第19筆 /總和 21 筆
/ 21 筆
/ 21 筆
頁籤選單縮合
| 題 名 | 武力外交與侵略戰爭--蔣孟引與二十世紀第二次鴉片戰爭史研究的兩次變革=Armed Diplomacy and Imperialist Wars: Jiang Mengyin and Two Transformations in Twentieth-Century Historiography of the Second Opium War |
|---|---|
| 作 者 | 鄒子澄; | 書刊名 | 新史學 |
| 卷 期 | 36:1 2025.03[民114.03] |
| 頁 次 | 頁159-230 |
| 分類號 | 627.72 |
| 關鍵詞 | 蔣孟引; 第二次鴉片戰爭; 歷史書寫; 馬克思主義史學; Jiang Mengyin; The second opium war; Historical writing; Chinese Marxist historiography; |
| 語 文 | 中文(Chinese) |
| 中文摘要 | 以第二次鴉片戰爭研究史而言，蔣孟引在 1939 年留學倫敦時完成的 博士論文、及回國後以此為基礎在 1965 年改訂的中文專著，充分展 示二十世紀中國史學、政治與世界觀的變化與相互影響。兩書各自 代表引入西方現代史學與馬克思主義史學對此領域帶來的變革。蔣 孟引業師韋伯斯特(C. K. Webster)具有的國際主義與現代史學理念， 促成他的博士論文描繪英國因外交失敗而訴諸「武力外交」，中國 則扮演始終尋求和平的角色。不過，在承認英國亦有苦衷時，該文 也努力反駁英國學界的流行看法，強調英國缺乏發動戰爭的理據。 但 1965 年的專著完全採用譴責帝國主義侵略戰爭的馬克思主義史 學觀點。這一改寫可部分視為蔣孟引經歷接連的政治運動後，證明 自我思想改造的產物。但這部著作仍在實踐上堅持其早年篤信的現 代史學方法，並非只是屈從權威的違心之作，仍應被視為在研究薄 弱的第二次鴉片戰爭史領域上，探索和建立馬克思主義史學權威的 積極嘗試。最後該書雖因不符當時的典範與政治需要，遭到丁名楠 撰文批判，蔣孟引亦全面轉入世界史的教學研究中，但在數十年後， 該書卻能樹立在此領域的經典地位。這個故事不僅關乎蔣孟引一生 政治學術思想的延續與轉變，同時也是二十世紀第二次鴉片戰爭詮 釋方式變遷的縮影。這不僅展示了中國近代史科學研究興起的多元 性，亦揭示馬克思主義史學家轉變過程中容易被忽視的延續性。 |
| 英文摘要 | The study of the Second Opium War in twentieth-century China reveals a nuanced interplay between historiography, politics, and worldview. Two significant examples—Jiang Mengyin’s 1939 doctoral dissertation and his revised 1965 Chinese monograph—illustrate how Western modern historiography and Chinese Marxist historiography reshaped China’s understanding of the war. Supervised by C. K. Webster, Jiang’s dissertation adopted an internationalist and modern historiographical approach, challenging traditional narratives. It portrayed the war as a consequence of Britain’s failed diplomacy and subsequent “armed diplomacy,” while framing China as committed to making peace. Though the work acknowledged some justifications for “armed diplomacy” put forth by British scholars, it largely rejected them, placing primary blame on Britain. Jiang's 1965 monograph, however, advanced a Marxist critique of imperialist aggression. Amid frequent political movements on campus, this transformation reflected Jiang’s thought reform. Nonetheless, the revised work also represented an ambitious attempt by Chinese Marxist historians to intervene in the under-researched field of the Second Opium War. Although Ding Mingnan criticized the work for diverging dominant interpretative practices, it later gained recognition as a classic in the field. This article not only traces the evolution of Jiang’s political and academic thought but also broader shifts in the interpretation of the Second Opium War throughout the twentieth century. It underscores both the diversity inherent in the development of modern Chinese historiography and the overlooked continuities in the intellectual experiences of historians shaped by a Marxist worldview. |
本系統中英文摘要資訊取自各篇刊載內容。