書評： What is special about Taiwan? Why can it tell a story about global history?
台灣有什麼特殊性？為什麼它能夠來講述一個全球史的故事？
歐陽泰：This is a difficult question to answer because there are so many ways in which Taiwan is a unique and special case. It has so much to tell us about global history. Perhaps to me the most interesting thing is that it is one of the few places in the world where European and Chinese colonization coexisted and perhaps the only place where the Chinese eventually prevailed. In1624, when the Dutch established a colony on the island, there were Chinese people there, but not many. They were fishermen, traders, and, to a small extent, hunters, but there was no significant Chinese agriculture. The Dutch encouraged Chinese farmers to cross over to Taiwan, offering land, subventions, and tax breaks. In effect, they created a Chinese colony under European rule or, as I call it in my book How Taiwan Became Chinese,「Sino-European co-colonization.」 Chinese rice paddies and sugar plantations spread rapidly through Taiwan’s western plains, and the Chinese population surged from hundreds to thousands to tens of thousands. It’s a fascinating history, and the fall of Dutch Taiwan to the great Zheng Chenggong is equally fascinating.(That’s the subject of another book I wrote: Lost Colony（中文翻譯為：決戰熱蘭遮.)
歐陽泰：這是一個很難回答的問題，因為台灣在許多方面都是獨一無二的。它可以告訴我們很多關於全球歷史的資訊。也許對我來說最有趣的是，它是世界上為數不多的歐洲和中國殖民統治共存的地方之一，也許也是中國人最終占上風的唯一地方。1624年，荷蘭人在島上建立殖民地時，那裡有華人，但不多。他們是漁民、商人，還有一小部分是獵人，但中國沒有重要的農業。荷蘭人鼓勵中國農民移居台灣，並提供土地、補貼和稅收減免。實際上，他們在歐洲統治下創建了一個中國殖民地，或者正如我在《台灣如何成為中國》一書中所說的那樣，「中歐共同殖民」。中國的稻田和甘蔗種植園迅速遍布台灣西部平原，華人人口從數百人激增到數千人，再到數萬人。這是一段引人入勝的歷史，荷蘭台灣淪陷於偉大的鄭成功手中也同樣引人入勝。（這是我寫的另一本書的主題：《決戰熱蘭遮》。）
書評："The Last Embassy" tells the story of the Dutch Mission in1795. Different from the pedantic and rigid image of the Qing Empire that everyone is familiar with, the Qing Empire provided warm hospitality. I would like to ask, during this period, were there many diplomatic exchanges between the Qing Empire and Europe? Do they usually break up on bad terms? Why is the Dutch mission successful?
《最後的使團》講述的是1795年荷蘭使團的故事。與平常大家熟悉的大清帝國迂腐僵化的形象不一樣的是，大清帝國熱烈款待。請問，這個時期，大清帝國和歐洲之間的外交往來很多嗎？通常是不是都是不歡而散？為什麼荷蘭使團會獲得歡迎？
歐陽泰：When people consider the history of Sino-European relations, they almost always focus on the British, who had a bad relationship with the Qing. The infamous Macartney Mission of1792-93 is one reason for this, and the way British people in his entourage wrote about his failure tended to place the blame on the Qing court. I– along with some other historians– believe the blame should fall more on the British, especially considering their rather extreme demands, such as the request forof bases on Chinese soil. At the very least, blame should be apportioned more equally. In any case, subsequently, the British had another diplomatic failure in China(the less famous but even more troubled Amherst Mission) and then, of course, there occurred the First Opium War. The British blamed the acrimony and violence on the Qing and wrote volubly and vehemently about the Qing court’s supposed failings. Unfortunately, modern historians adopted many of their perspectives, which continue to affect our understanding of Sino-Western relations.
But if we look at other diplomatic encounters between Europeans and the Qing, a different picture emerges. Russian, Portuguese, and, especially, Dutch missions are particularly instructive. My book The Last Embassy looks at the last Dutch mission to the Qing court, which took place in1794-95, showing how the two sides interacted. There are many reasons for the relative pleasantness of the Dutch mission vis-à-vis the British, but perhaps the most important is that the Dutch and Qing weren’t competing empires, whereas the British were aggressive and expansive. The Dutch also appear to have understood and accepted Qing protocols more readily than the British.
人們回顧中歐關係的歷史，幾乎總是把目光集中在與清朝關係不好的英國人身上。1792-93年臭名昭著的馬戛爾尼使團就是造成這種情況的原因之一，而他的隨從中的英國人在描述他的失敗時往往將責任歸咎於清廷。我和其他一些歷史學家認為，責任應該更多地歸咎於英國，特別是考慮到他們相當極端的要求，例如在中國領土上建立基地的要求。至少，責任應該更平等地分配。無論如何，隨後英國在中國的外交再次失敗（不太出名但麻煩更大的阿默斯特使團），然後，當然，發生了第一次鴉片戰爭。英國人將這種尖刻和暴力歸咎於清朝，並慷慨激昂地批評清廷所謂的失敗。不幸的是，現代歷史學家採納了他們的許多觀點，這繼續影響著我們對中西關係的理解。
但如果我們看看歐洲人和清朝之間的其他外交接觸，就會出現不同的情況。俄羅斯、葡萄牙，尤其是荷蘭的使團尤其具有啟發性。我的書《最後的使團》著眼於1794-95年荷蘭最後一次派往清廷的使團，展示了雙方的互動方式。荷蘭使團相對於英國人來說相對愉快的原因有很多，但也許最重要的是荷蘭人和清朝不是相互競爭的帝國，而英國人則具有侵略性和擴張性。荷蘭人似乎也比英國人更容易理解和接受清朝的禮節。
書評： Your previous book"The Gunpowder Age" seemed to want to explain why China failed and the West won; but this book seems to be the opposite, and seems to want to explain that the Qing Empire was not so pedantic. When I was studying world history, one of our teachers used"Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies" as a textbook for class, because he believed that Guns, Germs, and Steel really explained why Europeans came conquer the world. I don』t know how you explain the fate of China and Europe meeting?
你之前一本書《火藥時代》似乎想說明為何中國失敗西方勝出；而這本書似乎又相反，似乎想說明其實大清帝國也並不是如此迂腐不堪的。我讀世界史的時候，我們一個老師是用《Guns, Germs, and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies》作為教材來上課的，因為他認為Gun，Germs和Steel確實很好解釋了為什麼是歐洲人來征服世界。我不知道你是如何解釋中國與歐洲相遇的命運？
歐陽泰：I have come to believe that the effectiveness of the state may explain a great deal. In the17thcentury, the Qing built a very effective and well administered state. Qing rulers and their bureaucracies managed the complex conquest and administration of China, Mongolia, etc., with aplomb, developing not just powerful military strucutres, but also administrative ones. In the course of the eighteenth century, they expanded the borders of their empire to a striking extent, becoming the undisputed great power of East and Central Asia. They had no significant enemies at this time: Japan was quiescent; the Russians had been neutralized; the Dutch, Spanish, and Portuguese were behaving well. So, naturally, the Qing relaxed their military preparedness: why invest in arms when one is overwhemlingly powerful? Meanwhile, European states were fighting many wars, which stimulated their military technology and readiness.
It was due to this relative lack of military stimulus, I believe, that the Qing began to fall behind the west militarily. I believe that this largely explains the Qing failure in the Opium War.
Why did the Qing have such trouble catching up? First, I think the success of Qing reforms in the mid- and late-nineteenth century has been overlooked. Historians have recently found quite a lot of success in Qing reforms. Still, by the mid-nineteenth century, the Qing state was quite an old state–200 years old or so. I』ve come to believe that old states have greater problems developing new structures than young ones. Even more importantly, they have a much harder time getting rid of expensive and obsolete old structures. The Qing had an accretion of military and other structures from their early years that weren’t so adapted to the modern world. To be sure, they built the Jiangnan Arsenal, the Fuzhou Shipyard, etc., and these were quite effective, but they couldn’t rid themselves of many other structures, which drained their treasury. At the same time, Meiji Japan was able to start from scratch, building new cohesive military and administrative structures. Perhaps today, the USA is a bit of an old state, still powerful but not as effective as its younger rival the PRC. An effective state may be the most important factor in relative success for countries.
歐陽泰：我開始相信國家的有效性可以解釋很多事情。17世紀，清朝建立了一個非常有效且管理良好的國家。清朝統治者及其官僚機構沉著應對對中國、蒙古等地的複雜征服和行政管理，不僅發展了強大的軍事結構，也發展了行政結構。在十八世紀，他們將帝國的疆域擴及驚人的程度，成為東亞和中亞無可爭議的強國。此時他們沒有重要的敵人：日本處於靜止狀態；俄國人已經被消滅了；荷蘭人、西班牙人和葡萄牙人表現良好。因此，清朝自然放鬆了軍事準備：既然擁有壓倒性的實力，為何還要投資軍備？同時，歐洲國家正在進行多次戰爭，這刺激了他們的軍事技術和戰備。
我認為，正是由於這種相對缺乏軍事刺激，清朝在軍事上開始落後於西方。我認為這在很大程度上解釋了清朝在鴉片戰爭中的失敗。
為什麼清朝追趕上來如此困難？首先，我認為十九世紀中後期清朝改革的成功被忽略了。歷史學家最近發現清朝改革取得了相當多的成功。儘管如此，到了19世紀中葉，清朝已經是一個相當古老的國家了——大約有200年的歷史。我開始相信，老國家在發展新架構上比年輕國家面臨更大的問題。更重要的是，他們很難擺脫昂貴且過時的舊架構。清朝早年增加了軍事和其他架構，但這些架構不太適應現代世界。誠然，他們建造了江南造船廠、福州造船廠等，這些架構相當有效，但他們無法擺脫許多其他架構，這些架構耗盡了他們的國庫。同時，明治日本能夠從頭開始，建立全新牢固的軍事和行政架構。也許今天的美國有點像一個古老的國家，仍然強大，但不如其年輕的競爭對手中國那麼有效。有效的政府可能是各國相對成功的最重要因素。
書評： Shi Jingqian（史景遷） is your teacher and a historian familiar to mainland Chinese readers. His books have been published in full set in mainland China and are very popular. I wonder if you can talk about your teacher（史景遷） and his influence on you.Because in Taiwan, many comments say that your novel-like narrative was influenced by Shi Jingqian.
史景遷是您的老師，也是中國大陸讀者所熟悉的歷史學家，他的書在中國大陸全套出版，且很受歡迎，不知道你是否可以說說您的這位老師和他對您的影響。因為在台灣，很多評論說您小說般的敘述是受到史景遷的影響。
歐陽泰：Jonathan Spence has been a huge influence on me, not just his writings, which inspired me before I even became his student, but also his tutelage and personal example. He had a way in his writing of bringing a world to life, and you』ll notice that he pays as much attention to description, to building a sense of place, as he does to the narrative. He also involves you directly in the experiences of his subjects, whether they are the pennyless John Hu struggling to understand why he’s been imprisoned in France or the troubled Hong Xiuquan seeking to understand his visions and purpose. Like Spence, I believe that historians should not just research the past, make sense of the past, make arguments, build models, etc., but they should also seek to bring the past alive for readers today. I』ve sought to do so in my own work. Important history can be fun to read. We historians should endeavor to make it so.
歐陽泰：喬納森‧史賓塞（Jonathan Spence）對我的影響很大，不僅他的著作在我成為他的學生之前給我的啟發，還有他的指導和個人榜樣。他在寫作中用一種方式讓世界變得栩栩如生，你會注意到他對描述和建立地方感的關注與他對敘事的關注一樣多。他也讓你直接參與他的寫作對象的經歷，無論他們是身無分文的胡約翰，努力理解他為什麼在法國被監禁，還是陷入困境的洪秀全，試圖理解他的願景和目的。和史景遷一樣，我認為歷史學家不應該只研究過去、理解過去、提出論點、建立模型等，而且還應該努力為今天的讀者再現過去。我試著在自己的工作中做到這一點。重要的歷史讀起來很有趣。我們歷史學家應該努力做到這一點。
歐陽泰，本名Tonio Andrade，Emory University歷史學教授，漢學家和全球史學家。以下介紹摘自Emory University歷史系歐陽泰介紹。 Tonio Andrade歐陽泰, Professor(B.A., Reed College,1992; M.A., University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign,1994; M.A., M.Phil., and Ph.D., Yale University,1997,1998, and2000).
