论文部分内容阅读
八年前,我写过这样一段话:“从历史上看,编辑是随着出版业的兴起而逐渐产生的。……有出版才有编辑,书籍编辑存在于并发展于出版业中,所有编辑都存在于并发展于传播业中。”(《中国编辑史研究的几个问题》。见《编辑学理论研究》,山东教育出版社1995年版,第408—409页),此话我至今不以为非。不过,当今学术界持有不同见解的一些人认为,不承认历史上有书籍就有编辑,或者不承认孔子、司马迁等人是最早的编辑家,就是否认编辑的历史发展的特点和过程。这种观点之所以不可取,在于混淆了两种不同性质的编辑概念。记得几年前,有人讥之为“这鸭头不是那丫头”。(参见《读书》1993年第9期:《漫说一个三角锥,出版的》)把“鸭头”与“丫头”混淆在一起去讲“历史发展”,才是真正的缺乏历史观点和科学态度。有关这方面的种种混淆,除了令人感到困惑,也引发深入研究问题的兴趣。本文将结合古代出版业中的情况考察编辑的产生和发展,重点是谈古代编辑和现代编辑的特征。其中,当然不能不讲区分两种编辑这个老问题,因为不讲这个区分就意味着甘脆放弃历史研究中的科学态度。
Eight years ago, I wrote the following passage: “Historically, editors grew up with the rise of the publishing industry .... There was an editor for publication, and the editors of books existed and grew in the publishing industry, all Editors exist and develop in the communications industry. ”(“ Several Issues in the Study of the History of Chinese Editors. ”See“ Theories of Editorial Studies, ”Shandong Education Press, 1995, pp. 408-409) Not agree However, some people in academia who hold different views hold that it is denial of the characteristics and process of the historical development of editors by not admitting that there are books in history that have editorials or who do not recognize Confucius and Sima Qian as the earliest editors. The reason why this view is not desirable lies in the confusion of two different kinds of editorial concepts. I remember a few years ago, some people ridiculed it as “this duck is not that girl.” (See “The Book of Reading, No.9, 1993:” Manuscript of a Triangle Cone, “) Confusing” duck head “with” girl “to talk about” historical development "is the real lack of historical perspective and science attitude. In addition to being confused, the confusion in this area has also sparked interest in further research. This article examines the emergence and development of editors in the context of the ancient publishing industry, with an emphasis on the characteristics of ancient editors and modern editors. Of course, we can not but differentiate between the two editors and the old one, for ignoring the distinction means giving up the scientific attitude in historical research.