【作者】 张秀丽；

【导师】 王学典；

【作者基本信息】 山东大学 ， 史学理论及史学史， 2009， 博士

【摘要】 清末民初是中国传统史学向现代转型的重要阶段,在这一时期,史学摆脱传统经学的束缚,开始迈出了独立发展的第一步。与此同时,“科学”取代“经学”而获得了至高无上的地位。在科学的外在导引下,中国现代史学很快走上了科学化的道路,史学的自然科学化和社会科学化分别是中国现代史学发展过程中先后占据史学主流的两种科学化史学,而进入史家视野的也分别是这两种类型的科学化史学。然而,考察20世纪初期史学的整体面相,我们发现,在强烈的反科学主义思潮下,除了这两种科学化史学之外还存在另外一种史学形态,这就是人文主义史学。在20世纪初期的史学发展过程中,这一形态的史学若隐若现地在两种主流科学化史学的夹缝中寻求生存,并没有在史学史叙事中占据重要地位,也没有引起主流学者的充分关注,充其量将其作为反动、落后的一方给予了批判。事实上,虽然人文主义史学并不代表中国现代史学发展的潮流和趋势,也并不代表史学现代化过程的重要特征,但是作为史学发展的一个支流对中国现代史学的长期发展具有重要的建设意义,并为史学的进一步发展提供了合理的内核。其对史学学科性质的重新思考,对史学求真与致用功能的讨论以及对史家主体的强调都显示了此派学者对中国传统文化和史学的深沉的人文关怀。发掘中国现代史学中的人文因素,不仅对于全面了解中国现代史学发展的整体面相,而且对于当今史学的健康发展都具有重要的借鉴意义。首先对中国现代科学化史学的弊端给予批判和反省的是以章太炎为代表的国粹学派,他们除了接受西学的影响外,主要从传统史学里发掘出反思科学化史学的资源。国粹学派对乾嘉学派既有继承也有超越,在求真的基础上讲求致用,并在很多时候将求是的治学宗旨服从于致用,以致用为先。出于对传统文化的热爱,章太炎等人对顾颉刚为领袖的疑古运动不表苟同,在历史研究中更侧重于对文献资料和正史的征用;并对以梁启超为代表的进化史观派全盘否定传统史学并依据西方社会科学理论阐释历史的做法给予了批评。而中国现代史学上真正的人文主义运动发端于《学衡》,在继承中国传统人文因素的基础上,学衡诸子吸收了西方白璧德新人文主义的合理成分,以此作为强大的思想武器,企图从价值理性的角度来制衡以追求工具理性为目标的新文化运动所带来的道德失衡和人文精神的异化、失范。白璧德所提倡和宣扬的新人文主义不仅被他的中国学生所接受,而且在20世纪二三十年代已经在很大程度上内化到《学衡》这本杂志中,由《史地学报》、《史学杂志》、《国风》、《思想与时代》等柳门弟子所创办的各个刊物都奉行了这种人文主义思想。发端于文学领域的新人文主义运动,逐渐过渡到史学领域中人文史学与科学主义史学的对抗。柳诒徵作为学衡诸子中重要的一员,在与吴宓、梅光迪等人的学术交流中,逐渐对白璧德新人文主义有了基本的了解并与中国传统人文思想两相对照,形成了独特的人文主义史学理念,成为“东南学派”实际的精神领袖和核心力量,对于缔造“东南学派”的人文主义传统具有重要的作用。以柳门师生为主要力量的“东南学派”对史学有其独到的理解,走出了一条与科学化史学不一样的治史路径。他们首先向古史辨运动发起了挑战,以柳诒徵为代表的“东南学派”与以顾颉刚为领袖的古史辨运动之间在1921-1925年间有过三次交锋。柳诒徵在《史地学报》上先后两次对疑古运动进行了挑战,一是对胡适诸子研究的批判,二是对顾颉刚《说文》问题进行的批评,中间加上刘掞藜对顾颉刚古史考辨的争论,构成了北京大学与南高——东南大学的唯一的一次正面学术交锋。其次,在对史学学性质的理解上,东南诸子不同意将史学等同于科学尤其是自然科学的见解,他们既强调史学与科学之间的联系又注意二者之间的区别,在此基础上指出史贵求真,但又不止于求真,在承认史学科学性的基础上,强调史学所具有的人文属性。第三,对于自然科学化史学所倡导的为学问而学问的观点,东南诸子不表赞同。在对史学客观知识的追求上,东南诸子和主流科学化史学派并没有多少区别,他们并不否定史学求真的目的。然而,与主张“为学术而学术”的科学化史学派不同的是,东南诸子并没有止于求真,他们更关注和提倡史学经世致用的传统。求真虽然是史学研究的首要目标,但不是史学研究的最终目的。求真之外,史学当有“更重大更切要”的事业要做。在求得客观的历史知识之后,史学研究应有益于社会、人生。第四,对于科学化史家所提倡的“史学即是史料学”的观点,东南诸子给予了批判。他们对历史学的概念予以重新界定,并对史学、历史、史料等相关概念进行了严格的区分,并指出历史固然是出若干史实组成,但不是史实的简单堆积,对基本史实考订之后,还有史料之采择、前后彼此之关系等问题有待处理。仅仅依靠现存的史料无法还原历史,必须在考证史料的基础上作省察的工夫。在对“史学即是史料学”的观点进行修正的同时,对于史学概念的廓清和对史学理论的纵深发展有重要意义。“东南学派”所创办的《思想与时代》杂志提倡科学时代的人文主义,为钱穆等新儒家人文思想的形成和发展提供了坚实的学术阵地,钱穆在1940年代左右发表在《思想与时代》上的一系列文章标志着其学术研究的转向。在外缘柏格森生命哲学的同时,钱穆等人发掘了传统经学中宋明理学中的心性、义理之学来反对植根于乾嘉考据形态的新汉学,使得“东南学派”的这场人文主义运动得以延续传承。钱穆治史主张通与专的结合,强调历史的人文属性与特殊性,强调考据之外对义理的并重,在求真的基础上讲求经世致用,这都与史料学派的治史宗旨格格不入,甚至有点针锋相对的意味。此后,钱穆与傅斯年为代表的科学化主流史学之间一直存在着治学路径的歧见。新中国成立后,钱穆与傅斯年一去台湾开拓领域,一去香港白手创业,各守阵地,将这种学术分歧演变了下去。这种分歧甚至不因傅斯年的逝去而消失,双方各守门户以香港和台湾为阵地,各自继续发扬自己的治学宗旨。以章太炎厕身其中的国粹学派、以柳诒徵为代表的“东南学派”以及以钱穆文化史学为典型代表的新儒家,是中国现代科学主义史学大势下潜在的一股人文主义史学暗流。其兴起有一定的合理性,它向内承袭了传统经学中心性之学的宋学遗产,对外依托于西方新人文主义和反理性主义的潮流而起,而民族危机的特殊的时代背景则为其兴起提供了现实依据。将其与科学化史学相比较,我们发现人文主义史学具有如下特点:人文主义史学虽然在某些方面与唯物史观派史学的主张有契合之处,如对经世的强调,对史家主体的重视及对主观、哲学的注重等;但人文主义史学毕竟存在这样那样的局限和缺点,相对于社会科学化史学而言,它反对历史规律的普遍性;相对于自然科学化史学而言,双方有通与专、义理与考据、求真与致用、哲学主观的重视与否的区别。人文史家主张史贵博通,强调史学的整体性和系统性;主张考据基础上对义理的发挥和阐释,强调微言大义,因而更加注重史家主体的作用;主张从传统文化中发掘史学崛起的内在因素,强调发扬中国的人文传统和人文精神。当然,人文主义史学并不代表中国现代史学的发展趋势,其本身存在一定的局限。人文主义史家在强调历史学与自然科学的区别时,虽然肯定了史学的科学性,但将其限制在一定的范围内,这说明他们的理论仍有一定的局限。且他们将历史发展的本质归结为心理的、主观的一面,过分强调人的道德的、心理的作用,将民族信念、民族精神作为主要的发展动力而忽视甚至否定经济的、物质的因素,这就陷入了唯心主义的樊笼。更多还原

【Abstract】 At the end of the Qing Dynasty and at the Beginning of the Republic, the Chinese traditional history was undergoing an important transformation. During this period, history began to get rid of the shackle of the tradition. Under the guide of the modern science, the modern Chinese history soon embarked on a scientific path, the natural scientific tendency and the social scientific tendency of the modern history were the two kinds of important history at that time. However, under the trend of the scientific history, there still existed the other kind of history: Humanist Historiography. At the beginning of the 20 century, the humanist historiography didn’t catch hold of the heart of the historian, so it was criticized as the reactive and the uncultured side. Actually, although the humanist historiography didn’t represent the mainstream, it had an important meaning of long-term development of the construction of the modern history, and it offered logical ingredient for the development of the history. The re-consider of the character of the history and the discussion between reality and utility, the emphasis of the Historian’s Subjective Consciousness, all showed deep humanistic concern and very import for the development of the modern history.Zhang Taiyan was the first people who pay attention on the importance to the humanist historiography, except the influence of the west knowledge, he also take notice of the traditional humanities. The School of Thought in Traditional Chinese Culture not only emphasizes reality but also the utility, sometimes pay more attention on the utility. Because of the love of the tradition, Zhang Taiyan didn’t agree with the thought of Gu Jie-gang. And also because of the love of the tradition, they didn’t agree with the conception of Evolutional History by Liang Qichao.The real humanism movement of the modern history began at the journal of The Critical Review; beside absorbed of the traditional humanism; they also absorbed Irving Babbitt’s new humanism. They tried to use the value of rational to change the unbalance of the moral and the catabolism of the humanism from the abuse of the utility. The new humanism not only accepted by his Chinese students, but also instructed to china and inherited by the Journal of Historical and Geographical Society, History Magazine, Airs of the States, Thought and Times which were founded by Liu Yizheng and his students. The humanism movement was transferred from the field of literature to history. As an important member of the Critical of Review, Liu Yizheng gradually formed his special humanism with the academic communication of Wu Mi and Mei Guangdi, he became the elite and the spiritual leader of the Southeast School, and played an important role of the humanism tradition.As the main force of the Southeast School, Liu Yizheng and his students had its unique understanding of history, and originated a new rode of the study of history. During 1921-1925, they initiated three challenges to the Ku-shih-pien School. On the Journal of Historical and Geographical Society, Liu Yizheng challenged the Ku-shih-pien School for two times. One criticism pointed to the study of the ancient philosophical works by Hu Shi, the other criticism pointed to the problem of Shuo Wen by Gu jiegang. The last criticism occurred between Liu Shanli and Gu Jiegang, all these three challenges formed the only positive academic confrontation communication Between the Peking University and the Southeast University. Secondly, in understanding of the nature of historiography, the Southeast School didn’t agree to the historians of science in particular are equivalent to the natural sciences opinion. They not only emphasized the link between science and history, but also pay attention to the distinction. On the basis of the reality, they emphasized the humanities of history. Thirdly, the Southeast School didn’t agree with the opinion that the study only for study, in the pursuit of the subjective knowledge of history, The Southeast School didn’t have much difference between the main historiography. However, they paid more attention to promote the utility of history. Seeking the truth was the primary objective of their historical research, but it was not the ultimate goal of historical research. Besides seeking the truth, there still more significant point to be done. Obtained at an objective knowledge of history, the historian should be beneficial to the community life. Fourthly, the Southeast School criticized the conception that the history is the historical materials. They made the conception of history refined. Historian, history, and historical materials related to the concept of a strict distinction and pointed out that history is composed by a number of historical facts, but it is not a simple accumulation of facts, there still have mutual relations and other issues to be dealt with. Simply rely on existing materials can not be revert history, historians must reflect on the basis of the materials. The southeast School had done some amendment at the same time, and it was useful to the clearance and the development of the history. Since then, Qian Mu and Fu Sinian each represented the two kinds of history, after the construction of the Republic of China, Qian and Fu one went to Taiwan, one went to the Horig Kong to colonize their research. Such differences were not even disappeared due to Fu’s gone; the two sides utilize Hong Kong and Taiwan as the position to continue their research.The School of Thought in Traditional Chinese Culture, the Southeast School and the Neo-Confucianism which were delegated by Zhang Taiyan, Liu Yizhen and Qian Mu were a potential undercurrent of humanism history in modem Chinese history, its appearance certainly had a certain degree of rationality. It inherited the traditional heritage of Songxue, it also absorbed the new humanism and anti-rationalism, while the national crisis provided realistic basis in a special environment. Compared with scientific history, we find that humanist historians have the following characteristics: Although the history of humanism and historical materialism has the same idea in some respects, such as the emphasis of the utility, the emphasis of the people and the philosophy, humanist history still has some kinds of limitation and weakness. Relative to the social scientific history, it opposed to the universal law of history, and eventually integrated into mentalist. Relative to the natural sciences of historiography, one emphasized general history, utility and one emphasized special history and reality.Of course, the humanism side of the modern Chinese history didn’t reprehensive the mainstream history and also had its limitations. When emphasized the differences between history and natural science, although they admitted its reality, limited it into some scope, what means limitation of their theory. Beside, they over-emphasized the moral and due the development of the history to the psychological and subjective aspects of people, which slumped into idealist trap.更多还原