ASSESSING (AND NOT ASSESSING) THE ITALIAN CONTRIBUTION TO HISTORIOGRAPHY AND POLITICAL THOUGHT

Edited by Giuseppe Galasso, one of Italy's most distinguished historians, this large volume seeks to convey the Italian contribution to historiography and political thought from the dawn of the Middle Ages into the present century, though it is overwhelmingly concentrated on the centuries since 1400. It includes six overview essays, but over 70 percent of its bulk consists of short articles, 108 in all, the vast majority on individual figures, and most of them five to seven pages in length. Whereas the approach, through individual figures, makes the volume especially valuable as a reference work, the approach also entails limitations making it hard to delineate and assess a distinctively Italian contribution. Readers must often connect the dots on their own if they are to discern the strands of a distinctive tradition. In his introductory overview, Galasso suggests a special Italian sensitivity to history, or capacity for the philosophy of history, but the suggestion is left vague and is followed up only in the most ad hoc way in the subsequent essays. The book offers little on how Italian idiosyncrasy might have either compromised or enhanced wider impact. Although the extent of Italian international interaction is well documented, there is little attention to reciprocity and the scope for synergy. Nor is there much assessment of the implications of changes in the valences of that interaction over the centuries, especially in breeding self‐criticism and sometimes compensatory myth‐making that might have further complicated the resonance of Italian offerings. But the volume demonstrates the richness of the Italian contribution and implicitly invites us to better encompass it, perhaps through comparative work and further research on multinational interplay.     

The history of modern and contemporary Italy: Made in France (from the late 1970s to the late 1990s)

Abstract

Over the past three centuries Italy has been the focus of numerous studies by French historians, who have taken advantage of the great wealth of sources available there. While no new synthesis has yet been achieved, we can identify certain main lines of development in French historiography. In the late 1970s and into the 1980s international relations and, especially, the relations between France and Italy were given the greatest attention, before a new focus on forms of sociability and political pedagogy began to be more common. However, the shifting of focus of historical studies to the centres of political decision making often coincided with less attention being paid to social stratification. Beyond these major themes, some researchers have reconstructed ‘global’ historical models, which have been characteristic of the renewal of post‐war French historiography.     

THE WORDS OF HISTORY

In From History to Theory, Kerwin Lee Klein writes a history of the central terms of the discipline of theory of history, such as “historiography,” “philosophy of history,” “theory of history,” and “memory.” Klein tells us when and how these terms were used, how the usage of some (“historiography” and “philosophy of history”) declined during the twentieth century, and how other terms (“theory” and “memory”) became increasingly popular. More important, Klein also shows that the use of these words is not innocent. Using words such as “theory” or “historiography” implies certain specific ideas about what the writing of history should be like, and how theoretical reflection on the nature of history and its writing relates to the practical issues of the discipline. In the second half of his book, Klein focuses more on the concept of memory and the memory boom since the later part of the 1980s. He observes that “memory” came to be seen as a kind of “counterhistory,” a postcolonial, fragmented, and personal alternative to the traditional mainstream discourse of history. Klein does not necessarily disagree with this view, but he does warn us about unwanted side effects. More specifically, he argues that the discourse of memory is surprisingly compatible with that of extremist right‐wing groups, and should be treated with suspicion. Although Klein certainly has a point, he presents it in a rather dogmatic fashion. However, a more nuanced version of Klein's criticism of memory can be developed by building on Klein's suggestion that there is an intimate connection between memory and identity.     

Brief reflections on the journal Italianists keep

Abstract

The following three papers were given at a Round Table held at New York University's Casa Italiana in October 2005, chaired by Ruth Ben-Ghiat. As part of the events held to mark the tenth anniversary of the Journal of Modern Italian Studies, we asked our three invited speakers – Raymond Grew, Elizabeth Krause and Paolo Macry – to comment on the directions taken by the JMIS in its first decade and to set out some objectives for the future.     

民族文化认同与北朝史官制度的发展

鲜卑民族之于北朝史官制度的设立、推进和创造,对发挥史学的民族文化认同功能起了重大的作用。北魏在继承汉魏著作官制的同时,发展出完备严谨的国史编纂制度。北朝几代史家则提出了促进民族文化认同的史学思想。至北齐,史官制度与史家主体二者之间良好的互动催生了设馆修史这一新的机制,其对传统史学影响深远。这是北朝积极推进民族文化认同所结出的硕果,同时也有力地促进了当时和日后的民族文化认同。     

Historiography as a political battlefield (1956–1989): Italian left-wing historians on early German Social Democracy

The debate surrounding German Social Democracy during the era of the Second International represents an important chapter in the historiography of post-Second World War Italy. At the same time, it also marks some crucial moments in the political and intellectual life of Republican Italy. This article aims to show the close relationship between the investigation of the past and the ongoing political struggle that has characterised research on this issue. Study of the topic was practically monopolised by left-wing historians, who, in dealing with the history of German Social Democracy, aimed also to direct the political strategy of workers' parties. Considering the studies appearing after the 1956 crisis and in the mid-1970s, such a goal seems evident. It was only during the 1980s that the research opened itself to different perspectives – no longer influenced by ideological controversies.     

Experimental history: the appeal of postmodemism in historiography

Use, truth and time constitute the basic elements of the epistemological structure of history. That structure went through three stages: pre-modern (from ancient times to the late eighteenth century, before the professionalization of history took place), modern (the period of professional history, from the late eighteenth century to the 1970s), and post modern (post 1970s). In these three stages, use, truth, and time successively occupied the core of the epistemological structure of history. Postmodernist history, which puts time at the core of its epistemology, is an extreme form of historicism. Even more than historicism, it has emphasized the determining effect of time and change on historical truth and historical consciousness. The privatization of historical narrative and reading has prodded history to become experimental. Experimental history no longer proclaims the truth about the past. Instead, under specific historical circumstances, it strives to produce texts that will be recognized by individual historians and provides these texts to readers, who will make their own judgments. Whether these texts are true will be decided through the uses they produce. In this way, any historiographical practice will be an experiment conducted by an historian in the present and that will consist in searching for the truth about the past. The success of this experiment will depend entirely on the experimental environment, that is, on the conditions provided by the reading environment. __________ Translated from: Beijing Shifan Daxue Xuebao 北京师范大学学报 (Journal of Beijing Normal University), Vol. 5, 2004     

A rentier class? Milanese nobility and the economy in post-unification Italy

ABSTRACT

The Lombard nobility’s loss of political power after the Napoleonic Wars has led economic historians to overlook the persisting role of traditional elites in social and economic life. The aim of the paper is to reassess the contribution of the Milanese aristocracy to Italian economic development, providing new insights into the business behaviour of the nobility in northern Italian areas. The article presents some new findings on noblemen’s investments and enterprises related to agriculture, manufacturing, trade and banking. The research focuses on the decades following Italian political unification, a period in which noblemen increased their interest in the financial sector and joint-stock companies (transport, banking, new sectors and industries) as a result of the transformations induced by the Industrial Revolution and the agrarian crisis of the 1870s and 1880s. Both quantitative and qualitative data will be used to assess not only the number of individuals involved and the capital they invested in new ventures, but also their role in orienting, stimulating, managing or supporting entrepreneurial activities and their openness to collaboration with the members of the middle class. The analysis combines the deeds produced by four notaries, chosen on the basis of their contiguity to the Milanese aristocracy, the foundation’s deeds of the main companies established in the city, conserved in the House of Trade, and the information provided by other local and national institutions. The cross-referencing of this data suggests that the Milanese nobility maintained a prominent economic role well beyond Italian political unification, contributing to the modernization of the national economy despite the weaknesses and contradictions that marked this process.     

孔子的历史思想和史学意识

春秋之时,史学作为学科远未形诸事实,然孔子历史思想与史学意识则多有表现。孔子伦理观念中蕴含着对人类社会共同体的认识;其以天人、古今、有道无道、文质等相对概念分析概括历史的变化;认同礼乐制度的不断完善,视其为人文的核心;重视君主及其道德在历史上的作用;敬鬼神而远之,以考量历史及其过程的途径去体贴天命,透散出历史理性;以文化传承者自任,整理、保存并阐发典籍;总结历史,以为救弊方案,体现出明道经世的史学价值取向。     

HISTORY OF HISTORIOGRAPHY FROM A SLIGHTLY COSMOPOLITAN POINT OF VIEW

Under review here are three works of different formats and scopes, each addressing questions of theory of history and the history of historiography. First, the mature work of Ignacio Olábarri Gortázar, published by the University Press of Salamanca, where he is now an emeritus professor, collects pieces written over a period of fifteen years that deal with matters related to his field of research in social labor history and other methodological and historiographical issues. Second, Fernando Sánchez Marcos seeks to offer an introductory book on the most noteworthy theoretical and historiographical issues of the twentieth century. Third, the volume from Jaume Aurell (Spain), Peter Burke (England), Catalina Balmaceda, and Felipe Soza (both from Chile) is a general handbook of historiography addressed primarily to students. All have their strengths and weaknesses. The most striking weakness is a persistent limitation of the field of vision, which is restricted to a European/Western (Francophone, Anglophone) cultural universe.     

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.     

论20世纪20年代的中国近代史研究

20年代的中国近代史研究呈现出一种畸形的发展状况。近代史研究不被时人看重,但却有不少近代史著述出版。到1928年,通过对近代史史料的整理工作,由斯而发,罗家伦明确提出了要科学地研究中国近代史,开启了近代史研究的新局面;从史学史的角度对这些近代史著述的特点作出总结,知人论世,可以窥见20年代近代史研究的状况。     

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     

从环境的历史到环境史——关于环境史研究的一种认识

By and large, there are three kinds of research on environment: the history of environment as a field of natural history studies, the history of environment as within the scope of history of society studies, and environmental history as the study of the relationship between human and nature. The methodological perspective of the relationship between humanity and environmental distinguishes the third from the previous two. From this perspective, when we probe the mutual effects between human and nature, we will stress on their interactions. The new era and the realities of contemporary society foster the rise of environmental history, which has not only theoretical values but also practical significance. Translated from Xueshu Yanjiu 学术研究 (Academic Research), 2006, (9):12–22     

清季支那史、东洋史教科书介译初探

清季对日本之支那史、东洋史教科书的介译,是清末教育改革的产物,对清末早期新式学堂的历史教育,对国人自编本国史教科书的出现,都产生了深远影响;支那史、东洋史的介译亦是20世纪初年新史学思潮的重要组成部分,对新史学思潮的深入发展起到了推波助澜的作用;介译支那史、东洋史之主旨在于弘扬爱国主义精神,表现出较为浓厚的功利色彩。支那史、东洋史教科书在中国近代教育史、史学史上应有一定的地位。     

关于陈独秀历史观的若干问题

陈独秀不是历史学家,但他的历史观值得我们研究。他视历史学为一门科学,他对中国古史分期、封建社会长期延续的原因、中国近代史的基本线索和科学体系以及近代社会的性质等重大历史理论问题都提出了看法,有的符合唯物史观,具有一定的理论意义和学术影响,有的则缺乏科学性,存在明显的缺陷。陈独秀历史观影响他对中国现实的认识和态度。