20世纪中国法律史学的演进摘 要对中国法律史学科作历史的回顾，同时进行自我检讨与总结，这不仅有利于中国法律史学科自身发展，还有助于为当前的法制建设事业提供智力支持。本文旨在对20世纪中国法律史学的演进趋势进行较全面和系统的阐述，在吸收前人研究成果的基础上，提出自己的一些认识，以期推进有关这一领域的研究。本文由绪论、正文九章组成。绪论部分，简单论述本选题研究的缘起、意义，分析本选题研究的历史与现状，说明本选题研究的重点、难点、创新点，并对本选题的研究思路、方法及有关概念予以交代与界定。第一章，总论20世纪中国法律史学科产生的社会背景、发展路径及阶段性特点。19至20世纪之交的危亡时局、清末新政以及西方新学理的传播为中国法律史学科的产生创造了条件。20世纪中国法律史学大致可以分为三个发展阶段。第一阶段为中国法律史学的初建时期（1904——1937）。其间，中国法律史学的学科体系初步建立起来；考证派与新史学派两大法律史学流派业已形成。第二阶段是中国法律史学的艰难发展期（1937——1978）。日本侵华、国内战争、新中国成立后“左”的思潮影响以及“文革”时期政治对学术的干扰等都给中国法律史学发展带来了极大困难，但在广大法律史学者的积极努力下，中国法律史学依然取得了一定进展。第三阶段是指中国法律史学的反思与调整期（1978——20世纪末）。其间，出现了研究成果日益丰硕、理论与方法运用渐趋合理以及质量上乘之作不断涌现等新景象。同时，法律史学也出现了一些新问题。第二至四章，论述各不同学派特色及各学派对中国法律史学的贡献。第二章，考察考据派的治学特色及学术贡献。考据派秉承了乾嘉学派考证的遗风，同时又吸收了新的科学方法，对传统法律史学研究范式既有继承又有发展，沈家本、程树德与陈寅恪是其代表；第三章，讨论新史学派的治学特点、代表人物及学术贡献。新史学派采用西方的新学理为指导，倡导用史论结合方式进行学术研究，同时，该学派重在总结中国古代法律史的规律性东西，开辟了中国法律史学研究的新范式。梁启超、杨鸿烈及陈顾远是其代表；第四章，剖析马克思主义学派的治学特色及学术贡献。马克思主义学派以唯物史观为指导，采用阶级分析法、辩证法等科学的方法进行学术研究，大大推动了中国法律史学向纵深发展。20世纪上半期，李大钊与李达是其代表，20世纪下半期，马克思主义在全国范围确立了指导地位，马克思主义法律史学派渐趋成为中国大陆地区的主流学派。第五章，揭示中国法律史学理论与方法的创获。法律史学研究的理论成就主要表现在两个方面：一是法律史学科理论，学者主要从学科名称的厘定、法律史学科体系的构建、法律史的学科价值以及研究视野与方法等方面进行了广泛探讨，为法律史学科的发展提供了理论指导；二是关于重要法律问题的理论探讨，如中国法律的起源、法律的阶级性、中华法系的特征等，这些理论的探讨影响了民众的法律观念与意识，也在一定程度上推动了法律史学的发展。第六章，论述法律史学研究机构及对中国法律史学科的推进。法律史学研究机构的出现，是法律史学研究走向成熟的必然产物，而研究机构的出现又推动了法律史学的纵深发展。各研究机构召开的学术会议、整合学术力对重大课题进行攻关等，有助于深化问题的认识及推动本学科发展。另外，各学术机构创办的法律史专业期刊、利用网络资源创办的电子期刊与网站等，也对本学科发展起到了推动作用。第七章，以举例的方式初步探讨中国法律史书的编撰成就。大量编撰风格各异的法律史著述的出现，是中国法律史学走向繁荣的主要标志之一。瞿同祖《中国法律与中国社会》一书凸显了“成一家之言”的撰著宗旨，阐发了中国古代法律的家族主义及阶级性两大特征，做到了法制史与社会史研究范式的结合，又开辟了从制度实施效果入手研究法制史的新途径等，表现出很高的编撰成就；张晋藩任总主编的《中国法制通史》是众多学者集体智慧的结晶，很好地体现了通史体例与通史精神的完美结合，尤其是对马克思主义理论的灵活运用更凸显出其独到的编撰特色。第八章，在全面考察20世纪中国法律古籍文献整理成果的基础上，对法律古籍文献对法律史学研究的积极作用作出概括。法律古籍整理研究成果对中国法律史学发展的推动作用表现在三个方面，即填补法律史料的空白、对一些重要问题予以证实与证伪、拓展研究领域等。第九章为结语部分，对中国法律史学的理论、方法进行反思及对发展前景予以展望。尽管学者已在法律史学理论与方法领域有颇多创获，然而当前中国法律史学面临的困境表明，理论与方法仍需进行认真反思。在理论方面，学者应以马克思主义理论为指导，同时加强史学与法学两个学科理论的修养，集二者之所长推进法律史学的建设；在研究方法上，考据法、义理法、比较法是最为适合于法律史学的方法，同时，其他的新方法也对法律史学研究有着重要的帮助；关于法律史学的展望，除要在理论与方法上有重大突破外，法律史学者还应有通识精神、注意对新出土文献的应用以及提高叙事能力等。

The evolution of Chinese law historiography in 20th centuryABSTRACTOn the basis of fully academic review, this paper tries to demonstrate the transform tendencies of Chinese Law History in 20th century, with which some new ideas to improve the research in this filed.The part of introduction illuminates the significances and originalities of this research; meanwhile, it explains the main ideas, methods and some related concepts to make a point for whole paper.To summarize the general development paths and periodical characters of 20th century under given social backgrounds, Chapter I has divided the development course of Chinese Law Historiography into three periods as follows. The 1st period names as the “Construction Period” since 1904 to 1937, which had brought on modernization of Chinese Legal History with the serious social problem, political reform and foreign academic thoughts. During this time, the subject had been formally established, and two main schools had been formed respectively, which include the “Textual Research School” and the “New Historiography School”. The 2nd period, which names as the “Establishment Period” since 1937 to the end of 1970’s, the research had been badly disturb and negatively influenced by civil war, ideological intervention and social movements, but it still made some progress led by Marxist theory. The 3rd period, which named as “Self-reflection and Adjustment Period” since the beginning of 1980’s to the end of 20th century, there were published lots of creative works with new theories and methodologies; accordingly, it also brought some new problems at the same time.Caper II to IV, analysis of the three major schools of thought and their academic contribution to promote the development of the disciplines. The Textual Research School stress the importance of historical material in their study and hold on all views should be found from the data. So they make an important role of hesitating traditional style of legal history study. Sheen Jia-ben, Cheng Shu-de and Chen Yin-que are its representative; The New School of History advocate using the Western academic study to guild research, summing up the history of ancient Chinese law legal things is their prominent feature. Liang Chi-chao, Chen Gu-yuan and Yang Hong-lie are its representative; The Marxism School regard the Marxism as a guide, and use the class analysis, dialectics and other scientific methods to engage in academic research. The first half of the 20th century, Li Da-zhao and Li Da are the outstanding representatives of this school; the second half of the 20th century, Marxist guidance established in mainland China, it gradually becomes the mainstream of the school district.Chapter V, the study reveals the adherents about theories or methods in this field. Firstly, it is the Historical Philosophy, which is consists of the name of subjects, the nature of subjects and value judgments, the perspective of study an so on. Secondly, it is on the important legal issues to explore the theory, such as the Origin of Chinese law, the Law of class, the Department of the characteristics of Chinese law, which are helpful for enhancing the civil legal consciousness, but also to some extent, guiding the development of legal history.Chapter VI reviews the professional institutions of Legal History and their main activities. Having been hold academic meetings, organized subject study, published the academic journals and as well as taken advantage of network resources, the various professional institutions have definitely played the important roles at this fields. Chapter VII, a kind of pilot studies, introduces the historiography achievements of the Legal History writings. The Chinese law and the Chinese Society, which written by Qu Tong-zu, is deemed to one of the masterpiece with the new path, style and method at combinations between the Legal History with Social History. “The General History of Chinese Legal System”, which edited by Zhang Jin-fan, is the crystal of collective wisdom which been resourcefully adapted to Marxist Theory in their writing, according to the style and nature of the General Historiography.Chapter VIII summarizes three main contributions of the Legal Philology for improving the Research of Legal History in past half of century as follows: supplying some gaps, authentication and developing some new fields. Finally, the author gets conclusions in Chapter IX at the theoretical building and methodological work to improve the Research of Legal History: firstly, we have to improve the cross-reference of theories both of the History and Law led by the Marxist theory; secondly, we have to attempt new methods besides Research method, Henry law and Comparative Method; thirdly, we have to apply ourselves to improve our writing level and make use of latest excavations at all.