#oh?

“[…Even if I did, don’t remember it...]”

(*They pause, before snickering and winks, placing a hand on their chest, mocking an apologetic look.)

- About Kongming's writings:

JInshu 晉書 - Biography of Li Mi

次問：「孔明言教何碎？」密曰：「昔舜、禹、皋陶相與語，故得簡雅；《大誥》與凡人言，宜碎。孔明與言者無己敵，言教是以碎耳。」華善之。

Next, (Zhang Hua) asked, "Why are Kongming's teachings so fragmented?" Mi replied, "In the past, Shun, Yu, and Gao Yao spoke with each other, hence their language was concise and elegant; the Da Gao (Great Proclamation) is meant for ordinary people, so it should be fragmented. Kongming has no equal to him among his speakers, hence his teachings has to be fragmented (so that it is easy to understand)." Hua agreed.

-There is a quite similar note by Chen Shou:

Sanguozhi 三國志 - Biography of Zhuge Liang

論者或怪亮文彩不艷，而過於丁寧周至。臣愚以為咎繇大賢也，周公聖人也，考之尚書，咎繇之謨略而雅，周公之誥煩而悉。何則？咎繇與舜、禹共談，周公與群下矢誓故也。亮所與言，盡眾人凡士，故其文指不得及遠也。然其聲教遺言，皆經事綜物，公誠之心，形於文墨，足以知其人之意理，而有補於當世。

Some critics find Liang's writing lacking in elegance, yet overly meticulous and earnest. I, your humble servant, believe that Gao Yao was a great sage, and the Duke of Zhou a saint. Examining the Shangshu, Gao Yao's plans are concise yet elegant, while the Duke of Zhou's proclamations are detailed and comprehensive. Why? Because Gao Yao conversed with Shun and Yu, and the Duke of Zhou made oaths with his subjects. Liang spoke with ordinary people, hence his writing cannot reach far-reaching conclusions. Nevertheless, (his) teachings and legacy are all grounded in historical facts and the principles of things. (His) sincere and impartial hearts are expressed in their writings, sufficient to reveal intentions and principles, and thus beneficial to (his) contemporaries.