Exar Kun wrote:Well Xun Yu didn't write "Xun Yu's bio" so if anyone was giving him credit it was Chen Shou.
Exar Kun wrote:That's doubtful.Why would Xun Yu leave behind a journal for Chen Shou to use?
More likely it came from the account of the meeting.As Minister of Works Cao Cao would likely have had a record of the meeting kept in some form or the other.But Chen Shou contradicts himself more than once.It's a big book.Guy made mistakes.
Lady Wu wrote:There has been a mini-discussion here on that topic: http://the-scholars.com/viewtopic.php?p=197163#197163
I think what happened was that Luo Guanzhong wanted to steal the thunder from Xun Yu and give it to Guo Jia. I would tend to agree with James' opinion in the other thread, that Luo wanted to make the audience sympathize with Guo Jia rather than Xun Yu.
Lady Wu wrote:Chen Shou didn't write the 10 point thing in Guo Jia's bio. As far as Chen Shou was concerned, only Xun Yu gave such an analysis of the situation.
There is, however, a passage from the Fu Zi quoted by Pei Songzhi in his annotations to Guo Jia's SGZ bio. There must be some reason why Chen Shou decided to ignore that passage but rather stuck with Xun Yu as the author of the speech.
The passage from Fu Zi doesn't even mention Xun Yu. It is verbatim as in the novel. The author of the book, Fu Xuan, was a minister of Wei and Jin who died in 278. He was one of the coauthors of the History of Wei, which is quite a problematic historical account (it basically lied about the death of Zhen Ji). I know I shouldn't be judging Fu Xuan based on the accuracy of a work he collaborated on, but if Chen Shou decided to believe otherwise, I'm happy to follow Chen Shou's view.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests
Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved