竹林七贤拙论

A Study of Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove

竹林七贤作为一个群体,显然是被当作正面人物加以肯定的,否则何以称为"七贤"?但笔者认为,对竹林七贤不宜作整体的评介,而应根据其个人政绩、业绩作出单独的评价。对其作个人评价时,不应以曹魏政权或司马氏政权为依归。因为这两个都属于篡夺来的政权,在他们掌权初期,都施行过一些有利于社会发展的政策和诛杀异己的行为,在两个政权的晚期都趋于腐朽,两者难分轩轾。故对竹林七贤个人的评价,拥魏者,可以肯定他的气节;拥晋者,可以肯定他是忠臣。据此构想,肯定嵇康的忠魏气节,山涛对晋的忠心。对向秀则肯定他在学术方面的贡献。对阮籍既肯定他在学术方面的贡献,也指出他玩忽职守及败坏礼教的丑行。对王戎则批评他是贪财好利的腐朽的官僚。对阮咸和刘伶,则批评他们是为己避祸而又自矜风雅的俗人。

As a group Seven Sages of the Bamboo Grove have always been given positive reviews. Yet it is inappropriate to treat them collectively. Each of them should be reviewed individually according his achievement and contribution, Commentaries on them should not base on his belongs to the Cao regime of Wei or Sima regime, since both of them seized power by usurpation, and at the start of their power both had adopted positive policies to social development and wiped out opposite figures. In the end both of them became corruptive. As I think, the pro-Wei figures can be considered as persons of integrity,and the pro-Jin men can be treated as loyalists. Ji Kang was loyal to the Wei regime. Shan Tao was loyal to the Jin. Xiang Xiu had academic achievement. Yuan Ji was an academician of no virtue. Wang Rong was an official indulged in seeking wealth. Yuan Xian and Liu Ling boasted high-mindedly yet their motive was safety to themselves, they were indeed common men.