齊思和論中國近代史學之變遷──〈近百年來中國史學的發展〉、〈晚清史學的發展〉校讀記

Ch’i Ssu-ho on the Changes in Modern Chinese Historiography: A Comparative Study of“The Development of Chinese Historiography in the Past Hundred Years”and“The Development of the Historiography of the Late Qing Dynasty”

1949年10月，齊思和發表一篇長達三萬餘字的史學評論〈近百年來中國史學的發展〉，以中西史學比較的宏闊視野，梳理從清初迄於1930、1940年代中國史學的演進脈絡與發展潮流，對這一時期傑出的史家和史學流派的史觀、史法及其學術成就詳作評估，系統地闡釋推動史學發展的社會政治及學術思想因素，揭示現代史學的專業化、科學化和社會科學化的趨勢。他以晚清以降中國現代化轉型為思想背景，立足於實證主義史學和歐美新史學的「學科模式」，把近代史學的變遷視為一種連續的進步的複雜運動。但較少被學界注意的是，1980年他修訂舊作，僅保留清代部分，改篇名為〈晚清史學的發展〉。改作遵循改革開放以前狹隘的馬派史學模式，放棄現代化視野下的史學史意識，導致現代史學演進之架構支離破碎。在史學思想上，無疑是一大退步。作為第三代的現代職業史家，齊思和是中國史學變遷的親見者、參與者，他對晚清以來中國史學演進的兩種敘事，不獨是個人思想變幻的鮮活印跡，更可作為深入分析二十世紀中國史學形態的「思想標本」。

In October 1949, Ch’i Ssu-ho齊思和(1907-1980) published the 30,000-character historiographical commentary titled“Jin bai nian lai Zhongguo shixue de fazhan”近百年來中國史學的發展(“The Development of Chinese Historiography in the Past Hundred Years”), which systematically explains the socio-political and academic-ideological factors that drove the development of historiography, as well as revealing the trends of the professionalization, scientificization and socialization of modern historiography. Against the ideological background of China’s modern transformation beginning in the late Qing dynasty and based on the“disciplinary model”of both positivist historiography and the new history movement in Europe and the United States, Ch’i views the transformation of modern historiography as a continuous, progressive and complex movement. However, what has received less attention from the academic community is that in 1980 he revised his old work, retaining only the section on the Qing dynasty and re-titling it“Wan Qing shixue de fazhan”晚清史學的發展(“The Development of the Historiography of the Late Qing Dynasty”). This work follows the narrow model of Marxist historiography before the reform and opening up of China, abandoning a sense of the history of historiography in the context of modernization, all of which results in a fragmented framework for the evolution of modern historiography—undoubtedly a major step backwards in terms of historiographical thinking. His two narratives concerning the development of Chinese historiography from the late Qing onwards not only are vivid traces of the changes in his own thinking, but also serve as“ideological specimens”for an in-depth analysis of the shape of Chinese historiography in the 20th century.