中国马克思主义史学论析

<正>20世纪的中国史学,通常被划分为传统史学、近代史学和马克思主义史学三大流派,而马克思主义史学从孕育、形成到发展、转型,深刻地影响着中国史学的进程。研究中国马克思主义史学发展史,对于深入地探讨20世纪的中国史学,深切地认识和理解中国马克思主义或马克思主义中国化,都具有重要的学术意义。一、中国马克思主义史学概说中国马克思主义史学是以马克思主义为理论指导的中国史学,或者说是马克思主义在中国史学     

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。     

历代的史学传播途径

在社会发展中,史学传播具有重要的意义。史学传播既能推动史学研究的发展,也能让史学的教化、传承、鉴戒功能得到更好的发挥。研究史学传播途径对于了解史学传播有重要的意义。随着社会的发展,人们都对史学的重要性有了愈加深刻的认识,技术水平的提高、人民文化娱乐需求的增加、史学教育与通俗史学的发展都推动了史学传播的发展与史学传播途径的扩大。     

论中国史学中的“历史观念”

一中国史学和西方史学并列为世界两大史学系统,同是世界史学的总遗产,各自影响着世界。日本、朝鲜、越南等国,其史学无一不受中国史学影响,属于中国史学系统,宗儒家学术思想为主流,极富人文主义色彩;而英、法、德、美等国史学,以西方宗教与科     

中西古典史学批评论

史学批评的产生虽然要晚于史学的产生,但是,几乎在古典史学产生的同时,也就出现了史学批评的萌芽。古典时期中国与古希腊罗马史学批评的产生与史学批评的内容,在史家标准、治史态度、史籍优劣以及史学审美等诸多方面大体一致,难分伯仲。总的说来,西方古典史学批评理论不如中国,然而在史学审美方面却比中国古典史学批评理论更系统化、理论化。这种差异的出现,是由古典时期中西史学的地位所决定的     

日本江户时代史学发展受中国史学影响探析

中国传统文化博大精深,史学文化引领着邻国史学的发展,日本江户时代史学发展深受我国影响,各种史志书籍、资料达到空前的规模,史学文化得到全面发展。本文从日本江户时代史学历史发展沿革,利用对比、举例等多种手法,从编纂体例、史学思想等角度阐述了日本史学深受中国史学的影响,明晰中国史学文化的博大精深。     

中国古代史学批评的深层探讨

20世纪80年代中期以来,在中国古代史学理论的研究中,逐渐开拓出了一个崭新而独特的领域——中国古代史学批评。从筚路蓝缕到收获硕果,瞿林东先生做出了突出的贡献。而今,瞿先生主编的《中国古代史学批评史》7卷本出版在即。本刊特组织刊发这组文章,从中国古代史学批评在中国史学发展中的作用、中国古代史学批评与传统史学理论的关系、中国古代史学批评与西方史学批评的比较、中国古代史学批评与史学话语体系构建的联系等视角,探讨中国古代史学批评的内在价值、研究方法和中国特色。当代史学繁荣的背后,也正面临着客观公允的史学批评缺失的困境。我们期望这组文章能引起大家的关注,开拓中国古代史学批评研究的新局面;也希望古代史学批评的果实,能够滋养当代史学批评的成长。     

为什么要研究史学批评

20世纪80年代中期以来,在中国古代史学理论的研究中,逐渐开拓出了一个崭新而独特的领域——中国古代史学批评。从筚路蓝缕到收获硕果,瞿林东先生做出了突出的贡献。而今,瞿先生主编的《中国古代史学批评史》7卷本出版在即。本刊特组织刊发这组文章,从中国古代史学批评在中国史学发展中的作用、中国古代史学批评与传统史学理论的关系、中国古代史学批评与西方史学批评的比较、中国古代史学批评与史学话语体系构建的联系等视角,探讨中国古代史学批评的内在价值、研究方法和中国特色。当代史学繁荣的背后,也正面临着客观公允的史学批评缺失的困境。我们期望这组文章能引起大家的关注,开拓中国古代史学批评研究的新局面;也希望古代史学批评的果实,能够滋养当代史学批评的成长。     

征稿简约

一、本刊作为国内有关史学理论研究的唯一的专业性学术刊物, 欢迎评析国内外史学思潮、史学流派、史学理论和方法论问题以及探索史学的跨学科研究和国内外史学发展状况和趋势的论文, 本刊也欢迎书评、     

从宋代义理化史学到清代实证性史学的转变

在中国古代史学发展史上,如果从史学思想的角度考察问题,就会发现我国传统史学经历了从宋代义理化史学到清代实证性史学转变的过程。这两种史学思潮在史学本体论、史学认识论和史学方法论各方面都显示出截然不同的特征。揭示由宋代义理化史学到清代实证性史学转变的内涵及其意义,有助于阐明中国传统史学发展中某些内在规律。可以进一步深化史学史的研究。     

"新史学"思潮的产生及其学术建树

梁启超的《中国史叙论》和《新史学》共同构成了"新史学"思潮的开端。《中国史叙论》表现为"建设"大于"批判";《新史学》表现为"批判"大于"建设"。两者都以建设中国的新史学为共同目标。"新史学"思潮涵盖了许多不同政治取向、却都看重史学的社会功能并且要求改变旧史学面貌的多数进步学人。"新史学"思潮以批判旧史学为特征,但是其构建"新史学"理论体系的努力和撰述新型中国通史的尝试等学术建树,亦不应被忽视。     

Speaking truth to power in a post-truth era: Multidimensional and intersectional justice

Anthropologists have spoken truth to power in many different forms and cases for decades; nevertheless, the terrain of truth is shifting. How do young people understand the post-truth present and what does speaking truth to power look like in this era? How might anthropologists look, not simply at the production of knowledge, but at the reception of knowledge claims? What contributions can anthropologists make to forms of engagement and practice that are suited to the current moment? Shifting from a narrow focus on truth and facts, the author considers problems of emergent propaganda and affective responses to narratives and proposes a framework of multidimensional and intersectional justice.     

驳章学诚“戴震不解史学”论

戴震与章学诚是清代乾嘉学术的两座高峰,戴氏以典籍考证著名于世,章氏以史学理论自矜于时,二者学术路径不同,旨趣有别。而章氏以"戴君不解史学"攻击考证学派,引出了一个令后人长期争议的话题。通过对戴震著述的全面探讨可以考见,戴氏不惟甚解史学义例,而且在方志、家谱及史料考证方面成就颇多,在清代历史考证学领域理应占有一席之地。     

联通古典与现代的一部史学力作——读莫米格里亚诺《现代史学的古典根基》

在人类史学发展史上,古代史学遗产丰厚并对后世影响深远。A·莫米格里亚诺将之大致划分为波斯、犹太、希腊和罗马史学等不同类型,并由此追溯了现代西方史学的古典根基。其间,论者着重探讨了古代史学自身的相互影响、古希腊史学内涵特征以及塔西佗影响等诸多热点难点问题。在此意义上,全书深入揭示了古代与现代史学之间具体的历史衍生关联。遗憾的是,论者对史学某些共性特征关注不够,部分论断缺乏缜密的逻辑分析。     

Hayden White's Appeal to the Historians

Historians rarely agree with Hayden White's account of theirdiscipline. To a certain extent their dissatisfaction can be explained by the fact that historianscustomarily distrust historical theory and always tend to look at the historical theorist with thegreatest suspicion. But historians find an extra argument for their dislike of White's ideasin his alleged cavalier disregard of how historical facts limit what the historian might wish to sayabout the past. And, admittedly, this criticism is not wholly unfounded.
Nevertheless, this essay attempts to show how misguided this traditional criticism ofWhite actually is. For it is historians who too easily take the truth of their accounts of the past forgranted, whereas White's theoretical writings can be shown to express a full awareness ofthe kind of problem encountered in the effort to tell the truth about historical reality. Hence,White's writing—rather than those by historians criticizing White—testify to therespect that we owe to historical reality itself.
That this is how we should read White becomes clear if we consider his intellectualevolution as a whole rather than the individual books or essays that he wrote.     

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.     

Telling More: Lies,Secrets, and History

This essay argues that secrets and lies are not forms of withholding information but forms by which information is valorized. Lies are constructed: what is to be lied about, what a lie is to consist of, how it is to be told, and whom it is to be told to, all reveal a social imaginary about who thinks what and what constitutes credibility. Secrets are negotiated: continual decisions about whom to tell, how much to tell, and whom not to tell describe social worlds, and the shape and weight of interactions therein. All of this makes lies and secrets extraordinarily rich historical sources. We might not see the truth distorted by a lie or the truth hidden by a secret, but we see the ideas andimaginings by which people disclose what should not be made public, and how they should carry out concealing one narrative with another. Such insights involve a step back from the project of social history, in which an inclusive social narrative is based on experience and individuals' ability to report it with some reliability, and suggests that historians need to look at social imaginings as ways to understand the ideas and concerns about which people lie and with which people construct new narratives that are not true. The study of secrets, however, links the study of social imaginings with the project of social history, as the valorization of information that results in the continual negotiation and renegotiation of secrets shows individuals and publics imagining the experiences labeled as secret because of the imagined power of a specific version of events.     

评耿云志先生的《黎昔非先生与〈独立评论〉》一文

《安徽史学》2 0 0 3年第 1期所刊登的耿云志先生《黎昔非先生与〈独立评论〉》一文 ,明显存在至少三个方面的问题 :一是偏离文章主题与中心 ,意在维护胡适 ;二是以己意曲解、推测史实而为胡适辩解 ;三是有不符合学术规范之处。     

日本现代史学中的马克思主义史学

随着日本资本主义的发展 ,无产阶级队伍的壮大和马克思主义思想的广泛传播 ,资产阶级史学的发展和无产阶级斗争的需要成为了日本马克思主义史学产生的历史背景。从 2 0世纪 2 0年代后半期到 3 0年代后半期 ,马克思主义史学在日本经历了产生、发展和完善以及被日本法西斯政府彻底封杀的三个阶段。日本的马克思主义史学和资产阶级史学派别不仅有本质的区别 ,而且还有许多新的特点。     

History of Israelite religion or old testament theology? Jewish interest in biblical theology

Abstract

Both branches — the “history of the Israelite religion” and “Old Testament theology” — are significant and have equal merit. However, there are also distinct demarcations and deep differences between them. Thus, the research of each must be separate and follow unique clearly defined methods so as to avoid confusion. It is interesting to discover the theological guidelines of the Biblical authors, editors and canonists. There is also a necessity to be aware of the theological guidelines that control the Biblical corpora; to read the Bible for religious messages and moral values which may be derived from it. Nevertheless, it is impractical to look for or to impose one sole idea on the whole Bible. Christian theologians should not introduce any sort of anti‐Semitic or anti‐Jewish theology. Jews are interested in the theology of the Hebrew Bible and in Biblical theology. The main reasons for the limited interest of Jewish scholars in Biblical theology is inherent in the youthfulness of scholarly Jewish Biblical research; the focus of Jewish‐Israeli interest on Biblical research in the last generations; and in the formation of higher educational institutions first and foremost in Israel as well as in some Jewish institutions in America.