早期罗马帝国历史中的社会边界与社会政治范畴

Fábio Faversani
{"title":"早期罗马帝国历史中的社会边界与社会政治范畴","authors":"Fábio Faversani","doi":"10.17648/ROM.V0I11.21822","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article discusses different historiographical approaches that dominated the studies on early imperial Roman history during the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. In order to do this, it focuses on two historiographic controversies: in the first place, the modernist-primitivist debate concerning economic history; in the second place, the debate about the constitutionalist approach to Roman politics, and the criticism it attracted. We conclude that historians have paid great attention to the elements that characterize the different spheres of social life, and to the reasons why scholars ought to favour one of them - especially whether to consider more structural or more dynamic aspects of social life. Our article considers the challenges in surveying the elements that integrate and separate these different spheres, i.e. the frontiers, suggesting possible approaches to overcome these limits, mainly by paying attention to their boundaries and connections.","PeriodicalId":446189,"journal":{"name":"Romanitas - Revista de Estudos Grecolatinos","volume":"22 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Social boundaries and social-political categories in Early Imperial Roman History\",\"authors\":\"Fábio Faversani\",\"doi\":\"10.17648/ROM.V0I11.21822\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article discusses different historiographical approaches that dominated the studies on early imperial Roman history during the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. In order to do this, it focuses on two historiographic controversies: in the first place, the modernist-primitivist debate concerning economic history; in the second place, the debate about the constitutionalist approach to Roman politics, and the criticism it attracted. We conclude that historians have paid great attention to the elements that characterize the different spheres of social life, and to the reasons why scholars ought to favour one of them - especially whether to consider more structural or more dynamic aspects of social life. Our article considers the challenges in surveying the elements that integrate and separate these different spheres, i.e. the frontiers, suggesting possible approaches to overcome these limits, mainly by paying attention to their boundaries and connections.\",\"PeriodicalId\":446189,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Romanitas - Revista de Estudos Grecolatinos\",\"volume\":\"22 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2018-11-04\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Romanitas - Revista de Estudos Grecolatinos\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17648/ROM.V0I11.21822\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Romanitas - Revista de Estudos Grecolatinos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17648/ROM.V0I11.21822","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文讨论了20世纪和21世纪初主导早期罗马帝国历史研究的不同史学方法。为了做到这一点,它将重点放在两个史学争议上:首先,关于经济史的现代主义-原始主义辩论;其次,关于罗马政治的立宪主义方法的争论,以及它所引起的批评。我们得出的结论是,历史学家非常关注社会生活不同领域的特征,以及学者们为什么应该倾向于其中一个领域的原因——特别是是否考虑社会生活中更结构性的方面还是更动态的方面。我们的文章考虑了在调查整合和分离这些不同领域(即边界)的元素时所面临的挑战,并提出了克服这些限制的可能方法,主要是通过关注它们的边界和联系。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Social boundaries and social-political categories in Early Imperial Roman History
This article discusses different historiographical approaches that dominated the studies on early imperial Roman history during the 20th and the beginning of the 21st century. In order to do this, it focuses on two historiographic controversies: in the first place, the modernist-primitivist debate concerning economic history; in the second place, the debate about the constitutionalist approach to Roman politics, and the criticism it attracted. We conclude that historians have paid great attention to the elements that characterize the different spheres of social life, and to the reasons why scholars ought to favour one of them - especially whether to consider more structural or more dynamic aspects of social life. Our article considers the challenges in surveying the elements that integrate and separate these different spheres, i.e. the frontiers, suggesting possible approaches to overcome these limits, mainly by paying attention to their boundaries and connections.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
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