The rise of ‘auxiliary sciences’ in early modern national historiography: an ‘interdisciplinary’ answer to historical scepticism*

In response to the rising popularity of empirical models of scholarship and an increasingly sharp sceptic criticism against historiography, early modern historiographers strived to place their reconstruction of the past on a more ‘scientific’ basis through a new approach to historical writing. Their strategies included the mobilization of various other scholarly disciplines, such as geography, chronology, linguistics, ethnography, philology, etc. that came to function as ‘auxiliary sciences’ of early modern historiography. These came to fulfil three main roles in historical writing. Firstly, they supplied knowledge on cultural-historical topics that were newly introduced into the subject range of historiography. Secondly, they offered new solutions to the problem of reliable historical evidence by opening up new sources of historical information. And thirdly, they proved helpful in deciding scholarly discussions among historical writers. Through a detailed study of the use of ‘auxiliary sciences’ in seminal texts from the new current in historical writing, I will shed light on the range of scholarly disciplines that were enlisted in early modern historiography and how they contributed to the development of a new, more ‘scientific’ approach to the reconstruction of the past.     

近20年来关于远古传说与史学产生关系的研究

远古传说对中国史学的产生具有十分重要的推动作用。近20年来,学术界对这一问题的研究,在综合研究、专题研究、比较研究等方面,都取得了突出成就。但这一课题研究仍存在一些薄弱环节。如远古传说内容对史学产生的重要影响,远古传说的表述形式．其原始历史意识对史学产生的推动作用,远古传说的传播状况,远古传说影响史学产生和发展的方式与途径等,都还有待于作更深入地探讨。     

百年来中国对韩国史学史研究的回顾与展望北大核心CSSCI

20世纪初,随着朝鲜汉籍陆续进入中国学术视野,中韩史学比较研究陆续展开,孟森、吴晗等史家作出了重要贡献。从1949年到1992年中韩建交前,中国大陆学界对韩国史学的关注较少,中国台湾出版了一批韩国史学史研究成果,延续和拓展了相关领域。1992年中韩建交对于中国韩国学的发展有至关重要的作用,在韩国史学史、中韩史学交流与比较等领域都有一批学术成果问世。回顾百余年来韩国史学史研究的历程,中国学术界的研究成果呈现如下特点:论文较多,专著较少;专题性、叙述性的评介较多,全面系统的论述较少;对韩国汉文史籍的关注较多,非汉文韩国史籍甚少;自说自话的论著较多,与韩国学术界的对话较少。针对这些问题,还需做更全面的努力,以推动韩国史学史研究。     

科学史学乎?“科学古学”乎?——傅斯年“史学便是史料学”之思想渊源新探

在现代中国史学史上,傅斯年以其"史学便是史料学"的口号,成为所谓"史料学派"的代表人物。而"史料学派"之推动历史研究的科学化,又常与德国兰克学派的理论和实践相比仿。不过傅氏虽然曾留学德国,但从他的藏书和其它资料来看,其实他在留学期间,对兰克学派及其德国的历史研究,并没有太多接触。相反,傅氏对西方博古主义或古学运动对古典文化的研究,颇有兴趣。他在回国以后所开展的一系列工作,也显示出他之强调史料的扩充和整理,并由此来推广科学史学的做法,介乎于科学主义和博古主义之间。     

兰克史学在晚清的传播

兰克及其史学在中国的早期传播,主要通过翻译日本人编译的"万国史"、"西洋史"教科书以及"史学概论"、"史学研究法"性质论著.汉译西洋史教科书对兰克及弟子多有简略的介绍,而这些教科书大部分又从日本编译而来,故受日本史学界的影响,清末中文世界中的"兰克"形象也带有一点"科学派"色彩;浮田和民<史学原论>和坪井九马三<史学研究法>是国人最初接触兰克史学方法的主要教材,而浮田、坪井对史学方法论的概述又渊源于伯伦汉<史学方法论>,伯伦汉则秉承兰克的严谨史料批评方法.兰克史学在20世纪初虽然已经传播到中国,但没有引起世人的太多关注.     

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。     

全球视野下的美国早期史研究国际学术研讨会述评

2007年5月24~27日在天津召开的"全球视野下的美国早期史研究国际学术研讨会"为中外学者提供了一个独特的增进相互交流和了解的机会,将有助于推动中国学者对美国早期史的研究。提交会议的国外学者的论文在研究课题、视角、观点、材料和方法上多有新颖之处,从中可以看出国外美国早期史研究的一些发展趋势。相较而言,中国美国早期史研究尚存在极大局限和不足,提交会议的中国学者的论文大多选题偏大,观点缺乏新意,同时缺少详尽新颖的一手史料。可见,中国的美国早期史研究亟需得到提高。     

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.     

柳诒徵论中国传统史学的治史原则与方法

柳诒徵作为中国现代文化保守主义史学大师结合西方新史学思想,对中国传统史学做了大量阐述。他对中国传统治史原则和方法的阐述尤为丰富和精深,主要包括五方面:一、"治史之必本于德"的原则;二、国史书写的道德评判准则;三、史识与史德、史法的关系和治史重在求取史识;四、注重史事普遍联系的史学记载和表述;五、正确看待考据在治史中的地位和作用。这些史学思想体现了柳诒徵史学通贯古今和兼融中西的基本特征。     

Analysis of Japanese influence on the three major historiographical trends in early modern China

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the intrinsic relationships between Japanese historiography and the three great historiographical trends of New Historiography, Debates on Ancient History, and Marxist historiography, from the macroscopic perspective of the transformation, development, and early modern growth of modern and early modern Chinese historiography, exploring how Chinese historical researchers selected, deviated from, and assimilated Japanese historiography, while also particularly focusing on how the recipients utilized Japanese historiographical methods and concepts as well as the achievements of Japanese scholars in researching Chinese history to construct their own interpretation of Chinese historiography, in a study of the academic trend of indigenization.     

On the New Trends in Recent Chinese Historiography—An Appraisal Based on Views from Social History

The development of historiography in the new era has manifested in the discourse of “new historiography.” One of its achievements is the rise of “social history” or “new social history.” Over the course of the past four decades, the study of social history has prospered, as it has continuously broadened the research field by embracing interdisciplinary methods. As a result, its development has shaped the prospects of Chinese historiography in the new era. Admittedly, if we were to follow a stricter standard of evaluation, then it becomes evident that some problems worthy of reflection are present in the development of new historiography, such as sociologization, the localization of historical research, and the pursuit of new trends in research. For these reasons, we must be aware of these problems in academia in the new era.     

ANTIQUARIANISM AS GENEALOGY: ARNALDO MOMIGLIANO'S METHOD

This essay uses Arnaldo Momigliano's genealogy of antiquarianism and historiography to propose a new method for engaging the past. Momigliano traced antiquarianism from its advent in ancient Greece and later growth in Rome to its early modern efflorescence, its usurpation by history, and its transformation into anthropology and sociology in late modernity. Antiquarianism performed for Momigliano the work of excavating past archives while infusing historiographical inquiry with a much‐needed dose of contingency. This essay aims to advance our understanding of the mutual imbrications of antiquarian methods with modern conceptions of history, while also suggesting how antiquarianism can generate alternatives to historical inquiry.     

Too small to be of interest,too large to grasp? Histories of the Luxembourg financial centre

ABSTRACT

The importance of smaller financial centres in international capitalism has recently been highlighted by a number of ‘leaks’. Yet such public attention stands in contrast to the paucity of historiographical research on these relatively new centres. To this regard, Luxembourg provides an interesting case study. While identified as a ‘global specialist’ by the Global Financial Centres Index, the genealogy of how it came to achieve this status remains largely under-researched. This article reviews the historiography of the Luxembourg financial centre from both external perspectives – how the international social sciences and humanities have positioned the Luxembourg financial sector within the broader finance and banking context – and internal viewpoints – how scholars in Luxembourg have recounted the relevant events. The Luxembourg financial centre began to appear in international historiography only in the last fifteen years. With only rare departures from general overviews and a tendency not to consult local sources, the contributions of international historians have mostly attempted to identify time frames and contextualise the particularities of its historical development. That said, a recent geographical diversification of the literature has seen the appearance of publications that demonstrate a more detailed understanding of its internal structures and links with other nerve centres of the global financial system. While a Luxembourg historiography began to develop in the late 1970s, it has often been produced to coincide with commemorative events, funded by players in the financial centre and frequently written by these same actors. While not necessarily hagiographic in approach, a lack of distance from the subject and a failure to problematise the subject has nevertheless meant that these writings are little more than factual introductions that, while useful, are limited in their historiographical depth. Furthermore, a dearth of archival research has produced a repetitive narrative based around a selection of key events and figures.     

论王世贞的考辨史学

王世贞是晚明著名史家 ,他对史料范围的认识、对不同史料间关系的辩证认识 ,成为他进行史料考辨的理论基础。在此基础上他运用直观和较理性的考辨方法对明代史料进行了细致的考辨 ,取得了显著的成就。这些成就的取得又与他所处时代各种史料存在的缺陷以及他勤奋的治史态度密切相关     

中西历史比较研究是否可行?--由刑罚的宽免说到"专制主义中央集权"的可疑

对中西历史进行比较研究是一项极其困难的学术工作,学者们对其可行性和方法论尚未给出清楚系统的说明。比较史学是否可以成为像比较文学和比较法学这样为学界所公认的成熟学科还有待学者们的研究实践来证明。以中西法制史上刑罚的宽免为例,历史研究的对观或对照方法在某些个案研究中会有拓宽视野和思路的作用;而通过对中国古代历史研究中流行的“专制主义中央集权”概念的质疑性分析,我们发现,另一种可行的同时又是宏观的历史比较研究可以是超越时间和空间局限的社会科学研究。至少,这样一种宏观的思维将会帮助我们突破一些陈旧和可能错误的思维框架。     

MAKING HISTORY BY CONTEXTUALIZING ONESELF: AUTOBIOGRAPHY AS HISTORIOGRAPHICAL INTERVENTION

This essay argues that, in their reflection of theoretical positions, autobiographies by historians may become valid historical writings (that is, both true narratives and legitimate historical interpretations) and, as a consequence and simultaneously, privileged sources for historiographical inquiry and evidence of its evolution. At the beginning of the twentyfirst century, following the model established by Carolyn Steedman, historians such as Geoff Eley, Natalie Z. Davis, Gabrielle M. Spiegel, Dominick LaCapra, Gerda Lerner, William H. Sewell, Jr., Sheila Fitzpatrick, and John Elliott created a new form of academic life‐writing that has challenged established literary and historiographical conventions and resisted generic classification. This article aims to examine this new historical‐autobiographical genre—including the subgenre of the “autobiographical paper”—and highlights its ability to function as both history (as a retrospective account of the author's own past) and theory (as a speculative approach to historiographical questions). I propose to call these writings interventional in the sense that these historians use their autobiographies, with a more or less deliberate authorial intention, to participate, mediate, and intervene in theoretical debates by using the story of their own intellectual and academic trajectory as the source of historiography. Traditional historians’ autobiographies, including ego‐historical essays, have provided us with substantial information about the history of historiography; these new performative autobiographies help us to better understand historiography and the development of the historical discipline. Interventional historians seek not only to understand their lives but also to engage in a more complex theoretical project.     

中国史学对近代报刊的影响

中国史学与近代报刊在学术史上有着很深的渊源。19世纪初报刊传入中国,无论是学还是术都未臻成熟,必然要向中国传统学术吸取养分,且近代报人多有史学学术背景,由此形成近代报刊史家办报的特点。本文拟从史学的经世致用思想、史论及良史等三个方面探讨中国史学对近代报刊的影响。     

EXCEPTIONAL HISTORY? THE ORIGINS OF HISTORIOGRAPHY IN THE UNITED STATES1

This essay examines how and why historiography—defined to mean the study of the history of historical writing—first emerged as a legitimate subject of historical inquiry in the United States during the period from 1890 to the 1930s by focusing on the practice of historiography by three of the most influential American historiographers whose work spans this period: J. Franklin Jameson, John Spencer Bassett, and Harry Elmer Barnes. Whereas the development of historiography as a field of study signified a recognition that historians and historical writing are themselves products of the historical process, American historiographers in this period at the same time used historiography to further a scientific ideal of objectivity that was premised on the belief in the ability of historians to separate themselves from that process. Modern scholars (notably, Peter Novick) have attributed to scientific historians like Jameson and Bassett a simplistic and naive positivism; but the ability of these historiographers to recognize the subjective character of historical writing and yet affirm a belief in objectivity reveals that their understanding of historical truth was more complex than modern scholars have acknowledged. In turn, by questioning the belief that the historical profession was originally founded on a naïve faith in the ideal of objective truth, I demonstrate that New Historians like Barnes were more similar to their predecessors, the scientific historians, than they (or later scholars) acknowledged. Thus, rather than portraying the shift from scientific history to the New History as a linear trajectory of development from objectivity to a more relativist viewpoint, I argue that New Historians like Barnes at once expressed a greater recognition than his scientific predecessors of how historical writing was the product of its context, while still insisting on his commitment to an ideal of objectivity that divorced the historian from that context.     

历史学的理论成就与中国史学史研究的发展

今年是新中国成立60周年,本刊约请四位学者分别从史学理论与史学史、中国近代史、世界史的角度对新中国史学的发展与成就进行总结。新中国史学在60年的发展历程中曾经历若干曲折,但成就始终是第一位的。以唯物史观为指导的中国马克思主义史学,不仅能够创造辉煌,而且能够在新的历史时期与时俱进,综合创新,不断地解放思想,不断地创造出新的业绩。我们希望四位学者的观点能够为读者提供丰富和发展中国马克思主义史学的视角和思路。