天地果無初乎？吾不得而知之也。生人果有初乎？吾不得而知之也。然則孰為近？曰：有初為近。孰明之？由封建而明之也。彼封建者，更古聖王堯、舜、禹、湯、文、武而莫能去之。蓋非不欲去之也，勢不可也。勢之來，其生人之初乎？不初，無以有封建。封建，非聖人意也。

Does the nature have no origin?  I cannot tell.  Have human beings had any incipient stage of their own?  I cannot tell, either.  Nevertheless, has any incipient stage ever existed?  I think there has been, which is closer to the fact.  But how could we prove it?  We can prove it through the system of feudalism.  The system had existed throughout sagacious kings of Yao, Shun, Yu, Tang, Wen, Wu, and no one could ever abolish it.  They wanted to, but why could not they?  Because the trend of social development could not allow them to do so.  Maybe such a trend is the true situation human beings had to accommodate themselves in the incipient stage.  Therefore, fedualism and incipient stage had been highly correlated, and it might not be the oringinal idea of those sagacious kings.       　　

彼其初與萬物皆生，草木榛榛，鹿豕狉狉，人不能搏噬，而且無毛羽，莫克自奉自衛。荀卿有言：「必將假物以為用者也。」夫假物者必爭，爭而不已，必就其能斷曲直者而聽命焉。其智而明者，所伏必眾，告之以直而不改，必痛之而後畏，由是君長刑政生焉。故近者聚而為群，群之分，其爭必大，大而後有兵有德。又有大者，眾群之長又就而聽命焉，以安其屬。於是有諸侯之列，則其爭又有大者焉。德又大者，諸侯之列又就而聽命焉，以安其封。於是有方伯、連帥之類，則其爭又有大者焉。德又大者，方伯、連帥之類又就而聽命焉，以安其人，然後天下會於一。是故有里胥而後有縣大夫，有縣大夫而後有諸侯，有諸侯而後有方伯、連帥，有方伯、連帥而後有天子。自天子至於里胥，其德在人者死，必求其嗣而奉之。故封建非聖人意也，勢也。

In that incipient stage, human beings were coexisting with all creatures: sprawling weeds and trees, scrambling reptiles and beasts.  But human beings boast of no feathers to keep themselves warm, nor of no adequate stuff to feed and protect themselves.  Xun Zi once said, "People have to fully captalize things from outside so as to survive."   Thus, people have to compete among one another, incessantly vying for things for themselves.  Therefore, they must find someone who can make judicious decision for them to follow suit.  The wise man, who is sagacious and discerning, is able to persuade a lot of believers to follow him.  But if people do not listen to him and continue to fight with each other, he has to punish them and fill them with awe. In so doing, the system of hierarchy, criminal law, and decree are thus introduced.  Hence, people of close interests gather into groups, so struggles between the different groups will exacerbate.  When the struggles become larger, it necessitate army and leader of stature.  Thus, a leader of greater stature emerges and makes other smaller leaders to under his command.  In order to appease those smaller leaders and let them better manage their people, the leader of greater stature recognizes them as vassals with enfeoffment as under a fedual-like system.  As the struggles between the vassals arise again, it takes an even stronger leader to let the larger vassals such as Bo and Shuai follow his order until the entire tribes are united and all listen to only one supreme leader.  That has been the complicated process that a hierarchical system is so founded: from managerials of low level, to vassals, to Bo and Shuai, until to the supreme leader, the king.  As all leaders of all levels, from the bottom to the top, are persons of stature, so after their death, people are prone in accepting the decendants of the deceased leaders and continue to pay allegiance to them.  Therefore the feudal system is not necessarily the idea out of sages; instead, it has been a social trend.      

夫堯、舜、禹、湯之事遠矣，及有周而甚詳。周有天下，裂土田而瓜分之，設五等，邦群後。布履星羅，四周於天下，輪運而輻集；合為朝覲會同，離為守臣扞城。然而降於夷王，害禮傷尊，下堂而迎覲者。歷於宣王，挾中興復古之德，雄南征北伐之威，卒不能定魯侯之嗣。陵夷迄於幽、厲，王室東徙，而自列為諸侯。厥後問鼎之輕重者有之，射王中肩者有之，伐凡伯、誅萇弘者有之，天下乖戾，無君君之心。余以為周之喪久矣，徒建空名於公侯之上耳。得非諸侯之盛強，末大不掉之咎歟？遂判為十二，合為七國，威分於陪臣之邦，國殄於後封之秦，則周之敗端，其在乎此矣。

Things pertaining to the eras of Yao, Shun, Yu, and Tang has been long gone, but the records of Zhou Dynasty are well documented.  When Zhou ruled the whole country, it divided the land into many parts under five categories and gave each one an enfeoffment.  The vassals, dispersed in the earth like constellations in the skies, surrounded the House of Zhou like a wheel to a spoke.  When they gathered they paid an audience with the King, and after that they were the subjects guarding the land for the King.  However, when in the time of King Yi, he broke the rule and etiquette by condescending himself to come down the palace to meet his vassals.  Although later King Xuan brought stature again to the House by gaining several victories all over the country, still he was unable to determine the heir of earl in Lu.  The prestige of the House thus gradually declined through King You and King Li till the House moved to the new capital in east.  Then the status of House of Zhou had downgraded to the level equivalent to a vassal.  Later on, things of insubordination ensued, such as questioning the weight of royal emblem: Ding, injuring King by shooting his shouder, attacking one of Kings major subordinate and forcing the King to execute another, and so on.  Thus, the whole country was in disorder, the hierachical relation between king and the vassals had broken.  I think the House of Zhou had long lost its authority to control the country, and King of Zhou had become nothing but a figurehead on top of vassals.  Was it the result like an animal having too large a tail to wiggle at last?  The real ruling power thus was divided and distributed to twelve powerful vassals, and final to Big Seven through annexation.  In nutshell, at first the ruling power inappropriately delegated to vassals, and eventually was taken all away by newly-emerging Qin.  That was the root cause of failure and fall of Zhou Dynasty.  

秦有天下，裂都會而為之郡邑，廢侯衛而為之守宰，據天下之雄圖，都六合之上游，攝制四海，運於掌握之內，此其所以為得也。不數載而天下大壞，其有由矣：亟役萬人，暴其威刑，竭其貨賄，負鋤梃謫戍之徒，圜視而合從，大呼而成群，時則有叛人而無叛吏，人怨於下而吏畏於上，天下相合，殺守劫令而並起。咎在人怨，非郡邑之制失也。

So Qin Dynasty was founded.  The new emperor replaced the vassal states with counties and dispatched governors and magistrates to rule the country on behalf of the royal house. The capital of the empire was best strategically located upstream of Yellow River, which was capable of controlling all the country in its hands.  Qin just did a right and great thing.  However, ere long the whole empire collapsed due to its oppression and tyranny: excessively labor conscription, extremely draconian punishment, and totally unrestrained outlays.  With tacit understanding, those oppressed outlaws carrying hoes and sticks who were sent to frontiers easily united in drones in uprising against Qin.  There were civilian rebels, but none from officials.  People harbor rancor against Qin Empire, but officials dared not disobey the emperor.  So rebellion raised from bottom and swiftly spread; officials were killed everywhere.  Thus, the root cause was the deep grudge from people against Qin Empire, not because of its governmental system of county and district.　　

漢有天下，矯秦之枉，徇周之制，剖海內而立宗子，封功臣。數年之間，奔命扶傷之不暇，困平城，病流矢，陵遲不救者三代。後乃謀臣獻畫，而離削自守矣。然而封建之始，郡國居半，時則有叛國而無叛郡，秦制之得亦以明矣。繼漢而帝者，雖百代可知也。

Han Dynasty established.  The newly-founded dynasty rectified the drawback of delegating systems by restoring the feudalism of Zhou.  So Han distributed the lands to the members of its royal family and the subjects having great deeds.  But before long several fedual states rebelled and the central government was exhausted in oppressing the tumults, which resulted in the first emperor was besieged by Huns and injured by arrow.  The ill had lasted for three generations uncured until some capable subjects mapped out a smart scheme to debilitate the power of fedual states and transferred it to the officials dispatched from central government.  Actually at the very begining of Han Dynasty, feudal system and county system were coexisted, and there had been rebellions from feudal states, but none from counties.  Therefore, the advantange of county system of Qin is quite obvious, and it can be testified throughout hundreds of generation after Han. 

唐興，制州邑，立守宰，此其所以為宜也。然猶桀猾時起，虐害方域者，失不在於州而在於兵，時則有叛將而無叛州。州縣之設，固不可革也。

When Tang Dynasty began, local administrations, such as Zhou and Xian, were well and effectively.  The ones who wrought havoc to the country were local warlords, not officials of Zhou and Xian.  So it was warlords, not officials of Zhou and Xian, who brought the havoc.  Though there were shrewd and atrocious insurgents who sometimes rebelled throughout Tang era, none of the rebellions was from central-controlled local governments. Therefore, the establishment of Zhou and Xian by central government is irreplaceable.