论文部分内容阅读
历史研究的最基本任务是追求历史的真实性。因此对史料的正确与否作出判断,客观地理解和阐释其确切含义,是研究过程中不可或缺的重要环节。但在过去的研究中,人们却往往把史料作为陈列式的论据,蹈常袭故,因循坐误,而忽略了判断和鉴别的过程。近年来部分学者提出的“史料批判研究”和“本体阐释”等理论,虽对文献“结构、性格、执笔意图”和文本阐释等有积极意义,但与笔者所倡导的重归原典、发覆求真,即对“国史”再作全面、系统、具体、深入的考证和梳理,仍有本质上的区别。故假拙作《后汉书稽疑》出版之际,拟就《后汉书》的“本相”与“史料”认知等谈点体会,期望对“国史”整饬和中国史的进一步研究抛砖引玉,为获取历久弥新的创新性成果寻求新的能量和动力。
The most basic task of historical research is the pursuit of the authenticity of history. Therefore, judging the correctness of the historical data or not, and objectively understanding and explaining its exact meaning are indispensable links in the research process. However, in the past researches, people tend to regard the historical materials as the argument of the exhibition type, they often follow the mistakes, and ignore the process of judgment and identification. In recent years, some scholars put forward the theory of “critical research of historical materials” and “ontology interpretation” and so on. Although they have positive significance to the literature of “structure, character, writing intention” and text explanation, Returning to the original code and sending the letter to the court for truthfulness, there are still fundamental differences in the comprehensive, systematic, concrete and in-depth textual research and sorting out of the “History of the People’s Republic of China.” Therefore, on the occasion of the publication of “Myths about the Later Han Dynasty”, I would like to talk about the cognition of “this phase ” and "historical Further research to start anew, seeking new energy and motivation for long-lasting and innovative achievements.