内容简介

A satisfactory comprehensive history of the social and economic development of pre-modern China, the largest country in the world in terms of population, and with a documentary record covering three millennia, is still far from possible. The present work is only an attempt to disengage the major themes that seem to be of relevance to our understanding of China today. In particular, this volume studies three questions. Why did the Chinese Empire stay together when the Roman Empire, and every other empire of antiquity of the middle ages, ultimately collapsed? What were the causes of the medieval revolution which made the Chinese economy after about 1100 the most advanced in the world? And why did China after about 1350 fail to maintain her earlier pace of technological advance while still, in many respects, advancing economically? The three sections of the book deal with these problems in turn but the division of a subject matter is to some extent only one of convenience. These topics are so interrelated that, in the last analysis, none of them can be considered in isolation from the others.

【Review】

"A book which is without doubt the most lucid and stimulating introduction to the problems of the economic and social history of traditional China at present available. . . . There is so much that is new and stimulating in this book, and it is written with such a nice balance between argument and vivid quotation from primary sources. . . . A superb introduction to the distinctive patterns of Chinese history over the span of two millennia."

—E. Wilkinson

,The Economist

"Every now and then a book appears which by its evidence and boldness of argument redirects our thinking, making us re-examine old problems in unprecedented ways. Such were Marc Bloch's Les caractères originaux de l'histoire rurale française and E.H. Norman's Japan's Emergence as a Modern State. I predict The Pattern of the Chinese Past will achieve similar fame in Chinese historical studies. It is a brilliant achievement. . . . Elvin's book will stand out as a landmark in Chinese social and economic studies."

—Ramon H. Myers

,The Journal of Asian Studies

"The work will attract attention both for its obvious merits—readability, attention to large and important problems, frequent brilliant historical insights—and because the author's interpretations at times 'depart considerably from the received consensus.'"

—Albert Feuerwerker

,The China Quarterly

下载地址

豆瓣评论

  • 马洲洋
    实则我觉得高均衡陷阱这个理论没什么大问题,基本可以自圆其说。现代经济学家不应该以现代经济理论所基于的背景去置换前现代时期的社会生产状况。这一点Elvin在一开头说的已经很清楚了。且他整本书的90%都在论述中国历史从古到近具体的社会经济状态,不看他的这些,单从最后几页的模型去判断他的理论是否合理实在有些groundless。Elvin最大的问题不是模型的问题,而是他问题本身的问题,近些年,越来越多的学者开始意识到所谓的“李约瑟之问”本就是个不必问的问题。中国未能进行西欧式的工业化本不是一件奇怪的事。西欧工业化产生的条件不仅中国不具备,世界其余地区也都不具备。Elvin说的很对,只要西方在近代将中国纳入世界体系,一切问题即迎刃而解。从人类文明史上看,科学技术的发展本就不是一家永远独大的。09-04
  • Ameng
    14th turning point02-11
  • 追风筝的人
    四十年前的书今天读来还是觉得耳目一新12-14
  • GW_Parables
    昨天看的..一半看不懂..剩下一半看懂了结合最近各类戏剧性文学性的伟大历史时刻,更加难受..想到CRRao的一句话...在终极的分析中,一切知识都是历史;在抽象的意义下全部科学都是数学;在理性的基础上所有判断都是统计。感到幸运的同时也很失望。祝福吧。09-23
  • 斷雲微度
    伊懋可認為在中國歷史上曾經存在著一個“14世紀轉折點”,中國中古時期已經實現了商業革命(農業革命、貨幣信用體系革命、市場革命與科技革命),但在14世紀後,中國經濟發展的內在理路與動力機制發生了變化,導致中古革命成果的喪失及未能在近代實現工業化,這正為Ricardo-Malthusian提供了一個前代例證。宋明轉折也是中國經濟史學界長期堅持的一種觀點,這涉及到如何評價明初經濟性質及認識13-15世紀江南農業發展狀況的問題。但土地面積與人口數據的缺失注定會對伊氏研究的解釋力形成衝擊,而且伊氏未考慮整個中國的生態多樣性,忽視了產權制度對經濟產出活動施加的種種約束,他認為產出才是經濟社會發展的關鍵標準甚至是唯一因素,無疑是有所偏頗的。其理論最根本的缺陷在於,宋代本就不存在農業革命,哪來的轉折呢?11-02

猜你喜欢

大家都喜欢