Interview | Classical Studies in Germany: A Nation’s Humanistic Psychology and Academic Resilience

Interview | Classical Studies in Germany: A Nation’s Humanistic Psychology and Academic Resilience访谈｜古典学在德国：一个民族的人文心理发展与学术韧性

德国古典学在过去两百年间塑造了西方古代史研究的基本范式，这一学术传统以系统整理知识与持续反思方法著称，深刻影响了整个人文学科。然而，当数字人文与人工智能开始改变知识生产的方式，当英语成为国际学术的主要语言，当大型基础项目面临资金困境——这套以“多样性”为特征、以“韧性”著称的德国传统，正在经历怎样的延续与转变？

Over the past two centuries, German classical studies has shaped the basic paradigms of Western ancient-history research. This scholarly tradition, known for its systematic ordering of knowledge and its sustained reflection on method, has profoundly influenced the humanities as a whole. Yet as digital humanities and artificial intelligence begin to alter the ways knowledge is produced, as English becomes the principal language of international scholarship, and as large foundational projects confront financial strain, what kinds of continuity and transformation is this German tradition, marked by “diversity” and renowned for “resilience,” now undergoing?

为此，我们邀请东北师范大学世界古典文明史研究所顾斯文（Sven Günther）教授与德国卡塞尔大学凯·鲁芬（Kai Ruffing）教授，展开一场深度对话。两位学者从19世纪学科专业化谈起，梳理了德国古典学的关键节点与核心方法论，也直面当代的争议与挑战：古代史与语文学的分离、大型语料库的存续、学术出版与评价体系的变迁，以及AI时代“理解”能力的不可替代性。这场对话，既是对一个学术传统的内省，也是对古典学未来可能性的追问。

To explore these questions, we invited Professor Sven Günther of the Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations at Northeast Normal University and Professor Kai Ruffing of the University of Kassel in Germany to engage in an in-depth conversation. Beginning with the professionalization of the discipline in the nineteenth century, the two scholars trace the key moments and core methodologies of German classical studies, while also confronting contemporary controversies and challenges: the separation of ancient history from philology, the survival of large corpora, changes in academic publishing and systems of evaluation, and the irreplaceability of “understanding” in the age of AI. This conversation is at once an introspection on a scholarly tradition and an inquiry into the possible futures of classical studies.

Professor Sven Günther and Professor Kai Ruffing顾斯文（Sven Günther）教授和凯·鲁芬（Kai Ruffing）教授

采访人张红霞系东北师范大学世界古典文明史研究所副教授，德国巴伐利亚科学院访问学者。东北师范大学世界古典文明史研究所作为国内世界古代史研究的重镇，致力于搭建跨越国界的学术桥梁。顾斯文教授自2014年起任教于该所，研究领域涵盖希腊—罗马世界的社会经济、法律史、政治史以及接受史研究与教学法，尤其致力于社会学理论框架在古代史研究中的分析与应用。凯·鲁芬教授的研究兴趣则集中于罗马帝国的经济和社会史、地中海世界与古代近东的互动关系、希腊罗马文学中对古代近东的认知，以及历史地理学与计算方法在古代史中的应用。

The interviewer, Zhang Hongxia, is an associate professor at the Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations at Northeast Normal University and a visiting scholar at the Bavarian Academy of Sciences and Humanities. As an important center for the study of world ancient history in China, the Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations at Northeast Normal University is committed to building scholarly bridges across national boundaries. Professor Günther has taught at the institute since 2014; his research spans the socioeconomic, legal, and political history of the Greco-Roman world, as well as reception studies and pedagogy, with a particular commitment to the analysis and application of sociological theoretical frameworks in ancient-history research. Professor Ruffing’s research interests focus on the economic and social history of the Roman Empire, interactions between the Mediterranean world and the ancient Near East, perceptions of the ancient Near East in Greek and Roman literature, and the application of historical geography and computational methods to ancient history.

通过两位学者的观察与思考，我们得以窥探德国古典学在过去两百年中的学科发展脉络、学术传统与核心理念，并进一步思考其在人工智能时代所面临的新挑战。

Through the observations and reflections of these two scholars, we are able to glimpse the disciplinary development, scholarly traditions, and core ideas of German classical studies over the past two centuries, and to think further about the new challenges it faces in the age of artificial intelligence.

作为西方古典学的学术重镇，德国古典学在过去两百年中经历了哪些关键阶段，分别呈现出怎样的时代特征？

As a major center of Western classical scholarship, what key stages has German classical studies passed through over the past two centuries, and what characteristics did each era display?

凯·鲁芬：最关键的转折点出现在19世纪，也就是德国古典学完成专业化的时期。正是在这一阶段，古代史通过在几乎所有传统德国大学设立教席，逐步确立为一门独立学科。这一进程具有双重意义：一方面，古代史与考古学、古典语文学一道，构成“古典学”的整体框架；另一方面，它也被明确纳入历史学之中，而不再仅仅隶属于传统的“古代学”（Altertumswissenschaft）——这一点对学科的长期存续至关重要，如果古代史未能成为历史学的一部分，它作为独立学科恐怕难以延续至今。

Kai Ruffing: The most crucial turning point came in the nineteenth century, the period in which German classical studies completed its professionalization. It was at this stage that ancient history, through the establishment of chairs at almost all traditional German universities, gradually secured its status as an independent discipline. This process had a double significance: on the one hand, ancient history, together with archaeology and classical philology, formed the overall framework of “classical studies”; on the other, it was clearly incorporated into the discipline of history, rather than belonging only to traditional Altertumswissenschaft, the study of antiquity. This was vital for the discipline’s long-term survival. Had ancient history not become part of history, it would probably have been difficult for it to continue as an independent field down to the present.

从更长的历史视角看，古代史本身就是现代历史学的起点。最早的历史学教授，往往被要求讲授李维、修昔底德等古典作家的作品。因此，古代史在整个历史学体系中始终具有基础性地位。早期研究主要依赖传世文献，这与德国深厚的古典语文学传统密不可分。最早一代古代史学者往往也是语文学家；而今天，这两者已经出现了明显分化。

Seen from a longer historical perspective, ancient history itself was the starting point of modern historical scholarship. The earliest professors of history were often expected to lecture on the works of classical authors such as Livy and Thucydides. Ancient history has therefore always held a foundational position within the whole system of historical studies. Early research relied chiefly on transmitted texts, which was inseparable from Germany’s deep tradition of classical philology. The earliest generation of ancient historians were often philologists as well; today, however, the two have clearly diverged.

我这一代学者接受过系统的语文学训练，但在年轻一代中已经相当罕见。不过，早在特奥多尔·蒙森（1817—1903）的时代，学界就高度重视碑铭等非文学史料的整理与研究。随后，钱币学、纸草学等辅助学科（Hilfswissenschaft）逐步发展起来。纸草学虽然起步较晚，但在制度化和组织化方面反而更成熟。

Scholars of my generation received systematic philological training, but that is already quite rare among younger generations. Yet as early as the time of Theodor Mommsen (1817-1903), the scholarly world placed great emphasis on the collection and study of nonliterary historical materials such as inscriptions. Later, auxiliary disciplines, or Hilfswissenschaften, such as numismatics and papyrology gradually developed. Papyrology began somewhat later, but in terms of institutionalization and organization it became more mature.

总体而言，19世纪德国古典学的一个核心特征，在于将新型史料的发掘、整理与出版，与严密的文本分析相结合。这构成了古代史早期发展的方法论底色。

Overall, a core feature of nineteenth-century German classical studies lay in combining the discovery, organization, and publication of new kinds of historical materials with rigorous textual analysis. This formed the methodological background to the early development of ancient history.

顾斯文：从方法论角度补充一点，19世纪德国古典学的发展，还伴随着一场具有决定性意义的学术争论：研究古代世界时，究竟应当优先关注制度、经济与社会现实（Sachen），还是专注于语言、语法与文本细节。奥古斯特·伯克在《雅典公共经济》中，明确批评了纯粹的语文学取向，这也直接引发了他与戈特弗里德·赫尔曼之间的争论。这场争论在相当程度上推动了古代史作为独立学科的形成。与此同时，古代史也不断吸收其他学科的视角。蒙森将法学方法引入古代史研究，并强调对碑铭真实性的严格考证，由此确立了实地考察（Autopsie）作为基本工作原则。但这一发展也使历史学逐渐陷入一种张力之中：一方面，它与神学、哲学等传统学科分离；另一方面，又持续受到自然科学的挑战——后者自19世纪中叶以来，常以更“精确”的解释模式自居。在这一背景下，约翰·古斯塔夫·德罗伊森提出了重要回应：历史学的独特性不在于建立普遍适用的规律，而在于理解不同史料、不同叙述之间的复杂关系。历史不是可以反复验证的自然过程，而是一种需要“理解（Verstehen）”的人类经验。这一立场，至今仍深刻影响着我们的研究方式。

Sven Günther: I would add one point from the perspective of method. The development of German classical studies in the nineteenth century was also accompanied by a scholarly dispute of decisive importance: in studying the ancient world, should one give priority to institutions, economy, and social realities, the Sachen, or concentrate on language, grammar, and textual detail? In The Public Economy of Athens, August Böckh explicitly criticized a purely philological orientation, directly provoking his dispute with Gottfried Hermann. To a considerable degree, that debate propelled the formation of ancient history as an independent discipline. At the same time, ancient history continuously absorbed perspectives from other fields. Mommsen introduced legal method into ancient-history research and emphasized strict verification of the authenticity of inscriptions, thereby establishing autopsy, or firsthand examination, as a basic working principle. Yet this development also placed historical scholarship in a growing tension: on the one hand, it separated itself from traditional disciplines such as theology and philosophy; on the other, it was continually challenged by the natural sciences, which since the mid-nineteenth century often claimed to possess more “exact” modes of explanation. Against this background, Johann Gustav Droysen offered an important response: the distinctiveness of history lay not in establishing universally applicable laws, but in understanding the complex relations among different sources and different narratives. History is not a natural process that can be repeatedly verified, but a kind of human experience that requires “understanding,” Verstehen. That position continues to shape our research methods profoundly today.

凯·鲁芬：问题在于，自然科学并不真正理解历史学的研究对象。当下，数字人文有时试图以自然科学或考古学的方式处理历史问题，其目标仍然是用兰克的经典表述“还原历史本身”。但历史材料本身并不支持这种单一、确定性的还原。

Kai Ruffing: The problem is that the natural sciences do not really understand the object of historical research. At present, digital humanities sometimes try to handle historical questions in the manner of the natural sciences or archaeology, and their aim remains, in Ranke’s classic formulation, to reconstruct history “as it actually was.” But historical materials themselves do not support such a singular and determinate reconstruction.

19世纪末，德国古代史研究还面临来自政治层面的压力。德意志皇帝曾公开表示，他不希望培养“年轻的罗马人或希腊人”，而是“年轻的德国人”。因此，古代史学者们不得不为自身的研究的现实意义进行辩护，而罗伯特·冯·波尔曼将社会主义史引入古代研究的努力便是一个典范。

At the end of the nineteenth century, German ancient-history research also faced political pressure. The German emperor once publicly stated that he did not wish to train “young Romans or Greeks,” but “young Germans.” Ancient historians therefore had to defend the contemporary significance of their research, and Robert von Pöhlmann’s effort to introduce the history of socialism into ancient studies is a model example.

顾斯文：这一问题在经济史领域表现得尤为突出。在布赫尔—迈耶之争（Bücher-Meyer controversy）中，卡尔·布赫尔曾断言，古代经济史对当代国民经济学毫无意义；而我以及许多后来者试图证明，恰恰是在问题意识和方法层面，古代经济研究与当代研究一样具有“现代性”。这表明古代史领域内部的重要理论论证，始终与其所处时代的社会与政治话语密切相关。

Sven Günther: This issue was especially prominent in the field of economic history. In the Bücher-Meyer controversy, Karl Bücher asserted that ancient economic history had no significance for contemporary national economics; I and many later scholars, by contrast, have tried to show that precisely at the level of questions and methods, research on the ancient economy possesses the same “modernity” as contemporary research. This indicates that important theoretical arguments within the field of ancient history have always been closely connected to the social and political discourses of their own time.

凯·鲁芬：放眼德语世界，奥地利的学术传统与德国本土存在显著差异。奥地利的古代史研究延续性更强，不同古典学分支之间长期保持紧密联系。直到今天，在大学的组织结构中，古代史仍并不完全归入历史学系之下，这不同于德国学术传统。

Kai Ruffing: If we look across the German-speaking world, the Austrian scholarly tradition differs significantly from that of Germany proper. Austrian ancient-history research shows stronger continuity, and the various branches of classical studies have long maintained close ties. Even today, in university organizational structures, ancient history is still not entirely placed under departments of history, which differs from the German academic tradition.

当代德国古典学界是否还存在一种广受认可的“核心精神”或“方法论特质”？如果存在，体现在哪里？

Does contemporary German classical studies still possess a widely recognized “core spirit” or “methodological character”? If so, where is it visible?

凯·鲁芬：整体来看，我不确定当代德国古典学仍然拥有一种明确而统一的“核心精神”。事实上，德国大学的人文学科目前普遍承受着较大压力，这既与财政状况有关，也与学生群体的变化密切相关。整体而言，今天的学生已不再具备20世纪上半叶那种扎实的语言能力与人文训练背景。更重要的是，德国古典学本身就是一个高度分化的领域，不同大学、不同阶段之间的研究重点差异非常明显。以研究对象为例，近年来“晚期古代”在德国古代史中占据了核心位置，而这在我求学时几乎是不可想象的——当时许多大学甚至没有相关研究者。相反，一些传统领域，如罗马共和国史，近十年来在部分高校中明显边缘化了。

Kai Ruffing: Taken as a whole, I am not sure contemporary German classical studies still has a clear and unified “core spirit.” In fact, the humanities in German universities are currently under considerable pressure, owing both to financial conditions and to changes in the student body. In general, today’s students no longer possess the solid linguistic competence and humanistic training that students in the first half of the twentieth century had. More importantly, German classical studies itself is a highly differentiated field. Research emphases vary very clearly among universities and across periods. Take the object of study: in recent years “late antiquity” has occupied a central place in German ancient history, something almost unimaginable when I was a student, when many universities did not even have scholars working in that area. By contrast, some traditional fields, such as the history of the Roman Republic, have been noticeably marginalized at certain universities over the past decade.

各大学之间的差异也十分突出：有的院校坚持相对传统的研究路径，有的则更为开放，在方法和选题上不断引入新视角。古典希腊研究始终保持着特殊地位，这在德国尤为明显。这与德国文化传统中长期存在的一种观念有关——即将自身视为古希腊精神的继承者，这种文化想象也深刻影响了学术兴趣与研究取向。

The differences among universities are also striking: some institutions adhere to relatively traditional research paths, while others are more open, constantly introducing new perspectives in method and topic. Classical Greek studies has always maintained a special position, especially in Germany. This is connected to a long-standing idea in German cultural tradition: the notion that Germany is itself an heir to the spirit of ancient Greece. That cultural imagination has also profoundly influenced scholarly interests and research orientations.

正因如此，今天德国古典学呈现出的，与其说是一种统一的方法论，不如说是一种持续的多样化状态。有的学者以传世文献为中心，引入叙事学等理论工具；另一些学者则更强调不同类型史料之间的交叉使用。因此，很难概括出一种普遍适用的方法论范式。

For precisely this reason, what German classical studies presents today is less a unified methodology than a state of continuing diversification. Some scholars center their work on transmitted texts and introduce theoretical tools such as narratology; others place greater emphasis on the cross-use of different kinds of evidence. It is therefore difficult to summarize a generally applicable methodological paradigm.

顾斯文：如果说德国古典学曾经存在过某种相对清晰的“核心特征”，那么它本身也始终与德国的联邦制结构密切相关。不同地区、不同大学在历史上形成了各自鲜明的学术传统，这种差异在上一代学者中仍然非常清楚，而在今天则逐渐弱化。

Sven Günther: If German classical studies ever possessed a relatively clear “core characteristic,” it was itself always closely connected to Germany’s federal structure. Different regions and different universities historically formed their own distinctive scholarly traditions. Among the previous generation of scholars, these differences were still very clear; today they are gradually weakening.

像凯和我所接受的训练，更强调直接从古代原始材料入手，对文本、图像与实物进行细致的解读与分析，而较少从抽象理论出发。但其他一些大学形成了深厚的理论传统，以方法论作为研究古代问题的切入口。此外，还有一些机构长期专注于钱币学、碑铭学或纸草学等辅助学科，专注于培养高度专业化的研究者。

The training that Kai and I received placed greater emphasis on beginning directly from ancient primary materials, on close interpretation and analysis of texts, images, and objects, and less on starting from abstract theory. But other universities formed deep theoretical traditions and used methodology as the entry point for studying ancient problems. In addition, some institutions have long concentrated on auxiliary disciplines such as numismatics, epigraphy, or papyrology, focusing on the cultivation of highly specialized researchers.

因此，如果一定要概括德国古典学的特征，我会说它的核心不在于统一，而在于多样性。真正具有持续影响力的，或许是德国学术在大型资料体系建设方面的传统——无论是碑铭、纸草，还是人物志与文献总集，对材料的系统整理与长期维护，构成了一种深层的方法论优势。像《罗马帝国人物志》这样的成果，本身就塑造了几代学者理解古代世界的方式。

Thus, if one had to summarize the character of German classical studies, I would say that its core lies not in unity, but in diversity. What has perhaps had the most enduring influence is the German scholarly tradition in the construction of large-scale bodies of material: whether inscriptions, papyri, prosopographies, or collections of texts, the systematic organization and long-term maintenance of materials constitute a deep methodological advantage. Achievements such as the Prosopographia Imperii Romani have themselves shaped the way generations of scholars understand the ancient world.

凯·鲁芬：我想补充的一点是，这种多样性也与20世纪以来学科的扩展密切相关。20世纪60年代，德国大学体系经历了一轮快速发展，几乎每所大学都设立了古代史教席。直到今天，德国仍然拥有数量可观的古代史教授与研究机构。这说明尽管学习古代史需要较高的语言门槛，但该学科在德国大学体系中依然占据着重要位置。

Kai Ruffing: I would add that this diversity is also closely connected to the expansion of the discipline since the twentieth century. In the 1960s, the German university system underwent a period of rapid growth, and almost every university established a chair in ancient history. Even today, Germany still has a substantial number of professors and research institutions in ancient history. This shows that although the study of ancient history requires a high linguistic threshold, the discipline still occupies an important place in the German university system.

顾斯文：另一个经常被忽视的特点，是大学与中学之间长期保持的紧密联系。20世纪以来，古代史研究成果不断进入中学教育体系，许多历史教师本身就接受过扎实的古代史训练。这使得古代史不仅是一门大学学科，也深深嵌入了公民社会的文化结构之中。

Sven Günther: Another feature often overlooked is the long-standing close relationship between universities and secondary schools. Since the twentieth century, the results of ancient-history research have continually entered the secondary-school curriculum, and many history teachers themselves have received solid training in ancient history. This means that ancient history is not only a university discipline; it is also deeply embedded in the cultural structure of civil society.

一些博物馆、公共收藏和地方历史项目，往往并非完全由国家推动，而是源于市民社会的主动参与。尽管今天这种机制已发生变化，但教育、研究与公共文化之间曾经形成的良性循环，或许仍然值得我们重新思考。

Some museums, public collections, and local-history projects were often not driven entirely by the state, but arose from the active participation of civic society. Although this mechanism has changed today, the virtuous cycle once formed among education, research, and public culture may still be worth reconsidering.

德国曾主导《拉丁语料库》（TLL）、《拉丁铭文集》（CIL）和《希腊铭文集》（IG）等跨越百年的大型科研项目，这背后体现了怎样的人文理念与学术文化？

Germany once led century-spanning large research projects such as the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum, and the Inscriptiones Graecae. What humanistic ideal and scholarly culture lay behind these undertakings?

凯·鲁芬：德国学界长期以来确实表现出一种强烈的倾向：为知识建立秩序，并以系统化、可持续的方式组织学术生产。这正是《拉丁语料库》（Thesaurus Linguae Latinae）等大型项目得以诞生的根本原因之一。

Kai Ruffing: German scholarship has long shown a strong tendency to establish order for knowledge and to organize scholarly production in a systematic and sustainable way. This is one of the fundamental reasons why large projects such as the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae could come into being.

在我看来，这与德国古典学对接受史（Rezeptionsgeschichte）的高度重视密切相关。古代世界并非只存在于过去，它持续被后世理解、诠释和使用。因此，将既有知识系统整理、长期维护，使之能够被整个学术共同体反复使用，本身就是一种重要的学术实践。这类跨越数十年、甚至上百年的基础性工程，正构成了德国古典学的一项显著优势。

In my view, this is closely connected to the great importance German classical studies attaches to reception history, Rezeptionsgeschichte. The ancient world does not exist only in the past; it is continually understood, interpreted, and used by later ages. Therefore, to systematize and maintain existing knowledge over the long term, so that it can be repeatedly used by the whole scholarly community, is itself an important scholarly practice. Foundational projects of this kind, lasting decades or even more than a century, constitute a notable strength of German classical studies.

当然，这一传统在当今面临着新的挑战。以《拉丁铭文集》（CIL）和《希腊铭文集》（IG）为例，其评注仍以拉丁文撰写，但这本身就是一道门槛：能够熟练使用这种高度程式化的学术拉丁语的研究者正在迅速减少。与此同时，学界内部也出现了新的主张，例如改用英语作为评注语言，以适应当下的国际学术环境。这种变化尤其体现在百科全书的写作中。《新宝利古代文明百科全书》后来直接以英文版本进入国际市场，而这一过程甚至并未完全由作者主导。这反映出一个更深层的转变：英语世界正在形成自身的“入门手册”与“百科全书”体系，而德语传统与英语传统之间，开始出现某种程度的分离。语言的改变并不仅仅是表达方式的变化，它往往也会影响问题意识与思维路径。

Of course, this tradition faces new challenges today. Take the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum and the Inscriptiones Graecae: their commentaries are still written in Latin, but this in itself is a barrier. The number of researchers able to use this highly formulaic scholarly Latin with ease is rapidly declining. Meanwhile, new proposals have emerged within the scholarly community, such as switching to English as the language of commentary in order to adapt to the present international academic environment. This change is especially evident in the writing of encyclopedias. Der Neue Pauly later entered the international market directly in an English version, and that process was not even wholly led by the authors. This reflects a deeper transformation: the English-speaking world is forming its own system of “handbooks” and “encyclopedias,” while the German and English traditions are beginning to separate to some extent. A change of language is not merely a change in mode of expression; it often also affects the questions one asks and the paths one takes in thinking.

为什么德国学术文化中会形成这种组织知识的观念？这种观念源自何处？

Why did this idea of organizing knowledge take shape in German scholarly culture? Where did it come from?

凯·鲁芬：我不确定是否能给出一个确定的答案。但可以说，早期的学科奠基者清楚地意识到：如果没有系统性的语料库和标准化工具，学术共同体就无法有效共享知识。正因如此，这些项目在当时获得了制度性的支持，例如普鲁士科学院为其提供长期经费保障。

Kai Ruffing: I am not sure one can give a definite answer. But one can say that the early founders of the discipline clearly realized that without systematic corpora and standardized tools, the scholarly community could not effectively share knowledge. For that reason, these projects received institutional support at the time, such as long-term funding guarantees from the Prussian Academy of Sciences.

如今，由于资金不足，《罗马帝国人物志》（PIR）等项目被迫中止。

Today, because of inadequate funding, projects such as the Prosopographia Imperii Romani have been forced to stop.

顾斯文：这一传统确实与18、19世纪普鲁士的发展密切相关。当时，行政、军事和教育体系都高度重视标准化与长期规划，洪堡式大学理念也将知识视为一种需要持续建设的公共事业。这种观念自然影响了古典学。不过，在数字人文与信息技术的时代，这种高度组织化的知识生产方式，已经不再是德国独有的现象。无论是铭文、钱币还是纸草文献研究，今天几乎都依赖全球性的数据库和规范化的术语。在很大程度上，文献的整理规范已不再完全由某一学术传统决定，而是受到技术框架本身的制约。

Sven Günther: This tradition is indeed closely connected to the development of Prussia in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. At that time, the administrative, military, and educational systems all attached great importance to standardization and long-term planning, and the Humboldtian idea of the university also regarded knowledge as a public undertaking requiring continuous construction. This idea naturally influenced classical studies. Yet in the age of digital humanities and information technology, this highly organized mode of knowledge production is no longer a uniquely German phenomenon. Whether in the study of inscriptions, coins, or papyrus texts, almost everything today depends on global databases and standardized terminology. To a large extent, the norms for organizing documents are no longer determined entirely by a single scholarly tradition, but are constrained by the technological framework itself.

这并不意味着旧有秩序完全消失，但必须承认：任何分类体系在组织知识的同时，也会重新界定研究的边界。因此，这种曾经具有鲜明德国特色的传统，正在通过全球化与数字化，转变为一种跨国、跨文化的学术实践。

This does not mean that the old order has disappeared completely, but it must be acknowledged that every system of classification, while organizing knowledge, also redefines the boundaries of research. Thus a tradition that once bore a distinctively German character is being transformed, through globalization and digitalization, into a transnational and cross-cultural scholarly practice.

凯·鲁芬：值得一提的是，在许多具体领域中，如拉丁铭文研究，第一个真正意义上的全文本数据库克劳斯-斯拉比（Clauss-Slaby）铭文数据库建立于德国。最初几乎由马尔夫·克劳斯个人完成。另一重要的纸草文献海德堡总目录，同样起源于个人学者迪特尔·哈格多恩，尽管后来获得了海德堡科学院的部分资助。这或许反映了德国学术文化中的深层特征：即便在制度支持不足的情况下，学者个人仍愿意承担起整理知识的责任。

Kai Ruffing: It is worth mentioning that in many specific fields, such as the study of Latin inscriptions, the first true full-text database, the Clauss-Slaby Epigraphic Database, was established in Germany. In the beginning it was almost entirely the work of Manfred Clauss alone. Another important papyrological resource, the Heidelberg Gesamtverzeichnis, likewise originated with an individual scholar, Dieter Hagedorn, although it later received partial support from the Heidelberg Academy of Sciences and Humanities. This may reflect a deep feature of German scholarly culture: even when institutional support is insufficient, individual scholars remain willing to assume responsibility for organizing knowledge.

顾斯文：归根结底，我们今天面对的是一个非常现实的抉择：是继续资助类似《拉丁语料库》这样耗资巨大、可能需要几十年才能完成的长期基础项目，还是转而支持周期更短、更容易向公众与政界展示成果的项目？在当前环境下，为这种长期、基础性的学术工程争取支持，确实变得越来越困难。

Sven Günther: In the final analysis, what we face today is a very practical choice: should we continue to fund long-term foundational projects like the Thesaurus Linguae Latinae, which are immensely costly and may take decades to complete, or should we instead support projects with shorter cycles whose results can be more easily shown to the public and to political decision-makers? In the current environment, it has indeed become increasingly difficult to win support for such long-term, foundational scholarly enterprises.

在全球古典学版图发生变化的背景下，您如何看待当代德国古典学的国际地位？

Against the background of changes in the global map of classical studies, how do you view the international position of contemporary German classical studies?

凯·鲁芬：我并不认为德国古典学正在衰退。相反，以地中海古代史为核心的研究，正在变得越来越全球化。东北师范大学世界古典文明史研究所（英文简称IHAC）本身就是一个很好的例子。

Kai Ruffing: I do not think German classical studies is in decline. On the contrary, research centered on ancient Mediterranean history is becoming increasingly globalized. The Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations at Northeast Normal University, known in English as IHAC, is itself a very good example.

纵观学术发展历程，当代德国古典学比以往任何时候都更加具有国际性。一方面，欧盟持续资助跨国合作项目，不同国家的学者围绕共同议题展开研究；另一方面，学术文化本身也在发生变化，英语正逐渐成为古典学研究中的主要工作语言。这种转变也许并不迅速，但趋势已经非常明确。我上周参加了一个学术会议，几乎全是德国学者，却全部使用英语宣读研究成果。对年轻学者而言，如果希望真正参与国际学术共同体，仅用德语发表成果，已远远不够。

Looking across the course of scholarly development, contemporary German classical studies is more international than ever before. On the one hand, the European Union continues to fund transnational collaborative projects, allowing scholars from different countries to conduct research around shared questions; on the other, scholarly culture itself is changing, and English is gradually becoming the principal working language in classical studies. This shift may not be rapid, but the trend is already very clear. Last week I attended a conference made up almost entirely of German scholars, yet all the papers were delivered in English. For young scholars, if they hope truly to participate in the international scholarly community, publishing only in German is now far from enough.

顾斯文：我部分同意这一判断。不过，在人工智能迅速发展的背景下，一些曾经处于边缘化的学术声音，确实又重新获得了被听见的机会。如今，非英语学术成果的翻译变得异常容易，例如学术平台academia.edu已经可以将论文自动翻译成多种语言。当然，翻译的准确性仍然是一个需要认真对待的问题，但从资源获取的角度来看，这种技术变化无疑扩展了学术交流的可能性。同时，它也带来了新的挑战，例如版权和知识产权问题，这些都尚未得到妥善解决。

Sven Günther: I partly agree with that judgment. Yet against the background of the rapid development of artificial intelligence, some scholarly voices that were once marginalized have indeed regained the chance to be heard. Today, the translation of non-English scholarship has become extraordinarily easy; for example, the academic platform academia.edu can already translate papers automatically into multiple languages. Of course, the accuracy of translation remains a question that must be taken seriously, but from the perspective of access to resources, this technological change has undoubtedly expanded the possibilities of scholarly exchange. At the same time, it has brought new challenges, such as copyright and intellectual-property issues, none of which have yet been properly resolved.

此外，我注意到另一种重要趋势：图书馆系统正承受着巨大压力。它们必须在购买昂贵数据库、坚持纸质藏书，或转向电子书之间不断权衡，而这正在深刻改变德国的学术生态。比如，在这一转型中，一些原本重要的学术声音正逐渐变得微弱。德国学术长期保持活力，很大程度上得益于大量小型、专业化的出版社的存在，法国和意大利也是如此。但现实是这些出版社正在逐步消失，这一趋势在德国尤为明显。这也影响了学术评价机制。越来越多的研究成果被纳入标准化的期刊和出版社名单中，一些被认定为“高质量”，另一些则被系统性地排除在外。这种管理逻辑正在影响大学教学和学术研究的整体方案。在美国，这已是既成事实；在中国，我认为这一情况也已开始显现。

In addition, I have noticed another important trend: library systems are under enormous pressure. They must constantly weigh the purchase of expensive databases against maintaining print collections or turning to e-books, and this is profoundly changing Germany’s scholarly ecology. In this transformation, for instance, some scholarly voices that were once important are gradually becoming faint. German scholarship has long remained vital largely because of the existence of many small, specialized publishers; the same is true of France and Italy. But the reality is that these publishers are gradually disappearing, and this trend is especially evident in Germany. It also affects mechanisms of academic evaluation. More and more research outputs are being incorporated into standardized lists of journals and publishers; some are identified as “high quality,” while others are systematically excluded. This logic of administration is affecting the overall design of university teaching and academic research. In the United States, this is already an established fact; in China, I think the situation has also begun to appear.

凯·鲁芬：我同意这是一个管理层面的关键问题。不过，我反而在这里看到了一些潜在的转机。随着开放获取（Open Access）理念的推广，学术出版的结构正在发生变化。例如，在德国，如果研究项目获得德国研究基金会（DFG）的资助，研究成果必须以开放获取的形式发表，相关费用也由项目经费承担。从长远来看，这可能会改变学术出版的整体文化。让纳税人为同一项研究成果支付三次费用——首先支付学者的薪酬，其次支付出版费用，最后再为图书馆购买该成果——这在逻辑上是说不通的。当然，这种变化带来了新的问题。许多大学如今几乎只购买电子出版物，这对习惯纸质书的学者而言并不适应，但对年轻一代来说，电子文献已成为主要甚至唯一的研究媒介。

Kai Ruffing: I agree that this is a key administrative issue. But here I instead see some potential openings. With the spread of the idea of Open Access, the structure of academic publishing is changing. In Germany, for example, if a research project receives funding from the German Research Foundation, the DFG, its results must be published in open-access form, and the relevant costs are covered by the project budget. In the long run, this may change the overall culture of scholarly publishing. It makes no logical sense to have taxpayers pay three times for the same research result: first for scholars’ salaries, then for publication costs, and finally for libraries to buy the result. Of course, this change brings new problems. Many universities now purchase almost only electronic publications, which is hard for scholars accustomed to print books to adapt to, but for the younger generation, electronic literature has become the primary, even the only, medium of research.

顾斯文：在这一点上，我的看法略有保留。至少在目前阶段，开放获取的实际运作方式，往往更有利于某些大型出版商。

Sven Günther: On this point, I have some reservations. At least at the present stage, the actual operation of open access often benefits certain large publishers more.

凯·鲁芬：是的，它确实会对不同量级的参与者产生不均衡的影响。

Kai Ruffing: Yes, it does indeed have uneven effects on participants of different scales.

顾斯文：这一问题具有高度的现实重要性，需要政治层面和管理层面认真介入。更重要的是，这一变化正在重塑我们阅读、理解和构建知识的方式。例如，在数字环境中，我们可以通过PDF文件迅速定位信息，但与此同时，那种在图书馆中偶然发现“紧挨着的书”的经验正在消失。这种变化本身并非简单的进步或退步，但可以肯定的是，知识被获取、被连接和被理解的方式，正在发生深刻转变。

Sven Günther: This issue is of high practical importance and requires serious intervention at the political and administrative levels. More importantly, this change is reshaping the way we read, understand, and construct knowledge. In a digital environment, for example, we can quickly locate information in PDF files, but at the same time the experience of accidentally discovering “the book next to it” in the library is disappearing. This change is not simply progress or regression, but what is certain is that the ways knowledge is accessed, connected, and understood are undergoing profound transformation.

凯·鲁芬：确实如此。无论是在实体图书馆，还是在数字环境中，除了你正在使用的那一本书之外，实际上“偶然发现”其他相关古代史著作的机会都在减少。过去那种在书架之间游走、被邻近书籍意外启发的研究经验，确实正在逐渐成为历史。

Kai Ruffing: That is indeed the case. Whether in a physical library or in a digital environment, apart from the one book you are using, the opportunities to “stumble upon” other relevant works of ancient history are in fact decreasing. The old research experience of walking among the shelves and being unexpectedly inspired by neighboring books is indeed gradually becoming history.

德国古典学的学术传统经历了哪些关键阶段？与英语世界的古典学相比，古代学（Altertumswissenschaft）和古代历史（ancient history）的具体概念有何不同？

What key stages has the scholarly tradition of German classical studies undergone? Compared with classical studies in the English-speaking world, how do the specific concepts of Altertumswissenschaft and ancient history differ?

凯·鲁芬：从学术史角度来看，19世纪是德国古典学的奠基阶段。正是这一时期，古代研究作为一个系统性的学术领域得以确立，并逐步制度化。这一传统在相当长时间内保持连续，直到纳粹时期才出现明显断裂。

Kai Ruffing: From the perspective of intellectual history, the nineteenth century was the foundational stage of German classical studies. It was in this period that the study of antiquity was established as a systematic scholarly field and gradually institutionalized. This tradition maintained continuity for quite a long time, until the Nazi period, when a clear rupture appeared.

在纳粹统治下，古代研究中发展出了一种带有强烈意识形态色彩的取向，尤其体现在对所谓“种族历史”（racial history）的阐释上。一些学者试图将种族史观念引入对古代世界的研究中。虽然并非所有学者都参与其中，但这一阶段无疑给学科留下了深刻的历史阴影。二战之后，19世纪形成的学术传统得到很大恢复，并持续到20世纪60年代。随着德国大学体制的改革，古代史教席数量迅速增加，传统意义上的整体性古代学（Altertumswissenschaft）逐渐与古代史分离开来。过去那种在语文学、历史学、考古学等多个领域都系统受训的学者，实际上已经不复存在。

Under Nazi rule, a strongly ideological orientation developed within ancient studies, especially in interpretations of so-called racial history. Some scholars attempted to introduce concepts of racial history into the study of the ancient world. Although not all scholars took part in this, the period undoubtedly left a deep historical shadow over the discipline. After the Second World War, the scholarly tradition formed in the nineteenth century was largely restored and continued into the 1960s. With the reform of the German university system, the number of chairs in ancient history increased rapidly, and traditional holistic Altertumswissenschaft gradually separated from ancient history. The kind of scholar once systematically trained in philology, history, archaeology, and several other fields has in fact ceased to exist.

这正是德语学术传统与英语世界之间的一个根本差异。在英语世界，古典学通常以“Classics”的形式存在，拥有独立的系科结构；而在德国，古代史始终是历史学不可分割的一部分，而非一个独立的古典学系。

This is precisely one of the fundamental differences between the German scholarly tradition and the English-speaking world. In the English-speaking world, classical studies usually exists in the form of “Classics,” with independent departmental structures; in Germany, by contrast, ancient history has always been an inseparable part of historical studies, not an independent department of classics.

至于代表性人物，在19世纪的蒙森（Theodor Mommsen）无疑是最重要的奠基者之一，与他并列的还有古典学家维拉莫维茨（Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff）。但在此之后，很难说是哪一位学者单独塑造了整个领域。德国的学术传统始终呈现出多中心、多声音的特征。

As for representative figures, Mommsen was undoubtedly one of the most important founders in the nineteenth century, alongside the classical scholar Ulrich von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff. But after that, it is hard to say that any single scholar alone shaped the entire field. The German scholarly tradition has always been marked by multiple centers and multiple voices.

Theodor Mommsen蒙森（Theodor Mommsen）

顾斯文：我想补充两点。首先，这一传统具有高度的合作性：无论是在研究还是在学生培养层面，学生都会接受相对全面的古典学训练，然后再逐步确立自己的主攻方向，而相关学科则作为次要但必要的知识背景。这一点在当下也有所体现，例如将古代东方学、埃及学等纳入所谓全球古代史的研究框架之中。当然，这种整合并不必然意味着研究会更加深入。在历史学内部，越来越多内容被归类为“前现代史”（pre-modern history）。从管理层的角度来看，这种分类无疑更为便利，因为它可能带来机构整合与岗位压缩，让同一学者承担多门学科的教学与研究工作。

Sven Günther: I would like to add two points. First, this tradition is highly collaborative: whether in research or in the training of students, students receive relatively comprehensive training in classical studies and only then gradually establish their own main direction, while related disciplines serve as secondary but necessary bodies of background knowledge. This is also reflected today, for instance, in the incorporation of ancient Near Eastern studies and Egyptology into the so-called framework of global ancient history. Of course, such integration does not necessarily mean that research will become deeper. Within historical studies, more and more material is being classified as “pre-modern history.” From the perspective of administration, this classification is undoubtedly more convenient, because it may bring institutional integration and reductions in posts, allowing the same scholar to undertake teaching and research in several disciplines.

第二点是多样性本身所具有的创新潜力。德国的古代史研究往往能够较快地与其他学科、其他学术发展趋势建立联系，这并不意味着这种联系总是被普遍接受，而是说，古代史在德国从未被完全孤立。这一特征同样体现在教学实践中。古代史的教学长期强调对原始材料的系统训练，学生需要学习如何分析文本与图像证据，并理解接受史、视觉文化等问题。从这个意义上说，古代史研究在教学方法上曾经发挥过引领作用，我也希望这一传统能够延续下去。

The second point is the innovative potential inherent in diversity itself. German research in ancient history can often establish connections quite quickly with other disciplines and other scholarly developments. This does not mean that such connections are always universally accepted, but rather that ancient history in Germany has never been entirely isolated. This feature is likewise visible in teaching practice. The teaching of ancient history has long emphasized systematic training in primary materials; students must learn how to analyze textual and visual evidence and understand questions of reception history and visual culture. In this sense, ancient-history research once played a leading role in teaching methods, and I hope this tradition can continue.

当然，在理论层面，德国学界整体上仍相对谨慎。后结构主义、后殖民研究、后帝国研究等在英语世界广受关注的理论取向，至今尚未在德国古代史研究中占据主导地位。

Of course, at the theoretical level, German scholarship as a whole remains relatively cautious. Theoretical orientations widely discussed in the English-speaking world, such as poststructuralism, postcolonial studies, and post-imperial studies, have not yet occupied a dominant position in German ancient-history research.

凯·鲁芬：或许其中一个原因在于，德国的殖民历史本身较为有限。我总体上同意斯文的判断。此外，根据我的经验，德国的古代史研究对数字化转向表现出相对更高的开放度。我们更积极地使用数字工具，甚至将电子游戏引入教学之中。许多学生对古代世界的空间、行动和叙事方式的理解，本身就深受游戏经验的影响。这恰恰提供了有价值的教学切入点。通过分析电子游戏中对“古代世界”的呈现，学生往往能够意识到哪些是成功的再现，哪些则存在问题。这种反思过程，对古代史教学而言反而是一种积极的发展。

Kai Ruffing: Perhaps one reason is that Germany’s own colonial history was relatively limited. Overall, I agree with Sven’s judgment. In addition, in my experience, German ancient-history research has shown relatively greater openness toward the digital turn. We use digital tools more actively and have even introduced video games into teaching. Many students’ understanding of the spaces, actions, and narrative modes of the ancient world is itself deeply influenced by gaming experience. This provides a valuable point of entry for teaching. By analyzing representations of the “ancient world” in video games, students can often recognize which are successful forms of representation and which are problematic. This process of reflection is, for the teaching of ancient history, a positive development.

德国长期以来以“学术争论文化”著称，这种争论在当下仍然存在吗？它对学科发展产生了哪些影响？

Germany has long been known for a “culture of scholarly debate.” Does this kind of debate still exist today? What effects has it had on the development of the discipline?

凯·鲁芬：我认为，至少今天已经不存在那种19、20世纪末的“历史学家之争”（Historikerstreit）的大规模、震动整个学界的公开论战了。但这并不意味着争论本身消失了。相反，在古代史研究中，方法论层面的讨论依然非常活跃，而且在某种意义上仍然颇具“德国特色”。

Kai Ruffing: I think that, at least today, the kind of large-scale public controversy that shook the whole scholarly world at the end of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the Historikerstreit, no longer exists. But this does not mean debate itself has disappeared. On the contrary, in ancient-history research, methodological discussion remains very active and, in a certain sense, still quite “German” in character.

例如，关于古代经济的性质，我们至今仍在讨论：是否可以，以及在多大程度上应当引入现代经济学理论？类似的问题从未真正得到定论。与此同时，考古学领域不断引入新的自然科学方法，如DNA分析，也迫使历史学者在理论和方法上作出回应，这本身就会引发新的分歧与讨论。

For example, on the nature of the ancient economy, we are still discussing whether modern economic theory can, and to what extent it should, be introduced. Questions of this kind have never truly been settled. At the same time, archaeology is constantly introducing new scientific methods, such as DNA analysis, which also forces historians to respond theoretically and methodologically; this in itself gives rise to new disagreements and discussions.

当今古代史研究的一个显著特征，正是研究问题和方法的多样性。近年来，近东研究和埃及学也被更系统地纳入古代史视野，一些大学甚至提出“全球古代史”的框架，将研究范围从不列颠延伸至中国长安，已然跳脱出地中海世界延伸至更广阔的区域。这种全球视角无疑有其现实基础，但它更多体现为研究路径的分散，而非形成类似过去那样的统一争论焦点。

One striking feature of contemporary ancient-history research is precisely the diversity of research questions and methods. In recent years, Near Eastern studies and Egyptology have also been incorporated more systematically into the horizon of ancient history. Some universities have even proposed a framework of “global ancient history,” extending the range of study from Britain to Chang’an in China and already moving beyond the Mediterranean world into broader regions. This global perspective undoubtedly has a basis in reality, but it manifests itself more as a dispersion of research paths than as the formation of a unified focus of debate like those of the past.

顾斯文：我完全同意你的判断。同时，我认为德国学术文化与盎格鲁-撒克逊世界之间，还存在一个重要差异：我们并不倾向于将学术理论、研究叙事进行明显的市场化包装。这在一定程度上与制度环境有关。直到今天，德国大学仍然主要依赖公共资助，而不完全嵌入高学费驱动的市场竞争之中。这意味着学者不必为了“推销学科”或吸引学生而持续进行高度竞争性的自我展示，这表现在宣传个人著作、研究成果的方式等多个方面。这一点在国际学术交流中表现得尤为明显。例如，在东北师范大学世界古典文明史研究所（IHAC），来自不同国家的学者在介绍自己的研究时，往往采用截然不同的叙述方式。英语世界的学者，通常更擅长讲述一个清晰、有吸引力的“研究故事”；而德国学者则更强调问题本身的复杂性。这种差异，在当下以“叙事经济学”为代表的新研究趋势中，也变得愈发引人注目。

Sven Günther: I completely agree with your judgment. At the same time, I think there is another important difference between German scholarly culture and the Anglo-Saxon world: we are not inclined to package scholarly theory and research narratives in an obviously market-oriented way. To some extent this has to do with the institutional environment. Even today, German universities still rely mainly on public funding and are not fully embedded in market competition driven by high tuition fees. This means scholars do not have to engage continuously in highly competitive self-display in order to “sell the discipline” or attract students; this is visible in many areas, including the ways personal books and research results are promoted. It is especially evident in international scholarly exchange. At the Institute for the History of Ancient Civilizations at Northeast Normal University, for instance, scholars from different countries often present their research in sharply different narrative styles. Scholars from the English-speaking world are usually better at telling a clear and attractive “research story,” whereas German scholars place greater emphasis on the complexity of the problem itself. This difference has become increasingly striking amid new research trends represented by “narrative economics.”

凯·鲁芬：确实如此。这种差异也与大学制度本身密切相关。在德国，大学教育基本免费，教授制度赋予学者相当高的独立性。相较于英语世界，德国这种制度安排确实深刻影响了学术争论的方式。

Kai Ruffing: That is indeed so. This difference is also closely connected to the university system itself. In Germany, university education is essentially free, and the professorial system grants scholars a fairly high degree of independence. Compared with the English-speaking world, this institutional arrangement in Germany has indeed profoundly influenced the way scholarly debates take place.

德国的人文基础教育与大学古典学教育之间，长期以来保持着怎样的连贯性与结构关联？大学古典学如何在专业化与通识教育之间取得平衡？

What kind of continuity and structural connection has long existed between Germany’s humanistic basic education and university classical education? How does university-level classical studies strike a balance between specialization and general education?

凯·鲁芬：学生在大学阶段通常不会只学习单一学科，而是被鼓励同时接触其他领域。我个人非常认可这种架构。不同学科在阅读和理解材料时所采用的方法差异，会在课堂讨论中充分显现出来。这不仅有助于学生之间的交流，也常常让我这样的教师受益。通过跨学科的互动，学生能够意识到，不同知识体系背后隐藏着不同的思维方式。从这个意义上说，这种教育结构并不只是服务于人文学科，而是贯穿整个大学体系。

Kai Ruffing: At the university stage, students usually do not study only a single discipline, but are encouraged to engage with other fields at the same time. I personally value this structure very highly. The methodological differences among disciplines in reading and understanding materials become fully visible in classroom discussion. This not only helps exchanges among students, but often benefits teachers like me as well. Through interdisciplinary interaction, students are able to realize that different systems of knowledge conceal different ways of thinking. In this sense, this educational structure does not serve only the humanities, but runs through the entire university system.

顾斯文：而且这种结构并非始于大学阶段。在德国，中小学教育本身就强调较为全面的知识训练。尽管这一体系并不完美，但与许多国家相比，学生更早接触到多样化的思维方式，这对其智性发展和人格形成都有积极影响。这一优势在大学阶段得以延续。即便学生并非主修古典学，也相对容易通过旁听课程进入相关领域。这种跨界流动，在其他国家的大学体系中并不常见。

Sven Günther: And this structure does not begin at university. In Germany, primary and secondary education itself emphasizes relatively comprehensive training in knowledge. Although the system is not perfect, compared with many countries students encounter diverse ways of thinking earlier, and this has a positive effect on their intellectual development and formation of character. This advantage continues at the university stage. Even if students are not majoring in classical studies, they can relatively easily enter the field by sitting in on courses. Such cross-boundary movement is not common in the university systems of other countries.

在这样的教育体系中，古典研究是如何建立其学术架构的？

Within such an educational system, how does classical research establish its scholarly architecture?

凯·鲁芬：由于德国是一个联邦制国家，各州教育体系并不完全相同，很难给出一个统一答案。但总体而言，真正的专业化通常是以古代史为核心展开的。这也体现了我们与英国体系之间的一个重要差异。英国的古典学往往更为“工程化”（straightened Classics）的古典学，而德国传统则更强调哲学化、思辨性。学生不仅要接受古代史训练，还应了解中世纪史、近代史和当代史，并熟悉不同时期的史料类型。这种综合各历史时期的训练，被视为专业能力的前提，而非其对立面。

Kai Ruffing: Because Germany is a federal state and the educational systems of the various Länder are not entirely the same, it is hard to give a single answer. But generally speaking, real specialization usually unfolds with ancient history at the center. This also reflects an important difference between us and the British system. British Classics is often a more “engineered,” straightened Classics, whereas the German tradition places greater emphasis on philosophical and speculative dimensions. Students must not only receive training in ancient history, but should also understand medieval, modern, and contemporary history, and be familiar with types of historical materials from different periods. This comprehensive training across historical periods is regarded as a prerequisite for professional competence, not its opposite.

顾斯文：当然，并非所有学科组合都是可能的，如今学习希腊语的学生也越来越少，但整体上的组合方式仍然相当多样。这一点在中小学教育中尤为重要：教师往往拥有多重学术背景，并将这些经验带入课堂。同样的情况也存在于大学。大学老师的工作既包括给初学者授课，也包括指导即将完成硕士论文的学生。正是这种不同层次的互动中，教育与研究不断相互激发。即便在相对规范化的学士—硕士体系下，仍然存在创造自由空间的可能性，关键在于如何主动去使用这些空间。

Sven Günther: Of course, not all disciplinary combinations are possible, and today fewer and fewer students study Greek, but the overall modes of combination remain quite diverse. This is especially important in primary and secondary education: teachers often have multiple academic backgrounds and bring these experiences into the classroom. The same is true at universities. The work of university teachers includes both teaching beginners and supervising students who are about to complete their master’s theses. It is precisely in this interaction across different levels that education and research continually stimulate one another. Even within a relatively standardized bachelor’s-master’s system, there remains the possibility of creating spaces of freedom; the key is how actively one uses those spaces.

在二战后德国刻意淡化国家身份认同的背景下，这套教育与学术体系对于战后国家/族群认同产生了怎样的影响？

Against the background of postwar Germany’s deliberate de-emphasis on national identity, what influence has this educational and scholarly system had on postwar national or ethnic identity?

凯·鲁芬：在我看来，历史学家的职责并不是去塑造或强化某种特定身份认同。历史学首先是一门批判性的学科。无论我们将它理解为德语语境中的“科学”（Wissenschaft），还是英语世界所说“艺术”（art），它的核心都在于：帮助人类理解历史是由遵循特定规则的叙述所构成的。这意味着，我们既需要解构古代文献本身，也必须反思现代社会如何使用和解释这些历史。历史不应当成为任何身份或意识形态的工具，否则就违背了历史研究的基本精神。

Kai Ruffing: In my view, the responsibility of historians is not to shape or strengthen any particular identity. History is first and foremost a critical discipline. Whether we understand it as Wissenschaft, “science” or systematic scholarship, in the German-language context, or as “art” in the English-speaking world, its core lies in helping human beings understand that history is composed of narratives that follow particular rules. This means that we need both to deconstruct ancient texts themselves and to reflect on how modern societies use and interpret those histories. History should not become an instrument of any identity or ideology; otherwise it violates the basic spirit of historical research.

顾斯文：我认为这一点与德国历史学长期形成的批判传统密切相关。早在19世纪，德罗伊森等学者就强调，历史研究必须不断反思自身的立场。这种方法论，某种程度上已经内化为历史学家的职业习惯。当然，没有任何历史研究能够完全脱离其时代语境。关键并不在于避免这些框架，而在于是否意识到它们的存在，并对其保持警惕。或许正是这种自觉，使德国在战后逐步摆脱了单一、封闭的身份叙事。当然，这并不意味着问题已经彻底消失，而是说，历史意识在公共讨论中依然发挥着重要作用。

Sven Günther: I think this is closely connected to the critical tradition that German historical scholarship has formed over a long period. As early as the nineteenth century, scholars such as Droysen emphasized that historical research must constantly reflect on its own standpoint. To some extent, this methodology has been internalized as a professional habit among historians. Of course, no historical research can ever completely detach itself from the context of its own time. The key is not to avoid these frameworks, but to be aware of their existence and remain vigilant toward them. Perhaps it is precisely this self-awareness that allowed Germany after the war gradually to move beyond a singular and closed narrative of identity. Of course, this does not mean the problem has disappeared completely, but rather that historical consciousness continues to play an important role in public discussion.

Droysen德罗伊森

在当代德国古典学界，是否仍然存在一些基本的学科共识？学科又正在经历哪些新的变化？

In contemporary German classical studies, do certain basic disciplinary consensuses still exist? And what new changes is the discipline undergoing?

凯·鲁芬：一个广泛存在的共识是：古代史是历史学中不可或缺的组成部分。它未必能为当下问题提供直接答案，但它始终具有现实意义。正如亚历山大·德曼（Alexander Demandt）所说，历史研究永远是从当下出发，对过去的重新理解。研究主题会随着时代变化而变化。例如，在我求学时，几乎没有环境史或可持续性研究；而今天，这些问题已经成为重要议题。这并不削弱古代史的价值，恰恰说明历史研究常研常新，始终与当下关切相连。

Kai Ruffing: One widely shared consensus is that ancient history is an indispensable component of historical studies. It may not provide direct answers to present-day problems, but it always has contemporary significance. As Alexander Demandt said, historical research always begins from the present and re-understands the past. Research themes change as times change. When I was a student, for example, there was almost no environmental history or sustainability research; today, these issues have become important topics. This does not weaken the value of ancient history. On the contrary, it shows that historical research is constantly renewed and always connected to present concerns.

顾斯文：我同意。同时，德国学术界的一项重要共识在于：必须为不同观点和声音保留空间。在学术讨论中，我们通常会主动邀请立场和背景真正不同的学者，而不仅仅是强化已有共识。

Sven Günther: I agree. At the same time, an important consensus in German scholarship is that space must be reserved for different viewpoints and voices. In scholarly discussion, we usually actively invite scholars whose positions and backgrounds are genuinely different, rather than merely reinforcing existing consensus.

凯·鲁芬：这种开放性也体现在国际交流中。德国长期以来对国际学者高度开放，无论是通过洪堡奖学金，还是通过各类访问项目。这种交流不仅影响德国学界，也会通过学者个人将不同经验带回各自的学术环境。

Kai Ruffing: This openness is also reflected in international exchange. Germany has long been highly open to international scholars, whether through Humboldt fellowships or through various visiting programs. Such exchange not only influences German scholarship, but also allows individual scholars to bring different experiences back to their own academic environments.

顾斯文：我还想补充一点。德国公民普遍具有强烈的历史意识，尤其对古代史抱有浓厚兴趣，至今仍然存在着许多专门研究钱币学等领域的协会。即使你讲授一些在当下看来相对冷门的主题，比如附庸国君主制度，往往也能吸引满屋子的听众。我想，这种情况在其他国家并不多见。这可能是一种学科专业的大众化转向。

Sven Günther: I would add one more point. German citizens generally possess a strong historical consciousness and are especially interested in ancient history. Even today, there are many associations devoted to specialized fields such as numismatics. Even if you lecture on topics that now seem relatively obscure, such as the institution of client kingship, you can often attract a full room. I think this is not often seen in other countries. It may represent a popularizing turn within a specialized discipline.

凯·鲁芬：也许在意大利也有这样的景象。

Kai Ruffing: Perhaps one also sees this in Italy.

在人工智能迅速发展的背景下，语言能力不再构成学习古典学的主要门槛。当代古典学者与普通学习者最需要具备的关键能力是什么？

Against the background of the rapid development of artificial intelligence, linguistic ability is no longer the main threshold for studying classical studies. What key capacities do contemporary classical scholars and ordinary learners most need to possess?

…the essay continues at the source.