A Great American Scholar of the Royal Navy? The Disputed Legacy of Arthur Marder Revisited

This article examines the scholarly reputation of the late Professor Arthur J. Marder. Once universally acclaimed as the doyen of historians of the Royal Navy in the First World War era, in recent times his work has come in for sustained criticism from a small group of revisionist historians, who not only dispute his conclusions, but argue that his entire methodology and approach were fundamentally flawed. This article assesses the specific charges of inadequate scholarship levelled against Marder by these revisionist historians and concludes that, while aspects of Marder's analysis may well be open to dispute, there are no grounds for attacking his scholarly integrity. On the contrary, he thoroughly deserves his reputation as a pioneering and painstaking scholar.     

Blurred images: Indro Montanelli’s anti-politics

Through a close reading of Indro Montanelli’s 1944/1945 novel Here They Do Not Rest, this article argues that the famous and popular Italian journalist Montanelli contributed significantly to a particular Italian form of ‘anti-politics’ after the fall of fascism. It argues that anti-politics in Italy provides the foundation for the county’s right-wing populism and that it makes a significant contribution to political and historiographical revisionism of the fascist past. Indro Montanelli is read as an important architect of this revisionism and as such read against his popular image.     

1866: why the Russian bomb did not explode

The fall of the Berlin Wall has provided access to archives in Central and Eastern Europe and especially in Russia; new theses may be written as long as they remain open and they often show that our conceptions of international relations during the nineteenth century are outdated and mistaken. This contribution takes as a starting point the events of 1866 that we can consider to be a major turning point in nineteenth century Europe: the end of a relative and concerted balance of powers in central Europe, the first step towards the creation of a unitary German State. The article uses them here to question Russian foreign policy during a transitional decade of its history, through an analysis of the figure and missions of Minister Aleksandr Gorchakov. In order to do this, the article relies on completely new and varied material in four languages: diplomatic archives, personal archives, and a meticulous study of the press. The conclusions reached have been hitherto unseen and they put into question what was thought to be known regarding Russia's political line after the Crimean War. Now it is no longer possible to consider that Russian policy in Europe has been passive, conservative, and pro-German.     

毛泽东理论问题指示平议

1974年毛泽东关于无产阶级专政理论问题的指示,是其“反修防变”理论与实践的继续和发展。毛泽东指出,中国还存在着变修正主义、复辟资本主义的危险性,这种忧虑是有历史和现实根据的,是富有远见的。他力图从社会主义经济基础和社会制度本身寻找产生这种危险性的原因,其方法科学,思考深刻。但由于对马克思、列宁的论述有误解,其分析和结论存在着片面性和差错。在理论指示中,毛泽东还强调要防止在工人阶级中、机关干部中和党员中发生资产阶级生活作风问题,产生资产阶级分子,其正确性已经被国内和国际的实践证明。在1975年宣传贯彻理论指示的过程中,邓小平同“四人帮”进行了针锋相对的斗争。他指出限制资产阶级法权要有个物质基础,对毛泽东关于限制资产阶级法权思想存在的根本不足作了弥补;他致力于运用理论指示解决反对资产阶级派性、反对无政府主义、反对资产阶级生活作风和思想作风等问题,以实现安定团结和把国民经济搞上去。邓小平的积极引导,可说是对毛泽东的理论指示的一次实践检验。党的第三代领导集体提出“拒腐防变”的历史性课题,是在新的历史条件下对毛泽东“反修防变”理论的批判继承和积极发展。     

毛泽东晚年对"三大主义"的认识偏差与"文化大革命"的发动

极力主张在中国消灭资本主义、避免资本主义复辟以及反对和防止修正主义并力求实现"一大二公三纯"的社会主义,是毛泽东晚年基于对社会主义、资本主义、修正主义"三大主义"严重认识偏差所致力追求的目标,而这些认识的偏差和这个目标的追求,正是他发动"文化大革命"的重要原因之一.研究这个问题,对于我们今天搞清什么是社会主义、资本主义和修正主义,具有重要的理论和现实意义.     

Defenders of the state: the Irish Labour Party,coalitionism and revisionism, 1969–77

Irish Labour Party politics underwent a significant transformation during the period 1969–77. During these years, the party moved from a position of opposition to coalition and apparent support for socialist politics to involvement in a coalition government with Fine Gael and an abandonment of its previously stated goal, the thirty-two-county socialist republic. This paper locates the main factor behind this shift in Labour’s attachment to the institutions of the Republic of Ireland state. As that state was threatened by the crisis in Northern Ireland from 1969 onwards, so the Labour Party was compelled to shift ground politically and move towards agencies that could offer stability. This led to permanent shifts in Labour policy and strategy.     

墨西哥革命:从官方史学到修正派史学

墨西哥革命史学思潮的发展趋势与革命后墨西哥经济、政治、思想和学术潮流的变化密不可分。革命期间到20世纪30年代,各革命派系皆站在自身的立场上评价墨西哥革命;30年代后,为了促进国家的统一,在墨西哥政府和执政党的直接倡导和参与下,创立了墨西哥革命的官方史学;四五十年代后,特别是1968年特拉特洛尔科事件后,随着墨西哥经济增长和政治稳定奇迹的终结,以及国内历史学科的发展和国际学术交流的影响,产生了修正派史学。然而,80年代以后,修正派史学在某些方面也受到一定的质疑。     

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.     

‘Divided Within Itself’: The Parliamentary Labour ‘Right’ and the Demise of Post‐War Revisionist Social Democracy in the 1970s

The article seeks to identify a neglected dimension of the ‘crisis’ and schism of British social democracy in the 1970s from within the ranks of the parliamentary Labour ‘right’ itself. Accounts of the so‐called ‘Labour right’ and its influential revisionist social democratic tradition have emphasized its generic cohesion and uniformity over contextual analysis of its inherent intellectual, ideological and political range and diversity. The article seeks to evaluate differential responses of Labour's ‘right‐wing’ and revisionist tendency as its loosely cohesive framework of Keynesian social democracy imploded in the 1970s, as a means of demonstrating its relative incoherence and fragmentation. The ‘crisis of social democracy’ revealed much more starkly its complex, heterogeneous character, irremediably ‘divided within itself’ over a range of critical political and policy themes and the basis of social democratic political philosophy itself. The article argues that it was its own wider political fragmentation and ideological introspection in the face of the ‘crisis’ of its historic ‘belief system’ which led to the fracture of Labour's ‘dominant coalition’ and the rupture of British social democracy.     

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.