大约近十年来,周作人和胡适这两个研究禁区,都已逐步被打破,出了一些可喜的研究成果。但是,情形又有不同:在胡适研究中,比较能集中力量研究他一生文化上思想上学术上的成绩,该肯定的不妨充分肯定;而在周作人研究中,却不得不分去许多精力,辩解式地反复说明何以有研究的必要,不得不处处联系周作人抗战期间叛国附敌那一段历史,以示念念不忘阶级斗争,肯定成绩时最好七折八扣,指出缺点错误时怎么夸大都成。如果你论证周作人一开始就是混进新文化阵营中的右派,必然要一步一步走向反人民反民族,如果你从他早年的每一成就中都找得出通向汉奸的轨迹,你的研究不会受到什么责难。如果你对周作人一生的是非功过采 In the last ten years or so, Zhou Zuoren and Hu Shi, the two restricted research areas, have been gradually broken up and some encouraging findings have been made. However, the situation is different: in Hu Shi’s study, he could concentrate more on studying the ideologically academic achievements of his life and culture. This affirmation may well be fully affirmed. However, in Zhou Zuoren’s study, he had to devote much energy, Definitively and repeatedly explain why there is a need for research, had to contact Zhou Zuoren everywhere during the War of Resistance Against Japan enemy of history, in order to demonstrate the concept of class struggle, the best score of the best buckle, pointing out the shortcomings of the error are exaggerated . If you argue that Zhou Zuoren was initially involved with the right wing in the new culture camp, he must go step by step toward the anti-people and anti-nationality. If you find a trace of traitors to every accomplishment of his early years, your research Will not be subjected to any censure. If you ZHOU Zuoren’s life is non-exploit