Chen Shou himself is not a historian. In fact, there are no historians in Shu. The History of the Three Kingdoms was written after Jin Zen and Wei, and it is incorrect to say that it is biased towards Shu. ...

In addition, Wei Shu is not a special history book. In fact, the three kingdoms have Wei Shu, and the twenty-fourth history also has Wei Shu, but it is the history of the Northern and Southern Dynasties ... so it is too casual to refer to Wei Shu!

During the Three Kingdoms period, Wang Shen and Ruan Ji of Wei wrote The Book of Wei, but it was written under the rule of Wei, which is not true (you know). Shu Wei in the History of the Three Kingdoms quoted some works by Wang Shen, but Shu Wei, who commented on Wang Shen in the Book of Jin, said that "most of them are taboo, but not as true as Chen Shouzhi's records."

Therefore, reflection is very authoritative in this respect!

As for subjective factors, there must be. On the one hand, Chen Shou is an old minister of Shu, and Shu has no history, so Chen Shou can only collect information by himself. Another, the Jin Dynasty was a Zen in Wei, and the old minister of Wei was highly paid, and Sima Shi's evaluation of Cao Wei was not low, so Chen Shou might beautify Cao Wei a little. ...

It can be said that it is more or less mixed with emotional factors, but it is still very authoritative in general.