吳人袁曄撰有《獻帝春秋》一書，雖然《隋書．經籍志》將其列入「古史」類，實則內容謬誤甚眾，從裴松之開始即頗多學者指責之。然而，看似率爾而作、遠離真實性之嚴苛要求的現象背後，其臨史心態十分值得後世讀者玩味：或過度好異求奇，抑或有意、無意間隱伏政治立場。多條史料本身相當具備文學性，大量運用對話等各種史傳寫人之技巧；尤其是屢屢將角色置諸於急迫的情境下交代其反應，藉此書寫之人物往往較容易表現性格側面。另外，該書還對敵國實際開國君王曹操較不友善，竟然還對曹操之重要敵手袁紹予以較正面的型塑，成為魏晉史籍中少數的異類；這不僅折射了三國鼎峙爭霸的實況對史籍的影響，同時說明了即使是看似此類因「愍其廢絕」而「以備遺亡」的著作，皆難免囿於見聞立場而自成一套非常迥異於他人的論述。藉此也不難明白，《獻帝春秋》信然有其獨到的文史價值存焉。

Annals of Emperor Xian of Han was authored by a Wu people Yuan Ye, and was classfied as ＂ancient history＂ in Biblography of The Book of Sui. It has been widely criticized for its fatal fallacies by scolars ever since Pei Songzhi did. Despite its willful writing and narratives far beyond the strict standard of historical truth, it’s worth readers while excavating deeper into its inner motifs of history: the tendency of exceeding self-originating; suggesting political stances intentionally or otherwise. The historical data themself reveal the abundance of literariness by applying biographical narrative techniques, such as dipicting people through amount of dialogues; and to profile individuals’ characters, it puts people in urgent situations repeatly, and records their reactions. In addition, the text is rather hostile to Cao Cao, the practical founding lord of states. Moreover, it depicts Cao’s major opponent, Yuan Shao, in postive perspectives, which is marginal comparing to the dominating historical viewpoints of Wei, Jin. It does not merely reflect the fact that conflicts between Three Kingdoms did affect contemporary narratives, also does it bring up a argument that although the perspectives in the text are way different from others, and might be confined to one’s horizon and affiliation, however, these kinds of historical works elaborate and mark the spirit of ＂pity for those defeated＂ and ＂recording for reminding＂. Above all, it’s not to figure out then that Annals of Emperor Xian of Han is certainly valuable in both historical and literal field.