Courtly Encounters: Translating Courtliness and Violence in Early Modern Eurasia. By Sanjay Subrahmanyam. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Pp. xvi, 312. $29.95.)
Courtly Encounters: Translating Courtliness and Violence in Early Modern Eurasia. By Sanjay Subrahmanyam. (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2012. Pp. xvi, 312. $29.95.)
复制标题
礼貌的遭遇：翻译早期现代欧亚大陆的礼貌和暴力。
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Duindam
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Duindam
两个人都在边境（52）。地图、图表和表格从中国历史中挖掘数据，以建立相互作用的空间和时间模式。斯卡夫在研究资料中关于边界、“蛮夷”和种族的论述时发现，儒家文人往往忽略“民族或种族差异”，从而模糊了非汉族行动者的作用（或贡献）（71）。事实上，对于这里分析的中国-中亚演员来说，地位通常胜过种族，这使得斯卡夫的挖掘对于恢复隋唐和草原帝国企业的民族文化复杂性至关重要。第二部分继续，使用厚的描述，通过世袭的政治网络，意识形态和国家间的竞争，以及外交礼仪分析互动。第三部分探讨了外交关系的谈判，通过授职，亲属关系（虚构的和真实的），马匹贸易，断绝关系。在这些页面中出现的人物画廊使丝绸之路演员的通常演员多样化-僧侣，商人和外交官。因此，斯卡夫敦促读者“超越”丝绸之路，分析了文化传播的媒介、交流网络和对“外来文化”的接受性（294-300）。这里的代理人包括中国北方的突厥-蒙古奴隶和农妇，以及精英（突厥-蒙古帝国卫队，草原统治者的皇家中国妻子）。连接中国及其边境与蒙古高原的南北路线比东西路线具有更大的战略意义。接受性通常意味着统治者的“创造性的胜人一筹”，例如唐太宗使用的标题“天可汗”（124-127，298）。除了证实对华北边疆的控制打破了欧亚东部的力量平衡之外，斯卡夫还扩展了汤姆·阿尔森关于蒙古帝国的研究，将（中国）世界主义或文化开放（这种控制的标志）与一个深思熟虑的战略优先事项联系起来。这是一个非常有启发性的举动。
ers on both sides of the borderland (52). Maps, charts, and tables mine data from Chinese histories to establish spatial and temporal patterns of interactions. Examining discourses in the sources over frontiers, “barbarians,” and ethnicity, Skaff observes that Confucian literati tended to elide “ethnic or racial differences” and thus obscure the role (or contributions) of non-Han actors (71). Indeed, for the Sino-Inner Asian actors analyzed here status usually trumped ethnicity, rendering the kind of excavation that Skaff performs crucial to restore the ethnocultural complexity of Sui-Tang and steppe imperial enterprises. Part 2 proceeds, using thick description, to analyze interactions through patrimonial political networking, ideology and interstate competition, and rituals of diplomacy. Part 3 explores the negotiation of diplomatic relationships through investiture, kinship (fictive and real), the horse trade, and severance of ties. The gallery of characters appearing throughout these pages diversifies the usual cast of Silk Road actors—monks, merchants, and diplomats. Thus, urging readers to “move beyond” the Silk Road, Skaff analyzes agents of cultural transmission, networks of exchange, and receptivity to “alien culture” (294–300). Here agents included Turko-Mongol slaves and peasant women in North China, as well as elites (Turko-Mongol imperial guardsmen, royal Chinese wives of steppe rulers). The north-south routes linking China and its borderlands with the Mongolian plateau were of greater strategic import than the east-west routes. Receptivity often meant “creative one-upmanship” by rulers, such as Tang Taizong’s use of the title “Heavenly Qaghan” (124–127, 298). Beyond confirming that control over the North China borderlands tipped the Eastern Eurasian balance of power, Skaff extends Tom Allsen’s work on the Mongol Empire to link (Chinese) cosmopolitanism or cultural openness, the hallmark of such control, with a deliberate strategic priority. This is a very suggestive move.