All Men Are Brothers – [Shui Hu Chuan] – Intro #5
Translated by Pearl S. Buck
I. Introduction by Lin Yutang – Part 5
It was in this century, the 14th, that Shih Nai-an and Lo Kuang-chung lived. Shih and Lo are known to have written at least 3 other historical romances besides All Men Are Brothers and the Three Kingdoms. The tradition is strong that one or both were authors of this novel, All Men Are Brothers. The records of scholars of the 16th century reveal also that they saw editions with one or both scholars’ names as the authors. The best edition, published by one Kuo Shun, said it was “edited and arranged by Lo Kuan-chung, based on true version by Shih Nai-an.” Li Chih’s edition, with probably the same text, said it was “edited by Shih Nai-an and revised by Lo Kuan-chung.” Of Lo Kuan-chung we know definitely that he lived at the end of the 14th century. He was the author of a Yuan drama and over a dozen novels were ascribed to his authorship. Of Shih there was for a time some doubt as to whether such a man ever existed. Hu Shih thought it a fictitious name for an unknown author of the 16th century, the one who made the improved version of the novel, and Lu Hsun in his History of the Chinese Novel accepted the story. Later research in 1933-1934 by one Chao Jui-ting re-established the fact that Shih Nai-an did exist, that he was a native of Huai-an and lived in Tungtai, that he was indeed the master of Lo Kuan-chung, and that it was at Kiang-yin, while serving as a school teacher at the home of one Mr.Hsu that he wrote the present novel.
A great deal of research by many writers and some controversy have gone into the question of the authorship of the novel. I can only summarize here briefly what seem to me to be the fair conclussions to be drawn from the facts known up to the present:
(1) In the face of the evidence for it and lack of evidence to the contrary, it is hard not to accept Shih and Lo as the first authors who edited and arranged the stories into a continuous narrative, just as no evidence has gone to show that they were not the authors of the Three Kingdoms. It seems to me hazardous to argue from a priori grounds, that a master story-teller, who lived at a time when the stories were yet fluid, could not have given them the present form. It would be unsafe to draw the conclusion that the age of Beaumont and Fletcher could not have produced a Shakespeare, or that Shakespeare should have lived after Congreve because the better playwright should come in a later epoch. The material of the novel was already there and, as Hu Shih pointed out, each dramatist of the period treated the characters in his own way.
(2) It is highly probable that Lo, the younger man, revised and re-edited Shih’s version. Lo was the first to be mentioned as the author, and Shih’s name seems to have come up first for mention in the 16th century editions. The popular notion that Shih was the author is due to Chin Sheng-t’an’s influence. (see “4” next)
(3) The 1st editions by Lo and Shih have completely disappeared. We have no way of telling how good or bad there 1st versions were. The best edition, by Kuo Hsun, in 100 chapters, giving the story in its present form but carrying it further in 30 more chapters, as compared with the 70 chapter edition, was published between 1522 and 1566. Another famous scholar, Li Chih, put out an annotated edition in the same period, which may possibly be the same in content as the Kuo edition, with minor touch-ups in language. This edition by Li Chih became the popular edition in Ming Dynasty and was later printed along with the Three Kingdoms in the same volumes, one novel occupying the upper half and the other occupying the lower half of a page.
<Continued – part 6>
No comments:
Post a Comment