從COVID-19反思疫病史──比較史研究是否還有可能？

Post-COVID-19 Comparative History of Epidemics: A Historiographical Essay

自COVID-19爆發全球大流行以來，不同國家對疫情的應對方式出現顯著的差異，也成為媒體報導與評論的焦點。然而，這樣的分歧並不是這次大疫才有的新現象，在歷史上其實屢見不鮮。歷史學者彼得・鮑德溫（Peter Baldwin）在一系列疫病比較史著作中對這個主題做了相當全面而有系統的探討。本文回顧鮑德溫的著作，指出其研究的問題意識出自於對前輩學者埃爾文·艾克納希特（Erwin H. Ackerknecht, 1906-1988）經典論文的誤讀，進而檢討鮑德溫和艾克納希特所提出之比較研究觀點的偏誤與限制。這篇史學論文盤點鮑德溫相關著作的貢獻與弱點，並以英國和臺灣應對COVID-19的重大差異為例，初步探討這些差異的歷史淵源，進而反思疫病比較史的研究方向。

Since the outbreak of COVID-19, the divergent responses of national governments to the pandemic have been extensively reported and commented on by the media. It is not the first time, however, that different countries have implemented distinct preventive measures against the same epidemic disease; rather, history is filled with examples. Historian Peter Baldwin, a leader in the field, has produced several monographs that, as a whole, provide one of the most systematic and comprehensive analyses of this phenomenon. By reviewing Baldwin’s comparative historical works on epidemic diseases, this article reveals a significant issue in his research—his misreading of Erwin Heinz Ackerknecht’s (1906-1988) classic paper“Anticontagionism between 1821 and 1867.”While highlighting the strengths and contributions of both Ackerknecht’s and Baldwin’s works, this article also examines the shortcomings and limitations of their comparative studies. Finally, I compare the early responses of the United Kingdom and Taiwan to COVID-19, exploring their historical roots to suggest new directions for comparative studies in epidemic history.