訪談 | 歐陽泰：國家的有效性可以解釋很多事情
有評論說，歐陽泰是當代歷史學界的魔術師。一方面他的史學著作寫得縱橫捭闔、見時代與世界大勢；另一方面卻歷史人物躍然紙上，相隔時空與讀者對望。2024年5月，在推出歐陽泰漢學經典三書之後，時報出版再次推出歐陽泰的歷史著作《最後的使團：1795年荷蘭使團和一段被遺忘的中西相遇史The Last Embassy: The Dutch Mission of 1795 and the Forgotten History of Western Encounters with China》。
如今，歐陽泰有許多廣為人知的標籤，漢學家、台灣史學家、世界史學界、東亞歷史學家等，但很少有人知道在Reedcollege 讀本科的時候，一開始主修是生物學與神經科學；之後因為對中文感興趣，他開始學習中文。1989年，他去台灣師範大學讀了半年的中文。
1992年，歐陽泰在Reed College畢業後，進入伊利諾大學香檳分校University of Illinois讀碩士。在此期間，他閱讀了狄奧多．施篤姆（Therdor Storm）的德文小說《白馬騎士》（Der Schimmelreiter），而受到佛里斯蘭文化（Frisian Culture）吸引，沒原由地沉迷於荷蘭文，並開始學習荷蘭文。
1994年，碩士畢業後，歐陽泰去耶魯大學攻讀歷史學博士。在這裡他遇到兩位老師。一位是帕克（Geoffrey Parker）；另一位是史景遷。帕克是一位軍事革命論學者,专门研究现代早期西欧，西班牙和战争的历史。他最着名的书是剑桥大学出版社于1988年首次出版的《军事革命：军事创新与西方的兴起,1500年—1800年The Military Revolution: Military Innovation and the Rise of the West, 1500–1800》；而中國讀者的熟悉的史景遷則擅長書寫歷史人物與個性。在兩位老師的影響和啟發下，歐陽泰開始了自己的學術旅程，選擇中國海洋史作為論文主題，討論荷蘭東印度公司與中國之間的關係，並比較菲律賓跟巴達維亞歷史。。
在自己的學術研究中，歐陽泰提出了「全球微觀史」（micro-global history）的觀點，既從宏觀去詮釋世界歷史發展的大趨勢，也透過歷史角色講述歷史下的時空。“他認為一名歷史學者應該有兩個層面：身為理論的建構者，同時也成為說故事的人。”（盧正恒：《他是「建構理論的人」也是「說故事的人」──歷史學家歐陽泰》）
對於歐陽泰的著作，或許用他自己的話介紹最好：
My first book, How Taiwan Became Chinese (2007), examined how Dutch, Spanish, and Chinese colonization met and competed in the Far East and asked why it was that the Chinese prevailed over the Europeans rather than the other way around, suggesting that political will – that is to say state support for expansion – was a key variable. My second book, Lost Colony (2011), examined the Sino-Dutch War of 1661-1668, Europe’s first war with China and the only significant Sino-European conflict until the Opium War of 1839–42. It asked whether Europeans had – at this early date – any significant advantages in military and naval technology over China and concluded that they did, although not perhaps in the areas people might have expected. My third book, The Gunpowder Age (2016), looked more deeply into China’s military past, comparing it to that of Europe, and showing that China’s China’s dynamism was deeper, longer lasting, and more quickly recovered than has long been believed. My fourth book, The Last Embassy (2021), examined a little-known but richly documented Dutch embassy to the court of the Qing dynasty’s Qianlong Emperor. I’m currently working on a book about the Dutch East India Company and its interactions with and effects on Asia’s maritime realms.
前三本著作《福爾摩沙如何變成臺灣府？》（How Taiwan Became Chinese）、《決戰熱蘭遮》（Lost Colony）和《火藥時代》（The Gunpowder Age），在台灣早已翻譯出版，被稱為“歐陽泰漢學經典三書”，歐陽泰也因為他對台灣早期歷史的書寫而深受台灣人的喜愛。最近，第四本著作《最後的使團》（The Last Embassy）中文版也在台灣出版。為此，波士頓書評特別採訪了歐陽泰教授，採訪通過郵件進行。訪談用英文進行，書評翻譯成中文。
書評： You once joked that when you graduated in 2000, because you studied global history (world history), you thought you might only find a teaching position at a community college. Was this because global history was not yet popular in American universities at the time?
你曾開玩笑說，2000年畢業的時候，因為自己學習的是全球史（世界史），認為自己可能只能在社區大學找到教職。這是因為全球史在當時美國大學還不是很流行嗎？
歐陽泰：Yes, at that point, most historians didn’t know what global history was. My graduate course on the topic was one of the first to be offered. Things began changing quickly after around 2010. Today, global history is a major subfield within the discipline, and there are scores of books published each year in global history.
歐陽泰：是的，當時大多數歷史學家都不知道什麼是全球史。我研究生時候讀的關於這個主題的課程是最早開設的課程之一。 2010 年左右，情況開始迅速改變。如今，全球歷史已成為該學科的一個主要分支，每年都會出版數十本全球歷史書籍。
書評： At least among Chinese readers, global history seems to have only become popular in recent years, and people seem to be getting tired of history narrated by country and history dominated by elite politics. Does the popularity of global history represent a change in ideological trends?
至少在中文閱讀內，全球史似乎是近年來才開始流行起來，人們似乎開始厭倦以國別來敘述的歷史和精英政治為主的歷史。全球史的流行，是不是背後代表一種思潮的變化？
歐陽泰：For me, one of the fascinating developments of the past three decades within the discipline of history is the explosion of serious history being produced outside of the west, particularly in China. This trend started to pick up speed in the 1990s, and by the 2000s and 2010s, Chinese-language scholarship in history was expanding at a dramatic clip, with new institutes, new journals, even new universities being founded yearly, particularly in the PRC. It was a renaissance in historical scholarship. I see this as part of the general zeitgeist, which global history is also part of. To build a history for all humans – regardless of race, ethnicity, or nationality – is the great goal of global historians, and the only way to do that is to listen to each other, to incorporate other historical and historiographical traditions.
歐陽泰：對我來說，過去三十年歷史學領域最令人著迷的發展之一是西方以外、特別是中國產生的嚴肅歷史的爆發。這一趨勢在 20 世紀 90 年代開始加速，到 2000 年代和 2010 年代，中文歷史學術急劇擴張，每年都會建立新的研究所、新的期刊，甚至新的大學，特別是在中國。這是歷史學術的復興。我認為這是整體時代精神的一部分，全球歷史也是其中的一部分。為全人類——無論種族、族裔或民族——建立歷史是全球歷史學家的偉大目標，而實現這一目標的唯一方法就是互相傾聽，吸收其他歷史和史學傳統。
書評： You study global history through Taiwan and the encounter between China and the West through Taiwan. Did you plan this beforehand, or was it just an accident?
你通過台灣來研究全球史，通過台灣來研究中西方的相遇。這是你事先計劃好了，還是一種偶然？
歐陽泰：It was an accident. I was very interested in cross-cultural interactions, but I didn’t originally intend to study Taiwan per se. I started my undergraduate career studying science, thinking I would specialize in biology or neuroscience, but the summer after my first year, I worked in a lab, where I met a brilliant Chinese researcher, who told me about his experience in the Cultural Revolution. This encounter sparked an interest in the Chinese language, which I began studying. I decided to put my undergraduate degree on hold, spending half a year in Taiwan. When I returned to college, I changed my major to anthropology. During my final year in college, however, I took two history classes. I was hooked and applied to graduate school in history. At first I thought I’d write a dissertation on the history of anthropology but ultimately came to be interested in early European colonialism and, in particular, in the Dutch East India Company. When I learned that the Dutch East India Company had held a colony on Taiwan, I became fascinated by it, and ended up writing my dissertation on the topic.
這是一次意外。我對跨文化交流很感興趣，但我本來並沒有打算研究台灣本身。我以科學開始我的本科生學習生涯，本以為我會專攻生物學或神經科學，但第一年後的夏天，我在一個實驗室工作，在那裡我遇到了一位出色的中國研究員，他向我講述了他在文化大革命中的經歷。這次邂逅激發了我對漢語的興趣，並開始學習漢語。我決定暫緩本科學業，去台灣待半年。當我回到大學後，我把專業改為人類學。然而，在大學的最後一年，我選修了兩門歷史課。我被迷住了併申請了歷史研究生院。起初我想寫一篇關於人類學史的論文，但最終對早期歐洲殖民主義，特別是荷蘭東印度公司感興趣。當我得知荷蘭東印度公司在台灣擁有殖民地時，我對此感到著迷，並最終以此為主題寫了我的博士論文。
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. In 1624, 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佔上風的唯一地方。 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 in 1795. 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 of 1792-93 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 in 1794-95, 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 the 17th century, 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： 史景遷（Jonathan Spence ） 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：史景遷（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註一樣多。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。
