一个久经世故的成熟帝国为何无法现代化——记古代传统中国对现代化的抗拒【完】
正文翻译
Three Cuckoos: a Failed Modernisation
China up to the Opium War was widely admired as a place well-adapted to civilised life. Up to then, if someone had to be born as a man without any assurance of social position or good luck, China would have been the best place to choose. Being born as a woman would have been another matter: not very free or safe anywhere, but I’m sure that there were better places than Imperial China. But most Chinese men and women were fairly content. The hybrid of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism that had developed in China was psychologically satisfying. (Which doesn’t mean it was wise in a wider sense; just that the creeds and the religious professionals had become familiar with human weaknesses)
None of the Chinese philosophies had the least inkling of the physical structure of the universe, of course. But anything that could fit the existing pattern was accepted. The Jesuits in China were OK for as long as they concealed the alien and intolerant nature of their actual beliefs. As I mentioned earlier, the Jesuits wanted to bend Catholic doctrine on the matter of Ancestor-Worship and showed every sign of blending into Chinese culture, which was much more sophisticated than anything Europe had at the time.
As I said earlier, China under the Manchu dynasty was not static: it accepted many new crops that Europeans brought back from the New World, and maybe pushed intensive agriculture too far. The best estimates are that there were 59 million Chinese in the year 100, 160 million in 1600 and over 300 million in the 19th century.[II]
Adam Smith, writing in the 1770s, was entirely accurate when he said that China was richer than any part of Europe. In 1820 China still had about a quarter of the world’s population and a third of the world’s wealth.[JJ] Europe did better in terms of GDP per head: maybe twice as high in Western Europe as in China, too small a gap to be attractive. But as Adam Smith also noted, Europe had accepted the idea of continuous change.
三只布谷鸟：失败的现代化
鸦片战争之前，中国一直被认为是一个很好地适应了文明生活的地方。在那时，如果一个人出生时没有任何社会地位或运气，中国将是最好的选择。淡然以一个女人身份出生是另一回事：在当时的任何地方都不太自由或安全，但我确信有比帝国中国更好的地方，当然在中国，大多数中国男人和女人都相当满意。中国发展起来的儒、道、佛三教的融合，在心理上得到了满足。(从更广泛的意义上说，这并不意味着它是明智的;只是宗教专业人士已经熟悉了人类的弱点。)
中国哲学对宇宙的物理结构一无所知，但任何符合现有模式的东西都被接受了。在中国的耶稣会士可以接受，只要他们隐藏自己实际信仰的异质和不宽容的本质。正如我之前提到的，耶稣会士想要在祖先崇拜问题上妥协天主教教义，并表现出融入中国文化的迹象，而中国文化比当时的欧洲任何文化都要复杂得多。正如我前面所说的，满清王朝统治下的中国并不是一成不变的:它接受了欧洲人从新大陆带回的许多新作物，也许还把集约化农业推得更远了。最准确的估计是，公元第1年有5900万中国人，16世纪有1.6亿，19世纪超过3亿。
亚当·斯密在18世纪70年代写道，中国比欧洲任何地方都富裕，这是完全准确的。1820年，中国仍然拥有世界四分之一的人口和三分之一的财富。欧洲在人均GDP方面做得更好:西欧的人均GDP可能是中国的两倍，但差距太小，没有吸引力。但正如亚当·斯密也指出的那样，欧洲已经接受了持续变革的理念。
Three Cuckoos: a Failed Modernisation
China up to the Opium War was widely admired as a place well-adapted to civilised life. Up to then, if someone had to be born as a man without any assurance of social position or good luck, China would have been the best place to choose. Being born as a woman would have been another matter: not very free or safe anywhere, but I’m sure that there were better places than Imperial China. But most Chinese men and women were fairly content. The hybrid of Confucianism, Taoism and Buddhism that had developed in China was psychologically satisfying. (Which doesn’t mean it was wise in a wider sense; just that the creeds and the religious professionals had become familiar with human weaknesses)
None of the Chinese philosophies had the least inkling of the physical structure of the universe, of course. But anything that could fit the existing pattern was accepted. The Jesuits in China were OK for as long as they concealed the alien and intolerant nature of their actual beliefs. As I mentioned earlier, the Jesuits wanted to bend Catholic doctrine on the matter of Ancestor-Worship and showed every sign of blending into Chinese culture, which was much more sophisticated than anything Europe had at the time.
As I said earlier, China under the Manchu dynasty was not static: it accepted many new crops that Europeans brought back from the New World, and maybe pushed intensive agriculture too far. The best estimates are that there were 59 million Chinese in the year 100, 160 million in 1600 and over 300 million in the 19th century.[II]
Adam Smith, writing in the 1770s, was entirely accurate when he said that China was richer than any part of Europe. In 1820 China still had about a quarter of the world’s population and a third of the world’s wealth.[JJ] Europe did better in terms of GDP per head: maybe twice as high in Western Europe as in China, too small a gap to be attractive. But as Adam Smith also noted, Europe had accepted the idea of continuous change.
三只布谷鸟：失败的现代化
鸦片战争之前，中国一直被认为是一个很好地适应了文明生活的地方。在那时，如果一个人出生时没有任何社会地位或运气，中国将是最好的选择。淡然以一个女人身份出生是另一回事：在当时的任何地方都不太自由或安全，但我确信有比帝国中国更好的地方，当然在中国，大多数中国男人和女人都相当满意。中国发展起来的儒、道、佛三教的融合，在心理上得到了满足。(从更广泛的意义上说，这并不意味着它是明智的;只是宗教专业人士已经熟悉了人类的弱点。)
中国哲学对宇宙的物理结构一无所知，但任何符合现有模式的东西都被接受了。在中国的耶稣会士可以接受，只要他们隐藏自己实际信仰的异质和不宽容的本质。正如我之前提到的，耶稣会士想要在祖先崇拜问题上妥协天主教教义，并表现出融入中国文化的迹象，而中国文化比当时的欧洲任何文化都要复杂得多。正如我前面所说的，满清王朝统治下的中国并不是一成不变的:它接受了欧洲人从新大陆带回的许多新作物，也许还把集约化农业推得更远了。最准确的估计是，公元第1年有5900万中国人，16世纪有1.6亿，19世纪超过3亿。
亚当·斯密在18世纪70年代写道，中国比欧洲任何地方都富裕，这是完全准确的。1820年，中国仍然拥有世界四分之一的人口和三分之一的财富。欧洲在人均GDP方面做得更好:西欧的人均GDP可能是中国的两倍，但差距太小，没有吸引力。但正如亚当·斯密也指出的那样，欧洲已经接受了持续变革的理念。
The most important difference was military, not economic. The kingdoms of Western Europe (along with a few republics) had been fighting each other for centuries, by land and by sea. Gunpowder as such was not decisive, and China had anyway invented it and never stopped using it for warfare. What mattered was a mix of metallurgy, training and organisation that Europe evolved. Britain’s Industrial Revolution was in the early 19th century beginning to produce completely novel weapon systems.
In the First Opium War (1839-1842), the British fleet included a vessel called the Nemesis, built in Britain for the East India Company. One of the world’s first iron ships, it was powered by steam and was able to go places where a conventional warship could not. It was able to chase the Chinese fleet up the river and sink most of it, causing it to be viewed as a ‘devil ship’ by the Chinese. I’d count this use of iron warships as a rather more significant episode than the famous clash between the Monitor and the Virginia (Merrimac) in the 1860. That battle was indecisive, and also happened at a time when Europe already had much more powerful iron warships, France’s La Gloire and Britain’s HMS Warrior. But when it comes to writing popular history, the case of the Nemesis had two disadvantages. It was not American, and it was not at all heroic. The duel of the Monitor and the Virginia was dramatic, and occurred between two rival causes that are mostly seen as noble and heroic (though I find nothing noble in a war to preserve race-based slavery). But both sides were brave and evenly matched, while the Nemesis sinking much weaker vessels looks much more like bullying, the ‘upper muscle’ of Imperialism applied without any moral concerns.[KK]
最重要的区别在于军事上，而不是经济上。几个世纪以来，西欧各王国(以及一些共和国)一直在陆上和海上相互争斗。火药本身并不是决定性的，无论如何是中国发明了它，并且从未停止使用它进行战争。重要的是欧洲发展起来的冶金、培训和组织的结合。英国的工业革命是在19世纪早期开始生产全新的武器系统。
在第一次鸦片战争(1839-1842)中，英国舰队包括一艘名为“复仇女神号（ the Nemesis）”的船，这艘船是为东印度公司在英国建造的。作为世界上最早的铁船之一，它以蒸汽为动力，能够到达传统战舰无法到达的地方。它能够追赶中国舰队到河的上游，并击沉了大部分舰队，导致它被中国人视为一艘“魔鬼船”。比起1860年著名的摩尼特号和维吉尼亚号(梅里麦克号)之间的冲突，我认为这次使用铁战舰的事件更有意义。……
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
In the First Opium War (1839-1842), the British fleet included a vessel called the Nemesis, built in Britain for the East India Company. One of the world’s first iron ships, it was powered by steam and was able to go places where a conventional warship could not. It was able to chase the Chinese fleet up the river and sink most of it, causing it to be viewed as a ‘devil ship’ by the Chinese. I’d count this use of iron warships as a rather more significant episode than the famous clash between the Monitor and the Virginia (Merrimac) in the 1860. That battle was indecisive, and also happened at a time when Europe already had much more powerful iron warships, France’s La Gloire and Britain’s HMS Warrior. But when it comes to writing popular history, the case of the Nemesis had two disadvantages. It was not American, and it was not at all heroic. The duel of the Monitor and the Virginia was dramatic, and occurred between two rival causes that are mostly seen as noble and heroic (though I find nothing noble in a war to preserve race-based slavery). But both sides were brave and evenly matched, while the Nemesis sinking much weaker vessels looks much more like bullying, the ‘upper muscle’ of Imperialism applied without any moral concerns.[KK]
最重要的区别在于军事上，而不是经济上。几个世纪以来，西欧各王国(以及一些共和国)一直在陆上和海上相互争斗。火药本身并不是决定性的，无论如何是中国发明了它，并且从未停止使用它进行战争。重要的是欧洲发展起来的冶金、培训和组织的结合。英国的工业革命是在19世纪早期开始生产全新的武器系统。
在第一次鸦片战争(1839-1842)中，英国舰队包括一艘名为“复仇女神号（ the Nemesis）”的船，这艘船是为东印度公司在英国建造的。作为世界上最早的铁船之一，它以蒸汽为动力，能够到达传统战舰无法到达的地方。它能够追赶中国舰队到河的上游，并击沉了大部分舰队，导致它被中国人视为一艘“魔鬼船”。比起1860年著名的摩尼特号和维吉尼亚号(梅里麦克号)之间的冲突，我认为这次使用铁战舰的事件更有意义。……
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The Nemesis was an early and rather crude war-machine, but it was way beyond anything China could produce. Nor was China well placed to try. By the 1840s, the Manchu Dynasty was long past its best, with most of its hereditary soldiers lacking warlike skills and not much inclined to fight. Europe meantime had developed its military technology through continuous small wars. Europe had several huge military-industrial complexes that were rivals to each other, and which pioneered concepts like standardisation that were later taken up by non-military industries. The First Opium War exposed a dangerous gap in military effectiveness: European powers could project their power across eight time-zones: send their military one-third of the way round the world and still be much stronger than the vast Chinese Empire.
First China and then Japan saw that they would have to change drastically if they were to survive. In Japan, the drastic changes included the overthrow in 1868 of the Tokugawa Shogun in the name of the Japanese Emperor, who had not actually ruled since 1603. The Shoguns had made some steps towards modernisation, but it was their own well-tuned and stable system that they were being asked to dismantle. Whether they could have managed their own modernisation remains unknown, but my own strong feeling is that they could not.
“复仇女神”是一种早期的、相当粗糙的战争机器，但它远远超过了中国所能生产的任何东西，中国也不适合尝试。到19世纪40年代，满清王朝的鼎盛时期已经过去很久了，大多数世系士兵缺乏作战技能，也不太愿意打仗。与此同时，欧洲通过不断的小规模战争发展了其军事技术。欧洲有几个相互竞争的大型军事工业联合体，它们开创了标准化等概念，后来被非军事工业采纳。第一次鸦片战争暴露了军事效力上的一个危险差距:欧洲大国可以将他们的力量投射到八个时区之外:派遣他们的军队环绕世界三分之一的地方，比庞大的中华帝国强大得多。
首先是中国，然后是日本，他们意识到如果他们想要生存，就必须做出巨大的改变。在日本，剧烈的变化包括1868年以日本天皇的名义推翻德川幕府(Tokugawa Shogun)，前者自1603年以来就没有真正统治过日本。明治维新成功地反抗了幕府将军，幕府将军后来退位成为普通贵族。十几岁的天皇成为了一群决定与过去决裂的政客们的有名无实的领袖。
First China and then Japan saw that they would have to change drastically if they were to survive. In Japan, the drastic changes included the overthrow in 1868 of the Tokugawa Shogun in the name of the Japanese Emperor, who had not actually ruled since 1603. The Shoguns had made some steps towards modernisation, but it was their own well-tuned and stable system that they were being asked to dismantle. Whether they could have managed their own modernisation remains unknown, but my own strong feeling is that they could not.
“复仇女神”是一种早期的、相当粗糙的战争机器，但它远远超过了中国所能生产的任何东西，中国也不适合尝试。到19世纪40年代，满清王朝的鼎盛时期已经过去很久了，大多数世系士兵缺乏作战技能，也不太愿意打仗。与此同时，欧洲通过不断的小规模战争发展了其军事技术。欧洲有几个相互竞争的大型军事工业联合体，它们开创了标准化等概念，后来被非军事工业采纳。第一次鸦片战争暴露了军事效力上的一个危险差距:欧洲大国可以将他们的力量投射到八个时区之外:派遣他们的军队环绕世界三分之一的地方，比庞大的中华帝国强大得多。
首先是中国，然后是日本，他们意识到如果他们想要生存，就必须做出巨大的改变。在日本，剧烈的变化包括1868年以日本天皇的名义推翻德川幕府(Tokugawa Shogun)，前者自1603年以来就没有真正统治过日本。明治维新成功地反抗了幕府将军，幕府将军后来退位成为普通贵族。十几岁的天皇成为了一群决定与过去决裂的政客们的有名无实的领袖。
You can’t be timid if you’re intending to change the cultural and social life of an old and sophisticated society. The ‘Charter Oath’ affirmed European political ideas as they existing in the 1860s, which was a drastic break with Japan’s own traditions. Automatic inherited privileges of class were rejected, and no one was to be tied to their father’s profession. Inequality and class distinctiveness were assumed to be natural, just as they were in Europe at the time, except by a few communists and anarchist. But politic was to be opened up. Anyone could express opinions on how the country should be governed, so long as certain basics were respected.
The defects of Imperial Japan were very much the same as the defects of the systems they copied, the aggressive European Empires of the late 19th century. Empires that later smashed themselves up in World War One and then the Great Depression. Meantime Imperial Japan wrecking itself during its invasion of China and then its attack on the USA in World War Two.
如果你想改变一个古老而复杂的社会的文化和社会生活，你不能胆怯。《宪章誓言》重申了19世纪60年代存在的欧洲政治理念，这是对日本自身传统的一次重大突破。自动继承阶级特权被拒绝了，没有人能跟父亲的职业联系在一起。不平等和阶级差异被认为是理所应当的，就像当时的欧洲一样，除了少数共产主义者和无政府主义者。但政治是开放的。只要某些基本原则得到尊重，任何人都可以就国家应该如何治理发表意见。
日本帝国的缺陷与他们复制的19世纪后期欧洲帝国的缺陷非常相似。这些帝国后来在一战和大萧条中分崩离析。与此同时，日本帝国在侵略中国和在二战中攻击美国的过程中自我毁灭了。
The defects of Imperial Japan were very much the same as the defects of the systems they copied, the aggressive European Empires of the late 19th century. Empires that later smashed themselves up in World War One and then the Great Depression. Meantime Imperial Japan wrecking itself during its invasion of China and then its attack on the USA in World War Two.
如果你想改变一个古老而复杂的社会的文化和社会生活，你不能胆怯。《宪章誓言》重申了19世纪60年代存在的欧洲政治理念，这是对日本自身传统的一次重大突破。自动继承阶级特权被拒绝了，没有人能跟父亲的职业联系在一起。不平等和阶级差异被认为是理所应当的，就像当时的欧洲一样，除了少数共产主义者和无政府主义者。但政治是开放的。只要某些基本原则得到尊重，任何人都可以就国家应该如何治理发表意见。
日本帝国的缺陷与他们复制的19世纪后期欧洲帝国的缺陷非常相似。这些帝国后来在一战和大萧条中分崩离析。与此同时，日本帝国在侵略中国和在二战中攻击美国的过程中自我毁灭了。
Whether China could have followed such a path is moot. When politics is fluid, the right individual in the right position can make a lot of difference. Or the wrong individual in that same position can be disastrous. China mostly had weak leadership, and those leaders who were strong were generally strong in the wrong way, good at grasping power but bad at doing anything useful with it.
I’d place a lot of blame on the three major leaders of China’s period of weakness: the Dowager Empress Cixi, General Yuan Shikai and Chiang Kai-shek. Cuckoos, people who were brilliant and gaining and holding onto power, but unable to do anything useful with it. In general terms they wanted to modernise China, but all of them expected the bulk of the population to stay passive.
中国是否会走上这条道路尚无定论。政治不会一成不变，正确的个人在正确的位置可以产生很大的不同，错误的人处于同样的位置可能是灾难性的。（近代）中国大多软弱，那些强大的领导人通常以错误的方式强大——善于掌握权力，但不善于利用它做任何有用的事情。
我把很多责任归咎于中国软弱时期的三位主要领导人:慈禧太后、袁世凯将军和蒋介石——布谷鸟，那些聪明的人获得并抓住了权力，但却不能用它做任何有用的事情。总的来说，他们希望实现中国的现代化，但他们都希望大多数人保持被动。
I’d place a lot of blame on the three major leaders of China’s period of weakness: the Dowager Empress Cixi, General Yuan Shikai and Chiang Kai-shek. Cuckoos, people who were brilliant and gaining and holding onto power, but unable to do anything useful with it. In general terms they wanted to modernise China, but all of them expected the bulk of the population to stay passive.
中国是否会走上这条道路尚无定论。政治不会一成不变，正确的个人在正确的位置可以产生很大的不同，错误的人处于同样的位置可能是灾难性的。（近代）中国大多软弱，那些强大的领导人通常以错误的方式强大——善于掌握权力，但不善于利用它做任何有用的事情。
我把很多责任归咎于中国软弱时期的三位主要领导人:慈禧太后、袁世凯将军和蒋介石——布谷鸟，那些聪明的人获得并抓住了权力，但却不能用它做任何有用的事情。总的来说，他们希望实现中国的现代化，但他们都希望大多数人保持被动。
You can’t have a dynamic society built on top of a passive and superstitious population with few concerns beyond its own village or town life. Mao gets bitched about by most Western commentators and many Chinese dissidents, because of the simplistic and sometimes destructive methods he used to create dynamism right through the society. Much worse things and greater intolerance in imposing ideas had happened in Europe’s own modernisation, which also had decades and centuries to work in. The same dynamism was imposed on European colonies, where the people suddenly found themselves ruled at a local level by “District Officers” of mysterious origins and with alarming powers. Japan did the same job for Korea and Taiwan when it ruled them. But only Japan managed to modernise without uprooting its own traditions.
Why did Traditionalist China fail? Several reasons. The Manchu dynasty had become weak, certainly. But the Dowager Empress Cixi certainly exerted a malign influence, combining a talent for court intrigue with a basic unwillingness to accept that the world she’d grown up in was now doomed. Manchu inherited privilege was also a major problem, and was the thing that Cixi and her successors preserved to the bitter end. The dynasty undermined their traditionalist credentials first, abolishing the Imperials Examinations that had kept China tied to Confucian principles across the centuries. But the government was still dominated by a tiny circle of privileged Manchu. This must have lost them whatever Han-gentry support they still had, without conceding enough to satisfy radicals.
你不可能让一个充满活力的社会建立在一群消极迷信的人之上，他们除了关心自己的乡村或城镇生活之外，几乎什么都不关心。毛被大多数西方评论家和许多中国持不同政见者抱怨，因为他使用了简单的，有时是破坏性的方法来在整个社会创造活力。欧洲自身的现代化进程中也发生过更糟糕、更不宽容的事情，而欧洲的现代化进程也有几十年乃至几百年的时间。同样的动力也被强加在欧洲殖民地上，那里的人们突然发现自己在地方一级被来历神秘、实力惊人的“地区官员”统治着。日本在统治韩国和台湾时也做了同样的事情。但只有日本在没有抛弃自己的传统的情况下实现了现代化。
为什么传统的中国失败了?有以下几个原因。
当然，满清王朝已经衰弱了。但慈禧太后无疑施加了一种有害的影响，她一方面有搞宫廷阴谋的天赋，另一方面却根本不愿接受自己成长的世界已经注定要灭亡的事实。满族的继承特权也是一个大问题，也是慈禧及其后继者坚持到最后的问题。朝代首先破坏了他们传统的资格，废除了几个世纪以来一直把中国与儒家原则联系在一起的科举制度。但政府仍然被少数享有特权的满族人所统治。这必然使他们失去了汉人的支持，同时又没有做出足够的让步来满足激进分子。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
Why did Traditionalist China fail? Several reasons. The Manchu dynasty had become weak, certainly. But the Dowager Empress Cixi certainly exerted a malign influence, combining a talent for court intrigue with a basic unwillingness to accept that the world she’d grown up in was now doomed. Manchu inherited privilege was also a major problem, and was the thing that Cixi and her successors preserved to the bitter end. The dynasty undermined their traditionalist credentials first, abolishing the Imperials Examinations that had kept China tied to Confucian principles across the centuries. But the government was still dominated by a tiny circle of privileged Manchu. This must have lost them whatever Han-gentry support they still had, without conceding enough to satisfy radicals.
你不可能让一个充满活力的社会建立在一群消极迷信的人之上，他们除了关心自己的乡村或城镇生活之外，几乎什么都不关心。毛被大多数西方评论家和许多中国持不同政见者抱怨，因为他使用了简单的，有时是破坏性的方法来在整个社会创造活力。欧洲自身的现代化进程中也发生过更糟糕、更不宽容的事情，而欧洲的现代化进程也有几十年乃至几百年的时间。同样的动力也被强加在欧洲殖民地上，那里的人们突然发现自己在地方一级被来历神秘、实力惊人的“地区官员”统治着。日本在统治韩国和台湾时也做了同样的事情。但只有日本在没有抛弃自己的传统的情况下实现了现代化。
为什么传统的中国失败了?有以下几个原因。
当然，满清王朝已经衰弱了。但慈禧太后无疑施加了一种有害的影响，她一方面有搞宫廷阴谋的天赋，另一方面却根本不愿接受自己成长的世界已经注定要灭亡的事实。满族的继承特权也是一个大问题，也是慈禧及其后继者坚持到最后的问题。朝代首先破坏了他们传统的资格，废除了几个世纪以来一直把中国与儒家原则联系在一起的科举制度。但政府仍然被少数享有特权的满族人所统治。这必然使他们失去了汉人的支持，同时又没有做出足够的让步来满足激进分子。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
A Japanese-style reform would have needed a strong and determined Emperor, or at least a respectable figurehead. And it would have needed a decisive victory over the older system of government, which is just what didn’t happen. There was a ‘Self-Strengthening Movement’ from 1865 to 1895, but it amounted to little. Change had to take place within a corrupt old system of government, whereas the earlier Meiji Restoration had overthrown the Shogun’s rule. What happened in Japan was a fresh start, with the added advantage of clear historic legitimacy flowing from the Emperor.
The Guangxu Emperor, Cixi’s nephew, made his much more serious attempt in 1898, but was betrayed and was kept prisoner for ten years. Some people criticise the Guangxu Emperor for attempting a very drastic reforms during the ‘Hundred Days’ in 1898. But China had started late. Limited reforms that the conservatives could live with had been tried and had produced poor results. The failure of these half-measures were shown by China’s decisive defeat by Japan in the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-5.
日本式的改革需要一位坚强而坚定的天皇，或者至少是一位有名无实的但可敬的领袖。它需要对旧的政府体系取得决定性的胜利，而这并没有发生。从1865年到1895年有过一场“自强运动”，但收效甚微。变革必然发生在腐败的旧政府体制内，而早期的明治维新推翻了幕府的统治。日本发生的事情是一个新的开始，另外一个优势是，天皇具有明确的历史合法性。
慈禧的侄子光绪皇帝在1898年进行了更严厉的尝试，但被出卖并被关押了10年。一些人批评光绪皇帝试图在1898年的“百日”期间进行非常激烈的改革。但中国起步已经晚了。保守派可以忍受的有限改革已经尝试过，但收效甚微。在1894- 1895年的甲午战争中，中国被日本决定性地击败了，这就证明了这些折衷办法的失败。
The Guangxu Emperor, Cixi’s nephew, made his much more serious attempt in 1898, but was betrayed and was kept prisoner for ten years. Some people criticise the Guangxu Emperor for attempting a very drastic reforms during the ‘Hundred Days’ in 1898. But China had started late. Limited reforms that the conservatives could live with had been tried and had produced poor results. The failure of these half-measures were shown by China’s decisive defeat by Japan in the First Sino-Japanese War in 1894-5.
日本式的改革需要一位坚强而坚定的天皇，或者至少是一位有名无实的但可敬的领袖。它需要对旧的政府体系取得决定性的胜利，而这并没有发生。从1865年到1895年有过一场“自强运动”，但收效甚微。变革必然发生在腐败的旧政府体制内，而早期的明治维新推翻了幕府的统治。日本发生的事情是一个新的开始，另外一个优势是，天皇具有明确的历史合法性。
慈禧的侄子光绪皇帝在1898年进行了更严厉的尝试，但被出卖并被关押了10年。一些人批评光绪皇帝试图在1898年的“百日”期间进行非常激烈的改革。但中国起步已经晚了。保守派可以忍受的有限改革已经尝试过，但收效甚微。在1894- 1895年的甲午战争中，中国被日本决定性地击败了，这就证明了这些折衷办法的失败。
By 1898, Japan had a 30 years lead, but China was much bigger and might have become strong enough to rule out the possibility of further Japanese aggression. Sadly, the young emperor trusted General Yuan Shikai, who turned out to be a shallow schemer. He betrayed the reforming Emperor and drastic change was fatally delayed.
When Cixi died in 1908, the Reform Emperor was still in his late 30s. He could have become a formidable ruler, but he died a day before Cixi. Officially he died of natural causes after a long illness: some historians believe this, which suggests to me that they aren’t very good historians. The timing would be an absurd coincidence if it was not murder by people who could expect loss of power and probable punishment had he been the next ruler..
In 2008, Chinese historians and scientists published evidence that he’d been poisoned with arsenic.[MM] Who did it remains uncertain, and maybe does not matter much. Dowager Emperess Cixi was a malign influence, but others went along with her rule and preferred her to the likely alternatives.
到1898年，日本已经领先30年，但中国比日本大得多，可能已经强大到足以排除日本进一步侵略的可能性。遗憾的是，年轻的皇帝信任了袁世凯将军，而袁世凯是一个肤浅的阴谋家。他背叛了改革的皇帝，激进的变革被致命地推迟了。
1908年慈禧去世时，维新皇帝还不到40岁。他本可以成为一位令人敬畏的统治者，但他比慈禧早死一天。根据官方说法，他是在长期患病后自然死亡的:一些历史学家相信这一点，这在我看来表明他们不是很好的历史学家。如果他不是被那些认为如果他成为下一个统治者就会失去权力和可能的惩罚的人谋杀的话，这个时间将是一个荒谬的巧合。
2008年，中国历史学家和科学家公布了他被砒霜毒害的证据。究竟是谁干的还不确定，也许也无关紧要。慈禧太后是一个邪恶的影响因素，但其他人都赞同她的统治，喜欢她而不是其他可能的选择。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
When Cixi died in 1908, the Reform Emperor was still in his late 30s. He could have become a formidable ruler, but he died a day before Cixi. Officially he died of natural causes after a long illness: some historians believe this, which suggests to me that they aren’t very good historians. The timing would be an absurd coincidence if it was not murder by people who could expect loss of power and probable punishment had he been the next ruler..
In 2008, Chinese historians and scientists published evidence that he’d been poisoned with arsenic.[MM] Who did it remains uncertain, and maybe does not matter much. Dowager Emperess Cixi was a malign influence, but others went along with her rule and preferred her to the likely alternatives.
到1898年，日本已经领先30年，但中国比日本大得多，可能已经强大到足以排除日本进一步侵略的可能性。遗憾的是，年轻的皇帝信任了袁世凯将军，而袁世凯是一个肤浅的阴谋家。他背叛了改革的皇帝，激进的变革被致命地推迟了。
1908年慈禧去世时，维新皇帝还不到40岁。他本可以成为一位令人敬畏的统治者，但他比慈禧早死一天。根据官方说法，他是在长期患病后自然死亡的:一些历史学家相信这一点，这在我看来表明他们不是很好的历史学家。如果他不是被那些认为如果他成为下一个统治者就会失去权力和可能的惩罚的人谋杀的话，这个时间将是一个荒谬的巧合。
2008年，中国历史学家和科学家公布了他被砒霜毒害的证据。究竟是谁干的还不确定，也许也无关紧要。慈禧太后是一个邪恶的影响因素，但其他人都赞同她的统治，喜欢她而不是其他可能的选择。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处
The death of the Reform Emperor doomed the dynasty. No alternative ruler was likely to be taken seriously – and in any case the court chose a two-year-old called Puyi. He was the figurehead for an extremely weak government that promised a constitution but hung on like grim death to the superiority of Manchus over Han. The new government ousted Yuan Shikai, who was a Han but also a lifelong servant of the dynasty, the sort of person they absolutely had to keep loyal. The Han gentry remembered the Taiping Rebellion: they were afraid of the peasantry. It wouldn’t be true to say that they were afraid of their fellow-citizens: there was no such thing as a fellowship among Chinese of different classes, nor did China then have the concept of citizenship in the Western sense. There was a massive population that was barely political and a gentry that wanted a modest development within traditional forms. But the dynasty moved much too slowly, waiting till 1908 before offering a joke constitution that would not have come into effect until 1917 and did not offer a proper constitutional monarchy. Within three years there was a major revolt that threatened civil war. The 1911 Revolution was followed by a 1912 compromise that officially deposed the Emperor. This wiped out the existing frxwork of loyalty, but put nothing very solid in its place.
Cixi was the first cuckoo. The fate of the other two will be told in the next article.
维新皇帝的死注定了这个王朝的灭亡。而其他统治者都不太可能被认真对待——朝廷选择了一个两岁的叫溥仪的孩子。他是一个非常软弱的政府的傀儡，这个政府承诺颁布一部宪法，但却像死路一条一样坚持满族对汉人的优势。
新政府驱逐了袁世凯，他是汉人，但也是朝廷的终身仆人，是那种他们必须保持忠诚的人。汉人的士绅们记得太平天国起义，结果是他们害怕农民。说他们害怕他们的同胞是不正确的:在不同阶级的中国人之间没有这样的友谊，那时的中国也没有西方意义上的公民的概念。当时的人口非常庞大，几乎不涉及政治，而绅士们希望在传统形式下得到适度的发展。但是王朝发展得太慢了，直到1908年才出台了一部可笑的宪法，这部宪法直到1917年才生效，也没有提供一个真正的君主立宪制。三年内发生了一场大叛乱，有爆发内战的危险。1911年辛亥革命之后，1912年妥协，正式废黜了皇帝。这抹去了现有的忠诚框架，但又没有什么非常坚实的东西可以取而代之。慈禧是第一只布谷鸟，其余两只的命运将在下一篇文章揭晓。
（完）
Cixi was the first cuckoo. The fate of the other two will be told in the next article.
维新皇帝的死注定了这个王朝的灭亡。而其他统治者都不太可能被认真对待——朝廷选择了一个两岁的叫溥仪的孩子。他是一个非常软弱的政府的傀儡，这个政府承诺颁布一部宪法，但却像死路一条一样坚持满族对汉人的优势。
新政府驱逐了袁世凯，他是汉人，但也是朝廷的终身仆人，是那种他们必须保持忠诚的人。汉人的士绅们记得太平天国起义，结果是他们害怕农民。说他们害怕他们的同胞是不正确的:在不同阶级的中国人之间没有这样的友谊，那时的中国也没有西方意义上的公民的概念。当时的人口非常庞大，几乎不涉及政治，而绅士们希望在传统形式下得到适度的发展。但是王朝发展得太慢了，直到1908年才出台了一部可笑的宪法，这部宪法直到1917年才生效，也没有提供一个真正的君主立宪制。三年内发生了一场大叛乱，有爆发内战的危险。1911年辛亥革命之后，1912年妥协，正式废黜了皇帝。这抹去了现有的忠诚框架，但又没有什么非常坚实的东西可以取而代之。慈禧是第一只布谷鸟，其余两只的命运将在下一篇文章揭晓。
（完）
Appendix: The Indus Valley Civilisation and its Continuity
The Indus Valley or Harappan Civilization dates back to 3300 BC, quite a bit older than similar developments in what is now China. But how much continuity was there between this and Hindu civilisation? The political system and history of the Harappan is unknown, but the lack of buildings that might be palaces or major temples has been noted. This suggests something very different from the later Hindu system of powerful kings and important temples.
There was an ‘Indus scxt’ of several hundred signs, of unknown meaning. It’s not been proven to be a writing system, taking ‘writing system’ to mean a scxt capable of expressing anything that can be said. It might have been just a set of symbols with specific meaning, just as we today have road signs and also symbols on clothing to explain how it can he washed. Most Harappan inscxtions are very short.
附录：印度河流域文明及其连续性
印度河流域或哈拉帕文明可以追溯到公元前3300年，比现在中国的类似发展要古老得多。但它和印度文明之间有多少连续性呢? 哈拉帕的政治制度和历史是未知的，但可能以宫殿或寺庙为主的建筑的缺乏已经被注意到。这表明了一些与后来的印度教体系中强大的国王和重要的寺庙非常不同的东西。
有一种“印度河文字”，有几百种符号，意义不明。它还没有被证明是一种书写体系，“书写体系”指的是一种能够表达任何可说的东西的脚本。它可能只是一组具有特定意义的符号，就像我们今天的路标和衣服上的符号。大多数哈拉帕碑文都很短。
The Indus Valley or Harappan Civilization dates back to 3300 BC, quite a bit older than similar developments in what is now China. But how much continuity was there between this and Hindu civilisation? The political system and history of the Harappan is unknown, but the lack of buildings that might be palaces or major temples has been noted. This suggests something very different from the later Hindu system of powerful kings and important temples.
There was an ‘Indus scxt’ of several hundred signs, of unknown meaning. It’s not been proven to be a writing system, taking ‘writing system’ to mean a scxt capable of expressing anything that can be said. It might have been just a set of symbols with specific meaning, just as we today have road signs and also symbols on clothing to explain how it can he washed. Most Harappan inscxtions are very short.
附录：印度河流域文明及其连续性
印度河流域或哈拉帕文明可以追溯到公元前3300年，比现在中国的类似发展要古老得多。但它和印度文明之间有多少连续性呢? 哈拉帕的政治制度和历史是未知的，但可能以宫殿或寺庙为主的建筑的缺乏已经被注意到。这表明了一些与后来的印度教体系中强大的国王和重要的寺庙非常不同的东西。
有一种“印度河文字”，有几百种符号，意义不明。它还没有被证明是一种书写体系，“书写体系”指的是一种能够表达任何可说的东西的脚本。它可能只是一组具有特定意义的符号，就像我们今天的路标和衣服上的符号。大多数哈拉帕碑文都很短。
It has been suggested that it generated later Hindu scxts, after a mysterious break of many centuries with no signs of writing. The original inscxtions would make no sense as messages, but might be personal names. But the mainstream Western view is that Hindu culture borrowed a version of the alphabet from the ancient peoples of West Asia, the same system that also spread west to become the Greek and Latin alphabets.
When the Indus Valley civilisation was discovered, it was already known that there was a single Indo-European family of languages, a notion that began when people noticed the uncanny similarities of Sanskrit to Latin and Greek. The general assumption was that this language family had begun somewhere in Eastern Europe – treating the lands west of Vienna and up to the Baltic coast and the eastern flanks of the Carpathians as ‘Middle Europe’ and everything east of that and up to the Urals as the real Eastern Europe.
有人认为，印度教手稿诞生于此——这期间经过了几个世纪的神秘中断，没有任何书写的迹象。最初的铭文作为信息没有意义，也可能是个人的名字。但西方的主流观点是，印度文化从西亚古代民族借用了一种字母表，同样的文字也向西传播，形成了希腊和拉丁字母表。
当印度河流域文明被发现时，人们已经知道有一个单一的印欧语系，这个概念始于人们注意到梵语与拉丁语和希腊语惊人的相似之处。一般的假设是这个语系起源于东欧的某个地方，把维也纳以西、波罗的海沿岸和喀尔巴阡山脉东侧的土地称为“中欧”，把该地区以东、乌拉尔山脉以北的地区称为真正的东欧。
When the Indus Valley civilisation was discovered, it was already known that there was a single Indo-European family of languages, a notion that began when people noticed the uncanny similarities of Sanskrit to Latin and Greek. The general assumption was that this language family had begun somewhere in Eastern Europe – treating the lands west of Vienna and up to the Baltic coast and the eastern flanks of the Carpathians as ‘Middle Europe’ and everything east of that and up to the Urals as the real Eastern Europe.
有人认为，印度教手稿诞生于此——这期间经过了几个世纪的神秘中断，没有任何书写的迹象。最初的铭文作为信息没有意义，也可能是个人的名字。但西方的主流观点是，印度文化从西亚古代民族借用了一种字母表，同样的文字也向西传播，形成了希腊和拉丁字母表。
当印度河流域文明被发现时，人们已经知道有一个单一的印欧语系，这个概念始于人们注意到梵语与拉丁语和希腊语惊人的相似之处。一般的假设是这个语系起源于东欧的某个地方，把维也纳以西、波罗的海沿岸和喀尔巴阡山脉东侧的土地称为“中欧”，把该地区以东、乌拉尔山脉以北的地区称为真正的东欧。
Within this vast area, the Ukraine was a favoured location – though it may have begun just south of Europe as we now define it, in Anatolia. You certainly find the greatest number of branches of Indo-European in this Eastern Europe / Western Asia region: Greek, Albania, the Balto-Slavic languages and the extinct Anatolian languages that included Hittite. It was assumed that the Germanic, Italian and Celtic branches had gone west while the Slavonic and Indo-Iranian branches had gone east. This spread was in part based on the military usefulness of the chariot, which was unknown to the Indus Valley people
Modern linguist define ten to twelve branches of Indo-European, some extinct. Indo-Iranian is just one, and not the only one to go east. Tocharian is another complete branch known from the Tarim Basin in Central Asia, now part of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China, and it has more in common with some West European branches than it has with Indo-Iranian. Albanian, Greek and Armenian are each isolated survivals of what are believed to be other major branches, existing close to where the original Indo-European was probably spoken.
在这片广阔的区域内，乌克兰是一个理想的地点——尽管它可能始于我们现在定义的欧洲南部的安纳托利亚(Anatolia，也称安纳托里亚半岛，今构成土耳其国大部分国土)。你肯定会在东欧/西亚地区发现最多的印欧语系分支:希腊语、阿尔巴尼亚语、波罗的海-斯拉夫语以及包括赫梯语在内的已灭绝的安纳托利亚语。人们认为，日耳曼语系、意大利语系和凯尔特语系向西迁移，而斯拉夫语系和印度-伊朗语系向东迁移。这种传播部分是基于战车的军事用途，这是印度河流域的人们所不知道的。
现代语言学家给印欧语系下分了十到十二个分支，有些已经灭绝了。印度-伊朗只是其中之一，它们不是唯一一个向东方发展的文明。吐火罗是中亚塔里木盆地已知的另一个完整的分支，现在是中国新疆自治区的一部分，它与一些西欧分支相比与印度-伊朗分支有更多的共同点。阿尔巴尼亚语、希腊语和亚美尼亚语都被认为是其他主要语言分支的孤立遗存，它们存在于可能使用原始印欧语的地方附近。
Modern linguist define ten to twelve branches of Indo-European, some extinct. Indo-Iranian is just one, and not the only one to go east. Tocharian is another complete branch known from the Tarim Basin in Central Asia, now part of the Xinjiang Autonomous Region of China, and it has more in common with some West European branches than it has with Indo-Iranian. Albanian, Greek and Armenian are each isolated survivals of what are believed to be other major branches, existing close to where the original Indo-European was probably spoken.
在这片广阔的区域内，乌克兰是一个理想的地点——尽管它可能始于我们现在定义的欧洲南部的安纳托利亚(Anatolia，也称安纳托里亚半岛，今构成土耳其国大部分国土)。你肯定会在东欧/西亚地区发现最多的印欧语系分支:希腊语、阿尔巴尼亚语、波罗的海-斯拉夫语以及包括赫梯语在内的已灭绝的安纳托利亚语。人们认为，日耳曼语系、意大利语系和凯尔特语系向西迁移，而斯拉夫语系和印度-伊朗语系向东迁移。这种传播部分是基于战车的军事用途，这是印度河流域的人们所不知道的。
现代语言学家给印欧语系下分了十到十二个分支，有些已经灭绝了。印度-伊朗只是其中之一，它们不是唯一一个向东方发展的文明。吐火罗是中亚塔里木盆地已知的另一个完整的分支，现在是中国新疆自治区的一部分，它与一些西欧分支相比与印度-伊朗分支有更多的共同点。阿尔巴尼亚语、希腊语和亚美尼亚语都被认为是其他主要语言分支的孤立遗存，它们存在于可能使用原始印欧语的地方附近。
The original British discoverers of the Indus Valley rapidly arrived at a picture of what they’d found: a very old culture destroyed by barbaric Indo-European invaders, who very much later created their own civilisation. Evidence to support this was found in the Rig-Veda, the oldest surviving Hindu writing, including the god India bearing a title that is sometimes translated as ‘Breaker of Cities’. (The correctness of this translation has been disputed.)
Later studies redrew this picture. For one thing, the Indus Valley civilisation was not destroyed by invaders: it simply collapsed. It is plausible that the arriving Indo-Iranians merged with some small-scale remnants of this culture. But some Hindu nationalists wish to go further and claim that the Indus Valley people were speakers of an Indo-Iranian language. This is doubtful: other major languages of India belong to unrelated language families, whereas the Indian sub-continent contained no other branches of Indo-European until English became widespread.
最初发现印度河流域的英国人很快就发现了一幅他们所发现的图景:一个被野蛮的印欧入侵者摧毁的非常古老的文化，他们在很久以后创造了自己的文明。在现存最古老的印度教著作《梨伽吠陀》中发现了支持这一观点的证据，其中包括印度神的名字，有时被翻译为“城市破坏者”。(这个翻译的正确性一直存在争议。)
后来的研究重新描绘了这幅图景。首先，印度河流域文明并没有被入侵者摧毁:它只是崩溃了。抵达的印度-伊朗人与这种文化的一小部分残余融合在了一起，这看起来还是合理的。但一些印度教民族主义者希望走得更远，声称印度河流域的人们说的是一种印度-伊朗语。这是值得怀疑的:印度的其他主要语言都属于不相关的语系，而印度次大陆在英语普及之前没有印欧语系的其他分支。
Later studies redrew this picture. For one thing, the Indus Valley civilisation was not destroyed by invaders: it simply collapsed. It is plausible that the arriving Indo-Iranians merged with some small-scale remnants of this culture. But some Hindu nationalists wish to go further and claim that the Indus Valley people were speakers of an Indo-Iranian language. This is doubtful: other major languages of India belong to unrelated language families, whereas the Indian sub-continent contained no other branches of Indo-European until English became widespread.
最初发现印度河流域的英国人很快就发现了一幅他们所发现的图景:一个被野蛮的印欧入侵者摧毁的非常古老的文化，他们在很久以后创造了自己的文明。在现存最古老的印度教著作《梨伽吠陀》中发现了支持这一观点的证据，其中包括印度神的名字，有时被翻译为“城市破坏者”。(这个翻译的正确性一直存在争议。)
后来的研究重新描绘了这幅图景。首先，印度河流域文明并没有被入侵者摧毁:它只是崩溃了。抵达的印度-伊朗人与这种文化的一小部分残余融合在了一起，这看起来还是合理的。但一些印度教民族主义者希望走得更远，声称印度河流域的人们说的是一种印度-伊朗语。这是值得怀疑的:印度的其他主要语言都属于不相关的语系，而印度次大陆在英语普及之前没有印欧语系的其他分支。
The best estimates is that the Indo-Iranian warrior tribes arrived after the Indus Valley civilisation had collapsed. Some elements of the culture were absorbed, and there is evidence that gods and goddesses survived obscurely and later surfaced to become part of the modified Hinduism that developed in the face of the challenge from the Buddhist and Jain creeds. It’s all disputed, but probably nothing like China’s continuity.
The speakers of Dravidian languages in South India would like to think that the people of the Indus Valley civilisation also spoke a Dravidian language. This is plausible but speculative.
Most of the territory of the Indus Valley civilisation is in Pakistan, which has the river Indus as its core. Whatever elements of the Indus Valley religion may have survived in Hinduism have been replaced by Islam.
最佳估计是印度-伊朗的战士部落是在印度河流域文明崩溃后到达的。文化中的一些元素被吸收了，有证据表明，神和女神隐晦地幸存下来，后来再次出现，成为修正后的印度教的一部分，这是在面对来自佛教和耆那教信条的挑战时发展起来的。这些都是有争议的，但可能都比不上中国的连续性。
南印度说德拉威语的人可能会让人认为印度河流域文明的人也说德拉威语。这看似合理，但也只是推测。印度河流域文明的大部分领土在巴基斯坦，印度河是其核心。印度河流域宗教中任何可能在印度教中幸存下来的元素都被伊斯兰教所取代了。
The speakers of Dravidian languages in South India would like to think that the people of the Indus Valley civilisation also spoke a Dravidian language. This is plausible but speculative.
Most of the territory of the Indus Valley civilisation is in Pakistan, which has the river Indus as its core. Whatever elements of the Indus Valley religion may have survived in Hinduism have been replaced by Islam.
最佳估计是印度-伊朗的战士部落是在印度河流域文明崩溃后到达的。文化中的一些元素被吸收了，有证据表明，神和女神隐晦地幸存下来，后来再次出现，成为修正后的印度教的一部分，这是在面对来自佛教和耆那教信条的挑战时发展起来的。这些都是有争议的，但可能都比不上中国的连续性。
南印度说德拉威语的人可能会让人认为印度河流域文明的人也说德拉威语。这看似合理，但也只是推测。印度河流域文明的大部分领土在巴基斯坦，印度河是其核心。印度河流域宗教中任何可能在印度教中幸存下来的元素都被伊斯兰教所取代了。
评论翻译
（无）
很赞 2
收藏