Wen | Guo Yemin
So, what is the effect of the Yuanren's revision of history? The "Table of History of entering the Liao" says, "The first of the three histories is the Liao." "The History of Liao is the earliest completed one in the revised history of the Yuan Dynasty—and at the same time the shortest one. The History of Liao includes 30 volumes of Benji, 32 volumes of Zhi, 8 volumes of Tables, 45 volumes of Liechuan, and 1 volume of Chinese Interpretation, for a total of 116 volumes. At first glance, this is nearly double that of Chen Shou's Romance of the Three Kingdoms. However, if it is compared with the "History of Jin" (136 volumes) and "History of Song" (496 volumes) in the same period, it can only be dwarfed. Not only that, but each volume of the History of Liao is also very short. In terms of word count, the Jin Shi has at least twice as many texts as the Liao Shi, and the Song Shi is ten times more than the Liao Shi.
The reason for this is that we cannot blame the Yuan Dynasty Shi Chen for being lazy and clever, but rather have the regret that "it is difficult for a smart woman to cook without rice". The Liao Dynasty had a system of "book prohibition", which only allowed books to circulate in the territory, "those who spread to neighbors will sin to death." The result is a cocoon of self-restraint. With the turmoil of the war at the end of the Liao Dynasty, there were very few books circulating in later generations. The Liao Dynasty literature that can be seen during the revision of the History of Liao by the Yuan Dynasty is limited (the "Records of Yelü" are fortunately preserved by the collection of Yelü Chucai, a famous Khitan minister in the early Yuan Dynasty). Therefore, although the modern historian Feng Jiasheng accused yuan xiu of liao history for "committing the following major evils"—changing people's names, vainly changing ancient books, vainly changing broken links, changing no standards in translation, losing original meaning, losing original sounds, inconsistencies, and heavy mistakes—as the only surviving work that systematically and completely records the history of the Liao Dynasty, the History of Liao is still the most basic and important precious historical material for studying the history of the Liao Dynasty.
Rao is like this, and the "History of Liao" will eventually be unable to escape the criticism of "scribbled into a compilation, and there are many omissions". Therefore, Zhao Yi of the Qing Dynasty's evaluation of the History of Liao in the "Twenty-Second History Notes" began with the sentence "The History of Liao" is too brief." For example, the "History of Liao" has a total of 240 official biographers in the column biography. Among them, there are more than 180 people in total, the imperial family "Yelü" and the later family "Xiao", accounting for 2/3. Among the few biographies of Han Chen, some of them almost completely copied the Khitan Guozhi, for example, most of the content in the "Biography of Han Yanhui" is the same as the "Biography of Han Yanhui". If one only looks at the "History of Liao", the reader will even think that the Liao Dynasty is the history created by the Khitan people is not known - the funny thing is that the "History of Liao" is vague about the several changes in the liao dynasty's national name between "Great Liao" and "Great Khitan".
This situation of "preciousness" and "regret" coexisting is reflected in the last "Benji" of the "History of Liao". Titled "Emperor Benji IV of Tianzuo", in fact, half of the text in this article is about the history of the Western Liao Dynasty built by Yelü Dashi. In the last year of the Liao Dynasty, the Khitan nobleman Yelü Dashi saw that the state was about to perish for Jin, and he was indignant. He led his troops to the northwest and established a state in present-day Xinjiang and Central Asia for the Western Liao (Halaqidan), which is indeed a feat worthy of a great book in local history. The rulers of the Western Liao regarded themselves as a continuation of the Liao Dynasty, and their kings, systems, and chronicles were inherited from the Liao Dynasty (and even continued to use Chinese characters). Therefore, after the "Anshi Rebellion" of the Tang Dynasty's "Anxi Four Towns" fell into Tubo for more than three centuries, the Central Plains culture once again entered the Western Regions on a large scale during the Western Liao Dynasty. Therefore, People in West Asia and Eastern Europe often use "Khitan" and "China" as synonymous. Now the Russian word for "China" is still pronounced as "Khitan", and that's why.
Because medieval Arab-Persian historians were hostile to the "infidel" Western Liao regime, "out of contempt they are rarely recorded", the only historical material that has left a more systematic record of the history of the Western Liao is the only one in the History of the Liao, which is about 1600 words. Without this, future generations may not even know the lineage of the Western Liao after the Great Stone of Yelü. Because the names of the Western Liao Emperors known today are all Chinese character translations left in the "History of Liao"! The historical value of the "History of Liao" can also be seen in this regard.
In turn, the "History of Liao" records the founding of Yelü Dashi, and "digs a lot of pits" for future generations of historians. For example, regarding the time when Yelü Dashi was officially proclaimed emperor, the "History of Liao" has such a record: "From the west to Qi'erman, the wenwu hundred officials established Dashi as emperor, and took the throne on the fifth day of the fifth month of February in the year of Jiachen. According to the traditional Chinese Jiazi chronology, the "Jiachen year" is 1124 AD. At this time, the last emperor of the Liao Dynasty, Emperor Tianzuo, was still dying and struggling, was there no "king father" in yelü Dashi's eyes to call himself emperor without authorization? In terms of feudal ethics, how is this different from rebellion? The Liao Shi concludes by commenting, "(Yelü Dashi) has a king and restores a king, and it can be done", which is in this regard.
Unfortunately, the flaws in this statement are also very obvious. The same "History of Liao" records that Yelü Dashi only left The Tianzuo Emperor to lead his troops to the west in July of the fourth year of Bao Da (1124), how could he have gone to Qi'erman (between Samarkand and Bukhara in Central Asia) five months ago and became emperor? The History of Jin, compiled by the Yuan people at the same time, also refutes the statement of the LiaoShi Tianzuo Emperor Benji IV. It is clearly written in the Taizong Benji that in October of the second year of the Tianhui (1124), "Pengchen ... The Great Stone of Yan jeremiah proclaimed himself king.". "Calling the king" and "calling the emperor" are the difference between kings and subjects in feudal ethics, and the reason why Liu Xuande was only called "King of Hanzhong" during the reign of Emperor Xiandi was this reason. It is precisely because the record of "ascending the throne on the fifth day of February of the year of Jiachen" really cannot withstand scrutiny, and the actual year of the emperor of Yelü Dashi in later generations has appeared in various different views such as 1124, 1125, 1126, 1131, 1132, and 1134, and it is still an outstanding case.