重识鲁迅“剽窃”流言中的人证与书证问题

缠绕了鲁迅10年的剽窃流言虽然早已熄灭,但这些莫须有的流言在当下又有沉渣泛起的迹象。笔者根据所搜寻的相关史料,详加考辨,反驳了种种不实之说。从人证方面说,相信张凤举,不如相信陈源;相信陈源,不如相信胡适;相信胡适,不如相信盐谷温。但最终也可以说,相信人,不如更相信书。比较鲁迅的《中国小说史略》与盐谷温的《中国文学概论讲话》,二者在风格、性质、史料、论断等方面都存在根本差异,所谓“剽窃”之说,完全是捕风捉影,无稽之谈。

Rethinking of the Witnesses and Evidences for the Rumors of Lu Xun's "Plagiarism"

Though the ten - year - long rumors about Lu Xun＇ s ＂plagiarism＂ have disappeared long before, these groundless accusations, however, have recently reappeared. The author of the present paper denounces the various unfounded charges through a detailed analysis of the relevant historical materials retrieved by him. With regard to witnesses, to believe in Zhang Fengju is not as good as to believe in Chen Yuan; to believe in Chen Yuan is not as good as to believe in Hu Shih; to believe in Hu Shih is not as good as to believe in Yan Guwen. But finally it is reasonable to say that to believe what one says is not as good as to believe the pertaining books. By comparing Lu Xun＇ s A Brief History of Chinese Fiction with Yan Guwen＇s Lectures on the Outline of Chinese Literature, it is selfevident that both of them are fundamentally different from each other in terms of style, texture, historical documents made use of, argumentation and so on. The assertion of Lu Xun＇ s ＂plagiarism＂ is totally based on hearsay and fantastic talks.