More than 2,000 years ago, Sima Qian inherited his father's business, for a great work of the emperor, he traveled thousands of miles, traveled all over the country, interviewed many elderly people, read a lot of literature, and finally wrote the "History of History" in a few decades, ranking first in the twenty-four histories of China. In modern times, Lu Xun commented on the "History of History": "The historian's absolute singing, the rhymeless departure from the riot", which is not only the historian's masterpiece, but also has a literary value that is not inferior to the dissociation, which can be described as unique in ancient and modern China and abroad, and there is no one who has come after the ancients.
For such a world-class immortal masterpiece of historiography, in the eyes of Chinese, it is natural to believe in history, how do Western scholars view the "History of History"? In fact, Western scholars' evaluation of the "History" is less praise, more neutral, and some incomprehensible negative views - that the entire "History" is basically untrustworthy. So why do many Western scholars think it is not credible? Why it's worth pondering!
The history recorded in the "Records of History" is about 2500 years in between, from the time of the Yellow Emperor to the time of Emperor Wu of the Han Dynasty, with a total of more than 500,000 words. Such a huge work, as well as the limitations of the times, the limitations of material collection, was written by Sima Qian alone, and some mistakes were inevitable. However, the arguments of some Western scholars to deny the "Chronicle of History" are difficult to understand.
After the appearance of the "Xia-Shang-Zhou Dynasty Project", Western scholars believed that "China believed that the existence of the Xia Dynasty was a demon", and firmly believed that a non-existent Xia Dynasty had ulterior motives, but because the appearance of the oracle bone further confirmed the credibility of the "History", and then pointed to the "History" part of the Xia Dynasty may also be correct. As a result, many Western scholars have withdrawn their salaries and thus denied the credibility of the "Chronicle of History".
The Far East Economic Review quoted a "nameless" Western scholar as criticizing the "first king of the Shang Dynasty was conceived by his mother by stepping on the footprints of a big bird" as recorded in the Records of history, believing that this was a myth rather than history, thus denying the credibility of the entire History.
Needless to say, this "anonymous" Western scholar certainly has a negative view that is wrong for three reasons:
First of all, this "unknown" Western scholar should not know enough about the "History", because the Shang Dynasty's ancestor Shang Qi was when Jian Di was bathing, "saw the Bird fall into its eggs, Jian Di swallowed it, and was born out of pregnancy", and the Zhou Dynasty Ancestor Hou Ji was conceived by Jiang Yuan stepping on the footprints of the big bird. At the same time, this scholar also lacks understanding of Chinese literature, because the record of the origin of the merchant in the "Records of History" actually originates from the "Heavenly Destiny Xuan Bird, Descending and Giving Birth to the Shang" in the "Poetry Classic, Shang Ode", etc., not sima Qian made up history, but recorded the claims of his predecessors.
Secondly, whether it is the origin of merchants or Zhou people, it is indeed full of mythology, and it is naturally not credible from today's point of view, but the ancient history of each nation is full of myths, and certain things are packaged and repackaged, deified and deified. Modern scholars need to peel back the cloak of myth and find its truth, rather than completely denying it when they see it.
Third, the "History of History" has a total of more than 500,000 words, grasps a very small number of untrustworthy points, and then completely rejects the "History", believing that it is a pseudo-history, which not only lacks a scientific and rigorous attitude towards learning, but also does not conform to the basic logic of understanding things.
It can be said that this kind of denial is very unprofessional, both in terms of the attitude of governance and the "History" itself. If this is the case, why do some Western scholars continue to deny the "Chronicle of History" one after another? The reason is worth pondering, and the author believes that there are two main aspects:
The first is the objective reason, that is, the misunderstanding caused by the different historical situations in China and the West.
China has a long and rich historical document, and we are all accustomed to opening the history books to understand the Three Emperors and Five Emperors, the Xia Shang Zhou, and so on. In the last century, even if the ancient history discerning school arose and believed that the ancient history was not credible, it at least recognized that the historical materials that began in the Spring and Autumn Period were credible and the beginning of the "history of faith". Even from the Spring and Autumn Period onwards, China has a history of nearly 2,800 years of faith, which is unique in the world and unimaginable to other countries. Compared with China, the history of Western faith is extremely short, only a few hundred years ago. Therefore, Western scholars often abandon documents and restore history and discover history through archaeology; Chinese historical materials are long and rich, and it is impossible and unnecessary to basically abandon historical materials like the West, taking archaeology as the only credible material.
What is more severe than the short history of letters is that there are very few Western historical documents, lacking the possibility of multi-dimensional understanding of history, and Chinese historical materials are extremely rich, resulting in the same thing even have more than a hundred different records, Sima Qian has a lot of contradictory records in the "History", this is because Sima Qian referred to a large number of documents and historical materials, and then intentionally provided multiple perspectives for future generations to understand the historical truth from multiple angles, which is the real attitude of governing history.
Because the history of Western faith is short and pale, the literature before the history of faith is full of all kinds of strange theories, and in this era of Western-centrism, Westerners are full of cultural superiority, so some Western scholars regard themselves as people, and do not despise understanding things outside Europe and the United States, firmly believing that ancient Chinese historiography is like them, and many history books, including the "History of History", are not credible.
The second is the subjective reason, that is, the prejudice and double standard of some Western scholars.
The above-mentioned "unnamed" Western scholar may not be unaware of "the logical loopholes in his view of denying the History", nor may he know nothing about Chinese history, but he still said so, which is an obvious prejudice. If it is true that the prejudice arising from not knowing, it can be understood to a certain extent, but the prejudice that deliberately distorts the facts is difficult to understand.
In fact, even if you really don't understand ancient Chinese historiography, you can't deny the "History of History" based on a mythological story, for the simple reason that if this is the standard, how many books are there in Europe? Ancient Greek Herodotus, who is known as the "father of history" in the West, recorded in his book "History" that during the Greek-Persian War, Persia led an expedition of 5.3 million troops to Greece, 320,000 people in northern Greece surrendered, and the southern part defeated the Persian army with 250,000 people. "History" is a book of similar nonsense records emerge in an endless stream, the myths and stories in the ancient history books of the West are innumerable, and there is no conclusive evidence as to whether Noah and Jesus exist, so if the "History" is "pseudo-history", then the so-called history books in the West should be pseudo-history. But in fact, we all know that Western scholars basically have a positive attitude towards the ancient European historical materials, and they will not deny the whole book because there are some myths and stories in the book.
While blaming others and affirming oneself, the Cultural Bias and Double Standards of the West can be seen at a glance.
Dr. Cullen of the Oriental College in London pointed out invaluablely that "Sima Qian was a thousand years away from the Shang Dynasty, and there is basically no empirical evidence since then (the Lineage of the Shang Dynasty contained in the Records of history)." However, the Yin Ruins oracle bone documents discovered more than two thousand years later eloquently prove the high accuracy of Sima Qian's records and confirm Sima Qian's honesty and reliability. Although some Western scholars can view the "History" pertinently, there are still many Western scholars whose disregard and prejudice against Chinese history still exist.