从西班牙历史看"民族国家"的形成与界定

"民族国家"是一种国家形式,同时也是近代以来形成的一种政治属性的民族,可称为"近代民族"。它与其他那些传统意义上的自然属性的民族有明显区别,主要特征在于:其规模相当于一个主权国家,而不像自然属性的民族那样不是大于一个国家就是小于一个国家;其主权属于人民,而不能属于任何个人或其家族。它诞生的标志不是"国家统一"而是资产阶级革命或改革。19世纪以前,国家统一之后所产生的往往是中央集权的专制王朝国家,而不是民族国家,它们的性质是完全不同的。西班牙国家统一后,立即通过海外征服和王室联姻等途径迅速膨胀成为一个超级庞大的殖民帝国,西班牙人成为它的"主体民族",但国家主权却属于来自外族的君主。它那时不是民族国家,而是封建王朝国家。直到19世纪初,随着反抗拿破仑占领的独立战争,西班牙的近代民族意识才被唤醒,才成为一个民族国家。     

历史、文化与民族:20世纪前期中国文化史的兴起

20世纪初,西方“文化”概念成为整理传统中国历史遗产的重要概念工具。国人编纂文化史有意展现传统中国的文化成就,反映出中西文化竞争下,国人隐秘的文化争胜意识。“文化”与“历史”结合,逐渐成为历史叙事的核心概念。文化史在史学研究的对象、价值判断、时代分期、研究方法等方面发展出自身特征,亦反映出西方文明史、文化史在理论和实践方面对中国“新史学”的影响。文化史在实践中注重对民族历史生活的呈现,表现出民族史的特征,其叙述特定群体或民族社会生活的方方面面,揭示群体的精神内核。历史、文化与民族融会一体,在西学东渐、传统文化权威失坠的情况下,文化史构建了一种彰显社会凝聚力的叙事。     

The Nation as a Problem: Historians and the "National Question"

How is it that the nation became an object of scholarly research? As this article intends to show, not until what we call the “genealogical view” (which assumes the “natural” and “objective” character of the nation) eroded away could the nation be subjected to critical scrutiny by historians. The starting point and the premise for studies in the field was the revelation of the blind spot in the genealogical view, that is, the discovery of the “modern” and “constructed” character of nations. Historians’ views would thus be intimately tied to the “antigenealogical” perspectives of them. However, this antigenealogical view would eventually reveal its own blind spots. This paper traces the different stages of reflection on the nation, and how the antigenealogical approach would finally be rendered problematic, exposing, in turn, its own internal fissures.     

Rethinking the History and Theory of Jus Publicum Universal: The Formation of China as a "Semi-Civilized" Legal Subject

Much of the existing scholarship on the universalization of nineteenth-century international law has framed it in terms of the imperial West's domination of non-Western societies.This article complicates and qualifies this conventional state-centric narrative by investigating the juridical,capitalist production of China as a "semi-civilized" international legal subject.It examines the foundational modem Sino-British/Westem commercial and extraterritorial treaties,as well as the treatises of a new professional class of British international lawyers-James Lorimer (1818-90),John Westlake (1828-1913),William Edward Hall (1835-94),T.E.Holland (1835-1926),Thomas Lawrence (1849-1920),and Lassa Oppenheim (1849-1920).The juridical production of China as a "semi-civilized" legal subject throws into relief the dual capitalist nature and significance of the universalization of nineteenth-century international law.On the one hand,this "civilized" legal discourse underwrote a novel liberal conception of a universal international law (jus publicum universal) within which China was formally included as a quasi-legal subject.On the other hand,it also underwrote a particularistic,Euro-centric international law,which excluded China from its global domain and denied it basic sovereign fights.In this way also,"civilized" international law justified both formal equality in Europeannon-European treaty relations,as well as the real substantive inequality of these international exchanges of rights and obligations.Building on the critical theoretical work of Evgeny Pashukanis (1891-1937),this article argues that a non-orthodox Marxist social theory of legal forms is best suited to explain the abstract,liberal universalism of nineteenth-century "civilized" international law and the contradictory forms of legal and jurisprudential discourse it made available and rendered normatively meaningful to international law practitioners.Through this Marxist theory,moreover,I shall relate said contradictory discourse to modern commodity exchange practices.     

Writing Gender into History and History in Gender: Creating A Nation and Australian Historiography

This paper reflects on the impact of gender in the writing of history by considering the reception of Creating A Nation, the first gendered history of Australia. It argues that while there has emerged an impressive volume of feminist history and with it has come an important acceptance of women's historical experience, the reception of ‘gender’ within the historical profession has paradoxically been ambivalent and ambiguous. This is the case because of an unease about feminist theory and its relevance to history. There also remains a prevailing belief that a gendered neutral historical place exists, to which historians can retreat.     

美国法律史研究领域的"赫斯特革命"

J .威拉德·赫斯特教授在 2 0世纪下半叶使美国法律史研究走出了专注于法律自身演变的所谓法律内史的黑盒子 ,转而从法律和社会的相互作用中探讨美国法律的历史发展 ,在法律史学界掀起了一场“赫斯特革命” ,结果使美国法律史研究经历了一次群星荟萃的学术复兴。尽管“赫斯特革命”的局限性在世纪之交时变得日益明显 ,但它在美国法律史研究中的主流地位仍未动摇。因此 ,不研究赫斯特和他的影响 ,就不可能有新的突破 ,对于在美国法律史研究上尚处于起步阶段的中国学术界来说 ,就更是如此     

《金史》“篡改开国史”辨北大核心CSSCI

《金史》记载的金朝开国史是信史。“都勃极烈”不是金建国后女真国主的称号,而是生女真进入高级酋邦阶段后大酋长的称号。阿骨打建国之初只求民族自立,并没有灭辽的宏图,宋人文献称阿骨打是接受了杨朴“图霸天下,谋为万乘之国”的建议,才称帝建国的说法,既不符合金建国前后女真人的政治生态,也不符合杨朴的身份,当是宋人的演绎。在金向辽请求册封过程中杨朴的事迹是真实的,《金史》对此并未隐匿。宋晁公迈《历代纪年》成书早于《太祖实录》,明确记载金初存在“收国”年号。《太祖实录》没有虚构和编造金朝建国时间、国号、年号,据此撰写的《金史》没有篡改开国史。     

德意志“历史学派”传统与纳粹主义

不少历史学家与经济学家将罗斯福“新政”与希特勒“新经济政策”视为凯恩斯主义模式运用上的开端 ,这早已成为一种习惯。美国著名经济学家约翰·肯尼思·加尔布雷思曾著文《凯恩斯主义在美国》 ,对此作过一点小小的“修正”。这位前美国哈佛大学教授谈到 ,1 933年罗斯福就任美国总统并开始奉行“新政”以后 ,凯恩斯本人以及他的思想在美国仍然遭到冷遇 ,以致于美国既未能真正克服 1 92 9至 1 933年的经济大危机 ,也未能阻止 1 937至 1 938年危机的到来 ,只是到 1 939年 9月第二次世界大战爆发后 ,凯恩斯主义的补救方法才真正为美国所接受。…     

A New Diplomatic History and the Networks of Spanish Diplomacy in the Baroque Era

Diplomatic history has undergone profound alterations during the last century. According to the old model built by Mattingly in 1955, diplomatic history was the analysis of international and political relations within a national context. Subsequent studies analysed how diplomacy evolved towards a more institutionalised and professional scheme (established in eighteenth-century European diplomacy). However, was this conclusion an inevitable one for Early Modern and Baroque diplomacy? This essay intends to retrace the steps that have been taken towards a new history of diplomacy, by early-modern historians in general, and by Spanish historiography in particular, as well as to assess the idea that what made a difference for Spanish Baroque diplomacy was the extent of networks that allowed cultural transference, the capacity to influence others, rather than the institutional extent of connections and practices. Which people or processes promoted the circulation of ideas, information, and culture, within and outside the Spanish monarchy, during the seventeenth century? This question will form the focus of the second part of this essay, in which the author analyses several specific cases of Spanish ambassadors in Europe: their networks of communication, their building of stereotypes, their informal diplomatic practices, and their use of ceremonial practices.     

试论日本早期国家官制的形成与发展

因为卑弥呼女王的王权尚处于早期的原始阶段,故其官制很不完备,只能说是出现了早期国家官制的萌芽。倭五王时期的官制还是属于一种日本早期国家特色的以地方首长和大王之间的人身依附关系为基础的带有浓厚的贵族血缘特色的统治形式,具有非制度化的特点,而且其官职大多受中国官职的影响,氏族血统作为授予职位的唯一依据。不过与弥生时代的邪马台国的官制相比,则已经标志着日本早期国家官制的形成。圣德太子所实施的冠位制进一步发展了日本早期国家官制,作为早期国家官制发展的一个顶峰,具有开创性的历史意义,由此形成了日本古代国家官僚制度的核心一位阶制的雏形。     

全球史观与近代早期世界史编纂

全球史是20世纪下半叶在美国兴起的一个史学流派,目前在西方乃至世界正在产生越来越大的影响。当今世界的全球化趋势、后现代学术的发展、东西方之间日益紧密的学术交流,是全球史产生的国际环境和学术背景。全球史以人类社会整体发展进程为叙述对象,超越西方史学以国家为单位的叙事传统,从学术发生学的角度颠覆“欧洲中心论”,以不同人群、社会、民族、国家之间的互动为切入点,开辟了考察世界历史的新视角,建立了编纂世界通史的新框架,具有鲜明的时代特点和理论启发性。但全球史忽视对各个社会内部发展动力的考察,表现出理论欠缺。“世界横向联系”历来是我国世界通史研究的薄弱环节,而全球史正好弥补我们的不足,因此在我国有重要的借鉴意义。笔者结合修订吴齐本(吴于廑、齐世荣主编的《世界史》)近代早期部分的工作,介绍在编纂世界通史过程中尝试借鉴全球史方法和理论的体会。