William Morris Hughes,Empire and Nationalism: The Legacy of the First World War

Despite the amplitude with which Prime Minister W. M. Hughes voiced Australian claims during the First World War, his conduct in the immediate postwar years shows that his nationalism remained consistent with an imperial and British standpoint. This proposition is illustrated with reference to Hughes' role in the 1921 imperial conference, the Chanak crisis, and his post-prime ministerial memoir. While obsessed with expedients to improve the speed and scope of intra-imperial communications and thus facilitate consultation, Hughes was concerned to ensure that Australia played a proper role in arriving at a consensus on the deep common interest that unified Britain and the Dominions. His lack of concern for extending the scope for independent action won by the Dominions during the war, his dismissive remarks regarding the British role in the League of Nations, and the vehemence of his communications with London in 1922, must all be seen within the context of an imperial loyalty that survived the war undiminished.     

Introduction: Remembering the Religious History of A. E. (Tony) Cahill (1933–2004) and Patrick O’Farrell (1933–2003)

This article provides an introduction to a special issue of the Journal of Religious History on the theme religion and memory based on papers presented at the 20th International Congress of Historical Sciences held at the University of New South Wales, Sydney in July 2005. The special issue was prepared as a memorial tribute to the Australian historians Tony Cahill (1933–2004) and Patrick O’Farrell (1933–2003). Patrick O’Farrell made significant contributions to the histories of Ireland, Irish Australia, migration, place and memory. Tony Cahill was a former editor of the Journal of Religious History who published a number of biographical studies of the Irish‐born Archbishop of Sydney, Cardinal Francis Moran (1830–1911). The introduction provides a review summary of the published work of Patrick O’Farrell and brief notes about the seven articles which make up the special issue. The Appendix includes a full bibliography of the published writing of Patrick O’Farrell.     

从"货币战"到"有限合作"——1933-1936年美英法三国货币外交

20世纪30年代经济大萧条背景下,美英法三国的货币政策特别是汇率政策取决于各国如何权衡国内经济恢复和国际汇率稳定.1931年英镑贬值、1933年美元贬值都是美英当局把货币贬值作为刺激总需求和出口的主要手段.金本位制的崩溃和英镑、美元的相继贬值使国际金融和贸易体系处于分割和对立的状态.美国对国内经济恢复的重视、英国对自治领的义务、法国对金本位的固执导致1933年三方货币合作会谈的失败.不过,随着英美两国经济的恢复,特别是希特勒德国加紧重新武装所造成的欧洲紧张局势促使美国决策层积极推动美英法三方货币合作.从货币集团分割和竞争性贬值的"货币战"发展到1936年9月后三国在汇率政策上的"有限合作",这种关系转变不仅是美国决策层"思想进展"的结果,而且是特定国际形势的产物.因此,1936年的美英法<三方货币稳定协议>具有深刻的政治含义.     

"流氓的补偿":新政改革与中央低层行政人员地位的转变

人员问题是清末新政改革所面临的两大问题之一.新的中央体制运行所依赖的大部分官僚没有跟上新的培训、被称为"流氓"的"书吏"们滥用权力以寻租补偿且人浮于事.1910年发生在民政部低层人员之间的交恶以及民政部在全国范围的内部考试这两个事件说明了官职竞争及层级提升的异常激烈,谋求权位的仕途吸引力并未随实施新政而发生变化.     

长安光宅寺七宝台浮雕石佛群像的风格、图像及复原探讨

关于长安光宅寺七宝台浮雕石佛群像,前人研究已经很丰富.但是在风格、图像及复原等三个问题上还存在很多争议. 1.数量、年代、风格 关于七宝台浮雕石佛群像的造像年代,一种意见认为属于不同时期.如福山敏男1950年在<宝庆寺派石佛的分类>①一文中辨别出29件七宝台造像的年代分别属于贞观前期、武周长安年间和开元年间三个不同的时期.另一种意见,如1981年本山路美认为开元年间的铭文为追刻、这批群像都是长安年间作为七宝台内部庄严物品在德感的指导下完成的②.     

织绣文物中的寿字装饰

我国于汉代已经在织锦的铭文中使用寿字.到明清时期,寿字与象征长寿的仙桃、菊花、仙鹤及寓意连绵万代的葫芦、字和寓意喜庆幸福的灯笼、蝙蝠等组成吉祥图案。寿宇的字体也随着时代的发展而不断丰富。本文按时代顺序将寿字的字形排列梳理,不仅可供读者了解其丰富的文化内涵.而且根据寿宇的字形变化.可作为判断织绣文物年代的一种依据。     

Lawmakers' Preferences for Bureaucratic Discretion: The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and the Telecommunications Act of 1996

Research on delegation stresses that chief executives are “privileged actors” well positioned to influence bureaucratic policy decisions. Therefore, legislative coalitions provide less authority to agencies when they disagree with executives about what policy should look like. Otherwise, executives would take advantage of voluminous agency discretion to direct bureaucrats to make decisions inconsistent with legislative coalitions’ policy goals. I stress that, in the U.S. lawmaking system, congressional committees are also privileged actors. As such—as with the president—those who experience policy disagreement with committees should wish to limit bureaucratic discretion. In addition, I examine individual lawmakers’ preferences for bureaucratic discretion to evaluate this perspective on agency design. As policy disagreement increases between senators and the Senate committee that oversees the agency/agencies receiving authority, senators prefer to limit the volume of discretion agencies receive.