statesmen before the latter part of the nineteenth century would have ridiculed the notion that national finance and wealth should be or could be promoted by means of international trade.On China's part the permission to trade was intended to be a mark of imperial bounty and a means of keeping the barbarians in the proper state of submissiveness..."s Thus we might conclude that trade and tribute were cognate aspects of a single system of foreign relations,the moral value of tribute being the more important in the minds of the rulers of China,and the BT.F.TSIANG(CHIANG T'ing-fu蒋廷黻)，“China and European Expansion” (Politica 2 no.5,Mar.1936,pp.1-18),pp.3-4.A lecture delivered at the London School of Economics.140 J. K. FAIRBANK AND S. Y. TtNG in tribute, in the minds of the tribute bearers, was merely a formality connected with trade; at Macao and Canton, indeed, the Europeans in their concentration upon the substance of commerce eventually forgot all about the formality which theoretically still went with it. This economic interpretation, however, is made from the point of view of the barbarians. The motivation of the Court is a different matter. The argument that the tributary system was developed by the Court chiefly for political defense has been succinctly stated by Dr. T. F. TSIANG: "Out of this period of intense struggle and bitter humiliation [the eleventh and twelfth centuries], the neo-Confucian philosophy, which began then to dominate China, worked out a dogma in regard to international relations, to hold sway in China right to the middle of the nineteenth century.... That dogma asserts that national security could only be found in isolation and stipulates that whoever wished to enter into relations with China must do so as China's vassal, acknowledging the supremacy of the Chinese em￾peror and obeying his commands, thus ruling out all possibility of international intercourse on terms of equality. It must not be con￾strued to be a dogma of conquest or univeral dominion, for it im￾posed nothing on foreign peoples who chose to remain outside the Chinese world. It sought peace and security, with both of which international relations were held incompatible. If relations there had to be, they must be of the suzerain-vassal type, acceptance of which meant to the Chinese acceptance of the Chinese ethic on the part of the barbarian.... " It must not be assumed that the Chinese Court made a profit out of . . . tribute. The imperial gifts bestowed in return were usually more valuable than the tribute . . . Chinese statesmen before the latter part of the nineteenth century would have ridiculed the notion that national finance and wealth should be or could be promoted by means of international trade. On China's part the permission to trade was intended to be a mark of imperial bounty and a means of keeping the barbarians in the proper state of submissiveness. ..." 8 Thus we might conclude that trade and tribute were cognate aspects of a single system of foreign relations, the moral value of tribute being the more important in the minds of the rulers of China, and the 8 T. F. TSIANG (CHIANG T'ing-fu i&f ), "China and European Expansion" (Politica 2 no. 5, Mar. 1936, pp. 1-18), pp. 3-4. A lecture delivered at the London School of Economics