Scholarly Exclusiveness and the Foundation of the English Historical Review
Scholarly Exclusiveness and the Foundation of the English Historical Review
复制标题
学术排他性与英国历史评论的基础
DOI：
10.1111/j.1468-2281.1988.tb01059.x
复制
发表时间：
1988
影响因子：
0.4
通讯作者：
A. Kadish
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
A. Kadish
对于历史学家和英国历史和历史编纂学的学生来说，以下关于《EHR》建立的叙述似乎属于家庭八卦的范畴--一个适合纪念日的故事。然而，这篇文章的目的不仅是，甚至主要是，设置记录直，但要揭示一个更重要的问题，学术排他性的问题。研究合法学术的标准是如何确定的，由谁确定的。应该指出，这一问题与学术地位关系不大，因此不能简单地将这一问题视为专业化的技术方面，即业余学者与专业学者之间的界线。至于这些讨论在多大程度上预见了《历史杂志》或《今日历史》，这还有待于未来的研究来决定。根据《英国历史评论》的“官方”历史，或者更确切地说，prehstory，它起源于1867年1月JR绿色（时任西弗吉尼亚州斯泰普尼圣菲利普学院院长）之间的一次讨论。亨特和詹姆斯布莱斯，当时的学校调查委员会助理专员，在斯泰普尼的绿色的房子。在向E描述会议时，A.弗里曼，绿色写道：我们的大部分谈话都是关于一个计划亨特，我认为我们一起打了，但（似乎）布莱斯已经预料到了一个纯粹的历史评论的开始。他咨询[亚历山大]麦克米伦，谁相信它肯定会成功，但建议的形式是一个年度卷像牛津论文[即Esqx对改革]？这，然而，不是布莱斯的观点;他更喜欢季刊;对于我自己的平底锅，我相信一先令的月刊。正如布莱斯所说，如果它在国外找不到历史利益，它就会创造它。斯塔布斯，和萨姆斯热情地支持。他认为斯塔布斯是编辑。
F o R En G Li s H hstorians and for students of English history and historiography the following account of the foundation of the EHR may seem to fall under the category of family gossip-a tale appropriate for anniversaries. However the purpose of this article is not only, or even mainly, to set the record straight, but to uncover a more important issue, the question of scholarly exclusiveness. To examine how the criteria of legitimate scholarship were determined and by whom. The matter, it should be noted, had relatively little to do with academic status, hence the subject cannot be simply dismissed as a technical aspect of professionalization in which a line was drawn between amateurs and professional academics. As to what extent these deliberations anticipated the HistoricalJoumal or History Today, that remains to be decided by future research. According to the ‘official’history, or, rather, prehstory, of the English Historical Review’it had originated in a discussion which took place in January 1867 between JR Green, then incumbent of St. Philip’s, Stepney, W. Hunt and James Bryce, at the time assistant commissioner of the Schools Enquiry Commission, at Green’s house in Stepney. In describing the meeting to E. A. Freeman, Green wrote:Much of our chat turned on a scheme Hunt and I thought we had hit out together, but which (it seems) Bryce had anticipated-the starting of a purely Historical Review. He consulted [Alexander] Macmillan, who believed it would certainly succeed, but recommended the form to be an annual volume like the Oxford Essays [ie Esqx on Reform]? This, however, is not Bryce’s view; he would prefer a Quarterly; for my own pan I believe in a shilling Monthly. Ably done, as Bryce says, if it did not find an historic interest abroad it would create it. He had spoken to [W.] Stubbs, and stubbs was warm in support. He thought of Stubbs as Editor.’