▲In December 1933, Hu Feng and his wife Mei Zhi
Hu Feng (1902~1985), formerly known as Zhang Guangren, was a native of Qichun, Hubei. He is a modern literary theorist, poet, and literary translator
My grudge with Hu Feng
Author|Shu Wu (oral) Xu Fulu (writing)
Excerpt from "Shu Wu's Oral Autobiography"
One
The first time I met Hu Feng and Lu Ling after the liberation was in October 1950. It was the second year after the liberation of Guangxi, and as the only representative of Nanning City in Guangxi Province and the only representative of Guangxi Province, I went to Beijing to attend the work conference of the National Sino-Soviet Friendship Association convened by the General Association of the Sino-Soviet Friendship Association. In Beijing, I will go to Hu Feng and I will also go to Lu Ling.
It was very exciting to meet Hu Feng and Lu Ling. This is the first time we have met since we parted in 1947. Although it was only two or three years, I experienced liberation in the middle and experienced such a big victory, of course, I was very excited, and everyone had a lot to say.
After the meeting, I talked about the issue of ideological transformation, how my own thinking should be transformed, and asked for their opinions. It was all on the table, and I didn't want to keep it a secret. Their attitude at that time did not fundamentally deny that they should be reformed, and they all admitted it theoretically, but they only had different opinions on some specific issues, and they always put forward such and such views on the situation I introduced, "Can you talk about this issue?" "That formulation may not be very accurate...... etc., just like this, asking questions, expressing different opinions, and sometimes even arguing a few words. I remember talking to Lu Ling and Hu Feng repeatedly in the past few days, and they always thought that my ideas were too much, but I felt that they still had some pre-liberation things in their heads, and they had not yet turned a corner.
We also have a very important topic in our conversation, which is the study of thoughts. This is actually the issue that Hu Feng has written to me the most in the past. He asked me to study Mao Zedong Thought with the aim of solving the public case of "On Subjectivity", raising my understanding, and making self-criticism. At that time, my understanding of Mao Zedong Thought was still very simple, and I thought it was just a popular term for "Marxism-Leninism".
Two
On December 4, 1951, together with Liu Hong, deputy director of the Propaganda Department of the Provincial Party Committee, Lu Lu, director of the Propaganda Department, and Chen Xian, secretary general of the Provincial Federation of Literary and Art Circles, I went to Chendong Village in the land reform pilot area of Yongning County to listen to their summary of land reform work. The report was not very good, and the house was very cold, so I slipped out with Lu Lu and Chen Xian and went to bask in the sun next to the straw pile. Everyone held their hands and chatted babblingly, somehow it was about the Yan'an rectification in 1942. Lu Yi graduated from Lu Yi and knew a lot about the situation at that time. He said that the first thing about Yan'an rectification is to criticize Lu Yi and Zhou Yang.
Land talked about these situations unintentionally, but it sounded fresh to me. In the past, I never heard that Zhou Yang would also be rectified, and I always felt that some criticism of Hu Feng was not Zhou Yang's role in it. He is such a person in power, in the past in the 30s for the "two slogans" dispute, and Hu Feng had so many grievances, now it is difficult to guarantee that he will not bring subjective factors to work. Now that I heard Lu say this, my heart brightened, it seems that the Yan'an rectification is not Zhou Yang taking the opportunity to rectify people there, he himself has been rectified!
Of course, at that time, there was no concept of "rectification", and "rectification" was called "criticism". Then, when a person in power like Zhou Yang is criticized, it can be seen that ideological transformation is ruthless, and it is not right for things and not for people. So, as soon as I came back, I made up my mind to review and write a long review article.
The thought barrier was removed, and I was so excited that I wrote the article in three parts.
At this time, a land reform work group from the literary and artistic circles came down from Beijing, and Lu Coal was also in it. Lu Coal is a playwright and a good friend of Hu Feng and Lu Ling, and when I saw Lu Coal this time, I showed him the review article "Farewell to Mistakes" that I had just written, and asked for his opinion.
I also talked to Lu Coal about my thoughts without reservation. We talked a lot, and the topic was my review article. He seemed to sense something from my conversation, and immediately wrote to Hu Feng and Xu Fang (these were all things that I learned about much later). It is to the effect that my "new theory" has changed too much, negating the past, and reminding Hu Feng to know more about me. Hu Feng wrote back to Lu Mei, pointing out the problems of my thinking and methods, saying that in the past, I liked to engage in logical analysis, detached myself from the actual process, and often started from the phenomenon and deduced it based on concepts, so the positive things of the "May Fourth" did not enter the flesh and blood, but now they are easily thrown away, and the weak side floats.
In retrospect, Lu Coal's judgment was correct, and Hu Feng's analysis was also profound.
Three
During the period when I was participating in the "five antis" work in Nanning City, the national literary and artistic rectification movement was launched all at once, and all kinds of critical articles were often published in newspapers and periodicals. Soon after, Lu Ling's works began to be criticized. This is nothing new to me. In my past letters to Lu Yuan, I put forward some opinions on Lu Ling's novels, saying that his novels are about half-crazy, half-wandering peasants. At this time, the criticism of various newspapers and periodicals was almost the same content.
Another newspaper criticized Lu Ying, saying that he lectured on "literature and art" in colleges and universities, put Mao Zedong Thought in the last chapter of the lecture notes, and lightly said a few words, which affected the students, and still regards the "Speech at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art" as a "reference material" to be flipped through casually.
All of this cannot but arouse my great concern.
Although I wrote a 10,000-word "Farewell to Mistakes", I have not been able to relax ideologically, I always feel that such a big problem and doing such a little work is not enough, and I feel more and more that I should make a more decent explanation.
In May 1952, it commemorated the 10th anniversary of the publication of Mao Zedong's "speech". In this way, I made up my mind, summed up my thoughts in the past, and made a special point to Lu Ying, Lu Ling, and a few other people who were being criticized in the newspaper at that time, explaining that these people had the same ideological mistakes as me in the past, and now that they have been submitted for approval, we should start by re-studying Chairman Mao's "Speech" and hope that everyone has passed the threshold of ideological transformation. So, I wrote another review article: "Learning from the Beginning 'Speech at the Yan'an Literary and Art Forum'".
I remember very well that it was published in the "Yangtze River Daily" on May 25, 1952, when a number of similar articles were published one after another, all to commemorate the 10th anniversary of the publication of the "Speech at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art".
As soon as the article was published, it immediately attracted the attention of the "People's Daily" - in fact, Hu Qiaomu noticed it. Two weeks later, on June 8, the People's Daily suddenly reprinted it, and it was preceded by a note that raised the tone, saying that there was a "small literary and artistic clique headed by Hu Feng", which I did not expect at all.
Originally, I only thought that Hu Feng's shortcomings were nothing more than the points that Lu Xun talked about in the article "Answer to Xu Maoyong and the Question of the Anti-Japanese United Front": "Neurotic, cumbersome, and theoretically somewhat rigid tendencies, and the reluctance of words to be popularized." He made too many enemies in the progressive literary and artistic circles, isolating himself, and he still developed from these shortcomings. I had already felt this, and I had mentioned it to him. As for his whole thought, I still think that the proletariat is the majority, and I have also talked about this to Lu Coal.
I said in the article that Lu Ling and I, "there are still a few more people", referring to Ah Yong, Lu Yuan, and Fang Ran, and I think that we all have common mistakes in our thinking, which is very suitable for Hu Feng's tendency to be "theoretically stubborn". However, Hu Feng's thoughts are not equal to the thoughts of our people.
Now, the "People's Daily" has suddenly pointed out a "small literary and artistic clique headed by Hu Feng", which is unbearable, and everyone understands the weight of this hat, even if it is literary and artistic, not political, it is also unbelievable.
Later, I learned that the press was written by Hu Qiaomu. Like his usual style of writing, he carefully considers the words and sentences, and pays great attention to the weight of the weight. At that time, on the one hand, I could understand the intention of these cautious words, and felt that the above was still the attitude of "being kind to others, curing diseases and saving people", so I should be more determined to continue to review my mistakes and go down the road of reforming my thinking. On the other hand, to be honest, I regret it a little, I feel that after all, the concept of a "small group" is too impactful, and I can't accept this kind of proposal in my head. But the social and ideological situation at that time was clear, and there could be no remedy. Thinking about it on the other hand, what else can I justify what the "People's Daily" said? Besides, who do you go to defend yourself? How to argue? The so-called "small clique" is not a military organization, it is just a kind of identification, let's recognize it, I have always felt about the sectarian tendencies of our internal "small circle", and I have also mentioned it to Hu Feng.
At that time, the whole country was engaged in the transformation of intellectuals. I put myself in the position of a reformer, and I regarded the regime as my own, so I did not have the slightest rebellious mentality towards ideological transformation. From the bottom of my heart, I sincerely believe that it really needs to be transformed, and it will not work if it is not transformed.
In short, at that time, I was completely impressed by the new regime and the new leader. I have fully accepted the method of exposing ideological reality in the course of rambling talks, correcting mistakes through mass discussions, and then having the leaders make a summary. Although sometimes I feel that this method has a bit of a meaning of using power as a backing and using the pressure of the masses to solve ideological problems. But when I think about it on the other hand, I feel that for a small number of people who shy away from medical treatment, it is not impossible to take good medicine and pour it hard. The point is that I firmly believe that Marxism is the only cure for our ills.
Four
Just when I was about to take the lead in examining my thoughts in the ideological reform movement of Nanning Middle School, the Central Propaganda Department suddenly issued a notice asking me to go to Beijing by name to attend a symposium to help Hu Feng examine his literary and artistic thoughts.
So I went to Beijing. When I arrived in Beijing in September (1952), the Chinese Writers' Association, which arranged for me to live in Dongzongbu Hutong, told me that I had already held a meeting, saying that it could not wait for me. What kind of meeting is it? I don't go into details. About three days later, Lin Mohan and Yan Wenjing came, and I only then knew the basic situation of the meeting.
Lin Mohan told me that the meeting was a purely internal symposium, mainly to help Hu Feng understand his own problems, and the purpose was to ask him to write a review article and publish it. As long as this article comes out, others can do without criticism. As he spoke, Lin took out two more letters and showed them to me.
These are two letters written by Zhou Enlai, one to Zhou Yang and one to Hu Feng. The letter to Zhou Yang instructed that how to help Hu Feng should be discussed again and again, hoping that he could really solve the problem ideologically. If it can't be solved, I hope that in the future work, it will be solved for a long time. In short, help be patient and don't be impatient. In the letter to Hu Feng, he said that I hope to talk more about your ideological issues with Comrade Zhou Yang and Comrade Ding Ling, and after "Sincerely" and "Salute", a special stroke was added: "I specially looked for Shu Wu's review article and read it twice, and I hope you will read it a few more times." ”
After Lin Mohan showed me the letter, he said, "Let's go to Hu Feng immediately and give him these two letters." Since the meeting, Lin Mohan said everything, and Yan Wenjing didn't say a word that day.
Ding Ling came to see me after another two or three days. She came alone, not with them. Ding Ling said to me: "Hu Feng, it's true. At the first meeting, I went rowing with him in the North Sea and advised him not to think too much. I said, someone has to do it, Guo Moruo and Mao Dun have to be officials, let them do it......" That means that it seems to persuade Hu Feng not to compete with others for officials, thinking that it doesn't have much taste.
When Lin Mohan and Yan Wenjing were leaving from me, they took special care of me and said, "You can also talk to Hu Feng tomorrow and communicate more." "I say this naturally. As soon as they left, I immediately called Hu Feng. On the phone, Hu Feng's attitude has not changed at all.
I remember that I went to Hu Feng's place in the morning, and when I went, I would sit there and talk, and as soon as we talked about it, we had lunch, and then I came out and went to a restaurant in Dongsi to eat, and he invited me. After eating, we went to the Temple of Heaven Park and sat for a while, and then we went back to talk.
In the process of talking, I noticed that Hu Feng has not spoken much, unlike in the past, he has an attitude towards everything, this time it is different, mainly to ask me, after asking, he also started to write notes, I told him to remember. The content of his questions is some theoretical questions, what is wrong with our past theories. I'll be honest and answer them all. I also talked openly and honestly about my thoughts on his literary and artistic thoughts. I didn't think much of his performance at the time, thinking that he had to check his thoughts, listen to my opinions, and take a little bit of reference, and there was nothing. Now it seems that he is getting to know me well.
We talked late, and I didn't leave until dinner, but we said goodbye to each other very kindly, and that was our last friendly goodbye.
Five
Just a few days after I arrived in Beijing, an open letter to Lu Ling was published in the Literature and Art Daily. There is also a reason for this letter.
As early as May and June, the People's Daily sent me a letter asking me to write a more detailed review and criticism article after studying the 'Speech at the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art' from the Beginning. I thought about it at the time, I couldn't write this article as a criticism or review, and I felt that these issues were originally discussed and discussed between friends, and even if they were disputes, they were disputes between friends, so I wrote an "Open Letter to Lu Ling".
This was written on June 22, 1952, and the letter dealt with five issues, the main ones being the denial of the past, the admission that we had replaced the proletarian revolutionary nature with the revolutionary confusion of the petty bourgeoisie, and the acceptance of the criticism of Hu Qiaomu in 1945 and the criticism of the Hong Kong "Popular Literature and Art Series" in 1948. At the same time, I also used the concept of "sectarianism" to accept the term "small clique" in the People's Daily, which is my original opinion. "Sectarianism" was actually a "program" than the term "small clique", which was only an incidental problem at the time, but it led to the sectarianism that I criticized Hu Feng in 1955 (later), and led to the hat of being as big as a "counter-revolutionary clique", which was completely unexpected.
Six
Back to the 1952 symposium.
That symposium was actually to help Hu Feng write a review article. The people who attended the meeting were mainly some leading cadres of the party in the literary and artistic circles in Beijing, and the central speeches of the meeting were Lin Mohan, He Qifang, and Hu Cheng, and in fact, the protagonists were these three people. Zhou Yang finally made a summary. Most of the speeches, including Zhou Yang's summary, first affirmed Hu Feng politically, affirmed his role in the struggle against the Kuomintang, and supported Mao Zedong politically. This impression is very strong for me.
What is the problem with Hu Feng's literary and artistic thoughts? Lin Mohan, He Qifang, and Hu Cheng all spoke more systematically, mainly opposing ideological transformation, exaggerating the subjective role, not proceeding from life, and believing that the source of literature and art is not life, but subjectivity. It does not advocate realism, the attitude towards the people is wrong, it is not to praise enthusiastically, but to expose the "trauma of mental slavery", what spasmodic and crazy, these are the things.
These speeches were later published in the "People's Daily" and "Literature and Art Daily", probably in 1953. Zhou Yang's summary has not been published, but I remember the general content very clearly.
Zhou Yang is very good at speaking, and he said at the beginning of his summary: "This is not a conclusion, and the conclusion should be made by Comrade Hu Feng himself." Then he emphasized the issue of standards, what should be used as the standard for measuring literary and artistic thoughts. He said: What we want to talk about is the issue after the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art, and only after the Yan'an Forum on Literature and Art will we have standards. Of course, the Yan'an Literature and Art Symposium was not without standards before, and Lu Xun was the standard. Comrade Hu Feng's understanding of this criterion is much deeper than mine. However, after all, Lu Xun's standards are not as complete and accurate as the standards of the "Speech."
When Zhou Yang said this, he was convicted of "opposing the speech." He used the "speech" as the standard to measure all literary and artistic thoughts, and then the opposite of the "speech" standard was formed. This "stick" is very heavy. In the conclusion, Zhou Yang also talked about "small groups", Zhou Yang said: "small groups" are not a big deal. There are many "small cliques", and Ba Jin has a "small clique", but Ba Jin's "small clique" does not oppose Mao Zedong's literary and artistic thoughts, while your Hu Feng's "small clique" opposes Mao Zedong's literary and artistic thoughts. Zhou Yang's words are very important.
Regarding sectarianism, Zhou Yang also talked about it. "Sectarianism," he said, is not counter-revolutionary. During the rectification in Yan'an, criticizing me for sectarianism, I couldn't figure it out, what sectarianism did I have? Later, Chairman Mao solved the problem in one sentence, he said, what is sectarianism? To be divorced from the masses is sectarianism. Since you are a revolutionary, you only have the obligation to serve the masses, and you have no right to break away from the masses......
When Zhou Yang talked about this, he seemed to have lightened Hu Feng's problem, as if "sectarianism" and "small clique" were no big deal. At that time, he probably wanted to highlight Hu Feng's opposition to Mao Zedong's literary and artistic thought. He even said: Comrade Hu Feng's literary and artistic theories are not completely wrong, and many of them are correct, but if you have a hundred correct ones, as long as one of them is against Mao Zedong Thought, you will be very wrong. That's how it was concluded.
The meeting was held for the fourth time, and it was about to end, so let Hu Feng express his position. Hu Feng said: Everyone has helped me very well, but I still have to digest it slowly. This is tantamount to complete non-acceptance. Everyone didn't seem surprised by this ending, and although the content of the speech was very sharp, the atmosphere was still "sitting and talking" and relatively peaceful. During the break, everyone still talked and laughed with Hu Feng, and it didn't seem to mean "drawing a clear line".
Feng Xuefeng presided over the meeting, and he said in his speech: We are sending some comrades to the DPRK for interviews today, and it just so happens that Comrade Hu Feng and Comrade Shu Wu have also come to Beijing for a meeting, and we take this opportunity to welcome them at the same time. Obviously, at this time, Hu Feng had not yet been separated politically, and criticism was limited to literary and artistic thoughts.
Later, I learned that in fact, it had already been said internally at that time, as long as Hu Feng made a clear statement, accepted his opinions, and revised and published the article, all the critical articles of others would not be published. But Hu Feng expressed his disacceptance, so the speeches of Lin Mohan and He Qifang in 1953 were compiled and published as articles.
This was the first time since the liberation that Hu Feng was publicly criticized.
Seven
On the issue of the so-called "delivery of letters".
I can say for sure that the so-called "delivery of letters" does not exist at all. I've never handed over a letter to anyone. At that time, it was only Ye Yao, the editor of the People's Daily, who was instructed to give me a topic of "about Hu Feng's sectarianism" and submitted it to me, and I felt that the issue of sectarianism, to the extent that Hu Feng had been criticized at that time, was a secondary issue of "not being on the program", and it was also in line with my long-standing thoughts about Hu Feng (I felt that he was too isolated from himself), so I accepted the request.
The sectarianism I refer to mainly refers to Hu Feng's excessive denial and contempt for many people in the literary and artistic circles. This is still subtle in his public writings, and is evident in his private correspondence. In order to make this point clear in my article, I cannot fail to quote Hu Feng's letter to me. "People's Daily" wanted to publish my article, and in order to verify the original text of the letter that Hu Feng gave me quoted in my article, Ye Yao borrowed the letter from me to proofread.
The two natures of "lending out" and "handing it over" are completely different. The article I wrote quoted Hu Feng's letter to me, "People's Daily" wants to publish this article, for the sake of business prudence, the editorial department hopes to borrow the original letter to check, what is wrong with this? What's more, Ms. Ye Yao is both an editor and an old acquaintance of mine.
As for the future developments, it was completely unexpected, it was completely unexpected, it was completely Yuan Shui, the head of the literary and artistic group of the "People's Daily" at the time, who patted them and handed the letter to Lin Mohan behind my back (Ye Yao actually didn't know), and the result was out of control. When Lin Mohan saw these letters from Yuan Shuipai's hand, it was equivalent to the public security department seeing it, and I couldn't cover it if I wanted to. He talked to me, and of course I didn't dare to resist. Since Lin Mohan spoke, I didn't dare not follow his "instructions" to compile that material, but who knew that Mao Zedong was personally involved, wrote such an "editor's note", and convicted such a terrifying crime, and everything that followed was beyond my expectations.
Eight
Here I would like to recount an episode, which is also related to Hu Feng's letter to me.
It was the summer of 1954, and He Jianxun came to Beijing from Chongqing to open a meeting of the Jiusan Society, and went to the People's Literature Publishing House to see Nie Xuanxuan. Nie Xuanwu knew that I was an old friend with Him, and called me too. After talking for a while, Nie invited He to have lunch at the Makai restaurant in Di'anmen and invited me to accompany him.
After eating, he walked out of the restaurant, got into the car called by Nie Yunwu from the publishing house, and was about to drive, when Nie Yunwu suddenly said, "Hu Feng lives near here. He Jianxun immediately answered: "Okay, let's see where he goes?" "But I was a little hesitant. I already felt that Hu Feng's attitude towards me was not very good, so I didn't want to go, so I said, I won't go if you go. He Jianxun shouted: "Go and go, why don't you go?" "We were all in the car and it was drizzling outside. After He Jianxun's encouragement, I was noncommittal. At this time, Nie Xuanwu had already instructed the driver to drive.
It was noon, Hu Feng's family had probably just had lunch, Mei Zhi (Mrs. Hu Feng - editor's note) was watering flowers and plants in the yard or something, and Hu Feng himself might have taken a nap inside. We entered the courtyard, and Mei Zhi looked up and saw me, as if he was stunned for a moment, but immediately beckoned us to sit down in the living room. Then, go in and call Hu Feng.
After a while, Hu Feng came out and said three words. The first sentence went straight to He Jianxun and shook hands: "It's a meeting, let's stay for a few days, let's talk another day." After finishing speaking, he turned around and walked back, saying the second sentence as he walked: "Old Nie, you don't notice me in advance, who will bring anyone to me?" Of course, this "who" refers to me first, and it seems to include He Jianxun. As he said that, he walked in again, and was about to step through the door, and he turned around again, which came directly at me: "I'm here, not those bastard things can come!" With that, he went in.
All three of us were mentally prepared. He Jianxun was stunned for a moment, and immediately said, "This Hu Feng, it's too wrong!" Let's go! So we went out. Sitting in the car, everyone was dull and no one spoke. In the afternoon, we still got together and met to have tea in Beihai, and then I made the east, please have dinner.
When I was drinking tea in Beihai in the afternoon, I said, "This is really strange, why does Hu Feng have such an attitude?" Why are you so angry? Nie Xuanwu spoke, he said: "Hu Feng is angry, you will review it, you should review it, you shouldn't pull him up." He published (your) On Subjectivity for the sake of criticism. "I was taken aback. This was the first time I had heard such a statement, and I was very angry, and I said, "How is this true?" If that's the case, well, the letters he gave me are still there, and I can prove them! Let's see if it was for criticism in the first place. Nie Xuanwu tried his best to mediate: "Why bother, why bother? "I said that's not okay, he can't say that, no matter what, it's not for criticism, the facts are obviously not like this, the human and material evidence is there, we can look at the facts.
It is said that when Nie Yunxuan heard me say this, he specially asked his lover to inform Mei Zhi that Shu Wu might want to take out the letter. I don't know why he was so nervous, but I said that Hu Feng's letter was only to prove that "On Subjectivity" was indeed written under Hu Feng's guidance, and that Hu Feng's publication of this article was not "for criticism" at all, but just to illustrate the problem. At that time, I said that it was over, and I didn't really bring out the letter.
This was in the summer of 1954, and later some people linked it to what happened later, saying that I had the meaning of "handing over letters" at that time. Actually, this is not the case, it is just an episode, and it is completely different from the evidence that was later cited as the article "On Hu Feng's Sectarianism".
- END -
【About the Author】
Shu Wu (July 2, 1922 ~ August 18, 2009), a native of Tongcheng, Anhui Province. His real name is Fang Guan, a modern writer and literary critic. At the beginning of 1945, he published the article "On Subjectivity" in the "July" edited by Hu Feng, which became one of the main focuses of a five-year literary and artistic debate. After 1949, he served as the director of the research department of the Guangxi Federation of Literary and Art Circles, the vice chairman of the Nanning Federation of Literary and Art Circles, and the principal of Nanning Middle School. In 1952, he went to Beijing and successively served as editor, deputy director of the editorial office, and editor of the People's Literature Publishing House. Since 1979, he has been the editor of the journal "Chinese Social Sciences", and has devoted himself to the research of Zhou Zuoren, and has published a lot of books.
【