摘要
在20世纪20年代的德国,围绕历史传记的目的、写法与本质等问题,专业历史学家与红极一时的传记作家埃米尔·路德维希在公共领域展开了一场大辩论。除却它所涉及到的政治立场之争外,将之界定为"新史学"还是"历史通俗文学"的讨论,实际上关涉论辩双方对19世纪以来史学功能与书写形式的不同认识,应被视作历史主义危机的表现之一。这场争议虽然因路德维希的个人命运变化、其观点的肤浅性以及反对势力的强大与顽固而不了了之,但在德国史学范式最终告别历史主义后,它获得了被重新解读的契机,并让专业历史学家们再次思考公共历史文化机制合理化的方法及其必要性。
In the 1920 s,Germany saw a large-scale debate in the public domain over the aims,styles and nature of historical biography,conducted between professional historians and the popular biographer Emil Ludwig.In addition to their political positions,the debate,defined as'new history 'or'popular historical literature,' actually demonstrated the differences in each side's understanding of the functions and style of historiography since the nineteenth century;it can be regarded as one of the manifestations of the crisis of historicism.Although the debate ended up in the air,due to the change in Ludwig's circumstances,the superficial nature of his views and the strength of his conservative opponents,the opportunity for reinterpreting the debate arose when the German historiographical paradigm finally relinquished historicism,making professional historians rethink the rationality of public historical and cultural arrangements and their necessity.
出处
《历史研究》
CSSCI
北大核心
2017年第3期162-179,共18页
Historical Research
基金
2014年上海曙光计划的阶段性研究成果
