How much do we *really* know about Chinese history?

I think most people here are familiar with the story of the First Emperor ordering the nation-wide killing of scholars and burning of books. However, who has thought about the impact of this act?

This happened around 200 BC, during a time where most of the world was still fur-wearing illiterate barbarians. Only a few centers of civilization kept historical records.

China is geographically isolated. When Qin Shihuang ordered the burning of books, the closest literate civilization was on the other side of the Himalayas. Therefore, there are no historical accounts from other civilizations to corroborate the "official" history.

We are then left with the following questions: Just how extensive was the book burning campaing? Why did some books survive where others didn't? What was the nature of those books that were left behind? How much of what we know about the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period is true, and how much was just fiction made up by the Qin Ministry of Propaganda? How much of what we *think* we know about history is based on the "official" account, and not corroborated by any kind of independent evidence?

Like the history of the bible, some versions and editions who cater to the dominaters at that time, may have the biggest possibility to survive.

Nation-wide killing of scholars and burning of books.

Click to expand...

Books burning and killing of "scholars" were two slanderous events used by the confucianists to tarnish the First Emperor and the legalism.

Those burned books "书“,"诗“ were unaccountable histories of xia,shang, and zhou dynasty. Written hundred if not thousand years after, filled with legends and myths. These books were the bible to confucianists, they believed the ancient society was perfect and those books were the guilds and proofs. The emperor was not too happy about what confucianists were advocating and you know the rest.

As for the killing, only few hundred "scholars" killed ( 460?), most of so called "scholars" were alchemists and magicians, known as "术士" not "儒生"( scholars). They were killed because they failed to produce the elixir of life for emperor and tried to escape.

"We are then left with the following questions: Just how extensive was the book burning campaign? Why did some books survive where others didn't? What was the nature of those books that were left behind?

Click to expand...

The books burning was greatly exaggerated by the confucianists.The campaign was to destroy copies of banned books in the private hands; Qin library had kept copies of all burned books. Various versions of banned book resurfaced after collapse of Qin, that led to thousand years debates among the different sects of confucianists.

How much of what we know about the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period is true, and how much was just fiction made up by the Qin Ministry of Propaganda?

Click to expand...

Qin was short lived, never gotten the time to write a vector's version of history. On the other hand, the
butt-hurt Confucianists spent two thousand years to defame the First Emperor and Qin dynasty.

How much of what we *think* we know about history is based on the "official" account, and not corroborated by any kind of independent evidence?

Click to expand...

History is not science: independent evidence is not required; truth is not needed.

How much of what we know about the Spring and Autumn and Warring States period is true, and how much was just fiction made up by the Qin Ministry of Propaganda?

Click to expand...

The Spring and Autumn Annals is the official chronicle of the State of Lu covering the period from 722 BCE to 481 BCE. It is the earliest surviving Chinese historical text to be arranged on annalistic principles.

Click to expand...

In early China, "spring and autumn" was a commonly used metonymy for the year as a whole, and the phrase was used as a title for the chronicles of several Chinese states during this period. For example, the chapter of Obvious Existence of Ghosts in the Mozi refers to numerous Spring and Autumn Annals of Zhou, Yan, Song and Qi. All these texts are now lost; only the chronicle of the State of Lu has survived.

Click to expand...

There are hundred of state during the Spring and Autumn and Warring States and many of them keep "Spring and Autumn Annals". Unfortunately only the official chronicle from the State of Lu (where Confucius is from) survive intact. I would say the history is trust worthy since a few commentaries for the Spring and Autumn Annals that were written within the same period survived.

We have also the Qin version of Spring and Autumn Annals,

The Lüshi Chunqiu (Chinese: 呂氏春秋; pinyin: Lüshi chūnqiū; Wade–Giles: Lü-shih ch'un-ch'iu; literally "Mister Lü's Spring and Autumn [Annals]") is an encyclopedic Chinese classic text compiled around 239 BCE under the patronage of the Qin Dynasty Chancellor Lü Buwei

Click to expand...

As you can see there is no lack of materials. However, bear in mind that China at that period is chaotic, with many many state at war with one another constantly and state are created and annexed all the time, therefore it is impossible to have a comprehensive picture.

PhageHunter said:

Books burning and killing of "scholars" were two slanderous events used by the confucianists to tarnish the First Emperor and the legalism.

Those burned books "书“,"诗“ were unaccountable histories of xia,shang, and zhou dynasty. Written hundred if not thousand years after, filled with legends and myths. These books were the bible to confucianists, they believed the ancient society was perfect and those books were the guilds and proofs. The emperor was not too happy about what confucianists were advocating and you know the rest.

As for the killing, only few hundred "scholars" killed ( 460?), most of so called "scholars" were alchemists and magicians, known as "术士" not "儒生"( scholars). They were killed because they failed to produce the elixir of life for emperor and tried to escape.

The books burning was greatly exaggerated by the confucianists.The campaign was to destroy copies of banned books in the private hands; Qin library had kept copies of all burned books. Various versions of banned book resurfaced after collapse of Qin, that led to thousand years debates among the different sects of confucianists.

Click to expand...

This is news to me. Do you have a source for this? From what I can read fro Baidu (), all historical texts apart from the official Qin version was ordered to be destroyed:

焚书坑儒发生在中国古代的秦朝。在秦始皇三十四年（公元前213年），博士齐人淳于越反对当时实行的“郡县制”，要求根据古制，分封子弟。丞相李斯加以驳斥，并主张禁止百姓以古非今，以私学诽谤朝政。秦始皇采纳李斯的建议，下令焚烧《秦记》以外的列国史记，对不属于博士馆的私藏《诗》、《书》等也限期交出烧毁；有敢谈论《诗》、《书》的处死，以古非今的灭族；禁止私学，想学法令的人要以官吏为师。此即为“焚书”。

Click to expand...

Qin was short lived, never gotten the time to write a vector's version of history. On the other hand, the
butt-hurt Confucianists spent two thousand years to defame the First Emperor and Qin dynasty.
History is not science: independent evidence is not required; truth is not needed.

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The Qin State was around for 500 years before Qin Shihuang united China. They certainly had their own version of history, just like the US, the Japanese, and the Chinese all keep their own version of history.

Truth might not always be obtainable in history, but I think it is always a useful thing to strive for. Otherwise, we might as well all just read Wuxia novels instead.

solarz said:

This is news to me. Do you have a source for this? From what I can read fro Baidu (

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!

), all historical texts apart from the official Qin version was ordered to be destroyed."

Click to expand...

It is in the baidu and wiki.

王充：秦虽无道，不燔诸子，诸子尺书，文篇具在，圣人之全经犹存。

郑樵：秦时未尝废儒学，秦时未尝不用儒学与经学。“萧何入咸阳，收秦律令图书，则秦亦未尝无书籍也。其所焚者，一时间事耳”。“不过坑一时议论不合者，非实儒也”，“秦人焚书而书存，诸儒穷经而经亡。”所谓诗书之焚，乃学者自焚也，非秦皇之过也。（《秦不绝儒学论》）

朱熹：秦焚书也只是教天下焚之，他朝廷依旧留得；如说“非秦记及博士所掌者，尽焚之”，则六经之类，他依旧留得，但天下人无有。

朱彝尊：秦本坑乱道之儒而非圣人之徒。
刘大櫆：“六经之亡非秦亡之也，汉亡之也。”。“书之焚，非李斯之罪，而项籍之罪也”。（《焚书辩》）

康有为：秦焚书，六经未因此而亡。秦坑儒，儒生未因此而绝。自两生外，鲁诸生随叔孙通议礼者三十余人，皆秦诸生，皆未尝被坑者。其人皆怀蕴六艺，学通《诗》《书》，逮汉犹存者也。然则以坑儒为绝儒术者，亦妄言也。 汉制“郡国计偕，诣太常受业如弟子”，犹因秦制也。夫博士既有守职之藏书，学者可诣吏而受业，《诗》《书》之事，尊而方长，然则谓“秦焚《诗》《书》，六艺遂缺”，非妄言而何？然而二千年之学者遂为所惑，虽魁儒辈出，无一人细心读书，祛其伪妄者，岂不异哉！

鲁迅：秦始皇实在冤枉得很，他的吃亏是在二世而亡，一班帮闲们都替新主子去讲他的坏话了。不错，秦始皇烧过书，烧书是为了统一思想。但他没有烧掉农书和医书；他收罗许多别国的“客卿”，并不专重“秦的思想”，倒是博采各种的思想的。

章太炎：秦焚《诗》、《书》、百家语在人间者，独博士如故，将私其方术于已，以愚黔首。故叔孙通以文学征，待诏博士；而陈胜之起，诸生三十余人得引《公羊》“人臣无将”以对。（郑樵、马端临说，实本《论衡》。《论衡·正说篇》曰：“令史官尽烧‘五经’，有敢藏《诗》、《书》、百家语者刑，惟博士乃得有之。”近人多从其说。）或曰：秦火及“六籍”，不燔诸子。诸子尺书，文篇俱在，可观。（见《论衡·书解篇》）孟子徒党虽尽，其篇籍得不泯绝。（《孟子题辞》）余以为工程师地法令者，自《秦纪》、《史篇》（秦八体有大篆，不焚《史篇》）、医药、卜筮、种树而外，秘书私窃无所不烧，方策述作无所不禁。然而文学辩慧单于人心，上下所周好，虽着令，弗能夺也。后李斯者，汉初挟书之令未多，然娄敬以戍卒晚路，上谒高帝，亦引《大誓》为征。汉之法令弗能绝也。若其咸阳之坑死者四百六十人，是特以卢生故，恶其诽谤，令诸生传相告引。亦由汉世党锢之狱，兴于一时，非其法令必以文学为戮。数公者，诚不以抵禁幸脱云。
。

Click to expand...

I don't know about that. The Qin State was around for 500 years before Qin Shihuang united China.

Click to expand...

Other states also have their versions, Qin empire only last 15 years, Qin's offcial version of history didn't last long. Even what we know about Qin empire only came from historians born hundred years after.

If you guys wish to know more about the Spring Autumn, Warring State and Qin periods, I'd suggest you to read a novel 寻秦记 or Back to the Past (not Back to the Future ). Thing described in the novel, of course, is not history but it give you an image of what the periods look like and how the people lived. The myth about Qin Shihuang, was he really an illegitimate child of Lu Buwei still continue. Is he really a bad guy "苛政猛于虎" as the Confucians wrote in their book? However, there's one thing everybody knows for sure, he was one of the most successful emperor in Chinese history who had created the basis of nowadays China. Without Qin Shihuang, there wouldn't had been modern China of today.

PhageHunter said:

It is in the baidu and wiki.

Other states also have their versions, Qin empire only last 15 years, Qin's offcial version of history didn't last long. Even what we know about Qin empire only came from historians born hundred years after.

Click to expand...

What I am saying is that Qin Shihuang burned all the history books of the other, conquered, nations. Lu Xun said that he did not burn Farming and Medical books, and that he made use of councilors from other states. However, he did not deny that Qin Shihuang *did* burn history books that he did not like.

How did Qin's history get passed down? Qin wasn't the only dynasty that burned books, so original Qin manuscripts are probably long lost. However, we *do* know that Qin Shihuang *did* burn history books, so we must wonder, what kind of history got passed down?

solarz said:

What I am saying is that Qin Shihuang burned all the history books of the other, conquered, nations. Lu Xun said that he did not burn Farming and Medical books, and that he made use of councilors from other states. However, he did not deny that Qin Shihuang *did* burn history books that he did not like.

How did Qin's history get passed down? Qin wasn't the only dynasty that burned books, so original Qin manuscripts are probably long lost. However, we *do* know that Qin Shihuang *did* burn history books, so we must wonder, what kind of history got passed down?

Click to expand...

应当说，《秦记》里的记录是很真实可信的。该书后来成为司马迁推定先秦年代、编排先秦历史年表的主要依据。象《史记》中的《六国年表》、《秦本纪》及《秦始皇本纪》等篇，不过是司马迁以《秦记》为基础，再补入其它材料以后写成的。
　　由于《史记》以后的正史对于《秦记》一书已不见著录，故可大致认为，该书大约传到西汉后期以后就散佚了。

Click to expand...

hope this answer your question.

The Qin dynasty was in power for only several decades, not long enough to truly extinguish other philosophies. By the time Shihuangdi died, many of those who used to serve the various states destroyed by the First Emperor were still alive. Even if some of them died, their sons and grandsons were still alive. You can imagine the various histories and philosophies were well alive in the heads of these people. With the freedom to write again, they would no doubt write everything down again. So all the various versions of the Chinese history and philosophies would have no problem surviving the burning of the books. Additionally, the Han dynasty that followed would no doubt attempt to discredit the Qin empire and tried to get most of those other versions of Chinese history back, just to make Qin look bad.