CHINESE CHRONOLOGY AND CYCLES.

Therefore, it is impossible in this current research to completely separate the study of chronology from that of history. However, the examination of history will only be secondary original: "subservient" to the study of chronology and will only occupy a minor position in this part of the investigation. The specific question of Chinese history will be discussed in Part II of this research.

The Roman Catholic missionaries who first examined Chinese historical literature in the 16th, 17th, and 18th centuries were so struck by its consistency and logic original: "regularity and cohesion" that several of them—such as Du Halde, Gaubil, Couplet, Visdelou OCR original: "Viseldou", Parrenin, Martini, Amiot, and De Mailla—unhesitatingly accepted the chronology it contained. In his "preliminary discourse" to De Mailla's History of China (Volume 1, page 22), the Abbé Grosier praises the Tong-kien-kang-mou original: "Tongjian Gangmu," a famous 12th-century historical work often translated as the "General Mirror for the Aid of Government", of which De Mailla’s work is a translation:

“The authority of these annals is unquestionable original: "irrefragable" in China, and
“the learned people of that empire show an esteem
“for this collection that is close to veneration.”

This sentence may be taken to express the opinion of all the missionaries mentioned above on the subject. However, De Guignes, in his preface to the Shoo-king original: "Shujing" or the "Classic of History," one of the Five Classics of Chinese literature (page 25),

“says that the long series original: "suite" of Chinese historical works
“has overwhelmed original: "imposed on" the missionaries and the scholars
“of Europe. Most of them have believed
“that Chinese chronology deserves special attention
“and that it is even preferable to any other similar
“system.”