论艾尔克·鲁尼亚的“在场”理论
摘要
柯林武德曾提出,历史学家能在"重演"中经验过去行动者的思考活动及思想。甫入21世纪,以史家可以经验过去为基础阐明历史著作与过去之关系的理论再度出现,构成了广受讨论的新动向。艾尔克·鲁尼亚的"在场"理论即是其中的代表。这一理论大致有三个论点:历史学家会在研究过程中被动地经验作为"在场"的过去,即使过去并没有于现实世界重现;历史学家现在的历史研究与作为"在场"的过去的关系是转喻的喻体与本体的关系;历史著作以转喻的方式表达着过去。比较并审察"在场"理论与新动向中的另一理论即弗兰克·安克斯密特的历史经验理论可以发现,当前的动向实为后现代主义的进一步发展,它是否值得接受则需对"被动经验"现象再做考察。
Collingwood had argued that historians could experience the act of thought and thought itself of past agent by "re-enactment". In first several years of 21~(st) century, theories on relationship between historical text and the past based on the phenomenon that historians could experience the past reappeared and constituted a new movement. One of the representative theories, i.e., Eelco Runia's theory of "presence",possesses roughly three points: historian could passively experience the past as "presence" during his/her working, though past itself doesn't reappear in reality; the relationship between historian's working and the past as "presence" can be seen as the relationship between vehicle and tenor of metonymy; historical text expresses the past metonymically. Comparing the theory of "presence" with Frank Ankersmit's theory of historical experience could conclude that current movement is basically advanced postmodernism and whether we should accept it lies in the further check of the phenomenon of "passive experience".
Collingwood had argued that historians could experience the act of thought and thought itself of past agent by "re-enactment". In first several years of 21~(st) century, theories on relationship between historical text and the past based on the phenomenon that historians could experience the past reappeared and constituted a new movement. One of the representative theories, i.e., Eelco Runia's theory of "presence",possesses roughly three points: historian could passively experience the past as "presence" during his/her working, though past itself doesn't reappear in reality; the relationship between historian's working and the past as "presence" can be seen as the relationship between vehicle and tenor of metonymy; historical text expresses the past metonymically. Comparing the theory of "presence" with Frank Ankersmit's theory of historical experience could conclude that current movement is basically advanced postmodernism and whether we should accept it lies in the further check of the phenomenon of "passive experience".
引文
(1)参见Mark Bevir and Frank Ankersmit,“Exchanging Ideas”,Rethinking History,vol.4,no.3,2000,p.352;Frank Ankersmit,“Invitation to Historian”,Rethinking History,vol.7,no.3,2003,p.434.
(2)检索知网,关于历史经验理论的国内论文已有十余篇,而专题论述鲁尼亚的论文仅有一篇(吕和应:《艾尔克·鲁尼亚与历史哲学的未来》,《学术月刊》2013年第10期)。
(3)R.G.Collingwood,edited with an introduction by Jan van der Dussen,The Idea of History,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994,p.213.
(4)R.G.Collingwood,The Idea of History,p.287.
(5)R.G.Collingwood,The Idea of History,pp.286,287.
(6)R.G.Collingwood,The Idea of History,p.288.
(7)R.G.Collingwood,The Idea of History,pp.215,283.
(8)沃尔什:《历史哲学导论》,何兆武、张文杰译,广西师范大学出版社2001年版,第48-55页。另见Patrick Gardiner,“The ‘Objects’ of Historical Knowledge”,Philosophy,vol.27,no.102,1952,pp.211-220;Frank Ankersmit,“Historical Representation”,in Frank Ankersmit,History and Tropology:The Rise and Fall of Metaphor,Berkeley and Los Angles:University of California Press,1994,p.99.
(9)Eelco Runia,“‘Forget about It’:‘Parallel Processing’ in the Srebrenica Report”,History and Theory,vol.43,no.3,2004,pp.303-309.
(10)Eelco Runia,“‘Forget about It’:‘Parallel Processing’ in the Srebrenica Report”,pp.311-315.
(11)在脑科学和计算机科学领域,“parallel processing”经常被翻译为“并行处理”,意指大脑或计算机系统同时执行多个处理或者说任务。鲁尼亚这里的“parallel processing”则是心理学术语,意指一个系统与另一个系统之间的相互作用,故此将之翻译为“相似行事”。
(12)Eelco Runia,“‘Forget about It’:‘Parallel Processing’ in the Srebrenica Report”,pp.298-299.
(13)Eelco Runia,“Spots of Time”,History and Theory,vol.45,no.3,2006,p.308;Eelco Runia,“Presence”,History and Theory,vol.45,no.1,2006,p.7.
(14)就史家被动经验过去的条件,鲁尼亚提出了几个猜想:其一,过去事件与史家的经历相似;其二,过去事件与史家的文化背景相同;其三,过去事件中的行动者与史家的思维方式相似。但他最终没有将其中的任意一个确定为答案。见Eelco Runia,“‘Forget about It’:‘Parallel Processing’ in the Srebrenica Report”,pp.319-320.
(15)Eelco Runia,“Inventing the New from the Old:From White’s ‘Tropics’ to Vico’s ‘Topics’”,Rethinking History,vol.14,no.2,2010,p.232;Eelco Runia,“Spots of Time”,p.310;Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.5.
(16)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.7.
(17)转引自Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,Stanford:Stanford University Press,2005,pp.120-121.
(18)鲁尼亚曾坦言,就作为“在场”的过去,历史学家可以经验它,但不能记录、叙述它。见Eelco Runia,“Inventing the New from the Old:From White’s ‘Tropics’ to Vico’s ‘Topics’”,pp.232-233;Eelco Runia,“Spots of Time”,pp.310-311.
(19)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.15.
(20)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.16.
(21)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,pp.17,19-20.
(22)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.19.
(23)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.23.
(24)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.23.
(25)Leopold von Ranke,edited and translated by George Walter Prothero,Universal History:The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2014,p.70;罗宾·W.温克、R.J.Q.亚当斯:《牛津欧洲史》(第三卷),丛日云主编,贾文华、李晓燕译,吉林出版集团2014年版,第80页;王汎森,《从曾静案看十八世纪前期的社会心态》,载王汎森:《权力的毛细管作用:清代的思想、学术与心态》,联经2013年版,第384页。
(26)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,pp.23-24.
(27)G.R.Potter planned,edited with a new preface by Denys Hay,The New Cambridge Modern History,Volume 1,The Renaissance,1493-1520,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1975,p.15.
(28)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.25.
(29)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.26.
(30)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.27.
(31)Frank Ankersmit,“The Three Level of ‘Sinnbildung’ in Historical Writing”,in J?rn Rüsen ed.,Meaning and Representation in History,New York:Berghahn Books,2006,pp.108-109.
(32)Frank Ankersmit and Marek Tamm,“Leibnizian Philosophy of History:a Conversation”,Rethinking History,vol.20,no.4,2016,p.507.
(33)Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,p.179.
(34)Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,p.286.
(35)Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,p.234.
(36)Rodrigo Díaz-Maldonado,“Historical Experience as a Mode of Comprehension”,Journal of the Philosophy of History,vol.10,issue.1,2016,p.3.
(37)对此可参见鲁尼亚对詹金斯的质疑的回应。见Eelo Runia,“Reply to Jenkins”,Rethinking History,vol.14,no.2,2010,p.249.
(38)Jonas Ahlskog,“R.G.Collingwood and the Presence of the Past”,Journal of the Philosophy of History,vol.11,issue.3,2017,pp.299-302.
(39)Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,pp.xv-xvi.
(40)Jonathan Gorman,“Discontinuity Pragmatically Framed”,Journal of the Philosophy of History,vol.11,issue.2,2017,p.148.
(41)John H.Zammito,“Book Reviews:Sublime Historical Experience.By Frank Ankersmit”,The Journal of Modern History,vol.79,no.1,2007,p.167.
(42)Anton Froeyman,“Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia:The Presence and the Otherness of the Past”,Rethinking History,vol.16,no.3,2012,p.407.
(2)检索知网,关于历史经验理论的国内论文已有十余篇,而专题论述鲁尼亚的论文仅有一篇(吕和应:《艾尔克·鲁尼亚与历史哲学的未来》,《学术月刊》2013年第10期)。
(3)R.G.Collingwood,edited with an introduction by Jan van der Dussen,The Idea of History,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1994,p.213.
(4)R.G.Collingwood,The Idea of History,p.287.
(5)R.G.Collingwood,The Idea of History,pp.286,287.
(6)R.G.Collingwood,The Idea of History,p.288.
(7)R.G.Collingwood,The Idea of History,pp.215,283.
(8)沃尔什:《历史哲学导论》,何兆武、张文杰译,广西师范大学出版社2001年版,第48-55页。另见Patrick Gardiner,“The ‘Objects’ of Historical Knowledge”,Philosophy,vol.27,no.102,1952,pp.211-220;Frank Ankersmit,“Historical Representation”,in Frank Ankersmit,History and Tropology:The Rise and Fall of Metaphor,Berkeley and Los Angles:University of California Press,1994,p.99.
(9)Eelco Runia,“‘Forget about It’:‘Parallel Processing’ in the Srebrenica Report”,History and Theory,vol.43,no.3,2004,pp.303-309.
(10)Eelco Runia,“‘Forget about It’:‘Parallel Processing’ in the Srebrenica Report”,pp.311-315.
(11)在脑科学和计算机科学领域,“parallel processing”经常被翻译为“并行处理”,意指大脑或计算机系统同时执行多个处理或者说任务。鲁尼亚这里的“parallel processing”则是心理学术语,意指一个系统与另一个系统之间的相互作用,故此将之翻译为“相似行事”。
(12)Eelco Runia,“‘Forget about It’:‘Parallel Processing’ in the Srebrenica Report”,pp.298-299.
(13)Eelco Runia,“Spots of Time”,History and Theory,vol.45,no.3,2006,p.308;Eelco Runia,“Presence”,History and Theory,vol.45,no.1,2006,p.7.
(14)就史家被动经验过去的条件,鲁尼亚提出了几个猜想:其一,过去事件与史家的经历相似;其二,过去事件与史家的文化背景相同;其三,过去事件中的行动者与史家的思维方式相似。但他最终没有将其中的任意一个确定为答案。见Eelco Runia,“‘Forget about It’:‘Parallel Processing’ in the Srebrenica Report”,pp.319-320.
(15)Eelco Runia,“Inventing the New from the Old:From White’s ‘Tropics’ to Vico’s ‘Topics’”,Rethinking History,vol.14,no.2,2010,p.232;Eelco Runia,“Spots of Time”,p.310;Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.5.
(16)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.7.
(17)转引自Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,Stanford:Stanford University Press,2005,pp.120-121.
(18)鲁尼亚曾坦言,就作为“在场”的过去,历史学家可以经验它,但不能记录、叙述它。见Eelco Runia,“Inventing the New from the Old:From White’s ‘Tropics’ to Vico’s ‘Topics’”,pp.232-233;Eelco Runia,“Spots of Time”,pp.310-311.
(19)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.15.
(20)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.16.
(21)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,pp.17,19-20.
(22)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.19.
(23)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.23.
(24)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.23.
(25)Leopold von Ranke,edited and translated by George Walter Prothero,Universal History:The Oldest Historical Group of Nations and the Greeks,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2014,p.70;罗宾·W.温克、R.J.Q.亚当斯:《牛津欧洲史》(第三卷),丛日云主编,贾文华、李晓燕译,吉林出版集团2014年版,第80页;王汎森,《从曾静案看十八世纪前期的社会心态》,载王汎森:《权力的毛细管作用:清代的思想、学术与心态》,联经2013年版,第384页。
(26)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,pp.23-24.
(27)G.R.Potter planned,edited with a new preface by Denys Hay,The New Cambridge Modern History,Volume 1,The Renaissance,1493-1520,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1975,p.15.
(28)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.25.
(29)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.26.
(30)Eelco Runia,“Presence”,p.27.
(31)Frank Ankersmit,“The Three Level of ‘Sinnbildung’ in Historical Writing”,in J?rn Rüsen ed.,Meaning and Representation in History,New York:Berghahn Books,2006,pp.108-109.
(32)Frank Ankersmit and Marek Tamm,“Leibnizian Philosophy of History:a Conversation”,Rethinking History,vol.20,no.4,2016,p.507.
(33)Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,p.179.
(34)Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,p.286.
(35)Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,p.234.
(36)Rodrigo Díaz-Maldonado,“Historical Experience as a Mode of Comprehension”,Journal of the Philosophy of History,vol.10,issue.1,2016,p.3.
(37)对此可参见鲁尼亚对詹金斯的质疑的回应。见Eelo Runia,“Reply to Jenkins”,Rethinking History,vol.14,no.2,2010,p.249.
(38)Jonas Ahlskog,“R.G.Collingwood and the Presence of the Past”,Journal of the Philosophy of History,vol.11,issue.3,2017,pp.299-302.
(39)Frank Ankersmit,Sublime Historical Experience,pp.xv-xvi.
(40)Jonathan Gorman,“Discontinuity Pragmatically Framed”,Journal of the Philosophy of History,vol.11,issue.2,2017,p.148.
(41)John H.Zammito,“Book Reviews:Sublime Historical Experience.By Frank Ankersmit”,The Journal of Modern History,vol.79,no.1,2007,p.167.
(42)Anton Froeyman,“Frank Ankersmit and Eelco Runia:The Presence and the Otherness of the Past”,Rethinking History,vol.16,no.3,2012,p.407.