Haosu Zhang (College of Liberal Arts, Nankai University)
On March 27, 1921, Hu Shi (1891-1962) completed the first draft of the famous "Examination of the Dream of the Red Chamber", and circulated and exchanged views among friends and friends. The publication of this article is of landmark significance: Yu Hongxue, Hu Shi destroyed some of the old theories of Suo Yin Hongxue, opened up a world of "new red studies" (or "examination of red studies"), and some of the core issues in the study of "Dream of the Red Chamber" today began with Hu Shi; in the paradigm of literary history, Hu Shi aims to "teach people a method of ideological learning", so when talking about "the process of modernization of Chinese literary research" or "the emergence of modern scholarship", Hu Shi's "examination" is very important.
In the past, scholars who talked about Hu Shi's academic contributions often thought that Hu Shi had won a great victory in the controversy, and that the "Examination School" had replaced the "Suo Yin School". However, what is quite paradoxical is that looking back at the development process of red studies in the past hundred years, the old theory of "Suoyin" has not stopped, and the methods and viewpoints have become more and more refined; many researchers who claim to inherit Hu Shi's academic heritage have also been included in "Suoyin" from "examination evidence" in their treatises, and even particularly exalt the value of such research. As Chen Weizhao argues: "Since legend has become the foundation and core of the new Suoyin after 1921 (especially 1927). Later, this new Suoyin was not only published in the form of "guessing puzzles" (such as Zhao Tong's "Guessing the Dream of the Red Chamber" in the 1980s and Li Zhiqi's "The Mystery of the Red Chamber", but also existed in a large number of treatises that appeared in the guise of "scientific research" (such as the study of Cao Xueqin's life, family lineage, fat book, and manuscript). (Chen Weizhao: General History of Red Studies, Shanghai People's Publishing House, 2005 edition, p. 96)
All this makes people "outside the building" have more or less doubts about the study of red science.
Tracing its roots lies in the fact that the so-called "examination evidence" and the so-called "SuoYin" in the history of red studies are more like two schools of thought that share the same ideas and have different viewpoints, which are difficult to understand in epistemology -- its meaning is twofold: First, the two ideas are entangled and intertwined, and there is no clear demarcation at the epistemological level; second, although the specific views of the Suoyin school are often full of falsehoods, the ideas discussed have their own origins and are not lacking in merit, and the refutations of "examining the red scholars" are often concise. This can be seen in the debates between Hu Shi and Cai Yuanpei (1868-1940) a hundred years ago.
Hu Shi's "Examination of the Dream of the Red Chamber"
Hu Shi's attack
Hu Shi's "Examination of the Dream of the Red Chamber" begins with the clear meaning that "people who have always studied this book have taken the wrong path", so he forcefully refuted several popular Suo Yin theories: "The Qing Dynasty Ancestor Dong Efei Said" (represented by Wang Mengruan's "Dream of the Red Chamber SuoYin", 1913 issue), "Kangxi Dynasty Political Novel Theory" (represented by Cai Yuanpei's "Stone Record Suo Yin", 1916 issue), and "Nalan Jia Shi Theory" (qianlong was already popular, Chen Kangqi's "Lang Qianji Wen Erbi" and other theories are more detailed).
In Hu Shi's early writings of the Notes on the Chamber of Zanghui, he believed that "the Book of Stones ... In fact, it is also a big political novel", and the plot is more "deeply lamenting the death of the Ming Chamber" and "the important points of Manchu and Han ethnic relations"; it is also believed that the author is the Manchu "Jia Baoyu", and Cao Xueqin is only the addition and deletion of "Zhiyin". This manuscript has no date for writing, but it is basically the same as Hu Shi's "Diary of the Tibetan Hui Room" Gengji (1910), and may have been written at the same time, that is, when Hu Shi was studying at Shanghai Public School. (Notes on the Zanghui Room and Novel Series (Excerpts), Song Guangbo, ed., The Complete Compilation of Hu Shihong Studies Research Materials, Beijing Library Press, 2005, pp. 1-4.) Song Guangbo: The Annals of Hu Shihong, 1909, Heilongjiang Education Publishing House, 2003, p. 82. ）
These views, "Suo Yin" has a strong meaning, and is in line with and echoes Cai Yuanpei's point of view - in the "Examination of the Dream of the Red Chamber", it just happens to be the object of Hu Shi's direct refutation, which may have the meaning of "not sparing the self of today, it is difficult for the former me". But interestingly, this note has Hu Shi's eyebrow note: "The book mentions 'Hu Laominggong', which is also a mistake." Ten, four, ten, appropriate. In correspondence with Gu Jiegang (1893-1980), Yu Pingbo (1900-1990) and others, discussing and revising the "Examination of the Dream of the Red Chamber" and establishing a new paradigm for literary and historical research, only a relatively minor detail is marked here, not the limitation of the above notes in the overall concept, and the mentality may be worth further examination.
Hu Shi criticized Suo Yin's concept, borrowing from the fact that at the same time, There were many criticisms of Hongxue —calling Cai Yuanpei a "stupid boy guessing a stupid riddle", which has been seen in Cheng Zhi (Lü Simian, 1884-1957) "Must examine what is hidden in "Dream of the Red Chamber", who is the character in his book, and who is not stupid Bohu" (Chengzhi: "Novel Series (Continuation)", "Chinese Novel Circles", No. 8, 1914, p. 47); in his "Examination of the Dream of the Red Chamber", Qian Jingfang (1875-1940) "Dream of the Red Chamber Examination" is clearly quoted (See the appendix of Cai Yuanpei's "Stone Records and Suoyin") paragraph of the "Pavilion in the Sky", in addition to the similarity of writing, materials, and views, is even more visible.
Hu Shi's criticism of the errors of Cai Yuanpeisuo's hidden statements is straightforward. "Examination of the Dream of the Red Chamber" pointed out: If according to Cai Yuanpei's proposition, the mystery made by the author is more rough and far-fetched, and it is arbitrary to take, so it is "stupid" and "stupid mystery". This kind of subjective and arbitrary reasoning is far-fetched, and Hu Shiyi is all far-fetched, which is of course in line with the positivist research attitude held by "The Examination of the Dream of the Red Chamber".
After refuting several popular Theories of Suo Yincheng, Hu Shi began to make a thesis, using the examination of the author, version, etc., to break the "enigma" and "appendage", and establish the theory of "concealing the true story"--in the "Revised Draft", Hu Shi "corrected countless major mistakes", added a number of materials that Cao Jia mutually verified, and in subsequent research, even appeared "Jia Baoyu is Cao Xueqin; "Dream of the Red Chamber" is to write the history of the Cao family" (Hu Shi: "Methods of Governance", Taipei's "Central Daily", 1952.12.2) cut-off judgment. Although Hu Shi once had a general understanding of the fictional literary nature of "Dream of the Red Chamber" and the limitations of the "examination of evidence", there were also many theories of vague smoke and clouds and hegemony, and the "misleading" of the development of red studies after this was also often there.
This is somewhat of the meaning of "self-grasping the golden spear and holding the go, killing oneself from Zhang Luo" (Gengchen Ben twenty-one times before the fat batch), and it can also be said that it is the "congenital deficiency" of Hu Shihongxue.
Hu shi
Cai Yuanpei's counterattack
Adhering to the concept of "inclusiveness", Cai Yuanpei has always been quite personable in the red science debate. Qian Jingfang's "Dream of the Red Chamber Examination" attached to the "Stone Record of Suoyin", after reviewing the various Suoyin, is actually more inclined to the theory of mingzhu family affairs, and believes that the theory of Kangxi's political novels is "although it seems to be novel compared to the theory of the pearl, and it is not as good as it wants to be open-minded." Cai's book also mentions the Suo Yin view that "it is said that Dong Xiaowanshi died of illness and was robbed into the Qing Palace", Qian Jingfang pointed out that Meng Sen's "Dong Xiaowan Kao" (published in the "Novel Monthly" in 1915) had long been wrong, and Cai Yuanpei also combined with the suggestions of the publisher Zhang Yuanji (1867-1959) to attach Meng Sen's article to the book. ("To Cai Yuanpei," The Complete Works of Zhang Yuanji, vol. III, "(1916) November 22nd", p. 460.) These two articles, in the eyes of the people at the time, are both negating Suo Yin (such as Xu Xiaotian: "< The Dream of the Red Chamber> New Preface (First Draft)", "Dream of the Red Chamber", Shanghai Qunxue Society, April 1923, see "Compilation of Rare Materials on the Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber", p. 97. But after Cai Yuanpei attached it to the book, it can be seen that his strength and self-confidence.
The same is true of the criticism of Hu Shi. Cai Yuanpei was concerned about the "hidden" affairs in the "Dream of the Red Chamber" in the twenty-second year of Guangxu (1896), and the "Stone Record SuoYin" was his life's work, Hu Shi severely criticized it in the "Examination of the Dream of the Red Chamber", satirizing it as "stupid", but Cai Shi did not think it was wrong, but "admired it" (see Hu Shi's diary quotation, September 15, 1921), and helped Hu Shi borrow an important Cao xue document from Xu Shichang Wanqing, the engraving of Duncheng's "Four Songtang Collection" (Hu Shi's diary, April 21, 1922).
Cai Yuanpei and Hu Shi exchanged letters continuously, and the two often exchanged red study materials and articles, and also participated in social activities and education together. At the end of 1921, Cai Yuanpei was hospitalized with a leg injury, and he said in a letter to Hu Shi on January 4, 1922, "The brother's distinction between 'appendages' can only be done after he is discharged from the hospital." Soon, on the 30th of this month, Cai Yuanpei returned a long article of discussion, that is, the famous "< Stone Record Suo Yin > The Sixth Edition Of The Preface: For Mr. Hu Shizhi< The Dream of the Red Chamber> Discussion of the Book of Discussion". The so-called "discussion" is roughly divided into two parts, one is the rationality of "standing" Suo Yin, and the other is "breaking" Hu Shi's examination according to the new theory.
The basis for "establishing" lies first of all in the value of the evidence of the "plot". This is not contradictory to Hu Shi's emphasis on examining the author, era, and version, and seems to be aimed at hu Shi's "first draft" that "all the books of "Dream of the Red Chamber" have no historical events to examine" and so on. How does the plot look? Cai Yuanpei believes that the three laws of both sexual similarity, anecdotes, and name related are not isolated evidence, and fang is willing to say it; and only a few dozen are listed, not "everything is proved", and it is also prudent. This can also be seen from Cai Yuanpei's "Diary" that exists today - a lot of "Suo Yin" information has not been included in the "Suo Yin" book (see Liu Guangding: "Cai Yuanpei < Stone Record Suo Yin > Addendum", Dream of the Red Chamber Journal, 2003, No. 1). Therefore, the "arbitrary take" in Hu Shi's eyes is precisely "cautious about the rest" in Cai Yuanpei's case. Further, from a methodological point of view, Cai Yuanpei pointed out that the "true matter" in literary works and the "Suo Yin" in the researchers have a tradition in the history of Chinese and foreign literature, and the "History of Ru lin Waishi", which is also written by the Qianlong Dynasty, is partly based on Jin He (1818-1885) Baowen, which uses the "stupid mystery" method - it is the other and not this, and there is a suspicion of double standards.
The "broken" content is still at the methodological level. If "Dream of the Red Chamber" is an "autobiography", is the history of the Cao family equivalent to the Jia family in the novel? - The difference between Zhen and Jia, the number of times to pick up, jiao da's insults, and the innuendo of the talisman can all prove that "it is also possible to insert the story of the Cao family, or it can be completely under the Cao family", given that Cao Xueqin is only an "addition and deletion", other innuendos can of course be traced back to the Kangxi Dynasty. Therefore, Hu Shi's research can only become a supplement to Suo Yin, but it cannot really destroy Suo Yincheng's theory.
Although the above assertions are not enough to prove the legitimacy of the "Stone Record of Suoyin", there is actually no lack of unique views on the rationality of "Suoyin" red science, and in the subsequent development, it has shown a special form: Cai Yuanpei's specific views have been eliminated by history, but the methodological concepts he mentioned in this article have also influenced Hu Shi and other red scholars of the Examination School to a considerable extent.
Cai Yuanpei
Three British War Yuanpei
After Cai Yuanpei's "discussion" was published, Hu Shi, Gu Jiegang, and Yu Pingbo, who had corresponded with each other and exchanged "evidence", each had their own rebuttals. In his diary of March 13, 1922, Hu Shi copied Gu Jiegang's letter and excerpted the "desirable" people that Yu Pingbo criticized.
Gu Jiegang's criticism actually extends along the "subjective and arbitrary" point of view of Hu Shi's criticism. Gu pointed out that the so-called temperament and name are easy to wear and chiseled together – this is certainly a tradition of ancient scripture/literary interpretation, but it is actually ridiculous – just like the content that the "ancient history discernment school" wants to destroy. Cai Yuanpei's sophistication has turned male scholars into female housewives, and unrelated people in history have become related, which is actually a "fundamental mistake".
This passage was quoted by Hu Shi in the "Reply to Mr. Cai Xiaomin's Discussion" section of the "Examination> of the Dream of the Red Chamber of the <" (published in the "Effort Weekly" on May 14, 1922), and supplemented by the methodological criticism: In the study of novels, only a few novels written about current affairs, such as "The History of Ru Lin" and "The Flower of the Evil Sea", can use the "guessing puzzle" method, and "Dream of the Red Chamber" is not of the same kind. From the results, or looking at the entire text, Hu Shi's view is obviously more reliable, but just looking at this criticism, there is a suspicion of circular argumentation - because Cai Yuanpei's method is unreliable (the reason Gu Jiegang has said), so "Ru" and "Hong" are not of the same kind; and Cai Yuanpei's method is unreliable because of the misconception that "Ru" and "Hong" are novels of the same kind!
The more fundamental reason for saying that this paragraph is a circular argument is that in the diary of March 13, Hu Shi copied a passage of Yu Pingbo's "desirable" remarks, the core of which is: "Why must the plot of "Dream of the Red Chamber" be so fragmented? And why is it not a plot statement? Why is it that the innuendo of the characters in "Dream of the Red Chamber" is a reference plot, and the use of "Dream of the Red Chamber" as an autobiography is not a reference plot? Moreover, in Tolstoy's novel, later generations said that he was an autobiography, and Mr. Cai did not object; and for Hu Shizhi's bottom words, Ben Yun 'can't force me to admit', so what do you say? Taking this paragraph alone, Yu Pingbo's criticism is of course to the point - Cai Yuanpei's "examination of the plot" is reasonable, but his research is based on the "method of annexation", so these methodological issues have limited relationship with the fundamental issues debated by Hu and Cai - in some places, the ideas of the two schools are actually the same.
Therefore, these criticisms are valuable enough to target Cai Yuanpei's suoyin views, as well as some of his methods and ideas (such as "the life of the author is not in the author"), but it is difficult to call them complete achievements because they do not discuss some deeper issues in detail. Cai Yuanpei's "possible insertion of the Cao family story" at that time was already a preliminary compromise, and after that, Suo Yinhong scholars, if Du Shijie of Taiwan, believed that Cai Yuanpei "did not discover the organizational method of "Dream of the Red Chamber", and became more and more biased, giving Hu Shi the weakness of attack" (Du Shijie: "Interpretation of the Dream of the Red Chamber", China Literature Publishing House, 1997, p. 6). So he combined the Cao Xue data to hide, and tried to establish a strict logical system for various "hidden" things, which is a prominent example of the integration of the two methods. Yu Pingbo's three methods of criticism of Cai Yuanpei are the circumstantial evidence of the same person, the author's life deeds and personality, and the narration at the end of this book (Ping: "Criticism of the Self-Introduction of the Sixth Edition of the Stone Record Suoyin", March 7, 1922, "Current Affairs New Newspaper • Xuelan"). The original image version is provided by Brother Takaki, thank you very much), and it is also here that it has been practiced alternatively.
Until his later years, Hu Shi still believed that the controversy with Cai Yuanpei represented that academic research "has different methods, different training, and discussion is useless" ("Reply to Zang Qifang", September 7, 1951, in Hu Shihong's Complete Research Materials, p. 330). This conclusion, but in fact this understanding is just the opposite: Cai and Hu have very different positions, but the key concepts are actually the same. This point was evident in the successors of the later Suo Yin and Kao Zhao factions.
Yu Suoyin's faction believes that Hu Shi's research is also a kind of "Suoyin" - Zhan Lu's "Dream of the Red Chamber" clearly states: "On the one hand, Mr. Hu opposed Mr. Cai's Suoyin, but on the other hand, he also did a kind of Suoyin work. (See Zhou Ruchang's letter to Hu Shi on October 23, 1948, in Complete Compilation of Hu Shihong's Research Materials, p. 319.) So far, many of the Teaching Methods of the Suo Yin Family are still in Hu Shi rather than Cai Yuanpei, which can be clearly proved.
All the way to the examination, it is the difference, efficacy and limit of the examination evidence and suoyin, which have never been thoroughly clarified, all kinds of explorations, as for the rather lively "twelve branches" and other research, why not rely on the way of the Suo yin family (and even specific conclusions) to study similar propositions?
The controversy between the "Three British Wars and Yuanpei" did not last long and ended quickly, but the academic topics involved, to this day, still need to be further cleaned up, and the controversy and entanglement of suoyin and evidence are still continuing to generate new propositions. Some of the fundamental methodological issues involved in the "Sixth Edition Self-Introduction" are, of course, the core of the system.
A Hundred Years back: The Gate of Life and the Gate of Gravity
If it is said that Hu Shi and Cai Yuanpei have returned to the same destination, they all belong to the Suo Yin faction, of course, it is too harsh; but Hu Shi really did not make the most targeted response to some fundamental issues, and made several mistakes that were not too bad, so it caused some misleading for the study of red studies in later generations, and it is still one level away from completely destroying Cai's "discussion", which is probably also a fact. What we are talking about here is at the level of method and understanding, rather than the specific point of view of the gains and losses of one city and one place. Due to space limitations, I will only briefly say at the end of the enumeration:
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 "Dream of the Red Chamber" - Cao Xueqin is only one of the "author's confidants" or "approval of additions and deletions", so the hypothesis of "Kangxi Dynasty political novels" or "the death of the Hanging Ming, the loss of the revelation" can still be established. However, Hu Shi always believed that the first eighty times of "Dream of the Red Chamber" were completed by Cao Xueqin alone, and after that, he also believed that Li Yanzhai was also Cao Xueqin's pen name. If such a concept can be elaborated at the methodological level, perhaps the pertinence can continue to be strengthened. At the very least, it will be a little deeper than what the "Trek" article discusses.
Secondly, Suo Yin and Examination Evidence are actually two levels of problems, but the "Three Ying" are actually not strictly distinguished in the discussion, and the attack is Cai Yuanpei's unfounded Suo Yin, but it is not enough to overturn, or does not specifically target the "Well-founded Suo Yin". Chen Weizhao said: "His opposition to Cai Yuanpei and others is not against Suo Yin, but only against 'his legend', and believes that 'self-legend' is correct. 'Self-legend' and 'his legend' belong to the same kind of skill, that is, Suo Yin. (General History of Red Studies, p. 97) There is no doubt that Hu Shi has an inherent understanding of the tendency and limitations of the study of red studies of "Cao Jia mutual evidence" (see his criticism of Zhou Ruchang, etc.), but his speech and speculation are also unclear.
This limitation actually comes from the fundamental understanding of the nature of "Dream of the Red Chamber" - the explanatory purpose of "Suo Yin", which actually believes that the text is a code that hides certain facts, so the reader must explore the So Yin in order to read the text and understand the author's true intentions. Evidence, reasoning, and guessing must all serve this purpose. In addition, the information and plot presented by the text are relatively secondary. However, this understanding actually contradicts the basic laws of literature - "Dream of the Red Chamber" should first be a fictional novel, and its value lies in the great achievements in literature and art. From this point of view, it is not too unjust to say that Hu applied the perspective of "Suo Yin" to study "Dream of the Red Chamber".
Moreover, the controversy over Hu Shi and Cai Yuanpei, as well as the tradition of red studies, can be linked. The passage quoted by Qian Jingfang at the end of the first section of "Examination" may become an entry point. Qian's words:
The book "The Red Chamber", the castle in the air, the author was the first to arrive at the clubhouse, and he picked it up at will, and there was no initial intention. Even if there is a mental innuendo, but if it is left, it is understated, such as the hundred portraits painted by the painter, and the similar ones are fixed, and they are carefully pressed, and finally they feel that the appearance is and the gods are not.
Qian Jingfang, who wrote "Novel Series Examination", held a suoyin view of "Dream of the Red Chamber", but his remarks were led by Hu Shi to refute Suo yincheng's theory, which can already see the entanglement of the research concepts of the two types of scholars. In addition, it is worth mentioning incidentally that knowing that "the castle in the sky" and "appearance is divine" but still "hidden", is a rather interesting and worthy of exploration. This, in the earlier study of Suo Yin, is evident - Zhou Chun's (1729-1815) "Essay on Reading the Dream of the Red Chamber" has a general theory: "Jia Fei Zhen Zhen, Mirror Flower Water Moon, there is no need to ask his people to be truthful, but this book takes double jade as the key, if you do not trace the source of the two surnames, do you know the author's fate? Although his "Zhang Hou family affair theory" is slightly under-justified and receives less attention from the red academic circles, if according to Yu Pingbo's three criteria, Zhou Chunyan's "Red" has a corresponding discussion of the circumstantial evidence of the people of the time, the author's life and family lineage, and the narrative of this book, then his concept of concealment seems to be underestimated; and in addition to Suo Yin, he also points out that "there is no need to ask his people to be truthful", and if you look at it from a modern perspective, it seems that you can "continue to talk":
"Dream of the Red Chamber" is a novel that hides a lot of words, and the subtlety of it helps to better understand the artistic achievements and ideological connotations of this novel, and is more abundant than the "Ichijing novelist", which can be regarded as "not living up to the author's painstaking heart". However, in addition to the "present canon", the "classical" (literary-cultural tradition) should also be paid attention to; and before the textual appearance of "half-truth and half-falsehood", the relevant so on should be hidden. This angle may still have academic significance to this day - whether it is a reference or a soyin, many studies have gone too far, which is not enough to explain the relevance of the relevant kaoso and the reading of the novel, so as to obscure the beauty of the main stem of the art of "Dream of the Red Chamber". It may be necessary to examine the textual nature of "Dream of the Red Chamber" with a more accessible concept, and to sort out the academic concepts of schools such as Examination Evidence and Suo Yin, which may be necessary for the study of some fundamental issues of "Red".
Editor-in-Charge: Shanshan Peng
Proofreader: Ding Xiao