British Nuclear Culture: Official and Unofficial Narratives in the Long 20th Century
British Nuclear Culture: Official and Unofficial Narratives in the Long 20th Century
复制标题
英国核文化：漫长的 20 世纪的官方和非官方叙述
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Joseph A. Buscemi
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Joseph A. Buscemi
历史：亨利八世的遗嘱。利普斯科姆，历史学家，作家，广播员，在人文学院早期现代史的高级讲师，攻击这个雄心勃勃的努力与信心和勤奋的研究。《国王死了》包含了一种特殊的视觉美学，在整本书中融入了大量的绘画、肖像和文献，这些都说明了将遗产遗址和文物与合理的历史研究相结合可能会取得什么样的成就。关于亨利八世遗嘱的意图和合法性的分歧从其构思的那一刻起就存在。主流的思想流派主要集中在都铎历史学家的结论，如G。R.埃尔顿、大卫斯塔基和约翰盖伊，他们坚持认为亨利八世的遗嘱是由赫特福德伯爵爱德华西摩和威廉佩吉特爵士领导的福音派阴谋策划的产物。他们认为，因为国王的遗嘱是在他去世前一个月写的，直到他去世才签署，所以赫特福德和佩吉特利用这段时间在亨利的签名上盖章之前提供了他们自己的自私补充。这种理论遵循的概念是，亨利八世是一个容易被他的大臣和宠臣操纵和愚弄的国王。利普斯科姆反驳说，亨利八世直到他去世的那一刻都控制着事态的发展。利普斯科姆认为，任何人强迫亨利八世做任何事情都是有限度的。她用凯瑟琳帕尔的公开驯服，将凯瑟琳的屈服演讲与莎士比亚的《驯悍记》中的凯特进行比较，以建立这样的前提：即使生病，“亨利也不能被操纵去做他不想做的事”（64）。利普斯科姆提供了一个非常有说服力的论点;然而，更多的信贷可能被给予凯瑟琳的能力，获得接近国王，以保护自己在这一关键时刻。这本书不仅矛盾以前的历史观念，关于亨利八世的意志，但也建立了其持久的影响和重要性。国王的遗嘱为亨利临终时的信仰状态提供了一份遗嘱和一个基准，使用的修辞表明，在他生命的尽头，亨利仍然是教义天主教。根据利普斯科姆的结论，“亨利并没有结束他的生命--就像他没有生活过一样--作为一个新教徒，而是在他自己特殊的、独特的宗教立场上：改革加上相当正统的天主教神学”（111）。此外，他的遗嘱集中体现了亨利统治的本质，考虑到亨利一生的主要工作是确保王位成功地继承给男性继承人。在某种程度上，亨利的遗嘱也显示了他的极度傲慢;他自己试图绕过英国历代国王所保持的长子继承制的传统，故意将妹妹的继承人置于年长者之上，以消除苏格兰血统，有利于英格兰人。国王死了的一个关键章节集中在赫特福德和佩吉特的关系和阴谋。利普斯科姆利用这两个朝臣之间的信件往来，提供了一个有趣的关系，足以值得研究自己的洞察力。利普斯科姆认为，至关重要的是，赫特福德和佩吉特多次看到亨利从死亡的边缘振作起来，以至于他们不敢为未来做任何计划，直到最后，当很明显，没有恢复。正是在这个时候，两人抓住了亨利自己的意愿已经提供给他们的机会，并计划为即将到来的统治巩固他们的权力。利普斯科姆的写作是令人耳目一新的批评亨利八世，同时仍然保持极大的尊重她的主题，巧妙地给予臭名昭著的国王既信贷和批评。虽然国王死了提供了大量的背景资料，使它可以为一般观众，它保持了一个严重的学术水平，建立这本书作为一个重要的贡献，话语周围的最后遗嘱和遗嘱的国王亨利八世。
history: Henry VIII’s will. Lipscomb, historian, author, broadcaster, and senior lecturer in early modern history at the New College of the Humanities, attacks this ambitious endeavor with confidence and diligent research. The King is Dead contains an exceptional visual aesthetic, incorporating a vast amount of paintings, portraits, and documents throughout the book, which illustrate what might be achieved by integrating heritage sites and artifacts with sound historical research. Disagreement regarding the intent and legitimacy of Henry VIII’s last will and testament has existed from the very moment of its conception. The prevailing school of thought has centered largely on the conclusions of Tudor historians such as G. R. Elton, David Starkey, and John Guy, who have maintained that Henry VIII’s will was the product of a conspiracy staged by an evangelical faction led by Edward Seymour, Earl of Hertford, and Sir William Paget. They argued that, because the king’s will was written a month before his death and left unsigned until his death, Hertford and Paget used that time to provide their own self-serving additions before stamping Henry’s signature. This theory follows the notion that Henry VIII was a king easily manipulated and fooled by his ministers and favorites. Lipscomb counters that Henry VIII controlled events until the moment of his death. Lipscomb argues that there was a limit to how much anyone could force Henry VIII to do anything. She uses the public taming of Katherine Parr, comparing Katherine’s grand speech of submission to that of Shakespeare’s Kate in Taming of the Shrew, to establish the premise that, even when sick, “Henry could not be manipulated to do what he did not wish to do” (64). Lipscomb provides an exceptionally convincing argument; however, more credit could potentially be given to Katherine’s ability to obtain access to the king to defend herself at that pivotal moment. This book not only contradicts previous historical notions regarding Henry VIII’s will but also establishes its lasting impact and importance. The king’s will provides a testament and a benchmark for the state of Henry’s faith at the end of his life, using rhetoric that suggests that, at the end of his life, Henry was still doctrinally Catholic. According to Lipscomb’s conclusion, “Henry didn’t end his life— just as he hadn’t lived it—as a Protestant, but rather in his own special, idiosyncratic religious position: reform coupled with fairly orthodox Catholic theology” (111). Further, his will epitomizes the very essence of Henry’s reign, considering that Henry’s life’s chief labor had been to guarantee the crown’s successful succession to a male heir. To an extent, Henry’s will also illustrates his immense hubris; he took it upon himself to attempt to circumvent the tradition of primogeniture maintained by previous English kings when he purposely placed the heirs of his younger sister above the elder in order to remove the Scottish line in favor of the English. A pivotal chapter of The King is Dead focuses on the relationship and machinations of Hertford and Paget. Lipscomb uses letters exchanged between these two courtiers to offer insight into a relationship fascinating enough to merit a study of its own. Crucially, Lipscomb argues that Hertford and Paget saw Henry rally from the brink of death enough times that they would not dare make any plans for the future until the very end, when it was clear that there would be no recovery. It was only at this point that the two men seized upon the opportunity already afforded to them by Henry’s own will and planned to consolidate their power for the coming reign. Lipscomb’s writing is refreshingly critical of Henry VIII, while still maintaining great respect for her subject, deftly giving the infamous king both credit and criticism. Although The King is Dead provides a great deal of background information, making it accessible for a general audience, it maintains a level of serious scholarship that establishes this book as an important contribution to the discourse that surrounds the last will and testament of King Henry VIII.