中世纪和近代早期英国关税性质的演变

中世纪和近代早期,英国关税性质发生了根本性变化,从一种国王特权税,逐渐演变为处于议会严格控制下的议会间接税。中世纪和1625年前的近代早期,关税主要是国王的一种特权税。1625-1660年间,随着议会和王权斗争的高涨,以及议会的暂时胜利,关税一度转变为处于议会直接控制下的间接税。复辟时期,关税的最终课征批准权继续掌握在议会手中,但因缺少日常操控权,其关税权残缺不全。光荣革命后,因议会在与王权的斗争中取得了决定性胜利,关税演变为完全由议会严格控制的间接税。     

浅析洛克的“议会至上”思想

近几年有关洛克分权学说的文章发表了不少,但多是从洛克分权学说的理论依据、三权间的一般关系及历史地位入手的,而对洛克的“议会至上”思想谈之甚少,对其议会改革主张更是不曾论及。对此,我想略述拙见。一17世纪开始的英国资产阶级革命,其斗争的主要焦点是:王权服从法律,还是法律服从王权;以国王为首的行政权应隶属于资产阶级参加的立法议会,还是议会隶属于国王。围绕着上述问题,资产阶级和新贵族以议会为阵地,以议会军为后盾,与国王为首的封建势力展开了激烈斗争。革命经过内战、     

英国议会征税权探源

英国议会征税权探源李金亮在英国历史上,征税权是议会最重要的内容之一,议会通过征税权与英王讨价还价,对社会政治与经济生活等重要领域都产生了影响。在１７世纪中叶的内战过程中,清教徒在＂长期议会＂就以征税权为武器与专制王权进行斗争。因而,对于史学界来说,探...     

试论伊丽莎白一世时期英国下院同女王的斗争

关于英国都铎王朝时期议会同王权的关系,我国史学家长期以来因袭五十年代苏联史学家提出的观点,认为下院始终“绝对驯服地批准国王所提出的法令,并向国王谄媚逢迎”。至于议会同王权的斗争则很少提及。本文将就伊丽莎白时期下院同女王的斗争详加阐述并探讨其原因、性质及影响。     

论近代英国内阁制的形成

英国是西方世界首创内阁制的国家。早在斯图亚特王朝后期,在种种主客观因素的推动下,此前处于萌芽状态的内阁逐渐走向公开化、独立化、制度化,由此标志着内阁制在英国的形成。不过,与18世纪中后叶的责任制内阁相比,此间的内阁依然残留着君主政治的痕迹。对于王权的依附以及与议会之间缺乏必然的关联,使得责任制在内阁中还未建立起来。只有到汉诺威王朝时期,当王权急剧衰落、议会主权地位确立后,早期的内阁制才完成了向责任内阁制的转变。     

都铎王朝的经济立法与英国近代议会民主制的起源

确立于17世纪的英国近代议会民主制是否可以在前一个世纪、即都铎时期(1485—1603)找到起源?这个问题长期为史学界所关注。本世纪中叶以来,在西方史学家中先后形成了两种观点。一种是出现于本世纪50年代的“正统派”观点。该派代表人物、英国史学家尼尔认为,在都铎末代君主伊丽莎白女王统治时期(1558—1603),下院在宗教改革、王位继承、下院权利等一系列重大问题上与女王、枢密院选有不和,议会与王权的“政治对立”颇为尖锐,实际上已经揭开了议会反抗王权、夺     

英国民族国家形成的政治动因——中世纪权力要素剖析

英国民族国家的形成是多种因素互动的结果。从权力政治学的角度考察英国民族国家形成的政治动因,可以发现,中世纪王权在权力政治发展中的演变历程正是英国民族国家形成的积累过程。英国民族国家形成的政治动因主要来自两个方面的作用:一是国家原则对封建原则的消解;二是以王权为代表的世俗权力与教会权力的冲突与斗争。在这两方面作用的互动过程中,王权在国家原则的制约下巩固与发展起来,为英国民族国家的形成创造了决定性的历史条件。     

法律职业者在“英国宪政革命”中的推动作用

对于“英国宪政革命”成功的原因,大多数的研究从政治制度史的视角出发,将注意力集中在社会、经济、政治、宗教等因素的作用上.这些研究认为,英国中产阶级的崛起、议会与王权的斗争、财政税收的矛盾以及天主教可能复辟的危险等诸多因素都与“英国宪政革命”密切相关.很少有人从司法的角度研究英国宪政问题.英国法律职业者(律师)在1678年“排斥危机”后用实际行动同专制王权进行斗争,这些鲜活的法律人用点滴并富有责任感的行为推动着英国宪政史的前进.1689年“英国宪政革命”胜利的原因是多方面的,而英国法律职业者在推动“英国宪政革命”历程中的重要角色不可忽略.     

中世纪英格兰“政教之争”初探

中世纪英格兰罗马教皇权曾一度超越王权。此后,国王通过与新生议会合作,摆脱了罗马教皇的控制,建立起了国王为首的英格兰国教会,为近代英国民族国家的诞生打下基础。     

中世纪后期英国世俗贵族阶层的历史辨析

在中世纪后期的英国,随着经济社会的变动与议会君主制的形成,世俗贵族在层级划分上渐趋严格,形成了爵位贵族、男爵、小贵族三个阶层。而在爵位贵族、男爵中,则有一个享有显赫政治特权的议会贵族群体,他们对王国高层政治活动的直接参与,直接影响到了封建君主政治的历史走向。同时,由于"变态封建主义"的盛行,在议会贵族中,区域性大贵族———超级臣属———日益崛起,他们通过承接国王对"合同军"的征召,以付酬军役组建私家军队,强势干预国家政治,操控议会,甚至借助议会这个平台武力篡夺王位。由此,君权与贵族的冲突,构成了中世纪后期英国政治史的一个显著特征。     

明文渊阁考

本文对明代南京文渊阁、北京文渊阁与东阁的地址及相关问题作了较为详细的考辨,指出明永乐年间南京文渊阁与阁臣入直的内阁不是同一地方,明代北京文渊阁的建置不断完善,不能将文渊阁东阁与左顺门南庑东阁混为一谈。     

Lord Herbert of Cherbury and the Presentation of the Henrician Reformation in his Life and Raigne of King Henry the Eighth

Abstract

It was no coincidence that Charles I commissioned a study of the life and reign of Henry VIII in the 1630s as he proceeded with controversial anti-Calvinist religious reforms in the face of Puritan opposition and suspicion that he was a closet Catholic. Lord Herbert of Cherbury's willingness to undertake the laborious scholarly task is initially more surprising but can be explained by his commitment to the eradication of religious conflict and his realization that it would enable him to disseminate his own rationalist, reunionist and Erastian views on religious belief, the organization of religion and the location of religious authority.     

试述明代宫廷史的分期与特点

明代宫廷史是明代历史的重要组成部分,也是故宫学研究的重要内容之一。本文以宫廷中各种势力间的相互关系、帝王本人的执政方式、宦官、内阁与皇帝的关系、宫廷文化的发展变化、国家与宫廷的财政关系及其变化等内容为依据,将明代宫廷史划分为三个阶段,分别为洪武至宣德朝、正统至正德朝、嘉靖至崇祯朝。每一阶段都有各自不同的特点,这些特点的背后则是错综复杂的宫廷史内容。     

The naval reform of Emperor John II Komnenos: a re-evaluation

The eleventh and twelfth centuries have traditionally been interpreted as the era when the Byzantine navy declined, and then was allowed to disappear. Historians often mark the death knell of the Byzantine navy with Emperor John II Komnenos ending the collection of taxes for localized defence fleets. Niketas Choniates describes the act as a money-hungry measure devised by the finance minister John of Poutza, whereby fleet taxes would be collected and spent centrally, leading to the end of localized fleets as funds were diverted to other sectors. This reform has traditionally been interpreted as one that led to losing a war with Venice in the 1120s, provincial insecurity, the eventual outsourcing of the Byzantine navy to the Italians, and finally the sack of Constantinople itself by the forces of the Fourth Crusade when the Italians turned against them.Such an interpretation does not however sit easily with the reign of John II Komnenos, during which on numerous occasions the navy is referenced as playing a crucial part in the emperor’s campaigns, a feature that began in Alexios’ reign and continued into Manuel’s. Though Pryor and Jeffreys have previously expressed doubt that such a centralising naval reform could really spell the end of the Byzantine fleet, and possibly the empire itself, this paper will build upon that doubt with evidence that necessitates a re-evaluation of the traditional interpretation. First, the narrative of John’s war with Venice in the 1120s will be examined, followed by how the subsequent naval reform was shaped by these events, which themselves only confirmed the experiences of the Byzantine Navy in previous decades, and so highlighted the need for reform. This analysis will demonstrate that a centralising reform was a coherent measure undertaken to increase the efficiency of the fleet, and to recognize officially trends in organization that had already emerged under Alexios. Subsequent fleet operations in John and Manuel’s reigns reveal that the role of the navy did indeed change in the early twelfth century, but the narrative of decline is false. Throughout this section it will also be shown that analysis of the Byzantine navy has been overly shaped by use of hostile sources. The second part of this paper will then move on to highlight three major uses of the fleet that have been undervalued by scholars focused on traditional sea battles: its use on rivers as well as the sea, its use for transport and logistics, and its ‘soft power’ diplomatic capacity. The combination of these factors reveal a Byzantine navy that was a crucial part of the Komnenian restoration of Byzantine fortunes in the twelfth century, and that its decline after the death of Manuel must be seen as a product of other factors, rather than a cause of the late twelfth-century imperial decline in itself.     

The growth of secure inheritance in Anglo-Norman England

The following paper traces the crystallization of inheritance custom in England from 1086 to 1154. Inheritance of baronial estates has long been considered by historians to have been tenuous in the reigns of William the Conqueror and his sons, but by dating instances of forfeiture, escheat and other forms of disinheritance, and by comparing these dates with those of political turmoil, it can be shown that the custom became fairly secure and regular in the latter half of the reign of Henry I, only to be disrupted in the civil wars of Stephen's reign.     

关于兰溪建置沿革的几个问题

中国朝代有年号,一般认为始于汉武帝。此后,每个皇帝均要建元立号,直至中华民国。大多有关兰溪的志书记述兰溪建县于唐咸亨五年(674年),但各种权威工具书都认定公元674年乃上元元年。而且实际上,唐咸亨只有四年,并没有五年。武则天于674年改帝号为"上元",并从这年的八月开始了她的"天后"时期。兰溪的建县时间,恰好在这年的八月,正好进入了上元元年。文章认为,大概是当时的史官站在正统观念上,对武氏女皇执政,心存腹诽,因而长期不愿改用新的年号记事,故而将兰溪建县时间记为咸亨五年。     

The growth of secure inheritance in Anglo-Norman England

The following paper traces the crystallization of inheritance custom in England from 1086 to 1154. Inheritance of baronial estates has long been considered by historians to have been tenuous in the reigns of William the Conqueror and his sons, but by dating instances of forfeiture, escheat and other forms of disinheritance, and by comparing these dates with those of political turmoil, it can be shown that the custom became fairly secure and regular in the latter half of the reign of Henry I, only to be disrupted in the civil wars of Stephen's reign.     

The organisation of military religion in the armies of King Edward I of England (1272–1307)

King Edward I of England (1272–1307) was an exceptionally capable leader both on the battlefield and in the organisation of the bureaucratic institutions necessary for the successful pursuit of his military objectives. The military history of Edward’s reign has benefited from extensive scholarly attention, particularly with regard to matters such as military recruitment, battlefield strategy, and logistics. However, one major lacuna has been an examination of the pastoral care made available to soldiers serving the king in both peace and war. This study considers the means by which both professional fighting men and militia forces serving in the armies of Edward I were provided with the opportunity to obtain pastoral care. It considers in turn, soldiers attached to the royal household, the troops of the royal garrisons, militia forces drawn from the shires, and finally the contingents provided by men who held land from the king through military tenure.     

康熙时期的养心殿

养心殿作为宫内的一处重要建筑,在康熙时期的情况一直不甚清楚。本文通过零星的记载,尤其是当时西方传教士的著作,对康熙时期养心殿的建筑格局、内部陈设、使用情况等进行了考证,认为与雍正以后的状况有很大差异,其功用是多方面的,从而对养心殿历史沿革的认识更为全面。     

The organisation of military religion in the armies of King Edward I of England (1272–1307)

King Edward I of England (1272–1307) was an exceptionally capable leader both on the battlefield and in the organisation of the bureaucratic institutions necessary for the successful pursuit of his military objectives. The military history of Edward’s reign has benefited from extensive scholarly attention, particularly with regard to matters such as military recruitment, battlefield strategy, and logistics. However, one major lacuna has been an examination of the pastoral care made available to soldiers serving the king in both peace and war. This study considers the means by which both professional fighting men and militia forces serving in the armies of Edward I were provided with the opportunity to obtain pastoral care. It considers in turn, soldiers attached to the royal household, the troops of the royal garrisons, militia forces drawn from the shires, and finally the contingents provided by men who held land from the king through military tenure.