HISTORIOGRAPHY AND STATECRAFT IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CHINA: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CHAO I (1727-1814).

Persistent Link:
http://hdl.handle.net/10150/185437
Title:
HISTORIOGRAPHY AND STATECRAFT IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CHINA: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CHAO I (1727-1814).
Author:
PRIEST, QUINTON GWYNNE.
Issue Date:
1982
Publisher:
The University of Arizona.
Rights:
Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.
Abstract:
Until recently, the majority of the studies of the intellectual history of late imperial China have interpreted Ch'ing dynasty scholarship in relation to the consolidation of Manchu political power and increased imperial authoritarianism in all areas of intellectual and cultural life. This study extends recent interpretations of the "internal" history of Ming-Ch'ing thought into the historical studies movement of the eighteenth century. It examines some of the earlier assumptions about the nature and functions of Ch'ing historiography to argue that eighteenth century historians, by concentrating on the textual problems in the standard histories, were consciously continuing statecraft commitments of their seventeenth century predecessors to a restored polity and public policy decisions based on historical texts. Without denying the real growth of the power and authority of the imperial institution in the Ming-Ch'ing period, this study further argues that it was in the nature of the traditional polity that the emperior play an important role in historical studies, dating to the Imperial Seminars of the Sung dynasty. In the eighteenth century not only did the emperor influence historians and their interpretation of the past; he also provided opportunities in the sponsorship of imperially commissioned works. The example of imperial patronage set the fashion of semi-official patronage of scholars, expanding the area of academic employment, and scholars moved freely between official, semi-official and private historical writing. Thus historiographic influences flowed in both directions from private historians to historian-officials and back again. This study recognizes the need for a quantitative examination of private scholarly activity in the Ming-Ch'ing period to support, deny or balance the "external" thesis that historical studies were distorted by Ch'ing authoritarianism and the "internal" one presented here. However, by summarizing the historiography of a broad range of presently well-known historians and closely examining the work of one historian, Chao I (1727-1814), this study has given specificity to the paradigmatic interpretations of "internalist" intellectual historians. Chao I's treatment of unofficial histories and the standard histories in the Nien-erh shi cha-chi are examined, together with several essays on institutional history. In form and content, they support the theses set forth in this dissertation.
Type:
text; Dissertation-Reproduction (electronic)
Keywords:
Zhao, Yi, 1727-1814.; China -- Historiography.; Political science -- China.; Public administration -- China.
Degree Name:
Ph.D.
Degree Level:
doctoral
Degree Program:
History; Graduate College
Degree Grantor:
University of Arizona

Full metadata record

DC FieldValue Language
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.titleHISTORIOGRAPHY AND STATECRAFT IN EIGHTEENTH CENTURY CHINA: THE LIFE AND TIMES OF CHAO I (1727-1814).en_US
dc.creatorPRIEST, QUINTON GWYNNE.en_US
dc.contributor.authorPRIEST, QUINTON GWYNNE.en_US
dc.date.issued1982en_US
dc.publisherThe University of Arizona.en_US
dc.rightsCopyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona. Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited except with permission of the author.en_US
dc.description.abstractUntil recently, the majority of the studies of the intellectual history of late imperial China have interpreted Ch'ing dynasty scholarship in relation to the consolidation of Manchu political power and increased imperial authoritarianism in all areas of intellectual and cultural life. This study extends recent interpretations of the "internal" history of Ming-Ch'ing thought into the historical studies movement of the eighteenth century. It examines some of the earlier assumptions about the nature and functions of Ch'ing historiography to argue that eighteenth century historians, by concentrating on the textual problems in the standard histories, were consciously continuing statecraft commitments of their seventeenth century predecessors to a restored polity and public policy decisions based on historical texts. Without denying the real growth of the power and authority of the imperial institution in the Ming-Ch'ing period, this study further argues that it was in the nature of the traditional polity that the emperior play an important role in historical studies, dating to the Imperial Seminars of the Sung dynasty. In the eighteenth century not only did the emperor influence historians and their interpretation of the past; he also provided opportunities in the sponsorship of imperially commissioned works. The example of imperial patronage set the fashion of semi-official patronage of scholars, expanding the area of academic employment, and scholars moved freely between official, semi-official and private historical writing. Thus historiographic influences flowed in both directions from private historians to historian-officials and back again. This study recognizes the need for a quantitative examination of private scholarly activity in the Ming-Ch'ing period to support, deny or balance the "external" thesis that historical studies were distorted by Ch'ing authoritarianism and the "internal" one presented here. However, by summarizing the historiography of a broad range of presently well-known historians and closely examining the work of one historian, Chao I (1727-1814), this study has given specificity to the paradigmatic interpretations of "internalist" intellectual historians. Chao I's treatment of unofficial histories and the standard histories in the Nien-erh shi cha-chi are examined, together with several essays on institutional history. In form and content, they support the theses set forth in this dissertation.en_US
dc.typetexten_US
dc.typeDissertation-Reproduction (electronic)en_US
dc.subjectZhao, Yi, 1727-1814.en_US
dc.subjectChina -- Historiography.en_US
dc.subjectPolitical science -- China.en_US
dc.subjectPublic administration -- China.en_US
thesis.degree.namePh.D.en_US
thesis.degree.leveldoctoralen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineHistoryen_US
thesis.degree.disciplineGraduate Collegeen_US
thesis.degree.grantorUniversity of Arizonaen_US
dc.identifier.proquest8309038en_US
dc.identifier.oclc688291982en_US
All Items in UA Campus Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.