也辨“欣然规往”与“欣然亲往”

“Plan to Go With Pleasure” or “Go With Pleasure in Person”? A Research on the Wording in Tao Yuanming’s An Idyllic Land of Peach-Blossom Spring

至少二百多年前,《桃花源记》"规往"与"亲往"之争就已开始,因为钱锺书的介入及各种出版物的全面更改,一字之争再引众议。究竟孰对孰错?本文自古籍版本的考证出发,从事理逻辑及谋篇构思的角度深入分析,并援引传世墨迹加以佐证,从而得出了明确的结论:钱锺书等人主张"规往"的理由不能成立,"亲往"才更符合上下文意及作者原意。在此基础上,本文列举了因为"规往"而带来的文字混乱,呼吁正本清源,回归"亲往"。

There existed a dispute over 200 years ago on the wording of"plan to go"versus"go in person"in An Idyllic Land of Peach-blossom Spring. Later, due to Qian Zhongshu’s participation in the discussion and a complete revision of the wording by various publications, the old dispute began to catch much attention again. This essay attempts to employ ancient publications as evidence, enhanced by reasons and logic, backed by handed-down ancient calligraphy,and undertake a perspective of contextual analysis to reach a conclusion: Qian Zhongshu’s reasons to support"plan to go"are skeptical whereas"go in person"is in conformity with the author’s original intention and contextually correct. In addition, the author of this essay lists some language confusions caused by the revision to"plan to go"and advocates a return to"go in person".