佛祖歷代通載 16.43

16.43

論曰。唐李習之曰。史官紀事不得實。乃取行狀諡牒。凡為狀者。皆門生故吏。苟言虛美。尤不足信。予觀李德裕故吏鄭亞所為會昌一品制集序。鋪張德裕勳業。與新史本傳無異。而舊史武宗紀。則著德裕之惡。與詔詞皆合。然則新史取信故吏之說。寧不誤後來者乎。

A commentary says: Li Xizhi of the Tang said: "When court historians record affairs and cannot obtain the facts, they draw upon accounts of conduct and posthumous title requests. Those who write accounts of conduct are all disciples and former subordinates; their words are empty praise and are especially untrustworthy." I observe that the preface to the Collected Decrees of the First Rank of the Huichang Era written by Li Deyu's former subordinate Zheng Ya elaborates on Deyu's meritorious deeds, showing no difference from his biography in the New History; whereas the "Annals of Wuzong" in the Old History records Deyu's wickedness, which fully accords with the words of the imperial edict. If so, then when the New History placed trust in the accounts of former subordinates, did it not mislead later generations?