In the Warring States Policy, there was an article "Tang Ju didn't live up to his mission", which was inconsistent with the situation at that time. Is the record in the Warring States Policy credible?

"Historical Records Biography of Assassins": "Qin Fa, the minister of the palace, is not allowed to hold large and small soldiers." Chen Qin can't bring the sword into the temple yet. As an emissary of the enemy, how did Tang Can Ju stand in the court with a sword? What's more, at that time, Qin was struggling with the eastern countries with all its strength. How could an ambassador with ulterior motives be so careless in the face of the enemy?

Information:

"Tang drama does not live up to its mission" is false, so it can be concluded. In the book Textual Research on the Warring States Policy, Mr. Miao, a contemporary scholar, believes that this chapter originated from the "quasi-trust" of military strategists in the late Qin Dynasty and early Han Dynasty. Mr. Zhu Dongrun also thinks: "The plot of this article should be fictional, not a real historical record."

First of all, the basic plot is unreasonable. As a small country with a territory of only "fifty miles", it can only become a vassal of a big country and a powerful country when the world is in turmoil. In fact, it is difficult to exist independently as a "country". Even if the state of Wei perishes, and "Anling has a land of 50 Li", the king of Qin will send his troops to attack, and the tiny land will be threatened one day. Why did he insult the word "change places" and ridicule the diplomatic struggle? Qin Wang's move is puzzling, but Tang Ju's trip is extremely ignorant. If the skin does not exist, Mao will be attached, and Wei will perish. How does Anling fight against the tiger and wolf Qin with the "land of fifty miles"? That is to say, the use of "robbing Qin" in exchange for a promise of the king of Qin was of little value at the end of the Warring States Period when "fighting without repairing, combining fraud with falsehood" and "morality is absolutely absent" (recorded in Liu Xiang's Warring States Policy). Bao Biao, an annotator of the Warring States Policy, said: "Tang Ju is stupid! Although he speaks loudly and unyieldingly, can he finally be depressed? " The lobbying activities of strategists in the Warring States period all have obvious utilitarian purposes. How did Tang Can "know what he couldn't do"?

Secondly, the characters are inaccurate. The two figures in this paper, Tang Ju and Qin Wang, are in sharp contrast with real historical figures. Historically, Tang drama is an eloquent strategist, not a desperate role like Zhuan Xu, Nie Zheng and Parting. The threat of "two dead bodies, five steps of bloodshed" and the desperate posture of "sword fighting" are not what counselors like Tang Ju want to do. Ying Zheng, the king of Qin, as an opponent of Tang Ju, is by no means a weak agent who is easy to surrender. His arrogant personality can hardly be compared with that of Ying Zheng. As long as you have read Biography of the Assassin in Historical Records, you can know that in the face of Jing Ke's sharp dagger, all of a sudden, the king of Qin "fought with his hands", which shows that his agility is not surprising, and he is not an easy role to deal with. The image of "scratching, kneeling and thanking" has nothing in common with Ying Zheng, the king of Qin in history.

Again, important details are seriously inaccurate. The complete solution of the contradiction depends on the "sword" of unknown origin. "Historical Records Biography of Assassins": "Qin Fa, the minister of the Temple, are not allowed to hold large and small soldiers." Chen Qin can't bring the sword into the temple yet. As an emissary of the enemy, how did Tang Can Ju stand in the court with a sword? What's more, at that time, Qin was struggling with the eastern countries with all its strength. How could an ambassador with ulterior motives be so careless in the face of the enemy?

From this perspective, "Tang Drama Live Up to its Mission" not only violates the truth of history, but also violates the truth of life as a literary work. His writing is based on the fictional "quasi-entrustment", and the fictional "quasi-entrustment" technique is really not clever.