【作者】 李凌翔；

【导师】 王学典；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 史学理论及史学史， 2008， 博士

【摘要】 新中国成立之初的十七年,是20世纪中国历史学一个转折的年代。政治和社会的变革推动了史学界声势浩大的破旧立新:积极宣传研究历史为现实服务,大力提倡运用规范的理论解释历史,大规模展开对历史理论问题的讨论,对“旧史学”加以批判改造。中国历史学的主流,逐渐由中国近代以来逐渐形成的、注重通过史料的考辨和搜讨研究历史的实证式研究,转变为强调历史解释、特别是运用既定的理论解释历史的历史研究方式。这种变化重新塑造了中国历史学,也伴生了教条主义和实用主义等偏差。——这是现有研究所提供的建国初期中国历史学的基本面貌。在对建国初期中国历史学的已有研究中,研究方式多为总体性的概述,缺乏具体的考察;研究视野主要集中于马克思主义史学主导地位的确立及其得失,没有充分重视其他各方面的内容;研究明显倾向于凸显建国前后历史学的变革,对其历史延续性未给予足够的估计。这些研究偏向在一定程度上限制了人们对建国初期中国历史学全面、深入的认识。虽然在外在因素主导下,建国后的中国历史学发生了一系列变化;但就学术层面而言,这种变化仍然基于历史学既有的发展程度和研究基础。建国初期的中国历史学延续了此前历史学的部分特征和传统,历史研究在内部和深层次上保持着一定的稳定性。以强调对史料的考辨证实和搜讨扩充为主要特征的实证式研究,一度成为建国前主流的历史研究方式,形成了中国历史学的现代实证传统。其对史料的重视和对史料研究的强调,在建国前已成为公认的治史基准。建国后,现代实证传统在历史学的不同层面、以不同的形式、不同程度地保存了下来,成为新中国历史学的一个重要渊源,并融入到新中国史学中构成了其重要组成部分。本文从史料整理、历史研究和史学观念三个层面,对现代实证传统在建国后的延续和演变分别进行了考察。(一)在史料层面,建国后有组织、大规模的史料整理和更专门、深入的史料研究,直接继承了现代实证传统对史料和史料研究的重视。深受现代实证传统影响、擅长史料研究的历史学家,在这一领域做了大量切实的工作,发挥了主要作用。这其中包括:(1)建国初期,由国家主导,在专门机构的组织和总体规划下,运用现代的手段和统一的规范,对包括“二十四史”等大型丛书在内的中国传统古籍开始了系统的整理和出版。有组织有计划的全面古籍整理,进一步确立了近代以来对古籍的史料定位,将古籍改造成为方便现代人使用的形式,以便于充分发挥其史料价值。对古籍的整理和研究也明确以服务现实为目的,被视为资料性和参考性的工作,并发展成为一门专业知识。(2)一系列专题资料汇编的编纂,既是新中国史学界最早展开的工作,也构成了建国初期史学建设一个突出的方面,显示出史料搜集整理已成为历史研究展开的首要环节。建国初期的专题资料汇编,继承了重视史料辨析和搜集整理的实证传统,并进一步打破史料的原有形式,以历史问题为单位重新组织编排,直接服务于相关的历史研究,进一步具有了现代史学的研究特征。汇编专题资料,还与历史专题研究形成互动,使史料研究本身也带有了一定的历史研究的性质。(3)史料研究的方法,在建国后也得到了进一步深化,史料研究成为了更为专门的研究领域,同时也逐渐形成了较为系统的史料研究专门方法,包括:还原史料的形成和变迁状况、分析史料的内容形式及相关制度、对史料进行综合研究和历史解读等。这些方法更注重将史料放在历史中加以研究,将史料视为特定历史环境和条件下的产物,使对史料的研究与对历史的研究相符相承。史料观念的深化和史料研究的专门化,推动了对史料的自身理论——史料学的思考,史料和史料研究被明确区别于历史和历史研究,同时它们又密切关联,史料学被认为是历史学的辅助。(二)在历史研究层面,注重对史料的考辨和搜讨虽已不再是史学研究最突出的特征,但对基本史料和具体事实的研究并没有变得无关紧要,而是被公认为展开各项研究的首要步骤,构成了历史研究的基础环节。在建国初期的历史研究中,对史料和史实的实证研究在各研究领域仍占有相当分量,并在一定程度上推动了各领域研究的进展。这其中包括:(1)在建国初的一系列热点问题讨论中,尽管讨论的焦点是历史理论问题,但对史料和具体历史问题的研究依然扮演了重要角色:帮助讨论者更广泛和更准确地把握相关史料,并通过对具体历史问题的深入分析,深化了对相关历史理论的认识和理解。尤其是在建国初期史学界对理论自身的认识和理解尚不成熟的状况下,对史料和具体历史问题的研究,在相当程度上推动了讨论的深化。(2)断代史研究需要建立在对一朝文献和史实系统梳理的基础之上,建国后的历史学延续和巩固了建国前初步形成的断代研究的格局,在各个断代史领域卓有成就的历史学家,无不在对相关朝代的文献整理和史实清理方面进行了大量的工作:或者系统整理丰富的史料,比勘文献,比证史实;或者广搜博览,以补文献和史实的不足。这些实证性研究都扎实推进了建国后对各个历史时期的深入探讨。(3)专题史研究往往打破原有的记载形式和内容体系,以新的方式组织史料,从而对史料的准备提出更高的要求。建国前边疆史和社会经济史是相对活跃的专题研究领域,前者得益于近代新材料的发现与利用,后者则借助了现代社会科学理论。建国初期的民族史研究在一定程度上继承了边疆史研究注重挖掘新材料的特点,并进一步引入人类学的知识和方法;社会经济史研究则在广泛搜集和不断拓展史料的基础上深入推进。(三)在史学观念的层面,无论是建国前的现代实证传统,还是建国后的马克思主义史学,都对历史学自身问题的探讨缺乏自觉。但这并不意味着在这一时期史学观念的缺失,任何时候和任何形式的历史研究都有其研究理论的支撑。建国前后的历史研究模式虽然有一定差异,但在史学理论体系和史学观念上多有相通之处。这其中包括:(1)承认历史研究的主体性,在历史研究中具有问题意识和意义追求。20世纪三四十年的中国史学界逐渐强调历史研究应具有问题意识,并将强烈的现实关怀投入其中;在现代社会科学的影响下,通过认识中国社会自身的历史进而认识中国社会现实的研究取向也广为接受。这些与现实密切关联的问题意识,与建国后研究历史为现实服务的明确诉求并没有根本冲突,使得大多数“旧史家”很快适应了“新史学”。(2)认为历史研究主体应通过历史研究,解释和说明历史的内在原因。建国后史学界批评此前“旧史学”的一个重要方面就是其无法说明历史。实际上,建国前现代实证传统占主流的史学界并未忽视对历史的解释和说明。其中既有继承中国史学传统,将考史与论史相结合的主张;又有受时代思潮影响,将历史考据与运用理论解释历史相配合的研究取向。正是由于抱有解释和说明历史的期待,相当数量的“旧史家”在建国后才很快投入到历史理论问题的讨论中;并基于解释历史这一基本立场,对理论本身进行了反思。(3)将历史研究客体视为纵向贯通、横向联系的有机整体,从而认为应对历史加以整体把握和系统认识。马克思主义史学将历史预设为具有内在决定力量并贯穿着客观规律的运动过程和完整系统。现代实证传统主导下的史学界虽没有如此严整的理论体系,但对历史的看法与此有相似性。表现在治史观念中,较多继承了中国史学传统的老一辈史学家注重从整体上把握历史和融会贯通,受现代社会科学影响的年轻一代历史研究者则注重将历史作为一个知识系统加以认识。尽管发生了一系列变化,但将建国初期的中国历史学置于整个中国史学的现代进程加以观察,就会发现其“承前启后”的意味超过了“新旧转换”的变革。建国初期的中国历史学与建国前保持了密切关联,现代实证传统在建国初期得以延续并融入到“新史学”之中就体现了这种关联。从更长远的意义上说,它也从一个角度显示了中国现代史学在建国初期的继承与嬗替。更多还原

【Abstract】 There was a transition in the historiography of PRC in 1949-1965. The beginning of the founding of New China 17 years is a turning point in China’s historiography of 20th century. Almost every part of the historiography was changed. The revolution in politics and society also changed historiography. Political and social changes in the history of academia to promote a massive Pojiulixin: positive publicity on historical reality, vigorously promote the use of standardized interpretation of the theory of historiography, the history of large-scale start the discussion, the old historiography to be critical of. The mainstream of Chinese historiography, China gradually evolving modern times, through the historical data on the Study and Research found discuss the historiography of empirical research, historical interpretation of that change, in particular the use of the established theory to explain the history of historical research methods.Such changes reshaping of the Chinese historiography, also associated with the dogmatism and pragmatism, and other deviations.This is the existing Institute for the founding of the early historiography of China’s basic outlook. As a research, it was ordered that the new should substitute the old everywhere and completely. Every forms of non-Historical-Materialism historiography were animadverted. The Historical -Materialism historiography was advocated intensively. The historians were educated how to research history with the new way, especially with the scientific theory. Great discussions about the theory of historiography expanded all over the school. Historical-Materialism historiography changed from fringe to the mainstream. And the positivism historiography changed from mainstream to the fringe. The changing figured a new kind of historiography in China. Of course, a lot of abuse following. All of them, dogmatism and pragmatism were serious.Despite of being leaded by the exterior causation, the historiography of PRC in 1949-1966 kept something from pre-PRC. There is stability in the interior and deep-seated of historiography. The stability in learning brought a lot of contents from the historiography of pre-PRC to the historiography of PRC in 1949-1965. There is a lot of sameness in the historiography of PRC in 1949-1965 and the historiography of pre-PRC. The modern tradition of positivism from the historiography of pre-PRC also came to the historiography of PRC in 1949-1965. The modern tradition of positivism was an important part of the historiography of PRC in 1949-1965. In the founding of the early Chinese historiography has been the study, researcher way for more general overview, the lack of specific inspection; vision mainly in the study of Marxist historian and established the dominant position of the gains and losses, not pay full attention to other aspects. Study clearly inclined to highlight the founding of historiography before and after the change, given its historical continuity is not enough estimate. These studies tend to a certain extent, limited the people of the founding of the early Chinese history comprehensive, in-depth understanding. Although the external factors under the guidance of the founding of the Chinese historiography after a series of changes, but on the academic level, such changes are still based on the history of the existing level of development and research base. The founding of the early Chinese historiography continuation of the earlier part of the history and characteristics of traditional, historical research in internal and Shencengcishang maintain a certain degree of stability.The Working on the historical materials was a very important constitution of the historiography of PRC in 1949-1965.Which continue the tradition from the historiography of pre-PRC. The Working on the historical materials depended on the historian benefited from the modern positivism tradition of the historiography of pre-PRC too. The Working on the historical materials the historiography of PRC in 1949-1965 including: the reprint of the ancient books, the compilation of the materials of special subject, the deeper research methods and theory.About historical materials, after the founding of organized, large-scale historical data collation and more specialized and in-depth historical research, directly inherited the tradition of modern empirical research on historical data and historical importance. Historical materials and the deepening of the concept of specialized research, and promote the historical data of its own theory - of historical thinking, historical data and historical research be clearly distinguished from history and historical research, they are also closely associated at the same time. Affected by the modern empirical tradition, good at study of historical data historian, in this area to do a lot of practical work, played a major role.The positivism tradition in historiography was another important constitution of the historiography of PRC in 1949-1965. Which including: the emphasizing of materials and speciality in discussion; the research of special period on a base of plenty of materials; the new materials and the research of special subject. About historical research, the focus on historical data of the Study and found no longer a review had been the most prominent historians study the characteristics, but the basic historical facts and specific research has not become irrelevant, but acknowledged that the study started The first step, a historical study of the basic link. In the history of the founding of the initial study, the historical facts and empirical research in the field of research is still occupied a certain weight, and to some extent in various fields to promote the progress of the studies. Study of the History of the topic often break the original form and content of the records system, a new way of historical organizations, the historical materials on the proposed higher requirements. Before the founding of frontier history and socio-economic history is a relatively active area of research, which benefited from the recent discovery of new materials and use, while the latter with a modern social science theory. The early history of the founding of the national study to a certain extent, inherited the frontier history of mining on the characteristics of new materials, and further introduction of anthropological knowledge and methods of research in socio-economic history of extensive collection of historical materials and continuously expand on the basis of in-depth advance.From the idea of historiography, there were a lot of common grounds on the historiography with pre-PRC and PRC. Which including: the research with questions and purposes; explain the history and find course; take the history as a whole and a system.In the history of the concept level, whether it is before the founding of the modem empirical tradition, or after the founding of the Marxist historians, the history of their own problems of lack of conscious. But this does not mean that in this period of history of the concept of loss, any time and any form of historical research has the support of its theory.Before and after the founding of the historical research model although there are certain differences, but in the history and theory of history on the concept of a more things in common. Recognize the historical study of the subject, in a study of the history and significance of the pursuit of awareness of the problem. Sansishinian the 20th century Chinese historiography scholars gradually stressed that the issue of historical research should have a sense of caring and strong sense of reality in which, in the modern social sciences under the influence of Chinese society through their own understanding of the history of China’s further understanding of social reality Orientation is also widely accepted. With the reality of these issues closely related to awareness, and after the founding of historical research services to the clear demands of reality and there is no fundamental conflict.In conclusion, there were more common grounds than distinctions in the historiography with pre-PRC and PRC, in view of the whole processing of the modern historiography in China. Despite a series of changes, it will be the founding of the early Chinese history at the entire history of modern China to observe the process, we will find that their "the future" means more than the "new conversion" of change, the founding of the modern empirical tradition in the early integration and the continuation of the "New History" to reflect on this association. From a long-term sense, it also shows that from a perspective of the founding of modern Chinese historiography in the early inheritance.The historiography of PRC in 1949-1965 was just a continuing part of the modern historiography in China.更多还原