the ranking of people indicates abdication of management.
將員工排等級，正顯示管理者的失職、棄權。
江蓋世的相片。
Japan Opens World Classic With a Win
New York Times
FUKUOKA, Japan — The iconic image of Japan's victory over South Korea in the final of the 2009 World Baseball Classic was of Ichiro Suzuki, the team captain, grinning as he hoisted the silver trophy amid a circle of teammates and a sea of confetti on ...
In
a bridal shower scene, the bride-to-be is relieved to be given a return
receipt along with a horrible gift. The video ends with these words:
"Paper can make any gift, the perfect gift."
Benedict delivers last Sunday papal blessing
White Truffles: Why They're Worth $2,000 a Pound
By Josh Ozersky
October marks the start of white truffle season, the time of year when these rare mushrooms are showered tableside on dishes, signifying luxury to even the most jaded palates
shower
v., -ered, -er·ing, -ers. v.tr.
- To pour down in a shower: showered confetti on the parade.
- To cover with or as if with a shower. See synonyms at barrage2.
- To bestow abundantly or liberally.
- To fall or pour down in or as if in a shower.
- To wash oneself in a shower.
[Middle English shour, from Old English scūr.]
showery show'er·y adj.- shower
- [名]1 シャワー(shower bath) take ［have］ a quick showerさっとシャワーを浴びる .2 ((しばしば〜s))短時間で止む雨, にわか雨, 夕立 be ca...
- shower
- [名]示す人［物］.
wrecker, Künstlerroman,doily
confetti
- 発音記号[kənféti]
[名](複)（▼単数形-fet・to 〔-fétou〕）
1 ((単数扱い))（パレードや婚礼などでまく色紙の）紙ふぶき.
2 糖菓, キャンデー, ボンボン.
［イタリア語confettoの複数形. △COMFIT］
(kən-fĕt'ē) 
pl.n. (used with a sing. verb)
Small pieces or streamers of colored paper that are scattered around during the course of festive occasions: Confetti covers the floor every year on January 1.
[Italian, pl. of confetto, candy, from Medieval Latin cōnfectum, from neuter of Latin cōnfectus,
Analyzing Royalty’s Mystique
Matt Dunham/Associated Press
Workers unveiled a giant image
of Queen Elizabeth II on a building along the River Thames in London to
celebrate the Queen's upcoming Diamond Jubilee. More Photos »
By JENNIFER SCHUESSLER
Published: May 28, 2012
Next week, after the confetti from Queen Elizabeth II’s Diamond Jubilee celebration
has been swept from the streets of London, more than 100 scholars will
convene at Kensington Palace to ponder a phenomenon as puzzling as it is
familiar: the robust survival of the British monarchy in a democratic
age that long ago consigned similar institutions to the gilded dustbin
of history.
Multimedia
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Queen Elizabeth II in her coronation crown in 1953. More Photos »
Hulton Archive/Getty Images
Queen Victoria in 1897, the year of her widely celebrated Diamond Jubilee. More Photos »
This three-day conference,
which will feature talks on subjects ranging from hats and monarchs to
the role of the Crown in a constitutional system, commemorates the 60th
anniversary of the Queen’s ascension to the throne as well as the
recently completed renovation of the palace.
But it can also be seen as an unofficial celebration of another
refurbishment: that of the study of modern monarchy itself.
Biographers and popular historians have never lost sight of royalty,
especially if madness, romance and scandal were involved. But until
recently the serious study of modern British monarchy — those kings and
queens who for the past two centuries have reigned but not ruled — was
covered in a thick layer of dust, if not disrepute.
“For many historians on the right, the monarchy was just there and it
was good, so there was no reason to study it,” said David Cannadine, a
professor of history at Princeton University and an organizer of the
conference. “For historians on the left, it was absurd and indefensible,
so there was no reason to study it.”
Many scholars trace the resurgence of scholarly interest to an essay by
Professor Cannadine published in 1983, in the wake of Queen Elizabeth’s
Silver Jubilee, lamenting the tendency to see the modern monarchy as
little more than a highbrow soap opera of minimal interest to a
profession that had turned decisively toward bottom-up social history.
Since then, however, scholars have gone into the archives and emerged
with serious studies of royal finances, ceremony, philanthropy and
political power, often linking this most elite of elites to the concerns
of ordinary people.
“The modern monarchy is not just a subject for biography,” said Arianne
Chernock, an assistant professor of history at Boston University. “It
has so much more use as a window onto broader cultural trends, attitudes
and the way people imagine themselves as citizens.”
Professor Chernock is currently writing a book about 19th-century
British perceptions of queenship, which, she argues, illuminate the
broader rising demand for women’s political rights. “From the death of
Catherine the Great to the election of Margaret Thatcher, no women were
technically ruling European states,” she said. “But that doesn’t mean
sovereigns aren’t doing real work. What does it mean to have a
hereditary position when so few women have any power?”
Britons debated the relationship between Queen Victoria’s femininity and
her sovereignty, while newspapers were filled with coverage of foreign
female monarchs like the rapacious Queen Ranavalona I of Madagascar
(who expelled British missionaries and legalized the slave trade there)
and Queen Pomare IV of Tahiti, whose struggles with the French were
depicted as struggles on behalf of the rights of the people.
Even the feminist trailblazer Helena Normanton, Britain’s first
practicing female barrister, who was called to the bar in 1922, was
obsessed with monarchy and queens, filling her files with elaborate
diagrams about their movements and activities.
“You get a profound sense that this fascination was linked to
Normanton’s own pioneering work,” Professor Chernock said. “Women are
taking comfort in the sense that they have this tradition of holding
power.”
The monarchy has also been taken increasingly seriously by historians of
the British Empire, who point out that even as the power of the Crown
declined at home during the 19th century, it was expanded abroad, where
Queen Victoria was often seen as a unifying figure as well as a defender
of minority interests.
She was far from a mere symbolic prop in the imperial drama, said Miles
Taylor, the director of the Institute of Historical Research at the
University of London and author of the forthcoming book “Empress: Queen
Victoria and India.” Instead, he argued, she took an active role in
drafting the 1858 proclamation bringing India under Crown control,
restoring religious freedom and guaranteeing its inhabitants the same
rights as other imperial subjects.
“From there on, Queen Victoria became seen as a sort of patriot queen,
separate from the British government, deified and invoked for her
generosity and sympathy,” he said.
Even today, said Maya Jasanoff, a professor of history at Harvard
University, constitutional monarchy may sometimes provide a more durable
framework for the protection of multiethnic rights than republican
democracy. She pointed to Prince Charles’s much-mocked declaration a few
years ago that as king he would like to be known as “defender of the
faiths,” plural.
“It’s pretty easy to understand why conservatives like monarchy: He or
she represents power, tradition, hierarchy, stability,” said Professor
Jasanoff, the author of “Liberty’s Exiles,”
a recent study of loyalists after the American Revolution. “But what
some people might find harder to understand is why liberals might like
monarchy.”
Research on the 20th-century monarchy remains a bit thin, scholars say,
partly because of lack of access to documents. The current queen’s
papers will not be available until after her death, and researchers
seeking material on subjects that are still delicate, like the House of
Windsor’s 1917 name change from the House of Saxe-Coburg and Gotha, or
the abdication of Edward VIII, may not get an enthusiastic response at
the Royal Archives, which are private.
“I don’t see a lot of distinguished work,” said Frank Prochaska, a
professor of history at Oxford University and the author of “Royal
Bounty,” a widely cited study of the British monarchy’s transformation
over the past two centuries into a philanthropic powerhouse above the
political fray. “It’s going to be a while.”
But some scholars are finding angles on more recent royal history, if
not necessarily ones that will win them invitations to Jubilee
conferences. In “Capital Affairs” (2010), Frank Mort, a cultural
historian at the University of Manchester, argued that the neo-imperial
pomp surrounding Elizabeth’s coronation in 1953 was shadowed by fears of
declining sexual morals, spurred partly by immigration from the former
colonies.
Mr. Mort is currently writing about the abdication, which he argues is
too often seen “from above” as a drama of high constitutional principles
rather than from below, as a reflection of popular sexual politics. He
presented a paper on the subject in April at a University of London conference on “the royal body,”
which also featured work on paparazzi and other modern topics,
alongside papers like “ ‘Great Codpeic’d Harry’: Imagining the
Sexualized Body of Henry VIII.”
“Modern royal masculinity is relatively unstudied,” said Ina
Zweiniger-Bargielowska, a professor at the University of Illinois,
Chicago, who presented a paper at the conference on the role of George
V, George VI and Prince Philip in promoting national cohesion through
manly sport.
That may partly be because for the last two centuries British royal men
have more often been standing somewhere behind the throne rather than
sitting on it — a phenomenon that some scholars say may suit the modern
monarchy just fine.
Clarissa Campbell Orr, a historian at Anglia Ruskin University in
England and the author of several books on queenship, said that women
may be more comfortable with the constitutional monarch’s condition of
being rather than doing.
“A man who is a king, or a king in waiting, is always fretting,” she
said. “A woman is less likely to fret and more likely to just get on
with it.”
rèfúrbish[rè・fúrbish]
- レベル：社会人必須
[動](他)…を磨き直す, 一新する, 改装する；…を再び磨き上げる.
rè・fúrbish・ment
[名]indefensible
(ĭn'dĭ-fĕn'sə-bəl)
adj.
- Inexcusable; unpardonable: indefensible behavior.
- Invalid; untenable: an indefensible assumption.
- Vulnerable to physical attack: indefensible borders.
indefensibly in'de·fen'si·bly adv.
abdication
- ab • di • ca • tion
- 発音
- æ`bdəkéiʃən
- abdicationの変化形
- abdications (複数形)
沒有留言:
張貼留言