After breakfast, Chang Xian took the old man for a walk to the hill.

Looking around, the morning sun is rising, the mountain breeze is fresh, and the chirping of insects and birds can be heard in the ears. It is quite the artistic conception of "a house in a human environment, without the noise of cars and horses". It is really a good environment for self-cultivation.

The old man said: "As a student of history, you should know that history is not trustworthy, or that history is trustworthy, but history books are not trustworthy."

Chang Xian nodded silently.

The old man's words cannot be refuted.

Many experts say that we should watch less dramas that are not consistent with historical facts.

What they didn't say is, what should we look at that is consistent with historical facts?

History book?

This is just a joke. Some history books are just as unfair as those jokes, legends, and novels.

The history books here are talking about official history, which is the Twenty-Four Histories.

To put it bluntly, some so-called official histories are more harmful than divine dramas.

Because the drama will tell others that it is a spoof, but the history books will tell you that it is true.

It's like buying a box of tonics from a century-old brand, only to find that it contains Crane's Crown Red.

Is it true?

Is Emperor Sui Yang really that fatuous?

Is the big idiot Jin Huidi really that stupid?

Is the great loyal minister Wei Zheng really that loyal?

Let’s not talk about the funny guy Gan Shiquan, let’s talk about Kang Mazi, the “holy ancestor”. In another time period, how much better is he really than that old witch Cixi?

Yaksa, Nerchinsk, and an army of 100,000 were helpless against hundreds of Cossack bandits, ushering in the "Treaty Dynasty" of the Qing Dynasty.

That’s it, Holy?

In spite of the country's decline, Cixi defeated France, the world's most powerful country at the time, defeated Tsarist Russia and regained Xinjiang.

Without these two battles, who would Guangxi and Xinjiang belong to?

Without these two battles, do you really think that the Opium War would have ended easily?

Are the bandits who colonized the world so soft-hearted?

In that era when men were superior to women, do you really think that just by playing in a palace fight, you can make the hen Si Chen and the mother be the king?

hehe!

History exists objectively, but history books do not equal history.

Because history books are recorded by historians.

Historians are human beings.

As a human being, you need to eat.

The quality of history books depends on the quality of historians, and the quality of historians depends on the quality of the bowl of rice.

During the Xia, Shang and Zhou dynasties, the historian was called Taishi, and he was a high-status court minister.

Responsible for drafting documents, giving orders to princes and officials, recording historical events, and also managing classics, calendars, sacrifices, etc.

The most important affairs of the country are sacrifice and military service.

"Hanshu Guangwu Ji" notes: "The historian is also the leader."

Until the Han Dynasty, Taishi was a very important official in the government hierarchy.

Because of this, the credibility of historical records before the Han Dynasty is still very high.

Because the previous historians continued it through family inheritance, regarded it as their career and belief, and firmly believed that they were upholding the righteousness of heaven and earth.

For example, Wen Tianxiang said in "Song of Righteousness": "In Qi Taishi Jian, in Jin Dong Hubi."

The Grand Historian of Qi is the bone of my country.

During the reign of Duke Zhuang of Qi, the minister Cui Zhu committed regicide.

Qi Taishi wrote straightly: "Cui Zhu killed his king."

The weapon of criticism could not defeat the criticism of the weapon, so Cui Zhu killed Qi Taishi.

Taishi's two younger brothers also recorded truthfully, and they were both killed by Cui Zhu.

At this time, Cui Zhu became angry and threatened Taishi's third brother: "Your two brothers are dead. Aren't you afraid of death? You must follow my request and write the death of Duke Zhuang as that he died of a sudden illness."

.”

The third brother of Taishi replied seriously: "According to the official record, it is the duty of the historian. If you neglect your duty and survive, it is better to die. Cui Zhu will kill the king sooner or later. If I don't write it, not only will I not be able to cover up your guilt, but it will become an eternal crime."

laughing stock."

Cui Zhu had nothing to say, so he had to let him go.

Taishi's third brother came out and met the Nanshi family holding a slip.

Nan Shi thought that he had also been killed and was here to continue writing about the incident.

This is the historian who uses the weapon of criticism to confront criticism with weapon.

After the Han Dynasty, the position of historians gradually decreased, and it gradually became just a profession for making a living.

Just for the sake of having a full meal, who can stand tall and let the sponsor chop off his head, chop off his father and chop off his brother? Who can chop him off and have his colleagues come to chop him off?

Give me a break.

Therefore, Qi Taishi could only live on the bamboo slips.

Therefore, the so-called historians in later generations were completely reduced to domestic slaves who could only paint the emperor's family.

To put it bluntly, most of the so-called historians in later generations were royal favorites and jesters.

Not to mention the big tobacco bag, it's a bit disgusting.

Let’s talk about Qin Hui.

Qin Hui always served as prime minister and "supervised the compilation of the history of the country" and "exclusively held the position of prime minister of the Yuan Dynasty but was responsible for the writing and cutting". He assigned his adopted son Qin Xi to compile the calendar and records of the Southern Song Dynasty's national history, doing his best to tamper with historical facts.

Do you dare to believe "The Biography of Yue Fei" compiled by Qin Hui?

How credible can a history book written by such a person be?

…

The history of a country and a nation has history books, and the history of an individual has epitaphs.

But just as history books are untrustworthy, epitaphs are also untrustworthy.

Epitaph is the collective name of two styles: epitaph and inscription.

Xu Shizeng of the Ming Dynasty wrote in his "Preface to the Ming Dynasty of Literary and Style: Epitaphs": "Those who aspire are the ones who remember. The ones who inscribe are the names."

The annals record the life story of the deceased, and the inscription praises the merits and virtues of the deceased.

Most epitaphs are written by family members who spend a lot of money to have them written.

Because of this, after the epitaph is written, it must first be approved by the deceased's relatives, staff, and friends. If they don't approve, something will happen.

Ouyang Xiu's writing of an epitaph for Fan Zhongyan is a typical public case, which is recorded in Song Dynasty notes such as Ye Mengde's "Records of a Summer Vacation" and other records.

I won’t go into the original text, but roughly speaking, Fan Zhongyan was stabbed in the back by Lu Gong because he offended the prime minister, Lu Gong, and was demoted to the Three Gorges for many years.

Later, the two staged a battle between generals and prime ministers. Fan Zhongyan himself said that he had never resented anyone in his life. He also wrote "A Letter of Reconciliation with Lu Gong" about this matter, and the article was also included in Fan Zhongyan's collected works.

It stands to reason that this matter is solid, the testimonies of the parties involved are complete, and there is no doubt whatsoever, so Ouyang Xiu used this version to write the epitaph.

But what I didn't expect was that Fan Zhongyan's son Fan Chunren thought otherwise and clearly opposed it, saying that his father would not be able to resolve his hatred until his death.

After repeated arguments, Fan Chunren insisted on deleting this plot from the article when he was carving the monument.

This move made Ouyang Xiu want to point his finger at Fan Chunren and scold his mother. What kind of hypocrite do you want your father to be?

This incident also caused Ouyang Xiu to no longer trust the people evaluated by epitaphs.

His "Bai Minzhong Stele" in Chapter 9 of "Collection of Ancient Records" says: "It is difficult to believe that he has such a bad reputation, so the inscription on the stele only takes his rank, official life, and uprightness in his hometown. As for his merits and demerits, good and evil, he has not done anything. Those who rely on it should use this."

"It's hard to believe in reputation or reputation", this is Ouyang Xiu's evaluation of epitaphs.

Let’s look at the participants in this public case: Fan Zhongyan, Lu Gongzhu, Ouyang Xiu, and Fan Chunren.

They are all famous ministers of the generation, with excellent character and reputation, and can be regarded as the top lineup of moral articles.

Don't get me wrong, Fan Chunren, who seems to be playing the role of a villain, is not an unworthy descendant. He is also a famous official in the Northern Song Dynasty. His official rank is older than his father, and he is known as the "Prime Minister of Common People".

Moreover, he has an excellent reputation and is easy to treat others with loyalty and forgiveness. His famous saying is: "If you blame yourself with the same mind that blames others, and forgive others with the same mind that forgives yourself, you will not lose the status of a sage."

The epitaphs produced by such a top-level lineup are not credible. What about the others?

You go and taste it.
Chapter completed!