Características Generales

[…] [D]ie Geschichte also ist eine Geschichte des Kaisers und seines Hauses. diß sind die Hauptmomente der chinesischen Geschichte. (Georg Friedrich Hegel)42

Chinese history has always been written by officials and for officials. It was supposed to be used as a guideline for dealing with bureaucratic matters. At first it focused on cosmology, rituals and portents, then switched to a focus on a more practical application by describing administrational details such as taxes, law and justice or the organization of officials. This shift is recognizable by the development of the Standard Histories (zhengshi 正 史 ).43 _{The thematic treatises in this zhengshi severely suffer from} monotony and stereotypy due to consisting of excerpts and other texts just chronologically placed next to each other. Analyses or reflections are not to be found in these kinds of official texts. 44

The just mentioned Standard Histories belong to one type of historical writing; altogether three categories can be distinguished: The first one being the official

41 _{Otto Franke (1945), pp. 96-99.} 42 _{Hegel (2015), p. 112.}

43 _{The Standard Histories basically use the jizhuanti 紀傳體, the biographical style; still,}

chronological aspects are also taken into account. This form of history writing was officially approved. The expression zhengshi was used in the Sui Shu 隋書 (dated 636) for the first time. Han (1955), pp. 40f.

historical records (guoshi 國史); the second representing the unofficial or private historiography (yeshi 野史); and the third being the family records (jiashi 家史). The first two continuously influenced and enriched each other, which led to a great amount of research methods, judgment standards, and styles of presentation. Many writers switched from one realm to the other—meaning they first wrote privately and then became an official court historian or the other way around.45

It is well known that no people on earth possesses so voluminous a record of their past as the Chinese. The sum of recorded particulars for the two and a half millenniums of “formal” history writing is incalculable. To translate the twenty-five standard histories would require forty-five million English words, and this would represent only a minute fraction of the total record.46

At first perhaps the historical writing was initiated out of the desire to attach a chronology to events in life. Things to be recorded were extraordinary and meaningful events like natural catastrophes (floods, draughts, earthquakes etc.), epidemics, administrative policies, lists of levy taxes and so on. Later on, emperors promoted the recording of their deeds to present them to posterity. At this time, it was already common to record things for reference in the future.47

For the chronology of Chinese historiography, Ssu-yü Teng proposed a classification into four phases: In the first period beginning in the old times and reaching until the second century AD, the formation of history writing happened, including the establishment of the two styles of writing, namely the biographic-thematic jizhuanti 紀傳體 style48 _{and the annalistic biannianti 編年體 style.}49 _{The second}

45 _{Mittag (2002), p. 22; Wright, Hall (1962), p. 979.} 46 _{Wright (1963), p. 37.}

47 _{Otto Franke (1945), pp. 99f.}

48 _{Jizhuanti 紀傳體, the composite or biographical style, is a style of history writing based on}

biographies; the model is Sima Qian’s Shiji. One typical example are the Standard Histories (zhengshi 正 史).

49 _{The biannianti 編年體 or annalistic style (“Arrangement under Years”) was derived from the}

chronological records of the Zhou kings (Zhou dynasty, Zhouchao 周朝 1046-256 BC), and therefore, it is the oldest pattern of Chinese historical writing. Events and facts are listed in a strict chronological order year by year, month by month, day by day. The interrelation and possible connections of events are not taken into account at all. Typical works written in this style are the veritable records (shilu 實錄). See

developmental phase of history writing and—at the same time—the golden age of historiography was the second until the thirteenth century AD. Especially in the time of the Southern Song dynasty (Nan Song 南 宋 ; 1127-1279), history writing was appreciated a lot. Teng goes on labelling the time from 1280 until 1900 to be a time of decay in history writing. Only at the end of the nineteenth century the writing of history blossomed again. This assumed phase categorization is reasoned by an awakening self- consciousness of historiography in the time of the Southern and Northern dynasties (Nanbeichao 南北朝; 420-589), which increased up to the establishment of the Bureau of History in the eighth century. The decline of the art of history writing results— according to Teng—exactly from the installation of this office because in the Bureau nobody would feel responsible for the consistence of works and personal and individual skills and ingenuity were not being promoted.50

It becomes apparent that historiography in the time of Ming dynasty formerly was regarded as being in decay and as not generating characteristics relevant for the development of historiography in China.

Pre-Imperial Historiography

The first chroniclers can already be found in Zhou dynasty (Zhouchao 周朝; 1046-256 BC) when they were high cult officials. Besides keeping the imperial records, they worked as astrologers, fortuneteller and priests as well. Their main duty was to observe nature, that means to watch the occurrences in nature, in the cosmos and in the sky, to determine and fix the calendar and beneficial days for important actions. Another crucial duty was to accomplish all the necessary obligations to honor the forefathers. From ancient compilations on rituals, we know that the emperor had at least two chroniclers: one on his left who would write down the deeds of the emperor, and one on his right who would inscribe the emperor’s speeches. The appointment of archivists was common at princes’ or dukes’ courts as well; in these cases, the archivist also occupied the position of controlling the prince’s or duke’s actions. From this the chronicler gradually became the master of decision about the rightfulness or wrongfulness of

Wolfgang Franke (1968), An Introduction to the Sources of Ming History, Kuala Lumpur: University of Malaya Press, p. 29.

50 _{Ssu-yü Teng (1949), “Chinese Historiography in the Last Fifty Years,” The Far Eastern}

governmental acts and the archivist’s office became the moral judge even over the emperor and his actions. Not only because of their significant role in the religious and social life of ancient Chinese were they held in high esteem, but also because they were the only ones with writing skills. The archivists’ records (like oracle inscriptions, genealogies, contracts or other kinds of documents) were kept in the ancestral temples—this was the beginning of Chinese historiography. Those inscriptions held a very important position and were meant as judgments for eternity—an opinion which determined Chinese historiography for a very long time.51

A characteristic of Chinese history writing is the concentration on the first millennium BC in comparison to times thereafter, which entails an assessment of Chinese history by using ancient texts only—except the works concerning just one single dynasty. According to P. van der Loon, precise and critical Chinese historiography can firstly be found in Song dynasty, while the historical works of Zhou and Han times must be regarded as poor writings in concern of historical accuracy, which also derives from the unsatisfactory body of source material.52

The origin of the first chronicles of Chinese history can be traced back to records of truth tellers. The roots of historical works are dereferenced to 1300 BC. The Shiji 史 記53 _{speaks about scribes for recording the history having already existed in the year} 753 BC in the state of Qin (Qinguo 秦國, ninth century until 221 BC). But the fact that at that time the Qin state had been established only shortly before implies the existence of earlier accounts and scribes in other states of this time. The Shiji mentions zhi 志 annals and shi 氏 genealogies, which were still available at the time of the composition of the Shiji and served as its sources.54

51 _{Otto Franke (1945), pp. 101ff.}

52 _{P. van der Loon (1961), “The Ancient Chinese Chronicles and the Growth of Historical Ideals,”}

in: William G. Beasley und E.G Pulleyblank (eds.), Historians of China and Japan, London [et al.]: Oxford University Press, p. 24.

53 _{The Shiji 史記 (Scribe’s Records; formerly Taishi gongshu 太史公書, Records of the Grand}

Historian) was finished 109 BC by the official historian Sima Qian 司馬遷 (ca. 145/135 BC-86 BC)—his father Sima Tan 司馬談 (ca. 165 BC-110 BC) had begun to work on these records. The work covers the period from the sage Yellow Emperor until Sima Qian’s time, about 2500 years, and is regarded to be the model of the 25 Standard histories (zhengshi 正史). For more information on the Shiji, see “Chinese

Literature—Shiji 史 記 ,” at ChinaKnowledge.de,

http://chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Historiography/shiji.html, last accessed: June 28th, 2017.

The problem of the historians of ancient times was their affiliation to the emperor or the fate of the dynasty. They were dependent on the benevolence of the emperor; since the ninth century BC chroniclers were not allowed to criticize sovereigns in any way, which—of course—brought along falsification of accounts or, at least, extenuations. Parallel to the written records, oral accounts and oral tradition were popular as sources of history, but it is not known when they were recorded. Possibly, there were certain officials for noting these oral accounts.55

The only history works from pre-imperial China “assumed to be authentic” are the “Spring and Autumn Annals of the State of Lu” (Chunqiu, see p. 19, FN 31; ascribed to Confucius) and the “Bamboo Annals” (Zhushu jinian 竹書紀年).56 _{Confucius in his} Chunqiu did what was supposed to become a specific character of Chinese historical writing: He attributed an ethical aim to historical writing, namely by propagating the method of “praise and blame” (baobian 褒貶). Even if he admits this fact as appearing in the terminology of the Chunqiu, P. van der Loon, though, believes that ancient Chinese historiography never had the aim of judging what is right or wrong; rather such implying and moralizing statements were added later on or just read into certain text passages.57 _{But—as mentioned—the Chunqiu was different because it already belonged} to another time and was written under different conditions. In fact, it was a textbook of political ethics, where questions about authenticity did not play an important role or, at least, were not to be mentioned because of the developing moralizing attitude towards history. The reasons for this emergence of moralizing interpretation of history on the one hand and the rational interpretation of formerly ritually characterized historiographical accounts on the other hand can be speculated about. The decline of Zhou dynasty, the rise of the nobility who searched for models in the past implicating a euphemizing of old myths, and the ascent of many philosophical schools, which

55 _{Otto Franke (1945), p. 104; van der Loon (1961), p. 26.}

56 _{The Bamboo Annals (Zhushu jinian 竹書紀年), also named Jizhong shu 汲冢書 “Book from}

the Tomb of Jixian 汲縣,” is a chronicle from Wei 魏 dynasty (403-225 BC) of the Warring States period (Zhanguo 戰國; fifth century BC-221 BC), which depicts the history from the Xia 夏 dynasty (seventeenth to fifteenth century BC) until the Warring States period. For more information on the Bamboo Annals, see “Chinese Literature—Zhushu jinian 竹 書 紀 年 , the Bamboo Annals,” at

ChinaKnowledge.de, http://www.chinaknowledge.de/Literature/Historiography/zhushujinian.html, last

accessed: June 28th, 2017.

emerged out of territorial fragmentation—they all contributed to the evolution of history from pure chronological sequences to a peculiar position in the Chinese moral system.58

In this context, it is noteworthy to mention the strict separation between actual facts and their evaluation, as was touched upon in the features of historiography. In the case of the Chunqiu a division between the text itself and its commentary is always present, which influenced later historiographical undertakings, as well. The authors’ opinion is never to be mixed with the concrete facts; hence, praise and blame are to be mentioned in the epilogue, not in the text itself.59

When talking about the Chunqiu in this context, one has to keep in mind that the Chunqiu never claimed to be a historical record. Rather, Confucius only summarized parts of the Shujing 書經 about the Zhou emperors and chronicles of the state of Lu 魯 (Luguo, ca. 1042-249 BC; part of today’s Shandong province), in which he lived. It was merely a conglomerate of poor accounts of events, sometimes even of inferior meaning. Its high reputation as historiographical work stands in contrast to its actual form. Consequently, the Chunqiu is not a historical record, but only is supposed to show examples of concepts such as the operating of the Tiandao 天道, the way of heaven.60

Actually, the sources of pre-imperial historical writing appear to be much more diverse than in later times: For example, family genealogies served as sources; furthermore, stories and legends from feudal states, which often were pithy but very vivid, were used as source material and—in the case of the Chunqiu—later on were collected in the Zuo commentary (Zuozhuan 左傳) of the Chunqiu. The rich information about the Zhou period derived from many different annals of the states in the time from the eighth to the fifth century BC. Next to political goals, which are expressed in these records, the Zuozhuan also gives account of philosophical ideas about moralizing or cosmological speculations, while using written sources as well as oral tradition. The Zuo commentary belongs to an important time in Chinese historiography and was the stimulus for many Chinese historians in later times. Besides this method of using different accounts from feudal states like the Zuozhuan did, it was also very common to

58 _{Van der Loon (1961), pp. 27ff.} 59 _{Van der Loon (1961), p. 29.} 60 _{Otto Franke (1945), p. 103.}

cite from historical precedents in philosophical discussions to persuade the discussion partners. Consequently, many tales about historical persons and events emerged and found their way into history.61

Imperial Historiography—the Shiji and the Hanshu

The beginning of the imperial time in China saw a dramatic change in the culture of history writing. Sima Qian 司馬遷 (145-90 BC) was the first to write a comprehensive historical work, the Shiji 史記 (Records of the Grand Historian). He as well held a post as chronicler and astrologer, although the latter duty did not have the important role as it had before. The Shiji was a historical account—begun by Sima Tan 司馬談 (165-110 BC), his father—tracing history from ancient times until the contemporary period. In a way, his writing appeared to be an assemblage of former traditions: Although it was revolutionary in its whole composition, it still showed some elements of former chronicle styles. Instead of an autocratic account of interpreting natural phenomena in the favor of the state, it tried to detect an ultimate law which systematically forms events on the principle of cause and effect. The Shiji served as prototype of China’s Standard Histories (zhengshi 正史) up to the twentieth century. Besides historical facts it also contains treatises about governmental relevant topics, such as the calendar, hydrography, political economy and so forth. Remarkable is the detailed given information which seem to be obtained from oral sources, as well. While Sima Qian sometimes indeed doubts parts of the sources, he mainly echoes the sources without scrutinizing them. This is only one characteristic which gives account about the struggle between ancient and new standards and ways of thinking. While the chronicles of the emperors, the annals, appear as prosaic accounts without any judgments—leaving it to the reader himself to interpret history—, the biographies show up as lively reports about men’s actions and the moral which can be drawn out of them for future actions. The revolutionary significance of the Shiji is obvious, but so is the certainty that the time was not ripe for such ideas: Sima Qian was sent to jail and the Shiji was published only many years later because Sima Qian’s judgments were still feared long after the genesis of the Shiji. Nevertheless, for more than one thousand years the Shiji was regarded the

guideline for historiographical works.62 _{Starting with Sima Qian’s work, a general style} of historical works was developed consisting of three main parts: annals, biographies and treatises. Gradually, the dealing with sources became more precise and non-verified sources were left out; moreover, only official sources were taken into account, which resulted in historical works in the style of political White Papers63_.64

The second important work for Chinese historiography is Ban Gu’s 班固 (32-92 AD) Hanshu 漢書, which was the first work concentrating on only one dynasty, namely the Han dynasty (Hanchao 漢朝; 206 BC-220 AD). The formation of this text consists of two parts, the beginning of its emergence as a private work and its continued writing under official guidance.65 _{The following development can be characterized as being a} conglomerate of private initiatives and official supervision. Ban Gu, for example, had begun to write his significant work as a private historian but was appointed an official historian in the meantime, whereby the Hanshu developed into an officially supervised project. His appointment as official historian in the first century AD also marked the beginning of a progress which culminated in the establishment of the Bureau of Historiography in the seventh century. Many historical texts originated from the time of the splitting of China after the fall of the Later or Eastern Han (Houhan 後漢, 25-220 AD), but only a few survived in their original shape. It was also this period that firstly recognized history as being an independent discipline. This notion derived from a newly occurred self-awareness of literature of all kinds, including historical writing.66

Another innovation of this period was the official appointment of scholars as historians. The truth tellers who occupied the post of chroniclers before were set aside. That means they proceeded to entrusted particular—and specialized—historians with the recording of historical facts.67

62 _{Pulleyblank, Beasley (1961), p. 3; Otto Franke (1945), pp. 104f; van der Loon (1961), pp. 29f.} 63 _{White Papers are used in governmental issues, and are supposed to present governmental}

policies and invite to share opinions on it.

64 _{Van der Loon (1961), p. 30.} 65 _{Pulleyblank, Beasley (1961), p. 3.}

66 _{Pulleyblank, Beasley (1961), p. 3; A. F. P. Hulsewé (1961), “Notes on the Historiography of the}

Han Period,” in William G. Beasley und E.G Pulleyblank (eds.), Historians of China and Japan, London [et al.]: Oxford University Press, p. 43.

Historiography in Tang—The Beginning of Official Historiography

For the next thousand years, the Shiji and the dynastic frame, which was established in the Hanshu, were considered to be the correct and only way of writing history. Consequently, nobody tried to compose a comparably comprehensive work. After the reunification of China under the Sui (Suichao 隋朝, 581-618) and then the Tang dynasty (Tangchao 唐朝, 618-907) new impulses for the development of Chinese historiography developed. In the times of Emperor Tang Taizong 唐太宗 (r. 626-649) and his descendants, many historical works were officially mandated, edited and commented. He had recognized the contemporary validity of historical events, he desired to uncover the history of the past and was conscious of the need to record events happening in his time for the future. On that account, it is hardly surprising that exactly