As for the issue of "Dream of Red Mansions", in addition to the writing ideas of the first 80 chapters and the content of Zhi Yanzhai and Zhi Pi, there is also a more thorny issue, which is The author of the last forty chapters, the writing content of the last forty chapters, and how many chapters were written in the last forty chapters have always puzzled people. Because people didn't understand the truth of the last forty chapters, they began to criticize Gao E. The original version of "A Dream of Red Mansions" was one hundred and ten chapters, so Baoyu made a living by beating watchmen, and became the "White-headed Double Star" queen with Shi Xiangyun. The so-called "authentic version" of Thirty Chapters also came into being. As for those who passed the Baoyu examination and became a monk in the last forty chapters, some issues about the restoration of family fortunes have naturally become hot topics for discussion, and have naturally become the main basis for attacking Gao E. ?
How many chapters are there in the second part of "A Dream of Red Mansions", as well as the issue of Baoyu and Xiangyun becoming a "white-headed" couple in the so-called "authentic version"? I have already talked about it before, let's come now Talk about other issues in the last forty chapters. ?
1. Negation of Gao E's supplementary work?
The author of the last forty chapters of "A Dream of Red Mansions", Yu Pingbo wrote in his chapter "Only Eighty Chapters of the Original Version" :?
The original book of "A Dream of Red Mansions" has only eighty chapters, written by Cao Xueqin; the remaining forty chapters were continued by Gao E. This is a definite judgment that cannot be shaken. Readers only need to read Mr. Hu Shizhi's "A Critique of the Dream of Red Mansions" to understand. ?
(See page 92 of "Yu Pingbo on the Dream of Red Mansions") ?
Yu Pingbo's assertion is not just his personal opinion, it is actually a fact that is almost universally recognized by the red scholar community. . This view is not only scattered in the articles of Zhou Ruchang and others, but also the author's name "written by Cao Xueqin and Gao E" on the 120-chapter edition of "A Dream of Red Mansions" is also an explanation of this aspect. ?
The last forty chapters of "A Dream of Red Mansions" were written by Gao E. This view comes from Hu Shi, and the various arguments that later continued to argue that the author of the last forty chapters were Gao E almost also originated from Hu Shi. arguments, the difference is only slightly tinkered with. ?
Hu Shi believes that the last forty chapters are the first basis for Gao E's supplement: ""A Dream of Red Mansions" initially had only eighty chapters, and it was not until the fifty-sixth year of Qianlong that there were one hundred and twenty chapters. "A Dream of Red Mansions". There is no doubt about this" (see "The Story of the Stone: A Textual Research on the Dream of Red Mansions", page 100). The meaning of this sentence is nothing more than that before the so-called Cheng version of the last forty chapters that Gao E supplemented appeared, there was no "Dream of Red Mansions" with one hundred and twenty chapters. ?
Hu Shi's second piece of evidence is that Hu Shi quoted Yu Yue's "Xiaofumei Gossip" from "The Chuanshan Poetry and Grass" has a poem "Gift to Gao Lan Shu E in the Same Year" that says:' "A Dream of Red Mansions" was written by an erotic lover. Note: "After the 80th chapter of "A Dream of Red Mansions", Ju Lanshu added it. However, this book was not written by the first author. The five-character and eight-rhyme poems were added in the Qianlong Dynasty. Since there are poems in the book describing the events of the imperial examination, it can be proved that they were supplemented by Gaojun" (see page 103 of the same book). From this, it is believed that "Zhang Wentao's poems and annotations are the clearest evidence" (see page 104 of the same book). ?
Hu Shi's third piece of evidence is: "The program said that he first obtained twenty volumes and then obtained more than ten volumes on the drum. This statement is ironclad evidence of forgery, because there is no such ingenious thing in the world. ” (See page 105 of the same book). ?
Hu Shi’s fourth piece of evidence is: “Gao E’s own preface is very vague, and every word is confusing. Perhaps he did not want to completely conceal the painstaking efforts in making up the work, so the sixth article of the introduction says "This is a brief introduction to the book, but it is not the first part of the book. The reason is that it has been incomplete for many years. Once it is completed, it will be very popular. I am happy to title it and record it as a book." Because Gao E did not deny the fact that he added it, Therefore, Zhang Chuanshan sent a poem directly talking about the forty chapters after he added it" (ibid.). ?
Hu Shi’s fifth piece of evidence is that the content of the last forty chapters does not match the first eighty chapters (ibid.). ?
As for Hu Shi’s first piece of evidence, this is Hu Shi’s misunderstanding. Because Hu Shi did not see another historical data. According to Zhou Chun's records, in the autumn of Gengxu (1790), the 55th year of Qianlong's reign, Yang Wengeng told him to buy 120 chapters of "A Dream of Red Mansions" for a large sum of money.
The text is as follows:?
In the autumn of Gengxu of Qianlong, Yang Wangeng said: "Yanyu purchased two manuscripts at a high price: one is the eighty chapters of "The Story of the Stone"; the other is the one hundred chapters of "A Dream of Red Mansions" Chapter 20. There are slight similarities and differences, but I can’t put it down. I will definitely bring it to the provincial examination. It is said to be a good story in Fujian. "I heard about the title of "Dream of Red Mansions" but never saw it! ?
(See Zhou Chun's "Essays on Reading a Dream of Red Mansions")?
Judging from this piece of material, the 120 chapters of "A Dream of Red Mansions" did not originate from Cheng Ben's Qianlong 50th edition. Six years ago (1791), but there was a copy before the fifty-fifth year of Qianlong (1790). This shows that Hu Shi’s first piece of evidence cannot be established. ?
The second piece of evidence for Hu Shi is that Zhang Wentao's "Addition by Ju Lanshu after the 80th chapter of "A Dream of Red Mansions"" was relied upon by both Hu Shi and Yu Yue. I have not seen the full text of "Chuanshan Poems and Grass" and this poem and its notes, so I dare not lie here. ?
Hu Shi’s fifth piece of evidence is that there are contradictions in the content and plots of the first eighty chapters and the last forty chapters. I will leave this issue to be discussed later. I now want to talk about Hu Shi’s third and fourth pieces of evidence. ?
The two pieces of evidence provided by Hu Shi come from the preface and seven "introductions" written by Cheng Weiyuan and Gao E. In this case, we might as well copy a little preface and excerpt a few "introductions" commonly used by people. ?
Cheng Weiyuan's preface reads: ?
"The Story of the Stone" is the original name of this book... Every time a good person copies a copy and puts it in the temple market, it is worth dozens of gold. , it can be said to be spreading like wildfire. However, the original catalog contained 120 volumes, but the current collection contains only 80 volumes, which is not the complete edition. Even though it was said that it was all in its entirety, only eighty volumes were reviewed, which is a pity for readers. Isn’t it ridiculous that since this book has one hundred and twenty volumes, how can it not be complete? Yuanwei tried his best to search for them, and he paid attention to them all from the pile of old papers in the bibliophile. Over the past few years, only more than twenty volumes have been accumulated. One day, I accidentally found more than ten volumes on a drum drum, so I bought them at a high price. I read through them happily and saw that the ups and downs in the front and back were still joints, but the volume was uncontrollable. So I worked with my friends to add details, cut off the long points and make up for the shortcomings, copied them all, and restored them to engraving boards, sharing the common good with the good. The whole book "The Story of the Stone" has finally been completed. ...Xiaoquan Chengwei Yuanshi. ?
Gao E's preface reads: ?
I have heard that "A Dream of Red Mansions" has been popular among people for more than 20 years, but there is no complete version or final version. I borrowed the view from a friend and felt sorry for trying it. In the spring of this year, my friend Cheng Zixiaoquan came to me and showed me the complete book he had purchased. He said: "This servant has worked hard for several years and accumulated a lot of money. I will pay it forward and share the benefits. I am idle and exhausted. How can I be divided among them?" "This book is written like a barnyard official and a wild historian, but it does not deviate from the famous teachings. I happily accepted the promise. I was lucky to see the treasure in the Persian slaves, so I helped him serve. When the work is completed, know the end and tell the readers. Five days after the winter solstice of Xinhai Emperor Qianlong, Gao E of Tieling made a statement and wrote it. ?
The "Introduction" of "Cheng Yiben" reads: ?
1. The first eighty chapters of the book were copied and circulated by bibliophiles for tens of thirty years; Ten times, the whole wall is synthesized. Many friends used the copy to argue with each other. Copying was difficult, and publishing on boards also took time. So I just printed with movable type. Because I was eager to make it public to the public, I did not have enough time to proofread it carefully during the first printing, and there were some mistakes here and there. Now I have collected all the originals, proofread them in detail, and made sure they are correct. But those who read will forgive it. ?
1. The manuscripts of the first eighty chapters in the book are different from each other. Today, we will collect and collate it, and we will make appropriate adjustments and addendums and corrections. There may be some additions or deletions in the figures, which are intended to make it easier to read, but not to compete with the predecessors. ?
1. The last forty chapters of the book are based on what I have collected over the years. There is no other original version to examine, but they have been slightly edited according to the previous and previous chapters to make them consistent without contradictions. As for the original text, I did not dare to change it. When I get the rare book again, I will be more certain, and I don't want to hide its true colors. ?
Hu Shi believes that what Cheng Weiyuan said in the preface, "First he got more than twenty volumes, and then he got more than ten volumes on the drum. This is ironclad evidence of forgery, because there is no such ingenious thing in the world. ", I think Hu Shi's words are a bit too extreme, and his so-called "iron-confirmable evidence" probably doesn't mean "iron" or "not iron" at all. We will not cite distant examples, but we will take another colleague of Hu Shi, that is, Yu Pingbo, who believed that the last forty chapters were supplemented by Gao E as "unshakable", as an example to illustrate this problem.
?
Yu Pingbo "attached" such an article to his "Dream of Red Mansions", titled "lt; Analysis of Dream of Red Mansions > Lost and recovered manuscript", which describes an article written by his brother-in-law. ?
Recalling a past event, when Pingbo finished writing his "Dream of Red Mansions" with three months of hard work, he felt relaxed mentally and happily held a bundle of red ruled paper with clearly written words in his hand. When I go out to see friends, I probably go to the publisher's house to hand in my manuscript. When I returned home in the evening, I saw him looking astonished, as if he had lost something. The manuscript was lost! It turned out that I hired a rickshaw and put the roll of paper on the seat. I forgot to take it when I got off the car. When I remembered to chase it, the rickshaw had already sped off, like a kite that had lost its string and could not be found. This is really awkward. He and his wife looked at each other blankly, and my sister was upset and burst into tears. The scene at that time is still vivid in my mind. Coincidentally, a few days later, a letter came from Mr. Gu Jiegang (I can’t remember exactly). He reported that he saw a stack of manuscripts on the drum of a secondhand buyer on the road one day. He couldn’t help but go in and take a look. It turned out that But it is a "masterpiece". He was so alarmed that of course he spent a small amount of money to buy it back, so he found it again and "returned to Zhao". It seems that all the works related to "Dream of Red Mansions" will always have to deal with Guerdan - doesn't Gao E's sequel also say that he accidentally bought a residual manuscript from Guerdan? So I felt deeply. Sigh! Gains and losses in all things are often due to chance; and chance gains and losses often affect people's destiny. The lives of Uncle Ping and my sister are closely related to his "Research on the Dream of Red Mansions" to a large extent. As for the difference between disaster and blessing, it is very difficult to measure and there is no need to discuss it in depth. The important thing is that Ping Bo did not wait for this book to be passed on, but the book itself is a work that must be passed on, so it can be said. ?
More than sixty years after the incident, I expressed this manuscript to Ping Bo, and got a reply saying: "The lost manuscript of "Hongbian" mentioned above is deeply regrettable; and it has been completely forgotten. If others If you put it forward, I will deny it. The writing is very good; it is so wonderful to re-enhance it like a faded photo! It is like a good fortune story. I believe it is because the old words are old and the feelings will last forever. And the past is like a dream, and the traces become more and more blurred, and I can't help but feel sad about it."?
If it is written in the year and month?
(See "Yu Pingbo on Dream of Red Mansions" 324-325. page)?
The text is a bit long, but it can illustrate a problem. There are often some unexpected "wonderful" things in the world. This is not a superstition, it is a kind of superstition. A chance coincidence. If this is the case, why should we affirm that the statement in the program that "later he got more than ten volumes in Gudan" is impossible? What's more, Cheng Weiyuan was trying his best to search for various manuscripts of "Dream of Red Mansions", and they were different from Gu Jiegang's chance. ?
After quoting an "attached" article by Yu Pingbo, I was surprised. Why has Yu Pingbo kept silent about this? Why not use this article to confirm Hu Shi's theory of "qiqiao" in procedures? And why did Yu Pingbo also say in Qin Ruo's letter that "the story about the lost manuscript of "Hongbian" mentioned above is deeply regrettable; and it has been completely forgotten. If others bring it up, I will deny it"? I really don't understand. Could it be that Yu Pingbo was really unwilling to use Yu's "spear" to attack Hu and Yu's "shield". ?
As for Hu Shi, he believed that Gao E's preface was "very vague and confusing between the lines." I don't see this at all. ?Here, I feel that although people often quote and demonstrate these "introductions", they have ignored several issues. ?People's thinking is like what is said in the "Introduction" of "Cheng Yiben", that only "the first eighty chapters" were "due to the eagerness to make it public to the public, so the first printing was not done in time, and there were some mistakes"; that is, the "first eight chapters" When the "Ten Chapters" were reprinted today, they "reassembled all the originals, proofread them in detail, and made correct revisions." The next forty chapters seem to be just "based on what has been collected over the years, and there is no other source to examine. It is only slightly edited based on the previous and previous considerations to make it consistent without contradiction." As for the phrase "not entirely concealing its true colors" in the last forty chapters of the "Introduction", I think it is a deceptive statement. ?
This is one aspect.
?
People have noticed that the printing time of "Cheng Jiaben" and "Cheng Yiben" is only more than seventy days apart, but people seem to have ignored that during these more than seventy days, Cheng Gao and two people, plus the hired Others are asking the question of whether all these millions of words (revised and revised in several versions) can be "revised in detail" and all "correctly revised". ?
This is another aspect. ?
Regarding the two aspects mentioned above, 1. I think that the "Cheng Jia version" and "Therefore, it was not revised carefully when it was first printed, and there are some mistakes in the first "Introduction" of the Cheng version. "Miao" also includes the last forty chapters, and does not specifically refer to the first eighty chapters. 2. I believe that "the original versions of this collection" naturally include the original versions of the last forty chapters. 3. Due to limited time, the edition is complex, and the text is voluminous. The phrase "detailed proofreading, revision, and correctness" mentioned in the "Introduction" only refers to the attitude of Cheng and Gao, but in fact it was revised more than seventy days ago. This is absolutely impossible. 4. I think that for the last forty chapters, what Cheng and Gao said in the "Introduction" "and do not want to hide their true colors" is a truth, not a deception. ?
Whether Cheng Yiben and Cheng Gao are telling the truth in the "Introduction", or is it a scam set up by Cheng and Gao as other red scholars say? Regarding this issue, the final question is: A good explanation is to compare the similarities and differences in the text between "Cheng Yi version" and "Cheng Jia version". I don't think there is a better way than this. ?
In other words, if the last forty chapters were supplemented by Gao E, the preface written by Cheng Weiyuan and Gao E and the situation stated in the "Introduction" are a false pretense; then, " The text of "Cheng Yi Ben" is definitely better than the text of "Cheng Jia Ben", but the text of "Cheng Yi Ben" will not be worse with more changes. ?
For this question, I checked Chapters 86 and 87 of "Cheng Yi Edition" and "Cheng Jia Edition". I am going to use the text variations of the two versions in these two chapters to illustrate this issue. ?
Before checking, let me explain that the "Cheng Yiben" I use here is the version of "Dream of Red Mansions" published by People's Literature Publishing House in 1981 based on "Cheng Yiben"; I The "Cheng Jia Edition" used here refers to the version of "A Dream of Red Mansions" published by the People's Literature Publishing House in 1990. The first eighty chapters were based on the "Gengchen Edition" and the last forty chapters were based on the "Cheng Jia Edition". For the convenience of noting the number of pages, the 1981 human version is abbreviated as "Cheng Yi version" and the 1990 human version is abbreviated as "Cheng A version". ?Now let's proofread this question. ?
Chapter 86 of "Dream of Red Mansions": ?
(1) In the section of Lin Daiyu's "Jie Qin Shu" in this chapter, "Cheng Jiaben" writes: ?
p>
(Baoyu) looked at the book Daiyu was reading, but she didn't recognize a single word in the book. Some are like the character "shao", some are like the character "mang"; there are also the character "大" with a tick next to the character "九", and a "五" character in the middle; there are also the characters "五" and "六" above. The word "wood" is added to the word, and the word "five" is added at the bottom. ?
(See page 1239 of "Cheng A edition") ?
However, in this section of text, "Cheng Yi edition" writes "another 'five' character is added in the middle" as:?
Add five more words in the middle. ?
(See page 1133 of "Cheng Yiben")?
As for the question of "five characters" or "five characters", Lin Daiyu's "Jie Qin Shu" behind There is also such a text. "Cheng Jiaben" wrote:?
Baoyu said: "I am a confused person. You have to teach me how to add a tick to the word 'big' and a 'five' in the middle." Daiyu smiled and said: " The "big" character "nine" is pressed with the thumb of the left hand to press the "nine emblems" on the piano. The hook plus the "five" character is the right hand hook of the "five strings". It is not a word, but a sound, which is very easy. ..."?
(See page 1240 of "Cheng Jia Edition")?
The text in "Cheng Jia Edition" and "Cheng Yi Edition" are exactly the same. ?
We can see from one paragraph: the "Cheng Jia version" in the previous paragraph "adds another 'five' character in the middle" is correct, while the "Cheng Yi version" adds "five" characters in the middle "word" is an error.
?
This is a problem. ?
Here, there is another problem, which is that the correct thing is found in the first edition of "Cheng Jia Edition" which is said in the "Introduction" of "Cheng Yi Edition" that "it is not as careful as the proofreading, and there are mistakes here and there". "; but the erroneous things are in the reprinted "Cheng Yiben" which "is now gathering together all the originals, proofreading them in detail, and making correct revisions." ?
Is this just an occasional typographical oversight? ?
(2) In the passage of Daiyu's "Book of Explanation of Qin", "Cheng Jiaben" Daiyu said: ?
"The book says: If Shi Kuang plays the qin, he can come "Wind, thunder, dragon and phoenix"?
(See page 1240 of "Cheng Jia version")?
But "Cheng Yi version" says:?
"The book says: Shi Kuang. Teaching the piano can bring about wind, thunder, dragon and phoenix. (See page 1134 of "Cheng Yi Edition")?
There is only one word difference between "Cheng Jia Edition" and "Cheng Yi Edition". , but the mistake is thousands of miles away. "Shi Kuang Gu Qin" comes from classical music, but "Shi Kuang teaches Qin" has no origin.
However, the strange thing is that the correct things appear in the "Cheng A version" of the first edition that was "less than carefully revised"; the wrong things appear in the reprinted "Cheng Yi version" that was "carefully proofread". ?
(3) In the section "An old official who accepted private bribes to reverse the case", in the section where the magistrate interrogated Xue Pan, "Cheng Jiaben" wrote: ?
The magistrate's name was Ti Xue Xue Pan asked, "What's the quarrel between you and Zhang San? How did he die? Please confess." Xue Pan said, "I beg you to be merciful to me. I didn't beat him because he refused to change the wine." He threw the wine at him, but accidentally hit his head with the wine bowl. He quickly covered up his blood, but he knew that he couldn't cover it up anymore, and the blood flowed too much, and he died in the corpse field the day before yesterday. I was afraid that the master was going to hit him, so I just asked him to show mercy." The magistrate shouted, "What a fool! When the county asked you how you hit him, you just said you were angry that he didn't change the drink. It was smashed, and today it was accidentally touched."?
(See pages 1234-1235 of "Cheng Jia Ben")?
In this text, "Cheng Yi Ben" calls "the county magistrate." "Take up Xue Pan" was changed to "The county magistrate called up Xue Pan", "so I threw wine at him" was changed into "so I took wine and poured it on the ground", and "today I accidentally touched him again" was changed to "today I accidentally smashed him again" ” (See pages 1128~1129). Other texts are the same. ?
For this text, "Cheng Jia version" is regarded as the first edition, and "Cheng Yi version" is regarded as the second edition. Logically speaking, it should be improved and improved. The "Cheng Jia version" should be replaced with "die after one time". "It was appropriate to change it to "It died after a while," but the mistake here was not corrected, but the original correct thing in "Cheng Jiaben" was changed. ?
For example, in the "Cheng Jia Ben", the sentence "So I threw the wine on him" is correct, and in the "Cheng Yi Ben", the sentence Xue Pan said "So I took the wine and poured it on the ground" is correct. Doesn’t make sense. For another example, in the "Cheng Jia Ben", the wording of the magistrate's words "today's confession was accidentally smashed" is very appropriate. In the "Cheng Yi Ben", the magistrate's wording of "today's confession was accidentally smashed" is inappropriate. . I think there is no need to explain more on this issue. ?
Just from this difference in text between the "Cheng Jia version" and the "Cheng Yi version", we can also see why the correct things appear in the first edition of the "Cheng Jia version" which "is not as careful as the proofreading, and there are mistakes here and there". ", but the erroneous things appear in the reprinted "Cheng Yi version" of "The original version of this collection has been carefully reviewed and corrected". ?
Is this an accidental oversight in the reprinting and typesetting? ?
Chapter 87 of "Dream of Red Mansions": ?
(1) In the section of Daiyu's "Feeling the Deep Autumn and Touching the Qin and Sadness of the Past", "Cheng Jiaben" talks about the gift of Baoyu in the past. The handkerchief for Daiyu was written like this:?
(Daiyu) I saw a silk bag inside. When Daiyu reached out to pick it up and opened it, she found that it was an old handkerchief that Baoyu had given her when she was ill. The poem she had written on it was still stained with tears. ... This Daiyu just didn't look at it. When she looked at it, she didn't say what clothes she was wearing. She only held the two handkerchiefs in her hands and stared blankly at the old poem.
?
(See page 1248 of "Cheng Jia edition") ?
But "Cheng Yi edition" is written as: ?
(Daiyu) I saw a Silk bag. Daiyu reached out and picked it up, and when she opened it and looked at it, she found that it was an old silk given to her by Baoyu when she was ill. She had written a poem by herself, and there were still tears on it. ...Daiyu... only held the two handkerchiefs in her hands and stared blankly at the old poems. ?
(See page 1141 of "Cheng Yiben") ?
Whether it is "old silk" or "old handkerchief" here, it is the same thing. But "Cheng Jiaben" uses it correctly; because the word "handkerchief" is used both before and after. But "Cheng Yiben" is not like that. The former sentence uses "old silk" and the latter sentence uses "handkerchief". This is very inconsistent in terms of wording and title. ?
This also shows that "Cheng Jiaben" is used correctly, but "Cheng Yiben" is used incorrectly. Of course, it naturally also reflects a question: why are the correct things in the "Cheng Jia edition" of the first edition "which is not as carefully revised as there are errors here and there", while the wrong things are in the "Jin Guang Fu Ji's original editions". It is in the reprinted "Cheng Yiben" with proofreading and correct revision. ?
(2) In the passage about Baoyu and Miaoyu listening to Daiyu "playing the harp", "Cheng Jiaben" wrote: ?
The two walked outside the Xiaoxiang Pavilion. Shan Zishi sat and listened quietly, and felt that the tune was clear and clear. He could only hear a low voice: the wind is rustling and the autumn air is deep, and the beauty is thousands of miles away and is singing alone. Wherever I look at my hometown, I lean on the railing and my lapels are stained with tears. ?
After resting for a while, he heard chanting again: ?
The mountains are far away and the water is long, and the moonlight shines through the windows. I am sleepless and the Milky Way is vast, my clothes are timid because of the cold wind and dew. ?
(See page 1252 of "Cheng Jia version") ?
But "Cheng Yi version" writes "only the low chanting is heard" as "only the low qin sound is heard" (see page 1149) , while all other characters are the same. ?
From the comparison of the text of "Cheng A edition" and "Cheng Yi edition" copied here, we can see that the word "qin" in "low Qindao" in "Cheng Yi edition" is a typo. ?
The correct things appear in the first edition of "Cheng A edition"; the wrong things appear in the carefully proofread "Cheng Yi edition". ?
Is this simply an accidental typographical error in the reprint of "Cheng Yiben"? ?
3. In the paragraph about "chess records" at the end of this chapter, "Cheng Jiaben" writes: ?
(Xichun) opened the chess records again and listed Kong Rong and Wang. I have read several articles written by Ji Xin and others. The "lotus leaf wrapping crab posture" and "orioles fighting rabbit posture" are not surprising; the "thirty-six rounds of killing horn posture" is difficult to remember for a while; the "eight dragons and horses" alone are very interesting. ?
(See page 1255 of "Cheng Jia edition") ?
But "Cheng Yi edition" writes "lotus leaves wrapping crabs" as "mao leaves wrapping crabs"; "Eight dragons" "Walking Horse" is written as "Ten Dragons Walking Horse". ?
For the text here, we will not talk about whether it is the text pair of "Cheng A edition" or "Cheng Yi edition", but it can be explained that "Cheng Yi edition" is by no means a simple plagiarism based on the "Cheng A edition" text. ?
In addition, in these two chapters, "Cheng Jia version" always uses the word "clothes", but "Cheng Yi version" changes it to "clothes,"; "Cheng Jia version" always uses "clothes". The word "harmony" is used, and "Cheng Yiben" is often rewritten as the word "合". For example, in "Cheng Jia Ben" Daiyu asked Xue Yan to hang "Xiao Mao'er's clothes to dry" (see page 1248 of "Cheng Jia Ben"), but "Cheng Yi Ben" changed it to "hang Xiao Mao'er's clothes to dry" (see page 1141 of "Cheng Yi Ben"). For example, "Cheng Jia Ben" "Dai Yu said: 'Just eat the soup and porridge'" (see page 1247 of "Cheng Jia Ben"), "Cheng Yi Ben" was rewritten as "Dai Yu said: 'You just eat the soup and porridge'" Just eat it'" (see page 1140 of "Cheng Yiben"). Such examples are common. ?
I won’t give examples. I think these examples are enough to illustrate the problem.
?
The "Cheng A version" is the first edition, and the "Cheng Yi version" is a second edition; and according to what Cheng Gao and Cheng Gao wrote in the "Introduction" of the "Cheng Yi version", the "Cheng A version" was "not proofread carefully when it was first printed, and there were errors here and there." "Miao", while the "Cheng Yi version" is "the original collection, detailed proofreading, and correct revision", so why is the "Cheng Yi version" inferior to the "Cheng Jia version" on these issues? And the more "reformed" it becomes, the more "corrupted" it becomes? ?
Why is all this happening? ?
And there is another important issue here: although some of the above-mentioned erroneous words in the "Cheng Yi version" are different from the first edition of the "Cheng Jia version", they are exactly the same as the erroneous words in the "Dream Manuscript". . ?
This cannot but attract our attention. ?
As for the "Dream Manuscript", I have stated it in the chapter "Edition Issues" and also made a copy of one page of the manuscript for you: it is a genuine "manuscript" . ?
It seems that regarding the version issue of the last forty chapters, the relationship between "Cheng A version", "Cheng Yi version" and "Dream manuscript version" can only be this fact:?
(1) The publication of "Cheng Jia Edition" is based on the "Dream Manuscript Edition". Although Cheng Gao said in the "Introduction" that "because he was eager to make it public to his colleagues, he did not have time to proofread it carefully when it was first printed." After all, it took a certain amount of time, more than a year. Therefore, "Cheng Jiaben" still corrected some mistakes in "Dream Manuscript". For example, in Chapter 86 of Dai Yu's "Jie Qin Shu", the "Cheng Jia version" corrected the "added five more characters" in the "Dream Manuscript" to "added another 'five' character". Another example is that in the 87th chapter "The Sad Past of Fuqin", the "Cheng Jia version" corrected the "low Qin Dao" in the "Dream Manuscript" to "low chanting Dao". ?
(2) What Cheng Gao said in the "Introduction" that "Cheng Yiben" attempted to "revise in detail and revise without error" and "not try to cover up its true colors" is credible. For example, in Chapter 87, when the "Cheng Jiaben" was printed based on the "Dream Manuscript", it was very likely that the reviewer of the "Dream of Red Mansions" version today was the same, because there was no "Ten" in the "chess record". The chess position "dragon moves horse", but the "chess record" has the chess position "eight kings move horse", so when Cheng and Gao reviewed this chapter, based on "eight kings move horse", they retained the word "dragon" and changed the " The word "十" was rewritten as "Ten Dragons and Horses" to "Eight Dragons and Horses". However, when the "Cheng Yi Edition" was reprinted, in order to restore the "original appearance" of the original "Dream Manuscript", the term "Ten Dragons and Horses" in the "Dream Manuscript" was still retained. Therefore, there are differences in the terminology between "Cheng Yi version", "Meng manuscript version" and "Cheng Jia version", as well as "Ten dragons walking horses" and "Eight dragons walking horses". ?
(3) When reprinting "Cheng Yiben", Cheng Gao and Cheng Gao really tried to restore the "original appearance" of "Dream Manuscript", so they used "Dream Manuscript" as the base and added "clothes" Change it to "clothes", change the word "和" to the word "合", and some different words appear. However, due to the rush of time during the revision (only more than 70 days), when the "Cheng Yi Edition" was reprinted, some text errors that should not have appeared were left in the "Dream Manuscript Edition" that were exactly the same. Just like what I said before, "add a 'five' character" is restored to "add five characters", and "whispering way" is restored to "low qin way". ?
The above is the proofreading of text variations in the 86th and 87th chapters of "A Dream of Red Mansions". Since I don't have a "Dream Manuscript" in my hands, I only got two printed replies from Hu Wenbin, chapters 86 and 87, so I could only check them twice. But I think it's enough to explain the problem. ?
The above is the proofreading situation of the eighty-six and eighty-seven chapters of the "Cheng A version" and "Cheng Yi version" combined with the three versions of the "Meng manuscript version". ?
Based on the above comparison of the text changes in the three versions of "Cheng A version", "Cheng Yi version" and "Meng manuscript version", we will find that the preface written by Cheng Weiyuan and Gao E in the "Cheng version" and " The words in the Introduction are entirely believable. That is to say, the last forty chapters were indeed collected by Cheng Weiyuan over the years; Gao E only made some "revisions" to the last forty chapters.
There is no question here that the last forty chapters were supplemented by Gao E; there is no such thing as the "last forty chapters" of the "Dream Manuscript". The original text before revision was copied from a first draft by Gao. The deleted text is based on a revision by Gao" (Wu Shichang's conclusion, copied from page 20 of "Preliminary Exploration"). There is only one here: the first edition of the "Cheng Jia Edition", which was published after forty chapters, was based on the "Dream Manuscript Edition" and was "refined and revised", that is, after some typos and grammatical errors were corrected; and the "Cheng Yi Edition" In the last forty chapters, an attempt was made to restore the original version of the "Dream Manuscript", and the "Cheng Jia Edition" was hastily revised using the "Dream Manuscript" to create a restored version. ?
From the above research, we should draw such a conclusion: it is untrue to think that the last forty chapters were supplemented by Gao E; it is unreasonable to criticize Gao E; Cheng Weiyuan and Gao E E made a contribution to "Dream of Red Mansions". Of course, another problem is that Cheng Weiyuan and Gao E do not understand "Dream of Red Mansions"; if they really understood it, I am afraid that Cheng Weiyuan and especially Gao E would never dare to work so hard on the school magazine and print "Dream of Red Mansions". Therefore, the contribution of Cheng and Gao to "Dream of Red Mansions" was entirely due to a misunderstanding and was by no means conscious.