Crossref Citations
This article has been cited by the following publications. This list is generated based on data provided by Crossref.
2024.
Three Faces of Sun Tzu.
p.
171.
Article contents
The Chinese Critical Tradition
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 February 2009
Extract
It is really deplorable that until quite recently there still existed in Western academic circles a number of serious misunderstandings about Chinese historiography, particularly the Chinese theory and practice of historical method and critical techniques. Many well-known academic figures still do not know, or refuse to face the fact, that the Chinese tradition of pursuing an objective knowledge of history can be dated back as far as the first century and that the quality of critical scholarship had reached a level equal, either in terms of textual criticism or higher criticism, to any found in the West up to the beginning of the nineteenth. To cite a few examples of Western ignorance. An American sinologist specializing in Chinese traditional historiography firmly asserts that ‘the Chinese are not a whit behind Western scholarship in the exacting domain of textual or preparatory criticism’, but ‘in the field of historical criticism... Chinese historians of the old school did not evolve those principles which are now regarded in East and West alike as an indispensable part of scientific historical method’, although ‘since the seventh century, a few bold, independent spirits have evolved the elements of historical criticism’.1 Another sinologist holds nearly the same position by stating that ‘what was missing’ in traditional Chinese historiography until the sixteenth century was a ‘systematic method’ of criticism, while recognizing that ‘there was an almost continuous line of doubters’ from the early eighth century onwards, and that under the Ming dynasty (1368–1644) attempts were ‘made to bring all the doubts together into one publication’and so to lay‘ the basis for organized study’, an active role being played by ‘ancillary studies of all’ including philology in the development of the Chinese textual criticism of history.2 The most bigoted and dogmatic verdict passed on Chinese historiography which I have ever read in the Western literature is Professor J. H. Plumb's assertion that Chinese historians ‘never attempted, let alone succeeded, in treating history as objective understanding’, and that ‘Chinese scholars were using historical materials for the same purposes in the early twentieth century as in the T'ang and Han dynasties’. Professor Plumb's bias is further reflected in the affirmation, which was added after his reading of Professor E. G. Pulleyblank's remarkable essay Chinese historical criticism: Liu Chih-chi and Ssu-ma Kuang,3 that ‘I would maintain that the Chinese were concerned solely with creating an educative past - subtle, highly detailed, accurate in commission, but not history’4.
- Type
- Historiographical Reviews
- Information
- Copyright
- Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1983
References
1 Charles, S. Gardner, , Chinese traditional historiography (Cambridge, 1969), pp. 18, 64, 3.Google Scholar
2 Gray, J., Historical writing in twentieth-century China: notes on its background and development, in Beasley, W. G. and Pulleyblank, E. G. (eds.), Historians of China and Japan, (London, 1965), pp. 189, 188, 197.Google Scholar
3 Plumb, J. H., The death of the past (London, 1969), pp. 14, 109.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4 Ibid. p. 110. For more fallacies, such as that ‘Chinese history never developed the process of self-criticism and discovery... the purposeful search for documentation to prove hypotheses’; ‘When traditional Chinese Historiography began to collapse in the late nineteenth century, the result was chaos and confusion’; and ‘once the traditional generalizations were removed, Chinese history collapsed into fragments’; see pp. 109, 110.
5 Ibid. p. 14.
6 Yu-fu, Chin, Chung-kuo-shih-hsuehshih (Chungking, 1944), p. 128ffGoogle Scholar; I-liang, Chou, Kwan-yu Tsui Hao kuo-shih chi-yu, Chung-wah wen-shih lun-chung, IV (Shanghai, 1980), 113–20.Google Scholar
7 Tso-chuan (Tso commentary or Tso tradition), Shuang-kung 25.
8 Confucius analects, iii, Pai-i.
9 Ibid, xix, Tzu-chang.
10 Mencius, Ching-hsin, 11.
11 Han-fei-tzu, Hsien-hsueh.
12 Annotated bibliography of literary works, history of the former Han dynasty.
13 Lun-heng, Weng-kung.
14 Ibid., Yu-tsang.
15 Ibid., Chi-kuai, An-shu.
16 Ibid., Yu-tsang.
17 Ibid., Tam-tien.
18 Yao-tung, Lu, A study of Pei Sung-chi and his annotation of the annals of the Three Kingdoms, the Journal of National Office of Translation and Compilation, iii, 1 (Taipei, 1976).Google Scholar
19 San-kuo-chi, Wei-shu, XXII, notes in the biography of Chen Chun.
20 Liu Hsieh, Wen-hsin-tiang-lung, or The literary mind and the carving of dragons, xxvii. For English translations, please see Vincent Yu-chung Shih's version (Taipei, 1970).
21 W. G. Beasley and E. G. Pulleyblank (eds.), Historians, pp. 148, 147.
22 Shih-t'ung, Huo-ching.
23 Ibid., Huo-ching, Sheng-tso.
24 Ibid., Chu-pi, Hsu-ssu, Chih-shu, Yen-yu, Tsa-shu, iii, Liu-chia.
25 Ibid., Ku-chin-cheng-shih, Shu-chih.
26 Ibid., Huo-ching, Erh-ti, Fan-ch'en, Tsa-shu, 1.
27 Ibid., Sheng-tso.
28 A physical or literary object which is believed to signify the coming of a new ruler or the rise of a new dynasty.
29 Shih-t'ung, Tsai-tsuan, Sheng-tso, Hsu-ssu, Tsa-shu, 1, 11, 111.
30 Ku Chieh-kang, Introduction to Ku-shih-pien, 1. For English version, see Hummel, A. W., The autobiography of a Chinese historian(Leiden, 1931).Google Scholar
31 Ch'un-ch'iu, Shi-kung 28. The emperor was actually called to Ho-yang by the marquis of Jin.
32 Chen-lun, Fu, Liu Chih-chi nien-p'u (Peking, 1963), pp. 86–92.Google Scholar
33 Shih-t'ung, An-huo. Tang-hui-y'ao, vol. LXXVII.
34 For Liu's general impact, see Shao-shih-shan-fang-pi-ch'ung, vols. xiii, xv, xvi, xviii. For Hu's attitude to Bamboo Books, see Ibid. vols. XXXIII, xxxiv. For forgery-detecting rules, see Ssu-pu-cheng-wei.
35 Shih-t'ung, Sheng-tso.
36 Ibid. Shu-ssu, Ycn-yu. Quoted translations are Pulleyblank's, Historians, p. 146.
37 Shih-t'ung, I-li, Yen-yu and Shu-ssu.
38 Ibid., Yin-hsi, Yen-yu and Shu-ssu.
39 Hsi-tang, Chang, Collected notes on forgery of the Tang scholars (Shanghai, 1936), pp. 15, 19, 20, 22, 59–60, 66.Google Scholar
40 Ibid., pp. 85–6, 90.
41 As Professor A. D. Momigliano has rightly pointed out in ‘Ancient history and the antiquarian’ that modern critical historiography actually has two origins, stemming from both historians and antiquarians. See Studies in historiography (London, 1969), pp. 4–27.Google Scholar
42 Thompson, James W., A history of historical writing (Gloucester, 1967), 11, 3.Google Scholar
43 The Journal of Chinese Philosophy, iii (Peking, 1980), 160–5.Google Scholar
44 Chu-shih-chi, vol. xvii.
45 Tzu-chih-t' ung-chien, vol. cxix.
46 T'ung-chih, Tien-wen-leuh-hsu; Chai-hsiang-leuh-hsu and T'ung-chih-tsung-hsu.
47 Ibid.
48 The ten essays which were allegedly written by Confucius for the exposition of the ancient symbols and texts allegedly produced by the ancient sages.
49 Chao-Lu-fu, , A preliminary study of Ou-yang Hsiu's historiography, Li-shih-chao-hsueh, 1 (Peking, 1963).Google Scholar
50 Hsu, Chang, Annotations to the general introduction of T’ung-chih(Shanghai, 1934).Google Scholar
51 Chieh-kang, Ku, ‘ How Ku-shih-pien was compiled’, The Journal of Chinese Philosophy, 11 (Peking, 1980).Google Scholar
52 Ssu-ma Kuang, A Utter to Fan Tsu-yu. For English translations, see Pulleyblank, Historians, pp. 160–4.
53 Hsu, Chang, Tung chien-hsueh (Hong Kong, 1962), pp. 79–80.Google Scholar
54 This is virtually the first comprehensive bibliography to have survived. It was compiled in the first century by Liu Hsin, then the most learned scholar.
55 Ssu-p'u-cheng-wei, introduced by Ku Chieh-kang and postscripted by Wu Han (Shanghai, 1933).
56 Tu-t'ung-chien-lun, vols. xx, iv.
57 Chuang-tzu-chieh (Peking, 1964), p. 121.Google Scholar
58 Sung-lun, vol. 6.
59 A behavioral approach to historical analysis (New York, 1969), p. 67.Google Scholar
60 History as a system (New York, 1961), pp. 165–233, particularly pp. 166, 184–6, 199, 200–4,215–17,219.Google Scholar
61 Chuang-tzu-chieh, pp. 62, 15, 178, 209. Chou-i nei-chuan, iii. Cheng mong-chu (Peking, 1975), p. 274Google Scholar. Ssu-weng-lu, wai-picn (Peking, 1964), p. 34.Google Scholar
62 Kwan-san, Hsu, Wang Chuan-shan' s theory of history (Hong Kong, 1978), pp. 16–20, 30–1, 45–51.Google Scholar
63 Ortega, History, p. 217.
64 Hsiu-ming-shih-i, quoted in Preface of Ching-ju hsueh-an by Hsu Ssu-chang.
65 The chief editor of Shih-k'u ch'uan-shu (Complete library in four sections), a very influential figure of the School of Examination and Verification.
66 The author of Shih-chi-shih shang-ch'ueh (Discussions of the seventeen histories), a book devoted to historical criticism.
67 Author of Erh-shih-erh-shih k'ao-yi (Critical studies of the twenty-two histories).
68 Author of Wen-shih fung-yi (General commentary on literature and history), a specialist of historiography of local history.
69 For the details of reiteration, see Chi Yun, Shih-t'ung hsueh-fan. Wang Ming-sheng, preface to Discussions of the seventeen histories. Chang Hsueh-chang, Chang-ssu yi-shu, vol. xv, Tu Wei-yun, The historiography and historians of the Ch'ien-Chia period of the Ching dynasty (Taipei, 1963), pp. 13. 43. 44.
70 Shih, Hu, The Philosophy of Tai Tung-yuan (Tapei, 1963), p. 105.Google Scholar
71 Tai Tung-yuan, A reply letter to Peng Chin Shih, quoted in Hu Shih's work.
72 Hu Shih, Tai Tung-yuan, pp. 16–17.
73 A letter to Yao Chi-chuan, in the Collected essays of Tai Cheng (Hong Kong, 1974), p. 141.Google Scholar
74 Hu Shih, Tai Tung-yuan, p. 118.
75 Hu Shih, Tai Tung-yuan, pp. 16, 17.
76 Yen Juo-chu, Ku-wen shang-shu shu-cheng, vol. v.
77 Ying-ling, Chang, ‘ The counter accusations and the re-trial of the case of the forged old-text book of documents’, The Yenching Journal, v (1929).Google Scholar
78 Ruan Yuan, Yen-chin-shih Jih, vols. 1, iii.
79 Shun-hui, Chang, Collected essays on Chinese Historiography (Wu-han, 1956), pp. 162–78.Google Scholar
- 1
- Cited by