The generally favorable criticisms, that SKC [What we refer to as SGZ] is a fair record based honestly on available data within the limits imposed on its compiler [Chen Shou], seem well-founded
So the commentary contains several anecdotes which fit ill with a rationalist taste, but
Pei Songzhi well reflected the patterns of his time and the traditions of Chinese history.
And such open eclecticism is quite appropriate, for the ultimate purpose of history in the
Chinese tradition is not only to record the events of the past, but also to express moral
judgement and, further, to display models of behaviour, good and bad. A historian should
tell the truth, but real truth is more than a list of temporal facts.
Dong Zhou wrote:Could your supervisor tell you what he counts as a history source if he discounts the SGZ? Every other big source (whatever issues there are with it) relies on the sgz as the basic starting point. Is it possible your supervisor has got the SGZ and the SGYY muddled up?
Dong Zhou wrote:Is it possible your supervisor has got the SGZ and the SGYY muddled up?
James wrote:Dong Zhou wrote:I too would be curious to find out what is considered accurate if SGZ is deemed not.
To dismiss Chen Shou is akin to saying that Tacitus and Livy should be discarded.suwanpeng wrote:Hello！
Quick background, I'm writing my MA thesis right now on the subject of the Three Kingdoms in the historical aspect. As such, besides sources such as Rafe de Crespigny's works, I had to delve deep into sources written in Chinese, and, of course, Sanguozhi and the annotations by Pei Songzhi. I'm not an expert when it comes to classcal Chinese, but I can read it to some degree and spent a fair amount of time researching the chapters that I wanted to use.
Now here's a problem I faced: My thesis supervisor argues that neither 三国志 nor 三国志注 can be treated as historical sources and that they are highly fictional, which left me flabbergasted. While I do know that modern historians argue over whether or not Chen Shou was biased in his biographies and I know that Pei Songzhi himself disputed some of the stories he annotated, I always considered Sanguozhi as the key historical source to the events that happened during the Three Kingdoms period.
So here's my question: Am I right or is my supervisor right? If I'm right, how to prove it? Are there any reputable sources, especially in Chinese, that I could use to prove I'm right? If I'm wrong, what other sources could I use?
To clarify: I mostly used Sanguozhi and the annotations when writing about Lü Bu, Guan Yu, Zhuge Liang and Sima Yi.
Thank you for your input!
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 3 guests
Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved