辽代荫补制度考

辽代荫补主要分"常荫"与"难荫"两种,荫补对象涉及直系亲属、旁系亲属。辽代九品官员即具有荫补资格,荫补范围比宋初、金代广泛。辽代官员荫补子弟有员额限制,九品官可荫子四人,官品越高,荫补子弟的名额也越多。总体看,其荫补员额比南宋、金代皆多。辽代承荫者多因为自身能力出众而进入政坛中、高层,政治前途比宋、金荫补者更为光明。尽管辽代荫补制度在某种程度上导致了北方文化的滞后,但它促成了辽代汉族世家大族与契丹贵族的联合,对巩固辽朝统治具有积极意义。     

西安曲江新出土北宋郭遘墓志

一九八七年,雁塔区曲江乡西曲江池村砖厂新出土北宋郭遘墓志一合。志盖被破坏、惟有墓志保存较好。志为方形,高63宽64、厚10厘米。三十一行、满行三十字,共七百九十五字。朝议大夫致仕贾蕃撰文,供备库副使葛(?)书,内殿崇班王汴篆盖。据墓志铭文载、死者为郭遘、字通叔、唐汾阳王郭子仪之后、官内殿崇班、西京皇城司巡检。元祐四年(公元1089年)五月十四日卒,同年八月二十三日葬于京兆府万年县龙首乡芙蓉原。该志的出土为研究宋史及郭氏世系提供了新的实物资料。墓志全文如下: 宋故内殿崇班新差西京皇城司巡检上骑都尉郭公墓志铭并序     

郭逵平定党令征事变考析

北宋时期,属吐蕃杂落的党留族等蕃人居住在陇山之西、秦渭之间的德顺军与秦州交界处。治平四年(1067),揆吴川一带的党留族首领党令征等杀死巡检陈敢,聚众作乱,签枢密院事兼陕西西路安抚使郭逵率军上陇平乱,成功招抚揆吴川、青鸡川蕃族。为调和民族关系,兴筑治平、鸡川二寨,并且把边壕自静边寨段继续向西南掘进,与早年曹玮主持开掘的镇戎—德顺州段、秦州段边壕相接,为当时边疆稳定做出了重要贡献。     

北宋文武官员恩荫制度探究

北宋时期以恩荫补官极为盛行,官员子弟入仕多不由科举,而是通过各种名目的恩荫补得正官、散阶、馆阁职、试衔或得赐出身。宋仁宗朝,面对滥行恩荫的状况,范仲淹提出了“抑侥幸”之策。但从内容看,抑侥幸之策完全是建立在照顾大官僚及其亲属利益基础上的一项改良措施,带有很大的折中性和调和性。而崇宁、政和间改订的荫补办法,在指导思想上更没有走出“荫贵”和“荫亲”的框套。北宋滥施恩荫的结果,既加重了冗官之弊,又导致官吏整体素质下降,腐败了社会政治生活。     

“羊牧隆”、“邪没笼”名义解析——兼论陇山地域朝那湫与联池湫的关系

羊牧隆城是北宋天禧元年（1017）曹玮经营＂六盘山外＂过程中带领军民于葫芦河上游修筑的＂山外四寨＂之一,后来改名隆德寨并成为德顺军防区下的一个重要镇寨。本文根据宋人范育关于地名＂聚卜结隆＂为蕃语,＂十八为‘聚卜结’,谓谷‘隆’,盖言诸谷共凑一川耳＂的语言现象,分析＂羊牧隆＂、＂邪没笼＂是由蕃语＂羊牧（邪没）＂和＂隆（笼）＂两个词构成的地名;＂羊牧＂意为黑水,＂羊牧隆＂就是黑水河谷的意思。羊牧隆城附近的邪没陇川及其源头北联池的神主是＂黑龙大王＂,蕃语＂羊牧隆＂乃唐宋时期吐蕃人对六盘山之西的黑水与黑水龙君庙（祠）的意译。由此可推论,六盘山区的北联池湫神及华亭、静宁的乱石湫神与先秦以来的朝那湫龙崇拜有渊源关系,是朝那龙湫文化发展传播的结果。     

苏轼《月夜泛舟听琴》碑刻的三度沉浮

<正>在阜阳历史上,北宋时期晏殊、欧阳修、苏轼等一批文化名人先后知颍州,不仅写下了大量赞美颍州及西湖的诗文墨迹,而且立下了不少的碑刻。北宋治平四年（1067年）颍州太守陆经（字子履,书法家）,将皇祐二年（1050年）欧阳修离开颍州后所写的13首《思颍诗》,刻在颍州北城内的署衙;熙宁三年至熙宁五年（1070年至1072年）颍州太守吕公著主持为欧阳修《思颍诗》后续17篇诗作刻石立碑。元祐六年（1091年）闰八月,苏轼知颍州,     

王曾上契丹事疏证稿

大中祥符六年,知制诰王曾充使, 《续资治通鉴长编)卷七十九,大中祥符五年冬十月己酉:“以主客郎中知制诰王曾为契丹国主生辰使,宫苑使、荣州刺史高继勋副之;屯田郎中兼侍御史、知杂事李士龙为正旦使,内殿崇班閤门祗候李余懿副之。旧制:出使必假官,继勋本秩既崇,不复假官,自是为例。契丹使邢祥诧其国中亲贤赐铁券,曾折之曰:‘铁卷者,衰世以宠权臣,用安反侧,岂所以待亲贤耶?’祥愧不复语。”颜案:祥,统和二十年进士及第,二十九年五月及太平七年十一月两知贡举。开泰二年正月任给事中.《辽史》著录其人     

治平元宝厚重钱

治平元宝铸于宋英宗治平年间（1064～1067年）,各地都有出土发现,形制小平,有铜铁两种,钱文有篆,真两体,传世铜钱较多,铁钱较少,但铜钱中未见特殊品。一般钱体不厚重,据高汉铭先生编著的《简明古钱辞典》271页记载,“钱径24mm,重3.9g左右”。     

乱伦：让欧阳修蒙羞的政治陷害

说起来欧阳修其实挺倒霉的,庆历五年（1045）,他在知制诰（负责起草诏令的官职）的任上,被姐姐的继女控告乱伦而身陷囹圄,罪名最终被洗清,但风言风语一直不曾停息。20多年以后,治平四年（1067）,他已经61岁,再次被殿中御史蒋之奇指控调戏大儿媳吴氏。这一次他又被证明是清白的。     

民国35年林遵率舰队收复西沙南沙群岛

林遵,原名林准,福州人,烟台海军学校驾驶十八届学生。民国17年（1928年）烟台海校停办,林遵和同学一起转入马尾海军学校完成学业。次年被选派赴英国留学,学成归国．先后担任海军枪炮官、航海官和副舰长等职。民国26年又赴德国潜艇学校深造．民国28年回国参加抗日战争．     

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.