经史嬗递与重建中华文明体系之路径——以傅斯年与蒙文通学术分合为中心  

The Transformation of "Classical Studies and Historiography" and the Path to the Reconstruction of the System of Chinese Civilization:A Study of the Disagreements and Agreements between Fu Sinian and Meng Wentong

作　　者：张凯[1] 

机构地区：[1]浙江大学历史学系,浙江杭州310028

出　　处：《浙江大学学报（人文社会科学版）》2014年第2期26-40,共15页Journal of Zhejiang University:Humanities and Social Sciences

基　　金：教育部人文社会科学青年基金项目(13YJC770065);"浙江省之江青年社科学者行动计划"资助项目(T6-3)

摘　　要：晚清民国时期,西学东渐,新旧嬗替,转化传统与引介西学成为重建中华文明体系重要的知识与思想资源。傅斯年、蒙文通二人皆经历了出入今古、由经入史的学思历程。傅斯年贯彻以历史观点探究中国文化演变,考察思想意识历时演进的轨迹,估价与建构文明价值;蒙文通阐发儒学义理与经史之学,落实与实践"明体达用"之儒学以塑造中华文明主体性。若以傅斯年与蒙文通的学术分合与经史纠葛为中心,考察民国学界划分夷夏、辨证性命、沟通汉宋的关联与旨趣,或可阐发"通识"与"专家"、"求其是"与"求其古"等学术理念,重估进而转化中华文明体系的多元路径,为实现"以国故整理科学"的学术转向提供参考。Fu Sinian launched a reform campaign at the Department of History of Beijing University in the early 1930＇s. In 1933, Meng Wentong was employed by the department, but was dismissed merely two years later due to his ＂Jinwen Historiography＂ which was incompatible with the ＂New Historiography＂ advocated by Fu Sinian. Fu believed that modern historiography was the study of materials, thus he paid more attention to periodization, monographic studies, and the discovery and interpretation of new materials. However, Meng tended to mix history with philosophy, and classics with historiography, so he usually based his research on traditional documents instead of the new materials which he regarded only as a kind of embellishment.

关 键 词：经史关系 中华文明 傅斯年 蒙文通 学术分合 新史学 民国学界 

分 类 号：K092[历史地理—历史学]