The Kingdom of Rye: A Brief History of Russian Food by Darra Goldstein

IF 0.3 4区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY
S. Wegren
{"title":"The Kingdom of Rye: A Brief History of Russian Food by Darra Goldstein","authors":"S. Wegren","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01884","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"principles and the sharp divisions between factions, classes, and interest groups about fact to achieve unity, curtail factions, and define ranks; about who constituted the “all” who should share in offices; about which council or which definition of the people was the “supreme prince”; and about how taxes were to be assessed and what was to be taxed. The principles no doubt rested on what Shaw calls the “core values”—justice, equality, and equity—of republican governance (4), but this fact did not prevent divergent interpretations by different social constituencies. Shaw’s subtle and discerning treatment thus merges close scrutiny of the shared idiom of republicanism with the effects on it of competing, even antagonistic, sociopolitical interests. Shaw also casts new light on Italy’s principalities. Because, she says, the “legitimacy of princely rule” was “equivocal” and not self-generated, it almost always depended either on approval by subjects (however expressed ormanufactured) or on investiture by popes or emperors. Inheritance as a buttress of legitimacy was “complicated by limited acceptance of primogeniture”—noble families often seeing themselves as “equals, rivals, even superiors” to a prince’s family—and by subject cities with their own “histories of self-government” that required princes “to come to terms” with local communities (176–177). Princely regimes lacked a “concept of the crown” as distinct “from the person of the prince,” whereas in republics the “palace” metonymically distinguished the state from the party in power (216). Principalities borrowed republican principles of legitimacy, especially approval by subjects, to bolster their ambiguous status. Shaw further demonstrates the persistence into the sixteenth century of republican values in resistance to princely rule and, after Charles Habsburg became emperor, to imperial pretensions to supreme power over all states within the old boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire. Republics frequently rejected imperial attempts to station garrisons, build fortresses, and demand complete obedience and onerous subventions (276–290). Even after the loss of independence, therefore, deeply rooted republican principles protected long-standing liberties. This original and penetrating study illuminates promising new paths for the history of political ideas.","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":"53 1","pages":"532-534"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2022-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01884","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

principles and the sharp divisions between factions, classes, and interest groups about fact to achieve unity, curtail factions, and define ranks; about who constituted the “all” who should share in offices; about which council or which definition of the people was the “supreme prince”; and about how taxes were to be assessed and what was to be taxed. The principles no doubt rested on what Shaw calls the “core values”—justice, equality, and equity—of republican governance (4), but this fact did not prevent divergent interpretations by different social constituencies. Shaw’s subtle and discerning treatment thus merges close scrutiny of the shared idiom of republicanism with the effects on it of competing, even antagonistic, sociopolitical interests. Shaw also casts new light on Italy’s principalities. Because, she says, the “legitimacy of princely rule” was “equivocal” and not self-generated, it almost always depended either on approval by subjects (however expressed ormanufactured) or on investiture by popes or emperors. Inheritance as a buttress of legitimacy was “complicated by limited acceptance of primogeniture”—noble families often seeing themselves as “equals, rivals, even superiors” to a prince’s family—and by subject cities with their own “histories of self-government” that required princes “to come to terms” with local communities (176–177). Princely regimes lacked a “concept of the crown” as distinct “from the person of the prince,” whereas in republics the “palace” metonymically distinguished the state from the party in power (216). Principalities borrowed republican principles of legitimacy, especially approval by subjects, to bolster their ambiguous status. Shaw further demonstrates the persistence into the sixteenth century of republican values in resistance to princely rule and, after Charles Habsburg became emperor, to imperial pretensions to supreme power over all states within the old boundaries of the Holy Roman Empire. Republics frequently rejected imperial attempts to station garrisons, build fortresses, and demand complete obedience and onerous subventions (276–290). Even after the loss of independence, therefore, deeply rooted republican principles protected long-standing liberties. This original and penetrating study illuminates promising new paths for the history of political ideas.
《黑麦王国:俄罗斯食品简史》,Darra Goldstein著
原则以及派系、阶级和利益集团之间关于事实的尖锐分歧,以实现团结、减少派系和确定等级;关于谁构成了应该共享办公室的“所有人”;关于哪个委员会或对人民的定义是“最高王子”;以及关于如何评估税收以及应该对什么征税。毫无疑问,这些原则建立在肖所说的共和党治理的“核心价值观”——正义、平等和公平之上(4),但这一事实并没有阻止不同社会群体的不同解释。因此,肖微妙而敏锐的处理方式将对共和主义这一共同习语的仔细审视与竞争甚至对立的社会政治利益对其的影响融合在一起。肖还对意大利的公国进行了新的考察。她说,因为“王子统治的合法性”是“模棱两可的”,而不是自己产生的,所以它几乎总是取决于臣民的批准(无论表达或制作如何)或教皇或皇帝的授权。作为合法性支柱的继承“因对长子继承权的有限接受而变得复杂”——贵族家庭通常将自己视为王子家族的“平等者、竞争对手甚至上级”——以及拥有自己“自治历史”的城市,这些城市要求王子“接受”当地社区(176-177)。王子政体缺乏一个区别于“王子之人”的“王冠概念”,而在共和政体中,“宫殿”在转喻上将国家与执政党区分开来(216)。公国借用了共和国的合法性原则,特别是受试者的认可,以巩固其模糊的地位。肖进一步证明了共和价值观在16世纪的坚持,即反抗王子统治,以及在查尔斯·哈布斯堡成为皇帝后,反抗帝国对神圣罗马帝国旧边界内所有国家的最高权力。共和国经常拒绝帝国驻扎驻军、建造堡垒、要求完全服从和繁重的补助金的企图(276-290)。因此,即使在失去独立之后,根深蒂固的共和原则也保护着长期的自由。这项新颖而深入的研究为政治思想史开辟了一条充满希望的新道路。
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
0.60
自引率
20.00%
发文量
68
期刊介绍: The Journal of Interdisciplinary History features substantive articles, research notes, review essays, and book reviews relating historical research and work in applied fields-such as economics and demographics. Spanning all geographical areas and periods of history, topics include: - social history - demographic history - psychohistory - political history - family history - economic history - cultural history - technological history
×
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