中國民族主義思潮下的近代史研究：郭廷以、王聿均黃嘉謨、李毓澍為例

The study of Modern Chinese History under Chinese Nationalism: focus on Kuo Ting-yee, Wang Yu-chun, Lee Yu-shu and Huang Chia-mo

史家如何書寫「自己國家的歷史」，反映該時空背景下，史家對其國家、民族的認識與想像。「中國近代史研究」（1840-1949）此一新興學門在「科學治史」的方法論外，也承載史家對近代中國的民族主義情懷。1949年後，學者隨中華民國政府東渡來台，也將「中國近代史」學門的研究傳統帶至臺灣。1955年，郭廷以應中研院院長朱家驊之邀，籌備「近代史研究所籌備處」。該所籌備、成立（1965）初期，以近代政治、外交史為主要研究範疇，肩負國際學術交流（福特基金會、哥倫比亞大學等），以及「興復國家民族」之重任，乃為國內近代史學門的領導機構。有鑑於該所的重要性，筆者以郭廷以、李毓澍、王聿均、黃嘉謨為主，分析他們如何認識與想像近代中國在帝國主義侵略下的困境？批判哪些歷史事件與人物？對中國「固有疆域」看法為何？是否呈現民族主義史觀？與官方民族主義的聯繫為何？筆者擬從「學術知識生產」與「民族主義」的視角切入，針對該所草創期的近代通史、中外關係史、邊疆史的研究成果，進行適切的評價。

This academic essayanalyzed the relationbetween the study of MCH(“Modern Chinese History”, 1840-1949)and Chinese Nationalismafter KMT government retreated to Taiwan. Academia Sinica established preparatory committee for Institute of Modern History(IMH)in 1955, and formally established in 1965. IMH’s played a leadership in the field of MCH in Taiwan, it was responsible for the International Scholarly exchange and “the mission of revival of Chinese nation”. Because of IMH’s importance, the study chose four scholars --Kuo Ting-yee, Wang Yu-chun, Lee Yu-shu and Huang Chia-mo, who representedthefirst generation of IMH. This article circledon threequestiongroups:First, why didscholars emphasized the Chinese diplomacy history and frontier history? Second, how did those scholars “image” the history of modern Chinese under the Imperialism? Which historical events and figures did they critics or admire? Finally, did the four scholars’ discourse have any relation toofficial Chinese Nationalism?My study explored the historical and political context of those questions, andattempt toanswer and explaintheir meaning.