“新清史”的争论在学界和思想界一直是个经久不衰的话题。近年来,得益于新媒体的发展,围绕满清政权性质的讨论更是在不同媒体平台上扩散,形成广泛的社会影响,这背后的深层原因实则是中国史观的危机,如何书写历史、认识历史成为一个紧迫的时代命题。在新清史的论述中,明清两代的历史呈现出某种程度的差异性和断裂性,前者是一个典型的汉族政权;后者则是一个内亚帝国。近期,史学家钟焓撰文指出了上述论断的误导性,为我们重新理解“晚期中华帝国”的历史演进勾勒出了一条重要线索:第一,明清两代的君主都具有某种“共主”的特征, The debate about the history of the Qing Dynasty has always been an enduring topic in the academic and intellectual circles. In recent years, due to the development of new media, the discussion on the nature of Manchu regime spread more across different media platforms and formed a wide range of social impacts. The underlying reason behind this is actually the crisis of Chinese historical viewpoints, how to write history, Recognizing history has become a pressing proposition of the times. In the discourse of the New Qing History, the history of the Ming and Qing dynasties showed a certain degree of difference and fragmentation. The former was a typical Han regime and the latter was an inner-Asian empire. Recently, the author of the article, Zhong-chuan, pointed out the misleadingness of the above assertion and outlined an important clue for us to re-understand the historical evolution of the “late imperial China.” First, the monarchs of the Ming and Qing dynasties had some sort of “Common Master” feature,