乾嘉史学与兰克史学比较研究

发布时间：2018-04-11 08:34

本文选题：乾嘉史学 + 实事求是　；参考：《曲阜师范大学》2013年硕士论文

【摘要】：乾嘉史学是中国传统史学总结集成性的杰出代表；兰克史学是近代西方史学的先进典范，一古一今，一东一西，看似毫不相及。其实，二者虽是中西不同时空背景的产物，然其治史理念与方法却有诸多离奇的相似。如果我们把18世纪的乾嘉史学视为中国现代新史学建立可供借鉴的最直接的史学资源，比之于西方史学，19世纪德国的兰克史学在西方史学史上也有类似的地位，它也是西方现代史学直接批判和继承的文化遗产。在西方，19世纪向来被誉为“历史学的世纪”，兰克史学则是其中最杰出的代表。兰克作为19世纪德国和西方的史学大师，他的史学迄今为止仍在发挥着世界性的影响，即使到了20世纪下半叶西方新史学如日中天的时候，兰克及其学派的影响也未曾泯灭。兰克史学以“如实直书”的客观主义原则著称，重视史料的考辨和整理，在准确应用史料的基础上把握可靠的历史事实。他坚信历史是一门科学，历史学者只要依据“如实直书”的原则，就可以认识历史真相，而确认事实、描述事实，最终使发生在过去的历史事实在文字上还原，这正是历史研究的重点。值得注意的是，兰克史学自19世纪末东传之后，与中国史学结下了不解之缘，20世纪中国史学的开展，也是在兰克史学的影响下进行的。可以说，乾嘉历史考证学以及东来的兰克史学，是20世纪中国史家构创新史学所依托的最重要的两大资源，王国维、陈寅恪、傅斯年等史家那里常常看到这种“双重”影响。言至此，我们会发现，尽管乾嘉历史考证学与西方兰克史学在时间上相差近一个世纪，，然两者在治史原则、治史方法、基本精神、后世影响等方面具有较多的“相似性”，而且两者在20世纪的中国甚至还有沟通对话的过程。对乾嘉史学和兰克史学进行比较研究，互作参照，我们势必会对两者有更独特全面的认识。总之，乾嘉史学与兰克史学虽不同“时空”，然就两者诸多“共性”而言，对其进行比较研究完全是有可能的，而且当我们要对两者作出价值考量时，这种比较也显得大有必要。正是有鉴于此，我们认为可以对乾嘉史学、兰克史学兴起的时代背景、史学理论与方法、地位影响等诸多问题进行系统比较。这种比较研究不仅能深化我们对乾嘉史学、兰克史学基本内容和性质的认识，而且还具有极其重要的理论意义：在对二者进行系统比较后，我们提出了“兰克史学是近代西方史学的杰出典范”、“乾嘉史学标志着中国‘前近代’史学的开启”、“中国近代史学的起步在乾嘉史学与兰克史学的交互影响下进行”等新论说；我们还借鉴乾嘉史学与兰克史学成败得失的经验教训，对历史的“主观”与“客观”、历史的“求真”与“致用”等问题进行了深刻反思。
[Abstract]:Qianjia historiography is an outstanding representative of the integration of Chinese traditional historiography; Rank historiography is an advanced model of modern western historiography.In fact, although they are the product of different time and space backgrounds, there are many strange similarities between them.If we regard Qianjia historiography in the 18th century as the most direct source of historiography that can be used for reference in the establishment of modern Chinese new historiography, it has a similar position in the history of Western historiography than the Lanck historiography of Germany in the 19th century.It is also a cultural heritage directly criticized and inherited by western modern historiography.In the 19th century in the West, it has always been known as the "century of history", among which Rank historiography is the most outstanding representative.As a great historian of Germany and the West in the 19th century, Rank's historiography is still exerting a worldwide influence. Even in the second half of the 20th century, when the western new historiography was in the ascendancy, the influence of Rank and his school did not vanish.Lancke's historiography is famous for its objectivism principle of "truthfulness and straightness", which attaches importance to the textual research and collation of historical data, and grasps reliable historical facts on the basis of accurate application of historical data.He firmly believes that history is a science, and that historians can recognize the truth of history, confirm facts, describe facts, and ultimately restore historical facts that have occurred in the past in words as long as they are based on the principle of "truthfulness and straightness."This is the focus of historical research.It is worth noting that since the end of the 19th century, Rank historiography has established an inextricable relationship with Chinese historiography and the development of Chinese historiography in the 20th century was also carried out under the influence of Rank historiography.It can be said that the historical textual research of Qianjia and the Rank historiography from the east are the two most important resources for the 20th century Chinese historians to construct innovative historiography, Wang Guowei, Chen Yinke, Fu Sinian and other historians often see this kind of "double" influence.At this point, we will find that, although the historical textual research of Qianjia and the Western Rank historiography are nearly a century apart in time, they have more "similarities" in the principles, methods, basic spirit, and influence of later generations in the principles of historical research, the methods of historical research, the basic spirit, the influence of later generations, and so on.And both in the 20 th century China even have the process of communication and dialogue.Through the comparative study of Qianjia historiography and Rank historiography, we will certainly have a more unique and comprehensive understanding of the two.In a word, although Qianjia historiography and Rank historiography are different in "time and space," but in terms of their many "commonalities," it is entirely possible to make a comparative study of them, and when we want to consider the value of both,Such comparisons are also necessary.In view of this, we think that we can make a systematic comparison of the historical study of Qianjia, the background of the rise of Rank historiography, the theory and method of historiography, the influence of status, and so on.This comparative study can not only deepen our understanding of the basic content and nature of Qianjia historiography and Rank historiography, but also have extremely important theoretical significance: after the systematic comparison between the two,We put forward that "Rank historiography is an outstanding model of modern western historiography" and "Qianjia historiography marks the beginning of Chinese 'pre-modern' historiography"."the beginning of modern Chinese historiography is carried out under the interaction of Qianjia historiography and Rank historiography" and so on. We also draw lessons from the success or failure of Qianjia historiography and Rank historiography, and make a reference to the "subjective" and "objective" of history.The problems of seeking truth and making use of history are deeply reconsidered.
【学位授予单位】：曲阜师范大学
【学位级别】：硕士
【学位授予年份】：2013
【分类号】：K092;K091

【参考文献】