是“象征性权威”,还是国家主权再构建?——对《剑桥中国晚清史》中有关西藏历史书写的思考  

Is It"Symbolic Authority"or Reconstruction of National Sovereignty?:Reflections on the Writing of Tibetan History in The Cambridge History of China.Volume 10:Late Ch'ing,1800-1911

作　　者：刘文鹏[1] 姜海若 Liu Wenpeng;Jiang Hairuo

机构地区：[1]中国人民大学清史研究所,北京100872

出　　处：《复印报刊资料（中国近代史）》2023年第6期73-85,共13页MODERN HISTORY OF CHINA

基　　金：中国历史研究院重大研究专项历史经验研究专题委托项目(项目号:20@WTH016)阶段性成果。

摘　　要：傅礼初在《剑桥中国晚清史(1800-1911)》中西藏部分的论述中,沿袭伯戴克“保护关系论”的思路,提出了清朝在西藏仅拥有象征性权威的观点,并基于此观点对相关史事进行了片面化的解读。本文通过对书中观点和史事解读的分析,在吸取傅氏观点和缺憾的基础上,从历时性研究和制度史两方面对清朝的国家构建路径的研究进行了再思考。In the content of the late Qing portion of The Cambridge History of China,Joseph Fletcher followed Luciano Petech's"Theory of protective relations"and put forward the view that the Qing dynasty had only symbolic authority in Tibet.Based on this view,the relevant historical events were interpreted one-sidedly.Through the analysis of article views and historical interpretation,based on absorbing Fletcher's views and shortcomings,this paper rethinks the research on the path of state building in Qing Dynasty from two aspects of diachronic research and institutional history.

关 键 词：《剑桥中国晚清史》 清朝国家构建 制度史 西藏历史 

分 类 号：K252[历史地理—历史学] D691[历史地理—中国史]