01
The question of the evaluation criteria of historical figures has always been inconclusive, or it is difficult to be conclusive. Therefore, the criterion for evaluating historical figures is an old problem that has not been well resolved by the historical circles of our country that has been debated for a long time.
Since the founding of the People's Republic of China, the discussion on the evaluation criteria of historical figures can be roughly divided into two stages in the 1980s. The previous phase refers to the period from 1949 until the 1980s. At this stage, the Marxist materialist view of history has become the basic criterion for evaluating historical figures recognized by the academic community. The discussion of the criteria for evaluating historical figures is carried out within the framework of the monist standard of the materialist view of history, but there is still a great controversy within it.
In the early days of the founding of the People's Republic of China, historians had two opinions on the criteria for evaluating historical figures. One view was that the evaluation of historical figures did not need to first set some fixed limits or to formulate a formulaic criterion that would be applied to the immutable of all ages. Shang Yu believes that the specific social life of any era is extremely complex, and it is impossible to summarize it in a fixed formula, which is not allowed by materialistic dialectics, and in fact it is impossible.
Another view was that there should be uniform and fixed standards. However, the specific criteria for evaluating historical figures have their own opinions and expressions, and there are roughly three propositions:
The first is the "only criterion" theory put forward by Guo Moruo, that is, advocating the role played by historical figures in historical development as the only criterion;
The second is the "two criteria" theory put forward by Yang Rongguo, Duan Yun, and others, that is, it advocates that historical figures should be evaluated on the two criteria of promoting or hindering historical development and benefiting or harming the people;
Third, the "three standards" put forward by Ji Wenfu as a representative are the same, that is, in addition to the above two standards, the addition of the third criterion can show the noble quality of our nation.
After a long and extensive discussion in the field of historiography, by the second half of the 1980s, although no consensus was reached, it tended to seek a unified basic criterion, that is, to comprehensively examine the entire activities of historical figures in accordance with the basic principles of Marxism, and to see whether they played a role in promoting the production development and historical progress of society at that time and in human society as a whole, or whether they played an obstructive and destructive role. [1]
Since the 1990s, especially since the mid-1990s, the discussion of the evaluation criteria of historical figures has begun to jump out of the materialist concept of history and become more and more diversified. In particular, the widespread adoption of the new view of history has brought about the problem of re-evaluation of some traditional historical figures. The new perspectives, new viewpoints, and new conclusions on character evaluation formed under the influence of the new view of history are often very different from or even contradict the traditional sayings.
Here appears the principle of specific refinement of the evaluation of historical figures:
The first is the principle of historicity. In evaluating historical figures, we must also raise the issue within a certain historical scope, and only by placing historical figures in the socio-historical environment in which they live and adhering to the principle of historicity can it be possible to evaluate them objectively and comprehensively.
The second is the principle of objectivity. To correctly evaluate a historical figure, it is necessary to proceed from all the activities of his life, combine the social and historical conditions with the reality of the personality of the historical figure, conduct a comprehensive discussion from the perspective of development, cut to the point of being limited to the current event, grasp one point to summarize the whole life, and attack the point that is inferior to the rest.
The third is the principle of class nature. Adhering to the principle of hierarchy is the essence of adopting the method of class analysis, placing historical figures in a certain class position, and fully exploring the class motives behind the motives of historical figures, so as to more profoundly reveal the laws of historical development and be more conducive to a fairer evaluation of historical figures.
The fourth is the principle of value. In Lenin's view, "the merits of history are judged not by the fact that the historical activists have not provided what the modern times demand, but by the fact that they have provided something newer than their predecessors." Fundamentally speaking, this "new thing" should conform to the trend of historical development and be conducive to the development of productive forces and social progress. This is the basic criterion for judging the value of historical figures. [2]
02
The great discussion of "overturning the case for Cao Cao" in 1959 not only clarified many historical facts about Cao Cao, but also promoted the study of cao cao and other historical figures. thereinto. A variety of specific criteria and concepts that embody the general principle of materialist history, such as the criterion of historical role, the class criterion and the historicist concept, have been comprehensively applied, weakening the most basic moral principles.
Before the founding of the People's Republic of China, Cao Cao's image in the folk was a traitor, a representative of the "white face". The biggest reason is probably the image of the traitor in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, especially the various literary and artistic works (operas, commentaries, villain books, etc.) based on the Romance of the Three Kingdoms in later generations, which have continuously strengthened this bad image of Cao Cao.
Su Shi's "Dongpo Zhilin" said: "When it comes to the affairs of the Three Kingdoms, when liu Xuande is defeated, he frequently raises his eyebrows, and there are people who have snot; when he hears Cao Cao's defeat, he is happy and fast." It can be seen that Cao Cao's "traitorous white face" has been fixed at least in the Song Dynasty.
The first historian to speak for Cao Cao should be Guo Moruo. He believes that Cao Cao is a great historical figure, he made great contributions to the development of the nation and the development of culture, and made the greatest contribution among his contemporaries, but he was demonized by posterity. Wrongfully acting as a negative teacher for more than a thousand years, we are here today to restore his reputation. Historian Zhai Bozan agreed with Guo Moruo's views. He published an article entitled "Restoring Cao Cao's Reputation".
In February 1959, Mao Zedong read the article "Should Restore Cao Cao's Reputation" written by Zhai Bozan published in guangming daily, saying: Cao Cao ended the chaotic situation of the Hao clan at the end of the Han Dynasty, restored the vast plains on both sides of the Yellow River, and paved the way for the reunification of the two Jin Dynasties. Luo Guanzhong, the author of the Romance of the Three Kingdoms, did not inherit the tradition of Sima Qian, but the tradition of Zhu Xi.
On April 23, the Beijing Evening News published "On the Romance of the Three Kingdoms (III)" written by Professor Wu Zujian of Peking University (Case: "On the Romance of the Three Kingdoms" I and II, published in the third edition of the Beijing Evening News on April 9 and 15, 1959). After Mao Zedong read it, that is, the day after Wu Wen's publication, Mao Zedong specifically asked Lin Ke, the secretary of Mao Zedong's office, to find Wu Wen's "On the Romance of the Three Kingdoms" one and two to take a look at it (see "Mao Zedong's Manuscripts Since the Founding of the People's Republic", vol. 8, p. 219). He paid great attention to Wu Wenzhong's view that the orthodox view of history that "supports Liu and opposes Cao" should not be negated because of its orthodox view of history in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Although Mao Zedong did not say anything this time, in connection with his previous and subsequent evaluation of Cao Cao, this can also be included in the scope of his evaluation of Cao Cao.
At this point, the history of "overturning the case" for Cao Cao began.
From guangming daily to "people's daily" within half a year, there are more than 140 articles in the newspaper.
In 1959, the "Collection of Cao Cao's Treatises" was compiled for Cao Cao's overturned articles, and was published by Sanlian Bookstore in 1960.
03
The question of the evaluation criteria of historical figures has always been inconclusive. So, I searched a lot of information, but did not come to a unified conclusion, in this article, I will make a statement of my own point of view.
People often like to say "cover the coffin". However, for the evaluation of historical figures, the coffin may not be conclusive, especially for those historical figures who have a certain degree of controversy in themselves. Because historical evaluation is not a matter of historical facts, but of values. And values are constantly evolving. For example, thirty years ago, our understanding of a historical figure is very likely to be overturned now. This is a change in society, and the change in values is bound to have a major impact.
The "Secondary School History Syllabus" clearly stipulates: "Some historical figures have an important influence on historical development, and they should also be correctly and realistically described and evaluated." It is necessary to analyze and criticize certain negative figures in history. Teachers should ask students to have a correct understanding of historical events and historical figures..."
First of all, the premise of correctly evaluating historical figures and restoring the true features of historical figures. This requires us to carry forward the spirit of "going up and down the yellow spring and finding things with our hands and feet", obtain a large amount of materials, and fully understand the deeds of historical figures, rather than being influenced by literary and artistic works such as novels and dramas, and making historical figures facialized and stereotyped.
For example, it is not appropriate to use the image of Lü Bu in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms to evaluate the historical Lü Bu. Reading only Lü Bu's biography in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms to evaluate Lü Bu, I think it is also incomplete. It is necessary to combine all the accounts in the Romance of the Three Kingdoms that intersected with Lü Bu, and also refer to records such as the Book of the Later Han Dynasty, so that the information is slightly sufficient. It should be said that the development of the Internet age should provide too much convenience for "finding things with hands and feet", and now researchers can use electronic retrieval to solve the information that previous generations took months to obtain.
Ge Jianxiong said that the evaluation of historical figures can reflect different values, such as the same thing for the same person, people with different concepts, positions, beliefs, feelings or interests can have different judgments, and different times will have different judgment standards, which is very normal. But in any case, the factual basis of everyone's evaluation should be consistent. Historical facts should not be concealed, fabricated, exaggerated, distorted, or tampered with because of differences in values. Moreover, in the absence of any factual basis, we cannot evaluate historical figures solely on the basis of concepts, speculations, and reasoning, or impose unwarranted accusations on others. [3]
Second, in evaluating historical figures, we must also raise the issue within a certain historical scope, and only by placing historical figures in the socio-historical environment in which they live and adhering to the principle of historicity can it be possible to evaluate them objectively and comprehensively.
Let's use Lü Bu as an example. For example, when we judge Lü Bu for killing Ding Yuan and Dong Zhuo, we should not use modern assumptions. "He is a 'three-surnamed family slave' who likes to recognize thieves as fathers", giving historical figures a conclusive conclusion. We should put historical figures in history, analyze the subjective and objective conditions at that time, and then explore the causes of events. On this basis, I think it is relatively fair.
This requires us to profoundly examine the evaluation of historical figures in the political, economic, cultural, and military environment of the time. For example, Lü Bu's defeat actually has a certain relationship with the control of the Local Government by the Hao clan in the Central Plains. Understanding this layer of reasoning, there will be a new perspective on the evaluation of historical figures.
Another thing is that since ancient times, China's propaganda has been two sets of discourse systems, indicating that it seems that benevolence and morality must be fully explained, and the real motive may not be so. If this is not carefully analyzed, many people who read history can easily fall into the pit. For example, the emperor's holy will must first write how the three emperors and five emperors said, how the saints said, and then say specific things. These things have nothing to do with the saints, who, in order to achieve their own goals, also fart upside down when they change the historical materials. Well, the earliest thing to say about the "Spring and Autumn Brushwork" is Confucius. Confucius adhered to his principles in the Spring and Autumn Period, and then the more than eight hundred events recorded in the Spring and Autumn Period were most of the major activities of Zhou Tianzi, the princes, and the Qing Dynasty, while the slaves' rebellions were not recorded.
Third, it is appropriate to substitute scenarios to understand and examine historical figures. Although this principle is very subjective, it is true that it is a unique experience of my own. This helped me understand a lot of historical issues very well.
I wrote in "Speaking of the Three Kingdoms|: How Do I Read History? " gave an example. A certain boss created a certain company, operated for a period of time, and after the company was running normally, he handed over the company to the general manager to take care of. Slowly, the general manager led the team to take over the company's customers, personnel, finances, etc. Rights, and after a few years, the general manager then went outside to reopen a company, poaching all the employees of the original company and taking all the customers away. How will the boss and the general manager get along? Wouldn't it be better to bring this situation to the emperor and the courtiers? Will you instantly understand why the emperor suspects that "there are always people (powerful ministers) who want to harm you"?
Xu Xiaojun. Revisiting the Evaluation of Historical Figures[J].Frontiers.2005,10
Cheng Enfu,Zhan Zhihua. Establish some principles for the evaluation of historical figures[J].China Duhui Science Journal.2015.9
Ge Jianxiong. The evaluation of historical figures should be based on facts[J].Exploration and Controversy.2004.3