Deconstruction and Restoration: The Path to Reconstructing the History of Chinese Marxist Historiography

In recent years, driven primarily by external forces, research on the history of Chinese Marxist historiography has been steadily heating up, becoming an emerging prominent field within the history of scholarship. The increasing number of young scholars joining this research is clear proof of this. Compared with the previous desolation and silence of Marxist historiography research, this also represents a kind of compensation and balance in the history of scholarship, or perhaps a kind of cycle. The motivations of scholars promoting or participating in this research are no longer important. Because once the study of the history of Marxist historiography has taken shape to a certain extent, it has itself generated an internal momentum for development, and its dependence on external forces is gradually diminishing. Undoubtedly, this is a good opportunity for the study of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography to advance and develop, to weed through the old to bring forth the new. So, how can we use this favorable opportunity to upgrade and transform today's study of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography, taking it to the next level? The author believes this can be approached from two aspects: deconstruction and restoration.

近年来，主要得益于外力的推动，中国马克思主义史学史研究不断升温，成为学术史领域一门新兴的显学。越来越多的青年学者加入其中，即是一个明证。相对于此前马克思主义史学研究的冷清沉寂来说，这也是学术史研究中的一种补偿和平衡，或者说一种轮回。推动或参与这一研究的学者动机如何，已不重要。因为马克思主义史学史研究在形成一定气候时自身已经产生了发展的内在动能，对外力的依赖日渐减少。无疑，这是中国马克思主义史学史研究增高继长、推陈出新的一个良机。那么，如何利用这一有利时机，使今日的中国马克思主义史学史研究转型升级，更上一层楼?笔者认为，这可以从解构与还原两个方面着手。

I. Reflecting on and Deconstructing Several Presuppositions or Established Conclusions Formed in Previous Research

一、反思和解构以往研究中形成的若干预设或定论

In the final analysis, research in the history of scholarship, including the history of historiography, although its object of study is past scholars and their works and all academic activities, its goal is oriented toward the present and future of scholarship. The purpose of looking backward is to better move forward, not simply to defend an eternal and unchanging conception and order of historiography. On the contrary, we should have the courage to break those so-called eternal, unchanging, correct, and reasonable conceptions and orders that have accumulated over time. This is the meaning and value of deconstructive work. Only through deconstruction can reconstruction be achieved, thereby realizing fundamental innovation and creation. The deconstruction of the study of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography mainly involves breaking through existing deep-rooted, whether explicit or implicit, conceptions, established conclusions, or even myths. These presuppositions or established conclusions, as guides, directions, ideas, and methods for research work, once provided great convenience for previous research. But over time, they become solidified and rigidified; hypotheses turn into prejudices and dogmas, momentum turns into resistance and obstacles, and new methods turn into old tricks. These presuppositions or established conclusions also provide researchers with a comfort zone, allowing them to calmly and methodically engage in continuous reproduction, ignoring the latent crises in the discipline's development, and no longer needing to engage in academic exploration or risk-taking. Academic innovation under this model can only be partial or detailed innovation; it cannot produce innovation with an overall, fundamental, or directional character. It is only quantitative change in scholarship, not qualitative change. Borrowing the paradigm theory of the American historian of science Thomas Kuhn, this kind of research is normal research under a given paradigm, not revolutionary research. Therefore, to achieve paradigm shift and academic revolution, it is necessary to deconstruct past academic traditions.

归根结底，包括史学史在内的学术史研究，尽管其研究对象是过往的学者及其作品和全部学术活动，但目标是朝向当下及未来学术的，向后看的目的是更好地向前走，而不是为了简单地捍卫一个永恒不变的史学观念和秩序。相反，我们应当勇于打破那些日积月累形成的所谓永恒不变、正确合理的观念和秩序。这就是解构工作的意义与价值所在。只有解构方能重构，进而实现根本性的创新与创造。中国马克思主义史学史研究的解构，主要是突破已有的根深蒂固的或隐或显的观念、定论甚至是神话。这些预设或定论，作为研究工作的一种指引、向导、思路、方法，曾经给以往的研究提供了很大方便，但天长日久会固化僵化，假设变成了成见、教条，动力变成了阻力、障碍，新方法变成了老把戏。这些预设或定论，也为研究者提供了一个舒适区，可以从容不迫、按部就班地不断复制再生产，无视学科发展中潜伏的危机，不必再进行学术上的探险、冒险。这种模式下的学术创新只能说是局部、细节上的创新，不可能出现带有整体性、根本性、方向性的创新，只是学术上的量变而非质变。借用美国科学史家库恩的范式理论来说，这种研究是既定范式下的常规性研究，而不是革命性的。因此，要实现范式转换、学术革命，必须对以往的学术传统进行解构。

As far as the history of Chinese Marxist historiography is concerned, how should this deconstructive work be carried out? First, it must be recognized that the traditional research paradigm of Marxist historiography is essentially a revolutionary history paradigm. It takes revolutionary history as a template, dividing periods according to the developmental stages of the revolutionary movement, such as from the May Fourth New Culture Movement to the War of Resistance Against Japan and the Civil War period. It takes revolution as the main narrative thread, highlighting the conflict and struggle between Marxist historiography and non-Marxist historiography. It takes revolution as the highest value orientation and evaluation standard, focusing on distinguishing revolutionary and progressive scholarship from reactionary scholarship, with the revolutionary inevitably victorious and the reactionary inevitably perishing. This leads to revolutionary logic replacing and diluting academic logic, and revolutionary discourse displacing academic discourse. In a word, the history of Marxist historiography becomes a branch of revolutionary history. Regarding the rights and wrongs of the revolutionary history paradigm, scholars in the field of modern Chinese history have already conducted relatively thorough and in-depth reflections. Although debates still exist, understanding has greatly matured. Especially in recent years, the emergence of the "new revolutionary history" has pushed the expansion and transformation of this research into a new stage. However, the field of historical theory and the history of historiography has lagged relatively behind, lacking a careful and detailed clearing and reflection on the issue of the revolutionary history paradigm in the study of the history of Marxist historiography. Of course, this article is also unable to fully undertake this task. But it is undoubtedly necessary and unavoidable to examine and question some of the presuppositions or established conclusions formed in the study of the history of Marxist historiography under the domination of the revolutionary history paradigm. On this basis, just as revolutionary history research has turned to the "new revolutionary history," research on the history of Marxist historiography can hope to construct a "new Marxist history" (new history of Marxist historiography).

就中国马克思主义史学史而言，这种解构工作如何进行呢?首先，必须认识到传统马克思主义史学研究范式基本上是一种革命史范式。以革命史为模板，依据革命运动的发展段落进行分期，如从五四新文化运动到抗战、内战时期等。以革命作为叙事主线，突出马克思主义史学与非马克思主义史学的冲突斗争。以革命为最高价值取向和评价标准，注重区分革命的、进步的学术与反动的学术，革命的必然胜利，反动的必然灭亡。这就导致革命的逻辑取代、淡化了学术的逻辑，革命话语置换了学术话语。一言以蔽之，马克思主义史学史成为革命史的一个分支。关于革命史范式的是是非非，中国近代史领域的学者已作了较充分且深入的反思，虽然尚有争论，但认识是大大成熟了。特别是近年来“新革命史”的出现，促成这一研究的扩充和转型迈入了一个新的阶段。但史学理论及史学史领域相对滞后，对马克思主义史学史研究中的革命史范式问题尚缺乏认真细致的清理反思。当然，本文也无力全面承担这一工作。但对革命史范式支配下形成的马克思主义史学史研究的一些预设或定论进行检讨质询，无疑是必要而不可绕过的。在此基础上，如同革命史研究转向“新革命史”一样，马克思主义史学史研究才有望构建一种“新马史”(新马克思主义史学史)。

Within the traditional paradigm of the study of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography, there are at least the following four major presuppositional pitfalls. These presuppositional pitfalls have either become consciously held beliefs for many scholars or have become tacitly accepted and unreflectively habituated, but all have had a greater or lesser normative and guiding effect on their research work.

传统范式下的中国马克思主义史学史研究中至少有以下四大预设误区，这些预设误区或已成为不少学者自觉信守的观念，或已为学人心照不宣、习焉而不察，但都对其研究工作产生了或大或小的规范引导作用。

Presuppositional Pitfall One: Marxist historiography is the ultimate form of the development of historical science.

预设误区之一：马克思主义史学是历史学发展的终极形态。

The previous narrative routine of the history of Chinese historiography all proceeds from traditional historiography to modern historiography, finally ending with Marxist historiography becoming mainstream, with the victory of Marxist historiography as the final destination. Everything before is foreshadowing and contrast, and only at the end does the protagonist appear. This is a typical teleology and centrism. Consequently, Marxist historiography is regarded as the only truly scientific historiography. Therefore, the term "historical science" has become a specific reference in China, a proper noun, belonging exclusively to Marxist historiography. However, although Marxist historiography represents the most perfect form of historiography, there is a fact that cannot be denied: that is, for a long time, Marxist historiography has been plagued by dogmatism, even leading to extreme situations such as the "historiography revolution" of 1958 [n1] and the later "Cultural Revolution historiography," [n2] which nearly brought Chinese historiography to a dead end. In response, some researchers have to argue that these extreme situations were not Marxist historiography at all, but rather dogmatist historiography, trying to distance them from Marxist historiography and protect its reputation. But this can only be a defense by later generations. At the time, they indeed regarded themselves as Marxist historiography, and moreover, as the only Marxist, the true Marxist, the most Marxist, while all other historiographical tendencies were cast aside. Moreover, these extreme situations cannot be attributed to any school other than Marxist historiography; the responsibility is truly difficult to shirk.

以往的中国史学史叙事套路，都是从传统史学发展到近代史学，最后是马克思主义史学占主流，以马克思主义史学的胜利为归宿。前面的都是铺垫和衬托，最后才是主角出场，这是一种典型的目的论、中心论。随之，马克思主义史学被视为唯一真正科学的历史学。也因此，“历史科学”一词在国内成为特指，是专有名词，即非马克思主义史学莫属。不过，马克思主义史学虽然代表了最完美的史学形态，有一个事实却又无法否认，亦即长期以来马克思主义史学深受教条主义的困扰，甚至出现1958年“史学革命”以及后来的“文革史学”等极端情形，几乎将中国历史学带入绝境。对此，有的研究者只好辩解说，这些极端情形都不是马克思主义史学，而属于教条主义史学，以极力撇清其与马克思主义史学的关系，维护马克思主义史学的声誉。但这只能是后人的辩护，在当时他们的确是以马克思主义史学自居的，而且唯我独马、唯我真马、唯我最马，其他史学倾向一概被打入另册。而且，这些极端情形也无法归之于马克思主义史学之外的其他学派，责任实难推诿开脱。

Regarding Marxist historiography as an ultimate form, a perfect form, is itself unhistorical and un-Marxist. Marxism regards everything as a process of continuous development and evolution, and academic development is no exception. Therefore, Marxist historiography cannot be a flawless historiography, let alone the end point of historiographical development. It is but one stage in the development of historiography, and in the future, more advanced alternative forms are likely to emerge. This should be a basic common sense, but some past practices seem to have violated this basic common sense. Consequently, Marxist historiography has been sanctified, treated as classical studies or theology. So-called research has become nothing but praise, eulogy, and propaganda, losing criticism and reflection, which are the most valuable things for academic research. Therefore, the presupposition and fixed view that Marxist historiography is the ultimate form and developmental peak of historical science, that it is the only science without precedent and without successor, needs to be broken. Breaking this fixed view will not discredit Marxist historiography; on the contrary, it will be more conducive to Marxist historiography achieving self-transformation and radiating new vitality and vigor.

将马克思主义史学视为一种终极形态、完美形态，本身是非历史主义、非马克思主义的。马克思主义将一切事物都看作一个不断发展演变的过程，学术发展同样如此。所以，马克思主义史学也不可能是一种完美无缺的史学，更不是史学发展的终点，而是史学发展中的一个阶段，将来很可能会出现更高级的替代形态。这应该是一个基本常识，但以往的某些做法似乎违背了这一基本常识。于是，马克思主义史学被神圣化，当作经学、神学，所谓研究成了一味的赞美歌颂宣传，失去了批判和反思，而批判和反思对于学术研究而言才是最可贵的。所以说，将马克思主义史学视为历史学的终极形态和发展巅峰，认为它是前无古人后无来者的唯一科学，这一预设和定见是有待破除的。破除了这一定见，不但不会使马克思主义史学声誉扫地，而且更有利于马克思主义史学实现自我变革，焕发新的生机和活力。

Presuppositional Pitfall Two: Marxist historiography must be the unity of politics and scholarship.

预设误区之二：马克思主义史学必须是政治与学术合为一体。

Usually, our definition of a Marxist historian is: politically believing in Marxism, and academically applying Marxism. These two conditions are indispensable. Moreover, political stance is the prerequisite, the necessary condition. Only if one politically believes in Marxism can one correctly apply Marxism academically; otherwise, it is pseudo-Marxism. For the identification of scholars from other schools, there is no such harsh standard; it is entirely based on academic orientation. This standard for judging Marxist historians was formed after Marxist historiography was orthodoxized and institutionalized, taking the Marxist historiographical authorities of the time as the model. The typical Marxist historian is a warrior-type scholar, a scholar-type warrior, not a pure scholar or an academic scholar.

通常我们对马克思主义史学家的界定是：政治上信仰马克思主义，学术上运用马克思主义。这两个条件缺一不可。而且，政治立场是前提，是必备条件，政治上信仰马克思主义，才可能在学术上正确运用马克思主义，否则就是伪马克思主义。而对其他学派学者的认定，则没有如此苛刻的标准，完全以学术取向而论。这种判定马克思主义史家的标准是在马克思主义史学正统化、体制化之后形成的，是以当时马克思主义史学权威为典型的。典型的马克思主义史学家是战士型学者、学者型战士，而不是纯粹的学者、学院派学者。

From today’s perspective, this standard needs to be revised and updated. Before 1949, there were many scholars who did not accept Marxism politically but could identify with and apply it academically. Among them were both Kuomintang members who believed in the Three Principles of the People and a large number of non-party independent scholars, such as the authors who participated in the social history debate in *The Bookworm Magazine* [1]1 *The Bookworm Magazine* (《读书杂志》) was a journal published in Shanghai in the early 1930s that hosted a famous debate on Chinese social history, involving Marxist and non-Marxist scholars.. The root cause of this phenomenon lies in the dual nature of Marxism itself: it is both the revolutionary theory of the Communist Party and a social science theory. Moreover, these two aspects can be separated under certain conditions. If they were fused into one and inseparable, then once the revolution succeeded, its academic character would disappear. During the Republican period, Marxism was once regarded as the newest and most advanced scientific truth, something that could be shared and used by all, not the exclusive patent of any single party or faction. The fact that Marxism could grow against the tide and thrive in Republican-era academia was largely because it was permitted to be studied as a scholarly doctrine. Contemporary Western Marxist historiography is also essentially an academic school without clear political demands.

而在今天看来，这一标准是有待修订更新的。1949年以前，存在众多学者在政治上不接受马克思主义，在学术上却能认同和运用马克思主义。其中，既有信从三民主义的国民党人，也有大量无党无派的自由学者，如《读书杂志》上参与社会史论战的作者。之所以出现这种现象，根源在于马克思主义本身具有二重性，它既是共产党人的革命理论，也是一种社会科学理论。而且，这两者在一定条件下是可以分离的。如果二者融为一体、不可分离，那么革命成功之后其学术性也就会随之消失。在民国时期，马克思主义一度被视作最新、最先进的科学真理，可以共享共用，并非一党一派的专利。马克思主义在民国学术界能够逆势成长、生生不息，很大程度上就在于它是被允许作为一种学理来研究的。当代西方马克思主义史学也是如此，基本上是一个学术流派，而不具有明确的政治诉求。

Therefore, scholarship and belief can coincide or diverge—their unity is a special case, not a general rule. As long as one follows Marxist theoretical methods in scholarship, one can be classified within the sequence of Marxist historiography. Based on this, when evaluating the value of Marxist historiography, we should not primarily offer political interpretations of how Marxist historiography promoted the communist revolution, but rather focus on academic arguments for how it advanced the development of historiography. Only in this way can the study of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography achieve an academic transformation. Of course, we cannot ignore the entanglement of politics and scholarship in the development of Marxist historiography; this is also an objective reality. The question is how to correctly understand and objectively evaluate this entanglement in the 21st century, and whether we must still cling to the modes of thinking formed in the revolutionary era.

因此，学术与信仰可以相合，也可以相离——二者合一是特例而非通则。只要在学术上遵从马克思主义的理论方法，即可将之归入马克思主义史学的序列。基于此，我们在评估马克思主义史学的价值时，主要不是对马克思主义史学如何推动共产革命作政治阐释，而是要重点对它是如何促进史学发展的进行学术论证。唯其如此，中国马克思主义史学史研究才能实现学术化转型。当然，我们也不能无视马克思主义史学发展进程中政治与学术的纠葛，这也是一种客观存在，问题在于21世纪的今天如何正确认识和客观评价这种纠葛，是否还要固守以往革命年代形成的思维方式。

Presuppositional fallacy three: Marxist historiography is equivalent to CPC historiography.

预设误区之三：马克思主义史学等同于中共史学。

This presuppositional fallacy is somewhat related to the previous one. Both within China and abroad, there is a recognition that equates Marxist historiography with CPC historiography, viewing them as having a symbiotic relationship. Moreover, the term “CPC historiography” carries a pejorative connotation abroad. In fact, Chinese Marxist historiography and the CPC were not born simultaneously nor did they develop in sync. At the time of the CPC’s founding, Marxist historiography was only rudimentary; the works on social evolution that emerged in the 1920s could not yet be considered genuine historical works. The formal formation of Chinese Marxist historiography occurred in 1930, marked by the publication of Guo Moruo’s *A Study of Ancient Chinese Society* [2]2 Guo Moruo (1892–1978) was a leading Marxist historian, writer, and revolutionary; his *A Study of Ancient Chinese Society* (1930) is widely considered the foundational work of Chinese Marxist historiography.. The early 1930s was a period of rapid rise for Marxist historiography, precisely when the CPC was in a low ebb after the failure of the Great Revolution. This is from the perspective of the historical development process. In terms of attributes, Marxist historiography was not exclusive to the CPC; there were a considerable number of historians outside the Party who applied and disseminated Marxism, and non-Party scholars included many Marxist historians. Therefore, the research scope of Chinese Marxist historiography and CPC historiography cannot completely overlap.

这一预设误区与上一个预设误区有一定关联。海内外学术界都存在一种认识，将马克思主义史学等同于中共史学，认为二者是一种一体共生关系。而且海外使用“中共史学”一词还含有贬义。其实，中国马克思主义史学与中共并非同时诞生、同步发展的。中共建党之时，马克思主义史学只是略具雏形，1920年代涌现出的社会进化史作品还算不上真正意义上的史学作品。中国马克思主义史学的正式形成是在1930年，标志是郭沫若《中国古代社会研究》的问世。1930年代初是马克思主义史学迅速崛起的时段，而此时中共正处于大革命失败后的低潮期。这是从历史发展过程上看。从属性上说，马克思主义史学也并非中共专有，党外运用传播马克思主义的史学家为数不少，党外学者也不乏马克思主义史学家。是故，中国马克思主义史学与中共史学的研究范围，并不能完全重合。

Of course, during a certain period, Marxist historiography and the CPC were a community of shared destiny, with Party spirit embedded in Marxist historiography, which became part of the ideology of the Chinese Communist Party. Thus, in the general direction, Marxist historiography was consistent with the CPC. But from the perspective of academic history, Marxist historiography cannot be equated with CPC historiography. Marxist historiography actually exists on two levels: official historiography and academic-school historiography. Official historiography can be roughly equated with CPC historiography, echoing the mainstream ideology; while academic-school historiography possesses a certain independence, mainly changing with shifts in academic trends. Recognizing the complexity of the relationship between Marxist historiography and CPC historiography is conducive to accurately grasping the yardstick of academic history, and is also beneficial for the contemporary development of Marxist historiography.

当然，在一定时期内，马克思主义史学与中共是命运共同体，党性内置于马克思主义史学，马克思主义史学成为中国共产党意识形态的一部分。故从大方向上说，马克思主义史学与中共是一致的。但从学术史上说，马克思主义史学又不能与中共史学等量齐观。马克思主义史学实际上存在官方史学与学院派史学两个层面。官方史学可以大致等同于中共史学，与主流意识形态相呼应；而学院派史学具有一定的独立性，主要是随学术潮流的变动而变动。认识到马克思主义史学与中共史学关系的复杂性，有利于准确把握学术史尺度，对于马克思主义史学的当下发展而言也有裨益。

Presuppositional fallacy four: The uniformity of Marxist historiography obscures its differences.

预设误区之四：马克思主义史学的统一性遮蔽差异性。

For a long time, the prevailing tendency has been to view the Chinese Marxist historiography community as a collective organization with common goals and directions, unified thought and action, united in struggle against non-Marxist historiography. In fact, this is more of a later historical imagination and contextual construction. It uses collectivism to obscure individual differences and consensus to erase disagreements. The most representative “Five Elders” of Marxist historiography [3]3 The “Five Elders” of Marxist historiography refers to Guo Moruo, Fan Wenlan, Jian Bozan, Lü Zhenyu, and Hou Wailu, who were the most prominent Marxist historians in China before 1949. were not a tight-knit whole; indeed, their internal differences were quite significant. For example, on the issue of periodizing ancient history, they each held their own views, making unification difficult. In the past, although we did not completely ignore these differences, we underestimated them. Precisely because we overemphasized the opposition and confrontation between Marxist and non-Marxist historiography, we paid insufficient attention to internal disputes within Marxist historiography. Within the Marxist historiography group, Guo Moruo occupied a core position, but this core status was later constructed, not originally so. The fact that Guo Moruo once became a target of criticism from all sides is a clear manifestation. Yet these important details have been consciously or unconsciously downplayed or even forgotten by academic historical narratives. It is evident that these later-formed prejudices constitute an obstacle to our accurate observation of the history of Marxist historiography. Therefore, we should break the previous understanding of the collective image of Marxist historians, rediscover their respective academic personalities and the conflicts among them, in order to reveal a true picture of the Marxist historiography community.

长期以来，大都倾向于认为，中国马克思主义史学群体是一个有着共同的目标和方向，有着统一的思想和行动，联合起来对非马克思主义史学进行斗争的集体组织。其实，这更多的只是后人的一种历史想象和语境建构。这是以集体主义掩盖了个体差异，以共识抹杀了分歧。最有代表性的马克思主义史学“五老”就不是一个严密的整体，甚至其内部差异还较大。比如，在古史分期问题上，他们各持己见，难以统一。以往，我们虽没有完全忽视这种差异，但低估了这种差异。正是因为过于强调马克思主义史学与非马克思主义史学的对立及交锋，而对马克思主义史学的内部争执重视不够。在马克思主义史学群体中，郭沫若居于核心地位，但这种核心地位是后来塑造出来的，并非本来如此。郭沫若一度还成为众矢之的，就是一个鲜明表现。然而，这些重要细节却被学术史叙事有意无意地淡化乃至遗忘。可见，那些后来形成的成见构成了我们准确观察马克思主义史学史的一种障碍。因而应当打破以往对马克思主义史家群像的认识，重新发现他们各自的学术个性、彼此之间的冲突，以揭示出一个真实的马克思主义史学群体风貌。

At the same time, Chinese Marxist historiography has also been regarded as a consistent, coherent unity, while the differences between its various segments have been overlooked. For instance, there is a huge divergence between the Marxist historiography of the social history debate period and the Yan’an historiography of the Anti-Japanese War period. During the debate period, Marxist historiography was leaderless and cacophonous, with participants of all kinds and wildly diverse understandings of the course of Chinese history. In contrast, Yan’an historiography embarked on an organized track, where scholars shared a common understanding of Marxism and conducted research according to Party directives, becoming a cultural combat team with unified thought and coordinated steps. These two periods formed two completely different styles and approaches. Furthermore, all Marxist historiography before 1949 existed as part of Republican-era historiography, which was greatly separated from post-1949 academic scholarship under the People’s Republic. Another example concerns the understanding of the Marxist view of history: during the May Fourth period, historical materialism was regarded as “economic determinism”; during the social history debate period, it was equated with the theory of social formations; during the Yan’an period, it was reduced to the theory of class struggle—showing considerable fluctuation over time. Therefore, the development of Marxist historiography has both continuity and discontinuity. Seeing only continuity while ignoring discontinuity makes it impossible to fully and accurately understand the developmental landscape of Marxist historiography.

同时，中国马克思主义史学还被视为一个一以贯之、一脉相承的统一体，而忽视了各个段落之间的差异。比如，社会史论战时期的马克思主义史学与抗战时期的延安史学存在巨大分野。论战时期的马克思主义史学群龙无首、众声喧哗，参与者形形色色，对中国历史进程的认识更是五花八门；而延安史学走上了组织化轨道，学者对马克思主义有共同的认识，根据党的指示开展研究， 成为一支思想一致、步调整齐的文化战斗队。这两个时期形成了迥然相异的两种风格、两种路数。而整个1949年以前的马克思主义史学，又是作为民国史学的一部分而存在，与1949年以后的共和国学术大有区隔。再如，关于马克思主义历史观的理解，五四时期唯物史观被当作“经济史观”,社会史论战时期被等同于社会形态理论，延安时期又被归结为阶级斗争论，前后呈现很大的波动。所以，马克思主义史学的发展既有连续性，也有断裂性。只见连续而不见断裂，无法全面准确地认识马克思主义史学的发展图景。

The reason for raising these issues here is not simply to oppose previous views, to blindly challenge established theories and seek novelty, but rather to advocate for scientifically and meticulously verifying and revising these previous presuppositions within the context of social development in the New Era, replacing the previous practice of unconditional acceptance, so that academic research can be well-grounded and persuasive. This is because academic research must follow academic rules and adhere to academic conscience. In the academic research of any era, there are no so-called self-evident, unshakable golden rules, no privileged truths. All theories and viewpoints must be tested by facts and evidence, and cannot escape the gaze of skepticism. The study of the history of Marxist historiography is no exception. If we cling to old ways and refuse to problematize, then academicization is out of the question, let alone the construction of a scientific system for the history of Marxist historiography.

这里之所以提出这些问题，并非简单与以往的观点唱反调，一味挑战成说、标新立异，而是主张在新时代社会发展的语境中对以往这些预设作科学、细致的验证及修正，代替以往那种无条件接受的做法，使学术研究做到言之有据，以理服人。这是因为，学术研究必须遵循学术的规则，坚守学术良知。任何时代的学术研究中从来就没有所谓的天经地义、不可动摇的金科玉律，没有什么特权化的真理，一切理论、观点都必须接受事实、证据的检验，都不能逃避怀疑的眼光。马克思主义史学史研究也不例外。如果墨守成规拒绝问题化，学术化则无从谈起，马克思主义史学史的科学体系建构更无从谈起。

II. Basic Paths for Restoring the True Features of the History of Chinese Marxist Historiography

二、还原中国马克思主义史学史本相的基本路径

After deconstructing certain presupposed misconceptions and established conclusions in the study of the history of Marxist historiography, the next and more important task is to do our utmost to restore the true features of the history of Marxist historiography. This work includes two levels: first, a meticulous sorting of relevant primary materials; second, standing at a new historical vantage point to examine and reflect, thereby entering into dialogue with the object of study.

在对马克思主义史学史研究中的若干预设误区和定论进行解构之后，接下来更为重要的工作就是尽力还原马克思主义史学史的本相。这一工作包括两个层面：一是对相关原始材料作细致梳理；二是站在新的历史制高点上进行审视和反思，与研究对象形成对话。

To break through entrenched views in the study of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography, one must shake off reliance on secondary literature and directly confront primary materials. Through intensive reading of primary materials, one can clear the mind of preconceived notions and gradually form new knowledge and insights. By reading primary materials, touching the yellowed paper documents, breathing the academic atmosphere of the time, and returning to the historical scene, one gains a more authentic experience and feeling. At present, researchers’ work in sorting and reading primary materials is still quite insufficient; the works of a small number of Marxist historians still constitute the main body. In the future, efforts should be made to expand as far as possible, so that all documents that use Marxism to analyze history are brought into the net, regardless of the identity of the author. Specifically, not only the commonly used Marxist historiography documents need to be reviewed, but also other documents that can reflect the state of Marxist historiography cannot be ignored.

中国马克思主义史学史研究要突破成见，一定要摆脱对二手文献的依赖，直接面对原始材料。通过密集阅读原始材料，将头脑中固有的成见清空，逐渐形成新知新识。通过阅读原始材料，触摸泛黄的纸质文献，呼吸当时的学术空气，回到历史现场，获得一种更加真实的体验和感受。目前，研究者对原始材料的梳理阅读还很不够，为数不多的几位马克思主义史学家的作品仍然是主体部分。今后应当尽力拓展，所有运用马克思主义分析历史的文献都要网罗进来，且不管这些文献是出自何种身份者之手。具体而言，不但常见常用的马克思主义史学文献需要过目，其他能够反映马克思主义史学状况的文献亦不能忽略。

First, periodical documents such as *New Life* (新生命), *Chinese Economy* (中国经济), *Quarterly Journal of the Sun Yat-sen Institute for Cultural and Educational Advancement* (中山文化教育馆季刊), *Modern Historiography* (现代史学), *Seeking Truth Magazine* (求真杂志), and *North China Daily · History Weekly* (华北日报·史学周刊) await investigation and sorting. Although these periodicals are not Marxist in nature, they contain some articles on Marxist historiography. These materials, existing in a dispersed form, are vast in quantity, involve numerous authors, and present diverse viewpoints; they are of great significance for restoring and grasping the overall picture of Marxist historiography.

首先，《新生命》《中国经济》《中山文化教育馆季刊》《现代史学》《求真杂志》《华北日报·史学周刊》等报刊文献有待清查整理。这些报刊虽然不是马克思主义性质的报刊，但其中刊载了一些马克思主义史学的文章。这些以分散形态存在的材料数量庞大，涉及的作者众多，观点也各有不同，对还原把握马克思主义史学的整体面貌意义重大。

Second, book reviews, letters, and diary entries commenting on works of Marxist historiography are also important materials, capable of reflecting the impressions of various parties toward Marxist historiography. For example, book reviews in *Yenching Journal of Chinese Studies* (燕京学报) and *Book Review* (图书评论) magazine sometimes concern works of Marxist historiography. Likewise, the *Diary of the Jingwu Studio* (静晤室日记), *Xia Nai’s Diary* (夏鼐日记), and the letters and diaries of Liu Danian [n] all contain vivid and lively records of Marxist historiography, constituting a mirror image of Marxist historiography as seen by others.

其次，书评、书信、日记中对马克思主义史学论著的评论也是重要材料，能够体现各方人士对马克思主义史学的观感。比如，《燕京学报》与《图书评论》杂志中的书评，有的是关于马克思主义史学论著的。再如，《静晤室日记》《夏鼐日记》以及刘大年的书信日记等，都包含了对马克思主义史学生动、鲜活的记录，构成了他者镜像中的马克思主义史学。

Third, some popular works of Marxist historiography should not be underestimated. During the Yan’an period [n], a large number of historical teaching materials for cadres, textbooks for students, and popular reading materials were produced. The academic value of popular works is not high, but their social value is greater than that of specialized treatises. Popularization and mass orientation were precisely a direction of effort for Marxist historiography and an extremely important characteristic of it. Therefore, the researcher’s focus should not be on artificially elevating the academic nature of these popular works, but on examining how they performed their social-political and cultural functions. This is of great significance for understanding the relationship between Marxist historiography and revolutionary practice.

再次，马克思主义史学的一些通俗作品也不能轻视。延安时期就有大批历史类的干部教材、学生教材和普及读物。通俗作品的学术价值不高，但社会价值比专业论著更大。通俗化、大众化恰是马克思主义史学的一个努力方向，也是马克思主义史学一个极其重要的特点。所以，研究者的重点不是刻意拔高这些通俗作品的学术性，而是考察它们是如何发挥其社会政治功能和文化功能的。这对认识马克思主义史学与革命实践的关系是有着重要意义的。

Fourth, the critical texts written by Marxist scholars during the “ultra-left period” [n] should also be given a certain degree of attention. Although these articles are often regarded by some scholars as an inglorious chapter in their personal careers and are therefore not included in relevant collected works or complete works, these pages full of absurdities are nevertheless a true portrayal of Marxist historiography at that time. They reflect both how scholarship degenerated into a political tool and the distortion and split in the souls of scholars. Hence, there is no need to conceal or evade these contents; they can precisely serve as a lesson from the past for today’s historical construction and play a cautionary role.

复次，“极左时期”马克思主义学者撰写的批判文字也应给予一定的重视。这些文章虽因通常被一些学者视为个人生涯中的不光彩之笔，而在有关文集、全集中都不予收录，但这些满纸荒唐言却是当时马克思主义史学的一种真实写照，既反映出学术如何沦为政治工具，又折射出学人心灵的扭曲和分裂。故而，这些内容都不必掩饰回避，正可作为今日史学建设的前车之鉴，发挥警示作用。

Finally, critical texts from the political opposition should also be carefully analyzed. For instance, the attacks and criticisms of Marxist historiography in the Kuomintang newspapers *Central Daily News* (中央日报) and *Chinese Nationals* (中国国民) magazine cannot be simply dismissed as fallacious nonsense and discarded; rather, they should be subjected to meticulous analysis. At the very least, these texts can reflect how the opponents and adversaries of Marxist historiography evaluated and opposed it, and how they sought so-called flaws in it. Sometimes, clues can also be found as to how Marxist historiography made adjustments in response to its opponents and adversaries. This is what Guo Moruo called “seeking the true image of the opposed from the mirror of the opposing side.” [n] This approach brings one closer to the truth than merely looking from the side of Marxist historiography alone. In short, one should try as much as possible to sort through and examine various primary documents from multiple perspectives, find materials without restriction, use materials by all means, and extract valuable information from materials previously regarded as waste.

最后，来自政治对立面的批判文字也应审慎辨析。比如，国民党报刊《中央日报》《中国国民》杂志等对马克思主义史学的攻击批判，不能简单地斥之为谬论胡说而弃之不顾，而应予以细致辨析。这些文字至少可以反映出马克思主义史学的对手和对立面是如何评价、反对马克思主义史学的，是如何寻找马克思主义史学所谓的破绽的。有时从中还可以发现马克思主义史学因回应对手和对立面而作出调整的线索。这即是郭沫若所说的“从反对派的镜子里去找寻被反对者的真影”。这比仅从马克思主义史学一方着眼更能接近真实。总之，应当尽量从多种视角梳理盘查各种原始文献，不拘一格找材料，千方百计用材料，从原来视为废物的材料中解读出有价值的信息。

The primary materials for the history of Chinese Marxist historiography are vast in quantity, making it difficult to know where to start, or yielding little gain after reading. For this reason, it is necessary to delimit a scope, starting with the more important and influential documents and conducting systematic reading. So-called systematic reading means concentrating on browsing around a particular issue or aspect, avoiding aimless and indiscriminate reading. At the same time, one must take into account all types of documents—not only periodicals, books, documents, and archives, but also private documents such as diaries and letters—reading them in combination to form a three-dimensional, panoramic impression. There is no need to make a clear distinction between primary and secondary types of documents; the reliability of traditional and commonly used documents is not necessarily greater than that of private documents. Private documents can often provide valuable clues, challenging and changing our fixed perceptions of scholars and scholarship. For example, after 1949, Chen Yuan [n] suddenly awakened, resolved to “become a primary school student of Marxism-Leninism,” and publicly repudiated his past learning. Yet from his correspondence with old friends and former acquaintances, it can be found that they still mostly discussed issues of traditional learning. This suggests that even if the transformation of traditional scholars after 1949 appeared resolute on the surface, their connection to old scholarship was not easily severed. This serves as a correction to the previous depiction of Marxist historiography as dominating the entire field after the founding of New China.

中国马克思主义史学史的原始材料数量庞大，让人无从下手，或者阅读之后收获不大。为此，有必要划定一个范围，先从较为重要、影响较大的文献入手，进行系统阅读。所谓系统阅读，就是围绕某一问题或某一方面进行集中浏览，切忌泛滥无归，漫无目的。同时，一定要兼顾各类文献，不但是报刊、书籍、文件、档案，还有日记、书信等私密性文献，多方结合起来阅读，以求形成一种立体化、全景式印象。各种类型的文献不必作明确的主次之分，传统文献、常见文献的可靠性不一定大于私密性文献。私密性文献往往能够提供有价值的线索，挑战和改变我们对于学者、学术的固化认知。比如，1949年后陈垣翻然醒悟，决心“做一名马列主义小学生”,公开否定自己过去所学，而从他在与旧友故交的通信中可以发现，他们讨论的仍多是旧学问题。这就提示我们，1949年后传统学人的转变即使表面上态度决绝，实则与旧学术的关联难以一刀两断。这对于以往那种描述新中国成立后马克思主义史学一统天下的图像是一种校正。

Furthermore, when reading primary materials, one should shift from verification-oriented reading to discovery-oriented reading. Reading primary materials is not meant to confirm known conclusions and viewpoints, but to discover new problems and propose new perspectives. Special attention should be paid to materials that differ from prevailing views; these should be explored and investigated in depth, without easily ignoring or attempting to cover up dissenting voices. For example, when reading the historical works of Marxist scholars, besides examining how they applied Marxist theories and methods, one should also note whether heterogeneous, non-Marxist factors exist. For instance, to what extent were Jian Bozan’s [n] views on historical sources influenced by Liang Qichao, and how much Marxist content did they actually contain? Such in-depth scrutiny helps us more accurately understand the connotation and composition of so-called Marxist historical source studies. This discovery-oriented reading is, in essence, a critical reading. Compared with conventional reading, critical reading is a more effective form of reading.

此外，阅读原始材料时，应当从求证式阅读转向发现式阅读。阅读原始材料不是为了印证已知的结论和观点，而是为了发现新的问题，提出新的观点。尤其要特别留意与通行观点不同的材料，对此进行发掘和深究，不轻易忽略或试图掩盖另类的声音。比如，阅读马克思主义学者的历史论著，除了考察他是如何运用马克思主义的理论方法之外，也要留意其中是否存在异质的、非马克思主义的因素。例如，翦伯赞的史料学观点多大程度上受到梁启超的影响，其马克思主义成色究竟有多少。这种深究细查，有利于我们更准确地认识所谓马克思主义史料学的内涵和构成。这种发现式阅读，在本质上是一种批判性阅读。批判性阅读较之常规阅读而言，是一种更加有效的阅读。

Sorting and reading primary materials is a foundational task, but it alone is insufficient to complete the restoration of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography. Standing at a new historical vantage point to examine and reflect, and entering into dialogue with the object of study, is an indispensable key link. This is because restoration cannot be a completely objective presentation; a certain degree of selectivity is unavoidable—the subjectivity of the researcher will not be absent. The researcher’s subjectivity is first manifested as an academic value yardstick. The formation of this value yardstick requires that the researcher of intellectual history not only have a thorough understanding of the particular period of intellectual history they face, but also possess keen judgment regarding the current academic trends, currents, and frontiers. It is precisely this perception and judgment of the current academic situation that constitutes the basis for observing and evaluating intellectual history. So-called restoration means that the researcher’s subjectivity should be as close and aligned as possible with the objectivity of the object of study.

梳理阅读原始材料是一项基础工作，但仅此尚不足以完成中国马克思主义史学史的还原工作。站在新的历史制高点上进行审视和反思，与研究对象形成对话，是必不可少的关键一环。因为还原不可能是完全客观的呈现，不能避免一定的选择性——研究者的主体性不会缺席。研究者的主体性首先体现为一种学术上的价值尺度。这种价值尺度的形成，要求学术史研究者不但要对其所面对的那一段学术史了然于胸，还应当对当下的学术大势、学术潮流、学术前沿有敏锐的判断。正是这种对当下学术状况的感知和判断，构成了对学术史进行观察评估的基点。所谓还原，就是研究者的主体性要与研究对象的客观性尽量贴近和契合。

As far as the study of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography is concerned, researchers should possess a holistic understanding and evaluation of the current development of Marxist historiography, accurately grasp the value and significance of Marxist historiography, make a basic judgment about its future direction, and even need to anticipate the prospects of historiography as a whole, and then use this to reveal a particular process or aspect of the history of Marxist historiography. For example, the reason researchers focus on revealing and restoring the Marxist historiography of the period of the Social History Debate may implicitly contain an affirmation of the pluralization of Marxist historiography during that period and an expectation of the pluralization of Marxist historiography in the future. At the same time, this research must conform to the characteristics and circumstances actually exhibited by Marxist historiography during the Social History Debate period. Therefore, the work of restoration is a unity of the subjective and the objective; restoration is simultaneously reconstruction. Understanding this, the restorative study of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography can transcend the level of merely sorting out facts and discovering facts, reaching a new standard.

就中国马克思主义史学史研究而言，研究者应当对当下马克思主义史学的发展有一个整体性的认知和评价，对马克思主义史学的价值和意义有准确的把握，对马克思主义史学的未来走向有一个基本判断，乃至需要对整个历史学的前景作出预判，然后以此来揭示马克思主义史学史的某一过程、某一面相。比如说，研究者之所以要集中揭示还原社会史论战时期的马克思主义史学，其中可能暗含了对这一时期马克思主义史学多元化的认同和对未来马克思主义史学多元化的期待。同时，这一研究又要符合社会史论战时期马克思主义史学实际呈现的特征和情势。所以，还原工作乃是主客观的统一，还原同时也是重建。明乎此，中国马克思主义史学史的还原性研究才能超越单纯清理事实、发现事实的层次，达到一个新的水准。

In summary, the history of Chinese Marxist historiography, as an important branch within the study of historiography, has received increasing attention in recent years, with an endless stream of results. However, conventional research that follows the beaten path accounts for a large proportion, and the field is largely in a state of calm, without much upheaval. Yet, for the study of the history of Chinese Marxist historiography to achieve a major breakthrough and leap forward, it must continuously defamiliarize itself, boldly attempt subversive work, and raise academic questions about previous theoretical methods and viewpoints. Only in this way can researchers’ imagination and creativity be activated, thereby redrawing the academic map of Chinese Marxist historiography. This entirely new academic map will not only be closer to the original face of past Marxist historiography but is also expected to provide necessary guidance for the future development of Marxist historiography.

总之，中国马克思主义史学史作为史学史研究中的一个重要分支，尽管近年来越来越受到关注，成果层出不穷，但中规中矩的常规研究占了很大比例，大体处于一种风平浪静、波澜不兴的状态。然而，中国马克思主义史学史研究要实现大的突破和飞跃，必须不断去熟悉化，大胆尝试做颠覆性工作，对以往的理论方法和观点提出学术质疑。唯有如此，才能激活研究者的想象力和创造力，进而重新绘制中国马克思主义史学的学术地图。这幅全新的学术地图，不但更加接近过往马克思主义史学的本来面貌，而且有望为未来的马克思主义史学发展提供必要指引。

(Author’s bio: Chen Feng, Professor and Doctoral Supervisor at the Advanced Institute for Confucian Studies, Shandong University)

（作者简介：陈峰，山东大学儒学高等研究院教授、博士生导师）

Online editor: Tongxin

网络编辑：同心