柳诒徵论中国传统史学的治史原则与方法

柳诒徵作为中国现代文化保守主义史学大师结合西方新史学思想,对中国传统史学做了大量阐述。他对中国传统治史原则和方法的阐述尤为丰富和精深,主要包括五方面:一、"治史之必本于德"的原则;二、国史书写的道德评判准则;三、史识与史德、史法的关系和治史重在求取史识;四、注重史事普遍联系的史学记载和表述;五、正确看待考据在治史中的地位和作用。这些史学思想体现了柳诒徵史学通贯古今和兼融中西的基本特征。     

变动中的西方史学

在西方学术发展史上,19世纪被称为“历史学的世纪”。进入20世纪,西方史学在“新史学”的旗帜下,取得了新的成就。科学地认识20世纪的西方史学,借鉴其有益的内容,对当代中国史学的建设具有积极作用。第二次世界大战后西方史学发展的特点和趋势之一是随着史学家历史视野的开拓,研究领域迅速扩大,传统史学同其他哲学社会科学各学科的界限变得越来越模糊,在广泛采用新的史学方法的基础上,出现了一系列历史学新的史学方法和分支学科;第二次世界大战后西方史学发展的特点和趋势之二是关注社会生活中的现实问题,强调现实决定了历史研究要研究什么和怎样研究。中国世界史研究的真正动力,在于独立地对世界历史进行认识和思考。     

MAKING HISTORY BY CONTEXTUALIZING ONESELF: AUTOBIOGRAPHY AS HISTORIOGRAPHICAL INTERVENTION

This essay argues that, in their reflection of theoretical positions, autobiographies by historians may become valid historical writings (that is, both true narratives and legitimate historical interpretations) and, as a consequence and simultaneously, privileged sources for historiographical inquiry and evidence of its evolution. At the beginning of the twentyfirst century, following the model established by Carolyn Steedman, historians such as Geoff Eley, Natalie Z. Davis, Gabrielle M. Spiegel, Dominick LaCapra, Gerda Lerner, William H. Sewell, Jr., Sheila Fitzpatrick, and John Elliott created a new form of academic life‐writing that has challenged established literary and historiographical conventions and resisted generic classification. This article aims to examine this new historical‐autobiographical genre—including the subgenre of the “autobiographical paper”—and highlights its ability to function as both history (as a retrospective account of the author's own past) and theory (as a speculative approach to historiographical questions). I propose to call these writings interventional in the sense that these historians use their autobiographies, with a more or less deliberate authorial intention, to participate, mediate, and intervene in theoretical debates by using the story of their own intellectual and academic trajectory as the source of historiography. Traditional historians’ autobiographies, including ego‐historical essays, have provided us with substantial information about the history of historiography; these new performative autobiographies help us to better understand historiography and the development of the historical discipline. Interventional historians seek not only to understand their lives but also to engage in a more complex theoretical project.     

当代中国历史学的学术转型与创新 --试论旧课题的改造和新课题的建立

以往中国历史学轰轰烈烈的专题讨论,不仅凝聚了史学界的绝大部分精力,而且形成了一整套的中国化马克思主义历史理论或历史解释系统。它决定着中国史学的研究与编纂,塑造和影响着人们的思维方式。当前的史学学术转型无论如何不可能回避这些旧课题。从史学学科体系的角度看,改造旧课题,将其转换成为新课题,应该,而且可以成为史学学术转型的突破口。     

The 18th-century traditions of representation in a new age of revolution

What happened to shared historical experiences in the discursive processes of constitutional reform in Sweden and Finland? This article examines the use of 18th-century history in early 20th-century politics. Building on a long-term survey of Swedish and Finnish estate and parliamentary debates, it analyses the political implications of differing national historiographies in the two successor states of the 18th-century Swedish realm, focusing on how the ancient past and collective (and often selective) memories of the Age of Absolutism, the Age of Liberty and the Gustavian Age were used by parliamentarians in constitutional debates. The analysis demonstrates how the Finnish polity continued to be profoundly influenced by these 18th-century constitutions even after the Russian Revolution, while Sweden took the post-French Revolution constitution of 1809 as its point of departure. In both countries, interpretations of the long 18th century were ideologically motivated in an age of the parliamentarization of government and the democratization of the representative system. This leads us to a discussion of the history-political significance of the common and differing understandings of representative government in the two interconnected countries.     

A missing link in the history of historiography: scholarly personae in the world of Alfred Dove

ABSTRACT

Drawing on the case of Alfred Dove (1844–1916), this article contributes to an emerging line of research on scholarly personae in the history of historiography. It does so by addressing the important but so far neglected question: What exactly does the prism of scholarly personae add to existing historiographical perspectives? The German historian Alfred Dove is an appropriate case study for this exercise, because historical scholarship in Wilhelmine Germany has been relatively well studied, from various angles. Most notably, it has been studied (1) through biographical lenses, (2) from institutional points of view, (3) as the cradle of ‘scientific history’, with special attention to historical methods of the sort codified by Ernst Bernheim, and (4) in relation to religious and political fault lines that divided the German Empire shortly after the Franco-Prussian War and the Kulturkampf. The thesis advanced in this article is that scholarly personae are a missing link between these four dimensions and therefore a theme of key importance for anyone trying to understand German historical studies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries.     

20世纪中国史学界对历史规律问题的探讨

20世纪中国历史学界对历史规律性问题进行了长期反复的争论。人们对历史规律的研究主要有两种,一种是社会发展史意义的规律,一种是历史认识论意义的规律。长期以来,绝大多数人把五种生产方式的演进当作历史规律的主要形式。近年来一些学者反思过去研究中的简单化倾向．对历史规律的研究开始进入到历史认识论的层面,对规律的理解日益深入和具体。     

The rise of ‘auxiliary sciences’ in early modern national historiography: an ‘interdisciplinary’ answer to historical scepticism*

In response to the rising popularity of empirical models of scholarship and an increasingly sharp sceptic criticism against historiography, early modern historiographers strived to place their reconstruction of the past on a more ‘scientific’ basis through a new approach to historical writing. Their strategies included the mobilization of various other scholarly disciplines, such as geography, chronology, linguistics, ethnography, philology, etc. that came to function as ‘auxiliary sciences’ of early modern historiography. These came to fulfil three main roles in historical writing. Firstly, they supplied knowledge on cultural-historical topics that were newly introduced into the subject range of historiography. Secondly, they offered new solutions to the problem of reliable historical evidence by opening up new sources of historical information. And thirdly, they proved helpful in deciding scholarly discussions among historical writers. Through a detailed study of the use of ‘auxiliary sciences’ in seminal texts from the new current in historical writing, I will shed light on the range of scholarly disciplines that were enlisted in early modern historiography and how they contributed to the development of a new, more ‘scientific’ approach to the reconstruction of the past.     

HISTORIOGRAPHY: A FIELD IN SEARCH OF A HISTORIAN?

Richard Kirkendall's collection of essays, The Organization of American Historians and the Writing and Teaching of American History, examines the history of the Organization of American Historians (OAH) from its founding to the present, using that history to illuminate how the writing of American history has changed over the last hundred years. The book provides coverage of all the major dimensions of the Mississippi Valley Historical Association's (MVHA) and the OAH's activities, ranging from the work of its scholarly publications, the Mississippi Historical Valley Review and the Journal of American History, to its role in promoting the teaching of American history. Overall, the essays in the volume tell a story of the organization's progress toward greater inclusion and democracy, falling prey to a Whig interpretation of historiography. In doing so, the book is part of a larger tendency in the way that historians have approached historiography, which in turn reflects their ambivalence about their relationship to the historical process. Thus, even as the very enterprise of historiography is premised on the recognition of how historians are themselves the products of the historical process, historians have revealed the limits to that recognition in their approach to the subject. This essay shows how deeply rooted this duality has been in the study of American historiography and illuminates some of its sources by placing Kirkendall's book in the context of how the MVHA and the OAH have treated historiography over the course of the organization's history.     

文本话语与行为规范:西藏宗教人物传记的史学史意义

From the perspective of historical anthropology, this article examines a great deal of the biographies of religious figures in Tibetan history, reveals their special way of writing, classification, and circulation. In Tibetan Buddhism, biographies of religious figures are considered as a subject’s demise (lung-rgyun) and have their special meanings. They are the text of the largest quantity in the historical works of Tibet and had great influence on Tibetan historiography. A comprehensive research on their cultural characteristic, historical evolvement and historical influence will help us understand the Tibetan culture in depth. __________ Translated from Shixueshi Yanjiu 史学史研究 (Journal of Historiography), 2007, (4): 67–77     

亚裔美国史学五十年:反思与展望

回顾和检讨亚裔美国史学在过去半个世纪里所走过的道路可以发现,早期亚裔美国史学中一个最突出的问题是以意识形态为主导的一元论历史观。在近30年的时间里,学者大都仅仅从"种族歧视"这一个角度去诠释历史事件,反对从其他视野去观察亚洲移民的经历。不过,最近15年来,这个领域中出现了冲破一元论历史观束缚的趋势。新一代学者提出了白人、黑人和亚裔之间三角形关系的论点,从而否定了"有色对白种"的双重种族关系理论模式。从"跨国主义"的视野观察亚裔美国史的人认为,亚洲移民实际上具有双重的民族主义和双重文化认同,从而向"同化论"、"定居者"论和"美国化"论提出了挑战。他们还发现,日本人向美国移民和日本帝国主义的海外扩张之间有着密不可分的关系。这些新动向标志着亚裔美国史学正在逐步走向成熟。     

近代俄国的历史观念与国族意识——以历史学家米留可夫为例

俄罗斯随历史发展成为领土辽阔的庞大国家。随时间与空间的延续,生活在其中的人竟然无法就国族文化得到共识。十九世纪的知识阶层独立于政权之外展开社会自发的国族论述。从早期斯拉夫派与西方派的国族本质辩论,到革命前政治意识型态之争,国家历史是知识分子最重要论述依据。历史学家应能发挥专业长才,贡献于审视国族文化,却又往往被视为与知识阶层隔绝。本文以莫斯科学派的米留可夫为例,探究历史学家的国族观念。米留可夫无法认同长期受浪漫主义唯心哲学主导的俄国社会思想,主张经验历史的重要,如此才能建立正确的历史知识,找到真正的国族文化。他希望用客观的方法替代过去以人类精神为主体的理论架构,因此为俄国历史学和国族论述添上了新的一页。     

20世纪中国的史学方法论研究

20世纪中国史学方法论研究,是一笔丰厚的史学遗产。从梁启超的《新史学》,到三四十年代一系列史学理论方法论读本的出版,再到当代台湾的史学方法论研究,是新史学派史学方法发展的大体脉络。从李大钊对马克思主义历史观的介绍和宣传,到郭沫若所代表的开始用马克思主义研究中国历史的尝试和实践,再到翦伯赞的《历史哲学教程》的出版,标志着中国马克思主义史学发展的第一阶段;从50到70年代是马克思主义史学方法广泛普及和曲折发展的时期;改革开放以后的20年,是中国马克思主义史学史上方法论研究空前繁荣和活跃的时期。总结百年来的史学方法论研究,给新世纪史学发展留下了诸多启示。     

POSTCOLONIALITY AND THE TWO SITES OF HISTORICITY

This essay examines the two sites of historicity, namely history‐writing and historical agency, and their interrelationship. I borrow the idea of “sites of historicity” from historian Michel‐Rolph Trouillot's Silencing the Past: Power and the Production of History (1995). For the purpose of analyzing how the relationship between the two sites changes with time and context, using Trouillot's theoretical lens, I examine the philosophies of history of Immanuel Kant and G. W. F. Hegel. By citing instances from these two philosophers, I claim that with the rise of nineteenth‐century colonialism, the two sites of historicity became discursively related in a specific way, whereby historical agency came to be predicated on history‐writing. Hence, in contrast to Kant's work, in Hegel's philosophy of history the relationship between the two sites of historicity acquired a decidedly colonialist form. As a result of this predication of historical agency on history‐writing, the alleged lack of historiography of certain cultures began to be considered as a token of their lack of political ability. The essay ends with the suggestion that the postcolonial thinkers and commentators who deal with historiography should challenge the foregoing predication, as it continues to inform contemporary thought concerning historiography.     

Paratexts and Footnotes in Historical Narrative: Henry Biaudet and scholarly and nationalistic ambitions of historical research 1902–1915

This article explores how Henry Biaudet (1870–1915) and the Finnish historical expedition in Rome used different paratextual elements in their studies on the Nordic Counter-Reformation. The analysis of paratextual strategies of the expedition suggests that application of paratexts in historical narrative reflected the fundamental characteristics of 19th-century historiography: professionalization, development into a research based independent academic discipline and nationalism. Paratexts, such as titles, title pages, lists of previous research, prefaces and with certain restrictions also footnotes, were first of all important genre indicators, which helped to draw a line between popular and professional historical narrative. Second, paratexts served political aims by helping to create images of scholarship in cases when argumentation was politically biased. Despite the important role paratexts performed in the development of modern historical scholarship via shaping historical narrative, historians have paid surprisingly little attention to them. Hence, the analysis of the paratextual strategies of Biaudet and his expedition offers an interesting perspective to the daily practices, values and thinking of historians at the turn of the 20th century.     

Analysis of Japanese influence on the three major historiographical trends in early modern China

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the intrinsic relationships between Japanese historiography and the three great historiographical trends of New Historiography, Debates on Ancient History, and Marxist historiography, from the macroscopic perspective of the transformation, development, and early modern growth of modern and early modern Chinese historiography, exploring how Chinese historical researchers selected, deviated from, and assimilated Japanese historiography, while also particularly focusing on how the recipients utilized Japanese historiographical methods and concepts as well as the achievements of Japanese scholars in researching Chinese history to construct their own interpretation of Chinese historiography, in a study of the academic trend of indigenization.     

Researching the Medieval Past between Catalonia and Romania. Josep Puig i Cadafalch,Nicolae Iorga,and the Transnational Writing of National History (1921‐1935)

This paper analyses knowledge transfers between Catalonia and Romania in the interwar period, in order to cast new light on the nature of national history writing in early‐twentieth‐century Europe. To do so, it discusses the historiographical works of the Catalans Josep Puig i Cadafalch (1867–1956) and, to a lesser extent, Antoni Rubió i Lluch (1856–1937) and of the Romanians Nicolae Iorga (1871–1940) and Constantin Marinescu (1891–1970). It pays particular attention to Iorga's and Marinescu's contributions on the history of medieval Catalonia in the Eastern Mediterranean and to Puig's studies on Moldavian painted churches. In doing so, the paper challenges the view that the historiography of foreign scholars regarding one's own national history was often disregarded as incompetent. At the same time, the paper also responds to the debate on the creation and validation of cultural knowledge across borderlands, outside of cultural cores. It builds on recent work on the creativity of cultural peripheries and argues that, while France continued to operate as a reference in the exchanges between Catalans and Romanians, their historiographical exchanges responded to local research and political agendas.     

中国史学对近代报刊的影响

中国史学与近代报刊在学术史上有着很深的渊源。19世纪初报刊传入中国,无论是学还是术都未臻成熟,必然要向中国传统学术吸取养分,且近代报人多有史学学术背景,由此形成近代报刊史家办报的特点。本文拟从史学的经世致用思想、史论及良史等三个方面探讨中国史学对近代报刊的影响。     

From the government to the university: Efforts to write national history in the early Republic

ABSTRACT

From the controversies surrounding the National History Bureau in the early Republic to the short-lived National Historiography Office at Peking University, the traditional undertaking of writing dynastic history experienced many crises during the transformative Republican era. The National History Bureau was merged with Peking University as part of Cai Yuanpei’s efforts to separate the field of national historiography from the government and shift it toward universities, as well as his efforts to further reform the university system. In comparing the staff members and aims of the National History Bureau and the National Historiography Office of Peking University, the latter clearly represented an update in terms of concepts and methods. The purpose of the History Bureau’s shift from “dynastic” to “popular” history, which apparently intentionally imitated the German academic system, was to render national historiography and other related research independent of the government, cast off the traditional moral burden of “condemning evildoers and praising the virtuous,” and gradually move forward on the path of specialization for national historiography within the university system. The National Historiography Office’s various editing plans amply demonstrate this tendency. The many winding detours that the “national history” efforts took between dynastic and popular history both expressed the entanglement of new and old ideas within academic circles, and revealed the contemporary struggle between the government and universities.