technology and its consumption of empirical data. Drawing on Jan De Vries’ insights in his study of an “industrious revolution,” Ratcliff locates the rapid development of science in Europe during this period in the interactive interdependence between the community of actively searching consumers–scientists and the rapidly expanding supply of material culture in science thanks to the constant influx of exotic commodities, specimens, and information collected from around the world by imperial agents and private individuals. She cautions that this model is still Eurocentric with its fixation on the question, “why Europe?,” but she points out that its stress on the co-dependence on a globally sourced material culture still serves to provincialize the subject of European science (p. 253). Daniel Rood, on the other hand, uses concepts of labor theory to construct a “global labor history of science.” This theory takes account of the interdependence among different knowledge communities working in tandem spanning across the globe geographically and the full social hierarchy politically. It also accentuates the political discord among these communities (imperial agents, civil societies, Europeans, Creoles, Amerindians, enslaved Africans, and others), the prevalence of expropriation of local and indigenous informants by elite “managers” in the knowledge production, and the resulting utter anonymity of the majority of contributors to modern science such as Merian’s servants in Dutch Suriname. Ambitious, thought-provoking, and informed by cutting edge historiography, this book is an important offering to the many fields with which it intersects. It will surely inspire many others to join the conversation, especially among historians of science whose periods, cultures, and regions of interest are underrepresented in this volume.

中文翻译：

---

重新排列世界：邓肯·贝尔的自由主义与帝国散文

技术及其对经验数据的消耗。凭借 Jan De Vries 在“勤奋革命”研究中的见解，拉特克利夫将这一时期欧洲科学的快速发展定位于积极探索的消费者-科学家社区与迅速扩大的物质文化供应之间的互动相互依存关系由于帝国特工和私人从世界各地收集的异国商品、标本和信息不断涌入，科学界得以发展。她警告说，这个模型仍然以欧洲为中心，它专注于“为什么是欧洲？”这个问题，但她指出，它强调对全球来源的物质文化的共同依赖仍然有助于将欧洲科学主题地方化（p . 253）。另一方面，丹尼尔·鲁德 运用劳动理论的概念构建“全球劳动科学史”。该理论考虑了地理上跨全球协同工作的不同知识社区之间的相互依存关系，以及政治上完整的社会等级制度。它还加剧了这些社区（帝国代理人、公民社会、欧洲人、克里奥尔人、美洲印第安人、被奴役的非洲人等）之间的政治不和，知识生产中的精英“管理者”对当地和土著线人的征用盛行，以及导致现代科学的大多数贡献者完全匿名，例如梅里安在荷属苏里南的仆人。这本书雄心勃勃，发人深省，并以前沿的史学为知识渊博，是与它相交的许多领域的重要作品。