《屈原列传》:“人君无愚、智、贤、不肖,莫不欲求忠以自为,举贤以自佐。”这“自为”课本注为“为自己”,是把“为”解作“做”的,课本旧注为:“自为,自己做好国君。为,做。”改版本只是对“自为”这一结构解释有所不同,对“为”的解释却是一致的。我们认为这两种注释是大谬不然:“求忠以自为,举贤以自佐”,这种句式前后结构是相同的,“自为”与“自佐”处在前后句对应位置上,在这相同或相应结构中处在司一位置的词语的释义也应是相同或相应的。这在古文中为之“对文”(也有人把它称为“互文”,此是名称混乱,另撰文论述)。这种用例在《涉江》中有:“忠不必用,贤不必以,”《谋攻》中亦有用例:“夫将者国之辅也。辅周则国必强,辅隙则国必弱.”这二例中的“用”与“以”,“周”和“隙”都与“求忠以自为,举贤以自佐”的用例同,只不过有的是反义对文罢了.在训估学上这是往往以知一 “Qu Yuan Biography”: “People are not stupid, wise, virtuous, unscrupulous, have no desire to be loyal to themselves, to show virtues to self-adjudication.” This “for” textbook note as “for themselves” For “to do”, the old textbook Note: “for themselves, do a good monarch for, do.” The revision is only “self” for the interpretation of the structure is different, “yes” explanation is consistent of. We think these two kinds of comments are fallacious: “Seeking loyalty to act as oneself, giving oneself to oneself for reference”, the structure before and after this sentence is the same, “self” and “self- The meanings of the words in the same place or in the corresponding structure should also be the same or correspond to each other. This is the ancient text of the ”opposite“ (also some people call it ”intertextuality“, this is the name chaos, and the other articles discussed). This use case in the ”involved in the river“ in: ”loyalty do not have to use, Yin does not have to,“ ”plot“ there are also useful cases: ”Fu Fu country will also aid. “The two cases of” use “and” to “,” week “and” gap “are the same with the use cases of” seeking loyalty and taking self-serving, self-sufficiency ", except that there is an antonym to the text. It is often learned in training assessment