* III Human Society 1-37 三 人与社会 62

* III Human Society  1-37  三 人与社会 62
** Neither a Beast nor a God  既不是野兽也不是神

Humans have always lived in society;
we are social animals.
True, there have been occasional hermits or “solitaries,”
whether by their own intent or, like Robinson Crusoe, accidentally,
but they have come *out of* the society to which people generally belong.
Being by nature a member of a community,
the individual does not, and normally cannot,
set up personal standards of thought or conduct without reference to others.
Human history is the history
of individuals whose lives mold, and are molded by, the community.

人总是生活在社会中；人是一种社会动物。
固然，偶尔也可见到隐士或所谓的“独处者”，
无论是自愿的，还是像鲁滨逊那样由意外事故所造成的，
但是，他们都来 *自于* 人所共同属于的社会。
既然从本质上说，个人是社会的成员，
因而个人就不会，一般也不能不考虑他人
而为自己订立思想和行为的准则。
人类历史是个人塑造社会，同时也被社会所塑造的历史。

Nor is it a mere relationship,
like that of a citizen and the government,
or even that of a husband and wife,
a relationship of independent entities
which may be broken leaving each of them intact.
It is integral,
and the view of the Greeks that one who lives outside society is not human, but
“a beast or a god,”
is a basic assumption of many political theorists.
For them, living in society is indispensable to living humanly.
Individual morality and politics (in the highest sense of the word) are inseparable,
for the moral person is, among other things,
just, and justice is the bond of people in communities.

个人与社会之间，
并非仅仅具有诸如公民与政府，甚或丈夫与妻子那样的关系，
因为这种关系是独立实体之间的关系，
可以被破坏而各个独立实体则安然无恙。
个人与社会之间的关系是一牢固整体，
古希腊人认为，
谁生活与社会之外，谁就不是人，
而是“野兽或神”，
这已成为许多政治理论家的一项基本假设。
在他们看来，生活在社会之中是过人的生活所必不可少的条件。
个人道德与政治（按这个词最崇高的意义来说）是不可分割的，
因为有道德的人首先是正义的，
在社会中，正义是连接人与人的纽带。

History, then,
is the account of that unique society compounded of sameness
(in that humans, like the bees, are invariably social)
and differences
(in that humans form a variety of societies,
public and private, and in constantly changing forms).
/Gateway to the Great Books/ includes the shorter works
of some of the greatest historians of the ages,
/Great Books of the Western World/ the long masterpieces
beginning with Herodotus, “the father of history,”
who tells us that he has written his account of the Persian War
“in the hope of thereby preserving
from decay the remembrance of what men have done…”
(/The History/, in GBWW, Vol.5).

因此，历史所叙述的是相同性和差异性所组成的独特社会，
相同性指的是人像蜜蜂那样具有社会性，
差异性指的是人构成了各种各样的社会，
公开的和私下的，而且其形式在不断变化。
本套《西方名著入门》中包含有历代最伟大的历史学家所撰写的一些短篇著作，
《西方世界名著》收录的则是长篇杰作，
第一篇便是“历史之父”希罗多德的著作。
希罗多德告诉我们，他记录波斯战争
“是希望世人不要忘记人们所做过的事情……”
（《历史》，见《西方世界名著》第6卷，第1a页）。

Is this all that history can do?
No, says Hume, in his /Of the Study of History/ (Vol.7);
it also
“amuses the fancy …
improves the understanding …
strengthens virtue.”

历史是否只能做这一件事情？
休谟在其《谈读史》（本套书中译本第6卷）一文中说，不是；
历史还会
“激发想象力……提高理解力……增强人的德性”。

But isn’t it also the key to the future?
Here is where historians— and we with them—get into deep water.
If only people would, like the bees,
do tomorrow what they did yesterday,
history would be an infallible guide and solve our problems for us.
But will people do tomorrow what they did yesterday?
The second great ancient historian, Thucydides, seemed to think so;
at the opening of his marvelous account
of the long war between Athens and Sparta—
which ended in the ruin of both—
he says he will be content if his book be judged useful
“by those inquirers who desire an exact knowledge of the past
as an aid to the interpretation of the future,
which in the course of human things must resemble
if it does not reflect it …”
(The History of the Peloponnesian War, in GBWW, Vol.5).

历史是否也是未来的钥匙？
正是在这一问题上，历史学家，连同我们都陷入了困境。
假如人完全像蜜蜂那样循规蹈矩，明天会做今天所做过的事情，
那历史就会成为不会领错路的向导，就会解决我们所遇到的问题。
但人明天会做昨天做过的事情吗？
古代第二个伟大的历史学家修昔底德似乎认为人是会这样做的；
修昔底德在《波罗奔尼撒战争史》中，
卓越地论述了雅典和斯巴达之间那场旷日持久的战争
（战争以双方同归于尽而告终）。
在这部著作的篇首，他说，如果
“那些想要确切了解过去并借此来解释未来的研究者”，
认为他的著作是有用的，那他也就心满意足了，
“因为在人类事物的发展过程中，
未来即使不反映过去，也必然和过去很想象……”
（《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》，见《西方世界名著》，第6卷，第354c-d页）。

“Peoples and governments never have learned anything from history,
or acted on principles deduced from it,”
says the great German philosopher of history, G.W.F.Hegel.
“Each period is involved in such peculiar circumstances,
exhibits a condition of things so strictly idiosyncratic,
that its conduct must be regulated by considerations
connected with itself, and itself alone”
(The Philosophy of History, in GBWW, Vol.43).

德国的伟大历史哲学家G.W.F.黑格尔则说，
“各国人民与政府从未记取过历史教训，
从未按得自于历史经验的原则行过事。
每个时期的情况都很特别，都显示出自己的特性，
以致每个时期事物的发展，
都必然受与其自身而且仅仅与其自身相关联的因素的制约”
（《历史哲学》，见《西方世界名著》，第46卷，第155c页）。

But surely there are situations in our own day which,
as Thucydides says, resemble the past?
No doubt.
But so, too,
each individual confronts personal situations
which at least resemble those the preceding generation confronted,
and we know how hard it is for parents to persuade their children,
on the basis of their own experience,
to a course of action or a way of life.
The fact seems to be that we are so variable a creature,
so strong-willed and individualistic, that we must learn, if at all,
from our own experience alone.

但是，当代的一些情况确实像修昔底德所说的那样，类似于过去的情况。
这一点是毫无疑问的。
然而，也同上一代人一样，现在每个人有每个人的处境，
而且大家都知道，
父母要根据自己的经验劝说孩子采取一种行为方式或生活方式，
那是多么困难。
实际情况似乎是，
人是反复无常，刚愎自用，极端个人主义的，
只能记取自己的经验教训。

** The Road We Have Traveled 1-38  我们所走过的道路 64

If history cannot prophesy the future,
it should at least be able to show us the road we have traveled thus far;
we ought then to be able to say something,
however unsurely, about the next stages in the journey.
But even here we appear to be asking more of Clio—
the mythological muse of history—
than she can tell us.
The ancients thought of history as a kind of cycle,
or a repetitious round which people mistook for change.
But when science and technology
began to alleviate the hardships of human life,
the idea of historical progress was born.
Toward the close of the eighteenth century
Gibbon concluded his study of ancient Rome with
“the pleasing conclusion that every age of the world
has increased and still increases
the real wealth, the happiness, the knowledge, and perhaps the virtue,
of the human race”
(/The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire/, in GBWW, Vol.38).

历史虽然不能预言未来，
却至少能够显示出我们迄今所走过的道路；
我们由此而应该能谈一谈以后的旅程，尽管是很没有把握地谈论。
但即使在这方面，我们提的问题，
似乎也超出了克利俄–希腊神话中司历史的缪斯–所能回答的程度。
古人把历史看作是一种循环，一循环往复的圆圈，
而人们却误认为是发生变化。
但是，当科学技术开始减轻人类生活的困苦时，
便应运产生了历史不断进步的观念。
临近18世纪末，吉本在其论述古罗马的著作中，
得出了以下令人欣慰的结论，
“在这个世界上，每个时代
人类的真正财富，幸福，知识以及也许还有德行，
都一直在增加，而且今后仍会增加”
（《罗马帝国的衰亡》，见《西方世界名著》，第40卷，第634c页）。

Far from having caught (or from having been caught by) this pleasing conclusion,
Rousseau at the same time reached the unpleasing conclusion that
“Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains”
(/The Social Contract/, in GBWW, Vol.35).
His “noble savage” was better, and better off,
than modern man.
A century later
a leading exponent of the doctrine of progress answered Rousseau:
“To believe,” said Darwin in 1859,
“that man was aboriginally civilized
and then suffered utter degradation in so many regions,
is to take a pitiably low view of human nature.
It is apparently a truer and more cheerful view
that progress has been much more general than retrogression;
that man has risen, though by slow and interrupted steps,
from a lowly condition to the highest standard as yet attained by him
in knowledge, morals and religion”
(/The Descent of Man/, in GBWW, Vol.49).

同一时期，卢梭非但没有得出（或注意到）这一令人欣慰的结论，
反而得出了以下令人不愉快的结论：即
”人生来是自由的，但在每个地方人都带着镣铐“
（《社会契约论》，见《西方世界名著》，第38卷，第387b页）。
在卢梭看来，“高尚的野蛮人”在精神上和物质上都强于现代人。
一个世纪以后，进步学说的主要鼓吹者达尔文于1859年这样回答了卢梭：
“有人认为，人生来就是文明的，只是后来在许许多多方面堕落了，
这些人对人性采取了一种可怜而又可笑的悲观看法。
另一些人则采取了一种显然较为正确和乐观的看法，认为进步要远远比倒退普遍；
认为人类在知识，道德和宗教等方面已从低级状态上升到了所能达到的最高水平，
尽管步伐缓慢，有时还被打断”
（《人类的由来》，见《西方世界名著》，第49卷，第330a-c页）。

These same three traditional readings of human history—
the cyclical, the progressive, and the retrogressive—
appear in many of the great writers in /Gateway to the Great Books/.
Of the three views,
the cyclical is, in modern times, least often taken.
Tacitus (as might be expected of an ancient historian)
sees no great change in things;
he tells us how the Romans led the conquered Britons
“step by step … to things which dispose to vice …
All this in their ignorance they called civilization,
when it was but a part of their servitude”
(/The Life of Gnaeus Julius Agricola/, Vol.6).
But Guizot, in nineteenthcentury France, is convinced that
“all the great developments of the internal man
have turned to the profit of society;
all the great developments of the social
state to the profit of individual man”
(“/Civilization/,” Vol.6).
On the eve of the twentieth century
Ruskin’s /An Idealist’s Arraignment of the Age/ (Vol.7)
attacks this optimistic attitude
(especially as it springs from scientific progress)
with consummate eloquence—and scorn.

以上便是对人类历史的三种传统看法，
一种看法认为人类历史是循环的，
一种看法认为人类历史是进步的，
一种看法认为人类历史是倒退的。
这三种观点在本套书中许多伟大作家的著述中也有所反映。
在这三种观点中，现代人最少采取的是循环观点。
塔西佗（正像我们所能期望于古代历史学家的那样）
没有看到事物发生了什么大变化；
他向我们讲述了罗马人是如何把被征服的不列颠人
“一步一步地引向……罪恶的……，
不列颠人却无知地把所有这些称为文明，
而这实际上只不过是他们所遭受的奴役的一部分”
（《格奈乌斯.尤利乌斯.阿格里科拉传》，本套书中译本第5卷）。
但是，在19世纪的法国，基佐则深信，
“人类精神的一切大发展都给社会带来了益处；
而社会的一切大发展又给每个人带来了益处”
（《文明》，本套书中译本第5卷）。
20世纪前夕，罗斯金在其《一个理想主义者对时代的责难》一文中，
（本套书中译本第6卷）
则以无与伦比的雄辩和讽刺才能，
抨击了这种乐观看法（特别是如果这种看法产生于科学进步的话）。

Can we say, then, that there is a science of history?
Again we have no agreement of historians or philosophers of history.
Karl Marx of course believes that there is,
or at least that there are discoverable laws that flow from history, that
“the economic formation of society is … a process of natural history…”
(/Capital/, in GBWW, Vol.50).
Hume in /An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding/ (GBWW, Vol.33)
agrees that history is a collection of
“experiments,
by which the politician or moral philosopher
fixes the principles of his science,”
but William James seems to reflect the overwhelming majority of thinkers
on the subject when he calls it folly
“to speak of the ‘laws of history’ as of something inevitable,
which science has only to discover…”
(/Great Men and Their Environment/, Vol.7).

那么，还能说有一门历史科学吗？
在这里，史学家或历史哲学家同样是意见纷纭。
当然，卡尔.马克思相信是有历史科学的，
或至少相信是有可以发现的历史规律的，他说：
“社会的经济形态就是……自然历史的过程……”
（《资本论》，见《西方世界名著》，第50卷，第7c页）。
休谟在其《人类理智研究》中，（见《西方世界名著》，第35卷，第479c页）
同意马克思的观点，认为历史是一系列
“试验，
政治家和道德哲学家借此来确定其科学原理”，
但威廉.詹姆斯却认为，
“谈论‘历史规律’，把历史规律看作是某种不可避免的东西，
只有依靠科学才能发现它们”
是愚蠢的。
（《伟人及其环境》，本套书中译本第6卷）
詹姆斯的这种观点，似乎反映了绝大多数思想家的观点。

One of the central difficulties
is assessment of the role played by the “great man” in history.
The extent to which humans have
freedom to act in the drama of history has long been debated.
Some say we are governed completely by necessity,
while some, according to the /Syntopicon/, say the
“motions of men are directed by laws
which leave [men] free to work out a destiny
which is determined by, rather than determines, the human spirit”
(GBWW, Vol.1).

主要难题之一，是如何评价“伟人”在历史上发挥的作用。
人们长期以来一直在辩论究竟人在历史舞台上有多大自由。
一些人断言，人完全是受必然性的支配，
而据《同题文集》说，另一些人则断言，
“人的所作所为虽然受规律的支配，
但这些规律却给人留出了余地，
使人可以自由地决定自己的命运，
命运是由人的精神所决定的，
而不是命运决定人的精神”
（见《西方世界名著》，第2卷，第717b页）。

William James believes
that the *opportunity* and the *man* are inseparable:
“The relation of the visible environment to the great man
is in the main exactly
what it is to the ‘variation’ in the Darwinian philosophy.
It chiefly adopts or rejects, preserves or destroys,
in short *selects* him.
And whenever it adopts and preserves the great man,
it becomes modified by his influence
in an entirely original and peculiar way.
He acts as a ferment, and changes its constitution…”
(/Great Men and Their Environment/, Vol.7).

威廉.詹姆斯相信，
*机会* 与 *人* 是紧密相联，不可分离的，他说：
“看得见的环境与人的关系，
大致正好相当于‘变异’在达尔文的学说中与人的关系。
环境主要是接受或不接受人，保存或摧毁人，
简言之，也就是 *挑选* 人。
而每当环境接受或保存了伟人时，
伟人就以全新而独特的方式影响并改变环境。
伟人会起发酵剂的作用，改变整个环境……”
（《伟人及其环境》，见本套书中译本第6卷）。

But, says James,
“Not every ‘man’ fits every ‘hour.’ …
A given genius may come either too early or too late.”
This, says Carlyle in /The Hero as King/ (Vol.6),
was the fate of Cromwell;
he was too great for his time.
“One man, in the course of fifteen hundred years;
and this was his welcome.
He had adherents by the hundred or the ten;
opponents by the million.
Had England rallied all round him—
why, then, England might have been a Christian land!
As it is, vulpine knowingness sits yet at its hopeless problem,
‘Given a world of Knaves, to educe an Honesty from their united action’;
how cumbrous a problem.”

但是，詹姆斯说，
“并非人人都生逢其时。
……某一伟人既有可能出现得太早，也有可能出现的太晚。”
卡莱尔在《帝国英雄》（见本套书中译本第5卷）一文中说，
克伦威尔的命运就是如此；
克伦威尔对于他那个时代来说过于伟大了。
“1500年才出现了这样一个人，受到的欢迎却是这么冷淡。
支持者只是以百以十来计算，反对者则以百万计算。
假如整个英国团结在他周围，那会出现什么样的情景啊！
英国会早已成为基督教的世界。
但实际情况却是，
像狐狸那样机敏狡猾，丝毫无助于解决无法解决的问题，
‘在这个充满骗子与无赖的世界上，
要人们团结一致，忠诚正直’，
那有多么困难啊。”

Thoreau’s /A Plea for Captain John Brown/ (Vol.6)
compares the fanatical hero of the Abolition movement with Cromwell,
his little band of men with Cromwell’s troops,
and his speeches with Cromwell’s,
closing his plea by quoting from Brown himself:
“‘I think, my friends,
you are guilty of a great wrong against God and humanity,
and it would be perfectly right for anyone
to interfere with you so far
as to free those you willfully and wickedly hold… .
I pity the poor in bondage that have none to help them;
that is why I am here;
not to gratify any personal animosity, revenge, or vindictive spirit.
It is my sympathy with the oppressed and the wronged,
that are as good as you, and as precious in the sight of God.’ ”
John Brown may also have been too great for his time—
but his time came soon after him.

梭罗在其《为约翰.布朗队长辩护》（见本套书中译本第5卷）一文中，
把废奴主义运动的这位富于幻想的英雄布朗同克伦威尔做了比较，
把布朗领导的一小群人同克伦威尔的军队做了比较，
把布朗的言论同克伦威尔的言论做了比较，
并援引布朗本人的话作为辩护的结尾：
“朋友们，我认为你们对上帝和人类犯下了滔天大罪，
任何人都有权干预你们，迫使你们释放那些被你们固执并不道德地控制的人。
……我同情无依无靠受人奴役的穷人；
正是由于这一原因我才来到这里；
我来这里不是为了报私仇，不是要惩罚什么人。
上帝可以作证，我对被压迫者和被冤屈者的同情，同你们一样真诚。‘”
约翰.布朗对他那个时代来说或许也过于伟大了–
但他死后不久，他为之奋斗的时代便来临了。

The influence of a great man may lie, after all,
with his distant heirs far removed from the age in which he lives.
So Walt Whitman, in his /Death of Abraham Lincoln/ (Vol.6), finds that
“the final use of the greatest men of a nation is, after all,
not with reference to their deeds in themselves,
or their direct bearing on their times or lands.
The final use of a heroic-eminent life—
especially of a heroic-eminent death—
is its indirect filtering into the nation and the race,
and to give, often at many removes, but unerringly, age after age,
color and fiber to the personalism of the youth and maturity of that age,
and of mankind.”

不管怎么说，伟人的影响会远远超出其生活的时代，
而及于其遥远的子嗣。
因而沃尔特.惠特曼在其《林肯之死》一文中说，（见本套书中译本第5卷）
“每个民族中那些最伟大的人物的最终用处，
毕竟与他们所完成的事业本身毫不相干，
也与这些事业对当时当地的影响毫不相干。
英勇而辉煌的一生（特别是英勇而壮烈的死），
其最终用处，是它会间接地渗入民族与种族的血液之中，
是它会一个时代又一个时代地，
虽然相隔许久许久但影响力却丝毫不会减弱地，
使年轻人以及所有人更具活力与个性，
并更快地成熟。”

** The Way to Write History1-41  写历史的方法  68

The schoolboy definition of history as “what happened next”
suggests that nothing in the world would be easier to write.
But serious consideration of the problem
reveals that just the opposite is the case.
The first issue is the relationship of the historian
in time and place to the events of which he writes.
He may write of events in which he participated personally.
(An example in Vol.6 of this set is
Xenophon’s famous “/March to the Sea/,” from /The Persian Expedition/.
Here the author relates the movements of the Greek army,
a portion of which he commanded,
and his account has a real ring of authenticity.)
Or he may write of his own times, using the evidence of eyewitnesses,
if possible, or as near to eyewitnesses as he can obtain.
(/The letter of Pliny the Younger to Tacitus/ in Vol.6,
describing the eruption of Vesuvius, is a case in point.
The letter tells of the death of his uncle, Pliny the Elder,
at Pompei during the eruption, and ends by saying,
“I have faithfully related to you
what I was either an eye-witness of myself
or received immediately after the accident happened,
and before there was time to vary the truth.”)

中小学生给历史下的定义往往是“接下来发生的事情”，
这会使人认为在这个世界上没有什么东西比历史更好写了。
但认真思考一下这个问题，就会发觉情况刚好与此相反。
第一个问题便是历史学家在时间和地点上与他所描述的事件的关系。
历史学家可以写自己亲身参与的事件。
（这方面的一个例子，就是本套书中译本第5卷中色诺芬那篇著名的“向大海进军”。
该文节录自他的《万人远征记》。
在该文中，作者叙述了希腊军队的调动情况，
而作者本人就是其中一支部队的指挥官，
因而他的叙述是最为真实可信的。）
或者，如果可能的话，历史学家可以利用尽可能是直接的见证人所提供的证据，来写自己所处的时代。
（本套书中译本第5卷中小普林尼写给塔西佗的那封描述维苏威火山爆发情景的信，
便是这方面的一个恰当例子。
该信讲叙了他的舅父老普林尼在庞培观察维苏威火山爆发时被火山烟雾窒息而死的情况，
在信的结尾处他说：
“我忠实地向您讲述的，有些是我亲眼目睹的情景，
有些则取自火山爆发后立即得到而尚未走样的材料。”）

More often, the historian would find material through both means,
i.e., personal experience,
and through the experience of others who had left some record of it.
The great early historians, Herodotus, Thucydides, and Tacitus, used this technique.
The work of Tacitus on /Agricola/ in this set (Vol.6) is an example.
Julius Agricola was Tacitus’ father-in-law,
and many of the details of his life were certainly known personally to Tacitus.
It is obvious, however,
that much of the material he presents on the Roman general’s life
must also have come from other sources.

更为常见的是，历史学家既通过自己的经历又通过留有记录的他人的经历，来获得写作素材。
希罗多德，修昔底德和塔西佗等伟大的早期历史学家，采用的就是这种方法。
本套书（中译本第5卷）中塔西佗的《格奈乌斯.尤利乌斯.阿格里科拉传》就是一个例子。
尤利乌斯.阿格里科拉是塔西佗的岳父，
毫无疑问，塔西佗了解其岳父的许多生活细节。
但很显然，塔西佗提供的有关这位罗马将军的材料，有许多也来自其他方面。

Finally, the historian may write wholly of the past,
and one view (the great historians of antiquity notwithstanding)
is that the loss involved in doing so
is more than compensated by the detachment of the scholar.
True, the flesh-and-blood vividness of personal knowledge has to be sacrificed,
but the history gains both impartiality and depth
by the writer’s distance from the passions of the occasion, the time, and the place.
Prescott’s “/The Land of Montezuma/” (Vol.6) is such a history,
relating the approach of Cortez and his men
to the rich and lush heartland of Montezuma, the Aztec ruler.
It is clear that Prescott has done immense research
to bring us the picture of the reckless daring of the tiny band of Spaniards,
as well as Montezuma’s fear and paralysis as the Spaniards approach his capital.

最后，历史学家还可以完全写过去的事情。
一种观点认为（当然古代的那些伟大历史学家不这样认为），
学者写过去的事情会采取超然的态度，因而得要大于失。
的确，这样做不会有亲身经历的那种有血有肉的生动感，
但是，由于作者与当时当地的感情保持了距离，
所写出的历史将是公正而有深度的。
普雷斯科特的《蒙提祖马的国家》（本套书中译本第5卷），
就是一篇这样的历史著作，
这篇著作讲述了科尔特斯和其手下的人
是如何逼近蒙提祖马的富庶心脏地带的。
蒙提祖马是阿兹台克人的统治者。
很显然，普雷斯科特做了大量研究后，
才能为我们生动地描绘那一小股西班牙人的胆大妄为，
以及当这些西班牙人逼近首都时蒙提祖马的恐惧与无能为力。

History, says Lucian,
“is nothing from beginning to end but a long narrative”
(/The Way to Write History/, Vol.6).
But the story of history is restricted because it depends on facts,
and the historian must balance the role of storyteller with the role of investigator.
If it concentrates only on facts, the history is deadly dull.
If it concentrates on story, the author
may be tempted to sacrifice truth to entertainment.
And there is no doubt in Lucian’s mind
that the historian’s first duty is truth:
“The historian’s one task is to tell the thing as it happened.”

琉善说，“历史自始至终只不过是一长长的叙述”
（《写历史的方法》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。
但历史故事是受到限制的，因为它依赖于事实，
历史学家要摆平自己的位置，既要作小说家，又要作研究者。
如果历史学家只注重事实，它的历史就会极为枯燥。
如果他注重于讲故事，他就会歪曲事实而哗众取宠。
无疑，琉善认为，历史学家的首要职责是保证叙述的真实，
他说，“历史学家的一个任务就是照事情发生的样子叙述事情。”

A contrary view is presented by the great historian Macaulay,
in his essay on Machiavelli (Vol.7).
“The best portraits,” says Macaulay,
“are perhaps those in which there is a slight mixture of caricature,
and we are not certain that the best histories are not those
in which a little of the exaggeration of fictitious narrative is judiciously employed.
Something is lost in accuracy;
but much is gained in effect.
The fainter lines are neglected;
but the great characteristic features are imprinted on the mind for ever.”

伟大的历史学家麦考利
在论述马基雅维里的文章中提出了与此相反的观点。
（见本套书中译本第6卷）
他说，“最优秀的肖像画，也许是那些稍带漫画手法的画像，
而且可以肯定地说，
最优秀的历史著作
都稍带夸张色彩并巧妙地运用小说式的叙述手法。
这样做固然有失于准确，但效果却会大增。
忽略较为暗淡的线条，
反而会把最重要的特征永远印在人的脑子里。”

J. B. Bury goes so far as to claim
that Herodotus was more of an epic poet than a historian:
“He had a wonderful flair for a good story …
It is fortunate for literature that he was not too critical;
if his criticism had been more penetrating and less naive,
he could not have been a second Homer” (/Herodotus/, Vol.6).
“The classical histories,” says Macaulay,
“may almost be called romances founded in fact.”
If they were *purely* factual, they would have had few readers.
And though popularity should be sacrificed to truth,
we have only to reflect for a moment to realize
that it is impossible to write a factual history that tells the truth.
The facts themselves are *in fact* hearsay;
do we know that
“Columbus discovered America” when and where and how we say he did?
Indeed we do not.
We have it from participants, to be sure,
but do we know (or do we simply assume)
that they were telling the truth,
or that any one of them actually *saw* the events he describes?
Historical facts turn out to be slippery;
in general they are based on a consensus of individual reports,
any or all of which may be false.

J.B.伯里甚至宣称，希罗多德与其说是历史学家还不如说是叙事诗人，
因为“他天生就善于讲故事……
他的批判态度不那么强烈，这对于文学事业来说是幸运的；
假如他不那么天真，批判眼光更为锐利的话，他就不会是第二个荷马了”
（《希罗多德》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。
麦考利说，“古典历史几乎可以成为取材于事实的传奇故事。”
如果它们 *纯粹* 是事实，就几乎没有人去读它们了。
尽管应该为了真实性而牺牲通俗性，
但只要稍加思考就会认识到，
根本不可能写出完全依据事实的，叙述真实情况的历史。
事实本身 *实际上* 就是从别人那里听来的；
哥伦布是在什么时间，什么地点，以何种方式发现美洲的，我们知道吗？
毫无疑问，我们不知道，我们是从参与者那里听说的，
但他们说的是真话吗，他们是否真的 *看见了* 自己所描述的事情？
历史事实终归也是靠不住的；
一般说来，它们依赖于各种报道的一致性，
而其中任何一种报道或所有报道却有可能是不真实的。

But the difficulty is greater than this.
The truth of an event includes
the feelings and the spirit of the participants and the onlookers;
indeed, these nonfactual ingredients
are often the most significant in any historical recital.
Consider, for example, the Nazi invasion of Poland on September 1, 1939,
which followed a number of clashes on the border between the two countries.
Hitler was clearly the aggressor on that day and subsequently,
but he and his followers claimed
that the Poles had attacked them and that they were defending their country.
The *truth* not only includes, but includes above all else,
the real attitude and intentions of the German and Polish leaders
and the sentiments of the two peoples,
and such definitive things are so close to impossible to know
(even if there are written records purporting to reveal them)
that they probably will be argued by historians to the end of time.

但困难并不止于此。
事件的真实性还涉及参与者和观察者的感情与精神；
的确，这种非事实性因素对于历史叙述来说常常是最为重要的。
譬如，纳粹于1939年9月1日入侵了波兰，
在此之前两国边界上曾发生一系列冲突。
就那一天和以后的日子来说，希特勒显然是侵略者，
但他和其追随者却宣称，波兰人先进攻了他们，他们是在保卫自己的国家。
这里的 *实际情况* ，不仅是涉及而且是首先涉及
德波两国领导人的实际态度与意图以及两国人民的感情，
这类起决定性作用的因素几乎是历史学家无法弄清楚的
（即便有关于它们的文字记录），
很可能直到世界末日也争论不休。

** The Way to Read History1-43  读历史的方法  71

The writer of history cannot present only the facts—or all the facts.
He has to weigh and judge them.
As the /Syntopicon/ puts it (GBWW, Vol.1), the historian
“tries to make credible statements about particular past events.
He makes an explicit effort to weigh the evidence himself or,
as Herodotus so frequently does,
to submit conflicting testimony to the reader’s own judgment.
‘Such is the account which the Persians give of these matters,’ he writes,
‘but the Phoenicians vary from the Persian statements’;
… or ‘such is the truth of this matter;
I have also heard another account which I do not at all believe’;
or again, ‘thus far I have spoken of Egypt from my own observation,
relating what I myself saw,
the ideas that I formed,
and the results of my own researches.
What follows rests on accounts given me by the Egyptians, which I shall now repeat,
adding thereto some particulars which fell under my own notice.’”

历史学家不会只提供事实，也不会提供 *全部* 事实。
他必须对事实加以权衡和鉴别。
正如《同题文集》所说（见《西方世界名著》，第2卷，第711-718页），
历史学家“力图对过去的某些事件提供可信的说法。
他要么自己尽力对证据进行权衡，
要么像希罗多德经常做的那样，
提供相互矛盾的证据，让读者自己去鉴别。
希罗多德有时说，这就是波斯人对这些事情的叙述，
但是腓尼基人的说法却与此不同’；
……有时说，
‘这就是事实的真相；我还听到了另一种说法，但我根本不相信’；
另一些时候则说，
‘上面我是根据自己的观察谈论埃及，
谈的是我所看到的，我所想到的以及我自己的研究结果。
下面依据的则是埃及人的叙述，
外加我注意到的一些细节’。”

The historian is human (or shall we say “only human”).
The judgment and interpretation
of the relevance or irrelevance of the materials that are examined,
of the weight to assign to Document A or Witness B,
are the judgment and interpretation of a human, not a god.
We should suppose that the historian ought to be dispassionate, a neutral.
But whoever is dispassionate or neutral?
Who lives today, or ever has, or ever will,
who meets the requirements established for the historian by Lucian?—
“… fearless, incorruptible, independent, a believer in frankness and veracity;
one that will call a spade a spade,
make no concession to likes and dislikes,
nor spare any man for pity or respect or propriety;
an impartial judge, kind to all, but too kind to none;
a literary cosmopolite with neither suzerain nor king,
never heeding what this or that man may think,
but setting down the thing that befell”
(/The Way to Write History/, Vol.6).

历史学家也是人（或许应该说也是“是实实在在的人”）。
它是作为人而不是神，来判断和解释他所注意到的文件相关与否，
它是作为人而不是神来掂量这份文件或那个证据的份量。
而我们竟然认为，他在从事研究工作时应该是不带感情的，应该是中立的。
可是人怎么能不带感情，怎么能保持中立呢？
现代人，古人或未来的人怎样才能满足琉善为历史学家提出的那些要求呢？
琉善认为，历史学家应该是
“……无所畏惧，廉洁正直，独立不羁的，应是直言不讳，诚实可信的；
黑就是黑，白就是白，
不应依自己的好恶而歪曲事实，
也不应出于怜悯，尊敬或面子而宽恕什么人；
历史学家应是公正无私的法官，对所有的人都同样仁慈；
应是具有世界意识的文人，
既不受封建主的指使，也不受国王的控制，
只是记录下所发生的事情”
（《写历史的方法》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。

“Setting down the thing that befell”—
as if history were an almanac, and an endless almanac at that!
“Clearly,” the /Syntopicon/ says,
“the historians have different criteria of relevance
in determining the selection and rejection of materials
and different principles of interpretation
in assigning the causes which explain what happened.
These differences are reflected in the way
each historian constructs from the facts a grand story,
conceives the line of its plot and the characterization of its chief actors.”
The writer of history is not an Olympian—or even a Martian.
The historian is a citizen of one nation or another,
conditioned, like all of us, by the values and habits of time and place.
Above all, the historian is an individual human being, with human biases:
a person dealing with the actions of humans,
and whose view of historical actions
can hardly help but reflect personal views of human action in general.

“只是记录下所发生的事情”，
把历史当作一部年鉴，而且是一部永远写不完的年鉴！
情况会是这样吗？
《同题文集》说得好：
“很显然，历史学家们在决定材料取舍时有不同的评价标准，
在确定事情的原因时有不同的解释原则。
这种不同反映在每个历史学家都
以独特的方式用事实来构造宏大的故事，
以独特的方式想象情节的发展，
以独特的方式表现主要演员的性格。”
写历史的人并不是神仙，也不是火星人，
而是这个国家或那个国家的公民，
与我们大家一样，受着其所处时代与国家的价值观念和习惯制约。
尤其是，他是个活生生的人，带有人的偏见。
他作为一个人来论述人的活动，
因而他对历史活动的看法，
几乎不可避免地会反映出他对人类一般活动的看法。

The best he—and we—can hope for
is his consciousness of his biases.
If he is unconscious of them, he can do nothing to correct them;
if he is conscious of them,
he can submit his judgment and interpretation to colleagues who,
if not unbiased, are at least blessed with biases contrary to his own.
He may even warn the reader against himself,
but perhaps that is too much to hope, of the historian or of anyone.
Bury, finding in Herodotus a strong bias for the Athenians
in the only history we have of the earth-shaking Persian War, says that
“it was the work of a historian who cannot help being partial;
it was not the work of a partisan
who becomes a historian for the sake of his cause”
(/Herodotus/, Vol.6).

历史学家–以及我们–所能抱的最大希望，
是意识到自己的偏见。
若意识不到偏见，就根本无从纠正偏见；
若意识到偏见，则可以恳请一些尽管并非没有偏见但至少具有相反偏见的同行，
来对自己的判断和解释做一番品评，
甚至可以提醒读者谨防受偏见的影响，
对于历史学家或任何一个人来说，这也许希望过高了。
伯里发现希罗多德在波斯战争史中特别偏向雅典人，
而这是记述那场震撼世界的战争的唯一一部史书。
因而伯里说，
“波斯战争史是一位不能不有所偏心的历史学家撰写的著作；
但他并不是有党派之见的人，
他写这部史书也不是为了一己私利“
（《希罗多德》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。

Perhaps no historian can help being partial;
in which case what Bury said of Herodotus
may be said of every great historian and of all great history.
Bertrand Russell long ago urged
that a country’s history used for study in the schools
should be written by citizens of other countries than that in which it is studied,
and in an age like ours, deluged on all sides by government propaganda,
the student of history, present or past,
has got to read sharply, if not suspiciously.
Consciousness of the forms which human bias takes—
including one’s own—is imperative.
The study of the great historians and philosophers of history in /Gateway to the Great Books/
(and then in /Great Books of the Western World/)
will serve the reader in the development of that consciousness
so crucial to a realistic apprehension
and a balanced appraisal of the modern world.

或许无论哪一位历史学家都不能不有所偏心；
因而伯里针对希罗多德所说的话，
可以用来说每一位伟大的历史学家和所有伟大的历史著作。
伯特兰.罗素很久以前就主张，用来让学生学习的一个国家的历史，
应该让其他国家的公民来撰写，
在我们这个到处充斥着政府宣传的时代，
学习现代史或古代史的学生，
即使不抱着怀疑批判的态度读史书，也应该把眼睛擦得亮亮的。
当务之急是学生要意识到人类偏见（包括他自己的偏见）的各种表现形式。
本套书（以及《西方世界名著》）中伟大历史学家和历史哲学家的著作，
将有助于学生发展这种意识，
这种意识对于现实地理解和公正地评价现代世界是至关重要的。

** The Domain of Liberty1-45  自由王国 73

Much of human history—and certainly its most stirring episodes—
involves the struggle for human liberty.
But the meaning of liberty is itself controversial, and always has been;
more so today, perhaps, than ever before,
in spite of the fact that the greatest thinkers of every age have argued it.
One point should be kept in mind:
individual liberty and national independence must never be confused.
Though the American Revolution
was fought both for human liberty and national independence,
it was not fought for the latter alone,
as indeed, many colonial revolutions,
or uprisings against the oppression of a foreign power,
have been.
An *independent* government may exist without human liberty.

人类历史的很大一部分，实际上其大多数激动人心的事件，
都是争取人类自由的斗争史。
但人们对自由的含义却一向争议颇多，
而且现在也许比任何时候争论都多，
尽管每个时代最伟大的思想家一直在试图澄清自由的含义。
应该牢记这样一点，就是决不要把个人自由与民族独立相混淆。
美国独立战争的目标是争取人类自由与民族独立这两者，
而并不像许多殖民地革命或反抗外国压迫的起义那样，仅仅是为了争取民族独立。
*独立的* 政府可以在没有人类自由的情况下存在。

What individual liberty is, how much of it there should be, and why,
are questions that raise a host of other questions.
And the questions it raises take us always more deeply
into all of the great ideas dealing with human beings.
What is man? What is God? What is the will? The soul?
What is fate? Necessity? Law?
Justice? Equality? Slavery?
Government? The State? Society? Happiness?
Pursuing these ideas through the /Great Books of the Western World/—
the passages dealing with them
are all indexed under these terms in the Syntopicon—
we are sooner or later drawn to almost every one of the other great ideas.
And nowhere is the dispute among thinkers hotter
than it is in connection with this one concept, liberty.

个人自由指的是 *人的* 自由，而不是社会的自由。
什么是人的自由，人的自由应该有多大，人为什么要享有自由，
诸如此类的问题又会引出一大堆其他问题。
人的自由引出的问题，会使我们愈来愈深入地接触到有关人的各种伟大思想。
人是什么？上帝是什么？意志是什么？灵魂是什么？
命运是什么？必然性是什么？法律是什么？
什么是正义？什么是平等？什么是被奴役？
什么是政府？什么是国家？什么是社会？什么是幸福？
带着这些问题阅读《西方世界名著》
（有关这些问题的段落在《同题文集》中已被编制成索引供人查阅），
我们或早或晚会被各种伟大的思想所吸引。
思想家们争论得最热烈的，就是关于自由这一观念。

Most of the works in Volumes 6 and 7
of /Gateway to the Great Books/ deal with liberty,
as do many of the writings in the other volumes.
The collection in Volume 6 entitled /Great Documents/
is as good a starting point as any for the reader’s study.
Proceeding from /The English Bill of Rights/ (1689) to the
/Universal Declaration of Human Rights/ in 1948,
we may trace the development of the theory of liberty
in the past two and a half centuries since John Locke,
the English philosopher whose essay
/Concerning Civil Government/ (GBWW, Vol.33)
promulgates the doctrine that each person has a natural right to
“life, health, liberty [and] possessions”—
a phrase which the authors of the /American Declaration of Independence/
borrowed and amended to read,
“life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” (Vol.6).

本套书中译本第5和第6卷中的大多数著作，
正如其他各卷中的许多作品一样，都与自由有关。
第5卷中那组题为“重要文件”的文献，可以说是读者研究自由问题的最好起点。
若从1689年的《英国权利法案》一直读到1948年的《世界人权宣言》，
便可从头了解自由理论在自洛克以来的250年中的发展情况。
250年前，英国哲学家约翰.洛克
在《政府论》一文中提出了这样一种理论，
（《西方世界名著》，第35卷，第25-81页）
即人享有“生命，健康，自由[以及]财产”的天赋权利。
后来美国《独立宣言》的作者们借用了这个短语，
改作人享有“生命，自由和追求幸福”的权利（见本套书中译本第5卷）。

The liberties of Englishmen are held in the 1689 document
to rest mainly with the sovereignty of Parliament against the king.
Their statement, expanded through the successive documents in Volume 6,
culminates in the United Nations’ statement,
which in addition to the general rights asserted by the earlier documents,
asserts the freedom of residence and movement,
both within one’s own country
and for the purpose of leaving one’s country or any other
(*and* to return to one’s own country).
It asserts the freedom of association— and the freedom *not* to associate.
It maintains the universal right to work,
free choice of employment,
the right to form and join trade unions,
“just and favorable conditions of work,”
protection against unemployment, social security, education,
and a “standard of living adequate for the health and well-being
of [every individual] and of his family.”

在1689年的那份文件中，英国人的各项自由，
被认为主要取决于国会是否能不受国王的控制而享有自主权。
这种自由通过本套书中译本第5卷中
那一个接一个的文件而不断扩大，
最终联合国宣布了人作为人所应该享有的各项权利。
除了早期文件所主张的那些基本权利外，
联合国的宣言还主张个人应享有
居住的自由和移居的自由–
无论是在自己的国家内的移居，
还是为了离开自己的国家或任何其他国家（ *以及* 返回自己的国家）的移居。
主张个人应享有结社的自由，以及不结社的自由。
主张每个人应享有工作和自由选择职业的权利，
享有组织和加入工会的权利，
有权享受“公平和良好的工作条件”，
有权不受失业之苦，
有权享受社会保障和接受教育，
有权享有“足以维持个人和家庭健康与幸福的生活水平”。

Can these be said to be rights in any strict sense?
Who is to guarantee them? Government?
And if not government, who?
And how is, for example, a
“standard of living adequate for health and well-being”
to be guaranteed by government (or any other power)
in the underdeveloped and overpopulated societies
in which most people live on or over the brink of starvation?

以上这些能在哪种严格的意义上说是人所应该享有的权利？
这些权利应该由谁来保证？
是政府吗？如果不是，那该由谁来保证？
举例来说，在人满为患的不发达国家，大多数人都生活在饥饿的边缘，
政府怎样才能保证每个人享有“足以维持健康与幸福的生活水平？”

We may note that these “rights”
are not only a spelling-out of the political liberties
implied in the older documents
but include economic conditions which the older documents do not touch;
conditions which, in fact,
cannot be guaranteed in the same way as political liberty.
What the /Universal Declaration of Human Rights/ reveals
is the growing power in the world of the doctrine,
so boisterously maintained by the Communists,
but also embraced by the hungry of the new nations of Africa and Asia,
that economic “rights” take precedence over the political.
The Declaration must, indeed,
be considered in the context of the divided world in which we live.
Like its predecessors—including /The Declaration of Independence/—
it may be taken to be a statement of an ideal
rather than a statutory or contractual commitment.

读者也许注意到了，上述“权利”并非仅仅是那些早期文件中政治自由的翻版，
而且还包括了早期文件不曾涉及的经济权利；
这些经济权利实际上是不能以保证政治自由的方式来加以保证的。
《世界人权宣言》表明，
那种认为经济“权利”高于政治权利的理论在世界上的影响力正日益增强，
这种理论不仅得到了共产党人的热烈支持，
而且也得到了非洲和亚洲新兴国家的饥民的拥护。
毫无疑问，我们必须参照我们生活于其中的这个分裂的世界
来理解《世界人权宣言》。
同以前的文件（包括《独立宣言》在内）一样，
《世界人权宣言》可看作是表达了一种理想，
而不能看作是具有强制力或约束力的文件。

The Declaration was adopted by the United Nations by a 48–0 vote,
with several abstentions,
including those of the Communist countries
in which such liberties as
assembly, association, employment, and travel
were rigidly restricted,
and in which the Declaration’s “freedom of opinion and expression”
ranged from curtailment to nonexistence.
But it is clear in any case that the extension of the basic political liberties
is only a sentiment in behalf of a vision of what might be,
since most governments maintain the policy
of refusing passports to certain of their citizens.
Indeed, it cannot be gainsaid that no society now exists, or ever has,
in which all the rights of the Declaration are fully protected.

该《宣言》在联合国以48票对零票获得了通过，
一些国家投了弃权票，其中包括共产党国家，
在这些国家，诸如集会，结社，自由选择职业和旅行这样的自由是受到严格限制的，
而该《宣言》所主张的“舆论和言论自由”
要么被禁止，要么根本不存在。
不管怎么说，显而易见，基本政治自由的这种扩大，
只不过表达了一种关于未来的愿望，
因为共产主义阵营外的大多数（如果不说所有的话）国家的政府，
包括美国政府在内，都坚持歧视某些公民的政策。
实际上，无论是现在还是过去，
都从来没有哪个社会充分保障过《世界人权宣言》所主张的全部权利。

What does appear as we peruse the historic statements of liberty
is the development of the modern idea
that it includes selfgovernment as one of its essentials.
Beginning with the assertion in /The English Bill of Rights/ that
“the pretended power of suspending of laws, or the execution of laws,
by regal authority, without consent of parliament,
is illegal,”
the doctrine of self-government reaches its full flower
two and a half centuries later in the United Nations Declaration:
“Everyone has the right to take part in the Government of his country,
directly or through freely chosen representatives… .
The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government;
this shall be expressed in periodic and genuine elections
which shall be by universal and equal suffrage.”

我们细读那些有关自由的历史文件时，
会看到现代思想的发展，
现代思想的要点之一就是人民应享有自主权。
《英国权利法案》首先宣布：
“国王自称拥有的终止法律和执行法律的权力，是非法的”，
这种自主学说后来不断发展，250年后在联合国的《世界人权宣言》中达到了其顶峰，
该《宣言》说：
“每个人都有权直接或者通过自由选出的代表参与自己国家的政府……
人民的意志应是政府权力的基础；
人民的意志应由定期举行的真正选举来表达，
而人民应享有普遍和平等的选举权。”

How is the sovereignty of the people to be exercised?
“By representative government,” wrote James Mill,
in his Essay on /Government/ a century and a half ago.
“For though the people, who cannot exercise the powers of government themselves,
must entrust them to some one individual or set of individuals,
and such individuals will infallibly
have the strongest motives to make bad use of them,
it is possible that checks may be found sufficient to prevent them.”
But only a generation later his still more renowned son, John Stuart Mill,
is worrying whether checks,
not on the government but on the people themselves, may be found:
“In a representative body actually deliberating,
the minority must of course be overruled;
and in an equal democracy … the majority of the people,
through their representatives,
will outvote and prevail over the minority and their representatives.
But does it follow that the minority should have no representatives at all?”
(/Representative Government/, in GBWW, Vol.40.)

人民又怎样行使自主权呢？
150年前，詹姆斯.穆勒在其《论征服》一文中写道，人民应通过“代议制政府”来行事自主权。
“因为，人民无法亲自行使政府权力，必须把这种权力托付给某个人或某些人，
这些人肯定会受最为强烈的动机驱使而滥用权力，
可我们是有可能找到制止滥用权力的方法的。”
但是，仅仅三四年之后，知名度超过了其父亲的约翰.斯图亚特.穆勒，
就不再为如何限制政府而发愁，
而开始为如何限制人民自身而发愁了。
他在《代议制研究》（见《西方世界名著》，第43卷，第370c页）一书中说：
“在我们现在所考查的代议制度下，毫无疑问，少数人肯定会被压倒；
在平等的民主制度下……，多数人通过其代表，会在投票中压倒少数人和其代表。
但难道少数人就应该没有代表吗？”

This concern over the “tyranny of the majority”
is also found in Tocqueville’s study of the United States
in the early nineteenth century.
He concludes that
“the advantage of democracy [over aristocracy] is not,
as has sometimes been asserted,
that it protects the interests of the whole community,
but simply that it protects those of the majority”
(“/Observations on American Life and Government/,” Vol.6).

德.托克维尔在研究19世纪初美国的情况时，
也对这种“多数人的暴政”表示了担心。
他得出了这样的结论：
“民主政治[相对于贵族政治]的优点，
并不象一些人所宣称的那样，是保护了整个社会的利益，
而只不过是保护了多数人的利益”
（《对美国生活与政治的考察》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。

Thus we encounter in America, prior to the Civil War,
the doctrine of “the concurrent majority”
in John C. Calhoun’s essay by that name (Vol.7).
Calhoun, representing the minority view of the slaveholders,
argues that the majority-elected government
may be kept from oppressing the minority by
“dividing and distributing the powers of government,” and giving
“to each division or interest, through its appropriate organ,
either a concurrent voice in making and executing the laws
or a veto on their execution.”
An adaptation of this “state’s rights” principle
may be seen in the /Charter of the United Nations/,
in which the veto by any one permanent member of the Security Council
blocks action.

因此，在南北战争之前的美国，
便出现了“协商一致的多数”理论。
这一理论是约翰.C.卡尔霍恩在其同名论文中提出来的。
（见本套书中译本第6卷）
卡尔霍恩代表少数人即奴隶主的观点，
认为多数人选举出来的政府可以避免压迫少数人，方法是
“分享和分配政府权力，并通过政府的适当机关（指国会。–译者），
在制定和执行法律方面或者在否决法律的执行方面，
给每一部分人或每一利益集团以共同的发言权”。
这种强调“各州权利”的原则，
改头换面地出现在《联合国宪章》中，
根据该宪章，安全理事会的任何一个常任理事国都可以通过投否决票，
来阻止联合国采取行动。

But then it is plain that society does not have one indivisible government
but is a federation of sovereign powers.
This scheme may indeed protect minorities
against the majority in a democratic society,
but will it hold the society together?
Here is the central issue in the United Nations,
as it was in the League of Nations.
Here was the issue of the American Civil War.
The twin dangers— of too much power or too little,
of dictatorship or anarchy—are argued throughout the /Federalist papers/
written by Hamilton, Madison, and Jay
in support of the new /American Constitution/
after the War of Independence (GBWW, Vol.40).

但如果这样，则很显然，社会也就没有了不可分割的政府，
而只有一个由各种独立力量组成的联盟。
这在民主社会中确实会保护少数人不受多数人的压迫，
但社会还能保持团结一致吗？
这正是人们目前在美国争论的主要问题，
而当年人们在国际联盟中争论的也是这一问题。
当年美国的南北战争涉及了这一问题，
而当今美国的中央政府和州政府在消除种族隔离方面也就这一问题发生了冲突。
独立战争后，汉密尔顿，麦迪逊和杰伊为支持美国的新《宪法》而撰写的《联邦党人文集》，
篇篇都论及两种危险，
一是权力过大，一是权力过小，
亦即一是独裁，一是无政府状态（见《西方世界名著》，第43卷）。

With absolute majority rule, what guarantee of rights can there ever be?
Representative democracy established the rights of all against a tyrannical government;
how are the rights of the minority to be maintained against the majority?
The minority may be 49.99+% of the electorate—
in which event it is hard for the majority to oppress it—
or it may be a very small percentage of numerically helpless dissenters.
Or it may be a single individual, asserting the rights of the individual against society.
This figure we see among the heroes and martyrs of history,
beginning with Socrates and Christ.
Their “rights” are crushed.
But can we expect any form of social organization
to allow one individual to hamstring its activities?

在绝对多数原则下，人民的权利究竟有何保障？
代议制民主政体确立了所有人反对专制政府的权利；
它有将如何确保少数人的权利，使其不受多数人的压迫呢？
这里所谓的少数人可能是49.99%的选民（在这种情况下，多数人便很难压迫少数人），
也可能只是人数少得可怜的持不同政见者。
还可能只是一个人，坚持有权不受社会的压迫。
历史上的一些英雄和殉教者就是这样的人，
譬如基督和苏格拉底。
他们的“权利”遭到了践踏。
但又怎么能指望任何一种社会组织允许某一个人阻碍其活动呢？

This is the hard question to which Henry David Thoreau
addresses himself in his powerful essay, /Civil Disobedience/ (Vol.6).
Thoreau refused to pay his taxes
because a portion of them supported
the Mexican War and slavery in the United States.
He was sent to prison and released when his friend Emerson
(whose essay on Thoreau we read in Vol.6),
paid his taxes for him.
Thoreau, seeing the one individual at the mercy of the majority,
asks if democracy as we know it is
“the last improvement possible in government?
Is it not possible to take a step further
toward recognizing and organizing the rights of man?
There will never be a really free and enlightened state
until the state comes to recognize the individual
as a higher and independent power.”

这就是亨利.大卫.梭罗
在那篇颇有影响的文章《论公民的不服从》中所论及的难题。
（见本套书中译本第5卷）
索罗拒绝纳税，因为一部分税款被用于维持墨西哥战争和美国的奴隶制。
他因此而被关进监狱，
朋友爱默生替他纳了税后才被释放。
（他论述索罗的文章，见本套书中译本第5卷）
梭罗感到个人完全受多数人的支配，于是问道：
“我们所见到的民主制度是不是政治上所能进行的最后改进？
难道就不能再向前走一步
而承认人的各项权利并使之条理化吗？
只要国家不承认个人是一种更为高级的独立力量，
就决不会有真正自由而开明的国家。”

But can there be such a State?
Would it still be a State?
Would it not instantly dissolve into anarchy?
Washington in his /Farewell Address/ (Vol.6) says
that until the Constitution is changed it is
“sacredly obligatory upon all.”
Abraham Lincoln,
taking the oath as President in the dreadful year 1860,
asserts in his /First Inaugural Address/ (Vol.6) that
“it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations,
to conform to, and abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed,
than to violate any of them… .”
But John Brown claimed that he had a more sacred obligation
than the Constitution and the laws,
an obligation to free the slaves;
and as Thoreau defends the abolitionist
/(A Plea for Captain John Brown/, Vol.6),
so Carlyle, in /The Hero as King/ (Vol.6),
defends the words of Oliver Cromwell against the scandal they produced:
“If the King should meet me in battle, I would kill the King.”

但能有这样的国家吗？
它还会是国家吗？
难道它不会立即陷于无政府状态吗？
华盛顿在其《告别演说》（见本套书中译本第5卷）中说，
只要《宪法》没有被修改，它就“对所有人具有神圣的约束力”。
亚伯拉罕.林肯在可怕的1860年宣誓就任总统时，
在其《第一次就职演说》中宣称，
“无论对于担任公职的人来说，还是对于普通公民来说，
遵守并服从所有那些尚未被废除的法令，
要比违反其中任何一项法令，安全得多……。”
但约翰.布朗却认为，他有比遵守《宪法》和法律更为神圣的义务；
正如梭罗为废奴主义者布朗辩护那样
（见本套书中译本第5卷《为约翰.布朗队长辩护》），
卡莱尔在其《帝王英雄》一文（见本套书中译本第5卷）中，
也为奥利弗.克伦威尔的那句招众人非议的话做了辩护，
克伦威尔说：“要是我在战斗中遇到国王，我会把他宰了。”

** Land of the Free—and Equal 1-49 自由与平等的国土  78

The state so consecrated to human liberty
that it long stood on the brink of anarchy—
and the one and only state ever so established—
was the United States of America.
Elsewhere the rights of man have been won piecemeal:
the tree of liberty was watered by the blood of millions,
from the time of the slave revolutions like that of Spartacus in Rome
(Plutarch, /The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans/, in GBWW, Vol.13).
In America, it was planted by the men who founded the new nation
and nurtured by the waves of the oppressed of Europe
who swarmed to her open shores.

只有美国长期致力于争取人类自由，
并因此而长期处于无政府状态的边缘，
只有美国是建立在人类自由的基础之上。
在其他地方，人类自由则是一点一点地赢得的：
从奴隶革命（例如斯巴达克斯在罗马的革命）时代起，
自由之树是用千百万人的鲜血浇灌长大的
（普卢塔克：《传记》，见《西方世界名著》，第14卷，第442a-444a，508c-d页）。
在美国，自由之树却由开国元勋们亲手栽种，
而后由蜂拥而至的欧洲移民培育长大。

The United States is the case history of a human community
hewn out of the wilderness
to serve as a laboratory for utopianism then and thereafter.
The American experiment staggered mankind
and triggered all the revolutions that followed it.
And it is a relatively new revolution and a new history,
its beginnings voluminously recorded
by capable writers and keen observers;
a historian’s paradise.
A geographical paradise, too:
a “vast tract of continent,” as George Washington said,
“comprehending all the various soils and climates of the world,
and abounding with all the necessaries and conveniences of life.”
An Eden, with an indigenous population so small
and scattered as to be routed by what,
in military terms, were merely skirmishes.

美国是人类历史的一个缩影，
它是从蛮荒中劈凿出来的，充当了当时和以后试验乌托邦思想的场所。
美国的试验震撼了人类，引发了自此以后的所有革命。
而且美国的试验是一场相对来说较新的革命，历史较短，
一些卓越的作家和敏锐的观察者对其开始时的情况做了大量记录；
所以可以说美国是历史学家的乐园。
还是地理学家的乐园，
因为正如乔治.华盛顿所说，美国
“幅员广大，具有世界上各种各样的土壤与气候，
所有生活必需品和便利品都很充裕”。
是个伊甸园，当地居民人数很少，且很分散，
通过几场军事上的所谓小战斗，就可把其击垮。

An empty paradise, in effect,
into which poured all the national and racial stocks of the earth
in a process of self-selection.
Only those came who wanted to start life anew,
build “new heavens and a new earth,”
in the words of Christopher Columbus
taken from the Book of Isaiah.
“Here,” says the American chronicler Crèvecoeur,
“individuals of all nations are melted into a new race of men,
whose labours and posterity
will one day cause great changes in the world”
(“/The Making of Americans/,” Vol.6).
None of the nations of the earth
had been (or has up to now been) populated
by peoples so diverse in background as America;
nor of any other nation, past or present,
may it be said that its people were there
because they wanted to be there *and went there*.

实际上是一杳无人烟的乐园，
世界上各个民族和种族自觉自愿地源源涌入这一乐园。
用克里斯托弗.哥伦布引自《以赛亚书》的话来说，
凡来的人都是想过新生活，建立“新天堂和新世界”的人。
美国编年史学家雷克夫科尔说：
“在这里，各个民族的人融成了一个新的种族，
他们的劳作与子孙终将使世界发生伟大的变革”
（《美国人成功的原因》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。
迄今为止，世界上还没有哪个国家的人口像美国这样来自这么多国家；
也没有哪个国家，无论是过去还是现在，
可以说其人民在那里，是因为他们想在那里而自愿前往那里的。

In /Gateway to the Great Books/,
we read the works of many Americans and commentators on America.
Among the former are its greatest men of letters,
Hawthorne, Emerson, Thoreau, Mark Twain, Melville, Poe, Whitman, James;
among the latter such European geniuses as Tocqueville, whose
“/Observations on American Life and Government/” (Vol.6)
should be studied by every American interested to know his own country
as only a stranger can study a country and know it.
The America that fascinated Tocqueville in the 1830’s fascinates us today,
with its people and their manners and attitudes brilliantly delineated,
their accomplishments, their shortcomings,
and their perils both seen and unseen
in their utopian form of government and the spirit of their society.
(“/Observations on American Life and Government/”
is an excerpt of /Democracy in America/,
which appears in full as Vol.44 of /Great Books of the Western World/.)

在本套书中，我们可以读到许多美国人的著作以及许多美国评论家的著作。
就前者而言，有这样一些美国最伟大的文人，
如霍桑，爱默生，梭罗，马克.吐温，梅尔维尔，坡，惠特曼，詹姆斯；
属于后者的，则有像德.托克维尔这样的欧洲天才人物，
他的《对美国生活与政治的考察》，
每一个想了解自己国家的美国人都应认真研读，
因为只有外国人能考察和了解一个国家。
使19世纪30年代的德.托克维尔着迷的美国，也会使今天的我们着迷，
德.托克维尔精彩描绘了当时的美国人及其风俗和对事物的看法，
并指出了美国人的成就与缺陷，
指出了潜伏在美国乌托邦式的政府与当时的社会风气中的危险因素。

Urged by a variety of motives—high and low—
the dissatisfied came pouring into the new land.
Crèvecoeur, who saw them come, found that in the new land:
“Everything has tended to regenerate them;
new laws, a new mode of living, a new social system;
here they are become men:
in Europe they were as so many useless plants,
wanting vegetative mold, and refreshing showers;
they withered, and were mowed down by want, hunger, and war;
but now by the power of transplantation,
like all other plants they have taken root and flourished!”
(“/The Making of Americans,” Vol.6.)

There was room for everybody, and room for everybody to go on and up.
The “new world,” it was called;
it was the old dream at long last come true,
and it uncoiled the springs in the hearts of men
“within half an hour after landing at New York,”
as Henry Adams said (“The United States in 1800,” Vol.6).

在各种动机的驱使下，无论是高尚的动机还是卑劣的动机，
落魄潦倒的人源源涌入这个新国家。
克雷夫科尔见到这些人来到美国，发现在这个新国家：
“新的法律，新的生活方式，新的社会制度，
总之一切都有助于使他们获得新生命；
在这里，他们变成了人。
当初在欧洲，他们宛如缺少营养和雨水的无用草木，
愈来愈枯萎，被贫困，饥饿与战争所切割；
但现在，通过移栽，他们像所有其他草木一样已深深地扎下根，在繁茂地生长”
（《美国人成功的原因》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。

They were the “laboring poor” of Europe,
who were suddenly numbered as free and independent citizens,
for the first time in history the equal of every other man.
There was all the work they wanted, and no unemployment,
and they had only to work and save for a few years
to become independent farmers and tradesmen.
They came to think of themselves as individuals,
and to be moved by individual self-
interest to get ahead and always further ahead.
Under their suddenly animated hands the economy sprang to life,
and the sanctity of private property,
the right to acquire it in free competition, to improve it,
to dispose of it as one wished, grew at the center of the American faith,
a doctrine shared enthusiastically by statesmen
as different from one another as Thomas Jefferson and Herbert Hoover.

他们是欧洲“穷苦的工人”，却一下子成了自由而独立的公民，
开天辟地第一次成了与所有其他人地位相等的人。
这里有他们所需要的工作，没有人失业，
只要肯干，攒几年钱，
就能成为独立的农场主和商人。
他们慢慢地意识到了自己的存在，
开始被个人私利所驱使而向前奔，一个劲儿地向前奔。
他们那突然焕发出生命力的双手，使美国经济呈现出一派生气勃勃的景象。
私人财产神圣不可侵犯，人人有权通过自由竞争获得私人财产，
有权利用私人财产，有权按自己的意愿处置私人财产，
这些逐渐成了美国人最根本的信念，
并得到了像托马斯.杰弗逊和赫伯特.胡佛那样迥然不同的政治家们的热烈支持。

The rich open country afforded men good land cheap and even free—
men whose ancestors had from time immemorial
slaved on other men’s land in Europe.
Freedom of speech and press and assembly and worship
created a society in which, as Tocqueville noted,
everyone talked politics all the time and
everyone joined associations of every kind.
And freedom to exercise one’s talents and ambitions
released in these new men and women
a materialism pent up for generations;
people whose parents had starved to death
dreamed of seeing their children rich.
And that, too, came to pass.

这个富饶开放的国家向人们廉价地甚至无偿地提供上等土地，
而在欧洲，这些人的祖先自古以来却一直是在他人的土地上做牛做马。
言论自由，出版自由，集会自由以及信仰自由，创造了这样一个社会，
在这个社会中，正如德.托克维尔所说，
人人无时无刻不在谈论政治，人人都有自己的组织。
由于能自由地发挥才能，自由地实现抱负，
这些新来的男人和女人摆脱了世世代代所受的压抑，毫无顾忌地追求实利主义；
这些曾看到父母被饿死的人，梦想着看到自己的孩子发财致富。
而这也成了现实。

But at the heart of the phenomenon
lay something other than the love of freedom,
said Tocqueville:
“I think that democratic communities have a natural taste for freedom;
left to themselves,
they will seek it, cherish it, and view any privation of it with regret.
But for equality,
their passion is ardent, insatiable, incessant, invincible:
they call for equality in freedom;
and if they cannot obtain that, they still call for equality in slavery.
They will endure poverty, servitude, barbarism,
but they will not endure aristocracy”
(“/Observations on American Life and Government/,” Vol.7).

但在这种现象的背后，除了对自由的热爱外，还有另一种东西。
德.托克维尔说：
“我认为，民主社会对自由有一种天生的爱好；
如果对其不加限制，
他们就会追求自由，珍爱自由，对任何剥夺自由的行为都会表示遗憾。
而他们对平等的热爱，
则可以说是炽烈的，永不满足的，持续不断的，不可战胜的。
他们希望在自由状态下获得平等，
假如无法在自由状态下获得平等，
他们会希望在受奴役的状态下获得平等。
他们可以忍受贫困，奴役和野蛮，
却不能忍受贵族统治”
（《对美国生活与政治的考察》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。

The passion for equality was fortified by the country’s freedom
from the militarism which had formed the base
of all European caste and class.
The puny thirteen American colonies had repulsed the British Empire;
behind the moat of the two oceans
they could not be successfully attacked.
Maintaining that a militia would be enough to defend the new country,
Washington in his /Farewell Address/ (Vol.6) warned against
“those overgrown military establishments
which under any form of government are inauspicious to liberty,
and which are to be regarded
as particularly hostile to republican liberty”;
an echo of the assertion in the great /Virginia Declaration of Rights/ (Vol.6) that
“standing armies, in time of peace,
should be avoided as dangerous to liberty.”

美国没有尚武精神，这更增强了美国人对平等的热爱，
而尚武精神却是所有欧洲国家的基础。
美国13个弱小的殖民地击败了大英帝国；
大西洋和太平洋就像两条护城河，保护着美国，使其立于不败之地。
华盛顿在其《告别演说》（见本套书中译本第5卷）中认为，
民兵便足以保卫这一新建立的国家，
告诫人们要对“发展过快的军队存有戒心，
因为无论在哪一种政体下，军队都对自由是不祥之兆，
特别是应该看到，军队对共和政体下的自由怀有敌意”；
华盛顿的这一主张反映在伟大的《弗吉尼亚州权利宣言》（见本套书中译本第5卷）中，
该宣言指出：“在和平时期，应避免建立常备军，
因为常备军对自由是一种威胁。”

Believing, according to Adams, that
“in the long run interest, not violence,
would rule the world,
and that the United States must depend for safety and success
on the interests they could create,
[the early Americans] were tempted
to look upon war and preparations for war as the worst of blunders;
for they were sure that every dollar capitalized in industry
was a means of overthrowing their enemies more effective
than a thousand dollars spent on frigates or standing armies.
The success of the American system was, from this point of view,
a question of economy.
If they could relieve themselves
from debts, taxes, armies, and government interference with industry,
they must succeed in outstripping Europe in economy of production;
and Americans were even then partly aware
that if their machine were not so weakened by these economies as to break down in the working,
it must of necessity break down every rival”
(“/The United States in 1800/,” Vol.6).

据亚当斯说，早期的美国人认为：
“从长远看，统治世界的将不是武力，
美国的安全与成就必须依赖他所能创造的财富，
因而他们往往把战争和备战看作是所有错误中最严重的错误；
他们深信，用在工业上的每一块钱，
要比用于建造军舰和维持常备军的每一千块钱，
更有助于打垮敌人。
从这一观点看，美国的制度能否取得成功，完全是个经济问题。
如果能摆脱债务，赋税，军队以及政府对工业的干预，
美国在经济生产上就会超过欧洲；
即便在当时，美国人也隐约意识到，
他们的机器假如没有被欧洲各国的经济严重削弱而开不起来的话，
就肯定会打垮每一个竞争者”
（《1800年的美国》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。

We may say now that these men were optimists;
but they had reason to be.
Everything—except history—was propitious to their experiment.
Above all, they believed in it—
and not just the eminent leaders
but the millions and more millions who came to participate in it.
They believed that it was, in Jefferson’s words,
“the world’s best hope” (/First Inaugural Address/, Vol.6);
in Washington’s,
“a most conspicuous theater,
which seems to be peculiarly designated by Providence
for the display of human greatness and felicity”
(/Circular Letter to the Governors of All the States on Disbanding the Army/, Vol.6).
And Adams observed that European travelers in this early America
“noticed that everywhere,
in the White House at Washington and in log cabins beyond the Alleghenies,
except for a few Federalists,
every American, from Jefferson and Gallatin down to the poorest squatter,
seemed to nourish an idea that he was doing what he could
to overthrow the tyranny which the past had fastened on the human mind.”

我们现在可以说，这些人是乐观主义者；
但他们是有理由乐观的。
所有的一切（除历史外）都有利于他们的试验。
特别是，他们对试验抱有信心，
不单单是卓越的领导人抱有信心，而且千百万参加试验的人也抱有信心。
用杰斐逊的话来说，他们相信这场试验是“世界最美好的希望”
（《第一次就职演说》，见本套书中译本第5卷），
用华盛顿的话来说，他们相信这场试验是
“一最为壮观的舞台，似乎老天爷特意安排它来展示人类的伟大与灵巧”
（《关于解散军队给各州州长的通函》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。
而且亚当斯说，在这一新建立起来的国家旅行的欧洲人
“注意到，在各个地方，无论是在白宫还是在阿勒格尼山那边的小木屋中，
除少数联邦党人外，每个美国人，从杰斐逊到加勒廷到最穷的人，
似乎都抱有这样的信念，
即他正在尽其所能地推翻历史强加在人类心灵上的暴政。”

** The Shadow of War 1-53  战争的幽灵  82

In the 1830’s Alexis de Tocqueville wrote the following remarkable words:
“There are, at the present time,
two great nations in the world which seem to tend towards the same end,
although they started from different points:
I allude to the Russians and the Americans… .
Their starting point is different and their courses are not the same;
yet each of them seems to be marked out by the will of Heaven
to sway the destinies of half the globe”
(“/Observations on American Life and Government/,” Vol.6).

19世纪30年代，阿列克赛.德.托克维尔写下了以下著名文字：
“当前世界上有两个伟大的民族，似乎正向着同一目标迈进，
尽管他们是从不同地点出发的。
我指的是俄国人和美国人。
……他们的出发点是不同的，所走的路线也不一样；
然而按照上帝的意志，他们却被挑选出来各自左右一半地球的命运”
（《对美国生活与政治的考察》，见本套书中译本第5卷）。

What Tocqueville did not predict—nor did anyone else—
was that the hostility of Russia and America
would one day threaten the extinction of the human race.
There was little his imagination failed to grasp,
but its grasp did not reach to the scientific development in which weapons,
which in his time measured their carrying power in yards,
would carry their deadly message for thousands of miles
across oceans and continents.

德.托克维尔–以及所有其他人–所未预见到的是，
俄国和美国的敌对状态有一天会有毁灭人类的危险。
他的想象力未能抓住的东西很少，
但他却未能想象到科学能有那么巨大的发展，
以致当时武器的射程还是以码计，
但后来却能跨越大洋和大陆而给人以致命打击。

On the contrary, he appeared to see a prospect for world peace in the fact that
“the nations seem to be advancing to unity.
Our means of intellectual intercourse unite the most remote parts of the earth;
and it is impossible for men to remain strangers to each other,
or to be ignorant of the events which are taking place in any corner of the globe.”
If this was true in 1835, how much truer it is today!
Never has the world been so close to unification as now;
never before could unification be imagined on an other than utopian basis.
But this so nearly unified world
continues to be divided by aggression and wars.

相反，德.托克维尔看到的，似乎是将有可能实现世界和平，
因为“各民族似乎正在朝统一的方向迈进。
我们进行知识交往的工具，已把世界上相距最遥远的地区连接在一起，
人么已不再可能相互感到陌生，
已不再可能对发生在世界任何一个角落的事情一无所知。”
如果说1835年的情况是这样，那么今天的情况就更是这样了！
世界从未像现在这样如此接近于统一；
而以前人们只能对世界的统一作乌托邦式的幻想。
但这一如此接近于统一的世界，
现在又比以往任何时候都分裂得更厉害，
当今在世界各地人们谈论的不是和平与统一，而是侵略与战争。

“Certain attitudes toward war between states
seem to recur in every century,”
according to the /Syntopicon/’s introduction
to the subject of WAR AND PEACE (GBWW, Vol.2).
“In the face of the ever-present fact of war,
men deplore its folly or find some benefit
to compensate for its devastation.
But throughout most of the tradition,
those who see only suffering,
no less than those who celebrate the martial spirit,
seem to accept the necessity of war.
Good or bad,
or a mixture of the glorious and the horrible,
war seems, to most of those who write about it,
an inevitable thing—
as ineradicable as disease and death for the living body, as inescapable as tragedy.
Only in recent times has the inevitability of war been questioned,
and the possibility of lasting peace proposed.”

《同题文集》在概述“战争与和平”这一题目时说：
“人们对国家间的战争所抱的某些看法，似乎每一世纪都会重新出现。
面对无穷无尽的战争，人们一直在探索战争的罪恶，
或试图发现可以补偿其破坏作用的好处。
但在大部分历史时期，那些只看到战争苦难的人，同赞美尚武精神的人一样，
似乎都承认战争是不可避免的。
在大多数论述战争的人看来，
战争不管是好还是坏，或是光荣与恐怖的混合体，总归是无法加以避免的，
就像生物摆脱不了疾病与死亡那样，就像悲剧那样不可避免。
只是到了近代，人们才开始怀疑战争的不可避免性，而提出了持久和平的可能性”
（见《西方世界名著》，第3卷，第1010页及以下各页）。

If war between individuals
can be controlled by the establishment of the civil commonwealth,
why cannot the war of state against state
be placed under a world organization of law and order?
Must we say that the nation-state
is the ultimate development of human society?
Is an association beyond it impossible to man?
Or is it a stage in social progress,
requiring decades or centuries
before men will subordinate national interests and customs
to those of the world unified by technology?

如果个人间的战争可以通过建立国家来加以控制，
那么国家反对国家的战争
为什么就不能置于一维护法律与秩序的世界性组织的控制之下呢？
我们是否必须说民族国家是人类社会发展的最后阶段？
难道人类就不能超越民族国家而实现某种联合吗？
抑或民族国家只是社会发展的一个阶段，
需要经过几十年或几百年
人们才能使民族利益与习惯
服从于被技术所统一的世界的利益与习惯？

In /Gateway to the Great Books/
there are several selections which bear on this question.
Clausewitz, in his /What Is War/? (Vol.7),
represents the viewpoint of war’s inevitability.
To him, it is a natural part of the political intercourse between nations;
for no moral force exists apart from the conception of a state and law.
“We have to think of war not as an independent thing,
but as a political instrument… . We see,” he says,
“that war is not merely a political act but a real political instrument,
a continuation of political intercourse,
a carrying out of the same by other means… .
for the political design is the object, while war is the means,
and the means can never be thought of apart from the object.”
He sees human intelligence concerned
only with the question of when to use war, not with its elimination.

本套丛书选录的一些著作就论及了这一问题。
克劳塞维茨在其《什么是战争》中代表的是战争不可避免论。
（见本套书中译本第6卷）
在他看来，战争是国家间政治交往的一个自然组成部分；
因为道德力量不会脱离国家和法律的观念而存在。他说：
“我们不应把战争看作是独立的事物，
而应把战争看作是一种政治工具。
……我们可以看到，战争不仅仅是一种政治行动，
而且还是一种真正的政治工具，
是政治交往的延续，是用另一种手段来达到相同的目的。
……政治意图才是目的，而战争则是手段，
因而绝不能脱离目的来看手段。”
他认为，人类的聪明才智
只应当关心什么时候运用战争这一问题，
而不应当关心消灭战争的问题。

Malthus is an unhappier apologist for war.
In his essay, “/The Principle of Population/,” in Volume 7,
he expounds his theory that
“the power of population is indefinitely
greater than the power in the earth to produce subsistence for man,”
and that war is one of the means by which this imbalance is corrected.
Even so, he noted that
“the commission of war is vice, and the effect of it misery,” but adds:
“To prevent the recurrence of misery, is, alas!
beyond the power of man.”

马尔萨斯为战争做了辩护，但辩护得却不怎么得体。
他在《人口原理》一文中，（见本套书中译本第6卷）
是这样阐述其理论的：
“人口的力量比地球为人类生产粮食的力量不知大多少倍”，
战争正是可以用来纠正这种不平衡的手段之一。
尽管如此，他还指出：“发动战争是犯罪，战争会给人类带来苦难”，
但他补充说：“阻止苦难的重现，却是人力所不及的！”

But there have always been men—more today than ever before—
who have refused to concede
that the misery of war is beyond man’s power to prevent.
And the commonwealth *within which* peace prevails has long
since suggested to poets and philosophers
(and more recently to many “practical” men)
that a commonwealth of the whole earth is the solution.
The argument for world government as a means to world peace
was first made by Dante himself in the thirteenth century in his
“/On World Government/,” in Volume 7 of this set.
“Wherever there can be contention,” he wrote,
“there judgment should exist… .
Between any two governments,
neither of which is in any way subordinate to the other,
contention can arise… .
Therefore there should be judication between them.
And since neither can know the affairs of the other, not being subordinated
(for among equals there is no authority),
there must be a third and wider power
which can rule both within its own jurisdiction.

然而，总是有人拒绝承认阻止战争是人力所不及的，
而且这样的人现在比以往任何时候都多。
很久以来，诗人和哲学家就想到，
建议一包括世界各国的联邦或许是解决问题的办法，
在 *这种联邦之内* ，和平将得到维持。
近来许多“注重实际的”人也想到了这一点。
但丁于13世纪在其《论世界政府》（见本套书中译本第6卷）一文中，
最先提出应建立一世界政府来维持世界和平。
他写道：“哪里有争端，哪里就应有人作出裁决。
……在两个互不从属的政府之间有可能发生争端。
……因而应在它们之间作出裁决。
既然两方都不了解对方的事务，也互不服从，
（因为两方若地位相等，则哪一方也没有权威），
所以就得有一权力更大的第三方在其权限之内对双方作出裁决。

“This third power is either the world government or it is not.
If it is, we have reached our conclusion;
if it is not, it must in turn have its equal outside its jurisdiction,
and then it will need a third party as judge,
and so ad infinitum, which is impossible.
So we must arrive at a first and supreme judge
for whom all contentions are judiciable either directly or indirectly… .
Therefore, world government is necessary for the world.”

“这第三方要么是世界政府，要么不是世界政府。
如果是世界政府，便得到了我们所要得到的结论。
如果不是世界政府，那在其权限之外就肯定有一与其权限相等的政府，
因而就需要有一第三方来做裁判官，
以此类推而至无穷，这是不可能办到的。
因而我们必须有一至高无上的裁判官，
他能直接或间接地对所有的争端作出裁决。
……所以，世界政府对于这个世界来说是必不可少的。”

He realized that the obstacles were formidable:
“O race of men,
how many storms and misfortunes must thou endure,
and how many shipwrecks,
because thou, beast of many heads, strugglest in many directions!
Thou art sick at heart and sick in mind,
both theoretical and practical!
No irrefutable arguments appeal to thy theoretical reason,
and no amount of experience to thy practical intelligence,
and even thine emotions are not moved by the sweet,
divine persuasiveness which sounds to thee
from the trumpet of the Holy Spirit.”

但丁意识到，障碍是难以克服的。他说：
“人类啊，人类，
你还要忍受多少暴风雨和灾祸的折磨，还要翻多少次船，
你这个多头的怪兽，只知道东撞西闯！
你的心脏和大脑已不正常，理论和实践都出了毛病！
不管多么无可辩驳的论点，都引不起你推理的兴趣，
不管多么丰富的经验，都改变不了你我行我素的习惯，
甚至圣灵对你的谆谆劝诱，也打动不了你的心肠。”

Centuries later Immanuel Kant, in his /Perpetual Peace/ (Vol.7),
found that nature’s
“mechanical march evidently announces
the grand aim of producing among men,
against their intention, harmony from the very bosom of their discords.”
Here he refers to the fact that man’s warlike nature
has forced him to submit to coercive laws in his own self-interest,
and not as a matter of morality, resulting in societies and states.
But perpetual peace requires “moral politicians,” he says,
reminding us of the immortal dictum of Socrates
that only when kings are philosophers and philosophers kings
will society know surcease.

几百年之后，伊马努埃尔.康德在其《永久和平论》一文中指出，
（见本套从书中译本第6卷）
大自然“机械地向前迈进，明确宣告了自己的宏伟目标，
既违背人们的意愿而在人们中间从最为混乱的状态中产生和谐“。
在这里，康德指的是这样一个事实，
即人的好战本性已迫使人为了自身利益而服从法律，
并由此而产生了社会和国家，不管这是好还是坏。
但康德认为，要实现永久和平，就得有”讲道德的政治家”，
这使我们想到了苏格拉底的那句不朽名言：
只有当国王成为哲学家，哲学家成为国王时，社会才会安定。

As to the form the future world organization would take,
Kant thinks that
“the public right ought to be founded upon a federation of free states.”
The ideal would be “a society of nations” which would
“submit themselves to coercive laws,”
but as this is a practical impossibility,
“there can only be substituted,
to the positive idea of an universal republic
(if all is not to be lost) the negative supplement of a permanent alliance …”;
in short, a federation, not a union.

至于这种未来的世界性组织将采取的形式，康德认为，
“公共权利应建立在自由国家联盟的基础之上”。
我们的 *理想* 是建立
“国际社会”，“各国都服从该社会的强制性法律”，
但因为实际上不可能做到这一点，所以
“（如果想有所得的话）只得舍弃建立全人类共和国的理想，
而代之以一种永久性的联盟……”；
简言之，只能建立联盟，而不能建立联邦。

** The Issue of Our Time 1-56  当代的问题  86

And this—federation or union—is the heart of the issue.
Rousseau, in his /A Lasting Peace through the Federation of Europe/ (Vol.7),
in the eighteenth century proposed a European *federation*
(since, he said, Europe was already homogenous because of geography,
trade and commerce, habit and custom, and religion),
but it was actually a federal *union*,
with a legislative body with power to pass binding laws,
a coercive force to enforce laws and prohibitions,
and the power to prevent the withdrawal of any member.
But he concluded gloomily that such an organization
could never be established except by a revolution.
“That being so,” he says,
“which of us would dare to say
whether the League of Europe is a thing more to be desired or feared?
It would perhaps do more harm in a moment
than it would guard against for ages.”

这一个建立联盟还是联邦的问题，是人们争论的焦点。
18世纪，卢梭在其《通过建立欧洲联盟实现持久和平》一文中，（见本套书中译本第6卷）
提议建立一个欧洲联盟
（因为他说，欧洲由于地理，贸易商业，风俗习惯以及宗教等方面的原因已经很和谐一致了），
但他提议建立的实际上是个 *联邦* ，
因为它拥有一立法机构，该立法机构有权通过具有约束力的法律，
有权强制执行各项法律和禁令，有权阻止成员国退出联盟。
然而卢梭悲观地断定，除非使用革命手段，
否则永远不会建立起这样一个组织。
他说：“既然如此，谁又敢说欧洲联盟是我们所需要的而不是我们所惧怕的呢？
它在一瞬间带来的灾害，也许要大于它数个世代所要防止的灾害。”

If the problem of conflicting sovereignties is to be resolved,
all conflicts which arise between states
must be submitted to a higher power for arbitration,
and, as in civil society, this power must have the force
to ensure that its decisions are obeyed.
An indissoluble community requires a government superior
to any or all of its components.
This was the issue of the American Civil War,
and before that,
the heart of the greatest of the great debates in American history—
whether to adopt the Constitution
in place of the unworkable Articles of Confederation.
It has continued to be a fundamental issue in our time
in the efforts to create the European Community.

若要解决主权相互冲突的问题，
国家间的冲突就必须由更高的权力来仲裁，
而且像在市民社会中一样，这种权力必须能确保其作出的决定得到服从。
一个不可分裂的社会，需要有一个高于任何社会组成部分或所有社会组成部分的政府。
这正是美国南北战争所解决的问题，
而且在此之前，也是美国历史上规模最大的一场辩论争论的核心问题，
即是否应颁布“美国宪法”来取代行不通的“联邦条例”。

In the /Charter of the United Nations/ (Vol.6),
the preamble states that the people are
“determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war… .”
But Chapter I, Article 2, Paragraph 1, asserts that
“the Organization is based on the principle of
the sovereign equality of all its Members”—
just as were the ill-fated American /Articles of Confederation/.
And after establishing the allpowerful Security Council,
Paragraph 3 of Article 27 provides, in effect,
that any permanent member may prevent action
by the Security Council by casting a negative vote—
the power of veto.
And the veto is coupled with a still broader assertion of national sovereignty,
which provides that
“nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations
to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction
of any state or shall require the Members to submit
such matters to settlement under the present Charter” (Chap. I, Art. 2, Par. 7).

《联合国宪章》的前言说，（见本套书中译本第5卷）
人们已“决心使其子孙后代免受战争的蹂躏。……”
但该宪章第一章第2条第1段却宣称：
“本组织建立在所有成员国主权平等的原则之上”
–这与招致不幸的美国《邦联条例》何其相似。
而在建立了权力很大的安全理事会后，该宪章第27条第3段实际上规定，
常任理事国可以通过投否决票即行使否决权来阻止安理会采取行动。
岂止是否决权，国家主权还受到了更为广泛的保护，
该宪章规定：
“本宪章包含的任何内容，
都不应使联合国有权干涉本质上属于各国内政的事务，
也不应借此而要求成员国
把这类事务交由联合国处理”
（第一章第2条第7段）。

But these are the same guarantees of sovereignty which, as “state’s rights,”
had wrecked the confederation of American states after the Revolution.
Similar guarantees of national sovereignty undid the League of Nations.
Germany quit the League in 1935,
just as South Carolina had seceded from the American Union in 1860—
both of them on the principle of sovereignty
which forbade interference
in their domestic affairs or organizational action without their consent.
Can we say that a community
from which a member resigns when it is charged with an offense
is a true community?

但是，正是这种类似于美国“州权”的对国家主权的保证，
破坏了美国13个州在独立战争后组成的邦联。
对国家主权的类似保证还破坏了国际联盟。
正如南卡罗来那州于1860年退出了联邦那样，
德国于1935年退出了国际联盟，
二者依据的都是主权原则，主权原则不允许第三方干涉其内部事务，
不允许第三方未经其同意而采取行动。
若一个成员被指控违反了某一规定，他就可以退出联合体，
这样的联合体能说是真正的联合体吗？

Like the League, and like every federation of sovereigns before it,
the United Nations was destined to great achievements
*in matters on which the sovereign members could agree*.
The United Nations could, and did, prevent or end “small wars,”
and, in so doing, earned the gratitude of all mankind.
The war it could not prevent was the big one
on the verge of which the world teetered after 1948.
None of the heads of the three great powers
(Britain, the U.S.A., and the U.S.S.R., who agreed to the veto at Yalta in 1945)
nor, in all probability,
their peoples, were able to move beyond Hegel’s conception
of the nation-state as “the absolute power on earth”
(/The Philosophy of Right/, in GBWW, Vol.43).

与国际联盟以及在它之前由主权国家组成的每一个联盟一样，
联合国注定会在 *享有主权的成员国能够达成一致意见的问题上* 取得伟大的成就。
英，美，苏这三个大国的首脑（正是他们于1945年在雅尔塔一致同意设置否决权）
乃至这三个国家的人民，无法超越黑格尔关于民族国家的概念，
黑格尔认为民族国家是“地球上的绝对权力”
（《权利哲学》，见《西方世界名著》，第46卷，第108d页）。

Like war, chattel slavery was for thousands of years
regarded as part of the order of the universe.
An Aristotle thought it was natural (/Politics/, in GBWW, Vol.8);
a John Locke accepted it as a concomitant of conquest
(/Concerning Civil Government/, in GBWW, Vol.33);
a Thomas Jefferson wrote /The Declaration of Independence/ (Vol.6)
without denouncing it.
But it was destroyed at last, partly, to be sure,
by machinery that was cheaper even than slaves,
but partly by the slowly evolving moral
and religious sentiment of mankind.
The combination of man’s self-interest and morality
may do away with war—
before war does away with man.

同战争一样，奴隶制几千年来曾被认为是宇宙秩序的一部分。
亚里士多德认为奴隶制是自然的（《政治学》，见《西方世界名著》，第9卷，第448c页）；
约翰.洛克认为奴隶制是与征服伴随而来的（《政府论》，见《西方世界名著》，第35卷，第43d页）；
托马斯.杰斐逊撰写《独立宣言》（见本套书中译本第5卷）时没有谴责奴隶制。
但奴隶制最终还是被摧毁了，毫无疑问，在某种程度上是被比奴隶更便宜的机器摧毁的，
但在某种程度上也是被人类缓慢发展的道德和宗教感情摧毁的。
在战争消灭人类以前，人类的自身利益与道德观念相结合，也是可以消灭战争的。

问题与人类自身有关。
人是什么?人的自由，意志和感情具有什么样的性质，又受到什么样的限制？
人是否会发生变化，或是否能被改变，从而改变人类社会的性质？
这些是要加以回答的终极问题。
是由科学来回答呢，还是由哲学来回答呢？