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