Always enthusiastic writers, the Chinese have been particularly preoccupied with the compilation of historical annals. Historical inscriptions go back at least to 536 B.C., when they were incised in bronz vessels. Progress in Chinese civilization brought more and more historical writing. When the bamboo slips gave way to paper as a writing material in the first century A.D., the historians of Han set in motion a hurricane of books that has never ceased.
China's first monumental histories were T'ang times (618-906). These works were detailed and encyclopaedic. T'ang history was like the T'ang itself-orderly and highly organized. Accurate records were kept and recorded for posterity. The encyclopaedia was further developed as an abbreviated source of essential information for busy bureaucrats, writers and students. T'ang produced in the Understanding of History (Shih t'ung) by Liu Chih-chi (661-721) the first definitive work of historiographic criticism. Tu Yu (735-812) compiled his General Institutions (T'ung tien), a 200-chapter work tracing the history of such subjects as government organization, economics, law, military science, geography and so on. This was much more than a dynastic and political history.
The writing of history went on to new heights under the Sung (960-1279). The Encyclopaedia of 977 (T'ai-p'ing yu-lan) had a thousand chapters. Ouyang Hsiu (1007-1072) wrote his New History of the T'ang Dynasty and New History of the Five Dynasties. He included materials from fiction, belles letters and anecdotal materials as well as those from standard historical sources. He wrote in the ancient prose style (ku-wen) and rewrote materials that were couched in other styles. Following the example of the Spring and Autumn Annals of Confucius, he sought to convey moral judgments through the careful use of terminology.
Ssu-ma Kuang (1019-1086) and three associates produced one of the greatest historical works in Chinese history: The General Mirror for the Aid of Government. The 294 chapters record 1,362 years of his,tory from the fifth century B.C. to the beginnings of Sung. The order is chronological with accompanying commentary by Ssu-ma Kuang. The objective was to guide the emperor and the bureaucracy. Most previous histories had been dynastic or had covered even briefer periods. Now these were brought together in one continuous narrative. If the General Mirror had fault, it was in the strong political accent. This was well served by the chronological form but institutional and cultural history suffered.
Other historians set about the task of correcting what they believed to be the mistakes or omissions of Ssu-ma Kuang. Yuan Shu (1131-1205) compiled the Topical Treatment of Events in the General Mirror. His arrangement was by subject matter. Chu Hsi (1130-1200) and his disciples were responsible for the Outline and Digest of the General Mirror, which selectd the most significant materials and arranged them so as to convey the moral lessons of history.
Cheng Ch'iao (1108-1166) undertook an institutional history based on the General Mirror. One section of his work, the General Treatises, includes 15 essays covering different subjects. Those on philology, phonetics and families and clans had not been so treated before. Ma Tuan-lin (13th century) wrote another great institutional history, The General Study of Literary Remains. Another comprehensive encyclopaedia, the Jewel Sea of Wang Ying-lin, emerged at the end of the Sung dynasty. His ideas were to be influential in China's last dynasty, the Ch'ing.
Beginning in Latter Han times, it became the custom to have court historians attend the emperor when he was engaged in business and to make notes of his words and actions. The notes were written up and became a part of the archives. This had a dual purpose: (1) to serve the needs of historians and (2) to impress upon the ruler that what he said or did would be on record for the judgment of posterity. T'ang emperors grumbled but the custom was firmly entrenched. The records were still kept out of the ruler's reach to preserve their objectivity. In the Sung, authority finally overcame scholarship. The diaries were submitted to the emperor and their historical value deteriorated sharply. The General Mirror said:
"The year 642, Summer, 4th month. The Emperor T'ai-tsung spoke to the Imperial Censor, Ch'u Sui-liang, saying: 'Since you, Sir, are in charge of the Diaries of Action and Repose (the record of his words and actions), may I see what you have written?' Sul-liang replied: 'The historians record the words and deeds of the ruler of men, noting down all that is good and bad, in hopes that the ruler will not dare to do evil. But it is unheard of that the ruler himself should see what is written.' The emperor said: 'If I do something that is not good, do you then also record it?' Sui-liang replied: 'My office is to wield the brush. How could I dare not to record it?' The Gentleman of the Yellow Gate Liu Chi added: 'Even if Sui-liang failed to record it, everyone else in the empire would'. To which the emperor replied: 'true'.
"The year 839, Winter, 10th month. The Emperor Wen-tsung went to the Official in Charge of the Diaries of Action and Repose, Wei Mo, picked up his notes and began looking at them. Wei Mo objected, saying: 'The Diaries of Action and Repose record both good and bad in order to warn and admonish the ruler of men. Your Majesty should only strive to do good. It is not necessary that Your Majesty see the records.' The emperor said: 'Once before I looked at them'. 'That,' replied Wei Mo, 'was the fault of the official in charge of history at that time. If Your Majesty were to examine the records personally, the historians would be forced to distort or alter their accounts. Then how could we expect later ages to put any faith in them?' With this the emperor desisted."
Lu Tsu-ch'ien (Lu Tung-lai, 1137-1181), a friend of Chu Hsi, began a history of the period from the end of the Spring and Autumn era to the start of the Five Dynasties but did not complete it because of illness. However, he made two important historiographic points in a brief essay. First, he maintained that history was not a mere collection of random facts but a record of continuous growth and change. It was this idea that started Lu and others writing monumental histories of great chunks of the past. Second, he held that the study of history should be the basis of action in the present. This was the basis for the Sung historians' insistence on teaching as well as recording. This is an excerpt from Lu's essay:
"Ch'en Ying-chung (Ch'en Kuan) once remarked that the General Mirror is like Medicine Mountain: anywhere you pick you always are sure of getting something. But though it may be Medicine Mountain, you must know how to select, for if you do not know how to select, you will end up with nothing more than a vast collection of facts crammed into your memory. Hu Ch'iu Tzu once asked Lieh Tzu why he liked to travel. Lieh Tzu replied: 'Other men travel in order to see what there is to see, but I travel in order to observe how things change.'
"This might be taken as a rule for observing history. Most people, when they examine history, simply look at periods of order and realize that they are ordered, periods of disorder and recognize their disorder, observe one fact and know no more than that one fact. 'But is this real observation of history? You should picture yourself actually in the situation, observe which things are profitable and which dangerous, and note the misfortunes and ills of the times. Shut the book and think for yourself. Imagine that you are facing these various facts and then decide what you think ought to be done. If you look at history in this way, then your learning will increase and your intelligence improve. Then you will get real profit from your reading."
◇ ◇ ◇
Cheng Ch'iao wrote in the Preface to his history of China that the record of man must be viewed as a continuous stream. His ideal historians are Confucious and Ssu-ma Ch'ien. He regrets that with Pan Ku's History of the Former Han Dynasty it became popular to write histories covering only a single dynasty. This is a selection from Cheng:
"The many rivers run each a separate course, but all must meet in the sea; only thus may the land be spared the evil of inundation. The myriad states have each their different ways, but all must join in the greater community which is China; only then may the outlying areas escape the ills of stagnation. Great is this principle of meeting and joining. From the time when books were first invented, there have been many who set forth their words, but only Confucius was a sage endowed by Heaven unlimitedly. Therefore he brought together the Odes and History, the Rites and Music, and joined them by his own hand so that all the literature of the world met in him. From the deeds of the two emperors Yao and Shun and the kings of the Three Dynasties he created one school of philosophy so that men of later times could fully comprehend the evolutions of past and present. Thus was his way brilliant and enlightened, surpassing all the ages before and all the ages after him.
"After Confucius passed away, the various philosophers of the hundred schools appeared and in imitation of the Analects each composed a book setting forth his general principles. But no one undertook to carry on the record of the historical facts of the ensuing ages. Then in the Han, around the year 140 and later, Ssu-ma T'an and his son Ssu-ma Ch'ien appeared. The Ssu-ma family had for generations been in charge of documents and records and they were skilled in compilation and writing. Therefore they were able to understand the intention of Confucius to join together the narratives of the Odes and History, the Tso Commentary, the Narratives of the States, the Genealogical Origins, the Intrigues of the Warring States and the Spring and Autumn of Ch'u and Han to cover the ages from the Yellow Emperor and Yao and Shun down to the Ch'in and Han, and complete one book. It Was divided into five sections: the basic annals, which are recorded year by year; the hereditary houses covering the states, handed down from generation to generation; the chronological tables that corrected dates; the treatises which dealt with specific subjects; and the memoirs devoted to the lives of individuals. For a hundred generations the official historians have not been able to depart from this model, nor have scholars ever succeeded in seriously challenging this work. After the Six Classics, there is only this one book ...
"Confucius took the Spring and Autumn form and employed it first and the scholar Tso followed this example, so that their works stand today like the sun and the moon. But since the Spring and Autumn Annals, only the Shih chi has succeeded in making use of this model of composition. Unfortunately, Pan Ku was not the man he should have been, and he failed to grasp the principle of joining and penetrating, and from his time the followers of the Ssu-ma family fell away. Later historians have lost no time in running after the example of Pan Ku, seemingly unable to judge the relative merits of his work and that of Ssu-ma Ch'ien. But Ssu-ma Ch'ien is to Pan Ku as a dragon is to a pig. Why do all later historians ignore Ssu-ma Ch'ien and follow Pan Ku?
"Confucius said: 'The Yin dynasty followed the rites of the Hsia; wherein it took from or added to them may be known. The Chou followed the rites of Yin; wherein it took from or added to them may be known.' This is what is known as the continuity of history. But from the time when Pan Ku wrote the history of only one dynasty, this principle of continuity has been ignored. Thus although one be a sage like Confucius, he can never know what was taken away or what was added in each period. The way of joining and meeting was from this time lost."
◇ ◇ ◇
In his Preface to The General Study of Literary Remains, Ma Tuan-lin insists-with Cheng Ch'iao that while political history may be treated by separate periods, institutional history cannot. This is a selection:
"The philosopher Hsun Tze long ago remarked: 'If you would observe the way of the ancient sage kings, they are perfectly obvious, for they are the ways of later kings. The gentleman studies the ways of these later kings and speaks of the hundred kings of long ago as easily as another folds his hands and begins a discussion.' Therefore if one studies institutions, examines laws and statutes, is widely learned and of stout understanding, then truly may he comphehend the affairs of Confucianism.
"After the time of the Odes, the History and the Spring and Autumn Annals, only Ssu-ma Ch'ien deserves to be called a good historian. He used the annal and memoir, treatise and chronological table form, the annals and memoirs to describe the periods of order and disorder, of rise and fall of states, and the eight treatises to relate matters of laws and institutions. Of all the men who have since taken up brush and writing tablet, none has been able to depart from this form. But from the time of Pan Ku and thereafter, histories were written covering only one dynasty so that, much to the distress of the readers, the principle of continuity and development was lost. Finally, however, Ssu-ma Kuang wrote his General Mirror, covering the happenings of some 1,300 years in which he selected the narratives of 17 separate histories and put them all together to form one work. Later scholars who have perused his pages have found all things of past and present therein. But although Ssu-ma Kuang is very detailed on matters of order and disorder, and the rise and fall of dynasties, his treatment of laws and institutions is very sketchy. This is not because of any lack of wisdom on his part, but simply that, his material being so voluminous, he was forced to focus his narrative upon certain problems only and thus neglect the others.
"It has always been my observation that periods of order or disorder, of the rise and fall of different dynasties are not interrelated. The way the Chin came to power, for example, was not the same as the way the Han came to power, while the fall of the Sui was quite different from the fall of the T'ang. Each period has its own history, and it is sufficient to cover in full the period from the beginning to the end of the dynasty without referring to other dynasties or attempting to draw parallels. Laws and institutions, however, are actually interrelated. The Yin followed the rites of the Hsia, the Chou followed those of the Yin, and whoever follows the rites of Chou, though it be a hundred generations after, the way in which he takes from or adds to them may be known. This was the prediction made by the Sage, Confucius. Thus concerning rites, music, warfare, punishments, the system for taxation and selection of officials, even the changes and elaborations in bureaucratic titles or the developments and alternations in geography, although in the end not necessarily the same for all dynasties, yet did not suddenly spring into being as something unique for each period. Thus the court etiquette and governmental system of the Han was based upon regulations of the Ch'in; the military and tax system of the T'ang were based upon Chou statutes. Therefore to understand the reasons for the gradual growth and relative importance of institutions in each period, you must make a comprehensive and comparative study of them from their beginnings to their ends and in this way try to grasp their development; otherwise you will encounter serious difficulties. The type of political history that is not dependent upon continuity has already been amply covered in Ssu-ma Kuang's book, but there is no work which deals with institutions which depend for their understanding upon historical continuity. Is it not fitting that scholars of our time should turn their full attention to this problem?
Ma Tuan-lin's study of Chinese institutions begins with a survey of land taxes through the ages. He is Confucian in regarding the feudal society of old as the ideal and subsequent societies as corruptions. However, his study of history has watered down his idealism. He knows it is necessary to work with existing institutions rather than to try to change them totally. This is an excerpt:
"The rulers of ancient times did not regard the realm as their own private possession. Therefore the land of the Son of Heaven was a thousand li square, while that of the dukes and marquises was a hundred Ii square. Earls held 70 li, barons 50 li, and within the area of the emperor's territory the high ministers and officials were granted lands and villages from which they received emolument. Each of these held possesion of his own land, regarded its inhabitants as his peronal charges, and passed it down to his sons and grandsons to possess. He regarded questions of the fertility of the land and the abundance or want of the peasants as of immediate concern to his own family. He took the trouble to examine and supervise things himself so that there was no room for evildoing or deception. Thus at this tin1e all land was under the jurisdiction of the officials, and the people provided support for the officials. The peasants who received land from the officials lived by their own labor and paid tribute. In their work of supporting their parents and providing for their wives and families, they were all treated with equal kindness so there were no people who were excessively rich nor any who were excessively poor. This was the system of the Three Dynasties.
"The rulers of the Ch'in were the first to consider all land as their possession and to exercise all power by themselves. The men who filled the posts of district magistrates were shifted about frequently so that they came to regard the land of the district where they were stationed as no more than a temporary lodging. Thus no matter how worthy or wise a magistrate might be, it was impossible for him to know fully the true situation in the villages and hamlets he was supervising. The appointments and terms of office of these local magistrates were subject to time limitations, while evil and corrupt practices in connection with the transfer and holding of land multiplied endlessly. Thus from the time of Ch'in and Han on, government officials no longer had the power to grant land, and as a natural result all land came eventually to be the private possession of the common people. Although there were intervals such as the T'ai-ho period of the Wei (227- 232 A.D.) or the Chen-kuan period of the T'ang (627- 649) when some effort was made to return to the system of the Three Dynasties, it was not long before these reforms became ineffective. This was because without a revival of feudalism it was impossible to restore the well-field system.
"In the ancient times of the Three Dynasties, the Son of Heaven could not hold private possession of the empire, but the Ch'in abolished feudalism and for the first time made the entire empire the domain of one man. In the Three Dynasties period, the common people could not claim the produce of the land as their private possession, but the Ch'in abolished the wellfield system and first granted the people the right to the produce of their land. Thus what the Ch'in ought properly to have granted to the feudal lords it took away, and what it ought properly to have taken from the people it granted to them. But this process has already gone on for such a long time that it would be exceedingly difficult to return to the old ways. If one were to try to revive feudalism, it would mean dividing and parceling out all the land again, and this would be the signal for confusion and strife. If one attempted to restore the well-field system, it would only invite resentment and bitterness. This is why the theories of scholars who recommend such a revival cannot be put into practice.
"The system of taxing the landholdings of the people but putting no restriction upon the size of their holdings began with Shang Yang (died 338 B.C.). The system of taxing people for the land they held but taking no consideration of whether they were adult or underage began with Yang Yen (died 781 A.D.). Thus Shang Yang was responsible for abolishing the excellent well-field system of the Three Dynasties, and Yang Yen was responsible for abandonment of the superior tax system of early T'ang. Scholars have been very critical of the changes made by these two men, but all later administrations have found it necessary to follow their systems. If they attempted to change back to the old ways, they found that, on the contrary, they only ended up in worse difficulty and confusion and both the nation and the people suffered. This is because the things appropriate to the past and those appropriate to the present are different. Thus I have devoted the first ()f my surveys to the land tax, tracing the development of systems of land tax through the ages, and adding to it a study of water control and of military and government farms, making seven chapters in all."
◇ ◇ ◇
Since the earliest times, the Chinese had viewed their country as a single entity bound together by oustoms and moral attitudes and ruled by one central authority. Historians of Sung realized, however, that there had been periods when this was not the case: the Spring and Autumn and the Warring States era of the late Chou, the Six Dynasties period between the Han and the T'ang and the Five Dynasties period between the T'ang and the Sung. China occasionally was fragmented into fractious small states. Barbarians or half-civilized peoples ruled in some of them. These small states fought each other endlessly during several of these eras. There were puppet emperors who reigned but did not rule, and ministers and generals who ruled but did not reign. Usurpations, assassinations and changes of dynasty were the rule rather than the exception.
Historians faced the problem of whether to regard the emperors of record as the rulers or to record the pragmatic truth. What were to be the tests of legitimacy? Sung historians were mostly pragmatists. They rejected the Han theories of dynastic succession and looked for the historical facts. They tended to hold that the test of a dynasty was whether it ruled as well as reigned and whether it unified China. Sung writers followed the Confucian example of using history to teach but insisted that the facts had to be accurate; otherwise there could be no learning. This is a selection from Ssu-ma Kuang on dynastic legitimacy:
"Your servant Kuang observes: Heaven gives birth to the multitudes of people. But conditions make it impossible for them to govern themselves, so that they must have a ruler to govern over them. Anyone who is able to prevent violence and remove harm from the people so that their lives are protected, who can reward good and punish evil and thus avoid disaster-such a man may be called a ruler. Thus before the Three Dynasties the feudal lords had a countless number of states, and anyone who had subjects and possessed altars to the soil and grain went by the name of ruler. But he who united all these countless states and who set up laws and issued commands which no one dared to disobey was called a king. When the power of the king declined, there were rulers of strong states who were able to lead the other feudal lords and enforce respect for the Son of Heaven and such were called 'overlords'. Thus since ancient times there have been instances when the world was in disorder and feudal lords contended with each other for power, and for a number of generations there was no king at all.
"After Ch'in had burned the books and buried the Confucianists alive, the Han arose, and at this time scholars first began to propound the theory of how the five agents produce and overcome each other according to which the Ch'in was an 'intercalary' reign coming between those of wood (Chou) and fire (Han), ruled by an 'overlord' and not by a true king. Thus began the theory of legitimate and intercalary dynasties.
"After the House of Han was overthrown, the Three Kingdoms ruled simultaneously, like the legs of a tripod. Then the Chin lost its control of the empire and the five barbarian tribes swarmed in. From the time of the Sung and Northern Wei, north and south were divided politically. Each had its own dynastic histories which disparaged the other, the south calling the north 'slaves with bound hair', the north calling the south 'island barbarians'. When Chu Ch'uan-chung succeeded to the T'ang, the empire was once again rent to pieces, but when the Chu-heh clan entered Pien and overthrew him they compared him to the ancient usurpers Yi and Wang Mang and discarded completely the chronology of his dynasty. All these are examples of biased phraseology based on personal interest and do not represent enlightened and just opinions.
"Your servant, being stupid, is surely not qualified to know anything about the legitimate and intercalary dynasties of former times. But he would be bold enough to consider that unless rulers were able to unite the nine provinces under one government, although they all bore the name Son of Heaven there was no reality behind it. Although distinctions may be made on the basis of the fact that one dynasty was Chinese and another foreign, one humane and another tyrannical, or that they differed in size and power, yet essentially they were just the same as the various feudal states of ancient times. How can we single out one state for honor and call it the legitimate successor, and consider all the rest as false or usurpers?
"Are we to consider those states legitimate which received the throne from the hands of their immediate predecessors? Then from whom did the Chin receive the throne, and from whom the Northern Wei? Should we consider as legitimate those who occupied parts of China proper? Then we must recognize the rule of the (barbarian families) Liu, the Shih, the Mu-jung, the Fu, the Yao and the Ho-lien (of the Five Dynasties period), all of which ruled territory that had been the domain of the ancient five emperors and three kings. Or are we perhaps to make virtuous ways the criterion of legitimacy? But even the tiniest state must sometimes have its good sovereigns, while in the declining days of the Three Dynasties there were surely unrighteous kings. Thus from ancient times to the present these theories of legitimate dynasties have never possessed the kind of logic sufficient to compel men to accept them without question.
"Now your servant has sought only to trace the rise and fall of the various states and make clear the people's times of joy and sorrow so that the reader may select for himself what is good and what is bad, what is profitable and what unprofitable, for his own encouragement and warning. He has no intention of setting up standards of praise and blame in the manner of the Spring and Autumn Annals which could compel a disorderly age to return to just ways.
"Your servant does not presume to know anything about the distinctions of legitimate and intercalary, but treats each state only in accordance with its actual accomplishments. Chou, Ch'in, Han, Chin, Sui and T'ang each in turn unified the nine provinces and transmitted the throne to its descendants. And though their descendants in time grew weak and were forced to move their capitals, they still carried on the undertaking of their ancestors, continued the line of succession and hoped to bring about a restoration of power. Those with whom rulers contended for power were all their former subjects. Therefore your servant has treated these rulers with all the respect due the Son of Heaven. All other states that were approximately equal in territory and virtue and unable to overcome each other, and which employed the same titles and did not stand in a ruler-subject relationship, have been treated the same as the ancient feudal states, presented equally and without favoritism. This way would seem to avoid doing violence to the facts and accord the fairest treatment.
"Nevertheless for times when the empire was split up it is necessary to have some overall chronology in order to distinguish the sequence of events. The Han transmitted rule to the Wei, from whom the Chin received it; Chin passed it on to Sung and thence to Ch'en, whence Sui took it; T'ang passed it to the Latter Liang and so down to the Latter Chou, from whom our great Sung inherited it. This does not mean, however, that one state is being honored and another disparaged, or that any distinction of legitimate or inter- calary dynasties is intended."
◇ ◇ ◇
Chu Hsi laid down a set of general principles for his students to follow in compiling a digest of the General Mirror. He was convinced of the necessity for careful use of terminology and accuracy in reporting the facts. This is an excerpt from his instructions:
"The legitimate dynasties are Chou, Ch'in, Han, Chin, Sui and T'ang. Feudal states are those which have been enfeoffed by legitimate dynasties. Usurpers are those who usurp the throne, interfere with the legitimate line of succession and do not transmit their rule to their heirs. The periods in which there is no legitimate line appear between Chou and Ch'in, Ch'in and Han, Han and Chin, Chin and Sui, Sui and T'ang, and the Five Dynasties period.
"Rulers of legitimate dynasties: those of Chou are called 'kings', those of Ch'in, Han and after are called 'emperors'. Rulers of feudal states: those of Chou are referred to by state, feudal rank and name. Those who unlawfully usurped the title of king are referred to as 'so-and-so. the ruler of such-and-such a state'; from the Han on they are referred to as 'so-and-so, the king of such-and-such'. Those who usurped the title of emperor are referred to as 'so-and-so, the lord of such-and-such'. Those who revolted and usurped the throne of a legitimate dynasty are referred to by name only.
"Ascending the throne, legitimate dynasties: when the Chou kings passed their rule on to their heirs, write: 'his son so-and-so was set up' and note that this person then became king so-and-so. When the succession is by natural heir, write: 'so-and-so succeeded to the throne', When someone establishes a state and sets himself up as ruler, write: 'so-and-so set himself up as king of such-and-such'. If someone else sets him up, write: 'so-and-so honored so-and-so with such-and-such a title'. When someone usurps a state and begins to style himself emperor, write: 'so-and-so (title, family and personal name) styled himself emperor'. When the rule of a state is transferred to a brother of the ruler, this is called 'transmission'; when to someone else, it is called 'cession'.
"Deaths: In cases of ruler of legitimate dynasties, write 'deceased'; and if the death occurred outside the palace, note the place. If the ruler died before his first year of rule was out, write: 'departed'. If the person was stripped of his honors, write 'died'. In cases of grand empress dowagers, empress dowagers and empresses, write: 'Empress so-and-so of such-and-such a family, deceased'. In case of suicide, write: 'suicide'; where guilty of a crime, add the word 'crime'. Where the person was innocent but put in prison and died, write: 'imprisoned and killed'. Deaths of ex-empresses who had been demoted from their position need not be recorded, but if in the course of the narrative they are mentioned, write: 'died'. In cases where a state perished and the empress lost her rank but continued to maintain virtuous conduct and to strive for the restoration of the state, use her former title and write: 'deceased'. From Ch'in and Han on when a king or peer dies, in all cases write: 'died', but if the person were particularly worthy, note his posthumous name. In cases of rulers who usurped states and took the title of emperor, write: 'The lord of such-and-such a state, so-and-so, died'. For all rulers and chieftains of barbarian tribes, write: 'died', as well as for leaders of rebel bands.
"When the rulers of legitimate dynasties make progresses through the provinces, write: 'the emperor went to such-and-such a place'. When visiting offices or private houses, write: 'honored with a visit'; for schools use 'inspected' or 'observed'. If the ruler fled, this must be truthfully recorded.
"Diplomatic conferences should all be recorded. If there is a leader, write: 'so-and-so met so-and-so at such-and-such a place'. If there is no leader, write: 'so-and-so and so-and-so met at such-and-such a place'.
"In the case of legitimate dynasties, when inferiors turn against superiors, it is called 'revolt'. If it is planned but not carried out, write: 'planned revolt'. If troops are turned against the palace, write: 'raised troops and attacked the palace'.
"If there is a ruler in China at a time when the barbarians invade, write: 'invaded and plundered' or 'plundered such-and-such a district'. If the affair is minor, write: 'pillaged such-and-such a place'. If there is no ruler in China at the time, simply say: 'entered within the borders' or 'entered the passes'.
"When a legitimate dynasty uses troops against its subjects who have usurped or revolted, it is called subjugating' or 'putting down'; against barbarian tribes who are not subjects, it is called 'attacking'. When recording wars against enemy states, write: 'destroyed them'; against rebels and bandits, write: 'pacified them'.
"It is impossible to record the district, native town and geneaology of all men; only in the case of worthy men should these be briefly noted. In the case of the deaths of ministers, it is only necessary to record those of prime ministers. For worthy men note their office, honorary title, family and personal names, 'died', and add their posthumous name, but for ordinary men omit honorary title, family name and posthumous name.
"All natural disasters and prodigies should be recorded. In cases of lucky omens, some may be recorded to show that they are doubtful, others to show that they are frauds."