e
Redologists themselves as well as to those engaged in the study of literary theory at
universities and research institutes. But, to my mind, it is of little use to readers of A
Dream of Red Mansions at large.
Ever since the publication of this novel some 200 years ago, hundreds of millions of
people have read its Chinese original or its translations in various languages. Of these
innumerable people, how many have read the novel by starting with a perusal of critics’
articles and allowing themselves to be led by the nose by the critics as to how to read the
novel? Next to none. All literary works, especially a monumental one like A Dream of Red
Mansions, are extremely rich in content and involve diverse social strata – to such an
extent that they virtually resemble a mountain of treasure or a labyrinth. And the readers
are even more complicated, differing from each other in family background, social
experience, nationality, country, cultural tradition, psychological condition, age, sex,
profession, hobby, etc., etc. The list could go on endlessly, so I wouldn’t mind stopping
here. They will each appreciate a certain aspect of the novel according to their own
individuality. They may feel inspired and enlightened, and hence love it, or they may feel
hurt, and hence loathe it. In short, the reactions vary. To them, the Redologists seem to be
sages and men of virtue residing in the “Illusory Land of Great Void” and having nothing
whatsoever to do with them. They just read on and on, caring not what the Redologists
may say.
Therefore, I reiterate, literary criticism is useless.
It is useless not only to the readers, but also to writers. Looking up the literary history
of each and every country, I dare say that none of the world’s great literary figures ever did
their writing in line with the theory of literary critics.
On the other hand, however, does it follow that the research done by literary critics is
totally meaningless? No, that is not true either. In accordance with their own capacity for
literary appreciation and the different historical trends, the views they put forward for
mutual discussion, study, inspiration and improvement are also something creative and
conducive to the development of literary theory. Only they shoul be under no illusion
about their theories exerting powerful influence on the readership or writers. That is the
way for each to have a role of his own to play and for peace to reign under heaven.
What I’ve said above is only skin-deep, of kindergarten level. But so far none else
have ventured to be equally candid. Therefore, let me be reconciled to being saddled with
the epithet of “originator of a bad practice”.
注释
本文是季羡林写于1989年1月26日的一篇小品文。
(1)“红学”指研究古典文学《红楼梦》的学问，可译为Hongloumeng scholarship，但不如
Redology简洁。Redology是由Red加词尾-ology（学）构成。
(2)“反省”译为introspective，和self-examining同义。
(3)“广大的……读者”译为readers of …at large，其中at large是成语，和as a whole或in general⊙本⊙作⊙品⊙由⊙⊙網⊙友⊙整⊙理⊙上⊙傳⊙
同义。
(4)“我看”意即“我认为”，现用成语to my mind表达。
(5)“问世二百年以来”实际上是“问世约二百年以来”，故译为Ever since the publication of…
some 200years ago，其中some是添加成分，作“大约”解。
(6)“哪一个是先看批评家的文章，然后再让批评家牵着鼻子走，按图索骥地去读原作呢？”
译为how many have read the novel by starting with a perusal of the critics’ articles and allowing
themselves to be led by the nose by the critics as to how to read the novel？“按图索骥“在这里指”按批评家的指点去读原作“，其意思已包括在上面译文中，故略而不译。
(7)“绝无仅有”作“极其少有”解，译为Next to none，和Almost none同义。
(8)“特别是像《红楼梦》这样伟大的作品”译为especially a monumental one like A Dream of Red Mansions，其中monumental比great更有力，更不朽（immortal）的意思。
(9)“也可能受到打击”中的“打击”作“刺痛”或“感情受到创伤”等解，不宜按字面直译为feel attacked。现全句译为or they may feel hurt。
(10)“太虚幻境”引自《红楼梦》第五回，曾被译为Great Void Illusion Land和Illusory Land
of great void等。
(11)“上面的这些话其实只有幼儿园的水平”译为what I’ve said above is only skin-deep, of
kindergarten level，其中skin-deep（肤浅的）是添加成分，用以衬托of kindergarten level。
(12)“就让我当一个‘始作俑者’吧！”语气幽默，意即“姑且接受‘始作俑者’的称号吧！”
现按此意译为Therefore, let me be reconciled to being saddled with th