臺大歷史系與現代中國史學傳統（1950-1970）

Abstract

臺大歷史系的發展不僅是臺灣史學史上的一章，也見證了現代中國史學傳統的移轉、演進與變化。在臺大歷史系，1950至1970年是由中國大陸來臺教授直接發揮影響的年代，本文即以這批學者為核心，觀察臺大歷史系與現代中國史學傳統的關係。全文首先勾勒現代中國史學思潮的發展，指出在現代中國史學形成之初，梁啟超（1873-1929）與傅斯年（1896-1950）即已顯現不同的方向。本文接著分析、描繪十二位臺大歷史系早期教授的生平、教育背景和學術特色，最後歸納討論這些學者的學術取徑。 本文認為，現代中國史學傳統可析分為史料派、解釋派、史觀派與義理派四種基本觀點，臺大歷史系早期教授帶來的學術因子，以重考證的史料派為主，受西歐影響的解釋派為從。這些因子在台灣逐漸與其他學術觀念產生密切接觸，造成臺灣歷史學複雜的情況，似乎一直延續至今。

The development of the History Department of National Taiwan University (NTU) is not only an important chapter in the history of historical studies in Taiwan, but also closely related to the evolution of modern Chinese historiography. At NTU’s History Department, the period of the 1950s and 1960s was one dominated by established scholars from the Chinese mainland. The present study examines the relationship between NTU’s History Department and the modern Chinese historiogarphical tradition with a careful look at these scholars. It begins with some general observations of the modern Chinese historiographical tradition. It points out a division within the tradition at its conception by illustrating a significant difference between two major founders of the tradition: Liang Qichao (1873-1929) and Fu Ssu-nien (1896-1950). The study proceeds to introduce the educational background and scholarly orientations of twelve long-time NTU history professors from China, and discusses the historiographical approaches of these professors. This study offers a view that four main approaches existed in modern Chinese historiography: those emphasizing, respectively, investigation of historical materials, historical explanation, schemes of overall historical courses, and lessons and meaning of historical developments. Mainland Chinese historians brought the first two approaches into NTU’s History Department. The textual approach was the main stream and the explanatory approach played a secondary role. Yet, in Taiwan, particularly after the 1960s, these two elements came into close contact with other historiographical viewpoints. Consequently, historical research in Taiwan became complicated and conflicted. The situation remains to this day.