A CRAVING FOR CRITICAL HISTORY

Roger Cooter is concerned about the survival of historiography under the pressures of neoliberal economics and the entertainment industry. His and Claudia Stein's book is a welcome call for “critical history,” which is aware of own fundamental intellectual categories. Cooter emphasizes the importance of self‐reflection and political contextualization of all knowledge‐production. However, although reflection is undoubtedly a virtue, it is not clear whether historiography is under such a severe threat. It is also necessary to ask where the limits of contextualization lie. It is doubtful whether a fully localized and contextualized study removed of all “presentist” categories and language is possible. In addition, one should avoid combining antirealism about natural sciences in the name of anti‐Whiggism with realism about historical knowledge in attempts to provide contextualized accounts of the past. What is needed above all is the hermeneutical dialogue between the language of past agents and the language of present actors.     

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.     

“FUTURE PAST”: TIME AND TELEOLOGY IN (ANCIENT) HISTORIOGRAPHY

The historian's account of the past is strongly shaped by the future of the events narrated. The telos, that is, the vantage point from which the past is envisaged, influences the selection of the material as well as its arrangement. Although the telos is past for historians and readers, it is future for historical agents. The term “future past,” coined by Reinhart Koselleck to highlight the fact that the future was seen differently before the Sattelzeit, also lends itself to capturing this asymmetry and elucidating its ramifications for the writing of history. The first part of the essay elaborates on the notion of “future past”: besides considering its significance and pitfalls, I offset it against the perspectivity of historical knowledge and the concept of narrative “closure” (I). Then the works of two ancient historians, Polybius and Sallust, serve as test cases that illustrate the intricacies of “future past.” Neither has received much credit for intellectual sophistication in scholarship, and yet the different narrative strategies Polybius and Sallust deploy reveal profound reflections on the temporal dynamics of writing history (II). Although the issue of “future past” is particularly pertinent to the strongly narrative historiography of antiquity, the controversy about the end of the Roman Republic demonstrates that it also applies to the works of modern historians (III). Finally, I will argue that “future past” alerts us to an aspect of how we relate to the past that is in danger of being obliterated in the current debate on “presence” and history. The past is present in customs, relics, and rituals, but the historiographical construction of the past is predicated on a complex hermeneutical operation that involves the choice of a telos. The concept of “future past” also differs from post‐structuralist theories through its emphasis on time. Retrospect calms the flow of time, but is unable to arrest it fully, as the openness of the past survives in the form of “future past” (IV).     

WHAT IS A SCHOLARLY PERSONA? TEN THESES ON VIRTUES,SKILLS, AND DESIRES

What is the problem that “epistemic virtues” seek to solve? This article argues that virtues, epistemic and otherwise, are the key characteristics of “scholarly personae,” that is, of ideal‐typical models of what it takes to be a scholar. Different scholarly personae are characterized by different constellations of virtues and skills or, more precisely, by different constellations of commitments to goods (epistemic, moral, political, and so forth), the pursuit of which requires the exercise of certain virtues and skills. Expanding Hayden White's notion of “historiographical styles” so as to encompass not only historians' writings, but also their nontextual “doings,” the article argues that different styles of “being a historian”—a meticulous archival researcher, an inspired feminist scholar, or an outstanding undergraduate teacher—can be analyzed productively in terms of virtues and skills. Finally, the article claims that virtues and skills, in turn, are rooted in desires, which are shaped by the examples of others as well as by promises of reward. This makes the scholarly persona not merely a useful concept for distinguishing among different types of historians, but also a critical tool for analyzing why certain models of “being a historian” gain in popularity, whereas others become “old‐fashioned.”     

论英国革命成因研究的史学演变

英国革命成因问题是英国史研究的经典课题.关于英国革命成因的史学流派的演变基本上反映了英国近现代史学的演进趋势,从克拉伦敦伯爵为首的保王党史学到以休谟为首的托利派史学以及以马考莱、伽狄纳为首的辉格派史学,从20世纪的社会经济史学、马克思主义史学,再到20世纪70年代的修正派史学,历史学本身的质疑特质在英国革命成因的史学演变中得到了充分的体现.     

试论宋代佛教史学对后世文献撰述的影响

宋代是中国佛教史学发展的黄金时代。在此期间,佛教史学人才辈出,著述颇丰,在内容、体裁、史学观念的拓展上,都发展到一个繁荣阶段。本文主要从文献编撰、史学观念两方面探讨宋代佛教史学对后世文献编撰的影响,以阐明宋代佛教史学在中国佛教史学史上的重要地位。     

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     

安徽地区文化变迁与史学——为《安徽史学》复刊20周年而作

安徽地区的文化是我们伟大民族文化的重要组成部分,几千年来,历经一系列重大的变化.到了近代,皖籍学人在近代文化史上产生了重大的影响,安徽学人在历史学上形成有相当影响的群体.应当研究在长期文化发展过程中安徽近代史学的特点.这对于发展安徽地区的文化与史学有重要意义.从几千年地区文化发展大背景下,以政治经济文化发展不平衡的思想,把地区史学与全国史学联系起来进行探讨,是史学研究的一条思路.     

元代医祀三皇考

“三皇”曾是古史辨派学者们研究的重点,尤其是顾颉刚先辈对此颇有考证,但对医祀三皇的研究并不多,只是在《三皇考》中提及过。医祀三皇是元朝独有的现象,是医学发展到一定程度和元朝维护统治的必然产物;但它悖逆民族融合的潮流,因而未被后世承袭。     

范文澜:倡导优良学风,捍卫历史学的科学性

建国后十七年,史学界实际存在着两种学风,一种是教条主义学风,在1958年以后一度盛行;另一种是倡导实事求是、独立思考、刻苦钻研的学风。范文澜恰恰是后者的代表人物,他作为正直的史学家,十几年如一日潜心治学,精心修订和重写《中国通史简编》这部巨著;作为近代史所的创建者,他卓有成效地提倡和培育了全所坚持不懈、勇于创新的优良学风,他在领导中国史学会的工作中,更是贯穿了高度重视扎实的史料基础和提倡严谨学风的指导思想,当教条化的错误潮流袭来时,他挺身而出进行抵制,表现出捍卫历史学的科学性和尊严的高风亮节。