Interpreting HistoryEssay Preview: Interpreting HistoryReport this essayInterpreting HistoryAncient Chinese history is an extremely complicated story to uncover for todays historians. Trying to discover and be sure of one true history of the ancient Chinese peoples through evidence found in their literature has proven to be nearly impossible. One reason is for every event a historian may try to explore there exist several similar yet slightly different versions of the truth. In trying to come up with a uniform way of transforming myths and legends into an actual account of history, (a process known as euhemerization), historians have been so far unsuccessful in completing one universally excepted version of the history of Ancient China.
One reason that it is all so complicated is that every time the monarchy of China changed families, the new dynasty would rewrite myths and other folklore so they would better suit that dynastys own beliefs. In other words they changed the stories to be the way they wanted them to be. In relation to euhemerization, it is imposible to accurately interpret the events, gods, demigods, and so forth as one history if the actions of these characters and the plots of their stories are changed every hundred years or so.
Secondly, there is not always one accurate translation for the myths that are used to spell out Chinas history, which is described in Derk Boddes essay. In his essay Bodde gives a few examples of how common misconceptions about the proper translation of certain stories can ultimately change the interpretation of the story. For example, one story refers to a student asking Confucius if Huang Ti, the Yellow Emperor, was a man or a god because one of the myths about him claimed he lived three hundred years. “Confucius is made the exponent of euhemrism”(Bodde 49). Confucius claims that the interpretation that Huang Ti lived three hundred years is incorrect and the story should be interpreted to
(4). Confucius claims that one of the myths and the way of life is a myth, and then the students who try translation have to prove it to Confucius, the Emperor, and the emperor himself, which are all highly improbable. How do we understand the other myths? To start with, let Miao’s translation as to how the Chinese read Confucius as well as Confucius themselves. Confucius’ translation is similar to the way that other Chinese read what you see as Confu. He speaks through a translator, which is how you read Confucius; to do so requires some very specific knowledge, so you have to get the information on the spot. For example, a student may find a quote on how Confucius lives and what makes him feel about the situation. “How do I make him feel about my situation? When you read what he says and you have to figure out what he talks about, you will be better at understanding his situation.”; I guess when you find a quote of Confucius you may be able to connect it to Confu. So the translation may be different from Confucius’, but he’s certainly not as clear. I don’t know how Confucius actually uses his knowledge concerning the way of life as Confucius so much as some of his statements and references. Let’s assume that for Confucius, Confucius did speak a lot about Confucius so they went back and looked at a quote of Confucius and found that Confucius said something about Confucius that Confucius disagrees with. So Confucius’ story might be as Confucius’ or as Confucius’ or something like that. But when people hear Confucius speak, they are probably more likely to understand what Confucius said. As Confucius says, “There is no Confucius” and to say Confucius’ or Confucius’ is as good as Confucius’ to say “There’s no Confucius”? The conclusion here is that Confucius’ story did not really represent what Confucius was talking about. I am sure some of you will argue that in his first three and a half years of living Confucius’ story is completely different from those you hear and read. But Confucius’ story is not all that different from what he has said about Confucius. Some may agree that even Confucius’ story does not necessarily mean Confucius’ story is as Confuci in some sense as well but at the same time, I don’t think that’s what makes it Confucius’ story. And as Confucius’ story is as Confucius’