Empresses and consorts selections from Chen Shou's Records of the Three States with Pei Songzhi's commentary |
 |
| 1. |
 | 2. |
|
| 4. |
| 5. | 5 Records of the Three States |
|
|
|
|
 | 5 Records of the Three States Empresses and consorts |  |
5 Records of the Three States
There is a common tendency to think about China in terms of
comparatively long and relatively stable dynastic periods such as the
Han, the Tang, and the Qing.[1] The Three States period does not follow
this pattern, however, and Records of the Three States differs
significantly from the other standard histories of the early imperial
period. The period it describes was quite unlike those of The Grand
Scribe's Records and the Han History: The subject is three separate and
competing regimes, and the period covered is less than a century. Yet
despite its political fragmentation and brief duration, few historical
periods are as woven into the cultural fabric of a people's existence as
the Three States period is for the Chinese.[2] "If one wishes to understand
China," writes Lyman Van Slyke, "one must have some familiarity with
the history of the Three Kingdoms and with the lore that surrounds
it."[3]
There can be no doubt about the importance of Records of the Three
States to this process of understanding. It is a fascinating work dealing
with an extraordinary period and has long been considered one of the
most important dynastic histories. In its pages are chronicled the ideas
and events of an exciting period in Chinese history—the late second
and third centuries. This was a time of tremendous social, economic,
and political change and an age of great achievements in literature. As
a repository of information and documents concerning political and
military events, people, religion, science, foreign customs, and literature,
Records of the Three States is crucial for an understanding of the
period.[4] Furthermore, the book has indirectly left a lasting impression
on Chinese of all ages through its "pervasive influence in fiction, drama,
and popular religion,"[5] not to mention history and historiography. In
Taiwan alone, there are scores of temples decorated with scenes from
Records of the Three States, as sifted through popular lore and fiction.
The canonization of Guan Yu and the widespread devotions to him
today are just one example of this influence.[6] Similarly, the fact that
the book has long been mentioned in the same breath with Sima Qian's
The Grand Scribe's Records, Ban Gu's Han History, and Fan Ye's Later
high regard in which it has been held.[7]
Although there is no complete Western-language translation of
Records of the Three States, books, articles, and dissertations
sometimes do contain translations of passages or sections. But they
almost never include the relevant parts of Pei Songzhi's commentary,
and the total amount in translation is miniscule. A translator who
sampled broadly from the text was the redoubtable Achilles Fang.[8]
Fang, of course, was translating from Zi zhi tong jian [OMITTED]
[Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Governing], not Records of the
Three States, and only when the two texts are the same, and in
occasional notes, can he be said to be dealing with Records of the Three
States proper.[9]
CHEN SHOU AND RECORDS OF THE THREE STATES
Chen Shou, author of Records of the Three States, was from Anhan
[OMITTED] prefecture in Baxi [OMITTED] commandery of Shu.[10] In his youth he
studied with an older historian from the same commandery, Qiao Zhou
[OMITTED] (201-270),[11] and learned the Shang shu [OMITTED] [Hallowed
Documents] and the three commentaries to the Spring and Autumn
Annals. But he especially concentrated on The Grand Scribe's Records
and the Han History.[12] Later, Chen was an official in Shu, where
he served as master of records (zhupu [OMITTED]) for the general of the
guards (wei jiangjun [OMITTED]), gentleman librarian in the Eastern
Library (Dongguan mishulang [OMITTED]), and cavalier gentleman-in-attendance
of the Yellow Gates (sanji Huangmen shilang [OMITTED]
[OMITTED]).[13] According to the Jin shu [OMITTED] [Jin History], Chen was removed
from office more than once because he chose to remain aloof from the
eunuch Huang Hao, who controlled Shu at the time.[14]
In 263 Shu was conquered by Wei, and two years later Sima Yan
[OMITTED] (236-290) abolished Wei and became the first ruler of the
Western Jin [OMITTED] (266-317). Chen, however, did not immediately take
office in the Jin government. Sometime before the change of regimes,
he was in mourning for his father, and during the mourning period,
he fell ill and had a maidservant concoct some pills for him to take.
This was apparently a violation of ritual and engendered censure, with
the result that Chen spent some years out of office.[15]
After a time, Chen Shou was recommended as filially pious and
incorrupt[16] by a powerful admirer, the influential official and literatus
Zhang Hua, and so came to serve the Jin. He became an assistant
gentleman editor (zuo zhuzuo lang [OMITTED]), then gentleman editor
(zhuzuo lang), and next chancellor of Pingyang marquisate (Pingyang
hou xiang [OMITTED]).[17] While Chen was serving as gentleman editor,
(d. 289) and Prefect of the Palace Writers (zhongshu ling [OMITTED]) He
Jiao [OMITTED] (d. 292) enlisted him to edit the works of the famous Shu
statesman and strategist Zhuge Liang. The Zhuge Liang ji [OMITTED]
[Collected Works of Zhuge Liang], Chen's edition of Zhuge's works
in twenty-four juan, was submitted to the throne in 274.[18]
With Jin's conquest of Wu in 280, Chen began work on his history
of the three now defunct states.[19] Just when he completed the
manuscript is not known. Chen may have completed portions of the
work as early as sometime prior to the fall of Shu. The Wei section
was certainly well along or complete before the fall of Wu, but the Wu
section itself was probably not begun until after 280, and the complete
work may not have been presented for some years after that.[20] Since
the writing of the work had not been officially sponsored, official copies
were not made until after Chen's death.[21] It was generally well received.
Xiahou Zhan [OMITTED] (243-291), who was compiling his own Wei shu
[OMITTED] [Wei History], was reportedly so impressed with Chen's work that
he quit and destroyed what he had written.[22]
Even so, the praise of Chen's work was not universal, and
assessments of it could be affected by nonhistoriographical
considerations. The Huayang guozhi [OMITTED] [Record of the States
South of Mt. Hua] says:
Following the pacification of Wu, Shou assembled histories of the
Three States, wrote a history of Wei, Wu, and Shu in sixty-five juan,
and titled it Records of the Three States. He further wrote Records
of Ancient States in fifty chapters. It was elegant and refined. Inspector
of the Palace Writers Xun Xu and Prefect of the Palace Writers Zhang
Hua deeply liked it and believed that Ban Gu and Sima Qian could
not match him.[23]
A few lines later, however, one finds:
Hua memorialized that [Chen] be made concurrently a gentleman of
the palace writers (zhongshu lang [OMITTED]), but Shou's Record of Wei
had displeased [Xun] Xu. Xu did not want him within [the court]
and memorialized that he be grand administrator (taishou [OMITTED]) of
Changguang [OMITTED] commandery.[24]
Chen's Jin History biography mentions this incident as well but does
not refer to Xun's unhappiness with Chen's history. Rather, it says,
"Xun Xu was jealous of [Zhang] Hua and hated Shou, so he spoke
disparagingly to the Division of Personnel (Li bu [OMITTED]), and Shou was
declined because of his mother's age and did not go."[25]
The reason for Xun's displeasure over Chen's Record of Wei is not
readily apparent, though given the prominence of the Xun family in
the work and Xun's own role in the events described there, the
possibilities are probably countless. But the problem may have been
a difference over policy between Xun and Zhang, who was Chen's
champion. The two disagreed over plans to conquer Wu, with Xun
opposed and Zhang in favor.[26] Xun may not have wanted Zhang to
have another partisan within the palace, and he may have seen
something in the Record that he felt argued against his position.
In any case, although Chen did not take up the Changguang posting,
later Du Yu [OMITTED] (222-284), who was then general-in-chief who
subdues the South (zhennan da jiangjun [OMITTED]), recommended
Chen to be a cavalier gentleman-in-attendance (sanji shilang [OMITTED]
[OMITTED]). The court actually appointed him attending secretary-preparer of
documents (zhishu shi yushi [OMITTED]), a high office in the
Censorate. By and by, he left office to go into mourning for his mother.[27]
Before she died, Chen's mother had asked to be buried in Luoyang
[OMITTED]. Chen followed her wishes, but once more he met with criticism
on the death of a parent. Some felt that Chen should have returned
her to their home in Shu for burial.[28] At any rate, several years later
Chen was appointed palace cadet of the heir apparent (taizi zhong shuzi
[OMITTED]) but died before he could assume his duties.[29]
Of the sixty-five juan that make up the Records of the Three States,
thirty are devoted to Wei, fifteen to Shu, and twenty to Wu. There are
relatively few textual problems with the work, and there is no doubt
that these are essentially the original work. Although the relative size
of each section may have been partly determined by political
considerations, it is also likely to reflect the amount of material on each
state that Chen had at his disposal. A variety of sources was potentially
available to him.[30] Among them was Wang Chen's Wei History. This
was an official history of Wei that was worked on at various times by
Wei Ji [OMITTED], Miao Xi [OMITTED] (186-245), Wei Dan [OMITTED], Ying Qu [OMITTED]
[OMITTED] (190-252), Xun Yi [OMITTED], Ruan Ji [OMITTED] (210-263), Sun Gai [OMITTED],
and Fu Xuan. The final forty-juan work, however, was completed by
Wang Chen alone on imperial command.[31] Wang's imperially
sanctioned work must be used with care because it avoids or glosses
over matters sensitive to the throne.[32]
Another work Chen must have seen was the Wu shu [OMITTED] [Wu
History]. Again, this project was to some extent collaborative. Zhou
Zhao [OMITTED], Xue Ying [OMITTED] (d. 282), Liang Guang [OMITTED], and Hua He
[OMITTED] all were involved with the Wu History, but the final fifty-five-juan
official histories of Wei and Wu, Chen Shou would have been able to
draw on at least one privately compiled history—Yu Huan's Wei
Epitome.[34]
Unlike Wei and Wu, Shu seems to have had neither officials charged
with compiling a history nor solid records of court activities. Chen
wrote:
The state [of Shu] did not establish a history [bureau], and no one
was in charge of note-taking and record-keeping. Because of this [the
records of] many activities and events are missing, and disasters and
anomalies lack documentation.[35]
Although he seems to have had much less available to him than in
the cases of Wei and Wu, Chen still managed to complete a section
on Shu.[36] No doubt being from there, having served in its government,
having already authored the Accounts of the Elders of Yi Region, and
having edited Zhuge Liang's works all helped Chen overcome this
difficulty.[37]
Records of the Three States is somewhat different from its famous
predecessors. Lacking treatises and tables, it does not adhere to the
format established by The Grand Scribe's Records and Han History.
Instead, Chen's history consists entirely of annals and biographies.[38]
Also distinctive is the title of the work, for it is alone among the standard
histories in being designated zhi [OMITTED]. Lien-sheng Yang notes, however,
that the three sections of the history have also been called shu [OMITTED] in
the tables of contents and chapter headings of various editions since
at least Song times. This use of shu ("history," "documents") as
opposed to shi [OMITTED] ("history") in the titles of the three major divisions
of the work, Yang suggests, puts it in the line of the Han History, as
opposed to The Grand Scribe's Records; that is to say, it marks it as
a work concerned with a single period, rather than one that overarches
several periods in the manner of Sima Qian and certain later
historians.[39] Although there is no doubt about the coverage of Records
of the Three States, Yang's point about shu is moot.
In his "Shang San guo zhi zhu biao" [OMITTED] [Memorial
Presenting the Commentary to Records of the Three States], Pei Songzhi
refers to Chen's work as guo zhi [OMITTED], or "records of the states."
Whether this was meant to be a title is unclear, although the Zhonghua
shuju editors treat it as such.[40] It may be that "records of the states"
is simply a term that reflects the fact that the three sections were
sometimes treated separately. Evidence for this can be seen in the
bibliographical treatise of the Jiu Tang shu [OMITTED] [Old Tang History],
among the standard histories, while the Wu guo zhi [OMITTED]
(also with Pei's commentary) and Shu guo zhi [OMITTED] (Pei's commentary
not mentioned) are listed, peculiarly enough, in the biannian
[OMITTED]/zawei [OMITTED] (chronologically arranged histories/miscellaneous
unauthorized histories) group.[41] But note that the earlier bibliographical
treatise of the Sui shu [OMITTED] [Sui History] already contains an entry
for Chen's Records of the Three States with Pei's commentary in the
same number of fascicles (sixty-five) as today.[42] The introduction by
the Zhonghua shuju editors in the first edition was ambiguous on this
point, indicating on one page that the three sections were first combined
in a Northern Song edition, while mentioning on the very next page
the Sui History bibliographical entry. In response to research by Miao
Yue proving that the work has had its present title since Western Jin
times, the Zhonghua editors dropped this statement from the revised edition.[43]
The earliest extant block-printed edition of Records of the Three
States is one published by the Directorate of Education (Guozijian [OMITTED]
[OMITTED]) in the sixth year of the Xianping [OMITTED] reign period (1003) in
Northern Song times.[44] There is also a re-engraving dating from the
Shaoxi [OMITTED] reign period (1190-1194), as well as one from the Shaoxing
[OMITTED] (1131-1163) period.[45] The former, which lacks three juan
of the Wei zhi, was supplemented by the latter and photomechanically
reprinted to produce the Bona [OMITTED] edition, one of the four editions
on which the Zhonghua shuju redaction is based.[46] The second of these
four editions, one that has been the basis for various subsequent
typographic and lithographic editions, is the so-called Palace edition
(Wuying dian block-printed edition [OMITTED]) from the Qing
dynasty.[47] This was a redaction of a Ming edition published by the
Directorate of Education at Beijing.[48] The third text used by the
Zhonghua shuju editors is the Jinling movable-type edition (Jinling
huozi ben [OMITTED]), which in turn is a revision of the Feng Mengzhen
[OMITTED] (1546-1605) edition published by the Directorate of
Education at Nanjing.[49] Finally, the Zhonghua editors also consulted
the Jiangnan shuju [OMITTED] redaction, which is a revision of Mao Jin's
[OMITTED] (1599-1659) Jigu ge [OMITTED] edition.[50] Although there are differences
among these and other editions, they are minor, and Chen's text
appears to have been transmitted basically intact.
Anhan was in the vicinity of modern Nanchong [OMITTED], Sichuan. Chen Shou,
whose appellative is Chengzuo [OMITTED], has two early biographies. One is the
official biography in Js, 82.2137-2138. The other is in Hygz, 11.849-852. The
biographical sketch that follows here draws on these two sources and is also
much indebted to Miao Yue's work on Chen's life published in various sources
cited below.
Qiao Zhou compiled a Hou Han ji [OMITTED] [Later Han Annals] and a Gu shi
kao [OMITTED] [Investigations in Ancient History] (Bielenstein, The Restoration
of the Han Dynasty, 12). As Sima Biao points out in his preface to Xu Han
shu, Gu shi kao was a commentary to the pre-Han sections of Sima Qian's
Shi ji (Js, 82.2142; Mansvelt Beck, The Treatises of Later Han, 31). Other
titles attributed to Qiao are a Shu ben ji [OMITTED], San Ba ji [OMITTED], and Yizhou
zhi [OMITTED] (see Sgz, 38.975 n; Sui, 33.983; Wx, 4.22b; Mansvelt Beck, The
Treatises of Later Han, 30). He was also noted for his knowledge of the
prophetic-apocryphal textual tradition and for his ability to predict the future.
Medieval China," 117.
Hygz, 11.849. Js, 82.2137 says that Chen Shou was a guan'ge lingshi [OMITTED]
[OMITTED]. Miao Yue thinks guan'ge simply refers to the Dongguan, or Eastern
Lodge, the main library of the Later Han and the location of the archivists'
offices. This would mean Chen was a foreman clerk (lingshi) of the Eastern
Lodge. Miao conjectures that perhaps Chen was first a foreman clerk and later
rose to be a gentleman (lang) in the library (Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 12).
On the "synthesized title" sanji Huangmen shilang, see Rogers, The Chronicle
of Fu Chien, 201.
Js, 82.2137; Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 2; de Crespigny, The Records of the
Three Kingdoms, 3, 32. De Crespigny thinks Chen was criticized "both for
his unfilial concern with his own comfort and also for his casual relationship
with the woman."
On "filially pious and incorrupt" see Chapter 3, note 35. Chen may have had
to take an examination to gain office.
Here we adopt Qian Daxin's [OMITTED] (1728-1804) emendation of the Jin
History text of Chen Shou's biography. See Js, 82.2160, and Miao, San guo
zhi daodu, 2. Miao also thinks that while serving as assistant gentleman editor
and gentleman editor, Chen was named an impartial and just (zhongzheng [OMITTED]
[OMITTED]) from Baxi commandery (Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 2, 12, 13). Holders
of the office impartial and just ("rectifier" in Hucker's translation) nominated
and classified candidates for government service from their home areas. On
this system, see Holzman, "Les débuts du système médiéval de choix et de
classement des fonctionnaires," 387-414; Hucker, A Dictionary of Official
Titles in Imperial China, 22 and no. 1534; and Miyazaki, Kyūhin hanjin hō
no kenkyū.
Sgz, 35.929, 931; Miao, "Chen Shou yu San guo zhi," 313; Miao, San guo
zhi daodu, 2; Wen Xuchu [OMITTED], "Bian jiao shuoming" [OMITTED] [Editorial
Explanation], in Duan and Wen, Zhuge Liang ji. Chen's edition was lost by
Song [OMITTED] times (960-1279).
Records of the Three States was not Chen's only historical work. He also
authored Yibu qijiu zhuan [OMITTED] [Accounts of the Elders of Yi Region]
in ten juan and Gu guo zhi [OMITTED] [Records of Ancient States] in fifty sections,
both now lost (Hygz, 11.849; Js, 82.2138; Miao, "Chen Shou yu San guo zhi,"
315; Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 3).
The Jin History states that when the Jin general Wang Jun [OMITTED] captured Jianye
[OMITTED] on the day renyin [OMITTED] in the third month of Taikang [OMITTED] 1 (1 May
280), he seized the charts and records of the Wu government (Js, 3.71). If Chen
utilized these materials in writing his history, it would probably have been a
year or more after the fall of Wu before he was able to complete the work.
The "Preface" to the Harvard-Yenching index to the San guo zhi concludes
that Chen must have begun writing the Records after the fall of Wu (280) and
completed it no later than 289, the year Xun Xu died (San guo zhi Pei zhu
zonghe yinde, ii-iii).
Js, 82.2137; Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 4; Miao, "Chen Shou yu San guo zhi,"
315-316. Xiahou Zhan was from an important family that had had close ties
with the Caos. He was noted for his literary talent and was sometimes
mentioned together with the famous poet Pan Yue [OMITTED] (247-300). See Js,
55.1491. Two hundred years later, the great literary critic and theorist Liu Xie
[OMITTED] (ca. 465-ca. 522) also praised Chen Shou's San guo zhi highly (Fan,
Wenxin diaolong zhu, 4.285). Cf. Luo, Wei Jin Nanbeichao wenhua shi, 433.
Hygz, 11.849. Changguang was a commandery that lay in the region of
modern Shandong that includes Qingdao [OMITTED].
Js, 82.2138; cf. Hygz, 11.849; Zztj, 80.2543-2545; Han, Wei Jin Nanbeichao
shigang, 111; Rogers, The Chronicle of Fu Chien, 272 n.
See Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 3-19; Miao, "Chen Shou yu
San guo zhi," 315; Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 3.
See Shen, San guo zhi zhu suo yin shu mu, 1.16b; Miao, San guo zhi daodu,
3; Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 11; Kroll, "Portraits of Ts'ao
Ts'ao," 120-121.
Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 3-4. Wei Zhao is called Wei Yao [OMITTED] in his
biography in Sgz, 65.1460-1464. Pei Songzhi notes that the change was made
in Jin times to avoid a tabooed personal name (Sgz, 65.1460). The name to
be avoided would have been that of Sima Zhao [OMITTED] (Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao
and the Rise of Wei," 11). But Qian Daxin shows that Records of the Three
States is not at all rigorous in its avoidance of rulers' names and lists a number
of people named Zhao who appear with their names unaltered in the history.
His conclusion is that Wei must have had two names (Sgz jijie, 65.9a).
Yu Huan was a gentleman-of-the-household (zhonglang [OMITTED]) under the Wei.
St, 12.13a indicates that the Wei Epitome stopped with the reign of Emperor
Ming, but this is an error, for Zhang Pengyi [OMITTED] shows that events of the
time of Cao Huan are included (Sgz jijie, 1.86a; Miao, San guo zhi daodu,
4; Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 15).
Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 12; Sgz, 33.902. The assertion that
"no one was in charge of note-taking and record-keeping" (zhu ji wu guan
[OMITTED]) may be a reference to the diaries of activity and repose (qiju zhu
[OMITTED]). At any rate, the celebrated Tang [OMITTED] dynasty (618-907) historian and
historiographer Liu Zhiji [OMITTED] (661-721) and others have asserted that
Chen Shou is lying here. Chen's putative motive was a desire to defame Zhuge
Liang. Convincing arguments by scholars such as He Zhuo [OMITTED] (1661-1722),
Liu Xianxin [OMITTED], Lu Bi, Miao Yue, and Carl Leban, however, demonstrate
that Chen was simply stating the facts about the poor condition of Shu's records
(St, 7.9a, 11.7b; Sgz jijie, 33.21b; Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 4, 14n; Leban,
"Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 12-14).
Miao, "Chen Shou yu San guo zhi," 321, suggests that the absence of the
treatises was due to insufficient data. Although this may well be true, Leban
suggests that a further reason for Chen's format is that at the time Chen wrote
Records of the Three States, the great histories of Sima Qian and Ban Gu
notwithstanding, "the forms of historical writing were still in a state of
experimental flux" (Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 19-20). See
also Qian, "Zonglun Dong Han dao Sui de shixue yanjin." Many Qing dynasty
works attempt to supply zhi and biao for Records of the Three States. Such
works include those found in volumes 2 and 3 of Eswsbb.
Liu, Jiu Tang shu, 46.1989, 1992. See also Zhonghua shuju bianji bu, "San
guo zhi chuban shuoming," 2. Note that the Xin Tang shu [OMITTED] [New Tang
History] lists all three sections of Chen's work consecutively under the titles
Wei guo zhi, Shu guo zhi, and Wu guo zhi. Here mention of Pei's commentary
comes under the Wu guo zhi (Ouyang, Xin Tang shu, 58.1455).
Sui, 33.955. This entry also mentions a "Xu lu" [OMITTED] in one chapter, but this
has apparently been lost since Tang times (Zhonghua shuju bianji bu, "San
guo zhi chuban shuoming," 3; Sgz jiaogu, 5n). For additional, earlier evidence
that Records of the Three States was from the beginning one work, see Sgz
jiaogu, 298-300.
Zhonghua shuju bianji bu, "San guo zhi chuban shuoming," 2; Leban, "Ts'ao
Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 42. There are purported Eastern Jin (317-420)
manuscript fragments of San guo zhi. Two fragments of juan 57 were
unearthed between 1902 and 1904 at Tuyugou [OMITTED] in Xinjiang (Sgz jiaogu,
351; cf. de Crespigny, The Records of the Three Kingdoms, 28; Leban, "Ts'ao
Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 41; and Guo, "Xinjiang xin chutu de Jin ren xieben
San guo zhi can juan," 2, all of which give 1924 and simply Shanshan xian
[OMITTED] as the date and place of discovery). This manuscript has sometimes
been used as an illustration in various works, as in the first edition of the
Zhonghua shuju San guo zhi and, more recently, the San guo zhi cidian [OMITTED]
[OMITTED] (Sgz cidian). It was reproduced in the 1926 edition of Luo Zhenyu's
[OMITTED] (1866-1940) Han Jin shu ying [OMITTED] [Reproductions of Han
through Jin Manuscripts]. A photo reprint of the manuscript, with
contributions by Wang Shu'nan [OMITTED] (1851-1936), Luo Zhenyu, and Naitō
Torajirō [OMITTED] (Naitō Konan [OMITTED], 1866-1934), was published
in Japan in 1930 under the title Gu ben San guo zhi cancun san juan [OMITTED]
[OMITTED] (the title on the case is Gu ben San guo zhi can juan [OMITTED]
[OMITTED]). Doubts about the authenticity of this manuscript have been
expressed (see de Crespigny, The Records of the Three Kingdoms, 26-29, and
Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 41-42; cf. Guo, "Xinjiang xin chutu
de Jin ren xieben San guo zhi can juan," 2). Two other Eastern Jin fragments
were discovered in Turfan (Tulufan [OMITTED]) in Xinjiang in 1965, and there
is one from Dunhuang [OMITTED] (Sgz jiaogu, 350-351; Guo, "Xinjiang xin chutu
de Jin ren xieben San guo zhi can juan").
Zhonghua shuju bianji bu, "San guo zhi chuban shuoming," 4. This Bona
edition is the one included in Sbck. Bona means something like "many
patches," "patchwork," or "pastiche." The title derives from the fact that the
series was pieced together from what were considered to be the best Song and
Yuan editions. The Bona ben histories were first published in installments
between 1930 and 1937 by the Commercial Press of Shanghai.
A set of dynastic histories was published by the Wuying dian, the imperial
printing office and bindery, during the Qianlong [OMITTED] era (1736-1796). This
edition is known as the Wuying dian, or Palace, edition of the histories. It has
been the basis for a number of other editions, including Ershisi shi [OMITTED]
[OMITTED] (Shanghai: Tongwen shuju, 1894); Ershiwu shi [OMITTED] (Shanghai:
Kaiming shudian, 1935); and Ershiwu shi (Taibei: Yiwen yinshu guan, 1956).
Zhonghua shuju bianji bu, "San guo zhi chuban shuoming," 4. Specifying it
as published by the Directorate of Education at Beijing (Bei jian [OMITTED]) suggests
that this Ming edition dates from 1421 or later, for it was in that year that
a Directorate of Education at Nanjing (Nan jian [OMITTED]) was established. See
Hucker, A Dictionary of Official Titles in Imperial China, no. 3541.
Zhonghua shuju bianji bu, "San guo zhi chuban shuoming," 4. Feng Mengzhen
was chancellor of the Directorate and oversaw the production of new editions
of dynastic histories. See Goodrich and Fang, Dictionary of Ming Biography,
1:343, 2:1559.
Zhonghua shuju bianji bu, "San guo zhi chuban shuoming," 4. On Mao Jin's
activities as a bibliophile and publisher, see Hummel, Eminent Chinese of the
Ch'ing Period, 565-566. For a list of other editions of Records of the States,
see Sgz jiaogu, 350-351.
PEI SONGZHI AND HIS COMMENTARY
Pei Songzhi was born into an important and influential family whose
home of record was Wenxi [OMITTED] prefecture in Hedong [OMITTED].[51] Like
many northerners, the Peis had moved south early in the fourth century
cannot be sure where Pei was born, it would not have been at Wenxi.[52]
By the time he was eight, he is said to have been thoroughly versed
in the Confucian Lun yu [OMITTED] [Conversations] and the Mao version
of the Classic of Poetry, as well as widely read in other works. At twenty
he was made a general of the palace (dian zhong jiangjun [OMITTED]),
and beginning early in the Yixi [OMITTED] reign period (405-418), Pei served
first as prefect (ling [OMITTED]) of Guzhang [OMITTED] in Wuxing [OMITTED] commandery,[53]
then as gentleman of the masters of writing for the Ministry of
Sacrifices (shangshu cibu lang [OMITTED]). Later he served as master
of records of Si province [OMITTED] under Liu Yu [OMITTED], the future founder
of the Liu Song [OMITTED] dynasty (420-479), and was then made viceattendant-clerk
(zhizhong congshi shi [OMITTED]).[54] When Liu
conquered Luoyang, Pei Songzhi was put in charge of the province.
No doubt due to Liu's high regard for him, Pei was transferred back
to Jiankang [OMITTED], where he held a series of offices, including those of
forerunner of the heir apparent (shizi xianma [OMITTED]), administrator
(neishi [OMITTED]) of Lingling [OMITTED],[55] and erudit of the National University
(guo zi boshi [OMITTED]). In 426, Pei was one of sixteen grand commissioners
ordered to tour various parts of the realm. In this capacity
he went to Xiang province [OMITTED]. After returning to court, he served
as a gentleman-in-attendance of the Palace Writers (zhongshu shilang
[OMITTED]) and senior impartial and just of both Si and Ji [OMITTED] provinces,
and was made marquis of Xi district [OMITTED].[56]
As we have observed, Records of the Three States constitutes a major
achievement, especially considering Chen Shou's political and
intellectual environment and the materials with which he had to work.
But there were criticisms of his history, and among these was the
complaint that there were too many omissions. As Leban writes,
Despite Chen Shou's position and the availability of contemporary
source material, great gaps still existed in certain parts of the record,
most particularly with regard to Shu, but also evident in the
sometimes overly terse reports on the activities of individual
personalities and the vagueness with which events are dated both in
the annalistic chapters and the biographies. The very excitement
generated by the original SKC [San guo zhi] accounts further
engender a thirst for greater detail, frustration with which must have
been felt even by early readers.[57]
This charge of excessive brevity has some merit and is still made
today; one would simply like to know more about many matters.
Examples of great concern to the economic historian are Chen's lack
agricultural colonies (tun tian [OMITTED]) and the new method of levying
land taxes according to acreage rather than yield. Both were extremely
important administrative changes and the antecedents of major fiscal
institutions in later dynasties, most notably the Tang. But Chen
mentions the first only in passing, and the second not at all.[58] Were
it not for Pei Songzhi's commentary and the Later Han History, we
might completely misunderstand the origins of these two important
institutions.
Fortunately, thanks perhaps to the combination of excitement and
frustration mentioned by Leban, Pei's work exists. Emperor Wen [OMITTED]
(r. 424-453) of the Liu Song dynasty was motivated by the terseness
of Chen's text to order Pei Songzhi to write a commentary to Records
of the Three States. Pei performed his assigned task masterfully. His
contribution lies not only in providing information that helps to clarify
issues in the original history but also in preserving many works that
might otherwise have been lost.[59] Quoting from more than one hundred
fifty works from Wei-Jin times alone, his commentary constitutes a
resource no less important than Chen's. Until recently it was widely
believed that the commentary was, in fact, nearly three times the length
of Chen's original work.[60]
The completed commentary was finished and submitted to the
throne on 8 September 429. The emperor, with considerable foresight,
deemed it an "imperishable" contribution.[61] In 437, Pei Songzhi retired
from office but was then appointed grand palace grandee (tai zhong
dafu [OMITTED]) and concurrent erudit of the National University. He
was also charged with continuing and completing He Chengtian's [OMITTED]
[OMITTED] Guo shi [OMITTED] [National History] but died of illness before it was
done.
The memorial that Pei submitted on the completion of his commentary
reveals a good deal about his approach to writing the
commentary:
Formerly, I was summoned and ordered to collect parallel and
divergent accounts regarding the Three States in order to write a
commentary to Chen Shou's Records of the States. The assessments
and arrangement of Chen's book are impressive; it is mostly careful
and aboveboard regarding events. Truly, this is a park for the
sightseer, a welcome history of recent times. However, its defects lie
in its brevity, and sometimes it omits things. I received your decree
to seek out details and have striven for thoroughness. On the one
hand, I have searched out old accounts, and on the other, have
collected what is missing. Note that while the Three States did not
beginning and the Jin at the end, all told about a hundred years. The
records are confused and garbled and always quite contradictory. In
order to fill in the gaps in Chen Shou's account, I have recovered all
those events not set down by Chen of which it is proper to keep a
record. Some of the sources relate the same event, but their language
is contradictory and confused in places; in some, the occurrence of
an event basically differs. When I have been uncertain and unable
to make a decision, I have copied everything down together in order
to provide different versions. Where there are obvious errors or
illogical statements, I have made corrections following each mistake
as a precaution against their inaccuracy. With regard to Chen's minor
slips and whether or not the chronology and facts are accurate, in
quite a few places I have drawn on my own modest ideas to discuss
and debate these matters.[62]
Although he does not explicitly mention it here, Pei also provides glosses
and explanations at various points in his commentary.[63] The obvious
importance of Pei's work notwithstanding, some critics have denigrated
it for such real or perceived faults as superfluity (or, alternatively,
inadequacy) and for altering words in quoted material.
This biographical sketch of Pei Songzhi is based on Ss, 64.1698-1701, and
Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 15-16. Wenxi was in the area of the modern place
of the same name in Shanxi.
Those whose families had fled south to escape incursions of nomadic peoples
from the steppe maintained the fiction of being natives of their family's place
of origin in the North. See Crowell, "Northern Émigrés and the Problems of
Census Registration under the Eastern Jin and Southern Dynasties."
Sizhou was a province created by Liu Yu when he captured modern He'nan
from the Later Qin [OMITTED]. It eventually was occupied by the Later Wei [OMITTED].
Jiankang, of course, was at modern Nanjing. Lingling was a commandery with
its seat located at modern Lingling, Hunan.
Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 16. Pei Songzhi's designation as marquis is not
mentioned in his biographies in Shen Yue's [OMITTED] (441-513) Song shu [OMITTED]
[Song History] and Li Yanshou's [OMITTED] (fl. 629) Nan shi [OMITTED] [History of
the South], but Marquis of Xi District is one of the titles he uses in signing
his "Memorial Presenting the Commentary to Records of the Three States."
See Sgz, 1472.
See Sgz, 1.14, 16.489. See also Crowell, "Government Land Policies and
Systems in Early Imperial China," 144-171; Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 2021.
Only 60 to 70 percent of the works quoted by Pei are listed in the
bibliographical treatise of the Sui History. Less than 10 percent appear to have
survived as independent works past the Song (Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 15).
Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 15. Miao cites Yang Yixiang [OMITTED], who says
there are on the order of 200,000 graphs in the text itself and around 540,000
in the commentary (Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 30). This is wildly inaccurate.
The notion that Pei's commentary is longer goes back to Chao Gongwu's [OMITTED]
[OMITTED] (fl. 1151) Junzhai dushu zhi [OMITTED] [Notices on Books from the
Prefect's Studio]. See Chao, Junzhai dushu zhi, 5.4b. For a more reliable count,
see Appendix II.
Miao Yue (San guo zhi daodu, 17) observes that glossarial commentary
comprises quite a bit of the total. But it is not much in evidence in the sections
translated here. For a list of some examples of this type of note, see Miao,
San guo zhi daodu, 18-19. Our impression is that Pei's glossarial and
explanatory notes make up a relatively small percentage of the commentary.
Wu Jinhua [OMITTED] suggests that this is because Pei and his readers were not
that far removed from Chen's period and thus had less trouble with his
language (Wu Jinhua, "Qianyan" [OMITTED] ["Foreword"], 1, in Sgz jiaogu). The
spotty nature of such notes led the editors of the Siku quanshu zongmu [OMITTED]
[OMITTED] [General Bibliography of the Complete Writings of the Four
Treasuries] to speculate that Pei may have set out to write a work similar to
Ying Shao's [OMITTED] (d. ca. A.D. 204) commentary to the Han History. Unable
to complete it, he was loath to take out the glossarial and explanatory notes
and simply left them (Skqszm, 45.17-18). Miao argues that this is needless
conjecture and clearly believes that it detracts from Pei's very real
accomplishments (Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 17).
CRITICISMS AND CONTEXTS
Despite the praise accorded Records of the Three States, from rather
early on the text has had its critics. One of the oldest criticisms voiced
by Chen's detractors is already mentioned in the Jin History and
concerns the two brothers Ding Yí [OMITTED] and Ding Yì [OMITTED]. The Dings
were important figures affiliated with Cao Zhi at the end of the Han.
This placed them near the very center of power, for although Cao Zhi
is today remembered chiefly as a poet and writer of the first rank, he
very nearly succeeded his father Cao Cao, the single most powerful man
in China, as king of Wei. Ultimately, Cao Zhi's elder brother Cao Pi
was named heir and used his position as a springboard to ending the
Han and becoming the first emperor of the Wei dynasty. Cao Pi's success
in the face of opposition from the Dings cost them their lives.[64] Clearly
they were major players in the political events at the very end of the
Han, yet they have no independent biographies in Records of the Three
States. The account in the Jin History says the reason is that members
of the Ding family refused to pay a bribe to Chen Shou for including
such biographies.[65] Although Liu Zhiji and others accepted this story,
it is assumably spurious. There are more plausible explanations for the
Dings not being accorded their own biographies. For one thing, other
rather well-known figures do not have separate biographies. Several of
(Jian'an qi zi [OMITTED]) have what little is said about them appended
to the biography of Wang Can [OMITTED] (177-217) in juan 21 of the
history.[66] Furthermore, as Rafe de Crespigny writes:
In the struggle for favour, Sima Yi was one of the leaders of Cao Pi's
party. When Cao Pi came to the throne, he had Ding Yí and his
brother executed together with all the male members of their families.
The two brothers came from Pei [OMITTED], and they were fellow-countrymen
of the Cao family. Nearly thirty years later, when Sima Yi
eliminated Cao Shuang, he also executed Ding Mi [OMITTED], who had been
a supporter of Cao Shuang and who came from Qiao [OMITTED] commandery,
which had been set up from part of Pei in the last years
of Han. So the Ding clan from that region had opposed Sima Yi's
interests on two great occasions, with fatal results to themselves, and
under the first emperors of the Jin dynasty, there was no member of
the family in high office. It is not very surprising if Chen Shou was
careful in his treatment of a family which had opposed the Sima and
which was still out of favour. Nevertheless, though no members of
the Ding family have a biography in San guo zhi, their careers are
mentioned in other places in the history and the story of their fates
is described in an essentially straightforward fashion.[67]
Another story from the Jin History states that Chen Shou's father
had been an adjutant to Ma Su [OMITTED] (190-228) and that when Zhuge
Liang killed Ma Su, Chen Shou's father was treated as a criminal. The
history further reports that Chen Shou himself was slighted by Zhuge
Liang's son Zhuge Zhan [OMITTED] (227-263). Thus, Chen Shou is
supposed to have belittled the two Zhuges' talents in revenge when he
wrote his biography of Zhuge Liang.[68] Miao Yue has marshaled the
arguments of a number of eminent Qing dynasty scholars to refute this
accusation. He concludes by quoting Wang Mingsheng [OMITTED] (1722-1798),
who notes, "The Jin History is fond of quoting diverse accounts
and so is rather rank."[69]
The feature of Records of the Three States that seems to have been
the most controversial is Chen Shou's conferral of legitimacy on the
Wei. By referring to the Wei rulers as emperors and calling his accounts
of them "annals," Chen ordains Wei the legitimate successor to the Han
dynasty and places Shu and Wu, whose rulers are merely accorded
"biographies," in a lesser light. This stance is also reflected in the
amount of space allotted to each of the kingdoms, for Wei gets by far
the preponderance of pages. Wei's legitimacy is conveyed by other
means as well. Chen is silent in the "Wei shu" [OMITTED] section about Liu
[OMITTED] [Shu History] and "Wu shu" [OMITTED] [Wu History] sections he gives
their accession dates according to Wei reign years.[70] It is hard to see
how Chen could have done otherwise. He was, after all, a Jin official,
and Jin claimed succession from Wei. Modern historians have usually
sympathized with his predicament.[71] In doing so, they are in part
echoing the bibliographical précis for Records of the Three States in
the monumental Qing dynasty General Bibliography of the Complete
Writings of the Four Treasuries:
In his history, Chen takes Wei to be the legitimate regime. Not until
Xi Zuochi wrote the Han-Jin Spring and Autumn was a dissenting
opinion established. Since the time of Zhu Xi [OMITTED] [1130-1200],
most have thought Zuochi right as opposed to Shou. However, while
in principle there may be absolutely no excuse for Shou's error;
circumstances made it easy for Zuochi to treat [Shu] Han as the
imperial line, but impossible for Shou to do likewise. In Zuochi's time,
the Jin had already crossed to the South. Its situation was similar to
that of Shu. . . . But Shou was a subject of Emperor Wu [OMITTED] of Jin,
who succeeded to Wei's line. To impugn Wei was to impugn Jin. How
could this have been possible then?[72]
It can also be argued that, for all of the attention it pays to Wei,
Records of the Three States does not manifest undiluted allegiance to
that state as the legitimate successor to Han. It has even been maintained
that Chen Shou exhibits a certain favoritism toward his native land of
Shu.[73] The structure of Chen's work clearly concedes the realities of
an immediate post-Han period in which three states existed.[74] Furthermore,
it is Pei Songzhi's commentary, not the history itself, that
preserves the seemingly cynical propaganda and alleged phenomenological
manifestations of approval accompanying Cao Pi's acceptance
of the Han emperor's abdication. This may not exactly demonstrate
partiality toward Shu, but it does suggest an attempt at objectivity or
neutrality on Chen's part.[75]
A final criticism leveled at Records of the Three States is that the
work engages in distortion, especially of events involving the eventual
Western Jin rulers. Perhaps the most influential voices here have been
Liu Zhiji and Zhao Yi [OMITTED] (1727-1814). Zhao, in particular, cites
several cases where Chen's treatment of an event seems at odds with
the facts. He notes, for instance, an inconsistency in how two particular
monarchs' names are handled. In the annals section of the "Wei
History," the last Han ruler is called by his posthumous title Emperor
Xian, even though he became the Duke of Shanyang (Shanyang gong
on the Wei throne before abdicating to Sima Yan, is never called by
his posthumous title Emperor Yuan [OMITTED].[76] Zhao apparently sees this as
an example of Chen's catering to his Sima superiors.[77] Among the other
examples he gives is the fact that Records of the Three States and the
Wei Epitome are at odds over the role of Empress Dowager Guo in
the dethronement of Cao Fang. The Records has her placing the blame
for his overthrow on the young ruler himself, whereas the Epitome
depicts her as shocked and angry at his being deposed.[78] In another
case, Xi Zuochi's Han-Jin Spring and Autumn Annals recounts Cao
Mao's unsuccessful attempt to resist Sima Zhao and how he died with
a blade through him for his efforts. Records of the Three States,
however, simply says that he died, then goes on to record Empress
Dowager Guo's denunuciation of him.[79] Miao Yue is on the right track
when he writes:
Feudal histories naturally had to serve feudal rule. Since Chen Shou
was a Jin official, it would not have been expedient, nor would he
have dared, to expose or criticize the Simas in compiling his history.
He even had to cover up for them. In addition, when relating the
political events at the juncture of the Wei and Jin, he often follows
Wang Chen's Wei History. Wang was a partisan of the Simas, and
his history "mainly consists of concealed events and has little to do
with the true record," yet Chen found it difficult to make many
changes. Still there are places where Chen divulges his opinions
through a subtle and oblique style, even though those opinions are
not in keeping with the Simas' aims.[80]
Js, 82.2137. See also Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 5; de Crespigny, The Records
of the Three Kingdoms, 12-13.
Js, 82.2137-2138. See also de Crespigny, The Records of the Three Kingdoms,
12; Miao, "Chen Shou yu San guo zhi," 316. Despite his stature in popular
lore, Zhuge Liang has not escaped criticism by famous figures in Chinese
history. For example, he is taken to task by the later Sichuan native Su Shi
[OMITTED] (1036-1101) in his "Zhuge Liang lun" [OMITTED] [On Zhuge Liang].
See Kong, Su Shi wen ji, 1:112-113; Tillman, "One Significant Rise in Chu-ko
Liang's Popularity," 6-9.
Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 7; Miao, "Chen Shou yu San guo zhi," 317. See
also Luo, Wei Jin Nanbeichao wenhua shi, 433. Cf. Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and
the Rise of Wei," 21-22.
See Miao, San guo zhi daodu, 5-11; Miao, "Chen Shou yu San guo zhi," 316320;
de Crespigny, The Records of the Three Kingdoms, 7-14; Leban, "Ts'ao
and the Rise of Wei," 19-29.
Skqszm, 45.17. Cf. Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 24; Qian, "Fan
Ye Hou Han shu he Chen Shou San guo zhi."
It should be noted that elsewhere Chen does use the title Duke of Shanyang
to refer to Emperor Xian. See Fascicle 5.160 below, just before commentary
[I].
See Sgz, 4.128, 130-131; Zhao, Nianer shi zhaji, 8.96; Miao, San guo zhi
daodu, 9. On Cao Fang, see Chapter 2, note 70 and Fascicle 5 below, notes
31 and 84.
Sgz, 4.143, 144; Zhao, Nianer shi zhaji, 8.96-97; Miao, San guo zhi daodu,
9. On Cao Mao, see Fascicle 5 below, note 31.
THE DEATH OF EMPRESS ZHEN: A CASE STUDY
The previous section described how the political context in which
Chen Shou wrote may have impinged upon his history. One of the
biographies translated herein provides an excellent example of how
various influences operated on him, while also giving some insight into
the interplay between Chen's work and that of other historians of
the period. These forces and the historiographical tendencies of Chen
and others, which can be appreciated thanks to Pei Songzhi's commentary,
are particularly evident in the biography of Empress Zhen the
Illustrious of the Civilizing Emperor (Wen Zhao Zhen huanghou [OMITTED]
[OMITTED]).[81]
The essential outlines of the story are as follows: Empress Zhen was
initially the wife of Yuan Xi. When her husband went off to govern
You province [OMITTED], she stayed behind in Ji province [OMITTED] to care for
her mother-in-law. When the Cao armies captured Ye [OMITTED], the seat of
Ji province, she was discovered by and subsequently married to Cao
become Emperor Ming. After Cao Pi acceded to the imperial throne,
Zhen gradually fell out of favor and was replaced by Lady Guo, who
was later named empress in her stead. Empress Zhen was unhappy with
this turn of events and apparently became increasingly difficult.
Emperor Wen grew angry with her and ordered her to commit suicide.
Subsequently, Cao Rui came to the throne. He had her reinterred in
a more lavish tomb and bestowed extensive honors on her family, in
some cases posthumously.
The body of Records of the Three States contains a fairly complete
though terse version of the story, while Pei's commentary cites
sometimes fuller, sometimes alternative versions. The works Pei cites
include two that antedate Chen's work, as well as some written not
long after his death. The first of these is Wang Chen's Wei History,
which deals with the later part of the Zhen story, the events surrounding
her death:
The officials concerned memorialized the throne about naming a
Palace of Prolonged Autumn [i.e., an empress]. The emperor sent a
letter bearing his seal inviting the empress to come to him. The
empress sent up a memorial stating:
I have heard that, from the beginning of the earliest
dynasties, the perpetuation of sacrifices to the state and the
handing down of blessings to descendants all were due to
empresses and consorts. Therefore, you must carefully select
such women in order to make moral education thrive in the
palace. Now, when you have just assumed the imperial
throne, you really should raise and promote a worthy and
good woman to take overall charge of the Six Palaces. I
consider myself ignorant and lowly; not up to the offerings
of grain-filled vessels. Besides, I am sick in bed and dare not
maintain the slightest aspirations.
The sealed letter came three times and the empress thrice declined,
her words being very sincere. At the time it was the height of summer,
so the emperor wanted to wait until the coolness of autumn before
again inviting the empress. But it happened that her illness became
grave, and that summer, on the dingmao day of the sixth month
[4 August 221], she died in Ye. The emperor sighed in sorrow and
pain and issued a patent bestowing on her the seal and ribbon of
empress.[82]
Wang's account of the events surrounding Empress Zhen's death
seems almost perfunctory. From it one gains the impression that,
to honor her, and it was only her reluctance that prevented him from
doing so. Even so, he did not entirely give up and and planned to pursue
the matter again later, being thwarted only by the empress's death.
According to Wang, Cao Pi was anguished by the passing of a devoted
spouse and posthumously bestowed the honors of an empress on her.
As we shall see, this version is quite at odds with other accounts of
the empress's death.
The second text that contributes a passage to the story of Empress
Zhen is the Wei Epitome. It describes the initial encounter between Cao
Pi and the future Empress Zhen:
Xi went out to run You province, and the empress remained behind
to wait on her mother-in-law. When Ye's city-wall was breached,
Shao's wife and the empress sat together in the main hall. Emperor
Wen entered Shao's residence and saw Shao's wife and the empress.
As the empress, terrified, put her head on her mother-in-law's lap,
Shao's wife instinctively clutched her with her hands. Emperor Wen
said, "Lady Liu [OMITTED], what makes her thus? Have your daughter-in-law
lift her head." The mother-in-law then supported her and made
her look up. Emperor Wen approached and looked at her. Seeing that
she was extraordinary, he sang her praises. When Cao Cao learned
how he felt, he brought her back as Emperor Wen's wife.[83]
There is another fragment from Yu Huan's Wei Epitome quoted by
Pei Songzhi concerning events following the death of Empress Zhen:
After Emperor Ming ascended the throne, he was pained by the
memory of Empress Zhen's death; therefore, Empress Dowager [Guo]
died unexpectedly from worry. When Empress Zhen was near death,
she had placed the emperor under the care of Lady Li [OMITTED]. Once
the empress dowager had died, Lady Li explained the harm done by
Empress Zhen's being slandered, that she was not properly coffined,
and that her disheveled hair covered her face. The emperor shed tears
in his sorrow and regret and commanded that in the funeral and
burial of the empress dowager all be done as in the case of Empress
Zhen.[84]
Yu Huan's account here is fairly straightforward, and though clearly
embellished, it is no more so than normal among historical texts of
the period, including the official histories.
Chen Shou's account, written sometime after 265, is the only one
extant that covers Empress Zhen's entire life. It comprises three parts:
her father at an early age, and offers a formulaic anecdote that
demonstrates her precocity. The second part, which is of about equal
length to the first, is a terse recounting of her marriage to Yuan Xi and
then to Cao Pi, her giving birth to Cao Rui and the Princess of
Dongxiang (Dongxiang gongzhu [OMITTED]), and then her loss of favor
and death. These latter are described in the following terms:
In the tenth month of Huangchu 1 [October / November 220], the
emperor ascended the throne as emperor. Afterward, the Duke of
Shanyang presented two daughters in marriage to the Wei ruling
house. Empress Guo and the Honorable Ladies Li [OMITTED] and Yin [OMITTED] were
all loved and favored. Empress Zhen was increasingly discouraged
and had fractious words. The emperor became irate, and in the sixth
month of the second year, he sent an envoy to order her to commit
suicide. She was buried in Ye.[85]
The third part of her biography, which is three times the combined
length of the first two sections, describes the events after her death,
primarily her reinterment and the honors granted her relatives. In
contrast to the preceding sections, this one is rather detailed.
Considerable space is devoted to the erection of a temple in her memory,
and the memorial proposing it is quoted in full. This is followed by
still further description of the honors bestowed on the empress's
relatives, a number of whom were made marquises. Interestingly,
Emperor Ming made Empress Guo's younger cousin Guo De [OMITTED] the
posthumous son of Empress Zhen's deceased grandnephew Zhen
Huang [OMITTED] and had him take the surname Zhen.
At first glance, Chen's account of all this seems straightforward
enough. But on reexamination, one is struck by the juxtaposition of,
on the one hand, the favor shown Lady Guo and the Ladies Li and
Yin and, on the other hand, Empress Zhen's behavior, which led to
the emperor's dissatisfaction with her and his ordering her to commit
suicide. Add to this the lengthy description of Emperor Ming's
rehabilitation of his mother and her relatives, which clearly gives the
impression of the rectification of an injustice, and it seems clear that
Chen is conveying a discreet message. This becomes even more certain
when he writes in the biography of Empress Guo that "the death of
Empress Zhen resulted from the favor shown Empress Guo."[86] His
assertion is echoed by Xi Zuochi's Han-Jin Spring and Autumn Annals:
Earlier, the killing of Empress Zhen stemmed from the favoritism
shown Empress Guo, and when she was buried, they let her
Subsequently Empress Guo was made empress and charged with
raising Emperor Ming. The emperor was aware of this, and in his
heart always harbored resentment. He often tearfully inquired about
the circumstances of Empress Zhen's demise. Empress Guo replied,
"The late emperor killed her. Why blame me? Besides, may a
child carry a grudge against his deceased father and wrongly kill
his stepmother because of his natural mother?" Emperor Ming
was angry and subsequently hounded her to death. In ordering
her funeral, he had them do as previously in the case of Empress
Zhen.[87]
Xi wrote during the Eastern Jin, and there is always the possibility
that distance from the actual event encouraged a certain amount of
distortion and elaboration. But we need only recall the passage from
the Wei Epitome cited earlier to realize that the shift in Emperor Wen's
favor to Empress Guo entailed more than a new attraction piqued by
the infusion of fresh blood into the seraglio: Empress Guo had actively
undermined Empress Zhen's position. There can be no question that
Xi's account is close to the truth. But what does that suggest about
Chen's version?
The two quotations from the Wei Epitome provided by Pei Songzhi
are just snippets from what was a complete text, and on reading them,
one is certain that Yu Huan might very well have included an account
of Empress Guo's actions against Empress Zhen. After all, the Epitome
does refer to Empress Zhen's having been slandered, to her having been
improperly coffined, and to her disheveled hair covering her face. As
indicated earlier, the Epitome was one of the sources available at the
time Chen Shou was writing Records of the Three States, and he is
assumed to have consulted it.[88] There can be no doubt, then, that he
intentionally muted his account of Empress Guo's treatment of Empress
Zhen. Unlike Wang Chen, however, he did not suppress it entirely. He
left the alert reader clues to what had actually occurred; if necessary,
his account might be fleshed out by recourse to unofficial works such
as the Wei Epitome.
Even so, the question remains: Why did Chen Shou decide not to
use all that was available to him and write the complete story of the
events surrounding Empress Zhen's death? The Qing scholar He Zhuo
speculates that Chen was reluctant because the Guos were still influential
when Chen was writing.[89] This would probably have made any
reasonable person cautious. But Chen's situation was further complicated
by policy differences in the government. Let us recall that Chen
was a protégé of Zhang Hua. Although Zhang was widely respected
to protect Chen would have been limited. When it came to one of the
most important issues of the day—whether or not to attempt the
conquest of Wu—Zhang was in opposition to both Xun Xu, as noted
earlier, and Jia Chong. In 265, Shu had been defeated and absorbed
by Wei, but Wu was still independent more than ten years later.
Emperor Wu of Jin (Sima Yan) wanted to attack the southern state.
A number of high-ranking officials—including Jia and Xun—were
opposed, while Zhang and others strongly endorsed the plan. In a
memorial to the emperor, Jia and Xun insisted that such an effort was
doomed to failure. The emperor apparently did not agree, for he
ordered Jia to lead the attack. When the campaign experienced logistical
difficulties, Jia and Xun unsuccessfully called for Zhang's execution
because he was responsible for planning grain transport. The Jin
armies were ultimately victorious, however, much to the chagrin of Jia
Chong, who feared that he would now fall into disfavor.[90] Even though
the emperor seems to have been willing to overlook Jia's behavior, this
surely did little to improve Jia or Xun's feelings toward Zhang and
Chen.
In addition to policy differences, there were deeper and more
intensely personal differences that could have affected Chen's work.
Zhang and Chen found themselves embroiled in bitter factional
struggles at court revolving around Jia Chong and his daughter, Jia
Nanfeng [OMITTED] (d. 300), the consort of the future Emperor Hui [OMITTED]
(Sima Zhong [OMITTED]).[91] Xun Xu and his father, Xun Yi, were closely
allied with Jia. Both father and son had proposed that Jia's daughter
be married to the mentally deficient heir apparent Sima Zhong, an idea
for which Xun Yi was widely ridiculed.[92] Zhang Hua, in contrast, later
supported Empress Dowager Yang when Empress Jia sought to have
her executed.[93] As Zhang's protégé, Chen would have found himself
willy-nilly in opposition to the Jia family and its supporters.[94]
Given the context in which Chen wrote his history, then, he could
have expected his work to be carefully scrutinized by people who were
not entirely sympathetic to him.[95] Although according to one account
Xun Xu praised Chen's Record of Ancient States, the same source says
that something in Chen's history of the Wei displeased Xun and led
him to prevent Zhang's gaining Chen an appointment at court.[96] As
noted earlier, considering the prominence of the Xun family in the work,
there were probably numerous opportunities for Xun Xu to take
offense. Even so, what irritated Xun may well have been Chen's treatment
of Empresses Zhen and Guo. Although the details differ, this
episode is in many ways analogous to Empress Jia's treatment of
Empress Yang, and Chen's account could be taken as an implied criticism
bestowed on the Zhen family by Emperor Ming might be seen as a
hint that members of the Yang family deserved similar consideration.[97]
Chen's handling of the Empress Guo affair could also have been
interpreted as being critical of Xun's father, Xun Yi, who had
collaborated with Wang Chen on the Wei History.[98] As we have seen,
the Wei History omitted any mention of Empress Guo's treatment of
Empress Zhen.[99] Chen's circumspection notwithstanding, under such
circumstances his account could not have avoided offending Xun.
Of course, we can never know for certain Chen's reasons for writing
as he did. But the contexts and constraints with which he had to deal
are clear. In hindsight, it would be easy to fault him for not living up
to ideal historiographical standards. But it should be remembered that,
in addition to the political context in which he wrote, history as a field
was still developing and had not come completely into its own.[100] In
any case, Chen did not do all that badly. Despite the pressures and
limitations to which he was subject, he managed to give sufficient
information and leave adequate clues to enable his readers to discern
the truth. This at least seems to have been Pei Songzhi's conclusion when
he compared Chen's version of the Empress Zhen story with that of
Wang Chen:
Your servant Songzhi understands the principles of the Spring and
Autumn Annals to be that great evils within the palace are concealed,
while lesser evils are recorded. We have clear knowledge of the fact
that Emperor Wen did not make Madam Zhen empress and went
so far as to kill her. If the Wei historians considered this to be a great
evil, they should have concealed it and not spoken of it. If they
considered it a lesser evil, then they should not have written falsely
about it. Such revering of embellished and untrue texts is alien to what
we learn from the old historians. If we were to judge from this, then
whenever the historians praised the goodness of the words and deeds
of the empresses Bian and Zhen, they would be difficult to find
credible. Chen Shou's abridgements and omissions truly have some
basis.[101]
Fang Xuanling [OMITTED] (578-648) and the other compilers of the Jin
History agreed. They noted that the Wei History by Wang Chen (and
Xun Yi) had covered up a great deal and that it "was not like the true
record of Chen Shou."[102] Fang and his collaborators may indeed have
been thinking in part of Chen's treatment of Empress Zhen when they
wrote in their appreciation of Chen and other Jin historians:
The ancient kings all established historians; they illuminated the
models and set up patterns, but none approached these. In tracing
origins and seeking denouements, chronicling emotions and taking
the measure of human nature, their words are subtle yet apparent,
their intentions pure and enlightened, and so they were able to
establish persons of distinction[103] as standards for distant generations.
After [Zuo] Qiuming [OMITTED] had passed away, Ban Gu and Sima
Qian rose, one after the other, wielding their magnificent writing
brushes in the Western Capital, giving free rein to candid words in
the Eastern Lodge. From that time on down, did not Chen Shou attain
the status of one who clarified things, was frank, and could carry
on and illuminate the former canons![104]
In summary, although Records of the Three States has some
shortcomings—shortcomings that led Pei Songzhi to compile his
commentary—as early as the late Six Dynasties and Tang, Chen Shou
was recognized as an outstanding historian who had succeeded, under
difficult circumstances, in preserving his integrity by producing an artful
history that withheld little from the accomplished reader.
On the lore surrounding Empress Zhen's death, see also Cutter, "The Death
of Empress Zhen." The present treatment attempts to account more fully for
the forces working on Chen Shou as he wrote his account.
See Fascicle 5 at commentary [I] below. It is quite possible that the encounter
occurred much as Yu Huan described it, for a surviving fragment of Cao Pi's
Dian lun [OMITTED] [Exemplary Essays], which has been preserved in Wei Zheng's
[OMITTED] (580-643) Qunshu zhiyao [OMITTED] [Essentials of Governing from
Divers Books], mentions his stay in Yuan Shao's house: "When the emperor
pacified Ji province and garrisoned Ye, I put up at Shao's mansion. I personally
strolled his courtyards, ascended his halls, roamed his pavilions, and lay down
in his rooms. The buildings had not yet collapsed and the stairs were intact"
(Wei, Qunshu zhiyao, 46.30b). See also Zhang, San Cao nianpu, 86. There
is a similar account in the Wei Jin shi yu [OMITTED] [Conversations of the Eras
of Wei and Jin], by Guo Ban [OMITTED] cited in Pei's commentary, Fascicle 5.160,
commentary [I].
Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 15; Zhonghua shuju bianji bu, "San
guo zhi chuban shuoming," 1.
Jia Chong's wife's maiden name was Guo, and she was the niece of one of
Cao Cao's trusted supporters, Guo Huai. There is no evidence of a direct tie
to the family of Empress Guo, though the possibility cannot be ruled out. Liu
Zenggui apparently did not consider them to be related, since the table of the
lineage of Jia Chong's wife's family in Han dai hunyin zhidu, 239 shows no
link to Empress Guo.
Js, 39.1152, 40.1167-1168. The reason for Xun Xu's recommendation sheds
some light on the factionalism at court. Jia Chong, who was at the time prefect
of the masters of writing, had been ordered to the Northwest to deal with
rebellions of the Di [OMITTED] and Qiang [OMITTED], non-Chinese peoples active in the region.
This appointment was proposed by Palace Attendant (shizhong [OMITTED]) Ren Kai
[OMITTED], an "upright" official who greatly disliked Jia. Jia's confederate Xun saw
that if Jia were removed from the capital, their influence would decline. Xun
thus proposed that Jia's daughter be married to the heir apparent, and Xun's
father and the Empress Yang, who was apparently bribed, supported the idea.
The emperor agreed, and when a heavy snowfall prevented the army from
setting out, he ordered Jia to remain in his original posts (Js, 39.1153, 40.1167-1168).
Concerned by Jia Nanfeng's extreme jealousy, Emperor Wu wanted to remove
her as wife to the heir apparent. Empress Yang argued for retaining her (as
did Xun Xu), citing her father Jia Chong's contributions to the state. Empress
Yang did, however, chastise Jia Nanfeng, who, not being aware of Empress
Yang's support, hated her. When Emperor Wu died, the newly installed
Empress Jia resented the power held by Empress Dowager Yang's father, Yang
Jun [OMITTED] (d. 291), accused him of plotting a revolt, and fabricated a decree
to have him executed. When she then charged Empress Yang with complicity
in the plot, Zhang Hua rose to the latter's defense (Js, 31.955-956, 963). See
also Pease, "Kuo P'u's Life and Five-Colored Rhymes," 27 and Fascicle 5, note
94 below.
Later, however, Zhang Hua rose to high position through the auspices of
Empress Jia and served the state loyally under her direction. This shift cost
him his life when Sima Lun [OMITTED] (d. 301) overthrew Empress Jia in 300.
See de Crespigny, "The Three Kingdoms and Western Jin," 154-155, and
Fairbank, "Kingdom and Province in the Western Chin," 128-129. On
Zhang's relations with Empress Jia and the changes in his personality that led
to his willingness to serve her, see Straughair, Chang Hua, 3-11.
Ban Gu faced an analogous problem in writing about Emperor Ming's Empress
Ma, whose ancestors had been implicated in a plot to assassinate Emperor
Wu of the Former Han. See Bielenstein, "The Restoration of the Han Dynasty,"
4:122.
The correlation of events taking place at the Jin court and Chen's writing of
the different sections of Records of the Three States is impossible to determine
with any precision. The Wei section was surely written after Chen came to
Luoyang following the fall of Shu in 265, and it may have been put into final
form as late as after the conquest of Wu in 280, as is suggested by Chang
Qu [OMITTED] (Hygz, 11.849). See note 20 above. Given the charged atmosphere
at the Jin court, however, it probably would not have mattered if Chen's history
had been written before Jia Nanfeng was wed to the heir apparent. Xun Xu
and others would still have sensed an implied criticism in the text.
The Tang historiographer Liu Zhiji cited Wang Chen's "false recounting of
the decree dismissing [Empress] Zhen" as the first in his list of examples of
historians covering up or falsifying events for their own purposes (St, 7.94).
Liu gives Wei Chronicle (Wei lu [OMITTED]) rather than Wei History as the title
of Wang's work.
The phrase yin ai ti you [OMITTED] is translated here as "persons of distinction."
A ti you was an orange oilcloth fender or mudguard installed on a person's
carriage as a mark of virtue (Hs, 89.3629; HHs, zhi 29.3652-3653, Xue Zong's
[OMITTED] [d. 243] commentary). Since an yin is a carriage seat cushion (Sj,
122.3135-3136, Sima Zhen's [OMITTED] [fl. 745] commentary), the phrase seems
to mean "cushions thick and orange mudguards" as marks of distinction. The
phrase is, therefore, a metonymical usage referring to distinguished personages.
Js, 52.2159. The Eastern Lodge was the imperial library in which Ban Gu and
others, using archival records, compiled the Dongguan Han ji [OMITTED] [Han
Record of the Eastern Lodge].
WHO IS INCLUDED?
A word needs to be said about the criteria Chen Shou used in
selecting women to include in his history, for not all palace women or
even all rulers' wives have entries in the Records of the Three States
fascicles on empresses and consorts. Moreover, the treatment of them
differs somewhat state by state. In picking those to be included in the
section on Wei, Chen followed criteria similar to those applied later
by Fan Ye in his Later Han History.[105] All had been empresses and are
listed by their titles, as befit the consorts of the rulers of the legitimate
successor state to the Han. This legitimacy is underscored by the
omission of the term "empress" (hou) from the titles of the chapters
on Shu and Wu. Curiously, however, the section on Shu also lists
empresses by their titles, though Liu Bei and Liu Shan are naturally
not referred to as "emperor." The Shu chapter differs from the other
two in that it combines the biographies of the consorts with those of
the younger male offspring, rather than separating them, as is done for
Wei and Wu. This is, of course, a function of the relatively small number
of persons involved. Fascicle 50 differs from the other two in not listing
any of the women under the title of "empress." With one exception,
all are listed under the title of "lady" (furen), though most had been
declared empress. The exception is Sun He's consort née He, who was
mother of Sun Hao, the last ruler of Wu. Although Sun Hao bestowed
as Dame He [OMITTED] to indicate that she was not the wife of a ruler.[106]
Another difference is that Fascicle 50 includes wives of Sun Quan—
Lady Xie and Lady Xu—who had not been declared empresses, either
in their own lifetimes or posthumously. Their inclusion is further
indication that Chen Shou believed there were no grounds for
considering Wu to be a legitimate successor to the Han.
Aside from the empresses who appear in Fascicle 5, the Caos had
other wives who were mothers of younger sons who did not become
emperor. These are mentioned in Fascicle 20 with the entries for their
sons (see Appendix I, Tables 9 and 10). The information is sketchy,
and for most Chen gives little more than a name.[107] Fascicle 59, on
the five sons of Sun Quan who did not rule (Sun Liang and Sun Xiu,
having been rulers, share a separate fascicle with Sun Hao, the final
ruler of Wu), differs somewhat because the mothers of these five are
covered in Fascicle 50. Still, Fascicle 59 contains some additional
information that complements parts of the biographical sketches found
in the section on consorts.
CONCLUSION
There can be no question that Chen Shou was an accomplished
historian for his time, the weaknesses of Records of the Three States
notwithstanding. Those weaknesses were to a large extent the product
of the very difficult circumstances and highly charged and politicized
atmosphere in which he wrote. Chen omitted or only alluded to
important particulars, which led Pei Songzhi to supplement Chen's
work with numerous quotations from contemporary or near-contemporary
sources. But while Pei's additions point up the lacunae
in Chen's work, they also reveal how adroit Chen was in handling
sensitive events and signaling the reader of the need to look more deeply
into a matter. His handling of the death of Empress Zhen is an excellent
example of the context in which he wrote and the constraints under
which he labored. Thanks to Pei Songzhi's selection of material for his
commentary, we are able to appreciate the nature of Chen's
achievement. Small wonder that Chen's work survived rather than
Wang Chen's.
The women whom Chen selected for his history are not, of course,
representative of women at large, nor do they include the totality of
the wives or concubines of any one of the rulers. As we have seen, Chen
applied fairly narrow criteria in making his choices, criteria that resembled
those of historians before him, and ones that were later
followed by Fan Ye. Given what we know about the sources for Fan's
by other historians among Chen's contemporaries, such as Hua Qiao.
We have noted that these fascicles are as much about the male
relatives of the women included as they are about the women
themselves. Wu Jing's biography appears at his sister's entry, and
likewise the entry for Xu Kun, father of Sun Quan's Lady Xu, is
included with hers. Liu Shan's two brothers and his son are given three
quarters the space of the four imperial wives in the Shu section. Thus
these two fascicles each do double duty: The Wu section incorporates
material that in other histories is found in the sections on the imperially
affined families, whereas the Shu section includes the entries normally
found in a section devoted to younger sons of the imperial line. Only
with Fascicle 5, the Wei chapter, do we have something like the typical
standard history section on empresses and consorts.
One wishes that Chen could have broken with the tradition
established by his predecessors and given us a fuller picture of the
women about whom he did write. We are not usually told their given
names, and the descriptions of them are almost entirely from the
standpoint of the impact of their actions on the ruling house. Aside
from a particular woman's being either jealous and scheming or warmhearted
and wise, in most cases the historian tells us little of their
personalities, their lives, and their aspirations. Still, as the reader will
find in the following translation, a careful and sympathetic reading of
the fascicles on palace women—supplemented by Pei's commentary and
by material from other parts of the Records and elsewhere—yields the
outlines of these women and their lives, and though one can never hope
to know them intimately, it is possible at least to have a sense of them
and their world. Clearly there were some extraordinary individuals
among the royal women of the Three States. If the age is rightly known
for having produced men of heroic stature and exceptional ability, the
limited sample of the following chapters is evidence that it also yielded
women who were their match.
![illustration](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:153602/full/!1600,1600/0/default.jpg")
![illustration](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:153604/full/!1600,1600/0/default.jpg")
![illustration](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:153606/full/!1600,1600/0/default.jpg")
![illustration](https://iiif.lib.virginia.edu/iiif/uva-lib:153608/full/!1600,1600/0/default.jpg")
Perhaps the era of the sagas for Icelanders and the semimythical age of King
Arthur for the English are vaguely comparable. The Arthurian comparison has
occurred to others. See, for example, de Crespigny, "Man from the Margin."
This is true not only for China but Korea as well. The "Dong yi zhuan" [OMITTED]
[OMITTED] in the San guo zhi is an essential source for information on early Korean
history. See Guksa pyuncan yuwenhoi, Chungguk jungsa Chosunjun, 201. Kim
Pu-sik's [OMITTED] (1075-1151) Samguk sagi [OMITTED] [Records of Three
Kingdoms], the earliest Korean official history, relies heavily on Chen's Records
of the Three States and Fan Ye's Later Han History for this period. Fan's
account, it should be mentioned, derives from Chen shou's. On Samguk sagi,
see Kim, A Bibliographical Guide to Traditional Korean Sources, 11-17.
Leban, "Ts'ao Ts'ao and the Rise of Wei," 30. See also de Crespigny, The
Records of the Three Kingdoms, 1. References to Records of the Three States
can crop up in surprising contexts. An essay by Stephen West mentions a late
Yuan [OMITTED] (1260-1368) text that contains a passage about the bickering between
a singer and her madam. The singer sings, in part:
I play four or five rounds of "iron cavalry" at the theater,
Only to find six or seven scenes of warfare waiting for me at
home.
What I sing is "Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms," preceded by
ten Great Songs,
But my mother [bests me] with the "History of the Five Epochs,"
with the "Eight Yang Classic" stuck on for good measure."
The "Chronicles of the Three Kingdoms" mentioned here is, of course, San
guo zhi. The title had entered the popular vocabulary. As West goes on to write,
"the contextualization of Taoist and secular historical canons in such a
metaphorical world, where they wind up meaning the unending and complex
nagging of a money-grubbing madam, means that they are absorbed at quite
a different level than in scholarly or religious debate. They are assimilated
because of sound, not sense" (West, "Heart Sutra"). The Yuan text in question
is Zhugongdiao fengyue Ziyunting zaju [OMITTED] by Shi
Junbao [OMITTED]. This passage is also translated with differences in Idema and
West, Chinese Theater 1100-1400, 259.
On the importance of Guan Yu, see Cai, Taiwan de siji yu zongjiao, 107-112,
and Duara, "Superscribing Symbols." See also Schwartz, The World of Thought in Ancient China, 25.
It is sometimes forgotten that the Later Han History postdates Records of the
Three States by more than a century. In other words, among the standard
official histories (zheng shi [OMITTED]), Records of the Three States is the immediate
descendant of The Grand Scribe's Records and the Han History. See also Miao,
San guo zhi daodu, 1. For an account of other historiographical activity
between the Han History and Records of the Three States, see Bielenstein, The
Restoration of the Han Dynasty, 10-13.
Fang, The Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms. Rafe de Crespigny, who has
written a great deal about the Three States period, deserves mention with Fang.
His new book, To Establish Peace, appeared just as we were completing our
work.
Fang translates the Zi zhi tong jian passages in his text. In his notes, he indicates
differences between the Zi zhi tong jian account and that of San guo zhi, usually
translating the San guo zhi version there. When we note the existence of a
Fang translation of a given passage, two sets of page numbers may be given.
This is because it is sometimes necessary to check both his text and notes and
engage in a certain amount of mental editing to see how he translates a given
San guo zhi passage. For a somewhat dated list of translations from San guo
zhi, see Frankel, Catalogue of Translations from the Chinese Dynastic
Histories, 11-55. Although Frankel's more than thirty pages of listings may
make it seem as though a great deal has been done, that is not the case, for
he catalogues passages as short as twenty-five graphs, less than one full line
on one page of the 1,510-page Zhonghua shuju edition, our base text.
A complete Japanese translation of the text and commentary is Imataka,
Inami, and Kominami, Sangoku shi. There are at least seven complete
translations into modern Chinese. Six of these (Fang, San guo zhi zhu yi; Baihua
San guo zhi; Wang, Baihua San guo zhi; Tian and Wu, San guo zhi jin yi; Liu,
San guo zhi; and Su, San guo zhi jin zhu jin yi) do not include a translation
of Pei Songzhi's commentary. To our knowledge the only one that does is Cao,
Baihua San guo zhi, and it occasionally omits portions of the commentary.
The translations into modern Chinese of selected portions of the text that
comprise Lu and Hai's San guo zhi xuan yi and Tong, Zhang, and Zhang's
San guo zhi jinghua zhu yi also lack translations of the commentary.
| 5 Records of the Three States Empresses and consorts | |