What do you think?
Rate this book
这部《剑桥中国秦汉史》，原为费正清、崔瑞德共任全书主编的《剑桥中国史》的第1卷，于1986年在剑桥大学出版社出版。《剑桥中国史》不是按卷次先后印行的，在这卷之前，第10、11和3卷业已先后问世，并且已经由中国社会科学院历史研究所编译室翻译出来，以《剑桥中国晚清史》、《剑桥中国隋唐史》为题出版了。现在历史所的朋友们又译成《剑桥中国秦汉史》，要我在书端写几句话，我既感欣幸，又颇为惶恐。我在秦汉史方面学力有限，本没有着笔的资格，但承鲁惟一先生盛意，在本卷出书后即行寄赠，得以成为国内最早读者之一。细绎全卷，曾将一些感想写作书评，发表在《史学情报》上，其中即呼吁赶快把这卷书翻译出来。现在经过历史所各位努力，这个愿望实现了，写一篇小序确实是我的义务。
《剑桥中国史》规模宏大，集中了西方研究中国史的许多学者的力量，本卷也不例外。全卷16章，原文多达981页，分别执笔的学者大都对章节论述的范围有长期深入的研究。例如第1章《秦国和秦帝国》的作者美国宾夕法尼亚大学退休教授卜德，30年代即已出版《中国的第一个统一者》一书；第3章《王莽，汉之中兴，后汉》的作者美国哥伦比亚大学教授毕汉斯，著有《汉朝的中兴》；第6章《汉朝的对外关系》的作者美国普林斯顿大学教授余英时，著有《汉代的贸易和扩张》；第9章《秦汉法律》的作者荷兰莱顿大学退休教授何四维，著有《秦法律残简》、《汉法律残简》；第7章《政府的结构与活动》、第12章《宗教和知识文化的背景》等的作者英国剑桥大学东方学院鲁惟一博士，著有《汉代的行政记录》、《通往仙境之路》等书，诸如此类，不遑枚举。还有的学者，如法国法兰西学院的戴密微、日本东京大学退休教授西嵨定生等，更是大家所熟悉的。因此，本卷的作者阵容在西方学术界可称极一时之选，这部书也可谓西方研究中国秦汉史的结晶。
西方对秦汉史的研究有相当长的历史。本卷《导论》对此有概括叙述，一直上溯到明清之际来华的传教士卫匡国的著作。中国的二十四史始于《史记》、《汉书》，读史者也总是从前四史入手，所以一接触中国史就是秦汉，同时秦汉在整个中国史上又有其特殊的重要位置。西方学者研究秦汉史的较多，成绩也较丰硕。看本卷所附参考文献目录，便可得到相当的印象。这部《剑桥中国秦汉史》，正是在这样的基础上加以综合和提高的。不很熟悉西方研究情况的读者，通过本卷不难知其涯略。卷中引用日本学者的论著也很多，足供读者参取。
这部书有几个特点，想在这里介绍一下。
首先是秦汉史列为《剑桥中国史》的第1卷，这一点恐怕是国内读者不易理解，而且是会有较大意见的。《剑桥中国史》的总主编序对此曾有说明，他们提到，在筹划编著这部巨著的时候，本想从中国史的开端写起，可是我国的考古发现日新月异，70年代以来更有进一步扩大的倾向，把中国史前史以至公元前第一千纪的历史面貌几乎彻底改变了，而现在还没有能把崭新的考古材料与传统的文献记载融会贯通而成公认的成果，因而全书只好从有大量可靠文献依据的秦汉开始。这种看法，和晚清以来疑古思潮的见解是有实质差别的。
《剑桥中国秦汉史》广泛引用了文献材料，而且很注意文献的辨伪和考订，这是不少西方中国学家一贯坚持的作风。大家可以看到，本卷各章中的引文，大多注意了使用经过整理校订的版本，包括中国、日本以及西方学者的各种注释。卷中图表也尽量做到有足够的文献依据。这是作者很重视文献的一种表现。
这样说，并不意味本卷的写作不重视运用考古材料。相反的，本卷不少作者都征引了中国考古学的重要成果。例如都城的发掘和一批大墓的发现，在书中好几个章节得到介绍引用。尤其是有关经济史和社会生活史的部分，涉及考古材料的地方更多。由于本卷作者有几位是秦汉简牍帛书研究的专家，他们写作的章节引用这方面材料，取得很好的效果。比如论法律时，征引云梦睡虎地秦简；论屯戍时，征引敦煌、居延等地汉简，使这些专门的研究汇合到历史的论述中去。中国的学者研究秦汉史，也是这样做的，但当前还有人在谈考古对历史研究的贡献时，总是过多地强调先秦，对秦汉考古重视不够，应该说这是不很公平的。
《剑桥中国史》规模宏大，集中了西方研究中国史的许多学者的力量，本卷也不例外。全卷16章，原文多达981页，分别执笔的学者大都对章节论述的范围有长期深入的研究。例如第1章《秦国和秦帝国》的作者美国宾夕法尼亚大学退休教授卜德，30年代即已出版《中国的第一个统一者》一书；第3章《王莽，汉之中兴，后汉》的作者美国哥伦比亚大学教授毕汉斯，著有《汉朝的中兴》；第6章《汉朝的对外关系》的作者美国普林斯顿大学教授余英时，著有《汉代的贸易和扩张》；第9章《秦汉法律》的作者荷兰莱顿大学退休教授何四维，著有《秦法律残简》、《汉法律残简》；第7章《政府的结构与活动》、第12章《宗教和知识文化的背景》等的作者英国剑桥大学东方学院鲁惟一博士，著有《汉代的行政记录》、《通往仙境之路》等书，诸如此类，不遑枚举。还有的学者，如法国法兰西学院的戴密微、日本东京大学退休教授西嵨定生等，更是大家所熟悉的。因此，本卷的作者阵容在西方学术界可称极一时之选，这部书也可谓西方研究中国秦汉史的结晶。
西方对秦汉史的研究有相当长的历史。本卷《导论》对此有概括叙述，一直上溯到明清之际来华的传教士卫匡国的著作。中国的二十四史始于《史记》、《汉书》，读史者也总是从前四史入手，所以一接触中国史就是秦汉，同时秦汉在整个中国史上又有其特殊的重要位置。西方学者研究秦汉史的较多，成绩也较丰硕。看本卷所附参考文献目录，便可得到相当的印象。这部《剑桥中国秦汉史》，正是在这样的基础上加以综合和提高的。不很熟悉西方研究情况的读者，通过本卷不难知其涯略。卷中引用日本学者的论著也很多，足供读者参取。
这部书有几个特点，想在这里介绍一下。
首先是秦汉史列为《剑桥中国史》的第1卷，这一点恐怕是国内读者不易理解，而且是会有较大意见的。《剑桥中国史》的总主编序对此曾有说明，他们提到，在筹划编著这部巨著的时候，本想从中国史的开端写起，可是我国的考古发现日新月异，70年代以来更有进一步扩大的倾向，把中国史前史以至公元前第一千纪的历史面貌几乎彻底改变了，而现在还没有能把崭新的考古材料与传统的文献记载融会贯通而成公认的成果，因而全书只好从有大量可靠文献依据的秦汉开始。这种看法，和晚清以来疑古思潮的见解是有实质差别的。
《剑桥中国秦汉史》广泛引用了文献材料，而且很注意文献的辨伪和考订，这是不少西方中国学家一贯坚持的作风。大家可以看到，本卷各章中的引文，大多注意了使用经过整理校订的版本，包括中国、日本以及西方学者的各种注释。卷中图表也尽量做到有足够的文献依据。这是作者很重视文献的一种表现。
这样说，并不意味本卷的写作不重视运用考古材料。相反的，本卷不少作者都征引了中国考古学的重要成果。例如都城的发掘和一批大墓的发现，在书中好几个章节得到介绍引用。尤其是有关经济史和社会生活史的部分，涉及考古材料的地方更多。由于本卷作者有几位是秦汉简牍帛书研究的专家，他们写作的章节引用这方面材料，取得很好的效果。比如论法律时，征引云梦睡虎地秦简；论屯戍时，征引敦煌、居延等地汉简，使这些专门的研究汇合到历史的论述中去。中国的学者研究秦汉史，也是这样做的，但当前还有人在谈考古对历史研究的贡献时，总是过多地强调先秦，对秦汉考古重视不够，应该说这是不很公平的。
919 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 1986
43 people are currently reading
573 people want to read
About the author
Denis C. Twitchett
15 books5 followersDenis Crispin Twitchett was a British Sinologist and scholar who specialized in Chinese history and greatly expanded the role of Chinese studies in Western intellectual circles.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews
June 16, 2021
The best and most thorough treatment of the subject I've seen. It needs two things:
1. Update from the old Wade-Giles pinyin which has been greatly superseded by the Hanyu, particularly on Wikipedia
2. A chapter on science and technology, though one can use Needham as a supplement in this regard
1. Update from the old Wade-Giles pinyin which has been greatly superseded by the Hanyu, particularly on Wikipedia
2. A chapter on science and technology, though one can use Needham as a supplement in this regard
August 6, 2015
Nah ini baru puas mwahahahhahhahaha.
September 27, 2021
剑桥中国史，被翻译成中文，也很好。很多中国人也想通过外国人的视角看中国。
Read
May 16, 2025they kicked me out of the school library while i was going through this series last year and for that this gets five stars
August 16, 2025
Volume One of The Cambridge History of China — like Sten’s cake in Dragon Age: Origins — is a lie.
It’s a collection of essays by subject-matter experts ranging across China’s history from the height of the Qin Dynasty to the emergence of organised Buddhism and Daoism during the contention of the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Afterwards came the conquests of Yáng Jiān (楊堅), the Cultured God-King of the Sui Dynasty (隋文帝).
I was about five hundred pages in before realising that the series has a companion book, The Cambridge History of Ancient China, that was more deserving of the title *Volume One*. Oh well — tears can’t be unspilt, and volume one can’t be rewritten. Such is life.
---
What it covers:
Completing this volume will leave you well-informed about the history of China over the four-hundred-some years that saw the emergence, entrenchment, and ultimate survival of the imperial institution.
It covers the dynastic histories of the Qin, Western Han, Xin, and Eastern Han, and alludes to the era of the Warring States to come. The writers also delve into dynastic foreign policy, state institutions, law, economic history, philosophy, and religion.
---
What doesn’t work:
* Uneven prose quality (inevitable when multiple authors are involved).
* No quarter given to beginners — expect your notes to need notes!
* Published in the 1980s, so it uses Wade-Giles transliteration. The style isn’t just repulsive; it’s *labour-intensive* to correct. You haven’t lived until you realise “Pen-chi ching” is really Běnshǐ Jīng (本始經).
Wise men say only fools rush in. They also say don’t teach kids to play with fire. I suppose playing with fire is the equivalent of giving this book to a Cao Cao-stanning, eunuchs-understanding, Don’t Trust the Confucians partisan like me.
I’ll admit: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It makes you question orthodoxy — which, in the past, could have gotten you killed! Thankfully, under online pseudonymity, the worst is ALL CAPS responses.
The book relies heavily on literary sources — essentially retelling the official imperial histories in English. That’s like getting your history of WWII from Churchill. Valuable, yes, but hardly neutral.
Yet the erudition of the authors left me with more questions than answers. For example:
* What do we mean by “China”? Is it an it — a place or idea? Or a she — a defined country?
* If “China” comes from “Qin” via Portuguese, how could the Indians have known about the Qin Empire when Buddhism (the bridge between the regions) only reached China centuries after Qin had perished?
* Isn’t the Former Qin (前秦: 351–394) — with its attested links to India and Buddhist transmission — a more plausible “China” for Indian contacts than the short-lived Qin Empire?
The literati dismissed the Former Qin because its rulers were of proto-Tibetan Di stock. They also swung wildly on Buddhism: first claiming Laozi and Buddha were the same person, then that Laozi was Buddha’s student, and finally denouncing Buddhism as a pernicious foreign faith. Why some still treat their words as gospel is beyond me.
Millennia later, I can say: Buddha was Indian, but Chan Buddhism is Chinese. Reading this volume convinced me that — in these centuries — “China” was primarily an idea. E Pluribus Unum impels empire. The notion that many could be forged into one began as a Confucian dream, but it was brought (kicking and screaming) into being by the wolves of Qin and the tiger-generals of Han.
The authors see China more narrowly, but their effort is still invaluable.
Reading Volume One of The Cambridge History of China is a far better use of time than watching polished Wikipedia summaries on YouTube. You’ll finish it with a hunger to know more.
Shame about that Wade-Giles bidness though.
⭐️⭐️⭐️
It’s a collection of essays by subject-matter experts ranging across China’s history from the height of the Qin Dynasty to the emergence of organised Buddhism and Daoism during the contention of the Northern and Southern Dynasties. Afterwards came the conquests of Yáng Jiān (楊堅), the Cultured God-King of the Sui Dynasty (隋文帝).
I was about five hundred pages in before realising that the series has a companion book, The Cambridge History of Ancient China, that was more deserving of the title *Volume One*. Oh well — tears can’t be unspilt, and volume one can’t be rewritten. Such is life.
---
What it covers:
Completing this volume will leave you well-informed about the history of China over the four-hundred-some years that saw the emergence, entrenchment, and ultimate survival of the imperial institution.
It covers the dynastic histories of the Qin, Western Han, Xin, and Eastern Han, and alludes to the era of the Warring States to come. The writers also delve into dynastic foreign policy, state institutions, law, economic history, philosophy, and religion.
---
What doesn’t work:
* Uneven prose quality (inevitable when multiple authors are involved).
* No quarter given to beginners — expect your notes to need notes!
* Published in the 1980s, so it uses Wade-Giles transliteration. The style isn’t just repulsive; it’s *labour-intensive* to correct. You haven’t lived until you realise “Pen-chi ching” is really Běnshǐ Jīng (本始經).
Wise men say only fools rush in. They also say don’t teach kids to play with fire. I suppose playing with fire is the equivalent of giving this book to a Cao Cao-stanning, eunuchs-understanding, Don’t Trust the Confucians partisan like me.
I’ll admit: a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. It makes you question orthodoxy — which, in the past, could have gotten you killed! Thankfully, under online pseudonymity, the worst is ALL CAPS responses.
The book relies heavily on literary sources — essentially retelling the official imperial histories in English. That’s like getting your history of WWII from Churchill. Valuable, yes, but hardly neutral.
Yet the erudition of the authors left me with more questions than answers. For example:
* What do we mean by “China”? Is it an it — a place or idea? Or a she — a defined country?
* If “China” comes from “Qin” via Portuguese, how could the Indians have known about the Qin Empire when Buddhism (the bridge between the regions) only reached China centuries after Qin had perished?
* Isn’t the Former Qin (前秦: 351–394) — with its attested links to India and Buddhist transmission — a more plausible “China” for Indian contacts than the short-lived Qin Empire?
The literati dismissed the Former Qin because its rulers were of proto-Tibetan Di stock. They also swung wildly on Buddhism: first claiming Laozi and Buddha were the same person, then that Laozi was Buddha’s student, and finally denouncing Buddhism as a pernicious foreign faith. Why some still treat their words as gospel is beyond me.
Millennia later, I can say: Buddha was Indian, but Chan Buddhism is Chinese. Reading this volume convinced me that — in these centuries — “China” was primarily an idea. E Pluribus Unum impels empire. The notion that many could be forged into one began as a Confucian dream, but it was brought (kicking and screaming) into being by the wolves of Qin and the tiger-generals of Han.
The authors see China more narrowly, but their effort is still invaluable.
Reading Volume One of The Cambridge History of China is a far better use of time than watching polished Wikipedia summaries on YouTube. You’ll finish it with a hunger to know more.
Shame about that Wade-Giles bidness though.
⭐️⭐️⭐️
April 10, 2025
A rather dull and plodding book but it does cover the ground albeit in what is now a very out-of-date viewpoint. But as a pretty thorough coverage of the facts it takes a lot of beating.
Displaying 1 - 6 of 6 reviews