元察罕脑儿行宫实地考辨

<正> 小宏城——元世祖忽必烈察罕脑儿行宫,座落于闪电河畔西岸,现沽源县闪电河乡小宏城子村北。 这座古老的废城,已有730多年的历史了。岁月流逝,给其披上了一层神密的外衣,至今,人们传说它是辽代肖太后的“红都”,并给其杜撰出很多演义来。直到南京大学历史系元史研究室陈得芝在《历史研究》八○年第一期发表了《元察罕脑儿行宫今地考》后,这个元代的重要地名才得到进一步澄清,这在史学研究上,特别是对研究元代的文化、军事部署等方面贡献是巨大的。但该文对“察罕脑     

试论冀察政务委员会

一九三五年十二月,阴霾密布的北平,爆发了一场反对日本帝国主义吞并华北,反对蒋介石出卖华北,反对成立冀察政务委员会的汹涌洪流——“一二·九”、“一二·一六”运动。这场运动在抗日救亡中所起的伟大作用,史学界已有比较系统深入的研     

徐陵引姚察为史佐不在永定初——读《陈书·姚察传》札记

南北朝著名史学家姚察历仕梁、陈著作官。《陈书》卷27《姚察传》曰:“中书侍郎领著作杜之伟与姚察深相眷遇,表用察佐著作,仍撰史。”时在梁绍泰年间。入陈后,徐陵引姚察为史佐。《陈书.姚察传》曰:永定初,拜始兴王府功曹参军,寻补嘉德殿学士,转中卫、仪同始兴王府记室参军。吏部尚书徐陵时领著作,复引为史佐,及陵让官致仕等表,并请察制焉,陵见叹曰:“吾弗逮也。”太建初,补宣明殿学士,除散骑侍郎、左通直。寻兼通直散骑常侍,报聘于周。江左耆旧先在关右者,咸相倾慕。沛国刘臻窃于公馆访《汉书》疑事十余条,并为剖析,皆有经据。臻谓所亲曰“…     

读瞿林东《彰往察来:探寻历史中的智慧》

正瞿林东先生《彰往察来:探寻历史中的智慧》(北京师范大学出版社,2017年)是"京师学术随笔"之一,收录文章50篇,时间跨度从1983年到2015年,计32年。全书编次以类相从,分为史学功用、史家风采、史学传统、史学评论、史学与文化以及治史杂谈六部分。作者将自己在不同时期治学的思考和过程以不同的形式作了多方面的展现,向读者阐述了历史、史学、历史智慧三者之间的辩证关系,使人深受     

萬曆三十九年辛亥京察與黨爭

鑑於乙巳京察黨爭教訓,萬曆三十九年辛亥察前妥善處置淮撫李三才去留問題,但最後卻依然重蹈覆轍。由於明神宗再三推遲察期、延發察疏,給黨爭創造了充分的條件。辛亥察前,由宣黨籌謀,御史金明時參劾吏部侍郎王圖,引發雙方辨劾,還不具有黨爭性質。然而明神宗對其放任不理,未能及時遏止,遂使其成爲遺留問題帶進京察,造成辛亥京察成爲一次異於舊例的察典。吏部尚書孫丕揚對御史金明時的不當處置埋下察後黨爭的根源。被察失意的浙、楚、宣、昆諸黨,以金明時事件爲口實企圖反噬。在反噬察疏爭辯期間,東林黨人丁元薦一疏將爭辯正式引入黨爭境地,爆發了明代歷史上規模最大、最爲激烈的一次黨爭。隨著孫丕揚、王圖等先後離去,東林黨在辛亥京察中獲得的暫時性勝利化爲烏有,反東林勢力最終還是實現了察前欲去福清先去秦脈的目的,辛亥京察也成爲東林與非東林兩大勢力攻守易位的轉折點。     

“苛察”还是“苟察”

《庄子·天下》称宋尹文 :“曰 :君子不为苛察 ,不以身假物。以为无益于天下者 ,明之不如已也。”这里的“苛察” ,《释文》云 :“一本作苟。”诸家注释多以作苟为非 ,乃苛讹为苟。特别是章炳麟、刘师培校注之后 ,几成定论。然郭沫若在《宋尹文遗著考》中指出 :“苟察原为苛察 ,案乃形近而讹。荀子正名理论与本派相近 ,《不苟篇》言‘君子说不贵苟察’可为证。”① 可惜这种看法未引起足够的重视 ,现试申论之。《荀子·不苟》云 :“君子行不贵苟难 ,说不贵苟察 ,名不贵苟传 ,唯其当之为贵。故怀负石而赴河 ,是行之难为者也 ,而申徒狄能…     

神秘的滇藏通道——丙察察

多元文化共融的丙中洛 云南省贡山独龙族怒族自治县的丙中洛是丙察察公路的起点,也是一个自然与人文景观都丰富多彩的地方。丙中洛位于高黎贡山与横断山之间的峡谷深处,怒江穿流而过。未通公路前,这里是个进出仅有人马驿道的封闭之地。作为摄影师。我曾到过中国很多地方,而丙中洛一直是我心中的桃花源。它虽没有陶渊明笔下“山有小口,仿佛若...     

内政外交的顿挫:冀察政务委员会的出台

1933年塘沽协定签订后,南京政府尚未实际控制的华北地区多方派别并存的局势,为日本谋划分离华北提供了机会.此后,外相广田倡导的“协和外交”也符合南京政府的“安内”政策,至1935年初“中日亲善”氛围形成.然此间南京政府昧于对日政情的了解,疏于对华北局势的准确研判和应对,且为“中日亲善”而对日在华北的分离活动多加妥协,及至11月份冀察局势恶化之际,南京政府既难以获得冀察当局的诚心拥护,又无法遏阻日本分裂华北的野心,只有妥协成立冀察政务委员会.此举标志着南京政府对华北危机的处理,既算不上安内,更不足以攘外.     

中国史学史的新探索——读瞿林东先生《中国史学史纲》

1927年梁启超提出“史学史的做法”。20世纪60年代以后,白寿彝、吴泽、杨翼骧、尹达等对史学史的编纂方法作了新探索。史学史述或循梁启超“做法”,或依社会形态则限,或按古、近代分段,各有优劣。瞿林东《中国史学史纲》,对史学作会通考察,适当处理史学史与通史之关系,分史学为传统与新史学两时期,注重史学理论的阐述,甚具特点,实践了白寿彝的史学史编纂思想,为史学史研究昭示了一条新的道路。     

阿彼察邦回戛纳

即使有金棕榈桂冠加身,阿彼察邦依然对艺术片感到悲观。“毕竟,观众没有义务非得和你共同来一场艺术体验。”他梦想中的项目,是拍摄一部大成本的科幻片     

Responsible girls: the spatialized politics of feminine success and aspiration in a divided Silicon Valley,USA

This article offers a comparative ethnographic examination of working-class Latina and middle-class white girls' narratives of aspiration and expressions of self-cultivation in early twenty-first-century Silicon Valley, USA. I argue that such girls' subject-making statements of aspiration and gendered practices of self-cultivation reflect their emotively charged negotiations of race and class differentiated ideals of feminine success, their experience of school and community spaces inscribed by hierarchies of race, class, and gender, and shifting political-economic circumstances. Moreover, I maintain that such statements and practices reveal girls' engagements with an open-ended gendered dynamic of responsibilization.     

庞卓恒先生的历史比较研究理论和实践

庞卓恒先生是我国著名历史学家,也是我国历史比较研究领域的代表人物之一。自20世纪80年代以来,他在历史比较研究理论与实践两方面进行了深入的探索,发表了大量的著述。历史比较研究的历史观与方法论、中西封建社会比较研究的理论与实践和中西历史文化比较研究的理论与实践,是他在历史比较研究领域重点探讨的几个方面。他的论著在二十多年来我国历史比较研究的发展历程中产生了广泛的影响。     

Gendering the city: the lived experience of transforming cities,urban cultures and spaces of belonging

Debates centred on ‘planetary urbanisation’ have raised questions over the adequacy of existing theories and epistemologies to explain the quantitative and qualitative transformations of cities. However, this theorization of the urban has met with opposition from post-colonial and feminist researchers amongst others. The comparative, empirical research in this collection, from Bolivia, India and Turkey, highlights that the city remains an important analytical and concrete framework, demarcated by contingency and cultural change through which residents must navigate. In particular we focus on the specificity of women’s lives and their capacity to problematise universalist theory, documenting their interrogation of simplistic binaries such as modern/traditional; their innovative approaches to informal settlement, housing and markets; their production of urban knowledge in order to negotiate the city; and processes and practices of mobility, experimentation, risk taking and aspiration that contest or support a myriad of urban imaginaries. Whilst not rejecting the need for theories that allow comparative perspectives on cities, our conclusions underscore the importance of recognising the multiple logics that generate city space and urban cultures, and the consequent need to parochialise the empirical basis of theories that claim to be global in outreach.     

Comparison and Beyond

The merits of the comparative approach to history are undeniable. Comparison helps to identify questions, and to clarify profiles of single cases. It is indispensable for causal explanations and their criticism. Comparison helps to make the "climate" of historical research less provincial. Still, comparative historians remain in a minority. Many cherished principles of the historical discipline — proximity to the sources, context, and continuity — are sometimes in tension with the comparative approach. More recently, new transnational approaches — entangled histories, histoire croisée –challenge comparative historians in a new and interesting way. But histoire comparée and histoire croisée can be compatible and need each other.     

试论梁启超对比较研究法的运用

梁启超在赵翼《廿二史札记》的基础上,娴熟运用比较研究法,从纵、横的角度研究历史,这对于创立新史学和中国近代学术的发展起了重要的推动作用。尽管存在不科学、不完善等不足,但梁启超对比较研究法所做的一切努力至今仍有重要的参考价值。     

IS COMPARATIVE HISTORY POSSIBLE?

In recent years the trend toward comparative histories, frequently read in terms of transnational studies, has produced some remarkably exciting work. The prospect of the comparative is gaining broader appeal, a development we should applaud but at the same time begin to examine in a critical fashion. This essay lays out some of the problems involved in comparative work and suggests ways in which we might profitably utilize these potential snares in productive ways. Comparative history has the potential to operate as a “bridge‐builder,” encouraging inventive thinking that moves scholars beyond the familiar terrain of their training. In this respect, it encourages original and innovative ways of approaching historical work. But there are lessons to be learned and problems to be faced in managing a complex scholarly enterprise of this kind. Comparative work runs the risk of reproducing and consolidating older models of universalist history that assume universal standards. It further runs the risk of assuming rather than historicizing the idea of the nation as a fixed point of historical reference rather than seeing the nation itself as a site for historical scrutiny. In this paper, my goal is to lay out these problems alongside the palpable rewards of comparative work, and then to suggest how we might turn such problems to our advantage.     

在中外历史文化长河中徜徉——访刘家和教授

刘家和先生是学贯中西的著名学者,在世界古代史和中国古代历史文化的研究上都有卓著的成就。长期以来,他善于进行历史比较的理论思考和实证性研究,对希腊、印度、中国的历史文化进行过个案的研究;并致力于把中国古代历史纳入世界史的体系之中,同时在世界史的背景下对中国古代历史文化进行深入的探索。此外,对历史比较研究的方法论问题也有独到的见解。     

5. INDIA,ITIHASA, AND INTER‐HISTORIOGRAPHICAL DISCOURSE

An effective and enriching discourse on comparative historiography invests itself in understanding the distinctness and identity that have created various civilizations. Very often, infected by bias, ideology, and cultural one‐upmanship, we encounter a presumptuous‐ness that is redolent of impatience with the cultural other and of an ingrained refusal to acknowledge what one's own history and culture fail to provide. This “failure” need not be the inspiration to subsume the other within one's own understanding of the world and history and, thereby, neuter the possibilities of knowledge‐sharing and cultural interface. It is a realization of the “lack” that provokes and generates encounters among civilizations. It should goad us to move away from what we have universalized and, hence, normalized into an axis of dialogue and mutuality. What Indians would claim as itihasa need not be rudely frowned upon because it does not chime perfectly with what the West or the chinese know as history. accepting the truth that our ways of understanding the past, the sense of the past, and historical sense‐generation vary with different cultures and civilizations will enable us to consider itihasa from a perspective different from the Hegelian modes of doing history and hence preclude its subsumption under the totalitarian rubric of world history. How have Indians “done” their history differently? What distinctiveness have they been able to weave into their discourses and understanding of the past? Does the fact of their proceeding differently from how the West or the Chinese conceptualize history delegitimize and render inferior the subcontinental consciousness of “encounters with past” and its ways of being “moved by the past”? This article expatiates on the distinctiveness of itihasa and argues in favor of relocating its epistemological and ideological persuasions within a comparative historiographical discourse.     

Close Relations? Bringing Together Gender and Family in English History

There have been surprisingly few historical interpretations of English history which knit together both family and gender. Family history remains dominated by empirical, local or comparative approaches, rooted in paradigms of modernisation, struggling to respond to longstanding feminist critiques. Gender history, while deeply concerned with questioning history's grand narratives and methodological assumptions, seems to have avoided much exploration of family life. It is this gulf and the ways it is being bridged which are explored in this article, in the context of English historiography of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, firstly by seeking explanations for each approach's reluctance to engage with the other, and secondly by tracing their points of convergence and cross-fertilisation.     

钱穆的中西史学比较观

中西史学比较研究是钱穆史学思想的重要内容 ,钱氏往往是以此来阐明史学的本质、方法、功用和中国史学精神。其中西史学比较研究主要包括中西史学关于历史中人与事关系的认识、史学的通变观、史学的体例和体裁、史学编纂方法、史学功用、史学发展形式等方面。钱穆的中西史学比较观是建立在他的民族文化生命史观基础上的 ,意在为他的中国史学优越论和中国历史文化优越论提供理论和历史的依据。它既有积极合理性 ,也表现出文化保守性和民族狭隘性。