社会史论战与现代中国史学
|
摘要
发生于1927—1937年间的社会史论战是现代中国史学史上的一大事件。以往学术界对论战的认知,多侧重于政治方面,将某种特定的政治立场作为基本预设。政治史和思想史的研究在一定程度上压制、遮蔽了史学史的研究。本文拟采用学术史的研究方法,主要着眼于学术演进的内在理路,适当兼顾制约学术生长的社会语境。具体做法是将论战置于中国史学从传统向现代转型的历程中,抽取20世纪史学变迁中的几个关键性问题,追索论战与这些问题的关联。
本文分上、下两编。
上编是对作为一个学术史事件的社会史论战的总论和概说。
第一章梳理论战的发生脉络。论战是在近代中国史学随西潮而动的过程中激发的。西方史学对中国史学影响,可分解为两部分:西方史学主流为中国史学的发展提供了方向性指引,西方汉学为中国史学提供了直接示范。马克思主义史学也是西潮汹涌的产物。作为一种西方学理的唯物史观对中国史学的发展产生了既深且巨的影响。唯物史观史学与国际汉学也有关联,与之同气相求的是当时尚未当令的葛兰言学派。论战发生的思想语境是马克思主义、唯物史观的流行,主要表现在3个方面:一是马克思主义著作大量出版,二是马克思主义理论进入大学讲坛,三是与马克思主义相关的思想事件频繁发生。从此,马克思主义由涓涓细水汇为滔滔洪流。
第二章追踪论战的过程。广义的论战包括社会性质论战、社会史论战、农村性质论战三部分,是环绕中国社会形态一个问题而展开的三个方面。狭义的社会史论战可区分为概说阶段、论战阶段和研究阶段三部分。在概说阶段,各家初步提出论点,自拉自唱,各不相谋。后来各种观点发生冲突,进入论战时期。论战在《读书杂志》上达到高潮。《读书杂志》停刊后,陶希圣创办《食货》半月刊,转而从事史料搜讨;郭沫若、吕振羽等从史料方面充实建构理论,开始了相对平静扎实的研究活动。此为研究时期。1937年论战终局,但胜负无定论。
第三章是关于论战定位问题的商榷。主流看法将其作为一场马克思主义与非马克思主义之间的论争。它以政治立场界分学术派别,武断地缩小了马克思主义史家范围,没有认清马克思主义史学的真正对手。毛泽东的“文化围剿”说是形成这一看法的重要依据。从纯学术的角度看,论战是在马克思主义的话语系统内
The Social History Controversy about history of society, which lasted from 1927 to 1937, is a great event in Chinese modern history of the history. Having some given political stand as their preconceived idea, the academic circle's cognition of it emphasized the political and ideological factors thus suppressed and shadowed the research about history of the history to some extent. By adopting the research approach of academic history, focusing on the internal logic of academic process and giving deserving consideration to the social context restricting academic growth, this paper is to trace the connections between the Controversy and these questions by locating the Controversy in the changing process of Chinese history from tradition to modern times and studying a couple of key problems of historical changes in the 20th century.This paper includes two volumes. The first volume is the generalization and summary of this Controversy about history of society, an academic history event. And in the first chapter the author cards the developing line of this Controversy. It burst when Chinese modern historiography was following the flow of western historiography. As for the influences that the western historiography imposed on Chinese historiography, it runs as follows: on the one hand, the main trend of western historiography provides guides for Chinese historiography development; and on the other hand, western sinology sets a direct example for Chinese historiography. Marxist historiography is also the product of the flow of western historiography. As a western scientific principle, historical materialism has a profound effect on the development of Chinese historiography. Historiography of historical materialism also connects with international Sinology. The popularity of Marxism and historical materialism is the ideological context of the Controversy: firstly, Marxist works were being published in great volume; secondly, Marxist theory found the entry into college forum; thirdly, ideological incidents concerned with Marxism happened frequently. From then on the Marxism grew from tickling brook to surging flood.The second chapter reviews the Controversy process. Generalized the Controversy includes three parts, that is, social nature debate, social history debate and rural nature debate. They are three aspects developing from the only problem of Chinese social formation. Restricted social history Controversy can be divided into summary, debate
and research. In the first period each school put forward their assertions and disagreed with one another. Then assertions conflicted with one another and finally went into a debate. Dushu-zazhi made the Controversy come to its climax. While it stopped publication, Tao Xi-sheng started the semimonthly magazine Shi-huo and began to collect historical materials. And by enriching and constructing theories from historical materials, Guo Mo-ro and Lv Zhen-yu started their relatively peaceful and stable research. Such was the research period. In 1937 the Controversy ended with victory or defeat undecided.The third chapter is about the nature determination of the Controversy. The mainstream opinion regarded it as the Controversy between Marxism and non-Marxism. The distinguishing standard between Marxism and non-Marxism was based on the political position. It narrowed subjectively the range of Marxist historians. It failed to recognize the adversary of Marxist history. The theory of "culture besiege" of Mao Ze-dong provided important guide for the view. That is, judging from the pure academic aspect, the Controversy went on in the Marxist discourse system and was the internal debate of historical materialism. For one thing, carrying the research work of Chinese history according to Marxism and historical materialism was the mutual theory stand of both parties. And for another, basically speaking, both parties obeyed and used the theories and terms of historical materialism.The fourth chapter describes the study on the Controversy in both Soviet Union and Japan. As an international debate, this debate about social history set off great sensations among Marxist scholars in these two countries. The academic circles in Soviet Union, China and Japan were in the state of interaction. After deciding the discussion direction, Soviet Union drew an initial conclusion. While by absorbing the research result of Soviet Union and combing its theoretical method with research on Chinese history, Japan refined and deepened this discussion. When the orientalism circle in Soviet Union output the theoretical sources, opinions of many Japanese scholars were directly influenced by them. Being influenced by Soviet Union and Japan at the same time, Chinese historiography circle had newcoming advantages.Combing with the process of Chinese modern historiography, the second volume inquires into the Controversy from different angles.As for the fifth chapter, the paper inspects the hesitation of the Controversy between the academic formation and the ideology. With the intense practical
requirement, the Controversy is to solve the problem of "In which direction should china go?" This drew further apart from the mainstream academic atmosphere at that time. With their efforts to explain the whole process of Chinese history from the historical materialism, the debaters broke the limit of reducing historiography to the science of historical data, and made people again realize the importance of theoretical explanation. The Controversy paid much attention to "smoothness" and "changes" and was deeply involved in long-period history, thus it led to ideological historiography at the same time. Ideology is not only a suppressing force but a productive force. It can provide the external power for academic development and stimulate the academic growth. Ideology is a double-edged sword: it triggered problems and provided the juncture for the steering of historiography.The sixth chapter analyzes the relationship between Controversy about history of society and research on the history of economy. The Controversy established two trends of economic history: one was in the accordance with the Controversy and having theories as its leading factor, and the other turned the Controversy direction and had historical materials as its leading factor. While the first branch made the history of economy catch up from behind and gain rapidly in status, the second branch really made the research on history of economy step into the right line. The entry into specialized track of research on Chinese economic history and thus making china a great power owed greatly to the guidance of Shi-huo. By compiling thesis index and carrying out the research on group division of labor, Shi-huo quickened the entry of economic history into specialization. The basic approaches of research on economic history came into being in the period of this Controversy and the economic history formed in this period presented the formation of "social-economic history". Different from pure history of society or history of economy, it was history of economy with overall horizon and general history insight.In the seventh chapter the paper expounds the methodological significance of the Controversy about social history. Turning to social science for cognition tools and research techniques thus integrating with it was an important approach for historiography to realize modern transition. The Controversy's promoting effect to make historiography a social science finds the full expression in the field of both ancient history and economic history. When the ancient history mainly applies to anthropology and sociology, the economic history employs economics, sociology, statistics and so on.
The Controversy helps the integration of historiography and social sciences, enriches and refreshes the research approaches of historiography and agrees with the developing trend of modern historiography.The eighth chapter traces the gains and losses of the Controversy in both theories and materials. The Controversy put much weight on the theoretical approaches. But covered by the scientism, it was regarded as a universal theory and got lost in the misunderstanding of taking Western Europe as the center. Misunderstanding historical materialism as the economic determinism was another harmful trend. However, the positive significance of it lies in that it changed people's belittling attitude towards theories and improved the quality of Chinese historiography. Debaters unearthed historical materials in the two fields of ancient history and economic history. In the field of ancient history, with considerable archaeological materials and legendary materials, the debaters ran beyond "Yi-gu" school and archaeological school and opened a more reasonable way to rebuild the ancient history. However, this didn't change the tension between theories and materials. Shi-huo, the semimonthly magazine, rethought about the relationship between the two and finally found a balance point between them.The conclusion inspects the profound changes in Chinese historiography after the baptism of the Controversy. On the one hand it greatly quickened the formation of Marxist historiography and presented two basic trends: ideological and academic. And on the other hand its radiating power and impact wave affected the pattern and trend of the whole Chinese historiography. Historical materialism school rapidly gained in status and finally stood shoulder to shoulder with historical material school. This is the internal logic for historical materialism school entering the center from the edge after 1949. The essential significance of the Controversy lies in that it formed really history.
本文分上、下两编。
上编是对作为一个学术史事件的社会史论战的总论和概说。
第一章梳理论战的发生脉络。论战是在近代中国史学随西潮而动的过程中激发的。西方史学对中国史学影响,可分解为两部分:西方史学主流为中国史学的发展提供了方向性指引,西方汉学为中国史学提供了直接示范。马克思主义史学也是西潮汹涌的产物。作为一种西方学理的唯物史观对中国史学的发展产生了既深且巨的影响。唯物史观史学与国际汉学也有关联,与之同气相求的是当时尚未当令的葛兰言学派。论战发生的思想语境是马克思主义、唯物史观的流行,主要表现在3个方面:一是马克思主义著作大量出版,二是马克思主义理论进入大学讲坛,三是与马克思主义相关的思想事件频繁发生。从此,马克思主义由涓涓细水汇为滔滔洪流。
第二章追踪论战的过程。广义的论战包括社会性质论战、社会史论战、农村性质论战三部分,是环绕中国社会形态一个问题而展开的三个方面。狭义的社会史论战可区分为概说阶段、论战阶段和研究阶段三部分。在概说阶段,各家初步提出论点,自拉自唱,各不相谋。后来各种观点发生冲突,进入论战时期。论战在《读书杂志》上达到高潮。《读书杂志》停刊后,陶希圣创办《食货》半月刊,转而从事史料搜讨;郭沫若、吕振羽等从史料方面充实建构理论,开始了相对平静扎实的研究活动。此为研究时期。1937年论战终局,但胜负无定论。
第三章是关于论战定位问题的商榷。主流看法将其作为一场马克思主义与非马克思主义之间的论争。它以政治立场界分学术派别,武断地缩小了马克思主义史家范围,没有认清马克思主义史学的真正对手。毛泽东的“文化围剿”说是形成这一看法的重要依据。从纯学术的角度看,论战是在马克思主义的话语系统内
The Social History Controversy about history of society, which lasted from 1927 to 1937, is a great event in Chinese modern history of the history. Having some given political stand as their preconceived idea, the academic circle's cognition of it emphasized the political and ideological factors thus suppressed and shadowed the research about history of the history to some extent. By adopting the research approach of academic history, focusing on the internal logic of academic process and giving deserving consideration to the social context restricting academic growth, this paper is to trace the connections between the Controversy and these questions by locating the Controversy in the changing process of Chinese history from tradition to modern times and studying a couple of key problems of historical changes in the 20th century.This paper includes two volumes. The first volume is the generalization and summary of this Controversy about history of society, an academic history event. And in the first chapter the author cards the developing line of this Controversy. It burst when Chinese modern historiography was following the flow of western historiography. As for the influences that the western historiography imposed on Chinese historiography, it runs as follows: on the one hand, the main trend of western historiography provides guides for Chinese historiography development; and on the other hand, western sinology sets a direct example for Chinese historiography. Marxist historiography is also the product of the flow of western historiography. As a western scientific principle, historical materialism has a profound effect on the development of Chinese historiography. Historiography of historical materialism also connects with international Sinology. The popularity of Marxism and historical materialism is the ideological context of the Controversy: firstly, Marxist works were being published in great volume; secondly, Marxist theory found the entry into college forum; thirdly, ideological incidents concerned with Marxism happened frequently. From then on the Marxism grew from tickling brook to surging flood.The second chapter reviews the Controversy process. Generalized the Controversy includes three parts, that is, social nature debate, social history debate and rural nature debate. They are three aspects developing from the only problem of Chinese social formation. Restricted social history Controversy can be divided into summary, debate
and research. In the first period each school put forward their assertions and disagreed with one another. Then assertions conflicted with one another and finally went into a debate. Dushu-zazhi made the Controversy come to its climax. While it stopped publication, Tao Xi-sheng started the semimonthly magazine Shi-huo and began to collect historical materials. And by enriching and constructing theories from historical materials, Guo Mo-ro and Lv Zhen-yu started their relatively peaceful and stable research. Such was the research period. In 1937 the Controversy ended with victory or defeat undecided.The third chapter is about the nature determination of the Controversy. The mainstream opinion regarded it as the Controversy between Marxism and non-Marxism. The distinguishing standard between Marxism and non-Marxism was based on the political position. It narrowed subjectively the range of Marxist historians. It failed to recognize the adversary of Marxist history. The theory of "culture besiege" of Mao Ze-dong provided important guide for the view. That is, judging from the pure academic aspect, the Controversy went on in the Marxist discourse system and was the internal debate of historical materialism. For one thing, carrying the research work of Chinese history according to Marxism and historical materialism was the mutual theory stand of both parties. And for another, basically speaking, both parties obeyed and used the theories and terms of historical materialism.The fourth chapter describes the study on the Controversy in both Soviet Union and Japan. As an international debate, this debate about social history set off great sensations among Marxist scholars in these two countries. The academic circles in Soviet Union, China and Japan were in the state of interaction. After deciding the discussion direction, Soviet Union drew an initial conclusion. While by absorbing the research result of Soviet Union and combing its theoretical method with research on Chinese history, Japan refined and deepened this discussion. When the orientalism circle in Soviet Union output the theoretical sources, opinions of many Japanese scholars were directly influenced by them. Being influenced by Soviet Union and Japan at the same time, Chinese historiography circle had newcoming advantages.Combing with the process of Chinese modern historiography, the second volume inquires into the Controversy from different angles.As for the fifth chapter, the paper inspects the hesitation of the Controversy between the academic formation and the ideology. With the intense practical
requirement, the Controversy is to solve the problem of "In which direction should china go?" This drew further apart from the mainstream academic atmosphere at that time. With their efforts to explain the whole process of Chinese history from the historical materialism, the debaters broke the limit of reducing historiography to the science of historical data, and made people again realize the importance of theoretical explanation. The Controversy paid much attention to "smoothness" and "changes" and was deeply involved in long-period history, thus it led to ideological historiography at the same time. Ideology is not only a suppressing force but a productive force. It can provide the external power for academic development and stimulate the academic growth. Ideology is a double-edged sword: it triggered problems and provided the juncture for the steering of historiography.The sixth chapter analyzes the relationship between Controversy about history of society and research on the history of economy. The Controversy established two trends of economic history: one was in the accordance with the Controversy and having theories as its leading factor, and the other turned the Controversy direction and had historical materials as its leading factor. While the first branch made the history of economy catch up from behind and gain rapidly in status, the second branch really made the research on history of economy step into the right line. The entry into specialized track of research on Chinese economic history and thus making china a great power owed greatly to the guidance of Shi-huo. By compiling thesis index and carrying out the research on group division of labor, Shi-huo quickened the entry of economic history into specialization. The basic approaches of research on economic history came into being in the period of this Controversy and the economic history formed in this period presented the formation of "social-economic history". Different from pure history of society or history of economy, it was history of economy with overall horizon and general history insight.In the seventh chapter the paper expounds the methodological significance of the Controversy about social history. Turning to social science for cognition tools and research techniques thus integrating with it was an important approach for historiography to realize modern transition. The Controversy's promoting effect to make historiography a social science finds the full expression in the field of both ancient history and economic history. When the ancient history mainly applies to anthropology and sociology, the economic history employs economics, sociology, statistics and so on.
The Controversy helps the integration of historiography and social sciences, enriches and refreshes the research approaches of historiography and agrees with the developing trend of modern historiography.The eighth chapter traces the gains and losses of the Controversy in both theories and materials. The Controversy put much weight on the theoretical approaches. But covered by the scientism, it was regarded as a universal theory and got lost in the misunderstanding of taking Western Europe as the center. Misunderstanding historical materialism as the economic determinism was another harmful trend. However, the positive significance of it lies in that it changed people's belittling attitude towards theories and improved the quality of Chinese historiography. Debaters unearthed historical materials in the two fields of ancient history and economic history. In the field of ancient history, with considerable archaeological materials and legendary materials, the debaters ran beyond "Yi-gu" school and archaeological school and opened a more reasonable way to rebuild the ancient history. However, this didn't change the tension between theories and materials. Shi-huo, the semimonthly magazine, rethought about the relationship between the two and finally found a balance point between them.The conclusion inspects the profound changes in Chinese historiography after the baptism of the Controversy. On the one hand it greatly quickened the formation of Marxist historiography and presented two basic trends: ideological and academic. And on the other hand its radiating power and impact wave affected the pattern and trend of the whole Chinese historiography. Historical materialism school rapidly gained in status and finally stood shoulder to shoulder with historical material school. This is the internal logic for historical materialism school entering the center from the edge after 1949. The essential significance of the Controversy lies in that it formed really history.
引文
《建设》 《动力》 《食货》 《前进》 《文史》 《三民》 《新生命》 《新思潮》 《新中华》 《益世报》 《大公报》 《读书杂志》 《中国经济》 《中国社会》 《中国农村》 《文化批判》 《文史杂志》 《历史科学》 《东方杂志》 《自修大学》 《二十世纪》 《中山文化教育馆季刊》
陶希圣:《中国社会之史的分析》,新生命书局1929年版。
陶希圣:《中国社会与中国革命》,新生命书局1929年版。
陶希圣:《中国封建社会史》,上海南祥书局1929年版。
郭沫若:《中国古代社会研究》,上海联合书店1930年版。
熊得山:《中国社会史研究》,上海昆仑书店1929年版。
吕振羽:《史前期中国社会研究》,北平人文书店1936年版。
吕振羽:《殷周时代的中国社会》,上海不二书店1936年版。
李季:《中国社会史论战批判》,神州国光社1936年版。
何干之:《中国社会史问题论战》,上海生活书店1937年版。
任曙:《中国经济研究》,中国问题研究会1931年版。
严灵峰:《中国经济问题研究》,新生命书局1931年版。
严灵峰:《追击与反攻》,神州国光社1932年版。
马乘风:《中国经济史》,上海经济研究会1935年版。
马札亚尔:《中国农村经济研究》,陈代清、彭桂秋合译,神州国光社1932年版。
柯岑:《中国古代社会》,岑纪译,黎明书局1933年版。
侯外庐:《中国古代社会史》,新知书局1948年版。
侯外庐:《苏联历史学界诸论争解答》,重庆建国书店1945年版。
李玄伯:《中国古代社会新研》,开明书店1948年版。
史先民编著:《中国社会科学家联盟资料选编》,中国展望出版社1986年版。
上海市哲学社会科学学会联合会编:《中国社会科学家联盟成立55周年纪念专辑》,上海社会科学院出版社,1986年版。
高军编:《中国社会性质问题论战(资料选辑)》,人民出版社1984年版。
中国农村经济研究会编:《中国农村社会性质论战》,上海新知书店1935年版。
顾颉刚等:《古史辨》(1—7),上海古籍出版社1982年版。
钟离蒙、杨凤麟主编:《中国现代哲学史资料汇编》(第2集第4、5册),辽宁大学哲学系1981年版。
钟离蒙、杨凤麟主编:《中国现代哲学史资料汇编续集》(第13、14册),辽宁大学哲学系1984年版。
郭沫若:《海涛》,新文艺出版社1951年版。
陶希圣:《潮流与点滴》,台北传记文学出版社1979年版。
侯外庐:《韧的追求》,三联书店1985年版。
杨宽:《历史激流中的动荡和曲折——杨宽自传》,台北时报文化出版公司1993年版。
顾一群等:《王礼锡传》,四川大学出版社1995年版。
王学典:《翦伯赞学术思想评传》,北京图书馆出版社2000年版。
谢保成:《郭沫若学术思想评传》,北京图书馆出版社1999年版。
朱政惠:《吕振羽学术思想评传》,北京图书馆出版社2000年版。
罗尔纲:《师门五年记·胡适琐记》,三联书店1995年版。
钱穆:《八十忆双亲·师友杂忆》,三联书店1998年版。
郑学稼:《中国社会史论战五十周年感言》,《中华杂志》(台北)第19卷第219期(1981年10月)。
炎炎:《社会史论战五十周年访严灵峰先生》,《中华杂志》(台北)第19卷第219期(1981年)。
鲍家麟:《中国社会经济史研究的奠基者——陶希圣先生》,《中国文化复兴月刊》第7卷第11期(1974年11月)。
何兹全:《我的大学生活》,《史学理论研究》1997年第3期。
王义为:《王学文传略》,晋阳学刊编辑部编《中国现代社会科学家传略》第3辑,山西人民出版社1983年版。
陈智超编注:《陈垣来往书信集》,上海古籍出版社1990年版。
顾颉刚:《当代中国史学》,辽宁教育出版社1998年版。
王学典:《20世纪中国史学评论》,山东人民出版社2002年版。
罗志田主编:《20世纪的中国:学术与社会》(史学卷),山东人民出版社2001年版。
罗志田:《权势转移:近代中国的思想、社会与学术》,湖北人民出版社1999年版。
桑兵:《国学与汉学——近代中外学界交往录》,浙江人民出版社1999年版。
侯建新主编:《经济—社会史——历史研究的新方向》,商务印书馆2002年版。
金毓黻:《中国史学史》,河北教育出版社2000年版。
许冠三:《新史学九十年》,岳麓书社2003年版。
胡逢祥、张文建:《中国近代史学思潮与流派》,华东师范大学出版社1991年版。
蒋俊:《中国史学近代化进程》,齐鲁书社1995年版。
李洪岩:《史学史话》,社会科学文献出版社2000年版。
桂遵义:《马克思主义史学在中国》,山东人民出版社1992年版。
林甘泉等:《中国古代史分期讨论五十年》,上海人民出版社1982年版。
张广志:《中国古史分期讨论的回顾与反思》,陕西师范大学出版社2003年版。
伍启元:《中国新文化运动概观》,现代书局1934年版。
翦伯赞:《历史哲学教程》,北京大学出版社1990年版。
郭湛波:《近五十年中国思想史》,山东人民出版社1997年版。
李泽厚:《中国现代思想史论》,东方出版社1987年版。
[德]罗梅君:《政治与科学之间的历史编纂——30年40年代中国马克思主义历史学的形成》,孙立新译,山东教育出版社1997年版。
[英]巴勒克拉夫:《当代史学主要趋势》,杨豫译,上海译文出版社1987年版。
[美]伊格尔斯:《二十世纪的历史学》,何兆武译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版。
[美]郭颖颐:《中国现代思想中的唯科学主义(1900一1950)》,江苏人民出版社1998年版。
[美]费正清主编:《剑桥中华民国史》,中国社会科学出版社1994年版。
陈启能等:《马克思主义史学新探》,社会科学文献出版社1999年版。
逯耀东:《何处是桃源——习史论稿》,幼狮文化事业公司1977年版。
唐宝林主编:《马克思主义在中国100年》,安徽人民出版社1998年版。
徐素华:《中国社会科学家联盟史》,中国卓越出版公司1990年版。
许全兴等:《中国现代哲学史》,北京大学出版社1992年版。
叶桂生、刘茂林:《中国社会史论战与马克思主义历史学的形成》,《中国史研究》1983年第1期。
李洪岩:《从<读书杂志>看中国社会史论战》,《中国社会科学院近代史研究所青年学术论坛》1999年卷,社会科学文献出版社2000年版。
周予同:《五十年来中国之新史学》,《学林》1941年第4辑。
齐思和:《近百年来中国史学的发展》,《燕京社会科学》1949年第2期。
齐思和:《现代中国史学评论》,《大中》第1卷第1期(1946年1月)。
余英时:《中国史学的现阶段:反省与展望》,《史学与传统》,台北时报出版公司1982年版。
陈支平:《20世纪中国历史学的三大情结》,《厦门大学学报》2001年第4期。
赵俪生:《二十世纪史学的回顾》,《文史知识》1999年第2期。
[美]J.格雷著 孙业山、王东译:《20世纪的中国史学:对其背景和发展过程的评论》,《历史教学问题》2002年第6期。
连士升:《研究中国经济史的方法和资料》,《大公报·史地周刊》第106期(1936年10月9日)。
秦佩珩:《中国经济史坛的昨日今日和明日》,《新经济半月刊》第11卷第3期(1944年)。
李根蟠:《二十世纪的中国古代经济史研究》,《历史研究》1999年第3期。
桑兵:《教学需求与学风转变——近代大学史学教育的社会科学化》,《中国社会科学》2001年第4期。
张荫麟:《评郭沫若(中国古代社会研究)》,《大公报·文学副刊》第208期(1932年1月4日)。
王学典:《现代学术史上的唯物史观》,《山东社会科学》2004年第11期。
余英时:《中国近代思想史上的胡适》,《中国思想传统的现代诠释》,台北联经出版公司1987年版。
葛兆光:《<新史学>之后——1929年之后的中国历史学界》,《历史研究》2003年第1期。
1. Arif Dirlik, Revolution and History: Origins of Marxist Historiography in China, 1919—1937, Berkeley: California University Press, 1978.
2. Arif Dirlik, "Mirror to Revolution: Early Marxist Images of Chinese History", Journal of Asian Studies, Vol, 33, No. 2, 1974. 2.
3. Benjamin Schwartz, "A Marxist Controversy on China", the Far Eastern Quarterly Vol. 13, No. 2, 1954. 2.
4. Albert Feuerwerker, "China History in Marxian Dress", American Historical Review Vol. 66, No. 2, 1961. 1.
5. D. Y. Teng, "Chinese Historiography in Last Fifty Years", In the Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1949. 2.
陶希圣:《中国社会之史的分析》,新生命书局1929年版。
陶希圣:《中国社会与中国革命》,新生命书局1929年版。
陶希圣:《中国封建社会史》,上海南祥书局1929年版。
郭沫若:《中国古代社会研究》,上海联合书店1930年版。
熊得山:《中国社会史研究》,上海昆仑书店1929年版。
吕振羽:《史前期中国社会研究》,北平人文书店1936年版。
吕振羽:《殷周时代的中国社会》,上海不二书店1936年版。
李季:《中国社会史论战批判》,神州国光社1936年版。
何干之:《中国社会史问题论战》,上海生活书店1937年版。
任曙:《中国经济研究》,中国问题研究会1931年版。
严灵峰:《中国经济问题研究》,新生命书局1931年版。
严灵峰:《追击与反攻》,神州国光社1932年版。
马乘风:《中国经济史》,上海经济研究会1935年版。
马札亚尔:《中国农村经济研究》,陈代清、彭桂秋合译,神州国光社1932年版。
柯岑:《中国古代社会》,岑纪译,黎明书局1933年版。
侯外庐:《中国古代社会史》,新知书局1948年版。
侯外庐:《苏联历史学界诸论争解答》,重庆建国书店1945年版。
李玄伯:《中国古代社会新研》,开明书店1948年版。
史先民编著:《中国社会科学家联盟资料选编》,中国展望出版社1986年版。
上海市哲学社会科学学会联合会编:《中国社会科学家联盟成立55周年纪念专辑》,上海社会科学院出版社,1986年版。
高军编:《中国社会性质问题论战(资料选辑)》,人民出版社1984年版。
中国农村经济研究会编:《中国农村社会性质论战》,上海新知书店1935年版。
顾颉刚等:《古史辨》(1—7),上海古籍出版社1982年版。
钟离蒙、杨凤麟主编:《中国现代哲学史资料汇编》(第2集第4、5册),辽宁大学哲学系1981年版。
钟离蒙、杨凤麟主编:《中国现代哲学史资料汇编续集》(第13、14册),辽宁大学哲学系1984年版。
郭沫若:《海涛》,新文艺出版社1951年版。
陶希圣:《潮流与点滴》,台北传记文学出版社1979年版。
侯外庐:《韧的追求》,三联书店1985年版。
杨宽:《历史激流中的动荡和曲折——杨宽自传》,台北时报文化出版公司1993年版。
顾一群等:《王礼锡传》,四川大学出版社1995年版。
王学典:《翦伯赞学术思想评传》,北京图书馆出版社2000年版。
谢保成:《郭沫若学术思想评传》,北京图书馆出版社1999年版。
朱政惠:《吕振羽学术思想评传》,北京图书馆出版社2000年版。
罗尔纲:《师门五年记·胡适琐记》,三联书店1995年版。
钱穆:《八十忆双亲·师友杂忆》,三联书店1998年版。
郑学稼:《中国社会史论战五十周年感言》,《中华杂志》(台北)第19卷第219期(1981年10月)。
炎炎:《社会史论战五十周年访严灵峰先生》,《中华杂志》(台北)第19卷第219期(1981年)。
鲍家麟:《中国社会经济史研究的奠基者——陶希圣先生》,《中国文化复兴月刊》第7卷第11期(1974年11月)。
何兹全:《我的大学生活》,《史学理论研究》1997年第3期。
王义为:《王学文传略》,晋阳学刊编辑部编《中国现代社会科学家传略》第3辑,山西人民出版社1983年版。
陈智超编注:《陈垣来往书信集》,上海古籍出版社1990年版。
顾颉刚:《当代中国史学》,辽宁教育出版社1998年版。
王学典:《20世纪中国史学评论》,山东人民出版社2002年版。
罗志田主编:《20世纪的中国:学术与社会》(史学卷),山东人民出版社2001年版。
罗志田:《权势转移:近代中国的思想、社会与学术》,湖北人民出版社1999年版。
桑兵:《国学与汉学——近代中外学界交往录》,浙江人民出版社1999年版。
侯建新主编:《经济—社会史——历史研究的新方向》,商务印书馆2002年版。
金毓黻:《中国史学史》,河北教育出版社2000年版。
许冠三:《新史学九十年》,岳麓书社2003年版。
胡逢祥、张文建:《中国近代史学思潮与流派》,华东师范大学出版社1991年版。
蒋俊:《中国史学近代化进程》,齐鲁书社1995年版。
李洪岩:《史学史话》,社会科学文献出版社2000年版。
桂遵义:《马克思主义史学在中国》,山东人民出版社1992年版。
林甘泉等:《中国古代史分期讨论五十年》,上海人民出版社1982年版。
张广志:《中国古史分期讨论的回顾与反思》,陕西师范大学出版社2003年版。
伍启元:《中国新文化运动概观》,现代书局1934年版。
翦伯赞:《历史哲学教程》,北京大学出版社1990年版。
郭湛波:《近五十年中国思想史》,山东人民出版社1997年版。
李泽厚:《中国现代思想史论》,东方出版社1987年版。
[德]罗梅君:《政治与科学之间的历史编纂——30年40年代中国马克思主义历史学的形成》,孙立新译,山东教育出版社1997年版。
[英]巴勒克拉夫:《当代史学主要趋势》,杨豫译,上海译文出版社1987年版。
[美]伊格尔斯:《二十世纪的历史学》,何兆武译,辽宁教育出版社2003年版。
[美]郭颖颐:《中国现代思想中的唯科学主义(1900一1950)》,江苏人民出版社1998年版。
[美]费正清主编:《剑桥中华民国史》,中国社会科学出版社1994年版。
陈启能等:《马克思主义史学新探》,社会科学文献出版社1999年版。
逯耀东:《何处是桃源——习史论稿》,幼狮文化事业公司1977年版。
唐宝林主编:《马克思主义在中国100年》,安徽人民出版社1998年版。
徐素华:《中国社会科学家联盟史》,中国卓越出版公司1990年版。
许全兴等:《中国现代哲学史》,北京大学出版社1992年版。
叶桂生、刘茂林:《中国社会史论战与马克思主义历史学的形成》,《中国史研究》1983年第1期。
李洪岩:《从<读书杂志>看中国社会史论战》,《中国社会科学院近代史研究所青年学术论坛》1999年卷,社会科学文献出版社2000年版。
周予同:《五十年来中国之新史学》,《学林》1941年第4辑。
齐思和:《近百年来中国史学的发展》,《燕京社会科学》1949年第2期。
齐思和:《现代中国史学评论》,《大中》第1卷第1期(1946年1月)。
余英时:《中国史学的现阶段:反省与展望》,《史学与传统》,台北时报出版公司1982年版。
陈支平:《20世纪中国历史学的三大情结》,《厦门大学学报》2001年第4期。
赵俪生:《二十世纪史学的回顾》,《文史知识》1999年第2期。
[美]J.格雷著 孙业山、王东译:《20世纪的中国史学:对其背景和发展过程的评论》,《历史教学问题》2002年第6期。
连士升:《研究中国经济史的方法和资料》,《大公报·史地周刊》第106期(1936年10月9日)。
秦佩珩:《中国经济史坛的昨日今日和明日》,《新经济半月刊》第11卷第3期(1944年)。
李根蟠:《二十世纪的中国古代经济史研究》,《历史研究》1999年第3期。
桑兵:《教学需求与学风转变——近代大学史学教育的社会科学化》,《中国社会科学》2001年第4期。
张荫麟:《评郭沫若(中国古代社会研究)》,《大公报·文学副刊》第208期(1932年1月4日)。
王学典:《现代学术史上的唯物史观》,《山东社会科学》2004年第11期。
余英时:《中国近代思想史上的胡适》,《中国思想传统的现代诠释》,台北联经出版公司1987年版。
葛兆光:《<新史学>之后——1929年之后的中国历史学界》,《历史研究》2003年第1期。
1. Arif Dirlik, Revolution and History: Origins of Marxist Historiography in China, 1919—1937, Berkeley: California University Press, 1978.
2. Arif Dirlik, "Mirror to Revolution: Early Marxist Images of Chinese History", Journal of Asian Studies, Vol, 33, No. 2, 1974. 2.
3. Benjamin Schwartz, "A Marxist Controversy on China", the Far Eastern Quarterly Vol. 13, No. 2, 1954. 2.
4. Albert Feuerwerker, "China History in Marxian Dress", American Historical Review Vol. 66, No. 2, 1961. 1.
5. D. Y. Teng, "Chinese Historiography in Last Fifty Years", In the Far Eastern Quarterly, Vol. 8, No. 2, 1949. 2.
© 2004-2018 中国地质图书馆版权所有 京ICP备05064691号 京公网安备11010802017129号 地址：北京市海淀区学院路29号 邮编：100083 电话：办公室：(+86 10)66554848；文献借阅、咨询服务、科技查新：66554700 |