Chinese Chronology and Cycles

Consequently, they sent translations of the primary Chinese historical books to Europe. There, French scholars original: "savants"—such as Deshauterayes in his "observations" introducing De Mailla's General History of China original: "Histoire Générale de Chine", Fourmont, Rémusat, Pauthier, and Biot—immediately accepted their authenticity. They did so because the records came from authoritative and respected Roman Catholic missionaries who had recommended and adopted them as trustworthy. Fréret extensively examined the specific subject of Chinese chronology in the 13th and 14th volumes of his works (Paris, 1796), as did Gaubil in his Treatise on Chinese Chronology original: "traite de la Chronologie Chinoise". Both of these authors presented nearly every argument that can be made in its favor.

Other missionaries, however, such as Cibot and Prémare (in his "preliminary discourse" to Gaubil’s French translation of the Shujing original: "Shoo-king," the Classic of History), took the opposite view. By carefully examining what even some Chinese writers themselves had written about their own chronology, they concluded that they were justified in doubting the credibility of the Chinese historical system. Naturally, this skepticism was also shared by scholars in Europe, such as De Guignes (in his preface to Gaubil's French translation of the Shujing), Klaproth in his Memoirs on Asia original: "Memoires sur L'Asie", the Reverend George Costard in Volume 44 of the Philosophical Transactions (page 476), the Abbé Renaudot, and M. Dortous de Mairan OCR original: "Dourtoux de"...