为我学世界古代史引路的老师——怀念日知林先生

林志纯先生去世了。我们失去了一位好的老师。 林先生的一生,像是一炉精神的活火,在长近一个世纪的时间里发光、发热,不断给予他的学生和后辈们以启发和激励;现在先生安息了,然而火尽薪传,先生的志业且将不朽。     

泰山北斗 一代宗师——林志纯和中国世界古代史学科的建设与发展

2007年11月14日,史学大师林志纯先生在福州与世长辞,享年97岁。 林先生学究天人,贯通古今中外,是中国世界古代史学界的元老和泰斗,为建设中国世界古代史学科,创建中国世界古代史研究会和东北师范大学世界古典文明史研究所建立了卓著的功勋,获得了全国世界古代史学界同仁的尊敬和爱戴。在此,谨代表中国世界古代中世纪史研究会向林先生表示崇高的敬意和深切的怀念。     

中国的通史传统与世界史编纂

中国的通史传统是指在长期、丰富的通史编纂实践中,中国历史学家逐渐形成的以通古今之变为核心的历史认识理论和通史编纂思想。通史传统是中国历史编纂学重要的理论资产之一。在世界史研究和编纂过程中,应当通过对通史传统的深入挖掘和不断发扬,赋予当代中国世界史研究理论体系鲜明的民族特色,并进一步推进马克思主义理论、中国史学优秀传统和当代中国世界史研究的融会贯通。     

宅兹中国——重建有关中国的历史论述

班纳迪克·安德森认为所谓庞大的很多国家,实际上只不过是通过想象构成的一个共同体,并不具有实质国家的意义;杜赞奇说,我们不要用现代的民族国家的概念来讨论历史问题,要把历史从民族国家里救出来;施坚雅而以城市为研究对象,改变了将中国作为整体来研究的方式,改变了政治行政区域为单位的研究;日本、韩国强调亚洲史、东亚史,弱化中国与中国史,认为中国不是一个“历史单位”;1996年以后“新清史”诞生,形成一股大潮。看起来似乎只是国外中国学界各种理论、学派、观点的争鸣,但实际上掩藏了很多悬而未决的大问题,“中国”、“中国史”这些概念,面临被消解、结构的困境,学术争鸣的后面又藏着政治的背景。国内学界如何应对,如何解决,本文提出了自己独特的看法。     

多维视野中的"革命"--西方"革命学"研究历程评介

20世纪的西方学术在融合和分化的大背景下,特别是在西方现实需要的强大推动下,兴起了众多交叉学科和研究领域。如“现代化”理论一样,“革命”也是西方学者多角度、多层面地加以探讨的活跃领域之一。西方学者真正以比较客观、公正的态度研究“革命”是自俄国十月革命之后,迄今为止大致经历自然史阶段、一般理论、结构—功能理论和行为主义革命理论等四个阶段。其研究方法和取向各不相同,反映了西方“革命”研究的多维视野。     

Towards Eurasia: remapping Europe as ‘upstart peripheral to an ongoing operation’

In order to heed the call in world literature studies to work against disciplinary Eurocentrism by refiguring both what constitutes world literature and how this is read, in this article I propose world literature as an archive of world-making practices and as an impulse for the articulation of alternative methodological approaches. This takes world literature from the postcolonial South as, following Pheng Cheah, instantiating a modality of world literature in which the need for imagining worlds with alternative centres to those determined by coloniality is particularly acute. A response to this is facilitated and illustrated by a reading of Bengali poet Rabindranath Tagore’s Letters from Russia (1930), and South African writer/activist Alex La Guma’s A Soviet Journey (1978). By drawing forward connections between the postcolonial South and the former Soviet Union, this complicates traditional colonial arrangements of the colonial ‘centre’ as cradle of civilisation and culture, as well as postcolonial scholarship’s cumulative fetishisation of ‘Europe’, by allowing a reshuffling of the co-ordinates determining ‘centres’ and ‘peripheries’ and a more nuanced grasp of ‘Europe’ simultaneously. These imaginative journeys destabilise ‘Europe’ as closed category and call forth Eurasia as a more appropriate categorical–cartographical framework for thinking this space and the connections and (hi)story-telling it stages and fosters.     

晚清学人"世界历史"观念的变迁

19世纪中期以来,在剧烈的中西碰撞影响下,晚清学人关于史书编纂体例的认识有了新变化:甲午战前,重新使用国别体撰写外国史;至20世纪初,当西方“世界历史”观念和世界史编纂方法经明治日本输入后,晚清学人对西方“以西方史为世界史”的“一元”进步论、阶段论和明治日本“东洋史、西洋史”的“二元”叙事,表现出复杂而矛盾的心态,深刻影响着对“他者”、“自我”的认识和定位。     

世界历史教学的挑战

当今,无论在研究领域还是教学领域,世界历史都成为最重要的议题之一。人们可以真切地感受到有关世界体系的历史研究取得了长足发展。这一新趋势削弱了传统的中、小学历史教学,传统历史教学建立在种族中心主义方法基础之上,被民族国家用于加强民族集体认同（通常与其他国家相对立）。与此相反,新的世界历史教学可以被视为一种开展不同文化间教育和加强世界主义的手段。这里建议世界历史课程计划以概念、空间和时间这三重框架为基础。概念框架集中于两个主题：人类社会的演进及其相互交往;空间框架可以持续利用与主题有关的球体投影图来展示;时间框架由基于9个时代的历史分期连接起来,另附一个时期论述未来前景。     

世界史研究发展的当代背景

整体的“世界史”概念是在地区国别史研究的基础上逐步形成的,对“世界体系”认知的热情从来也没有像第二次世界大战以后这样高涨。这种学术现象的出现是以经济发展全球化、生活模式单一化、价值观念趋同的趋势为大背景的。可以认为,真正意义的世界史观念是全球经济一体化不断深化和不同文化交流日益频繁这一形势在历史研究领域引起的反应。作为全球化的逆向思维,强调对话反对对抗,强调联系和交流反对封锁,对各个民族原创文明的探讨成为文化知识界的共识。对多元文明,特别是不同文明之间“联系”的探讨是整体世界史研究发展的又一种深层动力。整体的宏观的世界史研究与地区国别史研究相辅相成、互相促进。现代科技水平和新科技观念迅猛发展,促进了地区国别史、专门史、断代史学者的交流,加强了世界各地学者之间的联系,打破了历史学和其他哲学社会科学学科、甚至自然科学学科之间的壁垒,交叉与对比研究为世界史研究的新发展开辟出无限广阔的空间。     

The Runoff in Eastern Cuba

Although Oriente Province receives less rainfall than other Cuban provinces, its orography, the character of its rock formations, and other natural factors produce a runoff rate that is second highest among the Cuban provinces. Runoff reached catastrophic proportions during Hurricane Flora in 1963. Water-management measures are proposed to insure flood control and the use of runoff for irrigation and power generation.     

The Unhelpful Notion of ‘Renaissance man’

The current journalistic use of the term ‘Renaissance man’ to describe someone whose work straddles boundaries between today's specialisms is a hindrance to understanding almost any aspect of the culture of the Renaissance — a culture within which both ‘art’ and ‘science’ had meanings different from those they have now, the most significant intellectual division being between the learned and the practical traditions. We look first at the learned tradition of the universities (where teaching was in Latin). The people considered include William Harvey, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei, Nicolaus Copernicus, Regiomontanus and (very briefly) Isaac Newton. Within the practical tradition, centred on workshops, we consider the state shipyards in Venice (where Galileo claimed to have learned much), workshop practices in general and the emergence of the notion of ‘Fine Arts’. The individuals considered include Piero della Francesca, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo Buonarroti and Raphael, as well as the famous clockmaker Jost Bürgi (who taught Kepler about algebra). We conclude by considering the transfer of skills between these two traditions. There are several areas of overlap, but here we concentrate attention on the story of algebra. Algebra was invented by al-Khwarizmi (whose name gives us the term ‘algorithm’) in the ninth century, within learned mathematics, in Baghdad. In the West, elementary algebra, derived from al-Khwarizmi's work but in the simplified form of problems, became part of ‘practical mathematics’. Slowly, from the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, developed forms of algebra crossed over into the learned tradition. This is as much a matter of crossing social barriers as of crossing intellectual ones. Eventually, the practical tradition as a whole became absorbed as an elementary part of the learned one.     

世界历史、英国学派与国际关系理论

针对当前西方国际关系理论在解释现实和预测未来上的混乱和无力,作者提出理解过去成为重构国际关系研究的前提;并且在介绍和评论沃尔兹、吉尔平等为代表的现实主义世界史观和沃勒斯坦世界史观的联系与区别之后,对世界历史中国际力量的结构提出了新的证据,尤其着重介绍了英国学派国际体系和国际社会概念的缘起、演化及理论家们的批判。虽然本文作者即是当前英国学派的代表人物之一,但他并不避讳英国学派在理论上的缺憾,指出巴里·布赞构建在没有共同文化的条件下国际体系也可以转化为国际社会理论框架同时,关闭了一个布尔曾经试图打开的空间。作者认为在解读国际社会的世界历史方面还有很多课题需要深入探讨。     

PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY'S RETURN

Kojin Karatani's Structure of World History seeks to rescue the philosophy of history and restore to it the relationship between philosophical reflection and historical practice. This connection is particularly pertinent in Karatani's case since he had earlier worked out the philosophical scaffolding of this monumental study in his book Transcritique: On Kant and Marx, which embarked on a “return to Capital once more to read the potential that has been overlooked.” By juxtaposing Marx to Kant and vice versa to discover the importance of exchange over production, he found what was to become the informing principle of his later philosophy of history. While Karatani's accounting of the structure of world history presumes to recount the passage of the world's history from nomadic societies to the present as a condition to rethink “social formations” from a perspective that recalls the form of a stagist philosophy of history attributed to Marx and Engels, he has abandoned its informing principle of the modes of production. Instead, he offers the perspective of modes of exchange, which means waiving any consideration concerning who owns the means of production: the putative “economic base” underlying superstructural representations like the state, religion, and culture upheld by a vulgate tradition of Marxian historical writing and discounted by bourgeois historiography as deterministic. The decision to shift to modes of exchange means rooting the primary mode of exchange taking place first in nomadic societies, rather than forms of production and archaic communal ownership of land. Although his revised scheme still accords priority to the economic, the putative division between base and superstructures still persists, even though the latter are still produced by the former, which is now the mode of exchange. Whereas Marx privileged commodity exchange as dominant, Karatani places greater emphasis on the earliest mode of exchange, which consists of the “pure gift,” associated with early nomadic social formations and reciprocity practices by clans, and seems to offer nomadic/clan communalism as a model that resembles Marx's own strategic linking of the surviving Russian commune and contemporary capitalism. The point to this project is to transcend the hegemonic trinity of capital, nation, and state and satisfy a desire to share with other globalists a vision that aims to overcome the defects of capitalism and the nation‐state and the failure of a Marxian expectation that nation‐states will simply wither away with the final surpassing of capitalism. To this end, Karatani's appeal to Kant offers to inject a moral element absent in the merely economic structure of history that will thus provide the promise of “world peace,” which ultimately requires an abolition of the nation‐state as a condition for realizing a “simultaneous bourgeois revolution” that would finally overcome state and capital and establish a world federation.     

清末民初的世界史演义初探

演义体的史学作品作为史学的重要组成部分,在向下层民众传播历史知识的过程中发挥着重要作用。清末以降殆至民初,演义体的史学作品杂然纷陈,其中世界史演义的出现尤为醒目,演义域外新知,启迪下层民众,激发爱国热忱,成为世界史演义作者共同的创作意图。大量世界史演义作品的出现,既是此时期历史演义创作中的重要现象,也成为此时期的演义体史学一个重要特点。     

中国世界史研究译介时期的俄苏史

中国世界史研究的“译介时期”,是中国世界史学发展史中的一个重要阶段。从某种意义上可以说,没有这一译介时期,就没有中国世界史学科后来的迅速发展。以译介时期的俄苏史为例,可以充分展示中国世界史研究始终如一的特点和优点,那就是关注现实,积极投身于火热的现实生活中,努力做到历史感和现实感的完美结合,表现出鲜明的时代精神。这是中国传统史学经世致用优良传统在新的历史条件下的具体体现。明确这一点,对当代中国历史科学理论建设具有重要的现实意义。     

英国学派与世界历史研究

在英国学派研究方法中,历史占有重要地位,英国学派依托世界历史在研究方面取得了很大的成就,英国学派也成为历史学和国际关系学的桥梁。根据英国学派的核心概念"国际社会",提出了"首要制度"的概念,这个概念是英国学派对界定国际社会和阐释世界历史变迁标准的一个特殊贡献。首要制度是国际社会的深刻的、不断演化而来的社会结构,包括主权、外交、民族主义、殖民主义以及国际法等。次要制度与之不同,它是被国际关系学的自由主义(制度主义)者所研究的一种建构的、工具性的制度和国际组织。在定义首要制度及其如何产生、发展和消亡后,人们就可以进而关注由它们衍生出来的几种不同类型的国际社会。在此基础上,英国学派以首要制度的变迁为基准,对现代国际社会进行一个简明的世界历史意义上的叙述。最后,反思了全球国际社会的理念和更趋于核心—边缘的现实结构之间的张力,在这种核心—边缘结构中,西方核心和其他各种区域性的国际社会共享各种制度和存有各种分歧。     

近二十年来我国学术界关于世界近代史分期问题的研究

世界近代史分期问题是世界史研究领域的一个极其重大的理论课题.八十年代以来,我国学术界围绕世界近代史的基本定义、特点、研究对象、分期的标准与依据、上下限和内部分期等问题进行了深入的研究,提出了许多新的观点.