索隱的合法性及其局限：蔡元培、胡適紅學論爭的範式意義

蔡元培的《石頭記索隱》不但是紅學史上的名著，同時亦標誌著一種學術研究的形態和規範。研究者普遍認為，蔡元培的索隱紅學與胡適的新紅學，分別代表了兩種不同的研究範式，二者的論爭亦因而具有廣泛的學術意義。
由於胡適本人有極強的方法論意識，經常在其著作中談論治學方法，加上新紅學逐漸在研究上取得主流地位，因此近代學者對新紅學所採用的科學考證方法，並不感到陌生。相較之下，學者對索隱派的學術範式尚缺乏嚴肅的探討，迄今仍未能清楚說明索隱紅學的學術根據與本質特徵。這些闕失不僅有礙大家客觀地理解索隱派的實際影響，還令索隱紅學與新紅學之間的界線逐漸變得模糊起來，引發出不少問題。
針對現有研究的不足，本文首先會回溯蔡元培紅學的發展歷程，闇明索隱派賴以成立的學術信念和操作方法；繼而指出胡適紅學的內在矛盾，然後深入剖析新紅學有別於索隱研究的本質特徵；最後，本文評述這兩種範式在文學研究方面的意義，重新肯定索隱研究在文學解讀中的合法性。
Shitoujisuoyin (An Allegorical Reading of The Story of the Stone), written by Cai Yuanpei, is not only a masterpiece in Redology (a term that denotes the sub-field in literary studies devoted to the novel Hongloumeng, a.k.a. The Dream of the Red Chamber), but is also exemplary of a research tradition. Scholars generally recognize that the Allegorical School in Redology (the Suoyin 索隱) as represented by Cai Yuanpei, and the New School (the Xinhongxue 新紅學) as represented by Hu Shi, constitute two different research paradigms in their commentary of the Chinese masterpiece. The debate between the two schools thus renders a wider academic significance. Being extremely concerned with research methodology, Hu Shi frequently discusses research methods in his own writings. As such, scholars are generally familiar with the scientific-evidential method employed by advocates of the New School, especially as the latter has gradually obtained the mainstream status in the field. By contrast, only a few serious studies on the paradigm was adopted by the Suoyin School. Scholars are yet to have a clear understanding of the academic underpinnings and essential characteristics of this school. This dearth in research prevents scholars from acquiring an objective understanding of the actual influence of the Suoyin School. In addition, it blurs the boundaries between the Suoyin and the New School, thus generating further problems. In view of the research gap, this article revisits the development course of Cai's Redology, aiming to elucidate the research rationale and modus operandi behind the Suoyin School. Then, this article points out the intrinsic inconsistency in Hus Redology, which is followed by an in-depth analysis of the essential characteristics that differentiate the New School from the Suoyin studies. Finally, this article reviews critically the significance of these two paradigms in literary studies, so as to reaffirm the legitimacy of Suoyin in literature reading. Copyright © 2014香港大學中文系、史丹福大學中華語言文化研究中心.