Japanese scholars research selected translations of Chinese historical treatises

Author: Translated by: Huang Yuze
Editor-in-Chief: Liu Junwen
Publisher:
Publication Date: 1993-08-01
Features: Excerpt: The deeds of the three kings Yao, Shun, and Yu are briefly mentioned above. We must approach this with a calm and extremely rational mind. The chapters such as Yao Dian, Shun Dian, and Da Yu Mo in the Book of Documents were not recorded during their time. This can be deduced from the fact that each chapter begins with phrases like "If we examine the ancient records," and from the contrast between past and present. Furthermore, the significance of the deeds of the three kings varies greatly, with a severe imbalance. Among them, Shun's achievements are most numerous, and his deeds are most prominent; Yao is primarily associated with astronomy, Yu is solely focused on water control, while other achievements are attributed to Shun. This is indeed highly questionable. Additionally, Yao's achievements are mainly related to astronomy, Shun's to human affairs, and Yu's to land. The deeds of the three kings are distinctly divided, which seems unnatural and raises doubts.
Moreover, when examining Shun's filial piety, it is hard to believe based on common sense. Although Shun was originally just an ordinary man, once he became the Son of Heaven, even if his stepbrother was arrogant and cruel, it would be extraordinary for their father to plot to kill him. The stubbornness and lack of compassion of Gu Sou, as well as the arrogance and lack of fraternal piety of Xiang, were all created to highlight Shun's filial piety and are fictional. Only with such a father and brother could Shun's virtue stand out, making it clear that the legend is fictional.
What about Yu's flood control? It is said that Gun's failure to dam the waters led to vast, overflowing floods that surged across the mountains. The (fàn làn - widespread flooding) was not limited to the Yellow River but affected all rivers, submerging the entire land of China under the reverse currents. However, in the distant, primitive era, even if flood control was imperfect, the disaster should not have been so severe. If it truly was that bad, how could Yu have succeeded in controlling the floods in just thirteen years with his own efforts? Yet, if there was no flood, why would legends about Yu be recorded in ancient texts? This is an issue worth considering.
Compared to the Great Flood in the Bible, but Richard Wilhelm, a Western sinologist, initially dismissed the flood legend in Chinese ancient tales, arguing that Yu's flood was a historical fact, unlike the Noah's Ark story, which was a fictional tale. He supported this with geographical evidence that aligned with reality, asking, "If it wasn't a flood, then what was it?" However, I still doubt this. According to French sinologist Paul Pelliot and Dutch sinologist scholars, the total length of China's rivers, including the Yellow River, Yangtze River, and Han River, is 1,500 miles. Adding other rivers, the total distance is even greater. If all these rivers simultaneously flooded, Yu could not have controlled them in just thirteen years. The Great Wall stretches about 450 miles, but it was not built in a single generation by Qin Shi Huang, which also suggests that Yu could not have controlled the floods alone.
The Yangtze River has never been a disaster in ancient times; its greatest harm was primarily caused by the Yellow River. The Yellow River originates from the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau, with clear water, but after flowing into Gansu Province, it turns yellow. This is what Richard Wilhelm and Hoffmann called the Yellow River (Huangtu) overflow. The Yellow River flows through the provinces of Shaanxi and Shanxi, then bends eastward into Henan, with the section to Kaifeng City being particularly rapid. However, after leaving Henan, the terrain changes to a flat plain, leaving sediment behind and gradually raising the riverbed, causing frequent floods. The harm to the people was primarily east of Kaifeng, a fact recorded in history since ancient times, making it reasonable to infer that the same was true before recorded history. If so, the great disasters of the Han Chinese were indeed floods, causing them suffering and resentment. If a king could dedicate himself to irrigation to ensure the people's safety, he would be a wise ruler. Other disasters of the Han Chinese were invasions by the Western Barbarians and Northern Nomads. A ruler who could subdue or punish them would also be considered a divinely appointed king. The legend of the Great Flood and Yu's flood control originated from this. The existence of Yu is tied to the flood. If the flood was a historical fact and the legend was based on historical events, Yu would still be a personified ideal of the Han Chinese. Although the legend may be based on facts, the idea of rivers flowing in reverse and the entire land of China being submerged clearly shows why it is a legend.
If the above assumptions are correct, we cannot help but doubt the historical existence of the three kings Yao, Shun, and Yu. Yao was primarily responsible for astronomical matters, while Shun handled human affairs, and his virtue was filial piety, which is not unusual. Filial piety is the foundation of all virtues and the cornerstone of Chinese morality. It is easy to deduce that they chose Shun as the personification of their moral ideals. Yu's achievements were related to land, as mentioned above. If so, the creators of the legends of Yao, Shun, and Yu must have had the concept of the Three Powers (Heaven, Earth, and Humanity) from ancient times in mind, which led to the formation of these legends. In other words, the legends of Yao, Shun, and Yu are not a series of successive events but rather coexistent ones. Because the authors held the concept of the Three Powers, the overall legend appears artificial and artificially unified.