Maybe someone will say, how can you compare Yan Song with Yue Fei? One is a recognized traitor and the other is a recognized loyal minister. A loyalist and a traitor are very different; One merit and one crime, a world of difference! This is certainly good. But we have to ask: Can traitors be wronged? Should bad people die unjustly? Yan Song's recall (and later property) and Yan Shifan's execution, of course, achieved "substantive justice", but if this justice is to be achieved through improper means, it can only be called "absurd justice". I used this title in the book Melancholy of the Empire.
Justice must be achieved by unjust means, and such absurd things can only happen in absurd times. However, even in that absurd era, many people disagreed. When Zhang majored in Records of Sejong, he said that he should be killed, but the charge should be "traitor" rather than "thief". In fact, it is also wrong to say that Yan Song and his son are "traitors". The two of them are extremely evil, but they are loyal to the emperor. We know that Emperor Jiajing wanted to be an alchemist himself in order to live forever. After Dan is refined, someone should eat it and taste it. Who will try? Yan Song. How old is Yan Song? Seventy or eighty years old. Then I ate it and wrote an experimental report, saying that I ate an elixir at night and two bowls of blood were bruised. This is a symptom of lead mercury poisoning. A 70-year-old man willingly acted as a guinea pig in the emperor's laboratory. Do you still call him a traitor? Therefore, Yan Song can only be regarded as a "traitor", not a "traitor", let alone a "traitor".
In fact, Yan Song was originally a "gentleman". Ming Shi said that he was tall, with clear eyes, loud voice, brilliant talent and a good reputation. When he first entered the officialdom, he was a decent man and could work with other ministers to oppose Jiajing's run amok. However, since Emperor Jiajing sent out a "thunder and fury", the little sense of justice that Yan Song had somehow disappeared, and he has since embarked on the road of no return, such as being stubborn, inviting pets, playing politics and abusing power for personal gain. It can be said that Yan Song, a "traitor", was actually "cultivated" by Jiajing.
So, who "trained" the fucking Jiajing emperor? In addition, how many emperors were there in ancient China? It's just a different degree of asshole. Also said that Yue Fei's case. Yue Fei's death is usually attributed to Qin Heng's crimes among the people, but historians have different opinions. Many historians have pointed out that there was a good tradition in the Song Dynasty, that is, not killing important officials in vain; Before Yue Fei, no general was killed. Qin Heng dared to break this precedent and murder Yue Fei. Without the acquiescence of Emperor Gaozong, this is almost impossible. At least, that's what it wants. Wen Zhiming said well, "What can you do with a little?" Do whatever you want. "That is to say, Qin Heng this thief, just calculate the emperor's mind!
Similarly, Yan Song has done so many bad things that it is impossible without Jiajing's connivance. Don't think that Jiajing is completely blind in Xiyuan alchemy. In fact, even if a fly flies over the hall, he knows it. How could he not know what Yan Song had done? But turn a blind eye, and even deliberately indulge. When he doesn't want to indulge, he has his own way of dealing with it. So, Yan Song is a jerk because Jiajing is a jerk, and Qin Heng is ugly because Zhao Gou is ugly. The emperor is the chief culprit of all this.
But you can't say that the emperor was born an asshole, and the emperor's asshole was also "cultivated". Whose "training"? Imperial system. As I said before, Qin Heng murdered Yue Fei because of the emperor's wishes. What do you think? "Qin Hui is back, what kind of body is this!" That is, when the Central Plains was recovered and Qin Zong was welcomed back (Hui Zong was dead at that time), Zhao Gou had to give up the throne. In order to keep the throne, he can't work too hard, he can only kneel down and make peace with the enemy, and even help the enemy get rid of Yue Fei. "For one thousand years, I haven't talked about crossing the wrong road in the south. At that time, I was afraid of the recovery of the Central Plains. " This may be one of the reasons why he acquiesced or even hinted that Qin Heng killed Yue Fei.
In fact, whether it is Song Gaozong or Ming Jiajing, if you were not the emperor, things might not be so bad. The Jingkang Rebellion was Zhao Gou in the King of Kang at that time, and he also had the feat of "generously pleading" to negotiate in the military camp of Jin people, and his performance was not bad. Jiajing's personal quality is not bad, at least he is a smart person. But when I became emperor, I was sorry. There is no right or wrong and no reason. There is no difference between Yue Fei's "loyalty to the country" and Yan Song's "graft" in their eyes. They all want to use it and kill it if they want. The reason and reason are also very simple, just because it is the emperor.
In this sense, it is not Jiajing and Zhao Gou, but the emperor system. Or, jiajing f * * king, because the emperor system f * * king; Zhao Gou is ugly because the emperor system is ugly. It is precisely because this system is an asshole and ugly that even the emperor himself may not have a good result. Mr. Huang Renyu said that the characters involved in his book "Fifteen Years of Wanli", from powerful officials to famous officials, from honest officials to eunuchs, from empresses to princes, are "the final result, that is, regardless of good and evil, they cannot achieve meaningful development in their careers. Some were defeated, some were destroyed, and some were both destroyed and destroyed, including the emperor, no exception. Obviously, the system is the problem, and imperial power is the head of all evils.
So I think we really need "historical sympathy" for historical figures, and we should see his situation and reasons at that time. Finally, the conclusion we draw should not be the quality of individuals, but the system. It is meaningless to simply divide historical figures into good guys and bad guys, good guys and bad guys, and gentlemen and villains. There is neither pure goodness nor pure evil in human nature. The bad guys have kindness, the wicked have kindness, and the villain once wanted to be a gentleman. What we need to find out is how these well-meaning people have gone bad, if possible.