This ambitious book, which considers Chinese historiography from the “Age of Confucius” to the Qing, is a welcome addition to predecessors such as Charles S. Gardner's Chinese Traditional Historiography (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1938) and William G. Beasley and Edwin G. Pulleyblank's Historians of China and Japan (London: Oxford University Press, 1961). While its scope allows us to discern general trends in Chinese historiography, this work sometimes suffers from sweeping generalizations and problematic assumptions. Amid such accurate assertions as Chinese historiography's function as a means of “political legitimization and propaganda” (p. xi), one finds the statement that Confucius is “generally acknowledged as the author-editor of the Spring and Autumn Annals” (p. x). Most scholars reject the attribution of Confucius as the author of this text. Beyond occasional quibbles, however, readers will appreciate the readability of this work and its impressive use of scholarship to produce a cogent account of Chinese historiography through China's long past. One of the strengths of On-cho Ng and Q. Edward Wang's outline is their demonstration of how historical records evolved from Confucius's putative moralization of the shi (historian) tradition (p. 23), centered on apprehending the Way of antiquity, to the kaozheng (evidential methodology) historiography of the Qing, which was “counterbalanced by the historicist tendency to view the past as particular segments of time” (p. 258).

This study has eight chapters, each revolving around the historiographical trends of dynastic eras. Chapter 1, “The Age of Confucius,” traces the origins of shi from its meaning as an official title to its more general connotation of “history” and provides an excellent overview of how Confucius was appropriated as a model historian before Sima Qian (145–87 bce) and Ban Gu (32–92 ce). Chapter 2, “From the Warring States Period to the Han,” sketches how Warring States records such as the Chunqiu grow into more complex narratives in the Zuozhuan and Shangshu, and later progress to Sima Qian's more nuanced and personal work and Ban Gu's creation of the “dynastic history.” Chapter 3, “The Age of Disunity,” deals with history during the period of division between the Han (206 bce–220 ce) and Tang (618–907). Chapter 4, “The Tang,” takes up the Tang's codification of historical writing under the auspices of the new “History Bureau.” The Tang court's interest in transmitting its legacy “to posterity” (p. 111) precipitated more formalized and monitored histories. This chapter's most interesting contribution is its discussion of Liu Zhiji's (661–721) historical criticism.

Chapter 5, “The Song,” reviews Song historians such as Ouyang Xiu (1007–72) and Sima Guang (1019–86), and illustrates how Song historiography underscored the “connection between literary style and the presentation of historical truths” (p. 135). Chapter 6, “The Jin and the Yuan,” considers how non-Han courts employed historical records to secure dynastic legitimacy. Chapter 7, “The Ming,” discusses the proliferation of both private and institutional histories, such as Tan Qian's (1593–1657) Guoque (Evaluations of the Events of Our Dynasty) and the imposing Yongle Encyclopedia, while also suggesting that “innovations were few and far between in official historiography,” and that there were few “impressive historians” during the Ming (1368–1644) (p. 222).

Chapter 8, “The Qing,” argues convincingly that Qing (1644–1911) historians “sharpened the distinction between the past and the present” and, with perhaps the exception of Wang Fuzhi (1619–92), inaugurated the “preference for concrete learning” over the metaphysical speculations popular among Ming Neo-Confucians (p. 223). One of the most trenchant considerations is how the Manchu court centralized historical production, which developed into a kaozheng spirit, in which Qing historians moved away from writing novel histories, and instead “increasingly excelled in rewriting them” (p. 243). Ng and Wang document how such kaozheng historians as Wang Mingsheng (1722–97) and Qian Daxin (1728–1804) approached historical writing as morally didactic, while believing that praise and blame are best dispensed if facts are recounted “without concealment or adornment” (p. 244).

Ng and Wang have produced a much-needed survey of Chinese historiography. One objection is that the work's scope renders it difficult to go beyond the truism that didacticism characterizes China's histories; in short, it is difficult to identify a particular strand of inquiry or a theoretical lens to glean a novel view of Chinese historiography. That said, the authors masterfully demonstrate the evolutionary processes of Chinese historiography: classicality, caducity, and continuity. No previous work has so painstakingly illustrated China's “dogged insistence on decoding and revealing the meanings germane to the conduct of life” (p. 259). In addition, this book provides powerful evidence that Chinese historians did not disregard historical veracity for the sake of didactic purposes, but relied on an impressively wide use of evidence to recount the past. Ng and Wang have shown that despite previous misconceptions, Chinese historians “displayed a remarkable degree of evidential sophistication and thoroughness” (p. 260). Indeed, this book is a necessary antidote to several assumptions regarding Chinese historiography and a foundational work to which future studies will be indebted.