传统宗族观念的传承与嬗变——清代台湾社会螟蛉子风俗之探析

清代台湾社会的螟蛉子风俗甚为盛行,这与台湾移民社会的特殊历史环境有关。在社会普遍接受螟蛉子习俗的同时,螟蛉子仍处于较低的地位,这从财产继承的民间惯例可以得到反映;而政府的法律规范更凸显了螟蛉子的尴尬地位。尽管如此,政府在落实法律规范时仍不得不鉴于现实而作出调适与折中。这些都体现了传统宗族观念在台湾的传承与嬗变。     

试论清朝前期厦门海外贸易管理

康熙开海后,厦门海外贸易迅速发展,清政府成立了厦门海关,对海外贸易进行征税,同时,委派管理人员,并制定管理海外贸易条例,加强海外贸易的管理。     

"教育使节"容闳和近代中国首批留学生的派遣

容闳是近代学西方的先驱之一,也是晚清最早派出的驻美副使.他的生平活动同太平天国、洋务运动、戊戍变法、辛亥革命都有联系.本文着重介绍他为派遣留学生和主要作为从事教育文化交流的外交人员所作出的努力.     

曹植:文艺新时代的开拓者

曹植一生文采风流,后期诗赋散文均达到很高的艺术境界。无论是运用审美眼光去观察生活,开掘生活的美,还是运用形象思维,艺术地表现生活,传达思致;或文学语言的锤炼、诗赋体制的更新,他都作出了超越前人的贡献,诚为文学新时代的开拓者。     

清末宗室觉罗刑事诉讼中的检察厅职权

宣统二年(1910年)五月颁行的《宗室觉罗诉讼章程》明确规定了满清皇族的司法特权.因皇族特权的"入侵",原由《法院编制法》等赋予检察厅的多项具体职权受到了一定限制.由于检察厅是国家整体利益的代表,因此,仅为皇族利益而侵蚀、压制检察厅职权,这种制度设计是缺乏理性的.尽管消除皇族特权等司法不平等现象是一个长期的艰巨的任务,但在主张司法平等、司法透明的力量的作用下,皇族在刑事诉讼上的司法特权必然会被驱逐出历史舞台.     

记昆明萧氏事及其旧藏文物

昆明萧质斋、萧绍庭先生 ,前清咸丰、同治、光绪年间名士显宦 ,周一良先生的外曾祖父和外祖父。从史志和萧氏父子及同代人诗文集中的有关资料 ,可以一览萧氏父子的业绩 ,寄托周先生对生母和外家的怀念之情     

清代诗人结社丛考——以杭州地区为中心

清代浙江省会杭州,诗人结社活动非常兴盛,各种社团层出不穷.其中“蕉园诗社”“南屏诗社”“古欢吟会”“潜园吟社”“东轩吟社”“铁花吟社”等有些规模和影响比较大的诗社,学术界已见研究.而其他还有不少社团,则目前缺乏探讨.文章就魏成宪“苔岑兰会”、邹绅“古藤书屋诗社”、汪曾唯“千龄会”三个社团做考察,或可弥补这方面的不足.     

清末贵州石门坎苗族信仰基督教原因浅析

100年前由柏格里引发的石门坎苗民短时间内大规模信仰基督教的史实,有现实的原因,也有历史的原因。     

明、清西南边疆治理措施之比较

明、清统治者基本上都继承了汉唐以来传统的“守中治边”、“守在四夷”的治边思想,都放弃了元朝以边疆地区为基地,积极用兵开拓徼外的做法。但由于所处时代以及面临的时代问题不尽相同,明、清统治者在对西南边疆的认识及治理思想上亦存在着较为明显的差异。受治边思想的支配,就使明、清两代在经营西南地区时,在具体举措上既有相似之处即清对明的继承,也有清朝基于时代的发展而具有的一些独到之处。由于明、清加大了对开发西南的政策和人力物力的投入,把西南与内地的政治、经济、文化联系提升到前所未有的高度。同时西南也在更大的范围内参加到全国的经济活动中来,成为全国经济发展不可缺少的重要组成部分。     

The Power of Mercy: Amnesty Policies in Fugitive Cases in the Qing Dynasty

A new statute, “Hiding New and Old Fugitive Slaves of Manchus,” was added to the first version of the Qing code in 1647, and this statute surprisingly regulated that any offenders would be excluded from any amnesties. This is especially noteworthy because, according to both Ming and Qing codes, only severe crimes, such as treason and rebellion, were excluded from any amnesties. Previous scholars have not considered why the statute excluded any amnesties, nor have they analyzed how this amnesty policy was implemented in practice. This article contends that the exclusion did not arise from Manchu tradition. Instead, it was an exceptional response to the norms of amnesties in the Ming and Qing codes. Because the fugitive problem, involving slaves of Manchus fleeing from the banner system, endangered Manchus’ interests, the Qing court was compelled to exclude fugitive criminals from amnesties. However, the Qing court did not strictly apply the amnesty policy of this statute. Criminals in fugitive cases were sometimes pardoned because of amnesties during the Dorgon regency period. Dorgon, Shunzhi, Oboi, and Kangxi all initially excluded those harboring fugitives from amnesties, but later changed their amnesty policies in this regard. Even though the crime of harboring fugitives became a permanent symbol of Manchu rule and was recorded in every emperor’s enthronement edict from Kangxi to Xuantong, the Qing court gradually came to accept norms concerning amnesties as practiced in Han society and treated fugitive cases as ordinary court cases during and after the Kangxi emperor’s reign.