|
①Stephen Howe,ed.,The New Imperial Histories Reader,New York:Routledge,2010; Durba Ghosh,"Another Set of Imperial Turn?",The American Historical Review,vol.117,no.3,2012,pp.772-793. ②大多数学者讨论的重点是后帝国时代中的英帝国史研究，比如有David Fieldhouse,"Can Humpty-Dumpty be put together again? Imperial History in the 1980s",The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History,vol.12,no.2,1984,pp.9-23; Athena Syriatou,"National,Imperial,Colonial and the Political:British Imperial Histories and their Descendants",Historein,vol.12,2012,pp.38-67.另见Ronald Hyam,Understanding the British Empire,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2012,pp.473-537. ③比如有J.G.Greenlee,"'A Succession of Seeley':The 'Old School' Re-examined",The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History,vol.3,no.3,1976,pp.266-282; Robin W.Winks,ed.,The Oxford History of the British Empire,Volume V Historiography,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1999,pp.1-42. ④昆丁·史金纳：《政治价值的系谱》，萧高彦译，台北联经出版事业股份有限公司2014年版，第30页。 ⑤昆廷·斯金纳：《言语行动的诠释与理解》，见任军锋译，丁耘编《什么是思想史》，上海人民出版社2006年版，第136-165页 ⑥J.R.Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,London:Macmillan,1883. ⑦J.R.Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,London:Macmillan,1914,p.13. ⑧J R.Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,p.90.有关西利与“世界国家”观念的讨论参见Duncan Bell,The Idea of Greater Britain:Empire and the Future of World Order,1860-1900,Princeton:Princeton University Press,2007,pp.108-113. ⑨J.R.Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,pp.173-186. ⑩J.R.Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,pp.85,96. (11)J.R.Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,p.344.杜尔哥的相关言论参见J R Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,p.44 (12)J.R.Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,pp.3-10,138-142对此时人的评论可参见C.A,"Professor Seeley on English History",The Cambridge Review,vol.5,pp.34-35. (13)James Meadowcroft,Conceptualizing the State:Innovation and Dispute in British Political Thought,1880-1914,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1995,pp.10-24. (14)J.R.Seeley,Introduction to Political Science:Two Series of Lectures,London:Macmillan,1896,pp.182-183. (15)J.R.Seeley,"Roman Imperialism Ⅰ,Ⅱ,Ⅲ",in J.R.Seeley,Lectures and Essays,London:Macmillan,1870,pp.1-88. (16)J.R.Seeley,"Georgian and Victorian Expansion",The Fortnightly Review,vol.48,1887,pp.123-139. (17)J.R.Seeley,"United States of Europe",Macmillan's Magazine,vol.23,1871,pp.436-448; J.R.Seeley,Introduction to Political Science,pp.158-176.相关的讨论参见Duncan Bell,The Idea of Greater Britain,pp.63-91,231-259. (18)Ian Hesketh,"'History is Past Politics,and Politics Present History':Who Said It?",Notes and Queries,vol.61,no.1,2014,pp.105-108.西利的言论见J.R.Seeley,Introduction to Political Science,p.4. (19)西利相关的言论众多，在此不一一举例，可参见J.R.Seeley,"Preface",in Ernst Moritz Arndt,The Life and Adventures of Ernst Moritz Arndt,Boston:Roberts Brothers,1879,Ⅲ-ⅩⅣ; 又如J.R.Seeley,"History and Politics Ⅰ,Ⅱ,Ⅲ",Macmillan's Magazine,vol.40,1879,pp.289-299,369-378,449-458. (20)J.R.Seeley,Life and Times of Stein,or,Germany and Prussia in the Napoleonic Age,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1878; J.R.Seeley,A Short History of Napoleon the First,Boston:Roberts Bros.,1886. (21)关于西利与德国理念论的国家理论的思想关联可参见James Meadowcroft,Conceptualizing the State:Innovation and Dispute in British Political Thought,1880-1914,pp.49-54西利与自由派圣公会的关系可参见Deborah Wormell,Sir John Seeley and the Use of History,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1980,pp.12-18.又见James Kirby,Historians and the Church of England:Religion and Historical Scholarship,1870-1920,Oxford:Oxford University Press,2016,pp.37,63-64,81-85,104,200-203.关于西利对社会达尔文主义国家观念的吸收参见James Meadowcroft,Conceptualizing the State:Innovation and Dispute in British Political Thought,1880-1914,pp.61-69. (22)有关的论述众多，在此不一一举例，可参见J.R.Seeley,"History and Politics Ⅰ",Macmillan's Magazine,vol.40,1879,p.295; J.R.Seeley,Goethe:Reviewed after Sixty Years,London:Seeley and Co.,1894.相关讨论还可见John L.Herkless,"Seeley and Ranke",The Historian,vol.43,no.1,1980,pp.1-22. (23)比如John W.Hales,"Professor Sir John Seeley",The Cambridge Review,vol.16,1895,p.143; Herbert A.L.Fisher,"Sir John Seeley",The Fortnightly Review,vol.66,1896,pp.186-194; Oscar Browning,"Personal Recollection of Sir John Seeley and Lord Acton",The Albany Review,vol.2,1908,p.549. (24)有关西利批评“心不在焉”及岛国心态的讨论较多，如Peter Burroughs,"John Robert Seeley and British Imperial History",The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History,vol.1,no.2,1973,pp.191-211; Deborah Wormell,Sir John Seeley and the Use of History,pp.154-180. (25)参见J.R.Seeley,"The English Revolution of the Nineteenth Century Ⅰ Ⅱ Ⅲ",Macmillan's Magazine,vol.22,1870,pp.241-251,347-258,441-450; J.R.Seeley,"Political Somnambulism",Macmillan's Magazine,vol.43,1881,pp.28-30. (26)J.R.Seeley,Ecce Homo:A Survey of the Life and Work of Jesus Christ,London:Macmillan,1866.相关的讨论参见Daniel Pals,"The Reception of 'Ecce Homo'",Historical Magazine of the Protestant Episcopal Church,vol.46,no.1,1977,pp 63-84; Ian Hesketh,"Behold the(Anonymous)Man:J.R Seeley and the Publishing of Ecce Homo",Victorian Review,vol.38,no.1,2012,pp.93-112. (27)关于视专家为理想读者的讨论参见Ian Hesketh,"Writing History in Macaulay's Shadow:J.R.Seeley,E.A.Freeman,and the Audience for Scientific History in Late Victorian Britain",Journal of the Canadian Historical Association,vol.22,no.2,2011,p.47.时人对于西利文笔的抱怨声较多，比如J.A.Doyle,"Freeman,Froude and Seeley",The Quarterly Review,vol.182,1895,p.304. (28)Leslie Howsam,"Imperial Publishers and the Idea of Colonial History,1870-1916",History of Intellectual Culture,vol.5,no.1,2005,pp.4-6. (29)相关的言论广泛的分布在西利的论著之中，在此不一一举例，可参见比如J.R.Seeley,"History and Politics Ⅰ",pp.290-294; J.R.Seeley,"A History Society",Macmillan's Magazine,vol.45,1881,pp.43-44,46,48. (30)可参见J.R.Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,pp.25,133,159,200,206. (31)Sidney Low,The Organization of Imperial Studies in London,London:British Academy,1912,pp.3-4. (32)参见George Burton Adams,The Origin and the Results of the Imperial Federation Movement in England,Madison:State Historical Society of Wisconsin,1899; Ged Martin,"The Idea of 'Imperial Federation'",in Ronald Hyam,Ged Martin,ed.,Reappraisals in British Imperial History,London:Macmillan,1975,pp.121-137.关于种族差异论的崛起参见Theodore Koditschek,Liberalism,Imperialism,and the Historical Imagination:Nineteenth-Century Visions of a Greater Britain,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,2011,pp.210-233；托马斯·R·梅特卡夫：《英国统治者的意识形态》，李东云译，云南人民出版社2015年版，第64-89页。关于转向帝国的讨论参见珍妮弗·皮茨：《转向帝国：英法帝国自由主义的兴起》，金毅、许鸿艳译，江苏人民出版社2012年版。 (33)Michael Burgess,The British Tradition of Federation,London:Leicester University Press,1995,pp.23-25. (34)J.E.Jenkins,"Imperial Federation",The Contemporary Review,vol.16,1871,pp.165-188. (35)W.E.Forster,Our Colonial Empire,Edinburgh:Edmonston and Douglas,1875; W.E.Forster,"Imperial Federation",The Nineteenth Century,vol.17,1885; Julius Vogel,"Greater or Lesser Britain",The Nineteenth Century,vol.1,1877,pp.809-831; Francis Labilliere,"The Contraction of England,and its Advocates",The National Review,vol.3,1884,pp.467-480. (36)关于帝国议会几种构想的讨论参见Duncan Bell,The Idea of Greater Britain,p.14. (37)Imperial Federation League Report:The First Meeting of the League,London:Cassell & Company,1884,pp.6-19. (38)Michael Burgess,The British Tradition of Federation,pp.61-64. (39)关于西利的回信参见Report of the Conference Held July 29,1884,at the Westminster Palace Hotel,London:Cassell & Company,1884,pp.18-20.关于西利的发言可参见J.R.Seeley,"The Journal of the League",Imperial Federation,vol.1,1886,pp.4-5; J.R Seeley,"The Objects to be gained by the Federation of Empire",Imperial Federation,vol.1,1886,pp.205-206. (40)关于西利在协会中的行迹可见Imperial Federation,vol.2,1887,pp.31,81,84; Imperial Federation,vol.3,1888,pp.56,118；Imperial Federation,vol.5,1890,pp.28,31-32,124.有关于西利在协会剑桥分会中的行迹可参见The Cambridge Review,vol.6,1885,pp.379-380; The Cambridge Review,vol.13,1892,pp.283,312; The Cambridge Review,vol.15,1894,pp.283,299. (41)《英格兰的扩张》在两年内卖掉了80000本，关于这个情况参见A.P.Thornton,The Imperial Idea and Its Enemies,London:Macmillan,1966,p.51. (42)陈志宏：“帝国愿景与历史变迁——维多利亚时代‘更大的不列颠’思想探析”，见洪庆明、陈恒主编《世界历史评论-观念发明与思想形态》，上海人民出版社2015年版，第112-113页。 (43)Duncan Bell,The Idea of Greater Britain,pp.16,265. (44)Michael Burgess,The British Tradition of Federation,pp.68-70. (45)Michael Burgess,The British Tradition of Federation,pp.70-71.圆桌派的情况参见Alex May,"The Round Table and Imperial Federation,1910-17",The Round Table:The Commonwealth Journal of International Affairs,vol.99,no.410,2010,pp.547-556. (46)相关讨论见J.G.C.Greenlee,"Education and Empire Unity,1901-1926",Ph.d Dissertation,McMaster University,1975,pp.12-86. (47)参见Richard Jebb,"Colonial Nationalism",The Empire Review,vol.4,1903,pp.6-15; Richard Jebb,The Britannic Question,London:Longmans,1913,pp.31,203; Richard Haldane,"Education and Imperial Policy",in The Empire and the Century,London:John Murray,1905,pp.160-165; Edmund.B.Sargant,"Federal Tendencies in Education",Proceeding of the Royal Colonial Institute,vol.38,1907,pp.93-118.三人都对帝国联邦的计划提出过质疑吉布在反思帝国联邦的过程中扮演了重要角色，他提出了与之针锋相对的“大不列颠同盟论”(Britannic Alliance)。 (48)Peter Yeandle,Citizenship,Nation,Empire:The Politics of History Teaching in England,1870-1930,Manchester:Manchester University Press,2015,pp.50-64,82-86,112,177-178. (49)参见James Bonwick,"The Writing of Colonial History",Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute,vol.26,1895,pp.270-272; J.E.C.Welldon,"The Imperial Aspects of Education",Proceedings of the Royal Colonial Institute,vol.26,1895,pp.322-339. (50)关于帝国联合会历史学分会的情况可见J.G.C.Greenlee,"Education and Empire Unity,1901-1926",pp.87-133在其帮助下所撰写的英帝国史论著如F.A.Kirkpatrick,Lectures on British Colonization and Empire,London:John Murray,1906; Rev.W.K.Stride,Empire-Builders,London:John Murray,1906.艾格顿为两书撰写了序言。英帝国史教科书参见A.F.Pollard,ed.,The British Empire:Its Past,Its Present,and The Future,London:The League of the Empire,1909 (51)Official Report of the Federal Conference on Education,London:The League of the Empire,1908,pp.105-113 (52)关于皇家殖民协会的作用参见J.G.C.Greenlee,Education and Empire Unity,1901-1926,pp.185-232. (53)参见J.G.Greenlee,"Imperial Studies and the Unity of the Empire",The Journal of Imperial and Commonwealth History,vol.7,no.3,p.326-328.艾格顿是牛津大学拜特殖民史教席首任教授。 (54)相关情况参见"Imperial Studies Lectures",Year Book,London:Royal Colonial Institute,1915,p.51; "Lecture Sub-Committee",Year Book,London:Royal Colonial Institute,1916,p.2. (55)参见C.P.Lucas,"Imperial Studies",United Empire,vol.6,1915,pp.665-668; C.P.Lucas,"On the Teaching of Imperial History",History,vol.1,no.1,1916,pp.5-11; Frederick Pollock,"The League of the Empire",United Empire,vol.6.pp.736-741; Frederick Pollock,"Introduction to the Scheme for Study of Imperial History",The Federal Magazine and "The 'All-Red' Mail",no.96,1915,pp.765-768; A.P.Newton,"The Progress of Imperial Studies",United Empire,vol.7,1916,pp.90-91. (56)比如J.G.Greenlee,"'A Succession of Seeley':The 'Old School' Re-examined",pp.266-282; Mark Lee,"The Story of Greater Britain:What Lessons does it Teach?",National Identites,vol.6,no.2,2004,pp.123-142. (57)可参见C.P.Lucas,Greater Rome and Greater Britain,Oxford:Clarendon Press,1912,pp.10-20,112-155; Hugh E.Egerton,"The Transference of Colonial Power to the United Provinces and England",in A.W.Ward,G.W.Prothero,Stanley Leathes,ed.,The Cambridge Modern History,vol.4,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1906,pp.728-759. (58)可参见如H.E.Egerton,"Introduction to Official Report of the Emigration Conference",United Empire,vol.1,1910,pp.697-701; C.P.Lucas,Greater Rome and Greater Britain,pp.91-111,142.两人对“更大的不列颠”的讨论众多,在此不一一举例。 (59)Hugh E.Egerton,On some Aspects of the Teaching of Imperial History,London:Sifton,Praed & Co.,1911,p.4. (60)两人的保守主义言论众多，比如可参见H.E.Egerton,"A Scarce Book",The National Review,vol.5,1885,pp.444-428; C.P.Lucas,"The Influence of Science on Empire",in F J.C.Hearnshaw,ed.,King's Gollege Lectureon Colonial Problem,London:G.Bell & Sons,1913,p.138. (61)具体讨论见Andrew S.Thompson,"The Language of Imperialism and the Meanings of Empire:Imperial Discourse in British Politics,1895-1914",The Journal of British Studies,vol.36,no.2,1997,pp.147-177. (62)大致可以把他们的态度归结为“反帝国主义的帝国论”，参见Bernard Shaw,ed.,Fabianism and the Empire,London:Grant Richards,1900,pp.1-6,14-16,38-44.相关讨论另可见Andrew S.Thompson,"The Language of Imperialism and the Meanings of Empire:Imperial Discourse in British Politics,1895-1914",p.16. (63)Hugh Edward Egerton,Sir Stamford Raffles,London:T Fisher Unwin,1900.艾格顿撰写的人物小传众多，在此不一一举例，可参见如H.E.Egerton,"Sir Walter Ralegh",United Empire,vol.3,1912,pp.42-44.有关卢卡斯对于个体重要性的说明参见C.P.Lucas,Greater Rome and Greater Britain,p.79. (64)Amanda Behm,"Imperial History in Britain,1880-1940:Past,Politics and the Making of Filed",Ph.d Dissertation,Yale University,2012,pp.125-153. (65)H.E.Egerton,The War and the British Dominions,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1914,pp.3-23; H.E.Egerton,Is the British Empire the Result of Wholesale Robbery,Oxford:Oxford University Press,1914,pp.3-28; C.P.Lucas,"Empire and Democracy",in A.P.Newton,ed.,The Empire and the Future,London:Macmillan,1916,pp.10-28. (66)相关言论众多，在此不一一举例，如H.E.Egerton,A Short History of British Colonial Policy,London:Methuen & Co.,1905,pp.281-357; C.P.Lucas,Greater Rome and Greater Britain,pp.21-31. (67)Hugh E.Egerton,On some Aspects of the Teaching of Imperial History,London:Sifton,Praed & Co.,1911,pp.5-7. (68)如C.P.Lucas,"The Influence of Science on Empire",in F.J.C.Hearnshaw,ed.,King's College Lecture on Colonial Problem,London:G.Bell & Sons,1913,pp.109-139. (69)H.E.Egerton,"Preface",in H.E.Egerton,A Short History of British Colonial Policy,Ⅸ.另可参见H.E.Egerton,A Short History of British Colonial Policy,pp.510-511. (70)C.P.Lucas,Greater Rome and Greater Britain,p.178. (71)H.E.Egerton,A Short History of British Colonial Policy,p.476. (72)相关讨论参见Stefan Collini,Donald Winch,John Burrow,That Noble Science of Politics:A Study in Nineteenth-Century Intellectual History,Cambridge:Cambridge University Press,1987,p.227. (73)J.R.Seeley,The Expansion of England:Two Courses of Lectures,p.102. (74)Mark Lee,"The Story of Greater Britain:What Lessons does it Teach?",p.127. (75)约翰·达尔文：《未竟的帝国：英国的全球扩张》，黄中宪译，台北麦田出版社2015年版，第404页。 (76)借用海登·怀特的术语，参见海登·怀特《元史学：十九世纪欧洲的历史想象》，陈新译，译林出版社2004年版，第38页。 (77)David Armitage,"Greater Britain:A Useful Category of Historical Analysis?",The American Historical Review,vol.104,no.2,1999,pp.431,444.关于波考克的“新英国史”参见J.G.A.Pocock,"British History:A Plea for a New Subject",The Journal of Modern History,vol.47,no.4,1975,pp.601-621. （原文刊于《史学史研究》2017年第2期） (责任编辑：admin) |