中世纪英国乡村工资史研究中的两个问题

乡村的雇佣劳动与雇佣关系是中世纪史研究的重要课题。在经济社会史和日常生活史兴起的学术背景下,英国乡村雇工的生活水平引起了国内外学者的广泛关注。作为雇工收入的重要来源,工资的作用一向为学界所重视。目前的工资问题研究过于重视工资及其购买力的变化趋势,对工资差别与受雇佣时间的持续性缺乏关注,从而导致对雇工生活水平的复杂性和多样性认识不足。作为工资史研究的两个重要维度,对工资差别和工资收入的探讨可以弥补枯燥的统计表格和曲线造成的认识不足,有助于我们更全面地了解中世纪乡村雇工的生活状况。     

中世纪英国城市人口估算北大核心CSSCI

英国中世纪城市人口的数量及其在全国人口中的比例,是一个争议颇大的问题。在中世纪中期的人口城市化水平和中世纪晚期人口城市化是否出现逆转等问题上,经济史与经济社会史、社会经济史之间存在着较大的分歧。研究范式的差异是导致不同结论的主要原因。经济史学家所主张的英国中世纪中期城市人口不足10%以及在中世纪晚期城市变化性质方面的悲观论和乐观论都是片面的。而经济社会史和社会经济史所主张的同时关注小城市,并在此基础上所揭示的中世纪中晚期的城市人口比例以及对中世纪晚期城市持有的综合辨证的态度,是近几十年来英国城市史研究中最有价值的成果之一,更值得我们认真对待。     

中世纪英格兰主教档案及其史料价值——以13世纪林肯主教档案为例

对中世纪教会史研究而言,中世纪主教档案是一个极为基本且极具价值的史料来源,它的形成经历了一个不断发展完善的过程。20世纪,以地方档案协会为主的档案出版机构对中世纪主教档案进行了重新整理和出版,促进了这些档案在教会史领域中的研究和使用。在这一过程中,受西方史学理论和研究方法演进的影响,西方学者们对中世纪主教档案的使用经历了从制度史研究范式逐步到社会史研究路径的转变。随着研究重心的变化,人们对主教档案的解读不断深入,其史料价值也不断得到挖掘。     

中世纪英国城市人口估算

英国中世纪城市人口的数量及其在全国人口中的比例,是一个争议颇大的问题。在中世纪中期的人口城市化水平和中世纪晚期人口城市化是否出现逆转等问题上,经济史与经济社会史、社会经济史之间存在着较大的分歧。研究范式的差异是导致不同结论的主要原因。经济史学家所主张的英国中世纪中期城市人口不足10%以及在中世纪晚期城市变化性质方面的悲观论和乐观论都是片面的。而经济社会史和社会经济史所主张的同时关注小城市,并在此基础上所揭示的中世纪中晚期的城市人口比例以及对中世纪晚期城市持有的综合辨证的态度,是近几十年来英国城市史研究中最有价值的成果之一,更值得我们认真对待。     

中世纪英国庄仆探微

庄仆是中世纪英国庄园自营地上的全职工资劳动者,其前身可以追溯到11世纪末的奴隶,并在此后的两个世纪里经历了由服役庄仆向领薪庄仆的转变。庄仆长期从事一些专门工作,与惯例佃农和临时雇工一道满足了领主不同方面的需求。庄仆的报酬是其维持生计的主要来源,形式多样,主要由谷物和货币组成,在经历黑死病之前的下降之后,其待遇在中世纪晚期不断改善。但由于此时高工资和低物价的影响,领主对于直接进行农业生产失去兴趣,自营地逐渐被出租,传统的庄仆也就从历史上消失了。     

法律身份、人口比例和收入水平——论中世纪西欧工匠的几个问题

中世纪的西欧工匠是一个非常重要的劳动者群体。他们包括自由人和不自由人,后者在中世纪较早摆脱了奴役,成为半自由人和自由人;他们的人口比例不断上升,中世纪中晚期城乡工匠大约占到总人口的10%—20%,平均在15%左右,构成非农业人口的主体;他们主要以工业生产为生,随着中世纪中期和晚期工业品价格和工资从缓慢增长到快速上升,工匠收入的购买力也相应经历了从下降到提高的过程,15世纪时工匠的生活水平得到明显改善。     

20世纪英国中世纪世俗教士研究述评

作为联通中世纪教俗两界的主要媒介,世俗教士历来是西方史学界关注的重要研究对象之一。随着新史料的出现与史学理论的发展,20世纪以来的英国中世纪世俗教士研究经历了一系列转变。受宗教信仰意识形态的影响,20世纪上半叶主流的中世纪世俗教士研究往往关注于道德评判,传统学派对世俗教士的负面认识也未出现大的改观。不过,在主流研究之外也有一部分学者对传统范式进行了反思和批判,并试图以更加客观的视角审视中世纪世俗教士群体。20世纪60年代以后,随着新史学的兴起,中世纪世俗教士研究出现了转向,以"人"为中心的社会史研究范式的兴起推动了该领域的进一步发展,大批新史料的编订和出版也为中世纪世俗教士研究的转型提供了契机。伴随上述转型,英国中世纪世俗教士研究逐渐发展为一个相对独立和完善的研究领域,世俗教士本身也开始成为研究的"主角",为学者们关注和讨论。     

《中世纪英国社会的妇女》简介

妇女研究是20世纪60年代以后西方史学的一个热门研究领域,其研究成果对于全面理解人类整体发展的意义是不言而喻的。牛津大学出版社于1999年出版的《中世纪英国社会的妇女》①就是一本研究中世纪妇女的佳作。其作者迈维斯·E.梅特是奥林治大学的中世纪史教授,她在本书中就妇女的政治权利和经济地位等问题提出了自己的独特见解。     

中世纪西欧工资劳动市场再探——以产生时间和原因为中心

新人口论认为中世纪中期工资劳动市场的快速扩张来自人口过剩,而马克思主义史学家则将中世纪晚期工资劳动市场的形成归结为封建主义危机和资本主义兴起。尽管上述观点不无道理,但都不能从整体上解释中世纪西欧工资劳动市场的存在。中世纪不同时期,领主庄园、农民家庭和工商业者作坊或商店对工资劳动市场均有不同程度的需求,因而需求拉动是中世纪西欧尤其是英国的工资劳动者比例居高不下的主要原因。中世纪西欧工资劳动市场是农民和工商业者的家庭劳动力和领主庄园的农奴劳役的重要补充,而并非一种异己力量,只有当条件适合时才会转变为资本主义雇佣劳动市场。     

中世纪英国宪政史研究的新理路——读《英国“宪政王权”论稿》

《英国"宪政王权"论稿》一书以"宪政王权"为研究主题,对中世纪后期英国政治史进行了宏阔总结。《论稿》特色鲜明,在唯物史观的指导和中国经验的启发下,精心考辨了西方学界已有成果,在"文本中的政治"以及"制度中的政治"中研究和揭示了"实际发生的政治",得出了接近历史实际的判断,并总结出了政治史研究中的"利益原则"和"实力对比原则"。《论稿》虽然在内容、翻译和字句中存在瑕疵,但总体上不惟总结了已有的政治史成果,更为后续研究奠定了扎实的基础,开拓了中世纪英国宪政史研究的新理路。     

中国现代经济理论史论纲

本文对 1 949— 1 999年半个世纪的中国经济理论发展过程作了全景式的勾勒 ,内容包括中国经济学者对马克思主义经济学的研究、对西方经济学的引进和研究、对中国现实经济问题的研究和构造“中国经济学”的理论尝试 ,整理了中国现代经济理论史的发展线索 ,给出了中国现代经济理论史的理论框架 ,并作了纲要式的分析评述。     

WHAT'S WRONG WITH ECONOMIC HISTORY?

In this polemical book, Francesco Boldizzoni argues that economic history is so moribund as to require resurrection. He maintains that economic history has been converted into a subfield of economics and has embraced the antihistorical and a priori intellectual style of mainstream economics departments: it has, in effect, ceased to be a form of history. Boldizzoni hopes to force a recognition of contemporary economic history's bankruptcy and to show the way toward a revitalization. He criticizes both economic history as retrospective econometrics, as in the work of Robert Fogel, and economic history as a branch of the new institutional economics, as in the work of Douglas North. Boldizzoni suggests that economic history should return to the sort of research and models that prevailed earlier in its own history—models based on induction from observed economic life rather than on deduction from the theories of contemporary microeconomics. He particularly singles out the work of Witold Kula, Moses Finley, and the Annales historians for emulation, but also praises the perspectives of economic sociology and economic anthropology. Boldizzoni's call for a return to a more inductive form of economic history is welcome, and his discussions of his heroes should remind us that economic history was once a vibrant and creative part of the history profession. But the book's advice is more useful for historians working on premodern than on modern economic life. The claim that self‐governing markets and interest‐maximizing individual actors are pure figments of economists' imaginations seems far less certain for recent than for premodern times. And his insistence that each society has its own distinct form of economic life that must be discovered inductively leaves unconceptualized the world‐spanning forces of capitalist development that increasingly shape societies everywhere. Boldizzoni's critique and his positive suggestions are certainly valuable, but he by no means supplies a sufficient recipe for economic history's resurrection as a vibrant field.     

An overview of recent research on modern Chinese economic history

China formally adopted the policy of reform and opening up to the outside world in 1978. Since then, both economic practice and economic theory in China have undergone profound changes, and the academic study of modern Chinese economic history has been encouraged to expand its research horizons under the rubric of “liberating the mind and seeking truth in the facts”. A number of important monographs and essays have been produced and the study of modern Chinese economic history has entered a flourishing period. Current research focuses on two major topics: China's New Democratic economy and the planned economy during the period 1949–78; and, China's socialist market economy from 1978–2006. The study of these two areas shows numerous interconnections, points of comparison and causal links. The many and important lessons to be drawn from these studies both exhibit Chinese characteristics and have universal implications.     

Luxury and Consumption in Eighteenth-Century Italy: Intellectual History,Methodological Ideas and Interdisciplinary Research Practice

Summary

This article has two aims. In the first part I will present some methodological considerations on intellectual history, particularly in relation to other disciplines considered similar yet different, such as the history of ideas, the history of concepts and the history of discourse. I will then seek to clarify what it means, in terms of research practice, to write intellectual history, taking as a starting point the subject of my own research, namely the political implications of economic thinking on luxury and consumption in Italy during the second half of the eighteenth century. More specifically, I intend to highlight the unique characteristics of intellectual history, understood as global history, which requires the reconstruction of the different contexts in which its underlying ideas and objectives developed, concentrating on its highly interdisciplinary nature. In particular, I will focus on a specific type of interdisciplinarity that characterised the methodology of my research, namely the attempt to hold together political thought and economic analysis. Eighteenth-century Italy was in fact marked by a strong, multifaceted political evaluation of economic thinking on luxury and consumption, which led me to examine the discussion of the subject through two lenses, those of economic analysis and political thinking. This specificity shows how the reconstruction of economic thought constitutes a fertile course for the investigation of the political culture and social projects of Italian authors in the eighteenth century, at a time when economic science was taking shape as a separate discipline.     

THE IMPLICATIONS OF ROBERT BRANDOM'S INFERENTIALISM FOR INTELLECTUAL HISTORY

Quentin Skinner's appropriation of speech act theory for intellectual history has been extremely influential. Even as the model continues to be important for historians, however, philosophers now regard the original speech act theory paradigm as dated. Are there more recent initiatives that might reignite theoretical work in this area? This article argues that the inferentialism of Robert Brandom is one of the most interesting contemporary philosophical projects with historical implications. It shows how Brandom's work emerged out of the broad shift in the philosophy of language from semantics to pragmatics that also informed speech act theory. The article then goes on to unpack the rich implications of Brandom's inferentialism for the theory and practice of intellectual history. It contends that inferentialism clarifies, legitimizes, and informs intellectual historical practice, and it concludes with a consideration of the challenges faced by inferentialist intellectual history, together with an argument for the broader implications of Brandom's work.     

The Work of Hans Aarsleff: A Brief Introduction

SUMMARY

The essay provides an overview of the main lines of argument that run through the work of Hans Aarsleff. The emphasis is on the history of language theory as an integral part of intellectual history.     

地方经济史本地化的优势与陷阱

中国经济史学者研究地方经济史始于20世纪30年代。50年代之后,研究本地特色经济史已逐渐形成一股热潮。在当前阶段,经济史中的同地研究已占主要地位,成为研究的主流。这种现象可以称之为地方经济史研究的本土化或本地化,有利于研究者发挥优势,有利于中国经济史学科的深入发展,有利于发挥经济史学的社会功能。地方经济史研究的本地化,既是中国经济史学发展到当前阶段的必然结果,也是它进一步发展的要求与动力。地方经济史研究本地化的发展为中国经济史学科的建设奠定了坚实基础,促进经济史学研究的内容更加丰富和学风更趋朴实,但在研究中也要避免由乡土情感带来的感情和理智平衡问题造成的陷阱。     

THE WORDS OF HISTORY

In From History to Theory, Kerwin Lee Klein writes a history of the central terms of the discipline of theory of history, such as “historiography,” “philosophy of history,” “theory of history,” and “memory.” Klein tells us when and how these terms were used, how the usage of some (“historiography” and “philosophy of history”) declined during the twentieth century, and how other terms (“theory” and “memory”) became increasingly popular. More important, Klein also shows that the use of these words is not innocent. Using words such as “theory” or “historiography” implies certain specific ideas about what the writing of history should be like, and how theoretical reflection on the nature of history and its writing relates to the practical issues of the discipline. In the second half of his book, Klein focuses more on the concept of memory and the memory boom since the later part of the 1980s. He observes that “memory” came to be seen as a kind of “counterhistory,” a postcolonial, fragmented, and personal alternative to the traditional mainstream discourse of history. Klein does not necessarily disagree with this view, but he does warn us about unwanted side effects. More specifically, he argues that the discourse of memory is surprisingly compatible with that of extremist right‐wing groups, and should be treated with suspicion. Although Klein certainly has a point, he presents it in a rather dogmatic fashion. However, a more nuanced version of Klein's criticism of memory can be developed by building on Klein's suggestion that there is an intimate connection between memory and identity.     

现代历史地理学对当前淮河流域史研究的启示

在区域史的学术语境下,现代历史地理学对于当前淮河流域史研究具有一定的启示。首先表现在学术理念上,动态时空理念有助于对历史时期淮河流域空间范围的把握,借鉴人地关系、关怀现实这些理念,不仅可以对历史时期淮河流域复杂的人地关系进行学术层面的探讨与研究,同时,对于当前淮河流域的社会经济发展和环境改善也具有现实意义。其次表现在治学方法上,空间要素的分析、综合、比较有助于揭示淮河流域作为一个独立历史地理单元存在的事实,而文献记载与野外考察相结合的方法则可以加深研究者对淮河流域历史与现实的理解。     

学术转型期的民国史研究--中华民国史国际学术讨论会纪要

2002年8月21－23日在北京举行了“中华民国史国际学术讨论会”。从提交此次会议的论文可以看出近年来民国史研究的几个基本特征：民国政治史在致力于突破,民国外交史因新史料的出现而凸现新意,民国社会史的研究日益深化,民国经济史的研究更加细化,民国思想文化与教育史领域的研究在不断拓宽,民国史料的不断发掘与学术史研究的重视。