5. Craig Th. Thomae Craigi de Riccarton Jus Feudale. Lipsiae: apud J. W. Gleditsch et filium, 1716. 851 p.
6. Davies J. A discovery of the true cause why Ireland was never brought under obedience of England / / Historical Tracts of Sir John Davies, Attorney general of Ireland and Speaker of the House of Commons in Ireland. Dublin: printed for W. Porter, 1787. P. 1–227.
7. Duck A. De l’Usage et de l’Autorite du Droit Civil Dans les Etats des Princes Chretiens. Traduit du Latin. Paris: au Palais, 1689. 470 p.
8. Dugdale W. Dugdale Origines Juridiciales, or, Historical Memorials od the English laws, courts of Justice.. Inns of court and Chancery. London: printed for Ch. Wilkinson, 1680.490 p.
9. Fulbecke W. A Parallel or Conference of the Civil Law, the Canon Law and the Common Law in this Realme of England. London: printed by A. Islip, 1601–1602. 109 p.
10. Gentili A. Alberici Gentilis De Armis Romanis Libri Duo. Hanoviae: apud Guilielmi Antonii. 1612. 360 p.
11. Horn N. Romisches Recht als Gemeineuropeisches Recht bei Artur Duck // Studien zur Europáischen Rechtsgeschichte. Frankfurt: W. Wilhelm, 1972. S. 171–180.
12. Marzec L. Artur Duck, De Usu et Authoritate Juris Civilis Romanorum in Regno Galliarum.
Przeg4dbazybibliograficznej // Zeszyty prawnicze. 2008. № 8.1. S. 141–150.
13. Marzec L. De Usu et Authoritate Juris Civilis Romanorum – podrz^dna rozprawa czy dzielo swiatowej romanistyki? // Zeszyty prawnicze. 2006. № 6.1. S. 145–157.
14. Marzec L. Prawo rzymskie w dawnej Anglii w šwietle pogl^dów Artura Ducka // Zeszyty prawnicze. 2006. № 6.2. S. 117–136.
15. Ridley Th. A View of the Civile and Ecclesiastical Law. London: Printed by Adam Islip, 1607. 563 p.
16. Santos F. J. A. Jus commune’ vs ‘Common law’ en el siglo XVII: el caso de Arthur Duck // Anuario da facultade de dereito da universidade da coruna. 2003. № 7. P. 63–104.
17. Wijffels A. Arthur Duck et le ius commune européen // Revue d‘histoire des facultés de droit et de la science juridique. 1990 № 10–11. P. 193–22.
REFERENCES
1. Brundage James. The Medieval Origins of the Legal Profession. Vol.l. Canonists, civilians and courts. Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2008. 610 p.
2. Craig Thomas. Thomae Craigi de Riccarton Jus Feudale. Lipsiae: apud J.W. Gleditsch et filium, 1716. 851 p.
3. Davies John. “A discovery of the true cause why Ireland was never brought under obedience of England” in Historical Tracts of Sir John Davies, Attorney general of Ireland and Speaker of the House of Commons in Ireland. Dublin: printed for W. Porter, 1787. P. 1–227.
4. Duck Arthur. De YUsage et de YAutorite du Droit Civil Dans les Etats des Princes Chretiens. Traduit du Latin. Paris: au Palais, 1689. 470 p.
5. Dugdale William. Dugdale Origines Juridiciales, or, Historical Memorials od the English laws, courts of Justice.. Inns of court and Chancery. London: printed for Ch. Wilkinson, 1680.490 p.
6. Fulbecke William. A Parallel or Conference of the Civil Law, the Canon Law and the Common Law in this Realme of England. London: printed by A. Islip, 1601–1602. 109 p.
7. Gentili Alberico. Alherici Gentilis De Armis Romanis Lihri Duo. Hanoviae: apud Guilielmi Antonii. 1612. 360 p.
8. Horn Norbert. “Romisches Recht als Gemeineuropeisches Recht bei Artur Duck” in Studien zur Europaischen Rechtsgeschichte. Frankfurt: W. Wilhelm, 1972. S. 171–180.
9. Marzec Lukasz. “Artur Duck, De Usu et Authoritate Juris Civilis Romanorum in Regno Galliarum. Przeglądbazybibliograficznej”, Zeszyty prawnicze 8.1 (2008). S. 141–150.
10. Marzec Lukasz. “De Usu et Authoritate Juris Civilis Romanorum – podrz^dna rozprawa czy dzielo swiatowej romanistyki?”, Zeszyty prawnicze 6.1 (2006). S. 145–157.
11. Marzec Lukasz.. „Prawo rzymskie w dawnej Anglii w swietle pogl^dów Artura Ducka”, Zeszyty prawnicze 6.2 (2006). S. 117–136.
12. Palamarchuk Anastasija, Fyodorov Sergej. Antikwarnyj diskurs w rannestuartowskoj Anglii. Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteia Publ., 2013. 210 p. (in Russian)
13. Palamarchuk Anastasija. ’’Tsiwilisty w rannestuartowskoj Anglii. Yuridicheskaja korporatsija w poiskah natsionalnoj identichnosti”, Vestnik Sankt-peterburgskogo universiteta. Serija 2, Istorija 4 (2012). P. 60–68. (in Russian)
14. Palamarchuk Anastasija. Tsiwilnoe prawo w rannestuartowskoj Anglii: instituty i idei. Sankt-Peterburg: Aleteia Publv 2015. 312 p. (in Russian)
15. Ridley Thomas. A View of the Civile and Ecclesiastical Law. London: Printed by Adam Islip, 1607.563 р.
16. Santos Fransisco Andres. “’Jus commune’ vs ‘Common law’ en el siglo XVII: el caso de Arthur Duck”, Anuario dafacultade de dereito da universidade da coruna 7 (2003). P. 63–104.
17. Wijffels Alain. “Arthur Duck et le ius commune européen”, Revue ďhistoire desfacultés de droit etde la science juridique 10–11 (1990). P. 193–22.
Nationhood and Ethnicity at the Frontier: A Study of Western Hunan from Pre-modern to Early Modern China
Peng Lijing
This paper is a brief account of the construction of the ethnic identity of the Hmong, or in modern Mandarin ‘Miao* in pre-modern historical narratives. The research area is West Hunan (see Map l[120]), where the special historical and geographical environment bespoke the long-term conflicts between minority ethnic groups and dominant imperial forces.
In this paper, I will argue that a close examination of the historical documents does not support the view that the Hmong ethnic group was from the beginning a distinctive unity from other ancient Southern ethnic groups, but suggests that the people known as the Hmong today started to distinguish their ethnicity from the others only since around the 14th century. Furthermore, I also propose that the crystallization of the Hmong ethnic identity and the concept of nation was catalyzed by a series of wars in Ming and Qing dynasties (from the 14th to the 19th century) between central government and local communities.
Map 1. Location of West Hunan (yellow) within Hunan Province of China
In this paper, when the term ‘the Han’ is referred to, it does not denote the current Han ethnic group (or Han Zu 汉族) in the modern Chinese nation. It refers to a vaguely defined criterion in differentiating ancient Chinese people. Before the twentieth century, in the very long imperial history, ‘the Han’ roughly refers to those who conformed to Confucian morality and at the same time traced their sovereignty to the ancient Huaxia Chinese (华夏)[121]. Other ethnic groups, including the Hmong, are regarded as different from the Han. This Hmong ethnicity research also gives us a perspective about the construction of current Chinese nationalism. The current СКАЧАТЬ
120
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File: Location_of_Xiangxi_
Prefecture_within_Hunan_%28China%29. png (date of access: 12.06.2015).
121