①我曾写过一篇讨论贝林史学的文章,文中评述贝林应对现代史学挑战而做新尝试的第三部分,在发表时被编辑全部删去。参见李剑鸣:《伯纳德·贝林的史学初论》,《史学理论研究》1999年第1期。
②伍德1964年在哈佛大学获得博士学位的论文题为《革命时期美利坚政体的缔造》(The Creation of an American Polity in the Revolutionary Era),五年后正式成书出版时,标题改作《美利坚共和国的缔造》。这一改动使文字更简洁,主题更明确,气势更宏伟,含义也更丰富。尤其是以“republic”取代“an American polity”,鲜明地凸显了主题,提升了研究的意义。See James Henretta,et al.,eds.,The Transformation of Early American History,New York:Alfred A.Knopf,1991,p.264.
③Gordon S.Wood,The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1969,p.viii.
④Bernard Bailyn,The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution,Cambridge,Mass.:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press,1967.
①John R.Howe,Jr,.“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”The Journal of Southern History,Vol.36,No.1(Feb.1970),p.90.
②Gordon S.Wood,“Ideology and the Origins of Liberal America,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),pp.634-635.
③Gordon S.Wood,The Radicalism of the American Revolution,New York:Alfred A.Knopf,1992,pp.4-5.
①Wood,The Radicalism of the American Revolution,pp.95-169,229-230,365-369.
②Michael Zuckerman,“Rhetoric,Reality,and the Revolution:The Genteel Radicalism of Gordon Wood,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.51,No.4(Oct.1994),p.695.
③Edward Countryman,“Indians,the Colonial Order,and the Social Significance of the American Revolution,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.53,No.2(Apr.1996),p.344.
④Alfred F.Young,“American Historians Confront‘The Transforming Hand of Revolution’,”In Ronald Hoffman and Peter J.Albert,eds.,The Transforming Hand of Revolution:Reconsidering the American Revolution as a Social Movement,Charlottesville:The University Press of Virginia,1995,pp.486-489.
①Gordon S.Wood,Empire of Liberty:A History of the Early Republic,1789-1815,New York:Oxford University Press,2009,p.xv.
②Wood,Empire of Liberty,pp.1-4.
③参见伍德在获“肯尼迪奖章”时的答词,文稿由伍德教授本人以电子邮件传给笔者。
④Wood,Empire of Liberty,p.3.
⑤Wood,Empire of Liberty,p.xvi.
⑥Sean Wilentz,The Rise of American Democracy:Jefferson to Lincoln,New York:W.W.Norton,2005.
①Jon Butler,Becoming America:The Revolution Before 1776,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,2000.
②John Howe,“Gordon S.Wood and the Analysis of Political Culture in the American Revolutionary Era,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),p.570.
③Ruth H.Bloch,“The Constitution and Culture,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),p.550.
④Jack N.Rakove,“Gordon S.Wood,the‘Republican Synthesis’and the Path Not Taken,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),p.617.
⑤《缔造》所用材料过于丰富,以致招来堆砌之讥。See J.R.Pole,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”The Historical Journal,Vol.13,No.4(Dec.1970),p.803.
①“Editors Note for‘The Constitution of the United States’,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),p.549.
②James Ferguson,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”Political Science Quarterly,Vol.86,No.4(Dec.1971),p.691.
③Howe,Jr,.“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”p.90.
④Peter S.Onuf,“State Politics and Ideological Transformation:Gordon S.Woods Republican Revolution,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),pp.613,615,616.
⑤Howe,“Gordon S.Wood and the Analysis of Political Culture in the American Revolutionary Era,”p.575.
⑥Pole,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”p.803.
⑦Ferguson,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”pp.691-692.
⑧Alfred H.Kelly,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science,Vol.387(Jan.1970),p.204.
⑨Page Smith,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”The Journal of American History,Vol.57,No.1(Jun.1970),pp.126-128.
Pole,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”pp.799-800.
①Robert E.Brown,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”The American Historical Review,Vol.75,No.3(Feb.1970),pp.919-920.
②Jackson Turner Main,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.26,No.4(Oct.1969),pp.606-607.
③Wood,The Creation of the American Republic,p.606.
④Noble E.Cunningham,Jr,.“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,Vol.77,No.4(Oct.1969),pp.485-486.
⑤Main,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”pp.605-606.
⑥Jackson Turner Main,“An Agenda for Research on the Origins and Nature of the Constitution of 1787-1788,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),p.591.
①Gary B.Nash,“Also There at the Creation:Going beyond Gordon S.Wood,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),p.602.
②参见李剑鸣:《意识形态与美国革命的历史叙事》,《史学集刊》2011年第6期。
③关于社会史研究中“集合体人格化”方法的介绍,参见安托万·普罗斯特:《历史学十二讲》,王春华译,北京:北京大学出版社,2012年,第208页。
①Edward Countryman,“Of Republicanism,Capitalism,and the‘American Mind’,”The William and Mary Quarterly,
3 rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),p.556.
②Pauline Maier,“A Pearl in a Gnarled Shell:Gordon S.Woods The Creation of the American Republic,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),pp.585-587.
③Wood,The Creation of the American Republic,pp.93-97.
④Rakove,“Gordon S.Wood,the‘Republican Synthesis’and the Path Not Taken,”p.619.
⑤Ralph Ketcham,“Publius:Sustaining the Republican Principle,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.44,No.3(Jul.1987),pp.578-582.
⑥Howe,“Gordon S.Wood and the Analysis of Political Culture in the American Revolutionary Era,”pp.571-572,574.
⑦J.C.D.Clark,The Language of Liberty 1660-1832:Political Discourse and Social Dynamics in the Anglo-American World,Cambridge,England:Cambridge University Press,1994.
⑧参见第三节的有关讨论。
⑨Nash,“Also There at the Creation:Going beyond Gordon S.Wood,”pp.603-604.
①Marc W.Kruman,Between Authority&Liberty:State Constitution Making in Revolutionary America,Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1997,p.xi.
②Rakove,“Gordon S.Wood,the‘Republican Synthesis’and the Path Not Taken,”p.617.
③Charles W.Akers,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”The New England Quarterly,Vol.42,No.4(Dec.1969),p.605.
④Zuckerman,“Rhetoric,Reality,and the Revolution,”p.694.
⑤Rakove,“Gordon S.Wood,the‘Republican Synthesis’and the Path Not Taken,”p.619.
⑥Akers,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”pp.606-607.
⑦是年H·芬纳(H.Finer)出版的《大欧洲诸强国的政府》一书有个附标题,英文为“A Comparative Study of the Governments and Political Culture of Great Britain,France,Germany,and the Soviet Union”,但他没有对“political culture”(政治文化)这个术语做出界定。
⑧Young C.Kim,“The Concept of Political Culture in Comparative Politics,”The Journal of Politics,Vol.26,No.2(May 1964),pp.320,324.
①Lowell Dittmer(罗德明),“Political Culture and Political Symbolism:Toward a Theoretical Synthesis,”World Politics,Vol.29,No.4(Jul.1977),p.553.
②Bernard Bailyn,The Origins of American Politics,New York:Alfred A.Knopf,1968,pp.3-58.
③Bailyn,The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution.
④J.G.A.Pocock,“Virtue and Commerce in the Eighteenth Century,”The Journal of Interdisciplinary History,Vol.3,No.1(Summer 1972),p.122.
⑤Ronald P.Formisano,“The Concept of Political Culture,”The Journal of Interdisciplinary History,Vol.31,No.3(Winter 2001),p.393,394.
⑥Wood,The Creation of the American Republic,p.viii.
⑦Clinton Rossiter,Seedtime of the Republic:The Origins of the American Tradition of Political Liberty,New York:Harcourt,Brace&World,Inc.,1953.
①Vernon L.Parrington,Main Currents in American Thought,3 vols.,New York:Harcourt,Brace and Company,1927-1930.
②Rossiter,Seedtime of the Republic:The Origins of the American Tradition of Political Liberty.
③Louis Hartz,The Liberal Tradition in America,New York:Harcourt,Brace and World,1955.
④Richard Hofstadter,The American Political Tradition and the Men Who Made It,New York:Alfred A.Knopf,1948.
①Gordon S.Wood,“Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.23,No.1(Jan.1966),pp.3-31.
②Howe,Jr,.“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”p.91.
③Wood,“Ideology and the Origins of Liberal America,”pp.629-631.
④Lynn Hunt,ed.,The New Cultural History,Berkeley:University of California Press,1989.
①Gordon S.Wood,The Idea of America:Reflections on the Birth of the United States,New York:The Penguin Press,2011,pp.13-17.
②Wood,The Creation of the American Republic,p.viii.
③Howe,Jr,.“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”p.90.
④Onuf,“State Politics and Ideological Transformation,”p.614.
⑤波科克曾说,他和昆丁·斯金纳一起致力于把政治思想史改造成“政治语言和话语史”,关注“作为言说世界代理人的思想家”所表现出的“表述和概念化的行动”,以及制约他们言说同时又为其言说行动所改变的“语言和修辞的模板”。See J.G.A.Pocock,“The Machiavellian Moment Revisited:A Study in History and Ideology,”The Journal of Modern History,Vol.53,No.1(Mar.1981),p.50.
⑥Quentin Skinner,The Foundations of Modern Political Thought,Cambridge,UK:Cambridge University Press,1978,pp.x-xv;中译本见昆廷·斯金纳:《近代政治思想的基础》上册,奚瑞森、亚方译,北京:商务印书馆,2002年,第3-9页。
⑦不过,在政治思想史领域并未形成一个与“剑桥学派”平分秋色的“哈佛学派”。其原因或许是贝林和伍德都未把自己定位为政治思想史家,他们的兴趣是政治史;贝林本人则在80年代后转向人口社会史,他后期所指导的博士生的选题也多与政治思想史无关。
①H(arry).T(homas).Dickinson,Liberty and Property:Political Ideology in Eighteenth-Century Britain,London:Methuen and Company,1977,pp.2-9.
②Clark,The Language of Liberty.
③Gary B.Nash,The Urban Crucible:Social Changes,Political Consciousness,and the Origins of the American Revolution,Cambridge,Mass.:Harvard University Press,1979.
④Woody Holton,“American Revolution and Early Republic,”In Eric Foner and Lisa McGirr,eds.,American History Now,Philadelphia:Temple University,2011,pp.24-51.
⑤J.Franklin Jameson,The American Revolution Considered as a Social Movement,Princeton,New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1926.
⑥Merrill Jensen,The Articles of Confederation:An Interpretation of the Social-Constitutional History of the American Revolution 1774-1781,Madison:The University of Wisconsin Press,1940;Merrill Jensen,The New Nation:A History of the United States during the Confederation,1781-1789,New York:Alfred A.Knopf,1950.
①Jackson Turner Main,The Social Structure of Revolutionary America,Princeton,New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1965.
②据美国学者罗伯特·谢尔霍普分析,“共和综论”的形成有着悠长的学术脉络,贝林和伍德的贡献是总其成。以往,美国史学界通行的看法是,共和主义作为一种政体观念,对美国革命时期的政体建设没有多大的影响,而且它在美国的流行和广泛接受,也是19世纪初的事。后来,经过许多学者的点滴努力,对共和主义的内涵和渊源的理解不断深化,最终在贝林和伍德的著作中臻于系统化;尤其是伍德的著作,不再仅仅把共和主义视为一套政体观念,而是一种涉及社会各方面的、具有强大塑造力的意识形态,构成美国革命者探索共和政体和形成新的政治理念的语境,因而这本书对“共和综论”的形成具有关键性的意义。美国学者丹尼尔·罗杰斯也说,伍德的《缔造》标志着共和主义首次成为一个“明晰的组织性主题”。他还略带调侃地把共和主义范式分成哈佛派(贝林和伍德)和圣路易斯派(波科克及其学生),称两者到20世纪80年代才有共同语言,但在方法论和解释方面仍存在明显的差别。See Robert E.Shalhope,“Toward a Republican Synthesis:The Emergence of an Understanding of Republicanism in American Historiography,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.29,No.1(Jan.1972),pp.49-80;Daniel T.Rodgers,“Republicanism:The Career of a Concept,”The Journal of American History,Vol.79,No.1(June 1992),pp.16,17-20.
③Robert Kelley,“Ideology and Political Culture from Jefferson to Nixon,”The American Historical Review,Vol.82,No.3(Jun.1977),p.536.
④罗伯特·谢尔霍普对美国革命研究的思想史路径做了简要阐述。See Shalhope,“Toward a Republican Synthesis,”pp.49-54.
⑤Wood,“Rhetoric and Reality in the American Revolution,”pp.3-4.
⑥Pocock,“Virtue and Commerce in the Eighteenth Century,”p.119.
⑦Harry M.Tinkcom,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography,Vol.94,No.1(Jan.1970),pp.113-114.
①Bailyn,The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution,p.158.
②Bailyn,The Origins of American Politics,pp.13,38-39,56,66,106-161.
③Bernard Bailyn,“The Central Themes of the American Revolution:An Interpretation,”In Stephen G.Kurtz and James H.Hutson,eds.,Essays on the American Revolution,Chapel Hill:The University of North Carolina Press,1973,pp.4-11.
④Bailyn,“The Central Themes of the American Revolution,”p.3.
⑤Wood,The Idea of America,pp.2-3.
⑥伍德写道:“与欧洲的国家不一样,合众国已是由愈益多样化的人民所构成的,它不可能依赖任何部族的或民族的认同;成为一个美利坚人,不可能是一个血缘的问题;它只能是一个共同的信仰和行为的问题。而这种共同的信仰和行为的源泉,就是美国革命:是革命,而且仅只是革命,才使他们成为同一个人民。”Wood,The Radicalism of the American Revolution,pp.335-336.
①Wood,The Idea of America,pp.320-322,335.
②Bailyn,The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution,p.302.
③Wood,The Creation of the American Republic,p.91.
④Paul H.Smith,“Review of The Creation of the American Republic,1776-1787,”The Florida Historical Quarterly,Vol.48,No.2(Oct.1969),p.194.
⑤Young,“American Historians Confront‘The Transforming Hand of Revolution’,”pp.410-422.
⑥Michael Kammen,“The American Revolution as a Crise de Conscience:The Case of New York,”In Richard M.Jellison,ed.,Society,Freedom,and Conscience:The American Revolution in Virginia,Massachusetts,and New York,New York:W.W.Norton,1976,p.127.
①Robert E.Shalhope,“Republicanism and Early American Historiography,”The William and Mary Quarterly,3rd ser.,Vol.39,No.2(Apr.1982),pp.336-356.
②Young,“American Historians Confront‘The Transforming Hand of Revolution’,”pp.421-422.
③Clark,The Language of Liberty,pp.1,22.
④Joyce Appleby,“Liberalism and the American Revolution,”The New England Quarterly,Vol.49,No.1(Mar.1976),pp.5-7.
⑤Forrest McDonald,Novus Ordo Seclorum:The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution,Lawrence:University Press of Kansas,1985,p.viii.
⑥Steven M.Dworetz,The Unvarnished Doctrine:Locke,Liberalism,and the American Revolution,Durham:Duke University Press,1990;Alex Tuckness,“Discourses of Resistance in the American Revolution,”Journal of the History of Ideas,Vol.64,No.4(Oct.2003),pp.547-563.
⑦Douglas Bradburn,The Citizenship Revolution:Politics and the Creation of the American Union,1774-1804,Charlottesville:University of Virginia Press,2009,p.15.
⑧Shalhope,“Republicanism and Early American Historiography,”pp.336-346.
①Gordon S.Wood,The Purpose of the Past:Reflections on the Uses of History,New York:The Penguin Press,2008,pp.3-5.
②Victoria E.Bonnell and Lynn Hunt,eds.,Beyond the Cultural Turn:New Directions in the Study of Society and Culture,Berkeley:University of California Press,1999;Lawrence B.Glickman,“The‘Cultural Turn’,”In Eric Foner and Lisa McGirr,eds.,American History Now,Philadelphia:Temple University,2011,pp.221-241.
①Wood,The Purpose of the Past,pp.8,10-12.
②Gordon S.Wood,The American Revolution:A History,New York:The Modern Library,2003,pp.xxiv-xxv;Wood,The Purpose of the Past,pp.7,10-13.
③Wood,The Idea of America,pp.10-12.
①Meg Jacobs,William J.Novak and Julian E.Zelizer,eds.,The Democratic Experiment:New Directions in American Political History,Princeton,New Jersey:Princeton University Press,2003,p.1.
②朱克曼对伍德的《美国革命的激进主义》提出尖锐批评,指责他完全忽视普通美国人的经历,用当时上层人的说法来替代民众自己的声音,并且赞同上层人的立场。Zuckerman,“Rhetoric,Reality,and the Revolution,”pp.694-695.
③Gordon S.Wood,The Revolutionary Characters:What Made the Founders Different,New York:Penguin Books,2006,pp.7-11;“The Relevance and Irrelevance of the Founders:Revolutionary Characters:What Made the Founders Different by Gordon S.Wood,”Harvard Law Review,Vol.120,No.2(Dec.2006),pp.619-626.
④Wood,The Idea of America,pp.195-198,200-203.
①Wood,“Ideology and the Origins of Liberal America,”pp.635,639.
②Wood,The Revolutionary Characters,pp.10-11.
①Wood,The Purpose of the Past,pp.2,9.
②Gordon S.Wood,The Americanization of Benjamin Franklin,New York:The Penguin Press,2004,pp.ix,1-16.
