Of course, the evaluation of historical figures should be based on the historical conditions at that time, not on the standards of modern people. So did the ancient emperors. Comments on the merits and demerits of the ancients should be comprehensive, not overcorrected, not overcorrected. If there is, don't write nothing. Similarly, if you have something to recommend, don't write everything well. This paper is not a comprehensive evaluation of the emperors of the three dynasties, but puts forward some views on some problems in the current evaluation.
As an emperor, he naturally takes the country as his own, and modern people don't have to ask him if he wants to practice democracy. But to say that an emperor is great, at least his actions can make the country rich and strong on the basis of progress. Even if he thinks this is my world, it should be a "rich family" rather than a "black sheep". Kang's eulogists also understand this, so the focus of propaganda is that these three "great emperors" made the Qing Dynasty "prosperous", which is also called a prosperous time in history. I think there are several points that need to be clarified.
First of all, China's history books have always praised and criticized the ancient emperors' use of soldiers: "excellent martial arts" and "poor use of soldiers". What kind of evaluation should be taken depends on the results it has brought to the country.
As a characteristic of Kang Yong's rule over three dynasties, he did not hesitate to use any means to consolidate the newly established new dynasty. After the establishment of China's dynasties, they all used force at home. It's the hilt against the world. If the world gets it, it will take it from the person who holds it, and it is not allowed to cut the handle for itself. It is polite for Zhao Kuangyin to relieve the military power with a glass of wine, but it is impolite for Zhu Yuanzhang to shell meritorious buildings. It is not easy for this small group to enter the customs and rule all China. Military occupation is successful, but it is not easy to maintain rule. Of course, the rulers of the new dynasty will also take away their swords and handles. The killing of Ao Bai is an example. The difference between the Qing Dynasty and the Ming Dynasty is that at the beginning of the founding of the People's Republic of China, in addition to the Eight Banners, there were also Ming generals who had made contributions to the Ming Dynasty. The threat they think of is that these Han Chinese will resist first, so they should suppress it by all means. The military action of cutting vassals can be explained in various names, but in any case it cannot be denied that its fundamental purpose is to recapture the military power from the Han people. It doesn't matter how much money you spend or how many lives you sacrifice for it. It is far-fetched for later generations to evaluate this military action as a great achievement in realizing "great reunification". This San Francisco was originally helping the Qing Dynasty seize all China and unify all China. Their "king" was also sealed by the Qing emperor, and the land under their jurisdiction has always been a part of the Qing Dynasty. Division never happened. This kind of military action in the name of "unification" is actually only the need of the emperor's centralization and a means for the supreme ruler to consolidate his position.
Secondly, this military action was accompanied by China's cruel spy rule. For those who are under the banner of "anti-Qing and regaining sight", they will almost be killed. By the Yongzheng period, spies were rampant. Under the rule of this spy, not only the anti-Qing people were suppressed, but also the dissidents were suppressed. In the past, legends such as Lv Liuliang, Gan Fengchi and Lv Siniang who fought against the Qing Dynasty and regained their light were all promoted as national heroes. Of course, these people's thoughts have narrow nationalist elements. However, during the Qing dynasty, the people were oppressed by the current dynasty, so these characters were used to express their dissatisfaction with the authorities. During the revolutionary period, Dr. Sun Yat-sen also called for "expelling the Tatars". This is not only regarded as narrow nationalism, but also a reflection of China people's dissatisfaction with the rule of the Qing Dynasty. Therefore, after the founding of the Republic of China, these figures are still praised by the people. But now, it has been more than 90 years since the demise of the Qing Dynasty, but these characters have become heinous people, because they "made a mess" and "unified the world" in a mess. We should make a "historical" analysis of the ancient emperors. Similarly, we should also make a historical analysis of these people who were praised by the people.
Third, what about "Wu" and "Wen"? When it comes to "literature", it comes down to intellectuals. Huai Nan Zi said that if the rulers do not attach importance to intellectuals, the country will not be strong. It can be said that it is a characteristic of these three dynasties to engage in literary inquisition and kill intellectuals to the point of no distinction between red and white, which is clearly recorded in the history books. As we all know, the elegant sentence of "The breeze can't read, why turn over the books" without political meaning can also be accused of being beheaded for scolding Qing. When commenting on Wenzhi of these three dynasties, we must also consider the compilation of Sikuquanshu of Qianlong Dynasty. It should be said that the compilation of this book has the credit of both decision makers and editors. This book has collected and preserved a large number of documents, which is a great contribution. But this book excludes a large number of documents that are considered unfavorable to the rule of the Qing Dynasty. This exclusion only excludes a large number of valuable documents far-fetched. Therefore, while affirming the important position of Sikuquanshu in the cultural history of China, we must link its role in the Qing Dynasty with the "literary inquisition" in the early Qing Dynasty. One of the principles of writing this book is that you must never include anything that is not conducive to the rule of the Qing Dynasty. Before the Qing Dynasty entered the GATT to rule China, it was impossible for academic works written in previous dynasties to oppose the Qing Dynasty's rule. The only way to edit, of course, is to be as careful as possible, not to delete more and not to miss something that can be used as a handle to avoid being killed. This far-fetched exclusion for political purposes has led to the deletion of a large number of valuable documents. The efforts of so many intellectuals, because of this barbaric political restriction, have caused great defects in this book. Therefore, when we look at the "Wen" rule of these three dynasties, we must not ignore the literati at that time under the pressure of "Wu" power and under the cruel literary prison. Seeing the "literary inquisition" in the early Qing Dynasty, we can't ignore its influence on later generations. Since then, the intellectuals in China dare not try to use their brains again, but only do academic research, forming the Ganjia School. This kind of textual research has indeed made great contributions to the collation of ancient books in China, but the intellectual's silence, as Huai Nan Zi said, has laid the foundation for the decline of the country.
Fourth, Kangxi's anti-corruption campaign in Qianlong was the most publicized. This may be a special phenomenon that people need at present. There were indeed many anti-corruption actions at that time, but they were not commendable. Because this kind of anti-corruption has not actually achieved any great results. The reason why it doesn't work is that there are a lot of bribery and perverting the law among officials, which is rooted in the Qing Dynasty's preferential treatment for the children of the Eight Banners and its spy rule under extreme autocracy. In this case, no one dares to touch the venal flag bearer. Oppressed and blackmailed people have no right to appeal. The emperor's determination to fight corruption seems not small, but it will never be so great as to dig the foundation of his own rule. Who to kill and who to protect actually does not depend on whether the officials are clean or not, but on their loyalty and disloyalty to the emperor. Therefore, it is doomed that the anti-corruption of the "prosperous times" of the Three Dynasties has no result.
It can be said that the three dynasties of Gansu, which lasted for nearly a century and a half, were characterized by military action to separate Han and Fan, and by spy rule to stifle dissidents. Its direct effect is remarkable: the powerful ministers were suppressed, the heavily armed vassals were eliminated, the anti-Manchu elements were suppressed, and intellectuals were afraid to speak out. As a result of this action, the rulers of this new dynasty sacrificed the disabled and wealth to gain a sense of stability in the dragon chair. It is said to be "stable" because it is actually unstable. Because this kind of action is backward, there is absolutely no sense of progress. So it can't be stable. Kangxi Qianlong has been in office for more than 60 years and is also known as an unprecedented "greatness". However, a person can rule a country for 60 years, which is itself a manifestation of backwardness. A country under the leadership of a ruler who came to power 60 years ago can't make progress anyway.
However, these are only some specific issues, which will not affect the overall evaluation of the three dynasties. The fundamental problem in evaluating these three dynasties is that this period is different from any imperial period in China's history. As the ruler of China, in this world environment, can he lead the country to keep up with the situation, or indulge in the reputation of "China Power" in the dragon chair, and finally lose the opportunity, making the country more and more backward.
At that time, the world had developed into the pioneering period of capitalism. We can make a comparison in time:
The time of Kangxi dynasty was 1662- 1722, Yongzheng dynasty was 1723- 1735, and Qianlong dynasty was 1736- 1796. 1662- 1796 during this 135 years, western countries started the capitalist revolution and the industrial revolution. Before the Kangxi Dynasty in China, Britain had just carried out a bourgeois revolution to establish * * * peace, which was about equivalent to the early Kangxi Dynasty. 1660- 1685 experienced the restoration of the Stuart dynasty, and 1688 experienced a glorious revolution. The last year of Kangxi was 172 1. In the mid-Qianlong period, the British industrial revolution began in11960s and was completed in11930s and 1940s. In France, in the middle of Kangxi Dynasty, the armed uprising in Paris was successful in 1789, and the Constitutional Assembly adopted the declaration of human rights, and the Constitution was adopted in 179 1. During the heyday of China and Kang Yong, the United States was still a British colony. By the mid-Qianlong period, 1776, the Continental Congress adopted the Declaration of Independence drafted by Jefferson and others. The War of Independence ended in 178 1, and Britain recognized the independence of the United States from 1783. The capitalist democratic system established by Britain, France and the United States was the most advanced system in the world at that time, which made the industrial revolution possible and made revolutionary breakthroughs in economy and science and technology. Make countries such as Britain and France rapidly develop into the world's number one power. The United States, which was originally a colony, also achieved faster economic and technological development than Britain and France because it established a more democratic system than other countries in the War of Independence.
China has always regarded itself as a "big country in China". The rise and fall of the country depends not only on whether it can conquer the surrounding ethnic minorities, but also on whether it is ahead of the world trend at that time and whether it represents a progressive force. At the critical moment of world development, are the three generations of rulers in Kang Yong ahead of the world development, keeping up with the pace of world development, or lagging behind the world development? If they are ahead, they are undoubtedly great. If they keep pace with the development of the world, they can also be listed as meritorious persons. However, if we lag behind the world, China will lose the good opportunity in the world development competition. Then, the word "great" cannot be said. In the same feudal era in the world, the ruler of a country can consolidate his rule at home and expand his territory abroad. It is reasonable for future generations to praise him as "the Great". However, in the great transformation from the world system to the advanced system, the rulers of a country let the country miss the opportunity and can only be labeled as "short-sighted" and "backward". At that time, capitalism had appeared, and the three dynasties of the Qing Dynasty were busy fighting and consuming national strength in the trend of world progress, insisting on the original system, but they did not take any measures to change this backward phenomenon, which made China fundamentally backward. This backwardness can't be compensated by the statistics of how much the production figures have developed. Is this an advantage or a disadvantage? No matter how generous you are, you can't say that these three emperors are "wise sages." At that time, they were kings behind closed doors, but after Jiaqing generation, in Daoguang, the "barbarian" state capitalism, which was despised by our "China powers", developed and became a "foreign power". The door of "China Power" can't be closed, so we have to be beaten. The reason is that you are weak. This "weakness" was not formed in a day. China people have long known that they are "weak", which has been accumulated from generation to generation. The Qing Dynasty was beaten by foreigners in the dynasty after Daoguang, which cursed the "prosperous times" created by these three "great emperors".
Discussion on the evaluation of some historical figures is always inseparable from methodological issues. Praising Kang's arguments is always based on the fact that historicism cannot be harsh on the ancients. In fact, historical determinism does not mean that the arguer will bring the argument into the history at that time, but analyze the historical conditions at that time from the current perspective. This article does not specifically discuss historicism, but only comments on three dynasties. I think we should pay attention to two points:
First, critics eulogized the emperors of the Three Dynasties, instead of putting all the "credit" on them, they should put all the blame on the "courtiers". This method often appears when commenting on other "sages". The result is of course that saints never make mistakes. This is not that modern people are commenting on history, but that ministers at that time are praising the emperor.
Second, historical dramas use historical events to tell what they want to say now, which makes historical events unrecognizable and causes dissatisfaction among historians. In fact, as a drama, some untrue history is still possible. On the contrary, historians themselves have the same problem, which is not allowed. Because Guo Moruo used the past to serve the present before liberation, many people in the field of history after liberation were more or less touched by this technique. To "serve the present", the selection of historical events and people, even if it is true, must be arbitrary. Adopt if you need it now, and discard if you don't need it now. What is the real history there? It is not advisable to "eulogize the present with the ancient" or "satirize the present with the ancient". The role of history in reality is to objectively sum up the experience of predecessors and let contemporary people learn from history. This kind of summary should not be borrowed directly and concretely, but should summarize its laws for modern use. "Comparing the present with the past" is not "serving the present", but just spoiling the moment of history in order to publicize a certain point of view.
Thirdly, from Kang Yong's experience, we can think of China's "axe and candle shadow" in the ruling group for thousands of years, and "disastrous for the country and the people" in governing the country. The essence of China's thousands of years of culture can be reflected in all aspects of politics, economy, culture and military art, and the dross can also be reflected in these aspects. When describing China culture, the biggest misunderstanding is that the emperor's behavior is regarded as a symbol of China culture. The emperor is honored as "Long live", which is a symbol of justice. The anti-imperialist king was demoted as a traitor and a corrupt official. In fact, monarchy is a historical phenomenon of the development of human society, and every emperor must have differences and achievements. But when the world developed into capitalism, the reality in China was that the emperor became a conservative symbol, which hindered the progress of China, regardless of his personal character. The struggle between the power and interests of the ruling group is a manifestation of China's cultural dross at any time. Of course, many anti-imperialist kings are careerists and want to replace them. And this "crossing" is the same as the emperor's fault. As for the fatuous "resistance" to the emperor, it should not be denied. In the history of 2 1 century, there should be no more phenomenon of "being reprimanded for committing a crime".