Following my previous research, which examines the Chinese literary histories of the twentieth century, this paper seeks to examine the characteristics of editors' viewpoints and their editing systems by looking at four of the earliest published Chinese literary histories, those of Russian scholar V.P. Vasilév ≪A Brief History of Chinese Literature: Очерк истории китайской литературы; Očerk Istoriī Kitajskij Literatur(中國文學史綱要)≫ (1880), Japanese scholar Sadakichi Kojo(古城貞吉) ≪A History of Chinese Literature: 支那文學史≫ (1897), English scholar Herbert Allen Giles ≪A History of Chinese Literature≫ (1901), and German scholar Wilhelm Grube ≪A History of Chinese Literature: Geschichte der chinesischen Litteratur≫ (1902). V.P. Vasilév’s ≪A Brief History of Chinese Literature≫ was the first Chinese literary history to take a comprehensive analysis of the different literary genres. It therefore not only examined poetry and prose, but also Confucian canon, history, philosophy, and personal literary works. Vasilév also partially explored novels and drama, which was influenced by his more Western literary ideas. Sadakichi Kojo’s ≪A History of Chinese Literature≫, which was the first Chinese literary history to base periodization on dynasty change, focused on more traditional literary concepts, and therefore mostly neglected the novel and drama genres. Herbert Allen Giles’ ≪A History of Chinese Literature≫, which also based periodization on dynasty change, was remarkable for including an examination of the literature of the late Qing dynasty, which was the ruling dynasty at the time of the book’s publication. Like his Western contemporaries, he held the novel and drama genres favorably and included them in his book, alongside poetry and prose. Unfortunately, much of his descriptions of the novel and drama text were incorrect, owing to his limited research into Chinese novels and drama. Wilhelm Grube’s ≪Geschichte der chinesischen Litteratur≫, while including analysis of literature from early Confucian works to the novels of Ming and Qing dynasty, placed a large emphasis on early Chinese works. Four of the book’s 10 chapters focus on literature from before the Han dynasty. What is most unique about his work however is that he quotes a substantial amount of text translated from novels and drama, and compares it to Western texts. After comparing these first four scholars with those of three Chinese scholars (Dou Jing fan竇警凡, Lin Chuan jia林传甲, Huang Ren黃人) who were published shortly after, I can affirm that the most important issue at the time was concerning the idea of literary concepts. Most of the scholars generally hold fast to the Chinese idea of traditional literary concepts, which favor poetry and prose, considered as elegant literary genres by traditional scholars, while ignoring or excluding novels and drama, as these were considered vulgar literature. Dou Jing fan, Lin Chuan jia, and Sadakichi Kojo are most representative of this idea. While V.P. Vasilév mostly based his writing on traditional literary concepts, he also included novels and drama due to his more Western point of view. This viewpoint is even more apparent in the works of H,A. Giles and W. Grube. If we evaluate these early texts’ acceptance of traditional literary concepts, it is easy to critique their viewpoints based on current thought. But they have own historical importance as not only the first literary histories, but as source material that sparked discussion on traditional literary concepts and helped shape future Chinese literary histories.