TIME,NARRATIVE, AND FICTION: THE UNEASY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RICOEUR AND A HETEROGENEOUS TEMPORALITY

In Time and Narrative, Paul Ricoeur confirms the relationship between time experience and how it is epitomized in a narrative by investigating historiography and fiction. Regarding fiction, he explores temporality in three “novels of time” [Zeitromane]: Mrs. Dalloway by Virginia Woolf, The Magic Mountain by Thomas Mann, and À la recherche du temps perdu by Marcel Proust. Ricoeur perceives the temporalities as homogeneous; however, in my view, the novels contain at least three different temporalities. Mann seeks a new temporality by ironizing a romantic time of rise and fall and Woolf configures a time we can call the simultaneity of the dissimultaneous. In his analysis of Proust's À la recherche du temps perdu, Ricoeur explicitly dismisses a Bergsonian approach to temporality. In my opinion, Bergson defends a heterogeneous time that is apparent in Proust's novel.     

傅斯年、陈寅恪与兰克史学

傅斯年与陈寅恪两位史学大师关系甚密,他们对现代中国史学都产生了深刻的影响.本文阐明近世西方兰克史学治史之旨趣,揭示了兰克给后世留下的两种印象,并侧重通过傅斯年、陈寅恪与兰克史学的比较,以说明他们两人所受西方吏学特别是兰克的影响.作者认为,傅斯年与陈寅恪史学思想的形成均有其共同的西学支撑,那就是兰克文学.     

现代国际体系史的一大理解范式和根本主题

在其愈益广阔、愈益复杂的演进中,15和16世纪之交开始的现代国际体系史愈益形成其能动的常在机理和“运动模式”。对它们的首次揭示出自利奥波德·冯·兰克1833年的经典论文———基于欧洲大陆国际政治之动态机理的《论列强》。兰克之后,这方面最卓越的成果当推百余年后问世的《不牢靠的平衡》,其作者路德维希·德约揉合三项地缘政治关系理念,即海权对陆权、欧洲均势对海外优势、传统中等列强对侧翼超级大国(后两项有赖于他的创造或决定性发展),异常雄辩和发人深思地论说了4个世纪的现代欧洲国际权势斗争。德约揭示的现代国际体系史一大范式和主题可用两对概念概括:欧陆均势与海外优势,欧陆均势与侧翼大国。它们与兰克的揭示大有差别,首先因为德约的全球眼界不同于兰克的欧陆眼界。德约的至关重要的深层理解之一,在于“洲级大国”之新兴绝对优势,那是现代国际体系演进史的一大必然性,而中国以及当代美国以外的其他一两个“洲级大国”成为未来世界强国的终极依据就在于此。     

HISTORICAL MEANINGFULNESS IN SHARED ACTION

Why should past occurrences matter to us as such? Are they in fact meaningful in a specifically historical way, or do they only become meaningful in being connected to other sorts of meaning—political or speculative, for example—as many notable theorists imply? Ranke and Oakeshott affirmed a purely historical meaningfulness but left its nature unclear. The purpose of this essay is to confirm historical meaningfulness by arguing that our commanding practical interest in how we share action with other actors is distinctively engaged by presumed information about past occurrences. We recognize that past occurrences have determined the conditions of action sharing, constraining our practice with regard to which actors we share practical reality with and which compounding actions we may or must join in progress.     

兰克在新中国史学界的境遇

马克思受德国左翼知识分子的影响,曾对兰克作了否定性的评价,后经苏联学者的进一步发挥,兰克被定格为反动派。马克思的兰克评语早在1945年即已通过苏联学者的论文译介到中国,但最初似无影响,至1960年代初借助各种译著的传布,始被中国史家所熟知,深刻影响了他们对兰克的认知。1958年开始中国史学界推行"兴无灭资"的史学革命,开展两条路线斗争。为了更好批判中外资产阶级史学,1960年代初大陆史学界密集译介兰克的资料,有些史家积极批判兰克,但所凭借的文献多为二手著作,很少有人直接阅读兰克作品。进入"文革"时代,兰克话题已然进入禁区。     

Geschichte als leitende Orientierungswissenschaft im 19. Jahrhundert

The nineteenth century has sometimes been dubbed “the age of historical science”, taking account of the hegemonic position occupied by historiography vis-à-vis the natural sciences and also its fellow humanities. The “historical method” was widely adopted by all kinds of Kulturwissenschaften. Moreover, public interest focussed on historiography to a quite exceptional degree since it combined scholarly inquiry and the purposes of general education and personal cultivation. Historiography reached the peak of its influence during the two decades leading up to the revolution of 1848. During this period, the ideas of historians on the national state, on the social order and on cultural affairs carried considerable weight. In the second half of the nineteenth century, historiography gradually lost its position of a “pilot discipline”. Sciences such as economics and sociology were better equipped to respond to the needs of German society in the age of industrialization.