中国史学与西方史学之分歧  

The Divergence between Chinese Historiography and Western Historiography

作　　者：杜维运[1] 

机构地区：[1]香港大学中文系

出　　处：《学术月刊》2008年第1期120-125,共6页Academic Monthly

摘　　要：中国史学与西方史学是世界史学中的最大遗产。两者各自独立发展两千余年,不通声息;两者文化背景不同,地理环境殊异,其分歧极为明显。中国数千年设立的及时记事的史官,留下了大量珍贵的原始史料,又及时修史、及时保存,遂使中国的历史著作丰富精详、地位稳定,"历史若文学"之论在中国势难出现。西方没有史官记事的制度,文字的记录缺如。史学家不得已利用修辞学的方法以制造情节,于是,史学家同时扮演了小说家、剧作家的角色,虚构、想象习以为常,没有历史判断的观念.缺乏历史真实的意识,历史的发展归之简单的因素,历史的作品流于史诗、小说的形式,后现代主义者因此认为在历史上没有真理、没有客观、没有真实,也就不难理解、不足为奇了。Chinese historiography and western historiography are both the biggest legacy in the world＇s studies of history. Both have been developed independently and individually for more than two thousand years. The divergence of these two is quite obvious. The Chinese historians have kept a great deal of chronicles, which has made an abundant original source for its stable status. There has been no such system as keeping chronicles by historians, and the historians have to coin plots by way of rhetoric, so it is not strange that the post-modernists believe that there are no truth, no objectivity, and no real facts.

关 键 词：史官 记事 中国史学 西方史学 分歧 

分 类 号：K09[历史地理—历史学]