梁启超、钱穆历史人物研究之异同  

Similarities and Differences Between LIANG Qi-chao's and QIAN Mu's Studies of Historical Figures

作　　者：邬春红 

机构地区：[1]安徽大学历史系,安徽合肥230039

出　　处：《安庆师范学院学报（社会科学版）》2015年第5期121-124,共4页Journal of Anqing Teachers College(Social Science Edition)

摘　　要：梁启超和钱穆的同名著作《中国历史研究法》都对历史人物的研究作了一定的叙述,但研究历史人物的方法却不尽相同。对历史人物的分类,梁启超较传统,钱穆较新潮;对历史中少数人作用的看法,梁启超体现着一种矛盾史观,钱穆则是一种英雄史观;对于研究历史人物作用的看法,梁启超强调了时势造英雄,而钱穆则强调了英雄造时势;关于历史人物研究与文化研究的关系,梁启超强调二者的平等地位,钱穆则强调文化对其他领域的主导作用;关于历史人物研究的侧重点问题,梁启超同等看待事业成功或失败的人物,将各种因素综合在一个人物身上,钱穆则更为看重失败不得志人物的作用,强调个人意志的作用。In the books both named Methodology in the Study of the Chinese History,LIANG Qi-chao and QIAN Mu told something about the study of historical figures,but they adopted different methods. For the classification,LIANG Qi-chao＇s method was traditional while QIAN Mu＇s approach was novel. In terms of the roles of some figures in history,LIANG Qi-chao adopted a contradictory view of history while QIAN Mu had a heroic concept of history. As for the study of the roles of historical figures,LIANG Qi-chao stressed that the times produced their heroes while QIAN Mu hold the opposite view. As to the relationship between historical figure studies and culture studies,LIANG Qi-chao emphasized their equal status while QIAN Mu emphasized the dominant role of culture in other fields. When it came to the issues of significance in their studies,the former treated both successful and failed figures equally and integrated all factor into one person while the latter stressed the role of the failed people with the emphasis on individual will.

关 键 词：梁启超 钱穆 《中国历史研究法》 

分 类 号：K03[历史地理—历史学] K092