第五周：Clues:
Roots of an Evidential Paradigm
‘’This
collection of eight essays explores the methodological foundations of his
historical analysis.’’ 歷史分析方法的基礎建立的某種示範
（一）內容和概念
筆者也許會講的不完全，Ginzburg在這篇文章試圖「挖掘」，而有些脈絡筆者並不熟悉（所以看不懂），但在這裡先簡單提筆者是如何理解作者對文章的組織、思考脈絡，以及提幾處筆者覺得有趣的部份，也就是說筆者不會通篇摘要，而是選擇幾處和大家分享。
在文章的開始，作者試圖呈現十九世紀末關於人性的認知論（典範）的建構出現，並想從中挖掘，希冀突破「rationalism」（Webster: philosophy, the belief that reason and experience and not
emotions or religious beliefs should be the basis for your actions, opinions）和「irrationalism」（a system emphasizing intuition, instinct,
feeling, or faith rather than reason or holding that the universe is governed
by irrational forces）之間沒有結果的爭辯。
這裡可以明顯看到Ginsburg認為對於個人、case study的分析研究是重要的（也就是個體的至關重要），也許可以這樣講，那是某種對於unattainable reality的重新覺察、書寫。
怎麼說呢？作者先從三個十九世紀的特殊人物講起──Morelli、Freud和Holmes（&柯南道爾）。三個在不同領域觀察細微處的能手（而他們同時都有某種程度上的醫學背景－－連結到：症狀的細微觀察、與病人一對一關係、medicine as the "art of individualizing"－－Ginzburg將其用至於歷史分析方法上，形成他的一套理路）。
作者在文章中裡先是提到關於義大利畫作顛覆性辨別真偽（導致當時藝術史論戰）的文章的作者Morelli的方法論，Morelli的方法是透過畫作的枝微細節（比如手指）來看出真偽，因為那裡是畫家繪畫時放鬆、放進個人風格（individual touch）的地方（因為沒有要精心布置），而那同時也是抄襲者、學徒們忽略不會要去抄襲的地方，從這裡辨別真偽。有人批評Morelli對細節過度在乎，而不去管作品本身，批評聲浪巨大。但Edgar Wind的重新對Morelli提起，並且給予視角特殊的評價：「現代心理學一定會支持Morelli：我們不注意的小動作比那些精心擺出的姿態還要真實地揭露出我們的性格。（’’…modern psychology would
certainly support Morelli: our inadvertent little gesture reveal our character
far more authentically than any formal posture than may carefully prepare.’’）」佛洛伊德也曾經提起Morelli方法論對他的影響，在未有精神分析理論出現之前，Morelli的方法已經提供了這個雛形（智識上的影響）：「It seems to me that
this method of inquiry（調查、探查）is closely related to the
technique of psycho-analysis. It, too, is accustomed to divine secret and
concealed things from unconsidered or unnoticed details, from the rubbish heap,
as it were, of our observation.」而連結到調查，想到福爾摩斯，Wind提到Morelli的研究手法和福爾摩斯也相當類似（從細節處著手發掘真相）。
（摘錄）
「Towards the end of the nineteenth century , more precisely in the decade 1870-80 - a presumptive（根據推定的） paradigm began to assert itself in the humane sciences
that was based specifically on semiotics（符號學）. Its roots, however, were much older.」（接著就回到最早人類還作為獵人的時代，說明獵人已會仔細觀察、依循獵物的足跡來找到獵物）
「It should be clear by now that the group of disciplines
which we have called evidential and conjectural (medicine included) are totally
unrelated to the scientific criteria that can be claimed for the Galileian（伽利略） paradigm. In fact, they are highly qualitative
disciplines, in which the object is the study of individual cases, situations,
and documents, precisely because they are individual, and for this reason get
results that have an unsuppressible speculative margin……」（p.106）
精彩的宣告：
「The carpet is the paradigm that, as I went along, I have called, depending
on the context, venatic, divinatory, conjectural, or semiotic. These, clearly,
are not synonymous adjectives, but nonetheless refer to a common
epistemological model, expressed through various disciplines that are
frequently linked by borrowed methods or key terms. Then, between the
eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, with the emergence of the "humane
sciences," the constellation of conjectural disciplines changed
profoundly: new stars were born and quickly fell, such as phrenology, or
experienced great success, as did paleontology. But it is medicine, above all others,
which assumes a preeminent position, thanks to its prestige epistemologically
and socially. All the "humane sciences" attempt to relate themselves
to it, explicitly or implicitly. But to which side of medicine? In
mid-nineteenth century we see choices emerging: the anatomical model on the one
hand, the semiotic on the other. The metaphor "anatomy of society,''
employed even by Marx in a crucial passage, expresses the admiration for
systematic knowledge in an age which had witnessed the collapse of the last
great system, the Hegelian. But in spite of Marxism's great success, the humane
sciences increasingly ended up accepting (with one notable exception, as we
shall see) the conjectural paradigm of semiotics. And here we return to the
trio Morelli, Freud, and Conan Doyle with which we began.」（p.117-118）
結論：
「This "low intuition" is based on the senses
(though it skirts them)
and as such has nothing to do with the suprasensible
intuition of the various nineteenth- and twentieth-century irrationalisms. It
can be found throughout the entire world, with no limits of geography, history,
ethnicity, sex, or class - and thus, it is far removed from higher forms of
knowledge which are the privileged property of an elite few. It is the property
of the Bengalese, their knowledge having been expropriated by Sir William Herschel;
of hunters; of sailors; of women. It binds the human animal closely to other
animal species.」（p.125）
來不及讀註腳，和註腳一起搭配閱讀應該會更了解Ginzburg鋪成的脈絡和細節。
沒有留言:
張貼留言