{"title":"超越王权的阳刚之气:第二个千年早期斯里兰卡现代王后的形成","authors":"Bruno M. Shirley","doi":"10.1017/s0026749x23000513","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Modern historians have repeatedly cast Sri Lanka’s historical female monarchs as ‘queens’, without critically reflecting on the conceptual limits and nuances of that term. Through a close examination of sources from the early second millennium, and their reception by scholars from the colonial period onwards, I demonstrate that Sri Lanka’s female monarchs—particularly Līlāvatī of Poḷonnaruva (r. 1197–1200, 1209, and 1210)—engaged in a more creative and subversive performance of gender than modern ‘queenship’ allows. In particular, I argue, a discourse of kingship’s inherent masculinity, advanced in literary and didactic texts written primarily by male monastics, was too-willingly accepted by colonial-period scholars. Closer attention to the material evidence of Līlāvatī’s reign, however, challenges this discourse and further suggests a politics of gender beyond the binary.","PeriodicalId":51574,"journal":{"name":"Modern Asian Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":1.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Beyond the masculinity of kingship: The making of a modern queen in early second millennium Sri Lanka\",\"authors\":\"Bruno M. Shirley\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0026749x23000513\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Modern historians have repeatedly cast Sri Lanka’s historical female monarchs as ‘queens’, without critically reflecting on the conceptual limits and nuances of that term. Through a close examination of sources from the early second millennium, and their reception by scholars from the colonial period onwards, I demonstrate that Sri Lanka’s female monarchs—particularly Līlāvatī of Poḷonnaruva (r. 1197–1200, 1209, and 1210)—engaged in a more creative and subversive performance of gender than modern ‘queenship’ allows. In particular, I argue, a discourse of kingship’s inherent masculinity, advanced in literary and didactic texts written primarily by male monastics, was too-willingly accepted by colonial-period scholars. Closer attention to the material evidence of Līlāvatī’s reign, however, challenges this discourse and further suggests a politics of gender beyond the binary.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51574,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Modern Asian Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Modern Asian Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0026749x23000513\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AREA STUDIES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Modern Asian Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0026749x23000513","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AREA STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0
摘要
现代历史学家一再将斯里兰卡历史上的女性君主称为 "女王",却没有批判性地反思这一术语的概念局限和细微差别。通过仔细研究第二个千年早期的资料以及殖民时期以来学者们对这些资料的接受情况,我证明了斯里兰卡的女君主--尤其是波ḷonnaruva的莉拉瓦蒂(Līlāvatī of Poḷonnaruva,1197-1200 年、1209 年和 1210 年在位)--比现代 "女王 "身份所允许的更具创造性和颠覆性的性别表现。我尤其认为,殖民时期的学者们过于心甘情愿地接受了主要由男性修道士撰写的文学和说教文本中关于王权固有的男子气概的论述。然而,仔细研究利拉瓦蒂统治时期的物质证据,就会对这一论述提出挑战,并进一步提出一种超越二元对立的性别政治。
Beyond the masculinity of kingship: The making of a modern queen in early second millennium Sri Lanka
Modern historians have repeatedly cast Sri Lanka’s historical female monarchs as ‘queens’, without critically reflecting on the conceptual limits and nuances of that term. Through a close examination of sources from the early second millennium, and their reception by scholars from the colonial period onwards, I demonstrate that Sri Lanka’s female monarchs—particularly Līlāvatī of Poḷonnaruva (r. 1197–1200, 1209, and 1210)—engaged in a more creative and subversive performance of gender than modern ‘queenship’ allows. In particular, I argue, a discourse of kingship’s inherent masculinity, advanced in literary and didactic texts written primarily by male monastics, was too-willingly accepted by colonial-period scholars. Closer attention to the material evidence of Līlāvatī’s reign, however, challenges this discourse and further suggests a politics of gender beyond the binary.
期刊介绍:
Modern Asian Studies promotes original, innovative and rigorous research on the history, sociology, economics and culture of modern Asia. Covering South Asia, South-East Asia, China, Japan and Korea, the journal is published in six parts each year. It welcomes articles which deploy inter-disciplinary and comparative research methods. Modern Asian Studies specialises in the publication of longer monographic essays based on path-breaking new research; it also carries substantial synoptic essays which illuminate the state of the broad field in fresh ways. It contains a book review section which offers detailed analysis of important new publications in the field.