科默·V·伍德沃德与美国南部史学

科默·V.伍德沃德在美国是享有盛誉的南部史专家,同时也是一位非常活跃的社会活动家。在长期的学术实践中他形成了注重史学的社会功能、强调历史发展的非连续性和善用反讽的史学研究风格。他以自己对美国南部历史与现实的深切关怀,积极推动了南部史的研究。其贡献既表现在对新的史学领域和问题的开拓,也体现在围绕他的著述所展开的学术商榷、学术批评中,以及由此而形成的良性的学术研究氛围上。     

Danto on Representation, Identity, and Indiscernibles

Arthur Danto has made important contributions to both aesthetics and philosophy of history. Furthermore, as I shall try to show in this essay, his aesthetics is of great relevance to his philosophy of history, while his philosophy of history is of no less interest for his aesthetics. By focusing on the notions of representation, identity, and the identity of indiscernibles we shall discover how fruitful this cooperation of aesthetics and philosophy of history may be. Crucial to all historical writing and, hence, to all philosophy of history, is the notion of identity through time and change. How could the historian write the history of x if x cannot be said to remain the same in the course of its history? It will become clear that aesthetics will provide us with a satisfactory solution for the problem, for the aestheticist notion of representation will enable us to define the notion of identity that the historian needs. Nevertheless, a certain friction can be observed between Danto's aesthetics and his philosophy of history. At the end of this essay I hope to show that Danto's philosophy of history will be our best guide to dealing adequately with this friction.     

王世贞的史学思想

王世贞是明代杰出的史学家 ,本文从治史目的、态度、方法、史学批评以及历史观等方面 ,阐述其史学思想的丰富内涵。他主张博古通今 ,崇尚直书实录 ,重视史料考辨 ,具有发展史观 ,其务实求真思想影响尤为深远 ,反映了明后期史学思潮的一些特点。他的史学思想既有积极因素 ,也有局限性 ,必须具体分析     

MODERNITY IN RELIGION: A RESPONSE TO CONSTANTIN FASOLT'S “HISTORY AND RELIGION IN THE MODERN AGE”

Contrary to Constantin Fasolt, I argue that it is no longer useful to think of religion as an anomaly in the modern age. Here is Fasolt's main argument: humankind suffers from a radical rift between the self and the world. The chief function of religion is to mitigate or cope with this fracture by means of dogmas and rituals that reconcile the self to the world. In the past, religion successfully fulfilled this job. But in modernity, it fails to, and it fails because religion is no longer plausible. Historical, confessional religions, then, are no longer doing what they are supposed to do; yet the need for religion is still very much with us. Fasolt's account would be a tragic tale, if not for his claim that there is a new religion for the modern age, a religion that fulfills the true reconciling function of religion. That new religion is the reading and writing of history. Indeed, for Fasolt, reading history is religiously redemptive, and writing history is a sacred act. The historian, it turns out, is the priest in modernity. In my response, I challenge both Fasolt's remedy (history as religiously redemptive) and its justification (the fall of historical religions). Indeed, I reject both his romantic view of past religion as the peaceful reconciler, as well as his pessimistic view of present religion as the maker of “enemies” among modern people. In the end, I argue that the way Fasolt employs his categories—“alienation,”“salvation,”“religion,”“history”— is too vague to do much useful work. They are significant categories and they deserve our attention. But in my view, the story Fasolt tells is both too grim (on human alienation) and too cheerful (on historian as modern savior).     

Michel de Certeau and the Limits of Historical Representation

The polymath Michel de Certeau is traditionally seen as one of a group of French post‐structuralist thinkers who reject constructs in the social sciences in favor of the diversity of the everyday or the past. However, in this paper I will show that, as a historian, Certeau did not discard these constructs, but rather valued them as a means of doing justice to the “strangeness” of the past. The position that Certeau adopts can be seen most clearly from his theoretical debate with Paul Veyne, which is the starting point of this article. I then show how Certeau's first major historical work, The Possession at Loudun, exemplifies his theoretical position. An analysis of this work demonstrates how the historian's active reconstruction of interactions between exorcists, medical doctors, state officers, and possessed nuns helps us to perceive the complexity of the past in a way that can be seen as a microhistory avant la lettre. I will suggest that during his writing of the history of Loudun, Certeau implicitly raises more theoretical and epistemological problems, and in so doing he “practices” a theory of history. The most elusive aspect of the story at Loudun turns out to be the drama around the priest Grandier. This article demonstrates how Certeau pays tribute to Grandier by using “scientific” methods, thus showing the “limits of representation” through disciplinary means. Finally, the article explores the implications of Certeau's theory and practice of the writing of history for understanding historiography at large. The historian not only appears as a tramp who looks for remains that are forever lost to us, but is also a “scientist” who uses both models and concepts in order to put them to the test.     

近代中国史学转型期的传统派史家——张尔田史学思想简论

张尔田是清末民初的重要史学家。在中国史学由传统史学向近代史学转向之时,他以继承和发扬浙东史学为己任,在史学宗旨和史学方法等方面,注重对中国传统史学精神和方法的阐发;同时,他针对近代新史学中处于主流地位的新考据学派的疑古倾向和考据倾向展开批评。张尔田的史学思想,代表了部分近代中国传统派史家的史学思想,值得中国史学史研究者重视。     

John Breuilly: ‘Eric Hobsbawm: nationalism and revolution’

This article considers how Eric Hobsbawm (1917–2012) connected the concepts of revolution and nationalism, analysing this in relation to his biography, his politics and his work as a professional historian. It traces major changes in Hobsbawm's understanding of revolution and nationalism as he, the political world and the ways of writing history all changed over the course of his long life.     

杨秀清职爵衔考释

杨秀清是太平天国的重要领导人物,在他的生前死后,或得加官进爵,或得追封头衔,使其职爵衔由初期的7个字发展到中期的19个字,直至死后追封到41个字。这些不同时期的头衔各有内涵,它既反映出杨秀清地位的变化,又从一个侧面反映出太平天国历史的变化,对其细加考释,有助于加深对太平天国历史的理解。     

HOW TO CHANGE HISTORY

The recent death of Eric Hobsbawm provides a fitting occasion to take stock of the entire trajectory of his work. Taking his final book, How to Change the World, as its starting point, this essay considers Hobsbawm's effort to change the way history was written. It divides his career into three main phases: 1) during the 1940s and 50s when he served his apprenticeship and emerged as a leading labor historian of modern Britain. Working in conjunction with colleagues in the Communist Party Historian's group, Hobsbawm helped to raise Marxist history to academic respectability; 2) during the 1960s and 70s, Hobsbawm reached the apogee of his career, publishing the first two volumes of his synoptic history of modern capitalism, as well a multitude of more specialized and critical works. No longer just one among a group of Marxist scholars, he—along with E. P. Thompson—became one of the most famous and influential historians in the world. 3) For Hobsbawm, as for other Marxists, the 1980s and 1990s were a time of crisis, when Marxism was destabilized and communism collapsed. Ironically, this essay argues, it was during this challenging period that Hobsbawm's most influential work appeared—most notably, his studies of modern nationalism and his analysis of the “invention of tradition”. Whereas the early Hobsbawm had worked to bring Marxist history into the academy, the later Hobsbawm (perhaps inadvertently) showed how the academy could absorb analytical elements initially formulated in a Marxist framework by translating them into non‐Marxist terms. Whatever one thinks of Hobsbawm's intellectual legacy, one must acknowledge his status as a polymathic giant who wrote global history that was at once theoretically grounded, publicly accessible, and historiographically consequential.     

Literacy in the Byzantine World

Abstract

The historian Nicephorus Gregoras, writing of the Patriarch Athanasios I, dismisses him scathingly as <inline-graphic href="splitsection4_in1.tif"/><inline-graphic href="splitsection4_in2.tif"/>. Yet we know that Athanasius, who came from the countryside near Adrianople, was reading the Lives of Saints before the age of twelve. And his surviving writings—homilies, encyclicals, canonical decisions, letters, etc.—fill the 204 folios of codex Vaticanus graecus 2219. Most of these writings still await publication. But the recent edition by Mrs. Alice-Mary Talbot of 115 of Athanasios' letters shows that he wrote fluent literary Kaine Greek, without the archaizing affectations of Byzantine Atticism and with occasional voluntary or involuntary lapses into the spoken language of his time. He was no stylist: for him it was the matter, not the manner, that counted. He had little acquaintance with classical Greek literature. But in addition to the Scriptures, which he constantly quotes, he was familiar with the more widely read works of the fourth-century fathers, knew the basic texts of civil and canon law, and could quote the Epanagoge. Clearly he was no illiterate, but a professional user of the written word.     

Memory in warfare: history as a destituent narrative

Abstract

To what extent may we consider historical writing a field of political tension? Could we make a plausible conceptual distinction between a constituent and a destituent narrative? According to Carlo Ginzburg – one of the proponents of ‘microhistory’ – historical sources are ‘distorting mirrors’, which let the truth shine through in an indirect way. Consequently, the good historian is the one who manages to grasp the ‘Freudian slips’ of history and fixes them in a coherent framework. Michel Foucault’s ‘political historicism’ seems to adopt the same historiographical approach: the most reliable witnesses of the past are the victims of the dominant power and the forgotten subjects of the constituent historical narrative. It seems to the author that Walter Benjamin and Simone Weil’s warfare writings share this destituent attitude towards historical representations. As far as Benjamin is concerned, the author’s hypothesis is that between the two world wars he radically redefines his notion of memory. With the apotheosis of the Nazi regime, he starts to conceive memory of the catastrophic past as the only possible input of an authentic revolutionary action. With a similar attention to collective memory, Weil goes through European history in order to deconstruct its principal political mythologies, from Rome to the Third Reich. Her purpose is to let the stories of the defeated re-emerge in order to show the history of violence that lies beyond the official representation of the past. In both cases, the main political aim is eventually to produce a destituent narrative of Europe that could serve as a guideline in the post-war period.     

论王世贞的考辨史学

王世贞是晚明著名史家 ,他对史料范围的认识、对不同史料间关系的辩证认识 ,成为他进行史料考辨的理论基础。在此基础上他运用直观和较理性的考辨方法对明代史料进行了细致的考辨 ,取得了显著的成就。这些成就的取得又与他所处时代各种史料存在的缺陷以及他勤奋的治史态度密切相关     

INTENTIONALISM,INTENTIONALITY, AND REPORTING BELIEFS1

The dominant view of twentieth‐century analytic philosophy has been that all thinking is always in a language, that languages are vehicles of thought. The same view has been widespread in continental philosophy as well. In recent decades, however, the opposite view—that languages serve merely to express language‐independent thought‐contents or propositions—has been more widely accepted. The debate has a direct equivalent in the philosophy of history: when historians report the beliefs of historical figures, do they report the sentences or propositions that these historical figures believed to be true or false? In this paper I argue in favor of the latter, intentionalist, view. My arguments center mostly on the problems with translation that are likely to arise when a historian reports the beliefs of historical figures who expressed them in a language other than the one in which the historian is writing. In discussing these problems the paper presents an application of John Searle's theory of intentionality to the philosophy of history.     

Eavesdropper on the Past: John W. Burrow (1935–2009), Intellectual History and Its Future

Summary

Focused on the much-debated historiographical and academic status of intellectual history, this article addresses for the first time and in detail the methodological views of the British historian John Wyon Burrow (1935–2009). Making use both of his published works and of unpublished material left to the University of Sussex Library (including lectures, letters, academic projects and biographical sketches), its goal is to provide a thorough account of an original and eclectic intellectual historian and, at the same time, cast new light on the role of the discipline in the scholarly context of the last few decades in Europe and the US. More specifically, the following pages will illustrate Burrow's work and career, with particular attention being paid to his insistence on narrative, imagination, irony and style; present his writings as an original instance of the anti-methodological practice of intellectual history; and study his opinions of what it means to carry out the métier d'historien. Finally, by examining Burrow's idea of the intellectual historian as a creative ‘eavesdropper’ on the ‘conversations of the past’ and as a ‘translator’ of past dialogues, this article will both pose some central questions and advance some proposals concerning the future of intellectual history.     

The past in the middle ages

In spite of the great variety of historical writing in the middle ages it has often been maintained that certain attitudes to the past were held in common between 500 and 1500 A.D. A sort of medieval vision of the past has been conjured up which is alleged to have been providential, if not apocalyptic, universalizing, Christocentric and strongly periodized. Medieval ideas about the past, as expressed in a handful of well-known writers, including Bede, Caffaro, Otto of Freising, Matthew Paris and Ranulph Higden, are considered here particularly with reference to the structure of the past, namely how, if at all, it was thought of as divided into periods, and its content. God's role in human history, it is argued, was neglected in practice; it was not the Christian Church which provided the medieval ‘universal’ historian with his main subject matter, but classical Rome; it was Rome, too, which was his inspiration and supplied his models.     

THE MISSING NARRATIVIST TURN IN THE HISTORIOGRAPHY OF SCIENCE

The narrativist turn of the 1970s and 1980s transformed the discussion of general history. With the rejection of Rankean historical realism, the focus shifted to the historian as a narrator and on narratives as literary products. Oddly, the historiography of science took a turn in the opposite direction at the same time. The social turn in the historiography of science emphasized studying science as a material and practical activity with traceable and documentable traits. This empirization of the field has led to an understanding that history of science could be directly describable from scientific practice alone without acknowledging the role of the historian as a constructor of narratives about these practices. Contemporary historians of science tend to be critical of science's ability to describe its object—nature, as it is—but they often are not similarly skeptical of their own abilities to describe their object: past science, as it is. I will argue that historiography of science can only gain from a belated narrativist turn.     

20世纪早期美国文化人类学家对麦克尼尔的影响

威廉·哈迪·麦克尼尔是享誉全球的世界史学家。他的《西方的兴起》以文明为单位,把文明之间的交往互动看作社会进步的主要动力,开辟了世界史写作的新视角。麦克尼尔世界史思想的形成受益于20世纪早期美国人类学的研究成果,本文介绍了影响麦克尼尔的人类学家及其思想,探讨麦克尼尔如何将人类学研究成果整合到世界史撰写中,并找到了解释世界史的新方法。     

南明“奸臣”负面形象在后世的塑造——以田仰为例的考察

清代史家深受东林、复社门户成见的影响,在南明史著述中塑造了一批"奸臣"的负面形象。田仰虽有坚持抗清的事迹,但因与马士英关系密切,也被党社人士和后世学者视为奸臣。钱海岳《南明史》沿袭了传统观点,将田仰列入《奸臣传》。部分后世南明史著述为贬斥和丑化"奸臣",存在着不少歪曲史实之处。这些著述对田仰的抗清活动着墨甚少,并杜撰出他的若干负面事迹,使其形象遭到了彻底的奸邪化。     

Secular history in twelfth-century Italy: Caffaro of Genoa

Caffaro of Genoa is distinguished among medieval writers of history in being the earliest urban chronicler and the earliest secular historian in western Europe. However, his works and career remain relatively unknown to a remarkable number of contemporary medievalists in the English-speaking world. Caffaro was the originator of the Genoese Annals and remained their sole author for more than half a century. In addition he wrote at least two other historical works of great value. Throughout his long life he played a prominent role in the affairs of his city. He served repeatedly as a consul, ambassador, and diplomat for the Genoese Republic, and he was as well a crusader and a successful military commander. In his writing and in his career Caffaro consistently displays that uniquely secular and urban temperament we too readily associate only with the historians of Antiquity and the Renaissance.     

EXCEPTIONAL HISTORY? THE ORIGINS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES1

This essay examines how and why historiography—defined to mean the study of the history of historical writing—first emerged as a legitimate subject of historical inquiry in the United States during the period from 1890 to the 1930s by focusing on the practice of historiography by three of the most influential American historiographers whose work spans this period: J. Franklin Jameson, John Spencer Bassett, and Harry Elmer Barnes. Whereas the development of historiography as a field of study signified a recognition that historians and historical writing are themselves products of the historical process, American historiographers in this period at the same time used historiography to further a scientific ideal of objectivity that was premised on the belief in the ability of historians to separate themselves from that process. Modern scholars (notably, Peter Novick) have attributed to scientific historians like Jameson and Bassett a simplistic and naive positivism; but the ability of these historiographers to recognize the subjective character of historical writing and yet affirm a belief in objectivity reveals that their understanding of historical truth was more complex than modern scholars have acknowledged. In turn, by questioning the belief that the historical profession was originally founded on a naïve faith in the ideal of objective truth, I demonstrate that New Historians like Barnes were more similar to their predecessors, the scientific historians, than they (or later scholars) acknowledged. Thus, rather than portraying the shift from scientific history to the New History as a linear trajectory of development from objectivity to a more relativist viewpoint, I argue that New Historians like Barnes at once expressed a greater recognition than his scientific predecessors of how historical writing was the product of its context, while still insisting on his commitment to an ideal of objectivity that divorced the historian from that context.