财税史学以过去的财税事实为研究对象，而财政学以现实的财税问题为研究对象，两者看似毫无关联，其实不然。南宋著名学者叶适说:“财者，今日之大事，必尽究其本末，而后可以措于政事。欲尽究今日之本末，必先考古者财用之本末。盖考古虽若无益，而不能知古则不能知今故也。”20世纪20年代，德国经济学家鲁道夫·戈德沙伊德(Rudolf Goldscheid)在《解决财政问题的社会学方法》一文中指出:“财政历史学、财政社会学和财政统计学是三大支柱，每一个支柱都能够支撑与现实相联系的公共财政理论。”两位学者尽管思考问题的角度不同，但都肯定了财税史学与财政学之间的密切联系。因此，就一个完整的财政学科体系而言，财税史学与财政学都是不可或缺的。正是基于完善财政学科体系的考虑，从20世纪80年代初开始，国内一些高校财政学本科专业相继开设了《中国财税史》课程，教学内容建设也取得了显著的进展。不过，到目前为止，中国财税史教学内容适应性不强的问题仍然十分突出，严重制约着教学效果的进一步提升。因此，构建较为合理的教学内容，就成了中国财政史教学改革的一个重要方面。一般认为，财税史学是横跨历史学和财政学的一个交叉学科，因此，财税史学具有历史学与财政学的双重属性。从科学研究角度看，无论是“历史学的财税史”，还是“财政学的财税史”，都具有一致的基本特性即实证性，因为只有全面、准确地掌握并深入分析历史资料，财税史学才有立足之本。但是，从教育教学角度看，由于历史学专业与财政学专业人才培养要求不同，“历史学的财税史”与“财政学的财税史”基本任务也有所区别。前者的基本任务是通过全面、准确地分析历史材料，还原财税史实;后者的基本任务则是运用现代财政学理论，去分析财税史实，总结出经验和教训，为现实财税实践服务。这就意味着“历史学的财税史”与“财政学的财税史”的教学内容应该是有差别的。例如，对于“历史学的财税史”，史料辨析应该是不可缺少的内容;而对于“财政学的财税史”，史料辨析则无太大的必要，甚至可以说是多余的。那么，到底该如何构建适应财政学本科专业需要的教学内容?笔者认为，教学内容的构建应遵循如下原则:其一是“简”。中国财税史内容丰富，涉及面广，但课程内容不必太多、太杂，只须“简”。“简”，不是降低标准，而是提高标准，因为简化了的内容其实是精心筛选的结果，是应该具有框架性、引领性的。其二是“整”。课程内容一经选定，就要尽量将具体财税史实的前因后果等表述完整，力避课程内容碎片化。其三是“通”。“通”就是通古今之变，即课程内容要反映中国财税发展的脉络和规律，从而达到学以致用的教学目的。本书就是遵循上述原则撰写的。因为突出“简”、“整”、“通”，所以，本书书名定为《中国财税史纲》。希望本书的出版，能够为中国财税史教学内容的改革起到抛砖引玉的作用。刘德成2016年5月

Fiscal and taxation historiography takes past fiscal and taxation facts as the research object, while fiscal science takes real fiscal and taxation issues as the research object, and the two seem to be unrelated, but in fact they are not. Ye Shi, a famous scholar of the Southern Song Dynasty, said: "The rich man, today's major affairs, must be exhausted, and then they can be taken into political affairs." If we want to exhaust the essence of today, we must first use the essence of archaeologists' finances. Although it is useless to cover archaeology, if you cannot know the past, you cannot know the present and the present. In the 2020s, the German economist Rudolf Goldscheid pointed out in his article "Sociological Methods for Solving Fiscal Problems": "Fiscal history, fiscal sociology and fiscal statistics are three pillars, each of which can support the theory of public finance linked to reality." Although the two scholars think from different perspectives, they both affirm the close connection between fiscal and taxation history and fiscal science. Therefore, in terms of a complete system of fiscal disciplines, fiscal and taxation history and fiscal science are indispensable. It is based on the consideration of improving the financial discipline system, since the early 80s of the 20th century, some undergraduate majors in finance in domestic universities have successively opened the course "History of Chinese Finance and Taxation", and remarkable progress has been made in the construction of teaching content. However, so far, the problem of weak adaptability of the teaching content of China's fiscal and taxation history is still very prominent, which seriously restricts the further improvement of the teaching effect. Therefore, constructing a more reasonable teaching content has become an important aspect of China's fiscal history teaching reform. It is generally believed that fiscal and taxation history is an interdisciplinary discipline spanning history and finance, so fiscal and taxation history has the dual attributes of history and finance. From the perspective of scientific research, both the "fiscal and taxation history of history" and the "fiscal and taxation history of finance" have the same basic characteristics, that is, empirical, because only by comprehensively and accurately grasping and deeply analyzing historical data can fiscal and taxation history have a foothold. However, from the perspective of education and teaching, due to the different requirements for training talents in history and finance, the basic tasks of "fiscal and taxation history of history" and "fiscal and taxation history of finance" are also different. The basic task of the former is to restore the historical facts of finance and taxation through comprehensive and accurate analysis of historical materials; The basic task of the latter is to use modern fiscal theory to analyze the historical facts of finance and taxation, summarize experience and lessons, and serve the actual fiscal and taxation practice. This means that there should be a difference between the teaching content of "Fiscal and Tax History of History" and "Fiscal and Tax History of Finance". For example, for the "fiscal and taxation history of history", historical data analysis should be an indispensable content; For the "fiscal and taxation history of finance", historical data analysis is not much necessary, and it can even be said to be redundant. So, how to structure the teaching content that meets the needs of the undergraduate major in finance? The author believes that the construction of teaching content should follow the following principles: one is "simplicity". China's fiscal and taxation history is rich in content and covers a wide range, but the course content does not need to be too much and complicated, just "simple". "Jane" is not to lower the standard, but to raise the standard, because the simplified content is actually the result of careful screening, and it should be framework and leading. The second is "whole". Once the course content is selected, it is necessary to express the causes and consequences of specific fiscal and tax historical facts as completely as possible, and strive to avoid fragmentation of the course content. The third is "pass". "Tong" refers to the change of ancient and modern, that is, the content of the course should reflect the context and law of China's fiscal and taxation development, so as to achieve the teaching purpose of applying what has been learned. This book is written with these principles in mind. Because of the emphasis on "simplicity", "wholeness" and "communication", the title of this book is "Outline of China's Finance and Taxation History". It is hoped that the publication of this book will play a role in introducing the reform of China's fiscal and taxation history teaching content. Liu Decheng, May 2016（AI翻译）