论文部分内容阅读
《萍浏醴会党起义檄文辨伪》一文(以下简称《辨伪》,见《历史研究》1989年第5期)认为,萍浏醴起义中的两篇檄文(《中华国民军南军革命先锋队都督檄文》和《新中华大帝国南部起义恢复军布告天下檄文》)“都存在着重大疑点”,“如果要将它们作为1906年萍浏醴起义军所发布的文告,那无疑都是赝品”;《魏宗铨传》所述“魏宗铨和萍浏醴会党起义也决非真貌”,写《魏宗铨传》的目的,“是为了抬高传主,以博取褒扬和抚恤”。由此认为,史学界长期以来关于萍浏醴起义性质问题的讨论“不过是两篇伪檄内容对立的延伸罢了“。
The article entitled “Identifying False Articles of the Ping-hsiang-wu-wu Party Uprising” (hereinafter referred to as “Daojian pseudo”, see “Historical Studies”, 1989, No. 5) argues that two articles in the Pinghu liu revolt (“ Vanguard ”and“ the New China Great Rebellion in the southern uprising announced the world 檄 text ”)“ there are major doubts, ”“ If you want them as the 1906 Ping-li revolt army issued a statement, it is undoubtedly all Fake ”;“ Wei Zong Quan Biography ”said“ Wei Zongquan and Ping Liu Lihuan uprising is by no means a real appearance ”, write“ Wei Chuan Quan Biography ”purpose,“ is to raise the Lord, in order to win praise and compassion. ” Therefore, the discussion of the nature of the Pinghu liu uprising historians has long regarded as “an extension of the antithesis of the two false pretenses.”