什么是环境史?——对唐纳德·休斯的环境史理论的探讨

唐纳德·休斯是美国丹佛大学约翰.埃文斯历史学杰出教授,环境史的开创者之一,从环境史诞生伊始到现在,一直活跃于环境史研究领域,发表了大量的相关成果。休斯对环境史的贡献,不仅在于他取得的丰硕成果,更在于他所作的理论思考。这突出地表现在如下方面:1)对生态及其在历史中的作用的论述;2)对"什么是环境史"及其与其他学科之关联的分析;3)对环境史与其他历史门类之区别和联系的阐述;4)对环境史的丰富意义的揭示。通过对休斯环境史著述中的理论思考的梳理,我们既可以从总体上把握他对环境史的一般理论问题的认识,也可以在一定程度上领略他从事环境史研究的个性特征。而休斯对环境史的意义的揭示,还使我们更深刻地体会到,历史学家在研究和叙述历史的同时也在创造历史。     

Implementing Artificial Intelligence in H-BIM Using the J48 Algorithm to Manage Historic Buildings

ABSTRACT

The preservation of the architectural heritage is characterized by the intervention of different technicians, who may disagree on decision-making criteria. In recent years, the H-BIM methodology has emerged to manage these buildings, although the multidisciplinary technical personnel make the decision-taking something of a challenge. In this regard, artificial intelligence may be an opportunity to establish automatic responses, thus optimizing the process. This article proposes a methodology to implement models of classification using the J48 algorithm in a H-BIM model. The case study was focused on a tiles panel from a building which belongs to the Real Alcazar of Seville. First, a model of classification was developed to estimate the degree of intervention with an adequate degree of adjustment. Then, the model was implemented in the H-BIM software by programming using GDL. This methodology automates the decision-making and reduces times of assessments, visualizing and managing the information in the H-BIM model.     

A.F. Pollard*

A.F. Pollard is now better remembered for founding the Institute of Historical Research than he is for his scholarship. In his heyday, however, Pollard was a formidable and prolific historian, primarily of parliament and the Tudor period. Pollard has been characterised both as a modernist and as a whig historian. Rejecting romantic invocations of liberty, he extolled instead the sovereign nation state, pinpointing the 16th century as the moment when it was achieved. Pollard rejected anachronistic accounts of parliament's development: for him, the assembly had grown by accident (out of the medieval king's council), rather than by design. This adaptability had ensured parliament's longevity and would preserve it into the future. Pollard revered the English parliament all the more for its embodiment of this national good fortune. Pollard helped to professionalise the discipline of history, but his own writings could be found wanting when measured against the standards that he had advocated. Criticism of his approach and assumptions comes easily now. Yet, upon reacquaintance, historians of parliament may find enduring interest in Pollard's shrewd and extensive work.     

Geoffrey Holmes and the Public Sphere: Augustan Historiography from Post-Namierite to the Post-Habermasian

This article attributes the relative lack of attention to the 'public sphere' in Geoffrey Holmes's work to the pervasive influence of Lewis Namier and the Namierite conception of political history. Holmes's British Politics can be understood as a product of what might be called the revisionist's dilemma. Because the main thrust of the argument of this work was to challenge the Namierite interpretation of the structure of politics in Anne's reign, Holmes could not fail but to replicate the structures of the original Namierite paradigm. Nevertheless, Holmes's demolition of the Namierite view of Augustan politics also opened up new possibilities for further research; it ultimately widened our understanding of the 'political' and it prepared the ground for the remarkable interdisciplinary dialogue between literary historians, intellectual historians, and political historians. The article concludes with a discussion of how Holmes's successors began to build on his work in ways that can help explain why the Habermasian public sphere paradigm emerged to the foreground of current scholarship in a field where it had been ignored for three decades. Historians are now beginning to build a detailed post-Habermasian understanding of the ways in which the public sphere affected the structures of politics in later Stuart Britain. Work along these lines may well finally help explain the transformation of British politics from an age of Stuart revolutions to the age of Hanoverian oligarchy.     

Ireland and the Paris Olympic Games (1924): a difficult journey successfully negotiated

ABSTRACT

Ireland first competed as an independent nation in the Olympic Games at Paris in 1924. The Irish presence in Paris was largely due to the work of J.J. Keane, who became the first Irish member of the International Olympic Committee (IOC) in 1922. This made it possible for Ireland to compete independently in the Olympics. As Keane lobbied for IOC membership, he also persuaded the two rival athletic controlling bodies of Irish athletics to abandon their claims and merge into a single controlling body for the sport. An Irish Olympic Council was established by Keane to manage the Irish entry for the Paris Games. Olympic recognition was achieved against a background of tumultuous political events in Ireland that included a war of independence, a civil war and partition of the island. The British Olympic Association consistently opposed demands for independent Irish Olympic representation and in 1924 attempted to limit Irish Olympic jurisdiction to the territory of the Irish Free State, an attempt that was firmly rejected and resisted by Keane on behalf of the Irish Olympic Council. This was complicated by Irish participation in the Olympic football competition.     

Constitutionalists,Despots, Whigs,and Revisionists: Tudor Parliamentary History in the 20th Century

The 20th century was the great age of Tudor parliamentary history. This essay examines the contributions and profound changes to the field made by the leading historians of the era, especially Sir John Neale and Sir Geoffrey Elton. Taking as its starting point the whiggish ideas of Stubbs's Constitutional History of England, it traces the impact of A.F. Pollard, G.M. Trevelyan, and Sir Lewis Namier on the field. At its core, though, lie the often acrimonious differences of opinion between Neale and his pupil, Elton. For Neale the Elizabethan parliaments were characterised by an increasingly puritanical Commons eager to wrest control of debates on religion and the succession away from the queen. In so doing this created a constitutional clash that would eventually lead to civil war in the mid 17th century. This ‘orthodoxy’ was savagely critiqued by a revisionist ‘school’ led by Elton that dismantled the interpretation of Neale and replaced it with an institution that was not dominated by political conflict but by largely consensual politics. It was also a position that gave equal weight to the Lords and to the importance of the business of parliament – legislation. The revisionists were masters of critique and highly effective at demolishing Neale, but did little to replace his theories or to explain religio‐political conflict – in doing so it could be argued that they killed the subject. The essay ends by suggesting some new approaches to Tudor parliaments that could help revitalise the subject.     

King Pym and his ‘Happy,Scrappy Jester’

The Reign of King Pym took mid 17th‐century studies in a new direction when it was published in 1941. Anglo‐American collaboration in the field in the 1920s and 1930s had been rooted in making available in print to a scholarly readership one of the private diaries of the Long Parliament. J.H. Hexter's book, produced at a time when Anglo‐American collaboration was temporarily on hold under pressure of global war, changed the direction of academic discourse by its format (monograph), content (a detailed study of a brief period in a unique parliament) and tone (brash and unrestrained by the idiom of the academy). The book scoped out the power of John Pym, but also its limitations, and introduced to scholarly debate a categorisation of political groupings in 1642–3 that held sway for 40 years. The first direct attacks on Hexter's work, beginning in the 1980s, were weakened by overstatement. In the forthcoming History of Parliament volumes, Pym's signal importance is reasserted, but Hexter's concept of the ‘middle group’ is found to be untenable.     

Parties in Parliament in the 18th Century: The Demolition of Robert Walcott and its Consequences*

The failure of Robert Walcott's attempted ‘Namierisation’ of Queen Anne's house of commons in the 1950s is now an accepted historiographical fact. Scholars working on late Stuart politics inevitably dismiss Walcott's work as misguided and misleading, and instead take as a given the existence of a two‐party structure as delineated by the standard authority on the subject, Geoffrey Holmes. This article returns to the controversy over ‘party’ in the 1960s, which reached a climax in 1967 with the publication of Holmes's magnum opus and J.H. Plumb's Ford Lectures. The purpose is not to revisit the debate, which was decided conclusively at the time, but to explore the context in which Walcott and his critics were writing; more specifically the connection between Walcott's work and the approach to 18th‐century political history pioneered by Sir Lewis Namier. Using private correspondence between the principals, it argues that Walcott did not properly follow Namier's methods, and was identified as a Namierite largely because Namier was unwilling, for personal reasons, to disown him. In the long run, this reluctance proved damaging, accelerating the decline in Namier's reputation in the 1960s and the shift towards different forms of political history.