Introduction: Biographies Between Spheres of Empire

ABSTRACT

Biographical research offers a promising approach to the study of empire, imperialism and colonialism. The careers and life stories of individuals and generations show particularly clearly the disruptions and constraints, but also the new possibilities and mobilities, that were created by colonial rule. This special issue focuses on practices and experiences of boundary crossing in imperial and colonial history. It explores how ‘ordinary’ individuals and groups navigated between the different imperial spaces and spheres into which they were categorised according to the ideologies and regulations of the well-ordered colonial world. Africa offers particularly interesting cases for studying these issues because, first, it was a field of particularly rigid colonial distinctions and, second, different colonial empires overlapped and competed there with particular intensity. This introduction outlines briefly the relevance of biographical research for new approaches in imperial, colonial and African history, and highlights the major themes of the five articles comprising this special issue. It is argued that these new biographical approaches tell us much not only about life in Africa on the eve of and under colonial rule, but also more generally about both the power and the permeability of imperial domination and of colonial categories.     

The Politics of Knowledge: Julian Steward,Leslie White,Melville Herskovits,and L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza

Biographies of four important figures in the history of anthropology—Julian Steward, Leslie White, Melville Herskovits, and L. Luca Cavalli-Sforza—illustrate that current “public anthropology” has deep historic roots and that anthropology, even subfields that involve the basic sciences, like genetics, are shaped by personal and political experience as much as by intellect. All the biographical subjects discussed here had first-hand experience with racism, fascism, and bigotry, whether in their home or public lives, and resisted those forms of hegemony by fashioning anthropological theories to explain and appreciate human diversity.     

生命理念的投射：嵇康与《圣贤高士传赞》

在三国时期的人物传记作品中,嵇康的《圣贤高士传赞》是第一部以“高士”命名的类传,嵇康采摭寓言、假说,收罗其所谓的“圣贤高士”,借他们的行事,寄寓与投射自我的生命理念。这部作品对后世有很大影响,后世模仿其体例,沿袭其题材的传记不断出现,代有其作,可以说,嵇康之作是有开路之功的。     

《清史稿》、《清史列传》之《郑成功传》考异七则

学论及《清史稿》和《清史列传》两书的史料价值时,常常认为《清史列传》高于《清史稿》。本对这一看法提出不同看法,通过对两书《郑成功传》七则明显不同的记载进行考订,发现《清史稿》虽存在不少错误,而可信之处亦多;《清史列传》虽存在许多优点,而错误亦存不少。评判两书的史料价值,应当进行具体的考订分析,不可一概而论。     

从口述史到文本传记——以“曹刿—曹沫”为考察对象

有关先秦历史人物的史事记载在流传过程中,往往经历着史官记载——口述史——史官再记载的过程。在这一过程中,其人会因音近而出现异名,其事可能会有所增益或失真。纠缠不已的"曹刿—曹沫"的相关问题可以作为典型例证。上博简第四册《曹沫之陈》篇,曹刿、曹沫的本字""或"蔑"的出现,再次印证了先秦时期人物史事流传与演变的这一特点。这对于认识先秦史学的发展有一定的启发意义。     

浅谈苏轼诗序

苏轼是宋诗大家,苏轼诗序同样也具有丰富的文学及文化价值。本文主要从三个方面对苏轼诗序进行探讨:其一是诗序中的互见手法和诗序之美,二是诗序中写人记事所带有的史笔和小说笔法,三是苏轼诗序的思想内涵。     

《明史·王守仁传》编纂考论

清官修《明史》过程中对于《王守仁传》的归属及其学术评价问题展开了激烈争论。结果以《明史》不立《道学传》。《王守仁传》归入大传不入《儒林传》而告终,争论的背后却隐含了史馆内存门户之见及其尊崇程朱理学的官方主流思想。《明史·王守仁传》主要取材于毛奇龄《王文成传本》、尤侗《王守仁传》、万斯同《明史稿·王守仁传》、王鸿绪《明史稿·王守仁传》。《明史·王守仁传》的成书符合清官修《明史》的一般情况。     

一部为杰出人文地理学家正名的专著——徐建春《俯察大地——王士性传》出版

徐建春所著《俯察大地——王士性传》,介绍了王士性一生的思想与成就,明确了他的贡献与价值。     

The rhetoric of science and the critique of imperialism in British social anthropology,c. 1870–1940

In this article I discuss issues of memory and historicity in a contemporary African prophetic movement, the Tokoist church. I do so by focusing on the multiple processes of “biographization” of the prophet’s (Simão Toko) life from the different allegiances within the movement. I suggest that, despite recent critiques on the biographical method, the ethnography of those (unstable and heterogeneous) processes can be very helpful to understand the place of memory and historical consciousness in contemporary Christianity.     

语图关系视野下的《列女传》文本及其图像

西汉刘向的《列女传》以其传、颂、图三位一体的编撰方式在中国古代典籍中别具一格,正因为如此,《列女传》文本及其图像在后世流传过程中,必然涉及到其文本（语言文字）与图像的关系问题。不同时代,不同类型的《列女传》文本与图像中,其语图关系的紧密程度也有所区别。一方面,《列女传》中语象与图像在这种相互模仿、相互斗争的模式中共同发展、共同进步;另一方面,语象与图像结合程度的不同也带来了叙事强度上的区别。