严耕望与“科学化史学”

Between Science and Historiography: A Discussion of Yan Gengwang's Early Academic Career

中国新史学的发展主流是"科学化",尽管"科学化"的内容和准则因人而异、与时俱变;但就一门学科的自主性而言,史家在广泛吸取科学的长处,把史学建设得更为"科学"的同时,又必须不断寻找史学的独特领域和功能,以与其他科学划清界限以免被反主为客甚至越俎代庖。关于新史学的"科学化"取向及来自其批评者的反动,前人已多有研究。较少受到注意的是"科学派"内部在史学的"科学化"和"自主性"之间所做的权衡折冲,严耕望是可以用来考察这一问题的焦点人物。

The main trend of new historiography in modern China was "scientization". The implication and criteria of "scientization" varied from person to person and time to time. However, in order to maintain the autonomy of the history discipline while making it more scientific, historians must constantly separate history from other sciences. Past scholarship has paid enough attention to the "scientization" of the new historiography and the reaction from its critics, but less to the conflicts between "scientization" and "autonomy" within "the science school". Yan Gengwang was a good example to examine this problem. This paper attempts to reconstruct the dialogue and dialectical relationship between Yan and the academia of his time by exploring his early academic career. Yan’s case indicated a recurring question: how could the new historiography be both scientific and historiographical?