乾隆朝“五朝国史”纂修考

清代承袭历代修史制度,开设各类史馆颇多,纂修史著亦丰,为后世留下了一份极其珍贵的史学遗产。国史纂修,是清代官方史学编纂中极为重要的内容。乾隆朝纂修的"五朝国史"较康熙朝"三朝国史"、雍正朝"四朝国史",体例更加完备、内容更加丰富,开创了国史纂修的新局面,促进了清代国史纂修制度的完善,成为清代官方史学日趋成熟的重要标志。     

清代国史馆开闭时间略考

<正>国史馆是清代最重要的修史机构,在清代史馆体系中占有举足轻重的地位。国史馆设立之初,并非常开不闭,中间曾时断时续,开闭多次,直到乾隆三十年(1765     

金代修史制度与史官特点

金代修史制度与史官特点何宛英金代立国以后,效法中原皇朝的作法,建立修史机构,纂修本朝的历史,逐渐形成了比较完备的修史制度。在此基础上,皇朝的修史工作取得可观的成绩,构成金代史学成就最主要的内容。但是,古代文献中有关金代史制的记载零星散落,迄今还尚未对...     

清代史馆的人员设置与管理机制

清代史馆是中国古代官方修史机构发展的最后阶段,它们充分吸收此前历朝设馆修史的经验,在人员设置、组织管理等方面都有着较为完善的制度。在人员设置上,各史馆之间相互参照,按分工不同分为管理人员、纂修人员、佐修人员和勤杂人员四大类。在人员组成上,汉人、满人等都占一定的比例,纂修人员具有很大的流动性。在管理上,清代史馆已经形成了一套行之有效的管理机制,制定史馆规章,建立考勤考绩制度,严格奖惩制度,提高了修史效率。同时,清代史馆在管理上也存在很多缺陷。     

宋育仁修志：考文献以爱旧邦

1914年11月底，国史馆纂修、代馆长王闿运主持馆务的宋育仁匆匆离开北京，他是被中华民国临时大总统袁世凯“递解回籍”的。     

洪亮吉的方志学思想

洪亮吉(1746—1809年),字君直,一字稚存,号北江,晚号更生,江苏阳湖(今武进县)人。乾隆五十五年中进士,授翰林院编修,旋充国史馆纂修,后出任贵州学政。嘉庆时,洪亮吉参与编纂乾隆实录,史称:“君修史,依古法,务简质,与诸巨公议多不合”,又因上书言事,触犯权贵,被发配伊犁,释归后不复出仕,杜门著述。洪亮吉是乾嘉时代的著名学者,他博览群籍,知识渊广,一生著述宏富,于历史地理造诣尤深,编撰有《春秋左氏诂》、《三国疆域志》、《东晋疆域志》、《十六国疆域志》等书,均为乾嘉时期历史地理学的杰作。洪亮吉对我国方志编纂事业作出了很大贡献,一生纂修了十余部方志,其中象《淳化县志》、《泾县志》等各具特色,受人推崇。因此,研究剖析洪亮吉的方志学思想,对于我们今天批判地继承古代的方志学遗产,建立马克思主义的方志学,无疑是有益的。     

宋修时政记考

宋代继唐之后,设官修史,制度益趋完备。尤其是对于本朝史的修撰,名目繁多,种类齐备,为前古未尝有,即后世亦有所不及。南宋章如愚叙述云:(本朝修史)其凡有二:曰纪载之史,日纂修之史。时政有记,起居有注,其纪载之史乎!纂修之史,名目滋多:实录云者,左氏体也,正史云者,司马体也;纪其大事,则有玉牒;书其盛美,则有圣政;总其枢辖,则有会要;其曰日历,合纪注而编次之也;其曰宝训,于实录、正史之外而撰定之     

何以"外民国"——《清史稿》反动成因探析

《清史稿》是民初官方主持纂修的史书,刊印不久后却因"内清室而外民国"的反动立场而被南京国民政府查禁.究其原因,首先,清史馆在归属问题上的含糊不清使修史宗旨具有不确定性;其次,在史书纂修过程中,北洋政府对史馆成员的政治立场缺少足够的干预和控制;第三,史书纂修者在书稿中表露出了或深或浅的遗民心态.最后,由于南京国民政府与北洋政府在政治理念等方面的巨大差异,《清史稿》表现出的"表扬清室"的态度和"遗民"口吻都被视为"触犯民国"的罪证.《清史稿》从成书到被禁的历程,显示了政府与修史机构、修史者之间的紧密关联以及民初复杂的政治生态.     

烽火岁月中遗留下来的史稿——《清史稿未刊稿丛编·序》

民国三年春,北京政府国务会议决议:"请特设清史馆,由大总统延聘专员,分任编纂,总期元丰史院,肇启宏规,贞观遗风,备登实录,以与往代二十四史,同昭垂鉴于无穷。"大总统袁世凯(1859—1916)遂于三月九日令设清史馆,延聘满清遗臣赵尔巽(1844—1927)为馆长,聘请通儒百余人,分任编纂,"踵二十四史沿袭之旧例,成二百余年传信之专书,用以昭示来兹,导扬盛美"。为了方便取得资料,并承继清代纂修国史的成果,馆址就设置在东华门内前清国史馆旧址,于九月一日正式开馆修史,至民国十六年底《清史稿》正式付印出版,翌年七月故宫博物院奉国民政府令就近接管清史馆,这是故宫与清史馆结缘之始,也是现存"国立故宫博物     

金代史官考

金代皇权更替多伴有政变,皇帝往往借修史维护其皇位正统地位,国史纂修与皇权政治虽不同物,然密不可分。因此,金代实录记注较为系统,金代史学也受到古今学人重视,史官也最得职。史官制度完备且有效。修史机构胡汉合一,而史官女真、汉各置,史官群体由女真、汉、契丹、奚、东胡后裔、拓跋氏后裔等多民族构成。史籍所见各族各类史官133人,接近皇权核心的重要史官大都是女真人,汉人、契丹人承担修史实务,史官皆才学、慎密之士,是金代官僚集团中的"精英"人群。金代史官制度上承辽、宋、唐,然其修史机构常置,史官较为稳定,胡汉分工合作,纂成汉文、女真文《实录》、《起居注》等,使金代史官修史制度既有浓郁的传统性又有鲜明的时代与民族特性。     

Environmental History versus History of Science

Moran, Emilio F., ed. The Ecosystem Concept in Anthropology. Boulder, Co.: Westview Press, 1984. xiv + 320 pp. including index. $28.50 cloth.     

Making History, Talking about History

Making history—in the sense of writing it—is often set against talking about it, with most historians considering writing history to be better than talking about it. My aim in this article is to analyze the topic of making history versus talking about history in order to understand most historians' evident decision to ignore talking about history. Ultimately my goal is to determine whether it is possible to talk about history with any sense.
To this end, I will establish a typology of the different forms of talking practiced by historians, using a chronological approach, from the Greek andRoman emphasis on the visual witness to present-day narrativism and textual analysis. Having recognized the peculiar textual character of the historiographical work, I will then discuss whether one can speak of a method for analyzing historiographical works. After considering two possible approaches—the philosophy of science and literary criticism—I offer my own proposal. This involves breaking the dichotomy between making and talking about history, adopting a fuzzy method that overcomes the isolation of self-named scientific communities, and that destroys the barriers among disciplines that work with the same texts but often from mutually excluding perspectives. Talking about history is only possible if one knows about history and about its sources and methods, but also about the foundations of the other social sciences and about the continuing importance of traditional philosophical problems of Western thought in the fields of history and the human sciences.     

History of Science or History of Learning

This essay presents analogies between the development of historical writing and of physical science during the early modern period. Its necessarily spotty coverage runs from the mid sixteenth century to the beginning of the eighteenth. The analogies include arising from practical concerns; preferring material documents and experimental inquiries over texts; making use of mathematical auxiliary sciences; distinguishing between primary and secondary elements; establishing new fundamental principles; undermining the traditional world system; and devising methods to control rapidly multiplying knowledge. A history of learning that meets today's standards of historical scholarship should identify and exploit such parallels, not only because of scholarly interest and responsibility, but also because an understanding of the historical importance of linkages between distant branches of learning may help redress the increasing imbalance in resources among the natural sciences, the social sciences, and the humanities in our higher schools and universities.     

Intellectual History and the History of Philosophy

Summary

The issue which I wish to address in this paper is the widespread tendency in Anglophone philosophy to insist on a separation between the history of philosophy and the history of ideas or intellectual history. This separation reflects an anxiety on the part of philosophers lest the special character of philosophy will be dissolved into something else in the hands of historians. And it is borne of a fundamental tension between those who think of philosophy's past as a source of ideas and arguments of interest to the present, and those who hold that the philosophy of the past should be studied on its own terms, in relation to its immediate context, without reference to the present. The challenge, then, is to re-historicise the history of philosophy, and to keep the philosophers onside.     

大历史与历史研究

大历史是历史研究与教学的新领域,它是指从各种可能的规模甚至宇宙的规模来探究一切事物的历史。大历史也是一种跨学科研究。它与世界史存在关联,也是对传统史学的一种补充。大历史探究也满足了人们的精神、心灵和社会需求,有利于人们更好地认识自我。