- 學位論文
十九世紀初英帝國的印度群島殖民知識：以萊佛士和克勞福德為例
Colonial Knowledge of the Indian Archipelago in the Early Nineteenth-Century British Empire: The Works of Thomas Stamford Raffles and John Crawfurd
摘要
本文以萊佛士（Thomas Stamford Bingley Raffles, 1781-1826）的《爪哇史》（The History of Java, 1817）和克勞福德（John Crawfurd, 1783-1868）的《印度群島史》（History of the Indian Archipelago, 1820）為核心，旨在探討他們對印度群島的殖民知識書寫背後的思想脈絡。本文認為萊佛士與克勞福德的殖民知識書寫與19世紀初的時代背景緊密相關，方能更深入理解他們對於殖民地的態度之背後邏輯。本文透過歷史主義的角度分析萊佛士與克勞福德的著作，討論他們的歷史觀念為何，並如何與他們的殖民理念結合。此外，在相關的時代背景下，他們的殖民經驗必須面對自由主義、東方學、以及宗教的課題，所以本文也會以歷史主義貫穿上述的討論，進而比較兩者的思想與歷史定位。 本文指出萊佛士與克勞福德都深受歷史主義的影響，但他們對於文明和殖民有著不同的看法，而這與他們在自由主義、以及東方主義與英化主義論辯中的立場密切相關。萊佛士強調爪哇地區曾經擁有源自印度的高度文明，而主張英國的到來是為了讓爪哇恢復昔日的榮光；克勞福德則認為印度群島有自身的文明發展，並主張自由放任政策才是合適的殖民方針。總之，萊佛士和克勞福德都是帝國主義者，而他們都從歷史的角度理解相關區域的過去，並且皆受自由主義思想的影響，但他們以不同的方式去合理化帝國統治與各自殖民方針。此外，他們的觀點也反映殖民者本身並非是一致的，同時也讓我們重新思考東南亞在帝國中的地位，即印度與東南亞的關係。最後，萊佛士和克勞福德的著作也為殖民知識的研究提供了有價值的觀點，揭示他們的歷史觀如何形塑他們的統治方針，以及呈現出殖民知識背後更為複雜的思想脈絡。
並列摘要
This paper centres around the works of Thomas Stamford Bingley Raffles (1781-1826), The History of Java (1817) and John Crawfurd (1783-1868), History of the Indian Archipelago (1820). The primary objective of the paper is to analyse the underlying intellectual context of their colonial knowledge writing concerning the Malay Archipelago. This paper argues that the colonial knowledge writing of Raffles and Crawfurd is closely linked to the background of the early 19th century, and a deeper understanding of their attitudes towards the colonies can only be observed by considering the logic underpinning their perspectives. By using the perspective of historicism, this paper analyses the works of Raffles and Crawfurd, discussing their historical conceptions and how they intersect with their colonial ideas. Furthermore, their colonial experiences had to face with issues such as liberalism, Orientalism, and religion. Thus, this paper will incorporate historicism into these discussions, enabling a comparison of their ideas and historical positioning. The paper argues that both Raffles and Crawfurd were significantly influenced by historicism. However, they held different views on civilisation and colonialism, which can be traced back to their positions in the debates surrounding liberalism, and the Orientalist-Anglicist Controversy. Raffles emphasised that Java had once possessed a highly civilised culture with roots in India, and he argued that the British presence aimed to restore Java to its former glory. In contrast, Crawfurd believed that the Indian Archipelago had its own path of cultural development and advocated for a policy of laissez-faire as the appropriate colonial approach. In summary, both Raffles and Crawfurd were imperialists influenced by liberal thought, seeking to understand the past of the regions from a historical perspective. Nevertheless, they justified imperial rule and their respective colonial policies in different ways. Moreover, their viewpoints reveal the diversity among colonisers; at the same time, induce a re-evaluation of the position of Southeast Asia in the context of empire, particularly the relationship between India and Southeast Asia. Lastly, the works of Raffles and Crawfurd offer valuable insights into the study of colonial knowledge, revealing how history was used as a tool for governance and the intricate intellectual context underpinnings of colonial knowledge.