Sima Qian and the Han DynastySima Qian was the official court historian of the Han Dynasty and the one who recorded much of what we know today about the rise of imperial China. The Han dynasty, in which he lived, was officially Confucianist; However, once one digs deeper into the essence of the Han dynasty, it becomes clear that some aspects of the Han dynasty were completely legalistic, not Confucian at all. The Confucian values ​​that the Han Empire is believed to have adopted are very important in the history of the Han dynasty, because although they were sometimes followed, sometimes they were ignored, with wildly different consequences for the fortunes of the dynasty . For example, the Han dynasty was by no means peaceful; it was in fact a very militaristic dynasty. Sima Qian's role in all this was immense: he was the one who recorded everything that happened (not to mention what happened in previous dynasties), and it was a huge deal when he, as that no one with much influence opposed the "Confucian" values ​​of the Han dynasty. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get the original essay Sima Qian was born in 145 BCE and died in 86 BCE – he lived about fifty years after the rise of the Han dynasty. His job was to be the official historian of the Confucian court of the Han dynasty (Spodek, 214). He claimed that he was completing the “historical work” that his father, Sima Tan, had started earlier; however, this was actually a properly filial way of saying that he was continuing the work of Confucius: “the arrangement of the records of the past into an appropriate form” (Fairbank, 75). Sima Qian recorded much of what we know about previous dynasties, criticizing and praising aspects of them that he disliked or approved of. “He arranges, he thinks, and he brings out meaning and significance” – in short, Sima Qian not only recorded history; he also commented on it, interpreted it in his own way, and “set a standard for all subsequent Chinese historical writings” (Morton, 66-67). In 99 BCE, Sima Qian took up the defense of a very prominent general who had been forced to surrender to the Xiongnu. Defending this general and denouncing the leader's power was a very dangerous thing to do under any circumstances, but Sima Qian was a courageous and learned man (Fairbank, 75). Emperor Wu Di was given the choice between dying or being castrated, and Sima Qian chose castration, showing how determined he was to complete his historical work. However, even this attitude was to be preferred to that of the previous dynasty. the Qin dynasty: a Qin emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi, decided to burn every piece of Confucian literature, in accordance with legal values. When some Confucian scholars resisted, Qin had 460 of them buried alive in 213 BCE (Spodek, 214). Indeed, from a Confucian perspective, the Qin dynasty's attitude toward history in general was much worse than that of the Han. While the Han emperors were willing to allow Confucian scholars to record history provided it did not interfere with anything, the Qin emperors were downright against history, as they believed that otherwise the past could be considered as an alternative to current policies (Spodek, 214). However, it would be wrong to say that the Han dynasty upheld all Confucian values: while the Han emperors restored Confucianism, they also retained many "useful autocratic characteristics of legalismwhich suited their centralized regime” (Morton, 64). ). The Han dynasty emphasized many Confucian traditions: scholars of the five classics (considered Confucians) were appointed, and expertise in filial piety—a distinctive Confucian value—was necessary for a person to be elected to office. a high position in the government. On the other hand, the Han emperors were no less militaristic than the Qin emperors, and foreign trade flourished under the Han. For example, the Han dynasty forced the opening of a corridor through Gansu to Xinjiang (Turkestan) in order to gain access to silk markets in the west, and it was on this trade route that traders transported their goods to Rome. Throughout the dynasty, multiple battles with the Xiongnu and other tribes residing around the Great Wall were a constant reminder of some of the legalistic aspects of the Han dynasty (Spodek, 217). Another legalistic aspect of Confucianism during the Han dynasty was the beheading of Confucian officials. Later, although these rituals became less gruesome – victims were allowed to commit suicide – the emperor was still able to order the deaths of his ministers with a “minimum of legal procedure” (Fairbank, 68). Finally, Sima Qian's punishment – ​​castration – for simply defending one of the generals was extremely legalistic in its intensity, as was the fact that he was punished at all. All of these different things that were put into practice went at least somewhat, if not completely, against Confucian values ​​as they were known before the Han dynasty. However, it is unclear whether or not Sima Qian was truly in favor of Confucian ideals. ; there is evidence that he did not really care whether the Han dynasty adopted Confucianism or Legalism. For example, in one of his letters to a friend, Ren Shaoqing, he says that he “dared not to be modest but confided in [his] useless writings” (Morton, 67). This could be interpreted as going against the Confucian philosophy that everyone contributes to society – if Sima Qian says his writings are "useless", this could be interpreted as saying he has no business contributing to the company. Furthermore, after being castrated under this so-called "Confucianism", it is hard to believe that Sima Qian really thought there would be a difference if the Han dynasty switched to legalism; therefore, he wouldn't really care which one he claimed to follow. Like Confucius, his writings were more important after his death – he influenced choices regarding Confucianism that he himself had not made. Spodek, Morton, and Fairbank all show contrasting views of the Han dynasty. Spodek's simple facts have virtually no grounds for opinion. Morton's book was written before the reforms following Mao Zedong's death and, therefore, the amount of information he had access to was extremely limited. Even so, he is far less critical of the Han dynasty and its supposed Confucianism than was Fairbank; Fairbank questions Han Confucianism, highlighting places where the dynasty was very legalistic. Additionally, Morton focuses on Sima Qian's astonishing work – its breadth and analysis – while Fairbank focuses on Qian's brutal, legalistic punishment and how he dealt with life under a legalistic-Confucian system . However, all three sources include facts that lead to the logical conclusion that scholarship and political power in China are linked. In short, if one was scholarly or educated, one had power depending on the type of dynasty in which one lived: by.