#zztj

[fuyonggu]

ZZTJ Book 13: 187-178 BC

The reign of Lü Zhi, the Lü Clan Disturbance, and the beginning of the reign of Emperor Wen of Han.

[fuyonggu]

ZZTJ Book 90 (317-318)

The beginning of Eastern Jin; Sima Rui claims the throne. Liu Cong’s death leads to a messy coup in Han-Zhao. The end of Liu Kun.

[fuyonggu]

ZZTJ Book 83 (299-300)

The fall of Jia Nanfeng and the rise of Sima Lun; rebellion in Shu; prelude to the War of the Eight Princes and the Sixteen Kingdoms.

[fuyonggu]

ZZTJ Book 84 (301-302)

The rise and fall of Sima Lun; the rise and fall of Sima Jiong. The first stage of the War of the Eight Princes.

[fuyonggu]

ZZTJ Book 87 (309-311)

Sima Yue’s bitter victory crumbles with his death. The death of Liu Yuan and succession of Liu Cong. Shi Le rises, recruiting Zhang Bin and Shi Hu. The Disaster of Yongjia: Luoyang and Chang’an fall to Han-Zhao and Emperor Huai is captured.

[fuyonggu]

ZZTJ Book 86 (305-309)

The end of the War of the Eight Princes. The death of Emperor Hui and the rise of Emperor Huai. Growing rebellions and the introduction of Shi Le. Prelude to the Disaster of Yongjia.

[craftercat]

would you say there's bias against the northern wei in the zizhi tongjian?

Hmm... only really whenever the Northern Wei is directly involved in events in the south, such as during the Wei-Song wars. Otherwise, I think they could have been a lot worse. They left out a lot of questionable anecdotes in the Songshu about Northern Wei, for example.

When it comes to the Wei-Song wars, the coverage is generally favourable towards Liu-Song. Which is not really surprising given that the ZZTJ appears to take the view that the Southern dynasties are the "legitimate" dynasties during this period. I think this could be related to the position of Sima Guang's Song at the time, which were being threatened by the Jurchen Jin to the north. So the Zhao-Song were in a similar position to the Liu-Song, so it also served the Zhao-Song to depict the Liu-Song similarly. And even then, he sometimes ends up favourable to Northern Wei at times, even if I don't think it's intentional - for example, neglecting to mention that Northern Wei only gained part of Yan and Yu provinces in 423 and saying Northern Wei gained all of those two provinces.

But I think that aside from that, the Northern Wei coverage is generally alright. The main problems aren't really bias but that Sima Guang sometimes writes things in the ZZTJ that aren't in the Weishu or Jinshu when referring to the Sixteen Kingdoms. I haven't been able to find an earlier source for some statements, but I do give him the benefit of the doubt here because there could be sources that are lost today that he could be able to draw on. Also, some of his interpretations of text in the Weishu can be a bit questionable, but I don't think it's biased.

I think he covers the first three Northern Wei emperors quite favourably, actually, especially when compared to the other Sixteen Kingdoms rulers. Tuoba Tao has a character evaluation from Sima Guang that's based on that from the Weishu, and while I think that there was a questionable interpretation in there, it's pretty favourable to Tuoba Tao. Tuoba Gui and Tuoba Si don't have their own character evaluation (because they don't really have them in the Weishu), but I think they are generally covered favourably by the ZZTJ. The only exceptions are really the depiction of Tuoba Gui's final years, but the Weishu wasn't favourable to him there either, and a few other areas where he's really just following the Weishu depiction.

[fuyonggu]

Sima Guang’s commentary on Tao Qian’s relationship with the rebel Que Xuan

下邳闕宣聚衆數千人，自稱天子；陶謙擊殺之。

〈《考異》曰：范《書‧謙傳》作「閻宣」。今從《魏志‧武紀》及《謙傳》。《魏武紀》又曰：「謙與宣共舉兵，取泰山華、費，掠任城。」《謙傳》亦云：「謙始與合從，從遂殺之，幷其衆。」按謙據有徐州，託義勤王，何藉宣數千之衆而與之合從！蓋謙別將與宣共襲曹嵩，故曹操以此爲謙罪而伐之耳。〉

193.H. Que Xuan of Xiapi collected a force of several thousand men and styled himself Son of Heaven. Tao Qian attacked and killed him. (de Crispigny’s To Establish Peace)

(Sima Guang's commentary in the Textual Analysis states, "The Biography of Tao Qian in Fan Ye's Book of Later Han records the name of this rebel as 閻 Yan Xuan. But I follow the account of the Annals of Emperor Wu (Cao Cao) and the Biography of Tao Qian, both in the Records of the Three Kingdoms, in calling him 闕 Que Xuan.

"But I note that the Annals of Emperor Wu in that text states, 'Tao Qian and Que Xuan raised troops together; they captured Hua and Fei in Taishan, and ravaged Rencheng.' And the Biography of Tao Qian in that text also states, 'At first, Tao Qian worked together with Que Xuan, but afterwards, he killed him and took over his forces.' Now during the time that Tao Qian occupied Xuzhou, he relied upon just behavior and exerted himself on behalf of the Han royal family. How then could he have utilized Que Xuan's thousands of men and gone along with him? It was just that Tao Qian's subordinate general(s) and Que Xuan attacked Cao Song together, and that was why Cao Cao pinned the blame for his father's death on Tao Qian and marched against him.")

[I am curious about Sima Guang's statements both that Tao Qian 託義勤王 "relied upon just behavior and exerted himself on behalf of the Han royal family" and that 謙別將與宣共襲曹嵩 "Tao Qian's subordinate general(s) and Que Xuan attacked Cao Song together". On the first point, Tao Qian is noted in the sentence of his biography immediately before this as trusting in miscreants and not properly managing the province, leading to greater disorder, apparently including his lack of control over his subordinates. Was his public image good enough to counteract this? And Cao Cao's biography in SGZ does say that Cao Song was 為陶謙所害 "brought to harm by Tao Qian", but I'm not sure it follows that Que Xuan was also involved, especially if Cao Song's death was in 194 and Tao Qian killed Que Xuan in 193. Perhaps Sima Guang had other sources that we no longer have?]