Subjects and Sovereign: Bonds of Belonging in the Eighteenth-Century British Empire by Hannah Weiss Muller
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Reviewed by: Subjects and Sovereign: Bonds of Belonging in the Eighteenth-Century British Empire by Hannah Weiss Muller Matthew Dziennik Hannah Weiss Muller. Subjects and Sovereign: Bonds of Belonging in the Eighteenth-Century British Empire. New York: Oxford, 2017. Pp. xii + 329. $74. In the last decade of the eighteenth century, the ancien régime faced an existential crisis. A confluence of socioeconomic stagnation, rising debts, popular politicization, and Enlightenment ideas threatened the established order and saw the overthrow of some of the most significant royal houses of Europe. In their place emerged new types of government built on popular sovereignty and dedicated to breaking down the hereditary inequalities of monarchy, aristocracy, and slavery. Republics replaced monarchies, the popular will displaced divine right, and national citizens replaced subjects. That, at least, is the triumphant narrative familiar to students of the Age of Revolutions. In this wonderful and ambitious study, Muller adds to a growing body of work that, in eschewing these false dichotomies, is exploring the sophistication, innovation, and durability of imperial and monarchical regimes in the revolutionary age. Like Eric Nelson's The Royalist Revolution (2014), Malick Ghachem's The Old Regime and the Haitian Revolution (2012), or Jeremy Adelman's Sovereignty and Revolution in the Iberian Atlantic (2009), Muller rehabilitates subjecthood from the view that it was simply a reactive and conservative alternative to the newly emerging dynamism of citizenship. Subjecthood—a reciprocal bond between the sovereign and the subject that guaranteed fundamental rights and generated opportunities to claim legal privileges—was a powerful idea with a distinct lineage. And its importance only expanded as the British Empire faced new challenges in the aftermath of the Seven Years' War. Having triumphed in the conflict, imperial officials spent much of the period between 1763 and the 1790s attempting to manage the confusion and contradictions of a global territorial empire. Muller's triumph is to demonstrate how the incorporation of new peoples within the definition of British subjecthood was crucial to this process. Muller's beautifully written book—loaded throughout with nuance and insight—begins its analysis with the popular and legal understanding of subjecthood in Britain in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. Edward Coke's opinion in Calvin's Case (1608) established the principle of birthright subjecthood but left a plethora of fundamental questions unresolved. While most theorists could agree on the inviolability of allegiance to the monarch demanded by birthright subjecthood, what rights and protections the subject might expect in return were unclear. Since Coke had been silent on the question of overseas territories, newly conquered territories in the West Indies, Canada, the Mediterranean, and Bengal became the pivots on which subjects and sovereign negotiated the bonds of belonging in the British imperial world. Subjecthood was "many things to many people," and its expansive and flexible nature allowed new subjects to play a major role in defining subjecthood as imperial administrators sought to make sense of political uncertainty and ideological incoherence. The global scope of the book is impressive. Based on archival work in Britain, Gibraltar, Minorca, and India, Muller's work focuses on the local specificities of culturally and geographically diverse locations across the empire. Three case study chapters on Grenada and Quebec, the Mediterranean, and Calcutta also double as thematic approaches to how subjecthood was negotiated. In the Mediterranean, interpretations of subjecthood depended on local contingencies and the importance of maintaining good relations with [End Page 220] the Dey of Algiers. In Grenada and Quebec, new subjects used memorials and petitions to make valuable and effective contributions to British understandings of subject status. And in Calcutta, the day-to-day process of administering a British legal order helped refine subjecthood during the 1770s and 1780s. Yet within this ambitious and global approach are the seeds of some conceptual problems. The case-study chapters offer excellent perspectives on local context but leave systematic comparison of subjecthood to the imagination of the reader. It is difficult to fault the author for this. Any history of the British Empire must do the impossible and bring coherence to what was an ill-planned and incoherent plurality of institutions, legal systems, and administrations. Muller is keen to challenge...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».