troversial subject of Humboldt’s views of the colonial governance in New Spain. Elsewhere, he considers in equally evenhanded fashion the politically charged subjects of Humboldt’s alleged Eurocentrism and of his responsibility for European or United States imperialism in Mexico. He also includes a careful evaluation of Humboldt’s attitude toward Aztec civilization. The second part of this three-part book focuses onHumboldt’s activities in and aroundMexico City. Here Echenberg deals with Humboldt’s investigations of mining, geology, and volcanology. In this section, he is more successful than elsewhere in integrating the travelogue chapters with his descriptions of Humboldt’s activities. He does a particularly good job of discussing the relationship between Humboldt and silver mining in Mexico from early colonial times to the present. The final section, “Homeward Bound,” deals with Humboldt’s departure from Mexico. It also touches briefly on Humboldt’s ideas about the hydrography of the Valley of Mexico, on demography, and on medicine. At the end of the book, after describing Humboldt’s departure from disease-ridden Veracruz, Echenberg, the specialist in tropical disease, gives us a chapter on the impact of smallpox and yellow fever in Mexico. This subject was also dealt with by Humboldt, and it is of immense consequence for the history of Mexico. The book includes a good selective bibliography, preceded by a brief and thoughtful “Guide to Readings on Humboldt.” I was less happy with his handling of references. The work lacks conventional footnotes or endnotes. It lists citations at the back of the book by chapter and page, but the number of citations is rather sparse. In one case that particularly caught my attention, on page 135 the author writes that the ancestors of the Tarascan (Purépecha) Indians of Michoacán arrived by sea about the ninth century, bringing with them an advanced knowledge of metallurgy, and adding that they were in many ways “totally different” from surrounding peoples. These statements run counter to the established scholarly opinion, although some have speculated that the Tarascans may have somehow acquired a few of their cultural traits from East Asia. In any case, I would like to have seen at least a note indicating the source of Echenberg’s statements. Although it seems petty to quibble about references, I should also mention that I was both puzzled and annoyed by his handling of quotations from Humboldt himself. The text includes numerous direct quotations from Humboldt, which are italicized but not footnoted. When I checked for them in the list of citations at the end of the book, I was able to locate only a few references. After some head scratching, I found at the head of this list a note reading “All Humboldt quotes are from PE unless otherwise identified.” Guessing that PE meant Political Essay, I still did not know what edition was involved. After further searching I found prior to his “Guide to Readings on Humboldt,” another section with the ambiguous title “A Guide to Publications on or about Alexander von Humboldt in Mexico.”This section turned out to consist mainly of references to various editions of primary sources written by Humboldt, and it finally indicated that PE is indeed Humboldt’s Political Essay. The edition used was the 1811 translation by John Black, abridged and edited in 1972 by Mary Maples Dunn, rather than Humboldt’s original in French, or a critical edition of the complete text. Since this edition is widely available, it is reasonable to cite it, especially in a work designed in part for non-specialists. But even so, Echenberg can still be faulted for not providing any page numbers for the quotations. In spite of its quirks and sometimes annoying oddities, this book is still very much worth reading by both casual and scholarly readers. Its failings partially result from attempting to address both sets of readers at the same time. It is essential reading for anyone interested in Humboldt and Mexico.

中文翻译：

---

James Bryce y los fundamentos intelectuales del interacionalismo liber (1864–1922)

洪堡对新西班牙殖民统治观点的争议性主题。在其他地方，他以同样公正的方式考虑洪堡所谓的欧洲中心主义以及他对墨西哥的欧洲或美国帝国主义的责任所涉及的政治问题。他还仔细评估了洪堡对阿兹特克文明的态度。这本由三部分组成的书的第二部分重点介绍了洪堡在墨西哥城及其周边地区的活动。在这里 Echenberg 处理洪堡对采矿、地质和火山学的调查。在这一部分，他比其他地方更成功地将游记章节与他对洪堡活动的描述结合起来。他在讨论洪堡与墨西哥从早期殖民时代到现在的银矿开采之间的关系方面做得特别好。最后一部分“回家”，讲述了洪堡离开墨西哥的故事。它还简要介绍了洪堡关于墨西哥谷水文、人口学和医学的观点。在这本书的最后，在描述了洪堡离开疾病缠身的韦拉克鲁斯之后，热带病专家 Echenberg 为我们提供了一章关于天花和黄热病在墨西哥的影响。洪堡也处理了这个问题，它对墨西哥的历史具有巨大的影响。这本书包括一个很好的选择性参考书目，前面是一个简短而深思熟虑的“洪堡阅读指南”。我对他处理参考资料不太满意。这项工作缺乏传统的脚注或尾注。它在书的后面按章节和页面列出了引文，但引文的数量相当稀少。在一个特别引起我注意的案例中，作者在第 135 页写道，米却肯州的 Tarascan (Purépecha) 印第安人的祖先大约在 9 世纪从海上来到这里，带来了先进的冶金知识，并补充说他们在许多方面与周围的人“完全不同”。这些陈述与既定的学术观点背道而驰，尽管有些人推测塔拉斯坎人可能以某种方式从东亚获得了一些文化特征。无论如何，我希望至少看到一个说明，说明 Echenberg 声明的来源。虽然对参考文献进行狡辩似乎很琐碎，但我还应该提到，他对洪堡本人引文的处理让我既困惑又恼火。文本包括大量来自洪堡的直接引述，斜体但没有脚注。当我在书末的引文列表中检查它们时，我只能找到一些参考文献。经过一番摸索，我在这份清单的开头发现了一条注释，上面写着“除非另有说明，否则所有洪堡引述均来自 PE。” 猜测PE是政治论文，我还是不知道是什么版本。在进一步搜索之后，我发现在他的“洪堡阅读指南”之前，还有一个标题不明确的部分“墨西哥亚历山大·冯·洪堡的出版物指南”。洪堡写的一手资料，最后表明PE确实是洪堡的政治论文。使用的版本是约翰·布莱克 1811 年的译本，1972 年由玛丽·梅普尔斯·邓恩 (Mary Maples Dunn) 删节和编辑，而不是洪堡的法语原文，或全文的批判性版本。由于此版本广泛可用，因此引用它是合理的，尤其是在部分为非专业人士设计的作品中。但即便如此，Echenberg 仍然可能因为没有为引文提供任何页码而受到指责。尽管它有一些怪癖和有时令人讨厌的奇怪之处，但这本书仍然非常值得休闲和学术读者阅读。它的失败部分是由于试图同时解决两组读者。对于对洪堡和墨西哥感兴趣的人来说，这是必不可少的读物。特别是在部分为非专业人士设计的作品中。但即便如此，Echenberg 仍然可能因为没有为引文提供任何页码而受到指责。尽管它有一些怪癖和有时令人讨厌的奇怪之处，但这本书仍然非常值得休闲和学术读者阅读。它的失败部分是由于试图同时解决两组读者。对于对洪堡和墨西哥感兴趣的人来说，这是必不可少的读物。特别是在部分为非专业人士设计的作品中。但即便如此，Echenberg 仍然可能因为没有为引文提供任何页码而受到指责。尽管它有一些怪癖和有时令人讨厌的奇怪之处，但这本书仍然非常值得休闲和学术读者阅读。它的失败部分是由于试图同时解决两组读者。对于对洪堡和墨西哥感兴趣的人来说，这是必不可少的读物。