论文部分内容阅读
朱雷通过回顾唐长孺领导敦煌吐鲁番文书整理出版的整个过程,介绍了古代文献资料整理的特点和规律。张国刚认为,在中国20世纪学术发展的宏观走向上,出现了一个从否定传统到呼唤回归本土化的历史演变过程,而在这一变化过程中,陈寅恪、唐长孺、胡如雷都做出了各自的探索。冻国栋从社会经济史的角度,探讨了唐长孺在中古史研究方面的取得的突出成就,对唐长孺的治学理路和特点作出了准确概括。宁志新和黄正建侧重分析了胡如雷在历史研究中所运用的阶级与阶层分析方法,并对这一治学方法做出了客观和科学的评价。孙继民在20世纪学术史的背景下,从20 世纪中国史学发展的四个阶段分析和确认了陈寅恪、唐长孺、胡如雷史学研究成就和他们在中国学术史上的地位。认为陈寅恪的特点是承旧启新,文化史观中国化;唐长孺是转旧趋新,唯物史观学术化;胡如雷是弃旧开新,古史形态理论化。
Zhu Lei reviewed the whole process of the compilation and publication of Dunhuang and Turpan documents by Tang Chang-juan, and introduced the characteristics and rules of the ancient literature and data arrangement. Zhang Guogang believed that in the macroscopic course of academic development in China in the 20th century, there appeared a historical evolution process from the negation of tradition to the call of return to localization. In the course of this change, Chen Yinke, Tang Changtao and Hu Ruren made their respective explorations . From the perspective of socio-economic history, Fro Guodong explored Tang Chang-tao’s outstanding achievements in the study of medieval history and made an accurate summary of Tang Chang-tao’s theories and characteristics. Ning Zhixin and Huang Zhengjian focused on analyzing the methods of class and class analysis Hu used in historical research and made an objective and scientific evaluation of the methodology of his study. From the four stages of the development of Chinese historiography in the 20th century, Sun Jimin analyzed and confirmed the achievements of Chen Yinke, Tang Changtao and Hu Rurei’s historiography and their status in the academic history of China under the background of academic history in the 20th century. He believes that Chen Yinke’s characteristics are inheritance and innovation, the concept of cultural history of China; Tang Chang-chang is turning new, the academic materialization of historical materialism; Hu Rulei abandoned the old open new, theorized the formation of ancient history.