There was a recent article in the Grauniad⁰⁰ in which it was suggested by one of the correspondents that it is a dangerous thing to expose a spy, even if you are able to do so. Whether it is or no, I leave to your judgement. For my part the question, if it becomes a question, is to remain unanswered.

There are other dangerous things to do. In some places the very mention of what actually happened if it does not accord with the official description in every detail may be considered to be fake news, the disclosure of state secrets or even as slight as a stirring up of arguments or discontent – beware then if in the civil service canteen when the cook has put too much salt in the soup that you do not complain. The penalty may be greater than you expect.  So, to make reference to words which had been posted in a public place, which often concerning similar posters Coco does complain when driving for they are also dangerous things, which can be clearly seen by drivers, who then become distracted and wish to read them. Of course it can be even worse than a simple static poster. The LED screen catches your eye and then changes before you have interpreted the one you saw at the first. How distracting this is. We are not permitted to have our own distracting LED screen, but anyone else can place an A00000 road sign which flickers and flashes its images and words demanding the attention of every passing driver, insisting that they take their snoopy eyes off the road ahead.

Ah, again Coco, having been distracted, which is not quite so dangerous to happen when writing as when driving, but can still result in serious, though grammatical rather than spatial, mistakes, has left a dangling subject in the paragraph before, so to complete it therefore, as Coco was saying, to make reference – really such advertising hoardings should be banned. It is inadequate for the advertiser to say that it is the drivers’ responsibilities to keep their eyes on the road ahead when the only purpose of these – no, actually often in court it will be argued that the tax advantage derived from a particular series of transaction was merely a collateral advantage to the actual purpose of the wholly commercial transactions – so the main purpose of these hoardings is to advertise a product or a service not to distract the driver. The distraction is merely collateral damage. So, it is ok, the commercial benefits outweighs the potential damage. Try saying that the next time you are asked to justify mobile phone usage in a car.

Coco suspects that Lord Denning could have argued most comprehensively, eloquently, exhaustively, pedantically and persuasively on the point in your support well enough to convince the House of Lords (as the Supreme Court was then) that you should be justified in your actions, all the while, as the learned Lords’ heads were nodding in agreement, knowing that his words were nothing but gilded and polished verbosity artfully woven into a garment which would provide no more covering than the emperor’s new suit of clothing, until in his final sentence he disclosed, for those who had ears to hear it, that there was no substance in the argument and no valid defence was available. Whether they heard or not, Coco leaves it to you, but the advertising hoardings are still one of the greatest avoidable hazards, after the idiots behind the wheels, on our roads. They are indeed dangerous things.

The words, in translation, that were found in what is presumed to be the original language to be offensive were as follows. First let Coco say that whether there is offence or not often must be judged by the context in which the words are found. To say that ‘her presence is like the silver morning mist’ may be regarded as a most sweet and pleasing compliment, but perhaps not if you are to apply it in Germany and choose the incorrect word for that early morning mist of which you appear to be so fond. So context matters, and with that in mind let us take these words out of context and consider them there before thinking about the context, if we ever to get to that point.  

No! to Covid test; yes! to food.
No! to lockdown; yes! to freedom.
No! to lies; yes! to dignity.
No! to cultural revolution; yes! to reform.
No! to great leader; yes! to vote.
Don’t be a slave; be a citizen.

It is a series of negatives and affirmatives. Some of them are quite straightforward and who would find them incontrovertible?

No! to lies. Yes! to dignity.

We expect our leaders to tell the truth. If they do not, then are they fit to lead? When Elizabeth was asked to answer a particular question she excused herself: To reply with the affirmative may be to tell thee what thou shouldst not know, but to deny thy words and a lie may be found upon my lips, therefore thy question, it shall answerless be.⁰ It is a wise monarch, who would not lie, and of course they should always act with dignity, and respect the dignity of their people, just as we should respect them and each other.

Others are not quite so clear, especially if we take them in pairs which are intended to contrast with each other. If we take each yes and no independently our task is somewhat simpler, but we cannot, as the original presentation places them in pairs, so Coco shall not, as perhaps one would have done in the consideration of the tax consequences of a commercial transaction would wish to take each step on the way to the ultimate goal on its own merits rather than looking at the series of transactions as a whole. Nevertheless, we must attempt to understand them. Some cannot be understood outside at least some understanding of their context for at least some of the words here should be understood as proper nouns rather than common ones. The English text does not make this clear as for the greater part there is no capitalisation in its original form as can be seen above.

Having said that Coco would take them in pairs however, it should be pointed out that the positive statements Yes! are all likely to receive commendation even from those whom some might regard disrespect the principle suggested, as perhaps for the Yes! To vote. This need not mean what those who espouse a Western idea of what democracy means; it could be a reference to a different measure of the franchise such as in the Greek republic, or even to the voting of a one-party state in which the vote is not to choose but to confirm what has already been chosen. There are even areas of Western life where such a system is used, though if the vote is inadequate to approve the matter the alternative course is not entirely clear. Coco supposes it is a matter of retaining the status quo in such situations, so it behoves those who propose such elections to ensure they have sufficient support before the step forward, which, on the face of it is, is always the situation in those nations where such elections take place.

Of the others little need be said, but of the pairings, which provide a contrast we need to consider that there is a contrast, perhaps even a contradiction here. Let us return to that and first of all reflect upon what the negatives actually mean.     

The suggestion that we should not take a Covid test, seems to be ill-founded. If it had been said not to take a cancer test or indeed any other kind of medical test, would there such opposition to the taking of the test be? It could though be understood that in any particular case such a test may be refused, perhaps because the individual would prefer not to be put through the gruelling treatment that would be required should the test be, is it positive or negative? Well, that would depend upon your point of view. Or it may be that you know you are ill anyway, so what is the point of the test? So something else must be going on to provoke this statement. Perhaps it is the contrast here between the positive and the negative statements that provides a clue: is it an economic question? Is it a matter of choice, either buy a test or buy food? The food will sustain life; the test will neither prolong nor shorten it, but the lack of food may shorten it.

The second indicates a dissatisfaction with the response to an illness which is passing through the community. The lockdown is designed to prevent person to person contact and thus hinder the passage of the disease. A lockdown will protect the majority of the people from the effects of the illness. So, why would we say we did not want one? In this case the contrast with freedom does not help us. It is clear that a lockdown takes away freedom, but the removal of the lockdown does not guarantee freedom but exposes people to a greater risk than they would otherwise have of losing every freedom that they presently enjoy. It may be that consideration must be given to the next pair in order to understand what this really is about. We do not have a duplet here but a tetruplet, the second part of which suggests that in some way the lockdown is an deliberate over-reaction by the authorities, who ever they may be, to the illness, and that the authorities are using lies in order to support the requirement for it. If you are on the outside you might not see the lie, but if you are in a group of say 100 people who have been in close contact with each other and in which one becomes ill, as a result of which all are placed in quarantine then thereafter no-one else become ill, you may ask: What was the point? The one who was ill must have infected at least one of the others, but no-one else became ill, not even I. The lockdown was an overreaction to you who were in the group. You can see the lie that is told to the outside world to justify your exclusion, and therefore their exclusions also.  

The third surely says something with which all must agree. Why would anyone not? Lies are an abomination and engender mistrust between people. Dignity, as already said, is a quality we expect to find in, and be attributed to, all people. If we all treat all others with dignity and respect then surely we shall live in a better place. We cannot take exception to these words, unless we – it had better be left here unsaid, it would be yet another dangerous thing.

In the fourth we have the first instance where capitalisation is required to understand what is meant. There is a reference here to the Cultural Revolution¹. To have used the formal name of that period would have broken the formal poetic style of the words, which cannot be seen in translation except by using clever kerning, in which seven characters are used in each line. It has been clearly acknowledged that ‘the Cultural Revolution was wrong and was responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the people‘. That the government responsible for the reigning in that revolution should now find words which condemn it to be offensive is therefore a strange thing, unless, and perhaps the second part of the tuplet suggests this, that the changes currently taking place are similar to those which precipitated that revolution almost sixty years ago. Revolution always produces change, but is never guaranteed to produce improvement contrary to the views of many, even enlightened, governors. That there is always room for improvement in this world is surely a given, but care must be taken that improvement, reform, in one direction does not lead to disimprovement or impairment in another². 

The fifth we have already passed comment on, but more needs to be said. It also requires capitalisation for this is a reference to the Great Leader³. It is a term that has been used for many who were great leaders, many who acquired the title or appropriated it for themselves. Again for poetic reasons the title has been reduced to two characters, which is recognised as a nickname-like form of the proper title. This understandably may cause offence to one who is a governor who has forgotten that he has been placed in that position to serve his people not to be served by them – of course there will be people who do not agree with him – but to remove the poster? Would it not simply confirm that that is what has happened?

The sixth line of this stanza aligns perfectly with the ethos of the nation in which this poster was posted. The negative statement corresponds almost exactly with the people to whom the first call of their national anthem⁴ is addressed. The second statement is simply a statement of what that nation requires of its people to be good citizens.

So you see then there are only two characters in this stanza which could possibly cause offence, and would only cause offence to one who has forgotten why he is in the position in which he finds himself.

We find at the end, though it is not at all clear that the poster placed on the bridge included these additional words, perhaps they were a later additions to justify their removal. They violate both the poetic principle used – a stanza of six seven syllable lines which is complete in itself – and the content of the stanza by making explicit only what may, but may not necessarily, have been implicit in the stanza.  So in the way of a good English sonnet but with a modified structure we have a sestet, each of seven syllables, followed by a volta of three three character lines, which is represented by a line of nine characters. Three character lines are typically used in works for children, as they are necessarily easier to read and understand⁵. These lines are an offence to the style of the poem. It is possible that it is only the third of these three character lines that is the extraneous addition, for without it the stanza retains its sense of being in the silver morning mist and its feeling of imprecision. We cannot quite pin down what it is saying.

When we consider the context in which the poster were displayed however, it is as if the bridegroom has come out of his tabernacle like a strongman to run his race rising from one end of heaven and following its circle to the other before which the mists are driven away by its heat⁶. That context was a cool, cloudy day on the Sitong bridge in Peking⁷.  

It is perhaps of little surprise therefore that despite the beautiful craftsmanship demonstrated in this quite elegant poem, it was removed by the authorities. One hopes that the pleas of the literary academics of that nation will have been heard, and as they have preserved that of the first emperor, Qin Shi Huang, the Book Burning Pit, a four line seven character poem by Zhang Jie, of which you may read here⁸.

不要核酸，要吃饭。 不要封控，要自由。 不要谎言，要尊严。 不要文革，要改革。 不要领袖，要选票。 不做奴才，做公民。 [罢免独 裁国贼 [习近平]]

文化大革命¹ 领袖³ 不愿  做  奴 隶  的  人们！⁴

No! to covid test; yes! to food. No! to lockdown; yes! to freedom. No! to lies; yes! to dignity. No! to cultural revolution; yes! to reform. No! to great leader; yes! to vote. Don’t be a slave, be a citizen. [Remove the dictator and national traitor [Xi Jinping]]

⁰⁰ _{It was 15 September 2015 actually so not recent if you are of a young age. The title of the article may be extravagant in its claims, but it is the title chosen: Who killed the 20th century’s greatest spy?}

⁰ _{The quotation is not exact, Coco has paraphrased it.}

¹ _{Cultural revolution
文化大革命       Formal name: 无产阶级文化大革命 / 無產階級文化大革命
zh.wikipedia.org 始于1966年5月16日出台的《五一六通知》，因其时间长达十年之久，且对中国社会造成了巨大破坏，故也被后世称为十年内乱、十年动乱、十年浩劫。
Beginning with the ‘May 16 Notice’ issued on May 16, 1966, it lasted ten years, and caused great damage to Chinese society, therefore, it is also called Ten Years of Civil Unrest, Ten Years of Turmoil, Ten Years of Catastrophe by later generations.
en.wikipedia.org: In 1981, the CCP declared in paragraph 19 of Resolution on Certain Questions in the History of Our Party since the Founding of the People’s Republic of China acknowledging that the Cultural Revolution was wrong, and that it was ‘responsible for the most severe setback and the heaviest losses suffered by the people, the country, and the party since the founding of the People’s Republic’.}

² _{Consulus Romanus Caius Petronius dici: Diligenter exercere consuescebamus. Quandocumque tamen in factiones nos formare incipiebamus, quidem nos in alias factiones reformaret. Sic quidem nobis videbatur. Multis postea annis, disci homines se reformare solere in rebus novis difficilibusque, se deludentes hanc reformationem ‘progressionem’ esse et non causam discordiæ, inertiæ et miseriæ. Quoted from here and elsewhere.
Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799) hat «Es ist nicht gesagt, dass es besser wird, wenn es anders wird. Wenn es aber besser werden muss, muss es anders werden.» gesagt. Quoted by Andersen.de in 2001 here and elsewhere.}

³ _{Great Leader
最高领导人的别称 (Baidu) “伟大领袖毛泽东”。
See baike.baidu.com 领袖
Emphasizing his ability to steer China’s future, Mao was referred to as “the great leader Chairman Mao” (伟大领袖毛主席) in public and he was entitled “the great leader, the great supreme commander, the great teacher and the great helmsman” (伟大的领袖、伟大的统帅、伟大的导师、伟大的舵手) during the Cultural Revolution.
See en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong: The_Great_Four_titles}

⁴ _{Anthem
See the ChoralWiki (CPDL) 义勇军进行曲 (Nie Er)}

⁵ _{Wikipedia: A three-character line is known from the Three Character Classic, a book for children written in three-character eight-line verse in rhymed couplets. Five, Seven, and eight (or doubled four) character lines are standard for serious, fixed-length poetry.
Classical Chinese poetry forms}

⁶ Psalm 19

⁷ <sub>Sitong Bridge

According to a report in the AsiaNews on the May 18th 2023 by Julian count became an anonymous bridge, much like the many Low Bridges in the UK in readiness for May 22nd, the auspicious day when nothing happened. As you shall see however in the picture above the bridge clearly has a name.</sub>

⁸ _{Book Burning Pit
BBC – 11 May 2021- Meituan: China tech giant’s shares slide over ancient poem and
Coco – 12 May 2021 Of the burning of books there is no end or Book Burning}
⁹ _{Sources
BBC – 18 October 2022 – China’s ‘Bridge Man’ inspires Xi Jinping protest signs around the world
BBC – 14 October 2022 – China protest: Mystery Beijing demonstrator sparks online hunt and tributes}