Chapter 32 The sixth floor of "Red Mansion" (2)

For the purpose of textual research, Hu Shi did not necessarily know the posthumous writings of the Qianjia people mentioned above, because he had preconceived ideas and then went to find materials that could be used to explain them.He started with the textual research of the author and the book, and from the author's family life, he formed his opinion that Xueqin is self-narrative (not Xu Nalan, Shunzhi, etc.).This is correct, so Lu Xun also affirmed this statement, thinking that it is obvious, beyond doubt, and should be established.This second. However, Hu Shi's own evidence is different from Lu Xun's emphasis on what he affirmed.For example, according to the eleventh chapter of "Hu Shi's Oral Autobiography", there are the following words:

One of the most convincing autobiographical evidences in this novel is the story about Jia's family "picking up" the emperor during his southern tour.And not just pick up once, but pick up several times.Historical data can be used as evidence in this regard.Emperor Kangxi made six tours to the south; Cao Yin, Xueqin's grandfather, "picked up" four times.Not only "received" the emperor's "driver", but also entertained the civil and military officials of the Manchu Dynasty who accompanied the driver on the southern tour.Kangxi stayed at Cao's house in both Yangzhou and Nanjing.Therefore, no matter how rich the Cao family is, such "carrying over four times" is enough to make them bankrupt①.

Mr. Hu's words are not completely accurate, and he only cited one book in which he recalled Madam Zhao's past, referring to Zhen's family in the south of the Yangtze River. description.In the view of the "entanglement school", not only is it not "the most convincing", but it may be said to be "accidental use" of a little bit of "family history" information.Therefore, it is "self-proclaimed" by the same master, and the reasons are not the same.The examples of Gan, Jia, and Daoshi quoted above are the best explanations.What Wang Guowei quoted was mainly based on the fact that when the novel opened, he said that he had "seen and heard it himself" (Wang refuted it, and Lu Xun refuted it).When Lu Xun wrote it, he solemnly pointed out in the famous academic works:

Gai's narratives are all true, and what he has heard and seen has been experienced.Because of the realism, it became fresh... However, since Hu Shi got the author's biography, this theory (note: referring to Cai Yuanpei's theory) was not established, and the most powerful person was Cao Xueqin as the Han army (note: this follows Hu's old theory). , as the Manchurian Zhengbai Banner of the Ministry of Internal Affairs), but it is actually self-narrative①.However, it is said that it is the author's self-narration, and the one that fits with the opening of the book is the first to say the truth, and the definite one is the last. ... Hu Shi's "Textual Research" is more obvious, knowing that Cao Xueqin was born in Ronghua, and finally fell into the sky. The half-life experience is absolutely like a stone...

This last paragraph should be read together with a paragraph in "The History of Chinese Fiction": This theory (note: refers to the legend) came out the earliest and has the fewest believers, but now it has increased.Because we already know Xueqin's own situation, which is very consistent with what is described in the book. ... From this we can see that it is the most credible statement that most of the book is self-narrated by the author. I want to say it again: If it is so clear and accurate, if anyone still plays tricks, adds distortions, and insists on denying it, then it is definitely not the same thing as academics. ——Lu Xun's view is that the most powerful reason is not only in the category of "receiving four times" (there are many such in the book), but from the overall perspective, the novel is clearly Xueqin's self-narrative: because he Half of his life, that is, he is absolutely similar to the "stone", this is the most important point (his last "most powerful" refers to because Xueqin is from a family of the Eight Banners, so he will not write the book to "exclude the stone" as Cai said. Full". Reading is the most taboo of unclear reasoning, so unnecessary entanglement often makes people have to waste pen and ink).This is the third.

By clarifying these three points, some critics who don't know much about it can save a lot of unnecessary kudzu vines and avoid creating more confusion.Secondly, it allows us to continue to think about many characteristics displayed in the history of Chinese novels. That is to say, in terms of "nouns", Hu Shi used "autobiography" at first, and more often used "autobiography"; for example, according to his Chinese translation of "Oral Autobiography", he also used "autobiography" later.Lu Xun used "self-narration".Of course, writing articles in the 1910s and 1920s is far from having so many "sex" and that "sex" in today's world-if you don't point it out, this will also become the object of the "entanglement school"'s entanglement topic .

Furthermore, please pay attention to the words used by people in the Qing Dynasty. They did not say "autobiography" or "self-narration", but "zikuang". Therefore, I think that this "self-examination" is really very meaningful, and it is more in line with the subtlety and richness of Chinese tradition.If one can understand this "situation", perhaps the trouble of "worrying about confusing novels with history (or 'historical materials')" will not occur.Therefore, the meaning of "kuang" includes not only the aspect of "shape" (description, portrayal), but also the aspect of "comparison".This kind of comparison is not comparison, comparison, comparison, but "comparison". This comparison is an "artistic treatment" that can include even the old word "innuendo" and the new word "symbol".For example, when Cao Xueqin let Li Wan win an old plum "Flower Name" wine chip, Li Wan proudly said: "This thing is somewhat interesting." The aspect of "shape" is self-narrative and autobiographical, and the aspect of "comparison" is self-image and self-imitation.Therefore, I say that the theory of "Zikuang" of the Qing Dynasty is the same as the later theory of "self-narration" and "autobiography", but it is actually superior in terms of the degree of thoughtfulness.

From this point of view, the existence of "self-legendary" did not begin with Hu Shi.The matter is most clear.Hu Shi did not create the "self-legendary", but only restored or clarified it. If you understand these historical origins, those critics who criticize Hu (I only refer to those who criticize Hu in "Hongxue") may not focus on "self-legendary" because this is tantamount to giving away all of this contribution In the name of Mr. Hu, this "family word" is actually too exaggerated!This is the same as that of the Hu-supporting faction in the United States, Taiwan and other places who attribute the "Red Learning" to Hu alone, but it has the same effect.

Can "Self-Legend" be established? The question in the title of this section is someone else's idea; in my opinion, this question is redundant and has long been "outdated".Because, the self-legend on "Red Learning" is not a hypothesis or speculation about whether it is "established" or not, it is just a fact-even "textual research" is unnecessary. So, why did the autobiography become the focus of controversy and criticism? The source of the problem is "everything happens for a reason", and there is more than one end. In a rough summary, there are two schools of thought for those who do not recognize their own legends: one is that the tradition of Chinese novels has always been to "write about (others)", and rarely "write about (self)", so whenever you see a novel, you will first guess its " Ability" is the deeds of that person.The second is to keep foreign literary and artistic theories in mind and regard them as the standard, and believe that novels are all "fiction" or "concentrated generalization-typification", and there is no "identification" of "who to write".

The "Suoyin School" represented by Mr. Cai Yuanpei advocated that it originated from local traditions and strongly opposed the theory of "writing oneself".This is a matter of the early Republic of China, and there are people who have followed it up to now.The trend of criticizing "self-legendary" on the grounds of "fiction" and "generalization" has been something since the 1950s.Critics think that if Cao Xueqin's book is written about himself, it is a huge "mistake"—even a "class" nature error, which is very serious and unforgivable.

How is it actually? Xueqin's greatness is not because he sticks to conventions, but because he dares to "break the old stereotypes", so he opened the book and said: This book is a "dream" story personally experienced by the author. The so-called "psychic" jade is "borrowed". "It comes to "compiling a collection (note)" of "false words" and "absurd words"-that is, to write one's own experience in the genre of novels (for "dreams", the author uses irony to conceal people, and refers to the truth). But these words and deeds are so innovative that no one dares to believe it—someone in the Qing Dynasty pointed out that this book is "Zikuang" and "Ziyu". Those who say "condition" and "containment" have already included "materials", "prototypes", "artistic processing", "interspersed borrowing" and other "romance" techniques, so why "do not understand the difference between history and art"? As for "fiction" and "generalization", I fully admit that there have been novels written by fictional and generalization methods throughout the world, especially the results of conscious or similar writing under the influence or guidance of Western theories.But I do not admit that for this reason, Cao Xueqin in China's Qianlong era "must" write about him just like that. There are models, dogmas, artistic characteristics and individuality, and "self-death (foundation)", which cannot be generalized.