20世纪40年代史学著述的评判标准问题——以审查意见为中心的探讨

The Evaluation Criteria of the Historiographic Writings in 1940s——With Focus on Review Comments

20世纪40年代,国民政府教育部发起了学术作品的评奖活动,参评者既有功成名就的专家学者,也有崭露头角的青年学人,审查专家也多为深孚众望的学界权威。以史学而言,获奖的著述多有独立体系和特殊创建,也有些作品在评审过程中争议颇多。以《〈鲒埼亭集〉谢三宾考》和《唐代政治史述论稿》为例,评审专家为金毓黻、钱穆、吴稚晖、柳诒徵,在获奖等次的评定中即出现了较大分歧,其审查意见也各有侧重、别具深意。可以说,获奖作品的评定,除了独创性、发明性等规章要求之外,还与评审人的个人脾性、学术品味、治学趋向与学术权威性有关,在史学评奖的背后,更折射出了时代变局与治史趋向的互动关系。

In the 1940s, the Ministry of Education initiated a prize-winning campaign for academic writings. The participants included both well-established experts and scholars, as well as promising young scholars. Most of the reviewers were those authoritative and respected experts in the academic community. In the field history, the award-winning writings mostly were independent research and made special contribution, nevertheless some of them were controversial in the review process. In cases of"Jie Qi Ting Ji Xie San Bin Kao"and"The Tang Dynasty History of Political History,"the reviewers, Jin Yufu, Qian Mu, Wu Zhihui, and Liu Yizheng, classified them very differently. Their review comments had their own emphasis and different implication. It could be said that the assessment of award-winning writings was also related to the personal disposition, academic preference, academic style, and academic authority of the reviewers and other regulatory requirements, in addition to the originality and contribution of the writings. The awards of the historiographic writings reflected the interactive relationship between the changes of the times and the trend of the historical studies.