Ancient China Simplified

ANCIENT CHINA SIMPLIFIED




[Illustration: Tripod of the Chou dynasty, date 812 B.C. In 1565
A.D. it was placed by the owner for safety in a temple on Silver
Island (near Chinkiang), where it may be seen now. Taken (by kind
permission of the author) from Dr. S. W. Bushell's "Chinese Art,"
vol. i. p. 82.]




ANCIENT CHINA SIMPLIFIED

BY EDWARD HARPER PARKER, M.A., (Manc.)

PROFESSOR OF CHINESE AT THE VICTORIA UNIVERSITY OF MANCHESTER
LONDON




PREFACE

Boswell once remarked to Dr. Johnson that "the history of England
is so strange that, if it were not well vouched as it is, it would
be hardly credible." To which Johnson replied in his usual style:
"Sir, if it were told as shortly, and with as little preparation
for introducing the different events, as the history of the Jewish
kings, it would be equally liable to objections of improbability."
Dr. Johnson went on to illustrate what he meant, by specific
allusion to the concessions to Parliament made by Charles I. "If,"
he said, "these had been related nakedly, without any detail of
the circumstances which generally led to them, they would not have
been believed."

This is exactly the position of ancient Chinese history, which may
be roughly said to coincide in time with the history of the Jewish
kings. The Chinese Annals are mere diaries of events, isolated
facts being tumbled together in order of date, without any regard
for proportion. Epoch-making invasions, defeats, and cessions of
territory are laconically noted down on a level with the prince's
indiscretion in weeping for a concubine as he would weep for a
wife; or the Emperor's bounty in sending a dish of sacrificial
meat to a vassal power by express messenger. In one way there is a
distinct advantage in this method, for, the historian being seldom
tempted to obtrude his own opinion or comments, we are left a
clear course for the formation of our own judgments upon the facts
given. On the other hand, it is unfortunate that what may be
called the philosophy of history has never been seized by the
Chinese mind: the annalists do not trouble themselves with the
rights and aspirations of the masses; the results to general
policy that naturally follow upon increase of population,
perfecting of arms and munitions of war, admixture of foreign
blood with the body politic, and such like matters. The heads of
events being noted, it seems to be left to the reader to fill in
the details from his imagination, and from his knowledge of
contemporary affairs. For instance, suppose the reign of Queen
Victoria were to begin after this fashion:--"1837, 5th moon,
Kalends, Victoria succeeded: 9th moon, Ides, Napoleon paid a
visit: 28th day, London flooded; 10th moon, 29th day, eclipse of
the sun"; and so on. At the time, and for many years--possibly
centuries--afterwards, there would be accurate general traditional,
or even written, information as to who Victoria was; why Napoleon
paid a visit; in what particular way the flood affected England generally;
from what parts the eclipse was best visible, etc. These details would
fade in distinctness with each successive generation; commentators
would come to the rescue; then commentators upon commentators;
and discussions as to which man was the most trustworthy of them all.

Under these circumstances it is difficult enough for the Chinese
themselves to construct a series of historical lessons, adequate
to guide them in the conduct of modern affairs, out of so
heterogeneous a mass of material. This difficulty is, in the case
of Westerners, more than doubled by the strange, and to us
inharmonious, sounds of Chinese proper names: moreover, as they
are monosyllabical, and many of them exactly similar when
expressed in our letters, it is almost impossible to remember
them, and to distinguish one from the other. Thus most persons who
make an honest endeavour by means of translations to master the
leading events in ancient Chinese history soon throw down the book
in despair; while even specialists, who may wish to shorten their
labours by availing themselves of others' work, can only get a
firm grip of translations by comparing them with the originals: it
is thus really impossible to acquire anything at all approaching
an accurate understanding of Chinese antiquity without possessing
in some degree the controlling power of a knowledge of the
pictographs.

It is in view of all these difficulties that an attempt has been
made in this book to extract principles from isolated facts; to
avoid, so far as is possible, the use of Chinese proper names; to
introduce these as sparingly and gradually as is practicable when
they must be used at all; to describe the general trend of events
and life of the people rather than the personal acts of rulers and
great officers; and, generally, to put it into the power of any
one who can only read English, to gain an intelligible notion of
what Chinese antiquity really was; and what principles and