On March 27, 1921, Hu Shi completed the first draft of the famous "A Critique of the Dream of Red Mansions" and circulated it among friends to exchange opinions. The publication of this article is indeed of milestone significance: Hu Shi destroyed some old theories of Suoyin Hong

On March 27, 1921, Hu Shi (1891-1962) completed the first draft of the famous "A Critique of the Dream of Red Mansions" and circulated it among friends to exchange opinions. The publication of this article is indeed of milestone significance: on Hongxue, Hu Shi destroyed some old theories about Hongxue and opened up a world of "new Redology" (or "textual research on Redology"). Today, "Dream of Red Mansions" "Several core issues in the study all began with Hu Shi; in the literary and historical paradigm, Hu Shi aimed to "teach people a method of thinking and learning", so when talking about "the modernization process of Chinese literary research" or "the emergence of modern scholarship", Hu Shi "examined ” is very important.

In the past, when scholars discussed Hu Shi's academic contributions, they often believed that Hu Shi won a complete victory in the debate and that the "textual criticism school" replaced the "suoyin school". However, what is quite paradoxical is that looking back on the development process of Red Studies over the past century, the old theory of "Suoyin" has not stopped, and the methods and viewpoints have become increasingly sophisticated; many researchers who claim to inherit Hu Shi's academic legacy are also in the treatises From "textual research" to "discovery", the value of this type of research is even particularly high. As Chen Weizhao discussed: "Since legend became the basis and core of the new search for hidden meanings after 1921 (especially 1927). Later, this new search for hidden meanings was not only in the form of "guessing puzzles" (such as Zhao Tong's "The Red Mansion" in the 1980s "Guess the Dream" and Li Zhiqi's "The Mystery of the Dream of Red Mansions" came out, and are found in a large number of treatises that appear as "scientific research" (such as research on Cao Xueqin's life, family background, manuscripts, and lost manuscripts) (Chen Weizhao: " "General History of Red Studies", Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2005 edition, page 96)

All this has caused people "outside the building" to have more or less doubts about the study of Red Studies.

Its roots lie in the so-called history of Red Studies. "Textual research" and the so-called "suoyin" are more like two factions with similar ideas and different viewpoints, which are inseparable in epistemology. This has two meanings: first, the two ideas are entangled and complicated, and there is no clear boundary at the epistemological level; second, Although the specific views of the Suoyin School are often full of fallacies, the ideas they talk about have their own origins and have many merits. The refutations of the "textual research red scholars " are sometimes simple. A hundred years ago, Hu Shi and Cai Yuanpei (1868). -1940), this can be seen

Hu Shi's "Critical Research on the Dream of Red Mansions"

Hu Shi's Attack

Hu Shi's "Critical Research on the Dream of Red Mansions" has a clear meaning at the beginning - "Those who have always studied this book have taken the wrong path", so they refuted several Popular theories about Suo Yin: "The theory of Concubine Dong E, the ancestor of the Qing Dynasty" (represented by Wang Mengruan's "Suo Yin" in "A Dream of Red Mansions", published in 1913), "The political novel theory of the Kangxi Dynasty" (represented by Cai Yuanpei's "Suo Yin in the Story of Stone", published in 1916) and "The theory of Nalan's family history" (already popular during the Qianlong period, more detailed in Chen Kangqi's "Lang Qian Ji Wen Er Bi")

In the "Notes of the Canghui Room" written by Hu Shi in his early years, he believed that "The Story of the Stone... is actually the same." "It is also a great political novel", with many plots "deeply touching the death of the Ming Dynasty" and "important points in the relationship between the Manchu and Han nationalities"; it is also believed that the author is a Manchu " Jia Baoyu", and Cao Xueqin is just a "close friend" added or deleted. This manuscript There is no date of writing, but the format is basically the same as that of Hu Shi’s Gengxu Volume (1910) of Zanghui Shi’s Diary, and it was probably written at the same time, when Hu Shi was studying in Shanghai Public School (Excerpt from “Zanghui Shi’s Notes·Novel Series”). )", edited by Song Guangbo: "Complete Collection of Research Materials on Hu Shi's Red Studies", Beijing Library Press, 2005, pp. 1-4. Song Guangbo: "Hu Shi's Academic Genealogy of Red Studies" is dated 1909, Heilongjiang Education Press, 2003. , page 82.)

These views have a strong meaning of "seeking hiddenness", and they are consistent with and echo Cai Yuanpei's views - in "A Critique of the Dream of Red Mansions", they happened to be the object of direct criticism by Hu Shi, and may have the meaning of "not hesitate to use "The person I am today cannot be the person I was in the past." But what is interesting is that this note contains Hu Shi's eyebrow note: "The mention of 'Hu Laominggong' is wrong.""When I was corresponding with Gu Jiegang (1893-1980), Yu Pingbo (1900-1990) and others to discuss and revise "A Critique of A Dream of Red Mansions" and establish a new paradigm for literary and historical research, I only marked the relatively minor ones here. This detail does not indicate the limitations of the overall concept of the above notes, but the mentality may be worthy of further examination.

Hu Shi’s criticism of Suoyin’s concept was based on many criticisms from Hongxue, who called Cai Yuanpei “a stupid man guessing stupid riddles.” ", has been seen in Chengzhi ( Lu Simian , 1884-1957) "I must want to know what is hidden in "A Dream of Red Mansions", and who are the characters in the book, rather than stupid people" (Chengzhi: "Novel Series" "Words (Continued from the previous issue)", "Chinese Novel Circle", Issue 8, 1914, page 47); in his "Research on the Dream of Red Mansions", he clearly quoted Qian Jingfang (1875-1940) "A Research on the Dream of Red Mansions" (see Cai Yuanpei The "Castles in the Sky" section of "Appendix of "The Story of Stone"), and the similarities in writing, materials, and viewpoints can be seen at a glance.

Hu Shi's criticism of Cai Yuanpei's statement is straightforward. It points out: According to Cai Yuanpei's opinion, the riddles created by the author are often crude and far-fetched, and they are taken arbitrarily, so they are called "stupid uncles" and "stupid riddles". This kind of subjective and arbitrary reasoning is regarded as far-fetched by Hu Shi. This is certainly in line with the positivist research attitude held by "A Textual Research on A Dream of Red Mansions".

After refuting several popular theories of Suyin Cheng, Hu Shi launched an argument to break the "mystery" and "attachment" based on the textual research on the author, version, etc. , establishing the theory of "self-narration that conceals the true story" - in the "revised draft", Hu Shi "corrected numerous major mistakes", added several materials of mutual verification between Cao and Jia, and in subsequent research, even " "Jia Baoyu is Cao Xueqin; "A Dream of Red Mansions" is about the history of the Cao family" (Hu Shi: "Academic Methods", Taipei "Central Daily News", 1952.12.2). On the fictional literary nature of "A Dream of Red Mansions" and "textual research" Although Hu Shi once had a clear understanding of the limitations of the "addict", there were also many vague and domineering theories, which often "misled" the subsequent development of Red Studies.

This is somewhat a bit of "holding the golden spear and holding the sword." , The meaning of "Killing each other and expanding Luo" (Chapter 21 of the Gengchen Edition) can also be said to be the "innate deficiency" of Hu Shihong's studies.

Hu Shi

Cai Yuanpei's counterattack

Cai Yuanpei, who adheres to the concept of "inclusiveness and inclusiveness", Qian Jingfang's "A Study of Dreams of Red Mansions" attached to "The Story of the Stone Suo Yin" has always been quite graceful in the debate on Red Studies. After summarizing the various Suo Yin schools, he is actually more inclined to the theory of Mingzhu's family affairs and believes that Kangxi political novels "Although it seems to be more novel than the theory of Mingzhu, if you want to make it more explicit, it is not as good as it is. "Cai's book also mentions the hidden view that "according to legend, Dong Xiaowan did not die of illness, but was kidnapped into the Qing Palace." Qian Jingfang pointed out that Meng Sen "Dong Xiaowan Kao" (published in "Novel Monthly" in 1915) had already said this. However, Cai Yuanpei also combined Meng Sen's article with the suggestion of publisher Zhang Yuanji (1867-1959) at the back of the book ("To Cai Yuanpei", "The Complete Works of Zhang Yuanji", Volume 3, "(1916) November 22". "Day", page 460.) These two articles were regarded by people at the time as a denial of Suo Yin (such as Xu Xiaotian: "New Preface to a Dream of Red Mansions (First Draft)", "A Dream of Red Mansions", Shanghai Qun Society, 1923 April (see "Compilation of Rare Materials on the Study of Dream of Red Mansions", page 97), but Cai Yuanpei included it in the book, which shows his magnanimity and confidence. The same is true for Cai Yuanpei's criticism of Hu Shi in the 22nd year of Guangxu (1896). That is to say, he is concerned about the "hidden" things in "A Dream of Red Mansions". "Records of Hidden Things in Stone" is his life's most dedicated work. Hu Shi severely criticized it in "A Textual Research on a Dream of Red Mansions" and ridiculed it as "stupid". However, Cai did not feel dissatisfied, but instead " "I admire you very much" (see quote from Hu Shi's diary, September 15, 1921), and helped Hu Shi borrow an important Caoxue document from Xu Shichang Wan Qingyi - the engraving of Duncheng's "Sisongtang Collection" (Hu Shi's diary, April 21, 1922) Japan).

Cai Yuanpei and Hu Shi exchanged letters frequently. The two often exchanged red science materials and articles, and also participated in social activities and educational undertakings. At the end of 1921, Cai Yuanpei was hospitalized due to a leg injury. In his letter to Hu Shi on January 4, 1922. He said, "I can only distinguish between 'affiliation' and 'attachment' after I am discharged from the hospital."Soon, on the 30th of this month, Cai Yuanpei responded with a long discussion article, the famous "Preface to the Sixth Edition of the Story of the Stone Suoyin: Discussion on Mr. Hu Shizhi's Textual Research on the Dream of Red Mansions". The so-called "discussion" can be roughly divided into It is divided into two parts, one is to "establish" the rationality of the exploration, and the other is to "break" Hu Shi's new textual research theory. The basis for "establishing" lies first in the textual research value of "plot", which is different from Hu Shi's emphasis on textual research on the author. There is no contradiction between the era and the version, and it seems to be in response to Hu Shi's statement in the "first draft" that "there are no historical facts in the whole book of "Dream of Red Mansions"". How can the plot be verified? , the three methods related to names are not isolated evidence, so we can say it; and only dozens of them are listed, which is not "proof of everything", and it is also cautious. This can also be seen from Cai Yuanpei's "Diary". ——A lot of "Suo Yin" information was not included in the book "Suo Yin" (see Liu Guangding: "Supplement to Cai Yuanpei's Stone Notes on Suo Yin", " Dream of Red Mansions Academic Journal " No. 1, 2003). Therefore, in Hu Shi's eyes. Cai Yuanpei's "take it at will" is exactly "be careful about the rest". Furthermore, from the perspective of methodology, Cai Yuanpei pointed out that the "hidden truth" in literary works and the "recovery" of researchers are inseparable in the history of Chinese and foreign literature. Both have traditions, and part of the prototype of "The Scholars ", both written during the Qianlong Dynasty, can be found in the postscripts of Jin He (1818-1885), which just uses the "stupid riddle" method-it is one thing but not another, and there are double standards. The content that

"breaks" is still at the methodological level. If "A Dream of Red Mansions" is an "autobiography", is the history of the Cao family the same as the Jia family in the novel? The difference between Zhen and Jia? The number of times; Jiao Da's insults; and the insinuations of the guardian talisman can all prove that "it is possible to insert the story of the Cao family, otherwise the whole book can be attributed to the Cao family." Since Cao Xueqin is only the "adder and deletion", other insinuations can of course be traced back to Kangxi Dynasty. Therefore, Hu Shi's textual research can only be a supplement to Suo Yin, but it cannot really destroy Suo Yin's theory.

The above conclusion is not enough to prove the legitimacy of "Stone Records Suo Yin", but it discusses "Suo Yin". The rationality of "hidden" red science is actually quite unique, and in the subsequent development, it has taken on a special form: Cai Yuanpei's specific views have been eliminated by history, but the method and concept he mentioned in this article are still relevant to a considerable extent. It influenced Hu Shi and other textual criticism scholars.

Cai Yuanpei

Sanying Zhan Yuanpei

After the publication of Cai Yuanpei's "Consultation", Hu Shi, Gu Jiegang and Yu Pingbo, who had exchanged "textual criticism", each had their own refutations. In the diary of March 13, Gu Jiegang's letter was transcribed, and the "desirable" criticisms of Yu Pingbo were excerpted.

Gu Jiegang's criticism actually extended along with Hu Shi's criticism of "subjective and arbitrary". Gu pointed out that the so-called temperament. , the name is easy to guess and attach to it - this is certainly a tradition of ancient classics/literary interpretation, but the reality is ridiculous - it is exactly the same kind of content that the "ancient history debate school" wants to destroy. However, Cai Yuanpei's search for seclusion turned male scholars into female family members, and people who had no connections in history became related. This was actually a "fundamental mistake."

This paragraph was quoted by Hu Shi in the "Answer to Mr. Cai Jiemin's Discussions" (published in "Jiujiang Weekly" on May 14, 1922) in "Critical Research on the Dream of Red Mansions", and added methodological criticism: in the novel In the study, only a few novels about current affairs, such as "The Scholars" and "The Flowers of Evil", can adopt the "guessing" method. "A Dream of Red Mansions" does not belong to the same category.Judging from the results, or looking at the entire postscript, Hu Shi's point of view is obviously more reliable, but just looking at this criticism is suspected of being a circular argument - because Cai Yuanpei's method is unreliable (the reason has been stated by Gu Jiegang), so " "Confucianism" and "Red" are not of the same type; and the unreliability of Cai Yuanpei's method is due to the misunderstanding that "Confucianism" and "Red" are novels of the same type!

said that this paragraph is a circular argument. The more fundamental reason is that in the diary dated March 13, Hu Shi transcribed a "desirable" statement by Yu Pingbo, the core of which is: "Why must the plot of "A Dream of Red Mansions" be interpreted as So fragmented? Why can't it be considered a plot if it is not so? Why is using "A Dream of Red Mansions" to allude to the plot, but using "A Dream of Red Mansions" as an autobiography is not a research of the plot? Moreover, later generations say that Tolstoy's novel is an autobiography? , Mr. Cai has no objection; but what can he say about Hu Shi's bottom line, "I can't be forced to admit it."" Taking this paragraph as an example, Yu Pingbo's criticism certainly hits the mark - what Cai Yuanpei said is "textual research"? "Plot" is reasonable, but its research uses "attachment methods", so these methodological issues have limited relationship with the fundamental issues debated between Hu and Tsai - in some places, the two schools of thought are actually connected.

Therefore, these criticisms of Cai Yuanpei’s hidden views and some of his methods and concepts (such as “it is not in the author’s life”) are valuable enough, but because they do not discuss some deeper issues in detail, it is difficult to call them Total success. At that time, Cai Yuanpei's "perhaps to insert the story of the Cao family" was already a preliminary compromise. Later, some red scholars, such as Du Shijie of Taiwan, believed that Cai Yuanpei "did not discover the organizational method of "A Dream of Red Mansions", and went further and further to attack Hu Shi." "Weaknesses" (Du Shijie: "Explanation of a Dream of Red Mansions", China Literature Publishing House, 1997, p. 6.), so he combined Cao Xue materials to explore the hidden things, and tried to establish a strict logical system for various "hidden" things. It is a clear example of the integration of the two methods. Yu Pingbo held three methods for criticizing Cai Yuanpei - circumstantial evidence from contemporaries, the author's life story and character, and the narrative at the end of the book (Ping: "Criticism of the Preface to the Sixth Edition of Suoyin's Notes on the Stone", March 7, 1922 Japanese "Current Affairs News·Xue Leng". The original image version was provided by Brother Cheng Gaoshu. I would like to express my gratitude), and it was here that I got alternative practice.

Until his later years, Hu Shi still believed that the dispute with Cai Yuanpei represented academic research with "different methods, different training, and discussion is useless" ("Reply to Zang Qifang", September 7, 1951, see "Hu Shi's Complete Collection of Research Materials on Red Studies" , page 330.) This conclusion, but in fact this understanding is exactly the opposite: Although Cai and Hu have different positions, they actually have the same key concepts. This point was clearly demonstrated by the successors of the two schools of Suoyin and Kaoyu.

The Suoyin school believes that Hu Shi's research is also a kind of "Suoyin" - Zhanlu's "A Brief Introduction to the Dream of Red Mansions" clearly states: "On the one hand, Mr. Hu opposed Mr. Cai's Suoyin, but on the other hand, he I have also done a kind of Suoyin work." (See Zhou Ruchang to Hu Shixin on October 23, 1948, see "Complete Collection of Research Materials on Red Studies by Hu Shi", page 319.) Up to now, many teachers of the Suoyin family have developed. The law still lies with Hu Shi and not Cai Yuanpei, which is clear evidence.

As for textual research, the difference, efficacy and limits of textual research and suoyin have never been completely clarified, and various explorations have been lost. As for the quite popular research on "Twelve Branches" and so on, it is not based on the methods of Suoyin's family ( or even specific conclusions) to study similar propositions?

The debate between the various schools of thought on "Three British Battles against Yuan Pei" did not last long and ended quickly. However, the academic topics involved still need to be further sorted out to this day, and the disputes and entanglements in exploration and textual research are also New propositions are still being generated. Some fundamental methodological issues involved in the "Preface to the Sixth Edition" are of course the core issues.

A Centenary Look Back: Mingmen and Chongmen

It is certainly too harsh to say that Hu Shi and Cai Yuanpei came to the same destination by different paths, and both belong to the Suoyin school; but Hu Shi did not make the most targeted response on some fundamental issues, and It made several mistakes that should not have been made, so it caused some misleading to later generations of red studies, and it was still one step away from completely destroying Cai's "discussion". I'm afraid it is also true.——What we are talking about here is at the level of methods and understanding, rather than the specific views on the gains and losses of one city and one place. Due to space limitations, here are just a few examples:

First of all, Cai Yuanpei's Suoyin, or the default premise of many Suoyin scholars' views, is actually closely related to the process of writing "A Dream of Red Mansions" - Cao Xueqin is only a "confidant of the author", Or one of the "reviewers, additions and deletions", so the hypothesis of "political novels of the Kangxi Dynasty" or "the death of Diao Ming and the loss of Qing Dynasty" can still be established. However, Hu Shi always believed that the first eighty chapters of "A Dream of Red Mansions" were written by Cao Xueqin alone, and later believed that Zhi Yanzhai was also Cao Xueqin's pen name. If such a concept can be elaborated on at the methodological level, perhaps the pertinence can be further strengthened. At least, it will be deeper than what is discussed in the "Postscript" article.

Secondly, searching for hidden meanings and textual research are actually issues at two levels, but the "Three Heroes" are not strictly distinguished in their discussion. What they are attacking is Cai Yuanpei's unfounded searching for hidden meanings, but it is not enough to overturn it, or it is not specifically targeted. "Search for hidden evidence." Chen Weizhao believed: "His opposition to Cai Yuanpei and others is not against Suo Yin, but only against 'his legends', believing that 'auto legends' are correct. 'Auto legends' and 'his legends' both belong to the subject of research , that is, Suoyin." ("General History of Red Studies", page 97) Undoubtedly, Hu Shi had an inherent understanding of the "Cao Jia Mutual Evidence" research tendency and limitations of Red Studies (please refer to his criticism of Zhou Ruchang, etc.), but Yan Yan said , The thinking is also unclear.

This limitation actually comes from the fundamental understanding of the nature of "A Dream of Red Mansions" - the interpretive purpose of "exploring the hidden" actually believes that the text is a code that hides certain facts, so readers must explore the hidden truths. Only by searching for hidden meanings can we understand the text and understand the author's true meaning. Textual research, reasoning, and riddles must all serve this purpose. Apart from this, the information and plot presented in the text are relatively secondary. However, this understanding actually goes against the basic laws of literature - "Dream of Red Mansions" should first be a fictional novel, and its value also lies in its great achievements in literature and art. From this point of view, it is not too unfair to say that Hu Yong studied "A Dream of Red Mansions" from a "seeking for hidden" perspective.

Furthermore, the controversy over Hu Shi and Cai Yuanpei can be linked to the red school tradition. The passage quoted by Qian Jingfang at the end of the first section of "Research" may be an entry point. Qian's words are:

The important book "Red Mansions" is like a castle in the air. The author picked it up casually due to his enthusiasm, but had no intention at first. Even if there is intention to insinuate, it is just a vague and understatement, just like the hundreds of images painted by the painter. There are many similarities. If you pay close attention to them, you will eventually feel that the appearance is the same but the spirit is not.

Qian Jingfang, who wrote the "Novel Series Examination", held a Suoyin view on "Dream of Red Mansions". However, his remarks were cited by Hu Shi to refute the Suoyin theory. It can be seen that the research philosophies of the two types of scholars are intertwined. In addition, it is worth mentioning by the way that knowing clearly that "castles in the air" and "appearances are real and spirits are not real", but still "find hidden things" is a very interesting concept that is worth exploring. This has already been revealed in the earlier research on Suoyin - Zhou Chun (1729-1815) has a comprehensive theory in his "Essays on Reading a Dream of Red Mansions": "Jia's fake but true, mirror flowers and water moon, there is no need to ask others to be truthful." , but this book takes Shuangyu as the key. If we don't trace the origin of the two surnames, how can we know the author's destiny?" Although his "Zhanghou Family Affairs Theory" is slightly less founded, it has received less attention from the red academic circles, but according to Yu Pingbo Zhou Chunyan's "Red" has corresponding discussions on the three criteria of "Red", the circumstantial evidence of the time, the author's life and family background, and the narration of the book. Therefore, his concept of Suoyin seems to be underestimated; and in addition to Suoyin, he also points out "There is no need to ask others to tell the truth." From a modern perspective, it seems that we can "continue to talk" like this:

"A Dream of Red Mansions" is a novel that hides a lot of thin words. Examining the subtleties in it will help Only by better understanding the artistic achievements and ideological connotations of this novel, and gaining more than "novel readers in the market", can we "live up to the author's hard work." However, in addition to "modern classics", "classical" (literary and cultural traditions) should also be paid attention to; and in the face of "half-truth and half-false" texts, relevant explorations should be limited.This angle may still have academic significance to this day - whether it is textual research or research, many studies go too far and are not enough to explain the correlation between relevant research and novel reading, so that it obscures " The beauty of the art of "Dream of Red Mansions". It may be necessary to examine some of the fundamental issues of "A Dream of Red Mansions" with a more accessible concept and to sort out the academic concepts of textual criticism, Suoyin and other schools.

Source: The Paper