Research in the fields of history of science and intellectual history over the last thirty years has produced a growing and exciting scholarship on the ways in which, in the early modern period (approximately between 1450 and 1750), the educated classes adapted their approach to managing and reproducing knowledge to meet the new emerging needs of a society faced with the unprecedented impact of the medium of print. The special issue of Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte dedicated to this important topic is just the most recent contribution to this historical investigation, and offers many original insights into the complexity of the phenomenon in question. The research has also been enriched over time by interdisciplinary input, from the fields of sociology of knowledge and social memory in particular, generating additional stimuli and raising new questions. Such extensive, enduring interest goes far beyond mere historiographical curiosity. It is therefore worth considering why, in today’s society—by now well-acquainted with the use of digital technologies and the set of new knowledge processing practices collectively referred to as digital humanities—the impact of the medium of print on early modern European society draws such attention. Of course, history is always interesting, because it allows us to make a comparison, which may be a source of information. But it seems that the research into notetaking and excerpting techniques practised—and then subject to pedagogical reflection—between the late-medieval and early modern periods is driven by much more than a desire to take a peek at how the scientists and scholars worked. Significant for similar reasons is the issue raised by Elisabeth D cultot, Fabian Kr mer, and Helmut Zedelmaier in their introduction to the special issue of Berichte zur Wissenschaftsgeschichte concerning the fact that the “practice [of excerpting] by no means stopped in the eighteenth century,” whereas the discourse about excerpting “disappeared around the same time and never gathered strength again ever since.” Effectively, the sources indicate a sort of wane in interest in a debate that had enthused scholars since at least Rudolf Agricola (1443–1485), while also inspiring controversial stances, particularly at the beginning of the 18th century,

中文翻译：

---

知识管理系统早期现代演变中偏差的含义：对杨致远的回应

在过去的三十年里，科学史和思想史领域的研究产生了越来越多的令人兴奋的学术研究，这些研究表明，在近代早期（大约在 1450 年到 1750 年之间），受过教育的阶级如何调整他们的管理方法并复制知识以满足面临印刷媒体空前影响的社会的新需求。专门针对这一重要主题的《科学史报告》特刊只是对这一历史调查的最新贡献，并提供了对所讨论现象的复杂性的许多原创见解。随着时间的推移，跨学科的投入也丰富了研究，尤其是知识社会学和社会记忆领域，产生额外的刺激并提出新的问题。这种广泛而持久的兴趣远远超出了单纯的史学好奇心。因此，值得考虑的是，为什么在当今社会——现在已经非常熟悉数字技术的使用和统称为数字人文科学的一组新知识处理实践——印刷媒介对早期现代欧洲社会的影响寻求关注。当然，历史总是有趣的，因为它可以让我们进行比较，这可能是一个信息来源。但似乎对中世纪晚期和现代早期之间实践的笔记和摘录技术的研究——然后受到教学反思——的驱动不仅仅是想看看科学家和学者的工作方式。出于类似原因，Elisabeth D cultot、Fabian Kr mer 和 Helmut Zedelmaier 在他们对科学史报告特刊的介绍中提出的问题很重要，即“[摘录] 的实践在十八世纪，“而关于摘录的话语”几乎在同一时间消失了，此后再也没有聚集力量。实际上，这些消息来源表明，至少从鲁道夫·阿格里科拉（Rudolf Agricola，1443-1485 年）以来，学者们对这场辩论的兴趣减弱了，同时也激发了有争议的立场，尤其是在 18 世纪初，和赫尔穆特·泽德尔迈尔 (Helmut Zedelmaier) 在他们对科学史报告特刊的介绍中指出，“[摘录] 的实践从未在 18 世纪停止过”，而关于摘录的话语“大约在同一时间消失了，从此再也没有凝聚过力量。” 实际上，这些消息来源表明，至少从鲁道夫·阿格里科拉（Rudolf Agricola，1443-1485 年）以来，学者们对这场辩论的兴趣减弱了，同时也激发了有争议的立场，尤其是在 18 世纪初，和赫尔穆特·泽德尔迈尔 (Helmut Zedelmaier) 在他们对科学史报告特刊的介绍中指出，“[摘录] 的实践从未在 18 世纪停止过”，而关于摘录的话语“大约在同一时间消失了，从此再也没有凝聚过力量。” 实际上，这些消息来源表明，至少从鲁道夫·阿格里科拉（Rudolf Agricola，1443-1485 年）以来，学者们对这场辩论的兴趣减弱了，同时也激发了有争议的立场，尤其是在 18 世纪初，