“俏皮的悖论”

K. Kesselring
{"title":"“俏皮的悖论”","authors":"K. Kesselring","doi":"10.1093/OSO/9780198835622.003.0004","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Chapter 4 looks at the duel as envisioned when it first appeared in late sixteenth-century England. Seen as an inherently private, unauthorized quest for revenge fought by elite men, the duel prompted responses from King James VI and I that some common law advocates in time came to see as problematic. The chapter surveys the history of duelling in practice and as an idea. It argues that the abstraction of the duel as a special kind of fight by men of special status helped in the creation of stronger statements of the supremacy of the king’s peace and public justice over private interests, in part by doing so in ways that many elite men found useful or at least not unduly threatening.","PeriodicalId":120150,"journal":{"name":"Making Murder Public","volume":"285 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2019-02-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"‘That Saucy Paradox’\",\"authors\":\"K. Kesselring\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/OSO/9780198835622.003.0004\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Chapter 4 looks at the duel as envisioned when it first appeared in late sixteenth-century England. Seen as an inherently private, unauthorized quest for revenge fought by elite men, the duel prompted responses from King James VI and I that some common law advocates in time came to see as problematic. The chapter surveys the history of duelling in practice and as an idea. It argues that the abstraction of the duel as a special kind of fight by men of special status helped in the creation of stronger statements of the supremacy of the king’s peace and public justice over private interests, in part by doing so in ways that many elite men found useful or at least not unduly threatening.\",\"PeriodicalId\":120150,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Making Murder Public\",\"volume\":\"285 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-02-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Making Murder Public\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198835622.003.0004\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Making Murder Public","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/OSO/9780198835622.003.0004","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

第四章着眼于16世纪晚期英格兰首次出现的决斗。这场决斗被视为精英们进行的一场本质上是私人的、未经授权的复仇之战,引起了詹姆斯六世和一世国王的回应,一些普通法的倡导者后来认为这是有问题的。这一章考察了决斗在实践和作为一种理念的历史。它认为,将决斗抽象为特殊地位的人之间的一种特殊战斗有助于建立更强有力的声明,即国王的和平和公共正义高于私人利益,部分原因是许多精英人士认为这样做很有用,至少不会造成过度威胁。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
‘That Saucy Paradox’
Chapter 4 looks at the duel as envisioned when it first appeared in late sixteenth-century England. Seen as an inherently private, unauthorized quest for revenge fought by elite men, the duel prompted responses from King James VI and I that some common law advocates in time came to see as problematic. The chapter surveys the history of duelling in practice and as an idea. It argues that the abstraction of the duel as a special kind of fight by men of special status helped in the creation of stronger statements of the supremacy of the king’s peace and public justice over private interests, in part by doing so in ways that many elite men found useful or at least not unduly threatening.
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
期刊最新文献
‘In Corona Populi’ Conclusion ‘That Saucy Paradox’ ‘An Image of Deadly Feud’ ‘For Publick Satisfaction’
×
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