THE CONTINUING MODESTY OF HISTORY

The critique of conventional historical writing has been emergent for a century—it is not the work of a few—and it has immense practical implications for Western society, perhaps especially in English‐speaking countries. Involved are such issues as the decline of representation, the nature of causality, the definitions of identity or time or system, to name only a few. Conventional historians are quite right to consider this a challenge to everything they assume in order to do their work. The challenge is, why do that particular work at all? Understandably, historians have consolidated, especially in North America where empiricism and the English language prevail. But even there, and certainly elsewhere, and given the changes in knowledge and social order during the past century at least, the critique of conventional historical method is unavoidable. Too bad historians aren't doing more to help this effort, and by historians I don't mean the most of us who think constantly in terms of historical causality as we learned it from the nineteenth century and our teachers; by “historians” I mean the experts who continue to teach the young. A major roadblock to creative discussion is the fact that problems such as those just mentioned all exceed disciplinary boundaries, so investigation that does not follow suit cannot grasp the problem, much less respond to it creatively. Of course everyone is “for” interdisciplinary work, but most professional organizations, publications, and institutions do not encourage it, despite lip service to the contrary. Interdisciplinary work involves more than the splicing activity that is all too familiar in academic curricula. Crossing out of one's realm of “expertise” requires a kind of humility that does not always sort well with the kind of expertise fostered by professional organizations, publications, and institutions. And even the willing have trouble with the heady atmosphere outside the professional bubble. In such conditions key terms (“language,”“discourse,”“relativism,”“modernity,”“postmodernity,”“time,”“difference”) are pushed here and pushed there without gaining the focus that would lead to currency until finally the ostensible field of play resembles a gigantic traffic jam like the one that opens the film Fellini Roma. Discussion of these issues leads in the end to Borges and his story, ‘The Modesty of History,” from which the title of this essay is borrowed.     

《明孝宗实录》编纂思想探析

《明孝宗实录》是明朝中期纂修的一部重要官修史书,其编纂方式带有资料汇编的性质。该书在诏令、奏疏的收录和人物传记的撰写及评论等方面都体现了直书实录的编纂思想,而且还首次专设"稽考参对"官以保证纂修质量。孝宗皇帝被誉为"中兴圣主",后人对其虚怀纳谏、勤于召对等事迹的传播,以及对其施政措施的借鉴主要来源于《明孝宗实录》的记载,反衬了实录纂修中垂训后世、以史资治的思想。《明孝宗实录》还是一部以帝王为中心的编年史,纂修官出于君臣之义以及现实考量,又要塑造出高大丰满的贤君形象,体现了为尊者讳的编纂思想。     

Cultural fingerprints – the legacy of cultural values in the current cultural policy agenda in Germany

This paper explores the historical roots of cultural values as a prerequisite for German cultural policy. With reference to current investigations of the social impact of the arts, the analysis is based within the framework of the history of ideas and focuses on three concepts: the common base of culture, nation of culture and culture as a state aim. The author argues that the transformative positive powers of culture are linked in a complex system of historically grown intellectual alliances while directing current policy thinking. As a consequence the positive impact of culture in society is strengthened over time and remains unquestioned by actors in the cultural sector.     

HISTORY/PHILOSOPHY/SCIENCE: SOME LESSONS FOR PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY

Rheinberger's brief history brings into sharp profile the importance of history of science for a philosophical understanding of historical practice. Rheinberger presents thought about the nature of science by leading scientists and their interpreters over the course of the twentieth century as emphasizing increasingly the local and developmental character of their learning practices, thus making the conception of knowledge dependent upon historical experience, “historicizing epistemology.” Linking his account of thought about science to his own work on “experimental systems,” I draw extensive parallels with other work in the local history of science (the ideas of Latour, Pickering, Rouse, and others) and consider the epistemological implications both for the relation between history and philosophy of science and between history and theory more broadly. In doing so, I suggest that the long‐standing gap between the natural sciences and history as a “human science” has been significantly bridged by the insistence upon the local, mediated, indeed “historicized epistemology” of actual science.     

改铸历史:先秦时期“以史为鉴”观念的形成

"以史为鉴"是中国古代政治实践与史学思想的重要命题。早在周公之前,"以史为鉴"的思想就有了萌芽,上古先民规避祸灾的行为是历史意识起源的重要来源之一。这种意识,经夏商两代直到周初,才臻至完善。周代的鉴戒观念,包括"以天为鉴"和"以事为鉴"等方面,到了"以史为鉴",方可谓大成。"以史为鉴"的前提是对于历史进行改铸与剪裁,这是适应现实社会需要的结果。     

Bringing the feudal law back home: social practice and the law of fiefs in Italy and Provence (1100–1250)

ABSTRACT

The Libri feudorum is a composite law book containing the customary laws of fiefs held in Lombardy which were codified in 1100–1250. Its function in shaping a late medieval ‘feudal vocabulary’ and, ultimately, modern models of feudalism was highlighted by Susan Reynolds and lies at the core of her anti-feudalism paradigm. This paper questions the disjuncture between social practice and learned law that underlies the paradigm, by analysing the context and making of the Libri feudorum and of legal writings associated with it – by Pillius de Medicina, Iacobus de Ardizone and Jean Blanc. By showing how practice could shape legal tools used by learned lawyers to frame fiefs and by reassessing the influence of the Libri feudorum on practice, the paper challenges the idea that fiefs were the outcome of professional or academic law and unveils aspects of the practical nature and intellectual dimension of lawyerly writing.     

Perkins’s patent metallic “Tractors”: Development,adoption, and early dissemination of an eighteenth-century therapeutic fad

ABSTRACT

The metallick Tractors were patented by Elisha Perkins, a Connecticut physician, in 1796, for the treatment of various ailments, particularly those associated with pain. They were subsequently rapidly and widely disseminated on the basis of testimonials and aggressive marketing tactics. Dissemination was facilitated by endorsements from prominent physicians, politicians, and clergy, by quasi-theoretical explanations of efficacy based on then-current experiments of Galvani and others, and by the apparent simplicity and safety of the procedure. Abandonment of this ineffective therapy was later prompted by the application of blinded placebo-controlled trials using sham devices.     

HISTORY AS PHILOSOPHY

Historians have taken a beating in recent times from an array of critics troubled by our persistent unwillingness to properly theorize our work. This essay contends that their criticisms have generally failed to make headway among mainstream historians owing to a little noticed cognitive byproduct of our work that I call history as philosophy. In so doing I offer a novel defense of professional history as it has been understood and practiced in the Anglophone world over the last half‐century or so while suggesting, in conclusion, that historians could not do other than they do without serious psychic and societal loss.     

9. MOVING FROM,AND BEYOND,INVENTED CATEGORIES: AFTERWORDS

The decentering of narratives is no longer sufficient for bringing the past into sharper focus. As a discipline, we must contend with the continued power imbalance in the production and circulation of histories. It is necessary to give equal valence to histories produced by embracing a range of historical methods, many of which the essays in this forum explore. Doing so expands understandings of what counts as theory in our histories and their obligations in society.     

Did Herbert Spencer Have Reading Epilepsy?

Herbert Spencer, the nineteenth-century philosopher, has frequently been dismissed as a “fantastical hypochondriac” (as his most recent biographer, Mark Francis, terms him). Yet he left a record in his Autobiography of symptoms that suggest a very different diagnosis. Abruptly at age 35, he found that the activity of reading, previously indulged in without difficulty, triggered paroxysmal episodes of disturbing “head-sensations” including “giddiness” (so Spencer described them); these severely curtailed his ability to carry out his philosophical studies. Of all possible explanations for such episodes, none seems as likely as reading epilepsy. Enduring preconceptions about Spencer's presumed neurosesmay have kept modern historians from appreciating that Spencer suffered from a legitimate, if esoteric, neurological malady.     

Making Distinctions: The Contribution of Hector Landouzy to Differential Diagnosis in Relation to Hysteria and Epilepsy

Hector Landouzy (1818-1864) is known for his Traité Complet de l'Hystérie (1846), which was crowned by the Académie de Médecine, but this work is not given much importance in historical accounts. It deserves more attention because it was more than an orthodox statement about the nature of hysteria. In the context of the diagnostic confusion between epilepsy and hysteria, it introduced a method of presenting criteria to facilitate diagnosis. An examination of French authors on epilepsy and hysteria in the second half of the nineteenth century suggests that this method probably set the example which was to be followed by later clinicians, including Charcot at the Salpêtrière.     

《郑子家丧》与《铎氏微》

《郑子家丧》与《铎氏微》竹书《郑子家丧》是一篇战国时期的《春秋》学佚籍。全篇记述楚、晋邲之战的原因与经过,弘扬了楚庄王的霸业。其文本脱胎于《左传》,应属楚威王傅铎椒所作之《铎氏微》。此书见载于《汉书·艺文志》,久已失传,今复重见,具有重要的文献学价值。文中对竹书内容进行考释,并就其文本属于《铎氏微》提出证据。     

“庙会”界说

庙会是以祠庙为依托,在特定时间举行的祭祀神灵、交易货物、娱乐身心的集会。庙会的本质属性通过一系列征象表现出来,而与其他“会”的组织相区别。这些征象是：空间的结节性;主体的广泛性;内容的复合性。     

“百家争鸣”与建国初期的历史学

百家争鸣是20世纪50年代中期双百方针的一个方面,最初是针对历史学问题的争论提出的,百家争鸣方针的贯彻推动了历史学研究的进一步发展。建国初期,历史学领域里的争鸣较之其他学科领域的争鸣更为活跃,取得了丰硕的成果。1959年1月郭沫若发表《谈蔡文姬的〈胡笳十八拍〉》再次引发了史学争鸣的热潮,通过讨论,有关问题的研究越来越深入,涉及面越来越广,相关资料的发掘和整理工作也取得了很大进展。