Rethinking International Order in Early Modern Europe: Evidence from Courtly Ceremonial

IF 8.2 1区 社会学 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
Quentin Bruneau
{"title":"Rethinking International Order in Early Modern Europe: Evidence from Courtly Ceremonial","authors":"Quentin Bruneau","doi":"10.1017/s0020818323000188","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Once the object of consensus, every aspect of the traditional account of early modern Europe as an anarchic system of sovereign states is now debated—from the existence of sovereign states to the notion of anarchy, and even the European limits of that system. In the context of these disagreements, I develop a new account of international order in early modern Europe grounded in the perceptions of historical actors. I first argue that this can be achieved by studying the tools that practitioners relied on to describe and organize political authority in the world. I subsequently delve into a common, though seldom-studied, tool developed by a group of practitioners known as masters of ceremonies: courtly ceremonial (or ius praecedentiae ). I make three substantive claims. First, the political authorities identified in manuals on courtly ceremonial were primarily crowns and republics, but in the later eighteenth century, all eventually came to be described as “states.” Second, all political authorities stood in a hierarchy determined by a specific set of criteria I identify, but new criteria—power and sovereignty—emerged over the course of the eighteenth century. Third, the scope of international order was not self-evident, and it certainly did not have clear “European” limits in the eyes of masters of ceremonies; non-European political authorities could easily be integrated into their orders of precedence. Ultimately, I suggest that IR scholars should reconsider why they study early modern Europe and how they study international orders.","PeriodicalId":48388,"journal":{"name":"International Organization","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":8.2000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Organization","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818323000188","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Once the object of consensus, every aspect of the traditional account of early modern Europe as an anarchic system of sovereign states is now debated—from the existence of sovereign states to the notion of anarchy, and even the European limits of that system. In the context of these disagreements, I develop a new account of international order in early modern Europe grounded in the perceptions of historical actors. I first argue that this can be achieved by studying the tools that practitioners relied on to describe and organize political authority in the world. I subsequently delve into a common, though seldom-studied, tool developed by a group of practitioners known as masters of ceremonies: courtly ceremonial (or ius praecedentiae ). I make three substantive claims. First, the political authorities identified in manuals on courtly ceremonial were primarily crowns and republics, but in the later eighteenth century, all eventually came to be described as “states.” Second, all political authorities stood in a hierarchy determined by a specific set of criteria I identify, but new criteria—power and sovereignty—emerged over the course of the eighteenth century. Third, the scope of international order was not self-evident, and it certainly did not have clear “European” limits in the eyes of masters of ceremonies; non-European political authorities could easily be integrated into their orders of precedence. Ultimately, I suggest that IR scholars should reconsider why they study early modern Europe and how they study international orders.
重新思考近代早期欧洲的国际秩序:来自宫廷仪式的证据
关于近代早期欧洲作为一个主权国家的无政府体系的传统说法,曾经是人们达成共识的对象,但现在,从主权国家的存在到无政府状态的概念,甚至是该体系的欧洲范围,都受到了争论。在这些分歧的背景下,我以历史行动者的观点为基础,对近代早期欧洲的国际秩序进行了新的描述。我首先认为,这可以通过研究从业者用来描述和组织世界上的政治权威的工具来实现。随后,我深入研究了一群被称为仪式大师的实践者开发的一种常见但很少被研究的工具:宫廷仪式(或ius preecentiae)。我有三个实质性的主张。首先,宫廷礼仪手册中确定的政治权威主要是王权和共和国,但在18世纪后期,最终都被描述为“国家”。其次,所有的政治权威都是由一套特定的标准决定的,但新的标准——权力和主权——在18世纪出现了。第三,国际秩序的范围并非不言自明,在主持仪式的人看来,它当然没有明确的“欧洲”界限;非欧洲国家的政治权威很容易被纳入它们的优先顺序。最后,我建议国际关系学者应该重新考虑他们为什么要研究早期现代欧洲,以及他们如何研究国际秩序。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
14.50
自引率
1.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: International Organization (IO) is a prominent peer-reviewed journal that comprehensively covers the field of international affairs. Its subject areas encompass foreign policies, international relations, political economy, security policies, environmental disputes, regional integration, alliance patterns, conflict resolution, economic development, and international capital movements. Continuously ranked among the top journals in the field, IO does not publish book reviews but instead features high-quality review essays that survey new developments, synthesize important ideas, and address key issues for future scholarship.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信