五四时期东西文化论争中的泛社会主义现象

东西文化论争中的对立双方不约而同地对社会主义同持关注与赞许态度。这是由双方共同的文化基础决定的。泛社会主义及其思想缘由,在客观上对于中国人接受马克思主义,既有推动作用,也有消极隐患。     

文学史上白话的地位和新文学中白话的走向——后五四时期提倡新文学者的内部论争

20世纪20年代初,文学研究会在上海的一些人曾有力地呼应了胡适提倡最力的整理国故,但双方在具体观念上又颇有歧异,这些歧异多与“白话”相关。文学研究会的严既澄指责胡适有“用白话的标准去估量旧韵文”的倾向,双方就此展开了论争,其核心议题即“什么是中国文学史的主流”。当白话文出现走向欧化的趋势而致时人抱怨看不懂时,文学研究会的同人多认为应该是读者转换思想以适应欧化的文风,也有人主张白话文同时向“欧化”和文言开放,而胡适明确表示不同意,认为只须向大众方向努力。     

Troubadours in Debate: The Breviari d'Amor

Matfre Ermengaud's thirteenth-century Occitan encyclopedia, the Breviari d'Amor, concludes with a treatise on courtly love, the “Perilhos tractat d'amor de donas segon que han tractat li antic trobador en lors cansos.” In this treatise, the chief figures of courtly love—the lovers, ladies, troubadours, and maldizen, with Matfre as narrator and participant—dispute key tenets of love, quoting frequently from numerous troubadour lyrics in order to prove their arguments. In fact, the “Perilhos tractat” presents quotations of troubadour lyric in a disputative manner so as to highlight the troubadours as themselves in debate, although the Breviari purports to be structured by the overarching principle of love dictated by the visual mnemonic metaphor of the Tree of Love. This study examines the quotations of the troubadour lyrics here as dialectical, then, rather than as expressing and confirming a unitary vision of Natural Love. The “Perilhos tractat” is a debate not simply on love but also on the understanding and reception of the troubadours more broadly; that is, Matfre's dialectical use of troubadour lyric generates a broader debate about the meaning of the troubadours’ lyrics and their poetic legacy in the late thirteenth century.     

五四时期对新史料的接受与认识

19世纪末以来新史料的大发现 ,对史学发展产生了深远影响。五四前后是接受与认识新史料的重要时期 ,王国维等人积极利用新史料进行史学研究并大力介绍新史料 ,使五四时期的中国史坛很快认识到了新史料的价值 ,这对于五四时期史学乃至 2 0世纪史学都有着非常重要的意义。     

Hunting and Scavenging by Early Humans: The State of the Debate

During the last 25 years, there has been a shift towards the belief that early humans were scavengers instead of hunters. This revisionist interpretation has brought a reconciliation with the Darwinian paradigm of gradual progressive evolution that has traditionally guided (and very often, misled) an important part of anthropological thinking. However, empirical support for the scavenging hypothesis is still lacking. Recent data based on bone surface modifications from archaeological faunas suggest, in contrast, that hominids were primary agents of carcass exploitation. Meat seems to have been an important part of Plio-Pleistocene hominid diets. Passive scavenging scenarios show that this kind of opportunistic strategy cannot afford significant meat yields. Therefore, the hunting hypothesis has not yet been disproved. This makes the hunting-and-scavenging issue more controversial than before, and calls for a revision of the current interpretive frameworks and ideas about early human behavior.