Translucent Mirror: History and Identity in Qing Imperial Ideology

by Pamela Kyle Crossley

In this landmark exploration of the origins of nationalism and cultural identity in China, Pamela Kyle Crossley traces the ways in which a large, early modern empire of Eurasia, the Qing (1636-1912), incorporated neighboring, but disparate, political traditions into a new style of emperorship. Drawing on a wide variety of primary sources, including Manchu, Korean, and Chinese archival materials, Crossley argues that distortions introduced in seventeenth- and eighteenth-century historical records have blinded scholars to the actual course of events in the early years of the dynasty. This groundbreaking study examines the relationship between the increasingly abstract ideology of the centralizing emperorship of the Qing and the establishment of concepts of identity in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, before the advent of nationalism in China.

Concluding with a broad-ranging postscript on the implications of her research for studies of nationalism and nation-building throughout modern Chinese history, A Translucent Mirror combines a readable narrative with a sophisticated, revisionary look at China's history. Crossley's book will alter current understandings of the Qing emperorship, the evolution of concepts of ethnicity, and the legacy of Qing rule for modern Chinese nationalism.

Genres: History, China, Asia

423 pages, Paperback

First published January 16, 2000

About the author

Pamela Kyle Crossley is an historian who specializes in the history of modern China and northern Asia. Currently, she is Professor of History at Dartmouth College. She is a founding appointment of the Dartmouth Society of Fellows.

Reviews

[Ellie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Allow me to just say this: Crossley as an unfathomably unengaging style of writing.

[he chow · Rating 5 out of 5]

若以正確的角度觀之，謊言也能變成真理。

Every lie is a truth, of course, if seen from the right angle.
當然，若是從正確的角度來看，每一個謊言都是另一個真相。

+——————————————+

是否我讀的版本有問題：諸如「七大恨」錯別字為「七大根」。

在《奴兒干的政治名稱》一章節中，「阿哈出獲賜名稱漢名李誠善，釋迦奴則是李顯忠」。
原書其實寫的是，阿哈出獲賜名稱漢名李思誠。
Ahacu had been awarded the name Li Sicheng（李思誠） by the Chinese;Sigiyanu, in his relations with the Ming, was known as Li Xianzhong.51
注釋51也奇怪，原著寫的是Li Chengnian，譯者翻譯是「李成梁」。這個李成梁是鐵嶺的李成梁（1526年—1615年）嗎？時間線和子孫系都不對了。釋迦奴（李顯忠）是李滿住(b. 1407- † 1467年)的父親。

此處不解。

[Jessica Zu · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is an extremely unconventional book. So if you wanna get a gist of it, read some reviews first, and then proceed to the chapter. Don't read introduction and postscript until you finished the whole book, otherwise, you'll be utterly confused by the author's own words.
Crossley is so far the only historian that discards her pretense of objectivity and ventures into ridiculing the subjects that she wrote about: Qianlong is culturally null (uh?) Manchu is only a political construction. I mean as scholars, it's OK to stating your thesis and you conclusion, but is being cynical necessary at all?
I hope she is not as cynical in real life.
The part about Qing imperial cult could be expanded. several pages are not enough to explain the evolution of imperial cult in relation to statecraft and diplomacy