李白首次入京时间之考索

李白两入长安,现已得到我国学术界的普遍承认。但李白第一次入长安的具体时间还存在较大的分歧。稗山先生首先提出李白首次入京的时间是“约在开元二十六年夏至二十八年间;郭沫若先生则断定李白于开元十八年春夏之交入京,十九年夏出京;郁贤皓先生进而指出“李白从开元十八年夏秋间入京,到开元二十年正好三年”;李从军同志又在《李白第一     

李白与张垍交游新证

关于李白与张垍(ji)的关系,过去人们只知道一点,就是魏颢在《李翰林集序》中说的:天宝年间,李白供奉翰林,“以张均谗逐”。近年来读李白诗,旁稽诸唐人集,发现李白与张垍的交游并不自天宝年间始,而是在开元年间李白初入长安的时候,已经有过交往了。稗山先生曾在《中华文史论丛》,第二辑上发表《李白两入长安辩》,首创李白曾两次入长安之说,郭沫若同志在《李白与杜甫》中肯定了这一说法,并根据《上韩荆州书》中说     

李白两入长安及有关交游考辨

自从稗山先生发表《李白两入长安辨》(见《中华文史论丛》第二辑)以来,学术界有的同志已接受了李白曾两次进长安的主张,如郭沫若同志在《李白与杜甫》中不仅承认李白在开元年间到过长安,而且还推定第一次入京时间在开元十八年。但是,目前学术界仍有人不承认这个说法。如去年出版的复旦大学编写的《李白诗选》,把李白在长安及关内写的诗     

谈李白两人长安问题——对稗山先生有关论文的商榷

读了稗山先生在《中华文史论丛》第二辑发表的《李白两入长安辨》(以下简称《稗辨》)一文后,以为仅凭他有明文提出的资料与论述,尚不足以证实他的主张。稗山先生读书细致,发掘出前人未注意的李白关内诸诗“有思想感情上的复杂矛盾和时间先后上的混乱牴牾”等两项疑问,并把这一组诗从“思想感情的性质”上大体分为“身入翰林,青云得意的”、“遭受政治挫折的心情的”与“进身无门,彷徨苦闷的”等三类,大大增加     

北京一总裁助理“吞下”国资8千万 辩称“钱是个人的”

在1000多年前，唐代大诗人白居易初入都城长安时曾领受过一句教诲，“长安居，大不易”，另一位大诗人杜甫也曾发出“安得广厦千万间，大庇天下寒士俱欢颜”的感叹。如今京城疯了一样上涨的房价，令多少人不得不为之摧眉折腰，愁肠百结。政府也是想尽了办法来平抑房价，以图让“居者有其屋”。     

古典文论与审美鉴赏

论析鉴赏灵魂史文艺理论和文艺鉴赏原来是辅车相依,两者保持着“出”与“入”的密切联系。没有鉴赏之“入”,难以达到评论之“出”。为了“入”,就必须身临其境,悉心体会,洞烛深微,挹其生气,从而产生移情作用。为了符合“旁观者清”的要求,就须要“出”,即对作品作出全面观察,冷静衡量,反复回味,从而获得较之“入”更为完整深入的“高情至论”。     

公车和轿子

“公车”，是当今公款消费的一大块。这两个字出于《史记·东方朔传》：“朔初入长安，至公车上书，凡用三干奏牍。”汉代用公家车马接送应举的人，后便以“公车”泛指入京应试的举人。     

“决定提请”释为“必须提请”欠妥

把“决定提请”释意为“必须提请”,或释意为在不符合相关法定条件和程序时、或交有关专委会审议后“也可不予提请”这两种说法,我认为皆是欠妥的理解或不甚准确的说法和做法.     

说真话的难度

诗仙李白是何等人物!一句“安能摧眉折腰事权贵,使我不得开心颜”足以让中国的文人骚客扬眉吐气越千年。然而,就这样一位敢怒敢笑敢说的“仙”级诗人也有不敢的时候。史载,唐玄宗曾问李白:“我用人与武后比如何?”李白答:“则天皇后如何能和陛下     

对李白《望天门山》诗的几点看法

目前,中学语文界对李白《望天门山》诗的理解极不统一。不统一的地方集中在两点,一是诗人望天门山的立足点究竟在哪里?二是“日边”究应作何解释?下面我们想就这两个问题谈些看法。李白究竟在哪里望天门山?我们以为是在东来的船上。李白《自金陵诉流过白壁山玩月,达天门,寄句容主簿》一诗中有“进帆天门山”之句,《望天门山》中诗人的观景位     

What Should We Say We Say about Contrived ‘Self-Defense’ Defenses?

Imagine someone who deliberately provokes someone else into attacking him so that he can harm that person in defending himself against her attack and then claim “self-defense” when brought to court to defend himself for what he has done to her. Should he be allowed to use this defense, even though it’s clear that he has deliberately manipulated his attacker into attacking him precisely in order to be able to harm her with impunity (assuming he were allowed to use the defense and thus escape legal penalties)? This question is the focal point in the paper that follows. I argue first that the case described above is indeed an instance of an “actio libera in causa,” albeit arguably one at the margins of this controversial class of cases. Then, using a view about the justification of self-defense that I have defended elsewhere, I show why I believe that, while the manipulator should not be deprived of the legal right to defend his self-defensive actions in such cases by claiming they were a legitimate matter of self-defense, there is good reason to enact laws that will allow him to be prosecuted, independently of his “self-defense” defense, for manipulating his attacker as he did, thus allowing him to harm her in self-defense and then defend his actions as purely a matter of “self-defense.”     

身份犯及其相关概念辨析

身份犯是指刑法规定的以行为人所具有的特定身份作为犯罪构成要件或量刑情节的犯罪。身份犯不同于亲手犯和不作为犯,身份犯是以犯罪主体是否具有特定身份为标准对犯罪进行分类的结果,亲手犯是根据实行行为是否可以和主体相分离而对犯罪所作的一种分类,不作为犯则是以实行行为的表现形式为标准划分的一类犯罪,三者既有区别,又有联系。     

Vastutas tu: Methodology and the New School of Sanskrit Poetics

Recognizing newness is a difficult task in any intellectual history, and different cultures have gauged and evaluated novelty in different ways. In this paper we ponder the status of innovation in the context of the somewhat unusual history of one Sanskrit knowledge system, that of poetics, and try to define what in the methodology, views, style, and self-awareness of Sanskrit literary theorists in the early modern period was new. The paper focuses primarily on one thinker, Jagannātha Pa??itarāja, the most famous and influential author on poetics in the seventeenth century, and his relationship with his important sixteenth-century predecessor, Appayya Dīk?ita. We discuss Jagannātha’s complex system of labeling of ideas as “new” and “old,” the new essay style that he used to chart the evolution of ideas in his tradition, his notion of himself as an independent thinker capable of improving the system created by his predecessors in order to protect its essential assets, and the reasons his critique of Appayya was so harsh. For both scholars what emerges as new is not so much their opinions on particular topics as the new ways in which they position themselves in relation to their system.     

Reflections on Punishment from a Global Perspective: An Exploration of Chehtman’s The Philosophical Foundations of Extraterritorial Punishment

In this review essay, I offer reflections on three themes. I begin by exploring Alejandro Chehtman’s expressed methodological commitments. I argue that his views move him closer to Lon Fuller and away from the thin accounts offered by HLA Hart and Joseph Raz. Moreover, to make sense of his views, he must offer a more normatively robust theory of law. Second, I turn to his use of Raz’s theory of authority. I argue that Chehtman fails to distinguish between Raz’s views and his own, but more importantly, I maintain that his discussion of Raz is superfluous: in the course of “unpacking” Raz’s views, he leads us back to his own core theses. Finally, I explore Chehtman’s ability to deal with perennial worries that plague any attempt to offer a justification for International Criminal Law in general, and the International Criminal Court in particular (i.e., “victor’s justice”, “show trials”, “peace vs. justice”). I argue that unless Chehtman is able to demonstrate that the enforcement of International Criminal Law is able to impart dignity and security on the most vulnerable, his account will be significantly weakened.     

袁昶的仕隐困境与“玄又玄”诗歌风貌

在诗歌审美分化愈益明朗的背景下,袁昶首次从历史文化资源中发掘出"惊四筵"和"适独坐"的文学观念,并通过自己的诗歌创作去实现"适独坐"的文学审美."适独坐"在袁昶的诗中最起码包含两方面的内容:其一是乱世文人仕与隐的矛盾.袁昶一生徘徊于其中不能抉择,于是他通过各种途径营造"市隐"、"朝隐"、"吏隐"的境界,为自己安排一片休憩缓冲的家园.其二是仕隐的思想意蕴.袁昶的诗中山水与老庄并具,写景与玄理兼有,"玄又玄"是又一突出的特点.但是他的"玄又玄"不仅是老庄,而是老庄、理学、佛学甚至神仙思想兼而有之,又佐之考据学,从而呈现出驳杂深刻的状态.     

Military Veterans, Culpability, and Blame

Recently in Porter v. McCollum, the United States Supreme Court, citing “a long tradition of according leniency to veterans in recognition of their service,” held that a defense lawyer’s failure to present his client’s military service record as mitigating evidence during his sentencing for two murders amounted to ineffective assistance of counsel. The purpose of this Article is to assess, from the just deserts perspective, the grounds to believe that veterans who commit crimes are to be blamed less by the State than offenders without such backgrounds. Two rationales for a differential treatment of military veterans who commit crimes are typically set forth. The Porter Court raised each, stating that we should treat veterans differently “in recognition of” both “their service” and “the intense stress and mental and emotional toll” of combat. The former factor suggests there being a “social contributions” or gratitude-based discount, whereas the latter factor points towards a “mental disturbance” discount. This Article analyzes the two accounts and raises some doubts about both. This Article then argues that a military veteran who commits a crime should not be blamed to the full extent of his blameworthiness, not necessarily because of his mental capacity nor because of his social contribution, but because the State’s hand in producing his criminality undermines its standing to blame him.     

Mega/City/Crime: Notes on the Cultural Significance of Reggio’s Koyaanisqatsi (1982)

In his “non-narrative” film Koyaanisqatsi (Hopi for ‘life in imbalance’) Godfrey Reggio documents the ecologically disastrous ‘imbalanced’ life in modern, industrialised mega-cities. In the film, he seems to mourn the loss of what he suggests was a more ‘balanced’ form of life, when Man was one with nature. This contribution draws on elements in Hopi culture and reads Reggio’s iconic film as part of a cultural trend in which submission, in all its guises, is no longer accepted. In this cultural trend submission always is submission to code (that is: to a certain structured solidity or ordered coherence), and therefore, to wasteful destruction and to ‘life in imbalance’. This trend has, however, in the course of the decades, also spawned a void of “Luciferian” desires of absolute sovereignty, and has done this to such an extent as to undermine the conditions of possibility for anything like a non-submissive life ‘in balance’ to endure.

     

论废名诗歌观念的"传统"与"现代"

废名的诗歌观念既"传统"又"现代",代表了1930年代中国新诗艺术尝试的一个方向.与模仿西方诗学的思路不同,废名是将寻求新诗"现代"发展的目光,投向了中国古典诗歌传统,认同晚唐诗所表现出的"诗的内容"和"诗的感觉",从而在观念上超越了胡适等人偏重于从语言形式上划分诗之新旧的思路.同时,废名在创作中实践了晚唐诗深幽婉曲的艺术风格,并将之与其个人独特的禅宗意趣结合起来.废名的诗歌观念承袭了周作人的"文艺复兴"的文学观念,是以"现代"眼光重释和取舍"传统",打破了"传统"与"现代"非此即彼的割裂关系,表现出鲜活的创造力.     

论唐代"王孟"诗风对法式善诗歌创作的影响

法式善是乾嘉时期秉承唐代王孟诗风的重要诗人。乾隆盛世的诗学导向和淡泊的个性,成就了法式善以清雅见长的诗风。他在致力于对唐代王孟一派的摹写的同时,也在某种程度上表现出师法杜甫、白居易和晚唐诗风的诗歌倾向。正因为如此,在他那些熔铸着人生际遇、人文关怀和审美趣味的诗歌中,我们能够看到他在追踪王孟一派时,襟怀颇为包容,表现出了在唐诗影响下创作的多样性。这种多样性正是法式善作为清代诗人的独特价值所在。     

Punishment and Bad Upbringing

This article examines whether bad upbringing (or what is sometimes called a “rotten social background”) affects just or deserved punishment. There are two possible rationales for this claim. First, it may be argued that an offender’s blameworthiness for his choice to offend is reduced if he had a bad upbringing; second, it may be argued that fairness requires us to impose a less severe punitive burden on an offender with a bad upbringing, even if he is no less blameworthy for his crime. The article rejects both of these rationales.