统治

<正>统治,意味着一个群体对另一个群体施加控制、权力或权威,统治者相信自己有这样做的权力。而这样一种概念,往往源于强制力量和随之而来的优越感。早在生命诞生之日起,弱肉强食、适者生存,就成为世界的统治之道。虽然这种统治之道直到达尔文的《进化论》才被以文字形式揭示出来,但丝毫不影响它真理性的存在。从人类世界到自然界,"统治"都被赋予了神圣的含义,赵     

William Rufus: myth and reality

The commonly accepted view of the reign of William II (1087–1100) is a political myth, primarily the work of Eadmer, who depicted the king as the villain against whom St Anselm strove to impose the revolutionary Gregorian reform programme in England. Henry I, moreover, denigrated his brother's regime as a cover for furthering William's harsh but constructive policies. Eadmer's writings were quarried by subsequent twelfth-century writers in the mainstream of the English monastic historical tradition, who added their own literary embellishments. Nineteenth-century historians uncritically accepted these accounts and Henry I's gloss on the reign. They then contributed moral judgements of their own, which passed without qualification into modern secondary works.This paper re-evaluates William II's political and governmental achievements, and his ecclesiastical policy. His character is considered in the light of recent work on twelfth-century intellectual and psychological attitudes, and the accounts of more favourable chroniclers. It is concluded that the king developed his father's strong policies in every direction with considerable success, making possible the more publicized but essentially imitative work of Henry I. William's expansion and consolidation of national frontiers, his legal and financial developments, and his maintenance of royal control over the Church are revealed under the distortions of ecclesiastical and Henrician historiography.     

Rufus W. Peckham and the Pursuit of Economic Freedom

It is striking that Rufus W. Peckham has received so little scholarly attention and remains without a biography. He was, of course, the author of Lochner v. New York (1905), ¹ one of the most famous and contested decisions in the history of the Supreme Court. Moreover, Peckham wrote important opinions dealing with contractual freedom, anti‐trust law, eminent domain, dormant commerce power, and the Eleventh Amendment. Indeed, Owen M. Fiss maintains that Peckham and David J. Brewer were intellectual leaders of the Fuller Court, “influential within the dominant coalition and the source of the ideas that gave the Court its sweep and direction.” Even when they did not prevail, Fiss observed, Peckham and Brewer “set the terms for the debate.” ²     

The making of a monster: the historical image of William Rufus

Few writers, medieval or modern, have had much good to write about William Rufus, the second Norman king of England (1087–1100). Beginning in the twelfth century, chroniclers and historians have portrayed William as a cruel, grasping, and sacriligious ruler. This study traces the development of this unflattering historical image from the twelfth to the eighteenth centuries and notes that the religious convictions which encouraged medieval churchmen to condemn Rufus were offset in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by a more political and anti-catholic approach to his reign. Beginning in the eighteenth century, however, historians abandoned this more flattering portrayal and returned once again to the evil image concocted by the monastic chroniclers.     

The making of a monster: the historical image of William Rufus

Few writers, medieval or modern, have had much good to write about William Rufus, the second Norman king of England (1087–1100). Beginning in the twelfth century, chroniclers and historians have portrayed William as a cruel, grasping, and sacriligious ruler. This study traces the development of this unflattering historical image from the twelfth to the eighteenth centuries and notes that the religious convictions which encouraged medieval churchmen to condemn Rufus were offset in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries by a more political and anti-catholic approach to his reign. Beginning in the eighteenth century, however, historians abandoned this more flattering portrayal and returned once again to the evil image concocted by the monastic chroniclers.