Byzantine-Muslim conspiracies against the crusades: history and myth

This article examines Latin allegations of Byzantine-Muslim conspiracies against the crusades in the course of the twelfth century, the charges surviving in various chronicles, reports and letters. While their sensational elements have been noted, the Latin accounts portraying Byzantine rulers as allies of the ‘infidels’ against the crusades and the crusader states have generally been taken more or less at face value by modern scholars. A closer examination discloses how these allegations of Byzantine-Muslim collusion were based on rumour, which mainly evolved and flourished among the rank and file of the crusader armies. They eventually found their way into the chronicles, having become more outlandish in transmission. The functions they fulfilled ranged from creating a scapegoat for the failures of the Crusade of 1101 and Second Crusade, to interpretation and explanation, or rather misinterpretation, in the case of the Third Crusade. Despite the fact that, in general, these theories do not seem to have appealed to Latin emperors, kings, and nobles, paradoxically it was a noble of the Fourth Crusade, Baldwin IX of Flanders, together with his clerical advisers, who finally exploited them in May and June 1204 in order to justify the Latin conquest of Christian Constantinople.     

再析金毓黻《中国史学史》撰写中的影响因素

金毓黻的<中国史学史>在撰写过程中受到了梁启超和朱希祖的影响,但金毓黻并非只是简单地采纳、承袭他们的观点;而梁、朱二人对金氏<中国史学史>撰写中的影响因素,也从另一个方面反映了金毓黻史学思想的某些进程.     

色诺芬史学二题

古希腊历史学家色诺芬所著《希腊史》是希腊城邦危机时代的产物。这样的历史背景在很大程度上决定了作者对历史事实的取舍以及对历史人物的评价。色诺芬对西方古典史学的贡献主要有:完成了修昔底德的未竟之作,公元前5世纪末到公元前4世纪中期希腊史的主要史料,主要是有赖于色诺芬的记载而流传下来;对经济史、政治史、战争史、社会生活史等均有独到的分析和阐述;在史书编撰体例方面,特别是对于传记体史书,具有开创性贡献;对西方历史文学及军事文学也有重要贡献。当然,色诺芬史学也确有其不足和局限性。     

宋代纪传、编年二体优劣论

中唐以后的史家开始重视史学褒贬人事、惩恶劝善的宗旨,编年体史书由此中兴,历史上的二体优劣之争再起。及至北宋,孙甫强调编年体具有体正、文简的优点。体正,指编年体便于立褒贬以惩劝,同时起源较早,与儒家经典关系密切;文简则是指编年体史文简约。孙甫的观点得到宋代多数论者的响应。同时,宋代史学考察重心由人到事的转移,也对编年体史书占据史学主流地位推波助澜。以上因素最终导致了编年体史书空前繁荣的局面。     

Thomas Fitzherbert's reason of state

Thomas Fitzherbert's two-part Treatise concerning Policy and Religion (1606, 1610) was a rebuttal of unidentified Machiavellians, statists or politikes and their politics and policies. The work was apparently still well-regarded in the following century. Fitzherbert's objections to ‘statism’ were principally religious, and he himself thought the providentialist case against it unanswerable. But for those who did not share his convictions, he attempted to undermine Machiavellism on its own ground. Like both ‘Machiavellians’ and their opponents, he argued by inference from historical examples, but with a particularly copious knowledge of historians ancient, medieval and modern to draw on. Equally, however, he deployed the principles of speculative (principally Aristotelian) ‘political science,’ as well as theology and jurisprudence, to demonstrate that the kind of knowledge that Machiavellians required to guarantee the success of their ‘reason of state’ policies was simply unobtainable. A particularly striking strategy (perhaps modelled on that of his mentor and friend Robert Persons) was Fitzherbert's attempt to demonstrate, on the Machiavellians’ own premises, that they advocated policies which were very likely to fail, and would be visited with divine punishments sooner as well as later, whereas policies that were compatible with faith and morals were also much more likely to succeed, even judged in purely human and ‘statist’ terms.     

From chronological to spatio‐temporal histories: mapping heritage in arukwa, área indígena do uaçá, Brazil

This article explores some of the reasons the 1910 Republican revolution in Portugal failed to bring about the long-term changes in national life envisioned by Party Leaders. Specifically, I argue that the Portuguese Republican Party's anti-clerical and anti-monarchical disposition ensured the continued existence of religious and political schemas it sought to eradicate, setting the stage for counter-revolution.     

后现代主义与后现代史学

后现代主义是 2 0世纪 70年代在欧美等西方学术界兴起的一种社会思潮。近些年来 ,我国学界对于后现代主义作品的介绍颇多 ,但对其进行认真研究的论著则较少。本文对后现代、后现代主义和后现代史学的发展过程进行了疏理 ,尤其是就后现代史学对现代史学的挑战作了认真的探析 ,认为后现代史学的核心是力图动摇西方现代历史编撰学的基础 ,颠覆西方自启蒙以来建立起来的历史观念     

‘Faites le mien desir’: studious persuasion and baronial desire in Jordan Fantosme's Chronicle

This article examines the remarkable ‘changes and transpositions’ of form found in Jordan Fantosme's Chronicle, an important Anglo-Norman estoire recounting the rebellion against Henry II in 1173–74. By reading these literary changes as accommodations of circumstances and persons, they can be used to locate the Chronicle in very specific historical and social contexts. Jordan, clerk of the bishop of Winchester and master of the city's grammar schools, places himself, both socially and discursively, within a community of administrative barons, who are very carefully remembered in the Chronicle as a coherent social affinity, or foedus amicitiae, both alienated from and seeking solidarity with the king. These conditions explain the Chronicle's central rhetorical impulses: to chastise the king, sometimes bitterly, and to persuade him to ‘love, cherish … and reward’ these specific barons. To achieve these rhetorical desires, Jordan draws upon the resources of contemporary literary education to imagine and perform persuasion. The Chronicle is thus a powerful illustration of John Baldwin's account of the ‘interpenetration’ of studium et regnum, institutional learning and political administration, in twelfth-century England. Because the Chronicle has in the past been understood as a panegyric, or even propaganda, for a royalist cause, this baronial reading represents a major re-assessment of its sociabilities and purposes.     

Pars Pro Toto Observation: Historical Anthropology in the Textual Field of Rasulid Yemen

This essay addresses the suggestion made over a century ago by F. W. Maitland that anthropology must choose between being history and being nothing. At the time Maitland was correct in criticizing the simplistic unilinear evolutionary schemes of Edward Tylor and Lewis Henry Morgan. My own career combines ethnography among Yemeni farmers in the late 1970s with ongoing analysis of thirteenth- and fourteenth-century Yemeni agricultural texts, demonstrating the value of drawing on both kinds of research to better understand the history of agriculture in Yemen. Details from the textual corpus are provided to supplement observations made in the field. My approach to agricultural and tax record texts from Yemen's Rasulid period is described as an example of what anthropology and history can contribute to each other. I argue that the choice is not between specific disciplines but rather the application of sound methods that seek to approximate reality rather than dogmatically recreate it. Anthropology and history have much to gain, as Evans-Pritchard once noted, in learning from each other. Anthropology is approached as a research field that has no preconceived borders, but one that necessitates learning from past methodological and theoretical trends, whether from within the formal discipline or from without.