“新史学”视域中的缪凤林学术——兼与梁启超《中国历史研究法》之比较  

Miao Fenglin's Learning in the View of New History:In Comparison with Liang Qichao's ZHONGGUO LISHI YANJIUFA

作　　者：颜克成 陈勇[2] 

机构地区：[1]云南大学历史与档案学院,云南昆明650091 [2]上海大学文学院,上海200444

出　　处：《史学史研究》2017年第3期41-52,共12页Journal of Historiography

基　　金：国家社科基金一般项目"钱穆与民国学术研究"(项目编号:16BZS003)阶段性成果;云南民族大学引进人才项目;2016年青年基金项目阶段性成果

摘　　要：缪凤林初期治学对西方诸多史家呈现出兼收并蓄的学术状态:史学"求真"中有美国伍德布里奇、伯恩斯,英国牛津学派鲍威尔的论述;史学"致用"里有"实用主义"大师詹姆士的主张;史学方法中对史料的审查又有兰克的身影;而史学重归纳与演绎的方法特征又有杜威的源头。但是在这驳杂的史学讨论中,缪氏如梁启超一样经历着不同的变化:历史为科学、寻求历史发展的律则、重视归纳、演绎等思想多有表露;而随后一改初论,主"科学求同,史学求异",历史要在追求"相关相异"的个性中获得真实。在这种转换中既有西方学术的影响,也更多的承接了中国史学中"史职求真"、经世致用的传统特性,取、守之间对其一生治学影响深远。In his early scholarly research,Miao Fenglin incorporated various western historians＇thoughts.For example,his thoughts of＂seeking truth＂came from F.J.E.Woodbridge,H.E.Barnes and Powell＇s statements,and his pragmatism came from William James ＇s pragmatism,and he learned the methods of checking historical materials from L.V.Ranke,besides,he derived inductive and deductive methods from John Dwey.However,like Liang Qichao,Miao also underwent changes during his research.At first,he believed that history is science,pursuing the law of history and emphasizing the methods of induction and deduction,but his thoughts changed and he believed that scientific research focuses on the universality while historical research focuses on individuality,with the aim of seeking truth in the research of individuality.In the transformation,Miao was influenced by the western academic trends,and he carried forward the tradition of Chinese historiography,such as seeking truth and pragmatism.

关 键 词：缪凤林 梁启超 新史学 历史研究法 

分 类 号：K092[历史地理—历史学]