问题是这样发生的:當我在中学教历史的时候,谈到咱们民族在宋代遭受外族的入侵,曾对岳飛在中国历史上的传统地位加以批判。那时还在解放以前,我所根据的意见是艾思奇同志在大眾哲學中關於‘岳飛是怎樣死的’加一段文字。解放以後我虽没有直接教过宋代历史,但碰到相关问题的时候,也提及过这回事。根据我的经验,依照艾思奇同志这種批判法則向學生進行講授,是很起进步作用的。但是問题來了,一些朋友說:‘在解放以前你可以這么说,解放以後再这么說就會要犯錯誤。’有个朋友说:‘岳飛不算革命英雄,但他是民族英雄是没有问题的’。許多朋友(如现在中原大学許多同學們)就根本反對這種批判。他们所持理由雖各有不同,但‘承認岳飛所享有的傅统地位是合理的’这一点却是共同的。這個問題爭論了將近一年,沒有得出結論,現在特把它寫下來,请大家指正。在批判岳飛之前,首先要解决一個問題:同一個問題,是不是應該在解放前後持相反的看法。去年暑假時,有个中学的初中新生試卷中有这样的答 The problem happened like this: When I was teaching history in secondary school, I talked about the invasion of our nation by aliens during the Song Dynasty and criticized Yue Fei’s traditional position in Chinese history. Before that time was liberated, my opinion was based on Comrade Esch in the public philosophy about how ’Yue Fei died’ plus a paragraph of text. Although I did not directly teach the history of the Song Dynasty after liberation, I also mentioned it when I encountered related problems. According to my experience, it is very useful to teach students according to this critical principle of Comrade Esch. But the question came, and some friends said: ’Before liberation you can say that after liberation you will make mistakes. ’One friend said:’ Yue Fei is not a revolutionary hero, but he is a national hero is no problem ’. Many of my friends (like many of our students at Chung Yuan Christian University) are fundamentally opposed to this criticism. Although the reasons they hold are different, it is common to recognize that “the status of FDR held by Yue Fei is reasonable.” This issue has been debated for almost a year and no conclusion has been reached. Now it is time to write down and please correct me. Before we criticize Yue Fei, we must first solve the one question: Should the same question be held before or after liberation? Last summer, there was such a reply in the middle school freshmen’s test paper