University of Virginia Library

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

the famous writers known as the Seven Masters of the Jian'an Period
(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:

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

Bei and Sun Quan's being proclaimed emperors, and in the "Shu shu"
[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:

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

[OMITTED]) after he abdicated. Cao Huan, however, who sat for five years
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: