论文部分内容阅读
鲁迅曾两次在日记里提到陈安仁,一次为1927年3月25日,另一次为1927年3月31日。最近朱洪先生在《百年潮》2004年第8期发表《陈延年与鲁迅在广州的两次见面》一文,认为《鲁迅日记》里的“陈安仁”即陈延年。笔者对此不敢苟同,撰此小文向朱先生请教。朱先生确信鲁迅曾与陈延年见面,其依据在于1973年6月《陈延年》一书作者访问赖玉润的谈话。查赖玉润自1926年3月起至1927年夏止一直担任中共广东区执行委员会秘书长要职,揆之常情,他对于时任中共广东区委书记的陈延年的重大行踪应是知情的,其关于陈延年与鲁迅会面的回忆似不会有什么问题。然而,在各类历史材料中,回忆资料属于最危险的资料,这已成为绝大多数史学工作者的共识。通常情况下,一条回忆资料的可信度,往往依赖于回忆者回忆时与回忆事
Lu Xun once mentioned Chen Anren twice in his diary, one on March 25, 1927 and the other on March 31, 1927. Recently, Mr. Zhu Hong published “Chen Yannian and Lu Xun’s Two Meetings in Guangzhou” in the “Hundred Tide” (No. 8, 2004), saying that “Chen Anren” in Lu Xun’s Diary is Chen Yanian. I disagree with this, this essay to consult Mr. Zhu. Mr. Zhu was convinced that Lu Xun had met Chen Yannian on the basis of a visit to Lai Yurun by the author of “Chen Yanian” in June 1973. Since March 1926 until the summer of 1927, Charyu Yurun has been serving as Secretary General of the Executive Committee of the Guangdong Provincial CPC Committee. His true fate is that he should know well the whereabouts of Chen Yannian, then secretary of the CPC Guangdong Provincial Committee, There is no problem with the memory of Lu Xun meeting. However, among all kinds of historical materials, the memoirs are the most dangerous materials, which has become the consensus of most historians. Under normal circumstances, the credibility of a memory of information, often rely on memories of memories and memories of things