Produced by Steve Schulze, Charles Franks
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team.
Page images courtesy of Case Western Reserve University Library -
Preservation Department
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
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.
AIDS TO MEMORY
There is much repetition in the book, the same facts being
presented, for instance, under the heads of Army, Religion,
Confucius, and Marriages. This is intentional, and the object is
to keep in the mind impressions which in a strange, ancient, and
obscure subject are apt to disappear after perusal of only one or
two casual statements.
The Index has been carefully prepared so that any allusion or
statement vaguely retained in the mind may at once be confirmed.
The chapter headings, or contents list, which itself contains
nearly five per cent of the whole letterpress, is so arranged that
it omits no feature treated of in the main text.
In the earlier chapters uncouth proper names are reduced to a
minimum, but the Index refers by name to specific places and
persons only generally mentioned in the earlier pages. For
instance, the states of Lu and CHÊNG on pages 22 and 29: it is
hard enough to differentiate Ts'i, Tsin, Ts'in, and Ts'u at the
outstart, without crowding the memory with fresh names until the
necessity for it absolutely arises.
The nine maps are inserted where they are most likely to be
useful: it is a good plan to refer to a map each time a place is
mentioned, unless the memory suffices to suggest exactly where
that place is. After two or three patient references, situations
of places will take better root in the mind.
The chapters are split up into short discussions and descriptions,
because longer divisions are apt to be tedious where ancient
history is concerned. And the narrative of political movement is
frequently interrupted by the introduction of new matter, in order
to provide novelty and stimulate the imagination. Moreover, all
chapters and all subjects converge on one general focus.
On page 15 of "China, her Diplomacy, etc." (John Murray, 1901), I
have confessed how tedious I myself had found ancient Chinese
history, and how its human interest only begins with foreign
relations. I have, however, gone systematically through the mill
once more, and my present object is to present general results
only obtainable at the cost of laboriously picking out and
resetting isolated and often apparently unconnected records of
fact.
NAMES OF CHIEF LOCALITIES
CHOU: at first a principality in South Shen Si and part of Kan
Suh, subject to Shang dynasty; afterwards the imperial dynasty
itself.
TS'lN: principality west of the above. When the Chou dynasty moved
its capital east into Ho Nan, Ts'in took possession of the old
Chou principality.
TSIN: principality (same family as Chou) in South Shan Si (and in
part of Shen Si at times).
TS'I: principality, separated by the Yellow River from Tsin and
Yen; it lay in North Shan Tung, and in the coast part of Chih Li.
TS'U: semi-barbarous principality alone preponderant on the Yang-
tsz River.
WU: still more barbarous principality (ruling caste of the same
family as Chou, but senior to Chou) on the Yang-tsz _embouchure_
and Shanghai coasts.
YÜEH: equally barbarous principality commanding another
_embouchure_ in the Hangchow-Ningpo region. Wu and Yüeh were
at first subordinate to Ts'u.
YEN: principality (same family as Chou) in the Peking plain, north
of the Yellow River mouth,
SHUH and PA: in no way Chinese or federal; equivalent to Central
and Eastern Sz Ch'wan province.
CHÊNG: principality in Ho Nan (same family as Chou).
SUNG: principality taking in the four corners of Ho Nan, Shan
Tung, An Hwei, and Kiang Su (Shang dynasty family).
CH'ÊN: principality in Ho Nan, south of Sung (family of the
Ploughman Emperor, 2250 B.C., preceding even the Hia dynasty).
WEI: principality taking in corners of Ho Nan, Chih Li, and Shan
Tung (family of the Chou emperors).
TS'AO: principality in South-west Shan Tung; neighbour of Lu, Wei,
and Sung (same family as Chou).
TS'AI: principality in Ho Nan, south of CH'ÊN (same family as
Chou).
LU: principality in South-west Shan Tung, between Ts'ao and Ts'i
(its founder was the brother of the Chou founder).
HÜ: very small principality in Ho Nan, south of Cheng (same
obscure eastern ancestry as Ts'i),
K'I: Shan Tung promontory and German sphere (of Hia dynasty
descent); it is often confused with, or is quite the same as,
another principality called _Ki_ (without the aspirate).
The above are practically all the states whose participation in
Chinese development has been historically of importance,
NAMES OF CHIEF PERSONAGES
CONFUCIUS: after 500 B.C. premier of Lu; traced his descent back
through the Chou dynasty vassal ruling family of Sung to the Shang
dynasty family.
TSZ-CH'AN: elder contemporary of Confucius; premier of Cheng;
traced his descent through the vassal ruling family of Cheng to
the Chou dynasty family: date of death variously stated.
KWAN-TSE: died between 648 and 643 B.C., variously stated; premier
of Ts'i; traced his descent to the same clan as the ruling dynasty
of Chou.
YEN-TSZ: died 500 B.C.; premier of Ts'i; traced his descent to a
local clan, apparently eastern barbarian by origin.
WEI YANG: died 338 B.C.; premier of Ts'in; was a concubine-born
prince of the vassal state of Wei, and was thus of the imperial
Chou dynasty clan.
SHUH HIANG: lawyer and minister of Tsin; belonged to one of the
"great families" of Tsin; was contemporary with Tsz-ch'an. HIANG
SÜH: diplomat of the state of Sung; pedigree not ascertained,
KI-CHAH: son, brother, and uncle of successive barbarian kings of
Wu, whose ancestors, however, were the same ancestors as the
orthodox imperial rulers of the Chou dynasty; contemporary of Tsz-
ch'an.
NAMES OF THE SO-CALLED "FIVE PROTECTORS"
(ONLY THE TWO FIRST OF THE FIVE WERE SO OFFICIALLY; THE TWO LAST
WERE SO, EVEN OFFICIALLY, THOUGH NEVER COUNTED AMONGST THE FIVE.)
1. MARQUESS OF Ts'i (not of imperial Chou clan, perhaps of
"Eastern Barbarian" origin).
2. MARQUESS OF TSIN (imperial Chou clan).
3. DUKE OF SUNG (imperial Shang dynasty descent),
4. "KING" OF T'SU (semi-barbarian, but with remote imperial
Chinese legendary descent).
5. EARL OF TS'IN (semi-Tartar, with legendary descent from remote
imperial Chinese).
6. "KING" OF Wu (semi-barbarian, but of imperial Chou family
descent).
7. "KING" OF YÜEH (barbarian, but with legendary descent from
ultra-remote imperial Chinese).
CONTENTS
CHAPTER I
_OPENING SCENES_
Beginning of dated history--Size of ancient China--Parcelled out
into fiefs--Fiefs correspond to modern _hien_ districts--
Mesne lords and sub-vassals--Method of migration and colonizing--
Course of the Yellow River in 842 B.C.--Distant fiefs in Shan Tung
and Chih Li provinces of to-day--A river which subsequently became
part of the Grand Canal--The Hwai River system of waters--
Europeans always regard China from the sea inwards--Corea, Japan,
and Liao Tung unknown in 842 B.C. except, perhaps, to the vassal
state in Peking plain--Orthodox Chinese adopting barbarian usages
in Shan Tung--Eastern barbarians on the coast to Shanghai--No
knowledge of South or West Asia--Left bank of Yellow River was
mostly Tartar, except in South Shan Si--Ancient capital in Shan
Si--Ancient colonization of the Wei River valleys in Shen Si--
Possibilities of Western ideas having been carried by Tartar
horsemen from Persia and Turkestan--Traditions of western,
eastern, and southern intercourse previous to 842 B.C.--Early
knowledge of the River Yang-tsz and its three mouths--Explorations
by ancient emperors--Development of China followed much the same
normal course as that of Greece or England.