Evan Fowler 方禮倫
LSE倫敦政經學院歷史系畢業，不屬單一種族、國籍，土生土長香港人。
2012-10-3 23:00:00
So I read the Eric Hobsbaum’s (see Note *) great work out of order. I would also read a great deal of the other two books of his 19th Century trilogy, The Age of Revolution and The Age of Capital, whilst in transit. These books provided not only a highly readable introduction to the ideas, events and characters of his “long century”, but also an introduction to the study of history itself.
Hobsbawm wrote great history to those who couldn’t quite accept the national narrative. To him history was not shaped by leaders, but by ideas. He was both a very old fashioned and thoroughly modern intellectual. Arguably the finest conceptual historian of the 20th Century, he was also one of the most humane, sensitive to the stories of common people. If AJP Taylor introduced British and European history to the general public, and EP Thompson gave us the working man’s view, Hobsbawm made us think about history not only as a story but as a subject. History, Hobsbaum showed, is a lesson in ideas.
Sadly he will be remembered as much for his politics as his work as a historian. A Marxist, he never gave up a young man’s dream that a better and more just system could exist, even when it became apparent that Communism had betrayed him. His more recent writings on the 20th Century suffer from a political bias, though no more so than Niall Ferguson. This is as much a sign of the times, where it is easier to make a name and sell books that confirm the readers prejudice. But judgement should be based on understanding. As he would note in later years when questioned about his support for the Communist experiment, it is not for a historian to establish a truth rather than establish an understanding. It was always those who dealt in the absolutes that were the first to criticize. If only a fool would agree with everything he said, likewise only a fool would fail to understand the value of what he wrote. We should look beyond the political labels to a man who sought to understand the great intellectual and social movements that defined and continue to define our society, and for whom what was important was not a people, but the people.
Eric Hobsbawm passed away on Monday 1st October. He was 95 years old. He had a good innings, both long, productive and coloured by individual brilliance.
1996年，我17歲，剛完成歷史系入學面試，在陰冷的希斯路機場，13小時經濟客位旅程之前，到WH Smith書店裡瀏覽。找歷史書吧，最好是易讀又博學的。我選了Eric Hobsbaum的“Age of Empire”，似乎熟悉，郤誘人地待讀。
就是這樣，我從大師的大作中間插入。其它兩本十九世紀三部曲，“The Age of Revolution”及“The Age of Capital”，後來都在路途中讀，讀了很多。這套書是Eric Hobsbaum的入門好書，不單導入「漫長世紀」的觀念，事件和人物，亦是歷史學本身的入門。
Hobsbaum為不太願接受國家叙述(National Narrative)的讀者書寫偉大的歷史。對他來說，塑造歷史的並不是領䄂，而是觀念。他既是老派智識份子，卻同時徹底地現代。他可以說是廿世紀最優秀的概念史學家，亦最有人情味，對普羅大眾的故事感覺敏銳。如果AJP Taylor向大眾介紹了英國和歐州歷史，EP Thompson給人予勞苦大眾的視角，Hobsbaum則要我們將歷史作為一個學科來思考，而非只是說故事。Hobsaum呈現的歷史，是由觀念構成的教訓。
遺憾的是，人們回憶他作為歷史學家的工作時，也會以同樣分量記起他的政治主張。Hobsbaum身為馬克思主義者，一直沒有放棄年青時的理想，即一個更美好公義的制度是有可能的，即使共產主義已明顯背棄了他。他晚期關於廿世紀的著作，深受政治成見影響，雖則未必更甚於Niall Ferguson。也許是這個時代的特徵，就是去討好讀者的徧見往往較易成名或容易賣書。但是，判斷應該基於理解。 正如他於晚年，當被質疑關於他參與共產主義實驗時，他指出史學家要確立的，並非某些事實，而是一套理解。率先批判他的，通常都是追求絕對真理的人。若說只有儍子才會全部同意他的說話，亦只有儍子才會看不出他寫的東西的價值。我們應該超越政治標籤去看清的是，他這人力求理解那些重大的知性運動和社會運動， 這些在以往及現在仍然界定着我們的社會；對他來說，重要的是民眾，而不是民族。
Eric Hobsbawm於十月一號星期一逝世，享年95歲，他過了一局局精彩的人生，漫長、豐饒、閃耀卓越的個人才智。
Note *
Hobsbawm was born in 1917 in Alexandria, Egypt, to Leopold Percy Hobsbaum (né Obstbaum), a merchant from the East End of London who was of Polish Jewish descent, and Nelly Hobsbaum (née Grün), who was from a middle-class Austrian Jewish family background. A clerical error at birth altered his surname from Hobsbaum to Hobsbawm.
( from Wikipedia entry on Eric Hobsbawn - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Hobsbawm)
霍布斯邦1917年出生於埃及亞歷山大城。父親是移居英國的俄屬波蘭猶太裔人，母親則是出身自奧地利的猶太中產家庭。因文書上的錯誤將其姓氏由 Hobsbaum 改為 Hobsbawm.
沒有留言:
發佈留言