The Emperor’s Four Treasuries: Scholars and the State in the Late Ch'ien-lung Era
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Middle Qing censors, influenced by the evidential scholarship movement and maintaining a general bias against the literary production of the former dynasty, dismissed Ming essays on tea as works of poor scholarship and lacking in rigorous investigation, or as whimsical writings belonging to the contemptible genre xiaopin, all unworthy of consideration.
“Middle Qing censors, influenced by the evidential scholarship movement ( kaozheng xue 考證學 ) and maintaining a general bias against the whole literary production of the former dynasty, dismissed Ming essays on tea as works of poor scholarship and lacking in rigorous investigation, or simply as whimsical writings that belonged to the contemptible genre xiaopin 小品 (min”
From Chinese Writings on Tea (2017) · cites this paper as Guy 1987
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
Cited by 94
- Authors
- Guy, R. K.
- Corresponding author
- Guy, R. Kent
- Venue
- Harvard University Asia Center eBooks
- Publisher
- Harvard University Asia Center
- Published
- 1987-01-01
- OpenAlex
- W2141460454
- Cited by
- 94
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.04
- Type
- book
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Harvard University Asia Center eBooks (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Chinese history and philosophy
- Social Sciences › Cultural Studies › Japanese History and Culture
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History › Libraries, Manuscripts, and Books
- Keywords
- Imperial Library, book history
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
