科学的、客观的、超然的?——二十世纪以来修昔底德史家形象之嬗变

Scientific, Objective and Aloof? Changes in the Image of Thucydides as a Historian

20世纪以来,修昔底德"科学"、"客观"、"超然"的史家形象先是遭到康福德的严重质疑,但这一质疑后来受到伯里、科克兰、芬利、罗米莉等学者的反驳。20世纪60、70年代,在相对主义和怀疑主义的冲击下,帕里、施塔尔在独辟蹊径的同时,对修昔底德的史家形象不无怀疑;华莱士和亨特则颠覆了其形象。70年代末至80年代,康纳进行了反思,罗林斯的研究运用了结构主义理论,对修昔底德的评价回归理性。90年代以来,叙事学成为这一领域研究主流,揭示出其著作中尚不为人所知的一些匠心和特点,这是对其史家形象的肯定和褒扬。康纳以后,"科学的"、"客观的"和"超然的"三个修饰语已不足以概括修昔底德的史家形象的丰富内涵。在这些波折的背后,是西方学术思潮转向大背景下学术研究取向的递嬗。

In the twentieth century,Thucydides’ image as a scientific,objective and aloof historian was first strongly questioned by Francis Macdonald Cornford.However,his arguments were later rebutted by J.B.Bury,C.N.Cochrane,John H.Finley Jr,J.de Romilly and others in the 1960s and 1970s.Under the impact of relativism and skepticism,Adam Milman Parry and Hans-Peter Stahl also raised doubts about this image of Thucydides in their innovative studies,while W.P.Wallace and Virginia J.Hunter completely subverted it.In the late 1970s and 1980’s,however,W.R.Connor’s reflection on previous studies of Thucydides and research on Hunter R.Rawlings III used structuralism to restore reason to the evaluation of Thucydides.In the 1990s,as narratology became the mainstream research mode,this approach revealed a previously unperceived originality and distinctiveness in Thucydides’ work,conferring approval and praise on his historiography.Since Connor,the adjectives 'scientific,' 'objective' and 'aloof' have been an inadequate summation of the rich connotations of Thucydides’ image as a historian.Behind all these ups and downs are changes in the broad context of Western academic orientation (or perspective).