民国学者对明代锦衣卫史学形象的阐释与书写

民国时期是中国学术从传统向近代急速转型的重要时期。在关于明代锦衣卫的研究上,民国时期的史学研究呈现了从传统叙事向近代分析、从赞颂帝制向反对帝制的转型过程。明代史籍对锦衣卫的记载,虽然应用了编年、典制、史志和笔记体的不同体裁,但叙事的性质则完全相同,官史多从正面予以陈述。民国对锦衣卫的研究,形式上出现了研究论文和章节体专著、讲义;内容上以理论分析为导向、直击锦衣卫"特务机构"的性质以及其为专制独裁服务的实质。当然,民国学者批判锦衣卫时,似乎亦取径于明代野史对锦衣卫的负面评价,说明在中国这样的文明古国,史学的近代转型,不仅受到来自西方分析史学的影响,同时也受惠于中国传统史学的某种滋养。     

Rapin,Hume and the identity of the historian in eighteenth century England

Paul de Rapin-Thoyras's History of England (1725–1731) has hitherto occupied a marginal position in most accounts of eighteenth-century historiography, despite its considerable readership and influence. This paper charts the publication history of the work, its politics and style, and the methods through which Rapin's British translators and booksellers successfully proposed the work as the model for new historical enquiry, and its author as the model for a modern historical writer. It is further argued that David Hume's writings and letters relating to his History of England (1754–1763) suggest a direct and critical engagement with Rapin's work, and with the identity of the historian, as it had been constructed through Rapin's success. By focussing on the mechanisms of production and circulation, and the impact which these had on the practice of historical writing in the eighteenth century, the paper aims to demonstrate the value of applying social–historical methods to the study of historical writing.     

The rise of the new model army

In this paper the contribution of Robert R. Palmer to the now booming Atlantic history is put into perspective. It describes the main features of the political and historiographical context that inspired the writing of his book, The Age of the Democratic Revolution in the early 1950s (first volume published in 1959, second volume in 1964). It also argues that the war experience Palmer had in the historical section of the Army Ground Forces has been important in reviving the interest for the transatlantic dimension in modern history that was central in his PhD dissertation. This paper shows how the liberal-tocquevillian approach that Palmer adopted to explain the multiple revolutions that shook North America and Europe in the last quarter of the 18th century earned him the attacks of the Marxist historians. In its last part this paper makes use of private letters to claim that in the 1970s and 1980s the Italian historian Franco Venturi revived the scholarly interest in Palmer's perspective despite methodological differences between his Settecento riformatore and Palmer's analysis. Settecento riformatore and The Age of the Democratic Revolution have contributed to the interest in a transatlantic approach to 18th-century history that is now pursued under the heading of “entangled histories”.     

Was there an Amerindian Atlantic? Reflections on the limits of a historiographical concept

Proponents of the increasingly prominent “Atlantic history” paradigm argue that ocean-centered, transnational perspectives shed crucial light on connections which tied together Europe, Africa and the Americas in the early modern period, and which older forms of national and imperial histories obscured. In spite of these scholars’ calls for the construction of a truly inclusive history of the Atlantic basin and all its inhabitants, Amerindian peoples have received relatively little attention in the work of Atlantic historians. This article examines the place Amerindians have held in scholarship on the early modern Atlantic. It argues that it is precisely because Atlantic history has been constructed from fundamentally Eurocentric categories like transatlantic empire and commerce that it has accorded little space to Amerindians. It points to this absence as an important shortcoming of such approaches, and suggests that Atlantic history will have to be reconceptualized in fundamental ways in order to bring Amerindians fully into the picture as historical actors.     

A critique of freedom and equality

The study of historiography is undergoing a revolution akin to that which took place in the history of political thought in the 1960s, and the work of J.G.A. Pocock is central to both. Pocock's continuing exploration, in Barbarism and Religion (1999-), of the intellectual contexts of Gibbon's History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, is central to this enterprise, and this essay situates the origins of his own work within a pre-‘Cambridge School’ Cambridge and its experience of what might be called the Butterfieldian moment. That was marked by a desire to treat religion seriously as a driving force in history; and the same concern is applied here to further understanding an eighteenth-century controversy in which history and religion were dramatically involved, and which profoundly affected Gibbon's own historical and religious views. The work of Conyers Middleton and John Jortin is critically examined from this perspective. These preludes to Gibbon lead to a series of postludes examining the particular contexts in which Victorian and twentieth-century historians and writers, from Henry Hart Milman to Evelyn Waugh, variously appreciated and interpreted Gibbon. The whole is to be seen as a reflexive engagement with Pocock's vitally illuminating studies in eighteenth-century historiography.     

从“新史学”到社会文化史

目前有关社会文化史的讨论中,论者偏重于汲取西方新文化史理论和方法,而对中国史学资源甚少提及。本文认为,20世纪初年新史学的研究取向和方法仍可资借鉴。社会文化史内容丰富,论题亦不限于大众文化一隅,可从多方面拓展和深化。     

The hidden comparison: Modern Italy in German perspectives

The author reviews German‐language studies on Italian history since Unification and argues that the central theme in writings on economic and social history has been the ‘hidden comparison’ between the processes of political development and economic change in Italy and Germany.     

Looking Forward,Looking Back

This paper surveys the disparate literatures on time, and the relative paucity of metaphors available (based on spatial analogues or mirroring past and future onto one another). Parallels between approaches to the past and future are considered and different intellectual traditions surveyed in futurology, memory, history (chronotopes), archaeology and philosophy. Causation across time, how the past affects the present, how the future may affect present and the past are considered as ways of better understanding how tensed statements in time and of time are essential elements of history and of anthropology. Pluralizing is suggested as a positive step: we should be talking of pasts, futures and even of presents. This has consequences, for example, the Thin Red Line of actuality must be broadened to be perhaps the Thick Reddish Braid. As introduction to a special issue of History and Anthropology I consider the papers that follow and how they contribute to the theme.     

Chronicles and historiography: the interrelationship of fact and fiction

Notwithstanding the great progress in medieval historiography during the last century, a conceptual and methodological basis in regard to the analysis of narrative sources is still missing. This paper indicates some of the challenges posed by fourteenth-century chronicles while focusing on contemporary testimonies about Clement V, pope between 1305 and 1314. Discussion of the different testimonies allows drawing some conclusions and paves the way for a new approach to medieval narrative sources.     

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