Behind the "Lin Shu Unjust Case"...

Author: Di Xiachen

In an effort to overthrow the unfair evaluation of the academic circles in the past hundred years, the book "The Book of The Case of the Lin Shu", which has recently been translated and published by the Commercial Press, is written by Mr. Teruo Tarumoto, a famous researcher of novels in the late Qing Dynasty in Japan. Ten years ago, the author borrowed and copied his "Catalogue of Newly Compiled Novels of the Late Qing Dynasty and the Beginning of the People's Republic", and the compilation worked so hard to sort out the vast number of novels of the late Qing Dynasty and the early Ming Dynasty in China, that is, it is not easy to do so in Shanghai, which is full of modern literary materials, let alone in Japan. The translator, Dr. Li Yanli, is Professor Masato Kurosumi of the University of Tokyo, and the translation is clear and fluent, retaining the characteristics of the bottle script.

"Hayashi False Accusation Case Book" [Sun] By Teruo Tarumoto

Translated by Li Yanli Published by The Commercial Press

Lin Shu is a lively figure in the study of modern and contemporary literature and comparative literature, and both Chinese and foreign language majors are curious about the translation wonders of his translation of Western novels that do not understand foreign languages but can translate Western novels in elegant "ancient languages". This collaborative model of one person narrating and one person translating is not uncommon in the early days when Western missionaries came to China to translate the Bible, but as the assistant of the Chinese who wrote the book, his name was often obscured; the situation was just the opposite; the novels translated by him were hung up by the publishing house as "Lin Translation Novels", while the collaborators who knew foreign languages were ignored.

The so-called "Lin Shu Unjust Case" can be divided into two parts: one refers to the various "false accusations" imposed on Lin Shu by the literary revolutionaries, such as mocking Cai Yuanpei's father as a "stream of pulp sellers" who wanted to suppress new culture by force; second, in the history of translation, Lin's translated novels are regarded as works of low value, and important reasons include his translation of dramas and poems into novels, and arbitrarily deleting the content of the works. Before the publication of this book, it seems that we never felt that Lin Shuqi's text had been unfairly evaluated, and this time the bottle not only put forward a refreshing "Lin Shu Unjust Case" theory, but also comprehensively presented the beginning and end of the phenomenon of the unjust case.

The main method of the author's research is to go back to the historical data and try to dispel the truth that is wrapped up in layers of rumors. Through his efforts, we can see that Hu Shi, Liu Bannong, Lu Xun, Zheng Zhenduo, Guo Yanli, and others have all played a different role in the casting of Lin Shu's "unjust case." This book clarifies several facts: Lin Shu did not write to peking university professors Chen Duxiu and Hu Shi; the "flow of pulp sellers" mentioned in Lin Shu's letter to Cai Yuanpei did not refer to Cai Yuanpei's father, but lu Xun's credulous belief in rumors; Liu Bannong accused Lin Shu of translating Shakespeare's plays into novels, which was also aided by Hu Shi, and the base of Lin Shu's translation was actually a novelized book "Shakespeare's Historical Stories"; Zheng Zhenduo criticized Lin Shu for rewriting Ibsen's plays into novels. Lin Shu's base book is also an English novel version; Guo Yanli criticized Lin Shu for translating Spencer's long poem "The Queen of the Immortals" into a novel, and its base book is also a novelized book "Spencer's Story". Finding the translation is not an easy task, and the author himself acknowledges the difficulties of the work. However, it was precisely because of the tireless examination of The Bottle that Lin Shu's "unjust case" was able to see the clouds and present it to the audience.

Why was Lin Shu wronged? This book does not say anything about this, but only a few strokes, pointing out that it is related to the literary revolutionaries' desire to identify Lin Shu as a representative of the conservative faction and the old literati. Moreover, after Lin Shi was identified as a representative of the old school, no one defended him, and there was no second representative of the old literati named by the literary revolutionaries. In this way, many rumors circulating at that time were easily and irresponsibly crowned at the head of the Lin clan. By extension, Lin's unjust case is not about him personally, but is actually about the entire old literature and culture.

In folklore studies, there is a kind of "arrow stack" character, because it has a certain type of characteristics, so that many similar stories are attached to the legend of the person's life like an arrow shot at the haystack. Bao Gong, who is good at judging cases, and Xu Wenchang, who is good at teasing, are all such characters. Lin Shi was identified as a representative of the old school by the literary revolutionaries, and naturally could not avoid the fate of getting higher and higher negative evaluations. This is naturally unfair to Lin. As mentioned earlier, the cause of Lin Shu's "injustice" is not the focus of this book, and in the author's opinion, the mechanism for generating this "unjust case" is also worthy of further investigation.

Around the time of the "May Fourth", Qian Xuantong shouted out the slogan of "Tongcheng Fallacy, Choose to Learn Demons", and the "Fallacious Seeds" have been relieved by the solid forest, so what about the "demons"? This raises another question: Why is it Lin Shu who has been wronged and not someone else?

For the literary revolutionaries, it is urgent to find a representative of old literature, who should preferably have the following characteristics: famous, representative, and willing to stand out. At that time, Yao Yongkuo and Lin Shu had already left Peking University, and the Xuanxue school represented by Liu Shipei and Huang Kan was the most powerful literary school in Beijing. They all liked the study of the Anthology of Literature and tended to write in zaoli. Qian Xuantong's "selection of school demons" is also mainly aimed at these two people. But these two are special. In 1919, Liu Shipei was already infected with a deep depression and could not leave the door behind closed doors, and the blows he had suffered in the political turmoil in the previous years made him doubly cautious and avoided in the face of public opinion; Huang Kan was enthusiastic about denouncing the Tongcheng faction and had no dissent about the new culture. Qian Xuantong, Lu Xun, Zhou Zuoren, and Huang Kan in the literary revolutionary faction all studied under Zhang Taiyan and shared common views on many issues. Chen Duxiu and Liu Shipei have also been friends for many years. Therefore, when criticizing the Tongcheng school, the literary revolutionary school actually borrowed a lot of literary resources from the xuan school. They accused the Tongcheng school of "ancient texts" that were close to the eight strands of text, rather than the real ancient texts; criticized the "righteous law" of Tongcheng, ridiculed the shallow knowledge of the Tongcheng literati, and had many criticisms of the Eight Masters of the Tang and Song Dynasties respected by the Tongcheng school. Nevertheless, the literary revolutionaries did not completely spare the electoral school. Qian Xuantong's so-called "Yizheng Certain Clan" style in "New Youth" and the filler words of "Mr. So-and-so" with the taste of the old are aimed at Liu Shipei and Huang Kan respectively. In the "Double Reed Letter" cooperated with Liu Bannong, he also spoke in the tone of the Xuan School many times, but Neither Liu nor Huang responded publicly, and this potential controversy could not continue to ferment.

In the late Qing Dynasty, there was also a major important literary school - the "new style" represented by Liang Qichaowen. This style has obvious traces of imitating Japanese articles, so it has been repeatedly criticized by the "national elites". Among the main critics of the "new style" were not only Liu Shipei from the Xuanxue school, but also Lin Shu from the Tongcheng school, and Zhang Taiyan, who was included in the "Wei Jinwen" school by Qian Jibo. Although their literary views vary widely, they show a strikingly consistent opposition to the imitation of Japanese styles. Mr. Liu Xuyuan once pointed out that Liang's "new style" also became the antithesis of the literary revolutionaries during the "May Fourth" period, and there is some truth to this view. However, Liang Qichao did not fall behind before and after the May Fourth Movement, and Hu Shi affirmed that he "has been able to run forward with a group of young people in recent years"; moreover, Liang's "new style" is already a change in old literature and is not suitable for criticism as a representative of old literature.

In addition, Zhang Taiyan should not be forgotten. Zhang Taiyan advocated a pan-literary view of "taking words as literature and rhetoric as honesty", which was denounced by Lin Shu as "a mediocre juju". This title is quite unjust. Zhang Taiyan actually did not dislike Tongcheng, and even asked Huang Kan not to reject Tongcheng. However, it is a fact that Zhang Taiyan's literary concept was unique among the late Qing And Republics. Although Zhang Taiyan's view of literature is far from that of the literary revolutionaries, the main force of the revolutionaries is mostly ZhangMen's disciples, and Zhang Taiyan's view of language and academic thought have also provided many resources for the revolutionaries, and can even be said to be your spiritual teachers, so it is impossible to become the object of criticism.

Compared with the above three conditions, Lin Shu just meets the requirements: he has translated more than 100 foreign language works and is a world-famous translator; he is regarded as a descendant of the Tongcheng school, and the Tongcheng school is the first major literary school in the Qing Dynasty; he is "strong and angry", the ancient road is hot, and he often fights for others. The "History Book of Cai Heqing, the President of the Answer University Hall," which caused him "disasters," was related to the unfavorable situation faced by his student Zhang Houzai. In 1919, although the Tongcheng Sect still had Yao Yongpu, Yao Yongkuo, Ma Qichang and other Tongcheng disciples alive, they were all alone and unwilling to speak out. The school did not respond, Liang Qichao's "new style" was not "old" enough, Zhang Taiyan was not suitable, and only Lin Shu was the most suitable representative of the old literati who was the most suitable for this literary revolution. Therefore, even if Lin Shu had already published the modest and peaceful "Lin Qinnan's Reply to Cai Heqing's Book" on March 26, 1919, which had the intention of shaking hands with the literary revolutionaries and making peace, it was no longer possible to turn around his fate of becoming a revolutionary "arrow stack".

Although Lin Shu became popular because of his translations, he himself clearly valued "ancient texts" rather than translations—in his self-compiled anthologies, his translations rarely mentioned, as if they were merely "amateur pastimes" unrelated to orthodox writing. Occasionally mentioned, it is only in a letter with Cai Yuanpei, and the purpose is not related to literature. It is precisely because of this that what he cares most about is not the literary revolutionaries, but the "mediocre juzi" who questions the orthodoxy of "ancient literature" in academic theory (Zhang Taiyan and his disciple Huang Kan, and possibly Liu Shipei), and Liang Qichao, who studies Japanese style. In Lin Shu's later years, the trend of vernacular literature dominating the world has been irreversible, and the above-mentioned "alien" views have become the yellow flowers of tomorrow like "ancient texts"; in Lin's heart, there is still a glimmer of hope that ancient texts can "decline and rest". However, even if Lin Shu can predict the aftermath, he should not regret his "arrogant and argumentative" behavior. He calls himself "Fearful", advocating that there should be fear, but when you need to stand up, you should still be fearless. Since we have already decided to "fight for my crippled years and vigorously defend the tao", we will not care about the so-called "grievances". (Di Xiachen)