- 筆者谷川道雄について調べなさい。
- 本文で述べられている２つの重要な説の関係はどのようなものか。
- その２つの説の間に論戦が行われなくなった理由はどんなものであると筆者は考えているか。
- 筆者はなぜこの論文を書いているか。
- 筆者は何のために時代区分が必要であると考えているか。
- 日本史や西洋史と中国史における時代区分の仕方の大きな違いは何か。
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
『中国史の時代区分をめぐって』はじめに
教室での時間を有効に使うために、このコメント欄に皆さんの内容質問の答えを（英語でも日本語でもいいです）ポストして、授業に来る前にクラスメートの答えを確認してください。
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
1. Professor Tanigawa Michio (1925-) graduated from Kyoto University. He is famous for his study of medieval Chinese history, especially Tang dynasty.
2. The two important theories are different. They are like parallel railways till now and there is no way they converge.
3. Firstly, after the war, enthusiasm about periodising history declined. Secondly, the fashion of discipline changed. In comparison to macroscopic historical study, microscopic and specific study of historical events were preferred. Thirdly, since there were heated debates about this issue, researchers now tend to avoid it.
4. Even for those who devote themselves in specific historical studies, different opinions about periodisation still implicitly shape their arguments. So it is important to revival the discussion of periodisation.
5. Since individual events is part of a general history, in order to emphasize on this self awareness, periodisation of Chinese history is necessary.
6. In the field of Japanese and western history, ancient and medieval periods can be assumed to be in agreement among researchers though they use various terms. In the field of Chinese history, the question about when did the ancient and medieval periods start or end never stops to challenge researches.
お願いします。
I also post typed translation just in case I can't do it later.
Part B
1. During a while after the war, because how to take hold of the history in development was important motif, the problem of periodization was widely discussed, but today when such, so to speak, historicism concern fades away, of course enthusiasm toward theory about periodization declined.
2. Periodization is one method to get hold of the history with grand perspective and generality. However people concentrate attention to individual events, that is limited by the consciousness to make sense of a part of a comprehensive history. This consciousness is probably not decidedly unrelated to the consciousness of perodization. Still however historicism position is kept away, there is probably no historian who ignores the Zeitgeist to naturally express various events. Because of this, those researchers can not go decidedly regardless of periodization but rather while being conscious of it in the background, can’t those researchers participate in the work?
3. The situation that the polarized condition of theories about periodization, which contains such meaning above, now continues to congeal, it can probably not benefit the advancement of individual research. Because of this, situation like this is why I am not afraid to the hesitate to totally and freely consider individual researchers and the events. Of course, there is stance which does not hold established theory. The extension of stances like that is desirable for the development of scholarship. However, at the same time, to inquire the basis of the oppositional points of established theory, isn’t there necessity to let flow the current of blood of the congealed situation? Definitely, I do not plan to coordinate or compromise two theories yet also not to stick to the dispute in the past. It is to persistently try one’s best to deeply make visible the difference of two theories. As I ,who have taken part in one side of two theories, is concerned, to fairly carry out this task should be indeed difficult. Darlingly try to do so, I hope to step forward in this respect.
Post a Comment