Historiography: An Introduction

This introduction precedes the four papers given in October 2000 in Copenhagen on analysing problems in the history of the neurosciences. The term historiography can be defined in different ways but means the study, and not simply the writing, of history. Although it goes back two millenia, it is a rapidly developing field as illustrated by the subsequent contributions.     

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.     

Comparative Historiography: Problems and Perspectives

Just like history, historiography is usually written and analyzed within one spatio-temporal setting, traditionally that of a particular nation-state. As a consequence, historiography tends to localize explanations for historiographical developments within national contexts and to neglect international dimensions. As long as that is the case, it is impossible to assess the general and specific aspects of historiographical case studies. This forum, therefore, represents a sustained argument for comparative approaches to historiography. First, my introduction takes a recent study in Canadian historiography as a point of departure in order to illustrate the problems of non-comparative historiography. These problems point to strong arguments in favor of comparative approaches. Second, I place comparative historiography as a genre in relation to a typology that orders theories of historiography on a continuum ranging from general and philosophical to particular and empirical. Third, I put recent debates on the “fragmentation” of historiography in a comparative perspective. Worries among historians about this fragmentation—usually associated with the fragmentation of the nation and the advent of multiculturalism and/or postmodernism—are legitimate when they concern the epistemological foundations of history as a discipline. As soon as the “fragmentation” of historiography leads to—and is legitimated by—epistemological skepticism, a healthy pluralism has given way to an unhealthy relativism. As comparison puts relativism in perspective by revealing its socio-historical foundations, at the same time it creates its rational antidote. Fourth, I summarize the contributions to this forum; all deal—directly or indirectly—with the historiography of the Second World War. Jürgen Kocka's “Asymmetrical Historical Comparison: The Case of the German Sonderweg” examines the so-called “special path” of Germany's history. Daniel Levy's “The Future of the Past: Historiographical Disputes and Competing Memories in Germany and Israel” offers a comparative analysis of recent historiographical debates in Germany and Israel. Sebastian Conrad's “What Time is Japan? Problems of Comparative (Intercultural) Historiography” analyzes the conceptual linkage between Japanese historiography and specific interpretations of European history. Richard Bosworth's “Explaining ‘Auschwitz’ after the End of History: The Case of Italy” charts in a comparative perspective the changes since 1989 in Italian historiography concerning fascism. All four articles support the conclusion that next to the method of historical comparison is the politics of comparison, which is hidden in the choice of the parameters. Analyses of both method and politics are essential for an understanding of (comparative) historiography.     

贵州史学界的大家——论王燕玉的史学贡献

贵州沙滩文化的最后传人王燕玉：不固成说,挑战权威,开贵州古史专题研究之先河,对贵州地方历史和文化的研究作出了巨大贡献,成绩斐然。但贵州史学界对王先生的观点及研究成果一直未给予应有的重视,使得生长于贵州这块土地上的我们自己的史学大家几近湮没。     

历史学的课题：可能之事

在实际的历史写作中,部分历史学家运用反事实的方法,探究历史上的可能之事。无独有偶,海德格尔的主张也与此相似,他认为历史学的主要课题不是特殊的个体事件,也不是超乎个体事件的普遍规律,而是曾在的生存可能性。这两种观点不是为了探究历史上不曾发生过的事态,而是借此重新规定历史学的题材、性质和写作方式。但是,反事实研究所谓的可能性主要是指现成事物的偶或可能性,而海德格尔所谓的生存论上的可能性则是指此在的某种生存方式,两种可能性有着根本区别。     

对历史学的反思——读朱本源《历史理论与方法论发凡》

19世纪是实证主义思潮弥漫的时期,它几乎笼罩了一切学术思想领域。风气之所及,乃至一切社会科学和人文学术都力图自命为科学,尤其是奉牛顿的经典体系和达尔文的进化论为其圭臬。恩格斯在马克思墓前的演说,把马克思发现了人类社会发展的规律比作是达尔文发见了生物演化的规律,就是一个显著的例子。及至20世纪中国五四运动的一辈学人（如胡适）在批评别人的学术论著时,也每好拈出其缺点是不懂得进化原理。在这种时代风尚的影响之下,历史学就顺理成章地也要走上科学（自然科学意义上的科学）规范的道路。