<p>The article in question was published in 1933 in 申报月刊, but I can't locate a copy of that magazin. However, I was able to get a copy of 《南腔北调集》 published by 鲁迅先生纪念委员会 in 1941 through my university library, which contains that article. This is the earliest version of the article I could find. In this version the word in question was 贿赂, not 贿路.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/pxXYw.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/pxXYw.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/4VPmW.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/4VPmW.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>
<p>New update 2023/12/04: I found a copy of 1933 申报月刊. The scanning is not very clear, but sufficient to see that the word in question is 贿赂, not 贿路.</p>
<p><a href="https://i.sstatic.net/mwqhv.png" rel="nofollow noreferrer"><img src="https://i.sstatic.net/mwqhv.png" alt="enter image description here" /></a></p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-07T00:53:07.167Z
(For the reader's benefit, the 贿赂 is in traditional characters, so it's written 賄賂, and is the 3rd and 4th hanzi in the second image [reading top to bottom, right to left].)
Becky 李蓓
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-06T20:19:01.913Z
2023-12-04T05:10:34.073Z
2023-12-04T05:10:34.073Z
user2249675
<p>Auctually, there are many similar examples in most of 鲁迅's works, like “烂熳” as “烂漫” in《藤野先生》. People usually call this <a href="https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E9%80%9A%E5%81%87%E5%AD%97" rel="nofollow noreferrer">通假字</a>. But there are also some people say that 鲁迅 just wrote the wrong character. Maybe it was the right character to use in his time, but the world is in progress and the usage of words is also constantly changing. Anyway, when reading 鲁迅's work you don't always have to know why he used some &quot;uncommon&quot; words.</p>
<p>If you are interested, you can google '鲁迅' '通假字' to learn more.</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-05T18:07:46.650Z
even in the same exact work, the other term is used multiple times.  So typo seems by far most likely.
zagrycha
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-05T15:07:58.600Z
2023-11-05T15:07:58.600Z
AliceShirley Dune
<p>Answer is simple,this just a other expression.
This article are written in a period that modern Chinese just came out,so there's no standard for their writing,it's normal for some expression are different from now.
Actually this phenomenon also shows at ancient Chinese,we usually call it 通假字(Frankly speaking,it's just wrongly written or mispronounced characters)</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-02T16:21:18.817Z
But 贿赂 is a word already appeared in 左传. There is also no evidence that 路 can be 通假 of 赂.
user2249675
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-02T11:10:49.567Z
2023-11-02T11:10:49.567Z
宋靖宇
<blockquote>
<p>如果你遇见有人被冤枉，被诬陷的，即使明知道他是好人，也万不可挺身而出，去给他解释或分辩，否则，你就会被人说是他的亲戚，或得了他的<strong>贿路</strong>……<br />
If you encounter someone being wronged, even if you know they are a good person, you definitely shouldn't step forward and and defend them, otherwise, others will say he's your relative, or that you've received his <strong>bribe</strong>.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>Wait, I studied 贿赂 not 贿路.  I'm not sure if this is a typo (which I doubt; it's quoted over the Internet like this), or if it's written that way because the word has changed characters over time (ye olde hanzi), or for some other reason entirely.</p>
<p><strong>Question</strong>: Why did 鲁迅 write 贿路 and not 贿赂?</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-01T11:06:45.097Z
贿路 was a printing room mistake.
Tang Ho
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-01T14:59:45.697Z
Typo is plausible. 鲁迅 consistently used 贿赂 in other places, and I cannot find 贿路 used by others as an alternative spelling.
user2249675
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-01T15:01:37.493Z
贿路 appears here: https://www.marxists.org/chinese/reference-books/luxun/14/032.htm The bottom of the page says: 本篇最初发表于一九三三年十一月十五日《申报月刊》第二卷第十一号. So if someone can get a copy of this issue we would know if it's typo in the original publication or typo in 鲁迅全集.
user2249675
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-02T17:28:13.293Z
Another possibility is that they didn't have the character on their printing devices. If 賄賂 is consistently written with 路 in the text, then it's highly likely that the character was missing or got damaged and that text had to substitute it with a homophone.
dROOOze
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-04T07:11:44.053Z
@user2249675 Was it possible the writer coined a new word, as he did in substituting 且介 for 租界 in another essay?
NanningYouth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-04T15:41:26.437Z
@NanningYouth Unlikely. If he had intended any pun with 贿路, it went completely unnoticed by people, and its meaning must have been lost in history.
user2249675
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-05T01:55:11.623Z
@user2249675 Do you think he did so because he was trying to make the reading a little funny? It might have been attributed to the censorship.
NanningYouth
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-05T02:08:27.827Z
@NanningYouth Very creative thought, but remember this was written in 1933, there's no computer-based censorship like today. If you were to evade censorship you certainly wouldn't just change one character. I also can't see why 贿路 makes reading more interesting.
user2249675
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-05T18:06:50.477Z
@user2249675  I believe shanghai library has them on record for access, it may be hard to find elsewhere due to the loses over the years to war etc.  I know a lot of effort has gone in amd I don't even think a full set is in one place yet.
zagrycha
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-11-05T18:53:20.443Z
@zagrycha I'm not in China currently and my university's library doesn't have it. :(
user2249675
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-12-04T05:11:45.427Z
Hi all, I finally found a copy of 申报月刊. See my updated answer.
user2249675
<etymology><word>
Why did 鲁迅 write 贿路 and not 贿赂 ("bribe")?
# Why did 鲁迅 write 贿路 and not 贿赂 ("bribe")?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-11-01)

> 如果你遇见有人被冤枉，被诬陷的，即使明知道他是好人，也万不可挺身而出，去给他解释或分辩，否则，你就会被人说是他的亲戚，或得了他的**贿路**……  
> If you encounter someone being wronged, even if you know they are a good person, you definitely shouldn't step forward and and defend them, otherwise, others will say he's your relative, or that you've received his **bribe**.

Wait, I studied 贿赂 not 贿路. I'm not sure if this is a typo (which I doubt; it's quoted over the Internet like this), or if it's written that way because the word has changed characters over time (ye olde hanzi), or for some other reason entirely.

**Question**: Why did 鲁迅 write 贿路 and not 贿赂?

**Tags:** etymology, word

> **Comments:**
> **username_1**: 贿路 was a printing room mistake.  
> **username_2**: Typo is plausible. 鲁迅 consistently used 贿赂 in other places, and I cannot find 贿路 used by others as an alternative spelling.  
> **username_2**: 贿路 appears here: https://www.marxists.org/chinese/reference-books/luxun/14/032.htm The bottom of the page says: 本篇最初发表于一九三三年十一月十五日《申报月刊》第二卷第十一号. So if someone can get a copy of this issue we would know if it's typo in the original publication or typo in 鲁迅全集.  
> **username_3**: Another possibility is that they didn't have the character on their printing devices. If 賄賂 is consistently written with 路 in the text, then it's highly likely that the character was missing or got damaged and that text had to substitute it with a homophone.  
> **username_4**: @username_2 Was it possible the writer coined a new word, as he did in substituting 且介 for 租界 in another essay?  
> **username_2**: @username_4 Unlikely. If he had intended any pun with 贿路, it went completely unnoticed by people, and its meaning must have been lost in history.  
> **username_4**: @username_2 Do you think he did so because he was trying to make the reading a little funny? It might have been attributed to the censorship.  
> **username_2**: @username_4 Very creative thought, but remember this was written in 1933, there's no computer-based censorship like today. If you were to evade censorship you certainly wouldn't just change one character. I also can't see why 贿路 makes reading more interesting.  
> **username_5**: @username_2  I believe shanghai library has them on record for access, it may be hard to find elsewhere due to the loses over the years to war etc.  I know a lot of effort has gone in amd I don't even think a full set is in one place yet.  
> **username_2**: @username_5 I'm not in China currently and my university's library doesn't have it. :(  
> **username_2**: Hi all, I finally found a copy of 申报月刊. See my updated answer.  

---

## 3 answers

### Answer by username_2 on 2023-11-06. Score: 4 | Accepted answer

The article in question was published in 1933 in 申报月刊, but I can't locate a copy of that magazin. However, I was able to get a copy of 《南腔北调集》 published by 鲁迅先生纪念委员会 in 1941 through my university library, which contains that article. This is the earliest version of the article I could find. In this version the word in question was 贿赂, not 贿路.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/pxXYw.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/pxXYw.png)

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/4VPmW.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/4VPmW.png)

New update 2023/12/04: I found a copy of 1933 申报月刊. The scanning is not very clear, but sufficient to see that the word in question is 贿赂, not 贿路.

[![enter image description here](https://i.sstatic.net/mwqhv.png)](https://i.sstatic.net/mwqhv.png)

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: (For the reader's benefit, the 贿赂 is in traditional characters, so it's written 賄賂, and is the 3rd and 4th hanzi in the second image [reading top to bottom, right to left].)  

---

### Answer by username_6 on 2023-11-05. Score: 1

Auctually, there are many similar examples in most of 鲁迅's works, like “烂熳” as “烂漫” in《藤野先生》. People usually call this [通假字](https://zh.wikipedia.org/zh-hans/%E9%80%9A%E5%81%87%E5%AD%97). But there are also some people say that 鲁迅 just wrote the wrong character. Maybe it was the right character to use in his time, but the world is in progress and the usage of words is also constantly changing. Anyway, when reading 鲁迅's work you don't always have to know why he used some "uncommon" words.

If you are interested, you can google '鲁迅' '通假字' to learn more.

> **Comments:**
> **username_5**: even in the same exact work, the other term is used multiple times.  So typo seems by far most likely.  

---

### Answer by username_7 on 2023-11-02. Score: -1

Answer is simple,this just a other expression.
This article are written in a period that modern Chinese just came out,so there's no standard for their writing,it's normal for some expression are different from now.
Actually this phenomenon also shows at ancient Chinese,we usually call it 通假字(Frankly speaking,it's just wrongly written or mispronounced characters)

> **Comments:**
> **username_2**: But 贿赂 is a word already appeared in 左传. There is also no evidence that 路 can be 通假 of 赂.  

---

