Fan Ye's (398–446) Depiction of the Gengshi Years (23–25 CE)

The Gengshi emperor’s two-year-long reign (23–25) has posed a problem to historians of the Later Han dynasty (25–220). As the member of the Liu family who defeated Wang Mang (r. 9–23) became emperor and was, for some time, the superior of the later dynastic founder Guangwu (r. 25–57), Gengshi and his role in the transferal of the Mandate of Heaven needed to be explained. The official history of the Later Han, the Dongguan Hanji, painted a picture of an illegitimate puppet emperor who never possessed the Mandate of Heaven. However, the establishment of a state-sanctioned narrative did not completely stop the controversy surrounding Gengshi’s legitimacy. Our sources indicate that the discussion was not settled until the Tang dynasty and that the controversy only vanished with the rise to prominence of Fan Ye’s Hou Hanshu, which closely followed the Dongguan Hanji version and portrayed Gengshi as an illegitimate ruler and a puppet of his generals. This article is an attempt to retrace the reception of the Gengshi emperor and to analyse Fan Ye’s narrative.     

No Comment

This article compares the solar eclipse records in Fan Ye’s Hou Hanshu “Benji” 本紀to those in the Dongguan Hanji (225 CE), Sima Biao’s Xu Hanshu “Wuxing zhi” 五行志, Yuan Hong’s Hou Hanji, as well as Espenak and Meeus’ Five Millennium Canon of Solar Eclipses to comment upon the source, selection, reliability, and function of the eclipse records included in his imperial annals of the Eastern Han (25–220 CE). It finds that while Fan Ye stuck faithfully to the reliable observational record in the Xu Hanshu he at once replaced its interpretative apparatus of omenology with one of politico-ritual action for simple reasons of genre.     

刘知几史学批评的特点

刘知几的《史通》是一部以史学批评为特色的史学理论著作,涉及史家和史著之多,在中国史学史上可谓是空前绝后。他发扬王充的批判精神,“直书”前代史家之得失,即使是圣贤孔子和当朝皇家修史也在其批评之列,表现了无畏的求实精神;他具体评价史书的优劣,褒扬不讳其短,批评不抑其长,主张史学评论要探赜史家的著述旨意。他以理、势论述史学问题,增强了史学批评的理性色彩,在中国史学的发展上具有承先启后的意义。他史学批评的核心是史义。实录直书和“激扬名教”在他的史义体系内实现了既相互制约又相辅相成的统一。     

陈寿、范晔历史人物评论之比较

陈寿《三国志》和范晔《后汉书》,都是得到后世很高评价的史学名著。两书在内容上颇有交叉,所记相同人物共有55人。陈寿和范晔在记述和评价这些人物时,行文也有异同。陈寿和范晔对这些人物记述上的繁简、评价上的高低,不仅反映出这两位史家著史之不同的旨趣和史识,而且对于更全面地认识东汉末至三国初的这一段历史也有重要的参考价值。     

班固“周室观”的形成及其表现

班固的“周室观”,是在两汉之际汉之德属之争的背景下形成的。班固有选择地接受了刘歆五行相生的德运观念,将汉的建立看作是对周的代嬗,从而形成了尊崇周室并将之看作是汉室兴盛标准的“周室观”。班固的”周室观”不仅表现在《汉书》的写作中,而且是《两都赋》中坚持东都的一个思想资源。     

班固的史学史论述与史学史意识

史学史的研究近年来已从文本与思想的讨论深掘到意识层面的探索,历史意识、史学意识乃至史学史意识都成为探讨的课题。对完成重要著作的史家而言,作品即思想的表现,常蕴含了他的史学史意识在其中,研究者经由史学史意识的分析,往往更能了解其史学的诉求。虽然在班固的时代,"史学"与"史学史"的名词都还没出现,就语境而言,讨论他的史学史论述与史学史意识未免唐突古人,但是使用现代学术语言作为分析工具,实乃不得不然。班固《汉书》的出现,不论从体例、内容还是思想方面观察,皆有其自我的认识,这个认识与他的史学史意识或学术史意识有密切关系。本文爬梳《汉书》中有关史学史的论述,探讨班固如何看待史官传统、史籍流传、《春秋》性质、以及自己著作的学术定位等问题,并于结论中指出班固史学史论述与史学史意识的特点与意义。     

Objectivity and the writing of history

How do historians approach objectivity? This is addressed by Mark Bevir in his book The Logic of the History of Ideas (1999) by his argument for an anthropological epistemology with objectivity in the historical narrative resting on the explanation of human actions/agent intentionality equating with meaning. The criticism of this position is at several levels. As sophisticated constructionists historians do not usually ask ‘Can history be objective?’ Rather, they work from the balance of evidence reflecting the intersubjectivity of truth and they acknowledge the problematic nature of inferring agent intentionality and the difficulties in equating this with ‘what it means’. Why Abraham Lincoln issued the 1863 emancipation proclamation is a case in point. No historian would claim to have located its true meaning objectively in effect doubting Mark Bevir's claim that ‘objective knowledge arises from a human practice in which we criticise and compare rival webs of theories in terms of agreed facts’ (The Logic of the History of Ideas, 1999, p. 98). There are also further challenges to an over-reliance on rational action theory and the problems associated with the selection of evidence. Equally, most historians in practice doubt objectivity emerges from an accurate knowledge of the motives that can be matched to weak authorial intentions and that this leads to action via decisions. Few historians today accept that their narrative mimics past intentionality and that this provides true meaning. The article offers four reasons for rejecting Bevir's position and concludes with a defence of the narrative-linguistic determination of meaning. This suggests that history is subject to the same narrative and imaginative constraints as other forms of realist writing, rather than being privileged by an access to knowable intentionality and that this constitutes objective historical knowledge.     

由《春秋》纯儒而“益世”儒宗--《汉书》对董仲舒武帝朝地位的重构

《史记》中的董仲舒不过是专治《春秋》的纯儒,而这一认识在《汉书》中发生了变化。我们看到在武帝朝并未被过于重视的《春秋》纯儒董仲舒,随着汉代政治形势及学术倾向的变化,至元帝时地位已经远远高于武帝时期。至刘向时董仲舒始被鼓吹为对武帝朝政治有重大影响的儒宗。班固接受了刘向的说法,并为使得董仲舒符合两汉的儒宗标准而刻意通过种种手段提高了他在武帝朝的政治参与度,于是董仲舒从《史记》的纯儒一变而为《汉书》中"于世有益"的儒宗。     

“岛夷”还是“鸟夷”--刘起釪先生《尚书校释译论·禹贡篇》商榷

《尚书·禹贡》将天下分为九个州,其中冀州和扬州之下记载了两处"岛夷"。《禹贡》的内容被司马迁和班固分别写入《史记·夏本纪》和《汉书·地理志》。《史记·夏本纪》引用《禹贡》时,冀州作"鸟夷",扬州作"岛夷",《汉书·地理志》引用《禹贡》时,冀州、扬州均作"鸟夷"。《史记》和《汉书》都是权威著作,遂引起千年争论。刘起釪先生《尚书校释译论》是当今《尚书》学集大成之作,在处理这一千古悬案时,认为冀州之下作"鸟夷"没错,但是扬州之下应该作"岛夷"。一字之差,却关系到中国上古史的根本大局。本文分析了刘先生提出的论据,认为刘先生主张的"扬州岛夷"说是错误的。     

Objectivity and the writing of history

How do historians approach objectivity? This is addressed by Mark Bevir in his book The Logic of the History of Ideas (1999) by his argument for an anthropological epistemology with objectivity in the historical narrative resting on the explanation of human actions/agent intentionality equating with meaning. The criticism of this position is at several levels. As sophisticated constructionists historians do not usually ask ‘Can history be objective?’ Rather, they work from the balance of evidence reflecting the intersubjectivity of truth and they acknowledge the problematic nature of inferring agent intentionality and the difficulties in equating this with ‘what it means’. Why Abraham Lincoln issued the 1863 emancipation proclamation is a case in point. No historian would claim to have located its true meaning objectively in effect doubting Mark Bevir's claim that ‘objective knowledge arises from a human practice in which we criticise and compare rival webs of theories in terms of agreed facts’ (The Logic of the History of Ideas, 1999, p. 98). There are also further challenges to an over-reliance on rational action theory and the problems associated with the selection of evidence. Equally, most historians in practice doubt objectivity emerges from an accurate knowledge of the motives that can be matched to weak authorial intentions and that this leads to action via decisions. Few historians today accept that their narrative mimics past intentionality and that this provides true meaning. The article offers four reasons for rejecting Bevir's position and concludes with a defence of the narrative-linguistic determination of meaning. This suggests that history is subject to the same narrative and imaginative constraints as other forms of realist writing, rather than being privileged by an access to knowable intentionality and that this constitutes objective historical knowledge.     

范晔“谋反”新说——兼论沈约对范晔的评价

<后汉书>纪传的著者范晔,因涉及一桩重大政治案件-"谋反"而被杀.千余年来,人们对这桩公案有种种评判.或日范晔"不反",或日范晔"谋反"是进步之举,或日范晔"谋反"罪名系他人所加,等等.细察其情,本文提出新说:范晔涉及"谋反",客观上系他人设置陷阱所致,而其主观上的弱点,正是落入陷阱的内在原因.     

Protestantism and liberty: Catharine Macaulay’s politics of religion as a response to David Hume

ABSTRACT

Catharine Macaulay’s History of England from the Accession of James I (1763–1783) was intended by its author and received by its audience as, in part, a response to David Hume’s History of England. Macaulay’s writing has been read as a Whig counter to Hume’s Tory interpretation of England’s seventeenth-century history; more recent work has explored whether Macaulay or Hume has a better claim to be considered an “enlightenment historian”. This article will suggest that Macaulay’s views on the role of England’s Protestant belief and practice in the development and maintenance of the nation’s liberties contained, in the earlier volumes of her History, some of her substantive and important refutations of Hume’s arguments, and, further, that Macaulay’s well-argued claim that Protestantism was instrumental in the formation of England’s national character and potential enjoyment of political liberties was received by her readers as a particularly valuable part of her historical argument. Her accounts of Roman Catholic violence against Protestant victims at the Siege of La Rochelle and in the Irish Massacre of 1641 became some of the most quoted parts of her historical writing.     

Women of Later Han

Though Confucian teachings might require them to subjugate themselves to the interests of their husband and his family, women of the Han period had a degree of personal autonomy, with rights to property, divorce and remarriage, and some capacity for independent action. At the head of the state, moreover, an empress dowager held regency power during an imperial minority. Despite their formal freedoms, however, in practice most women found their fate and fortune subordinated to the interests of men; and while all people were under constant threat of disease and death, a woman faced particular danger in time of childbirth. Based on accounts from the Hou Hanshu of Fan Ye and other sources, the present study considers some aspects of this situation.     

范文澜:倡导优良学风,捍卫历史学的科学性

建国后十七年,史学界实际存在着两种学风,一种是教条主义学风,在1958年以后一度盛行;另一种是倡导实事求是、独立思考、刻苦钻研的学风。范文澜恰恰是后者的代表人物,他作为正直的史学家,十几年如一日潜心治学,精心修订和重写《中国通史简编》这部巨著;作为近代史所的创建者,他卓有成效地提倡和培育了全所坚持不懈、勇于创新的优良学风,他在领导中国史学会的工作中,更是贯穿了高度重视扎实的史料基础和提倡严谨学风的指导思想,当教条化的错误潮流袭来时,他挺身而出进行抵制,表现出捍卫历史学的科学性和尊严的高风亮节。     

‘A belated return for Christ?’: the reception of Arnold J. Toynbee's A Study of History in a British context, 1934–1961

The negative reception of A Study of History at the hands of British historians has masked wider responses to the work in Britain which reflect major tensions within British society and wider attitudes towards the idea of civilisation, the British Empire and religion. The highly critical response to the work from the majority of professional historians reviewing the book is indicative of major debates within British history writing, including the role of empirical and idealist interpretations of history, and the increasingly academic and scholarly role of the historian. Toynbee's position as a public voice and a celebrity historian in the 1950s, whose approach to history eschewed constraints of period or region, represented antithesis to the expanding historical profession and scholarly research. Arnold Toynbee's A Study of History was a weathervane for contemporary cultural and intellectual concerns of the era.     

Gombrich’s critique of Hauser’s Social History of Art

This article examines E.H. Gombrich’s critical appraisal of Arnold Hauser’s book, The Social History of Art. Hauser’s Social History of Art was published in 1951, a year after Gombrich’s bestseller, The Story of Art. Although written in Britain for an English-speaking public, both books had their origins in the intellectual history of Central Europe: Gombrich was an Austrian art historian and Hauser was Hungarian. Gombrich’s critique, published in The Art Bulletin in 1953, attacked Hauser’s dialectical materialism and his sociological interpretation of art history. Borrowing arguments from Karl Popper’s critique of historicism, Gombrich described Hauser’s work as collectivist and deterministic, tendencies at odds with his own conception of art history. However, in his readiness to label Hauser a proponent of historical materialism, Gombrich failed to recognize Hauser’s own criticism of deterministic theories of art, especially formalism. This article investigates Gombrich’s reasons for rejecting Hauser’s sociology of art. It argues Gombrich used Hauser as an ideological counterpoint to his own version of art history, avowedly liberal and individualist in outlook.     

《后汉书》对研究西汉以前政区地理的史料价值及相关文献学问题

南朝刘宋范晔撰著的《后汉书》本纪和列传,配以西晋司马彪《续汉书》诸志,是研治东汉一朝史事最为重要的基本史料。惟研究西汉以及汉代以前各个时期的地理问题,范晔《后汉书》和包括《郡国志》在内的《续汉书》诸志,同样具有很多《汉书·地理志》以及《史记》和《汉书》其他部分所不具备的独特史料价值。     

Patrick O’Farrell and the Irish History Wars, 1971–1993

While Patrick O’Farrell's achievements as an historian of the Irish and of Catholicism in Australia are well recognised, little attention has been paid to his significance as an historian of Ireland. This article takes his two major Irish monographs, published in 1971 and 1975, and considers how they influenced leading Irish political historians of the 1970s and 1980s. In doing so, the article examines the crisis created for historians by the Northern Ireland Troubles. It demonstrates that the work of O’Farrell, which called into question the primacy of politics and of the nation state, helped open up new avenues for the analysis of Irish culture and identity. Yet, at the same time, such an approach challenged the republican reading of Irish history as a struggle against colonialism, and thus O’Farrell's work attracted severe criticism.