论文部分内容阅读
本刊85年第5期发表余志远同志《罗敷是劳动妇女吗》一文后,收到武汉二十九中毛颢、武钢九中徐启春、湖北省麻城县教研室刘宏、沔阳县彭场中学徐树名、黄冈教院袁敦文、荆州实验学校邓德元、鄂州师范汪春堂、宜都陆城二中张海德和田兆元、湖南涟源一中黄明强、江苏淮阴教院朱云腾、四川宣汉南坝中学陈仁发、安徽巢湖师院附中肖正华等十多位同志的来稿,认为罗敷是劳动妇女艺术形象。上述这些同志的来稿.分析具体、持之有故,只因篇幅有限,仅能选刊王尧同志这篇最短的。从众多来稿的情况看.只需把主要的几条点明一下,广大读者自会作更全面、更深入、更细致的分析。
The magazine published in 85 No. 5 Yu Zhiyuan published a post, “Lo Fu is a working woman,” a text, received Wuhan twenty-nine Mao Rao, Wugang nine in Xu Qichun, Macheng County, Hubei Province Department of Liu Hong, Peng Yang Peng County School XU Shu-ming, Huanggang Academy Yuan Dunwen, Jingzhou Experimental School Deng Deyuan, Ezhou Normal Wang Chuntang, Yidu Lucheng II Zhang Haide and Tian Zhaoyuan, Hunan Lianyuan a Huang Mingqiang, Jiangsu Huaiyin Zhu Yun Teng, Sichuan Xuanhan South Dam Chen Renfa from middle school, Xiao Zhenghua from middle school attached to Chaohu Teachers College, Anhui Province, and considered Luo Fu as an artistic image of working women. The analysis of these specific articles and the shortcomings of these comrades can only be made of the shortest piece of paper chosen by Comrade Wang Yao because of limited space. From a large number of contributions to see the situation.Only a few points out the main point, the majority of readers will make a more comprehensive, in-depth, more detailed analysis.