such writings may be dismissed by skeptics as a political stunt aimed at attracting support for continued resistance by appealing to the widely held confucian value of monarchical loyalty. this is the explanation suggested by the marxist authors: "on the one hand, trương định opposed tự đức's order to lay down his arms; on the other hand, he exploited tự đức's name in order to call upon the people to rise and fight the french". mcleod argues that the best explanation for định's continued insurgency was that the confucian tradition allows for a loyal official to disobey his sovereign without calling the sovereign's authority into question. this is termed a "tránh thần", meaning a minister who is willing to dispute his sovereign's orders in order to prevent the ruler from committing a mistake, even if this incurred his ire. the minister who allowed the ruler to err rather than risk upsetting him was regarded as a sycophant, a careerist rather a loyal adviser. the loyal official was thus required in certain circumstances to remonstrate with and even to disobey his sovereign to show his concern for the monarch. thus, according to mcleod, định's disobedience did not "ipso facto" constitute a rejection of tự đức's authority.