An English Tradition? The History and Significance of Fair Play by Jonathan Duke-Evans

IF 0.3 4区 历史学 Q2 HISTORY Journal of Interdisciplinary History Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1162/jinh_r_01987
Peter Stansky
{"title":"<i>An English Tradition? The History and Significance of Fair Play</i> by Jonathan Duke-Evans","authors":"Peter Stansky","doi":"10.1162/jinh_r_01987","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This is an extraordinary book with a wide-ranging exploration of the concept of fair play in Britain going back to the eighth century and Beowulf. It also perceptively considers the role of ancient Greece and Rome in forming the idea of fair play. There is a rich discussion of the idea in works by authors such as William Shakespeare, Edmund Spenser, Philip Sidney, Walter Scott, and others.The very title of the book, however, raises a problem. Although there are perceptive discussions of fair play in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and extensive consideration of the use of the term in England, most of the text considers Britain as a whole. Perhaps the book would have been more accurately entitled A British Tradition? The answer is eventually yes, as the idea has been much more emphasized in Britain than elsewhere in the world. This is made plain in brief discussions of the concept in France, Germany, Spain, and Japan, with some references to other nations.One has the feeling that the author has tracked down, although it cannot quite be true, every reference to fair play in British texts. And he is richly aware of the powerful ambiguities of the concept as it played out in Britain. Fair play would claim to be an idea that is uniformly applied. There is an effective discussion of its role in English law in connection to Magna Carta. A jury of one’s peers, the assumption of innocence, and various other stipulations are designed to assure a fair trial. Nonetheless, it is somewhat hard to square these assurances of fairness with the historical brutality of British law enforcement. Were individuals of all classes treated the same? It was very likely that someone from the working class accused of a minor theft might be hanged.The British have often been accused of hypocrisy in their claim of fair play, a topic Duke-Evans does not discuss. He argues powerfully and effectively that the British assert their commitment to fair play with the implication that it is more true in Britain than elsewhere. But one cannot help but consider whether this assertion might be something of a cover-up for just the opposite, obscuring the reality that individuals are treated quite differently depending on their social status. For example, the right to be tried by one’s peers means that if a member of the House of Lords is accused of a crime, the person is to be tried by the House of Lords itself!The idea of fair play is most firmly associated in more modern times with sport, most notably with cricket, but also in tennis, boxing, and football. Cricket has provided the most common expression for the concept; “It’s not cricket” is a universal statement signifying a violation of fair play. And yet, until recently, cricket has been the most class conscious of British sports, with a stark division that could potentially undercut fair play. Duke-Evans discusses these paradoxes but does not consider their possible ironies and contradictions. Might it be a violation of fair play that, in the world of cricket, there was a clear distinction between the gentlemen, who were unpaid “amateurs,” and the paid professionals? Although the author suggests that class lines were more flexible in Britain than elsewhere, and the hierarchies could be scaled by the talented, it was not a level playing field (a term now frequently used as an equivalent of fair play).Fair play also played a role in the expansion of the franchise in nineteenth-century Britain and the associated agitation for voting and other rights for women. Its role in relation to the empire and slavery, a topic of great current interest, is more ambiguous and complex. Fair play did not prevent the dominant view that slaves and imperial subjects were inferior individuals, but it might have facilitated somewhat more humane treatment. The idea of fair play might even have improved the lot of imperial subjects, but to a far lesser extent. What this rich study demonstrates is that fair play, despite its role in British history and society, is a concept more nuanced and complex than the simple phrase might suggest. It is more closely associated with Britain than with any other country; this study traces how that came to be, well presented in this book.","PeriodicalId":46755,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","volume":"26 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interdisciplinary History","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1162/jinh_r_01987","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

This is an extraordinary book with a wide-ranging exploration of the concept of fair play in Britain going back to the eighth century and Beowulf. It also perceptively considers the role of ancient Greece and Rome in forming the idea of fair play. There is a rich discussion of the idea in works by authors such as William Shakespeare, Edmund Spenser, Philip Sidney, Walter Scott, and others.The very title of the book, however, raises a problem. Although there are perceptive discussions of fair play in Scotland, Wales, and Ireland, and extensive consideration of the use of the term in England, most of the text considers Britain as a whole. Perhaps the book would have been more accurately entitled A British Tradition? The answer is eventually yes, as the idea has been much more emphasized in Britain than elsewhere in the world. This is made plain in brief discussions of the concept in France, Germany, Spain, and Japan, with some references to other nations.One has the feeling that the author has tracked down, although it cannot quite be true, every reference to fair play in British texts. And he is richly aware of the powerful ambiguities of the concept as it played out in Britain. Fair play would claim to be an idea that is uniformly applied. There is an effective discussion of its role in English law in connection to Magna Carta. A jury of one’s peers, the assumption of innocence, and various other stipulations are designed to assure a fair trial. Nonetheless, it is somewhat hard to square these assurances of fairness with the historical brutality of British law enforcement. Were individuals of all classes treated the same? It was very likely that someone from the working class accused of a minor theft might be hanged.The British have often been accused of hypocrisy in their claim of fair play, a topic Duke-Evans does not discuss. He argues powerfully and effectively that the British assert their commitment to fair play with the implication that it is more true in Britain than elsewhere. But one cannot help but consider whether this assertion might be something of a cover-up for just the opposite, obscuring the reality that individuals are treated quite differently depending on their social status. For example, the right to be tried by one’s peers means that if a member of the House of Lords is accused of a crime, the person is to be tried by the House of Lords itself!The idea of fair play is most firmly associated in more modern times with sport, most notably with cricket, but also in tennis, boxing, and football. Cricket has provided the most common expression for the concept; “It’s not cricket” is a universal statement signifying a violation of fair play. And yet, until recently, cricket has been the most class conscious of British sports, with a stark division that could potentially undercut fair play. Duke-Evans discusses these paradoxes but does not consider their possible ironies and contradictions. Might it be a violation of fair play that, in the world of cricket, there was a clear distinction between the gentlemen, who were unpaid “amateurs,” and the paid professionals? Although the author suggests that class lines were more flexible in Britain than elsewhere, and the hierarchies could be scaled by the talented, it was not a level playing field (a term now frequently used as an equivalent of fair play).Fair play also played a role in the expansion of the franchise in nineteenth-century Britain and the associated agitation for voting and other rights for women. Its role in relation to the empire and slavery, a topic of great current interest, is more ambiguous and complex. Fair play did not prevent the dominant view that slaves and imperial subjects were inferior individuals, but it might have facilitated somewhat more humane treatment. The idea of fair play might even have improved the lot of imperial subjects, but to a far lesser extent. What this rich study demonstrates is that fair play, despite its role in British history and society, is a concept more nuanced and complex than the simple phrase might suggest. It is more closely associated with Britain than with any other country; this study traces how that came to be, well presented in this book.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
英国传统?《公平竞争的历史与意义》乔纳森·杜克·埃文斯著
这是一本非凡的书,对英国的公平竞争概念进行了广泛的探索,可以追溯到8世纪和贝奥武夫。它还敏锐地考虑了古希腊和罗马在形成公平竞争理念方面的作用。在威廉·莎士比亚、埃德蒙·斯宾塞、菲利普·西德尼、沃尔特·斯科特等作家的作品中,对这一观点进行了丰富的讨论。然而,这本书的标题本身就提出了一个问题。尽管在苏格兰、威尔士和爱尔兰有关于公平竞争的敏锐讨论,并且广泛考虑了在英格兰使用该术语,但大部分文本将英国视为一个整体。也许这本书更准确的标题应该是《英国传统》?答案最终是肯定的,因为这个想法在英国比在世界其他地方更被强调。在法国、德国、西班牙和日本对这一概念的简要讨论中,以及对其他国家的一些参考,都清楚地说明了这一点。人们有一种感觉,作者追查到了英国文本中关于公平竞争的每一个参考,尽管这并不完全正确。他充分意识到这个概念在英国的发展过程中存在着强大的模糊性。公平竞争被认为是一种统一适用的理念。在与《大宪章》的联系中,对其在英国法律中的作用进行了有效讨论。陪审团由同侪组成,无罪假设和其他各种规定都是为了确保公平审判而设计的。尽管如此,要把这些公平的保证与英国执法的残暴历史联系起来还是有些困难的。所有阶级的人都受到同样的待遇吗?工人阶级的人很可能被指控犯有轻微的盗窃罪而被绞死。人们经常指责英国人在宣称公平竞争时虚伪,这是杜克-埃文斯没有讨论的话题。他有力而有效地指出,英国人坚持他们对公平竞争的承诺,暗示这在英国比在其他地方更真实。但人们不禁会想,这种说法是否在某种程度上掩盖了相反的事实,掩盖了个人因社会地位而受到截然不同对待的现实。例如,受同侪审判的权利意味着,如果上议院的一名成员被指控犯罪,这个人将由上议院本身审判!在近代,公平竞争的理念与体育运动密切相关,最著名的是板球,但也与网球、拳击和足球有关。板球为这一概念提供了最常见的表达;“这不是板球”是一个普遍的声明,表示违反公平竞争。然而,直到最近,板球一直是英国最具阶级意识的运动,其明显的分歧可能会削弱公平竞争。杜克-埃文斯讨论了这些悖论,但没有考虑它们可能的讽刺和矛盾。在板球的世界里,绅士们是没有报酬的“业余球员”,而职业球员是有报酬的,这是否违反了公平竞争?尽管作者认为阶级界线在英国比在其他地方更灵活,而且等级制度可以通过有才能的人来扩大,但这不是一个公平竞争的环境(这个术语现在经常被用作公平竞争的等价物)。在19世纪的英国,公平竞争在选举权的扩大以及随之而来的争取妇女选举权和其他权利的运动中也发挥了作用。它在与帝国和奴隶制的关系中所扮演的角色,是一个当前非常感兴趣的话题,更加模糊和复杂。公平竞争并没有阻止奴隶和帝国臣民是低等个体的主流观点,但它可能会促进更人道的待遇。公平竞争的理念甚至可能改善了帝国臣民的命运,但程度要小得多。这项丰富的研究表明,尽管公平竞争在英国历史和社会中扮演着重要角色,但它是一个比简单的短语所暗示的更微妙、更复杂的概念。它与英国的关系比与其他任何国家的关系都要密切;这项研究追溯了这是如何发生的,在这本书中有很好的呈现。
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 去求助
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
期刊最新文献
Marriage, Separation & Divorce in England, 1500–1700 by K. J. Kesselring and Tim Stretton Wealth, Poverty, and Charity in Jewish Antiquity by Gregg E. Gardner The Folds of Olympus: Mountains in Ancient Greek and Roman Culture by Jason König The Pope at War: The Secret History of Pius XII, Mussolini, and Hitler by David I. Kertzer Victorians and Numbers: Statistics and Society in Nineteenth Century Britain by Lawrence Goldman
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1