从中西互鉴到本土重构:民国时期《医史特辑》及《医史杂志》与医史书写的转向

From Mutual Learning between China and the West to Local Reconstruction: Special Issue on the History of Medicine and Journal of Medical History during the Republic of China Period and the Transformation of Medical History Writing

  • 摘要: 中华医史学会会刊《医史杂志》及其前身《中华医学杂志》专栏《医史特辑》是民国时期医史研究的重要阵地,但二者的区别不仅体现在《医史特辑弁言》指向现实、侧重医史的医学功用,而《医史杂志发刊词》注重历史、强调医史的学科体系之上,语言、主题和内容方面更有着重大差异:《医史特辑》颇多英文文章,以比较史学、科学实证与国际合作构建全球对话,试图在“中医科学化”框架下争取学科合法性;而《医史杂志》几无英文文章,转向文献考据与文化叙事,多从文化史视角挖掘中医独特性,进而重构文化叙事与本土知识。究其缘由,既有受持有不同学术观点的余云岫和王吉民的交错影响,更重要的是因为《医史特辑》在政治变革和科学救国的促进下,强调通过医史研究切实推动现实医学进步;而《医史杂志》则在战后重建和文化自立的背景下,注重医史的文化传承和体系建构。这一转向是近代中国医史研究在全球化与本土化张力中寻求身份认同的缩影。

     

    Abstract: The journal of the Chinese Society for the History of Medicine, Journal of Medical History, and its predecessor, the column Special Issue on the History of Medicine in Chinese Medical Journal, were important centers for the study of the history of medicine during the Republic of China period. However, the differences between the two are not only reflected in the fact that the Preface to the Special Issue points to reality and emphasizes the medical functions of the history of medicine, while the Inaugural Address of the Journal focuses on history and emphasizes the disciplinary system of the history of medicine. There are also significant differences in terms of language, themes, and content. The Special Issue contains many English articles, constructing a global dialogue through comparative historiography, scientific evidence, and international cooperation, and attempting to strive for disciplinary legitimacy within the framework of "the scientification of traditional Chinese medicine". In contrast, the Journal has almost no English articles, turning to textual research of documents and cultural narration, often excavating the uniqueness of traditional Chinese medicine from the perspective of cultural history, and then reconstructing cultural narration and local knowledge. The reasons for this lie not only in the intertwined influence of Yu Yunxiu and Wang Jimin, who held different academic views, but more importantly, because the Special Issue, under the promotion of political changes and the pursuit of saving the nation through science, emphasized that research on the history of medicine should effectively promote the progress of practical medicine. On the other hand, against the backdrop of post-war reconstruction and cultural self-reliance, the Journal focused on the cultural inheritance and system construction of the history of medicine. This shift is a microcosm of the search for identity by the study of the history of medicine in modern China within the tension between globalization and localization.

     

/

返回文章
返回