张镃卒年考

张镃为南宋时著名诗人,因得罪权相史弥远而编管象州,其卒年目前尚无定论。吴泳制词"一偾二纪,遂死瘴乡"之"偾"字有死亡和仆倒两种解释,据此可判定张镃要么卒于1212年,要么卒于1234年。而通过字义、文法的考察,情理的推断以及文献的记载等,"偾"当释作死亡。也就是说,自吴泳端平二年(1235)作制,张镃已死瘴乡24年,故其卒年应为1212年。     

《全宋文》张镃残文一篇补正

<全宋文>卷六五六五所收张镃<拾宅誓愿疏文>只存"大乘菩萨:戒弟子承事郎、直秘阁、新权通判临安军府事兼管内劝农事张钹"至"昔相国曾闻□之建,今□在所未见"一段,并注明"已下原钞缺一页.<武林金石记>卷九.又见国家图书馆藏拓片·缪专二五三六."[1]     

张咏:特立独行的北宋名臣

正张咏(946—1015年),字复之,濮州鄄城(今山东鄄城)人,是北宋历史上颇具知名度的人物。他在《宋史》中与田锡、王禹偁合传,史官论曰:"三人者,躬骨鲠蹇谔之节,蔚为名臣。"张咏太平兴国五年(980年)中进士,在朝历任太常博士、枢密直学士、御史中丞、礼部尚书等官。在地方任过崇阳知县、杭州知府、荆湖北路转运使等职,还曾两度出知益州(今成都)。大中祥符八年(1015年)病逝于陈州(今河南淮阳),     

民国首任关务署署长张福运

正提起张福运这个名字,很多人不知他是何许人也,而他恰恰是一位为中国收复关税自主权及海关行政管理权作出卓越贡献的人,并且他与上海也有着很深的渊源。一、充满传奇的一生张福运1890年生于山东福山(今烟台),早年在家乡私塾受教,12岁时入美国长老会教士创办的烟台毓璜顶英文学馆(简称英文馆)学习。1910年考取清华庚款注留美预备班,次     

不应遗忘的革命乡贤张忞

正张忞(1851—1925年),原名张铭,字普,贵州贵筑县(今贵阳市)人,贵州辛亥革命先驱人物之一。其先祖张时通明天启年间曾官任礼部尚书,因忤魏忠贤被贬谪至贵州安平(今平坝县),后移居贵阳而入籍贵筑。时常训诫子孙曰:"勿入宦途,耕读传家。"张氏世代遵训,子孙均以教书     

回忆李新先生

正我于1964年来到中国科学院哲学社会科学学部近代史研究所(今中国社会科学院近代史研究所),李新先生也在近代史所工作。不过,当时还不到50岁的他,已经算是资历较深的老同志了,所以开始时,我基本见不到他。不久,整个学部都开始为到各地参加"四清"运动作准备,经常组织学习。其中有几次,李新先生来     

新疆土鲁番出土的几种唐代织锦

丝绸工艺是中国古代劳动人民的一项伟大发明。早在商代(公元前十六世纪——十一世纪),我国就能织造菱格形回纹的丝织品绮;到公元前三世纪,即以盛产丝绸而被誉称"东方丝国",当时丝绸就已经成为向外输出的重要商品。中国丝绸源源运往波斯(今伊朗)、罗马(今地中海东部一带)等地,这种盛况一直继续到唐代中期。那时从长安经河西走廊出玉门关、阳关,通往西方的南北两条通道,后世历史学家就称之为"丝绸之路"。     

张镃生卒年考

张镃,旧字时可,由于仰慕北宋郭功父,故易之字功父(按：张镦《仕学规范》的原序尾载“淳熙岁丙申四月秦川张镦时可序”。又杨万里《诚斋集》卷二十一有《张功父,旧字时可,慕郭功父,故易之,求予书其意,再赠五字》云：“冰雪相投处,风期一笑间。只令张桂隐,绝慕郭青山。功父双何远,相如了不关。鸟飞暮天碧,此句急追还。”考郭功父,即北宋人郭祥正,《宋史》卷四百四十四有传。)。号约斋,祖籍成纪(今甘肃天水),南渡后居临安(今浙江杭州)。张俊曾孙,张炎之曾祖父。有《南湖集》二十五卷,已佚。清四库馆臣据《永乐大典》辑为十卷,其中诗九卷,词一卷。另有《仕学规范》、《诗学规范》、《梅品》、《四并集》、《桂隐百课》、《玉照堂词》行于世。     

胡焕庸描述中国经济地理特征

<正>1935年,著名地理学家胡焕庸(1901—1998)研究分析当时全国各地人口数据,制订了一张中国人口分布图。这张图显示中国人口分布呈东南地区稠密、西北地区稀疏的特点。胡先生所揭示的这个特点与人们的经验完全相符,但是他是以严谨的科学态度和准确的统计数据来说话的。他指出,在当时中国的版图上从黑龙江的瑷珲(今黑河市爱辉区)到云南的腾冲,如果划一条直线,这条直线就是中国人口分布的自然界线。线之东南以36%的国土面积集聚了96%的人口,     

范仲淹与梅尧臣及其三篇《灵乌赋》

<正>范仲淹(989—1052),字希文,吴县(今属江苏)人,北宋真宗时期进士。提起范仲淹,人们很快会想起他"先天下之忧而忧,后天下之乐而乐"的名言,他能够在封建官场的污泥里洁身自好,是少有的表里如一的封建时代为官楷模之一。梅尧臣(1002—1060)字圣俞,宣州宣城(今属安徽)人,     

Asylum seekers,Ireland, and the return of the repressed

Abstract

In 2014 residents in Direct Provision Centres for asylum seekers staged a series of protests. The protests, which coincided with the appointment of a new Minister for Justice who announced the Irish government’s plans to reform the asylum system, voiced three clear demands. Firstly, the protestors demanded that all asylum centres be closed; secondly, they demanded that all residents be given the right to remain and work in Ireland; and thirdly, they demanded an end to all deportations. The government’s response to these protests was to appoint a working group in October 2014, made up of representatives of migrant-support NGOs (but without any significant representation of asylum seekers themselves) while also announcing that it intends to reform rather than abolish the system.

Against this background, this paper makes three interlinked theoretical propositions. Firstly, I propose that just as the Irish state and society managed to ignore workhouses, mental health asylums, “mother and baby homes”, Magdalene laundries and industrial schools, they also “manage not to know” of the plight of asylum seekers, precisely because the Direct Provision system isolates asylum applicants, makes them dependent on bed and board and a small “residual income maintenance payment to cover personal requisites”, and makes it difficult for them to organise on a national level. “Managing not to know”, or disavowing, entails the erasure of the Direct Provision system from Ireland’s collective consciousness at a time when increasing emigration is returning to haunt Irish society after years of refusing to confront the pain of emigration. I argue that asylum seekers represent the return of Ireland’s repressed that confronts Irish people, themselves e/migrants par excellence. Secondly, I propose that by taking action and representing themselves, the residents of Direct Provision Centres can no longer be theorised as Agamben’s “bare life”, at the mercy of sovereign power, to whom everything is done and who are therefore not considered active agents in their own right. The third proposition responds to the theme of this special issue, that multiculturalism is “in crisis”, arguing in the conclusion that this “crisis” hardly applies to Ireland, where the brief flirtations with “interculturalism” by state, society but also Irish studies disavow race and racism in favour of a returning obsession with emigration, which enables the continued disavowal of the experiences of asylum seekers in Direct Provision.