This book is a project in comparative history, but along two distinct axes, one historical and the other historiographical. Its purpose is to constructively juxtapose the early modern European and Chinese approaches to historical study that have been called "antiquarian." As an exercise in historical recovery, the essays in this volume amass new information about the range of antiquarian-type scholarship on the past, on nature, and on peoples undertaken at either end of the Eurasian landmass between 1500 and 1800. As a historiographical project, the book challenges the received—and often very much under conceptualized—use of the term "antiquarian" in both European and Chinese contexts. Readers will not only learn more about the range of European and Chinese scholarship on the past—and especially the material past—but they will also be able to integrate some of the historiographical observations and corrections into new ways of conceiving of the history of historical scholarship in Europe since the Renaissance, and to reflect on the impact of these European terms on Chinese approaches to the Chinese past. This comparison is a two-way street, with the European tradition clarified by knowledge of Chinese practices, and Chinese approaches better understood when placed alongside the European ones.
1 有用 小红帽 2012-11-21 23:42:45
sprawling comparative history; Sivin's essay is good; Hammond's on Wang Shizhen and Li Shizhen is so off the point >.<
0 有用 古渡秋山 2016-03-22 08:16:54
Peter Miller在中西比较上有难得的深度,Bruce Rusk对作伪的研究总是很有趣。其它中国方面的文章更多像在凑热闹。
0 有用 七百之一 2022-06-13 22:02:46
Peter Miller那章有点像综述,对比总结了欧洲antiquarianism与中国金石学的异同,很开眼界。Bruce Rusk选的案例和方法都很有意思,只是篇幅太短,不太尽兴,以后会继续关注他的专著和论文。