At a 2004 conference at Princeton University, the leading practitioners of two influential approaches to studying the history of texts—the “history of the book” and “intellectual” history—compared the underpinnings of their respective methods. Robert Darnton contended that while seemingly “made for each other,” book history and intellectual history had proceeded along parallel paths over the late twentieth century, with the latter focused on the analysis of discourse, while historians of the book concerned themselves with the diffusion of texts. Quentin Skinner responded to Darnton by elaborating on these “contrasts.” He characterized the history of the book as “a specialized form of inquiry into the production, diffusion and enjoyment of printed and scribally published material,” while describing intellectual historians as primarily concerned with the meanings that actors in the past have ascribed to concepts as they expressed them in language. Intellectual historians, Skinner suggested, had paid relatively little attention to the social histories of how texts were produced and received, including questions of their physical attributes.

中文翻译：

---

纸是什么意思？

在 2004 年普林斯顿大学的一次会议上，两种有影响力的文本史研究方法——“书本史”和“知识分子”史——的主要实践者比较了各自方法的基础。罗伯特·达顿（Robert Darnton）认为，虽然看似“为对方而生”，但书史和思想史在 20 世纪后期沿着平行的道路前进，后者侧重于话语分析，而书史学家则关注文学史的传播。文本。昆汀·斯金纳通过详细阐述这些“对比”来回应达顿。他将这本书的历史描述为“一种对印刷和文字出版材料的生产、传播和享受的特殊形式的探究，”同时将知识史学家描述为主要关注过去行为者在用语言表达概念时赋予概念的意义。斯金纳建议，思想史学家相对较少关注文本如何产生和接收的社会历史，包括它们的物理属性问题。