画外音：公元263年魏灭蜀，公元265年晋灭魏，公元280年晋灭吴，三家都归于西晋，天下重归一统，中国历史在全国范围内进入了士族地主阶级的时代，最终三国做为一个历史的插曲结束了，那么我们该用怎样的标准来评价这段历史以及其中的历史人物呢？敬请关注易中天品三国之《历史插曲》。
上一集讲到魏、蜀、吴三国在短暂的三足鼎立之后又重新归于晋朝，三国的历史大幕最终以士族阶级重新获得统治地位而徐徐拉上，然而我们不会忘记在汉末的历史舞台上有多少英雄人物潮起潮落，意气风发，想当年曹操以阉竖之后首倡义军，毅然举起了匡复汉室的大旗，刘备为了兴复汉室是四处奔波，孙权具有父兄留下的基业对未来也是踌躇满志，曹操、刘备、孙权最终都站在了自己的人生制高上，建立了自己的霸业，令后业人钦佩不已。然而在三国中有个令人回味的问题，挟天子以令诸侯的曹操最终没有称帝，却留下了篡汉的历史骂名，而一直以兴复汉室为己任的刘备最终自己称了皇帝，却还留下了仁义的历史美名，那么我们该用怎样的方法来看待这段历史中的人物呢？谁是三国时期真的英雄，厦门大学易中天教授做客百客讲坛，为您精彩讲述品三国之《历史插曲》。
易中天：在上一集我们讲了以士族地主阶级为统治阶级的魏晋南北朝是历史的必然，而三国是我们历史从贵族地主阶级向士族地主阶级转化的这个过程当中的一个插曲。那我们怎样看待这段历史呢？有两种选择，一种是进行道德的批判，一种是进行科学的分析。进行道德批判是我们中国很多人所持的历史观，他们总是把历史上的事件和历史上的人物分成君子和小人，忠臣和奸臣，好人和坏人，红脸和白脸，这样看当然比较省事儿，我们小时候看戏也是这样，一个人物出现了，马上问爸爸和妈妈，这是好人坏人啊，他省心，但是有时候想想也不省心。比方说我们的三国，你如果要进行一个道德的批判，要按照君子小人等等来划定这个界限的话，请问鲁肃算什么？鲁肃是忠臣还是奸臣？是君子还是小人？大家说鲁肃当然是忠臣，没人把鲁肃看成奸臣的，那我告诉你，鲁肃是第一个说大汉不可复兴的，他最早背叛东汉王朝，奸臣还是忠臣？他比曹操还早，曹操篡汉不是奸臣嘛，鲁肃反汉怎么不是奸臣。好，再请问，荀彧是君子还是小人？大家说荀彧当然是君子嘛，那荀彧的道德高尚是公认的嘛，那他为什么跟上一个贼呢？按照你这个系统曹操不是贼嘛，荀彧一个堂堂正正的正人君子却跟上了一个又奸诈又残酷，阴谋诡计一肚子篡夺大汉王朝那么一个汉贼，那不叫认贼作父啊，你怎么解释？再问一个问题，三大战役怎么解释，我们知道三国这个插曲有三个乐章，就是三大战役：官渡战役——军阀战胜门阀，赤壁之战——南方对抗北方，夷陵之战——三家平分天下。那么这三大战役有一个共同特点，就是谁发动谁失败，官渡之战袁绍发动的，袁绍失败了，赤壁之战曹操发动的，曹操失败了，夷陵之战刘备发动的，刘备败了。如果你要进行道德批判，请问你怎么做？你如果说曹操是贼，那曹操战胜袁绍，岂不是晋战胜了善，如果说刘备是仁慈的君主，是好皇帝，他怎么夷陵之战打败了，而且战胜刘备的人，陆逊你不能说是个小人啊，君子把君子打败了，你怎么解释啊？所以这条路其实是不通的，因此我们只能选择另一个做法，就是科学地分析。我们必须有一种科学的历史观，这个科学的历史观在哪里，在马克思那里，马克思那篇著名的著作《路易·波拿巴的雾月十八日》，就是拿破仑的侄子路易·波拿巴仿效他的伯父又发动了一次政变，由于他伯父政变的日子是雾月十八日，所以马克思讥讽地把路易·波拿巴的政变称为路易·波拿巴的雾月十八，这个事情发生以后，整个欧洲轰动，说路易·波拿巴这么一个人怎么也**物了，很多人表现出道义的愤怒，用恩格斯的话说，恩格斯在马克思这本著作的序言里面讲了当然欧洲很多人表现出道义的愤怒，进行道德的谴责，但是没有人理解这个事件，只有马克思理解，而且马克思对事件后来过程所做的预言都兑现了，那为什么会这样呢？按照恩格斯的说法就是马克思的着眼点不一样，马克思告诉我们是法国阶级斗争造成了一种条件和局势才使得路易·波拿巴这样一个平庸而可笑的人物成了时代英雄，也就是说当一个历史事件发生以后，当一个历史人物出现以后，做条件、局势的分析，比进行道德的批判、道义的谴责深刻得多，高明得多，重要得多。
Voice over: In 263 AD, Wei destroyed Shu, in 265 AD, Jin destroyed Wei, and in 280 AD, Jin destroyed Wu. All three families belonged to the Western Jin Dynasty, and the world was reunited. Chinese history entered the era of the gentry landlord class throughout the country. Finally, the Three Kingdoms ended as a historical episode. What criteria should we use to evaluate this period of history and the historical figures therein? Please pay attention to Yi Zhongtian’s “Historical Episode” of the Three Kingdoms.
In the previous episode, we talked about the return of the three kingdoms of Wei, Shu, and Wu to the Jin Dynasty after a brief tripartite confrontation, and the historical curtain of the three kingdoms was finally slowly drawn up as the aristocratic class regained its dominance. However, we will not forget how many heroic figures rose and fell on the historical stage at the end of the Han Dynasty, with high spirits. In those years, when Cao Cao first advocated the Rebel Army as a eunuch, he resolutely raised the banner of restoring the Han family, and Liu Bei traveled around to restore the Han family, Sun Quan has the foundation left by his father and brother and is also full of ambition for the future. Cao Cao, Liu Bei, and Sun Quan ultimately stood on top of their own system of life and established their own hegemony, which is greatly admired by the people in later generations. However, there is a memorable question in the Three Kingdoms: Cao Cao, who coerced the Emperor to order the vassals, ultimately failed to claim the title of emperor, but left behind a historical stigma of usurping the Han Dynasty. Liu Bei, who had always taken the task of rejuvenating the Han family as his own, eventually became emperor, but left behind a historical reputation for benevolence and righteousness. So how should we view the characters in this period of history? Who is the true hero of the Three Kingdoms period? Professor Yi Zhongtian from Xiamen University is a guest speaker at the Hundred Guest Forum, presenting you with a wonderful story about the “Historical Episode” of the Three Kingdoms period.
Yi Zhongtian: In the previous episode, we talked about the Wei, Jin, and Southern and Northern Dynasties, where the aristocratic landlord class was the ruling class. The Three Kingdoms were an interlude in the process of transforming our history from the aristocratic landlord class to the aristocratic landlord class. So how do we view this period of history? There are two options, one is to conduct moral criticism, and the other is to conduct scientific analysis. Conducting moral criticism is a historical concept held by many people in China. They always divide historical events and historical figures into gentlemen and villains, loyal and treacherous ministers, good and bad people, red and white faces. This is of course easier to look at. This is also true when we were young when we went to theater. When a character appeared, we immediately asked Dad and Mom, “This is a good person and a bad person. He saves his mind, but sometimes it’s not easy to think about it.”. For example, in our Three Kingdoms, if you want to carry out a moral critique and delimit this boundary according to the principles of gentleman, villain, etc., what is Lu Su? Is Lu Su a loyal or treacherous minister? Is it a gentleman or a villain? Everyone said that Lu Su was of course a loyal minister, and no one regarded him as a traitor. Let me tell you, Lu Su was the first to say that a great man cannot be revived. He was the first to betray the Eastern Han Dynasty, a traitor or a loyal minister? “He was earlier than Cao Cao, who usurped the Han Dynasty as a traitor, and Lu Su’s rebellion against the Han Dynasty was not a traitor.”. Okay, excuse me again, is Xunyu a gentleman or a villain? Everyone said that Xunyu was certainly a gentleman, but Xunyu’s moral integrity was recognized. Why did he keep up with a thief? According to your system, Cao Cao is not a thief, but Xun Yu, an upright and upright gentleman, followed a treacherous and cruel Han thief who conspired to usurp the Great Han Dynasty. That’s not to call him a thief and a father. How can you explain? Another question is how to explain the three major battles. We know that there are three movements in the episode of the Three Kingdoms, namely, the three major battles: the Battle of Guandu – the warlords defeating the warlords, the Battle of Chibi – the South vs. the North, and the Battle of Yiling – the three equally divided the world. The common characteristic of these three campaigns is that whoever launched them failed, Yuan Shao launched them in the Battle of Guandu, Yuan Shao failed, Cao Cao launched them in the Battle of Chibi, Cao Cao failed, Liu Bei launched them in the Battle of Yiling, and Liu Bei failed. If you want to conduct moral criticism, what do you do? If you say that Cao Cao is a thief, then if Cao Cao defeated Yuan Shao, wouldn’t it be that Jin defeated Shan? If Liu Bei was a benevolent monarch and a good emperor, how could he have been defeated in the Battle of Yiling, and the person who defeated Liu Bei? Lu Xun, you can’t say that he was a villain. A gentleman defeated a gentleman, how can you explain? So this road is actually impassable, so we can only choose another approach, which is scientific analysis. “We must have a scientific view of history. Where is this scientific view of history? In Marx’s famous book,” The Eighteenth Day of the Mist Moon of Louis Bonaparte, “Napoleon’s nephew Louis Bonaparte imitated his uncle and launched another coup, because the day of his uncle’s coup was the 18th day of the Mist Moon,”, So Marx ridiculously referred to the coup of Louis Bonaparte as the 18th of the Fog Moon of Louis Bonaparte. After this incident, there was a sensation throughout Europe, saying that such a person as Louis Bonaparte could not afford to lose things. Many people showed moral anger. In the words of Engels, Engels said in the preface to Marx’s book, of course, many people in Europe showed moral anger and carried out moral condemnation, But no one understands this event, only Marx understands it, and Marx’s predictions about the subsequent process of the event have been fulfilled. Why is this happening? According to Engels, Marx’s focus is different. Marx told us that it was the class struggle in France that created a condition and situation that made Louis Bonaparte, a mediocre and ridiculous figure, a hero of the times. That is, when a historical event occurred and a historical figure appeared, analyzing the condition and situation is much more profound than conducting moral criticism and moral condemnation, Much smarter and more important.
