鼠疫：戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與和平

用戶(hù)評(píng)論 (總計(jì)14條)

•   　　Shuji Cao, Yushang Li, The Plague: War and Peace: Environmental and Social Changes in China. Jinan: Shandong Pictorial Publishing House, 2006. Journal of History and Anthropology 6 (2008): 286-289.
  　　
  　　Book Review: Shuji Cao, Yushang Li, The Plague: War and Peace: Environmental and Social Changes in China, 1230-1960. Jinan: Shandong Pictorial Publishing House, 2006. 466 p.*
  　　It’s the impact of New Cultural History, which rose at 1980s, drives historians to reconsider the limitation of previous history research and seek breakouts. As two important branches of New Cultural History, medical history (including the history of human disease) and environmental history appeared under this circumstance and become popular nowadays. Shuji Cao and Yushang Li’s new work The Plague is a good case study of applying New Cultural History Methodology to history academic research. Shuji Cao, a professor of Shanghai Jiao Tong University and once worked in the Center for Historical Geography Studies at Fudan University, is adept at demographic transition research. The brilliant new work The Plague is based on his discussion of mortality rate in The Population History of China (vol.4-6). Although the mortality rate estimates are sometimes questionable, it is a common predicament in medical history and human disease study, since the primary sources are not only scarce but also vague, and could be interpreted in difference ways.
  　　The first part of the book is about the conception and methodology of research. The authors try to break out the framework of “History of Epidemic” and make a clear direction to “History of Human Disease” study. This makes the research become more in-depth. It is so difficult to match the ancient names of diseases to modern ones; because same disease names between ancient and modern could turn out to be different diseases, while different disease names could actually be the same disease. “E’he,” “Geda wen,” “Yangmao wen” can be recognized as plague, but “Shanghan rezheng” might be too complex to be recognized. By now, there is a large unknowable field in the study of human disease, especially when it comes into social history discussions. Jared M. Diamond (1999) and William H. McNeill (1998) endeavor to combine the research of human disease and medical treatment to the process of social transition, in order to restore the more complex history truth. This book to some extent draws a picture and provides details of the relationship between disease and social transition.
  　　The second and third parts of the book are the core sections of the book: the propagation of plague in War and Peace. Based on the records of primary sources, the authors try to describe the propagation of disease in both normal and abnormal periods. From their perspectives, the plague that was popular during Jin-Yuan War, could be taken by Mongolian army from west Yunnan (source of plague) to Sichuan and Hubei. Another suspicious source was among east Guangdong, south Jiangxi and Fujian. They believe that the plague was a combination of pneumonic plague and bubonic plague, according to the clinical symptom records in Nan’an Fu (p. 82). However, the disease was plague is still not a valid statement: the evidences that the 3 of the 611 preserved tombstones which showed the owners died in plague also cannot demonstrate the situation that “abnormally high mortality rate once appeared.” (PP. 96-7); and it’s hard to judge if “Datou wen” and “Dare zhi zheng” in Daliang county were plague (p. 112). However, the argumentation in the “l(fā)egends and facts in Yuan dynasty” part is brilliant: the authors mimicked how plague spreads in Europe and used the same logic to connect the fragmented Chinese plague records into a reasonable plague propagation story in Yuan Dynasty China. The shortages of the book are that the authors didn’t touch down to the in-depth transition of local society, and some other analysis such as the defective of Jin-Yuan records and epidemic affection of Qing army, need to be strengthened. Chapter six narrates the prevalent plague after the rebellion of Du Wenxiu, the Muslim leader, in Xianfeng period. They use the more accurate and complete local records and investigations to estimate the mortality rate and try to construct an evaluation model. The conclusion is “61% of the population who died in War is actually died in plague.” (p. 156)
  　　The epidemic transmissions in Peaceful period are modeled in four large regions: Yunnan, Fujian and Guangdong, Northeast and Northwest China. Chapter seven is focus in Yunnan. Based on the detailed and clear records, the time-series and cross-regional descriptions about plague propagation are concrete and persuasive. Several models of epidemic transmission are constructed: “town-village,” “town-town,” “county-county.” The trading route transmission model is denied. Chapter eight reveals the continuity and volatility of plague in Fujian and Guangdong, but lack of a solid case study. However, the authors find that analysis based on the data collection of the number of people who died in plague in rural area is effective in this region. Chapter nine shows the epidemic transmission in the region where modern traffic such as railway was widely applied. Chapter ten and eleven narrates what happen after 1930s. They rely on the modern medical science reports and investigations, and the abundant Qing Dynasty records to study the cities and temples sites in railway line. In this regard, daily lives in both war and peace ages are revealed.
  　　Narratives in the fourth part are under a framework of disaster relieves and modern public medical treatments and hygiene. The Shanghai case reflects the relationship between immunization and transformation of a modern nation. The authors also discuss the ideas, measures and results of disinfection in South China, Shanxi and Inner Mongolia. They indicate that the traditional Chinese medicine treats plague by testing the older medicaments and adding or cutting the dose, not by searching new medicaments. Meanwhile, people’s traditional views also blocked the impetus of modern medical treatment and hygiene. Local government, central government and popular organizations’ attitude towards immunization was also fickle (e.g. Charity House). The authors express their ideas of meaning of space and their philosophies of environment in the last part.
  　　The subtitle of the book “Environmental and Social Changes in China,” tells us it is a work of social environmental history. The authors use a lot of archives, investigations and reports of local archives and health and epidemic prevention stations, the special and previous materials successfully reveal part of the history. In the discussion of history of human disease, though the authors may falsely apply or interpret some Chinese medical texts (e.g. “Datou tianxing,” “Geda,”), their analysis and research on the names of diseases are valuable. Moreover, the regional geography, the authors also dedicate to describe the epidemic transmission process from animals to human based on their major field of research on regional geography, encouraging the readers to investigate epidemic history, environmental history and social history, to figure out the correspondence of pathology and symptom, the support of diseases, and the relations of environment and social changing. These are all what the book could leave us for thinking.
  　　Boyi Chen (Peking University)
  　　
  　　
  　　
•   　　
  　　Journal of History and Anthropology 6 (2008): 286-289.
  　　Shuji Cao, Yushang Li, The Plague: War and Peace: Environmental and Social Changes in China. Jinan: Shandong Pictorial Publishing House, 2006.
  　　書(shū)評(píng)：鼠疫：戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與和平：中國(guó)的環(huán)境與社會(huì)變遷（1230-1960年）
  　　『歷史人類(lèi)學(xué)學(xué)刊』第六卷第一、二期合刊，2008，頁(yè)286-289。
  　　
  　　
  　　曹樹(shù)基、李玉尚：《鼠疫：戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與和平——中國(guó)的環(huán)境與社會(huì)變遷（1230-1960年）》，濟(jì)南：山東畫(huà)報(bào)出版社，2006，466頁(yè)。
  　　
  　　上個(gè)世紀(jì)末，在新文化史觀念的影響下，史家不斷反思並突破自身局限，醫(yī)療史、環(huán)境史的研究隨之興起，至今方興未艾。曹樹(shù)基、李玉尚合著《鼠疫：戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與和平——中國(guó)的環(huán)境與社會(huì)變遷（1230-1960年）》即是在這種學(xué)術(shù)潮流和現(xiàn)世關(guān)懷下，回應(yīng)西方學(xué)術(shù)進(jìn)展、實(shí)踐史學(xué)不同方法的一部力作。作者曾學(xué)習(xí)和供職復(fù)旦大學(xué)歷史地理研究中心，熟諳歷史地理人口的發(fā)展變遷，曾主編《中國(guó)人口史》，獲譽(yù)學(xué)林?！妒笠摺芬粫?shū)，立意雖新，然從中可以看出作者深厚的知識(shí)積累，如對(duì)比閲讀《中國(guó)人口史》，書(shū)中關(guān)於死亡率的探討等，已為《鼠疫》相關(guān)問(wèn)題的論證打下基礎(chǔ)。儘管死亡率估計(jì)常常有較大爭(zhēng)議，但這也是醫(yī)療和疾病史研究者共同面臨的一個(gè)困境，即材料的缺乏和模糊性，以及由此衍生的釋讀分歧。以下簡(jiǎn)要評(píng)析本書(shū)的主要內(nèi)容及作者的用功之處。
  　　本書(shū)第一編集中討論研究概念和方法論。作者力圖突破「瘟疫史」的研究範(fàn)式，進(jìn)一步確立「疾病史」的明晰化研究導(dǎo)向。古今病名衆(zhòng)多，所指不一，這一方面會(huì)引發(fā)古今病名和實(shí)質(zhì)的名實(shí)異同之爭(zhēng)，另一方面也創(chuàng)造了推進(jìn)問(wèn)題研究深度的可能。諸如「惡核」、「疙瘩瘟」、「羊毛瘟」等命名，判定為鼠疫的可能性無(wú)疑較大，諸如「?jìng)疅岚Y」等則顯得更為復(fù)雜。當(dāng)前疾病史的研究尚存在大量不可知之處，尤其在其進(jìn)入社會(huì)史範(fàn)圍的討論時(shí)更需要面對(duì)大量的跳躍空間，本書(shū)即是這種不同史學(xué)範(fàn)疇結(jié)合的努力，尤其體現(xiàn)於與先前學(xué)者的對(duì)話(huà)之中。西方學(xué)者賈雷德?戴蒙德（Jared M.Diamond,1999）、麥克尼爾（William H.McNeill,1998）、羅塞林?雷伊（Roselyne Rey,1993）都致力於將疾病和醫(yī)療的探討與社會(huì)的變動(dòng)過(guò)程相結(jié)合，從而獲得反觀的效果並在這種變化的過(guò)程中把握歷史更加複雜的面相。而在本書(shū)中，社會(huì)變動(dòng)與疾病消長(zhǎng)起伏之間的關(guān)係開(kāi)始有了一些輪廓和細(xì)節(jié)。
  　　本書(shū)的第二和第三編分別講述本書(shū)的核心內(nèi)容——「戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)與和平」之下鼠疫的傳播。基於第一編對(duì)文獻(xiàn)中可能性記錄的梳理和鼠疫判定，作者力圖從文獻(xiàn)和調(diào)查中把握變動(dòng)時(shí)代和常態(tài)之下疾病的傳播方式並建構(gòu)一些可供參考的模式。作者認(rèn)為，金元時(shí)期的戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)流行的瘟疫可能是元兵從滇西疫源地傳入川、襄的結(jié)果，另一個(gè)疑似區(qū)域?yàn)榛洊|、贛南和福建，他又從南安府的情況分析認(rèn)為臨床癥狀看是肺鼠疫和腺鼠疫的混合流行。對(duì)蒙古軍隊(duì)帶來(lái)的是鼠疫還是霍亂的辨析雖未能有一個(gè)很明確的結(jié)果，卻足以顯見(jiàn)作者在發(fā)掘和解釋材料上的努力（81頁(yè)）。雖然「在現(xiàn)存的611塊墓碑中，有三塊記載墓主死於鼠疫」（96－97頁(yè)）的情形很難說(shuō)明「發(fā)生過(guò)不同尋常的高死亡率」、論證襄城縣的疫情以大樑縣的立論為基礎(chǔ)，但大樑縣的「大頭瘟」和「大熱之癥」是否即為鼠疫仍有待確定（112頁(yè)）、諸如「淋巴腫大」一類(lèi)癥狀，斷為「鼠疫引起」還應(yīng)有其他輔助說(shuō)明，但是在論證方法上，本編最值得注意之處是「元代的傳說(shuō)與事實(shí)」中由歐洲鼠疫確切記錄所顯現(xiàn)的現(xiàn)象、結(jié)合中國(guó)文獻(xiàn)的少許記錄來(lái)鉤沉索隱，加以時(shí)間的對(duì)應(yīng)和路線(xiàn)傳輸這種實(shí)際運(yùn)作的推測(cè)，析解出了一些令人不解或看似荒誕的記錄的合理性，論證過(guò)程頗為精妙。從社會(huì)史角度看，作者論述了各地一些可能的疫情記載，尚未及較深的地方社會(huì)變動(dòng)狀況。一些技術(shù)細(xì)節(jié)上，比如金元時(shí)代材料較為缺乏的問(wèn)題，比如明清易代瘟疫對(duì)清兵的影響的解析，都有待進(jìn)一步研究。對(duì)材料的選取和解釋上，作者力圖突破的就是對(duì)材料中出現(xiàn)鼠類(lèi)及相關(guān)活動(dòng)字眼的限制，因?yàn)楸M管死鼠的判斷指標(biāo)固然很重要，但也只有突破這點(diǎn)（當(dāng)然也必須很謹(jǐn)慎），整個(gè)研究方才不致有無(wú)米之炊之歎。第六章「刀兵之疫」敍述的是咸豐年間回民領(lǐng)袖杜文秀與清廷戰(zhàn)亂之后鼠疫流行的流行狀況，材料來(lái)源於方志、文獻(xiàn)、調(diào)查報(bào)告（含各類(lèi)口述）。其所述為19世紀(jì)中期，記錄較多而且確切，前提也可以確定必為鼠疫，這使得由調(diào)查材料而得的死亡率估計(jì)和可能存在的模型估計(jì)顯得非常有意義。「害癢子死就兩倍」、「鼠疫死了十分之七」這一類(lèi)看似粗略的口述，往往隱含著相應(yīng)的真實(shí)，作者通過(guò)對(duì)各府?dāng)?shù)據(jù)的計(jì)算，認(rèn)為「疫死人口占戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)中人口死亡總數(shù)的61％」（156頁(yè)）。戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)的一個(gè)很大的結(jié)果就是人群的大幅度變動(dòng)和屍體、棄物等可能的傳染媒介的大量出現(xiàn)，所以「在戰(zhàn)爭(zhēng)邊緣區(qū)，則僅有散在性的鼠疫發(fā)生」（150頁(yè)）。
  　　和平局勢(shì)下的疫病討論分別從雲(yún)南、閩粵、東北和西北四個(gè)大區(qū)展開(kāi)和建構(gòu)模型。第七章「雲(yún)南模式：地形與交通」討論的地點(diǎn)在雲(yún)南，因記錄詳細(xì)，鼠疫之癥較爲(wèi)明確，本章圍繞此展開(kāi)的具體地理和時(shí)間空間的傳播研究平實(shí)可信，所謂「市鎮(zhèn)－村莊」、「市鎮(zhèn)－市鎮(zhèn)」以及「縣－縣」的模式被構(gòu)建起來(lái)，而商路傳播模式則在實(shí)證下被否定，凸顯相對(duì)於「通識(shí)」的研究的意義。第八章「閩粵模式」以較強(qiáng)有力的資料證明了某種持續(xù)性和起伏性，相信作者將進(jìn)一步尋找個(gè)案配合並進(jìn)一步顯示該區(qū)疫病特點(diǎn)與地理區(qū)位的關(guān)係，也有可能利用商業(yè)和家族文書(shū)來(lái)顯示某一時(shí)刻以人為載體的疫病具體的傳播路線(xiàn)和過(guò)程。鄉(xiāng)村疫死人口的數(shù)據(jù)蒐集和分析對(duì)于該區(qū)尤其有效，也是本章中作者最感興趣的問(wèn)題之一。第九章「東北模式」以張?jiān)婧臀檫B德的報(bào)告為基礎(chǔ)，向讀者展示了在鐵路這種現(xiàn)代交通工具廣泛應(yīng)用的區(qū)域下鼠疫的傳播形式，與第四編「國(guó)家醫(yī)學(xué)」中的許多例子也有呼應(yīng)。第十和十一章「西北模式」敍述的是1930年代以後之事，在概括提煉和建構(gòu)模式上尚有很大前景，比如基于鐵路城市點(diǎn)和寺院點(diǎn)疫病潛伏、傳播和暴發(fā)的研究拓展?；队懻摰目傮w時(shí)間為十九和二十世紀(jì)，所提供支持的材料可以是現(xiàn)代醫(yī)學(xué)確定病癥的調(diào)查和報(bào)告，清代方志和清人筆記較豐富的記錄，該編奠定了本書(shū)的基礎(chǔ)。一動(dòng)一靜中，常態(tài)的情形更多反映日常生活的歷史。
  　　第四編的敘述是在一個(gè)救災(zāi)和近代公共醫(yī)療衛(wèi)生的框架下進(jìn)行的。其中《上海的反應(yīng)》一文以《申報(bào)》的報(bào)導(dǎo)為分析，顯示了防疫和近代國(guó)家轉(zhuǎn)型的趨勢(shì)，視角獨(dú)特而意趣盎然。除此之外，南方、山西和內(nèi)蒙的防疫觀念、措施、過(guò)程和結(jié)果也都進(jìn)行了相關(guān)的討論。通過(guò)對(duì)醫(yī)術(shù)、藥方和治療法的分析，作者指出在鼠疫流行時(shí)，各地中醫(yī)的回應(yīng)即是通過(guò)驗(yàn)方移治和加減藥方的辦法來(lái)治療，而非探求新法新劑，而民眾的觀念使現(xiàn)代醫(yī)療和衛(wèi)生的推進(jìn)遇到較大阻力，地方政府與中央政府扮演的角色也非常有趣，尤其是涉及民間組織（如各種善堂）、華僑和租界的時(shí)候，多方的行動(dòng)在不同情況下有不同結(jié)局。值得注意的是政府防疫的觀念前後也會(huì)發(fā)生變化，對(duì)民眾的動(dòng)員力也是如此。最後一編的總結(jié)表達(dá)了作者對(duì)空間意義和環(huán)境哲學(xué)的追尋和理念。
  　　本書(shū)副標(biāo)題為「中國(guó)的環(huán)境與社會(huì)變遷」，可見(jiàn)是一部較總體性的社會(huì)環(huán)境史專(zhuān)著，在對(duì)疾病的深入分析方面也有篳路之功。書(shū)中使用了大量地方防疫站、檔案館、衛(wèi)生處的記錄材料和調(diào)查報(bào)告，珍貴而獨(dú)特的材料也顯示了作者的辛勞與調(diào)查實(shí)踐。在疾病史的問(wèn)題討論上，儘管對(duì)中醫(yī)文獻(xiàn)的運(yùn)用和解釋可能會(huì)有觝牾，如「大頭天行」、「疙瘩」與「親戚不相訪問(wèn)」等等，但書(shū)中還是充滿(mǎn)了對(duì)文獻(xiàn)中疫病同名和不同名記錄的辨析和推敲。而在作者熟稔的專(zhuān)長(zhǎng)領(lǐng)域，區(qū)域地貌、生態(tài)的敘述和分析更是一種很努力地展示疾病從動(dòng)物到人的影響過(guò)程，這也更加賦予讀者繼續(xù)深入探尋瘟疫史、疾病史、環(huán)境史與社會(huì)史之間交集的動(dòng)力，繼續(xù)追尋諸如病理與癥狀的對(duì)應(yīng)性、疾病載體和傳播機(jī)制、環(huán)境與社會(huì)變遷的相關(guān)性等問(wèn)題，這些都是本書(shū)的開(kāi)拓和畱給讀者的思考。
  　?。ū本┐髮W(xué)歷史系 陳博翼）
  　　http://schina.ust.hk/Publish/Jornal/jornal_612.htm
•   　　誠(chéng)然，“老鼠滅亡了明朝”是本書(shū)中某章的標(biāo)題，然而將之單獨(dú)挑出來(lái)作為本書(shū)的主打，卻分明犯了買(mǎi)櫝還珠的錯(cuò)誤。本書(shū)的價(jià)值在于其對(duì)鼠疫與中國(guó)社會(huì)變遷之間關(guān)系的開(kāi)拓性研究。明末的鼠疫固然也是這種關(guān)系的一個(gè)表現(xiàn)，但全書(shū)表現(xiàn)的卻不是只有明末。
•   這是密集投稿么？
•   當(dāng)然不是，是整理硬盤(pán)。
•   哈 這應(yīng)該就是您交給Y大的書(shū)評(píng)了？
•   對(duì)的，你的也貼貼我們膜拜下嘛。
•   我還是不獻(xiàn)丑裊~
•   表醬紫，貼一貼，我抄幾句經(jīng)典的當(dāng)模板，以后寫(xiě)作業(yè)用
•   您寫(xiě)得腫么好~偶還哪敢貼~
•   come on!不要用這種爛借口。。。
•   開(kāi)始夾英文了~
•   真辛苦啊，中英文對(duì)照版。。。lz最近在做和何研究？
•   在做作業(yè)，沒(méi)法做研究。。。

相關(guān)圖書(shū)

• 中國(guó)地區(qū)差異的經(jīng)濟(jì)分析
• 足球經(jīng)濟(jì)的奧秘
• 中國(guó)農(nóng)業(yè)現(xiàn)代化道路的探索
• 構(gòu)建社會(huì)主義和諧社會(huì)中的中國(guó)剩存貧困問(wèn)題研究
• 居延滄桑
• 重農(nóng)時(shí)代
• 中國(guó)旅游目的地發(fā)展研究報(bào)告2005
• 西部少數(shù)民族聚居區(qū)經(jīng)濟(jì)發(fā)展及機(jī)制研究
• 中國(guó)社會(huì)學(xué)（第五卷）
• 民族期刊文獻(xiàn)索引
• 自然辯證法概論
• 三農(nóng)中國(guó)
• 迷津深極-中國(guó)首次大洋環(huán)球科考
• 科學(xué)發(fā)展觀與歷史唯物主義
• 論我國(guó)土地利用管理制度改革
• 中國(guó)公民社會(huì)的制度環(huán)境
• ***幼兒故事吧2/守株待兔◎-此書(shū)已不調(diào)
• 小北極熊(全套8冊(cè))
• 找不同
• 狐貍和葡萄
• 紫色魔法
• 數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)原理與SQL Server應(yīng)用
• Visual FoxPro程序設(shè)計(jì)
• Access 2003數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)教程
• 數(shù)據(jù)庫(kù)原理與應(yīng)用