鄂、西鄂、东鄂辨证——兼论湖北称鄂之由来

基于考古资料并结合前人研究成果,梳理了乡宁之鄂、沁阳之鄂、随州之鄂、南阳之鄂的地望变迁。西周早期为南控南淮夷、荆蛮,周封鄂于今随州。周夷王时,将鄂迁徙到今河南南阳市宛城区新店乡西鄂故城一带,周代南土防线亦随之收缩。约在春秋早期楚将南阳盆地纳入政治版图之时鄂国已消亡。战国中期前后,西鄂为楚封鄂君之地。垂沙之役后,鄂君东迁大冶鄂王城,始有东鄂。秦及汉初于东鄂故地设鄂县,其后又在南阳鄂国故地设县,因江夏先有鄂县,故称南阳之鄂为西鄂。湖北简称鄂与西周时期随州鄂国或南阳西鄂并无直接关系,而是与行政区划变迁及武昌九省通衢的地位日渐重要有关。武昌有“鄂”之别称,是湖北省简称鄂的直接原因。     

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.     

A Usable Past: History and the Politics of National Identity in Late Victorian England

For the past two decades, issues of English national identity have provided a fertile field for historical investigation. In the late Victorian era, the development of professional standards of scholarship within the academy gave a new dimension to historical debates. The bitter quarrels about appropriate research techniques from the 1860s to the 1890s, among James Anthony Froude, Edward Freeman and John Horace Round, acted as a proxy for the vision of national identity that each historian espoused. After 1870, the development of a national narrative focused on constitutional history as its primary vehicle. The battle over historical reconstruction represented a surrogate for divergent views about political values and national identity. What sometimes seemed frivolous scholarly skirmishes, therefore, had a much greater political importance. As a result, the long feud had greater importance than the eccentric personalities of the participants appeared to indicate. For Froude, the Tudor age of discovery and religious reformation represented the best of English character. For Freeman, a strong Gladstonian Liberal, consensus and continuity over many centuries defined English history best. John Horace Round, a Conservative stalwart, thought that Freeman had slanted his historical conclusions to validate his Liberal politics and reinterpreted the Norman conquest to express his own political beliefs. Thus the quibbles about shield walls and other issues provided a terrain for the real cause of antagonism: different views of national identity that history furnished. Each historian constructed a usable past in order to justify contemporary discussions of national identity.     

马科斯独裁下的菲律宾土地改革（1972—1986）

菲律宾农村土地分配的不公正状况在马科斯统治初期依然严峻,土地问题的急剧升级加剧了政体的演变,但军管法下的土改并没有使农民的生活状况得到明显改善。马科斯政府虽然与“旧寡头政治执政者们”逐步脱离,但和军人集团、政策制定者及商业权贵结合,实行“亲朋资本主义”政治,继续忽视农民的利益,农村基层组织也为地主势力所把持。制度创新的滞后严重阻碍了菲律宾农村土地改革和农村发展。     

E. H. Carr,Norman Angell,and Reassessing the Realist–Utopian Debate

While the realist argument presented by E. H. Carr in The Twenty Years’ Crisis has received much attention from scholars, recent scholarship has suggested that traditional interpretations of the work and the debate in which it figured have not accurately reflected the inter-war discourse. In this article, the author provides detail to support these claims through an examination of Carr's landmark work in comparison with prominent ‘utopian’ counterparts, primarily Norman Angell but also others such as Leonard Woolf and Arnold Toynbee. The conclusion of this article calls for increased emphasis on the works of internationalist writers of the inter-war period. It also echoes other scholars in calling for renewed focus on early twentieth-century internationalist thought and a critical reappraisal of Carr's landmark work through the prism of his policy recommendations and the critique he received during the original ‘great debate’.     

British School Atlases, 1880–1930: Questions of Relevance,Credibility and Authorship in the Production of Geographical Knowledge

Abstract

The focus in this article is on school atlases produced in Britain in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries and on what is revealed, both in their pages and in the processes behind their compilation, about the people who were producing and using such map books. The Bartholomew Archive, in Edinburgh, has proved to be an exceptionally rich source of hitherto unexamined data on the business and personal activities of one of the leading producers of school atlases, the local firm of John Bartholomew and Son, which was active in map making and publishing between 1880 and 1987. The sociology and pattern of communication of publishing, explored by book historians and historians of science, geography and cartography in other contexts, are here considered in relation to the atlases that were produced in Britain for schools in the United Kingdom and in other parts of the Empire in the period 1880–1930. Particular attention is paid to the efforts of mapmakers, publishers, geographers and other professionals to ensure the relevance of the maps selected in school atlases for specific audiences, to guarantee the credibility of the information communicated through these atlases, and to negotiate questions of authorship.     

The role of ‘diplomatic lobbying’ in shaping US foreign policy and its effects on the Australia–US relationship

Lobbying as a form of engagement with the US Congress has long been studied from a domestic perspective. Lobbying, however, is not a practice confined to actors with domestic interests—it is also used as a form of diplomacy by many foreign governments, including Australia. Diplomatic lobbying is a vastly understudied phenomenon and its impact on US foreign relations is rarely examined. Unlike most Westminster-based democracies, the USA has two branches directly involved with foreign affairs—the Executive and Congress—each of which is important for different aspects of foreign policy development. Australia has found lobbying the US Congress to be a powerful tool for diplomatic engagement. This article looks at the role of the US Congress in foreign affairs, the effects of lobbying, and the ways in which diplomats engage with and lobby Congress. Australia’s specific lobbying efforts and their effects on the US–Australia relationship are then examined.