《中国传统史学与近代新史学的创建及历史解释学的阐释——以20世纪初梁启超和章太炎的新史学为中心》

正(《安徽史学》2019年第6期) 20世纪初中国近代新史学的创建,实际上是在批判和继承传统史学的双重变奏中进行的。这在新史学的两位领袖梁启超、章太炎创建的新史学中有充分体现。他们引用西方近代史学理论批判中国传统史学和创建近代新史学。然而,他们创建的新史学不仅对中国传统史学作了不同程度的肯定,还多     

21世纪中国史学实证研究的前芽

有的学者在总结近代中国史学发展历程时．对于近代史学的新形势,有“新史学方法论的三种体系”的分析。以为“新史学方法论体系之一”,即：“王国维、陈寅恪、汤用彤、柳诒徵为代表的民族文化主体论史学流派,提出了近代新史学方法的一个重要类型。他们强调在传统学术方法的基础上．结合近代西方学术方法发展出新史学方法。”而“新史学方法论体系之二”的表现,是“胡适、傅斯年等提出了近代新史学方法的另一种发展方向”。     

“兰普莱希特争论”初探

19世纪末,围绕着兰普莱希特著多卷本《德意志史》及其文化史观,德国史学界展开了一场激烈的论战,结果不仅兰普莱希特本人身败名裂,他所倡导的史学革新也备受阻挠。兰普莱希特著作和理论的缺陷、他对兰克史学和政治的历史编纂的批判否定,是引发争论的最主要原因。而争论的"半途而废"和传统史学的重新巩固也与兰普莱希特的妥协让步有密切关系。兰普莱希特在争论中的明显失败,对于德国史学从传统史学向"新史学"的转型产生了极其负面的影响,教训十分深刻。     

兰普莱希特文化史观的国际传播

德国文化史家卡尔·兰普莱希特在19世纪末20世纪初写作多部文化史巨著,并提出了一系列文化史观点。兰普莱希特的文化史观在德国学界引发巨大争议,同时,在欧美国家乃至东亚国家广泛传播,受到不同程度的关注和热议。这一史学现象得益于兰普莱希特文化史观与世界范围内蓬勃发展的新史学运动之间的同频共振,反映了20世纪初以来日益紧密的史学交往。另一方面,德国以外的学者出于为自身研究需求服务的目的,更多地聚焦于兰普莱希特文化史观中的“新史学”部分,一定程度上对于这种“新史学”的实际价值和意义未予以彻底的剖析,对于他的文化史观中所渗透的德国传统史学的底色也没有察觉,这成为史学传播与交流之中的典型案例。     

史学传统与晚明史研究

本文结合晚明史研究 ,回顾梁启超《新史学》发表百年来中国“新史学”三次高潮。作者认为 ,新与传统原是相对概念 ,但今“新史学”则多指引进西方史学理论的研究。中国新史学三次高潮均受外来史学理论影响 ,其中不乏经验教训 :一是 2 0世纪 50年代后教条主义对于史学的影响 ;一是近年来中国史研究的西化倾向。作者不反对引进新史学理论 ,但反对教条主义 ;并认为新史学不能抛弃中国史学传统 ,2 1世纪中国史学仍是汉学的史学 ,而非西学的史学。     

简评梁启超史学思想的变化

梁启超是近代中国资产阶级史学理论的开创者。他猛烈地批判了封建旧史学,提出了属于资产阶级体系的新史学,在近代中国史学界起了积极的启蒙作用。但梁启超没有随时代前进去发展自己的史学思想,相反地是在惶遽、倒退中最后否定了自己的新史学理论。从梁启超较全面提出他的史学理论的二十世纪初,到二十世纪二十年代后半期他逝世的这段时间里,他的史学思想所表现出来的最大特点是“多变”。梁启超史学思想的形成是在戊戌变法失败后,他流亡日本这一阶段。当时,他接触了大量的西方史学论著,并结合现实斗争的需要,写成了《中国史叙论》、《新史学》等书,系统地提出了资产阶级新史学理论。首先,他激烈地批判了封建的旧史学,提出“史界革命”的口号,并把“史界革命”当     

近几十年来何炳松史学研究概述

何炳松是我国著名的史学家、教育家和出版家,是"五四"前后最早系统介绍西方史学理论与方法的学者之一。20世纪90年代后,关于何炳松史学的研究层出不穷,学者们对何炳松本人和其传播西方史学、对中国新史学所做的贡献、史学思想和其历史教育思想等进行了探讨。     

政治批判与学术建设——梁启超和鲁宾逊《新史学》的比较研究

1902年,中国著名政治家、思想家梁启超发表了划时代的思想巨著《新史学》。他高举起“史界革命”的大旗,批判旧史学,提倡新史学,宣告了中国近代史学的诞生。历史往往有惊人的巧合。10年之后,另一部同名的史学名著在大洋彼岸的美国问世,作者是美国著名历史学家詹姆斯·鲁宾逊。在这部《新史学》中,也提出要以新史学来取代旧史学,从此在美国形成了一个“新史学”学派。又一个10年过去,美国的这部《新史学》经留美归来的中     

20世纪中国史学中的唯物史观史学

<正>唯物史观史学是20世纪中国史学的重要组成部分。这一客观存在的事实至少表明,在20世纪中国史学发展过程中,唯物史观史学具有其产生、发展的社会与学术土壤,亦有其对现实与史学的贡献与担当。在当前中国史学呈多元发展的学术趋向下,更需要认真分析唯物史观史学产生的原因、梳理唯物史观史学在20世纪的走向、研究唯物史观史学对20世纪中国史学的各种影响。20世纪初,梁启超倡导的"新史学"开启了中国近代史学的发展历程。"新史学"在批判旧史学     

评何炳松对西方史学理论和方法论的译介

何炳松是较早倡导西方史学理论和方法论的学者。他率先将美国鲁滨逊的“新史学”理论和方法论向国人作较为全面系统的介绍 ,又结合中国传统史学理论 ,对西方史学中的史学学科理论进行译介和阐释 ;在使西方史学和民族史学相结合方面作出了种种努力。但他未能完全熔铸成自己新的学理 ,其学术思想中西方史学理论部分和中国传统史学理论部分仍处于脱节状态     

Goody,Polanyi and Eurasia: An Unfinished Project in Comparative Historical Economic Anthropology

Goody's essay overlaps with his recent work on the “search for metals” and, more generally, with his many books expounding the commonalities of Eurasian history. His critique of Eurocentrism remains invaluable. This review article argues that his emphasis on diffusion can be usefully supplemented with a concept of civilization, to facilitate comparative structural analysis. Goody's perspective might also be enhanced by an engagement with the literature on “Axial Age” cosmologies and with substantivist economic anthropology. It is worth revisiting Karl Polanyi's efforts to grasp the position of the economy in society, in order to recover in the neoliberal present the long-run Eurasian dialectic between redistribution and market exchange.     

晚清士大夫对古埃及的历史书写

晚清士大夫对古埃及史有着浓厚兴趣,就纪年方面,他们把古埃及年代与先秦纪年接榫,在书写过程中表达了自己的历史观,如林则徐在书写埃及史时故意不用武则天纪年。就物质层面,晚清士人对古埃及的金字塔和木乃伊特别关注。就典籍层面,晚清士人被掌握话语霸权的西方人误导,误以为承载古埃及文明的亚历山大图书馆被阿拉伯人焚烧,从而对阿拉伯人口诛笔伐。就文明层面,晚清士人在埃及文明哺育希腊罗马文明的基础上,将拉克伯里"中国人种西来说"进行改造,构建出埃及文明源于中国的说法,这样的西学中源循环说为晚清中国学习西方文明提供理论依据,唐才常、王树楠等人认为西方文明实际上最早发端于中国,我们只是"礼失求诸野"而已。     

Wartime everydayness: beyond the battlefield in China’s Second World War

ABSTRACT

This article suggests that the study of the War of Resistance against Japanese aggression should pay due attention to the effect of the war on the wartime everyday, that is, on Chinese culture, politics, society, and the economy away from the battlefield. Not only was the impact deep and enduring, but evolving, regionally and socially divergent responses to the war also shaped the war’s military. In modern war, as Karl von Clausewitz pointed out, public morale is a key factor in deciding the outcome of the fighting. The article first sketches the war’s impact on the Chinese economy, suggesting that the main consequences were “demodernization” and the revival of traditional trading patterns. It then discusses the reading lives of a young woman who grew up during the war and a senior Nationalist official to delineate contrasting emotional private responses, with one person finding in literature an inspirational alternative and the other becoming increasingly disillusioned. The article concludes with an examination of three popular history textbooks. They all stressed the importance of an awareness of Chinese civilization but narrated its nature and its prospects in contrasting ways. Such textbooks were used in required Chinese history courses at universities. The article makes no attempt to be comprehensive but instead uses a few examples as illustrations of the potential of researching wartime everydayness.     

From the government to the university: Efforts to write national history in the early Republic

ABSTRACT

From the controversies surrounding the National History Bureau in the early Republic to the short-lived National Historiography Office at Peking University, the traditional undertaking of writing dynastic history experienced many crises during the transformative Republican era. The National History Bureau was merged with Peking University as part of Cai Yuanpei’s efforts to separate the field of national historiography from the government and shift it toward universities, as well as his efforts to further reform the university system. In comparing the staff members and aims of the National History Bureau and the National Historiography Office of Peking University, the latter clearly represented an update in terms of concepts and methods. The purpose of the History Bureau’s shift from “dynastic” to “popular” history, which apparently intentionally imitated the German academic system, was to render national historiography and other related research independent of the government, cast off the traditional moral burden of “condemning evildoers and praising the virtuous,” and gradually move forward on the path of specialization for national historiography within the university system. The National Historiography Office’s various editing plans amply demonstrate this tendency. The many winding detours that the “national history” efforts took between dynastic and popular history both expressed the entanglement of new and old ideas within academic circles, and revealed the contemporary struggle between the government and universities.     

More than a Disease: The History of General Paralysis of the Insane in Turkey

This article explores the history of general paralysis of the insane (GPI) and its treatment in Turkey. GPI was considered as “a disease of civilization” at the end of the nineteenth century. From the early years of the twentieth century, Turkish psychiatrists discussed and interpreted the causes of GPI and followed the European diagnostic and treatment methods of the disease. Austrian psychiatrist Julius Wagner-Jauregg (1857–1940) introduced and developed “malaria fever therapy” for general paralysis in 1917. Malaria fever therapy spread to other countries and, during the 1920s, the treatment was also used in Turkey. This article not only aims to illuminate an unnoticed aspect of the history of psychiatry in Turkey but also uses GPI as a model to illustrate how psychiatry in Turkey was influenced by the developments in Europe.     

兰克在新中国史学界的境遇

马克思受德国左翼知识分子的影响,曾对兰克作了否定性的评价,后经苏联学者的进一步发挥,兰克被定格为反动派。马克思的兰克评语早在1945年即已通过苏联学者的论文译介到中国,但最初似无影响,至1960年代初借助各种译著的传布,始被中国史家所熟知,深刻影响了他们对兰克的认知。1958年开始中国史学界推行"兴无灭资"的史学革命,开展两条路线斗争。为了更好批判中外资产阶级史学,1960年代初大陆史学界密集译介兰克的资料,有些史家积极批判兰克,但所凭借的文献多为二手著作,很少有人直接阅读兰克作品。进入"文革"时代,兰克话题已然进入禁区。     

文明交往视阈下16世纪布哈拉汗国的经济发展

1500年布哈拉汗国的建立拉开了中亚近代史的序幕。乌兹别克人的南下加快了河中地区游牧文明与农耕文明的交往,促使汗国经济发展步入转折期。在继承和变革帖木儿王朝经济制度的前提下,16世纪汗国的农牧经济得到恢复和发展,手工业进一步完善,对外贸易重新活跃,从而对中亚近代文明交往产生了深远影响。乌兹别克人在与河中地区各民族频繁交往的过程中,其经济生活逐渐转向农业,并接受中亚传统的伊斯兰教,从而实现了中亚农耕文明和伊斯兰文化的传承与发展。     

The Positivism Dispute in German Sociology, 1954–1970

This article offers a re-contextualization of the Positivism Dispute between the Frankfurt School and advocates of empirical sociology in the German sociological profession between 1954 and 1970. Investigating the reasons why the German Sociological Association convened in Tübingen in October 1961, it assigns a more peripheral role to Karl Popper and this now famous seminar. Focusing instead on the debate among German sociologists from the mid-1950s which prompted the convention of the seminar and the invitation for Popper to speak, the article maintains that philosophy of history was the central concern of the Positivism Dispute. In this debate, members of the Frankfurt School emphasized contingency in history and society, while sociologists such as René König, Helmut Schelsky, Ralf Dahrendorf, and Arnold Gehlen advocated sociology as the empirical study of ‘given’ social facts. By doing so the article questions the narrative of the Positivism Dispute advanced by Karl Popper and some of his followers, as well as interpretations which have focused on debates during the aftermath of the Tübingen seminar in the 1960s.     

长江流域“原史时代”概论

自新石器时代末史前文明断裂至秦帝国建立被正式纳入以中原地区为主体的历史体系之前的这一时期,是长江流域历史或文明进程中一个独特的阶段,其特征与西方史学和考古界通行的"原史时代"概念吻合,因而建议将这一时期独立出来作为长江流域史前时代和历史时代之间的过渡阶段——"原史时代",并就长江流域"原史时代"的特征、分期及其对于长江流域自身历史和人类文明进程研究的学术意义进行了阐述。