中世纪英国的封建契约与君主制度

IF 0.9 Q3 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY 中国社会科学 Pub Date : 2023-04-03 DOI:10.1080/02529203.2023.2223042
Meng Guanglin
{"title":"中世纪英国的封建契约与君主制度","authors":"Meng Guanglin","doi":"10.1080/02529203.2023.2223042","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract In interpreting the feudal contract between kings and nobles in medieval Western Europe, Western historians have tended to elaborate on its interaction, equivalence, and even equality, with an emphasis on the resulting restrictions on the king’s authority. However, this was not the case in England during this period. After the Norman Conquest, “imported feudalism” became a strong support for the English monarchy. On this basis, the feudal contract between kings and nobles evolved from an oral to a textual contract and from “personal commitment” to “collective negotiation,” in a process strongly marked by the coercion and inequality bestowed on such contracts by hierarchical feudal roles. In the course of this process, the English kings ceaselessly consolidated their power by breaking down the feudal customs reflected in agreements between the two sides. Although the Magna Carta, as a text-based feudal contract, made explicit provision for feudal customs, it failed to effectively constrain royal power. History shows that if we seek to elaborate on the reciprocity and even equality of the feudal contract from the perspective of modern social contract theory and thus exaggerate the nobles’ right to resist the king, we will inevitably construct a mythical “feudal contract determinism.”","PeriodicalId":51743,"journal":{"name":"中国社会科学","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-04-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Feudal Contract and the Monarchy in Medieval England\",\"authors\":\"Meng Guanglin\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/02529203.2023.2223042\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract In interpreting the feudal contract between kings and nobles in medieval Western Europe, Western historians have tended to elaborate on its interaction, equivalence, and even equality, with an emphasis on the resulting restrictions on the king’s authority. However, this was not the case in England during this period. After the Norman Conquest, “imported feudalism” became a strong support for the English monarchy. On this basis, the feudal contract between kings and nobles evolved from an oral to a textual contract and from “personal commitment” to “collective negotiation,” in a process strongly marked by the coercion and inequality bestowed on such contracts by hierarchical feudal roles. In the course of this process, the English kings ceaselessly consolidated their power by breaking down the feudal customs reflected in agreements between the two sides. Although the Magna Carta, as a text-based feudal contract, made explicit provision for feudal customs, it failed to effectively constrain royal power. History shows that if we seek to elaborate on the reciprocity and even equality of the feudal contract from the perspective of modern social contract theory and thus exaggerate the nobles’ right to resist the king, we will inevitably construct a mythical “feudal contract determinism.”\",\"PeriodicalId\":51743,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"中国社会科学\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-04-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"中国社会科学\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2023.2223042\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"中国社会科学","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/02529203.2023.2223042","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

西方历史学家在解释中世纪西欧国王与贵族之间的封建契约时,倾向于阐述其相互作用、对等甚至平等,并强调其对国王权威的限制。然而,这一时期英国的情况并非如此。诺曼征服后,“舶来性封建主义”成为英国君主制的有力支撑。在此基础上,国王与贵族之间的封建契约从口头契约演变为文本契约,从“个人承诺”演变为“集体协商”,在这个过程中,等级森严的封建角色赋予了这种契约强烈的强制和不平等特征。在这一过程中,英国国王通过打破封建习俗不断巩固自己的权力,这体现在双方的协议中。《大宪章》作为一种以文字为基础的封建契约,虽然对封建习俗有明确的规定,但未能有效制约王权。历史表明,如果我们试图从现代社会契约理论的角度来阐述封建契约的互惠性甚至平等性,从而夸大贵族反抗国王的权利,就必然会建构一种神话般的“封建契约决定论”。
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
The Feudal Contract and the Monarchy in Medieval England
Abstract In interpreting the feudal contract between kings and nobles in medieval Western Europe, Western historians have tended to elaborate on its interaction, equivalence, and even equality, with an emphasis on the resulting restrictions on the king’s authority. However, this was not the case in England during this period. After the Norman Conquest, “imported feudalism” became a strong support for the English monarchy. On this basis, the feudal contract between kings and nobles evolved from an oral to a textual contract and from “personal commitment” to “collective negotiation,” in a process strongly marked by the coercion and inequality bestowed on such contracts by hierarchical feudal roles. In the course of this process, the English kings ceaselessly consolidated their power by breaking down the feudal customs reflected in agreements between the two sides. Although the Magna Carta, as a text-based feudal contract, made explicit provision for feudal customs, it failed to effectively constrain royal power. History shows that if we seek to elaborate on the reciprocity and even equality of the feudal contract from the perspective of modern social contract theory and thus exaggerate the nobles’ right to resist the king, we will inevitably construct a mythical “feudal contract determinism.”
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
中国社会科学
中国社会科学 SOCIAL SCIENCES, INTERDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
0.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
5101
期刊介绍: Social Sciences in China Press (SSCP) was established in 1979, directly under the administration of the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (CASS). Currently, SSCP publishes seven journals, one academic newspaper and an English epaper .
期刊最新文献
The Hierarchy of Distribution in Private Law How Does the Government Facilitate the Co-Production of Digital Public Safety Services?—Based on Empirical Evidence from Shenzhen How Does the Internet Impact the Public’s Perception of Information Security Risk? From Structural Imbalance to Structural Optimization: A Theoretical Analysis for Establishing a Modern Tax System Trustworthy Artificial Intelligence for Social Governance
×
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