James Mill, “Review of M. De Guignes, Voyages À Peking

James Mill, “Review of M. de Guignes, Voyages à Peking, Manille, et l’Ile de France, faits dans l’intervalle des a nnées 1784 à 1801,” The Edinburgh Review 14 (July 1809): 407-429. the original text In the small catalogue of rational books which we possess on the subject of China, this deserves to occupy a respectable station. The recent work of Mr Barrow is that with which it is most natural for us to compare it: and, though not in all, yet, in several respects we are inclined to give it the preference to that judicious publication. The author, from long residence in the country, and from a knowledge of the language, is less new to his subject, and more master of it. He has formed a more accurate estimate than Mr Barrow, of certain important particulars in the political and social state of the Chinese. But his book is not so rich, by any means, in facts. We have the author’s own observations on the appearances which struck him; and these are often very good — but Barrow has more uniformly described to us the various phenomena which presented themselves in the course of his interesting progress. It is true, indeed, and this is what should be remembered in behalf of both, that their opportunities of observing facts, by the restrictions, or rather imprisonment, under which they were held by the pitiful policy of this illiberal and ignorant people, were extremely circumscribed. The name of De Guignes is intimately associated with that of China in the minds of all those to whom the history of the oriental nations has been an object of attention. The translation of the Chou-king by M. de Guignes, with his preface and notes, published at Paris in 1770, and the Histoire des Huns, drawn from Chinese sources by the same hand, are among the most valuable monuments of Asiatic history which the industry and intelligence of the last century have brought to light. Our present author is the son of that celebrated orientalist; who, beside the writings which he gave to the public in his lifetime, left behind him [407] a variety of manuscripts, which the son is preparing to publish, and of which he has given us a list in the avant-propos to the present work. The education which he received from his father may be supposed to have fitted him, in a particular manner, for acting in China; and accordingly he had filled the office of French resident in that country, his principal abode being at Macao, for the space of ten years previous to the journey of the Dutch embassy to Pekin, after the return of the English ambassador, Lord Macartney, in 1794. M. de Guignes informs us, that, having long desired to penetrate into the interior of China, he eagerly seized the favourable opportunity which now presented itself. To M. Titzing, the chief of the embassy, who had corresponded on literary subjects with his father, he applied for leave to accompany him: This was readily granted; and accordingly, in the character of an interpreter in the suite of the Dutch ambassador, he twice traversed the empire of China from Canton to Pekin, going by one road, and returning by another. For the contents of the three volumes with which he has favoured us, a very short description must suffice. It is not our intention to follow the author in the line of instruction which he pursues, as an observer; but to collect the scattered lights which he and others afford us for illustrating the condition of the Chinese; and, amid the hyperbolical conclusions which it has been so much and so long the fashion to draw respecting the nations of the East, to see what the facts before us can, in the present, case, entitle us to support. The first part of the first volume is a summary view of the ancient history of China, not ascending higher than the reign of Yao, 2,357 years before Christ; nor descending lower than the 48th year of Ping-yang, the year 722 before Christ. This was by the author deemed useful to precede his description of the present state of China; and it is a document of the very highest value. Some of the important conclusions which it supports are thus presented by the author. [408] Je commence par donner un précis de l’histoire ancienne des Chinois, et je m’arrête à l’époque où elle prend un caractère plus authentique et plus vrai. La partie, d’ailleurs, de leur histoire que je rapporte me suffit, puisque, étant entièrement dépourvue de faits, extrêmement incertaine, et pour ainsi dire nulle sans les discours moraux qui la remplissent, elle démontre évidemment que, tandis qu’il subsistait de grandes puissances, que plusieurs royaumes même avaient déjà disparu de dessus le globe, l’empire de la Chine n’était, d’après le récit de ces propres historiens, que fort peu de chose dans ces temps reculés; qu’il n’était compose que de quelques hordes peu nombreuses, vivant au milieu de peuples barbares, et se portant souvent d’un lieu a un autre, suivant les circonstances ou les avantages qu’elles pouvaient retirer de semblables émigrations’; en un mot, que cet empire, loin d’exister, ainsi qu’on l’a prétendu, 3000 ans avant J. C, n’a été réuni, d’une manière stable, que depuis 529 ans. — En attaquant cette antiquité accordée par certains auteurs aux Chinois, je ne cherche point a établir un hypothèse nouvelle; ce n’est pas moi qui parle; je rapporte simplement les discours inserts dans le Chou-kingy, et j’en tire des conséquences à l’appui de mon sentiment. Thus do the 96 or 97 millions of years which some of the Chinese claim for the antiquity of their nation, as well as the four or five thousand which are claimed for it by many Europeans, vanish at once, leaving but little in the shape of a residue behind. As the Chou-king is before us in a European dress, and, though this is not the only Chinese authority of which the author avails himself in drawing up his summary, yet, as it is that on which his results chiefly depend, the authenticity of his premises may be verified by every man for his own satisfaction. As for the accuracy of his conclusions, whoever compares them with his premises will be qualified to judge. For the sake of those who will not take the trouble to explore the subject for themselves, it may be far from useless to corroborate the authority of M. de Guignes by that of one of the most penetrating, judicious, and most deeply informed of all inquirers into ancient history, the President Goguet. “What dependence,” says he, can we place upon the certainty [409] of Chinese chronology for the early times, when we see these people unanimously avow, that one of their greatest monarchs, interested in the destruction of the ancient traditions, and of those who preserved them, caused all the books which did not treat of agriculture, or of medicine, or of divination, to be burnt; and applied himself for many years to destroy whatever could recall the knowledge of the times anterior to his reign. About forty years after his death, they wanted to reestablish the historical documents. For that purpose, they gathered together, say they, the hearsays of old men. They discovered, it is added, some fragments of books which had escaped the general conflagration. They joined these various scraps together as they could, and vainly endeavoured to compose of them a regular history. It was not, however, till more than 150 years after the destruction of all the monuments, that is to say, the year 37 before Christ, that a complete body of the ancient history appeared. The author himself who composed it, Ssc-Ma-tsiene, had the candour to own, that he had not found it possible to ascend with certainty 800 years beyond the times in which he wrote. Such is the unanimous confession of the Chinese. I leave to be judged, after such a fact, the certainty of their ancient history. Accordingly we find, in treating of it, insurmountable difficulties and contradictions. There runs through it an uncertainty, like that which the chronologists find in their researches into the history of the Babylonians, the Egyptians, and in that of the first kings of Greece. Besides, it is equally destitute of facts, circumstances and details. The dynasty of Tchcou, the third in order from the beginning, mounted the throne in the year 1122 before J.C. The first sovereign of this race was Ven-vang. The state of China at that time, as represented by the native historians, is thus expressed by our author. Ven-vang et son fils Vou-vang régnaient dans les environs de l’endroit où est à présent Sy-gan-fou dans le Chen-sy, et n’occupaient pas un pays fort étendu, la plus grande partie de cette province étant possédée par des barbares. En général, ce qu’on appelle ville n’eût était point; les bourgs ou villages même étaient rares; il y avait quantité de grands pays incultes, qui ne furent défriches que depuis. La Chine, proprement, n’a été remplie de villes que beaucoup plus tard, et ces sont les Ttsin et les Han, qui, dans la suite, en ont le plus fait construire, pour maintenir les barbares qu’ils soumettaient. In the seventh year of the successor of Vou-vang, whose name was Tching-vang, our author says: Ce prince quitta Tcheou et alla à Fong.

Load more