近三十年来关于中国古代史学上“历史文学”研究的考察

自20世纪80年代初白寿彝明确提出"历史文学"的概念以来,对于"历史文学"的研究已有三十多年。文章就中国古代史学上的"历史文学"问题的相关研究,从"历史文学"意识、"历史文学"成就和"历史文学"理论三个方面进行梳理,并对"历史文学"研究的发展提出一些前瞻性的思考:"史学审美"是否可以作为这一领域传承创新的路径。     

明清时期有关华侨华人的典籍笔记和研究概述

本文是对明清以来中国学者关于华侨华人研究情况的述评。作者认为 ,虽然这些著述主要以描述和记载为主 ,但由于这些著作均对本人的亲身经历或调查记录 ,其史料价值远远高于研究价值。作者对梁启超在华侨华人研究方面的开创性成果给予高度评价 ,并对梁氏 1 90 4年提出的“华侨殖民论”进行了分析     

文化史学是什么?--兼论新旧文化史学的内在一致性

与以兰克为代表的政治史学相比较,文化史学主要围绕四个命题(或假设)而展开。第一,从研究对象看,文化史书写的不是攸关国家命运的重大事件和政治精英的历史,而是人民大众的历史。新文化史研究的课题虽趋于多样化,但对人民大众特别是下层民众和弱势群体的重视有增无减。第二,从历史观念看,文化史书写的不是一治一乱的历史,而是进步的历史。新文化史家并未远离进步,进步主义史观是其反思和批判的主要对象之一。第三,在目标和方法上,文化史学不以确立单个历史事实为至高无上的职责,而是要求揭示历史事实之间的复杂关系,并究明关系得以展开的背后因素。传统文化史重在探求历史背后的理性精神、科学法则、公理公例,新文化史聚焦文化的历史象征、意义和价值。第四,关于文化史学的功能和任务,无论新旧文化史均不满足于追求历史的真相,而是含有比较浓厚的致用色彩,重视在思想启蒙、教化民众以及文化认同等方面发挥作用。     

评《抗美援朝战争史》

军事科学院历史研究部出版的150万字的新著《抗美援朝战争史》较之1982年该院军史部撰写的同类著作,在撰写方法和内容上一改以往以志愿军五大战役和谈判期间历次战役的作战经过为主的模式,而把主要内容放在战争背景、外交斗争似及后方支持等方面,这一尝试和努力理应肯定。另一方面,其学术上的欠缺与不足也十分明显,有些问题也值得再作商榷。     

IF: COUNTERFACTUAL AND CONDITIONAL HISTORIOGRAPHY

Conditionals are a feature of historiography. Despite this, historiographical research is focused predominantly on one kind of conditional, counterfactuals. New trans‐Atlantic contributions to this research by Catherine Gallagher and Richard J. Evans highlight the rich history of counterfactuals in Western thought, and their use by individuals and groups to imagine a present and a future that addresses regrets about the present. Their intimation of a flattening out of history through counterfactual nostalgia is not supported by the artistic expression of Tacita Dean, and new contributions to the philosophy of conditionals, building relations, and causal relations by Karen Bennett and Anthony Kwame Appiah. This review teases out the layered, causally tainted, and metaphysically agnostic world posited by Karen Bennett and conjoins it with David Lewis's reflections on possible worlds to suggest that conditional and counterfactual operators in historiography are building restrictors. This takes us away from Niall Ferguson's argument for the use of counterfactuals as a recognition of the underdetermination of history, and reminds us of the need to—as Appiah argues so succinctly—understand the pervasive role that idealizations play in helping us to manage the world and ourselves. The review rounds out by highlighting the computational implications of our conditional world, inviting historians to be at the table as fairness is debated and coded. In this way, the gap in research on the ethical need for historiographical conditionals in the twenty‐first century is highlighted.     

白寿彝先生历史教育思想再认识

历史教育思想是白寿彝史学的一个很重要的组成部分。白寿彝先生在关于史学与人生、史学与社会这二大关系认识的基础上 ,对历史教育的性质、地位、目的、内容、作用等问题做了较全面而深刻的阐述。这些思想是白寿彝把史学与社会发展变化 ,尤其是改革开放以来的社会变化结合起来进行思考的结晶。它反映了社会对史学工作的影响 ,也说明了史学工作要适应社会的变化。白寿彝历史教育思想具有深厚的历史性和鲜活的时代性。其精神和要旨在新世纪里仍然具有活力。     

马其昶《桐城耆旧传》的史学价值

马其昶的《桐城耆旧传》记叙上起明初、下迄清末桐城地方人物九百余。《桐城耆旧传》征引文献广泛,主要有《明史》、《桐城县志》、传主文集、谱牒、墓志,以及口述史料和个人见闻等。其学术旨趣就是通过记叙乡贤的事迹,重建以程朱理学为行为准则的乡村社会,总结人才之盛与天下兴亡息息相关的历史经验;同时重视地方学术流变,维护理学正统。该书为人们研究明清时期桐城历史文化提供了宝贵的史料。     

从经注与史注的变奏看裴松之《三国志注》的学术史地位

在中国学术发展史上,史学是作为经学附庸的地位出现的,这时史注附属于经注;伴随着史学从经学的附庸地位摆脱出来,成为一门独立学科,史注也逐渐打破此前经注研究范式,探索适合史学这门学科本身特点的研究范式;裴注正是对这些探索成果的吸收和总结,并继承了经注研究范式的优长之处;裴注对后世的史注形式产生了深远的影响,并在近代获得了新生,它的出现标志着史注研究范式的确立;这种新的研究范式,反过来又影响了其所脱胎的经注研究范式。仔细研究二者关系的变化,就会发现其与学术史上经史关系的变化有着某种规律性的联系。     

ARE WE HARD‐WIRED TO THINK ABOUT HISTORY?

This book assumes that basic ways of thinking about history are hard‐wired in the brain. Since different styles of discourse with which we talk about the past are hardwired, Blum infers that a protohistorical consciousness is necessary for the existence of language. Historical logics reflect some preconceived part–whole relation. Blum discerns four kinds of part‐whole structure, which he terms continuity, quantum, continuum, and dialectic. Blum believes that these part–whole relations rest on universal, prereflective intuitions. He concludes that humans have different prelinguistic intuitions of time. Blum claims that people's variable innate temporality is expressed in their historical style. It follows that historical style antedates history as a genre. Hence we are not talking about historical style, but about how individuals apply their sense of the relation between parts and wholes to the problem of time. Our study of historical context becomes secondary to the assumptions we make about the interface between part–whole relations and time. The temporality of history is derivative of a phenomenon that is not historical. Certain conclusions are suggestive. First, modality precedes tense in evolution. Second, we ourselves are continuing to evolve. Blum believes that we are moving “towards a selection of abstract thinkers ruled by pure reason.” Instead of viewing cultures as organisms, it is more profitable to think of the evolution of structures of thinking, and to show that some are more prominent at present than they have been in the past. For Blum, historical thinking is a dependent variable. It depends on tense and modality, which are given before language and culture. Historical thinking reflects a primary experience, but it is not such a primary experience itself.     

Historians Writing about Historians

This article takes three famous historians writing about historians and history-writing as its subject, considering Fan Ye’s work in light of Liu Zhiji’s understanding of history and Fan Ye’s writing on Ban Gu. It seeks to discover in Liu Zhiji’s work the principles for writing a guoshi 國史 (court history), reading Liu Zhiji’s principles in relation to Liu’s assessment of Fan Ye’s Hou Hanshu (History of the Later Han) in general, and, it provides, more particularly as a case study, a study of Fan Ye’s treatment of the earlier historian Ban Gu, author of the Hanshu (History of Han). The article builds the cases that Liu Zhiji and Fan Ye are model historians, insofar as they were responsible for supplying plausible accounts of the past based on the evidence available to them. Liu Zhiji’s metahistorical rules and Fan Ye’s biography of Ban Gu serve in the article as examples in this regard. The article presumes that the historians’ experiences in their own lifetimes inevitably shaped both the style and content of their works, as no “objective” or “scientific” account of history is possible. The good historian instead holds himself accountable for the judgments rendered. So although modern historians of China today may well prefer the rhetorical style of one of the three early historians to that of the others, moderns would do well to ponder, and in some cases emulate features of the early histories under review here.