我的「中国话剧运动史初稿」的第一、二章陆续在「戏剧报」发表有一年之久了,引起了很多同志的注意和关心,很多同志很热心地提了很多意见,尤其是许多戏剧界的老前辈,指出了很多的错误,并且提出来希望它能写得比现在好。这些意见之中,有一种意见说,材料是丰富的,但史料的意义多于史的意义,也有的说,应当把它叫做史话,就更恰当了。我听了这些意见之后,知道这是指的祇罗列了材料,而无深刻的分析。但是我自己想不通,我觉得我是 The first and second chapters of the first draft of the history of Chinese drama movement were published one after another in The Drama News for a year and attracted the attention and concern of many comrades. Many comrades enthusiastically raised many points of view, especially many The old man in the theater pointed out a lot of mistakes and put it in the hope that it could be written better than it is now. One of these opinions says that the material is rich, but the significance of historical data is more than that of history. Some say it should be more appropriate to call it historical material. After I listened to these opinions, I realized that this only refers to the material, without a profound analysis. But I can not figure it out, I think I am