Reflections on Constructing an Independent Knowledge System for Chinese Historiography

The discipline of historical theory has a guiding significance for the entire field of historiography, as amply demonstrated by a wealth of evidence from academic history. Reviewing the path already traversed, drawing wisdom and inspiration from it, is undoubtedly of great importance for the current effort to advance the construction of an independent knowledge system for Chinese historiography under the scientific guidance of the principles of historical materialism.

史学理论学科对整个历史学科具有指导意义，这是被学术史的大量事实所证明的。回顾已往走过的道路，从中获得智慧和启示，对于当前如何在唯物史观科学原理指导下，努力推进中国历史学自主知识体系建设，无疑具有重要意义。

I. The Magnificent Course of Chinese History Inspires Our Passion for Theoretical Creation

一、恢宏的中国历史进程激发我们理论创造的热情

China is fertile ground for the development of historiography, and it should also be fertile ground for the creation of historical theory. China possesses a civilization history of over five thousand years, developing continuously, which is unique in the world; Chinese feudal society lasted a very long time and reached a high level of development, also rarely seen globally; during the stage of semi-colonial and semi-feudal society in modern times, social changes were intense, domestic and international contradictions were complex and interwoven, and the New Democratic Revolution achieved great victory, writing a glorious chapter; it has also been over seventy years since the founding of New China, which, after twists and turns, has opened a path to victory, equally possessing world significance. Each of these historical stages contains extremely rich theoretical issues that require in-depth summation, thereby inspiring our passion for theoretical creation. We should be even more confident!

中国是史学发展的沃土，也应该是史学理论创造的沃土。中国有五千多年文明史，连续发展，举世独一无二；中国封建社会历时很长，高度发达，也是世所罕有；近代半殖民地半封建社会阶段，社会变动激烈，国内、国际矛盾复杂、交错，新民主主义革命取得伟大胜利，书写了辉煌的篇章；新中国成立也已有七十余年历史，经过曲折起伏，开辟了通向胜利之路，同样具有世界意义。上述每个历史阶段，都有极丰富的理论问题要深入总结，由此激发我们理论创造的热情。我们应把信心鼓得更足！

Over more than forty years of reform and opening up, the field of historical theory research has experienced ideological emancipation and a lively academic atmosphere, demonstrating an extremely valuable vitality for theoretical creation. The sustained emergence of this excellent situation is mainly due to the formation of two major driving forces.

改革开放四十多年来，史学理论研究领域思想解放，学术气氛活跃，呈现极可宝贵的理论创造活力。之所以能够持续出现这种大好局面，主要是由于形成了两大推动力。

The first is to clarify fundamental issues and advance with the times [n1]. Since China entered the new period of reform and opening up, numerous scholars have reached a consensus on the fundamental direction: to engage in theoretical creation while adhering to the basic principles of historical materialism. To this end, we have expended great effort on the work of clarifying fundamental issues. First and foremost is resolutely eliminating the pernicious influence of dogmatism. The reason such vigorous elimination is necessary is that dogmatism once caused harm under the banner of "revolution," blurring the line between genuine and false Marxism. Its manifestations included, during the Great Leap Forward [n2] era and for a period thereafter, some people, on the pretext of emphasizing class analysis, rejecting the use of "historicism," disregarding time, place, and conditions, mechanically applying the principles of historical materialism like "sticking on labels," neglecting historical sources to an extreme degree, and seriously violating the fundamental principles of respecting historical facts, collecting materials, and verifying sources that should be valued in historical research. The pernicious practices of dogmatism are in fact fundamentally opposed to Marxism, because Marxist theory is not a dogma but a guide to action. Marx and Engels repeatedly emphasized that research work must proceed from facts and must involve detailed possession of materials. "Research must fully appropriate the material, analyze its various forms of development, and trace their inner connection. Only after this work is done can the actual movement be adequately described." "In the field of natural science or historical science, we must proceed from existing facts." This demonstrates that the founders of historical materialism regarded the mastery of accurate and sufficient materials, along with their serious examination, as the fundamental prerequisite for research work, and strictly forbade proceeding from subjective assumptions or treating theory as a ready-made formula. Therefore, the British historian Geoffrey Barraclough clearly pointed out: "Marx was the least dogmatic and most flexible of writers." This clarifies, from the theoretical source and the fundamental purpose of Marxism, that the ideological system of historical materialism is fundamentally opposed to dogmatism. The facts are very clear: at that time, the prevalence of "dogmatization" was caused by the influence of the political "Left" line. Once national politics returned to normal and the correct political line was implemented, the academic situation was completely transformed, replaced by the guiding principle of seeking truth from facts, smashing ideological shackles, daring to explore and innovate, and conducting democratic discussions, thus ushering in the "spring of science."

一是正本清源，与时俱进。中国进入改革开放的新时期以来，有众多的学者在根本方向上形成共识：在坚持唯物史观基本原理的前提下从事理论创造。为此，我们花费极大气力做正本清源的工作。首先是坚决肃清教条主义的不良影响。之所以需要大力肃清，是因为教条主义曾经打着“革命”的牌子作祟，致使真假马克思主义混淆了界线。其表现是，在“大跃进”年代及其后一段时间，有的人借口强调阶级分析，排斥运用“历史主义”，不顾时间、地点、条件，将唯物史观原理“贴标签式”地胡乱套用，对史料的忽视达到无以复加的地步，严重违背了研究历史应当重视的尊重史实、搜集材料、考辨史料的根本原则。教条主义的恶劣做法实则与马克思主义根本对立，因为马克思主义的理论不是教条，而是行动的指南。马克思和恩格斯一再强调从事研究工作必须从事实出发，必须详细占有材料。“研究必须充分地占有材料，分析它的各种发展形式，探寻这些形式的内在联系。只有这项工作完成以后，现实的运动才能适当地叙述出来。”“不论在自然科学或历史科学的领域中，都必须从既有的事实出发。”这就说明，唯物史观创始人把掌握确凿而充分的材料，并对材料进行认真考核，视为研究工作的根本前提，力戒凭主观臆断出发，把理论当作现成公式套用的做法。因此，英国历史学家巴勒克拉夫明确指出：“马克思是最不教条、最灵活的作家。”这就从理论源头上、从马克思主义的根本宗旨上，明确了唯物史观思想体系与教条主义是根本对立的。事实很清楚，在当时，“教条化”的一度盛行是由于受到政治上“左”的路线影响而造成的。而当国家政治步入常轨，正确的政治路线得到贯彻以后，学术界的局面也就彻底改观，代之以贯彻“实事求是”方针为指导，砸碎思想枷锁，勇于开拓创新，开展民主讨论，因而，迎来了“科学的春天”。

Another driving force for theoretical development is adhering to historical materialism and developing historical materialism. Scholars have further reached a consensus in the practice of theoretical innovation: the theoretical system of historical materialism was a product of the era of large-scale industry in 19th-century Europe. More than a hundred years have passed since then, and the times have greatly developed. Many new things have emerged both internationally and domestically, and it is necessary to develop historical materialism while adhering to its basic principles. The great tide of China's reform and opening up has surged for over forty years, and social conditions have undergone earth-shaking changes. New experiences need to be summarized, which is a topic of the times we must address. Since reform and opening up, Sino-foreign academic exchanges have been unprecedentedly active. While introducing new achievements to foreign counterparts, we must undoubtedly vigorously absorb new academic principles. Through exchange and mutual learning, we can understand new things and new knowledge from abroad and enrich our theoretical system. In this regard, we must proceed with selection and discernment, so that the imported academic principles can serve our use, rather than swallowing them whole, blindly copying them, or following them slavishly.

理论发展的又一动力是坚持唯物史观，发展唯物史观。学者们在理论创新实践中进一步得出共识：唯物史观理论体系是欧洲19世纪大工业时代的产物，从那时至今已经一百多年，时代已大大发展，不论国际或国内都出现了许多新事物，必须在坚持基本原理的前提下，发展唯物史观。中国改革开放的大潮已经激荡了四十余年，社会状况发生了天翻地覆的变化，需要总结新的经验，这是我们必须回答的时代课题。改革开放以来，中外学术交流空前活跃，我们在向国外同行推出新成果的同时，无疑要大力吸收新学理，通过交流互鉴，了解国外的新事物、新知识，丰富我们的理论体系。对此，必须有选择、有鉴别地进行，使输入的学理能够为我所用，而不能囫囵吞枣，盲目照搬，亦步亦趋。

The current environment provides us with excellent conditions for theoretical creation. The Party and the state have created the best environment for us, encouraging us to be bold in creation, and encouraging us to produce outstanding achievements that meet the requirements of inheritance and national character, innovation and contemporaneity, and systematicity and professionalism through dedicated research. Comrade Xi Jinping pointed out: "Stand at the forefront of the times, comprehend the changes of the past and present, and give voice to pioneering thoughts." [n3] He also emphasized: "In the long river of history, the Chinese nation has formed a great national spirit and excellent traditional culture. These are the cultural genes for the Chinese nation's continuous vitality and long-term prosperity, and also the spiritual strength for realizing the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation. They must be carried forward in light of new realities." These statements make us clearer about the direction for constructing a historical theory with Chinese characteristics. This is a systematic project involving a wide range of aspects. Below, I will only offer preliminary thoughts on two issues.

当前的环境为我们提供了理论创造的极好条件。党和国家为我们营造了最好的环境，鼓励我们勇于创造，鼓励我们通过潜心研究拿出符合继承性和民族性、创新性和时代性、系统性和专业性的优秀成果。习近平同志指出：“立时代之潮头，通古今之变化，发思想之先声。”他又强调：“在历史长河中，中华民族形成了伟大民族精神和优秀传统文化，这是中华民族生生不息、长盛不衰的文化基因，也是实现中华民族伟大复兴的精神力量，要结合新的实际发扬光大。”这些论述使我们更加明确构建中国特色史学理论的方向。这是一个系统工程，涉及的方面很广，下面仅就两个问题提出初步认识。

II. Seriously Summarize the Important Achievements in Historical Theory Since Reform and Opening Up

二、认真总结改革开放以来史学理论的重要成果

Since reform and opening up, theoretical creation under the guidance of historical materialism has yielded a number of very significant achievements. These are the foundation for our continued progress and should be summarized and promoted. Based on the author's personal reading impressions, I list them here. This is limited to my preliminary understanding, and omissions are inevitable. I earnestly hope that colleagues in the academic community will pay attention and offer insightful opinions, so that these hard-won theoretical achievements can be presented more comprehensively and intensively. My preliminary list includes 13 items, namely: the pattern of pluralistic unity of the Chinese nation [n4]; the mainstream of ethnic relations in history; Zongzhou society and ritual and music civilization [n5]; regional developmental imbalance and the feudalization process of vast border areas; monarchism in Chinese history; historical and cultural identity and the development of a unified multi-ethnic state; the Grand Song History perspective and the "New Song Studies" perspective; the historical status of the early Qing dynasty; early industrialization in the Jiangnan region during the Ming and Qing dynasties; the War of Resistance Against Japan: the pivot of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation; the role of "intermediate forces" during the democratic revolution period; the basic clues of the social process in modern China; and how to understand the theory of the "Asiatic mode of production."

改革开放以来，唯物史观指导下的理论创造获得了一批很有意义的成果，这是我们继续前进的基础，应当加以总结和发扬。根据笔者个人读书的印象列举于此，仅限于个人的初步认识，难免有遗漏，亟盼学界同仁予以关注和提出卓见，以求这些来之不易的理论成果能有较为全面、集中的展现。笔者初步列举的共有13项，即中华民族的多元一体格局、历史上民族关系的主流、宗周社会与礼乐文明、地区发展不平衡性和广大边区封建化进程、中国历史上的王权主义、历史文化认同与统一多民族国家发展、大宋史观和“新宋学”观、清朝前期的历史地位、明清时期江南早期工业化、抗日战争：中华民族伟大复兴的枢纽、民主革命时期“中间力量”的作用、中国近代社会进程的基本线索、“亚细亚生产方式”理论如何理解。

These theoretical propositions are all important achievements of contemporary historians creatively applying historical materialism to explore the course of Chinese history. Because they grasp key issues and highlight theoretical originality and Chinese characteristics, they have played a role in advancing academic research. Theoretical creation is also an extremely arduous task, requiring the possession of detailed materials, foresight and insight, and creative inspiration. Sometimes, due to the significance of the topic and the wide scope involved, analysis and generalization are very time-consuming. Therefore, it requires the collective effort and wisdom of many people.

这些理论主张都是当代史学家创造性地运用唯物史观探索中国历史进程的重要创获，由于抓住了关键性问题，凸显了理论的原创性和中国特色，因而对学术研究起到推进作用。理论创造又是十分艰辛的事情，需要占有详尽的资料，需要有远见卓识和创造灵感，有时由于论题重大，涉及的范围甚广，探析和概括很费时日，因此，需要汇集多人的辛劳与智慧。

For instance, there is the theory of “the pattern of unity in diversity of the Chinese nation.” This was proposed by Fei Xiaotong in a lecture at the Chinese University of Hong Kong in August 1988. Its main formulation is: “The Chinese nation, as a conscious national entity, emerged in the confrontation between China and the Western powers over the past century, but as a spontaneous entity it was formed through a historical process of several thousand years… Its mainstream consists of numerous scattered and isolated national units which, through contact, intermingling, linkage and fusion, and also through division and extinction, have formed a unity in diversity in which you come and I go, I come and you go, I am in you and you are in me, yet each retains its own individuality… The Han nationality has continuously absorbed elements from other nationalities and grown ever larger, and has also penetrated the settlement areas of other nationalities, forming a network that plays a cohesive and connecting role, laying the foundation for an indivisible unity formed by the many nationalities within this territory, becoming a spontaneous national entity, and through national consciousness it has been called the Chinese nation.” This passage reveals three points. First, the Chinese nation is a national entity that includes the 56 nationalities within China’s borders. Within this national entity, all constituent components already possess a higher-level sense of national identity, that is, a feeling and moral obligation of sharing weal and woe, sharing life and death, sharing honor and disgrace, and sharing a common destiny. Therefore, national identity has two levels: in the pattern of unity in diversity, the 56 nationalities constitute the basic level, and the Chinese nation constitutes the higher level. Second, the pattern of unity in diversity underwent a process from dispersion to the integration of diversity into unity. In this process, there must be a cohesive force that binds diversity into unity. This unity is no longer the Han nationality but has become the Chinese nation, a nationality with a higher-level identity. Third, higher-level identity does not necessarily replace or exclude lower-level identity; different levels can coexist without conflict, and can even develop their own original characteristics on the basis of identity at different levels. In this regard, Lin Yaohua commented that in this lecture, Fei Xiaotong used rich materials from archaeology, linguistics, anthropology, ethnology and history to profoundly trace the causes of the pattern of the Chinese nation and pointed out the greatest feature of this pattern, namely that unity contains diversity and diversity upholds unity, “thus providing us with a powerful cognitive tool and a key to understanding the overall situation for understanding the general characteristics of China’s nationalities and culture.” He also pointed out: “When the state is politically unified, the aspect of cultural diversity will be emphasized and reasonably manifested; when the world is in turmoil, the aspect of political unity will stubbornly rise to become the urgent task commonly recognized by all nationalities. It is precisely based on this understanding that I deeply feel that the proposal of the concept of ‘unity in diversity’ will greatly benefit our future academic research and work practice.”

譬如，关于“中华民族的多元一体格局”理论。这是费孝通于1988年8月在香港中文大学演讲时提出的，其主要表述是：“中华民族作为一个自觉的民族实体，是近百年来中国和西方列强对抗中出现的，但作为一个自在的实体则是几千年的历史过程所形成的……它的主流是由许许多多分散孤立存在的民族单位，经过接触、混杂、联结和融合，同时也有分裂和消亡，形成一个你来我去、我来你去，我中有你、你中有我，而又各具个性的多元统一体……汉族继续不断吸收其他民族的成分而日益壮大，而且渗入其他民族的聚居区，构成起着凝聚和联系作用的网络，奠定了以这个疆域内许多民族联合成的不可分割的统一体的基础，成为一个自在的民族实体，经过民族自觉而称为中华民族。”这段表述揭示了三点。第一，中华民族是包括中国境内56个民族的民族实体，在这个民族实体里所有归属成分都已具有高一层的民族认同意识，即共休戚、共存亡、共荣辱、共命运的感情和道义。故此，民族认同意识有两个层次，在多元一体格局中56个民族是基层，中华民族是高层。第二，多元一体格局经历了从分散到多元结合成一体的过程，在这个过程中必须有一个起凝聚作用把多元结合成一体，这一体不再是汉族而成了中华民族，一个高层次认同的民族。第三，高层次的认同并不一定取代或排斥低层次的认同，不同层次可以并存不悖，甚至在不同层次的认同基础上可以各自发展原有的特点。对此，林耀华评价说，在这篇讲演中，费孝通运用了考古学、语言学、人类学、民族学和历史学等方面的丰富资料，深刻追溯了中华民族格局的成因并指出这一格局的最大特点，即一体中包含着多元，多元中拥戴着一体，“从而为我们认识中国民族和文化的总特点提供了一件有力的认识工具和理解全局的钥匙”。他还指出：“在国家的政治统一时，文化多元这个侧面会得到强调并得到合理的体现；而在天下动荡时，政治统一这个侧面又会顽强地上升为各民族普遍认同的当务之急。正是基于这样的体会，我才深深感到‘多元一体’这个概念的提出将大有益于我们今后的学术研究和工作实践。”

That this theoretical proposition has had a broad influence is certainly mainly attributable to Fei Xiaotong’s own long-term exploration, yet at the same time it also gathered the wisdom of many scholars in the field of ethnic history, among whom was Zhang Boquan’s contribution to the theory of “Chinese unity.” [6]6 Zhang Boquan (1926–2008) was a Chinese historian specializing in the history of the Liao, Jin and Yuan dynasties and the ethnic relations of northern China. He published the famous paper “On ‘Chinese Unity’” in 1986, and subsequently wrote works such as “On ‘Chinese Unification,’” “On the Concept of ‘Chinese Unity,’” and “The Historical Trajectory of Chinese Unity.” From the refinement of his research approach or arguments, it can be proven that there are commonalities or even points of convergence with the theory of “the pattern of unity in diversity of the Chinese nation.” As one scholar explained: “Mr. Zhang’s complete formulation of ‘Chinese unity’ is ‘Chinese unity in diversity and diversity in unity,’ that is, the state is one entity, and the nationalities are diverse”; “During the Liao and Jin periods, the history of the Central Plains being ruled mainly by the Han nationality was transformed into a history of being ruled mainly by northern minority nationalities. The Liao and Jin dynasties and the Northern and Southern Song dynasties, with the Liao and Jin as the leading powers, confronted each other north and south, yet belonged to the same family. The various nationalities under the rule of different dynasties were also of the same family, but this does not mean that there was no longer any division among nationalities”; “The Liao and Jin gained political ascendancy, and their rulers already regarded themselves as no different from the Chinese. The Han were Chinese, and the Khitan and Jurchen also considered themselves Chinese; all those with the same culture were Chinese. The Liao and Jin and the Song mutually recognized each other as one family but two states, laying an important foundation for the Yuan dynasty to form a unified China and for all nationalities to develop toward a unified China.” The essence of Zhang Boquan’s theory lies in his view that the unification of various nationalities in history was a trend of continuous development. To this, the Han, Khitan, Jurchen, Mongol and other nationalities all made contributions, ultimately developing into unity in diversity. The core of its values is entirely consistent with Fei Xiaotong’s theory.

这一理论主张之所以产生了广泛的影响，固然应主要归功于费孝通本人长期的探索，而同时它又汇集了民族史学界多位学者的智慧而得，其中就有张博泉关于“中华一体”理论的贡献。他于1986年发表了著名论文《“中华一体”论》，此后又相继撰成《“中华一统”论》《“中华一体”观念论》《中华一体的历史轨迹》等论著，从其研究思路或论点的提炼，都可以证明与“中华民族多元一体格局”理论有相通甚或契合之处。正如有学者阐释的：“张先生的‘中华一体’的完整表述是‘中华多元一体与一体多元’，即国家为一体，民族为多元”；“辽金时由过去以汉族为主统治中原的历史，转变为以北方少数民族为主统治中原的历史，辽金与两宋是以辽金两朝为盟主，南北对峙，同属一家。在不同王朝统治下的各民族又同为一家，但不等于说再无民族的划分”；“辽金在政治上取得优势，统治者已把自己看成与中华无异。汉是中华，契丹、女真也自认为中华，有相同文化的均是中华。辽金与宋互相承认是一家两国，为元朝形成统一的中国，各民族向统一的中国发展打下了重要基础”。张博泉的理论精华在于，他认为历史上各民族的统一是不断向前发展的趋势，对此，汉族、契丹、女真、蒙古等民族都作出了贡献，最终发展为多元一体，其价值观的核心与费孝通的学说是完全一致的。

The continuity of Chinese civilization and the development of a unified state are also issues of great concern to scholars. The most representative theoretical achievement is the ritual and music civilization of Zhou society and the continuous strengthening of the consciousness of national cultural identity. [7]7 The Duke of Zhou (Zhou Gong, fl. 11th century BCE) was a regent of the early Zhou dynasty credited with consolidating the Zhou conquest and establishing its ritual and political institutions. In his book *Zhou Society and Ritual and Music Civilization*, Yang Xiangkui highly evaluated the scale of state-building of the Western Zhou’s “unification of the realm” and emphasized that the Western Zhou ritual and music civilization created by the Duke of Zhou had a tremendous influence on the Chinese cultural tradition, becoming an ideology that promoted the forward development of national unification and molded the character of the Chinese nation. “Without the Duke of Zhou, there would have been no unified realm after King Wu’s conquest of Yin; without the Duke of Zhou, there would have been no ritual and music civilization handed down through the ages.” “The rapid development of the Western Zhou over more than three hundred years makes it difficult to imagine the brilliant civilization of the Spring and Autumn and Warring States periods without the origins of the Western Zhou and without the reforms of the Duke of Zhou… And the Way of Zhou and Confucius became the Way of China in the long feudal society. Chinese civilization and the ritual and music civilization created by Zhou and Confucius are an indivisible unity. This civilization molded the character of the Chinese nation.”

中华文明的连续性和统一国家的发展同样是学者们十分关注的问题，最具代表性的理论成果是宗周社会礼乐文明和民族文化认同意识的不断增强。杨向奎在《宗周社会与礼乐文明》一书中，高度评价西周“一统天下”的建国规模，并强调以周公为代表创造的西周礼乐文明对于中国文化传统影响至巨，成为促进国家统一向前发展的意识形态，陶冶了中华民族的性格。“没有周公不会有武王灭殷以后的一统天下，没有周公不会有传世的礼乐文明。”“宗周三百多年的发展迅猛，春秋战国时之灿烂光辉的文明，没有西周的渊源，没有周公的改革是很难想象的……而周孔之道，变作长期的封建社会中的华夏之道，华夏文明与周孔创造的礼乐文明，是不可分割的统一体。这种文明陶冶了中华民族的性格。”

The achievements of the theory of cultural identity are concentrated in the five-volume work *Historical and Cultural Identity and China’s Unified Multi-Ethnic State* (Hebei People’s Publishing House, 2013), edited by Qu Lindong. National cultural identity is, in essence, the manifestation in culture and national consciousness of the trend toward increased integration among China’s various ethnic groups and the continuous advancement of nationwide multi-ethnic unification; it is the spiritual bond for the formation and development of a unified multi-ethnic state. So-called identity should contain two basic elements: first, identifying that China’s history is the common history of all ethnic groups, jointly participated in and jointly created, and that the history of one’s own ethnic group is closely and inseparably linked to the history of the continuous advancement of unification across all of China; second, identifying with the advanced culture of the Central Plains, thereby forming an inexhaustible source of centripetal force and cohesion among all Chinese ethnic groups, and forming the ideological foundation for the continuous development of multi-ethnic unification with strong vitality. The Central Plains culture, with the Han ethnic group as its main body, was also jointly created by pooling the wisdom of all other ethnic groups in China; it is the fruit of millennia of continuous ethnic fusion, the crystallization of the fine traditions and precious wisdom of all ethnic groups, and represents the common direction of progress for the Chinese nation. Historically, the consciousness of multi-ethnic fusion formed very early, and multi-ethnic unification possessed a profound historical inevitability. The living environment of the Chinese nation constitutes a natural pattern: the four cardinal directions—east, west, south, and north—are bounded by natural barriers such as seas, high mountains, great deserts, and swift rivers, while the Central Plains region, with its superior soil, water conservancy, and climatic conditions, developed agricultural production very early, thereby nurturing an advanced ancient civilization, becoming a destination aspired to by surrounding inhabitants and a center for disseminating advanced civilization to outlying border areas. The trend of mutual exchange and integration between the Central Plains region and surrounding areas had already begun to manifest in the remote Neolithic period. The Han ethnic group (the Huaxia ethnic group in the pre-Qin period) played a core and leading role in the process of multi-ethnic unification. The reason the Han ethnic group became the world’s most populous ethnic group lies precisely in its long-term development through the continuous absorption and integration of surrounding minority ethnic groups, thus growing larger like a rolling snowball; hence Liang Qichao called the Han ethnic group a product of “mixed blood.” [8]8 Liang Qichao (1873–1929) was a prominent Chinese scholar, journalist, and reformist intellectual in the late Qing and early Republican periods. Through the three dynasties of Xia, Shang, and Zhou, the core position of the Huaxia ethnic group began to be established. Over the four to five hundred years from the early Spring and Autumn period to the late Warring States period, the process of ethnic fusion accelerated; many culturally backward tribes within the Central Plains and in the four directions successively disappeared, in fact merging into the expanding Huaxia ethnic group. This work presents a panoramic view of millennia of cultural identity and ethnic fusion, convincingly demonstrating that the unity and solidarity of the Chinese nation is a historical necessity. National cultural identity and national unification underwent a qualitative leap from ancient to modern times. In the modern era, in order to resist the brutal aggression of imperialism, the sons and daughters of all ethnic groups, in bloody battles, came to recognize even more the common interests of the entire Chinese nation, and more consciously strengthened mutual support and unity among ethnic groups; this is a powerful driving force for the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation in modern times. Reflecting on the past in light of the present, we understand even more deeply that the firm unity of the entire nation, with one heart and one mind and coordinated effort, is the guarantee of our cause’s victory.

文化认同理论的成果集中体现在瞿林东主编的《历史文化认同与中国统一多民族国家》（五卷本，河北人民出版社2013年版）中。民族文化认同，实质上是中国各民族加强融合的趋势和全国多民族统一不断推进，在文化上和民族意识上的体现，是统一多民族国家形成发展的精神纽带。所谓认同，应包含两项基本内容：一是认同中国的历史是各民族共同的历史，共同参与、共同创造，本民族的历史与全中国不断推进统一的历史紧密相连、不可分离；二是认同中原先进文化，由此形成中华各民族向心力、凝聚力的不竭源泉，形成多民族统一不断发展的具有强大生命力的思想基础。中原文化是以汉族为主体、同时又是汇聚了中国其他各族的智慧而共同创造的，是几千年民族不断融合的成果，是各民族优良传统和宝贵智慧的结晶，代表着中华民族共同前进的方向。在历史上，多民族融合的意识形成得很早，多民族的统一有深刻的历史必然性。中华民族的生存环境构成一个自然格局，东西南北四周有大海、高山、大漠、急流等形成天然屏障，而中原地区土壤、水利、气候环境优越，很早就发展了农业生产，由此滋养了先进的古代文明，成为周边居民向往之所在和向四周边远地区传播先进文明的中心。中原地区与周边地区相互交流、融合的趋势，早在远古的新石器时期已开始显示。汉族（先秦时期是华夏族）在多民族统一过程中是起到核心和主导作用的民族。而汉族之所以成为全世界人数最多的民族，其原因即在长期发展过程中不断吸收、融合了周边少数民族，因而像滚雪球一样越滚越大，故梁启超称汉族系“混血”而成。历夏、商、周三代，华夏族的核心地位开始奠定。春秋初年至战国后期四五百年，民族融合的进程加速了，中原境内及四方许多文化落后的部族相继消失，实际上是融合到不断扩大的华夏族之中。该书展现了几千年文化认同、民族融合的全景图，令人信服地论证了中华民族的团结统一是历史的必然。民族文化认同和国家统一，从古代到近代，又经历了质的飞跃。在近代，为了抗击帝国主义的野蛮侵略，各族儿女在浴血战斗中更加认识到中华民族全体的共同利益，更加自觉地加强民族间的相互支持和团结统一，这是近代以来实现中华民族伟大复兴的强大动力。抚今追昔，我们更加深刻地认识到，全民族的坚强团结，同心同德，协同努力，是我们事业胜利的保证。

This work examines the characteristics of Chinese national cultural identity against the backdrop of world history; the “Introduction” to the fifth volume, written by Liu Jiahe, provides a penetrating discussion of this. He states: During the transition from the Shang to the Zhou dynasty in China, there was a great change of dynastic rise and fall. Unlike the ruptures caused by dynastic rise and fall elsewhere in the world, the transition between Shang and Zhou precisely manifested historical and cultural identity amid dynastic change. “The Zhou people themselves acknowledged a relationship of sequential inheritance with the Shang in political terms.” In the early Zhou proclamations, “the Duke of Zhou repeatedly explained that the Xia once possessed virtue and therefore held the realm; later Xia kings lost virtue, thereby losing the people’s hearts, and so the Shang replaced the Xia. The Shang possessed virtue and therefore held the realm; it was also because later Shang kings lost virtue, thereby losing the people’s hearts, that the Zhou replaced the Shang. Losing virtue means losing the people’s hearts; losing the people’s hearts means losing the Mandate of Heaven; this has been consistent since the Xia and Shang.” The value of this early Zhou understanding of history “has groundbreaking significance for the tradition of Chinese historical and cultural identity, and also has pioneering significance in the history of human cognition.” The work further discusses the differences between the unification of the Qin and Han dynasties and that of empires such as the Assyrian Empire and the Persian Empire, which were established in the same period of the 1st millennium BCE. In summary, the latter can only be considered “conquest by force,” while the Qin-Han empires represent “unification by force.” The reason is that when Qin unified the six states, “in terms of their origins, they originally shared a common origin—all were vassal states of the Zhou royal house.” Furthermore, “before Qin unified the six states and before Han reunified, the inhabitants of the Central Plains were already essentially the same ethnic group, namely the Huaxia ethnic group.” Therefore, “in ancient China, unification was essentially the unification of a unified ethnic group, whereas in other ancient states, it was the conquest of different ethnic groups.” Such discussions in the work can be described as having a novel perspective, solid argumentation, and profound enlightening significance.

该书从世界历史的背景下考察中国民族文化认同的特点，刘家和撰写的第五卷“导论”对此作了精辟的论述。他说：中国殷商之际，经历了王朝兴亡的巨变，与世界上其他地方因王朝兴亡而产生断裂不同，商、周之际在王朝更替中确切地表现出历史文化认同。“周人自己承认与殷商在政治上有先后继承的关系。”在周初的文告里，“周公一再说明，夏曾经有德，因而有天下，后世夏王失德，从而失去民心，于是有商之代夏；商因有德而有天下，也是由于后世商王失德，从而失去民心，才有周之代商。失德就失去民心，失去民心就失去天命，夏商以来，一贯如此。”周初这种对历史的认识的价值，“对于中国历史文化认同的传统具有开山的意义，在人类的认识史上也是具有开创性的意义的”。书中又论述秦汉的统一与同为公元前1000年代建立的亚述帝国、波斯帝国等的不同。概言之，后者仅能算是“武力的征服”，而秦汉帝国则是“武力的统一”。其理由，秦统一六国，“从它们的来源上说，原先却有一个共同的渊源——都是周王室的诸侯”。再者，“在秦统一六国及汉再统一以前，在中原大地上居住的基本已经是同一民族，即华夏族”。因此，“在中国古代，统一基本上是统一民族的统一，而在其他古国，则是对于不同民族的征服”。书中这类论述，堪称视角新颖，立论坚实，具有深刻的启迪意义。

The theory of “the basic thread of the modern Chinese social process” is of great significance for understanding the essence of modern social movements. The nearly 110 years from the Opium War to the founding of the People’s Republic of China in 1949 have extremely unusual significance. China traveled a path from social decline to standing like a giant in the East of the world; the road traversed was magnificent yet full of twists and turns, and the issues were exceptionally complex. How to summarize its evolutionary laws and the basic thread of the historical process is significant not only for scientifically explaining the earth-shaking changes of these hundred-plus years, but also for correctly answering why China took the path it did after the founding of the People’s Republic. The exploration of the topic “the basic thread of the modern Chinese social process,” beginning in the 1950s, has gone through two waves of heated discussion across several generations of scholars.

“中国近代社会进程的基本线索”理论，对认识近代社会运动的本质有重大意义。鸦片战争至1949年新中国成立这近110年的历史具有极不平常的意义，中国从社会衰败到像巨人般屹立于世界东方，其间走过的道路波澜壮阔而又腾挪跌宕，问题异常复杂。如何总结其演进的规律和历史进程的基本线索，不但对于科学地说明这百余年间天翻地覆的变化，而且对于正确回答新中国成立后为什么要走这样的道路，都有重要的意义。关于“中国近代社会进程的基本线索”这一课题的探索，自20世纪50年代以降，经过几代学人的探索，出现过两次讨论热潮。

The 1950s saw the first wave. In 1954, Hu Sheng published “The Periodization of Modern Chinese History” in the inaugural issue of *Historical Research*, which sparked academic discussion, with several scholars expressing opinions, all focusing on the several revolutionary high tides from 1840 to 1919. Representative among them were: Hu Sheng’s theory of three high tides and seven stages; Zhang Kaiyuan’s theory of three stages; Fan Wenlan’s theory of four stages; Lai Xinxia also advocated a theory of four stages, but with slightly different specific divisions. At that time, just after the great democratic revolution had ended, when the academic community discussed the basic thread of the modern historical process, it placed more emphasis on the main line of the struggle against imperialism and feudalism, which is entirely understandable. At the same time, however, some scholars began to pay attention to the development of capitalism in modern China, that is, to analyze it from the thread of modernization. Fan Wenlan was a representative among them. In his 1955 article “The Problem of Periodization in Modern Chinese History,” he attached importance to taking the development of Chinese capitalism as an important perspective for advancing modern society, and made positive evaluations of the role of the modern bourgeoisie in different periods. However, this opinion did not receive attention at the time.

20世纪50年代是第一次热潮。1954年，胡绳在《历史研究》创刊号发表《中国近代历史的分期》后引起学术界的讨论，有多位学者发表意见，都是以1840年至1919年有过几次革命高潮为关注的重点。其中有代表性的是：胡绳的三高潮七阶段说；章开沅的三阶段说；范文澜的四阶段说，来新夏也主张四阶段说，但具体划分阶段的意见又略有不同。当时正处于伟大的民主革命刚刚结束之后，学术界讨论近代历史进程基本线索时，更多地重视反帝反封建斗争这条主线，这是完全可以理解的。但与此同时，也有学者开始关注近代中国资本主义的发展，即从近代化这一线索来做分析。范文澜就是其中的代表。他在1955年发表的《中国近代史的分期问题》一文中，就重视将中国资本主义的发展作为推动近代社会前进的重要视角，并对近代资产阶级在不同时期的作用作了积极的评价。不过这一意见在当时并未得到人们的重视。

By the period of reform and opening up, the academic community had emancipated its thinking, and the practical experience of modernization construction brought direct inspiration and impetus. The thread of capitalist development and the modernization process naturally received more attention from researchers; thus, the 1980s formed the second wave of discussion. By this time, the era environment was quite different from before. First, China had entered the new period of reform and opening up, with the state’s general policy centered on economic construction, implementing opening up to the outside world, and concentrating all efforts on modernization construction. Second, the field of academic research had been greatly expanded; in the past, it was basically biased toward the study of political history, but from this point it moved from political history to economic history, social history, and cultural history. Therefore, scholars’ explorations gained new perspectives and proposed new viewpoints, the main characteristic being an emphasis on the basic thread of capitalist development and the advancement of modernization during the modern historical period.

到了改革开放时期，学术界解放思想，现实的现代化建设实践带来直接的启发和推动，资本主义发展和近代化进程这一线索自然地得到更多研究者的关注，因此，20世纪80年代形成了讨论的第二次热潮。至此，时代环境较前已大有不同。一是中国进入改革开放的新时期，国家的总方针是以经济建设为中心，实行对外开放，集中全力进行现代化建设；二是学术研究领域得到大大拓展，过去基本上偏于政治史的探讨，至此则由政治史推向经济史、社会史、文化史，因此，学者们的探索有了新视角，提出了新观点，主要特点是强调应当重视近代史时期资本主义发展和推进近代化这一基本线索。

Li Shiyue stressed the importance of attaching significance to the emergence and development of the capitalist economy in modern history. Therefore, the capitalist movement (including both its economic and political aspects) should be taken as the main thread for examining the course of modern China’s development. He held that the Westernization Movement, the Reform Movement of 1898, and the Xinhai Revolution reflected the rapid development of the political consciousness of the modern Chinese people and marked the basic脉络 of China’s historical progress. Chen Xulu’s focus in delineating the threads of modern history, while adhering to the premise that modern China was a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society, paid particular attention to its transitional characteristics and the process by which modernization germinated and gradually grew stronger, especially the weak development and gradual growth of the capitalist economy and politics.

李时岳强调要重视近代史上资本主义经济发生、发展的意义，因此，应以资本主义运动（包括经济和政治两方面）作为主要线索来考察中国近代发展进程，认为洋务运动、维新运动、辛亥革命反映了近代中国人民政治觉悟的迅速发展，标志着中国历史前进的基本脉络。陈旭麓划分近代史线索的着眼点，是在坚持中国近代是半殖民地半封建社会性质的前提下，特别关注其过渡性特点和近代化由萌发到逐步壮大的进程，尤其关注资本主义在经济上和政治上的微弱发展与逐步成长。

Liu Danian, on the other hand, put forward the view of “two basic problems,” which was an integration of the two perspectives—the revolutionary upsurge perspective and the modernization perspective—that had existed since the 1950s. He summarized the entire history of modern China as comprising “two basic problems”: first, the nation was not independent, requiring liberation from foreign aggression and oppression; second, social production was backward, requiring industrialization and modernization. The two basic problems were closely related and ran through the entire period. He argued: What is the relationship between these two basic problems? “They are tightly linked together, not isolated from each other. Without national independence, modernization cannot be achieved; without modernization, politics, economy, and culture will forever be backward, and true national independence cannot be realized. The Chinese people’s unyielding pursuit of national independence ultimately aims at achieving the country’s modernization.”

刘大年则提出“两个基本问题”的看法，这是对20世纪50年代以来革命高潮视角和近代化视角两种观点的整合。他把整部中国近代史概括为“两个基本问题”，一是民族不独立，要求从外国侵略压迫下解放出来；二是社会生产落后，要求工业化、近代化。两个基本问题息息相关，贯穿始终。他论述说：这两个基本问题是什么关系呢？“它们紧密地联结在一起，不是各自孤立的。没有民族独立，不能实现近代化；没有近代化，政治、经济、文化永远落后，不能实现真正的民族独立。中国人民百折不回追求民族独立，最终目的仍在追求国家的近代化。”

After the discussions of the 1950s and the academic debates of the 1980s and 1990s, it can be considered that the view represented by Liu Danian, which takes the “two basic problems” as the basic thread for examining modern history, is more comprehensive in its argumentation and can cover a wider range of content. This is because it not only adheres to the theory that “modern China was a semi-colonial and semi-feudal society”—a theory that has been tested and proven correct by nearly a century of social practice and academic research—but also absorbs the new understandings gained since the 1950s from many scholars who expanded their research from political history to economic history, social history, and cultural history. Therefore, it can be regarded as an important achievement of the academic community after long-term research and discussion.

经过20世纪50年代的讨论，至八九十年代的学术争鸣，可以认为，以刘大年为代表的“两个基本问题”作为考察近代历史基本线索的看法，论述更加全面，能够涵盖更广泛的内容，因为它不仅坚持了“近代中国是半殖民地半封建社会”这一历经近一个世纪社会实践和学术研究的检验、证明其正确性的理论，而且吸收了自20世纪50年代以来许多学者从政治史扩大到经济史、社会史、文化史研究的新认识，故此，可以视为学术界经过长期研究和讨论取得的重要成果。

The above is a brief discussion of theoretical propositions that have had significant innovative significance for the development of the discipline of history since reform and opening up. Although not comprehensive, it has already proven the courage of Chinese scholars in academic innovation, the seriousness of their attitude, the depth of their discussion, and the persistence of their pursuit of truth. The academic community must vigorously promote this.

以上简略论述改革开放以来对于历史学科发展具有重要创新意义的理论主张，尽管尚不全面，但已证明中国学人学术创新的勇气、态度之认真、讨论之深入和追求真理态度之执着，对此，学界必须大力发扬

III. Strengthening the Summary of Theoretical Achievements in Various Fields of History

三、加强历史学各个领域理论成就的总结

To advance the construction of a theoretical system for historiography in the New Era, it is also necessary to strengthen the summary of innovative theories in various fields of history. These fields include political history, economic history, intellectual history, cultural history, and the history of scholarship. Here, we will only briefly analyze the theoretical innovation achievements of the sub-discipline of the history of historiography as an example.

推进新时代史学理论体系建设，还必须加强对历史学各个领域创新理论的总结。这些领域包括政治史、经济史、思想史、文化史、学术史等，这里仅以史学史这一分支学科的理论创新成果为例做简要分析。

Excavating the resources of traditional historiography, achieving creative transformation, and realizing their contemporary value have special significance for advancing theoretical construction. The compilation of historical books in ancient China embodies the high wisdom and outstanding creative spirit of our ancestors. In the past, some people regarded historical compilation as a purely technical issue, which is highly inappropriate. In fact, historical compilation is the concentrated expression of a historian’s talent, learning, and insight. Bai Shouyi provided a scientific definition of the important position of historical compilation in historiography. He said: “The compilation of historical books is the most convenient place for the concentrated embodiment of historiographical achievements, and it is also an important channel for disseminating historical knowledge. The application of historical theory, the handling and mastery of historical materials, and the organization and representation of historical facts can all be judged here. What Liu Zhiji called talent, learning, and insight, and what Zhang Xuecheng called the historian’s virtue, can all be embodied here.” [9]9 Liu Zhiji (661–721) was a Tang-dynasty historian; Zhang Xuecheng (1738–1801) was a Qing-dynasty historian and theorist of historiography. The terms “talent, learning, and insight” (才、学、识) and “historian’s virtue” (史德) are key concepts in their respective theories of what qualities a historian should possess. Therefore, historical compilation is a marker indicating the level of development a given era’s historiography has reached. One of our important tasks at present is to reveal the categories, propositions, and achievements within it that possess value transcending time and space, to elucidate their contemporary value, thereby enriching the construction of the theoretical discipline of historiography, and to play a role in providing reference and inspiration for contemporary historical compilation. As a preliminary consideration, the basic components of “historical compilation” should include the historian’s historical viewpoint, the characteristics of the genre of historical writing, the selection of historical materials, and the application of stylistic rules, all of which are worthy of theoretical summarization. The most core component is the historian’s compilational thought. To advance the excavation of the heritage of traditional historiography, “compilational thought” should first be taken as the core link. Its content should mainly include: 1. The historian’s intention in writing history, the most famous examples being Sima Qian’s “to investigate the relationship between Heaven and humankind, to comprehend the changes of past and present, and to establish a school of thought of his own” [10]10 This is Sima Qian’s famous statement of purpose from his “Letter to Ren An,” explaining his motivation for writing the *Records of the Grand Historian* (《史记》).; and Sima Guang’s “to select specifically those [events] concerning the rise and fall of the state, the weal and woe of the people, where good can serve as a model and evil can serve as a warning”; [11]11 This is Sima Guang’s stated principle of selection for his comprehensive history *Comprehensive Mirror for Aid in Government* (《资治通鉴》). 2. The historian’s understanding of the objective historical process and what they strive to highlight in their historical work, such as Sima Qian’s understanding that Chinese history was a process of continuous unification, that the Central Plains peoples and the surrounding ethnic groups were linked as one, and that writing history should bravely express one’s own views on contemporary social issues; 3. How the historian carefully applies genre forms and stylistic rules in order to reproduce the complex process of objective history; 4. How the historian’s compilational thought is closely related to the social environment and the conditions of the times. Bai Shouyi’s statement that historical compilation “is the most convenient place for the concentrated embodiment of historiographical achievements” and that “the application of historical theory, the handling and mastery of historical materials, and the organization and representation of historical facts can all be judged here” must all be realized through the determination and application of the historian’s compilational thought.

发掘传统史学资源，实现创造性转化，发挥其当代价值，对于推进理论建设有特殊的意义。中国古代史书编纂中凝聚着我们祖先高度的智慧和杰出的创造精神。以往有人认为历史编纂是单纯的技术问题，这是很不恰当的。实际上，历史编纂是史家之才、学、识的集中体现。白寿彝对历史编纂学在史学上具有的重要地位有过科学的界定。他说：“史书的编纂，是史学成果最便于集中体现的所在，也是传播史学知识的重要途径。历史理论的运用，史料的掌握和处理，史实的组织和再现，都可以在这里见个高低。刘知幾所谓才、学、识，章学诚所谓史德，都可以在这里有所体现。”因此，历史编纂是表明一个时代史学发展达到何等水平之标志。当前我们的一项重要任务，就是把其中的具有超越时空价值的范畴、命题和成就揭示出来，阐明其当代价值，以丰富史学理论学科的建设，并且发挥其对于当代史书编纂的借鉴、启示作用。初步的考虑，“历史编纂”的基本构件，应有史学家的历史观点、史书体裁的特点、史料的采择、体例的运用等项，都值得从理论上加以总结。而最为核心的构件，是史学家的编纂思想，为了推进对传统史学遗产的挖掘，首先应当把“编纂思想”作为核心环节。其内容应主要包括：1.史学家著史立意，最著名者，如司马迁之“究天人之际，通古今之变，成一家之言”；司马光之“专取关国家盛衰，系生民休戚，善可为法，恶可为戒者”；2.史学家对客观历史进程的理解并在史著中努力加以凸显的，如司马迁理解中国历史是不断走向统一的进程，中原民族与周边民族联结一体，撰写历史应当勇于对当代社会问题表达自己的见解；3.史学家为了达到再现客观历史的复杂进程，如何精心运用体裁形式和体例上的处理；4.史学家的编纂思想如何与社会环境、时代条件息息相关。白寿彝所言历史编纂“是史学成果最便于集中体现的所在”，“历史理论的运用，史料的掌握和处理，史实的组织和再现，都可以在这里见个高低”，均须通过史学家编纂思想的确定和运用而得以实现。

The *Records of the Grand Historian* (*Shiji*) is an immortal masterpiece renowned both in China and abroad. Its editorial thought can be described as profound, rich, and brilliant. Even if we focus solely on the single issue of “how skillfully it handles the use of genre forms and stylistic arrangements,” its achievements and value are manifold. To save space, we will only summarize and extract the proposition of “multidimensional historical perspective” for a brief explanation. The genre created by Sima Qian achieved a great leap forward in Chinese historiography, with a far-reaching influence lasting over two thousand years. The main genre of historical writing in the pre-Qin period was the annalistic form, represented by the *Spring and Autumn Annals* (*Chunqiu*) and the *Zuo Commentary* (*Zuozhuan*). The outstanding advantages of the annalistic genre are its clear chronological sequence, concise narration, and avoidance of repetition. Its drawback is that it focuses mainly on recording major political and military events, making it difficult to incorporate rich content concerning institutions, regulations, and social life. When narrating an event that spans many years, it is separated across several volumes and lacks coherence. The *Records of the Grand Historian*, by contrast, created a biographical-historical genre combining “five forms,” [n12] with vast capacity and mutual coordination among the forms. In terms of content, it carried through the guiding principle of “comprehending the changes of past and present,” [n13] writing from the era of the Five Emperors down to Emperor Wu of Han. The basic annals (*benji*) serve as the outline of the entire work, recording major events in politics, economics, military affairs, and so on, while the remaining tables (*biao*), treatises (*shu*), hereditary houses (*shijia*), and biographies (*liezhuan*) all unfold around the basic annals as supplements. Each part has a division of labor yet is organically integrated, making the entire work a unified whole. The Qing-dynasty historian Zhao Yi greatly valued the *Records of the Grand Historian*’s genre for encompassing all aspects of social life and its extremely rich breadth, praising it for creating a majestic framework for recording a complete history of an era. He said: “Sima Qian consulted ancient and modern practices, established principles and precedents, and created a complete history… Once this model was set, later historians who wrote histories could not escape its scope; truly it is the ultimate standard for historians.” [n14] What Zhao Yi discussed indeed reveals the true value of the genre created by Sima Qian. In contemporary historical review articles, there is often a call for “grand narrative” and “panoramic history writing”; perhaps it is the genre and content of the *Records of the Grand Historian* that truly correspond to this. Sima Qian’s genre creation in fact contains profound philosophical reflection. The inner basis for the viability of the “five-form combination” historical form of the *Records of the Grand Historian* and the secret of its success lie in observing and narrating history from multiple dimensions, multiple perspectives, and multiple directions. In other words, Sima Qian’s purpose in writing history was to make readers understand the chronological sequence of events’ occurrence and evolution, grasp the causal relationships of historical changes, witness the activities and style of historical figures as the main agents of history creation, and at the same time be able to know the various institutions and complex social conditions on which governing the state and transmitting civilization depend. “Multidimensional historical perspective” is an abstract generalization, which can more clearly reveal that Sima Qian, at the level of philosophical height and cognitive essence, discovered and mastered the fundamental essentials and pathways for reproducing objective historical processes. This is a manifestation of Sima Qian’s outstanding creative talent in philosophical thinking, and it is the philosophical radiance that pervades the entire *Records of the Grand Historian*. Only because he successfully applied a multidimensional historical perspective, rather than a single-line or single-angle observation, did the *Records of the Grand Historian*, written with painstaking effort, present us with a panoramic, rich, and vivid picture of the Chinese nation since the dawn of history—flesh and blood, profound in content, and endlessly fascinating to readers. Precisely because the “multidimensional historical perspective” meets the need to reproduce objective historical processes in breadth and depth, the genre of the *Records of the Grand Historian* not only became the “ultimate standard” for traditional historians writing history, but also, after entering the 20th century, became the prototype for Liang Qichao and Zhang Taiyan in designing a “new comprehensive form” to write a general history of China. The multi-volume *General History of China* (*Zhongguo tongshi*) edited by Bai Shouyi appropriately inherited the grand pattern of the *Records of the Grand Historian* in applying a “multidimensional historical perspective” and coordinating the five forms, while at the same time transforming and recreating it according to the needs of the times, creating a genre in which “introductory remarks,” “general survey,” “institutional records,” and “biographies” mutually coordinate, achieving great success and thus being hailed as “the culminating work of 20th-century historiography.” [n15]

《史记》是一部享誉中外的不朽巨著，其编纂思想堪称深邃、丰富、精彩，仅就“如何精心地运用体裁形式和体例上的处理”这一项，其成就和价值即有诸多方面。为了节省篇幅，我们仅从中总结、提炼出“多维历史视野”这个命题略作阐释。司马迁创立的体裁实现了中国史学的巨大飞跃，其深远影响长达两千多年。先秦主要史书体裁是编年体，以《春秋》《左传》为代表。年代先后线索清楚，叙述简洁，避免重复，是编年体体裁的突出优点。其缺点是，主要着眼于记载政治、军事大事，有关典章制度、社会生活的丰富内容难以安排进去。如遇到叙述一个事件延续多年，则前后隔越数卷，不相连贯。《史记》则创造了“五体”结合的纪传体裁，容量广阔，诸体配合。在内容上，贯彻了“通古今之变”的指导思想，从五帝时代一直写到汉武帝。本纪是全书的纲领，记载政治、经济、军事等各项大事，其余表、书、世家、列传都围绕本纪展开，作为对本纪的补充。各个部分互有分工，又有机结合，使全书成为一个整体。清代史学家赵翼十分重视《史记》体裁囊括社会生活方方面面、包涵极其丰富的气魄，称誉其创造了记载一代全史的雄伟规模，曰：“司马迁参酌古今，发凡起例，创为全史……自此例一定，历代作史者遂不能出其范围，信史家之极则也。”赵翼所论确实道出了司马迁创立的体裁的真价值。今人史学评论文章中每每提出要“宏大叙事”“全景式著史”，或许《史记》的体裁和内容才真正能够与之相符。司马迁的体裁创造，实则包含着深刻的哲理思考。《史记》“五体结合”的史书形式能够成立的内在依据和成功的奥秘，就是多维度、多视角、多方位地观察和叙述历史。换言之，司马迁的著史目的是要使读者明了事件发生、演变的年代先后，了解历史变局的因果关系，睹见人物这一历史创造主体的活动和风采，同时又能知晓治理国家和传承文明所依赖的各种典章制度和复杂的社会情状。“多维历史视野”是一种抽象的概括，以此可以更清晰地揭示司马迁在哲理高度和认识本原上，发现、掌握了如何再现客观历史进程的根本要领和途径。这是司马迁杰出创造才能在哲学思维上的体现，是笼罩《史记》全书的哲学光华。惟其成功地运用了多维历史视野，而非单线式、单角度的观察，他呕心沥血著成的《史记》才为我们展现了华夏民族有史以来全景式的、丰富的、生动的画卷，有血有肉，内涵深刻，令读者百读不厌。正因为“多维历史视野”符合从广度和深度再现客观历史进程的需要，因此，《史记》体裁不仅成为传统史家著史之“极则”，而且进入20世纪以后，成为梁启超、章太炎设计以“新综合体”撰著中国通史的原型。白寿彝主编的多卷本《中国通史》，在编纂体裁上恰当继承了《史记》运用“多维历史视野”、五体配合的宏大格局，同时根据时代的需要进行改造和再创造，创设了“序说”“综述”“典志”“传记”互相配合的体裁，取得了巨大的成功，因而被誉为“20世纪历史学界的压轴之作”。

The multidimensional historical perspective of the *Records of the Grand Historian* can be regarded as a microcosm of Sima Qian’s outstanding achievements, possessing profound philosophical insight and pointing the way to successful “three-dimensional” history writing, and thus its influence has lasted over two thousand years. Through the above sorting and explanation, it can further demonstrate the important significance of grasping the key issue of “editorial thought” for expanding academic research.

《史记》的多维历史视野堪称司马迁杰出成就的缩影，具有深邃的哲理，指明实现“立体式”著史的成功之路，因而其影响力达二千余年。通过上面的梳理、阐释，更能证明抓住“编纂思想”这一关键问题对于拓展学术研究所具有的重要意义。

Advancing the construction of an independent knowledge system for Chinese historiography is an urgent need for the development of historiography in the New Era. Creatively applying historical materialism is our unwavering direction. The magnificent path of Chinese historical development and vivid historical facts provide us with extensive research topics, and the fine heritage of Chinese historiography provides us with intellectual nourishment. We must make greater efforts to explore and summarize topics at the overall level of historiography and at the level of many branch fields, make precise generalizations, and contribute to developing an independent knowledge system for Chinese historiography and strengthening “cultural confidence.”

推进中国历史学自主知识体系建设，是新时代历史学发展的迫切需要。创造性地运用唯物史观是我们坚定不移的方向，中国历史发展的壮阔道路和生动史实为我们提供了广泛的研究课题，中国史学的优良遗产为我们提供了思想营养。我们必须以更大的努力发掘和总结历史学整体层面和诸多分支领域层面的课题，做出精当的概括，为发展中国历史学的自主知识体系和增强“文化自信”贡献力量。

(Author’s bio: Chen Qitai, Professor at the School of History and the Center for Studies of Historical Theory and Historiography, Beijing Normal University)

（作者简介：陈其泰，北京师范大学历史学院、史学理论与史学史研究中心教授）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心