"Drunkenly pick up the lamp and look at the sword, dream back to blow the horns and camp." This poem "Breaking the Line: Giving Chen Tongfu a Strong Word to Send" is a classic of Xin Ren's bold words, and it is also a true portrayal of his lifelong "Northern Expedition" ideal and the image of a military general.
Today, the song has also become the object of "parental suggestions to remove from the textbook". Of all the texts that were "recommended to be removed from the textbook by parents", the word "suggested to be removed from the textbook" is the most innocent, because their reason for "suggesting removal" is more "ridiculous".
Some people say that the phrase "but the king is in the world, and wins the name of the deceased" embodies the idea of Xin Abandoning Disease and Foolish Loyalty, so in order to avoid students from learning such ideas, it is recommended to move this word out of the textbook. Such remarks are simply ridiculous!
People who know Xin Qiyi know that his lifelong ambition is the "Northern Expedition". The reason why he was unhappy all his life was because he went against the will of the King of the Southern Song Dynasty. Compared with the "Northern Expedition", the kings of the Southern Song Dynasty were obviously more willing to take a corner of the country and get by.
Therefore, those who attack the word "foolish loyalty" against Xin Shuyi can only be regarded as pure illiteracy. In recent years, many "parents" from unknown sources and some "brick families and beasts" have colluded to point out the famous passages in chinese textbooks.
One moment to delete this, the next to delete that. It is an incomprehensible act to impose the values of contemporary people on the ancient people and to criticize the ancient poetry.
In recent years, it has always been possible to see some so-called "parents of students" on the Internet asking for the deletion of articles in language textbooks, most of which are more ridiculous reasons.
I can't understand why these so-called "parents of students" should not ask for the deletion of articles in math, physics, chemistry, and biology textbooks. Probably because they couldn't understand other textbooks, they could only stare at the "Language" textbook to find fault.
One moment we should delete Zhuge Liang's "Table of Renunciation", the next moment we should delete Liu Yuxi's "Buried Room Ming", and the next moment we should delete Zhu Ziqing's "Back Shadow" and "Lotus Pond Moon Color". The reasons for the objections are varied, and some of them are quoted from scripture.
For example: Zhuge Liang's "Bowing to exhaustion" in "The Table of Renunciation" is "foolish loyalty", "No White Ding" in "Buried Room Ming" is to look down on the poor, the protagonist in "Back Shadow" violates traffic rules, "Lotus Pond Moonlight" always compares women, unhealthy thinking and so on.
This act of picking bones out of eggs is simply breathtaking. For the "profound" Chinese studies skills of these "parents", while I deeply admire them, I am also very worried, because their thinking is obviously out of track
If it is true that the protagonist of "Back Shadow" violates the traffic rules, and it is also true that "Lotus Pond Moonlight" has female imagery, and if the author of "Buried Room Ming" is indeed proud of "no white Ding", then is there really a "foolish loyalty" idea in "Out of the Teacher's Table" and "Breaking the Line" and "Giving Chen Tongfu a Strong Word to Send"?
"Loyalty" and "foolish loyalty" are completely different things. "Foolish loyalty" means that a person is blindly loyal to the monarch regardless of consequences and without distinction between right and wrong. Only when he knows that the emperor is a ball and is loyal to him can he be regarded as "foolish loyalty".
But the stupidity of the emperors of the Southern Song Dynasty was reflected in their partial thinking. At this point, Xin never agreed with the monarch's wishes. Therefore, how do we understand "Breaking the Line: Giving Chen Tongfu a Strong Word to Send"?
"Breaking the Line, Giving Chen Tongfu a Strong Word to Send" - Southern Song Dynasty Xin Abandoned Disease Drunk, he picked up the lamp to look at the sword, and dreamed of blowing back to the horn and camp. Eight hundred miles under the command, fifty strings overturned the outside sound. Battlefield Autumn Soldiers. Lu of the horse was fast, and the bow was like a thunderbolt. But the king of the world, won the name of the posthumous. Poor white happens!
Through the full text of this poem, we can see that in the first half of this poem, Xin Shuyi has been writing the protagonist to recall the process of ordering soldiers on the battlefield and fighting side by side with the warriors, and only in the second half does it mention "the king's world affairs".
The so-called "king's world affairs" here are not the king's world affairs, but actually refer to the protagonist's own ideals in life. He wanted to make a contribution, he wanted the Northern Expedition, he wanted the unification of rivers and mountains.
Such a grand ambition should have been achieved by those who became monarchs. However, the kings of the Southern Song Dynasty did not have such ideas. In desperation, only a character like the protagonist in the word can be substituted for "but".
Therefore, the "king" here does not refer to any monarch specifically, and it can even be said that it is not the emperor of the Guide Song. Obviously, this means that he did the great things that a monarch should do. And his actions are also in the national interest and his personal interests.
What is "criticized" in the poem of Xin Renjie is his phrase "winning the name of his life and death". Some people pointed out that this sentence carries a very heavy "offensive thinking". Is it good to pursue fame and fortune? "Parents" who hold opposing opinions must think it is very bad.
In their view, this song not only advocates "foolish loyalty", but also promotes the idea of "coveting fame and fortune", and the values are obviously problematic, how can children learn? Therefore, the word must be removed from the textbook.
The ancients said it well: "A gentleman loves wealth and has a way to get it." There is nothing wrong with pursuing fame and fortune, as long as it is obtained through the right way, there is no problem.
In ancient China, Shi Yin thinking has always coexisted. The ancestors encouraged the younger generations to work hard to learn a skill, and then realize their ideals by becoming a priest and an official; while winning fame and interests, they also benefited others.
People with a "hermit" mentality advocate "not seeking monetary gain", but they will never give up the pursuit of "honor". Because only when people have pursuits, society will have the motivation to move forward.
Fame is actually "honor", and "honor" is a positive word. Only when a person does an act that is in the common interest of the social group can he receive such "honor".
For example, the general in "Breaking the Line: Giving Chen Tongfu a Strong Word to Send", his dream is to fight for the country in the south and complete the great cause of reunification, and then he also got the "reputation". This kind of thinking is not only justified and bright, but also should be vigorously propagated.
Of course, there are also some people who hold the hermit idea of "brushing away the clothes and hiding the voice and name". But in fact, the person who holds this idea only hides his "name" instead of saying that he does not want to be "praised" by others.
To be honest, in this day and age, I don't believe at all that someone would teach their children not to pursue fame and fortune. Therefore, these so-called "parents" are mainly opposed to the so-called "foolish loyalty" idea that does not exist in the word Xin Zhiyi.
In fact, these so-called "parents", reading this word only look at the surface, they have not understood one thing at all, that is, the ancient people's idea of loyalty to the king, in fact, is a kind of loyalty to their ideals.
A person's way of thinking is often subject to his time and social system. Ancient China had to abide by the feudal hierarchy, and they could only realize their loyalty to the country under the premise of being loyal to the king.
Based on this premise, their patriotism can be manifested, and vice versa. At the same time, under specific historical conditions, "loyalty to the king" is excluded, and there is no such thing as "loyalty", let alone patriotism.
Using the consciousness of modern people to oppose the "loyal kings" of ancient people is also a very incomprehensible behavior. "Loyal" itself is not unconditional to the object of "loyalty".
The Confucian Mencius advocated that "if the prince is in danger, then change", that is, if the king has no way, the people can overthrow it. The big premise of the "Three Principles and Five Constants" is that "the king is not righteous and the subject surrenders to a foreign country." It can be seen that the thinking of the ancients is also very advanced.
Therefore, why should an ancient person indiscriminately beat his works to death because he had the idea of "loyalty", saying that he was "foolish and loyal"? If this were the case, these ancient texts would basically be completely abolished.
Because in ancient times, people who were disloyal to the king were basically beaten as "anti-thieves". Unless these people really succeed in their rebellion, do you think their articles can still be passed down?
Of course, there are also "parents" who think that I want my child to consider this issue. We don't talk about loyalty to kings or fame and fortune, and my children will go to Zen enlightenment when they grow up. Such a choice is not impossible.
So, who's to say which life choice is wrong? However, this is not the mistake of Xin Zhiyi's "Broken Line, Giving Chen Tongfu a Strong Word to Send", and can only blame those so-called "parents" for thinking a little too non-mainstream.
As long as you take a few minutes, simply flip through the book, or look up the Internet to understand the life of Xin Qiyi, you will not misinterpret the phrase "but the king is in the world".
In fact, what Xin is saying here is really not to be loyal to any emperor. Because since his return to the Southern Song Dynasty for more than forty years, the political ideas of the Northern Expedition have basically not been supported.
It was only in the last few years of his life that he was used by Han Tuoxin and became a "gun" messenger. However, Xin did not agree to the Northern Expedition at all, because Han Tuo was ill-prepared, acted hastily, and could only fail.
Therefore, what Xin Abandoned Disease "did" here is not a real "king's world affair", he is talking about major events involving the country, and it is also his lifelong wish.
Because of this thing, it should have been the responsibility of the king of the Southern Song Dynasty, but the king of the Southern Song Dynasty did not do it, and Xin abandoned the disease and did it. And he was just fantasizing in his dreams about doing such a big thing, and that's it.
In addition, there is nothing wrong with an ancient person having the idea of "loyalty to the king", unless someone insists that "loyalty" is "foolish loyalty". If so, then all the "loyal" acts of the ancients may seem to them to be "removed".