"贵族登基"

Q2 Arts and Humanities
Kadmos Pub Date : 2017-01-01 DOI:10.32859/kadmos/9/105-155
Avtandil Jokhadze
{"title":"\"贵族登基\"","authors":"Avtandil Jokhadze","doi":"10.32859/kadmos/9/105-155","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This paper is an attempt to clarify the typological essence of the Georgian state at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries. Ivane Javakhishvili believed that it was appropriate to describe the Georgian state of those times as a limited monarchy. Others (Professors S. Meskhia, I. Antelava, ...) did not share this opinion. They argued that autocracy was better matched to the kingdom of Queen Tamar's times. Primary sources and the analysis of scholars’ opinions have convinced us that Javakhishvili was right, although the system of power of any country cannot be fully placed within the frames of a specific stereotype of classification. The Georgian state of Queen Tamar's times can be classified as a limited monarchy, oligarchy, or timocracy, the choice depending on the emphasis placed. Despite the conflicts that took place in Georgian society at that time, Queen Tamar managed to direct all political forces into one millrace and achieve accord (unanimity) between elite groups. Her domestic policy can be assessed as an “act of sovereignty” of noblemen, members of landed gentry, clergymen, merchants, and craftsmen. “What, then, strictly speaking, is an act of Sovereignty? It is not a convention between a superior and an inferior, but a convention between the body and each of its members. It is legitimate, because [it is] based on the social contract, and equitable, because [it is] common to all; useful, because it can have no other object than the general good” (Rousseau 2017, 24).","PeriodicalId":38825,"journal":{"name":"Kadmos","volume":"8 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2017-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"“Noblemen became enthroned”\",\"authors\":\"Avtandil Jokhadze\",\"doi\":\"10.32859/kadmos/9/105-155\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This paper is an attempt to clarify the typological essence of the Georgian state at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries. Ivane Javakhishvili believed that it was appropriate to describe the Georgian state of those times as a limited monarchy. Others (Professors S. Meskhia, I. Antelava, ...) did not share this opinion. They argued that autocracy was better matched to the kingdom of Queen Tamar's times. Primary sources and the analysis of scholars’ opinions have convinced us that Javakhishvili was right, although the system of power of any country cannot be fully placed within the frames of a specific stereotype of classification. The Georgian state of Queen Tamar's times can be classified as a limited monarchy, oligarchy, or timocracy, the choice depending on the emphasis placed. Despite the conflicts that took place in Georgian society at that time, Queen Tamar managed to direct all political forces into one millrace and achieve accord (unanimity) between elite groups. Her domestic policy can be assessed as an “act of sovereignty” of noblemen, members of landed gentry, clergymen, merchants, and craftsmen. “What, then, strictly speaking, is an act of Sovereignty? It is not a convention between a superior and an inferior, but a convention between the body and each of its members. It is legitimate, because [it is] based on the social contract, and equitable, because [it is] common to all; useful, because it can have no other object than the general good” (Rousseau 2017, 24).\",\"PeriodicalId\":38825,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Kadmos\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2017-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Kadmos\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.32859/kadmos/9/105-155\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"Arts and Humanities\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Kadmos","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.32859/kadmos/9/105-155","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Arts and Humanities","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本文试图阐明12、13世纪之交格鲁吉亚国家的类型学本质。伊万·贾瓦希什维利认为,将当时的格鲁吉亚国家描述为一个有限的君主制国家是恰当的。其他人(S. Meskhia教授,I. Antelava教授,…)不同意这种观点。他们认为专制制度更适合他玛女王时代的王国。第一手资料和对学者意见的分析使我们相信,Javakhishvili是正确的,尽管任何国家的权力体系都不能完全置于特定刻板印象的分类框架内。塔玛尔女王时代的格鲁吉亚国家可以被归类为有限君主制、寡头制或专制制,选择取决于所强调的重点。尽管当时格鲁吉亚社会发生了冲突,但塔玛尔女王设法将所有政治力量集中到一个millrace中,并在精英群体之间达成了一致。她的国内政策可以被评价为贵族、地主、神职人员、商人和工匠的“主权行为”。“那么,严格说来,什么是主权行为呢?它不是一个上级和下级之间的约定,而是一个整体和它的每一个成员之间的约定。它是合法的,因为它建立在社会契约的基础上;它是公平的,因为它对所有人来说都是共同的;它是有用的,因为它除了普遍利益之外没有其他目标”(卢梭2017,24)。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
“Noblemen became enthroned”
This paper is an attempt to clarify the typological essence of the Georgian state at the turn of the 12th and 13th centuries. Ivane Javakhishvili believed that it was appropriate to describe the Georgian state of those times as a limited monarchy. Others (Professors S. Meskhia, I. Antelava, ...) did not share this opinion. They argued that autocracy was better matched to the kingdom of Queen Tamar's times. Primary sources and the analysis of scholars’ opinions have convinced us that Javakhishvili was right, although the system of power of any country cannot be fully placed within the frames of a specific stereotype of classification. The Georgian state of Queen Tamar's times can be classified as a limited monarchy, oligarchy, or timocracy, the choice depending on the emphasis placed. Despite the conflicts that took place in Georgian society at that time, Queen Tamar managed to direct all political forces into one millrace and achieve accord (unanimity) between elite groups. Her domestic policy can be assessed as an “act of sovereignty” of noblemen, members of landed gentry, clergymen, merchants, and craftsmen. “What, then, strictly speaking, is an act of Sovereignty? It is not a convention between a superior and an inferior, but a convention between the body and each of its members. It is legitimate, because [it is] based on the social contract, and equitable, because [it is] common to all; useful, because it can have no other object than the general good” (Rousseau 2017, 24).
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
Kadmos
Kadmos Arts and Humanities-Classics
CiteScore
0.40
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