The A-Bomb Controversy at the National Air and Space Museum

Born in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1947, Linenthal earned his bachelor's degree in religious studies at Western Michigan University, his master's degree in divinity at the Pacific School of Religion, and his Ph.D. in religious studies at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He is Professor of Religion and American Culture at the University of Wisconsin, Oshkosh. His books include: Symbolic Defense: The Cultural Significance of the Strategic Defense Initiative (1989); Sacred Ground: Americans and their Battlefields (2nd edition, 1993); Preserving Memory: The Struggle to Create America's Holocaust Museum (1995); American Sacred Space (co-editor, 1995). He is writing a history of the A-Bomb controversy that will appear in a book to be published in 1996. Linenthal has often lectured about controversial historic sites for National Park Service staff. At the USS Arizona Memorial, Linenthal delivered a commemorative address on 7 December 1994, on the 53rd anniversary of the attack on Pearl Harbor. Linenthal and his wife, with their two sons, reside in Oshkosh, Wisconsin. Linenthal was the only historian to testify before the Senate Committee on Rules and Administration about the National Air and Space Museum's ill-fated exhibit, “The Last Act: The Atomic Bomb and the End of World War II.” What follows is Linenthal's Senate statement and comments he has written for The Historian.     

INTERVIEW WITH THEODORE H. VON LAUE

Born in 1916, reared and educated in Germany until 2937, Von hue has been writing and teaching global history for almost three decades. He received his B.A. and Ph.D. degrees from Princeton University and wm certified by the Russian Institute at Columbia University. Von hue published well-received books on German historiography, late Imperial Russia, and the Soviet Union before his lesser-known global histories. From 1943 to 1983, he taught at Princeton, the University of Pennsylvania, Swarthmore College, Bryn Mawr College, the University of California at Riverside, Washington University at St. Louis, and Clark University. As Jacob and Frances Hiatt Professor of European History, Emeritus, at Clark, he has taught in China and held offices in the World History Association. Von hue has two daughters from his first marriage. He and his wife Angela live in Worcester, Massachusetts, where this interview was conducted in August 2995, by Roger Adelson.     

夏同龢《行政法》简论

清光绪朝戊戌科状元夏同龢,是中国历史上第一个以状元身份留学日本的留学生,是中国行政法历史上最早编写《行政法》的法学家之一;他同时也是出色的法学教育家,广东法政学堂的创办者;还是中华民国国会众议院议员,宪法起草委员会理事,参与了《天坛宪法》的起草;既任过多个行政职务,还是很有才能的社会活动家。但他留给后世最有意义的是他编写的《行政法》,该《行政法》无论从编写水平、出版的时间还是其内容的丰富详实方面,都无庸置疑地确立了他作为中国行政法历史上的先驱者的地位。     

李大钊对“历史”概念的探讨

1924年,商务印书馆出版的李大钊著的《史学要论》,标志着李大钊的史学思想已经走向成熟。在此书中,李大钊提出了历史的完整的定义。他的这个定义是有两个形成的过程的。他曾经思考过诸多国内外历史学者对于历史的定义,但在接受了唯物史观以后,他才真正明确了历史的概念。他对历史的定义,是他的史学思想中很有价值的重要内容。     

明清之际士人夫妇生活管窥——以王崇简为例

王崇简是明清之际一个家庭观念浓厚、重视家庭生活的士人,在其《青箱堂诗文集》中留下了不少他与一妻六妾的生活记录。王崇简与妻妾在日常生活中自觉体认、践行当时社会通行的儒家礼法规范,夫妻琴瑟和谐、妻妾和美,但这样的夫妇生活状态却以女性单方面的无私付出为代价。希望籍王崇简夫妇生活个案的研究管窥明清之际士人夫妇生活的具体风貌及其家庭伦理观念。     

Trees in Lhasa

Trees are flourishing in Lhasa wherever the history exists. There is such a man. He has already been through cus-toms after his annual trek to Lhasa, which he has been doing for over twenty years in succession to visit his tree.Although he has been making this journey for so long,it is neither to visit friends or family,nor is it his hometown.It is a tree that is tied so profoundly to his heart.When the wind blows fiercely on the bare tree and winter snow falls,he stands be-fore the tree with tears of jo...     

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。     

论王先谦的《五洲地理志略》

《五洲地理志略》是王先谦晚年在学术研究方向转变之后所撰的一本比较成熟的史地学著作。作者以传播、普及中外历史地理知识为宗旨,向人们介绍西方史地学知识,并且将忧国意识与传统的史学方法融入撰写内容之中。作者对中外相关书籍认真比较后,广搜博采,严密考订,尤其关注于新近出现的人文地理大事件。作者重视探讨救亡途径,故而该书的撰述还体现出经世思想与忧患意识的时代特征。     

王世贞明史研究之成就与特点

王世贞的明史研究涉猎了万历以前几乎所有的重大问题 ,从明代政治事件、典章制度、社会经济、中外关系、文化生活到历史人物等等方面 ,他都有独到的看法和贡献 ,且涉及明代社会的各个层面 ,开创了一派以实录为本位的新掌故史学 ,留下了丰富的资料。他的明史研究贯串着歌颂明朝的思想 ,体现其“成一家之言”的著史志向 ,因而他在明代史学史上具有十分突出的地位。     

明末清初文人命运之管窥——侯方域生平考

侯方域是明末清初著名的文人之一,他出生于名门望族,受过良好的教育,很早就名满天下。他早年交游广阔,与当时的一帮名士朝夕对酒作诗,品评当世人物,颇有济世之志。后来,因得罪了小人,自己落得四处飘零,又由于农民战争及清军的蹂躏,他的大部分好友都散去或死去;明清易代,他又成了夹缝中的遗民。他虽然英年早逝,但短暂的一生却历经巨变沧桑。     

傅云龙《游历日本图经余记》所见汉籍考

傅云龙是近代海外访书的先行者之一,他在奉旨游历海外时,曾在日本见到过诸多珍贵汉籍,并对其中的部分古籍进行了考证,甚至还有过刊刻海外汉籍的活动。本文主要从文献学的角度对傅云龙所著《游历日本图经余记》中涉及的日藏汉籍予以考察,在考订这些海外汉籍的版本、流传等问题的同时,并对傅氏的某些考证中存在的问题予以订正。     

论浮田和民《史学通论》与梁启超新史学思想的关系

日本史学家浮田和民所著《史学通论》,是一部广征博引西方诸家之说,同时又有自己识断的;以进化史观为指导的较为系统的新史学理论著作。梁启超在《新史学》等专论中所阐述的基本史学理论,实际上主要是从浮田和民的《史学通论》中有选择地移植过来的。20世纪初的梁启超在新史学的理论建设方面,基本上没有自己的创见,因此,将其视为中国新史学理论的奠基人或创立者,是不准确的。当然,梁氏的移植并非完全照搬照抄,而是有所归纳,并结合中国旧史弊病有所演绎,这就使其《新史学》等专论所宣传的新史学思想更条理、更易为中国学界所接受,并且有了针对性。正因为如此,梁氏在中国新史学发展史上,有着无人能够取代的地位。     

毛奇龄《古文尚书冤词》探微

《古文尚书》辨伪是清代学术史上的重要课题。清初学者阎若璩作《尚书古文疏证》,判定今本《古文尚书》为伪书,而同时代的学者毛奇龄则作《古文尚书冤词》,极力为《古文尚书》辩护,从而引发了一：场学术公案。《古文尚书》之伪,今日已成定论。《冤词》成为毛氏学术生涯中的败笔,其结论本身已无价值可言。但是他在论辨当中崇实黜虚,纠正了不少辨伪者的错误,从学术史的角度讲,这部表面看起来与辨伪针锋相对的《冤词》,恰恰对《古文尚书》辨伪的深入产生了重要影响。     

Introduction: Danto and His Critics: After the End of Art and Art History

In Bielefeld, Germany in April, 1997 an author conference was devoted to Arthur C. Danto's 1995 Mellon Lectures After the End of Art: Contemporary Art and the Pale of History (Princeton,1997). This essay provides an introduction to seven essays given at that conference and expanded for this Theme Issue of History and Theory . Danto presented his view of the nature of art in The Transfiguration of the Commonplace (1981). He then added in the Mellon lectures a sociological perspective on the current situation of the visual arts, and an Hegelian historiography. The history of art has ended, Danto claims, and we now live in a posthistorical era. Since in his well-known book on historiography, Analytical Philosophy of History (1965), Danto is unsympathetic to Hegel's speculative ways of thinking about history, his adaptation of this Hegelian framework is surprising. Danto's strategy in After the End of Art is best understood by grasping the way in which he transformed the purely philosophical account of The Transfiguration into a historical account. Recognizing that his philosophical analysis provided a good way of explaining the development of art in the modern period, Danto radically changed the context of his argument. In this process, he opened up discussion of some serious but as yet unanswered questions about his original thesis, and about the plausibility of Hegel's claim that the history of art has ended.
Hegel . . . did not declare that modern art had ended or would disintegrate. . . . his attitude towards future art was optimistic, not pessimistic. . . . According to his dialectic . . . art . . . has no end but will evolve forever with time.     

试析陈独秀的“以科学代宗教”思想

新文化运动初期,陈独秀针对在社会转型背景下出现的信仰危机,提出了"以科学代宗教"的主张.他认为以西方自然科学为基础的科学思想、精神和方法,可以在世界观、人生观、社会历史观等领域取代宗教,作为现代社会的新信仰.他后来的思想虽有曲折,但并没有放弃"以科学代宗教"的主张.在中国现代"以科学代宗教"的社会思潮的形成过程中,他起了主导性的作用,做出了主要贡献.     

阿尤德吉·奥卢贡菊及其海洋史研究

阿尤德吉·奥卢贡菊是尼日利亚第三代历史学家的代表人物,是尼日利亚海洋史研究的重要学者。奥卢贡菊认为海洋史研究是对与海洋相关的一切人类活动的研究,主要围绕着港口、航运业和比较视野下的海洋史研究而展开"在海洋史研究方面,奥卢贡菊主张历史研究与社会发展需求之间的“相关性”;其海洋史研究是在经济民族主义思想的指导下进行的;在探究港口发展的原因时,他主张挖掘多种历史原因;奥卢贡菊借鉴了地理学家、经济学家的研究视角和概念,采用跨学科方法研究海洋史"     

WHAT IS HISTORY? WHAT IS LITERATURE?

Ivan Jablonka seeks something other than a mere combination of history, social science, and literature. He would like history, itself understood as a social science, to be a literature of the real world. He is also interested in literature informed not only by the results but, more important, by the forms of reasoning and inquiry of history and related social sciences (notably anthropology and sociology). Jablonka's own positioning within the Annales seems obvious, notably in his stress on cognition, problem‐oriented research, and the status of history as a social science. But the attention and research devoted in the work of scholars in and around the Annales to the relations among history, literature, and fiction have not been pronounced, and in this context Jablonka inflects the understanding of history in relatively underdeveloped directions. Despite possible disagreements one may have over specific issues, Jablonka's thought‐provoking book raises very important questions, opens many significant avenues of inquiry, and seeks a desirable interaction between historical and literary approaches.     

WHAT'S WRONG WITH ECONOMIC HISTORY?

In this polemical book, Francesco Boldizzoni argues that economic history is so moribund as to require resurrection. He maintains that economic history has been converted into a subfield of economics and has embraced the antihistorical and a priori intellectual style of mainstream economics departments: it has, in effect, ceased to be a form of history. Boldizzoni hopes to force a recognition of contemporary economic history's bankruptcy and to show the way toward a revitalization. He criticizes both economic history as retrospective econometrics, as in the work of Robert Fogel, and economic history as a branch of the new institutional economics, as in the work of Douglas North. Boldizzoni suggests that economic history should return to the sort of research and models that prevailed earlier in its own history—models based on induction from observed economic life rather than on deduction from the theories of contemporary microeconomics. He particularly singles out the work of Witold Kula, Moses Finley, and the Annales historians for emulation, but also praises the perspectives of economic sociology and economic anthropology. Boldizzoni's call for a return to a more inductive form of economic history is welcome, and his discussions of his heroes should remind us that economic history was once a vibrant and creative part of the history profession. But the book's advice is more useful for historians working on premodern than on modern economic life. The claim that self‐governing markets and interest‐maximizing individual actors are pure figments of economists' imaginations seems far less certain for recent than for premodern times. And his insistence that each society has its own distinct form of economic life that must be discovered inductively leaves unconceptualized the world‐spanning forces of capitalist development that increasingly shape societies everywhere. Boldizzoni's critique and his positive suggestions are certainly valuable, but he by no means supplies a sufficient recipe for economic history's resurrection as a vibrant field.     

Henry Herbert Donaldson’s (1857–1938) contribution to an organized approach to the experimental study of the mammalian central nervous system

ABSTRACT

This article shows that the academic and research careers of Henry Herbert Donaldson (1857–1938) were directed to provide basic information about the growth of the vertebrate nervous system and to provide standards and the means to make such research efficient. He earned the reputation of making the albino rat a standard laboratory animal. His academic career began when he was an undergraduate at Yale University in 1875 and concluded with his death as Professor and Head of the Department of Neurology at the Wistar Institute of Anatomy and Biology of the University of Pennsylvania in 1938. During that period, pivotal experiences occurred, including research in physiological chemistry with Chittenden at the Sheffield School at Yale, graduate study at Johns Hopkins University, postgraduate study in Europe, and professorial positions at Clark University and the University of Chicago. It was at Johns Hopkins University that Donaldson learned about the need for physiological, anatomical, and psychophysical research and about the techniques to allow such research. It was at Clark University that he had first-hand and detailed experience with the anatomy of the brain of a deaf-blind-mute woman, as he attempted to correlate her sensory deficits with her brain development. It was at Clark University that he clearly recognized the need for standardization in neurological research. At the University of Chicago, he developed administrative skills and began a coordinated research effort to delimit the growth of the nervous system. It was at Chicago that he learned that the albino rat could be a reasonable subject for such research. It was also at Chicago that he was able to formulate ideas about the future organizational needs of human neuroanatomy. It was at the Wistar Institute that his research program and his professional career matured. He organized a research effort to elucidate the growth of the nervous system. He contributed to the coordination of neurological research in the United States and Europe. It was while at the Wistar Institute that he became well-known for making the albino rat a standard laboratory mammal—a convenient living material for research.