Από την αρχαιότητα στον φεουδαρχισμό

by Perry Anderson, Ελένη Αστερίου (Translator)

Ο Perry Anderson μελετά κατ' αρχάς τις κοινωνικές και πολιτικές δομές της «δημοκρατικής» Αθήνας, της «ολιγαρχικής» Σπάρτης, τις πορείες, επεκτάσεις και καταστροφή τους και, μαζί, την καταστροφή ολόκληρου του ελληνικού κλασικού οικοδομήματος, κάτω από το βάρος των αντιφάσεών του και την εξωτερική πίεση των Μακεδόνων.
Στη συνέχεια, και αφού σταθεί στον ελληνιστικό κόσμο ως απότοκο της μακεδονικής επέκτασης, στρέφει το βλέμμα του στην αναδυόμενη ρωμαϊκή δύναμη, στην οικονομική και γεωγραφική της επέκταση, στους κοινωνικούς και πολιτικούς της θεσμούς, μέχρι την παρακμή της και το τέλος του αρχαίου κόσμου. Μέσα από τη διαδικασία παρακμής της Ρωμαϊκής Αυτοκρατορίας και κάτω από την πίεση των γερμανικών (αλλά και των νορμανδικών) εισβολών, προκύπτει ως σύνθεση ο φεουδαρχικός κόσμος στη δυτική Ευρώπη, ο οποίος διαμορφώνεται με διαφορετικές εκφάνσεις στην Ιταλία, στη Γαλλία, στη Γερμανία, στην Ισπανία, στην Αγγλία, κλπ.
Ο συγγραφέας μελετά την πορεία του μέχρι την παρακμή και την ανάδυση του απολυταρχικού κράτους και της αστικής τάξης. Όμως δεν ξεχνά και τον κόσμο της ανατολικής Ευρώπης (Βυζάντιο, Σλάβους, Ούγγρους, κλπ), ο οποίος ακολουθεί με διαφορετικό τρόπο ή δεν ακολουθεί καθόλου αυτή την πορεία.

Περιεχόμενα

Εισαγωγή

ΜΕΡΟΣ ΠΡΩΤΟ
Ι. Κλασική αρχαιότητα
1. Ο δουλοκτητικός τρόπος παραγωγής
2. Ελλάδα
3. Ο ελληνιστικός κόσμος
4. Ρώμη
ΙΙ. Η μετάβαση
1. Το γερμανικό υπόστρωμα
2. Οι επιδρομές
3. Προς τη σύνθεση

ΜΕΡΟΣ ΔΕΥΤΕΡΟ
Ι. Δυτική Ευρώπη
1. Ο φεουδαρχικός τρόπος παραγωγής
2. Τυπολογία των κοινωνικών μετασχηματισμών
3. Ο Άπω Βορράς
4. Η φεουδαρχική δυναμική
5. Η γενική κρίση
ΙΙ. Ανατολική Ευρώπη
1. Ανατολικά του Έλβα
2. Η τροχοπέδη του νομαδιαμού
3. Το μοντέλο της ανάπτυξης
4. Η κρίση στην Ανατολή
5. Νότια του Δούναβη
Λεπτομέρειες

Genres: History, Nonfiction, Politics, Philosophy, Medieval, Ancient History, Theory

335 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1974

About the author

Perry Anderson is an English Marxist intellectual and historian. He is Professor of History and Sociology at UCLA and an editor of the New Left Review. He is the brother of historian Benedict Anderson.

He was an influence on the New Left. He bore the brunt of the disapproval of E.P. Thompson in the latter's The Poverty of Theory, in a controversy during the late 1970s over the scientific Marxism of Louis Althusser, and the use of history and theory in the politics of the Left. In the mid-1960s, Thompson wrote an essay for the annual Socialist Register that rejected Anderson's view of aristocratic dominance of Britain's historical trajectory, as well as Anderson's seeming preference for continental European theorists over radical British traditions and empiricism. Anderson delivered two responses to Thompson's polemics, first in an essay in New Left Review (January-February 1966) called "Socialism and Pseudo-Empiricism" and then in a more conciliatory yet ambitious overview, Arguments within English Marxism (1980).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perry_An...

Reviews

[lyell bark · Rating 5 out of 5]

if you've a hankering for a nice bit of marxist historiography about the transition of slave owning society of grecco-roman antiquity to the feudal kingdoms of western europe + some kewl stuff about eastern europe and the balkans boy do i have the book for you *hands u this book*

[Tiarnán · Rating 4 out of 5]

Useful Marxist survey of the 'transition' from antique societies to feudalism in Europe. I have issues with Anderson's Poulantzian typological approach, which categorises 'social formations' in terms of the combination of modes of productions inherent within them.

At times this slips into a combination of the worst aspects of Althusserian structuralism, Whiggish progressivism, and ortho-Marxist teleology; equally, at times his application of a Marxist lens to the incredibly wide-ranging (geographically, linguistically, and chronologically) historiographic material he draws on brings out lucid insights. Excellent on the economic systems of various historical societies, their class structures and the limits or dynamics they imparted to agrarian productivity and geopolitics. I'm just pissed he did the whole of Europe and left out Ireland, especially since he's nominally (Anglo)Irish.

Should be read in conjunction with Merrington's "Town and Country in the Transition to Capitalism" which corrects Anderson's Weberian fetishisation of urban communities (published one year later); and Brenner's "Agrarian Class Structure and Economic Development in Pre-Industrial Europe" (two years later) which more firmly grasps the contingent political basis for the divergence between West and East (and England and the rest of the West) in the wake of the 14thC crisis.

[Amirsaman · Rating 3 out of 5]

یونانی بود که کار در آن عار بود و برده‌داری رایج. از هم می‌پاشد و روم بر سر کار می‌آید و مسیحیت نیز به آن اضافه می‌شود. قرن چهارم-پنجم بعد از میلاد ژرمن‌های بدوی‌زی به فرهنگ رومی متمدن اضافه می‌شوند و فئودالیسم زاده می‌شود. جایی که برده‌داری دیگر جواب نبود و در نتیجه دهقان را به زمینِ ارباب می‌چسباندند و راه فراری هم نبود. البته در هرجایی از اروپا یک جور رشد کرد.
مشکل فئودالیسم را برای پادشاه این بود که قدرت واقعی در دست اربابان و لردهایش بود. خارج از کتاب باید اضافه کنم که شاه ایران هم لابد از همین می‌ترسید و اصلاحات ارضی را راه انداخت.
کتابی است که نفهمیدم چرا این مسائل و جزییات تاریخی که مطرح می‌کند اصلا مهم هستند، و به همین خاطر برایم کسالت‌آور بود. پیش به سوی جلد دوم.

[Aung Sett Kyaw Min · Rating 3 out of 5]

I decided to pick up Passages to fill a gap in my understanding of the European experience of transition from the slave to the feudal mode of production, which I figured would be a more manageable read compared to the intimidating The Lineages of Absolutist State. Given Passages implicit descriptive and explanatory focus on the way production is organized and surplus extracted, the author can be forgiven for his lack of discussion on the superstructural accomplishments and deeds of the feudalism in its prime. But this minor flaw should not detract from the study's well-executed employment of the 'mode of production' as the primary motor that moves history, or European history at least. Perry Anderson takes us on a grand tour from classical Athens and Imperial Rome to the Carolingian and Byzantine Empires then concluding with the aristocratic, manorial reaction that broke out in Eastern Europe. The 'passages' in the title could be taken to refer to the Western passage (the so called 'Western' feudal synthesis of Roman and Germanic elements) which more or less culminated in the dissolution of the serfdom in West and the less glorious Eastern one (late Byzantine empire) where the historic absence of the slave mode of production, and the region's own demographic and geographic factors brought about an aborted synthesis that would define Eastern Europe's generalized developmental 'backwardness' for centuries to come. By the time generalized crisis of feudalism has subsided in Western Europe, the East saw an aristocratic upsurge so severe that it decimated peasants rights across the board and reduced tenants to serfs. Perry Anderson, commenting on the phenomenon of 'second serfdom', actually concludes that the process of enserfment in the East was well underaway since feudalism began its ascent in the West, so that Europe as a whole actually experienced two waves of enserfment.

[Inna · Rating 5 out of 5]

A great book dealing with the question of how societies reach a crisis and deal with it using examples of the passage from antiquity to both West European and East European feudalism. Anderson analyzed the place of unfree labor within the ancient world pointing out how Athenian freedom was dependent on its imperialist politics and Spartan freedom on slavery - both creating resentments and instability creating an opening for Hellenist states and then for Rome. Then he analyzes the fall of Rome as a result of the actual end of Roman inclusive policies. In fact he says that the elite used its political power to create huge estate at the expense of the poor and since the poor were also soldiers these developed loyalty to particular generals ready to take care of their interests rather than to a state (something rather similar to what eventually destroyed Byzantium). A combination of resulting instability and the continuously raising taxes (among other things, in order to support the apparatus of the Christian Church) created an opening for Germanic tribes which conquered Rome. While these tribes initially did not have large-scale unfree labor, their political leadership quickly perceived its advantages. With time large estates became the norm. Unlike in Rome though (and unlike in Byzantium), the new states did not possess a highly developed bureaucracy and required a different way to run the state. The way eventually adopted was feudalism - a pyramidal structure in which everybody was dependent on somebody all the way up to the king. The church, which at that time was the only body attempting to retain some of the culture of the classical world, was part of this in the sense that it employed unfree labor and owned land. The unusual component of Wstern feudal societies were the cities, where there was an assumption of social equality. The cities though were extremely important for encouraging trade and technological innovation. Basically Anderson claims that feudalism was a mix of Roman and Germanic notions on how a society should look like, which could work in a framework where the level of culture was much lower than in Rome. Anderson also says that the dynamism of Feudal societies, especially the more urbanized ones, created constant social tensions and, in many places, especially after the Black Death, the initially crushed peasant rebellions succeeded in freeing the peasantry to a large extent.
In the East unfree labor was introduced when it was disappearing in the West, largely due to scarcity of people. There the states in question chose to keep their societies almost strictly agricultural and not allow the establishment of free cities, like in the West. That solved the immediate labor problem but ended up creating a static economy, which made these countries fall behind.

[Camilo Ruiz Tassinari · Rating 5 out of 5]

Perry Anderson has written an outstanding book, a 300 page-long display of erudition and capacity to synthetize. The author writes about 2000 years of history as if he were a specialist in each of the periods and regions he writes about. Anderson masters the national academic production of virtually every country and time period, from Portugal to Russia, from Sweden to Greece; most of the times in the original language. Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism is a classic, and everyone with a mild interest in European history should read it. His orthodox but non-dogmatic interpretation of Marxism is what makes the book so rich.

[s · Rating 5 out of 5]

I haven't burned through a book like this in a while. I'm not a historian and Perry has a ridiculously wide net of sources at his command so any criticism I could have of this would be the usual one levelled against Marxists of being overly schematic in interpreting historical development. The thing is it's not like any other school of thought is really even trying to interpret it on a scale like this. I also see what people mean about him and his excessive vocabulary but I think it's actually a sort of necessity (along with the slightly overwrought sentences) because he's trying to construct and communicate a real vision of antiquity that doesn't rely on cartoons and cliché.

[Kit]

English is a mess of a language. The Oxford English Dictionary is like that shelf where you keep old packs of ketchup, rubber bands, and plastic forks. Oh, look in the back, it's 'boustrophedon', a scribbled note on a napkin from Plato's Gyros. A fasces of toothpicks, all bundled together, from that Roman joint (Why is there Greek takeout but no Roman takeout? Anderson’s book can kind of answer that question, by the way.) Up front are recent arrivals from the new world, the middle east, the far east, the frozen north, the antipodean outback. The British Empire and American century bequeathed us an extremely cosmopolitan language. Native speakers of English will know between 20,000 and 30,000 words.There are nearly 200,000 in current usage. Yet the full list of words that have ever been used in print is closer to triple that number. TheOED is divided into 8 frequency tranches, with Band 8 containing such essentials as ‘the’ and ‘from’. Band 7 contains old standbys like ‘five’, ‘black’ and ‘white’. Curiously, you have to get into Band 6 before you start seeing second-class colors like ‘red’ and ‘blue’, alongside biggies such as ‘Muslim’, ‘democracy’ and ‘happy’. By Band 2, we are already in the strange domain of ‘scintillometer’, and Band 1 is the utterly foreign land of ‘abaptiston’ and ‘grithbreach’.

╔══════╦═════════════════════════════╦═════════════════════╗
║ Band ║ Frequency per million words ║ % of entries in OED ║
╠══════╬═════════════════════════════╬═════════════════════╣
║ 8 ║ > 1,000 ║ 0.02% ║
║ 7 ║ 100 – 999 ║ 0.18% ║
║ 6 ║ 10 – 99 ║ 1% ║
║ 5 ║ 1 – 9.9 ║ 4% ║
║ 4 ║ 0.1 – 0.99 ║ 11% ║
║ 3 ║ 0.01 – 0.099 ║ 20% ║
║ 2 ║ < 0.0099 ║ 45% ║
║ 1 ║ – ║ 18% ║
╚══════╩═════════════════════════════╩═════════════════════╝

It's such a massive language that most of us spend our whole lives barely samplingits forgotten and buried riches. Not Perry Anderson, though. Some choice selections from Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism :

fastnesses
condign
tonus
trituration
imprescriptible
usufruct
marling
scission
eo ipso
perquisites
contumely
threnodies
solatium

This book is swarming with proper names, specialist historical terms, and all sorts of beautiful English creatures Perry Anderson is single-handedly keeping from extinction. We love him for it. Thank God for the built in dictionary on the kindle, though.

I have to admit I lost my steam at the end of this sweeping book. The final chapter was truly a slog since I idn’t know squat about Byzantium. That’s a ‘me problem’ though. I’ve never read anything like this book. Anderson warns us in his inspiring preface that this is not a work of ‘history’, merely a reading of other historians. It is, however, a sterling example of the historical materialist method for understanding the past. Unless history is to be a mere ‘one damn thing after another’, we must think in terms that are able to connect and explain things: productive forces, social formations, base and superstructure, the language of Marx and Engels. Perry Anderson debunks old idealisms in every chapter, weaving the whole history of antiquity and feudal Europe into a coherent, consistent, meaningful whole with astonishing concision.

[Malcolm · Rating 4 out of 5]

One of history's (the discipline) primary organising principles is periodisation: for those of us whose job it is, the approach helps us sort and make sense of the past and our work, but it is also a basic weakness that at times obscures the big picture. Although written nearly 40 years ago, this title remains an extremely useful place to start to get a sense of the grand sweep of nearly 2000 years of European history from the early Greek city-states to the ecnomic and social crisis of feudalism between about 1100 and 1500 AD (depending where in Europe you look). Anderson achieves something marvellous here, a synthetic view of a broad sweep in European history that manages to draw out both similarity and difference. Specialists in early every area will complain that details are left out that challenge aspects of the argument, and given the synthetic character of the argument that is no doubt true – but it points also to a problem of periodisation; an obscured big picture – and we get that picture here. The case adopts a sceptical but supportive approach to Marxist models, and is Marxist in form and intent, which is a useful rebuttal to approaches that remain either Whiggish, technologically determinist or dependent on socially abstracted political and organisational developments. Despite a clear and quite elegant comparative structure, the final section dealing with Byzantium feels a bit of a bolt on. This is, however, a minor weakness: this is a sharp and insightful synthesis that has been a pleasure to revisit 35 years after I first read it, and remains an excellent lnching pad for a study of European history that gets beyond national boundaries and conventional periodisations.

[Rob Keenan · Rating 5 out of 5]

What a read. Dense for sure, with parts that definitely went over my head but fascinating stuff. The Anderson brothers never fail to disappoint and this Marxist history of social change from the titular "Antiquity to Feudalism" certainly lives up to its lofty ambition. Packed full of well cited information this is a piece of work that will undoubtedly lend itself to returns and rereads in the future.

[TheEoJMan · Rating 5 out of 5]

More or less the Platonic ideal of Marxist historiography. Nothing new here for me, but nice to see many familiar facts and arguments presented in a concise and comprehensive manner. I will be reading Anderson’s companion piece on the absolutist state of which I am much less familiar.

[Aiden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Pretty good 3.5/5

[Cian Rowan · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book really helped to fill a large gap in my knowledge of antiquity and the medieval world. Anderson writes in an academic but very accessible style, and renders both historical narrative and comments on production systems/ancient economies easy to understand.

[Kaya Tokmakçıoğlu · Rating 4 out of 5]

Perry Anderson'dan "Mutlakıyetçi Devletin Anahatları"nı önceleyen bir yapıt "Antikiteden Feodalizme Geçişler". Anderson'ın "tarihçi" gözlüğüyle baktığı zaman ne kadar iyi işler çıkarabildiğinin de bir kanıtı aynı zamanda. Bir araya getirilen metinler ve tüm kitabın silsilesi biraz karmaşık ve detaycı olsa da üretim tarzı, üretici güçler, süreç, özne-nesne diyalektiği gibi Marksizmin kalbinde yatan kavramları "karanlık" olarak addedilen bir dönem için yeniden üretiyor Anderson. Uygur Kocabaşoğlu'nun çevirisi ne yazık ki feci. Kitap ne editöryel süreçten geçmiş ne de son okumaya tabi tutulmuş. Yer adlarından, terimlerin ifade edilişine kadar onlarca tutarsızlık, dezenformasyon vb. var. Okunabilirse İngilizcesi tercih edilmeli muhakkak.

[sologdin · Rating 3 out of 5]

very slick Marxist presentation of macrohistorical transformation.

[Fintan Mcgrath · Rating 5 out of 5]

After reading his brother Benedict Anderson's excellent book Imagined Communities, I decided to pick up this book by Perry Anderson.

Equally as impressive in its ambition, insight and presentation as his brother's work, Passages presents an overview of the transition of Europe from the slavery-based societies of the Classical Era to the Feudalism of the Middle Ages.

Drawing on a wide variety of sources appropriate for the scope of the subject matter, Passages describes the factors that led to the structure of society in the middle ages, contrasting the development of Western Europe with Eastern Europe, as well as key differences within different countries in those regions such as Scandinavia and Italy.

The book also touches on the structure and influence of nomadic societies like the Mongols and the anachronistic place of the Byzantine Empire in the mediaeval world.

I learned a lot from this book and I plan to read the companion volume Lineages of the Absolutist State soon, as well as look into more detailed works on some of the eras and regions covered in Passages.

[Ollie · Rating 3 out of 5]

Some good parts, but an extremely confusing structure which obfuscates a) the thematic links and b) the developments over time

Teleological to the extreme

[Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

this book is cool if you want to read some extremely sick historical materialism. i can't wait to read the thrilling conclusion in 'lineages of the absolutist state'!

[Matthías Ólafsson · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good survey, good text! Really looking forward to reading the second essay now.

[Nicolas Valin · Rating 4 out of 5]

Desde un punto de vista claramente marxista, pero no por eso de menor calidad analítica, Perry Anderson estudia las transiciones sociales, políticas y económicas que ha sufrido la humanidad desde la Antigua Grecia, pasando por Roma hasta la aparición del Feudalismo atravesando el período de la “Edad Oscura”. Perry Anderson se centra en el análisis de los modos de producción y como estos se han ido transformando, perpetuando y suplantando a lo largo del siglo V hasta el VIII. Esta obra, considerado por muchos estudiosos como ya un clásico, creo que es muy importante ya que aporta datos fundamentales que permiten entender los procesos de transición entre eras, como, por ejemplo: los cambios y permanencias en el pasaje de la sociedad Antigua a la Feudal y como se fueron fusionando, así como también el hecho de brindarnos un claro modelo para la comprensión de este período llamado “Edad Oscura” del cual escasean los datos, y del que sabe tan poco. Puede que la mirada de este autor sea un poco antigua en cierto sentido (ya que es una obra escrita en la década del 70), puede que no sea la única y puede que no sea la definitiva pero aun así nos provee de herramientas, modelos y ejemplos para que un análisis de las transiciones históricas entre la Antigüedad y el Feudalismo sea posible.

[Konstans · Rating 5 out of 5]

In the beginning was the word and was the money....beyond all the books whose titles consist of words such as "economy", "monetary","finance" etc., this book shows us how powerful the money is without saying this directly and also makes us understand how the money shapes and leads the destinies and conditionals of nation. In his work, Mr.Anderson actually focuses on who ancestors of feudalism are hence early middle ages is its centre point and this centre point's circle is antiquity (the beginning) and the high and the late middle ages (the sequel). Reading this book is a hard and long journey that needs to be concentrated, so the one who tries to read it may feel bored himself/herself or think that not smart enough to read this book. don't! Just try it deserves a chance :)

[David Lyndorff Paris · Rating 3 out of 5]

Udviklingen af den slavebaserede produktionsmåde på bedste marxistisk vis: Fra lænker til livegenskab
Med en klar marxistisk linse beskriver Perry Anderson overgangen fra antikkens slavebaserede produktionsmåde til feudalisme i Europa. Bogen står som et centralt værk inden for marxistisk historieskrivning, men efterlader spørgsmål om overbygningens og menneskelige aktørers betydning.

Perry Andersons bog ’Fra antikken til feudalismen’ (Passages from Antiguity to Feudalism) er stykke historisk håndværk, der viser sig som et pragteksemplar på, hvordan marxistiske historieskrivning ser ud. På mindre end 300 sider, og med hjælp fra et utal af kilder, fungerer bogen efter hensigten: den forklarer hvordan Antikken blev til Feudalismen i Europa. Det er en tidsperiode, der omfavner mere end 2000 år – og Anderson skriver med en sådan tyngde, at man er overbevist om, at han er om han er ekspert i hver og én ’mindre’ periode derimellem.
I forordet kommer han kritikken i forløbet: han udelader detaljer og nuancer og skriver historien ’fra toppen’, men det er netop styrken ved den historiske materialisme, som Anderson behersker så eminent. Han er marxist af politiske holdning, redaktør og stifter af en række venstreorienterede videnskabelige tidsskrifter i anden halvdel af 1900-tallet. Professor, underviser og tilsyneladende en fremragende formidler på skrift.

Bogen beskriver udviklingen af den europæiske historie med afsæt i forholdet mellem produktivkræfter og produktionsforhold (base og overbygning, base and superstructure). Den starter ved den slavebaserede produktionsmåde som kendetegnede Antikken. Her tilegner hele ikke-producenten sig hele produktet (herunder og merproduktet), men skal altså selv sørge for at tilegne de ting, der er nødvendige for produktionen, og det er arbejdsmidler (redskaber, fx hammer), arbejdsgenstand (det, der skal forarbejdes fx stål) og producenter (arbejdskraft, fx slaver).

Slaven er således en betingelse nødvendig for produktionen i Antikken, og de skaffes primært ved at tage krigsfanger, og ofte overgår antallet af slaver i høj grad antallet af frie mennesker i de forskellige områder. Anderson beskriver dette med flere eksempler og viser herefter viser, hvordan denne produktionsmåde bliver erstattet af den feudale produktionsmåde, gradvist, startende fra 1000-tallet, ikke fordi filosoffer tænkte sig til et mere ’humant’ menneskesyn, eller fordi kongen fik en fiks ide, men fordi der, i overensstemmelse med den historiske materialisme, opstod en konflikt mellem produktivkræfter og produktionsforhold.

Det skal ikke forstås således, at slaverne vågnede fra deres ’falske bevidsthed’ eller blev opildnet til oprør, men i stedet, hvordan den slavebaserede produktionsmåde med tiden blev nødt til at forholde sig til sine egne modsætninger og begrænsninger.

I takt med, at befolkningstallet steg og det blev vanskeligere at skaffe slaver, fordi mulighederne for at erobre og ekspandere for de antikke samfund blev færre og færre for hver gang man overtog et nyt territorie, nåede produktiviteten en øvre grænse, der umuligt lod sig løse internt i den slavebaserede produktionsmåde (s. 92). For Marx ville en sådan situation kunne fikses med opfindelsen eller implementeringen af produktivitetsøgende teknologi, men som Anderson skriver: ”den slavebaserede produktionsmåde rummede et meget begrænset objektivt incitament til teknologiske fremskridt, da arbejdskraftannekterende form for vækst udgjorde et strukturelt felt, som i sidste instans modvirkede tekniske nyskabelser…” (s. 79).

Den slavebaserede produktionsmåde førte altså til økonomiske stagnation (s. 128): selvom både vandmøllen og hjulmøllen havde været opfundet i lang tid, er der ringe bevis for dens ibrugtagen i store perioder af den antikke periode. Anderson understreger, at teknolog i sig selv netop ikke kan drive historien frem. Den er nødt til at eksistere samtidigt med samfundsmæssige relationer, der kan aktivisere dem som en kollektiv teknologi. Og disse to sideløbende udviklinger falder ikke altid sammen.

Argumentet er altså, at overgangen til feudale produktionsrelationer i Europa sker ved en syntese (Marx’ termer) af to teser: den slavebaserede produktionsmåde og den stammebaserede produktionsmåde i stammefællesskaber, baseret på primitivt landbrug (kaldes også slægtskabsproduktionsmåde) (s. 201, 17).

Anderson skriv midt i den intellektuelle marxisme genopblomstring; bogen er udgivet i 1974 og Anderson befinder sig på højden af sin karriere. Bogen er den første af sin slags og det et måske netop grunden til, at han kan slippe af sted med generaliseringer og analytiske pointer, der til tider ignorerer den enkelte producents eget initiativ, handlingsparathed og selvrefleksivitet. Ikke meget er overladt til de menneskelige aktører, som Anderson reducerer til tandhjul i det marxistiske historie-perspektiv, hvis drivkraft er det materielle, herunder det økonomiske fundament, som alle samfund består af.

Det har altid været den historiske materialismens største kæphest, og selvom Anderson forsøger at gøre opmærksom på begrænsningerne og den implicitte determination (dette var den eneste mulige udvikling af historien), der lurer under Andersons konklusioner, så forbi går den britiske filosof og historiker diskussioner af perspektiver, der anskuer historien ”from below” og ”micro-history”. Størst kritik burde dog rettes mod Anderson negligering af overbygningens karakter på forskellige tidspunkter af historien. Kirken, åndslivet og intellektualitet og ideologi er afgørende for at forstå de særlige nuancer, der for eksempel adskilte Vesteuropas feudalisme fra Østeuropas mangel på samme.

[Murray · Rating 4 out of 5]

Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism is a strong example of the meaningful insights a sociological history can offer a summary of an elongated period. True to form Anderson delivers an intelligent and exceptionally well written analysis that honestly acknowledges its Marxist heritage. Anderson, almost typically, has written a history of Europe from Antiquity to Feudalism and a historiographical attack on his poorer peers in the footnotes.

[Joseph Jupille · Rating 5 out of 5]

I can't rate this - who am I to judge?

I learned a lot about the period, lots of stuff that I think is important in the grand scheme. I am really glad I read this. Now, onto Lineages of the Absolutist State.

[James Wentworth · Rating 5 out of 5]

There is no better scholarly survey of the paths of feudalism. The short chapters on Greece and Rome are worth the price of the book. Yes, it goes deeply into the social relations, the types of peasantry and royalty, but Perry Anderson is, after all, Europe's most important intellectual, and a marxist one at that.

[Tom · Rating 3 out of 5]

Bring your dictionary. Interesting and far reaching, though to the point of being a bit hard to follow at times. Doing it areally rather than thematically was an odd choice to me, lacked a strong intro and conclusion to tie it all together

[Reno Villafuerte · Rating 5 out of 5]

Hot diggity! SLAVA BALKAN!

[Carlos Wang · Rating 5 out of 5]

其實我對於馬克思主義歷史哲學一直沒啥好感，儘管我很崇敬霍布斯邦，可能是過去對中國史學界的那種教條主義的厭惡導致的結果吧。不過，當我得知本書即將再版問世時，我還是買來拜讀了。



本書是Perry Anderson的寫作計畫中首部曲，原本是四部曲，最後出版了三部，上海人民最早先推出了本書《從古代到封建主義的過渡》跟《絕對主義國家的系譜》，原已年久絕版，最近引進了其新作《新的舊世界》後，就乾脆重版前兩本。這系列是Anderson針對人類歷史從古典時代發展到資本主義社會的進程研究成果，誠如他自述，這是一篇綜合性的作品，嘗試從一個具連貫性，全面的角度去觀察整個發展。也因此，他承認自己許多資料都是引用別人的著作，因為要做這樣的研究，是不可能方方面面的去深入鑽研，以現在這種資訊爆炸的年代，時間、體力等都不可能允許。雖然這樣做可能會被誤導或有什麼偏差，不過歷史研究本來就是要不斷的成長跟修正，就像Anderson本人也不是教條主義者，他認為馬克思的歷史觀也是會有錯誤，而將之導正則是後輩的責任。出於這樣的態度，讓我很放心的可以閱讀本書。





我承認，Anderson用生產方式的角度結合當時的社會政治變遷討論歷史進程的方式確實帶給我不小的震撼，特別是他解釋東西羅馬帝國為何後者崩潰而前者卻留存時，其論點是我見過最有系統跟說服力的一個。



首先，他認為羅馬在經濟上最大的成就是它在古典時代第一次大規模引進奴隸制莊園。希臘農業是在小區域土地上使用，羅馬的城市貴族則是系統化，變成有組織架構的生產模式。小農成為軍事上的主力，參予的大量又長期的戰爭，使他們失去土地，而持續的擴張讓廉價的奴隸湧入市場，加速了莊園化的進程，羅馬軍國主義開發出這種經濟模式的最大潛力。



這樣的成就更深一層影響是對於地中海西部跟北部的腹地，當時該區域仍處於相對原始的狀態，羅馬延著運河擴張，將其城市文明跟莊園奴隸組織徹底移植到西歐，決定了今後數百年該地區的社會經濟體制。而相對的，東方希臘化地區的舊傳統一直根深蒂固，羅馬人所能做的是接收，影響不大。換句話說，帝國自始就是兩個不同的體系的混合，是一種“一國兩制”。也因此，當帝國帶來長期的和平後，奴隸的來源便逐漸斷絕，不再廉價，嚴重影響了生產力。三世紀以後，重稅等負擔迫使大量的自由農被逼依附在不斷擴張其地產的貴族底下變成“隸農”，取代了莊園奴隸，這種現象在西部帝國特別顯著。後來，大量的農民因為不堪重負而爆發起義，加上外患跟貴族內爭，崩潰也就是板上釘釘的事情。相反，由於東部維持著希臘化時期的傳統，小型地產沒有遭到嚴重的削弱，並組成了自治會，在“庇護制”的得到保護，此外，皇帝持續立法對小農的地位維持也日見成效，稅賦也比西方低很多，整體經濟在奴隸制崩潰時受影響程度遠比西方少。



此外，帝國時期是中央權力向行省擴散的時期。但在三世紀以後，多瑙河流域誕生了大量的皇帝，他們對於元老的不信任，剝奪了其軍職，將他們從文官體系逐出，統治權落入一群軍官的手中，造成了對抗。君士坦丁改革讓元老回到了文職，並且加入了神職人員構成了肥大臃腫的官僚，在衰弱的經濟上又增加了一層負擔。之後，帝國的發展走向兩條不同的道路。西部的元老轉化成新的顯貴階層，他們在軍事上的權力被剝奪了，但經濟上卻隨著隸農制日益增強，依然保持強大的政治影響力。而大量的外族軍官進入帝國，跟文官互相爭奪權力，形成晚期宮廷內耗的標準戲碼，帝國自然也就無力抗敵。東部則不然，農村中產者形成了自己的

階級，他們習慣被排除在統治圈之外，也服從官僚的指揮。皇帝的權力得到傳統希臘化專制的保證，宮廷跟貴族達成了社會平衡。



而這兩種因素的綜合，決定了東西帝國各自不同的命運。當然，這樣的觀點還是有許多需要補強的地方，畢竟“羅馬衰亡”這個主題太廣大了，變量太多了。Anderson用歷史唯物主義去討論還是難逃其侷限，至少我覺得他完全忽略或輕描淡寫個人(或上層領導人物)的影響是個人難以接受的事情，相信不會有人認為凱撒跟奧古斯都不曾存在的羅馬史會跟現在一樣。

另外一個問題在於，這樣帶著結果論的史觀，當他去解釋東歐跟東羅馬帝國(拜占庭)時，會有種我個人不太接受的見解。Anderson解釋這個地區的整體發展相對落後於西歐時，其批評依然是有邏輯跟說服力的，但我覺得納悶的是，特別是針對拜占庭，他認為這個帝國之所以最終衰亡的原因主要是其生產方式際不能“進步”到封建主義，又不能回到古典奴隸制，於是變成一種“停滯”，但是，同樣在解釋西歐，封建主義也是原始公社跟奴隸制的融合誕生的產物，為何拜占庭發展出的集權官僚跟半奴隸、半封建就不能自成一個體系，且是退步的？僅僅因為最終其相對失敗崩潰的結果而蓋棺論定嗎？要知道，人們在某個時代採用了什麼樣的決定往往都是有其背後的因素在制約，而這種看不見的條件可以是無從選擇或者已經是當下最好的，況且，時人在決策之際是不知道結果的，當我們站在一個上帝視角回頭去觀看的時候，就要小心不要陷入“自己的立場”的坑裡，而是要嘗試用當事人的視角去看待，才能得出接近客觀的評論。



當然，我知道我這樣的質疑本身就是代表我個人否定了唯物主義歷史學中對人類歷史發展進程的觀點。關於這方面，譯者在前言中也提到過，這是Anderson的著作最受到批判的地方。這種史觀依然沒有跳脫西方中心論的窠臼，拿來套用到其他文明時，不免招來批評，尤其是當下。雖然或許還在處於爭論狀態，但現在能夠力主西歐“必然”能夠領先群倫的大概所剩無幾，事實上甚至有不少人主張工業革命只是一種偶然。人文學科最麻煩的地方是，除非我們有平行宇宙可以去實驗，否則很多假設是沒有辦法驗證。我個人是傾向於，西歐的最終領先是歷史上許多“偶然”匯集而成的結果，會造成這樣的結果有地球環境帶來的命定(不列顛島上就是一堆煤礦)，也有一些是人為的因素，變量非常多，因此，說由奴隸制轉向封建主義是一種進步才是通往近代的正確道路，並不是令人信服的一種史觀，至少對我而言是如此。況且，在今天看來，不論是資本主義，社會主義，甚至是共產主義，都已經不是“歷史的終結”，福山的理論現在只是被拿來調侃的話題。或許哪天，會不會有人開始檢討朝資本工業社會是否是正確的道路呢？



言歸正傳，個人覺得，雖然我不敢妄言君士坦丁心中謀劃的帝國是如何，不過就他事實上建構出來的結果，應該就是拜占庭帝國最終呈現的面貌，甚至我認為，西羅馬如果不崩潰的話，應該也是要朝這樣的路線邁進。Anderson有考量到一些條件跟變量，但他卻沒能真正的用一個超然的立場去看待當時人的選擇，而是用結果論去評價，把這個國家，甚至包括受其影響的東歐都批評的一無是處，儘管他的批評是有切中要害，可還是難以讓人全面認同，只能當作一種經濟面的角度去參考了。



不過我還是必須強調，雖然我不同意Perry Anderson的史觀，但他的許多剖析跟見解依然是令我感到敬佩並且是值得參考的。而本書的兩位譯者也很出色的完成了他們的工作，雖然有些長句子還是沒能修飾，但並不影響閱讀。接下來的兩本著作我還是會想買回來，好好看看他怎麼論述之後的發展。



最後附帶一提，看完書後查點資料，才發現原來Perry Anderson是《想像的共同體》作者的弟弟！

[Augusto Delgado · Rating 5 out of 5]

Very well written book on how the Feudal Mode of Production was formed from the synthesis of the collapse of antiquity (the slave mode of production) with the invading barbarians communal modes of production.

Perry Anderson presents this tome as a prologue to a second, bigger one called "Lineages of the Absolutist State" which someday we'll read it.

Back to our book, Anderson devotes the first part to depicting how the Slave Mode of Production developed as a peculiarity mainly on the western Europe territories occupied successively by the Greek city states and the Roman Empire throughout almost a millennium. All around the world there were several different (or even similar) modes of production, but what is referred to Antiquity was restricted to that portion of the continent.

In the second part, the author elaborates on the mechanisms of the Roman Empire collapse catastrophically severed by the Barbaric invasion: "... The social polarization of the West thus ended in a sombre double finale, in which the Empire was rent from above and below by forces within it, before forces from without delivered their quietus."

The genesis of Feudalism was one of turmoil, war and collapse as opposed to the gradualism of the Capitalist mode of production. Its dynamic was spearheaded by the Carolingian empire in the west with the christian church as a bridge between the social formations by eroding the Roman state -while at the same time keeping its own slaves- and as a glue throughout the "latinization" of the barbarian peoples that had just invaded those lands. Their communal modes of production based on the retinue of barbarians goth warlords and sovereigns combined with the parcellization of roman state were the origins of the peasants subjugation to the feudal landlords; there was also a development of the productive forces: "... The technical innovations which were the material instruments of this advance were, essentially, the use of the iron-plough for tilling, the stiff-harness for equine traction, the water-mill for mechanical power, marling for soil improvement and the three-field system for crop rotation."

In the final part, Anderson takes us to the feudalism developments on the far North, the European East, and later on the South East and the fall of Byzantium.

Mind opening reading, highly recommended for those interested on a historic materialism approach on those ancient époques of humanity and their diachronic connections to the current mode of production: capitalism in irreversible crisis.

[James F · Rating 4 out of 5]

Passages from Antiquity to Feudalism has been on my TBR list forever, at least several decades, and I finally got around to reading it. I wish I had read it much earlier, because it makes a lot of the history and the background of the mediaeval and early modern literature I have been reading lately much clearer. What Anderson gives is a sketch of the economic, social and political development of Europe, from a historical materialist (Marxist) perspective, beginning with the origins of the “slave mode of production” in archaic Greece, through its height in the Roman Empire and the contradictions which led to its final collapse, and the origins, development and eventual crisis of the feudal mode of production which followed. The book was written as a prelude to the much longer study, Lineages of the Absolutist State which I am now beginning.

The book is divided into three parts; the first part is the background in Antiquity, the second part gives a description of what feudalism is and shows how it originated and developed in various parts of the former Roman Empire as a fusion between the dissolving slave mode of production and the primitive agrarian mode of the barbarian invaders, how it developed, why it was initially progressive and why it eventually went into crisis itself, and the third part does the same thing for Eastern Europe beyond the limits of the Roman Empire and shows the differences due to the lack of the classical legacy in those regions. I was impressed by the way he discusses the variations and the reasons for them (and his conceptualization of “social formations”) rather than simply forcing them all into a single scheme.

What I have read previously about pre-capitalist history from a Marxist perspective is very little and very old, and generally by authors who were not professional historians (e.g. Kautsky). I have read somewhat more from non-Marxist historians about Antiquity and the Middle Ages, also mostly old; apart from the classic works of Marx and Engels themselves, I have read only two or three of the books he cites in his footnotes (unfortunately the book has no bibliography.) I knew nothing at all about the eastern regions in the Middle Ages. Some (actually quite a bit) of what he is arguing is controversial in detail (especially the very interesting question of relations between the town and countryside), and he discusses the controversies in his footnotes; clearly I have no basis to judge, but what he says made sense to me.