Letter on the Problems of Hongloumeng yanjiu
(October 16, 1954)

Source: RMRB (May 27, 1967), 1, Other Chinese Texts; Xuanji, Vv, pp:
134.135; HO, 9 (May 27, 1967), 6-7; Buyi. pp. 26-28; Wuge wenjian, pp.
56; Muo liang, pp. 356-358; quoted in HQ, | (Jan. |, 1967), 18. Available
English Translations: PR, 23 (June 2, 1967), 7-8; CR (Aug. 1967), 22; CB,
885 (Jul, 3]. 1969), 22-23; CB, 897 (Dec. 10, 1969), 21-22; SCMP (supp-),
191 (May 26, 1967), 20; SCMP, 3949 (May 31,1967), 1-2; J, Chen, ed.

i pp. 80-81; Various quotations in SCMP, 4000 (Aug. 14, 1967),

Aecording to Xuanji, V\ p. 134, this letter was addressed primarily to members of the
Political Bureau of the Central Committee of the CPC. it was also sent to “ather con-
"Hed comrades.”


482 | MAO ZEDONG

This document should be read in conjunction with text Oct. 1954()) jy
volume, with reference to the annotations there. Hongloumeng (Dreaal
Red Chamber), also known as Shitou ji (Story of the Stone) and Jinyu yuan 9 4
Gold and Jade Romance), is a lengthy = 120 tui or chapters — novel oft 0
dimasty The bulk of it - the first 80 tui - wus written ca. 1790 by Caw Xueqity,
scion of a once rich and powerful textile industrialist family in the §)

area, (Cao Xueyin's grandfather, Cac Yin, was the founder of the Ji
Said enterprise, China's first semimodernized fabrics production factor, w
late seventeenth century) The substance and significance of the novel hy
come a mutter of great controversy. For the most part, during the time F
Qing dynasty (i.e., IF aon af she mapper: fe SP he te
nineteenth century), the novel was dealt with as a romantic tale of se
familial relationships, which it was indeed on the surface. By and la
recently, Western scholarship on the novel has continued along ene i
concentrating on textual criticism and literary exegesis. In the early i
century, Chinese scholars began to read beyond the surface of the ovel ard
produce new frameworks for the studying and criticism of the novel. In- genera
they have agreed that the novel had deeper social meaning than previousi
attributed to it, but they disagreed on the exact nature of this social significa nm
Cai Yuanpei, a leading man of letters in the May Fourth period, proposed at
that the novel was an allegorical work, with the romantic tale disguising déep
Han nationalistic anti-Manchu sentiments, This led to more and more &
interpretations. One major school, represented first by Hu Shi and \
others such as Yu Pingbo, proposed that the novel was an autobiog
statement of the author Cao Xueqgin and was meant to represent his critic
of a degenerating family in “'late-feudal'* and premodern China. This
tition was accepted by most Chinese scholars until the 1950s, when new
scholarship, represented largely by young maverick critics, Shs:
other interpretation ~ that the novel, regardless of what the author subject
intended it to be, was a masterful expose of the social corn 7
bankruptcy of the upper class in feudal society, and therefore should be st
a topic of historical criticism rather than as a literary and artistic work ¢
On, therefore, the debate waged, with dire political consequences for ¢
literati in the PRC. For the most part, scholars in Hone Kong and Tab ha a
continued fo accept the Hit Shi explanation with same variations, — th
U.S. have usually taken a more detached view, (See note 9 in this dh mi

Enclosed are two articles refuting Yu Pingbo.' Please look thems ®)
They are the first serious barrage in over thirty years aimed at the ere
views of a so-called authoritative writer in the field of study of Honglt
[The Dream of the Red Chamber]. The authors [of the article] are wo ¥ ve
League members.” They first wrote to Wenyi bao |Literary Gazette]
whether it was all right (o criticize Yu Pingbo, but were ignored, HaWine
other alternative, they wrote to their teachers at their alma mater— Share
University — and got support. Their article refuting Hongloumeng jit
Brief Comment on Hongloumeny| was published in the university JOU
Wen shi che (Literature, History, and Philosophy).’ Then the proble:
back to Beijing. Some people asked to have this article reprinted in Rent

http: //d
jeur (People’s Daily] in order to stir up discussion and debate and to launch
csi This was not done because certain persons opposed it for various
reso ithe main one being that it was “an article written by nobodies” and
fat “une Party paper is not a forum for free debate”).* Finally a compromise
was reached ‘and the article was allowed to be printed in Wenyi bao.” Later
wLerary Legacy” column of Guangming ribao carried another article by
the (WO young people refuting Yu Pingbo'’s book Hongloumeng yanjin [A
judy of The Dream of the Red Chamber]. It appears that it is now possible
for the struggle against the Hu Shi school of bourgeois idealism which has
been poisoning (the minds of] young people in the field of classical literature
for more than thirty years to start.’ The whole thing has been set in motion by
two *nobodies.” As for the “big shots,” they usually ignore things or even
obstruct them, and they negotiate a united front with bourgeois writers on the
basis of idealism and are willing captives of the bourgeoisie. This is almost
the same Situation as when the films Qing gong mishi [Inside Story of the
Qing Court) and Wu Xun zhuan (The Life of Wu Xun] were shown.” The film
Qing gong mishi, which has been described as patriotic by [some] people but
is in fact a traitorous film, has not been criticized or repudiated at any time
since it was given nationwide screening. As for Wu Xun zhuan, although it
‘has been criticized, up to now no lessons have been drawn from it; moreover,
we have the strange situation in which Yu Pingbo’s idealism is tolerated, and
lively, critical essays by “nobodies” are obstructed. This deserves our attention.”

Toward such bourgeois intellectuals as Yu Pingbo our attitude should naturally be one of uniting with them. But we should criticize and repudiate their
erroneous ideas which poison (the minds of] young people, and we should not
Surrender to them.

Notes

484 | MAO ZEDONG

CPC, Feng believed it to be a Party organ rather than a public forum
growing tide of radicalism among many of China's young intellectuals in the 19206 ond /
Hu disassociated himself from the iconoclastic and revolutionary movement that he had
influenced, For an extensive description of the CPC indiciment af and campaign against b u
“bourgeois comprador ideas,” starting with the statements made by Gus More andl Zinnel
soon after the Honginemeng controversy, see the three volume collection Hu Shi ail
(Criticism of Hu Shi's Thought), Santian shudian, 1955.
$. See reat Mar. 1950, and text May 20, 1951. -
and the “sectarian-oriented control” of the CPC over literary work. Subsequently, the Propal
Department of the CPC directed its attack at Hu Feng and his “clique,” -
The controversy concerning Hongloumerg and its general ramifications is too browned @3 x
be recounted in greater detail here. However, a commendable, relatively detached and © or
essay on the subject is Yu Yingshi's “Jindal Hong ave de fuechan yu Hony sue geming” 1
Development of the Modern School on Haryfoumeng and the Revolution in the Study of 1%

lounveny), in Yo Vingshi (11976), pp, 381-418
2
htt oa

“y

by
r

yo.


OCTOBER — DECEMBER 1954 / 485
--- Notes

|. Yo Pinghe (b. 1899), native of Zhejiang, graduated from Beijing University in 1920. In ine
tarly 1920, following the publication of His Shi's Homgloumeny kaozhemy (A Critical Study of
the Sources of the Novel Honyloumeng), Yu becanie an avid scholar of the study of the controver
Sal ouvel Hongloumene (Dream of the Red Chamber), In 1923 he published # cullection of
Suayy on the subject under the title Hongloumeny ian (Debate on Hoogloumeng) (Yadong
Tuhuguan, Apsil 1923). Since 1949, he has been 4 Hongloumeng studies specialist at the Literary
Kes Institute of Beijing University In September 1952, he published the book Hongfldinmeny
MIU (A study of Honglowmeng) (Tangdi chubanste),

2. These refer to Li Xifan and Lan Ling, See text October 1954(1), note 4.

3. ‘This refers to the article “"Guanyu Hongloumeng jiantun jigita’” (On Hongloumeng fianlun
M1 Ones Writings), first published in Wer shi che (Sept. 1954), The article "Honghoumeng jian-
\A Bnet Discusion of Hongloumeng) was written by Yu Pingbo and published in the journal
“ jlotshe (March 1954).
ae These objections were raised by Zikou Yang and Feng Xuefeng respectively in personal let
© Maw Zhou was then a deputy director of the Depanment of Propaganda of the Cenéral
Committee of the CPC (sce also uxt Miry-Rine 1955, note 44), and Feng was editorin-chiet of
ryt bow. Since Wenyl bao was a publication sponsored by the Propaganda Deparment of the


S, The article by Li Xifan and Lan Ling, “Guanyu Honglowmeny jiunlun \i gid poe
Was published in Wenyi ton (Sept. 30, 1954). However, this publication Was prefers
cal commentary written by Feng Xuefeng. Wenyi han was a publication organized by
pongzuczhe lianmeng (League of Cultural Workers) and later became an organ af 1
hui (Federation of Writers), Both of its editors-in-chief up to this point, Feng Xuete
predecessor Ding Ling, (see text Jan, 1957, note 16), Were prominent Writers Whey ger
eS ee ey views in the area of literary and artistic work. See text Oct, Ys
note

6. This refers to the article "Ping Honglowmeng vanjia’’ in GMRB (Ociobor (0. 195
and the other article by Li Xifan and Lan Ling, cited in note 3, are presumably the fwo “spn
articles referred to by Mau at the beginning of this open lener, “a
7 “More than thirty years” alludes to the thirty-some years between the publication |
Shi's Hongloumeng kaozheny (sce nole \) — and therewith, the establishment of the ap
“Xin Hong suc,” or New School on Hongloumeng, by Hu, Gu Jiegung, and Yu Pinghe —
present writing by Mac, Although Mao had long held a severely critical attitude toward
ideas. the specific phrasing. here is derived. it seems. from certain indicting sentenc
casays written by Li Xifan and Lan Ling. Hu Shi was a pioneer of the New Culture Mom
and the new vernacular language movement prior Wo the May Fourth Movement, Man
attributed to him the leadership of the May Fourth Movement itself, although this
repudiated by Chinese Communists. At the height of the cultural and political co my
early 1920s Hu advocated that the Chinese should pay more attention to problems, and
matic, “problem-solving” methodology. than to political orientations and doctrine. He
an extended debate on the subject with Li Dazhao, an early Chinese Marxist. AS af

9. Attention was, indeed, meted our in great measure. The controversy, over the #
Hongloumeng, represented by Mao's writings here and elsewhere in October 1954, elicit
cious public response agains’ Wenyt bao. On October 23, Zhong Luo published an att
RMRB titled “Yinggai zhongshi dui Hongluomeng yanjin chong de coowt g
(We Should Pay Attention to Criticizing the Erroneous Viewpoints in Homplouneng:
Jowed by an explosive article on October 28, by Yuan Shuipai, titled “Zhiwen Weyé N
(Questions for the Editors of Wenyi bas), As a result, not only did Yu Pingho tater pu
Wenyi han, on March 15, 1955, a self-criticism. but Feng Xuefeng also published a slP
cism, titled “Siantao wo zai Wenyi ban ue fin de cuowu” (Review of Mistakes }Comnm "
Wenyi baol, Feng was subsequently removed from his position as editor-in-chief of Ihe
This refers fo the so-called “Wenyi hoo Affair.”
Thal, however, was not the end of the repercussions. Not only did the Honglow
versy play a part in the criticism campaign against Ho Shi, it was also a spark for the
against Hit Feng. From late October 1954 onward, several prominent writers, Hu Fe
them, criticized the part played by Zhou Yang and Yuan Shuipai in the Honglorneny conten