试论刘知几直书思想及其学术渊源

刘知几的《史通》是中国古代第一部对史学发展进行系统讨论的理论著作,其是非分明、彰善瘅恶的直笔精神贯穿在《史通》一书中。刘知几在史学思想上主要继承孔子《春秋》和刘勰《文心雕龙?史传》,吸取前人精华,在中国古代史学理论和实践上形成一个优良的传统。     

回归本然:朱绍侯先生对中国古代史教材建设的思考与实践——以《中国古代史教程》为中心

改革开放三十年来,朱绍侯先生始终如一地致力于中国古代史教材建设,致力于把中国古代史研究的新成果、新思想和新方法融汇于中国古代史教材的编纂之中,在成功主编了十院校本《中国古代史》之后,以耄耋之年又主编《中国古代史教程》,实现了史学思想向本然的回归。以新中国史学发展的宏观视野、从学术史的层面总结朱绍侯先生在教材建设方面的学术思想和实践经验,是把握当代中国史学发展的重要方面。     

近三十年来国内中国佛教史学与道教史学研究概述

1978年以后,随着思想的解放,中国学术研究的禁区逐渐被打破,诸多领域都取得了突出的成就。就史学而言,史学界对史学与宗教间进行的“跨学科”研究有了明显的进展,对中国佛教史学和道教史学的研究也在前人的基础上取得了突破性进展,从而拓展了中国古代史学史的研究领域,丰富了中国古代史学史的内容,从一个方面反映了近三十年中国史学史研究的良好发展态势。     

从《中国古代社会》看何兹全先生的史学思想

何兹全先生是我国著名的历史学家。其名著《中国古代社会》体现了他重要的学术观点——汉魏封建论,《中国古代社会》以社会经济变化为主线,论证了汉魏封建说的观点,具有重要的史学价值,是汉魏封建说的代表作。本文从汉魏封建论的史学价值出发探讨了何兹全先生的重要史学思想。     

为什么要研究史学批评

20世纪80年代中期以来,在中国古代史学理论的研究中,逐渐开拓出了一个崭新而独特的领域——中国古代史学批评。从筚路蓝缕到收获硕果,瞿林东先生做出了突出的贡献。而今,瞿先生主编的《中国古代史学批评史》7卷本出版在即。本刊特组织刊发这组文章,从中国古代史学批评在中国史学发展中的作用、中国古代史学批评与传统史学理论的关系、中国古代史学批评与西方史学批评的比较、中国古代史学批评与史学话语体系构建的联系等视角,探讨中国古代史学批评的内在价值、研究方法和中国特色。当代史学繁荣的背后,也正面临着客观公允的史学批评缺失的困境。我们期望这组文章能引起大家的关注,开拓中国古代史学批评研究的新局面;也希望古代史学批评的果实,能够滋养当代史学批评的成长。     

多重视角下的中国古代史学史研究

考察中国古代史学史,必须要有大历史视角。这种大历史视角主要有以下四个方面的表现：一是政治史视角,具体考察王朝更替与以史为鉴、王朝建立与神意史观、政治危机与以史资政、国家统一与大一统观之间的关联,揭示史学与王朝政治的联动关系;二是四部学视角,虽然中国古代学术存在着经史子集四部分类,但四部之间是相互包含、相互影响的,经子集在史学思想、历史编纂以及史料采撰等方面都对古代中国史学有着重要的影响,必须考察经子集与史之间的密切关系;三是多民族视角,古代中国的历史是多民族的历史,古代中国的史学是多民族的史学,古代中国的史学史也应该是多民族的史学史,构建“完整”的中国史学史是我们今后努力的方向;四是中西比较视角,主要从学术地位、编纂特点、记述范围、求真理念、功用认识和学科特点诸方面,具体考察古代中西史学存在的差异,进而揭示中国古代史学史的民族特点。     

多重视角下的中国古代史学史研究北大核心CSSCI

考察中国古代史学史,必须要有大历史视角。这种大历史视角主要有以下四个方面的表现:一是政治史视角,具体考察王朝更替与以史为鉴、王朝建立与神意史观、政治危机与以史资政、国家统一与大一统观之间的关联,揭示史学与王朝政治的联动关系;二是四部学视角,虽然中国古代学术存在着经史子集四部分类,但四部之间是相互包含、相互影响的,经子集在史学思想、历史编纂以及史料采撰等方面都对古代中国史学有着重要的影响,必须考察经子集与史之间的密切关系;三是多民族视角,古代中国的历史是多民族的历史,古代中国的史学是多民族的史学,古代中国的史学史也应该是多民族的史学史,构建“完整”的中国史学史是我们今后努力的方向;四是中西比较视角,主要从学术地位、编纂特点、记述范围、求真理念、功用认识和学科特点诸方面,具体考察古代中西史学存在的差异,进而揭示中国古代史学史的民族特点。     

朱熹和史学

朱熹在史学领域内有相当大的成就。他创立的“纲目体”和学术史体裁对古代史书编写有重大的影响;他在文献学上的疑古辨伪,成就是突出的;朱熹的直笔求信的史料学主张,值得重视;关于“正统”之辨,朱熹的认识不少是有积极的意义     

中国古代史学长期迟滞原因的管见

中国古代史学典籍繁富,体裁极丰,前后贯串,绵延不绝,无论从史学编纂、史料选择、历史文学和史学思想来说,都为世界诸国所不能企及。然而,至于近代,它却相形见绌了。中国古代史学长期迟滞,不能跃入新的境地,原因何在?这是史学界值得研讨的问题。窃不     

从"资治"到"救国"--关于19世纪史学经世致用思想变化之研究

自19世纪40年代伊始,中国社会所发生的空前的沧桑巨变,直接推动了史学由古代史学向近代史学的转变。这种转变的重要标志之一,就是史学经世致用思想的变化,即史学经世致用思想从“资治”到“救国”,从着眼于王朝治乱兴衰到关注国家和民族前途命运之经世致用的宗旨和参照系的变化。同时,这种变化又对整个19世纪中国史学的发展及其走向产生了重大而深远的影响。     

略论梁启超的古籍整理思想

梁启超在综合考辨前辈学者整理古籍的基础上,从事古籍整理实践,认为整理古籍是旧学中很重要的一件事,整理古籍要有大胆的怀疑精神,求真是其终极目的,又归纳了四种校勘方法,提出检验辑佚优劣的四个标准。这些思想,对于我们今天从事古籍整理与研究仍有重要的启迪作用。     

王氏父子的训诂思想和方法

清代学者在训诂方面的成就以王念孙、王引之父子最为突出,其科学的训诂思想和方法大略有以下几个方面：实事求是,不尚墨守;因声求义,不限形体;在训诂中辩证地分析词义;主张虚词不可用实义来解释;重视总结训释词义的规律。这些都值得后人借鉴。     

NE ME RACONTE PLUS D'HISTOIRES: DERRIDA AND THE PROBLEM OF THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY

This essay reads Derrida's early work within the context of the history of philosophy as an academic field in France. Derrida was charged with instruction in the history of philosophy at the École Normale Supérieure, and much of his own training focused on this aspect of philosophical study. The influence of French history of philosophy can be seen in Derrida's work before Of Grammatology, especially in his unpublished lectures for a 1964 course entitled “History and Truth,” in which he analyzed the semantic richness of the word “history.” According to Derrida, “history” comprised both the ideas of change and of transmission, which allowed the writing of history at a later time. In the Western tradition, Derrida suggested, philosophers had consistently tried to reduce the idea of history as transmission, casting it simply as empirical development in order to preserve the idea that truth could be timeless. Derrida's account of the evolving opposition between history and truth within the history of philosophy led him to suggest a “history of truth” that transcended and structured the opposition. I argue that Derrida's strategies in these early lectures are critical for understanding his later and more famous deconstruction of speech and writing. Moreover, the impact of this early confrontation with the problem of history and truth helps explain the ambivalent response by historians to Derrida's analyses.     

Why be witty? Fichte and Kant on the nature of wit with a view to wit's political ramifications

In a brief section of The Characteristics of the Present Age, Fichte presents one of the strangest ideas to have arisen in transcendental thought: that wit is related to what Fichte calls the highest idea and to truth. The concept of wit does not arise anywhere else in Fichte's philosophy, and he does not analyze it completely in either The Characteristics of the Present Age or his philosophical texts. I contend that Fichte does not expand upon his idea because his understanding of wit arises out of the Kantian analysis of wit, even though Fichte gives his own spin to Kant's view. What I show in this paper is how Fichte both appropriates and alters Kant's understanding of wit, and how wit serves a social/political function in Fichte's thought.     

美善合一——李长之审美教育理念论略

美善合一是李长之的审美教育理念,德国古典美学、儒家古典审美教育思想和中华玉文化是李长之审美教育理念的思想渊源。文章从这三个视角出发去解读批评家的审美教育思想,探究介于批评家理性和感性之间的那块心灵圣地,揭示批评家批评思想的哲学底蕴和情感内涵。     

德国汉学家福兰阁论中国历史

德国汉学的重要奠基者福兰阁以研究中国历史见长,他坚决反对中国"无历史"和"永恒静止"等观点,深入探讨了古代中国的国家思想、中国文化的形成和发展历程以及中国传统文化在近代的命运和未来走向等问题,提出了许多发人深省的观点。他对中国国家思想的普世主义性质的分析、对中国人类思想的自然性、简单性和合乎逻辑性的论述等,虽然具有浓重的西方理论色彩和较大的片面性,但也能启发我们对中国历史和文化作出深入的思考。     

Using the Concept of Ethnicity in Defining Philistine Identity in the Iron Age

ABSTRACT

Normally the discussion about Philistine identity vis-à-vis Isra-elite identity moves on a macro basis: On one side the Philistines, and on the other the Israelites. Little attention has been paid to the related concept of “scale and social organization.” If we try to find a background for the macro definitions: Israelites, Philistines, we move on an imaginary level. It is a kind of literary concept nourished among the elite—never more than a few percent of any ancient society. The realities of ancient Palestine in the Iron Age were different. First of all nationality was an unknown concept, and any idea of ethnicity related to the issue of nationality (as in Avraham Faust's recent book on Israelite origins) is irrelevant. Second, there were, as argued by, among others Mario Liverani, no national borders in Antiquity. Borders were fiscal delimitations: Who paid tax to whom? Third, ethnicity follows the group, and a certain person may change identity as he moves through differ-ent groups. In a society of such small extent as ancient Palestine, each villager would have an identity defined by his village as against the members of the neighboring community—ethnicity cannot be separated from identity—and villagers living in one area will have a distinct consciousness of being differ-ent from those who live “on the other side of the river.” “National” identity, when the idea of ethnicity includes all people living within the fiscal borders of an ancient state, would hardly ever be called upon, except when the elite wanted to defend its privileges—its right to obtain taxes—against intruders. Thus the concept of a Philistine—Israelite controversy based on different ide-as about ethnicity is no more than a projection of modern ideas about the na-tional state which came into being two hundred years ago.     

Hayden White's Appeal to the Historians

Historians rarely agree with Hayden White's account of theirdiscipline. To a certain extent their dissatisfaction can be explained by the fact that historianscustomarily distrust historical theory and always tend to look at the historical theorist with thegreatest suspicion. But historians find an extra argument for their dislike of White's ideasin his alleged cavalier disregard of how historical facts limit what the historian might wish to sayabout the past. And, admittedly, this criticism is not wholly unfounded.
Nevertheless, this essay attempts to show how misguided this traditional criticism ofWhite actually is. For it is historians who too easily take the truth of their accounts of the past forgranted, whereas White's theoretical writings can be shown to express a full awareness ofthe kind of problem encountered in the effort to tell the truth about historical reality. Hence,White's writing—rather than those by historians criticizing White—testify to therespect that we owe to historical reality itself.
That this is how we should read White becomes clear if we consider his intellectualevolution as a whole rather than the individual books or essays that he wrote.     

欧阳修论考史

欧阳修在长期从事文献史料的收集、整理和研究工作中,始终能够坚持创新与求实并重原则,在考史方面得出了一些新的观点和认识,即:考史应"不没其实",力求史实真相;"慎于传疑",不轻易下结论;"勇断不惑",敢于创发己见;"不苟立异",反对刻意标新;"切于人事",排斥天命神学,这些至今仍具有方法论的意义。     

Ancient Greek Myth in Angelos Sikelianos

Abstract

In the introduction to Angelos Sikelianos: Selected Poems, the translators speak of Sikelianos's ‘mythological attitude … toward life’ and of his conception of myth not so much ‘as a rhetorical or metaphorical device but as a spontaneous creation of the human soul directed toward the revelation of a hidden spiritual life’, in short, of mythology as a kind of religion closely related to Schelling's perception of the function of myth. These remarks, written originally some years ago, may have their just proportion of truth, but in keeping with most introductory remarks, they strike me as rather too general, rather too undiscriminating when one brings them face to face with Sikelianos's practice at different moments of his career. I want to try to be more discriminating by considering the role of myth – specifically ancient Greek myth – in the poet's work both early and late in his career. I think it is a changing role, perhaps not in his fundamental association of gods with a contemporary landscape and his revelation of those mysteries that lie hidden in our everyday lives, but in the mode of this association and this revelation, and in the depth of their poetic significance.