重读《中国诗与中国画》１９７８年修订版，大体有“版本学”“学术史”两种视 角。２０世纪９０年代以降，学界主要着眼于前者，确认此文在１９４９年前后的版本有六种。 至于１９７８年修订版与１９４７年开明版原著相比，除篇幅增加一倍外，著者注入修订版的深 意究竟何谓，这需诉诸“学术史”视角。从“学术史”考辨修订版及原著，可得出三点结论。 其一，原著重在论述王维为符号的“神韵派风格”，在“画品”系统所享有的影响暨地位，并 不与它在“诗品”系统所占有的影响暨地位呈“一律”或“对称”。其二，著者敏锐地感觉 到“‘诗品－画品’的古典对立”这一逻辑建模，拟可被用来隐含他所体认的“‘风气－风 向’的今世疏离”这一学术史现象，这恐是他执笔修订版的内驱力。其三，有识者只需咀 嚼修订版一再提及的那个“作者———他”，将其读作给定语境中的“钱锺书———我”，也就 不难领悟其修订版究竟想给后世留下何种启示。

″Bibliology″ and ″academic history″ are two perspectives in rereading the 1978revised version of Chinese Poetry and Chinese Painting: Since the 1990s, the academic community has mainly focused on the former, confirming that there were six versions of this article before and after 1949. As for the comparison between the 1978revised version and the 1947Kaiming version of the original work, a part from doubling the length, what exactly is the connotation that the author put into the revised version? It needs to resort to the perspective of ″academic history″. This article provides three viewpoints on the re vised version and the original work in terms of the ″academic history″ study. Firstly, the original work focuses on discussing the influence and status of Wang Wei′s ″Shenyun style″ as a symbol in the ″painting″ system, which is not consistent or symmetrical with its influence and status in the ″poetry″ system. Secondly, the author keenly sensed that the logical modeling of ″presenting alienation between poetry and painting″ could be used to imply the academic history he recognized as the ″current confrontation between wind and atmosphere″, which may be the internal driving force behind his revised version. Thirdly, scholars only need to chew on the ″Author He″ repeatedly mentioned in the revised version, and read it as″Qian Zhongshu I″ in a given context. It is not difficult to comprehend what kind of inspiration the revised version intends to leave for future generations.