Editor’s音符

IF 0.6 2区 历史学 Q1 HISTORY
Evelyn S. Rawski, Robert E. Hegel, Paul Cohen, R. Guy, Nancy Park, Macabe Keliher, M. Hasegawa, Peter C. Perdue
{"title":"Editor’s音符","authors":"Evelyn S. Rawski, Robert E. Hegel, Paul Cohen, R. Guy, Nancy Park, Macabe Keliher, M. Hasegawa, Peter C. Perdue","doi":"10.1353/late.2016.0008","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"This article compares unofficial perspectives on torture during the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) Dynasties, as expressed in ledgers of merit and demerit, operas, ballads, proverbs, and popular customs. Because of the diversity of these unofficial sources — both in terms of their form and content and in terms of their audience and distribution — the perspectives they reveal are more varied and less reflective of state orthodoxies than are the views typically expressed in the codified law, administrative writings, and other official sources. Unlike official writings, which focused on administrative and legal “best practice” concerning how torture was supposed to be applied, unofficial sources focused greater attention on how torture was actually applied, highlighting the potential for abuse and the deleterious effects of torture on its victims.","PeriodicalId":43948,"journal":{"name":"LATE IMPERIAL CHINA","volume":"43 1","pages":"1 - 1 - 1 - 10 - 107 - 109 - 13 - 14 - 152 - 153 - 16 - 169 - 17 - 4 - 5 - 54 - 55 - 9 - v - v"},"PeriodicalIF":0.6000,"publicationDate":"2016-06-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/late.2016.0008","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Editor’s Note\",\"authors\":\"Evelyn S. Rawski, Robert E. Hegel, Paul Cohen, R. Guy, Nancy Park, Macabe Keliher, M. Hasegawa, Peter C. Perdue\",\"doi\":\"10.1353/late.2016.0008\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"This article compares unofficial perspectives on torture during the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) Dynasties, as expressed in ledgers of merit and demerit, operas, ballads, proverbs, and popular customs. Because of the diversity of these unofficial sources — both in terms of their form and content and in terms of their audience and distribution — the perspectives they reveal are more varied and less reflective of state orthodoxies than are the views typically expressed in the codified law, administrative writings, and other official sources. Unlike official writings, which focused on administrative and legal “best practice” concerning how torture was supposed to be applied, unofficial sources focused greater attention on how torture was actually applied, highlighting the potential for abuse and the deleterious effects of torture on its victims.\",\"PeriodicalId\":43948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"LATE IMPERIAL CHINA\",\"volume\":\"43 1\",\"pages\":\"1 - 1 - 1 - 10 - 107 - 109 - 13 - 14 - 152 - 153 - 16 - 169 - 17 - 4 - 5 - 54 - 55 - 9 - v - v\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.6000,\"publicationDate\":\"2016-06-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1353/late.2016.0008\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"LATE IMPERIAL CHINA\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1353/late.2016.0008\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"历史学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"HISTORY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"LATE IMPERIAL CHINA","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1353/late.2016.0008","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"历史学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HISTORY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

这篇文章比较了明朝(1368-1644)和清朝(1644-1911)时期关于酷刑的非官方观点,这些观点体现在功绩和缺点的分类、歌剧、歌谣、谚语和民间习俗中。由于这些非官方来源的多样性——无论是在形式和内容方面,还是在受众和分布方面——与成文法、行政文书和其他官方来源中典型表达的观点相比,它们所揭示的观点更加多样化,更少反映国家正统观念。官方资料侧重于如何实施酷刑的行政和法律“最佳做法”,而非官方资料则更多地侧重于如何实际实施酷刑,强调酷刑的潜在滥用和酷刑对受害者的有害影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Editor’s Note
This article compares unofficial perspectives on torture during the Ming (1368–1644) and Qing (1644–1911) Dynasties, as expressed in ledgers of merit and demerit, operas, ballads, proverbs, and popular customs. Because of the diversity of these unofficial sources — both in terms of their form and content and in terms of their audience and distribution — the perspectives they reveal are more varied and less reflective of state orthodoxies than are the views typically expressed in the codified law, administrative writings, and other official sources. Unlike official writings, which focused on administrative and legal “best practice” concerning how torture was supposed to be applied, unofficial sources focused greater attention on how torture was actually applied, highlighting the potential for abuse and the deleterious effects of torture on its victims.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
25.00%
发文量
8
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信