歷史學家不重要，歷史才重要

Bernard Bailyn是哈佛大學歷史系的退休教授，據說也是二十世紀下半葉在美國早期史研究中影響力最大的學者。去年剛開學時翻過他幾本書，包括他比較近期寫的，針對大西洋史研究做的簡述Atlantic history: concept and contours，書很薄，但很有意思。

不過我最喜愛的是他的On the Teaching and Writing of History。這本書小小一冊，還不到一百頁，也不是正式的論文，而是訪談錄。可是他娓娓道來對於歷史研究的種種思考，沒有什麼誇張的言論，意見卻都十分中肯。讓我想到了嚴耕望的治史經驗談。

我讀到這一段印象很深刻。

Q: How does one best approach the necessary task for examining individuals on what they have learned during their study of history?

B.B.: People have different views about this. My feeling, first of all, is that examinations should not focus on historians. I don't think historians, with a few exceptions, are very important. History is important. So, I don't want to stick a student with deciding in an exam between differences in the interpretations of Historian A and Historian B. I don' t think they should b e adjudicating between historians huddle over their desks trying to write books, or concentrating on how one historian's interpretation differs from another's.

是阿，在歷史面前，歷史學家哪裡重要呢。

這本書絕對值得任何一位研究或教授歷史的人閱讀。有機會希望能把更多段落放上來，最好能簡單翻譯一下。