周 钧 韬. 郑振铎《金瓶梅》研究的成就与失误[J]. 内江师范学院学报, 2013, (9): 1-7.
    引用本文: 周 钧 韬. 郑振铎《金瓶梅》研究的成就与失误[J]. 内江师范学院学报, 2013, (9): 1-7.
    ZHOU Jun-tao. On Fruits and Slips in ZHENG Zhen-duo’s Researches of Chin Ping-mei[J]. Journal of Neijiang Normal University, 2013, (9): 1-7.
    Citation: ZHOU Jun-tao. On Fruits and Slips in ZHENG Zhen-duo’s Researches of Chin Ping-mei[J]. Journal of Neijiang Normal University, 2013, (9): 1-7.

    郑振铎《金瓶梅》研究的成就与失误

    On Fruits and Slips in ZHENG Zhen-duo’s Researches of Chin Ping-mei

    • 摘要: 郑振铎对《金瓶梅》的四个方面的总体评价,高屋建瓴,深刻、独到,代表了现代中国《金瓶梅》研究的最高水平。他对《金瓶梅》性描写的成因研究有贡献,但对小说在多大规模上写性,缺乏基本了解。把小说中的性描写完全看成是糟粕,加以全盘否定,而看不到它的价值所在,这是不可取的。他用来路不明的欣欣子的《金瓶梅词话序》,来证明并提出《金瓶梅》成书于明万历中期的观点,不能成立。他仅用“山东土白”四个字,认定《金瓶梅》作者必为山东人而绝对否定“江南人”的可能性,这是不对的。

       

      Abstract: The comment of Chin Ping-Mei from four aspects made by ZHENG Zhen-duo is highly summarized, profound and unique. And it stands for the top level of researches of Chin Ping-mei in modern China. He has contributed a lot to the sexual description in the novel, but he lacks fundamental understanding of such description in a large scale. He has taken such description as the trash, and hence negated the novel wholly and overlooked its value, which is, of course, a great pity. He attempted to prove that the novel had been written in the middle period of Emperor Wanli with Xin Xin-zi’ Preface to Chin Ping-mei of which origin was unknown. This is unconvincing. Further, from the signature Shandong Tubai, he took the author of the novel as one who was from Shandong and vetoed the possibility that the author was from South China. This, obviously, is wrong.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回