Vico's science of imagination

I argue that despite the various ways in which Fichte separates right from morality in his 1796/97 Foundations of Natural Right, he nevertheless suggests in the writings from the period of his professorship at the University of Jena that there is a reciprocal relation between them. This requires, however, reading the Foundations of Natural Right in the light of The System of Ethics, which was published in 1798, especially the account of the ethical duties deriving from a person's membership of a profession that Fichte gives in this work. Although this approach allows us to attribute to Fichte a different conception of the state to the amoral one found in the Foundations of Natural Right, I argue that the separation of right from morality developed in this work remains valid and amounts to one of Fichte's main achievements, namely, his identification of the different dispositions that may characterize an individual's relation to the society in which he or she lives. This point is developed by comparing Fichte's amoral conception of the state to Hegel's account of civil society as the ‘state of necessity’. This does not involve an attempt to turn Fichte into Hegel but to show how the insights contained in Fichte's distinction between right and morality can be illuminated with reference to Hegel's theory of civil society and can be retained in the face of a powerful criticism that Hegel makes of the kind of contract theory of the state offered by Fichte.     

南朝禁卫武官组织系统考

南朝禁卫武官制度主要是对东晋制度的继承和变革。南朝同样有以领军将军/中领军和护军将军/中护军为核心的禁卫武官制度,其下有左、右卫将军等各级禁卫武官。刘宋还陆续恢复了前代卫尉、虎贲中郎将、武卫将军、积射将军、强弩将军等禁卫之职。南齐明确规定左、右卫将军以下禁卫诸职构成“西省”,与散骑诸职构成的“东省”相对。刘宋末年还出现了直将军,负责殿禁卫,极为机要。南齐直将军有了更大的发展,梁代又置位尊于直将军的朱衣直将军。南朝复置卫尉并具有“掌宫城管钥”的禁卫职能。《隋书·礼仪志六》所载大量低级禁卫武官名称,其中亦体现了梁天监旧制。     

Othering,governing, and resistance of abject urban animals: Egyptian geese and their right to the city

In this paper, we examine the controversy over the use of urban green spaces and water bodies by Egyptian geese in the German city of Frankfurt am Main as an example of more-than-human political conflicts over the right to an environmentally just city. Specifically, we analyze the media discourse and interviews that we conducted as multispecies go-alongs to identify how othering in media and policy constitutes Egyptian geese legally and discursively as “alien, invasive, and aggressive” as well as “disgusting, polluting, and health-threatening.” This othering constructs Egyptian geese as abject animals and justifies their governing through “geese management” technologies, ranging from monitoring to atmospheric engineering and to killing the birds. While the management objective is to displace the Egyptian geese from urban spaces dedicated for human recreation, these spaces also turn out to be places of animal resistance.     

William Laud and the Parliamentary Politics of 1628–9

This article seeks to highlight the important part played by Bishop William Laud in the counsels of Charles I in the 1620s, and, in particular, his involvement in the parliamentary sessions of 1628 and 1629. Having demonstrated his usefulness as a parliamentary spokesman for the crown in the parliaments of 1625 and 1626, and having been promoted to the privy council, the parliament of 1628–9 witnessed the height of Laud's parliamentary engagement. His key role as a writer of memoranda and speeches both for the duke of Buckingham and for Charles himself demonstrate the weight accorded to his political views. These views, reflected in his writings, sermons and his contributions to parliamentary debate, embody a dislike of parliamentary bargaining, a firm commitment to uphold the royal prerogative, particularly in matters of taxation, and a determination to resist encroachments upon it by the common lawyers, whether by the confirmation of Magna Carta or in the form of the Petition of Right. The expression of these views in such an emphatic fashion would come back to bite him, in the parliamentary attacks on him in 1629, but above all at his trial in 1644. Nevertheless, his articulation of them suggests that Laud himself was a more considered political thinker, and a more active politician, than he has hitherto been given credit for, and that there were ideas around in influential conciliar circles that do not appear to reflect the ‘anti‐absolutist’ consensus that, it is widely claimed, prevailed within the early Stuart political nation.