I
t is a historical cliché as well as truism that while the Song paled in com- parison with the Tang imperium in terms of military accomplishments and territorial gains, it surpassed its predecessor in intellectual vitality and scholarly output, including the production of history. If it is correct to assert that the modern sense of history began with the European Re- naissance, when three crucial intellectual perspectives emerged—a sense of anachronism, an awareness of evidence, and an interest in causation (Burke 1969, 1)—we may contend that such notions for remembering and ordering the past had already been amply evident in the Song.We are not suggesting that the Song had a ‘‘modern’’ historical out- look in the same sense that Renaissance Europe was later supposed to have had. The examples of historical ‘‘modernity’’ in Song China did not amass sufficient ideational density to yield a coherent and consistent new con- sciousness about the past. Our making such a comparative observation is not to show the backwardness and ultimate futility of Chinese historical thinking vis-à-vis that of Renaissance Europe, whose path of development has been accepted as the norm of modernity; nor is it meant to anachronis- tically suggest that the Song scholars were mindfully forging a ‘‘modern’’ way of looking at their past. Rather, we want to highlight Song accomplish- ments in the pursuit of history not only in comparison with the antecedent Tang, but also in cross-cultural terms. As we explore Song historical pro- duction and thought by focusing on key personages and pivotal works, the three concerns—anachronism, evidence, and causation—serve as conve- nient narrative themes, evaluative criteria, and interpretive devices. Our data on the Song will, of course, demand the addition of others in order to paint an accurate and nuanced picture of historical learning in China from the tenth through the thirteenth century. Thomas Lee has shown that in addition to a sense of anachronism, Song historiography displayed other notable characteristics: a belief in a connection between literary style and the presentation of historical truths; a flourishing of historical criticism; and a perception of the nexus between disparate facts (Lee 2002, 59–60; Cf. Lee 2004b, xi–xxvii). 7344 Ng and Wang / MIRRORING THE PAST / sheet 159
Ouyang Xiu and the Maturation of the Song Historiography
A strategic point of entry to historical learning in the Song is Ouyang Xiu (1007–1072). Ouyang was a towering political and intellectual figure with an enormous influence on the scholastic developments in the eleventh century. His contributions were pivotal in forging what historians call the ‘‘learning of the Qingli reign,’’ which in many ways began the assertion of independence from the Tang and ushered in Song learning itself (Shibaki 1979, 637–650; James Liu 1967, 88). But lest we appear to subscribe un- critically to the Carlylean view that individual geniuses are the sole engine of history, we should place Ouyang’s achievements in their proper context. It is noteworthy that even during the frequent regime changes and social upheaval of the so-called period of the Five Dynasties and Ten Kingdoms, the compilation of histories continued unabated. The Gathering of Essen- tials of the Five Dynasties (Wudai huiyao) compiled by Wang Pu and presented to the first Song emperor, Taizu, referred to five major veritable records produced in that tumultuous period (F. Tao 1987, 276; Balazs & Hervouet 1978, 177). And quite a few other veritable records appeared during the Five Dynasties, apart from those Wang listed ( J. Jin 1976, 114).
Once the Song dynasty was established, historical compilations under the aegis of the court began to flourish. Following the conventions of the Tang, the Song court required production of the veritable records of the various reigns, based on the voluminous primary materials the court kept in the qijuzhu (diary of activity and repose), shizheng ji (records of cur- rent administration), and rili (daily records). The fourteen Song reigns, from Taizu (960–968) to Lizong (1225–1264), invariably produced veri- table records, although none have survived except those of the Taizong reign, of which twenty fascicles (out of the original eighty) are extant (Balazs & Hervouet 1978, 84; Yin 1985, 199–200).
Besides these copious official annals, the Song periodically compiled a guoshi (national history) in the composite or annals-biography ( jizhuan) style, which covered the important events of several reigns (L. Yang 1961, 45). These national histories were full-scale histories that quite resemble the standard dynastic histories in their organization; they contain basic annals (benji ), monographs (zhi ), and biographies (zhuan) (Hargett 1996, 426; Yin 1985, 200–201). Altogether, the Song compiled six national his- tories, the first of which, the Taizu ji (Records of [the reign of ] Taizu) had only ten fascicles. Later compilations ballooned in size and details. The national history completed in 1030, for instance, covering the first three emperors’ reigns, consisted of 150 fascicles (F. Tao 1987, 277–278).
Complementing these were the various ‘‘gathering of essentials’’ (hui- yao), which detailed governmental institutions and administrative struc- tures and regulations. Wang Pu’s Gathering of Essentials of the Five Dynasties, is a good example. Two years earlier, in 961, Wang had produced another work of a hundred fascicles in a similar vein on the Tang, Gathering of Es- sentials of the Tang (Tang huiyao). These two Gathering of Essentials set the
7344 Ng and Wang / MIRRORING THE PAST / sheet
The Song 137
pattern for similar works in subsequent dynasties (F. Tao 1987, 278–279; W. Du 2004, 5–28). The early Song also showed keen interest in regions and localities, which resulted in a proliferation of local gazetteers (difang zhi ), a key Song intellectual accomplishment. We will discuss this further below, but here it is sufficient to note the completion of the seminal and monumental 200-fascicle Taiping huanyu ji (Gazette of the territories in the Taiping era) in 980 by Yue Shi (930–1007), on which the eighteenth- century Qing dynasty compilers of the Siku quanshu (Encyclopedia of the four treasuries [of writings]) lavished this accolade: ‘‘This work is prolific and abundant in its gathering and collecting [of materials], and this is precisely because it seeks to be all-embracing and comprehensive’’ (Har- gett 1996, 417). According to the Qing scholars, this work set the standard for thorough coverage and detail recording, guiding and informing later works of similar nature (ibid.).
Clearly official historiography was already in full swing by the time of Ouyang Xiu. Ouyang worked both in an official capacity at the History Bureau and as a private independent scholar. As an official historian, he played a crucial role in the compilation of the New History of the Tang (Xin Tangshu), a project that began under the editorial leadership of Song Qi (998–1061) in 1045. Ouyang became the chief editing official in 1055, and the 225-fascicle work was finally completed in 1060. Ouyang took charge of the historical narratives on the various reigns, creating tables and com- posing monographs on the various institutions. In private, Ouyang wrote the 74-fascicle Historical Records of the Five Dynasties (Wudai shiji ), also com- monly known as the New History of the Five Dynasties (Xin Wudai shi ). Both works are generally characterized by terse, concise narratives, rendered in eloquent language. While they are undoubtedly examples of literary ele- gance, their content and qualities as histories warrant a close look. Both have been criticized for their threadbare descriptions of events, and there- fore, despite the evident flaws of the Old History of the Tang and the Old His- tory of the Five Dynasties, Ouyang’s intended replacements of these old works do not quite do the job ( James Liu 1967, 105–107; F. Tao 1987, 282–283; D. Wang 1997, 164–173; W. Du 2004, 42–51).
The New History of the Tang was unquestionably a more sophisticated history than the old version, in that the compilers, at the very least, had better access to source materials. The new work made far more effective use of tables (biao) and monographs (zhi). The tables, for instance, include military governors, prime ministers and their familiar pedigrees, and im- perial genealogical charts. Those on the military governors ( fangzhen) are especially useful in outlining the chaotic political configuration of insti- tutions best characterized as military satrapies. The New History also has more and better monographs on specialized topics and added three valu- able ones on rituals, the civil service examinations, and the military sys- tem. The monographs on geography, economy, and scholarship are more comprehensive than those in the Old History. In the Old History’s ‘‘Mono- graph on the Classics and Literature,’’ for instance, one cannot find works
7344 Ng and Wang / MIRRORING THE PAST / sheet 161
by such masterful poets as Li Bo and Du Fu, or cultural giants like Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan, oversights that the New History appropriately remedied (Y. Song et al. 1987, 328–330; F. Tao 1987, 285).
Simply stated, while the Old History rested content with direct inclu- sion and literal restatement of Tang documents and primary sources, the New History aimed at forging a historical narrative with elegant language. Moreover, it strove for narrative concision and broad descriptions. The resulting work is highly readable and was praised by contemporaries and later scholars. However, what the New History gained in easy readability, it lost in detailed information. The work often failed to fully utilize the voluminous data available in the Tang veritable records. The biographies, unlike those in other standard histories, often do not include details on family background. There are glaring omissions, such as the exclusion of the famous seventh-century Buddhist pilgrim and scholar Xuanzang (596– 664). The basic annals of the emperors (benji ), to which the Old History devotes some 300,000 words, is whittled down by the New History to a scant 90,000 words. Zealously exercising his authorly prerogative, Ouyang radi- cally altered and sometimes simply expunged Tang documents written in a florid style he disliked. Worse still, although Ouyang and his colleagues used much data ignored by or unavailable to the older work, they did not always carefully check the veracity of the new information. Already in the Song, the New History had its critics. Wu Zhen’s Corrected Errors in the New History of the Tang (Xin Tangshu jiumiu), completed in 1089, lists some 460 problems. Wu boldly declared it to be one of the worst official standard histories. But his bilious attack may have been motivated by per- sonal humiliation, for Ouyang had refused Wu’s request to work on the Tang history project (F. Tao 1987, 284–286; Y. Song et al. 1987, 330; J. Jin 1976, 123; Balazs & Hervouet 1978, 67). Of greater significance, when Sima Guang, Ouyang’s junior contemporary, worked on his own magnum opus, the Comprehensive Mirror of Aid in Government, he referred to and incorpo- rated sources from the Old Tang History because the earlier history had done a better job of preserving original Tang materials ( James Liu 1967, 107–108; J. Jin 1976, 121–124; W. Du 2004, 51–62).
While the New History of the Tang was a collective effort under official auspices, Ouyang Xiu wrote Historical Records of the Five Dynasties as a pri- vate endeavor. He began the work in 1036, when he suffered demotion and was banished to the subprefecture of Yiling just south of the Yangzi, after he had fallen from grace for his vociferous support of the outspoken reformer Fan Zhongyan (989–1052). In the long run this bureaucratic setback actually enhanced Ouyang’s reputation as a courageous man of principle ( James Liu 1967, 32–35, 108–109; Davis 2004, xlix–l). Ouyang’s association with Fan and his reformist cause merits our attention to the extent that it sheds light on the way he approached the history of the Five Dynasties.
Fan Zhongyan had risen to prominence in 1025, when in a letter to the empress dowager and the emperor he forcefully proposed a grand vision
7344 Ng and Wang / MIRRORING THE PAST / sheet
The Song 139
for saving ‘‘this culture of ours.’’ Fan and many other Song literati (shi ) such as Ouyang had developed a clear notion of what they thought Chinese cul- ture was and ought to be. This culture (siwen) was the cumulative tradition stemming from antiquity that accorded with the natural order of things. Embodied in this culture was the Way (dao) of the ancient sages, the nor- mative tradition of China, access to which and realization of which was pos- sible through the use of proper language and literature, especially works in the ancient style (guwen), individual moral cultivation, and institutional revival of a sociopolitical order run by talented, upright men. Within this grand vision, however, tension abounded; different literati placed differ- ent emphases on the relative importance of the various strands of thought. In the words of Peter Bol, Ouyang Xiu was ‘‘a pivotal figure in the eleventh century . . . because he gave full expression to this tension both by harken- ing back to Fan Chung-yen’s call for the transformation of the sociopoliti- cal order through institutional activism and by maintaining a view of cul- ture and morality as the products of individual creativity’’ (1992, 5). While this is not the place to explore Ouyang’s conception of culture—Bol has already done a marvelous job of it (1992, 178–185)—his valuation of Chi- nese culture did influence his historical view and how he wrote about the Five Dynasties.
Some historical background is germane here. The dynastic decline that began with the An Lushan Rebellion (755–763) in the mid-Tang stimu- lated the growth and consolidation of a system of military governorship ( jiedu shi ) that progressively dislodged the civil governance of the early Tang. By the time of the Huang Chao rebellion (875–884), military gov- ernors dominated China and openly flouted the authority of the Tang court. In 907 Zhu Wen (r. 907–912), the military governor of Henan, de- stroyed the Tang dynasty and ushered in the period of the Five Dynasties (907–960), a fifty-three-year span during which military governance was the norm (Y. Chen 1974, 1–49; Pulleyblank 1979, 32–60; C. Peterson 1979, 464–560).
Restoration of civil governance was the foremost goal of the early Northern Song rulers and literati. By the reigns of emperors Renzong (r. 1024–1063) and Shenzong (r. 1068–1085), a civil culture had finally be- come firmly entrenched. Wang Anshi (1021–1086) and Sima Guang, each with his own vision of a Confucian body politic and culture, advocated changes and reforms. The Learning of the Way (daoxue), forged by inno- vative scholars and thinkers such as Zhou Dunyi (1017–1073), Zhang Zai (1020–1077), Cheng Hao (1032–1085), and Cheng Yi (1033–1107), offered another conception of culture as it was supposedly embodied in the Way of the ancient sages. In literature we witness the accomplishments of Su Shi (1037–1101), and in arts, those of Guo Xi (ca. 1020–1090) (Hon 1999, 86–87). In other words Ouyang Xiu lived in a time when military predomi- nance in the state and society appeared to have been safely consigned to the realm of memory. How, then, should the immediate past of the Five Dynasties be remembered? How should history process, represent, assimi-
7344 Ng and Wang / MIRRORING THE PAST / sheet 163
late, and domesticate those unhappy and unsavory memories of military dominance?
Very early in the Northern Song, in 974, Xue Juzheng (912–981) had completed an account of the Five Dynasties called The Old History of the Five Dynasties ( Jiu Wudai shi ) (Shangjun Chen 1999, 98–117). But Ouyang Xiu thought that this text failed to properly censure the period; the work fell short of offering a correct historical view and understanding, and hence a better account was needed. In fact, this new account was not so much a historical recounting as contemporary reflecting. With the ascendance of civilian rule, Ouyang and the mid-Northern Song literati sought to employ history as a way to clarify and advance their Confucian visions, in the pro- cess defining themselves as conscientious shi who strove to realize their con- ceptions of the Confucian culture through practicing their learning. Re- fracted through Ouyang, the Five Dynasties was a distinctly un-Confucian period whose flaws must be identified and censured so that moral lessons could be drawn. Ouyang’s goal, in a word, was unabashedly didactic. He saw himself as following the venerable example of the Records of the Histo- rian, using history to reveal the profound principles of governing the state and society and of moral self-cultivation. But as a historian, he was also much inspired by Sima’s critical attitude towards sources and had a strong preference for rational explanations of past events, as opposed to the belief in suprahuman intervention (Davis 2004, xlvii–lv).
Therefore, Ouyang’s own Records of the Historian of the Five Dynasties— popularly known as the New History of the Five Dynasties—self-consciously set itself apart from the Old History by Xue Juzheng. Although the first complete draft was probably completed in 1053, the work was published posthumously, in 1077. Ouyang, in his New History, regarded the Five Dy- nasties as exemplars of political failure and moral turpitude, while the Old History had respected them as independent regimes that soberly came to grips with the particular problems of the time. Their divergent assump- tions and conclusions about the fundamental nature of the Five Dynasties period greatly influenced the organization of each work. Ouyang’s New His- tory treats the Five Dynasties as one degenerate epoch, distinguished by political disintegration and social tumult, not to mention moral anomie and spiritual bankruptcy. His negative conception of the entire period de- nied the various dynasties any independent status, and therefore Ouyang did not give them separate treatment. Moreover, Ouyang’s work does not bother to include monographs (zhi ), principally because the author re- garded the institutions of the Five Dynasties as unworthy of historical ex- amination. Xue’s Old History, which regarded the Five Dynasties as legiti- mate, their brevity notwithstanding, allotted each a separate book (shu), or history. It also includes twelve monographs on the institutions and im- plements of the period. The New History, ideologically driven by Ouyang’s views of Confucian culture, adopts a narrative style that features elegant language and exquisite prose. It aims at succinct descriptions and highly synthesized accounts, seeking to instruct and thus lift up the minds and hearts of readers morally. It is a sophisticated amalgam of history and lit-
7344 Ng and Wang / MIRRORING THE PAST / sheet
The Song 141
erature, melding moralism with empiricism (Davis 2004 xlv–xlvii). But the narrative terseness often deprives readers of factual details, while in con- trast, the Old History delivers many more detailed narratives, albeit in drier prose, frequently simply quoting contemporary primary sources. Xue’s work is quite valuable in terms of preserving the raw historical materials, but his indiscriminate reiteration of them takes their veracity for granted and repeats many of their false claims, such as Zhu Wen’s claim that he was descended from Zhu Fu, an official who worked for the ancient sage-ruler Shun. Many of Xue’s accounts, although lengthier and fuller with facts, are not coherent stories with a beginning, middle and end, whereas Ouyang’s laconic narratives are cohesive. Ouyang, who used original sources more critically and consulted more materials, was also able to correct many of the older work’s errors (F. Tao 1987, 286–287; Hon 1999, 88–89; Gungwu Wang 1973, 53–63). It is noteworthy that Ouyang’s history was a private endeavor, not subject to the usual constraints on court-sponsored compi- lations. It was, moreover, written generations after the Five Dynasties and aimed not at the imperial readership—the court and the ministers—but at other scholars interested in history. This conception of a broad, histori- cal audience gave Ouyang an authorial freedom that encouraged stylis- tic innovations and substantive richness (Davis 2004, lvi–lvii; W. Du 2004, 42–51).
The authors’ personal histories also affected their historical verdicts on the period between the Tang and Song. Xue Juzheng served as an official in four of the short-lived dynasties. Whether motivated by self-