当前位置: X-MOL 学术War in History › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Book Review: Henry of Lancaster’s Expedition to Aquitaine, 1345-46: Military Service and Professionalism in the Hundred Years’ War Nicholas A. Gribit
War in History ( IF 0.171 ) Pub Date : 2019-12-30 , DOI: 10.1177/0968344519887617c
Andrew Ayton 1
Affiliation  

literally an eyewitness of everything described. Authors appear only occasionally in their texts and were clearly eyewitnesses only for limited moments. Careful study of the source in these terms, he suggests, can reveal what the narrator intended and rise above the mere question of who saw what when, which tends to dominate discussion of histories at the moment. In this way, Bull states the purpose of his book, which uses a set of case studies ‘to suggest some pointers for future research’ (p. 67). Chapter 1 is an extended investigation of the limitations of human memory, drawing heavily on legal experience. As Bull says, the eyewitness may not see everything, may make substantial mistakes, digests his materials, and reflects on it, thereby importing all kinds of cultural assumptions into his eventual ‘report’ which is effectively a pastiche of his or her experiences and interpretations. And, of course, memory is not consistent. There are, for example, ‘lightbulb moments’ which have, for one reason or another, embedded themselves in recollection far and away above others. However, the example he gives, of Bohemond recruiting troops at the expense of his allies at the siege of Amalfi (pp. 117-8), is hardly a good one, for in the Gesta Francorum from which it is drawn we are assured that Bohemond acted spontaneously from pure religious devotion – although the narrator must have known this was false. There is little need, in a book so obviously aimed at academics not students, to trail the reader through the enormous literature on the vagaries of eyewitnesses in court – this really is a well-known stuff. The application of this methodology to the sources for the Second and Third Crusades in chapters 3 and 4 is not especially enlightening. But the analysis of the two main narrative sources for the Fourth Crusade provided more to think about. However, the methodology raises serious problems because it focuses attention on the works themselves as literature, which is not the same as history. Chivalry was projected into modern times through its literature, and it has taken an enormous effort and many years to recognize its violence and destructiveness. The negative view of World War I is largely a literary projection. History is about events, and texts are primarily valuable for what they tell us about them and those involved. The methodology proposed here has its virtues, but it risks exalting the literary over the historical and overwhelming us with jargon: ‘homodiegetic’ is not a word in general use! Overall, this is a stimulating book, but the methodology, while useful in the hands of a historian as learned as Bull, has grave risks.

中文翻译:

书评:兰开斯特远征阿基坦的亨利,1345-46 年:百年战争中的兵役和职业精神 Nicholas A. Gribit

从字面上看,所描述的一切都是目击者。作者只是偶尔出现在他们的文本中,而且显然只是在有限的时间内目击证人。他建议,仔细研究这些术语的来源,可以揭示叙述者的意图,并超越谁在何时看到什么的简单问题,而这个问题往往主导着当下的历史讨论。通过这种方式,Bull 说明了他的书的目的,该书使用了一组案例研究“为未来的研究提出了一些建议”(第 67 页)。第 1 章是对人类记忆局限性的扩展调查,大量借鉴了法律经验。正如布尔所说,目击者可能无法看到一切,可能会犯重大错误,消化他的材料并进行反思,从而将各种文化假设导入他最终的“报告”,这实际上是他或她的经历和解释的模仿。而且,当然,内存并不一致。例如,有一些“灯泡时刻”,出于某种原因,它们深深地嵌入了回忆之中。然而,他举出的例子,即博希蒙德在阿马尔菲围城战中以牺牲他的盟友为代价招募军队(第 117-8 页),并不是一个好的例子,因为在从中得出的 Gesta Francorum 中,我们确信博希蒙德出于纯粹的宗教信仰而自发地行动——尽管叙述者一定知道这是错误的。几乎不需要,在一本如此明显针对学者而非学生的书中,通过大量关于法庭目击证人变幻莫测的文献来跟踪读者——这确实是一个众所周知的东西。将这种方法应用于第 3 章和第 4 章中第二次和第三次十字军东征的资料来源并不是特别有启发性。但是对第四次十字军东征的两个主要叙事来源的分析提供了更多的思考。然而,这种方法论提出了严重的问题,因为它将注意力集中在作品本身作为文学上,这与历史不同。骑士精神通过其文学被投射到现代,并且花费了巨大的努力和多年时间才认识到其暴力和破坏性。对第一次世界大战的负面看法在很大程度上是一种文学投射。历史是关于事件的,和文本的主要价值在于它们告诉我们有关他们和相关人员的信息。这里提出的方法论有其优点,但它冒着将文学置于历史之上并用行话压倒我们的风险:“homodiegetic”不是一个普遍使用的词!总体而言,这是一本令人振奋的书,但该方法虽然对像布尔这样博学的历史学家有用,但也存在严重风险。
更新日期:2019-12-30
down
wechat
bug