论文部分内容阅读
本文通过《枣窗闲笔》中两篇文章的对照,论证裕瑞的文章作为历史文献有一些缺陷,在考据中运用它则应慎重。若从他对“翻案”作品的宽容态度看,他明显地不接受《红楼梦》悲剧性的结局。这是《枣窗闲笔》的文献价值。本文把他的态度与明义的《题红楼梦》联系起来梳理。“总使石言亦枉然”是明义的忠告,“知君诗胆昔如铁”是敦诚的激励,这是明显的不和谐。笔者联想到一个可能性曹雪芹在《红楼梦》初稿完成后,明义和敦诚们的不同意见使其两难,这是导致《红楼梦》八十回后无完整稿本被发现的基本原因。而裕瑞并没有吃透明义的想法,走到另一个极端——为大团圆的结局叫好。
This article through the “Zao window idle pen” in the two articles of comparison, proof of Yu Rui’s article as a historical document has some shortcomings in the test in the use of it should be careful. Judging from his tolerant attitude toward “turning a verdict”, he obviously does not accept the tragic ending of “Dream of the Red Chamber”. This is the “Zao window idle pen” of the literature value. This article combs his attitude with the inscribed “Dream of Red Mansions”. It is a clear discourse that “making the stone speak in vain” is an explicit advice. After the completion of the first draft of A Dream of Red Mansions, the author thinks that the different opinions of Mingyi and Duncheng made it a dilemma. This is the basic reason why no complete version of the Dream of Red Mansions was found after 80 backwards. And Yu Rui did not eat the clear idea, go to the other extreme - applause for the happy ending.