Introduction
The primary source in this context is “Romance of the Three Kingdoms. c. 14th century CE.” while its counterpart secondary source is “The Romance of the Three Kingdoms and the Chronicle Text of the Three Kingdoms Era.” The former is considered one of the most Chinese literary masterpieces exploring an influential part of their history courtesy of Luo Guanzhong (Besio et al., 2012). The latter source’s author is considered to be Rafe de Crespigny. Luo Guanzhong is presumed to have targeted the Chinese intellectuals of the time. In contrast, Rafe de Crespigny tends to have aimed at a larger audience that involves learners and intellectuals, evident in Asian schooling. The authors’ presentations assume different outlines; Luo Guanzhong’s text proves to be more of a chronicle of fiction and narrative, while his counterpart’s presentation tends to be more of a journal.
Essentially, the primary source in this context majorly explores the bureaucratic wrangles and chronicle happenings recorded during the relevance of the China’s three kingdoms and the Han dynasty. Also, the philosophical hypothesis of equity, commitment, and respect is evident. However, the author’s motive in coming up with this provision is not clear; aspects that express provisions of teaching, refreshment, and reflecting are nevertheless implicated. On the other hand, Rafe de Crespigny acknowledges the influence of the text “The Romance of the Three Kingdoms” on the literary fraternity. His motivation is aimed at enlightening and emphasizing his audience on Chinese history as well as the relevance of literature. The bias phenomenon is more evident in the primary than the secondary source; for instance, Luo Guanzhong manifests apparent preconceptions against the Shu kingdom. He emphasizes this concept by criticizing deception and disloyalty while idealizing uprightness and faithfulness (Birch et al., 1965). Rafe de Crespigny’s biasness tends to be attributed to his origin as a fellow Chinese; nevertheless, this phenomenon is not manifested.
The primary source sustains an indisputable degree of originality as expressed by the writer’s understanding of the involved happenings; this is emphasized by the concept that it was scripted in China. It is believed to have been scripted during the late 14th era. However, Rafe de Crespigny is presumed to have scripted his presentation while in Australia hence the notable variations in these authors’ opinions; he published this article in 2010 (De Crespigny, 2010). Luo Guanzhong’s provision has critically influenced Chinese literature and customs for ages, including understanding the famous historical Three Kingdoms. Interestingly, the influence has been evident in media platforms regarding the representation of chronicle phenomena. Rafe de Crespigny’s work has significantly contributed to the scholarly-related acknowledgment of the and regarding Luo Guanzhong’s script. Both presentations sustain a significant deal of credibility; the primary source is an exact provision of a society that made it, while the secondary one is an approved scholarly piece acknowledged in this area.
Conclusion
The primary source’s author is implicated in expressing his understanding of the events and adventures he captured about the fallen Three Kingdoms and Han Dynasty in China that manifested regional conflict, bureaucratic fluctuation, civilization, and social adjustments. The other author tends to have been excited by Luo Guanzhong’s work and chose to express the relevance of the involved chronicles and literature.
References
Besio, K., & Tung, C. (Eds.). (2012). Three kingdoms and Chinese culture. State University of New York Press.
Birch, C., & Keene, D. (Eds.). (1965). Anthology of Chinese Literature: From Early Times to the Fourteenth Century (Vol. 1). Grove Press.
De Crespigny, R. (2010). Imperial warlord: a biography of Cao Cao 155-220 AD. Brill.
write