This trend was apparent in the late 1920s but has long failed to attract the attention of historians. The author explores the point at which the old and new schools of historical research diverged, the ways in which t...This trend was apparent in the late 1920s but has long failed to attract the attention of historians. The author explores the point at which the old and new schools of historical research diverged, the ways in which this trend was related to the contemporary skeptical approach to Chinas early history, and to the socalled “double evidence,” a method that emphasized the combination of literary and archaeological data in historical studies. The scholars of the new school adopted a heretical, antitradition stance in their efforts to join the international intellectual community, and were interested in the topics studied by Western sinologists. These factors were responsible for their paradoxical attitude toward historical data: They liked to see more but hated to read literary sources.展开更多
Fernand Braudel,the great French historian in the 20 th century who has highly enlightened the whole social science studies,brought up geo\|historical structuralism and pluralistic thought on historical time.However,m...Fernand Braudel,the great French historian in the 20 th century who has highly enlightened the whole social science studies,brought up geo\|historical structuralism and pluralistic thought on historical time.However,many people criticised the conservative implications in Braudel’s thought.After serious analysis,we find the problems mentioned in those criticisms are directly related to our understanding on history,even related to our attitudes toward life in world.This article attempts to elucidate the characteristics of Braudel’s historical thought,his rational thoughts,the conservative tendencies in his works,as well as the effects they have potentially caused on the readers.By construing a paradox between Braudel’s historical theories and his active historical practice,the article tries to demonstrate what responsibility a historian should undertake to history and reality as a social practioner.展开更多
文摘This trend was apparent in the late 1920s but has long failed to attract the attention of historians. The author explores the point at which the old and new schools of historical research diverged, the ways in which this trend was related to the contemporary skeptical approach to Chinas early history, and to the socalled “double evidence,” a method that emphasized the combination of literary and archaeological data in historical studies. The scholars of the new school adopted a heretical, antitradition stance in their efforts to join the international intellectual community, and were interested in the topics studied by Western sinologists. These factors were responsible for their paradoxical attitude toward historical data: They liked to see more but hated to read literary sources.
文摘Fernand Braudel,the great French historian in the 20 th century who has highly enlightened the whole social science studies,brought up geo\|historical structuralism and pluralistic thought on historical time.However,many people criticised the conservative implications in Braudel’s thought.After serious analysis,we find the problems mentioned in those criticisms are directly related to our understanding on history,even related to our attitudes toward life in world.This article attempts to elucidate the characteristics of Braudel’s historical thought,his rational thoughts,the conservative tendencies in his works,as well as the effects they have potentially caused on the readers.By construing a paradox between Braudel’s historical theories and his active historical practice,the article tries to demonstrate what responsibility a historian should undertake to history and reality as a social practioner.
