论文部分内容阅读
读了《航空史研究》(57)的《再论孙中山曾向冯如“苦心劝说”》(以下简称《曾向》)一文,作为《孙中山并无向冯如“苦心劝说”》(以下简称《并无》)的作者的我实在深受鞭策:要认真注意不能“对历史文献疏于查阅”.《曾向》的作者,已在《冯如研究》的《“文献十一”考析》中,对《冯如小传》文献原文“孙中山先生到场参观赞赏不已加以勉励每向演说且冯君苦心于救国为问题”,以“当系排版、植字混乱和有脱、衍文及错字”为由,经加标点符号并“按文意推测”而改为“孙中山先生到场参观,赞赏不已,加以勉励.还以救国为问题,向冯如苦心劝说.”不幸的是,《曾向》的作者把这“推测”改成的文段变成准确无误、不准存疑的文段,并以之为原文献的原文来不厌其烦地告诉读者“两篇原始历史文献均有孙中山向冯如‘苦心劝说’的记载”.
After reading Sun Yat-sen’s “painstaking persuasion” to Feng Fushi (57), “Sun Yat-sen has no painstaking persuasion to Feng Ru” (hereinafter referred to as “Zeng Xiang”), “No”), I am really encouraged by the author: Pay careful attention not to “neglect historical documents.” The author of “Zeng Xiang” has been examined in the “Eleventh Literature” by Feng Ru “In the” Feng Biography “biography of the original” Sun Yat-sen to visit and admire and encourage each and every speech and Feng Jun painstaking efforts to save the country as a problem “,” when the typesetting, From the punctuation marks and “according to the text of the conjecture” and “Mr. Sun Yat-sen to the scene to visit, appreciated endlessly, to encourage them to also save the country as a matter of urgency to Feng Ru persuade.” Unfortunately, “had” The author changed the paragraph of “speculation” into a paragraph that is accurate and not allowed to be questioned, and used the original text of the original document to tirelessly tell the reader that “both the original historical documents both gave Sun Fengshan painstaking efforts Persuasion ’record. ”