君史与民史的变调——以京师大学堂中国史讲义为例  

The History of the Emperor and The History of the People:Chinese Historical Textbooks of the Imperial University of Peking

作　　者：刘开军[1] LIU Kaijun

机构地区：[1]四川师范大学历史文化学院

出　　处：《历史教学问题》2019年第5期16-20,142,共6页History Research And Teaching

摘　　要："君史"与"民史"之争为19世纪末叶、20世纪初年的中国史学界热议话题。新近整理出版的四部京师大学堂中国史讲义中,屠寄的讲义已多少染上了一点民史的色彩。陈黻宸的讲义强调人类历史发展的公理与公例,专门讨论"社会之原理",是对君史的一种对抗。王舟瑶置学术史于第一位,也有疏离君史、接近民史之意。但王舟瑶认为旧史学中有君亦有民,不能引申为旧史学只是君史。汪荣宝大讲清代政治、军事和外交,叙述爱新觉罗一姓之兴衰,所编讲义基本上可以认定为一部清朝君史。于是,我们观察到这样一个看似矛盾的现象:编纂民史者,反对摒弃旧史学;撰写君史者,又深谙新史学。君史与民史在京师大学堂的讲台上共同演绎了史学的变调。这或许不合乎人们固有的印象与想象,但却可能更接近清季史学的真相。The dispute between the History of the Emperor(junshi) and the History of the People(minshi) was an important issue in the historiography of the late Qing Dynasty.Among the newly published Chinese historical textbooks of the Imperial University of Peking,Tu Ji’s textbook focused more on minshi.Chen Fuchen agreed with minshi and fought against junshi.Wang Zhouyao also wrote about minshi,but he believed that the old historiography was not junshi.Wang Rongbao described the rise and fall of the Qing Dynasty,which was junshi.As a result,we have observed a contradiction:those who compiled minshi opposed abandoning the old historiography,and those who wrote junshi well understood the new historiography.This may not be in line with people’s impression,but may be closer to the reality in the late Qing Dynasty.

关 键 词：君史 民史 京师大学堂 梁启超 陈黻宸 

分 类 号：K09[历史地理—历史学]