ANCIENT
CHINA SIMPLIFIED
BY
EDWARD HARPER PARKER, M.A., (Manchester)
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 motives,
declared or tacit, underlay it. It is with this object before
me that I have ventured to call my humble work "Ancient China
Simplified," and I can only express a hope that it will really
be found intelligible.
EDWARD
HARPER PARKER.
18,
GAMBIER TERRACE, LIVERPOOL, May 18, 1908.
