杨情, 刘开军. 二十世纪三四十年代陈述与金毓黻学术交游及治史异同考论[J]. 内江师范学院学报, 2023, 38(11): 58-64. DOI: 10.13603/j.cnki.51-1621/z.2023.11.010
    引用本文: 杨情, 刘开军. 二十世纪三四十年代陈述与金毓黻学术交游及治史异同考论[J]. 内江师范学院学报, 2023, 38(11): 58-64. DOI: 10.13603/j.cnki.51-1621/z.2023.11.010
    YANG Qing, LIU Kaijun. A Comparative Study of Academic Exchange and Historical Perspectives of CHEN Shu and JIN Yufu from the 1930s to 1940s[J]. Journal of Neijiang Normal University, 2023, 38(11): 58-64. DOI: 10.13603/j.cnki.51-1621/z.2023.11.010
    Citation: YANG Qing, LIU Kaijun. A Comparative Study of Academic Exchange and Historical Perspectives of CHEN Shu and JIN Yufu from the 1930s to 1940s[J]. Journal of Neijiang Normal University, 2023, 38(11): 58-64. DOI: 10.13603/j.cnki.51-1621/z.2023.11.010

    二十世纪三四十年代陈述与金毓黻学术交游及治史异同考论

    A Comparative Study of Academic Exchange and Historical Perspectives of CHEN Shu and JIN Yufu from the 1930s to 1940s

    • 摘要: 陈述与金毓黻均为辽金史研究名家,二人初次见面当在南京,时间为1936年末或1937年初。1938年至1940年间,他们信笺往复,讨论"头下""舍利""横帐"诸问题。1940年12月26日,金毓黻与傅斯年商量,借调陈述为三台东北大学东北史地经济研究室研究员。陈、金二人从学术同道变成同事。三台时期,陈述与金毓黻一起切磋学问。金毓黻常邀陈述外出郊游、访友。金毓黻与陈述的辽金史研究,既有齐同,亦有殊异。一是金毓黻与陈述皆擅考证,强调金石证史。二是金毓黻崇尚由专而通,陈述则恪守专精之道。三是在辽金历史地位的认识上,金毓黻以宋史为正史,以辽金二史为别史,陈述则将辽、金与宋视为中国历史上第二次南北朝。陈述与金毓黻之间这段不为人们所熟知的交游,彰显出那一代学人的学问境界与爱国正气。

       

      Abstract: CHEN Shu and JIN Yufu were both renowned scholars in the history of Liao and Jin Dynasties. They first met in Nanjing, around the end of 1936 or the beginning of 1937. From 1938 to 1940, they exchanged letters discussing various academic topics. On December 26, 1940, with the consultation of JIN and FU Sinian, a well-known scholar of history in China then, CHEN was transferred to the Research Office of Northeast History, Geography, and Economy of Northeast University at Santai County (1938-1946) as a researcher. They went from being academic colleagues to colleagues in the same institution. During their time at Santai, CHEN and JIN engaged in scholarly discussions and debates. The latter often invited the former to go on outings and visit friends. While their research on the history of the Liao and Jin Dynasties shared similarities, there were also differences. Firstly, both of them excelled in textual research and emphasized the importance of epigraphic evidence. Secondly, JIN advocated for broad knowledge from specialization, while CHEN adhered to the path of specialization. Thirdly, in terms of their understanding of the historical significance of the Liao and Jin Dynasties, JIN regarded the Song Dynasty as the main historical source, with the Liao and Jin Dynasties as alternative history. In contrast, CHEN considered the Liao, Jin, and Song Dynasties as the second Northern and Southern Dynasties in China’s history. This lesser-known friendship between them highlights the scholarly achievements and patriotic spirit of intellectuals of their era.

       

    /

    返回文章
    返回