Sima Qian and the Han Dynasty Sima 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 Confucian; however, once you delve into the essence of the Han Dynasty, it is evident that there are some aspects of the Han Dynasty that were completely legalistic, not Confucian at all. The Confucian values ​​that the Han Empire supposedly embraced are very significant in the history of the Han dynasty, as although they were sometimes followed, they were sometimes ignored, with wildly varying consequences for the fortunes of the dynasty. For example, the Han Dynasty was not peaceful at all; 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 was happening (not to mention what had happened in previous dynasties), and it was a big deal when he, as a person with a lot of influence , opposed the “Confucian” values ​​of the Han dynasty. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay Sima Qian was born in 145 BC and died in 86 BC – 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 begun earlier; however, this was actually a properly filial way of saying that he was continuing the work of Confucius: “the arrangement of the record of the past into the correct form” (Fairbank, 75). Sima Qian recorded much of what we know about previous dynasties, criticizing and praising aspects of them that he did not like or approve of. “Organise, reflect and bring out meaning and significance” – in short, not only did Sima Qian record history; he also commented on it, interpreted it in his own way, and "set a standard for all subsequent Chinese historical writing" (Morton, 66-67). In 99 BCE, Sima Qian came to the defense of a very important general who had been forced to surrender to the Xiongnu. Defending this general and speaking out against the leader's rule was a very dangerous thing to do under any circumstances, but Sima Qian was a courageous and educated man (Fairbank, 75). The emperor, Wu Di, gave the choice between dying or being castrated, and Sima Qian chose castration, demonstrating how determined he actually was to finish his historic work. However, this attitude was also preferable to that of the previous dynasty, the Qin dynasty: a Qin emperor, Qin Shi Huangdi, decided to burn every piece of Confucian literature, in line with legalist values. When some Confucian scholars resisted, Qin had 460 of them buried alive in 213 BCE (Spodek, 214). Indeed, the Qin dynasty's attitude towards history in general was much worse, from a Confucian point of view, than that of the Han. While the Han emperors were willing to allow Confucian scholars to record history as long as it did not interfere with anything, the Qin emperors were openly against history, as they believed that otherwise the past could be considered an alternative to present policies (Spodek , 214). However, it would be false to claim that the Han dynasty upheld all Confucian values: while the Han emperors restored Confucianism, they also retained many "useful autocratic features of legalism that suited their centralized rule" (Morton, 64). The Han dynasty emphasized many Confucian traditions: specialists in the Five Classics (considered Confucian) were appointed, and expertisein filial piety – a distinctive Confucian value – was necessary for someone to be elected to a high position in 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) to gain access to silk markets in the west, and it was on this trade route that traders transported their goods to Rome. Over the course of 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 under the Han dynasty was the beheading of Confucian officials. Later, although these rituals became less gruesome – victims were allowed to commit suicide – the emperor could still order the death of his ministers with a “minimum of legal procedure” (Fairbank, 68). Finally, Sima Qian's punishment – ​​castration – just for defending one of the generals was extremely legalistic in terms of intensity, as is the fact that he was punished at all. All 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 all for Confucian ideals. ; there is some 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 states that he "dared not to be modest but [he] relied on [his] useless writings" (Morton, 67). This could be interpreted as contrary to the Confucian philosophy that everyone contributes to society: if Sima Qian states that his writings are "useless", he could be interpreted as saying that he should not contribute to society. Furthermore, after being castrated under so-called “Confucianism,” it is hard to believe that Sima Qian actually thought there would be a difference if the Han Dynasty transitioned to legalism; so, he wouldn't really care which one he said to follow. Like Confucius, his writings were more important after his death: he influenced choices about Confucianism that he himself had not made. Spodek, Morton, and Fairbank all show contrasting views of the Han dynasty. Spodek's blunt facts have almost no opinionated argument. Morton's book was written before the reforms after Mao Zedong's death, and as a result, the amount of information he had access to was extremely limited. Even so, he is much more uncritical of the Han dynasty and its alleged Confucianism than Fairbank was; Fairbank questions Han Confucianism, pointing out places where the dynasty was very legalistic. Furthermore, Morton focuses on how extraordinary Sima Qian's work was – how extensive and analytical – while Fairbank focuses on Qian's brutal legalistic punishment and how she coped 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 were related. In short, if one was a scholar, or was educated, he had power depending on the type of dynasty he lived in: for example, in the legalistic Qin dynasty, being a historian was not a good thing; however, in the Han Dynasty, it was a good thing and would gain power as long as the scholar did not meddle with the emperor. Indeed, in civilization in general, education usually conferred political power, whether it was the scholar officials of China or the priests of.