论文部分内容阅读
钱穆、张荫麟均为近代撰写中国通史的名家,而且治学追求博通,不满足于考据,而有志于“通史之学”。不过两人的实践路径和具体偏向却大有不同。张荫麟受乃师梁启超的影响,偏重“文化史”内容的书写和研究,却不以“文化史”相标榜。钱穆初时并不赞成张氏的这种做法,认为通史应重政治。《国史大纲》延续此意,但已开始注重历史背后的文化精神和内涵。此后,续有《中国文化史导论》和《中国历史研究法》之作,最终强调通史即文化史,并在精神上隐约与梁启超20年代的“文化史”主张相合。不过,张荫麟毕竟受西方史学浸淫较深,对于梁、钱意在弘扬本国文化的“文化史”路径有所保留,而带有更多客观史学的色彩。钱、张二人“通史之学”的理路发展如此曲折缠绕,正透露出民国学术发展的多歧性和变动性。
Qian Mu and Zhang Yinlin are masters of writing general history of China in modern times, and their pursuing of liberal arts is not satisfied with the test. However, the practical path and specific bias of the two are quite different. Under the influence of Liang Qi-chao, Zhang Yin-lin focuses on the writing and research of the content of “cultural history”, but not “cultural history”. Qian Mu did not agree with Zhang’s approach in the first place, believing that the general history should be emphasized on politics. The “Outline of National History” continues this idea, but it has begun to pay attention to the cultural spirit and connotation behind history. Since then, there have been “Chinese Introduction to Cultural History” and “Chinese History Research Law” for the final emphasis on the history of the cultural history, and spiritually vague and Liang Qichao 20 “cultural history ” proposition. However, Zhang Yinlin is, after all, deeply immersed in Western historiography and has more reservations about the “cultural history” of Liang and Qian in carrying forward their own culture, but with more objective and historical color. Money, Zhang two “History of the General School ” development of the road so twists and turns, is revealing the academic diversity of the Republic of China and changes.