论文部分内容阅读
洪汉云《赵吕甫<云南志校释>一书质疑》一文发表迄今,时逾三载,无人理睬,我们看后却发生了浓厚的兴趣,聊作《解惑》,贡献一点粗浅建议,仅供参考。第一,如能严肃认真对待《校释》所引书证,“疑”就不会产生。樊志成书距今已有1,200年,清理其所记山川城邑,自应首先借助前代著作,这是必不可缺的步骤和途径。洪文质疑请益,理当对《校释》所引书证条予辩驳,才能替自己树立新说创造前提。“不破不立”的辩论原则是绝对回避不了的。遗憾的是,洪文对于《校释》所引的大量书证,一概采取摒弃不理的态度,这就必然使自己辩论问题的方法和结论陷于难以令人置信的境地。
Honghan Yun “Zhao Lvfu” one book questioned the publication of “>” one article published so far, when more than three years, no one ignored, after we have seen a strong interest in talking about “doubts”, contribute a little superficial suggestion, for reference only. First, “skepticism” can not arise if the bookmarks cited in “School Interpretation” are taken seriously. Fan Zhi book has been 1,200 years ago, to clean up its recorded mountains and towns, since the first use of previous works, which is an indispensable steps and ways. Hong Wen questioned the benefits, should be on the “school interpretation” of the book card to rebuttal, in order to establish a new premises for their own creation. The principle of “no break without breaking” is absolutely unavoidable. Regrettably, Hong Wen’s rejection of a large number of documentary evidence cited in the “Annotations” will inevitably put his methods and conclusions in debating the issue in an unbelievable position.