新史学和新汉学

新史学和新汉学:

中国现代史学的两种形态及其起伏

王学典

(山东大学文史哲研究院,山东济南250100)

[关键词] 新史学;新汉学;学术史;社会经济史;古史辨;梁启超;胡适[摘要] 中国现代史学是同时循着两条几乎完全不同的路线一步步产生出来的。从乾嘉汉学逐步演化而来的化经为史的过程,是其中的路线之一;生发于“西洋史学”、对中国学术传统而言意味着炉灶重起的过程,则是其中的另一条路线。前者是所谓的“新汉学”,后者是所谓的“新史学”。“新史学”是指向历史本体的,“新汉学”则从一开始就是着眼于历史记录的。这两条路径起初各有轨辙,齐头并进,但由于“新汉学”凭借深厚,一段时间内压倒了“新史学”;而“新史学”因为符合社会历史潮流、国际学术潮流,又后来居上,再立潮头。“新史学”中经“唯物史观派史学”,如今已经开花结果为“中国社会经济史研究”;“新汉学”最富有象征性的学术遗产,事实上已经归并到当今的“古籍整理”和“史料学”学科中来了。“新汉学”所主要致力的“文本考据”工作,已变为现代学术构成中的一个部分,治学过程中的一个初始环节;在“文本考据”之外和之后,实际上还存在一个更大的学问世界。

[中图分类号]K092=6[文献标识码]A[文章编号]0583-0214(2008)05-0005-21

The New History and the New Philology: The T wo Patterns of Modern Chinese History and

Their Fluctuations

WANG Xue-dian

(Institute of Literature, History and Philosophy, Shandong University, Jinan250100, Shandong, China)

Keywords:the New History; the New Philology; academic history; social economic history; Debates on Ancient History；Liang Qichao; Hu Shi

Abstract: The modern Chinese history emerged gradually in two almost quite different paths simultaneously. One is the course evolved from the textual research of the Qianlong and Jiaqing period step by step which transformed the classics into history; the other is the course originated from the Western history which signified a fresh start to the Chinese academic tradition. The former is the so-called “New Philology”, and the latter is the so-called “New History”. The“New History” directs towards the noumenon of history, and the “New Philology” focuses itself on the historical re-cords from the beginning. At first, each of these two paths had its own track and advanced side by side. Yet owing to the profound groundwork of the “New Philology”, it overwhelmed the“New History”for a time. Afterwards, because the “New History”matched the social historical trend and the international academic trend, it surpassed the

“New Phi lology ”and became the main tide once again. Passing through the “Materialist History”, the“New History”has now born the fruit of the studies of Chinese social economic history. Meanwhile, the most symbolic academic heritage of the “New Philology” has now merged into the “collation of the ancient classics”and“study of historical materials”of nowadays. The “textual criticism”which the “New Philology”commits itself to has changed into a part of the modern academic constitution, or an initial link of the research course; besides and after the “textual criticism”, there actually ex ists a larger academic world.

自从梁启超提出“新史学”这一概念之后,学术史名家们大都用这一概念来指称此后的所有史学现象、史学运动、史学形态。笔者认为,在概述或纵论整个中国史学史时,可以用“新史学”来指称“20世纪中国史学”,以与两千年来的所谓旧史学特别是二十四史相区别;但在叙述现代史学本身时,则不宜笼统地再用“新史学”来指称清末民初以来的历史学,因为清末民初以来的历史杂、学派众多、方向迥异、多元并立,难以一概而论,必须作进一步的精细分析。鉴于此点,笔者感到,有必要重新启用“新汉学”这一概念,并且认为只有在“新汉学”概念的映衬下,“新史学”方能显示出它的原始意义。1同时,“新汉学”概念的启用,也可能会使得在很长时间内被“新史学”概念所掩盖的现代史学的真实进程、真实面貌和真实构成得以部分彰显。

应该说,20世纪的最初十几年,也即通常所说的“清末民初”那一