【摘要】 近代以来，历史学家每每认为史家的任务是据事直书，如实客观地还原历史之真实，从而颇将史料学等同于历史学。但这并不符合中国传统史学的精神。中国传统史学深受孔子作《春秋》的影响，一方面注重史实的陈述，但更重视史实所蕴含的义理内涵与思想意义。从汉代的司马迁、班固，到近代的蒙文通，莫不是如此。对于历史书写而言，“史料”与“史义”的结合，才是中国传统史学的精义所在，其中“史料”是载体，而“史义”则是灵魂。没有“史料”,史学之精神固然无所依附；但没有“史义”,则“史料”也当失去其应有的生命。更多还原

【Abstract】 Since modern times, historians have often believed that the task of historians is to accurately and objectively restore the truth of history based on facts, thus equating the study of historical materials with history. But this does not conform to the spirit of traditional Chinese historiography. Traditional Chinese historiography is deeply influenced by Confucius’ work Spring and Autumn Annals. On the one hand, it emphasizes the statement of historical facts, and on the other hand, it places more emphasis on the moral connotations and ideological significance contained in historical facts. From Sima Qian and Ban Gu in the Han Dynasty to Meng Wentong in modern times, this is not the case. For historical writing, the combination of “historical materials” and “historical significance” is the essence of traditional Chinese historiography, where “historical materials” are the carrier and “historical significance” is the soul. Without historical materials, the spirit of historiography certainly has no attachment; But without historical significance, historical materials should also lose their rightful life.更多还原