The Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms, which tells the rise and fall of the Three Kingdoms of Wei and Shu, was first circulated separately in the three books of Wei Shu, Shu Shu and Wu Shu, and only during the Northern Song Dynasty did the three books merge into one, eventually becoming the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms". However, in this history book, Chen Shou fully affirmed Zhuge Liang's ability to govern the world, and his evaluation of his military ability subverted the traditional cognition, bluntly saying that Zhuge Liang's military ability was very general.
It can be said that it is a good talent for knowledge and governance, and it can be said that Guan and Xiao are a good person. However, after years of moving the crowd, it failed to succeed, and the cover strain will be slight, not its strength.
The sentence "After years of mobilizing the masses, failing to succeed, gai should be slight, not his strengths", coincides with Sima Yi's evaluation of "bright ambitions are big but do not see opportunities, more resourceful and less decisive, good soldiers but no power (power change)". Objectively speaking, Chen Shou's evaluation of Zhuge Liang was relatively pertinent, and governing the country was better than that of Zhongxiao He, but his military achievements were indeed not high, and he did not dare to use surprises in the use of soldiers, and the five qishan lost troops but returned without success.
However, Chen Shou's evaluation of Zhuge Liang, more than 300 years later, made Li Shimin, Wei Zheng and other Zhenguan Qunxian angry, so much so that he directly implied in the history books that Chen Shou was a villain!
In the early years of the Tang Dynasty, the god-like Zhuge Liang in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms had not yet appeared, but Zhenguan Qunxian was still fascinated by Zhuge Liang.
New Book of Tang. The Biography of Wei Zheng records that Li Shimin once asked: "Zheng and Zhuge Liang?" Li Shimin regarded Zhuge Liang as a model specimen to evaluate the ability of others. Zai Xiang Cen text replied: "Bright talent and general phase, non-sign comparable" (bright talent and general phase, non-sign comparable). The "general" mentioned here, juxtaposed with "xiang", is obviously not an ordinary general, but a "general" who commands the whole army.
It is said that above the official arena and the promotion of qi, Cen Wen can completely say that the two are "almost the same", or more explicitly say that "Wei Zheng does not understand the military, and his military ability is worse than Zhuge Liang", which saves Wei Zheng a little face. But why is cen text so direct? The reason is very simple, Li Shimin, Cen Wenwen, Wei Zheng, Fang Xuanling, Li Jing, etc. are all hardcore fans of Zhuge Liang.
Wei Zheng wrote "Zhuge Liang's Monument of Ji Gong", Fang Xuanling wrote "Li Wei wrote Zhuge Liang's Admonition to Kill the Sons", and Li Jing spoke highly of Zhuge Liang's military ability in "Li Wei Gong Asked Right"... In short, in the eyes of Zhenguan Qunxian, Zhuge Liang was the first person in the Three Kingdoms, and he was also the first general and the first phase.
However, Zhuge Liang, who is like a god in the eyes of Li Shimin, is very imperfect in the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", and only gets a military evaluation of "adapting to the general, not his strength", which makes Li Shimin and other Zhenguan Qunxian very angry.
As a result, in the "Book of Jin" compiled and revised during the Zhenguan period, an extremely rare page appeared, and Li Shimin and others wanted to nail Chen Shou to the column of shame in history. The Book of Jin is the beginning of official revision history books, which were generally preceded by personal revision history, and this book tells the rise and fall of the Jin Dynasty, from the early years of Sima Yi in the Three Kingdoms period, down to Liu Yu's abolition of the Jin Emperor's self-reliance (420), to the Song Dynasty Jin Dynasty.
At first, the Book of Jin was supervised by Wei Zheng, and later changed to Fang Xuanling, Chu Suiliang, and Xu Jingzong, in short, this is a group of Zhuge Liang iron fans supervising the revision of the history book. In the book, this group of iron fans gave Chen Shou a fatal blow.
The "Biography of Chen Shou" written by Fang Xuanling and others in the Tang Dynasty, while acknowledging That Chen Shou was "good at narrative and talented in history", accused Chen Shou of belittling Zhuge Liang because of his personal vendetta and being a villain.
Ding Yi and Ding Yi were famous in Wei, and Shou called his son, "Can find Qianhu Rice to see and be a good legend for the Duke of Zun." Ding did not follow it, but did not establish a legend. Shou's father joined the army for Ma Chen, and Zhuge Liang was reprimanded, Shou's father also sat on the beard, and Zhuge Zhan was light on life. Shou wei Liang Li Chuan, said that Liang will be slightly not long, no enemy talent; words and works, the name is exaggerated. The speakers took this less (despised) (Chen Shou).
This passage accuses Chen Shou of having a personal vendetta against four people: First, Ding Yi and Ding Shu are famous, Chen Shou said to their son that he gave "Qianhu (hú) rice" in the book to set up a biography of Jia Jia, and the result is that "Ding shou did not write with it, but did not establish a biography", indicating that Chen Shou engaged in paid writing, moral corruption, and was simply a blow to the ancient literati who paid attention to fame; second, Chen Shou's father was Ma Chen's army, Ma Mo was reprimanded, Chen Father was in a "cursed punishment", Zhuge Liang's son Zhuge Zhan despised Chen Shou, so when Chen Shou wrote Zhuge Liang, "Zhi Liang will be slightly not long, Third, Zhuge Zhan despised Chen Shou, so when writing Zhuge Zhan, he said that Zhuge Zhan was only good at calligraphy, which was too much to say.
The question is: Is Zhenguan Qunxian's accusation against Chen Shou true?
Chen Shou did not give Ding Yi and Ding Yi a biography, whether it was because he did not get the "Qianhu Rice", this matter is really difficult to say. However, only a very small number of historians in history believe that it is false, such as Liu Qiu of the Northern Zhou Dynasty, Liu Zhiji of the Tang Dynasty, and Li Shimin Zhenguan Qunxian.
Pan Mei of the Qing Dynasty pointed out in the "Examination of the Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms": "Ding Yi and Ding Yi, the officials are nothing more than the right thorn and the yellow door waiter, there is no external skill of destroying the blade, there is no effect of the temple victory of the ascension hall, the party is the king of Chen Si, the emperor is shaking the tomb, the flesh and bones are provoked, the matter is not accomplished, the torture is followed, and the sinners of the Si Shi Wei Dynasty must not be passed on to the Ming Dynasty." The Book of Jin says that Somi had to be a biography, which is the most ignorant word. ”
As for the reason for Chen Shou's "bad evaluation" of Zhuge Liang, it is even more nonsense. Zhuge Liang in the "Romance of the Three Kingdoms", in addition to this "evil commentary", others such as "science and education are strict, rewards and punishments must be believed, no evil is not punished, no good is not revealed", "bright is the rule, open-mindedness, fairness, good is meticulous and not rewarded, evil is not delicate and not degraded" and so on are all words of affirmation. Therefore, combined with Zhuge Liang's successive wars and final achievements, Chen Shou's bad comment should be pertinent.
Can Li Shimin, who can create a prosperous world of chastity, really not distinguish between right and wrong? Non-also, because they are zhuge liang's iron fans, they are willing to believe that Zhuge Liang is perfect, and Chen Shou's "bad comment" is not right. Just like today's brainless iron fans, they do everything to maintain the stars they like and strike at the disgusting people, and there is no right or wrong in this process, only likes and dislikes.
What Li Shimin and others did not expect was that although the Book of Jin "smeared" Chen Shou and completely denied Chen Shou's character, the historical status of Chen Shou and the Romance of the Three Kingdoms was very stable, and later generations called the "Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms" one of the "First Four Histories" ("History", "Book of Han", "Book of Later Han", and "Chronicle of the Three Kingdoms"), regarding it as a masterpiece of jichuan historiography, and its academic status was much higher than that of the Book of Jin.