论文部分内容阅读
自号长乐老的冯道，在唐末五代时“事四姓十帝”，因有亏“臣节”，尝为后日封建史家嘲讽指责。当今史家也把他当作“不倒翁”式的封建官僚典型而有非议。但同时代的士人对他却交口赞扬，“喜为之称誉”。这是为何呢？我们若将视野由冯道扩展到五代时期的文人（即当时地主阶级知识分子）群体，就可看出“臣节”在他们心目中是很淡薄的。这又是为何呢？为此，我们又应如何看待历史人物呢？本文对此作了精彩的论述，颇具说服力。
Since the old Changle Fengdao, in the late Tang and Five Dynasties, “four things ten emperor,” because of loss, “Chen Festival”, taste for the latter feudal historians ridicule blame. Today’s historians also criticize him as a typical “tumbler” feudal bureaucracy. However, contemporary scholars paid him compliments, “like the reputation.” Why is this? If we expand the field of view from Feng Daogu to the literati of the Five Dynasties (that is, the then landlord class intelligentsia), we can see that the “chenjian” is very weak in their minds. This is why? For this reason, how should we treat the historical figures? This article made a wonderful discussion, convincing.