英文摘要 |
Since Liang Qichao announced the terms of Neo-Historiography in the early 20th century, many Chinese scholars proposed sorts of historical concepts beneath these terms. However, besides their recognitions of time series which were different from the traditional historiography, these scholars didn’t reach a consensus on historiography views or methodologies. Sometimes their recognitions were even clearly opposite. So what kind of knowledge the historiography was, and how to pursuit an ideal position for Neo-Historiography would become long controversies, which required deep thinking on defining historiography. In the first half of 20th century, scientism was rising in Chinese academic circle. Under this circumstance, on the art of historiography considered that historiography was artistic to a certain extent, or it was a kind of art. Moreover, on the art of historiography was introspective on scientization of historiography and emphasized the differences between historiography and science. It not only pointed the disadvantages of Neo-Historiography on taking natural sciences and social science as reference scales, but also reconsidered the characters of history on the basis of the understanding the relevance between historiography and art. Therefore, new directions of Neo-Historiography could be discussed in that case. Through detailed examination on these scholars recognitions on the relevance between historiography and art, meanwhile, investigating their academic practices, this article tries to review the historical thought of scientific school of history, rational humanist historians and anti-rational historians in the early 20th century during the exploring of Neo-Historiography to define the relation between these historical thoughts and their ideals of Neo-Historiography. |