Pathway to Japanese Literature

After the Records of the Grand Historian was completed, in the following generation, the work that succeeded it was the Book of Han; one of the differences that emerged between these two is that whereas the Records constitutes a comprehensive history, the Book of Han represents a dynastic history.
Subsequent historians—particularly those in China who produced works treated as official histories—all followed the Book of Han in creating dynastic histories owing to compilation convenience, while those who might have emulated the Records of the Grand Historian were absent for some time.
This later became contentious, with arguments emerging that histories ought to be written as comprehensive histories and that dynastic histories did not constitute true historical form—though this occurred during the Southern Song period, whereas prior to that time, historical commentators had generally favored dynastic histories.

Following the Records of the Grand Historian and Book of Han, varieties of historical works gradually increased. In the era shortly after the completion of the Records of the Grand Historian, Liu Xiang and Liu Xin created a comprehensive catalog of all books. This catalog is preserved today in the Bibliographical Treatise of the Book of Han, yet even examining it reveals that at this time there had not yet emerged a History section within book catalogs. However, by the time the Bibliographical Treatise of Sui History was compiled in the early Tang period, historical genres had multiplied sufficiently for a dedicated Histories section to emerge—the Sui Shu Jingji Zhi divided this section into official histories, ancient histories, miscellaneous histories, hegemonic histories, imperial diaries, precedents, bureaucratic systems, ceremonial protocols, legal codes, collected biographies, geographies, genealogies, and bibliographies.

The Bibliographical Treatise categorized all texts into four divisions—Classics, Histories, Philosophers, and Belles-lettres—with Histories constituting a major portion thereof. From that time until today, bibliographic classification has largely followed this model. Among these categories: official histories chronicled successive dynasties individually; ancient histories followed annalistic formats; miscellaneous histories freely documented matters excluded from both official and ancient histories; hegemonic histories derived their name from recording states during the Northern and Southern Dynasties period that lacked imperial legitimacy; imperial diaries contained daily records by monarchs' close attendants; precedents preserved ancient ceremonial customs resembling but distinct from current protocols; bureaucratic systems detailed official institutions; ceremonial protocols codified contemporary ritual procedures; legal codes compiled statutes; collected biographies documented individual lives and special events; bibliographies formalized cataloging scholarship.

It was through establishing such categorical distinctions that between Han and Tang dynasties historiographical forms developed complex structures. This evolution accordingly brought transformations in both content organization and compilation methodologies.

In the initial period spanning the Records of the Grand Historian, Book of Han, and Records of the Three Kingdoms, historians maintained a consistent methodology for handling source materials when composing historical works. This primarily involved incorporating source materials into historical records with minimal alteration. However, even when adopting materials verbatim, compilers necessarily selected those deemed accurate by contemporary standards.

Among these works, texts like the Records of the Grand Historian—when evaluated through modern evidentiary standards—contain substantial legendary elements that cannot be considered factual. This perceived inaccuracy stems from modern historiographical approaches that prioritize documentary verification over traditional narrative preservation.

When comprehensive documentation became established during the medieval period, factual verification grew straightforward. However, for eras predating written records—when historical knowledge circulated through oral traditions—compilers faced an unavoidable dilemma: complete rejection of these accounts would erase historical memory, necessitating selective incorporation of plausible narratives.

The Records of the Grand Historian exemplified this approach by privileging accounts deemed elegant and refined—an unavoidable compromise when reconstructing legendary epochs. By contrast, subsequent works like the Book of Han and Records of the Three Kingdoms prioritized preserving original textual sources whenever possible.

The practice of substantive textual revision emerged with Fan Ye's Book of the Later Han. This development arose from multiple factors: practical demands for concision as source materials proliferated while maintaining conventional work lengths; Fan Ye's personal ambition to craft literary masterpieces through stylistic refinement; and increasing reliance on secondary compiled sources rather than primary documents during his era.

Contemporary works like Shen Yue's Book of Song—compiled directly from primary sources—demonstrated greater fidelity to original texts. Nevertheless, this trend toward textual modification reached its zenith during early Tang dynasty historiography when Emperor Taizong commissioned the Jin Shu.

Compilers synthesized eighteen preexisting Jin histories through aggregation rather than direct source consultation, producing a composite text increasingly divorced from original documents. Nearly contemporaneously, Li Yanshou's Northern and Southern Histories further abstracted source materials through excessive simplification of Northern and Southern Dynasties chronicles.

These practices gradually normalized textual alteration rather than preservation. Particularly significant was the Northern and Southern Dynasties transition from rigid parallel prose to classical prose approximations in historical writing—a stylistic shift initiated through Northern and Southern Histories revisions.

Despite these changes, Tang historiography remained dominated by parallel prose conventions. The Old Book of Tang compiled during Five Dynasties largely maintained this tradition until Song dynasty scholars Song Qi and Ouyang Xiu radically transformed source texts in their New Book of Tang revision.

Song Qi's personal preference for classical prose over parallel style drove extensive conversion of Tang documents into prose formats. This extreme departure from original texts produced passages verging on illegibility through excessive editorial intervention.

This became the prevailing trend in historiography at the time, and shortly after the *New Book of Tang*, Sima Guang compiled the *Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government*. While this work rejected sourcing materials from the *New Book of Tang* in favor of the *Old Book of Tang*, its historical methodology ultimately adhered closely to the New Book’s format.
This stemmed in part from a prevailing notion among the Chinese that skill in writing lay in composing concise texts, resulting in historians becoming satisfied with producing historical accounts that strayed far from original sources.

Another notable transformation occurred in historiographical practice: whereas historical works until the Tang dynasty had largely been private endeavors emerging from family scholarship, from Tang onward they became products of collaborative compilation by multiple scholars. When composing the *Records of the Grand Historian*, Sima Tan and Sima Qian—father and son—successively served as court historians across two generations, establishing this work as an achievement of a historian household. The *Book of Han* originated from Ban Gu's father Biao's ambition to continue where the *Records* left off; Ban Gu developed this gradually evolving project before his sister Ban Zhao supplemented its deficiencies. This familial transmission created what might be termed an oral tradition within the Ban household—contemporaries reportedly consulted Ban Zhao regarding obscure passages in the *Book of Han*. Subsequently through the Six Dynasties period, historians predominantly practiced their craft through paternal succession. The *Book of Liang* and *Book of Chen* emerged from the father-son pair Yao Cha and Yao Silian; the *Book of Northern Qi* from Li Delin and Li Baiyao; and the *Histories of Northern and Southern Dynasties* from Li Dashi and Li Yanshou—all exemplifying this familial model. Even single-generation households produced works representing unified family scholarship. Consequently, historians wrote with distinct conceptual frameworks, laboring over historical judgments rooted in personal convictions. While compilers' prefaces explicitly stating authorial intent—as seen in the *Records* and *Book of Han*—represent the ideal, even works lacking such declarations embodied their creators' familial intellectual perspectives. This tradition completely collapsed with the *Jin Shu* compiled under Emperor Taizong of Tang. Devoid of any coherent vision and compiled not by professional historians but through collective efforts of scholars and literati employing divided compilation methods, the *Jin Shu* marked a paradigm shift. The contemporaneous *Sui Shu* followed this approach, institutionalizing collaborative compilation henceforth. To coordinate these efforts, chief compilers formulated editorial prefaces and guidelines that subsequent contributors mechanically followed—eliminating both personal insights into dynastic history and opportunities for scholarly excellence, thereby eroding the essential spirit of historical compilation.

On one hand, as historical compilation became official bureaucratic work, the institution of nominal supervised national histories emerged. During the Tang period, while the Secretariat had housed officials responsible for compiling histories, these positions were gradually absorbed into offices directly under the emperor, depriving historians of their autonomy to freely pass judgment. Furthermore, supervised national histories developed—a system where high-ranking officials unrelated to actual compilation merely lent their names, while those bearing no authorship responsibility occupied prominent positions. Consequently, historiography devolved into mere bureaucratic routine, stripped of its scholarly spirit. These aspects constituted the principal changes that had occurred up through the Tang dynasty.

As methods of historical compilation changed, their significance underwent transformation. In Sima Qian's era, compiling history meant establishing a distinct intellectual school through one's own creative work; later, this purpose shifted to merely compiling others' writings. The *Records of the Grand Historian* contained Eight Treatises corresponding to later Monographs, but their fundamental purpose differed from that of post-*Book of Han* Monographs. When addressing matters like ritual and musical systems, the Eight Treatises avoided documenting established ceremonial facts. They entrusted such details to official records while striving to capture how these institutional systems were actually implemented in practice. Though the *Book of Han* traced Han institutions back to pre-Han origins when writing about them, it failed to convey their transformative essence. Subsequent Monographs naturally could not surpass the *Book of Han*, resulting in the loss of the Eight Treatises' spirit as they devolved into mere bureaucratic transcriptions.

The *Records of the Grand Historian* pioneered biographical accounts that later generations imitated, though its biographies transcended mere chronicles of individual deeds—they contained narrative techniques illuminating contemporary circumstances. Chapters like "Biographies of the Moneyed," "Biographies of Confucian Scholars," and "Biographies of Knights-Errant" aimed not to memorialize wealthy individuals or scholars per se, but to reveal their societal relationships. After the *Book of Han*, this guiding principle gradually faded until historical accounts became reduced to recording individual achievements alone. Thus while historical formats became increasingly systematized, the vital spirit of historical writing steadily declined. Nevertheless, until early Tang times, traditional compilation methods remained partially preserved, with lingering traces of treating historiography as a family-based scholarly tradition.

Historical criticism arose during the early Tang period.
While commentaries on historiography had existed in varying forms since the *Records of the Grand Historian*—including instances like Fan Ye, author of the *Book of Later Han*, appraising his own work—the systematic general analysis of history as a discipline began with Liu Xie’s *Wenxin Diaolong* from the Liang dynasty.
With the completion of Liu Zhiji’s *Shitong* (Generalities on History) in early Tang times, all historical works produced up to that point underwent critical evaluation.
The critiques in this *Shitong* influenced both contemporary and later generations, standing as the most authoritative work among historical commentaries through the ages.
This text not only evaluated preceding histories but also articulated principles for future historical writing—an aspect that constitutes its most penetrating insight.
Particularly regarding treatises, Liu argued for creating three new categories beyond existing ones: Treatises on Capitals/Cities, Lineages/Clans, and Local Products.
Capitals and cities held significance for national prosperity and decline, while lineages/clans warranted attention due to their prominence from Six Dynasties through Tang times.
"Local products" denoted regional specialties and commodities.
Ji Yun’s Qing-era *Shitong Xiao Fan*, which abridged the original by removing redundant sections, excised Liu’s proposal for these three treatises—yet evidence shows post-*Shitong* historians indeed attended to such concepts.
The Chancellor Genealogical Table in the *New Book of Tang* derived precisely from discussions about Lineage Treatises.
Moreover, Zheng Qiao’s Song-era *General History* contained twenty treatises corresponding to each period’s monographs, including Treatises on Capitals/Cities and Lineages/Clans alongside an Insects/Plants Treatise substituting for Local Products.
Thus Liu Zhiji’s theories maintained enduring influence.
Though notorious for vitriolic critiques deemed excessively harsh, his comprehensive historical synthesis and guidance for future scholarship must be acknowledged as masterful.
Through this *Shitong*, a comprehensive historiography spanning from the *Records of the Grand Historian* through Tang times was codified.

From this point onward, history enters a new era; however, there are significant aspects in the history of historiography that demand attention—precisely in what has been overlooked during this period, such as the Bibliographical Treatise of Sui History and the Shitong.

One was the treatment of historical facts not through biographical accounts or annalistic formats but through encyclopedic compilations.
This approach had existed since Han times when emperors commissioned such works as memoranda for grasping historical realities.
Examples included Liu Xiang’s *Garden of Persuasions*, *New Prefaces*, and *Biographies of Exemplary Women*.
The method’s practicality gradually popularized its use during subsequent eras—Six Dynasties records suggest diverse applications emerged.
Some compilations aimed not merely at chronicling events but preserving comprehensive cultural memory.
Later developments saw literati-officials repurpose these encyclopedias beyond imperial use cases—providing rhetorical flourishes for ornate parallel prose while increasingly incorporating historical materials.
Among works bridging historical monographs and this genre stood Du You’s *Tongdian*, widely regarded as its masterpiece.
Though conceived initially as reference tools when crafted by historically-minded scholars they transcended mere utility—the *Tongdian* exemplified this duality by categorically analyzing institutional evolutions while discerning causal patterns and developmental trajectories.
Contrasting mainstream Chinese historiography’s antiquarian fixation this work uniquely framed modernity’s progression beyond classical paradigms.
Such encyclopedic histories often suffered scholarly neglect—dismissed either as apolitical references or narrowly classified governance manuals—yet their lowest valuation still merits recognition as mnemonic repositories while pinnacles like *Tongdian* systematically charted civilizational advancement through institutional metamorphosis.

Another aspect is historical annotations.
The practice of annotating classical texts flourished as early as the Han dynasty, but the earliest instance of applying annotations to historical works appears in the *Book of Han*. Its compilers, recognizing that certain passages would remain obscure except to those directly involved in its compilation, embedded explanatory notes that came to form its commentary.
When a historical work was later produced, a practice arose of gathering divergent materials and compiling them as reference works for that history.
Pei Songzhi’s annotations to the *Records of the Three Kingdoms* from the [Liu] Song dynasty exemplify this practice.
The author of the *Records of the Three Kingdoms* selected materials they deemed accurate for inclusion in the main text, even when various sources were available. However, later generations found value in consulting materials that diverged from these selections, which led to the creation of such annotations.
The annotations to the *Records of the Three Kingdoms* serve as a valuable reference for later generations due to their material richness.
In later periods, annotations written in this style became rare in official histories, though a notable exception is the annotations to *Shishuo*.
Li Shan’s commentary on the *Wenxuan*—while the work itself is literary—consists largely of annotations compiled from historical materials.
Among this type of annotation, examples from the early Tang period include Yan Shigu’s annotations on the *Book of Han* and Zhanghuai Taizi’s annotations on the *Book of the Later Han*. While these do not collect alternative theories as extensively as those in the *Records of the Three Kingdoms*—focusing primarily on textual explanations—some do incorporate differing oral traditions, proving valuable for later research.
This style of annotation ended with the early Tang period and did not continue thereafter.

In the subsequent era, historical writing underwent a complete transformation—a shift that began with the compilation of the New Book of Tang and New History of the Five Dynasties during the Song dynasty.
The Tang historical record existed through the Old Book of Tang compiled in the Five Dynasties period; up through this Old Book's completion, compilers had employed pre-existing materials in their original form using Tang-era historiographical methods.
However, the New Book of Tang operated from its inception under a distinct principle—one aiming for greater concision than previous works while expanding event coverage.
Though concise historical writing had been practiced since the Histories of Southern and Northern Dynasties as previously noted, Song compilers took this approach to extremes.
Consequently, nearly all verbatim reproductions of source texts disappeared.
When chronicling three centuries of Tang imperial annals, not a single edict was recorded—not even Dezong's famed self-reproaching proclamation drafted by Lu Zhi during the capital flight, which famously mobilized troops and civilians to hasten restoration.
Defenders argue that increasing factual complexity in later eras necessitated compression within traditional narrative scope—a view some extend to all post-classical histories.
Others counter that forcing modern complexities into ancient formats constitutes methodological error.
Regardless of criticism over source alteration for brevity, the New Book became paradigmatic for subsequent histories.
This stemmed partly from official documents' declining classical elegance in later eras—Chinese historians naturally revised them to restore literary dignity.
Compilers Song Qi and Ouyang Xiu particularly favored classical prose styles of Han Yu and Liu Zongyuan, radically rewriting most sources yet preserving Han-Liu texts intact.
This classical preference—rooted in Han Yu's tradition—led them to study Records of the Grand Historian and Book of Han, adopting their vivid narrative techniques resembling later fiction.
Formal parallel prose materials required revision to achieve this vitality—especially bureaucratic documents inherently resistant to lively narration.
They consequently turned to incorporating materials from unofficial histories and anecdotal accounts.
In modern terms, this paralleled using both government gazettes and newspaper articles as sources.
This marked a fundamental shift in historical practice.
Where Old Book of Tang had relied solely on official records, New Book pioneers drew from unofficial histories and popular narratives.

At the same time, both the New Book of Tang and New History of Five Dynasties employed the Spring and Autumn Annals methodology.
While the New Book of Tang did not fully commit to this approach—merely adopting direct recording to capture the essence of the Annals—the New History of Five Dynasties implemented a method resembling the Annals themselves, imbuing each character with meaning while making meticulous distinctions.
Consequently, annotations had already been appended to the New History of Five Dynasties during its time of circulation, primarily created to explicate its methodological principles.
In any case, it may be stated that after the completion of the New Book of Tang, this methodology persisted essentially unchanged until the Ming History was compiled in later times.

On another front, there were instances where the transformation of historical materials became unavoidable. Chinese historiography had as its primary task documenting matters centered around the Son of Heaven and his surroundings; however, this became markedly incomplete after the Tang dynasty. China maintained an Office of Imperial Diaries whose exact origins remain unclear but which already existed during the Sima Jin period. This institution claimed to preserve historiographical methods dating back to the Three Dynasties—officials of low rank who stood beneath the imperial seat to record the emperor’s words and deeds exactly as witnessed. The convention of remaining free from imperial oversight had been established since antiquity. Originally, this office was held concurrently by those empowered to freely critique even the emperor's actions. This practice derived partly from aristocratic governance between the Six Dynasties and Tang periods—an era when emperors lacked absolute authority and their conduct remained open to criticism. With the Tang dynasty's establishment, this arrangement came to be seen as disadvantageous to imperial authority. When Emperor Taizong of Tang requested to review the Imperial Diaries, Remonstrance Official Zhu Zishe declared: "The Son of Heaven need not view the Diaries. Should this precedent take root, mediocre sovereigns will resort to artifice, making historiographers’ candid records impossible." Later, when Chu Suiliang oversaw the Diaries as Remonstrance Official, Emperor Taizong again inquired about accessing them but received the same refusal. A theory persists that Emperor Wenzong of Tang later viewed them.

When it came to the Song dynasty, there was a major change: after compiling the entries of the Imperial Diaries, they were shown once to the Son of Heaven before being returned to the compilation officials.
This led to a tendency where the written records of the Imperial Diaries ceased to be candid accounts.
As a result, this conversely gave rise to a tendency where people had to place greater trust in unofficial histories and anecdotal accounts.
The method of maintaining the Office of Imperial Diaries was preserved with relative accuracy in Korea; however, about two hundred years ago, due to factional struggles, they rewrote all existing histories, rendering what remains today untrustworthy.
In any case, after the Song dynasty, with the establishment of autocratic monarchy, the method of writing history changed.

While the New Book of Tang brought changes to historical form, what effected yet another major transformation was Sima Guang’s Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government.
Fundamentally composed as a reference for the Son of Heaven’s governance, this work marked a complete metamorphosis in histories written for imperial guidance.
During the Song dynasty under Emperor Zhenzong’s reign emerged the monumental encyclopedic reference work *Cefu Yuangui*.
Compiled expressly for imperial comprehension of historical facts, it systematically categorized all events.
Though convenient for factual reference, this mere collation lacked the compiler’s interpretative spirit.
While invaluable today as a historical resource, it originated purely as an imperial memorandum.
The Comprehensive Mirror transcended mere memoranda; it signified nothing less than the renaissance of comprehensive history.
Since the Records of the Grand Historian’s completion, annalistic histories had waned in popularity—the Bibliographical Treatise of Sui History’s designation of these as “ancient history” indicating their alignment with the Zuo Zhuan’s pre-Sima Qian format.
Not that comprehensive histories vanished entirely; though none survive, records mention Emperor Wu of Liang commissioning such a work.
Even biographical-historical style histories often preserved comprehensive elements within their treatises.
Shen Yue’s Book of Song treatises exemplified this by comprehensively addressing post-Later Han developments.
Moreover, the Sui History treatises—originally titled History of Five Dynasties Treatises—adopted comprehensive form through their coverage spanning Northern Qi, Northern Zhou, Sui, Liang and Chen dynasties, though complete histories in this format had long disappeared.
The Comprehensive Mirror revived this tradition through its annalistic compilation from Warring States to Five Dynasties eras while chronicling temporal shifts and articulating rulership principles.
This transcended mere factual chronicling to illuminate historical cycles of order and chaos—a paradigm shift in imperial historiography.
It asserted that rulers must grasp these cyclical patterns rather than mere events.
Thus emerged such works from autocratic monarchy’s demand for sage-like sovereigns approaching Confucian idealization.

This exerted a profound influence on contemporary historiography, and numerous histories written in the *Comprehensive Mirror*'s format appeared thereafter.
Of course, the *Comprehensive Mirror*'s influence extends beyond this.
This stems partly from its compilation methodology's impact, and additionally from supplementary writings produced after its completion.
The primary methodological innovation lay in creating draft compilations.
Producing such drafts prior to final compilation proved an effective technique.
This involved chronologically extracting all source materials, then summarizing and arranging them annually.
They condensed these into works of manageable length.
This method remains employed in *Dai Nihon Shiryo*'s draft compilation.
In China too emerged numerous unfinished draft compilations following this approach.
Regarding source selection policies, like the New Book of Tang before it, the *Comprehensive Mirror* incorporated anecdotal accounts—a practice yielding mixed results yet reflecting period norms when classical prose modeled on Records of the Grand Historian dominated scholarship.
Supplementary works accompanying the *Comprehensive Mirror* included catalogs and textual analyses (kaoyi).
The chronicle's vast temporal scope necessitated indexes for practical consultation.
Catalogs essentially functioned as chronological tables doubling as indexes.
Kaoyi involved documenting editorial decisions about source inclusion—a necessity when synthesizing diverse materials to preempt skepticism.
Such rigorous source treatment marked significant progress in historical scholarship.
While imperial historiography required no such measures, distinguished scholar-compilers established methodologies that became models for posterity.

Since the completion of the *Comprehensive Mirror*, numerous works emerged under its influence—books documenting periods predating its coverage, those recording subsequent events, and histories composed in either the *Comprehensive Mirror*’s style or that of draft compilations—collectively advancing Song dynasty historiography.
Among these, Yuan Shu’s Southern Song-era *Comprehensive Mirror for the Thorough Examination of Events and Their Origins* stood out as particularly remarkable.
As the *Comprehensive Mirror* followed an annalistic format—where matters spanning multiple years were split into separate entries, causing inconvenience—this *Comprehensive Mirror for the Thorough Examination of Events and Their Origins* was compiled to prioritize narrative continuity, extracting entries from the *Comprehensive Mirror* and organizing them by event.
This later became an essential form of historical writing in China, where previously there had been only two styles—the biographical-historical and annalistic—the addition of event-based historiography creating a tripartite system.
Yuan Shu simply created excerpts for convenience’s sake, without any grand design; yet Chinese historiographers evaluated that this resulted in the most convenient and advanced format in historical writing.

As another manifestation of the Comprehensive Mirror's influence in compiling comprehensive history through annalistic style, during the Southern Song period there emerged works composed as comprehensive histories in biographical-historical form. Zheng Qiao's General History is one such work. Zheng Qiao was a great historiographical theorist who wrote this text proclaiming that history must be comprehensive history, asserting that Ban Gu's creation of dynastic history represented the decline of historiography. Beyond biographical accounts, he compiled Twenty Treatises containing materials resembling formal treatises and created chronological tables designated as "genealogical records." While he stood as a great historiographical theorist, the execution of his General History appears overburdened and insufficient compared to his theoretical contributions. What proves most crucial in the General History remains its introduction.

It could be said that this emphasis on comprehensive history stemmed from the revival of historiography during the Song dynasty; however, what stood out during this period was the renewed prominence of debates over political legitimacy.
China being a land of revolutions where imperial surnames frequently changed meant periods of disunity persisted even after unification—as seen with Qin Shi Huang or the Sui dynasty—where dynastic collapse occurred before institutions could permeate all China due to short reigns.
This sparked debates about whether such regimes deserved recognition as legitimate successors.
Scholars fiercely disputed these matters: some argued legitimacy need not flow unbroken through successive dynasties, while others insisted continuity required designating orthodox lines—as seen in heated arguments over which Three Kingdoms faction held legitimacy.
When contemplating pan-dynastic histories spanning centuries, such debates naturally emerged.
The work that systematically applied Spring and Autumn Annals methodology to these legitimacy debates within the Comprehensive Mirror framework was Zhu Xi’s Outline and Details of the Comprehensive Mirror.
While the New History of Five Dynasties had notably employed Spring and Autumn Annals’ moral judgments—albeit unrelated to legitimacy debates and limited to specific evaluations—Zhu Xi’s work sought to compose history through the Annals’ core principle of grand unification.
Though containing character-by-character appraisals, these derived from unification ideology and were applied to Comprehensive Mirror’s factual records.
Sima Guang had written his Comprehensive Mirror in Zuo Zhuan style, believing objective facts would inherently reveal significance without explicit judgments—but Zhu Xi, unsatisfied with this approach, revived methodologies reaching back to Spring and Autumn Annals’ original text.
This marked a significant evolution in Song historiographical philosophy.

In the Song dynasty, there emerged developments in auxiliary disciplines supporting historiography.
This was epigraphy.
The application of metal and stone inscriptions to historical verification had existed since earlier times, with documented instances such as using Qin measurement weights to correct textual errors in Records of the Grand Historian as seen in Yan Family Instructions.
From Tang through Five Dynasties periods, this practice gradually continued—when Guo Zhongshu compiled Han Jian, he incorporated ancient scripts from metal and stone inscriptions.
However, systematic collection of such materials for historical use truly began with Ouyang Xiu's Collected Records of Antiquity from Song dynasty.
Subsequently appeared specialized works on bronze inscriptions like Kaogu Tu (Illustrated Archaeologia) and Bogu Tu (Illustrated Studies of Antiquity), while Zhao Mingcheng produced Jinshi Lu (Records of Metal and Stone) focusing particularly on stone inscriptions.
Even during Southern Song period, numerous scholarly works on bronze inscriptions continued to emerge.
These efforts significantly benefited both classical studies and historiography.
The foundation for Qing dynasty epigraphy was largely laid during this formative period.

In addition, bibliography contributed significantly to the advancement of historiography.
It was Zheng Qiao who first treated this as a scholarly discipline.
He wrote the Treatise on Textual Criticism within the General History, which treated bibliography entirely as a scholarly discipline.
The Bibliographical Treatise he wrote was composed according to the principles laid out in the Treatise on Textual Criticism.
Although bibliography did not immediately benefit historiography at the time, it was Zheng Qiao’s establishment of this discipline that became the root cause enabling bibliography to serve historiography in later periods.

These constitute the general outline of Song dynasty historiography, but what deserves attention from the late Song to early Yuan period are Wang Yinglin’s *Ocean of Jade* and Ma Duanlin’s *Comprehensive Examination of Literature and Documents*. These works were not originally written for historiography, but their outcomes ultimately proved beneficial to the field. From the Tang through Song periods, officials known as the Inner Secretariat and Outer Secretariat drafted imperial edicts for the Son of Heaven. Those who composed these documents needed thorough knowledge of historical precedents. Consequently, numerous encyclopedic reference works had emerged since Tang times to meet this demand. By the Song era, this practice came to be called *jigaku* (rhetorical studies) or *shigaku* (literary composition studies). The *Ocean of Jade* was principally created for this field of rhetorical studies. Wang Yinglin’s scholarship formed the foundation for Qing dynasty academic pursuits in multiple domains; through his engagement with rhetorical studies, he extended its applications and developed a distinctive methodology in bibliography. Specifically, he conceived a technique to partially reconstruct texts that appeared in ancient catalogs but no longer survived, thereby enabling scholars to grasp their essential content. This method involved extracting all relevant references to such works from classical texts, allowing reconstruction of their general substance—a methodology that would profoundly influence Qing scholarship. Beyond merely approximating textual contents, practitioners also compiled information about a work’s origins and collected historical critiques related to it. Though originally intended for rhetorical studies, these efforts ultimately coalesced into structures that served historiography’s needs.

The Comprehensive Examination of Literature and Documents was created for the policy studies of its time, whereas Wang Yinglin's Ocean of Jade had been produced for rhetorical studies.
The term *policy studies* emerged after Wang Anshi reformed the imperial examination system by requiring candidates to write policy essays in their tests—a change that necessitated knowledge of political and institutional developments across past and present eras. Even before Ma Duanlin's time, works had already been compiled for such studies. Ma's text largely modeled itself on the *Comprehensive Institutions*, structuring its content to serve policy studies—yet its execution ultimately transcended that narrow purpose. Together with the *Comprehensive Institutions*, it came to aid later historiography, evolving into something resembling a cultural history.
These two works were not necessarily intended for historiography, yet they became crucial writings for the field.

From the Song to Yuan periods emerged a distinctive type of historical work.
This occurred because the era could be termed China's age of geographical discovery, leading to the creation of various works on Southern Seas trade.
Starting from the Southern Song period, maritime trade with the Southern Seas flourished, resulting in numerous independent volumes documenting the region's local products.
What has gained prominence in recent years is Zhao Rushi's *Zhufan Zhi*.
The foundation for this Southern Seas focus however lay in the development of Arab trade during the Tang dynasty.
By the late Yuan period, Wang Dayuan's *Daoyi Zhilue* appeared, though various writings had existed prior.
These works have also recently been utilized by Western scholars researching Arab trade and as source materials for Indian Ocean studies, resulting in their particular prominence.

The Yuan dynasty saw no particularly notable developments in historiography. However, while possessing vast territories, it also undertook ambitious compilation projects at the imperial court; among these, works like the *Jingshi Dadian* reached over eight hundred volumes in total, though none survive today in complete form. This compendium comprehensively covered all matters concerning Yuan institutions and cultural artifacts, recording their origins and related facts—which explains why even its fragmentary remnants often serve as valuable historical materials. It appears that much of today’s *History of Yuan* also relies heavily on the *Jingshi Dadian*. Our current understanding of Yuan affairs likely became accessible primarily through this work. When Qing scholars searched for old Yuan writings, they excerpted portions of the extant *Jingshi Dadian* and published them as distinctive treatises—to such an extent that various such works appeared. Beyond government compilations, private collectanea flourished from this period onward. This method of gathering old texts into cohesive wholes is exemplified by the Song dynasty’s *Hundred Rivers Sea of Learning*, the oldest surviving example today. Its contents span diverse categories beyond history alone, with many qualifying as historical materials. Much about Song institutional precedents can be gleaned from its inclusions. This collectanea was created by Zuo Gui of the Southern Song. By the late Yuan period, Tao Zongyi wrote the *Chuogeng Lu*, compiling Yuan anecdotes and miscellaneous accounts while also producing the massive collectanea *Shuo Fu*. Though the existing *Shuo Fu* is said not to be the original version—making its original format unascertainable—it undeniably assembled an enormous number of texts. That it contains valuable materials is evident from how even this non-original edition preserves writings serving as historical sources.

At this time, regarding geographical matters, beyond those concerning the Southern Seas, there existed numerous travel accounts related to Mongolia and the Western Regions. This was naturally due to the Yuan dynasty's possession of vast territories spanning Eurasia, resulting in various travel records connected to their founding conquests—including those composed by Confucian scholars and Taoist priests who had been summoned by the reigning Son of Heaven—which continue to serve as authoritative historical materials concerning Mongolia and Central Asia even today.

When the Ming dynasty was established, the History of Yuan was compiled; however, the History of Yuan holds the poorest reputation among all official histories of successive dynasties.
This stems from its compilation being completed in too brief a period—resulting in sloppy aspects like duplicating the same individual’s biography—and most critically, from reproducing official documents without revision, leading to crude prose that fails to constitute proper historical form.
The Yuan dynasty issued edicts in Mongolian; when translating these into Chinese, rather than using classical language, they employed the contemporary vernacular of the time—and there are instances where these were directly recorded in historical texts.
While this practice was criticized, it remained confined to that single dynasty and later disappeared; however, the verbatim use of historical materials actually constituted a principle of pre-Tang historiography—one might view this as that principle having unexpectedly revived itself.
Admittedly, those of the Six Dynasties were in parallel prose; even when incorporated verbatim into histories, the writing appeared excessively ornate yet not crude.
It was because the Yuan dynasty’s historical materials were in the vernacular that they came under such criticism.
On the whole, while the History of Yuan lacks proper form as a compiled history, it possesses intriguing aspects when treated as historical material.

The History of Yuan was compiled in the early Ming period, though generally during this time, large-scale compilations continuing Yuan-era practices gained popularity.
Among major imperial compilations stood the Yongle Dadian—an encyclopedic reference work encompassing texts from antiquity to contemporary times—though many historical materials within it were only later discovered.
When scholarship flourished under the Qing dynasty, they extracted hundreds of works from the Yongle Dadian for inclusion in the imperially commissioned Siku Quanshu, which contained numerous historical materials.
While proving of little use to contemporaneous historiography, the Yongle Dadian greatly enriched later historical studies.
Additionally in historical works, there emerged the compilation of *Memorials of Famous Ministers Through the Ages*—an extraordinarily systematic project that remains valuable as historical material not only for its time but even today.

Furthermore, in the early Ming period, they further expanded the Southern Seas trade that had continued since the Song and Yuan periods to reach the African coast, so this region came to be called the Western Seas.
The terms "Eastern Seas" and "Western Seas" of that period were names created by dividing what is now called the Southern Seas into two regions.
Numerous books containing travel accounts and other records concerning this Western Seas were produced, and they serve as valuable resources for understanding the factual circumstances of that region today.
Those accounts were considered absurd during the Ming or Qing dynasties.
During the Yongle era, the eunuch Zheng He was dispatched to that region. These events became theatrical subjects under the title *Sanbao Taijian’s Voyages to the Western Seas* and were adapted into novels as well. Yet when examining these works, they contain fantastical elements akin to *Journey to the West*. However, the factual reality was verifiable: a stele commemorating Zheng He had been discovered in Ceylon some fourteen or fifteen years prior, inscribed in Chinese, Tamil, and Arabic with records of his donations to Buddhist temples—which provided solid evidence of these historical acts.

Generally speaking, Ming dynasty historiography had its origins in the Song and Yuan periods, but prior to the mid-Ming period could well be called an age of yeshi (unofficial histories), during which such works flourished widely among the populace.
Among them were works that intermingled truth and falsehood.
In the early Ming period, there existed various secret matters within the imperial court.
The Yongle Emperor usurped the throne from his nephew, the Jianwen Emperor; however, as Jianwen had disappeared without a trace, many unofficial histories concerning this event were produced.
In addition, under a tradition continuing from Song times, many officials recorded their own observations and experiences, giving rise to unofficial histories that used these as source material.
By the mid-Ming period onward, debates arose over whether to prioritize unofficial histories or court records, forming the foundation for changes in modern Chinese historiography.
At that time, Wang Shizhen and Jiao Hong distrusted unofficial histories and initiated an academic trend that emphasized court precedents.
While unofficial histories did contain historical anecdotes, they prioritized preserving entertaining narratives over factual accuracy, whereas court records sought to preserve precise accounts regardless of their appeal.
This singular shift profoundly influenced Chinese historiography.
The New Book of Tang and Comprehensive Mirror had adopted materials from unofficial histories to animate historical facts, establishing this approach as the compilation standard—a practice that reached its final development in Ming yeshi works, which exhibited tendencies toward journalistic fluidity until Wang Shizhen and Jiao Hong fundamentally transformed this trend.
This later informed debates during the Qing dynasty's compilation of the History of Ming, composed based on the study of historical precedents—discussions recorded in the guidelines of the Ming History Draft.
Particularly regarding the Jianwen Emperor's case—which became the debate's focal point—the History of Ming refused to recognize yeshi accounts.
This already represented one transformation in post-Song historiography; under special circumstances of that period, arguments emerged advocating that history should rely on accurate source materials and that such materials ought to be reproduced verbatim.
These debates centered primarily on comparisons between the New Book of Tang and Old Book of Tang.
During the mid-Ming period, Yang Shen compared these two works and demonstrated the Old Book's superior accuracy.
Subsequently, Gu Yanwu of the late Ming and early Qing periods became its most ardent proponent.
This developed into a broader debate transcending Tang historiography—a fundamental discussion about whether historical writing should prioritize verbatim transcription of sources—with arguments favoring unaltered documentation prevailing until the Ming History's compilation.

A peculiar individual emerged in the late Ming period.
That was Li Zhi (Zhuowu).
Though belonging to Wang Yangming's school, his academic style and conduct deviated from contemporary norms; while he gained followers, he also attracted numerous opponents and met an unfavorable end.
His approach broadly resembled Zen studies in character, formulating arguments that sought to dismantle not just historiography but successive Chinese dynasties' customs and practices.
He questioned the rationale behind upholding Confucius as the eternal moral standard since antiquity, rejected this perpetual criterion, and wrote history from this perspective.
This work was titled *Zangshu*.
While not useful for factual verification, one need only read its general discourse.
It maintained that the Spring and Autumn Annals had traditionally formed historiography's foundation precisely because Confucius created them.
However, declaring this could not remain eternally ideal, he overturned it root and branch while introducing novel perspectives in evaluating historical figures.
To Chinese contemporaries, these were radical arguments that shocked many.
Jiao Hong supported him.
At that time, Jiao Hong was an erudite scholar enjoying public trust; this status significantly aided Li Zhi in gaining societal credibility.
Yet even Li Zhi's theories ultimately failed to exert substantial influence during his era.
Gu Yanwu and others vehemently opposed him.
Thus his writings were temporarily consigned to obscurity by society, but recently with the Republic's establishment, adherents of his thought have begun emerging.

Among Jiao Hong's accomplishments were those that became models for later generations. He also displayed expertise in bibliography by compiling the *Guoshi Jingjizhi*, which was reproduced long ago even in Japan. Regarding the study of historical precedents, his methodology differed somewhat from Wang Shizhen's: while Wang focused on institutions and cultural artifacts, he gathered facts pertaining to biographies. With the establishment of the Qing dynasty, numerous works emerged emulating their approaches.

Another noteworthy development in late Ming was the emergence of historical geography as a field of study. While it did not produce academic masterpieces per se, scholars devised a map-making method that contrasted ancient and modern periods using vermilion and black ink divisions.
Wang Guanglu’s *Yueshi Yueshu* exemplified this approach.
When the Qing dynasty was established, many maps of administrative changes employing this stylistic convention were produced.

The historiography of the early Qing dynasty was entirely the scholarship of the late Ming loyalists.

After Emperor Kangxi suppressed the Three Feudatories and solidified his control over China, he gathered many scholars in Beijing for the compilation of the Ming History.
This became the foundational basis for the flourishing of Qing dynasty historiography.
The scholars recognized at that time were Huang Zongxi (Yuyao, Zhejiang) and Gu Yanwu (Kunshan, Jiangsu), with the former regarded as the founder of the Zhedong School and the latter as the founder of the Zhexi School.
Qing dynasty historiography developed around these two figures.
However, being Ming loyalists, they remained behind the scenes, leaving their close associates to take center stage.
Thus Wan Sitong, a disciple of Huang Zongxi, became the primary organizer of the Ming History compilation.
The Ming History took sixty years to complete with numerous contributors, but Wan Sitong truly formed its core—stationed in Beijing, he became the focal point for many scholars.
As for Gu Yanwu, his nephew Xu Qianxue gained Emperor Kangxi's favor and was permitted in his later years to return south, where he assembled scholars at Dongting Mountain in Taihu Lake to compile the *Comprehensive Geography of the Qing Empire*; there again many scholars gathered.
Though Xu did not directly transmit Gu Yanwu's scholarship, through his connection to both Xu and Gu, those who congregated there belonged to the Zhexi School—while this largely evolved into classical studies, their geographical compilation purpose produced figures like Gu Zuyu, who created the *Essentials of Historical Geography*.
These two scholarly groups ultimately connected with all Qing scholars and gave rise to the academic schools of the dynasty's early period.
Wan Sitong possessed remarkable memory—retaining knowledge down to which page of which book contained specific facts—and owing to his immense erudition, he left behind the renowned *Historical Tables of Successive Dynasties* while overseeing the Ming History compilation.
His approach essentially supplemented deficiencies in ancient historical works, constituting what might be called a scholarly discipline of revising older histories.
Among those gathered around Xu Qianxue were individuals like Yan Ruoqu who specialized in collating ancient texts.
Consequently, this school produced what could be termed a discipline of critically examining older histories.
This critical examination had its roots in Wang Yinglin's earlier work, continued through Yang Shen's efforts, saw methodological systematization under Gu Yanwu, and was subsequently inherited by his disciples.
These twin endeavors—revising older histories and critically examining them—may be said to encapsulate Qing historiography prior to the Qianlong era.
During this period emerged historical geography and epigraphic historical verification—the latter pioneered by Gu Yanwu—though these two remained primary objectives.
Later, after Qianlong's reign, historiographical theorists like Zhang Xuecheng appeared who went so far as to declare early Qing historiography unworthy of the name.
As an overarching historiographical principle, the trend exemplified by the Ming History—emphasizing source materials to transform academic approaches since the New Book of Tang—originated after mid-Ming times; what the late Ming loyalists initiated were precisely these two tendencies of revising and critically examining older histories.