错位的“新史学”:何炳松学术路向辨析  

The Dislocated“New History”:a Discussion of He Bingsong's Academic Approach

作　　者：陈峰[1] Chen Feng

机构地区：[1]山东大学儒学高等研究院,山东济南250100

出　　处：《文史哲》2020年第4期129-139,168,共12页Literature,History,and Philosophy

基　　金：国家社科基金重大项目“多卷本《20世纪中国史学通史》”(17ZDA196)的阶段性成果。

摘　　要：民国史家何炳松虽以译介鲁滨逊的《新史学》闻名,但与美国“新史学派”却存在相当程度的疏离。何氏对“新史学”的译述以偏概全,不得要领,有负“新史学”代言人之名。更重要的是,其本人的学术立场倾向于兰克派实证史学,继承伯伦汉、朗格诺瓦和瑟诺博司的衣钵,强调史料工作的重要。就本质而言,何炳松归属于以胡适、傅斯年为代表的史料学派。与“新史学”貌合神离的何氏在“新史学”的传播者中竟能独占鳌头,既反衬出20世纪二三十年代实证学风在中国史学界的强劲势头,又折射出“新史学”进入中国时所遭遇的尴尬与无奈。Although the historian He Bingsong(1890-1946)is known for translating and introducing New History by James Harvey Robinson,he is quite alien from the New History School in the United States.His paraphrase of"New History"is discursive,so he betrays his role as the prolocutor of"New History".What’s more,his academic stand tends to the positivist historiography of Ranke School,follows the steps of Bernheim,Langlois,and Seignobos who stress the importance of historical materials.By his very nature,He Bingsong belongs to the positivistic school represented by Hu Shi and Fu Sinian.The one who is only seemingly harmonious with"New History"just heads the list of disseminators,reflecting the dominance of positivist approach in China during the1920 sand 1930 s,as well as awkwardness and frustration that"New History"encounterd when entering China.

关 键 词：何炳松 兰克派 新史学 史料学派 

分 类 号：K092[历史地理—历史学]