offered themselves as avenues to the truth regarding eastern manners and sought to contest stereotypical assumptions of the east, they were nevertheless treated with skepticism by some metropolitan readers, suggesting the mixed reception of such works and the conflicted nature of readerly and public understandings of them. Watt’s elaborately developed thesis, supported throughout by detailed and attentive readings of a wide range of primary materials, will no doubt be mined by scholars for years to come. Not shying away from complexities of context, reception, and legacy, his argument is ultimately persuasive not least because of the very messiness that he explores so productively. Inevitably, fellow scholars of British orientalism would wish to emphasize other aspects of these works too. This reviewer would have liked to see more attention paid to the effects of these modes of orientalist thinking on the peoples and cultures represented in them. The modern formation of current versions of eastern religions such as Hinduism and Islam and the politicization of caste in Asia and of national and regional differences characterizing contemporary eastern societies remain deeply indebted to these narratives. Within Britain too regional ideologies shaped by Four Nations’ perspectives in the wake of the Irish Act of Union of 1801 and the development of dissenting cultures and rival metropolitan centers also left their mark indelibly on the cultures of orientalism. Watt’s lack of engagement with what Joseph Lennon termed (in his book published in 2004) as Irish Orientalism, despite his treatment of several Irish writers, seems noticeable in this regard, and his spelling of the Irish writer Charles Johnston’s name with a final “e” ignores the recent scholarship that correctly deletes the vowel (inaccurately introduced byWalter Scott against the evidence of Johnston’s own biographical records and publications). Perhaps, then, the “British” in the title of Watt’s book is of a consolidating nature though he shows awareness, certainly, of regional factors too. On the whole, though, this is an immensely valuable book, and, in avoiding what might easily overload his argument, Watt maintains a steady course through the complex terrain he maps out for us.

中文翻译：

---

历史的生活形式：布莱克研究中的战略呈现主义

他们提供自己作为了解东方礼仪真相的途径，并试图与东方的陈规定型假设提出异议，但一些都市读者对他们持怀疑态度，表明对此类作品的接受程度不一，读者和公众对它们的理解存在冲突性质。瓦特精心发展的论文，通过对各种原始材料的详细和仔细阅读的支持，无疑将在未来几年被学者们挖掘。不回避背景、接受和遗产的复杂性，他的论点最终具有说服力，尤其是因为他如此富有成效地探索了混乱。不可避免地，英国东方主义的同行学者也希望强调这些作品的其他方面。这位评论家希望更多地关注这些东方主义思维模式对其中所代表的人民和文化的影响。现代东方宗教（如印度教和伊斯兰教）的现代形成、亚洲种姓的政治化以及当代东方社会的国家和地区差异的政治化，仍然深深地归功于这些叙述。在英国，在 1801 年爱尔兰联合法案之后由四个国家的观点塑造的区域意识形态以及不同文化和竞争性大都市中心的发展也在东方主义文化上留下了不可磨灭的印记。尽管瓦特对待几位爱尔兰作家，但他仍缺乏与约瑟夫·列侬（在他 2004 年出版的书中）所称的爱尔兰东方主义的联系，在这方面似乎很明显，他将爱尔兰作家查尔斯·约翰斯顿的名字拼写成最后一个“e”，忽略了最近正确删除元音的奖学金（沃尔特·斯科特根据约翰斯顿自己的传记记录和出版物的证据不准确地介绍了这一点）。那么，也许瓦特书名中的“英国人”具有巩固的性质，尽管他当然也表现出对地区因素的认识。不过，总的来说，这是一本非常有价值的书，为了避免可能容易使他的论点过载的内容，瓦特在他为我们绘制的复杂地形中保持稳定的路线。并且他将爱尔兰作家查尔斯·约翰斯顿的名字拼写为最后一个“e”，这忽略了最近正确删除元音的奖学金（沃尔特·斯科特根据约翰斯顿自己的传记记录和出版物的证据错误地介绍了这一点）。那么，也许瓦特书名中的“英国人”具有巩固的性质，尽管他当然也表现出对地区因素的认识。不过，总的来说，这是一本非常有价值的书，为了避免可能容易使他的论点过载的内容，瓦特在他为我们绘制的复杂地形中保持稳定的路线。并且他将爱尔兰作家查尔斯·约翰斯顿的名字拼写为最后一个“e”，这忽略了最近正确删除元音的奖学金（沃尔特·斯科特根据约翰斯顿自己的传记记录和出版物的证据错误地介绍了这一点）。那么，也许瓦特书名中的“英国人”具有巩固的性质，尽管他当然也表现出对地区因素的认识。然而，总的来说，这是一本非常有价值的书，为了避免可能容易使他的论点过载的内容，瓦特在他为我们绘制的复杂地形中保持稳定的路线。