关于20世纪中国史学发展道路的对话

20世纪中国史学名家辈出,成就巨大,今天对其发展道路认真地反思、总结,具有重要的学术价值和现实意义。首先,应当树立动态发展的眼光,从宏观上做出“新史学流派”的新概括,研究它如何由“思潮”发展到“流派”,研究这一群体所取得的重大成就,这一群体学者的共性和各自的学术个性;并进而形成20世纪史学“三大干流”（新史学流派、新历史考证学派、马克思主义史学流派）平行发展和相互影响的总体研究思路,取代以往“两大干流”的认识。其次,应进一步探究新历史考证学如何继承了乾嘉考证学的优良传统,同时又因获得进化史观等新的理论指导而成为一门近代学术;至1949年以后,又因为接受唯物史观的指导,而推进到新的境界。再次,对于马克思主义史学,应如实地总结它取得的巨大成就,同时深刻反思其经历过的曲折;要开掘出“传统思想的精华如何通向唯物史观”一类的新课题;对于建国后“十七年”史学,应抓住“两种对立的学风”这一关键做观察、分析,既认真总结教条主义一度盛行的深刻教训,又恰如其分地总结正直学者发扬优良学风而取得的巨大成绩,以此坚定我们坚持和发展唯物史观、用以指导史学研究的信心。     

《大越史记全书》的评论与改编:从《越史标案》到《大越史记前编》

1697年《大越史记全书》的完稿与刻印,标志着中兴黎朝官方史学体系的确立,官员学者继而对其改编、评论,产生了一系列史学著作,其中黎贵惇作《国史续编》,阮俨作《越史备览》,阮辉删成《国史纂要》,供教学之用。吴时仕的《越史标案》发覆最多,对越南的国家起源、自主王朝的历史以及与中国的关系重做评论,体现了"我越"的文化主体性,对《大越史记全书》原有的史论观点产生了很大的冲击。之后吴时仕之子吴时任为西山阮朝国史总裁,以《大越史记全书》为叙史主干,以家藏《越史标案》为史论主体,又综合采纳黎文休、吴士连、阮俨的史论,于1800年编成并刻印《大越史记前编》,吴时仕和阮俨的私家史学遂得居官修史书之列。《大越史记前编》是继《大越史记全书》之后,以官方力量整合既有的越史著作,重塑越南历史文化的重要举措,在越南史学发展中具有重大意义和价值。1802年阮朝建立之后,鉴于黎末郑氏主政以及西山阮朝篡逆的情况,对这两个时代的史书进行清理。在前代史书基础上修成的《大越史记前编》被弃,但其部分思想观点被阮朝国史馆新修的《钦定越史通鉴纲目》所继承。关于《大越史记全书》的评论和改编,体现了越南古代史学发展的路径与思想,是越南古代历史文化的重要组成部分。     

Viorel Virgil Tilea and the Origins of the Second World War: An Essay in Closure

The 'Tilea Affair' of March 1939 is among the most contentious of the short-term events leading to the Second World War. V.V. Tilea, the Romanian minister in London, brought information to the British Foreign Office, about an alleged German threat to his country. The guarantee to Poland soon followed and, in turn, the outbreak of the war. This article examines the evidence offered by contemporary British witnesses, the ensuing historical controversy - bringing to bear a variety of new revelations, including materials derived from the author's acquaintance with Tilea - and the present state of historical knowledge. It concludes that closure can be applied to most aspects of the 'Tilea Affair'.     

军事法制史研究的基本理论问题

军事法制史研究的基本理论问题,是构建军事法制史学的理论基础。军事法制史有其特定的内涵与特征;军事法制史的研究对象划分为宏观、中观和微观三个层面;军事法制史与军事制度史、法制史、军事法学有鲜明的区别,又有千丝万缕的联系;军事法制史研究价值分为一般价值与核心价值。     

Daily life and family in an Ottoman urban context: Historiographical stakes and new research perspectives

The Ottoman history of the family and of everyday life is presently experiencing deep theoretical and methodological renewals. Following the discovery of new archival resources, and the application of new questionings to previously known resources, the field is the object of an intense research investment. The horizon of expectation has enlarged, as renewed interpretations on tradition, Islam and their influence on everyday life, family, communal, urban and gender relations are the object of intense speculations in the contemporary intellectual panorama. The object of this article, conceived as an introduction to a thematic issue of the journal guest-edited by the authors, is first to draw a panorama of the existing literature on everyday life in an Ottoman context, with an attention to the successive methodological approaches and theoretical elaborations of which the field has been the support of, and then to identify the main stakes for today's research. The authors also argue that, in the present international panorama of research on those themes, not only is the Ottoman Empire an interesting application field for innovative methods, but might also be at the heart of a deep renewal, with at stake the discussion of the heritage of culturalist visions of history and of paradigms such as center/periphery relations and modernization.     

“中国史学理论不发达”刍议

学术界不少人为中国史学缺少系统的理论建树而感到遗憾。其实这是从以西学为蓝本的现代学术视角而论中国固有之史学的,其中不乏西方中心论的印迹。西方史学之富有理论源于其形而上学的学术传统与逻辑(实质)主义的运思理路,而汉语文思考的非逻辑主义(或曰历史主义)使其不离事而言理,即体用不二,道器合一,史学重在述事、征实与会通,这与西方史学追求确定性知识的探究形成鲜明对照。因此,从理论的角度去看传统中国史学的贯通性思考,并不一定就是一个恰适的视角。     

‘We’, ‘they’ and the ‘human’ in the middle: foreign interventions for ‘humanitarian reasons’ during the nineteenth century in Turkish historiography

This paper explores the way in which historiography produced in Turkey (or by Turkish scholars abroad) approaches foreign military/diplomatic interventions in the Ottoman Empire during the long nineteenth century. It focuses on three case studies where ‘humanitarian reasons’ formed the discursive basis/justification of such interventions. The author argues that when the distinction between victims and perpetrators, civilians and combatants, emerges as an interpretive dilemma in the debates of the historical period examined, similar interpretive and normative challenges are inherited by the historiographical accounts of it. The paper distinguishes two contrasting ways in which Turkish historiographical scholarship responds to such a dilemma. The first remains confined by the way Ottomans themselves viewed the world around them and uncritically reproduces rigid categories of selfhood and otherhood between ‘us’ and ‘them’. The second trajectory offers tools for understanding the conflicts behind the construction of the category of the human worth of international protection, and disentangles itself from the normative bind described above.     

地方性知识的文本世界——贵州地方志修纂源流考论

本文以辨章学术,考镜源流的方法,详细勾勒了自宋元迄民国贵州地方志各阶段发展的具体面相,认为贵州方志的远源可追溯至《华阳国志》,正式出现则在宋代。元代继续发展,明代基本定型,清代鼎盛而有所提高,民国出现新的转型性变化。大量的地方志乘的修纂,既体现了传统史学顽强保存文化记忆的历史性特征,同时也为我们建构了一个地方性知识的文本世界。除了方志自身内部的发展理路外,行政理性力量的介入推动,地方文化意识的自我觉醒,传统士大夫立言不朽的价值诉求,都促进了志乘事业的发展。作为地方性知识宝库的志书文本,其所涉及的内容极为广泛,举凡政治之隆替,文化之盛衰,经济之荣瘁,民生之忧戚,均可依据相应的方隅区划考而得之。