【作者】 李根；

【导师】 周巩固；

【作者基本信息】 东北师范大学 ， 史学理论及史学史， 2013， 博士

【摘要】 卡罗·金兹堡是20世纪70年代以来最具影响力的历史学家之一。他在文化史研究方面成绩卓著，在史学理论和研究方法方面的创见值得深入研究和探讨。文章从微观史学、图像证史、形态学式的比较研究、基于修辞的论说及文化史实践四个方面对金兹堡的文化史研究进行阐释和分析，并总结金兹堡史学研究的理念特色和学术贡献。金兹堡的微观史学研究是一种针对大众文化的个案研究模式。它专注于研究那些生活在社会底层的小人物的历史。在阐释“大众文化”的内涵时，金兹堡既反对将其解释成精英文化的附属物，也反对将之视为精英文化的对立物。他认为大众文化是一种既具有文化自主性，又始终与精英文化保持互动关系的文化形态。在著作中，金兹堡总是通过对小人物言行的阐释，表现大众文化的独特性和能动性。金兹堡的微观史实践具有三个理论指向：它反对精英主义史观，聚焦小人物的历史；它批判“心态史”模式，重视突出大众文化的复杂性；它是对计量方法的反拨，强调像书写精英传记一样书写专属于小人物的历史。金兹堡的微观史研究引起了史学界的争论。微观史学的个案研究模式能否诠释大众文化的普遍特性，除司法档案外能否找到其它适用于微观研究的史料，以及如何面对微观史研究引发的史学“碎片化”趋势，这些都是金兹堡等微观史学研究者有必要进一步反思的问题。金兹堡的图像证史研究是强调使用图像材料作为历史求证依据的研究取径。他针对图像材料的历史研究来自图像学理论的启发。金兹堡曾对图像学的发展过程和思想精髓进行了全面论述，并将其理论经验用于文艺复兴时期文化历史的考察。他根据宗教图册的内容变化展现了16世纪至17世纪欧洲“求知”观念的演变过程，通过分析提香作品的灵感来源证明了文艺复兴时期的精英文化可能曾经以大众文化为精神养料。此外，图像分析方法引发了金兹堡对史学认知范式的思考。金兹堡声称历史学研究遵循的是一种捕猎或占卜式的、以推测为基础的认知范式，并认为这种范式与自然科学的以量化为基础的范式相区别。因此，他强调从细节之中发现历史事实，认为与那些看似显而易见的证据相比，越是不起眼的信息就越是可靠。他将推测范式的思维用于对皮埃罗壁画的调查，重建了意大利阿莱佐地区的人文主义团体的社交网络。图像证史使历史研究有可能向可视化发展，拓宽了史料来源的渠道。不过，图像材料表达的内容往往是模糊的，因此其求证结论也难免流于推测。金兹堡提出形态学比较研究的思路具有双重目的。一方面，金兹堡试图通过将研究视角从微观转向宏观来克服微观史取径过分核心化的趋势。另一方面，金兹堡也试图通过对形态学理论的阐明，超越布洛赫规定的“史学比较研究应在时空相近的现象之间展开”的原则。形态学比较特别关注那些在时空上相隔遥远、仅在表面特征上存在相似性的现象。它首先假设两种形态相似的现象很可能存在内在联系，继而通过寻找兼具两者特征的“中间环节”来论证假设为真。金兹堡以形态学为先导，对夜间巫术活动的仪式和心智起源进行追溯，并对英国文学史与欧洲大陆的学术观念演变之间的内在联系进行了考察。形态学理论的价值在于它为在那些缺乏文字证据的比较研究主题提供了理论支持，但由于其论证和结论往往过于依靠推测而得出，因此遭来史学同行的诟病。金兹堡基于修辞的理论分析和文化史实践是对后现代怀疑论的反应。金兹堡的微观史取向与后现代主义倡导多元化的主张相契合，但他本人坚决反对后现代怀疑论者从语言学角度向历史学发起的批判。此外，他也反对实证主义史学家将修辞性叙述与历史学研究相对立的观点。金兹堡认为修辞虽然掺杂着大量历史学研究试图克服的主观性因素，但其本身却是以事实为基础的，因而也具有客观性的一面。以此观点为指导，金兹堡认为历史学家可以利用修辞中出现的“时代错置”鉴别史料的真伪，可以通过对文本的叙述方式的分析进行心智史考察，还可以通过对特定词语的含义变化的调查进行概念史形式的研究。金兹堡关于修辞的辩说从学理上驳斥了后现代怀疑论的激进言论。他基于修辞的文化史实践为后现代语境下的历史学发展指明了方向。不过，如果史料的记述者与其记述内容处于同一时代，即便记述者在文本中歪曲了事实，“时代错置”情况也不会出现。因此，金兹堡利用修辞鉴别史料的策略存在条件限制。同时，他基于修辞展开的对时代文化的考察存在以偏概全之嫌。由于修辞的表述形式和含义变化总是多样的，因此用文本个体特征比附时代文化特性的思路有待商榷。金兹堡的文化史研究具有理论启示性。他的历史观兼顾微观与宏观视域，在实证主义与后现代怀疑论之间取长补短，见地深刻。他坚持历史和史学研究的多样性，认为任何历史研究范式或解释工具都只能展现多面的人类过去的某个方面。因而他认为一种历史考察模式的范式化也将导致历史的其它侧面被淡化。由此，他总是擅于采用与主流研究范式相对或相反的研究取径去考察历史，从而揭示出那些被遗忘、被忽视的历史事实。更多还原

【Abstract】 Carlo Ginzburg is one of historians who have tremendous influence since the1970s. He made remarkable achievements in cultural history，and his creative ideasabout historical theory and methodology are worthy of investigating and probingdeeply. This thesis explained and analysed Ginzburg’s cultural history from fourtopics，which contains the Microhistory，the history of image-eyewithessing，themorphological comparative studies，the argument and practice of cultural historyaround rhetoric，and summarized the features of concepts and academic contributionof his historical researches.Ginzburg’s microhistorical study was a research model which refered toindividual case of popular culture. It concentrated on the stories about the nobodiesfrom below. On the interpretation of the popular culture，Ginzburg objected to see itas the sub-product of elite culture，and also disagreed to see it as absolute eliteculture’s antithesis. He deemed the popular culture as a cultural form which has itsisolation，and has been keeping interaction with elite culture all the time. Ginzburghas always unfolded the peculiarity and initiative of popular culture through thenobodies’ words and deeds in his microhistorical works. Ginzburg’s microhistoricalpractices had three theoretical references. It objected elitism historical idea，payingattention to the nobodies’ histories. It criticized the model of history of Mentalités，saying highly of the popular cultural complexity. It was a forceful repulsion againstquantitative methods，underlining to write the histories from below as the elites’.Ginzburg’s microhistorical studies triggered debates whether the case could studymodel of microhistory interpret the common nature of popular culture or not. Hisstudies also caused debates if there wore other documents suitable for themicrohistory beyond the judicial files of inquisition and how people treated the trendof fragmentation which the microhistory studies had set. All of these need Ginzburgand other microhistorians’ further introspections. Ginzburg’s research at the history of image-eyewitnessing is an approach thatemphasized the uses of images as historical evidence. His idea inspired fromiconological theory. Ginzburg had expounded the developing process and theoreticalmarrow of iconology，and he utilized its theory to investigate the cultural historyduring the Renaissance. He exploited the content changes of religious emblem books，showing the evolution of the idea of learning to know. He analysed the source ofTitian’s inspiration，attesting that the popular culture maybe the spiritual nutrition forthe elite culture. Moreover，iconological method aroused Ginzburg to ponder over theparadigm of perceiving history. In Ginzburg’s opinion，the paradigm by which theHistoriography abides is similar to hunting or divining and guessing. This paradigm isdifferent from scientific and quantitative one. Therefore，Ginzburg advocated findhistorical fact from trifles，arguing that the more imperceptible，the more reliable theevidence is. He used inference method to observe the Piero’s fresco，refounded thehumanism group of Arezzo in Italy. The history of image-eyewitnessing madehistorical visualization possible，expanding the channels of acquiring documentation.But the expressions of images are often amphibious，so that inevitably its conclusionsstopped with some hypothesizes.Ginzburg’s Morphological comparative study has double objectives. On the onehand，Ginzburg used it to overcome the micro-approach’s centralization，and regardedit as an attempt that turning the research perspective from micro to macro. On theother hand，Ginzburg tried to overstep the principal that historical compare should becarried between temporal and spatial adjacent phenomenas，which Bloch had drawnup. Morphological compare stresses concentration on such phenomenas：seeingsuperficially，they are unrelated chronologically and geographically，but have somefamily resemblances. Firstly，it assumes two similar phenomenas have inherentconnections. Then，you can prove that the assuming is true by searching theintermediary displaying the characters of the former both. Ginzburg used themorphological inquiries as a probe，traced to the ritual and intellectual source ofwitches’ Sabbath，and examined the immanent relations between the history of English literature and European academic development. Morphology has providedtheoretical foundation for comparative subjects which lacked of text evidence. But itencountered queries from other historian because its proofs and conclusions oftendepended on presuming.Ginzburg’s theoretical analyses and practices at cultural history aiming torhetoric are replies to postmodern skepticism. Ginzburg’s microhistorical approachcorresponded to the pluralism of the postmodernism，but he set himself against thatthe postmodern skeptics had criticized historiography with linguistic theories. Inaddition，he also objected the argument of positivism historians，who locatedrhetorical narrative in opposite position with historical studies. Ginzburg argued thateven if rhetoric has always mixed plentiful subjective factors that historian had beentried to avoid all the time，it built itself on real facts，and its nature has objectiveingredients. With this argument， Ginzburg claimed historian could identify adocumentation to be fake by pointing out anachronism in rhetoric，recalled theintellectual histories by analyzing the narrative forms in text，and carried forward thehistories of concepts by inspecting the meaning change of designated words.Ginzburg’s argument on rhetoric refuted the radical speech of postmodern skepticismfrom academic logic. His cultural history practices on the basis of rhetoric pinpointedthe direction of historical development in the postmodernism context. However，ifdocumental register and the documental content had been in same era，anachronismwould not exist，although the register had distorted the true facts. So Ginzburg’sstrategy on identifying documentations with rhetorical analysis has limitation oncertain condition. Meanwhile，his cultural investigations based on rhetoric had a littleovergeneralization.Because the schemes and implications of rhetorical narratives arealways ever-changing，the idea of clarifying a generality from individual text’s traitsremains to be seen.Ginzburg’s culture history researches had inspirations. His researches involvedhistorical micro and macro visual fields，and he can keep impartial and absorbed theadvantages between positivism and postmodern skepticism. He insisted the history and historiography are heterogeneous，so he asserted any historical paradigm orinterpretative tool can revel merely one profile of polyhedral human past. Therefore，he think that the paradigmization of a historiographical model means the oblivion ofthe other profiles of history. Given this，in order to unfold the lost and neglectedfacts，he used to penetrate the past from some contrary or opposite approaches otherthan the mainstream one.更多还原