The theory of "activities"
Mr. Qu Lindong said in the book "Outline of Chinese Historiography": "This is the comprehensive activity of understanding, recording and writing of the history of human society. Historiography". Mr. Qu's definition is consistent with the content of his book. Because history in ancient China mainly existed in the form of a cultural accumulation activity affiliated with political activities. This is fully proved by the system of historians and historical museums. Although history began to become a specialized discipline during the Sixteen Kingdoms period of the Eastern Jin Dynasty, and although there was no lack of private history writing in the development process of ancient Chinese historiography, it included both cultural activities and political activities and was mainly used as a form of expression of political activities. Comprehensive activity" characteristics have not changed.
The Theory of "Learning"
In the "Introduction" to the book "Introduction to History" edited by Mr. Wu Ze, a definite definition of history is: "History is the study of human society. The knowledge of the development process and its laws."
“Half science, half art” theory
The origin of this statement is rather complicated. In the history of Western historiography, this debate can be traced back to the ancient Roman Empire in the 2nd century AD. The first person to analyze this issue was the Greek-Roman Loucianos (about 120-180 years), a rhetorician and satirical prose writer at that time. One theory is that it was about 125-192 years. Old translation: Loucianos Good, now it is also translated as Lucian according to the English translation Lucian). Lucianus wrote about 80 miscellaneous essays in the traditional dialogue style, covering topics such as literature and art, philosophy, rhetoric, religion, etc. Among them, there is a historical commentary monograph "On Writing History", which "can be positioned as Western historiography" The first monograph on historical theory in history." From the Western perspective, Lucianus discusses the task or purpose, essence, value, and cognitive methods of history, the subjective consciousness structure of historians, the collection and processing of historical materials, the form of expression of historical works, and the general standards for judging the quality of historical works, etc. In other aspects, it raises the epistemological and methodological issues of the ontology of history, reveals the authenticity and essential characteristics of history compared with literature and art (such as eulogies, poetry, drama and other forms of expression), and believes that although history has an additional element of appreciation , it also requires the use of appropriate literary and artistic expression techniques, and the need for expressions such as "flashy and realistic", "beauty of style", "beauty of truth" and "beauty of well-organized order". However, these are not the essence of history. According to its characteristics, essence and purpose, history is a practical study, not an appreciation study like poetry.
The basic points of historical epistemology and methodology expressed in Lucianus' "On Writing History" are as follows. In the article, "history" refers to the meaning of "history" in "History has two meanings":
“The historian’s first task is to tell the story truthfully.”
“History must strive to do its duty, which is to write the truth.”
“History has only one task or purpose, and that is practicality, and practicality has only one source, that It is truth. The admirable elements of history are undoubtedly additions, not the essence of history."
"If there are insurmountable obstacles on the road to truth, in this case, history. What writers should always pay attention to is not the current audience, but the people who will read his historical works in the future. "History is afraid of confusing right and wrong and distorting the truth. According to doctors, the trachea." You can’t tolerate a little bit of food.”
“If history is just rhetoric, it won’t even have the value of appreciation.”
“Historians must have a bit of a poet’s temperament. Style, history, just like poetry, requires the use of some high-spirited and refined tones."
"History can be sung, but the praise must be content with its duty, used appropriately, and not make readers annoying. ”
“Historians must pay attention to future generations of readers when praising.”
“If the historian thinks that it is absolutely necessary to add some embellishments, he should only focus on the style itself. Only this kind of beauty is flashy and real. Unfortunately, today's historians often ignore this true beauty, but ignore the basics and seek the last, selling false words out of thin air."
"The ability of historians. The same is true: his art lies in giving complex and intricate real-life events the beauty of a coherent order, and then recording these events in as smooth a style as possible. Praising the author's skill, then even if the historian's statue reaches a state of perfection, his labor will not be in vain." "Since we believe that the purpose of the historical spirit is to be frank and honest, the historical style should also strive to be plain, smooth, and clear. Clear sky; we must avoid both esoteric and idiosyncratic words and vulgar market jargon. We hope that the common people can understand it and the scribes can appreciate it. The feeling of wine."
"Don't give readers the impression that you are flamboyant and rhetorical, regardless of the development of history."
"Historical chores make your mind like one. A bright mirror, with clear light and no stains, can illuminate a person's face without any discomfort; in this way, he can reflect the reality of life truthfully without distorting the truth or eclipsing it.
"
Historians "should not be careless in collecting materials, but must work hard and conduct repeated investigations; if possible, the historian should visit the scene in person and witness what happened; otherwise, he should also adopt an impartial and impartial approach. Report well and choose testimony that will not be exaggerated or derogated by bias. ”
“My model historian is a person who is fearless, upright, independent, frank and honest, has a clear sense of right and wrong, is not swayed by his own likes and dislikes, and is not influenced by pity or admiration. He is merciful in his writing; he is a selfless judge who bears no hatred to anyone, but shows no favoritism to anyone; he is a writer who looks at the world, has no eyes for emperors and generals, and never considers their happiness or anger, but records them truthfully. deeds. "He may have personal grudges, but he pays more attention to the interests of the country and values ??truth more than personal grudges; he may have favorite characters, but he will not forgive their mistakes." "The historian "must be a person with an independent spirit, fearless and not dependent on others, otherwise he will be indecisive and susceptible to improper influence"; "must only pay homage to the fragrance of truth and never worship other gods; everything Gods are not in his eyes. His only principle and firm belief is that he never thinks about today's audience, but only thinks about future readers. "
"My ideal historian must have two talents: one is political vision, and the other is expressive ability. The former is an innate talent and cannot be learned; the latter is an acquired accomplishment, which can be learned as long as you read the classics carefully and study hard. "
"The sole task of the eulogist is to praise and please his object. As long as the goal can be achieved, no matter how exaggerated it is, no matter how exaggerated it is." "Poetry enjoys unlimited freedom, and poetry only abides by one law - —The poet’s imagination. ”
Therefore, in Lucianus’ view, “the inability to distinguish between poetry and history is indeed a serious problem for historiography.” Lucianus on “Poetry and History” and “Practical History” The analysis of the similarities and differences between "History of Appreciation" and "history of appreciation" opened the door to the debate among later historians about whether history is a science or an art. Whether it is the objectivist historian in the modern West, history is a science. Is it an empirical science that "tells the truth as it is", "History is science, no more, no less", or is it the relativist historian who proposes that history is an art, "History is half science and half art", etc. The understanding of the ontology of history with different expression forms, in terms of their understanding of the principles of history management and the nature of history, as well as the topics discussed and the path of thinking, actually do not exceed the level of understanding and understanding achieved by Lucianus. Demarcated Boundaries. Chinese Perspectives In the contemporary Chinese historiography theory circles, historians who insist on history as a science follow Lucianus on the one hand. On the other hand, along the dialectical, historical and materialist cognitive path opened up by Marx and Engels, from the distinction between history and literature, authenticity is determined as one of the essential characteristics of history. The height of historical ontology and historical ontology profoundly elaborates on the objective reality of historical research objects, thereby laying a solid foundation for history. Other historians who hold a relativistic or even eclectic view of history also continue. The only difference between Lucianus's cognitive path is that the "undoubted external things" that have been excluded by Lu are smuggled into the content of the essential characteristics of history, making them intrinsic to the essence of history. things, and then used this as a basis to reiterate the old tune of "half...half". Mr. He Zhaowu's theory that history is a "super science that is both scientific and non-scientific" can be regarded as a humanities subject. The contemporary Chinese version of the "half...half" theory
In the late 1980s, Mr. He Zhaowu put forward the famous proposition of "false problems in historical research" and believed that "we must modernize historical science." "The academic circle of history should re-criticize and clarify all the specious and false issues in the past." This theory has had a considerable impact on the academic circle of Chinese history. The first one he clarified as a "false issue" was China. The long-term nature, stagnation, or long-term stagnation of feudal society
In the 1990s, this clarification work was quickly traced to the ontology of history and the categories of historical ontology, and "history" was Is it science? "As a quasi-"false question" - Mr. He did not directly identify it as a "false question", but only believed that it was a manifestation of the "scientific perspective", so he called it a quasi-"false question"- To clean up. From some of his published articles, such as "Some Reflections on History", "On the Dual Nature of History", "On the Dual Nature of History", "Historians, Historiography and History", and by him "History and Historiography" Preface included in his collection of "Academic Cultural Essays", etc., it is not difficult to find that his history as a humanities subject is a "super science": "People's research on history and Knowledge constitutes history. "
"...people's experience of history (history)..."
"History itself contains two levels, the first level (History I) It is the knowledge or identification of historical facts or historical materials. The second level (History II) is the understanding or interpretation of the first level (History I).
"
"The data given in History I can have a 'reality', that is, a view that everyone agrees on (or can reach a consensus on)...History II is essentially a process of thinking construction. ..."
"History II also contains two parts, namely rational thinking and experience ability. The combination of the two becomes historical rationality. Rational thinking is what makes it identify with science; experience ability is what makes it identify with art and thus is different from science... Therefore, history is both science and not science at the same time; it needs to be both scientific and There is something beyond science...namely, our sensitivity to the kind of spiritual experience required to understand history, which is essentially similar to the sensitivity of art. ”
“The key to history becoming history lies in History II, not History I. History I is science, History II is philosophy. ”
“To treat history scientifically, we must admit the non-scientific elements in history. "Otherwise, "history cannot even be called 'scientific' history, let alone 'humanistic' (it is both scientific and non-scientific, so it is super-scientific, but not anti-scientific) History has been learned."
"History cannot simply consider the material aspect, nor can it purely consider the spiritual aspect, but must integrate the two into a whole; the history of ideas is the most essential and core part of it. part"; "The object of the history of ideas is how all humanistic motives (people's thoughts, theories, opinions, wishes, etc.) participate in and form the whole of history"; "The history of ideas discusses people's ideas and opinions, including The world view and outlook on life in the broadest sense... running through all human material and spiritual activities is the entirety of human thought. This is what we call the history of thought." "Human thought and culture can be divided into two categories: one. One category is accumulation, and the other category is non-accumulation... In history,...components belonging to the humanities can be roughly divided into two categories: one involves knowledge and technology, and the other involves non-intellectuality and non- Technical. The former type can be accumulated, but the latter type cannot"; "Thought and reality constitute a whole, this is the so-called history and its connotation. "History is not an empirical science. You cannot conduct controlled experiments to confirm or falsify it... As far as history on the material level is concerned, the development of things has its inevitable laws; but on the humanistic level As far as history is concerned, its development does not have inevitable laws in the sense of the development of material things... Modern history is asking people to give up the so-called laws of history as well as the natural sciences that the modern history thought in the previous period required. "Infinite worship and infinite faith like the laws".
The key points of the "dual nature of history theory" obtained by Mr. He Zhaowu's "Several Reflections on History" are as above. His "History I" After the dichotomy of "History II" and "History II" was put forward, young historical theoretical workers got inspiration from it, and then distinguished the so-called "History III". It can be seen that the dichotomy is important for the "refinement" of history. It has made a contribution: it has opened up a path of structuralism or hierarchical research in the study of historical ontology. As for whether the concept of history itself can make such a refined and clear-cut hierarchical distinction, no one has yet to think about it.
Looking at Mr. He’s relevant discussion, we can summarize it as follows: History takes the history of ideas as its most essential and core part, and is composed of people’s research, understanding and experience of history. It is a discipline that combines science, philosophy, and art, but is not science, philosophy, or art. It is not an empirical humanities discipline.
This kind of historical interpretation is actually the new Lucianus's argument, which is different. What’s interesting about Lu is that Mr. He combined Lu’s “practical history” and “appreciative history” in an eclectic way, transforming history into a hermaphrodite, or in other words, through sex reassignment surgery. , History has returned from the scientific era at the end of the 20th century to its simple and uncertain childlike era.
According to Mr. He Zhaowu’s relevant discussion, the dual nature of history’s right and wrong is rooted in history. The so-called "history has its duality" argument, that is, as a natural person, man's history is subject to the laws of nature and necessity, but as a free and self-disciplined person, he is the master of his own history and decides it himself. "own orientation".
In this way, the general connotation of the commonly understood definition of history - the objective process of human society - is greatly reduced to human history. Not only is the "class" gone, Moreover, the connotation of "society" has also been removed. Both the so-called duality of history and the so-called duality of history are actually rooted in the duality of "people" in the sense of individual attributes. He also overemphasized the "freedom and autonomy" of "human beings" that he had completely individualized; when discussing the characteristics of history, he equated the general characteristics of the humanities with the characteristics of history. "It turns out that this is the case. That’s why I cried so much! "
"Science" Theory
In 1902, John Bagnell Bury (1861-1927), a British positivist historian and an important representative of the Cambridge Historical School.
Sir John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834-1902) succeeded Sir John Emerich Edward Dalberg Acton (1834-1902) as the appointed professor of modern history at the University of Cambridge. In his inaugural speech "The Science of History", he ended with the following sentence: "History is a science, neither more nor less." This is a quote often cited by historians when discussing what history is. In contemporary Chinese historical circles, there are roughly three representative opinions on "science": the theory of general "science"; the theory of "concrete and empirical science with particularity, comprehensiveness, integrity, and authenticity"; and the theory of "integration" .
The general "scientific" theory is the most common definition of history. For example, the "History" article of the new edition of "Cihai" published in 1999: "Also known as 'history'. A department of social sciences. A science that studies and explains the specific process and regularity of the development of human society." Another example is Wu. The definition of history determined in the "Foreword" of the book "Introduction to History": "Historship is a science of reflection, a science that explores various specific historical studies and their inherent laws."
Mr. Li Zhenhong devoted a special chapter in the book "Theories and Methods of History" to discuss the history of science from the aspects of "history is the basis of science", "the characteristics and tasks of historical science", and the research objects of historical science. What is science and its fundamental difference from general history. According to his discussion, history can be divided into two types: one is general history before the emergence of Marxist history. It is not yet a science. At best, it is just a way of describing and studying the objective existence and processes of human past societies. A specialized knowledge system; the first is Marxist history, which is the only scientific history so far, a concrete and empirical science with significant and important characteristics such as particularity, comprehensiveness, integrity and authenticity.
Unlike most historians in the past, Li Zhenhong correctly distinguished historical science and philosophy, especially Marxist historical materialist philosophy, and general The differences between social sciences, literature and other disciplines determine the objective and real special research objects for historical science and stipulate the special tasks it should undertake. The definitions of historiography or historical science given by most historians always confuse the objects and tasks of historical science and historical materialist philosophy. For example, the "Historical Science" entry in the "Dictionary of Historical Theory" published by Li later comprehensively and systematically reflected the theoretical research results of Chinese history in the new era. This entry absorbs the connotation of the concept of historical science in two chapters of Li's "History is the basis of science" and "Characteristics and tasks of historical science". However, at the same time, it still regards the research object of historical materialist philosophy - "the history of human social development" - as completely identical with and regarded as the only research object of Marxist historical science. The research objects and tasks of historical science in Li's book are - "Under the guidance of the general laws provided by Marxist philosophy, through the analysis and research of countless historical phenomena, historical events and historical figures of various nations and countries in the world, In order to understand the special laws and characteristics of their historical development", - after a slight change in the way of expression, it is regarded as one of the main tasks of Marxist historical science; it should be a research task of historical materialist philosophy, - " "Revealing the universal laws of the historical development of human society from primitive society through various class societies to socialist society", "pointing out the direction of socialism and communism in historical progress, and providing scientific theories and theories for the proletariat to understand and transform the world." "Historical basis", etc., - are also included in the main tasks of Marxist historical science.
The content of this entry is actually a "hybrid" based on the content of the "Historical Science" entry in "Cihai" and mixed with relevant content in Li's works. While scientific history undertakes its own special tasks and conducts research on specific categories, it completely takes over and overtakes all the tasks and research objects of historical materialist philosophy.
The theory of "integration"
In the new era of discussions on what history is, a new and distinctive definition was established by Mr. Jiang Dachun . In the article "Contemporary Chinese Historical Thoughts and the Development of Marxist Views of History", in view of the fact that "usually people think that history is historical treatises, or more precisely, it is the historical knowledge expressed in these historical treatises". He has an intuitive "but not comprehensive and profound" understanding of the current situation. From the perspective of "broad understanding", he determined a new, "comprehensive and profound" and clear definition for history: "History is As the subject of research, historians interact with historical objects through certain ways of thinking and understanding, and the spiritual production practice and the products they create are historical knowledge.”
Here. In this statement, Mr. Jiang did not involve the concept of "historical existence", but judging from Mr. Jiang's full text, he used the "historical object" as a historical object that enters the category of historians' cognitive objects in the sense of "historical existence". of this concept.
Therefore, based on his relevant explanations in the article, we can conclude that "historian" and "historical existence" are the two prerequisite elements that constitute historical research activities as a practice of spiritual production; "historical thinking way of understanding" ", "historical understanding means", "historical object", "historical research spiritual production practice" ("historical research activities") and "historical knowledge" are the five basic elements that constitute history. The definition of historiography determined by Mr. Jiang is indeed more comprehensive than the existing definitions of historiography. Mr. Jiang calls it "Neo-Marxist Historiography" and defines it in nature as "a scientifically based history based on its integration in the way of historical understanding and its comprehensive characteristics in its object field". Integrity that inherently integrates positivity, abstraction, value, and artistry."