《史学原论》在中国的传播和影响

五四时期,在我国史学专业化的背景下,《史学原论》作为西方史学方法论的经典教科书,在史学界流传甚广。胡适、李泰菜、梁启超等人的著作深受此书的影响。民国时期不少青年学生赴法留学,跟随《史学原论》著者研习史学方法,这些中国留学生归国后执教于各地大学历史系,极力宣扬师说,使西方史学方法论在大学课程设置中得到贯彻,“史学方法”被官方定为必修课。这本教科书在中国现代史学专业化进程中产生了重大的作用。     

考古学与中国上古史重建

中国近代考古学建立之初,不免材料不足并有先天局限,但随着考古学的发展和壮大,其对中国上古史之重建的作用日益显现。以顾颉刚为代表的古史辨派对旧古史系统进行了摧毁性的批判,傅斯年、李济等人继之而起,开辟了重建之路。傅斯年为重建中国古史提供了体制保证并指明方向,李济则在理论和方法上提出了系统的方案。然而,李济等人限于当时条件,具体实践工作并不理想,而中国大陆考古学者们则做出了切实的贡献。经过60年的发展,中国田野考古学取得极大的成就,苏秉琦等学者据此提出考古学文化"区系类型理论"和中国文明"多元一体格局说",中国上古史重建已进入切实展开的时期。     

Piracy and the production of knowledge in the travels of William Dampier, c.1679–1688

Despite its centrality to the production of knowledge in the early modern period, the ship remains a rather marginal site in the work of historians of science. Accounts of ‘floating universities’ and ‘laboratories at sea’ abound, but little is said of the countless other ships, and their crews, involved in the production of knowledge through maritime exploration and travel. The central concern of the paper is the life and work of William Dampier (1651-1715), a seventeenth-century mariner who sailed as a pirate and authored genre-defining and well received scientific travel narratives. The thesis presented here is that the ‘way of life’ encouraged among the crews of the pirate ships aboard which Dampier travelled rendered him well-placed to gather the ‘useful’ knowledge and experiences which made his scientific name. Understanding this juxtaposition requires a focus which moves beyond the materiality of the ship, and which ultimately brings into view some of the social and epistemic geographies which took shape in and beyond the ship.     

《满洲建国溯源史略》的思想史解读

《满洲建国溯源史略》为伪满国务总理郑孝胥所作,是为＂满洲国自古以来乃独立自主国家说＂寻根的＂史学著作＂。《史略》在成书的思想缘由、伪满建国史观的发挥、乃至对伪满＂三千年史＂进行考证的表述中,体现出一定的结构性特征。可以认为,对该书的解读仍具有一定的现实意义。     

Seismic Evaluation of Tall Buildings Using a Simplified but Accurate Analysis Procedure

A simplified analysis procedure for evaluating the nonlinear seismic responses of tall reinforced concrete (RC) buildings is examined in this study. It is called the Uncoupled Modal Response History Analysis (UMRHA) procedure. It can be viewed as an extended version of the classical modal analysis procedure, where the nonlinear response of each vibration mode is first computed, and they are later on combined into the total response of the structure. The procedure requires the knowledge of the modal hysteretic behavior, which can be obtained from a cyclic modal pushover analysis. The responses of four tall buildings in Bangkok to distant large earthquakes are computed by this procedure and compared with those obtained from the Nonlinear Response History Analysis (NLRHA) procedure. These four buildings have different heights—varying from 20 to 44 stories, different configurations of floor plan, and different arrangement of RC walls. The comparison shows that the UMRHA procedure is able to accurately compute the story shears and story overturning moments, floor accelerations, and inter-story drifts of all these tall buildings. The required computational effort is also extremely low compared to that of the NLRHA procedure. Moreover, since the UMRHA procedure computes the response of each individual vibration mode, it provides more understanding and insight into the complex nonlinear seismic responses of these tall buildings.     

New Historiography for the cultivation of the character of the “new citizen”: Liang Qichao’s ideas of history education and their practice

ABSTRACT

An advocate for modern Chinese historiography, Liang Qichao’s “new historiography” was ideologically quite closely tied to traditional Confucian historiography: his idea of “historiography” was both a form of scholarship for the provision of knowledge, as well as a type of learning for the cultivation of moral character. The fundamental objective of “new historiography” was to use the history of national development and evolution to educate the people, helping them to become nationally conscious “citizens.” However, according to Liang Qichao’s conception of history, the nationalist aspect of “new historiography” ultimately rested in the cultivation of individual character, not in imparting the concept of nationhood. During the movement to “systematize national heritage,” in his practicing of historiography, Liang primarily studied and compiled Chinese academic and intellectual histories, focusing particularly on Confucian history: he interpreted Confucianism and the cream of Chinese scholarship as a kind of “philosophy of life.” Liang’s historiographical practices eventually took shape as a form of moral education to cultivate the leading talents of society when the country was going through a transformation, while in the process signaling his profound repudiation of the empirical emphasis in historical research of the times.     

On Meng Sen’s teaching and lecture notes of Ming and Qing history at Peking University during the 1930s

ABSTRACT

While teaching the histories of the Ming and Qing dynasties, Meng Sen (1869–1937), developed three textbooks in the 1930s: Lecture Notes on the Ming History (明史讲义 Mingshi jiangyi), Lecture Notes on the Qing History (清史讲义 Qingshi jiangyi), and Lecture Notes on the History of the Founding of the Manchu State (满洲开国史讲义 Manzhou kaiguo shi jiangyi). In these book titles, the term “history” refers specifically to “standard history.” In tracing Meng Sen’s original intention in producing these textbooks, all three works suggest the author’s desire to write history. He wrote Lecture Notes on the Ming History to prepare a future revision of the History of the Ming (明史 Mingshi); similarly he wrote Lecture Notes on the Qing History and Lecture Notes on the History of the Founding of the Manchu State with the intention to revise the Draft History of the Qing (清史稿 Qingshi gao). Meng Sen summarized Sima Guang’s (司马光, 1019–86) view of history as “imitating the good and avoiding the bad,” which he believed represented the “essential meaning of history.” Meng followed Sima Guang’s model in compiling the Lecture Notes on the Ming History and Lecture Notes on the Qing History, as shown in their style and format. By comparison, his writing of the Lecture Notes on the History of the Founding of the Manchu State attempted to merge the traditional annals–biographic style with narrative history from the West, or to pour old wine into a new bottle. Meng Sen presented his innovative efforts at Peking University, introducing young scholars to standards for history writing, and doing his utmost to guide and encourage his students; some of whom became noted scholars in the study of Ming and Qing histories.     

Searching for fish names with the Vula’a of Papua New Guinea

This article describes an ethnographic project initiated by a group of people in Irupara village, Papua New Guinea (PNG), who for a period between 2001 and 2010 self-identified as ‘historians’. At the forefront of the group’s concerns was a younger generation unfamiliar with the local language names of fish and fishing techniques. I document the collaborative project developed to address a situation perceived as a loss of language, culture, and identity. As well as providing a valuable lexicon in an Austronesian language, the research brings to light important distinctions between recording ‘history’ and ways of recalling and expressing the past commonly referred to as ‘historicity’.     

《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》是如何写出来的？--“修昔底德问题”研究的回顾与思考

修昔底德创作《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》花费了毕生精力,全书各个部分的写作次序和时间如何迄今悬而未决。从1846年这个问题提出到20世纪80年代初,大体有两派观点:"分离论"和"一体论"。前者认为,修昔底德的著作是分阶段写成的,这不仅表现在时间上,还表现在作者的思想上;后者则认为,尽管这部书是未完之作,且有一些不完善地方,但全书一以贯之,因此主要在一个时间段写成。两派各执一词,探讨逐步深入。1984年美国学者康纳提出修昔底德文本的同质性问题,即作者有意带领读者一起面对事件,其思想认识和叙事形式都发生了变化,故其文本不是同质的。这对"分离论"起到了纠偏的作用,也超越了"一体论"。在康纳观点指引下,英国学者鲁德和美国学者德沃尔德研究了修昔底德的叙事方式。鲁德认为"修昔底德问题"是一个"无法回答的问题";德沃尔德则证明其叙事的组织形式发生了变化。"修昔底德问题"将激发学者们的研究热情,砥砺他们的才智,推动着学术界不断深化对于史学的认识。     

The Relevance of Cassirer and the Rewriting of Intellectual History

Summary

This essay aims to discuss the historiographical implications and premises of Peter Gordon's masterly book Continental Divide, in which he re-evaluates the Davos meeting between Ernst Cassirer and Martin Heidegger. This impressive reminder of the prospects of intellectual history deserves to be paid serious attention, particularly in European philosophy departments. Gordon's book exemplifies how problems of systematic philosophy can be clarified by a detour through history.

I want to highlight three aspects of Gordon's book that fundamentally transform and deepen our understanding of intellectual history in general and the Davos meeting in particular. First, I highlight one of the main merits of Gordon's study: his emphasis on the plurality behind the term ‘continental philosophy’. This opens up a whole new perspective on a seemingly well-known event within the history of twentieth-century philosophy. Second, I address Gordon's methodological premises, which challenge and fundamentally transform our understanding of intellectual history. Third, I attempt to summarise, from an intellectual history perspective, Gordon's argument about Cassirer's relevance. Here we are faced with the task of realigning and legitimising philosophy in a radically historicised world. To adumbrate the core of my comment I should say that I am thrilled by Gordon's book. I agree with nearly everything he says apart from his conclusions. In a closing remark I will try to explain the reasons for this surprising divergence.