中日两国官方史学及其近代转型的比较

中国古代的官方史学,具有制度化、组织化并且纳入政权机制的特点,这是区别于西方史学的重要特征.这种文化传统影响古代日本,使之也出现官方史学.但中日两国的传统官方史学存在着明显区别,这表现于修史的组织机制、修史成果格局和史学理念三个方面.时至近代.中日两国官方史学先后转型,但表现不同.中日两国都未能彻底摆脱官方史学传统,也不能完全将之保持,特别是日本明治时期做出复兴官方修史的努力,终归失败,说明官方史学虽然影响力很大,却不是史学发展的普遍方式,难免走向衰落.     

断代史学史研究中的一枝奇葩——评傅玉璋、傅正著《明清史学史》

史学史是研究史学发展历程、探究史学发展规律的一门学术史.中国修史传统源远流长,数千年来流下的史学著作汗牛充栋、浩若烟海,围绕修史过程所形成的丰富的史学思想,是中国传统文化的一个重要组成部分.     

中国古代修史的传统及其对国史研究的重要启示

编纂历史是一门大学问 ,中外古今许多历史学家都曾研究过。中国是世界上惟一有几千年不间断历史记录的国家 ,一是因为中国人历史意识强烈 ,认识到历史学的重要性 ,以研究、编写历史作为自己的责任 ;二是因为有制度上的保证 ,即开馆修史 ,专门设立国史馆、历史研究所、历史编纂的机构。在中国史学著作很多 ,主要的题材有传记体、编年体和记事本末体 ;中国的史学评论也很多 ,并且明确提出了对史学家的要求 ,即史才、史学、史识。当代史与现实密切相关 ,具有强烈的政治性 ,修史者必须有正确的立场、观点和方法 ,同样一件史实 ,从不同的政治立场看待 ,会有截然不同的看法和评价     

论《明史》编修二题

《明史》纂修官深受顾炎武、黄宗羲影响 ,重视史学经世致用和核实求真 ,折射出清初崇实黜虚的学术风气 ;在探讨史家秉笔直书原则时 ,强调史家“是非之心”对史著真实性的影响 ,显示出心性之学对史书修撰的影响 ;在史书体例上 ,提出“本乎时宜 ,因时变通”的观点 ,重视纪传体史书内部的协调与贯通 ;在史料采择上 ,要求本之实录 ,参乎野记 ,重视从史家人品心术角度评判史料价值 ,丰富了传统史学的“心术”论 ;史家还重视专家之书 ,批判史馆修史     

宋代纪传、编年二体优劣论

中唐以后的史家开始重视史学褒贬人事、惩恶劝善的宗旨,编年体史书由此中兴,历史上的二体优劣之争再起。及至北宋,孙甫强调编年体具有体正、文简的优点。体正,指编年体便于立褒贬以惩劝,同时起源较早,与儒家经典关系密切;文简则是指编年体史文简约。孙甫的观点得到宋代多数论者的响应。同时,宋代史学考察重心由人到事的转移,也对编年体史书占据史学主流地位推波助澜。以上因素最终导致了编年体史书空前繁荣的局面。     

读《明代史学编年考》

钱茂伟著《明代史学编年考》近由中国文联出版社出版。全书近 4 0万字 ,以编年体为序 ,依次叙述自明洪武三年 ( 1 370年 )至清康熙三十四年 ( 1 6 94年 )三百余年间修史之大事 ,间作有考订 ,于前人对史籍考述之误 ,有所补遗纠谬 ,是迄今为止对于明代史学史研究的一部较为完备之作。作者于“自序”中讲到 ,集其二十年对于明代文献调查研究而后得出结论 :“明代史学著作的数量是惊人的 ,其质量也是不可轻忽的。”以此纠正学界传统上对明代史学评价的贬抑 ,为明代的史学成就正名。本书的成书特点是将编年与系事相结合 ,体例介乎于杨翼骧先生《…     

以佛录史——论《洛阳伽蓝记》对史学体例的创新

中国史学的编纂体例,向来以编年体、纪传体和纪事本末体三种为主。然而面对风云变幻的人类历史,面对浩如烟海的历史事件,这些体例就显现了它们的不足。北魏杨衒之的《洛阳伽蓝记》则采用以佛录史的方式,把佛教与历史结合起来,从多角度记录了北魏王朝的兴衰成败。     

何之元《梁典》述论

何之元的生前行迹,深刻地影响了他的史学观念及其《梁典》的史书结构与书法。据《梁典》佚文,既可推知该书始作于何氏任职北齐期间,定稿于归降陈朝之后,又可考见其大致的史料来源、编纂体例及何氏的著述旨趣。总体而论,《梁典》无论史料抑或史学,均乏善可称,从而例证了编年体史书在南朝时期日益衰微之事实。     

编年史与晋宋官修史运作

官修史运作是一个反复编纂的过程,魏晋南北朝时期官修史发展的重要方面是运作环节的增加,这有助于保障从原始资料到官修史书的顺利转化。东晋南朝,编年史在官修史运作中影响明显增加。东晋一代有官方编纂编年体国史的惯例,例如干宝、孙盛、徐广、王韶之的编年体晋史著作。东晋末与刘宋的官修史一脉相承,将晋宋的官修史连续起来观察,可以了解编年史如何在官修史运作中发挥作用,并理解东晋初干宝针对编年体晋史的主张如何影响了后代的官修正史。     

乾隆朝“五朝国史”纂修考

清代承袭历代修史制度,开设各类史馆颇多,纂修史著亦丰,为后世留下了一份极其珍贵的史学遗产。国史纂修,是清代官方史学编纂中极为重要的内容。乾隆朝纂修的"五朝国史"较康熙朝"三朝国史"、雍正朝"四朝国史",体例更加完备、内容更加丰富,开创了国史纂修的新局面,促进了清代国史纂修制度的完善,成为清代官方史学日趋成熟的重要标志。     

论现代影音媒体与当代口述史学的关系

现代影音媒体资料的学术价值主要体现在当代史研究之中。现代影音媒体与当代口述史学既有联系又有区别。就形式而言,二者可互补而不能替代;就技术而言,二者可互相借鉴而不能照搬。当代口述史研究应学习现代影音媒体灵活多样的采访技术,同时搜集整理有价值的影音资料加以研究;而现代影音媒体应学习口述史研究客观的方法和态度,同时科学地保存有价值的影音资料。影音媒体资料可以有条件地成为史料,但必须经过史料学的检验和甄别。现代影音媒体资料不仅丰富了当代口述史研究的史料来源,而且在一定程度上拓宽了当代史研究的视野。     

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.     

Negative heritage: the material-cultural politics of the American haunted history tour

ABSTRACT

This article assesses the defining features and cultural significance of the haunted history tour as it has come to be practiced in American urban spaces. A distinctive cultural form that has risen to prominence in the U.S., Canada, the U.K., and other places, haunted history taps into public fascinations with “dark” history and ghosts, but does so to engage unresolved and troubling elements of local history and memory. Practitioners engage creatively with problematic histories that otherwise might be forgotten or suppressed, attending especially to their material-folkloric traces. Drawing on participatory and analytical research in several U.S. cities, in particular St. Louis, New York, and Savannah, the article moves from a characterization of the defining modes and interpretative conventions of haunted history, which are drawn from mainstream tourism and others from more-activist public history, to an analysis of its preoccupation with haunting “remainders” of the past, which, I contend, form an unacknowledged narrative and epistemological core of an experimental memory project whose primary quarry is the domain of “negative heritage”.     

Visual and aural intellectual histories: an introduction

ABSTRACT

If the subject matter of intellectual history is the study of past thoughts, the intellectual history of the visual arts and music may be characterised as the study of past thoughts as they were expressed visually and aurally. Yet this is not always how an intellectual history of art and music has been practiced. More attention is often paid to verbal texts about art or music, rather than to the visual or the aural per se. If we accept that ideas can have visual and aural, as much as verbal form, then the histories of art and music are significant repositories of thoughts of individuals and networks of individuals (creative artists, patrons, institutions) within a given culture and period. But the ways in which those thoughts are articulated as aural or visual “texts”, and the ways in which they can be accessed by those who seek to understand them, will be specific to each art form, and represent a distinctive kind of intellectual activity in each field.     

From universal history to globalism: What are and for what purposes do we study European ideas?

Globalism is probably the most frequently used term describing our current age. Found in many contexts, it is often a vague concept referring to a host of different figurations of post-industrial society. European expansion, the growth of the global economy, mass immigration and the planetary expansion of international relations are merely some of the phenomena associated with globalism. Yet globalism taken in its most neutral form of global history is not merely a trendy catch-all phrase for the challenges of our age but has its origins in the efforts of the enlightenment—to rewrite the theological universal histories of the Middle Ages. There is a close relationship between the historiography of universal history and the current ideology of globalism. By juxtaposing the two main strands of universal history (the universal history of mankind vs. the cyclical history of individual peoples) to the problem of European identity, I show that the theoretical problems which caused the demise of universal history continue to plague globalism. Such an analysis of the ideological foundations of globalism is central not only to the current debate on the (re-) construction of European history, but also in the discussion on what constitutes European ideas.     

The Philosophy of a Persona

Summary

The essay collects Ian Hunter's central theoretical and methodological arguments from their various interpretative contexts and restates them in order to consider criticisms, real and imagined. Is Hunter's criticism of common forms of philosophical history itself open to such criticism, making its validity dependent upon prior adoption of a philosophical stance? Is his empirical intellectual history a form of ‘social’ reductionism?     

The Study of Chinese Historiography from the Perspective of Intellectual History

To promote historical research today, one needs to create a vigorous environment for historiographic criticism, to summarize the progress and state of all fields and topics of history, and to enhance the study of historiography. All these three aspects, which share similar characteristics, can be called “historiography.” Their essence is the basic method for deepening the study of historiography as a whole and refining its branches from the perspective of intellectual history. They can help us to form a healthy scholarly mechanism to review historical achievements, which would be crucial to the development of academic research. Translated from Nankai Journal (Philosophy, Literature and Social Science Edition), No. 2, 2004     

RECONCEIVING THE PRACTICE OF HISTORY: FROM REPRESENTATION TO TRANSLATION

Arguing that history is not the application of a rigorous method to sources bequeathed to us from the past but rather a practice of coding that constructs “the past” in particular ways, this article seeks to delineate the key elements of this coding. Modern history treats past objects and texts as the objectified remains of humans who endowed their world with meaning and purpose while constrained by the social circumstances characterizing their times. This time of theirs is dead, and it can only be represented, not resurrected; the past is only ever the human past, and it does not include ghosts, gods, spirits, or nature. If, as argued here, “the past” does not exist independently of the means by which it is known and represented, then the many different modes of historicity that human beings developed and deployed before the modern form of history became dominant cannot be measured against “the” past in an effort to compare their accuracy or adequacy in representing it. The concluding section of this article asks what we are doing when we write the history of those who did not share the presumptions of the modern discipline but who had their own mode(s) of historicity. What, it asks, is the character and status of the knowledge produced when we write histories of premodern and non-Western pasts?     

Debating Some Past and Present Research Frameworks and Methodologies in History on Places and their Peoples in South Africa

ABSTRACT

Histories regarding places and their peoples in South Africa can be traced to the early days of History being practised as an academic discipline. However, practising this form of history under (and outside) the flag of regional history was formalised only in the mid seventies, while informalised research practices in the field continued as methods complementing various schools of thought. Narrowly perceived local histories were considered as inclusive of the formalised and informalised regional history practices as knowledge contributing towards a broader understanding of a (geographically defined/ politically demarcated) region. Of interest is not only the historiography in this field (of which a few pointers are shared in this discussion) but some of the frameworks and methods to research and to record regional histories that have been used in the past. Equally of interest are the ways in which these frameworks and methods are still applied and thought of as dynamic and progressive to assist the historian to progress towards producing and packaging research as part of a comprehensive, all inclusive approach in creating knowledge as regional history studies. In South Africa, an extensive debate on how regional history studies should be broadly defined and understood when undertaking research, still falls short. This is due to the variety, diversity and complexity of knowledge contributing to the pool of information that should be packaged as regional history studies. To contibute towards a framework of understanding and packaging knowledge in this field of meaning to regional history studies, the reader is further exposed to an extended structure of perhaps understanding and doing research in this field: a field that has always been regarded as having the potential to be both integrative and multidisciplinary by nature. Yet its integrative analytical abilities also rest on the outcome of narrow-defined histories done on spaces and places before it is possible to embark on bigger research analyses in, for example, the spirit of modern social history applications to regional history studies. This discussion on ways to understand the limited past and present of regional studies (historiographically and methodologically) in South Africa is offered to encourage further debate.     

柳诒徵的“史德”论及其史学批评

“史德”论是史学理论中的重要范畴之一。这一概念最早由清代史学家章学诚提出,后经梁启超等人进一步阐发。柳诒徵在对章学诚、梁启超等人“史德”论批评与继承的基础上,提出了自己的独到见解。他论述了“有史而德”及“从德而史”的辨证关系,并强调“治史以畜德”的重要性。柳诒徵的“史德”是对前人的补充和发展。