意象与本真：明清“义婢”现象解析

明清时期的“义婢”是指那些遵循“主婢之义”并忠实于主人甚至甘愿自我牺牲的那类婢女。“义婢”表现形式各异,且集“主婢之义”和“女性之义”于一身,成为重“义”的教化典范。这与官方的渲染、推崇有关,但更与婢女主观层面的自我认同、自我变异和自我满足感紧密相关。     

论荀子的君臣观

君臣关系作为古代社会政治生活中最重要的社会关系,荀子对此有自己独到的见解。荀子对君主有智慧和道德上的严格要求,并且认为臣要服从君主的意愿,而不主张唯唯诺诺的绝对忠诚,臣要懂得为臣的艺术,君臣之间要保持一种平衡。     

略论《虞夏书》中的“五典”

"五典"对中华文明的影响极其深远,后来的儒家将"五典"改造为"君臣、父子、夫妻、兄弟、朋友"五伦道德原则,使之成为中国君臣百姓在日常生活中上下一致坚守的准则,影响了中国几千年。本文着重阐释了"五典"的原始义和后起义以及其在舜时期的体现状况,并深刻阐述了其发展演变的原因。使舜文化产生和发展的文化精神和价值观念在历史的长河中发扬光大,给我们借鉴。     

“六经皆史”的视角:章学诚方志思想新论

章学诚以"志为史体"为前提,以"六经皆史"为根本,在自我追求学术"正统"的实践中,通过方志分立三书之法,实现了志与经的理论对接,建构起经、史、志的学术系谱,从而大大提升了方志的地位,凸显了方志编纂的意义,"六经皆史"与"志为史体"因此成为章学诚方志思想的两大理论支柱。以此为出发点,章学诚以道、器之说重塑了经、史与道的关系,实际将志也纳入了撰述以求道的器的范畴,由此确立了方志"明道"的终极功能和根本宗旨,修志明道成为其积极从事方志编纂的动力所在。此外,章学诚在定位"史义"的基础上,还提出了"志义"的命题。在章学诚的理论话语中,"志义"与"史义"一样,秉承《春秋》事、文、义的有机结合,成为"道"在不同载体形式中的表现。"志义"的内涵要求方志不仅要具有思想性,更要求方志必须服务于"明道"的根本宗旨,体现了"义"的双重要求。     

孟子孝论对孔子思想的发展与偏离——从"以正致谏"到"父子不责善"

在家庭伦理层面上,孔子孝论注重父子自然亲情,倡导子女人格平等,父义则从,父不义则谏;主张以义辅亲,"以正致谏"。孔子、曾子"以正致谏"的谏亲原则被孟子完全地移植到社会政治伦理中,泛伦理化的倾向有增无减。孟子"君臣相责以善"的"善"之内涵当为仁义,即以仁义这一最高价值理性衡评君臣之间关系。"君臣相责以善"施行的前提是将君臣关系重新论证为以德相交的"友",而非传统意义上的以势利相交,"返祖"化现象的背后是为其民本主义政治立场张目。但是,必须指出的是,孟子"父子不责善"思想已经有别于孔子、曾子与子思在家庭伦理语境中倡导的以义辅亲的伦理精神。     

北宋时期传统价值观述评

在传统社会背景下,德是内在的,礼是外在的。德体现着礼的本质要求,礼表达着德的根本属性。这两个方面的结合,促使政治领域的价值观礼不断完善并产生作用。北宋时期,礼不仅成了政治领域的价值观,还延伸到人们的日常生活。这也正好印证了古代家国一体的政治结构。而这一过程,是伴随着核心价值观德在政治领域推演展开形成,具体包括以君为本、以礼为制、纲常为义、仪俗为教四个方面。     

戴名世的历史评论浅议

戴名世的史学评论和历史评论虽然蕴含有许多深刻的史学认识和历史认识,但由于戴名世论史、评史的出发点在于宣扬对明王朝的追思,宣扬狭隘的君臣之义,并据此反对清朝的统治,所以使他的史学评论和历史评论带有很强的政治和个人情感色彩,甚至不惜牵强附会,妄加比附,已经脱离了正确的历史评论范畴而演变为极端情绪宣泄.因此,在封建专制政治下,戴名世以文字遭祸也就不难理解了.     

略论吴魏逍遥津之战及其影响

逍遥津之战是三国时期东吴对曹魏发动的一场重要战役,是赤壁之战后东吴为维系孙刘联盟共抗曹魏所采取的最大一次军事行动。逍遥津之战东吴的失败,进一步促使东吴改变联刘抗曹的方针。逍遥津之战后东吴采纳了吕蒙的策略,袭取荆州以巩固长江一线,从而对魏、蜀、吴三方之间的关系产生了重要的影响。     

论陆逊

陆逊是三国时期最杰出的军事家、政治家之一。他助吕蒙取荆州、擒关羽;夷陵之战,击败号称"天下英雄"的刘备;石亭之战,大破曹魏十万大军,为孙吴建立三分天下的王霸之业立下赫赫战功。陆逊反对孙权对辽东用兵,主张吴国应休养生息,发展经济,增强国力,待机北伐,这是极具战略眼光的明智之举。陆逊获得了孙权的高度信任,君臣同心,肝胆相照。可惜晚年因参与"二宫之争",遭孙权疑嫉,愤恚忧郁而死。陆氏后裔仍然是吴国的柱石之臣。     

"鹭舞"与"鹭鼓"

上个世纪40年代,闻一多先生《说鱼》1一文在考释"鱼"字的隐义时附带谈及"鹭",将鱼、鹭两者释为男女关系的两方,这应该是"鹭"与其他象征之错综复杂关系的一个方面.本文认为"鹭"的杂多象征关系中还有一个被以往学者已注意到但尚未展开的方面,即鹭与舞、鹭与鼓的关系.     

宋金遗民差异探因

元初的宋遗民与金遗民之间存在着差异,其原因可从夷夏观念的不同、君臣大义的强弱、对蒙元统治方式适应性的不同等方面来探讨。     

周公旦为鲁国始封之君说

谁是鲁国的始封之君 ,周公旦抑或其子伯禽 ?自古至今聚讼未决。今天的学者多主“伯禽封鲁”说 ,其主要依据为《鲁颂·宫》与《左传》定公四年所载的两条材料 ,但这两条材料明显有可疑之处。“伯禽封鲁”说之所以影响大 ,盖由崔述的鼓荡所致 ,然而崔氏的考证远非一贯正确。《左传》僖公二十四年说“鲁”是“文之昭”,这是一条铁证 ,证明了周公旦是鲁国的始封之君。历史上 ,周公旦曾两次封于鲁。但由于他是武王、成王两代人的助手 ,所以两次受封均不曾就国 ,而是由其长子伯禽代就封 ,故有“伯禽封鲁”说     

清代君臣语境下“奴才”称谓的使用及其意义

清代,八旗出身的文职官员和总兵以上的所有武职官员,在与皇帝奏对时自称奴才,成为清代君臣关系的一个重要特征。本文从历史主义的立场出发,详细考察了在君臣语境下,大臣中奴才称谓出现的背景、表现及其意义,揭示了奴才称谓变化背后复杂的政治、社会、观念诸方面的作用和影响。     

明代勋爵承袭与勋臣宗族活动初探

明代公、侯、伯勋爵承袭遵照一套完整的勘验制度,以诰券、宗图为准,由五府、吏部执行。在这种制度的整肃下,勋贵家族组织在形式上向上古封建宗法礼制靠拢,部分族众的宗族意识不断提高,明皇朝的统治秩序与政权合理性亦借此彰显。但随着明代中后期勋臣家族生齿日繁,兼之勋爵袭封制度出现纰漏与畸变,勋贵子弟争袭爵位的现象频繁发生,宗族的秩序性受到冲击,勋臣宗族组织僵化复古,依附于国家强权而缺乏自我调节功能的特性暴露无遗。     

论汉文帝

有着“仁”、改革家形象的汉帝,由于其即位的特殊的社会历史背景,使他在即位后进行一系列政治、经济改革的同时,出现了尊宠刘氏宗族和依靠重用老臣、宿将的局面。汉帝的这种报恩思想也赋予了他因循守旧和固守刘邦政治原则的形象,形成了他人格上的二重性。其结果,汉帝虽进行了一系列巩固政权的政治、经济改革,相反却促使诸侯坐大,加剧了统治阶级内部矛盾,经济改革措施则激化了阶级矛盾。     

浅谈唐太宗治国理念里的和谐意识

贞观之治是我国封建历史上著名盛世之一,它的形成原因很多,其中唐太宗治国理念里的和谐指导思想是其重要原因之一。文章从人才观、君臣观、君民观、民族观四方面阐述了唐太宗治国理念里的和谐意识及其作用。     

斯图亚特王朝早期议会与王权的斗争

斯图亚特王朝早期(1603-1642),以国王为代表的王权与以资产阶级和新贵族为代表的议会之间围绕着王室财政、宗教、外交及议会自身权利等问题,由矛盾到冲突,再到决裂,呈现逐步升级之态势。从斗争全过程来看,王权与议会斗争的实质是主权之争,而以议会处于强势为特征。议会之所以能在斗争中处于强势地位,根本原因在于人民群众斗争的推动。     

Political Time in a Westminster Democracy: The Canadian Case

Stephen Skowronek’s idea of political time is tested by applying it to Canada. Skowronek identified a recurring cycle in US presidential politics, in which a coalition was forged around a distinctive set of ideas, dominated the political scene, and then crumbled, making way for a new coalition; a president’s ability to act as an agent of change depended on his place in this cycle. The concept of political time offers insights for the study of Westminster democracies, but Skowronek’s typology cannot be transplanted from the US to the Canadian context. A political orthodoxy cannot be easily identified in Canada, and prime ministers cannot be clearly labeled as affiliated with or opposed to the ideas of a given era. Some seem determined to play a corrective role, accepting much of the orthodoxy but reconstructing some elements of it. This problem of classification is amplified by the very short term of some prime ministers, by the very long term of others, and by a multiparty system, which has meant that Canadians often end up with prime ministers who are out of synch with the dominant ideas of their age. When applying Skowronek’s ideas to Canada, they emerge as overly structural and not sensitive enough to the possibility that leaders can fail to perform according to type.     

How is Australianness represented by prime ministers?: Prime ministerial and party rhetoric of race,class, and gender on Australia Day and Anzac Day, 1990–2017

ABSTRACT

Australia Day and Anzac Day, held on January 26 and April 25 annually, are key moments used by prime ministers to share, shape, and reproduce their understanding of what and whom is representative of a unique Australian identity and nationalism. This paper uses qualitative and quantitative methods with content analysis to evaluate and compare prime ministerial and party rhetoric in their Australia Day and Anzac Day speeches between 1990 and 2017 regarding class and economic relations, gender and sexuality, and race and national identity. We ask: How have prime ministers as reflexive actors used their speeches on Australia Day and Anzac Day to represent what it means to be Australian? The study reveals that despite prime ministers sometimes using intentionally inclusive discourses, they simultaneously reproduce a classless, hetero-masculine, and Anglocentric Australianness as a normative representation of national identity in Australian society.     

George III and Parliament*

Circumstances were auspicious when George III came to the throne in 1760, but soon his political actions were much criticized and he was accused from early in his reign until well into the 20th century of weakening the independence of parliament and undermining the constitution. Some contemporaries did defend him and these views received powerful support from Sir Lewis Namier and his followers in the 20th century. Both interpretations have their flaws, however, because of the failure to recognize the profound changes in the context in which George acted over his long reign and the subtle changes that occurred in Britain's unwritten constitution over that half century. By examining how the king appointed and dismissed ministers, sought to influence the composition of both houses of parliament, and endeavoured to shape government policy, this article seeks to revise our understanding of the king's relations with parliament and the constitution and to relocate our overall assessment of him between those offered by his many critics and defenders both during his reign and long afterwards.