Jump to content

Burning of books and burying of scholars

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Qin dynasty in 210 BCE
  Qin region   Outlying regions
Burning of books and burying of scholars
Traditional Chinese焚書坑儒
Simplified Chinese焚书坑儒
Literal meaningburning books and burying scholars
Transcriptions
Standard Mandarin
Hanyu Pinyinfénshū kēngrú
Gwoyeu Romatzyhfernshu kengru
Wade–Gilesfen2-shu1 k'eng1-ju2
IPA[fə̌n.ʂú kʰə́ŋ.ɻǔ]
Yue: Cantonese
Yale Romanizationfàhn-syū hāang-yùh
Jyutpingfan4-syu1 haang1-jyu4
Southern Min
Tâi-lôhûn-tsu khenn-lû
Middle Chinese
Middle Chinesebɨun ɕɨʌ kʰˠæŋ ȵɨo
Old Chinese
Baxter–Sagart (2014)*bun s-ta kʰˤreŋ nyu

The burning of books and burying of scholars was the purported burning of texts in 213 BCE and live burial of 460 Confucian scholars in 212 BCE ordered by Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang. The events were alleged to have destroyed philosophical treatises of the Hundred Schools of Thought, with the goal of strengthening the official Qin governing philosophy of Legalism.

Modern historians doubt the details of the story, which first appeared more than a century later in the Han dynasty official Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian. As a court scholar, Sima had every reason to denigrate the earlier emperor to flatter his own, but later Confucians did not question the story. According to the historian Ulrich Neininger, their message was, "If you take our life, Heaven will take the life of your dynasty."[1]

Modern scholars agree that Qin Shi Huang gathered and destroyed many works that he regarded as incorrect or subversive. He ordered two copies of each text to be preserved in imperial libraries. Some were destroyed in the fighting following the fall of the dynasty. He had scholars killed, but not by being buried alive, and the victims were not rú (Chinese: 儒; lit. 'Confucians'), since that school had not yet been formed as such.[2][3][4]

Traditional version

[edit]
Ancient Chinese book events

'[1]' Book burning of the First Qin Emperor
'[2]' Wang Mang's capital Chang'an was attacked and the imperial palace ransacked. Wang died in the battle and, at the end, forces burned the national library of Weiyang Palace.
'[3]' At the end of the Han dynasty, the Three Kingdoms dissipated of the state library by upheavals that resulted from the Wei (魏), Shu (蜀), and Wu (吳) contests
'[4]' At the end of Yang-Jia turbulence, dissipation of the state library by the upheavals of Western Jin.
'[5]' Emperor Yuan of the Liang dynasty surrounded by the Western Wei army in his castle; Yuan set fire to the collection of national records.

Killing the Scholars and Burning the Books, anonymous 18th century Chinese painted album leaf; Bibliothèque nationale de France, Paris

Punishment of the scholars

[edit]

According to Sima Qian's Records of the Grand Historian, after Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor of China, unified China in 221 BCE, his chancellor Li Si suggested suppressing intellectual discourse to unify thought and political opinion.

Chancellor Li Si said: "I, your servant, propose that all historians' records other than those of Qin's be burned. Except the academics whose duty includes possessing books, if anyone under heaven has copies of the Shi Jing [Classic of Poetry], the Shujing [Classic of History], or the writings of the hundred schools of philosophy, they shall deliver them (the books) to the governor or the commandant for burning. Anyone who dares to discuss the Shi Jing or the Classic of History shall be publicly executed. Anyone who uses history to criticize the present shall have his family executed. Any official who sees the violations but fails to report them is equally guilty. Anyone who has failed to burn the books after thirty days of this announcement shall be subjected to tattooing and be sent to build the Great Wall. The books that have exemption are those on medicine, divination, agriculture, and forestry. Those who have interest in laws shall instead study from officials.

— Shi Ji (Record of the Grand Historian, Chapter 6. "The Basic Annals of the First Emperor of Qin" thirty-fourth year (213 BCE)[a]

Three categories of books were viewed by Li Si to be most dangerous politically. These were poetry (particularly the Classic of Poetry), history (Shujing and especially historical records of other states than Qin), and philosophy. The ancient collection of poetry and historical records contained many stories concerning the ancient virtuous rulers. Li Si believed that if the people were to read these works they were likely to invoke the past and become dissatisfied with the present. The reason for opposing various schools of philosophy was that they advocated political ideas often incompatible with the totalitarian regime.[5]

Consequences

[edit]

The extent of the damage to Chinese intellectual heritage is difficult to assess, for details have not been recorded in history. Several facts, however, indicate that the consequences of this event, although enduring, were not extensive. First, it is recorded in Li Si's memorial that all technological books were to be spared. Secondly, even the "objectionable" books, poetry and philosophy in particular, were preserved in imperial archives and allowed to be kept by the official scholars.[6]

In some categories of books, history suffered one of the greatest losses of ancient times. Extremely few state history books before Qin have survived. Li Si stated that all history books not in the Qin interpretation were to be burned. It is not clear whether copies of these books were actually burned or allowed to stay in the imperial archives. Even if some histories were preserved, they possibly would have been destroyed in 206 BCE when enemies captured and burnt the Qin imperial palaces in which the archives were most likely located.[7]

Later book burnings

[edit]

At the end of the Qin, the Epang Palace's national records were destroyed by fire. Tang dynasty poet Zhang Jie (章碣) wrote a poem (titled 焚書坑, Fen Shu Keng, "Pits for Book-Burning") about the policy of destruction by both the Qin dynasty and the rebels (of which Liu Bang and Xiang Yu were the examples cited as they entered the capital city Xianyang one after the other.):

As the smoke from burning bamboo and silk clears, the empire is weakened.
The Hangu Pass and the Yellow River guard the domain of Qin Shi Huang in vain.
Pits of ash were not yet cold, disorder reigned east of the Xiao Mountains.
As it turned out, Liu Bang and Xiang Yu could not read.

Original Chinese text

竹帛煙銷帝業虛，
zhú bó yān xiāo dì yè xū
關河空鎖祖龍居。
guān hé kōng suǒ zǔ lóng jū
坑灰未冷山東亂，
kēng huī wèi lěng shān dōng luàn
劉項原來不讀書。
liú xiàng yuán lái bù dú shū

Burial of the scholars

[edit]

Tradition had it that after being deceived by two fangshi alchemists, Xu Fu and Han Zhong, while seeking prolonged life, Qin Shi Huang ordered more than 460 scholars in the capital to be buried alive in the second year of the proscription. The belief was based on this passage in the Shiji (chapter 6):

The first emperor therefore directed the imperial censor to investigate the scholars one by one. The scholars accused each other, so the emperor personally determined their fate. More than 460 of them were buried alive at Xianyang, and the event was announced to all under heaven to warn followers. More people were internally exiled to border regions. Fusu, the emperor’s eldest son, counseled: "The empire just achieved peace, and the barbarians in distant areas have not surrendered. The scholars all venerate Confucius and take him as a role model. Your servant fears if Your Majesty punishes them so severely, it may cause unrest in the empire. Please observe this, Your Majesty." However, he did not change his father's mind and instead was sent to guard the frontier as a de facto exile."[8]

An account given by Wei Hong in the 2nd century added another 700 to the figure.

Han Feizi

[edit]

If Sima Qian or Li Si read it, Han Fei's Chapter 50 "Xianxue" (Prominent teachings) is concerned with prominent teachings of it's time, considering it "impossible to find intellectual or historical grounds" for their reconciliation, and "understanding the truth of their conflicting claims." In the interpretation of Kidder Smith, Han Fei's epistemology is similar to a court of law. The chapter accepts evidences for presentation and evaluation, but does not accept the claims of dead witnesses, or the possibility of mutual groups being right. It rejects the claims of Confucianism and Mohism as deceitful either to themselves or others. While there may at one point have been a Yao, Shun, Mozi or Confucius, their teachings had since multiplied. Han Fei's "solution" for finding a "politically correct view" ultimately leaves the question of final judgement to administration "created by the power of the ruler", making the chapter more about the role of the ruler as judge-magistrate for the case.[9]

The prominent teachings of this generation are those of the Ru and Mo. The Ru go back to Kong (Confucius), the Mo to Mozi. Since their death, there have been (numerous Confucians and Mohists). Thus, after Kong and Mo, the Ru divided into eight and the Mo split into three. [What each group) accepts or rejects is different and mutually contradictory, yet each calls itself the true Kong or Mo. Kong and Mo cannot return to life, so who will cause the teachings of this generation to be decided on? Both Master Kong and Master Mo took Yao and Shun as dao, yet what they accepted or rejected was different, while both called it the true Yao and Shun. Yao and Shun cannot return to life, so who will cause the truthfulness of the Ru and Mo to be decided on?

The Yin and Zhou dynasties are more than seven hundred years away, [the Emperor] Yu and the Xia dynasty are more than two thousand years away, so they cannot decide on the truth of the Ru and Mo. Yet to still want to adjudicate the Way of Yao and Shun after three thousand years-[this matter) could not be ascertained! To ascertain something without having conducted an investigation is foolishness. To rely on something that you cannot ascertain is to bring false charges. Those who openly rely on the former kings, if they aren't foolish, are making false charges. The teachings of foolishness and false charges, the conduct of disorder and rebellion-the enlightened ruler does not accept this.

Skepticism

[edit]

The scholar Michael Nylan observes that despite its mythic significance, the Burning of the Books legend does not bear close scrutiny. Nylan suggests that the reason Han dynasty scholars charged the Qin with destroying the Confucian Five Classics was partly to "slander" the state they defeated and partly because Han scholars misunderstood the nature of the texts, for it was only after the founding of the Han that Sima Qian labeled the Five Classics as "Confucian".[3]

Nylan points out that the Qin court appointed classical scholars who were specialists on the Classic of Poetry and the Book of Documents, which meant that these texts would have been exempted, and that the Book of Rites and the Zuozhuan did not contain the glorification of defeated feudal states which the First Emperor gave as his reason for destroying them. She suggests that the story might be based on the fact that the Qin palace was razed in 207 BCE and many books were undoubtedly lost at that time.[3] Martin Kern adds that Qin and early Han writings frequently cite the Classics, especially the Documents and the Classic of Poetry, which would not have been possible if they had been burned, as reported.[4]

Sima Qian's account of the execution of the scholars has similar difficulties. First, no text earlier than the Shiji mentions the executions, the Shiji mentions no Confucian scholar by name as a victim of the executions, and in fact, no other text mentions the executions at all until the 1st century CE. The earliest known use of the famous phrase "burning the books and executing the Confucians" is not noted until the early 4th century.[4]

Sima Qian reports that the scholars were "keng, 坑", a word that he uses in several other places. The context in these places shows that the meaning is "to kill", not "to bury alive". The character in earlier texts meant "pit, moat" and then took on the meaning of "to trap and kill". Sima Qian used it to describe the annihilation of an enemy army. The misunderstanding came in later dynasties when the meaning of "to bury alive" became common.[10]

In 2010, Li Kaiyuan (李开元), a researcher in the field of history of the Qin dynasty and Han dynasty, published an article titled The Truth or Fiction of the Burning the Books and Executing the Ru Scholars: A Half-Faked History (焚书坑儒的真伪虚实—半桩伪造的历史), which raised four doubts about "executing the ru scholars" ("坑儒") and argued that Sima Qian had misused historical materials. Li believes that the burning the books and executing the ru scholars is a pseudo-history that is cleverly synthesized with real "burning the books" (真实的"焚书") and false "executing the rú scholars" (虚假的"坑儒").[11]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]
  1. ^ 相李斯曰：「臣請史官非秦記皆燒之。非博士官所職，天下敢有藏詩、書、百家語者，悉詣守、尉雜燒之。有敢偶語詩書者棄市。以古非今者族。吏見知不舉者與同罪。令下三十日不燒，黥為城旦。所不去者，醫藥卜筮種樹之書。若欲有學法令，以吏為師。

Citations

[edit]
  1. ^ Neininger (1983), p. 122.
  2. ^ Goldin (2005), p. 151.
  3. ^ a b c Nylan (2001), pp. 29–30.
  4. ^ a b c Kern (2010), pp. 111–112.
  5. ^ Chan (1972), pp. 105–107.
  6. ^ Chan (1972), p. 106.
  7. ^ Chan (1972), p. 107.
  8. ^ (於是使御史悉案问诸生，诸生传相告引，乃自除犯禁者四百六十馀人，皆阬之咸阳，使天下知之，以惩後。益发谪徙边。始皇长子扶苏谏曰：「天下初定，远方黔首未集，诸生皆诵法孔子，今上皆重法绳之，臣恐天下不安。唯上察之。」) Shiji vol. 6.
  9. ^ Smith 2003, p. 132-134.
  10. ^ Neininger (1983), p. 135.
  11. ^ "The Truth or Fiction of the Burning the Books and Executing the Ru Scholars: A Half-Faked History". Collected Papers of History Studies. Archived from the original on June 14, 2021. Retrieved November 22, 2020.

References and further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Burning_of_books_and_burying_of_scholars&oldid=1296550449"