论文部分内容阅读
梁启超以历史解释、史学致用、社会整体、科际整合以及历史编纂等为基本要素所粗略建构的“新史学”范式,在“五四”以后并未被新历史考证学终结,而是得到继承、拓展和深化。这一时期,梁启超本人的变化体现在思想资源获取途径以及中西文化态度方面,而非治史范式的转移。与此同时,许多学者沿着相似路径继续探索,在新的时代条件下,广泛摄取西方学术养分,实现了新史学理论的二次提升。故此,新史学与新历史考证学、马克思主义史学一齐构成中国现代史学的三大干流,且三者之间并非截然对立、水火不容,而是相互渗透、相互影响。
Liang Qichao’s “new historiography” paradigm roughly constructed from the basic elements of historical interpretation, historical utilization, social integration, inter-disciplinary integration and historical compilation has ended up with the new historical textual research after the May Fourth Incident , But to be inherited, expanded and deepened. During this period, Liang Qichao’s own changes were manifested in the ways of acquiring ideological resources and the cultural attitudes of China and the West, not the transfer of the mode of governing history. In the meantime, many scholars continue to explore along similar paths. Under the conditions of the new era, they widely absorb Western academic nutrients and achieve the second ascent of the new historiography theory. Therefore, both New Historiography and New History Textual Research and Marxist Historiography constitute the three main streams of modern Chinese history, and the three are not diametrically opposed to each other, yet permeate each other and influence each other.