20世纪后半叶西方希罗多德研究的两种路径

Two Trends in the Herodotus Studies during the Second Half of the 20^(th) Century in the Western Academia

20世纪下半叶西方学者在希罗多德研究中呈现出两种研究路径:一是坚持传统史学史的路数,继续肯定希罗多德作为史家的身份,认为古典史学与现代西方史学之间具有实质性的关联和承接关系;另一种则质疑希罗多德的著作具有历史记载的真实性,将希罗多德及其著作从西方史学史的发展脉络中剥离出来,并由此认为,近代以来的西方史学与古典史学之间并无传承关系。这两种研究路径都是在后现代理论冲击下做出的或顺应或抗辨的回应,各有其优缺点,有必要相互借鉴。

There were two trends in the Herodotus studies during the second half of the 20^(th) century in the western academia:the first insisted on traditional historical research,taking Herodotus as a true historian,and acknowledged the substantial relation and continuity between classic and modern historiography;the second questioned the historical integrity and accuracy of Herodotus' works and isolated him from the mainstream of the western historiography,further contending that the western modern historiography was not built upon the legacy of the classic one.Compliant or contentious,both of them were reactions against the impact of post-modernism,with respective pros and cons to be learnt by the other side.