论文部分内容阅读
（Southwest Nationalities Research Academy， Southwest University
for Nationalities， Chengdu，610041，Sichuan，China）
JOURNAL OF ETHNOLOGY， VOL. 5， NO.4， 17-21， 2015 （CN51-1731/C， in Chinese）
DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2015.04.03
Abstract：
Louis XIV （September 1638—September 1715）， known as Louis the Great or the Sun King， was a monarch of the House of Bourbon who ruled as King of France from 1643 until his death. His reign of 72 years and 110 days is the longest of any monarch of a major country in European history. As a legendary king in European history， Louis XIV did not expect the Enlightenment， but instead， he experienced the beginning period of the concept of “nation”. During his entire life， the public image of Louis XIV was represented in different forms and occasions： in paintings and engravings， medals and sculptures， plays， ballets， and operas.It is the place of Louis XIV in the collective imagination that Burke focuses on.All these contemporary representations of Louis XIV is the material for Peter Burke to show how the making of a royal image illuminates the relationship between art and power， between fabricating a king and the rising up of nationalism. Burke stresses that during Louis XIVs tenure， by introducing the idea of equality and freedom， the concept of “nation” began to undermine the legitimacy of kingship characterized by oracle and hierarchy. While Benedict Anderson believes that the history of the nation-state is the history of imagination and a fixing of ethnic borders， and that a nation is a imagined political community， Burke illustrates another way for the forming of national identity： by fabricating a hero， an exemplary and a center. Therefore， The Fabrication of Louis XIV provides an inspiring perspective to rethink the rise of nationalism and a way of creating identity.
I. Louis XIV： A Cultural Historians Account
Peter Burke is one of the most significant historians， and he prefers to call himself a cultural historian. Burke is interested in various topics： the renaissance in Italy， public culture in early modern Europe， etc. Since the 1960s， he has been influenced by anthropology， and he admits that anthropology widens his perspective and historical imagination. In his The Fabrication of Louis XIV， he introduces a symbolic analysis of myth， the performance of politics in social drama， and the theory of “the front stage” and “the back stage”， etc.
The most elaborate and self-conscious attempts at projecting a favorable image of the king were those made by a group of officials， artists， scholars and men of letters in the reign of Louis XIV， especially during the period when he assumed complete rule， which lasted for more than half a century （1661-1715）. This allows historians to observe changes over the long term.Peter Burke examines the kings public image with the trained eye of a cultural historian.There are 12 chapters in this book， illustrating different phrases of the representation of Louis XIV. Burke is at his best in explaining the tensions that developed between the myth and the reality of the regime. Burke points out that after Louis XIV was installed on the throne， a system focusing on the “image of King” was constructed. Louis XIV also sponsored institutions to encourage artists， scholars and writers to fabricate him as “the Great”.Academies were founded or reorganized; journals were published; poets and scientists were cultivated; the factory of the Gobelins wove endless tapestries for the court; hundreds of paintings， statues， and medals recorded the kings deeds. But it was the transformation of Versailles from a simple hunting-lodge into the seat of government that became the most visible embodiment of the sun-kings splendor.
With the efforts of this “image-making machine”， Louis XIV became the Sun King， and was remembered not only by his contemporaries， but also by later generations. What should we understand about this political machinery assembled by their legendary predecessor？ Burke points out that we should understand it in its cultural-historical context： making the King “the Great” was a collective effort of France to build a national identity and “imagine” a modern state.
II. The Tradition of Divine Kingship and the Official Image of Louis XIV
In the 17th century， European governments devoted more attention to the public image of the ruler than at any other time since the later period of the Roman Empire. Among these governments， it was the French who were the most concerned with the ways in which the king was represented. This was at a time when France was not influenced by the Enlightenment nor the modern idea of “public”. In the 17th century， Kingship was still the total presentation of the kingdom and the society. Marc Bloch analyzed the “royal touch” which was popular as an effective way of healing disease in England and France. He further points out that the concept of divine kingship lay at the center of French society and peoples lives from the 11th to 18th century. Divine kingship， as discussed first by James Frazer， was characterized by the unification of profane power and super-nature power， the power of god and political power， the title of king and the obligation of the priest， instead of separating them.
In many portraits and poems， the metaphor for Louis XIV was the sun， Apollo， a current Alexander the Great， etc. And some of his daily activities became rituals and performances. The symbolic meaning of all these representations and performances are what Clifford Geertz described as social drama. France in the time of Louis XIVs tenure is a kind of “theater state”， having its “exemplary center”， and believing that thecapital and royal family form a model， an exemplary， with a perfect vision. Therefore， the life style of the royal family with the king as the model of social order was one which should be copied by all the people. This kind of divine kingship and its vision is exactly the source from which the nation-state takes an advantage for fabricating a vision of social unity， even though the nation-state always refuse to admit it. III. “Fabricating the Great” in the Politics of Nation-State
In his last chapter， Burke places the public image of Louis XIV in comparative perspective. He provides three kinds of comparisons： （1） comparisons of Louis XIV with his contemporary rulers; （2） comparisons with rulers in earlier periods， concentrating on those who were most familiar to the king and his advisers， artists and writers; （3） a comparison by juxtaposing the images of Louis XIV with those of some of the modern heads of modern nation-state in the 20th century.
Burke points out that today the dominant language of politics is the language of liberty， equality and fraternity. Power is supposed to derive from “the people”， and public monuments celebrate “the unknown soldier” or a generalized heroic worker. For the leader， the illusion of intimacy with the people is necessary. The contrast between seventeenth-century leaders and twentieth-century ones is not a contrast between rhetoric and truth. It is a contrast between two styles of rhetoric.
Ⅳ.Conclusion
Eventhough what Burke presents is how a pre-nation-state constructs its society， nation， and imagination of nation by fabricating its center and exemplary， his insight on the nature of a states power is hierarchy instead of homogeneity provides an alternative perspective for understanding the modern state. Especially when Burke points out that the establishing of the modern nation-state is not a sign of the collapse of the tradition of （divine） kingship， he emphasizes the continuity of making the center， hero， and “the Great” in the nation-state. And as Eric Hobsbawm also stresses， actually， in modern states， lots of so-called traditions actually were reinvented according to their history， otherwise they could not spread through out the whole state or last for long time. Burkes book may also implies that the imagined community is not build on rational， but on a religious tradition and divine kingship.
Key Words： Louis XIV; fabrication of image; divine kingship; nation-state
References：
Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities： Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism， Verso， 2006.
Clifford Geertz. Negara： Theatre State in 19th Century Bali， Princeton University Press， 1980.
Eric Hobsbawm. Terence Ranger eds， The Invention of Tradition， Cambridge University Press， 2012.
James Frazer. The Golden Bough， SMK Books， 2011.
Maria Lucia Pallares-Burke. The New History： Confessions and Conversation， Polity Press， 2002.
Marc Bloch.The Royal Touch， Monarchy and Miracles in France and England. London： Dorset Press，1990.
Peter Burke. The Fabrication of Louis XIV， Yale University Press， 1992.
Peter Burke.Historian， Anthropology and Symbol， in Liu Beicheng， Chen Xin， eds， shixuelilun duben （Historical Theory Reader）， Beijing： Peking University Press， 2006.
Zhang Xushan. “guowang shengji” yu nianjianpai de shixue yanji （“The Royal Touch” and the Historical Study of Annual School）， in Liu Beicheng， Chen Xin， eds， shixue lilun duben （Historical Theory Reader）， Beijing： Peking University Press， 2006.
for Nationalities， Chengdu，610041，Sichuan，China）
JOURNAL OF ETHNOLOGY， VOL. 5， NO.4， 17-21， 2015 （CN51-1731/C， in Chinese）
DOI：10.3969/j.issn.1674-9391.2015.04.03
Abstract：
Louis XIV （September 1638—September 1715）， known as Louis the Great or the Sun King， was a monarch of the House of Bourbon who ruled as King of France from 1643 until his death. His reign of 72 years and 110 days is the longest of any monarch of a major country in European history. As a legendary king in European history， Louis XIV did not expect the Enlightenment， but instead， he experienced the beginning period of the concept of “nation”. During his entire life， the public image of Louis XIV was represented in different forms and occasions： in paintings and engravings， medals and sculptures， plays， ballets， and operas.It is the place of Louis XIV in the collective imagination that Burke focuses on.All these contemporary representations of Louis XIV is the material for Peter Burke to show how the making of a royal image illuminates the relationship between art and power， between fabricating a king and the rising up of nationalism. Burke stresses that during Louis XIVs tenure， by introducing the idea of equality and freedom， the concept of “nation” began to undermine the legitimacy of kingship characterized by oracle and hierarchy. While Benedict Anderson believes that the history of the nation-state is the history of imagination and a fixing of ethnic borders， and that a nation is a imagined political community， Burke illustrates another way for the forming of national identity： by fabricating a hero， an exemplary and a center. Therefore， The Fabrication of Louis XIV provides an inspiring perspective to rethink the rise of nationalism and a way of creating identity.
I. Louis XIV： A Cultural Historians Account
Peter Burke is one of the most significant historians， and he prefers to call himself a cultural historian. Burke is interested in various topics： the renaissance in Italy， public culture in early modern Europe， etc. Since the 1960s， he has been influenced by anthropology， and he admits that anthropology widens his perspective and historical imagination. In his The Fabrication of Louis XIV， he introduces a symbolic analysis of myth， the performance of politics in social drama， and the theory of “the front stage” and “the back stage”， etc.
The most elaborate and self-conscious attempts at projecting a favorable image of the king were those made by a group of officials， artists， scholars and men of letters in the reign of Louis XIV， especially during the period when he assumed complete rule， which lasted for more than half a century （1661-1715）. This allows historians to observe changes over the long term.Peter Burke examines the kings public image with the trained eye of a cultural historian.There are 12 chapters in this book， illustrating different phrases of the representation of Louis XIV. Burke is at his best in explaining the tensions that developed between the myth and the reality of the regime. Burke points out that after Louis XIV was installed on the throne， a system focusing on the “image of King” was constructed. Louis XIV also sponsored institutions to encourage artists， scholars and writers to fabricate him as “the Great”.Academies were founded or reorganized; journals were published; poets and scientists were cultivated; the factory of the Gobelins wove endless tapestries for the court; hundreds of paintings， statues， and medals recorded the kings deeds. But it was the transformation of Versailles from a simple hunting-lodge into the seat of government that became the most visible embodiment of the sun-kings splendor.
With the efforts of this “image-making machine”， Louis XIV became the Sun King， and was remembered not only by his contemporaries， but also by later generations. What should we understand about this political machinery assembled by their legendary predecessor？ Burke points out that we should understand it in its cultural-historical context： making the King “the Great” was a collective effort of France to build a national identity and “imagine” a modern state.
II. The Tradition of Divine Kingship and the Official Image of Louis XIV
In the 17th century， European governments devoted more attention to the public image of the ruler than at any other time since the later period of the Roman Empire. Among these governments， it was the French who were the most concerned with the ways in which the king was represented. This was at a time when France was not influenced by the Enlightenment nor the modern idea of “public”. In the 17th century， Kingship was still the total presentation of the kingdom and the society. Marc Bloch analyzed the “royal touch” which was popular as an effective way of healing disease in England and France. He further points out that the concept of divine kingship lay at the center of French society and peoples lives from the 11th to 18th century. Divine kingship， as discussed first by James Frazer， was characterized by the unification of profane power and super-nature power， the power of god and political power， the title of king and the obligation of the priest， instead of separating them.
In many portraits and poems， the metaphor for Louis XIV was the sun， Apollo， a current Alexander the Great， etc. And some of his daily activities became rituals and performances. The symbolic meaning of all these representations and performances are what Clifford Geertz described as social drama. France in the time of Louis XIVs tenure is a kind of “theater state”， having its “exemplary center”， and believing that thecapital and royal family form a model， an exemplary， with a perfect vision. Therefore， the life style of the royal family with the king as the model of social order was one which should be copied by all the people. This kind of divine kingship and its vision is exactly the source from which the nation-state takes an advantage for fabricating a vision of social unity， even though the nation-state always refuse to admit it. III. “Fabricating the Great” in the Politics of Nation-State
In his last chapter， Burke places the public image of Louis XIV in comparative perspective. He provides three kinds of comparisons： （1） comparisons of Louis XIV with his contemporary rulers; （2） comparisons with rulers in earlier periods， concentrating on those who were most familiar to the king and his advisers， artists and writers; （3） a comparison by juxtaposing the images of Louis XIV with those of some of the modern heads of modern nation-state in the 20th century.
Burke points out that today the dominant language of politics is the language of liberty， equality and fraternity. Power is supposed to derive from “the people”， and public monuments celebrate “the unknown soldier” or a generalized heroic worker. For the leader， the illusion of intimacy with the people is necessary. The contrast between seventeenth-century leaders and twentieth-century ones is not a contrast between rhetoric and truth. It is a contrast between two styles of rhetoric.
Ⅳ.Conclusion
Eventhough what Burke presents is how a pre-nation-state constructs its society， nation， and imagination of nation by fabricating its center and exemplary， his insight on the nature of a states power is hierarchy instead of homogeneity provides an alternative perspective for understanding the modern state. Especially when Burke points out that the establishing of the modern nation-state is not a sign of the collapse of the tradition of （divine） kingship， he emphasizes the continuity of making the center， hero， and “the Great” in the nation-state. And as Eric Hobsbawm also stresses， actually， in modern states， lots of so-called traditions actually were reinvented according to their history， otherwise they could not spread through out the whole state or last for long time. Burkes book may also implies that the imagined community is not build on rational， but on a religious tradition and divine kingship.
Key Words： Louis XIV; fabrication of image; divine kingship; nation-state
References：
Benedict Anderson. Imagined Communities： Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism， Verso， 2006.
Clifford Geertz. Negara： Theatre State in 19th Century Bali， Princeton University Press， 1980.
Eric Hobsbawm. Terence Ranger eds， The Invention of Tradition， Cambridge University Press， 2012.
James Frazer. The Golden Bough， SMK Books， 2011.
Maria Lucia Pallares-Burke. The New History： Confessions and Conversation， Polity Press， 2002.
Marc Bloch.The Royal Touch， Monarchy and Miracles in France and England. London： Dorset Press，1990.
Peter Burke. The Fabrication of Louis XIV， Yale University Press， 1992.
Peter Burke.Historian， Anthropology and Symbol， in Liu Beicheng， Chen Xin， eds， shixuelilun duben （Historical Theory Reader）， Beijing： Peking University Press， 2006.
Zhang Xushan. “guowang shengji” yu nianjianpai de shixue yanji （“The Royal Touch” and the Historical Study of Annual School）， in Liu Beicheng， Chen Xin， eds， shixue lilun duben （Historical Theory Reader）， Beijing： Peking University Press， 2006.