1. Yü P’ing-po, “Hung lou meng chien-lun” (“Short dissertation on the Dream of the Red Chamber”) in Tui Hung lou meng yen-chiu chung ts’o-wu kuan-tien ti p’i-p’an (P.R.C.: Kuang-tung sheng wen-hsueh yi-shu kung-tsuo che lien-ho hui and Kuang-tung shih wen-hsueh yi-shu chieh lien-ho hui, 1955).

2. Li Hsi-fan and Lan Ling, “ Kuan-yü ‘ Hung lou meng chien-lun’ chi ch’i-t’a,” Wen-yi pao (Peking), 30 September 1954, in Tui Hung lou meng yen-chiu, pp. 41–54; translated as “ On ‘ Short dissertation on the Dream of the Red Chamber’ and other matters,” in Current Background (CB), No. 315 (4 March 1955), pp. 4–15. Because the literature on the subject of Yü P’ing-po’s “ mistaken” literary views is voluminous, in this paper I have selected the three articles written by Li and Lan to consider in detail. Published first, they set the tone for the avalanche of articles that appeared thereafter and are representative of the literature of the period in general.

3. P’ing-po, Yü, Hung lou meng yen-chiu (Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber) (Shanghai: T’ang-ti, 1953).Google Scholar

4. Yü P’ing-po, Hung lou meng pien (Dissertation on the Dream of the Red Chamber) (Shanghai: Oriental Book Co., 1923).

5. Li and Lan, “ P’ing Hung lou meng yen-chiu,” Kuang-ming jih-pao (Peking), 10 October 1954, in Tui Hung lou meng yen-chiu, pp. 55–66; translated as “ Comment on the Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” in CB, No. 315 (4 March 1955), pp. 16–24.

6. “ Chairman Mao’s letter concerning studies of The Dream of the Red Chamber Released,” New China News Agency (NCNA) (Peking), 26 May 1967, in Survey of the China Mainland Press (SCMP), No. 3949 (31 May 1967), p. 2.

7. Chung Lo, “We must attach importance to the criticism of the mistaken viewpoints in the study of the Dream of the Red Chamber” Jen-min jih-pao (People’s Daily) (Jen-min), 23 October 1954, in CB, No. 315 (4 March 1955), pp. 32 and 37.

8. Hsueh-ch’, Ts’aoin, Hung lou meng (Hong Kong: Yu-lien, 1960).Google Scholar

9. Translator, “ The Dream of the Red Chamber case (October-December 1954),” ibid. p. 1.

10. Concerning the forum called by the Department of Classical Literature of the Chinese Writers’ Union, see “Record of forum held for the study of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” Literary Heritage Supplement of Kuang-ming, 14 November 1954, in ibid. pp. 39–63.

11. “ The Dream of the Red Chamber case,” p. 2.

12. Yü P’ing-po, “Resolutely demarcate boundaries with the reactionary Hu Shih ideology,” Wen-yi pao, 15 March 1955, in CB, No. 325 (5 April 1955), pp. 1–8. For the nature of Yü P’ing-po’s work on Hung lou meng subsequent to the campaign of 1954–55, see his Hung lou meng chung kuan-yü shih-erh chin-ch’ai ti miao-hsieh (Hong Kong, photolithographic copy, 1963). With reference to the present article, the section on Lin Tai-yü and Hsueh Pao-ch’ai, in particular, offers an interesting before-and-after contrast in interpretation (pp. 5–9).

13. Grieder, Jerome B., “The communist critique of Hung lou meng,” Papers on China, Vol. 10, pp. 142–68.Google Scholar

14. Ibid. p. 142.

15. Hsia, C. T., The Classic Chinese Novel (New York: Columbia University Press, 1968), pp. 245–97.Google Scholar

16. Shih-ch’ang, Wu, On The Red Chamber Dream: A Critical Study of Two Annotated Manuscripts of the XVIII th Century (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1961), p. 2.Google Scholar

17. Though the so-called “ complete version” of Hung lou meng was published by Ch’eng Wei-yuan, the last 40 chapters of the novel were actually written by Kao E.

18. The Hung lou meng specialists of the 1920s later referred to the Hunghsueh of this period as the Chiu Hung-hsueh (“Old Redology”) to distinguish it from the Hsin Hung-hsueh (“ New Redology ”) which they advocated.

19. Shih, Hu, Hung lou meng k’ao-cheng (A Critical Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber) (Taipei: Yuan-tung t’u-shu kung-szu, 1961).Google Scholar

20. Ibid. p. 1; quoted in Grieder, “The communist critique,” p. 149. All translations are mine unless otherwise noted.

21. Hu Shih, “Chieh-shao wo tzu-chi ti ssu-hsiang,” Hu Shih lun-hsueh chin-chu, p. 645; quoted in Grieder, “ The communist critique,” p. 149.

22. Ibid. p. 643; quoted in Grieder, “The communist critique,” p. 149.

23. Ku Chieh-kang’s preface to Yü P’ing-po, Hung lou meng pien, pp. 12–13; translated in Grieder, “ The communist critique,” p. 149.

24. Grieder, “The communist critique,” p. 147.

25. The Chinese phrase is cheng-li kuo-ku. On this topic Grieder (ibid. p. 164) refers readers to Hu Shih, “Chieh-shao,” p. 629.

26. Ku, preface to Yü, Hung lou meng pien, p. 3.

27. Ibid. p. 5; translated in Grieder, “The communist critique,” p. 148.

28. Ibid. p. 8.

29. Ibid. pp. 2 and 5.

30. Grieder, “The communist critique,” p. 161.

31. Chung, “We must attach importance,” p. 32.

32. Li and Lan, “Tsou shen-ma yang ti iu?” Jen-min, 24 October 1954, in Tin Hung lou meng yen-chiu, pp. 67–75; translated as “On what road shall we travel?”in CB, No. 315 (4 March 1955), pp. 25–31. The quotation here is from ibid. pp. 25–26.

33. Chou,“Record of forum,” p. 62.

34. Li and Lan, “On‘short dissertation on the Dream of the Red Chamber’ ”p. 15. Throughout this paper Yü P’ing-po's verbal assailants are referred to as “Communists.” This is done, in the first instance, for the sake of convenience and, secondly, for the simple reason that the Chinese Communist Party did in fact take a tremendous interest - and part - in the promotion of Marxist-Leninist standards of scholarship in the realm of literary criticism. My choice of terms being perhaps infelicitous to some, I hasten to make this clarification: though they might indeed be Communists, Yü P’ing-po's critics were, from a strictly literary point of view, realists. Whatever appellation one may wish to bestow upon Yü's critics by way of an umbrella term, one should keep in mind that, from a literary standpoint, what was at issue in the Hung lou meng controversy was the denunciation of bourgeois scholarship as represented by Yü P’ing-po by the adherents of realism and the former's replacement by realistic scholarship.

35. Li and Lan, “On what road shall we travel?” pp. 27 and 29.

36. Ibid. p. 27.

37. Li and Lan, “ Comment on the Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber.” p. 16.

38. Grieder, “The communist critique,” p. 153.

39. Li and Lan, “On what road shall we travel?” p. 27.

40. Yü, Hung lou meng yen-chiu, p. 116.

41. Hsüeh-ch’, Ts’aoin, Hung lou meng, Vol. 1, p. 3; quoted in Yü, Hung lou meng yen-chiu, p. 116; translated in H. Bencraft Joly, Hung lou meng; or The Dream of the Red Chamber (Macao: Typographia Commercial, 1893), Bk. 1, p. 5. All English renditions of passages quoted from Hung lou meng in this article are taken from the meticulous Joly translation. In the English version of Li and Lan’s articles, the quality of the translation is rather poor. I have therefore taken the liberty of substituting Joly’s translation in each such instance as well.Google Scholar

42. Ibid.

43. Yü, Hung lou meng yen-chiu, pp. 116–17.

44. Yü, “ Hung lou meng chien-Iun,” p. 163; translated in Li and Lan, “ On ‘ Short dissertation on the Dream of the Red Chamber,’ ” p. 6.

45. Li and Lan, “ Comment on the Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” p. 20.

46. Ibid. p. 17.

47. Ibid.

48. Cynthia J. Brokaw emphasized this point in an informative paper entitled “ The uses of literature in Communist China: the Dream of the Red Chamber campaign, 1954–1955” (unpublished, 1971), pp. 6–7.

49. Ibid. p. 6.

50. K’un-lun, Wang, “Kuan-yü Ts’ao Hsueh-ch’in ti ch’uang-tso ssu-hsiang,” Hung lou meng wen-t’i tao-lun chi (T’ao-lun chi) (Peking: Tso-chia, 1955, Vol. 3, p. 187; translated in Grieder, “ The communist critique,” p. 155.Google Scholar

51. Li and Lan, “ Comment on the Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” p. 20.

52. Yü, Hung lou meng pien, Bk. 1, p. 4.

53. Ibid. Bk. 2, pp. 21–22; translated in Li and Lan, “ On what road shall we travel?” p. 28.

54. Li and Lan, “ On what road shall we travel?” p. 31.

55. Yü, Hung lou meng yen-chiu, pp. 107–10.

56. Ibid. p. 105–107.

57. Ibid. p. 163.

58. Li and Lan, “ Comment on the Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” pp. 17–18.

59. Ibid. p. 18.

60. Grieder, “ The communist critique,” p. 153.

61. Ts’ao, Hung lou menge, Vol. 1, p. 15; quoted in Li and Lan, “ Comment on the Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” p. 18; translated in Joly, Hung lou meng, Bk. 1, p. 26.

62. Li and Lan, “ Comment on the Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” p. 18.

63. Ibid. pp. 18–19.

64. Ho Chien-hsun, “Lun Hung lou meng ti chu-t’i ssu-hsiang,” T’ao-lun chi, Vol. 3, p. 111; translated in Grieder, “The communist critique,” p. 154.

65. Yü, Hung lou meng yen-chiu, p. 108.

66. ibid. pp. 108–109.

67. Ibid. pp. 146–47.

68. Ku Chieh-kang, in a letter to Yü P’ing-po dated 17 May 1921; quoted in ibid. p. 148.

69. Yü P’ing-po, in a letter to Ku Chieh-kang dated 21 May 1921; quoted in ibid. p. 148.

70. Li and Lan, “ Comment on the Study of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” p. 19.

71. Ibid. p. 20.

72. Yü, Hung lou meng yen-chiu, pp. 111–13.

73. Ibid. p. 112; translated in Li and Lan, “On ‘Short dissertation on the Dream of the Red Chamber’ ” p. 8.

74. Hung lou meng yen-chiu, pp. 111 and 113.

75. Ibid. p. 113.

76. Li and Lan, “ On ‘ Short dissertation on the Dream of the Red Chamber,’ ” pp. 8–10.

77. Ts’ao, Hung lou meng, Vol. 1, p. 50; quoted in Li and Lan, “On ‘Short dissertation on the Dream of the Red Chamber,’ ” p. 8; translated in Joly, Hung lou meng, Bk. 1, p. 83.

78. Ts’ao, Hung lou meng, Vol. 1, pp. 322–23; quoted in Li and Lan, “ On ‘ Short dissertation on the Dream of the Red Chamber,’ ” p. 9; translated in Joly, Hung lou meng, Bk. 2, p. 122.

79. Wu, On The Red Chamber Dream, p. 9.

80. Li and Lan, “ On what road shall we travel?” p. 31.

81. Chung, “ We must attach importance,” p. 32.

82. Goldman, Merle, Literary Dissent in Communist China (New York: Atheneum, 1971), p. 117.Google Scholar

83. Li and Lan, “ On what road shall we travel? ” p. 25.

84. Ibid. p. 31.

85. Hsia Yen, in a speech to the East China Writers’ Union on 30 October 1954; quoted in “East China Writers’ Union hold meeting to discuss study of Hung lou meng,” NCNA (Shanghai), 3 November 1954, in SCMP, No. 923 (5 November 1954), p. 15.

86. Chung, “ We must attach importance,” p. 37.

87. Wu Ch’iang, “ On the question of study and criticism of the cultural legacy,” Hung-ch’i (Red Flag), No. 6 (16 March 1961), in Selections from China Mainland Magazines (SCMM), No. 255 (4 April 1961), p. 33.

88. See Goldman, Merle, “The unique ‘blooming and contending’ of 1961–62,” The China Quarterly (CQ), No. 37 (1969), pp. 54–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

89. Goldman, Literary Dissent, pp. 113–14.

90. See, for example, Hsia, Ronald, “The intellectual and public life of Ma Yin-ch’u,” CQ, No. 6 (1961), pp. 53–63;CrossRefGoogle ScholarJohnson, Chalmers, “An intellectual weed in the socialist garden: the case of Ch’ien Tuan-sheng,” CQ, No. 6 (1961), pp. 29–52;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and Radvanyi, Janos, “The Hungarian revolution and the Hundred Flowers campaign,” CQ, No. 43 (1970), pp. 121–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

91. See such articles as the Editor, “ ‘Cogs and screws’: the performing arts in New China,” Current Scene, Vol. 3, No. 9 (15 December 1964), pp. 1–15;Google ScholarMunro, Donald J., “The Yang Hsien-chen affair,” CQ, No. 22 (1965), pp. 75–82;CrossRefGoogle ScholarOliver, Adam, “Perspectives on the intellectual in Communist China: rectification of mainland Chinese intellectuals, 1964–65,” Asian Survey, Vol. 5, No. 10 (October 1965), pp. 475–90;CrossRefGoogle Scholar and especially Goldman, Merle, “The Chinese Communist Party's ‘Cultural Revolution’ of 1962–64,” in Johnson, Chalmers (ed.), Ideology and Politics in Contemporary China (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1973), pp. 219–54.Google Scholar

92. It should be noted that, in referring to “ Marxism-Leninism” throughout this article, I refer to the Chinese definition thereof. There are, of course, many differences between orthodox - and Soviet - Marxism-Leninism and the Chinese version of that ideology. Moreover, even among the Chinese themselves, discrepancies in interpretation abound. This point is noted on p. 574 of this article.

93. Goldman, Literary Dissent, p. 33.

94. Ibid. p. 34.

95. Ibid.

96. Tse-tung, Mao, On Art and Literature (Peking: Foreign Languages Press, 1970), pp. 83 and 104, referred to in Goldman, Literary Dissent, p. 35.Google Scholar

97. Yang, Chou, Piao-hsien ti ch’un-chung ti shih-tai (To Express the New Age of the Masses) (Peking, 1948), p. 91; quoted in Goldman, Literary Dissent, p. 49.Google Scholar

98. Goldman, Literary Dissent, p. 50.

99. Ibid.p. 114.

100. In “ Cultural and academic circles should launch struggle against bourgeois thought, says Kuo Mo-jo,” Kuang-ming, 8 November 1954, in SCMP, No. 935 (25–26 November 1954), pp. 33–34.

101. “ East China Writers’ Union hold meeting to discuss study of Hung lou meng,” p. 15.

102. Ibid.

103. The use of a “personalized target” is characteristic of the manner in which the Chinese regime has conducted its many campaigns over the years. In Merle Goldman's words, the technique involves the use of the “time honored Soviet practice of making a point of general application by singling out an individual as a scapegoat and holding him up for censure” (Literary Dissent, p. 4). The person so selected invariably represents some specific pattern of thinking or behaviour that is in opposition to the current Party line, and the new policy is explained in terms of the criticism of the individual upholding the “incorrect” view. Needless to say, the campaign against Yü P’ing-po represents precisely an exemplification of this method.

104. Wu, “ On the question of study and criticism,” p. 33.

105. Tse-tung, Mao, “The role of the Chinese Communist Party in the national war,” Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung (Peking: People's Publishing House, 2nd ed., 1952), Vol. 2, p. 522;Google Scholar quoted in ibid. p. 33.

106. Wu, “ On the question of study and criticism,” p. 34.

107. Ibid.

108. Kuo Yu-heng, “ In the study of literary legacy, one must not be divorced from realities,” Hsin Chien-she (New Construction), No. 12 (20 December 1963), in SCMM, No. 405 (24 February 1964), p. 18.

109. Ibid. p. 19.

110. See Goldman, “The Chinese Communist Party’s ‘Cultural Revolution’ of 1962–64.”

111. Yu Kuan-ying, “We must analyze and criticize all classical literary legacies,” Hsin Chien-she, No. 12 (20 December 1963), in SCMM, No. 405 (24 February 1964), p. 3.

112. Wang Shih-ching, “The present must not be confused with the past, Hsin Chien-she, No. 12 in SCMM, p. 12.

113. Kuo, “ In the study of literary legacy,” p. 21.

114. Ibid.

115. Ibid. p. 19.

116. Feng Ch’i-yung, “Critical inheritance is also needed for excellent legacies,” Hsin Chien-she, No. 12 (20 December 1963), in SCMM, No. 405 (24 February 1964), pp. 4–6.

117. Wang Chi-ssu, “ Knowing the present and knowing the past,” Hsin Chien-she, No. 12, in SCMM, pp. 7–10.

118. Huang Ta-wen, “Handle classic literature critically: a talk with young students on classic literature for extracurricular reading,” Nan-fang jih-pao (Nanfang Daily) (Canton), 3 September, in SCMP, No. 3093 (4 November 1963), p. 14.

119. Yu, “ We must analyze and criticize,” pp. 1–2.

120. Kuo, “ In the study of literary legacy,” pp. 17 and 22.

121. Yu, “ We must analyze and criticize,” p. 2.

122. Ibid.

123. Wang, “ The present must not be confused with the past,” pp. 12–13.

124. “Dream of the Red Chamber case: cultural circles in Peking launches enthusiastic discussion on question of eliminating bourgeois viewpoints in study of classical literature,” NCNA (Peking), 7 November 1954, in SCMM, No. 935 (25–26 November 1954), p. 28.

125. That the final victory over the “ Hu Shih school of bourgeois idealism which has been poisoning young people in the field of classical literature for more than thirty years ” has not yet been achieved is indicated by the renewal of discussion of Hung lou meng in 1974–75. During these two years a spate of articles appeared urging continued struggle against “all kinds of manifestations of bourgeois idealism in the sphere of classical literature ” and declaring the relevance, in this regard, of “ a review of the course of the struggle to criticize the Hu Shih school of bourgeois idealism in the study of the Dream of the Red Chamber 20 years ago” (Chiang Tien, “ Occupy the various spheres of the superstructure with Marxism: a study of the ‘Letter concerning studies of the Dream of the Red Chamber’ ” Kuang-ming, 16 October 1974, in Survey of People’s Republic of China Press (SPRCP), November 1974, pp. 186 and 185). In addition, see Liang Hsiao, “ A Confucius of the last years of the feudal era: Chia Cheng in the Dream of the Red Chamber,” Jen-min, 28 June 1974, in SPRCP, July 1974, pp. 201–11; Li Kuo-t’ao, “ The ‘ protective shield for officials’ protects the dictatorship of the reactionary landlord class: about a few lawsuits in the first 80 chapters of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” Kuang-ming, 13 March 1975, in SPRCP, March 1975, pp. 1–7; and Wang Yu-k’un et al., “ Forever inter the exploitation system: after reading the 53rd chapter of the Dream of the Red Chamber,” Kuang-ming, 8 July 1975, in SPRCP, 14–18 July 1975, pp. 208–12. It need hardly be said that we may continue to look forward in the future to further discussion of Hung lou meng in connection with the P.R.C.’s ongoing attempt to establish Marxist-Leninist standards in the realm of literature. As Chiang T’ien has observed with regard to the unique role that the novel has played and seems destined to continue playing in this effort: “ As far as the question of the study of the Dream of the Red Chamber is concerned, there was struggle in the past and there will still be struggle in the future” (“ Occupy the various spheres,” p. 186).

126. Brokaw, “ The uses of literature,” p. 22.

127. Kuo, “ We must analyze and criticize,” p. 18.

128. Brokaw, “ The uses of literature,” p. 23.

129. Levenson, J. R., “ ‘History ’ and ‘ Value ’: the tensions of intellectual choice in modern China,” in Wright, Arthur (ed.), Studies in Chinese Thought (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1953), p. 187.Google Scholar

130. This paper took as its point of departure the delineation of the continuing attempts of Chinese scholars to comprehend in all its richness an outstanding piece of literature. Because the literary realists, who emerged in conjunction with the rise of the Chinese Communist Party, approached the novel with standards of literary criticism vastly different from those of any previous students of the work, they arrived at some highly different and interesting conclusions. In describing what the realist scholars had to contribute towards the understanding of Hung lou meng in particular and the practice of literary criticism in general, I hope that I have contributed to the formation of a new way of viewing contemporary Chinese literary criticism. For a consideration of the implications of the Marxist-Leninist approach in associated fields of scholarship see Goldman, , “The Chinese Communist Party's ‘Cultural Revolution of 1962–64,” as well as the collection of papers on this subject, edited by Albert Feuerwerker, entitled History in Communist China (Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1968).Google Scholar If, on reading this account of the controversy over the practice of literary criticism in the People’s Republic of China, anyone has become dismayed by the many setbacks in and seemingly picayune nature of some of the arguments associated with the effort to make Marxism-Leninism supreme in the field of the literary criticism, let him derive some consolation from the fact that the history of the struggle to establish the Marxist-Leninist line in other areas of scholarship has proved no less checkered. With respect to China's new historiography, for example, Harold Kahn and Albert Feuerwerker have rendered this verdict: “As a result of these political and ideological agonies Chinese history has emerged as a lopsided story with a beginning and an end but hardly any middle” (Kahn and Feuerwerker, “The ideology of scholarship: China's new historiography,” in ibid. p. 10). The debate over the question of the critical inheritance of China's cultural legacy is far from over.