From “盡忠報國” to “精忠報國”: How a Historical Phrase Was Rewritten
The story of the famous general Yue Fei (岳飛, 1103–1142) and the four characters on his back is one of the most enduring symbols of loyalty in Chinese tradition. However, the widely known phrase “精忠報國” (jingzhong baoguo, “serve the country with utmost purity of loyalty”) is actually a later, popular distortion of the original historical record, which gave instead the words “盡忠報國” (jinzhong baoguo, “serve the country with one’s utmost devotion”).
In the official Song dynasty history, the Song Shi (《宋史》), Yue Fei’s biography clearly states that his back was inscribed with “盡忠報國” (jinzhong baoguo), deeply carved into the skin by his mother, as a lifelong injunction to serve the nation to the utmost. This phrase means “to exhaust one’s loyalty and effort for the country” — it emphasizes total dedication, effort until the end, and moral responsibility, framed in a Confucian sense of duty to the ruler and state.
The form “精忠報國,” however, does not appear in the original Song records as the words on Yue Fei’s back. Instead, it originated from the imperial banner given to Yue Fei by Emperor Gaozong of Song, who wrote “精忠岳飛” (Jingzhong Yue Fei — “Yue Fei, with pure and perfect loyalty”) on a banner to reward his general’s military service. “精忠” (jingzhong) means “pure, refined loyalty” — a more idealized, almost spiritual form of loyalty, closer to an imperial label of virtue than a personal vow.
Over later centuries, especially in Ming and Qing dynasty novels, operas, and folk traditions, the two concepts blurred. People began to conflate the banner’s “精忠岳飛” with the tattoo on his back, and the phrase was transformed into “精忠報國” as the popular version of Yue Fei’s motto. This version entered modern textbooks, school plays, and propaganda images in the 20th century, especially in mainland China and Taiwan, where the state used Yue Fei as a model of loyalty and patriotism.
The significance of this change is profound:
Historical → Symbolic: Yue Fei’s personal vow of “盡忠報國” (doing one’s utmost for the country) was replaced by “精忠報國” (loyalty of perfect purity), turning a historical figure into a state-sanctioned icon.
Effort vs. Purity: “盡忠” emphasizes action, perseverance, and moral effort, while “精忠” shifts focus to moral purity and unquestioning obedience, making it more useful for state propaganda.
State appropriation: The change allowed authorities to redirect loyalty from the people’s duty to the state toward an ideal of loyalty to the state itself, often regardless of the ruler’s virtue or justice.
In modern usage, “精忠報國” has become a standard patriotic slogan, especially in military and school education, but it obscures the original Confucian spirit of “盡忠報國” — a call to serve the nation fully, even when the state is flawed, not simply to obey it.
The Iron Truth: Echoes of Deception from British Railings to China's Smelters – Why Governments Demand Eternal Vigilance
Across different continents and distinct epochs, the pursuit of national ambition has, at times, led governments down a perilous path of obscured truth and compromised trust. A striking historical parallel emerges when examining Britain's wartime "missing railings" phenomenon alongside China's Great Leap Forward steelmaking campaign. Both represent grand, centrally orchestrated drives for material production, fueled by patriotic zeal or ideological fervor, yet ultimately marred by a systemic disconnect from reality and a profound lack of transparency. From a historian's vantage point, these episodes serve as stark reminders of the inherent dangers when the principle of "for the people" is overshadowed by the chilling conviction that "the end justifies the means," demanding constant vigilance over state power.
During the darkest days of World War II, following the dire straits of Dunkirk, Britain embarked on a nationwide crusade. Under Lord Beaverbrook's fervent encouragement, ornamental iron gates and railings, symbols of private property and public grandeur, were enthusiastically surrendered by citizens. The public wholeheartedly embraced the narrative: this iron would be melted down to forge the very weapons needed to secure victory. It was a potent act of "wartime sacrifice," a visible contribution to national defense that rallied a populace under siege. Yet, as historical inquiries now reveal, the grand gesture of collection far outstripped the practical capacity for processing. Millions of tons of metal were gathered, but a mere fraction, perhaps only 26%, ever became munitions. The vast remainder, a rusting testament to overzealous collection, was quietly stockpiled, buried, or even dumped at sea, its fate shrouded in secrecy, with pertinent records conspicuously absent. The "stumps of trust" left in walls across the UK were not just physical voids, but enduring symbols of a public largely kept in the dark about the true utility of their sacrifice.
Decades later, half a world away, China embarked on an even more ambitious, and ultimately catastrophic, industrialization drive: the Great Leap Forward (1958-1962).Under Mao Zedong's ideological conviction, the nation was mobilized to "surpass Britain in steel production" within fifteen years.Millions of peasants, diverted from agriculture, were pressed into building "backyard furnaces" in a frantic effort to produce steel. The propaganda machine tirelessly extolled the virtues of this "people's steel," depicting a unified nation striving for communist prosperity. However, like the British railings, the reality was a tragic farce. Much of the steel produced in these rudimentary furnaces was of abysmal quality – brittle, full of impurities, and utterly unusable for industrial purposes. Furthermore, the diversion of labor from farming, coupled with falsified production reports to meet unrealistic quotas, led directly to one of history's worst famines, claiming tens of millions of lives. The truth of the famine and the industrial failure was suppressed, dissent crushed, and the narrative of success maintained at an unimaginable human cost.
The parallels between these two seemingly disparate events are chilling. Both involved:
Mass Mobilization & Propaganda: Governments in crisis (war for Britain, ideological transformation for China) successfully rallied their populations to contribute en masse, leveraging powerful, albeit incomplete, narratives.
Disregard for Practicality: In Britain, the logistics of collecting and processing vast quantities of iron outstripped industrial capacity. In China, the steel produced was largely worthless, and the agricultural sector, the very foundation of life, was fatally neglected.
Systemic Secrecy & Deception: Both governments chose to withhold the full truth from their citizens. In Britain, it was a quiet omission to preserve morale and avoid embarrassment. In China, it was a brutal suppression of facts to maintain ideological control and prevent internal dissent.
The "End Justifies the Means": For Britain, winning the war was the paramount end, justifying a degree of paternalistic deception. For China, achieving rapid industrialization and communist ideals justified extreme measures, even at the cost of widespread suffering and death.
Profound Long-Term Costs: While the British experience primarily resulted in a subtle erosion of public trust and aesthetic scars, the Great Leap Forward led to an economic collapse and an unparalleled demographic catastrophe.
From a historian's viewpoint, these episodes underscore a timeless imperative: governments must be checked. Power, by its very nature, tends to concentrate information and decision-making, creating an environment where ambition or expediency can eclipse prudence and transparency. As the esteemed Lord Acton famously warned, "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." When the state, even with purportedly noble intentions, believes it knows best and that the "end justifies the means," it risks leading its citizens down paths paved with illusion and unintended suffering.
The integrity of a nation's relationship with its people rests on a foundation of truth and accountability. Thomas Jefferson's dictum, "Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty," applies not just to safeguarding individual freedoms, but to holding state power accountable for its actions and pronouncements. George Washington, understanding the dual nature of governance, noted: "Government is not reason; it is not eloquence; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master."10
The visible stumps of missing railings in British cities and the invisible graves of millions who perished during China's steel famine stand as solemn monuments to this truth. They are historical lessons that transcend specific political systems or historical contexts, serving as a perpetual reminder that even in times of grave national challenge, transparency, accountability, and the unyielding scrutiny of government are not mere luxuries, but the very bedrock of a functional and ethical society.
發表文章
