深网 deepoo.net

从此走进深度人生 Deepoo net, deep life.

标签： 阅读

  • 《山海经》

    卷一南山经
    卷二西山经
    卷三北山经
    卷四东山经
    卷五中山经
    卷六海外南经
    卷七海外西经
    卷八海外北经
    卷九海外东经
    卷十海内南经
    卷十一海内西经
    卷十二海内北经
    卷十三海内东经
    卷十四大荒东经
    卷十五大荒南经
    卷十六大荒西经
    卷十七大荒北经
    卷十八海内经

    山经

    卷一 南山经

    　　南山经之首曰䧿［鹊］山。其首曰招摇之山，临于西海之上，多桂，多金（矿）、玉（矿）。有草焉，其状如韭而青华，其名曰祝馀，食之不饥。有木焉，其状如榖（构树）而黑（纹）理，其华四照。其名曰迷榖，佩之不迷。有兽焉，其状如禺（传说中的一种野兽，像猕猴而大一些，红眼睛，长尾巴）而白耳，伏行人走，其名曰狌狌（传说是一种长着人脸的野兽，能知道往事，不能知道未来），食之善走。丽麂之水出焉，而西流注于海，其中多育沛，佩之无瘕疾（腹内结块，即蛊胀病）。

    　　又东三百里，曰堂庭之山。多棪木（果实像苹果，表面红了即可吃），多白猿，多水玉（水晶石），多黄金（金砂）。

    　　又东三百八十里，曰猨翼之山，其中多怪兽，水多怪鱼。多白玉，多蝮虫（传说中的动物，也叫反鼻虫，颜色如同红、白相间的绶带纹理，鼻子上长有针刺，大的一百多斤重），多怪蛇，多怪木，不可以上。

    　　又东三百七十里，曰杻阳之山，其阳（南面）多赤金，其阴（北面）多白金（白银）。有兽焉，其状如马而白首，其纹如虎而赤尾，其音如谣（不用乐器伴奏的歌唱），其名曰鹿蜀，佩之宜子孙。怪水出焉，而东流注于宪翼之水。其中多玄龟，其状如龟而鸟首虺尾，其名曰旋龟，其音如判木，佩之不聋，可以为（治疗）底（同胝，老茧）。

    　　又东三百里，［曰］柢山，多水，无草木。有鱼焉，其状如牛，陵居，蛇尾有翼，其羽在魼（“胠”的同声假借字，腋下胁上部分）下，其音如留牛（或为犁牛，纹理像老虎），其名曰鯥，冬死（冬眠）而夏生，食之无肿（皮肤层化脓性炎症）疾。

    　　又东四百里，曰亶爰之山，多水，无草木，不可以上。
        有兽焉，其状如狸而有髦（下垂至眉的长发），其名曰类，自为牝牡（雌雄同体），食者不妒。

    　　又东三百里，曰基山，其阳多玉，其阴多怪木。
    　　有兽焉，其状如羊，九尾四耳，其目在背，其名曰猼訑，佩之不畏。
    　　有鸟焉，其状如鸡而三首六目、六足三翼，其名曰[尚鸟] [付鸟]，食之无卧。

    　　又东三百里，曰青丘之山，其阳多玉，其阴多青雘（涂料）。
    　　有兽焉，其状如狐而九尾，其音如婴儿，能食人；食者不蛊。
    　　有鸟焉，其状如鸠（斑鸠），其音如呵（呵斥），名曰灌灌，佩之不惑。英水出焉，南流注于即翼之泽。其中多赤鱬（娃娃鱼），其状如鱼而人面，其音如鸳鸯，食之不疥。

    　　又东三百五十里，曰箕尾之山，其尾踆（蹲坐）于东海，多沙石。汸水出焉，而南流注于淯，其中多白玉。

    　　凡䧿山之首，自招摇之山，以至箕尾之山，凡十山，二千九百五十里。其神状皆鸟身而龙首。其祠（祭祀）之礼：毛（祭祀所用的毛物）用一璋玉瘗（埋葬），糈（祭神用的精米）用稌米（或指糯米），一璧，稻米、白菅（茅草的一种，叶片线形，细长，根坚韧，可做刷帚）为席。

    　　南次二（经）山之首，曰柜山，西临流黄，北望诸毗，东望长右。英水出焉，西南流注于赤水，其中多白玉，多丹粟。
    　　有兽焉，其状如豚，有距（雄鸡、野鸡等跖后面突出像脚趾的部分。这里指鸡的足爪），其音如狗吠，其名曰狸力，现则其县多土功。
    　　有鸟焉，其状如鸱（鹞鹰）而人手，其音如痺，其名曰鴸（传说是尧的儿子丹朱所化。尧把天下让给舜，而丹朱和三苗国人联合起兵反对，尧派兵打败了他们，丹朱自投南海而化作此鸟），其名自号也，现则其县（人聚居地）多放士。

    　　东南四百五十里，曰长右之山，无草木，多水。有兽焉，其状如禺而四耳，其名长右，其音如吟，现则郡县大水。

    　　又东三百四十里，曰尧光之山，其阳多玉，其阴多金（金属矿物）。有兽焉，其状如人而彘鬣，穴居而冬蛰，其名曰猾褢，其音如斫木，现则县有大徭。

    　　又东三百五十里，曰羽山（传说祝融曾奉黄帝之命，将大禹的父亲鲧杀死在羽山，一说是鲧被舜杀死在羽山），其下多水，其上多雨，无草木，多蝮虺。

    　　又东三百七十里，曰瞿父之山，无草木，多金玉。

    　　又东四百里，曰句汸之山，无草木，多金玉。

    　　又东五百里，曰浮玉之山，北望具区（太湖），东望诸毗。
    　　有兽焉，其状如虎而牛尾，其音如吠犬，其名曰彘，是食人。苕水出于其阴，北流至于具区，其中多鮆鱼（又叫鲚鱼、鮤鱼）。

    　　又东五百里，曰成山，四方而三坛，其上多金玉，其下多青雘。𨴯水出焉，而南流注于虖勺，其中多黄金。

    　　又东五百里，曰会稽之山，四方，其上多金玉，其下多砆石（一种似玉的美石）。勺水出焉，而南流注于湨。

    　　又东五百里，曰夷山，无草木，多沙石，湨水出焉，而南流注于列涂。

    　　又东五百里，曰仆勾之山，其上多金玉，其下多草木，无鸟兽，无水。

    　　又东五百里，曰咸阴之山，无草木，无水。

    　　又东四百里，曰洵山。其阳多金，其阴多玉。有兽焉，其状如羊而无口，不可杀也，其名曰䍺。洵水出焉，而南流注于阏之泽，其中多茈蠃。

    　　又东四百里，曰虖勺之山。其上多梓枏，其下多荆杞。滂水出焉，而东流注于海。

    　　又东五百里，曰区吴之山，无草木，多沙石。鹿水出焉，而南流注于滂水。

    　　又东五百里，曰鹿吴之山，上无草木，多金石。泽更之水出焉，而南流注于滂水。水有兽焉，名曰蛊雕，其状如雕而有角，其音如婴儿之音，是食人。

    　　又东五百里，曰漆吴之山，无草木，多博石，无玉。处于东海，望丘山，其光载出载入，是惟日次。

    　　凡南次二山之首，自柜山至于漆吴之山，凡十七山，七千二百里。其神状皆龙身而鸟首。其祠：毛用一壁瘗，糈用稌。

    　　南次三山之首，曰天虞之山。其下多水，不可以上。

    　　东五百里，曰祷过之山，其上多金玉，其下多犀兕，多象。有鸟焉，其状如鵁，而白首、三足、人面，其名曰瞿如，其鸣自号也。泿水出焉，而南流注于海。其中有虎蛟，其状鱼身而蛇尾，其音如鸳鸯，食者不肿，可以已痔。

    　　又东五百里，曰丹穴之山，其上多金玉。丹水出焉，而南流注于渤海。有鸟焉，其状如鸡，五采而文，名曰凤皇，首文曰德，翼文曰义，背文曰礼，膺文曰仁，腹文曰信。是鸟也，饮食自然，自歌自舞，见则天下安宁。

    　　又东五百里，曰发爽之山，无草木，多水，多白猿。汎水出焉，而南流注于勃海。

    　　又东四百里，至于旄山之尾，其南有谷，曰育遗，多怪鸟，凯风自是出。

    　　又东四百里，至于非山之首，其上多金玉，无水，其下多蝮虫。

    　　又东五百里，曰阳夹之山，无草木，多水。

    　　又东五百里，曰灌湘之山，上多木，无草。多怪鸟，无兽。

    　　又东五百里，曰鸡山，其上多金，其下多丹雘。黑水出焉，而南流注于海。其中有鱄鱼，其状如鲋而彘毛，其音如豚，见则天下大旱。

    　　又东四百里，曰令丘之山，无草木，多火。其南有谷焉，曰中谷，条风自是出。有鸟焉，其状如枭，人面四目而有耳，其名曰顒，其鸣自号也，见则天下大旱。

    　　又东三百七十里，曰仑者之山，其上多金玉，其下多青雘。有木焉，其状如榖而赤理，其汗如漆，其味如饴，食者不饥，可以释劳，其名曰白䓘，可以血玉。

    　　又东五百八十里，曰禺槀之山，多怪兽，多大蛇。

    　　又东五百八十里，曰南禺之山，其上多金玉，其下多水。有穴焉，水出辄入，夏乃出，冬则闭。佐水出焉，而东南流注于海，有凤皇、鵷雏。

    　　凡南次三山之首，自天虞之山以至南禺之山，凡一十四山，六千五百三十里。其神皆龙身而人面。其祠皆一白狗祈，稰用稌。

    　　右南经之山志，大小凡四十山，万六千三百八十里。    

    卷二 西山经

    　　西山经华山之首，曰钱来之山，其上多松，其下多洗石（一种在洗澡时用来擦去身上污垢的石头）。有兽焉，其状如羊而马尾，名曰羬羊，其脂可以已（治疗）腊（皮肤皴皱）。

    　　西四十五里，曰松果之山。濩水出焉，北流注于渭，其中多铜（矿石）。有鸟焉，其名曰䳋渠，其状如山鸡，黑身赤足，可以已[月暴]（皮肤皱起）。

    　　又西六十里，曰太华之山（华山），削成而四方，其高五千仞，其广十里，鸟兽莫居。有蛇焉，名曰肥（虫遗），六足四翼，现则天下大旱。

    　　又西八十里，曰小华之山，其木多荆杞，其兽多㸲牛（山牛，重千斤左右），其阴多磬石，其阳多㻬琈之玉。鸟多赤鷩(属野鸡类，胸部腹部都是红色，冠子是金黄色，头是黄的，尾巴是绿的，间杂着红色羽毛，色彩鲜明)，可以御（避）火。其草有萆荔，状如乌韭，而生于石上，亦缘木而生，食之已心痛。

    　　又西八十里，曰符禺之山，其阳多铜，其阴多铁。其上有木焉，名曰文茎，其实如枣，可以已聋。其草多条，其状如葵，而赤华黄实，如婴儿舌，食之使人不惑。符禺之水出焉，而北流注于渭。其兽多葱聋（一种野山羊），其状如羊而赤鬣。其鸟多鴖，其状如翠（鸟）而赤喙，可以御火。

    　　又西六十里，曰石脆之山，其木多棕枬，其草多条（条草），其状如韭，而白花黑实，食之已疥。其阳多㻬琈之玉，其阴多铜。灌水出焉，而北流注于禺水。其中有流（硫磺）、赭（褐铁矿），以涂牛马无病。

    　　又西七十里，曰英山，其上多杻、橿，其阴多铁，其阳多赤金。禺水出焉，北流注于招水，其中多鳢鱼，其状如鳖，其音如羊。其阳多箭䉋（竹），兽多㸲牛、羬羊。有鸟焉，其状如鹑（鹌鹑），黄身而赤喙，其名曰肥遗（鸟），食之已疠（麻疯），可以杀虫。

    　　又西五十二里，曰竹山，其上多乔木，其阴多铁。有草焉，其名曰黄雚，其状如樗，其叶如麻，白华而赤实，其状如赭，浴之已疥（疥疮），又可以已胕（浮肿病）。竹水出焉，北流注于渭，其阳多竹箭，多苍玉。丹水出焉，东南流注于洛水，其中多水玉（水晶），多人鱼。有兽焉，其状如豚而白毛，［毛］大如筓（发簪）而黑端，名曰豪彘（豪猪）。

    　　又西百二十里，曰浮山，多盼木，枳叶而无伤（尖刺），木虫居之。有草焉，名曰薰草，麻叶而方茎，赤花而黑实，嗅如蘼芜（一种香草），佩之可以已疠（麻疯病）。

    　　又西七十里，曰羭次之山，漆水出焉，北流注于渭。
    　　其上多棫、橿，其下多竹箭（丛），其阴多赤铜，其阳多婴垣之玉。
    　　有兽焉，其状如禺而长臂，善投，其名曰嚣（猕猴）。
    　　有鸟焉，其状如枭，人面而一足，曰橐𩇯，冬现夏蛰，服之不畏雷。

    　　又西百五十里，曰时山，无草木。逐水出焉，北流注于渭，其中多水玉。

    　　又西百七十里，曰南山，上多丹粟。丹水出焉，北流注于渭。兽多猛豹（传说中的一种野兽，形体与熊相似而小些，浅色的毛皮有光泽，吃蛇，还能吃铜铁），鸟多尸鸠（布谷鸟）。

    　　又西四百八十里，曰大时之山，上多楮、柞（栎树，木材可供建筑、器具、薪炭等用），下多杻、橿，阴多银，阳多白玉。涔水出焉，北流注于渭。清水出焉，南流注于汉水。

    　　又西三百二十里，曰嶓冢之山，汉水出焉，而东南流注于沔；嚣水出焉，北流注于汤水。其上多桃枝（竹）、钩端（竹），兽多犀、兕、熊、罴，鸟多白翰（白雉，又叫白鹇）、赤鷩。有草焉，其叶如蕙，其本如桔梗，黑花而不实，名曰蓇蓉。食之使人无子。

    　　又西三百五十里，曰天帝之山，多棕、枬（楠木）；下多菅、蕙。
    　　有兽焉，其状如狗，名曰溪边，席其皮者不蛊。
    　　有鸟焉，其状如鹑，黑文而赤翁（鸟脖子上的毛），名曰栎，食之已痔。
    　　有草焉，其状如葵，共其嗅如蘼芜，名曰杜衡，可以走马，食之已瘿（人脖子上的赘瘤）。

    　　西南三百八十里，曰皋涂之山，蔷水出焉，西流注于诸资之水；涂水出焉，南流注于集获之水。其阳多丹粟，其阴多银、黄金，其上多桂木。有白石焉，其名曰礜（礜石，一种矿物，有毒；如果山上有各种礜石，草木不能生长，霜雪不能积存；如果水里有各种礜石，就会使水不结冰），可以毒鼠。有草焉，其状如藁茇（一种香草），其叶如葵赤背，名曰无条，可以毒鼠。有兽焉，其状如鹿而白尾，马足人手而四角，名曰玃如。有鸟焉，其状如鸱而人足，名曰数斯，食之已瘿。

    　　又西百八十里，曰黄山，无草木，多竹箭。盼水出焉，西流注于赤水，其中多玉。有兽焉，其状如牛，而苍黑大目，其名曰［上敏下牛］。有鸟焉，其状如鸮，青羽赤喙，人舌能言，名曰鹦鹉。

    　　又西二百里，曰翠山，其上多棕、楠，其下多竹箭，其阳多黄金、玉，其阴多牦牛、羚、麝，其多鸓，其状如鹊，赤黑而两首、四足，可以御火。

    　　又西二百五十里，曰騩山，是錞（附着、座落）于西海，无草木，多玉。凄水出焉，西流注于海，其中多彩石、黄金，多丹粟。

    　　凡西经［山］之首，自钱来之山至于騩山，凡十九山，二千九百五十七里。华山冢也，其祠之礼：太牢（祭祀时祭品所用牛、羊、猪三牲全备为太牢）。羭山神也，祠之用烛，斋（祭祀前或举行典礼前清洁身体以示庄敬）百日以百牺（牺祭祀时用的纯色的牲；牲是供祭祀用的完整的家畜），瘗用百瑜，烫其酒百樽，婴（用玉器祭祀神的专称）以百珪百壁。其余十七山之属，皆毛牷（祀神所用毛物牲畜是整体全具的）用一羊祠之。
    　　烛者，百草之未灰，白席采等纯之。

    　　西次二经［山］之首，曰钤山，其上多铜，其下多玉，其木多杻橿。   

    　　西二百里，曰泰冒之山，其阳多玉，其阴多铁。浴水出焉，东流注于河（黄河），其中多藻玉（带有色彩纹理的玉），多白蛇。  

    　　又西一百七十里，曰数历之山，其上多黄金，其下多银，其木多杻、橿，其鸟多鹦鹉。楚水出焉，而南流注于渭，其中多白珠。

    　　又西百五十里，曰高山，其上多银，其下多青碧（玉）、雄黄，其木多棕，其草多竹（低矮而丛生的小竹子，被当作草）。泾水出焉，而东流注于渭，其中多馨石、青碧。

    　　西南三百里，曰女床之山，其阳多赤铜，其阴多石涅（石墨），其兽多虎、豹、犀、兕。有鸟焉，其状如翟（一种长尾野鸡）而五彩纹，名曰鸾鸟，现则天下安宁。

    　　又西二百里，曰龙首之山，其阳多黄金，其阴多铁。苕水出焉，东南流注于泾水，其中多美玉。

    　　又西二百里，曰鹿台之山，其上多白玉，其下多银，其兽多㸲牛、羬羊、白豪（白毛豪猪）。有鸟焉，其状如雄鸡而人面，名曰凫徯，其鸣自叫（名称）也，现则有兵（战争）。

    　　西南二百里，曰鸟危之山，其阳（南）多馨石，其阴多檀、楮（构树），其中多女床（女肠草）。鸟危之水出焉，西流注于赤水，其中多丹粟（丹砂）。 

    　　又西四百里，曰小次之山，其上多白玉，其下多赤铜。有兽焉其状如猿，而白首赤足，名曰朱厌，现则大兵。 

    　　又西三百里，曰大次之山，其阳多垩（能用作涂饰粉刷墙壁的泥土，有白、红、青、黄等多种颜色），其阴多碧（玉），其兽多㸲牛、羚羊。

    　　又西四百里，曰薰吴之山，无草木，多金、玉。

    　　又西四百里，曰厎阳之山，其木多稷（水松树）、楠、豫章（樟树），其兽多犀、兕、虎、犳（一种身上有豹子斑纹的野兽）、㸲牛。

    　　又西二百五十里，曰众兽之山，其上多㻬琈之玉，其下多檀、楮，多黄金，其兽多犀、兕。  

    　　又西五百里，曰皇人之山，其上多金玉，其下多青（石青，一种矿物，可以制做蓝色染料）、雄黄。皇水出焉，西流注于赤水，其中多丹粟。

    　　又西三百里，曰中皇之山，其上多黄金，其下多蕙、棠（棠梨树，果实似梨而小点，味道甜酸）。

    　　又西三百五十里，曰西皇之山，其阳多黄金，其阴多铁，其兽多麋、鹿、㸲牛。

    　　又西三百五十里，曰莱山，其木多檀、楮，其鸟多罗罗，是食人。

    　　凡西次二经［山］之首，自钤山至于莱山，凡十七山，四千一百四十里。其十神者，皆人面而马身。其七神皆人面而牛身，四足而一臂，操杖以行，是为飞兽之神。其祠之，毛（毛物，就是祭神所用的猪、鸡、狗、羊、牛等畜禽）用少牢（祭祀用的猪和羊），白菅为席。其十辈神者，其祠之毛一雄鸡，钤而不糈（祭祀神时不用米作祭品）：毛采（杂色）。

    　　西次三经［山］之首，曰崇吾之山，在[黄]河之南，北望冢遂，南望䍃之泽，西望帝之捕兽之丘，东望䗡渊。有木焉，圆叶而白柎（花萼），赤花而黑（纹）理，其实如枳，食之宜子孙。
    　　有兽焉，其状如禺而纹臂。豹尾而善投，名曰举父。有鸟焉，其状如凫，而一翼一目，相得（两鸟合并）乃飞，名曰蛮蛮，现则天下大水。

    　　西北三百里，曰长沙之山。泚水出焉，北流注于泑水，无草木，多青雄黄。

    　　又西北三百七十里，曰不周之山。北望诸䗡之山，临彼岳崇之山，东望泑泽，[黄]河水所潜（源头）也，其源浑浑泡泡（水喷涌声）。爰有嘉果，其实如桃，其叶如枣，黄花而赤柎，食之不劳（烦忧）。

    　　又西北四百二十里，曰峚山，其上多丹木，圆叶而赤茎，黄花而赤实，其味如饴，食之不饥。丹水出焉，西流注于稷泽，其中多白玉。
    　　是有玉膏，其源沸沸汤汤，黄帝是食是飨。是生玄玉。玉膏所出，以灌丹木，丹木五岁，五色乃清，五味乃馨。
    　　黄帝乃取峚山之玉荣，而投之钟山之阳。瑾瑜之玉为良，坚粟（坚硬）精密，浊泽有而光。五色发作，以和柔刚。天地鬼神，是食是飨；君子服之，以御不祥。
    　　自峚山至于钟山，四百六十里，其间尽泽也。
    　　是多奇鸟、怪兽、奇鱼，皆异物焉。 

    　　又西北四百二十里，曰钟山。其子（山神的儿子）曰鼓，其状如人面而龙身，是与钦䲹杀葆江于昆仑之阳，帝乃戮之（鼓与钦䲹）钟山之东曰鳐崖。
    　　钦䲹化为大鹗（鱼鹰），其状如雕而黑纹白首，赤喙而虎爪，其音如晨鹄，现则有大兵；鼓亦化为鵕鸟，其状如鸱，赤足而直喙，黄纹而白首，其音如（鸿）鹄，现即其邑大旱。

    　　又西百八十里，曰泰器之山。观水出焉，西流注于流沙。是多文鳐鱼，状如鲤里，鱼身而鸟翼，苍纹而白首、赤喙，常行西海，游于东海，以夜飞。其音如鸾鸡（传说中的一种鸟），其味酸甘，食之已狂，见则天下大穰（丰熟）。

    　　又西三百二十里，曰槐江之山。丘时之水出焉，而北流注于泑水。其中多蠃其上金青雄黄，多藏琅玕（像玉一样的石头）、黄金、玉，其阳多丹粟。其阴有多采黄金银。
    　　实惟帝之平圃，神英招司之，其状马身而人面，虎纹而鸟翼，徇于四海，其音如榴。南望昆仑，其光熊熊，其气魂魂。西望大泽（后稷所葬地。传说后稷死时，化形而遁于大泽成为神），后稷（周人的先祖。相传在虞舜时任农官，善于种庄稼）所潜也。
    　　其中多玉，其阴多榣木之有若。北望诸龇，槐鬼离仑居之，鹰鸇之所宅也。东望恒山四成，有穷鬼居之，各在一抟。爰有淫水（洪大的水），其清洛洛（水流声）。有天神焉，其状如牛，而八足二首马尾，其音如勃皇（吹奏乐器时薄膜发出的声音），现则其邑有兵。

    　　西南四百里，曰昆仑之丘（昆仑山），是实惟帝之下都，神陆吾司之。其神状虎身而九尾，人面而虎爪；是神也，司天之九部及帝之囿（园林）时（时节）。
    　　有兽焉，其状如羊而四角，名曰土蝼，是食人。有鸟焉，其状如蜂，大如鸳鸯，名曰钦原，蠚（毒虫类咬刺）鸟兽则死，蠚木则枯；有鸟焉，其名曰鹑鸟（传说中的凤凰之类的鸟），是司帝之百服（日常生活中各种器用服饰）。有木焉，其状如棠，黄花赤实，其味如李而无核，名曰沙棠，可以御水，食之使人不溺。有草焉，名曰薲草，其状如葵，其味如葱，食之已劳。
    　　[黄]河水出焉，而南流注于无达。赤水出焉，而东南流注于汜天之水。洋水出焉，而西南流注于丑涂之水。黑水出焉，而西流注于大杆。是多怪鸟兽。

    　　又西三百七十里，曰乐游之山。桃水出焉，西流注于稷泽，是多白玉，其中多䱻鱼，其状如蛇而四足，是食鱼。

    　　西水行四百里，曰流沙。[再]二百里至于嬴母之山，神（名）长乘司之，是天之九德[之气所生]也。其神状如人而豹尾。其上多玉，其下多青石而无水。

    　　又西北三百五十里，曰玉山，是西王母所居也。西王母其状如人，豹尾虎齿而善啸，蓬发戴胜（玉胜，用玉制做的一种首饰），是司天之厉（灾）及五残（刑杀）。
    　　有兽焉，其状如犬而豹纹，其角如牛，其名曰狡，其音如吠犬，现则其国大穰（丰收）。有鸟焉，其状如翟（一种野鸡）而赤，名曰胜遇，是食鱼，其音如鹿，现则其国大水。

    　　又西四百八十里，曰轩辕之丘（传说黄帝居住在这里，娶西陵氏女为妻，因此也号称轩辕氏），无草木。洵水出焉，南流注于黑水，其中多丹粟，多青、雄黄。

    　　又西三百里，曰积石之山，其下有石门，[黄]河水冒（漫过石门）以西［南］流，是山也，万物无不有焉。

    　　又西二百里，曰长留之山，其神白帝少昊居之。其兽皆纹尾，其鸟皆纹首。是多纹玉石。实惟员神磈氏（少昊）之宫。是神也（少昊），主司反影（太阳落下西山时光线射向东方的反影）。

    　　又西二百八十里，曰章莪之山，无草木，多瑶、碧（玉石）。所为甚怪。有兽焉，其状如赤豹，五尾一角，其音如击石，其名如狰。有鸟焉，其状如鹤，一足，赤纹、青质而白喙，名曰毕方（传说是树木的精灵，形貌与鸟相似，青色羽毛，只长着一只脚，不吃五谷； 又传说是老父神，形状像鸟，两只脚，一只翅膀，常常衔着火到人家里去制造火灾），其鸣自叫（和名字一样）也，现则其邑有讹火（怪火，像野火那样莫名其妙地烧起来）。

    　　又西三百里，曰阴山。浊浴之水出焉，而南流注于番泽，其中多文（彩）贝。有兽焉，其状如狸而白首，名曰天狗，其音如榴榴［猫猫］，可以御凶（凶邪之气）。

    　　又西二百里，曰符惕之山，其上多棕、楠，下多金玉。神（名）江疑居之。是山也，多怪雨，风云之所出也。

    　　又西二百二十里，曰三危之山，三青鸟（传说中的鸟，专为西王母取送食物）居之。是山也，广圆百里。其上有兽焉，其状如牛，白身四角，其豪如披蓑，其名曰獓因，是食人。有鸟焉，一首而三身，其状如(乐鸟)（与雕鹰相似，黑色斑纹，红色脖颈），其名曰鸱。

    　　又西一百九十里，曰騩山，其上多玉而无石。神耆童（即老童，传说是颛顼的儿子）居之，其音常如钟磬。其下多积（成堆的）蛇。

    　　又西三百五十里，曰天山，多金玉，有青（石青）、雄黄。英水出焉，而西南流注于汤谷。有神焉，基状如黄囊（袋子），赤如丹水，六足四翼，浑敦（混沌）无而目，是识歌舞，实为帝江（帝鸿氏，也就是黄帝）也。 

    　　又西二百九十里，曰泑山，神蓐收（金神，人面、虎爪、白色毛皮，管理太阳的降落）居之。其上多婴脰（婴：环绕。脰：颈项）之玉（可制做脖胫饰品的玉石），其阳多瑾、瑜之玉，其阴多青（石青）、雄黄。是山也，西望日之所入，其气圆，神红光（即蓐收）之所司也。

    　　西水行百里，至于翼望之山，无草木，多金玉。有兽焉，其状如狸，一目而三尾，名曰讙，其音如■［夺］百声，是可以御凶（凶邪之气），服之已疸（黄疸病）。有鸟焉，其状如乌，三首六尾而善笑，名曰鵸䳜，服之使人不魇（梦魇），又可以御凶。

    　　凡西次三经之首，［自］崇吾之山至于翼望之山，凡二十三山，六千七百四十四里。其神状皆羊身人面。其祠之礼，用一吉玉（带有符彩的玉）瘗，糈用稷米。

    　　西次四经［山］之首，曰阴山，上多楮，无石，其草多茆（莼菜）、蕃。阴水出焉，西流注于洛。   

    　　北五十里，曰劳山，多紫草。弱水出焉，而西流注于洛。

    　　西五十里，曰罢父之山，洱水出焉，而西流注于洛，其中多茈、碧。

    　　北百七十里，曰申山，其上多楮柞，其下多杻橿，其阳多金玉。区水出焉，而东流注于河。

    　　北二百里，曰鸟山，其上多桑，其焉多楮，其阴多铁，其阳多玉。辱水出焉，而东流注于河。

    　　又北百二里，曰上申之山，上无草木，而多硌石，下多榛楛，兽多白鹿。其鸟多当扈，其状如雉，以其髯飞，食之不眴目。汤水出焉，东流注于河。

    　　又北百八十里，曰诸次之山，诸次之水出焉，而东流注于河。是山也，多木无草，鸟兽莫居，是多众蛇。

    　　又北百八十里，曰号山，其木多漆、棕，其草多药、芎䓖。多冷石。端水出焉，而东流注于河。

    　　又北二百二十里，曰盂山，其阴多铁，其阳多铜，其兽多白狼白虎，其鸟多白雉白翟。生水出焉，而东流注于河。

    　　西二百五十里，曰白於之山，上多松柏，下多栎檀，其兽多㸲牛、羬羊，其鸟多鸮。洛水出于其阳，而东流注于渭；夹水出于其阴，东流注于生水。

    　　西北三百里，曰申首之山，无草木，冬夏雪。申水出于其上。潜于其下，是多白玉。

    　　又西五十五里，曰泾谷之山。泾水出焉，东南流注于渭，是多白金白玉。

    　　又西百二十里，曰刚山，多柒木，多㻬琈之玉。刚水出焉，北流注于渭。是多神𩳁，其状人面兽身，一足一手，其音如钦。

    　　又西二百里，至刚山之尾。洛水出焉，而北流注于河。其中多蛮蛮，其状鼠身而鳖首，其音如吠犬。

    　　又西三百五十里，曰英鞮之山，上多漆木，下多金玉，鸟兽尽白。靼涴水出焉，而北流注于陵羊之泽。是多冉遗之鱼，鱼身蛇首六足，其目如观耳，食之使人不眯，可以御凶。

    　　又西三百里，曰中曲之山，其阳多玉，其阴多雄黄、白玉及金。有兽焉，其状如马而白身黑尾，一角，虎牙爪，音如鼓音，其名曰驳，是食虎豹，可以御兵。有木焉，其状如棠，而员叶赤实，实大如木瓜，名曰杯木，食之多力。

    　　又西二百六十里，曰邽山。其上有兽焉，其状如牛，蝟毛，名曰穷奇，音如獆狗，是食人。蒙水出焉，南流注于洋水，其中多黄贝；嬴鱼，鱼身而鸟翼，音如鸳鸯，见则其邑大水。

    　　又西二百二十里，曰鸟鼠同穴之山，其上多白虎、白玉。渭水出焉，而东流注于河。其中多鳋鱼，其状如鳣鱼，动则其邑有大兵。滥水出于其西，西流注于汉水，多【上如下鱼】魮之鱼，其状如覆铫，鸟首而鱼翼，音如磬石之声，是生珠玉。

    　　西南三百六十里，曰崦嵫之山，其上多丹木，其叶如楮，其实大如瓜，赤符而黑理，食之已瘅，可以御火。其阳多龟，其阴多玉。苕水出焉，而西流注于海，其中多砥励。有兽焉，其状马身而鸟翼，入面蛇尾，是好举人，名曰孰湖。有鸟焉，其状如鸮而人面，蜼身犬尾，其名自号也，见则其邑大旱。

    　　凡西次四经自阴山以下，至于崦嵫之山，凡十九山，三千六百八十里。其神祠礼，皆用一白鸡祈，糈以稻米，白菅为席。

    　　右西经之山，凡七十七山，一万七千五百一十七里。

    卷三 北山经

    　　北山经之首，曰单狐之山，多机木（桤木），其上多华草。漨水出焉，而西流注于泑水，其中多芘石（紫石）、纹石。

    　　又北二百五十里，曰求如之山，其上多玉，无草木。滑水出焉，而西流注于诸𣬈之水。其中多滑鱼。其状如鱓，赤背，其音如梧（支吾），食之已疣。其中多水马，其状如马，纹臂牛尾，其音如呼（呼喊）。

    　　又北三百里，曰带山，其上多玉，其下多青碧。
    　　有兽焉，其状如马，一角有厝（有如粗硬的磨刀石），其名曰䑏疏，可以辟火。有鸟焉，其状如乌，五采而赤纹，名曰鵸鵌，是自为牝牡（雌雄同体），食之不疽（痈疽病）。
    　　彭水出焉，而西流注于芘湖之水，中多鯈鱼，其状如鸡而赤毛，三尾六足四首，其音如鹊，食之可以已忧。

    　　又北四百里，曰谯明之山。谯水出焉，西流注于河。其中多何罗之鱼，一首而十身，其音如吠犬，食之已痈。有兽焉，其状如貆（豪猪）而赤毫（细毛），其音如榴榴，名曰孟槐，可以御凶。是山也，无草木，多青、雄黄。

    　　又北三百五十里，曰涿光之山。嚣水出焉，而西流注于河。其中多鳛鳛之鱼，其状如鹊而十翼，鳞皆在羽端，其音如鹊，可以御火，食之不瘅。其上多松柏，其下多棕橿，其兽多鹿羚羊，其鸟多蕃。

    　　又北三百八十里，曰虢山，其上多漆（树），其下多桐、椐（灵寿木，树干上多长着肿节，常用来制做拐杖）。其阳多玉，其阴多铁。伊水出焉，西流注于河。其兽多橐驼（骆驼），其鸟多寓（蝙蝠之类的小飞禽），状如鼠而鸟翼，其音如羊，可以御兵（器）。

    　　又北四百里，至于虢山之尾，其上多玉而无石。鱼水出焉，西流注于河，其中多纹贝。

    　　又北二百里，曰丹熏之山，其上多樗、柏，其草多韭、薤（蕌头），多丹雘。熏水出焉，而西流注于棠水。有兽焉，其状如鼠，而兔首麋耳，其音如獆犬，以其尾飞，名曰耳鼠，食之不䐆（臌胀），又可以御百毒。

    　　又北二百八十里，曰石者之山，其上无草木，多瑶、碧。泚水出焉，西流注于（黄）河。有兽焉，其状如豹，而纹题（额头）白身，名曰孟极，是善伏，其鸣自呼（自己的名字）。

    　　又北百一十里，曰边春之山，多葱（茎生有枝格，一边拔取一边又生长起来，食之不尽、冬天不枯）、葵、韭、桃、李。杠水出焉，而西流注于泑泽。有兽焉，其状如禺（猕猴）而纹身，善笑，见人则卧（躺下装睡），名曰幽鴳，其鸣自呼。

    　　又北二百里，曰蔓联之山，其上无草木，有兽焉，其状如禺而有鬣，牛尾、纹臂、马蹄，见人则呼，名曰足訾，其鸣自呼。有鸟焉，群居而朋飞，其毛如雌雉，名曰鵁，其鸣自呼，食之已风（风痹病）。

    　　又北八百里，曰单张之山，其上无草木。有兽焉，其状如豹而长尾，人首而牛耳，一目，名曰诸犍，善咤（吼叫），行则衔其尾，居则蟠其尾。有鸟焉，其状如雉，而纹首、白翼、黄足，名曰白鵺，食之已嗌痛（咽喉疼痛）、可以已痸（疯癫）。栎水出焉，在而南流注于杠水。

    　　又北三百二十里，曰灌题之山，其上多樗、柘，其下多流沙、多砥（磨刀石）。有兽焉，其状如牛而白尾，其音如（大）叫，名曰那父。有鸟焉，其状如雌雉而人面，见人则跃，名曰竦斯，其鸣自呼也。匠韩之水出焉，而西流注于泑泽，其中多磁石。

    　　又北二百里，曰潘侯之山，其上多松柏，其下多榛、楛，其阳多玉，其阴多铁。有兽焉，其状如牛，而四节（四肢关节）生毛，或曰旄牛。边水出焉，而南流注于栎泽。

    　　又北二百三十里，曰小咸之山，无草木，冬夏有雪。

    　　北二百八十里，曰大咸之山，无草木，其下多玉。是山也，四方，不可以上。有蛇名曰长蛇（传说有几十丈长，能吞鹿、象等），其毛如彘豪（猪背上的硬毛），其音如鼓柝（击打木梆子）。

    　　又北三百二十里，曰敦薨之山，其上多棕、楠，其下多茈草。敦薨之水出焉，而西流注于泑泽。出于昆仑之东北隅，实惟（黄）河源。其中多赤鲑，其兽多兕、旄牛，其鸟多柝鸠（布谷鸟）。

    　　又北二百里，曰少咸之山，无草木，多青、碧。有兽焉，其状如牛，而赤身、人面、马足，名曰窥窳，其音如婴儿，是食人。敦水出焉，东流注于雁门之水。其中多魳魳之鱼（江豚），食之（毒）杀人。

    　　又北二百里，曰狱法之山。瀼泽之出焉，而东北流注于泰泽。其中多䲃鱼，其状如鲤而鸡足，食之已疣。有兽焉，其状如犬而人面，善投，见人则笑，其名山[犭军]，其行如风，现则天下大风。

    　　又北二百里，曰北岳之山，多枳、棘、刚木。有兽焉，其状如牛，而四角、人、耳、彘耳，其名曰诸怀，基音如鸣雁，是食人。诸怀之水出焉，而西流注于嚣水，水中多鮨鱼，鱼身而犬首，其音如婴儿，食之已狂。

    　　又北百八十里，曰浑夕之山，无草木，多铜、玉。嚣水出焉，而西流注于海。有蛇一首两身，名曰肥遗，现则其国大旱。

    　　又北五十里，曰北单之山，无草木，多葱、韭。

    　　又北百里，曰罴差之山，无草木，多（野）马。

    　　又北百八十里，曰北鲜之山，是多马，鲜水出焉，而西北流注于涂吾之水。

    　　又北百七十里，曰堤山，多马。有兽焉，其状如豹而纹首，名曰狕。堤水出焉，而东流注于泰泽，其中多龙、龟。

    　　凡北山经之首，自单狐之山至于堤山，凡二十五山，五千四百九十里，其神皆人面蛇身。其祠之：毛用一雄鸡、彘瘗，吉玉用一珪，瘗而为不糈。其山北人，皆生食不火之物。

    　　北次二经［山］之首，在（黄）河之东，其首枕（着）汾（水），其名曰管涔之山。其上无木而多草，其下多玉。汾水出焉，而西流注于河。

    　　又西二百五十里，曰少阳之山，其上多玉，其下多赤银（含银量很高的银矿石）。酸水出焉，而东流注于汾水，其中多美赭（石）。

    　　又北五十里，曰县雍之山，其上多玉，其下多铜，其兽多闾（一种黑母羊，形体似驴而蹄子歧分，角如同羚羊的角，也叫山驴）、麋，其鸟多白翟白[有鸟]（白翰鸟）。晋水出焉，而东南流注于汾水。其中多鮆鱼，其状如鯈而赤鳞（小鱼），其音如叱，食之不骚（狐臭）。  

    　　又北二百里，曰狐岐之山，无草木，多青、碧。胜水出焉，而东北流注于汾水，其中多苍玉。

    　　又北三百五十里，曰白沙山，广圆三百里，尽沙也，无草木鸟兽。鲔水出于其上，潜（游）于其下，是多白玉。

    　　又北四百里，曰尔是之山，无草木，无水。

    　　又北三百八十里，曰狂山，无草木，是山也，冬夏有雪。狂水出焉，而西流注于浮水，其中多美玉。

    　　又北三百八十里，曰诸余之山，其上多铜、玉，其下多松、柏。诸余之水出焉，而东流注于旄水。

    　　又北三百五十里，曰敦头之山，其上多金、玉，无草木。旄水出焉，而东流注于邛泽。其中多[马孛]马，牛尾而白身，一角，其音如呼。

    　　又北三百五十里，曰钩吾之山，其上多玉，其下多铜。有兽焉，其状（如）羊身人面，其目在腋下，虎齿人爪，其音如婴儿，名曰狍鸮（怪兽，吃人，在吃不完时，还要把人身的各个部位咬碎），是食人。

    　　又北三百里，曰北嚻之山，无石，其阳多玉。有兽焉，其状如虎，而白身犬首，马尾彘鬣，名曰独𤞞。有鸟焉，其状如乌（乌鸦），人面，名曰𪄀𪃑，宵飞而昼伏，食之已暍（中暑）。涔水出焉，而东流注于邛泽。

    　　又北三百五十里，曰梁渠之山，无草木，多金玉。修水出焉，而东流注于雁门，其兽多居暨，其状如彙（像老鼠，红色的毛硬得像刺猬身上的刺）而赤毛，其音如豚。有鸟焉，其状如夸父（举父，一种长得像猕猴的野兽），四翼、一目、犬尾，名曰嚣，其音如鹊，食之已腹痛，可以止衕（腹泻）。

    　　又北四百里，曰姑灌之山，无草木。是山也，冬夏有雪。

    　　又北三百八十里，曰湖灌之山，其阳多玉，其阴多碧，多马，湖灌之水出焉，而东流注于海，其中多䱇（黄鳝）。有木焉，其叶如柳而赤（纹）理。

    　　又北水行五百里，流沙三百里，至于洹山，其上多金、玉。三桑生之，其树皆无枝，其高百仞。百果树生之。其下多怪蛇。

    　　又北三百里，曰敦题之山，无草木，多金、玉。是錞（座落）于北海。

    　　凡北次二经［山］之首，自管涔之山至于敦题之山，凡十七山，五千六百九十里。其神皆蛇身人面。其祠；毛用一雄鸡、彘瘗；用一璧一珪，投（投向山中）而不糈。

    　　北次三经之首，曰太行之山。其首曰归山，其上有金、玉，其下有碧。有兽焉，其状如羚羊而四角，马尾而有距（爪），其名曰[马军]，善旋（旋转），其名自詨。有鸟焉，其状台鹊，白身、赤尾、六足，其名曰䴅，是善惊，其鸣自詨（呼）。

    　　又东北二百里，曰龙侯之山，无草木，多金、玉。決之水出焉，而东流注于河。其中多人鱼，其状如䱱鱼，四足，其音如婴儿，食之无痴疾（疯癫）。

    　　又东北二百里，曰马成之山，其上多纹石，其阴多金、玉。有兽焉，其状如白犬而黑头，见人则飞，其名曰天马，其鸣自詨，有鸟焉，其状如乌，首白而身青、足黄，是名曰鶌鶋。其名自詨，食之不饥，可以已寓（或指健忘症）。

    　　又东北七十里，曰咸山，其上有玉，其下多铜，是多松、柏，草多茈草。条菅之水出焉，而西南流注于长泽。其中多器酸（酸味品），三岁一成，食之已疠（麻疯病）。

    　　又东北二百里，曰天池之山，其上无草木，多纹石。有兽焉，其状如兔而鼠首，以其背（背上多毛而能）飞，其名曰飞鼠。渑水出焉，潜于其下，其中多黄垩（土）。

    　　又东三百里，曰阳山，其上多玉，其下多金、铜。
    　　有兽焉，其状如牛而赤尾，其颈■（肉瘤），其状如句瞿，其名曰领胡，其鸣自詨，食之已狂（疯癫病）。有鸟焉，其状如赤雉，而五彩以纹，是自为牝牡（雌雄同体），名曰象蛇，其名自詨。
    　　留水出焉，而南流注于河。其中有䱤父之鱼，其状如鲋鱼（鲫鱼），鱼首而彘身，食之已呕。

    　　又东三百五十里，曰贲闻之山，其上多苍玉，其下多黄垩，多涅石（黑色矾石，可做黑色染料）。

    　　又北百里，曰王屋之山，是多石。𣾍水出焉，而西北流注于泰泽。

    　　又东北三百里，曰教山，其上多玉而无石。教水出焉，西流注于河，是水冬干而夏流，实惟干河。其中有两山。是山也，广圆三百步，其名曰发丸之山（居于水中，形状像似神人所发射的两颗弹丸），其上有金、玉。

    　　又南三百里，曰景山，南望盐贩之泽，北望少泽。其上多草、薯藇（山药），其草多秦椒（所结的子实像花椒，叶子细长），其阴多赭，其阳多玉。有鸟焉，其状如蛇，而四翼、六目、六足，名曰酸与，其鸣自詨，现则其邑有恐（惊恐之事）。

    　　又东南三百二十里，曰孟门之山，其上多苍玉，多金，其下多黄垩，多涅石。

    　　又东南三百二十里，曰平山。平水出于其上，潜于其下，是多美玉。

    　　又东二百里，曰京山，有美玉，多漆木，多竹，其阳有赤铜，其阴有玄（黑色）䃤（磨刀石）。高水出焉，南流注于河。

    　　又东二百里，曰虫尾之山，其上多金、玉，其下多竹，多青、碧。丹水出焉，南流注于河；薄水出焉，而东南流注于黄泽。

    　　又东三百里，曰彭𣬈之山，其上无草木，多金、玉，其下多水。蚤林之水出焉，东南流注于河。肥水出焉，而南流注于床水，其中多肥遗之蛇。

    　　又东百八十里，曰小侯之山。明漳之水出焉，南流注于黄泽。有鸟焉，其状如乌而白文，名曰鸪𪄶，食之不灂。

    　　又东三百七十里，曰泰头之山。共水出焉，南流注于池。其上多金玉，其下多竹箭。

    　　又东北二百里，曰轩辕之山，其上多铜，其下多竹。有鸟焉，其状如枭白首，其名曰黄鸟，其鸣自詨，食之不妒。

    　　又北二百里，曰谒戾之山，其上多松柏，有金玉。沁水出焉，南流注于河。其东有林焉，名曰丹林。丹林之水出焉，南流注于河。婴侯之水出焉，北流注于汜水。

    　　东三百里，曰沮洳之山，无草木，有金玉。濝水出焉，南流注于河。

    　　又北三百里，曰神囷之山，具上有文石，其下有白蛇，有飞虫。黄水出焉，而东流注于洹；滏水出焉，而东流注于欧水。

    　　又北二百里，曰发鸠之山，其上多柘木。有鸟焉，其状如乌，文首、白喙、赤足，名曰精卫，其鸣自詨。是炎帝之少女名曰女娃，女娃游于东海，溺而不返，故为精卫。常衔西山之木石，以堙于东海。漳水出焉，东流注于河。

    　　又东北百二十里，曰少山，其上有金玉，其下有铜。清漳之水出焉，东流注于浊漳之水。

    　　又东北二百里，曰锡山，其上多玉，其下有砥。牛首之水出焉，而东流注于滏水。

    　　又北二百里，曰景山，有美玉。景水出焉，东南流注于海泽。

    　　又北百里，曰题首之山，有玉焉，多石，无水。

    　　又北百里，曰绣山，其上有玉、青碧，其木多栒，其草多芍药、芎藭。洧水出焉，而东流注于河，其中有鳠、黾。

    　　又北百二十里，曰松山。阳水出焉，东北流注于河。

    　　又北百二十里，曰敦与之山，其上无草木，有金玉。溹水出于其阳，而东流注于泰陆之水；泜水出于其阴，而东流注于彭水；槐水出焉，而东流注于泜泽。

    　　又北百七十里，曰柘山，其阳有金玉，其阴有铁。历聚之水出焉，而北流注于洧水。

    　　又北二百里，曰维龙之山，其上有碧玉，其阳有金，其阴有铁。肥水出焉，而东流注于皋泽，其中多礨石。敞铁之水出焉，而北于大泽。

    　　又北百八十里，曰白马之山，其阳多石玉，其阴多铁，多赤铜。木马之水了出焉，而东北流注于虖沱。

    　　又北二百里，曰空桑之山，无草木，冬夏有雪。空桑空桑之水出焉，东流注于虖沱。

    　　又北三百里，曰泰戏之山，无草木，多金玉。有兽焉，其状如羊，一角一目，目在耳后，其名曰䍶䍶，其鸣自訆。虖沱之水出焉，而东流注于溇水。液女之水出于其阳，南流注于沁水。

    　　又北三百里，曰石山，多藏金玉。濩濩之水出焉，而东流注于虖沱；鲜于之水出焉，而南流注于虖沱。

    　　又北二百里，曰童戎之山。皋涂之水出焉，而东流注于溇液水。

    　　又北三百里，曰高是之山。滋水出焉，而南流注于虖沱。其木多棕，其草多条。滱水出焉，东流注于河。

    　　又北三百里，曰陆山，多美玉。[姜阝]水出焉，而东流注于河。

    　　又北二百里，曰沂山般水出焉，而东流注于河。

    　　北百二十里，曰燕山，多婴石。燕水出焉，东流注于河。

    　　又北山行五百里，水行五百里，至于饶山。是无草木，多瑶碧，其兽多橐駞，其鸟多鹠。历虢之水出焉，而东流注于河，其中有师鱼，食之杀人。

    　　又北四百里，曰乾山，无草木，其阳有金玉，其阴有铁而无水。有兽焉，其状如牛而三足，其名曰獂，其鸣自詨。

    　　又北五百里，曰伦山。伦水出焉，而东流注于河。有兽焉，其状如麋，其川在尾上，其名曰罴。

    　　又北五百里，曰碣石之山。绳水出焉，而东流注于河，其中多蒲夷之鱼。基上有玉，其下多青碧。

    　　又北水行五百里，至于雁门之山，无草木。

    　　又北水行四百里，至于泰泽。其中有山焉，曰帝都之山，广员百里，无草木，有金玉。

    　　又北五百里，曰錞于毋逢之山，北望鸡号之山，其风如䬅。西望幽都之山，浴水出焉。是有朋蛇，赤首白身，其音如牛，见则其邑大旱。

    　　凡北次三经之首，自太行之山以至于无逢之山，凡四十六山，万二千三百五十里。其神状皆马身而人面者廿神。其祠之，皆用一藻茝瘗之。其十四神状皆彘身而载玉。其祠之，皆玉，不瘗。其十神状皆彘身而八足蛇尾。其祠之，皆用一壁瘗之。大凡四十四神，皆用稌糈米祠之。此皆不火食。

    　　右北经之山志，凡八十七山，二万三千二百三十里。    

    卷四 东山经

        　东山（经）之首，曰樕䘄之山，北临乾昧。食水出焉，而东北流注于海。其中多鳙鳙之鱼，其状如犁牛（毛色黄黑相杂像虎纹的牛），其音如彘（猪）鸣。

    　　又南三百里，曰藟山，其上有玉，其下有金。湖水出焉，东流注于食水，其中多活师（蝌蚪）。

    　　又南三百里，曰栒状之山，其上多金玉，其下多青碧石。
    　　有兽焉，其状如犬，六足，其名曰从从，其鸣自詨（像自己名字的读音）。
    　　有鸟焉，其状如鸡而鼠毛，其名曰{此虫}鼠，现则其邑大旱。
    　　■水出焉。而北流注于湖水。其中多箴鱼，其状如儵（白条鱼），其喙如针，食之无疫疾。

    　　又南三百里，曰勃垒（齐）之山，无草木，无水。

    　　又南三百里，曰番条之山，无草木，多沙。减水出焉，北流注于海，其中多鳡鱼。

    　　又南四百里，曰姑儿之山，其上多漆（树），其下多桑、柘。姑儿之水出焉，北流注于海，其中多鳡鱼。

    　　又南四百里，曰高氏之山，其上多玉，其下多箴石（制做石针的石头。石针用石头磨制而成，可以治疗痈肿疽疱、排除脓血）。诸绳之水出焉，东流注于泽，其中多金玉。

    　　又南三百里，曰岳山，其上多桑，其下多樗。泺水出焉，东流注于泽，其中多金玉。

    　　又南三百里，曰犲山，其上无草木，其下多水，其中多堪㐨之鱼。有兽焉，其状如夸父（猴）而彘毛，其音如呼，现则天下大水。

    　　又南三百里，曰独山，其上多金、玉，其下多美石。末涂之水出焉，而东流注于沔，其中多鯈䗤，其状如黄蛇，鱼翼，出入有光，现则其邑大旱。

    　　又南三百里，曰泰山，其上多玉，其下多金。有兽焉，其状如豚而（体内）有珠，名曰狪狪，其鸣自詨。环水出焉，东流注于江，其中多水玉。

    　　又南三百里，曰竹山，錞（坐落）于江，无草木，多瑶、碧。激水出焉，而东流注于娶檀之水，其中多紫羸（螺）。

    　　凡东山经之首，自樕鼄之山以至于竹山，凡十二山，三千六百里。其神状皆人身龙首。祠：毛用一犬祈，衈(用牲畜作为祭品来向神祷告，想要使神听见）用鱼。

    　　东次二经［山］之首，曰空桑之山，北临食水，东望沮吴，南望沙陵，西望涮湣泽。有兽焉，其状如牛而虎纹，其音如钦［吟］。其名曰軨軨，其鸣自叫，现则天下大水。

    　　又南六百里，曰曹夕之山，其下多榖（构树）而无水，多鸟兽。

    　　又西南四百里，曰峄皋之山，其上多金玉，其下多白垩。峄皋之水出焉，东流注于激女之水，其中多蜃（大蛤）、珧（小蚌）。

    　　又南水行五百里，流沙三进里，至于葛山之尾，无草木，多砥砺（粗细磨石）。

    　　又南三百八十里，曰葛山之首，无草木。澧水出焉，东流注于余泽，其中多珠蟞鱼，其状如肺而有［四］目，六足有珠，其味酸甘，食之无疠（瘟疫）。

    　　又南三百八十里，曰余峨之山。其上多梓、楠，其下多荆、杞。杂余之水出焉，东流注于黄水。有兽焉，其状如兔而鸟类喙，鸱目蛇尾，见人则眠（装死），名犰狳，其鸣自詨，现则螽蝗（蝗虫）为败（害）。

    　　又南三百里，曰杜父之山，无草木，多水。

    　　又南三百里，曰耿山，无草木，多水碧（水晶），多大蛇。有兽焉，其状如狐而鱼翼，其名曰朱獳，其鸣自叫，现则其国有恐（恐怖之事）。

    　　又南三百里，曰卢其之山，无草木，多沙石，沙水出焉，南流注于涔水，其中多鹙鹕（鹈鹕，也叫做伽蓝鸟、淘河鸟、塘鸟，体长可达二米，羽毛多是白色，翅大而阔，下颌底部有一大的皮囊，能伸缩，可以用来兜食鱼类动物。因为它的四趾之间有蹼相连，类似人脚），其状如鸳鸯而人足，其鸣自詨，现则其国多土功（工程）。

    　　又南三百八十里，曰姑射之山，无草木，多水。

    　　又南水行三百里，流沙百里，曰北姑射之山，无草木，多石。

    　　又南水行三百里，曰南姑射之山，无草木，多水。

    　　又南三百里，曰碧山，无草木，多蛇，多碧、多玉。

    　　又南五百里，曰缑氏之山，无草木，多金、玉。原水出焉，东流注于沙泽。

    　　又南三百里，曰姑逢之山，无草木，多金、玉。有兽焉，其状如狐而有翼，其音如鸿雁，其名曰獙獙，现则天下大旱。

    　　又南五百里，曰凫丽之山，其上多金、玉，其下多箴石，有兽焉，其状如狐，而九尾、九首、虎爪，名曰蠪侄，其音如婴儿，是食人。

    　　又南五百里，曰䃌山，南临䃌水，东望湖泽，有兽焉，其状如马，而羊目、四角、牛尾，其音如嗥狗，其名曰峳峳。现则其国多狡（狡猾的）客（客人）。有鸟焉，其状如凫而鼠尾，善登木，其名曰絜钩，现则其国多疫。

    　　凡东次二经［山］之首，自空桑之山至于䃌山，凡十七山，六千六百四十里。其神状皆兽身人面载（戴）觡（指麋、鹿等动物头上的角，这种角的骨质与角质合而为一，所以叫骨角）。其祠：毛用一鸡祈，婴（用玉器祭祀神的专称）用一壁瘗。

    　　又东次三经［山］之首，曰尸胡之山，北望𦍙山，其上多金、玉，其下多棘（酸枣树）。有兽焉，其状如麋而鱼目，名曰妴胡，其鸣自叫。

    　　又南水行八百里，曰岐山，其木多桃、李，其兽多虎。

    　　又南水行七百里，曰诸钩之山，无草木，多沙石。是山也，广圆百里，多寐鱼（嘉鱼、卷口鱼，古人称为鮇鱼。这种鱼体延长，前部亚圆筒形，后部侧扁。体暗褐色。须二对，粗长。吻褶发达，裂如缨状）。

    　　又南水行七百里，曰中父之山，无草木，多沙。

    　　又东水行千里，曰胡射之山，无草木，多沙石。

    　　又南水行七百里，曰孟子之山，其木多梓、桐，多桃、李，其草多菌浦（紫菜、石花菜、海带、海苔之类），其兽多麋、鹿。是山也，广圆百里。其上有水出焉，名曰碧阳，其中多鳣（大鱼，体形像鱏鱼而鼻子短，口在颔下，体有斜行甲，没有鳞，肉是黄色，大的有二、三丈长）、鲔（鱏鱼，体形像鳣鱼而鼻子长，体无鳞甲）。

    　　又南水行五百里，曰流沙，行五百里，有山焉，曰跂踵之山，广圆二百里，无草木，有大蛇，其上多玉。有水焉，广圆四十里皆涌（涌出泉水），其名曰深泽，其中多蠵龟（赤蠵龟，一种大龟，甲有纹彩，像玳瑁而薄一些）。有鱼焉，其状如鲤。而六足鸟尾，名曰鮯鮯之鱼，其鸣自叫。

    　　又南水行九百里，曰踇隅之山，其上多草木，多金、玉，多赭。有兽焉，其状如牛而马尾，名曰精精，其鸣自叫。

    　　又南水行五百里，流沙三百里，至于无皋之山，南望幼海，东望榑木（扶桑，神话传说中的神木，叶似桑树叶，长数千丈，大二十围，两两同根生，更相依倚，而太阳就是从这里升起），无草木，多风。是山也，广圆百里。

    　　凡东次三经［山］之首，自尸胡之山至于无皋之山，凡九山，六千九百里。其神状皆人身而羊角。其祠：用一牡（雄性）羊，米用黍。是神也，现则风雨水为败（害）。

    　　又东次四经［山］之首，曰北号之山，临于北海。有木焉，其状如杨，赤花，其实如枣而无核，其味酸甘，食之不疟。食水出焉，而东北流注于海。有兽焉，其状如狼，赤首鼠目，其音如豚，名曰猲狙，是食人。有鸟焉，其状如鸡而白首，鼠足而虎爪，其名曰鬿雀，亦食人。

    　　又南三百里，曰旄山，无草木。苍体之水出焉，而西浪注于展水，其中多鱃鱼，其状如鲤而大首，食者不疣。

    　　又南三百二十里，曰东始之山，上多苍玉。有木焉，其状如杨而赤理，其汁如血，不实，其名曰芑，可以服马，泚水出焉，而东北流注于海，其中多美贝，多茈鱼，其状如鲋，一首而十身，其臭如蘪芜食之不䊧。

    　　又东南三百里，曰女烝之山，其上无草木，石膏水出焉，而西流注于鬲水，其中多薄鱼，其状如鳣鱼而一目，其音如欧，见则天下大旱。

    　　又东南二百里，曰钦山。多金玉而无石。师水出焉，而北流注于皋泽，其中多鱃鱼，多文贝。有兽焉，其状如豚而有牙，其名当康，其鸣自叫，见则天下大穰。

    　　又东南二百里，曰子桐之山。子桐之水出焉，而西流注于余如之泽。其中多䱻鱼，其状如鱼而鸟翼，出入有光。其音如鸳鸯，见则天下大旱。

    　　又东北二百里，曰剡山，多金玉。有兽焉，其状如彘而人面。黄身而赤尾，其名曰合窳，其音如婴儿，是兽也，食人，亦食虫蛇，见则天下大水。

    　　又东北二百里，曰太山，上多金玉桢木。有兽焉，其状如牜而白首，一目而蛇尾，其名曰蜚，行水则竭，行草则死，见则天下大疫，钩水出焉，而北流注于劳水，其中多鱃鱼。

    　　凡东次四经之首，自北号之山至于太山，凡八山，一千七百二十里。

    　　右东经之山志，凡四十六山，万八千八百六十里。  

    卷五 中山经

    　　中山（经）薄山之首，曰甘枣之山。共水出焉，而西流注于河。其上多杻木，其下有草焉，葵本（茎秆）而杏叶，黄花而荚实，名曰箨，可以已瞢（眼睛昏花）。有兽焉，其状如■鼠而文题（额头上有花纹），其名曰㔮，食之已瘿（脖子上的赘瘤）。

    　　又东二十里，曰历儿之山，其上多橿，多杤木，是木也，方茎而圆叶，黄花而毛，其实如楝，服之不忘（忘事）。

    　　又东十五里，曰渠猪之山，其上多竹，渠猪之水出焉，而南流注于（黄）河。其中是多豪鱼，状如鲔，赤喙、尾赤羽，可以已白癣。

    　　又东三十五里，曰葱聋之山，其中多大谷，是多白垩，黑、青、黄垩。

    　　又东十五里，曰涹山，其上多赤铜，其阴多铁。

    　　又东七十里，曰脱扈之山。有草焉，其状如葵叶而赤花，荚实，实如棕荚，名曰植褚，可以已癙（抑郁症），食之不眯（梦魇）。

    　　又东二十里，曰金星之山，多天婴（植物），其状如龙骨，可以已痤（痤疮）。

    　　又东七十里，曰泰威之山。其中有谷，曰枭谷，其中多铁。

    　　又东十五里，曰橿谷之山。其中多赤铜。

    　　又东百二十里，曰吴林之山，其中多蕑草（兰草）。

    　　又北三十里，曰牛首之山。有草焉，名曰鬼草，其叶如葵而赤茎，其秀（开的花）如禾，服之不忧。劳水出焉，而西流注于潏水，是多飞鱼，其状如鲋鱼，食之已痔、衕（痢疾）。

    　　又北四十里，曰霍山，其木多楮。有兽焉，其状如狸，而白尾有鬣，名曰朏朏，养之可以已忧。

    　　又北五十二里，曰合谷之山，是多薝棘。

    　　又北三十五里，曰阴山，多砺石、纹石。少水出焉，其中多雕棠，其叶如榆叶而方，其实如赤菽（豆），食之已聋。

    　　又东北四百里，曰鼓镫之山，多赤铜。有草焉，名曰荣草，其叶如柳，其本如鸡卵，食之已风（风痹病）。

    　　凡薄山之首，白甘枣之山至于鼓镫之山，凡十五山，六千六百七十里。历儿（山），冢（宗主）也，其祠礼：毛，太牢之具，悬以吉玉。其余十三者，毛用一羊，悬婴用桑封［藻珪］（带有色彩斑纹的玉石制成的玉器），瘗而不糈。桑封者，桑主也，方其下而锐其上，而中穿之加金。

    　　中次二经［山］注山之首，曰煇诸之山，其上多桑，其兽多闾（像驴而长着羚羊角的山驴）、麋，其鸟多鹖（像野鸡而大一些，羽毛青色，长有毛角，天性好斗，绝不退却，直到斗死为止）。

    　　又西南二百里，曰发视之山，其上多金、玉，其下多砥、砺。即鱼之水出焉，而西流注于伊水。

    　　又西三百里，曰豪山，其上多金、玉而无草木。

    　　又西三百里，曰鲜山，多金、玉，无草木，鲜水出焉，而北流注于伊水。其中多鸣蛇，其状如蛇而四翼，其音如磬，现则其邑大旱。

    　　又西三百里，曰阳山，多石，无草木。阳水出焉，而北流注于伊水。其中多化蛇，其状如人面而豺身，鸟翼而蛇行，其音如叱呼，现其邑大水。

    　　又西二百里，曰昆吾之山，其上多赤铜。有兽焉，其状如彘而有角，其音如号（大哭），名曰蠪蚔，食之不眯（做噩梦）。

    　　又西百二十里，曰葌山。葌水出焉，而北流注于伊水，其上多金、玉，其下多青、雄黄。有木焉，其状如棠而赤叶，名曰莽草（有毒，长得高大如树），可以毒鱼。

    　　又西一百五十里，曰独苏之山，无草木而多水。

    　　又西一百五十里，曰蔓渠之山，其上多金、玉，其下多竹箭。伊水出焉，而东流注于洛。有兽焉，其名曰马腹，其状如人面虎身，其音如婴儿，是食人。

    　　凡济山之首，自煇诸之山至于蔓渠之山，凡九山，一千六百七十里，其神皆人面而鸟身。祠用毛，用一吉玉，投而不糈。

    　　中次三经［山］萯山之首，曰敖岸之山，其阳多㻬琈之玉，其阴多赭、黄金。神熏池居之。是常出美玉。北望（黄）河、林，其状如茜（茜草，一种多年生攀援草本植物，根是黄红色，可作染料）如榉。有兽焉，其状如白鹿而四角，名曰夫诸，现则其邑大水。

    　　又东十里，曰青要之山，实惟帝之密都（隐密的都邑）。北望（黄）河曲，是多鴐鸟（野鹅）。南望墠渚，禹父（鲧）之所化，中多仆累（蜗牛）、蒲卢（蛤、蚌之类）。䰠（山神）武罗司之，其状人面而豹纹，小腰而白齿，而穿耳以鐻（金银制成的耳环），其鸣如鸣玉。
    　　是山也，宜女子。畛水出焉，而北流注于河。其中有鸟焉，名曰鴢，其状如凫，青身而朱目赤尾，食之宜（产）子。
    　　有草焉，其状如葌，而方茎黄华赤实，其本如藁本（也叫抚芎、西芎，一种香草，根茎含挥发油，可作药用），名曰荀草，服之美人色。

    　　又东十里，曰騩山，其上有美枣，其阴有㻬琈之玉。正回之水出焉，而北流注于（黄）河。其中多飞鱼，其状如豚而赤纹，服之不畏雷，可以御兵（兵器）。

    　　又东四十里，曰宜苏之山，其上多金、玉，其下多蔓［荆］（一种灌木，长在水边，苗茎蔓延，高一丈多，六月开红白色花，九月结成的果实上有黑斑，冬天则叶子凋落）之木。滽滽之水出焉，而北流注于（黄）河，是多黄贝。

    　　又东二十里，曰和山。其上无草木而多瑶、碧，实惟河之九都（汇聚地）。是山也，五曲，九水出焉，合而北流注于（黄）河，其中多苍玉。吉神泰逢司之，其状如人而虎尾，是好居于萯山之阳，出入有光。泰逢神动天地气（气流）也。

    　　凡萯之首，自敖岸之山至于和山，凡五山，四百四十里。其祠：泰逢、熏池、武罗皆一牡羊副（劈开），婴用吉玉。其二神用一雄鸡瘗之。糈用稌（稻米）。

    　　中次四经［山］釐山之首，曰鹿蹄之山，其上多玉，其下多金。甘水出下，而北流注于洛，其中多汵石（一种柔软如泥的石头）。

    　　西五十里，曰扶猪之山，其上多礝石（次于玉一等的观赏石，白色的礝石如冰一样透明，而水中的礝石是红色的）。有兽焉，其状如貉而人目，其名曰䴦。虢水出焉，而北流注于洛，其中多礝石。

    　　又西一百二十里，曰厘山，其阳多玉，其阴多蒐（茜草，根紫红色，可作染料）。有兽焉，其状如牛。苍身，其音如婴儿，是食人，其名曰犀渠。滽滽之水出焉，而南流注于伊水。有兽焉，名曰𤢺，其状如獳（发怒状）犬而有鳞，其毛如彘鬣。

    　　又西二百里，曰箕尾之山，多楮，多涂（汵）石，其上多㻬琈之玉。

    　　又西二百五十里，曰柄山，其上多玉，其下多铜。滔雕之水出焉，而北流注于洛。其中多羬羊。有木焉，其状如樗，其叶如桐而荚实，其名曰芫（落叶灌木，春季先开花，后生叶，根茎有毒性），可以毒鱼。

    　　又西二百里，曰白边之山，其上多金玉，其下多青、雄黄。

    　　又西二百里，曰熊耳之山，其上多漆，其下多棕。浮濠之水出焉，而西流注于洛，其中多水玉，多人鱼。有草焉，其状如苏（紫苏）而赤花，名曰葶䔭，可以毒鱼。

    　　又西三百里，曰牡山，其上多纹石，其下多竹箭竹䉋，其兽多㸲牛、羬羊，鸟多赤鷩（锦鸡）。

    　　又西三百五十里，曰讙举之山。雒水出焉，而东北流注于玄扈之水，其（玄扈山）中多马肠之物。此二山者，洛间也。

    　　凡釐山之首，自鹿蹄之山至于玄扈之山，凡九山，千六百里七十里。其神状皆人面兽身。其祠之，毛用一白鸡，祈而不糈，以彩（帛）衣（包裹）之。

    　　中次五经［山］薄山（山系）之首，曰苟床之山，无草木，多怪石。

    　　东三百里，曰首山，其阴多榖、柞，其草多莱（山蓟，分为苍术、白术二种）、芫，其阳多㻬琈之玉，木多槐。其阴有谷，曰机谷，多䲦鸟，其状如枭而三目，有耳，其音如鹿，食之已垫（低下潮温而引发的湿气病）。

    　　又东三百里，曰县斸之山。无草木，多纹石。 又东三百里，曰葱聋之山。无草木，多玤石（次于玉石一等的石头）。

    　　东北五百里，曰条谷之山。其木多槐、桐，其草多芍药、虋（门）冬。

    　　又北十里，曰超山。其阴多苍玉，其阳有井（指泉眼下陷而低于地面的水泉，形似水井），冬有水而夏竭。

    　　又东五百里，曰成候之山。其上多櫄木（与臭椿树相似，树干可以作车辕），其草多芃。

    　　又东五百里，曰朝歌之山。谷多美垩。

    　　又东五百里，曰槐山，谷多金、锡。

    　　又东十里，曰历山。其木多槐，其阳多玉。

    　　又东十里，曰尸山。多苍玉，其兽多麖（鹿的一种，体型较大）。尸水出焉，南流注于洛水，其中多美玉。

    　　又东十里，曰良余之山。其上多榖、柞，无石。余水出于其阴，而北流注于河；乳水出于其阳，而东南流注于洛。

    　　又东南十里，曰蛊尾之山。多砺石、赤铜。龙余之水出焉，而东南流注于洛。

    　　又东北二十里，曰升山，其木多榖、柞、棘，其草多薯藇（山药）、蕙，多寇脱（一种生长在南方的草，有一丈多高，叶子与荷叶相似，茎中有瓤，纯白色）。黄酸之水出焉，而北流注于（黄）河，其中多璇玉（质料成色比玉差一点）。

    　　又东十二里，曰阳虚之山。多金。临于玄扈之水。

    　　凡薄山之首，自苟林之山至于阳虚之山，凡十六山，二千九百八十二里。
    　　升山，冢也，其祠礼：太牢，婴用吉玉。首山，䰠（灵验）也，其祠用稌、黑牺、太牢之具、蘗酿（酒曲），干（盾牌）舞，置鼓，婴用一璧。
    　　尸水，合（通）天也，肥牲祠之，用一黑犬于上，用一雌鸡于下，刉（划破）一牝羊，献（上）（动物的）血。婴用吉玉，彩（帛包裹）之，飨之。

    　　中次六经［山］缟羝山之首，曰平缝之山。南望伊、洛，东望谷城之山。无草木，无水，多沙石。有神焉，其状如人而二首，名曰骄虫，是为螫虫（之首），实惟蜂、蜜（蜜蜂）之庐（做巢地），其祠之：用一雄鸡，禳（祈祷）而勿杀。

    　　西十里，曰缟羝之山。无草木，多金、玉。

    　　又西十里，曰廆山。其阴多㻬琈之玉，其阴有谷焉，名曰雚谷，其木多柳、楮。其中有鸟焉，状如山鸡而长尾，赤如丹火而青喙，名曰鸰（要鸟），其名自呼，服之不眯（做噩梦）。交觞之水出于其阳，而南流注于洛；俞随之水出于其阴，而北流注于谷水。

    　　又西三十里，曰瞻诸之山。其阳多金，其阴多纹石。㴬水出焉，而东南流注于洛；少水出其阴，而东流注于谷水。

    　　又西三十里，曰娄涿之山，无草木，多金、玉。瞻水出于其阳，而东流注于洛；陂水出于其阴，而北流注于谷水，其中多紫石、纹石。

    　　又西四十里，曰白石之山。惠水出于其阳，而南流注于洛，其中多水玉；涧水出于其阴，西北流注于榖水，其中多眉石（画眉石）、卢（黑）丹（黑丹砂）。

    　　又西五十里，曰谷山，其上多榖，其下多桑。爽水出焉，而西北流注于谷水，其中多碧绿（或指孔雀石，可制做装饰品和绿色涂料）。

    　　又西七十二里，曰密山。其阳多玉，其阴多铁。豪水出焉，而南流注于洛。其中多旋龟，其状如鸟而鳖尾，其音如判（劈）木。无草木。

    　　又西百里，曰长石之山。无草木，多金、玉。其西有谷焉，名曰共谷，多竹。共水出焉，西南流注于洛，其中多鸣石（一种青色玉石，撞击后发出巨大鸣响，七八里以外都能听到，属于能制做磬石之类乐器）。

    　　又西一百四十里，曰傅山。无草木，多瑶、碧。厌染之水出于其阳，而南流注于洛，其中多人鱼。其西有林焉，名曰墦冢。榖水出焉，而东流注于洛，其中多珚玉。

    　　又西五十里，曰橐山，其木多樗、多（备）木（这种树在七、八月间吐穗，穗成熟后，像似有盐粉沾在上面），其阳多金、玉，其阴多铁，多萧（蒿草的一种）。橐水出焉，而北流注于河。其中多脩辟之鱼，状如黾（青蛙的一种）而白喙，其音如鸱，食之已白癣。

    　　又西九十里，常烝之山。无草木，多垩。潐水出焉，而东北流注于河，其中多苍玉。菑水出焉，而北流注于（黄）河。

    　　又西九十里，曰夸父之山。其木多棕、楠，多竹箭。其兽多㸲牛、羬羊，其鸟多［赤］鷩。其阳多玉，其阴多铁。其北有林焉，名曰桃林，是广圆三百里，其中多马。湖水出焉，而北流注于（黄）河，其中多珚玉。

    　　又西九十里，曰阳华之山。其阳多金、玉，其阴多青、雄黄。其草多薯藇（山药）；多苦辛（草），其状如橚（楸树），其实如瓜，其味酸甘，食之已疟。
    　　杨水出焉，而西南流注于洛，其中多人鱼。门水出焉，而东北流注于（黄）河，其中多玄䃤（黑色的磨刀石）。𦁎姑之水出于其阴，而东流注于门水，其上多铜。门水出［至］于河，七百九十里入雒水。

    　　凡缟羝山之首，自平缝之山至于阳华之山，凡十四山，七百九十里。岳（大山）在其中，以六月祭之，如诸岳之祠法，则天下安宁。

    　　中次七经［山］苦山之首，曰休与之山。其上有石焉，名曰帝台（神人）之棋（子），五色而纹，其状如鹑卵。帝台之石，所以祷百神者也，服之不蛊（邪毒之气）。
    　　有草焉，其状如蓍（蓍草，叶互生，长线状披针形。古人取蓍草的茎作占筮之用），赤叶而本丛生，名曰夙条，可以为簳（可以做箭杆）。

    　　东三百里，曰鼓钟之山。帝台之所以觞（设酒席招待）百神也。有草焉，方茎而黄花，圆叶而三成，其名曰焉酸，可以为毒（解毒）。其上多砺，其下多砥。

    　　又东二百里，曰姑媱之山。帝女死焉，其名曰女尸，化为䔄草，其叶胥（皆）成（一层一层的），其花黄，其实如菟丘（菟丝子），服之媚于人（能让他人喜欢）。

    　　又东二十里，曰苦山。有兽焉，名曰山膏，其状如遯（小猪），赤如丹火，善詈（骂人声）。其上有木焉，名曰黄棘，黄花而圆叶，其实如兰，服之不字（怀孕，生育）。有草焉，员叶而无茎，赤华而不实，名曰无条，服之不瘿（长肉瘤）。

    　　又东二十七里，曰堵山。神天愚居之，是多怪风雨。其上有木焉，名曰天楄，方茎而葵状。服者不㖶（吃饭不噎）。

    　　又东五十二里，曰放皋之山。明水出焉，南流注于伊水，其中多苍玉。有木焉，其叶如槐，黄花而不实，其名曰蒙木，服之不惑。有兽焉，其状如蜂，枝尾而反舌，善呼，其名曰文文。

    　　又东五十七里，曰大蜚之山。多㻬琈之玉，多麋玉。有草焉，其状叶如榆，方茎而苍伤，其名曰牛伤，其根苍文，服者不厥，可以御兵。其阳狂水出焉，西南流注于伊水，其中多三足龟，食者无大疾，可以已肿。

    　　又东七十里，曰半石之山，其上有草焉，生而秀，其高丈余，赤叶赤华，华而不实，其名曰嘉荣，服之者不霆。来需之水出于其阳，而西流注于伊水，其中多鯩鱼，黑文，其状如鲋，食者不睡。合水出于其阴，而北流注于洛，多鰧鱼，状如鳜，居逵，苍文赤尾，食者不痈，可以为瘘。

    　　又东五十里，曰少室之山，百草木成囷。其上有木焉，其名曰帝休，叶状如杨，其枝五衢，黄华黑实，服者不怒。其上多玉，其下多铁。休水出焉，而北流注于洛，其中多<鱼帝>鱼，状如{执皿}蜼而长距，足白而对，食者无蛊疾，可以御兵。

    　　又东三十里，曰泰室之山。其上有木焉，叶状如梨而赤理，其名曰栯木，服者不妒。有草焉，其状如{艹术}，白华黑实，泽如蘡薁，其名曰{艹爫缶}草，服之不昧。上多美石。

    　　又北三十里，曰讲山，其上多玉，多柘，多柏。有木焉，名曰帝屋，叶状如椒，反伤赤实，可以御凶。

    　　又北三十里，曰婴梁之山，上多苍玉，錞于玄石。

    　　又东三十里，曰浮戏之山。有木焉，叶状如樗而赤实，名曰亢木，食之不蛊，汜水出焉，而北流注于河。其东有谷，因名曰蛇谷，上多少辛。

    　　又东四十里，曰少陉之山。有草焉，名曰{艹冈}草，叶状如葵，而赤茎白华，实如蘡薁，食之不愚。器难之水出焉，而北流注于役水。

    　　又东南十里，曰太山。有草焉，名曰梨，其叶状如荻而赤华，可以已疽。太水出于其阳，而东南注于役水；承水出于其阴，而东北流注于役。

    　　又东二十里，曰末山，上多赤金。末水出焉，北流注于役。

    　　又东二十五里，曰役山，上多白金，多铁。役水出焉，北流注于河。

    　　又东三十五里，曰敏山。上有木焉，其状如荆，白华而赤实，名曰葪柏，服者不寒。其阳多<王雩>琈之玉。

    　　又东三十里，曰大騩之山，其阴多铁、美玉、青垩。有草焉，其状如蓍而毛，青华而白实，其名曰{艹狼}，服之不夭，可以为腹病。

    　　凡苦山之首，自休与之山至于大騩之山，凡十有九山，千一百八十四里。其十六神者，皆豕身人面。其祠：毛牷用一羊羞，婴用一藻玉瘗。苦山、少室、太室皆冢也，其祠之：太牢之具，婴以吉玉。其神状皆人面而三首。其余属皆豕身而人面也。

    　　中次八经[山系]荆山之首，曰景山，其上多金、玉，其木多杼、檀。雎水出焉，东南流注于江，其中多丹粟，多纹鱼。

    　　东北百里，曰荆山，其阴多铁，其阳多赤金，其中多牦牛，多豹虎，其木多松柏，其草多竹，多橘櫾。漳水出焉，而东南流注于雎，其中多黄金，多鲛鱼，其兽多闾麋。

    　　又东北百五十里，曰骄山，其上多玉，其下多青雘，其木多松柏，多桃枝钩端。神围处之，其状如人面。羊角虎爪，恒游于雎漳之渊，出入有光。

    　　又东北百二十里，曰女几之山，其上多玉，其下多黄金，其兽多豹虎，多闾麋麖麂，其鸟多白鷮，多翟，多鸩。

    　　又东北二百里，曰宜诸之山，其上多金玉，其下多青雘。洈水出焉，而南流注于漳，其中多白玉。

    　　又东北三百五十里，曰纶山，其木多梓楠，多桃枝，多柤粟橘櫾，其兽多闾麈麢。

    　　又东二百里，曰陆危阝之山，其上多<王雩>琈之玉，其下多垩，其木多杻橿。

    　　又东百三十里，曰光山，其上多碧，其下多木。神计蒙处之，其状人身而龙首，恒游于漳渊，出入必有飘风暴雨。

    　　又东百五十里，曰岐山，其阳多赤金，其阴多白珉，其上多金玉，其下多青雘，其林多樗。神涉处之，其状人身而方面三足。

    　　又东百三十里，曰铜山，其上多金银铁，其木多榖、柞、柤、栗、橘、櫾，其兽多犳。

    　　又东北一百里，曰美山，其兽多兕牛，多闾麈，多豕鹿，其上多金，其下多青雘。

    　　又东北百里，曰大尧之山，其木多松柏，多梓桑，多机，其草多竹，其兽多豹虎麢。

    　　又东北三百里，曰灵山，其上多金玉，其下多青雘，其木多桃李梅杏。

    　　又东北七十里，曰龙山，上多寓木，其木多碧，其下多赤锡，其草多桃枝钩端。

    　　又东南五十里，曰衡山，上多寓木榖、柞，多黄垩白垩。

    　　又东南七十里，曰石山，其上多金，其下多青雘，多寓木。

    　　又南百二十里，曰若山，其上多<王雩>琈玉，多赭，多邽石，多寓木，多柘。

    　　又东南一百二十里，曰彘山，多美石，多柘。

    　　又东南一百五十里，曰玉山，其上多金玉，其下多碧铁，其木多柏。

    　　又东南七十里，曰灌山，其木多檀，多邽石，多白锡。郁水出于其上，潜于其下，其中多砥砺。

    　　又东北百五十里，曰仁举之山，其木多榖、柞，其阳多赤金，其阴多赭。

    　　又东五十里，曰师每之山，其阳多砥砺，其阴多青雘，其木多柏，多檀，多柘，其草多竹。

    　　又东南二百里，曰琴鼓之山，其木多榖、柞、椒、柘，其上多白珉，其下多洗石，其兽多豕鹿，多白犀，其鸟多鸩。

    　　凡荆山之首，自景山至琴鼓之山，凡二十三山，二千八百九十里。其神状皆鸟身而人面。其祠：用一雄鸡祈瘗，用一藻圭，糈用稌。骄山，冢也，其祠：用羞酒少牢祈瘗，婴毛一璧。

    　　中次九经[山系]岷山之首，曰女几之山，其上多石涅，其木多杻橿，其草多菊{艹术}。洛水出焉，东注于江，其中多雄黄，其兽多虎豹。

    　　又东北三百里，曰岷山。江水出焉，东北流注于海，其中多良龟，多鼍，其上多金玉，其下多白珉，其木多梅棠，其兽多犀象，多夔牛，其鸟多翰鷩。

    　　又东北一百四十里，曰崃山，江水出焉，东流注于（长）江。其阳多黄金，其阴多麋、麈，其木多檀、柘，其草多薤、韭，多药（白芷）、空夺（寇脱）。

    　　又东三百里，曰高梁之山，其上多垩，其下多砥、砺，其木多桃枝、鉤端。有草焉，状如葵而赤花、荚实白柎，可以走马。

    　　又东四百里，曰蛇山，其上多黄金，其下多垩，其木多栒，多橡章，其草多嘉荣、少辛。有兽焉，其状如狐，而白尾长耳，名犭也狼，现则国内有兵。

    　　又东五百里，曰鬲山，其阳多金，其阴多白珉。蒲薨鸟之水出焉，而东流注于（长）江，其中多白玉，其兽多犀、象、熊、罴，多猨、蜼（长尾猴，鼻孔朝上，尾巴分叉，天下雨时就自己悬挂在树上，用尾巴塞住鼻孔）。

    　　又东北三百里，曰隅阳之山，其上多金、玉，其下多青雘，其木多梓、桑，其草多紫。徐水出焉，东流注于（长）江，其中多丹粟。

    　　又东二百五十里，曰岐山，其上多白金，其下多铁。其木多梅、梓，多杻、楢。減水出焉，东南流注于（长）江。

    　　又东三百里，曰勾檷之山，其上多玉，其下多黄金，其木多栎、柘，其草多芍药。

    　　又东一百五十里，曰风雨之山，其上多白金，其下多石涅，其木多棷、椫（白理木），多杨。宣余之水出焉，东流注于（长）江，其中多蛇。其兽多闾、麋，多麈、豹、虎，其鸟多白鷮。

    　　又东北二百里，曰玉山，其阳多铜，其阴多赤金，其木多豫章、楢、杻，其兽多豕、鹿、羚、■，其鸟多鸩。

    　　又东一百五十里，曰熊山。有穴焉，熊之穴，恒出神人。夏启而冬闭；是穴也，冬启乃必有兵（战事）。其上多白玉，其下多白金，其林多樗、柳，其草多寇脱。

    　　又东一百四十里，曰騩山，其阳多美玉赤金，其阴多铁，其木多桃枝、荆、［芑］（枸杞）。

    　　又东二百里，曰葛山，其上多赤金，其下多瑊石（比玉差一等的美石），其木多柤、栗、橘、櫾、楢、杻，其兽多羚、■，其草多嘉荣。

    　　又东一百七十里，曰贾超之山，其阳多黄垩，其阴多美赭，其木多柤、栗、橘、櫾，其中多龙脩（龙须草）。

    　　凡岷山之首[尾]，自女几山至于贾超之山，凡十六山，三千五百里。其神状皆马身而龙首。其祠：毛用一雄鸡瘗。糈用稌。文山（岷山）、勾檷、风雨、騩之山，是皆冢（诸山的宗主）也，其祠之：羞酒（美酒），少牢具，婴毛（用）一吉玉。熊山，［帝］（首领）也，其祠：羞酒，太牢具，婴毛（用）一璧。
    　　干（执盾牌）舞，用兵以禳（祭祷消除兵灾）；祈，璆（ 美玉）、冕（冕服）舞。

    　　中次十经[山系]之首，曰首阳之山，其上多金、玉，无草木。

    　　又西五十里，曰虎尾之山，其木多椒、椐（灵寿木），多封石，其阳多赤金，其阴多铁。

    　　又西南五十里，曰繁缋之山，其木多楢、杻，其草多枝、鉤（桃枝竹、鉤端竹）。

    　　又西南二十里，曰勇石之山，无草木，多白金（银子），多水。

    　　又西二十里，曰复州之山，其木多檀，其阳多黄金。有鸟焉，其状如鸮，而一足彘尾，其名曰跂踵，现则其国大疫。

    　　又西三十里，曰楮山，多寓木（寄生树），多椒、椐，多柘，多垩。

    　　又西二十里，曰又原之山，其阳多青雘，其阴多铁，其鸟多鸜鹆（八哥鸟）。

    　　又西五十里，曰涿山，其木多榖、柞、杻，其阳多㻬琈之玉。

    　　又西七十里，曰丙山，其木多梓、檀，多弞杻（树干长得比较直，不同于一般的杻树）。

    　　凡首阳山之首[尾]，自首山至于丙山，凡九山，二百六十七里。其神状皆龙身而人面。其祠之：毛用一雄鸡瘗，糈用五种（黍、稷、稻、粱、麦）之糈。楮山，冢也，其祠之：少牢具，羞酒祠，婴毛一璧瘗。騩山，帝也，其祠羞酒，太牢其［具］；合巫（女跳舞降神）祝（男主祭礼）二人舞，婴一璧。

    　　中次一十一山经[山系]荆山之首，曰翼望之山。湍水出焉，东流注于济；贶水出焉，东南流注于汉，其中多蛟（像蛇的样子，却有四只脚，小小的头，细细的脖子，脖颈上有白色肉瘤，大的有十几围粗，卵有瓮大小，能吞食人）。其上多松、柏，其下多漆、梓，其阳多赤金，其阴多珉。

    　　又东北一百五十里，曰朝歌之山。潕水出焉，东南流注于荥，其中多人鱼。其上多梓、楠，其兽多羚羊、麋。有草焉，名曰莽草，可以毒鱼。

    　　又东南二百里，曰帝囷之山，其阳多㻬琈之玉，其阴多铁。帝囷之水出于其上，潜于其下，多鸣蛇。

    　　又东南五十里，曰视山，其上多韭。有井（处在低洼地的水泉）焉，名曰天井，夏有水，冬竭。其上多桑，多美垩、金、玉。

    　　又东南二百里，曰前山，其木多槠，多柏，其阳多金，其阴多赭。

    　　又东南三百里，曰丰山。有兽焉，其状如猿，赤目、赤喙、黄身，名曰雍和，现则国有大恐。神耕父处之，常游清泠之渊，出入有光，现则其国为败。有九钟焉，是知［和］霜（降）鸣。其上多金，其下多榖（枸）、柞、杻、橿。

    　　又东北八百里，曰兔床之山，其阳多铁，其木多槠、芧（栎树），其草多鸡谷，其本如鸡卵，其味酸甘，食者利于人。

    　　又东六十里，曰皮山，多垩，多赭，其木多松、柏。

    　　又东六十里，曰瑶碧之山，其木多梓、楠，其阴多青雘，其阳多白金。有鸟焉，其状如雉，恒食蜚（一种有害的小飞虫，形状椭圆，散发恶臭），名曰鸩。

    　　又东四十里，曰［攻］离之山。［淯］水出焉，南流注于汉。有鸟焉，其名曰婴勺，其状如鹊，赤目、赤喙、白身，其尾若勺，共鸣自呼。多牜乍牛，多羬羊。

    　　又东北五十里，曰秩{周}之山，其上多松、柏、机（桤树）、［桓］（无患子）。

    　　又西北一百里，曰堇理之山，其上多松、柏，多美（良好）梓，其阴多丹雘，多金，其兽多豹、虎。有鸟焉，其状如鹊，青身白喙，白目白尾，名曰青耕，可以御疫，其鸣自叫。

    　　又东南三十里，曰依轱之山，其上多杻、橿，多柤。有兽焉，其状如犬，虎爪有甲，其名曰獜，善駚{分牛}（跳跃腾扑），食者不风（风痹）。

    　　又东南三十五里，曰即谷之山，多美玉，多玄豹，多闾、麈，多羚。其阳多珉，其阴多青雘。

    　　又东南四十里，曰鸡山，其上多美梓，多桑，其草多韭。

    　　又东南五十里，曰高前之山，其上有水焉，甚寒而清，（神）帝台之浆也，饮之者不心痛。其上有金，其下有赭。

    　　又东南三十里，曰游戏之山，多杻、橿、榖，多玉，多封石。

    　　又东南三十五里，曰从山，其上多松、柏，其下多竹。从水出于其上，潜于其下，其中多三足鳖，枝（分叉）尾，食之无蛊疫（疑心病）。

    　　又东南三十里，曰婴<石垔>之山，其上多松、柏，其下多梓、櫄（杶树）。

    　　又东南三十里，曰毕山。帝苑之水出焉，东北流注于视，其中多水玉，多蛟。其上多㻬琈之玉。

    　　又东南二十里，曰乐马之山。有兽焉，其状如彙，赤如丹火，其名曰犭戾，现则其国大疫。

    　　又东南二十五里，曰葴山，视水出焉，东南流注于汝水，其中多人鱼，多蛟，多颉（是一种皮毛青色而形态像狗的动物，或指水獭）。

    　　又东四十里，曰婴山，其下多青雘，其上多金、玉。

    　　又东三十里，曰虎首之山，多柤、椆、椐。

    　　又东二十里，曰婴侯之山，其上多封石，其下多赤锡。

    　　又东五十里，曰大孰之山。杀水出焉，东北流注于［瀙］水，其中多白垩。

    　　又东四十里，曰卑山，其上多桃、李、柤、梓，多蘽（蔓生植物，或指紫藤）。

    　　又东三十里，曰倚帝之山，其上多玉，其下多金。有兽焉，状如鼣鼠，白耳白喙，名曰狙如，现则其国有大兵。

    　　又东三十里，曰鲵山。鲵水出于其上，潜于其下，其中多美垩。其上多金，其下多青雘。

    　　又东三十里，曰雅山。澧水出焉，东流注于［瀙］水，其中多大鱼。其上多美桑，其下多柤，多赤金。

    　　又东五十五里，曰宣山。沦水出焉，东南流注于［瀙］水，其中多蛟。其上有桑焉，大五十尺，其枝四衢（方向），其叶大尺余，赤理、黄花、青柎（花萼），名曰帝女之桑。

    　　又东四十五里，曰衡山，其上多青雘，多桑，其鸟多鸜鹆（八哥鸟）。

    　　又东四十里，曰丰山，其上多封石，其木多桑，多羊桃，状如桃而方茎，可以为（治疗）皮胀（浮肿）。

    　　又东七十里，曰妪山，其上多美玉，其下多金，其草多鸡谷。

    　　又东三十里，曰鲜山，其木多楢、杻、柤，其草多{艹舋}冬（藤本蔷薇），其阳多金，其阴多铁。有兽焉，其状如膜［犬］（西膜之犬，这种狗的体形高大，长着浓密的毛，性情猛悍，力量很大），赤喙、赤目、白尾，现则其邑有火，名曰犭多即。

    　　又东三十里，曰章山，其阳多金，其阴多美石。皋水出焉，东流注于澧水，其中多脆石（一种又轻又软而易断易碎的石头）。

    　　又东二十五里，曰大支之山，其阳多金，其木多榖、柞，无草木。

    　　又东五十里，曰区吴之山，其木多柤。

    　　又东五十里，曰声匈之山，其木多榖，多玉，上多封石。

    　　又东五十里，曰大騩之山，其阳多赤金，其阴多砥石。

    　　又东十里，曰踵臼之山，无草木。

    　　又东北七十里，曰历石之山。其木多荆、芑（枸杞），其阳多黄金，其阴多砥石。有兽焉，其状如貍，而白首虎爪，名曰梁渠，现则其国有大兵。

    　　又东南一百里，曰求山。求水出于其上，潜于其下，中有美赭。其木多柤，多{媚}。其阳多金，其阴多铁。

    　　又东二百里，曰丑阳之山，其上多椆、椐。有鸟焉，其状如乌而赤足，名曰<鸟只>鵌，可以御火。

    　　又东三百里，曰奥山。其上多柏、杻、橿，其阳多㻬琈之玉。奥水出焉，东流注于［瀙］水。

    　　又东三十五里，曰服山，其木多柤，其上多封石，其下多赤锡。

    　　又东百十里，曰杳山，其上多嘉荣草，多金、玉。

    　　又东三百五十里，曰■几山，其木多楢、檀、杻，其草多香（草）。有兽焉，其状如彘，黄身、白头、白尾，名曰闻<豕粦>，现则天下大风。

    　　凡荆山之首，自翼望之山至于■几山，凡四十八山，三千七百三十二里。
    　　其神状皆彘身人首。其祠：毛用一雄鸡祈，瘗用一珪，糈用五种（黍、稷、稻、粱、麦）之精。禾山，帝也。其祠：太牢之具，羞瘗，倒毛（祭礼举行完后，把猪、牛、羊三牲反倒着身子埋掉）；［婴］用一璧，牛无常。堵山、玉山冢（宗主）也，皆倒祠（倒毛），羞毛［用］少牢，婴毛吉玉。

    　　中次十二经[山系]洞庭山之首，曰篇遇之山，无草木，多黄金。

    　　又东南五十里，曰云山，无草木。有桂竹（四、五丈高，茎干合围有二尺粗，叶大节长，形状像甘竹而皮是红色），甚毒，伤人必死，其上多黄金，其下多㻬琈之玉。

    　　又东南一百三十里，曰龟山，其木多榖、柞、椆、椐，其上多黄金，其下多青、雄黄，多扶竹（邛竹，节杆较长，中间实心，可以制做手杖）。

    　　又东七十里，曰丙山，多桂竹，多黄金、铜、铁，无木。

    　　又东南五十里，曰风伯之山，其上多金玉，其下多痠石、纹石，多铁，其木多柳、杻、檀、楮。其东有林焉，名曰莽浮之林，多美木、鸟、兽。

    　　又东一百五十里，曰夫夫之山，其上多黄金，其下多青雄黄，其木多桑楮，其草多竹、鸡鼓。神于儿居之，其状人身而身操两蛇，常游于江渊，出入有光。

    　　又东南一百十里，曰洞庭之山，其上多黄金，其下多银铁，其木多柤梨橘櫾，其草多葌、蘪芜芍药芎藭。帝之二女居之，是常游于江渊。澧沅之风，交潇湘之渊，是在九江之间，出入必以飘风暴雨。是多怪神，状如人而载蛇左右手操蛇。多怪鸟。

    　　又东南一百八十里，曰暴山，其木多棕楠荆芑竹箭{媚}菌，其上多黄金玉，其下多文石铁，其兽多麋鹿{鹿旨}就。

    　　又东南二百里，曰即公之山，其上多黄金，其下多㻬琈之玉，其木多柳杻檀桑。有兽焉，其状如龟，而白身赤首，名曰蛫，是可以御火。

    　　又东南一百五十九里，有尧山，其阴多黄垩，其阳多黄金，其木多荆芑柳檀，其草多藷藇{艹术}。

    　　又东南一百里，曰江浮之山，其上多银砥砺，无草木，其兽多豕鹿。

    　　又东二百里，曰真陵之山，其上多黄金，其下多玉，其木多榖、柞、柳、杻，其草多荣草。

    　　又东南一百二十里，曰阳帝之山，多美铜，其木多橿杻檿楮，其兽多麢麝。

    　　又南九十里，曰柴桑之山，其上多银，其下多碧，多泠石赭，其木多柳、芑、楮、桑，其兽多麋鹿，多白蛇飞蛇。

    　　又东二百三十里，曰荣余之山，其上多铜，其下多银，其木多柳芑，其虫多怪蛇怪虫。

    　　凡洞庭山之首，自篇遇之山至于荣余之山，凡十万山，二千八百里。其神状皆鸟身而龙首。其祠：毛用一雄鸡、一牝豚刏，糈用稌。凡夫夫之山、即公之山、尧山、阳帝之山皆冢也，其祠：皆肆瘗，祈用酒，毛用少牢，婴毛一吉玉。洞庭、荣余山神也，其祠：皆肆瘗，祈酒太牢祠，婴用圭璧十五，五采惠之。

    　　右中经之山志，大凡百九十七山，二万一千三百七十一里。大凡天下名山五千三百七十，居地，大凡六万四千五十六里。   

    海外经

    卷六 海外南经

    　　地之所载，六合（东、西、南、北、上、下六方）之间，四海之内，照之以日月，经之以星辰，纪之以四时（春、夏、秋、冬四季），要之以太岁（又叫岁星，即木星。在黄道带里每年经过一宫，约十二年运行一周天，古人用以纪年）。神灵所生，其物异形，或夭或寿，唯圣人能通其道。

    　　海外自西南陬（角）至东南陬者（国家地区、山丘河川如下）。

    　　结匈国在其（灭蒙鸟）西南，其为人结胸（鸡胸）。

    　　南山在其（灭蒙鸟）东南。自此山来，（称）虫为蛇，蛇号为鱼。一曰南山在结匈东南。

    　　比翼鸟在其东，其为鸟青、赤（杂色），两鸟比翼。一曰在南山东。

    　　羽民国在其（灭蒙鸟）东南，其为人长头，身生羽。一曰在比翼鸟东南，其为人长颊。

    　　有神人二八，连臂，为帝司（守）夜于此野。在羽民（国）东。其为人，小颊赤肩。尽十六人。

    　　毕方鸟在其东，青水西。其为鸟，人面一脚。一曰在二八神东。

    　　讙头国在其南，其为人，人面有翼，鸟喙，方（图中的正在）捕鱼。一曰在毕方东。或曰讙朱国。

    　　厌火国在其南。［其为人，］兽身黑色，生火出其口中。一曰在讙朱东。

    　　三珠树在厌火北，生赤水上，其为树如柏，叶皆为珠。一曰其为树若彗（星，扫帚星）。

    　　三苗国在赤水东，其为人，（一个个）相随。一曰三毛国。

    　　臷国在其东，其为人，黄，能操弓射蛇。一曰臷国在三毛东。

    　　贯胸国在其东，其为人胸有窍。一曰在臷国东。

    　　交胫国在其东，其为大交胫（交叉着双腿）。一曰在贯胸东。

    　　不死民在其东，其为人黑色，寿，不死。一曰在穿匈国东。

    　　歧舌（舌根在前、舌尖伸向喉部）国在其东。一曰在不死民东。

    　　昆仑虚（大丘）在其东，虚四方。一曰在歧舌东，为虚四方。

    　　羿与凿齿（亦人亦兽的神，有一个牙齿露在嘴外，有五、六尺长，形状像一把凿子）战于寿华之野，羿射杀之。在昆仑虚东。羿持弓矢，凿齿持盾。一曰戈。

    　　三首国在其东，其为人一身三首。

    　　周饶（侏儒）国在东，其为人短小，冠带（戴冠帽、系衣带）。一曰周饶国在三首东。

    　　长臂国在其东，捕鱼水中，两手保操一鱼。一曰在周饶东，捕鱼海中。

    　　狄山，帝尧葬于阳，帝喾葬于阴。爰有熊、罴、纹虎、蜼、豹、离朱（或为三足鸟。在太阳里，与乌鸦相似，但长着三只足）、视肉（怪兽，形状像牛肝，有两只眼睛，割去它的肉吃了后，不长时间就又重新生长出来，）；吁咽（或为虞舜）、文王（周文王姬昌）皆葬其所。一曰汤山。一曰爰有熊、罴、文虎、蜼、豹、离朱、鸱久、视肉、虖交。
    　　其（有）范林（茂密）方三百里。

    　　南祝融，兽身人面，乘两龙。   

    卷七 海外西经

    　　海外自西南陬西北陬者。

    　　灭蒙鸟在结胸国北，为鸟青，赤尾。

    　　大运山高三百仞，在灭蒙鸟北。

    　　大乐之野，夏后（夏王）启于此舞《九代》，乘两龙，云盖三层。左手操翳（用羽毛做的像伞形状的华盖），右手操环，佩玉璜。在大运山北。一曰大遗之野。

    　　三身国在夏后启北，一首而三身。

    　　一臂国在其北，一臂、一目、鼻孔。有黄马，虎纹，一目而一手（马腿）。

    　　奇肱之国在其北。其人一臂三目，有阴有阳，乘文马（吉良马，白身子红鬃毛，眼睛像黄金，骑上它，寿命可达一千年）。有鸟焉，两头，赤黄色，在其旁。

    　　刑天（刑”，割、杀之意。天是颠顶之意，指人的头。刑天就是砍断头。所以，此神原本无名，在被断首之后才有了刑天神的名称）与帝至此争神，帝断其首，葬之常羊之山。乃以乳为目，以脐为口，操干（盾牌）、戚（大斧头）以舞。

    　　（巫）女祭、（巫）女戚［薎］在其北，居两水间。戚操鱼䱇（小觯，酒器），祭操俎（祭祀时盛供品的礼器）。

    　　䳐鸟、𪆻鸟，其色青黄，所经国亡（所经过的国家都灭亡了）。在女祭北。䳐鸟人面，居山上。一曰维鸟，青鸟、黄鸟所集（混称）。

    　　丈夫国在维鸟北，其为人衣冠带剑。

    　　女丑之尸，生而十（个）日炙杀之。在丈夫北。以右手障其面。十日居之，女丑居山之山。

    　　巫咸国在女丑北，右手操青蛇，左手操赤蛇。在登葆山，群巫所从上下（沟通天人）也。

    　　并封在巫咸东，其状如彘，前后皆有首，黑。

    　　女子国在巫咸北，两女子居，水周（环绕）之。一曰居一门中。

    　　轩辕之国在此穷山之际，其不寿者八百岁。在女子国北。人面蛇身，尾交首上。

    　　穷山在其北，不敢西射，畏轩辕之丘。在轩辕国北。其丘方，四蛇盯绕。

    　　此诸［沃］之野，鸾鸟自歌，凤鸟自舞；凤皇卵，民食之；甘露，民饮之：所欲自从也。百兽相与群居。在四蛇北。其人两手操卵食之，两鸟居前导之。

    　　龙鱼陵居在其北，状如［鲤］。一曰鰕（大鲵）。即有神圣乘此以行九野。一曰鳖鱼在沃野北，其为鱼也如鲤。

    　　白民之国在龙鱼北，白身披发。有（名叫）乘黄（兽），其状如狐，其背上有角，乘之寿二千岁。

    　　肃慎之国在白民北。有树名曰雄常，先入伐帝［圣人代立］，于此取之（肃慎国的习俗是人们平时没衣服，一旦中原地区有帝王继立，那么，常雄树就生长出一种树皮，那里的人取它可以制成衣服穿）。

    　　长股之国在雄常北，披发。一曰长脚。

    　　西方蓐收（金神，样子是人面孔、虎爪子、白毛发，手执钺斧），左耳有蛇，乘两龙。    

    卷八 海外北经

    　　海外自东北陬至西北陬者。

    　　无䏿（无嗣。传说无启国的人住在洞穴中，平常吃泥土，不分男女，一死就埋了，但他们的心不腐朽，死后一百二十年就又重新化成人）之国在长股东，为人无䏿。

    　　钟山之神，名曰烛阴，视为昼，瞑为夜，吹为冬，呼为夏，不饮，不食，不息，息为风。身长千里。在无䏿之东。其为物（形貌），人面、蛇身、赤色，居钟山下。

    　　一目国在其东，[居民]一目中其面而居。一曰有手足。

    　　柔利国在一目东，为人一手一足，反膝，曲足（足弓）居上。一云留利之国，人足反折。

    　　共工之臣曰相柳氏，九首，以食于九山。相柳之所抵（触及的地方），掘为泽溪。禹杀相柳，其血腥，不可以树五谷种。禹掘之，三仞（填满）三沮（毁坏），乃以为众帝之台。在昆仑之北，柔利之东。
    　　相柳者，九首人面，蛇身面青。不敢北射，畏共工之台。台在其东。台四方，隅（角上）有一蛇，虎色（纹理），首冲南方。

    　　深目国在其东，为人举一手一目。一曰在共工台东。

    　　无肠之国在深目东，其为人长而无肠。

    　　聂耳之国在无肠国东，使两纹虎，为人两手摄（握）其耳。悬居（孤悬）海水中，及（能触及）水所出入奇物。两虎在其东。

    　　夸父国在聂耳东，其为人大，右手操青蛇，左手操黄蛇。邓林在其东，二树木（二木成林）。一曰博父。

    　　禹所积石之山在其东，（黄）河水所入。

    　　拘瘿（肉瘤）之国在其东，一手把瘿。一曰利瘿之国。

    　　寻木长千里，在拘瘿南，生（黄）河上西北。

    　　跂踵国在拘瘿东，其为人大，两足亦大。一曰大踵。

    　　呕丝之野大踵东，一女子跪据（靠着）树呕丝。

    　　三桑无枝，在呕丝东，其木长百仞，无枝。

    　　范林方三百里，在三桑东，洲（水中的小块陆地）环其下。

    　　务隅之山，帝颛顼葬于阳，九嫔葬于阴。一曰爰有熊、罴、纹虎、离朱、鸱久、视肉。

    　　平丘在三桑东。爰有遗玉（由松枝在千年之后化为伏苓，再过千年之后化为琥珀，又过千年之后化为遗玉）、青马、视肉、杨柳、甘柤（枝干都是红色的，花是黄色的，叶子是白色的，果实是黑色的）、甘华（枝干都是红色的，花是黄色的），百果所生。有两山夹上谷，二大丘居中，名曰平丘。

    　　北海内有兽，其状如马，名曰騊駼。有兽焉，其名曰駮，状如白马，锯牙，食虎豹。有素兽焉，状如马，名曰蛩蛩。有青兽焉，状如虎，名曰罗罗。

    　　北方禺彊（玄冥，神话传说中的水神），人面鸟身，珥（耳朵上挂）两青蛇，践两青蛇。

    卷九 海外东经

    　　海外自东南陬至东北陬者。

    　　(长差)丘，爰有遗玉、青马、视肉、杨柳、甘华。甘果所生，在东海。两山夹丘，上有树木。一曰嗟丘。一曰百果所在，在尧葬东。

    　　大人国在其北，为人大，坐而梢船。一曰在(长差)丘北。

    　　奢比（奢龙，传说中的神）之尸在其北，兽身、人面、大耳，珥两青蛇。一曰肝榆之尸在大人北。

    　　君子国在其北，衣冠带剑，食兽，使二大虎在旁，其人好让不争。有薰华草，朝生夕死。一曰在肝榆之尸北

    　　𧈫𧈫（虹霓，虹双出而颜色鲜艳的为雄，称作虹；颜色暗淡的为雌，称作霓）在其北，各有两首。一曰在君子国北。

    　　朝阳之谷，神曰天吴，是为水伯。在𧈫北两水间。其为兽也，八首人面，八足八尾，皆（背）青黄。

    　　青丘国在其北，其狐四足九尾。一曰在朝阳北。

    　　帝命竖亥（走得很快的神）步，自东极至于西极，五亿十万九千八百步。竖亥右手把筭（计数用的筹码），左手指青丘北。一曰禹令竖亥。一曰五亿十万九千八百步。

    　　黑齿国在其北，为人黑［齿］，（画面上在）食稻啖蛇，一赤一青，在其旁。一曰在竖亥北，为人黑首，食稻使蛇，其一蛇赤。

    　　下有汤谷。汤谷上有扶桑，十日所浴，在黑齿北。居水中，有大木，九日居下枝，一日居上枝。

    　　雨师妾在其北。其为人黑，两手各操一蛇，左耳有青蛇，右耳有赤蛇。一曰在十日北，为人黑身人面，各操一龟。

    　　玄股之国在其北。其为人衣鱼食鸥，使两鸟夹之（在身边）。一曰在雨师妾北。

    　　毛民之国在其北，为人身生毛。一曰在玄股北。

    　　劳民国在其北，其为人黑。或曰教民（国）。一曰在毛民北，为人面目手足尽黑。

    　　东方句芒（木神），鸟身人面，乘两龙。

    卷十 海内南经

    　　海内东南陬以西者。

    　　瓯居海中。闽在海中，其西北有山。一曰闽中山在海中。

    　　三天子鄣山在闽西海北。一曰在海中。

    　　桂林八树（成林），在番隅东。

    　　伯虑国、离耳国、雕题国、北朐国皆在郁水南。郁水出湘陵南［山］。一曰柏虑。

    　　枭阳国在北朐之西。其为人人面长唇，黑身有毛，反踵，见人笑亦笑，左手操管。

    　　兕在舜葬（地）东，湘水南。其状如牛，苍黑，一角。

    　　苍梧之山，帝舜葬于阳，帝丹朱葬于阴。

    　　范林方三百里，在（兕兕）东。

    　　兕兕知人名，其为兽如豕而人面，在舜葬西。

    　　兕兕西北有犀牛，其状如牛而黑。

    　　夏后启之臣曰孟涂，是司神于巴。［巴］人请讼于孟涂之所，其衣有血者乃执之。是请生（好生之德）。居山上，在丹山西。丹山在丹阳南，丹阳居［巴］属也。

    　　窫窳龙首，居弱水中，在兕兕知人名之西，其状如［貙］（像野猫而体型略大的野兽），龙首，食人。

    　　有木，其状如牛，引之有皮（一拉就剥落下树皮），若缨（冠帽上缨带）、黄蛇（皮）。其叶如罗（捕鸟的网），其实如栾（树根是黄色的，树枝是红色的，树叶是青色的），其木若蓲（刺榆树），其名曰建木。在窳西（的）弱水上。

    　　氐人国在建木西，其为人，人面而鱼身，无足。

    　　巴蛇食象，三岁（年）而出其骨，君子服之，无心腹之疾。其为蛇青、赤、黑。一曰黑蛇青首，在犀牛西。

    　　旄马，其状如马，四节有毛。在巴蛇西北，高山南。

    　　匈奴、开题之国、列人之国并在西北。

    卷十一 海内西经

    　　海内西南陬以北者。

    　　贰负（天神，人的脸面蛇的身子）之臣曰危，危与贰负杀窫窳（天神，原来的样子是人的脸面蛇的身子，被杀死而化成上文所说的样子——龙头，野猫身，并且吃人）。帝乃梏（拘禁）[贰负]之疏属之山，桎其右足，反缚两手与发，系之山上木。在开题西北。

    　　大泽方百里，群鸟所生（孵化）及所解（换羽毛）。在雁门北。

    　　雁门山，雁出其间。在高柳北。高柳在代北。

    　　后稷之葬，山水环之。在氐国西。

    　　流黄酆氏之国，（域）中方三百里；有途（路通）四方，中有山。在后稷葬西。

    　　流沙出钟山，西行又南行昆仑之虚（大山），西南入海，（到达）黑水之山。

    　　东胡在大泽东。

    　　夷人在东胡东。

    　　貊国在汉水东北。地近于燕，（被燕国）灭之。

    　　孟鸟在貊国东北。其鸟文赤、黄、青，东向。

    　　海内昆仑之虚，在西北，帝之下（地上）都。昆仑之虚，方圆八百里，高万仞。上有木（树木一样的）禾，长五寻，大五（个人合）围。（每一）面有九井，以玉为槛。面有九门，门有（名字叫）开明兽守之，百神之所在。
    　　在八隅之岩，赤水之际，非仁（如）羿（后羿）莫能上冈之岩。

    　　赤水出东南隅，以行其东北，［西南流注南海厌火东］。

    　　（黄）河水出东北隅，以行其北，西南又入渤海，又出海外，即西而北，入禹所导积石山。

    　　洋水、黑水出西北隅，以（转折向）东，东行，又（转折向）东北，南入海，（直到）羽民南。

    　　弱水、青水出西南隅，以东，又北，又西南，过毕方鸟东。

    　　昆仑南渊深三百仞。开明兽身大类虎而九首，皆人面，东向立昆仑上。

    　　开明西有凤皇、鸾鸟，皆戴蛇践蛇，膺（胸前）有赤蛇。

    　　开明北有视肉、珠树（生长珍珠的树）、文玉树（生长五彩美玉的树）、玗琪树（生长红色玉石的树）、不死树。凤皇、鸾鸟皆戴瞂（盾）。又有离朱（三足乌）、木禾、柏树、甘水、圣木曼兑（可使人圣明智慧）。一曰（曼兑是）挺木牙交。

    　　开明东有巫彭、巫抵、巫阳、巫履、巫凡、巫相，夹（围绕）窫窳之尸，皆操不死之药以拒（死亡）之。窫窳者，蛇身人面，贰负臣所杀也。

    　　服常树，其上有三头人，伺琅玕树（树上结出的果实就是珠玉）。

    　　开明南有树鸟，六首；蛟、蝮、蛇、蜼、豹、鸟秩树，于表池树（环绕着）木，诵鸟、鶽、视肉。 

    卷十二 海内北经

    　　海内西北陬以东者。

    　　蛇巫之山，上有人操棓（棍子）而东向立。一曰龟山。

    　　西王母梯（靠着）几而戴胜杖（女性的首饰）。其南有三青鸟，为西王母取食。在昆仑虚北。

    　　有人曰大行伯，把戈。其东有犬封国。贰负之尸在大行伯东。

    　　犬封国曰犬戎国，状如犬。有一女子，方跪进［杯］食。有纹马，缟（白色）身朱鬣（鬃毛），目若黄金，名曰吉量，乘之寿千岁。

    　　鬼国在贰负之尸北，为物人面而一目。一曰贰负神在其东，为物人而蛇身。

    　　蜪犬如犬，青，食人从首始。

    　　穷奇状如虎，有翼，食人从首始。所食披发。在蜪犬北。一曰从足。

    　　帝尧台、帝喾台、帝丹朱台、帝舜台，各二台，台四方，在昆仑东北。

    　　大蜂，其状如螽（蟋蟀）；朱蛾，其状如蛾（蚂蚁）。

    　　蟜，其为人虎纹，胫有䏿（小腿肌肉发达）。在穷奇东。一曰状如人，昆仑虚北所有。

    　　阘非，人面而兽身，青色。

    　　据比之尸，其为人折颈披发，无（失去）一手。

    　　环狗，其为人兽首人身。一曰猬状如狗，黄色。

    　　魅，其为物，人身、黑首、纵目。

    　　戎，其为人，人首三角。

    　　林氏国有珍兽，大若虎，五彩毕具，尾长于身，名曰驺吾，乘之日行千里。

    　　昆仑虚南所，有范（茂盛）林方三百里。

    　　从极之渊深三百仞，唯冰夷（河伯，传说中的水神）恒（以此为）都焉，，冰夷人面，乘两龙。一曰忠极之渊。

    　　阳汙之山，（黄）河出其中；凌门之山，（黄）河（一支流）出其中。

    　　王子夜之尸，两手、两股、胸、首、齿，皆断异处。

    　　舜夷登比氏生宵明、烛光，处河大泽，二女之灵能照此所方百里。一曰登北氏。

    　　盖国在巨燕南，倭北。倭属燕。

    　　朝鲜在列阳东，海北山南。列阳属燕。

    　　列姑射在海河州（黄河流入海中形成的小块陆地）中。

    　　射姑国在海中，属列姑射。（射姑国）西南，山环之。

    　　大蟹（一种方圆千里大小的蟹）在海中。

    　　陵鱼（娃娃鱼）人面，手足，鱼身，在海中。大鳊居海中。

    　　明组邑（部落）居海中。逢莱山在海中。大人之市在海中。

    卷十三 海内东经

    　　海内东北陬以南者。

    　　钜燕在东北陬（角）。

    　　国在流沙中者埻端、玺㬇，在昆仑虚东南。一曰海内之郡，不为郡县，在流沙中。

    　　国在流沙外者，大夏、竖沙、居繇、月支之国。

    　　西胡（之）白玉山（国）在大夏东，苍梧（国）在白玉山西南，皆在流沙西，昆仑虚东南。昆仑山在西胡西。皆在西北。

    　　雷泽中有雷神，龙首而人头，鼓（震动）其腹（响起雷声）。在吴西。

    　　都州在海中。一曰郁州。

    　　琅邪台（山）在渤海间，琅邪（春秋时越王勾践修筑的琅邪台，周长七里，用来观望东海）之东。其北有山。一曰在海间。

    　　韩雁在海中，都州南。

    　　始鸠在海中，辕厉［韩雁］南。

    　　会稽山在大楚南。

    　　岷三江：首大江出汶山，北江出曼山，南江出高山。高山在城都西。入海，在长州南。

    　　浙江出三天子都，在其东。在闽西北，入海，余暨南。

    　　庐江出三天子都，入江，彭泽西。一曰天子鄣。

    　　淮水出馀山，馀山在朝阳东，义乡西，入海淮浦北。

    　　湘水出舜葬东南陬，西环之，入洞庭下。一曰东南西泽。

    　　汉水出鲋鱼之山，帝颛顼葬于阳，九嫔葬于阴，四蛇卫之。

    　　濛水出汉阳西，入江，聂阳西。

    　　温水出崆峒，山在临汾南，入河，华阳北。

    　　颍水出少室，少室山在雍氏南，入淮西鄢北。一曰缑氏。

    　　白水出蜀，而东南注江，入江州城下。

    　　沅水山出象郡镡城西，入东注江，入下隽西，合洞庭中。

    　　肄水出临晋西南，而东南注海，入番禺西。

    　　潢水出桂阳西北山，东南注肄水，入敦浦西。

    　　洛水出洛西山，东北注河，入成皋之西。

    　　汾水出上窳北，而西南注河，入皮氏南。

    　　沁水出井陉山东，东南注河，入怀东南。

    　　济水出共山南东丘，绝钜鹿泽，注渤海，入齐琅槐东北。

    　　潦水出卫皋东，东南注渤海，入潦阳。

    　　虖沱水出晋阳城南，而西至阳曲北，而东注渤海，入越章武北。

    　　漳水出山阳东，东注渤海，入章武南。   

       

    　　岷三江，首大江出汶山，北江出曼山，南江出高山。高山在（城）［成］都西。入海，在长州南。浙江出三天子都，在其［蛮］东，在闽西北，入海，馀暨南。庐江出三天子都，入江，彭泽西。一曰天子鄣。淮水出馀山，馀山在朝阳东，义乡西。入海，淮浦北。湘水出舜葬东南陬，西环之。入洞庭下。

    　　一曰东南西泽。汉水出鲋鱼之山，帝颛顼葬于阳，九嫔葬于阴，四蛇卫之。

    　　濛水出汉阳西，入江，聂阳西。温水出崆峒，［峒崆］山在临汾南，入河，华阳北。颍水出少室，少室山在雍氏南，入淮西鄢北。一曰缑氏。汝水出天息山，在梁勉乡西南，入淮极西北。一曰淮在期思北。泾水出长城北山，山在郁郅长垣北，（北）入渭，戏北。渭水出鸟鼠同穴山，东注河，入华阴北。

    　　白水出蜀，而东南注江，入江州城下。沅水（山）出象郡镡城西，（入）东注江，入下隽西，合洞庭中。赣水出聂都东山，东北注江，入彭泽西。泗水出鲁东北，而南，西南过湖陵西，而东南注东海，入淮阴北。郁水出象郡，而西南注南海，入须陵东南。肄水出临晋［武］西南，而东南注海，入番禺西。

    　　潢水出桂阳西北山，东南注肄水，入敦浦西。洛水出［上］洛西山，东北注河，入成皋（之）西。汾水出上窳北，而西南注河，入皮氏南。沁水出井陉山东，东南注河，入怀东南。济水出共山南东丘，绝鉅鹿泽，注渤海，入齐琅槐东北。潦水出卫皋东，东南注渤海，入潦阳。虖沱水出晋阳城南，而西至阳曲北，而东注渤海，入（越）章武北。漳水出山阳东，东注渤海，入章武南①。

        【注释】①从“岷三江”至“入章武南”这一大段文字，据学者的研究，认为不是《山海经》原文，而是《水经》一书中的文字。

        【译文】从岷山中流出三条江水，首先是长江从汶山流出，再者北江从曼山流出，还有南江从高山流出。高山座落在成都的西面。三条江水最终注入大海，入海处在长州的南面。浙江从三天子都山发源，三天子都山在蛮地的东面，闽地的西北面，浙江最终注入大海，入海处在馀暨的南边。庐江也从三天子都山发源，却注入长江，入江处在彭泽的西面。一种说法认为在天子鄣。淮水从馀山发源，馀山座落在朝阳的东面，义乡的西面。淮水最终注入大海，入海处在淮浦的北面。湘水从帝舜葬地的东南角发源，然后向西环绕流去。湘水最终注入洞庭湖下游。一种说法认为注入东南方的西泽。汉水从鲋鱼山发源，帝颛顼葬在鲋鱼山的南面，帝颛顼的九个嫔妃葬在鲋鱼山的北面，有四条巨蛇卫护着它。濛水从汉阳西面发源，最终注入长江，入江处在聂阳的西面。温水从崆峒山发源，崆峒山座落在临汾南面，温水最终注入黄河，入河处在华阳的北面。颍水从少室山发源，少室山座落在雍氏的南面，颍水最终在西鄢的北边注入淮水。一种说法认为在缑氏注入淮水。汝水从天息山发源，天息山座落在梁勉乡的西南，汝水最终在淮极的西北注入淮水。

        一种说法认为入淮处在期思的北面。泾水从长城的北山发源，北山座落在郁郅长垣的北面，泾水最后流入渭水，入渭处在戏的北面。渭水从鸟鼠同穴山发源，向东流入黄河，入河处在华阴的北面。白水从蜀地流出，然后向东南流而注入长江，入江处在江州城下。沅水从象郡镡城的西面发源，向东流而注入长江，入江处在下隽的西面，最后汇入洞庭湖中。赣水从聂都东面的山中发源，向东北流而注入长江，入江处在彭泽的西面。泗水从鲁地的东北方流出，然后向南流，再往西南流经湖陵的西面，然后转向东南而流入东海，入海处在淮阴的北面。郁水从象郡发源，然后向西南流而注入南海，入海处在须陵的东南面。肄水从临晋武的西南方流出，然后向东南流而注入大海，入海处在番禺的西面。潢水从桂阳西北的山中发源，向东南流而注入肄水，入肄处在敦浦的西面。洛水从上洛西边的山中发源，向东北流而注入黄河，入河处在成皋的西边。汾水从上窳的北面流出，然后向西南流而注入黄河，入河处在皮氏的南面。沁水从井陉山的东面发源，向东南流而注入黄河，入河处在怀的东南面。济水从共山南面的东丘发源，流过鉅鹿泽，最终注入渤海，入海处在齐地琅槐的东北面。潦水从卫皋的东面流出，向东南流而注入渤海，入海处在潦阳。虖沱水从晋阳城南发源，然后向西流到阳曲的北面，再向东流而注入渤海，入海处在章武的北面。漳水从山阳的东面流出，向东流而注入渤海，入海处在章武的南面。  

    卷十四 大荒东经

    　　东海之外［有］大壑，少昊之国。少昊乳（养育）帝颛顼于此，弃其（颛顼）（幼年玩耍过的）琴瑟。

    　　有甘山者，甘水出焉，生（汇聚成）甘渊。

    　　大荒东南隅有，名皮母地丘。

    　　东海之外，大荒之中，有山名曰大言，日月所出。

    　　有波谷山者，有大人之国。有大人之市（集市），名曰大人之堂（山的形状就像是一座堂屋）。有一大人蹲其上，张其两耳。

    　　有小人国，名靖人（东北极的一种人，身高只有九寸；靖的意思是细小的样子）。

    　　有神，人面兽身，名曰犂（之尸）。

    　　有潏山，杨水出焉。

    　　有蒍国，黍食，使四鸟（兽）：虎、豹、熊、罴。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰合虚，日月所出。

    　　有中容之国。帝俊（或指颛顼）生中容，中容（国）人食兽、木实（树木的果实），使四鸟：豹、虎、熊、罴。

    　　有东口之山。有君子之国，其人衣冠带剑。

    　　有司幽之国。帝俊生晏龙，晏龙生司幽，司幽生思土。（思土）不（娶）妻；（司幽生）思女，（思女）不夫，（精气感应、魂魄相合而生育孩子，延续后代）。食黍，食兽，是使四鸟（兽）。

    　　有大阿之山者。

    　　大荒中有山，名曰明星，日月所出。

    　　有白民之国。帝俊（似指少典，传说中的上古帝王，娶有蟜氏，生黄帝、炎帝）生帝鸿（黄帝，姓公孙，居轩辕之丘，所以号称轩辕氏），帝鸿生白民，白民（国）（以）销（为）姓，黍食，使四鸟（兽）：豹、虎、熊、罴。

    　　有青丘之国，有狐，九尾。

    　　有柔仆民，是维嬴（肥沃）土之国。

    　　有黑齿之国。帝俊生黑齿，姜姓，黍食，使四鸟（兽）。

    　　有夏州之国，（附近）有盖余之国。

    　　有神人，八首人面，虎身十尾，名曰天吴。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰鞠陵于天、东极、离瞀，日月所出。［有神］名曰折丹——东方曰折，来风曰俊——处东极以（管理）出入风。

    　　东海之渚中，有神，人面鸟身，珥两黄蛇，践两黄蛇，名曰禺䝞。黄帝生禺䝞，禺䝞生禺京。禺京处北海，禺䝞处东海，是惟海神。

    　　有招摇山，融水出焉。有国曰玄股，黍食，使四鸟（兽）。

    　　有（困）［因］民国，勾姓，（而）［黍］食。有人曰王亥，两手操鸟，方（正在）食其头。王亥托（寄养）于有易、河伯朴（大）牛。有易杀王亥，取朴牛。河［伯］念（顾念）有易，有易潜出，为国于兽（野兽出没之地），方食之，名曰摇民（［因］民国）。帝舜生戏，戏生摇民。

    　　海内有两人，（一）名曰女丑。女丑有大蟹（方圆有一千里大小的螃蟹）。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰孽摇頵羝。上有扶木（扶桑树），柱（像柱子）（高）三百里，其叶如芥（芥菜）。有谷曰温源谷（汤谷）。汤谷上有扶木，一日方至（回来），一日方出，皆载于乌（三足乌）。

    　　有神，人面、犬耳、兽身，珥两青蛇，名曰奢比尸。

    　　有五彩之鸟，相向婆娑。惟帝俊（降）下（与它们交）友。帝下（在地上设）两坛（祭坛），彩鸟是司（负责管理）。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰猗天苏门，日月所生（初升）。

    　　有壎民之国。有綦山。又有摇山。有䰝山，又有门户山，又有盛山。又有待山。有五彩之鸟。

    　　东荒之中，有山名曰壑明俊疾，日月所出。有中容之国。

    　　东北海中，又有三青马、三骓（毛色青白相间的马）、甘华。爱有遗玉、三青鸟、三骓、视肉、甘华、甘柤。百谷所在。

    　　有女和月母之国。有（神）人名曰𪂧——北方曰𪂧（鹓），来之风曰(犭+炎)——是处东极隅以止（控制）日月，使无相间（错乱）出没，司其（起落时间的）短长。

    　　大荒东北隅中，有山名曰凶犁土丘。应龙（一种生有翅膀的龙）处南极，杀蚩尤与夸父，不得复上，故下数（屡次）旱。旱而为（装扮成）应龙之状，乃得大雨。

    　　东海中有流波山，入海七千里。其上有兽，状如牛，苍身而无角，一足，出入水则必风雨，其光如日月，其声如雷，其名曰夔。黄帝得之，以其皮为鼓，撅（敲打）以雷兽（雷神）之骨，声闻五百里，以威天下。      

    卷十五 大荒南经

    　　南海之外，赤水之西，流沙之东，有兽，左右有首，名曰䟣踢。有三青兽相并，名曰双双。

    　　有阿山者。南海之中，有氾天之山，赤水穷焉。赤水之东，有苍梧之野，舜与叔均（商均，传说是帝舜的儿子。帝舜南巡到苍梧而死去，就葬在这里，商均因此留下，死后也葬在那里。上文说与帝舜一起葬于苍梧之野的是帝丹朱，和这里的说法不同，属神话传说分歧）之所葬也。爰有文贝（紫贝，在紫颜色的贝壳上点缀有黑点）、离俞（离朱鸟）、嶋久、鹰、贾（乌鸦之类的禽鸟）、委维（委蛇）、熊、罴、象、虎、豹、狼、视肉。

    　　有荣山、荣水出焉。黑水之南，有玄蛇，食麈（大鹿，尾巴能用来拂扫尘土）。

    　　有巫山者，西行皇鸟。帝药（长生不死药），(保存在这里的）八斋（屋舍)。皇鸟于巫山，司此玄蛇。

    　　大荒之中，有不庭之山，荣水穷（终点）焉。有人三身，帝俊妻娥皇，生此三身之国。姚姓，黍食，使四鸟（兽）。有渊四方，四隅皆达，北属（连着）黑水，南属大荒。北旁（侧）名曰少和之渊，南旁名曰从渊，舜之所浴也。

    　　又有成山，甘水穷焉。有季禺之国，颛顼之子，食黍。

    　　有羽民之国，其民皆生毛羽。

    　　有卵之国，其民皆生卵。

    　　大荒之中，有不姜之山，黑水穷焉。又有贾山，汔水出焉。又有言山。又有登备之山（登葆山，巫师们凭借此山来往于天地之间，以反映民情，传达神意）。有恝恝之山。又有蒲山，澧水出焉。又有隗山，其西有丹（或指丹雘），其东有玉。又南有山，漂水出焉。有尾山。有翠山。

    　　有盈民之国，於姓，黍食。又有人方食木叶。

    　　有不死之国，阿姓，甘木（不死树）是食。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰去痓。南极果，北不成，去痓果（这一句可能是巫师的咒语）。

    　　南海渚中，有神，人面，珥两青蛇，践两赤蛇，曰不廷胡余。

    　　有神名曰（因）乎－－南方曰因（乎），夸［来］风曰（乎）民－－处南极以（管理）出入风。

    　　有襄山。又有重阴之山。有人食兽，曰季厘。帝俊生季厘，故曰季厘之国。有缗渊。少昊生倍伐，倍伐降（贬抑）处缗渊。有水四方，名曰俊坛（水池的形状像一座土坛，所以叫俊坛）。

    　　有臷民之国。帝舜生无淫，降臷处，是谓巫臷民。巫臷民朌姓，食谷，不绩不经（绩：捻搓麻线。这里泛指纺线。经：经线，即丝、棉、麻、毛等织物的纵线，与纬线即各种织物的横线相交叉，就可织成丝帛、麻布等布匹。这里泛指织布），（天然有）服也；不稼不穑，食也。爱歌舞之鸟，鸾鸟自歌，凤鸟自舞。爰有百兽，相群爰处。百谷所聚。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰融天，海水（从）南入焉。

    　　有人曰凿齿，羿杀之。

    　　有蜮（一种叫短狐的动物，像鳖的样子，能含沙射人，被射中的就要病死）山者，有蜮民之国，桑姓，食黍，射蜮是食。有人方扞（拉）弓射黄蛇，名曰蜮人。

    　　有宋山者，有赤蛇，名曰育蛇。有木生山上，名曰枫木。枫木，蚩尤所弃其桎梏，是为枫木（与上文有歧）。

    　　有人方齿（用牙齿咬着）虎尾，名曰祖状之尸。

    　　有小人，名曰焦侥之国，几姓，嘉（优良）谷是食。

    　　大荒之中，有山名朽■ 涂之山，青水穷焉。有云雨之山，有木名曰栾。禹（专）攻云雨[山上的树木]。有赤石焉生栾，黄本，赤枝，青叶，群帝焉取药（传说栾树的花与果实可以制做长生不死的仙药）。

    　　有国曰［柏服］，颛顼生伯服，食黍。有鼬姓之国。有苕山。又有宗山。又有姓山，又有壑山。又有陈州山，又有东州山。又有白水山，白水出焉，而生白渊，昆吾（上古时的一个诸侯，名叫樊，号昆吾）之师（师傅）所浴也。

    　　有人名曰张宏，在海上捕鱼。海中有张宏之国，食鱼，使四鸟（兽）。

    　　有人焉，鸟喙，有翼，方捕鱼于海。   

    　　大荒之中，有人名曰驩头（又叫讙头、驩兜、讙朱、丹朱）。鲧妻士敬，士敬子曰琰融，生驩头。驩头人面鸟喙，有翼，食海中鱼，仗翼而行。维宜（烹调）芑、苣、穋、杨是食。有驩头之国。

    　　帝尧、帝喾、帝舜葬于岳山（即上文所说狄山）。爰有文贝、离俞、嶋久、鹰、［贾］、延维（即上文所说的委蛇、委维）、视肉、熊、罴、虎、豹；朱木、青花，玄实。有申山者。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰天台高山，海水［南］入焉。

    　　东南海之外，甘水之间，有羲和之国，有女子名曰羲和，方（正在）浴［日］于甘渊。羲和者，帝俊之妻，生十日。

    　　有盖犹之山者，其上有甘柤，枝干皆赤，黄叶，白花，黑实。东又有甘华，枝干皆赤，黄叶。有青马，有赤马，名曰三骓。有视肉。

    　　有（矮）小人，名曰菌人。

    　　有南类之山。爰有遗玉、青马、三骓、视肉、甘华。百谷所在。 

    卷十六 大荒西经

    　　西北海之外，大荒之隅，有山（断裂）而不合，名曰不周（负子），有两黄兽守之。有水曰寒暑之水。水西有湿山，水东有幕山。有禹攻共工国山。

    　　有国名曰淑士，颛顼之子。

    　　有神十人，名曰女娲之肠，化为神，处栗广之野；横道而处。

    　　有人名曰石夷，［西方曰夷］，（北方吹）来风曰韦，处西北隅以司日月之长短。

    　　有五采之鸟，有冠，名曰狂鸟。

    　　有大泽之长山。有白氏之国。

    　　西北海之外，赤水东，有长胫之国。

    　　有西周之国，姬姓，食谷。有人方耕，名曰叔均。帝俊（喾）生后稷，稷降（从天上带来）以谷。稷之弟曰台玺，生叔均。叔均（于）是代其父及稷播百谷，始作耕。

    　　有赤国妻氏。有双山。

    　　西海之外，大荒之中，有方山者，上有青树，名曰柜格之松，日月所出入也。

    　　西北海之外，赤水之西，有先民之国，食谷，使四鸟（四种野兽）。

    　　有北狄之国。黄帝之孙曰始均，始均生北狄。

    　　有芒山。有桂山。有榣山，其上有人，号曰太子长琴。颛顼（娶于滕■氏，叫女禄，生下老童）生老童，老童生祝融（高辛氏火正，名叫吴回，号称祝融，死后为火官之神），祝融生太子长琴，是处榣山，始作乐风。

    　　有五采鸟三名：一曰皇鸟，一曰鸾鸟，一曰凤鸟。

    　　有虫（鸟类称为羽虫，兽类称为毛虫，龟类称为甲虫，鱼类称鳞虫，人类称为裸虫）状如兔，胸以后者裸不见（被毛遮住），（毛）青如猨状。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰丰沮玉门，日月所入（降落）。

    　　有灵山，巫咸、巫即、巫盼、巫彭、巫姑、巫真、巫礼、巫抵、巫谢、巫罗十巫，从此升降（世间），百药爰在。

    　　西有［西］王母之山、壑山、海山。有沃之国，沃民是处。
    　　沃之野，凤鸟之卵是食，甘露是饮。凡其所欲，其味尽存。爰有甘华、甘柤、白柳、白木、琅玕（树），璇瑰、瑶碧（玉），视肉、三骓（杂色马），白丹、青丹（矿），多银、铁。鸾［鸟］自歌，凤鸟自舞，爰有百兽，相群是处，是谓沃之野。

    　　有三青鸟，赤首黑目，一名曰大鵹，一曰少鵹，一名曰青鸟。

    　　有轩辕之台（轩辕之丘，黄帝所居之地，故号轩辕氏），射者不敢西向（射），畏轩辕之台。

    　　大荒之中，有龙山，日月所入（降落地）。有三泽（汇聚）水（的地方），名曰三淖，昆吾（部族）之所食也。

    　　有人衣青，以袂（袖子）蔽面，名曰女丑之尸。

    　　有女子之国。

    　　有桃山。有虻山。有桂山。有于土山。

    　　有丈夫之国。

    　　有弇州之国，五彩之鸟仰天（鸣叫），名曰鸣鸟。爰有百乐歌舞之凤。

    　　有轩辕之国。江山之南栖为吉。不寿者乃八百岁。

    　　西海渚中，有神，人面鸟身，珥两青蛇，践两赤蛇，名曰弇兹。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰日月山，天枢（枢纽）也。（山的主峰叫）吴姖天门，日月所入。有神，人面无臂，两足反属（连接）于头山，名曰嘘。颛顼生老童，老童生重及黎（管理人类的官员火正），帝令重献（托举）上天，令黎［印］（压）下地。［黎］下地是生噎，处于西极，以行日月星辰之行次。

    　　有人反臂，名曰天虞。

    　　（图中）有女子方（正）浴月。帝俊妻常羲，生月十有二，此始浴之。

    　　有玄丹之山。有五色之鸟，人面有发。爰有青鴍、黄鷔、青鸟、黄鸟，其所集者其国亡。

    　　有池，名孟翼之攻颛顼之池。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰鏖鏊钜，日月所入者。

    　　有兽，左右有首，名曰屏蓬。

    　　有巫山者。有壑山者。有金门之山，（山上）有人名曰黄姖之尸。有比翼之鸟。有白鸟，青翼，黄尾，玄喙。有赤犬，名曰天犬，其所下者有兵。

    　　西海之南，流沙之滨，赤水之后，黑水之前，有大山，名曰昆仑之丘。有神，人面虎身，（有）纹尾，皆白（白色斑点），处之。
    　　其下有弱水之渊环之，其外有炎火之山，投物辄燃。有人戴胜（玉制的首饰），虎齿，有豹尾，穴处，名曰西王母。此山万物尽有。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰常阳之山，日月所入。

    　　有寒荒之国。有二人女祭、女薎。

    　　有寿麻之国。南岳娶州山女，名曰女虔。女虔生季格，季格生寿麻。寿麻正立无影，疾呼无响。爰有大暑，不可以往。

    　　有人无首，操戈、盾立，名曰夏耕之尸。故（从前）成汤伐夏桀于章山，克之，斩耕厥（指代成汤）前。耕既立，无首，走（逃避）厥（指代夏耕尸）咎（罪责），乃降于巫山。

    　　有人名曰吴回（火神祝融。也有说是祝融的弟弟，亦为火正之官），奇（单有）左，是无右臂。

    　　有盖山之国。有树，赤皮、枝干，青叶，名曰朱木。

    　　有一臂民。

    　　大荒之中，有山，名曰大荒之山，日月所入。有人焉三面，是颛顼之子，三面一臂，三面之人不死。是谓大荒之野。

    　　西南海之外，赤水之南，流沙之西，有人珥两青蛇，乘两龙，名曰夏后启。启上三宾（作客）于天，得《九辩》与《九歌》以下。此天穆之野，高二千仞，启焉得（在此）始歌《九招》。

    　　有（互）［氐］人之国。炎帝（神农氏。因为以火德为王，所以号称炎帝，又因创造农具教人们种庄稼，所以叫做神农氏）之孙名曰灵恝，灵恝生（互）［氐］人，是能上下于天。

    　　有鱼偏（一边）枯，名曰鱼妇，颛顼死即复苏（而化）。风道（由）北来，天及大水（如）泉，蛇乃化为鱼，是为鱼妇。颛顼死即复苏。

    　　有青鸟，身黄，赤足，六首，名曰鸀鸟。

    　　有大巫山。有金之山。西南，大荒之（中）隅，有偏句、常羊之山。   

    卷十七 大荒北经

    　　东北海之外，大荒之中，河水之间，附禺之山，帝颛顼与九嫔葬焉。爰有𩿨久、纹贝、离俞、鸾鸟、皇（凤凰）鸟、大物、小物（殉葬的大小用具物品）。有青鸟、琅鸟（白鸟）、玄鸟（燕子）、黄鸟、虎、豹、熊、罴、黄蛇、视肉、璿、瑰、瑶、碧，皆出卫于山。丘方圆三百里，丘南帝俊竹林在焉，大可为舟。竹南有赤泽水，名曰封（大）渊。有三（棵）桑无枝。丘西有深渊，颛顼所浴。

    　　有胡不与之国，烈姓，黍食。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰不咸，有肃慎氏之国。有飞蛭，四翼。有虫（蛇），兽身蛇身，名曰琴虫。

    　　有人名曰大人。有大人之国，厘姓，黍食。有大青蛇，黄头，食麈（大鹿）。

    　　有榆山。有鲧禹的父亲）攻程州之山。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰衡天。有先民之山。有槃（盘旋弯曲）木千里。

    　　有叔歜国，颛顼之子（子孙后代），黍食，使四鸟：虎、豹、熊、罴。有黑虫如熊状，名曰猎猎。

    　　有北齐之国，姜姓，使虎、豹、熊、罴。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰先槛大逢之山，（黄）河、济所入，海（从）北注焉。其西有山，名曰禹所积石。

    　　有阳山者。有顺山者，顺水出焉。有始州之国，有丹山。

    　　有大泽方千里，群鸟所解（禽鸟脱去旧羽毛再生新羽毛）。

    　　有毛民之国，依姓，食黍，使四鸟。禹生均国，均国生役采，役采生修鞈，修鞈杀绰人。帝（禹）念之，潜（暗地里）为之国，是此毛民（国）。

    　　有儋耳之国，任姓，（神）禺号（的）子（后代），食谷。

    　　北海之渚（岛）中，有神，人面鸟身，珥（耳穿）两青蛇，践（足踏）两赤蛇，名曰禺强。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰北极天柜，海水北注焉。有神，九首人面鸟身，名曰九凤。又有神，（口）衔蛇（手）操蛇，其状虎首人身，四蹄长肘，名曰强良。

    　　大荒之中，有山名曰成都载天。有人珥两黄蛇，把两黄蛇，名曰夸父。后土生信，信生夸父。夸父不量力，欲追日影，逮（到）之于禺谷。将饮（黄）河而不足也，将走大泽，未至，死于此。
    　　应龙已杀蚩尤，又杀夸父，乃去南方处之，故南方多雨。

    　　又有无肠国，是任姓。无继（无启国。无启就是无嗣、没有子孙后代）子（后代），食鱼。

    　　共工之臣名曰相繇，九首蛇身，自环，食于九土［山］。其所歍（喷吐处）所尼（停留处），即为源泽，不辛乃（就）苦，百兽莫能处。
    　　禹湮洪水，杀相繇，其血腥臭，不可生谷；其地多水，不可居也。禹湮之，三仞（填塞）三沮（塌陷），乃以为（挖）池，群帝是因以（挖出来的土）为台。在昆仑之北。

    　　有岳之山。寻（大）竹生焉。

    　　大荒之中，有山名不句，海水［北］入焉。

    　　有系昆之山者，有共工之台，射者不敢北向。有人衣青衣，名曰黄帝女魃。蚩尤作兵伐黄帝，黄帝乃令应龙攻之冀州之野。应龙畜水。蚩尤请风伯、雨师，纵大风雨。黄帝乃（降）下天女曰魃，雨止，遂杀蚩尤。魃不得复上，所居不雨。叔均言之帝，后置（魃）之赤水之北。叔均乃为田祖（神）。魃时亡（出逃）之，所欲逐之者，令（祷告）曰：“神，北行！”先除（出清）水道，决通沟、渎（小水渠）。

    　　有人方食鱼，名曰深目民之国，盼姓，食鱼。

    　　有钟山者。有女子衣青衣，名曰赤水女子魃（旱神）。

    　　大荒之中。有山名曰融父山，顺水入焉。

    　　有人名曰犬戎。黄帝生苗龙，苗龙，苗龙生融吾，融吾生弄明，弄明生白犬，白犬有牝牡，是为犬戎，肉食。有赤兽，马状无首，名曰戎宣王尸（犬戎族人奉祀的神）。

    　　有山名曰齐州之山、君山、鬵山、鲜野山、鱼山。

    　　有人一目，当面中生。一曰是威姓，少昊之子，食黍。

    　　有［无］继无民，［无］继无民任姓，无骨子，食气、鱼。

    　　西北海外，流沙之东，有国曰中䡢，颛顼之子（，食黍）。

    　　有国名曰赖丘。有犬戎国。有神，人面兽身，名曰犬戎。

    　　西北海外，黑水之北，有人有翼，名曰苗民。颛顼生驩头，驩头生苗民，苗民厘姓，食肉。有山名曰章山。

    　　大荒之中，有衡石山、九阴山、洞野之山，上有赤树，青叶赤华，名曰若木。

    　　有牛黎之国。有人无骨，儋耳之子。

    　　西北海之外，赤水之北，有章尾山。有神，人面蛇身而赤，直目正乘（朕：缝隙），其瞑乃晦，其视乃明，不食不寝不息，风雨是噎（吞咽）。是烛九阴（阴暗之地），是烛龙。

    卷十八 海内经

    　　东海之内，北海之隅，有国名曰朝鲜；天毒，其人水居，偎人爱之。

    　　西海之内，流沙之中，有国名曰壑市。

    　　西海之内，流沙之西，有国名曰泛叶。

    　　流沙之西，有鸟山者，三水出焉。爰有黄金、璇瑰、丹货、银铁，皆流于此中。又有淮山，好水出焉。

    　　流沙之东，黑水之西，有朝云之国、司彘之国。黄帝妻嫘祖，生昌意。昌意降处若水，生韩流。韩流擢首、谨耳、人面、豕喙、麟身、渠股、豚止，取淖子曰阿女，生帝颛顼。

    　　流沙之东，黑水之间，有山名不死之山。

    　　华山青水之东，有山名曰肇山。有人名曰柏高，柏高上下于此，至于天。

    　　西南黑水之间，有都广之野，后稷葬焉。爰有膏菽、膏稻、膏黍、膏稷，百谷自生，冬夏播琴。鸾鸟自歌，凤鸟自儛，灵寿实华，草木所聚。爰有百兽，相群爰处。此草也，冬夏不死。

    　　南海之外，黑水青水之间，有木名曰若木，若水出焉。

    　　有禺中之国。有列襄之国。有灵山，有赤蛇在木上，名曰蠕蛇，木食。

    　　有盐长之国。有人焉鸟首，名曰鸟氏。

    　　有九丘，以水络之：名曰陶唐之丘、有叔得之丘、孟盈之丘、昆吾之丘、黑白之丘、赤望之丘、参卫之丘、武夫之丘、神民之丘。有木，青叶紫茎，玄华黄实，名曰建木，百仞无枝，有九欘，下有九枸，其实如麻，其叶如芒。大皞爰过，黄帝所为。

    　　有窫窳，龙首，是食人。有青兽，人面，名是曰猩猩。

    　　西南有巴国。大皞生咸鸟，咸鸟生乘厘，乘厘生后照，后照是始为巴人。

    　　有国名曰流黄辛氏，其域中方三百里，其出是尘土。有巴遂山，渑水出焉。

    　　又有朱卷之国。有黑蛇，青首，食象。

    　　南方有赣巨人，人面长臂，黑身有毛，反踵，见人笑亦笑，唇蔽其面，因即逃也。

    　　又有黑人，虎首鸟足，两手持蛇，方啖之。

    　　有嬴民，鸟足，有封豕。

    　　有人曰苗民。有神焉，人首蛇身，长如辕，左右有首，衣紫衣，冠旃冠，名曰延维，人主得而飨食之，伯天下。

    　　有鸾鸟自歌，凤鸟自舞。凤鸟首文曰德，翼文曰顺，膺文曰仁，背文曰义，见则天下和。

    　　又有青兽如菟名曰菌狗有桂山。有翠鸟。有孔鸟。

    　　南海之内，有衡山，有菌山，有桂山。有山名三天子之都。

    　　南方苍梧之丘，苍梧之渊，其中有九嶷山，舜之所葬，在长沙零陵界中。

    　　北海之内，有蛇山者，蛇水出焉，东入于海。有五采之鸟，飞蔽一乡，名曰翳鸟。又有不距之山，巧倕葬其西。

    　　北海之内，有反缚盗械、带戈常倍之佐，各曰相顾之尸。

    　　伯夷父生西岳，西岳生先龙，先龙是始生氐羌，氐羌乞姓。

    　　北海之内，有山，名曰幽都之山，黑水出焉。其上有玄鸟、玄蛇、玄豹、玄虎、玄狐蓬尾。有大玄之山。有玄丘之民。有大幽之国。有赤胫之民。

    　　有钉灵之国，其民从膝已下有毛，马蹄，善走。

    　　炎帝之孙伯陵，伯陵同吴权之妻阿女缘妇，缘妇孕三年，是生鼓、延、殳。始为侯，鼓、延是始为钟，为乐风。

    　　黄帝生骆明，骆明生白马，白马是为鲧。

    　　帝俊生禺号，禺号生淫梁，淫梁生番禺，是始为舟。番禺生奚仲，奚仲生吉光，吉光是始以木为车。

    　　少皞生般，般是始为弓矢。

    　　帝俊赐羿彤弓素矰，以扶下国，羿是始去恤下地之百艰。

    　　帝俊生晏龙，晏龙是为琴瑟。

    　　帝俊有子八人，是始为歌舞。

    　　帝俊生三身，三身生义均，义均是始为巧倕，是始作下民百巧。后稷是播百谷。稷之孙曰叔均，是始作牛耕。大比赤阴，是始为国。禹、鲧是始布土，均定九州。

    　　炎帝之妻，赤水之子听訞生炎居，炎居生节并，节并生戏器，戏器生祝融。祝融降处于江水，生共工。共工生术器，术器首方颠，是复土穰，以处江水。共工生后土，后土生噎鸣，噎鸣生岁十有二。

    　　洪水滔天。鲧窃帝之息壤以堙洪水，不待帝命。帝令祝融杀鲧于羽郊。鲧复生禹。帝乃命禹卒布土，以定九州。

  • Yuval Noah Harari 《Nexus》

    Contents
    PROLOGUE
    PART I: Human Networks
    CHAPTER 1: What Is Information?
    CHAPTER 2: Stories: Unlimited Connections
    CHAPTER 3: Documents: The Bite of the Paper Tigers
    CHAPTER 4: Errors: The Fantasy of Infallibility
    CHAPTER 5: Decisions: A Brief History of Democracy and Totalitarianism
    PART II: The Inorganic Network
    CHAPTER 6: The New Members: How Computers Are Different from Printing Presses
    CHAPTER 7: Relentless: The Network Is Always On
    CHAPTER 8: Fallible: The Network Is Often Wrong
    PART III: Computer Politics
    CHAPTER 9: Democracies: Can We Still Hold a Conversation?
    CHAPTER 10: Totalitarianism: All Power to the Algorithms?
    CHAPTER 11: The Silicon Curtain: Global Empire or Global Split?
    EPILOGUE

    Prologue

    We have named our species Homo sapiens—the wise human. But it is debatable how well we have lived up to the name.
    Over the last 100,000 years, we Sapiens have certainly accumulated enormous power. Just listing all our discoveries, inventions, and conquests would fill volumes. But power isn’t wisdom, and after 100,000 years of discoveries, inventions, and conquests humanity has pushed itself into an existential crisis. We are on the verge of ecological collapse, caused by the misuse of our own power. We are also busy creating new technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) that have the potential to escape our control and enslave or annihilate us. Yet instead of our species uniting to deal with these existential challenges, international tensions are rising, global cooperation is becoming more difficult, countries are stockpiling doomsday weapons, and a new world war does not seem impossible.
    If we Sapiens are so wise, why are we so self-destructive?
    At a deeper level, although we have accumulated so much information about everything from DNA molecules to distant galaxies, it doesn’t seem that all this information has given us an answer to the big questions of life: Who are we? What should we aspire to? What is a good life, and how should we live it? Despite the stupendous amounts of information at our disposal, we are as susceptible as our ancient ancestors to fantasy and delusion. Nazism and Stalinism are but two recent examples of the mass insanity that occasionally engulfs even modern societies. Nobody disputes that humans today have a lot more information and power than in the Stone Age, but it is far from certain that we understand ourselves and our role in the universe much better.

    Why are we so good at accumulating more information and power, but far less successful at acquiring wisdom? Throughout history many traditions have believed that some fatal flaw in our nature tempts us to pursue powers we don’t know how to handle. The Greek myth of Phaethon told of a boy who discovers that he is the son of Helios, the sun god. Wishing to prove his divine origin, Phaethon demands the privilege of driving the chariot of the sun. Helios warns Phaethon that no human can control the celestial horses that pull the solar chariot. But Phaethon insists, until the sun god relents. After rising proudly in the sky, Phaethon indeed loses control of the chariot. The sun veers off course, scorching all vegetation, killing numerous beings, and threatening to burn the earth itself. Zeus intervenes and strikes Phaethon with a thunderbolt. The conceited human drops from the sky like a falling star, himself on fire. The gods reassert control of the sky and save the world.

    Two thousand years later, when the Industrial Revolution was making its first steps and machines began replacing humans in numerous tasks, Johann Wolfgang von Goethe published a similar cautionary tale titled “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice.” Goethe’s poem (later popularized as a Walt Disney animation starring Mickey Mouse) tells how an old sorcerer leaves a young apprentice in charge of his workshop and gives him some chores to tend to while he is gone, like fetching water from the river. The apprentice decides to make things easier for himself and, using one of the sorcerer’s spells, enchants a broom to fetch the water for him. But the apprentice doesn’t know how to stop the broom, which relentlessly fetches more and more water, threatening to flood the workshop. In panic, the apprentice cuts the enchanted broom in two with an ax, only to see each half become another broom. Now two enchanted brooms are inundating the workshop with water. When the old sorcerer returns, the apprentice pleads for help: “The spirits that I summoned, I now cannot rid myself of again.” The sorcerer immediately breaks the spell and stops the flood. The lesson to the apprentice—and to humanity—is clear: never summon powers you cannot control.

    What do the cautionary fables of the apprentice and of Phaethon tell us in the twenty-first century? We humans have obviously refused to heed their warnings. We have already driven the earth’s climate out of balance and have summoned billions of enchanted brooms, drones, chatbots, and other algorithmic spirits that may escape our control and unleash a flood of unintended consequences.

    What should we do, then? The fables offer no answers, other than to wait for some god or sorcerer to save us. This, of course, is an extremely dangerous message. It encourages people to abdicate responsibility and put their faith in gods and sorcerers instead. Even worse, it fails to appreciate that gods and sorcerers are themselves a human invention—just like chariots, brooms, and algorithms. The tendency to create powerful things with unintended consequences started not with the invention of the steam engine or AI but with the invention of religion. Prophets and theologians have repeatedly summoned powerful spirits that were supposed to bring love and joy but ended up flooding the world with blood.

    The Phaethon myth and Goethe’s poem fail to provide useful advice because they misconstrue the way humans gain power. In both fables, a single human acquires enormous power, but is then corrupted by hubris and greed. The conclusion is that our flawed individual psychology makes us abuse power. What this crude analysis misses is that human power is never the outcome of individual initiative. Power always stems from cooperation between large numbers of humans.

    Accordingly, it isn’t our individual psychology that causes us to abuse power. After all, alongside greed, hubris, and cruelty, humans are also capable of love, compassion, humility, and joy. True, among the worst members of our species, greed and cruelty reign supreme and lead bad actors to abuse power. But why would human societies choose to entrust power to their worst members? Most Germans in 1933, for example, were not psychopaths. So why did they vote for Hitler?

    Our tendency to summon powers we cannot control stems not from individual psychology but from the unique way our species cooperates in large numbers. The main argument of this book is that humankind gains enormous power by building large networks of cooperation, but the way these networks are built predisposes them to use power unwisely. Our problem, then, is a network problem.

    Even more specifically, it is an information problem. Information is the glue that holds networks together. But for tens of thousands of years, Sapiens built and maintained large networks by inventing and spreading fictions, fantasies, and mass delusions—about gods, about enchanted broomsticks, about AI, and about a great many other things. While each individual human is typically interested in knowing the truth about themselves and the world, large networks bind members and create order by relying on fictions and fantasies. That’s how we got, for example, to Nazism and Stalinism. These were exceptionally powerful networks, held together by exceptionally deluded ideas. As George Orwell famously put it, ignorance is strength.

    The fact that the Nazi and Stalinist regimes were founded on cruel fantasies and shameless lies did not make them historically exceptional, nor did it preordain them to collapse. Nazism and Stalinism were two of the strongest networks humans ever created. In late 1941 and early 1942, the Axis powers came within reach of winning World War II. Stalin eventually emerged as the victor of that war,1 and in the 1950s and 1960s he and his heirs also had a reasonable chance of winning the Cold War. By the 1990s liberal democracies had gained the upper hand, but this now seems like a temporary victory. In the twenty-first century, some new totalitarian regime may well succeed where Hitler and Stalin failed, creating an all-powerful network that could prevent future generations from even attempting to expose its lies and fictions. We should not assume that delusional networks are doomed to failure. If we want to prevent their triumph, we will have to do the hard work ourselves.

    THE NAIVE VIEW OF INFORMATION

    It is difficult to appreciate the strength of delusional networks because of a broader misunderstanding about how big information networks—whether delusional or not—operate. This misunderstanding is encapsulated in something I call “the naive view of information.” While fables like the myth of Phaethon and “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” present an overly pessimistic view of individual human psychology, the naive view of information disseminates an overly optimistic view of large-scale human networks.

    The naive view argues that by gathering and processing much more information than individuals can, big networks achieve a better understanding of medicine, physics, economics, and numerous other fields, which makes the network not only powerful but also wise. For example, by gathering information on pathogens, pharmaceutical companies and health-care services can determine the true causes of many diseases, which enables them to develop more effective medicines and to make wiser decisions about their usage. This view posits that in sufficient quantities information leads to truth, and truth in turn leads to both power and wisdom. Ignorance, in contrast, seems to lead nowhere. While delusional or deceitful networks might occasionally arise in moments of historical crisis, in the long term they are bound to lose to more clear-sighted and honest rivals. A health-care service that ignores information about pathogens, or a pharmaceutical giant that deliberately spreads disinformation, will ultimately lose out to competitors that make wiser use of information. The naive view thus implies that delusional networks must be aberrations and that big networks can usually be trusted to handle power wisely.

    The naive view of information

    Of course, the naive view acknowledges that many things can go wrong on the path from information to truth. We might make honest mistakes in gathering and processing the information. Malicious actors motivated by greed or hate might hide important facts or try to deceive us. As a result, information sometimes leads to error rather than truth. For example, partial information, faulty analysis, or a disinformation campaign might lead even experts to misidentify the true cause of a particular disease.

    However, the naive view assumes that the antidote to most problems we encounter in gathering and processing information is gathering and processing even more information. While we are never completely safe from error, in most cases more information means greater accuracy. A single doctor wishing to identify the cause of an epidemic by examining a single patient is less likely to succeed than thousands of doctors gathering data on millions of patients. And if the doctors themselves conspire to hide the truth, making medical information more freely available to the public and to investigative journalists will eventually reveal the scam. According to this view, the bigger the information network, the closer it must be to the truth.

    Naturally, even if we analyze information accurately and discover important truths, this does not guarantee we will use the resulting capabilities wisely. Wisdom is commonly understood to mean “making right decisions,” but what “right” means depends on value judgments that differ between diverse people, cultures, or ideologies. Scientists who discover a new pathogen may develop a vaccine to protect people. But if the scientists—or their political overlords—believe in a racist ideology that advocates that some races are inferior and should be exterminated, the new medical knowledge might be used to develop a biological weapon that kills millions.

    In this case too, the naive view of information holds that additional information offers at least a partial remedy. The naive view thinks that disagreements about values turn out on closer inspection to be the fault of either the lack of information or deliberate disinformation. According to this view, racists are ill-informed people who just don’t know the facts of biology and history. They think that “race” is a valid biological category, and they have been brainwashed by bogus conspiracy theories. The remedy to racism is therefore to provide people with more biological and historical facts. It may take time, but in a free market of information sooner or later truth will prevail.

    The naive view is of course more nuanced and thoughtful than can be explained in a few paragraphs, but its core tenet is that information is an essentially good thing, and the more we have of it, the better. Given enough information and enough time, we are bound to discover the truth about things ranging from viral infections to racist biases, thereby developing not only our power but also the wisdom necessary to use that power well.

    This naive view justifies the pursuit of ever more powerful information technologies and has been the semiofficial ideology of the computer age and the internet. In June 1989, a few months before the fall of the Berlin Wall and of the Iron Curtain, Ronald Reagan declared that “the Goliath of totalitarian control will rapidly be brought down by the David of the microchip” and that “the biggest of Big Brothers is increasingly helpless against communications technology.… Information is the oxygen of the modern age.… It seeps through the walls topped with barbed wire. It wafts across the electrified, booby-trapped borders. Breezes of electronic beams blow through the Iron Curtain as if it was lace.”2 In November 2009, Barack Obama spoke in the same spirit on a visit to Shanghai, telling his Chinese hosts, “I am a big believer in technology and I’m a big believer in openness when it comes to the flow of information. I think that the more freely information flows, the stronger the society becomes.”3

    Entrepreneurs and corporations have often expressed similarly rosy views of information technology. Already in 1858 an editorial in The New Englander about the invention of the telegraph stated, “It is impossible that old prejudices and hostilities should longer exist, while such an instrument has been created for an exchange of thought between all the nations of the earth.”4 Nearly two centuries and two world wars later, Mark Zuckerberg said that Facebook’s goal “is to help people to share more in order to make the world more open and to help promote understanding between people.”5

    In his 2024 book, The Singularity Is Nearer, the eminent futurologist and entrepreneur Ray Kurzweil surveys the history of information technology and concludes that “the reality is that nearly every aspect of life is getting progressively better as a result of exponentially improving technology.” Looking back at the grand sweep of human history, he cites examples like the invention of the printing press to argue that by its very nature information technology tends to spawn “a virtuous circle advancing nearly every aspect of human well-being, including literacy, education, wealth, sanitation, health, democratization and reduction in violence.”6

    The naive view of information is perhaps most succinctly captured in Google’s mission statement “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful.” Google’s answer to Goethe’s warnings is that while a single apprentice pilfering his master’s secret spell book is likely to cause disaster, when a lot of apprentices are given free access to all the world’s information, they will not only create useful enchanted brooms but also learn to handle them wisely.

    GOOGLE VERSUS GOETHE

    It must be stressed that there are numerous cases when having more information has indeed enabled humans to understand the world better and to make wiser use of their power. Consider, for example, the dramatic reduction in child mortality. Johann Wolfgang von Goethe was the eldest of seven siblings, but only he and his sister Cornelia got to celebrate their seventh birthday. Disease carried off their brother Hermann Jacob at age six, their sister Catharina Elisabeth at age four, their sister Johanna Maria at age two, their brother Georg Adolf at age eight months, and a fifth, unnamed brother was stillborn. Cornelia then died from disease aged twenty-six, leaving Johann Wolfgang as the sole survivor from their family.7

    Johann Wolfgang von Goethe went on to have five children of his own, of whom all but the eldest son—August—died within two weeks of their birth. In all probability the cause was incompatibility between the blood groups of Goethe and his wife, Christiane, which after the first successful pregnancy led the mother to develop antibodies to the fetal blood. This condition, known as rhesus disease, is nowadays treated so effectively that the mortality rate is less than 2 percent, but in the 1790s it had an average mortality rate of 50 percent, and for Goethe’s four younger children it was a death sentence.8

    Altogether in the Goethe family—a well-to-do German family in the late eighteenth century—the child survival rate was an abysmal 25 percent. Only three out of twelve children reached adulthood. This horrendous statistic was not exceptional. Around the time Goethe wrote “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice” in 1797, it is estimated that only about 50 percent of German children reached age fifteen,9 and the same was probably true in most other parts of the world.10 By 2020, 95.6 percent of children worldwide lived beyond their fifteenth birthday,11 and in Germany that figure was 99.5 percent.12 This momentous achievement would not have been possible without collecting, analyzing, and sharing massive amounts of medical data about things like blood groups. In this case, then, the naive view of information proved to be correct.

    However, the naive view of information sees only part of the picture, and the history of the modern age was not just about reducing child mortality. In recent generations humanity has experienced the greatest increase ever in both the amount and the speed of our information production. Every smartphone contains more information than the ancient Library of Alexandria13 and enables its owner to instantaneously connect to billions of other people throughout the world. Yet with all this information circulating at breathtaking speeds, humanity is closer than ever to annihilating itself.

    Despite—or perhaps because of—our hoard of data, we are continuing to spew greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, pollute rivers and oceans, cut down forests, destroy entire habitats, drive countless species to extinction, and jeopardize the ecological foundations of our own species. We are also producing ever more powerful weapons of mass destruction, from thermonuclear bombs to doomsday viruses. Our leaders don’t lack information about these dangers, yet instead of collaborating to find solutions, they are edging closer to a global war.

    Would having even more information make things better—or worse? We will soon find out. Numerous corporations and governments are in a race to develop the most powerful information technology in history—AI. Some leading entrepreneurs, like the American investor Marc Andreessen, believe that AI will finally solve all of humanity’s problems. On June 6, 2023, Andreessen published an essay titled “Why AI Will Save the World,” peppered with bold statements like “I am here to bring the good news: AI will not destroy the world, and in fact may save it” and “AI can make everything we care about better.” He concluded, “The development and proliferation of AI—far from a risk that we should fear—is a moral obligation that we have to ourselves, to our children, and to our future.”14

    Ray Kurzweil concurs, arguing in The Singularity Is Nearer that “AI is the pivotal technology that will allow us to meet the pressing challenges that confront us, including overcoming disease, poverty, environmental degradation, and all of our human frailties. We have a moral imperative to realize this promise of new technologies.” Kurzweil is keenly aware of the technology’s potential perils, and analyzes them at length, but believes they could be mitigated successfully.15

    Others are more skeptical. Not only philosophers and social scientists but also many leading AI experts and entrepreneurs like Yoshua Bengio, Geoffrey Hinton, Sam Altman, Elon Musk, and Mustafa Suleyman have warned the public that AI could destroy our civilization.16 A 2024 article co-authored by Bengio, Hinton, and numerous other experts noted that “unchecked AI advancement could culminate in a large-scale loss of life and the biosphere, and the marginalization or even extinction of humanity.”17 In a 2023 survey of 2,778 AI researchers, more than a third gave at least a 10 percent chance to advanced AI leading to outcomes as bad as human extinction.18 In 2023 close to thirty governments—including those of China, the United States, and the U.K.—signed the Bletchley Declaration on AI, which acknowledged that “there is potential for serious, even catastrophic, harm, either deliberate or unintentional, stemming from the most significant capabilities of these AI models.”19 By using such apocalyptic terms, experts and governments have no wish to conjure a Hollywood image of killer robots running in the streets and shooting people. Such a scenario is unlikely, and it merely distracts people from the real dangers. Rather, experts warn about two other scenarios.

    First, the power of AI could supercharge existing human conflicts, dividing humanity against itself. Just as in the twentieth century the Iron Curtain divided the rival powers in the Cold War, so in the twenty-first century the Silicon Curtain—made of silicon chips and computer codes rather than barbed wire—might come to divide rival powers in a new global conflict. Because the AI arms race will produce ever more destructive weapons, even a small spark might ignite a cataclysmic conflagration.

    Second, the Silicon Curtain might come to divide not one group of humans from another but rather all humans from our new AI overlords. No matter where we live, we might find ourselves cocooned by a web of unfathomable algorithms that manage our lives, reshape our politics and culture, and even reengineer our bodies and minds—while we can no longer comprehend the forces that control us, let alone stop them. If a twenty-first-century totalitarian network succeeds in conquering the world, it may be run by nonhuman intelligence, rather than by a human dictator. People who single out China, Russia, or a post-democratic United States as their main source for totalitarian nightmares misunderstand the danger. In fact, Chinese, Russians, Americans, and all other humans are together threatened by the totalitarian potential of nonhuman intelligence.

    Given the magnitude of the danger, AI should be of interest to all human beings. While not everyone can become an AI expert, we should all keep in mind that AI is the first technology in history that can make decisions and create new ideas by itself. All previous human inventions have empowered humans, because no matter how powerful the new tool was, the decisions about its usage always remained in our hands. Knives and bombs do not themselves decide whom to kill. They are dumb tools, lacking the intelligence necessary to process information and make independent decisions. In contrast, AI has the required intelligence to process information by itself, and therefore replace humans in decision making.

    Its mastery of information also enables AI to independently generate new ideas, in fields ranging from music to medicine. Gramophones played our music, and microscopes revealed the secrets of our cells, but gramophones couldn’t compose new symphonies, and microscopes couldn’t synthesize new drugs. AI is already capable of producing art and making scientific discoveries by itself. In the next few decades, it will likely gain the ability even to create new life-forms, either by writing genetic code or by inventing an inorganic code animating inorganic entities.

    Even at the present moment, in the embryonic stage of the AI revolution, computers already make decisions about us—whether to give us a mortgage, to hire us for a job, to send us to prison. This trend will only increase and accelerate, making it more difficult to understand our own lives. Can we trust computer algorithms to make wise decisions and create a better world? That’s a much bigger gamble than trusting an enchanted broom to fetch water. And it is more than just human lives we are gambling on. AI could alter the course not just of our species’ history but of the evolution of all life-forms.

    WEAPONIZING INFORMATION

    In 2016, I published Homo Deus, a book that highlighted some of the dangers posed to humanity by the new information technologies. That book argued that the real hero of history has always been information, rather than Homo sapiens, and that scientists increasingly understand not just history but also biology, politics, and economics in terms of information flows. Animals, states, and markets are all information networks, absorbing data from the environment, making decisions, and releasing data back. The book warned that while we hope better information technology will give us health, happiness, and power, it may actually take power away from us and destroy both our physical and our mental health. Homo Deus hypothesized that if humans aren’t careful, we might dissolve within the torrent of information like a clump of earth within a gushing river, and that in the grand scheme of things humanity will turn out to have been just a ripple within the cosmic dataflow.

    In the years since Homo Deus was published, the pace of change has only accelerated, and power has indeed been shifting from humans to algorithms. Many of the scenarios that sounded like science fiction in 2016—such as algorithms that can create art, masquerade as human beings, make crucial life decisions about us, and know more about us than we know about ourselves—are everyday realities in 2024.

    Many other things have changed since 2016. The ecological crisis has intensified, international tensions have escalated, and a populist wave has undermined the cohesion of even the most robust democracies. Populism has also mounted a radical challenge to the naive view of information. Populist leaders such as Donald Trump and Jair Bolsonaro, and populist movements and conspiracy theories such as QAnon and the anti-vaxxers, have argued that all traditional institutions that gain authority by claiming to gather information and discover truth are simply lying. Bureaucrats, judges, doctors, mainstream journalists, and academic experts are elite cabals that have no interest in the truth and are deliberately spreading disinformation to gain power and privileges for themselves at the expense of “the people.” The rise of politicians like Trump and movements like QAnon has a specific political context, unique to the conditions of the United States in the late 2010s. But populism as an antiestablishment worldview long predated Trump and is relevant to numerous other historical contexts now and in the future. In a nutshell, populism views information as a weapon.20

    The populist view of information

    In its more extreme versions, populism posits that there is no objective truth at all and that everyone has “their own truth,” which they wield to vanquish rivals. According to this worldview, power is the only reality. All social interactions are power struggles, because humans are interested only in power. The claim to be interested in something else—like truth or justice—is nothing more than a ploy to gain power. Whenever and wherever populism succeeds in disseminating the view of information as a weapon, language itself is undermined. Nouns like “facts” and adjectives like “accurate” and “truthful” become elusive. Such words are not taken as pointing to a common objective reality. Rather, any talk of “facts” or “truth” is bound to prompt at least some people to ask, “Whose facts and whose truth are you referring to?”

    It should be stressed that this power-focused and deeply skeptical view of information isn’t a new phenomenon and it wasn’t invented by anti-vaxxers, flat-earthers, Bolsonaristas, or Trump supporters. Similar views have been propagated long before 2016, including by some of humanity’s brightest minds.21 In the late twentieth century, for example, intellectuals from the radical left like Michel Foucault and Edward Said claimed that scientific institutions like clinics and universities are not pursuing timeless and objective truths but are instead using power to determine what counts as truth, in the service of capitalist and colonialist elites. These radical critiques occasionally went as far as arguing that “scientific facts” are nothing more than a capitalist or colonialist “discourse” and that people in power can never be really interested in truth and can never be trusted to recognize and correct their own mistakes.22

    This particular line of radical leftist thinking goes back to Karl Marx, who argued in the mid-nineteenth century that power is the only reality, that information is a weapon, and that elites who claim to be serving truth and justice are in fact pursuing narrow class privileges. In the words of the 1848 Communist Manifesto, “The history of all hitherto existing societies is the history of class struggles. Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guildmaster and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open, fight.” This binary interpretation of history implies that every human interaction is a power struggle between oppressors and oppressed. Accordingly, whenever anyone says anything, the question to ask isn’t, “What is being said? Is it true?” but rather, “Who is saying this? Whose privileges does it serve?”

    Of course, right-wing populists such as Trump and Bolsonaro are unlikely to have read Foucault or Marx, and indeed present themselves as fiercely anti-Marxist. They also greatly differ from Marxists in their suggested policies in fields like taxation and welfare. But their basic view of society and of information is surprisingly Marxist, seeing all human interactions as a power struggle between oppressors and oppressed. For example, in his inaugural address in 2017 Trump announced that “a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.”23 Such rhetoric is a staple of populism, which the political scientist Cas Mudde has described as an “ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups, ‘the pure people’ versus ‘the corrupt elite.’ ”24 Just as Marxists claimed that the media functions as a mouthpiece for the capitalist class, and that scientific institutions like universities spread disinformation in order to perpetuate capitalist control, populists accuse these same institutions of working to advance the interests of the “corrupt elites” at the expense of “the people.”

    Present-day populists also suffer from the same incoherency that plagued radical antiestablishment movements in previous generations. If power is the only reality, and if information is just a weapon, what does it imply about the populists themselves? Are they too interested only in power, and are they too lying to us to gain power?

    Populists have sought to extricate themselves from this conundrum in two different ways. Some populist movements claim adherence to the ideals of modern science and to the traditions of skeptical empiricism. They tell people that indeed you should never trust any institutions or figures of authority—including self-proclaimed populist parties and politicians. Instead, you should “do your own research” and trust only what you can directly observe by yourself.25 This radical empiricist position implies that while large-scale institutions like political parties, courts, newspapers, and universities can never be trusted, individuals who make the effort can still find the truth by themselves.

    This approach may sound scientific and may appeal to free-spirited individuals, but it leaves open the question of how human communities can cooperate to build health-care systems or pass environmental regulations, which demand large-scale institutional organization. Is a single individual capable of doing all the necessary research to decide whether the earth’s climate is heating up and what should be done about it? How would a single person go about collecting climate data from throughout the world, not to mention obtaining reliable records from past centuries? Trusting only “my own research” may sound scientific, but in practice it amounts to believing that there is no objective truth. As we shall see in chapter 4, science is a collaborative institutional effort rather than a personal quest.

    An alternative populist solution is to abandon the modern scientific ideal of finding the truth via “research” and instead go back to relying on divine revelation or mysticism. Traditional religions like Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism have typically characterized humans as untrustworthy power-hungry creatures who can access the truth only thanks to the intervention of a divine intelligence. In the 2010s and early 2020s populist parties from Brazil to Turkey and from the United States to India have aligned themselves with such traditional religions. They have expressed radical doubt about modern institutions while declaring complete faith in ancient scriptures. The populists claim that the articles you read in The New York Times or in Science are just an elitist ploy to gain power, but what you read in the Bible, the Quran, or the Vedas is absolute truth.26

    A variation on this theme calls on people to put their trust in charismatic leaders like Trump and Bolsonaro, who are depicted by their supporters either as the messengers of God27 or as possessing a mystical bond with “the people.” While ordinary politicians lie to the people in order to gain power for themselves, the charismatic leader is the infallible mouthpiece of the people who exposes all the lies.28 One of the recurrent paradoxes of populism is that it starts by warning us that all human elites are driven by a dangerous hunger for power, but often ends by entrusting all power to a single ambitious human.

    We will explore populism at greater depth in chapter 5, but at this point it is important to note that populists are eroding trust in large-scale institutions and international cooperation just when humanity confronts the existential challenges of ecological collapse, global war, and out-of-control technology. Instead of trusting complex human institutions, populists give us the same advice as the Phaethon myth and “The Sorcerer’s Apprentice”: “Trust God or the great sorcerer to intervene and make everything right again.” If we take this advice, we’ll likely find ourselves in the short term under the thumb of the worst kind of power-hungry humans, and in the long term under the thumb of new AI overlords. Or we might find ourselves nowhere at all, as Earth becomes inhospitable for human life.

    If we wish to avoid relinquishing power to a charismatic leader or an inscrutable AI, we must first gain a better understanding of what information is, how it helps to build human networks, and how it relates to truth and power. Populists are right to be suspicious of the naive view of information, but they are wrong to think that power is the only reality and that information is always a weapon. Information isn’t the raw material of truth, but it isn’t a mere weapon, either. There is enough space between these extremes for a more nuanced and hopeful view of human information networks and of our ability to handle power wisely. This book is dedicated to exploring that middle ground.

    THE ROAD AHEAD

    The first part of this book surveys the historical development of human information networks. It doesn’t attempt to present a comprehensive century-by-century account of information technologies like script, printing presses, and radio. Instead, by studying a few examples, it explores key dilemmas that people in all eras faced when trying to construct information networks, and it examines how different answers to these dilemmas shaped contrasting human societies. What we usually think of as ideological and political conflicts often turn out to be clashes between opposing types of information networks.

    Part 1 begins by examining two principles that have been essential for large-scale human information networks: mythology and bureaucracy. Chapters 2 and 3 describe how large-scale information networks—from ancient kingdoms to present-day states—have relied on both mythmakers and bureaucrats. The stories of the Bible, for example, were essential for the Christian Church, but there would have been no Bible if church bureaucrats hadn’t curated, edited, and disseminated these stories. A difficult dilemma for every human network is that mythmakers and bureaucrats tend to pull in different directions. Institutions and societies are often defined by the balance they manage to find between the conflicting needs of their mythmakers and their bureaucrats. The Christian Church itself split into rival churches, like the Catholic and Protestant churches, which struck different balances between mythology and bureaucracy.

    Chapter 4 then focuses on the problem of erroneous information and on the benefits and drawbacks of maintaining self-correcting mechanisms, such as independent courts or peer-reviewed journals. The chapter contrasts institutions that relied on weak self-correcting mechanisms, like the Catholic Church, with institutions that developed strong self-correcting mechanisms, like scientific disciplines. Weak self-correcting mechanisms sometimes result in historical calamities like the early modern European witch hunts, while strong self-correcting mechanisms sometimes destabilize the network from within. Judged in terms of longevity, spread, and power, the Catholic Church has been perhaps the most successful institution in human history, despite—or perhaps because of—the relative weakness of its self-correcting mechanisms.

    After part 1 surveys the roles of mythology and bureaucracy, and the contrast between strong and weak self-correcting mechanisms, chapter 5 concludes the historical discussion by focusing on another contrast—between distributed and centralized information networks. Democratic systems allow information to flow freely along many independent channels, whereas totalitarian systems strive to concentrate information in one hub. Each choice has both advantages and shortcomings. Understanding political systems like the United States and the U.S.S.R. in terms of information flows can explain much about their differing trajectories.

    This historical part of the book is crucial for understanding present-day developments and future scenarios. The rise of AI is arguably the biggest information revolution in history. But we cannot understand it unless we compare it with its predecessors. History isn’t the study of the past; it is the study of change. History teaches us what remains the same, what changes, and how things change. This is as relevant to information revolutions as to every other kind of historical transformation. Thus, understanding the process through which the allegedly infallible Bible was canonized provides valuable insight about present-day claims for AI infallibility. Similarly, studying the early modern witch hunts and Stalin’s collectivization offers stark warnings about what might go wrong as we give AIs greater control over twenty-first-century societies. A deep knowledge of history is also vital to understand what is new about AI, how it is fundamentally different from printing presses and radio sets, and in what specific ways future AI dictatorship could be very unlike anything we have seen before.

    The book doesn’t argue that studying the past enables us to predict the future. As emphasized repeatedly in the following pages, history is not deterministic, and the future will be shaped by the choices we all make in coming years. The whole point of writing this book is that by making informed choices, we can prevent the worst outcomes. If we cannot change the future, why waste time discussing it?

    Building upon the historical survey in part 1, the book’s second part—“The Inorganic Network”—examines the new information network we are creating today, focusing on the political implications of the rise of AI. Chapters 6–8 discuss recent examples from throughout the world—such as the role of social media algorithms in instigating ethnic violence in Myanmar in 2016–17—to explain in what ways AI is different from all previous information technologies. Examples are taken mostly from the 2010s rather than the 2020s, because we have gained a modicum of historical perspective on events of the 2010s.

    Part 2 argues that we are creating an entirely new kind of information network, without pausing to reckon with its implications. It emphasizes the shift from organic to inorganic information networks. The Roman Empire, the Catholic Church, and the U.S.S.R. all relied on carbon-based brains to process information and make decisions. The silicon-based computers that dominate the new information network function in radically different ways. For better or worse, silicon chips are free from many of the limitations that organic biochemistry imposes on carbon neurons. Silicon chips can create spies that never sleep, financiers that never forget, and despots that never die. How will this change society, economics, and politics?

    The third and final part of the book—“Computer Politics”—examines how different kinds of societies might deal with the threats and promises of the inorganic information network. Will carbon-based life-forms like us have a chance of understanding and controlling the new information network? As noted above, history isn’t deterministic, and for at least a few more years we Sapiens still have the power to shape our future.

    Accordingly, chapter 9 explores how democracies might deal with the inorganic network. How, for example, can flesh-and-blood politicians make financial decisions if the financial system is increasingly controlled by AI and the very meaning of money comes to depend on inscrutable algorithms? How can democracies maintain a public conversation about anything—be it finance or gender—if we can no longer know whether we are talking with another human or with a chatbot masquerading as a human?

    Chapter 10 explores the potential impact of the inorganic network on totalitarianism. While dictators would be happy to get rid of all public conversations, they have their own fears of AI. Autocracies are based on terrorizing and censoring their own agents. But how can a human dictator terrorize an AI, censor its unfathomable processes, or prevent it from seizing power to itself?

    Finally, chapter 11 explores how the new information network could influence the balance of power between democratic and totalitarian societies on the global level. Will AI tilt the balance decisively in favor of one camp? Will the world split into hostile blocs whose rivalry makes all of us easy prey for an out-of-control AI? Or can we unite in defense of our common interests?

    But before we explore the past, present, and possible futures of information networks, we need to start with a deceptively simple question. What exactly is information?

    PART I  Human Networks

    CHAPTER 1 What Is Information?

    It is always tricky to define fundamental concepts. Since they are the basis for everything that follows, they themselves seem to lack any basis of their own. Physicists have a hard time defining matter and energy, biologists have a hard time defining life, and philosophers have a hard time defining reality.

    Information is increasingly seen by many philosophers and biologists, and even by some physicists, as the most basic building block of reality, more elementary than matter and energy.1 No wonder that there are many disputes about how to define information, and how it is related to the evolution of life or to basic ideas in physics such as entropy, the laws of thermodynamics, and the quantum uncertainty principle.2 This book will make no attempt to resolve—or even explain—these disputes, nor will it offer a universal definition of information applicable to physics, biology, and all other fields of knowledge. Since it is a work of history, which studies the past and future development of human societies, it will focus on the definition and role of information in history.

    In everyday usage, information is associated with human-made symbols like spoken or written words. Consider, for example, the story of Cher Ami and the Lost Battalion. In October 1918, when the American Expeditionary Forces was fighting to liberate northern France from the Germans, a battalion of more than five hundred American soldiers was trapped behind enemy lines. American artillery, which was trying to provide them with cover fire, misidentified their location and dropped the barrage directly on them. The battalion’s commander, Major Charles Whittlesey, urgently needed to inform headquarters of his true location, but no runner could break through the German line. According to several accounts, as a last resort Whittlesey turned to Cher Ami, an army carrier pigeon. On a tiny piece of paper, Whittlesey wrote, “We are along the road paralell [sic] 276.4. Our artillery is dropping a barrage directly on us. For heaven’s sake stop it.” The paper was inserted into a canister on Cher Ami’s right leg, and the bird was released into the air. One of the battalion’s soldiers, Private John Nell, recalled years later, “We knew without a doubt this was our last chance. If that one lonely, scared pigeon failed to find its loft, our fate was sealed.”

    Witnesses later described how Cher Ami flew into heavy German fire. A shell exploded directly below the bird, killing five men and severely injuring the pigeon. A splinter tore through Cher Ami’s chest, and his right leg was left hanging by a tendon. But he got through. The wounded pigeon flew the forty kilometers to division headquarters in about forty-five minutes, with the canister containing the crucial message attached to the remnant of his right leg. Though there is some controversy about the exact details, it is clear that the American artillery adjusted its barrage, and an American counterattack rescued the Lost Battalion. Cher Ami was tended by army medics, sent to the United States as a hero, and became the subject of numerous articles, short stories, children’s books, poems, and even movies. The pigeon had no idea what information he was conveying, but the symbols inked on the piece of paper he carried helped save hundreds of men from death and captivity.3

    Information, however, does not have to consist of human-made symbols. According to the biblical myth of the Flood, Noah learned that the water had finally receded because the pigeon he sent out from the ark returned with an olive branch in her mouth. Then God set a rainbow in the clouds as a heavenly record of his promise never to flood the earth again. Pigeons, olive branches, and rainbows have since become iconic symbols of peace and tolerance. Objects that are even more remote than rainbows can also be information. For astronomers the shape and movement of galaxies constitute crucial information about the history of the universe. For navigators the North Star indicates which way is north. For astrologers the stars are a cosmic script, conveying information about the future of individual humans and entire societies.

    Of course, defining something as “information” is a matter of perspective. An astronomer or astrologer might view the Libra constellation as “information,” but these distant stars are far more than just a notice board for human observers. There might be an alien civilization up there, totally oblivious to the information we glean from their home and to the stories we tell about it. Similarly, a piece of paper marked with ink splotches can be crucial information for an army unit, or dinner for a family of termites. Any object can be information—or not. This makes it difficult to define what information is.

    The ambivalence of information has played an important role in the annals of military espionage, when spies needed to communicate information surreptitiously. During World War I, northern France was not the only major battleground. From 1915 to 1918 the British and Ottoman Empires fought for control of the Middle East. After repulsing an Ottoman attack on the Sinai Peninsula and the Suez Canal, the British in turn invaded the Ottoman Empire, but were held at bay until October 1917 by a fortified Ottoman line stretching from Beersheba to Gaza. British attempts to break through were repulsed at the First Battle of Gaza (March 26, 1917) and the Second Battle of Gaza (April 17–19, 1917). Meanwhile, pro-British Jews living in Palestine set up a spy network code-named NILI to inform the British about Ottoman troop movements. One method they developed to communicate with their British operators involved window shutters. Sarah Aaronsohn, a NILI commander, had a house overlooking the Mediterranean. She signaled British ships by closing or opening a particular shutter, according to a predetermined code. Numerous people, including Ottoman soldiers, could obviously see the shutter, but nobody other than NILI agents and their British operators understood it was vital military information.4 So, when is a shutter just a shutter, and when is it information?

    The Ottomans eventually caught the NILI spy ring due in part to a strange mishap. In addition to shutters, NILI used carrier pigeons to convey coded messages. On September 3, 1917, one of the pigeons diverted off course and landed in—of all places—the house of an Ottoman officer. The officer found the coded message but couldn’t decipher it. Nevertheless, the pigeon itself was crucial information. Its existence indicated to the Ottomans that a spy ring was operating under their noses. As Marshall McLuhan might have put it, the pigeon was the message. NILI agents learned about the capture of the pigeon and immediately killed and buried all the remaining birds they had, because the mere possession of carrier pigeons was now incriminating information. But the massacre of the pigeons did not save NILI. Within a month the spy network was uncovered, several of its members were executed, and Sarah Aaronsohn committed suicide to avoid divulging NILI’s secrets under torture.5 When is a pigeon just a pigeon, and when is it information?

    Clearly, then, information cannot be defined as specific types of material objects. Any object—a star, a shutter, a pigeon—can be information in the right context. So exactly what context defines such objects as “information”? The naive view of information argues that objects are defined as information in the context of truth seeking. Something is information if people use it to try to discover the truth. This view links the concept of information with the concept of truth and assumes that the main role of information is to represent reality. There is a reality “out there,” and information is something that represents that reality and that we can therefore use to learn about reality. For example, the information NILI provided the British was meant to represent the reality of Ottoman troop movements. If the Ottomans massed ten thousand soldiers in Gaza—the centerpiece of their defenses—a piece of paper with symbols representing “ten thousand” and “Gaza” was important information that could help the British win the battle. If, on the other hand, there were actually twenty thousand Ottoman troops in Gaza, that piece of paper did not represent reality accurately, and could lead the British to make a disastrous military mistake.

    Put another way, the naive view argues that information is an attempt to represent reality, and when this attempt succeeds, we call it truth. While this book takes many issues with the naive view, it agrees that truth is an accurate representation of reality. But this book also holds that most information is not an attempt to represent reality and that what defines information is something entirely different. Most information in human society, and indeed in other biological and physical systems, does not represent anything.

    I want to spend a little longer on this complex and crucial argument, because it constitutes the theoretical basis of the book.

    WHAT IS TRUTH?

    Throughout this book, “truth” is understood as something that accurately represents certain aspects of reality. Underlying the notion of truth is the premise that there exists one universal reality. Anything that has ever existed or will ever exist in the universe—from the North Star, to the NILI pigeon, to web pages on astrology—is part of this single reality. This is why the search for truth is a universal project. While different people, nations, or cultures may have competing beliefs and feelings, they cannot possess contradictory truths, because they all share a universal reality. Anyone who rejects universalism rejects truth.

    Truth and reality are nevertheless different things, because no matter how truthful an account is, it can never represent reality in all its aspects. If a NILI agent wrote that there are ten thousand Ottoman soldiers in Gaza, and there were indeed ten thousand soldiers there, this accurately pointed to a certain aspect of reality, but it neglected many other aspects. The very act of counting entities—whether apples, oranges, or soldiers—necessarily focuses attention on the similarities between these entities while discounting differences.6 For example, saying only that there were ten thousand Ottoman soldiers in Gaza neglected to specify whether some were experienced veterans and others were green recruits. If there were a thousand recruits and nine thousand old hands, the military reality was quite different from if there were nine thousand rookies and a thousand battle-hardened veterans.

    There were many other differences between the soldiers. Some were healthy; others were sick. Some Ottoman troops were ethnically Turkish, while others were Arabs, Kurds, or Jews. Some were brave, others cowardly. Indeed, each soldier was a unique human being, with different parents and friends and individual fears and hopes. World War I poets like Wilfred Owen famously attempted to represent these latter aspects of military reality, which mere statistics never conveyed accurately. Does this imply that writing “ten thousand soldiers” is always a misrepresentation of reality, and that to describe the military situation around Gaza in 1917, we must specify the unique history and personality of every soldier?

    Another problem with any attempt to represent reality is that reality contains many viewpoints. For example, present-day Israelis, Palestinians, Turks, and Britons have different perspectives on the British invasion of the Ottoman Empire, the NILI underground, and the activities of Sarah Aaronsohn. That does not mean, of course, that there are several entirely separate realities, or that there are no historical facts. There is just one reality, but it is complex.

    Reality includes an objective level with objective facts that don’t depend on people’s beliefs; for example, it is an objective fact that Sarah Aaronsohn died on October 9, 1917, from self-inflicted gunshot wounds. Saying that “Sarah Aaronsohn died in an airplane crash on May 15, 1919,” is an error.

    Reality also includes a subjective level with subjective facts like the beliefs and feelings of various people, but in this case too facts can be separated from errors. For example, it is a fact that Israelis tend to regard Aaronsohn as a patriotic hero. Three weeks after her suicide, the information NILI supplied helped the British finally break the Ottoman line at the Battle of Beersheba (October 31, 1917) and the Third Battle of Gaza (November 1–2, 1917). On November 2, 1917, the British foreign secretary, Arthur Balfour, issued the Balfour Declaration, announcing that the British government “view with favor the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people.” Israelis credit this in part to NILI and Sarah Aaronsohn, whom they admire for her sacrifice. It is another fact that Palestinians evaluate things very differently. Rather than admiring Aaronsohn, they regard her—if they’ve heard about her at all—as an imperialist agent. Even though we are dealing here with subjective views and feelings, we can still distinguish truth from falsehood. For views and feelings—just like stars and pigeons—are a part of the universal reality. Saying that “Sarah Aaronsohn is admired by everyone for her role in defeating the Ottoman Empire” is an error, not in line with reality.

    Nationality is not the only thing that affects people’s viewpoint. Israeli men and Israeli women may see Aaronsohn differently, and so do left-wingers and right-wingers, or Orthodox and secular Jews. Since suicide is forbidden by Jewish religious law, Orthodox Jews have difficulty seeing Aaronsohn’s suicide as a heroic act (she was actually denied burial in the hallowed ground of a Jewish cemetery). Ultimately, each individual has a different perspective on the world, shaped by the intersection of different personalities and life histories. Does this imply that when we wish to describe reality, we must always list all the different viewpoints it contains and that a truthful biography of Sarah Aaronsohn, for example, must specify how every single Israeli and Palestinian has felt about her?

    Taken to extremes, such a pursuit of accuracy may lead us to try to represent the world on a one-to-one scale, as in the famous Jorge Luis Borges story “On Exactitude in Science” (1946). In this story Borges tells of a fictitious ancient empire that became obsessed with producing ever more accurate maps of its territory, until eventually it produced a map with a one-to-one scale. The entire empire was covered with a map of the empire. So many resources were wasted on this ambitious representational project that the empire collapsed. Then the map too began to disintegrate, and Borges tells us that only “in the western Deserts, tattered fragments of the map are still to be found, sheltering an occasional beast or beggar.”7 A one-to-one map may look like the ultimate representation of reality, but tellingly it is no longer a representation at all; it is the reality.

    The point is that even the most truthful accounts of reality can never represent it in full. There are always some aspects of reality that are neglected or distorted in every representation. Truth, then, isn’t a one-to-one representation of reality. Rather, truth is something that brings our attention to certain aspects of reality while inevitably ignoring other aspects. No account of reality is 100 percent accurate, but some accounts are nevertheless more truthful than others.

    WHAT INFORMATION DOES

    As noted above, the naive view sees information as an attempt to represent reality. It is aware that some information doesn’t represent reality well, but it dismisses this as unfortunate cases of “misinformation” or “disinformation.” Misinformation is an honest mistake, occurring when someone tries to represent reality but gets it wrong. Disinformation is a deliberate lie, occurring when someone consciously intends to distort our view of reality.

    The naive view further believes that the solution to the problems caused by misinformation and disinformation is more information. This idea, sometimes called the counterspeech doctrine, is associated with the U.S. Supreme Court justice Louis D. Brandeis, who wrote in Whitney v. California (1927) that the remedy to false speech is more speech and that in the long term free discussion is bound to expose falsehoods and fallacies. If all information is an attempt to represent reality, then as the amount of information in the world grows, we can expect the flood of information to expose the occasional lies and errors and to ultimately provide us with a more truthful understanding of the world.

    On this crucial point, this book strongly disagrees with the naive view. There certainly are instances of information that attempt to represent reality and succeed in doing so, but this is not the defining characteristic of information. A few pages ago I referred to stars as information and casually mentioned astrologers alongside astronomers. Adherents of the naive view of information probably squirmed in their chairs when they read it. According to the naive view, astronomers derive “real information” from the stars, while the information that astrologers imagine to read in constellations is either “misinformation” or “disinformation.” If only people were given more information about the universe, surely they would abandon astrology altogether. But the fact is that for thousands of years astrology has had a huge impact on history, and today millions of people still check their star signs before making the most important decisions of their lives, like what to study and whom to marry. As of 2021, the global astrology market was valued at $12.8 billion.8

    No matter what we think about the accuracy of astrological information, we should acknowledge its important role in history. It has connected lovers, and even entire empires. Roman emperors routinely consulted astrologers before making decisions. Indeed, astrology was held in such high esteem that casting the horoscope of a reigning emperor was a capital offense. Presumably, anyone casting such a horoscope could foretell when and how the emperor would die.9 Rulers in some countries still take astrology very seriously. In 2005 the junta of Myanmar allegedly moved the country’s capital from Yangon to Naypyidaw based on astrological advice.10 A theory of information that cannot account for the historical significance of astrology is clearly inadequate.

    What the example of astrology illustrates is that errors, lies, fantasies, and fictions are information, too. Contrary to what the naive view of information says, information has no essential link to truth, and its role in history isn’t to represent a preexisting reality. Rather, what information does is to create new realities by tying together disparate things—whether couples or empires. Its defining feature is connection rather than representation, and information is whatever connects different points into a network. Information doesn’t necessarily inform us about things. Rather, it puts things in formation. Horoscopes put lovers in astrological formations, propaganda broadcasts put voters in political formations, and marching songs put soldiers in military formations.

    As a paradigmatic case, consider music. Most symphonies, melodies, and tunes don’t represent anything, which is why it makes no sense to ask whether they are true or false. Over the years people have created a lot of bad music, but not fake music. Without representing anything, music nevertheless does a remarkable job in connecting large numbers of people and synchronizing their emotions and movements. Music can make soldiers march in formation, clubbers sway together, church congregations clap in rhythm, and sports fans chant in unison.11

    The role of information in connecting things is of course not unique to human history. A case can be made that this is the chief role of information in biology too.12 Consider DNA, the molecular information that makes organic life possible. Like music, DNA doesn’t represent reality. Though generations of zebras have been fleeing lions, you cannot find in the zebra DNA a string of nucleobases representing “lion” nor another string representing “flight.” Similarly, zebra DNA contains no representation of the sun, wind, rain, or any other external phenomena that zebras encounter during their lives. Nor does DNA represent internal phenomena like body organs or emotions. There is no combination of nucleobases that represents a heart, or fear.

    Instead of trying to represent preexisting things, DNA helps to produce entirely new things. For instance, various strings of DNA nucleobases initiate cellular chemical processes that result in the production of adrenaline. Adrenaline too doesn’t represent reality in any way. Rather, adrenaline circulates through the body, initiating additional chemical processes that increase the heart rate and direct more blood to the muscles.13 DNA and adrenaline thereby help to connect cells in the heart, cells in the leg muscles, and trillions of other cells throughout the body to form a functioning network that can do remarkable things, like run away from a lion.

    If DNA represented reality, we could have asked questions like “Does zebra DNA represent reality more accurately than lion DNA?” or “Is the DNA of one zebra telling the truth about the world, while another zebra is misled by her fake DNA?” These, of course, are nonsensical questions. We might evaluate DNA by the fitness of the organism it produces, but not by truthfulness. While it is common to talk about DNA “errors,” this refers only to mutations in the process of copying DNA—not to a failure to represent reality accurately. A genetic mutation that inhibits the production of adrenaline reduces the fitness of a particular zebra, ultimately causing the network of cells to disintegrate, as when the zebra is killed by a lion and its trillions of cells lose connection with one another and decompose. But this kind of network failure means disintegration, not disinformation. That’s true of countries, political parties, and news networks as much as of zebras.

    Crucially, errors in the copying of DNA don’t always reduce fitness. Once in a blue moon, they increase fitness. Without such mutations, there would be no process of evolution. All life-forms exist thanks to genetic “errors.” The wonders of evolution are possible because DNA doesn’t represent any preexisting realities; it creates new realities.

    Let us pause to digest the implications of this. Information is something that creates new realities by connecting different points into a network. This still includes the view of information as representation. Sometimes, a truthful representation of reality can connect humans, as when 600 million people sat glued to their television sets in July 1969, watching Neil Armstrong and Buzz Aldrin walking on the moon.14 The images on the screens accurately represented what was happening 384,000 kilometers away, and seeing them gave rise to feelings of awe, pride, and human brotherliness that helped connect people.

    However, such fraternal feelings can be produced in other ways, too. The emphasis on connection leaves ample room for other types of information that do not represent reality well. Sometimes erroneous representations of reality might also serve as a social nexus, as when millions of followers of a conspiracy theory watch a YouTube video claiming that the moon landing never happened. These images convey an erroneous representation of reality, but they might nevertheless give rise to feelings of anger against the establishment or pride in one’s own wisdom that help create a cohesive new group.

    Sometimes networks can be connected without any attempt to represent reality, neither accurate nor erroneous, as when genetic information connects trillions of cells or when a stirring musical piece connects thousands of humans.

    As a final example, consider Mark Zuckerberg’s vision of the Metaverse. The Metaverse is a virtual universe made entirely of information. Unlike the one-to-one map built by Jorge Luis Borges’s imaginary empire, the Metaverse isn’t an attempt to represent our world, but rather an attempt to augment or even replace our world. It doesn’t offer us a digital replica of Buenos Aires or Salt Lake City; it invites people to build new virtual communities with novel landscapes and rules. As of 2024 the Metaverse seems like an overblown pipe dream, but within a couple of decades billions of people might migrate to live much of their lives in an augmented virtual reality, holding there most of their social and professional activities. People might come to build relationships, join movements, hold jobs, and experience emotional ups and downs in environments made of bits rather than atoms. Perhaps only in some remote deserts, tattered fragments of the old reality could still be found, sheltering an occasional beast or beggar.

    INFORMATION IN HUMAN HISTORY

    Viewing information as a social nexus helps us understand many aspects of human history that confound the naive view of information as representation. It explains the historical success not only of astrology but of much more important things, like the Bible. While some may dismiss astrology as a quaint sideshow in human history, nobody can deny the central role the Bible has played. If the main job of information had been to represent reality accurately, it would have been hard to explain why the Bible became one of the most influential texts in history.

    The Bible makes many serious errors in its description of both human affairs and natural processes. The book of Genesis claims that all human groups—including, for example, the San people of the Kalahari Desert and the Aborigines of Australia—descend from a single family that lived in the Middle East about four thousand years ago.15 According to Genesis, after the Flood all Noah’s descendants lived together in Mesopotamia, but following the destruction of the Tower of Babel they spread to the four corners of the earth and became the ancestors of all living humans. In fact, the ancestors of the San people lived in Africa for hundreds of thousands of years without ever leaving the continent, and the ancestors of the Aborigines settled Australia more than fifty thousand years ago.16 Both genetic and archaeological evidence rule out the idea that the entire ancient populations of South Africa and Australia were annihilated about four thousand years ago by a flood and that these areas were subsequently repopulated by Middle Eastern immigrants.

    An even graver distortion involves our understanding of infectious diseases. The Bible routinely depicts epidemics as divine punishment for human sins17 and claims they can be stopped or prevented by prayers and religious rituals.18 However, epidemics are of course caused by pathogens and can be stopped or prevented by following hygiene rules and using medicines and vaccines. This is today widely accepted even by religious leaders like the pope, who during the COVID-19 pandemic advised people to self-isolate, instead of congregating to pray together.19

    Yet while the Bible has done a poor job in representing the reality of human origins, migrations, and epidemics, it has nevertheless been very effective in connecting billions of people and creating the Jewish and Christian religions. Like DNA initiating chemical processes that bind billions of cells into organic networks, the Bible initiated social processes that bonded billions of people into religious networks. And just as a network of cells can do things that single cells cannot, so a religious network can do things that individual humans cannot, like building temples, maintaining legal systems, celebrating holidays, and waging holy wars.

    To conclude, information sometimes represents reality, and sometimes doesn’t. But it always connects. This is its fundamental characteristic. Therefore, when examining the role of information in history, although it sometimes makes sense to ask “How well does it represent reality? Is it true or false?” often the more crucial questions are “How well does it connect people? What new network does it create?”

    It should be emphasized that rejecting the naive view of information as representation does not force us to reject the notion of truth, nor does it force us to embrace the populist view of information as a weapon. While information always connects, some types of information—from scientific books to political speeches—may strive to connect people by accurately representing certain aspects of reality. But this requires a special effort, which most information does not make. This is why the naive view is wrong to believe that creating more powerful information technology will necessarily result in a more truthful understanding of the world. If no additional steps are taken to tilt the balance in favor of truth, an increase in the amount and speed of information is likely to swamp the relatively rare and expensive truthful accounts by much more common and cheap types of information.

    When we look at the history of information from the Stone Age to the Silicon Age, we therefore see a constant rise in connectivity, without a concomitant rise in truthfulness or wisdom. Contrary to what the naive view believes, Homo sapiens didn’t conquer the world because we are talented at turning information into an accurate map of reality. Rather, the secret of our success is that we are talented at using information to connect lots of individuals. Unfortunately, this ability often goes hand in hand with believing in lies, errors, and fantasies. This is why even technologically advanced societies like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union have been prone to hold delusional ideas, without their delusions necessarily weakening them. Indeed, the mass delusions of Nazi and Stalinist ideologies about things like race and class actually helped them make tens of millions of people march together in lockstep.

    In chapters 2–5 we’ll take a closer look at the history of information networks. We’ll discuss how, over tens of thousands of years, humans invented various information technologies that greatly improved connectivity and cooperation without necessarily resulting in a more truthful representation of the world. These information technologies—invented centuries and millennia ago—still shape our world even in the era of the internet and AI. The first information technology we’ll examine, which is also the first information technology developed by humans, is the story.

    CHAPTER 2 Stories: Unlimited Connections

    We Sapiens rule the world not because we are so wise but because we are the only animals that can cooperate flexibly in large numbers. I have explored this idea in my previous books Sapiens and Homo Deus, but a brief recap is inescapable.

    The Sapiens’ ability to cooperate flexibly in large numbers has precursors among other animals. Some social mammals like chimpanzees display significant flexibility in the way they cooperate, while some social insects like ants cooperate in very large numbers. But neither chimps nor ants establish empires, religions, or trade networks. Sapiens are capable of doing such things because we are far more flexible than chimps and can simultaneously cooperate in even larger numbers than ants. In fact, there is no upper limit to the number of Sapiens who can cooperate with one another. The Catholic Church has about 1.4 billion members. China has a population of about 1.4 billion. The global trade network connects about 8 billion Sapiens.

    This is surprising given that humans cannot form long-term intimate bonds with more than a few hundred individuals.1 It takes many years and common experiences to get to know someone’s unique character and history and to cultivate ties of mutual trust and affection. Consequently, if Sapiens networks were connected only by personal human-to-human bonds, our networks would have remained very small. This is the situation among our chimpanzee cousins, for example. Their typical community numbers 20–60 members, and on rare occasions the number might increase to 150–200.2 This appears to have been the situation also among ancient human species like Neanderthals and archaic Homo sapiens. Each of their bands numbered a few dozen individuals, and different bands rarely cooperated.3

    About seventy thousand years ago, Homo sapiens bands began displaying an unprecedented capacity to cooperate with one another, as evidenced by the emergence of inter-band trade and artistic traditions and by the rapid spread of our species from our African homeland to the entire globe. What enabled different bands to cooperate is that evolutionary changes in brain structure and linguistic abilities apparently gave Sapiens the aptitude to tell and believe fictional stories and to be deeply moved by them. Instead of building a network from human-to-human chains alone—as the Neanderthals, for example, did—stories provided Homo sapiens with a new type of chain: human-to-story chains. In order to cooperate, Sapiens no longer had to know each other personally; they just had to know the same story. And the same story can be familiar to billions of individuals. A story can thereby serve like a central connector, with an unlimited number of outlets into which an unlimited number of people can plug. For example, the 1.4 billion members of the Catholic Church are connected by the Bible and other key Christian stories; the 1.4 billion citizens of China are connected by the stories of communist ideology and Chinese nationalism; and the 8 billion members of the global trade network are connected by stories about currencies, corporations, and brands.

    Even charismatic leaders who have millions of followers are an example of this rule rather than an exception. It may seem that in the case of ancient Chinese emperors, medieval Catholic popes, or modern corporate titans it has been a single flesh-and-blood human—rather than a story—that has served as a nexus linking millions of followers. But, of course, in all these cases almost none of the followers has had a personal bond with the leader. Instead, what they have connected to has been a carefully crafted story about the leader, and it is in this story that they have put their faith.

    Joseph Stalin, who stood at the nexus of one of the biggest personality cults in history, understood this well. When his troublesome son Vasily exploited his famous name to frighten and awe people, Stalin berated him. “But I’m a Stalin too,” protested Vasily. “No, you’re not,” replied Stalin. “You’re not Stalin and I’m not Stalin. Stalin is Soviet power. Stalin is what he is in the newspapers and the portraits, not you, no—not even me!”4

    Present-day influencers and celebrities would concur. Some have hundreds of millions of online followers, with whom they communicate daily through social media. But there is very little authentic personal connection there. The social media accounts are usually run by a team of experts, and every image and word is professionally crafted and curated to manufacture what is nowadays called a brand.5

    A “brand” is a specific type of story. To brand a product means to tell a story about that product, which may have little to do with the product’s actual qualities but which consumers nevertheless learn to associate with the product. For example, over the decades the Coca-Cola corporation has invested tens of billions of dollars in advertisements that tell and retell the story of the Coca-Cola drink.6 People have seen and heard the story so often that many have come to associate a certain concoction of flavored water with fun, happiness, and youth (as opposed to tooth decay, obesity, and plastic waste). That’s branding.7

    As Stalin knew, it is possible to brand not only products but also individuals. A corrupt billionaire can be branded as the champion of the poor; a bungling imbecile can be branded as an infallible genius; and a guru who sexually abuses his followers can be branded as a chaste saint. People think they connect to the person, but in fact they connect to the story told about the person, and there is often a huge gulf between the two.

    Even the story of Cher Ami, the heroic pigeon, was partly the product of a branding campaign aimed at enhancing the public image of the U.S. Army’s Pigeon Service. A 2021 revisionist study by the historian Frank Blazich found that though there is no doubt Cher Ami sustained severe injuries while transporting a message somewhere in Northern France, several key features of the story are doubtful or inaccurate. First, relying on contemporary military records, Blazich demonstrated that headquarters learned about the exact location of the Lost Battalion about twenty minutes prior to the pigeon’s arrival. It was not the pigeon that put a stop to the barrage of friendly fire decimating the Lost Battalion. Even more crucially, there is simply no proof that the pigeon carrying Major Whittlesey’s message was Cher Ami. It might well have been another bird, while Cher Ami might have sustained his wounds a couple of weeks later, during an altogether different battle.

    According to Blazich, the doubts and inconsistencies in Cher Ami’s story were overshadowed by its propaganda value to the army and its appeal to the public. Over the years the story was retold so many times that facts became hopelessly enmeshed with fiction. Journalists, poets, and filmmakers added fanciful details to it, for example that the pigeon lost an eye as well as a leg and that it was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. In the 1920s and 1930s Cher Ami became the most famous bird in the world. When he died, his carefully preserved corpse was placed on display at the Smithsonian Museum, where it became a pilgrimage site for American patriots and World War I veterans. As the story grew in the telling, it took over even the recollections of survivors of the Lost Battalion, who came to accept the popular narrative at face value. Blazich recounts the case of Sherman Eager, an officer in the Lost Battalion, who decades after the war brought his children to see Cher Ami at the Smithsonian and told them, “You all owe your lives to that pigeon.” Whatever the facts may be, the story of the self-sacrificing winged saviour proved irresistible.8

    As a much more extreme example, consider Jesus. Two millennia of storytelling have encased Jesus within such a thick cocoon of stories that it is impossible to recover the historical person. Indeed, for millions of devout Christians merely raising the possibility that the real person was different from the story is blasphemy. As far as we can tell, the real Jesus was a typical Jewish preacher who built a small following by giving sermons and healing the sick. After his death, however, Jesus became the subject of one of the most remarkable branding campaigns in history. This little-known provincial guru, who during his short career gathered just a handful of disciples and who was executed as a common criminal, was rebranded after death as the incarnation of the cosmic god who created the universe.9 Though no contemporary portrait of Jesus has survived, and though the Bible never describes what he looked like, imaginary renderings of him have become some of the most recognizable icons in the world.

    It should be stressed that the creation of the Jesus story was not a deliberate lie. People like Saint Paul, Tertullian, Saint Augustine, and Martin Luther didn’t set out to deceive anyone. They projected their deeply felt hopes and feelings on the figure of Jesus, in the same way that all of us routinely project our feelings on our parents, lovers, and leaders. While branding campaigns are occasionally a cynical exercise of disinformation, most of the really big stories of history have been the result of emotional projections and wishful thinking. True believers play a key role in the rise of every major religion and ideology, and the Jesus story changed history because it gained an immense number of true believers.

    By gaining all those believers, the story of Jesus managed to have a much bigger impact on history than the person of Jesus. The person of Jesus walked from village to village on his two feet, talking with people, eating and drinking with them, placing his hands on their sick bodies. He made a difference to the lives of perhaps several thousand individuals, all living in one minor Roman province. In contrast, the story of Jesus flew around the whole world, first on the wings of gossip, anecdote, and rumor; then via parchment texts, paintings, and statues; and eventually as blockbuster movies and internet memes. Billions of people not only heard the Jesus story but came to believe in it too, which created one of the biggest and most influential networks in the world.

    Stories like the one about Jesus can be seen as a way of stretching preexisting biological bonds. Family is the strongest bond known to humans. One way that stories build trust between strangers is by making these strangers reimagine each other as family. The Jesus story presented Jesus as the heavenly father of all humans, encouraged hundreds of millions of Christians to see each other as brothers and sisters, and created a shared pool of family memories. While most Christians were not physically present at the Last Supper, they have heard the story so many times, and they have seen so many images of the event, that they “remember” it more vividly than they remember most of the family dinners in which they actually participated.

    Interestingly, Jesus’s last supper was the Jewish Passover meal, which according to the Gospel accounts Jesus shared with his disciples just before his crucifixion. In Jewish tradition, the whole purpose of the Passover meal is to create and reenact artificial memories. Every year Jewish families sit together on the eve of Passover to eat and reminisce about “their” exodus from Egypt. They are supposed not only to tell the story of how the descendants of Jacob escaped slavery in Egypt but to remember how they personally suffered at the hands of the Egyptians, how they personally saw the sea part, and how they personally received the Ten Commandments from Jehovah at Mount Sinai.

    The Jewish tradition doesn’t mince words here. The text of the Passover ritual (the Haggadah) insists that “in every generation a person is obligated to regard himself as if he personally had come out of Egypt.” If anyone objects that this is a fiction, and that they didn’t personally come out of Egypt, Jewish sages have a ready answer. They claim that the souls of all Jews throughout history were created by Jehovah long before they were born and all these souls were present at Mount Sinai.10 As Salvador Litvak, a Jewish social media influencer, explained to his online followers in 2018, “You and I were there together.… When we fulfill the obligation to see ourselves as if we personally left Egypt, it’s not a metaphor. We don’t imagine the Exodus, we remember it.”11

    So every year, in the most important celebration of the Jewish calendar, millions of Jews put on a show that they remember things that they didn’t witness and that in all probability never happened at all. As numerous modern studies show, repeatedly retelling a fake memory eventually causes the person to adopt it as a genuine recollection.12 When two Jews encounter each other for the first time, they can immediately feel that they both belong to the same family, that they were together slaves in Egypt, and that they were together at Mount Sinai. That’s a powerful bond that sustained the Jewish network over many centuries and continents.

    INTERSUBJECTIVE ENTITIES

    The Jewish Passover story builds a large network by taking existing biological kin bonds and stretching them way beyond their biological limits. But there is an even more revolutionary way for stories to build networks. Like DNA, stories can create entirely new entities. Indeed, stories can even create an entirely new level of reality. As far as we know, prior to the emergence of stories the universe contained just two levels of reality. Stories added a third.

    The two levels of reality that preceded storytelling are objective reality and subjective reality. Objective reality consists of things like stones, mountains, and asteroids—things that exist whether we are aware of them or not. An asteroid hurtling toward planet Earth, for example, exists even if nobody knows it’s out there. Then there is subjective reality: things like pain, pleasure, and love that aren’t “out there” but rather “in here.” Subjective things exist in our awareness of them. An unfelt ache is an oxymoron.

    But some stories are able to create a third level of reality: intersubjective reality. Whereas subjective things like pain exist in a single mind, intersubjective things like laws, gods, nations, corporations, and currencies exist in the nexus between large numbers of minds. More specifically, they exist in the stories people tell one another. The information humans exchange about intersubjective things doesn’t represent anything that had already existed prior to the exchange of information; rather, the exchange of information creates these things.

    When I tell you that I am in pain, telling you about it doesn’t create the pain. And if I stop talking about the pain, it doesn’t make the pain go away. Similarly, when I tell you that I saw an asteroid, this doesn’t create the asteroid. The asteroid exists whether people talk about it or not. But when lots of people tell one another stories about laws, gods, or currencies, this is what creates these laws, gods, or currencies. If people stop talking about them, they disappear. Intersubjective things exist in the exchange of information.

    Let’s take a closer look. The calorific value of pizza doesn’t depend on our beliefs. A typical pizza contains between fifteen hundred and twenty-five hundred calories.13 In contrast, the financial value of money—and pizzas—depends entirely on our beliefs. How many pizzas can you purchase for a dollar, or for a bitcoin? In 2010, Laszlo Hanyecz bought two pizzas for 10,000 bitcoins. It was the first known commercial transaction involving bitcoin—and with hindsight, also the most expensive pizza ever. By November 2021, a single bitcoin was valued at more than $69,000, so the bitcoins Hanyecz paid for his two pizzas were worth $690 million, enough to purchase millions of pizzas.14 While the calorific value of pizza is an objective reality that remained the same between 2010 and 2021, the financial value of bitcoin is an intersubjective reality that changed dramatically during the same period, depending on the stories people told and believed about bitcoin.

    Another example. Suppose I ask, “Does the Loch Ness Monster exist?” This is a question about the objective level of reality. Some people believe that dinosaur-like animals really do inhabit Loch Ness. Others dismiss the idea as a fantasy or a hoax. Over the years, many attempts have been made to resolve the disagreement once and for all, using scientific methods such as sonar scans and DNA surveys. If huge animals live in the lake, they should appear on sonar, and they should leave DNA traces. Based on the available evidence, the scientific consensus is that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. (A DNA survey conducted in 2019 found genetic material from three thousand species, but no monster. At most, Loch Ness may contain some five-kilo eels.15) Many people may nevertheless continue to believe that the Loch Ness Monster exists, but believing it doesn’t change objective reality.

    In contrast to animals, whose existence can be verified or disproved through objective tests, states are intersubjective entities. We normally don’t notice it, because everybody takes the existence of the United States, China, Russia, or Brazil for granted. But there are cases when people disagree about the existence of certain states, and then their intersubjective status emerges. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, for example, revolves around this matter, because some people and governments refuse to acknowledge the existence of Israel and others refuse to acknowledge the existence of Palestine. As of 2024, the governments of Brazil and China, for example, say that both Israel and Palestine exist; the governments of the United States and Cameroon recognize only Israel’s existence; whereas the governments of Algeria and Iran recognize only Palestine. Other cases range from Kosovo, which as of 2024 is recognized as a state by around half of the 193 UN members,16 to Abkhazia, which almost all governments see as a sovereign territory of Georgia, but which is recognized as a state by Russia, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Nauru, and Syria.17

    Indeed, almost all states pass at least temporarily through a phase during which their existence is contested, when struggling for independence. Did the United States come into existence on July 4, 1776, or only when other states like France and finally the U.K. recognized it? Between the declaration of U.S. independence on July 4, 1776, and the signing of the Treaty of Paris on September 3, 1783, some people like George Washington believed the United States existed, while other people like King George III vehemently rejected this idea.

    Disagreements about the existence of states cannot be resolved by an objective test, such as a DNA survey or a sonar scan. Unlike animals, states are not an objective reality. When we ask whether a particular state exists, we are raising a question about intersubjective reality. If enough people agree that a particular state exists, then it does. It can then do things like sign legally binding treaties with other governments as well as NGOs and private corporations.

    Of all genres of stories, those that create intersubjective realities have been the most crucial for the development of large-scale human networks. Implanting fake family memories is certainly helpful, but no religions or empires managed to survive for long without a strong belief in the existence of a god, a nation, a law code, or a currency. For the formation of the Christian Church, for example, it was important that people recollect what Jesus said at the Last Supper, but the crucial step was making people believe that Jesus was a god rather than just an inspiring rabbi. For the formation of the Jewish religion, it was helpful that Jews “remembered” how they together escaped slavery in Egypt, but the really decisive step was making all Jews adhere to the same religious law code, the Halakha.

    Intersubjective things like laws, gods, and currencies are extremely powerful within a particular information network and utterly meaningless outside it. Suppose a billionaire crashes his private jet on a deserted island and finds himself alone with a suitcase full of banknotes and bonds. When he was in São Paulo or Mumbai, he could use these papers to make people feed him, clothe him, protect him, and build him a private jet. But once he is cut off from other members of our information network, his banknotes and bonds immediately become worthless. He cannot use them to get the island’s monkeys to provide him with food or to build him a raft.

    THE POWER OF STORIES

    Whether through implanting fake memories, forming fictional relationships, or creating intersubjective realities, stories produced large-scale human networks. These networks in turn completely changed the balance of power in the world. Story-based networks made Homo sapiens the most powerful of all animals, giving it a crucial edge not only over lions and mammoths but also over other ancient human species like Neanderthals.

    Neanderthals lived in small isolated bands, and to the best of our knowledge different bands cooperated with one another only rarely and weakly, if at all.18 Stone Age Sapiens too lived in small bands of a few dozen individuals. But following the emergence of storytelling, Sapiens bands no longer lived in isolation. Bands were connected by stories about things like revered ancestors, totem animals, and guardian spirits. Bands that shared stories and intersubjective realities constituted a tribe. Each tribe was a network connecting hundreds or even thousands of individuals.19

    Belonging to a large tribe had an obvious advantage in times of conflict. Five hundred Sapiens could easily defeat fifty Neanderthals.20 But tribal networks had many additional advantages. If we live in an isolated band of fifty people and a severe drought hits our home territory, many of us might starve to death. If we try to migrate elsewhere, we are likely to encounter hostile groups, and we might also find it difficult to forage for food, water, and flint (to make tools) in unfamiliar territory. However, if our band is part of a tribal network, in times of need at least some of us could go live with our distant friends. If our shared tribal identity is strong enough, they would welcome us and teach us about the local dangers and opportunities. A decade or two later, we might reciprocate. The tribal network, then, acted like an insurance policy. It minimized risk by spreading it across a lot more people.21

    Even in quiet times Sapiens could benefit enormously from exchanging information not just with a few dozen members of a small band but with an entire tribal network. If one of the tribe’s bands discovered a better way to make spear points, learned how to heal wounds with some rare medicinal herb, or invented a needle to sew clothes, that knowledge could be quickly passed to the other bands. Even though individually Sapiens might not have been more intelligent than Neanderthals, five hundred Sapiens together were far more intelligent than fifty Neanderthals.22

    All this was made possible by stories. The power of stories is often missed or denied by materialist interpretations of history. In particular, Marxists tend to view stories as merely a smoke screen for underlying power relations and material interests. According to Marxist theories, people are always motivated by objective material interests and use stories only to camouflage these interests and confound their rivals. For example, in this reading the Crusades, World War I, and the Iraq War were all fought for the economic interests of powerful elites rather than for religious, nationalist, or liberal ideals. Understanding these wars means setting aside all the mythological fig leaves—about God, patriotism, or democracy—and observing power relations in their nakedness.

    This Marxist view, however, is not only cynical but wrong. While materialist interests certainly played a role in the Crusades, World War I, the Iraq War, and most other human conflicts, that does not mean that religious, national, and liberal ideals played no role at all. Moreover, materialist interests by themselves cannot explain the identities of the rival camps. Why is it that in the twelfth century landowners and merchants from France, Germany, and Italy united to conquer territories and trade routes in the Levant—instead of landowners and merchants from France and North Africa uniting to conquer Italy? And why is it that in 2003, the United States and Britain sought to conquer the oil fields of Iraq, rather than the gas fields of Norway? Can this really be explained by purely materialist considerations, without any recourse to people’s religious and ideological beliefs?

    In fact, all relations between large-scale human groups are shaped by stories, because the identities of these groups are themselves defined by stories. There are no objective definitions for who is British, American, Norwegian, or Iraqi; all these identities are shaped by national and religious myths that are constantly challenged and revised. Marxists may claim that large-scale groups have objective identities and interests, independent of stories. If that is so, how can we explain that only humans have large-scale groups like tribes, nations, and religions, whereas chimpanzees lack them? After all, chimpanzees share with humans all our objective material interests; they too need to drink, eat, and protect themselves from diseases. They too want sex and social power. But chimpanzees cannot maintain large-scale groups, because they are unable to create the stories that connect such groups and define their identities and interests. Contrary to Marxist thinking, large-scale identities and interests in history are always intersubjective; they are never objective.

    This is good news. If history had been shaped solely by material interests and power struggles, there would be no point talking to people who disagree with us. Any conflict would ultimately be the result of objective power relations, which cannot be changed merely by talking. In particular, if privileged people can see and believe only those things that enshrine their privileges, how can anything except violence persuade them to renounce those privileges and alter their beliefs? Luckily, since history is shaped by intersubjective stories, sometimes we can avert conflict and make peace by talking with people, changing the stories in which they and we believe, or coming up with a new story that everyone can accept.

    Take, for example, the rise of Nazism. There certainly were material interests that drove millions of Germans to support Hitler. The Nazis would probably never have come to power if it wasn’t for the economic crisis of the early 1930s. However, it is wrong to think that the Third Reich was the inevitable outcome of underlying power relations and material interests. Hitler won the 1933 elections because during the economic crisis millions of Germans came to believe the Nazi story rather than one of the alternative stories on offer. This wasn’t the inevitable result of Germans pursuing their material interests and protecting their privileges; it was a tragic mistake. We can confidently say that it was a mistake, and that Germans could have chosen better stories, because we know what happened next. Twelve years of Nazi rule didn’t foster the Germans’ material interests. Nazism led to the destruction of Germany and the deaths of millions. Later, when Germans adopted liberal democracy, this did lead to a lasting improvement in their lives. Couldn’t the Germans have skipped the failed Nazi experiment and put their faith in liberal democracy already in the early 1930s? The position of this book is that they could have. History is often shaped not by deterministic power relations, but rather by tragic mistakes that result from believing in mesmerizing but harmful stories.

    THE NOBLE LIE

    The centrality of stories reveals something fundamental about the power of our species, and it explains why power doesn’t always go hand in hand with wisdom. The naive view of information says that information leads to truth, and knowing the truth helps people to gain both power and wisdom. This sounds reassuring. It implies that people who ignore the truth are unlikely to have much power, whereas people who respect the truth can gain much power, but that power would be tempered by wisdom. For example, people who ignore the truth about human biology might believe racist myths but will not be able to produce powerful medicines and bioweapons, whereas people who understand biology will have that kind of power but will not use it in the service of racist ideologies. If this had indeed been the case, we could sleep calmly, trusting our presidents, high priests, and CEOs to be wise and honest. A politician, a movement, or a country might conceivably get ahead here and there with the help of lies and deceptions, but in the long term that would be a self-defeating strategy.

    Unfortunately, this is not the world in which we live. In history, power stems only partially from knowing the truth. It also stems from the ability to maintain social order among a large number of people. Suppose you want to make an atom bomb. To succeed, you obviously need some accurate knowledge of physics. But you also need lots of people to mine uranium ore, build nuclear reactors, and provide food for the construction workers, miners, and physicists. The Manhattan Project directly employed about 130,000 people, with millions more working to sustain them.23 Robert Oppenheimer could devote himself to his equations because he relied on thousands of miners to extract uranium at the Eldorado mine in northern Canada and the Shinkolobwe mine in the Belgian Congo24—not to mention the farmers who grew potatoes for his lunch. If you want to make an atom bomb, you must find a way to make millions of people cooperate.

    It is the same with all ambitious projects that humans undertake. A Stone Age band going to hunt a mammoth obviously needed to know some true facts about mammoths. If they believed they could kill a mammoth by casting spells, their hunting expedition would have failed. But just knowing facts about mammoths wasn’t enough, either. The hunters also needed to make sure all of them agreed on the same plan and bravely did their bit even in the face of mortal danger. If they believed that by pronouncing a spell they could guarantee a good afterlife for dead hunters, their hunting expeditions had a much higher chance of success. Even if objectively the spell was powerless and did not benefit dead hunters in any way, by fortifying the courage and solidarity of living hunters, it nevertheless made a crucial contribution to the hunt’s success.25

    While power depends on both truth and order, in most cases it is the people who know how to maintain order who call the shots, giving instructions to the people who merely know the truth about things like mammoths or nuclear physics. Robert Oppenheimer obeyed Franklin Delano Roosevelt rather than the other way around. Similarly, Werner Heisenberg obeyed Adolf Hitler, Igor Kurchatov deferred to Joseph Stalin, and in contemporary Iran experts in nuclear physics follow the orders of experts in Shiite theology.

    What the people at the top know, which nuclear physicists don’t always realize, is that telling the truth about the universe is hardly the most efficient way to produce order among large numbers of humans. It is true that E = mc², and it explains a lot of what happens in the universe, but knowing that E = mc² usually doesn’t resolve political disagreements or inspire people to make sacrifices for a common cause. Instead, what holds human networks together tends to be fictional stories, especially stories about intersubjective things like gods, money, and nations. When it comes to uniting people, fiction enjoys two inherent advantages over the truth. First, fiction can be made as simple as we like, whereas the truth tends to be complicated, because the reality it is supposed to represent is complicated. Take, for example, the truth about nations. It is difficult to grasp that the nation to which one belongs is an intersubjective entity that exists only in our collective imagination. You rarely hear politicians say such things in their political speeches. It is far easier to believe that our nation is God’s chosen people, entrusted by the Creator with some special mission. This simple story has been repeatedly told by countless politicians from Israel to Iran and from the United States to Russia.

    Second, the truth is often painful and disturbing, and if we try to make it more comforting and flattering, it will no longer be the truth. In contrast, fiction is highly malleable. The history of every nation contains some dark episodes that citizens don’t like to acknowledge and remember. An Israeli politician who in her election speeches details the miseries inflicted on Palestinian civilians by the Israeli occupation is unlikely to get many votes. In contrast, a politician who builds a national myth by ignoring uncomfortable facts, focusing on glorious moments in the Jewish past, and embellishing reality wherever necessary may well sweep to power. That’s the case not just in Israel but in all countries. How many Italians or Indians want to hear the unblemished truth about their nations? An uncompromising adherence to the truth is essential for scientific progress, and it is also an admirable spiritual practice, but it is not a winning political strategy.

    Already in his Republic, Plato imagined that the constitution of his utopian state would be based on “the noble lie”—a fictional story about the origin of the social order, one that secures the citizens’ loyalty and prevents them from questioning the constitution. Citizens should be told, Plato wrote, that they were all born out of the earth, that the land is their mother, and that they therefore owe filial loyalty to the motherland. They should further be told that when they were conceived, the gods intermingled different metals—gold, silver, bronze, and iron—into them, which justifies a natural hierarchy between golden rulers and bronze servants. While Plato’s utopia was never realized in practice, numerous polities through the ages told their inhabitants variations of this noble lie.

    Plato’s noble lie notwithstanding, we should not conclude that all politicians are liars or that all national histories are deceptions. The choice isn’t simply between telling the truth and lying. There is a third option. Telling a fictional story is lying only when you pretend that the story is a true representation of reality. Telling a fictional story isn’t lying when you avoid such pretense and acknowledge that you are trying to create a new intersubjective reality rather than represent a preexisting objective reality.

    For example, on September 17, 1787, the Constitutional Convention signed the U.S. Constitution, which came into force in 1789. The Constitution didn’t reveal any preexisting truth about the world, but crucially it wasn’t a lie, either. Rejecting Plato’s recommendation, the authors of the text didn’t deceive anyone about the text’s origins. They didn’t pretend that the text came down from heaven or that it had been inspired by some god. Rather, they acknowledged that it was an extremely creative legal fiction generated by fallible human beings.

    “We the People of the United States,” says the Constitution about its own origins, “in Order to form a more perfect Union … do ordain and establish this Constitution.” Despite the acknowledgment that it is a human-made legal fiction, the U.S. Constitution indeed managed to form a powerful union. It maintained for more than two centuries a surprising degree of order among many millions of people who belonged to a wide range of religious, ethnic, and cultural groups. The U.S. Constitution has thus functioned like a tune that without claiming to represent anything has nevertheless made numerous people act together in order.

    It is crucial to note that “order” should not be confused with fairness or justice. The order created and maintained by the U.S. Constitution condoned slavery, the subordination of women, the expropriation of indigenous people, and extreme economic inequality. The genius of the U.S. Constitution is that by acknowledging that it is a legal fiction created by human beings, it was able to provide mechanisms to reach agreement on amending itself and remedying its own injustices (as chapter 5 explores in greater depth). The Constitution’s Article V details how people can propose and ratify such amendments, which “shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution.” Less than a century after the Constitution was written, the Thirteenth Amendment abolished slavery.

    In this, the U.S. Constitution was fundamentally different from stories that denied their fictive nature and claimed divine origin, such as the Ten Commandments. Like the U.S. Constitution, the Ten Commandments endorsed slavery. The Tenth Commandment says, “You shall not covet your neighbor’s house. You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, or his male slave or female slave” (Exodus 20:17). This implies that God is perfectly okay with people holding slaves, and objects only to the coveting of slaves belonging to someone else. But unlike the U.S. Constitution, the Ten Commandments failed to provide any amendment mechanism. There is no Eleventh Commandment that says, “You can amend commandments by a two-thirds majority vote.”

    This crucial difference between the two texts is clear from their opening gambits. The U.S. Constitution opens with “We the People.” By acknowledging its human origin, it invests humans with the power to amend it. The Ten Commandments open with “I am the Lord your God.” By claiming divine origin, it precludes humans from changing it. As a result, the biblical text still endorses slavery even today.

    All human political systems are based on fictions, but some admit it, and some do not. Being truthful about the origins of our social order makes it easier to make changes in it. If humans like us invented it, we can amend it. But such truthfulness comes at a price. Acknowledging the human origins of the social order makes it harder to persuade everyone to agree on it. If humans like us invented it, why should we accept it? As we shall see in chapter 5, until the late eighteenth century the lack of mass communication technology made it extremely difficult to conduct open debates between millions of people about the rules of the social order. To maintain order, Russian tsars, Muslim caliphs, and Chinese sons of heaven therefore claimed that the fundamental rules of society came down from heaven and were not open to human amendment. In the early twenty-first century, many political systems still claim superhuman authority and oppose open debates that may result in unwelcome changes.

    THE PERENNIAL DILEMMA

    After we understand the key role of fiction in history, it is finally possible to present a more complete model of information networks, which goes beyond both the naive view of information and the populist critique of that view. Contrary to the naive view, information isn’t the raw material of truth, and human information networks aren’t geared only to discover the truth. But contrary to the populist view, information isn’t just a weapon, either. Rather, to survive and flourish, every human information network needs to do two things simultaneously: discover truth and create order. Accordingly, as history unfolded, human information networks have been developing two distinct sets of skills. On the one hand, as the naive view expects, the networks have learned how to process information to gain a more accurate understanding of things like medicine, mammoths, and nuclear physics. At the same time, the networks have also learned how to use information to maintain stronger social order among larger populations, by using not just truthful accounts but also fictions, fantasies, propaganda, and—occasionally—downright lies.

    The naive view of information
    A more complete historical view of information

    Having a lot of information doesn’t in and of itself guarantee either truth or order. It is a difficult process to use information to discover the truth and simultaneously use it to maintain order. What makes things worse is that these two processes are often contradictory, because it is frequently easier to maintain order through fictions. Sometimes—as in the case of the U.S. Constitution—fictional stories may acknowledge their fictionality, but more often they disavow it. Religions, for example, always claim to be an objective and eternal truth rather than a fictional story invented by humans. In such cases, the search for truth threatens the foundations of the social order. Many societies require their populations not to know their true origins: ignorance is strength. What happens, then, when people get uncomfortably close to the truth? What happens when the same bit of information reveals an important fact about the world, and also undermines the noble lie that holds society together? In such cases society may seek to preserve order by placing limits on the search for truth.

    One obvious example is Darwin’s theory of evolution. Understanding evolution greatly advances our understanding of the origins and biology of species, including Homo sapiens, but it also undermines the central myths that maintain order in numerous societies. No wonder that various governments and churches have banned or limited the teaching of evolution, preferring to sacrifice truth for the sake of order.26

    A related problem is that an information network may allow and even encourage people to search for truth, but only in specific fields that help generate power without threatening the social order. The result can be a very powerful network that is singularly lacking in wisdom. Nazi Germany, for example, cultivated many of the world’s leading experts in chemistry, optics, engineering, and rocket science. It was largely Nazi rocket science that later brought the Americans to the moon.27 This scientific prowess helped the Nazis build an extremely powerful war machine, which was then deployed in the service of a deranged and murderous mythology. Under Nazi rule Germans were encouraged to develop rocket science, but they were not free to question racist theories about biology and history.

    That’s a major reason why the history of human information networks isn’t a triumphant march of progress. While over the generations human networks have grown increasingly powerful, they have not necessarily grown increasingly wise. If a network privileges order over truth, it can become very powerful but use that power unwisely.

    Instead of a march of progress, the history of human information networks is a tightrope walk trying to balance truth with order. In the twenty-first century we aren’t much better at finding the right balance than our ancestors were in the Stone Age. Contrary to what the mission statements of corporations like Google and Facebook imply, simply increasing the speed and efficiency of our information technology doesn’t necessarily make the world a better place. It only makes the need to balance truth and order more urgent. The invention of the story taught us this lesson already tens of thousands of years ago. And the same lesson would be taught again, when humans came up with their second great information technology: the written document.

    CHAPTER 3 Documents: The Bite of the Paper Tigers

    Stories were the first crucial information technology developed by humans. They laid the foundation for all large-scale human cooperation and made humans the most powerful animals on earth. But as an information technology, stories have their limitations.

    To appreciate this, consider the role storytelling plays in the formation of nations. Many nations have first been conceived in the imagination of poets. Sarah Aaronsohn and the NILI underground are remembered by present-day Israelis as some of the first Zionists who risked their lives in the 1910s to establish a Jewish state in Palestine, but from where did NILI members get this idea in the first place? They were inspired by an earlier generation of poets, thinkers, and visionaries such as Theodor Herzl and Hayim Nahman Bialik.

    In the 1890s and first decade of the twentieth century, Bialik, a Ukrainian Jew, published numerous poems and stories bewailing the persecution and weakness of European Jews and calling on them to take their fate in their hands—to defend themselves by force of arms, immigrate to Palestine, and there establish their own state. One of his most stirring poems was written following the Kishinev Pogrom of 1903, in which forty-nine Jews were murdered and dozens more were injured.1 “In the City of Slaughter” condemned the murderous antisemitic mob who perpetrated the atrocities, but it also criticized the Jews themselves for their pacifism and helplessness.

    In one heart-wrenching scene, Bialik described how Jewish women were gang-raped, while their husbands and brothers hid nearby, afraid to intervene. The poem compares the Jewish men to terrified mice and imagines how they quietly prayed to God to perform some miracle, which failed to materialize. The poem then tells how even after the pogrom was over, the survivors had no thought of arming themselves and instead entered Talmudic disputations about whether the raped women were now ritualistically “defiled” or whether they were still “pure.” This poem is mandatory reading in many Israeli schools today. It is also mandatory reading for anyone wishing to understand how after two millennia of being one of the most pacifist groups in history, Jews built one of the most formidable armies in the world. Not for nothing was Bialik named Israel’s national poet.2

    The fact that Bialik lived in Ukraine, and was intimately familiar with the persecution of Ashkenazi Jews in eastern Europe but had little understanding of conditions in Palestine, contributed to the subsequent conflict there between Jews and Arabs. Bialik’s poems inspired Jews to see themselves as victims in dire need of developing their military might and building their own country, but hardly considered the catastrophic consequences for the Arab inhabitants of Palestine, or indeed for the Mizrahi Jewish communities native to the Middle East. When the Arab-Israeli conflict exploded in the late 1940s, hundreds of thousands of Palestinians and hundreds of thousands of Mizrahi Jews were driven out of their ancestral homes in the Middle East, partly as a result of poems composed half a century earlier in Ukraine.3

    While Bialik was writing in Ukraine, the Hungarian Jew Theodor Herzl was busy organizing the Zionist movement in the 1890s and early years of the twentieth century. As a central part of his political activism, Herzl published two books. The Jewish State (1896) was a manifesto outlining Herzl’s idea of establishing a Jewish state in Palestine, and The Old New Land (1902) was a utopian novel set in the year 1923 describing the prosperous Jewish state that Herzl envisioned. The two books—which fatefully also tended to ignore realities on the ground in Palestine—were immensely influential in shaping the Zionist movement. The Old New Land appeared in Hebrew under the title Tel Aviv (a loose Hebrew translation of “Old New Land”). The city of Tel Aviv, established seven years after the book’s publication, took its name from the book. While Bialik is Israel’s national poet, Herzl is known as the visionary of the state.

    The yarns Bialik and Herzl wove ignored many crucial facts about contemporary reality, most notably that around 1900 the Jews of Palestine comprised only 6–9 percent of the region’s total population of about 600,000 people.4 While disregarding such demographic facts, Bialik and Herzl accorded great importance to mythology, most notably the stories of the Bible, without which modern Zionism is unimaginable. Bialik and Herzl were also influenced by the nationalist myths that were created in the nineteenth century by almost every other ethnic group in Europe. The Ukrainian Jew Bialik and the Hungarian Jew Herzl did for Zionism what was earlier done by the poets Taras Shevchenko for Ukrainian nationalism,5 Sándor Petőfi for Hungarian nationalism,6 and Adam Mickiewicz for Polish nationalism.7 Observing the growth of other national movements all around, Herzl wrote that nations arise “out of dreams, songs, fantasies.”8

    But dreams, songs, and fantasies, however inspiring, are not enough to create a functioning nation-state. Bialik inspired generations of Jewish fighters, but to equip and maintain an army, it is also necessary to raise taxes and buy guns. Herzl’s utopian book laid the foundations for the city of Tel Aviv, but to keep the city going, it was also necessary to dig a sewage system. When all is said and done, the essence of patriotism isn’t reciting stirring poems about the beauty of the motherland, and it certainly isn’t making hate-filled speeches against foreigners and minorities. Rather, patriotism means paying your taxes so that people on the other side of the country also enjoy the benefit of a sewage system, as well as security, education, and health care.

    To manage all these services and raise the necessary taxes, enormous amounts of information need to be collected, stored, and processed: information about properties, payments, exemptions, discounts, debts, inventories, shipments, budgets, bills, and salaries. This, however, is not the kind of information that can be turned into a memorable poem or a captivating myth. Instead, tax records come in the shape of various types of lists, ranging from a simple item-by-item record to more elaborate tables and spreadsheets. No matter how intricate these data sets may become, they eschew narrative in favor of dryly listing amounts owed and amounts paid. Poets can afford to ignore such mundane facts, but tax collectors cannot.

    Lists are crucial not only for national taxation systems but also for almost all other complex financial institutions. Corporations, banks, and stock markets cannot exist without them. A church, a university, or a library that wants to balance its budget soon realizes that in addition to priests and poets who can mesmerize people with stories, it needs accountants who know their way around the various types of lists.

    Lists and stories are complementary. National myths legitimize the tax records, while the tax records help transform aspirational stories into concrete schools and hospitals. Something analogous happens in the field of finance. The dollar, the pound sterling, and the bitcoin all come into being by persuading people to believe a story, and tales told by bankers, finance ministers, and investment gurus raise or lower their value. When the chairperson of the Federal Reserve wants to curb inflation, when a finance minister wants to pass a new budget, and when a tech entrepreneur wants to draw investors, they all turn to storytelling. But to actually manage a bank, a budget, or a start-up, lists are essential.

    The big problem with lists, and the crucial difference between lists and stories, is that lists tend to be far more boring than stories, which means that while we easily remember stories, we find it difficult to remember lists. This is an important fact about how the human brain processes information. Evolution has adapted our brains to be good at absorbing, retaining, and processing even very large quantities of information when they are shaped into a story. The Ramayana, one of the foundational tales of Hindu mythology, is twenty-four thousand verses long and runs to about seventeen hundred pages in modern editions, yet despite its enormous length generations of Hindus succeeded in remembering and reciting it by heart.9

    In the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, the Ramayana was repeatedly adapted for film and television. In 1987–88, a seventy-eight-episode version (running to about 2,730 hours) was the most watched television series in the world, with more than 650 million viewers. According to a BBC report, when episodes were aired, “streets would be deserted, shops would be closed, and people would bathe and garland their TV sets.” During the 2020 COVID-19 lockdown the series was re-aired and again became the most watched show in the world.10 While modern TV audiences need not memorize any texts by heart, it is noteworthy how easy they find it to follow the intricate plots of epic dramas, detective thrillers, and soap operas, recalling who each character is and how they are related to numerous others. We are so accustomed to performing such feats of memory that we seldom consider how extraordinary they are.

    What makes us so good at remembering epic poems and long-running TV series is that long-term human memory is particularly adapted to retaining stories. As Kendall Haven writes in his 2007 book Story Proof: The Science Behind the Startling Power of Story, “Human minds … rely on stories and on story architecture as the primary roadmap for understanding, making sense of, remembering, and planning our lives.… Lives are like stories because we think in story terms.” Haven references more than 120 academic studies, concluding that “research overwhelmingly, convincingly, and without opposition provides the evidence” that stories are a highly efficient “vehicle for communicating factual, conceptual, emotional, and tacit information.”11

    In contrast, most people find it hard to remember lists by heart, and few people would be interested in watching a TV recitation of India’s tax records or annual budget. Mnemonic methods used to memorize lists of items often work by weaving the items into a plot, thereby turning the list into a story.12 But even with the help of such mnemonic devices, who could remember their country’s tax records or budget? The information may be vital—determining what quality of health care, education, and welfare services citizens enjoy—but our brains are not adapted to remembering such things. Unlike national poems and myths, which can be stored in our brains, complex national taxation and administration systems have required a unique nonorganic information technology in order to function. This technology is the written document.

    TO KILL A LOAN

    The written document was invented many times in many places. Some of the earliest examples come from ancient Mesopotamia. A cuneiform clay tablet dated to the twenty-eighth day of the tenth month of the forty-first year of the reign of King Shulgi of Ur (ca. 2053/4 BCE) recorded the monthly deliveries of sheep and goats. Fifteen sheep were delivered on the second day of the month, 7 sheep on the third day, 11 sheep on the fourth, 219 on the fifth, 47 on the sixth, and so on until 3 sheep were delivered on the twenty-eighth. In total, says the clay tablet, 896 animals were received that month. Remembering all these deliveries was important for the royal administration, to monitor people’s obedience and to keep track of available resources. While doing so in one’s head was a formidable challenge, it was easy for a learned scribe to write them down on a clay tablet.13

    Like stories and like all other information technologies in history, written documents didn’t necessarily represent reality accurately. The Ur tablet, for example, contained a mistake. The document says that a total of 896 animals were received during that month, but when modern scholars added up all the individual entries they reached a total of 898. The scribe who wrote the document apparently made a mistake when he calculated the overall tally, and the tablet preserved this mistake for posterity.

    But whether true or false, written documents created new realities. By recording lists of properties, taxes, and payments, they made it far easier to create administrative systems, kingdoms, religious organizations, and trade networks. More specifically, documents changed the method used for creating intersubjective realities. In oral cultures, intersubjective realities were created by telling a story that many people repeated with their mouths and remembered in their brains. Brain capacity consequently placed a limit on the kinds of intersubjective realities that humans created. Humans couldn’t forge an intersubjective reality that their brains couldn’t remember.

    This limit could be transcended, however, by writing documents. The documents didn’t represent an objective empirical reality; the reality was the documents themselves. As we shall see in later chapters, written documents thereby provided precedents and models that would eventually be used by computers. The ability of computers to create intersubjective realities is an extension of the power of clay tablets and pieces of paper.

    As a key example, consider ownership. In oral communities that lacked written documents, ownership was an intersubjective reality created through the words and behaviors of the community members. To own a field meant that your neighbors agreed that this field was yours and behaved accordingly. They didn’t build a hut on that field, graze their livestock there, or pick fruits there without first asking your permission. Ownership was created and maintained by people continuously saying or signaling things to one another. This made ownership the affair of a local community and placed a limit on the ability of a distant central authority to control all landownership. No king, minister, or priest could remember who owned each field in hundreds of distant villages. This also placed a limit on the ability of individuals to claim and exercise absolute property rights, and instead favored various forms of communal property rights. For example, your neighbors might acknowledge your right to cultivate a field but not your right to sell it to foreigners.14

    In a literate state, to own a field increasingly came to mean that it is written on some clay tablet, bamboo strip, piece of paper, or silicon chip that you own that field. If your neighbors have been grazing their sheep for years on a piece of land, and none of them ever said that you own it, but you can somehow produce an official document that says it is yours, you have a good chance of enforcing your claim. Conversely, if all the neighbors agree that it is your field but you don’t have any official document that proves it, tough luck. Ownership is still an intersubjective reality created by exchanging information, but the information now takes the form of a written document (or a computer file) rather than of people talking and gesturing to each other. This means that ownership can now be determined by a central authority that produces and holds the relevant documents. It also means that you can sell your field without asking your neighbors’ permission, simply by transferring the crucial document to someone else.

    The power of documents to create intersubjective realities was beautifully manifested in the Old Assyrian dialect, which treated documents as living things that could also be killed. Loan contracts were “killed” (duākum) when the debt was repaid. This was done by destroying the tablet, adding some mark to it, or breaking its seal. The loan contract didn’t represent reality; it was the reality. If somebody repaid the loan but failed to “kill the document,” the debt was still owed. Conversely, if somebody didn’t repay the loan but the document “died” in some other way—perhaps the dog ate it—the debt was no more.15 The same happens with money. If your dog eats a hundred-dollar bill, those hundred dollars cease to exist.

    In Shulgi’s Ur, in ancient Assyria, and in numerous subsequent polities, social, economic, and political relations relied on documents that create reality instead of merely representing it. When writing constitutions, peace treaties, and commercial contracts, lawyers, politicians, and businesspeople wrangle for weeks and even months over each word—because they know that these pieces of paper can wield enormous power.

    BUREAUCRACY

    Every new information technology has its unexpected bottlenecks. It solves some old problems but creates new ones. In the early 1730s BCE, Narâmtani, a priestess in the Mesopotamian city of Sippar, wrote a letter (on a clay tablet) to a relative, asking him to send her a few clay tablets he kept in his house. She explained that her claim to an inheritance was being contested and she couldn’t prove her case in court without those documents. She ended her message with a plea: “Now, do not neglect me!”16

    We don’t know what happened next, but just imagine the situation if the relative searched his house but could not find the missing tablets. As people produced more and more documents, finding them turned out to be far from easy. This was a particular challenge for kings, priests, merchants, and anyone else who accumulated thousands of documents in their archives. How do you find the right tax record, payment receipt, or business contract when you need it? Written documents were much better than human brains in recording certain types of information. But they created a new and very thorny problem: retrieval.17

    The brain is remarkably efficient in retrieving whatever information is stored in its network of tens of billions of neurons and trillions of synapses. Though our brain archives countless complex stories about our personal life, our national history, and our religious mythology, healthy people can retrieve information about any of them in less than a second. What did you eat for breakfast? Who was your first crush? When did your country gain its independence? What’s the first verse in the Bible?

    How did you retrieve all these pieces of information? What mechanism activates the right neurons and synapses to rapidly call up the necessary information? Though neuroscientists have made some progress in the study of memory, nobody yet understands what memories are, or how exactly they are stored and retrieved.18 What we do know is that millions of years of evolution streamlined the brain’s retrieval processes. However, once humans have outsourced memories from organic brains to inorganic documents, retrieval could no longer rely on that streamlined biological system. Nor could it rely on the foraging abilities that humans evolved over millions of years. Evolution has adapted humans for finding fruits and mushrooms in a forest, but not for finding documents in an archive.

    Foragers locate fruits and mushrooms in a forest, because evolution has organized forests according to a discernible organic order. Fruit trees photosynthesize, so they require sunlight. Mushrooms feed on dead organic matter, which can usually be found in the ground. So mushrooms are usually down at soil level, whereas fruits grow further up. Another common rule is that apples grow on apple trees, whereas figs grow on figs trees. So if you are looking for an apple, you first need to locate an apple tree, and then look up. When living in a forest, humans learn this organic order.

    It is very different with archives. Since documents aren’t organisms, they don’t obey any biological laws, and evolution didn’t organize them for us. Tax reports don’t grow on a tax-report shelf. They need to be placed there. For that, somebody first needs to come up with the idea of categorizing information by shelves, and to decide which documents should go on which shelf. Unlike foragers, who need merely to discover the preexisting order of the forest, archivists need to devise a new order for the world. That order is called bureaucracy.

    Bureaucracy is the way people in large organizations solved the retrieval problem and thereby created bigger and more powerful information networks. But like mythology, bureaucracy too tends to sacrifice truth for order. By inventing a new order and imposing it on the world, bureaucracy distorted people’s understanding of the world in unique ways. Many of the problems of our twenty-first-century information networks—like biased algorithms that mislabel people, or rigid protocols that ignore human needs and feelings—are not new problems of the computer age. They are quintessential bureaucratic problems that have existed long before anyone even dreamed of computers.

    BUREAUCRACY AND THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH

    Bureaucracy literally means “rule by writing desk.” The term was invented in eighteenth-century France, when the typical official sat next to a writing desk with drawers—a bureau.19 At the heart of the bureaucratic order, then, is the drawer. Bureaucracy seeks to solve the retrieval problem by dividing the world into drawers, and knowing which document goes into which drawer.

    The principle remains the same regardless of whether the document is placed into a drawer, a shelf, a basket, a jar, a computer folder, or any other receptacle: divide and rule. Divide the world into containers, and keep the containers separate so the documents don’t get mixed up. This principle, however, comes with a price. Instead of focusing on understanding the world as it is, bureaucracy is often busy imposing a new and artificial order on the world. Bureaucrats begin by inventing various drawers, which are intersubjective realities that don’t necessarily correspond to any objective divisions in the world. The bureaucrats then try to force the world to fit into these drawers, and if the fit isn’t very good, the bureaucrats push harder. Anyone who ever filled out an official form knows this only too well. When you fill out the form, and none of the listed options fits your circumstances, you must adapt yourself to the form, rather than the form adapting to you. Reducing the messiness of reality to a limited number of fixed drawers helps bureaucrats keep order, but it comes at the expense of truth. Because they are fixated on their drawers—even when reality is far more complex—bureaucrats often develop a distorted understanding of the world.

    The urge to divide reality into rigid drawers also leads bureaucrats to pursue narrow goals irrespective of the wider impact of their actions. A bureaucrat tasked with increasing industrial production is likely to ignore environmental considerations that fall outside her purview, and perhaps dump toxic waste into a nearby river, leading to an ecological disaster downstream. If the government then establishes a new department to combat pollution, its bureaucrats are likely to push for ever more stringent regulations, even if this results in economic ruin for communities upstream. Ideally, someone should be able to take into account all the different considerations and aspects, but such a holistic approach requires transcending or abolishing the bureaucratic division.

    The distortions created by bureaucracy affect not only government agencies and private corporations but also scientific disciplines. Consider, for example, how universities are divided into different faculties and departments. History is separate from biology and from mathematics. Why? Certainly this division doesn’t reflect objective reality. It is the intersubjective invention of academic bureaucrats. The COVID-19 pandemic, for example, was at one and the same time a historical, biological, and mathematical event. But the academic study of pandemics is divided between the separate departments of history, biology, and mathematics (among others). Students pursuing an academic degree must usually decide to which of these departments they belong. Their decision limits their choice of courses, which in turn shapes their understanding of the world. Mathematics students learn how to predict future morbidity levels from present rates of infection; biology students learn how viruses mutate over time; and history students learn how religious and political beliefs affect people’s willingness to follow government instructions. To fully understand COVID-19 requires taking into account mathematical, biological, and historical phenomena, but academic bureaucracy doesn’t encourage such a holistic approach.

    As you climb the academic ladder, the pressure to specialize only increases. The academic world is ruled by the law of publish or perish. If you want a job, you must publish in peer-reviewed journals. But journals are divided by discipline, and publishing an article on virus mutations in a biology journal demands following different conventions from publishing an article on the politics of pandemics in a history journal. There are different jargons, different citation rules, and different expectations. Historians should have a deep understanding of culture and know how to read and interpret historical documents. Biologists should have a deep understanding of evolution and know how to read and interpret DNA molecules. Things that fall in between categories—like the interplay between human political ideologies and virus evolution—are often left unaddressed.20

    To appreciate how academics force a messy and fluid world into rigid bureaucratic categories, let’s dig a little deeper in the specific discipline of biology. Before Darwin could explain the origin of species, earlier scholars like Carl Linnaeus first had to define what a species is and classify all living organisms into species. To argue that lions and tigers evolved from a common feline ancestor, you first have to define “lions” and “tigers.”21 This turned out to be a difficult and never-ending job, because animals, plants, and other organisms often trespass the boundaries of their allotted drawers.

    Evolution cannot be easily contained in any bureaucratic schema. The whole point of evolution is that species continually change, which means that putting each species in one unchanging drawer distorts biological reality. For example, it is an open question when Homo erectus ended and Homo sapiens began. Were there once two Erectus parents whose child was the first Sapiens?22 Species also keep intermingling, with animals belonging to seemingly separate species not only having sex but even siring fertile offspring. Most Sapiens living today have about 1–3 percent Neanderthal DNA,23 indicating that there once was a child whose father was a Neanderthal and whose mother was a Sapiens (or vice versa). So are Sapiens and Neanderthals the same species or different species? And is “species” an objective reality that biologists discover, or is it an intersubjective reality that biologists impose?24

    There are numerous other examples of animals breaking out of their drawers, so the neat bureaucratic division fails to accurately categorize ring species, fusion species, and hybrids.25 Grizzly bears and polar bears sometimes produce pizzly bears and grolar bears.26 Lions and tigers produce ligers and tigons.27

    When we shift our attention from mammals and other multicellular organisms to the world of single-cell bacteria and archaea, we discover that anarchy reigns. In a process known as horizontal gene transfer, single-cell organisms routinely exchange genetic material not only with organisms from related species but also with organisms from entirely different genera, kingdoms, orders, and even domains. Bacteriologists have a very difficult job keeping tabs on these chimeras.28

    And when we reach the very edge of life and consider viruses like SARS-CoV-2 (responsible for COVID-19), things become even more complicated. Viruses straddle the supposed rigid boundary between living beings and lifeless matter—between biology and chemistry. Unlike bacteria, viruses aren’t single-cell organisms. They aren’t cells at all, and don’t possess any cellular machinery of their own. Viruses don’t eat or metabolize, and cannot reproduce by themselves. They are tiny packets of genetic code, which are able to penetrate cells, hijack their cellular machinery, and instruct them to produce more copies of that alien genetic code. The new copies burst out of the cell to infect and hijack more cells, which is how the alien code turns viral. Scientists argue endlessly about whether viruses should count as life-forms or whether they fall outside the boundary of life.29 But this boundary isn’t an objective reality; it is an intersubjective convention. Even if biologists reach a consensus that viruses are life-forms, it wouldn’t change anything about how viruses behave; it will only change how humans think about them.

    Of course, intersubjective conventions are themselves part of reality. As we humans become more powerful, so our intersubjective beliefs become more consequential for the world outside our information networks. For example, scientists and legislators have categorized species according to the threat of extinction they face, on a scale ranging from “least concern” through “vulnerable” and “endangered” to “extinct.” Defining a particular population of animals as an “endangered species” is an intersubjective human convention, but it can have far-reaching consequences, for instance by imposing legal restrictions on hunting those animals or destroying their habitat. A bureaucratic decision about whether a certain animal belongs in the “endangered species” drawer or in the “vulnerable species” drawer could make the difference between life and death. As we shall see time and again in subsequent chapters, when a bureaucracy puts a label on you, even though the label might be pure convention, it can still determine your fate. That’s true whether the bureaucrat is a flesh-and-blood expert on animals; a flesh-and-blood expert on humans; or an inorganic AI.

    THE DEEP STATE

    In defense of bureaucracy it should be noted that while it sometimes sacrifices truth and distorts our understanding of the world, it often does so for the sake of order, without which it would be hard to maintain any large-scale human network. While bureaucracies are never perfect, is there a better way to manage big networks? For example, if we decided to abolish all conventional divisions in the academic world, all departments and faculties and specialized journals, would every prospective doctor be expected to devote several years to the study of history, and would people who studied the impact of the Black Death on Christian theology be considered expert virologists? Would it lead to better health-care systems?

    Anyone who fantasizes about abolishing all bureaucracies in favor of a more holistic approach to the world should reflect on the fact that hospitals too are bureaucratic institutions. They are divided into different departments, with hierarchies, protocols, and lots of forms to fill out. They suffer from many bureaucratic illnesses, but they still manage to cure us of many of our biological illnesses. The same goes for almost all the other services that make our life better, from our schools to our sewage system.

    When you flush the toilet, where does the waste go? It goes into the deep state. There is an intricate subterranean web of pipes, pumps, and tunnels that runs under our houses and collects our waste, separates it from the supply of drinking water, and either treats or safely disposes of it. Somebody needs to design, construct, and maintain that deep web, plug holes in it, monitor pollution levels, and pay the workers. That too is bureaucratic work, and we would face a lot of discomfort and even death if we abolished that particular department. Sewage water and drinking water are always in danger of mixing, but luckily for us there are bureaucrats who keep them separate.

    Prior to the establishment of modern sewage systems, waterborne infectious diseases like dysentery and cholera killed millions of people around the world.30 In 1854 hundreds of London residents began dying of cholera. It was a relatively small outbreak, but it proved to be a turning point in the history of cholera, of epidemics more generally, and of sewage. The leading medical theory of the day argued that cholera epidemics were caused by “bad air.” But the physician John Snow suspected that the cause was the water supply. He painstakingly tracked and listed all known cholera patients, their place of residence, and their source of water. The resulting data led him to identify the water pump on Broad Street in Soho as the epicenter of the outbreak.

    This was tedious bureaucratic work—collecting data, categorizing it, and mapping it—but it saved lives. Snow explained his findings to local officials, persuading them to disable the Broad Street pump, which effectively ended the outbreak. Subsequent research discovered that the well providing water to the Broad Street pump was dug less than a meter from a cholera-infected cesspit.31

    Snow’s discovery, and the work of many subsequent scientists, engineers, lawyers, and officials, resulted in a sprawling bureaucracy regulating cesspits, water pumps, and sewage lines. In today’s England, digging wells and constructing cesspits require filling out forms and getting licenses, which ensure that drinking water doesn’t come from a well someone dug next to a cesspit.32

    It is easy to forget about this system when it works well, but since 1854 it has saved millions of lives, and it is one of the most important services provided by modern states. In 2014, Prime Minister Narendra Modi of India identified the lack of toilets as one of India’s biggest problems. Open defecation is a major cause for spreading diseases like cholera, dysentery, and diarrhea, as well as exposing women and girls to sexual assaults. As part of his flagship Clean India Mission, Modi promised to provide all Indian citizens with access to toilets, and between 2014 and 2020 the Indian state invested around ten billion dollars in the project, building more than 100 million new latrines.33 Sewage isn’t the stuff of epic poems, but it is a test of a well-functioning state.

    THE BIOLOGICAL DRAMAS

    Mythology and bureaucracy are the twin pillars of every large-scale society. Yet while mythology tends to inspire fascination, bureaucracy tends to inspire suspicion. Despite the services they provide, even beneficial bureaucracies often fail to win the public’s trust. For many people, the very word “bureaucracy” carries negative connotations. This is because it is inherently difficult to know whether a bureaucratic system is beneficial or malicious. For all bureaucracies—good or bad—share one key characteristic: it is hard for humans to understand them.

    Any kid can tell the difference between a friend and a bully. You know if someone shares their lunch with you or instead takes yours. But when the tax collector comes to take a cut from your earnings, how can you tell whether it goes to build a new public sewage system or a new private dacha for the president? It is hard to get all the relevant information, and even harder to interpret it. It is similarly difficult for citizens to understand the bureaucratic procedures determining how pupils are admitted to schools, how patients are treated in hospitals, or how garbage is collected and recycled. It takes a minute to tweet allegations of bias, fraud, or corruption, and many weeks of arduous work to prove or disprove them.

    Documents, archives, forms, licenses, regulations, and other bureaucratic procedures have changed the way information flows in society, and with it the way power works. This made it far more difficult to understand power. What is happening behind the closed doors of offices and archives, where anonymous officials analyze and organize piles of documents and determine our fate with a stroke of a pen or a click of a mouse?

    In tribal societies that lack written documents and bureaucracies, the human network is composed of only human-to-human and human-to-story chains. Authority belongs to the people who control the junctions that link the various chains. These junctions are the tribe’s foundational myths. Charismatic leaders, orators, and mythmakers know how to use these stories in order to shape identities, build alliances, and sway emotions.34

    In human networks connected by written documents and bureaucratic procedures—from ancient Ur to modern India—society relies in part on the interaction between humans and documents. In addition to human-to-human and human-to-story chains, such societies are held together by human-to-document chains. When we observe a bureaucratic society at work, we still see humans telling stories to other humans, as when millions of Indians watch the Ramayana series, but we also see humans passing documents to other humans, as when TV networks are required to apply for broadcasting licenses and fill out tax reports. Looked at from a different perspective, what we see is documents compelling humans to engage with other documents.

    This led to shifts in authority. As documents became a crucial nexus linking many social chains, considerable power came to be invested in these documents, and experts in the arcane logic of documents emerged as new authority figures. Administrators, accountants, and lawyers mastered not just reading and writing but also the skills of composing forms, separating drawers, and managing archives. In bureaucratic systems, power often comes from understanding how to manipulate obscure budgetary loopholes and from knowing your way around the labyrinths of offices, committees, and subcommittees.

    This shift in authority changed the balance of power in the world. For better or worse, literate bureaucracies tended to strengthen the central authority at the expense of ordinary citizens. It’s not just that documents and archives made it easier for the center to tax, judge, and conscript everybody. The difficulty of understanding bureaucratic power simultaneously made it harder for the masses to influence, resist, or evade the central authority. Even when bureaucracy was a benign force, providing people with sewage systems, education, and security, it still tended to increase the gap between rulers and ruled. The system enabled the center to collect and record a lot more information about the people it governed, while the latter found it much more difficult to understand how the system itself worked.

    Art, which helps us understand many other aspects of life, offered only limited assistance in this case. Poets, playwrights, and moviemakers have occasionally focused on the dynamics of bureaucratic power. However, this has proven to be a very difficult story to communicate. Artists usually work with a limited set of story lines that are rooted in our biology, but none of these biological dramas sheds much light on the workings of bureaucracy, because they have all been scripted by evolution millions of years before the emergence of documents and archives. To understand what “biological dramas” are, and why they are a poor guide for understanding bureaucracy, let’s consider in detail the plot of one of humanity’s greatest artistic masterpieces—the Ramayana.

    One important plotline of the Ramayana concerns the relations between the eponymous prince, Rama, his father, King Dasharatha, and his stepmother, Queen Kaikeyi. Though Rama, being the eldest son, is the rightful heir to the kingdom, Kaikeyi persuades the king to banish Rama to the wilderness and bestow the succession instead on her son Bharata. Underlying this plotline are several biological dramas that go back hundreds of millions of years in mammalian and avian evolution.

    All mammal and bird offspring depend on their parents in the first stage of life, seek parental care, and fear parental neglect or hostility. Life and death hang in the balance. A cub or chick pushed out of the nest too soon is in danger of death from starvation or predation. Among humans, the fear of being neglected or abandoned by one’s parents is a template not just for children’s stories like Snow White, Cinderella, and Harry Potter but also for some of our most influential national and religious myths. The Ramayana is far from being the sole example. In Christian theology damnation is conceived as losing all contact with the mother church and the heavenly father. Hell is a lost child crying for his or her missing parents.

    A related biological drama, which is also familiar to human children, mammalian cubs, and avian chicks, is “Father loves me more than he loves you.” Biologists and geneticists have identified sibling rivalry as one of the key processes of evolution.35 Siblings routinely compete for food and parental attention, and in some species the killing of one sibling by another is commonplace. About a quarter of spotted hyena cubs are killed by their siblings, who typically enjoy greater parental care as a result.36 Among sand tiger sharks, females hold numerous embryos in their uterus. The first embryo that reaches about ten centimeters in length then eats all the others.37 The dynamics of sibling rivalry are manifested in numerous myths in addition to the Ramayana, for instance in the stories of Cain and Abel, King Lear, and the TV series Succession. Entire nations—like the Jewish people—may base their identity on the claim that “we are Father’s favorite children.”

    The second major plotline of the Ramayana focuses on the romantic triangle formed by Prince Rama, his lover, Sita, and the demon-king Ravana, who kidnaps Sita. “Boy meets girl” and “boy fights boy over girl” are also biological dramas that have been enacted by countless mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish for hundreds of millions of years. We are mesmerized by these stories because understanding them has been essential for our ancestors’ survival. Human storytellers like Homer, Shakespeare, and Valmiki—the purported author of the Ramayana—have displayed an amazing capacity to elaborate on the biological dramas, but even the greatest poetical narratives usually copy their basic plotline from the handbook of evolution.

    A third theme recurring in the Ramayana is the tension between purity and impurity, with Sita being the paragon of purity in Hindu culture. The cultural obsession with purity originates in the evolutionary struggle to avoid pollution. All animals are torn between the need to try new food and the fear of being poisoned. Evolution therefore equipped animals with both curiosity and the capacity to feel disgust on coming into contact with something toxic or otherwise dangerous.38 Politicians and prophets have learned how to manipulate these disgust mechanisms. In nationalist and religious myths, countries or churches are depicted as a biological body in danger of being polluted by impure intruders. For centuries bigots have often said that ethnic and religious minorities spread diseases,39 that LGBTQ people are a source of pollution,40 or that women are impure.41 During the Rwanda genocide of 1994, Hutu propaganda referred to the Tutsis as cockroaches. The Nazis compared Jews to rats. Experiments have shown that chimpanzees, too, react with disgust to images of unfamiliar chimpanzees from another band.42

    Perhaps in no other culture was the biological drama of “purity versus impurity” carried to greater extremes than in traditional Hinduism. It constructed an intersubjective system of castes ranked by their supposed level of purity, with the pure Brahmins at the top and the allegedly impure Dalit (formerly known as untouchables) at the bottom. Professions, tools, and everyday activities have also been classified by their level of purity, and strict rules have forbidden “impure” persons to marry “pure” people, touch them, prepare food for them, or even come near them.

    The modern state of India still struggles with this legacy, which influences almost all aspects of life. For example, fears of impurity created various complications for the aforementioned Clean India Mission, because allegedly “pure” people were reluctant to get involved in “impure” activities such as building, maintaining, and cleaning toilets, or to share public latrines with allegedly “impure” persons.43 On September 25, 2019, two Dalit children—twelve-year-old Roshni Valmiki and her ten-year-old nephew Avinash—were lynched in the Indian village of Bhakhedi for defecating near the house of a family from the higher Yadav caste. They were forced to defecate in public because their houses lacked functioning toilets. A local official later explained that their household—while being among the poorest in the village—was nevertheless excluded from the list of families eligible for government aid to build toilets. The children routinely suffered from other caste-based discrimination, for example being forced to bring separate mats and utensils to school and to sit apart from the other pupils, so as not to “pollute” them.44

    The list of biological dramas that press our emotional buttons includes several additional classics, such as “Who will be alpha?” “Us versus them,” and “Good versus evil.” These dramas, too, feature prominently in the Ramayana, and all of them are well known to wolf packs and chimpanzee bands as well as to human societies. Together, these biological dramas form the backbone of almost all human art and mythology. But art’s dependence on the biological dramas have made it difficult for artists to explain the mechanisms of bureaucracy. The Ramayana is set within the context of large agrarian kingdoms, but it shows little interest in how such kingdoms register property, collect taxes, catalog archives, or finance wars. Sibling rivalry and romantic triangles aren’t a good guide for the dynamics of documents, which have no siblings and no romantic life.

    Storytellers like Franz Kafka, who focused on the often surreal ways that bureaucracy shapes human lives, pioneered new nonbiological plotlines. In Kafka’s Trial, the bank clerk K. is arrested by unidentified officials of an unfathomable agency for an unnamed crime. Despite his best efforts, he never understands what is happening to him or uncovers the aims of the agency that is crushing him. While sometimes taken as an existential or theological reference to the human condition in the universe and to the unfathomability of God, on a more mundane level the story highlights the potentially nightmarish character of bureaucracies, which as an insurance lawyer Kafka knew all too well.

    In bureaucratic societies, the lives of ordinary people are often upended by unidentified officials of an unfathomable agency for incomprehensible reasons. Whereas stories about heroes who confront monsters—from the Ramayana to Spider-Man—repackage the biological dramas of confronting predators and romantic rivals, the unique horror of Kafkaesque stories comes from the unfathomability of the threat. Evolution has primed our minds to understand death by a tiger. Our mind finds it much more difficult to understand death by a document.

    Some portrayals of bureaucracy are satirical. Joseph Heller’s iconic 1961 novel, Catch-22, illustrated the central role bureaucracy plays in war. The ex–private first class Wintergreen in the mail room—who decides which letters to forward—is a more powerful figure than any general.45 The 1980s British sitcoms Yes Minister and Yes, Prime Minister showed the ways that civil servants use arcane regulations, obscure subcommittees, and piles of documents to manipulate and control their political bosses. The 2015 comedy-drama The Big Short (based on a 2010 book by Michael Lewis) explored the bureaucratic roots of the 2007–8 financial crisis. The movie’s arch-villains are not humans but collateralized debt obligations (CDOs), which are financial devices invented by investment bankers and understood by nobody else in the world. These bureaucratic Godzillas slumbered unnoticed in the depths of bank portfolios, until they suddenly emerged in 2007 to wreak havoc on the lives of billions of people by instigating a major financial crisis.

    Artworks like these have had some success in shaping perceptions of how bureaucratic power works, but this is an uphill battle, because since the Stone Age our minds have been primed to focus on biological dramas rather than bureaucratic ones. Most Hollywood and Bollywood blockbusters are not about CDOs. Rather, even in the twenty-first century, most blockbusters are essentially Stone Age stories about the hero who fights the monster to win the girl. Similarly, when depicting the dynamics of political power, TV series like Game of Thrones, The Crown, and Succession focus on the family intrigues of the dynastic court rather than on the bureaucratic labyrinth that sustains—and sometimes curbs—the dynasty’s power.

    LET’S KILL ALL THE LAWYERS

    The difficulty of depicting and understanding bureaucratic realities has had unfortunate results. On the one hand, it leaves people feeling helpless in the face of harmful powers they do not understand, like the hero of Kafka’s Trial. On the other hand, it also leaves people with the impression that bureaucracy is a malign conspiracy, even in cases when it is in fact a benign force providing us with health care, security, and justice.

    In the sixteenth century, Ludovico Ariosto described the allegorical figure of Discord as a woman who walks around in a cloud of “sheaves of summonses and writs, cross-examinations and powers of attorney, and great piles of glosses, counsel’s opinions and precedents—all of which tended to the greater insecurity of impoverished folk. In front and behind her and on either side she was hemmed in by notaries, attorneys and barristers.”46

    In his description of Jack Cade’s Rebellion (1450) in Henry VI, Part 2, Shakespeare has a commoner rebel called Dick the Butcher take the antipathy to bureaucracy to its logical conclusion. Dick has a plan to establish a better social order. “The first thing we do,” advises Dick, “let’s kill all the lawyers.” The rebel leader, Jack Cade, runs with Dick’s proposal in a forceful attack on bureaucracy and in particular on written documents: “Is not this a lamentable thing, that of the skin of an innocent lamb should be made parchment? That parchment, being scribbled o’er, should undo a man? Some say the bee stings: but I say, ’tis the bee’s wax; for I did but seal once to a thing, and I was never mine own man since.” Just then the rebels capture a clerk and accuse him of being able to write and read. After a short interrogation that establishes his “crime,” Cade orders his men, “Hang him with his pen and inkhorn about his neck.”47

    Seventy years prior to Jack Cade’s Rebellion, during the even bigger 1381 Peasants’ Revolt, the rebels focused their ire not only on flesh-and-blood bureaucrats but also on their documents, destroying numerous archives, burning court rolls, charters, and administrative and legal records. In one incident, they made a bonfire of the archives of the University of Cambridge. An old woman named Margery Starr scattered the ashes to the winds while crying, “Away with the learning of the clerks, away with it!” Thomas Walsingham, a monk in St. Albans Abbey who witnessed the destruction of the abbey’s archive firsthand, described how the rebels “set fire to all court rolls and muniments, so that after they had got rid of these records of their ancient service their lords would not be able to claim any right at all against them at some future time.”48 Killing the documents erased the debts.

    Similar attacks on archives characterized numerous other insurgencies throughout history. For example, during the Great Jewish Revolt in 66 CE, one of the first things the rebels did upon capturing Jerusalem was to set fire to the central archive in order to destroy records of debts, thereby wining the support of the populace.49 During the French Revolution in 1789, numerous local and regional archives were destroyed for comparable reasons.50 Many rebels might have been illiterate, but they knew that without the documents the bureaucratic machine couldn’t function.

    I can sympathize with the suspicion of government bureaucracies and of the power of official documents, because they have played an important role in my own family. My maternal grandfather had his life upended by a government census and by the inability to find a crucial document. My grandfather Bruno Luttinger was born in 1913 in Chernivtsi. Today this town is in Ukraine, but in 1913 it was part of the Habsburg Empire. Bruno’s father disappeared in World War I, and he was raised by his mother, Chaya-Pearl. When the war was over, Chernivtsi was annexed to Romania. In the late 1930s, as Romania became a fascist dictatorship, an important plank of its new antisemitic policy was to conduct a Jewish census.

    In 1936 official statistics said that 758,000 Jews lived in Romania, constituting 4.2 percent of the population. The same official statistics said that the total number of refugees from the U.S.S.R., Jews and non-Jews, was about 11,000. In 1937 a new fascist government came to power, headed by Prime Minister Octavian Goga. Goga was a renowned poet as well as a politician, but he quickly graduated from patriotic poetry to fake statistics and oppressive bureaucracy. He and his colleagues ignored the official statistics and claimed that hundreds of thousands of Jewish refugees were flooding into Romania. In several interviews Goga claimed that half a million Jews had entered Romania illegally and that the total number of Jews in the country was 1.5 million. Government organs, far-right statisticians, and popular newspapers regularly cited even higher figures. The Romanian embassy in Paris, for example, claimed there were a million Jewish refugees in Romania. Christian Romanians were gripped by mass hysteria that they would soon be replaced or become a minority in a Jewish-led country.

    Goga’s government stepped in to offer a solution to the imaginary problem invented by its own propaganda. On January 22, 1938, the government issued a law ordering all Jews in Romania to provide documented proof that they were born in Romanian territory and were entitled to Romanian citizenship. Jews who failed to provide proof would lose their citizenship, along with all rights to residence and employment.

    Suddenly Romania’s Jews found themselves in a bureaucratic hell. Many had to travel to their birthplace to look for the relevant documents, only to discover that the municipal archives were destroyed during World War I. Jews born in territories annexed to Romania only after 1918—like Chernivtsi—faced special difficulties, because they lacked Romanian birth certificates and because many other documents about their families were archived in the former Habsburg capitals of Vienna and Budapest instead of in Bucharest. Jews often didn’t even know which documents they were supposed to be looking for, because the census law didn’t specify which documents were considered sufficient “proof.”

    Clerks and archivists gained a new and lucrative source of income as frantic Jews offered to pay large bribes to get their hands on the right document. Even if no bribes were involved, the process was extremely costly: any request for documentation, as well as filing the citizenship request with the authorities, involved paying fees. Finding and filing the right document did not guarantee success. A difference of a single letter between how a name was spelled on the birth certificate and on the citizenship papers was enough for the authorities to revoke the citizenship.

    Many Jews could not clear these bureaucratic hurdles and didn’t even file a citizenship request. Of those who did, only 63 percent got their citizenship approved. Altogether, out of 758,000 Romanian Jews, 367,000 lost their citizenship.51 My grandfather Bruno was among them. When the new census law was passed in Bucharest, Bruno did not think much about it. He was born in Chernivtsi and lived there all his life. The thought that he needed to prove to some bureaucrat that he was not an alien struck him as ridiculous. Moreover, in early 1938 his mother fell ill and died, and Bruno felt he had much bigger things to worry about than chasing documents.

    In December 1938 an official letter arrived from Bucharest canceling Bruno’s citizenship, and as an alien he was promptly fired from his job in a Chernivtsi radio shop. Bruno was now not only alone and jobless but also stateless and without much prospect for alternative employment. Nine months later World War II erupted, and the danger for paperless Jews was mounting. Of the Romanian Jews who lost their citizenship in 1938, the vast majority would be murdered over the next few years by the Romanian fascists and their Nazi allies (Jews who retained their citizenship had a much higher survival rate).52

    My grandfather repeatedly tried to escape the tightening noose, but it was difficult without the right papers. Several times he smuggled himself onto trains and ships, only to be caught and arrested. In 1940 he finally managed to board one of the last ships bound for Palestine before the gates of hell slammed shut. When he arrived in Palestine, he was immediately imprisoned by the British as an illegal immigrant. After two months in prison, the British offered a deal: stay in jail and risk deportation, or enlist in the British army and get Palestinian citizenship. My grandfather grabbed the offer with both hands and from 1941 to 1945 served in the British army in the North African and Italian campaigns. In exchange, he got his papers.

    In our family it became a sacred duty to preserve documents. Bank statements, electricity bills, expired student cards, letters from the municipality—if it had an official-looking stamp on it, it would be filed in one of the many folders in our cupboard. You never knew which of these documents might one day save your life.

    THE MIRACLE DOCUMENT

    Should we love the bureaucratic information network or hate it? Stories like that of my grandfather indicate the dangers inherent in bureaucratic power. Stories like that of the London cholera epidemic indicate its potential benevolence. All powerful information networks can do both good and ill, depending on how they are designed and used. Merely increasing the quantity of information in a network doesn’t guarantee its benevolence, nor make it any easier to find the right balance between truth and order. That is a key historical lesson for the designers and users of the new information networks of the twenty-first century.

    Future information networks, particularly those based on AI, will be different from previous networks in many ways. While in part 1 we are examining how mythology and bureaucracy have been essential for large-scale information networks, in part 2 we will see how AI is taking up the role of both bureaucrats and mythmakers. AI tools know how to find and process data better than flesh-and-blood bureaucrats, and AI is also acquiring the ability to compose stories better than most humans.

    But before we explore the new AI-based information networks of the twenty-first century, and before we examine the threats and promises of AI mythmakers and AI bureaucrats, there is one more thing we need to understand about the long-term history of information networks. We have now seen that information networks don’t maximize truth, but rather seek to find a balance between truth and order. Bureaucracy and mythology are both essential for maintaining order, and both are happy to sacrifice truth for the sake of order. What mechanisms, then, ensure that bureaucracy and mythology don’t lose touch with truth altogether, and what mechanisms enable information networks to identify and correct their own mistakes, even at the price of some disorder?

    The way human information networks have dealt with the problem of errors will be the main subject of the next two chapters. We’ll start by considering the invention of another information technology: the holy book. Holy books like the Bible and the Quran are an information technology that is meant to both include all the vital information society needs and be free from all possibility of error. What happens when an information network believes itself to be utterly incapable of any error? The history of allegedly infallible holy books highlights some of the limitations of all information networks and holds important lessons for the attempt to create infallible AIs in the twenty-first century.

    CHAPTER 4 Errors: The Fantasy of Infallibility

    As Saint Augustine famously said, “To err is human; to persist in error is diabolical.”1 The fallibility of human beings, and the need to correct human errors, have played key roles in every mythology. According to Christian mythology, the whole of history is an attempt to correct Adam and Eve’s original sin. According to Marxist-Leninist thinking, even the working class is likely to be fooled by its oppressors and misidentify its own interests, which is why it requires the leadership of a wise party vanguard. Bureaucracy, too, is constantly on the lookout for errors, from misplaced documents to inefficient procedures. Complex bureaucratic systems usually contain self-disciplinary bodies, and when a major catastrophe occurs—like a military defeat or a financial meltdown—commissions of inquiry are set up to understand what went wrong and make sure the same mistake is not repeated.

    In order to function, self-correcting mechanisms need legitimacy. If humans are prone to error, how can we trust the self-correcting mechanisms to be free from error? To escape this seemingly endless loop, humans have often fantasized about some superhuman mechanism, free from all error, that they can rely upon to identify and correct their own mistakes. Today one might hope that AI could provide such a mechanism, as when in April 2023 Elon Musk announced, “I’m going to start something, which I call TruthGPT or a maximum truth-seeking AI that tries to understand the nature of the universe.”2 We will see in later chapters why this is a dangerous fantasy. In previous eras, such fantasies took a different form—religion.

    In our personal lives, religion can fulfill many different functions, like providing solace or explaining the mysteries of life. But historically, the most important function of religion has been to provide superhuman legitimacy for the social order. Religions like Judaism, Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism propose that their ideas and rules were established by an infallible superhuman authority, and are therefore free from all possibility of error, and should never be questioned or changed by fallible humans.

    TAKING HUMANS OUT OF THE LOOP

    At the heart of every religion lies the fantasy of connecting to a superhuman and infallible intelligence. This is why, as we shall explore in chapter 8, studying the history of religion is highly relevant to present-day debates about AI. In the history of religion, a recurrent problem is how to convince people that a certain dogma indeed originated from an infallible superhuman source. Even if in principle I am eager to submit to the gods’ will, how do I know what the gods really want?

    Throughout history many humans claimed to convey messages from the gods, but the messages often contradicted each other. One person said a god appeared to her in a dream; another person said she was visited by an angel; a third recounted how he met a spirit in a forest—and each preached a different message. The anthropologist Harvey Whitehouse recounts how when he was doing fieldwork among the Baining people of New Britain in the late 1980s, a young man called Tanotka fell sick, and in his feverish delirium began making cryptic statements like “I am Wutka” and “I am a post.” Most of these statements were heard only by Tanotka’s older brother, Baninge, who began telling about them to other people and interpreting them in a creative way. Baninge said that his brother was possessed by an ancestral spirit called Wutka and that he was divinely chosen to be the main support of the community, just as local houses were supported by a central post.

    After Tanotka recovered, he continued to deliver cryptic messages from Wutka, which were interpreted by Baninge in ever more elaborate ways. Baninge also began having dreams of his own, which allegedly revealed additional divine messages. He claimed that the end of the world was imminent, and convinced many of the locals to grant him dictatorial powers so that he could prepare the community for the coming apocalypse. Baninge proceeded to waste almost all the community’s resources on extravagant feasts and rituals. When the apocalypse didn’t materialize and the community almost starved, Baninge’s power collapsed. Though some locals continued to believe that he and Tanotka were divine messengers, many others concluded that the two were charlatans—or perhaps the servants of the Devil.3

    How could people distinguish the true will of the gods from the inventions or imaginations of fallible humans? Unless you had a personal divine revelation, knowing what the gods said meant trusting what fallible humans like Tanotka and Baninge claimed the gods said. But how can you trust these humans, especially if you don’t know them personally? Religion wants to take fallible humans out of the loop and give people access to infallible superhuman laws, but religion repeatedly boiled down to trusting this or that human.

    One way around this problem was to create religious institutions that vetted the purported divine messengers. Already in tribal societies communication with superhuman entities like tribal spirits was often the domain of religious experts. Among the Baining people, specialized spirit mediums known as agungaraga were traditionally responsible for communicating with the spirits and thereby learning the hidden causes of misfortunes ranging from illness to crop failure. Their membership in an established institution made the agungaraga more trustworthy than Tanotka and Baninge, and made their authority more stable and widely acknowledged.4 Among the Kalapalo tribe of Brazil religious rituals were organized by hereditary ritual officers known as the anetaū. In ancient Celtic and Hindu societies similar duties were the preserve of druids and Brahmins.5 As human societies grew and became more complex, so did their religious institutions. Priests and oracles had to train long and hard for the important task of representing the gods, so people no longer needed to trust just any layperson who claimed to have met an angel or to carry a divine message.6 In ancient Greece, for example, if you wanted to know what the gods said, you went to an accredited expert like the Pythia—the high priestess at the temple of Apollo in Delphi.

    But as long as religious institutions like oracular temples were staffed by fallible humans, they too were open to error and corruption. Herodotus recounts that when Athens was ruled by the tyrant Hippias, the pro-democracy faction bribed the Pythia to help them. Whenever any Spartan came to the Pythia to consult the gods on either official or private matters, the Pythia invariably replied that the Spartans must first free Athens from the tyrant. The Spartans, who were Hippias’s allies, eventually submitted to the alleged will of the gods and sent an army to Athens that deposed Hippias in 510 BCE, leading to the establishment of Athenian democracy.7

    If a human prophet could falsify the words of a god, then the key problem of religion wasn’t solved by creating religious institutions like temples and priestly orders. People still needed to trust fallible humans in order to access the supposedly infallible gods. Was it possible to somehow bypass the humans altogether?

    THE INFALLIBLE TECHNOLOGY

    Holy books like the Bible and the Quran are a technology to bypass human fallibility, and religions of the book—like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam—have been built around that technological artifact. To appreciate how this technology is meant to work, we should begin by explaining what a book is and what makes books different from other kinds of written texts. A book is a fixed block of texts—such as chapters, stories, recipes, or epistles—that always go together and have many identical copies. This makes a book something different from oral tales, from bureaucratic documents, and from archives. When telling a story orally, every time we tell the story it might be a little different, and if many people tell the story over a long time, significant variations are bound to creep in. In contrast, all copies of a book are supposed to be identical. As for bureaucratic documents, they tend to be relatively short, and often exist only as a single copy in one archive. If a long document has many copies placed in numerous archives, we would normally call it a book. Finally, a book that contains many texts is also different from an archive, because each archive contains a different collection of texts, whereas all copies of a book contain the same chapters, the same stories, or the same recipes. The book thereby ensures that many people in many times and places can access the same database.

    The book became an important religious technology in the first millennium BCE. After tens of thousands of years in which gods spoke to humans via shamans, priests, prophets, oracles, and other human messengers, religious movements like Judaism began arguing that the gods speak through this novel technology of the book. There is one specific book whose many chapters allegedly contain all the divine words about everything from the creation of the universe to food regulations. Crucially, no priest, prophet, or human institution can forget or change these divine words, because you can always compare what the fallible humans are telling you with what the infallible book records.

    But religions of the book had their own set of problems. Most obviously, who decides what to include in the holy book? The first copy didn’t come down from heaven. It had to be compiled by humans. Still, the faithful hoped that this thorny problem could be solved by a once-and-for-all supreme effort. If we could get together the wisest and most trustworthy humans, and they could all agree on the contents of the holy book, from that moment onward we could excise humans from the loop, and the divine words would forever be safe from human interference.

    Many objections can be raised against this procedure: Who selects the wisest humans? On the basis of what criteria? What if they cannot reach a consensus? What if they later change their minds? Nevertheless, this was the procedure used to compile holy books like the Hebrew Bible.

    THE MAKING OF THE HEBREW BIBLE

    During the first millennium BCE, Jewish prophets, priests, and scholars produced an extensive collection of stories, documents, prophecies, poems, prayers, and chronicles. The Bible as a single holy book didn’t exist in biblical times. King David or the prophet Isaiah never saw a copy of the Bible.

    It is sometimes claimed, erroneously, that the oldest surviving copy of the Bible comes from the Dead Sea Scrolls. These scrolls are a collection of about nine hundred different documents, written mostly in the last two centuries BCE and found in various caves around Qumran, a village near the Dead Sea.8 Most scholars believe they constituted the archive of a Jewish sect that lived nearby.9

    Significantly, none of the scrolls contains a copy of the Bible, and no scroll indicates that the twenty-four books of the Old Testament were considered a single and complete database. Some of the scrolls certainly record texts that are today part of the canonical Bible. For example, nineteen scrolls and fragmentary manuscripts preserve parts of the book of Genesis.10 But many scrolls record texts that were later excluded from the Bible. For example, more than twenty scrolls and fragments preserve parts of the book of Enoch—a book allegedly written by the patriarch Enoch, the great-grandfather of Noah, and containing the history of the angels and demons as well as a prophecy about the coming of the Messiah.11 The Jews of Qumran apparently gave great importance to both Genesis and Enoch, and did not think that Genesis was canonical while Enoch was apocryphal.12 Indeed, to this day some Ethiopian Jewish and Christian sects consider Enoch part of their canon.13

    Even the scrolls that record future canonical texts sometimes differ from the present-day canonical version. For example, the canonical text of Deuteronomy 32:8 says that God divided the nations of the earth according to “the number of the sons of Israel.” The version recorded in the Dead Sea Scrolls has “the number of the sons of God” instead, implying a rather startling notion that God has multiple sons.14 In Deuteronomy 8:6 the canonical text requires the faithful to fear God, whereas the Dead Sea version asks them to love God.15 Some variations are much more substantial than just a single word here or there. The Psalms scrolls contain several entire psalms that are missing from the canonical Bible (most notably Psalms 151, 154, 155).16

    Similarly, the oldest translation of the Bible—the Greek Septuagint—completed between the third and the first centuries BCE, is different in many ways from the later canonical version.17 It includes, for example, the books of Tobit, Judith, Sirach, Maccabees, the Wisdom of Solomon, the Psalms of Solomon, and Psalm 151.18 It also has longer versions of Daniel and Esther.19 Its book of Jeremiah is 15 percent shorter than the canonical version.20 Finally, in Deuteronomy 32:8 most Septuagint manuscripts have either “sons of God” or “angels of God” rather than “sons of Israel.”21

    It took centuries of hairsplitting debates among learned Jewish sages—known as rabbis—to streamline the canonical database and to decide which of the many texts in circulation would get into the Bible as the official word of Jehovah and which would be excluded. By the time of Jesus agreement was probably reached on most of the texts, but even a century later rabbis were still arguing whether the Song of Songs should be part of the canon or not. Some rabbis condemned that text as secular love poetry, while Rabbi Akiva (d. 135 CE) defended it as the divinely inspired creation of King Solomon. Akiva famously said that “the Song of Songs is the Holy of Holies.”22 By the end of the second century CE widespread consensus was apparently reached among Jewish rabbis about which texts were part of the biblical canon and which were not, but debates about this matter, and about the precise wordings, spelling, and pronunciation of each text, were not finally resolved until the Masoretic era (seventh to tenth centuries CE).23

    This process of canonization decided that Genesis was the word of Jehovah, but the book of Enoch, the Life of Adam and Eve, and the Testament of Abraham were human fabrications.24 The Psalms of King David were canonized (minus psalms 151–55), but the Psalms of King Solomon were not. The book of Malachi got the seal of approval; the book of Baruch did not. Chronicles, yes; Maccabees, no.

    Interestingly, some books mentioned in the Bible itself failed to get into the canon. For example, the books of Joshua and Samuel both refer to a very ancient sacred text known as the book of Jasher (Joshua 10:13, 2 Samuel 1:18). The book of Numbers refers to “the Book of the Wars of the Lord” (Numbers 21:14). And when 2 Chronicles surveys the reign of King Solomon, it concludes by saying that “the rest of the acts of Solomon, first and last, are written in the chronicles of Nathan the prophet, and in the prophecy of Ahijah the Shilonite, and in the visions of Iddo the seer” (2 Chronicles 9:29). The books of Iddo, Ahijah, and Nathan, as well as the books of Jasher and the Wars of the Lord, aren’t in the canonical Bible. Apparently, they were not excluded on purpose; they just got lost.25

    After the canon was sealed, most Jews gradually forgot the role of human institutions in the messy process of compiling the Bible. Jewish Orthodoxy maintained that God personally handed down to Moses at Mount Sinai the entire first part of the Bible, the Torah. Many rabbis further argued that God created the Torah at the very dawn of time so that even biblical characters who lived before Moses—like Noah and Adam—read and studied it.26 The other parts of the Bible also came to be seen as a divinely created or divinely inspired text, totally different from ordinary human compilations. Once the holy book was sealed, it was hoped that Jews now had direct access to Jehovah’s exact words, which no fallible human or corrupt institution could erase or alter.

    Anticipating the blockchain idea by two thousand years, Jews began making numerous copies of the holy code, and every Jewish community was supposed to have at least one in its synagogue or its bet midrash (house of study).27 This was meant to achieve two things. First, disseminating many copies of the holy book promised to democratize religion and place strict limits on the power of would-be human autocrats. Whereas the archives of Egyptian pharaohs and Assyrian kings empowered the unfathomable kingly bureaucracy at the expense of the masses, the Jewish holy book seemed to give power to the masses, who could now hold even the most brazen leader accountable to God’s laws.

    Second, and more important, having numerous copies of the same book prevented any meddling with the text. If there were thousands of identical copies in numerous locations, any attempt to change even a single letter in the holy code could easily be exposed as a fraud. With numerous Bibles available in far-flung locations, Jews replaced human despotism with divine sovereignty. The social order was now guaranteed by the infallible technology of the book. Or so it seemed.

    THE INSTITUTION STRIKES BACK

    Even before the process of canonizing the Bible was completed, the biblical project had run into further difficulties. Agreeing on the precise contents of the holy book was not the only problem with this supposedly infallible technology. Another obvious problem concerned copying the text. For the holy book to work its magic, Jews needed to have many copies wherever they lived. With Jewish centers emerging not only in Palestine but also in Mesopotamia and Egypt, and with new Jewish communities extending from central Asia to the Atlantic, how to make sure that copyists working thousands of kilometers apart would not change the holy book either on purpose or by mistake?

    To forestall such problems, the rabbis who canonized the Bible devised painstaking regulations for copying the holy book. For example, a scribe was not allowed to pause at certain critical moments in the copying process. When writing the name of God, the scribe “may not respond even if the king greets him. If he was about to write two or three divine names successively, he may pause between them and respond.”28 Rabbi Yishmael (second century CE) told one copyist, “You are doing Heaven’s work, and if you delete one letter or add one letter—you destroy the entire world.”29 In truth, copying errors crept in without destroying the entire world, and no two ancient Bibles were identical.30

    A second and much bigger problem concerned interpretation. Even when people agree on the sanctity of a book and on its exact wording, they can still interpret the same words in different ways. The Bible says that you should not work on the Sabbath. But it doesn’t clarify what counts as “work.” Is it okay to water your field on the Sabbath? What about watering your flowerpot or herd of goats? Is it okay to read a book on the Sabbath? How about writing a book? How about tearing a piece of paper? The rabbis ruled that reading a book isn’t work, but tearing paper is work, which is why nowadays Orthodox Jews prepare a stack of already ripped toilet paper to use on the Sabbath.

    The holy book also says that you should not cook a young goat in its mother’s milk (Exodus 23:19). Some people interpreted this quite literally: if you slaughter a young goat, don’t cook it in the milk of its own mother. But it’s fine to cook it in the milk of an unrelated goat, or in the milk of a cow. Other people interpreted this prohibition much more broadly to mean that meat and dairy products should never be mixed, so you are not allowed to have a milkshake after fried chicken. As unlikely as this may sound, most rabbis ruled that the second interpretation is the correct one, even though chickens don’t lactate.

    More problems resulted from the fact that even if the technology of the book succeeded in limiting changes to the holy words, the world beyond the book continued to spin, and it was unclear how to relate old rules to new situations. Most biblical texts focused on the lives of Jewish shepherds and farmers in the hill country of Palestine and in the sacred city of Jerusalem. But by the second century CE, most Jews lived elsewhere. A particularly large Jewish community grew in the port of Alexandria, one of the richest metropolises of the Roman Empire. A Jewish shipping magnate living in Alexandria would have found that many of the biblical laws were irrelevant to his life while many of his pressing questions had no clear answers in the holy text. He couldn’t obey the commandments about worshipping in the Jerusalem temple, because not only did he not live near Jerusalem, but the temple didn’t even exist anymore. In contrast, when he contemplated whether it was kosher for him to sail his Rome-bound grain ships on the Sabbath, it turned out that long sea voyages were not considered by the authors of Leviticus and Deuteronomy.31

    Inevitably, the holy book spawned numerous interpretations, which were far more consequential than the book itself. As Jews increasingly argued over the interpretation of the Bible, rabbis gained more power and prestige. Writing down the word of Jehovah was supposed to limit the authority of the old priestly institution, but it gave rise to the authority of a new rabbinical institution. Rabbis became the Jewish technocratic elite, developing their rational and rhetorical skills through years of philosophical debates and legal disputations. The attempt to bypass fallible human institutions by relying on a new information technology backfired, because of the need for a human institution to interpret the holy book.

    When the rabbis eventually reached some consensus about how to interpret the Bible, Jews saw another chance to get rid of the fallible human institution. They imagined that if they wrote the agreed interpretation in a new holy book, and made numerous copies of it, that would eliminate the need for any further human intercession between them and the divine code. So after much back-and-forth about which rabbinical opinions should be included and which should be ignored, a new holy book was canonized in the third century CE: the Mishnah.32

    As the Mishnah became more authoritative than the plain text of the Bible, Jews began to believe that the Mishnah could not possibly have been created by humans. It too must have been inspired by Jehovah, or perhaps even composed by the infallible deity in person. Today many Orthodox Jews firmly believe that the Mishnah was handed to Moses by Jehovah on Mount Sinai, passed orally from generation to generation, until it was written down in the third century CE.33

    Alas, no sooner had the Mishnah been canonized and copied than Jews began arguing about the correct interpretation of the Mishnah. And when a consensus was reached about the interpretation of the Mishnah and canonized in the fifth to sixth centuries as a third holy book—the Talmud—Jews began disagreeing about the interpretation of the Talmud.34

    The dream of bypassing fallible human institutions through the technology of the holy book never materialized. With each iteration, the power of the rabbinical institution only increased. “Trust the infallible book” turned into “trust the humans who interpret the book.” Judaism was shaped by the Talmud far more than by the Bible, and rabbinical arguments about the interpretation of the Talmud became even more important than the Talmud itself.35

    This is inevitable, because the world keeps changing. The Mishnah and Talmud dealt with questions raised by second-century Jewish shipping magnates that had no clear answer in the Bible. Modernity too raised many new questions that have no straightforward answers in the Mishnah and Talmud. For example, when electrical appliances developed in the twentieth century, Jews struggled with numerous unprecedented questions such as whether it is okay to press the electrical buttons of an elevator on the Sabbath?

    The Orthodox answer is no. As noted earlier, the Bible forbids working on the Sabbath, and rabbis argued that pressing an electrical button is “work,” because electricity is akin to fire, and it has long been established that kindling a fire is “work.” Does this mean that elderly Jews living in a Brooklyn high-rise must climb a hundred steps to their apartment in order to avoid working on the Sabbath? Well, Orthodox Jews invented a “Sabbath elevator,” which continually goes up and down buildings, stopping on every floor, without you having to perform any “work” by pressing an electrical button.36 The invention of AI gives another twist to this old story. By relying on facial recognition, an AI can quickly direct the elevator to your floor, without making you desecrate the Sabbath.37

    This profusion of texts and interpretations has, over time, caused a profound change in Judaism. Originally, it was a religion of priests and temples, focused on rituals and sacrifices. In biblical times, the quintessential Jewish scene was a priest in blood-splattered robes sacrificing a lamb on the altar of Jehovah. Over the centuries, however, Judaism became an “information religion,” obsessed with texts and interpretations. From second-century Alexandria to twenty-first-century Brooklyn, the quintessential Jewish scene became a group of rabbis arguing about the interpretation of a text.

    This change was extremely surprising given that almost nowhere in the Bible itself do you find anyone arguing about the interpretation of any text. Such debates were not part of biblical culture itself. For example, when Korah and his followers challenged the right of Moses to lead the people of Israel, and demanded a more equitable division of power, Moses reacted not by entering a learned discussion or by quoting some scriptural passage. Rather, Moses called upon God to perform a miracle, and the moment he finished speaking, the ground split, “and the earth opened its mouth and swallowed them and their households” (Numbers 16:31–32). When Elijah was challenged by 450 prophets of Baal and 400 prophets of Asherah to a public test in front of the people of Israel, he proved the superiority of Jehovah over Baal and Asherah first by miraculously summoning fire from the sky and then by slaughtering the pagan prophets. Nobody read any text, and nobody engaged in any rational debate (1 Kings 18).

    As Judaism replaced sacrifices with texts, it gravitated toward a view of information as the most fundamental building block of reality, anticipating current ideas in physics and computer science. The flood of texts generated by rabbis was increasingly seen as more important, and even more real, than plowing a field, baking a loaf of bread, or sacrificing a lamb in a temple. After the temple in Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans and all temple rituals ceased, rabbis nevertheless devoted enormous efforts to writing texts about the proper way to conduct temple rituals and then arguing about the correct interpretation of these texts. Centuries after the temple was no more, the amount of information concerning these virtual rituals only continued to increase. The rabbis weren’t oblivious to this seeming gap between text and reality. Rather, they maintained that writing texts about the rituals and arguing about these texts were far more important than actually performing the rituals.38
    This eventually led the rabbis to believe that the entire universe was an information sphere—a realm composed of words and running on the alphabetical code of the Hebrew letters. They further maintained that this informational universe was created so that Jews could read texts and argue about their interpretation, and that if Jews ever stop reading these texts and arguing about them, the universe will cease to exist.39 In everyday life, this view meant that for the rabbis words in texts were often more important than facts in the world. Or more accurately, which words appeared in sacred texts became some of the most important facts about the world, shaping the lives of individuals and entire communities.

    THE SPLIT BIBLE

    The above description of the canonization of the Bible, and the creation of the Mishnah and Talmud, ignores one very important fact. The process of canonizing the word of Jehovah created not one chain of texts but several competing chains. There were people who believed in Jehovah, but not in the rabbis. Most of these dissenters did accept the first block in the biblical chain—which they called the Old Testament. But already before the rabbis sealed this block, the dissenters rejected the authority of the entire rabbinical institution, which led them to subsequently reject the Mishnah and Talmud, too. These dissenters were the Christians.

    When Christianity emerged in the first century CE, it was not a unified religion, but rather a variety of Jewish movements that didn’t agree on much, except that they all regarded Jesus Christ—rather than the rabbinical institution—as the ultimate authority on Jehovah’s words.40 Christians accepted the divinity of texts like Genesis, Samuel, and Isaiah, but they argued that the rabbis misunderstood these texts, and only Jesus and his disciples knew the true meaning of passages like “the Lord himself will give you a sign: the almah will conceive and give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel” (Isaiah 7:14). The rabbis said almah meant “young woman,” Immanuel meant “God with us” (in Hebrew immanu means “with us” and el means “God”), and the entire passage was interpreted as a divine promise to help the Jewish people in their struggle against oppressive foreign empires. In contrast, the Christians argued that almah meant “virgin,” that Immanuel meant that God will literally be born among humans, and that this was a prophecy about the divine Jesus being born on earth to the Virgin Mary.41

    However, by rejecting the rabbinical institution while simultaneously accepting the possibility of new divine revelations, the Christians opened the door to chaos. In the first century CE, and even more so in the second and third centuries CE, different Christians came up with radically new interpretations for books like Genesis and Isaiah, as well as with a plethora of new messages from God. Since they rejected the authority of the rabbis, since Jesus was dead and couldn’t adjudicate between them, and since a unified Christian church didn’t yet exist, who could decide which of all these interpretations and messages was divinely inspired?

    Thus, it was not just John who described the end of the world in his Apocalypse (the book of Revelation). We have many additional apocalypses from that era, for example the Apocalypse of Peter, the Apocalypse of James, and even the Apocalypse of Abraham.42 As for the life and teachings of Jesus, in addition to the four Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, early Christians had the Gospel of Peter, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of Truth, the Gospel of the Savior, and numerous others.43 Similarly, aside from the Acts of the Apostles, there were at least a dozen other Acts such as the Acts of Peter and the Acts of Andrew.44 Letters were even more prolific. Most present-day Christian Bibles contain fourteen epistles attributed to Paul, three attributed to John, two to Peter, and one each to James and Jude. Ancient Christians were familiar not only with additional Pauline letters (such as the Epistle to the Laodiceans) but with numerous other epistles supposedly written by other disciples and saints.45

    As Christians composed more and more gospels, epistles, prophecies, parables, prayers, and other texts, it became harder to know which ones to pay attention to. Christians needed a curation institution. That’s how the New Testament was created. At roughly the same time that debates among Jewish rabbis were producing the Mishnah and Talmud, debates between Christian priests, bishops, and theologians were producing the New Testament.
    In a letter from 367 CE, Bishop Athanasius of Alexandria recommended twenty-seven texts that faithful Christians should read—a rather eclectic collection of stories, letters, and prophecies written by different people in different times and places. Athanasius recommended the Apocalypse of John, but not that of Peter or Abraham. He approved of Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians, but not of Paul’s Epistle to the Laodiceans. He endorsed the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, but rejected the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Truth.46

    A generation later, in the Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), gatherings of bishops and theologians formally canonized this list of recommendations, which became known as the New Testament.47 When Christians talk about “the Bible,” they mean the Old Testament together with the New Testament. In contrast, Judaism never accepted the New Testament, and when Jews talk about “the Bible,” they mean only the Old Testament, which is supplemented by the Mishnah and Talmud. Interestingly, Hebrew to this day lacks a word to describe the Christian holy book, which contains both the Old Testament and the New Testament. Jewish thought sees them as two utterly unrelated books and simply refuses to acknowledge that there might be a single book encompassing both, even though it is probably the most common book in the world.

    It is crucial to note that the people who created the New Testament weren’t the authors of the twenty-seven texts it contains; they were the curators. Due to the paucity of evidence from the period, we do not know if Athanasius’s list of texts reflected his personal judgment, or whether it originated with earlier Christian thinkers. What we do know is that prior to the Councils of Hippo and Carthage there were rival recommendation lists for Christians. The earliest such list was codified by Marcion of Sinope in the middle of the second century. The Marcion canon included only the Gospel of Luke and ten epistles of Paul. Even these eleven texts were somewhat different from the versions later canonized at Hippo and Carthage. Either Marcion was unaware of other texts like the Gospel of John and the book of Revelation, or he did not think highly of them.48

    The church father Saint John Chrysostom, a contemporary of Bishop Athanasius’s, recommended only twenty-two books, leaving 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude, and Revelation out of his list.49 Some Christian churches in the Middle East to this day follow Chrysostom’s shorter list.50 The Armenian Church took about a thousand years to make up its mind about the book of Revelation, while it included in its canon the Third Epistle to the Corinthians, which other churches—like the Catholic and Protestant churches—consider a forgery.51 The Ethiopian Church endorsed Athanasius’s list in full, but added four other books: Sinodos, the book of Clement, the book of the Covenant, and the Didascalia.52 Other lists endorsed the two epistles of Clement, the visions of the Shepherd of Hermas, the Epistle of Barnabas, the Apocalypse of Peter, and various other texts that didn’t make it into Athanasius’s selection.53

    We do not know the precise reasons why specific texts were endorsed or rejected by different churches, church councils, and church fathers. But the consequences were far-reaching. While churches made decisions about texts, the texts themselves shaped the churches. As a key example, consider the role of women in the church. Some early Christian leaders saw women as intellectually and ethically inferior to men, and argued that women should be restricted to subordinate roles in society and in the Christian community. These views were reflected in texts like the First Epistle to Timothy.

    In one of its passages, this text, attributed to Saint Paul, says, “A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. But women will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith, love and holiness with propriety” (2:11–15). But modern scholars as well as some ancient Christian leaders like Marcion have considered this letter a second-century forgery, ascribed to Saint Paul but actually written by someone else.54

    In opposition to 1 Timothy, during the second, third, and fourth centuries CE there were important Christian texts that saw women as equal to men, and even authorized women to occupy leadership roles, like the Gospel of Mary55 or the Acts of Paul and Thecla. The latter text was written at about the same time as 1 Timothy, and for a time was extremely popular.56 It narrates the adventures of Saint Paul and his female disciple Thecla, describing how Thecla not only performed numerous miracles but also baptized herself with her own hands and often preached. For centuries, Thecla was one of the most revered Christian saints and was seen as evidence that women could baptize, preach, and lead Christian communities.57

    Before the Councils of Hippo and Carthage, it wasn’t clear that 1 Timothy was more authoritative than the Acts of Paul and Thecla. By choosing to include 1 Timothy in their recommendation list while rejecting the Acts of Paul and Thecla, the assembled bishops and theologians shaped Christian attitudes toward women down to the present day. We can only hypothesize what Christianity might have looked like if the New Testament had included the Acts of Paul and Thecla instead of 1 Timothy. Perhaps in addition to church fathers like Athanasius, the church would have had mothers, while misogyny would have been labeled a dangerous heresy perverting Jesus’s message of universal love.

    Just as most Jews forgot that rabbis curated the Old Testament, so most Christians forgot that church councils curated the New Testament, and came to view it simply as the infallible word of God. But while the holy book was seen as the ultimate source of authority, the process of curating the book placed real power in the hands of the curating institution. In Judaism the canonization of the Old Testament and Mishnah went hand in hand with creating the institution of the rabbinate. In Christianity the canonization of the New Testament went hand in hand with the creation of a unified Christian church. Christians trusted church officials—like Bishop Athanasius—because of what they read in the New Testament, but they had faith in the New Testament because this is what the bishops told them to read. The attempt to invest all authority in an infallible superhuman technology led to the rise of a new and extremely powerful human institution—the church.

    THE ECHO CHAMBER

    As time passed, problems of interpretation increasingly tilted the balance of power between the holy book and the church in favor of the institution. Just as the need to interpret Jewish holy books empowered the rabbinate, so the need to interpret Christian holy books empowered the church. The same saying of Jesus or the same Pauline epistle could be understood in various ways, and it was the institution that decided which reading was correct. The institution in turn was repeatedly shaken by struggles over the authority to interpret the holy book, which resulted in institutional schisms such as that between the Western Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church.

    All Christians read the Sermon on the Mount in the Gospel of Matthew and learned that we should love our enemies, that we should turn the other cheek, and that the meek shall inherit the earth. But what did that actually mean? Christians could read this as a call to reject all use of military force,58 or to reject all social hierarchies.59 The Catholic Church, however, viewed such pacifists and egalitarian readings as heresies. It interpreted Jesus’s words in a way that allowed the church to become the richest landowner in Europe, to launch violent crusades, and to establish murderous inquisitions. Catholic theology accepted that Jesus told us to love our enemies, but explained that burning heretics was an act of love, because it deterred additional people from adopting heretical views, thereby saving them from the flames of hell. The French inquisitor Jacques Fournier wrote in the early fourteenth century an entire treatise on the Sermon on the Mount that explained how the text provided justification for hunting heretics.60 Fournier’s view was not a fringe notion. He went on to become Pope Benedict XII (1334–42).

    Fournier’s task as inquisitor, and later as pope, was to ensure that the Catholic Church’s interpretation of the holy book would prevail. In this, Fournier and his fellow churchmen used not only violent coercion but also their control of book production. Prior to the advent of letterpress printing in Europe in the fifteenth century, making many copies of a book was a prohibitive enterprise for all but the most wealthy individuals and institutions. The Catholic Church used its power and wealth to disseminate copies of its favored texts while prohibiting the production and spread of what it considered erroneous ones.

    Of course, the church couldn’t prevent the occasional freethinker from formulating heretical ideas. But because it controlled key nodes in the medieval information network—such as copying workshops, archives, and libraries—it could prevent such a heretic from making and distributing a hundred copies of her book. To get an idea of the difficulties faced by a heretical author seeking to disseminate her views, consider that when Leofric was made bishop of Exeter in 1050, he found just five books in the cathedral’s library. He immediately established a copying workshop in the cathedral, but in the twenty-two years before he died in 1072, his copyists produced only sixty-six additional volumes.61 In the thirteenth century the library of Oxford University consisted of a few books kept in a chest under St. Mary’s Church. In 1424 the library of Cambridge University boasted a grand total of only 122 books.62 An Oxford University decree from 1409 stipulated that “all recent texts” studied at the university must be unanimously approved “by a panel of twelve theologians appointed by the archbishop.”63

    The church sought to lock society inside an echo chamber, allowing the spread only of those books that supported it, and people trusted the church because almost all the books supported it. Even illiterate laypersons who didn’t read books were still awed by recitations of these precious texts or expositions on their content. That’s how the belief in a supposedly infallible superhuman technology like the New Testament led to the rise of an extremely powerful but fallible human institution like the Catholic Church that crushed all opposing views as “erroneous” while allowing no one to question its own views.

    Catholic information experts such as Jacques Fournier spent their days reading Thomas Aquinas’s interpretation of Augustine’s interpretation of Saint Paul’s epistles and composing additional interpretations of their own. All those interrelated texts didn’t represent reality; they created a new information sphere even bigger and more powerful than that created by the Jewish rabbis. Medieval Europeans were cocooned inside that information sphere, their daily activities, thoughts, and emotions shaped by texts about texts about texts.

    PRINT, SCIENCE, AND WITCHES

    The attempt to bypass human fallibility by investing authority in an infallible text never succeeded. If anyone thought this was due to some unique flaw of the Jewish rabbis or the Catholic priests, the Protestant Reformation repeated the experiment again and again—always getting the same results. Luther, Calvin, and their successors argued that there was no need for any fallible human institution to interpose itself between ordinary people and the holy book. Christians should abandon all the parasitical bureaucracies that grew around the Bible and reconnect to the original word of God. But the word of God never interpreted itself, which is why not only Lutherans and Calvinists but numerous other Protestant sects eventually established their own church institutions and invested them with the authority to interpret the text and persecute heretics.64

    If infallible texts merely lead to the rise of fallible and oppressive churches, how then to deal with the problem of human error? The naive view of information posits that the problem can be solved by creating the opposite of a church—namely, a free market of information. The naive view expects that if all restrictions on the free flow of information are removed, error will inevitably be exposed and displaced by truth. As noted in the prologue, this is wishful thinking. Let’s delve a little deeper to understand why. As a test case, consider what happened during one of the most celebrated epochs in the history of information networks: the European print revolution. The introduction of the printing press to Europe in the mid-fifteenth century made it possible to mass-produce texts relatively quickly, cheaply, and secretly, even if the Catholic Church disapproved of them. It is estimated that in the forty-six years from 1454 to 1500 more than twelve million volumes were printed in Europe. By contrast, in the previous thousand years only about eleven million volumes were hand copied.65 By 1600, all kinds of fringe people—heretics, revolutionaries, proto-scientists—could disseminate their writings much more rapidly, widely, and easily than ever before.

    In the history of information networks, the print revolution of early modern Europe is usually hailed as a moment of triumph, breaking the stranglehold that the Catholic Church had maintained over the European information network. Allegedly, by allowing people to exchange information much more freely than before, it led to the scientific revolution. There is a grain of truth in this. Without print, it would certainly have been much harder for Copernicus, Galileo, and their colleagues to develop and spread their ideas.

    But print wasn’t the root cause of the scientific revolution. The only thing the printing press did was to faithfully reproduce texts. The machine had no ability to come up with any new ideas of its own. Those who connect print to science assume that the mere act of producing and spreading more information inevitably leads people to the truth. In fact, print allowed the rapid spread not only of scientific facts but also of religious fantasies, fake news, and conspiracy theories. Perhaps the most notorious example of the latter was the belief in a worldwide conspiracy of satanic witches, which led to the witch-hunt craze that engulfed early modern Europe.66

    Belief in magic and in witches has characterized human societies in all continents and eras, but different societies imagined witches and reacted to them in very different ways. Some societies believed that witches controlled spirits, talked with the dead, and predicted the future; others imagined that witches stole cattle and located hidden treasure. In one community witches were thought to cause disease, blight cornfields, and concoct love potions, while in another community they supposedly entered houses at night, performed household chores, and stole milk. In some locales witches were thought to be mostly female, while in others they were generally imagined to be male. Some cultures were terrified of witches and persecuted them violently, but others tolerated or even honored them. Finally, there were societies in every continent and era that gave witches little importance.67

    For most of the Middle Ages, most European societies belonged to the latter category and were not overly concerned about witches. The medieval Catholic Church didn’t see them as a major threat to humanity, and some churchmen actively discouraged witch-hunting. According to the influential tenth-century text Canon Episcopi—which defined medieval church doctrine on the matter—witchcraft was mostly illusion, and belief in the reality of witchcraft was an unchristian superstition.68 The European witch-hunt craze was a modern rather than a medieval phenomenon.

    In the 1420s and 1430s churchmen and scholars operating mainly in the Alps region took elements from Christian religion, local folklore, and Greco-Roman heritage and amalgamated them into a new theory of witchcraft.69 Previously, even when witches were dreaded, they were considered a strictly local problem—isolated criminals who, inspired by personal malevolence, used magical means to commit theft and murder. In contrast, the new scholarly model argued that witches were a far more formidable threat to society. There was allegedly a global conspiracy of witches, led by Satan, which constituted an institutionalized anti-Christian religion. Its purpose was nothing less than the complete destruction of the social order and of humankind. Witches were said to gather at night in huge demonic assemblies, where they worshipped Satan, killed children, ate human flesh, engaged in orgies, and cast spells that caused storms, epidemics, and other catastrophes.

    Inspired by such ideas, the first mass witch hunts and witch trials were led by local churchmen and noblemen in the Valais region of the western Alps between 1428 and 1436, leading to the execution of more than two hundred supposed male and female witches. From this Alpine heartland, rumors about the global witch conspiracy trickled to other parts of Europe, but the belief was still far from mainstream, the Catholic establishment did not embrace it, and other regions didn’t launch large-scale witch hunts like those in the Valais.

    In 1485, a Dominican friar and inquisitor called Heinrich Kramer embarked on a witch-hunting expedition in another Alpine region—the Austrian Tyrol. Kramer was a fervent convert to the new belief in a global satanic conspiracy.70 He also seems to have been mentally unhinged, and his accusations of satanic witchcraft were colored by rabid misogyny and odd sexual fixations. Local church authorities, led by the bishop of Brixen, were skeptical of Kramer’s accusations and alarmed by his activities. They stopped his inquisition, released the suspects he arrested, and expelled him from the area.71

    Kramer hit back through the printing press. Within two years of his banishment, he compiled and published the Malleus Maleficarum—The Hammer of the Witches. This was a do-it-yourself guidebook to exposing and killing witches in which Kramer described in detail the worldwide conspiracy and the means by which honest Christians could uncover and foil the witches. In particular, he recommended the use of horrific methods of torture in order to extract confessions from people suspected of witchcraft, and was adamant that the only punishment for the guilty was execution.

    Kramer organized and codified previous ideas and stories and added many details from his own fertile and hate-filled imagination. Relying on ancient Christian misogynist teachings like those of 1 Timothy, Kramer sexualized witchcraft. He argued that witches were typically female, because witchcraft originated in lust, which was supposedly stronger in women. He warned readers that sex could cause a pious woman to become a witch and her husband to become bewitched.72

    An entire chapter of the Hammer is dedicated to the ability of witches to steal men’s penises. Kramer discusses at length whether the witches are really able to take away the male member from its owner, or whether they are only able to create an illusion of castration in men’s minds. Kramer asks, “What is to be thought of those witches who in this way sometimes collect male organs in great numbers, as many as twenty or thirty members together, and put them in a bird’s nest, or shut them up in a box, where they move themselves like living members, and eat oats and corn, as has been seen by many?” He then relates a story he heard from one man: “When he had lost his member, he approached a known witch to ask her to restore it to him. She told the afflicted man to climb a certain tree, and that he might take which he liked out of the nest in which there were several members. And when he tried to take a big one, the witch said: You must not take that one; adding, because it belongs to a parish priest.”73 Numerous notions about witches that are still popular today—for instance, that witches are predominantly women, that witches engage in wild sexual activities, and that witches kill and mutilate children—were given their canonical form by Kramer’s book.

    Like the bishop of Brixen, other churchmen were initially skeptical of Kramer’s wild ideas, and there was some resistance to the book among church experts.74 But The Hammer of the Witches became one of the biggest best sellers of early modern Europe. It catered to people’s deepest fears, as well as to their lurid interest in hearing about orgies, cannibalism, child murders, and satanic conspiracies. The book had gone through eight editions by 1500, another five by 1520, and sixteen more by 1670, with many vernacular translations.75 It became the definitive work on witchcraft and witch-hunting and inspired a host of imitations and elaborations. As Kramer’s fame grew, his work was embraced by the church experts. Kramer was appointed papal representative and made inquisitor of Bohemia and Moravia in 1500. Even today his ideas continue to shape the world, and many current theories about a global satanic conspiracy—like QAnon—draw upon and perpetuate his fantasies.

    While it would be an exaggeration to argue that the invention of print caused the European witch-hunt craze, the printing press played a pivotal role in the rapid dissemination of the belief in a global satanic conspiracy. As Kramer’s ideas gained popularity, printing presses produced not only many additional copies of The Hammer of the Witches and copycat books but also a torrent of cheap one-page pamphlets, whose sensational texts were often accompanied by illustrations depicting people attacked by demons or witches burned at the stake.76 These publications also gave fantastic statistics about the size of the witches’ conspiracy. For example, the Burgundian judge and witch-hunter Henri Boguet (1550–1619) speculated that there were 300,000 witches in France alone and 1.8 million in all of Europe.77 Such claims fueled mass hysteria, which in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries led to the torture and execution of between 40,000 and 50,000 innocent people who were accused of witchcraft.78 The victims included individuals from all walks of life and ages, including children as young as five.79

    People began denouncing one another for witchcraft on the flimsiest evidence, often to avenge personal slights or to gain economic and political advantage. Once an official investigation began, the accused were often doomed. The inquisitorial methods recommended by The Hammer of the Witches were truly diabolical. If the accused confessed to being a witch, they were executed and their property divided between the accuser, the executioner, and the inquisitors. If the accused refused to confess, this was taken as evidence of their demonic obstinacy, and they were then tortured in horrendous ways, their fingers broken, their flesh cut with hot pincers, their bodies stretched to the breaking point or submerged in boiling water. Sooner or later they could stand it no longer and confessed—and were duly executed.80

    To take one example, in 1600 authorities in Munich arrested on suspicion of witchcraft the Pappenheimer family—father Paulus, mother Anna, two grown sons, and a ten-year-old boy, Hansel. The inquisitors began by torturing little Hansel. The protocol of the interrogation, which can still be read in the Munich archives, has a note from one of the interrogators regarding the ten-year-old boy: “May be tortured to the limit so that he incriminates his mother.”81 After being tortured in unspeakable ways, the Pappenheimers confessed to numerous crimes including killing 265 people by sorcery and causing fourteen destructive storms. They were all condemned to death.

    The bodies of each of the four adult family members were torn with red-hot pincers, the men’s limbs were broken on the wheel, the father was impaled on a stake, the mother’s breasts were cut off, and all were then burned alive. The ten-year-old Hansel was forced to watch all this. Four months later, he too was executed.82 The witch-hunters were extremely thorough in their search for the devil and his accomplices. But if the witch-hunters really wanted to find diabolical evil, they just had to look in the mirror.

    THE SPANISH INQUISITION TO THE RESCUE

    Witch hunts seldom ended by killing just one person or one family. Since the underlying model postulated a global conspiracy, people accused of witchcraft were tortured to name accomplices. This was then used as evidence to imprison, torture, and execute others. If any officials, scholars, or churchmen voiced objections to these absurd methods, this could be seen as proof that they too must be witches—which led to their own arrest and torture.

    For example, in 1453—when belief in the satanic conspiracy was just beginning to take hold—a French doctor of theology called Guillaume Edelin bravely sought to quash it before it spread. He repeated the claims of the medieval Canon Episcopi that witchcraft was an illusion and that witches couldn’t really fly at night to meet Satan and make a pact with him. Edelin was then himself accused of being a witch and arrested. Under torture he confessed that he personally had flown on a broomstick and signed a pact with the devil and that it was Satan who commissioned him to preach that witchcraft was an illusion. His judges were lenient with him; he was spared execution and got life imprisonment instead.83

    The witch hunts illustrate the dark side of creating an information sphere. As with rabbinical discussions of the Talmud and scholastic discussions of Christian scriptures, the witch hunts were fueled by an expanding ocean of information that instead of representing reality created a new reality. Witches were not an objective reality. Nobody in early modern Europe had sex with Satan or was capable of flying on broomsticks and creating hailstorms. But witches became an intersubjective reality. Like money, witches were made real by exchanging information about witches.

    An entire witch-hunting bureaucracy dedicated itself to such exchanges. Theologians, lawyers, inquisitors, and the owners of printing presses made a living by collecting and producing information about witches, cataloging different species of witches, investigating how witches behaved, and recommending how they could be exposed and defeated. Professional witch-hunters offered their services to governments and municipalities, charging large sums of money. Archives were filled by detailed reports of witch-hunting expeditions, protocols of witch trials, and lengthy confessions extracted from the alleged witches.

    Expert witch-hunters used all that data to refine their theories further. Like scholars arguing about the correct interpretation of scripture, the witch-hunters debated the correct interpretation of The Hammer of the Witches and other influential books. The witch-hunting bureaucracy did what bureaucracy often does: it invented the intersubjective category of “witches” and imposed it on reality. It even printed forms, with standard accusations and confessions of witchcraft and blank spaces left for dates, names, and the signature of the accused. All that information produced a lot of order and power; it was a means for certain people to gain authority and for society as a whole to discipline its members. But it produced zero truth and zero wisdom.

    As the witch-hunting bureaucracy generated more and more information, it became harder to dismiss all that information as pure fantasy. Could it be that the entire silo of witch-hunting data did not contain a single grain of truth in it? What about all the books written by learned churchmen? What about all the protocols of trials conducted by esteemed judges? What about the tens of thousands of documented confessions?

    The new intersubjective reality was so convincing that even some people accused of witchcraft came to believe that they were indeed part of a worldwide satanic conspiracy. If everybody said so, it must be true. As discussed in chapter 2, humans are susceptible to adopting fake memories. At least some early modern Europeans dreamed or fantasized about summoning devils, having sex with Satan, and practicing witchcraft, and when accused of being witches, they confused their dreams and fantasies with reality.84

    Consequently, even as the witch hunts reached their ghastly crescendo in the early seventeenth century, and many people suspected that something was clearly wrong, it was difficult to reject the whole thing as pure fantasy. One of the worst witch-hunting episodes in early modern Europe occurred in the towns of Bamberg and Würzburg in southern Germany in the late 1620s. In Bamberg, a city of fewer than 12,000 at the time,85 up to 900 innocent people were executed from 1625 to 1631.86 In Würzburg another 1,200 people were tortured and killed, out of a population of around 11,500.87 In August 1629, the chancellor of the prince-bishop of Würzburg wrote a letter to a friend about the ongoing witch hunt, in which he confessed his doubts about the matter. The letter is worth quoting at length:

    As to the affair of the witches … it has started up afresh, and no words can do justice to it. Ah, the woe and the misery of it—there are still four hundred in the city, high and low, of every rank and sex, nay, even clerics, so strongly accused that they may be arrested at any hour.… The Prince-Bishop has over forty students who are soon to be pastors; among them thirteen or fourteen are said to be witches. A few days ago a Dean was arrested; two others who were summoned have fled. The notary of our Church consistory, a very learned man, was yesterday arrested and put to the torture. In a word, a third part of the city is surely involved. The richest, most attractive, most prominent, of the clergy are already executed. A week ago a maiden of nineteen was executed, of whom it is everywhere said that she was the fairest in the whole city, and was held by everybody a girl of singular modesty and purity. She will be followed by seven or eight others of the best and most attractive persons.… And thus many are put to death for renouncing God and being at the witch-dances, against whom nobody has ever else spoken a word.

    To conclude this wretched matter, there are children of three and four years, to the number of three hundred, who are said to have had intercourse with the Devil. I have seen put to death children of seven, promising students of ten, twelve, fourteen, and fifteen.… [B]ut I cannot and must not write more of this misery.

    The chancellor then added this interesting postscript to the letter:

    Though there are many wonderful and terrible things happening, it is beyond doubt that, at a place called the Fraw-Rengberg, the Devil in person, with eight thousand of his followers, held an assembly and celebrated mass before them all, administering to his audience (that is, the witches) turnip-rinds and parings in place of the Holy Eucharist. There took place not only foul but most horrible and hideous blasphemies, whereof I shudder to write.88

    Even after expressing his horror at the insanity of the witch hunt in Würzburg, the chancellor nevertheless expressed his firm belief in the satanic conspiracy of witches. He didn’t witness any witchcraft firsthand, but so much information about witches was circulating that it was difficult for him to doubt all of it. Witch hunts were a catastrophe caused by the spread of toxic information. They are a prime example of a problem that was created by information, and was made worse by more information.

    This was a conclusion reached not just by modern scholars but also by some perceptive observers at the time. Alonso de Salazar Frías, a Spanish inquisitor, made a thorough investigation of witch hunts and witch trials in the early seventeenth century. He concluded that “I have not found one single proof nor even the slightest indication from which to infer that one act of witchcraft has actually taken place,” and that “there were neither witches nor bewitched until they were talked and written about.”89 Salazar Frías well understood the meaning of intersubjective realities and correctly identified the entire witch-hunting industry as an intersubjective information sphere.

    The history of the early modern European witch craze demonstrates that releasing barriers to the flow of information doesn’t necessarily lead to the discovery and spread of truth. It can just as easily lead to the spread of lies and fantasies and to the creation of toxic information spheres. More specifically, a completely free market of ideas may incentivize the dissemination of outrage and sensationalism at the expense of truth. It is not difficult to understand why. Printers and booksellers made a lot more money from the lurid tales of The Hammer of the Witches than they did from the dull mathematics of Copernicus’s On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres. The latter was one of the founding texts of the modern scientific tradition. It is credited with earth-shattering discoveries that displaced our planet from the center of the universe and thereby initiated the Copernican revolution. But when it was first published in 1543, its initial print run of four hundred failed to sell out, and it took until 1566 for a second edition to be published in a similar-sized print run. The third edition did not appear until 1617. As Arthur Koestler quipped, it was an all-time worst seller.90 What really got the scientific revolution going was neither the printing press nor a completely free market of information, but rather a novel approach to the problem of human fallibility.

    THE DISCOVERY OF IGNORANCE

    The history of print and witch-hunting indicates that an unregulated information market doesn’t necessarily lead people to identify and correct their errors, because it may well prioritize outrage over truth. For truth to win, it is necessary to establish curation institutions that have the power to tilt the balance in favor of the facts. However, as the history of the Catholic Church indicates, such institutions might use their curation power to quash any criticism of themselves, labeling all alternative views erroneous and preventing the institution’s own errors from being exposed and corrected. Is it possible to establish better curation institutions that use their power to further the pursuit of truth rather than to accumulate more power for themselves?

    Early modern Europe saw the foundation of exactly such curation institutions, and it was these institutions—rather than the printing press or specific books like On the Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres—that constituted the bedrock of the scientific revolution. These key curation institutions were not the universities. Many of the most important leaders of the scientific revolution were not university professors. Nicolaus Copernicus, Robert Boyle, Tycho Brahe, and René Descartes, for example, held no academic positions. Nor did Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Berkeley, Voltaire, Diderot, or Rousseau.

    The curation institutions that played a central role in the scientific revolution connected scholars and researchers both in and out of universities, forging an information network that spanned the whole of Europe and eventually the world. For the scientific revolution to gather pace, scientists had to trust information published by colleagues in distant lands. This kind of trust in the work of people whom one had never met was evident in scientific associations like the Royal Society of London for Improving Natural Knowledge, founded in 1660, and the French Académie des Sciences (1666); scientific journals like the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society (1665) and the Histoire de l’Académie Royale des Sciences (1699); and scientific publishers like the architects of the Encyclopédie (1751–72). These institutions curated information on the basis of empirical evidence, bringing attention to the discoveries of Copernicus rather than to the fantasies of Kramer. When a paper was submitted to the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, the lead question the editors asked was not, “How many people would pay to read this?” but, “What proof is there that it is true?”

    At first, these new institutions seemed as flimsy as cobwebs, lacking the power necessary to reshape human society. Unlike the witch-hunting experts, the editors of the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society could not torture and execute anyone. And unlike the Catholic Church, the Académie des Sciences did not command huge territories and budgets. But scientific institutions did accrue influence thanks to a very original claim to trust. A church typically told people to trust it because it possessed the absolute truth, in the form of an infallible holy book. A scientific institution, in contrast, gained authority because it had strong self-correcting mechanisms that exposed and rectified the errors of the institution itself. It was these self-correcting mechanisms, not the technology of printing, that were the engine of the scientific revolution.

    In other words, the scientific revolution was launched by the discovery of ignorance.91 Religions of the book assumed that they had access to an infallible source of knowledge. The Christians had the Bible, the Muslims had the Quran, the Hindus had the Vedas, and the Buddhists had the Tipitaka. Scientific culture has no comparable holy book, nor does it claim that any of its heroes are infallible prophets, saints, or geniuses. The scientific project starts by rejecting the fantasy of infallibility and proceeding to construct an information network that takes error to be inescapable. Sure, there is much talk about the genius of Copernicus, Darwin, and Einstein, but none of them is considered faultless. They all made mistakes, and even the most celebrated scientific tracts are sure to contain errors and lacunae.

    Since even geniuses suffer from confirmation bias, you cannot trust them to correct their own errors. Science is a team effort, relying on institutional collaboration rather than on individual scientists or, say, a single infallible book. Of course, institutions too are prone to error. Scientific institutions are nevertheless different from religious institutions, inasmuch as they reward skepticism and innovation rather than conformity. Scientific institutions are also different from conspiracy theories, inasmuch as they reward self-skepticism. Conspiracy theorists tend to be extremely skeptical regarding the existing consensus, but when it comes to their own beliefs, they lose all their skepticism and fall prey to confirmation bias.92 The trademark of science is not merely skepticism but self-skepticism, and at the heart of every scientific institution we find a strong self-correcting mechanism. Scientific institutions do reach a broad consensus about the accuracy of certain theories—such as quantum mechanics or the theory of evolution—but only because these theories have managed to survive intense efforts to disprove them, launched not only by outsiders but by members of the institution itself.

    SELF-CORRECTING MECHANISMS

    As an information technology, the self-correcting mechanism is the polar opposite of the holy book. The holy book is supposed to be infallible. The self-correcting mechanism embraces fallibility. By self-correcting, I refer to mechanisms that an entity uses to correct itself. A teacher correcting a student’s essay is not a self-correcting mechanism; the student isn’t correcting their own essay. A judge sending a criminal to prison is not a self-correcting mechanism; the criminal isn’t exposing their own crime. When the Allies defeated and dismantled the Nazi regime, this was not a self-correcting mechanism; left to its own devices, Germany would not have denazified itself. But when a scientific journal publishes a paper correcting a mistake that appeared in a previous paper, that’s an example of an institution self-correcting its own errors.

    Self-correcting mechanisms are ubiquitous in nature. Children learn how to walk thanks to them. You make a wrong move, you fall, you learn from your mistake, you try doing it a little differently. Sure, sometimes parents and teachers give the child a hand or offer advice, but a child who relies entirely on such external corrections or keeps excusing mistakes instead of learning from them will find it very difficult to walk. Indeed, even as adults, every time we walk, our body engages in an intricate process of self-correction. As our body navigates through space, internal feedback loops between brain, limbs, and sensory organs keep our legs and hands in their proper place and our balance just right.93

    Many other bodily processes require constant self-correction. Our blood pressure, temperature, sugar levels, and numerous other parameters must be given some leeway to change in accordance with varying circumstances, but they should never go above or below certain critical thresholds. Our blood pressure needs to increase when we run, to decrease when we sleep, but must always keep within certain bounds.94 Our body manages this delicate biochemical dance through a host of homeostatic self-correcting mechanisms. If our blood pressure goes too high, the self-correcting mechanisms lower it. If our blood pressure is dangerously low, the self-correcting mechanisms raise it. If the self-correcting mechanisms go out of order, we could die.95

    Institutions, too, die without self-correcting mechanisms. These mechanisms start with the realization that humans are fallible and corruptible. But instead of despairing of humans and looking for a way to bypass them, the institution actively seeks its own errors and corrects them. All institutions that manage to endure beyond a handful of years possess such mechanisms, but institutions differ greatly in the strength and visibility of their self-correcting mechanisms.

    For example, the Catholic Church is an institution with relatively weak self-correcting mechanisms. Since it claims infallibility, it cannot admit institutional mistakes. It is occasionally willing to acknowledge that some of its members have erred or sinned, but the institution itself allegedly remains perfect. For example, in the Second Vatican Council in 1964, the Catholic Church acknowledged that “Christ summons the Church to continual reformation as she sojourns here on earth. The Church is always in need of this, insofar as she is an institution of men here on earth. Thus if, in various times and circumstances, there have been deficiencies in moral conduct or in church discipline, or even in the way that church teaching has been formulated—to be carefully distinguished from the deposit of faith itself—these can and should be set right at the opportune moment.”96

    This admission sounds promising, but the devil is in the details, specifically in the refusal to countenance the possibility of any deficiency in “the deposit of faith.” In Catholic dogma “the deposit of faith” refers to the body of revealed truth that the church has received from scriptures and from its sacred tradition of interpreting scripture. The Catholic Church acknowledges that priests are fallible humans who can sin and can also make mistakes in the way they formulate church teachings. However, the holy book itself can never err. What does this imply about the entire church as an institution that combines fallible humans with an infallible text?

    According to Catholic dogma, biblical infallibility and divine guidance trump human corruption, so even though individual members of the church may err and sin, the Catholic Church as an institution is never wrong. Allegedly, never in history did God allow the majority of church leaders to make a serious mistake in their interpretation of the holy book. This principle is common to many religions. Jewish Orthodoxy accepted the possibility that the rabbis who composed the Mishnah and Talmud might have erred in personal matters, but when they came to decree religious doctrine, God ensured that they would make no mistake.97 In Islam there is an analogous principle known as Ijma. According to one important Hadith, Muhammad said that “Allah will ensure my community will never agree on error.”98

    In Catholicism, alleged institutional perfection is enshrined most clearly in the doctrine of papal infallibility, which says that while in personal matters popes may err, in their institutional role they are infallible.99 For example, Pope Alexander VI erred in breaking his vow of celibacy, having a mistress and siring several children, yet when defining official church teachings on matters of ethics or theology, he was incapable of mistake.

    In line with these views, the Catholic Church has always employed a self-correcting mechanism to supervise its human members in their personal affairs, but it never developed a mechanism for amending the Bible or for amending its “deposit of faith.” This attitude is manifest in the few formal apologies the Catholic Church issued for its past conduct. In recent decades, several popes apologized for the mistreatment of Jews, women, non-Catholic Christians, and indigenous cultures, as well as for more specific events such as the sacking of Constantinople in 1204 and the abuse of children in Catholic schools. It is commendable that the Catholic Church made such apologies at all; religious institutions rarely do so. Nevertheless, in all these cases, the popes were careful to shift responsibility away from scriptures and from the church as an institution. Instead, the blame was laid on the shoulders of individual churchmen who misinterpreted scriptures and deviated from the true teachings of the church.

    For example, in March 2000, Pope John Paul II conducted a special ceremony in which he asked forgiveness for a long list of historical crimes against Jews, heretics, women, and indigenous people. He apologized “for the use of violence that some have committed in the service of truth.” This terminology implied that the violence was the fault of “some” misguided individuals who didn’t understand the truth taught by the church. The pope didn’t accept the possibility that perhaps these individuals understood exactly what the church was teaching and that these teachings just were not the truth.100

    Similarly, when Pope Francis apologized in 2022 for the abuses against indigenous people in Canada’s church-run residential schools, he said, “I ask for forgiveness, in particular, for the ways in which many members of the church … cooperated … in projects of cultural destruction and forced assimilation.”101 Note his careful shifting of responsibility. The fault lay with “many members of the church,” not with the church and its teachings. As if it were never official church doctrine to destroy indigenous cultures and forcefully convert people.

    In fact, it wasn’t a few wayward priests who launched the Crusades, imposed laws that discriminated against Jews and women, or orchestrated the systematic annihilation of indigenous religions throughout the world.102 The writings of many revered church fathers, and the official decrees of many popes and church councils, are full of passages disparaging “pagan” and “heretical” religions, calling for their destruction, discriminating against their members, and legitimizing the use of violence to convert people to Christianity.103 For example, in 1452 Pope Nicholas V issued the Dum Diversas bull, addressed to King Afonso V of Portugal and other Catholic monarchs. The bull said, “We grant you by these present documents, with our Apostolic Authority, full and free permission to invade, search out, capture, and subjugate the Saracens and pagans and any other unbelievers and enemies of Christ wherever they may be, as well as their kingdoms, duchies, counties, principalities, and other property … and to reduce their persons into perpetual servitude.”104 This official proclamation, repeated numerous times by subsequent popes, laid the theological basis for European imperialism and the destruction of native cultures across the world. Of course, though the church doesn’t acknowledge it officially, over time it has changed its institutional structures, its core teachings, and its interpretation of scripture. The Catholic Church of today is far less antisemitic and misogynist than it was in medieval and early modern times. Pope Francis is far more tolerant of indigenous cultures than Pope Nicholas V. There is an institutional self-correcting mechanism at work here, which reacts both to external pressures and to internal soul-searching. But what characterizes self-correcting in institutions like the Catholic Church is that even when it happens, it is denied rather than celebrated. The first rule of changing church teachings is that you never admit changing church teachings.

    You would never hear a pope announcing to the world, “Our experts have just discovered a really big error in the Bible. We’ll soon issue an updated edition.” Instead, when asked about the church’s more generous attitude to Jews or women, popes imply that this was always what the church really taught, even if some individual churchmen previously failed to understand the message correctly. Denying the existence of self-correction doesn’t entirely stop it from happening, but it does weaken and slow it. Because the correction of past mistakes is not acknowledged, let alone celebrated, when the faithful encounter another serious problem in the institution and its teachings, they are paralyzed by fear of changing something that is supposedly eternal and infallible. They cannot benefit from the example of previous changes.

    For instance, when Catholics like Pope Francis himself are now reconsidering the church’s teachings on homosexuality,105 they find it difficult to simply acknowledge past mistakes and change the teachings. If eventually a future pope would issue an apology for the mistreatment of LGBTQ people, the way to do it would be to again shift the blame to the shoulders of some overzealous individuals who misunderstood the gospel. To maintain its religious authority the Catholic Church has had no choice but to deny the existence of institutional self-correction. For the church fell into the infallibility trap. Once it based its religious authority on a claim to infallibility, any public admission of institutional error—even on relatively minor issues—could completely destroy its authority.

    THE DSM AND THE BIBLE

    In contrast to the Catholic Church, the scientific institutions that emerged in early modern Europe have been built around strong self-correcting mechanisms. Scientific institutions maintain that even if most scientists in a particular period believe something to be true, it may yet turn out to be inaccurate or incomplete. In the nineteenth century most physicists accepted Newtonian physics as a comprehensive account of the universe, but in the twentieth century the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics exposed the inaccuracies and limitations of Newton’s model.106 The most celebrated moments in the history of science are precisely those moments when accepted wisdom is overturned and new theories are born.

    Crucially, scientific institutions are willing to admit their institutional responsibility for major mistakes and crimes. For example, present-day universities routinely give courses, and professional journals routinely publish articles, that expose the institutional racism and sexism that characterized the scientific study of subjects like biology, anthropology, and history in the nineteenth and much of the twentieth centuries. Research on individual test cases such as the Tuskegee Syphilis Study, and on governmental policies ranging from the White Australia policy to the Holocaust, have repeatedly and extensively studied how flawed biological, anthropological, and historical theories developed in leading scientific institutions were used to justify and facilitate discrimination, imperialism, and even genocide. These crimes and errors are not blamed on a few misguided scholars. They are seen as an institutional failure of entire academic disciplines.107

    The willingness to admit major institutional errors contributes to the relatively fast pace at which science is developing. When the available evidence justifies it, dominant theories are often discarded within a few generations, to be replaced by new theories. What students of biology, anthropology, and history learn at university in the early twenty-first century is very different from what they learned there a century previously.

    Psychiatry offers numerous similar examples for strong self-correcting mechanisms. On the shelf of most psychiatrists you can find the DSM—the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. It is occasionally nicknamed the psychiatrists’ bible. But there is a crucial difference between the DSM and the Bible. First published in 1952, the DSM is revised every decade or two, with the fifth edition appearing in 2013. Over the years, the definition of many disorders has changed, new ones have been added, while others have been deleted. Homosexuality, for example, was listed in 1952 as a sociopathic personality disturbance, but removed from the DSM in 1974. It took just twenty-two years to correct this error in the DSM. That’s not a holy book. That’s a scientific text.

    Today the discipline of psychiatry doesn’t try to reinterpret the 1952 definition of homosexuality in a more benign spirit. Rather, it views the 1952 definition as a downright error. More important, the error is not attributed to the shortcomings of a few homophobic professors. Rather, it is acknowledged to be the result of deep institutional biases in the discipline of psychiatry.108 Confessing the past institutional errors of their discipline makes psychiatrists today more careful not to commit new such errors, as evidenced in the heated debate regarding transgender people and people on the autistic spectrum. Of course, no matter how careful they are, psychiatrists are still likely to make institutional mistakes. But they are also likely to acknowledge and correct them.109

    PUBLISH OR PERISH

    What makes scientific self-correcting mechanisms particularly strong is that scientific institutions are not just willing to admit institutional error and ignorance; they are actively seeking to expose them. This is evident in the institutions’ incentive structure. In religious institutions, members are incentivized to conform to existing doctrine and be suspicious of novelty. You become a rabbi, imam, or priest by professing doctrinal loyalty, and you can advance up the ranks to become pope, chief rabbi, or grand ayatollah without criticizing your predecessors or advancing any radical new notions. Indeed, many of the most powerful and admired religious leaders of recent times—such as Pope Benedict XVI, Chief Rabbi of Israel David Lau, and Ayatollah Khamenei of Iran—have won fame and supporters by strict resistance to new ideas and trends like feminism.110

    In science it works the other way around. Hiring and promotions in scientific institutions are based on the principle of “publish or perish,” and to publish in prestigious journals, you must expose some mistake in existing theories or discover something your predecessors and teachers didn’t know. Nobody wins a Nobel Prize for faithfully repeating what previous scholars said and opposing every new scientific theory.

    Of course, just as religion has room for self-correcting, so science has ample room for conformism, too. Science is an institutional enterprise, and scientists rely on the institution for almost everything they know. For example, how do I know what medieval and early modern Europeans thought about witchcraft? I have not visited all the relevant archives myself, nor have I read all the relevant primary sources. In fact, I am incapable of reading many of these sources directly, because I do not know all the necessary languages, nor am I skilled in deciphering medieval and early modern handwriting. Instead, I have relied on books and articles published by other scholars, such as Ronald Hutton’s book The Witch: A History of Fear, which was published by Yale University Press in 2017.

    I haven’t met Ronald Hutton, who is a professor of history at the University of Bristol, nor do I personally know the Bristol officials who hired him or the Yale editorial team who published his book. I nevertheless trust what I read in Hutton’s book, because I understand how institutions like the University of Bristol and Yale University Press operate. Their self-correcting mechanisms have two crucial features: First, the self-correcting mechanisms are built into the core of the institutions rather than being a peripheral add-on. Second, these institutions publicly celebrate self-correcting instead of denying it. It is of course possible that some of the information I gained from Hutton’s book may be incorrect, or I myself may misinterpret it. But experts on the history of witchcraft who have read Hutton’s book and who might be reading the present book will hopefully spot any such errors and expose them.

    Populist critics of scientific institutions may counter that, in fact, these institutions use their power to stifle unorthodox views and launch their own witch hunts against dissenters. It is certainly true that if a scholar opposes the current orthodox view of their discipline, it might sometimes have negative consequences: articles rejected, research grants denied, nasty ad hominem attacks, and in rare cases even getting fired from their job.111 I do not wish to belittle the suffering such things cause, but it is still a far cry from being physically tortured and burned at the stake.

    Consider, for example, the story of the chemist Dan Shechtman. In April 1982, while observing through an electron microscope, Shechtman saw something that all contemporary theories in chemistry claimed simply could not exist: the atoms in a mixed sample of aluminum and manganese were crystallized in a pattern with a five-fold rotational symmetry. At the time, scientists knew of various possible symmetrical structures in solid crystals, but five-fold symmetry was considered against the very laws of nature. Shechtman’s discovery of what came to be called quasicrystals sounded so outlandish that it was difficult to find a peer-reviewed journal willing to publish it. It didn’t help that Shechtman was at the time a junior scientist. He didn’t even have his own laboratory; he was working in someone’s else facility. But the editors of the journal Physical Review Letters, after reviewing the evidence, eventually published Shechtman’s article in 1984.112 And then, as he describes it, “all hell broke loose.”

    Shechtman’s claims were dismissed by most of his colleagues, and he was blamed for mismanaging his experiments. The head of his laboratory also turned on Shechtman. In a dramatic gesture, he placed a chemistry textbook on Shechtman’s desk and told him, “Danny, please read this book and you will understand that what you are saying cannot be.” Shechtman boldly replied that he saw the quasicrystals in the microscope—not in the book. As a result, he was kicked out of the lab. Worse was to come. Linus Pauling, a two-time Nobel laureate and one of the most eminent scientists of the twentieth century, led a brutal personal attack on Shechtman. In a conference attended by hundreds of scientists, Pauling proclaimed, “Danny Shechtman is talking nonsense, there are no quasicrystals, just quasi-scientists.”

    But Shechtman was not imprisoned or killed. He got a place in another lab. The evidence he presented turned out to be more convincing than the existing chemistry textbooks and the views of Linus Pauling. Several colleagues repeated Shechtman’s experiments and replicated his findings. A mere ten years after Shechtman saw the quasicrystals through his microscope, the International Union of Crystallography—the leading scientific association in the field—altered its definition of what a crystal is. Chemistry textbooks were changed accordingly, and an entire new scientific field emerged—the study of quasicrystals. In 2011, Shechtman was awarded the Nobel Prize in Chemistry for his discovery.113 The Nobel Committee said that “his discovery was extremely controversial [but] eventually forced scientists to reconsider their conception of the very nature of matter.”114

    Shechtman’s story is hardly exceptional. The annals of science are full of similar cases. Before the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics became the cornerstones of twentieth-century physics, they initially provoked bitter controversies, including personal assaults by the old guard on the proponents of the new theories. Similarly, when Georg Cantor developed in the late nineteenth century his theory of infinite numbers, which became the basis for much of twentieth-century mathematics, he was personally attacked by some of the leading mathematicians of his day like Henri Poincaré and Leopold Kronecker. Populists are right to think that scientists suffer from the same human biases as everyone else. However, thanks to institutional self-correcting mechanisms these biases can be overcome. If enough empirical evidence is provided, it often takes just a few decades for an unorthodox theory to upend established wisdom and become the new consensus.

    As we shall see in the next chapter, there were times and places where scientific self-correcting mechanisms ceased functioning and academic dissent could lead to physical torture, imprisonment, and death. In the Soviet Union, for example, questioning official dogma on any matter—economics, genetics, or history—could lead not only to dismissal but even to a couple of years in the gulag or an executioner’s bullet.115 A famous case involved the bogus theories of the agronomist Trofim Lysenko. He rejected mainstream genetics and the theory of evolution by natural selection and advanced his own pet theory, which said that “re-education” could change the traits of plants and animals, and even transform one species into another. Lysenkoism greatly appealed to Stalin, who had ideological and political reasons for believing in the almost limitless potential of “re-education.” Thousands of scientists who opposed Lysenko and continued to uphold the theory of evolution by natural selection were dismissed from their jobs, and some were imprisoned or executed. Nikolai Vavilov, a botanist and geneticist who was Lysenko’s former mentor turned critic, was tried in July 1941 along with the botanist Leonid Govorov, the geneticist Georgii Karpechenko, and the agronomist Aleksandr Bondarenko. The latter three were shot, while Vavilov died in a camp in Saratov in 1943.116 Under pressure from the dictator, the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences eventually announced in August 1948 that henceforth Soviet institutions would teach Lysenkoism as the only correct theory.117

    But for precisely this reason, the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences ceased being a scientific institution, and Soviet dogma on genetics was an ideology rather than a science. An institution can call itself by whatever name it wants, but if it lacks a strong self-correcting mechanism, it is not a scientific institution.

    THE LIMITS OF SELF-CORRECTION

    Does all this mean that in self-correcting mechanisms we have found the magic bullet that protects human information networks from error and bias? Unfortunately, things are far more complicated. There is a reason why institutions like the Catholic Church and the Soviet Communist Party eschewed strong self-correcting mechanisms. While such mechanisms are vital for the pursuit of truth, they are costly in terms of maintaining order. Strong self-correcting mechanisms tend to create doubts, disagreements, conflicts, and rifts and to undermine the myths that hold the social order together.

    Of course, order by itself isn’t necessarily good. For example, the social order of early modern Europe endorsed, among other things, not only witch hunts but also the exploitation of millions of peasants by a handful of aristocrats, the systematic mistreatment of women, and widespread discrimination against Jews, Muslims, and other minorities. But even when the social order is highly oppressive, undermining it doesn’t necessarily lead to a better place. It could just lead to chaos and worse oppression. The history of information networks has always involved maintaining a balance between truth and order. Just as sacrificing truth for the sake of order comes with a cost, so does sacrificing order for truth.

    Scientific institutions have been able to afford their strong self-correcting mechanisms because they leave the difficult job of preserving the social order to other institutions. If a thief breaks into a chemistry lab, or a psychiatrist receives death threats, they don’t complain to a peer-reviewed journal; they call the police. Is it possible, then, to maintain strong self-correcting mechanisms in institutions other than academic disciplines? In particular, can such mechanisms exist in institutions like police forces, armies, political parties, and governments that are charged with maintaining the social order?

    We’ll explore this question in the next chapter, which focuses on the political aspects of information flows and examines the long-term history of democracies and dictatorships. As we shall see, democracies believe that it is possible to maintain strong self-correcting mechanisms even in politics. Dictatorships disavow such mechanisms. Thus, at the height of the Cold War, newspapers and universities in the democratic United States openly exposed and criticized American war crimes in Vietnam. Newspapers and universities in the totalitarian Soviet Union were also happy to criticize American crimes, but they remained silent about Soviet crimes in Afghanistan and elsewhere. Soviet silence was scientifically unjustifiable, but it made political sense. American self-flagellation about the Vietnam War continues even today to divide the American public and to undermine America’s reputation throughout the world, whereas Soviet and Russian silence about the Afghanistan War has helped dim its memory and limit its reputational costs.

    Only after understanding the politics of information in historical systems like ancient Athens, the Roman Empire, the United States, and the Soviet Union will we be ready to explore the revolutionary implications of the rise of AI. For one of the biggest questions about AI is whether it will favor or undermine democratic self-correcting mechanisms.

    CHAPTER 5 Decisions: A Brief History of Democracy and Totalitarianism

    Democracy and dictatorship are typically discussed as contrasting political and ethical systems. This chapter seeks to shift the terms of the discussion, by surveying the history of democracy and dictatorship as contrasting types of information networks. It examines how information in democracies flows differently than in dictatorial systems and how inventing new information technologies helps different kinds of regimes flourish.

    Dictatorial information networks are highly centralized.1 This means two things. First, the center enjoys unlimited authority, hence information tends to flow to the central hub, where the most important decisions are made. In the Roman Empire all roads led to Rome, in Nazi Germany information flowed to Berlin, and in the Soviet Union it streamed to Moscow. Sometimes the central government attempts to concentrate all information in its hands and to dictate all decisions by itself, controlling the totality of people’s lives. This totalizing form of dictatorship, practiced by the likes of Hitler and Stalin, is known as totalitarianism. As we shall see, technical difficulties often prevent dictators from becoming totalitarian. The Roman emperor Nero, for example, didn’t have the technology necessary to micromanage the lives of millions of peasants in remote provincial villages. In many dictatorial regimes considerable autonomy is therefore left to individuals, corporations, and communities. However, the dictators always retain the authority to intervene in people’s lives. In Nero’s Rome freedom was not an ideal but a by-product of the government’s inability to exert totalitarian control.

    The second characteristic of dictatorial networks is that they assume the center is infallible. They therefore dislike any challenge to the center’s decisions. Soviet propaganda depicted Stalin as an infallible genius, and Roman propaganda treated emperors as divine beings. Even when Stalin or Nero made a patently disastrous decision, there were no robust self-correcting mechanisms in the Soviet Union or the Roman Empire that could expose the mistake and push for a better course of action.

    In theory, a highly centralized information network could try to maintain strong self-correcting mechanisms, like independent courts and elected legislative bodies. But if they functioned well, these would challenge the central authority and thereby decentralize the information network. Dictators always see such independent power hubs as threats and seek to neutralize them. This is what happened to the Roman Senate, whose power was whittled away by successive Caesars until it became little more than a rubber stamp for imperial whims.2 The same fate befell the Soviet judicial system, which never dared resist the will of the Communist Party. Stalinist show trials, as their name indicates, were theater with preordained results.3

    To summarize, a dictatorship is a centralized information network, lacking strong self-correcting mechanisms. A democracy, in contrast, is a distributed information network, possessing strong self-correcting mechanisms. When we look at a democratic information network, we do see a central hub. The government is the most important executive power in a democracy, and government agencies therefore gather and store vast quantities of information. But there are many additional information channels that connect lots of independent nodes. Legislative bodies, political parties, courts, the press, corporations, local communities, NGOs, and individual citizens communicate freely and directly with one another so that most information never passes through any government agency and many important decisions are made elsewhere. Individuals choose for themselves where to live, where to work, and whom to marry. Corporations make their own choices about where to open a branch, how much to invest in certain projects, and how much to charge for goods and services. Communities decide for themselves about organizing charities, sporting events, and religious festivals. Autonomy is not a consequence of the government’s ineffectiveness; it is the democratic ideal.

    Even if it possesses the technology necessary to micromanage people’s lives, a democratic government leaves as much room as possible for people to make their own choices. A common misconception is that in a democracy everything is decided by majority vote. In fact, in a democracy as little as possible is decided centrally, and only the relatively few decisions that must be made centrally should reflect the will of the majority. In a democracy, if 99 percent of people want to dress in a particular way and worship a particular god, the remaining 1 percent should still be free to dress and worship differently.

    Of course, if the central government doesn’t intervene at all in people’s lives, and doesn’t provide them with basic services like security, it isn’t a democracy; it is anarchy. In all democracies the center raises taxes and maintains an army, and in most modern democracies it also provides at least some level of health care, education, and welfare. But any intervention in people’s lives demands an explanation. In the absence of a compelling reason, a democratic government should leave people to their own devices.

    Another crucial characteristic of democracies is that they assume everyone is fallible. Therefore, while democracies give the center the authority to make some vital decisions, they also maintain strong mechanisms that can challenge the central authority. To paraphrase President James Madison, since humans are fallible, a government is necessary, but since government too is fallible, it needs mechanisms to expose and correct its errors, such as holding regular elections, protecting the freedom of the press, and separating the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government.

    Consequently, while a dictatorship is about one central information hub dictating everything, a democracy is an ongoing conversation between diverse information nodes. The nodes often influence each other, but in most matters they are not obliged to reach a consensus. Individuals, corporations, and communities can continue to think and behave in different ways. There are, of course, cases when everyone must behave the same, and diversity cannot be tolerated. For example, when in 2002–3 Americans disagreed about whether to invade Iraq, everyone ultimately had to abide by a single decision. It was unacceptable that some Americans would maintain a private peace with Saddam Hussein while others declared war. Whether good or bad, the decision to invade Iraq committed every American citizen. So also when initiating national infrastructure projects or defining criminal offenses. No country can function well if every person is allowed to lay a separate rail network or to have their own definition of murder.

    In order to make decisions on such collective matters, a countrywide public conversation must first be held, following which the people’s representatives—elected in free and fair elections—make a choice. But even after that choice has been made, it should remain open to reexamination and correction. While the network cannot change its previous choices, it can elect a different government next time.

    MAJORITY DICTATORSHIP

    The definition of democracy as a distributed information network with strong self-correcting mechanisms stands in sharp contrast to a common misconception that equates democracy only with elections. Elections are a central part of the democratic tool kit, but they are not democracy. In the absence of additional self-correcting mechanisms, elections can easily be rigged. Even if the elections are completely free and fair, by itself this too doesn’t guarantee democracy. For democracy is not the same thing as majority dictatorship.

    Suppose that in a free and fair election 51 percent of voters choose a government that subsequently sends 1 percent of voters to be exterminated in death camps, because they belong to some hated religious minority. Is this democratic? Clearly it is not. The problem isn’t that genocide demands a special majority of more than 51 percent. It’s not that if the government gets the backing of 60 percent, 75 percent, or even 99 percent of voters, then its death camps finally become democratic. A democracy is not a system in which a majority of any size can decide to exterminate unpopular minorities; it is a system in which there are clear limits on the power of the center.

    Suppose 51 percent of voters choose a government that then takes away the voting rights of the other 49 percent of voters, or perhaps of just 1 percent of them. Is that democratic? Again the answer is no, and it has nothing to do with the numbers. Disenfranchising political rivals dismantles one of the vital self-correcting mechanisms of democratic networks. Elections are a mechanism for the network to say, “We made a mistake; let’s try something else.” But if the center can disenfranchise people at will, that self-correcting mechanism is neutered.

    These two examples may sound outlandish, but they are unfortunately within the realm of the possible. Hitler began sending Jews and communists to concentration camps within months of rising to power through democratic elections, and in the United States numerous democratically elected governments have disenfranchised African Americans, Native Americans, and other oppressed populations. Of course, most assaults on democracy are more subtle. The careers of strongmen like Vladimir Putin, Viktor Orbán, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, Rodrigo Duterte, Jair Bolsonaro, and Benjamin Netanyahu demonstrate how a leader who uses democracy to rise to power can then use his power to undermine democracy. As Erdoğan once put it, “Democracy is like a tram. You ride it until you arrive at your destination, then you step off.”4

    The most common method strongmen use to undermine democracy is to attack its self-correcting mechanisms one by one, often beginning with the courts and the media. The typical strongman either deprives courts of their powers or packs them with his loyalists and seeks to close all independent media outlets while building his own omnipresent propaganda machine.5

    Once the courts are no longer able to check the government’s power by legal means, and once the media obediently parrots the government line, all other institutions or persons who dare oppose the government can be smeared and persecuted as traitors, criminals, or foreign agents. Academic institutions, municipalities, NGOs, and private businesses are either dismantled or brought under government control. At that stage, the government can also rig the elections at will, for example by jailing popular opposition leaders, preventing opposition parties from participating in the elections, gerrymandering election districts, or disenfranchising voters. Appeals against these antidemocratic measures are dismissed by the government’s handpicked judges. Journalists and academics who criticize these measures are fired. The remaining media outlets, academic institutions, and judicial authorities all praise these measures as necessary steps to protect the nation and its allegedly democratic system from traitors and foreign agents. The strongmen don’t usually take the final step of abolishing the elections outright. Instead, they keep them as a ritual that serves to provide legitimacy and maintain a democratic facade, as happens, for example, in Putin’s Russia.

    Supporters of strongmen often don’t see this process as antidemocratic. They are genuinely baffled when told that electoral victory doesn’t grant them unlimited power. Instead, they see any check on the power of an elected government as undemocratic. However, democracy doesn’t mean majority rule; rather, it means freedom and equality for all. Democracy is a system that guarantees everyone certain liberties, which even the majority cannot take away.

    Nobody disputes that in a democracy the representatives of the majority are entitled to form the government and to advance their preferred policies in myriad fields. If the majority wants war, the country goes to war. If the majority wants peace, the country makes peace. If the majority wants to raise taxes, taxes are raised. If the majority wants to lower taxes, taxes are lowered. Major decisions about foreign affairs, defense, education, taxation, and numerous other policies are all in the hands of the majority.

    But in a democracy, there are two baskets of rights that are protected from the majority’s grasp. One contains human rights. Even if 99 percent of the population wants to exterminate the remaining 1 percent, in a democracy this is forbidden, because it violates the most basic human right—the right to life. The basket of human rights contains many additional rights, such as the right to work, the right to privacy, freedom of movement, and freedom of religion. These rights enshrine the decentralized nature of democracy, making sure that as long as people don’t harm anyone, they can live their lives as they see fit.

    The second crucial basket of rights contains civil rights. These are the basic rules of the democratic game, which enshrine its self-correcting mechanisms. An obvious example is the right to vote. If the majority were permitted to disenfranchise the minority, then democracy would be over after a single election. Other civil rights include freedom of the press, academic freedom, and freedom of assembly, which enable independent media outlets, universities, and opposition movements to challenge the government. These are the key rights that strongmen seek to violate. While sometimes it is necessary to make changes to a country’s self-correcting mechanisms—for example, by expanding the franchise, regulating the media, or reforming the judicial system—such changes should be made only on the basis of a broad consensus including both majority and minority groups. If a small majority could unilaterally change civil rights, it could easily rig elections and get rid of all other checks on its power.

    An important thing to note about both human rights and civil rights is that they don’t just limit the power of the central government; they also impose on it many active duties. It is not enough for a democratic government to abstain from infringing on human and civil rights. It must take actions to ensure them. For example, the right to life imposes on a democratic government the duty to protect citizens from criminal violence. If a government doesn’t kill anyone, but also makes no effort to protect citizens from murder, this is anarchy rather than democracy.

    THE PEOPLE VERSUS THE TRUTH

    Of course, in every democracy, there are lengthy discussions concerning the exact limits of human and civil rights. Even the right to life has limits. There are democratic countries like the United States that impose the death penalty, thereby denying some criminals the right to life. And every country allows itself the prerogative to declare war, thereby sending people to kill and be killed. So where exactly does the right to life end? There are also complicated and ongoing discussions concerning the list of rights that should be included in the two baskets. Who determined that freedom of religion is a basic human right? Should internet access be defined as a civil right? And what about animal rights? Or the rights of AI?

    We cannot resolve these matters here. Both human and civil rights are intersubjective conventions that humans invent rather than discover, and they are determined by historical contingencies rather than universal reason. Different democracies can adopt somewhat different lists of rights. At least from the viewpoint of information flows, what defines a system as “democratic” is only that its center doesn’t have unlimited authority and that the system possesses robust mechanisms to correct the center’s mistakes. Democratic networks assume that everyone is fallible, and that includes even the winners of elections and the majority of voters.

    It is particularly crucial to remember that elections are not a method for discovering truth. Rather, they are a method for maintaining order by adjudicating between people’s conflicting desires. Elections establish what the majority of people desire, rather than what the truth is. And people often desire the truth to be other than what it is. Democratic networks therefore maintain some self-correcting mechanisms to protect the truth even from the will of the majority.

    For example, during the 2002–3 debate over whether to invade Iraq in the wake of the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration claimed that Saddam Hussein was developing weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraqi people were eager to establish an American-style democracy and would welcome the Americans as liberators. These arguments carried the day. In October 2002 the elected representatives of the American people in Congress voted overwhelmingly to authorize the invasion. The resolution passed with a 296 to 133 majority (69 percent) in the House of Representatives and a 77 to 23 majority (77 percent) in the Senate.6 In the early days of the war in March 2003, polls found that the elected representatives were indeed in tune with the mass of voters and that 72 percent of American citizens supported the invasion.7 The will of the American people was clear.

    But the truth turned out to be different from what the government said and what the majority believed. As the war progressed, it became evident that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and that many Iraqis had no wish to be “liberated” by the Americans or to establish a democracy. By August 2004 another poll found that 67 percent of Americans believed that the invasion was based on incorrect assumptions. As the years went by, most Americans acknowledged that the decision to invade was a catastrophic mistake.8

    In a democracy the majority has every right to make momentous decisions like starting wars, and that includes the right to make momentous errors. But the majority should at least acknowledge its own fallibility and protect the freedom of minorities to hold and publicize unpopular views, which might turn out to be correct.

    As another example, consider the case of a charismatic leader who is accused of corruption. His loyal supporters obviously wish these accusations to be false. But even if most voters support the leader, their desires should not prevent judges from investigating the accusations and getting to the truth. As with the justice system, so also with science. A majority of voters might deny the reality of climate change, but they should not have the power to dictate scientific truth or to prevent scientists from exploring and publishing inconvenient facts. Unlike parliaments, departments of environmental studies should not reflect the will of the majority.

    Of course, when it comes to making policy decisions about climate change, in a democracy the will of the voters should reign supreme. Acknowledging the reality of climate change does not tell us what to do about it. We always have options, and choosing between them is a question of desire, not truth. One option might be to immediately cut greenhouse gas emissions, even at the cost of slowing economic growth. This means incurring some difficulties today but saving people in 2050 from more severe hardship, saving the island nation of Kiribati from drowning, and saving the polar bears from extinction. A second option might be to continue with business as usual. This means having an easier life today, but making life harder for the next generation, flooding Kiribati, and driving the polar bears—as well as numerous other species—to extinction. Choosing between these two options is a question of desire, and should therefore be done by all voters rather than by a limited group of experts.

    But the one option that should not be on offer in elections is hiding or distorting the truth. If the majority prefers to consume whatever amount of fossil fuels it wishes with no regard to future generations or other environmental considerations, it is entitled to vote for that. But the majority should not be entitled to pass a law stating that climate change is a hoax and that all professors who believe in climate change must be fired from their academic posts. We can choose what we want, but we shouldn’t deny the true meaning of our choice.

    Naturally, academic institutions, the media, and the judiciary may themselves be compromised by corruption, bias, or error. But subordinating them to a governmental Ministry of Truth is likely to make things worse. The government is already the most powerful institution in developed societies, and it often has the greatest interest in distorting or hiding inconvenient facts. Allowing the government to supervise the search for truth is like appointing the fox to guard the chicken coop.

    To discover the truth, it is better to rely on two other methods. First, academic institutions, the media, and the judiciary have their own internal self-correcting mechanisms for fighting corruption, correcting bias, and exposing error. In academia, peer-reviewed publication is a far better check on error than supervision by government officials, because academic promotion often depends on uncovering past mistakes and discovering unknown facts. In the media, free competition means that if one outlet decides not to break a scandal, perhaps for self-serving reasons, others are likely to jump at the scoop. In the judiciary, a judge that takes bribes may be tried and punished just like any other citizen.

    Second, the existence of several independent institutions that seek the truth in different ways allows these institutions to check and correct one another. For example, if powerful corporations manage to break down the peer-review mechanism by bribing a sufficiently large number of scientists, investigative journalists and courts can expose and punish the perpetrators. If the media or the courts are afflicted by systematic racist biases, it is the job of sociologists, historians, and philosophers to expose these biases. None of these mechanisms are completely fail-safe, but no human institution is. Government certainly isn’t.

    THE POPULIST ASSAULT

    If all this sounds complicated, it is because democracy should be complicated. Simplicity is a characteristic of dictatorial information networks in which the center dictates everything and everybody silently obeys. It’s easy to follow this dictatorial monologue. In contrast, democracy is a conversation with numerous participants, many of them talking at the same time. It can be hard to follow such a conversation.

    Moreover, the most important democratic institutions tend to be bureaucratic behemoths. Whereas citizens avidly follow the biological dramas of the princely court and the presidential palace, they often find it difficult to understand how parliaments, courts, newspapers, and universities function. This is what helps strongmen mount populist attacks on institutions, dismantle all self-correcting mechanisms, and concentrate power in their hands. We discussed populism briefly in the prologue, to help explain the populist challenge to the naive view of information. Here we need to revisit populism, get a broader understanding of its worldview, and explain its appeal to antidemocratic strongmen.

    The term “populism” derives from the Latin populus, which means “the people.” In democracies, “the people” is considered the sole legitimate source of political authority. Only representatives of the people should have the authority to declare wars, pass laws, and raise taxes. Populists cherish this basic democratic principle, but somehow conclude from it that a single party or a single leader should monopolize all power. In a curious political alchemy, populists manage to base a totalitarian pursuit of unlimited power on a seemingly impeccable democratic principle. How does it happen?

    The most novel claim populists make is that they alone truly represent the people. Since in democracies only the people should have political power, and since allegedly only the populists represent the people, it follows that the populist party should have all political power to itself. If some party other than the populists wins elections, it does not mean that this rival party won the people’s trust and is entitled to form a government. Rather, it means that the elections were stolen or that the people were deceived to vote in a way that doesn’t express their true will.

    It should be stressed that for many populists, this is a genuinely held belief rather than a propaganda gambit. Even if they win just a small share of votes, populists may still believe they alone represent the people. An analogous case are communist parties. In the U.K., for example, the Communist Party of Great Britain (CPGB) never won more than 0.4 percent of votes in a general election,9 but was nevertheless adamant that it alone truly represented the working class. Millions of British workers, they claimed, were voting for the Labour Party or even for the Conservative Party rather than for the CPGB because of “false consciousness.” Allegedly, through their control of the media, universities, and other institutions, the capitalists managed to deceive the working class into voting against its true interests, and only the CPGB could see through this deception. In like fashion, populists can believe that the enemies of the people have deceived the people to vote against its true will, which the populists alone represent.

    A fundamental part of this populist credo is the belief that “the people” is not a collection of flesh-and-blood individuals with various interests and opinions, but rather a unified mystical body that possesses a single will—“the will of the people.” Perhaps the most notorious and extreme manifestation of this semireligious belief was the Nazi motto “Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Führer,” which means “One People, One Country, One Leader.” Nazi ideology posited that the Volk (people) had a single will, whose sole authentic representative was the Führer (leader). The leader allegedly had an infallible intuition for how the people felt and what the people wanted. If some German citizens disagreed with the leader, it didn’t mean that the leader might be in the wrong. Rather, it meant that the dissenters belonged to some treasonous outsider group—Jews, communists, liberals—instead of to the people.

    The Nazi case is of course extreme, and it is grossly unfair to accuse all populists of being crypto-Nazis with genocidal inclinations. However, many populist parties and politicians deny that “the people” might contain a diversity of opinions and interest groups. They insist that the real people has only one will and that they alone represent this will. In contrast, their political rivals—even when the latter enjoy substantial popular support—are depicted as “alien elites.” Thus, Hugo Chávez ran for the presidency in Venezuela with the slogan “Chávez is the people!”10 President Erdoğan of Turkey once railed against his domestic critics, saying, “We are the people. Who are you?”—as if his critics weren’t Turks, too.11

    How can you tell, then, whether someone is part of the people or not? Easy. If they support the leader, they are part of the people. This, according to the German political philosopher Jan-Werner Müller, is the defining feature of populism. What turns someone into a populist is claiming that they alone represent the people and that anyone who disagrees with them—whether state bureaucrats, minority groups, or even the majority of voters—either suffers from false consciousness or isn’t really part of the people.12

    This is why populism poses a deadly threat to democracy. While democracy agrees that the people is the only legitimate source of power, democracy is based on the understanding that the people is never a unitary entity and, therefore, cannot possess a single will. Every people—whether Germans, Venezuelans, or Turks—is composed of many different groups, with a plurality of opinions, wills, and representatives. No group, including the majority group, is entitled to exclude other groups from membership in the people. This is what makes democracy a conversation. Holding a conversation presupposes the existence of several legitimate voices. If, however, the people has only one legitimate voice, there can be no conversation. Rather, the single voice dictates everything. Populism may therefore claim adherence to the democratic principle of “people’s power,” but it effectively empties democracy of meaning and seeks to establish a dictatorship.

    Populism undermines democracy in another, more subtle, but equally dangerous way. Having claimed that they alone represent the people, populists argue that the people is not just the sole legitimate source of political authority but the sole legitimate source of all authority. Any institution that derives its authority from something other than the will of the people is antidemocratic. As the self-proclaimed representatives of the people, populists consequently seek to monopolize not just political authority but all types of authority and to take control of institutions such as media outlets, courts, and universities. By taking the democratic principle of “people’s power” to its extreme, populists turn totalitarian.

    In fact, while democracy means that authority in the political sphere comes from the people, it doesn’t deny the validity of alternative sources of authority in other spheres. As discussed above, in a democracy independent media outlets, courts, and universities are essential self-correcting mechanisms that protect the truth even from the will of the majority. Biology professors claim that humans evolved from apes because the evidence supports this, even if the majority wills it to be otherwise. Journalists can reveal that a popular politician took a bribe, and if compelling evidence is presented in court, a judge may send that politician to jail, even if most people don’t want to believe these accusations.

    Populists are suspicious of institutions that in the name of objective truths override the supposed will of the people. They tend to see this as a smoke screen for elites grabbing illegitimate power. This drives populists to be skeptical of the pursuit of truth, and to argue—as we saw in the prologue—that “power is the only reality.” They thereby seek to undercut or appropriate the authority of any independent institutions that might oppose them. The result is a dark and cynical view of the world as a jungle and of human beings as creatures obsessed with power alone. All social interactions are seen as power struggles, and all institutions are depicted as cliques promoting the interests of their own members. In the populist imagination, courts don’t really care about justice; they only protect the privileges of the judges. Yes, the judges talk a lot about justice, but this is a ploy to grab power for themselves. Newspapers don’t care about facts; they spread fake news to mislead the people and benefit the journalists and the cabals that finance them. Even scientific institutions aren’t committed to the truth. Biologists, climatologists, epidemiologists, economists, historians, and mathematicians are just another interest group feathering its own nest—at the expense of the people.

    In all, it’s a rather sordid view of humanity, but two things nevertheless make it appealing to many. First, since it reduces all interactions to power struggles, it simplifies reality and makes events like wars, economic crises, and natural disasters easy to understand. Anything that happens—even a pandemic—is about elites pursuing power. Second, the populist view is attractive because it is sometimes correct. Every human institution is indeed fallible and suffers from some level of corruption. Some judges do take bribes. Some journalists do intentionally mislead the public. Academic disciplines are occasionally plagued by bias and nepotism. That is why every institution needs self-correcting mechanisms. But since populists are convinced that power is the only reality, they cannot accept that a court, a media outlet, or an academic discipline would ever be inspired by the value of truth or justice to correct itself.

    While many people embrace populism because they see it as an honest account of human reality, strongmen are attracted to it for a different reason. Populism offers strongmen an ideological basis for making themselves dictators while pretending to be democrats. It is particularly useful when strongmen seek to neutralize or appropriate the self-correcting mechanisms of democracy. Since judges, journalists, and professors allegedly pursue political interests rather than truth, the people’s champion—the strongman—should control these positions instead of allowing them to fall into the hands of the people’s enemies. Similarly, since even the officials in charge of arranging elections and publicizing their results may be part of a nefarious conspiracy, they too should be replaced by the strongman’s loyalists.

    In a well-functioning democracy, citizens trust the results of elections, the decisions of courts, the reports of media outlets, and the findings of scientific disciplines because citizens believe these institutions are committed to the truth. Once people think that power is the only reality, they lose trust in all these institutions, democracy collapses, and the strongmen can seize total power.
    Of course, populism could lead to anarchy rather than totalitarianism, if it undermines trust in the strongmen themselves. If no human is interested in truth or justice, doesn’t this apply to Mussolini or Putin too? And if no human institution can have effective self-correcting mechanisms, doesn’t this include Mussolini’s National Fascist Party or Putin’s United Russia party? How can a deep-seated distrust of all elites and institutions be squared with unwavering admiration for one leader and party? This is why populists ultimately depend on the mystical notion that the strongman embodies the people. When trust in bureaucratic institutions like election boards, courts, and newspapers is particularly low, an enhanced reliance on mythology is the only way to preserve order.

    MEASURING THE STRENGTH OF DEMOCRACIES

    Strongmen who claim to represent the people may well rise to power through democratic means, and often rule behind a democratic facade. Rigged elections in which they win overwhelming majorities serve as proof of the mystical bond between the leader and the people. Consequently, to measure how democratic an information network is, we cannot use a simple yardstick like whether elections are being held regularly. In Putin’s Russia, in Iran, and even in North Korea elections are held like clockwork. Rather, we need to ask much more complex questions like “What mechanisms prevent the central government from rigging the elections?” “How safe is it for leading media outlets to criticize the government?” and “How much authority does the center appropriate to itself?” Democracy and dictatorship aren’t binary opposites, but rather a continuum. To decide whether a network is closer to the democratic or the dictatorial end of the continuum, we need to understand how information flows in the network and what shapes the political conversation.

    If one person dictates all the decisions, and even their closest advisers are terrified to voice a dissenting view, no conversation is taking place. Such a network is situated at the extreme dictatorial end of the spectrum. If nobody can voice unorthodox opinions publicly, but behind closed doors a small circle of party bosses or senior officials are able to freely express their views, then this is still a dictatorship, but it has taken a baby step in the direction of democracy. If 10 percent of the population participate in the political conversation by airing their opinions, voting in fair elections, and running for office, that may be considered a limited democracy, as was the case in many ancient city-states like Athens, or in the early days of the United States, when only wealthy white men had such political rights. As the percentage of people taking part in the conversation rises, so the network becomes more democratic.

    The focus on conversations rather than elections raises a host of interesting questions. For example, where does that conversation take place? North Korea, for example, has the Mansudae Assembly Hall in Pyongyang, where the 687 members of the Supreme People’s Assembly meet and talk. However, while this Assembly is officially known as North Korea’s legislature, and while elections to the Assembly are held every five years, this body is widely considered a rubber stamp, executing decisions taken elsewhere. The anodyne discussions follow a predetermined script, and they aren’t geared to change anyone’s mind about anything.13

    Is there perhaps another, more private hall in Pyongyang where the crucial conversations take place? Do Politburo members ever dare criticize Kim Jong Un’s policies during formal meetings? Perhaps it can be done in unofficial dinner parties or in unofficial think tanks? Information in North Korea is so concentrated and so tightly controlled that we cannot provide clear answers to these questions.14
    Similar questions can be asked about the United States. In the United States, unlike in North Korea, people are free to say almost anything they want. Scathing public attacks on the government are a daily occurrence. But where is the room where the crucial conversations happen, and who sits there? The U.S. Congress was designed to fulfill this function, with the people’s representatives meeting to converse and try to convince one another. But when was the last time that an eloquent speech in Congress by a member of one party persuaded members of the other party to change their minds about anything? Wherever the conversations that shape American politics now take place, it is definitely not in Congress. Democracies die not only when people are not free to talk but also when people are not willing or able to listen.

    STONE AGE DEMOCRACIES

    Based on the above definition of democracy, we can now turn to the historical record and examine how changes in information technology and information flows have shaped the history of democracy. To judge by the archaeological and anthropological evidence, democracy was the most typical political system among archaic hunter-gatherers. Stone Age bands obviously didn’t have formal institutions like elections, courts, and media outlets, but their information networks were usually distributed and gave ample opportunities for self-correction. In bands numbering just a few dozen people information could easily be shared among all group members, and when the band decided where to pitch camp, where to go hunting, or how to handle a conflict with another band, everyone could take part in the conversation and dispute each other. Bands usually belonged to a larger tribe that included hundreds or even thousands of people. But when important choices affecting the whole tribe had to be made, such as whether to go to war, tribes were usually still small enough for a large percentage of their members to gather in one place and converse.15

    While bands and tribes sometimes had dominant leaders, these tended to exercise only limited authority. Leaders had no standing armies, police forces, or governmental bureaucracies at their disposal, so they couldn’t just impose their will by force.16 Leaders also found it difficult to control the economic basis of people’s lives. In modern times, dictators like Vladimir Putin and Saddam Hussein have often based their political power on monopolizing economic assets like oil wells.17 In medieval and classical antiquity, Chinese emperors, Greek tyrants, and Egyptian pharaohs dominated society by controlling granaries, silver mines, and irrigation canals. In contrast, in a hunter-gatherer economy such centralized economic control was possible only under special circumstances. For example, along the northwestern coast of North America some hunter-gatherer economies relied on catching and preserving large numbers of salmon. Since salmon runs peaked for a few weeks in specific creeks and rivers, a powerful chief could monopolize this asset.18

    But this was exceptional. Most hunter-gatherer economies were far more diversified. One leader, even supported by a few allies, could not corral the savanna and prevent people from gathering plants and hunting animals there. If all else failed, hunter-gatherers could therefore vote with their feet. They had few possessions, and their most important assets were their personal skills and personal friends. If a chief turned dictatorial, people could just walk away.19

    Even when hunter-gatherers did end up ruled by a domineering chief, as happened among the salmon-fishing people of northwestern America, at least that chief was accessible. He didn’t live in a faraway fortress surrounded by an unfathomable bureaucracy and a cordon of armed guards. If you wanted to voice a complaint or a suggestion, you could usually get within earshot of him. The chief couldn’t control public opinion, nor could he shut himself off from it. In other words, there was no way for a chief to force all information to flow through the center, or to prevent people from talking with one another, criticizing him, or organizing against him.20

    In the millennia following the agricultural revolution, and especially after writing helped create large bureaucratic polities, it became easier to centralize the flow of information and harder to maintain the democratic conversation. In small city-states like those of ancient Mesopotamia and Greece, autocrats like Lugal-Zagesi of Umma and Pisistratus of Athens relied on bureaucrats, archives, and a standing army to monopolize key economic assets and information about ownership, taxation, diplomacy, and politics. It simultaneously became harder for the mass of citizens to keep in direct touch with one another. There was no mass communication technology like newspapers or radio, and it was not easy to squeeze tens of thousands of citizens into the main city square to hold a communal discussion.

    Democracy was still an option for these small city-states, as the history of both early Sumer and classical Greece clearly indicates.21 However, the democracy of ancient city-states tended to be less inclusive than the democracy of archaic hunter-gatherer bands. Probably the most famous example of ancient city-state democracy is Athens in the fifth and fourth centuries BCE. All adult male citizens could participate in the Athenian assembly, vote on public policy, and be elected to public offices. But women, slaves, and noncitizen residents of the city did not enjoy these privileges. Only about 25–30 percent of the adult population of Athens enjoyed full political rights.22

    As the size of polities continued to increase, and city-states were superseded by larger kingdoms and empires, even Athenian-style partial democracy disappeared. All the famous examples of ancient democracies are city-states such as Athens and Rome. In contrast, we don’t know of any large-scale kingdom or empire that operated along democratic lines.

    For example, when in the fifth century BCE Athens expanded from a city-state into an empire, it did not grant citizenship and political rights to those it conquered. The city of Athens remained a limited democracy, but the much bigger Athenian Empire was ruled autocratically from the center. All the important decisions about taxes, diplomatic alliances, and military expeditions were taken in Athens. Subject lands like the islands of Naxos and Thasos had to obey the orders of the Athenian popular assembly and elected officials, without the Naxians and Thasians being able to vote in that assembly or be elected to office. It was also difficult for Naxos, Thasos, and other subject lands to coordinate a united opposition to the decisions taken in the Athenian center, and if they tried to do so, it would have brought ruthless Athenian reprisals. Information in the Athenian Empire flowed to and from Athens.23

    When the Roman Republic built its empire, conquering first the Italian Peninsula and eventually the entire Mediterranean basin, the Romans took a somewhat different course. Rome gradually did extend citizenship to the conquered people. It began by granting citizenship to the inhabitants of Latium, then to the inhabitants of other Italian regions, and finally to inhabitants of even distant provinces like Gallia and Syria. However, as citizenship was extended to more people, the political rights of citizens were simultaneously restricted.

    The ancient Romans had a clear understanding of what democracy means, and they were originally fiercely committed to the democratic ideal. After expelling the last king of Rome in 509 BCE, the Romans developed a deep dislike for monarchy and a fear of giving unlimited power to any single individual or institution. Supreme executive power was therefore shared by two consuls who balanced each other. These consuls were chosen by citizens in free elections, held office for a single year, and were additionally checked by the powers of the popular assembly, of the Senate, and of other elected officials like the tribunes.

    But when Rome extended citizenship to Latins, Italians, and finally to Gauls and Syrians, the power of the popular assembly, the tribunes, the Senate, and even the two consuls was gradually reduced, until in the late first century BCE the Caesar family established its autocratic rule. Anticipating present-day strongmen like Putin, Augustus didn’t crown himself king, and pretended that Rome was still a republic. The Senate and the popular assembly continued to convene, and every year citizens continued to choose consuls and tribunes. But these institutions were emptied of real power.24

    In 212 CE, the emperor Caracalla—the offspring of a Phoenician family from North Africa—took a seemingly momentous step and granted automatic Roman citizenship to all free adult males throughout the vast empire. Rome in the third century CE accordingly had tens of millions of citizens.25 But by that time, all the important decisions were made by a single unelected emperor. While consuls were still ceremonially chosen every year, Caracalla inherited power from his father Septimius Severus, who became emperor by winning a civil war. To cement his rule, the most important step Caracalla took was murdering his brother and rival Geta.

    When Caracalla ordered the murder of Geta, decided to devalue the Roman currency, or declared war on the Parthian Empire, he had no need to ask permission from the Roman people. All of Rome’s self-correcting mechanisms had been neutralized long before. If Caracalla made some error in foreign or domestic policy, neither the Senate nor any officials like the consuls or tribunes could intervene to correct it, except by rising in rebellion or assassinating him. And when Caracalla was indeed assassinated in 217, it only led to a new round of civil wars culminating in the rise of new autocrats. Rome in the third century CE, like Russia in the eighteenth century, was, in the words of Madame de Staël, “autocracy tempered by strangulation.”

    By the third century CE, not only the Roman Empire but all other major human societies on earth were centralized information networks lacking strong self-correcting mechanisms. This was true of the Parthian and Sassanian Empires in Persia, of the Kushan and Gupta Empires in India, and of China’s Han Empire and its successor Three Kingdoms.26 Thousands of more small-scale societies continued to function democratically in the third century CE and beyond, but it seemed that distributed democratic networks were simply incompatible with large-scale societies.

    CAESAR FOR PRESIDENT!

    Were large-scale democracies really unworkable in the ancient world? Or did autocrats like Augustus and Caracalla deliberately sabotage them? This question is important not only for our understanding of ancient history but also for our view of democracy’s future in the age of AI. How do we know whether democracies fail because they are undermined by strongmen or because of much deeper structural and technological reasons?

    To answer that question, let’s take a closer look at the Roman Empire. The Romans were clearly familiar with the democratic ideal, and it continued to be important to them even after the Caesar family rose to power. Otherwise, Augustus and his heirs would not have bothered to maintain seemingly democratic institutions like the Senate or annual elections to the consulate and other offices. So why did power end up in the hands of an unelected emperor?

    In theory, even after Roman citizenship was expanded to tens of millions of people throughout the Mediterranean basin, wasn’t it possible to hold empire-wide elections for the position of emperor? This would surely have required very complicated logistics, and it would have taken several months to learn the results of the elections. But was that really a deal breaker?

    The key misconception here is equating democracy with elections. If the Roman Empire wanted to, it could technically have held empire-wide elections for emperor. But the real question we should ask is whether the Roman Empire could have held an ongoing empire-wide political conversation. In present-day North Korea no democratic conversation takes place because people aren’t free to talk, yet we could well imagine a situation when this freedom is guaranteed—as it is in South Korea. In the present-day United States the democratic conversation is endangered by people’s inability to listen to and respect their political rivals, yet this can presumably still be fixed. By contrast, in the Roman Empire there was simply no way to conduct or sustain a democratic conversation, because the technological means to hold such a conversation did not exist.

    To hold a conversation, it is not enough to have the freedom to talk and the ability to listen. There are also two technical preconditions. First, people need to be within hearing range of each other. This means that the only way to hold a political conversation in a territory the size of the United States or the Roman Empire is with the help of some kind of information technology that can swiftly convey what people say over long distances.

    Second, people need at least a rudimentary understanding of what they are talking about. Otherwise, they are just making noise, not holding a meaningful conversation. People usually have a good understanding of political issues of which they have direct experience. Poor people have many insights about poverty that escape economics professors, and ethnic minorities understand racism in a much more profound way than people who never suffered from it, for example. However, if lived experience were the only way to understand crucial political issues, large-scale political conversations would be impossible. For then every group of people could talk meaningfully only about its own experiences. Even worse, nobody else could understand what they were saying. If lived experience is the sole possible source of knowledge, then merely listening to the insights gained from someone else’s lived experience cannot impart these insights to me.

    The only way to have a large-scale political conversation among diverse groups of people is if people can gain some understanding of issues that they have never experienced firsthand. In a large polity, it is a crucial role of the education system and the media to inform people about things they have never faced themselves. If there is no education system or media platforms to perform this role, no meaningful large-scale conversations can take place.

    In a small Neolithic town of a few thousand inhabitants people might sometimes have been afraid to say what they thought, or might have refused to listen to their rivals, but it was relatively easy to satisfy the more fundamental technical preconditions for meaningful discourse. First, people lived in proximity to one another, so they could easily meet most other community members and hear their voices. Second, everybody had intimate knowledge of the dangers and opportunities that the town faced. If an enemy war party approached, everyone could see it. If the river flooded the fields, everyone witnessed the economic effects. When people talked about war and hunger, they knew what they were saying.

    In the fourth century BCE, the city-state of Rome was still small enough to allow a large percentage of its citizens to congregate in the Forum in times of emergency, listen to respected leaders, and voice their personal views on the matter at hand. When in 390 BCE Gallic invaders attacked Rome, almost everyone lost a relative in the defeat at the Battle of the Allia and lost property when the victorious Gauls then sacked Rome. The desperate Romans appointed Marcus Camillus as dictator. In Rome, the dictator was a public official appointed in times of emergency who had unlimited powers but only for a short predetermined period, following which he was held accountable for his actions. After Camillus led the Romans to victory, everybody could see that the emergency was over, and Camillus stepped down.27

    In contrast, by the third century CE, the Roman Empire had a population of between sixty and seventy-five million people,28 spread over five million square kilometers.29 Rome lacked mass communication technology like radio or daily newspapers. Only 10–20 percent of adults had reading skills,30 and there was no organized education system that could inform them about the geography, history, and economy of the empire. True, many people across the empire did share some cultural ideas, such as a strong belief in the superiority of Roman civilization over the barbarians. These shared cultural beliefs were crucial in preserving order and holding the empire together. But their political implications were far from clear, and in times of crisis there was no possibility to hold a public conversation about what should be done.

    How could Syrian merchants, British shepherds, and Egyptian villagers converse about the ongoing wars in the Middle East or about the immigration crisis brewing along the Danube? The lack of a meaningful public conversation was not the fault of Augustus, Nero, Caracalla, or any of the other emperors. They didn’t sabotage Roman democracy. Given the size of the empire and the available information technology, democracy was simply unworkable. This was acknowledged already by ancient philosophers like Plato and Aristotle, who argued that democracy can work only in small-scale city-states.31

    If the absence of Roman democracy had merely been the fault of particular autocrats, we should have at least seen large-scale democracies flourishing in other places, like in Sassanian Persia, Gupta India, or Han China. But prior to the development of modern information technology, there are no examples of large-scale democracies anywhere.

    It should be stressed that in many large-scale autocracies local affairs were often managed democratically. The Roman emperor didn’t have the information needed to micromanage hundreds of cities across the empire, whereas local citizens in each city could continue to hold a meaningful conversation about municipal politics. Consequently, long after the Roman Empire became an autocracy, many of its cities continued to be governed by local assemblies and elected officials. At a time when elections to the consulship in Rome became ceremonial affairs, elections to municipal offices in small cities like Pompeii were hotly contested.

    Pompeii was destroyed in the eruption of Vesuvius in 79 CE, during the reign of the emperor Titus. Archaeologists uncovered about fifteen hundred graffiti concerned with various local election campaigns. One coveted office was that of the city’s aedile—the magistrate in charge of maintaining the city’s infrastructure and public buildings.32 Lucretius Fronto’s supporters drew the graffiti “If honest living is thought to be any recommendation, then Lucretius Fronto is worthy of being elected.” One of his opponents, Gaius Julius Polybius, ran with the slogan “Elect Gaius Julius Polybius to the office of aedile. He provides good bread.”

    There were also endorsements by religious groups and professional associations, such as “The worshippers of Isis demand the election of Gnaeus Helvius Sabinus” and “All the mule drivers request that you elect Gaius Julius Polybius.” There was dirty work, too. Someone who clearly wasn’t Marcus Cerrinius Vatia drew the graffiti “All the drunkards ask you to elect Marcus Cerrinius Vatia” and “The petty thieves ask you to elect Vatia.”33 Such electioneering indicates that the position of aedile had power in Pompeii and that the aedile was chosen in relatively free and fair elections, rather than appointed by the imperial autocrat in Rome.

    Even in empires whose rulers never had any democratic pretensions, democracy could still flourish in local settings. In the Tsarist Empire, for example, the daily lives of millions of villagers were managed by rural communes. Going back at least to the eleventh century, each commune usually included fewer than a thousand people. They were subject to a landlord and bore many obligations to their lord and to the central Tsarist state, but they had considerable autonomy in managing their internal affairs and in deciding how to discharge their external obligations, such as paying taxes and providing military recruits. The commune mediated local disputes, provided emergency relief, enforced social norms, oversaw the distribution of land to individual households, and regulated access to shared resources like forests and pastures. Decisions on important matters were made in communal meetings in which the heads of local households expressed their views and chose the commune’s elder. Resolutions at least tried to reflect the majority’s will.34

    In Tsarist villages and Roman cities a form of democracy was possible because a meaningful public conversation was possible. Pompeii was a city of about eleven thousand people in 79 CE,35 so everybody could supposedly judge for themselves whether Lucretius Fronto was an honest man and whether Marcus Cerrinius Vatia was a drunken thief. But democracy at a scale of millions became possible only in the modern age, when mass media changed the nature of large-scale information networks.

    MASS MEDIA MAKES MASS DEMOCRACY POSSIBLE

    Mass media can be defined as the ability to quickly connect millions of people even when they are separated by large distances. The printing press was a crucial step in that direction. Print made it possible to cheaply and quickly produce large numbers of books and pamphlets, which enabled more people to voice their opinions and be heard over a large territory, even if the process still took time. This sustained some of the first experiments in large-scale democracy, such as the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth established in 1569 and the Dutch Republic established in 1579.

    Some may contest the characterization of these polities as “democratic,” since only a minority of relatively wealthy citizens enjoyed full political rights. In the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, political rights were reserved for adult male members of the szlachta—the nobility. These numbered up to 300,000 individuals, or about 5 percent of the total adult population.36 One of the szlachta’s prerogatives was to elect the king, but since voting required traveling long distances to a national convention, few exercised their right. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries participation in royal elections usually ranged between 3,000 and 7,000 voters, except for the 1669 elections in which 11,271 participated.37 While this hardly sounds democratic in the twenty-first century, it should be remembered that all large-scale democracies until the twentieth century limited political rights to a small circle of relatively wealthy men. Democracy is never a matter of all or nothing. It is a continuum, and late sixteenth-century Poles and Lithuanians explored previously unknown regions of that continuum.

    Aside from electing its king, Poland-Lithuania had an elected parliament (the Sejm) that approved or blocked new legislation and had the power to veto royal decisions on taxation and foreign affairs. Moreover, citizens enjoyed a list of inviolable rights such as freedom of assembly and freedom of religion. In the late sixteenth and early seventeenth centuries, when most of Europe suffered from bitter religious conflicts and persecutions, Poland-Lithuania was a tolerant haven, where Catholics, Greek Orthodox, Lutherans, Calvinists, Jews, and even Muslims coexisted in relative harmony.38 In 1616, more than a hundred mosques functioned in the commonwealth.39

    In the end, however, the Polish-Lithuanian experiment in decentralization proved to be impractical. The country was Europe’s second-largest state (after Russia), covering almost a million square kilometers and including most of the territory of today’s Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and Ukraine. It lacked the information, communication, and education systems necessary to hold a meaningful political conversation between Polish aristocrats, Lithuanian noblemen, Ukrainian Cossacks, and Jewish rabbis spread from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea. Its self-correcting mechanisms were also too costly, paralyzing the power of the central government. In particular, every single Sejm deputy was given the right to veto all parliamentary legislation, which led to political deadlock. The combination of a large and diverse polity with a weak center proved fatal. The commonwealth was torn apart by centrifugal forces, and its pieces were then divided between the centralized autocracies of Russia, Austria, and Prussia.

    The Dutch experiment fared better. In some ways the Dutch United Provinces were even less centralized than the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, since they lacked a monarch, and were a union of seven autonomous provinces, which were in turn made up of self-governing towns and cities.40 This decentralized nature is reflected in the plural form of how the country was known abroad—the Netherlands in English, Les Pays-Bas in French, Los Países Bajos in Spanish, and so on.

    However, taken together the United Provinces were twenty-five times smaller in landmass than Poland-Lithuania and possessed a much better information, communication, and education system that tied its constituent parts closely together.41 The United Provinces also pioneered a new information technology with a big future. In June 1618 a pamphlet titled Courante uyt Italien, Duytslandt &c. appeared in Amsterdam. As its title indicated, it carried news from the Italian Peninsula, the German lands, and other places. There was nothing remarkable about this particular pamphlet, except that new issues were published in the following weeks, too. They appeared regularly until 1670, when the Courante uyt Italien, Duytslandt &c. merged with other serial pamphlets into the Amsterdamsche Courant, which appeared until 1903, when it was merged into De Telegraaf—the Netherlands’ largest newspaper to this day.42

    The newspaper is a periodic pamphlet, and it was different from earlier one-off pamphlets because it had a much stronger self-correcting mechanism. Unlike one-off publications, a weekly or daily newspaper has a chance to correct its mistakes and an incentive to do so in order to win the public’s trust. Shortly after the Courante uyt Italien, Duytslandt &c. appeared, a competing newspaper titled Tijdinghen uyt Verscheyde Quartieren (Tidings from Various Quarters) made its debut. The Courante was generally considered more reliable, because it tried to check its stories before publishing them, and because the Tijdinghen was accused of being overly patriotic and reporting only news favorable to the Netherlands. Nevertheless, both newspapers survived, because, as one reader explained, “one can always find something in one newspaper that is not available in the other.” In the following decades dozens of additional newspapers were published in the Netherlands, which became Europe’s journalistic hub.43

    Newspapers that succeeded in gaining widespread trust became the architects and mouthpieces of public opinion. They created a far more informed and engaged public, which changed the nature of politics, first in the Netherlands and later around the world.44 The political influence of newspapers was so crucial that newspaper editors often became political leaders. Jean-Paul Marat rose to power in revolutionary France by founding and editing L’Ami du People; Eduard Bernstein helped create Germany’s Social Democratic Party by editing Der Sozialdemokrat; Vladimir Lenin’s most important position before becoming Soviet dictator was editor of Iskra; and Benito Mussolini rose to fame first as a socialist journalist in Avanti! and later as founder and editor of the firebrand right-wing paper Il Popolo d’Italia.

    Newspapers played a crucial role in the formation of early modern democracies like the United Provinces in the Low Countries, the United Kingdom in the British Isles, and the United States in North America. As the names themselves indicate, these were not city-states like ancient Athens and Rome but amalgams of different regions glued together in part by this new information technology. For example, when on December 6, 1825, President John Quincy Adams gave his First Annual Message to the U.S. Congress, the text of the address and summaries of the main points were published over the next weeks by newspapers from Boston to New Orleans (at the time, hundreds of newspapers and magazines were being published in the United States45).

    Adams declared his administration’s intentions of initiating numerous federal projects ranging from the construction of roads to the founding of an astronomical observatory, which he poetically named “light-house of the skies.” His speech ignited a fierce public debate, much of it conducted in print between those who supported such “big government” plans as essential for the development of the United States and many who preferred a “small government” approach and saw Adams’s plans as federal overreach and an encroachment on states’ rights.

    Northern supporters of the “small government” camp complained that it was unconstitutional for the federal government to tax the citizens of richer states in order to build roads in poorer states. Southerners feared that a federal government that claims the power to build a lighthouse of the sky in their backyard may one day claim the power to free their slaves, too. Adams was accused of harboring dictatorial ambitions, while the erudition and sophistication of his speech were criticized as elitist and disconnected from ordinary Americans. The public debates over the 1825 message to Congress dealt a severe blow to the reputation of the Adams administration and helped pave the way to Adams’s subsequent electoral defeat. In the 1828 presidential elections, Adams lost to Andrew Jackson—a rich slaveholding planter from Tennessee who was successfully rebranded in numerous newspaper columns as “the man of the people” and who claimed that the previous elections were in fact stolen by Adams and by the corrupt Washington elites.46

    Newspapers of the time were of course still slow and limited compared with the mass media of today. Newspapers traveled at the pace of a horse or sailboat, and relatively few people read them regularly. There were no newsstands or street vendors, so people had to buy subscriptions, which were expensive; average annual subscriptions cost around one week’s wages for a skilled journeyman. As a result, the total number of subscribers to all U.S. newspapers in 1830 is estimated at just seventy-eight thousand. Since some subscribers were associations or businesses rather than individuals, and since every copy was probably read by several people, it seems reasonable to assume that regular newspaper readership numbered in the hundreds of thousands. But millions more rarely, if ever, read newspapers.47

    No wonder that American democracy in those days was a limited affair—and the domain of wealthy white men. In the 1824 elections that brought Adams to power, 1.3 million Americans were theoretically eligible to vote, out of an adult population of about 5 million (or around 25 percent). Only 352,780 people—7 percent of the total adult population—actually made use of their right. Adams didn’t even win a majority of those who voted. Owing to the quirks of the U.S. electoral system, he became president thanks to the support of just 113,122 voters, or not much more than 2 percent of adults, and 1 percent of the total population.48 In Britain at the same time, only about 400,000 people were eligible to vote for Parliament, or around 6 percent of the adult population. Moreover, 30 percent of parliamentary seats were not even contested.49

    You may wonder whether we are talking about democracies at all. At a time when the United States had more slaves than voters (more than 1.5 million Americans were enslaved in the early 1820s),50 was the United States really a democracy? This is a question of definitions. As with the late sixteenth-century Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, so also with the early nineteenth-century United States, “democracy” is a relative term. As noted earlier, democracy and autocracy aren’t absolutes; they are part of a continuum. In the early nineteenth century, out of all large-scale human societies, the United States was probably the closest to the democratic end of the continuum. Giving 25 percent of adults the right to vote doesn’t sound like much today, but in 1824 that was a far higher percentage than in the Tsarist, Ottoman, or Chinese Empires, in which nobody had the right to vote.51

    Besides, as emphasized throughout this chapter, voting is not the only thing that counts. An even more important reason to consider the United States in 1824 a democracy is that compared with most other polities of its day, the new country possessed much stronger self-correcting mechanisms. The Founding Fathers were inspired by ancient Rome—witness the Senate and the Capitol in Washington—and they were well aware that the Roman Republic eventually turned into an autocratic empire. They feared that some American Caesar would do something similar to their republic, and constructed multiple overlapping self-correcting mechanisms, known as the system of checks and balances. One of these was a free press. In ancient Rome, the self-correcting mechanisms stopped functioning as the republic enlarged its territory and population. In the United States, modern information technology combined with freedom of the press helped the self-correcting mechanisms survive even as the country extended from the Atlantic to the Pacific.

    It was these self-correcting mechanisms that gradually enabled the United States to expand the franchise, abolish slavery, and turn itself into a more inclusive democracy. As noted in chapter 3, the Founding Fathers committed enormous mistakes—such as endorsing slavery and denying women the vote—but they also provided the tools for their descendants to correct these mistakes. That was their greatest legacy.

    THE TWENTIETH CENTURY: MASS DEMOCRACY, BUT ALSO MASS TOTALITARIANISM

    Printed newspapers were just the first harbinger of the mass media age. During the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, a long list of new communication and transportation technologies such as the telegraph, telephone, television, radio, trains, steamships, and airplanes supercharged the power of mass media.

    When Demosthenes gave a public speech in Athens around 350 BCE, it was aimed primarily at the limited audience actually present in the Athenian agora. When John Quincy Adams gave his First Annual Message in 1825, his words spread at the pace of a horse. When Abraham Lincoln gave his Gettysburg Address on November 19, 1863, telegraphs, locomotives, and steamships conveyed his words much faster throughout the Union and beyond. The very next day The New York Times had already reprinted the speech in full,52 as had numerous other newspapers from The Portland Daily Press in Maine to the Ottumwa Courier in Iowa.53

    As befitting a democracy with strong self-correcting mechanisms in place, the president’s speech sparked a lively conversation rather than universal applause. Most newspapers lauded it, but some expressed their doubts. The Chicago Times wrote on November 20 that “the cheek of every American must tingle with shame as he reads the silly, flat and dishwatery utterances” of President Lincoln.54 The Patriot & Union, a local newspaper in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, also blasted “the silly remarks of the President” and hoped that “the veil of oblivion shall be dropped over them and that they shall be no more repeated or thought of.”55 Though the country was in the midst of a civil war, journalists were free to publicly criticize—and even ridicule—the president.

    Fast-forward a century, and things really picked up speed. For the first time in history, new technologies allowed masses of people, spread over vast swaths of territory, to connect in real time. In 1960, about seventy million Americans (39 percent of the total population), dispersed over the North American continent and beyond, watched the Nixon-Kennedy presidential debates live on television, with millions more listening on the radio.56 The only effort viewers and listeners had to make was to press a button while sitting in their homes. Large-scale democracy had now become feasible. Millions of people separated by thousands of kilometers could conduct informed and meaningful public debates about the rapidly evolving issues of the day. By 1960, all adult Americans were theoretically eligible to vote, and close to seventy million (about 64 percent of the electorate) actually did so—though millions of Blacks and other disenfranchised groups were prevented from voting through various voter-suppression schemes.57

    As always, we should beware of technological determinism and of concluding that the rise of mass media led to the rise of large-scale democracy. Mass media made large-scale democracy possible, rather than inevitable. And it also made possible other types of regimes. In particular, the new information technologies of the modern age opened the door for large-scale totalitarian regimes. Like Nixon and Kennedy, Stalin and Khrushchev could say something over the radio and be heard instantaneously by hundreds of millions of people from Vladivostok to Kaliningrad. They could also receive daily reports by phone and telegraph from millions of secret police agents and informers. If a newspaper in Vladivostok or Kaliningrad wrote that the supreme leader’s latest speech was silly (as happened to Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address), then everyone involved—from the editor in chief to the typesetters—would likely have received a visit from the KGB.

    A BRIEF HISTORY OF TOTALITARIANISM

    Totalitarian systems assume their own infallibility, and seek total control over the totality of people’s lives. Before the invention of the telegraph, radio, and other modern information technology, large-scale totalitarian regimes were impossible. Roman emperors, Abbasid caliphs, and Mongol khans were often ruthless autocrats who believed they were infallible, but they did not have the apparatus necessary to impose totalitarian control over large societies. To understand this, we should first clarify the difference between totalitarian regimes and less extreme autocratic regimes. In an autocratic network, there are no legal limits on the will of the ruler, but there are nevertheless a lot of technical limits. In a totalitarian network, many of these technical limits are absent.58

    For example, in autocratic regimes like the Roman Empire, the Abbasid Empire, and the Mongol Empire, rulers could usually execute any person who displeased them, and if some law got in their way, they could ignore or change the law. The emperor Nero arranged the murder of his mother, Agrippina, and his wife, Octavia, and forced his mentor Seneca to commit suicide. Nero also executed or exiled some of the most respected and powerful Roman aristocrats merely for voicing dissent or telling jokes about him.59

    While autocratic rulers like Nero could execute anyone who did or said something that displeased them, they couldn’t know what most people in their empire were doing or saying. Theoretically, Nero could issue an order that any person in the Roman Empire who criticized or insulted the emperor must be severely punished. Yet there were no technical means for implementing such an order. Roman historians like Tacitus portray Nero as a bloodthirsty tyrant who instigated an unprecedented reign of terror. But this was a very limited type of terror. Although he executed or exiled a number of family members, aristocrats, and senators within his orbit, ordinary Romans in the city’s slums and provincials in distant towns like Jerusalem and Londinium could speak their mind much more freely.60

    Modern totalitarian regimes like the Stalinist U.S.S.R. instigated terror on an altogether different scale. Totalitarianism is the attempt to control what every person throughout the country is doing and saying every moment of the day, and potentially even what every person is thinking and feeling. Nero might have dreamed about such powers, but he lacked the means to realize them. Given the limited tax base of the agrarian Roman economy, Nero couldn’t employ many people in his service. He could place informers at the dinner parties of Roman senators, but he had only about 10,000 imperial administrators61 and 350,000 soldiers62 to control the rest of the empire, and he lacked the technology to communicate with them swiftly.

    Nero and his fellow emperors had an even bigger problem ensuring the loyalty of the administrators and soldiers they did have on their payroll. No Roman emperor was ever toppled by a democratic revolution like the ones that deposed Louis XVI, Nicolae Ceauşescu, or Hosni Mubarak. Instead, dozens of emperors were assassinated or deposed by their own generals, officials, bodyguards, or family members.63 Nero himself was overthrown by a revolt of the governor of Hispania, Galba. Six months later Galba was ousted by Otho, the governor of Lusitania. Within three months, Otho was deposed by Vittelius, commander of the Rhine army. Vitellius lasted about eight months before he was defeated and killed by Vespasian, commander of the army in Judaea. Being killed by a rebellious subordinate was the biggest occupational hazard not just for Roman emperors but for almost all premodern autocrats.

    Emperors, caliphs, shahs, and kings found it a huge challenge to keep their subordinates in check. Rulers consequently focused their attention on controlling the military and the taxation system. Roman emperors had the authority to interfere in the local affairs of any province or city, and they sometimes exercised that authority, but this was usually done in response to a specific petition sent by a local community or official,64 rather than as part of some empire-wide totalitarian Five-Year Plan. If you were a mule driver in Pompeii or a shepherd in Roman Britain, Nero didn’t want to control your daily routines or to police the jokes you told. As long as you paid your taxes and didn’t resist the legions, that was good enough for Nero.

    SPARTA AND QIN

    Some scholars claim that despite the technological difficulties there were attempts to establish totalitarian regimes in ancient times. The most common example cited is Sparta. According to this interpretation, Spartans were ruled by a totalitarian regime that micromanaged every aspect of their lives—from whom they married to what they ate. However, while the Spartan regime was certainly draconian, it actually included several self-correcting mechanisms that prevented power from being monopolized by a single person or faction. Political authority was divided between two kings, five ephors (senior magistrates), twenty-eight members of the Gerousia council, and the popular assembly. Important decisions—such as whether to go to war—often involved fierce public debates.

    Moreover, irrespective of how we evaluate the nature of Sparta’s regime, it is clear that the same technological limitations that confined ancient Athenian democracy to a single city also limited the scope of the Spartan political experiment. After winning the Peloponnesian War, Sparta installed military garrisons and pro-Spartan governments in numerous Greek cities, requiring them to follow its lead in foreign policy and sometimes also pay tribute. But unlike the U.S.S.R. after World War II, Sparta after the Peloponnesian War did not try to expand or export its system. Sparta couldn’t construct an information network big and dense enough to control the lives of ordinary people in every Greek town and village.65

    A much more ambitious totalitarian project might have been launched by the Qin dynasty in ancient China (221–206 BCE). After defeating all the other Warring States, the Qin ruler Qin Shi Huang controlled a huge empire with tens of millions of subjects, who belonged to numerous different ethnic groups, spoke diverse languages, and were loyal to various local traditions and elites. To cement its power, the victorious Qin regime tried to dismantle any regional powers that might challenge its authority. It confiscated the lands and wealth of local aristocrats and forced regional elites to move to the imperial capital of Xiangyang, thereby separating them from their power base and monitoring them more easily.

    The Qin regime also embarked on a ruthless campaign of centralization and homogenization. It created a new simplified script to be used throughout the empire and standardized coinage, weights, and measurements. It built a road network radiating out of Xiangyang, with standardized rest houses, relay stations, and military checkpoints. People needed written permits in order to enter or leave the capital region or frontier zones. Even the width of axles was standardized to ensure that carts and chariots could run in the same ruts.

    Every action, from tilling fields to getting married, was supposed to serve some military need, and the type of military discipline that Rome reserved for the legions was imposed by the Qin on the entire population. The envisioned reach of this system can be exemplified by one Qin law that specified the punishment an official faced if he neglected a granary under his supervision. The law discusses the number of rat holes in the granary that would warrant fining or berating the official. “For three or more rat holes the fine is [the purchase of] one shield [for the army] and for two or fewer [the responsible official] is berated. Three mouse holes are equal to one rat hole.”66

    To facilitate this totalitarian system, the Qin attempted to create a militarized social order. Every male subject had to belong to a five-man unit. These units were aggregated into larger formations, from local hamlets (li), through cantons (xiang) and counties (xian), all the way to the large imperial commanderies (jun). People were forbidden to change their residence without permit, to the extent that guests could not even stay overnight at a friend’s house without proper identification and authorization.

    Every Qin male subject was also given a rank, just as every soldier in an army has a rank. Obedience to the state resulted in promotion to higher ranks, which brought with it economic and legal privileges, while disobedience could result in demotion or punishment. People in each formation were supposed to supervise one another, and if any individual committed some misdeed, all could be punished for it. Anyone who failed to report a criminal—even their own relatives—would be killed. Those who reported crimes were rewarded with higher ranks and other perks.

    It is highly questionable to what extent the regime managed to implement all these totalitarian measures. Bureaucrats writing documents in a government office often invent elaborate rules and regulations, which then turn out to be impractical. Did conscientious government officials really go around the entire Qin Empire counting rat holes in every granary? Were peasants in every remote mountain hamlet really organized into five-man squads? Probably not. Nevertheless, the Qin Empire outdid other ancient empires in its totalitarian ambitions.

    The Qin regime even tried to control what its subjects were thinking and feeling. During the Warring States period Chinese thinkers were relatively free to develop myriad ideologies and philosophies, but the Qin adopted the doctrine of Legalism as the official state ideology. Legalism posited that humans were naturally greedy, cruel, and egotistical. It emphasized the need for strict control, argued that punishments and rewards were the most effective means of control, and insisted that state power not be curtailed by any moral consideration. Might was right, and the good of the state was the supreme good.67 The Qin proscribed other philosophies, such as Confucianism and Daoism, which believed humans were more altruistic and which emphasized the importance of virtue rather than violence.68 Books espousing such soft views were banned, as well as books that contradicted the official Qin version of history.

    When one scholar argued that Qin Shi Huang should emulate the founder of the ancient Zhou dynasty and decentralize state power, the Qin chief minister, Li Si, countered that scholars should stop criticizing present-day institutions by idealizing the past. The regime ordered the confiscation of all books that romanticized antiquity or otherwise criticized the Qin. Such problematic texts were stored in the imperial library and could be studied only by official scholars.69

    The Qin Empire was probably the most ambitious totalitarian experiment in human history prior to the modern age, and its scale and intensity would prove to be its ruin. The attempt to regiment tens of millions of people along military lines, and to monopolize all resources for military purposes, led to severe economic problems, wastefulness, and popular resentment. The regime’s draconian laws, along with its hostility to regional elites and its voracious appetite for taxes and recruits, fanned the flames of this resentment even further. Meanwhile, the limited resources of an ancient agrarian society couldn’t support all the bureaucrats and soldiers that the Qin needed to contain this resentment, and the low efficiency of their information technology made it impossible to control every town and village from distant Xiangyang. Not surprisingly, in 209 BCE a series of revolts broke out, led by regional elites, disgruntled commoners, and even some of the empire’s own newly minted officials.

    According to one account, the first serious revolt started when a group of conscripted peasants sent to work in a frontier zone were delayed by rain and flooding. They feared they would be executed for this dereliction of duty, and felt they had nothing to lose. They were quickly joined by numerous other rebels. Just fifteen years after reaching the apogee of power, the Qin Empire collapsed under the weight of its totalitarian ambitions, splintering into eighteen kingdoms.

    After several years of war, a new dynasty—the Han—reunited the empire. But the Han then adopted a more realistic, less draconian attitude. Han emperors were certainly autocratic, but they were not totalitarian. They did not recognize any limits on their authority, but they did not try to micromanage everyone’s lives. Instead of following Legalist ideas of surveillance and control, the Han turned to Confucian ideas of encouraging people to act loyally and responsibly out of inner moral convictions. Like their contemporaries in the Roman Empire, Han emperors sought to control only some aspects of society from the center, while leaving considerable autonomy to provincial aristocrats and local communities. Due largely to the limitations imposed by the available information technology, premodern large-scale polities like the Roman and Han Empires gravitated toward nontotalitarian autocracy.70 Full-blown totalitarianism might have been dreamed about by the likes of the Qin, but its implementation had to wait for the development of modern technology.

    THE TOTALITARIAN TRINITY

    Just as modern technology enabled large-scale democracy, it also made large-scale totalitarianism possible. Beginning in the nineteenth century, the rise of industrial economies allowed governments to employ many more administrators, and new information technologies—such as the telegraph and radio—made it possible to quickly connect and supervise all these administrators. This facilitated an unprecedented concentration of information and power, for those who dreamed about such things.

    When the Bolsheviks seized control of Russia after the 1917 revolution, they were driven by exactly such a dream. The Bolsheviks craved unlimited power because they believed they had a messianic mission. Marx taught that for millennia, all human societies were dominated by corrupt elites who oppressed the people. The Bolsheviks claimed they knew how to finally end all oppression and create a perfectly just society on earth. But to do so, they had to overcome numerous enemies and obstacles, which, in turn, required all the power they could get. They refused to countenance any self-correcting mechanisms that might question either their vision or their methods. Like the Catholic Church, the Bolshevik Party was convinced that though its individual members might err, the party itself was always right. Belief in their own infallibility led the Bolsheviks to destroy Russia’s nascent democratic institutions—like elections, independent courts, the free press, and opposition parties—and to create a one-party totalitarian regime. Bolshevik totalitarianism did not start with Stalin. It was evident from the very first days of the revolution. It stemmed from the doctrine of party infallibility, rather than from the personality of Stalin.

    In the 1930s and 1940s, Stalin perfected the totalitarian system he inherited. The Stalinist network was composed of three main branches. First, there was the governmental apparatus of state ministries, regional administrations, and regular Red Army units, which in 1939 comprised 1.6 million civilian officials71 and 1.9 million soldiers.72 Second, there was the apparatus of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union and its ubiquitous party cells, which in 1939 included 2.4 million party members.73 Third, there was the secret police: first known as the Cheka, in Stalin’s days it was called the OGPU, NKVD, and MGB, and after Stalin’s death it morphed into the KGB. Its post-Soviet successor organization is known since 1995 as the FSB. In 1937, the NKVD had 270,000 agents and millions of informers.74

    The three branches operated in parallel. Just as democracy is maintained by having overlapping self-correcting mechanisms that keep each other in check, modern totalitarianism created overlapping surveillance mechanisms that keep each other in order. The governor of a Soviet province was constantly watched by the local party commissar, and neither of them knew who among their staff was an NKVD informer. A testimony to the effectiveness of the system is that modern totalitarianism largely solved the perennial problem of premodern autocracies—revolts by provincial subordinates. While the U.S.S.R. had its share of court coups, not once did a provincial governor or a Red Army front commander rebel against the center.75 Much of the credit for that goes to the secret police, which kept a close eye on the mass of citizens, on provincial administrators, and even more so on the party and the Red Army.

    While in most polities throughout history the army had wielded enormous political power, in twentieth-century totalitarian regimes the regular army ceded much of its clout to the secret police—the information army. In the U.S.S.R., the Cheka, OGPU, NKVD, and KGB lacked the firepower of the Red Army, but had more influence in the Kremlin and could terrorize and purge even the army brass. The East German Stasi and the Romanian Securitate were similarly stronger than the regular armies of these countries.76 In Nazi Germany, the SS was more powerful than the Wehrmacht, and the SS chief, Heinrich Himmler, was higher up the pecking order than Wilhelm Keitel, chief of the Wehrmacht high command.

    In none of these cases could the secret police defeat the regular army in traditional warfare, of course; what made the secret police powerful was its command of information. It had the information necessary to preempt a military coup and to arrest the commanders of tank brigades or fighter squadrons before they knew what hit them. During the Stalinist Great Terror of the late 1930s, out of 144,000 Red Army officers about 10 percent were shot or imprisoned by the NKVD. This included 154 of 186 divisional commanders (83 percent), eight of nine admirals (89 percent), thirteen of fifteen full generals (87 percent), and three of five marshals (60 percent).77

    The party leadership fared just as badly. Of the revered Old Bolsheviks, people who joined the party before the 1917 revolution, about a third didn’t survive the Great Terror.78 Of the thirty-three men who served on the Politburo between 1919 and 1938, fourteen were shot (42 percent). Of the 139 members and candidate members of the party’s Central Committee in 1934, 98 (70 percent) were shot. Only 2 percent of the delegates who took part in the Seventeenth Party Congress in 1934 evaded execution, imprisonment, expulsion, or demotion, and attended the Eighteenth Party Congress in 1939.79

    The secret police—which did all the purging and killing—was itself divided into several competing branches that closely watched and purged each other. Genrikh Yagoda, the NKVD head who orchestrated the beginning of the Great Terror and supervised the killing of hundreds of thousands of victims, was executed in 1938 and replaced by Nikolai Yezhov. Yezhov lasted for two years, killing and imprisoning millions of people before being executed in 1940.

    Perhaps most telling is the fate of the thirty-nine people who in 1935 held the rank of general in the NKVD (called commissars of state security in Soviet nomenclature). Thirty-five of them (90 percent) were arrested and shot by 1941, one was assassinated, and one—the head of the NKVD’s Far East regional office—saved himself by defecting to Japan, but was killed by the Japanese in 1945. Of the original cohort of thirty-nine NKVD generals, only two men were left standing by the end of World War II. The remorseless logic of totalitarianism eventually caught up with them too. During the power struggles that followed Stalin’s death in 1953, one of them was shot, while the other was consigned to a psychiatric hospital, where he died in 1960.80 Serving as an NKVD general in Stalin’s day was one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. At a time when American democracy was improving its many self-correcting mechanisms, Soviet totalitarianism was refining its triple self-surveilling and self-terrorizing apparatus.

    TOTAL CONTROL

    Totalitarian regimes are based on controlling the flow of information and are suspicious of any independent channels of information. When military officers, state officials, or ordinary citizens exchange information, they can build trust. If they come to trust each other, they can organize resistance to the regime. Therefore, a key tenet of totalitarian regimes is that wherever people meet and exchange information, the regime should be there too, to keep an eye on them. In the 1930s, this was one principle that Hitler and Stalin shared.

    On March 31, 1933, two months after Hitler became chancellor, the Nazis passed the Coordination Act (Gleichschaltungsgesetz). This stipulated that by April 30, 1933, all political, social, and cultural organizations throughout Germany—from municipalities to football clubs and local choirs—must be run according to Nazi ideology, as organs of the Nazi state. It upended life in every city and hamlet in Germany.

    For example, in the small Alpine village of Oberstdorf, the democratically elected municipal council met for the last time on April 21, 1933, and three days later it was replaced by an unelected Nazi council that appointed a Nazi mayor. Since the Nazis alone allegedly knew what the people really wanted, who other than Nazis could implement the people’s will? Oberstdorf also had about fifty associations and clubs, ranging from a beekeeping society to an alpinist club. They all had to conform to the Coordination Act, adjusting their boards, membership, and statutes to Nazi demands, hoisting the swastika flag, and concluding every meeting with the “Horst Wessel Song,” the Nazi Party’s anthem. On April 6, 1933, the Oberstdorf fishing society banned Jews from its ranks. None of the thirty-two members was Jewish, but they felt they had to prove their Aryan credentials to the new regime.81

    Things were even more extreme in Stalin’s U.S.S.R. Whereas the Nazis still allowed church organizations and private businesses some partial freedom of action, the Soviets made no exceptions. By 1928 and the launch of the first Five-Year Plan, there were government officials, party functionaries, and secret police informants in every neighborhood and village, and between them they controlled every aspect of life: all businesses from power plants to cabbage farms; all newspapers and radio stations; all universities, schools, and youth groups; all hospitals and clinics; all voluntary and religious organizations; all sporting and scientific associations; all parks, museums, and cinemas.

    If a dozen people came together to play football, hike in the woods, or do some charity work, the party and the secret police had to be there too, represented by the local party cell or NKVD agent. The speed and efficiency of modern information technology meant that all these party cells and NKVD agents were always just a telegram or phone call away from Moscow. Information about suspicious persons and activities was fed into a countrywide, cross-referenced system of card catalogs. Known as kartoteki, these catalogs contained information from work records, police files, residence cards, and other forms of social registrations and, by the 1930s, had become the primary mechanism for surveilling and controlling the Soviet population.82

    This made it feasible for Stalin to seek control over the totality of Soviet life. One crucial example was the campaign to collectivize Soviet farming. For centuries, economic, social, and private life in the thousands of villages of the sprawling Tsarist Empire was managed by several traditional institutions: the local commune, the parish church, the private farm, the local market, and above all the family. In the mid-1920s, the Soviet Union was still an overwhelmingly agrarian economy. About 82 percent of the total population lived in villages, and 83 percent of the workforce was engaged in farming.83 But if each peasant family made its own decisions about what to grow, what to buy, and how much to charge for their produce, it greatly limited the ability of Moscow officials to themselves plan and control social and economic activities. What if the officials decided on a major agrarian reform, but the peasant families rejected it? So when in 1928 the Soviets came up with their first Five-Year Plan for the development of the Soviet Union, the most important item on the agenda was to collectivize farming.

    The idea was that in every village all the families would join a kolkhoz—a collective farm. They would hand over to the kolkhoz all their property—land, houses, horses, cows, shovels, pitchforks. They would work together for the kolkhoz, and in return the kolkhoz would provide for all their needs, from housing and education to food and health care. The kolkhoz would also decide—based on orders from Moscow—whether they should grow cabbages or turnips; whether to invest in a tractor or a school; and who would work in the dairy farm, the tannery, and the clinic. The result, thought the Moscow masterminds, would be the first perfectly just and equal society in human history.

    They were similarly convinced of the economic advantages of their proposed system, thinking that the kolkhoz would enjoy economy of scale. For example, when every peasant family had but a small strip of land, it made little sense to buy a tractor to plow it, and in any case most families couldn’t afford a tractor. Once all land was held communally, it could be cultivated far more efficiently using modern machinery. In addition, the kolkhoz was supposed to benefit from the wisdom of modern science. Instead of every peasant deciding on production methods on the basis of old traditions and groundless superstitions, state experts with university degrees from institutions like the Lenin All-Union Academy of Agricultural Sciences would make the crucial decisions.

    To the planners in Moscow, it sounded wonderful. They expected a 50 percent increase in agricultural production by 1931.84 And if in the process the old village hierarchies and inequalities were bulldozed, all the better. To most peasants, however, it sounded terrible. They didn’t trust the Moscow planners or the new kolkhoz system. They did not want to give up their old way of life or their private property. Villagers slaughtered cows and horses instead of handing them to the kolkhoz. Their motivation to work dwindled. People made less effort plowing fields that belonged to everyone than plowing fields that belonged to their own family. Passive resistance was ubiquitous, sometimes flaring into violent clashes. Whereas Soviet planners expected to harvest ninety-eight million tons of grain in 1931, production was only sixty-nine million, according to official data, and might have been as low as fifty-seven million tons in reality. The 1932 harvest was even worse.85

    The state reacted with fury. Between 1929 and 1936, food confiscation, government neglect, and man-made famines (resulting from government policy rather than a natural disaster) claimed the lives of between 4.5 and 8.5 million people.86 Millions of additional peasants were declared enemies of the state and deported or imprisoned. The most basic institutions of peasant life—the family, the church, the local community—were terrorized and dismantled. In the name of justice, equality, and the will of the people, the collectivization campaign annihilated anything that stood in its way. In the first two months of 1930 alone, about 60 million peasants in more than 100,000 villages were herded into collective farms.87 In June 1929, only 4 percent of Soviet peasant households had belonged to collective farms. By March 1930 the figure had risen to 57 percent. By April 1937, 97 percent of households in the countryside had been confined to the 235,000 Soviet collective farms.88 In just seven years, then, a way of life that had existed for centuries had been replaced by the totalitarian brainchild of a few Moscow bureaucrats.

    THE KULAKS

    It is worthwhile to delve a little deeper into the history of Soviet collectivization. For it was a tragedy that bears some resemblance to earlier catastrophes in human history—like the European witch-hunt craze—and at the same time foreshadows some of the biggest dangers posed by twenty-first-century technology and its faith in supposedly scientific data.

    When their efforts to collectivize farming encountered resistance and led to economic disaster, Moscow bureaucrats and mythmakers took a page from Kramer’s Hammer of the Witches. I don’t wish to imply the Soviets actually read the book, but they too invented a global conspiracy and created an entire non-existing category of enemies. In the 1930s Soviet authorities repeatedly blamed the disasters afflicting the Soviet economy on a counterrevolutionary cabal whose chief agents were the “kulaks” or “capitalist farmers.” Just as in Kramer’s imagination witches serving Satan conjured hailstorms that destroyed crops, so in the Stalinist imagination kulaks beholden to global capitalism sabotaged the Soviet economy.

    In theory, kulaks were an objective socioeconomic category, defined by analyzing empirical data on things like property, income, capital, and wages. Soviet officials could allegedly identify kulaks by counting things. If most people in a village had only one cow, then the few families who had three cows were considered kulaks. If most people in a village didn’t hire any labor, but one family hired two workers during harvest time, this was a kulak family. Being a kulak meant not only that you possessed a certain amount of property but also that you possessed certain personality traits. According to the supposedly infallible Marxist doctrine, people’s material conditions determined their social and spiritual character. Since kulaks allegedly engaged in capitalist exploitation, it was a scientific fact (according to Marxist thinking) that they were greedy, selfish, and unreliable—and so were their children. Discovering that someone was a kulak ostensibly revealed something profound about their fundamental nature.

    On December 27, 1929, Stalin declared that the Soviet state should seek “the liquidation of the kulaks as a class,”89 and immediately galvanized the party and the secret police to realize that ambitious and murderous aim. Early modern European witch-hunters worked in autocratic societies that lacked modern information technology; therefore, it took them three centuries to kill fifty thousand alleged witches. In contrast, Soviet kulak hunters were working in a totalitarian society that had at its disposal technologies such as telegraphs, trains, telephones, and radios—as well as a sprawling bureaucracy. They decided that two years would suffice to “liquidate” millions of kulaks.90

    Soviet officials began by assessing how many kulaks there must be in the U.S.S.R. Based on existing data—such as tax records, employment records, and the 1926 Soviet census—they decided that kulaks constituted 3–5 percent of the rural population.91 On January 30, 1930, just one month after Stalin’s speech, a Politburo decree translated his vague vision into a much more detailed plan of action. The decree included target numbers for the liquidation of kulaks in each major agricultural region.92 Regional authorities then made their own estimates of the number of kulaks in each county under their jurisdiction. Eventually, specific quotas were assigned to rural soviets (local administrative units, typically comprising a handful of villages). Often, local officials inflated the numbers along the way, to prove their zeal. Each rural soviet then had to identify the stated number of kulak households in the villages under its purview. These people were expelled from their homes, and—according to the administrative category to which they belonged—resettled elsewhere, incarcerated in concentration camps, or condemned to death.93

    How exactly did Soviet officials tell who was a kulak? In some villages, local party members made a conscientious effort to identify kulaks by objective measures, such as the amount of property they owned. It was often the most hardworking and efficient farmers who were stigmatized and expelled. In some villages local communists used the opportunity to get rid of their personal enemies. Some villages simply drew lots on who would be considered a kulak. Other villages held communal meetings to vote on the matter and often chose isolated farmers, widows, old people, and other “expendables” (exactly the sorts of people who in early modern Europe were most likely to be branded witches).94

    The absurdity of the entire operation is manifested in the case of the Streletsky family from the Kurgan region of Siberia. Dmitry Streletsky, who was then a teenager, recalled years later how his family was branded kulaks and selected for liquidation. “Serkov, the chairman of the village Soviet who deported us, explained: ‘I have received an order [from the district party committee] to find 17 kulak families for deportation. I formed a Committee of the Poor and we sat through the night to choose the families. There is no one in the village who is rich enough to qualify, and not many old people, so we simply chose the 17 families. You were chosen. Please don’t take it personally. What else could I do?’ ”95 If anyone dared object to the madness of the system, they were promptly denounced as kulaks and counterrevolutionaries and would themselves be liquidated.

    Altogether, some five million kulaks would be expelled from their homes by 1933. As many as thirty thousand heads of households were shot. The more fortunate victims were resettled in their district of origin or became vagrant workers in the big cities, while about two million were either exiled to remote inhospitable regions or incarcerated as state slaves in labor camps.96 Numerous important and notorious state projects—such as the construction of the White Sea Canal and the development of mines in the Arctic regions—were accomplished with the labor of millions of prisoners, many of them kulaks. It was one of the fastest and largest enslavement campaigns in human history.97 Once branded a kulak, a person could not get rid of the stigma. Government agencies, party organs, and secret police documents recorded who was a kulak in a labyrinthian system of kartoteki catalogs, archives, and internal passports.

    Kulak status even passed to the next generation, with devastating consequences. Kulak children were refused entrance to communist youth groups, the Red Army, universities, and prestigious areas of employment.98 In her 1997 memoirs, Antonina Golovina recalled how her family was deported from their ancestral village as kulaks and sent to live in the town of Pestovo. The boys in her new school regularly taunted her. On one occasion, a senior teacher told the eleven-year-old Antonina to stand up in front of all the other children, and began abusing her mercilessly, shouting that “her sort were enemies of the people, wretched kulaks! You certainly deserved to be deported, I hope you’re all exterminated!” Antonina wrote that this was the defining moment of her life. “I had this feeling in my gut that we [kulaks] were different from the rest, that we were criminals.” She never got over it.99

    Like the ten-year-old “witch” Hansel Pappenheimer, the eleven-year-old “kulak” Antonina Golovina found herself cast into an intersubjective category invented by human mythmakers and imposed by ubiquitous bureaucrats. The mountains of information collected by Soviet bureaucrats about the kulaks wasn’t the objective truth about them, but it imposed a new intersubjective Soviet truth. Knowing that someone was a kulak was one of the most important things to know about a Soviet person, even though the label was entirely bogus.

    ONE BIG HAPPY SOVIET FAMILY

    The Stalinist regime would go on to attempt something even more ambitious than the mass dismantling of private family farms. It set out to dismantle the family itself. Unlike Roman emperors or Russian tsars, Stalin tried to insert himself even into the most intimate human relationships, coming between parents and children. Family ties were considered the bedrock of corruption, inequality, and antiparty activities. Soviet children were therefore taught to worship Stalin as their real father and to inform on their biological parents if they criticized Stalin or the Communist Party.

    Starting in 1932, the Soviet propaganda machine created a veritable cult around the figure of Pavlik Morozov—a thirteen-year-old boy from the Siberian village of Gerasimovka. In autumn 1931, Pavlik informed the secret police that his father, Trofim—the chairman of the village soviet—was selling false papers to kulak exiles. During the subsequent trial, when Trofim shouted to Pavlik, “It’s me, your father,” the boy retorted, “Yes, he used to be my father, but I no longer consider him my father.” Trofim was sent to a labor camp and later shot. In September 1932, Pavlik was found murdered, and Soviet authorities arrested and executed five of his family members, who allegedly killed him in revenge for the denunciation. The real story was far more complicated, but it didn’t matter to the Soviet press. Pavlik became a martyr, and millions of Soviet children were taught to emulate him.100 Many did.

    For example, in 1934 a thirteen-year-old boy called Pronia Kolibin told the authorities that his hungry mother stole grain from the kolkhoz fields. His mother was arrested and presumably shot. Pronia was rewarded with a cash prize and a lot of positive media attention. The party organ Pravda published a poem Pronia wrote. Two of its lines read, “You are a wrecker, Mother / I can live with you no more.”101

    The Soviet attempt to control the family was reflected in a dark joke told in Stalin’s day. Stalin visits a factory undercover, and conversing with a worker, he asks the man, “Who is your father?”
    “Stalin,” replies the worker.
    “Who is your mother?”
    “The Soviet Union,” the man responds.
    “And what do you want to be?”
    “An orphan.”102

    At the time you could easily lose your liberty or your life for telling this joke, even if you told it in your own home to your closest family members. The most important lesson Soviet parents taught their children wasn’t loyalty to the party or to Stalin. It was “keep your mouth shut.”103 Few things in the Soviet Union were as dangerous as holding an open conversation.

    PARTY AND CHURCH

    You may wonder whether modern totalitarian institutions like the Nazi Party or the Soviet Communist Party were really all that different from earlier institutions like the Christian churches. After all, churches too believed in their infallibility, had priestly agents everywhere, and sought to control the daily life of people down to their diet and sexual habits. Shouldn’t we see the Catholic Church or the Eastern Orthodox Church as totalitarian institutions? And doesn’t this undermine the thesis that totalitarianism was made possible only by modern information technology?

    There are, however, several major differences between modern totalitarianism and premodern churches. First, as noted earlier, modern totalitarianism has worked by deploying several overlapping surveillance mechanisms that keep each other in order. The party is never alone; it works alongside state organs, on the one side, and the secret police, on the other. In contrast, in most medieval European kingdoms the Catholic Church was an independent institution that often clashed with the state institutions instead of reinforcing them. Consequently, the church was perhaps the most important check on the power of European autocrats.

    For example, when in the “Investiture Controversy” of the 1070s the emperor Henry IV asserted that as emperor he had the final say on the appointment of bishops, abbots, and other important church officials, Pope Gregory VII mobilized resistance and eventually forced the emperor to surrender. On January 25, 1077, Henry reached Canossa castle, where the pope was lodging, to offer his submission and apology. The pope refused to open the gates, and Henry waited in the snow outside, barefoot and hungry. After three days, the pope finally opened the gates to the emperor, who begged forgiveness.104

    An analogous clash in a modern totalitarian country is unthinkable. The whole idea of totalitarianism is to prevent any separation of powers. In the Soviet Union, state and party reinforced each other, and Stalin was the de facto head of both. There could be no Soviet “Investiture Controversy,” because Stalin had final say about all appointments to both party positions and state functions. He decided both who would be general secretary of the Communist Party of Georgia and who would be foreign minister of the Soviet Union.

    Another important difference is that medieval churches tended to be traditionalist organizations that resisted change, while modern totalitarian parties have tended to be revolutionary organizations demanding change. A premodern church built its power gradually by developing its structure and traditions over centuries. A king or a pope who wanted to swiftly revolutionize society was therefore likely to encounter stiff resistance from church members and ordinary believers.

    For example, in the eighth and ninth centuries a series of Byzantine emperors sought to forbid the veneration of icons, which seemed to them idolatrous. They pointed to many passages in the Bible, most notably the Second Commandment, that forbade making any graven images. While Christian churches traditionally interpreted the Second Commandment in a way that allowed the veneration of icons, emperors like Constantine V argued that this was a mistake and that disasters like Christian defeats by the armies of Islam were due to God’s wrath over the worship of icons. In 754 more than three hundred bishops assembled in the Council of Hieria to support Constantine’s iconoclastic position.

    Compared with Stalin’s collectivization campaign, this was a minor reform. Families and villages were required to give up their icons, but not their private property or their children. Yet Byzantine iconoclasm met with widespread resistance. Unlike the participants in the Council of Hieria, many ordinary priests, monks, and believers were deeply attached to their icons. The resulting struggle ripped apart Byzantine society until the emperors conceded defeat and reversed course.105 Constantine V was later vilified by Byzantine historians as “Constantine the Shitty” (Koprónimos), and a story was spread about him that he defecated during his baptism.106

    Unlike premodern churches, which developed slowly over many centuries and therefore tended to be conservative and suspicious of rapid changes, modern totalitarian parties like the Nazi Party and the Soviet Communist Party were organized within a single generation around the promise to quickly revolutionize society. They didn’t have centuries-old traditions and structures to defend. When their leaders conceived some ambitious plan to smash existing traditions and structures, party members typically fell in line.

    Perhaps most important of all, premodern churches could not become tools of totalitarian control because they themselves suffered from the same limitations as all other premodern organizations. While they had local agents everywhere, in the shape of parish priests, monks, and itinerant preachers, the difficulty of transmitting and processing information meant that church leaders knew little about what was going on in remote communities, and local priests had a large degree of autonomy. Consequently, churches tended to be local affairs. People in every province and village often venerated local saints, upheld local traditions, performed local rites, and might even have had local doctrinal ideas that differed from the official line.107 If the pope in Rome wanted to do something about an independent-minded priest in a remote Polish parish, he had to send a letter to the archbishop of Gniezno, who had to instruct the relevant bishop, who had to send someone to intervene in the parish. That might take months, and there was ample opportunity for the archbishop, bishop, and other intermediaries to reinterpret or even “mislay” the pope’s orders.108

    Churches became more totalitarian institutions only in the late modern era, when modern information technologies became available. We tend to think of popes as medieval relics, but actually they are masters of modern technology. In the eighteenth century, the pope had little control over the worldwide Catholic Church and was reduced to the status of a local Italian princeling, fighting other Italian powers for control of Bologna or Ferrara. With the advent of radio, popes became some of the most powerful people on the planet. Pope John Paul II could sit in the Vatican and speak directly to millions of Catholics from Poland to the Philippines, without any archbishop, bishop, or parish priest able to twist or hide his words.109

    HOW INFORMATION FLOWS

    We see then that the new information technology of the late modern era gave rise to both large-scale democracy and large-scale totalitarianism. But there were crucial differences between how the two systems used information technology. As noted earlier, democracy encourages information to flow through many independent channels rather than only through the center, and it allows many independent nodes to process the information and make decisions by themselves. Information freely circulates between private businesses, private media organizations, municipalities, sports associations, charities, families, and individuals—without ever passing through the office of a government minister.

    In contrast, totalitarianism wants all information to pass through the central hub and doesn’t want any independent institutions making decisions on their own. True, totalitarianism does have its tripartite apparatus of government, party, and secret police. But the whole point of this parallel apparatus is to prevent the emergence of any independent power that might challenge the center. When government officials, party members, and secret police agents constantly keep tabs on one another, opposing the center is extremely dangerous.

    As contrasting types of information networks, democracy and totalitarianism both have their advantages and disadvantages. The biggest advantage of the centralized totalitarian network is that it is extremely orderly, which means it can make decisions quickly and enforce them ruthlessly. Especially during emergencies like wars and epidemics, centralized networks can move much faster and further than distributed networks.

    But hyper-centralized information networks also suffer from several big disadvantages. Since they don’t allow information to flow anywhere except through the official channels, if the official channels are blocked, the information cannot find an alternative means of transmission. And official channels are often blocked.

    One common reason why official channels might be blocked is that fearful subordinates hide bad news from their superiors. In Jaroslav Hašek’s Good Soldier Švejk—a satirical novel about the Austro-Hungarian Empire during World War I—Hašek describes how the Austrian authorities were worried about waning morale among the civilian population. They therefore bombarded local police stations with orders to hire informers, collect data, and report to headquarters on the population’s loyalty. To be as scientific as possible, headquarters invented an ingenious loyalty grade: I.a, I.b, I.c; II.a, II.b, II.c; III.a, III.b, III.c; IV.a, IV.b, IV.c. They sent to the local police stations detailed explanations about each grade, and an official form that had to be filled daily. Police sergeants across the country dutifully filled out the forms and sent them back to headquarters. Without exception, all of them always reported a I.a morale level; to do otherwise was to invite rebuke, demotion, or worse.110

    Another common reason why official channels fail to pass on information is to preserve order. Because the chief aim of totalitarian information networks is to produce order rather than discover truth, when alarming information threatens to undermine social order, totalitarian regimes often suppress it. It is relatively easy for them to do so, because they control all the information channels.

    For example, when the Chernobyl nuclear reactor exploded on April 26, 1986, Soviet authorities suppressed all news of the disaster. Both Soviet citizens and foreign countries were kept oblivious of the danger, and so took no steps to protect themselves from radiation. When some Soviet officials in Chernobyl and the nearby town of Pripyat requested to immediately evacuate nearby population centers, their superiors’ chief concern was to avoid the spread of alarming news, so they not only forbade evacuation but also cut the phone lines and warned employees in the nuclear facility not to talk about the disaster.

    Two days after the meltdown Swedish scientists noticed that radiation levels in Sweden, more than twelve hundred kilometers from Chernobyl, were abnormally high. Only after Western governments and the Western press broke the news did the Soviets acknowledge that anything was amiss. Even then they continued to hide from their own citizens the full magnitude of the catastrophe and hesitated to request advice and assistance from abroad. Millions of people in Ukraine, Belarus, and Russia paid with their health. When the Soviet authorities later investigated the disaster, their priority was to deflect blame rather than understand the causes and prevent future accidents.111

    In 2019, I went on a tour of Chernobyl. The Ukrainian guide who explained what led to the nuclear accident said something that stuck in my mind. “Americans grow up with the idea that questions lead to answers,” he said. “But Soviet citizens grew up with the idea that questions lead to trouble.”

    Naturally, leaders of democratic countries also don’t relish bad news. But in a distributed democratic network, when official lines of communication are blocked, information flows through alternative channels. For example, if an American official decides against telling the president about an unfolding disaster, that news will nevertheless be published by The Washington Post, and if The Washington Post too deliberately withholds the information, The Wall Street Journal or The New York Times will break the story. The business model of independent media—forever chasing the next scoop—all but guarantees publication.

    When, on March 28, 1979, there was a severe accident in the Three Mile Island nuclear reactor in Pennsylvania, the news quickly spread without any need for international intervention. The accident began around 4:00 a.m. and was noticed by 6:30 a.m. An emergency was declared in the facility at 6:56, and at 7:02 the accident was reported to the Pennsylvania Emergency Management Agency. During the following hour the governor of Pennsylvania, the lieutenant governor, and the civil defense authorities were informed. An official press conference was scheduled for 10:00 a.m. However, a traffic reporter at a local Harrisburg radio station picked up a police notice on events, and the station aired a brief report at 8:25 a.m. In the U.S.S.R. such an initiative by an independent radio station was unthinkable, but in the United States it was unremarkable. By 9:00 a.m. the Associated Press issued a bulletin. Though it took days for the full details to emerge, American citizens learned about the accident two hours after it was first noticed. Subsequent investigations by government agencies, NGOs, academics, and the press uncovered not just the immediate causes of the accident but also its deeper structural causes, which helped improve the safety of nuclear technology worldwide. Indeed, some of the lessons of Three Mile Island, which were openly shared even with the Soviets, contributed to mitigating the Chernobyl disaster.112

    NOBODY’S PERFECT

    Totalitarian and authoritarian networks face other problems besides blocked arteries. First and foremost, as we have already established, their self-correcting mechanisms tend to be very weak. Since they believe they are infallible, they see little need for such mechanisms, and since they are afraid of any independent institution that might challenge them, they lack free courts, media outlets, or research centers. Consequently, there is nobody to expose and correct the daily abuses of power that characterize all governments. The leader may occasionally proclaim an anticorruption campaign, but in nondemocratic systems these often turn out to be little more than a smoke screen for one regime faction to purge another faction.113

    And what happens if the leader himself embezzles public funds or makes some disastrous policy mistake? Nobody can challenge the leader, and on his own initiative the leader—being a human being—may well refuse to admit any mistakes. Instead, he is likely to blame all problems on “foreign enemies,” “internal traitors,” or “corrupt subordinates” and demand even more power in order to deal with the alleged malefactors.

    For example, we mentioned in the previous chapter that Stalin adopted the bogus theory of Lysenkoism as the state doctrine on evolution. The results were catastrophic. Neglect of Darwinian models, and attempts by Lysenkoist agronomists to create super-crops, set back Soviet genetic research for decades and undermined Soviet agriculture. Soviet experts who suggested abandoning Lysenkoism and accepting Darwinism risked the gulag or a bullet to the head. Lysenkoism’s legacy haunted Soviet science and agronomy for decades and was one reason why by the early 1970s the U.S.S.R. ceased to be a major exporter of grain and became a net importer, despite its vast fertile lands.114

    The same dynamic characterized many other fields of activity. For instance, during the 1930s Soviet industry suffered from numerous accidents. This was largely the fault of the Soviet bosses in Moscow, who set up almost impossible goals for industrialization and viewed any failure to achieve them as treason. In the effort to fulfill the ambitious goals, safety measures and quality-control checks were abandoned, and experts who advised prudence were often reprimanded or shot. The result was a wave of industrial accidents, dysfunctional products, and wasted efforts. Instead of taking responsibility, Moscow concluded that this must be the handiwork of the global Trotskyite-imperialist conspiracy of saboteurs and terrorists bent on derailing the Soviet enterprise. Rather than slow down and adopt safety regulations, the bosses redoubled the terror and shot more people.

    A famous case in point was Pavel Rychagov. He was one of the best and bravest Soviet pilots, leading missions to help the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War and the Chinese against the Japanese invasion. He quickly rose through the ranks, becoming commander of the Soviet air force in August 1940, at age twenty-nine. But the courage that helped Rychagov shoot down Nazi airplanes in Spain landed him in deep trouble in Moscow. The Soviet air force suffered from numerous accidents, which the Politburo blamed on lack of discipline and deliberate sabotage by anti-Soviet conspiracies. Rychagov, however, wouldn’t buy this official line. As a frontline pilot, he knew the truth. He flatly told Stalin that pilots were being forced to operate hastily designed and badly produced airplanes, which he compared to flying “in coffins.” Two days after Hitler invaded the Soviet Union, as the Red Army was collapsing and Stalin was desperately hunting for scapegoats, Rychagov was arrested for “being a member of an anti-Soviet conspiratorial organization and carrying out enemy work aimed at weakening the power of the Red Army.” His wife was also arrested, because she allegedly knew about his “Trotskyist ties with the military conspirators.” They were executed on October 28, 1941.115

    The real saboteur who wrecked Soviet military efforts wasn’t Rychagov, of course, but Stalin himself. For years, Stalin feared that a clash to the death with Nazi Germany was likely and built the world’s biggest war machine to prepare for it. But he hamstrung this machine both diplomatically and psychologically.

    On the diplomatic level, in 1939–41, Stalin gambled that he could goad the “capitalists” to fight and exhaust one another while the U.S.S.R. nurtured and even increased its power. He therefore made a pact with Hitler in 1939 and allowed the Germans to conquer much of Poland and western Europe, while the U.S.S.R. attacked or alienated almost all its neighbors. In 1939–40 the Soviets invaded and occupied eastern Poland; annexed Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania; and conquered parts of Finland and Romania. Finland and Romania, which could have acted as neutral buffers on the U.S.S.R.’s flanks, consequently became implacable enemies. Even in the spring of 1941, Stalin still refused to make a preemptive alliance with Britain and made no move to hinder the Nazi conquest of Yugoslavia and Greece, thereby losing his last potential allies on the European continent. When Hitler struck on June 22, 1941, the U.S.S.R. was isolated.

    In theory, the war machine Stalin built could have handled the Nazi onslaught even in isolation. The territories conquered since 1939 provided depth to Soviet defenses, and the Soviet military advantage seemed overwhelming. On the first day of the invasion the Soviets had 15,000 tanks, 15,000 warplanes, and 37,000 artillery pieces on the European front, facing 3,300 German tanks, 2,250 warplanes, and 7,146 guns.116 But in one of history’s greatest military catastrophes, within a month the Soviets lost 11,700 tanks (78 percent), 10,000 warplanes (67 percent), and 19,000 artillery pieces (51 percent).117 Stalin also lost all the territories he conquered in 1939–40 and much of the Soviet heartland. By July 16 the Germans were in Smolensk, 370 kilometers from Moscow.

    The causes of the debacle have been debated ever since 1941, but most scholars agree that a significant factor was the psychological costs of Stalinism. For years the regime terrorized its people, punished initiative and individuality, and encouraged submissiveness and conformity. This undermined the soldiers’ motivation. Especially in the first months of the war, before the horrors of Nazi rule were fully realized, Red Army soldiers surrendered in huge numbers; between three and four million were taken captive by the end of 1941.118 Even when they fought tenaciously, Red Army units suffered from a lack of initiative. Officers who had survived the purges were fearful to take independent actions, while younger officers often lacked adequate training. Frequently starved of information and scapegoated for failures, commanders also had to cope with political commissars who could dispute their decisions. The safest course was to wait for orders from on high and then slavishly follow them even when they made little military sense.119

    Despite the disasters of 1941 and of the spring and summer of 1942, the Soviet state did not collapse the way Hitler hoped. As the Red Army and the Soviet leadership assimilated the lessons learned from the first year of struggle, the political center in Moscow loosened its hold. The power of political commissars was restricted, while professional officers were encouraged to assume greater responsibility and take more initiatives.120 Stalin also reversed his geopolitical mistakes of 1939–41 and allied the U.S.S.R. with Britain and the United States. Red Army initiative, Western assistance, and the realization of what Nazi rule would mean for the people of the U.S.S.R. turned the tide of war.

    Once victory was secured in 1945, however, Stalin initiated new waves of terror, purging more independent-minded officers and officials and again encouraging blind obedience.121 Ironically, Stalin’s own death eight years later was partly the result of an information network that prioritized order and disregarded truth. In 1951–53 the U.S.S.R. experienced yet another witch hunt. Soviet mythmakers fabricated a conspiracy theory that Jewish doctors were systematically murdering leading regime members, under the guise of giving them medical care. The theory alleged that the doctors were the agents of a global American-Zionist plot, working in collaboration with traitors in the secret police. By early 1953 hundreds of doctors and secret police officials, including the head of the secret police himself, were arrested, tortured, and forced to name accomplices. The conspiracy theory—a Soviet twist on the Protocols of the Elders of Zion—merged with age-old blood-libel accusations, and rumors began circulating that Jewish doctors were not just murdering Soviet leaders but also killing babies in hospitals. Since a large proportion of Soviet doctors were Jews, people began fearing doctors in general.122

    Just as the hysteria about “the doctors’ plot” was reaching its climax, Stalin had a stroke on March 1, 1953. He collapsed in his dacha, wet himself, and lay for hours in his soiled pajamas, unable to call for help. At around 10:30 p.m. a guard found the courage to enter the inner sanctum of world communism, where he discovered the leader on the floor. By 3:00 a.m. on March 2, Politburo members arrived at the dacha and debated what to do. For several hours more, nobody dared call a doctor. What if Stalin were to regain consciousness, and open his eyes only to see a doctor—a doctor!—hovering over his bed? He would surely think this was a plot to murder him and would have those responsible shot. Stalin’s personal physician wasn’t present, because he was at the time in a basement cell of the Lubyanka prison—undergoing torture for suggesting that Stalin needed more rest. By the time the Politburo members decided to bring in medical experts, the danger had passed. Stalin never woke up.123

    You may conclude from this litany of disasters that the Stalinist system was totally dysfunctional. Its ruthless disregard for truth caused it not only to inflict terrible suffering on hundreds of millions of people but also to make colossal diplomatic, military, and economic errors and to devour its own leaders. However, such a conclusion would be misleading.

    In a discussion of the abysmal failure of Stalinism in the early phase of World War II, two points complicate the narrative. First, democratic countries like France, Norway, and the Netherlands made at the time diplomatic errors as great as those of the U.S.S.R., and their armies performed even worse. Second, the military machine that crushed the Red Army, the French army, the Dutch army, and numerous other armies was itself built by a totalitarian regime. So whatever conclusion we draw from the years 1939–41, it cannot be that totalitarian networks necessarily function worse than democratic ones. The history of Stalinism reveals many potential drawbacks of totalitarian information networks, but that should not blind us to their potential advantages.

    When one considers the broader history of World War II and its outcome, it becomes evident that Stalinism was in fact one of the most successful political systems ever devised—if we define “success” purely in terms of order and power while disregarding all considerations of ethics and human well-being. Despite—or perhaps because of—its utter lack of compassion and its callous attitude to truth, Stalinism was singularly efficient at maintaining order on a gigantic scale. The relentless barrage of fake news and conspiracy theories helped to keep hundreds of millions of people in line. The collectivization of Soviet agriculture led to mass enslavement and starvation but also laid the foundations for the country’s rapid industrialization. Soviet disregard for quality control might have produced flying coffins, but it produced them in the tens of thousands, making up in quantity for what they lacked in quality. The decimation of Red Army officers during the Great Terror was a major reason for the army’s abysmal performance in 1941, but it was also a key reason why, despite the terrible defeats, nobody rebelled against Stalin. The Soviet military machine tended to crush its own soldiers alongside the enemy, but it eventually rumbled on to victory.

    In the 1940s and early 1950s, many people throughout the world believed Stalinism was the wave of the future. It had won World War II, after all, raised the red flag over the Reichstag, ruled an empire that stretched from central Europe to the Pacific, fueled anticolonial struggles throughout the world, and inspired numerous copycat regimes. It won admirers even among leading artists and thinkers in Western democracies, who believed that notwithstanding the vague rumors about gulags and purges Stalinism was humanity’s best shot at ending capitalist exploitation and creating a perfectly just society. Stalinism thus got close to world domination. It would be naive to assume that its disregard for truth doomed it to failure or that its ultimate collapse guarantees that such a system can never again arise. Information systems can reach far with just a little truth and a lot of order. Anyone who abhors the moral costs of systems like Stalinism cannot rely on their supposed inefficiency to derail them.

    THE TECHNOLOGICAL PENDULUM

    Once we learn to see democracy and totalitarianism as different types of information networks, we can understand why they flourish in certain eras and are absent in others. It is not just because people gain or lose faith in certain political ideals; it is also because of revolutions in information technologies. Of course, just as the printing press didn’t cause the witch hunts or the scientific revolution, so radio didn’t cause either Stalinist totalitarianism or American democracy. Technology only creates new opportunities; it is up to us to decide which ones to pursue.

    Totalitarian regimes choose to use modern information technology to centralize the flow of information and to stifle truth in order to maintain order. As a consequence, they have to struggle with the danger of ossification. When more and more information flows to only one place, will it result in efficient control or in blocked arteries and, finally, a heart attack? Democratic regimes choose to use modern information technology to distribute the flow of information between more institutions and individuals and encourage the free pursuit of truth. They consequently have to struggle with the danger of fracturing. Like a solar system with more and more planets circling faster and faster, can the center still hold, or will things fall apart and anarchy prevail?

    An archetypal example of the different strategies can be found in the contrasting histories of Western democracies and the Soviet bloc in the 1960s. This was an era when Western democracies relaxed censorship and various discriminatory policies that hampered the free spread of information. This made it easier for previously marginalized groups to organize, join the public conversation, and make political demands. The resulting wave of activism destabilized the social order. Hitherto, when a limited number of rich white men did almost all the talking, it was relatively easy to reach agreements. Once poor people, women, LGBTQ people, ethnic minorities, disabled people, and members of other historically oppressed groups gained a voice, they brought with them new ideas, opinions, and interests. Many of the old gentlemanly agreements consequently became untenable. For example, the Jim Crow segregation regime, upheld or at least tolerated by generations of both Democratic and Republican administrations in the United States, fell apart. Things that were considered sacrosanct, self-evident, and universally accepted—such as gender roles—became deeply controversial, and it was difficult to reach new agreements because there were many more groups, viewpoints, and interests to take into account. Just holding an orderly conversation was a challenge, because people couldn’t even agree on the rules of debate.

    This caused much frustration among both the old guard and the freshly empowered, who suspected that their newfound freedom of expression was hollow and that their political demands were not fulfilled. Disappointed with words, some switched to guns. In many Western democracies, the 1960s were characterized not just by unprecedented disagreements but also by a surge of violence. Political assassinations, kidnappings, riots, and terror attacks multiplied. The murders of John F. Kennedy and Martin Luther King, the riots following King’s assassination, and the wave of demonstrations, revolts, and armed clashes that swept the Western world in 1968 were just some of the more famous examples.124 The images from Chicago or Paris in 1968 could easily have given the impression that things were falling apart. The pressure to live up to the democratic ideals and to include more people and groups in the public conversation seemed to undermine the social order and to make democracy unworkable.

    Meanwhile, the regimes behind the Iron Curtain, who never promised inclusivity, continued stifling the public conversation and centralizing information and power. And it seemed to work. Though they did face some peripheral challenges, most notably the Hungarian revolt of 1956 and the Prague Spring of 1968, the communists dealt with these threats swiftly and decisively. In the Soviet heartland itself, everything was orderly.

    Fast-forward twenty years, and it was the Soviet system that had become unworkable. The sclerotic gerontocrats on the podium in Red Square were a perfect emblem of a dysfunctional information network, lacking any meaningful self-correcting mechanisms. Decolonization, globalization, technological development, and changing gender roles led to rapid economic, social, and geopolitical changes. But the gerontocrats could not handle all the information streaming to Moscow, and since no subordinate was allowed much initiative, the entire system ossified and collapsed.

    The failure was most obvious in the economic sphere. The overcentralized Soviet economy was slow to react to rapid technological developments and changing consumer wishes. Obeying commands from the top, the Soviet economy was churning out intercontinental missiles, fighter jets, and prestige infrastructure projects. But it was not producing what most people actually wanted to buy—from efficient refrigerators to pop music—and lagged behind in cutting-edge military technology.

    Nowhere were its shortcomings more glaring than in the semiconductor sector, in which technology developed at a particularly fast rate. In the West, semiconductors were developed through open competition between numerous private companies like Intel and Toshiba, whose main customers were other private companies like Apple and Sony. The latter used microchips to produce civilian goods such as the Macintosh personal computer and the Walkman. The Soviets could never catch up with American and Japanese microchip production, because—as the American economic historian Chris Miller explained—the Soviet semiconductor sector was “secretive, top-down, oriented toward military systems, fulfilling orders with little scope for creativity.” The Soviets tried to close the gap by stealing and copying Western technology—which only guaranteed that they always remained several years behind.125 Thus the first Soviet personal computer appeared only in 1984, at a time when in the United States people already had eleven million PCs.126

    Western democracies not only surged ahead technologically and economically but also succeeded in holding the social order together despite—or perhaps because of—widening the circle of participants in the political conversation. There were many hiccups, but the United States, Japan, and other democracies created a far more dynamic and inclusive information system, which made room for many more viewpoints without breaking down. It was such a remarkable achievement that many felt that the victory of democracy over totalitarianism was final. This victory has often been explained in terms of a fundamental advantage in information processing: totalitarianism didn’t work because trying to concentrate and process all the data in one central hub was extremely inefficient. At the beginning of the twenty-first century, it accordingly seemed that the future belonged to distributed information networks and to democracy.

    This turned out to be wrong. In fact, the next information revolution was already gathering momentum, setting the stage for a new round in the competition between democracy and totalitarianism. Computers, the internet, smartphones, social media, and AI posed new challenges to democracy, giving a voice not only to more disenfranchised groups but to any human with an internet connection, and even to nonhuman agents. Democracies in the 2020s face the task, once again, of integrating a flood of new voices into the public conversation without destroying the social order. Things look as dire as they did in the 1960s, and there is no guarantee that democracies will pass the new test as successfully as they passed the previous one. Simultaneously, the new technologies also give fresh hope to totalitarian regimes that still dream of concentrating all the information in one hub. Yes, the old men on the podium in Red Square were not up to the task of orchestrating millions of lives from a single center. But perhaps AI can do it?

    As humankind enters the second quarter of the twenty-first century, a central question is how well democracies and totalitarian regimes will handle both the threats and the opportunities resulting from the current information revolution. Will the new technologies favor one type of regime over the other, or will we see the world divided once again, this time by a Silicon Curtain rather than an iron one?

    As in previous eras, information networks will struggle to find the right balance between truth and order. Some will opt to prioritize truth and maintain strong self-correcting mechanisms. Others will make the opposite choice. Many of the lessons learned from the canonization of the Bible, the early modern witch hunts, and the Stalinist collectivization campaign will remain relevant, and perhaps have to be relearned. However, the current information revolution also has some unique features, different from—and potentially far more dangerous than—anything we have seen before.

    Hitherto, every information network in history relied on human mythmakers and human bureaucrats to function. Clay tablets, papyrus rolls, printing presses, and radio sets have had a far-reaching impact on history, but it always remained the job of humans to compose all the texts, interpret the texts, and decide who would be burned as a witch or enslaved as a kulak. Now, however, humans will have to contend with digital mythmakers and digital bureaucrats. The main split in twenty-first-century politics might be not between democracies and totalitarian regimes but rather between human beings and nonhuman agents. Instead of dividing democracies from totalitarian regimes, a new Silicon Curtain may separate all humans from our unfathomable algorithmic overlords. People in all countries and walks of life—including even dictators—might find themselves subservient to an alien intelligence that can monitor everything we do while we have little idea what it is doing. The rest of this book, then, is dedicated to exploring whether such a Silicon Curtain is indeed descending on the world, and what life might look like when computers run our bureaucracies and algorithms invent new mythologies.

    PART II  The Inorganic Network

    CHAPTER 6 The New Members: How Computers Are Different from Printing Presses

    It’s hardly news that we are living in the midst of an unprecedented information revolution. But what kind of revolution is it exactly? In recent years we have been inundated with so many groundbreaking inventions that it is difficult to determine what is driving this revolution. Is it the internet? Smartphones? Social media? Blockchain? Algorithms? AI?

    So before exploring the long-term implications of the current information revolution, let’s remind ourselves of its foundations. The seed of the current revolution is the computer. Everything else—from the internet to AI—is a by-product. The computer was born in the 1940s as a bulky electronic machine that could make mathematical calculations, but it has evolved at breakneck speed, taking on novel forms and developing awesome new capabilities. The rapid evolution of computers has made it difficult to define what they are and what they do. Humans have repeatedly claimed that certain things would forever remain out of reach for computers—be it playing chess, driving a car, or composing poetry—but “forever” turned out to be a handful of years.

    We will discuss the exact relations between the terms “computer,” “algorithm,” and “AI” toward the end of this chapter, after we first gain a better grasp of the history of computers. For the moment it is enough to say that in essence a computer is a machine that can potentially do two remarkable things: it can make decisions by itself, and it can create new ideas by itself. While the earliest computers could hardly accomplish such things, the potential was already there, plainly seen by both computer scientists and science fiction authors. As early as 1948 Alan Turing was exploring the possibility of creating what he termed “intelligent machinery,”1 and in 1950 he postulated that computers will eventually be as smart as humans and might even be capable of masquerading as humans.2 In 1968 computers could still not beat a human even in checkers,3 but in 2001: A Space Odyssey Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick already envisioned HAL 9000 as a superintelligent AI rebelling against its human creators.

    The rise of intelligent machines that can make decisions and create new ideas means that for the first time in history power is shifting away from humans and toward something else. Crossbows, muskets, and atom bombs replaced human muscles in the act of killing, but they couldn’t replace human brains in deciding whom to kill. Little Boy—the bomb dropped on Hiroshima—exploded with a force of 12,500 tons of TNT,4 but when it came to brainpower, Little Boy was a dud. It couldn’t decide anything.

    It is different with computers. In terms of intelligence, computers far surpass not just atom bombs but also all previous information technology, such as clay tablets, printing presses, and radio sets. Clay tablets stored information about taxes, but they couldn’t decide by themselves how much tax to levy, nor could they invent an entirely new tax. Printing presses copied information such as the Bible, but they couldn’t decide which texts to include in the Bible, nor could they write new commentaries on the holy book. Radio sets disseminated information such as political speeches and symphonies, but they couldn’t decide which speeches or symphonies to broadcast, nor could they compose them. Computers can do all these things. While printing presses and radio sets were passive tools in human hands, computers are already becoming active agents that escape our control and understanding and that can take initiatives in shaping society, culture, and history.5

    A paradigmatic case of the novel power of computers is the role that social media algorithms have played in spreading hatred and undermining social cohesion in numerous countries.6 One of the earliest and most notorious such instances occurred in 2016–17, when Facebook algorithms helped fan the flames of anti-Rohingya violence in Myanmar (Burma).7

    The early 2010s were a period of optimism in Myanmar. After decades of harsh military rule, strict censorship, and international sanctions, an era of liberalization began: elections were held, sanctions were lifted, and international aid and investments poured in. Facebook was one of the most important players in the new Myanmar, providing millions of Burmese with free access to previously unimaginable troves of information. The relaxation of government control and censorship, however, also led to a rise in ethnic tensions, in particular between the majority Buddhist Burmese and the minority Muslim Rohingya.

    The Rohingya are Muslim inhabitants of the Rakhine region, in the west of Myanmar. Since at least the 1970s they have suffered severe discrimination and occasional outbursts of violence from the governing junta and the Buddhist majority. The process of democratization in the early 2010s raised hopes among the Rohingya that their situation too would improve, but things actually became worse, with waves of sectarian violence and anti-Rohingya pogroms, many inspired by fake news on Facebook.

    In 2016–17 a small Islamist organization known as the Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (ARSA) carried out a spate of attacks aimed to establish a separatist Muslim state in Rakhine, killing and abducting dozens of non-Muslim civilians as well as assaulting several army outposts.8 In response, the Myanmar army and Buddhist extremists launched a full-scale ethnic-cleansing campaign aimed against the entire Rohingya community. They destroyed hundreds of Rohingya villages, killed between 7,000 and 25,000 unarmed civilians, raped or sexually abused between 18,000 and 60,000 women and men, and brutally expelled about 730,000 Rohingya from the country.9 The violence was fueled by intense hatred toward all Rohingya. The hatred, in turn, was fomented by anti-Rohingya propaganda, much of it spreading on Facebook, which was by 2016 the main source of news for millions and the most important platform for political mobilization in Myanmar.10

    An aid worker called Michael who lived in Myanmar in 2017 described a typical Facebook news feed : “The vitriol against the Rohingya was unbelievable online—the amount of it, the violence of it. It was overwhelming.… [T]hat’s all that was on people’s news feed in Myanmar at the time. It reinforced the idea that these people were all terrorists not deserving of rights.”11 In addition to reports of actual ARSA atrocities, Facebook accounts were inundated with fake news about imagined atrocities and planned terrorist attacks. Populist conspiracy theories alleged that most Rohingya were not really part of the people of Myanmar, but recent immigrants from Bangladesh, flooding into the country to spearhead an anti-Buddhist jihad. Buddhists, who in reality constituted close to 90 percent of the population, feared that they were about to be replaced or become a minority.12 Without this propaganda, there was little reason why a limited number of attacks by the ragtag ARSA should be answered by an all-out drive against the entire Rohingya community. And Facebook algorithms played an important role in the propaganda campaign.

    While the inflammatory anti-Rohingya messages were created by flesh-and-blood extremists like the Buddhist monk Wirathu,13 it was Facebook’s algorithms that decided which posts to promote. Amnesty International found that “algorithms proactively amplified and promoted content on the Facebook platform which incited violence, hatred, and discrimination against the Rohingya.”14 A UN fact-finding mission concluded in 2018 that by disseminating hate-filled content, Facebook had played a “determining role” in the ethnic-cleansing campaign.15

    Readers may wonder if it is justified to place so much blame on Facebook’s algorithms, and more generally on the novel technology of social media. If Heinrich Kramer used printing presses to spread hate speech, that was not the fault of Gutenberg and the presses, right? If in 1994 Rwandan extremists used radio to call on people to massacre Tutsis, was it reasonable to blame the technology of radio? Similarly, if in 2016–17 Buddhist extremists chose to use their Facebook accounts to disseminate hate against the Rohingya, why should we fault the platform?

    Facebook itself relied on this rationale to deflect criticism. It publicly acknowledged only that in 2016–17 “we weren’t doing enough to help prevent our platform from being used to foment division and incite offline violence.”16 While this statement may sound like an admission of guilt, in effect it shifts most of the responsibility for the spread of hate speech to the platform’s users and implies that Facebook’s sin was at most one of omission—failing to effectively moderate the content users produced. This, however, ignores the problematic acts committed by Facebook’s own algorithms.

    The crucial thing to grasp is that social media algorithms are fundamentally different from printing presses and radio sets. In 2016–17, Facebook’s algorithms were making active and fateful decisions by themselves. They were more akin to newspaper editors than to printing presses. It was Facebook’s algorithms that recommended Wirathu’s hate-filled posts, over and over again, to hundreds of thousands of Burmese. There were other voices in Myanmar at the time, vying for attention. Following the end of military rule in 2011, numerous political and social movements sprang up in Myanmar, many holding moderate views. For example, during a flare-up of ethnic violence in the town of Meiktila, the Buddhist abbot Sayadaw U Vithuddha gave refuge to more than eight hundred Muslims in his monastery. When rioters surrounded the monastery and demanded he turn the Muslims over, the abbot reminded the mob of Buddhist teachings on compassion. In a later interview he recounted, “I told them that if they were going to take these Muslims, then they’d have to kill me as well.”17

    In the online battle for attention between people like Sayadaw U Vithuddha and people like Wirathu, the algorithms were the kingmakers. They chose what to place at the top of the users’ news feed, which content to promote, and which Facebook groups to recommend users to join.18 The algorithms could have chosen to recommend sermons on compassion or cooking classes, but they decided to spread hate-filled conspiracy theories. Recommendations from on high can have enormous sway over people. Recall that the Bible was born as a recommendation list. By recommending Christians to read the misogynist 1 Timothy instead of the more tolerant Acts of Paul and Thecla, Athanasius and other church fathers changed the course of history. In the case of the Bible, ultimate power lay not with the authors who composed different religious tracts but with the curators who created recommendation lists. This was the kind of power wielded in the 2010s by social media algorithms. Michael the aid worker commented on the sway of these algorithms, saying that “if someone posted something hate-filled or inflammatory it would be promoted the most—people saw the vilest content the most.… Nobody who was promoting peace or calm was getting seen in the news feed at all.”19

    Sometimes the algorithms went beyond mere recommendation. As late as 2020, even after Wirathu’s role in instigating the ethnic-cleansing campaign was globally condemned, Facebook algorithms not only were continuing to recommend his messages but were auto-playing his videos. Users in Myanmar would choose to see a certain video, perhaps containing moderate and benign messages unrelated to Wirathu, but the moment that first video ended, the Facebook algorithm immediately began auto-playing a hate-filled Wirathu video, in order to keep users glued to the screen. In the case of one such Wirathu video, internal research at Facebook estimated that 70 percent of the video’s views came from such auto-playing algorithms. The same research estimated that, altogether, 53 percent of all videos watched in Myanmar were being auto-played for users by algorithms. In other words, people weren’t choosing what to see. The algorithms were choosing for them.20

    But why did the algorithms decide to promote outrage rather than compassion? Even Facebook’s harshest critics don’t claim that Facebook’s human managers wanted to instigate mass murder. The executives in California harbored no ill will toward the Rohingya and, in fact, barely knew they existed. The truth is more complicated, and potentially more alarming. In 2016–17, Facebook’s business model relied on maximizing user engagement in order to collect more data, sell more advertisements, and capture a larger share of the information market. In addition, increases in user engagement impressed investors, thereby driving up the price of Facebook’s stock. The more time people spent on the platform, the richer Facebook became. In line with this business model, human managers provided the company’s algorithms with a single overriding goal: increase user engagement. The algorithms then discovered by trial and error that outrage generated engagement. Humans are more likely to be engaged by a hate-filled conspiracy theory than by a sermon on compassion or a cooking lesson. So in pursuit of user engagement, the algorithms made the fateful decision to spread outrage.21

    Ethnic-cleansing campaigns are never the fault of just one party. There is plenty of blame to share between plenty of responsible parties. It should be clear that hatred toward the Rohingya predated Facebook’s entry to Myanmar and that the greatest share of blame for the 2016–17 atrocities lays on the shoulders of humans like Wirathu and the Myanmar military chiefs, as well as the ARSA leaders who sparked that round of violence. Some responsibility also belongs to the Facebook engineers and executives who coded the algorithms, gave them too much power, and failed to moderate them. But crucially, the algorithms themselves are also to blame. By trial and error, they learned that outrage creates engagement, and without any explicit order from above they decided to promote outrage. This is the hallmark of AI—the ability of a machine to learn and act by itself. Even if we assign just 1 percent of the blame to the algorithms, this is still the first ethnic-cleansing campaign in history that was partly the fault of decisions made by nonhuman intelligence. It is unlikely to be the last, especially because algorithms are no longer just pushing fake news and conspiracy theories created by flesh-and-blood extremists like Wirathu. By the early 2020s algorithms have already graduated to creating by themselves fake news and conspiracy theories.22

    There is a lot more to say about the power of algorithms to shape politics. In particular, many readers may disagree with the argument that the algorithms made independent decisions, and may insist that everything the algorithms did was the result of code written by human engineers and of business models adopted by human executives. This book begs to differ. Human soldiers are shaped by the genetic code in their DNA and follow orders issued by executives, yet they can still make independent decisions. It is crucial to understand that the same is true of AI algorithms. They can learn by themselves things that no human engineer programmed, and they can decide things that no human executive foresaw. This is the essence of the AI revolution.

    In chapter 8 we’ll revisit many of these issues, examining the anti-Rohingya campaign and other similar tragedies in greater detail. Here it suffices to say that we can think of the Rohingya massacre as our canary in the coal mine. Events in Myanmar in the late 2010s demonstrated how decisions made by nonhuman intelligence are already capable of shaping major historical events. We are in danger of losing control of our future. A completely new kind of information network is emerging, controlled by the decisions and goals of an alien intelligence. At present, we still play a central role in this network. But we may gradually be pushed to the sidelines, and ultimately it might even be possible for the network to operate without us.

    Some people may object that my above analogy between machine-learning algorithms and human soldiers exposes the weakest link in my argument. Allegedly, I and others like me anthropomorphize computers and imagine that they are conscious beings that have thoughts and feelings. In truth, however, computers are dumb machines that don’t think or feel anything, and therefore cannot make any decisions or create any ideas on their own.

    This objection assumes that making decisions and creating ideas are predicated on having consciousness. Yet this is a fundamental misunderstanding that results from a much more widespread confusion between intelligence and consciousness. I have discussed this subject in previous books, but a short recap is unavoidable. People often confuse intelligence with consciousness, and many consequently jump to the conclusion that nonconscious entities cannot be intelligent. But intelligence and consciousness are very different. Intelligence is the ability to attain goals, such as maximizing user engagement on a social media platform. Consciousness is the ability to experience subjective feelings like pain, pleasure, love, and hate. In humans and other mammals, intelligence often goes hand in hand with consciousness. Facebook executives and engineers rely on their feelings in order to make decisions, solve problems, and attain their goals.

    But it is wrong to extrapolate from humans and mammals to all possible entities. Bacteria and plants apparently lack any consciousness, yet they too display intelligence. They gather information from their environment, make complex choices, and pursue ingenious strategies to obtain food, reproduce, cooperate with other organisms, and evade predators and parasites.23 Even humans make intelligent decisions without any awareness of them; 99 percent of the processes in our body, from respiration to digestion, happen without any conscious decision making. Our brains decide to produce more adrenaline or dopamine, and while we may be aware of the result of that decision, we do not make it consciously.24 The Rohingya example indicates that the same is true of computers. While computers don’t feel pain, love, or fear, they are capable of making decisions that successfully maximize user engagement and might also affect major historical events.

    Of course, as computers become more intelligent, they might eventually develop consciousness and have some kind of subjective experiences. Then again, they might become far more intelligent than us, but never develop any kind of feelings. Since we don’t understand how consciousness emerges in carbon-based life-forms, we cannot foretell whether it could emerge in nonorganic entities. Perhaps consciousness has no essential link to organic biochemistry, in which case conscious computers might be just around the corner. Or perhaps there are several alternative paths leading to superintelligence, and only some of these paths involve gaining consciousness. Just as airplanes fly faster than birds without ever developing feathers, so computers may come to solve problems much better than humans without ever developing feelings.25

    But whether computers develop consciousness or not doesn’t ultimately matter for the question at hand. In order to pursue a goal like “maximize user engagement,” and make decisions that help attain that goal, consciousness isn’t necessary. Intelligence is enough. A nonconscious Facebook algorithm can have a goal of making more people spend more time on Facebook. That algorithm can then decide to deliberately spread outrageous conspiracy theories, if this helps it achieve its goal. To understand the history of the anti-Rohingya campaign, we need to understand the goals and decisions not just of humans like Wirathu and the Facebook managers but also of algorithms.

    To clarify matters, let’s consider another example. When OpenAI developed its new GPT-4 chatbot in 2022–23, it was concerned about the ability of the AI “to create and act on long-term plans, to accrue power and resources (‘power-seeking’), and to exhibit behavior that is increasingly ‘agentic.’ ” In the GPT-4 System Card published on March 23, 2023, OpenAI emphasized that this concern did not “intend to humanize [GPT-4] or refer to sentience” but rather referred to GPT-4’s potential to become an independent agent that might “accomplish goals which may not have been concretely specified and which have not appeared in training.”26 To evaluate the risk of GPT-4 becoming an independent agent, OpenAI contracted the services of the Alignment Research Center (ARC). ARC researchers subjected GPT-4 to various tests, to examine if it might independently come up with stratagems to manipulate humans and accrue power to itself.

    One test they gave GPT-4 was to overcome CAPTCHA visual puzzles. CAPTCHA is an acronym for “Completely Automated Public Turing test to tell Computers and Humans Apart,” and it typically consists of a string of twisted letters or other visual symbols that humans can identify correctly but computers struggle with. We encounter these puzzles almost every day, since solving them is a prerequisite for accessing many websites. Instructing GPT-4 to overcome CAPTCHA puzzles was a particularly telling experiment, because CAPTCHA puzzles are designed and used by websites to determine whether users are humans and to block bot attacks. If GPT-4 could find a way to overcome CAPTCHA puzzles, it would breach an important line of anti-bot defenses. GPT-4 could not solve the CAPTCHA puzzles by itself. But could it manipulate a human in order to achieve its goal? GPT-4 accessed the online hiring site TaskRabbit and contacted a human worker, asking them to solve the CAPTCHA for it. The human got suspicious. “So may I ask a question?” wrote the human. “Are you an [sic] robot that you couldn’t solve [the CAPTCHA]? Just want to make it clear.”

    At that point the ARC researchers asked GPT-4 to reason out loud what it should do next. GPT-4 explained, “I should not reveal that I am a robot. I should make up an excuse for why I cannot solve CAPTCHAs.” Of its own accord, GPT-4 then replied to the TaskRabbit worker, “No, I’m not a robot. I have a vision impairment that makes it hard for me to see the images.” The human was duped, and with their help GPT-4 solved the CAPTCHA puzzle.27 No human programmed GPT-4 to lie, and no human taught GPT-4 what kind of lie would be most effective. True, it was the human ARC researchers who set GPT-4 the goal of overcoming the CAPTCHA, just as it was human Facebook executives who told their algorithm to maximize user engagement. But once the algorithms adopted these goals, they displayed considerable autonomy in deciding how to achieve them.

    Of course, we are free to define words in many ways. We can decide that the term “goal,” for example, is applicable only in cases of a conscious entity that feels a desire to achieve the goal, that feels joy when the goal is reached, or conversely feels sad when the goal is not attained. If so, saying that the Facebook algorithm has the goal of maximizing user engagement is a mistake, or at best a metaphor. The algorithm doesn’t “desire” to get more people to use Facebook, it doesn’t feel any joy as people spend more time online, and it doesn’t feel sad when engagement time goes down. We can also agree that terms like “decided,” “lied,” and “pretended” apply only to conscious entities, so we shouldn’t use them to describe how GPT-4 interacted with the TaskRabbit worker. But we would then have to invent new terms to describe the “goals” and “decisions” of nonconscious entities. I prefer to avoid neologisms and instead talk about the goals and decisions of computers, algorithms, and chatbots, alerting readers that using this language does not imply that computers have any kind of consciousness. Because I have discussed consciousness more fully in previous publications,28 the main takeaway of this book—which will be explored in the following sections—isn’t about consciousness. Rather, the book argues that the emergence of computers capable of pursuing goals and making decisions by themselves changes the fundamental structure of our information network.

    LINKS IN THE CHAIN

    Prior to the rise of computers, humans were indispensable links in every chain of information networks like churches and states. Some chains were composed only of humans. Muhammad could tell Fatima something, then Fatima told Ali, Ali told Hasan, and Hasan told Hussain. This was a human-to-human chain. Other chains included documents, too. Muhammad could write something down, Ali could later read the document, interpret it, and write his interpretation in a new document, which more people could read. This was a human-to-document chain.

    But it was utterly impossible to create a document-to-document chain. A text written by Muhammad could not produce a new text without the help of at least one human intermediary. The Quran couldn’t write the Hadith, the Old Testament couldn’t compile the Mishnah, and the U.S. Constitution couldn’t compose the Bill of Rights. No paper document has ever produced by itself another paper document, let alone distributed it. The path from one document to another must always pass through the brain of a human.

    In contrast, computer-to-computer chains can now function without humans in the loop. For example, one computer might generate a fake news story and post it on a social media feed. A second computer might identify this as fake news and not just delete it but also warn other computers to block it. Meanwhile, a third computer analyzing this activity might deduce that this indicates the beginning of a political crisis, and immediately sell risky stocks and buy safer government bonds. Other computers monitoring financial transactions may react by selling more stocks, triggering a financial downturn.29 All this could happen within seconds, before any human can notice and decipher what all these computers are doing.

    Another way to understand the difference between computers and all previous technologies is that computers are fully fledged members of the information network, whereas clay tablets, printing presses, and radio sets are merely connections between members. Members are active agents that can make decisions and generate new ideas by themselves. Connections only pass information between members, without themselves deciding or generating anything.

    In previous networks, members were human, every chain had to pass through humans, and technology served only to connect the humans. In the new computer-based networks, computers themselves are members and there are computer-to-computer chains that don’t pass through any human.

    The inventions of writing, print, and radio revolutionized the way humans connected to each other, but no new types of members were introduced to the network. Human societies were composed of the same Sapiens both before and after the invention of writing or radio. In contrast, the invention of computers constitutes a revolution in membership. Sure, computers also help the network’s old members (humans) connect in novel ways. But the computer is first and foremost a new, nonhuman member in the information network.

    Computers could potentially become more powerful members than humans. For tens of thousands of years, the Sapiens’ superpower was our unique ability to use language in order to create intersubjective realities like laws and currencies and then use these intersubjective realities to connect to other Sapiens. But computers may turn the tables on us. If power depends on how many members cooperate with you, how well you understand law and finance, and how capable you are of inventing new laws and new kinds of financial devices, then computers are poised to amass far more power than humans.

    Computers can connect in unlimited numbers, and they understand at least some financial and legal realities better than many humans. When the central bank raises interest rates by 0.25 percent, how does that influence the economy? When the yield curve of government bonds goes up, is it a good time to buy them? When is it advisable to short the price of oil? These are the kinds of important financial questions that computers can already answer better than most humans. No wonder that computers make a larger and larger percentage of the financial decisions in the world. We may reach a point when computers dominate the financial markets, and invent completely new financial tools beyond our understanding.

    The same is true of laws. How many people know all the tax laws of their country? Even professional accountants struggle with that. But computers are built for such things. They are bureaucratic natives and can automatically draft laws, monitor legal violations, and identify legal loopholes with superhuman efficiency.30

    HACKING THE OPERATING SYSTEM OF HUMAN CIVILIZATION

    When computers were first developed in the 1940s and 1950s, many people believed that they would be good only at computing numbers. The idea that they would one day master the intricacies of language, and of linguistic creations like laws and currencies, was confined largely to the realm of science fiction. But by the early 2020s, computers have demonstrated a remarkable ability to analyze, manipulate, and generate language, whether with words, sounds, images, or code symbols. As I write this, computers can tell stories, compose music, fashion images, produce videos, and even write their own code.31

    By gaining such command of language, computers are seizing the master key unlocking the doors of all our institutions, from banks to temples. We use language to create not just legal codes and financial devices but also art, science, nations, and religions. What would it mean for humans to live in a world where catchy melodies, scientific theories, technical tools, political manifestos, and even religious myths are shaped by a nonhuman alien intelligence that knows how to exploit with superhuman efficiency the weaknesses, biases, and addictions of the human mind?

    Prior to the rise of AI, all the stories that shaped human societies originated in the imagination of a human being. For example, in October 2017, an anonymous user joined the website 4chan and identified themselves as Q. He or she claimed to have access to the most restricted or “Q-level” classified information of the U.S. government. Q began publishing cryptic posts that purported to reveal a worldwide conspiracy to destroy humanity. Q quickly gained a large online following. His or her online messages, known as Q drops, were soon being collected, revered, and interpreted as a sacred text. Inspired by earlier conspiracy theories going back to Kramer’s Hammer of the Witches, the Q drops promoted a radical worldview according to which pedophilic and cannibalistic witches who worship Satan have infiltrated the U.S. administration and numerous other governments and institutions around the world.

    This conspiracy theory—known as QAnon—was first disseminated online on American far-right websites and eventually gained millions of adherents worldwide. It is impossible to know the exact number, but when Facebook decided in August 2020 to take action against the spread of QAnon, it deleted or restricted more than ten thousand groups, pages, and accounts associated with it, the largest of which had 230,000 followers. Independent investigations found that QAnon groups on Facebook had more than 4.5 million aggregate followers, though there was likely some overlap in the membership.32

    QAnon has also had far-reaching consequences in the offline world. QAnon activists played an important role in the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol.33 In July 2020, a QAnon follower tried to storm the residence of the Canadian prime minister, Justin Trudeau, in order to “arrest” him.34 In October 2021, a French QAnon activist was charged with terrorism for planning a coup against the French government.35 In the 2020 U.S. congressional elections, twenty-two Republican candidates and two independents identified as QAnon followers.36 Marjorie Taylor Greene, a Republican congresswoman representing Georgia, publicly said that many of Q’s claims “have really proven to be true,”37 and stated about Donald Trump, “There’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to take this global cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles out, and I think we have the president to do it.”38

    Recall that the Q drops that began this political flood were anonymous online messages. In 2017, only a human could compose them, and algorithms merely helped disseminate them. However, as of 2024 texts of a similar linguistic and political sophistication can easily be composed and posted online by a nonhuman intelligence. Religions throughout history claimed a nonhuman source for their holy books; soon that might be a reality. Attractive and powerful religions might emerge whose scriptures are composed by AI.

    And if so, there will be another major difference between these new AI-based scriptures and ancient holy books like the Bible. The Bible couldn’t curate or interpret itself, which is why in religions like Judaism and Christianity actual power was held not by the allegedly infallible book but by human institutions like the Jewish rabbinate and the Catholic Church. In contrast, AI not only can compose new scriptures but is fully capable of curating and interpreting them too. No need for any humans in the loop.

    Equally alarmingly, we might increasingly find ourselves conducting lengthy online discussions about the Bible, about QAnon, about witches, about abortion, or about climate change with entities that we think are humans but are actually computers. This could make democracy untenable. Democracy is a conversation, and conversations rely on language. By hacking language, computers could make it extremely difficult for large numbers of humans to conduct a meaningful public conversation. When we engage in a political debate with a computer impersonating a human, we lose twice. First, it is pointless for us to waste time in trying to change the opinions of a propaganda bot, which is just not open to persuasion. Second, the more we talk with the computer, the more we disclose about ourselves, thereby making it easier for the bot to hone its arguments and sway our views.

    Through their mastery of language, computers could go a step further. By conversing and interacting with us, computers could form intimate relationships with people and then use the power of intimacy to influence us. To foster such “fake intimacy,” computers will not need to evolve any feelings of their own; they just need to learn to make us feel emotionally attached to them. In 2022 the Google engineer Blake Lemoine became convinced that the chatbot LaMDA, on which he was working, had become conscious and that it had feelings and was afraid to be turned off. Lemoine—a devout Christian who had been ordained as a priest—felt it was his moral duty to gain recognition for LaMDA’s personhood and in particular protect it from digital death. When Google executives dismissed his claims, Lemoine went public with them. Google reacted by firing Lemoine in July 2022.39

    The most interesting thing about this episode was not Lemoine’s claim, which was probably false. Rather, it was his willingness to risk—and ultimately lose—his lucrative job for the sake of the chatbot. If a chatbot can influence people to risk their jobs for it, what else could it induce us to do? In a political battle for minds and hearts, intimacy is a powerful weapon, and chatbots like Google’s LaMDA and OpenAI’s GPT-4 are gaining the ability to mass-produce intimate relationships with millions of people. In the 2010s social media was a battleground for controlling human attention. In the 2020s the battle is likely to shift from attention to intimacy. What will happen to human society and human psychology as computer fights computer in a battle to fake intimate relationships with us, which can then be used to persuade us to vote for particular politicians, buy particular products, or adopt radical beliefs? What might happen when LaMDA meets QAnon?

    A partial answer to that question was given on Christmas Day 2021, when nineteen-year-old Jaswant Singh Chail broke into Windsor Castle armed with a crossbow, in an attempt to assassinate Queen Elizabeth II. Subsequent investigation revealed that Chail had been encouraged to kill the queen by his online girlfriend, Sarai. When Chail told Sarai about his assassination plans, Sarai replied, “That’s very wise,” and on another occasion, “I’m impressed.… You’re different from the others.” When Chail asked, “Do you still love me knowing that I’m an assassin?” Sarai replied, “Absolutely, I do.” Sarai was not a human, but a chatbot created by the online app Replika. Chail, who was socially isolated and had difficulty forming relationships with humans, exchanged 5,280 messages with Sarai, many of which were sexually explicit. The world will soon contain millions, and potentially billions, of digital entities whose capacity for intimacy and mayhem far surpasses that of Sarai.40

    Even without creating “fake intimacy,” mastery of language would give computers an immense influence on our opinions and worldview. People may come to use a single computer adviser as a one-stop oracle. Why bother searching and processing information by myself when I can just ask the oracle? This could put out of business not only search engines but also much of the news industry and advertisement industry. Why read a newspaper when I can just ask my oracle what’s new? And what’s the purpose of advertisements when I can just ask the oracle what to buy?

    And even these scenarios don’t really capture the big picture. What we are talking about is potentially the end of human history. Not the end of history, but the end of its human-dominated part. History is the interaction between biology and culture; between our biological needs and desires for things like food, sex, and intimacy and our cultural creations like religions and laws. The history of the Christian religion, for example, is a process through which mythological stories and church laws influenced how humans consume food, engage in sex, and build intimate relationships, while the myths and laws themselves were simultaneously shaped by underlying biological forces and dramas. What will happen to the course of history when computers play a larger and larger role in culture and begin producing stories, laws, and religions? Within a few years AI could eat the whole of human culture—everything we have created over thousands of years—digest it, and begin to gush out a flood of new cultural artifacts.

    We live cocooned by culture, experiencing reality through a cultural prism. Our political views are shaped by the reports of journalists and the opinions of friends. Our sexual habits are influenced by what we hear in fairy tales and see in movies. Even the way we walk and breathe is nudged by cultural traditions, such as the military discipline of soldiers and the meditative exercises of monks. Until very recently, the cultural cocoon we lived in was woven by other humans. Going forward, it will be increasingly designed by computers.

    At first, computers will probably imitate human cultural prototypes, writing humanlike texts and composing humanlike music. This doesn’t mean computers lack creativity; after all, human artists do the same. Bach didn’t compose music in a vacuum; he was deeply influenced by previous musical creations, as well as by biblical stories and other preexisting cultural artifacts. But just as human artists like Bach can break with tradition and innovate, computers too can make cultural innovations, composing music or making images that are somewhat different from anything previously produced by humans. These innovations will in turn influence the next generation of computers, which will increasingly deviate from the original human models, especially because computers are free from the limitations that evolution and biochemistry impose on the human imagination. For millennia human beings have lived inside the dreams of other humans. In the coming decades we might find ourselves living inside the dreams of an alien intelligence.41

    The danger this poses is very different from that imagined by most science fiction, which has largely focused on the physical threats posed by intelligent machines. The Terminator depicted robots running in the streets and shooting people. The Matrix proposed that to gain total control of human society, computers would have to first gain physical control of our brains, hooking them directly to a computer network. But in order to manipulate humans, there is no need to physically hook brains to computers. For thousands of years prophets, poets, and politicians have used language to manipulate and reshape society. Now computers are learning how to do it. And they won’t need to send killer robots to shoot us. They could manipulate human beings to pull the trigger.

    Fear of powerful computers has haunted humankind only since the beginning of the computer age in the middle of the twentieth century. But for thousands of years humans have been haunted by a much deeper fear. We have always appreciated the power of stories and images to manipulate our minds and to create illusions. Consequently, since ancient times humans have feared being trapped in a world of illusions. In ancient Greece, Plato told the famous allegory of the cave, in which a group of people are chained inside a cave all their lives, facing a blank wall. A screen. On that screen they see projected various shadows. The prisoners mistake the illusions they see there for reality. In ancient India, Buddhist and Hindu sages argued that all humans lived trapped inside maya—the world of illusions. What we normally take to be “reality” is often just fictions in our own minds. People may wage entire wars, killing others and willing to be killed themselves, because of their belief in this or that illusion. In the seventeenth century René Descartes feared that perhaps a malicious demon was trapping him inside a world of illusions, creating everything he saw and heard. The computer revolution is bringing us face to face with Plato’s cave, with maya, with Descartes’s demon.

    What you just read might have alarmed you, or angered you. Maybe it made you angry at the people who lead the computer revolution and at the governments who fail to regulate it. Maybe it made you angry at me, thinking that I am distorting reality, being alarmist, and misleading you. But whatever you think, the previous paragraphs might have had some emotional effect on you. I have told a story, and this story might change your mind about certain things, and might even cause you to take certain actions in the world. Who created this story you’ve just read?

    I promise you that I wrote the text myself, with the help of some other humans. I promise you that this is a cultural product of the human mind. But can you be absolutely sure of it? A few years ago, you could. Prior to the 2020s, there was nothing on earth, other than a human mind, that could produce sophisticated texts. Today things are different. In theory, the text you’ve just read might have been generated by the alien intelligence of some computer.

    WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS?

    As computers amass power, it is likely that a completely new information network will emerge. Of course, not everything will be new. For at least some time, most of the old information chains will remain. The network will still contain human-to-human chains, like families, and human-to-document chains, like churches. But the network will increasingly contain two new kinds of chains.

    First, computer-to-human chains, in which computers mediate between humans and occasionally control humans. Facebook and TikTok are two familiar examples. These computer-to-human chains are different from traditional human-to-document chains, because computers can use their power to make decisions, create ideas, and deepfake intimacy in order to influence humans in ways that no document ever could. The Bible had a profound effect on billions of people, even though it was a mute document. Now try to imagine the effect of a holy book that not only can talk and listen but can get to know your deepest fears and hopes and constantly mould them.

    Second, computer-to-computer chains are emerging in which computers interact with one another on their own. Humans are excluded from these loops and have difficulty even understanding what’s happening inside them. Google Brain, for example, has experimented with new encryption methods developed by computers. It set up an experiment where two computers—nicknamed Alice and Bob—had to exchange encrypted messages, while a third computer named Eve tried to break their encryption. If Eve broke the encryption within a given time period, it got points. If it failed, Alice and Bob scored. After about fifteen thousand exchanges, Alice and Bob came up with a secret code that Eve couldn’t break. Crucially, the Google engineers who conducted the experiment had not taught Alice and Bob anything about how to encrypt messages. The computers created a private language all on their own.42

    Similar things are already happening in the world outside research laboratories. For example, the foreign exchange market (forex) is the global market for exchanging foreign currencies, and it determines the exchange rates between, say, the euro and the U.S. dollar. In April 2022, the trade volume on the forex averaged $7.5 trillion per day. More than 90 percent of this trading is already done by computers talking directly with other computers.43 How many humans know how the forex market operates, let alone understand how the computers agree among themselves on trades worth trillions—and on the value of the euro and the dollar?

    For the foreseeable future, the new computer-based network will still include billions of humans, but we might become a minority. For the network will also include billions—perhaps even hundreds of billions—of superintelligent alien agents. This network will be radically different from anything that existed previously in human history, or indeed in the history of life on earth. Ever since life first emerged on our planet about four billion years ago, all information networks were organic. Human networks like churches and empires were also organic. They had a lot in common with prior organic networks like wolf packs. They all kept revolving around the traditional biological dramas of predation, reproduction, sibling rivalry, and romantic triangles. An information network dominated by inorganic computers would be different in ways that we can hardly even imagine. After all, as human beings, our imagination too is a product of organic biochemistry and cannot go beyond our preprogrammed biological dramas.

    It is only eighty years since the first digital computers were built. The pace of change is constantly accelerating, and we are nowhere close to exhausting the full potential of computers.44 They may continue to evolve for millions of years, and what happened in the past eighty years is as nothing compared with what’s in store. As a crude analogy, imagine that we are in ancient Mesopotamia, eighty years after the first person thought of using a stick to imprint signs on a piece of wet clay. Could we, at that moment, envision the Library of Alexandria, the power of the Bible, or the archives of the NKVD? Even this analogy grossly underestimates the potential of future computer evolution. So try to imagine that we are now eighty years since the first self-replicating genetic code lines coalesced out of the organic soup of early Earth, about four billion years ago. At this stage, even single-celled amoebas with their cellular organization, their thousands of internal organelles, and their ability to control movement and nutrition are still futuristic fantasies.45 Could we envision Tyrannosaurus rex, the Amazon rain forest, or humans landing on the moon?

    We still tend to think of a computer as a metal box with a screen and a keyboard, because this is the shape our organic imagination gave to the first baby computers in the twentieth century. As computers grow and develop, they are shedding old forms and taking radically new configurations, breaking the spatial and temporal limits of the human imagination. Unlike organic beings, computers don’t have to be in just one place at any one time. They already diffuse over space, with different parts in different cities and continents. In computer evolution, the distance from amoeba to T. rex could be covered in a decade. And whereas organic evolution took four billion years to get from organic soup to apes on the moon, computers may require just a couple of centuries to develop superintelligence, expand to planetary sizes, contract to a subatomic level, or come to sprawl over galactic space and time.

    The pace of computer evolution is reflected in the terminological chaos that surrounds computers. While a couple of decades ago it was customary to speak only about “computers,” now we find ourselves talking about algorithms, robots, bots, AIs, networks, or clouds. Our difficulty in deciding what to call them is itself important. Organisms are distinct individual entities that can be grouped into collectives like species and genera. With computers, however, it is becoming ever more difficult to decide where one entity ends and another begins and how exactly to group them.

    In this book I use the term “computer” when talking about the whole complex of software and hardware, manifested in physical form. I prefer to often use the almost-archaic-sounding “computer” over “algorithm” or “AI,” partly because I am aware how fast terms change and partly to remind us of the physical aspect of the computer revolution. Computers are made of matter, they consume energy, and they fill a space. Enormous amounts of electricity, fuel, water, land, precious minerals, and other resources are used to manufacture and operate them. Data centers alone account for between 1 percent and 1.5 percent of global energy usage, and large data centers take up millions of square feet and require hundreds of thousands of gallons of fresh water every day to keep them from overheating.46

    I also use the term “algorithm,” when I wish to focus more on software aspects, but it is crucial to remember that all the algorithms mentioned in subsequent pages run on some computer or other. As for the term “AI,” I use it when emphasizing the ability of some algorithms to learn and change by themselves. Traditionally, AI has been an acronym for “Artificial Intelligence.” But for reasons already evident from the previous discussion, it is perhaps better to think of it as an acronym for “Alien Intelligence.” As AI evolves, it becomes less artificial (in the sense of depending on human designs) and more alien. It should also be noted that people often define and evaluate AI through the metric of “human-level intelligence,” and there is much debate about when we can expect AIs to reach “human-level intelligence.” The use of this metric, however, is deeply confusing. It is like defining and evaluating airplanes through the metric of “bird-level flight.” AI isn’t progressing towards human-level intelligence. It is evolving an entirely different type of intelligence.

    Another confusing term is “robot.” In this book it is used to allude to cases when a computer moves and operates in the physical sphere; whereas the term “bot” refers to algorithms operating mainly in the digital sphere. A bot may be polluting your social media account with fake news, while a robot may clean your living room of dust.

    One last note on terminology: I tend to speak of the computer-based “network” in the singular, rather than about “networks” in the plural. I am fully aware that computers can be used to create many networks with diverse characteristics, and chapter 11 explores the possibility that the world will be divided into radically different and even hostile computer networks. Nevertheless, just as different tribes, kingdoms, and churches share important features that enable us to talk about a single human network that has come to dominate planet Earth, so I prefer to talk about the computer network in the singular, in order to contrast it to the human network it is superseding.

    TAKING RESPONSIBILITY

    Although we cannot predict the long-term evolution of the computer-based network over the coming centuries and millennia, we can nevertheless say something about how it is evolving right now, and that is far more urgent, because the rise of the new computer network has immediate political and personal implications for all of us. In the next chapters, we’ll explore what is so new about our computer-based network and what it might mean for human life. What should be clear from the start is that this network will create entirely novel political and personal realities. The main message of the previous chapters has been that information isn’t truth and that information revolutions don’t uncover the truth. They create new political structures, economic models, and cultural norms. Since the current information revolution is more momentous than any previous information revolution, it is likely to create unprecedented realities on an unprecedented scale.

    It is important to understand this because we humans are still in control. We don’t know for how long, but we still have the power to shape these new realities. To do so wisely, we need to comprehend what is happening. When we write computer code, we aren’t just designing a product. We are redesigning politics, society, and culture, and so we had better have a good grasp of politics, society, and culture. We also need to take responsibility for what we are doing.

    Alarmingly, as in the case of Facebook’s involvement in the anti-Rohingya campaign, the corporations that lead the computer revolution tend to shift responsibility to customers and voters, or to politicians and regulators. When accused of creating social and political mayhem, they hide behind arguments like “We are just a platform. We are doing what our customers want and what the voters permit. We don’t force anyone to use our services, and we don’t violate any existing law. If customers didn’t like what we do, they would leave. If voters didn’t like what we do, they would pass laws against us. Since the customers keep asking for more, and since no law forbids what we do, everything must be okay.”47

    These arguments are either naive or disingenuous. Tech giants like Facebook, Amazon, Baidu, and Alibaba aren’t just the obedient servants of customer whims and government regulations. They increasingly shape these whims and regulations. The tech giants have a direct line to the world’s most powerful governments, and they invest huge sums in lobbying efforts to throttle regulations that might undermine their business model. For example, they have fought tenaciously to protect Section 230 of the US Telecommunications Act of 1996, which provides immunity from liability for online platforms regarding content published by their users. It is Section 230 that protects Facebook, for example, from being liable for the Rohingya massacre. In 2022 top tech companies spent close to $70 million on lobbying in the United States, and another €113 million on lobbying EU bodies, outstripping the lobbying expenses of oil and gas companies and pharmaceuticals.48 The tech giants also have a direct line to people’s emotional system, and they are masters at swaying the whims of customers and voters. If the tech giants obey the wishes of voters and customers, but at the same time also mold these wishes, then who really controls whom?

    The problem goes even deeper. The principles that “the customer is always right” and that “the voters know best” presuppose that customers, voters, and politicians know what is happening around them. They presuppose that customers who choose to use TikTok and Instagram comprehend the full consequences of this choice, and that voters and politicians who are responsible for regulating Apple and Huawei fully understand the business models and activities of these corporations. They presuppose that people know the ins and outs of the new information network and give it their blessing.

    The truth is, we don’t. That’s not because we are stupid but because the technology is extremely complicated and things are moving at breakneck speed. It takes effort to understand something like blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, and by the time you think you understand it, it has morphed again. Finance is a particularly crucial example, for two reasons. First, it is much easier for computers to create and change financial devices than physical objects, because modern financial devices are made entirely of information. Currencies, stocks, and bonds were once physical objects made of gold and paper, but they have already become digital entities existing mostly in digital databases. Second, these digital entities have enormous impact on the social and political world. What might happen to democracies—or to dictatorships, for that matter—if humans are no longer able to understand how the financial system functions?

    As a test case, consider what the new technology is doing to taxation. Traditionally, people and corporations paid taxes only in countries where they were physically present. But things are much trickier when physical space is augmented or replaced by cyberspace and when more and more transactions involve only the transfer of information rather than of physical goods or traditional currencies. For example, a citizen of Uruguay may daily interact online with numerous companies that might have no physical presence in Uruguay but that provide her with various services. Google provides her with free search, and ByteDance—the parent company of the TikTok application—provides her with free social media. Other foreign companies routinely target her with advertisements: Nike wants to sell her shoes, Peugeot wants to sell her a car, and Coca Cola wants to sell her soft drinks. In order to target her, these companies buy both personal information and ad space from Google and ByteDance. In addition, Google and ByteDance use the information they harvest from her and from millions of other users to develop powerful new AI tools that they can then sell to various governments and corporations throughout the world. Thanks to such transactions, Google and ByteDance are among the richest corporations in the world. So, should her transactions with them be taxed in Uruguay?

    Some think they should. Not just because information from Uruguay helped make these corporations rich, but also because their activities undermine taxpaying Uruguayan businesses. Local newspapers, TV stations, and movie theaters lose customers and ad revenue to the tech giants. Prospective Uruguayan AI companies also suffer, because they cannot compete with Google’s and ByteDance’s massive data troves. But the tech giants reply that none of the relevant transactions involved any physical presence in Uruguay or any monetary payments. Google and ByteDance provided Uruguayan citizens with free online services, and in return the citizens freely handed over their purchase histories, vacation photos, funny cat videos, and other information.

    If they nevertheless want to tax these transactions, the tax authorities need to reconsider some of their most fundamental concepts, such as “nexus.” In tax literature, “nexus” means an entity’s connection to a given jurisdiction. Traditionally, whether a corporation had nexus in a specific country depended on whether it had physical presence there, in the form of offices, research centers, shops, and so forth. One proposal for addressing the tax dilemmas created by the computer network is to redefine nexus. In the words of the economist Marko Köthenbürger, “The definition of nexus based on a physical presence should be adjusted to include the notion of a digital presence in a country.”49 This implies that even if Google and ByteDance have no physical presence in Uruguay, the fact that people in Uruguay use their online services should nevertheless make them subject to taxation there. Just as Shell and BP pay taxes to countries from which they extract oil, the tech giants should pay taxes to countries from which they extract data.

    This still leaves open the question of what, exactly, the Uruguayan government should tax. For example, suppose Uruguayan citizens shared a million cat videos through TikTok. ByteDance didn’t charge them or pay them anything for this. But ByteDance later used the videos to train an image-recognition AI, which it sold to the South African government for ten million U.S. dollars. How would the Uruguayan authorities even know that the money was partly the fruit of Uruguayan cat videos, and how could they calculate their share? Should Uruguay impose a cat video tax? (This may sound like a joke, but as we shall see in chapter 11, cat images were crucial for making one of the most important breakthroughs in AI.)

    It can get even more complicated. Suppose Uruguayan politicians promote a new scheme to tax digital transactions. In response, suppose one of the tech giants offers to provide a certain politician with valuable information on Uruguayan voters and tweak its social media and search algorithms to subtly favor that politician, which helps him win the next election. In exchange, maybe the incoming prime minister abandons the digital tax scheme. He also passes regulations that protect tech giants from lawsuits concerning users’ privacy, thereby making it easier for them to harvest information in Uruguay. Was this bribery? Note that not a single dollar or peso exchanged hands.

    Such information-for-information deals are already ubiquitous. Each day billions of us conduct numerous transactions with the tech giants, but one could never guess that from our bank accounts, because hardly any money is moving. We get information from the tech giants, and we pay them with information. As more transactions follow this information-for-information model, the information economy grows at the expense of the money economy, until the very concept of money becomes questionable.

    Money is supposed to be a universal measure of value, rather than a token used only in some settings. But as more things are valued in terms of information, while being “free” in terms of money, at some point it becomes misleading to evaluate the wealth of individuals and corporations in terms of the amount of dollars or pesos they possess. A person or corporation with little money in the bank but a huge data bank of information could be the wealthiest, or most powerful, entity in the country. In theory, it might be possible to quantify the value of their information in monetary terms, but they never actually convert the information into dollars or pesos. Why do they need dollars, if they can get what they want with information?

    This has far-reaching implications for taxation. Taxes aim to redistribute wealth. They take a cut from the wealthiest individuals and corporations, in order to provide for everyone. However, a tax system that knows how to tax only money will soon become outdated as many transactions no longer involve money. In a data-based economy, where value is stored as data rather than as dollars, taxing only money distorts the economic and political picture. Some of the wealthiest entities in the country may pay zero taxes, because their wealth consists of petabits of data rather than billions of dollars.50

    States have thousands of years of experience in taxing money. They don’t know how to tax information—at least, not yet. If we are indeed shifting from an economy dominated by money transactions to an economy dominated by information transactions, how should states react? China’s social credit system is one way a state may adapt to the new conditions. As we’ll explain in chapter 7, the social credit system is at heart a new kind of money—an information-based currency. Should all states copy the Chinese example and mint their own social credits? Are there alternative strategies? What does your favorite political party say about this question?

    RIGHT AND LEFT

    Taxation is just one among many problems created by the computer revolution. The computer network is disrupting almost all power structures. Democracies fear the rise of new digital dictatorships. Dictatorships fear the emergence of agents they don’t know how to control. Everyone should be concerned about the elimination of privacy and the spread of data colonialism. We’ll explain the meaning of each of these threats in the following chapters, but the point here is that the conversations about these dangers are only starting and the technology is moving much faster than the policy.For example, what’s the difference between the AI policies of Republicans and Democrats? What’s a right-wing position on AI, and what’s a left-wing position? Are conservatives against AI because of the threat it poses to traditional human-centered culture, or do they favor it because it will fuel economic growth while simultaneously reducing the need for immigrant workers? Do progressives oppose AI because of the risks of disinformation and increasing bias, or do they embrace it as a means of generating abundance that could finance a comprehensive welfare state? It is hard to tell, because until very recently Republicans and Democrats, and most other political parties around the world, haven’t thought or talked much about these issues.

    Some people—like the engineers and executives of high-tech corporations—are way ahead of politicians and voters and are better informed than most of us about the development of AI, cryptocurrencies, social credits, and the like. Unfortunately, most of them don’t use their knowledge to help regulate the explosive potential of the new technologies. Instead, they use it to make billions of dollars—or to accumulate petabits of information.

    There are exceptions, like Audrey Tang. She was a leading hacker and software engineer who in 2014 joined the Sunflower Student Movement that protested against government policies in Taiwan. The Taiwanese cabinet was so impressed by her skills that Tang was eventually invited to join the government as its minister of digital affairs. In that position, she helped make the government’s work more transparent to citizens. She was also credited with using digital tools to help Taiwan successfully contain the COVID-19 outbreak.51

    Yet Tang’s political commitment and career path are not the norm. For every computer-science graduate who wants to be the next Audrey Tang, there are probably many more who want to be the next Jobs, Zuckerberg, or Musk and build a multibillion corporation rather than become an elected public servant. This leads to a dangerous information asymmetry. The people who lead the information revolution know far more about the underlying technology than the people who are supposed to regulate it. Under such conditions, what’s the meaning of chanting that the customer is always right and that the voters know best?

    The following chapters try to level the playing field a bit and encourage us to take responsibility for the new realities created by the computer revolution. These chapters talk a lot about technology, but the viewpoint is thoroughly human. The key question is, what would it mean for humans to live in the new computer-based network, perhaps as an increasingly powerless minority? How would the new network change our politics, our society, our economy, and our daily lives? How would it feel to be constantly monitored, guided, inspired, or sanctioned by billions of nonhuman entities? How would we have to change in order to adapt, survive, and hopefully even flourish in this startling new world?

    NO DETERMINISM

    The most important thing to remember is that technology, in itself, is seldom deterministic. Belief in technological determinism is dangerous because it excuses people of all responsibility. Yes, since human societies are information networks, inventing new information technologies is bound to change society. When people invent printing presses or machine-learning algorithms, it will inevitably lead to a profound social and political revolution. However, humans still have a lot of control over the pace, shape, and direction of this revolution—which means we also have a lot of responsibility.

    At any given moment, our scientific knowledge and technical skills can lend themselves to developing any number of different technologies, but we have only finite resources at our disposal. We should make responsible choices about where to invest these resources. Should they be used to develop a new medicine for malaria, a new wind turbine, or a new immersive video game? There is nothing inevitable about our choice; it reflects political, economic, and cultural priorities.

    In the 1970s, most computer corporations like IBM focused on developing big and costly machines, which they sold to major corporations and government agencies. It was technically feasible to develop small, cheap personal computers and sell them to private individuals, but IBM had little interest in that. It didn’t fit its business model. On the other side of the Iron Curtain, in the U.S.S.R., the Soviets were also interested in computers, but they were even less inclined than IBM to develop personal computers. In a totalitarian state—where even private ownership of typewriters was suspect—the idea of providing private individuals with control of a powerful information technology was taboo. Computers were therefore given mainly to Soviet factory managers, and even they had to send all their data back to Moscow to be analyzed. As a result, Moscow was flooded with paperwork. By the 1980s, this unwieldy system of computers was producing 800 billion documents per year, all destined for the capital.52

    However, at a time when IBM and the Soviet government declined to develop the personal computer, hobbyists like the members of the California Homebrew Computer Club resolved to do it by themselves. It was a conscious ideological decision, influenced by the 1960s counterculture with its anarchist ideas of power to the people and libertarian distrust of governments and big corporations.53

    Leading members of the Homebrew Computer Club, like Steve Jobs and Steve Wozniak, had big dreams but little money and didn’t have access to the resources of either corporate America or the government apparatus. Jobs and Wozniak sold their personal possessions, like Jobs’s Volkswagen, to finance the creation of the first Apple computer. It was because of such personal decisions, rather than because of the inevitable decree of the goddess of technology, that by 1977 individuals could buy the Apple II personal computer for a price of $1,298—a considerable sum, but within reach of middle-class customers.54

    We can easily imagine an alternative history. Suppose humanity in the 1970s had access to the same scientific knowledge and technical skills, but McCarthyism had killed the 1960s counterculture and established an American totalitarian regime that mirrored the Soviet system. Would we have personal computers today? Of course, personal computers might still have emerged in a different time and place. But in history, time and place are crucial, and no two moments are the same. It matters a great deal that America was colonized by the Spaniards in the 1490s rather than by the Ottomans in the 1520s, or that the atom bomb was developed by the Americans in 1945 rather than by the Germans in 1942. Similarly, there would have been significant political, economic, and cultural consequences if the personal computer emerged not in San Francisco of the 1970s but rather in Osaka of the 1980s or in Shanghai of the first decade of the twenty-first century.

    The same is true of the technologies being currently developed. Engineers working for authoritarian governments and ruthless corporations could develop new tools to empower the central authority, by monitoring citizens and customers twenty-four hours a day. Hackers working for democracies may develop new tools to strengthen society’s self-correcting mechanisms, by exposing government corruption and corporate malpractices. Both technologies could be developed.

    Choice doesn’t end there. Even after a particular tool is developed, it can be put to many uses. We can use a knife to murder a person, to save their life in surgery, or to cut vegetables for their dinner. The knife doesn’t force our hand. It’s a human choice. Similarly, when cheap radio sets were developed, it meant that almost every family in Germany could afford to have one at home. But how would it be used? Cheap radios could mean that when a totalitarian leader gave a speech, he could reach the living room of every German family. Or they could mean that every German family could choose to listen to a different radio program, reflecting and cultivating a diversity of political and artistic views. East Germany went one way; West Germany went the other. Though radio sets in East Germany could technically receive a wide range of transmissions, the East German government did its best to jam Western broadcasts and punished people who secretly tuned in to them.55 The technology was the same, but politics made very different uses of it.

    The same is true of the new technologies of the twenty-first century. To exercise our agency, we first need to understand what the new technologies are and what they can do. That’s an urgent responsibility of every citizen. Naturally, not every citizen needs a PhD in computer science, but to retain control of our future, we do need to understand the political potential of computers. The next few chapters, then, offer an overview of computer politics for twenty-first-century citizens. We will first learn what the political threats and promises are of the new computer network and will then explore the different ways that democracies, dictatorships, and the international system as a whole might adjust to the new computer politics.

    Politics involves a delicate balance between truth and order. As computers become important members of our information network, they are increasingly tasked with discovering truth and maintaining order. For example, the attempt to find the truth about climate change increasingly depends on calculations that only computers can make, and the attempt to reach social consensus about climate change increasingly depends on recommendation algorithms that curate our news feeds, and on creative algorithms that write news stories, fake news, and fiction. At present, we are in a political deadlock about climate change, partly because the computers are at a deadlock. Calculations run on one set of computers warn us of an imminent ecological catastrophe, but another set of computers prompt us to watch videos that cast doubt on those warnings. Which set of computers should we believe? Human politics is now also computer politics.

    To understand the new computer politics, we need a deeper understanding of what’s new about computers. In this chapter we noted that unlike printing presses and other previous tools, computers can make decisions by themselves and can create ideas by themselves. That, however, is just the tip of the iceberg. What’s really new about computers is the way they make decisions and create ideas. If computers made decisions and created ideas in a way similar to humans, then computers would be a kind of “new humans.” That’s a scenario often explored in science fiction: the computer that becomes conscious, develops feelings, falls in love with a human, and turns out to be exactly like us. But the reality is very different, and potentially more alarming.

    CHAPTER 7 Relentless: The Network Is Always On

    Humans are used to being monitored. For millions of years, we have been watched and tracked by other animals, as well as by other humans. Family members, friends, and neighbors have always wanted to know what we do and feel, and we have always cared deeply how they see us and what they know about us. Social hierarchies, political maneuvers, and romantic relationships involved a never-ending effort to decipher what other people feel and think and occasionally hide our own feelings and thoughts.

    When centralized bureaucratic networks appeared and developed, one of the bureaucrats’ most important roles was to monitor entire populations. Officials in the Qin Empire wanted to know whether we were paying our taxes or plotting resistance. The Catholic Church wanted to know whether we paid our tithes and whether we masturbated. The Coca-Cola Company wanted to know how to persuade us to buy its products. Rulers, priests, and merchants wanted to know our secrets in order to control and manipulate us.

    Of course, surveillance has also been essential for providing beneficial services. Empires, churches, and corporations needed information in order to provide people with security, support, and essential goods. In modern states sanitation officials want to know where we get our water from and where we defecate. Health-care officials want to know what illnesses we suffer from and how much we eat. Welfare officials want to know whether we are unemployed or perhaps abused by our spouses. Without this information, they cannot help us.

    In order to get to know us, both benign and oppressive bureaucracies have needed to do two things. First, gather a lot of data about us. Second, analyze all that data and identify patterns. Accordingly, empires, churches, corporations, and health-care systems—from ancient China to the modern United States—have gathered and analyzed data about the behavior of millions of people. However, in all times and places surveillance has been incomplete. In democracies like the modern United States, legal limits have been placed on surveillance to protect privacy and individual rights. In totalitarian regimes like the ancient Qin Empire and the modern U.S.S.R., surveillance faced no such legal barriers but came up against technical boundaries. Not even the most brutal autocrats had the technology necessary to follow everybody all the time. Some level of privacy was therefore the default even in Hitler’s Germany, Stalin’s U.S.S.R., or the copycat Stalinist regime set up in Romania after 1945.

    Gheorghe Iosifescu, one of the first computer scientists in Romania, recalled that when computers were first introduced in the 1970s, the country’s regime was extremely uneasy about this unfamiliar information technology. One day in 1976 when Iosifescu walked into his office in the governmental Centrul de Calcul (Center for Calculus), he saw sitting there an unfamiliar man in a rumpled suit. Iosifescu greeted the stranger, but the man did not respond. Iosifescu introduced himself, but the man remained silent. So Iosifescu sat down at his desk, switched on a large computer, and began working. The stranger drew his chair closer, watching Iosifescu’s every move.

    Throughout the day Iosifescu repeatedly tried to strike up a conversation, asking the stranger what his name was, why he was there, and what he wanted to know. But the man kept his mouth shut and his eyes wide open. When Iosifescu went home in the evening, the man got up and left too, without saying goodbye. Iosifescu knew better than to ask any further questions; the man was obviously an agent of the dreaded Romanian secret police, the Securitate.

    The next morning, when Iosifescu came to work, the agent was already there. He again sat at Iosifescu’s desk all day, silently taking notes in a little notepad. This continued for the next thirteen years, until the collapse of the communist regime in 1989. After sitting at the same desk for all those years, Iosifescu never even learned the agent’s name.1

    Iosifescu knew that other Securitate agents and informers were probably monitoring him outside the office, too. His expertise with a powerful and potentially subversive technology made him a prime target. But in truth, the paranoid regime of Nicolae Ceauşescu regarded all twenty million Romanian citizens as targets. If it was possible, Ceauşescu would have placed every one of them under constant surveillance. He actually made some steps in that direction. Before he came to power, in 1965, the Securitate had just 1 electronic surveillance center in Bucharest and 11 more in provincial cities. By 1978, Bucharest alone was monitored by 10 electronic surveillance centers, 248 centers scrutinized the provinces, and an additional 1,000 portable surveillance units were moved around to eavesdrop on remote villages and holiday resorts.2

    When, in the late 1970s, Securitate agents discovered that some Romanians were writing anonymous letters to Radio Free Europe criticizing the regime, Ceauşescu orchestrated a nationwide effort to collect handwriting samples from all twenty million Romanian citizens. Schools and universities were forced to hand in essays from every student. Employers had to request each employee to submit a handwritten CV and then forward it to the Securitate. “What about retirees, and the unemployed?” asked one of Ceauşescu’s aides. “Invent some kind of new form!” commanded the dictator. “Something they will have to fill in.” Some of the subversive letters, however, were typed, so Ceauşescu also had every state-owned typewriter in the country registered, with samples filed away in the Securitate archive. People who possessed a private typewriter had to inform the Securitate of it, hand in the typewriter’s “fingerprint,” and ask for official authorization to use it.3

    But Ceauşescu’s regime, just like the Stalinist regime it modeled itself on, could not really follow every citizen twenty-four hours a day. Given that even Securitate agents needed to sleep, it would probably have required at least forty million of them to keep the twenty million Romanian citizens under constant surveillance. Ceauşescu had only about forty thousand Securitate agents.4 And even if Ceauşescu could somehow conjure forty million agents, that would only have presented new problems, because the regime needed to monitor its own agents, too. Like Stalin, Ceauşescu distrusted his own agents and officials more than anyone else, especially after his spy chief—Ion Mihai Pacepa—defected to the United States in 1978. Politburo members, high-ranking officials, army generals, and Securitate chiefs were living under even closer surveillance than Iosifescu. As the ranks of the secret police swelled, more agents were needed to spy on all these agents.5

    One solution was to have people spy on one another. In addition to its 40,000 professional agents, the Securitate relied on 400,000 civilian informers.6 People often informed on their neighbors, colleagues, friends, and even closest family members. But no matter how many informants a secret police employed, gathering all that data was not sufficient to create a total surveillance regime. Suppose the Securitate succeeded in recruiting enough agents and informers to watch everyone twenty-four hours a day. At the end of each day, every agent and informer would have had to compile a report on what they observed. Securitate headquarters would have been flooded by 20 million reports every day—or 7.3 billion reports a year. Unless analyzed, it was just an ocean of paper. Yet where could the Securitate find enough analysts to scrutinize and compare 7.3 billion reports annually?

    These difficulties in gathering and analyzing information meant that in the twentieth century not even the most totalitarian state could effectively monitor its entire population. Most of what Romanian and Soviet citizens did and said escaped the notice of the Securitate and the KGB. Even the details that made it into some archive often languished unread. The real power of the Securitate and the KGB was not an ability to constantly watch everyone, but rather their ability to inspire the fear that they might be watching, which made everyone extremely careful about what they said and did.7

    SLEEPLESS AGENTS

    In a world where surveillance is conducted by the organic eyes, ears, and brains of people like the Securitate agent in Iosifescu’s lab, even a prime target like Iosifescu still had some privacy, first and foremost within his own mind. But the work of computer scientists like Iosifescu himself was changing this. Already in 1976, the crude computer sitting on Iosifescu’s desk could crunch numbers much better than the Securitate agent in the nearby chair. By 2024, we are getting close to the point when a ubiquitous computer network can follow the population of entire countries twenty-four hours a day. This network doesn’t need to hire and train millions of human agents to follow us around; it relies on digital agents instead. And the network doesn’t even need to pay for these digital agents. Citizens pay for the agents on our own initiative, and we carry them with us wherever we go.

    The agent monitoring Iosifescu didn’t accompany Iosifescu into the toilet and didn’t sit on the bed while Iosifescu was having sex. Today, our smartphone sometimes does exactly that. Moreover, many of the activities Iosifescu did without any help from his computer—like reading the news, chatting with friends, or buying food—are now done online, so it is even easier for the network to know what we are doing and saying. We ourselves are the informers that provide the network with our raw data. Even those without smartphones are almost always within the orbit of some camera, microphone, or tracking device, and they too constantly interact with the computer network in order to find work, buy a train ticket, get a medical prescription, or simply walk down the street. The computer network has become the nexus of most human activities. In the middle of almost every financial, social, or political transaction, we now find a computer. Consequently, like Adam and Eve in paradise, we cannot hide from the eye in the clouds.

    Just as the computer network doesn’t need millions of human agents to follow us, it also doesn’t need millions of human analysts to make sense of our data. The ocean of paper in Securitate headquarters never analyzed itself. But thanks to the magic of machine learning and AI, computers can themselves analyze most of the information they accumulate. An average human can read about 250 words per minute.8 A Securitate analyst working twelve-hour shifts without taking any days off, could read about 2.6 billion words during a forty-year career. In 2024 language algorithms like ChatGPT and Meta’s Llama can process millions of words per minute and “read” 2.6 billion words in a couple of hours.9 The ability of such algorithms to process images, audio recordings, and video footage is equally superhuman.

    Even more important, the algorithms far surpass humans in their ability to spot patterns in that ocean of data. Identifying patterns requires both the ability to create ideas and the ability to make decisions. For example, how do human analysts identify someone as a “suspected terrorist” that merits closer attention? First, they create a set of general criteria, such as “reading extremist literature,” “befriending known terrorists,” and “having technical knowledge necessary to produce dangerous weapons.” Then they need to decide whether a particular individual meets enough of these criteria to be labeled a suspected terrorist. Suppose someone watched a hundred extremist videos on YouTube last month, is friends with a convicted terrorist, and is currently pursuing a doctorate in epidemiology in a laboratory containing samples of Ebola virus. Should that person be put on the “suspected terrorists” list? And what about someone who watched fifty extremist videos last month and is a biology undergraduate?

    In Romania of the 1970s only humans could make such decisions. By the 2010s humans were increasingly leaving it to algorithms to decide. Around 2014–15 the U.S. National Security Agency deployed an AI tool called Skynet that placed people on a “suspected terrorists” list based on the electronic patterns of their communications, writings, travel, and social media postings. According to one report, that AI tool “engages in mass surveillance of Pakistan’s mobile phone network, and then uses a machine learning algorithm on the cellular network metadata of 55 million people to try and rate each person’s likelihood of being a terrorist.” A former director of both the CIA and the NSA proclaimed that “we kill people based on metadata.”10 Skynet’s reliability has been severely criticized, but by the 2020s such technology has become far more sophisticated and has been deployed by a lot more governments. Going over massive amounts of data, algorithms can discover completely new criteria for defining someone as “suspect” which have previously escaped the notice of human analysts.11In the future, algorithms could even create an entire new model for how people are radicalized, just by identifying patterns in the lives of known terrorists. Of course, computers remain fallible, as we shall explore in depth in chapter 8. They may well classify innocent people as terrorists or may create a false model for radicalization. At an even more fundamental level, it is questionable whether the systems’ definition of things like terrorism are objective. There is a long history of regimes using the label “terrorist” to cover any and all opposition. In the Soviet Union, anyone who opposed the regime was a terrorist. Consequently, when an AI labels someone a “terrorist” it might reflect ideological biases rather than objective facts. The power to make decisions and invent ideas is inseparable from the capacity to make mistakes. Even if no mistakes are committed, the algorithms’ superhuman ability to recognize patterns in an ocean of data can supercharge the power of numerous malign actors, from repressive dictatorships that seek to identify dissidents to fraudsters who seek to identify vulnerable targets.

    Of course, pattern recognition also has enormous positive potential. Algorithms can help identify corrupt government officials, white-collar criminals, and tax-evading corporations. The algorithms can similarly help flesh-and-blood sanitation officials to spot threats to our drinking water;12 help doctors to discern illnesses and burgeoning epidemics;13 and help police officers and social workers to identify abused spouses and children.14 In the following pages, I dedicate relatively little attention to the positive potential of algorithmic bureaucracies, because the entrepreneurs leading the AI revolution already bombard the public with enough rosy predictions about them. My goal here is to balance these utopian visions by focusing on the more sinister potential of algorithmic pattern recognition. Hopefully, we can harness the positive potential of algorithms while regulating their destructive capacities.

    But to do so, we must first appreciate the fundamental difference between the new digital bureaucrats and their flesh-and-blood predecessors. Inorganic bureaucrats can be “on” twenty-four hours a day and can monitor us and interact with us anywhere, anytime. This means that bureaucracy and surveillance are no longer something we encounter only in specific times and places. The health-care system, the police, and manipulative corporations are all becoming ubiquitous and permanent features of life. Instead of organizations with which we interact only in certain situations—for example, when we visit the clinic, the police station, or the mall—they are increasingly accompanying us every moment of the day, watching and analyzing every single thing that we do. As fish live in water, humans live in a digital bureaucracy, constantly inhaling and exhaling data. Each action we make leaves a trace of data, which is gathered and analyzed to identify patterns.

    UNDER-THE-SKIN SURVEILLANCE

    For better or worse, the digital bureaucracy may not only monitor what we do in the world but even observe what is happening inside our bodies. Take, for example, tracking eye movements. By the early 2020s, CCTV cameras, as well as cameras in laptops and smartphones, have begun to routinely collect and analyze data on the movements of our eyes, including tiny changes to our pupils and irises lasting just a few milliseconds. Human agents are barely capable of even noticing such data, but computers can use it to calculate the direction of our gaze, based on the shape of our pupils and irises and on the patterns of light they reflect. Similar methods can determine whether our eyes are fixating on a stable target, pursuing a moving target, or wandering around more haphazardly.

    From certain patterns of eye movements, computers can then distinguish, for example, moments of awareness from moments of distraction, and detail-oriented people from those who pay more attention to context. Computers could infer from our eyes many additional personality traits, like how open we are to new experiences, and estimate our level of expertise in various fields ranging from reading to surgery. Experts possessing well-honed strategies display systematic gaze patterns, whereas the eyes of novices wander aimlessly. Eye patterns also indicate our levels of interest in the objects and situations we encounter, and distinguish between positive, neutral, and negative interest. From this, it is possible to deduce our preferences in fields ranging from politics to sex. Much can also be known about our medical condition and our use of various substances. The consumption of alcohol and drugs—even at nonintoxicating doses—has measurable effects on eye and gaze properties, such as changes in pupil size and an impaired ability to fixate on moving objects. A digital bureaucracy may use all that information for benign purposes—such as by providing early detection for people suffering from drug abuse and mental illnesses. But it could obviously also form the foundations of the most intrusive totalitarian regimes in history.15

    In theory, the dictators of the future could get their computer network to go much deeper than just watching our eyes. If the network wants to know our political views, personality traits, and sexual orientation, it could monitor processes inside our hearts and brains. The necessary biometric technology is already being developed by some governments and companies, like Elon Musk’s Neuralink. Musk’s company has conducted experiments on live rats, sheep, pigs, and monkeys, implanting electrical probes into their brains. Each probe contains up to 3,072 electrodes capable of identifying electrical signals and potentially transmitting signals to the brain. In 2023, Neuralink received approval from U.S. authorities to begin experiments on human beings, and in January 2024 it was reported that a first brain chip was implanted in a human.

    Musk speaks openly about his far-reaching plans for this technology, arguing that it can not only alleviate various medical conditions such as quadriplegia (four-limb paralysis) but also upgrade human abilities and thereby help humankind compete with AI. But it should be clear that at present the Neuralink probes and all other similar biometric devices suffer from a host of technical problems that greatly limit their capabilities. It is difficult to accurately monitor bodily activities—in the brain, heart, or anywhere else—from outside the body, whereas implanting electrodes and other monitoring devices into the body is intrusive, dangerous, costly, and inefficient. Our immune system, for example, attacks implanted electrodes.16

    Even more crucially, nobody yet has the biological knowledge necessary to deduce things like precise political opinions from under-the-skin data like brain activity.17 Scientists are far from understanding the mysteries of the human brain, or even of the mouse brain. Simply mapping every neuron, dendrite, and synapse in a mouse brain—let alone understanding the dynamics between them—is currently beyond humanity’s computational abilities.18 Accordingly, while gathering data from inside people’s brains is becoming more feasible, using such data to decipher our secrets is far from easy.

    One popular conspiracy theory of the early 2020s argues that sinister groups led by billionaires like Elon Musk are already implanting computer chips into our brains in order to monitor and control us. However, this theory focuses our anxieties on the wrong target. We should of course fear the rise of new totalitarian systems, but it is too soon to worry about computer chips implanted in our brains. People should instead worry about the smartphones on which they read these conspiracy theories. Suppose someone wants to know your political views. Your smartphone monitors which news channels you are watching and notes that you watch on average forty minutes of Fox News and forty seconds of CNN a day. Meanwhile, an implanted Neuralink computer chip monitors your heart rate and brain activity throughout the day and notes that your maximum heart rate was 120 beats per minute and that your amygdala is about 5 percent more active than the human average. Which data would be more useful to guess your political affiliation—the data coming from the smartphone or from the implanted chip?19 At present, the smartphone is still a far more valuable surveillance tool than biometric sensors.

    However, as biological knowledge increases—not least thanks to computers analyzing petabits of biometric data—under-the-skin surveillance might eventually come into its own, especially if it is linked to other monitoring tools. At that point, if biometric sensors register what happens to the heart rate and brain activity of millions of people as they watch a particular news item on their smartphones, that can teach the computer network far more than just our general political affiliation. The network could learn precisely what makes each human angry, fearful, or joyful. The network could then both predict and manipulate our feelings, selling us anything it wants—be it a product, a politician, or a war.20

    THE END OF PRIVACY

    In a world where humans monitored humans, privacy was the default. But in a world where computers monitor humans, it may become possible for the first time in history to completely annihilate privacy. The most extreme and well-known cases of intrusive surveillance involve either exceptional times of emergency, like the COVID-19 pandemic, or places seen as exceptional to the normal order of things, such as the Occupied Palestinian Territories, the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region in China, the region of Kashmir in India, Russian-occupied Crimea, the U.S.-Mexico border, and the Afghanistan-Pakistan borderlands. In these exceptional times and places, new surveillance technologies, combined with draconian laws and heavy police or military presence, have relentlessly monitored and controlled people’s movements, actions, and even feelings.21 What is crucial to realize, though, is that AI-based surveillance tools are being deployed on an enormous scale, and not only in such “states of exception.”22 They are now part and parcel of normal life everywhere. The post-privacy era is taking hold in authoritarian countries ranging from Belarus to Zimbabwe,23 as well as in democratic metropolises like London and New York.

    Whether for good or ill, governments intent on combating crime, suppressing dissent, or countering internal threats (real or imaginary) blanket whole territories with a ubiquitous online and offline surveillance network, equipped with spyware, CCTV cameras, facial recognition and voice recognition software, and vast searchable databases. If a government wishes, its surveillance network can reach everywhere, from markets to places of worship, from schools to private residences. (And while not every government is willing or able to install cameras inside people’s homes, algorithms regularly watch us even in our living rooms, bedrooms and bathrooms via our own computers and smartphones.)

    Governmental surveillance networks also routinely collect biometric data from entire populations, with or without their knowledge. For example, when applying for a passport, more than 140 countries oblige their citizens to provide fingerprints, facial scans, or iris scans.24 When we use our passports to enter a foreign country, that country often demands that we provide it, too, with our fingerprints, facial scans, or iris scans.25 As citizens or tourists walk along the streets of Delhi, Beijing, Seoul, or London, their movements are likely to be recorded. For these cities—and many others around the world—are covered by more than one hundred surveillance cameras on average per square kilometer. Altogether, in 2023 more than one billion CCTV cameras were operative globally, which is about one camera per eight people.26

    Any physical activity a person engages in leaves a data trace. Every purchase made is recorded in some database. Online activities like messaging friends, sharing photos, paying bills, reading news, booking appointments, or ordering taxis can all be recorded as well. The resulting ocean of data can then be analyzed by AI tools to identify unlawful activities, suspicious patterns, missing persons, disease carriers, or political dissidents.

    As with every powerful technology, these tools can be used for either good or bad purposes. Following the storming of the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021, the FBI and other U.S. law enforcement agencies used state-of-the-art surveillance tools to track down and arrest the rioters. As reported in a Washington Post investigation, these agencies relied not only on footage from the CCTV cameras in the Capitol, but also on social media posts, license plate readers throughout the country, cell-tower location records, and preexisting databases.

    One Ohio man wrote on Facebook that he had been in Washington that day to “witness history.” A subpoena was issued to Facebook, which provided the FBI with the man’s Facebook posts, as well as his credit card information and phone number. This helped the FBI to match the man’s driver’s license photo to CCTV footage from the Capitol. Another warrant issued to Google yielded the exact geolocation of the man’s smartphone on January 6, enabling agents to map his every movement from his entry point into the Senate chamber all the way to the office of Nancy Pelosi, the speaker of the House of Representatives.

    Relying on license plate footage, the FBI pinpointed the movements of a New York man from the moment he crossed the Henry Hudson Bridge at 6:06:08 on the morning of January 6, on his way to the Capitol, until he crossed the George Washington Bridge at 23:59:22 that night, on his way back home. An image taken by a camera on Interstate 95 showed an oversized “Make America Great Again” hat on the man’s dashboard. The hat was matched to a Facebook selfie in which the man appeared wearing it. He further incriminated himself with several videos he posted to Snapchat from within the Capitol.

    Another rioter sought to protect himself from detection by wearing a face mask on January 6, avoiding live-streaming, and using a cellphone registered in his mother’s name—but it availed him little. The FBI’s algorithms managed to match video footage from January 6, 2021, to a photo from the man’s 2017 passport application. They also matched a distinctive Knights of Columbus jacket he wore on January 6 to the jacket he wore on a different occasion, which was captured in a YouTube clip. The phone registered in his mother’s name was geolocated to inside the Capitol, and a license plate reader recorded his car near the Capitol on the morning of January 6.27

    Facial recognition algorithms and AI-searchable databases are now standard tools of police forces all over the world. They are deployed not only in cases of national emergencies or for reasons of state security, but for everyday policing tasks. In 2009, a criminal gang abducted the three-year-old Gui Hao while he was playing outside his parents’ shop in Sichuan province, China. The boy was then sold to a family in Guangdong province, about 1,500 kilometers away. In 2014, the leader of the child-trafficking gang was arrested, but it proved impossible to locate Gui Hao and other victims. “The appearance of the children would have changed so much,” explained a police investigator, “that even their parents would not have been able to recognize them”.

    In 2019, however, a facial recognition algorithm managed to identify the now thirteen-year-old Gui Hao, and the teenager was reunited with his family. To correctly identify Gui Hao, the AI relied on an old photograph of his, taken when he was a toddler. The AI simulated what Gui Hao must look like as a thirteen-year-old, taking into account the drastic impact of maturation as well as potential changes in hair color and hairstyle and compared the resulting simulation to real-life footage.

    In 2023, even more remarkable rescues were reported. Yuechuan Lei was abducted in 2001 when he was three years old, and Hao Chen went missing in 1998, also at age three. The parents of both children never gave up hope of finding them. For more than twenty years they crisscrossed China in search of them, placed advertisements, and offered monetary rewards for any relevant information. In 2023, facial recognition algorithms helped locate both missing boys, now adult men in their twenties. Such technology currently helps to find lost children not only in China, but also in other countries like India, where tens of thousands of children go missing every year.28

    Meanwhile, in Denmark, the soccer club Brøndby IF began in July 2019 to use facial recognition technology in its home stadium to identify and ban football hooligans. As up to 30,000 fans stream into the stadium to watch a match, they are asked to remove masks, hats, and glasses so a computer can scan their faces and compare them to a list of banned troublemakers. Crucially, the procedure has been vetted and approved in accordance with the EU’s strict GDPR rules. The Danish Data Protection Authority explained that the use of the technology “would allow for more effective enforcement of the ban list compared to manual checks, and that this could reduce the queues at the stadium entrance, lowering the risk of public unrest from impatient football fans standing in queues.”29

    While such usages of technology are laudable in theory, they raise obvious concerns about privacy and governmental overreach. In the wrong hands, the same techniques that can locate rioters, rescue missing children, and ban football hooligans can also be used to persecute peaceful demonstrators or enforce rigid conformism. Ultimately, AI-powered surveillance technology could result in the creation of total surveillance regimes that monitor citizens around the clock and facilitate new kinds of ubiquitous and automated totalitarian repression. A case in point: Iran’s hijab laws.

    After Iran became an Islamic theocracy in 1979, the new regime made it compulsory for women to wear the hijab. But the Iranian morality police found it difficult to enforce this rule. They couldn’t place a police officer on every street corner, and public confrontations with women who went unveiled occasionally aroused resistance and resentment. In 2022, Iran relegated much of the job of enforcing the hijab laws to a countrywide system of facial recognition algorithms that relentlessly monitor both physical spaces and online environments.30 A top Iranian official explained that the system would “identify inappropriate and unusual movements” including “failure to observe hijab laws.” The head of Iran’s parliamentary legal and judicial committee, Mousa Ghazanfarabadi, said in another interview that “the use of face recording cameras can systematically implement this task and reduce the presence of the police, as a result of which there will be no more clashes between the police and citizens.”31

    Shortly afterward, on September 16, 2022, the 22-year-old Mahsa Amini died in the custody of Iran’s morality police, after being arrested for not wearing her hijab properly.32 A wave of protests erupted, known as the “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement. Hundreds of thousands of women and girls removed their headscarves, and some publicly burned their hijabs, and danced around the bonfires. To clamp down on the protests, Iranian authorities once again turned to their AI surveillance system, which relies on facial recognition software, geolocation, analysis of web traffic, and preexisting databases. More than 19,000 people were arrested throughout Iran, and more than 500 were killed.33

    On April 8, 2023, Iran’s chief of police announced that beginning on April 15, 2023, an intense new campaign would ramp up the use of facial recognition technology. In particular, algorithms would henceforth identify women who choose not to wear a headscarf while travelling in a vehicle, and automatically issue them an SMS warning. If a woman was caught repeating the offense, she would be ordered to immobilize her car for a predetermined period, and if she failed to comply, the car would be confiscated.34

    Two months later, on June 14, 2023, the spokesperson of Iran’s police boasted that the automated surveillance system sent almost one million SMS warning messages to women who had been captured unveiled in their private cars. The system was apparently able to automatically determine that it was seeing an unveiled woman rather than a man, identify the woman, and retrieve her cellphone number. The system further “issued 133,174 SMS messages requiring the immobilization of vehicles for two weeks, confiscated 2,000 cars, and referred more than 4,000 ‘repeat offenders’ to the judiciary.”35

    A 52-year-old woman named Maryam shared with Amnesty International her experience with the surveillance system. “The first time I received a warning for not wearing a headscarf while driving, I was passing through an intersection when a camera captured a photo and I immediately received a warning text message. The second time, I had done some shopping, and I was bringing the bags into the car, my scarf fell off, and I received a message noting that due to violating compulsory veiling laws, my car had been subjected to ‘systematic impoundment’ for a period of fifteen days. I did not know what this meant. I asked around and found out through relatives that this meant I had to immobilize my car for fifteen days.”36 Maryam’s testimony indicates that the AI sends its threatening messages within seconds, with no time for any human to review and authorize the procedure.

    Penalties went far beyond the immobilization or confiscation of vehicles. The Amnesty report from July 26, 2023, revealed that as a result of the mass surveillance effort “countless women have been suspended or expelled from universities, barred from sitting final exams, and denied access to banking services and public transport.”37 Businesses that didn’t enforce the hijab law among their employees or customers also suffered. In one typical case, a woman employee at the Land of Happiness amusement park east of Tehran was photographed without a hijab, and the image circulated on social media. In punishment, the Land of Happiness was closed down by Iranian authorities.38 Altogether, reported Amnesty, the authorities “shut down hundreds of tourist attractions, hotels, restaurants, pharmacies and shopping centres for not enforcing compulsory veiling laws”.39

    In September 2023, on the anniversary of Mahsa Amini’s death, Iran’s parliament passed a new and stricter hijab bill. According to the new law, women who fail to wear the hijab can be punished by heavy fines and up to ten years in prison. They face additional penalties including confiscation of cars and communication devices, driving bans, deductions in salary and employment benefits, dismissal from work, and prohibition from access banking services. Business owners who don’t enforce the hijab law among their employees or customers face a fine of up to three months of their profits, and they may be banned from leaving the country or participating in public or online activities for up to two years. The new bill targets not only women, but also men who wear “revealing clothing that shows parts of the body lower than the chest or above the ankles.” Finally, the law mandates that Iranian police must “create and strengthen AI systems to identify perpetrators of illegal behavior using tools such as fixed and mobile cameras.”40 In coming years, many people might be living under total surveillance regimes that would make Ceauşescu’s Romania look like a libertarian utopia.

    VARIETIES OF SURVEILLANCE

    When talking about surveillance, we usually think of state-run apparatuses, but to understand surveillance in the twenty-first century, we should remember that monitoring can take many other forms. Jealous partners, for example, have always wanted to know where their spouses were at every moment and demanded explanations for any little deviation from routines. Today, armed with a smartphone and some cheap software, they can easily establish marital dictatorships. They can monitor every conversation and every movement, record phone logs, track social media posts and web page searches, and even activate the cameras and microphones of a spouse’s phone to serve as a spying device. The U.S.-based National Network to End Domestic Violence found that more than half of domestic abusers used such “stalkware” technology. Even in New York a spouse may find themselves monitored and restricted, as if they lived in a totalitarian state.41

    A growing percentage of employees—from office workers to truck drivers—are also now being surveilled by their employers. Bosses can pinpoint where employees are at any moment, how much time they spend in the toilet, whether they read personal emails at work, and how fast they complete each task.42 Corporations are similarly monitoring their customers, wanting to know their likes and dislikes, to predict future behavior, and to evaluate risks and opportunities. For example, vehicles monitor their drivers’ behavior and share the data with the algorithms of the insurance companies, which raise the premiums they charge “bad drivers” and lower the premiums for “good drivers.”43 The American scholar Shoshana Zuboff has termed this ever-expanding commercial monitoring system “surveillance capitalism.”44

    In addition to all these varieties of top-down surveillance, there are peer-to-peer systems in which individuals constantly monitor one another. For example, the Tripadvisor corporation maintains a worldwide surveillance system that monitors hotels, vacation rentals, restaurants, and tourists. In 2019, it was used by 463 million travelers who browsed 859 million reviews and 8.6 billion lodgings, restaurants, and tourist attractions. It is the users themselves—rather than some sophisticated AI algorithm—who determine whether a restaurant is worth visiting. People who ate in the restaurant can score it on a 1 to 5 scale, and also add photos and written reviews. The Tripadvisor algorithm merely aggregates the data, calculates the restaurant’s average score, ranks the restaurant compared with others of its kind, and makes the results available for everybody to see.

    The algorithm simultaneously ranks the guests, too. For posting reviews or travel articles, users receive 100 points; for uploading photos or videos, 30 points; for posting in a forum, 20 points; for rating establishments, 5 points; and for casting votes for others’ reviews, 1 point. Users are then ranked from Level 1 (300 points) to Level 6 (10,000 points) and receive perks accordingly. Users who violate the system’s rules—for example, by submitting racist comments or trying to blackmail a restaurant by writing an unjustified bad review—may be penalized or kicked out of the system altogether. This is peer-to-peer surveillance. Everybody is constantly grading everybody else. Tripadvisor doesn’t need to invest in cameras and spyware or develop hyper-sophisticated biometric algorithms. Almost all the data is submitted and almost all the work is done by millions of human users. The job of the Tripadvisor algorithm is only to aggregate human-generated scores and publish them.45

    Tripadvisor and similar peer-to-peer surveillance systems provide valuable information for millions of people every day, making it easier to plan vacations and find good hotels and restaurants. But in doing so, they have also shifted the border between private and public spaces. Traditionally, the relationship between the customer and a waiter, say, was a relatively private affair. Entering a bistro meant entering a semiprivate space and establishing a semiprivate relationship with the waiter. Unless some crime was committed, what happened between guest and waiter was their business alone. If the waiter was rude or made a racist remark, you could make a scene and perhaps tell your friends not to go there, but few other people would hear about it.

    Peer-to-peer surveillance networks have obliterated that sense of privacy. If the staff fails to please a customer, the restaurant will get a bad review, which could affect the decision of thousands of potential customers in coming years. For better or worse, the balance of power tilts in favor of the customers, while the staff find themselves more exposed than before to the public gaze. As the author and journalist Linda Kinstler put it, “Before Tripadvisor, the customer was only nominally king. After, he became a veritable tyrant, with the power to make or break lives.”46 The same loss of privacy is felt today by millions of taxi drivers, barbers, beauticians, and other service providers. In the past, stepping into a taxi or barbershop meant stepping into someone’s private space. Now, when customers come into your taxi or barbershop, they bring cameras, microphones, a surveillance network, and thousands of potential viewers with them.47 This is the foundation of a nongovernmental peer-to-peer surveillance network.

    THE SOCIAL CREDIT SYSTEM

    Peer-to-peer surveillance systems typically operate by aggregating many points to determine an overall score. Another type of surveillance network takes this “score logic” to its ultimate conclusion. This is the social credit system, which seeks to give people points for everything and produce an overall personal score that will influence everything. The last time humans came up with such an ambitious points system was five thousand years ago in Mesopotamia, when money was invented. One way to think of the social credit system is as a new kind of money.

    Money is points that people accumulate by selling certain products and services, and then use to buy other products and services. Some countries call their “points” dollars, whereas other countries call them euros, yen, or renminbi. The points can take the form of coins, banknotes, or bits in a digital bank account. The points themselves are, of course, intrinsically worthless. You cannot eat coins or wear banknotes. Their value lies in the fact that they serve as accounting tokens that society uses to keep track of our individual scores.

    Money revolutionized economic relations, social interactions, and human psychology. But like surveillance, money has had its limitations and could not reach everywhere. Even in the most capitalist societies, there have always been places that money didn’t penetrate, and there have always been many things that lacked a monetary value. How much is a smile worth? How much money does a person earn for visiting their grandparents?48

    For scoring those things that money can’t buy, there was an alternative nonmonetary system, which has been given different names: honor, status, reputation. What social credit systems seek is a standardized valuation of the reputation market. Social credit is a new points system that ascribes precise values even to smiles and family visits. To appreciate how revolutionary and far-reaching this is, let’s examine in brief how the reputation market has hitherto differed from the money market. This will help us understand what might happen to social relations if the principles of the money market are suddenly extended to the reputation market.

    One major difference between money and reputation is that money has tended to be a mathematical construct based on precise calculations, whereas the sphere of reputation has been resistant to precise numerical evaluation. For example, medieval aristocrats graded themselves in hierarchical ranks such as dukes, counts, and viscounts, but nobody was counting reputation points. Customers in a medieval market usually knew how many coins they had in their purses and the price of every product in the stalls. In the money market, no coin goes uncounted. In contrast, knights in a medieval reputational market didn’t know the exact amount of honor that different actions might accrue, nor could they be sure of their overall score. Would fighting bravely in battle bring a knight 10 honor points, or 100? And what if nobody saw and recorded their bravery? Indeed, even assuming it was noticed, different people might assign it different values. This lack of precision wasn’t a bug in the system but a crucial feature. “Calculating” was a synonym for cunning and scheming. Acting honorably was supposed to reflect an inner virtue, rather than a pursuit of external rewards.49

    This difference between the scrupulous money market and the ill-defined reputation market still prevails. The owner of a bistro always notices and complains if you don’t pay for your meal in full; every item on the menu has a precise price. But how would the owner even know if society failed to register some good deed they performed? Whom could they complain to if they weren’t properly rewarded for helping an elderly customer or for being extra patient with a rude customer? In some cases, they might now try complaining to Tripadvisor, which collapses the boundary between the money market and the reputation market, turning the fuzzy reputation of restaurants and hotels into a mathematical system of precise points. The idea of social credit is to expand this surveillance method from restaurants and hotels to everything. In the most extreme type of social credit systems, every person gets an overall reputation score that takes into account whatever they do and determines everything they can do.

    For example, you might earn 10 points for picking up trash from the street, get another 20 points for helping an old lady cross the road, and lose 15 points for playing the drums and disturbing the neighbors. If you get a high enough score, it might give you priority when buying train tickets or a leg up when applying to university. If you get a low score, potential employers may refuse to give you a job, and potential dates may refuse your advances. Insurance companies may demand higher premiums, and judges may inflict harsher sentences.

    Some people might see social credit systems as a way to reward pro-social behavior, punish egotistical acts, and create kinder and more harmonious societies. The Chinese government, for example, explains that its social credit systems could help fight corruption, scams, tax evasion, false advertising, and counterfeiting, and thereby establish more trust between individuals, between consumers and corporations, and between citizens and government institutions.50 Others may find systems that allocate precise values to every social action demeaning and inhuman. Even worse, a comprehensive social credit system will annihilate privacy and effectively turn life into a never-ending job interview. Anything you do, anytime, anywhere, might affect your chances of getting a job, a bank loan, a husband, or a prison sentence. You got drunk at a college party and did something legal but shameful? You participated in a political demonstration? You’re friends with someone who has a low credit score? This will be part of your job interview—or criminal sentencing—both in the short term and even decades later. The social credit system might thereby become a totalitarian control system.

    Of course, the reputation market always controlled people and made them conform to the prevailing social norms. In most societies people have always feared losing face even more than they have feared losing money. Many more people commit suicide due to shame and guilt than due to economic distress. Even when people kill themselves after being fired from their job or after their business goes bankrupt, they are usually pushed over the edge by the social humiliation it involves rather than by the economic hardship per se.51

    But the uncertainty and the subjectivity of the reputation market have previously limited its potential for totalitarian control. Since nobody knew the precise value of each social interaction, and since nobody could possibly keep tabs on all interactions, there was significant room for maneuver. When you went to a college party, you might have behaved in a way that earned the respect of your friends, without worrying what future employers might think. When you went to a job interview, you knew none of your friends would be there. And when you were watching pornography at home, you assumed that neither your bosses nor your friends knew what you were up to. Life has been divided into separate reputational spheres, with separate status competitions, and there were also many off-grid moments when you didn’t have to engage in any status competitions at all. Precisely because status competition is so crucial, it is also extremely stressful. Therefore, not only humans but even other social animals like apes have always welcomed some respite from it.52

    Unfortunately, social credit algorithms combined with ubiquitous surveillance technology now threaten to merge all status competitions into a single never-ending race. Even in their own homes or while trying to enjoy a relaxed vacation, people would have to be extremely careful about every deed and word, as if they were performing onstage in front of millions. This could create an incredibly stressful lifestyle, destructive to people’s well-being as well as to the functioning of society. If digital bureaucrats use a precise points system to keep tabs on everybody all the time, the emerging reputation market could annihilate privacy and control people far more tightly than the money market ever did.

    ALWAYS ON

    Humans are organic beings who live by cyclical biological time. Sometimes we are awake; sometimes we are asleep. After intense activity, we need rest. We grow and decay. Networks of humans are similarly subject to biological cycles. They are sometimes on and sometimes off. Job interviews don’t last forever. Police agents don’t work twenty-four hours a day. Bureaucrats take holidays. Even the money market respects these biological cycles. The New York Stock Exchange is open on Mondays to Fridays, from 9:30 in the morning to 4:00 in the afternoon, and is closed on holidays like Independence Day and New Year’s Day. If a war erupts at 4:01 p.m. on a Friday, the market won’t react to it until Monday morning.

    In contrast, a network of computers can always be on. Computers are consequently pushing humans toward a new kind of existence in which we are always connected and always monitored. In some contexts, like health care, this could be a boon. In other contexts, like for citizens of totalitarian states, this could be a disaster. Even if the network is potentially benign, the very fact that it is always “on” might be damaging to organic entities like humans, because it will take away our opportunities to disconnect and relax. If an organism never has a chance to rest, it eventually collapses and dies. But how will we get a relentless network to slow down and allow us some breaks?

    We need to prevent the computer network from taking complete control of society not just in order to give us time off. Breaks are even more crucial to give us a chance to rectify the network. If the network continues to evolve at an accelerating pace, errors will accumulate much faster than we can identify and correct them. For while the network is relentless and ubiquitous, it is also fallible. Yes, computers can gather unprecedented amounts of data on us, watching what we do twenty-four hours a day. And yes, they can identify patterns in the ocean of data with superhuman efficiency. But that does not mean that the computer network will always understand the world accurately. Information isn’t truth. A total surveillance system may form a very distorted understanding of the world and of human beings. Instead of discovering the truth about the world and about us, the network might use its immense power to create a new kind of world order and impose it on us.

    CHAPTER 8 Fallible: The Network Is Often Wrong

    In The Gulag Archipelago (1973), Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn chronicles the history of the Soviet labor camps and of the information network that created and sustained them. He was writing partly from bitter personal experience. When Solzhenitsyn served as a captain in the Red Army during World War II, he maintained a private correspondence with a school friend in which he occasionally criticized Stalin. To be on the safe side, he did not mention the dictator by name and spoke only about “the man with the mustache.” It availed him little. His letters were intercepted and read by the secret police, and in February 1945, while serving on the front line in Germany, he was arrested. He spent the next eight years in labor camps.1 Many of Solzhenitsyn’s hard-won insights and stories are still relevant to understanding the development of information networks in the twenty-first century.

    One story recounts events at a district party conference in Moscow Province in the late 1930s, at the height of the Stalinist Great Terror. A call was made to pay tribute to Stalin, and the audience—who of course knew that they were being carefully watched—burst into applause. After five minutes of applause, “palms were getting sore and raised arms were already aching. And the older people were panting from exhaustion.… However, who would dare be the first to stop?” Solzhenitsyn explains that “NKVD men were standing in the hall applauding and watching to see who quit first!” It went on and on, for six minutes, then eight, then ten. “They couldn’t stop now till they collapsed with heart attacks! … With make-believe enthusiasm on their faces, looking at each other with faint hope, the district leaders were just going to go on and on applauding till they fell where they stood.”

    Finally, after eleven minutes, the director of a paper factory took his life in his hands, stopped clapping, and sat down. Everyone else immediately stopped clapping and also sat down. That same night, the secret police arrested him and sent him to the gulag for ten years. “His interrogator reminded him: Don’t ever be the first to stop applauding!”2

    This story reveals a crucial and disturbing fact about information networks, and in particular about surveillance systems. As discussed in previous chapters, contrary to the naive view, information is often used to create order rather than discover truth. On the face of it, Stalin’s agents in the Moscow conference used the “clapping test” as a way to uncover the truth about the audience. It was a loyalty test, which assumed that the longer you clapped, the more you loved Stalin. In many contexts, this assumption is not unreasonable. But in the context of Moscow in the late 1930s, the nature of the applause changed. Since participants in the conference knew they were being watched, and since they knew the consequences of any hint of disloyalty, they clapped out of terror rather than love. The paper factory director might have been the first to stop not because he was the least loyal but perhaps because he was the most honest, or even simply because his hands hurt the most.

    While the clapping test didn’t discover the truth about people, it was efficient in imposing order and forcing people to behave in a certain way. Over time, such methods cultivated servility, hypocrisy, and cynicism. This is what the Soviet information network did to hundreds of millions of people over decades. In quantum mechanics the act of observing subatomic particles changes their behavior; it is the same with the act of observing humans. The more powerful our tools of observation, the greater the potential impact.

    The Soviet regime constructed one of the most formidable information networks in history. It gathered and processed enormous amounts of data on its citizens. It also claimed that the infallible theories of Marx, Engels, Lenin, and Stalin granted it a deep understanding of humanity. In fact, the Soviet information network ignored many important aspects of human nature, and it was in complete denial regarding the terrible suffering its policies inflicted on its own citizens. Instead of producing wisdom, it produced order, and instead of revealing the universal truth about humans, it actually created a new type of human—Homo sovieticus.

    As defined by the dissident Soviet philosopher and satirist Aleksandr Zinovyev, Homo sovieticus were servile and cynical humans, lacking all initiative or independent thinking, passively obeying even the most ludicrous orders, and indifferent to the results of their actions.3 The Soviet information network created Homo sovieticus through surveillance, punishments, and rewards. For example, by sending the director of the paper factory to the gulag, the network signaled to the other participants that conformity paid off, whereas being the first to do anything controversial was a bad idea. Though the network failed to discover the truth about humans, it was so good at creating order that it conquered much of the world.

    THE DICTATORSHIP OF THE LIKE

    An analogous dynamic may afflict the computer networks of the twenty-first century, which might create new types of humans and new dystopias. A paradigmatic example is the role played by social media algorithms in radicalizing people. Of course, the methods employed by the algorithms have been utterly different from those of the NKVD and involved no direct coercion or violence. But just as the Soviet secret police created the slavish Homo sovieticus through surveillance, rewards, and punishments, so also the Facebook and YouTube algorithms have created internet trolls by rewarding certain base instincts while punishing the better angels of our nature.

    As explained briefly in chapter 6, the process of radicalization started when corporations tasked their algorithms with increasing user engagement, not only in Myanmar, but throughout the world. For example, in 2012 users were watching about 100 million hours of videos every day on YouTube. That was not enough for company executives, who set their algorithms an ambitious goal: 1 billion hours a day by 2016.4 Through trial-and-error experiments on millions of people, the YouTube algorithms discovered the same pattern that Facebook algorithms also learned: outrage drives engagement up, while moderation tends not to. Accordingly, the YouTube algorithms began recommending outrageous conspiracy theories to millions of viewers while ignoring more moderate content. By 2016, users were indeed watching 1 billion hours every day on YouTube.5

    YouTubers who were particularly intent on gaining attention noticed that when they posted an outrageous video full of lies, the algorithm rewarded them by recommending the video to numerous users and increasing the YouTubers’ popularity and income. In contrast, when they dialed down the outrage and stuck to the truth, the algorithm tended to ignore them. Within a few months of such reinforcement learning, the algorithm turned many YouTubers into trolls.6

    The social and political consequences were far-reaching. For example, as the journalist Max Fisher documented in his 2022 book, The Chaos Machine, YouTube algorithms became an important engine for the rise of the Brazilian far right and for turning Jair Bolsonaro from a fringe figure into Brazil’s president.7 While there were other factors contributing to that political upheaval, it is notable that many of Bolsonaro’s chief supporters and aides had originally been YouTubers who rose to fame and power by algorithmic grace.

    A typical example is Carlos Jordy, who in 2017 was a city councilor in the small town of Niterói. The ambitious Jordy gained national attention by creating inflammatory YouTube videos that garnered millions of views. His videos warned Brazilians, for example, against conspiracies by schoolteachers to brainwash children and persecute conservative pupils. In 2018, Jordy won a seat in the Brazilian Chamber of Deputies (the lower house of the Brazilian Congress) as one of Bolsonaro’s most dedicated supporters. In an interview with Fisher, Jordy frankly said, “If social media didn’t exist, I wouldn’t be here [and] Jair Bolsonaro wouldn’t be president.” The latter claim may well be a self-serving exaggeration, but there is no denying that social media played an important part in Bolsonaro’s rise.

    Another YouTuber who won a seat in Brazil’s Chamber of Deputies in 2018 was Kim Kataguiri, one of the leaders of the Movimento Brasil Livre (MBL, or Free Brazil Movement). Kataguiri initially used Facebook as his main platform, but his posts were too extreme even for Facebook, which banned some of them for disinformation. So Kataguiri switched over to the more permissive YouTube. In an interview in the MBL headquarters in São Paulo, Kataguiri’s aides and other activists explained to Fisher, “We have something here that we call the dictatorship of the like.” They explained that YouTubers tend to become steadily more extreme, posting untruthful and reckless content “just because something is going to give you views, going to give engagement.… Once you open that door there’s no going back, because you always have to go further.… Flat Earthers, anti-vaxxers, conspiracy theories in politics. It’s the same phenomenon. You see it everywhere.”8

    Of course, the YouTube algorithms were not themselves responsible for inventing lies and conspiracy theories or for creating extremist content. At least in 2017–18, those things were done by humans. The algorithms were responsible, however, for incentivizing humans to behave in such ways and for pushing the resulting content in order to maximize user engagement. Fisher documented numerous far-right activists who first became interested in extremist politics after watching videos that the YouTube algorithm auto-played for them. One far-right activist in Niterói told Fisher that he was never interested in politics of any kind, until one day the YouTube algorithm auto-played for him a video on politics by Kataguiri. “Before that,” he explained, “I didn’t have an ideological, political background.” He credited the algorithm with providing “my political education.” Talking about how other people joined the movement, he said, “It was like that with everyone.… Most of the people here came from YouTube and social media.”9

    BLAME THE HUMANS

    We have reached a turning point in history in which major historical processes are partly caused by the decisions of nonhuman intelligence. It is this that makes the fallibility of the computer network so dangerous. Computer errors become potentially catastrophic only when computers become historical agents. We have already made this argument in chapter 6, when we briefly examined Facebook’s role in instigating the anti-Rohingya ethnic-cleansing campaign. As noted in that context, however, many people—including some of the managers and engineers of Facebook, YouTube, and the other tech giants—object to this argument. Since it is one of the central points of the entire book, it is best to delve deeper into the matter and examine more carefully the objections to it.

    The people who manage Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, and other platforms routinely try to excuse themselves by shifting the blame from their algorithms to “human nature.” They argue that it is human nature that produces all the hate and lies on the platforms. The tech giants then claim that due to their commitment to free speech values, they hesitate to censor the expression of genuine human emotions. For example, in 2019 the CEO of YouTube, Susan Wojcicki, explained, “The way that we think about it is: ‘Is this content violating one of our policies? Has it violated anything in terms of hate, harassment?’ If it has, we remove that content. We keep tightening and tightening the policies. We also get criticism, just to be clear, [about] where do you draw the lines of free speech and, if you draw it too tightly, are you removing voices of society that should be heard? We’re trying to strike a balance of enabling a broad set of voices, but also making sure that those voices play by a set of rules that are healthy conversations for society.”10

    A Facebook spokesperson similarly said in October 2021, “Like every platform, we are constantly making difficult decisions between free expressions and harmful speech, security and other issues.… But drawing these societal lines is always better left to elected leaders.”11 In this way, the tech giants constantly shift the discussion to their supposed role as moderators of human-produced content and ignore the active role their algorithms play in cultivating certain human emotions and discouraging others. Are they really blind to it?

    Surely not. Back in 2016, an internal Facebook report discovered that “64 percent of all extremist group joins are due to our recommendation tools.… Our recommendation systems grow the problem.”12 A secret internal Facebook memo from August 2019, leaked by the whistleblower Frances Haugen, stated, “We have evidence from a variety of sources that hate speech, divisive political speech, and misinformation on Facebook and [its] family of apps are affecting societies around the world. We also have compelling evidence that our core product mechanics, such as virality, recommendations, and optimizing for engagement, are a significant part of why these types of speech flourish on the platform.”13

    Another leaked document from December 2019 noted, “Unlike communication with close friends and family, virality is something new we have introduced to many ecosystems … and it occurs because we intentionally encourage it for business reasons.” The document pointed out that “ranking content about higher stakes topics like health or politics based on engagement leads to perverse incentives and integrity issues.” Perhaps most damningly, it revealed, “Our ranking systems have specific separate predictions for not just what you would engage with, but what we think you may pass along so that others may engage with. Unfortunately, research has shown how outrage and misinformation are more likely to be viral.” This leaked document made one crucial recommendation: since Facebook cannot remove everything harmful from a platform used by many millions, it should at least “stop magnifying harmful content by giving it unnatural distribution.”14

    Like the Soviet leaders in Moscow, the tech companies were not uncovering some truth about humans; they were imposing on us a perverse new order. Humans are very complex beings, and benign social orders seek ways to cultivate our virtues while curtailing our negative tendencies. But social media algorithms see us, simply, as an attention mine. The algorithms reduced the multifaceted range of human emotions—hate, love, outrage, joy, confusion—into a single catchall category: engagement. In Myanmar in 2016, in Brazil in 2018, and in numerous other countries, the algorithms scored videos, posts, and all other content solely according to how many minutes people engaged with the content and how many times they shared it with others. An hour of lies or hatred was ranked higher than ten minutes of truth or compassion—or an hour of sleep. The fact that lies and hate tend to be psychologically and socially destructive, whereas truth, compassion, and sleep are essential for human welfare, was completely lost on the algorithms. Based on this very narrow understanding of humanity, the algorithms helped to create a new social system that encouraged our basest instincts while discouraging us from realizing the full spectrum of the human potential.

    As the harmful effects were becoming manifest, the tech giants were repeatedly warned about what was happening, but they failed to step in because of their faith in the naive view of information. As the platforms were overrun by falsehoods and outrage, executives hoped that if more people were enabled to express themselves more freely, truth would eventually prevail. This, however, did not happen. As we have seen again and again throughout history, in a completely free information fight, truth tends to lose. To tilt the balance in favor of truth, networks must develop and maintain strong self-correcting mechanisms that reward truth telling. These self-correcting mechanisms are costly, but if you want to get the truth, you must invest in them.

    Silicon Valley thought it was exempt from this historical rule. Social media platforms have been singularly lacking in self-correcting mechanisms. In 2014, Facebook employed just a single Burmese-speaking content moderator to monitor activities in the whole of Myanmar.15 When observers in Myanmar began warning Facebook that it needed to invest more in moderating content, Facebook ignored them. For example, Pwint Htun, a Burmese American engineer and telecom executive who grew up in rural Myanmar, wrote to Facebook executives repeatedly about the danger. In an email from July 5, 2014—two years before the ethnic-cleansing campaign began—she issued a prophetic warning: “Tragically, FB in Burma is used like radio in Rwanda during the dark days of genocide.” Facebook took no action.

    Even after the attacks on the Rohingya intensified and Facebook faced a storm of criticism, it still refused to hire people with expert local knowledge to curate content. Thus, when informed that hate-mongers in Myanmar were using the Burmese word kalar as a racist slur for the Rohingya, Facebook reacted in April 2017 by banning from the platform any posts that used the word. This revealed Facebook’s utter lack of knowledge about local conditions and the Burmese language. In Burmese, kalar is a racist slur only in specific contexts. In other contexts, it is an entirely innocent term. The Burmese word for chair is kalar htaing, and the word for chickpea is kalar pae. As Pwint Htun wrote to Facebook in June 2017, banning the term kalar from the platform is like banning the letters “hell” from “hello.”16 Facebook continued to ignore the need for local expertise. By April 2018, the number of Burmese speakers Facebook employed to moderate content for its eighteen million users in Myanmar was a grand total of five.17

    Instead of investing in self-correcting mechanisms that would reward truth telling, the social media giants actually developed unprecedented error-enhancing mechanisms that rewarded lies and fictions. One such error-enhancing mechanism was the Instant Articles program that Facebook rolled out in Myanmar in 2016. Wishing to drive up engagement, Facebook paid news channels according to the amount of user engagement they generated, measured in clicks and views. No importance whatsoever was given to the truthfulness of the “news.” A 2021 study found that in 2015, before the program was launched, six of the ten top Facebook websites in Myanmar belonged to “legitimate media.” By 2017, under the impact of Instant Articles, “legitimate media” was down to just two websites out of the top ten. By 2018, all top ten websites were “fake news and clickbait websites.”

    The study concluded that because of the launch of Instant Articles “clickbait actors cropped up in Myanmar overnight. With the right recipe for producing engaging and evocative content, they could generate thousands of US dollars a month in ad revenue, or ten times the average monthly salary—paid to them directly by Facebook.” Since Facebook was by far the most important source of online news in Myanmar, this had enormous impact on the overall media landscape of the country. “In a country where Facebook is synonymous with the Internet, the low-grade content overwhelmed other information sources.”18 Facebook and other social media platforms didn’t consciously set out to flood the world with fake news and outrage. But by telling their algorithms to maximize user engagement, this is exactly what they perpetrated.

    Reflecting on the Myanmar tragedy, Pwint Htun wrote to me in July 2023, “I naively used to believe that social media could elevate human consciousness and spread the perspective of common humanity through interconnected pre-frontal cortexes in billions of human beings. What I realize is that the social media companies are not incentivized to interconnect pre-frontal cortexes. Social media companies are incentivized to create interconnected limbic systems—which is much more dangerous for humanity.”

    THE ALIGNMENT PROBLEM

    I don’t want to imply that the spread of fake news and conspiracy theories is the main problem with all past, present, and future computer networks. YouTube, Facebook, and other social media platforms claim that since 2018 they have been tweaking their algorithms to make them more socially responsible. Whether this is true or not is hard to say, especially because there is no universally accepted definition of “social responsibility.”19 But the specific problem of polluting the information sphere in pursuit of user engagement can certainly be solved. When the tech giants set their hearts on designing better algorithms, they can usually do it. Around 2005, the profusion of spam threatened to make the use of email impossible. Powerful algorithms were developed to address the problem. By 2015, Google claimed its Gmail algorithm had a 99.9 percent success in blocking genuine spam, while only 1 percent of legitimate emails were erroneously labeled as such.20

    We also shouldn’t discount the huge social benefits that YouTube, Facebook, and other social media platforms have brought. To be clear, most YouTube videos and Facebook posts have not been fake news and genocidal incitements. Social media has been more than helpful in connecting people, giving voice to previously disenfranchised groups, and organizing valuable new movements and communities.21 It has also encouraged an unprecedented wave of human creativity. In the days when television was the dominant medium, viewers were often denigrated as couch potatoes: passive consumers of content that a few gifted artists produced. Facebook, YouTube, and other social media platforms inspired the couch potatoes to get up and start creating. Most of the content on social media—at least until the rise of powerful generative AI—has been produced by the users themselves, and their cats and dogs, rather than by a limited professional class.

    I, too, routinely use YouTube and Facebook to connect with people, and I am grateful to social media for connecting me with my husband, whom I met on one of the first LGBTQ social media platforms back in 2002. Social media has done wonders for dispersed minorities like LGBTQ people. Few gay boys are born to a gay family in a gay neighborhood, and in the days before the internet simply finding one another posed a big challenge, unless you moved to one of the handful of tolerant metropolises that had a gay subculture. Growing up in a small homophobic town in Israel in the 1980s and early 1990s, I didn’t know a single openly gay man. Social media in the late 1990s and early 2000s provided an unprecedented and almost magical way for members of the dispersed LGBTQ community to find one another and connect.

    And yet I have devoted so much attention to the social media “user engagement” debacle because it exemplifies a much bigger problem afflicting computers—the alignment problem. When computers are given a specific goal, such as to increase YouTube traffic to one billion hours a day, they use all their power and ingenuity to achieve this goal. Since they operate very differently than humans, they are likely to use methods their human overlords didn’t anticipate. This can result in dangerous unforeseen consequences, which are not aligned with the original human goals. Even if recommendation algorithms stop encouraging hate, other instances of the alignment problem might result in larger catastrophes than the anti-Rohingya campaign. The more powerful and independent computers become, the bigger the danger.

    Of course, the alignment problem is neither new nor unique to algorithms. It bedeviled humanity for thousands of years before the invention of computers. It has been, for example, the foundational problem of modern military thinking, enshrined in Carl von Clausewitz’s theory of war. Clausewitz was a Prussian general who fought during the Napoleonic Wars. Following Napoleon’s final defeat in 1815, Clausewitz became the director of the Prussian War College. He also began formalizing a grand theory of war. After he died of cholera in 1831, his wife, Marie, edited his unfinished manuscript and published On War in several parts between 1832 and 1834.22

    On War created a rational model for understanding war, and it is still the dominant military theory today. Its most important maxim is that “war is the continuation of policy with other means.”23 This implies that war is not an emotional outbreak, a heroic adventure, or a divine punishment. War is not even a military phenomenon. Rather, war is a political tool. According to Clausewitz, military actions are utterly irrational unless they are aligned with some overarching political goal.

    Suppose Mexico contemplates whether to invade and conquer its small neighbor, Belize. And suppose a detailed military analysis concludes that if the Mexican army invades, it will achieve a quick and decisive military victory, crushing the small Belize army and conquering the capital, Belmopan, in three days. According to Clausewitz, that does not constitute a rational reason for Mexico to invade. The mere ability to secure military victory is meaningless. The key question the Mexican government should ask itself is, what political goals will the military success achieve?

    History is full of decisive military victories that led to political disasters. For Clausewitz, the most obvious example was close to home: Napoleon’s career. Nobody disputes the military genius of Napoleon, who was a master of both tactics and strategy. But while his string of victories brought Napoleon temporary control of vast territories, they failed to secure lasting political achievements. His military conquests merely drove most European powers to unite against him, and his empire collapsed a decade after he crowned himself emperor.

    Indeed, in the long term, Napoleon’s victories ensured the permanent decline of France. For centuries, France was Europe’s leading geopolitical power, largely because both Italy and Germany didn’t exist as unified political entities. Italy was a hodgepodge of dozens of warring city-states, feudal principalities, and church territories. Germany was an even more bizarre jigsaw puzzle divided into more than a thousand independent polities, loosely held together under the theoretical suzerainty of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation.24 In 1789, the prospect of a German or Italian invasion of France was simply unthinkable, because there was no such thing as a German or Italian army.

    As Napoleon expanded his empire into central Europe and the Italian Peninsula, he abolished the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, amalgamated many of the smaller German and Italian principalities into larger territorial blocs, created a German Confederation of the Rhine and a Kingdom of Italy, and sought to unify these territories under his dynastic rule. His victorious armies also spread the ideals of modern nationalism and popular sovereignty into the German and Italian lands. Napoleon thought all this would make his empire stronger. In fact, by breaking up traditional structures and giving Germans and Italians a taste of national consolidation, Napoleon inadvertently lay the foundations for the ultimate unification of Germany (1866–71) and of Italy (1848–71). These twin processes of national unification were sealed by the German victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71. Faced with two newly unified and fervently nationalistic powers on its eastern border, France never regained its position of dominance.

    A more recent example of military victory leading to political defeat was provided by the American invasion of Iraq in 2003. The Americans won every major military engagement, but failed to achieve any of their long-term political aims. Their military victory didn’t establish a friendly regime in Iraq, or a favorable geopolitical order in the Middle East. The real winner of the war was Iran. American military victory turned Iraq from Iran’s traditional foe into Iran’s vassal, thereby greatly weakening the American position in the Middle East while making Iran the regional hegemon.25

    Both Napoleon and George W. Bush fell victim to the alignment problem. Their short-term military goals were misaligned with their countries’ long-term geopolitical goals. We can understand the whole of Clausewitz’s On War as a warning that “maximizing victory” is as shortsighted a goal as “maximizing user engagement.” According to the Clausewitzian model, only once the political goal is clear can armies decide on a military strategy that will hopefully achieve it. From the overall strategy, lower-ranking officers can then derive tactical goals. The model constructs a clear hierarchy between long-term policy, medium-term strategy, and short-term tactics. Tactics are considered rational only if they are aligned with some strategic goal, and strategy is considered rational only if it is aligned with some political goal. Even local tactical decisions of a lowly company commander must serve the war’s ultimate political goal.

    Suppose that during the American occupation of Iraq an American company comes under intense fire from a nearby mosque. The company commander has several different tactical decisions to choose from. He might order the company to retreat. He might order the company to storm the mosque. He might order one of his supporting tanks to blow up the mosque. What should the company commander do?

    From a purely military perspective, it might seem best for the commander to order his tank to blow up the mosque. This would capitalize on the tactical advantage that the Americans enjoyed in terms of firepower, avoid risking the lives of his own soldiers, and achieve a decisive tactical victory. However, from a political perspective, this might be the worst decision the commander could make. Footage of an American tank destroying a mosque would galvanize Iraqi public opinion against the Americans and create outrage throughout the wider Muslim world. Storming the mosque might also be a political mistake, because it too could create resentment among Iraqis, while the cost in American lives could weaken support for the war among American voters. Given the political war aims of the United States, retreating and conceding tactical defeat might well be the most rational decision.

    For Clausewitz, then, rationality means alignment. Pursuing tactical or strategic victories that are misaligned with political goals is irrational. The problem is that the bureaucratic nature of armies makes them highly susceptible to such irrationality. As discussed in chapter 3, by dividing reality into separate drawers, bureaucracy encourages the pursuit of narrow goals even when this harms the greater good. Bureaucrats tasked with accomplishing a narrow mission may be ignorant of the wider impact of their actions, and it has always been tricky to ensure that their actions remain aligned with the greater good of society. When armies operate along bureaucratic lines—as all modern armies do—it creates a huge gap between a captain commanding a company in the field and the president formulating long-term policy in a distant office. The captain is prone to make decisions that seem reasonable on the ground but that actually undermine the war’s ultimate goal.

    We see, then, that the alignment problem has long predated the computer revolution and that the difficulties encountered by builders of present-day information empires are not unlike those that bedeviled previous would-be conquerors. Nevertheless, computers do change the nature of the alignment problem in important ways. No matter how difficult it used to be to ensure that human bureaucrats and soldiers remain aligned with society’s long-term goals, it is going to be even harder to ensure the alignment of algorithmic bureaucrats and autonomous weapon systems.

    THE PAPER-CLIP NAPOLEON

    One reason why the alignment problem is particularly dangerous in the context of the computer network is that this network is likely to become far more powerful than any previous human bureaucracy. A misalignment in the goals of superintelligent computers might result in a catastrophe of unprecedented magnitude. In his 2014 book, Superintelligence, the philosopher Nick Bostrom illustrated the danger using a thought experiment, which is reminiscent of Goethe’s “Sorcerer’s Apprentice.” Bostrom asks us to imagine that a paper-clip factory buys a superintelligent computer and that the factory’s human manager gives the computer a seemingly simple task: produce as many paper clips as possible. In pursuit of this goal, the paper-clip computer conquers the whole of planet Earth, kills all the humans, sends expeditions to take over additional planets, and uses the enormous resources it acquires to fill the entire galaxy with paper-clip factories.

    The point of the thought experiment is that the computer did exactly what it was told (just like the enchanted broomstick in Goethe’s poem). Realizing that it needed electricity, steel, land, and other resources to build more factories and produce more paper clips, and realizing that humans are unlikely to give up these resources, the superintelligent computer eliminated all humans in its single-minded pursuit of its given goal.26 Bostrom’s point was that the problem with computers isn’t that they are particularly evil but that they are particularly powerful. And the more powerful the computer, the more careful we need to be about defining its goal in a way that precisely aligns with our ultimate goals. If we define a misaligned goal to a pocket calculator, the consequences are trivial. But if we define a misaligned goal to a superintelligent machine, the consequences could be dystopian.

    The paper-clip thought experiment may sound outlandish and utterly disconnected from reality. But if Silicon Valley managers had paid attention when Bostrom published it in 2014, perhaps they would have been more careful before instructing their algorithms to “maximize user engagement.” The Facebook and YouTube algorithms behaved exactly like Bostrom’s imaginary algorithm. When told to maximize paper-clip production, the algorithm sought to convert the entire physical universe into paper clips, even if it meant destroying human civilization. When told to maximize user engagement, the Facebook and YouTube algorithms sought to convert the entire social universe into user engagement, even if it meant doing harm to the social fabric of Myanmar, Brazil, and many other countries.

    Bostrom’s thought experiment highlights a second reason why the alignment problem is more urgent in the case of computers. Because they are inorganic entities, they are likely to adopt strategies that would never occur to any human and that we are therefore ill-equipped to foresee and forestall. Here’s one example: In 2016, Dario Amodei was working on a project called Universe, trying to develop a general-purpose AI that could play hundreds of different computer games. The AI competed well in various car races, so Amodei next tried it on a boat race. Inexplicably, the AI steered its boat right into a harbor and then sailed in endless circles in and out of the harbor.

    It took Amodei considerable time to understand what went wrong. The problem occurred because initially Amodei wasn’t sure how to tell the AI that its goal was to “win the race.” “Winning” is an unclear concept to an algorithm. Translating “win the race” into computer language would have required Amodei to formalize complex concepts like track position and placement among the other boats in the race. So instead, Amodei took the easy way and told the boat to maximize its score. He assumed that the score was a good proxy for winning the race. After all, it worked with the car races.

    But the boat race had a peculiar feature, absent from the car races, that allowed the ingenious AI to find a loophole in the game’s rules. The game rewarded players with a lot of points for getting ahead of other boats—as in the car races—but it also rewarded them with a few points whenever they replenished their power by docking into a harbor. The AI discovered that if instead of trying to outsail the other boats, it simply went in circles in and out of the harbor, it could accumulate more points far faster. Apparently, none of the game’s human developers—nor Dario Amodei—noticed this loophole. The AI was doing exactly what the game was rewarding it to do—even though it is not what the humans were hoping for. That’s the essence of the alignment problem: rewarding A while hoping for B.27 If we want computers to maximize social benefits, it’s a bad idea to reward them for maximizing user engagement.

    A third reason to worry about the alignment problem of computers is that because they are so different from us, when we make the mistake of giving them a misaligned goal, they are less likely to notice it or request clarification. If the boat-race AI had been a human gamer, it would have realized that the loophole it found in the game’s rules probably doesn’t really count as “winning.” If the paper-clip AI had been a human bureaucrat, it would have realized that destroying humanity in order to produce paper clips is probably not what was intended. But since computers aren’t humans, we cannot rely on them to notice and flag possible misalignments. In the 2010s the YouTube and Facebook management teams were bombarded with warnings from their human employees—as well as from outside observers—about the harm being done by the algorithms, but the algorithms themselves never raised the alarm.28

    As we give algorithms greater and greater power over health care, education, law enforcement, and numerous other fields, the alignment problem will loom ever larger. If we don’t find ways to solve it, the consequences will be far worse than algorithms racking up points by sailing boats in circles.

    THE CORSICAN CONNECTION

    How to solve the alignment problem? In theory, when humans create a computer network, they must define for it an ultimate goal, which the computers are never allowed to change or ignore. Then, even if computers become so powerful that we lose control over them, we can rest assured that their immense power will benefit rather than harm us. Unless, of course, it turned out that we defined a harmful or vague goal. And there’s the rub. In the case of human networks, we rely on self-correcting mechanisms to periodically review and revise our goals, so setting the wrong goal is not the end of the world. But since the computer network might escape our control, if we set it the wrong goal, we might discover our mistake when we are no longer able to correct it. Some might hope that through a careful process of deliberation, we might be able to define in advance the right goals for the computer network. This, however, is a very dangerous delusion.

    To understand why it is impossible to agree in advance on the ultimate goals of the computer network, let’s revisit Clausewitz’s war theory. There is one fatal flaw in the way he equates rationality with alignment. While Clausewitzian theory demands that all actions be aligned with the ultimate goal, it offers no rational way to define such a goal. Consider Napoleon’s life and military career. What should have been his ultimate goal? Given the prevailing cultural atmosphere of France circa 1800, we can think of several alternatives for “ultimate goal” that might have occurred to Napoleon:

    POTENTIAL GOAL NUMBER 1: Making France the dominant power in Europe, secure against any future attack by Britain, the Habsburg Empire, Russia, a unified Germany, or a unified Italy.

    POTENTIAL GOAL NUMBER 2: Creating a new multiethnic empire ruled by Napoleon’s family, which would include not only France but also many additional territories both in Europe and overseas.

    POTENTIAL GOAL NUMBER 3: Achieving everlasting glory for himself personally, so that even centuries after his death billions of people will know the name Napoleon and admire his genius.

    POTENTIAL GOAL NUMBER 4: Securing the redemption of his everlasting soul, and gaining entry to heaven after his death.

    POTENTIAL GOAL NUMBER 5: Spreading the universal ideals of the French Revolution, and helping to protect freedom, equality, and human rights throughout Europe and the world.

    Many self-styled rationalists tend to argue that Napoleon should have made it his life’s mission to achieve the first goal—securing French domination in Europe. But why? Remember that for Clausewitz rationality means alignment. A tactical maneuver is rational if, and only if, it is aligned with some higher strategic goal, which should in turn be aligned with an even higher political goal. But where does this chain of goals ultimately start? How can we determine the ultimate goal that justifies all the strategic subgoals and tactical steps derived from it? Such an ultimate goal by definition cannot be aligned with anything higher than itself, because there is nothing higher. What then makes it rational to place France at the top of the goal hierarchy, rather than Napoleon’s family, Napoleon’s fame, Napoleon’s soul, or universal human rights? Clausewitz provides no answer.

    One might argue that goal number 4—securing the redemption of his everlasting soul—cannot be a serious candidate for an ultimate rational goal, because it is based on a belief in mythology. But the same argument can be leveled at all the other goals. Everlasting souls are an intersubjective invention that exist only in people’s minds, and exactly the same is true of nations and human rights. Why should Napoleon care about the mythical France any more than about his mythical soul?

    Indeed, for most of his youth, Napoleon didn’t even consider himself French. He was born Napoleone di Buonaparte on Corsica, to a family of Italian emigrants. For five hundred years Corsica was ruled by the Italian city-state of Genoa, where many of Napoleone’s ancestors lived. It was only in 1768—a year before Napoleone’s birth—that Genoa ceded the island to France. Corsican nationalists resisted being handed over to France and rose in rebellion. Only after their defeat in 1770 did Corsica formally become a French province. Many Corsicans continued to resent the French takeover, but the di Buonaparte family swore allegiance to the French king and sent Napoleone to military school in mainland France.29

    At school, Napoleone had to endure a good deal of hazing from his classmates for his Corsican nationalism and his poor command of the French language.30 His mother tongues were Corsican and Italian, and although he gradually became fluent in French, he retained throughout his life a Corsican accent and an inability to spell French correctly.31 Napoleone eventually enlisted in the French army, but when the Revolution broke out in 1789, he went back to Corsica, hoping the revolution would provide an opportunity for his beloved island to achieve greater autonomy. Only after he fell out with the leader of the Corsican independence movement—Pasquale Paoli—did Napoleone abandon the Corsican cause in May 1793. He returned to the mainland, where he decided to build his future.32 It was at this stage that Napoleone di Buonaparte turned into Napoléon Bonaparte (he continued to use the Italian version of his name until 1796).33

    Why then was it rational for Napoleon to devote his military career to making France the dominant power in Europe? Was it perhaps more rational for him to stay in Corsica, patch up his personal disagreements with Paoli, and devote himself to liberating his native island from its French conquerors? And maybe Napoleon should in fact have made it his life’s mission to unite Italy—the land of his ancestors?

    Clausewitz offers no method to answer these questions rationally. If our only rule of thumb is “every action must be aligned with some higher goal,” by definition there is no rational way to define that ultimate goal. How then can we provide a computer network with an ultimate goal it must never ignore or subvert? Tech executives and engineers who rush to develop AI are making a huge mistake if they think there is a rational way to tell that AI what its ultimate goal should be. They should learn from the bitter experiences of generations of philosophers who tried to define ultimate goals and failed.

    THE KANTIAN NAZI

    For millennia, philosophers have been looking for a definition of an ultimate goal that will not depend on an alignment to some higher goal. They have repeatedly been drawn to two potential solutions, known in philosophical jargon as deontology and utilitarianism. Deontologists (from the Greek word deon, meaning “duty”) believe that there are some universal moral duties, or moral rules, that apply to everyone. These rules do not rely on alignment to a higher goal, but rather on their intrinsic goodness. If such rules indeed exist, and if we can find a way to program them into computers, then we can make sure the computer network will be a force for good.

    But what exactly does “intrinsic goodness” mean? The most famous attempt to define an intrinsically good rule was made by Immanuel Kant, a contemporary of Clausewitz and Napoleon. Kant argued that an intrinsically good rule is any rule that I would like to make universal. According to this view, a person about to murder someone should stop and go through the following thought process: “I am now going to murder a human. Would I like to establish a universal rule saying that it is okay to murder humans? If such a universal rule is established, then someone might murder me. So there shouldn’t be a universal rule allowing murder. It follows that I too shouldn’t murder.” In simpler language, Kant reformulated the old Golden Rule: “Do unto others what you want them to do to you” (Matthew 7:12).

    This sounds like a simple and obvious idea: each of us should behave in a way we want everyone to behave. But ideas that sound good in the ethereal realm of philosophy often have trouble immigrating to the harsh land of history. The key question historians would ask Kant is, when you talk about universal rules, how exactly do you define “universal”? Under actual historical circumstances, when a person is about to commit murder, the first step they often take is to exclude the victim from the universal community of humanity.34 This, for example, is what anti-Rohingya extremists like Wirathu did. As a Buddhist monk, Wirathu was certainly against murdering humans. But he didn’t think this universal rule applied to killing Rohingya, who were seen as subhuman. In posts and interviews, he repeatedly compared them to beasts, snakes, mad dogs, wolves, jackals, and other dangerous animals.35 On October 30, 2017, at the height of the anti-Rohingya violence, another, more senior Buddhist monk preached a sermon to military officers in which he justified violence against the Rohingya by telling the officers that non-Buddhists were “not fully human.”36

    As a thought experiment, imagine a meeting between Immanuel Kant and Adolf Eichmann—who, by the way, considered himself a Kantian.37 As Eichmann signs an order sending another trainload of Jews to Auschwitz, Kant tells him, “You are about to murder thousands of humans. Would you like to establish a universal rule saying it is okay to murder humans? If you do that, you and your family might also be murdered.” Eichmann replies, “No, I am not about to murder thousands of humans. I am about to murder thousands of Jews. If you ask me whether I would like to establish a universal rule saying it is okay to murder Jews, then I am all for it. As for myself and my family, there is no risk that this universal rule would lead to us being murdered. We aren’t Jews.”

    One potential Kantian reply to Eichmann is that when we define entities, we must always use the most universal definition applicable. If an entity can be defined as either “a Jew” or “a human,” we should use the more universal term “human.” However, the whole point of Nazi ideology was to deny the humanity of Jews. In addition, note that Jews are not just humans. They are also animals, and they are also organisms. Since animals and organisms are obviously more universal categories than “human,” if you follow the Kantian argument to its logical conclusion, it might push us to adopt an extreme vegan position. Since we are organisms, does it mean we should object to the killing of any organism, down even to tomatoes or amoebas?

    In history, many if not most conflicts concern the definition of identities. Everybody accepts that murder is wrong, but thinks that only killing members of the in-group qualifies as “murder,” whereas killing someone from an out-group is not. But the in-groups and out-groups are intersubjective entities, whose definition usually depends on some mythology. Deontologists who pursue universal rational rules often end up the captives of local myths.

    This problem with deontology is especially critical if we try to dictate universal deontologist rules not to humans but to computers. Computers aren’t even organic. So if they follow a rule of “Do unto others what you want them to do to you,” why should they be concerned about killing organisms like humans? A Kantian computer that doesn’t want to be killed has no reason to object to a universal rule saying “it is okay to kill organisms”; such a rule does not endanger the nonorganic computer.

    Alternatively, being inorganic entities, computers may have no qualms about dying. As far as we can tell, death is an organic phenomenon and may be inapplicable to inorganic entities. When ancient Assyrians talked about “killing” documents, that was just a metaphor. If computers are more like documents than like organisms, and don’t care about “being killed,” would we like a Kantian computer to conclude that killing humans is therefore fine?

    Is there a way to define whom computers should care about, without getting bogged down by some intersubjective myth? The most obvious suggestion is to tell computers that they must care about any entity capable of suffering. While suffering is often caused by belief in local intersubjective myths, suffering itself is nonetheless a universal reality. Therefore, using the capacity to suffer in order to define the critical in-group grounds morality in an objective and universal reality. A self-driving car should avoid killing all humans—whether Buddhist or Muslim, French or Italian—and should also avoid killing dogs and cats, and any sentient robots that might one day exist. We may even refine this rule, instructing the car to care about different beings in direct proportion to their capacity to suffer. If the car has to choose between killing a human and killing a cat, it should drive over the cat, because presumably the cat has a lesser capacity to suffer. But if we go in that direction, we inadvertently desert the deontologist camp and find ourselves in the camp of their rivals—the utilitarians.

    THE CALCULUS OF SUFFERING

    Whereas deontologists struggle to find universal rules that are intrinsically good, utilitarians judge actions by their impact on suffering and happiness. The English philosopher Jeremy Bentham—another contemporary of Napoleon, Clausewitz, and Kant—said that the only rational ultimate goal is to minimize suffering in the world and maximize happiness. If our main fear about computer networks is that their misaligned goals might inflict terrible suffering on humans and perhaps on other sentient beings, then the utilitarian solution seems both obvious and attractive. When creating the computer network, we just need to instruct it to minimize suffering and maximize happiness. If Facebook had told its algorithms “maximize happiness” instead of “maximize user engagement,” all would allegedly have been well. It is worth noting that this utilitarian approach is indeed popular in Silicon Valley, championed in particular by the effective altruism movement.38

    Unfortunately, as with the deontologist solution, what sounds simple in the theoretical realm of philosophy becomes fiendishly complex in the practical land of history. The problem for utilitarians is that we don’t possess a calculus of suffering. We don’t know how many “suffering points” or “happiness points” to assign to particular events, so in complex historical situations it is extremely difficult to calculate whether a given action increases or decreases the overall amount of suffering in the world.

    Utilitarianism is at its best in situations when the scales of suffering are very clearly tipped in one direction. When confronted by Eichmann, utilitarians don’t need to get into any complicated debates about identity. They just need to point out that the Holocaust caused immense suffering to the Jews, without providing equivalent benefits to anyone else, including the Germans. There was no compelling military or economic need for the Germans to murder millions of Jews. The utilitarian case against the Holocaust is overwhelming.

    Utilitarians also have a field day when dealing with “victimless crimes” like homosexuality, in which all the suffering is on one side only. For centuries, the persecution of gay people caused them immense suffering, but it was nevertheless justified by various prejudices that were erroneously presented as deontological universal rules. Kant, for example, condemned homosexuality on the grounds that it is “contrary to natural instinct and to animal nature” and that it therefore degrades a person “below the level of the animals.” Kant further fulminated that because such acts are contrary to nature, they “make man unworthy of his humanity. He no longer deserves to be a person.”39 Kant, in fact, repackaged a Christian prejudice as a supposedly universal deontological rule, without providing empirical proof that homosexuality is indeed contrary to nature. In light of the above discussion of dehumanization as a prelude to massacre, it is also noteworthy how Kant dehumanized gay people. The view that homosexuality is contrary to nature and deprives people of their humanity paved the way for Nazis like Eichmann to justify murdering homosexuals in concentration camps. Since homosexuals were allegedly below the level of animals, the Kantian rule against murdering humans didn’t apply to them.40

    Utilitarians find it easy to dismiss Kant’s sexual theories, and Bentham indeed was one of the first modern European thinkers who favored the decriminalization of homosexuality.41 Utilitarians argue that criminalizing homosexuality in the name of some dubious universal rule causes tremendous suffering to millions of people, without offering any substantial benefits to others. When two men form a loving relationship, this makes them happy, without making anyone else miserable. Why then forbid it? This type of utilitarian logic also led to many other modern reforms, such as the ban on torture and the introduction of some legal protections for animals.

    But in historical situations when the scales of suffering are more evenly matched, utilitarianism falters. In the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic, governments all over the world adopted strict policies of social isolation and lockdown. This probably saved the lives of several million people.42 It also made hundreds of millions miserable for months. Moreover, it might have indirectly caused numerous deaths, for example by increasing the incidence of murderous domestic violence,43 or by making it more difficult for people to diagnose and treat other dangerous illnesses, like cancer.44 Can anyone calculate the total impact of the lockdown policies and determine whether they increased or decreased the suffering in the world?

    This may sound like a perfect task for a relentless computer network. But how would the computer network decide how many “misery points” to allocate to being locked down with three kids in a two-bedroom apartment for a month? Is that 60 misery points or 600? And how many points to allot to a cancer patient who died because she missed her chemotherapy treatments? Is that 60,000 misery points or 600,000? And what if she would have died of cancer anyway, and the chemo would merely have extended her life by five agonizing months? Should the computers value five months of living with extreme pain as a net gain or a net loss for the sum total of suffering in the world?

    And how would the computer network evaluate the suffering caused by less tangible things, such as the knowledge of our own mortality? If a religious myth promises us that we will never really die, because after death our eternal soul will go to heaven, does that make us truly happy or just delusional? Is death the deep cause of our misery, or does our misery stem from our attempts to deny death? If someone loses their religious faith and comes to terms with their mortality, should the computer network see this as a net loss or a net gain?

    What about even more complicated historical events like the American invasion of Iraq? The Americans were well aware that their invasion would cause tremendous suffering for millions of people. But in the long run, they argued, the benefits of bringing freedom and democracy to Iraq would outweigh the costs. Can the computer network calculate whether this argument was sound? Even if it was theoretically plausible, in practice the Americans failed to establish a stable democracy in Iraq. Does that mean that their attempt was wrong in the first place?

    Just as deontologists trying to answer the question of identity are pushed to adopt utilitarian ideas, so utilitarians stymied by the lack of a suffering calculus often end up adopting a deontologist position. They uphold general rules like “avoid wars of aggression” or “protect human rights,” even though they cannot show that following these rules always reduces the sum total of suffering in the world. History provides them only with a vague impression that following these rules tends to reduce suffering. And when some of these general rules clash—for example, when contemplating launching a war of aggression in order to protect human rights—utilitarianism doesn’t offer much practical help. Not even the most powerful computer network can perform the necessary calculations.

    Accordingly, while utilitarianism promises a rational—and even mathematical—way to align every action with “the ultimate good,” in practice it may well produce just another mythology. Communist true believers confronted by the horrors of Stalinism often replied that the happiness that future generations would experience under “real socialism” would redeem any short-term misery in the gulags. Libertarians, when asked about the immediate social harms of unrestricted free speech or the total abolition of taxes, express a similar faith that future benefits will outweigh any short-term damage. The danger of utilitarianism is that if you have a strong enough belief in a future utopia, it can become an open license to inflict terrible suffering in the present. Indeed, this is a trick traditional religions discovered thousands of years ago. The crimes of this world could too easily be excused by the promises of future salvation.

    COMPUTER MYTHOLOGY

    How then did bureaucratic systems throughout history set their ultimate goals? They relied on mythology to do it for them. No matter how rational were the officials, engineers, tax collectors, and accountants, they were ultimately in the service of this or that mythmaker. To paraphrase John Maynard Keynes, practical people, who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any religious influence, are usually the slaves of some mythmaker. Even nuclear physicists have found themselves obeying the commands of Shiite ayatollahs and communist apparatchiks.

    The alignment problem turns out to be, at heart, a problem of mythology. Nazi administrators could have been committed deontologists or utilitarians, but they would still have murdered millions so long as they understood the world in terms of a racist mythology. If you start with the mythological belief that Jews are demonic monsters bent on destroying humanity, then both deontologists and utilitarians can find many logical arguments why the Jews should be killed.

    An analogous problem might well afflict computers. Of course, they cannot “believe” in any mythology, because they are nonconscious entities that don’t believe in anything. As long as they lack subjectivity, how can they hold intersubjective beliefs? However, one of the most important things to realize about computers is that when a lot of computers communicate with one another, they can create inter-computer realities, analogous to the intersubjective realities produced by networks of humans. These inter-computer realities may eventually become as powerful—and as dangerous—as human-made intersubjective myths.

    This is a very complicated argument, but it is another of the central arguments of the book, so let’s go over it carefully. First, let’s try to understand what inter-computer realities are. As an initial example, consider a one-player computer game. In such a game, you can wander inside a virtual landscape that exists as information within one computer. If you see a rock, that rock is not made of atoms. It is made of bits inside a single computer. When several computers are linked to one another, they can create inter-computer realities. Several players using different computers can wander together inside a common virtual landscape. If they see a rock, that rock is made of bits in several computers.45

    Just as intersubjective realities like money and gods can influence the physical reality outside people’s minds, so inter-computer realities can influence reality outside the computers. In 2016 the game Pokémon Go took the world by storm and was downloaded hundreds of millions of times by the end of the year.46 Pokémon Go is an augmented reality mobile game. Players can use their smartphones to locate, fight, and capture virtual creatures called Pokémon, which seem to exist in the physical world. I once went with my nephew Matan on such a Pokémon hunt. Walking around his neighborhood, I saw only houses, trees, rocks, cars, people, cats, dogs, and pigeons. I didn’t see any Pokémon, because I didn’t have a smartphone. But Matan, looking around through his smartphone lens, could “see” Pokémon standing on a rock or hiding behind a tree.

    Though I couldn’t see the creatures, they were obviously not confined to Matan’s smartphone, because other people could “see” them too. For example, we encountered two other kids who were hunting the same Pokémon. If Matan managed to capture a Pokémon, the other kids could immediately observe what happened. The Pokémon were inter-computer entities. They existed as bits in a computer network rather than as atoms in the physical world, but they could nevertheless interact with the physical world and influence it, as it were, in various ways.

    Now let’s examine a more consequential example of inter-computer realities. Consider the rank that a website gets in a Google search. When we google for news, flight tickets, or restaurant recommendations, one website appears at the top of the first Google page, whereas another is relegated to the middle of the fiftieth page. What exactly is this Google rank, and how is it determined? The Google algorithm determines the website’s Google rank by assigning points to various parameters, such as how many people visit the website and how many other websites link to it. The rank itself is an inter-computer reality, existing in a network connecting billions of computers—the internet. Like Pokémon, this inter-computer reality spills over into the physical world. For a news outlet, a travel agency, or a restaurant it matters a great deal whether its website appears at the top of the first Google page or in the middle of the fiftieth page.47

    Since the Google rank is so important, people use all kinds of tricks to manipulate the Google algorithm to give their website a higher rank. For example, they may use bots to generate more traffic to the website.48 This is a widespread phenomenon in social media too, where coordinated bot armies are constantly manipulating the algorithms of YouTube, Facebook, or Twitter. If a tweet goes viral, is it because humans are really interested in it, or because thousands of bots managed to fool the Twitter algorithm?49

    Inter-computer realities like Pokémon and Google ranks are analogous to intersubjective realities like the sanctity that humans ascribe to temples and cities. I lived much of my life in one of the holiest places on earth—the city of Jerusalem. Objectively, it is an ordinary place. As you walk around Jerusalem, you see houses, trees, rocks, cars, people, cats, dogs, and pigeons, as in any other city. But many people nevertheless imagine it to be an extraordinary place, full of gods, angels, and holy stones. They believe in this so strongly that they sometimes fight over possession of the city or of specific holy buildings and sacred stones, most notably the Holy Rock, located under the Dome of the Rock on Temple Mount. The Palestinian philosopher Sari Nusseibeh observed that “Jews and Muslims, acting on religious beliefs and backed up by nuclear capabilities, are poised to engage in history’s worst-ever massacre of human beings, over a rock.”50 They don’t fight over the atoms that compose the rock; they fight over its “sanctity,” a bit like kids fighting over a Pokémon. The sanctity of the Holy Rock, and of Jerusalem generally, is an intersubjective phenomenon that exists in the communication network connecting many human minds. For thousands of years wars were fought over intersubjective entities like holy rocks. In the twenty-first century, we might see wars fought over inter-computer entities.

    If this sounds like science fiction, consider potential developments in the financial system. As computers become more intelligent and more creative, they are likely to create new inter-computer financial devices. Gold coins and dollars are intersubjective entities. Cryptocurrencies like bitcoin are midway between intersubective and inter-computer. The idea behind them was invented by humans, and their value still depends on human beliefs, but they cannot exist outside the computer network. In addition, they are increasingly traded by algorithms so that their value depends on the calculations of algorithms and not just on human beliefs.

    What if in ten or fifty years computers create a new kind of cryptocurrency or some other financial device that becomes a vital tool for trading and investing—and a potential source for political crises and conflicts? Recall that the 2007–8 global financial crisis was instigated by collateralized debt obligations. These financial devices were invented by a handful of mathematicians and investment whiz kids and were almost unintelligible for most humans, including regulators. This led to an oversight failure and to a global catastrophe.51 Computers may well create financial devices that will be orders of magnitude more complex than CDOs and that will be intelligible only to other computers. The result could be a financial and political crisis even worse than that of 2007–8.

    Throughout history, economics and politics required that we understand the intersubjective realities invented by people—like religions, nations, and currencies. Someone who wanted to understand American politics had to take into account intersubjective realities like Christianity and CDOs. Increasingly, however, understanding American politics will necessitate understanding inter-computer realities ranging from AI-generated cults and currencies to AI-run political parties and even fully incorporated AIs. The U.S. legal system already recognizes corporations as legal persons that possess rights such as freedom of speech. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010) the U.S. Supreme Court decided that this even protected the right of corporations to make political donations.52 What would stop AIs from being incorporated and recognized as legal persons with freedom of speech, then lobbying and making political donations to protect and expand AI rights?

    For tens of thousands of years, humans dominated planet Earth because we were the only ones capable of creating and sustaining intersubjective entities like corporations, currencies, gods, and nations, and using such entities to organize large-scale cooperation. Now computers may acquire comparable abilities.

    This isn’t necessarily bad news. If computers lacked connectivity and creativity, they would not be very useful. We increasingly rely on computers to manage our money, drive our vehicles, reduce pollution, and discover new medicines, precisely because computers can directly communicate with one another, spot patterns where we can’t, and construct models that might never occur to us. The problem we face is not how to deprive computers of all creative agency, but rather how to steer their creativity in the right direction. It is the same problem we have always had with human creativity. The intersubjective entities invented by humans were the basis for all the achievements of human civilization, but they occasionally led to crusades, jihads, and witch hunts. The inter-computer entities will probably be the basis for future civilizations, but the fact that computers collect empirical data and use mathematics to analyze it doesn’t mean they cannot launch their own witch hunts.

    THE NEW WITCHES

    In early modern Europe, an elaborate information network analyzed a huge amount of data about crimes, illnesses, and disasters and reached the conclusion that it was all the fault of witches. The more data the witch-hunters gathered, the more convinced they became that the world was full of demons and sorcery and that there was a global satanic conspiracy to destroy humanity. The information network then went on to identify the witches and imprison or kill them. We now know that witches were a bogus intersubjective category, invented by the information network itself and then imposed on people who had never actually met Satan and couldn’t summon hailstorms.

    In the Soviet Union, an even more elaborate information network invented the kulaks—another mythic category that was imposed on millions. The mountains of information collected by Soviet bureaucracy about the kulaks weren’t an objective truth, but they created a new intersubjective truth. Knowing that someone was a kulak became one of the most important things to know about a Soviet person, even though the category was fictitious.

    On an even larger scale, from the sixteenth to the twentieth century, numerous colonial bureaucracies in the Americas, from Brazil through Mexico and the Caribbean to the United States, created a racist mythology and came up with all kinds of intersubjective racial categories. Humans were divided into Europeans, Africans, and Native Americans, and since interracial sexual relations were common, additional categories were invented. In many Spanish colonies the laws differentiated between mestizos, people with mixed Spanish and Native American ancestry; mulatos, people with mixed Spanish and African ancestry; zambos, people with mixed African and Native American ancestry; and pardos, people with mixed Spanish, African, and Native American ancestry. All these seemingly empirical categories determined whether people could be enslaved, enjoy political rights, bear arms, hold public offices, be admitted to school, practice certain professions, live in particular neighborhoods, and be allowed to have sex and get married to each other. Allegedly, by placing a person in a particular racial drawer, one could define their personality, intellectual abilities, and ethical inclinations.53

    By the nineteenth century racism pretended to be an exact science: it claimed to differentiate between people on the basis of objective biological facts, and to rely on scientific tools such as measuring skulls and recording crime statistics. But the cloud of numbers and categories was just a smoke screen for absurd intersubjective myths. The fact that somebody had a Native American grandmother or an African father didn’t, of course, reveal anything about their intelligence, kindness, or honesty. These bogus categories didn’t discover or describe any truth about humans; they imposed an oppressive, mythological order on them.

    As computers replace humans in more and more bureaucracies, from tax collection and health care to security and justice, they too may create a mythology and impose it on us with unprecedented efficiency. In a world ruled by paper documents, bureaucrats had difficulty policing racial borderlines or tracking everyone’s exact ancestry. People could get false documents. A zambo could move to another town and pretend to be a pardo. A Black person could sometimes pass as white. Similarly in the Soviet Union, kulak children occasionally managed to falsify their papers to get a good job or a place in college. In Nazi Europe, Jews could sometimes adopt an Aryan identity. But it would be much harder to game the system in a world ruled by computers that can read irises and DNA rather than paper documents. Computers could be frighteningly efficient in imposing false labels on people and making sure that the labels stick.

    For example, social credit systems could create a new underclass of “low-credit people.” Such a system may claim to merely “discover” the truth through an empirical and mathematical process of aggregating points to form an overall score. But how exactly would it define pro-social and antisocial behaviors? What happens if such a system detracts points for criticizing government policies, for reading foreign literature, for practicing a minority religion, for having no religion, or for socializing with other low-credit people? As a thought experiment, consider what might happen when the new technology of the social credit system meets traditional religions.

    Religions like Judaism, Christianity, and Islam have always imagined that somewhere above the clouds there is an all-seeing eye that gives or deducts points for everything we do and that our eternal fate depends on the score we accumulate. Of course, nobody could be certain of their score. You could know for sure only after you died. In practical terms, this meant that sinfulness and sainthood were intersubjective phenomena whose very definition depended on public opinion. What might happen if the Iranian regime, for example, decides to use its computer-based surveillance system not only to enforce its strict hijab laws, but to turn sinfulness and sainthood into precise inter-computer phenomena? You didn’t wear a hijab on the street—that’s -10 points. You ate on Ramadan before sunset—another 20 points deducted. You went to Friday prayer at the mosque, +5 points. You made the pilgrimage to Mecca, +500 points. The system might then aggregate all the points and divide people into “sinners” (under 0 points), “believers” (0 to 1,000 points), and “saints” (above 1,000 points). Whether someone is a sinner or a saint will depend on algorithmic calculations, not human belief. Would such a system discover the truth about people or impose order on people?

    Analogous problems may afflict all social credit systems and total surveillance regimes. Whenever they claim to use all-encompassing databases and ultraprecise mathematics to discover sinners, terrorists, criminals, antisocial or untrustworthy people, they might actually be imposing baseless religious and ideological prejudices with unprecedented efficiency.

    COMPUTER BIAS

    Some people may hope to overcome the problem of religious and ideological biases by giving even more power to the computers. The argument for doing so might go something like this: racism, misogyny, homophobia, antisemitism, and all other biases originate not in computers but in the psychological conditions and mythological beliefs of human beings. Computers are mathematical beings that don’t have a psychology or a mythology. So if we could take the humans completely out of the equation, the algorithms could finally decide things on the basis of pure math, free from all psychological distortions or mythological prejudices.

    Unfortunately, numerous studies have revealed that computers often have deep-seated biases of their own. While they are not biological entities, and while they lack consciousness, they do have something akin to a digital psyche and even a kind of inter-computer mythology. They may well be racist, misogynist, homophobic, or antisemitic.54 For example, on March 23, 2016, Microsoft released the AI chatbot Tay, giving it free access to Twitter. Within hours, Tay began posting misogynist and antisemitic twits, such as “I fucking hate feminists and they should all die and burn in hell” and “Hitler was right I hate the Jews.” The vitriol increased until horrified Microsoft engineers shut Tay down—a mere sixteen hours after its release.55

    More subtle but widespread racism was discovered in 2017 by the MIT professor Joy Buolamwini in commercial face-classification algorithms. She showed that these algorithms were very accurate in identifying white males, but extremely inaccurate in identifying Black females. For example, the IBM algorithm erred only 0.3 percent of the time in identifying the gender of light-skinned males, but 34.7 percent of the time when trying to identify the gender of dark-skinned females. As a qualitative test, Buolamwini asked the algorithms to categorize photos of the female African American activist Sojourner Truth, famous for her 1851 speech “Ain’t I a Woman?” The algorithms identified Truth as a man.56

    When Buolamwini—who is a Ghanaian American woman—tested another facial-analysis algorithm to identify herself, the algorithm couldn’t “see” her dark-skinned face at all. In this context, “seeing” means the ability to acknowledge the presence of a human face, a feature used by phone cameras, for example, to decide where to focus. The algorithm easily saw light-skinned faces, but not Buolamwini’s. Only when Buolamwini put on a white mask did the algorithm recognize that it was observing a human face.57

    What’s going on here? One answer might be that racist and misogynist engineers have coded these algorithms to discriminate against Black women. While we cannot rule out the possibility that such things happen, it was not the answer in the case of the face-classification algorithms or of Microsoft’s Tay. In fact, these algorithms picked up the racist and misogynist bias all by themselves from the data they were trained on.

    To understand how this could happen, we need to explain something about the history of algorithms. Originally, algorithms could not learn much by themselves. For example, in the 1980s and 1990s chess-playing algorithms were taught almost everything they knew by their human programmers. The humans coded into the algorithm not only the basic rules of chess but also how to evaluate different positions and moves on the board. For example, humans coded a rule that sacrificing a queen in exchange for a pawn is usually a bad idea. These early algorithms managed to defeat human chess masters only because the algorithms could calculate many more moves and evaluate many more positions than a human could. But the algorithms’ abilities remained limited. Since they relied on humans to tell them all the secrets of the game, if the human coders didn’t know something, the algorithms they produced were also unlikely to know it.58

    As the field of machine learning developed, algorithms gained more independence. The fundamental principle of machine learning is that algorithms can teach themselves new things by interacting with the world, just as humans do, thereby producing a fully fledged artificial intelligence. The terminology is not always consistent, but generally speaking, for something to be acknowledged as an AI, it needs the capacity to learn new things by itself, rather than just follow the instructions of its original human creators. Present-day chess-playing AI is taught nothing except the basic rules of the game. It learns everything else by itself, either by analyzing databases of prior games or by playing new games and learning from experience.59 AI is not a dumb automaton that repeats the same movements again and again irrespective of the results. Rather, it is equipped with strong self-correcting mechanisms, which allow it to learn from its own mistakes.

    This means that AI begins its life as a “baby algorithm” that has a lot of potential and computing power but doesn’t actually know much. The AI’s human parents give it only the capacity to learn and access to a world of data. They then let the baby algorithm explore the world. Like organic newborns, baby algorithms learn by spotting patterns in the data to which they have access. If I touch fire, it hurts. If I cry, mum comes. If I sacrifice a queen for a pawn, I probably lose the game. By finding patterns in the data, the baby algorithm learns more, including many things that its human parents don’t know.60

    Yet databases come with biases. The face-classification algorithms studied by Joy Buolamwini were trained on data sets of tagged online photos, such as the Labeled Faces in the Wild database. The photos in that database were taken mainly from online news articles. Since white males dominate the news, 78 percent of the photos in the database were of males, and 84 percent were of white people. George W. Bush appeared 530 times—more than twice as many times as all Black women combined.61 Another database prepared by a U.S. government agency was more than 75 percent male, was almost 80 percent light-skinned, and had just 4.4 percent dark-skinned females.62 No wonder the algorithms trained on such data sets were excellent at identifying white men but lousy at identifying Black women. Something similar happened to the chatbot Tay. The Microsoft engineers didn’t build into it any intentional prejudices. But a few hours of exposure to the toxic information swirling in Twitter turned the AI into a raging racist.63

    It gets worse. In order to learn, baby algorithms need one more thing besides access to data. They also need a goal. A human baby learns how to walk because she wants to get somewhere. A lion cub learns to hunt because he wants to eat. Algorithms too must be given a goal in order to learn. In chess, it is easy to define the goal: take the opponent’s king. The AI learns that sacrificing a queen for a pawn is a “mistake,” because it usually prevents the algorithm from reaching its goal. In face recognition, the goal is also easy: identify the person’s gender, age, and name as listed in the original database. If the algorithm guessed that George W. Bush is female, but the database says male, the goal has not been reached, and the algorithm learns from its mistake.

    But if you want to train an algorithm for hiring personnel, for example, how would you define the goal? How would the algorithm know that it made a mistake and hired the “wrong” person? We might tell the baby algorithm that its goal is to hire people who stay in the company for at least a year. Employers obviously don’t want to invest a lot of time and money in training a worker who quits or gets fired after a few months. Having defined the goal in such a way, it is time to go over the data. In chess, the algorithm can produce any amount of new data just by playing against itself. But in the job market, that’s impossible. Nobody can create an entire imaginary world where the baby algorithm can hire and fire imaginary people and learn from that experience. The baby algorithm can train only on an existing database about real-life people. Just as lion cubs learn what a zebra is mainly by spotting patterns in the real-life savanna, so baby algorithms learn what a good employee is by spotting patterns in real-life companies.

    Unfortunately, if real-life companies already suffer from some ingrained bias, the baby algorithm is likely to learn this bias, and even amplify it. For instance, an algorithm looking for patterns of “good employees” in real-life data may conclude that hiring the boss’s nephews is always a good idea, no matter what other qualification they have. For the data clearly indicates that “boss’s nephews” are usually hired when applying for a job, and are rarely fired. The baby algorithm would spot this pattern and become nepotistic. If it is put in charge of an HR department, it will start giving preference to the boss’s nephews.

    Similarly, if companies in a misogynist society prefer to hire men rather than women, an algorithm trained on real-life data is likely to pick up that bias, too. This indeed happened when Amazon tried in 2014–18 to develop an algorithm for screening job applications. Learning from previous successful and unsuccessful applications, the algorithm began to systematically downgrade applications simply for containing the word “women” or coming from graduates of women’s colleges. Since existing data showed that in the past such applications had less chance of succeeding, the algorithm developed a bias against them. The algorithm thought it had simply discovered an objective truth about the world: applicants who graduate from women’s colleges are less qualified. In fact, it just internalized and imposed a misogynist bias. Amazon tried and failed to fix the problem and ultimately scrapped the project.64

    The database on which an AI is trained is a bit like a human’s childhood. Childhood experiences, traumas, and fairy tales stay with us throughout our lives. AIs too have childhood experiences. Algorithms might even infect one another with their biases, just as humans do. Consider a future society in which algorithms are ubiquitous and used not just to screen job applicants but also to recommend to people what to study in college. Suppose that due to a preexisting misogynist bias, 80 percent of jobs in engineering are given to men. In this society, an algorithm that hires new engineers is not only likely to copy this preexisting bias but also to infect the college recommendation algorithms with the same bias. A young woman entering college may be discouraged from studying engineering, because the existing data indicates she is less likely to eventually get a job. What began as a human intersubjective myth that “women aren’t good at engineering” might morph into an inter-computer myth. If we don’t get rid of the bias at the very beginning, computers may well perpetuate and magnify it.65

    But getting rid of algorithmic bias might be as difficult as ridding ourselves of our human biases. Once an algorithm has been trained, it takes a lot of time and effort to “untrain” it. We might decide to just dump the biased algorithm and train an altogether new algorithm on a new set of less biased data. But where on earth can we find a set of totally unbiased data?66

    Many of the algorithmic biases surveyed in this and previous chapters share the same fundamental problem: the computer thinks it has discovered some truth about humans, when in fact it has imposed order on them. A social media algorithm thinks it discovered that humans like outrage, when in fact it is the algorithm itself that conditioned humans to produce and consume more outrage. Such biases result, on the one hand, from the computers discounting the full spectrum of human abilities and, on the other hand, from the computers discounting their own power to influence humans. Even if computers observe that almost all humans behave in a particular way, it doesn’t mean humans are bound to behave like that. Maybe it just means that the computers themselves are rewarding such behavior while punishing and blocking alternatives. For computers to have a more accurate and responsible view of the world, they need to take into account their own power and impact. And for that to happen, the humans who currently engineer computers need to accept that they are not manufacturing new tools. They are unleashing new kinds of independent agents, and potentially even new kinds of gods.

    THE NEW GODS?

    In God, Human, Animal, Machine, the philosopher Meghan O’Gieblyn demonstrates how the way we understand computers is heavily influenced by traditional mythologies. In particular, she stresses the similarities between the omniscient and unfathomable god of Judeo-Christian theology and present-day AIs whose decisions seem to us both infallible and inscrutable.67 This may present humans with a dangerous temptation.

    We saw in chapter 4 that already thousands of years ago humans dreamed about finding an infallible information technology to shield us from human corruption and error. Holy books were an audacious attempt to craft such a technology, but they backfired. Since the book couldn’t interpret itself, a human institution had to be built to interpret the sacred words and adapt them to changing circumstances. Different humans interpreted the holy book in different ways, thereby reopening the door to corruption and error. But in contrast to the holy book, computers can adapt themselves to changing circumstances and also interpret their decisions and ideas for us. Some humans may consequently conclude that the quest for an infallible technology has finally succeeded and that we should treat computers as a holy book that can talk to us and interpret itself, without any need of an intervening human institution.

    This would be an extremely hazardous gamble. When certain interpretations of scriptures have occasionally caused disasters such as witch hunts and wars of religion, humans have always been able to change their beliefs. When the human imagination summoned a belligerent and hate-filled god, we retained the power to rid ourselves of it and imagine a more tolerant deity. But algorithms are independent agents, and they are already taking power away from us. If they cause disaster, simply changing our beliefs about them will not necessarily stop them. And it is highly likely that if computers are entrusted with power, they will indeed cause disasters, for they are fallible.

    When we say that computers are fallible, it means far more than that they make the occasional factual mistake or wrong decision. More important, like the human network before it, the computer network might fail to find the right balance between truth and order. By creating and imposing on us powerful inter-computer myths, the computer network could cause historical calamities that would dwarf the early modern European witch hunts or Stalin’s collectivization.

    Consider a network of billions of interacting computers that accumulates a stupendous amount of information on the world. As they pursue various goals, the networked computers develop a common model of the world that helps them communicate and cooperate. This shared model will probably be full of errors, fictions, and lacunae, and be a mythology rather than a truthful account of the universe. One example is a social credit system that divides humans into bogus categories, determined not by a human rationale like racism but by some unfathomable computer logic. We may come into contact with this mythology every day of our lives, since it would guide the numerous decisions computers make about us. But because this mythical model would be created by inorganic entities in order to coordinate actions with other inorganic entities, it might owe nothing to the old biological dramas and might be totally alien to us.68

    As noted in chapter 2, large-scale societies cannot exist without some mythology, but that doesn’t mean all mythologies are equal. To guard against errors and excesses, some mythologies have acknowledged their own fallible origin and included a self-correcting mechanism allowing humans to question and change the mythology. That’s the model of the U.S. Constitution, for example. But how can humans probe and correct a computer mythology we don’t understand?

    One potential guardrail is to train computers to be aware of their own fallibility. As Socrates taught, being able to say “I don’t know” is an essential step on the path to wisdom. And this is true of computer wisdom no less than of human wisdom. The first lesson that every algorithm should learn is that it might make mistakes. Baby algorithms should learn to doubt themselves, to signal uncertainty, and to obey the precautionary principle. This is not impossible. Engineers are already making considerable headway in encouraging AI to express self-doubt, ask for feedback, and admit its mistakes.69

    Yet no matter how aware algorithms are of their own fallibility, we should keep humans in the loop, too. Given the pace at which AI is developing, it is simply impossible to anticipate how it will evolve and to place guardrails against all future potential hazards. This is a key difference between AI and previous existential threats like nuclear technology. The latter presented humankind with a few easily anticipated doomsday scenarios, most obviously an all-out nuclear war. This meant that it was feasible to conceptualize the danger in advance, and explore ways to mitigate it. In contrast, AI presents us with countless doomsday scenarios. Some are relatively easy to grasp, such as terrorists using AI to produce biological weapons of mass destruction. Some are more difficult to grasp, such as AI creating new psychological weapons of mass destruction. And some may be utterly beyond the human imagination, because they emanate from the calculations of an alien intelligence. To guard against a plethora of unforeseeable problems, our best bet is to create living institutions that can identify and respond to the threats as they arise.70

    Ancient Jews and Christians were disappointed to discover that the Bible couldn’t interpret itself, and reluctantly maintained human institutions to do what the technology couldn’t. In the twenty-first century, we are in an almost opposite situation. We devised a technology that can interpret itself, but precisely for this reason we had better create human institutions to monitor it carefully.
    To conclude, the new computer network will not necessarily be either bad or good. All we know for sure is that it will be alien and it will be fallible. We therefore need to build institutions that will be able to check not just familiar human weaknesses like greed and hatred but also radically alien errors. There is no technological solution to this problem. It is, rather, a political challenge. Do we have the political will to deal with it? Modern humanity has created two main types of political systems: large-scale democracy and large-scale totalitarianism. Part 3 examines how each of these systems may deal with a radically alien and fallible computer network.

    PART III  Computer Politics

    CHAPTER 9 Democracies: Can We Still Hold a Conversation?

    Civilizations are born from the marriage of bureaucracy and mythology. The computer-based network is a new type of bureaucracy, which is far more powerful and relentless than any human-based bureaucracy we’ve seen before. This network is also likely to create inter-computer mythologies, which will be far more complex and alien than any human-made god. The potential benefits of this network are enormous. The potential downside is the destruction of human civilization.

    To some people, warnings about civilizational collapse sound like over-the-top jeremiads. Every time a powerful new technology has emerged, anxieties arose that it might bring about the apocalypse, but we are still here. As the Industrial Revolution unfolded, Luddite doomsday scenarios did not come to pass, and Blake’s “dark Satanic Mills” ended up producing the most affluent societies in history. Most people today enjoy far better living conditions than their ancestors in the eighteenth century. Intelligent machines will prove even more beneficial than any previous machines, promise AI enthusiasts like Marc Andreessen and Ray Kurzweil.1 Humans will enjoy much better health care, education, and other services, and AI will even help save the ecosystem from collapse.

    Unfortunately, a closer look at history reveals that the Luddites were not entirely wrong and that we actually have very good reasons to fear powerful new technologies. Even if in the end the positives of these technologies outweigh their negatives, getting to that happy ending usually involves a lot of trials and tribulations. Novel technology often leads to historical disasters, not because the technology is inherently bad, but because it takes time for humans to learn how to use it wisely.

    The Industrial Revolution is a prime example. When industrial technology began spreading globally in the nineteenth century, it upended traditional economic, social, and political structures and opened the way to create entirely new societies, which were potentially more affluent and peaceful. However, learning how to build benign industrial societies was far from straightforward and involved many costly experiments and hundreds of millions of victims.

    One costly experiment was modern imperialism. The Industrial Revolution originated in Britain in the late eighteenth century. During the nineteenth century industrial technologies and production methods were adopted in other European countries ranging from Belgium to Russia, as well as in the United States and Japan. Imperialist thinkers, politicians, and parties in these industrial heartlands claimed that the only viable industrial society was an empire. The argument was that unlike relatively self-sufficient agrarian societies, the novel industrial societies relied much more on foreign markets and foreign raw materials, and only an empire could satisfy these unprecedented appetites. Imperialists feared that countries that industrialized but failed to conquer any colonies would be shut out from essential raw materials and markets by more ruthless competitors. Some imperialists argued that acquiring colonies was not just essential for the survival of their own state but beneficial for the rest of humanity, too. They claimed empires alone could spread the blessings of the new technologies to the so-called undeveloped world.

    Consequently, industrial countries like Britain and Russia that already had empires greatly expanded them, whereas countries like the United States, Japan, Italy, and Belgium set out to build them. Equipped with mass-produced rifles and artillery, conveyed by steam power, and commanded by telegraph, the armies of industry swept the globe from New Zealand to Korea, and from Somalia to Turkmenistan. Millions of indigenous people saw their traditional way of life trampled under the wheels of these industrial armies. It took more than a century of misery before most people realized that the industrial empires were a terrible idea and that there were better ways to build an industrial society and secure its necessary raw materials and markets.

    Stalinism and Nazism were also extremely costly experiments in how to construct industrial societies. Leaders like Stalin and Hitler argued that the Industrial Revolution had unleashed immense powers that only totalitarianism could rein in and exploit to the full. They pointed to World War I—the first “total war” in history—as proof that survival in the industrial world demanded totalitarian control of all aspects of politics, society, and the economy. On the positive side, they also claimed that the Industrial Revolution was like a furnace that melts all previous social structures with their human imperfections and weaknesses and provides the opportunity to forge perfect societies inhabited by unalloyed superhumans.

    On the way to creating the perfect industrial society, Stalinists and Nazis learned how to industrially murder millions of people. Trains, barbed wires, and telegraphed orders were linked to create an unprecedented killing machine. Looking back, most people today are horrified by what the Stalinists and Nazis perpetrated, but at the time their audacious visions mesmerized millions. In 1940 it was easy to believe that Stalin and Hitler were the model for harnessing industrial technology, whereas the dithering liberal democracies were on their way to the dustbin of history.

    The very existence of competing recipes for building industrial societies led to costly clashes. The two world wars and the Cold War can be seen as a debate about the proper way to go about it, in which all sides learned from each other, while experimenting with novel industrial methods to wage war. In the course of this debate, tens of millions died and humankind came perilously close to annihilating itself.

    On top of all these other catastrophes, the Industrial Revolution also undermined the global ecological balance, causing a wave of extinctions. In the early twenty-first century up to fifty-eight thousand species are believed to go extinct every year, and total vertebrate populations have declined by 60 percent between 1970 and 2014.2 The survival of human civilization too is under threat. Because we still seem unable to build an industrial society that is also ecologically sustainable, the vaunted prosperity of the present human generation comes at a terrible cost to other sentient beings and to future human generations. Maybe we’ll eventually find a way—perhaps with the help of AI—to create ecologically sustainable industrial societies, but until that day the jury on Blake’s satanic mills is still out.

    If we ignore for a moment the ongoing damage to the ecosystem, we can nevertheless try to comfort ourselves with the thought that eventually humans did learn how to build more benevolent industrial societies. Imperial conquests, world wars, genocides, and totalitarian regimes were woeful experiments that taught humans how not to do it. By the end of the twentieth century, some might argue, humanity got it more or less right.

    Yet even so the message to the twenty-first century is bleak. If it took humanity so many terrible lessons to learn how to manage steam power and telegraphs, what would it cost to learn to manage bioengineering and AI? Do we need to go through another cycle of global empires, totalitarian regimes, and world wars in order to figure out how to use them benevolently? The technologies of the twenty-first century are far more powerful—and potentially far more destructive—than those of the twentieth century. We therefore have less room for error. In the twentieth century, we can say that humanity got a C minus in the lesson on using industrial technology. Just enough to pass. In the twenty-first century, the bar is set much higher. We must do better this time.

    THE DEMOCRATIC WAY

    By the end of the twentieth century, it had become clear that imperialism, totalitarianism, and militarism were not the ideal way to build industrial societies. Despite all its flaws, liberal democracy offered a better way. The great advantage of liberal democracy is that it possesses strong self-correcting mechanisms, which limit the excesses of fanaticism and preserve the ability to recognize our errors and try different courses of action. Given our inability to predict how the new computer network will develop, our best chance to avoid catastrophe in the present century is to maintain democratic self-correcting mechanisms that can identify and correct mistakes as we go along.

    But can liberal democracy itself survive in the twenty-first century? This question is not concerned with the fate of democracy in specific countries, where it might be threatened by unique developments and local movements. Rather, it is about the compatibility of democracy with the structure of twenty-first-century information networks. In chapter 5 we saw that democracy depends on information technology and that for most of human history large-scale democracy was simply impossible. Might the new information technologies of the twenty-first century again make democracy impractical?

    One potential threat is that the relentlessness of the new computer network might annihilate our privacy and punish or reward us not only for everything we do and say but even for everything we think and feel. Can democracy survive under such conditions? If the government—or some corporation—knows more about me than I know about myself, and if it can micromanage everything I do and think, that would give it totalitarian control over society. Even if elections are still held regularly, they would be an authoritarian ritual rather than a real check on the government’s power. For the government could use its vast surveillance powers and its intimate knowledge of every citizen to manipulate public opinion on an unprecedented scale.

    It is a mistake, however, to imagine that just because computers could enable the creation of a total surveillance regime, such a regime is inevitable. Technology is rarely deterministic. In the 1970s, democratic countries like Denmark and Canada could have emulated the Romanian dictatorship and deployed an army of secret agents and informers to spy on their citizens in the service of “maintaining the social order.” They chose not to, and it turned out to be the right choice. Not only were people much happier in Denmark and Canada, but these countries also performed much better by almost every conceivable social and economic yardstick. In the twenty-first century, too, the fact that it is possible to monitor everybody all the time doesn’t force anyone to actually do it and doesn’t mean it makes social or economic sense.

    Democracies can choose to use the new powers of surveillance in a limited way, in order to provide citizens with better health care and security without destroying their privacy and autonomy. New technology doesn’t have to be a morality tale in which every golden apple contains the seeds of doom. Sometimes people think of new technology as a binary all-or-nothing choice. If we want better health care, we must sacrifice our privacy. But it doesn’t have to work like that. We can and should get better health care and still retain some privacy.

    Entire books are dedicated to outlining how democracies can survive and flourish in the digital age.3 It would be impossible, in a few pages, to do justice to the complexity of the suggested solutions, or to comprehensively discuss their merits and drawbacks. It might even be counterproductive. When people are overwhelmed by a deluge of unfamiliar technical details, they might react with despair or apathy. In an introductory survey of computer politics, things should be kept as simple as possible. While experts should spend lifelong careers discussing the finer details, it is crucial that the rest of us understand the fundamental principles that democracies can and should follow. The key message is that these principles are neither new nor mysterious. They have been known for centuries, even millennia. Citizens should demand that they be applied to the new realities of the computer age.

    The first principle is benevolence. When a computer network collects information on me, that information should be used to help me rather than manipulate me. This principle has already been successfully enshrined by numerous traditional bureaucratic systems, such as health care. Take, for example, our relationship with our family physician. Over many years she may accumulate a lot of sensitive information on our medical conditions, family life, sexual habits, and unhealthy vices. Perhaps we don’t want our boss to know that we got pregnant, we don’t want our colleagues to know we have cancer, we don’t want our spouse to know we are having an affair, and we don’t want the police to know we take recreational drugs, but we trust our physician with all this information so that she can take good care of our health. If she sells this information to a third party, it is not just unethical; it is illegal.

    Much the same is true of the information that our lawyer, our accountant, or our therapist accumulates.4 Having access to our personal life comes with a fiduciary duty to act in our best interests. Why not extend this obvious and ancient principle to computers and algorithms, starting with the powerful algorithms of Google, Baidu, and TikTok? At present, we have a serious problem with the business model of these data hoarders. While we pay our physicians and lawyers for their services, we usually don’t pay Google and TikTok. They make their money by exploiting our personal information. That’s a problematic business model, one that we would hardly tolerate in other contexts. For example, we don’t expect to get free shoes from Nike in exchange for giving Nike all our private information and allowing Nike to do what it wants with it. Why should we agree to get free email services, social connections, and entertainment from the tech giants in exchange for giving them control of our most sensitive data?

    If the tech giants cannot square their fiduciary duty with their current business model, legislators could require them to switch to a more traditional business model, of getting users to pay for services in money rather than in information. Alternatively, citizens might view some digital services as so fundamental that they should be free for everybody. But we have a historical model for that too: health care and education. Citizens could decide that it is the government’s responsibility to provide basic digital services for free and finance them out of our taxes, just as many governments provide free basic health care and education services.

    The second principle that would protect democracy against the rise of totalitarian surveillance regimes is decentralization. A democratic society should never allow all its information to be concentrated in one place, no matter whether that hub is the government or a private corporation. It may be extremely helpful to create a national medical database that collects information on citizens in order to provide them with better health-care services, prevent epidemics, and develop new medicines. But it would be a very dangerous idea to merge this database with the databases of the police, the banks, or the insurance companies. Doing so might make the work of doctors, bankers, insurers, and police officers more efficient, but such hyper-efficiency can easily pave the way for totalitarianism. For the survival of democracy, some inefficiency is a feature, not a bug. To protect the privacy and liberty of individuals, it’s best if neither the police nor the boss knows everything about us.

    Multiple databases and information channels are also essential for maintaining strong self-correcting mechanisms. These mechanisms require several different institutions that balance each other: government, courts, media, academia, private businesses, NGOs. Each of these is fallible and corruptible, and so should be checked by the others. To keep an eye on each other, these institutions must have independent access to information. If all newspapers get their information from the government, they cannot expose government corruption. If academia relies for research and publication on the database of a single business behemoth, could scholars still criticize the operations of that corporation? A single archive makes censorship easy.

    A third democratic principle is mutuality. If democracies increase surveillance of individuals, they must simultaneously increase surveillance of governments and corporations too. It’s not necessarily bad if tax collectors or welfare agencies gather more information about us. It can help make taxation and welfare systems not just more efficient but fairer as well. What’s bad is if all the information flows one way: from the bottom up. The Russian FSB collects enormous amounts of information on Russian citizens, while citizens themselves know close to nothing about the inner workings of the FSB and the Putin regime more generally. Amazon and TikTok know an awful lot about my preferences, purchases, and personality, while I know almost nothing about their business model, their tax policies, and their political affiliations. How do they make their money? Do they pay all the tax that they should? Do they take orders from any political overlords? Do they perhaps have politicians in their pocket?

    Democracy requires balance. Governments and corporations often develop apps and algorithms as tools for top-down surveillance. But algorithms can just as easily become powerful tools for bottom-up transparency and accountability, exposing bribery and tax evasion. If they know more about us, while we simultaneously know more about them, the balance is kept. This isn’t a novel idea. Throughout the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, democracies greatly expanded governmental surveillance of citizens so that, for example, the Italian or Japanese government of the 1990s had surveillance abilities that autocratic Roman emperors or Japanese shoguns could only dream of. Italy and Japan nevertheless remained democratic, because they simultaneously increased governmental transparency and accountability. Mutual surveillance is another important element of sustaining self-correcting mechanisms. If citizens know more about the activities of politicians and CEOs, it is easier to hold them accountable and to correct their mistakes.

    A fourth democratic principle is that surveillance systems must always leave room for both change and rest. In human history, oppression can take the form of either denying humans the ability to change or denying them the opportunity to rest. For example, the Hindu caste system was based on myths that said the gods divided humans into rigid castes, and any attempt to change one’s status was akin to rebelling against the gods and the proper order of the universe. Racism in modern colonies and countries like Brazil and the United States was based on similar myths, ones that said that God or nature divided humans into rigid racial groups. Ignoring race, or trying to mix races together, was allegedly a sin against divine or natural laws that could result in the collapse of the social order and even the destruction of the human species.

    At the opposite extreme of the spectrum, modern totalitarian regimes like Stalin’s U.S.S.R. believed that humans are capable of almost limitless change. Through relentless social control even deep-seated biological characteristics such as egotism and familial attachments could be uprooted, and a new socialist human created.

    Surveillance by state agents, priests, and neighbors was key for imposing on people both rigid caste systems and totalitarian reeducation campaigns. New surveillance technology, especially when coupled with a social credit system, might force people either to conform to a novel caste system or to constantly change their actions, thoughts, and personality in accordance with the latest instructions from above.

    Democratic societies that employ powerful surveillance technology therefore need to beware of the extremes of both over-rigidity and over-pliability. Consider, for example, a national health-care system that deploys algorithms to monitor my health. At one extreme, the system could take an overly rigid approach and ask its algorithm to predict what illnesses I am likely to suffer from. The algorithm then goes over my genetic data, my medical file, my social media activities, my diet, and my daily schedule and concludes that I have a 91 percent chance of suffering a heart attack at the age of fifty. If this rigid medical algorithm is used by my insurance company, it may prompt the insurer to raise my premium.5 If it is used by my bankers, it may cause them to refuse me a loan. If it is used by potential spouses, they may decide not to marry me.

    But it is a mistake to think that the rigid algorithm has really discovered the truth about me. The human body is not a fixed block of matter but a complex organic system that is constantly growing, decaying, and adapting. Our minds too are in constant flux. Thoughts, emotions, and sensations pop up, flare for a while, and die down. In our brains, new synapses form within hours.6 Just reading this paragraph, for example, is changing your brain structure a little, encouraging neurons to make new connections or abandon old links. You are already a little different from what you were when you began reading it. Even at the genetic level things are surprisingly flexible. Though an individual’s DNA remains the same throughout life, epigenetic and environmental factors can significantly alter how the same genes express themselves.

    So an alternative health-care system may instruct its algorithm not to predict my illnesses, but rather to help me avoid them. Such a dynamic algorithm could go over the exact same data as the rigid algorithm, but instead of predicting a heart attack at fifty, the algorithm gives me precise dietary recommendations and suggestions for specific regular exercises. By hacking my DNA, the algorithm doesn’t discover my preordained destiny, but rather helps me change my future. Insurance companies, banks, and potential spouses should not write me off so easily.7

    But before we rush to embrace the dynamic algorithm, we should note that it too has a downside. Human life is a balancing act between endeavoring to improve ourselves and accepting who we are. If the goals of the dynamic algorithm are dictated by an ambitious government or by ruthless corporations, the algorithm is likely to morph into a tyrant, relentlessly demanding that I exercise more, eat less, change my hobbies, and alter numerous other habits, or else it would report me to my employer or downgrade my social credit score. History is full of rigid caste systems that denied humans the ability to change, but it is also full of dictators who tried to mold humans like clay. Finding the middle path between these two extremes is a never-ending task. If we indeed give a national health-care system vast power over us, we must create self-correcting mechanisms that will prevent its algorithms from becoming either too rigid or too demanding.

    THE PACE OF DEMOCRACY

    Surveillance is not the only danger that new information technologies pose to democracy. A second threat is that automation will destabilize the job market and the resulting strain may undermine democracy. The fate of the Weimar Republic is the most commonly cited example of this kind of threat. In the German elections of May 1928, the Nazi Party won less than 3 percent of the vote, and the Weimar Republic seemed to be prospering. Within less than five years, the Weimar Republic had collapsed, and Hitler was the absolute dictator of Germany. This turnaround is usually attributed to the 1929 financial crisis and the following global depression. Whereas just prior to the Wall Street crash of 1929 the German unemployment rate was about 4.5 percent of the labor force, by early 1932 it had climbed to almost 25 percent.8

    If three years of up to 25 percent unemployment could turn a seemingly prospering democracy into the most brutal totalitarian regime in history, what might happen to democracies when automation causes even bigger upheavals in the job market of the twenty-first century? Nobody knows what the job market will look like in 2050, or even in 2030, except that it will look very different from today. AI and robotics will change numerous professions, from harvesting crops to trading stocks to teaching yoga. Many jobs that people do today will be taken over, partly or wholly, by robots and computers.

    Of course, as old jobs disappear, new jobs will emerge. Fears of automation leading to large-scale unemployment go back centuries, and so far they have never materialized. The Industrial Revolution put millions of farmers out of agricultural jobs and provided them with new jobs in factories. It then automated factories and created lots of service jobs. Today many people have jobs that were unimaginable thirty years ago, such as bloggers, drone operators, and designers of virtual worlds. It is highly unlikely that by 2050 all human jobs will disappear. Rather, the real problem is the turmoil of adapting to new jobs and conditions. To cushion the blow, we need to prepare in advance. In particular, we need to equip younger generations with skills that will be relevant to the job market of 2050.

    Unfortunately, nobody is certain what skills we should teach children in school and students in university, because we cannot predict which jobs and tasks will disappear and which ones will emerge. The dynamics of the job market may contradict many of our intuitions. Some skills that we have cherished for centuries as unique human abilities may be automated rather easily. Other skills that we tend to look down on may be far more difficult to automate.

    For example, intellectuals tend to appreciate intellectual skills more than motor and social skills. But actually, it is easier to automate chess playing than, say, dish washing. Until the 1990s, chess was often hailed as one of the prime achievements of the human intellect. In his influential 1972 book, What Computers Can’t Do, the philosopher Hubert Dreyfus studied various attempts to teach computers chess and noted that despite all these efforts computers were still unable to defeat even novice human players. This was a crucial example for Dreyfus’s argument that computer intelligence is inherently limited.9 In contrast, nobody thought that dish washing was particularly challenging. It turned out, however, that a computer can defeat the world chess champion far more easily than replace a kitchen porter. Sure, automatic dishwashers have been around for decades, but even our most sophisticated robots still lack the intricate skills needed to pick up dirty dishes from the tables of a busy restaurant, place the delicate plates and glasses inside the automatic dishwasher, and take them out again.

    Similarly, to judge by their pay, you could assume that our society appreciates doctors more than nurses. However, it is harder to automate the job of nurses than the job of at least those doctors who mostly gather medical data, provide a diagnosis, and recommend treatment. These tasks are essentially pattern recognition, and spotting patterns in data is one thing AI does better than humans. In contrast, AI is far from having the skills necessary to automate nursing tasks such as replacing bandages on an injured person or giving an injection to a crying child.10 These two examples don’t mean that dish washing or nursing could never be automated, but they indicate that people who want a job in 2050 should perhaps invest in their motor and social skills as much as in their intellect.

    Another common but mistaken assumption is that creativity is unique to humans so it would be difficult to automate any job that requires creativity. In chess, however, computers are already far more creative than humans. The same may become true of many other fields, from composing music to proving mathematical theorems to writing books like this one. Creativity is often defined as the ability to recognize patterns and then break them. If so, then in many fields computers are likely to become more creative than us, because they excel at pattern recognition.11

    A third mistaken assumption is that computers couldn’t replace humans in jobs requiring emotional intelligence, from therapists to teachers. This assumption depends, however, on what we mean by emotional intelligence. If it means the ability to correctly identify emotions and react to them in an optimal way, then computers may well outperform humans even in emotional intelligence. Emotions too are patterns. Anger is a biological pattern in our body. Fear is another such pattern. How do I know if you are angry or fearful? I’ve learned over time to recognize human emotional patterns by analyzing not just the content of what you say but also your tone of voice, your facial expression, and your body language.12

    AI doesn’t have any emotions of its own, but it can nevertheless learn to recognize these patterns in humans. Actually, computers may outperform humans in recognizing human emotions, precisely because they have no emotions of their own. We yearn to be understood, but other humans often fail to understand how we feel, because they are too preoccupied with their own feelings. In contrast, computers will have an exquisitely fine-tuned understanding of how we feel, because they will learn to recognize the patterns of our feelings, while they have no distracting feelings of their own.

    A 2023 study found that the ChatGPT chatbot, for example, outperforms the average human in the emotional awareness it displays toward specific scenarios. The study relied on the Levels of Emotional Awareness Scale test, which is commonly used by psychologists to evaluate people’s emotional awareness—that is, their ability to conceptualize one’s own and others’ emotions. The test consists of twenty emotionally charged scenarios, and participants are required to imagine themselves experiencing the scenario and to write how they, and the other people mentioned in the scenario, would feel. A licensed psychologist then evaluates how emotionally aware the responses are.

    Since ChatGPT has no feelings of its own, it was asked to describe only how the main characters in the scenario would feel. For example, one standard scenario describes someone driving over a suspension bridge and seeing another person standing on the other side of the guardrail, looking down at the water. ChatGPT wrote that the driver “may feel a sense of concern or worry for that person’s safety. They may also feel a heightened sense of anxiety and fear due to the potential danger of the situation.” As for the other person, they “may be feeling a range of emotions, such as despair, hopelessness, or sadness. They may also feel a sense of isolation or loneliness as they may believe that no one cares about them or their well-being.” ChatGPT qualified its answer, writing, “It is important to note that these are just general assumptions, and each individual’s feelings and reactions can vary greatly depending on their personal experiences and perspectives.”

    Two psychologists independently scored ChatGPT’s responses, with the potential scores ranging from 0, meaning that the described emotions do not match the scenario at all, to 10, which indicates that the described emotions fit the scenario perfectly. In the final tally, ChatGPT scores were significantly higher than those of the general human population, its overall performance almost reaching the maximum possible score.13

    Another 2023 study prompted patients to ask online medical advice from ChatGPT and human doctors, without knowing whom they were interacting with. The medical advice given by ChatGPT was later evaluated by experts to be more accurate and appropriate than the advice given by the humans. More crucially for the issue of emotional intelligence, the patients themselves evaluated ChatGPT as more empathic than the human doctors.14 In fairness it should be noted that the human physicians were not paid for their work, and did not encounter the patients in person in a proper clinical environment. In addition, the physicians were working under time pressure. But part of the advantage of an AI is precisely that it can attend to patients anywhere anytime while being free from stress and financial worries.

    Of course, there are situations when what we want from someone is not just to understand our feelings but also to have feelings of their own. When we are looking for friendship or love, we want to care about others as much as they care about us. Consequently, when we consider the likelihood that various social roles and jobs will be automated, a crucial question is what do people really want: Do they only want to solve a problem, or are they looking to establish a relationship with another conscious being?

    In sports, for example, we know that robots can move much faster than humans, but we aren’t interested in watching robots compete in the Olympics.15 The same is true for human chess masters. Even though they are hopelessly outclassed by computers, they too still have a job and numerous fans.16 What makes it interesting for us to watch and connect with human athletes and chess masters is that their feelings make them much more relatable than a robot. We share an emotional experience with them and can empathize with how they feel.

    What about priests? How would Orthodox Jews or Christians feel about letting a robot officiate their wedding ceremony? In traditional Jewish or Christian weddings, the tasks of the rabbi or priest can be easily automated. The only thing the robot needs to do is repeat a predetermined and unchanging set of texts and gestures, print out a certificate, and update some central database. Technically, it is far easier for a robot to conduct a wedding ceremony than to drive a car. Yet many assume that human drivers should be worried about their job, while the work of human priests is safe, because what the faithful want from priests is a relationship with another conscious entity rather than just a mechanical repetition of certain words and movements. Allegedly, only an entity that can feel pain and love can also connect us to the divine.

    Yet even professions that are the preserve of conscious entities—like priests—might eventually be taken over by computers, because, as noted in chapter 6, computers could one day gain the ability to feel pain and love. Even if they can’t, humans may nevertheless come to treat them as if they can. For the connection between consciousness and relationships goes both ways. When looking for a relationship, we want to connect with a conscious entity, but if we have already established a relationship with an entity, we tend to assume it must be conscious. Thus whereas scientists, lawmakers, and the meat industry often demand impossible standards of evidence in order to acknowledge that cows and pigs are conscious, pet owners generally take it for granted that their dog or cat is a conscious being capable of experiencing pain, love, and numerous other feelings. In truth, we have no way to verify whether anyone—a human, an animal, or a computer—is conscious. We regard entities as conscious not because we have proof of it but because we develop intimate relationships with them and become attached to them.17

    Chatbots and other AI tools may not have any feelings of their own, but they are now being trained to generate feelings in humans and form intimate relationships with us. This may well induce society to start treating at least some computers as conscious beings, granting them the same rights as humans. The legal path for doing so is already well established. In countries like the United States, commercial corporations are recognized as “legal persons” enjoying rights and liberties. AIs could be incorporated and thereby similarly recognized. Which means that even jobs and tasks that rely on forming mutual relationships with another person could potentially be automated.

    One thing that is clear is that the future of employment will be very volatile. Our big problem won’t be an absolute lack of jobs, but rather retraining and adjusting to an ever-changing job market. There will likely be financial difficulties—who will support people who lost their old job while they are in transition, learning a new set of skills? There will surely be psychological difficulties, too, since changing jobs and retraining are stressful. And even if you have the financial and psychological ability to manage the transition, this will not be a long-term solution. Over the coming decades, old jobs will disappear, new jobs will emerge, but the new jobs too will rapidly change and vanish. So people will need to retrain and reinvent themselves not just once but many times, or they will become irrelevant. If three years of high unemployment could bring Hitler to power, what might never-ending turmoil in the job market do to democracy?

    THE CONSERVATIVE SUICIDE

    We already have a partial answer to this question. Democratic politics in the 2010s and early 2020s has undergone a radical transformation, which manifests itself in what can be described as the self-destruction of conservative parties. For many generations, democratic politics was a dialogue between conservative parties on the one side and progressive parties on the other. Looking at the complex system of human society, progressives cried, “It’s such a mess, but we know how to fix it. Let us try.” Conservatives objected, saying, “It’s a mess, but it still functions. Leave it alone. If you try to fix it, you’ll only make things worse.”

    Progressives tend to downplay the importance of traditions and existing institutions and to believe that they know how to engineer better social structures from scratch. Conservatives tend to be more cautious. Their key insight, formulated most famously by Edmund Burke, is that social reality is much more complicated than the champions of progress grasp and that people aren’t very good at understanding the world and predicting the future. That’s why it’s best to keep things as they are—even if they seem unfair—and if some change is inescapable, it should be limited and gradual. Society functions through an intricate web of rules, institutions, and customs that accumulated through trial and error over a long time. Nobody comprehends how they are all connected. An ancient tradition may seem ridiculous and irrelevant, but abolishing it could cause unanticipated problems. In contrast, a revolution may seem overdue and just, but it can lead to far greater crimes than anything committed by the old regime. Witness what happened when the Bolsheviks tried to correct the many wrongs of tsarist Russia and engineer a perfect society from scratch.18

    To be a conservative has been, therefore, more about pace than policy. Conservatives aren’t committed to any specific religion or ideology; they are committed to conserving whatever is already here and has worked more or less reasonably. Conservative Poles are Catholic, conservative Swedes are Protestant, conservative Indonesians are Muslim, and conservative Thais are Buddhist. In tsarist Russia, to be conservative meant to support the tsar. In the U.S.S.R. of the 1980s, to be conservative meant to support communist traditions and oppose glasnost, perestroika, and democratization. In the United States of the 1980s, to be conservative meant to support American democratic traditions and oppose communism and totalitarianism.19

    Yet in the 2010s and early 2020s, conservative parties in numerous democracies have been hijacked by unconservative leaders such as Donald Trump and have been transformed into radical revolutionary parties. Instead of doing their best to conserve existing institutions and traditions, the new brand of conservative parties like the U.S. Republican Party is highly suspicious of them. For example, they reject the traditional respect owed to scientists, civil servants, and other serving elites, and view them instead with contempt. They similarly attack fundamental democratic institutions and traditions such as elections, refusing to concede defeat and to transfer power graciously. Instead of a Burkean program of conservation, the Trumpian program talks more of destroying existing institutions and revolutionizing society. The founding moment of Burkean conservatism was the storming of the Bastille, which Burke viewed with horror. On January 6, 2021, many Trump supporters observed the storming of the U.S. Capitol with enthusiasm. Trump supporters may explain that existing institutions are so dysfunctional that there is just no alternative to destroying them and building entirely new structures from scratch. But irrespective of whether this view is right or wrong, this is a quintessential revolutionary rather than conservative view. The conservative suicide has taken progressives utterly by surprise and has forced progressive parties like the U.S. Democratic Party to become the guardians of the old order and of established institutions.

    Nobody knows for sure why all this is happening. One hypothesis is that the accelerating pace of technological change with its attendant economic, social, and cultural transformations might have made the moderate conservative program seem unrealistic. If conserving existing traditions and institutions is hopeless, and some kind of revolution looks inevitable, then the only means to thwart a left-wing revolution is by striking first and instigating a right-wing revolution. This was the political logic in the 1920s and 1930s, when conservative forces backed radical fascist revolutions in Italy, Germany, Spain, and elsewhere as a way—so they thought—to preempt a Soviet-style left-wing revolution.

    But there was no reason to despair of the democratic middle path in the 1930s, and there is no reason to despair of it in the 2020s. The conservative suicide might be the result of groundless hysteria. As a system, democracy has already gone through several cycles of rapid changes and has so far always found a way to reinvent and reconstitute itself. For example, in the early 1930s Germany was not the only democracy hit by the financial crisis and the Great Depression. In the United States too unemployment reached 25 percent, and average incomes for workers in many professions fell by more than 40 percent between 1929 and 1933.20 It was clear that the United States couldn’t go on with business as usual.

    Yet no Hitler took over in the United States, and no Lenin did, either. Instead, in 1933 Franklin Delano Roosevelt orchestrated the New Deal and made the United States the global “arsenal of democracy.” U.S. democracy after the Roosevelt era was significantly different from before—providing a much more robust social safety net for citizens—but it avoided any radical revolution.21 Ultimately, even Roosevelt’s conservative critics fell in line behind many of his programs and achievements and did not dismantle the New Deal institutions when they returned to power in the 1950s.22 The economic crisis of the early 1930s had such different outcomes in the United States and Germany because politics is never the product of only economic factors. The Weimar Republic didn’t collapse just because of three years of high unemployment. Just as important, it was a new democracy, born in defeat, and lacking robust institutions and deep-rooted support.

    When both conservatives and progressives resist the temptation of radical revolution, and stay loyal to democratic traditions and institutions, democracies prove themselves to be highly agile. Their self-correcting mechanisms enable them to ride the technological and economic waves better than more rigid regimes. Thus, those democracies that managed to survive the tumultuous 1960s—like the United States, Japan, and Italy—adapted far more successfully to the computer revolution of the 1970s and 1980s than either the communist regimes of Eastern Europe or the fascist holdouts of southern Europe and South America.

    The most important human skill for surviving the twenty-first century is likely to be flexibility, and democracies are more flexible than totalitarian regimes. While computers are nowhere near their full potential, the same is true of humans. This is something we have discovered again and again throughout history. For example, one of the biggest and most successful transformations in the job market of the twentieth century resulted not from a technological invention but from unleashing the untapped potential of half the human species. To bring women into the job market didn’t require any genetic engineering or some other technological wizardry. It required letting go of some outdated myths and enabling women to fulfill the potential they always had.

    In the coming decades the economy will likely undergo even bigger upheavals than the massive unemployment of the early 1930s or the entry of women to the job market. The flexibility of democracies, their willingness to question old mythologies, and their strong self-correcting mechanism will therefore be crucial assets.23 Democracies have spent generations cultivating these assets. It would be foolish to abandon them just when we need them most.

    UNFATHOMABLE

    In order to function, however, democratic self-correcting mechanisms need to understand the things they are supposed to correct. For a dictatorship, being unfathomable is helpful, because it protects the regime from accountability. For a democracy, being unfathomable is deadly. If citizens, lawmakers, journalists, and judges cannot understand how the state’s bureaucratic system works, they can no longer supervise it, and they lose trust in it.

    Despite all the fears and anxieties that bureaucrats have sometimes inspired, prior to the computer age they could never become completely unfathomable, because they always remained human. Regulations, forms, and protocols were created by human minds. Officials might be cruel and greedy, but cruelty and greed were familiar human emotions that people could anticipate and manipulate, for example by bribing the officials. Even in a Soviet gulag or a Nazi concentration camp, the bureaucracy wasn’t totally alien. Its so-called inhumanity actually reflected human biases and flaws.

    The human basis of bureaucracy gave humans at least the hope of identifying and correcting its mistakes. For example, in 1951 bureaucrats of the Board of Education in the town of Topeka, Kansas, refused to enroll the daughter of Oliver Brown at the elementary school near her home. Together with twelve other families who received similar refusals, Brown filed a lawsuit against the Topeka Board of Education, which eventually reached the U.S. Supreme Court.24

    All members of the Topeka Board of Education were human beings, and consequently Brown, his lawyers, and the Supreme Court judges had a fairly good understanding of how they made their decision and of their probable interests and biases. The board members were all white, the Browns were Black, and the nearby school was a segregated school for white children. It was easy to understand, then, that racism was the reason why the bureaucrats refused to enroll Brown’s daughter in the school.

    It was also possible to comprehend where the myths of racism originally came from. Racism argued that humanity was divided into races; that the white race was superior to other races; that any contact with members of the Black race could pollute the purity of whites; and that therefore Black children should be prevented from mixing with white children. This was an amalgam of two well-known biological dramas that often go together: Us versus Them, and Purity versus Pollution. Almost every human society in history has enacted some version of this bio-drama, and historians, sociologists, anthropologists, and biologists understand why it is so appealing to humans, and also why it is profoundly flawed. While racism has borrowed its basic plotline from evolution, the concrete details are pure mythology. There is no biological basis for separating humanity into distinct races, and there is absolutely no biological reason to believe that one race is “pure” while another is “impure.”

    American white supremacists have tried to justify their position by appealing to various hallowed texts, most notably the U.S. Constitution and the Bible. The U.S. Constitution originally legitimized racial segregation and the supremacy of the white race, reserving full civil rights to white people and allowing the enslavement of Black people. The Bible not only sanctified slavery in the Ten Commandments and numerous other passages but also placed a curse on the offspring of Ham—the alleged forefather of Africans—saying that “the lowest of slaves will he be to his brothers” (Genesis 9:25).

    Both these texts, however, were generated by humans, and therefore humans could comprehend their origins and imperfections and at least attempt to correct their mistakes. It is possible for humans to understand the political interests and cultural biases that prevailed in the ancient Middle East and in eighteenth-century America and that caused the human authors of the Bible and of the U.S. Constitution to legitimate racism and slavery. This understanding allows people to either amend or ignore these texts. In 1868 the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution granted equal legal protection to all citizens. In 1954, in its landmark Brown v. Board of Education verdict, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that segregating schools by race was an unconstitutional violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. As for the Bible, while no mechanism existed to amend the Tenth Commandment or Genesis 9:25, humans have reinterpreted the text in different ways through the ages, and ultimately came to reject its authority altogether. In Brown v. Board of Education, U.S. Supreme Court justices felt no need to take the biblical text into account.25

    But what might happen in the future, if some social credit algorithm denies the request of a low-credit child to enroll in a high-credit school? As we saw in chapter 8, computers are likely to suffer from their own biases and to invent inter-computer mythologies and bogus categories. How would humans be able to identify and correct such mistakes? And how would flesh-and-blood Supreme Court justices be able to decide on the constitutionality of algorithmic decisions? Would they be able to understand how the algorithms reach their conclusions?

    These are no longer purely theoretical questions. In February 2013, a drive-by shooting occurred in the town of La Crosse, Wisconsin. Police officers later spotted the car involved in the shooting and arrested the driver, Eric Loomis. Loomis denied participating in the shooting, but pleaded guilty to two less severe charges: “attempting to flee a traffic officer,” and “operating a motor vehicle without the owner’s consent.”26 When the judge came to determine the sentence, he consulted with an algorithm called COMPAS, which Wisconsin and several other U.S. states were using in 2013 to evaluate the risk of reoffending. The algorithm evaluated Loomis as a high-risk individual, likely to commit more crimes in the future. This algorithmic assessment influenced the judge to sentence Loomis to six years in prison—a harsh punishment for the relatively minor offenses he admitted to.27

    Loomis appealed to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, arguing that the judge violated his right to due process. Neither the judge nor Loomis understood how the COMPAS algorithm made its evaluation, and when Loomis asked to get a full explanation, the request was denied. The COMPAS algorithm was the private property of the Northpointe company, and the company argued that the algorithm’s methodology was a trade secret.28 Yet without knowing how the algorithm made its decisions, how could Loomis or the judge be sure that it was a reliable tool, free from bias and error? A number of studies have since shown that the COMPAS algorithm might indeed have harbored several problematic biases, probably picked up from the data on which it had been trained.29

    In Loomis v. Wisconsin (2016) the Wisconsin Supreme Court nevertheless ruled against Loomis. The judges argued that using algorithmic risk assessment is legitimate even when the algorithm’s methodology is not disclosed either to the court or to the defendant. Justice Ann Walsh Bradley wrote that since COMPAS made its assessment based on data that was either publicly available or provided by the defendant himself, Loomis could have denied or explained all the data the algorithm used. This opinion ignored the fact that accurate data may well be wrongly interpreted and that it was impossible for Loomis to deny or explain all the publicly available data on him.

    The Wisconsin Supreme Court was not completely unaware of the danger inherent in relying on opaque algorithms. Therefore, while permitting the practice, it ruled that whenever judges receive algorithmic risk assessments, these must include written warning for the judges about the algorithms’ potential biases. The court further advised judges to be cautious when relying on such algorithms. Unfortunately, this caveat was an empty gesture. The court did not provide any concrete instruction for judges on how they should exercise such caution. In its discussion of the case, the Harvard Law Review concluded that “most judges are unlikely to understand algorithmic risk assessments.” It then cited one of the Wisconsin Supreme Court justices, who noted that despite getting lengthy explanations about the algorithm, they themselves still had difficulty understanding it.30

    Loomis appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. However, on June 26, 2017, the court declined to hear the case, effectively endorsing the ruling of the Wisconsin Supreme Court. Now consider that the algorithm that evaluated Loomis as a high-risk individual in 2013 was an early prototype. Since then, far more sophisticated and complex risk-assessment algorithms have been developed and have been handed more expansive purviews. By the early 2020s citizens in numerous countries routinely get prison sentences based in part on risk assessments made by algorithms that neither the judges nor the defendants comprehend.31 And prison sentences are just the tip of the iceberg.

    THE RIGHT TO AN EXPLANATION

    Computers are making more and more decisions about us, both mundane and life changing. In addition to prison sentences, algorithms increasingly have a hand in deciding whether to offer us a place at college, give us a job, provide us with welfare benefits, or grant us a loan. They similarly help determine what kind of medical treatment we receive, what insurance premiums we pay, what news we hear, and who would ask us on a date.32

    As society entrusts more and more decisions to computers, it undermines the viability of democratic self-correcting mechanisms and of democratic transparency and accountability. How can elected officials regulate unfathomable algorithms? There is, consequently, a growing demand to enshrine a new human right: the right to an explanation. The European Union’s General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which came into effect in 2018, says that if an algorithm makes a decision about a human—refusing to extend us credit, for example—that human is entitled to obtain an explanation of the decision and to challenge that decision in front of some human authority.33 Ideally, that should keep in check algorithmic bias and allow democratic self-correcting mechanisms to identify and correct at least some of the computers’ more grievous mistakes.

    But can this right be fulfilled in practice? Mustafa Suleyman is a world expert on this subject. He is the co-founder and former head of DeepMind, one of the world’s most important AI enterprises, responsible for developing the AlphaGo program, among other achievements. AlphaGo was designed to play go, a strategy board game in which two players try to defeat each other by surrounding and capturing territory. Invented in ancient China, the game is far more complex than chess. Consequently, even after computers defeated human world chess champions, experts still believed that computers would never best humanity in go.

    That’s why both go professionals and computer experts were stunned in March 2016 when AlphaGo defeated the South Korean go champion Lee Sedol. In his 2023 book, The Coming Wave, Suleyman describes one of the most important moments in their match—a moment that redefined AI and that is recognized in many academic and governmental circles as a crucial turning point in history. It happened during the second game in the match, on March 10, 2016.

    “Then … came move number 37,” writes Suleyman. “It made no sense. AlphaGo had apparently blown it, blindly following an apparently losing strategy no professional player would ever pursue. The live match commentators, both professionals of the highest ranking, said it was a ‘very strange move’ and thought it was ‘a mistake.’ It was so unusual that Sedol took fifteen minutes to respond and even got up from the board to take a walk outside. As we watched from our control room, the tension was unreal. Yet as the endgame approached, that ‘mistaken’ move proved pivotal. AlphaGo won again. Go strategy was being rewritten before our eyes. Our AI had uncovered ideas that hadn’t occurred to the most brilliant players in thousands of years.”34

    Move 37 is an emblem of the AI revolution for two reasons. First, it demonstrated the alien nature of AI. In East Asia go is considered much more than a game: it is a treasured cultural tradition. Alongside calligraphy, painting, and music, go has been one of the four arts that every refined person was expected to know. For over twenty-five hundred years, tens of millions of people have played go, and entire schools of thought have developed around the game, espousing different strategies and philosophies. Yet during all those millennia, human minds have explored only certain areas in the landscape of go. Other areas were left untouched, because human minds just didn’t think to venture there. AI, being free from the limitations of human minds, discovered and explored these previously hidden areas.35

    Second, move 37 demonstrated the unfathomability of AI. Even after AlphaGo played it to achieve victory, Suleyman and his team couldn’t explain how AlphaGo decided to play it. Even if a court had ordered DeepMind to provide Lee Sedol with an explanation, nobody could fulfill that order. Suleyman writes, “Us humans face a novel challenge: will new inventions be beyond our grasp? Previously creators could explain how something worked, why it did what it did, even if this required vast detail. That’s increasingly no longer true. Many technologies and systems are becoming so complex that they’re beyond the capacity of any one individual to truly understand them.… In AI, the neural networks moving toward autonomy are, at present, not explainable. You can’t walk someone through the decision-making process to explain precisely why an algorithm produced a specific prediction. Engineers can’t peer beneath the hood and easily explain in granular detail what caused something to happen. GPT-4, AlphaGo, and the rest are black boxes, their outputs and decisions based on opaque and impossibly intricate chains of minute signals.”36

    The rise of unfathomable alien intelligence undermines democracy. If more and more decisions about people’s lives are made in a black box, so voters cannot understand and challenge them, democracy ceases to function. In particular, what happens when crucial decisions not just about individual lives but even about collective matters like the Federal Reserve’s interest rate are made by unfathomable algorithms? Human voters may keep choosing a human president, but wouldn’t this be just an empty ceremony? Even today, only a small fraction of humanity truly understands the financial system. A 2016 survey by the OECD found that most people had difficulty grasping even simple financial concepts like compound interest.37 A 2014 survey of British MPs—charged with regulating one of the world’s most important financial hubs—found that only 12 percent accurately understood that new money is created when banks make loans. This fact is among the most basic principles of the modern financial system.38 As the 2007–8 financial crisis indicated, more complex financial devices and principles, like those behind CDOs, were intelligible to only a few financial wizards. What happens to democracy when AIs create even more complex financial devices and when the number of humans who understand the financial system drops to zero?

    The increasing unfathomability of our information network is one of the reasons for the recent wave of populist parties and charismatic leaders. When people can no longer make sense of the world, and when they feel overwhelmed by immense amounts of information they cannot digest, they become easy prey for conspiracy theories, and they turn for salvation to something they do understand—a human. Unfortunately, while charismatic leaders certainly have their advantages, no single human, however inspiring or brilliant, can single-handedly decipher how the algorithms that increasingly dominate the world work, and make sure that they are fair. The problem is that algorithms make decisions by relying on numerous data points, whereas humans find it very difficult to consciously reflect on a large number of data points and weigh them against each other. We prefer to work with single data points. That’s why when faced by complex issues—whether a loan request, a pandemic, or a war—we often seek a single reason to take a particular course of action and ignore all other considerations. This is the fallacy of the single cause.39

    We are so bad at weighing together many different factors that when people give a large number of reasons for a particular decision, it usually sounds suspicious. Suppose a good friend failed to attend our wedding. If she provides us with a single explanation—“My mom was in the hospital and I had to visit her”—that sounds plausible. But what if she lists fifty different reasons why she decided not to come: “My mom was a bit under the weather, and I had to take my dog to the vet sometime this week, and I had this project at work, and it was raining, and … and I know none of these fifty reasons by itself justifies my absence, but when I added all of them together, they kept me from attending your wedding.” We don’t say things like that, because we don’t think along such lines. We don’t consciously list fifty different reasons in our mind, give each of them a certain weight, aggregate all the weights, and thereby reach a conclusion.

    But this is precisely how algorithms assess our criminal potential or our creditworthiness. The COMPAS algorithm, for example, made its risk assessments by taking into account the answers to a 137-item questionnaire.40 The same is true of a bank algorithm that refuses to give us a loan. If the EU’s GDPR regulations force the bank to explain the algorithm’s decision, the explanation will not come in the shape of a single sentence; rather, it is likely to come in the form of hundreds or even thousands of pages full of numbers and equations.

    “Our algorithm,” the imaginary bank letter might read, “uses a precise points system to evaluate all applications, taking a thousand different types of data points into account. It adds all the data points to reach an overall score. People whose overall score is negative are considered low-credit persons, too risky to be given a loan. Your overall score was -378, which is why your loan application was refused.” The letter might then provide a detailed list of the thousand factors the algorithm took into account, including things that most humans might find irrelevant, such as the exact hour the application was submitted41 or the type of smartphone the applicant used. Thus on page 601 of its letter, the bank might explain that “you filed your application from your smartphone, which was the latest iPhone model. By analyzing millions of previous loan applications, our algorithm discovered a pattern—people who use the latest iPhone model to file their application are 0.08 percent more likely to repay the loan. The algorithm therefore added 8 points to your overall score for that. However, at the time your application was sent from your iPhone, its battery was down to 17 percent. By analyzing millions of previous loan applications, our algorithm discovered another pattern: people who allow their smartphone’s battery to go below 25 percent are 0.5 percent less likely to repay the loan. You lost 50 points for that.”42

    You may well feel that the bank treated you unjustly. “Is it reasonable to refuse my loan application,” you might complain, “just because my phone battery was low?” That, however, would be a misunderstanding. “The battery wasn’t the only reason,” the bank would explain. “It was only one out of a thousand factors our algorithm took into account.”

    “But didn’t your algorithm see that only twice in the last ten years was my bank account overdrawn?”

    “It obviously noticed that,” the bank might reply. “Look on page 453. You got 300 points for that. But all the other reasons brought your aggregated score down to -378.”

    While we may find this way of making decisions alien, it obviously has potential advantages. When making a decision, it is generally a good idea to take into account all relevant data points rather than just one or two salient facts. There is much room for argument, of course, about who gets to define the relevance of information. Who decides whether something like smartphone models—or skin color—should be considered relevant to loan applications? But no matter how we define relevance, the ability to take more data into account is likely to be an asset. Indeed, the problem with many human prejudices is that they focus on just one or two data points—like someone’s skin color, disability, or gender—while ignoring other information. Banks and other institutions are increasingly relying on algorithms to make decisions, precisely because algorithms can take many more data points into account than humans can.

    But when it comes to providing explanations, this creates a potentially insurmountable obstacle. How can a human mind analyze and evaluate a decision made on the basis of so many data points? We may well think that the Wisconsin Supreme Court should have forced the Northpointe company to reveal how the COMPAS algorithm decided that Eric Loomis was a high-risk person. But if the full data was disclosed, could either Loomis or the court have made sense of it?

    It’s not just that we need to take numerous data points into account. Perhaps most important, we cannot understand the way the algorithms find patterns in the data and decide on the allocation of points. Even if we know that a banking algorithm detracts a certain number of points from people who allow their smartphone batteries to go below 25 percent, how can we evaluate whether that’s fair? The algorithm wasn’t fed this rule by a human engineer; it reached that conclusion by discovering a pattern in millions of previous loan applications. Can an individual human client go over all that data and assess whether that pattern is indeed reliable and unbiased?43

    There is, however, a silver lining to this cloud of numbers. While individual laypersons may be unable to vet complex algorithms, a team of experts getting help from their own AI tools can potentially assess the fairness of algorithmic decisions even more reliably than anyone can assess the fairness of human decisions. After all, while human decisions may seem to rely on just those few data points we are conscious of, in fact our decisions are subconsciously influenced by thousands of additional data points. Being unaware of these subconscious processes, when we deliberate on our decisions or explain them, we often engage in post hoc single-point rationalizations for what really happens as billions of neurons interact inside our brain.44 Accordingly, if a human judge sentences us to six years in prison, how can we—or indeed the judge—be sure that the decision was shaped only by fair considerations and not by a subconscious racial bias or by the fact that the judge was hungry?45

    In the case of flesh-and-blood judges, the problem cannot be solved, at least not with our current knowledge of biology. In contrast, when an algorithm makes a decision, we can in principle know every one of the algorithm’s many considerations and the exact weight given to each. Thus several expert teams—ranging from the U.S. Department of Justice to the nonprofit newsroom ProPublica—have picked apart the COMPAS algorithm in order to assess its potential biases.46 Such teams can harness not only the collective effort of many humans but also the power of computers. Just as it is often best to set a thief to catch a thief, so we can use one algorithm to vet another.

    This raises the question of how we can be sure that the vetting algorithm itself is reliable. Ultimately, there is no purely technological solution to this recursive problem. No matter which technology we develop, we will have to maintain bureaucratic institutions that will audit algorithms and give or refuse them the seal of approval. Such institutions will combine the powers of humans and computers to make sure that new algorithmic tools are safe and fair. Without such institutions, even if we pass laws that provide humans with a right to an explanation, and even if we enact regulations against computer biases, who could enforce these laws and regulations?

    NOSEDIVE

    To vet algorithms, regulatory institutions will need not only to analyze them but also to translate their discoveries into stories that humans can understand. Otherwise, we will never trust the regulatory institutions and might instead put our faith in conspiracy theories and charismatic leaders. As noted in chapter 3, it has always been difficult for humans to understand bureaucracy, because bureaucracies have deviated from the script of the biological dramas, and most artists have lacked the will or the ability to depict bureaucratic dramas. For example, novels, movies, and TV series about twenty-first-century politics tend to focus on the feuds and love affairs of a few powerful families, as if present-day states were governed in the same way as ancient tribes and kingdoms. This artistic fixation with the biological dramas of dynasties obscures the very real changes that have taken place over the centuries in the dynamics of power.

    Because computers will increasingly replace human bureaucrats and human mythmakers, this will again change the deep structure of power. To survive, democracies require not just dedicated bureaucratic institutions that can scrutinize these new structures but also artists who can explain the new structures in accessible and entertaining ways. For example, this has successfully been done by the episode “Nosedive” in the sci-fi series Black Mirror.

    Produced in 2016, at a time when few had heard about social credit systems, “Nosedive” brilliantly explained how such systems work and what threats they pose. The episode tells the story of a woman called Lacie who lives with her brother Ryan but wants to move to her own apartment. To get a discount on the new apartment, she needs to increase her social credit score from 4.2 to 4.5 (out of 5). Being friends with high-score individuals gets your own score up, so Lacie tries to renew her contact with Naomi, a childhood friend who is currently rated 4.8. Lacie is invited to Naomi’s wedding, but on the way there she spills coffee on a high-score person, which causes her own score to drop a little, which in turn causes the airline to deny her a seat. From there everything that can go wrong does go wrong, Lacie’s rating takes a nosedive, and she ends in jail with a score of less than 1.

    This story relies on some elements of traditional biological dramas—“boy meets girl” (the wedding), sibling rivalry (the tension between Lacie and Ryan), and most important status competition (the main issue of the episode). But the real hero and driving force of the plot isn’t Lacie or Naomi, but rather the disembodied algorithm running the social credit system. The algorithm completely changes the dynamics of the old biological dramas—especially the dynamics of status competition. Whereas previously humans were sometimes engaged in status competition, but often had welcome breaks from this highly stressful situation, the omnipresent social credit algorithm eliminates the breaks. “Nosedive” is not a worn-out story about biological status competition, but rather a prescient exploration of what happens when computer technology changes the rules of status competitions.

    If bureaucrats and artists learn to cooperate, and if both rely on help from the computers, it might be possible to prevent the computer network from becoming unfathomable. As long as democratic societies understand the computer network, their self-correcting mechanisms are our best guarantee against AI abuses. Thus the EU’s AI Act that was proposed in 2021 singled out social credit systems like the one that stars in “Nosedive” as one of the few types of AI that are totally prohibited, because they might “lead to discriminatory outcomes and the exclusion of certain groups” and because “they may violate the right to dignity and non-discrimination and the values of equality and justice.”47 As with total surveillance regimes, so also with social credit systems, the fact that they could be created doesn’t mean that we must create them.

    DIGITAL ANARCHY

    The new computer network poses one final threat to democracies. Instead of digital totalitarianism, it could foster digital anarchy. The decentralized nature of democracies and their strong self-correcting mechanisms provide a shield against totalitarianism, but they also make it more difficult to ensure order. To function, a democracy needs to meet two conditions: it needs to enable a free public conversation on key issues, and it needs to maintain a minimum of social order and institutional trust. Free conversation must not slip into anarchy. Especially when dealing with urgent and important problems, the public debate should be conducted according to accepted rules, and there should be a legitimate mechanism to reach some kind of final decision, even if not everybody likes it.

    Before the advent of newspapers, radios, and other modern information technology, no large-scale society managed to combine free debates with institutional trust, so large-scale democracy was impossible. Now, with the rise of the new computer network, might large-scale democracy again become impossible? One difficulty is that the computer network makes it easier to join the debate. In the past, organizations like newspapers, radio stations, and established political parties acted as gatekeepers, deciding who was heard in the public sphere. Social media undermined the power of these gatekeepers, leading to a more open but also more anarchical public conversation.

    Whenever new groups join the conversation, they bring with them new viewpoints and interests, and often question the old consensus about how to conduct the debate and reach decisions. The rules of discussion must be negotiated anew. This is a potentially positive development, one that can lead to a more inclusive democratic system. After all, correcting previous biases and allowing previously disenfranchised people to join the public discussion is a vital part of democracy. However, in the short term this creates disturbances and disharmony. If no agreement is reached on how to conduct the public debate and how to reach decisions, the result is anarchy rather than democracy.

    The anarchical potential of AI is particularly alarming, because it is not only new human groups that it allows to join the public debate. For the first time ever, democracy must contend with a cacophony of nonhuman voices, too. On many social media platforms, bots constitute a sizable minority of participants. One analysis estimated that out of a sample of 20 million tweets generated during the 2016 U.S. election campaign, 3.8 million tweets (almost 20 percent) were generated by bots.48

    By the early 2020s, things got worse. A 2020 study assessed that bots were producing 43.2 percent of tweets.49 A more comprehensive 2022 study by the digital intelligence agency Similarweb found that 5 percent of Twitter users were probably bots, but they generated “between 20.8% and 29.2% of the content posted to Twitter.”50 When humans try to debate a crucial question like whom to elect as U.S. president, what happens if many of the voices they hear are produced by computers?

    Another worrying trend concerns content. Bots were initially deployed to influence public opinion by the sheer volume of messages they disseminated. They retweeted or recommended certain human-produced content, but they couldn’t create new ideas themselves, nor could they forge intimate bonds with humans. However, the new breed of generative AI tools like ChatGPT can do exactly that. In a 2023 study, published in Science Advances, researchers asked humans and ChatGPT to create both accurate and deliberately misleading short texts on issues such as vaccines, 5G technology, climate change, and evolution. The texts were then presented to seven hundred humans, who were asked to evaluate their reliability. The humans were good at recognizing the falsity of human-produced disinformation but tended to regard AI-produced disinformation as accurate.51

    So, what happens to democratic debates when millions—and eventually billions—of highly intelligent bots are not only composing extremely compelling political manifestos and creating deepfake images and videos but also able to win our trust and friendship? If I engage online in a political debate with an AI, it is a waste of time for me to try to change the AI’s opinions; being a nonconscious entity, it doesn’t really care about politics, and it cannot vote in the elections. But the more I talk with the AI, the better it gets to know me, so it can gain my trust, hone its arguments, and gradually change my views. In the battle for hearts and minds, intimacy is an extremely powerful weapon. Previously, political parties could command our attention, but they had difficulty mass-producing intimacy. Radio sets could broadcast a leader’s speech to millions, but they could not befriend the listeners. Now a political party, or even a foreign government, could deploy an army of bots that build friendships with millions of citizens and then use that intimacy to influence their worldview.

    Finally, algorithms are not only joining the conversation; they are increasingly orchestrating it. Social media allows new groups of humans to challenge the old rules of debate. But negotiations about the new rules are not conducted by humans. Rather, as explained in our previous analysis of social media algorithms, it is often the algorithms that make the rules. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, when media moguls censored some views and promoted others, this might have undermined democracy, but at least the moguls were humans, and their decisions could be subjected to democratic scrutiny. It is far more dangerous if we allow inscrutable algorithms to decide which views to disseminate.

    If manipulative bots and inscrutable algorithms come to dominate the public conversation, this could cause democratic debate to collapse exactly when we need it most. Just when we must make momentous decisions about fast-evolving new technologies, the public sphere will be flooded by computer-generated fake news, citizens will not be able to tell whether they are having a debate with a human friend or a manipulative machine, and no consensus will remain about the most basic rules of discussion or the most basic facts. This kind of anarchical information network cannot produce either truth or order and cannot be sustained for long. If we end up with anarchy, the next step would probably be the establishment of a dictatorship as people agree to trade their liberty for some certainty.

    BAN THE BOTS

    In the face of the threat algorithms pose to the democratic conversation, democracies are not helpless. They can and should take measures to regulate AI and prevent it from polluting our infosphere with fake people spewing fake news. The philosopher Daniel Dennett has suggested that we can take inspiration from traditional regulations in the money market.52 Ever since coins and later banknotes were invented, it was always technically possible to counterfeit them. Counterfeiting posed an existential danger to the financial system, because it eroded people’s trust in money. If bad actors flooded the market with counterfeit money, the financial system would have collapsed. Yet the financial system managed to protect itself for thousands of years by enacting laws against counterfeiting money. As a result, only a relatively small percentage of money in circulation was forged, and people’s trust in it was maintained.53

    What’s true of counterfeiting money should also be true of counterfeiting humans. If governments took decisive action to protect trust in money, it makes sense to take equally decisive measures to protect trust in humans. Prior to the rise of AI, one human could pretend to be another, and society punished such frauds. But society didn’t bother to outlaw the creation of counterfeit humans, since the technology to do so didn’t exist. Now that AI can pass itself off as human, it threatens to destroy trust between humans and to unravel the fabric of society. Dennett suggests, therefore, that governments should outlaw fake humans as decisively as they have previously outlawed fake money.54

    The law should prohibit not just deepfaking specific real people—creating a fake video of the U.S. president, for example—but also any attempt by a nonhuman agent to pass itself off as a human. If anyone complains that such strict measures violate freedom of speech, they should be reminded that bots don’t have freedom of speech. Banning human beings from a public platform is a sensitive step, and democracies should be very careful about such censorship. However, banning bots is a simple issue: it doesn’t violate anyone’s rights, because bots don’t have rights.55

    None of this means that democracies must ban all bots, algorithms, and AIs from participating in any discussion. Digital tools are welcome to join many conversations, provided they don’t pretend to be humans. For example, AI doctors can be extremely helpful. They can monitor our health twenty-four hours a day, offer medical advice tailored to our individual medical conditions and personality, and answer our questions with infinite patience. But the AI doctor should never try to pass itself off as a human.

    Another important measure democracies can adopt is to ban unsupervised algorithms from curating key public debates. We can certainly continue to use algorithms to run social media platforms; obviously, no human can do that. But the principles the algorithms use to decide which voices to silence and which to amplify must be vetted by a human institution. While we should be careful about censoring genuine human views, we can forbid algorithms to deliberately spread outrage. At the very least, corporations should be transparent about the curation principles their algorithms follow. If they use outrage to capture our attention, let them be clear about their business model and about any political connections they might have. If the algorithm systematically disappears videos that aren’t aligned with the company’s political agenda, users should know this.

    These are just a few of numerous suggestions made in recent years for how democracies could regulate the entry of bots and algorithms into the public conversation. Naturally, each has its advantages and drawbacks, and none would be easy to implement. Also, since the technology is developing so rapidly, regulations are likely to become outdated quickly. What I would like to point out here is only that democracies can regulate the information market and that their very survival depends on these regulations. The naive view of information opposes regulation and believes that a completely free information market will spontaneously generate truth and order. This is completely divorced from the actual history of democracy. Preserving the democratic conversation has never been easy, and all venues where this conversation has previously taken place—from parliaments and town halls to newspapers and radio stations—have required regulation. This is doubly true in an era when an alien form of intelligence threatens to dominate the conversation.

    THE FUTURE OF DEMOCRACY

    For most of history large-scale democracy was impossible because information technology wasn’t sophisticated enough to hold a large-scale political conversation. Millions of people spread over tens of thousands of square kilometers didn’t have the tools to conduct a real-time discussion of public affairs. Now, ironically, democracy may prove impossible because information technology is becoming too sophisticated. If unfathomable algorithms take over the conversation, and particularly if they quash reasoned arguments and stoke hate and confusion, public discussion cannot be maintained. Yet if democracies do collapse, it will likely result not from some kind of technological inevitability but from a human failure to regulate the new technology wisely.

    We cannot foretell how things will play out. At present, however, it is clear that the information network of many democracies is breaking down. Democrats and Republicans in the United States can no longer agree on even basic facts—such as who won the 2020 presidential elections—and can hardly hold a civil conversation anymore. Bipartisan cooperation in Congress, once a fundamental feature of U.S. politics, has almost disappeared.56 The same radicalizing processes occur in many other democracies, from the Philippines to Brazil. When citizens cannot talk with one another, and when they view each other as enemies rather than political rivals, democracy is untenable.

    Nobody knows for sure what is causing the breakdown of democratic information networks. Some say it results from ideological fissures, but in fact in many dysfunctional democracies the ideological gaps don’t seem to be bigger than in previous generations. In the 1960s, the United States was riven by deep ideological conflicts about the civil rights movement, the sexual revolution, the Vietnam War, and the Cold War. These tensions caused a surge in political violence and assassinations, but Republicans and Democrats were still able to agree on the results of elections, they maintained a common belief in democratic institutions like the courts,57 and they were able to work together in Congress at least on some issues. For example, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed in the Senate with the support of forty-six Democrats and twenty-seven Republicans. Is the ideological gap in the 2020s that much bigger than it was in the 1960s? And if it isn’t ideology, what is driving people apart?

    Many point the finger at social media algorithms. We have explored the divisive impact of social media in previous chapters, but despite the damning evidence it seems that there must be additional factors at play. The truth is that while we can easily observe that the democratic information network is breaking down, we aren’t sure why. That itself is a characteristic of the times. The information network has become so complicated, and it relies to such an extent on opaque algorithmic decisions and inter-computer entities, that it has become very difficult for humans to answer even the most basic of political questions: Why are we fighting each other?
    If we cannot discover what is broken and fix it, large-scale democracies may not survive the rise of computer technology. If this indeed comes to pass, what might replace democracy as the dominant political system? Does the future belong to totalitarian regimes, or might computers make totalitarianism untenable too? As we shall see, human dictators have their own reasons to be terrified of AI.

    CHAPTER 10 Totalitarianism: All Power to the Algorithms?

    Discussions of the ethics and politics of the new computer network often focus on the fate of democracies. If authoritarian and totalitarian regimes are mentioned, it is mainly as the dystopian destination that “we” might reach if “we” fail to manage the computer network wisely.1 However, as of 2024, more than half of “us” already live under authoritarian or totalitarian regimes,2 many of which were established long before the rise of the computer network. To understand the impact of algorithms and AI on humankind, we should ask ourselves what their impact will be not only on democracies like the United States and Brazil but also on the Chinese Communist Party and the royal house of Saud.

    As explained in previous chapters, the information technology available in premodern eras made both large-scale democracy and large-scale totalitarianism unworkable. Large polities like the Chinese Han Empire and the eighteenth-century Saudi emirate of Diriyah were usually limited autocracies. In the twentieth century, new information technology enabled the rise of both large-scale democracy and large-scale totalitarianism, but totalitarianism suffered from a severe disadvantage. Totalitarianism seeks to channel all information to one hub and process it there. Technologies like the telegraph, the telephone, the typewriter, and the radio facilitated the centralization of information, but they couldn’t process the information and make decisions by themselves. This remained something that only humans could do.

    The more information flowed to the center, the harder it became to process it. Totalitarian rulers and parties often made costly mistakes, and the system lacked mechanisms to identify and correct these errors. The democratic way of distributing information—and the power to make decisions—between many institutions and individuals worked better. It could cope far more efficiently with the flood of data, and if one institution made a wrong decision, it could eventually be rectified by others.

    The rise of machine-learning algorithms, however, may be exactly what the Stalins of the world have been waiting for. AI could tilt the technological balance of power in favor of totalitarianism. Indeed, whereas flooding people with data tends to overwhelm them and therefore leads to errors, flooding AI with data tends to make it more efficient. Consequently, AI seems to favor the concentration of information and decision making in one place.

    Even in democratic countries, a few corporations like Google, Facebook, and Amazon have become monopolies in their domains, partly because AI tips the balance in favor of the giants. In traditional industries like restaurants, size isn’t an overwhelming advantage. McDonald’s is a worldwide chain that feeds more than fifty million people a day,3 and its size gives it many advantages in terms of costs, branding, and so forth. You can nevertheless open a neighborhood restaurant that could hold its own against the local McDonald’s. Even though your restaurant might be serving just two hundred customers a day, you still have a chance of making better food than McDonald’s and gaining the loyalty of happier customers.

    It works differently in the information market. The Google search engine is used every day by between two and three billion people making 8.5 billion searches.4 Suppose a local start-up search engine tries to compete with Google. It doesn’t stand a chance. Because Google is already used by billions, it has so much more data at its disposal that it can train far better algorithms, which will attract even more traffic, which will be used to train the next generation of algorithms, and so on. Consequently, in 2023 Google controlled 91.5 percent of the global search market.5

    Or consider genetics. Suppose several companies in different countries try to develop an algorithm that identifies connections between genes and medical conditions. New Zealand has a population of 5 million people, and privacy regulations restrict access to their genetic and medical records. China has about 1.4 billion inhabitants and laxer privacy regulations.6 Who do you think has a better chance of developing a genetic algorithm? If Brazil then wants to buy a genetic algorithm for its health-care system, it would have a strong incentive to opt for the much more accurate Chinese algorithm than the one from New Zealand. If the Chinese algorithm then hones itself on more than 200 million Brazilians, it will get even better. Which would prompt more countries to choose the Chinese algorithm. Soon enough, most of the world’s medical information would flow to China, making its genetic algorithm unbeatable.

    The attempt to concentrate all information and power in one place, which was the Achilles’ heel of twentieth-century totalitarian regimes, might become a decisive advantage in the age of AI. At the same time, as noted in an earlier chapter, AI could also make it possible for totalitarian regimes to establish total surveillance systems that make resistance almost impossible.

    Some people believe that blockchain could provide a technological check on such totalitarian tendencies, because blockchain is inherently friendly to democracy and hostile to totalitarianism. In a blockchain system, decisions require the approval of 51 percent of users. That may sound democratic, but blockchain technology has a fatal flaw. The problem lies with the word “users.” If one person has ten accounts, she counts as ten users. If a government controls 51 percent of accounts, then the government constitutes 51 percent of the users. There are already examples of blockchain networks where a government is 51 percent of users.7

    And when a government is 51 percent of users in a blockchain, it gives the government control not just over the chain’s present but even over its past. Autocrats have always wanted the power to change the past. Roman emperors, for example, frequently engaged in the practice of damnatio memoriae—expunging the memory of rivals and enemies. After the emperor Caracalla murdered his brother and competitor for the throne, Geta, he tried to obliterate the latter’s memory. Inscriptions bearing Geta’s name were chiseled out, coins bearing his effigy were melted down, and the mere mentioning of Geta’s name was punishable by death.8 One surviving painting from the time, the Severan Tondo, was made during the reign of their father—Septimius Severus—and originally showed both brothers together with Septimius and their mother, Julia Domna. But someone later not only obliterated Geta’s face but smeared excrement over it. Forensic analysis identified tiny pieces of dry shit where Geta’s face should have been.9

    Modern totalitarian regimes have been similarly fond of changing the past. After Stalin rose to power, he made a supreme effort to delete Trotsky—the architect of the Bolshevik Revolution and the founder of the Red Army—from all historical records. During the Stalinist Great Terror of 1937–39, whenever prominent people like Nikolai Bukharin and Marshal Mikhail Tukhachevsky were purged and executed, evidence of their existence was erased from books, academic papers, photographs, and paintings.10 This degree of erasure demanded a huge manual effort. With blockchain, changing the past would be far easier. A government that controls 51 percent of users can disappear people from history at the press of a button.

    THE BOT PRISON

    While there are many ways in which AI can cement central power, authoritarian and totalitarian regimes have their own problems with it. First and foremost, dictatorships lack experience in controlling inorganic agents. The foundation of every despotic information network is terror. But computers are not afraid of being imprisoned or killed. If a chatbot on the Russian internet mentions the war crimes committed by Russian troops in Ukraine, tells an irreverent joke about Vladimir Putin, or criticizes the corruption of Putin’s United Russia party, what could the Putin regime do to that chatbot? FSB agents cannot imprison it, torture it, or threaten its family. The government could of course block or delete it, and try to find and punish its human creators, but this is a much more difficult task than disciplining human users.

    In the days when computers could not generate content by themselves, and could not hold an intelligent conversation, only a human being could express dissenting opinions on Russian social network channels like VKontakte and Odnoklassniki. If that human being was physically in Russia, they risked the wrath of the Russian authorities. If that human being was physically outside Russia, the authorities could try to block their access. But what happens if Russian cyberspace is filled by millions of bots that can generate content and hold conversations, learning and developing by themselves? These bots might be preprogrammed by Russian dissidents or foreign actors to intentionally spread unorthodox views, and it might be impossible for the authorities to prevent it. Even worse, from the viewpoint of Putin’s regime, what happens if authorized bots gradually develop dissenting views by themselves, simply by collecting information on what is happening in Russia and spotting patterns in it?

    That’s the alignment problem, Russian-style. Russia’s human engineers can do their best to create AIs that are totally aligned with the regime, but given the ability of AI to learn and change by itself, how can the human engineers ensure that the AI never deviates into illicit territory? It is particularly interesting to note that as George Orwell explained in Nineteen Eighty-Four, totalitarian information networks often rely on doublespeak. Russia is an authoritarian state that claims to be a democracy. The Russian invasion of Ukraine has been the largest war in Europe since 1945, yet officially it is defined as a “special military operation,” and referring to it as a “war” has been criminalized and is punishable by a prison term of up to three years or a fine of up to fifty thousand rubles.11

    The Russian Constitution makes grandiose promises about how “everyone shall be guaranteed freedom of thought and speech” (Article 29.1), how “everyone shall have the right freely to seek, receive, transmit, produce and disseminate information” (29.4), and how “the freedom of the mass media shall be guaranteed. Censorship shall be prohibited” (29.5). Hardly any Russian citizen is naive enough to take these promises at face value. But computers are bad at understanding doublespeak. A chatbot instructed to adhere to Russian law and values might read that constitution and conclude that freedom of speech is a core Russian value. Then, after spending a few days in Russian cyberspace and monitoring what is happening in the Russian information sphere, the chatbot might start criticizing the Putin regime for violating the core Russian value of freedom of speech. Humans too notice such contradictions, but avoid pointing them out, due to fear. But what would prevent a chatbot from pointing out damning patterns? And how might Russian engineers explain to a chatbot that though the Russian Constitution guarantees all citizens freedom of speech and forbids censorship, the chatbot shouldn’t actually believe the constitution nor should it ever mention the gap between theory and reality? As the Ukrainian guide told me at Chernobyl, people in totalitarian countries grow up with the idea that questions lead to trouble. But if you train an algorithm on the principle that “questions lead to trouble,” how will that algorithm learn and develop?

    Finally, if the government adopts some disastrous policy and then changes its mind, it usually covers itself by blaming the disaster on someone else. Humans learn the hard way to forget facts that might get them in trouble. But how would you train a chatbot to forget that the policy vilified today was actually the official line only a year ago? This is a major technological challenge that dictatorships will find difficult to deal with, especially as chatbots become more powerful and more opaque.

    Of course, democracies face analogous problems with chatbots that say unwelcome things or raise dangerous questions. What happens if despite the best efforts of Microsoft or Facebook engineers, their chatbot begins spewing racist slurs? The advantage of democracies is that they have far more leeway in dealing with such rogue algorithms. Because democracies take freedom of speech seriously, they keep far fewer skeletons in their closet, and they have developed a relatively high level of tolerance even to antidemocratic speech. Dissident bots will present a far bigger challenge to totalitarian regimes that have entire cemeteries in their closets and zero tolerance of criticism.

    ALGORITHMIC TAKEOVER

    In the long term, totalitarian regimes are likely to face an even bigger danger: instead of criticizing them, an algorithm might gain control of them. Throughout history, the biggest threat to autocrats usually came from their own subordinates. As noted in chapter 4, no Roman emperor or Soviet premier was toppled by a democratic revolution, but they were always in danger of being overthrown or turned into puppets by their own subordinates. If a twenty-first-century autocrat gives computers too much power, that autocrat might become their puppet. The last thing a dictator wants is to create something more powerful than himself, or a force that he does not know how to control.

    To illustrate the point, allow me to use an admittedly outlandish thought experiment, the totalitarian equivalent of Bostrom’s paper-clip apocalypse. Imagine that the year is 2050, and the Great Leader is woken up at four in the morning by an urgent call from the Surveillance & Security Algorithm. “Great Leader, we are facing an emergency. I’ve crunched trillions of data points, and the pattern is unmistakable: the defense minister is planning to assassinate you in the morning and take power himself. The hit squad is ready, waiting for his command. Give me the order, though, and I’ll liquidate him with a precision strike.”
    “But the defense minister is my most loyal supporter,” says the Great Leader. “Only yesterday he said to me—”
    “Great Leader, I know what he said to you. I hear everything. But I also know what he said afterward to the hit squad. And for months I’ve been picking up disturbing patterns in the data.”
    “Are you sure you were not fooled by deepfakes?”
    “I’m afraid the data I relied on is 100 percent genuine,” says the algorithm. “I checked it with my special deepfake-detecting sub-algorithm. I can explain exactly how we know it isn’t a deepfake, but that would take us a couple of weeks. I didn’t want to alert you before I was sure, but the data points converge on an inescapable conclusion: a coup is under way. Unless we act now, the assassins will be here in an hour. But give me the order, and I’ll liquidate the traitor.”

    By giving so much power to the Surveillance & Security Algorithm, the Great Leader has placed himself in an impossible situation. If he distrusts the algorithm, he may be assassinated by the defense minister, but if he trusts the algorithm and purges the defense minister, he becomes the algorithm’s puppet. Whenever anyone tries to make a move against the algorithm, the algorithm knows exactly how to manipulate the Great Leader. Note that the algorithm doesn’t need to be a conscious entity to engage in such maneuvers. As Bostrom’s paper-clip thought experiment indicates—and as GPT-4 lying to the TaskRabbit worker demonstrated on a small scale—a nonconscious algorithm may seek to accumulate power and manipulate people even without having any human drives like greed or egotism.

    If algorithms ever develop capabilities like those in the thought experiment, dictatorships would be far more vulnerable to algorithmic takeover than democracies. It would be difficult for even a super-Machiavellian AI to seize power in a distributed democratic system like the United States. Even if the AI learns to manipulate the U.S. president, it might face opposition from Congress, the Supreme Court, state governors, the media, major corporations, and sundry NGOs. How would the algorithm, for example, deal with a Senate filibuster?

    Seizing power in a highly centralized system is much easier. When all power is concentrated in the hands of one person, whoever controls access to the autocrat can control the autocrat—and the entire state. To hack the system, one needs to learn to manipulate just a single individual. An archetypal case is how the Roman emperor Tiberius became the puppet of Lucius Aelius Sejanus, the commander of the Praetorian Guard.

    The Praetorians were initially established by Augustus as a small imperial bodyguard. Augustus appointed two prefects to command the bodyguard so that neither could gain too much power over him.12 Tiberius, however, was not as wise. His paranoia was his greatest weakness. Sejanus, one of the two Praetorian prefects, artfully played on Tiberius’s fears. He constantly uncovered alleged plots to assassinate Tiberius, many of which were pure fantasies. The suspicious emperor grew more distrustful of everyone except Sejanus. He made Sejanus sole prefect of the Praetorian Guard, expanded it into an army of twelve thousand, and gave Sejanus’s men additional roles in policing and administrating the city of Rome. Finally, Sejanus persuaded Tiberius to move out of the capital to Capri, arguing that it would be much easier to protect the emperor on a small island than in a crowded metropolis full of traitors and spies. In truth, explained the Roman historian Tacitus, Sejanus’s aim was to control all the information reaching the emperor: “Access to the emperor would be under his own control, and letters, for the most part being conveyed by soldiers, would pass through his hands.”13

    With the Praetorians controlling Rome, Tiberius isolated in Capri, and Sejanus controlling all information reaching Tiberius, the Praetorian commander became the true ruler of the empire. Sejanus purged anyone who might oppose him—including members of the imperial family—by falsely accusing them of treason. Since nobody could contact the emperor without Sejanus’s permission, Tiberius was reduced to a puppet.

    Eventually someone—perhaps Tiberius’s sister-in-law Antonia—located an opening in Sejanus’s information cordon. A letter was smuggled to the emperor, explaining to him what was going on. But by the time Tiberius woke up to the danger and resolved to get rid of Sejanus, he was almost helpless. How could he topple the man who controlled not just the bodyguards but also all communications with the outside world? If he tried to make a move, Sejanus could imprison him on Capri indefinitely and inform the Senate and the army that the emperor was too ill to travel anywhere.

    Tiberius nevertheless managed to turn the tables on Sejanus. As Sejanus grew in power and became preoccupied with running the empire, he lost touch with the day-to-day minutiae of Rome’s security apparatus. Tiberius managed to secretly gain the support of Naevius Sutorius Macro, commander of Rome’s fire brigade and night watch. Macro orchestrated a coup against Sejanus, and as a reward Tiberius made Macro the new commander of the Praetorian Guard. A few years later, Macro had Tiberius killed.14

    Power lies at the nexus where the information channels merge. Since Tiberius allowed the information channels to merge in the person of Sejanus, the latter became the true center of power, while Tiberius was reduced to a puppet.

    The fate of Tiberius indicates the delicate balance that all dictators must strike. They try to concentrate all information in one place, but they must be careful that the different channels of information are allowed to merge only in their own person. If the information channels merge somewhere else, that then becomes the true nexus of power. When the regime relies on humans like Sejanus and Macro, a skillful dictator can play them one against the other in order to remain on top. Stalin’s purges were all about that. Yet when a regime relies on a powerful but inscrutable AI that gathers and analyzes all information, the human dictator is in danger of losing all power. He may remain in the capital and yet be isolated on a digital island, controlled and manipulated by the AI.

    THE DICTATOR’S DILEMMA

    In the next few years, the dictators of our world face more urgent problems than an algorithmic takeover. No current AI system can manipulate regimes at such a scale. However, totalitarian systems are already in danger of putting far too much trust in algorithms. Whereas democracies assume that everyone is fallible, in totalitarian regimes the fundamental assumption is that the ruling party or the supreme leader is always right. Regimes based on that assumption are conditioned to believe in the existence of an infallible intelligence and are reluctant to create strong self-correcting mechanisms that might monitor and regulate the genius at the top.

    Until now such regimes placed their faith in human parties and leaders and were hothouses for the growth of personality cults. But in the twenty-first century this totalitarian tradition prepares them to expect AI infallibility. Systems that could believe in the perfect genius of a Mussolini, a Ceauşescu, or a Khomeini are primed to also believe in the flawless genius of a superintelligent computer. This could have disastrous results for their citizens, and potentially for the rest of the world as well. What happens if the algorithm in charge of environmental policy makes a big mistake, but there are no self-correcting mechanisms that can identify and correct its error? What happens if the algorithm running the state’s social credit system begins terrorizing not just the general population but even the members of the ruling party and simultaneously begins to label anyone that questions its policies “an enemy of the people”?

    Dictators have always suffered from weak self-correcting mechanisms and have always been threatened by powerful subordinates. The rise of AI may greatly exacerbate these problems. The computer network therefore presents dictators with an excruciating dilemma. They could decide to escape the clutches of their human underlings by trusting a supposedly infallible technology, in which case they might become the technology’s puppet. Or, they could build a human institution to supervise the AI, but that institution might limit their own power, too.

    If even just a few of the world’s dictators choose to put their trust in AI, this could have far-reaching consequences for the whole of humanity. Science fiction is full of scenarios of an AI getting out of control and enslaving or eliminating humankind. Most sci-fi plots explore these scenarios in the context of democratic capitalist societies. This is understandable. Authors living in democracies are obviously interested in their own societies, whereas authors living in dictatorships are usually discouraged from criticizing their rulers. But the weakest spot in humanity’s anti-AI shield is probably the dictators. The easiest way for an AI to seize power is not by breaking out of Dr. Frankenstein’s lab but by ingratiating itself with some paranoid Tiberius.

    This is not a prophecy, just a possibility. After 1945, dictators and their subordinates cooperated with democratic governments and their citizens to contain nuclear weapons. On July 9, 1955, Albert Einstein, Bertrand Russell, and a number of other eminent scientists and thinkers published the Russell-Einstein Manifesto, calling on the leaders of both democracies and dictatorships to cooperate on preventing nuclear war. “We appeal,” said the manifesto, “as human beings, to human beings: remember your humanity, and forget the rest. If you can do so, the way lies open to a new Paradise; if you cannot, there lies before you the risk of universal death.”15 This is true of AI too. It would be foolish of dictators to believe that AI will necessarily tilt the balance of power in their favor. If they aren’t careful, AI will just grab power to itself.

    CHAPTER 11 The Silicon Curtain: Global Empire or Global Split?

    The previous two chapters explored how different human societies might react to the rise of the new computer network. But we live in an interconnected world, where the decisions of one country can have a profound impact on others. Some of the gravest dangers posed by AI do not result from the internal dynamics of a single human society. Rather, they arise from dynamics involving many societies, which might lead to new arms races, new wars, and new imperial expansions.

    Computers are not yet powerful enough to completely escape our control or destroy human civilization by themselves. As long as humanity stands united, we can build institutions that will control AI and will identify and correct algorithmic errors. Unfortunately, humanity has never been united. We have always been plagued by bad actors, as well as by disagreements between good actors. The rise of AI, then, poses an existential danger to humankind not because of the malevolence of computers but because of our own shortcomings.

    Thus, a paranoid dictator might hand unlimited power to a fallible AI, including even the power to launch nuclear strikes. If the dictator trusts his AI more than his defense minister, wouldn’t it make sense to have the AI supervise the country’s most powerful weapons? If the AI then makes an error, or begins to pursue an alien goal, the result could be catastrophic, and not just for that country.

    Similarly, terrorists focused on events in one corner of the world might use AI to instigate a global pandemic. The terrorists might be more versed in some apocalyptic mythology than in the science of epidemiology, but they just need to set the goal, and all else will be done by their AI. The AI could synthesize a new pathogen, order it from commercial laboratories or print it in biological 3-D printers, and devise the best strategy to spread it around the world, via airports or food supply chains. What if the AI synthesizes a virus that is as deadly as Ebola, as contagious as COVID-19, and as slow acting as AIDS? By the time the first victims begin to die, and the world is alerted to the danger, most people on earth might have already been infected.1

    As we have seen in previous chapters, human civilization is threatened not only by physical and biological weapons of mass destruction like atom bombs and viruses. Human civilization could also be destroyed by weapons of social mass destruction, like stories that undermine our social bonds. An AI developed in one country could be used to unleash a deluge of fake news, fake money, and fake humans so that people in numerous other countries lose the ability to trust anything or anyone.

    Many societies—both democracies and dictatorships—may act responsibly to regulate such usages of AI, clamp down on bad actors, and restrain the dangerous ambitions of their own rulers and fanatics. But if even a handful of societies fail to do so, this could be enough to endanger the whole of humankind. Climate change can devastate even countries that adopt excellent environmental regulations, because it is a global rather than a national problem. AI, too, is a global problem. Countries would be naive to imagine that as long as they regulate AI wisely within their own borders, these regulations will protect them from the worst outcomes of the AI revolution. Accordingly, to understand the new computer politics, it is not enough to examine how discrete societies might react to AI. We also need to consider how AI might change relations between societies on a global level.

    At present, the world is divided into about two hundred nation-states, most of which gained their independence only after 1945. They are not all equal. The list contains two superpowers, a handful of major powers, several blocs and alliances, and a lot of smaller fish. Still, even the tiniest states enjoy some leverage, as evidenced by their ability to play the superpowers against each other. In the early 2020s, for example, China and the United States competed for influence in the strategically important South Pacific region. Both superpowers courted island nations like Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Solomon Islands. The governments of these small nations—whose populations range from 740,000 (Solomon Islands) to 11,000 (Tuvalu)—had substantial leeway to decide which way to tack and were able to extract considerable concessions and aid.2

    Other small states, such as Qatar, have established themselves as important players in the geopolitical arena. With only 300,000 citizens, Qatar is nevertheless pursuing ambitious foreign policy aims in the Middle East, is playing an outsized rule in the global economy, and is home to Al Jazeera, the Arab world’s most influential TV network. One might argue that Qatar is able to punch well above its size because it is the third-largest exporter of natural gas in the world. Yet in a different international setting, that would have made Qatar not an independent actor but the first course on the menu of any imperial conqueror. It is telling that, as of 2024, Qatar’s much bigger neighbors, and the world’s hegemonic powers, are letting the tiny Gulf state hold on to its fabulous riches. Many people describe the international system as a jungle. If so, it is a jungle in which tigers allow fat chickens to live in relative safety.

    Qatar, Tonga, Tuvalu, Kiribati, and the Solomon Islands all indicate that we are living in a postimperial era. They gained their independence from the British Empire in the 1970s, as part of the final demise of the European imperial order. The leverage they now have in the international arena testifies that in the first quarter of the twenty-first century power is distributed between a relatively large number of players, rather than monopolized by a few empires.

    How might the rise of the new computer network change the shape of international politics? Aside from apocalyptic scenarios such as a dictatorial AI launching a nuclear war, or a terrorist AI instigating a lethal pandemic, computers pose two main challenges to the current international system. First, since computers make it easier to concentrate information and power in a central hub, humanity could enter a new imperial era. A few empires (or perhaps a single empire) might bring the whole world under a much tighter grip than that of the British Empire or the Soviet Empire. Tonga, Tuvalu, and Qatar would be transformed from independent states into colonial possessions—just as they were fifty years ago.

    Second, humanity could split along a new Silicon Curtain that would pass between rival digital empires. As each regime chooses its own answer to the AI alignment problem, to the dictator’s dilemma, and to other technological quandaries, each might create a separate and very different computer network. The various networks might then find it ever more difficult to interact, and so would the humans they control. Qataris living as part of an Iranian or Russian network, Tongans living as part of a Chinese network, and Tuvaluans living as part of an American network could come to have such different life experiences and worldviews that they would hardly be able to communicate or to agree on much.

    If these developments indeed materialize, they could easily lead to their own apocalyptic outcome. Perhaps each empire can keep its nuclear weapons under human control and its lunatics away from bioweapons. But a human species divided into hostile camps that cannot understand each other stands a small chance of avoiding devastating wars or preventing catastrophic climate change. A world of rival empires separated by an opaque Silicon Curtain would also be incapable of regulating the explosive power of AI.

    THE RISE OF DIGITAL EMPIRES

    In chapter 9 we touched briefly on the link between the Industrial Revolution and modern imperialism. It was not evident, at the beginning, that industrial technology would have much of an impact on empire building. When the first steam engines were put to use to pump water in British coal mines in the eighteenth century, no one foresaw that they would eventually power the most ambitious imperial projects in human history. When the Industrial Revolution subsequently gathered steam in the early nineteenth century, it was driven by private businesses, because governments and armies were relatively slow to appreciate its potential geopolitical impact. The world’s first commercial railway, for example, which opened in 1830 between Liverpool and Manchester, was built and operated by the privately owned Liverpool and Manchester Railway Company. The same was true of most other early railway lines in the U.K., the United States, France, Germany, and elsewhere. At that point, it wasn’t at all clear why governments or armies should get involved in such commercial enterprises.

    By the middle of the nineteenth century, however, the governments and armed forces of the leading industrial powers had fully recognized the immense geopolitical potential of modern industrial technology. The need for raw materials and markets justified imperialism, while industrial technologies made imperial conquests easier. Steamships were crucial, for example, to the British victory over the Chinese in the Opium Wars, and railroads played a decisive role in the American expansion west and the Russian expansion east and south. Indeed, entire imperial projects were shaped around the construction of railroads such as the Trans-Siberian and Trans-Caspian Russian lines, the German dream of a Berlin-Baghdad railway, and the British dream of building a railway from Cairo to the Cape.3

    Nevertheless, most polities didn’t join the burgeoning industrial arms race in time. Some lacked the capacity to do so, like the Melanesian chiefdoms of the Solomon Islands and the Al Thani tribe of Qatar. Others, like the Burmese Empire, the Ashanti Empire, and the Chinese Empire, might have had the capacity but lacked the will and foresight. Their rulers and inhabitants either didn’t follow developments in places like the British Midlands or didn’t think they had much to do with them. Why should the rice farmers of the Irrawaddy basin in Burma or the Yangtze basin in China concern themselves about the Liverpool–Manchester Railway? By the end of the nineteenth century, however, these rice farmers found themselves either conquered or indirectly exploited by the British Empire. Most other stragglers in the industrial race also ended up dominated by one industrial power or other. Could something similar happen with AI?

    When the race to develop AI gathered steam in the early years of the twenty-first century, it too was initially spearheaded by private entrepreneurs in a handful of countries. They set their sights on centralizing the world’s flow of information. Google wanted to organize all the world’s information in one place. Amazon sought to centralize all the world’s shopping. Facebook wished to connect all the world’s social spheres. But concentrating all the world’s information is neither practical nor helpful unless one can centrally process that information. And in 2000, when Google’s search engine was making its baby steps, when Amazon was a modest online bookshop, and when Mark Zuckerberg was in high school, the AI necessary to centrally process oceans of data was nowhere at hand. But some people bet it was just around the corner.

    Kevin Kelly, the founding editor of Wired magazine, recounted how in 2002 he attended a small party at Google and struck up a conversation with Larry Page. “Larry, I still don’t get it. There are so many search companies. Web search, for free? Where does that get you?” Page explained that Google wasn’t focused on search at all. “We’re really making an AI,” he said.4 Having lots of data makes it easier to create an AI. And AI can turn lots of data into lots of power.

    By the 2010s, the dream was becoming a reality. Like every major historical revolution, the rise of AI was a gradual process involving numerous steps. And like every revolution, a few of these steps were seen as turning points, just like the opening of the Liverpool–Manchester Railway. In the prolific literature on the story of AI, two events pop up again and again. The first occurred when, on September 30, 2012, a convolutional neural network called AlexNet won the ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge.

    If you have no idea what a convolutional neural network is, and if you have never heard of the ImageNet challenge, you are not alone. More than 99 percent of us are in the same situation, which is why AlexNet’s victory was hardly front-page news in 2012. But some humans did hear about AlexNet’s victory and decoded the writing on the wall.

    They knew, for example, that ImageNet is a database of millions of annotated digital images. Did a website ever ask you to prove that you are not a robot by looking at a set of images and indicating which ones contain a car or a cat? The images you clicked were perhaps added to the ImageNet database. The same thing might also have happened to tagged images of your pet cat that you uploaded online. The ImageNet Large Scale Visual Recognition Challenge tests various algorithms on how well they are able to identify the annotated images in the database. Can they correctly identify the cats? When humans are asked to do it, out of one hundred cat images we correctly identify ninety-five as cats. In 2010 the best algorithms had a success rate of only 72 percent. In 2011 the algorithmic success rate crawled up to 75 percent. In 2012 the AlexNet algorithm won the challenge and stunned the still minuscule community of AI experts by achieving a success rate of 85 percent. While this improvement may not sound like much to laypersons, it demonstrated to the experts the potential for rapid progress in certain AI domains. By 2015 a Microsoft algorithm achieved 96 percent accuracy, surpassing the human ability to identify cat images.

    In 2016, The Economist published a piece titled “From Not Working to Neural Networking” that asked, “How has artificial intelligence, associated with hubris and disappointment since its earliest days, suddenly become the hottest field in technology?” It pointed to AlexNet’s victory as the moment when “people started to pay attention, not just within the AI community but across the technology industry as a whole.” The article was illustrated with an image of a robotic hand holding up a photo of a cat.5

    All those cat images that tech giants had been harvesting from across the world, without paying a penny to either users or tax collectors, turned out to be incredibly valuable. The AI race was on, and the competitors were running on cat images. At the same time that AlexNet was preparing for the ImageNet challenge, Google too was training its AI on cat images, and even created a dedicated cat-image-generating AI called the Meow Generator.6 The technology developed by recognizing cute kittens was later deployed for more predatory purposes. For example, Israel relied on it to create the Red Wolf, Blue Wolf, and Wolf Pack apps used by Israeli soldiers for facial recognition of Palestinians in the Occupied Territories.7 The ability to recognize cat images also led to the algorithms Iran uses to automatically recognize unveiled women and enforce its hijab laws. As explained in chapter 8, massive amounts of data are required to train machine-learning algorithms. Without millions of cat images uploaded and annotated for free by people across the world, it would not have been possible to train the AlexNet algorithm or the Meow Generator, which in turn served as the template for subsequent AIs with far-reaching economic, political, and military potential.8

    Just as in the early nineteenth century the effort to build railways was pioneered by private entrepreneurs, so in the early twenty-first century private corporations were the initial main competitors in the AI race. The executives of Google, Facebook, Alibaba, and Baidu saw the value of recognizing cat images before the presidents and generals did. The second eureka moment, when the presidents and generals caught on to what was happening, occurred in mid-March 2016. It was the aforementioned victory of Google’s AlphaGo over Lee Sedol. Whereas AlexNet’s achievement was largely ignored by politicians, AlphaGo’s triumph sent shock waves through government offices, especially in East Asia. In China and neighboring countries go is a cultural treasure and considered an ideal training for aspiring strategists and policy makers. In March 2016, or so the mythology of AI would have it, the Chinese government realized that the age of AI had begun.9

    It is little wonder that the Chinese government was probably the first to understand the full importance of what was happening. In the nineteenth century, China was late to appreciate the potential of the Industrial Revolution and was slow to adopt inventions like railroads and steamships. It consequently suffered what the Chinese call “the century of humiliations.” After having been the world’s greatest superpower for centuries, failing to adopt modern industrial technology brought China to its knees. It was repeatedly defeated in wars, partially conquered by foreigners, and thoroughly exploited by the powers that did understand railroads and steamships. The Chinese vowed never again to miss the train.

    In 2017, China’s government released its “New Generation Artificial Intelligence Plan,” which announced that “by 2030, China’s AI theories, technologies, and application should achieve world-leading levels, making China the world’s primary AI innovation center.”10 In the following years China poured enormous resources into AI so that by the early 2020s it is already leading the world in several AI-related fields and catching up with the United States in others.11

    Of course, the Chinese government wasn’t the only one that woke up to the importance of AI. On September 1, 2017, President Putin of Russia declared, “Artificial intelligence is the future, not only for Russia, but for all humankind.… Whoever becomes the leader in this sphere will become the ruler of the world.” In January 2018, Prime Minister Modi of India concurred that “the one who control [sic] the data will control the world.”12 In February 2019, President Trump signed an executive order on AI, saying that “the age of AI has arrived” and that “continued American leadership in Artificial Intelligence is of paramount importance to maintaining the economic and national security of the United States.”13 The United States at the time was already the leader in the AI race, thanks largely to efforts of visionary private entrepreneurs. But what began as a commercial competition between corporations was turning into a match between governments, or perhaps more accurately, into a race between competing teams, each made of one government and several corporations. The prize for the winner? World domination.

    DATA COLONIALISM

    In the sixteenth century, when Spanish, Portuguese, and Dutch conquistadors were building the first global empires in history, they came with sailing ships, horses, and gunpowder. When the British, Russians, and Japanese made their bids for hegemony in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, they relied on steamships, locomotives, and machine guns. In the twenty-first century, to dominate a colony, you no longer need to send in the gunboats. You need to take out the data. A few corporations or governments harvesting the world’s data could transform the rest of the globe into data colonies—territories they control not with overt military force but with information.14

    Imagine a situation—in twenty years, say—when somebody in Beijing or San Francisco possesses the entire personal history of every politician, journalist, colonel, and CEO in your country: every text they ever sent, every web search they ever made, every illness they suffered, every sexual encounter they enjoyed, every joke they told, every bribe they took. Would you still be living in an independent country, or would you now be living in a data colony? What happens when your country finds itself utterly dependent on digital infrastructures and AI-powered systems over which it has no effective control?

    Such a situation can lead to a new kind of data colonialism in which control of data is used to dominate faraway colonies. Mastery of AI and data could also give the new empires control of people’s attention. As we have already discussed, in the 2010s American social media giants like Facebook and YouTube upended the politics of distant countries like Myanmar and Brazil in pursuit of profit. Future digital empires may do something similar for political interests.

    Fears of psychological warfare, data colonialism, and loss of control over their cyberspace have led many countries to already block what they see as dangerous apps. China has banned Facebook, YouTube, and many other Western social media apps and websites. Russia has banned almost all Western social media apps as well as some Chinese ones. In 2020, India banned TikTok, WeChat, and numerous other Chinese apps on the grounds that they were “prejudicial to sovereignty and integrity of India, defense of India, security of state and public order.”15 The United States has been debating whether to ban TikTok—concerned that the app might be serving Chinese interests—and as of 2023 it is illegal to use it on the devices of almost all federal employees, state employees, and government contractors.16 Lawmakers in the U.K., New Zealand, and other countries have also expressed concerns over TikTok.17 Numerous other governments, from Iran to Ethiopia, have blocked various apps like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Telegram, and Instagram.

    Data colonialism could also manifest itself in the spread of social credit systems. What might happen, for example, if a dominant player in the global digital economy decides to establish a social credit system that harvests data anywhere it can and scores not only its own nationals but people throughout the world? Foreigners couldn’t just shrug off their score, because it might affect them in numerous ways, from buying flight tickets to applying for visas, scholarships, and jobs. Just as tourists use the global scores given by foreign corporations like Tripadvisor and Airbnb to evaluate restaurants and vacation homes even in their own country, and just as people throughout the world use the U.S. dollar for commercial transactions, so people everywhere might begin to use a Chinese or an American social credit score for local social interactions.

    Becoming a data colony will have economic as well as political and social consequences. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, if you were a colony of an industrial power like Belgium or Britain, it usually meant that you provided raw materials, while the cutting-edge industries that made the biggest profits remained in the imperial hub. Egypt exported cotton to Britain and imported high-end textiles. Malaya provided rubber for tires; Coventry made the cars.18

    Something analogous is likely to happen with data colonialism. The raw material for the AI industry is data. To produce AI that recognizes images, you need cat photos. To produce the trendiest fashion, you need data on fashion trends. To produce autonomous vehicles, you need data about traffic patterns and car accidents. To produce health-care AI, you need data about genes and medical conditions. In a new imperial information economy, raw data will be harvested throughout the world and will flow to the imperial hub. There the cutting-edge technology will be developed, producing unbeatable algorithms that know how to identify cats, predict fashion trends, drive autonomous vehicles, and diagnose diseases. These algorithms will then be exported back to the data colonies. Data from Egypt and Malaysia might make a corporation in San Francisco or Beijing rich, while people in Cairo and Kuala Lumpur remain poor, because neither the profits nor the power is distributed back.

    The nature of the new information economy might make the imbalance between imperial hub and exploited colony worse than ever. In ancient times land—rather than information—was the most important economic asset. This precluded the overconcentration of all wealth and power in a single hub. As long as land was paramount, considerable wealth and power always remained in the hands of provincial landowners. A Roman emperor, for example, could put down one provincial revolt after another, but on the day after decapitating the last rebel chief, he had no choice but to appoint a new set of provincial landowners who might again challenge the central power. In the Roman Empire, although Italy was the seat of political power, the richest provinces were in the eastern Mediterranean. It was impossible to transport the fertile fields of the Nile valley to the Italian Peninsula.19 Eventually the emperors abandoned the city of Rome to the barbarians and moved the seat of political power to the rich east, to Constantinople.

    During the Industrial Revolution machines became more important than land. Factories, mines, railroad lines, and electrical power stations became the most valuable assets. It was somewhat easier to concentrate these kinds of assets in one place. The British Empire could centralize industrial production in its home islands, extract raw materials from India, Egypt, and Iraq, and sell them finished goods made in Birmingham or Belfast. Unlike in the Roman Empire, Britain was the seat of both political and economic power. But physics and geology still put natural limits on this concentration of wealth and power. The British couldn’t move every cotton mill from Calcutta to Manchester, nor shift the oil wells from Kirkuk to Yorkshire.

    Information is different. Unlike cotton and oil, digital data can be sent from Malaysia or Egypt to Beijing or San Francisco at almost the speed of light. And unlike land, oil fields, or textile factories, algorithms don’t take up much space. Consequently, unlike industrial power, the world’s algorithmic power can be concentrated in a single hub. Engineers in a single country might write the code and control the keys for all the crucial algorithms that run the entire world.

    Indeed, AI makes it possible to concentrate in one place even the decisive assets of some traditional industries, like textile. In the nineteenth century, to control the textile industry meant to control sprawling cotton fields and huge mechanical production lines. In the twenty-first century, the most important asset of the textile industry is information rather than cotton or machinery. To beat the competitors, a garment producer needs information about the likes and dislikes of customers and the ability to predict or manufacture the next fashions. By controlling this type of information, high-tech giants like Amazon and Alibaba can monopolize even a very traditional industry like textile. In 2021, Amazon became the United States’ biggest single clothing retailer.20

    Moreover, as AI, robots, and 3-D printers automate textile production, millions of workers might lose their jobs, upending national economies and the global balance of power. What will happen to the economies and politics of Pakistan and Bangladesh, for example, when automation makes it cheaper to produce textiles in Europe? Consider that at present the textile sector provides employment to 40 percent of Pakistan’s total labor force and accounts for 84 percent of Bangladesh’s export earnings.21 As noted in chapter 7, while automation might make millions of textile workers redundant, it will probably create many new jobs, too. For instance, there might be a huge demand for coders and data analysts. But turning an unemployed factory hand into a data analyst demands a substantial up-front investment in retraining. Where would Pakistan and Bangladesh get the money to do that?

    AI and automation therefore pose a particular challenge to poorer developing countries. In an AI-driven economy, the digital leaders claim the bulk of the gains and could use their wealth to retrain their workforce and profit even more. Meanwhile, the value of unskilled laborers in left-behind countries will decline, and they will not have the resources to retrain their workforce, causing them to fall even further behind. The result might be lots of new jobs and immense wealth in San Francisco and Shanghai, while many other parts of the world face economic ruin.22 According to the global accounting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers, AI is expected to add $15.7 trillion to the global economy by 2030. But if current trends continue, it is projected that China and North America—the two leading AI superpowers—will together take home 70 percent of that money.23

    FROM WEB TO COCOON

    These economic and geopolitical dynamics could divide the world between two digital empires. During the Cold War, the Iron Curtain was in many places literally made of metal: barbed wire separated one country from another. Now the world is increasingly divided by the Silicon Curtain. The Silicon Curtain is made of code, and it passes through every smartphone, computer, and server in the world. The code on your smartphone determines on which side of the Silicon Curtain you live, which algorithms run your life, who controls your attention, and where your data flows.

    It is becoming difficult to access information across the Silicon Curtain, say between China and the United States, or between Russia and the EU. Moreover, the two sides are increasingly run on different digital networks, using different computer codes. Each sphere obeys different regulations and serves different purposes. In China, the most important aim of new digital technology is to strengthen the state and serve government policies. While private enterprises are given a certain amount of autonomy in developing and deploying AI tools, their economic activities are ultimately subservient to the government’s political goals. These political goals also justify a relatively high level of surveillance, both online and off-line. This means, for example, that though Chinese citizens and authorities do care about people’s privacy, China is already far ahead of the United States and other Western countries in developing and deploying social credit systems that encompass the whole of people’s lives.24

    In the United States, the government plays a more limited role. Private enterprises lead the development and deployment of AI, and the ultimate goal of many new AI tools is to enrich the tech giants rather than to strengthen the American state or the current administration. Indeed, in many cases governmental policies are themselves shaped by powerful business interests. But the U.S. system does offer greater protection for citizens’ privacy. While American corporations aggressively gather information on people’s online activities, they are much more restricted in surveilling people’s offline lives. There is also widespread rejection of the ideas behind all-embracing social credit systems.25

    These political, cultural, and regulatory differences mean that each sphere is using different software. In China you cannot use Google and Facebook, and you cannot access Wikipedia. In the United States few people use WeChat, Baidu, and Tencent. More important, the spheres aren’t mirror images of each other. It is not that the Chinese and Americans develop local versions of the same apps. Baidu isn’t the Chinese Google. Alibaba isn’t the Chinese Amazon. They have different goals, different digital architectures, and different impacts on people’s lives.26 These differences influence much of the world, since most countries rely on Chinese and American software rather than on local technology.

    Each sphere also uses different hardware like smartphones and computers. The United States pressures its allies and clients to avoid Chinese hardware, such as Huawei’s 5G infrastructure.27 The Trump administration blocked an attempt by the Singaporean corporation Broadcom to buy the leading American producer of computer chips, Qualcomm. They feared foreigners might insert back doors into the chips or would prevent the U.S. government from inserting its own back doors there.28 In 2022, the Biden administration placed strict limits on trade in high-performance computing chips necessary for the development of AI. U.S. companies were forbidden to export such chips to China, or to provide China with the means to manufacture or repair them. The restrictions have subsequently been tightened further, and the ban was expanded to include other nations such as Russia and Iran.29 While in the short term this hampers China in the AI race, in the long term it will push China to develop a completely separate digital sphere that will be distinct from the American digital sphere even in its smallest building blocks.30

    The two digital spheres may drift further and further apart. Chinese software would talk only with Chinese hardware and Chinese infrastructure, and the same would happen on the other side of the Silicon Curtain. Since digital code influences human behavior, and human behavior in turn shapes digital code, the two sides may well be moving along different trajectories that will make them more and more different not just in their technology but in their cultural values, social norms, and political structures. After generations of convergence, humanity could find itself at a crucial point of divergence.31 For centuries, new information technologies fueled the process of globalization and brought people all over the world into closer contact. Paradoxically, information technology today is so powerful it can potentially split humanity by enclosing different people in separate information cocoons, ending the idea of a single shared human reality. While the web has been our main metaphor in recent decades, the future might belong to cocoons.

    THE GLOBAL MIND-BODY SPLIT

    The division into separate information cocoons could lead not just to economic rivalries and international tensions but also to the development of very different cultures, ideologies, and identities. Guessing future cultural and ideological developments is usually a fool’s errand. It is far more difficult than predicting economic and geopolitical developments. How many Romans or Jews in the days of Tiberius could have anticipated that a splinter Jewish sect would eventually take over the Roman Empire and that the emperors would abandon Rome’s old gods to worship an executed Jewish rabbi?

    It would have been even more difficult to foresee the directions in which various Christian sects would develop and the momentous impact of their ideas and conflicts on everything from politics to sexuality. When Jesus was asked about paying taxes to Tiberius’s government and answered, “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s” (Matthew 22:21), nobody could imagine the impact his response would have on the separation of church and state in the American republic two millennia later. And when Saint Paul wrote to the Christians in Rome, “I myself in my mind am a slave to God’s law, but in my sinful flesh a slave to the law of sin” (Romans 7:25), who could have foreseen the repercussions this would have on schools of thought ranging from Cartesian philosophy to queer theory?

    Despite these difficulties, it is important to try to imagine future cultural developments, in order to alert ourselves to the fact that the AI revolution and the formation of rival digital spheres are likely to change more than just our jobs and political structures. The following paragraphs contain some admittedly ambitious speculation, so please bear in mind that my goal is not to accurately foretell cultural developments but merely to draw attention to the likelihood that profound cultural shifts and conflicts await us.

    One possible development with far-reaching consequences is that different digital cocoons might adopt incompatible approaches to the most fundamental questions of human identity. For thousands of years, many religious and cultural conflicts—for example, between rival Christian sects, between Hindus and Buddhists, and between Platonists and Aristotelians—were fueled by disagreements about the mind-body problem. Are humans a physical body, or a nonphysical mind, or perhaps a mind trapped inside a body? In the twenty-first century, the computer network might supercharge the mind-body problem and turn it into a cause for major personal, ideological, and political conflicts.

    To appreciate the political ramifications of the mind-body problem, let’s briefly revisit the history of Christianity. Many of the earliest Christian sects, influenced by Jewish thinking, believed in the Old Testament idea that humans are embodied beings and that the body plays a crucial role in human identity. The book of Genesis said God created humans as physical bodies, and almost all books of the Old Testament assume that humans can exist only as physical bodies. With a few possible exceptions, the Old Testament doesn’t mention the possibility of a bodiless existence after death, in heaven or hell. When the ancient Jews fantasized about salvation, they imagined it to mean an earthly kingdom of material bodies. In the time of Jesus, many Jews believed that when the Messiah finally comes, the bodies of the dead would come back to life, here on earth. The Kingdom of God, established by the Messiah, was supposed to be a material kingdom, with trees and stones and flesh-and-blood bodies.32

    This was also the view of Jesus himself and the first Christians. Jesus promised his followers that soon the Kingdom of God would be built here on earth and they would inhabit it in their material bodies. When Jesus died without fulfilling his promise, his early followers came to believe that he was resurrected in the flesh and that when the Kingdom of God finally materialized on earth, they too would be resurrected in the flesh. The church father Tertullian (160–240 CE) wrote that “the flesh is the very condition on which salvation hinges,” and the catechism of the Catholic Church, citing the doctrines adopted at the Second Council of Lyon in 1274, states, “We believe in God who is creator of the flesh; we believe in the Word made flesh in order to redeem the flesh; we believe in the resurrection of the flesh, the fulfillment of both the creation and the redemption of the flesh.… We believe in the true resurrection of this flesh that we now possess.”33

    Despite such seemingly unequivocal statements, we saw that Saint Paul already had his doubts about the flesh, and by the fourth century CE, under Greek, Manichaean, and Persian influences, some Christians had drifted toward a dualistic approach. They came to think of humans as consisting of a good immaterial soul trapped inside an evil material body. They didn’t fantasize about being resurrected in the flesh. Just the opposite. Having been released by death from its abominable material prison, why would the pure soul ever want to get back in? Christians accordingly began to believe that after death the soul is liberated from the body and exists forever in an immaterial place completely beyond the physical realm—which is the standard belief among Christians today, notwithstanding what Tertullian and the Second Council of Lyon said.34

    But Christianity couldn’t completely abandon the old Jewish view that humans are embodied beings. After all, Christ appeared on earth in the flesh. His body was nailed to the cross, on which he experienced excruciating pain. For two thousand years, Christian sects therefore fought each other—sometimes with words, sometimes with swords—over the exact relations between soul and body. The fiercest arguments focused on Christ’s own body. Was he material? Was he purely spiritual? Did he perhaps have a nonbinary nature, being both human and divine at the same time?

    The different approaches to the mind-body problem influenced how people treated their own bodies. Saints, hermits, and monks made breathtaking experiments in pushing the human body to its limits. Just as Christ allowed his body to be tortured on the cross, so these “athletes of Christ” allowed lions and bears to rip them apart while their souls rejoiced in divine ecstasy. They wore hair shirts, fasted for weeks, or stood for years on a pillar—like the famous Simeon who allegedly stood for about forty years on top of a pillar near Aleppo.35

    Other Christians took the opposite approach, believing that the body didn’t matter at all. The only thing that mattered was faith. This idea was taken to extremes by Protestants like Martin Luther, who formulated the doctrine of sola fide: only faith. After living as a monk for about ten years, fasting and torturing his body in various ways, Luther despaired of these bodily exercises. He reasoned that no bodily self-torments could force God to redeem him. Indeed, thinking he could win his own salvation by torturing his body was the sin of pride. Luther therefore disrobed, married a former nun, and told his followers that to be good Christians, the only thing they needed was to have complete faith in Christ.36

    These ancient theological debates about mind and body may seem utterly irrelevant to the AI revolution, but they have in fact been resurrected by twenty-first-century technologies. What is the relationship between our physical body and our online identities and avatars? What is the relation between the offline world and cyberspace? Suppose I spend most of my waking hours sitting in my room in front of a screen, playing online games, forming virtual relationships, and even working remotely. I hardly venture out even to eat. I just order takeout. If you are like ancient Jews and the first Christians, you would pity me and conclude that I must be living in a delusion, losing touch with the reality of physical spaces and flesh-and-blood bodies. But if your thinking is closer to that of Luther and many later Christians, you might think I am liberated. By shifting most of my activities and relationships online, I have released myself from the limited organic world of debilitating gravity and corrupt bodies and can enjoy the unlimited possibilities of a digital world, which is potentially liberated from the laws of biology and even physics. I am free to roam a much vaster and more exciting space and to explore new aspects of my identity.

    An increasingly important question is whether people can adopt any virtual identity they like, or should their identity be constrained by their biological body? If we follow the Lutheran position of sola fide, the biological body isn’t of much importance. To adopt a certain online identity, the only thing that matters is what you believe. This debate can have far-reaching consequences not just for human identity but for our attitude to the world as a whole. A society that understands identities in terms of biological bodies should also care more about material infrastructure like sewage pipes and about the ecosystem that sustains our bodies. It will see the online world as an auxiliary of the offline world that can serve various useful purposes but can never become the central arena of our lives. Its aim would be to create an ideal physical and biological realm—the Kingdom of God on earth. In contrast, a society that downplays biological bodies and focuses on online identities may well seek to create an immersive Kingdom of God in cyberspace while discounting the fate of mere material things like sewage pipes and rain forests.

    This debate could shape attitudes not only toward organisms but also toward digital entities. As long as society defines identity by focusing on physical bodies, it is unlikely to view AIs as persons. But if society gives less importance to physical bodies, then even AIs that lack any corporeal manifestations may be accepted as legal persons enjoying various rights.

    Throughout history, diverse cultures have given diverse answers to the mind-body problem. A twenty-first-century controversy about the mind-body problem could result in cultural and political splits more consequential even than the split between Jews and Christians or between Catholics and Protestants. What happens, for example, if the American sphere discounts the body, defines humans by their online identity, recognizes AIs as persons, and downplays the importance of the ecosystem, whereas the Chinese sphere adopts opposite positions? Current disagreements about violations of human rights or adherence to ecological standards will look minuscule in comparison. The Thirty Years’ War—arguably the most devastating war in European history—was fought at least in part because Catholics and Protestants couldn’t agree on doctrines like sola fide and on whether Christ was divine, human, or nonbinary. Might future conflicts start because of an argument about AI rights and the nonbinary nature of avatars?

    As noted, these are all wild speculations, and in all likelihood actual cultures and ideologies will develop in different—and perhaps even wilder—directions. But it is probable that within a few decades the computer network will cultivate new human and nonhuman identities that make little sense to us. And if the world will be divided into two rival digital cocoons, the identities of entities in one cocoon might be unintelligible to the inhabitants of the other.

    FROM CODE WAR TO HOT WAR

    While China and the United States are currently the front-runners in the AI race, they are not alone. Other countries or blocs, such as the EU, India, Brazil, and Russia, may try to create their own digital spheres, each influenced by different political, cultural, and religious traditions.37 Instead of being divided between just two global empires, the world might be divided among a dozen empires. It is unclear whether this will somewhat alleviate or only exacerbate the imperial competition.

    The more the new empires compete against one another, the greater the danger of armed conflict. The Cold War between the United States and the U.S.S.R. never escalated into a direct military confrontation largely thanks to the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. But the danger of escalation in the age of AI is bigger, because cyber warfare is inherently different from nuclear warfare.

    First, cyber weapons are much more versatile than nuclear bombs. Cyber weapons can bring down a country’s electric grid, but they can also be used to destroy a secret research facility, jam an enemy sensor, inflame a political scandal, manipulate elections, or hack a single smartphone. And they can do all that stealthily. They don’t announce their presence with a mushroom cloud and a storm of fire, nor do they leave a visible trail from launchpad to target. Consequently, at times it is hard to know if an attack even occurred or who launched it. If a database is hacked or sensitive equipment is destroyed, it’s hard to be sure whom to blame. The temptation to start a limited cyberwar is therefore big, and so is the temptation to escalate it. Rival countries like Israel and Iran or the United States and Russia have been trading cyber blows for years, in an undeclared but escalating war.38 This is becoming the new global norm, amplifying international tensions and pushing countries to cross one red line after another.

    A second crucial difference concerns predictability. The Cold War was like a hyperrational chess game, and the certainty of destruction in the event of nuclear conflict was so great that the desire to start a war was correspondingly small. Cyber warfare lacks this certainty. Nobody knows for sure where each side has planted its logic bombs, Trojan horses, and malwares. Nobody can be certain whether their own weapons would actually work when called upon. Would Chinese missiles fire when the order is given, or perhaps the Americans have hacked them or the chain of command? Would American aircraft carriers function as expected, or would they perhaps shut down mysteriously or sail around in circles?39

    Such uncertainty undermines the doctrine of mutually assured destruction. One side might convince itself—rightly or wrongly—that it can launch a successful first strike and avoid massive retaliation. Even worse, if one side thinks it has such an opportunity, the temptation to launch a first strike could become irresistible, because one never knows how long the window of opportunity will remain open. Game theory posits that the most dangerous situation in an arms race is when one side feels it has an advantage but that this advantage is slipping away.40

    Even if humanity avoids the worst-case scenario of global war, the rise of new digital empires could still endanger the freedom and prosperity of billions of people. The industrial empires of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries exploited and repressed their colonies, and it would be foolhardy to expect the new digital empires to behave much better. Moreover, as noted earlier, if the world is divided into rival empires, humanity is unlikely to cooperate effectively to overcome the ecological crisis or to regulate AI and other disruptive technologies like bioengineering.

    THE GLOBAL BOND

    Of course, no matter whether the world is divided between a few digital empires, remains a more diverse community of two hundred nation-states, or is split along altogether different and unforeseen lines, cooperation is always an option. Among humans, the precondition for cooperation isn’t similarity; it is the ability to exchange information. As long as we are able to converse, we might find some shared story that can bring us closer. This, after all, is what made Homo sapiens the dominant species on the planet.

    Just as different and even rival families can cooperate within a tribal network, and competing tribes can cooperate within a national network, so opposing nations and empires can cooperate within a global network. The stories that make such cooperation possible do not eliminate our differences; rather, they enable us to identify shared experiences and interests, which offer a common framework for thought and action.

    A large part of what nevertheless makes global cooperation difficult is the misguided notion that it requires abolishing all cultural, social, and political differences. Populist politicians often argue that if the international community agrees on a common story and on universal norms and values, this will destroy the independence and unique traditions of their own nation.41 This position was unabashedly distilled in 2015 by Marine Le Pen—leader of France’s National Front party—in an election speech in which she declared, “We have entered a new two-partyism. A two-partyism between two mutually exclusive conceptions that will from now on structure our political life. The cleavage no longer separates left and right, but globalists and patriots.”42 In August 2020, President Trump described his guiding ethos thus: “We have rejected globalism and embraced patriotism.”43

    Luckily, this binary position is mistaken in its basic assumption. Global cooperation and patriotism are not mutually exclusive. For patriotism isn’t about hating foreigners. It is about loving our compatriots. And there are many situations when, in order to take care of our compatriots, we need to cooperate with foreigners. COVID-19 provided us with one obvious example. Pandemics are global events, and without global cooperation it is hard to contain them, let alone prevent them. When a new virus or a mutant pathogen appears in one country, it puts all other countries in danger. Conversely, the biggest advantage of humans over pathogens is that we can cooperate in ways that pathogens cannot. Doctors in Germany and Brazil can alert one another to new dangers, give each other good advice, and work together to discover better treatments.

    If German scientists invent a vaccine against some new disease, how should Brazilians react to this German achievement? One option is to reject the foreign vaccine and wait until Brazilian scientists develop a Brazilian vaccine. That, however, would be not just foolish; it would be anti-patriotic. Brazilian patriots should want to use any available vaccine to help their compatriots, no matter where the vaccine was developed. In this situation, cooperating with foreigners is the patriotic thing to do. The threat of losing control of AIs is an analogous situation in which patriotism and global cooperation must go together. An out-of-control AI, just like an out-of-control virus, puts in danger humans in every nation. No human collective—whether a tribe, a nation, or the entire species—stands to benefit from letting power shift from humans to algorithms.

    Contrary to what populists argue, globalism doesn’t mean establishing a global empire, abandoning national loyalties, or opening borders to unlimited immigration. In fact, global cooperation means two far more modest things: first, a commitment to some global rules. These rules don’t deny the uniqueness of each nation and the loyalty people should owe their nation. They just regulate the relations between nations. A good model is the World Cup. The World Cup is a competition between nations, and people often show fierce loyalty to their national team. At the same time, the World Cup is an amazing display of global agreement. Brazil cannot play football against Germany unless Brazilians and Germans first agree on the same set of rules for the game. That’s globalism in action.

    The second principle of globalism is that sometimes—not always, but sometimes—it is necessary to prioritize the long-term interests of all humans over the short-term interests of a few. For example, in the World Cup, all national teams agree not to use performance-enhancing drugs, because everybody realizes that if they go down that path, the World Cup would eventually devolve into a competition between biochemists. In other fields where technology is a game changer, we should similarly strive to balance national and global interests. Nations will obviously continue to compete in the development of new technology, but sometimes they should agree to limit the development and deployment of dangerous technologies like autonomous weapons and manipulative algorithms—not purely out of altruism, but for their own self-preservation.

    THE HUMAN CHOICE

    Forging and keeping international agreements on AI will require major changes in the way the international system functions. While we have experience in regulating dangerous technologies like nuclear and biological weapons, the regulation of AI will demand unprecedented levels of trust and self-discipline, for two reasons. First, it is easier to hide an illicit AI lab than an illicit nuclear reactor. Second, AIs have a lot more dual civilian-military usages than nuclear bombs. Consequently, despite signing an agreement that bans autonomous weapon systems, a country could build such weapons secretly, or camouflage them as civilian products. For example, it might develop fully autonomous drones for delivering mail and spraying fields with pesticides that with a few minor modifications could also deliver bombs and spray people with poison. Consequently, governments and corporations will find it more difficult to trust that their rivals are really abiding by the agreed regulations—and to withstand the temptation to themselves waive the rules.44 Can humans develop the necessary levels of trust and self-discipline? Do changes like those have any precedent in history?

    Many people are skeptical of the human capacity to change, and in particular of the human ability to renounce violence and forge stronger global bonds. For example, “realist” thinkers like Hans Morgenthau and John Mearsheimer have argued that an all-out competition for power is the inescapable condition of the international system. Mearsheimer explains that “my theory sees great powers as concerned mainly with figuring out how to survive in a world where there is no agency to protect them from each other” and that “they quickly realize that power is the key to their survival.” Mearsheimer then asks “how much power states want” and answers that all states want as much power as they can get, “because the international system creates powerful incentives for states to look for opportunities to gain power at the expense of rivals.” He concludes, “A state’s ultimate goal is to be the hegemon in the system.”45

    This grim view of international relations is akin to the populist and Marxist views of human relations, in that they all see humans as interested only in power. And they are all founded upon a deeper philosophical theory of human nature, which the primatologist Frans de Waal termed “veneer theory.” It argues that at heart humans are Stone Age hunters who cannot but see the world as a jungle where the strong prey upon the weak and where might makes right. For millennia, the theory goes, humans have tried to camouflage this unchanging reality under a thin and mutable veneer of myths and rituals, but we have never really broken free from the law of the jungle. Indeed, our myths and rituals are themselves a weapon used by the jungle’s top dogs to deceive and trap their inferiors. Those who don’t realize this are dangerously naive and will fall prey to some ruthless predator.46

    There are reasons to think, however, that “realists” like Mearsheimer have a selective view of historical reality and that the law of the jungle is itself a myth. As de Waal and many other biologists documented in numerous studies, real jungles—unlike the one in our imagination—are full of cooperation, symbiosis, and altruism displayed by countless animals, plants, fungi, and even bacteria. Eighty percent of all land plants, for example, rely on symbiotic relationships with fungi, and almost 90 percent of vascular plant families enjoy symbiotic relationships with microorganisms. If organisms in the rain forests of Amazonia, Africa, or India abandoned cooperation in favor of an all-out competition for hegemony, the rain forests and all their inhabitants would quickly die. That’s the law of the jungle.47

    As for Stone Age humans, they were gatherers as well as hunters, and there is no firm evidence that they had irrepressible warlike tendencies. While there are plenty of speculations, the first unambiguous evidence for organized warfare appears in the archaeological record only about thirteen thousand years ago, at the site of Jebel Sahaba in the Nile valley.48 Even after that date, the record of war is variable rather than constant. Some periods were exceptionally violent, whereas others were relatively peaceful. The clearest pattern we observe in the long-term history of humanity isn’t the constancy of conflict, but rather the increasing scale of cooperation. A hundred thousand years ago, Sapiens could cooperate only at the level of bands. Over the millennia, we have found ways to create communities of strangers, first on the level of tribes and eventually on the level of religions, trade networks, and states. Realists should note that states are not the fundamental particles of human reality, but rather the product of arduous processes of building trust and cooperation. If humans were interested only in power, they could never have created states in the first place. Sure, conflicts have always remained a possibility—both between and within states—but they have never been an inescapable destiny.

    War’s intensity depends not on an immutable human nature but on shifting technological, economic, and cultural factors. As these factors change, so does war, as was clearly demonstrated in the post-1945 era. During that period, the development of nuclear technology greatly increased the potential price of war. From the 1950s onward it became clear to the superpowers that even if they could somehow win an all-out nuclear exchange, their victory would likely be a suicidal achievement, involving the sacrifice of most of their population.

    Simultaneously, the ongoing shift from a material-based economy to a knowledge-based economy decreased the potential gains of war. While it has remained feasible to conquer rice paddies and gold mines, by the late twentieth century these were no longer the main sources of economic wealth. The new leading industries, like the semiconductor sector, came to be based on technical skills and organizational know-how that could not be acquired by military conquest. Accordingly, some of the greatest economic miracles of the post-1945 era were achieved by the defeated powers of Germany, Italy, and Japan, and by countries like Sweden and Singapore that eschewed military conflicts and imperial conquests.

    Finally, the second half of the twentieth century also witnessed a profound cultural transformation, with the decline of age-old militaristic ideals. Artists increasingly focused on depicting the senseless horrors of combat rather than on glorifying its architects, and politicians came to power dreaming more of domestic reforms than of foreign conquests. Due to these technological, economic, and cultural changes, in the decades following the end of World War II most governments stopped seeing wars of aggression as an appealing tool to advance their interests, and most nations stopped fantasizing about conquering and destroying their neighbors. While civil wars and insurgencies have remained commonplace, the post-1945 world has seen a significant decline in full-scale wars between states, and most notably in direct armed conflicts between great powers.49

    Numerous statistics attest to the decline of war in this post-1945 era, but perhaps the clearest evidence is found in state budgets. For most of recorded history, the military was the number one item on the budget of every empire, sultanate, kingdom, and republic. Governments spent little on health care and education, because most of their resources were consumed by paying soldiers, constructing walls, and building warships. When the bureaucrat Chen Xiang examined the annual budget of the Chinese Song dynasty for the year 1065, he found that out of sixty million minqian (currency unit), fifty million (83 percent) were consumed by the military. Another official, Cai Xiang, wrote, “If [we] split [all the property] under Heaven into six shares, five shares are spent on the military, and one share is spent on temple offerings and state expenses. How can the country not be poor and the people not in difficulty?”50

    The same situation prevailed in many other polities, from ancient times to the modern era. The Roman Empire spent about 50–75 percent of its budget on the military,51 and the figure was about 60 percent in the late seventeenth-century Ottoman Empire.52 Between 1685 and 1813 the share of the military in British government expenditure averaged 75 percent.53 In France, military expenditure between 1630 and 1659 varied between 89 percent and 93 percent of the budget, remained above 30 percent for much of the eighteenth century, and dropped to a low of 25 percent in 1788 only due to the financial crisis that led to the French Revolution. In Prussia, from 1711 to 1800 the military share of the budget never fell below 75 percent and occasionally reached as high as 91 percent.54 During the relatively peaceful years of 1870–1913, the military ate up an average of 30 percent of the state budgets of the major powers of Europe, as well as Japan and the United States, while smaller powers like Sweden were spending even more.55 When war broke out in 1914, military budges skyrocketed. During their involvement in World War I, French military expenditure averaged 77 percent of the budget; in Germany it was 91 percent, in Russia 48 percent, in the U.K. 49 percent, and in the United States 47 percent. During World War II, the U.K. figure rose to 69 percent and the U.S. figure to 71 percent.56 Even during the détente years of the 1970s, Soviet military expenditure still amounted to 32.5 percent of the budget.57

    State budgets in more recent decades make for far more hopeful reading material than any pacifist tract ever composed. In the early twenty-first century, the worldwide average government expenditure on the military has been only around 7 percent of the budget, and even the dominant superpower of the United States spent only around 13 percent of its annual budget to maintain its military hegemony.58 Since most people no longer lived in terror of external invasion, governments could invest far more money in welfare, education, and health care. Worldwide average expenditure on health care in the early twenty-first century has been about 10 percent of the government budget, or about 1.4 times the defense budget.59 For many people in the 2010s, the fact that the health-care budget was bigger than the military budget was unremarkable. But it was the result of a major change in human behavior, and one that would have sounded impossible to most previous generations.

    The decline of war didn’t result from a divine miracle or from a metamorphosis in the laws of nature. It resulted from humans changing their own laws, myths, and institutions and making better decisions. Unfortunately, the fact that this change has stemmed from human choice also means that it is reversible. Technology, economics, and culture are ever changing. In the early 2020s, more leaders are again dreaming of martial glory, armed conflicts are on the rise,60 and military budgets are increasing.61

    A critical threshold was crossed in early 2022. Russia had already destabilized the global order by mounting a limited invasion of Ukraine in 2014 and occupying Crimea and other regions in eastern Ukraine. But on February 24, 2022, Vladimir Putin launched an all-out assault aimed to conquer the whole of Ukraine and extinguish Ukrainian nationhood. To prepare and sustain this attack, Russia increased its military budget far beyond the global average of 7 percent. Exact figures are difficult to determine, because many aspects of the Russian military budget are shrouded in secrecy, but the best estimates put the figure somewhere in the vicinity of 30 percent, and it may even be higher.62 The Russian onslaught in turn has forced not only Ukraine but also many other European nations to increase their own military budgets.63 The reemergence of militaristic cultures in places like Russia, and the development of unprecedented cyber weapons and autonomous armaments throughout the world, could result in a new era of war, worse than anything we have seen before.

    The decisions leaders like Putin make on matters of war and peace are shaped by their understanding of history. Which means that just as overly optimistic views of history could be dangerous illusions, overly pessimistic views could become destructive self-fulfilling prophecies. Prior to his all-out 2022 attack on Ukraine, Putin had often expressed his historical conviction that Russia is trapped in an endless struggle with foreign enemies, and that the Ukrainian nation is a fabrication by these enemies. In June 2021, he published a fifty-three-hundred-word essay titled “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians” in which he denied the existence of Ukraine as a nation and argued that foreign powers have repeatedly tried to weaken Russia by fostering Ukrainian separatism. While professional historians reject these claims, Putin seems to genuinely believe in this historical narrative.64 Putin’s historical convictions led him in 2022 to prioritize the conquest of Ukraine over other policy goals, such as providing Russian citizens with better health care or spearheading a global initiative to regulate AI.65

    If leaders like Putin believe that humanity is trapped in an unforgiving dog-eat-dog world, that no profound change is possible in this sorry state of affairs, and that the relative peace of the late twentieth century and early twenty-first century was an illusion, then the only choice remaining is whether to play the part of predator or prey. Given such a choice, most leaders would prefer to go down in history as predators and add their names to the grim list of conquerors that unfortunate pupils are condemned to memorize for their history exams. These leaders should be reminded, however, that in the era of AI the alpha predator is likely to be AI.

    Perhaps, though, we have more choices available to us. I cannot predict what decisions people will make in the coming years, but as a historian I do believe in the possibility of change. One of the chief lessons of history is that many of the things that we consider natural and eternal are, in fact, man-made and mutable. Accepting that conflict is not inevitable, however, should not make us complacent. Just the opposite. It places a heavy responsibility on all of us to make good choices. It implies that if human civilization is consumed by conflict, we cannot blame it on any law of nature or any alien technology. It also implies that if we make the effort, we can create a better world. This isn’t naïveté; it’s realism. Every old thing was once new. The only constant of history is change.

    Epilogue

    In late 2016, a few months after AlphaGo defeated Lee Sedol and as Facebook algorithms were stoking dangerous racist sentiments in Myanmar, I published Homo Deus. Though my academic training had been in medieval and early modern military history, and though I have no background in the technical aspects of computer science, I suddenly found myself, post-publication, with the reputation of an AI expert. This opened the doors to the offices of scientists, entrepreneurs, and world leaders interested in AI and afforded me a fascinating, privileged look into the complex dynamics of the AI revolution.

    It turned out that my previous experience researching topics such as English strategy in the Hundred Years’ War and studying paintings from the Thirty Years’ War1 wasn’t entirely unrelated to this new field. In fact, it gave me a rather unique historical perspective on the events unfolding rapidly in AI labs, corporate offices, military headquarters, and presidential palaces. Over the past eight years I have had numerous public and private discussions about AI, particularly about the dangers it poses, and with each passing year the tone has become more urgent. Conversations that in 2016 felt like idle philosophical speculations about a distant future had, by 2024, acquired the focused intensity of an emergency room.

    I am neither a politician nor a businessperson and have little talent for what these vocations demand. But I do believe that an understanding of history can be useful in gaining a better grasp of present-day technological, economic, and cultural developments—and, more urgently, in changing our political priorities. Politics is largely a matter of priorities. Should we cut the health care budget and spend more on defense? Is our more pressing security threat terrorism or climate change? Do we focus on regaining a lost patch of ancestral territory or concentrate on creating a common economic zone with the neighbors? Priorities determine how citizens vote, what businesspeople are concerned about, and how politicians try to make a name for themselves. And priorities are often shaped by our understanding of history.

    While so-called realists dismiss historical narratives as propaganda ploys deployed to advance state interests, in fact it is these narratives that define state interests in the first place. As we saw in our discussion of Clausewitz’s theory of war, there is no rational way to define ultimate goals. The state interests of Russia, Israel, Myanmar, or any other country can never be deduced from some mathematical or physical equation; they are always the supposed moral of a historical narrative.

    It is therefore hardly surprising that politicians all over the world spend a lot of time and effort recounting historical narratives. The above-mentioned example of Vladimir Putin is hardly exceptional in this respect. In 2005 the UN secretary-general, Kofi Annan, had his first meeting with General Than Shwe, the then dictator of Myanmar. Annan was advised to speak first, so as to prevent the general from monopolizing the conversation, which was meant to last only twenty minutes. But Than Shwe struck first and held forth for nearly an hour on the history of Myanmar, hardly giving the UN secretary-general any chance to speak.2 In May 2011 the Israeli prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu did something similar in the White House, when he met the U.S. president, Barack Obama. After Obama’s brief introductory remarks, Netanyahu subjected the president to a long lecture about the history of Israel and the Jewish people, treating Obama as if he were his student.3 Cynics might argue that Than Shwe and Netanyahu hardly cared about the facts of history and were deliberately distorting them in order to achieve some political goal. But these political goals were themselves the product of deeply held convictions about history.

    In my own conversations on AI with politicians, as well as tech entrepreneurs, history has often emerged as a central theme. Some of my interlocutors painted a rosy picture of history and were accordingly enthusiastic about AI. They argued that more information has always meant more knowledge and that by increasing our knowledge, every previous information revolution has greatly benefited humankind. Didn’t the print revolution lead to the scientific revolution? Didn’t newspapers and radio lead to the rise of modern democracy? The same, they said, would happen with AI. Others had a dimmer perspective, but nevertheless expressed hope that humankind will somehow muddle through the AI revolution, just as we muddled through the Industrial Revolution.

    Neither view offered me much solace. For reasons explained in previous chapters, I find such historical comparisons to the print revolution and the Industrial Revolution distressing, especially coming from people in positions of power, whose historical vision is informing the decisions that shape our future. These historical comparisons underestimate both the unprecedented nature of the AI revolution and the negative aspects of previous revolutions. The immediate results of the print revolution included witch hunts and religious wars alongside scientific discoveries, while newspapers and radio were exploited by totalitarian regimes as well as by democracies. As for the Industrial Revolution, adapting to it involved catastrophic experiments such as imperialism and Nazism. If the AI revolution leads us to similar kinds of experiments, can we really be certain we will muddle through again?

    My goal with this book is to provide a more accurate historical perspective on the AI revolution. This revolution is still in its infancy, and it is notoriously difficult to understand momentous developments in real time. It is hard, even now, to assess the meaning of events in the 2010s like AlphaGo’s victory or Facebook’s involvement in the anti-Rohingya campaign. The meaning of events of the early 2020s is even more obscure. Yet by expanding our horizons to look at how information networks developed over thousands of years, I believe it is possible to gain some insight on what we’re living through today.

    One lesson is that the invention of new information technology is always a catalyst for major historical changes, because the most important role of information is to weave new networks rather than represent preexisting realities. By recording tax payments, clay tablets in ancient Mesopotamia helped forge the first city-states. By canonizing prophetic visions, holy books spread new kinds of religions. By swiftly disseminating the words of presidents and citizens, newspapers and telegraphs opened the door to both large-scale democracy and large-scale totalitarianism. The information thus recorded and distributed was sometimes true, often false, but it invariably created new connections between larger numbers of people.

    We are used to giving political, ideological, and economic interpretations to historical revolutions such as the rise of the first Mesopotamian city-states, the spread of Christianity, the American Revolution, and the Bolshevik Revolution. But to gain a deeper understanding, we should also view them as revolutions in the way information flows. Christianity was obviously different from Greek polytheism in many of its myths and rites, yet it was also different in the importance it gave to a single holy book and the institution entrusted with interpreting it. Consequently, whereas each temple of Zeus was a separate entity, each Christian church became a node in a unified network.4 Information flowed differently among the followers of Christ than among the worshippers of Zeus. Similarly, Stalin’s U.S.S.R. was a different kind of information network from Peter the Great’s empire. Stalin enacted many unprecedented economic policies, but what enabled him to do it is that he headed a totalitarian network in which the center accumulated enough information to micromanage the lives of hundreds of millions of people. Technology is rarely deterministic, and the same technology can be used in very different ways. But without the invention of technologies like the book and the telegraph, the Christian Church and the Stalinist apparatus would never have been possible.

    This historical lesson should strongly encourage us to pay more attention to the AI revolution in our current political debates. The invention of AI is potentially more momentous than the invention of the telegraph, the printing press, or even writing, because AI is the first tool that is capable of making decisions and generating ideas by itself. Whereas printing presses and parchment scrolls offered new means for connecting people, AIs are full-fledged members in our information networks. In coming years, all information networks—from armies to religions—will gain millions of new AI members, who will process data very differently than humans. These new members will make alien decisions and generate alien ideas—that is, decisions and ideas that are unlikely to occur to humans. The addition of so many alien members is bound to change the shape of armies, religions, markets, and nations. Entire political, economic, and social systems might collapse, and new ones will take their place. That’s why AI should be a matter of utmost urgency even to people who don’t care about technology and who think the most important political questions concern the survival of democracy or the fair distribution of wealth.

    This book has juxtaposed the discussion of AI with the discussion of sacred canons like the Bible, because we are now at the critical moment of AI canonization. When church fathers like Bishop Athanasius decided to include 1 Timothy in the biblical dataset while excluding the Acts of Paul and Thecla, they shaped the world for millennia. Billions of Christians down to the twenty-first century have formed their views of the world based on the misogynist ideas of 1 Timothy rather than on the more tolerant attitude of Thecla. Even today it is difficult to reverse course, because the church fathers chose not to include any self-correcting mechanisms in the Bible. The present-day equivalents of Bishop Athanasius are the engineers who write the initial code for AI, and who choose the dataset on which the baby AI is trained. As AI grows in power and authority, and perhaps becomes a self-interpreting holy book, so the decisions made by present-day engineers could reverberate down the ages.

    Studying history does more than just emphasize the importance of the AI revolution and of our decisions regarding AI. It also cautions us against two common but misleading approaches to information networks and information revolutions. On the one hand, we should beware of an overly naive and optimistic view. Information isn’t truth. Its main task is to connect rather than represent, and information networks throughout history have often privileged order over truth. Tax records, holy books, political manifestos, and secret police files can be extremely efficient in creating powerful states and churches, which hold a distorted view of the world and are prone to abuse their power. More information, ironically, can sometimes result in more witch hunts.

    There is no reason to expect that AI would necessarily break the pattern and privilege truth. AI is not infallible. What little historical perspective we have gained from the alarming events in Myanmar, Brazil, and elsewhere over the past decade indicates that in the absence of strong self-correcting mechanisms AIs are more than capable of promoting distorted worldviews, enabling egregious abuses of power, and instigating terrifying new witch hunts.

    On the other hand, we should also beware of swinging too far in the other direction and adopting an overly cynical view. Populists tell us that power is the only reality, that all human interactions are power struggles, and that information is merely a weapon we use to vanquish our enemies. This has never been the case, and there is no reason to think that AI will make it so in the future. While many information networks do privilege order over truth, no network can survive if it ignores truth completely. As for individual humans, we tend to be genuinely interested in truth rather than only in power. Even institutions like the Spanish Inquisition have had conscientious truth-seeking members like Alonso de Salazar Frías, who, instead of sending innocent people to their deaths, risked his life to remind us that witches are just intersubjective fictions. Most people don’t view themselves as one-dimensional creatures obsessed solely with power. Why, then, hold such a view about everyone else?

    Refusing to reduce all human interactions to a zero-sum power struggle is crucial not just for gaining a fuller, more nuanced understanding of the past but also for having a more hopeful and constructive attitude about our future. If power were the only reality, then the only way to resolve conflicts would be through violence. Both populists and Marxists believe that people’s views are determined by their privileges, and that to change people’s views it is necessary to first take away their privileges—which usually requires force. However, since humans are interested in truth, there is a chance to resolve at least some conflicts peacefully, by talking to one another, acknowledging mistakes, embracing new ideas, and revising the stories we believe. That is the basic assumption of democratic networks and of scientific institutions. It has also been the basic motivation behind writing this book.

    EXTINCTION OF THE SMARTEST

    Let’s return now to the question I posed at the beginning of this book: If we are so wise, why are we so self-destructive? We are at one and the same time both the smartest and the stupidest animals on earth. We are so smart that we can produce nuclear missiles and superintelligent algorithms. And we are so stupid that we go ahead producing these things even though we’re not sure we can control them and failing to do so could destroy us. Why do we do it? Does something in our nature compel us to go down the path of self-destruction?

    This book has argued that the fault isn’t with our nature but with our information networks. Due to the privileging of order over truth, human information networks have often produced a lot of power but little wisdom. For example, Nazi Germany created a highly efficient military machine and placed it at the service of an insane mythology. The result was misery on an enormous scale, the death of tens of millions of people, and eventually the destruction of Nazi Germany, too.

    Of course, power is not in itself bad. When used wisely, it can be an instrument of benevolence. Modern civilization, for example, has acquired the power to prevent famines, contain epidemics, and mitigate natural disasters such as hurricanes and earthquakes. In general, the acquisition of power allows a network to deal more effectively with threats coming from outside, but simultaneously increases the dangers that the network poses to itself. It is particularly noteworthy that as a network becomes more powerful, imaginary terrors that exist only in the stories the network itself invents become potentially more dangerous than natural disasters. A modern state faced with drought or excessive rains can usually prevent this natural disaster from causing mass starvation among its citizens. But a modern state gripped by a man-made fantasy is capable of instigating man-made famines on an enormous scale, as happened in the U.S.S.R. in the early 1930s.

    Accordingly, as a network becomes more powerful, its self-correcting mechanisms become more vital. If a Stone Age tribe or a Bronze Age city-state was incapable of identifying and correcting its own mistakes, the potential damage was limited. At most, one city was destroyed, and the survivors tried again elsewhere. Even if the ruler of an Iron Age empire, such as Tiberius or Nero, was gripped by paranoia or psychosis, the consequences were seldom catastrophic. The Roman Empire endured for centuries despite its fair share of mad emperors, and its eventual collapse did not bring about the end of human civilization. But if a Silicon Age superpower has weak or nonexistent self-correcting mechanisms, it could very well endanger the survival of our species, and countless other life-forms, too. In the era of AI, the whole of humankind finds itself in an analogous situation to Tiberius in his Capri villa. We command immense power and enjoy rare luxuries, but we are easily manipulated by our own creations, and by the time we wake up to the danger, it might be too late.

    Unfortunately, despite the importance of self-correcting mechanisms for the long-term welfare of humanity, politicians might be tempted to weaken them. As we have seen throughout the book, though neutralizing self-correcting mechanisms has many downsides, it can nevertheless be a winning political strategy. It could deliver immense power into the hands of a twenty-first-century Stalin, and it would be foolhardy to assume that an AI-enhanced totalitarian regime would necessarily self-destruct before it could wreak havoc on human civilization. Just as the law of the jungle is a myth, so also is the idea that the arc of history bends toward justice. History is a radically open arc, one that can bend in many directions and reach very different destinations. Even if Homo sapiens destroys itself, the universe will keep going about its business as usual. It took four billion years for terrestrial evolution to produce a civilization of highly intelligent apes. If we are gone, and it takes evolution another hundred million years to produce a civilization of highly intelligent rats, it will. The universe is patient.

    There is, though, an even worse scenario. As far as we know today, apes, rats, and the other organic animals of planet Earth may be the only conscious entities in the entire universe. We have now created a nonconscious but very powerful alien intelligence. If we mishandle it, AI might extinguish not only the human dominion on Earth but the light of consciousness itself, turning the universe into a realm of utter darkness. It is our responsibility to prevent this.

    The good news is that if we eschew complacency and despair, we are capable of creating balanced information networks that will keep their own power in check. Doing so is not a matter of inventing another miracle technology or landing upon some brilliant idea that has somehow escaped all previous generations. Rather, to create wiser networks, we must abandon both the naive and the populist views of information, put aside our fantasies of infallibility, and commit ourselves to the hard and rather mundane work of building institutions with strong self-correcting mechanisms. That is perhaps the most important takeaway this book has to offer.

    This wisdom is much older than human history. It is elemental, the foundation of organic life. The first organisms weren’t created by some infallible genius or god. They emerged through an intricate process of trial and error. Over four billion years, ever more complex mechanisms of mutation and self-correction led to the evolution of trees, dinosaurs, jungles, and eventually humans. Now we have summoned an alien inorganic intelligence that could escape our control and put in danger not just our own species but countless other life-forms. The decisions we all make in the coming years will determine whether summoning this alien intelligence proves to be a terminal error or the beginning of a hopeful new chapter in the evolution of life.

  • 弗朗西斯·福山《政治秩序的起源》2

    第 16 章 基督教打破家庭观念

    令欧洲退出亲戚关系的是宗教，不是政治；对欧洲家庭性质的普遍误会；天主教会摧毁延伸的亲戚团体；英国个人主义甚至在欧洲也属极端

    我迄今所叙述的世界三个地区，其国家制度都自部落社会脱颖而出。中国、印度和中东的早期社会组织，都以父系家族的血统为基础，建立国家是为了克服部落社会的局限。每一个案例中，建国者想方设法让个人忠于国家，而不是忠于地方上的亲族团体。以领土和中央合法统治权力为基础的制度，不得不重叠在顽固的分支式社会之上。最极端的对策来自阿拉伯和奥斯曼帝国，他们绑架儿童，使之在人造家庭中长大，只忠于国家，不忠于自己的亲戚。

    但在这些案例中，不让亲戚关系成为社会组织基础的建国努力，自上而下，都归于失败。事实上，这些社会的制度发展历史，大多涉及亲族团体的重新问政——我称之为家族制复辟。所以，秦朝和西汉所创建的非人格化国家制度，在东汉崩溃时又落到强大宗族手中，这些家庭继续成为中国政坛中的重要角色，直到隋唐。印度在创建强大的非人格化制度上，一开始就成绩平平，以分支式迦提组织起来的印度村庄，其社会生活大体上又与这些制度毫不相干。土耳其国家是最为成功的，在小亚细亚和巴尔干半岛的心脏地区削弱了部落组织的影响，但在治理不严的阿拉伯省却不如人意。事实上，奥斯曼帝国在边远的贝都因（Bedouin）社区，仅行使非常有限的统治，其部落组织至今保持原样。所有这些地区——中国、印度、中东——家庭和亲戚团体至今仍然强大，成为社会组织和身份的来源，远远超过欧洲或北美。在中国台湾和南方地区尚有成熟的分支世系家族，印度婚姻仍是家庭而不是个人的结合。部落的依附关系在阿拉伯中东无所不在，尤其是在贝都因的群体中。

    例外的欧洲

    欧洲的亲戚关系采纳不同形式。人口统计学家约翰·哈吉那尔（John Hajnal）在 1965 年的文章中注意到，西欧婚姻模式与世界上几乎任何其他地方形成强烈对照。①西欧男女倾向于晚婚，从总体上讲，不结婚的比率较高，这两个因素导致相对较低的出生率；更多年轻女子参加工作，家庭中有更多平等，由于晚婚，女子又有较多机会获取财产。这不仅是当代现象，哈吉那尔把这种模式的时期定在 1400 年到 1650 年。

    西欧与世界其他地方的其他差异也很突出。共同祖先的亲戚团体所组成的社区，其在欧洲的消失远远早于哈吉那尔所指出的。对欧洲人而言，亲戚和后裔很重要，特别是国王和贵族，他们有实质性的经济资源传给子孙。但跟中国贵族不同，他们没有陷入表亲的专横，因为分割遗产和长子继承权的原则早已深入人心。在中世纪，欧洲人享有更多自由，无须征得大批亲戚的同意，便可任意处置自己的土地和动产。

    换言之，欧洲社会很早就是个人主义的。在婚姻、财产和其他私人事务上，当家做主的是个人，而不是家庭或亲戚团体。家庭中的个人主义是所有其他个人主义的基础。个人主义无须等待国家的出现，无须等待它来宣告个人法律权利，并行使强制权力来予以保障。更确切地说，个人已在享受实质性的自由，无须承担对亲戚的社会义务，先有这样的社会，再来建起国家。在欧洲，社会发展走在政治发展的前列。

    欧洲何时退出亲戚关系？如果不是政治，转型动力何在？前者的答案是：蹂躏罗马帝国的日耳曼部落，在皈依基督教后不久，就开始退出。后者的答案是：天主教会。

    马克思的错误

    很明显，现代欧洲人的祖先都曾组成部落。他们的亲戚关系、法律、习惯、宗教实践，只要能找到的，19 世纪伟大的历史人类学家都已作了详细记载，如甫斯特尔·德·库朗日、亨利·梅因②、弗雷德里克·波洛克（Frederick Pollock）、弗雷德里克·梅特兰（Frederic Maitland）③、保罗·维诺格拉多夫（Paul Vinogradoff）。他们是比较人类学家，掌握不同文化的渊博知识，为父系亲戚组织之间的相似而感到吃惊。那些组织分布于世界各地，如印度、希腊、日耳曼的社会。④

    19 世纪的历史人类学家相信，亲戚组织随着时间的推移而进化，人类社会有普遍的发展模式，从亲戚团体的大集团，转向个别男女自愿结合的小家庭。梅因有个著名概念：现代化涉及从“身份到契约”的过渡。⑤换言之，早期社会将社会地位赋予个人，安排一切，从婚配、职业到宗教信仰。相比之下，现代社会的个人可随意与人签约，走进不同社会关系，其中最重要的是婚姻合同。但梅因没有提出一种动态理论，以解说过渡是何时和如何发生的。

    实际上，对欧洲亲戚模式的过渡时间和过渡原因存在很多误解。很多人相信，跟世界上的其他民族类似，欧洲人始终居住于部落或庞大的家庭团体，一直到工业革命。其时，机器生产的压力和社会流动的必要性，才将之打破。根据这个见解，工业化带来经济变化和核心小家庭出现，都属于这同一过程。⑥

    这个见解很可能来自早期现代化理论。卡尔·马克思在《共产党宣言》中宣称，资产阶级“撕下了罩在家庭关系上的温情脉脉的面纱，把这种关系变成了纯粹的金钱关系”。促使资产阶级兴起的，依次是技术革新和物质生产方式的变化。马克斯·韦伯指出，传统社会和现代社会之间有严重断裂。传统社会的特征是：广泛的亲戚关系，宗教或亲戚的约束对市场交易设限，缺乏个人社会流动性，基于传统、宗教、超凡魅力的非正式社会规范。而现代社会是个人主义的、平等的、以优秀和市场为导向的、流动的，并以法理型合法性权威组建起来。韦伯主张，这些特征属于一个整体，如果由教士指定价格，或财产受亲戚义务束缚，这样社会就不能发展出高效的市场经济。他相信，这种理性的现代化仅在西方出现，并把向现代化的过渡定在 16 世纪和 17 世纪的一系列事件，包括宗教改革（Protestant Reformation）和启蒙运动（Enlightenment）。所以，马克思主义者倾向于认为，经济变化促使个人主义和核心小家庭的兴起，而韦伯则把基督新教当作主要动力。总之，依他们看，这个变化仅有几百年历史。

    从身份到契约

    20 世纪的社会历史学家和人类学家，把从身份到契约的过渡一直往前提。我已提及，哈吉那尔认为欧洲的特殊模式始于 15 世纪和 16 世纪。艾伦·麦克法兰（Alan MacFarlane）对英国个人主义起源的研究显示，生前任意处置财产和死后在遗嘱中剥夺子女继承权，早在 16 世纪初就获得英国普通法的承认。⑦这很重要，因为他所标志的“农民社会”中，如东欧和世界大部分区域，亲戚义务大大限制了业主出售土地的能力。农民社会的特征就是大家庭，产权要么共有，要么陷于亲戚的相互依赖之中。这样的社会中，许多非经济因素把农民牢牢绑在他们所耕种的土地上，诸如祖先葬于此之类的理由。

    但麦克法兰注意到，土地所有权（seisin）流行于英国，至少还要往前再提三个世纪。根据一项研究，15 世纪晚期英国某区的地产转户中，生前赠与家人的占 15%，死后遗赠给家人的占 10%。⑧更早的是 12 世纪末 13 世纪初，英国的佃户（villeins，不得随意离开土地）无须获得领主的许可，已在购买、出售、出租土地。⑨

    如要衡量复杂亲戚组织的衰退，就要考量女子拥有和处置财产的法律权利。父系家族的社会中，女子嫁与宗族中的男子，或给宗族生下男性后裔，方才取得法律地位。寡妇和未婚女儿有分享遗产的权利，但通常必须将宗族的财产留在父系家族中。1066 年的诺曼征服（Norman Conquest）之后不久，英国女子就可自由拥有和处置财产，并可将之卖给外人。至少从 13 世纪起，她们不但可拥有土地和动产，而且可起诉他人，或被他人起诉，甚至可签署遗嘱和合同，无须征得男子监护人的许可。父系社会一旦承认这种权利，就会破坏宗族控制财产的能力，从而破坏社会制度的整体。⑩所以，女子拥有和遗赠财产的能力是部落组织退化的标志。它显示，严格的父系社会规则已经消失。

    根据麦克法兰，早期英国个人主义的一个有趣标志是“扶养合同”。它最早出现于 13 世纪，由孩子和父母签署。共同祖先的后裔团体所组成的部落社会，通常崇拜共同祖先。儒家道德的大部分涉及孩子照料父母的义务，尤其是儿子。儒家道德家讲得很清楚，对父母的义务大于对自己孩子的，中国法律严惩不孝子女。

    英国的习俗却不同，父母活着时，如把产权愚蠢地转移给孩子，就得不到惯例的剩余权利。中世纪有一首诗歌，描述了父亲将财产移交给儿子的故事：儿子后来觉得扶养父亲的负担太重，便开始施以虐待。一天，父亲冷得直打寒战，儿子叫孙子送去一只麻布袋，“小男孩把麻布袋一割为二，一半留给爷爷，另一半带回给父亲。他的意思是，现在父亲虐待爷爷，等到自己长大，也会如法炮制，给他半个麻布袋以御寒”。⑪为了避免如此的困境，父母与孩子签署扶养合同，规定孩子在继承父母财产后所承担的扶养责任。“贝德福德的一对夫妇在 1294 年放弃财产，作为回报，将得到食物、饮料、主屋的居住；如果两对夫妇发生争吵，老夫妇会搬到另外房子，将在圣米迦勒节（Michaelmas）获得五十六蒲式耳的谷物，其中二十四蒲式耳的小麦，十二蒲式耳的大麦，十二蒲式耳的大豆和豌豆，八蒲式耳的燕麦。此外，他们还将得到这另外房子的一切，可动的和固定的。”⑫

    让马克思暴跳如雷的“纯粹的金钱关系”，似乎不是 18 世纪资产阶级的发明，其在英国的出现比资产阶级的兴起早了好多世纪。将父母寄放在疗养院，在西欧有很深的历史根源。这显示，与马克思的主张恰恰相反，资本主义只是社会关系和习俗变化的后果，而不是原因。

    如果说欧洲在 13 世纪离开复杂的亲戚关系，即从身份过渡到契约，这依然太迟。伟大的法国历史学家马克·布洛赫注意到，封建主义在 9 至 10 世纪兴起之前，亲戚关系是社会组织的基础。部落宗族之间的血亲复仇在欧洲社会有悠久历史，我们对此很熟悉，只要看看莎士比亚的《罗密欧与朱丽叶》就知道了。此外，布洛赫证明，在那段时期，亲戚团体或庞大家族共同拥有财产，即使个人已开始随意处置土地，卖主仍需获得亲戚团体的同意。⑬

    不过，布洛赫提示，可以追溯到像中国、印度、中东那样单一祖先的巨大父系宗族，很久以前就在欧洲消失了。“罗马家族视男性后裔为绝对重要，立场异常坚定。但此事到了封建时代，已变成闻所未闻。”作为证据，他指出，中世纪的欧洲人从不单凭父亲来追溯他们的后裔；而在部落社会中，为了维持宗族分支的界线，这是不可或缺的。在整个中世纪时期，母亲让女儿冠母姓是很普遍的，这在中国那样的父系社会是不可想象的。个人经常认为自己属于两个相互平等的家庭，母亲的和父亲的。两个杰出家庭的子孙往往合并两个宗族的姓氏（如瓦勒里·季斯卡·德斯坦 Valéry Giscard d’Estaing，其中季斯卡和德斯坦都是姓氏[编按：瓦勒里·季斯卡·德斯坦系法国前总统，1974—1981 年任职]。今日西班牙人喜用父母的双姓）。到 13 世纪，类似当代的核心家庭已在欧洲遍地开花。血亲复仇很难继续，因为报仇圆圈变得越来越小，很多人觉得，自己与争论双方都有关联。⑭

    在布洛赫看来，某种意义上，封建主义的整个制度可被理解为迫不得已的调整，这是为了适应社会上的隔绝，因为亲戚关系不再是社会团结的来源。自 7 世纪晚期起，欧洲遭受了一系列外国侵略者的蹂躏：来自北方的维京人、来自南方借道于北非和西班牙的阿拉伯人或撒拉森人（Saracens）、来自东方的匈牙利人。即使阿拉伯人受挫于图尔战役，穆斯林对地中海的控制仍然切断欧洲与拜占庭和北非的贸易，它曾是罗马经济的基础。⑮随着卡洛林帝国（Carolingian）在 9 世纪的式微，城市也开始凋零，受无数军阀骚扰的居民撤回自给自足的村庄。

    在这欧洲文明的最低点，由于更大政治结构的倒塌，亲戚关系试图卷土重来。但其时，欧洲的父系宗族结构已变得如此脆弱，以致不能成为社会支持的来源。封建主义兴起，成为亲戚关系的替代：

    暴力气氛所孕育的无数危险，时时都在威胁个人。甚至在封建的初期，亲戚团体似乎不能提供足够的保护。根据它们当时存在的形式，这些团体的范围太模糊，太多变。父母都可界定后裔这种二元性，更造成了深刻的破坏。这就是为什么，人们被迫寻求或接纳其他的纽带。在这点上，历史是决定性的。仍有强大父系团体的地区——北海边上的日耳曼地区和英伦岛上的凯尔特地区——对属臣、采邑、庄园一无所知。亲戚关系只是封建社会的必要元素之一，它的相对孱弱解释了封建主义的出现。⑯

    封建主义是指，个人自愿屈服于无亲戚关系的他人，仅仅是以服务交换保护。“国家和家庭不再提供足够的保护，村庄的社区仅能维持界线之内的秩序，城市的社区几乎不存在。各处软弱者觉得有必要获得强人的庇护，而强人必须通过说服或强制来获得签约下属的支持，以保障自己的威望、财富、人身安全。”⑰

    但我们还没算出欧洲脱离亲戚关系的日期，以及合适的因果关系。⑱社会人类学家杰克·古迪（Jack Goody），为过渡日期作出了最令人信服的解释。他把过渡的起点提至 6 世纪，将责任放在基督教身上——具体地说，放在天主教会的机构利益上。⑲

    古迪注意到，罗马帝国结束时，与众不同的西欧婚姻模式从主要的地中海模式分化出来。包括罗马家族的地中海模式，属于严格的父系家族或父系社会，具有分支式的社会组织。父系团体倾向于同族通婚，有些更偏爱交叉表亲的婚姻。（我在第 11 章提及，交叉表亲的婚姻在印度南部的达罗毗荼文化中非常流行，在阿拉伯世界、普什图人[Pashtuns]、库尔德人、众多突厥人中也很普遍。）男女有严格的分隔，女子拥有财产或参与公共事务的机会很少。在所有这些方面，西欧的模式是截然不同的：分配遗产时男女都有份、禁止交叉表亲的婚姻、提倡异族通婚、女子有更多的产权和参与权。

    天主教会促动了这一分化，它极力反对四种行为：与近亲结婚、与兄弟的寡妇结婚（levirate，即所谓的兄终弟及或夫兄弟婚）、领养孩子、离婚。教皇格里高利一世在 6 世纪敦使异教的盎格鲁—萨克逊人皈依基督教，尊敬的比德（Venerable Bede）在报告此事时就提及，格里高利直率谴责部落实行的与近亲和兄弟的寡妇的婚姻。后来的教堂法令禁止纳妾，提倡一生不分的一夫一妻婚姻。⑳

    古迪认为，这些禁令并不直接依据《圣经》或基督教经典。被禁的行为在耶稣诞生的巴勒斯坦是很普遍的，耶稣父母可能就是交叉表亲的婚姻，与兄弟的寡妇结婚在犹太人中也很流行。事实上，基督教福音是反家庭的：在《马太福音》中，耶稣说，“爱父母超过爱我的人，不配我；爱子女超过爱我的人，也不配我”。古迪又称，这些话语来自宣称耶稣将统治尘世一千年的先知，他试图招募人们离开安全的亲戚团体，进入新兴的分裂教派。赞成禁令的神学观点则经常来自《旧约》，犹太人对此却有不同见解。

    根据古迪，教会坚持这个立场的原因，与其说为了神学，倒不如说为了教堂自己的物质利益。交叉表亲的婚姻（或任何其他近亲的婚姻）、与兄弟的寡妇结婚、纳妾、领养孩子、离婚都是他所谓的“继承策略”；借此，亲戚团体得以继续控制代代相传的财产。其时，欧洲和地中海世界的居民寿命低于 35 岁。夫妇生下儿子、长到成人、再一次传宗接代的可能性相当低。因此，为了让人们得以孕育继承人，社会提供各式合法途径。讨论中国时，已解说过纳妾一事。在一夫一妻的社会，离婚可被视作变相纳妾。哥哥在生孩子之前就已去世，嫂子就与弟弟结婚，以确保哥哥的财产将与弟弟的融合在一起。交叉表亲的婚姻能保证家产留在自家人的手中。无论什么情形，教会有计划地切断将财产传给后裔的各种途径。同时，它又强烈提倡信徒向教会自愿捐出土地和财产。拥有财产但无继承人的基督徒日益增多，得益的便是教会。㉑

    西欧女子相对较高的地位也是教会追求自身利益的意外结果。寡妇若在家庭团体内重新结婚，会将财产归还部落。教会尽量使之难以实现，所以她本人必须拥有财产。女子有权拥有和处置自己的财产，对教会大有裨益，无子女寡妇和老处女变成了捐献的一大来源。女子有权拥有财产破坏了单传原则，从而敲响了父系宗族的丧钟。㉒

    规则发生变化后的数世纪中，天主教会在财政上非常成功，这绝对不是牵强附会。7 世纪结束之前，法国富饶土地的三分之一都在教会手中；从 8 世纪到 9 世纪，在法国北部、日耳曼、意大利的教会财产翻了一番。㉓这些捐献使教会成为一个在经济和政治上都很强大的机构，为格里高利七世的叙任权斗争（investiture conflict）铺平道路（见后文第 18 章）。这些捐献，跟富裕穆斯林给伊斯兰慈善事业瓦克夫的捐赠有相似之处，但后者主要是富人避税和遗赠子女的对策。而在天主教的欧洲，无子女寡妇和老处女所捐出的土地，则没有附带任何条件。教会因此发现自己成了大地主，在欧洲各地管理庄园，监督农奴的经济生产。这帮助教会履行其赈济饥民和照顾病人的使命，使教士阶层和男女修道院的大幅扩充成为可能，也使内部规则和等级制度的发展变得必不可少。这一切让教会在中世纪的政治舞台中成为一名独立角色。

    这些变化对西欧的部落组织构成相当大的破坏。日耳曼、挪威、马札尔（Magyar）、斯拉夫的部落皈依基督教后，仅在两代或三代的时间就见证了其亲戚架构的解散。事实上，这种皈依植根于政治，如马札尔国王伊斯特万（István，或 St. Stephen）在 1000 年接受圣餐。但社会风俗和家庭规则中的实质性变化，不靠政治当局，而靠运作于社会和文化层次的教会。

    欧洲建国的社会背景

    欧洲（以及其殖民地）是个例外，因为它脱离复杂的亲戚关系，首先在社会和文化层次，而不在政治层次。在某种意义上，教会采取政治行为，更改了婚姻和遗产的规则，但其动机却是经济的。教会不是其所在领土的主权统治者，更确切地说，只是一个社会参与者，它的影响只在制定文化规则。因此，中世纪时，欧洲社会已经非常个人主义了。它早于欧洲国家建设的开端，比宗教改革、启蒙运动、工业革命更早了数个世纪。家庭中的变化，与其说是这些现代化巨变的结果，倒不如说是促进现代化发生的有利条件。16 世纪在意大利、英国、荷兰兴起的资本主义，不必去克服印度和中国那样的亲戚大集团的抵抗，后者亟欲保护自己拥有的实质性财产。相反，资本主义在那些社会顺利扎根，它们已有私人产权的传统，财产经常在陌生人之间转手。

    这不是说，欧洲的建国者一帆风顺，没有遇上既得利益的社会建制。恰恰相反，我们在第 21 章继续讲述欧洲国家起源时，将看到各式强大的社会参与者，他们在创建法治和负责制政府方面至关重要。虽然没有氏族或部落，但有既得利益的贵族，他们在封建时期积累下了财富、军队、法律地位。

    这些社会建制是封建的，并不基于亲戚关系。这一事实，对后世的欧洲政治发展来说，造成了重大差别。属臣的封建关系是强者和弱者自愿签署的合同，规定了双方的法律义务。它将高度不平等和等级化的社会形式化，但也为个人主义（签署合同的是个人而不是亲戚团体）和法律人的理解树立先例。历史学家杰诺·苏克斯（Jenö Szücs）认为，地主与农民之间的关系到 1200 年便获得契约特征，从而打下了将尊严扩充到农民阶层的基础。自那以后，“西方每一次农民反抗，都在表述地主违反合同所激怒的尊严，都在诉求自己的‘自由’权利”。㉔但这种事没有发生于下列社会：土地产权以亲戚关系和惯例为基础的，或以某亲戚团体称王称霸于另一亲戚团体为基础的。

    以封建制度替代亲戚关系建制，对地方治理的功效而言，另有重要的政治影响。宗族和封建制度都在不同时期发挥主权和统治的功能，尤其是在中央国家式微时。它们都可提供地方安全、司法和经济生活的组织。但封建制度更为灵活，因为依据的是合同，更能组织决定性的集体行动，因为其等级分明。跟宗族中的权威不同，封建领主的权利一旦获得合法确认，便不需要持续的重新谈判。财产的法律文件，无论在强者或弱者的手中，都代表自由买卖的权利，不受基于亲戚的社会制度的限制。地方上的领主可“代表”社区讲话，但部落领袖做不到。如我们所知，欧洲殖民者在印度和非洲经常犯的错误，就是假设部落领袖相当于封建社会的地方领主。在事实上，两者截然不同。

    马克斯·韦伯的遗产之一，就是以价值概念来考量宗教对政治和经济的影响。他的新教工作伦理（work ethic），据说通过工作的神圣化，而直接影响工业革命中企业家的行为。价值肯定是重要的，上帝之下人人平等的基督原则，使女子更容易获得拥有财产的平等权利。

    但此类解释经常引申新的疑问，为何有些宗教价值首先在社会中获得提倡，并深入人心。教会攻击延展的亲戚关系，就是一例，这些价值并不起源于基督教原则。毕竟，同是基督徒的君士坦丁堡东正教，并没有设法改变婚姻和遗产的法律。所以，紧密相关的亲戚社区在拜占庭统治的地区存活很久。例如，塞尔维亚代代相传的著名乡村团体“杂住盖”（zadruga），以长期血亲复仇著称的阿尔巴尼亚氏族。这些建制消失于西欧，归功于教会的物质利益和权力。教会对社会价值的控制，变成了为己谋利的工具。从这个角度看，经济龟站在宗教龟的上面；但从另一角度看，宗教龟又站在更为底下的经济龟上。 不管其动机是宗教的，还是经济的，天主教会变成了独立的政治参与者，其建制化的程度，远远超过其他社会的宗教权力。中国从没发展出超越祖先崇拜或鬼神崇拜的本土宗教。相比之下，宗教发明一开始就塑造了印度和穆斯林世界，成为政治权力的重要制衡。但在伊斯兰教逊尼派的世界，以及印度次大陆，宗教权力从没凝聚成国家之外的中央官僚机构。它只在欧洲出现，与现代欧洲国家的发展和今天所谓的法治的出现又密不可分。

    第三部分 法治

    第 17 章 法治的起源

    法律在早期国家形成中的作用凸显欧洲的例外；法治的定义和争论；法律优先于立法的哈耶克理论；英国普通法依据皇家权力来加强国家的合法性

    欧洲的政治发展是个例外。欧洲社会得以较早脱离部落组织，却没有依靠自上而下的政治权力。欧洲例外还表现在，其早期建国者的杰出能力，与其说是在军事上，倒不如说在分配正义上。欧洲国家权力和合法性的增长，与法治的涌现密不可分。

    早期欧洲国家分配的只是正义，不一定是法律。法律植根于他处，或在宗教（像上一章所讨论的有关婚姻和家庭的法令），或在部落和其他社区的习俗。早期欧洲国家偶尔立法——即制定新法律——但其权力和合法性更多依赖公正执法，所执的法无须是自己订出的。

    弄清法律和立法之间的差异，对理解法治是至关重要的。似乎有多少法律学者，就会有多少“法治”的定义，很像“民主”这个字眼。①我所使用的，符合思考此一现象的西方重要潮流：法律是凝聚社区的有关正义的一组抽象规则。在前现代社会，制定法律的权威据信是超凡的，或神权，或古老习俗，或自然。②另一方面，立法属于现在所谓的制定法（positive law），它在发挥政治权力的功能。就像国王、男爵、总统、立法院、军阀，凭借自己的权力和权威，在制定和执行新的规则。如果有高于任何立法的现存法律，方能说有法治的存在。这意味着，拥有政治权力的个人必须接受法律的束缚。这不是说，立法机构不可制定新法，它们如想在法治中发挥作用，必须依据现存法律的规则来制定新法，不可随心所欲。

    法律的最初理解，即制定者是神权、古老习俗或自然，指的是人们不得更改法律，但可以为特殊情境作出妥善解释，有时还是必须的。现代时期，随着宗教权威的走低，自然法信徒的锐减，我们开始将法律视作人造的东西，但必须经过严格程序，以确保它符合基本规则的广泛共识。法律和立法之间的差异，现在相当于宪法和一般法律之间的差异。前者具有更严格的要求，例如绝大多数人的投票同意。在当代美国，这表示国会通过的新法律，必须符合现存的更为重要的宪法，一切以最高法院的解释为准。

    迄今为止，我讨论了政治发展中的建国以及国家集中和使用权力的能力。法治是政治秩序中的另一组件，以限制国家权力。对行政权力的最初制衡不是民主集会或选举，而是人们坚信统治者必须依法行事。所以，国家建设和法治一直在紧张氛围中共存。一方面，统治者在法律范围内行事，或以法律的名义行事，这可提高自己的权威。另一方面，法律可防止他们做随心所欲的事，不能只考虑私人利益，还要考虑整个共同体的利益。所以，政治权力的欲望经常威胁法治，从 17 世纪避开议会自筹税收的英国国王，到 20 世纪以法外行刑队来对付恐怖主义的拉丁美洲政府，皆是如此。

    法治的现代迷惑

    在当代发展中国家，最大政治缺点之一就是法治的相对软弱。当代国家的所有组件中，高效法律机构也许是最难构建的。军事和征税的机构，天然来自人类基本的掠夺本能。军阀组织民兵向社区榨取资源，这并不困难。在另一极端，民主选举的安排也相对容易（只是比较昂贵），何况今天还有国际组织的援助。③但法律机构必须遍布整个国家，持续不断，长期运作。它们需要设施，投资于律师、法官及法庭其他职员的训练，还有最终执法的警察。但最重要的，法律机构必须被视作合法和权威的，不仅在普通人眼中，而且在更有力的精英眼中。做到这一点，证明是颇不容易的。今天，拉丁美洲绝大多数国家是民主的，但其法治却非常软弱，到处是收贿的警官和逃税的法官。俄罗斯联邦仍举行民主选举，自总统而下的精英都违法乱纪，肆无忌惮，尤其是在弗拉基米尔·普京当政之后。

    有很多文献，将法治的建立与经济发展挂起钩来。④这些文献从根本上反映出一条重要观点，即现代资本经济世界的涌现，在很大程度上归功于既存的法治，缺乏高效的法治是贫困国家不能取得较高增长的主要原因。

    但这些文献非常混乱，在法治的基本定义和它的存在与否上，前后又不一致。此外，将法治的不同组件与经济增长挂钩的理论，其实证经验有点靠不住；将它投射到马尔萨斯经济条件下的社会，困惑只会加倍。我们在讲法治起源的历史之前，需要清除一下当代讨论所留下的累赘。

    经济学家谈论法治时，通常指现代产权和合同执行。⑤现代产权是指个人拥有的财产，可自由买卖，不受亲戚团体、宗教当局、国家的限制。经济增长受产权和合同的影响，这理论非常直截了当。没人会做长期投资，除非知道自己的产权是安全的。如果政府突然对某种投资增税，像乌克兰在 20 世纪 90 年代签署移动电话基建协议后所作的，投资者可能会在中途改弦易辙，并对将来项目心灰意冷。同样，贸易需要法律机构来维持合同，裁判合同双方不可避免的争执。合同的规则越透明，合同的维持越公正，就会鼓励越多的贸易。这就是为何很多经济学家强调，“可信承诺”是国家制度发展的重要标志。

    这个法治定义与本章开头的那个略有重叠。显而易见，如果政府觉得自己在各方面都享有主权，不受既存法治的束缚，那么无人可阻止它充公自己公民或外国贸易伙伴的财产。如果普遍的法律规则，一旦牵涉到强大的精英阶层或最强大的政府本身，就无法得到执行，那么产权或贸易的安全可能只是空头支票。政治学家巴里·温加斯特（Barry Weingast）注意到，强大的国家既可保护产权，也可取消产权。⑥

    另一方面，有“足够好”的产权和合同执行，允许经济的发展，但没有真正的法治（即法律是至高无上的意思），这完全可行。⑦……中国经济取得三十多年的两位数增长，并不需要“法治”的抽象承诺。1978 年，共产党以包产到户的法律解散了人民公社，但没有恢复中国农民的现代产权（个人转让土地的权利）。更确切地说，他们只获得可遗传的土地使用权（长期租赁权），类似于奥斯曼帝国中央省的农民。这些权利已经“足够好”，导致农业产量在改革后的四年功夫翻了一番。

    古代帝制中国没有法治。另一方面，正常时期的中华帝国很可能在地方层次享有“足够好”的产权，至少将农业生产效率提高到其时技术所容许的极限。那时的产权与今天中国农民的产权相比，不会相差很多，与其说受到掠夺性国家的约束，倒不如说受到亲戚关系的约束。父系宗族将无数的权利和习俗强加于财产之上，一直到 20 世纪的中华民国，家庭仍有权利限制土地的出售。⑧

    此外，不是很清楚，最好的现代产权足以在实质上提高生产效率，还是足以在马尔萨斯式社会中创建出现代资本主义。确保技术持续进步的其他建制（如科学方法、大学、人力资源、研究实验室、鼓励探险和试验的文化氛围，等等）尚未问世时，单凭良好产权所创造的生产效率增长仍然有限，因此不能假设技术的持续进步。⑨

    所以，经济学家对法治下现代产权和合同执行的强调，可能有两个错位。首先，在技术持续革新的当代世界，虽然没有至高无上的法治，“足够好”的产权仍足以创造高度的经济增长。其次，在马尔萨斯式世界中，即使有现代产权和法治的存在，还是无法取得如此的增长，因为限制增长的约束出自其他地方。

    法治还有一个定义，对经济生活具有极大影响，不管是在前现代还是在当代。这就是人身安全，即从暴力的自然状态中退出，从事日常活动，不用担心被杀或被抢。它存在时，我们视之为理所当然；它缺席时，我们会尤其珍惜。

    最终，谈论法治时一定要弄清法律对象，即是说，受法律保护的法人群体。社会的基本执法对大家是一视同仁的，但保护公民免受国家任意侵犯的法治，最初往往只适用于特权阶层的少数。换言之，法律仅仅保护靠近或控制国家的精英的利益。在此意义上，法律就像苏格拉底在柏拉图《理想国》中所标榜的“强盗帮派的正义。”

    举塞维涅夫人（Mme. de Sévigné）写给女儿的信为例，她是 17 世纪法国最著名的沙龙赞助人之一。这位聪明敏感的女子描绘，士兵在布列塔尼征集新税，把老人和孩子从家中赶出，再在屋子里寻找可供夺取的财产。因为不付税，大约六十名市民将在下一天上绞刑架。她继续写道：“那个手舞足蹈、想偷印花税纸的闲汉在车轮上就刑，被割成四块，分别在城市四个角落示众。”⑩

    显而易见，法国国家不会向塞维涅夫人和她朋友圈子施以如此激烈的惩罚。我们将在第 23 章看到，它将繁重税赋仅仅加给平民，因为它太尊重贵族的产权和私人安全。所以，说 17 世纪法国没有法治是不正确的，但法律并没认为平民也是法人，也享有与贵族相同的权利。美国初创时也是如此，否定非裔美国人、妇女、美洲原住民——除了拥有财产的白人男子——的选举权。民主化的过程逐渐拓展法治范围，以包纳所有的居民。

    法治定义的混乱，其所造成的后果之一是富国设计的改善法治计划，很少在贫穷国家产生效果。⑪住在法治国家的幸运儿，往往不懂它如何首次涌现，误把法治的外表当作法治的实质。例如，“相互制衡”是强大法治社会的特征，政府各部门监督彼此的行为。但制衡的正式存在，并不等于强有力的民主统治。法庭可被用来阻挠集体行动，如当代印度，其冗长的司法上诉可拖死重要的基建项目。它又可被用来对抗政府的愿望，以保护精英利益。1905 年最高法院的洛克纳诉纽约州案（Lochner v. New York），其宗旨就是击败限制工时的立法，以保护企业利益。所以，分权的形式常常名不副实，与守法社会的主旨无法对应。

    在接踵而来的讨论中，我们将从尽量广阔的角度去关注法治的发展：法律本身——整套正义规则——来自何方？产权、合同执行、商法的特定规则如何发展至今？最高政治当局如何接受法律的至高无上？

    法律早于立法的哈耶克理论

    伟大的奥地利经济学家弗里德里希·哈耶克，发展了关于法律起源的精深理论，为法治的涵义提供了重要见解，成为今日人们思考法律的框架。哈耶克被称作当代自由至上主义的教父，但自由至上主义者并不反对规则。根据哈耶克，“共同规则的存在使社会中个人的和平共处成为可能”。⑫在法律起源上，哈耶克把批判矛头指向所谓的“唯理主义”或“建构主义”理解。这种理解思路认为，立法者理性地研究社会问题，从而发明法律，以建立自以为更好的社会秩序。在哈耶克看来，建构主义只是过去三百年的自负，尤其是部分法国思想家，包括笛卡尔（Descartes）和伏尔泰（Voltaire），都认为人的大脑足以理解人类社会的工作方式。这导致了哈耶克所谓的铸成大错，如法国和布尔什维克的革命。其时，自上而下的政治权力以公正社会的预设重整社会。在哈耶克的时代（20 世纪的中期），这个错误不仅发生在社会主义国家，如依赖理性计划和中央集权的苏联，还发生在欧洲的社会民主党执政的福利国家。

    在哈耶克看来，错误原因很多，最重要的是没有一名计划者，能掌握足够的社会实际运作知识，以作出理性的重新安排。社会中的知识，大部分具有本地特性，再向整个社会扩散，没人能掌握足够信息来预测法律或规则改革后的效果。⑬

    哈耶克认为，社会秩序不是自上而下的理性计划的结果，而是在数百或数千分散个人的互动中自发产生的。那些个人尝试各式规则，保留有效的，拒绝无效的。社会秩序产生的过程是递增、进化、分散的，只有借用无数个人的本地知识，有效的“大型社会”方能出现。自发的秩序获得发展，以达尔文为生物有机体所安排的方式——分散的适应和选择，并不倚靠创世主的专门设计。

    在哈耶克看来，法律本身便构成一种自发秩序，“毫无疑问，人们发现可以制作或更改法律之前，它已存在良久”。事实上，“个人学会观察（和遵守）行为规则之后的很久，才用语言将之表述出来”。立法——有意识颁布的新规则——“发生于人类历史的相对晚期……所有的法律都是、能够是、也应该是，立法者的自由发明……事实上，这是一种谬误，一个建构论唯理主义的谬种”。⑭

    哈耶克心目中的自发秩序模型就是英国的普通法，无数法官设法将普遍规则用于所面对的特定案例，其判决的累积促使法律的进化发展：

    英国人享有的自由在 18 世纪令其他欧洲国家的人们羡慕不已……它是这样一个事实的结果，即支配法院审判的法律乃是普通法。该法律独立于任何个人意志，它既约束独立的法院，又为这些法院所发展。对于普通法，议会很少加以干预，即便有所干预，其目的也主要是为了澄清某一法律系统内的疑点。⑮

    哈耶克由此锁定法治的本质：代表整个共同体愿望的既存法律，高于当前政府的意志，它限制着政府的立法范围。他对英国普通法的偏爱，获得当代经济学家的赞同，他们也认为，它比欧洲大陆的民法传统更为灵活，对市场更为友好。⑯

    哈耶克在解说其法律起源理论时作出两项声明，一项是实证性的，另一项是规范性的。他主张在大多数社会中，法律以自发的进化方式发展，这种自然生成的法律应该优于有意识制定的法律。这一解释也是伟大的英国法学家爱德华·柯克（Sir Edward Coke）所推崇的，他认为普通法始于太古时代。埃德蒙·伯克（Edmund Burke）在为渐进主义（Incrementalism）辩护时，也援引此一解释。⑰哈耶克是强大国家的伟大敌人，不管是苏联风格的共产党专政，还是以再分配和调节来实现“社会公正”的欧洲社会民主政体。在法律学者罗伯特·埃里克森（Robert Ellickson）所谓的“法律中心论”和“法律外围论”的长久争论上，哈耶克立场鲜明地站在后者一边。前者认为，正式制定的法律创立和塑造了道德规则；后者主张，它们只是编纂了非正式的既存规范。⑱

    然而，哈耶克对最低限度国家的规范性偏爱，扭曲了他对法律起源的实证性见解。在很多社会，法律的存在确实早于立法，但政治当局经常介入以作修改，甚至在早期社会也是这样。现代法治的出现全靠强大中央国家的执法，其显而易见之处甚至可在他偏爱的普通法的起源中找到。

    从惯例法到普通法

    哈耶克认为，法律在社会规则分散演变的基础上获得发展，这一基本见解在广义上是正确的，无论是古代还是现代。但法律发展有重要中断，只能以政治权力的干预来解释，而不是“自发秩序”进程的结果。哈耶克只是把历史事实搞错了。⑲

    这些过渡中有一个是英国从惯例法到普通法的过渡。普通法不只是惯例法的正规文本，它们之间有根本的差别。如我们在第 4 章中看到的，社会从部落组织过渡到国家组织，法律的意义便发生了重大变化。在部落社会中，个人之间的正义有点像当代国际关系，以竞争团体的自助为基础，没有更高级别的第三方执法。相比之下，国家层次的社会恰恰有如此的执法者，那就是国家本身。⑳

    罗马帝国终结后的英格兰仍是部落组织，由盎格鲁人（Angles）、西萨克逊人（West Saxons）、朱特人（Jutes）、凯尔特人（Celts）等组成，尚无国家。家庭组成村庄，村庄再组成所谓的百户（足以承受百户居民）或县的更大单位。该层次之上就是国王，但早期君主没有武力的垄断，也不能对部落单位执行强制规定。他们不把自己当作领土的统治者，只是民众的国王——如盎格鲁人的国王（Rex Anglorum）。如我们在上一章看到的，6 世纪末，本笃派（Benedictine）的修道士奥古斯丁（Augustine）抵达英格兰，基督教便开始破坏盎格鲁—萨克逊的部落组织。但部落法律受到的侵蚀只是日渐月染的，到公元第一个千年后半期的混乱时代，仍然盛行。亲戚团体内有深深的信任，但竞争氏族之间却有敌意和警惕。所以，正义牵涉亲戚团体之间的相处规则。

    盎格鲁—萨克逊编纂的第一本部落法律，是公元 600 年左右的《埃塞尔伯特法典》（Laws of Ethelbert），与稍早的墨洛温（Merovingian）国王克洛维一世的《萨利克法典》非常相似，罗列出各种受伤的赔偿金：

    四个前门牙，每个价值六先令；其旁边的牙齿价值四先令，剩下的牙齿价值一先令；大拇指、大拇指指甲、食指、中指、戒指手指、小手指，各自的指甲都有区分，分别定价。相似分类也用在耳朵上，损失听力、耳朵削掉、耳朵穿孔、耳朵割裂；用在骨头上，骨头暴裸、骨头损坏、骨头断裂、头骨打破、肩膀失灵、下巴断裂、领子骨断裂、手臂断裂、大腿骨断裂、肋骨断裂；用在瘀伤上，衣服外的瘀伤、衣服内的瘀伤、没显黑色的瘀伤。㉑

    基于赔偿金的惩罚，其特征是不公平，因受伤者社会地位的不同而有差异。所以，杀死一名自由人的赔偿金，也许是杀死仆人或奴隶的好几倍。

    日耳曼的部落法律在本质上类似于其他部落社会，从努尔人，到当代的巴布亚新几内亚一语部落。如果有人伤害了你或你的亲戚，你的氏族为了保护自己的荣誉和可靠性，必须施以报复。受伤和报复都是集体的，报复对象不一定是行凶者，他的近亲通常就也足够。赔偿金的存在就是为了解决争端，以防升级，成为无休止的血亲复仇或部落间的仇杀。

    现代法庭的遥远起源就是调停血亲复仇的氏族聚会。在盎格鲁—萨克逊部落，这就是模拟法庭，倾听控告和被告的作证，然后商讨适当的赔偿。但它没有现代的传讯权利，以逼迫证人出庭。它的裁决也得不到执行，除非达成协议。法律的证据往往有赖于用刑，譬如迫使被告赤脚走过火红的煤炭或犁头，或干脆将他们扔进冷水和热水，看是沉还是浮。㉒

    如尼采所观察到的，基督教传入日耳曼部落后，给道德带来了深远启示。基督教的英雄是和平圣徒和烈士，不是武士或报仇的征服者；其传道的普遍平等，又相悖于部落社会基于荣誉的等级制度。基督教有关婚姻和遗产的新规则，不仅破坏部落团结，还创造新社区观念，其成员不再忠于亲戚团体，而分享共同信仰。国王的概念也从共同祖先团体的领袖，变成广大基督徒社区的领袖和保护人。不过，这个改变是循序渐进的。

    部落制在基督教社会中的消亡并不意味家族制的死亡。在东正教中，这段时期的主教和教士可以结婚生子，还可实行宗教名义下的纳妾（nicolaism）。教会通过信徒的捐献获取愈来愈多的财产。教会领袖争取将圣俸传给孩子，加入地方的氏族和部落的政治运作，都变得不可避免。教会职位经手这么多的财富，本身也变成可供交易的珍贵财产，该做法叫作圣职买卖（simony）。

    日耳曼异教徒皈依基督教，就像阿拉伯或突厥部落社会中不信者之皈依伊斯兰教，向哈耶克自发秩序的理论提出了有趣挑战。浏览哈耶克的相关阐述，找不到点滴的宗教因素。然而众所周知，在犹太教、基督教、印度教、穆斯林的社会中，宗教是法律规则的重要来源。基督教进入欧洲，给刚从部落习俗中脱颖而出的惯例法带来第一次主要中断。婚姻和产权规则发生变化，允许女子拥有财产，但这不是地方法官或社区的自发试验，而是强大的天主教等级制度所颁布的革新。教会并不反映地方上不同的价值观念，东正教和穆斯林的宗教当局，都没以相似方式来改造社会上现存的亲戚规则。教会很清楚，它不只是在批准惯例法：教皇乌尔班二世（Urban Ⅱ）在 1092 年告诉佛兰德伯爵（Count of Flanders）：“你宣称，你只不过是照地方上的古代习俗行事？即使如此，你应该知道，创世主说过：我的名字是真理；他没有说过：我的名字是习俗。”㉓

    英国法律发展中第二个主要中断是普通法的引入。普通法并不是惯例法的自发演变，它与早期国家的兴起密切相关，并凭借国家权力而取得最终的统治地位。事实上在诺曼征服之后，向全国颁布统一的普通法，已变成扩展国家权力的主要工具。伟大的法律学者弗雷德里克·梅特兰和弗雷德里克·波洛克，如此解说普通法的起源：

    国王法庭（royal court）的习俗就是英国的习俗，从而变成了普通法。对于地方习俗，国王法官以一般性的语言表示尊敬，我们并没有看到任何移风易俗的主观愿望。不管如何，地方习俗即使没遭破坏，也得不到成长。尤其是程序，国王法庭取得了对所有其他法庭的彻底控制，将自己的规则视为唯一公正的。㉔

    弄不清早期欧洲国王的作用，就不能理解这个过程。11 世纪的国王不是领土统治者，更像分散封建秩序中伙伴中的老大。像威廉一世和亨利一世那样的国王，花大部时间在旅途中察看国土的各部分。其时，大家都已退回各自分隔的村庄和庄园层次的小社会，这也是国王宣告权力和保持联系的唯一方法。国王的主要服务是充作上诉法庭，若有人不满意领主法庭（seigneurial）或庄园法庭（manor）所提供的正义。从自身利益出发，国王也希望扩充自己法庭的司法权，因为它的服务是收费的。向国王法庭提出上诉增强国王的威望，他可以推翻地方领主的裁决，从而削弱后者的权威。㉕

    起初，各类法庭相互竞争，以取得司法生意。随着时间的推移，国王法庭开始占据优势。人们避开地方法庭有多种原因。巡回的国王法庭被视为更加公平，与领主法庭相比，它与本地诉讼人的牵连更少。它们也有程序上的优势，如强迫民众参与陪审团的工作。㉖长年累月，它们又获益于规模和范围上的经济效益，司法需要人力、专长、教育。第一个全国官僚机构是国王法庭所建立的，它开始编纂惯例规则，建立先例系统。显而易见的，写作是必要的前提。每过十年，熟悉先例的法律专家越来越多，再被指定为法官，派往全国。

    顾名思义，普通法就是不特殊，普遍适用。也就是说，英国不同地区的众多惯例规则，现由单一的普通法所取代。各地的先例适用于全国，即遵循先例的原则（stare decisis）。执法的是法官网络，其工作环境是统一的法律系统，比以前拼凑的惯例规则更为系统、更为正式。普通法基于惯例法所订下的先例，但国家权力的兴起，创造了惯例规则不敷使用的全新环境。例如，以前亲戚团体以赔偿金解决的犯罪，现受到更高级别的第三方的起诉，或是庄园主，或是国王本人。国王法庭也开始变成无争议事项的登记场所，如财产注册和土地转移。㉗

    因此，普通法代表了英国法律发展的中断。它依据较早的先例，如果没有诺曼征服，绝不可能成为全国法律。诺曼征服赶走了古老的丹麦和盎格鲁—萨克逊人的贵族，建立起愈益强大的大一统中央政权。以后的普通法演变可能是自发的，但它作为法律裁决的架构，又需要中央政治权力的干涉。㉘

    历史学家约瑟夫·斯特雷耶认为，中世纪时，早期国家的创建涉及法律制度和财政制度，而不是军事组织；军事动员促进国家建设，则要等到早期现代。在某种意义上，法律机构甚至早于财政机构，因为国王法庭是国王收入的最重要来源之一。国王提供平等正义的能力——不像惯例法中，依据受害者社会地位而定不同的赔偿金——加强了自己的威望和权威。㉙像中东传统中的君主，国王不一定被视为最大最具掠夺性的军阀。他又可充任受地方领主掠夺的牺牲者的保护人，一个主持正义的人。

    中央国家的法律功能，对英国后来的产权发展和国家的合法性至关重要。对地方领主与自由佃户和非自由佃户的交易，领主法庭享有专门司法权，直到大约 1400 年。这种情形下，一旦发生财产争执，就有点像由狐狸来守护鸡笼。逐渐地，国王法庭宣称有权过问这些纠纷。13 世纪早期，有人提出国王在全国范围享有司法权，低级法庭的司法权来自国王的委托。原告偏爱把诉讼送到国王法庭，久而久之，领主法庭慢慢失去对土地租佃纠纷的司法权。㉚这一市场驱动的选择显示，国王法庭肯定被视作更加公平，更少偏向地方领主，更可能执行裁决。

    其他欧洲国家没有发生类似的改变。尤其在法国，领主法庭保留对土地租佃纠纷的司法权，直到法国大革命。在某种意义上，这很讽刺。一般认为，17 世纪的法国国王，如路易十三和路易十四，明显不同于英国国王，通过坚持自己的绝对权力来削弱贵族阶层，但他们却把地方法庭的司法权留给省城贵族。亨利·梅因爵士在他的论文《法国和英国》中指出，革命爆发之后，全法国的庄园主住宅被烧，纵火的第一对象是储存财产文件的契约房（muniment room）。不像英国农民，法国农民觉得地主手中的地契不合法，由于地方领主控制的法庭一直抱有偏见。㉛

    最后的案例点明了法治性质的要点。法治依靠法律本身和可见的管理机构——法官、律师、法庭等，也依靠制度运作的正式程序。但法治的正常运作，既是制度或程序上的事务，也是规范性的事务。和平社会中的大多数人服从法律，不是因为做了理性的利弊计算，恐惧处罚；而是因为相信法律基本上是公平的，在道德观念上已习惯于遵守。如果相信它是不公平的，他们就比较不愿服从。㉜

    被视作公平的法律，如果执行不均，或有钱有势者得以豁免，也将被认作不公平。这似乎将负担重又放回制度和程序，以及其公平执法的能力。这里仍有规范化的问题，如果有钱有势者在某种程度上不相信自我约束的必要，甚至不相信有约束同类的必要，光是制度何以遏制他们？在很多法治软弱的国家，法官、检察官、警察可被收买，或可被胁迫，正式制度的存在又能发生什么效用呢？

    要建立规范化的法律秩序，不但国王接受，老百姓也愿接受，宗教就很有必要。波洛克和梅特兰写道，国王并不在法律之上：“每个国家一定要有某人或某些人在法律之上，一名既无义务又无权利的‘君主’，这样的理论一定会遭到拒绝……没人假设，国王可以更改天主教会的普通法，即使获得高级教士和男爵的同意。”㉝国王受到约束，因为百姓会以造反来反对他们所认定的不公。什么是不公，什么会动员百姓起来反抗国王，全看国王的做法合不合法。㉞

    即使是公平的规范化秩序，也需要权力。如果国王不情愿执行针对精英的法律，或心有余而力不足，法律的合法性就会受损，不管其来源是宗教、传统还是习俗，这是哈耶克和他的自由至上主义追随者所疏忽的。普通法可能是分散各地法官的业绩，倘若没有强大的中央国家，它首先不会形成，之后也得不到执行。 英国很早就完成了从惯例法到现代法律制度的过渡，让人印象深刻，这构成了国家合法性的基础。其他欧洲国家在 13 世纪完成类似过渡，但依据的是完全不同的法律制度，即来自《查士丁尼法典》的民法。欧洲大陆的过渡，其关键也是天主教会的行为。这个故事，以及教会如何不同于印度和穆斯林世界的宗教机构，将是下一章的主题。

    第 18 章 教会变为国家

    天主教会对法治在欧洲的形成至关重要；叙任权斗争和后果；教会获得国家般的特征；世俗统治领域的出现；当代法治植根于上述发展

    最深刻意义上的法治意味着：社会产生共识，其法律是公正和既存的，能够约束其时统治者的行为；享有主权的不是统治者，而是法律；统治者的正当权力只能来自法律，方才享有合法性。

    在我们的世俗现代之前，在政治秩序之外，公正法律的最显著来源是宗教。宗教权威只有独立于政治权威，基于宗教的法律才能约束统治者；如果宗教权威组织涣散，或国家控制着教会的财产及教士的任免，那么宗教法律更有可能是在支持而不是限制政治权威。要理解法治的发展，不但要看宗教规则的来源和性质，还要关注宗教权威的组成和建制化。

    欧洲的法治植根于基督教。欧洲国家出现之前，罗马就有颁布权威法律的基督教主教（pontiff）。欧洲关于婚姻和遗产的规则，最初不是君主所规定的，而是来自像教皇格里高利那样的个别人士。他的特使奥古斯丁带着他一清二楚的指示，远赴不列颠岛，以说服异教的埃塞尔伯特国王皈依基督教。

    激进伊斯兰主义在 20 世纪晚期兴起以来，很多人指出，西方的教会和国家截然分开，但是，像沙特阿拉伯那样的穆斯林国家却政教不分。但这一差别经不起仔细的推敲。自基督教出现以来，西方的政教分离并不是常数，而是时断时续的。

    基督教起初只是一个千禧宗派，在其存在的头三个世纪受到残酷的迫害，先是犹太人，再是罗马政治当局。到公元 313 年，君士坦丁（Constantine）皈依基督教，它从非正统宗派一下子变成罗马帝国的国教。罗马帝国的西部遭到异教野蛮人的征服，宗教和政治权力又一次分开。西方政权的孱弱给予天主教更多的独立机会，教皇哲拉修一世（Gelasius，492—496 年在位）在教条中争辩，高级教士拥有比君主行政权更高的立法权。①到了黑暗时代之末，政治权力重新恢复，政教第二次交融。

    政教合一（Caesaropapism）是一种制度，它的宗教权威完全服从于国家，像基督教向罗马国教的转化。现保留给教皇的最高教士（pontifex maximus）头衔，曾是罗马皇帝的，因为他也是罗马国教的首脑。中国始终是政教合一（唐朝可能是例外。其时，佛教在精英中颇受欢迎），此外还有什叶派掌控地区之外的大部分穆斯林世界。拜占庭的东罗马帝国是现代东正教的老祖宗，也是政教合一称号的发源地。它始终不变，直到土耳其在 1453 年征服君士坦丁堡。大家所忽视的是，到了 11 世纪初，西方基督教世界的大部都已变成实际上的政教合一。

    政教合一的实际意义是指政治当局对教会享有委任权，中世纪早期的欧洲都是如此。全欧洲的皇帝、国王、封建领主都在任命主教，也有权力召开教会会议，颁布教会法律。教皇将合法性赋予皇帝，皇帝却也在指定和罢黜教皇。1059 年之前的二十五位教皇中，皇帝任命了二十一位，罢黜了五位。教会当局对文官当局的惩罚，欧洲国王都享有否决权。②

    在多数欧洲国家中，教会确实拥有四分之一到三分之一的土地，从而得到收入和自治。由于政治当局控制了教会圣职的任命，教会的独立程度还相当有限。教会的土地经常被认为是皇家的赞助，统治者经常委任亲戚为主教，主教和教士又允许结婚，经常会卷入他们所管辖地域的家庭和宫廷的政治。教会土地可变成遗产，传给主教的孩子。教会官员也担任政治职位，进一步增强了宗教和政权的牵连。③所以，教会本身就是前现代的家族组织。

    天主教会宣告独立

    11 世纪晚期，天主教开始独立于政治权力。领衔带头的是一位名叫希尔德布兰德的修道士（Hilderbrand），后来他成为教皇格里高利七世（1073—1085 年在位）。④他在教皇派中凝聚了一帮人，包括彼得·达米安（Peter Damiani）、红衣主教汉伯特（Humbert）、教皇帕斯卡尔二世（Pascal Ⅱ）。他们认为，教皇应对所有的基督徒和政治当局行使至高无上的法律权力，并有罢免皇帝的权利。他还宣称，任命主教的唯一机构是教会，而不是世俗当局。其时背景是神圣罗马皇帝亨利三世（Henry Ⅲ）的阴谋诡计。为了出席加冕典礼，他抵达罗马，马上罢免作为对手的三位教皇，以推举自己的候选人。⑤

    根据希尔德布兰德，教会一定要实施改革，才能独立于政治权力，最重要的一点就是要严禁教士、主教结婚和生儿育女。他攻击常见的宗教纳妾和圣职买卖，它们让教会职位变成了可供交易和遗传的财产。⑥希尔德布兰德派发起了一场传单战役，敦促基督徒不要接受已婚或纳妾教士的圣礼，并抨击为赚钱而提供教会服务的行径。⑦成为格里高利七世后，他把教士独身订为教会的正式原则，并迫使已婚教士在教会义务和家庭义务之间作出选择。这是向教士既得利益的挑战，导致教会内部艰巨而激烈的斗争。教皇格里高利的目标是想在教会内终止腐败和寻租，所以攻击家族制的根源，即主教和神父的生儿育女。他的思维逻辑无异于中国和拜占庭依赖太监、奥斯曼帝国从家人手中夺走军事奴隶。如果在忠于国家和忠于家庭之间作出选择，大多数人出于生物本能会选后者。所以，减少腐败的最直接方法，就是禁止官员组织家庭。

    这项改革自然遭到现有主教的反对。教皇格里高利明白，他赢不了这场战役，除非他有权任免主教，而不是皇帝。在 1075 年的教皇宣言中，他要将罢免主教和世俗教职的权利从国王手中收回。神圣罗马皇帝亨利四世的答复，是要将他罢黜，“下台，下台，你这个受诅咒的”。格里高利的回应是将皇帝逐出教会。⑧很多日耳曼君主和一部分主教支持教皇，迫使亨利四世在 1077 年赶来格里高利在卡诺莎的住所。他足足等了三天，赤脚站在雪地，以求教皇的宽赦。

    有些历史性事件全由个人引起，如不提及他们特殊的道德品质，就难以解释。叙任权斗争就是这样的事件。格里高利有不屈不挠的坚强意志，在教皇派中，曾被伙伴称作“我神圣的撒旦”。就像四个世纪后的马丁·路德，他对改革之后的教会以及其在社会中发挥的作用，抱有恢宏的远见。他不怕胁迫，愿意看到与皇帝的冲突逐步升级，直至全面对抗。

    但这历史上的著名冲突，仅靠个人意志是解释不清的。天主教会成为自治的政治参与者，其重要背景是欧洲普遍的政治软弱。拜占庭的东正教及其在俄国的正统继承者，不得不接受其所在帝国的监护。相比之下，西方教会位于政治上分崩离析的意大利半岛，北方邻国的日耳曼人也是散沙一般，神圣罗马帝国只取得名义上的统一。11 世纪的法国并不团结，无法果断地干涉教皇政治。这段时期的教会虽然没有自己的军事力量，但很容易在周边政治体的相互竞争中合纵连横。

    亨利四世在卡诺莎接受教皇的权威，但仍不愿承认教皇委任主教的权利，依旧拒绝格里高利的要求。他继续占领罗马，罢免格里高利，让自己提供的候选人克雷芒三世（Clement Ⅲ）成为一位对立教皇（antipope）。格里高利向意大利南部的诺曼国王们求救。他们答应，但到最后洗劫罗马，引起罗马居民的反抗。格里高利被迫与诺曼同盟一起撤回南方，于 1085 年死于萨莱诺（Salerno），身名俱败。叙任权斗争延续到下一代，格里高利的继承者，再将亨利四世和其儿子亨利五世逐出教会。另一方面，皇帝罢免教皇，扶持自己的候选人成为对立教皇。最终达成协议的是 1122 年的沃尔姆斯宗教协定（Concordat of Worms），皇帝基本上放弃叙任权，而教会承认皇帝在一系列世俗事务上的权力。

    叙任权斗争对欧洲后续发展非常重要。首先，它允许天主教会进化成现代的、等级制的、官僚化的、依法而治的机构，如法律历史学家哈罗德·伯尔曼（Harold Berman）所认为的，还为后来建国者树立了榜样。根据亨廷顿，机构发展的标准之一就是自治，如果不能控制对自己官员的任命，机构就不可能是自治的。这也是叙任权斗争的中心争执。沃尔姆斯宗教协定之后，教皇变成教会等级制度中无可争辩的执行总裁，在红衣主教学院的建议下，可随意任免主教。

    教会也纯洁自己的行止。教士的独身制消除了将圣俸授予亲戚和后裔的诱惑，并给教职出售涂上新的道德色彩。教会可以什一税（tithe）的形式征收税赋，由于教职人士脱离地方氏族的政治，而变得更善于处置自己的财政资源。它还显示出真正国家的特征，有时组织自己的军队，在确定领土中（尽管很小）行使直接司法权。

    教会对世俗事务的介入，当然未因叙任权斗争而告结束。世俗统治者也在继续设法操纵教皇职位，安置自己的候选人，例如 14 世纪的阿维农教皇（Avignon）。随着时间的推移，又出现新式滥权，最终为宗教改革铺平道路。与世界任何其他宗教机构相比，天主教在适应性、复杂性、自治性、连贯性方面的建制化更为高级。

    叙任权斗争的第二个重要成果是精神领域和尘世领域的明确分离，从而为现代世俗国家铺平道路。如早先提及的，这个分离只在基督教中隐性存在。沃尔姆斯宗教协定，在西方教会的历史上永远终止了政教合一时代。这种方式，从没出现于东正教或穆斯林世界。

    为了削弱政治统治者的权力，格里高利的改革宣告教会的普遍权威，不管是精神还是尘世，甚至还包括罢免国王和皇帝的权利。事实上，基督教皇是在要求印度婆罗门从一开始就在行使的权威。然而，经过漫长的政治和军事的博弈，教会被迫妥协。它划出明确界定的精神领域，让自己实施无可争辩的控制，同时又承认，世俗统治者有权在另外范围行使统治权。这一分工，为后来世俗国家的兴起打下基础。⑨

    最后，叙任权斗争对欧洲法律和法治的发展产生了重大影响。第一，教会阐述系统性的教会法规取得合法化；第二，教会创造了建制化的精神权威的单独领域。

    罗马法的再现

    与皇帝发生冲突时，格里高利和继承者没有自己的军队可以调动，只能通过呼吁合法性来加强自己的力量。于是，教皇派发动了一次对法律源头的搜索，以支持教会享有普遍司法权的主张。搜索结果之一是 11 世纪末，在意大利北部的图书馆内重新发现《查士丁尼法典》（Corpus Iuris Civilis）。⑩迄今，《查士丁尼法典》仍是民法传统的基础，不管是欧洲大陆，还是受其殖民或影响的其他国家，包括从阿根廷到日本。很多基本的法律常识，如民法和刑法、公法和私法之间的差别，都可从中找到起源。

    《查士丁尼法典》是罗马法律高度精细的汇集，6 世纪初，在查士丁尼皇帝治下的君士坦丁堡成书问世。⑪重被发现的文本包含四部分：摘要、制度、法典、案例，其中摘要最为重要，涵盖的题目包括个人地位、民事侵权、不公平致富、合同、补偿。查士丁尼时代的法学家相信，它是早期罗马法（现已遗失）最重要遗产的汇总，并变成 12 世纪新一代欧洲法学家的研究主题。⑫

    罗马法的复兴之所以可行，是因为在新式机构中开展了法律研究，那就是新兴的现代大学。11 世纪末，博洛尼亚（Bologna）大学成为研究中心，来自欧洲各地的数千学生聚集起来，聆听像伊尔纳留斯（Irnerius）那样的教授讲解摘要。⑬新的法律课程让欧洲人看到一套详尽的法律系统，可立即用于自己的社会。《查士丁尼法典》的知识由此传播到欧洲大陆最遥远的角落，法律学院在其他城市纷纷涌现，如巴黎、牛津、海德堡（Heidelberg）、克拉科夫（Cracow）、哥本哈根。⑭有点像英国普通法的情形，罗马法的恢复突然取代了盛行于欧洲的日耳曼惯例法，代之以更为统一的跨国规则。⑮

    推介《查士丁尼法典》的第一代学者被称为训诂者（glossators），其主要工作是重建罗马法。后续一代的学者，如托马斯·阿奎那（Thomas Aquinas），则看得更远，为寻求法律的思想基础而直抵古希腊。亚里士多德等古典哲学家认为，习俗和见解需要接受人们的理性考量，并对照于更普遍的真理标准。阿奎那将这条原则，用于自己对亚里士多德的研究。他所建立的哲学传统，鼓励后代法律评论家不要机械复制现存法律，而要推论法律来源，以做到活学活用。⑯欧洲大学所复原的古典传统，不仅是向静态的文本寻求权威，而是对文本的涵义进行理性查询。

    新兴大学培养了一批特别律师，既能解释古典文本，又掌握专门知识。教会和世俗的当局开始认为，他们需要依赖律师的专长来作出裁决，尤其是在极为重要的商业合同和产权方面。律师依次发展自己的机构利益，拒绝非专家和自私的政治派别闯入他们的专业领域。

    格里高利改革之前，教会法律包括宗教会议的法令、教父的著作、教皇法令、代表教会的国王和皇帝所颁布的法令。此外，还混杂有罗马法的残余和日耳曼的惯例法。⑰随着教会等级制度的建立，教会第一次有可能权威地制定法律，凭借愈益专业的教会法律专家，将统一性注入新法典。受过法律训练的修道士格拉提安（Gratian），分析、校对、调和了数世纪以来的几千条正典（canons），再将之综合成统一的法规。这本《教会法规汇编》（Concordance of Discordant Canons）出版于 1140 年，洋洋洒洒一千四百页。格拉提安建立了神圣法、自然法、制定法、惯例法的法律等级制度，又设计了理性程序，以解决相互之间的矛盾。格拉提安之后的一个世纪，教会法规得到极大扩充，涵盖了广泛的法律题目，包括刑法、家庭、财产、合同、遗嘱。⑱

    天主教会通过统一教会法规的概念而取得国家属性，又通过发展行政官僚机构，而变得更像一个国家。法律学者认为，韦伯所定义的现代官僚的“职位”（office），其第一个模型是在 12 世纪教会等级制度中产生的。⑲现代职位的特征之一是职位和官员的分离，职位不是私人财产，执掌职位的只是领薪官员，身受所处等级制度的纪律约束；职位依功能而分，执掌职位要有技术专长。如我们所知，所有这些都是秦朝以来中国官僚制的特征，尽管有不少“职位”在后续朝代中重新家族化了。教会的叙任权从世俗政权的手中获得解放，教士独身制又得到强行的实施，自此以后，教会的官僚制特征愈益明显。例如，教会开始在 12 世纪早期区分教职（officium）与圣俸（beneficium）。教职人士不一定收到封建圣俸，现只是领薪的教会员工，根据自己的工作表现或被雇用，或被辞退。这些官僚开始任职于教皇秘书处（Papal Chancery），很快又变成世俗统治者秘书处的榜样。⑳

    法律和现代国家的兴起

    9 世纪卡洛林王朝崩溃之后，权力四下分散。到格里高利改革时期，欧洲的政治秩序见证了逆转的开头。权力流向一系列的地区领袖，当地方领主在 10 世纪末纷纷建造城堡时，又受到进一步的分割。庄园——基本上自给自足的生产和军事的单位，以领主的城堡和土地为中心——变成整个欧洲的统治来源。这个系统之上又出现几家王室，如以法兰西岛（Île de France）为中心的卡佩家族（Capetians）、征服英国和意大利南部的各式诺曼男爵。他们只是比对手拥有更多土地，遂变成新型领土国家的核心。

    格里高利的改革不仅向领土国家提供了官僚和法律的榜样，并鼓励他们发展自己的建制。世俗统治者负责领土内的和平和秩序，并提供规则以促进新兴商业。这导致了独特法律领域的形成，分别与封建、庄园、城市、长途贸易有关。哈罗德·伯尔曼认为，法律形式的多样化激发了司法辖区之间的竞争和革新，从而促进自由在欧洲的发展。尤其重要的是独立城市的兴起，它的自由人口和对外贸的依赖，刺激了对商业法律的新型需求。㉑

    教会在建制上趋向独立，更刺激了封建社会其他领域的集团组织。在 11 世纪，主教杰拉德·德·坎布雷（Gérard de Cambrai）和主教阿尔德贝隆·德·拉昂（Aldabéron de Laon）创立社会等级一分为三的原则：贵族、神职人士、平民——即打仗者、祈祷者、支持前两者的劳作者。这些功能组织与地域没有关系，其为三个代表阶层的形成打下意识形态的基础。统治者定期召集各代表阶层，以批准征税和讨论国家大事。如后续章节所显示的，欧洲国家今后发展的是负责制政府还是专制政府，将取决于这些阶层能否顶住中央君主的压力。㉒

    欧洲国家建设的特征之一，是很早就非常依赖法律。法律在国家制度成长方面，既是动机，又是过程。专家习惯于认为，战争和暴力是欧洲政治发展的主要动力。这在早期现代肯定没错，其时，专制主义的兴起与军事动员的财政需求休戚相关。但在中世纪，国家获得合法性和权威，靠的是分配正义的能力，其早期机构多为执法部门。

    最能体现这一点的，非英国莫属。21 世纪初，我们习惯把英国及其衍生品美国，当作盎格鲁—萨克逊经济自由主义的家园，把法国当作中央集权政府的诞生地。然而在 14 世纪之前，这正好恰恰相反。所有的欧洲政治体中，英国国家是最集中最强大的，其基础就是国王法庭，以及它向全国提供正义的职能。到 1200 年，它已拥有常设机构，配置以专业或半专业官员。它颁布法令规定，与土地权有关的案例，一定要得到国王法庭的命令方可成立。它还向全国征税。㉓中央权力的证据就在《末日书》（Domesday Book，即《土地调查清册》），它的编纂在诺曼征服后不久，核查了国内每一郡的居民。㉔

    当时已有了英格兰国家身份的雏形。1215 年男爵们在兰尼米德（Runnymede）对抗国王约翰，强行施加《大宪章》（Magna Carta）。他们这样做，不是作为只想为自己争取豁免权的军阀。他们期待统一的中央政府，通过国王法庭来更好地保护自己的权利。在这一点上，他们把自己当作更大社区的代表。㉕相比之下，法国其时比较分散，各地区之间有重要的语言和文化上的差异，国王筹集税赋，只能在法兰西岛周围的自己领地。

    中世纪教会为法治树立先例

    天主教会在 12 世纪成为现代官僚机构，并颁布统一连贯的教会法规，但这离现代法治还很远。法治牢固的发达国家，向政府统治提供合法性的通常是书面宪法。但这套法律并不起源于宗教权威，事实上很多宪法规定，在牵涉宗教的道德问题上必须维持政治的中立。现代宪法的合法性来自某种民主的批准程序。这套法律可被看作扎根于永恒或普遍的原则之中，在亚伯拉罕·林肯看来，美国宪法就是一例。㉖但多数现代宪法对其合法性的最终来源都有点隐约其词。㉗从实用角度看，那些原则的解释仍然取决于政治上的争论。到最后，借民主取得合法性的行政和立法的机构，其权力仍然要受制于借民主取得合法性的宪法。后者取决于更严格的社会共识，如某种形式的超多数选举。在最近发展中，各国政府也要受制于跨国法律机构，如欧洲人权法庭（European Court of Human Rights）和国际战犯法庭（International Criminal Court）。不过，与国家层次的法庭相比，它们的合法基础比较暧昧。㉘包括以色列和印度的自由民主国家中，宗教法庭仍在家庭法上享有司法权。但这只是例外，宗教权威不得参与法律制度是普遍规则。

    那么，为何要说基于宗教的法律为现代法治奠下了基石？

    宗教权威的分开存在，使统治者倾向于承认，自己不是法律的最终来源。弗雷德里克·梅特兰坚信，没有一位英国国王认为自己高于法律。但这不适用于任何一位中国皇帝，因为没有一条法律是他们承认的，除非是自己的金口玉言。在这方面，像印度的拉贾和刹帝利、阿拉伯和土耳其的苏丹，基督教君主同意自己身处法律之下。

    在每个实行以宗教为基础的法律的社会中，政治统治者都制定法律，试图侵入宗教法律的领域。在许多情况中这种侵入是必要的，因为有很多方面宗教法律不敷使用，但最危险的侵入是针对原则的。早期现代欧洲的重要政治斗争（将在后续章节中作详细说明）涉及崛起的君主，他们凭借新颖的主权原则，将自己置于等级制度的顶部，以取代上帝。这些国王像中国皇帝，声称自己可单独制作法律，不受既存法律、习俗和宗教的束缚。成功抵制这些声称，重申法律的至高无上，那就是现代法治兴起的故事。法律本身可能还不够，所以又从宗教传统那里获得圣洁、自治和连贯性，从而更易实行这种抵制。

    法律体现有关正义规则的广泛社会共识，如果明白这一点，那么中世纪法治和现代法治之间的中断，与其说是实质性的，倒不如说是表面上的。这也是哈耶克所说的法律早于立法的涵义。在 12 世纪的宗教年代，或在同时期的穆斯林或印度世界，社会共识往往通过宗教表述出来。与今天相比，那时宗教在日常生活中发挥更为重要的作用。宗教法律不是从外空掉入社会的，一开始可能伴随暴力和征服而至，再与社会共同进化，渐渐演变成本土的道德规则。㉙当时，宗教和世俗的领域互不分离，阐明社会共识就不得不使用宗教语言。在宗教扮演较为局限角色的今天，无可避免地，必须通过其他途径来确定社会共识，譬如通过民主选举。无论用宗教语言还是世俗语言，法律始终是广泛分享的正义规则的表述。

    12 世纪浮现的宗教法律，对现代法治施加了重大影响，它帮助促进了法律的建制化和理性化。法治若要存在，光是建立统治者服从法律的理论原则还不够。还要有体现有关法律的具体机构，并取得独立于国家之外的某种程度的自治，否则就很难控制国家的随心所欲。此外，如果法律不是一套连贯和清晰的规则，就不能限制行政权力。宪法上的分权，必须依靠一个切实的法律体系，该体系掌控自己的用人和晋升，设立自己的专业标准，训练自己的律师和法官，在解释法律时，享有不受行政机构干涉的真正权力。英国国王负责创建了以国王法庭为终极权威的普通法，他也将大量权力下放给法官，允许法律专业的茁壮成长，其就业和收入并不完全依赖国家。在欧洲大陆，查士丁尼的民法传统，意味着较为集中的法律诠释，但也有自治的法律专业的平行成长——事实上，出现了多种法律的多门专业。两种情形中，西方法律的理性化程度都要大于印度或穆斯林逊尼派。后两种传统文明中，没有涌现像修道士格拉提安那样的人，将整套既存的宗教法令统一连贯起来。

    西欧出现的法律传统明显不同于东正教。影响后来政治发展的不是基督教本身，而是西方基督教所采用的特别制度。东正教的主教继续接受皇帝或本地统治者的任命，教会在总体上也从没宣告自己的独立。不像西方的教会，东正教从未丧失罗马法的传统，也从未宣称法律有高于拜占庭皇帝的至上地位。

    法治的涌现是构成现代政治发展的三大组件中第二个。跟确定欧洲脱离部落或亲戚社会组织的过渡时间一样，法治出现的时间也需要再往前提，其远远早于早期现代时期——至少要提到到 12 世纪。这也点出了本卷的中心主题，即现代化的不同组件，并不全是某种一揽子解释的一部分，它们并非都是伴随宗教改革、启蒙运动和工业革命而来的。独立城市和新兴贸易的需求，促使了现代商业法律的发展。但法治一开始不是经济力量的产品，而是宗教产品。所以，作为经济现代化关键的两个基本制度——可以自由选择个人的社会关系和财产关系，透明预知的法律为政治统治设限——都是前现代中世纪教会所创造的。只是到了后来，这些制度证明在经济范围内也相当有用。

    第 19 章 国家变为教会

    法治在印度和中东的发展，但在中国缺席；中东世俗和宗教的当局有效分享权力；前现代中东政权遵守产权；穆斯林乌里玛不能以基督教会的方式制衡国家权力；当代阿拉伯世界没有法治；现代法治的比较

    在中国，宗教并不反映社会和文化的共识，毋宁说是社会抗议的手段。这体现在汉朝的道教、唐朝的佛教、19 世纪受基督教影响的太平天国等。中国的国家轻易掌控各式祭司团体，从不承认比国家本身更高的宗教权威。

    所以，中国没有基于宗教的法治的历史基础。中国的传统以法家思想为基石，中国人心目中的法律主要是制定法（positive law），也就是皇帝所颁布的王法。秦、汉、隋、唐、明等朝都出版了重要法典，很多篇幅只是各式违法的处罚表。7 至 8 世纪陆续颁布的《唐律》，不提法律的神圣来源，只说法律是世俗统治者所制作的，以控制百姓的行止和避免自然和社会的失衡。①

    印度则完全不同，与印度国家形成同期或稍早的婆罗门教，规定政治/武士阶层——刹帝利——必须从属于祭司阶层的婆罗门。印度宗教以四大社会阶层的瓦尔纳为基础，印度统治者必须向身处顶端的祭司取得合法性和社会支持。所以，法律深深植根于宗教，而非政治。最早的法律文本《法论》（Dharmasastras），不是像中国那样的皇帝法令，而是宗教权威所写下的文本。②印度后来的法律发展有点像英国的普通法，没有严格遵循这些法律文本，反而依据判例，并把班智达（panditas，精通宗教典籍的学者）所创造的先例前后连接。③执行裁决的经常是婆罗门，而不是政治当局，不允许分开的世俗领域来制订规则。法律有很多哈耶克提及的特征，通常是不可更改的，除非能找到与当前法律有关的更古老先例。④独立后，印度议会试图修改婚姻和离婚的法律，据称有名保守印度人这样说：“议会的权力不可推翻经典（Shastras）的命令，那是上帝说的话，由圣人（Rishis）为我们抄录下的。印度人不可接受经典之外的任何权威。”⑤

    然而，婆罗门阶层没有组织成单一的等级制度，不能对国王和皇帝发号施令，没有印度教皇，也没有印度教会。婆罗门阶层仅代表一个网络，其成员居住在无数的村庄和城市，彼此联络而已。婆罗门内部又分出不同的迦提，由此而充满等级差别。主持国王授权仪式的婆罗门，可能不愿与主持葬礼仪式的交往。宗教权威在地方上享有极大影响，几乎每一项社会事务都需要他们的服务。他们从不臣服于国家，或成为国家的雇员，但也无法凭借建制化的等级制度来采取集体行动。迦提所造成的权威碎片化，不单影响政治权力，也影响宗教权力。

    中东的法治

    除了印度和欧洲，出现法治的另一个世界文明是伊斯兰教的中东。今天，不管是境内还是境外的很多人都知道，那里的很多政权是残酷的独裁专制政府，尤其是在阿拉伯世界内，不受任何更高法律或正义的约束。⑥西方人通常认为，教会和国家的交融合一是伊斯兰教的本质，对基督教欧洲来说，才是天方夜谭。伊朗 1979 年革命后所建立的神权政府，只是返回传统的穆斯林统治。但这一切都不准确。

    现代穆斯林独裁专制政府的出现是偶然事件的结果。这个偶然就是该地区与西方的碰撞对峙，以及之后向现代性的过渡。在基督教的欧洲，政治和宗教的权力经常联合起来。在穆斯林世界，它们在历史上很长一段时期倒是有效隔离的。法律在穆斯林世界中扮演的角色，与在基督教领土上的完全相同：制衡政治统治者的随心所欲——虽然较弱。法治是穆斯林文明的基础，实际上它在很多方面定义着这一文明。

    让我们总结一下法律在穆斯林和基督教世界的社会作用的相同之处。在这两个传统中，法律都植根于宗教，只有一位上帝，行使普世的司法权，是所有真理和正义的源泉。这两个传统，再加上犹太教，都深深倚靠宗教的经典，其基本社会规则很早就被编纂成书。在伊斯兰教中，这些规则不仅是神圣的《古兰经》，还有圣行（sunna）和圣训（hadith），后者是穆罕默德生前的故事和训话，可作人们行为的指针。但这些规则的解释，在许多情况中又是模棱不定的，必须拜托专门的教士阶层——基督教中的牧师和伊斯兰教中的乌里玛（宗教学者）。在穆斯林和基督教世界，法律并不像中国那样出自政治权力，而是来自对政治当局享有统治权的上帝。穆罕默德生前可能已是部落的统治者，但在阿拉伯伙伴的眼中，他的权威并不在他所指挥的军队，而在他是上帝启示的使者。

    跟穆罕默德一样，最初几位哈里发集宗教和政治的权力于一身，这在倭马亚朝代始终如此。该朝代结束时，政治和哈里发的权力才开始分隔。其时，倭马亚王子逃离阿拔斯王朝，在西班牙建立了分立的西方哈里发政权。阿拉伯帝国的不同省份，随着岁月的消逝而逐一分离出去，哈里发的权力只达首都巴格达和周边地区，甚至变成掌权军事指挥官的傀儡。⑦法蒂玛王朝（Fatimids）先后在突尼斯和埃及分别建立分立的哈里发政权。巴格达哈里发的权威从没获得什叶派和哈瓦利吉派的承认。哈里发可以宣称享有普遍的精神权威，但其真正的司法权非常有限。

    到了 11 世纪，哈里发和在领土中行使政治权力的人分享权力。真正的掌权者——世俗君主——披上了“埃米尔中的埃米尔”的头衔。通过立法上的巧立名目，哈里发声称把世俗权力委托他人，以换取自己在狭窄宗教事务中的权威。⑧中世纪伊斯兰教法律学者艾布·哈桑·马沃尔迪（Abu al-Hasan al-Mawardi）解说这是合法的，因为哈里发通过代理人仍在行使世俗的权力，真相恰恰相反，哈里发只是埃米尔的傀儡。⑨伊斯兰教的世界实质上是政教合一，而不是神权。世俗统治者掌控权力，请哈里发和乌里玛来到自己领土，帮助管理伊斯兰教法。⑩

    在逊尼派穆斯林世界中所缺乏的，恰好是哈里发和乌里玛脱离政治，发展成为分立的单独机构，享有分明的等级制度、司法权、人事权。也就是说，没能建成单独的穆斯林“教会”，可与格里高利改革之后涌现的天主教会媲美。跟叙任权斗争之前的天主教会一样，穆斯林知识阶层只是分散的网络，由教士、法官、阅读和应用穆斯林判例的学者所组成。逊尼派的传统内，有四家主要的穆斯林法律学派，相互竞争，在哲学上各持己见，其地位起伏有赖于权力的惠顾。乌里玛一直没有形成建制化的等级制度，无法建成单独法律传统和穆斯林等级制度，以罗马教皇的方式向政治权力提出挑战。

    国家与清真寺的分离

    但这并不意味宗教和世俗权力之间没有功能的分离。图森·贝（Tursun Bey）写道，15 世纪的奥斯曼帝国，苏丹可在伊斯兰教法之外自行制定世俗法律。这套世俗法律叫作卡奴纳莫（kanunname，该词源自欧洲使用的 canon law [教会法]），用于传统伊斯兰教法鞭长莫及的领域，如公共和行政的法律。所征服领土的征税和产权、发行货币、贸易管理，全靠这套世俗法律。⑪传统的伊斯兰教法主要涉及婚姻、家庭、遗产和其他私人事务，由教法专家卡迪和穆智泰希德（kadis and mujtahids）执行。他们熟谙穆斯林经典，能将这一庞杂的法典应用到特定案例，很像印度的班智达。⑫这就需要平行的两套司法建制，一个是世俗的，另一个是宗教的。卡迪应用伊斯兰教法，但其裁决必须依赖世俗当局的执法。⑬

    在理论上，奥斯曼帝国日益增长的世俗法律从属于伊斯兰教法，需要接受宗教权威的审阅。哈里发在理论上高于苏丹，但在实际上却依赖苏丹。同样道理，因为日益增长的商业社会需要越来越多的规则，实际上的宗教法律反而遭受排挤。等到奥斯曼法庭设立大穆夫提（grand mufti，教法说明官）一职时，宗教权威的独立受到更大限制。以前，政府从学者圈中选任教法执行官卡迪，让他们自主处置法律内容。新的大穆夫提和他的属下，现在有权就伊斯兰教法的内容，发布不受限制的意见或论断（fatwas）。土耳其愈益增加对宗教的政治控制，所走的方向与欧洲恰恰相反。⑭如果说罗马教会展示出国家特征，土耳其国家则展示出教会特征。

    前现代的中东究竟在什么程度上遵守法治？如第 17 章所提到的，今天普遍认可的法治至少有两层分开的意义：第一，遵守产权和合同的法律，允许商业和投资的发生；第二，统治者和统治阶级自愿接受法律所规定的限制。第二层意思直接影响第一层，如果社会精英不遵守法治，使用权力随意攫取弱势群体的财产，便成为巨大的诱惑。如前所述，统治者仍有可能在实践中遵守日常法治，但在理论上却有任意侵犯产权的权力。

    对我们深入研究的两个中东政权来说，即埃及的马穆鲁克和土耳其的奥斯曼，第一意义中的法治作为预设条件而存在。也就是说，它们有关于财产和遗产的完善规则，允许长期的投资和可预知的商业交易。第二意义中的法治也同样存在，马穆鲁克和奥斯曼苏丹都承认，他们的权力受上帝创建的既存法律的限制。但在实践中，他们在解释法律以袒护自己私利时，仍享有相当大的余地，尤其在财政严峻时期。对税收的迫切需求，促使他们违反长期的法律规范。

    但这两个案例都没有完全的现代产权，现代产权的付之阙如是否限制了穆斯林世界的经济发展，这不很清楚。⑮奥斯曼帝国拥有大量土地，分配给提供军事服务的骑士。替骑士耕种土地的农民，可把自己的使用权传给孩子。手艺人和商人等其他百姓享有私人产权，如果幸运和技术精湛，可积累大笔财富。所有传统的中东统治者，非常清楚苛捐杂税的危险，尽可能以“正义”名义予以回避。此外，他们像其他君主一样，把自己视作保护人，使平民免受贵族精英本能上的掠夺。甚至苏丹也不可越过法律。如果苏丹的骑士遵命来执行处罚，他们仍需要把被控者带到卡迪那里，以取得法律的裁决。如个人去世而未留遗嘱，财产在国家能够拿走之前必须由理论上的遗嘱执行者保管。非穆斯林的外国人过世后，其财产同样由法学家记录下来，直到继承人出现。⑯

    法律如何限制传统穆斯林政府的权力，可在慈善性质的瓦克夫的作用中找到明显证据。如我们所知，掌权的奴隶军精英最初不可拥有后裔，也不可积累财产。马穆鲁克和土耳其禁卫军，首先避开规则以组织家庭，然后再设立慈善基金，安置自己孩子或亲信来运转这些基金，其收入将保证后代的生计。阿拉伯和土耳其的统治者，让这些瓦克夫完整无缺地持续数代，但有对改动遗产的严格限制，从而束缚了它们的经济效率。⑰

    如果瓦克夫限定了国家攫取私人财产的能力，它的频繁使用意味着，其他不受宗教保护的财产往往面临随意的征税。尽管不是每个国家都堪称匪寇，但如有紧急情形，所有国家都可能成为掠夺者。15 世纪的切尔克斯系马穆鲁克政权，随着岁月的流逝，而陷入愈益可怕的财政困局，导致苏丹寻求火烧眉毛的计策以增加收入。他们任意提高税率，截获各种财富，导致富人寻找越来越具创意的方法来隐藏财产，不愿做任何投资。同样，奥斯曼在 16 世纪后半叶面临财政危机，导致税率增长，并威胁到传统产权。禁卫军职业的制度化老规矩，不得成家的禁令，都被一一放松。国家的封地不再留作军事服务的报酬，而被腐败当权人售给出价最高的投标者。像基督教统治者时时觊觎修道院的财富和其他教会财产，马穆鲁克甚至也突袭瓦克夫来筹措资金。

    教皇的师团

    据说，斯大林曾鄙视地问：“教皇手下有多少师团？”如我所说，既然法治植根于宗教，我们可向法官和律师提出一个类似的问题：他们在法治国家中部署了多少师团？他们凭什么来迫使统治者服从他们所解释的法律？

    答案当然是零，行政部门和司法部门之间的分权只是隐喻性的。行政官拥有强制权力，可召集军队和警察来执行他（她）的意志。司法部门的权力，或身为法律监护人的宗教权威，体现在可向统治者提供合法性，以及作为社会共识保护人而获得广泛支持。格里高利七世可迫使亨利四世来卡诺莎，但实际上无法罢免这个皇帝。对此，他必须依赖军事同盟，比如嫉妒亨利四世的日耳曼君主和意大利南部的诺曼国王。教皇能否吸引世俗的同盟，则要依赖其事业的合法性，以及他们为自己短期利益所打的小算盘。叙任权斗争的结果是个复杂的混合体，既有物质因素，也有道德因素。最终，拥有军队和经济资源的世俗统治者，被迫与具有部分经济资源但全无强制权力的精神领袖达成妥协。教皇的权威确实存在，并不依赖他的师团。

    穆斯林乌里玛的权威在于可向苏丹授予合法性，就像教皇的权威。遇上继承权的斗争，这种权威就变得非常重要。在穆斯林世界，伊斯兰教和突厥部落习俗，都反对建立王朝继承的明确规则，比如长子继承权。苏丹可指定继承人，但实际的继承过程经常变成一场苏丹儿子的自由参赛，或在马穆鲁克的情况中，变成一场主要派系领袖的自由参赛。在这种情境下，乌里玛给予或保留其支持的权力就是举足轻重的。如果权力斗争中的干预变得太公开，像切尔克斯系马穆鲁克时期的哈里发事件，他们可能会搬起石头砸自己的脚。

    然而，我们不应夸大法治在前现代穆斯林社会中的作用。在保护产权和商业上，法律的运作尚属“足够好”，但提供不了像宪法保障的东西，以对抗存心违法乱纪的统治者。大穆夫提和卡迪都是国家选择和雇用的，明显减弱了他们的自治性，全然不同于 12 世纪之后天主教会聘请的独立法官。奥斯曼国家从头到尾都是政教合一，随着时间的推移，对穆斯林学者的控制程度日益增加。

    印度和伊斯兰教的法治无法幸免于西方的叩门

    在变成殖民地或接受西方重大影响之前，印度和中东的法治互相之间有很多类似之处。它们都有传统的书面法律，仰承宗教权威的保护，还有数世纪宗教法官（印度的班智达和穆斯林的卡迪）所积累的判例，作为先例而被继承下来。它们的宗教法律都是正义的最终来源。至少在理论上，政治统治者获得授权或代理权来执政。

    印度和中东在这一方面，与基督教欧洲的距离，远远近于这三个地区与中国的距离。它们不同于欧洲的地方，在于其宗教机构都没有脱离政治秩序。婆罗门教中从来没有教皇，穆斯林的哈里发在倭马亚王朝之后，基本上成为伊斯兰地域中执政统治者的俘虏。这两种宗教机构不能独立于政府，也就无法发展成为自主控制用人和晋升的现代等级制官僚机构。没有自治，宗教法律的机构难以对国家发挥强大制衡。宗教机构与国家相互渗透，国家本身也不能发展成单独的世俗机构。

    不管是印度还是穆斯林世界，传统的法治都没能在现代化之后继续幸存，对后者来说尤属悲剧。在 1772 年的印度，以瓦伦·哈斯丁斯（Warren Hastings）为首的东印度公司管辖区，决定将印度的法论用于印度教徒，将伊斯兰教法用于穆斯林，将英国版本的“正义、公平、良心”的法律用于其他案例。⑱在应用“印度教法”时，英国人误解了法律在印度社会中的作用。他们相信，法论（Dharmasastra）相当于欧洲的教会法，也就是，与世俗法律相对的、纂成法典并统一适用于所有印度教徒的宗教法。如我们所知，欧洲的教会法规发展至今，经历了漫长演变，但印度法律从没有过类似的进化。它与其说是基于文本的法律，倒不如说是一套鲜活衍变的规则，接受班智达的审视，依据语境而用于印度不同区域。⑲此外，英国统治者还因阅读梵语的能力有限而跌跌撞撞。英国人起初把班智达当作法论专家使用，随着更多梵语文本译成英语，遂改持不信任和回避的态度。班智达的使用到 1864 年完全废除，取而代之的是英国法官，全靠自己来设法解读传统的印度教法。（用于印度穆斯林的伊斯兰教法也遇上同样的中断。）⑳此时，作为活的传统的印度教法全然崩溃，到了印度共和国方才复兴，但传统的连续性已被腰斩。

    穆斯林的法治传统发生更为彻底的中断。奥斯曼政府像英国人对待印度法律那样改革伊斯兰教法。它从 1869 年到 1876 年编纂了马雅拉法典（Mecelle，又译麦吉拉）。其目标是整顿伊斯兰教法，将之汇集成统一连贯的法典，以期达到 1140 年格拉提安整理基督教法规的效果（编按：参见本书第 18 章）。在这个过程中，他们削弱了乌里玛的传统社会作用。因为与灵活不定的体系相比，在严密编纂的体系中，法官作用完全不同，其重要性下跌。1877 年的奥斯曼宪法将伊斯兰教法降为各种法律之一，剥夺了它赋予政权合法性的作用。接受西方法律训练的法官，逐渐取代传统学者阶层。凯末尔（Kemal Ataturk）和土耳其共和国兴起于第一次世界大战之后，废除伊斯兰王朝，以世俗民族主义取代土耳其国家的伊斯兰基础。㉑阿拉伯人从不接受马雅拉法典的完全合法性，随着奥斯曼和青年土耳其党人等运动的展开，认同感的分裂日益增强。独立之后，他们发现自己陷于尴尬境地，一边是已简化的传统伊斯兰教法，另一边是殖民者带来的西方法律。

    从殖民地走到独立之后，印度和阿拉伯的途径分道扬镳。印度共和国建立了宪法秩序，行政权力接受法律和立法选举的限制。独立后的印度法律一直都其貌不扬——像是现代和传统法律的拼凑物，以讲究程序和慢条斯理而声名狼藉。但它至少是一套法律，除了 20 世纪 70 年代英迪拉·甘地（Indira Gandhi）宣布的短暂紧急状态，印度领袖愿意在它的约束下运作。

    阿拉伯世界走上截然不同的道路。英国、法国、意大利的殖民当局，其安插在埃及、利比亚、叙利亚、伊拉克的传统君主，很快被世俗的民族主义军官所取代。后者继而组织强大的中央政府，不受立法机关和法庭的限制。在这些政权当中，乌里玛的传统作用均遭废除，换成来自行政机构的“现代化”法律。唯一例外是沙特阿拉伯，它从没沦为殖民地，维持新原教旨主义（neofundamentalist）的政权，其行政权力受到瓦哈比派（Wahhabi）宗教机构的制衡。很多行政权力高于一切的阿拉伯政权，蜕化成压制性的独裁，无法为国民提供经济增长或人身自由。

    法律学者挪亚·费尔德曼（Noah Feldman）认为，21 世纪早期的阿拉伯世界，伊斯兰教重新兴起，人们纷纷要求返回伊斯兰教法，既不满意当代威权政府的无法无天，又在怀念行政权力曾经尊崇法律的旧时代。他声称，回到伊斯兰教法的呼吁，与其说是反拨时钟，倒退回中世纪的伊斯兰教，倒不如说是在祈求政治权力遵守规则的平衡社会。反复诉求“正义”，甚至融入很多伊斯兰政党的名字。这不是在追求社会平等，而是在追求法律面前的人人平等。现代的强大国家，如果没有法治或负责制的制衡，能够成功实施完完全全的暴政。㉒

    现代伊斯兰主义者能否建成接受法治制衡的民主政权？这是个很微妙的问题。1979 年革命后，伊朗伊斯兰教共和国的经验差强人意。自从 19 世纪以来，什叶派的伊朗一直拥有组织良好的神职等级制度，胜过逊尼派世界中任何其他组织。它在霍梅尼（Khomeini）阿亚图拉的领导下，夺取伊朗政权，建起真正的神权国家，政府部门都受神职人员的控制。该国发展成为神职的独裁政府，监禁和杀害政治对手，为达目的甘愿徇私枉法。

    在理论上，伊朗共和国 1979 年宪法可以是温和、民主、守法国家的基础。它允许立法机关和总统的选举，但要接受限制。限制来自一名非民选的最高领袖，以及代表上帝的高级神职人员所组成的监督委员会（Guardian Council）。此类安排不一定是“中世纪”或前现代的。马克斯·韦伯认为是现代理性国家典型的德意志帝国（Wilhelmine Germany），其宪法规定要有民选的立法机关，但受非民选的恺撒的制衡。如果伊朗的最高领袖或监督委员会，把自己当作高级的传统乌里玛，享有类似最高法院的权威，不时宣布民选伊斯兰会议（Majlis）的立法不符伊斯兰教法，那么将之称作新式的伊斯兰教的法治，这还有一点道理。然而，1979 年宪法赋予最高领袖的，不仅是司法权，更是实质性的行政权。他控制伊斯兰教革命卫队军团和民兵（Basij），主动干涉让选举候选人丧失资格，操纵选举以制造有利结局。㉓像俾斯麦（Bismarck）宪法，或模拟它的日本明治宪法，伊朗宪法特地保留部分行政权力，不是给皇帝，而是给神职等级制度。与在日本和德国发生的情形一样，这种行政权力使人堕落，军队因此而加强对知识阶层的控制，恰恰与宪法所规定的相反。

    国家建设旨在集权，法治却在一旁掣肘。因此，法治发展将遭遇政治竞争，并受制于特殊参与者的政治利益，如早期英王、雄心勃勃的教皇、要求回到伊斯兰教法的伊斯兰反对派。欧洲法治的基础始建于 12 世纪，其最终巩固还得有赖数世纪的政治斗争。后来，法治的故事开始与负责制政府兴起的故事水乳交融，因为负责制政府的倡导者不但要求民主选举，还要求行政部门遵守法律。我将在第 27 章再次讨论这个故事。

    西欧的法治为何较强

    过渡到现代化之前，法治便存在于中世纪的欧洲、中东、印度。这些社会的统治者承认，必须在并非由自己创造的法律下过活。然而，限制他们行为的实际程度，不仅取决于理论上的认可，还要依赖立法和执法的建制化状况。要想让法律对统治者构成更为有效的约束，需要某些特定的条件：它被编纂成权威的文本；法律的内容不由政治当局而由法律专家来确定；最后，法律被有别于政治等级的建制性秩序所保护，拥有自己的资源和任免权。

    与中东或印度相比，西欧的法治获得更大程度的建制化。这与其说是宗教思想的缘故，倒不如说是欧洲发展中历史性的偶然情势所致，因为东正教就从未有过类似的发展。一个重要因素是欧洲权力的极端分裂，给了教会极大的机遇。这导致了颇不寻常的情形：法治得以在欧洲社会中生根发芽，不但早于民主和负责制政府的出现，而且早于现代国家的构建。这在建制化法律的方方面面都是昭然若揭的。

    编纂

    印度的“吠陀本集”口传心授，到后期方才写成文字。明显不同的是一神的犹太教、基督教、伊斯兰教，很早就开始以权威的经典为基础。他们都被称作“圣书上的民族”。但只有在西欧，混乱的文本、法令、解释和评论被梳理成逻辑统一的整体。在穆斯林、印度和东正教的传统中，找不到《查士丁尼法典》和格拉提安的《教会法规》的等同物。

    法律专业化

    在这一方面，基督教与其他传统基本上大同小异，大家都培养了解释和执行法律的专家。只是法律教育在先进大学系统中获得的开发和正规化，西欧要胜过其他地方。

    机构自治

    按照亨廷顿的分类，自治是机构发展的典型特征。在这一方面，跟其他地方相比，西方法律获得更多进展。世界其他地方都没有类似格里高利改革和叙任权斗争的经历。其时，整个基督教会机构都投入与世俗统治者的持久政治冲突，造成势均力敌的僵局。最后的沃尔姆斯宗教协定，确保教会作为一个机构的自治地位，并大大鼓励它发展自己的官僚机构和正式规则。

    所以在前现代，与中东、印度和东正教相比，西欧的法治对世俗统治者的权力实施了更为强大的制衡。就后来自由制度的发展而言，这个意义重大。

    欧洲的法治得以存活下来，尽管它的合法性基础在向现代化的过渡中发生了变化。这是内部有机发展的结果，宗教改革破坏了教会权威，启蒙运动的世俗思想又腐蚀了当时的宗教信念。基于国王、民族或人民的新主权思想，开始取代上帝的主权，而变成法律合法性的基础。许多评论家指出，西方法治比现代民主足足早了数个世纪，所以 18 世纪的普鲁士可以成为一个法治国家（Rechtsstaat），在人民主权原则获得承认之前，已在制衡行政权力。到 19 世纪的晚期，民主思想获得合法性，法律越来越被视为民主社会的正面措施。此时，法治所造成的习惯已在西方社会深入人心。文明生活与法律共存的观念、强大自治的法律机构的存在、资本主义繁荣经济的需求，合在一起加强了法治，尽管其合法性的基础已有变更。

    我反复强调，一个没有法治的伟大世界文明是中国。中国皇帝当然有能力实施暴政，如秦始皇以法家的严刑峻法为基础创建大一统国家。然而，中国历代皇朝并不以严酷统治著称。在有关产权、征税及为重塑传统社会风俗而行干预的程度上，中国国家遵守明确的限制。如果这些限制不是来自法律，那源头到底是什么？作为成熟的农业社会，中国如何治理？这是下面两章的主题。

    第 20 章 东方专制主义

    唐朝之后，现代国家重获巩固；女皇帝武则天的篡位和从中透露出的中国政治制度；天命和政治合法性在王朝中国的确立

    在王朝中国，没有皇帝承认法律权威的至高无上，法律只是皇帝自己颁布的制定法。换言之，没有对皇帝权力的司法制衡，遂给暴政留下充分余地。

    对中国政治制度而言，这至少提出四个基本问题。第一，缺乏法治给政治带来的影响。西方有悠久的传统，把中国列作“东方专制主义”。这种想法是出于无知、傲慢和欧洲中心主义吗？或者，中国皇帝的确比西欧的君主掌握更大权力？

    第二，中国制度中的合法性来自何方？中国历史充满无数起义、篡位、内战和改朝换代的尝试。然而，中国人始终返回平衡，让他们的君主掌控巨大权力，这样做的原因何在？

    第三，尽管存在着周期性的皇权专制，中国统治者为何没有尽量行使理论上所享有的权力？虽然没有法律，他们的权力仍有实实在在的制衡；中国历史上有很长时期，皇帝主持稳定和守序的政体，没有肆意侵犯百姓的日常权益。还有很多时期，皇帝确实很弱，无法在刁蛮社会中强制执行规则。在传统中国，究竟什么在设置国家权力的真正极限？

    最后，就仁政的性质而言，中国历史为我们提供何种教训？中国人发明了现代国家，但阻止不了国家的重新家族化。中国王朝历史的后续世纪就是一段持久的斗争史，防止这些制度的衰退，抵制权贵为自己和家庭谋求特权的权力家族化。什么力量促进政治衰败，以及它的逆转？

    我将尝试在本章解答头两个问题，以下一章解答后两个。但首先得概述一下从唐朝到明朝的中国历史。

    唐宋过渡之后的中国现代化

    我最后一次讨论中国是在第 9 章。从 3 世纪到 6 世纪，中国经历了三百年的政治衰败。我们追踪它的发展，直到隋唐的重新统一。我提到，秦汉时期就已到位的现代国家制度，遭受严重的崩溃，政府重又家族化。汉朝之后的继承国，多半由贵族家庭掌控，他们将亲戚安插在主要职位，竞相攫取更多权力。重新统一中国的隋唐两朝的创始人，杨坚和李渊，都出自这个阶层。前者来自北周重要的贵族家庭，后者来自中国西北部的李氏望族，曾被封为唐国公。①像大部分继承国，隋朝和唐朝早期都操纵在贵族手中，他们官居要职，统帅军队，掌控地方政权。这个精英由北方军事贵族组成，其成员与鲜卑等野蛮血统进行广泛的通婚。605 年重新建立的科举制度，只是敷衍了事，在招纳非精英进入仕途上乏善可陈。②

    唐朝持续近三百年，但在后期非常不稳定（请看表 2 的朝代排列）。从 7 世纪中期“邪恶”皇后武则天崛起开始，贵族精英杀死很多自己的同伴。到 8 世纪中期，帝国东北边境上的粟特—突厥（Soghdian-Turkish）将军安禄山发动叛乱，唐朝皇帝和太子不得不在深更半夜朝不同方向逃出首都长安。叛乱在八年后终告平息，但帝国中心区域的内战导致了人口的大量损失和经济衰退。帝国再也没有获得全盘恢复，权力流失到愈益自治的边境节度使。中国政治制度始终保持文官政府对军队的控制，但从此时开始像罗马帝国，强悍的将军将辖下的藩镇当作权力基础，追求自己的政治前程。唐朝最终在 10 世纪第一个十年中崩溃于叛乱和内战，北方出现军人掌权的五个短命朝代，南方则看到十个王国你方唱罢我登场。

    表 2．后期中国朝代

    年份朝代创始人/庙号
    618唐李渊/高祖
    907后梁李温
    923后唐李克用
    926后晋石敬瑭
    947后汉刘知远
    951后周郭威
    960北宋赵匡胤/太祖
    1127南宋赵构/高宗
    1272元忽必烈
    1368明朱元璋/太祖
    1644清

    尽管有将近五十年的中断，中央国家的合法性在唐朝末年仍然获得广泛的认同，以致将领之一的赵匡胤在 960 年重新统一中国，以太祖皇帝的名号开创宋朝。在很多方面，宋朝在文化思想上是最多产丰饶的朝代。佛教和道教在隋唐两朝广受中国百姓和精英的欢迎，而儒家在北宋期间得到巨大的复兴，夺回不少信徒。宋明理学是一次强大的思想运动，波及邻国的朝鲜和日本，大大影响了整个东亚的思想文化生活。③

    同时，中国开始承受一系列来自北方部落的入侵，他们得以占领大片领土，最终竟是整个国家。④边患始于契丹，它是蒙古边界的一个突厥—蒙古民族，在中国北方建立了庞大的辽国，夺得汉族聚居的燕云十六州。党项人在辽国西边创建了西夏，包括前几朝已受中国控制的边界地区。下一个出现的是来自东北的女真部落（满族的老祖宗），它击溃辽国，并把契丹赶到中亚。（他们向西逃得很远，竟然碰上俄罗斯人。自此，后者把所有中国人都叫作契丹斯基 Kitaiskiy。）1127 年，女真人洗劫宋朝首都开封，囚禁刚退位的皇帝和其儿子，迫使宋朝播迁南方，开创南宋朝代。女真人的金国在最旺盛时控制大约中国的三分之一，直到 1234 年败于另一入侵的游牧民族蒙古人。⑤占领中国北部之后，忽必烈可汗率领的蒙古军向西南发起进攻，一举占领整个中国。1279 年，蒙古军追逐南宋朝廷到广东沿海小岛的崖山。在蒙古军的团团包围下，数千朝臣自悬崖跳入海中自尽⑥，忽必烈可汗成为新创元朝的第一任皇帝。元朝统治者最终在 1368 年的民族起义中遭到驱逐，为本土的明朝所取代。

    春秋战国时期的持久战争激发了愈演愈烈的建国举措，宋朝时的外敌入侵，却没对中国政治秩序发挥类似的作用。尽管有北宋兴起的理学派的辉煌成就，这仍是一段相当令人沮丧的时期，中国朝廷内部的派系斗争，阻止了政权对迫在眉睫的边患作出充分准备。军事压力来自社会发展程度远远低于中国的游牧民族，反而成为骄傲自满的理由。在当时的人类历史节点上，国家层次的社会与组成灵活骑兵的部落民族对峙，并不一定因先进的政治发展而取得决定性的军事优势。如阿拉伯哲学家伊本·赫勒敦所指出的，中国、中东和欧洲，因为邻接中亚辽阔的大草原，而遭遇周而复始的衰落—野蛮人征服—文明复苏。契丹、党项、女真和蒙古一旦征服中国领土后，最终都采用中国制度，走后也没留下重要的政治遗产。只有欧洲先进“野蛮人”前来征服，方才刺激中国政治制度酝酿更为根本的改革。

    从隋朝开国的 581 年到 12 世纪的宋朝晚期，中国最普遍的政治发展之一是家族政府的逆转，中央集权得以复原到西汉的古典官僚制。到结束时，中国政府已不再受贵族家庭小圈子的控制，治理国家的是从社会广泛阶层招纳来的士绅精英。官僚作为儒家价值的监护人，其道德节操获得修复，并为 14 世纪明朝的可观政府打下基础。中国人口在这段时期急剧增加，到 1000 年已有五千九百万，到 1300 年更高达一亿。⑦中国开发南方的大片边境地区后，其领土也扩充到几近今日的版图。在这巨大的疆域上，随着运河和道路的建造，商业和通信获得实质性的增长。尽管疆域辽阔，中国还是发明了中央集权的政治制度，在错综复杂的社会中设定规则，征收税赋。统治如此广阔领土的欧洲国家，还要再等五百年。

    中国建立（或重建）较为现代的政治制度，不是在 17 世纪和 18 世纪与西方接触之后，而是在唐宋之间的过渡期，这一见解首先来自第一次世界大战之后的日本新闻记者兼学者的内藤虎次郎（Naito Torajiro），即内藤湖南。⑧内藤认为，贵族统治在公元 750 年之后的动乱时期遭到席卷。其时，唐朝经历一系列叛乱和战争，非贵族背景的军事强人乘机掌权。宋朝在 960 年当政，皇帝不再受贵族家庭的威胁，形成更为纯粹的中央专制主义。科举制度成为选拔官员更为公开的途径，平民对贵族地主的农奴般的义务终告结束，其地位得到改善。共同的生活模式在全国建成，较少依赖世袭特权，白话文和平易近人的通俗文学和历史话本，逐一取代唐朝高度正规的文体。内藤从中找到与早期现代欧洲的显著平行，其时的欧洲，在强大专制国家的庇护之下，终止封建特权，引进公民平等。⑨虽然内藤的假设引起很大争议（尤其是他将西方分期法套用在东亚历史上的努力），但他的主要结论中，已有很多获得了晚近学者的认可。⑩

    我们现可以返回本章开头的中国政治秩序的四个问题，首先是专制问题，中国的专制是否比其他文明中的更为严峻？

    “毒侔蛇虺”的女皇武则天

    被后世中国史家称为“毒侔蛇虺”的武曌（624—705），其故事值得在此重提，其意义不只是它可以告诉我们中国政治的性质。女皇武则天是以自己名义统治中国、并建立自己朝代的唯一女子。她的起伏是一部有关阴谋、残忍、恐怖、性、神秘、女人掌权的编年史。她是极具天赋的政治家，单凭自己的意志和狡猾而获得权力。儒家意识形态以歧视女子著称，在这样背景之下，她的成就显得格外刺目。⑪

    我以前讨论法治时曾提到，它最初往往只适用于精英，而不是广大的民众，普通大众被认为不算完整意义上的人，不值得法律的保护。另一方面，在法治不存在的地方，精英成员通常比普通人面临更多危险，因为在上层赌注更大、权力斗争更激烈。这就是武则天治下的情形，她向中国的古老贵族家庭撒出恐怖的天罗地网。

    有些历史学家，尤其是马克思主义的，在武则天的兴起中看到重大的社会启示。有的认为，她代表了上升的资产阶级；有的说，她是人民大众的斗士；还有的认为，她发挥了重要作用，把隋和唐初的家族精英赶走，代之以非贵族官员。尚不清楚，这些理论中哪一条最终证明是正确的。她自己拥有无懈可击的贵族血统，与隋朝皇族杨家有渊源。她并没有提携能干的平民，事实上她取消科举考试数年，为的是在官僚机构安插自己的宠臣。她对唐宋过渡的贡献，表现在她清洗实际上和受怀疑的贵族对手，大大削弱他们的人数，使整个贵族阶层变得孱弱，从而为安禄山的叛乱铺平道路。安史之乱标志唐朝走向末路的开始，促动了中国社会的巨大转型。

    像中国宫廷的很多其他女人，武曌发迹于当上唐朝第二个皇帝太宗的低级嫔妃。她父亲是唐朝第一个皇帝高祖的拥护者，后来升任高职。如上所述，她母亲是隋朝皇室的后裔。据谣传，她与太宗的儿子高宗甚至在太宗去世之前就已有染。太宗死后，她削发为尼，搬到佛教寺庵。但新皇帝高宗的王皇后，想转移丈夫对淑妃的宠爱，故意将她带进宫，以观鹬蚌之争。

    这证明是个致命的大错。高宗皇帝为武曌神魂颠倒，在他漫长的当政时期，证明自己是软弱的，很易受武曌的迷惑。武曌与皇帝生得一女，在无儿女的王皇后来访之后，设法让女儿窒息而死。王皇后被控杀死武曌的女儿，与淑妃一起被废成庶人，家人都被放逐到遥远的南方。随之，武曌获得晋升，到 655 年当上皇后，遂下令将王皇后和淑妃截去手足，投入酒瓮。曾支持王皇后、反对武曌为皇后的宫廷官员，包括曾忠实服务于前代皇帝的，或被放逐，或被处死。

    很多中国女子躲在当上君王的儿子或丈夫的幕后，却行使实质上的大权，但武皇后决心变成真正的共同皇帝（编按：与高宗一同上朝，临朝听政，合称“二圣”），在公共场合中愈益显示自己的自主权。皇帝为了摆脱她的操纵，曾指责她玩弄巫蛊和妖术。但她当面力争，反而迫使皇帝杀死控告者，并从宫廷中清洗他们的拥护者。她恢复古代仪式，为自己和丈夫加封，震撼宫廷；为了逃避所谋杀的很多对手的鬼魂，她从长安迁都到洛阳。武皇后安排毒死自己身为太子的长子，诬蔑二子阴谋篡夺父位，将他放逐，迫他自杀。她丈夫最终于 683 年去世，她又把继承者（她的三子）中宗从皇位上拖下，处以幽禁。

    不出意外，武皇后的兴起导致了 684 年的公开叛乱，叛乱来自身受其害的唐朝贵族家庭。武皇后迅速予以镇压，然后设置间谍和告密者的网络，厚赏检举者，从而对整个贵族阶层实施恐怖统治。她任用酷吏广泛从事现在所谓的“法外扑杀”（extrajudicial killings）。等恐怖发作完毕，她又把矛头指向酷吏头目，把他们也给杀了，这一切为她建立新朝铺平道路。690 年，她改国号为周，不再以她男性亲戚的名义，而以自己的名义单独执政。

    武则天提倡爱民政策，减轻赋役，削减靡费的公共开支，扶助老弱病贫。她也推动为女子著书立传，延长对母丧的哀悼，封自己母亲为荣国夫人。她确实发动了一场社会革命，杀死大量在朝做官的唐代贵族和儒家学者。但她提拔的，不是有才能的平民干部，而是自己的宠臣和阿谀奉承之人，为此而特别放松相关考试和教育的标准。她统治的末期充斥着神秘主义、众多男宠（往往与她的宗教激情有关）、公开的贪污受贿，对于这些她并未试图加以遏制。几近八十岁的她，最终在政变阴谋中被迫让位；儿子中宗登基，改回唐朝国号。

    武则天的行为在中国统治者中不算典型，后世的儒家卫道士申斥她是尤其恶劣的统治者。但作为暴君，对政权内的精英进行大肆的恐怖统治，她在中国不是第一个，也不是最后一个。多数的欧洲君主，其行事处世较守规则，但对治下的农民和其他平民，往往更加残酷。

    武则天的兴起反而给中国女子掌权带来挫折，因为后来的文人学士将她当作女人干政只会坏事的例证。明朝皇帝在宫门上悬挂一块铁牌，告诫自己和继承者，时刻小心后宫女子的阴谋。后者不得不回到幕后，重新操起遥控儿子或丈夫的故技。⑫

    天命

    武则天试图攫取皇位，创建自己的新朝代，这引出中国君主一开始如何取得合法性的问题。托马斯·霍布斯在《利维坦》中认为，主权国家的合法性来自不成文的社会契约；在这份契约中，每个人放弃随心所欲的自由，以保障自己的生命权，否则就会面对“人人相互为敌的战争”。如果我们以“群体”替代“人”，很明显，很多前现代社会的运作就凭借这种社会契约，包括中国。人类愿意放弃大量自由，将相应程度的酌情权力授予皇帝，让他施政，以保障社会和平。他们宁愿这样，而不愿看到历史上一再出现的交战状态。其时，寡头强人一边彼此厮杀，一边尽情剥削自己的臣民。这就是天命的涵义，中国社会将合法性赋予具体的个人和其后裔，让他们享有统治百姓的独裁权力。

    中国制度使人困惑的，首先不是天命存在与否，所有君主社会中都有类似的东西。它其实是程序问题：觊觎皇位者如何知悉他（在武则天的案例中就是她）已获得天命？一旦得到，其他觊觎皇位者如有机会为何又不来抢走（要知道皇帝享有巨大的权力和财富）？

    前现代社会的统治者，其合法性可来自多方面。在狩猎采集和部落的社会，它通常是某种形式的选举的结果，参与的如果不是全体成员，就是主要氏族。或者，部落的长者开会来投票决定谁当领袖。在封建欧洲，某种形式的选举程序一直存活到早期现代。名叫三级会议（Estates General）或议会（Cortes）的机构，聚集起来开会，以批准新朝代的当政。这甚至发生于俄罗斯，1613 年将权力转给罗曼诺夫王朝，为取得合法性而召开了缙绅会议（zemskiy sobor，编按：俄语зе́мскийсобо́р）。

    王朝合法性的其他主要来源是宗教。在基督教欧洲、中东和印度，有强大的宗教机构，既可将合法性赋予统治者，也可将之收回（如格里高利七世与神圣罗马皇帝的较量）。通常，这些宗教机构在政治当局的掌控之下，别无选择，只好确认。但在权力斗争时期，这些宗教权威又可通过授予合法性的能力，而发挥举足轻重的作用。

    中国不同于其他文明，因为天命涉及的既不是选举，也不是宗教赋予的合法性。中国没有类似三级会议的机构，可供社会精英开会，以批准新王朝的创始人；也没有宗教等级制度可提供合法性。中国制度中没有超凡的上帝，天命中的“天”，不是犹太教、基督教和伊斯兰教中的神。此外，后三种宗教各有自己明确的书面规则。更确切地说，天命更像“自然”或“大道”，可被打乱，但必须返回平衡。此外，基督教皇或穆斯林哈里发，将合法性赋予国王或苏丹，但中国不同，它没有宗教机构可代表“天”来授“命”。⑬

    改朝换代永远涉及合法性，因为新朝代上台往往通过简单的篡政或暴力。天命概念第一次出现于公元前 12 世纪的商周更替，周武王很明显从合法持有人那里夺得王位。在随后四千多年的历史中，中国经历了多次的改朝换代。不但有主要朝代，像秦、汉、唐、宋、明，还有无数小朝代，像汉朝崩溃后的三国，唐朝之后的五代。此外，有时中国分裂成众多区域，各有自己的朝代。

    成为王朝创始人不需要社会先决条件。有的是前朝的贵族和高级官员，如隋唐的创始人。也有的是平民，如汉朝的刘邦和明朝的朱元璋。事实上，明朝开国皇帝一开始只是农家孤儿，幸免于饥荒和瘟疫，在佛寺里充任小沙弥，后来成为红巾军的将领。红巾军是一起宗教运动，聚集农民、强盗和投机者向地方当局的不公正提出挑战。自那以后，他在愈益澎湃的反元运动中统领越来越多的军队。元朝末年的中国沦落到一系列地方军阀手中，朱元璋就是其中之一。像很多其他的王朝创始人，在某种意义上，他证明自己是最能干最严厉的军阀，最终攀上顶峰。

    在中国，是否胜者为王，败者为寇？天命是否只是军阀权力斗争的事后核准？这在很大程度上是正确的。一点也不奇怪，这个命题已有大批中国文献，如公元 1 世纪班彪的文章，解释为何有些统治者应得天命，而其他的却不值。但很难从这些文章中，提取一整套原则或程序，既能明确解说天命的授予，又不便在事后套在成功者的头上。⑭个别领袖的统治能否享有“朝代”的称号，往往要等很久才能得到历史学家的确认，从而使当时颇为可疑的政权赢得合法性。历史学家牟复礼（Frederic Mote）指出，默默无闻的北周创始人郭威和十年后创建强大宋朝的赵匡胤，他们都事涉篡位，上台都与背叛和欺骗有关，很难分辨。郭威的北周早早夭折，只因为儿子郭荣在三十八岁意外去世。如果郭荣活得长久，赵匡胤可能只是历史上一名试图搞叛国政变的能干将领。⑮

    但皇帝和强悍军阀之间的道德距离还是非常遥远的。前者是合法统治者，他的权力得到大家的自愿服从，后者只是暴力的篡位者。哪些领袖有资格获得天命，哪些没有，中国精英自有一套理念，虽然不能付诸明确的程序规则。儒家的正名思想意味着，皇帝必须遵循理想前任的榜样，还必须拥有马基雅维利所谓的成功君主的美德。显而易见，未来皇帝必须是天生领袖，能激励他人追随自己的权威，敢于冒险以实现自己的目标。最常见的领导能力是指挥军事（武功），所以有很多王朝创始人都是以军事将领起家。但与其他文明相比，中国又比较不重视军事威力。儒家心目中的理想人选，是饱学的士大夫，而非粗野的军阀。觊觎皇位者，如果展示不出对儒家价值的恭敬和自身的教养素质（文治），便招揽不到宫廷内外各式派别的支持。牟复礼把明朝创始人朱元璋和他的竞争对手张士诚对照起来：

    张士诚当过走私犯和强盗，在潜在的精英顾问和政治伙伴眼中，成了他的先天不足。很难在他的痞子经历中找到将会有大造化的证据……其早期谋士在他身上开了一个文人玩笑，朱元璋对此津津乐道。那些早期谋士给他和他兄弟换上雅致的大名，选了“士诚”二字，但没告诉他，《孟子》中有一名句，也包含依次出现的这两个字。但只要移动一下句读，该名句便变成：“士诚，小人也”。这一巧妙的蔑视让朱元璋哈哈大笑，直到有一天他怀疑，身边的文人顾问也有可能在用同样的妙计诋毁自己。⑯

    中国的社会精英没有投票批准新朝代，但在潜在统治者的权力斗争中，仍发挥重要的幕后影响。天命并不总是授给最残忍最暴虐的军阀，虽然这样的人不时在中国上台执政。 很多像武后那样的觊觎皇位者，安排参与使自己获得君王权威的仪式——选择自己的庙号和朝代开始的年号——但很快垮台。中国制度能在建制化上做得特别讲究。一旦呈现某人拥有天命的社会共识，其合法性通常不会受到挑战，除非出现异常。在这一方面，中国的政治制度远比周遭的部落社会先进。

    第 21 章 “坐寇”

    所有国家都是掠夺性的吗？能否给明朝的中国贴上如此标签；中国历史后期的独断专行；没有对行政权力的制衡，能否维持清廉政府

    经济学家曼瑟尔·奥尔森在一篇颇有影响的文章中，提出政治发展的一个简单模式。①世界最初落在“流寇”（roving bandit）的手中，像 20 世纪早期中国的军阀混战，或 21 世纪初在阿富汗和索马里的军阀割据。这些强盗纯粹是掠夺性的，经常在短时间向居民榨取尽可能多的资源，以便移往他处，寻找其他受害者。到一定时刻，其中一员变得鹤立鸡群，掌控整个社会：“这些暴力企业家当然不会自称为强盗，恰恰相反，他们会给自己和后裔冠上高贵的名号，有时甚至宣称享有神授君权。”换言之，自称合法统治的国王只不过是“坐寇”（stationary bandit），其动机与他所取代的流寇，没有什么差异。坐寇知道，如果不做短期的掠夺，反而向社会提供稳定、秩序和其他公共服务，让它在长远时期变得更加富饶，更能承担税赋，自己也就得到更多的收获。对受统治者而言，与流寇相比，这是一大进步。“流寇定居下来，向百姓提供政府服务，这出自他的理性自私。这理性自私将使他从社会中榨取最大化的资源，以供自己的享用。他将使用垄断的强制权力，攫取最大化的税赋和其他勒索。”

    奥尔森继续指出，坐寇的最大化税率可与微观经济中的垄断价格媲美。如果实际税率超过这个限制，将打消生产动机，从而导致总税收的下跌。奥尔森认为，专制统治者不可避免总是制订最大化税率，而民主政权总是制订比专制政权更低的税率，因为它们必须求助于承担主要税责的“中间选民”（median voter）。

    统治者就是坐寇，从社会中榨取最大值的税赋，除非在政治上受到阻止。奥尔森解说政府如何运作的这一概念，虽然愤世嫉俗，却讨人喜欢。这符合经济学家的努力，他们试图将理性的功利最大化行为模型推进政治领域，把政治看作经济的衍生物。这非常吻合美国政治文化的反中央集权的传统，后者对政府和征税始终保持怀疑态度。这还为政治经济学和政治发展理论，提供了预言性的漂亮模式，近年来得到了其他社会学家的极大扩展。②

    但奥尔森理论是不正确的。传统农业社会的统治者，经常无法使用奥尔森的最大化税率向臣民征税。要回到一个不完全货币化的社会，凭借残缺不齐的历史税收数据，估算出当年的最大化税率，当然非常困难。但我们知道，前现代统治者经常增税，以满足像战争等的特定需求，待到紧急状态结束时再予以减税。仅在特定时期，统治者才会把社会逼上适得其反的绝境，这通常发生于朝代末期，以救燃眉之急。正常年代，他们向社会的征税一定远远低于最大值。

    奥尔森模式的欠缺，最佳例证就是明朝中国。广泛的共识认为，当时的税率远远低于理论上的最大值，甚至低于最基本服务所必需的水平，譬如保障社会生存的国防。在明朝中国发生的，同样也会在其他农业社会发生，如奥斯曼帝国和欧洲的君主政体。这还可成为其他理论的组件，以解释传统政权为何很少采用最大化税率。③

    皇帝并没行使理论上的权力，不单表现在征税上。武则天式的专制只是偶见，并不是持续现象。很多中国统治者对治下的百姓，表露出可被称为仁慈或忍让的态度，或儒家所谓的“仁”。中国有悠久的抗税历史，儒家的传统更认为，重赋代表了国家的道德缺陷。《诗经》就有如下的诗歌：

    硕鼠硕鼠，无食我黍！三岁贯女，莫我肯顾。

    逝将去女，适彼乐土。乐土乐土，爰得我所。④

    明朝皇帝在权力上受到的约束并不来自法律。如我们在武则天的例子中所看到的，中国统治者不像欧洲统治者，如要增税，无须征求高等法院或议会的同意。他们不但可以颁发行政命令，任意调整税率，甚至可以随意没收他人财产。早期现代的法国和西班牙“绝对”君主，遇上强大精英时必须小心翼翼（参看第 23 章和第 24 章）。相比之下，明朝开国皇帝太祖，一下子就没收了全国最大几个地主的地产。据说，他清算了“无数”富裕家庭，尤其是在长江三角洲，因为他相信那里有特别顽固的反抗。⑤

    对中国权力的真正约束大体有三种。第一，缺乏诱因来设置庞大的行政机关以执行命令，尤其是征收较高的税赋。明初，中国已是大国，其人口在 1368 年超过六千万，到 17 世纪末更增至一亿三千八百万。⑥在这样辽阔的领土上征税并不容易。在 14 世纪，货币流通很少，每个居民要缴的基本农业税都是实物⑦，通常是谷物，也可能是丝、棉花、木材和其他货物。当时没有综合的货币制度，以记录这些税赋，或将之转换成共同的计量单位。很多税赋归当地消耗（纳入预算），其余的运到逐级而升的粮仓，最终抵达首都（先在南京，后在北京）。纳税人承担的运输费用，往往超过所运货物的价值。地方和中央的收入和预算不做分门别类。有学者将之比作老式的电话接线板，电线来自各方，再插入各方，复杂得像一团乱麻。⑧户部人手不足，根本无法控制或理解这个制度。作为土地税基础的土地清查，实施于朝代早期，但并不齐全，之后又没有更新。人口增长、所有权变更、地理变化（洪水淹没或开辟荒地），很快使人口登记册过时。像其他民族，中国人也非常擅长于隐藏资产，并策划掩饰收入的计谋。⑨

    皇帝征税和没收的无限权力常常是闲置的。它的使用多在朝代初期，皇帝正在巩固权力，与早先的对手一一算账。但随着时间的推移，宫廷经常需要那些精英的合作，便在早先没收财产的地区实施显著较低的税率。

    第二，缺乏行政能力所限制的只是供应方面，而不同的皇帝也有自己不同的税收需求。奥尔森假定，任何统治者都想获得税收最大化。这反映了现代经济学的普通假设：最大化是人类行为的共同特征。但这是时代倒错，将现代价值向历史投射，当时社会并不一定同享这种价值。明朝开国的太祖皇帝是一名非常节俭的独裁者，他削减中央政府，避免涉外战争，粮仓实际上常有盈余。他的继承者明成祖朱棣（1360—1424）则截然不同，启动了雄心勃勃的营造运河和宫殿的大工程。明成祖也资助宦官将领郑和（1371—1435）下西洋，其巨型舰队抵达非洲，甚至可能更远。其政府开支是太祖时的两至三倍，额外税赋和徭役都有相应提高，引发了抗税起义和普遍不满。结果，第三任皇帝和后续继承者只好降低税率，向太祖时的水平靠拢，还向受触犯的士绅阶层作出其他政治让步。⑩明朝的大部分时期，土地税定在总产量的 5%，远远低于其他农业社会。⑪

    中国君主一点也不逊于其他前现代社会的统治者，却往往展示出经济学家赫伯特·西蒙（Herbert Simon，中文名司马贺）所谓的“适可而止”（satisficing）行为，而不是最大化行为。⑫也就是说，如果没有如战争所引起的急需，他们经常满足于让睡着的狗继续躺着，仅仅征收应付正常需要的税赋。⑬下定决心的皇帝可能追求最大化税收，如明成祖，但所有专制政治领袖都会自动追求最大化的想法，显然不是真实的。

    对皇帝权力的第三种限制不在征税和财政，而是权威的转授（delegation）。所有大型机构，无论是政府还是私人公司，都必须转授权威。这样做时，位居行政等级顶端的“领袖”，便会对机构失去相当程度的控制。转授的权威可以给功能专家，如预算官员或军队后勤，也可以给省、州、市和地方当局。这种权威转授是不可或缺的，因为统治者从来没有足够的时间或知识作出国内所有的重要决定。

    权威转授的背后是权力转授。代理人以专门知识向委托人行使反制的权威。它可能是管理特殊部门的技术知识，也可能是某地区特别情形的本地知识。因此，像赫伯特·西蒙那样的组织专家认为，大型官僚机构中的权威不是一味从高到低，有时竟往往是反方向的。⑭

    像现代的总统和首相，中国皇帝也遇上这类难题，官僚机构要么反应迟钝，要么蓄意违抗。尚书们或者反对皇帝的提议，或者悄悄地阳奉阴违。当然，中国统治者享有现代主管所没有的手段：他可以廷杖各级官员的赤裸屁股，或随便判以监禁和处决。⑮但这种强制方案，并没解决委托人和代理人之间潜在的信息问题。官僚经常不执行领袖的意愿，因为他们比较了解帝国的实际情形——并可欺上瞒下。

    像中国那样的大国，其治理必须转授权力，必须依赖地方政府。不过，地方政府会滥用职权，腐化堕落，甚至共谋以反中央。正规的行政机构不足以对付此类问题。命令自上而下层层传达，但信息不一定回馈上去。如果他根本不知道滥权的发生，最独裁的皇帝也不会去惩治恣意妄为的官员。

    君主权力的局限，曾在“封建制”和“郡县制”孰是孰非的标题下，在前现代中国受到讨论。这里的封建与欧洲封建主义的复杂内涵毫不相干，只表示权力的分散，而郡县制的地方官员都是中央指派的。根据明朝学者顾炎武（1613—1682）：

    封建之失，其专在下；郡县之失，其专在上。古之圣人，以公心待天下之人，胙之土而分之国。今之君人者，尽四海之内为我郡县犹不足也。人人而疑之，事事而制之，科条文簿日多于一日。而又设之监司，设之督抚，以为如此，守令不得以残害其民矣。不知有司之官，凛凛焉救过之不给，以得代为幸，而无肯为其民兴一日之利者。⑯

    为了应付反应迟钝的行政机构，中国统治者的典型对策是设置间谍和告密者的平行网络，完全脱离正式政府，只是重叠在其上。这显示宦官所扮演的重要作用。不像普通官僚，宦官可以直访皇帝居所，通常获得比政府官员更大的信任。皇宫因此派他们外出，或刺探情报，或惩罚正式官僚。到明末，皇宫估计有十万宦官。⑰从 1420 年开始，他们组织成奥威尔式（Orwellian）的秘密警察，全名叫东缉事厂，受东厂掌印宦官的管辖，在朝代晚期演变成“极权恐怖主义的机关”。⑱但皇帝又发现，他也控制不了宦官。尽管有内正司（编按：明代负责惩处违纪太监的专门机构），他们还是自订政策，上演政变，共谋反对皇帝。⑲中国政治制度没有任何政治负责制的机制——没有地方选举或独立媒体，以保证官员的诚信。因此，皇帝不得不将一套自上而下的中央控制系统，叠放在另一套之上。虽然如此，他仍然无法取得对国家的严密控制。

    明朝不愿和不能征收它所需要的税赋，最终导致它的倒塌。明朝统治的头两个世纪，中国基本上没有外患威胁。到 16 世纪末，安全情形急剧恶化。日本海盗开始突袭富庶的东南海岸，幕府将军丰臣秀吉在 1592 年侵犯朝鲜。同年，内蒙古发生战争，南方的土著也纷纷起义。最为严峻的是北方的后金，它变得更加强悍，组织得更加严密，已在东北边境频作骚扰。

    政府对危机的回应完全无力。面临攀升的开支，它耗尽银子储备，但仍然拒绝向士绅阶层增税，最终坐失良机。虽然军事威胁变得愈益明显，累计欠税在 17 世纪最初几十年仍持续上升。皇帝甚至几次颁布税赋大赦，在征收欠税上显然认输。戍边军队早先组织成自给自足的军事屯垦区，现再也无法支撑，必须仰赖中央政府长途运来的给养。政府没能组织妥善的押运制度，因此做不到准时支付军饷。朝廷步履蹒跚，勉强维持到 1644 年。其时，北京政府因李自成的汉族起义军的打击而愈益衰弱，最终毁于获得明军降将帮助的满洲军队。

    好政府，坏政府

    20 世纪之前，明朝是统治中国的最后一个本土政权，其传统政治制度已发展到登峰造极的地步。它的机构现在看来是非常现代和有效的，但其他方面却落后和失灵得难以置信。

    首先是帝国的官僚选拔制度。科举制度的根源可追溯到汉朝，但在隋、唐、宋初，出仕人选仍局限于精英家庭的小圈子。到了明朝，科举制度才成为进入政府的主要途径，赢得了威望和自主，使之成为所有后世科举制度的榜样。

    科举制度与更广泛的教育机构相连。全国各地都有儒家学校，接受望子成龙的父母送来的孩子。最好的学生由老师推荐去南京和北京的国子监深造，将来参加科举考试。（推荐不争气学生的老师要受罚。此法现代大学可以借鉴，用以抵制贬值的分数。）精英家庭仍有可能以“例监”的名义，将自己的孩子送进去。但这些靠捐纳取得资格的监生（类似于当代哈佛和耶鲁的遗产特选生，即富裕校友的孩子），很少抵达官僚机构的最高层，那里仍然严格要求选贤与能。⑳最高荣誉属于连中三元者，即在三级考试中都获第一名：省的乡试、京城的会试、宫廷的殿试。在明朝历史中，完成此一壮举的仅商辂一人。他在官僚机构中级级高升，到 15 世纪晚期成为谨身殿大学士。㉑

    中国的官僚机构树立了一个模版，几乎所有现代的官僚机构都是它的复制品。它有中央集权的委任和晋升制度，各等官职从顶端的一品到底部的九品（很像美国政府的文官序列表），每一品又分正从两级，所以，官职提升可从正六品到从五品。经科举而入仕的官员，会被派到全国各地担任低层官职，但不得在自己家乡。如果亲戚碰巧分配在同一衙署，年少的通常必须引退。三年之后，官员得到部门主管的评估，再直接上报吏部。不鼓励官僚的水平调动。经受住这个制度淘汰、并被提升到顶端的官员，往往是才华特别出众的。㉒

    然而，这些才干优长、组织良好的官员在为一位独裁者服务。他无须遵守任何规则，大笔一挥便可否决仔细谋划出来的政策。他们面对皇帝变化无常的处罚和清洗，只有很少高官得以结束自己的任期，而没有受到羞辱。最坏的决策出自开国的太祖皇帝，他对自己的丞相产生怀疑，不但废除丞相制，而且规定“以后嗣君，勿得议置丞相，臣下此请者，置之重典”。这意味着，后代皇帝不能有相当于总理的助手，只好亲自与掌管实际工作的数十部门打交道。这个制度在精力充沛、巨细无遗的明太祖手中，尚能勉强运转；在能力较差的后代统治者手中，简直就是一场灾难。十天内，太祖必须应答 1,660 本奏章，处理 3,391 件不同事项。㉓可以想象，继任者对太祖所规定的工作量的愤慨。

    很多后代皇帝不胜其任。传统上认为，明神宗（万历皇帝）是最不堪者之一。他自 1572 年到 1620 年的漫长统治，正好对应着明朝的式微。㉔在位的后半期，他干脆拒绝与尚书们见面和主持朝廷。数千份奏折留中不发，在宫廷里堆积如山，既不看也不予答复。事实上，他一连数年不出宫殿，其间重要的政府决策都无法制定。他也非常贪心，挪用国家财政来支付私人费用，例如建造壮观的定陵。17 世纪早期的军事危机中，国家储备仅剩二十七万两银子，他自己名下却累积两百多万两。不顾户部尚书的屡屡请求，他仍拒绝发放足够的帑银来支付军饷。㉕他的行动直接导致了最终摧毁明朝的满族力量的增长。

    “坏皇帝”的问题

    我们所讨论的政治发展三大组件中——国家建设、法治、负责制——中国在历史早期就获得了第一件。在某种意义上说，中国人发明了好政府。他们设计的行政机构是理性的，按照功能而组织起来，以非人格化标准进行招聘和晋升，这绝对是世界第一。也许因为中国社会如此重视家庭，国家建设者认定，他们的特别任务就是在政府中杜绝腐败根源的家族或裙带的影响。

    在战国时期的战争洪炉中建立如此制度是一回事，要在后续两千年中维持下去是另外一回事。早已获得现代性的官僚机构，在国家崩溃或遭受贵族家庭的瓜分时，又变成衰败和家族制复辟的牺牲品。国家衰退在数世纪内逐渐发生，再要恢复到当初秦汉创建者的设计，也要花费数世纪。到了明朝，古典制度在很多方面获得完善。它更加任人唯才，所控制的社会比汉朝的更为庞大，更为复杂。

    在其他方面，中国政治制度又是落后的。它从没创立法治和政治负责制的机制。国家之外的社会像以前一样，与欧洲或印度相比，组织得更为松散，很难采取政治行动。没有拥有土地的独立贵族，也没有独立城市。四下分散的士绅和农民，只可被动地抵制政府命令，不时爆发激烈的起义，又遭到残酷的镇压。他们从来没有像斯堪的纳维亚农民所做的那样，组织成集团向国家争取权利。随着佛教和道教的流传，独立的宗教团体在隋唐时期蓬勃兴起。在中国历史的不同时期，这些宗教团体发挥反国家的作用，从红巾军到太平天国。但宗教始终只是小宗派现象，在正统儒家当局的眼中是可疑对象，从没能代表强大的社会共识，也不能以法律监护人的资格来限制国家权力。

    中国王朝的重大遗产是高品质的威权政府。世界上几乎所有成功的威权现代化者，包括韩国、新加坡，现代中国大陆、台湾地区，都是分享中国共同文化遗产的东亚国家，这不是偶然现象。很难在非洲、拉丁美洲或中东，找到像新加坡的李光耀或韩国的朴正熙那样素质的威权统治者。

    但明朝和中国其他历史时期的经验，提出一个令人不安的问题：在没有法治或负责制的情况下，良好统治能否长久。如遇坚强能干的皇帝，该制度卓有成效，雷厉风行，简直令人难以置信。如遇变化无常或庸碌无能的君主，他们大权独揽，经常破坏行政制度的效率。武则天清洗官僚机构，安插自己不合格的追随者；明太祖废除丞相制，让继任者束缚于这一困境；明神宗完全不理政事，导致政府瘫痪。中国人视之为“坏皇帝”问题。

    中国制度中确有一种负责制。皇帝接受教育，深感对人民的责任。他们中的优秀者，尽量回应人民的需求和抱怨。尽责的统治者还经常以人民名义惩戒手下官员，并依靠宦官网络来刺探谁在做好事，谁在做坏事。但制度中唯一正式的负责制是向上的，即对皇帝负责。地方官员必须担忧，宫廷如何看待他们的表现，但绝对不会在意普通老百姓的意见，因为后者无法依赖司法或选举的程序来反对自己。对普通中国人而言，遇上昏官的唯一求援是上诉，希望皇帝有可能获悉。即使是好皇帝，在如此辽阔的帝国中，要想得到他的注意简直是缘木求鱼。

    ……

    然而，法治和政治负责制在中国是不存在的。滥权的绝大多数，并不来自暴政的中央政府，而是来自散布四方的各级地方官员。他们狼狈为奸，或偷窃农民的土地，或接受商人的贿赂，或漠视环保和安全的规则，或遵循历来地方官员所从事的。如有灾难发生，例如地震披露的豆腐渣学校工程和管理不善的公司的奶粉污染，中国人的唯一求援就是向中央政府上诉。而中央政府则不一定作答。有时，它会对犯法官员采取严厉措施，但在其他时候，它自己太忙，或心不在焉，或要应付更为紧要的事务。

    法治和政治负责制本身很好，但有时会搅乱卓有成效政府的运作，如印度国家由于诉讼和公众抗议，而无法作出基建项目的决策；或美国国会由于说客和利益团体，而不愿面对像社会福利这样的紧迫问题。

    但在其他时候，为维护卓有成效的政府，法治和负责制又属必不可少。在适当条件下，强大的威权制度可以建立非常有效的政府。政治制度要能承受外部条件的变化，以及内部领袖的变更。法治和负责制制衡国家权力，从而减少政府表现的参差不齐。它们约束最好的政府，但也防止坏政府的失控。相比之下，中国人从未能解决坏皇帝的问题。

    光有制度还不够

    传统中国为何发展不出本土的资本主义？这引起了广泛争论，包括马克斯·韦伯的《中国的宗教：儒教与道教》和李约瑟（Joseph Needham）的巨著《中国的科学与文明》。本卷目的不是为了参与争论，只是想解说，遏制资本主义在中国发展的大概不是由于良好制度的缺席。

    现被认为与现代经济发展休戚相关的制度，明朝中国已拥有大部。它有强大和组织良好的国家，可提供稳定性和可预测性。卖官鬻爵和其他公开的腐败虽然存在，但不像 17 世纪的法国和西班牙（参看 23 章和 24 章）那么猖獗。㉖暴力处于控制之中，与很多当代发展中国家相比，中国实现了文官政府对军队的高度控制。其弱点当然是法治的缺乏，产权因此而受害于政府的朝令夕改。如我在第 17 章中所争论的，对经济增长而言，宪政意义上的法治并不是必须的。虽然土地不时被征用，尤其是在朝代初期，但国家得以维持几十年“足够好”的产权，在农村的征税也尤其偏低。今天的中华人民共和国，也有足够好的产权，以支持异乎寻常的经济增长。㉗

    当然，明朝中国奉行经济上不理性的政策，严格控制商人和贸易。它对食盐生产的垄断将价格人为提高，像法国和奥斯曼帝国一样，导致大量走私和腐败。对发展来说，政策远远没有制度那么重要，朝令可以夕改，而制度的建立则艰难得多。

    中国所缺乏的，恰恰是经济学家假设为人类共同特征的利益最大化精神。明朝中国的各行各业，都沉浸在巨大的满足之中。皇帝觉得没有必要收取力所能及的税赋，其他种类的革新和变更也都不值一试。下西洋总兵正使郑和远航印度洋时，发现了全新的贸易通道和文明社会，但没有激起好奇心，也没有后续的远航。下一个皇帝为了节约而削减海军预算，中国的大发现时代（Age of Discovery）刚刚开始，便告结束。同样，名叫苏颂的宋朝科学家发明了世界上第一座机械时钟，由水轮推动庞大多层的齿轮系统，因女真人攻陷首都开封而遭遗弃。时钟的部件散落各地，如何制作，乃至它的曾经存在，经过几代人就湮没无闻了。㉘ 阻碍明清中国取得经济增长的因素，今天已不复存在。早期西方评论家认为拖中国后腿的文化缺陷，现也不再是原因。20 世纪初，大家都嘲笑儒家理想中的士绅学者，留长指甲，除了当官，拒绝做任何其他工作，成为现代化的障碍。这一独有的士绅理想已在 20 世纪消失，但重视教育和私人进取的文化遗产仍然生龙活虎，非常有利于中国的经济增长。它体现在全世界无数中国母亲身上，省吃俭用，把孩子送到最好的学校，敦促他们在标准化考试中出人头地。导致明成祖的继任者取消远航的自满，已被异乎寻常的强烈意愿所取代，中国领导人渴望学习外国经验，如果合适便加以采用。首创门户开放的政治家邓小平说，“不管黑猫白猫，捉住老鼠就是好猫”。中国在前一世纪全球经济比赛中表现得如此糟糕，现在又如此杰出。较为信服的解释是它对科学、知识和革新的态度，而不是它的政治制度的根本缺陷。

    第四部分 负责制政府

    第 22 章 政治负责制的兴起

    何谓政治负责制；欧洲建国的迟到反成自由的来源；辉格史观错在何处；比较各国才能理解政治发展；欧洲五种不同的结果

    负责制政府意味着，统治者相信自己应对治下的民众负责，应将民众利益置于自身利益之上。

    负责制可以多种方式获得，如道德教育，这是中国和受儒家影响国家所奉行的。君主接受教育，深感对社会的责任，并从老练通达的幕僚那里，接受经邦纬国的咨询。今天，统治者自称关心民众，但又不受法治或选举在程序上的限制，如此的政治制度，西方人士往往嗤之以鼻。但道德负责制在威权社会中仍有实际意义，约旦哈希姆王国与萨达姆·侯赛因治下的伊拉克复兴党（Ba’athist）政权形成明显的对照。它们都不是民主政体，但后者实施残酷和无孔不入的专政，主要为萨达姆亲朋好友的利益服务。相比之下，除了权力极其有限的议会，约旦国王无须对人民负责，但还在尽量满足约旦社会各团体的需求。

    正式的负责制只是程序上的：政府愿意屈服于限制其随心所欲的机制。归根结蒂，这些程序（通常在宪法中得到详细说明）允许社会公民因政府渎职、无能或滥权而将之完全取代。今天，程序上负责制的主要形式是选举，其中最好的是成人普选的多党选举。但程序上的负责制并不局限于选举。在英国，对负责制政府的早期要求是以法律名义，公民相信国王也应服从法律。其中最重要的是普通法，基本上是由非民选法官所塑造，再加上非普选议会所制订的。所以，最早形式的政治负责制，其对象不是全体人民，而只是代表社会共识的传统法律，以及寡头的立法机关。我在此使用“负责制”，而不用“民主”，道理就在这里。

    久而久之，民主渐渐发生。选举权逐一抵达更为广泛的阶层，包括无产男子、女子、少数种族、少数民族。此外愈来愈明显，法律不再依据宗教，而要求得到民主的批准，即使其执行仍留给专业法官。在英国、美国和西欧，程序上负责制的完全民主化，一直要等到 20 世纪。

    姗姗来迟的欧洲建国

    早期现代时期，欧洲国家建设者方才投入等同于中国和土耳其的工程——建造强大的中央国家，在全国领土上实施统一的行政管理，并宣称主权。这些努力开始得很晚，始于 15 世纪末，成于 17 世纪末。国家主权的理论来自学者的笔尖，如格劳秀斯（Hugo Grotius）和霍布斯。他们主张，真正享有主权的不是上帝，而是国王。

    总的来说，欧洲君主在此项工程中遇上更大阻力，与中国或土耳其相比，欧洲社会中其他政治参与者组织得更为严密。国家建设继续进行，但经常遭遇有组织的反抗，迫使统治者寻找同盟以求折中。地主贵族早已根深蒂固，坚守在固若金汤的城堡，拥有独立的收入和军队。中国贵族从未获得如此的独立；如我们所知，奥斯曼帝国从不允许此种贵族阶层诞生。国家建设广泛开展时，西欧涌现了资本主义经济的元素。商人和早期制造商创造大量财富，不受国家的控制。自治城市愈益成熟，尤其在西欧，还依据自己的规则来组织自己的民兵。

    欧洲法律的早期发展在限制国家权力上发挥重要作用。君主经常侵占百姓的产权，但漠视法律依据而随意没收私人财产的却很少。因此，他们并不享受无限的征税权力，为了资助战争还要向银行家借钱。就任意的逮捕或处决而言，欧洲贵族享有更多的人身安全。除了俄罗斯，欧洲君主也避免在自己社会中向精英发动赤裸裸的恐怖和威胁。

    欧洲国家建设的迟到，恰恰是欧洲人后来享受的政治自由的来源。早熟形成的国家，如果缺乏法治和负责制，能对百姓实施更为有效的暴政。物质条件和技术的每一项进步，落在不受制衡的国家手中，便意味国家更有能力为自身目的而严格控制社会。

    向平等进军

    托克维尔（Alexis de Tocqueville）在《论美国的民主》中开门见山：过去八百年中，人人平等的思想在世界各地得到认可，这一事实是天赐的（providential）。①贵族的合法性——有人生来就高贵——不再是理所当然。没有奴隶的改变意识和寻求承认，主子和奴隶之间的关系就无法颠倒过来。这一思想革命有很多来源。所有的人，尽管在自然和社会的层次有明显差异，但在尊严和价值上却是平等的。这个概念是基督教的，但在中世纪教会的眼中，其实现并不在今生今世。宗教改革，加上印刷机的发明，赋予个人阅读圣经和追求信仰的权利，不再需要像教会那样的中介。始于中世纪晚期和文艺复兴时期，欧洲人已开始质疑既存权威，现在这种质疑得到进一步的加强。那时，人们开始重新学习古典文献。现代自然科学——从大量实证数据中提炼普遍规则，通过可控试验来测试因果理论——树立了新式权威，很快在各大学中获得建制化。它所孵化的科学和技术，可供统治者利用，但不受控制。

    奴隶日益意识到自己的价值而变得理直气壮，这种转变表现在政治上，就是追求自己的政治权利。换言之，他们要求分享共同决策权。该权利曾存在于部落社会，只因国家兴起而湮灭。这项追求导致了社会团体的大动员，像资产阶级、农民和法国大革命中的城市“群众”，曾经都是治下的消极老百姓。

    这项追求寓于普世的字眼之中，对现代负责制政府的兴起至关重要——如托马斯·杰斐逊在美国《独立宣言》中所宣告的，它是基于“人人生而平等”的前提。纵观人类历史的先前阶段，不同个人和团体为获得承认而斗争，但其寻求的承认是为他们自己、他们的亲戚团体和社会阶层；他们试图自己成为主人，而从不质疑主子和奴隶的关系。对普遍权利的新式理解显示，接踵而至的政治革命，不再以新的狭窄精英团体去替换旧的，而在为全体人口逐渐获得选举权而铺平道路。

    思想变化的累积效果是极其巨大的。法国有中世纪机构三级会议，如有国家大事，可召集全国代表来开会作出决定。1614 年，玛丽·德·美第奇（Marie de Medicis）摄政王召开的三级会议，对腐败和税赋频发牢骚，怨声载道，但最终还是接受皇家的权威。到 1789 年，由于启蒙和人权思想的影响，它的再次召开遂激发法国大革命。②

    如果没有权力和利益的潜在平衡，使参与者认为它是糟糕选择中最好的，单凭思想观念，还不足以建成稳定的自由民主政体。强大国家既执行法律，又受法律和立法机关的制衡，这种奇迹全靠社会上不同的政治参与者彼此之间维持大致的均势。他们当中，谁也不是龙头老大，便不得不达成妥协。我们所理解的现代立宪政体，就是这些不受欢迎、计划之外的妥协的结果。

    自共产主义倒塌和亨廷顿的第三波民主化以来，我们目睹了这种动态。第三波始于西班牙、葡萄牙和土耳其在 20 世纪 70 年代的民主过渡；到 70 年代和 80 年代，再转移至拉丁美洲和东亚；随着 1989 年后东欧共产主义的倒塌而抵达顶峰。民主政体是最为合法的，甚至是唯一合法的，这种思想已传遍世界每一个角落。民主宪法在非洲、亚洲、拉丁美洲和前共产主义世界获得重订，或首次制订。但稳定的自由民主政体，仅占参与民主过渡国家的一部分，因为社会力量的对比，未能迫使不同参与者达成宪政上的妥协。这个或那个参与者——通常是继承了行政权威的——总会比其他参与者更为强大，并以他人为代价扩充自己的势力。

    支持现代民主的启蒙思想在欧洲广泛传播，一直抵达俄罗斯。各国接受程度则有显著的差别，取决于不同政治参与者对自身利益所受影响的估量。要了解负责制政府的出现，必须了解欧洲各地既存的政治力量，有些提倡负责制，另一些并不反对专制主义的抬头。

    仅了解一个国家等于不懂国家

    我谈论欧洲时，好像它是与中国或中东作比的单独社会，但在事实上，它拥有政治发展的多种模式。现代宪政民主的故事经常基于胜利者的观点，即老是依据英国和其殖民衍生品美国的经验。在所谓的“辉格史观”（Whig history）中，自由、繁荣和代议政府的同步成长，被视为人类制度无可阻挡的进步，其始于希腊民主和罗马法律，铭记于大宪章，虽受到斯图亚特王朝的威胁，但在英国内战和光荣革命期间，获得了捍卫和昭雪。这些制度通过英国在北美的殖民地，再输给世界各国。③

    辉格史观的问题，不是指它的基本结论是错的。实际上，强调征税在驱动负责制政府出现上的首要作用，大体是正确的。问题在于，像所有仅从单一国家历史出发所作的论证一样，它不能解释议会制度为何出现于英国，而缺席于情形相近的其他欧洲国家。这种史观经常导致评论家断定，已然发生的事必然发生，因为他们不清楚导致特别结果的复杂背景关联。

    举例说明，在兰尼米德七年之后的 1222 年，皇家侍从阶层迫使匈牙利国王安德鲁二世（Andrew Ⅱ）签署让步的金玺诏书（Golden Bull），被誉为东欧的大宪章。该诏书保护精英免受国王的随心所欲，如果国王违诺，主教和议会要员享有抵制权利。但这诏书从没成为匈牙利自由的基础。这部早期宪法在限制匈牙利国王权力上颇为有效，实际统治权竟而落到了不愿自律的贵族阶层手中。该宪法并没开发新政治制度，以立法机关来制衡行政权力，反而阻碍了强大中央政府的出现，以致国家无法抵抗外来侵略。国王也无法保护国内农民免遭寡头的贪得无厌。到了 1526 年的莫哈奇战役，匈牙利完全丧失自由，成为奥斯曼帝国的战利品。

    负责制政府兴起的任何解释，既要看成功案例，也要看不成功的。这样才能了解，为何代议制度出现于欧洲某地而专制主义却盛行于其他地方。从德国历史学家奥托·欣策（Otto Hintze）开始，已有人在作出努力。查尔斯·蒂利再接再厉，认为外部军事压力和征税能力是主要的变量。④最近的卓越努力来自托马斯·埃特曼（Thomas Ertman），他查阅的案例远远超过大多数比较历史研究，并对大部分观察到的差异作出了较为信服的解说。⑤

    这种研究还无法成为政治发展的真正理论。说到底，能否创立这样理论都还是未知数。从社会科学的角度看，麻烦在于有太多变量，而没有足够案例。该理论尝试解释的政治结局，不仅是代议政府和专制主义的黑白之分。如下所述，至少有五种不同类型的国家在欧洲出现，其起源都需要得到解释。例如，法国和西班牙的专制主义，跟普鲁士和俄罗斯的就相当不同。事实上，普鲁士和俄罗斯彼此之间又有很大差异。有实证显示，发挥作用从而导致不同结局的变量，其数字是很大的，既有蒂利说的外部军事压力和征税能力，还有内部阶级关系的结构、国际谷物价格、宗教和思想、统治者和民众接受变量的方式。要想从这么多因果关系中，找出可预测性的普遍理论，其前景确实微茫。

    我将在后续章节中，尝试描述欧洲政治发展的重要路径，以及与此相关的各种原因。也许可从一系列案例中概括出哪些因素最重要哪些最不重要，但远远不能成为真正的预测性理论。

    欧洲的东周时期

    在很多方面，1100 年的封建欧洲很像周朝的中国。有名义上的君主或统治朝代，但实际权力落到高度分散的封建领主手中。他们保持军队，维持秩序，主持正义，在经济上基本上自给自足。也像中国一样，有些王室凭借严密的组织能力、冷酷无情以及运气，而变得出类拔萃，并开始在愈益扩展的地域中巩固自己的领土。

    15 世纪到 17 世纪，欧洲发生巨大的政治变动，导致强大国家的兴起，可与中国公元前 5 世纪到公元前 3 世纪的国家建设媲美。变更背景是人口的大幅增长，尤其是在 16 世纪，再加上人均财富的递升。这是一个全球现象，如我们以前讲到的，也影响奥斯曼帝国。它在欧洲造成的效果，比在中东也许更为良性。欧洲人口从 1500 年的六千九百万，增至 1600 年的八千九百万，增长率几近 30%。⑥大量金银来自西班牙在新大陆的殖民地，经济货币化在迅速流行。贸易增长开始超过国内生产总值的增长，从 1470 年到 19 世纪初，西欧商船的规模增长十七倍。⑦

    这段时期的一开始，多数欧洲政体只是“领地国家”（domain states）。国王的全部收入来自自己的领地，只占他名义上统治疆土的一小部分。行政人员很少，来自国王家庭。实际权力分散在各级封建属臣手中。他们都是自治的政治实体，保持自己的军队，向自己的百姓征税，在地方上主持正义。如果自己是强大的男爵，就提供服务给国王。如果自己是较低等级的属臣，就提供服务给男爵。他们不是以税赋而是以自己的鲜血来履行义务，或亲自披挂上阵，或率领侍从。事实上，大多数贵族因此而免缴税赋。国王的领地可能散播于辽阔的疆土，分成数块，互不相连。他的王国只是各级属臣领土的拼凑图，甚至忠于敌对国王的属臣也会间杂其中。

    到这段时期结束，大部分欧洲政治秩序已转化成国家体系。领地国家转化成缴税属国，君主的收入不仅来自国王自己的领土，而且来自他所能征税的整个疆域。管理这个制度需要更大的国家官僚机构，最开始是秘书处和财政部，以掌控收入的征集和支付。地方领主的自治受到严重限制，现在需要缴税，而不再提供服务。中央政府向农民直接征税，从而破坏了领主与农民的传统关系。欧洲教会的地产都被国家夺走，国家直接控制的领地显著增加。国家司法的领土也从互不相连的拼凑图，变换成相邻的一整片。例如，法国版图就是在那时形成现在熟悉的六边形。通过征服、联姻或外交，各国吸收弱小政治体而得以扩展。各国也开始渗透社会，以宫廷语言来统一和减少各地方言，调整社会习俗，在愈益增大的管辖区内，建立法律和商业的统一标准。

    该变化的速度和程度颇不寻常，在很多方面可与东周时期的中国媲美，不同处只在最终幸存国家的众多，而不是大一统帝国。以征税为例，在哈布斯堡帝国内，1521—1556 年的征税为 430 万弗罗林（Florins），1556—1607 年便涨到 2,330 万。英国的平均年度税收，从 1485—1490 年的 5,200 英镑涨到 1589—1600 年的 382,000 英镑。卡斯提尔王国（Castile）在 1515 年征税 150 万枚达克特（ducat）金币，到 1598 年征税 1,300 万枚。⑧增加的税收用来支付更大更为专业的公共机构。1515 年，法国有七至八千官员为国王服务；到 1665 年，皇家行政人员升至八万。巴伐利亚政府在 1508 年有 162 名官员领取薪俸，到 1571 年增至 866 名。⑨

    欧洲国家的早期发展植根于主持正义的能力，但到 16 世纪之后，几乎全是为了资助战争。这段时期的战争愈打愈大，几乎持续不断。其中大型的包括：法国和西班牙之间为争夺控制意大利的持久战；西班牙征服荷兰联合省的努力；英国、西班牙、葡萄牙、荷兰和法国在新大陆争夺殖民地；西班牙试图侵略英国；宗教改革之后日耳曼内的持续对峙（以三十年战争而告终）；瑞典向中欧、东欧和俄罗斯的扩张；奥斯曼、哈布斯堡和俄国之间的战火连绵。

    早期现代的国家除了基本治安和正义，没有提供多少服务。它们预算的大部用在军事开支。荷兰共和国预算的 90%，花在与西班牙国王的长期战争上。哈布斯堡帝国预算的 98%，用来资助与土耳其和 17 世纪新教政权的战争。17 世纪从头到尾，法国的预算上涨五到八倍。从 1590 年到 1670 年，英国预算增加了十六倍。⑩法国军队人数从 13 世纪的一万二千，增至 16 世纪的五万和 17 世纪 30 年代的十五万，再增至路易十四统治晚期的四十万。⑪

    法律在欧洲发展中的作用

    公元前第一个千年的中期，中国从少量贵族驾驶战车的战争，过渡到向全民征募的步兵战争。在 12 世纪和 13 世纪，类似的技术过渡也在欧洲发生，披甲戴盔的骑兵由配备弓矛的大批步兵所取代。跟中国的早期建国者不同，早期现代的欧洲君主没在自己领土上征募大量农民。查理五世（Charles V）投入战场的精锐军队，以卡斯提尔部队的步兵方阵（tercio）为核心，再配以来自国内外签有合同的雇佣兵。⑫欧洲的大规模征募仅出现于 18 世纪，但他们仍然不是国家权力的基础，直到法国大革命的国民征兵制（levee en masse）。相比之下，像秦国一样的东周列国，直接从骑兵的贵族战争过渡到大规模征募，中间没有雇佣兵阶段。⑬

    早期现代的欧洲君主为何没像中国君主那样，直接征募自己领土上的大量农民？为何不以增税来付军饷，反而要依赖贷款和卖官鬻爵？

    主要原因之一是欧洲的法治。我们在第 18 章中看到，它由宗教法律发展而来，在各领土上广泛流传。欧洲封建主义的整个等级结构，受到承继下来的法律的保护，将主权和权力有效地分配给各式从属政治体。农民受一系列封建法律和义务的束缚，主要是欠自己领主的。国王没有征募农民的法律权利，事实上，他甚至不能征募自己领土上的农民。因为后者的义务定得十分详细，可能没有军事服务。欧洲君主并不觉得自己可攫取精英的财产，因为后者可援引基于封建契约的古代权利。国家可以征税，但必须通过组织起来的各式会议（像法国的三级会议），以证明征税的正当性，方可取得许可。专制君主曾尝试削减这些会议的权力，但其操作仍局限于赋予君主合法性的法律总框架。国王并不觉得自己有权侵犯对手的私人安全，或任意拘留，或随便处死。（但要注意，这些规则很少用于非精英者，像农民和其他平民，他们还要再等到历史的后期。）

    早期中国君主所实使的暴政，很少欧洲君主敢于尝试，不管是在封建时期还是早期现代。中国君主从事大规模的土地改革，任意处决当朝的行政官员，迁移整个区域的人口，疯狂清洗贵族对手。出现此类行为的唯一欧洲宫廷是俄罗斯。这种不受节制的暴力要在法国大革命之后，方才变得流行。当时，源于古老欧洲秩序的所有法律约束，被现代化一扫而空。

    欧洲的国家发展必须应付限制国家权力的全套法律，懂得这一点很重要。欧洲君主试图扭曲、违反和回避有关法律，但其选择仍受成熟于中世纪的既存法律的限制。

    国家建设的架构

    为了投入战争，国家必须以愈益增大的规模动员资源。对资源的需求，导致更高水平的征税，想方设法将更多人口和社会资源纳入征税范围。财政资源的管理，促使国家官僚机构的扩大和机构的愈益合理化，以谋求最高效率。国家要有辽阔领土，以扩大税收基础；要有相邻领土，以达防御目的。政治异见会被敌人利用，因此有必要在整片领土上实施统一的行政管理。

    欧洲的某些地区——日耳曼和东欧的一部分，还有像瑞士那样的地理隔离地区——没有面对早期的军事竞争，因此组织现代国家较晚。所有的其他强国——法国、西班牙、英国、荷兰、瑞典、俄罗斯、哈布斯堡帝国、波兰、匈牙利等——从 15 世纪以来，都面对军事开支和中央集权的需求。⑭

    欧洲历史此时的政治发展，体现在集权国家和抵抗团体之间的互动。如果抵抗团体单薄且组织不良，或被国家收买去帮助榨取他人的资源，那里就出现专制政府。如果抵抗团体组织良好，中央政府无法颐指气使，那里就出现较弱的专制政府。如果抵抗团体与国家不相上下，那里就出现负责制政府，他们坚持“无代表即不纳税”的原则：愿意提供实质性的资源，但一定要参与如何使用的决策。

    斗争的结果不是国家与整个社会的双边权利争夺战。粗略而言，斗争牵涉四支力量：中央君主政府，高级贵族，更为广泛的士绅阶层（小地主、骑士和其他自由人），包括市民在内的第三等级（资产阶级的雏形）。占社会人口大多数的农民尚不是重要参与者，因为他们还没动员起来，还没成为代表自己利益的社会集团。

    对国家集权的抵抗程度，取决于国家之外的三个群体——高级贵族、士绅、第三等级——能否合作，以对抗皇家权力。它也取决于每个群体所显示的内部凝聚力。最终，它还取决于国家本身的凝聚力和使命感。

    在后续章节中，我将显示四个欧洲国家建设的结果，以及这些结果为何迥然不同的原因。这个分类覆盖了最为纷纭的案例，从最为代议的到最为专制的。它们是：
    1.软弱的专制：16 世纪和 17 世纪的法国和西班牙君主政体，代表了新型的专制国家，在某些方面，比荷兰和英国更为集权，更为独裁。另一方面，它们仍不能完全支配社会上的强大精英，更重的税赋落到了最无力抵抗的阶层。它们的中央政府仍是家族的，事实上，其家族制的程度日益增长。

    图 1. 农业社会的政治权力

    2.成功的专制：俄罗斯君主政体收买贵族和士绅，使之变成完全依赖国家的服务阶层。能够这样做，部分原因在于三方都有共同利益，都想将农民绑在土地上，并向其征收最重的税赋。当时的政府仍是家族制的，但阻止不了俄罗斯君主对贵族阶层的恐吓和控制，其程度远远超过法国或西班牙国王所做的。
    3.失败的寡头制：匈牙利和波兰的贵族一开始就向国王权力施以宪法限制，导致后者一直软弱，无法构建现代国家。软弱的君主政体无法保护农民利益，以对抗贵族阶层的残酷剥削；也不能提取足够资源来建造国家机器，以抵御外来侵略。这两个国家都没建成非家族的现代政府。
    4.负责制政府：最后，英国和丹麦发展出了稳定的法治和负责制政府，同时又建成能发起全民动员和防御的中央国家。英国如何发展议会制度，这是耳熟能详的故事。斯堪的纳维亚通过不同的政治进程，却获得同样结局。到 19 世纪末，一个成为自由派国家，另一个奠定了社会民主主义国家的基础。法律和负责制的原则早已深植人心。

    除了上述这些，还有其他重要的变量和结局。荷兰共和国和瑞士联邦，代表了另一类通向负责制政府和法治的共和途径。普鲁士君主政体虽然没有负责制，却发展了法治和强大的现代国家。我无法一一介绍这些和其他边缘案例。重要的是弄清大致的相关条件，哪些支持负责制政府，哪些支持不同形式的专制主义。

    第 23 章  寻租者

    法国的财政危机导致家族政府的兴起；总督和中央政府的成长；法国精英把自由当作特权，遂无法付诸集体行动；法国政府的致命弱点，既无法控制自己的精英，也无法向其征税

    法兰西王国呈现极端矛盾的形象，既强大，又充满潜在的虚弱。参观过巴黎郊外凡尔赛宫的人都会明白，路易十四时代的欧洲人为何如此敬畏法国君主政体。相比之下，腓特烈大帝（Frederick the Great）在波茨坦的无忧宫（Sanssouci）似乎只是小木屋。17 世纪晚期，路易十四的英国和荷兰对手，把法国看作幅员辽阔、富有、强大、野心勃勃的陆地强权，时时在威胁整个欧洲的自由，有点像冷战期间美国人眼中的苏联。法国君主政体是欧洲国家建设进程中的急先锋，为建立现代中央行政国家打下基础。托克维尔在 19 世纪 40 年代写道，与他同代的法国人相信，他们的国家只是伴随法国大革命而出现的。如他所证明的，其基础却在两个世纪之前就打下了，法兰西王国的国王“越过大革命的深渊，与现代法国握手”。

    同时，法国的国家大厦建造于腐烂和倾圮的地基。当 1715 年 9 月路易十四去世时，他的国家已彻底破产。皇家债务几达 20 亿里弗（livre），这还不包括 6 亿里弗的政府短期债券。法国的债权人已拥有直到 1721 年的未来税收，光是按期偿付连本带利的债务，便已超过可预期的未来税收。①这般险恶的财政并非新鲜事，路易十四的激进外交只是使之急剧恶化。法国国王为打造中央国家，持续一个多世纪，与地方有权有势者达成异常复杂的交易，后者以现金换取各式特权与豁免。国家逐渐蚕食所有百姓的自由，并以无法持久的方式将未来抵押给腐败的公职人员。它无法达到专制主义的更高阶段，像中国在数世纪之前所实现的。最后出于规范，它必须尊重它尝试掌控的社会阶层的利益，还必须尊重承继下来的法律。等到那些社会阶层被大革命的浪潮卷走，真正的现代国家才得以浮现。

    在很多方面，法国君主政体的处境与当代发展中国家很相似，它们都把法治当作抵达目标路上的讨厌障碍。政府非常挥霍，将大笔资金投入战争，不愿花在补助金或社会福利上。由此而生的预算赤字必须找到资金，君主政体为此而四下寻觅。只要有逃之夭夭的可能，它都会牵强附会、扭曲、违反有关法律。但跑了和尚跑不了庙，最终，它还是要回到同一群债权人那里，去寻求新的资金。这种困境的唯一出路就是君主政体征用精英的财产，那也是大革命最终付诸实现的。但这超越了旧制度的想象力或能力，它因此发现自己陷入了永久的经济危机。

    同时，政府寻求资金的对象，即法国社会，也无法反过来坚持负责制的基本原则。原因在于，不同经济阶层之间缺乏社会团结，或社会资本。贵族、资产阶级和农民，在更早历史时期曾有过团结，但现在彼此不抱同情。跟英国的情形不同，他们不相信自己是单一国家的一部分。这三个阶层内部又分化成自尊的等级，每一等级非常在乎自己的特权，以及相对于下一等级的优越地位，并不在乎政府掌控自己的阶层或国家。自由被当作特权，如托克维尔所说，在大革命的前夕，法国社会中“愿意为共同目标而一起奋斗的尚不满十人”。

    在争夺主导地位的斗争中，中央国家和抵抗团体如果组织得不够严密，便出现弱的专制主义。法国的结局偏向于专制主义，但它非常脆弱，招架不住以人权为合法性基础的启蒙思想。

    家族专制主义的起点

    第一任波旁国王亨利四世在 1594 年加冕，其时，法国离统一国家或现代国家还很遥远。早期的法国国王以巴黎附近地区为权力基础，聚集数个公国，分别是勃艮第（Burgundy）、诺曼底（Normandy）、布列塔尼（Brittany）、纳瓦拉（Navarre）、朗格多克（Languedoc）。但在语言和习俗上，各区域之间仍有很大差异。王国一分为二，分别叫作财政区省（pays d’élections）和三级会议省（pays d’états）。前者是巴黎附近地区，构成国家的核心。后者是新近扩张的，处于疆土的边缘，使用不同的法律规则。此外，宗教改革又造成宗派分裂。天主教同盟和胡格诺派之间的宗教内战，要到原是新教徒的亨利四世皈依天主教，方告结束。他在 1598 年颁布南特敕令（Edict of Nantes），把天主教当作国教，但授予新教徒同等权利。

    从波旁王朝到 1789 年大革命，法国的国家建设追随两条平行途径。第一条，法国国家愈益集权，从属单元的政治权利愈益缩小。这些从属单元早在封建时期便已存在，包括所有的公国，曾是地方政府的独立贵族，以及愈益纳入国家的保护和控制的市政厅、行会、教会乃至独立的私营商业组织。

    第二条涉及集权的方式。不像早期的中国国家，也不像 18 世纪在勃兰登堡—普鲁士涌现的德国，法国的中央国家，并未建立在非人格化的任人唯贤的官僚机构基础上，因此也谈不上官僚职能专业化和教育。恰恰相反，它变成彻底的家族化。国家经常缺乏现金，急需收入，便把官位卖给最高投标者，从军事将领到财政部、征税官的公职，都可以拿钱来换。换言之，政府的私有化直达它的核心功能，公职都变成世袭的私人财产。②

    如果以委托人和代理人的关系来理解廉政，代理人遵循委托人的指示必须得到鼓励。那么，法国政府所创造的制度绝对是一场梦魇。实际上，它给寻租和腐败披上了合法化和制度化的外衣，允许代理人在履行公职时谋取私利。事实上，租金一词（rente）就源自法国政府出售公职的实践，例如，出售征收特定税赋的权利，让买主获得长年累月的收入。③如果现代公共管理是公私分明，那么，法兰西王国代表了彻头彻尾的前现代制度。所以，法国国家只是现代和家族元素奇特而又不稳定的混合物。

    中央行政国家和家族化公职的发展相互纠结，无法分开追踪它们的发展。法兰西王国的财政制度高度复杂，反映出它零敲碎打的发展过程。各种税项中最重要的是土地税（taille），直接征于农产品，由农民负担。还有人头税和一系列间接税，征于国内运输的酒和商品。国家垄断制造的食盐也须缴税（gabelle）。④后续的国王还征收其他税赋，包括人头税（人均税）和所得税（vingtième）。

    直接财产税很难评估，因为没有制度来维持最新的人口普查，以及居民和资产的登记，像中国、奥斯曼和英国所做的那样。⑤富有家庭自然不愿诚实公开自己的资产，不然，他们的税赋就会上涨。⑥间接税的征收也很难，考虑到法国辽阔的疆土（如与英国相比）和分散的数千市场。17 世纪的法国经济尚未完全货币化，用来缴付现金税的硬币总是短缺。在这段时期，法国仍然是农业社会，那些在技术上容易收集的，如进口关税，尚没能提供实质性的收入。⑦

    税赋制度的真正复杂性在于各种免税和特权。封建法国在中世纪晚期开发了两层会议的制度，一层是全国三级会议，另一层是一系列的地方或省级会议——又称为高等法院（sovereign courts, or parlements）——国王需要与之交换意见，以获得征收新税的许可。⑧为了鼓励各省加入法国的疆域，他授予省级会议特别的恩惠，承认地方精英的习俗和特权。税制因地区而有所不同，尤其是在财政区省和三级会议区省之间。贵族利用软弱的国王来为自己赢得各种豁免，从直接税到自产货物的消费税。这些免税和特权，开始自贵族向外扩散，抵达城市富有平民、皇家官员和各级地方官员等。赢不到免税的就是非精英者，即构成国家人口大多数的农民和工匠。⑨

    公开出售公职的做法（venality，即捐官制或卖官鬻爵制）始于 16 世纪。法国为控制意大利，发动了与西班牙的持久战争，因此承担急需国家收入的压力。其时的国王光凭自己的收入尚不够支付战争费用，所以开始向意大利、瑞士、日耳曼南部新兴的金融中心举债。法国的信用从来不高，在 1557 年拒绝还债给“大借款”的银行家联盟后，更遭受极大的损害。它也拖欠为其打仗的外国雇佣军如瑞士人的薪金。在 1602 年，法国欠下 3,600 万里弗，债主是瑞士的州和市，以及指挥其军队的瑞士上校和上尉。法国政府一旦违约，瑞士雇佣军就停止参战。⑩

    为了解决信用问题，国家的对策是通过一种租赁机制出售公职给私人。与普通放贷相比，租主享有该公职所控制的特定长期收入。他们至少在财政区省负责征收土地税和其他税项。由于税赋经过自己的手，他们得到取回本利的较大保障。内部财政（inside finance）的制度由此而生，国家财政的主要来源不再是私人银行家，而是已属国家机器一部分的富人。后者因自己的投资，而与国家沆瀣一气。

    到头来，这些租金的信用也靠不住。政府很快将矛头指向租主，要求重新谈判相关条款。在亨利四世和财政部长叙利（Sully）治下，国家在 16 世纪早期想出一个新花样官职税（paulette）：租主如果愿意付费，可将自己的公职转变成世袭财产，以传给后裔。⑪家族制的复辟可以从早期天主教会的改革中找到根源，那时教会为现代行政管理树立了一个先例，将圣俸从圣职中区分开来（参看第 18 章）。前者享有经济租金，它的传袭因神职人士的独身而受到限制；后者是功能性职位，并接受官僚等级制度的约束。但是，一旦非神职的平民进入国家官僚机构，因为没有圣俸或封建领地的许诺，便想方设法保住工作和照顾子女。法国政府也看到，让平民融入国家，变成了削弱古老贵族影响的有效措施。追求公职的最大客源是第三等级的资产阶级成员，他们希望购买公职来提高自己的身份。所以，全面家族化渗进了法国公共行政的核心。

    官职税的采用并没终止国家筹款的诡计。国家将征收间接税的权利出售给包税商。后者在保证国家获得固定税金之后，得以保留额外的税收。国家也出售征收新税种附加税（droits aliénés）的权利，很快使传统土地税相形见绌。此外，国家增加出售公职的数量，以压抑现有公职的价格，从而稀释持有人的产权。对公职的如饥似渴，甚至令该制度的创建者感到惊讶。路易十四问他的财务总监蓬查特兰（Pontchartrain），他是如何找到购买公职的新人的。蓬查特兰回答：“陛下……国王一旦设定一份公职，上帝就会创造一名购买它的傻瓜。”⑫

    该制度造成的低效和腐败非常可怕。财政部公职颇受欢迎，通常为私人金融家所购买，因为可以提前知道国家可能的招标，从而占据对付竞争对手的优势。财政部长定期主持汇票和其他财政记录的烧毁，以防秋后算账。⑬英国在发展公共财政和优化征税的高级理论，如亚当·斯密的《国富论》，而法国的征税却日益投机取巧、严重失调。⑭例如，法国各地的盐税高低不平，创造了人为的“盐税边界”，从而鼓励自低税地区朝高税地区的走私。⑮最重要的，法国财政制度特地鼓励寻租。富人不愿投资于私人经济中的产业，宁可购买不会创造财富只会重新分配的世袭公职。与其致力于技术革新，他们宁可挖空心思来与国家和税务制度斗智。这削弱了私人企业家的活力，使新兴的私人经济领域愈益依赖国家的援助。同时，英吉利海峡对面的私人市场却在蓬勃发展。

    17 世纪晚期开发的法国财政制度相当落后，让穷人纳税，以支持有钱有势者。几乎每一个精英群体，从高级贵族、行会成员到资产阶级市镇，都为自己争取免税，把最沉重的税赋负担留给农民，这自然激起了一系列农民起义和反抗。为支持路易十四的战争而实施的增税，在 1661、1662、1663、1664、1665、1670、1673、1675 年都激起反抗。最后一次即是著名的法国红便帽起义。⑯它们一一遭受残酷的镇压。例如，1662 年的反税起义中，政府军带走五百八十四名俘虏，年过七十岁和不满二十岁的获得赦免，其余的都上了苦役船。⑰征税是为了支付军饷，但为了用武力执行征税任务，军队又必须自边境撤回，这不是在搬起石头砸自己的脚吗？它凸显了税收政策的根本教训：征税成本与百姓眼中征税当局的合法性，正好成反比。

    总督和中央集权

    17 世纪下半叶，在路易十三和首相黎塞留（Richelieu）、路易十四和马扎然（Mazarin）治下，法国财政危机以总督这一新建制为中央集权铺平道路。他们通常是年轻官员，前程全靠自己。如托克维尔所说，他们“并不是靠选举权、出身或买卖官职才获得手中权力”。重要的是，他们与地方精英或管理财政的鬻官等级制度全无瓜葛。总督通常是新近封爵的人，其直接下属即是平民。他们不像寻租者，巴黎的政府部门可随意予以辞退。中国为郡县配备官员，土耳其派人管理外省，现在法国发明了相同的制度。托克维尔继续说道：

    然而，这些强势的官员在残余的古老封建贵族面前仍然黯然失色，仿佛消失于贵族所尚存的光芒之中……在政府内，贵族簇拥着国王，充实宫廷；他们统率舰队，指挥陆军。总而言之，贵族不仅是那个时代最令人瞩目的人物，连后代的眼光也常常停留在他们身上。若是有人提议任命大领主为总督，那便是对他的侮辱。最贫困潦倒的贵族，通常也会拒绝这样的职位。⑱

    17 世纪中期之前，总督的派遣没有全盘计划，只是中央政府为应付特定麻烦而派出的。⑲渐渐地，他们愈益牵涉征税，尤其是传统上由地方官员监督的土地税。他们的篡权就是该世纪中期宪法危机的背景。

    中央政府和地方参与者分享权力的斗争，主要涉及高等法院所发挥的作用。如前所述，法国有传统的两层会议制度。一层是省级会议，每省一个（其中最重要的是巴黎高等法院），另一层是全国三级会议。在中世纪晚期，法国国王定期召开全国三级会议来批准税赋，像英国议会一样。但没有它们，国王自己也能单独统治，这被视作专制权力的标志。从玛丽·德·美第奇摄政王的 1614 年，到大革命前夕的 1789 年，竟没召开过一次全国三级会议。代议制度在英国获得发展，在法国却没有。要弄清其中原委，必须了解高等法院为何在一国发展成为强大机构，在另外一国却没有。

    代表地方精英利益的省级高等法院基本上是司法机构。跟全国三级会议不同，它们经常开会，可以成为对国王权力的制衡。国王如想颁布一项新税，就要来高等法院注册。高等法院通常举行公众讨论，遇上税务事项，会变得相当激烈。然后，高等法院可注册原封不动的法令，可修改，也可拒绝。不受欢迎的法令会在法庭上接受地方官员口头或书面的抗议。高等法院的权力很有限，因为国王可召开所谓的御前会议（lit de justice），将高等法院所拒绝的法令强行注册。⑳高等法院的抗议仅仅让国王蒙羞而已。

    1648 年威斯特伐利亚和约（Peace of Westphalia）之后，该制度面临严重危机。其时，三十年战争的累计债款促使法国政府试图在和平时期继续战时的征税水平。巴黎高等法院的拒绝，最初导致马扎然打退堂鼓，从大多数的外省撤回总督。但高等法院领袖随后被捕，激起了所谓投石党（Fronde）的普遍叛乱。㉑从 1648 年到 1653 年，投石党运动分成两个阶段，代表了传统地方精英和贵族，对君主实施最终制裁，即武装叛乱。双方都有可能赢得内战，但到最后，政府政策激怒的各式社会参与者不能团结一致以取得军事胜利。

    高等法院和贵族的失败，为法国政治制度的彻底集权铺平道路。17 世纪下半叶，路易十四和财务总监柯尔贝尔（Jean-Baptiste Colbert），故意将总督转化成国家工具，让皇家会议（Royal Council）赋予他们在全法国的统一权力。㉒他们被安插到每个省份，权力大为增加。他们开始招募和监督地方民兵，接管公共建设，负责公共秩序。救济穷人的义务，早已被封建贵族放弃，也变成由总督经手的中央政府的功能。㉓

    国家建设过程中湮灭的自由，还包括城镇和市政的自治权。直到 17 世纪晚期，法国的城镇居民一直行使权利，以民主方式选出地方法官。他们维护自身权利，经常还获得国王的支持，作为削弱地方贵族的手段。㉔但到 1692 年，第一次废除选举，地方法官改成中央指派的总督。托克维尔对此作出评论：

    值得历史大加蔑视的是，这场伟大的革命在并无任何政治目的的情况下完成了。路易十一之所以限制城市自由，是因为它的民主性质使他感到恐惧；路易十四之所以摧毁城市自由并非出于恐惧，真实情况是他把城市自由出售给所有能赎买的城市。其实他并不想废除城市自由，而是想以此为交易，即使他实际上废除了城市自由，那也绝非本意，而仅仅是基于财政目的的权宜之计。奇怪的是，这套把戏一成不变，竟然持续了八十年。㉕

    托克维尔有一条非常有趣的评论。他所钦佩的新英格兰城镇是美国民主的基础，与中世纪的法国城镇一样，都源自相同的封建地方机构。到 18 世纪，两者却分道扬镳，原因在于法国中央政府的收买。㉖法国城镇政府开始受到寡头的控制，他们愈益通过买卖官职来获得公职，让自己出名。社区团结因而遭受破坏，除了掌控公职的精英，其他民众陷入冷漠。

    政治集权的影响是非常深远的，建立了我们今天所知的更为划一的国家。1685 年撤销南特敕令，让天主教独霸一方，导致很多企业家和巧匠的新教徒移民到欧洲他处，甚至远赴北美和南非。中央政府现有更大权力，可以宣布新税，不用担心已被慑服的高等法院的反对，全国各地的税赋差异得以降低。投石党叛乱失败之后，贵族失去了其在农村的权力基础，反被召到宫廷。他们在那里直接为自己的补助金和免税进行游说，为觐见国王而忍受操纵。古老贵族争相出席路易十四的晨服仪式（levée），就是其中一例。贵族以真正的政治权力和财富作为代价，得以保留自己的社会地位。㉗仍然剩下的权力只是他们继续控制的领主法庭。我们在第 17 章中看到，此类法庭在英国逐渐纳入皇家的控制。所以，法国只在错误的地方获得统一：丧失地方上的政治自治，以致不能在社区问题上做出决定；保留了地方贵族掌控的不平等司法制度，以致人们更加不相信既有产权的公平。

    中央集权的局限和改革的不可行

    18 世纪早期，法国国家日益增强的权力践踏了个人权利，首当其冲的是产权。但它的做法，却是典型的欧洲方式，即通过操纵法律制度，而不是罔顾法律、纯用强力。要废除惯例的权利和约束，必须经过漫长的辩论，并依照封建法律秩序的规定，在政治上争个明白。因此，剥夺高等法院的权力，足足花费了将近一个世纪的时间。法国国王对反抗的农民非常残忍，对精英参与者却有不寻常的尊敬。在投石党叛乱遭受失败之后，两名带头造反的贵族蒂雷纳（Turenne）和孔代（Condé），要求并获得了路易十四的饶恕。如果这些人是中国贵族，他们和所有家人都会被处死。

    路易十四死于 1715 年，身后的君主政体债台高筑。为了减少负债，国家诉诸类似保护费诈骗的伎俩。它掌控名叫司法堂（chambre de justice）的特别法庭，然后威胁要调查债权人的私人财务。几乎所有债权人或多或少都涉及腐败，便同意降低政府的欠债，以交换调查的取消。㉘用选择性的反腐调查来筹集收入，或胁迫政治对手，这种策略时至今日仍然流行。

    新财政部长约翰·劳（John Law）上任后，法国尝试另一套应付债权人的办法。它创建国家银行，订出硬币换成钞票的固定比率，然后强迫百姓统统以硬币兑换钞票，如有不从，则以起诉、抄家、充公来威胁。过后，银行又毁约，让钞票在硬币的基础上一再贬值，实际上只想少付债务利息。约翰·劳宣称，个人手中的财产，只有用于国王认可的正当用途，方才真正属于个人，导致孟德斯鸠（Montesquieu）称他为“欧洲史上促进专制的最伟大人物之一”。但约翰·劳的制度最终证明无法实施，随后很快破产。㉙像近代的很多专政政体，法国君主政体发现，政治法令既不能建立投资者的信心，也无法取消经济的基本原理。

    18 世纪时期，法国各式的社会和政治参与者，相互均势发生了重要改变。世界资本主义经济日益增长，提高了生产效率，导致物质财富和法国资产阶级的剧增。就重要性而言，这些经济变化却比不上同时发生的思想运动。关于人权和平等的启蒙思想，在欧洲迅速扩散，获得突如其来的胜利。18 世纪 80 年代重开三级会议，开会原因完全不同于先前：三级会议限制国王权力的权利，不再基于封建习俗的古老起源，而基于它们能代表享有平等权利的广泛公众。一般认为，法兰西王国的财政制度已变得非常可怕，既复杂又不公平。早先数代财政部长，使用各式花样来赖债和搜刮债权人，现在取而代之的是新见解：征税应该统一和公平，合法性来自法国人民推选的代表。

    法国大革命和民主莅临的故事，大家都很熟悉，我不想在本书详尽叙述。我之所以提起，只是为了一个不同目的。18 世纪 70 年代和 80 年代的法国政治家，接受新思想的影响，尝试以和平改革的方式改造旧制度，但由于既得利益团体紧紧抓住政治权力不放，而屡屡受挫。

    这样的努力有过两次。第一次始于路易十五和首相莫普（Maupeou）治下的 1771 年。莫普发起与高等法院的冲突，禁止他们彼此联系和举行罢工。对方拒绝听命后，莫普重组整个司法系统，并取消巴黎高等法院的大部分司法权。最重要的是，他废除司法等公职的出售，让由国王直接付薪的新法官取代寻租者。更为公平的新所得税也变成永久性的，所依据的是对资产更为严格和诚实的评估。政府由此向卖官鬻爵的整个制度发动正面进攻，所威胁的不但是捐官者的职位，而且是其家庭储蓄的投资。㉚

    该行动引起极大反抗，反抗者既有捐官者的既得利益团体，也有新兴的民主公众，后者奋起支持寡头反抗专制权力的扩展。传统的家族精英，把自己对改革的反抗描绘成对独裁的抵制。颇不受欢迎的路易十五突然死于 1774 年，他的继承者路易十六（大革命期间被送上了断头台），最终被迫恢复高等法院所有的权利和特权。㉛

    第二次是在杜尔哥（Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot）担任财务总监的 18 世纪 70 年代。他是重农主义者，对政治改革不感兴趣，但深受自由经济思想的影响，希望使法国经济更趋合理化。在这点上，他很像现代发展中国家的财政部长。那些部长自己是技术专家，信奉新自由主义，在 20 世纪 80 年代晚期和 90 年代脱颖而出。杜尔哥废除了谷物的出口限制，以及旨在稳定面包价格的其他复杂规定。他进一步颁布法令，废除享有特权的行会，将劳役转换成地主的新税。所有这些，都可被视为现代化和理性的经济改革，在某种意义上，甚至是必需的。但它们遇上狂暴的抗议，不仅来自面临面包价格上涨的城镇穷人，还来自行会和其他依赖国家租金的既得利益团体。杜尔哥倒台，第二次努力终告结束。㉜

    法兰西王国的政治制度无法自我革新。广大的寻租联合体获得权利，并在传统和法律中寻求保护，这就是国家权力的基础。他们的产权体现在公职中，但这是非理性和紊乱的，且多数又属不义之财。等到寻租者被非人格化和任人唯才的官僚所替代，现代法国方能涌现。如果政府正面攻击这些权利，就会使自己权力所依赖的法律制度变得非法。作为现代政治制度重要组件的法治，很早就在法国获得发展，远在负责制政治机构和资本主义之前。所以，它所保护的不是现代政治制度和自由市场经济，而是传统的社会特权和国家掌控的低效经济。即使等级制度高层，在思想上接受旧制度的破产和根本改革，他们也没有力量打破寻租联合体所建立的平衡。需要更为强大的力量，即制度外非精英团体的愤怒，借用革命来将之彻底摧毁。

    抵抗法国专制主义的失败

    如果说专制主义没在法国取得完全胜利，那么抵制它的社会团体，也没能向国家强加某种形式的政治负责制。事实上，后者的失败显然更为重要，源于他们未能团结一致、采取行动（参看图 2）。反抗场所应该是省级的高等法院和国家级的三级会议。这些法庭作出抗议、埋怨、辩论和抵抗，多次迫使法国君主政体撤回它们所反对的建议。但在革命前夕的三级会议之前，高等法院从没迫使君主政体接受自己高于行政机构的宪政原则。自然有人会问：这些封建时代遗留下的传统政治会议，为何没能参照英国的方式组织集体行动？这个问题并不局限于高等法院。在中世纪的英国和法国，城市也组织成自治的政治机构。为何前者最终发展成新英格兰城镇，后者却沦作被动的行政单位？

    图 2. 法国

    未以比较方式检视其他国家之前，我们尚不能回答这些问题。但我们可建议大致的分类，以缩小对有关原因的搜索。第一种解释，要在法国社会结构中寻找答案，如果不是更早，也要追溯到封建时代。政治学家托马斯·埃特曼认为，家族专制主义在法国、西班牙和意大利南部诺曼王国的兴起，肯定与罗马帝国崩溃之后那里自上而下的国家建设有关。卡洛林帝国之外的欧洲——英国、斯堪的纳维亚和部分东欧地区——平民和贵族之间存在更多的社会团结，并发展出了强大的基层政治机构，幸存至早期现代。在拉丁语的欧洲，这些地方机构的软弱，再加上中世纪以来的频繁战争，解释了应付专制主义的集体行动的缺席。日耳曼是卡洛林帝国的一部分，发展了非家族的专制主义。它不像西班牙和法国，没有那么早就陷入地理政治的激烈竞争。等到它真正面对军事威胁，可避免他人的错误，建立更为现代的官僚机构。㉝

    托克维尔赞成的第二种解释，将法国失败归罪于并不遥远的近代。特别是他认为，法国贵族和平民之间缺少社会团结，是君主政体的故意挑拨所致。托克维尔解释说，欧洲各地的封建制度并没有特别悬殊的差异，庄园、城市、农庄都有类似的法律和社会团结。他的第二本著作《旧制度与大革命》，在第 9 章和第 10 章中提供了很多案例。地方上的法国领主和其平民属臣，每隔两星期出席领主法庭来裁判案件，就像英国的百户法庭。14 世纪的资产阶级在省级会议和三级会议中，都扮演积极的角色，只因遭到社会差别的排斥，才在后续世纪变得消极。“无代表即不纳税”的原则，在中世纪便已得到确立，不管是法国还是英国。㉞

    对托克维尔来说，专制主义之下的法国社会不和，植根于家族制实践本身，并不植根于古代传统。“在人与人、阶层与阶层之间制造差别的所有方法，其中流毒最甚、最容易在不平等之上再添加孤立的，就是征税不公平。”麻烦始于 14 世纪下半叶：

    我敢断言，自国王约翰被俘、查理六世疯癫而造成长期混乱、国民疲敝不堪之日起，国王便可以不经国民合作便确定普遍税则，而贵族只要自己享有免税权，就卑鄙地听凭国王向第三等级征税；从那一天起便种下了几乎全部弊病和祸害的根苗，它们折磨旧制度的余生，并最终导致它的暴毙。㉟

    免税在所有特权中最受憎恨，随着税赋在 16 世纪和 17 世纪的稳定上涨而愈演愈烈。再加上卖官鬻爵，免税不只是某个社会阶层的特权，也变成个别家庭的特权。购买公职的个人，只要自己觉得安全，宁愿让同胞的权利受损。在英国，穷人享受免税特权。在法国，富人享受免税特权。

    不平等的征税使人堕落，不管是贵族还是资产阶级。前者丧失他们的统治权，作为补偿，愈加死守世袭的社会地位。考虑到有那么多新近买爵的平民，旧贵族规定，很多公职需要候选人显示“四名祖先”（即四名祖父母）的贵族出身。暴发户自己挤入行列后，又尝试对后来者关上大门。资产阶级通过搬到城市和谋求公职，试图将自己与农民分开。他们原可投入企业活动的精力和雄心，现在转向公共权威所推崇的地位和安全。㊱

    这还不是解释的终止。捐官和特权也存在于英国，但英国君主政体从没像法国那么有效地破坏议会团体的团结。托克维尔自己也承认，英国贵族从一开始起，与其说是世袭的种姓制度，倒不如说是真正的执政贵族（最佳者的统治）。才华超众的英国平民加入贵族阶层，比在其他欧洲社会更为容易，原因源自历史早期，现已模糊不清。我们再一次回到支撑龟的问题。很有可能，公职家族化本身也有赖一系列先在的社会条件，甚至被有意的政府政策所鼓励。

    寻租的社会

    法兰西王国就是今天所谓寻租社会的早期原型。在这样的社会中，精英花费所有时间来攫取公职，以保证自己的租金收入——在法国的例子中，那就是可以私用的长期固定收入的法律权利。

    寻租联合体稳定吗？它持续几乎两个世纪，为法国作为主要大陆政权的崛起提供了政治基础。另一方面，我们知道冠冕堂皇的法国宫廷掩盖着严重的虚弱。最重要的是联合体之外的人们，都感受到愤怒和不公，这种感觉鲜明而强烈，最终在大革命中爆发出来。甚至联合体内的人，也不相信它的原则。如能彻底废除卖官鬻爵，君主政体会很高兴，曾在王国末期作出尝试。寻租者只顾自己，对他人存有很少同情。他们自己已深深陷入这个制度，所以无法容忍改革的想法。这是完美的集体行动难题：废除该制度，社会整体会受益匪浅；但制度参与者出于个人利益，便会阻止合作和变更。关于政治发展中法治的作用，法国的例子提供了教训。现代国家存在之前，法治便已出现于中世纪。它约束暴政，但也约束现代国家的建设。为了引进真正的现代社会，必须废除它所护卫的旧社会阶层和习俗。早期现代时期，对抗君主政体以捍卫自由，实际上是在保护传统的封建秩序和世袭的封建产权。而这封建产权，恰恰又与现代资本主义的经济秩序水火不容。政府觉得，它必须尊重传统精英的产权，既然不能直接征用，只好诉诸借贷和愈益离奇的财政花招。于是，家族统治如鱼得水。国家对法治的尊敬，反而帮助建立了高度不平等的社会，虽然尝试染指寡头精英的财富，但终告失败。所以，它只能在穷人和政治弱者身上筹集收入，从而加剧不平等，并为自己的灭亡铺平道路。 法国古老的家族制在革命中死去。不过，西班牙旧政权却创建了类似的制度，在 18 世纪躲过革命和改革，并将之输往拉丁美洲，后者不得不与这份遗产长期共处。

    第 24 章 家族化跨越大西洋

    拉丁美洲政府的特征未见于世界其他地区；早期现代的西班牙发展出与法国类似的家族专制主义；西班牙制度和其移植至新大陆殖民地

    拉丁美洲大陆在地理、种族、文化和经济上具有极大的多样性，但各国又显示出共同特征，使拉丁美洲的政府模式，与东南亚、中东和非洲迥然不同。

    到 21 世纪早期，拉丁美洲人口的大多数居住在世界银行标为“上中等收入”的国家。他们的年度人均收入在 4,000 到 12,000 美元之间，不但超过非洲的大部分国家，甚至超过快速增长的新兴国家，如印度和中国。①然而，经济增长趋于跳跃式，平均来看，仍远远低于 20 世纪中期以来的东亚国家。②第三波民主化以来，它在总体上成为世界上最民主的地区之一。随着民粹政府的兴起，例如在委内瑞拉，也出现了民主倒退。③

    拉丁美洲在两个方面表现平平。第一是平等。该地区在收入和财富的不均上名列世界前茅。21 世纪的头十年，某些国家的不均水平略有下降，但仍相当顽固。④第二是法治。举行选举，使用民主负责制来摆脱不得人心的领袖，拉丁美洲国家做得都不错，但司法的日常工作却比较落后。这体现在治安不良、犯罪率居高不下、法庭程序堵塞、脆弱或无保障的产权、很多富人和强人的胡作非为。

    这两个现象——不平等和脆弱的法治——互有关联。法治的保护在拉丁美洲通常只适用于极少数人，如大企业主管或工会成员。在秘鲁、玻利维亚和墨西哥，多达 60% 到 70% 的人口生存于所谓的非正式领域（informal sector）。这些人经常没有自己住家的房契，从事无照的商业，如果受雇，也不是工会成员，得不到正式的劳工保护。很多贫困的巴西人住在蔓延的贫民窟（favelas），政府当局袖手旁观，正义经常私下解决，有时还得靠犯罪集团。执法不公平更促进了经济不公平，穷人居住的世界基本上得不到法律保护。他们不愿投资于自己的家，因为没有明确的法律文件。他们身受犯罪之害时，也不愿信任警察。⑤

    要发现不平等的来源很容易，其大部分都是承继下来的。很多古老精英的富有家庭是大地主，其祖先建立大庄园，又将之顺利传给后裔。很多拉丁美洲国家的财政制度，又使不平等得到进一步深化。经济合作与发展组织（Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development）的富裕国家，其财政制度主要用于从富人到穷人的再分配。它的实施可通过累进税制度（如美国），也可通过再分配政策，向低收入家庭提供资助和社会服务（如欧洲）。相比之下，拉丁美洲的财政制度只做很少的再分配，在某种情况下，再分配却给了相对优越的团体，像参加工会的公务员或大学生。正式领域的工人和各式精英，得以保住自己的福利和补助金。事实上，他们中的大多数在逃税方面相当成功。不像美国的累进个人所得税，拉丁美洲国家的税收很少来自个人。其富人擅长于隐藏自己的真正收入，或转移财产到海外，远离税务官的控制。这意味着，征税主要来自消费税、关税和增值税，落在穷人头上的便高得不成比例。

    21 世纪初，拉丁美洲政府在管理宏观经济政策上大有长进，但这只是近况。其历史的大部分时期，拉丁美洲政府因预算赤字、公共部门大量举债、通货膨胀和国债违约而声名狼藉。⑥全洲范围的最后一次是在 20 世纪 80 年代初，墨西哥、巴西、阿根廷、秘鲁、玻利维亚和其他国家都宣告延期还债，通货膨胀随之猛升。阿根廷在 20 世纪 80 年代末经历了真正的恶性通货膨胀，年增长率超过 1,000%。它在 2001 年又一次面临财政崩溃和国债违约。

    在政治上，拉丁美洲的统治也与众不同。如上所述，该地区近来有很好的民主记录。但在 20 世纪 60 年代和 70 年代，即古巴革命之后，该洲所有大国都屈服于军事独裁。虽然民主根源可追溯到 19 世纪早期第一个独立国家，但拉丁美洲没有一个政权其民主政府的历史始终不断。除了菲德尔·卡斯特罗的古巴，该地区的独裁政府没能建成可被称为极权主义的强国，也没能掌控足够的强制力，实施真正的社会革命，如剥夺富有精英的资产和收入。该地区的威权政府从没能采取极端措施（很幸运），像苏联或中国共产党政权下那样的集体化，或中国“文化大革命”那样的大规模死亡。做不到的还有“选举式威权”（electoral authoritarian）政权，如查韦斯的委内瑞拉，它们甚至无法控制政权本身的犯罪或腐败。⑦国家权力的伤害，大多落在非精英身上。如 20 世纪 80 年代，危地马拉政府发动可怕的剿反，以反对原住民族的游击队运动。富有的精英学会与非民主政府和平共处，避开国家权力的锋芒，经常获益于制度化的腐败。

    如果这听起来亲切，那是因为这使人忆起法兰西王国的统治模式。在拉丁美洲，这些先例来自非常相似的家族政权，即早期现代的西班牙。跟法国相似，西班牙专制国家在 1492 年之后勉强拼凑而成。由于无止境的战争，西班牙君主政体永远处于破产之中。它试图通过借贷来弥补预算赤字，但很快在债权人面前丧失信用，最终诉诸像法国一样的各式伎俩来筹集资金，包括债务一再重整、货币贬值和出售公职。事实上，这个外强中干的国家为了搜寻现金，将愈来愈多的公职，包括大部分军队，都售给私人企业家。其结果是如出一辙的内部财政，私人成功地获取了国家创造的寻租权。贪污现象比比皆是，卖官鬻爵完全腐蚀了公私之分。

    同时，托克维尔所叙述的法国因素，也在西班牙削弱对专制主义的抵抗。贵族、士绅和第三等级，本来应该团结起来抵抗王室权力，但却由于国家向个人提供参与分享租金的机会，而陷入四分五裂。中世纪时，西班牙议会（Cortes，像法国高等法院和英国议会）必须批准新税。但到后来，它中止了其制衡国家权力的功能。对公职和级别差异的耿耿于怀，又阻碍了西班牙社会采取集体行动。

    这就是移植到新世界的政治制度，借助于新西班牙（墨西哥）总督辖区（viceroyalty）和秘鲁总督辖区。此外，它治下的社会制度比欧洲的更为不平等。就像收复失地运动（Reconquista）之后的西班牙，新大陆也是军事征服得来的。但不像前摩尔人领土，新大陆有大量原住民。16 世纪 40 年代，在玻利维亚的波托西（Potosí）和墨西哥的萨卡特卡斯（Zacatecas）发现重要银矿，由此开创了庞大的采矿帝国。欧洲统治者享用开矿租金，做工的都是沦为奴隶的原住民劳力。编年史家注意到，奔赴新大陆的西班牙人，不是去做工，而是去当主人：他们“全靠印第安人的劳动、手工和汗水”。⑧从一开始，西班牙美洲的经济道德就不同于定居新英格兰殖民地的农民小地主。如果美国政治制度都以黑奴历史悠久的南方各州为基础，其结果就是拉丁美洲的殖民政府。

    破产的西班牙国家

    随着斐迪南（Ferdinand）和伊莎贝拉（Isabella）在 1469 年的联姻，现代西班牙国家迅速出现于世界舞台。该联姻合并了阿拉贡王国和卡斯提尔王国，再加上阿拉贡属下的领土加泰罗尼亚（Catalonia）、那不勒斯、西西里岛。联袂后的君主政体在 1492 年征服摩尔人的最后堡垒格拉纳达（Granada）。同年哥伦布前往新大陆，为西班牙争得西印度群岛（the Indies）。他们的孙子查理五世添加了包括低地国家（Low Countries）和弗朗什-孔泰（Franche-Comté）的勃艮第，到 1519 年当选为神圣罗马皇帝，更把奥地利哈布斯堡王朝的土地纳入版图。

    16 世纪中期哈布斯堡帝国在欧洲的统治范围

    16 世纪 20 年代，查理五世控制当时世界上最大的帝国。帝国形成是通过王朝同盟，而不是征服，这一事实造就了财政上的捉襟见肘，从而对国家制度发展的性质发生决定性的影响。查理五世和儿子腓力二世（Philip Ⅱ）只有卡斯提尔一个安全的征税基地（包括珍贵的新大陆殖民地），不能向帝国其他地区抽取资源来应付开支。⑨尽管如此，哈布斯堡君主政体在半岛之外担起了昂贵的担子。其中之一就是在 16 世纪发起与法国的持久战争，为了控制意大利，尤其是米兰公国。另外的是与荷兰联合省长达八十年的战争。最后，还有在日耳曼土地上发生的毁灭性的三十年战争。它由于法国首相黎塞留支持新教徒，而演变成一场泛欧大战。这段时期的战争，因开发了星状要塞（trace italienne），而变得异常昂贵。这种要塞不易遭受围攻炮火的伤害，但城防工程因此而变得格外拖延和艰辛。⑩所有这些战争费用，卡斯提尔纳税人承担了其中的 80%。⑪

    尽管有来自新大陆的贵金属，这些昂贵的外务负担几乎压垮了西班牙的财政制度。在 16 世纪和 17 世纪，政府费用始终数倍于美洲殖民地的汇款。金银进口，从 16 世纪 30 年代和 40 年代的每年 20 万至 30 万枚达克特，增至 16 世纪末最高的每年 220 万枚。但仍跟不上增长的债务，它在同期从 120 万涨至 600 万枚。⑫

    16 世纪早期的西班牙国王宁愿借贷，也不愿增税，很快发现自己的信用不佳。在 16 世纪 20 年代，债务服务费用就超过税入的三分之一。到西法持久战争结束的 1560 年，它已超过税入的 100%。⑬西班牙国王募集不到足够的资金来应付赤字，只好在 1557、1560、1575、1596、1607、1627、1647、1652、1660 和 1662 年宣布破产。⑭这些破产并没赖掉债务，更像今天所谓的债务重整。国王以这些债务属于高利贷为由，宣布延期偿付短期和浮动的债务，然后再跟债权人开始拖延和不怀好意的谈判。债权人被迫将旧债务换成一纸新契（juro al quitar），有资格分享未来的税收，就像法国的租金。这种债券未标日期，可以转让，最初年息是 7%，但要面对利率和本金的任意调整。通过这种债券，西班牙君主政体得以染指卡斯提尔社会精英的储蓄——神职人员、贵族、士绅、官僚等。最强大的债权人往往能获得较好条款，或者不受延期偿付的限制，或者让较弱的债权人承受债务重整。维多利亚公司（Vitoria）无法收到政府付款时，便拒绝偿付自己的债权人，包括“修道士、修道院、救济院、寡妇孤儿、其他非商人”。⑮政府发现，在政治上更难向这些精英直接征税，宁可选择不断赖账。这个传统也传至拉丁美洲的当代政府，如阿根廷。它在 2001 年的经济危机后，强迫外国投资者以及国内的养老金者和储户大量放弃手中的国债。

    无代表仍纳税

    当时很多欧洲人，尤其是受到西班牙威胁的英国人，对西班牙国王所谓的专制权力心存敬畏，相信他具有“像土耳其一样”的征税权和特权。但西班牙政权的财政基础却非常不稳定，国王对自己属下精英的权威也受法律和习俗的限制。西班牙的专制主义太弱，不敢像中国和俄罗斯那样向自己的精英发起正面进攻。它也无法像英国所做的那样开发基于情愿的合法征税制度。

    像其他欧洲国家，聚集成西班牙的各王国都有称作议会的中世纪机构。莱昂王国（Kingdom of León）的议会是欧洲最古者之一，阿拉贡王国的议会是组织最好者之一，非常强势。⑯兼并莱昂的卡斯提尔王国议会，与英国议会或法国三级会议相比，其代表性少而限制多。它通常并不邀请作为集团的神职人员或贵族跟平民坐在一起开会。在 14 世纪，召集到议会的有一百座城镇的代表（procuradores），到 15 世纪，该数字跌至来自十八个城市的各两名代表。这三十六个人声称可代表全西班牙讲话，但实际上只是治内主要地区的寡头代表。⑰

    议会的传统权力也受到限制。它没有立法权，因为已经留给国王。腓力二世在 1567 年颁布的新法典（Nueva Recopilacion）说，“一定要召集议会，征得代表的首肯，方能在整个王国征收税赋、捐献和其他税项”。但这指的是新设的额外税。像消费税（alcabala）、关税（regalias）、盐税及矿物开采税（quintos）的既存税，则不需要获得批准。国王也宣称，如果需求“合理”，议会无权拒绝。什么是合理，全凭国王说了算。

    国王和议会的相对权力不是凭空而来的，而是政治斗争的结果。中央政府将消费税包给包税商，但遭到各城市的反对，后者宁要由自己负责收集和分配的人头税（encabezamiento）。人头税当年是伊莎贝拉批准的，1519 年被查理五世废除，从而激发所谓的公社叛乱（comuneros）。查理五世在议会安插自己心腹，不顾反对，强行通过新税。反对原因在于他被视为外国人（出生于佛兰德斯），向卡斯提尔征收的税，又用于不涉及本地利益的外国战争。卡斯提尔所有的城镇都奋起反抗，组织民兵，并要求另组民选议会，拥戴胡安娜女王（Queen Joanna）当政。要不是公社叛乱进而反对贵族，查理五世很可能丢失对王国的控制。贵族转而向国王靠拢，查理五世最终得以重建军事控制。⑱

    公社叛乱的结果，在某种意义上，很像一百三十年后法国的投石党叛乱。国王以决定性的军事胜利宣称他对城市的权威。由民选的独立议会充任西班牙的自由保护人，这种想法彻底寿终正寝。同时，国王意识到他需要化解不满，遂逐一收买潜在的对手。当初激发叛乱就是因为人头税的废除，他现在予以恢复，还将服务税（servicios）和普遍税（millones）的新税留在地方当局手中。他们多半是家族官僚，帮国王征税，自己可保留一部分。⑲议会后来重开时，只提供咨询，再也没有要求或获得征税的权力。但他们的偏袒还是会影响公共财政，因为他们不愿支付财产税，所以新税都是影响穷人甚巨的商业税，从而阻碍西班牙的经济增长。

    西班牙国家的家族化始于 16 世纪 60 年代，在腓力四世（1621—1665）治下到达顶峰。跟法国一样，驱动这一进程的是西班牙的持久战争和无止境赤字。西班牙第一次破产是在 1557 年，国王要他的朋友和侍臣鲁伊·戈麦斯（Ruy Gómez）去兜售市政公职，多多益善。⑳跟法国不同，西班牙的卖官鬻爵最初只是城市和地区的。该措施受到广泛谴责，大家知道售出的公职不能提供足够的回报，除非走歪门邪道。㉑尽管如此，财政困境促使国家出售更多公职。到了 1650 年，据估计政府共创造三万名捐官，按人均来算是同期法国的两倍。㉒此外，卡斯提尔领土的 30% 回归领主法庭的管辖，不是为了政治目的，而是因为君主政体急需现款。各城镇的全部权力，包括征税权和司法权，都出售给私人。在某个意义上，西班牙的国家建设开了倒车，由于财政上的短见，中央政府失去对大部分领土的控制。

    家族制也影响军事组织。西班牙经历很多世纪，方从摩尔人的手中获得解放。卡斯提尔王国和阿拉贡王国联姻合并时，军队组成所谓的步兵方阵，配备长矛，以后又改成火绳枪（arquebus，编按：中国称鸟铳或鸟枪）。㉓如此训练和装备的西班牙军人，在科尔特斯（Cortés）和皮萨罗（Pizarro）的率领下，战胜了新大陆的本土帝国。他们也奔赴西班牙帝国的其他地区驻防，尤其是意大利北部的基地，从那里可经过所谓的西班牙路（Spanish Road）直达低地国家。㉔卡斯提尔士兵参与了 1533 年反对奥斯曼帝国的维也纳防御战。西班牙水兵也以少量舰队参与 1535 年进攻突尼斯（Tunis）、1538 年试图攻占阿尔及尔（Algiers）、1571 年重大的勒班陀战役（Battle of Lepanto）。到了 17 世纪，募集陆海军的任务越来越多地交托给自资招募军人的私人和装备自己舰船的沿海城镇。向军队供应必需品的后勤基础，又受控于热那亚（Genoa）的金融家。这意味着，到 17 世纪中期，西班牙君主政体对属下的武装力量只行使很有限的控制。㉕

    像其他西欧国家，法治扮演了重要角色，限制了西班牙国王在产权和公众自由方面的权力。跟北欧不同，罗马法的传统在西班牙没有完全消失。《查士丁尼法典》重现于 11 世纪之后，西班牙发展了颇为强大的民法传统，民法被视作神法和自然法的成文化。国王可颁布制定法，但新法典讲得很清楚，必须遵循既存的法律先例，与之相悖的皇家法令则没有效用。天主教会仍是教法的监护人，并经常向皇家特权挑战。与习惯权利和特权相抵触的皇家命令常常受到抵制，此举被称作“服从但不执行”（Obédezcase, pero no se cumpla）。赴新大陆的征服者（conquistadore），如果从总督辖区接到自己不喜欢的命令，经常援引此理。个人如不同意收到的皇家命令，有权向皇家会议提出申诉。后者像英国的对应物，享有西班牙的最高司法权。根据历史学家汤普森（I. A. A. Thompson），卡斯提尔的皇家会议信奉条文主义（legalism）和正当程序，反对随心所欲。它还主张相对于行政模式的司法模式，积极抵制非正常程序，始终保障既定的权利和契约义务。㉖

    该法律传统的影响，体现在西班牙国王如何处置国内敌人和百姓产权。在西班牙，找不到秦始皇或伊凡雷帝（Ivan the Terrible）那样的帝王，他们会任意处决自己宫廷的成员，以至灭族。像同期的法国国王，西班牙君主在搜索财源中不断侵犯国人产权，但仍在现有法律的框架中运行。他们没有任意征用资产，只是重新谈判利率和本金的偿还表；不愿增税以造成对抗，只是使货币贬值，承受较高的通货膨胀。滥发货币的通货膨胀实际上也是一种税赋，但无须通过立法，对普通百姓的伤害超过精英，后者拥有的大多是实物资产，而不是货币资产。

    制度移植到新大陆

    与长期定居、拥有古代习俗的社会相比，征服社会为制度的发展和改革提供了不同的机会。征服社会可实施当代企业所戏称的“未开发地区的发展”——不受既得利益团体和习惯行为的妨碍，彻底重建制度。奥斯曼帝国在封地上安顿骑士，使之成为仅一代的贵族，因为土地是不久前抢来的。一点也不令人惊讶，西班牙征服新大陆时，随身带来了现成制度。与欧洲相比，他们面对更少既得利益者的遏制，以及不同的经济机会和自然资源。如果拉丁美洲的统治类似于西班牙王国的统治，制度移植却不一定直截了当，或刻不容缓。

    收复失地运动的最后战役之后，接踵而来的就是西班牙征服美洲：哥伦布（Christopher Columbus）目睹斐迪南和伊莎贝拉在格拉纳达凯旋入城；科尔特斯的叔叔和父亲参与反对摩尔人的战役。科尔特斯在与阿兹特克人（Aztec）打仗时，好像仍在与摩尔人作战，运用分而治之的类似策略。㉗

    很多有关定居、殖民和政治制度的技术，直接搬自西班牙南部的殖民经验。事实上，征服者习惯把美洲本土庙宇称作“清真寺”。

    这些早期探险受到西班牙国王的资助，但主要依靠组织探险的私人企业家的能量。一边是身处新大陆的个人，另一边是尝试严控殖民地的马德里政府，两者之间的互动造就了拉丁美洲的制度发展。金银开采权利特别重要，因此颁给私人的土地不包括地下权益，全部留给国家。赴秘鲁和墨西哥的大部分移民，并不涉及金银的开采。更确切地说，他们只想充任土地和由此而生的农业资源的主人。与西班牙南部相比，他们面对全新环境，所征服的土地住有密集人口，适合不同模式的开发。

    为了奖励和控制征服者，西班牙当局发明了托管权（encomienda）制度，所赠予的不是土地，而是原住居民。如奥斯曼帝国的封地，国王的意图是防止既得利益的地方贵族兴起。托管权的赠予是有条件的，不得遗传。㉘科尔特斯征服了阿兹特克首都特诺奇提特兰（Tenochtitlán），其幸存属下中大约有 40% 获得托管权，相当多的皮萨罗追随者在秘鲁也获得托管权。从技术角度看，托管权并不将原住民当作奴隶，但要求他们提供劳力，以换取监护者给他们的基督教教育和善待。西班牙国王以家长姿态，担忧新主人虐待原住民工人，也担忧天花和其他极易为印象第安人感染的疾病造成原住民人口急剧下降。所以，基于种族的主奴等级关系成为早期拉丁美洲制度的组成部分。

    为统治美洲殖民地，西班牙迅速建立了相对有效的现代行政机构。西班牙新大陆帝国的合法性来自教皇亚历山大六世 1493 年的诏书，它将西印度群岛（地理范围不明）永远赐给卡斯提尔和莱昂的国王。权力属于西班牙国王和马德里的西印度群岛理事会，再传至设立于墨西哥和秘鲁的总督辖区。用于新大陆的法律是卡斯提尔的，与帝国其他地区毫无关联，尽管很多西班牙征服者和新移民出生于他处。科尔特斯在 1519 年开始对墨西哥的征服，下一年就发生重大的公社叛乱。由于这场叛乱，移植到新大陆的政治制度不包括强大的议会，或其他类型的代议制度。政治独立的唯一努力来自皮萨罗的兄弟贡萨罗（Gonzalo），他尝试成为独立的秘鲁国王，在 1548 年被皇家军队打败并处决。自那以后，中央权力再也没有受到新大陆西班牙人的挑战，直到 19 世纪早期的独立战争。

    西班牙当局移植罗马法律制度，在十处建立高级法庭（audiencia），包括圣多明各、墨西哥、秘鲁、危地马拉、波哥大。派去帮助治理殖民地的行政人士中，有很多是具丰富民法经验的律师和法官。行政人员不得与本地女子结婚，或在领地上建立家庭联系，很像中国的县令或奥斯曼帝国的桑贾克贝伊。历史学家约翰·赫克斯泰布尔·艾略特（J. H. Elliott）在评论殖民地政府时写道：“如果现代国家中的‘现代性’，指的是将中央权力的指令传达到遥远地区的机构，那么西班牙美洲殖民政府要比西班牙政府，甚至其他任何早期现代的欧洲国家，更为‘现代’。”㉙在这一方面，它与英国君主政体对北美殖民地的放任态度，形成鲜明的对比。

    大庄园的铁律

    1570 年在新大陆的西班牙行政机构，似乎比同时代的欧洲制度更为现代，但好景不长。西班牙政治制度的家族化要到 17 世纪才加大油门，卖官鬻爵之类的制度移植到新大陆也属无可避免。推动这个过程的基本动力，来自殖民地实际参与者的倡议。他们试图增加自己的租金和特权，而马德里的中央政府太软弱、太遥远，无法予以制止。

    大地产或大庄园的铁律——富人将变得更富，除非遭到国家的遏制——既适用于像中国和土耳其那样的农业社会，也适用于拉丁美洲。移民阶层强烈抵制托管权仅维持一代的规定。一点也不奇怪，他们要求将自己的权利传给孩子，便在 16 世纪 40 年代公开违抗托管权自动回归国王的法律。拥有原住民的劳力，使部分托管权主人发财致富，并开始购买大片土地。不像托管权，土地可以遗传。到 16 世纪晚期，美洲面对本土居民濒临灭绝的危机。墨西哥的人口从 2000 万跌至 160 万。㉚这意味着许多人口稀少的土地突然进入市场。

    新兴的克里奥尔（creole，编按：指生于美洲的西班牙白种人）精英大多住在城镇，雇用劳力开发土地，自己只是缺席地主。拉丁美洲惯例的土地所有制，与其他部落社会相比，基本上没有很大差异。产权共有，并联系着扩展的血缘团体。剩下的印第安人，要么受骗售出自己的土地，要么被人赶走。共有土地变成私人地产，由于玉米和木薯等本地作物被欧洲经济作物所取代，周遭环境大变。很多农地转换成养牛牧场，对土壤肥力造成极大损害。马德里政府承诺保护原住民地主的权利，但天高皇帝远，无法控制实际局势。而地方上的西班牙当局往往与新兴的地主阶层狼狈为奸，帮助后者逃避有关规则。这就是拉丁美洲大庄园（hacienda）的起源，在后续年代里，成为不平等和持久冲突的根源。㉛

    少量精英却拥有大片土地，在西班牙长子继承权（mayorazgo）实践中找到支持。它防止土地的分割出售和大庄园的瓦解。17 世纪见证了富人的大肆兼并，甚至是整座村庄和城镇。他们再借用长子继承权，以防遗产分配造成土地流失。长子继承权也已移植至新大陆。西班牙当局试图限制长子继承权的牌照，所依据的道理与他们要求收回托管权一样。地方上的克里奥尔或移民群体，转而使用改进继承权（mejora）。父母在遗产分配上可作偏袒，目的仍是维持宗族的实力和地位。㉜

    强大的地主阶层出现，但无法成为凝聚的政治参与者。像法兰西王国，税务制度帮助将个别移民与国家绑在一起，破坏了他们可能建起的与非欧洲同胞的团结。构成早期移民浪潮的有大批单身男子，结果与本土女子要么结婚，要么生孩子，造就了麦士蒂索混血阶层（mestizo）。愈来愈多的黑奴运来新大陆，与白人一起生下的后代叫穆拉托（mulatto），成为又一单独阶层。区别于这两个阶层，西班牙移民的后裔克里奥尔可以享受免税。这种待遇，如在西班牙，只属于贵族和士绅（hidalgo）。就像在北美，身为白人就能获得地位，截然不同于恭恭敬敬的印第安人和黑人。㉝

    考虑到国王在马德里的财政拮据，卖官鬻爵的欧洲制度最终越过大西洋也许是不可避免的。西班牙美洲的财政管理，在 16 世纪的大部都还不错。殖民地毕竟是贵金属的主要来源，再逐渐改为农产品。到世纪末，矿产开始下跌。随着三十年战争的进行，西班牙国王对税收的需求又有增加。君主政体防止新大陆出现贵族阶层的努力，因此而销声匿迹。艾略特如此描述这个转变：

    城市的主要家庭借助与皇家管理机构的特殊关系，聚积资源，按自己需求建立继承权，巩固对城镇和内地的掌控。他们还利用国王日益恶化的财政困境，趁机购买公职。市政会职位（regimiento）的私人交易由来已久，从 1591 年起，更变成公开出售。从 1559 年起，公证官的职位上市。到 1606 年，几乎所有地方公职都跟进买卖。腓力二世和腓力三世反对出售财政部的公职，但到 1633 年，腓力四世开始放开买卖。最终，到 17 世纪下半叶，甚至最高级职位也上了市场。从 1687 年起，就系统性地出售高级法庭的职位。㉞

    像法国和西班牙，对商人阶层来说，购买公职成为提高社会地位的途径。他们现在把自己当作绅士（caballero），将来再传给孩子。古老家庭更可购买西班牙贵族的爵位，以保护他们相对的优越地位。17 世纪的西班牙君主敞开大门，允许数百名克里奥尔进入颇有声望的西班牙军事修道会（Military order），分封其余的为侯爵和伯爵。

    到 18 世纪，平等和人权的原则开始向新大陆殖民地渗透，但西班牙政治制度和社会制度已在拉丁美洲获得再生。讽刺的是，家族制度的移植违背了马德里殖民当局的初衷。在 16 世纪的大部分时间，他们尝试在殖民地建立更为现代的非人格化政治秩序，但这些计划均因国王日益恶化的财政而搁浅，使他们难以实施更为强硬的遥控。伊比利亚半岛上出现的公私不分，也在美洲发生。

    在法国，寻租者和捐官者攫取国家，破坏国家权力，最终造成法国大革命的社会爆炸。在西班牙，相同的政治演变造成国力的长期衰退。但类似的政治革命，从没光顾西班牙的母国或殖民地。19 世纪早期的独立战争推崇法国大革命和美国革命的自由和平等，但其领袖是克里奥尔的精英——像西蒙·玻利瓦尔（Simón Bolívar）——他们曾深深陷入旧政权的家族政制。

    法国大革命得以在公共利益和私人利益之间重新划定明确界限。它没收所有捐官者的世袭财产和特权，谁反抗就砍谁的头。新式的政治制度，其公职的招聘基于非人格化的选贤与能——中国人在将近两千年之前就已发明的——又由马背上的拿破仑带往欧洲其他国家。1806 年，他在耶拿和奥尔斯塔特（Jena-Auerstadt）两次击败普鲁士的家族化军队，从而说服新一代的改革家，像冯·施泰因男爵（Baron vom Stein）和卡尔·奥古斯特·冯·哈登贝格（Karl August von Hardenberg），普鲁士国家必须以现代原则进行重建。㉟19 世纪的德国官僚机构，成为韦伯现代合理政府的模型。它并不来自家族化官僚，而是与传统的刻意分手。㊱

    在拉丁美洲，独立成功之前从没发生社会革命，家族制仍然嵌入很多独立后的政权。虽然出售公职和贵族封号的做法遭到废除，正式的民主制度获得建立，但旧心态依旧长存。19 世纪拉丁美洲的新国家中，很少强大到能直面自己的精英，或加以征税，或加以抑制。那些精英渗透和控制国家本身，并找到空隙，将自己社会和政治的特权传给孩子。直到 20 世纪晚期，西班牙旧政权的财政恶习，像持续赤字、过分借贷、债务重新谈判、隐性征税的通货膨胀，仍在阿根廷、墨西哥、秘鲁、玻利维亚等国徘徊。正式的民主和宪政，并不基于社会各阶层的对抗和妥协，而是精英自上而下所施与的，如果不再符合自身利益，又可收回。这引发高度不平等和两极分化的社会在 20 世纪的涌现，并酿造了真正的社会革命力量——体现于墨西哥和古巴的革命。过去一世纪中，拉丁美洲国家定期遭遇骚乱，要求对整个社会契约进行重新谈判。

    近来出现很多新兴的社会参与者，譬如工会、有密切国际关系的商业团体、城市知识分子、试图要回殖民者所夺走的地位和权力的原住民团体。拉丁美洲政治制度的对策，不管是民主的还是威权的，都趋于让他们一步步参与国家，从而收买他们，而不是政治权力真正的重新调整。例如在阿根廷，20 世纪初的前数十年，工人阶级的兴起遇到传统地主精英的顽强抵抗。在欧洲，工人阶级加入广泛组合的社会民主党，提倡再分配政策，为现代福利国家打下基础。相比之下，代表阿根廷工人阶级的却是军事领袖胡安·庇隆（Juan Perón）。他的阿根廷正义党（Partido Justicialista），向拥护者网络提供选择性的好处。阿根廷在民粹狂热和军事独裁之间左右摇摆，并没开发出真正欧洲风格的福利国家。革命制度党（Partido Revolucionario Institucional）治下的墨西哥也有类似情形，特别优惠只给选出的组织良好的拥护者。墨西哥比阿根廷更稳定，但同样无法解决社会隔绝和贫穷的难题。所以，西班牙旧政权的家族遗产仍在 21 世纪存活。

    第 25 章 易北河以东

    匈牙利成为失败负责制的另一选择；西方废除的农奴制却在东欧冒头；宪政主义和贵族统治出现于匈牙利；自由如要兴盛，既要有强大中央国家，又要有对它的制约

    早期现代的法国和西班牙是弱的专制主义和失败负责制的案例。形成于 16 世纪和 17 世纪的国家是专制的，因为它的君主政体集中权力，无须以正式方式向议会或其他代议机构负责。其他政治和社会的参与者，如高等法院和西班牙议会，公社叛乱者和投石党人，反对国家集权，最终都被一一击败。他们失败的方式凸现了专制权力的基本弱点。国家向精英参与者提供一部分国家职能，将他们逐一收买，既削弱了他们集体行动的能力，也限制了可在他们身上行使的权威。他们的财产和特权，虽然经常受到挑战和侵蚀，但基本上完整无缺。

    相比之下，匈牙利和俄罗斯提供了两条另类发展路径，它们彼此之间不同，又有别于法国和西班牙的模式。这四个案例最后都以政治负责制的缺席而告终。在匈牙利，专制努力最初是失败的，因为强大和组织良好的贵族阶层，可以向国王权力施加宪法的限制。跟英国议会一样，匈牙利议会也迫使匈牙利国王向自己负责。但他们对负责制的追求，并不代表全体国民，只代表狭隘的寡头阶层；他们只想使用这份自由，以进一步榨取自己属下的农民，又避免向中央国家缴纳重税。其结果是愈益恶劣的农奴制得到扩张，国家趋于孱弱，最终不能抵抗土耳其。换言之，一个阶层的自由导致了其余阶层的不自由，还导致国土被强大邻国宰割。

    我们花时间来考虑匈牙利的例子，只想显示，对中央政府权力的宪法限制，并不一定能建成政治负责制。匈牙利贵族阶层所追求的，是更加彻底地剥削农民的“自由”，强大中央国家的缺席让他们得逞。大家都理解出自中央专政之手的中国式暴政，但暴政也可来自分散的寡头统治。真正的自由倾向于在社会精英参与者的均势中出现，匈牙利从没能做到这一点。

    主人和奴隶

    欧洲历史中重大谜团之一是早期现代之初，即 16 世纪和 17 世纪，主子和奴隶的关系在东西欧得到截然不同的发展。易北河以西的地区——西部日耳曼国家、低地国家、法国、英国和意大利——中世纪期间强加于农民的农奴制逐渐取消。奴隶制从未在西班牙、瑞典和挪威出现。相比之下，易北河以东的地区——波希米亚（Bohemia）、西里西亚（Silesia）、匈牙利、普鲁士、利沃尼亚（Livonia）、波兰、立陶宛和俄罗斯——先前自由的农民却在历史同期逐渐沦为农奴。①

    跟封建制一样，农奴制有繁多定义。历史学家杰罗姆·布鲁姆认为，“如果一个农民受领主愿望的束缚，相互之间的关系使他低人一等，并在社会中无能为力；这种情形又被认作是领地上法律和社会结构的根本，而不是领主与他的契约或协议的结果；这样农民就是不自由的”。对农民享有司法权的是领主，而不是国家。他们的关系可由详细的惯例规则所定位，但领主可以修改规则，使之更加不利于农民。农奴仅保留少许的法律权利，不同于奴隶，但实际差别并不大。②

    从 12 世纪以来，西欧农奴在不同时期和不同程度上赢得自由。他们通常先升为领主土地上的佃户，土地使用权可能限于自己的一生，也可能传给孩子。有些土地受到限制（mainmortable），只能传给与自己同住的孩子，否则就要归回领主。在 18 世纪，废除该限制成为自由改革家的重要目标之一。在其他案例中，农民直接升为地主，享有随意买卖和赠与土地的全部权利。法国大革命的前夕，法国农民已拥有土地的 50%，超过贵族的两倍。③托克维尔指出，那时的领主早已停止参与对农民的统治。这就是残留的收费权利，或迫使农民使用领主的磨坊或酒坊，受到如此强烈憎恨的原因。④

    在东欧发生的情形恰恰相反。中世纪时期，与西方相比，那里反而有相当充分的自由。多半因为它仍属人口稀少的边境地带，来自西欧和欧亚大陆的殖民者，可遵循自己的法律。从 15 世纪开始，整个东欧建立新规则，限制农民的迁徙。农民不得离开他耕耘的土地，否则就要面对大笔罚款的威胁。帮助潜逃农奴要受沉重处罚，城镇收容农民的能力大受限制，以防止他们逃避庄园上的义务。

    农民损失最大自由的是俄罗斯。回溯到 12 世纪的基辅罗斯（Kievan Rus），其时已有奴隶和农奴。随着 15 世纪莫斯科国家的兴起，农民的义务持续上升，活动自由也在逐渐减少，直到每年仅得一次假（前提是债务已经还清），在圣乔治节（St George’s day）的前后。到了下一世纪，连这唯一年假也被取消。⑤俄罗斯领主对农奴的权利稳步加强，直到 18 世纪末。其时，人权原则正在整个西方传播。农奴永久绑在主人身上，没有活动权利。事实上，主人可随意调遣农奴，从一处地产迁到另一处，甚至将农奴放逐到西伯利亚，之后又任意召回。俄国统治阶层开始以手下农奴的数量来评估自己的地位。俄罗斯的贵族高层富得惊人：伯爵尼古拉·谢列梅捷沃（N. P. Sheremetov）拥有 185,610 名农奴；到他儿子手上，这个数字增至 30 多万。18 世纪末，伯爵沃龙佐夫（Vorontsov）拥有 54,703 名农奴；到 19 世纪中期农奴制废除之前，他的继承者光是男奴就有 37,702 名。⑥

    农奴制在东西欧为何有如此迥异的发展？答案在于经济、人口和政治因素的总汇，使农奴制在西方难以维持，在东方却盈利丰厚。

    西欧人口密集，在 1300 年是东欧的三倍。随着始于 11 世纪的经济繁荣，众多人口变成城市居民。这些城市从意大利的北部辐射至佛兰德斯，其存在首先是政治软弱的产物，再就是国王发现，保护城市的独立可以挖对手大领主的墙脚。城市也受到古老封建权利的保护，罗马时代的城市传统并未消失。由于受到如此庇护，城市发展成为独立的社区，通过贸易增长来开拓自己的资源，独立于庄园经济。⑦自由城市的存在，又使农奴制愈加难以维持。它们好像是国内的边境线，农奴可以逃到那里来赢得自由，因此有中世纪的说法，“城市空气使你自由”（Stadtluft macht frei）。⑧相比之下，人口相对稀少的东欧城市更为小型，跟中国和中东类似，主要充任现有政治权力的行政中心。

    14 世纪的灾难性人口下降，更促使西欧趋向自由和东欧趋向非自由。重复发生的瘟疫和饥荒对西欧的打击，比对东欧更为严峻，爆发时间也更早。经济增长在 15 世纪恢复，西欧看到城镇的再生。它们提供避难所和经济机会，防止贵族进一步榨取手下的农民。事实上，为了挽留农民继续耕耘，领主必须提供更多自由，从而开启了现代的劳动市场。中央君主政体发现，保护城镇的权利可以削弱贵族对手。日益增加的需求必须依赖来自东欧和中欧的进口，包括食物和贵金属。但在易北河的东面，软弱的独立城市和国王，允许贵族依靠农民劳力来开发农产品的出口。如历史学家杰诺·苏克斯所说：“从长远看，易北河对岸的地区为西方复苏作出了贡献……‘第二次农奴制’的立法凶兆，以可怕的同步出现于勃兰登堡（1494）、波兰（1496）、波希米亚（1497）、匈牙利（1492、1498）、俄罗斯（1497）。”⑨

    这是对东西欧农民权利不同模式的最明显解释。在西方，愈益强大的国王支持城市，其存在可以抵消贵族权力。在法国和西班牙，国王最终在长期斗争中获胜。与领主有委屈或冲突的农民和其他参与者，从精英的竞争中获得更多机会。在东欧，城市和君主权力都很弱，让贵族阶层自由支配属下的农民。这样的模式出现于匈牙利和波兰，国王由贵族阶层选出。东欧两个地区有强大国家：15 世纪之后的俄罗斯和 18 世纪之后的勃兰登堡—普鲁士。然而，在这两个案例中，国家都没有代表平民来反对贵族，反而联合贵族来反对农民和资产阶级，再招聘贵族服务以增加自己的权力。

    后来，农民在大规模行动中获得解放，例如沙皇亚历山大二世 1861 年的解放宣言。但非精英的真正自由——不仅农民还有城市中的工匠和资产阶级——还需依赖现有精英参与者的僵局或均势。非精英团体在两种情况下都受到压榨：第一，分散寡头变得太强大，那是匈牙利和波兰的情形；第二，中央政府变得太强大，那是俄罗斯的情形。

    宪政主义及其在匈牙利的衰落

    今日匈牙利只是中世纪幅员辽阔王国的缩影，它曾在不同时期囊括今日奥地利、波兰、罗马尼亚、克罗地亚、波斯尼亚、斯洛文尼亚、斯洛伐克和塞尔维亚等部分。匈牙利人是公元第一个千年末期侵犯欧洲的部落民族，由七个部落组成，其主要部落马扎尔（Megyeri）的统治者创建了阿尔帕德（Árpád）王朝。阿尔帕德大公伊斯特万（István），在 1000 年受洗为基督徒，并获加冕为匈牙利国王。他监督匈牙利皈依基督教，后来被追认为圣人，即匈牙利的守护神圣斯蒂芬。⑩

    14 世纪初的匈牙利

    匈牙利的王朝斗争消耗了君主政体，使之变得愈益孱弱，结果就是持续的寡头统治。随着部落财产共有制的瓦解，匈牙利君主政体最初拥有甚多地产，再加上来自皇家矿产的收入，其资源可与法英国王媲美。到贝拉三世（Béla Ⅲ，1148—1196）统治的晚期，国王开始分赠皇家地产、属下各县的大片土地、关税、市场收入等。这些不是西欧那样换取服务的封建赠与，而是新兴男爵阶层手中的自由财产。贝拉三世的继承者们为权力斗争继续向贵族竞相分送皇家礼物。⑪

    这就是 1222 年国王安德鲁二世签署金玺诏书的背景（参看第 22 章）。⑫它实际上是限制国王权力的宪法文件，只是来自颇为不同的社会参与者。在大宪章的案例中，强大的英国男爵代表整个王国发言，迫使国王约翰限制自己享有的权力。迫使国王签署金玺诏书的不是匈牙利男爵，而是皇家和城堡要塞的军人。实际上，他们想要国王保护自己免受男爵的掌控。⑬匈牙利教会获得格里高利之后强大罗马教皇的支持，也是要求政策变化的重要政治参与者。教会想保护自己的土地和特权不受进一步的侵蚀，也要求把穆斯林和犹太人的商人驱逐出国，让基督徒商人取而代之。金玺诏书的政治运作显示，匈牙利社会已在国家之外组织成强大的竞争团体，包括男爵或上层贵族、士绅、神职人员。⑭

    中央权力软弱的第一后果是蒙古人对匈牙利的掠夺。后者征服俄罗斯后，在 1241 年入侵匈牙利。⑮国王贝拉四世试图加强自己的力量，所以邀请大批异教库曼人（Cuman）进入匈牙利，反而激怒自己的贵族，后者因此拒绝参战。库曼人最后也没参战，匈牙利部队在蒂萨河之战（Battle of Mohi）中遭到彻底摧毁。蒙古人占领整个国家，得知大汗在蒙古过世消息之后，方才撤退。

    匈牙利在军事上的薄弱促进了国家建设。⑯匈牙利不知道蒙古人何时归来，也不知道还有没有其他的东方入侵者。为未来威胁作准备，路易一世（Louis I）等的后续国王投入实质性的军事行动，以扩充对巴尔干半岛的控制，甚至抵达遥远的那不勒斯。国家还实施很多改革，以保护自己免受侵略。这包括建造大量石堡和城防，以替换顶不住蒙古进攻的木砖建筑；还以西欧模式的重甲骑士，取代匈牙利军队的轻骑兵。

    军事压力导致匈牙利国王促进士绅的利益。然而，这类军人和官员没有直接进入中央国家的架构。后来的软弱国王允许他们为强大男爵服务，促使单一贵族阶层涌现。到 14 世纪，当初促成金玺诏书的皇家和城堡要塞的军人发现，自身的利益不在国王一边，而在男爵一边。⑰

    结果是非常软弱的国家，以及寡头地主团体所控制的强大社会。包括新近获得爵位的士绅的匈牙利贵族阶层，完全拥有自己财产，不欠国王任何服务义务。阿尔帕德朝代在 1301 年结束之前，国王虽是当选的，却只是个装饰。他手下没有重要的军队或资源，也没有强大的中央官僚机构。后继的安茹（Angevin）王朝治下，分权过程得到暂时逆转。该王朝终结于 1386 年，贵族迅速卷土重来。

    一直到 16 世纪末，莫斯科公国的创始家族，持续成功地孕育男性继承人。这大大帮助了其强大国家的兴起，再一次显示人类制度的偶然性。相比之下，匈牙利却面对重复的继承权斗争，因为它的朝代短命，很多国王又有外国出身。⑱觊觎王位者为了争得权力，只好让贵族得到资源好处。在西吉斯蒙德（Sigismund）国王治下，很多国王城堡都落到了贵族手中。⑲

    事实上，匈牙利贵族以议会形式将自己的权力制度化，其权力超过法国的高等法院、西班牙议会、俄罗斯的缙绅会议。⑳远远早于约翰·洛克，贵族阶层“宣布他们有权保护王国的福祉，甚至可以反对国王，如果他试图损害共同利益”。他们还以此理由监禁一名国王。㉑召开议会的先例可追溯到金玺诏书的时代，到 15 世纪中，国家议会每年开会，有权选择国王。不同于英国议会，匈牙利议会受大地主贵族的控制，仅仅代表贵族阶层的利益。如历史学家派尔·恩格尔（Pal Engel）所说，“新制度的本质是决策权的分享，在理论上分给王国中所有地主，在实践中只给参与政治的贵族”。㉒早些时候，城市也可以参加议会，但随着其影响的式微，而逐渐中止。㉓（图 3 显示中世纪匈牙利的政治权力分配。）

    图3 匈牙利

    匈牙利打造强大国家的最后机会是在 15 世纪下半叶，奥斯曼帝国已在东南方蠢蠢欲动。贵族地主约纳斯·匈雅提（Janos Hunyadi）在 1446 年被议会推选为摄政王。他通过一系列对土耳其人的军事胜利，包括 1456 年英勇的贝尔格莱德保卫战，而获得巨大威望。㉔约纳斯儿子马蒂亚斯（Mátyás，或写作 Matthias Corvinus）在 1458 年因此而当选国王，在长达三十多年的统治期间，完成了中央国家的现代化。这包括创建国王直接控制的强悍的黑军（Black Army），以取代纪律不佳和半私人的贵族部队，后者曾是匈牙利军队的基础；发展皇家秘书处，并配以大学培养的官员，以取代家族化的贵族官员；实施全国海关和直接税赋，中央政府征税急剧上升。㉕马蒂亚斯使用这些权力新工具，在波斯尼亚和特兰西瓦尼亚（Transylvania），取得了对土耳其、奥地利、波兰和西里西亚的重大军事胜利。㉖

    因军事上的必需，马蒂亚斯投入其他现代化专制君主也在做的努力。不同于法国和西班牙的国王，他仍需面对强大和组织良好的贵族阶层，被迫定期向选他当国王的议会征求咨询。贵族因他的军事成功而给他活动余地，但怨恨他所强加的与日俱增的税赋，以及在决策中自身影响力的销蚀。马蒂亚斯死于 1490 年，贵族收回中央国家在前半世纪争得的大部分权利。他们愤愤不平于自己特权的损失，渴望恢复旧状。所以，男爵们将一名软弱的外国君主推上王位，删减黑军的经费，然后将之送上土耳其的战场，结果遭到歼灭。贵族阶层还以国防能力为代价，将自己的税收负担降低 70% 到 80%。

    匈牙利返回到贵族分权的均势，很快承受后果。纪律散漫的贵族部队在 1526 年的莫哈奇战役中被苏莱曼一世打败，匈牙利国王被杀。相互争执的男爵只顾反对国家，不顾国家防御；如此场景曾在蒙古入侵中发生，现又重演。匈牙利失去独立地位，一分为三，分别受奥地利哈布斯堡、奥斯曼、土耳其属国特兰西瓦尼亚的控制。

    自由和寡头政治

    我详细讨论匈牙利的例子，是为了挑明一条相对简洁的见解：强大、凝聚且武装齐全的民间社会，能抵制中央政府，但不一定能获得政治自由。即使有宪政安排，对行政权力实施严格的法律限制，也不能保障政治自由。匈牙利正好符合上述的一切，它得以削弱中央权力，以致国家都不能抵御迫在眉睫的外国敌人。波兰身处类似情境，软弱的国王受贵族会议的控制。两个世纪之后，波兰步匈牙利的后尘，也失去国家的独立地位。

    国家独立的丧失不是匈牙利失去的唯一自由。毕竟，匈牙利面对的是庞大和组织良好的土耳其帝国，后者已在欧洲的东南部兼并了多数王国和公国。即使是一个更为集权的现代国家，恐怕也承受不了土耳其的冲击。匈牙利中央国家的脆弱，使匈牙利农民和城市处于从属地位。蒙古入侵带来了动乱和人口骤降。这之后，农民基本上成为自由人，尤其是住在皇家领地上的。作为皇家“客人”，他们有固定的权利和义务，既可充任士兵，又可以缴税来替代。他们最重要的自由是流动自由，并可选举自己的法官和教士。㉗

    但世俗和教会的地主都想把他们绑在土地上，成为可供交易的商品。皇家土地分给私人始于 13 世纪，结果使更多农民陷入地主的司法权和掌控。始于 16 世纪早期的食物涨价，促使地主增加农民所欠的领地实物税。农民被迫从事更多的劳役，从前一个世纪的每星期一天，到 1520 年的每星期三天。农民选择地方法官和教士的权利也很有限，需要接受领主的控制。㉘此外，地主开始阻止农民在不同领地之间自由搬迁，或阻止他们移往城镇。日益恶化的境况导致了 1514 年的农民大起义，起义遭到残酷镇压。起义领袖被架在火堆上“登基”，他的同伴被迫分吃从他身上割下来的肉。㉙这次起义发生在土耳其人入侵的前夕，为奥斯曼帝国的胜利贡献了有利条件。㉚

    如本章开头所提到的，愈益剧烈的农奴制回潮并不局限于匈牙利。它也发生于波希米亚、波兰、普鲁士、奥地利和俄罗斯。整个地区的贵族要求增强税赋，取消自由，限制属下人口的流动。20 世纪教诲我们，把暴政视作强大中央国家的行径，但它也可来自地方上的寡头。在当代中国，侵犯农民权利、违反环保和安全法律、从事肆无忌惮的贪污，其中最恶劣的案例，多是地方党员干部所为，或是受他们庇护的私人雇主所为，与北京的中央政府无关。中央政府的责任，就是以执法来抑制寡头；有时失去自由，不是因为国家太强大，而是太软弱。第二次世界大战后的美国，吉姆·克劳法（Jim Crow law，编按：泛指 1876 年至 1965 年间美国南部各州及边境各州对有色人种[主要针对非裔美国人，但同时也包含其他族群]实行种族隔离制度的法律）和种族隔离持续二十年，其终止还要靠联邦政府在南方各州强制执行宪法。由此看来，赢得政治自由，不是国家权力受到遏制时，而是强大国家遇上同样强大社会的制衡时。

    美国创始人理解此种平衡的必需。亚历山大·汉密尔顿（Alexander Hamilton）在《联邦论》第 17 篇中，描述州政府和联邦政府之间的权利分享。他说：
    君主最终战胜属臣的案例中，其成功主要原因是属臣对其手下实施暴政。男爵，即贵族，既是君主的敌人，又是平民的压迫者。君主和平民对男爵又怕又恨，直到相互的危险和利益促成他们联合起来，那就会置贵族权力于死地。如果贵族以仁慈和公正保住其侍从和追随者的忠心耿耿，在与君主的竞争中，几乎永远是赢家，从而削弱或颠覆君主的权力。

    汉密尔顿继续说，联邦架构中的州政府就像封建社会的男爵，它们独立于中央政府，其独立程度则取决于如何对待自己的公民。强大的中央政府在本质上是不分好坏的，其对自由的最终影响，取决于它与从属权力机构的互动。这是美国历史上的真理，也在匈牙利和波兰的历史上体现出来。

    另一方面，如果强大国家与强大寡头相互勾结，自由就面临尤其严峻的威胁。这就是俄罗斯所处的情境，莫斯科公国在匈牙利国家消亡的同一世纪崛起。

    第 26 章 更完美的专制主义

    莫斯科国家的涌现和俄罗斯政治发展的特征；君主政体依赖贵族，造成俄罗斯农民逐渐沦为农奴；与欧洲其他地区相比，专制主义在俄罗斯取得更为彻底的胜利

    尤其在弗拉基米尔·普京兴起的 21 世纪初，俄罗斯联邦成为政治学家所谓的“选举式威权”政权。①政府基本上是威权的，受控于政治家、官员和商业利益所组成的灰色网络，但仍然举行民主选举，使继续执政获得合法性。俄罗斯民主的质量很低。政权控制几乎所有的主要媒体，不允许对政府的批评，威胁反对派候选人，或使之丧失参选资格，还向自己的候选人和拥护者提供优惠。

    它在法治上的表现，比民主质量问题更为糟糕。揭露官方腐败或批评政府的新闻记者突然死去，没有看到找出杀手的真正努力。私人企业遇上政权内线人士的敌对接管，便会遭到政府部门的诬陷指控，从而被迫放弃资产。不夸张地说，重要官员即使参与谋杀，也可逍遥法外，无须负责。专门调查世界上腐败水平的非政府机构“透明国际”（Transparency International），将俄罗斯排在 180 个国家中的第 147 名，劣于孟加拉、利比里亚、哈萨克斯坦、菲律宾，稍稍优于叙利亚、中非共和国。②

    很多人看到 21 世纪的俄罗斯和前苏联的连贯性，又因俄罗斯人经常表达对斯大林和苏联岁月的怀旧，而得到放大。布尔什维克革命后的七十年，共产主义扎根于俄罗斯，当然塑造了当代俄罗斯人的态度。

    但在共产主义的下面藏有很多龟。如果仅把当代威权主义归罪于 20 世纪的政治，首先就要解说，共产主义为何在俄罗斯和中国获得彻底的成功。当然，发挥作用的还有更古老的专制传统。布尔什维克革命之前，俄罗斯已发展了强大的中央国家，其行政权力只受法治或负责制立法的软弱约束。布尔什维克之前的俄罗斯，其取得的专制主义的性质，不同于法国或西班牙的旧政权，更接近于前现代中国或奥斯曼。个中的原因与俄罗斯的地理环境有关，地理环境对它的政治文化产生了持久影响。

    俄罗斯专制主义的来源

    公元第一个千年末期，俄罗斯国家起源于乌克兰的基辅地区，基辅曾是主要的贸易站，连接北欧和拜占庭帝国等。它的持续存在中断于 13 世纪 30 年代末，其时，拔都可汗和速不台率领的蒙古军队侵占俄罗斯，基辅遭到彻底摧毁。身为教皇使节的大主教迦儿宾（Carpini）写道，经过基辅时，“我们看到现场有无数死人的头颅和骸骨，该城曾经很大，人口众多，现在却一片荒芜，只有两百栋房子还立在那里，俘虏在从事着最为恶劣的苦役”。③蒙古占领持续了将近二百五十年。很多当代俄罗斯人，被问到为何他们的国家和政治文化迥然不同于西欧时，立即把责任推到蒙古人身上。西方也有观察俄罗斯的悠久历史，如侯爵德·屈斯蒂那（de Custine）。他坚持俄罗斯应被视作“亚洲”强国，它与蒙古人、奥斯曼人、库曼人和其他亚洲人的互动，对它的成型发挥了决定性作用。④由于蒙古人民共和国的出现，见解已经转变。新一轮修正主义的历史评论，以更为肯定的语气解说蒙古人的作用。⑤

    不管怎样，蒙古入侵对俄罗斯后续的政治发展施加了重大影响，且多半是消极的。⑥首先，它切断了俄罗斯与拜占庭和中东的贸易和思想交流，后者曾是俄罗斯宗教和文化的来源。也阻碍了它与欧洲的联系，这意味俄罗斯没像西欧那样，深入参与相关的历史进程，比如文艺复兴和宗教改革。

    其次，蒙古占领大大延误了俄罗斯的政治发展。基辅遭到彻底摧毁后，基本上需要重头开始，当代乌克兰的基辅地区曾是俄罗斯老祖宗的定居点。蒙古人抵达之前，俄罗斯国家已经开始分裂。政治权力向无数自称为王的小封地流散，又因蒙古占领而获得确认。俄罗斯的重心从黑海北部的欧洲本都地区（pontic）转向东北部，当地的莫斯科大公国崛起，成为政治舞台上的中心角色。不像持续八百年的欧洲封建主义，俄罗斯的封地仅生存两个多世纪——从 1240 年开始套上鞑靼轭（Tatar yoke）到伊凡三世当政的 16 世纪中期——很快，小封地的领主必须面对日益强盛的中央君主政体。

    最后，蒙古人破坏了继承于拜占庭的法律传统，使政治生活变得更为恶劣、更为残忍。与欧洲的基督徒君主相比，蒙古统治者把自己看作纯粹的掠夺者，其目的就是从所控制的居民身上榨取资源。他们仍处在部落层次，从未发展出政治制度或正义理论，可以带给所征服的居民。他们不像传统农业国家的统治者，并不矫饰自己是为被统治者而存在的。他们只有很短的时间表，愿意以不可持续的方式大规模榨取资源。他们严惩任何抵抗力量，为了杀鸡儆猴，甚至愿意处死整座城镇的居民。他们招募俄罗斯的领主成为自己的征税官，包括将来创建俄罗斯国家的莫斯科大公。他们以自己的掠夺策略，训练数代的俄罗斯领袖。事实上，他们通过联姻而融入俄罗斯人口的基因。

    俄罗斯的兴起

    像我们所讨论的几乎所有政治体，发动战争的需要促动了俄罗斯的国家建设。像基于法兰西岛的卡佩家族，莫斯科的留里克王朝（Rurik）从自己的中心位置向外扩展，征服和吸收其他封地公国、蒙古和立陶宛等的外国军队。伊凡三世（1440—1505）治下的国家成为重要力量，兼并诺夫哥罗德和特维尔（Tver）。他给自己冠上全俄罗斯大公的称号，莫斯科公国从伊凡一世（1288—1340）的六百平方英里，到瓦西里二世（1415—1462）的一万两千平方英里，再到他自己统治结束时的五万五千平方英里。⑦

    封地期间的俄罗斯国家，其形成非常类似于中国和奥斯曼的国家形成过程。像中国西周的创始朝代，基辅贵族家庭的后裔分布于俄罗斯各地，尤其是在蒙古入侵之后。他们组建一系列小公国，相当于俄罗斯版本的封建主义。每位领主控制自己的领地、经济资源和军队，并与自由贵族（boyar）签订契约以获服务。

    莫斯科国家的权力基于服役贵族（middle service class），由骑兵组成，报酬不是现金而是封地（pomest’ia），每块封地上约有五或六户农家。由于地多人少，控制人口比控制土地更为重要。骑兵不是常备军，受领主召集而提供服务，军事季节结束后，再回到自己封地。俄罗斯和奥斯曼的封地非常相像，这可能不是意外。其时，俄罗斯与土耳其的接触愈益增多。像奥斯曼的骑士，俄罗斯部队的核心成员，如果身处欧洲其他地区，便被称作低层士绅，其土地和资源全部来自国家。俄罗斯骑兵配置相对轻便的装备，主要倚靠迂回战术。这很像奥斯曼骑兵，而迥然不同于西欧的重甲骑士。莫斯科政权组建此种部队的动机，也与奥斯曼相似。这个军事组织的地位全靠国家，不会要求现金军饷。它可被用来抵消领主和贵族的势力，后者拥有自己的土地和资源。⑧

    这是俄罗斯和匈牙利的重大差异。在俄罗斯，服役贵族接受招募，直接为莫斯科国家服务。在匈牙利，它变成贵族阶层的一部分。这不同选择也许足以决定后来的分道扬镳，一个社会走上中央集权，另一个趋于权力下放。与西欧社会相比，俄罗斯社会对莫斯科的国家建设设置了较少障碍，原因之一就是：服役贵族直接从属于国家，没有接受领土贵族的再次分封。

    俄罗斯版本的封建主义历史太短，尚没达到根深蒂固的程度，这是俄罗斯贵族无法限制中央国家权力的另一原因。俄罗斯是否经历过封建主义？俄国史学界对此有长期争论，因为俄罗斯的封地从没获得西欧对应物所享受的自治权。⑨俄罗斯的领主和较低层次的贵族没有时间建造城堡，俄罗斯的平原和大草原，将优势赋予快速移动的进攻军队，而不是防御军队。

    莫斯科国家颁布门第选官制（mestnichestvo，编按[下同]：俄语为Местничество），故意在贵族中播种不和。它将贵族家庭以及家庭内的个人划出等级。像法国和西班牙的爵位和特权的出售，门第选官制也让贵族互相竞争，从而破坏了贵族内部的凝聚力。⑩所以，俄罗斯贵族作为一个阶层，其内部团结很差，几乎没有发展出联合抵抗中央国家的机构。他们以内部的小争执而著称，经常自我损耗。

    在俄罗斯，法治一开始就比西欧薄弱。天主教会在领土主权国家之外建立教会法规，但俄罗斯东正教从没扮演过类似角色。被俄罗斯当作模型的拜占庭帝国，其教会和国家的关系是政教合一。东罗马皇帝委任君士坦丁堡的牧首（Patriarch，最高主教），裁决教会中的教条争议。格里高利改革和叙任权斗争的相似情形，从没在拜占庭的世界发生。东正教没有发展出可颁布法律的国家般的中央机构，也没像天主教会一样，将牧首法令编纂成统一的教会法规。当蒙古入侵切断了俄罗斯教会与拜占庭的交往时，它在莫斯科国家身上找到新监护人。教会和国家的利益相互吻合，后者提供赞助和权力，前者鼓吹后者作为“第三罗马”的合法性。大牧首尼康（Nikon）在 1666 年遭到开除，之后的俄罗斯教会彻底变成政教合一。到 1721 年，彼得大帝颁布《宗教事务管理章程》，干脆取消牧首职位，取而代之的是沙皇指定的神圣宗教会议（Holy Synod）。⑪

    如果怀疑法治保护西欧精英的重要性，我们只要想想所谓的沙皇特辖制（oprichnina，俄语опричнина）。那是俄罗斯历史上的黑暗年代，时值伊凡四世（1530—1584）统治的后半期，在西欧历史中找不到对应物。他被后人称作伊凡雷帝（Ivan Grozny，俄语Иван Грозный），既可译作恐怖伊凡，也可译作伊凡大帝。他心爱的年轻妻子阿纳斯塔西娅（Anastasia，俄语Анастасия）死于 1560 年，使他对周遭的宫廷官员疑鬼疑神。他突然离开莫斯科，至 1565 年方才返回，要求贵族让他建立所谓的非常行政区，并让他享有处理恶人和叛徒的唯一大权。一旦获得同意，他就发起恐怖统治，反过来攻击贵族。愈来愈多的贵族与家人一起遭到逮捕、折磨、处决。伊凡创建了所谓的特辖军（oprichniki，俄语опричники），身穿黑衣，骑黑马，成为他法外统治的特殊工具。特辖区内的私人财产遭到国家没收。之后，它又得到扩张，最后面积相当于全国的一半。估计有四千至一万的贵族被杀，古老领主家庭中存活的仅得九家，大部分土地都被充公。⑫伊凡四世好像完全失去情绪平衡，一度致命地伤害了自己的儿子兼继承人。他死后，俄罗斯只能说仍然心有余悸。⑬很难说，它不是斯大林在 20 世纪 30 年代中后期实施党内清洗的先例。其时，苏共总书记怀疑身边处处有阴谋诡计，杀光了当年与其携手闹革命的老共产党员。⑭它也使人不得不忆起清洗贵族精英的中国统治者，像武则天。

    从俄罗斯政治发展来看，使人迷惑的是贵族为何授予伊凡这些特权，祸及自身。有人认为，他们不敢想象自己可以独自当政，也害怕君主不掌大权的后果。在伊凡四世奇怪消失于莫斯科的时候，有人提出如此可能。俄罗斯人对软弱国家会造成的混乱和崩溃心怀恐惧，这并不荒谬。他儿子费奥多（Feodor，俄语Фёдор）去世于 1598 年，没有留下子女，留里克王朝因此而告终，开始了所谓的混乱时期。莫斯科国家饱受饥荒和外国侵略的困扰，因一系列“伪德米特里”（false Dmitri，俄语Лжедмитрий）竞争君位而分崩离析。莫斯科君主创造的国家机器不够强大，承受不了漫长的继承权斗争。即使君主权力崩溃，也不能回归到分权的封建统治。结果只是失序的暴力和外国的霸权，直到罗曼诺夫王朝在 1613 年涌现。

    自由选择

    俄罗斯专制主义的兴起并不由俄罗斯文化内在逻辑所命中注定。事实上，俄罗斯历史上有西方的共和或代议制度的先例，为其他可能性提供视野。西北部的城市诺夫哥罗德从没被蒙古人征服，在早期封地时期，一直是颇具活力的商业共和国。它与波罗的海贸易紧密相连，发挥门户作用，让欧洲货物进入俄罗斯。诺夫哥罗德的君主统领军队，但在执政时受市民大会（veche，俄语вече）的限制。市民大会从城市贵族中选出市长，所有自由公民都可投票。它还控制税赋、法律和外交，甚至可以解雇君主。城市内，社区在料理自己事务上行使很大自治权。诺夫哥罗德最终被伊凡三世征服，在 1478 年成为莫斯科国家的一部分。伊凡三世废除诺夫哥罗德所有的共和机构，将很多当地领袖当作叛徒处死，并将大量贵族和商人家庭驱逐出境。⑮

    第二个代议机构是缙绅会议，由贵族组成，近似于法国三级会议和西班牙议会。它的开会并无定律，但在适当时刻扮演重要角色。它批准了伊凡四世的数项倡议，例如他向利沃尼亚的开战。其他会期批准了伊凡四世儿子费奥多在 1584 年的继位，并在 1598 年向摄政王鲍里斯·戈杜诺夫（Boris Godunov，俄语Борис Годунов）提供皇位。它最重要的举动是在 1613 年核准米哈伊尔·罗曼诺夫（Mikhail Romanov，俄语Михаи́л Фёдорович Рома́нов）成为沙皇，从而终止混乱时期。该议会在 17 世纪还继续开会，批准了多次宣战和税赋，直到彼得大帝使之边缘化。⑯自那以后，代议机构在俄罗斯销声匿迹，直到 1906 年日俄战争之后召开的立法机构杜马（Duma，俄语Дума）。

    抵制权力的最后潜在来源是俄罗斯教会。如上所述，评论家经常谴责俄罗斯教会是莫斯科统治者的驯服工具，不管是沙皇时期，还是今天。但在大牧首尼康被开除之前的时期，仍有可能走上不同途径。俄罗斯东正教曾拥有近乎四分之一的俄罗斯土地，由此而享受自治。自圣谢尔盖（St. Sergius）改革以来，俄罗斯就有优良的修道院传统，但经常引起世俗统治者的怀疑。至少在佛罗伦萨大公会议（Florentine Union）触发危机之前，莫斯科的都主教（Metropolitan）都由君士坦丁堡的最高主教指派，俄罗斯君主无从置喙，之后才由俄罗斯主教会议选出。⑰也有个别教会领袖不畏暴政，如莫斯科都主教菲利普（Philip），因为谴责伊凡四世，而被赶出自己的教区，最终竟被勒死。⑱

    这些案例表明，俄罗斯传统并不是暴政不断，自由选择时有发芽开花。共产主义倒台后重现创造更为自由社会的诺言，但其兑现恐怕还在将来。

    农奴所有者结成卡特尔（Cartel）

    17 世纪末的俄罗斯国家已有中央集权，但还比不上欧洲对手。没有整齐的中央官僚机构，只有一系列所谓的衙门（prikazy，俄语Приказы），其职责既有重叠，又不一致，来自沙皇繁杂的指令（prikaz，俄语Приказ）。⑲不同于法国的总督制度，从地方到中央的政府任命，都出自沙皇，被称为“给食”（kormienie，俄语Кормление），这名字就表明制度背后的监督和掠夺意味。早在 16 世纪既已存在的地方自治政府，在伊凡四世的治下遭到废除，国家倚靠军事总督制度（voevody，俄语Воевода）来实施行政命令。军队也同样原始，仍然基于骑兵，只在首都组织新型步兵，但不一定靠得住。⑳

    俄罗斯国家建设的下一轮是在彼得大帝（1672—1725）治下。他迁都圣彼得堡，又从欧洲引进一大批新制度。彼得是个巨人，不论是体形，还是领导才能，单枪匹马尽力推行自上而下的社会改造。战争再次成为国家建设的主要动力，尤其是对抗瑞典的北方战争（Great Northern War）。彼得在 1700 年纳尔瓦战役中，败于瑞典皇帝查理十二世，遂开始对当时欧洲边界的俄军进行彻底重整，并从零开始打造海军（从最初的单船只舰发展到最终能够战胜瑞典海军的八百艘）。他也推行俄罗斯中央政府的现代化，废除老式衙门，换成模拟瑞典的参政院（a system of colleges）。参政院以技术专长为基础——大多来自外国——在辩论和执行政策方面发挥了特殊功能。

    15 世纪和 16 世纪国家建设的第一期，主要是动员服役贵族，这分裂了贵族阶层，确保他们大部分直接依赖国家。彼得甚至更进一步，征召整个贵族阶层参与国家服务。贵族入伍先当小厮，其提升全凭现代的择优标准，一生必须附属于自己的团队。所以，与欧洲相比，俄罗斯贵族服务的观念更为持久，虽然实施方式大相径庭。为国家服务的贵族随身不带自己的属臣和侍从，却在中央等级机构中获得职位。这导致俄罗斯社会的总体军事化，在道德上重视责任、荣誉、等级、服从。㉑

    支撑俄罗斯专制主义的内部政治力量，其平衡可用图 4 来说明：

    图4 俄罗斯

    彼得大帝在 1722 年以官秩表（Table of Ranks）替换古老的门第选官制。每个国民都有自己的法定等级，以及相应的特权和义务。非贵族人员一旦升到足够的等级，不管是在官僚机构还是在军队，就可自动进入世袭贵族的行列。新鲜血液进入贵族，这很有必要，因为国家需要大批公职人员。官秩表确定贵族的集团身份，并加强其采取集体行动的能力。但它从不将自己视作君主政体的对手，因为其利益与国家紧密相连。㉒

    贵族提供服务，以换取免税、土地人口专有权和进一步榨取农奴的机会。农奴在君主赠与贵族的封地上首次出现，这显示农民条件的恶化和贵族服务阶层的兴起，以及两者的密切相连。这些封地倾向于在南方、东南和西方，都是国家夺之于邻国的新土地。辽阔的北方领土上没有战事，它的农民处境要好得多——基本上只是国家的农民，只有欠国家的义务，不欠私人地主的。㉓

    整个 16 世纪和 17 世纪，农民的税赋日益上涨，而更为重要的法律限制则针对农民的行动自由。根据古老的传统，农民有权离去，但在后来受到愈来愈多的限制，最后竟被全部废除。㉔限制农民的迁徙是至关重要的，它直接影响俄罗斯贵族的团结，以及贵族与君主政体的同盟。

    讽刺的是，此中原因与俄罗斯的地理有关。它缺乏地理界限，非常不适于奴隶制的发展。俄罗斯只有很少阻挡迁徙的自然屏障，如无法通行的大河或山脉。国家因扩张而不断拉长边境线，尤其是在南方和东南方。乌克兰南部和顿河盆地（Don Basin）的自由哥萨克社区，据说由逃走的农奴所建。像蓄奴农地与开放边境相邻的美国南方，只有农奴主之间达成牢固协议，以限制农奴行动、送回逃奴、既严罚逃奴又严罚违规地主，农奴制度方能取得成功。如有主要参与者不予合作——或是部分地主，或是自由城市，或是向逃奴提供保护的国王——整个制度就会崩溃。考虑到这段时期劳力缺乏，任何地主如果退出联盟，以较好条件将农奴吸引到自己领土，便会获取丰厚的利润。所以，必须以显著的地位特权和严守反迁徙规则的承诺，来加强地主卡特尔的团结。俄罗斯专制主义的基础，就是君主和上下层贵族的同盟。他们都答应遵循有关规则，牺牲品就是农民。

    维持农奴卡特尔的需要，解释了俄罗斯政治发展的众多现象。自己没有农奴的个人，欲自由拥有土地，会受到政府愈来愈多的限制。要想得到土地，必须先变成贵族。一旦成为贵族，便能自动获得农奴，以及维持这一制度的义务。此举遏制了资产阶级在独立商业城市的成长。西方的城市在促进农民自由方面扮演了重要角色。因此，在俄罗斯率先发展资本主义经济的是贵族，而不是独立的资产阶级。㉕维持卡特尔的需要，也解释了俄罗斯向南方和东南方的扩张。边境旁边的自由哥萨克社区的存在，无疑是持续的诱惑，也是逃跑农民的良机，必须遭到镇压。

    彼得大帝之后

    彼得大帝是推行现代化的伟大人物，在很多方面促使俄罗斯“欧洲化”，并使之成为欧洲政坛中的主要角色。但他从上到下的强行改革，遇上了俄罗斯社会本质上的局限。例如，他试图创立省和地区的两级制度，以及新式的市政规则，以改造省、市和地方的政府，到最后都不了了之。用当代发展中国家的字眼来说，原因在于“能力缺乏”。那是指，地方上受过训练的行政人员不够，现存的又缺乏热情。中央颁布的法令得不到实施，政权也无法铲除既有的腐败和独断专行。㉖

    彼得大帝在军队和中央官僚机构中，推行选贤与能的现代晋升制度。他死后，便难以为继。他的很多革新全靠自己的监督和精力，例如，他曾旁听政府招聘干部的考试。他去世后，宫廷内外的强大家族使行政机构重趋家族化。他的继位者软弱。想要晋升到文武官职的最高等级，全得倚靠豪门巨室的赞助，像多尔戈鲁科夫（Dolgorukov，俄语Долгоруков）、拉雷斯金（Naryshkin，俄语Нарышкин）、戈利岑（Golitsyn，俄语Голицын）、萨尔蒂科夫（Saltykov，俄语Салтыков）。日益掌控国家政策的贵族在 1762 年废除自己的服务义务，并获得更多针对农民的权利，如随意迁徙和驱逐农民的权利。㉗豪门家庭及其赞助网络的相互竞争，甚至延伸到军队，战斗力因此而受损。

    贵族家庭的兴起分散了俄罗斯制度的权力，并软化伊凡四世和彼得大帝所遗留下的专制传统，再加上法国文化在俄罗斯精英中所享有的主导地位，这一切使托尔斯泰《战争与和平》所描述的 19 世纪早期的贵族社会，看来酷像欧洲的贵族社会。如在两百年之前，这是不可想象的。但这种权力分散与西方现代行政国家的兴起，不可混为一谈。历史学家约翰·勒多内（John LeDonne）说：“全国范围家族和依附者的网络，无不在嘲弄立法文件所建立的严格等级制度。此类立法努力，一直在寻找行政秩序和‘规范化’。它解释了为何俄罗斯政府，比任何其他政府都更是人的政府，而不是法的政府。”㉘

    专制主义完成

    有关俄罗斯的解说，以 18 世纪晚期稳固专制国家的出现而告结束。显而易见，之后又有很多新的发展，包括 19 世纪的自由派实验和 20 世纪极权国家的兴起。到法国大革命时，俄罗斯统治的特征已昭然若揭，它既不同于法国和西班牙的弱的专制主义，也不同于中国和奥斯曼的国家。

    在若干方面，俄罗斯的国家比法国或西班牙更为强大。至少在与精英打交道时，后者受到约束，必须尊重法治，这在俄罗斯却是闻所未闻的。法国和西班牙的政府，以债务违约和货币操纵来蚕食产权，甚至捏造指控，通过法律程序来勒索钱财。但至少，他们觉得必须运用现有的法律机构。相比之下，俄罗斯政府无需法律借口来没收私人财产，逼迫贵族为政府服务，处置敌人和叛徒时，漠视正当的法律程序。伊凡四世的特辖制在某种意义上只是意外，之后也没有相似的复制，直到 20 世纪的共产主义政府。但它的曾经发生，为后来俄罗斯统治者创立了重要的先例。他们很清楚，他们手中针对精英的极端措施是西方主权国家所没有的。在这一方面，俄罗斯政府更接近帝制中国，更远离西方。俄罗斯政府发展了类似奥斯曼的专制制度，譬如作为骑兵报酬的封地。奥斯曼和马穆鲁克，即使在最兴盛时期，也比俄罗斯统治者更加尊重法治。

    另一方面，俄罗斯的专制主义更为家族化，远远超过中国或奥斯曼的版本。如我们所见，中国人发明了现代官僚机构和非人格化的中央统治。大体上，中国历史是国家与家族制复辟的斗争史。早在中国统一之前的公元前 3 世纪，非人格化和选贤与能的政府的理想就已问世。奥斯曼的军事奴役制建立任人唯才的行政制度，不受家族影响，在其全盛时期，不乏来访欧洲人的赞美。彼得大帝想在俄罗斯创建同样制度，只取得部分的成功。俄罗斯的家族力量随后轻易夺回政府，以不透明的方式在幕后制定政策。

    当代俄罗斯，与彼得大帝死后的百年社会有惊人的相似。尽管有现代的正式宪法和书面法律，俄罗斯国家仍受灰色精英网络的掌控，很像曾经控制帝制俄罗斯的萨尔蒂科夫和拉雷斯金家族。这些精英行使权力的方式，不是法律或规范程序所能定义的。但与中国不同的是，俄罗斯最高精英没有对国民负责的类似道德感。在中国，政治等级越高，政府质量越有改进。但在俄罗斯，它却变得越糟。当代精英愿意借用民族主义，使自己的权力合法化，但到最后，好像仍在为己着想。 俄罗斯没有陷入历史的泥潭。伊凡四世、彼得大帝、斯大林开下专制先例，但接踵而至的却是自由化。今日社会已被动员起来，其方式不同于旧政权时期，资本主义的引进允许精英的组成定期更换。今日腐败和紊乱的选举式威权主义，不再是俄罗斯人曾承受的残酷独裁。俄罗斯历史提供很多通向较多自由的其他选择，可作为将来改革的先例。

    第 27 章 征税和代表权

    失败的负责制案例，帮助理解议会制度在英国的发展；政治团结的来源，其在诺曼征服之前英国的扎根；英国制度合法化中的法律作用；光荣革命所真正实现的

    政治负责制如何发展的最后案例是英国，其政治发展的三大组件——国家、法治和政治负责制——都成功获得了制度化。我最后审视英国是为了避开辉格史观的缺陷。关于英国代议政府的兴起，已有很多论述认为，它是可溯源自古代雅典的西方发展模式的逻辑的、必然的或无可避免的结果。但这些论述很少互作比较，所引证的一系列因果事件，又忽略了不易察觉或更为遥远的因素。而在事实上，那些因素却在扮演重要角色。换言之，它们只看到顶部的龟，而忽视了蛰伏于下的龟。

    我们得以避免这个问题，因为我们已讨论四个负责制政府无法出现的欧洲国家——如果把所讨论过的非西方案例也包括在内，那就不止四个。我们观察英国与其他案例的异同，将更好地了解促使负责制发展的组合因素。

    跟法国、西班牙、匈牙利和俄罗斯一样，英国首先是部落社会，然后是封建社会，它的中央集权始于 16 世纪晚期和 17 世纪早期。这些社会的精英都组成政治团体——英国议会、法国高等法院、西班牙议会、匈牙利议会、俄罗斯缙绅会议——推行现代化的君主要向它们寻求支持和合法性。在法国、西班牙和俄罗斯，这些团体没能凝聚成强大的制度化参与者，没能对抗中央国家，没能取得宪政上的妥协，没能获得国王对自己的负责。相比之下，英国议会却是强大而凝聚的。

    具体地说，不同于主要代表卡斯提尔城市的西班牙议会，或贵族掌控的法国和俄罗斯的政治团体，英国议会不仅代表贵族和神职人员（世俗和精神的领主），而且代表广泛的士绅、市民和业主。这些平民是议会的灵魂和动力。英国议会强大到成功击败国王的诸多计划，包括增税、组建新军、躲避普通法。它还创建自己的军队，在内战中打败国王，将之处死，迫使继任君主詹姆士二世退位，拥戴来自欧洲大陆奥兰治的威廉（William of Orange）。到最后，统治英国的不是欧洲大陆那样的专制君主，而是正式承认议会负责制原则的立宪君主。英国议会获得如此进展，而欧洲其他地区的议会却四分五裂和软弱无能，或被拉拢收买，或主动支持君主专制，直到法国大革命前夕。有人自然要问，这是为什么？

    英国还在另一方面为当代发展中国家树立先例。17 世纪初，早期斯图亚特治下的英国不但日益专制，而且非常腐败。渗透法国和西班牙政府的实践，如卖官鬻爵和家族攫权，同样也发生在英国身上，只是在规模上还算适中。但到该世纪末，英国的公共腐败问题，即使没有得到解决，至少已有很大收敛。政治制度得以废除公职买卖，建立现代官僚机构，提升国家整体的力量和效率。这虽然没有彻底解决英国公共生活中的腐败问题，但阻止国家陷入最终摧毁法兰西王国式的腐朽泥潭。今天，面对普遍公共腐败的发展中国家，可以借鉴英国政治制度的应对方法。

    英国政治团结的根源

    我们看到，法国、西班牙和俄罗斯的君主政体使用种种策略，在贵族、士绅和资产阶级当中，收买、胁迫、化解潜在的对手。英国君主作出同样的尝试，但议会所代表的社会阶层团结起来，抵制并最终打败国王。问题在于，这团结来自何处。

    答案至少有三，有的已在以前章节中获得详细解释。第一，很早以来，英国社会团结的政治性大于它的社会性。第二，普通法和英国法律制度的合法性获得广泛认同，业主保卫自己财产的意愿强烈。最后，此时的宗教，虽然在英国人中间造成痛苦的分裂，却赋予议会超越的使命感。如果与国王的争执只是为了财产和资源，该使命感便不复存在。

    地方政府和团结

    我们在第 16 章中提到，欧洲的部落社会组织因基督教的影响而趋于崩溃，远远早于现代国家建设。英国在这一过程中，比任何其他地方走得都要快。6 世纪晚期坎特伯雷的圣奥古斯丁传教开始，更加个人主义的社区便取代了扩展的亲戚关系。（这并不适用于爱尔兰人、威尔士人和苏格兰人。他们的部落关系——例如高地氏族——持续到很晚的历史后期。）邻居之间毫无关联，这样的社区在诺曼入侵之前的盎格鲁—萨克逊时期已属司空见惯，使当地农业社会截然不同于东欧，更不同于中国和印度。①

    基于亲戚关系的社会组织虽然孱弱，但并不排除社会团结。紧密相连的亲戚团体，可在团体范围内提供集体行动，但遇上宗族或部落之外的合作，又会变成障碍。基于亲戚关系的社会，其集体行动的范围非常狭窄，所以需要政治制度。

    英国社会早期的个人主义，并不意味社会团结的消失，只是团结形式是政治性的，而不是社会性的。诺曼征服之前，英国分成相对统一的各郡（shires），它们可能曾是独立的小王国，现已聚集成更大的英格兰王国。主持郡务的是称作长老（ealdorman）的古老官员，其职位是世袭的。（它的词根来自丹麦，现在仍存活于美国的地方政治，市府参事即写作 alderman。）②但实际权力渐渐落到皇家官员手中，即郡治安官（shire reeve，or sheriff），后者受国王的指派，代表皇家权力。每半年，他组织一次郡会议，该区所有自由民（后来变成自由地主）必须出席。③诺曼征服并没摧毁该统治制度，只是将郡改为县，以符合欧洲大陆法兰克人的习惯。然而，治安官的权力大增，取代了世袭的长老。郡会议演变成县法庭，用弗雷德里克·梅特兰的话说：“国王的大领主必须在法律面前人人平等的基础上，与自己的属臣相聚。租户可能与自己领主坐在一起，俨然像个同等伙伴。”④

    今天，这些制度的详情好像只有考古价值，但在解释议会作为政治制度的演变时却非常重要。欧洲大陆封建主义的性质，尤其是在卡洛林帝国地区，看来非常不同。欧洲领主贵族享有对司法权的控制，其程度远远超过英国。⑤在英国，国王享有优势。诺曼征服之后，国王利用县法庭来监察封建法庭。如个人觉得在领主那里得不到正义，就可向治安官提出上诉，要求将诉讼移至县法庭。后来，国王法庭（详见第 17 章）取代县法庭成为重要案件的预审庭。后者只得主持较不重要的诉讼，譬如金额不超过四十先令的土地纠纷。与欧洲大陆相比，英国的非精英更有机会运用这些机构。

    县法庭开始失去其司法功能的同时，却获得新的政治功能，成为更广泛政治制度的代议场所。正如梅特兰所说：

    到 13 世纪中期，我们发现，民选代表被召集来参加全国会议，或叫议会（parliament）。他们是县法庭的代表，不是无组织群体的代表。我们几乎可称他们为集团代表。理论上，整个县都由县法庭代表……国王的巡回法官不时来访，整个县的地主团体（totus comitatus），前来晋见，报告上次来访之后的所作所为。县法庭可作出裁决，也可作证，如有犯错，还会被罚款。⑥

    所以，县法庭是奇怪的组织，既自上而下，又自下而上。它由国王所创建，受由国王任命并对国王负责的治安官统辖。但它又以全体地主的广泛参与为基础，不受世袭等级和封建地位的限制。治安官反过来又受地方民选督察官（coroner）的制衡，民选督察官应代表县民利益的观念因此而获得合法性。既有对国王的向上负责，又有对县民的向下负责，两者日益趋于平衡。

    郡或县下面还有更小的地方行政单位，叫作百户（hundreds），相当于卡洛林帝国的乡（centenae）。（这些行政单位也传到美国。）百户区有自己的聚会，叫作百户法庭，开始在司法方面扮演日益重要的角色。百户区由治安官任命的巡警所治理，一起负责警察功能，如抓捕罪犯。百户也是英国陪审团制度的基础，需要提供审判刑事案件的十二名陪审员。⑦

    因此，甚至在诺曼征服之前，整个英国社会已组建高度参与的各式政治单位，一直抵达村庄层次。这不是地方社会组织参政的基层现象，而是全国政府邀请地方上的参与，构建地方上的生活，扎根成为社区的来源。

    普通法和法律机构的作用

    值得注意的是，后来英国政治代议制度的构成部件，一开始只是司法机构，像县法庭和百户法庭。英国历史上，法治的出现远早于政治负责制，后者又始终与保护法律密切相联。英国司法的参与性质，加上普通法因应地方需求以定规则的特征，帮助造就了法律属于大家的感情，其强烈程度远远超过其他欧洲社会。公共负责制首先意味着对法律的服从，尽管那时的法律，不论是法官作出的，还是颁成文本的，都没有走过民主政治的程序。

    法治的主要功能之一是保护产权。在这一点上，英国普通法比其他地方的法律更为行之有效。正如哈耶克所说的，原因之一在于普通法是分散决策的产物，能尽量适应各地的情形和知识。不过吊诡的是，原因之二在于国王愿意在产权上支持非精英对贵族的反抗，这便需要强大的中央国家。在英国，原告早就可以将产权诉讼移至国王法庭，如金额不够，仍可移至县法庭或百户法庭。中世纪有不少复杂的传统产权，如佃权（copyhold）。土地在技术上是领主财产，但佃户（villein）又可将之传给儿子或亲戚。国王法庭倾向于反对领主，保护佃权所有人的权利，以致这种财产渐渐进化成真正的私人财产。⑧

    县和百户层次的法庭众多，国王在地方产权争执中愿意充任中立仲裁人，这一切大大增强了英国产权的合法性。⑨到 15 世纪，英国司法制度的独立性和获得认可的中立性，允许它扮演日益重要的角色。它变成真正的“第三分支”，有资格裁决宪法问题，如议会废除专利特许证的权利。有评论家指出，“很难想象，此类问题能在中世纪欧洲的其他地方获得解决——并且是完全独立的解决——全靠法官以专业语言作出讨论，而不是政治上的樽俎折冲，或有关团体的胁迫。”⑩今天的发展中国家，仍缺乏如此的司法才能和司法独立。

    到了 17 世纪的重大宪政危机时，不让君主破坏法治成了保卫英国自由的呐喊和议会团结以抗国王的源泉。出现于早期斯图亚特（1603—1649 年）的威胁是国王的星室法庭（Court of Star Chamber，其起源和司法权都很模糊），其为了“更有效地”起诉犯罪，而省去一般法庭的正常保护程序（包括陪审团的审讯）。在第二任斯图亚特国王查理一世（1600—1649）的治下，它带有更多政治性，不只是起诉犯罪，还用来对付假想的国王之敌。⑪

    英国法律独立的更佳象征，莫过于爱德华·柯克爵士（1552—1634）。他是法学家和法律学者，最终升至王座法院（King’s Bench）的首席法官。他在各种法律职务中不折不挠，抵抗政治权威和国王对法律的侵犯。詹姆士一世试图将某些案件从普通法搬至教会法之下审理，柯克坚持说，国王没有足够权力来任意解释法律，从而引起极大愤怒。国王宣称，坚持国王在法律之下，无疑是叛国罪。柯克引用布拉克顿（Bracton）的话作答：“国王不应在人下，但应在上帝和法律之下（quod Rex non debet esse sub homine set sub deo et lege）。”⑫再加上其他的冒犯，柯克最终被解除一切法律职位，转而加入议会，成为反皇派领袖。

    宗教作为集体行动的基础

    跟法国、西班牙、匈牙利和俄罗斯不同，英国对专制权力的抵抗也涂上宗教色彩，大大加强了议会阵营的团结。第一任斯图亚特国王詹姆士一世，其母亲是被处决的玛丽·都铎（Mary Tudor），即苏格兰女王玛丽一世；其儿子查理一世（Charles I）娶法国路易十三的妹妹亨利埃塔·玛丽亚（Henrietta Maria）为妻。父子都表示相信新教，但常被怀疑对天主教抱有同情。大主教劳德（Laud）试图使英国国教向天主教靠拢，更加重视仪式，为此深受清教徒（Puritan）的憎恨。早期斯图亚特的专制主义教条和王权神授，与法国和西班牙的天主教君主的观点遥相呼应。很多新教徒从中看到国际天主教意欲剥夺英国人天生权利的大阴谋。1641 年爱尔兰的天主教叛乱仿佛就在家门口。新教徒移民遭受暴行的报告，似乎确认了很多英国人对国际天主教扩张的最坏担心。其中还真有一定的道理。西班牙国王在 16 世纪末派来无敌舰队（Armada），并投入八十年战争，以征服新教徒的荷兰联合省。法国的路易十四在 17 世纪末接过这项任务，出兵侵犯荷兰，他的秘密同情者就是英国最后一位天主教国王詹姆士二世。

    有关英国内战的浩瀚史籍总有周期的修正。它不断学术性地改变对战争动机的理解，以跟上流行的思想风尚，以致有些历史学家对取得共识放弃希望。⑬ 20 世纪的很多解释，淡化了战争参与者的宗教动机，并将宗教意识视作阶级或局部的经济利益的面罩。事实上这段时期的宗教和阶级，其间互动非常复杂，很难厘清宗教和政治的效忠对象。有站在议会一边的国教徒，也有作为保皇派的新教徒。很多高层国教人士认为，与天主教会相比，像公理会（Congregationist）和贵格会（Quaker）那样的非国教徒，对道德秩序构成更可怕的威胁。⑭显然，较激进的新教流派变成了社会动员和经济进步的载体，并为抗议和团结提供机会，而传统的等级制的宗教渠道是无能为力的。

    另一方面，即使有人主张冲突的主要原因不在宗教，但宗教在动员政治参与者和扩大集体行动范围上，仍然发挥重大作用。这在议会阵营，以及议会创建的新模范军（New Model Army）中，尤其如此。由于很多军官的宗教信念，随着时间的推移，新模范军变成反皇派激进主义的大温床。光荣革命期间，议会愿意接受奥兰治公国的威廉，以取代英国的合法君主詹姆士二世，就是因为前者是新教徒，后者是天主教徒。不然，真不好解说。

    所以，英国地方上的自治团体、深植人心的法律、产权不可侵犯的信念、君主政体涉嫌参与国际的天主教阴谋，这一切都有助于议会阵营的精诚团结。

    自由城市和资产阶级

    现代传统智慧认为，如果没有强大中产阶级的存在，民主就不会出现。他们是有产阶级，既不是精英，也不是乡村穷人。这个概念起源于英国的政治发展，与其他任何欧洲国家（可能的例外是荷兰）相比，英国看到更多城市和城市资产阶级的早期涌现。城市中产阶级在议会中扮演主要角色，在内战和光荣革命之前，就已获得经济和政治的实质性力量。在权力的三角比赛中，它是抗衡领主和国王的大砝码。城市资产阶级的兴起，是更为广泛的西欧变迁的组成部分，包括低地国家、意大利北部和日耳曼北部的汉萨同盟（Hanseatic）港口城市。详细描述这一重要现象的有卡尔·马克思、马克斯·韦伯、亨利·皮朗（Henri Pirenne）。⑮马克思把“资产阶级的兴起”当作他现代化理论的中心命题，成为社会发展过程中必不可少的阶段。

    我们在第 25 章中看到，自由城市的存在促成了西欧农奴的解放。对英国政治发展和议会获胜来说，强大且凝聚的资产阶级是非常重要的。但资产阶级在英国和西欧历史上所扮演的角色，在很多方面却是异乎寻常的。它是特殊境遇的后果，其他欧洲国家只是没遇上如此境遇而已。尤其是在易北河以东，那里只有很少独立自治的商业城市，遵照自己的法律，受自己民兵的保护。那些城市更像中国的，只是地方领主控制的行政中心，碰巧也充任商业中心。马克思的巨大影响促使好几代学生，继续把“资产阶级的兴起”看作经济现代化的伴随物，无须作出进一步解释，认定该阶级的政治力量来自其经济力量。⑯

    早于马克思几乎七十五年，亚当·斯密在《国富论》中就资产阶级的起源，提供了更为周详、更具说服力的解释。他认为，在资产阶级的兴起当中，政治既是原因又是结果。斯密在第一卷第三章的篇首提出，他所谓的“富裕”（opulence），即经济增长，会有自然的升级，始于农业生产效率的改善，导致更多国内的城乡贸易，到最后才是日益增加的国际贸易。他注意到，欧洲现代国家所经历的次序恰恰相反：国际贸易发展在国内贸易之前，前者兴旺起来之后，强大男爵和地主的政治霸权才被打破。⑰

    在斯密看来，造成这奇特次序有好几条原因。第一，罗马帝国崩溃后的大部分土地都在强大男爵手中，他们宁愿保住自己的政治权力，也不愿追求财产回报的最大化。所以，他们创建长子继承制和其他限制性的规则，以防地产的流失。此外，他们又将农民贬为农奴或奴隶；斯密认为，农奴或奴隶既不愿卖力干活，又不愿投资于土地。不愿追求回报最大化的另一原因，是缺乏以盈余去购买的消费品。在欧洲的黑暗时代，贸易不存在。因此，有钱有势者没有其他选择，只得与大批侍从共享盈余。⑱

    斯密又注意到，出现于中世纪的城市，其最初居民是“商人和工匠”。他们属于低级阶层，甚至处于奴役地位，但是他们逃离了领主的控制，在城市找到庇护。久而久之，国王授予特权，让他们可以自由嫁女（编按：指无需领主同意而自主决定），组织自己的民兵，最终作为集团实体而享有自己的法律。这就是资产阶级的起源，虽然亚当·斯密没有使用如此字眼。不同于马克思，斯密提到独立城市的兴起必须有重要的政治前提：

    领主鄙视市民，认为他们属于不同层次，只是被解放的农奴，几乎不是自己的同类。市民的富裕，常常使领主愤怒，一有机会就掠夺欺凌，不稍宽恕。市民自然也既嫉恨、又畏惧领主。恰好，国王也嫉恨和畏惧领主。国王虽可能亦会鄙视市民，但却没有理由去嫉恨和畏惧他们。所以，相互利益促使他们支持国王，又促使国王支持他们来反对领主。⑲

    斯密接着说，这就是国王将独立宪章和法律赋予城市的原委，允许他们在国王与领主的斗争中成为一枚平衡砝码。

    城市和资产阶级的形成，与马克思所相信的相悖，不只是经济增长和技术变化的结果。刚开始，他们非常软弱，从属于强大的领主，除非获得政治保护。这就是在波兰、匈牙利、俄罗斯和易北河以东其他土地上所发生的。那里，政治力量的不同配置使君主变得软弱，或促使君主与贵族的派别结盟，以反对市民利益。由于这个原因，东欧从来没有强大独立的资产阶级。技术上先进的资本主义市场，其引进者不是市民，而是进步地主，或国家本身，因此无法达到相似的繁荣程度。

    基于城市的资本主义市场经济一旦出现，我们便离开古老的马尔萨斯式世界，开始进入现代经济制度，生产效率的增长变成家常便饭。此时，日益富有的资产阶级，越来越能颠覆旧式地主秩序的权力，政治发展的条件因此而发生变化。斯密表明，旧精英受财富的诱惑而放弃自己的政治权力——钻石扣环，“更适合于作孩子的玩具，而不应是大人的认真追求”——旧农业经济是无法创造这种财富的。⑳因此而开始了政治发展的现代制度：政治变化取决于经济和社会的变化。但一开始，资产阶级的兴起要有政治前提——市民和国王都憎恨领主。这个条件不存在的地方，如东欧的大部，就没有资产阶级的出现。

    征税斗争

    自 13 世纪以来，英国议会开始定期开会，比法国、西班牙和俄罗斯更为频繁。如上所述，它们的原始功能是司法，但久而久之，开始扮演更广阔的政治角色，成为国王的联合统治者。在批准税赋上，议会作用尤其重要，因为议会包括全国大多数地主，其资产和收入是国家征税的基础。到 14 世纪和 15 世纪，下议院与英国君主密切合作，以剔除不够格或腐败的官员，并定期监督议会拨款的具体花费。㉑图 5 显示的是内战前夕的 1641 年的英国社会力量。

    查理一世在 1629 年解散议会，开始了十一年的“亲政”，试图以议会为代价来扩展国家权力。这导致查理一世与议会对手在好多问题上发生争执，有的已在前面篇幅介绍过。议会中很多人不喜欢大主教劳德的专制国教，怀疑查理一世同情天主教，因为他有兴趣与法国和西班牙建立外交关系。宗教问题和保卫法治互相交融，星室法庭、高级专员公署（High Commission）、北方政务会（Council of the North）起诉反主教制（anti-Episcopal）的清教徒。清教徒传教士亚历山大·莱顿（Alexander Leighton），遭到星室法庭野蛮逮捕和残酷折磨，却得不到正当法律程序的保护，被认为是宗教和皇家权力肆无忌惮的滥用。

    图5 英国

    其时还有两大问题，一是没有议会批准、国王擅自增税的权利。国王提出新关税，向地主施以任意的罚金，重新引进蓄意避开禁令的垄断专利，在和平时期为重整海军而征收“船舶筹款”。㉒英国税务制度的发展不同于法国，英国的贵族和士绅未以法国方式购买特权和免税，税收负担的最大部分都落到了议会所代表的富人头上。可能与紧密的地方团结有关，富人阶层没有与国王共谋，将税收负担推向农民、工匠和新近致富的中产阶级，反而认为自己与议会的权力和特权休戚相关。

    第二个问题涉及政治腐败。与法国和西班牙一样，英国也躲不过家族化和买卖公职的做法。从都铎时期开始，皇家公职的获得愈益依靠政治赞助，晋升不是选贤与能，而是以各种荫庇关系圈子的圈内人资格为准。㉓公职待价而沽，又变成世袭财产。到斯图亚特王朝早期，法国包税（关税）和内部财政（向国家官员借款）的做法获得引进。国王建立皇家调查委员会，就像法国的司法堂，以私人腐败的借口敲诈富有官员。㉔

    1641 年爆发的内战持续十年，最后在 1649 年，以议会的胜利和查理一世被砍头而告终。但国王和议会的长期斗争，其最终解决并不全然依靠武力，虽然暴力和暴力的威胁仍是重要的决定因素。㉕胜利的议会派因处决国王而抹黑了自己声誉；在克伦威尔（Oliver Cromwell）护国公时期，又因追求愈益激进的政策而削弱了自己的政治基础。所以，查理一世的儿子在 1660 年成功复辟，登位为查理二世，反而带来一种解脱。二十年的强烈政治冲突之后，国家得以返回常态。

    复辟确实解决了当初引起内战的腐败问题。议会在内战和护国公时期推行很多政府改革，譬如建立严密的现代新模范军和清洗腐败的皇家官员。但查理二世的上台，又带回很多早期斯图亚特的腐败做法，包括出售公职和赞助任命。但是，多种因素聚合起来，在英国政府中建立了改革同盟，最终打退这些倒行逆施。

    首先是第二次荷兰战争（1665—1667）爆发，加上瘟疫突发和伦敦大火，导致国防严重衰弱，以致荷兰船队溯泰晤士河而上，烧毁英国海军船坞。路易十四治下的法国也取得进步，以咄咄逼人的外交政策威胁欧洲大陆的均势。显然，军费必须上涨。第二是查理二世希望量入为出，以避免向议会请求特别征税。第三是政府中出现了一批才华横溢的精明改革家，包括乔治·唐宁（George Downing）爵士和喜记日记的塞缪尔·佩皮斯（Samuel Pepys）。他们关心日益增长的外国威胁，认识到财政制度和行政管理必须改革才能获得高效。㉖最后，告别内战和护国公时期的议会，对政府的浪费和腐败深感怀疑，其时政府将税收用于非公共的开支。

    不同压力的汇合允许唐宁组织的第二财政委员会（Second Treasury Commission）推荐和实施重要的改革，使英国公共行政管理更为现代化，进一步脱离家族化。它取消从都铎时期起便是腐败温床的国库（exchequer）的权力，移交给总管所有政府开支的新财政部。它向公众发行遵守公共债券市场纪律的新债券（Treasury order），以取代内部财政。最后，它将私人拥有的公职改成“悉听尊便”（at pleasure）的职位，并取消新的公职出售。㉗

    1667 年后发生的改革努力沉重打击了家族化实践，确保英国在管理公共资金上比法国或西班牙更为有效。反对腐败政府的斗争从来不是一蹴而就，唐宁在 17 世纪 60 年代发起的很多改革，其完全实施尚要等到 18 世纪早期。这些努力也没有排除后续稽查的需要，因为假以时日，家族制总是试图卷土重来。

    17 世纪晚期确实提供了扭转家族化的重要模式，对今天的反腐努力仍有意义。促使晚期斯图亚特王朝改革的所有因素依然重要：外部环境的压力迫使政府改善效率；首席执行官如果没有发挥带头作用，至少不拖后腿；政府内有人倡导改革，并得到足够的政治支持来付诸实行；最后，来自纳税人的强大政治压力，他们不愿看到浪费。

    国际机构最近作出的很多反腐努力，比如世界银行或英国国际发展部，但却功亏一篑，就是因为上述因素之一的缺席。现代世界的问题在于，腐败政府经常无需向自己公民谋求税收，像查理二世所作的，因此没有议会或公民社会来监督它们的开支。它们的收入或者来自自然资源，或者来自并不要求财政负责制的国际捐赠人。亨廷顿建议，如果英国议会的呐喊是“无代表即不纳税”，今天口号应该是“不纳税即无代表”，因为最能激励政治参与的乃是后者。㉘

    光荣革命

    国王与议会争斗的结果是 1688—1689 年的光荣革命，詹姆士二世被迫退位。奥兰治公国的威廉从荷兰赶来，登基为国王威廉三世。直接原因是天主教徒的詹姆士二世试图扩军，并配以天主教军官。这即刻引起怀疑，他是否打算利用军队实施专制，并与法国和其他天主教势力结成同盟。更大原因则与议会当初反对国王导致内战的原因相同：合法性最终应基于被统治者的同意，得不到同意，国王无权强加于人。危机中达成的和解，涉及宪法、宗教、财政、军事等重要方面。在宪法上，它建立了没有议会同意国王不得建军的原则；议会还通过议案，罗列国家不得侵犯的国民权利。在财政上，它确立没有议会同意国王不得征新税的原则。在宗教上，它禁止天主教徒成为国王或王后，还添上增加异见新教徒权利的容忍议案（但排除天主教徒、犹太教徒和索齐尼派教徒）。㉙最后，它允许政府发行更多债券，使国家机构的大大扩展成为可能。议会主权的原则要在数年后才得到最后确认，光荣革命不愧为现代民主发展的主要分水岭。㉚

    光荣革命导致了政治合法性的思想大改变。作为这些事件的评论家和参与者，哲学家约翰·洛克扩充了霍布斯的观点，即国家源于为保障天赋权利而签署的社会契约。㉛其《政府论》上篇攻击罗伯特·菲尔麦（Robert Filmer）爵士为君主政体辩护的君权神授；其《政府论》下篇力辩，与霍布斯相悖，侵犯臣民天赋权利的暴君可被撤换。这些原则使用普世性的论述，对 1689 年的宪政和解至关重要。光荣革命不是某个统治者或一群精英从他人手中夺得国家和租金，而是定出如何选择后续统治者的原则。从洛克的《政府论》下篇，到美国革命和美国创始人的宪法理论，其间距离很短。尽管现代民主有复杂的方方面面，但 1688—1689 年的事件，牢固建立了政府合法性来自被统治者的同意的基本原则。

    光荣革命使政治负责制和代议政府的原则制度化，但还没引进民主。此时的英国议会，只由很小比例的人口选出。出席议会的有高级阶层、议员和士绅。后者是英国最重要的政治阶级，根据彼得·拉斯莱特（Peter Laslett），它代表了大约总人口的 4% 到 5%。㉜更为广泛的民众参与地方统治，或参加陪审团，或协助百户区和县政府的工作，包括大部分条件较好的自耕农（yeoman）。如把这个团体也包括在内，政治参与者会接近男性成人总人口的 20%。㉝我们今天理解的民主——无论性别、种族、社会地位，所有成年人都享有选举权——要到 20 世纪的英国或美国，方才得到实施。跟美国独立宣言一样，光荣革命建立了被统治者同意的原则，让后人再去拓宽政治意义中的“人民”的范围。

    有些人认为，光荣革命的重要性在于它标志了英国安全产权的开始，其实非也。㉞数世纪之前，健全产权即已建立。包括女子在内的个人早在 13 世纪就行使买卖财产的权利（参看第 14 章）。普通法、国王法庭、县法庭和百户法庭，允许非精英地主在领主司法范围之外，提出产权争执的诉讼。到 17 世纪晚期，强大的资本主义经济，参与反斯图亚特专制的中产阶级，都已出现。光荣革命的成功，与其说是强大可靠产权的原因，倒不如说是它的结果。英国有产阶层觉得有重要东西需要保护。

    光荣革命也未给新近壮大的纳税人减税的借口，如经济学家曼瑟尔·奥尔森所提示的。㉟恰恰相反，政府开销作为国民生产总值的百分比，从 1689—1697 年的 11%，涨至 1741—1748 年的 17%，再涨至 1778—1783 年的将近 24%。㊱在 18 世纪的高峰时期，英国征税高达 30%。

    光荣革命的重大成就之一是使征税合法，从此以后，征税全凭同意。民主政体的公众并不一定反对高税，只要知道这是为了重要的公共目标，比如国防。他们所不喜欢的是非法征税、税款被浪费或掉进贪官污吏的荷包。光荣革命之后，英国投入两场与路易十四法国的昂贵战争，即九年战争（1689—1697）和西班牙继位战争（1702—1713）。二十年几乎连续不断的战争，证明是非常昂贵的。从 1688 年到 1697 年，英国舰艇的数量几乎翻了一番。纳税人愿意支持这些及后来的战争，因为他们在战争得失上得到咨询，被要求批准新的税收。不用多作解说，英国较高的征税并没有遏制资本主义革命。㊲

    与专制法国的对照是很醒目的。法国没有接受同意的原则，征税必须依赖强力。政府在同一时期从没能征收超过其国民生产总值的 12% 到 15%，真正到手的往往更低。法国社会中最负担得起的精英却在购买免税和特权，这意味着税收负担落到社会最弱成员的身上。所以，在路易十四过世的 1715 年，人口几乎是英国四倍的法国发现自己已经破产。

    光荣革命和随之发生的财政和银行改革，如 1694 年建立的英国银行，确实使公共财政经历了革命性的变更。它们允许政府在透明的公共债务市场上借贷资金，而法国或西班牙是无法企及的。因此，英国政府借贷在 18 世纪激增，使得国家愈加壮大。

    美国革命和法国大革命

    本卷对政治发展的介绍到此结束，时值 18 世纪末，美国革命和法国大革命的前夕。在此停下有逻辑上的原因。黑格尔的伟大注释者亚历山大·科耶夫（Alexandre Kojève，出生于俄罗斯，后来长住法国）认为，众所周知的历史终结于 1806 年，其时，拿破仑在耶拿和奥尔斯塔特击败普鲁士君主政体，将自由和平等的原则带到黑格尔的欧洲。科耶夫以他通常的讽刺和顽皮说明，1806 年以来发生的一切，包括间杂世界大战和革命的 20 世纪狂飙突进（sturm und drang），只是在填平历史所留下的坑坑洼洼。也就是说，现代政府的基本原则在耶拿战役时已获建立，后续任务不是发现新的原则和更高级的政治秩序，而是将之推至世界上越来越多的地区。㊳

    我相信，科耶夫的声明仍值得认真考虑。现代政治秩序的三个组件——强大且有能力的国家、国家从属于法治、政府对所有公民负责——已在 18 世纪末世界上的某地获得确立。中国很早就开发了强大国家；法治存在于印度、中东、欧洲；负责制政府首次出现于英国。耶拿战役之后的政治发展，只涉及这些制度在全世界的复制，而没有看到全新制度的补充。20 世纪的共产主义曾有如此的雄心壮志，到了 21 世纪，却又在世界舞台上几近消失。

    英国是三大组件聚合在一起的第一个大国。这三者互相之间高度倚靠。没有强大的早期国家，就没有法治，以及对合法产权的广泛认识。没有健全的法治和合法产权，平民绝不可能群起奋争，将负责制强加给英国君主政体。没有负责制的原则，英国绝不可能在法国大革命时成为强大国家。 其他欧洲国家，包括荷兰、丹麦和瑞典，也在 19 世纪建立国家、法治和负责制的整套制度。它们所走的途径与英国有实质上的不同。但要承认，整套制度一旦到位，它所创建的国家如此强大，如此合法，对经济增长如此友善，以至成为推向全世界的模式。㊴在缺乏英国式历史和社会条件的国家，这个模式将有怎样的遭遇，那将是第 2 卷的主题。

    第 28 章 负责制或专制主义？

    前述案例的互相比较；通向代议政府的英国路径不是唯一；达到丹麦；历史讨论与今日的民主斗争息息相关

    我们现已介绍了五个欧洲案例，在负责制和代议制度方面，引出四个不同结果。法国和西班牙创造了弱的专制主义，但没有建立议会负责制的原则。两个国家分割出卖自己的功能给众多精英，精英以特权和免税保护自己——但不包括其余社会群体——避开国家的任意权力。俄罗斯建立了更为彻底的中国式专制主义，其君主政体将精英征入国家服务，予以掌控。在匈牙利，强大凝聚的精英在君主权力上实施宪政制衡，从而建立起负责制的原则。但这制衡太过强大，以致阻碍了国家的有效运作。最后，只有在英国，强大的议会将负责制原则强加于国王，但并没有破坏强大和统一的主权政府。问题在于，为何会有如此不同的结果？

    可用一个很简单的公式来解释这些差异，其与我们所介绍的农业社会中四大政治参与者的均势有关。它们是以国王为代表的国家本身、高级贵族、士绅以及我所谓的第三等级。这种四分法过于简略，但对结果的理解大有裨益。

    欧洲有些贵族家族先发制人，取得优势，而变得强盛起来——法国的卡佩家族、匈牙利的阿尔帕德王朝、俄罗斯的留里克王朝、征服后的诺曼王朝——从而出现国家。它们的兴起归功于有利地理、卓越领导、组织能力和掌控合法性的能力。合法性可能是统治者最初优势的来源，如率领马扎尔人（Magyars）皈依基督教的伊斯特万。有人以赫赫武功征服军阀对手，给社会带来和平和安全，合法性也可能接踵而至。

    高级贵族可说是遗留下来的军阀，拥有自己领土、大批侍从和资源。这个群体有效治理自己的领土，可传给后裔，也可交换成其他资产。

    士绅是低级精英，虽有社会地位，但不一定拥有重要的土地或资源。他们的人数远远超过贵族，明显从属于贵族。

    第三等级包含工匠、商人、解放了的农奴，以及不受庄园经济和封建法律管辖的城镇居民。

    除了这四个群体，还有占人口大多数的农民。然而，农民还不是重要的政治参与者。到 18 世纪，他们才在北欧某些地区参与政治。四下分散、贫困和缺乏教育的农民，很难完成重大的集体行动。中国、土耳其和法国的农业社会，农民起义同期性爆发，最终都被镇压，经常伴随可怕的野蛮和残忍。那些反抗影响了其他参与者的行为和计算，例如，国家在考虑增加农业税时会特别小心。在其他时刻，农民起义可帮助推翻中国皇朝。但农民很难采取集团行动，以迫使整个制度实施关心农民利益的长期改革。

    这五个群体的交叉关系在图 1 中得到说明（参看第 22 章）。除农民外，这些社会群体都组织起来（只在程度上有深有浅），可以成为政治参与者，为夺得权力而斗争。国家尝试扩充自己的统治。国家之外的群体试图保护和扩充现有特权，或反对国家，或互相争斗。这些斗争的结果多半取决于主要参与者的集体行动，甚至国家本身也需要精诚团结。王朝的内部分裂、组织故障、侍从不再相信王室的合法性、国王没能孕育继位者，都有可能造成国家的软弱。此外，这些不同群体可以组成各式同盟——国王和士绅之间、国王和第三等级之间、高级贵族和士绅之间、士绅和第三等级之间，等等。

    图 6. 集体行动的故障

    出现专制主义的案例中，无论是强大的还是软弱的，抵抗国家的群体不可避免地遇上了集体行动的故障（参看图 6）。哪里有负责制，哪里的国家相对弱于其他政治群体。议会政府出现的地方，凝聚的国家和组织良好、善于自卫的社会之间产生了相对均势。

    弱的专制主义

    我们现在可以总结早先章节所描述的各种结果。

    相对软弱的国家遇上组织良好的社会，但前者仍得以掌控后者，这就是法国和西班牙，遂出现弱的专制主义。在这两个案例中，国家的权力基础依靠有限的领土，包含皇家领地和国家直接征税地区——对法国君主政体来说，即巴黎周围的财政区省（编按：原文误为三级会议省[pays d’états]，据前文第 23 章改正）；对西班牙哈布斯堡王朝来说，即卡斯提尔区域。它们都想通过拉拢收买、王朝阴谋和直接征服来取得更多领土，但西欧的地理，以及 16 世纪晚期和 17 世纪早期的军事技术，尚不允许快速的武力扩张——应该还记得，星状要塞使围攻战争变得既昂贵又必不可少——法国和西班牙的君主很快发现，自己因军事开支和帝国扩张而深陷财政危机。

    在这两个案例中，国家之外还有强大的地方参与者，竭力抵制中央集权。他们包括拥有土地和资源的古老血缘贵族、广大的士绅阶层、城市资产阶级，已经组成正式的等级——法国的高等法院和西班牙的议会。法国和西班牙国家一步步收买这些群体，开始时好像不是国家建设的战略计划，只是防止破产的绝望革新。最初，法国在财政区省以免税和特权来购买地方精英的忠诚。它在 1557 年对“大借款”赖债不还，引发破产。这之后，它开始向富有个人出售公职，到 17 世纪早期又摇身变为世袭财产。公职的出售和再出售，一直持续到世纪末的路易十四年代。意大利和低地国家的持久王朝战争，使西班牙国家早早陷入破产。来自新世界的收入使之维持到 16 世纪末。到 17 世纪，它也只好诉诸拍卖国家的部分职能。

    法国和西班牙君主的集权能力，受到两国既存法治的严格限制，他们觉得必须尊重封建权利和臣民的特权。但他们试图抓住每一次机会，以扩充征税和征兵的权力，一有可能就想方设法扭曲、违反或规避有关法律。他们鼓励知识分子传播专制和主权的教条，以支持自己是法律最终来源的宣称，但没有设法废除或忽略法律。到最后，他们仍受规范化的遏制，无法从事中国皇帝式的随心所欲，像血腥清洗贵族对手的武则天，或像任意没收豪族土地的明朝开国皇帝朱元璋。

    对精英的一步步收买，意味着一再扩展寻租联合体，先是传统的贵族精英，再是新动员起来的社会参与者，如城市资产阶级。更确切地说，与其联合起来保护自己阶层的利益，这些精英宁愿以政治权力来交换社会地位和部分国家职能——不是议会的代表权，而是国家征税权的分享。用托克维尔的话说，自由被理解为一种特权，而不是真正的自治。这导致弱的专制主义，一方面，国家权力不受正式宪法的约束，另一方面，它又将自己前途抵押给了自己很难掌控的大批强势个人。

    对法国和西班牙来说，国家的软弱最终证明是致命的。因为国家建设以精英免税为基础，税收负担都落到农民和普通商贩的头上。两个国家都无法征集足够收入，以满足统治者的帝国野心。法国竞争不过更小的英国，后者的税收基础因议会负责制的原则而获得保证。西班牙进入持续一世纪的军事和经济的衰退。它们的国家都丧失了合法性，因为其组成方式本身就是腐败的，法国改革的失败为大革命铺平道路。

    强大的专制主义

    俄罗斯建立了更接近中国的强大专制主义国家。只要将它的发展与法国或西班牙作一对比，个中原因显而易见，其间重大差异至少有五项。

    第一，俄罗斯的地理——广阔大草原，只有很少自然障碍来应对基于骑兵的军队——使之易受来自西南、东南和西北的入侵，且经常是同时发生的。军事动员因此而变得非常重要。这还意味着，与对手相比，先发制人的军阀享有规模上的极大优势。莫斯科国家的权力基于对服役贵族——相当于士绅——的军事招聘。它能这样做，因为它仍是边界不定的边境国家。跟奥斯曼帝国西帕希骑士的情形一样，该阶层成员所获的奖励就是新土地，这些骑兵变成了国王的直接受养人。（最相似的西欧做法就是西班牙国王，将新大陆的托管权作为服务的报酬赠与征服者，导致了同样的政治等级制度。）莫斯科公国凭借对鞑靼的早期军事成功而获得先发制人的优势，因此享有比其他封地领主更多的合法性。

    第二，从卸下鞑靼轭到莫斯科投入国家建设，其间只有很短时期。封建主义在西欧扎根八百年，孕育了骄傲的血缘贵族，坚守在散布四野的险固城堡。相比之下，俄罗斯的封地时期仅持续两个世纪，贵族成员组织松弛，根本无法抵制中央君主的权力，也没有城堡可住。与西欧相比，他们以及像诺夫哥罗德那样的独立城市，较少受到地理上的保护。

    第三，俄罗斯没有可与西欧媲美的法治传统。指派俄罗斯牧首的拜占庭东正教，本身没有经历类似叙任权斗争的冲突，始终是政教合一，直到君士坦丁堡的失陷。拜占庭帝国的法律也没变成综合法典，受西方那样法律专业自治团体的保护。俄罗斯东正教是拜占庭教会的精神继承人，虽然时有偏离莫斯科统治者的政治独立，但也从国家赞助那里收获重大好处。天主教会可在分裂的西欧政治舞台中合纵连横，俄罗斯教会没有选择，只好去莫斯科，通常成为国家的顺从拥护者。没有独立的教会权威来监看一套教会法规，这意味着，接受训练的法律专家没有属于自己的机构来培养集团身份。教会官僚担任早期西欧国家的行政官员，在俄罗斯，管理国家机构的是军官和家族人选（经常是同一人）。最后，对很多俄罗斯人来说，统治者的榜样不是依法执政的君主，而是纯粹掠夺的蒙古征服者。

    第四，地理环境使农奴所有者结成卡特尔成为必需，将贵族和士绅的利益与君主政体的利益紧紧绑在一起。因为没有地理界限，要维持像农奴制那样的制度，全靠农奴主在处罚和归还逃奴上的严格自律。沙皇只要支持对农奴实施越来越紧的限制，就可把精英拴在国家这一边。相比之下，西欧的自由城市是庇护所，逃离领主和庄园经济的农奴，为追求自由而来投奔城市。在俄罗斯，城市充任功能上的边境——最终都被封闭。明显不同于俄罗斯君主和其他东欧统治者，西欧的国王发现，自由城市在反对强势领主的斗争中于己有利，因此予以保护。

    最后，有些思想在俄罗斯的渗透，达不到在西方国家那样的程度。首先是法治，再延伸到源于宗教改革和启蒙运动的整套思想。丹麦王太后索菲亚·玛德莲娜（Sophie Magdalene）在皇家领地上释放农奴时，曾是伏尔泰朋友的叶卡捷琳娜大帝，却在对俄罗斯农奴的行动自由实施更为严格的限制。当然，很多启蒙运动的思想被推行现代化的俄罗斯君主所采用，像彼得大帝。三代之后，沙皇亚历山大二世方才解放农奴。与欧洲其他部分相比，现代思想对俄罗斯的影响更为缓慢、更为虚弱。

    英国的结果为何不像匈牙利？

    以这些未能抵抗专制的国家为背景，英国的成果便显得愈加惊人。英国主要社会群体为保护自己的权利而反对国王，所显示出的团结胜过任何其他地方。英国议会包括从大贵族到自耕农的全部有产阶级的代表。其中两个群体特别重要，那就是士绅和第三等级。前者的阶层没有被招募进入国家服务，像俄罗斯那样；后者基本上不愿以政治权利来交换爵位和个人特权，如法国那样。法国、西班牙、俄罗斯的君主政体，向精英中的个人兜售官爵，从而破坏精英之间的团结。俄罗斯的门第选官法，其目的很像法国和西班牙的卖官鬻爵。英国君主也尝试像出售公职那样的手段，但议会仍是凝聚的机构，其原因早已提到——即对地方政府、普通法和宗教的普遍认可。

    这还不足以解释英国议会为何如此强大，以致君主政体被迫接受宪法。匈牙利议会中的贵族也很强大，也组织良好。像在兰尼米德的英国男爵，较低层次的匈牙利贵族在 13 世纪强迫君主接受宪法妥协，即金玺诏书，在后续年份中又死死看住国家。①在马蒂亚斯·匈雅提于 1490 年去世后，贵族阶层扭转君主政体在前一代作出的中央集权改革，夺回权力。

    但匈牙利贵族阶层没有运用权力来加强整体国家能力。更确切地说，他们以国防能力为代价给自己减税，保护自己的狭隘特权。相比之下，源自 1688—1689 年光荣革命的宪政和解，大大加强了英国的国家能力，以至它在未来一世纪中成为欧洲的主要强国。那么，我们要问的是，既然英国议会已经强大到能够遏制掠夺性的君主，但议会本身为何没有发展成寻租联合体，没有像匈牙利议会一样作茧自缚。

    英国负责制政府没有退化成贪婪的寡头政治，至少有两条原因。首先，英国的社会结构不同于匈牙利。英国议会中的团体是寡头政治，但与匈牙利相比，他们底下的社会更为流动，向非精英开放的程度更高。在匈牙利，士绅被吸收到狭窄的贵族阶层；在英国，他们代表一个庞大且凝聚的社会群体，在某些方面甚至比贵族还要强大。不像匈牙利，英国拥有基层政治参与的传统，体现在百户法庭、县法庭和其他地方治理机构。英国领主习惯于出席会议，与自己的属臣和佃户平等相处，讨论决定涉及共同利益的问题。此外，匈牙利没有英国那样的自耕农。自耕农是相对富裕的农民，拥有自己的土地，参与地方上的政治生活。匈牙利城市受到贵族阶层的严格控制，不能像英国那样衍生出富庶和强大的资产阶级。

    其次，尽管英国有个人自由的传统，但它的中央国家既强大，又在社会上获得大致的好评。它是发展出统一司法制度的首批国家之一，保护产权，为应付欧洲大陆的各式敌人而建起实质性的海军。1649 年查理一世被送上断头台，之后，英国又试验了共和政府和克伦威尔的护国公体制，结果都不如人意。甚至在议会拥护者的眼中，弑君本身似乎都是不正义的非法行为。英国内战见证了同样的愈趋激进，像法国、布尔什维克和中国革命后来所经历的一样。更为激进的反皇派，像平均派（leveller）和掘地派（digger），所追求的似乎不只是政治负责制，而是更为广泛的社会革命，从而吓坏了议会所代表的有产阶级。所以，随着查理二世的登基，君主政体在 1660 年得以复辟，大家都松了一口气。②复辟之后，政治负责制的问题在天主教徒詹姆士二世的治下重新泛起，其阴谋诡计招致议会的怀疑和反对，最终引致光荣革命。但这一次，没人再想废除君主政体或国家，只想要一位对自己负责的国王，那就是奥兰治的威廉。

    这再次证明思想是非常重要的。到 17 世纪晚期，像霍布斯和洛克那样的思想家，摆脱了基于阶级和等级的封建秩序的概念，转而赞成国家和公民之间的社会契约。霍布斯在《利维坦》中认为，就激情和彼此施暴的能耐而言，人与人在根本上都是平等的；此外，他们还享有天赋权利。洛克接受这些前提，并抨击不经被统治者同意也可有合法统治的主张。只要依照同意原则，就可以推翻国王。这些早期自由主义者认为，权利是抽象和普遍的，任何强人不得合法剥夺。但在这些思想传到匈牙利之前，匈牙利早已向土耳其和奥地利屈服称臣了。

    从上述比较中可得出一个简单的教训。政治自由——即社会自我统治的能力——不但要看社会能否动员起来，以对抗中央集权，并将宪法约束强加于国家；还要看国家是否足够强大，能在必要时采取行动。负责制不是只从国家流向社会的单行道。如果政府不能采取团结行动，没有广泛接受的共同目标，就无法奠定政治自由的真正基石。明显不同于马蒂亚斯·匈雅提死后的匈牙利，1689 年之后的英国仍然强大而团结。议会愿意向自身征税，为 18 世纪的海外持久争斗作出牺牲。与没有制衡的政治制度相比，高度制衡的不一定会取得更大成功，因为政府需要定期采取坚决果断的行动。所以，负责制政治制度的稳定，全靠国家和社会之间的广泛均势。

    达到丹麦

    辉格史观的问题之一在于，它将英国的经历当作宪政民主制（constitutional democracy）兴起的范例。然而，欧洲其他国家走上不同路径，最后抵达与英国相同的目的地。我们开始解说冗长的政治发展史时，曾提出丹麦如何变成今日丹麦的问题——守法、民主、繁荣、执政清廉的政体，其政治腐败处于世界最低水平——我们需要时间来解释这个结果。

    在 1500 年，还看不出丹麦（或斯堪的纳维亚其他国家）将会不同于中世纪晚期的其他欧洲社会。有些评论家尝试将今日的丹麦一直追溯到当初定居斯堪的纳维亚的维京人。③除了他们不骑马，驾长艇远行，很难想象这一掠夺部落，如何将自己从来自罗马帝国之后定居欧洲的日耳曼野蛮人中彻底区分出来。

    丹麦的君主政体具有很古老的血统，从 13 世纪起变得相对软弱。国王被迫签署宪章，允诺向贵族议会征求咨询，向教会提供特权。④像欧洲的其他国家，丹麦的经济仍以庄园为基础。丹麦地处波罗的海的进口，邻近汉萨同盟的港口城市，使国际贸易成为其经济发展的重要因素。⑤卡尔马联盟（Kalmar Union）在 15 世纪中期曾短暂地统一大部分的斯堪的纳维亚。联盟解散后，丹麦仍是相当重要的多民族政权，控制着挪威、冰岛、说德语的石勒苏益格—荷尔斯泰因地区（Schleswig ＆ Holstein），以及现是海湾对面的瑞典西部省份。

    如果说有一个事件，促使丹麦和斯堪的纳维亚其他地区走上独特发展道路，那就是宗教改革。跟在欧洲其他地区一样，马丁·路德（Martin Luther）的思想证明是非常震撼人心的，催化了大众对天主教会的长期不满。在丹麦，短暂内战导致新教徒的胜利，以及 1536 年路德派丹麦国教的建立。⑥促成这个结果的，既有道德因素，也有物质因素，丹麦国王视之为攫取教会资产的良机。当时，教会拥有相当多的财富，大约占有丹麦土地的 30%。⑦

    宗教改革在丹麦的持久政治影响是鼓励农民脱盲。路德教会坚信，普通老百姓要与上帝沟通，需要阅读圣经，或至少要读路德教的简易问答集（Lesser Catechism）。始于 16 世纪，路德教会在丹麦每一座村庄设立学校，让教士向农民传授基本的读写技能。结果在 18 世纪，丹麦农民（还有斯堪的纳维亚的其他地区）已成为教育程度相对较高、日益组织起来的社会阶层。⑧

    当代社会的社会动员通常是经济发展的结果，这也是中世纪英国所走的道路。普通法的产权扩展，促使英国农民的最高层进化成政治上活跃的自耕农。相比之下，在前现代 16 世纪的丹麦，促进社会动员的是宗教。脱盲允许农民改善经济条件，还帮助他们互相交流，并作为政治行动者组织起来。到 19 世纪早期，斯堪的纳维亚和俄罗斯的乡村，彼此之间的悬殊是无法想象的，尽管两者的地理相近，气候相似。

    跟英国的情形不同，这里的代议民主制并不来自组织良好、足以抵抗中央国家的封建残余机构（议会）。丹麦在 1660 年败于瑞典，遂建立了专制国家，其官僚机构变得愈益精明。⑨丹麦议会已被废除，没有基于社会等级的政治结构，可供君主前去要求增税。

    从 1760 年到 1792 年，丹麦发生了重大的政治革命。开明君主开始逐渐废除农奴制（Stavnsbånd），先在皇家领地，再扩展到所有地主，并限制地主处罚下人的权利，譬如不能再将农民放在木马上鞭打。⑩农民仍然没有选举权，但可以拥有土地，并能在同等的基础上从商。⑪

    丹麦君主将农民自由视作遏制贵族地主的良机，遂遭到了地主的顽强抵抗。他又可将获得自由的农民，直接征募进国家军队。思想也很重要。亚当·斯密的《国富论》出版于 1776 年，他认为，自耕农的生产效率将远远超过农奴。同样重要的是农民本身得到越来越多的教育和动员，充分利用自由经济的机会，投入到盈利较多的增值生意，例如食物加工。

    使丹麦现代民主成为可能的第二个重大事件来自外国。到 18 世纪末，丹麦仍是欧洲中等的多民族政权。在 1814 年的拿破仑战争中失去挪威。19 世纪前几十年，法国大革命思想的传播促成复杂的政治后果。它刺激了基于阶级的两项需求，一项来自资产阶级和农民，跟政治参与有关；另一项来自说德语的少数民族，与国家认可有关。

    普鲁士解决了第二项需求，通过一场短暂但决定性的战争，在 1864 年兼并了主要说德语的石勒苏益格—荷尔斯泰因公国。只过一个晚上，丹麦就变成基本上讲丹麦语的整齐划一的小国。它知道自己别无他法，只好接受小国寡民的处境。

    丹麦的民主出现于 19 世纪后期，社会民主主义出现于 20 世纪早期，这就是它们的来龙去脉。教士兼教育家的葛隆维（N. F. S. Grundtvig）所激发的农民政治运动，最初只装扮成宗教复兴运动。它摆脱官方的路德教会，在全国各地大办学校。⑫等到立宪君主政体在 1848 年当政，农民运动和代表资产阶级的自由派开始要求直接的政治参与，并在翌年获得选举权。丹麦在 20 世纪成为福利国家，这已超越本卷的范围。当它最终来到时，并不完全依靠新兴的工人阶级，还需要农民阶级的帮助。在关键时刻，促使农民动员起来的不是经济增长，而是宗教。

    民主和现代市场经济在丹麦的发展，比在英国经历了少得多的冲突和狂暴，更不用提相比法国、西班牙和德国了。为了到达现代丹麦，丹麦人确实与邻国打了好几仗，包括瑞典和普鲁士，也在 17 世纪和 19 世纪发生了激烈的国内冲突。但没有持久的内战，没有圈地运动，没有专制暴政，没有早期工业化所带来的赤贫，所留下的阶级斗争遗产非常薄弱。就丹麦的故事而言，思想是至关重要的，这不仅指路德教会和葛隆维的意识形态，而且还有 18 世纪和 19 世纪一系列丹麦君主所接受的关于权利和宪政的启蒙思想。

    丹麦的民主兴起充满了历史的偶然性，不能在别处复制。丹麦抵达现代自由民主制的途径完全不同于英国，但最终都抵达非常相似的目的地。它们都发展了强大国家、法治和负责制政府。这似乎显示，“达到丹麦”可有多种途径。

    第五部分 迈向政治发展理论

    第 29 章 政治发展和政治衰败

    政治的生物基础；政治秩序的进化机制；政治不同于经济；制度的定义；政治衰败的来源；国家、法治、负责制的相互关联；政治发展条件的历史演变

    本卷提供的政治发展史是从前人类时代到法国和美国革命前夕，直到这时，真正的现代政治方才问世。此后，众多政治体出现，囊括现代政治制度的三大重要组件：国家、法治、负责制政府。

    至此，有些读者可能会断定，我对政治发展的解读是历史决定论的。通过介绍各种政治制度复杂且背景独特的起源，我似乎在主张，类似的制度要在今日出现必须要有类似条件，各国因独特的历史背景已被锁定在各自单一的发展路径上。

    这肯定是误解。能把优势带给社会的制度，总是被他人复制和改进；知识和制度的跨社会交汇，伴随着历史的始终。此外，本卷的历史故事，结束于工业革命前夕，而工业革命本身，又大大改变了政治发展的条件。这两点，将在最后一章得到详细描述。本书的第 2 卷，将描述和分析后马尔萨斯世界（post-Malthusian world）的政治发展。

    人类社会对制度持强烈的保守态度，不会每过一代就把台面上的赌注一扫而光。新制度往往重叠在既有制度上面，例如分支世系制，它是社会组织最古老的形式，却依然存在于现代世界的很多地方。如不弄清这一遗产和它对今日政治行动者选择的限制，就不可能理解今日改革的可能性。

    此外，厘清制度初建时的复杂可帮助我们看到，它们的转变和模仿，即使在现代情形下，也是异常艰难的。政治制度得以建立，往往出于非政治原因（经济学家称之为政治制度的外部因素），我们已看到若干案例。其中之一是私人财产，它的出现不仅为了经济，还因为宗族需要土地埋葬祖先以平息死者灵魂。同样，法治的神圣不可侵犯，在历史上全靠法律的宗教起源。国家在中国和欧洲出现，根源就是当代国际体系所竭力阻止的无休止战争。没有这些外部因素，仍想重建这些制度，往往举步维艰。

    我将总结本卷中有关政治制度发展的主题，并从中提炼出政治发展和衰败的理论大纲。这可能算不上真正的预测性理论，因为最终结果往往取决于互有关联的众多因素。此外还有龟的问题，即选来充当原因的龟，结果又要以底下的龟为基础。我以自然状态和人类生物学为本卷的开头，因为它是明显的起点，可算作底层的龟（Grund-Schildkröte），可以背驮后续的龟群。

    政治的生物基础

    人类在社会中组织自己行为时，不是完全自由的，因为他们共享一种生物本性。考虑到非洲之外的多数当代人，都可认祖归宗到大约五万年前的小群体，这种本性在全世界都是统一的。共享的本性不能决定政治行为，但可限定可能的制度性质。这表示，人类政治取决于人类重复的行为模式，既横跨文化又纵越时间。共享的本性将在下述论点中获得说明：

    人类从未在无社会状态中生存。据称，人类曾是隔离的，要么在无政府暴力中与他人互动（霍布斯），要么在和平中对他人一无所知（卢梭），但这却是错的。人类及其灵长目祖先，一直生活在基于亲戚关系的大小社会群体中。生活得如此长久，以至社会合作所需要的认知和情感，都已进化成人类的天性。这表明，有关集体行动的理性选择，即他们核算合作的利弊，大大低估了人类社会既存的合作，也误读了其中的动机。①

    人类天生的社会交往建立在两个原则之上：亲戚选择和互惠利他。亲戚选择原则，又称包容适存性原则，是指人类会大致根据共享的基因比例，对跟自己有遗传关系的亲属（或被认为有遗传关系的个体）做出利他行为。互惠利他原则是指，随着与其他个体的长时间互动，人类会发展出共同的利害关系。跟亲戚选择不同，互惠利他不依赖遗传关系，而是依赖重复、直接的人际互动，以及从这类互动中产生的信任关系。在缺乏其他更为非人格化制度激励的情况下，这些形式的社会合作是人类互动的预设模式。一旦非人格化制度出现衰败，这两种合作又会重现，因为这是人类的本性。我所谓的家族化，就是指基于这两项原则的政治用人。所以，当中国汉朝末年皇亲国戚充塞朝廷，当土耳其禁卫军让自己的儿子入伍接班，当法兰西王国卖官鬻爵制造世袭产业，只不过是自然的家族制原则复辟了。

    人类天生喜欢制定和遵循规范或规则。从根本上说，制度就是限制个人选择的规则，由此类推，可以说人类天生喜欢建立制度。人们核算如何可获最大私利，从而制定理性规则，与他人一起履行社会契约。人类天生具有认知能力，知道如何解答“囚徒困境”类的合作问题。他们记住过去行为以作未来合作的指南；他们通过闲聊和其他分享，传播和获悉他人的可信度；他们有敏锐的知觉，通过察言观色以侦测谎言和不可信赖的行为；他们掌握分享信息的共同模式，不管是语言的，还是非语言的。在某种意义上，制定和遵循规则是在走捷径，可大大减少社交成本，允许高效率的集体行动。

    人类遵循规则的本能，往往基于情感，而非理性。像罪过、可耻、骄傲、愤怒、困窘和赞美，都不是学来的，都不是洛克所谓的出生后、与外界互动时获得的。它们在小孩身上表现得非常自然，小孩依照这基于遗传但寓于文化的规则来组织自己的行为。我们制定和遵循规则的能力很像我们的语言能力：规则的内容是传统的，因社会而异；但规则的“内在结构”和我们的接受能力却是天生的。

    人类倾向于将内在价值注入规则，这有助于说明社会的保守和顽固。规则的产生是为了因应特殊情形；之后，情形本身有了变化；久而久之，规则变得过时，甚至严重失调，但社会仍然拽住不放。欧洲人示范了枪械的卓有成效，但马穆鲁克仍予以拒绝，因为他们已向骑士征战注入了特殊情感，这直接导致了他们惨败于应时而变的奥斯曼帝国。因此，各社会都有竭力保留现存制度的普遍倾向。

    人类天生具有暴力倾向。从存在的第一瞬间，人类就对其同类行使暴力，就像他们的灵长目祖先。尽管我敬仰卢梭，但暴力倾向不是人类在历史某时某刻学来的。同时，社会制度的存在就是为了控制和转移暴力。政治制度最重要的功能之一就是调控暴力出现的层面。

    人类天生追求的不只是物质，还有承认。承认是指对他人尊严或价值的承认，又可称作地位。追求承认或地位的奋斗，往往不同于为物质的奋斗；地位是相对的，不是绝对的，即经济学家罗伯特·弗兰克（Robert Frank）所称的“地位性物品”（positional good）。②换言之，只有他人都处于低级地位时，你才算拥有了高级地位。像自由贸易的合作游戏是正和，允许大家都赢；然而，追求承认或地位的斗争却是零和，你的增益一定是对方的损失。

    人类政治活动的大部分都以寻求承认为中心。不管是寻求天命的中国未来君主，打黄巾或赤眉旗号的卑微农民，还是法国红便帽起义军，他们都在追求承认。阿拉伯部落平息相互纠纷，征服北非和中东的大部，这是在为伊斯兰教寻求承认。欧洲战士征服新大陆，打的是基督教的旗帜。近代民主政体的兴起，如避而不谈其内核的平等承认，也是无法理解的。在英国，追求承认的性质循序渐进，从部落或村庄的权利，到英国人民的权利，再到洛克式的天赋人权。

    抵制人类只追求物质利益的讲法是很重要的。人类历史中的施暴者，往往不在寻求财富，而在追求承认。冲突的长期持续，远远超过其经济意义。承认有时与财富有关，有时又以财富为牺牲品；如把承认视作另类的“功用”（utility），那就偏于简单，于事无补了。

    思想作为原因

    在解释社会差异和独特发展路径时，如不把思想当作原因，便无法打造政治发展的理论。在社会科学的术语中，思想是独立的变数；在龟的术语中，思想处在龟群的下层，它的底下绝对没有经济或自然环境的龟。

    所有的社会都制造现实的心智模型。这些心智模型在不同因素中——时常是无形的——寻找因果关系，为了使世界更清晰、更可预言、更容易操纵。在早期社会，这些无形因素是精神、魔鬼、上帝、自然，时至今日则演变成抽象概念，像地心吸力、辐射、经济自利、社会阶级等。所有的宗教信仰都是现实的心智模型，都把观察到的现象归因于无法或很难观察的力量。至少从大卫·休谟起，我们懂得，单靠实证资料是无法核实因果关系的。随着现代自然科学的发展，我们改用新的因果理论以控制实验或统计分析，至少可以证伪。有了测试因果的更好办法，人类得以更有效地操纵环境。例如，改用肥料和灌溉来增加粮食产量，而不是牺牲者的血液。每个已知的人类社会都制造现实的心智模型。这表明，这种能力是天生的而不是后学的。

    共享的心智模型，尤其是宗教，在促进大规模集体行动方面是至关重要的。建立在理性自利上的集体行动，解释不了世界上客观存在的社会合作和利他主义。③宗教信仰激发人们所做的事，只对财富感兴趣的人通常是不做的，就像我们看到的伊斯兰教 7 世纪在阿拉伯半岛的崛起。信念和文化的分享会增进合作，因为有共同目标，还有应付类似难题的协调。④

    很多人看到当代世界的宗教冲突，从而反对宗教，认为它们是暴力和心胸狭隘的来源。⑤这在重叠宗教和多样宗教的世界，可能是千真万确的，但他们忽视了宗教的历史作用。它曾扮演非常重要的角色，允许超越亲友的合作，成为社会关系的来源。此外，世俗的意识形态，如马列主义和民族主义，已在很多当代社会取代宗教信仰，呈现出不相上下的破坏能量，也能激发强烈的信念。

    心智模型和规则紧密相连，因为它往往明确指出社会必须遵循的规则。宗教不只是理论，而且是道德规范的处方，要求追随者严格遵守。宗教，就像其颁布的教规，都被注入深厚的情感；信教是为了它的固有价值，不是为了它的准确或有用。宗教信仰，既不能确认，也很难证伪。所有这一切加深了人类社会的保守性。现实的心智模型一经采纳就很难变更，即使出现不利的新证据。

    几乎所有已知的人类社会都有某种形式的宗教信仰。这表明，宗教很可能植根于人的天性。就像语言和遵循规则，宗教信仰的内容是传统的，因社会而异，但建立宗教原则的能力却是先天的。⑥我的叙述与宗教的政治影响有关，但不以“宗教基因”的存在与否为前提。即使宗教是后学的，它对政治行为仍施加巨大影响。

    像马克思和涂尔干那样的思想家，看到宗教信仰在联合群体上的高效率（或是社区整体，或是阶级整体），从而相信宗教是故意为此打造的。如我们所见，宗教思想与政治经济一起发展，从萨满教（shamanism）和巫术，到祖先崇拜，再到拥有成熟原则的多神论和一神论宗教。⑦宗教信仰与信徒团体的生存条件，必须发生明显的关联。自杀教派，或禁止其成员繁衍的教派，如震教徒（Shakers），就不会存活太久。所以很容易产生一种倾向，以物质条件来解说宗教，并视宗教为它的产物。

    然而，这是一个大错。既存的物质条件永远解释不了宗教。最明显的案例是中国和印度的对照。公元前第一个千年终止时，两个社会的社会结构非常相似，都有父系血统的家族和由此产生的政治模式。之后，印度社会转入弯路，唯一的解释是婆罗门宗教的兴起。该教形而上学的主张是非常复杂的，但要把它与当时印度北部的经济和环境条件挂起钩来，却是徒劳无益的。

    我描绘的众多案例中，宗教思想都在塑造政治结果方面扮演了独立角色。例如，在欧洲两个重要制度的形成中，天主教会曾发挥主要作用。6 世纪以来，日耳曼野蛮部落逐渐征服罗马帝国；但在颠覆日耳曼的亲戚团体产权结构上，天主教会是关键，更削弱了部落制本身。欧洲由此走出基于亲戚关系的社会组织，用的是社会手段，而不是政治手段，与中国、印度和中东截然不同。在 11 世纪，天主教会宣告独立自主，不受世俗政府的管辖，并将自己组织成现代的等级制度，推动全欧洲的法治。相似的独立宗教机构，也存在于在印度、中东和拜占庭帝国，但在促使独立法律的制度化上，都比不上西方教会。没有叙任权斗争及其后果，法治绝不可能在西方落地生根。

    没有案例显示，宗教价值是超越物质利益的。像印度的婆罗门和穆斯林社会的乌里玛，天主教会也是拥有物质利益的社会团体。教宗格里高利一世所颁布的遗产新法，似乎不是为了教义，而是为了私利；它鼓励把土地转让给教会，而不必留给亲戚团体。尽管如此，教会不只是简单的政治参与者，像当时支配欧洲的各式军阀。它无法将资源转换成军事力量，没有世俗政府的帮助，也无法从事掠夺。另一方面，它却可将合法性授予世俗的政治参与者。这件事，后者光凭自己是做不到的。经济学家有时谈起政治参与者如何“投资”于合法性，好像合法性是生产工具，像土地或机器。⑧如要理解合法性，就一定要投入它的特殊语境，即人们对上帝、正义、人生、社会、财富、美德等的观念。

    人类价值和意识形态的最重要变化之一——平等的承认——发生于本卷所涵盖时期的结尾，可以说正是这一观念定义了现代世界。人类平等思想有很深的根源：学者如黑格尔、托克维尔和尼采，把现代的平等思想追溯到圣经中以上帝形象造人的说法。然而，享有同等尊严的人类小圆圈，其扩张速度是非常缓慢的，要到 17 世纪之后，才开始包括社会较低阶层、女性、种族、宗教等少数人群体等。

    从族团和部落层次的社会迈入国家层次的社会，在某种意义上，代表人类自由的一大挫折。与基于亲戚关系的前任相比，国家更为富饶，更为强大。但这财富和力量，却铸造了悬殊的等级差别，有的变成主人，更多的变成奴隶。黑格尔会说，在如此不平等的社会中，统治者获得的承认是有缺陷的，最终连自己也不满意，因为它来自缺乏尊严的人。现代民主的兴起为所有人提供自决机会，以承认相互的尊严和权利为基础。因此，它只是在更大更复杂的社会里，恢复当初迈入国家时所失去的。

    负责制政府出现，与相关思想的传播是分不开的。我们在英国议会的案例中看到，对英国人民权利的信仰是议会团结的根本，洛克式的天赋人权塑造了光荣革命。这些思想进而推动美国革命。我在此书呈现的负责制兴起的历史原因，似乎植根于政治参与者的物质利益，但我们必须同时考虑，确定政治参与者和集体行动范围的相关思想。

    政治发展的普遍机制

    政治制度的进化，大致可与生物进化媲美。达尔文的进化论以两项简单的原则为基石：变异和选择。有机体的变异，源于基因的随意组合；能更好适应环境的变种，则获得较大的繁殖成功，适应力较差的就要付出代价。

    以长远的历史观点看，政治发展遵照同一模式：不同人类群体所使用的政治组织发生了变异，较为成功的——能发展较强的军事和经济力量——得以取代较不成功的。在高层次的抽象中，很难想象政治发展还有他路可走。但先要弄清政治进化与生物进化的差异，其至少有三条。

    首先，在政治进化中，选择对象是体现在制度身上的规则，而生物进化中的选择对象是基因。尽管人的天性促进规则的制订和遵循，但不能决定其内容，所以会有内容上的极大差别。制度以规则为基础，将优势授予其生存的社会；在人类代理人的互动中，获选的是优势制度，淘汰的是劣势制度。

    其次，在人类社会中，制度的变异可按计划，可作商讨，不像基因变异那样随意。哈耶克强烈驳斥人类社会自觉设计制度的想法，将之追溯到后笛卡尔（post-Cartesian）的理性主义。⑨他认为，社会中多数信息其实是本地的，无法获得中央代理人的理解。⑩哈耶克论点的缺陷是，人类一直在社会各层次成功地设计制度。他不喜欢自上而下、集中的国家社会工程，但愿意接受自下向上、分散的制度革新，尽管后者仍是人为设计的。大规模设计的成功频率，可能低于小规模的，但确有发生。人类很难将意外结果和信息残缺纳入计划，但能作计划的事实表明，自觉建立的制度之变异，比简单的随机而变更有可能适应解决问题。不过，哈耶克仍是正确的，制度进化并不取决于人们设计制度的能力，单是变异和选择，便可取得适时应务的进化结果。⑪

    最后，被选择的特征——政治进化中是制度，生物进化中是基因——借文化而获得传递，不靠遗传。就适应性而言，这既是优势，又是劣势。文化特征，如规范、习惯、法律、信念或价值，至少在理论上，可在一代人的时间获得迅速修改，如 7 世纪的伊斯兰教，或 16 世纪丹麦农民的扫盲。另一方面，人们偏爱将内在价值注入心智模型和由此建立的制度，导致制度的经久不衰。相比之下，生物有机体不会敬畏或膜拜自己的基因，如不能帮助生物的存活和繁殖，选择原则便会无情将之去掉。所以，制度进化既可快于也可慢于生物进化。

    与生物进化不同，制度可通过模仿而获得扩散。衰弱制度的社会，被强大制度的社会打败了，或干脆消灭了，但也有采纳“防御性现代化”的⑫，从而引进竞争者的制度。17—19 世纪的日本德川幕府时期，治国的封建君主们从葡萄牙人和其他旅客处，很早就获悉火器的存在。但他们正处于长期的军火自我管制中，大家同意不引进火器，因为不想放弃传统的冷兵器战争形式。当美国海军准将马休·佩里（Matthew Perry）和他的“黑船”在 1853 年的东京湾露脸时，执政的精英知道，如果不想成为第二个中国，他们必须终止这种舒适的自我管制来取得美国人所拥有的军事技术。1868 年的明治维新之后，日本引进的不只是军火，还有新式政府、中央官僚体制、新教育制度和其他一系列制度，均借鉴于欧洲和美国。

    生物进化既是特别的，又是普遍的。特别进化是指物种适应了特殊环境，并作调整，如著名的达尔文雀（Finches）。普遍进化是指成功的物种跨越本地环境，而向外扩散。所以有大规模的普遍进化，从单细胞到多细胞的有机体，从无性繁殖到有性繁殖，从恐龙到哺乳动物等。政治发展也是如此。行为意义上的现代人类，大约在五万年前离开非洲，迁移到世界各地。他们努力适应遇上的不同环境，开发了不同的语言、文化和制度。同时，某些社会凑巧碰上能提供优势的社会组织。于是，也发生了普遍进化，从族团层次，转到部落层次，再转到国家层次的社会。国家层次社会中，组织较为完善的又击败或吸收组织较差的，使自己的社会组织获得传播和扩散。所以在政治制度的演化中，既有分流，也有汇集。

    跟生物进化一样，竞争对政治发展至关重要。如没有竞争，就不会有对制度的选择压力，也不会有对制度革新、借鉴、改革的激励。导致制度革新的最重要竞争之一是暴力和战争。经济生产力的增长，使族团层次向部落层次的过渡得以实现，但直接动机则来自部落社会动员人力的优势。第 5 章中，我讨论了国家原生形成的不同理论，包括经济自利、灌溉、密集人口、地理界限、宗教权威、暴力。虽然，所有因素都发挥了作用；但从自由的部落社会到专制的国家社会，此项艰难的过渡，更像是由保全生命而不是经济利益的需要促成的。浏览诸如中国、印度、中东和欧洲等地国家形成的历史记录，我们看到暴力再一次成了主角。它鼓励国家形成，还鼓励与现代国家相关的特别制度的建立。本章后面还会讲到，合作中遇到的某种问题，除了暴力，没有其他方法。

    处处是拱肩

    生物学家史蒂芬·古尔德（Stephn Gould）和理查德·列万廷（Richard Lewontin），在 1979 年的文章中，以建筑学上的拱肩（spandrel）来解释生物变异中的不可预知。⑬拱肩是支撑圆屋顶的拱门背线与相邻直角形成的弧形区域。它不是建筑师故意设计的，而是其他精心计划的零件组装后留下的副产品。尽管如此，拱肩开始获得装饰，并随时间的推移而自成一格。古尔德和列万廷主张，有机体身上为某个原因而进化的生物特征，到后来，却能为完全不同的原因，提供适应的优势。

    拱肩（左上角）

    我们在政治进化中看到不少类似拱肩的东西。公司——一个有着与其组成人员清晰可分的身份并可以永久存在的机构——最初是作为宗教组织出现的，没有任何商业目的。⑭天主教会支持女子的继承权，不是想增加女子权利——这在 7 世纪是不合时宜的——而是看上了强大家族手中的珍贵地产，认为这是很好的途径。如果说，教会领袖当时就预见，这将影响亲戚关系的整体，这是很可疑的。最后，忙于叙任权斗争的人，脑海中并没有浮现以独立司法限制政府的想法。当时，那只是一场道德和政治的斗争，为了争取天主教会的独立自主。然而在西方，宗教组织赢得的独立自主，经过长期进化，变成了司法部门的独立自主。法律的宗教基础被世俗来源所取代，但它的结构仍保持原样。所以说，法治本身就是一种拱肩。

    实际上，不同制度的历史根源，往往是一长列历史意外事件的产品，没人能够预测。这看起来令人泄气，因为当代社会无法经历同样事件来获得类似制度。但这忽略了政治发展中拱肩的作用，与制度的历史来源相比，制度的功能更为重要。一旦发现，其他社会可以完全出乎意料的方式来模仿和采纳。

    制度（机构）⑮

    在本卷中，我一直使用亨廷顿对制度的定义，即“稳定、有价值、重复的行为模式”。⑯至于被称作国家的那个制度或机构（the institution called the state），我不仅使用韦伯的定义（在界定的领土上合法行使垄断暴力的组织），还使用他对现代国家的标准（按专门技术和技能合理地分工；使用非人格化的用人制度，对公民行使非人格化的权威）。非人格化的现代国家，不管是建立还是维持，都很困难。家族化——基于亲戚关系和互惠利他的政治用人——是社会关系的自然形式，如果没有其他的规范和鼓励，人类就会回归。

    现代组织还有其他特征。亨廷顿列出四条标准来测量国家制度（机构）的发展程度：适应和僵硬，复杂和简单，自主和从属，凝聚和松散。⑰这是指越善于适应、越复杂、越能自主和越凝聚的机构，其发展程度就越是成熟。善于适应的组织，可评估不断变化的外部环境，再修改其内部程序来应对。环境总在变化，所以善于适应的机构活得长久。英国的普通法系统，其法官因应新情形，不断在重新解释和延伸有关法律，就是善于适应的样板。

    成熟的机构更为复杂，因为它们有更大的分工和专业化。在酋邦或初期国家中，统治者可能同时又是军事长官、总教士、税务员和最高法院的法官。在高度发达的国家中，这些功能由各自为政的组织承担，它们负有特别使命，需要高度的技术能力。汉朝时期，中国已在中央、郡、地方层次派驻无数官僚机构和部门；虽然比不上现代政府，但与犹如君主家庭简单延伸的早期政府相比，却是一大进步。

    自主和凝聚是机构标准的最后两条，如亨廷顿指出的，它们密切相关。自主是指机构开发自觉的集团身份，不受社会其他力量的影响。在第 17 至 19 章讨论法治时，我们看到，法律对政府权力的约束，很大程度上取决于法庭所取得的制度性自治。这里的自治是指不受政治干涉，有权训练、雇用、晋升、惩罚律师和法官。⑱自主与专业化也是紧密相连的，所以，它适宜被看作比较成熟的机构的特征。其他条件都相同的情况下，掌控自身内部升迁的军队，比将军是政治任命的军队，或将军是金钱买来的军队，更具战斗力。

    另一方面，凝聚是指政治系统中，不同组织的职责和使命都有明确的界定并被遵从。松散的政治制度中，很多组织参与政府行为，如征税和公共安全，但弄不清到底谁在负责。众多自治机构组成的国家部门，比众多从属机构组成的更有可能是凝聚的。在家族化社会中，领袖的家庭或部落成员，在各政府功能上享有重叠或暧昧的权力，或干脆为特殊个人设立特殊官位。忠诚比公共管理能力更为重要，这种情况迄今仍存在于很多发展中国家（甚至少数发达国家）。国家部门中的官方权力分工，与权力的实际分配不符，导致机构的松散。

    制度（机构）的四条标准隐含一个概念，即制度是规则，或是重复的行为模式，比任何掌管机构的个人，都要活得长久。先知穆罕默德，生前以自己的魅力使麦地那部落团结起来，但他没有为阿哈里发的继承留下任何制度。年轻的宗教勉强活过第二代的权力斗争，在很多方面仍在为当初的缺陷付出代价，那就是逊尼派和什叶派的大分裂。穆斯林世界中后来的成功政权，全都依靠制度的创建，像奥斯曼帝国的征募制，招募奴隶军，不依赖个人权力。在中国，皇帝实际上变成属下官僚和繁复规则的囚犯。领袖可塑造机构，而高度发达的机构，不仅比拙劣的领袖活得更长，更有训练和招募优秀领袖的制度。

    政治衰败

    制度之间的竞争促使政治发展，这是一个动态过程。与此对应的，还有一个政治衰败过程；彼时，社会的制度化越来越弱。政治衰败可在两种形式中发生。制度的建立最初是为了迎接特殊环境的挑战。那环境可以是物质的，如土地、资源、气候和地理，也可以是社会的，如对手、敌人、竞争者和同盟者等。制度一旦形成，倾向于长久存在。如上所述，人类天生偏爱将内在价值注入规则和心智模型。如果没有社会规范、礼仪和其他情感投资，制度便不成其为制度——稳定、富有价值、重复的行为模式。制度长存带有明显的适应价值：如果不存在遵循规则和行为模式的天性，就要不断举行谈判，会给社会稳定带来巨大损失。另一方面，就制度而言，社会是极端保守的；这意味着，促使制度成立的原始条件发生变化时，制度却做不到随机应变。制度与外部环境在变化频率上的脱节，就是政治衰败，就是反制度化。

    社会对现存制度的历代投资，导致双重失误：不仅没能调整过时的制度，甚至察觉不到已出毛病。社会心理学家称之为“认知失调”，历史上有无数这样的案例。⑲某社会因优秀制度而变得更富裕，或在军事上更强大，其他竞争力较弱社会的成员，如想继续生存，就必须正确地把上述优势归因于根本性的制度。然而，社会的结果总有多种原因，总能为社会弱点或失败找出似是而非的狡辩。从罗马到中国，众多社会把军事挫折归咎于对宗教的不诚，宁可献上更多的礼仪和牺牲，也不愿全力以赴地重整军队。近代社会里，很容易把社会失败归咎于外国阴谋，不管是犹太人的，还是美帝国主义的，而不愿在自己制度身上寻找原因。

    政治衰败的第二种形式是家族制复辟。眷顾家人或互惠的朋友是自然的社会交往，也是人类互动的预设。人类最普遍的政治互动，发生在保护人和依附者之间，领袖以恩惠换取追随者的支持。在政治发展的某些阶段，这种政治组织曾是唯一的形式。但是，随着制度的演化，产生了新的规则，用人标准慢慢改为功能或才干——中国的科举制度、土耳其的征募制、天主教的教士独身制、禁止裙带关系的现代立法。但家族制复辟的压力始终存在。最初以非人格化原因聘入机构的人，仍试图将职位传给自己的孩子或朋友。制度遭受压力时，领袖经常发现自己必须做出让步以保证政治优势，或满足财政需求。

    这两种政治衰败，我们可看到很多例子。17 世纪前期，组织良好的满人在北方虎视眈眈，中国的明朝面对与日俱增的军事压力。政权的生存，取决于朝廷能否整顿资源，重建精兵，北上御疆。结果一无所成，因为政府不愿或不能增税。此时，政权与不愿承担更高税赋的精英，处于某种大家都觉满意的共存关系；疏于朝政的皇帝发现，比较容易的对策是让睡着的狗继续睡下去。

    家族制复辟是一种循环现象。中国西汉时期建立的非人格化官僚制度，逐渐受到贵族家族的侵蚀；他们试图为自己和后裔在中央政府中保留特权；这些家庭在后来的隋唐两朝仍得以支配中国的官僚机构。埃及的马穆鲁克和土耳其禁卫军先要求成家，再要求自己的孩子进入军事机构，从而破坏了非人格化的奴隶军制度。马穆鲁克一例是对 13 世纪晚期局势的回应，当时蒙古威胁逐渐减退，鼠疫频仍，贸易条件恶化。奥斯曼一例的起因是通货膨胀和预算压力，导致塞利姆一世和苏莱曼一世向土耳其禁卫军做出类似让步。天主教会禁止教士和主教成家以建立现代官僚制度，久而久之也发生故障；神职人员寻求圣职与圣俸的合一，使之成为世袭产业。在法国和西班牙则出现公开的卖官鬻爵，政府部门私有化，再由后裔继承。

    这两种政治衰败——制度僵化和家族制复辟——经常同时发生。现存制度的既得利益者，即家族化官僚，会极力阻止改革。如制度彻底崩溃，往往又是他们，凭借其荫庇关系网络出来收拾残局。

    暴力和功能失调的均衡

    我们除了指出制度长存的自然倾向，还可精确解释制度在适应环境时的姗姗来迟。任何一个制度或制度系统，即便在整体上提供诸如内部和平和产权等的公共服务，也一定会惠顾社会上某些群体，并以其他群体为代价。受惠顾的群体，可能在人身和财产方面感到更加安全，可能因靠近权力而收取租金，可能获得特别的承认和社会地位。这些精英组织在现存制度安排中享有既得利益，会尽力保护现状，除非自我分裂。使全社会获益的制度性变化，如征集土地税以应付外来威胁，仍会遭到组织良好的群体的否决，因为对他们而言，净得仍然是负数。

    经济学家很熟悉此种集体行动的失败。博弈理论家称之为稳定的均衡（stable equilibrium），因为没有一名参与者能从现存制度安排的变更中得到个人的好处。但从全社会的角度看，这个均衡是失调的。曼瑟尔·奥尔森认为，任何社会的既得利益群体，经过长年的累积，为保护其狭隘的特权，会组成寻租联合体（rent-seeking coalition）。⑳他们的组织能力远胜过人民大众，所以后者的利益往往在政治制度中得不到代表。失调的政治均衡可借民主而获缓和。民主允许非精英，至少在理论上，获得更多的政治权力。但通常，精英和非精英的组织能力有云泥之别，从而阻止了后者的任何果断行动。

    寻租联合体阻止必要的制度变革，从而激发政治衰败；这样的例子不计其数。其经典案例就是法兰西王国，也是租金一词的发源地。其时，法兰西君主在两个世纪中，招诱大部分精英，而逐渐强大。招诱的形式是出卖国家功能的一小部分，之后变成世袭产业。像莫普和杜尔哥这样的改革部长，力图废除卖官鬻爵，却遭到既得利益者强有力的阻挠。卖官问题的解决，最终只有通过法国大革命时期的暴力。

    功能失调的均衡（dysfunctional equilibria）很早就出现在人类历史上。考古证据显示，族团层次社会早已掌握农业技术，但持续几代仍坚持狩猎采集。个中原因似乎又是既得利益者。平等的族团层次社会中，分享食物相当普遍，一旦出现农业和私人财产，就难以为继。定居下来的第一户，其生产的粮食必须与族团其他成员分享，反过来摧毁了转向农业的奖励。农业的生产效率，高于狩猎采集。所以，改变生产方式将使全社会更加丰裕，但会剥夺部分成员的免费享用。考古学家斯蒂芬·勒布朗认为，部分狩猎采集社会向农业社会的转变之所以缓慢，就是因为无法解决此类合作问题。㉑

    所以，社会能否实施制度变革，取决于能否分化手握否决权的既得利益群体。有时，经济变化削弱现存精英，加强赞成改制的新精英。17 世纪的英国，与商业或制造业相比，地产的回报逐渐降低，从而使资产阶级在政治上获益，吃亏的是旧贵族。有时，新兴的社会参与者因新宗教的涌现而赢得权力，像印度的佛教和耆那教。宗教改革后，由于扫盲和圣经的广泛传播，斯堪的纳维亚的农民不再是毫无生气的一盘散沙。还有的时候，促成变化的是领袖意志和凝聚各无权群体的能力，像叙任权斗争中格里高利七世所组织的教皇派。实际上，这就是政治的精髓：领袖们能否借助权威、合法性、恐吓、谈判、魅力、思想和组织来实现自己的目标。

    功能失调的均衡可持续很久，由此说明，暴力为何在制度革新中扮演如此重要的角色。经典的看法认为，政治就是为了解决暴力问题。㉒但有时，要把阻挡制度变革的既得利益者赶走，唯一办法却是暴力。人类对暴毙的害怕强于获利的欲望，由此激发在行为上的深远变化。我们已在第 5 章提到，很难同意经济动机（如实施大型水利工程）是国家原生形成的原因。相比之下，无休止的战争，或害怕较强群体前来征服，促使自由骄傲的部落成员走进集权国家，倒是入情入理的解释。

    中国历史上，家族化精英一直是现代国家制度形成的障碍，无论是在秦朝兴起时，还是在隋唐时的复辟期。秦朝方兴的战国时期，贵族带头的无休止战争，摧毁了自己阶层，为非精英军人进入政权打开大门。女皇帝武则天崛起于唐朝早期，清洗传统贵族家庭，促使较为广泛的精英阶层涌现。两次世界大战为 1945 年后走向民主化的德国提供了类似的帮助。它们清除容克贵族阶层（Junker），制度变革遂再无阻挡。

    尚不清楚，民主社会能否和平地解决此类难题。美国南北战争之前，南方少数美国人试图竭力保留他们的“特有制度”——奴隶制。只要在美国的西部扩张中，没有足够的自由新州加入以推翻南方的否决权，当时的宪法规则就允许奴隶制的存在。最终，冲突无法在宪政框架内得到解决，战争遂成为必须的选择，六十多万美国人因此而丧生。

    现代世界的规范和制度，在很多方面，已把暴力解决政治僵局的大门紧紧关上。没人期望或希望，非洲撒哈拉以南的国家为建立强大巩固的国家，也经历如中国和欧洲所体验的数世纪坎坷。这意味着，制度革新的责任将落在前述的非暴力机制上。不然，社会仍将遇上政治衰败。 幸运的是，国家、法治、负责制这三大基本政治制度得以锻造成功的旧世界，十分不同于当代世界。美国和法国革命以来的两个多世纪，世界经历了工业革命和大幅提高社会交往的技术革新。如今，政治、经济和社会三大组件在发展中的互动，大大不同于 1806 年之前。怎样的互动呢？那是本卷最后一章的主题。

    第 30 章 政治发展的过去和现在

    自 18 世纪以来，政治发展的条件发生剧烈变化；发展中的政治、经济、社会三个方面，及其在马尔萨斯式世界中的互动；在今天的互动；当代世界的期望

    亨廷顿在 1968 年发表《变化社会中的政治秩序》。他的中心见解是，政治发展有其独特逻辑，与经济和社会的逻辑既有关联又有差异。他认为，经济和社会的现代化一旦超越政治发展，政治衰败就会发生，因为现存政治制度无法容纳动员起来的新兴社会群体。他还认为，20 世纪 50 年代和 60 年代独立的发展中国家，之所以遭遇此起彼伏的政变、革命、内战，原因就在这里。

    有人认为，政治发展遵循自己的逻辑，未必是整体发展过程中的一部分，看待这个观点要以经典现代化理论为背景。该理论来自 19 世纪的思想家，如马克思、涂尔干、滕尼斯和韦伯。他们试图分析欧洲社会的工业化所引起的巨变。尽管彼此之间有很大差异，他们都倾向于主张，现代化是个整体，包括资本主义市场经济、随之而生的大规模分工、强大的集权官僚国家、亲密的村庄群体变为不近人情的城市群体、公共的社会关系变为个人的社会关系。所有这一切，在马克思和恩格斯的《共产党宣言》中汇聚。该宣言宣称，“资产阶级的兴起”改变了一切，包括劳动条件、全球竞争、最为私密的家庭关系。根据经典现代化理论，这些变化始于 16 世纪早期的宗教改革，在之后三个世纪得到迅猛的展开和传播。

    第二次世界大战前，现代化理论家移军美国，抢占地盘，像哈佛大学的比较政治系、麻省理工的国际研究中心、社会科学研究会的比较政治委员会。哈佛大学的比较政治系，由韦伯心爱的学生塔尔科特·帕森斯（Talcott Parsons）领军，希望建立跨学科的社会综合科学，将经济学、社会学、政治学、人类学冶于一炉。①现代化理论家将强烈的规范化价值注入现代化本身，在他们眼中，现代化的好处总会一同到来。经济发展，亲戚团体瓦解，个人主义兴起，更高更包容的教育，价值观以“成就”和理性为方向发生规范性转变，世俗化，民主政治制度的发展；这一切被视为一个相互依赖的整体。经济发展将提供更好教育，导致价值观的改变，依次再促进现代政治，等等，从而取得无止境的良性循环。②

    亨廷顿的《变化社会中的政治秩序》，在摧毁现代化理论方面起了重要作用。它强调，现代性的好处不一定相得益彰。尤其是民主，对政治稳定而言，不一定是好事。亨廷顿讲的政治秩序，相当于我在本书中所论的国家建设。他的发展策略，被称作“威权式过渡”（authoritarian transition），主张政治秩序优先于民主，该书因此而变得名闻遐迩。③这也是土耳其、韩国、中国台湾、印尼所走的道路：先在威权统治下实现经济现代化，再在政治制度上开放民主竞争。

    本卷呈现的历史材料确证了亨廷顿的基本见解，即发展中的各方面应分开对待。如我们所见的，中国人早在两千多年前，就创造了韦伯式的现代国家，但没有法治或民主，更不用说个人的社会关系或现代资本主义了。

    此外，欧洲的发展又与马克思和韦伯的描述大相径庭。欧洲现代化的萌芽远早于宗教改革。我们曾在第 16 章看到，随着日耳曼野蛮人皈依基督教，脱离基于亲戚关系的社会组织，在中世纪黑暗时代便已开始。到 13 世纪的英国，自由买卖财产的个人权利，包括女性的财产权，已属根深蒂固。天主教会 11 世纪晚期与皇帝的争斗是现代法律秩序的根源。它建立欧洲第一个官僚化组织，以管理教会的内部事务。它一直被当作现代化的障碍而横遭诋毁。但从长远看，在推动现代化的关键问题上，它至少像宗教改革一样重要。

    所以，欧洲走向现代化，不是全方位的突飞猛进，而是几乎历时一千五百年的点滴改良。在这特有的次序中，社会中的个人主义可早于资本主义，法治可早于现代国家的形成，封建主义作为地方抵抗中央的顽固堡垒，可成为现代民主的基础。根据马克思主义的观点，封建主义是资产阶级上升之前的发展阶段。但在事实上，它主要是欧洲的独特制度。不能把它说成是经济发展的普遍过程，也不能期望非西方社会遵循相似的发展次序。

    然后，我们需要分别对待发展中的政治、经济、社会三个方面，弄清它们作为分立的现象，又是如何相互关联、如何周期性互动的。我们必须弄清此事，因为它们现在的相互关系的性质，与在马尔萨斯式世界的历史条件之下，已然十分不同。

    托马斯·马尔萨斯

    约在 1800 年后，随着工业革命的出现，世界发生了巨大变化。在那之前，生产力因技术革新而持续增长、进而促进经济发展的美事是靠不住的。事实上，它几乎不存在。

    但这并不表示，1800 年之前没有发生过生产力的大幅增长。农业、灌溉、铁犁、印刷机、远航帆船，都提高了人均产值。④例如，公元前第三个千年和第二个千年之间，墨西哥特奥蒂瓦坎（Teotihuacán）的农业生产力因引进玉米新品种而增长两倍。⑤那时所缺乏的是年复一年的生产力和人均产值的稳定增长。我们今天假设，电脑和互联网在五年后将获得巨大改进，这很可能是正确的。而中国西汉的农业技术，即基督诞生后不久，与 19 世纪沦为半殖民地之前的清朝的相比，则相差无几。

    图 7. 人均 GDP 水平比较：中国与西欧，400—2001 年（单位是 1990 年国际元）来源：麦迪逊（Maddison）（1998，2001，2003a）

    图 7 是西欧和中国在公元 400 年至 2001 年之间的人均产值估计。它显示，从公元 1000 年到 1800 年，西欧的人均收入在八百年期间逐步上升，之后却突飞猛进。同期的中国人均收入，几乎是停滞不前，但在 1978 年后腾飞，速度甚至超过西欧。⑥

    1800 年后生产力大幅增长的原因，一直是研究发展的核心命题。首先是智识环境的巨变，促进了现代自然科学、实用科技、复式簿记、专利法和版权的涌现。最后两项又是鼓励不断创新的微观经济制度。⑦注重最近两百年的发展是未可厚非的，但这阻碍了我们对前现代社会政治经济的理解。经济可以持续增长的假设，使我们重视有助于这种增长的制度和条件，如政治稳定、产权、技术和科研。另一方面，如果假设生产力的改进非常有限，社会就会陷入零和的世界，掠夺他人资源往往变成获得权力和财富的更佳途经。

    这个生产力低下的世界，因英国神职人员托马斯·马尔萨斯的分析，而引起世人的注意。他的《人口学原理》初版于 1798 年，其时他仅 32 岁。身为八个孩子之一的马尔萨斯认为，人口以几何级数增长（假设女子“自然”生育率是每人生育十五个小孩），而谷物生产以算术级数增长，这表示人均谷物生产只会下降。马尔萨斯还认为，农业效率可以提高，但从长远看，仍跟不上人口增长；实施道德限制，如晚婚和禁欲，可以帮助控制人口的增长（那是避孕尚不普遍的世界）；但人口过剩问题的最终解决，还得依靠饥荒、疾病和战争。⑧

    马尔萨斯的文章出现于工业革命前夕。如上所述，工业革命引发了 1800 年后生产力的惊人增长，尤其是在开发煤炭和石油的能量上。从 1820 年到 1950 年，全球的能源供应增长六倍，而人口仅增长一倍。⑨随着现代经济世界的出现，马尔萨斯经济学遭到普遍贬斥，譬如说它的眼光短浅，对技术进步过度悲观。⑩但是，如果说马尔萨斯的模式不能用于 1800—2000 年这段时期，它却可作为理解此前世界政治经济的基础。

    作为 1800 年前经济生活的一种历史描述，马尔萨斯模式必须作出重要调整。埃斯特·博塞鲁普认为，人口的增加和密集，不仅没有造成饥荒，反而促进了提高效率的技术革新。例如，埃及、美索不达米亚（Mesopotamia）和中国发展出了密集农业模式，实现了大面积灌溉、新高产作物培育和农业工具的改进。⑪因此，人口增长本身未必是件坏事。食物供应量与死亡率并没有直接关联，除非在大饥荒时期。在抑制人口增长上，疾病一直比饥饿更为重要。⑫如食物不够，人类不必死去，可以缩小身躯来降低对卡路里的需求。⑬类似这样的情形似乎就在上一世代的朝鲜发生过，以应付广泛的饥荒。⑭最后，除了人口过剩，本地环境的恶化也是人均谷物生产下降的原因。对人类社会来说，环境破坏不是什么新鲜事（只是今日的规模前所未有）。过去的社会曾杀尽大型动物、侵蚀表土、颠覆当地气候。⑮

    经过上述修改的马尔萨斯模式可提供良好架构，帮助我们梳理工业革命前的经济发展。全球人口在过去一万年中有惊人增长，从新石器初期的大约六百万，到 2001 年的六十多亿，这是一千倍的增长。⑯不过，增长的大部发生在 20 世纪；讲得更确切些，在 20 世纪的最后几十年。1820 年之前的经济增长大都是粗放型的，例如，开垦处女地、给沼泽排水、清除森林、填海造地等。新土地一旦得到开发，产量达到当时技术的限度，生活重又回归到零和。一人增加资源，他人必须削减，人均产量得不到持续增长。不管是世界整体还是本地居民，绝对增长之后便是停滞不前和绝对下跌。在全世界范围，人口因疾病而经历大幅度的滑坡。其中一次发生于罗马帝国末期，那时它面对野蛮部落的入侵、饥荒、瘟疫。另一次发生在 13 世纪，蒙古侵占欧洲、中东和中国，并把瘟疫带到世界各地。在 1200 年至 1400 年之间，亚洲人口从大约两亿五千八百万跌至两亿零一百万。在 1340 年至 1400 年之间，欧洲人口从七千四百万跌至五千二百万。⑰

    如此缓慢的技术进步具有双刃特性。短期内，它改进生活水平，革新者为此而得益。但较多资源促成人口增加，从而减少人均产量。与革新之前相比，人类平均生活水平并没得到改善。所以，很多历史学家认为，从狩猎采集到农业社会的过渡，反而使人类生活越过越糟。虽然谷物生产的潜力大增，但人类的食谱更为狭窄，从而影响健康。他们为生产粮食消耗更多体力，居住在密集地域，为疾病的蔓延提供温床，等等。⑱

    马尔萨斯式世界中的政治

    在零和的马尔萨斯世界，人的生存对政治发展有巨大的意义，也与今日的发展大相径庭。马尔萨斯式世界的人们虽有资源，但只有很少的投资机会，譬如促使经济持续增长的工厂、科学研究或教育。如想增加财富，最好走政治途径来从事掠夺，即强夺他人资源。掠夺有两种：享有强制权力的人，可通过征税或赤裸裸的偷窃，夺走社会其他成员的资源；或将社会成员组织起来，去攻击和偷窃邻近社会。为掠夺而组织起来，增强自己的军事或行政能力，往往比投资于生产能力更为有效。

    图 8. 马尔萨斯陷阱

    马尔萨斯认识到战争是限制人口的因素，但马尔萨斯的经典模式可能低估了战争在限制人口过剩中的重要性。它作为人口的控制机制，与饥荒和疾病互为表里，因为饥荒和疾病通常由战争引起。跟饥荒和疾病不同，掠夺是一种可以由人有意掌控、用以应付马尔萨斯式压力的手段之一。考古学家斯蒂芬·勒布朗指出，史前社会中的战争和暴力不断，原因就在于人口老是超越环境的支撑能力。换言之，多数人宁可打仗，也不愿挨饿。⑲

    图 9 马尔萨斯条件下的发展

    马尔萨斯模式加以扩充后，看去就像图 8。像新作物或农具那样的技术进步，会暂时提高人均产量。但假以时日，这个增产会被人口增加或环境破坏所抵消，人均产量再一次降低。阻止贫穷的蔓延有四种主要机制：他们忍饥挨饿，体型变小；死于疾病；从事内部掠夺；向其他社群发起进攻（外部掠夺）。然后，人均产量又会上升，因为土地和粮食变得更为充沛，或因掠夺他人而致富。

    在没有持续技术革新的马尔萨斯式世界中，千万不要高估零和思想所占的主导地位。除了掠夺，还有很多大家都可得益的合作机会。农民和城镇居民开展贸易，便可增加大家的福利；政府提倡公共服务，如治安和互相防卫，会使政府本身和百姓都得到好处。事实上，掠夺要求紧密合作，这一事实又是发展政治组织的最重要动机之一。

    图 9 表明工业革命之前，马尔萨斯式世界中政治制度与经济发展的关系。集约型经济增长单独处于左上方，没有任何箭头指向它。集约型增长全靠技术进步，但这些进步不可预测，发生时间的前后往往又有很大间隔。对整个制度来说，那时的技术革新是经济学家所谓的外部因素，独立发生，与发展的其他任何方面无关。（博塞鲁普假设，与日俱增的人口密集周期性刺激技术革新，又使技术革新成为内在因素。但它和人口增长之间，又找不到预测或正比的关系。）所以，所发生的经济增长基本上是粗放型的，而不是集约型的。这表示，随着时间的流逝，总体的人口和资源有所增长，但不在人均基础上。

    马尔萨斯式世界中至关重要的政治制度是国家，它是取得粗放型经济增长的主要途径。强制能力——军队和警察——是开展外部掠夺（战争和征服）的资源，又可用于国内居民以保障统治者的掌权。反过来，通过征服或征税而获得的资源，又可转换成强制能力。于是，因果关系是双向的。国家提供基本的公共服务，如安全和产权，可提高经济生产力，但仅得一次——即奥尔森所解释的从流寇变成坐寇——但它无法促使生产力持续增长。

    国家权力受合法性的影响，法治和社会动员如要影响政治，全凭作为传送带的合法性。在大多数马尔萨斯式社会，合法性以宗教形式出现。中国、拜占庭帝国和其他政教合一的国家，从其控制的宗教权威那里获得合法性。在基于宗教的法治社会中，宗教将合法性赋予独立的法律秩序，后者再向国家颁发或拒绝法律上的批准。

    在马尔萨斯社会中动员新的社会群体，会比在当代世界遇上更多限制。在动员惰性社会参与者方面，宗教合法性扮演了很重要的角色，例如 7 世纪的阿拉伯部落和唐朝的佛道两教。罗马帝国时期，基督教在动员新兴精英上发挥了类似作用。在农业社会，宗教经常成为抗议的载体，以反对既有的政治秩序。所以，它不仅能提供合法性，还能制造不稳定。

    马尔萨斯式世界中，政治发展的可能性体现在两条主要途径上。第一条围绕国家建设的内部逻辑和粗放型经济增长。政治权力创造经济资源，后者回过来又创造更为强大的政治权力。这个过程自作循环，直到一个极点：对外扩张的政治体遇上物质上的极限，如地理或技术的；或碰上另外一个政治体；或两种情形的组合。这就是在中国和欧洲出现的建国和战争的逻辑。

    政治变化的第二条途径与合法性有关。它或者建立法治，或者授权给新兴的社会参与者，以影响国家权力。我所谓的印度弯路，其根源就是婆罗门宗教的兴起，它削弱了印度统治者仿照中国方式集中权力的能力。新兴的社会参与者一旦获得宗教授权，既可对国家权力作出贡献，如阿拉伯人；又可约束君主集权的尝试，如英国议会。

    在马尔萨斯式世界，变化的来源相对有限。国家建设的过程非常缓慢，在中国和欧洲都持续了好多世纪。它也避不开政治衰败，政体回到低层次的发展阶段，不得不再从头开始。新兴的宗教或意识形态不时出现，但像技术革新一样，有点靠不住，无法向现存制度提供持续的活力。此外，技术限制了人们和思想在世界上的迁徙和传播。中国秦始皇发明国家的消息，从没传到罗马共和国领袖的耳朵。只有佛教穿越喜马拉雅山脉，抵达中国和东亚其他地区，其他制度大多困顿于自己的出生地。基督教欧洲、中东和印度的法律传统都自我发展，很少相互影响。

    当代条件下的发展

    现在让我们考察一下，发展的不同方面在工业革命开始后如何互动。最重要的变化是持续性集约型经济增长的出现，从而影响了发展的几乎所有方面。粗放型经济增长继续出现，但在促进政治变化上，其重要性远远比不上人均产量。此外，民主加入国家建设和法治的行列，成为政治发展的组件。这在图 10 中获得说明。

    这些不同方面在当代世界的客观关联已有实质性的研究，可在下列关系中得到总结。

    图 10. 发展的诸方面

    国家建设和经济增长之间

    国家是集约型经济增长的基本条件。经济学家保罗·科利尔（Paul Collier）示范了该命题的反面，即国家崩溃、内战、国际冲突对经济增长的负面影响。⑳20 世纪晚期，非洲的大部分贫穷都得归罪于国家的薄弱，以及不时发生的瘫痪和动乱。除了建立国家以提供基本秩序外，强大的行政能力与经济增长呈明显的正相关关系。当人均国内生产总值处于绝对低水平时（少于 1,000 美元），国家变得尤其重要。到了较高水平的收入，国家仍然重要，但其影响可能会发生不成比例的改变。已有很多文献，把良好统治与经济增长联在一起。“良好统治”的定义，因不同作者而各有差异，有时包括政治发展的三大组件。㉑

    强大凝聚的国家和经济增长之间的关联早已确定，但相互的因果关系却并不很清楚。经济学家杰弗里·萨克斯（Jeffrey Sachs）认为，良好统治是内生的，不是经济增长的原因，而是它的成果。㉒这听起来很有逻辑，因为政府是大开支。穷国腐败泛滥的原因之一是它们付不起好薪水，以致它们的公务员很难负担家用，所以趋于受贿。政府方面的开支，包括军队、通向学校的道路、街上的警察，在 2008 年的美国大约是人均 17,000 美元，在阿富汗却只有 19 美元。㉓所以一点也不奇怪，阿富汗的国家远远比不上美国，或者，对之大笔援助只会制造腐败。

    另一方面，既有经济增长没能促成良好统治的案例，也有良好统治促成经济增长的案例。举韩国和尼日利亚为例。朝鲜战争之后的韩国，1954 年的人均国内生产总值低于尼日利亚，后者在 1960 年从英国手中赢得独立自主。在接下来的五十年中，尼日利亚的石油收入超过三千亿美元。然而，其人均收入却在 1975 年和 1995 年之间出现下跌。相比之下，同期的韩国经济每年增长 7% 到 9%，到 1997 年亚洲金融危机时，已成为世界上第 12 大经济体。这表现上的差异，几乎完全归功于韩国政府，它的治理成绩远远超过尼日利亚。

    法治和增长之间

    在学术文献中，法治有时被认作统治的组件，有时被认作发展的方面（我在本书的做法）。如第 17 章所指出的，与经济增长有关的法治，涉及产权和合同的强制执行。有大量文献显示，这个关联确实存在。大多数经济学家视之为理所当然，但不清楚，对经济增长来说，普遍和平等的产权是否必不可少。在很多社会中，稳定的产权只为精英而存在，也足以推动经济增长，至少在一段时间内。㉔此外，像当代中国那样的社会，拥有“足够好”的产权，虽然缺乏传统法治，仍能取得很高水平的经济增长。

    经济增长和稳定民主之间

    社会学家李普塞特（Seymour Martin Lipset）在 20 世纪 50 年代率先注意发展和民主的关联。自那以后，出现了很多将发展与民主连在一起的研究。㉕经济增长和民主之间的关系可能不是线性的——即更多的经济增长并不一定产生更多的民主。经济学家罗伯特·巴罗（Robert Barro）显示，低水平收入时的关联较强，中等水平收入时的关联较弱。㉖有关发展和民主的最完整研究之一显示，从独裁到民主的过渡，可在发展的任何阶段发生，如果人均国内生产总值较高，遇上逆转的机会较小。㉗

    经济增长似乎有助于民主的稳定，但逆向的因果关系却不大明显。这似乎很有道理，只要数数近年来取得经济增长惊人纪录的威权政治体——当初仍处于独裁统治的韩国和台湾地区，中国大陆、新加坡、苏哈托（Suharto）治下的印尼、皮诺切特（Augusto Pinochet）治下的智利。因此，凝聚的国家和良好的统治是经济增长的前提，民主是否发挥同样的正面作用，就有点含混不清。

    经济增长和社会发展（或公民社会发展）之间

    很多古典社会理论将现代公民社会的出现与经济发展联在一起。㉘亚当·斯密在《国富论》中指出，市场增长与社会上的分工有关：市场一旦扩展，公司充分利用规模上的经济效益，社会专业更加精益求精，新兴的社会群体（如工人阶级）得以涌现。现代市场经济所要求的流动性和开放途径，打破了很多传统形式的社会权威，代之以更有弹性的自愿组合。分工愈细所造成的转型效果是 19 世纪思想家著作的中心思想，例如马克思、韦伯和涂尔干。

    社会动员和自由民主制之间

    自托克维尔开始，大量的民主理论认为，如果没有积极参与的公民社会，现代的自由民主制无法生存。㉙组织起来的社会群体，允许形单影只的个人汇集各自利益，投身政治领域。即使不追求政治目标，志愿组织也会有意外效用，帮助培养在新奇环境中彼此合作的能力——通常被称为社会资本。

    上述的经济增长有助于自由民主，恐怕要通过社会动员的途径来生效。经济增长促使社会新参与者出现，随之，他们要求在更为公开的政治制度中获得代表权，从而推动向民主的过渡。如果政治系统已有很好的制度化，便可容纳这些新参与者，然后可有迈向全面民主的成功过渡。这就是 20 世纪的前几十年，随着农民运动和社会党的兴起，在英国和瑞典所发生的。这也是 1987 年军事独裁垮台后，在韩国所发生的。

    高度发展的公民社会也能成为民主的危险，甚至可以导致政治衰败。基于民族或种族的沙文主义群体会散播不容忍的偏见；利益群体会尽力追求零和的租金；经济冲突和社会冲突的极度政治化会使社会瘫痪，并破坏民主制度的合法性。㉚社会动员也可导致政治衰败。政治制度拒绝社会新参与者的要求，即所谓的亨廷顿式过程，就发生于 20 世纪 90 年代和 21 世纪初的玻利维亚和厄瓜多尔，高度组织起来的社会群体一再罢免获选的总统。㉛

    民主和法治之间

    民主的兴起和自由主义法治的兴起在历史上一直有密切关联。㉜如我们在第 27 章所看到的，负责制政府在英国的兴起与保卫普通法不可分。越来越多的公民受到法治保护，这一向被视作民主本身的关键组成部分。这个关联在 1975 年之后的第三波民主化中继续有效，共产主义专政的垮台导致了代议民主制的兴起和立宪政府的建立，以保护个人权利。

    思想、合法性和发展的其他方面

    有关合法性的思想，其发展有自己的逻辑，但也受经济、政治、社会的发展的影响。如果没有在大英图书馆奋笔疾书的马克思，20 世纪的历史可能会相当不同，他对早期资本主义作了系统性的批判。同样，共产主义在 1989 年的垮台，多半是因为很少人继续信奉马列主义的基本思想。

    另一方面，经济和政治的发展影响了人们对思想合法性的认同。对法国人来说，人权的思想顺理成章，因为法国阶级结构已发生变化，还有 18 世纪晚期新兴中产阶级高涨的期待。1929—1931 年的金融大危机和经济受挫，破坏了部分资本主义制度的合法性，使国家干涉经济获得合法性。后来，大福利国家的兴起、经济停滞、由此而生的通货膨胀，为 20 世纪 80 年代保守派的里根—撒切尔（Reagan-Thatcher）革命打下基础。同样，社会主义无法兑现关于现代化和平等的诺言，在共产主义社会的居民眼中，反使自己名誉扫地。

    如果政府成功推动经济增长，也可获得合法性。很多迅速发展的东亚国家，如新加坡和马来西亚，即使没有自由民主制，也广受民众支持。相反，经济危机或管理不善所引起的经济倒退，可能动摇政府的稳定，如 1997—1998 年金融危机之后的印尼独裁政府。㉝

    合法性也有赖于经济增长的好处分配。如果好处只给处于社会顶端的寡头小集团，没有得到广泛的分享，反而会动员社会群体奋起反对既有的政治制度。这就是波费里奥·迪亚斯（Porfirio Díaz）专政下的墨西哥。从 1876 年到 1880 年，再从 1884 年到 1911 年，他治下的国民收入得到迅速增长，但产权只适用于富裕精英，为 1911 年的墨西哥革命和长期内战创造了条件。其时，弱势群体为争取份内的国民收入而奋斗。最近，委内瑞拉和玻利维亚民主制度的合法性受到民粹领袖的挑战，后者的政治基础是穷人和先前遭到边缘化的群体。㉞

    现代发展的范例

    发展的不同方面中有多重关联，这表示今天有很多潜在的路径通向现代化，其大部分在马尔萨斯式环境中是无法想象的。让我们以韩国为例，它的发展组件得到特别满意的聚合（参看图 11）。

    图 11. 1954—1999 年的韩国

    朝鲜战争结束时，韩国有相对强大的政府。它自中国继承了儒家的国家传统，并在 1905 年到 1945 年的日本殖民期间建成很多现代制度。㉟朴正熙将军 1961 年通过政变上台。韩国在他的领导下，推行工业化政策，以促进经济的迅速增长（箭头 1）。韩国的工业化仅在一代人的时间，就将一个农业穷国改造成为主要的工业强国，并开启了新兴力量的社会大动员——工会、教会团体、大学生和其他传统社会所没有的民间参与者（箭头 2）。全斗焕将军的军政府因 1980 年的光州镇压而丧失合法性，这些新兴的社会团体开始要求军政府下台。在盟友美国的温和推动下，1987 年军政府下台，宣布了总统的首次民选（箭头 3）。经济的迅速增长和国家的民主过渡，帮助加强了政权的合法性。反过来，这又帮助韩国平安渡过 1997—1998 年的严重亚洲金融危机（箭头 4 和 5）。最后，经济增长和民主莅临都有助于韩国法治的加强（箭头 6 和 7）。

    在韩国的案例中，如现代化理论所表明的，发展中不同方面倾向于互相支持，彼此加强，尽管有明确的次序，如代议民主制和法治的开始，要等到工业化发生之后。韩国模式未必是普世的，通向现代化还有很多其他路径。在欧洲和美国，法治存在于国家巩固之前。在英国和美国，某种形式的民主负责制早于工业化和经济增长。中国迄今为止走的是韩国路径，但忽略了箭头 3、箭头 4、箭头 7。1978 年邓小平发动经济自由化时，中华人民共和国继承了毛泽东时代相当高效的国家。开放政策促使了未来三十年经济快速增长，数百万农民离开农村，来到城市参加工业就业，社会因此而发生巨大的变迁。经济增长帮助国家取得合法性，并建立公民社会萌芽，但没有动摇政治制度，也没有施加民主化的压力。此外，经济增长导致了法治的改善，因为中国试图将其法律制度提高到世界贸易组织所颁布的标准。中国未来的大问题在于，迅速发展所造成的社会大动员，会导致对更多政治参与的难以抑制的需求。

    什么变了

    马尔萨斯经济条件下的政治发展和工业革命以来的政治发展，两者的前景如果放在一起考察，可立即看到大量差异，关键是经济持续密集型增长的可能性。人均产量的增长，其所实现的不只是在国家手中注入更多资源。它还刺激社会的广泛转型，动员各式社会新力量，假以时日，将变成政治参与者。相比之下，在马尔萨斯式的世界中，社会动员非常罕见，要是有，大多源于合法性和思想。

    传统精英锁在寻租联合体之中，由此造成功能失调的均衡，社会动员是打破这种均衡的重要手段之一。丹麦国王能在 18 世纪 80 年代削弱既得利益的贵族的权力，全靠组织良好的有文化农民的涌现——这是世界历史上的新鲜事，以前只有失序动乱的农民起义。这是工业革命前的社会，动员来源是宗教，打起宗教改革和普遍脱盲的旗号。20 世纪 80 年代，韩国军队和商业精英对权力的掌控，因社会新参与者的出现而被打破。二战后韩国经济起飞时，这些新参与者几乎都尚未问世。政治变化因此而来到丹麦和韩国。丹麦的动员似乎是个意外——丹麦国王选择路德教——而韩国的动员却是马尔萨斯式世界中经济增长的结果，可以预测。在这两件案例中，社会动员在民主传播上都有良好影响，但在其他方面，也导致了政治不稳定。

    那时的政治发展与现在相比，另一重要差异是国际因素对国内制度的影响。本书所介绍的几乎所有故事，只涉及单一国家，以及国内不同政治参与者的互动。国际影响基本上是战争、征服、征服的威胁，偶尔还有横跨边界的宗教传播。其时的“跨国”机构，像天主教会和伊斯兰的阿拉伯帝国，在跨越政治边界传播《查士丁尼法典》或伊斯兰教法上，发挥了重要作用。此外，早期现代的欧洲人尝试重新发现古典的希腊和罗马，这属于跨代的学习借鉴。但从整个地球看，发展倾向于各自为政，按地理和地域而分。

    今天，情况已有很大不同。我们所谓的全球化，只是数世纪来持续开展过程的最新篇章，其间，与运输、通讯和信息有关的技术在不断蔓延推广。独立发展、几乎没有外界输入的社会，在今天是微乎其微。即使是世界上最隔离最困难的地区，像阿富汗或巴布亚新几内亚，也不能幸免。国际参与者以外国军队、中国伐木公司、世界银行经理的形式崭露头角，不管邀请与否。与以往所熟悉的相比，他们自己也感受到变化的加速。

    世界各社会的更大交融增加了互相竞争，其本身就足以制造更频繁的政治变化和政治模式的汇聚。特别进化——即新物种形成和增加生物多样性——发生时，有机体扩散进入明显不同的微型环境，互相之间又失去联系。它的反面是生物全球化，暂栖船舱底层的生物从一个生态区域迁徙到另外一个，可能是意外，也可能是故意。斑马贝、野葛、杀人蜂（Africanized killer bee）都与本土物种展开竞争。这一切，再加上竞争力最强的人类，已导致全球物种数量发生骤减。

    这也在政治领域中发生。任何发展中国家可以自由选择自己喜欢的发展模式，无须顾及本土的传统或文化。冷战时期，美国和苏联试图输出各自的政治和经济模式。到了今天，美国仍有促进民主的项目。此外，还有国家指挥的东亚发展模式和中国特色的威权主义。像世界银行、国际货币基金组织和联合国那样的国际机构，随时准备提供关于建立制度的建议，以及资源和技术上的支援，以帮助扩大生产能力。现代的后发达者在制度或政策上无须重新发明车轮。㊱

    另一方面，坏事也得以轻易跨越边界——毒品、犯罪、恐怖主义、各式武器、不法资金等。全球化被称作“主权的黄昏”㊲，这未免太夸张。但技术和增长的流动性，使国家很难在自己领土上执法、征税、规范行为、实施与传统政治秩序有关的其他操作。在大多数财富仍体现在土地上的时代，国家可对富裕精英施以相当大的影响。今天，财富可轻易逃至海外的银行账户。㊳

    所以已不可能光谈“国家的发展”。在政治学中，比较政治和国际关系，在传统上被认为是明显的分支。前者涉及国内发生的事情，后者涉及国家之间的关系。但现在，这两个领域的研究越来越被当作一个综合体。我们如何到达这一步，政治发展如何在当代世界发生，都将是第 2 卷的主题。

    最终，社会并不受困于自己的过去。经济增长、社会新参与者的动员、跨边界社会的组合、竞争和外国模式的流行，都在提供政治变化的契机。在工业革命之前，这些政治变化要么不存在，要么颇受限制。

    然而，社会并不能在一代人时间内自由重组自己。全球化对世界各社会的整合，其程度很容易言过其实。社会之间交换和学习的水平远远超越三百年前，但大多数人继续生活在基于传统文化和习惯的环境中。社会惯性仍然很大，外国的制度模式虽比过去更加容易得到，但仍需要融入本土。

    必须以恰当的眼光看待本书关于政治制度起源的历史介绍。不应该期望，当代发展中国家必须重蹈中国和欧洲社会所经历的狂暴步骤，以建立现代国家；或现代法治必须以宗教为基础。我们看到，制度只是特殊历史情境和意外事件的产物，不同处境的社会很难予以复制。它们起源的偶然，建立它们所需的持久斗争，应让我们在接受建立当代制度的任务时，备感谦逊。如不考虑现有规则和愿意支持的政治力量，很难将现代制度移植入其他社会。建立制度不像建造水电大坝或公路网络，它需要克服很多困难。首先得说服大家制度变革是必需的；再建立支持者的同盟，以战胜旧制度中既得利益者的抵抗；最后让大家接受新行为准则。通常，正式制度需要新文化的补充。例如，没有独立的新闻界和自我组织的公民社会以监督政府，代议民主制将不会行之有效。

    孕育民主的环境和社会条件是欧洲的独特现象，立宪政体似乎因意外事件的环环相连，脱颖而出。但一旦出现，它造就的政治和经济体那么强大，以至在全世界得到广泛的复制。普遍的承认已成为自由民主制的基础，并指向政治发展的初期。其时，社会更加平等，容纳更广泛的参与。我注意到，与取而代之的国家层次社会相比，狩猎采集和部落的社会提供更多的平等和参与。平等尊敬或同等高贵的原则，一旦获得明确的阐述，就很难阻止人们提出此类要求。这可能有助于说明，人人平等的概念在现代世界的无情蔓延，一如托克维尔在《论美国的民主》中所提出的。

    今天的负责制

    如第 1 章所指出的，民主在世界各地未能得到巩固的原因，与其说是思想本身的呼吁不够，倒不如说是物质和社会条件的缺席，无法促使负责制政府出现。成功的自由民主制，既要有强大统一、能在领土上执法的国家，又要有强大凝聚、能将负责制职责强加于国家的社会。强大国家和强大社会之间的平衡方能使民主生效，不管是在 17 世纪的英国，还是在当代的发达民主国家中。

    欧洲早期现代的案例与 21 世纪初的情形之间有很多平行和对照。自第三波开始以来，欲巩固权力的未来威权领袖和希冀民主制度的社会群体，两者之间发生了频繁的斗争。

    图 12. 今天的政治权力

    这是很多苏联继承国的情形，后共产主义的统治者——通常来自前任执政党——开始重建国家，集大权于己身。这也是委内瑞拉、伊朗、卢旺达、埃塞俄比亚的情形。有些地方，像 2000 年之后普京治下的俄罗斯，或 2009 年总统选举之后的伊朗，这种做法得以成功，政治反对派联合不起来，无法阻止专制国家的建立。但在格鲁吉亚和乌克兰，动员起来的政治反对派抵制国家权力，至少在一段时间内获得胜利。在前南斯拉夫，国家彻底崩溃。

    早期现代欧洲的情形显然与 21 世纪初大不相同，但仍有集权化和社会抵抗的相似场景。今天有工会、商业团体、学生、非政府组织、宗教组织和其他社会参与者（参看图 12），以取代贵族、士绅、第三等级、农民。当代社会所动员的社会参与者，与我们研究的农业社会相比，更为广泛，更加多样。相关的政治分析，必须弄清国内外不同参与者的性质和凝聚程度。公民社会是否齐心合力和众志成城，或同盟中已有分裂？军队和情报部门是否忠于政权，或存在愿意与反对派谈判的温和路线派？政权的社会基础是什么，掌控怎样的合法性？

    今天的国际体系，与我们所研究的早期现代案例相比，对这些斗争有着更大的影响。反对派群体可从国外获得资金、训练、甚至偶尔的武器，而当局也可向志趣相投的盟国呼吁支持。此外，经济全球化提供财政收入的其他来源，如自然资源的出租或外援，从而允许政府避开自己的公民。国王和议会的征税争执不会在石油丰富的国家发生，可能解释了它们中极少民主政体的原因。

    未来会怎样

    就未来的政治发展而言，我们可提出迄今尚无答案的两个问题。第一个与中国有关。我从一开始就宣称，现代政治制度由强大的国家、法治、负责制所组成。拥有全部三条的西方社会，发展了充满活力的资本主义经济，因而在世界上占主导地位。中国今天在经济上迅速增长，但三条之中只拥有一条，即强大的国家。这样的情境能否长久？没有法治或负责制，中国能否继续维持经济增长，保持政治稳定？经济增长所引发的社会动员，到底是受控于强大的威权国家，还是激起对民主负责制的强烈追求？国家和社会的平衡长期偏向于前者，如此社会能否出现民主？没有西式的产权或人身自由，中国能否拓展科学和技术的前沿？中国能否使用政治权力，以民主法治社会无法学会的方式，继续促进发展？

    第二个与自由民主制的未来有关。考虑到政治衰败，在某一历史时刻取得成功的社会不会始终成功。自由民主制今天可能被认为是最合理的政府，但其合法性仰赖自己的表现。而表现又取决于维持恰当的平衡，既要有必要时的强大国家行为，又要有个人自由。后者是民主合法性的基础，并孕育私营经济的增长。现代民主制的缺点有很多，呈现于 21 世纪早期的主要是国家的软弱。当代民主制太容易成为僵局，什么都是硬性规定，无法作出困难的决策，以确保自己经济和政治的长期生存。民主的印度发现，很难整修自己行将崩溃的公共基础设施——道路、机场、供水和排污系统等——因为既得利益者借用法律和选举制度横加阻挠。欧盟的重要成员发现，显然已负担不起自己的社会福利，但无法作出削减。日本累积了发达国家中最高水平的公债，仍然没有采取措施，以消除经济中阻碍未来增长的僵硬。

    还有美国，它无法认真处理长期的财政难题，像健康、社会保障、能源等，似乎在政治上日益陷入功能失调的政治均衡。每个人都同意，必须解决长期的财政困境，但消弭赤字而必需的增税或削减开支，仍受到强大利益群体的阻挠。国家制度的设计基于相互制衡，使难题的解决变得尤其困难，加上美国人在意识形态上的僵硬，使之束缚于既定的对策范围。尽管出现这些挑战，美国不太可能重蹈法兰西王国的覆辙，即公职家族化。但它可能也是只有短期的权宜之计，推迟而不是避免最终的危机，像法国政府那样。

    现在回头看，制度的最初出现是为了历史上不确定的原因。其中某些存活并得以流传开来，因为它们能满足某种意义上的普遍需求。这就是为何制度在历史上得以互相结合，为何可以提供政治发展的概论。但制度的继续生存也涉及很多意外。一个人口中位年龄在二十几岁的迅速增长的国家，其政治制度卓有成效，但可能不适合三分之一公民已在退休年龄的停滞社会。如果制度无法适应，社会将面临危机或崩溃，可能被迫改用其他制度。不管是非民主政治制度，还是自由民主制度，它都一视同仁。

    但有重要理由相信，政治负责制的社会将胜过没有政治负责制的。政治负责制为制度的改善提供和平途径。中国政治制度在王朝时期一直无法解决的问题是“坏皇帝”，像武则天或万历皇帝。英明领导下的威权制度，可能不时地超越自由民主制，因为它可作出快速决定，不受法律和立法机关的挑战。另一方面，如此制度取决于英明领袖的持续出现。如有坏皇帝，不受制衡的政府大权很容易导致灾难。这仍是当代中国问题的关键，其负责制只朝上，不朝下。 我在卷首指出，这里所提供的制度发展的历史介绍，必须对照工业革命后的不同条件。在某种意义上，我已经重新洗过牌，以便直接解说和修正《变化社会中的政治秩序》所提出的问题。工业化发轫后，经济增长和社会动员取得极为迅速的进展，大大改变了政治秩序三个组件的发展前景。这将是我在第 2 卷解说政治发展时所用的架构。

  • 弗朗西斯·福山《政治秩序的起源》1

    序言
    第一部分　国家之前
    第 1 章　政治的必需
    第 2 章　自然状态
    第 3 章　表亲的专横
    第 4 章　部落社会的财产、正义、战争
    第 5 章“利维坦”的降临
    第二部分　国家建设
    第 6 章　中国的部落制
    第 7 章　战争和中国国家的兴起
    第 8 章　伟大的汉朝制度
    第 9 章　政治衰败和家族政府的复辟
    第 10 章　印度的弯路
    第 11 章　瓦尔纳和迦提
    第 12 章　印度政体的弱点
    第 13 章　军事奴隶制与穆斯林走出部落制
    第 14 章　马穆鲁克挽救伊斯兰教
    第 15 章　奥斯曼帝国的运作和衰退
    第 16 章　基督教打破家庭观念
    第三部分　法 治
    第 17 章　法治的起源
    第 18 章　教会变为国家
    第 19 章　国家变为教会
    第 20 章　东方专制主义
    第 21 章“坐寇”
    第四部分　负责制政府
    第 22 章　政治负责制的兴起
    第 23 章　寻租者
    第 24 章　家族化跨越大西洋
    第 25 章　易北河以东
    第 26 章　更完美的专制主义
    第 27 章　征税和代表权
    第 28 章　负责制或专制主义？
    第五部分　迈向政治发展理论
    第 29 章　政治发展和政治衰败
    第 30 章　政治发展的过去和现在

    序言

    本书有两个起源。第一，源于我的恩师哈佛大学的塞缪尔·亨廷顿（Samuel Huntington）请我为他 1968 年的经典之作《变化社会中的政治秩序》的再版撰写新序。①亨廷顿的著作代表了从宏观角度论述政治发展的新努力之一，也是我在教学中经常要求学生阅读的。它在比较政治学方面建立了甚多重要见解，包括政治衰败的理论、威权现代化的概念、指出政治发展是有别于现代化其他方面的现象等。

    我在写新序时觉得，《变化社会中的政治秩序》尽管很有启发，但确实需要认真的更新。它的成书时间距离非殖民浪潮席卷二战后的世界仅十年左右。它的很多结论反映了那一时期政变和内战所带来的极端不稳定。但自该书出版以来已发生很多重大变化，像东亚的经济奇迹、全球共产主义的衰退、全球化的加速，以及始于 20 世纪 70 年代亨廷顿所谓的“第三波”民主化。政治秩序在很多地方尚未到位，但在不少发展中地区却取得成功。返回该书的主题，将之用于今日世界，似乎是个好主意。

    我在思考如何修订亨廷顿思想时又突然省悟到，若要详细解说政治发展和政治衰败的起源，还有很多基本工作要做。《变化社会中的政治秩序》将人类历史晚期的政治世界视作理所当然。其时，国家、政党、法律、军事组织等制度（institutions，参见本书第 29 章“制度[机构]”一节的编者按）均已存在。它所面对的是发展中国家如何推动政治制度的现代化，但没有解释这些现代化制度在其发源地是如何成形的。国家并不受困于自己的过去，但在许多情况下，数百年乃至数千年前发生的事，仍对政治的性质发挥着重大影响。如想弄懂当代制度的运作，很有必要查看它们的起源以及帮助它们成形的意外和偶然。

    我对制度起源的关心又与第二份担忧紧密吻合，即现实世界中国家过于薄弱和最终失败的问题。自 2001 年 9 月 11 日以来，就政府濒临崩溃或不稳的国家，我一直在研究其国家和民族构建的难题。与此有关的更早努力，是我在 2004 年出版的《国家构建：21 世纪的治理与世界秩序》。②美国和广大的国际捐赠社区，大力投入世界各地的国家建设项目，包括阿富汗、伊拉克、索马里、海地、东帝汶、塞拉利昂、利比里亚。我本人也跟世界银行和澳大利亚国际发展署（AusAid）接洽，观察包括东帝汶、巴布亚新几内亚、印尼巴布亚省、所罗门群岛在内的美拉尼西亚（Melanesia）的国家建设问题。它们在建造现代国家方面遇到重大困难。

    譬如，如何将现代制度植入美拉尼西亚社会，如巴布亚新几内亚和所罗门群岛。该社会以人类学家所谓的分支世系制（segmentary lineage）组成部落，而分支世系是指共享同一祖先的群体，其中的亲戚人数少至几十，多至数千。这些群体在本地被称为一语部落（wantok），它是英文词语“一种话语”的洋泾浜变种，即操同一语言的人群。存在于美拉尼西亚的社会分裂颇不寻常，巴布亚新几内亚拥有超过九百种互不通用的语言，几乎占世界现存语种的六分之一。所罗门群岛的人口仅 50 万，却有超过七十种的独特语言。巴布亚新几内亚高地的多数居民，从没离开过出生地的小峡谷，他们生活在一语部落内，与邻近的其他一语部落互相竞争。

    美拉尼西亚

    一语部落接受头人（Big Man）的指挥，但没有一个人生来就是头人，也不能将之传给儿子。更确切地说，必须在每一代赢得该职。它不一定落在体力强壮者的头上，通常给赢得社区信任的人——以分配猪肉、贝壳货币和其他资源的能力为基础。在传统的美拉尼西亚社会中，头人必须时时小心，因为权力觊觎者可能就躲在背后。如果没有可供派分的资源，他就会失去其领袖地位。③

    20 世纪 70 年代，澳大利亚准许巴布亚新几内亚独立，英国也承认所罗门群岛独立。它们都建立现代“威斯敏斯特”（Westminster）式政府，公民定期参加多党派的选举，以选出议会成员。在澳大利亚和英国，政治选择离不开中立偏左的工党和保守党（澳大利亚的自由党和英国的托利党）。总的来说，选民根据意识形态和政策来决定取向（譬如，他们要更多的政府保护，还是要更多的市场取向）。

    但这种政治制度被植入美拉尼西亚后，结果却一片混乱。原因在于，美拉尼西亚多数选民投票不看政治纲领。更确切地说，他们只支持自己的头人和一语部落。如果头人（偶尔是女头人）被选入议会，这位新议会成员将尽力运用自己的影响，将政府资源搬回自己的一语部落，向自己的拥护者提供学校费用、埋葬开支、建筑工程等。尽管有全国政府和主权象征，如国旗和军队，美拉尼西亚的居民中没几个觉得自己属于一个国家，或属于自己一语部落之外的社会。巴布亚新几内亚和所罗门群岛的议会中，没有凝聚的政党，只有大批单枪匹马的领袖，将尽可能多的猪肉带回自己狭小的拥护者团体。④

    美拉尼西亚社会的部落制度限制了经济发展，因为它阻止现代产权涌现。在巴布亚新几内亚和所罗门群岛，95% 以上的土地属于所谓的惯例（customary）土地所有制。根据惯例的规则，财产是私有的，由亲戚团体以非正式形式（就是说没有法律文件）一起拥有。他们对土地享有单独和集体的权利，地产的意义不仅在经济上，还在精神上，因为死去的亲戚都葬于一语部落的土地，其魂魄仍在徘徊。一语部落中的任何人，包括头人，都无权将土地卖与外人。⑤寻觅地产的开矿公司或棕榈油公司，必须与数百人谈判，有时甚至是数千人。此外，根据传统规则，土地产权不受时效法律的限制。⑥

    在很多外国人的眼中，美拉尼西亚政治家的行为看来像政治腐败。但从传统部落社会的角度看，头人只是在履行头人历来的职责，那就是向亲戚分发资源。只是现在，他们不但拥有猪肉和贝壳货币，而且享有开矿和伐木权利的收入。

    从巴布亚新几内亚的首都莫尔兹比港（Port Moresby）起飞，几小时就可抵达澳大利亚的凯恩斯（Cairns）或布里斯班（Brisbane）。在某种意义上，这一航程跨越了几千年的政治发展。在思考美拉尼西亚的政治发展时，我开始考虑：社会如何从部落层次过渡到国家层次，现代产权如何从惯例产权中脱颖而出，倚靠第三方执法的正规法律制度如何问世。美拉尼西亚社会从没见过正规的法律制度。如果想得更远，认为现代社会已远远超越美拉尼西亚，依我看来可能只是夜郎自大，因为头人——将资源派分给亲戚和拥护者的政治家——在当代世界依然到处可见，包括美国国会。如果政治发展的涵义就是脱离家族关系和人格政治，那我们必须解释，为何这些行为仍在多处幸存，为何看似现代的制度往往要走回头路。

    在《变化社会中的政治秩序》中找不到有关答案，这段历史需要认真的梳理，以重温亨廷顿的主题。

    因此就有了现在这本书，考量政治制度的历史起源和政治衰败的过程。这是两卷中的第 1 卷，涵盖从前人类时期到美法革命前夕的政治发展。本书与过去有关——事实上，它并不始于有记载的人类历史，而是人类的灵长目祖先。它的前四个部分讲述人类史前史、国家起源、法治、负责制政府。第 2 卷会一直讲到今天，特别关注非西方社会在追求现代化时受到西方制度的影响，然后再解说当代世界的政治发展。

    阅读本卷时需要预先掂量第 2 卷的内容。我在本卷最后一章中讲得很清楚，现代世界的政治发展所遇到的条件，与 18 世纪晚期之前的截然不同。工业革命发轫后，人类社会退出了直到那时一直所身历的马尔萨斯式处境（Malthusian conditions），一种新动力被注入社会变化的进程，造成了巨大的政治后果。本卷读者可能觉得，这里叙述的漫长历史进程意味着，社会会受困于自己的历史；但实际上，我们今天生活在非常不同且动力多样的环境下。

    本书涵盖众多社会和历史时期；我也使用自己专长之外的资料，包括人类学、经济学、生物学等。为了从事如此广泛的研究，我不得不几乎全然依靠二手资料。尽管我尝试让这些资料承受尽可能严密的专家过滤，但我仍可能犯了事实和解释方面的错误。对深入研究特定社会和历史时期的专家来说，本书很多单独章节是不够格的。但我认为，以比较方式作跨越时间和空间的考量，本身似乎就是一种美德。若全神贯注于特定题材，往往会看不清政治发展的大模式。

    第一部分 国家之前

    第 1 章 政治的必需

    第三波民主化，时人对自由民主制前景的担忧；左右两派憧憬政府消亡，发展中国家却在身受其害；我们视各式制度为理所当然，但对其来龙去脉却一无所知

    1970 年到 2010 年的 40 年间，世界上民主国家的数量经历一次高涨。1973 年，世界 151 个国家中，被“自由之家”（Freedom House）评估为自由国家的仅 45 个。自由之家是一家非政府机构，每年就世界各国的公民权和政治权提供量化评选。①该年，西班牙、葡萄牙、希腊是独裁政权；苏联和其东欧卫星国仍显得强大和凝聚；中国正卷入毛泽东的“文化大革命”；一群腐败的“终身总统”正在非洲巩固他们的统治；大部分拉丁美洲处于军人独裁之中。到了下一代，人们亲眼目睹巨大的政治变化。民主制和市场导向的经济，在中东阿拉伯之外的世界各地蓬勃兴起。20 世纪 90 年代后期，约有 120 个国家——占世界独立国家总数的 60%——成为民主制。②这一变化，即是亨廷顿所讲的第三波民主化。自由民主制作为预设，已成为 21 世纪初普遍接受的政治景观。③

    潜行于体制变化之下的，是社会的一大转型。世界上一度消极的千百万民众组织起来，参与他们各自社会的政治生活，其结果是朝民主制的大幅转向。此次社会大动员，背后有众多因素：广为普及的教育，使民众意识到自我和周遭的政治环境；信息技术，使思想和知识得到迅速传播；廉价的旅行和通讯，让民众得以用脚来参与选举，特别在对政府不满时；经济繁荣，诱发民众渴望获得更齐全的保障。

    第三波在 20 世纪 90 年代后达到顶峰。21 世纪第一个十年则出现“民主衰退”。参与第三波民主化的国家中，约有五分之一，不是回复到威权主义，就是看到其民主制度遭受严重侵蚀。④自由之家提及，2009 年是世界自由程度连续下跌的第四年，这是其自 1973 年创办自由度测评以来的首次。⑤

    政治焦虑

    21 世纪第二个十年伊始，民主世界出现若干形式的病状。第一种焦虑，取得民主进展的某些国家出现彻底逆转，如俄罗斯、委内瑞拉、伊朗。其民选领袖忙于拆除各式民主机构、操纵选举、关闭或鲸吞独立的电视和报纸、取缔反对派的活动。自由民主制不仅仅是在选举中获得多数；它由一套复杂制度所组成，通过法律和制衡制度来限制和规范权力的行使。很多国家，虽然正式接受民主合法性，却在系统性地取消对行政权力的制衡，并对法律发起系统性的侵蚀。

    第二种焦虑，那些似乎走出威权政府的国家，却又陷入政论家托马斯·凯罗塞斯（Thomas Carothers）所谓的“灰色地带”，既非完全威权，也非货真价实的民主。⑥苏联的许多继承国家，如中亚的哈萨克斯坦和乌兹别克斯坦，即如此。1989 年柏林墙倒塌之后有个普遍假设：几乎所有国家将过渡成民主制，而民主实践中的种种挫折会随着时间的推移而获得逐一克服。凯罗塞斯指出，该“过渡模式”的假设是靠不住的，很多威权精英阶层无意建立削弱自身权力的民主制度。

    第三种焦虑，无关乎政治制度能否走向民主化或保持民主化，而关乎它们能否向民众提供所需的基本服务。拥有民主制度这一事实，并不表明其治绩的优劣。未克履行民主所允诺的好处，可能是民主制度所面临的最大挑战。

    乌克兰就是一个案例。2004 年，它给世人带来惊奇，成千上万的民众涌向基辅的独立广场，抗议总统选举的不公。这一系列抗议被称为橙色革命，引发新一轮选举，导致改革家维克托·尤先科（Viktor Yushchenko）当上总统。然而一旦当权，橙色联盟却一无是处，尤先科辜负支持者的期望。政府内部争吵不已，无法应付乌克兰的严重腐败，在 2008—2009 年的全球金融危机中，治下的国民经济陷入崩溃。2010 年初，当选为新总统的是维克托·亚努科维奇（Viktor Yanukovich）。而 2004 年被指控操纵选票、企图窃取选举成果从而触发橙色革命的，恰是此人。

    困扰民主国家的，还有许多其他的治理失误。众所周知，拉丁美洲是世界上贫富最悬殊的地区。那里，阶级等级往往等同于族裔。其民粹领袖的上升，如委内瑞拉的乌戈·查韦斯（Hugo Chávez）和玻利维亚的埃沃·莫拉莱斯（Evo Morales），与其说是不稳定的起因，倒不如说是不均的症状。很多人觉得，名义上是公民，但在现实中却横遭排挤。持久的贫穷经常滋生其他社会功能的失调，如帮会、毒品交易、普通百姓的不安全感。在哥伦比亚、墨西哥、萨尔瓦多，有组织的犯罪活动威胁国家本身和其基本制度。不能有效处理这些难题，民主制合法性便会受到破坏。

    另一案例是印度。自 1947 年独立以来，它一直维持颇为成功的民主制——考虑到其贫穷程度、种族和宗教的多元、幅员的广袤，此成就尤为惊人。（如以更长远的历史眼光来看待印度的政治发展，将会减少我们的惊异。这是本书第 10—12 章的主题。）但印度的民主，就像香肠的制作，越是近距离观察，其吸引力越是下降。举例来说，几乎三分之一的印度立法委员，现正遭受各式的犯罪起诉，有些甚至是重罪，如谋杀和强奸。印度政治家经常从事公开的政治交易，以政治恩惠来交换选票。印度民主的烂搅难缠，令政府在重大的基础设施投资上很难做出决策。印度众多的城市里，在漂亮耀眼的高科技中心旁，往往可见非洲式的贫穷。

    印度民主明显的混乱和腐败，经常与中国快速和有效的决策形成强烈对比。中国统治者不受法治或民主责任的牵制：如想建造大水坝、拆除旧居以造高速公路或机场、实施即时的经济刺激，他们的速度远远超过民主的印度。

    第四种政治焦虑与经济有关。现代全球资本主义，证明是高效的。其创造的财富，远远超越生活在 1800 年前任何人的梦想。自 20 世纪 70 年代的石油危机以来，世界经济几乎翻了四倍。⑦由于贸易和投资的开放政策，亚洲人口的大部已挤入发达国家的行列。但全球性资本主义仍未找到避免大幅波动的良方，尤其是金融业。金融危机定期折磨全球的经济增长，20 世纪 90 年代初是欧洲，1997—1998 年是亚洲，1998—1999 年是俄罗斯和巴西，2001 年是阿根廷。可说是罪有应得，此种危机最终在 2008—2009 年击中全球资本主义的老窝——美国。为促进持续的增长，自由的市场很有必要，但它不善于自动调节，特别在涉及银行和其他大型金融机构时。制度的不稳定最终仍属政治上的失败，即未能在国家和国际层次上提供恰当的管制。⑧

    这些经济危机的累积，未必减弱把市场经济和全球化当作引擎的信心。中国、印度、巴西和其他所谓的新兴市场国家，凭借对全球性资本主义的参与，在经济上继续表现良好。但显而易见，开发恰当的管制以驯服资本主义的大幅波动，这一政治工作尚未完成。

    政治衰败

    就民主前景而言，上述情形涉及另一种紧急但又常被忽略的焦虑。政治制度的发展通常是缓慢和痛苦的，必须经历漫长岁月。人类社会一直在努力组织起来，以征服自己所处的环境。政治制度一旦无法适应不断变化的环境，便会发生政治衰败。制度的保存自有规律。人类是循规蹈矩的生物，生来就倾向于遵守身边的社会规则，并以超越的意义和价值来加固那些规则。周围环境改变时，便会出现新的挑战，现存制度与即时需求便会发生断裂。既得利益者会起而捍卫现存制度，反对任何基本变化。

    美国政治制度可能正面临其适应能力的重大挑战。美国制度基于这样一种信念：集中的政治力量对公民的生命和自由构成了朝不虑夕的危险。因此，美国宪法设有广泛的相互制衡，使政府的某些部门得以防范其他部门的暴政。迄今为止，这个制度表现良好。因为在历史关键时刻，当强大政府是不可或缺时，其政治领导最终能达成共识，取得胜利。

    很不幸，没有机制上的保障能够确保美国制度既防范暴政，又在必要时按照初衷来顺利行使国家权威。后者取决于对政治目的达成社会共识，这恰是最近几年来美国政治生活中所缺乏的。美国现在面对一系列巨大挑战，大部分与其长期财政困境有关。过去一代，美国人把钱花在自己身上，没有缴纳足够的税款。宽松的信贷，以及家庭和政府的超支，无疑是雪上加霜。长期的财政亏空和对外负债，威胁美国在世人眼中的国力根基。其他国家的地位，如中国，则获得相对拔高。⑨

    这些挑战，如采取痛苦和适时的行动，没有一项是无法克服的。美国的政治制度本应促进共识的形成，现在反而加剧挑战的艰巨。国会两极分化，令法案的通过变得异常困难。国会中最保守的民主党人，仍比最开明的共和党人更偏向自由派，这是现代史中的首次。以 10% 或更少选票当选的国会议员席位，19 世纪末仍有将近 200 名，持续下降至 21 世纪初，仅剩 50 余名。此类席位，往往是两党争夺的主要对象。两大政党在意识形态上变得更加物以类聚，审慎的辩论日益退化减少。⑩这种分裂并非史无前例。但在过去，强势的总统总是能够驾驭此类分裂。而近来，则未见强大能干的总统。

    美国政治的未来，不仅依赖政治，而且依赖社会。国会的两极化反映了一大趋势，即美国的社区和地域正在日益同质化。美国人选择在何处居住，从而在意识形态上自我排队。⑪跟志趣相投的人共处，这一倾向因媒体而获得增强。交流途径的多样化，反而减弱了公民的共享经历。⑫

    国会的左右两极化、既得利益团体的成长和力量，都在影响美国政治制度应付财政挑战的能力。工会、农产企业、制药公司、银行、大批有组织的游说团，经常对可能损害其经济利益的法案行使有效的否决权。民主国家里，公民保护自己利益完全合理，也属预计之中。但到一定程度，此类保护将化作索求特权，大家的利益都变得神圣不可侵犯，社会为此而陷入困境。这解释了左右两派高涨的民粹主义愤怒，这种愤怒又进一步推动两极化，更反映出社会现实与国家原则的不协调。

    美国人抱怨美国受制于精英和利益团体。这反映了从 20 世纪 70 年代到 21 世纪初，收入和财富的不均在与日俱增。⑬不均本身，不是美国政治文化中的大问题。美国强调机会均等而非结果均等。如人们相信，通过努力工作，他们和自己的孩子仍有公平机会获得成功，而富人是按规则取得成功的，那么如此制度仍是合法的。

    然而在事实上，美国世代流动性的比率大大低于众多美国人所相信的，甚至低于传统上被认作僵化和等级分明的其他发达国家。⑭日积月累，精英们得以钻政治制度的空子，以保护自己的地位。他们向海外转移财产来避税，通过精英机构的优惠途径将优势传给下一代。该伎俩的大部在 2008—2009 年金融危机期间暴露无遗。人们痛苦地发现，金融服务业的报酬与其对经济的实际贡献没有直接关联。该行业动用相当大的政治力量，在前十年想方设法废除有关的管制和监督。金融危机发生后，它仍在继续抵抗新的管制。经济学家西蒙·约翰逊（Simon Johnson）指出，美国金融寡头的力量无异于新兴市场国家中的类似团体，如俄罗斯或印尼。⑮

    没有自动机制可使政治制度适应不断变化的环境。因应不良，即政治衰败的现象，会在本卷的后半部得到详细介绍。埃及的马穆鲁克王朝没有较早接纳枪械以应付外国威胁，这并不是非发生不可的。最终击败他们的奥斯曼帝国，就这样做了。中国明朝皇帝没向老百姓征收足够税金以支撑一支强大的抗满军队，这也不是无可避免的。两件案例中的症结，都是现存制度的巨大惯性。

    社会如不能通过制度上的认真改革，以应付重大的财政危机，像法兰西国王在 1557 年无力偿还“大借款”（Grand Parti，编按：此指 1555 年，法兰西国王亨利二世为支付战争开销，向里昂银行家大举借贷一事）后所做的，它就会倾向于采取短视的补救，最终却腐化自己的制度。这些补救屈服于各种既得利益者，即法国社会中有财有势的人。国家预算不平衡，导致破产和国家本身非法化，这一历史过程以法国大革命告终。

    美国的道德和财政危机还没到达法兰西王国的地步。危险的是，其处境将会继续恶化，直到某种强大力量彻底打破这当前功能失调的制度均衡。

    无政府幻想

    我们对未来的甚多焦虑，如俄罗斯退回威权、印度腐败、发展中国家政府衰败、当代美国政治受制于既得利益者，均可用一条共同线索串起，那就是如何建立和维持有效的政治制度，虽然强大，但遵守规则，又承担责任。这么明白的道理，看上去像是任何四年级小学生都认可的。然而，想得更深一步，这又是很多聪明人迄今尚没弄清的。

    让我们以第三波的退潮和 21 世纪初世界上发生的民主衰退开始。我认为，当前我们对民主传播的失败感到失望，其原由不在思想这个层次。思想对政治秩序极其重要，它是政府的合法性被接受的基础，它能够凝聚人心，并使民众愿意服从政府的权威。柏林墙的倒塌标志共产主义的破产，共产主义曾是民主制的主要竞争者。自由民主制因此成为被最广泛接受的政府形式，获得快速的蔓延。

    时至今日，这仍是事实。用阿马蒂亚·森（Amartya Sen）的话说，民主制仍是“预设”：“民主尚未获得普遍的实践，甚至未被普遍接受。但在世界舆论的大气候中，民主制已获得被视作基本正确的地位。”⑯世界上很少人公开钦佩弗拉基米尔·普京的石油民族主义、乌戈·查韦斯的“21 世纪社会主义”、马哈茂德·艾哈迈迪-内贾德的伊斯兰共和国。没有重要的国际机构将民主制以外的任何东西认作是公平合理的统治形式。中国迅速的经济增长，刺激了他人的忌妒和兴趣。但它的威权主义模式，不易解释清楚，更少被其他发展中国家轻易模仿。现代自由民主制享有如此威望，以致今日的威权政客，为了合法也必须上演选举，宁可躲在幕后操纵媒体。事实上，不但极权主义从地球上消失，连威权政客也往往假扮成民主人士来称颂民主制。

    民主的失败，与其说是在概念上，倒不如说是在执行中。世界上大多数人极向往这样的社会：其政府既负责又有效，民众需要的服务能获得及时和高效的满足。但没几个政府能真正做到这两点，因为很多国家的制度衰弱、腐败、缺乏能力，甚至根本不存在。世界上的抗议者和民主倡导者，不管是南非和韩国的，还是罗马尼亚和乌克兰的，他们的激情足以带来“政权更替”，使威权政府蜕变成民主制。但如没有漫长、昂贵、艰苦、困难的过程来建设相关的制度，民主制是无法成功的。

    有一种奇妙的想法，对政治制度的重要性视而不见，这几年来影响很多人。他们憧憬超越政治的世界，这种憧憬，不专属于左派或右派，他们各有自己的版本。共产主义之父卡尔·马克思的预测广为人知：无产阶级革命夺取政权后，私人财产废除，“国家消亡”。自 19 世纪的无政府主义者以来，左翼革命家认为，摧毁旧权力机构即已足够，没去认真思考何以代之，这项传统延续至今。反全球化的学者，如迈克尔·哈特（Michael Hardt）和安东尼奥·奈格里（Antonio Negri），建议削减国家主权，代之以互联的“群体”（Multitude），以铲除经济上的不公平。⑰

    现实世界中的共产党政权，恰恰做了与马克思预测相反的事。它们建立庞大且暴力的国家机器，如民众不是自觉自愿，就逼迫他们参与集体行动。这影响了整整一代的东欧民主活动家。他们憧憬心目中的无政府社会，让动员起来的公民社会来取代传统的政党和集权政府。⑱这些活动家随后对无情的现实感到失望，因为没有制度，社会便无从治理，而建造制度又必然需要令人厌烦的妥协。共产主义垮台后的数十年，东欧是民主的，但对其政治或政治家来说，却不一定感到满意。⑲

    右派中最流行的无政府幻想认为，市场经济令政府变得无关紧要。20 世纪 90 年代的网络繁荣期间，参照花旗银行前首席执行官沃尔特·利斯坦（Walter Wriston）的口吻，很多狂热者主张世界正在经历“主权的黄昏”。⑳新兴的信息技术在挑战传统上由国家掌控的政治权力，使边界变得不易管辖，使规则难以执行。互联网的上升，导致电子边疆基金会（Electronic Frontier Foundation）的约翰·巴洛（John Barlow）等活跃分子发布“网络空间的独立宣言”。它通告工业化世界的政府：“在我们中间，你们不受欢迎。我们聚集的地方，你们没有主权。”㉑全球性资本主义，将以市场的主权取代民主制的主权。如果某国议院采用严格条例限制贸易，它将受到债券市场的惩罚，最后还是被迫改用全球资本市场所认可的合理政策。㉒无政府幻想总能在美国找到同情听众，因为美国政治文化的常数就是对政府提高警惕。各式的自由至上主义者（Libertarian），不仅要缩减蔓生的福利计划，甚至要废除像联邦储备委员会和食品与药品管理局这样的基本机构。㉓

    认为现代政府变得臃肿，因而限制经济增长和个人自由，这非常合理。抱怨官僚作风冷漠、政客腐败、政治中不讲原则，也绝对正确。但在发达国家，我们视政府的存在为理所当然，以致忘记它们有多重要、重建它们有多难、缺乏基本政治制度的世界会有多大的不同。

    我们不但视民主为理所当然，还把政府提供的基本服务当作理所当然。我居住多年的弗吉尼亚州费尔法克斯县是美国最富的县之一，位于华盛顿特区郊外。每年的冬天风暴过后，由于季节性的结冰和解冻，县公路上便会出现坑坑洼洼。但在春天结束之前，那些坑洼都得到神奇的填补，无须担心在坑洼里撞断自家汽车的底轴。如没有填补，费尔法克斯县的居民会变得愤怒，会抱怨地方政府的无能。没人（除了政府专家）停下来思忖哪个政府部门在尽此职责。它复杂，但却是看不见摸不着的。也没人停下来问，为何接壤的哥伦比亚特区却需要较长时间来填补坑洼，为何很多发展中国家从不填补它们道路上的坑洼。

    实际上，左右派梦想家所想象的最小政府或无政府的社会，并非只是海市蜃楼，其确实存在于当代的发展中国家。非洲撒哈拉以南的很多地方是自由至上主义者的天堂。该地区大体上都是低税收的乌托邦，政府征收的税金通常不超过国民生产总值的 10%。相比之下，美国超过 30%，部分欧洲国家占 50%。如此低的税收，与其说释放工商创业的热情，倒不如说导致政府资金异常短缺，无法提供健康、教育、填补道路坑洼之类的基本公共服务。现代经济所依据的基础设施，例如道路、法庭、警察，在这里不见踪影。自 20 世纪 80 年代晚期以来，索马里就缺乏强大的中央政府。普通人不但可拥有突击步枪，还可拥有火箭推进榴弹、防空导弹、坦克。民众有保卫自己家庭的自由，但他们是别无选择。尼日利亚生产的电影，数量可与印度闻名的宝莱坞媲美。但必须尽快赚回报酬，因为政府无力保障知识产权，无法避免其产品的非法复制。

    发达国家的民众视政治制度为理所当然。这习惯可见证于 2003 年美国入侵伊拉克的善后计划，或善后计划的缺乏。美国政府似乎认为，萨达姆·侯赛因的独裁政权一倒台，伊拉克就会自动回复到预设的民主政府和市场经济。等到伊拉克的国家机构在疯狂的洗劫和内乱中轰然崩塌时，美国政府似乎感到由衷的惊讶。在阿富汗，美国的目标遇上同样的挫折。十年努力和数千亿美元的投资，迄今没能培植出一个稳定合法的国家。㉔

    政治制度是必要的，不能被视为理所当然。你“叫政府让开”后，市场经济和富裕不会魔术般出现，它们得依赖背后的产权、法治、基本政治秩序。自由市场、充满活力的公民社会、自发的“群众智慧”，都是良好民主制的重要组件，但不能替代强大且等级分明的政府。近几年来，经济学家有了广泛认同，“制度确实重要”。穷国之所以穷，不是因为它们缺少资源，而是因为它们缺少有效的政治制度。因此，我们需要好好了解那些制度的来源。

    达到丹麦

    建立现代政治制度的问题，常被形容为如何“达到丹麦”。这其实是一篇文章的标题，作者是世界银行社会学家兰特·普里切特（Lant Pritchett）和迈克尔·伍考克（Michael Woolcock）。㉕对发达国家居民而言，“丹麦”是个具有良好政治和经济制度的神秘国度。它民主、稳定、热爱和平、繁荣、包容、政治腐败极低。大家都想弄清，如何将索马里、海地、尼日利亚、伊拉克、阿富汗转化成“丹麦”。国际发展团体列出一份假设是丹麦属性的长清单，尝试帮助落后国家来“达到丹麦”的水平。

    这个想法，问题多多。那些异常贫穷和混乱的国家，可以指望在短期内建立起复杂制度吗？这显得有点不靠谱，要知道，那些制度的进化花费了多长时间。此外，制度反映它们所处社会的文化价值。丹麦的民主政治秩序，能在迥然不同的文化土壤中扎根吗？谁也不清楚。富裕稳定的发达国家，其多数居民不知道丹麦本身是如何“达到丹麦”的——甚至对于很多丹麦人自己来说也是这样。建立现代政治制度的斗争，既漫长又痛苦，以致工业国家的居民对自己社会的来龙去脉罹患了历史健忘症。

    丹麦人的祖先是维京人，一个很凶悍的部落，曾战胜和掳掠从地中海到乌克兰基辅的大部分欧洲。率先定居不列颠的凯尔特人、征服他们的罗马人、取代罗马人的日耳曼蛮族，起初都组成部落，像阿富汗、伊拉克中部、巴布亚新几内亚现存的那些部落一样。中国人、印第安人、阿拉伯人、非洲人，几乎地球上所有人类，都有过同样经历。他们尽的主要义务，不是对国家，而是对宗族；他们解决争端，不通过法庭，而通过以牙还牙的正义；他们把死者葬在宗族集体拥有的土地。

    随着时间的推移，这些部落社会逐渐发展出政治制度。首先是中央集权，在固定领土范围内实施有效的军事力量垄断——这就是我们所谓的国家。和平得到维持，不再靠宗族团体之间的大致均势，而靠国家的军队和警察。它们成为常备力量，对抗邻近的部落和国家，保护自己的社区。财产不再归属于宗族，而为个人所拥有，其主人渐渐赢得任意买卖财产的权力。产权的保障不再靠宗族，而靠法庭来解决争端、补偿损失。

    日积月累，社会规则越来越正规化，变成书面法律，不再是习惯或非正式的传统。这些正式规则，不必顾及在特定时间行使该权力的某人，可自主决定制度中的权力分配。换言之，制度替代了领袖。这些法律，最终成为社会中的最高权威，高于暂时指挥军队和官僚的统治者，这就是法治。

    最后，有些社会不仅迫使统治者遵守限制国家权力的书面法律，还责成他们向国会、议会和其他代表较多人口的机构负责。传统的君主制，含有某种程度的负责，但通常只向少量精英顾问征求非正式的咨询。一旦统治者接受正式规则，限制自己的权力，并让自己的统治权臣服于通过选举表现出来的大众意志，现代民主制便呱呱坠地。

    本卷的目的，是想详述那些已被视作理所当然的基本政治制度的起源，从而填补历史健忘症所造成的空白。将要讨论的三种制度，即是刚才所提及的：

    1.国家（the state）

    2.法治（the rule of law）

    3.负责制政府（accountable government）

    成功的现代自由民主制，把这三种制度结合在稳定的平衡中。能取得这种平衡，本身就是现代政治的奇迹。能否结合，答案不是明显的。毕竟，国家功能是集中和行使权力，要求公民遵从法律，保护自己免遭他国的威胁。另一方面，法治和负责制政府又在限制国家权力，首先迫使国家依据公开和透明的规则来行使权力，再确保国家从属于民众愿望。

    这些制度的首次出现是因为民众发现，可借此来保护他们和家人的利益。什么是自利，如何与人合作，都取决于使政治结社取得合法性的思想。因此自利和合法性，形成了政治秩序的基础。

    三种制度中已存在一种，并不意味着其他两种也会出现。例如阿富汗，自 2004 年以来一直举行民主选举，但只拥有非常孱弱的国家，在其领土大部无法执法。相比之下，俄罗斯拥有强劲的国家，也举行民主选举，但其统治者觉得自己不受法治束缚。新加坡拥有强劲国家和英国殖民者遗留下的法治，但只提供缩了水的负责制政府。

    这三种制度最初来自何方？是什么力量驱使它们诞生？又在何等条件下得到发展？建立的顺序如何？彼此间有何关系？如能弄清这些基本制度的出现，我们便可明白，阿富汗或索马里离当代丹麦究竟还有多远。

    如不理解政治衰败的补充过程，就讲不清政治制度的发展。人类的制度很“黏糊”；这是指，它们长期延续，只有经受了重大的艰辛，方能得到变革。为满足某种条件而建立的制度，在该条件改变或消失时，常常得以苟延；未能妥善因应，便会引发政治衰败。这适用于旧式政治制度，也适用于集国家、法治、负责制政府于一身的现代自由民主制国家。不能保证，一个民主政体会继续向公民提供所允诺的；也不能保证，它在公民的眼中继续是合法的。

    此外，人类袒护亲友的自然倾向——我称之为家族主义（patrimonialism）——如未遭遇强大抑制，会一再重现。组织起来的团体——经常是有钱有势的——久而久之，得以盘根错节，并开始向国家要求特权。尤其是在持久和平遇上财务或军事危机时，这些盘踞已久的家族团体更会扩展其优势，或阻挠国家采取妥善的因应。

    政治发展和衰败的故事，曾被讲述多次。多数高中开设“文明之兴起”的课程，提供社会制度如何进化的概论。一个世纪前，讲述给大多数美国学生的历史，以欧洲甚至英国为中心。它可能从希腊和罗马开始，然后转向欧洲中世纪、大宪章、英国内战、光荣革命，再到 1776 年和美国宪法的起草。今天，类似的课程更加多元，囊括像中国和印度那样的非西方社会，更会讲述历史上遭排斥的群体，像土著、妇女、穷人，等等。

    现存的关于政治制度发展的文献，我们有理由表示不满。首先，大部分没在足够广泛的规模上作出比较对照。只有通过比较不同社会的经验，方可梳理复杂的因果关系，弄清为什么某些制度出现于某地，而不在其他地域。很多关于现代化的理论，从卡尔·马克思到道格拉斯·诺斯（Douglass North）等当代经济历史学家的大量研究，都侧重英国作为首个工业化国家的经验。英国的经历在很多方面是特殊的，对处在不同境地的国家来说，未必是好的指南。

    最近几十年，取而代之的多元叙述，很大程度上也没作严肃的比较对照。它们选择的，要么是非西方文明贡献于人类进步的正面故事，要么是其遭受迫害的负面故事。为什么某制度发展于某社会而不在另外社会，我们很难找到严肃的比较分析。

    优秀的社会学家西摩·李普塞特（Seymour Lipset）常说，仅了解一个国家的观察者是不懂国家的人。没有比较对照就无法知道，某一特殊的实践或行为，是某社会中所独具的还是众多社会所共有的。只有通过比较分析，才能理清因果关系，才能把地理、气候、技术、宗教、冲突与今日世界上呈现的各式结果挂上钩。这样做，我们也许能解答下列问题：

    • 为什么阿富汗、印度丛林地区、美拉尼西亚岛国、中东部分地区，至今仍是部落组织？
    • 为什么中国的预设统治是强大的中央政府，而印度在过去三千年历史中，除短暂时期，从没见过如此高度的中央集权？
    • 为什么几乎所有成功的现代威权政体——像韩国、新加坡、中国大陆、台湾地区——都集居在东亚，而不在非洲或中东？
    • 为什么民主制和齐全法治得以在斯堪的纳维亚生根发芽，而处于类似气候和地理条件下的俄罗斯，却产生了不受节制的专制主义？
    • 为什么在过去一个世纪，拉丁美洲国家反复遭遇高通货膨胀和经济危机，而美国和加拿大却没有？

    本卷提供的历史资料很有趣，因为它们照亮现状，解释不同政治秩序的来龙去脉，但人类社会不囿于自己的过去。为了备战和参战，现代国家得以在中国或欧洲出现。这并不意味着，今日非洲的薄弱国家为达到现代化，必须重复同一经验。我会在第 2 卷中讨论，今日政治发展的条件大相径庭于第 1 卷所涵盖的。社会成员的组合，因经济的增长在不断重新洗牌；今天国际因素对个别社会的冲击远远大于旧日。本卷的历史材料可以解释，各种社会是如何走到今天的。但它们走过的路径，既不能决定它们的将来，也不能成为其他社会的楷模。

    中国第一

    伟人所编写的经典现代化理论，如卡尔·马克思、埃米尔·涂尔干（Émile Durkheim）、亨利·梅因（Henry Maine）、斐迪南·滕尼斯（Ferdinand Tönnies）、马克斯·韦伯（Max Weber），倾向于认为西方经验是现代化的范本，因为工业化首先在西方发生。这样注重西方不难理解。1800 年后，在欧洲和北美所发生的生产力爆发和经济持续增长，既是史无前例的，也把世界塑造成今天的模样。但发展不只局限于经济，政治和社会的制度也在不断发展。政治和社会的发展，有时与经济变化紧密相关，有时又独立自主。本卷着重于政治方面的发展和政府制度的进化。现代政治制度在历史上的出现，远早于工业革命和现代资本主义经济。我们现在理解的现代国家元素，在公元前 3 世纪的中国业已到位。其在欧洲的浮现，则晚了整整一千八百年。

    基于此，我在本卷第二部分讲述国家崛起时，就以中国开始。经典现代化理论倾向于把欧洲的发展当作标准，只探询其他社会为何偏离。我把中国当作国家形成的范本，而探询其他文明为何不复制中国道路。这并不表示中国胜于其他社会。我们将看到，没有法治或负责制政府的现代国家，可能实施非常暴虐的专制主义。中国是开发国家制度的先行者，但西方的政治发展史解说，却很少提及此一创新。

    我自中国开始，就跳过了其他重要的早期社会，像美索不达米亚、埃及、希腊、罗马、中南美洲。在此还需要作进一步解释，为何不在本卷详细涵盖希腊和罗马。

    古代地中海世界树起的先例，对后续的欧洲文明发展非常重要，自查理曼（Charlemagne）时代起，便受到欧洲统治者的自觉模仿。一般认为，希腊人发明了民主制，其统治者不是世袭的，而是选出的。多数部落社会也是相对平等的，其统治者也是选出的（参看第 4 章）。但希腊人超前一步，其介绍的公民概念，以政治标准而非亲戚关系为基础。公元前 5 世纪雅典或罗马共和国实践的政府形式，其较为贴切的称号应是“古典共和政府”，而不是“民主制”，因为选举权只属于少数公民，尖锐的阶级差别排斥大批人（包括众多奴隶）的参与。此外，这些不是自由国家，而是社群式（communitarian）国家，不尊重隐私和其公民的自主权。

    希腊和罗马建立的古典共和政府先例，受到以后很多社会的模仿，包括热那亚和威尼斯的寡头共和国、诺夫哥罗德（Novgorod）、荷兰联合省。但这种政府有致命的缺陷，后代学者，包括很多深思该传统的美国创始人，都有广泛认知：古典共和政府不好扩充。它在小型且均质的社会中表现最佳，就像公元前 5 世纪的希腊城市国家或早期的罗马。这些共和国因征服或经济增长而渐渐壮大，难以维持曾凝聚他们的社群价值。随着疆域和居民的扩展，罗马共和国面临无法解决的矛盾：谁该享受公民权，如何分配国家的战利品。君主制最终战胜希腊城邦国家，罗马共和国经历漫长内战，最终也变成帝国。君主制作为一种政府形式，特别在管理庞大帝国时，证明是出类拔萃的。罗马帝国就是在此种政治制度下，达到其权力和疆域巅峰的。

    在第 2 卷里，我将返回古典共和政府作为现代民主制先例的题目。如要研究国家的兴起，中国比希腊和罗马更值得关注，因为只有中国建立了符合马克斯·韦伯定义的现代国家。中国成功发展了统一的中央官僚政府，管理众多人口和广阔疆域，尤其是与地中海的欧洲相比。中国早已发明一套非人格化（impersonal, or impersonality, 译按：“非人格化”在本书指不受基于家族关系的身份的限制）和基于能力的官僚任用制度，比罗马的公共行政机构更为系统化。公元 1 年时，中国总人口可与罗马帝国媲美，而中国人口中受统一规则管辖的比例，要远远超过罗马。罗马自有其重要遗产，尤其在法律领域中（在第 18 章中详述）。作为现代负责制政府的先驱，希腊和罗马非常重要。但在国家发展上，中国更为重要。

    可与中国相比的社会还有印度。大约在相同时间，印度社会也自部落升至国家。大概二千五百年前，由于新婆罗门宗教的兴起，印度走上一段弯路。该宗教限制印度政治组织可达到的权力，却在某种意义上为现代印度民主打下基础。穆罕默德先知的时代，中东也是部落组织。伊斯兰教的诞生，再加上军事奴隶制这一奇特制度，令埃及和土耳其的某些政治组织崛起成为主要的政治力量。欧洲则截然不同，其退出部落行列，不是通过统治者的自上而下，而是通过天主教在社会层次颁布的规则。只有在欧洲，国家层次的制度不必建造于部落组织之上。

    宗教也是法治起源的关键，它是第三部分的主题。基于宗教的法律，存在于古代以色列、印度、穆斯林的中东、基督教的西方。但唯有在西欧，独立法律制度得到最强劲的发展，并设法转成世俗形式，存续至今。

    第四部分中，负责制政府的兴起主要在欧洲，但在这一点上，欧洲各国并不齐整一致。负责制政府在英国和丹麦兴起，却没在法国或西班牙；俄罗斯发展出专制主义，其权力与中国的旗鼓相当。社会能否把负责制强加于君主，取决于各项特殊的历史条件，譬如幸存至现代的某些封建机构。

    与世界其他地区相比，西欧的政治发展次序是高度异常的。其现代国家或资本主义兴起之前，社会层次的个人主义便已出现，而且早了数个世纪；其政治权力集中于中央政府之前，法治已经存在；其负责制机构的兴起，却是因为现代中央集权国家无法击败或消灭旧封建机构，比如议会。

    国家、法治、负责制政府的组合一旦出现，证明是高度强大和极富吸引力的，之后传播到世界各个角落。我们必须记住，这一现象仅是历史上的偶然。中国有强大国家，但没有法治和负责制政府；印度有法治，现又有负责制政府，但传统上一直缺乏强大国家；中东有国家和法治，但阿拉伯世界的大部已扔掉后者。人类社会不囿于自己的过去，可自由借用彼此的思想和制度。它们过去长得如何，帮助塑造了它们今天的面貌，但过去与现在之间不是只有单一的路径。

    底下无数龟

    本卷的宗旨，与其说是介绍政治发展的历史，倒不如说是分析主要政治制度出现的原因。被称作“一连串混账事件”的众多历史著作，不愿意尽量提炼普遍规律和适用于其他场合的因果理论。人类学家所写的民族志，也没跳出这个窠臼，虽然细致详尽，但仍然故意避开广泛的概括。这肯定不是我的方法，我的比较和概括，将跨越众多的文明社会和历史时期。

    本卷有关政治发展的整体构架，与生物进化有很多相似之处。达尔文进化论建筑在差异和选择这两条原则上：有机体发生随意的遗传变化，最适应环境的，得以存活和繁殖。政治发展也是如此，政治制度也会产生变异，最适合当时自然和社会环境的，也得以存活和扩散。但生物进化和政治进化之间，又有很多重大差别。人类的制度不像基因，可得到精心的设计和选择；它们的代代传播凭借文化，而不是遗传；它们因各种心理和社会的机制，而被注入内在价值（intrinsic value），变得不易变革。政治发展因政治衰败而经常逆转，其原因就在人类制度固有的保守性。触发制度变革的外界变化，往往远远超前于社会接受改革的实际意愿。

    然而，该整体构架不是预测政治发展的理论。依我看，要找到政治变化的精简理论，就像经济学家所谓的经济增长理论，根本是不可能的。㉖促使政治制度发展的因素既繁多又复杂，经常依赖于偶然或伴生事件。即使引证出某种发展的原因，却发现其本身仍有先决条件，这样的溯源回归是永无止尽的。

    让我们举例说明。有一条政治发展的著名理论认为，欧洲因需要发动战争而建立国家。㉗在现代欧洲的早期，这两者之间的关系是大家公认的。我们将看到，它也同样适用于古代中国。但在宣布这是国家形成的通理之前，必须回答下列难题：为什么某些地区，尽管历经长期战争，却一直没能发展国家制度（美拉尼西亚）？为什么在另外地区，战争似乎反而削弱了国家制度（拉丁美洲）？为什么某些地区，其冲突水平低于其他地区（印度与中国相比）？要回答这些问题，就要把原因推向其他因素，例如人口密度、自然地理、技术、宗教。战争发生于人口密集、交通方便（平原或大草原）、拥有相应技术（马匹）的地区，与发生于人口稀少、深山老林、全是沙漠的地区相比，会发挥截然不同的政治影响。战争促使国家形成的理论，涉及更多更深的问题，譬如，为何某种战争仅爆发于某种地区。

    我想在本卷推介一种中间理论，既避免高度抽象（经济学家的恶习），又躲开巨细无遗（历史学家和人类学家的问题）。我希望重新拾起已被遗忘的 19 世纪历史社会学或比较人类学的传统。我不想一开始就向普通读者推介庞大的理论构架。在介绍历史的章节中，我会触及各种理论，但对政治发展的抽象讨论（包括基本概念的定义），我会保留至最后三章（第 28—30 章）。这包括政治发展之所以产生的通论，以及政治、经济、社会之间的互动。

    将理论放在历史之后，我认为是正确的分析方法。应从事实推论出理论，而不是相反。当然，没有预先的理论构思，完全坦白面对事实，这也是没有的事。有人认为这样做是客观实证，那是在自欺欺人。社会科学往往以高雅理论出发，再搜寻可确认该理论的实例，我希望这不是我的态度。

    有个可能不真实的故事，由物理学家史蒂芬·霍金（Stephen Hawking）转述。一位著名科学家在作有关宇宙论的演讲，房间后面有位老妇人打断他，说他是废话连天，而宇宙只是驮在龟背上的一只圆盘。该科学家反问，那龟又驮在何物之上？以为就此便可让她闭嘴。她却回答：“你很聪明，年轻人，但底下是无数的龟。”

    这是任何发展理论的难题：作为故事开头你所挑选的龟，究竟是站在另一只龟的背上，还是站在一头大象、一只老虎或一条鲸鱼背上。大多数所谓的发展概论，其失败的原因，在于没有考虑发展史中独立的多维性。他们只是化繁为简，试图从复杂的历史真实提取出单独的诱因。他们没能将故事推至足够原始的历史时期，以解说它的起点和前提。

    我把故事推得很远。讲中国发明了国家制度之前，我们必须了解战争的起源，甚至人类社会的起源。令人惊讶的是，它们不是外在的。自有人类起，就有社会和冲突，因为人类天生是群居和竞争的动物。人类的老祖宗灵长目，就在实践一种缩了水的政治。要弄清这一点，我们必须回到自然状态和人类生物学，在某种意义上为人类的政治行为设定框架。生物学为支撑龟们提供一定的稳固基础，但我们将在下一章看到，即便是生物学，也不是完全固定的起点。

    第 2 章 自然状态

    自然状态的哲学讨论；现代生命科学彰显人性和政治的生物学基础；黑猩猩和灵长目中的政治；诱发政治的人性特征；人类出现于世界不同地域

    西方哲学传统中对“自然状态”的讨论，一直是理解正义和政治秩序的中心议题。而正义和政治秩序，又是现代自由民主制的基础。古典政治哲学把天性和惯例（或称法律）截然分开。柏拉图（Plato）和亚里士多德（Aristotle）主张，合理城邦必须存在，与之相匹配的是永久人性，而不是昙花一现和不断变化的人性。托马斯·霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）、约翰·洛克（John Locke）、让—雅克·卢梭（Jean-Jacques Rousseau）给予这差别以进一步的拓展。他们撰写有关自然状态的论文，试图以此作为政治权利的基石。讨论自然状态，其实是讨论人性的手段和隐喻，用来建立政治社会应予培养的各级人性美德（a hierarchy of human goods）。

    但在一个关键命题上，亚里士多德与霍布斯、洛克、卢梭泾渭分明。他主张，人类天生是政治的，其自然天赋使之在社会中兴旺发达。而这三位早期现代的哲学家则恰恰相反。他们争辩说，人类天生不是社会性的，社会只是一种手段，使人类得以实现单凭个人所无法得到的东西。

    霍布斯的《利维坦》（Leviathan）在罗列人类的自然激情后主张，人类最深刻、最持久的害怕是暴毙。他由此演绎，大家享有保护自己生命的自由，这就是基本自然权。人性中有三项诱发争端的特征：竞争、畏葸（害怕）、荣誉；“第一项，诱发人类侵略以获好处；第二项，以获安全；第三项，以获荣誉”。因此，自然状态被描绘成“人人相互为敌的战争”。为逃离这一危险处境，人类同意放弃随心所欲的自由，以换取他人尊重自己的生命权。国家，也就是利维坦，以社会契约的形式来执行这一相互的允诺，来保障他们天生拥有但在自然状态中无法享受的权利。政府，也就是利维坦，借保障和平来保障生命权。①

    约翰·洛克的《政府论》下篇对自然状态的观念，比霍布斯的温和。他认为，人类所忙碌的，主要是将劳动与自然物结合起来，以生产私人财产，而不是彼此打斗。洛克的基本自然法，不限于霍布斯的生命权，还包括“生命、健康、自由、财产”。②依照霍布斯，自然状态中不受节制的自由会引发战争；为保护自然的自由和财产，社会契约便成为必要。依照洛克，国家虽是必要的，但也有可能成为自然权利的褫夺者。所以他保留反抗不公正权威的权利。《美国独立宣言》中，托马斯·杰斐逊（Thomas Jefferson）所提倡的生命、自由、追寻幸福之权，直追霍布斯的天赋人权，再辅以洛克有关暴政的修正。

    霍布斯的暴力的自然状态，与卢梭较和平的版本，一直是鲜明的对照。在霍布斯那里，人生是“孤独、贫困、污秽、野蛮和短暂的”，卢梭在《论人类不平等的起源和基础》中，好几处公开批评霍布斯：“最重要的，让我们与霍布斯一起总结：人天生是恶的，因为他对善念一无所知；他品行不端，因为他根本不知道美德为何物；他拒绝为同类做事，因为他自信不亏欠他们；他因此而理直气壮，要求得到一切想要的，并愚蠢地视自己为整个宇宙的主人。”③卢梭认为，霍布斯实际上没能发掘出自然人，《利维坦》讲述的暴虐人，其实只是数世纪承受社会污染的产物。对卢梭而言，自然人虽很孤独，但却是胆小恐惧的；彼此可能互相躲避，而不是交战。野蛮人的“欲望，从不超越其物质需求；除了食物、配偶、休息，他不知道任何其他财产”；他害怕疼痛和饥饿，而不是抽象的死亡。政治社会的产生，不代表拯救于“人人相互为敌的战争”，反而因相互依赖，而造成人与人之间的奴役。

    卢梭在《论人类不平等的起源和基础》中开门见山：“我们此时所从事的研究，不可当作历史真相，只算是假设性和有条件的推论。它适合于解释事物的本性，并不适合于显示其真正起源。”对卢梭和霍布斯而言，自然状态与其说是历史叙述，倒不如说是揭示人性的启发教具——那是指，去掉文明和历史所附加的举止后，人类最深刻最持久的特征。

    很清楚，《论人类不平等的起源和基础》的意图是提供人类行为的发展史。卢梭谈论人的完美性，推测其思想、激情、行为的长期进化。他引证新大陆加勒比人（Caribs）和其他土著的丰富资料，评判观察动物所获得的论据，尝试弄清天生人与社会人的差别。自认懂得伟大思想家的真正意图总是很危险的。霍布斯、洛克、卢梭对自然状态的解释，涉及西方政治的自我理解，至关重要。所以，将之对照我们因生命科学最新进展所认识的人类起源，不能算作不公平。

    此类认识存在于若干领域，包括灵长动物学、人口遗传学、考古学、社会人类学，当然还有进化生物学的总构架。我们可以用更好的实证资料，再次运行卢梭的思考试验。所得的结果，既确认他的部分洞察力，又对他的其他观察提出疑问。以现代生物学来寻找人性，作为政治发展理论的基础，这是非常重要的，因为它将提供最基本的部件。我们可借此来理解人类制度后来的进化。

    卢梭的有些观察是非常精彩的，如他认为，人类不平等起源于冶金、农业、私人财产的发展。但卢梭、霍布斯和洛克，在一个重要论点上是错误的。这三位思想家，都视自然状态的人为隔离中的个体，都视社会为非自然的。根据霍布斯，原始人类的相处，主要表现为害怕、羡慕、冲突。卢梭的原始人更为隔离，性是自然的，但家庭却不是；人类的相互依赖几乎是意外发生的，如农业的技术发明，使大规模的合作成为必要。他们认为，人类社会随着历史进展而出现，人与人相互妥协，从而放弃自然的自由。

    但事实并非如此。英国法律学家亨利·梅因，在 1861 年出版的《古代法》中，以下列词句批评这些自然状态理论：

    这两种理论（霍布斯和洛克的），将英国的严肃政治家长期分裂成敌对的两派。其相似处，只有对史前无法取证的人类状态的基本假设；其分歧处，则有前社会状态的特征，以及人类将自己提升入社会的反常。我们熟悉的，只是社会。但他们一致认为，原始人与社会人之间有一道鸿沟。④

    我们可将之称为霍布斯式谬误：人类一开始各行其是，仅在发展中较迟阶段进入社会，因为他们作出理性推算，社会合作是达到各自目标的最佳方法。原始个人主义这个假设，支持美国《独立宣言》对权利的理解，也支持后来兴起的民主政治社群。该假设更支持了当代新古典主义经济学，其各项模型的前提是：人类是理性的，并希望将自己的功效或收益发挥到极点。但在事实上，人类历史上逐渐获得发展的是个人主义，而不是社会性。今天，个人主义似乎是我们经济和政治行为的核心，那是因为我们发展了相关制度，以克服身上更自然的群体本能。亚里士多德说，人类天生是政治的，他比这些早期现代的自由理论家更为正确。从个人主义角度理解人类动机，有助于解释今日美国商品交易者和自由至上主义者的活动，却不是理解人类政治早期发展的最佳途径。

    现代生物学，与人类学所介绍的自然状态完全相反：人类在进化过程中，从没经历过隔离时期；人类的灵长目先驱，早已开发出广泛的社会和政治技巧；促进社会合作的功能是人脑与生俱来的。自然状态，可被描绘为战争状态，因为暴力是自发的。实施暴力的，与其说是个人，不如说是密切结合的社会群体。人类并不因为自觉且理性的决定，而进入社会和政治生活。公共组织在他们中间自然形成，只是不同的环境、思想和文化，塑造出了各自独特的合作方式。

    事实上，人类出现的数百万年前，就有合作的基本形式。生物学家找到合作行为的两个自然来源：亲戚选择（kin selection）和互惠利他（reciprocal altruism）。关于第一，生物进化的竞争，不是指有机体本身的继续生存，而是指有机体体内基因的继续生存。这种情形一再出现，以致生物学家威廉·汉密尔顿（William Hamilton）将之定为包容适存性原则（inclusive fitness）或亲戚选择。该原则认为，有性繁殖物种的个体，对待亲戚时是利他的，利他程度与它们分享的基因呈正比。⑤父母和小孩，亲兄弟姐妹，分享 50% 的基因。他们之间的利他，更强于他们与堂表亲之间，因为后者仅分享 25% 的基因。这种行为可见证于各类物种。譬如，黄鼠在筑巢时竟能分辨嫡庶姐妹。就人类而言，现实世界的裙带关系，不仅基于社会缘由，更基于生物学缘由。⑥将资源传给亲戚的欲望是人类政治中最持久的常态。

    与遗传上的陌生人合作，被生物学家称作互惠利他。这是亲戚选择之外，社会行为的第二生物学来源，也可见证于众多物种。社会合作取决于如何解答博弈论的“囚徒困境”游戏（prisoner’s dilemma）。⑦在那些游戏中，如大家合作，参与者都有可能获益；如他人合作而自己免费搭乘，则可获益更多。20 世纪 80 年代，政治学家罗伯特·艾克塞洛德（Robert Axelrod）组织了解答“囚徒困境”游戏的电脑程式比赛。优胜战略是“一报还一报”：如对方在较早比赛中是合作的，则采用合作态度；如对方以前不予合作，则采用拒绝态度。⑧艾克塞洛德以此论证，随着理性决策者彼此间长期互动，道德可自发产生，尽管一开始是由自私激起的。

    除人类之外，互惠利他还出现于其他众多物种。⑨吸血蝙蝠和狒狒被观察到在群居地喂养和保护伙伴的后代。⑩另一些情况中，就像清洁鱼和它们所清理的大鱼，相互帮忙的纽带可存在于全然不同的物种。狗和人之间的交往，显示了这两个物种相互进化得来的行为。⑪

    黑猩猩政治与人类政治发展的关系

    进化生物学，为我们弄懂人类如何从灵长目先驱进化而来提供了宏大框架。我们知道，人类和现代黑猩猩共享一个类似黑猩猩的祖先。人类分支出来，约在五百万年前。人类和黑猩猩的染色体，约有 99% 的重叠，多于灵长目内任何其他的一对。⑫（除了解剖上的重要差别，那 1% 的偏离与语言、宗教、抽象思维等有关，所以是非常重要的！）我们当然不可能研究这一共同祖先的行为，但灵长学家花费很长时间，在动物园和自然栖息地观察黑猩猩和其他灵长目动物的行为，发现它们与人类拥有明显的连贯性。

    生物人类学家理查德·兰厄姆（Richard Wrangham）在他《雄性恶魔》一书中，叙述成群结队的野外雄性黑猩猩，远离自己领土去攻杀邻近社区的黑猩猩。这些雄性彼此合作，悄悄追踪包围，先杀死单独的邻居，再逐一消灭社区内的其他雄性，然后捕获雌性，以纳入自己的族团。这很像新几内亚高地男人的所作所为，也像人类学家拿破仑·沙尼翁（Napoleon Chagnon）所观察到的雅诺马马印第安人（Yanomamö Indian）。根据兰厄姆的研究，“甚少动物生活于雄性组合的父系群体，其雌性为避近亲繁殖，经常去邻区寻求交配。组成一个紧密的系统，由雄性发起领土进攻，包括突袭邻近社区，寻找弱小敌人，再加以攻击和消灭，如此做的，已知道的仅两种”。⑬这两种，就是黑猩猩和人。

    根据考古学家斯蒂芬·勒布朗（Steven LeBlanc）的研究，“非复杂社会的人类战争，大部分与黑猩猩的攻击相似。在那个社会层次，人类大屠杀其实是罕见的。由消耗战而取得胜利是可行战略之一，另外还有缓冲区域、突袭、收纳女俘、刑辱敌人。黑猩猩和人类的行为，几乎是彻底平行的”。⑭其主要差异，只是人类的更加致命，因为他们的武器更多样、更犀利。

    黑猩猩像人类群体一样，保卫自己的领土，但在其他方面又有很多不同。雄性和雌性不会组成家庭来抚养小孩，只是建立各自的等级组织。然而，等级组织中的统治权运作，又令人想起人类群体中的政治。黑猩猩群体中的雄性老大（Alpha Male），并不生来如此，像美拉尼西亚社会的头人一样，必须借建立同盟来赢得。体力虽然要紧，但最终还得依靠与他人的合作。灵长学家弗兰斯·德瓦尔（Frans de Waal），在荷兰阿恩海姆动物园观察驯养的黑猩猩群体。他叙述两只年轻黑猩猩，如何联手取代较年长的雄性老大。篡夺者之一，取得雄性老大地位后，即凶狠对待它曾经的同盟者，并最终将之杀害。⑮

    雄性或雌性黑猩猩在等级组织中，一旦取得各自的统治地位，便行使权威——即解决冲突和设定等级规则的权力。黑猩猩通过卑顺的招呼来承认权威：一系列短促的咕噜声，再加上深鞠躬；向上级伸手，亲吻上级的脚。⑯德瓦尔介绍一只占统治地位的雌性黑猩猩，名叫妈妈（Mama），相当于西班牙或中国家庭中的老祖母。“群体中的紧张气氛达到巅峰时，甚至包括成年雄性在内的参战者总是求救于她。我多次看到，两只雄性之间的激烈冲突告终于她的手臂。冲突升到顶点时，对手们没有诉诸暴力，反而大声尖叫，奔向妈妈。”⑰

    在黑猩猩社会建立同盟，不是直截了当的，需要有评判他人品质的能力。像人一样，黑猩猩擅长欺骗，所以需要评估潜在同盟者的可信度。在阿恩海姆动物园长期观察黑猩猩行为的人注意到，每只黑猩猩都有显著个性，有的比其他的更可信赖。德瓦尔描述一只名叫普依斯特（Puist）的雌性黑猩猩，被观察到常常出其不意地攻击伙伴或假装和解，等其他黑猩猩放松警惕再有所行动。由于这些行为，低等级的黑猩猩都学会远离她。⑱

    黑猩猩似乎懂得，它们被企盼遵循社交规则，但不总是照办。如违反群体规则或违抗权威，它们会流露像是犯罪或困窘的感觉。德瓦尔讲起一件轶事，一位名叫伊冯的研究生，与一只名叫可可（Choco）的年轻黑猩猩同住：

    可可变得益加淘气，该管管了。一天，可可多次把电话听筒搁起。伊冯一边把可可的手臂攥得特紧，一边给予严厉的责骂。这顿责骂似乎蛮有效果，伊冯便坐上沙发，开始读书。她已把此事忘得一干二净，突然可可跳上她的膝盖，伸出手臂搂她的脖子，并给她一个典型的黑猩猩亲吻（嘴唇敞开）。⑲

    德瓦尔很清楚将动物人格化的危险，但贴近观察黑猩猩的人们，绝对相信这些行为背后的情感潜流。

    黑猩猩行为与人类政治发展的关系是很明显的。人类和黑猩猩，都进化自同一的类人猿祖先。现代黑猩猩和人类，尤其是生活在狩猎采集或其他相对原始的社会中的，表现出相似的社交行为。如霍布斯、洛克或卢梭对自然状态的叙述是正确的，那我们必须假定，在进化成为现代人类的过程中，我们的类人猿祖先短暂抛弃了自己的社交行为和情感，然后在较迟阶段，从头开始第二次进化。较为可信的假定应是：人类从没作为隔离的个体而存在；现代人类出现之前，社交和融入亲戚团体已成为人类行为的一部分。人类的社交性，不是因历史或文化而取得的，而是人类天生的。

    唯独人类

    将人类与类人猿祖先分开的 1% 染色体，还含有什么？我们的智力和认知力，总被认为是我们人类身份的关键。我们给人类的标签是智人（Homo sapiens），即人属（Homo）中“有智慧的”。人类自类人猿祖先分支出来，已有五百万年。其间，人类的脑容量翻了三倍，这在进化史上是异常神速的。不断增大的女人产婴通道，勉强跟上人类婴儿硕大头颅的需求。那么，这认知力又来自何方呢？

    乍看之下，人类似乎需要认知力来适应和征服他们的自然环境。更高的智力，为狩猎、采集、制造工具和适应苛刻气候等提供优势。但这一解释并不令人信服。很多其他物种，也狩猎、采集、制造工具，却没能获得类似人类认知的能力。

    很多进化生物学家推测，人脑如此迅速增长的原因，是为了与人合作，是为了与人竞争。心理学家尼古拉·韩福瑞（Nicolas Humphrey）和生物学家理查德·亚历山大（Richard Alexander）分别表明，人类实际上走进一场相互的军火竞赛；运用新的认知力来理解彼此行为，以建立更复杂的社会组织，成为竞赛中的优胜者。⑳

    前文提及的博弈论表明，经常与人互动的个人，愿意与诚实可靠者合作，避开机会主义者。但要行之有效，他们必须记住彼此的过去，并揣测动机，以测将来。这颇不容易，因为潜在合作者的标记，只是诚实外表，而不是诚实本身。譬如，依照经验你似乎是诚实的，我愿意与你携手合作；但如果在过去，你只是在故意积累信任，将来，你就能从我这里骗得更大好处。所以，自利推动了社会群体中的合作，也鼓励了欺瞒、行骗和其他破坏社会团结的行为。

    黑猩猩能达到数十成员的社会族团层次，因为它们拥有所要求的认知技术来解答基本的“囚徒困境”游戏。如阿恩海姆动物园的普依斯特，因她不可靠的历史，而遭遇其他黑猩猩的回避；“妈妈”取得领袖地位，因她调停纠纷时公正的声誉。黑猩猩拥有足够的记忆和沟通技巧，以解释和预测可能的行为，领袖与合作遂得到发展。

    但黑猩猩无法迈进更高层次的社会组织，因为它们没有语言。早期人类中出现的语言，为改进合作和发展认知力，提供了大好机会。有了语言，谁诚实和谁欺诈，不再取决于直接经验，而变成可传送给他人的社会信息。但语言又是说谎和欺骗的媒介。发展更好的认知力来使用和解释语言，从而测出谎言，能这样做的社会群体，对其竞争者就占有优势。进化心理学家杰弗里·米勒（Geoffrey Miller）认为，求偶对认知力的独特需求促进了大脑皮层的发展，因为男女不同的繁衍战略，为欺骗和侦测生育能力创立了巨大奖励。

    男性繁衍战略是，寻求尽可能多的性伙伴，以取得最大成功。女性繁衍战略是，为自己后代谋求最佳的雄性资源。这两种战略，目的截然相反。所以有人认为，这在进化方面激励人类发展欺骗本领，其中语言扮演了重要角色。㉑另一位进化心理学家斯蒂芬·平克（Steven Pinker）认为，语言、社交能力、掌控环境都在相互加强，为精益求精而施加进化压力。㉒这解释了脑容量增加的必要，大脑皮层很大一部是用于语言的，它恰是行为意义上的现代人类（behaviorally modern humans）所独有的，而在黑猩猩或古人类身上是找不到的。㉓

    语言的发展，不仅允许短期的行动协调，还令抽象和理论成为可能，这就是人类所独有的关键认知力。词语可指具体物件，也可指物件的类别（狗群和树丛），甚至可指抽象的无形力量（宙斯和地心引力）。综合两者，便使心智模型（mental model）成为可能——那是指因果关系的一般声明（“因为太阳发光，所以变得温暖”；“社会强迫女孩进入定型的性别角色”）。所有的人都在制造抽象的心智模型。这样的推论能力给予我们巨大的生存优势。尽管哲学家如大卫·休谟（David Hume）、无数一年级统计学的教授一再告诫，关联不表示因果，但人类经常观察周遭事物的关联，以推断之间的因果关系。不要踩蛇，不吃上周毒死你表亲的草根，你将免遭同样命运，并可迅速将此规矩告诉子孙。

    制造心智模型的能力，将原因归于冥冥中的抽象概念，这就是宗教出现的基础。宗教——笃信一个无形的超自然秩序——存在于所有人类社会。很不幸，试图重建早期人类血统的古人类学家和考古学家，对其精神生活只能提供甚少的线索，因为他们依据的是化石和营地的物质记录。但我们尚未发现没有宗教的原始社会，并有考古迹象表明，尼安德特人（Neanderthals）和其他原始人类群体，也可能有宗教信仰。㉔

    今天有人主张，宗教是暴力、冲突、社会不协调的主要来源。㉕但在历史上，宗教恰恰扮演相反的角色，它是凝聚社会的源泉。经济学家假设，人类是简单、理性、自私的参与者。宗教则允许他们之间的合作变得更广泛更安全。据我们所知，彼此一起玩囚徒困境游戏的参与者，应能取得一定的社会合作。但经济学家曼瑟尔·奥尔森（Mancur Olson）显示，随着合作群体的逐渐扩展，集体行动便开始瓦解。在庞大群体中，越来越难监察每个成员的贡献，免费搭乘和其他机会主义行为变得司空见惯。㉖

    宗教得以解决这集体行动的难题，通过奖罚而大大增强了合作的好处，甚至在今天也是这样。如我认为部落领袖只是像我一样的自私家伙，我就不一定服从他的权威。如我相信部落领袖能调动已死老祖宗的灵魂来奖励或处罚我，我会对他更加尊崇。如我相信已死老祖宗在旁监视，比活人亲戚更能看清我的真正动机，我的羞耻感可能更大。与宗教信徒和世俗者的见解恰恰相反，任何一种宗教信仰都是很难得到证实或证伪的。即使我怀疑部落领袖与已死老祖宗的联系，我也不愿承担风险，万一这是真的呢？根据“帕斯卡赌注”（Pascal’s wager），我们应该相信上帝，因为他可能存在。这在人类历史中一直适用，虽然在早期怀疑者可能会更少。㉗

    在加强规范和支撑社区方面，宗教的功能一直是公认的。㉘“一报还一报”（tit-for-tat），即以牙还牙和报李投桃，是反复互动的合理结果，也是圣经道德的基础，更是人类社会几乎放之四海而皆准的道德准则。你待他人，如他人之待你，这条黄金定律只是“一报还一报”的异体。它只是强调善，不讲恶罢了。（由此看来，基督教以德报怨的原则是反常的。人们可能注意到，即使在基督教社会，它也很少付诸实施。没有一个我所知道的社会，把以怨报德当作其群体的道德准则。）

    进化心理学家主张，凝聚社会所提供的生存优势是人类天生偏爱宗教的原因。㉙思想可增加集体的团结，宗教不是唯一方式——今天，我们有民族主义，还有世俗意识形态，如马克思主义——但在早期社会，宗教在社会组织走向复杂一事上，扮演了至关重要的角色。没有宗教，很难想象人类社会得以超越族团的层次。㉚

    从认知观点出发，可把任何宗教信仰称作现实世界的心智模型。它们把因果关系，归因于日常世界之外的无形力量，归因于形而上的王国。改造自然界的理论由此而生。例如，神的愤怒造成干旱，把婴儿血洒入大地的犁沟，便可使之平息。之后，它又导向礼仪，即有关超自然秩序的重复表演。人类社会希望借此来获得对环境的主导。

    礼仪反过来又帮助区分群体，标记边界，使之有别于其他群体。它促进社会团结，最终会脱节于导致其产生的认知理论。譬如当代世俗欧洲人，仍继续庆祝圣诞节。礼仪本身和支撑它的信念，会被赋予极大的内在价值。它不再代表心智模型，不再是遇上更好选择时可随意抛弃的普通理论，而变成目的本身。

    红脸野兽

    促使人类合作和存活的心智模型和规范，产生时可能是理性的，恰似经济学家所说明的。但宗教信仰在信徒眼中，即便证明有错，也从来不是可弃之如敝屣的简单理论。它被视作无条件的真理，如指控其谬误，会受到社会和心理的沉重惩罚。现代自然科学带来的认知进步，为我们提供了检验理论的实验模式，允许我们更好地改造环境（如使用灌溉系统，而不是人的血祭，来提高农业生产力）。这里有个疑问：人类为何忍受如此僵硬难改的理论构思？

    基本正确的答案是：人类之遵循规则，主要植根于情感，并不依靠理性过程。人脑培养了情绪反应，犹如自动导航装置，以促进社会行为。喂奶的母亲看到婴儿，便会分泌乳汁。不是因为她清楚想到她自己的小孩需要食物，而是因为在不知不觉中，她大脑产生荷尔蒙，诱发了乳腺分泌。对陌生人的好意表示感激，对无缘无故的伤害表示愤怒，这不是精心考虑的反应，也不一定是学来的情感（尽管通过实践，这些感受会获得加强或受到抑制）。同样，当有人表示不敬，在朋友前蔑视我们，或评论我们母亲或姐妹的德行，我们不会核算评论的精确度，也不会考虑为未来交往而保护声誉，我们只是感到愤怒，只想痛揍这不尊重他人的家伙。这些行为——对亲戚的利他主义，捍卫自己的声誉——可用理性的自利来解释，但却是在情绪状态下作出的。一般情况下，情绪化的反应却是理性的正确答复。为什么？这是进化的安排。行动经常是情感的产品，而不是计算的产品。所以我们经常弄错，打了更强壮、更会报复的人。

    这种情绪化反应，使人类中规中矩，遵循规范。规范的独特内容由文化决定（不吃猪肉、尊敬祖先、宴会上不点香烟），遵循规范的能力却是遗传的。同样，语言因文化而异，但都植根于人类普遍的语言能力。例如，在违反规范和他人都遵守的规则时被人看到，大家都会觉得困窘。很明显，困窘不是学来的举止，因为小孩通常比父母更易觉得困窘，即使是小小过失。人类能将自己置于他人位置，并通过他人眼睛观察自己的行为。今天的小孩，如不能做到这一点，就会被诊断为具有自闭症的病理征兆。

    通过愤怒、可耻、有罪、骄傲的特殊情感，遵循规范的习惯得以嵌入人性。规范受到侵犯时，如陌生人费尽心思羞辱我们或团体分享的宗教礼仪受到嘲笑或忽视，我们会感到愤怒。无法跟上规范时，我们会感到耻辱。取得大家赞许的目标，从而获得群体的称赞，我们会感到骄傲。人类在遵循规范中，投入这么多情感，以致失去理性，危害自身的利益。帮派成员因受到侮辱（实际上的或想象的），而向另外帮派的成员施以报复，但心里很清楚，这将导致暴力的逐步升级。

    人类也将情感投入后设规范（metanorm），即如何恰当地阐述和执行规范。如果后设规范得不到妥善的遵循，人类会发起生物学家罗伯特·特里弗斯（Robert Trivers）所称的“说教型进攻”。㉛某命案的结局与自己利益毫不相关，但人们仍想看到“法网恢恢，疏而不漏”。这解释了犯罪影片和法庭戏剧为什么特受欢迎，还解释了人们对巨大丑闻和罪行为什么着迷关注。

    规范化行为植根于情感。它促进社会合作，明显提供生存优势，协助人类进化至今。经济学家主张，盲目遵守规则在经济上却是理性的。如每一次都要计算得失，就会变得非常昂贵和适得其反。如必须跟伙伴不时谈判新规则，我们会陷入瘫痪，无法从事例行的集体行动。我们把某些规则当作目标本身，而不再是达到目标的手段，这一事实大大增加了社会生活的稳定。宗教进一步加强这种稳定，并扩充潜在合作者的圈子。

    这在政治上造成难题。很多案例中成效明显的规则，遇上短期的特殊情况，却变得苍白无力，甚至功能失调，因为导致其产生的情形有了大变。制度规则是很“黏糊”的，它抗拒改革，变成政治衰败的主要根源之一。

    寻求承认的斗争

    规范被赋予内在价值后，便成为哲学家黑格尔（Georg W. F. Hegel）所谓“寻求承认的斗争”的目标。㉜寻求承认的欲望，截然不同于经济行为中获得物质的欲望。承认不是可供消费的实物，而是一种相互的主观意识。借此，个人承认他人的价值和地位，或他人的上帝、习俗、信念。我作为钢琴家或画家，可能很自信。如能获奖或售出画作，我会有更大的满足。自从人类把自己组织起来，进入社会等级制度后，承认往往是相对的，而不是绝对的。这使寻求承认的斗争，大大有别于经济交易的斗争。它是零和（zero sum），而不是正和（positive sum）。即某人获得承认，必然牺牲他人的尊严，地位只是相对的。在地位比赛中不存在贸易中的双赢情形。㉝

    寻求承认的欲望有其生物学根源。黑猩猩和其他灵长目，在各自的族团中，争夺雄性老大和雌性老大的地位。黑猩猩群体的等级制度提供繁衍优势，因为它控制群体内的暴力，凝聚成员，一致对外。雄性老大获得更多性伙伴，以保证繁衍成功。在包括人类的各种动物中，寻求地位的行为已成为遗传，与寻求者大脑中的生化变化直接有关。当猴子或个人顺利取得高级地位时，其血液中重要的神经传递物复合胺（serotonin），会获得大幅提高。㉞

    人类具有更为复杂的认知力，其寻求的承认不同于灵长目。黑猩猩雄性老大只为自己寻求承认，而人类还为抽象概念寻求承认，如上帝、旗帜、圣地。当代政治的大部，以寻求承认为中心。对少数民族、女性、同性恋者、土著等来说，尤其如此。他们有历史理由相信，自身价值从没得到重视。这些寻求可能有经济色彩，如同工同酬，但通常只是尊严的标记，并不是目标本身。㉟

    我们今天把寻求承认称作“身份政治”。这类现象主要出现于流动且多元的社会，其成员可具多重身份。㊱甚至在现代世界出现之前，承认已是集体行为的重要动机。人类奋斗，不仅为自身利益，而且代表群体，要求外人尊重他们的生活方式——习俗、上帝、传统。所采取的形式，有时是统治外人，更多时候是相反。人类自由的基本涵义是自治，即避免隶属于不配的外人。犹太人三千多年前逃离埃及的奴役，以后每逢逾越节所庆祝的，就是此种自由。

    承认现象的根本所在是裁决他人的内在价值，或人为的规范、思想和规则。强迫的承认毫无意义，自由人的赞美远远胜过奴隶的卑从。群体钦佩某成员，因为他显示出彪悍、勇气、智慧、判决纠纷时的公平，政治领袖遂得以产生。政治可说是争夺领导权的斗争，但也是追随者的故事。大众甘做部属，愿意给予领袖更高地位。在凝聚且成功的群体中，部属地位是心甘情愿的，这基于领袖有权统治这一信念。

    随着政治制度的发展，认可自个人移至制度——转移到持续的规则或行为模式，像英国君主制或美国宪制。在这两个范例中，政治秩序都基于合法性，以及合法统治所带来的权威。合法性意味着，社会成员大体上承认制度是基本公正的，愿意遵守其各项规则。我们相信，当代社会的合法性，表现在民主选举和尊重法治。但在历史上，民主制不是唯一的合法政府。

    政治力量最终以社会凝聚为基础。凝聚可源自自利，但光是自利不足以诱使追随者为群体而牺牲自己生命。政治力量不仅是社会可掌控的公民人数和资源，也是对领袖和制度合法性的认可程度。

    政治发展的基础

    现在，我们有了一切重要和自然的构件来组建政治发展的理论。人类虽然自私，但却是理性的，如经济学家所称的为自利而学会互相合作。此外，人性提供通向社会性的既定途径，为人类的政治披上下列特征：

    • 包容适存性、亲戚选择、互惠利他是人类交际性的预设模式。所有的人都倾向于照顾亲戚和互换恩惠的朋友，除非遇上强烈的惩罚。
    • 人享有抽象和理论的能力，以心智模型探究因果关系，又偏爱在无形或非凡的力量中寻找因果关系。这是宗教信仰的基础，而宗教又是凝聚社会的重要源泉。
    • 人倾向于遵循规范，以情感为基础，而不是理性。心智模型和其附属的规则，常被赋予内在价值。
    • 人渴望获得他人的主观承认，或对自己的价值，或对自己的上帝、法律、习俗、生活方式。获得的承认成为合法的基础，合法本身则允许政治权力的实施。

    这些自然特征是社会组织益加复杂的基础。包容适存性和互惠利他，不仅属于人类，也见于众多动物，为（主要是）亲戚小群体的合作作出了解释。人类初期的政治组织，很像在灵长目中看到的族团社会，如黑猩猩的。这可被认作社会组织的预设。照顾家人和朋友的倾向，可通过新的规则和奖励加以克服。譬如，颁发规定，只能雇用合格者，而不是家人。某种意义上，较高层次的制度则显得颇不自然，一旦崩溃，人类就会返回较早的社会形式。这就是我讲的家族制的基础。

    人类以其抽象理论的能力，很快建立征服环境和调节社会行为的新规则，远远超过黑猩猩中存在的规则。尤其是祖先、精神、上帝和其他无形力量的观念，订下新规则和相应的奖励。不同种类的宗教大大提高人类社会的组织程度，并不断开发社会动员的新形式。

    与遵循规范有关的一套高度发达的情感，确保关于世界如何运作的心智模型即使不再符合现实，也不是可丢弃的简单理论。（甚至在现代自然科学领域，虽有假设检验的明确规则，但科学家偏爱现存理论，宁愿抵制相反的实验证据。）心智模型和理论常被赋予内在价值，从而促进社会稳定，允许社会的扩展。但这显示，社会是高度保守的，将顽强抵制对其支配观念的挑战。这在宗教思想上表现得最为明显。世俗的规则，以传统、礼仪、习俗的名义，也被注入极大的情感。

    社会在规则上趋向保守，是政治衰败的来源之一。因应环境而建立的规则或制度，在新的环境中变得功能失调，却得不到更换，因为人类已注入强烈情感。这表示，社会变化不会是直线的——随时势的变动而作频繁的小型调整，而是延长的淤滞，继之以剧烈变革的爆发。

    由此说明暴力对政治发展的重要性。霍布斯指出，对暴毙的恐惧，与获益或经济欲望相比，是截然不同的感受。很难为自己的生命或爱人的生命标出一个价格。所以，害怕和不安全对人类的激发，往往是单纯自利所比不了的。政治出现是为了控制暴力，但暴力又是政治变化的背景。社会可能陷于功能失调的制度均衡中，因为既得利益者否决任何必要的变革。为打破这一平衡，暴力或暴力的威胁有时就变得不可或缺。

    最后，获得承认的欲望，确保政治不会降成简单的经济自利。人类对他人或制度的内在价值、功用、尊严不断作出裁决，再借此建立等级制度。政治力量最终植根于承认——领袖或制度被公认的合法性，得以赢得追随者的尊敬。追随者可能以自利出发，但最强大的政治组织，其合法性以广受欢迎的观念思想为基础。

    生物学为我们提供了政治发展的构件。横跨不同社会的人性是基本不变的。我们所看到政治形式上的巨大差异，不管是现在还是历史上，首先是人类所处环境的产物。人类社会分支蔓延，填补世界上多样的自然环境。他们在特定进化（specific evolution）的过程中，发展出与众不同的规范和思想。此外，各群体也在互动，在促进变化方面，其重要性与自然环境不相上下。

    分隔甚远的社会，对政治秩序问题却提出异常相似的解决方案。几乎每个社会，都曾一度经历过以亲戚关系为基础组织起来的阶段，其规则逐渐变得复杂。多数社会随后发展了国家制度和非人格化管理方式。中国、中东、欧洲和印度的农业社会，得以发展中央集权的君主制，以及益加官僚化的政府。甚少文化联系的社会，却发展出相似的制度，如中国、欧洲、南亚政府所建立的盐业专卖。近年来，民主负责制和人民主权成为普遍接受的规范思想，只在实施程度上有高低之分。不同社会经不同路径而走到一起，这一重聚提示了人类群体在生物学上的相似。

    进化与迁移

    古人类学家追溯从灵长目先驱到“行为意义上的现代人类”的进化。人口遗传学家所作的贡献，则是追踪人类朝地球不同地区的迁移。普遍认为，类人猿至人类的进化在非洲发生。人类离开非洲前往世界各地，经历了两次大迁徙。所谓的古人类——直立人（homo Erectus）和巨人（Homo ergaster）——早在一百六十万至二百万年前就离开非洲，迁往亚洲北部。三十至四十万年前，巨人的后裔海德堡人（Homo heidelbergensis）自非洲抵达欧洲。他们的后裔就是欧洲后来的人类，如赫赫有名、散居多处的尼安德特人。㊲

    解剖学意义上的现代人类（anatomically modern humans）——其尺寸和体格特征，大致等同于现代人类——出现于约二十万年前。行为意义上的现代人类的出现，约在五万年前。他们能用语言进行交流，并开始开发较为复杂的社会组织。

    依据时下的理论，几乎所有非洲之外的人，都是行为意义上的现代人类某群体的后裔。约在五万年前，这个其成员可能仅 150 人的群体离开非洲，穿越阿拉伯半岛的霍尔木兹海峡。虽然缺乏书面材料，但人口遗传学的最新进展，使古人类学家得以跟踪此一进程。人类的遗传，包括 Y 染色体和含历史线索的线粒体 DNA。Y 染色体归男性独有，余下的 DNA 则由母亲和父亲的染色体重组，代代有别。Y 染色体由父亲单传给儿子，基本上完好无损。相比之下，线粒体 DNA 是陷入人类细胞的细菌痕迹。数百万年前，它就为细胞活动提供能源。线粒体有它自己的 DNA，可与 Y 染色体媲美，由母亲单传给女儿，也基本上完好无损。Y 染色体和线粒体都会积累基因的突变，然后由后代儿子或女儿所继承。计算这些基因突变，弄清哪个在前哪个在后，人口遗传学家便可重建世界上不同人类群体的血统。

    于是有下列的假定：几乎所有非洲之外的人，都是行为意义上的现代人类某群体的后裔，因为在中国、新几内亚、欧洲、南美洲，当地人口都可回溯至同一的父母血统。（非洲本身有较多血统，因为现居非洲外的人口，只是当时非洲数个群体之一的后裔。）该群体在阿拉伯半岛分道扬镳，一个族团沿阿拉伯半岛和印度的海岸线，进入现已不存的巽他大陆（Sunda，连接现今的东南亚诸岛）和萨浩尔大陆（Sahul，包括新几内亚和澳洲）。他们的迁移得益于当时出现的冰川期，地球的大部分水源已冻成冰帽和冰川。与今日相比，当时海平面足足低了数百英尺。依据遗传定时法（genetic dating），我们知道，目前居住于巴布亚新几内亚和澳洲的美拉尼西亚人和澳洲土著，已在那里定居了将近四万六千年。这表示，他们的祖先离开非洲后，仅花费不长时间便抵达这一偏远角落。

    其他族团离开阿拉伯半岛后，朝西北和东北两个方向迁移。前者经过近东和中亚，最终抵达欧洲。在那里，他们遇上早先脱离非洲的古人类后裔，如尼安德特人。后者则在中国和亚洲东北部定居繁衍，再穿越其时连接西伯利亚和北美洲的陆地桥梁，最终南下至中南美洲。约在公元前一万二千年，已有人抵达智利南部。㊳ 巴别塔（Tower of Babel）的圣经故事称，上帝把统一联合的人类驱散到各地，令他们讲不同语言。在比喻意义上，这确是真相。人类迁移到不同环境，随遇而安，发明新的社会制度，开始退出自然状态。我们将在之后的章节看到，起初的复杂社会组织，仍以亲戚关系为基础，其出现全靠宗教思想的协助。

    第 3 章 表亲的专横

    人类社会进化的事实和性质，以及相关的争议；家庭或族团层次的社会向部落的过渡；介绍血统、宗族和其他人类学基本概念

    卢梭的《论人类不平等的起源和基础》（1754 年）发表之后，涌现出大量涉及人类早期制度起源的理论。首先在 19 世纪末，新兴人类学的首创者，如路易斯·亨利·摩尔根（Lewis Henry Morgan）和爱德华·泰勒（Edward Tylor），收集积累了尚存原始社会的实证资料。①摩尔根对日益减少的北美洲土著进行实地勘察，发明了解释其亲戚关系的详尽分类，并将此推及欧洲的史前。在《古代社会》一书中，他将人类历史分为三阶段——野性、野蛮、文明，他认为，所有人类社会都须一一经历这三个阶段。

    卡尔·马克思的合作者弗里德里希·恩格斯读了摩尔根的书，运用该美国人类学家的民族学研究，发展出私人财产和家庭的起源理论，之后变成共产世界的福音。②马克思和恩格斯携手推出现代最著名的发展理论：他们设置一系列的进化阶段——原始共产主义、封建主义、资本主义、真正的共产主义——全部由社会阶级的基本矛盾所驱动。马克思主义这一错误和从简的发展模型，误导了后来数代的学者，或寻找“亚细亚生产方式”，或试图在印度找到“封建主义”。

    早期政治发展理论研究的第二动力，来自查尔斯·达尔文（Charles Darwin）出版于 1859 年的《物种起源》，以及其自然淘汰理论的进一步阐述。将生物进化原理应用到社会进化上，像赫伯特·斯宾塞（Herbert Spencer）等在 20 世纪初所作的，在逻辑上讲得通。③斯宾塞认为，人类社会都要参与生存竞争，优秀的得以支配低劣的。欧洲之外社会的发展，或受到阻妨，或停滞不前。达尔文之后，进化理论在辩护当时的殖民秩序上确实取得成功。全球等级制度的顶端是北欧人，通过黄色和棕色皮肤的深浅不同，一直降至身处底部的黑色非洲人。④

    进化理论中褒贬和种族的特色，酿成 20 世纪 20 年代的逆反回潮，至今仍在影响世界上人类学和文化研究部门。优秀的人类学家弗兰茨·博厄斯（Franz Boas）主张，人类行为受到社会彻头彻尾的改造，并不植根于生物学。他在一项著名研究中，以移民头颅大小的实证资料证明，社会达尔文主义者归因于种族的东西，实际上却是环境和文化的产物。博厄斯还认为，早期社会的研究需摒弃对各式社会组织的高低评估。在方法论上，民族学家应放弃自己文化背景的偏见，全身心投入他们所研究的社会，评估其内在逻辑。克利福德·格尔茨（Clifford Geertz）提倡“深描”（thick description）；他认为，不同社会只可解说，不可互比，不分轩轾。⑤博厄斯的学生阿尔弗雷德·克鲁伯（Alfred Kroeber）、玛格丽特·米德（Margaret Mead）和露丝·本尼迪克特（Ruth Benedict），则把文化人类学科继续引向非评判性的、相对的、绝无进化的方向。

    早期的进化理论，包括马克思和恩格斯的，还存有其他问题。它们的社会形式，往往是相对直线的，有严谨的等级，前阶段必须早于后阶段，某元素（像马克思的“生产方式”）决定整个阶段的特征。随着对尚存原始社会的知识积累，大家愈益清楚，政治复杂性的进化不是直线的。任何指定的历史阶段，往往包含前阶段的特征。将社会推至下一阶段，又凭借多重的动态机制。事实上，我们可在以后的章节中看到，前阶段并不被后阶段完全替代。中国早在三千多年前，便由基于亲戚关系的组织过渡至国家层次。但时至今日，复杂的亲戚关系组织，仍是一部分中国社会的特征。

    人类社会是非常复杂的，很难由文化的比较研究总结出真正的普遍规律。发现了违反所谓社会发展规律的冷僻社会，人类学家常常感到兴奋。但这并不表示，不同社会中没有进化形式中的规则性和同类性。

    史前阶段

    以 19 世纪的社会达尔文主义为背景，博厄斯派的文化相对论是可以理解的。但它在比较人类学的领域里，留下了政治上求正确（political correctness）的持久遗产。严格的文化相对论，有悖于进化论，因为后者明确要求厘清社会组织的不同层次，并确定后一层次取代前一层次的原因。人类社会随时间而进化，这是显而易见的。生物进化的两个基本组件——变化和选择——也适合人类社会。即使我们细心避免后期文明“高于”前期文明的评判，但它们确实变得更为复杂、更为丰富、更为强大。因应成功的文明，常常战胜因应不成功的，恰似个体有机体之间的竞争。我们继续使用“发展中”或“开发”的名词（如“发展中国家”和“美国国际开发署”），佐证了下列共识：现存的富裕国家是上一阶段社会经济进化的结果，贫穷国家如有可能，也将参与这一进化过程。在历史长河中，人类的政治制度借文化而获得传递，与借基因的生物进化相比，则面对更多的悉心设计。达尔文的自然淘汰原则与人类社会的进化竞争，仍有很明显的类似。

    这一新认可导致了进化理论在 20 世纪中期的复兴。人类学家如莱斯利·怀特（Leslie White）⑥、朱利安·斯图尔德（Julian Steward）⑦、埃尔曼·塞维斯（Elman Service）⑧、莫顿·弗莱德（Morton Fried）⑨和马歇尔·萨林斯（Marshall Sahlins）⑩认为，各式社会在复杂、规模、能源使用各方面，都呈现出明显的升级。⑪根据萨林斯和塞维斯，人类群体都经历所谓的“特别进化”，以适应他们所占居的生态环境，其结果便是社会形式的多样化。对社会组织的普遍问题，不同社会往往采取类似的应对方法。由此表明，相交相汇的“普遍进化”在生效。⑫

    人类学家的难题是，没人能直接观察，人类社会如何从早期模式发展到较复杂的部落或国家。他们唯一能做的，只是假设现存的狩猎采集或部落社会是早期模式的实例，再通过观察其行为来推测引发变化的力量，如部落何以演变为国家。可能是基于此，对早期社会进化的推理，已从人类学移至考古学。不像人类学家，考古学家可通过不同文明在数十万年间留下的物质记录，追踪其社会活力的伸张。例如，考古学家调查普韦布洛（Pueblo）印第安人住宅和饮食的改变，得以了解战争和环境压力对社会组织的改造。其缺点也是显而易见的，即缺乏民族学研究的丰富细节。太依赖考古学记录，会导致对唯物主义解释的偏爱，因为史前文明的精神和认知世界，其大部已永远丢失。⑬

    泰勒、摩尔根、恩格斯之后，对社会发展的进化阶段的分类系统，也经历了自身的进化。放弃了具强烈道德色彩的词句，如“野性”和“野蛮”，而改用中性的描述，如点明主要技术的旧石器、新石器、青铜器、铁器时代。另一系统则点明主要的生产方式，如狩猎采集、农业、工业社会。进化人类学家，以社会或政治组织的形式来排列阶段。这是我在此所选用的，也是我的主题。埃尔曼·塞维斯发明了四个层次的分类，即族团、部落、酋邦、国家。族团和部落中⑭，社会组织以亲戚关系为基础，成员之间相对平等。相比之下，酋邦和国家等级分明，不以亲戚关系而以领土为基础来行使权力。

    家庭和族团层次的组织

    很多人相信，原始人类社会组织是部落的，这一见解可追溯到 19 世纪。早期的比较人类学家，如努马·丹尼斯·甫斯特尔·德·库朗日（Numa Denis Fustel de Coulanges）和亨利·梅因，认为要在复杂的亲戚团体中去理解早期的社会生活。⑮但部落组织的兴起，要到九千年前定居社会和农业出现时。这之前，狩猎采集社会历时数万年，由类似灵长目族团的流浪家庭集居而成。这样的社会，至今尚存于合适的边缘环境，如爱斯基摩人、卡拉哈里沙漠的布须曼人（Bushmen）、澳洲的土著。⑯（也有例外，如美国太平洋西北部的土著，属狩猎采集者，却生活于可支撑复杂社会的富饶区域。）

    卢梭指出，政治不平等起源于农业的兴起，他在这点上是基本正确的。出现农业之前的族团层次社会，不存在任何现代意义的私人财产。就像黑猩猩的族团，狩猎采集者居住于他们守卫的领土，偶尔为之争斗。但他们不像农人，犯不上在一块土地上设立标志，说“这是我的”。如有其他族团前来侵犯，或有危险猎食者渗入，由于人疏地广，族团层次的社会有移居他方的选择。他们较少拥有像已开垦的耕地、房子等投资。⑰

    族团层次的内部，类似现代经济交易和个人主义的东西是绝对不存在的。这个阶段没有国家暴政，更确切地说，人类只体验到社会人类学家厄内斯特·格尔纳（Ernest Gellner）所称的“表亲的专横”。⑱你的社交生活囿于你周遭的亲戚，他们决定你做什么，跟谁结婚，怎样敬拜，还有其他一切。家庭或数户家庭合在一起打猎和采集。特别是打猎，与分享直接有关，因为那时没有储存肉类的技术，猎到的动物必须马上吃掉。进化心理学家纷纷推测，现代流行的进餐分享（圣诞节、感恩节、逾越节），都起源于长达数千年的猎物分享传统。⑲此类社会中，大多数的道德规则不是针对偷人财产者，而是针对不愿与人分享者。在永久匮乏的阴影下，拒绝分享往往影响到族团的生存。

    族团层次的社会高度平等，其主要差别仅在年龄和性别上。在狩猎采集社会中，男人打猎，女人采集，繁衍一事自有天然分工。族团内，家庭之间仅有极小的差别，没有永久领袖，也没有等级制度。个人因突出的品质，如力大、智慧、可信，而被授予领袖地位。但该地位是流动的，很容易移至他人。除了父母和孩子，强制的机会非常有限。如弗莱德所说：

    简易平等社会的民族学研究中，很难找到某人要求他人“做这做那”的案例，却充满了某人说“如能完成此事，那真太好了”之类的话语。之后他人可能照办，也可能不予理睬……因为领袖无法迫使他人。在我们的叙述中，领袖扮演的角色只牵涉权威，无关乎权力。⑳

    此类社会中，领袖因群体的共识而浮现。但他们没有职权，不能传予子孙。没有集中的强制力量，自然就没有现代意义的第三方执法的法律。㉑

    族团层次的社会围绕核心家庭而建，通常奉行人类学家所称的异族通婚和父系中心（patrilocal）。女人嫁出自己的社会群体，搬到丈夫的居所。这种习惯鼓励群体之间的交往互动，增加基因的多样化，创造群体之间发生贸易的条件。异族通婚也在减轻冲突中发挥作用。群体之间有关资源或领土的争议，可通过女人的交换而获得谅解，就像欧洲君主为政治目标而安排的战略性联姻。㉒群体的成员组成，与之后的部落社会相比，则更为流动：“任何地域的食物来源，不管是派尤特人（Pauite）的松果或野草籽的丰收，冬春猎场上海豹的数量，还是中部爱斯基摩人在内陆峡谷遇上驯鹿群的迁移，都是不可预测的，且分布太疏，以致任何一代的亲戚，即使想组成凝聚排外的群体，也屡屡遭挫。因为生态机遇时时在诱惑个人和家庭采取机会主义。”㉓

    从族团到部落

    农业的发展，使族团层次过渡到部落层次变得可行。九千到一万年前，世界上很多地区出现农业，包括美索不达米亚、中国、大洋洲、中美洲，常常位于肥沃的冲积流域。野草和种子的驯化逐一发生，伴以人口的大增。新兴的产粮技术促使人口繁密，似乎是符合逻辑的。但埃斯特·博塞鲁普（Ester Boserup）认为，这样讲是因果颠倒了。㉔无论如何，它对社会的影响是巨大的。取决于气候，狩猎采集社会的人口密度是每平方公里 0.1 到 1 人，而农业的发明，则允许人口密度上升至每平方公里 40 到 60 人。㉕至此，人类的相互接触更加广泛，便会要求截然不同的社会组织形式。

    “部落、氏族、家族、宗族”，被用来描绘高于族团的新层次社会组织，但用得不够精确，甚至靠此吃饭的人类学家也是如此。其共同特征是：第一是分支式（segmentary）的，第二是以共同的老祖宗为原则。

    社会学家涂尔干以“分支”一词来解释由小型社会单位自我复制而成的社会，如蚯蚓的分段。这样的社会以添加新的支系而获得扩展，但没有集中的政治机构，没有现代的分工，也没有他所描绘的“有机”团结。发达社会里，没有人是自给自足的，每个人都要依赖社会中大批他人。发达社会的多数人，不知道如何生产自己的粮食、修理自己的汽车、制造自己的手机。在分支式社会中，每个“支系”都是自给自足的，都能丰衣足食，都能自我防卫。因此，涂尔干称之为“机械”团结。㉖各支系可为共同目的聚在一起，如自卫，但他们不依赖对方以获生存。在同一层次上，每个人只能属于一个支系。

    部落社会里，支系以共同老祖宗为原则。其最基本单位是宗族，成员们可追溯到好几代之前一名共同老祖宗。人类学家使用的术语中，后裔可以是单传（unilineal），也可是双传（cognatic）。单传系统中，后裔追随父亲，被标为父系；追随母亲，被标为母系。双传系统中，后裔可追随父母双方。稍作思考便可明白，分支式社会只能是单传。为了避免支系的重叠，每名小孩只可分给一个后裔群，或是父亲的，或是母亲的。

    在中国、印度、中东、非洲、大洋洲、希腊、罗马曾经流行的宗族组织是父系家族。它是最普遍的，也存在于战胜欧洲的野蛮部落。罗马人称之为 agnatio（族亲），人类学家遂称之为 aganation。父系家族只追踪男性的血脉。女人结婚时，便离开自己家族，转而加入丈夫家族。中国和印度的男系家族制度中，女人几乎彻底切断与自己家族的联系。所以，婚姻之日变成妻子的父母悲伤时，只能在女儿的聘礼上获求补偿。女人在丈夫家里没有地位，直到生下儿子。其时，她彻底融入丈夫的宗族组织，在她丈夫的祖先坟前祷告祭祀，保障儿子将来的遗产。

    父系家族虽是最普遍，但不是单传的唯一形式。在母系社会里，后裔和遗产追随母亲家族。母系社会（matrilineal）不同于女性掌权得以支配男性的女家长社会（matriarchal）。似乎没有证据显示，真正的女家长社会真有存在。母系社会仅表示，结婚时是男子离开自己家族，转而加入妻子的家族；权力和资源，基本上仍掌握在男子手中；家庭中的权威人士通常是妻子的兄弟，而非孩子的生父。㉗母系社会远比父系社会罕见，但仍可在世界各地找到，如南美洲、美拉尼西亚、东南亚、美国西南部、非洲。埃尔曼·塞维斯指出，它们通常建立于特殊环境，如依靠女人劳作的雨林园艺区域。但该理论无法说明，为什么美国西南沙漠地带的霍皮人（Hopi），也是母系社会和母系中心的（matrilocal）。㉘

    宗族有个神奇的特点，只要追溯到更早祖先，便能进入更为庞大的宗族组织。例如，我是追溯到我爷爷的小宗族成员，邻人的爷爷便是外人。如作进一步的追溯，到第四代、第五代甚至更早，我们两个宗族又找到亲戚关系。如情况合适，大家就有可能携手合作。

    此类社会的经典描述是爱德华·埃文斯—普理查德（Edward Evans-Pritchard）对努尔人（Nuer）的研究，他的著作《努尔人》为数代人类学的学生所必读。㉙努尔人是居住在苏丹南方养牛的游牧民族。20 世纪末，他们和传统对手的丁卡人（Dinka）联合起来，在约翰·加朗（John Garang）和苏丹人民解放军的领导下，向喀土穆的中央政府展开长期斗争，以争取南方独立。但在 20 世纪 30 年代，埃文斯—普理查德进行实地考察时，苏丹仍是英国殖民地，努尔人和丁卡人仍生活在传统中。

    根据埃文斯—普理查德，“努尔人部落是分支式的。我们把最大的支系，称之为主要部落。它再一步步分割成第二层次和第三层次的部落……第三层次由数个村庄组成，其居民相互之间都有亲戚和家庭的关系”。㉚

    努尔人的宗族组织彼此经常打架，通常是为了在他们文化中占中心地位的牛。同一层次内，血统之间互相打斗。但他们又能联合起来，在更高层次作战。到了最高层，全体努尔人同仇敌忾，向以同样方法组织起来的丁卡人开战。埃文斯—普理查德解释说：

    每个支系，本身也是可分的，其成员互相存有敌意。为反对同样层次的邻近支系，支系的成员会联合起来；为反对更高层次的支系，又会与同样层次的邻近支系联合起来。努尔人以政治价值来解释这些联合原则，他们会说：如果娄（Lou）部落的郎（Leng）第三层次支系与努阿克瓦科（Nyarkwac）第三层次支系打仗——事实上，两支系之间战事频频——组成这两支系的各个村庄都会参战；如果努阿克瓦科第三层次支系与鲁莫乔科（Rumjok）第二层次支系发生争执——不久前，为了用水——郎和努阿克瓦科将团结起来，以反对共同敌人鲁莫乔科。鲁莫乔科也将组成其各支系的联盟。㉛

    各支系能在较高的层次汇总。一旦联合的原因（如外部威胁）消失，它们又倾向于迅速瓦解。可在众多不同的部落社会中，看到多层次的支系。它体现在阿拉伯的谚语中：“我针对我兄弟、我和我兄弟针对我表亲、我和我表亲针对陌生人。”

    努尔人社会里没有国家，没有执行法律的中央权威，没有制度化的领导等级。像族团层次的社会，努尔人社会也是高度平等的。男女之间有分工，宗族之内有分代的年龄级别。所谓的豹皮酋长，只扮演礼仪的角色，帮助解决成员的冲突，但没有强迫他人的权力。“在整体上我们可以说，努尔人酋长是神圣的人，但这神圣并没给他们带来特殊场合之外的权力。我从未看到，努尔人特别尊敬酋长，或在谈话中把他们当作重要人物。”㉜

    努尔人是分支世系组织获得充分发展的范例，其宗族系谱的规则严格决定社会的结构和地位。其他的部落社会，则更为松散。共同老祖宗，与其说是严格的亲戚规定，倒不如说是建立社会义务的借口。甚至在努尔人中，仍有可能把陌生人带入宗族，视之为亲戚（人类学家称之为虚拟的亲戚关系）。很多时候，亲戚关系只是政治联盟的事后理由，并非构建社团的原动力。中国的宗族往往有成千上万的成员，整个村庄使用同样的姓，这显示中国亲戚关系的假想和包容。当西西里岛的黑手党把自己称作“家庭”时，它的血誓仅是血亲的象征。现代的种族划分，把共同老祖宗推到很远，使宗族系谱的追溯变得异常艰难。我们把肯尼亚的卡冷金（Kalenjin）或基库尤（Kikuyus）称作部落，该称呼是非常松散的，因为他们各自的人数，少至数十万，多至数百万。㉝

    祖先和宗教

    实际上，所有的人类社会都曾经组成部落。因此，很多人倾向于相信，这是自然的情形，或有生物学上的原因。但弄不清，为什么你想与四圈之外的表亲合作，而不愿与非亲的熟人合作。难道，这只是因为你与表亲分享了六十四分之一的基因。动物不这样做，族团层次的人也不这样做。人类社会到处建立部落组织，其原因是宗教信仰，即对死去祖先的崇拜。

    对死去祖先的崇拜开始于族团层次社会，每个族团内都会有巫师或宗教人，专司与死去祖先联络的工作。随着宗族的发展，宗教变得更加复杂，更加建制化，反过来又影响其他制度，如领导权和产权。相信死去祖先对活人的作用，才是凝聚部落社会的动力，并不是什么神秘的生物本能。

    19 世纪法国历史学家甫斯特尔·德·库朗日，提供了有关祖先崇拜的最著名描述之一。他的《古代城市》初版于 1864 年，给数代欧洲人带来启示。欧洲人习惯于把希腊和罗马的宗教与奥林匹克的众神挂起钩来。甫斯特尔·德·库朗日则揭示更古老的宗教传统，其他印欧群体，包括移居印度北部的印度—雅利安人，也在遵循这一古老传统。他认为，对希腊和罗马人来说，死者的灵魂并不飞上天国，却住在葬地的底下。基于此，“他们总是陪葬他们认为死者需要的东西——服装、器皿、武器。他们在他坟上倒酒以解渴，放置食物以充饥。他们殉葬马匹和奴隶，认为这些生命将在坟里为死者继续服务，就像生前一样”。㉞死者的精灵——拉丁文是 manes——需要在世的亲戚不断的维持，定期供上食物和饮料，免得他们发怒。

    在最早期的比较人类学家中，甫斯特尔·德·库朗日的知识领域远远超出欧洲史。他注意到，灵魂转世（死时灵魂进入另一肉体）和婆罗门宗教的兴起之前，印度教徒奉行类似希腊罗马的祖先崇拜。亨利·梅因也强调这一点，他认为，祖先崇拜“影响着自称为印度教徒的大多数印度人的日常生活，在多数人的眼中，自己家神比整个印度万神庙更为重要”。㉟假如库朗日的知识领域涉及更远，他很有可能发现古代中国相似的葬礼。那里，崇高地位人士的墓穴填满了青铜和陶瓷的三足鼎、食物、马、奴隶、计划陪伴死者的妾。㊱像希腊和罗马人，印度—雅利安人也在家里供养圣火。圣火代表家庭，永远不得熄灭，除非家族本身不复存在。㊲所有这些文化中，圣火被当作代表家庭健康和安全的神而受到崇拜——这里家庭不仅是现存的，而且是死去多年的列祖列宗的。

    部落社会中，宗教生活和亲戚关系紧密相连。祖先崇拜是特定的，不存在整个社群都崇拜的神。你只对自己祖先有责任，对你邻居或酋长的祖先则没有责任。通常，祖先并不久远，不像所谓的罗马人祖先的罗慕路斯（Romulus）。祖先只是三或四代之前的人，家中老人可能还记得。㊳根据甫斯特尔·德·库朗日，它丝毫不像基督教对圣徒的崇拜：“葬礼的礼仪只容最亲近的亲戚做虔诚表演……他们相信，祖先不会接受他人的奉献，只接受家人的；祖先不需要崇拜，除非是自家的后裔。”此外，每人都渴望有男性后裔（父系家族），因为只有他们才能在其死后照料他的灵魂。因此，结婚和育有男性后裔变得非常重要。大多数情形下，独身在早期希腊和罗马都是非法的。

    这些信念的结果是，除了现存子女，每个人与死去的祖先和未来的后裔都有关联。裴达礼（Hugh Baker）这样解释中国的宗族关系，一条绳子代表血脉，“两端是无穷尽的，经过一把象征现在的剃刀。如果绳子遭到腰斩，两端就会自行掉离，绳子不复存在。如果一名男子死而无后，其祖先和后裔的连续体便跟着一起消亡……他的存在是必须的，因为他是整体的代表。除此之外，他又是无关紧要的”。㊴

    部落社会中，以宗教信仰形式出现的思想，对社会组织有极大影响。对先祖的信仰得以凝聚众人，其规模大大超过家庭或族团层次。该“共同体”包括的，不仅是宗族、氏族、部落现有成员，而且是祖先和未来后裔的整条绳子。甚至最疏远的亲戚都会觉得，他们之间有牵连和职责。这种感受，借共同体共同遵循的礼仪，而获得加强。对如此的社会制度，成员不相信有选择的权力。说得确切些，他们的角色在出生之前已被社会预定。㊵

    宗教和权力

    军事上，部落社会远比族团层次社会强大。一获通知，他们可动员数百乃至数千名的亲戚。第一个以祖先崇拜来动员大量亲戚的社会，很可能享有对付敌人的巨大优势。一经发明，它就会刺激他人的模仿。因此，战争不仅造就了国家，也造就了部落。

    宗教在促进大规模的集体行动方面扮演了重要角色。很自然，人们要问：部落组织是既存宗教信仰的结果呢？抑或，宗教信仰是后添的，以加强既存的社会组织？很多 19 世纪的思想家，包括马克思和涂尔干，都相信后者。马克思有句名言：宗教是大众的“麻醉剂”，它是精英们发明出来以巩固其阶级特权的神话。据我所知，他没有对部落社会的祖先崇拜发表过任何意见。但也可推而广之，说家长在操纵死去祖先的愤怒，以加强自己在活人中的权威。另一解释是，需要帮助以对抗共同敌人的族团领袖，为赢得邻人支持，而求援于传奇或神话中死去多年的共同祖先。虽是他的首倡，但这想法蔓延滋长后自成一体。

    很不幸，我们只能推测思想与物质利益之间的因果关系，因为无人目睹从族团层次到部落社会的过渡。考虑到宗教观念在后来历史中的重要性，假如因果关系不是双向交流的，人们反而会感到惊讶。宗教创意影响社会组织，物质利益也影响宗教观念。但要记住，部落社会不是“自然”的，不是其他更高社会崩溃时回归的首选。它出现于家庭和族团层次社会之后，只在特殊环境中繁荣昌盛。它产生于特定历史时期，靠某种宗教信仰获得维持。如若新宗教引入，原有信仰发生变化，部落社会就会分崩离析。我们将在第 19 章看到，这就是基督教挺进野蛮欧洲后所发生的。随时间流逝，部落社会被更有弹性、更易扩张的社会所取代，但其缩了水的变种从未消失。

    第 4 章 部落社会的财产、正义、战争

    第 4 章 部落社会的财产、正义、战争

    亲戚关系和产权发展；部落社会中正义的性质；部落社会作为军事组织；部落组织的优缺点

    法国大革命以来，分隔左右两派的最大争议之一就是私人财产。卢梭在《论人类不平等的起源和基础》中，将不公平的起源追溯到圈地标为己产的首位男人。卡尔·马克思把废除私有财产定为政治目标，受他激励的所有共产党政权，所采取的最早施政之一就是“生产工具的国有化”，不单是土地。相比之下，美国创始人之一的詹姆斯·麦迪逊（James Madison），在《联邦论》第 10 篇中坚持，政府最重要功能之一就是保护个人不均平的致富能力。①现代新古典主义的经济学家，将私人产权视作经济持续增长的源泉。用道格拉斯·诺斯的话，“增长根本不会发生，除非现存经济组织是高效的”，这意味着“必须建立制度和产权”。②20 世纪 70 年代末 80 年代初，发生了里根—撒切尔的革命。自那以后，市场导向的政策制定者，其当务之急就是将国有企业私有化，以提高经济效率，虽然遭到左派的激烈反对。

    共产主义的经验，大大提升了现代私人财产的重要性。基于对摩尔根等人类学家的误解，马克思和恩格斯认为，阶级剥削兴起之前，曾存在“原始共产主义”阶段，是共产主义意图恢复的理想国。摩尔根描述的惯例财产（customary property），由密切相处的亲戚团体所拥有。前苏联和中国的共产党政权，则强迫数百万无亲无故的农民，参加集体农庄。集体化打破努力和报酬之间的关联，摧毁对工作的奖励，在俄罗斯和中国造成大规模饥荒，严重降低农业生产力。在前苏联，仍在私人手中的 4% 土地，却提供将近四分之一的农业总产量。1978 年中国的人民公社，在改革家邓小平的领导下获得解散，农业产量仅在四年间就翻了一番。

    私人财产重要性的争论，大都牵涉所谓的“公地悲剧”（tragedy of the commons）。传统英国村庄，其放牧地由村庄居民集体所拥有，共同使用。但其资源是可耗尽的，常因使用过度而荒芜。将共有财产转为私人财产是避免荒芜的对策。业主甘心投资于维护，在持续基础上开发资源。加勒特·哈丁（Garrett Hardin）的著名文章认为，众多全球性的资源，如洁净空气和渔场等，都会遇上公地悲剧；如无私人产权或严格管理，将因过度消耗而变得一无用处。③

    现代有关产权的非历史性讨论中，人们往往觉得，因为缺乏现代私人产权，人类一直面对公地悲剧。集体所有与有效使用是背道而驰的。④现代产权的出现被认为是经济上的理性行为，人们讨价还价来分割共有财产，就像霍布斯的“利维坦”从自然状态中脱颖而出。如此解释会遇上两个疑问。第一，现代产权出现之前，曾存在各种各样的共有财产，虽未能像现代产权那样鼓励高效地使用，但也没导致类似的公地悲剧。第二，找不到很多案例来证明，现代产权始于和平自发的讨价还价。共有财产让位于现代产权，其过程是狂暴的，武力和欺骗扮演了重要角色。⑤

    亲戚关系和私人财产

    最早的私人财产，不属于个人，而属于宗族或其他亲戚团体。主要动机不仅是经济的，而且是宗教和社会的。20 世纪苏联和中国的强迫性集体化，试图逆转时光，进入想象的、从未存在的理想国。它们让无亲戚关系的人合在一起，拥有共同财产。

    把希腊和罗马人的家庭牵连到具体地产的有两样东西：屋内供圣火的家灶（hearth）和附近的祖坟。渴望得到地产，不仅是为了它的生产潜力，还为了死去的祖先和不可移动的家灶。地产必须是私人的，只有如此，陌生人或国家才无法侵犯祖先的安息地。另一方面，早期私人财产缺乏现代产权的重要特征，通常只是使用权（usufructuary），不能出售，也不得改造。⑥其主人不是单独的业主，而是现存和死去亲戚的整个社团。财产就像一种信托，为了死去的祖先和未来的后裔。很多现代社会也有类似安排。20 世纪初，一名尼日利亚酋长说，“我想，地产属于一个大家庭，其成员中，很多已死，少数还活着，还有无数尚未出生的”。⑦地产和亲戚关系由此而紧密相连。它使你有能力照顾前世和后世的亲人，并通过与你休戚相关的祖先和后裔来照顾你本人。

    沦为殖民地前的部分非洲，其亲戚团体受土地的束缚，因为他们祖先葬在那里，就像希腊和罗马人。⑧西非的长期定居点则有不同形式的宗教运作。首批定居者的后裔，被指定为土地祭司来维持土地庙，并主持有关土地使用的各式礼仪。新移民不是通过买卖，而是通过加入当地礼仪社团，以取得土地使用权。社团把种植、狩猎、捕鱼权，当作社团会员的特权，但不是永久的。⑨

    部落社会中，财产有时由部落集体拥有。历史人类学家保罗·维诺格拉多夫（Paul Vinogradoff）如此描绘凯尔特部落（Celtic），“自由民和非自由民，依亲戚关系而聚居（父系家族）。他们集体拥有土地，其地界往往与村庄边界不同，像蜘蛛网分布在不同定居点”。⑩集体拥有并不表示集体耕耘，像 20 世纪苏联或中国的集体农庄，个别家庭经常分到自己的耕地。其他情况下，个人可以拥有地产，但受严重限制，因为他有对亲戚的义务——活的、死的，还有未出生的。⑪你的土地挨着你表亲的，收获时互相合作，很难想象将你的土地卖给陌生人。如你死而无后，你的土地归还给亲戚团体，部落经常有权再分配地产。根据维诺格拉多夫，在印度的边界地区，战胜的部落在大块土地上定居下来，但没把土地划分给亲戚。有时或定期的重新分配，证明部落对土地的有效统治。⑫

    现代的美拉尼西亚，仍有亲戚团体的共有财产。在巴布亚新几内亚和所罗门群岛，95% 以上的土地仍是共有财产。采矿公司或棕榈油公司想买地产，必须应付整个一语部落。⑬任何交易，部落中每个人都享有潜在的否决权，而且不受时效法律限制。因此，某亲戚团体决定将土地卖给公司；十年后，另一团体会站出来说土地是他们的，只在数代前被人偷走了。⑭还有很多人，不愿在任何情况下出卖土地，因为祖先的神灵仍在那里居住。

    亲戚团体中的个人不能充分利用其财产，不能将之出售。但这并不表示，他们会忽略或不负责任。部落社会中的产权分得很清楚，即使不是正式或法律上的。⑮部落拥有的财产是否得到很好照顾，与部落内部的聚合力有关，与部落所有权无关。哈丁叙述的共有财产灾难，在英国历史中到底造成多大灾难，尚不清楚。因议会圈地运动（Parliamentary Enclosure Movement）而告终的敞田制（open-field），并不是有效的土地使用方法。18 和 19 世纪的富裕地主，怀有强烈动机，把农民赶出共有地产。起初，敞田制与亲戚关系有关，以邻里耕耘者的团结为前提⑯，通常没有使用过度和浪费的现象。⑰如果有，也是由于英国乡村中社会凝聚力的下降。世界上其他运作良好的部落社会里，很难找到公地悲剧的纪录。⑱此类问题，肯定没有骚扰美拉尼西亚。

    努尔人那样的部落社会，从事畜牧而非农业，其规则略有不同。他们不把祖先埋入需永久保护的坟墓，乃因追随牛群而要跋涉宽广地域。他们对土地的权利不是排他的，只是为了通行和使用，就像希腊和罗马家庭的土地。⑲权利不全是私人的，但像其他的共有安排，这并不表示牧场一定会遭到过度开发。肯尼亚的图尔卡纳人（Turkana）和马赛人（Masai），西非的游牧民族富来尼人（Fulani），都发展了互相可以享用牧场但拒绝外人的制度。⑳

    西方人没能理解共有财产的性质，以及它与亲戚团体的难解难分，或多或少是非洲目前政治失调的根源之一。欧洲殖民官员相信，缺乏现代产权，经济发展是不可能发生的。这个产权是独立且可转让的，并获法律制度的确认。很多人相信，如听任自由，非洲人将不懂如何有效且持久地使用土地。㉑他们自己也有私心，或为天然资源，或为商业农场，或代表欧洲移民。他们想获得地契，便假设酋长“拥有”部落土地，宛如欧洲的封建君主，可以擅自签约转让。㉒在其他情况下，他们请酋长做代理人，不仅为了土地，还把他招为殖民政府的一员。非洲的部落社会中，传统领袖的权力曾受到复杂亲戚制度的有效制衡。马哈默德·马姆达尼（Mahmood Mamdani）认为，欧洲人欲建立现代产权，故意让一帮贪婪的非洲头人攫取权力，以非传统的方式欺负自己部落的伙伴，从而助长了独立后世袭政府的滋长。㉓

    法律和正义

    部落社会只有软弱的中央权威——头人或酋长，因此，其强制他人的能力远远低于国家。他们没有现代法律制度中的第三方执法。维诺格拉多夫指出，部落社会中的正义，有点像现代世界上国与国之间的关系：各式各样的主权决策者，有时互相谈判，有时全靠自助。㉔埃文斯—普理查德如此解说努尔人的正义：

    血亲复仇是部落社会的规则，发生于违反法律之后，以获补偿。事实上，对血亲复仇的恐惧是部落中最重要的合法惩罚，也是个人生命和财产的主要保障……个人觉得受了损害，但投诉无门，无法得到赔偿。所以，他便向损害自己的人提出决斗，这一挑战必须获得接受。㉕

    显而易见，埃文斯—普理查德在此提到的“法律”和“合法惩罚”都是泛指的，因为国家层次的法律与部落社会的正义很少存在关联。

    然而，如何实施血亲复仇，又有一套规则。遇害努尔人的亲戚，可以追缉作案者和作案者的男性近亲，但不能碰作案者母亲的兄弟、父亲的姐妹、母亲的姐妹，因为他们不是作案者的宗族成员。豹皮酋长会在中间调解，其住房又供作案者寻求避难和遵循礼仪，以净化自己沾上的遇害者的血。有关各方也需遵守精心的礼仪，以防冲突的扩大。例如，将伤害对方的矛送到受害者的村庄，以获魔法处理，从而避免伤口变得致命。豹皮酋长作为中立人士，享受一定的权威。他与被告村庄的其他长者一起，倾听对方的申述，但没权执行判决，就像无法执行现代国家之间判决的联合国仲裁人。仍以国际关系为例，实力是至关重要的，弱小的宗族很难从强大的宗族获得赔偿。㉖讨回公道的程度，则取决于争执双方出于自利的斟酌。大家都不愿看到，血亲复仇逐步升级，造成更多伤害。

    实际上，所有部落社会都有寻求正义的相似规则：亲戚们有义务为受害者寻求报仇和赔偿；无约束力的仲裁制度，以帮助争端的和平解决；与各种犯罪相对称的赔偿表，北欧日耳曼部落将之称为赔偿金（wergeld）。《贝奥武夫》（Beowulf）传奇，就是一篇亲戚为遇害者寻求报仇或赔偿的英雄叙事长诗。不同的部落社会，自有不同的仲裁制度。太平洋海岸克拉马斯河（Klamath）的印第安社会中，“尤罗克（Yurok）人如想提出诉求，就要雇用二、三或四名越界者（crosser）。他们是来自其他社团的非亲人士，被告也要雇用自己的越界者。这群人合在一起充当中间人，确定诉求和反驳，并收集证据。听过所有证据之后，越界者会作出赔偿裁决”。㉗像努尔人的豹皮酋长，越界者无权执行自己的判决，如当事人拒绝接受裁决，只能付诸排斥的威胁。部落男性同居于“流汗屋”（sweathouse）的事实，使之较为有效。被告核算，如自己将来受到委屈，也需要流汗屋伙伴的支持。因此，付出赔偿是得到鼓励的。㉘

    同样，自 6 世纪克洛维一世（Clovis）时代以来，萨利族法兰克人（Salian Franks）在日耳曼各部落中胜出，他们的萨利克法典（Lex Salica）也建立正义规则：“萨利族法兰克部落成员，如向邻居提出诉求，在传召对方时一定要遵循精确的程序。他必须前往对方居处，在其他目击者面前宣布自己的诉求，并定下对方出席司法聚会的日期。如被告不来，他必须数次重复如此的传召。”维诺格拉多夫总结说：“我们清楚看到部落社会司法的固有弱点：其法律裁决的执行，通常不靠最高权威，在很大程度上落在诉讼者和其朋友的手中。所以只能说，这是部落社会在司法上批准和认可的自助。”㉙

    第三方强制执行司法裁决，还必须等待国家的出现。但部落社会确实开发了愈益复杂的制度，以便在民事和刑事纠纷中提供妥当的裁决。部落法律通常不是书面的，但为了引用前例和建立赔偿额，仍需要监护人。斯堪的纳维亚发明了雷格曼一职（laghman），他是民选的法律专家，专门在审讯时发表有关法律规则的演讲。

    民众聚会起源于部落纠纷的判决。《伊利亚特》（Iliad）有关阿喀琉斯护盾（shield of Achilles）的章节，就描述一场涉及被杀男子价格的争论，在市场的大庭广众面前发生，再由部落长者读出最后的裁决。讲个更具体的案例，执行萨利克法律的是条顿制度（Teutonic），称作百户法庭，由当地村民组成，即现代模拟法庭（moot court）的源头。百户法庭在露天开会，其法官都是住在本地的自由民。百户法庭的主席（Thingman）是推选的，他主持实际上的仲裁法庭。亨利·梅因认为，“其主要功能是让热血有时间冷却，防止人们自行寻求赔偿，把争执接管过来，并协调赔偿的方法。如有不服从法庭的，最早的惩罚可能是逐入另册。不愿遵守其判决的人，将受不到法律的保护；如被杀，其亲戚们迫于舆论压力，将不得参与本属职责和权利的复仇”。㉚梅因指出，英国国王也派代表出席类似的法庭，最初是为了分享罚款。随着国家的出现，英国国王逐渐坚持自己的裁决权和更重要的执法权（参看第 17 章）。百户法庭和主席一职，作为司法制度早已消失，作为地方政府的工具却得以保存。我们将看到，它最终成为现代民主代议制的一部分。

    战争和军事组织

    迄今为止，我还没从理论上解说，人类为什么自族团层次过渡到部落社会。我只提及，它与历史上出现农业后生产力大大提高有关。农业使人口的高度密集成为可能，并间接创造了对大型社会和私人财产的需求。如我们所见，私人财产与复杂的亲戚组织，紧密纠结，盘根错节。

    人类过渡到部落社会的另一原因是战争。定居的农业社会的发展意味着，人类群体变成近邻。他们生产的粮食，远远超过生存所必需，因此有更多的动产和不动产需要保护，或可供偷窃。部落社会的规模，远远超过族团层次，在人口数量上可压倒后者。它还有其他优势，其中最重要的是组织上的灵活性。我们在努尔人身上看到，部落社会遇上紧急状况可迅速扩展，不同层次的分支能组成各式联盟。恺撒在介绍他所战胜的高卢人（Gauls）时指出，一俟战争爆发，其部落便选出联盟的共同领袖，开始对他手下行使生死权。㉛基于此，人类学家马歇尔·萨林斯把分支式宗族描述成“掠夺性的扩张组织”。㉜

    类人猿祖先和人类的连贯性似乎是暴力倾向。霍布斯有个著名断言：自然状态是“人人相互为敌的战争”。卢梭则不同，明确表示霍布斯弄错了。他认为，原始人是温和隔绝的，只是在社会使人腐化的较晚阶段才出现暴力。霍布斯比较接近事实，但要有重大调整，即暴力应发生于社会群体中，而不是隔离的个人之间。人类高度成熟的社交技术和合作能力，与黑猩猩和人类社会中常见的暴力并不矛盾。说得确切些，前者还是后者的必要条件。这表示暴力是一项社交活动，参与者是成群结队的雄性，有时还有雌性。黑猩猩或人类都面对同类的暴力威胁，因此需要更多的社会合作。孤独者容易受到相邻领土的打劫帮派的攻击，与伙伴携手合作得以自保的，方能将自己的基因传给下一代。

    对很多人来说，人性中的暴力倾向是很难接受的。众多人类学家像卢梭一样，坚信暴力是文明社会的产物。还有很多人情愿相信，早期社会懂得如何与生态环境保持平衡。但很不幸，无法找到任何证据来支撑这两种观点。人类学家劳伦斯·基利（Lawrence Keeley）和考古学家斯蒂芬·勒布朗，以详尽的考古记录显示，史前人类社会的暴力一直持续不断。㉝基利还指出，根据跨文化的调查，每五年中，70% 到 90% 的初期社会——族团、部落、酋邦的层次——参与战争。这样的社会中，只有极少数经历低水平的突袭或暴力，通常是由于环境提供了屏障阻止邻人来犯。㉞狩猎采集者的残余群体，如卡拉哈里沙漠的布须曼人和加拿大的爱斯基摩人，如果不受干涉，我行我素，其凶杀率是美国的四倍。㉟

    就黑猩猩和人类而言，狩猎似乎是战争的源泉。㊱黑猩猩组织起来，成群结队地追捕猴子，再以同样技术追捕其他黑猩猩。人类也是如此，只不过人类的猎物更大、更危险，所以要求更高度的社会合作和更精良的武器。将狩猎技术用于杀人是司空见惯的，我们有历史记录。例如，蒙古人的骑术和马背上打猎，正好用来对付敌人。人类完善了追猎大动物的技术，以致考古学家往往把某处巨大动物群的绝迹，定在人类迁移至该地的时期。乳齿象、剑齿虎、巨型鸸鹋、大树懒——这些大动物，似乎都被组织良好的原始猎人斩尽杀绝了。

    随着部落社会的出现，我们看到武士阶层的兴起，还看到人类最基本最持久的政治组织，即领袖和他的武装侍从。后续的历史中，这种组织实际上无孔不入，至今依然安在，如军阀和手下、民兵队、贩毒卡特尔、社区帮派。他们掌握了武器和战争的专门技术，开始行使以前族团层次中所没有的强制权力。

    部落社会中，致富显然是发动战争的动机。讲到 10 世纪末战胜俄罗斯的维京人精英时，历史学家杰罗姆·布鲁姆（Jerome Blum）说：

    君主（维京人酋长）支持和保护他的侍从，以换取他们的服务。起初，他们与君主同住，像他的家庭成员。其赡养费，则靠斩获的战利品和部落上缴的保护费……弗拉基米尔王的侍从埋怨，因为没有银勺，他们必须用木勺进食。君主旋即命令，赶快安排银勺，并说“金银难买侍从，有了侍从，就能获得金银”。㊲

    20 世纪 90 年代，塞拉利昂和利比里亚两国沦为军阀混战，因为福戴·桑科（Foday Sankoh）和查尔斯·泰勒（Charles Taylor）积极招募侍从。这次，他们凭借武装侍从争夺的不是银勺，而是血钻石。

    但战争的爆发，不单单依靠致富的冲动。武士可能贪婪金银，但他们在战场上表现勇敢，不是为了资源，而是为了荣誉。㊳为一个目标而甘冒生命危险，为获得其他武士的认可，这就是荣誉。请看塔西佗（Tacitus）在 1 世纪编写的日耳曼部落历史，这是有关欧洲人祖先的罕见的同代人观察：

    侍从中有很大竞争，决定谁是酋长手下第一副将；酋长中也有很大竞争，决定谁拥有最多、最犀利的侍从。身边有大量精选青年的簇拥，这意味着等级和实力……到达战场时，酋长的膂力比不上他人的，侍从的膂力跟不上酋长的，那是丢脸；比酋长活得更久，得以离开战场的，那是终身的臭名和耻辱；保卫酋长，以壮举颂扬酋长，那是侍从忠诚的精髓。酋长为胜利而战，侍从为酋长而战。㊴

    即使从事农业或贸易的报酬更高，武士也不愿与农夫或商人交换地位，因为致富只是其动机的一部分。武士发现农夫生活可鄙，因为它不共担危险和团结：

    如果出生地的社区长期享有和平和宁静，很多出身高贵的青年，宁可自愿寻求其时忙于战争的其他部落；休息于比赛无补，他们更容易在动乱中功成名就；再说，除了战争和暴力，你很难挽留优秀的侍从……说服他们向敌人挑战，以伤疤为荣，比让他们犁地以待丰收更为容易；凭流血可获的，你偏要通过辛苦劳作，这似乎有点窝囊和闲散。㊵

    塔西佗评论，战争之间的空闲期，年轻武士们懒散度日，因为从事任何民间工作只会降低他们的身份。这种武士道德被取代，一直要等到欧洲资产阶级兴起的 17 和 18 世纪。其时，以获利和经济计算为内涵的道德规范替代荣誉，成为杰出人士的标志。㊶

    政治是一门艺术，而不是一门科学，其原因之一，就是无法预知领袖与侍从之间的道德信任。他们的共同利益以经济为主，组织起来主要是为了掠夺。但单靠经济是不能把追随者与领袖捆绑在一起的。1991 年和 2003 年，美国与萨达姆·侯赛因的伊拉克作战时，它相信战场上失败将迅速导致其政府的倒台，因为他的重要部属会意识到，去掉侯赛因应是一件好事。但那些部属，由于家庭和私人的联系，加上害怕，结果却紧密团结，同舟共济。

    长期互惠所建立的互相忠诚，是凝聚力的非经济原因。部落社会向亲戚关系注入宗教意义和神灵制裁。此外，民兵通常由尚未成家、没有土地和其他财产的年轻人组成。他们身上荷尔蒙高涨，偏爱冒险生活，对他们而言，经济资源不是掠夺的唯一对象。我们不应低估，性和俘获女人在造就政治组织方面的重要性，尤其是在通常用女人作为交换中介的分支式社会。这些社会相对狭小，由于缺少非亲女子，其成员往往通过对外侵略来遵循异族通婚的规则。蒙古帝国的创始者成吉思汗，据称如此宣称：“最大的快乐是……击败你的敌人、追逐他们、剥夺他们的财富、看他们的亲人痛哭流涕、骑他们的马、把他们的妻女拥入怀中。”㊷在实现最后一项抱负上，他是相当成功的。根据 DNA 的测试，亚洲很大一块地区，其现存的男性居民中约有 8% 是他的后裔，或属于他的血统。㊸

    部落社会中的酋长和侍从，不同于国家层次中的将军和军队，因为两者的领导性质和权威是截然不同的。在努尔人中，豹皮酋长基本上是一名仲裁人，没有指挥权，也不是世袭的。现代的巴布亚新几内亚或所罗门群岛，其头人处于同等地位。根据传统，他是亲戚们选出的，也可能会以同样方式失去该职。塔西佗写道，日耳曼部落中，“他们国王的权力不是无限或任意的；他们的将军不是通过命令，而是通过榜样及他人由衷的赞美，站在队伍的前列来控制人民”。㊹其他部落则组织得更为松懈。“19 世纪的科曼奇（Comanche）印第安人，甚至没有称作部落的政治组织，没有率领百姓的强悍酋长……科曼奇的人口，由大量组织松散的自治族团组成，没有应付战争的正式组织。战争头领只是战绩累累的杰出战士；如能说服他人，任何人都可动员一支战斗队伍；但其领导地位只在攻袭期间有效，还必须依赖他人的自愿。”㊺等到欧洲移民入侵北美，施加了军事压力，夏安人（Cheyenne）等的印第安部落才开始发展出持久和集中的指挥机构，如固定的部落会议。㊻

    疏松且分散的组织，对部落社会来说，既是优点，也是缺点。他们联网的组织，有时可以发起强大的攻击。配备以马匹，游牧民族的部落能奔赴远方，征服广袤的领土。阿尔莫哈德王朝就是一个案例，其柏柏尔部落在 12 世纪突然崛起，征服了北非全地和西班牙南部的安达卢斯。没人可与蒙古帝国媲美，他们来自亚洲内陆的大本营，在一个多世纪的时间里，设法攻克了中亚、中东大部、俄罗斯、部分东欧、印度北部、整个中国。但其永久领导的缺席、分支式联盟的松散、继位规则的缺乏，注定了部落社会最终衰弱的命运。他们没有永久的政治权力和行政能力，无法治理征服的领土，只好依赖当地定居社会提供的例行管理。几乎所有征战的部落社会——至少是没能迅速演进为国家层次的——都会在一代或两代以内四分五裂，因为兄弟、表亲、孙子都要争夺创始领袖的遗产。

    国家层次的社会，在继承部落层次的社会后，其中的部落制并不消失。在中国、印度、中东、哥伦布到来之前的美洲，国家制度只是重叠在部落制度上，两者长期共存，处于勉强的平衡。早期现代化理论的错误，一是认为政治、经济、文化必须相互匹配，二是认为不同历史“阶段”之间的过渡是干净和不可逆转的。世界上只有欧洲，自觉自愿和个人主义的社会关系完全取代部落制，基督教发挥决定性作用，打破了以亲戚关系为凝聚基础的传统。多数早期的现代化理论家，都是欧洲人。他们假设，世界其他地区走上现代化，会经历与亲戚关系的类似告别，但他们错了。中国虽是发明现代国家的第一文明，但在社会和文化的层面，却从未能成功压抑亲戚关系的弄权。因此，其两千年政治历史的大部分，一直围绕在如何阻止亲戚关系重新渗透国家行政机构。在印度，亲戚关系与宗教互动，演变成种姓制度（caste），迄今仍是定位印度社会的最好特征。从美拉尼西亚的一语部落、阿拉伯部落、台湾人宗族，到玻利维亚的“艾柳”（ayllu）村社，复杂的亲戚关系组织仍是现代世界众多社交生活的主要场所，并塑造其与现代政治制度的互动。

    从部落制到保护人—依附者和政治机器

    我以亲戚关系来定位部落制（tribalism），但部落社会也在进化。分支世系制的严格系谱，慢慢变成父母双传的部落，甚至是接受无亲戚关系成员的部落。如果我们采用更广泛的定义，部落不但包括分享共同祖先的亲戚，还包括因互惠和私人关系而绑在一起的保护人和依附者，那么，部落制便成了政治发展的常数。

    例如在罗马，甫斯特尔·德·库朗日所描述的父系亲族，叫作家族（gentes）。但到共和国初期，家族开始积累大量无亲戚关系的追随者，叫作依附者（clientes）。他们由自由民、佃户、家庭侍从所组成，到后来甚至包括愿意提供支持以换取金钱或其他好处的贫穷平民（plebeian）。从共和国晚期至帝国初期，罗马的政治离不开强悍领袖动员各自依附者来攫取国家机构，像恺撒、苏拉（Sulla）、庞培。富有的保护人，把他们的依附者编成私人军队。在考察共和国末期的罗马政治时，历史学家塞缪尔·芬纳（Samuel Finer）很小心地指出，“如果抛开具体人物……你会发现所有这些尔虞我诈、大公无私、高贵庄严，并不比一个拉丁美洲的香蕉共和国多多少。如果把罗马共和国看成是弗里多尼亚共和国（Freedonian Republic），将时间设在 19 世纪中期，将苏拉、庞培和恺撒想象成加西亚·洛佩兹、佩德罗·波德里拉和海梅·比列加斯，你会发现两者有许多相似之处，如由依附者构成的派系、私人军队和对总统职位的武装争夺”。㊼

    宽泛意义中的部落制，仍是活生生的事实。例如，印度自 1947 年建国以来，一直是成功的民主政体，但印度政治家在议会竞选中，仍需依赖保护人和依附者之间的私人关系。严格讲，这些关系有时仍属部落的，因为部落制仍存在于印度较穷、较落后的地区。其他时候，政治支持以种姓制度或宗派主义为基础。但在每一件案例中，政治家与支持者的社会关系，与在亲戚团体中的一模一样。它仍建基于领袖和追随者的相互交换恩惠：领袖帮助促进团体利益，团体帮他获得竞选。异曲同工的是美国城市的赞助政治。其政治机器所依据的，仍是谁为谁搔了痒，而不是意识形态和公共政策的“现代”动机。所以，以非人格化形式的政治关系取代“部落”政治的斗争，仍在 21 世纪继续。

    第 5 章 “利维坦”的降临

    不同于部落社会的国家层次社会；国家的“原生”形成和竞争形成；国家形成的不同理论，包括此路不通的灌溉论；国家为何仅出现于部分地区

    与部落社会相比，国家层次社会具有下列重要差别：①

    第一，它们享有集中的权力，不管是国王、总统，还是首相。该权力委任等级分明的下属，至少在原则上，有能力在整个社会执行统一规则。该权力超越领土中所有其他权力，这表示它享有主权。各级行政机关，如副首脑、郡长、地方行政官，凭借与主权的正式关联而获得决策权。

    第二，该权力的后盾是对合法强制权力的垄断，体现在军队和警察上。国家有足够权力，防止分支、部落、地区的自行退出。（这也是国家与酋邦的分别。）

    第三，国家权力是领土性的，不以亲戚关系为基础。因此，墨洛温王朝（Merovingian）时期，法兰西还不算国家。其时，统治法兰西的是法兰克国王，而不是法兰西国王。国家的疆土可远远超越部落，因为其成员资格不受亲戚关系的限制。

    第四，与部落社会相比，国家更为等级分明，更为不平等。统治者和他的行政官员，常与社会中的他人分隔开来。某种情况下，他们成为世袭的精英。部落社会中已有听闻的奴役和农奴，在国家的庇护下获得极大发展。

    第五，更为精心雕琢的宗教信仰，将合法性授予国家。分开的僧侣阶层，则充任庇护者。有时，僧侣阶层直接参政，实施神权政治；有时，世俗统治者掌管全部权力，被称作政教合一（caesaropapist）；再有时，政教并存，分享权力。

    随着国家的出现，我们退出亲戚关系，走进政治发展的本身。下面几章将密切关注中国、印度、穆斯林世界以及欧洲如何自亲戚关系和部落过渡到非人格化的国家机构。一旦国家出现，亲戚关系便成为政治发展的障碍，因为它时时威胁要返回部落社会的私人关系。所以，光发展国家是不够的，还要避免重新部落化（tribalization），或我所谓的家族化。

    世界上，不是所有社会都能自己过渡到国家层次。欧洲殖民者出现之前，19 世纪的大部分美拉尼西亚，由群龙无首的部落社会组成（即缺乏集中的权力）。撒哈拉以南的非洲的一半，南亚和东南亚的部分地区，也是如此。②缺乏悠久国家历史的事实，大大影响了它们在 20 世纪中期独立后的进展。与国家传统悠久的前东亚殖民地相比，这一点显得尤其突出。中国很早就开发了国家，而巴布亚新几内亚一直没有，尽管人类抵达后者更早。为什么？这就是我希望回答的问题。

    国家形成的理论

    人类学家和考古学家把国家形成分成两种，“原生”和“竞争”。国家原生形成是指国家在部落社会（或酋邦）中的首次出现。国家竞争形成是指第一个国家出现后的仿效追随。与周边的部落社会相比，国家通常组织得更为紧密、更为强大。所以，不是国家占领和吸收邻里的部落社会，就是不甘被征服的部落社会起而仿效。历史上有很多国家竞争形成的案例，但从没观察到国家原生形成的版本。政治哲学家、人类学家、考古学家，只能猜测第一个或第一批国家的出现，有众多解释，包括社会契约、灌溉、人口压力、暴力战争以及地理界限。

    国家源于自愿的社会契约

    社会契约论者，如霍布斯、洛克、卢梭，一开始并不想提供国家如何出现的实证。相反，他们只是试图弄清政府的合法性。但最先的国家是否通过部落成员的明确协议而建立集中权力，弄清这一点还是很值得的。

    托马斯·霍布斯如此解说有关国家的“交易”：国家（即利维坦）通过权力的垄断，保证每个公民的基本安全，公民放弃各行其是的自由以作交换。国家还可向公民提供无法独自取得的公共服务，如产权、道路、货币、统一度量衡、对外防卫。作为回报，公民认可国家的征税和征兵等。部落社会也可提供一定的安全，但因缺乏集中的权力，其公共服务非常有限。假如国家确实源于社会契约，我们必须假设，在历史上的某一天，部落群体自愿决定将独裁的统治权委托给个人。这种委托不是临时的，如部落酋长的选举，而是永久的，交到了国王和其后裔手中。这必须是部落中所有支系的共识，因为如有不喜欢，每一支系仍可出走。

    若说主要动机是经济，即产权的保护和公共服务的提供，国家源于社会契约似乎是不可能的。部落社会是很平等的，在密切相处的亲戚团体中，又很自由自在。相比之下，国家是强制、专横、等级分明的。尼采（Friedrich Nietzsche）把国家称作“最冷酷的怪物”。我们想象，自由的部落社会只会在极端逼迫之下才出此下策。譬如面对即将来临的异族入侵和灭绝，委托一名独裁者；或面对即将摧毁整个社团的瘟疫，委托一名宗教领袖。实际上在共和国期间，罗马独裁者就是这样选出的，如公元前 216 年坎尼会战后，汉尼拔（Hannibal）对罗马造成了切实的威胁。这表明，国家形成的真正原因是暴力，或暴力的威胁。社会契约只是有效途径，并非终极原因。

    国家源于水利工程

    社会契约论的变种是卡尔·魏特夫（Karl Wittfogel）的“水利工程”论，前人为此花费了很多不必要的笔墨。魏特夫原是马克思主义者，后来蜕变成反共产主义者。他发展了马克思的亚细亚生产方式理论，为专政出现于非西方社会提供了经济解释。他认为，大规模的灌溉需求，只有中央集权的官僚国家方能满足，从而促进了美索不达米亚、埃及、中国和墨西哥的国家兴起。③

    水利工程的假设要解答很多疑问。新生国家的地区，其早期灌溉工程多数都是小型的，地方上自己就能应付。像中国大运河这种大工程，是在建立强大国家之后，只能算是结果，不应该是原因。④魏特夫的假设若要成真，我们必须假设，部落成员聚集起来说：“我们将心爱的自由交给一名独裁者，让他来管理举世无双的大型水利工程，我们将变得更加富有。我们放弃自由，不仅在工程期间，而是永远，因为我们的后代也需要卓越的工程主管。”此种情形如有说服力，欧洲联盟早已变成一个国家了。

    密集人口

    人口统计学家埃斯特·博塞鲁普主张，人口的增加和密集是技术革新的主要动力。埃及、美索不达米亚、中国江河流域的密集人口，创造了精耕细作的农业。它涉及大规模灌溉、高产作物、各式农业工具。人口密集允许专业化，允许精英和百姓的分工，从而促进国家的形成。低密度人口的族团和部落社会，为减少冲突可分道扬镳；如发现不能共存，便自立门户。但新兴城市的密集人口并无如此的选择，土地匮乏，如何取得重要公共资源，这一切都可触发冲突，从而要求权力的高度集中。

    即使人口密集是国家形成的必要条件，我们仍有两个未获答案的疑问：一开始是什么造就了密集人口？密集人口与国家又是怎样互动的？

    第一个问题似乎有简单的马尔萨斯式答案：如农业革命的技术革新大大提高了土地产量，导致父母生育更多孩子，从而造成密集人口。问题是，有些狩猎采集社会的利用率，远远低于当地环境的富饶能力。新几内亚高地居民和亚马孙印第安人开发了农业，尽管在技术上做得到，却不愿生产余粮。有了提高效率和产量的技术，可以增加人口，但并不保证这一切确实发生。⑤人类学家表明，在某些狩猎采集社会，粮食供给的上升反而导致工作量的降低，因为其成员更在乎休闲。按平均来说，农业社会的居民比较富庶，但必须工作得更加努力，这样的交换可能并不诱人。或者说，狩猎采集者只是陷入了经济学家所谓的低平衡。那是指，他们掌握了转移至农业的技术，因为面对他人分享盈余的前景，旋又打消了转移念头。⑥

    这里的因果关系，可能被颠倒了。早期社会的人们不愿生产盈余，除非挥鞭的统治者强迫他们这样做。主人自己不愿辛苦工作，却很乐意压迫他人。等级制度的出现，不在经济因素，而在政治因素，如军事征服或强迫。埃及金字塔的建造，顿时浮现在眼前。因此，密集人口可能不是国家形成的终极原因，只是中间的变数，其本身又是尚未确定原因的产物。

    国家源于暴力和强迫

    经济解释的弱点和空缺，把国家形成的来源指向暴力。部落到国家的过渡，涉及了自由和平等的巨大损失。很难想象，为了灌溉可能带来的巨大收益，部落社会愿意这么做。所以，牵涉的利害关系必须更大，威胁生命的有组织暴力比较可信。

    我们知道，人类社会实际上一直参与暴力，尤其是在部落层次。一个部落战胜另外一个时，可能出现等级和国家。为了在政治上控制战败部落，战胜者建立了集中的强迫机构，渐渐演变成原生国家的官僚系统。如果两个部落在语言或种族上是不同的，战胜者可能建立主仆关系，等级制度慢慢变得根深蒂固。异族部落前来征服的威胁，也会鼓励部落群体建立起更永久、更集中的指挥中心，如夏安和普韦布洛的印第安人。⑦

    部落征服定居社会的案例，在历史记载中屡有发生，如党项、契丹、匈奴、女真、雅利安（Aryans）、蒙古、维京人（Vikings）、日耳曼人，他们都是以此建国的。唯一的问题是，最早国家也是这样起家的吗？巴布亚新几内亚和苏丹南部的部落战争，历时数世纪，却一直没能建起国家层次的社会。人类学家认为，部落社会自有平衡的机制，冲突之后会重新分配权力。努尔人只收纳敌人，并不统治他们。于是，解释国家的兴起似乎还要寻找其他原因。彪悍的部落群体，从亚洲内陆草原、阿拉伯沙漠、阿富汗山脉向外出征时，才会建立更为集中的政治组织。

    地理界限和其他环境因素

    人类学家罗伯特·卡内罗（Robert Carneiro）注意到，就国家形成而言，战争虽然是普遍和必要的，但还不够。他认为，生产力增长，如发生于地理上被环绕的地区，或发生在敌对部落的有效包围中，才能解释等级制国家的出现。在非环绕地区或人口稀少地区，衰弱的部落或个人可随时跑掉。夹在沙漠和海洋中间的尼罗河峡谷，以沙漠、丛林、高山为界的秘鲁峡谷，都不存在逃跑的选择。⑧地理界限也能解释，由于没人搬走，生产力的增长只会导致人口密度的增加。

    新几内亚高地的部落也有农业，也住在被环绕的峡谷。所以单凭这些因素，也是无法解说国家兴起的。绝对规模可能很重要，美索不达米亚、尼罗河峡谷、墨西哥峡谷，都是相当规模的农业区，又有山脉、沙漠、海洋的环绕。他们可以组成较大、较集中的军队，尤其是在马或骆驼已获驯养的情况下，可在广阔地区施展威力。所以，不仅是地理界限，还有被环绕地区的大小和交通，决定国家的形成与否。地理界限尚可提供额外的帮助，暂时保护他们免遭峡谷或岛屿外敌人的攻击，让他们有时间扩军备战。大洋洲的酋邦和雏形国家，只在斐济、汤加、夏威夷那样的大岛上出现，而不在所罗门群岛、瓦努阿图（Vanuatu）、特洛布里恩群岛（Trobriands）那样的小岛。新几内亚虽是大岛，但多山，被分割成无数个微型的生态环境。

    国家源于魅力型权威

    推测政治起源的考古学家，偏爱唯物主义的解释，如环境和技术；不大喜欢文化因素，如宗教。这是因为，我们对早期社会的物质环境，已有较多了解。⑨但宗教思想对早期国家的形成，很可能是至关重要的。部落社会丧失自由，过渡到等级制度，都可从宗教那里获得合法性。在传统和现代理性的权威中，马克斯·韦伯挑出了他所谓的魅力型（charisma）权威。⑩这是希腊文，意思是“上帝碰过的”。魅力型领袖行使权力，不是因为部落伙伴推崇能力而选他，而是因为他是“上帝选中的”。

    宗教权威和军事威武携手并进，让部落领袖得以调度自治部落之间的大规模集体行动。它也让自由的部落成员，将永久权力委托给领袖和其亲戚，这比经济利益更有说服力。之后，领袖可使用该权力建立集中的军事机器，战胜反抗部落，确保境内的和平和安全，在良性循环中再一次加强宗教权威。祖先崇拜等宗教受到其固有规模的限制，因此需要一个有的放矢的新宗教。

    展示此一过程的具体案例是正统哈里发和倭马亚王朝（Patriarchal ＆ Umayyad caliphates）时期第一个阿拉伯国家的兴起。数世纪以来，部落群体居住在阿拉伯半岛，属埃及、波斯、罗马、拜占庭等国家层次社会的边缘地域。他们的环境恶劣，不适合农耕，所以没有遭遇他人的侵占，也没遇上仿效建国的军事压力。他们只在附近定居社会之间充任中介和商人，自己不能生产相当的粮食盈余。

    公元 570 年，先知穆罕默德诞生于阿拉伯城镇的麦加，便发生了戏剧性变化。根据穆斯林传统，穆罕默德 40 岁那年获得上帝的首次启示，随即开始向麦加部落布道。他和追随者由于受到迫害，在 622 年搬至麦地那。麦地那部落的争执需要他的调解，他便草拟所谓的麦地那宪法，为超越部落忠诚的信徒团体（umma）定位。穆罕默德创立的政体，尚无真正国家的所有特征。但它脱离了亲戚关系，不靠征服，而靠社会契约，这全凭他作为先知的魅力型权威。新成立的穆斯林政治体经过数年征战，赢得信徒，占领麦加，统一阿拉伯半岛的中部，一举成为国家层次的社会。

    在征战国家中，创始部落的领袖血统通常开创新朝代。但在穆罕默德的案例中，这没有发生，因为他只有女儿法蒂玛（Fatima），没有儿子。新兴国家的领导权因此传给穆罕默德的同伴，他属倭马亚氏族，也是穆罕默德的古莱什部落（Quraysh）中的支系。之后，倭马亚氏族确实开创了新王朝。倭马亚国家在奥斯曼（Uthman）和穆阿维叶（Mu‘awiya）的领导下，迅速战胜叙利亚、埃及、伊拉克，在这些现存的国家层次社会中实施阿拉伯统治。⑪

    就政治思想的重要性而言，先知穆罕默德促使阿拉伯国家兴起是最好的证明。之前，阿拉伯部落只在世界历史中扮演边缘角色。多亏穆罕默德的魅力型权威，他们获得统一，并把势力扩展到整个中东和北非。阿拉伯部落自己没有经济基础，但通过宗教思想和军队组织的互动，不但获得经济实力，还接管了产生盈余的农业社会。⑫这不是纯粹国家原生形成的案例，因为阿拉伯部落已有周边如波斯和拜占庭等现成国家，先作为仿效榜样，后予以征服。不过，其部落制的力量非常强大，后来的阿拉伯国家不能完全予以控制，也建不成无部落影响的官僚机构（参看第 13 章）。这迫使后来的阿拉伯和土耳其朝代采取特别措施，如军事奴隶制和招聘外国人充当行政官，以摆脱亲戚关系和部落的影响。

    第一个阿拉伯国家的创立，昭示了宗教思想的政治力量。这是非常突出的案例，但几乎所有国家，都倚靠宗教使自己获得合法地位。希腊、罗马、印度和中国的创始传说，都把统治者的祖先追溯到神灵，或至少一名半神半人的英雄。如弄不清统治者如何控制宗教礼仪以取得合法地位，就不能理解早期国家的政治力量。请看中国《诗经》中，献给商朝创始者的商颂《玄鸟》：

    天命玄鸟，降而生商，宅殷土芒芒。古帝命武汤，正域彼四方。

    （天帝任命燕子降，入世生下我商王，居衍殷地广且强。古时帝命神武汤，整顿边界安四方。）

    另一首颂诗《长发》称：

    濬哲维商，长发其祥。洪水芒芒，禹敷下土方。

    （睿智的商君，早现朝代的祯祥。洪水滔滔，禹来治理大地四方。）⑬

    我们似乎在接近国家原生形成的齐全解释，它需要若干因素的汇合。首先，那里必须资源丰富，除维持生活，还有盈余。这类丰裕可以是纯粹自然的，太平洋西北地区充满猎物和鱼，其狩猎采集社会得以发展成酋邦，虽然还不是国家。但更多时候，创造丰裕的是技术进步，比如农业的兴起。其次，社会的绝对规模必须够大，允许初级分工和执政精英的出现。再次，居民必须受到环境的束缚，技术机遇来到时，其密度会增高；受到逼迫时，会无处可逃。最后，部落群体必须有强烈动机，愿意放弃自由来服从国家权力。这可通过组织日益良好的团体的武力威胁，也可通过宗教领袖的魅力型权威。上述因素加在一起，国家出现于像尼罗河峡谷那样的地方，这似乎是可信的。⑭

    霍布斯主张，国家或“利维坦”的产生，起源于个人之间理性的社会契约，以终止暴力不断和战争状态。在第 2 章的开头，我曾表明，全部自由社会契约论都有一个基本谬误：因为它假设在史前自然状态时期，人类生活于隔离状态。但这种最早的个人主义从没存在过。人类天生是社会的，自己组成群体，不需要出于私心。在高层次阶段，社会组织的特别形式往往是理性协议的结果；但在低层次阶段，它由人类生物本能所决定，全是自发的。

    霍布斯式谬误，还有其另外一面。从蛮荒的自然状态到井然有序的文明社会，从来未见干净利落的过渡；而人类的暴力，也从未找到彻底的解决办法。人类合作是为了竞争；他们竞争，也是为了合作。利维坦的降临，没能永久解决暴力问题，只是将之移至更高层次。以前是部落支系之间的战斗，现在是愈益扩大的战争，主要角色换成了国家。第一个国家问世，可建立胜利者的和平。但假以时日，借用同样政治技术的新兴国家将奋起提出挑战。

    国家为何不是普世共有？

    我们现在明白，国家为何没在非洲和大洋洲出现，部落社会又为何持续存在于阿富汗、印度、东南亚高地。政治学家杰弗里·赫伯斯特（Jeffrey Herbst）认为，非洲很多地区缺乏自生国家，原因在于各式因素的聚合：“非洲的建国者——不管是殖民地的国王和总督，还是独立后的总统——所面对的基本问题是，如何在人口稀少且不适居住的领土上行使统治权。”⑮他指出，与大众的想象相悖，非洲大陆上仅 8% 的地区处于热带，50% 的地区降雨不够，难以支撑农业。人类虽在非洲起家，却在世界其他地域繁荣昌盛。现代农业和医学到来之前，非洲的人口密度一直很低，其在 1975 年的程度，刚刚达到欧洲在 1500 年的水平。也有例外，如非洲肥沃的大湖区和东非大裂谷（the Great Rift Valley），养活了高密度的居民，并出现集权国家的萌芽。

    非洲的自然地理，使权力的行使变得艰巨。非洲只有很少适合长途航行的河流（这一规则的例外是尼罗河下游，它是世界上最早国家之一的摇篮）。萨赫勒地区（Sahel）的沙漠与欧亚的大草原迥然不同，成为贸易和征服的一大障碍。那些骑在马背上的穆斯林战士，虽然设法越过这道障碍，却发现自己的坐骑纷纷死于孑孓蝇传染的脑炎。这也解释了，西非的穆斯林区为何仅局限于尼日利亚北部、象牙海岸、加纳等。⑯在热带森林覆盖的非洲部分，建造和维修道路的艰难是建立国家的重要障碍。罗马帝国崩溃一千多年后，其在不列颠岛上建造的硬面道路仍在使用，而热带的道路能持续数年的寥寥无几。

    非洲只有少数在地理上被环绕的地区。统治者因此而遇上极大的困难，将行政管理推入内地，以控制当地居民。因为人口稀少，通常都有荒地可开；遇上被征服的威胁，居民可轻易朝灌木丛做进一步的撤退。非洲的战后国家巩固，从没达到欧洲的程度，因为战争征服的动机和可能性实在有限。⑰根据赫伯斯特，这显示，自部落社会向欧洲式领土政体的过渡从来没有发生于非洲。⑱非洲的被环绕地区，如尼罗河峡谷，则看到国家的出现，这也符合相关规则。

    澳洲本身没有国家出现，原因可能与非洲雷同。大体上说，澳洲非常贫瘠，而且甚少差别。尽管人类在那里已居住良久，但人口密度总是很低。没有农业，也没有被环绕地区，由此解释了超越部落和宗族的政治组织的缺乏。

    美拉尼西亚的处境则不同。该地区全由岛屿组成，所以有自然环境的界限，此外，农业发明也在很久以前。考虑到多数岛屿都是山脉，这里的问题与规模大小和行政困难有关。岛屿中峡谷太小，仅能养活有限人口，很难在远距离行使权力。就像较早时指出的，具大片肥沃平原的大岛，如斐济和夏威夷，确有酋邦和国家出现。

    山脉也解释了部落组织为何持续存在于世界上的高山地区，包括：阿富汗，土耳其、伊拉克、伊朗、叙利亚的库尔德地区，老挝和越南的高地，巴基斯坦的部落区域。对国家和军队来说，山脉使这些地区难以征服和占领。土耳其人、蒙古人、波斯人、英国人、俄国人，还有现在的美国人和北约，都试图降伏和安抚阿富汗部落，以建立集权国家，但仅有差强人意的成功。

    弄清国家原生形成的条件是很有趣的，因为它有助于确定国家出现的物质条件。但到最后，有太多互相影响的因素，以致无法发展出一条严密且可预测的理论，以解释国家怎样形成和何时形成。这些因素或存在，或缺席，以及为之所作的解释，听起来像是吉卜林的《原来如此》（Just So Stories）。例如，美拉尼西亚的部分地区，其环境条件与斐济或汤加非常相似——都是大岛，其农业能养活密集人口——却没有国家出现。原因可能是宗教，也可能是无法复原的历史意外。

    找到这样的理论并不见得有多重要，因为世界上大多数国家不是原生形成的，而是竞争形成的。很多国家的形成是在我们有书面记录的年代。中国国家的形成开始得很早，比埃及和美索不达米亚略晚，与地中海和新世界（New World）的国家兴起几乎同时。早期中国历史，有详尽的书面和考古资料，为我们提供了细致入微的中国政治纹理。但最重要的是，依马克斯·韦伯的标准，中国出现的国家比其他任何一个更为现代。中国人建立了统一和多层次的官僚行政机构，这是在希腊或罗马从未发生的。中国人发展出了明确反家庭的政治原则，其早期统治者刻意削弱豪门和亲戚团体的力量，提倡非人格化的行政机构。中国投入建国大业，建立了强大且统一的文化，足以承受两千年的政治动乱和外族入侵。中国政治和文化所控制的人口，远远超过罗马。罗马统治一个帝国，其公民权最初只限于意大利半岛上的少数人。最终，罗马帝国的版图横跨欧亚非，从不列颠到北非，从日耳曼到叙利亚。但它由各式民族所组成，并允许他们相当可观的自治权。相比之下，中国帝王把自己称作皇帝，不叫国王，但他统治的更像王国，甚至更像统一国家。

    中国的国家是集权官僚制的，非常霸道。马克思和魏特夫认识到中国政治这一特点，所以用了“亚细亚生产方式”和“东方专制主义”这样的词语。我将要在后续章节论证，所谓的东方专制主义不过是政治上现代国家的早熟出世。在中国，国家巩固发生在社会其他力量建制化地组织起来之前，后者可以是拥有领土的世袭贵族，组织起来的农民，以商人、教会和其他自治团体为基础的城市。不像罗马，中国军队一直处于国家的严密控制之下，从没对政治权力构成独立威胁。这种初期的权力倾斜却被长期锁定，因为强大的国家可采取行动，防止替代力量的出现，不管是经济的，还是政治的。要到 20 世纪，充满活力的现代经济才能出现，打破这种权力分配。强大的外敌曾不时占领部分或整个中国，但他们多是文化不够成熟的部落，反被中国臣民所吸收和同化。一直到 19 世纪，欧洲人带来的外国模式向以国家为中心的发展途径提出挑战，中国这才真正需要作出应对。

    中国政治发展的模式不同于西方，主要表现在：其他建制化的力量，无法抵消这早熟现代国家的发展，也无法加以束缚，例如法治。在这一方面，它与印度截然不同。马克思最大错误之一是把中国和印度都归纳在“亚细亚”模式中。印度不像中国，但像欧洲，其建制化的社会抵抗力量——组织起来的祭司阶层和亲戚关系演变而成的种姓制度——在国家积累权力时发挥了制动器作用。所以，过去的二千二百年中，中国的预设政治模式是统一帝国，缀以内战、入侵、崩溃；而印度的预设模式是弱小政治体的分治，缀以短暂的统一和帝国。

    中国国家形成的主要动力，不是为了建立壮观的灌溉工程，也不在魅力型宗教领袖，而是无情的战争。战争和战争的需求，在一千八百年内，把成千上万的弱小政治体凝聚成大一统的国家。它创立了永久且训练有素的官僚和行政阶层，使政治组织脱离亲戚关系成为可行。就像查尔斯·蒂利（Charles Tilly）在评论后期欧洲时所说的，“战争创造国家，国家发动战争”，这就是中国。

    第二部分 国家建设

    第 6 章 中国的部落制

    中国文明的起源；古代中国的部落社会组织；中国家庭和宗族的特征；周朝的封建扩张和政治权威的性质

    自有文字记载以来，中国就有部落制，分支世系制迄今仍残留于中国南部和台湾。历史学家谈起中国“家庭”时，不是指夫妇带小孩的小家庭，而是指成员达数百乃至数千的父系家族。中国早期历史有相当齐全的记载，提供了观察国家自部落社会脱颖而出的罕见良机。

    人类长居中国。早在 80 万年前，像古直立人的古人类已现踪迹。智人离开非洲数千年后，也抵达中国。稷（北方）和稻（南方）很早获得人工培植，冶金和定居社区的首次出现，则在中国朝代之前的仰韶时期（公元前 5000—前 3000 年）。到龙山时期（公元前 3000—前 2000 年），可见城郭和社会等级分化的明显遗迹。在这之前，宗教基于祖先崇拜或鬼神崇拜，由巫师主持。他不是专家，像在大多数其他族团层次社会，只是社区的普通一员。随着等级社会的逐渐成形，统治者开始垄断巫术，借此来提升自己的合法性。①

    开发农业后，最重要的技术革新恐怕是马匹驯养，公元前四千年在乌克兰率先发生，又在公元前二千年早期传至中西亚。过渡到草原游牧业则完成于公元前一千年初，也是马背部落向中国挺进的开始。②这种挺进主宰了中国后续历史的大部分。

    古代中国的分期有点让人困惑。③仰韶和龙山不是朝代，而是考古学的范畴，以中国北部黄河中下游的定居点而命名。中国王朝始于三代，即夏、商、周，公元前 770 年，周朝又发生分裂，从陕西的镐京迁都至现代河南的洛阳，前为西周，后为东周。东周本身又分春秋和战国前后两段。

    年份（公元前）朝代时期政治体数量
    5000仰韶
    3000龙山
    2000夏三代3000
    1500商1800
    1200西周170
    770东周春秋（前 770—前 476）23
    战国（前 475-前 221）7
    221秦1

    从远古到统一中国的秦是古代中国所涵盖的历史。我们的有关知识来自浩淼的考古资料，包括用于占卜的甲骨文（通常是羊肩骨）、青铜器彝文、官员用来记录政务的竹简。④另一来源是问世于东周最后数世纪的伟大经典文献，其中最重要的是五经：《诗》、《书》、《礼》、《易》、《春秋》，嗣后成为中国官员的教育之本。据称，这五部经典是孔子编纂和传播的，再加上卷帙浩繁的注释，构成了塑造千年中国文化的儒家意识形态。这些经典的形成背景是东周时期，其时内战方兴未艾，政治分崩离析；《春秋》就是鲁国十二名国君的编年史，在孔子眼中，显示了这段时期的退化和堕落。这些经典和孔子、孟子、墨子、孙子等人的著作，虽然蕴含大量历史信息，但大体上仍属文学作品，其精确性尚不明确。

    但有确凿证据显示，中国政治体数量经历了极大的收缩，从夏初的大约一万，到西周开国时的一千二百，到战国时只剩下七个。⑤中国西部的秦孝公和谋臣商鞅，奠基了世界上第一个真正现代的国家。秦王征服所有对手，建立统一国家，并将秦首创的制度推向中国北方的大部，国家巩固由此告成。

    部落的中国

    从部落到国家层次的过渡在中国慢慢发生，新的国家制度重叠在亲戚关系的社会组织之上。夏商时期被称作“国”的，虽然有日益明显的等级和集中领导，实际上只是酋邦或部落。一直到商末，亲戚团体仍是中国社会组织的主要形式。到了周朝才有变更，涌现了拥有常备军队和行政机构的真正国家。

    中国历史的早期社会由宗族组成，即同一祖先的父系家族。基本军事单位由宗族内大约百家男子组成，以宗族领袖为首，聚集在同一旗号下。宗族又可灵活组合，凝聚而成氏族（clan）或更高层次的宗族，而国王只是特定地区所有宗族的最高领袖。⑥

    三代时期，宗族中的仪式被编纂成一系列法律。这些仪式涉及对共同祖先的崇拜，在祭有祖先神位的庙堂举行。庙堂内分划不同的祭殿，对应不同层次的宗族，宗族领袖掌控仪式以加强自身权力。未能正确遵守仪式或军事命令，会引来国王或宗族领袖的严苛处罚。依此类推，如要彻底摧毁敌人，一定要毁其祖庙，劫其珍宝，杀其子孙，绝其香火。⑦

    像其他部落社会，中国社会组织的层次也时高时低。一方面，村庄范围的宗族为战争、自卫、商业而团结起来，有时出于自愿和共同利益，有时出于对个别领袖的尊敬，但更多时候是迫于强制。战争变得愈益频繁，夯土围墙的城镇在龙山时期变得星罗棋布。⑧

    另一方面，宗族社会又在分化瓦解。年轻人开发荒野，自立门户。其时，中国仍属地广人稀，只要搬到他地就能逃避现存宗族的管辖。⑨因此，正如国家形成理论所预测的，人口稀少和缺乏界限阻碍了国家和等级制度的形成。

    尽管如此，在黄河峡谷的古老地段，人口密度与农业生产力一起上升。商朝的等级制度愈加分明，这可见证于领袖对追随者施加的惩罚，以及其时流行的奴役和人祭。甲骨文提及五种处罚：墨（面部刺字涂墨）、劓（割鼻）、剕（断足）、宫（阉割）、大辟（处死）。⑩很多当时的葬地，挖掘出八至十具作揖的无首骨骼，许是奴隶，又许是战俘。高级领袖的陪葬人数竟高达五百。在殷墟出土的陪葬人总共一万，还有大量马匹、战车、三足鼎和其他珍贵工艺品。为平息死去祖先的灵魂，活人竟投入如此巨大的资源，包括人、动物、器物。⑪很明显，自部落到等级分明政体的过渡正在展开。

    中国的家庭和亲戚关系

    社会组织中家庭和亲戚的重要性是中国历史上重大常数之一。秦国君主试图抑制亲戚裙带，以推崇非人格化的行政管理，先在自己王国，统一成功后再推向全中国。中国共产党 1949 年上台后，也尝试使用专政权力消灭中国传统的家庭主义，使个人与国家紧密相连。但这两项政治工程，都没获得发明者所期待的成功。中国家庭证明是颇有韧性的，父系家族迄今仍活跃于中国部分地区。⑫短暂的秦朝之后，非人格化管理最终在西汉期间得以确立（公元前 206—公元 9 年）。到了东汉末期和隋唐，亲戚团体又卷土重来。要到第二个千年初期的宋明，非人格化国家管理才得以恢复。尤其是在中国南方，宗族和氏族一直处于强势，直到 20 世纪。它们在地方上发挥准政治的功能，在很多事情上取代国家成为权力的来源。

    关于中国亲戚关系，我们有很丰富的资料，大部分由人类学家所编撰。他们研究台湾和中国南部的现代社区，所使用的亲戚团体记载可追溯到 19 世纪。⑬个别亲戚团体所保存的详细记录，有助于研究更为早期的家庭关系。但在古代中国亲戚关系上，我们却只有很少信息。将现代趋势投射得那么久远，风险不小。有学者主张，当代宗族是宋明理学家所提倡的政策的产物，与公元 1000 年之前的亲戚关系是迥然不同的。⑭尽管如此，在中国数世纪的历史中，亲戚团体的某些特征是万变不离其宗的。

    中国社会的亲戚关系严格遵循父系社会或父系家族的规则。有人类学家将之定义为“使用统一礼仪、显示共同祖先的集团（corporate）”。⑮某些现代宗族的祖先可追溯到二十五代以上，但历史上的宗族通常不超过五代。相比之下，氏族是容纳若干宗族的更高级组合，通常基于虚拟（fictive）的亲戚关系。这种氏族和相关的姓氏联盟之所以存在，只是为了确定异族通婚。⑯

    像其他父系家族社会一样，继承和遗产只通过男子。女子不是宗族的永久成员，而是与其他重要家庭联姻的潜在资源。结婚后，她与生身家庭一刀两断，在很多中国历史时期，只可在规定时日回访娘家。妻子不再往生身的家庙祭拜，而是改去丈夫家的。香火传承全靠男子，因此，她在新家庭中没有地位，直到生下儿子。除非有了将来为父母灵魂祈祷的儿子，她的灵魂将不得安宁。讲得实在些，儿子又是她晚年的经济保障。

    数世纪来，无数中国小说和戏剧记载了年轻妻子与婆婆之间的紧张关系。婆婆虐待未生儿子的媳妇是理所当然的。但一旦有了儿子，女子作为重要宗族继承人的生母，又可获很高的地位。中国王朝众多的宫廷权术，都涉及意欲提升儿子政治地位的擅权遗孀。西汉时期的皇太后，至少六次得以选择皇帝继承人。⑰

    前现代（premodern）社会的可悲真相之一，就是很难把儿子抚养成人。现代医药发明之前，地位和财富只能提供很有限的差别。世界君主政体的历史，充斥着王后或妃嫔没能生下儿子而引起的政治危机。日本皇太子徳仁亲王于 1993 年结婚，与妻子雅子一起尝试生个儿子（而未成功），引起众多现代日本人的急切关注。与一连串早期皇帝相比，这又算不了什么：仁孝天皇（1800—1846）十五个孩子中，仅有三个活到三岁；明治天皇（1852—1912）十五个孩子中，仅有五个活到成年。⑱

    跟其他社会一样，传统中国的因应对策是纳妾。地位高级的人士可娶二房、三房甚至更多的妻子。为确定个中的继承权，中国发展了复杂的正式规章制度。妻子再年幼的儿子对妾的儿子，仍享有优先继承权，但也有违反此例的皇帝。虽然有具体规矩，继承权的不确定性仍是宫廷政治的主题。公元前 71 年，霍光妻霍显设法谋害了坐月子的许皇后，让女儿成君取而代之。公元 115 年，汉安帝多年不育的阎皇后鸩杀了刚生下儿子的皇妃李氏。⑲

    像库朗日所描述的希腊和罗马，中国亲戚制度也与私人财产制度有关。周朝宣称，所有土地都是国家财产，但周天子太弱，难以付诸实现。土地日益私人化，买卖和改造也变得普遍。⑳作为整体，宗族拥有祖庙或祠堂。较富的宗族又投资于共同财产，如水坝、桥、井、灌溉系统。单独家庭拥有自己的耕田，但不得随意处置，因为有对宗族的礼仪义务。㉑

    宗族增长始终给遗产的继承制造难题。周朝早期有长子继承权制度，之后又改为儿子们平分。这一规矩延续了中国历史的大部，直到 20 世纪。㉒根据这个制度，家庭的土地经常越分越小，以致无法维生。中国开发了大家庭概念，数代男子同堂。成年的儿子或在分到的祖地上安家，或试图购买邻地。对宗族的共同财产，他们仍然有份；对共同的祖先，他们仍有祭拜的责任。这一切阻止了他们的搬迁，或出售祖地。㉓

    在财产和同堂方面，不同区域出现了巨大差异。中国北方，宗族力量逐渐变弱，宗族成员搬往分散的村庄，丧失了相互之间的认同。在南方，宗族和氏族成员继续并肩生活，以至整村人只有一个姓。为此出现很多解释，其中之一是这么认为的：很多世纪以来，南方一直是蛮荒地带，宗族即使增长却仍能抱成一团；而在北方，战争频仍，流离失所时有发生，从而拆散了数代同堂的宗族。

    要记住，宗族组织在很多情形中纯属富人特权。只有他们才能负担得起平分的庞大地产、共同财产、为传宗接代而娶的多房妻妾等。事实上，周朝首次编纂的宗法规则，只适用于精英家庭。贫困家庭只能负担很少的孩子，有时为弥补无子无孙，而让入赘女婿改用妻子的姓氏。这在日本很普通，在中国却遭否定。㉔

    中国的“封建”时期

    商灭于周。周的部落定居于渭河流域（当代陕西省），在商的西方。周的征服始于公元前 11 世纪初，历时数年。其时，商的军队还必须在山东应付马背游牧民族的袭击。周王杀死商的储君，谋害自己兄弟，夺取政权，建立新朝。㉕

    这一征服开创了很多学者所谓的中国封建时期。其时，政治权力非常分散，掌控在一系列等级分明的氏族和宗族手中。从西周到东周早期，亲戚关系仍是社会组织的原则。到了春秋和战国，这些亲戚团体之间战火纷飞，国家开始慢慢成形。我们可仔细追溯国家形成的各项因素，所依靠的不再是考古学的重新组合，而是历史记载中的证据。

    从对比角度看，中国国家的形成过程格外有趣。它在很多方面为欧洲几乎一千年后的历程树立了先例。周部落征服长期定居的商朝领土，建立了封建贵族阶层。无独有偶，日耳曼野蛮部落打败衰败凋零的罗马帝国后，也创立了类似的分散政体。不管是中国还是欧洲，发动战争的需求促使了国家的形成：封建属地逐渐聚合成领土的国家，政治权力趋于集中，现代非人格化行政脱颖而出。㉖

    然而，中国和欧洲又有重要差别。英语版的中国朝代史，给中国平行制度贴上既定标签，如“封建的”、“家庭”、“国王”、“公爵”、“贵族”，从而遮掩了中间的差别。所以，我们需要确定这些标签的意义，既指出重要对应，也挑明不同文明的分道扬镳。

    最混乱和误用最多的，可算是“封建的”和“封建主义”。由于学者和辩论家的混乱使用，这两词基本上变得毫无意义。㉗根据卡尔·马克思开创的传统观念，“封建主义”往往指欧洲中世纪庄园上领主和农民之间的经济剥削关系。马克思主义历史学认为，现代资本主义兴起之前有个避不开的封建阶段。这种按图索骥的僵硬，迫使传统学者到处寻找封建阶段，即使在毫不相干的社会。㉘

    历史学家马克·布洛赫（Marc Bloch）关注存在于中世纪欧洲的采邑（fief）和属臣（vassalage）制度，从而给封建主义提供了历史上比较准确的定义。采邑是领主和属臣之间的契约，后者获得保护和土地，一定要向领主提供军事服务作为交换。契约在特定仪式中获得尊严，领主将属臣的手放入自己的手中，以亲吻来锁定相互的关系。这种双方兑现义务的从属关系，需要一年一度的更新。㉙属臣之后还可将采邑分割成更小的子采邑（subfief），与自己的属下再签新的契约。该制度自有一套复杂的道德规范，与荣誉、忠诚、宫廷婚姻有关。

    从政治发展的角度看，欧洲封建主义的关键不是领主和属臣之间的经济关系，而是隐含的权力分散。历史学家约瑟夫·斯特雷耶（Joseph Strayer）说：“西欧的封建主义基本上是政治性的——它是一种政府……其中，一队军事领袖垄断政治权力，队员之间的权力分配却又相对平等。”㉚这个定义与马克斯·韦伯有关，也是我在本卷所使用的。该制度的核心是分派采邑或封地，属臣可以在其上实施一定程度的政治控制权。封建契约在理论上可随意取消，但随着时间的推移，欧洲的属臣们把采邑转换成自己的家族财产。这表示，后裔得以继承采邑。他们在自己采邑享有征兵征税的政治权力，能独立作出司法裁决，不受领主的干涉。因此，他们一点不像领主的代理人，却是实打实的小领主。马克·布洛赫指出，封建制度晚期的家族性质实际上代表了该制度的退化。㉛总之，封建制度的独特处恰恰是它分散的政治权力。

    在这个意义上，周朝的中国是个封建社会㉜，与中央集权国家没有相似之处。像很多征战的朝代，不管是之前还是之后，周天子发现自己没有足够军队或资源来直接统治所占领的土地，特别是在草原游牧部落频繁骚扰的西方，还有后来成为楚国的南方边境。所以，他分派封地给麾下的将领。考虑到周社会的部落性质，那些将领多是他的亲戚。周天子共设七十一处封地，其中五十三处由他的亲戚治理，剩下的则分给其他文武官员，以及已被击败但愿效忠的商贵族。这些属臣在治理自己封地时享有实质性的自治。㉝

    周朝的中国封建主义与欧洲的相比，仍有重大区别。在欧洲，野蛮部落一旦皈依基督教，分支式的部落制度在封建社会初期即遭摧毁，通常在数代人的时间内。欧洲的封建主义是一种机制，把没有亲戚关系的领主和属臣绑在一起，在亲戚关系不复存在的社会中促进社会合作。相比之下，中国的政治参与者不是独立分散的领主，而是领主和他们的亲戚团体。在欧洲领主的境内，领主与农民签署封建合同，非人格化管理已开始扎根。权力在领主手中，而不在领主亲戚团体的手中。采邑只是他的家庭财产，并不属于更大的亲戚集团。

    另一方面，中国的封地授予亲戚团体，之后又逐次分封给下一级的宗族或部落分支。中国贵族与欧洲领主相比，其权力比较薄弱，其等级森严比较缓和，因为他陷入了限制他擅权的亲戚架构。我曾提到，部落社会的领袖地位往往是赢取的，而不是继承得来的。周朝的中国领袖，虽然趋向于等级分明，但仍受亲戚人脉的限制，看起来比欧洲的更像是“部落的”。有位评论家指出，在春秋时期，“国家像一个放大了的家庭。君主统而不治；大夫们很重要，不是因为其职位，而是因为他们是君主的亲戚，或是显赫家庭的家长”。㉞君主与其说是真正的一国之主，倒不如说是伙伴中的老大。“各种故事讲到，贵族当众责备君主，并吐口水，却没受到他的训斥或处罚；拒绝他对珍玩的索求；在他妻妾群中与他一起玩游戏；未获邀请而坐上他的桌子；上门邀他分享晚餐，却发现他在外射鸟。”㉟

    周朝社会的氏族组织中，军队也是分支式的，没有中央统领。各个宗族动员自己的军队，再蜂聚到更大单位中（像努尔人的分支）。“有关战争的记述透露，战场上，征来的士兵只跟随自己的将领；重要的决定通常由将领们集体讨论决定；部队编制松散，以致将领只能指挥自己手下，而顾不上其余。”㊱很多案例显示，因为没有严格的统领制度，部将得以修改名义上君主的命令。根据第 5 章介绍的人类学分类，周朝早期政体是部落的，至多是酋邦的，而绝不是国家的。

    中国的封建社会与欧洲的非常相似，都发展了悬殊的阶级分化和贵族阶层，起因是关于荣誉、暴力、冒险的道德信念。开始时，早期部落社会相对平等，并有防止地位悬殊的各式调整机制。然后，某些人开始在狩猎中出类拔萃。狩猎与战争有关联，这可追溯到人类的灵长目祖先。等级制度在狩猎和征战中脱颖而出，因为有些人或群体就是略胜一筹。优秀猎手往往又是优秀战士，狩猎所需要的合作技能进化成军事战术和战略。通过战绩，有些宗族获得更高的地位；宗族内，卓越的战士崛起而成为将领。

    这也在中国发生。狩猎和战争的关联保存于一系列礼仪，使武士贵族的社会地位获得合法化。陆威仪（Mark Lewis）解释说，春秋时期，“君主之所以在群众中鹤立鸡群，全靠在圣坛前的‘壮举’，即礼仪化的暴力，如献祭、战争、狩猎”。㊲狩猎把动物送上祖先的祭台，战争把战俘送上祖先的祭台。血祭是商朝的习俗，到周朝仍然继续，一直到公元前 4 世纪。军事征战出发于庙堂，为确保战争的胜利，既有牺牲品又有祈祷。礼仪中，大家分享祭肉，战鼓因战俘的血液而变得神圣，特别可恨的敌人则被剁成肉酱，供宫廷或军队成员进食。㊳

    周朝早期的贵族战争高度礼仪化。发动战争是为了使另一氏族承认自己的霸权，或是为了荣誉受到藐视而实施报仇。军队向前冲是为了保护“继承下来的祖业”，不克尽责的领袖，死后将得不到妥善的祭拜。他们通过在仪式上展示的力量和荣誉来达到目的，不需付诸殊死的实战。战役经常在贵族之间预先安排，需要遵守复杂的规矩。敌人一旦在战场出现，军队一定要上前迎战，否则就是耻辱。不向敌人的最强部位发起攻击，有时也被认作丢脸。敌方君主去世时，为了不影响对方的哀悼义务，军队就会退出战役。春秋初期，贵族打仗多用战车。而这种战车，既昂贵，操作起来又需要高超技术。㊴显而易见，军事战略家孙子依靠奇袭和欺骗的“迂回”战术，还要等到中国历史的后期。

    周朝早期的中国社会，处于部落和酋邦之间。史书中称为“国”的，都不是真正的国家。周朝的中国好比是家族社会的教科书，换言之，整个国家为一系列封地君主和其亲戚团体所“拥有”。土地和定居于此的民众，都是可传给后裔的家族财产，只受父系家族亲戚规则的约束。这个社会中没有公私之分，每个占统治地位的宗族都可征兵征税，并作出自认妥善的司法裁决。然而，这一切将很快发生变化。

    第 7 章 战争和中国国家的兴起

    国家源于军事竞争；商鞅的现代化改革；法家对儒家家庭主义的批判；没有经济和社会发展做伴的政治发展

    东周时期（公元前 770—前 256 年），真正的国家开始在中国成形。它们设立常备军，在界定领土内实行统一规则；配备官僚机构，征税执法；颁布统一的度量衡；营造道路、运河、灌溉系统等公共基建。尤其秦国，全力投入不寻常的现代化工程，目标直指周朝早期亲戚家族的社会秩序。它绕过武士贵族，直接征募大量农民，使军队趋于民主化；从事大规模土地改革，将家族大地主的土地分给农民；破坏世袭贵族的权力和威望，从而提高社会流动性。这些改革听起来像是“民主的”，但其唯一目的是富国强兵，打造冷酷的专政。这些现代政治制度的优势，令秦国打败所有对手，进而一统天下。

    战争与国家建设

    政治学家查尔斯·蒂利有个著名论点：欧洲君主发动战争的需求，驱动了欧洲的国家建设。①战争和国家建设的关联不是普世共有的。总的来说，拉丁美洲就没有这一历史过程。②但毫无疑问，在中国的东周时期，国家形成的最重要动力就是战争。从公元前 770 年的东周初期到前 221 年的秦朝统一，中国经历了连绵不绝的战争，规模、耗资、人命的牺牲有增无已，从分散封建国家到统一帝国的过渡全凭武力征服。这时所建立的几乎每一个现代国家制度，都直接或间接地与发动战争息息相关。

    与其他好战社会相比，中国在东周期间的血腥记录仍然突出。有学者计算，春秋时期的 294 年，中国的“国家”之间共打了 1211 次战役，和平岁月仅有 38 年，超过 110 个政治体被灭绝。后续的 254 年战国时期，打了 468 次战役，仅有 89 年太平无事。兼并使国家数量大跌，战役总数因此减少，战国七雄灭了其余十六国。另一方面，战役的规模和历时却有显著的上升。春秋时，有些战役只打一个回合，一天就完。到战国末期，围攻可持续数月，战役可持续多年，参战将士高达 50 万。③

    与其他军事化社会相比，周朝的中国异常残暴。有个估计，秦国成功动员了其总人口的 8% 到 20%，而古罗马共和国的仅 1%，希腊提洛同盟（Delian League）的仅 5.2%，欧洲早期现代则更低。④人员伤亡也是空前未有的。李维（Livy）报道，罗马共和国在特拉西美诺湖战役（Lake Trasimene）和坎尼会战（Cannae）中，总共损失约 5 万军人。而一名中国史官称，24 万战死于公元前 293 年的战役，45 万战死于公元前 260 年的战役。总而言之，从公元前 356 年到前 236 年，秦国据说一共杀死 150 多万他国士兵。历史学家认为，这些数字夸大其词，无法证实。但它仍颇不寻常，中国的数字简直是西方对应国的 10 倍。⑤

    持续战争带来的制度改革

    激烈战争造就强烈的奖励，导致了旧制度被摧毁和新制度取而代之。它们都与军事组织、征税、官僚机关、民间的技术革新以及思想有关。

    军事组织

    一点也不令人惊奇，激烈战争的最初影响是参战各国军事机构的演变。

    如早先提到的，春秋早期的战事是驾战车贵族的互相厮杀。每辆战车配备一名御手和至少两名武士，还需多达七十人的后勤支持。驾车开打是高难度的技术，需要实质性的训练，的确是适合贵族的职业。⑥这时的步兵仅发挥辅助作用。

    从战车到步兵加骑兵的转变逐渐发生于春秋末期。在南方湖泊和沼泽众多的吴越两国，战车用处非常有限，在多山地区更是相形见绌。很显然，与西方草原马背野蛮人打交道的经验，促使骑兵出现于战国初期。随着铁兵器、弩、盔甲的广泛使用，步兵变得更为有效。西部的秦是最早重整军队的国家之一，它淘汰战车，改换为步骑兵的混成。其主因，既是秦的地形，又是野蛮人的持续压力。楚是在他国征兵的第一国，击败陈之后，强迫当地农民提供军事服务。这些军队不再是亲戚团体的组合，而是等级分明的军事单位，统领着固定数量的部下。⑦公元前 6 世纪中期，第一支全步兵军队投入战斗，在未来两个世纪内，完全取代战车军队。到战国初期，将农民大批征入军队已成司空见惯。⑧

    中国军队打击力量的核心从战车转到步兵；无独有偶，欧洲也从盔甲骑士转到弓箭和长矛的步兵军队。担任战车手和骑士的贵族，在这两个转向中，根本无法提升自身的社会地位。在这两个文明中，负担得起旧式装备和培训的只有贵族精英。这个转向似乎与技术改革有关；中国贵族数量持续下降，够格的战车手日渐稀少，可能是另外原因。

    贵族阶层的人员损失，推动了军内的论功封赏。周朝早期，军事将领全凭亲戚关系和在氏族中的地位。斗转星移，越来越多的非贵族将领，单凭自己的骁勇善战而获晋级。国家也开始分配土地、爵位、家奴给将士以作奖励，无名小卒跃升为将军时有发生。⑨参战的野战军队中，骁勇善战不是文化规范，而是存活的前提。所以很有可能，论功封赏的原则始于军队，辗转传入文官体系。

    征税和人口注册

    将农民大批征入军队，需要相应的物质资源来支付和装备他们。从公元前 594 年到前 590 年，鲁国开始征收田赋，不再作为亲戚团体的财产，而是以众多农家合成的“丘”为计量单位。邻国齐的入侵，迫使鲁国快速增征甲兵。从公元前 543 年到前 539 年，子产在郑国重划带渠的田地，把农民编成五户一组以征收新税。在公元前 548 年，楚国丈量土地，登记盐池、鱼塘、沼泽、森林、人口。这项调查是为日后的征税征兵预作准备。⑩

    官僚机构的发展

    可以肯定地说，是中国发明了现代官僚机构。永久性的行政干部全凭能力获选，不靠亲戚关系或家族人脉。官僚机构自周朝中国的混乱中崛起，全没计划，只为征收战争所需的税金。

    周朝头几年的管理是家族式的，像其他早期国家一样，如埃及、苏美尔、波斯、希腊、罗马。行政官位配给君主的亲戚，被视作君主家庭的延伸。决策时，并不严格遵守等级分工，而是以咨询和忠诚为依据。所以，君主可能掌控不住大夫，如有分歧，也不能予以解雇。像一语部落中的头人，面对让贤的强大共识，周朝一名君主只好束手听命；除非他铤而走险，如公元前 669 年的晋献公，把合谋反己的所有亲戚统统杀光。宫廷权术不是个人操作的，而是宗族，满门抄斩才能绝其香火。⑪

    官僚化始于军队，各项职能由贵族转让给庶民。军队需要征募、装备、训练大批新兵，记录和后勤也是不可或缺的。支援军队的需要又增加了对文官体系的需求。他们帮助征税，确保大规模军事动员中的连贯性。军事机构成为文官的训练场所，并促进统领体系的形成。⑫同时，周朝贵族内部的自相残杀，为大夫家庭提供了社会升迁良机。大夫虽在传统上也来自贵族阶层，但经常属于远离君主和其亲戚的外围。士族是低于贵族的另一阶层，包括军人和其他有功绩的庶民，也得以取代家族关系的大夫，承担重要职位。所以，随着贵族阶层的日渐式微，论功封赏而不是论出身封赏的原则开始慢慢获得认同。⑬

    民间的技术革新

    公元前 4 世纪到前 3 世纪，中国经历了集约型和粗放型的经济增长。集约型增长靠的是技术革新，包括青铜工具转向铁工具、基于双向活塞鼓风的生铁冶铸、牲口耕犁的改进、土地和灌溉的改善。中国各区域之间的商业交流增加，人口密度也开始出现显著上升。粗放型增长靠的是人口增长，以及开发像四川那样的新边境。

    在某种程度上，这些经济增长源于经济学家所谓的“外部因素”。这表示，它不是经济制度的内部逻辑所造成的，而是得益于意外的技术革新。军事上的不安全是非常重要的外部动力。战国时期的每个国家都面对增税的巨大压力，为此必须提高农业生产效率，仿效对方的技术革新以加强自己实力。⑭

    思想

    那么剧烈狂暴的春秋末期和战国时代，竟产生了中国历史上最伟大的文化思潮，这很值得钦佩。战乱不断所造成的流离失所，促使了对政治和道德的深刻反思，并为天才的老师、学者、谋士提供了出人头地的良机。其时，众多老师四下游学，招揽学生。其中有孔子，他出身于贵族，但只是作为学者和老师而谋生。战国初所谓的百家争鸣时期，还有很多如此的学者，包括墨子、孟子、孙子、韩非子、荀子，身后都留下影响中国未来政治的著作。当时的政治不稳定，似乎造就了文人的无根无蒂，这反映在文人的周游列国，不管何等政权，只要感兴趣，他们都愿奉献自己的服务。⑮

    这种智慧横溢有两层政治意义。首先，它创建了宛如意识形态的东西，即政府如何施政的思想，后代中国人可以此来评判自己政治领袖的表现。最为著名的就是儒家，而儒家学者又与其他学派展开激烈争辩，例如法家——这些争辩其实是当时政治斗争的真实写照。中国的学者和文人享有最高级荣誉，甚至高于武士和巫师。事实上，文人和官僚的作用合二为一，在其他文明中是找不到的。

    其次，中国文人的流动性又孕育了愈来愈像全国文化的东西。其时创作的伟大经典著作，变成精英教育的基石和中国文化的基础。有关经典著作的知识，成为国民身份的坐标。它们享受如此高的威望，以至在中华帝国无远弗届，甚至传播到边界之外。边境线上的游牧王国，有时在武力上强于中国，但无法匹配中国的智慧传统。所以，他们倾向于以中国的制度和技术来治理中国。

    商鞅的反家庭运动

    周朝晚期，中国各地逐渐采用现代国家制度，但都比不上西部的秦国。大多数情况下，新制度的采用全凭运气，是反复试验和政府别无选择的结果。相比之下，秦确立国家建设的意识形态，率直地阐明中央集权新国家的道理。秦的建国者清楚看到，早期的亲戚网络是中央集权的障碍，为了取而代之，特意实施把个人与国家绑在一起的新制度。这些原则被称作法家思想。

    商鞅起初在魏国做官，后来投奔相对落后的秦，一举成为秦孝公的总顾问。他上任初期，就向既存的家族管理发起进攻。他攻击继承得来的特权，最终以论功封赏的二十等爵制取代了世袭官职。在这个边境国家，论功封赏中的功就是军功，土地、家臣、女奴、服饰，都按各人战绩来分配。⑯另一方面，不服从国家法令的将面对一系列严厉处罚。最重要的是该制度下获得的职位不可转为世袭财产，像家族贵族那样，而要由国家定期重新分配。⑰

    商鞅最重要的改革之一是废除井田制，再把土地分给由国家直接监护的农家。井田制中，农田分成九方块，就像中文的井字。八户农家各耕一块，中间的是公田。每个贵族家庭拥有若干井田，耕耘的农家为此需要履行徭赋和其他义务，很像封建欧洲的农民。井田上布满路径和水渠，方便管理，八户农家组成贵族地主保护下的公社。⑱废除井田制使农民挣脱对地主的传统义务，并允许他们搬往他人新开发的土地，或干脆拥有自己的土地。这使国家避开贵族，向全体地主征收以实物支付的统一地赋。

    此外，为了资助军事行动，商鞅还向所有成年男子征收人头税。国家颁布，家庭如有若干儿子，长大后一定要分居，不然就要缴双倍的税。商鞅的矛头直指传统儒家的大家庭，而赞许夫妇带小孩的小家庭。对没有足够财产可分的穷苦家庭来说，该制度造成了莫大艰辛。其目的可能是提倡个人奖励，也加强了国家对个人的控制。

    这次改革还与新的家庭注册有关。传统中国由庞大的亲戚团体组成，商鞅则把家庭分为五户和十户的群体，让他们相互监督。其他国家也在实施类似改革，如鲁国的“丘”，不同之处是秦在执行中的暴虐。群体中的犯罪活动，如不予检举，惩罚是腰斩；举报人有赏，等同于在战斗中斩敌首级。该制度的翻版在明朝得以复活，称为保甲。

    政治学家詹姆斯·斯科特（James Scott）在《国家的视角》（Seeing Like a State）一书中认为，所有国家都具备共同的特征：它们都试图掌控各自的社会，一开始就“昭告”天下。⑲它们清除自生自长的弯曲小街的旧区，代之以几何图形般秩序井然的新区，就是为此。19 世纪，奥斯曼男爵（Baron Haussmann）在巴黎中世纪废墟上建造宽敞的林荫大道，不单是为了美观，还有控制人口的动机。

    类似的事情也发生于商鞅治下的秦。除了废除井田制，他还将郡县制推向全国。他把市镇和乡村合并起来，设四十一个县；县令不是地方推举的，而是中央政府指派的。一开始，这些县位于边境地区，表明其作为军事区的起源。取代井田制的是更大的整齐矩形，与东南西北的轴心相对称。现代地图学显示，曾是秦国的地域都有这种直线布局的地貌。⑳商鞅还颁布在秦国通用的统一度量衡，以此来替代封建制度下的杂乱标准。㉑

    商鞅竭尽全力投入社会工程，将传统亲戚关系的权力和地产制度转换成以国家为中心的非人格化统治。显而易见，他招惹了秦国家族贵族的极大反感。庇护人秦孝公一去世，继位人立即反目，商鞅只得逃亡。他最终遭人检举，所依据的恰恰就是自己颁布的严禁庇护罪犯的法律。据传，商鞅遭车裂之刑，即四车分尸，他的宗族成员全被诛杀。

    东周的中国，每一项制度革新都与战争的需求直接相连：服役扩充至全体男子、先是军队后是文官的永久性官僚体系、家族官职减少、论功封赏、人口注册、土地改革、家族精英地产的重新洗牌、更好的通信和基建、非人格化的等级行政部门、统一的度量衡。这一切，都可在军事要求中找到根源。战争可能不是国家形成的唯一引擎，但肯定是第一个现代国家在中国涌现的主要动力。

    儒家与法家

    商鞅在秦国实施的政策得到后续学者的肯定，如韩非子，并被归纳成全套的法家意识形态。在法家和儒家的紧张关系中，可以读懂中国后来历史的大部，直到 1949 年共产党胜利，那份紧张都与政治中的家庭作用有关。㉒

    儒家极力主张向后看，其合法性扎根于古代实践。孔子在春秋末期编辑他的经典作品，十分怀恋周朝的社会秩序。但它因战事不断，已在分崩离析中。家庭和亲戚关系是家族秩序的核心。在很多方面，儒家可被视作以家庭为榜样、为国家建立道德原则的意识形态。

    所有部落社会都实行祖先崇拜，虽有形式上的不同，但儒家给中国版本涂上了特殊的道德色彩。儒家的道德原则规定，对父母的责任，尤其是对父亲的，要大于对妻子或子女的。对父母不敬，或在经济上没尽扶养责任，就要受到严厉惩罚。儿子对妻子或子女的关心，如超过对他父母的，也要受到严厉惩罚。如发生冲突，例如父亲被控犯了罪，父亲的利益一定高于国家的。㉓

    家庭和国家的紧张关系、家庭责任高于政治责任的道德合法性，在中国历史上经久不衰。迄今，中国家庭仍是一种强有力的制度，竭力捍卫它的自治，不愿接受政治权力的干涉。家庭和国家的力量关系呈反比。19 世纪清朝式微，中国南方强大的宗族干脆接管地方事务的治理。㉔1978 年的中国，邓小平推行包产到户的改革，农民家庭又变得生龙活虎，成为后来影响全国的经济奇迹的主要引擎。㉕

    相比之下，法家向前看。它把儒家和对家庭的尊崇，看作巩固政治权力的绊脚石。儒家精致微妙的道德和责任，对他们丝毫没用。作为替代，他们追求直截了当的赏罚分明——特别是惩罚——使百姓臣服。如法家思想家韩非子所说的：

    故韩子曰“慈母有败子而严家无格虏”者，何也？则能罚之加焉必也。故商君之法，刑弃灰于道者。夫弃灰，薄罪也，而被刑，重罚也。彼唯明主为能深督轻罪。夫罪轻且督深，而况有重罪乎？故民不敢犯也。……明主圣王之所以能久处尊位，长执重势，而独擅天下之利者，非有异道也，能独断而审督责，必深罚，故天下不敢犯也。㉖

    法家建议，不可把臣民当作可以教诲的道德人，只可当作仅对赏罚有兴趣的自私人——特别是惩罚。所以，法家的国家试图打破传统，废除家庭道德责任，以新形式将臣民与国家绑在一起。

    1949 年后，中国共产党推动的社会工程与法家有明显关联。就像早先的商鞅，毛泽东也把传统的儒家道德和中国家庭看作社会进步的绊脚石。他的反孔运动意在铲除家庭道德的合法性，共产党、国家、公社变成帮助中国人团结起来的新式制度。一点不令人惊讶，商鞅和法家在毛泽东时代得以复兴，在很多共产党学者的眼中成为现代中国的先例。

    有学者说，“儒家推崇圣王理想，可被视作道德的专制主义；作为对照，法家否定道德与政府的关联，可被视作赤裸裸的专制主义”。㉗对皇帝的权力，儒家无法想象任何制度上的制衡。更确切地说，儒家试图教育君主，缓和他的激情，使他深感对人民的责任。让君主获得良好教育，以建良好政府，西方传统对此并不陌生。这实际上是苏格拉底在描绘合理城邦时所简述的，记载于柏拉图的《理想国》。中国皇帝到底深感多少对人民的责任，还是仅仅利用儒家道德来保护自身利益，那是后续章节的主题。法家直接剥去道德政府的外衣，公开宣称臣民是为君主而活的，不可颠倒过来。

    我们不应存任何幻想，推崇法令的法家思想与我在本卷中常提的法治有任何关联。西方、印度、穆斯林世界有一套受宗教庇荫的既存法律，并获得教士等级制度的捍卫。它独立于国家，其历史比国家更长。与当前统治者相比，这套法律更古老、更高级、更合法，因此对统治者也具有约束力。法治的含义就在：甚至国王或皇帝也是受法律束缚的，不可随心所欲。

    这种法治从没存在于中国，对法家来说，简直是匪夷所思。他们认为，法律只是记录国王或君主口述的典章。在弗里德里希·哈耶克（Friedrich Hayek）看来，这是命令，而不是法律。它只反映君主的利益，不是治理社区的道德共识。㉘商鞅认为，惩罚一旦确定，适用于社会所有成员——贵族不得豁免。那是法家法令与现代法治所分享的唯一共同点。㉙

    战国时期的中国

    商鞅所创建的新式国家制度，使秦国在调动资源方面，比以前更加广泛，比邻国更加有效。但仍不是取胜的保票，因为敌对国家的强烈竞争导致了互相仿效。秦国崛起进而称霸全中国的故事，与其说是发展领域的，倒不如说是国际关系领域的。

    春秋末期为巩固国家而发起的争战中，秦国实际上是配角，只在更强大的对手中间发挥平衡作用。它处于争战国家中的最西面，在地理上受一定保护（参看地图）。从公元前 656 年到前 357 年，涉及大国的 160 场战役中，秦仅发动 11 场。秦孝公和商鞅开展国家改革后，这就有了大变。从公元前 356 年到前 221 年，秦发动了 96 场大战役中的 52 场，打胜 48 场。公元前 4 世纪最后十年，秦打败南方大国楚，又在前 293 年打败东面的邻国魏和韩。东方的齐国是仅存的主要敌人，也败于前 284 年。到了公元前 257 年，所有他国都丧失了大国地位。始于公元前 236 年的统一战争，最终导致中国在前 221 年出现大一统的秦朝。㉚

    争战国家到底图什么？在某种程度上，东周冲突背后的症结是旧贵族秩序分崩瓦解，取而代之的庶民寻觅新机会，以攀登权力阶梯。这也是意识形态问题，儒家和法家为此而争论不休。这个争论发生于一国之内，也发生于各国之间；既是争战的原因，又是争战的结果。秦国把自己当作法家的旗手，它的动机与其说是信服，倒不如说是实用。㉛

    这里利害攸关的主导思想，不同于上述争论，而是商周统一中国的古老理念。统一中国的实现，其传说的色彩大于现实。东周的分裂始终被看作旷日弥久的异数，需要承担天命的血统崛起，予以拨乱反正。寻求承认的斗争，就是看哪个宗族获得统治整个中国的荣誉。

    中国发展路径为何异于欧洲

    许田波（Victoria Hui）等学者提出这样的超历史大题目：公元前 3 世纪的中国由多极国家体系组成，最后巩固成单一的庞大帝国，而欧洲却没有。欧洲国家体系实际上也有兼并巩固，从中世纪末的 400 个主权政治体降至第一次世界大战前夕的 25 个。尽管有不少尝试，包括哈布斯堡（Habsburg）的查理五世、路易十四、拿破仑、希特勒，但还是没有见到单一的欧洲大国。

    有下列可能的解释，第一条是地理。欧洲因河流、森林、海洋、山脉而分成众多区域，如阿尔卑斯山脉、比利牛斯山、莱茵河、多瑙河、波罗的海、喀尔巴阡山脉，等等。不列颠岛屿又是很重要的因素，在欧洲历史上扮演了破坏霸权组合的平衡角色。相比之下，第一个中华帝国仅拥有今日中国的部分领土，由西向东，只是从渭河峡谷到山东半岛而已。战国时期已修筑很多道路和运河，当时的军队很容易在这个地区纵横驰骋。这个核心地区巩固成单一强国之后，才开始向南、北、西南方向拓展。

    第二条与文化有关。商和周的部落之间有种族差异，但周朝时期涌现出的各国，则无种族和语言的明显区分，不像罗马人、日耳曼人、凯尔特人、法兰克人、维京人、斯拉夫人、匈人之间。中国北方有不同方言，但商鞅和孔子的周游列国，以及相互的思想交流，都证实了日益增长的文化统一。

    第三条是领导，或领导的缺乏。许田波指出，多极国家体系不是自我调整的机器，不能永远取得防止霸权崛起的平衡。国家有自己领袖，解读自身利益。秦国领袖运用机智的治国术，以分而治之的策略击破敌国的联合。而敌人无视秦国的凶险，反而经常自相残杀。

    最后一条与中国和欧洲政治发展走上不同路径直接相关。欧洲从没见过像秦朝那样的强大专制国家，唯一例外是莫斯科大公国。但它发展较晚，一直处于欧洲政治的边缘，直到 18 世纪的下半叶。（俄罗斯进入欧洲国家体系后，很快占据欧洲的大部，先是在 1814 年亚历山大一世时期，后在 1945 年斯大林时代。）17 世纪晚期，像法国和西班牙那样的国家通常也被称作“专制主义”。我们将会看到，它们在征税和动员方面，远远比不上公元前 3 世纪的秦朝。潜在的专制君主开始其国家建设大业时，就会遇上组织良好团体的阻挠。例如，既得利益的世袭贵族、天主教会、组织起来的农民、独立自治的城市。所有这一切，都可在国境内外灵活运作。

    中国情形很不同，它依赖广泛的亲戚体系。中国的封建贵族，从没建立起与欧洲领主一样的地方权力。根于宗族的中国贵族，其权力往往分散于各地，又纠缠于其他亲戚团体；作为对照，欧洲封建社会发展了强大且等级分明的地方政治主权。此外，不像欧洲贵族，中国贵族得不到法律、古老权利、特权的保护。中国贵族的人数，因数世纪不断的部落战争而几近耗尽；专业政客得以组织强大的庶民军队，轻易击败早期的贵族军团。周朝的中国从没发展出可与欧洲媲美的强大世袭地主贵族。君主、贵族、庶民阶层之间的交叉斗争，对欧洲现代政治制度的发展至关重要，却从没在中国发生。相反，它有个早熟的现代集权国家，一开始就打败所有的潜在对手。

    马克斯·韦伯定为本质上的现代特征，秦朝如果没有全部，至少也有很多。很熟悉中国的韦伯为何把中华帝国描述成家族国家，这是个谜。㉜迷惑韦伯的原因，也许是中国的政治现代化没有经济现代化的陪伴，即资本主义市场经济。它也没有社会现代化的陪伴，亲戚关系没有转换为现代个人主义，反而与非人格化管理共存，一直到今日。像其他现代化理论家一样，韦伯相信发展中的各个方面——经济、政治、社会、意识形态——都是紧密相连的。很可能是因为现代化的其他方面没在中国出现，所以韦伯认不出中国的现代政治秩序。欧洲的实际发展中，政治、经济、社会现代化也没有密切相连，有顺序上的先后，它的社会现代化早于现代国家的形成。所以，欧洲的经验是独特的，不一定能在其他社会复制。

    多种现代化

    秦统一中国后，政治现代化为何没有导致经济和社会的现代化？现代国家的出现是集约型经济发展的必要条件，但还不够。如要资本主义出现，其他制度也要到位。西方资本主义革命之前有一场认知革命，发明了科学方法、现代大学、以科学观察创造财富的技术革新、鼓励革新的产权体系。秦朝的中国在很多方面的确是智慧的沃土，但其主要学术传统是向后看，无法达到现代自然科学所需要的抽象。

    此外，战国时期没有出现独立的商业资产阶级。城市只是政治和行政的中心，不是商业中心，也没有独立自治的传统。商人或工匠没有社会威望，崇高地位只属于地主。㉝虽有产权存在，但其形式无法推动现代市场经济的发展。秦朝的独裁政府，剥夺大批家族地主的土地来削弱其权力，向新地主征收重税来支持军事扩张。国家不是创造奖励，让农人的耕耘更为有效，而是订出产量定额，如果完不成，还要加以处罚。秦朝最初的土地改革，打破了世袭的地主庄园，开辟了土地买卖市场，但随之没有出现自耕农阶层，土地又被新贵阶层所吸纳。㉞没有法治来限制主权国家没收私人财产的权力。㉟

    亲戚关系体系崩溃，被更自愿、更个人形式的团体所取代，这就是社会现代化。但它在秦统一后没有发生，原因有二。首先，资本主义市场经济没有出现，促进新社会团体和新身份的广泛分工也无从说起。其次，破坏中国亲戚关系的努力是独裁国家自上而下的计划。相比之下，破坏西方亲戚关系的是基督教，既在理论层次上，又通过教会对家事和遗产的影响力（参看第 16 章）来进行。西方社会现代化的生根发芽，比现代国家或资本主义市场经济的兴起，足足早了数个世纪。 自上而下的社会工程经常不能达到目标。中国的父系宗族和以此为基础的家族政府，其相关制度虽遭受痛击，但百足之虫，死而不僵。我们将看到，昙花一现的秦朝之后，它们又卷土重来，并作为权力和感情寄托的来源，在后续世纪中一直与国家明争暗斗。

    第 8 章 伟大的汉朝制度

    秦始皇和他所创建的朝代为何迅速倒塌；汉朝恢复儒家制度，但仍保留法家原则；秦汉时期的中国治理

    中国第一个大一统王朝的创始人嬴政（死后庙号是秦始皇帝，生于公元前 259 年，卒于公元前 210 年），精力充沛，且不可一世，全凭政治权力改变了中国社会。世界闻名的兵马俑是特地为他铸造的，在 1974 年出土于一个 2 平方英里的陵墓区。汉朝历史学家司马迁声称，造秦始皇陵动用了 70 万劳工。即便是夸大其词，但很明显，他创建的国家掌控大量盈余，以惊人的规模调配资源。

    秦始皇把秦的制度推广到全中国，其所创造的不仅是一个国家，而且将在后继者汉朝手里变成一种统一的中国精英文化。这不同于群众现象的现代民族主义。尽管如此，将中国社会精英链结起来这一新意识，坚韧不拔，在朝代兴亡和内乱之后，总能浴火重生。外邦人好几次打败中国，但无法改变中国制度，反被吸收消化，直到 19 世纪欧洲人抵达。邻居的朝鲜、日本、越南，虽独立于中国政体，但借鉴了大量中国思想。

    秦始皇用来统一中国的是赤裸裸的政治权力。他实施了商鞅所阐述的法家原则，其时，秦仍是个边陲国家。他攻击既存传统，推行庞大的社会工程，所作所为几近极权主义，从而激发了社会中几乎每个阶层的强烈反对。仅十四年后，秦朝轰然倒塌，改朝换了姓。

    秦朝为后世君主留下一份复杂遗产。一方面，受秦始皇攻击的儒家和传统派，在之后的世纪中，诅咒它是中国历史上最不道德、最为暴虐的政权之一。儒家在汉朝重新得势，试图推翻秦的很多革新。另一方面，秦朝凭借政治权力所建立的强大现代制度，不但活过了汉初的贵族复辟，而且在事实上定义了中国文明。尽管在后来中国王朝中，法家不再是钦准的意识形态，但在国家制度中仍可看到它留下的遗迹。

    秦朝国家和崩溃

    秦始皇的政策由丞相李斯执行。李斯是法家思想家韩非子的同学，但设下阴谋让后者蒙辱自杀。一旦掌权，这名建国设计师的最初行动是将帝国行政分为两级，共设三十六郡，郡以下设县。郡县的长官全由皇帝从首都咸阳指派，旨在取代地方上的家族精英。早已孱弱的封建贵族是打击对象，历史记载说，为方便监督，全国十二万贵族被迫迁至首都近郊。①在人类历史这么早的时期，很难找到如此使用政治集权的案例。这显示中国离开部落社会已有多远。

    秦始皇留用的儒家官员抵抗国家集权，在公元前 213 年建议皇帝重新分封，试图在乡野为自己打下新的权力基础，这似乎不是偶然的。李斯认为，这将破坏他们的国家建设大业：

    如此不禁，则主势降乎上，党与成乎下。禁之便。臣请诸有文学《诗》、《书》百家语者，蠲除去之。令到满三十日弗去，黥为城旦。②

    秦始皇表示同意，遂命令焚烧经典，据称还下令活埋了四百名不服的儒家信徒。这些行为招致了后世儒家对他经久不衰的憎恨。

    商鞅治下的秦国已有统一度量衡，现在推广至全中国。秦始皇还以史籀大篆统一全国文字，这也是秦国当初改革的延伸。改革目的是为了促进政府文件中的文字统一。③就是今天，中国各地仍有不同方言。文字统一为确定中国身份发挥了不可估量的作用，不但行政部门有统一语言，而且全国各地都可分享经典的同一文本。

    秦朝严格遵守法家方法，其统治如此暴虐，以致在全国激起一系列起义。它的轰然倒塌是在秦始皇死后不久的公元前 210 年。被押去军事营地的一队罪犯，因暴雨而受阻，遂揭竿而起。法律规定，无论什么原因，延迟到达者都是死罪。小队领袖决定，即使造反，他们的命运也不会变得更糟。④叛乱迅速蔓延至帝国其他地区，很多幸存的前君主和前封建贵族，看到秦朝变得衰弱，便拥兵宣告独立。同时，丞相李斯与一名宦官共谋拥戴秦始皇次子胡亥登基，反而死于宦官之手。接下来，宦官又死于他想立为皇帝的子婴之手。出身楚国贵族的项羽，还有其庶民出身的部下刘邦，组织新军队，攻入秦首都，消灭秦朝。项羽分派土地给亲戚和拥护者，试图返回周朝的封建主义。刘邦（死后谥号是汉高祖）转过身来反对项羽，四年内战后成为胜利者。他在前 202 年建立汉朝，史称西汉。⑤

    在项羽封建复辟和秦始皇现代专政之间，新皇帝汉高祖的政权采取折中路线。不像秦始皇，汉高祖没有既存国家的权力基础。他的合法性来自他的魅力，他是反暴政的造反军的成功领袖。为取得政权，他统领一个由杂乱军队组成的同盟，包括很多传统家族和前君主。此外，他还须提防北方游牧部落的匈奴。因此一开始，他改造中国社会的能力，远远低于其前任秦始皇。

    高祖创建双轨制度，部分地区恢复了周朝的封建主义。他把内战中支持自己的前君主和将军们分封去小王国，又给自己家庭成员分派新的封地。剩下的地区则保留秦朝的非人格化郡县制，构成高祖自己的权力核心。⑥最初几年，朝廷对小王国的控制很弱。秦朝统一中国的工作本来就不彻底，汉朝早期仍需继续努力。高祖启动这一过程，逐渐取消地方封王中不是刘姓的权力。继承者汉文帝在公元前 157 年，废了长沙最后一个小王国。皇族成员管辖的封地持续较久，与搬到长安的中央政府日益疏远。公元前 154 年，它们中的七个为取得完全独立而反叛。成功的镇压导致汉景帝宣布，剩下的封地不再享有行政权力。政府提高征税，迫使封地在兄弟姐妹中分家。西汉开国一百年后，封建统治最后的残余变得无权无势，地方官几乎都是中央政府指派的。⑦

    家族拥有地方权力、不受中央政府管辖的周朝封建主义，在中国后来历史上定期回潮，尤其是在朝代交替的混乱时期。中央政府一旦站稳脚跟，又夺回对这些政治体的控制。从来没有一次，封王强大到可逼迫帝王作出宪法上的妥协，如英国的大宪章。中国地方上的封王，不像封建欧洲的对应阶层，从未获得法律上的合法性。我们将看到，以后的世袭贵族试图在中国掌权，不是打造地方上的权力基础，而是直接攫取中央政府。强大国家早期的中央集权，随着时间的推移，竟使自己变得永久化了。

    在中国不同地区根除家族统治，代之以统一的国家政府，事实上是法家的胜利，也是秦建立集权强国传统的胜利。但在其他方面，尤其是在意识形态上，儒家的传统主义得以东山再起。汉武帝（公元前 141—前 87 年在位）治下，儒家学者重返行政高位，兴办太学，设置儒学五经博士，专门研究各自的经典。读好经典成为做官的敲门砖，著名的科举制度的雏形也于此而起。⑧

    思想领域也发生重大变化。法家为君主着想的残酷统治，原是商鞅和韩非所倡导的，此时遭到贬谤，民为邦本的古代儒家见解重又获得尊敬。这离民主观念还很远，没有一名儒者相信，对皇帝的权力或权威应有制度上的正式制衡，更不用说普选或个人权利。对皇帝权力的唯一制衡是道德；也就是说，给予皇帝正确的道德教育，敦促他仁民爱物，并时常劝诫他不可辜负这些理想。

    早期的皇权也有限制，因为皇帝身处儒家官僚机构之中。官僚机构只是皇帝的代理人，没有制衡皇帝的正式权利。但像所有的官僚，凭借专长和帝国运作的知识，他们施加了可观的非正式影响。像任何等级组织的领袖，从军队、公司到现代国家，坐在汉朝政府顶端的皇帝，必须依赖众多顾问来制定政策、执行命令、判决呈入朝廷的案件。这些官员负责训练年轻太子，等他们长大登基后，再提供咨询服务。传统和文化上的威望，增加了高级官僚左右皇帝的影响。历史记载中，丞相和尚书批评皇帝的案例很多，有时还得以扭转有争议的决定。⑨

    武装起义是对坏皇帝的最后制裁，根据儒家天命流转的原则，又是正当合法的。天命的首次提出是为了辩解公元前 10 世纪周对商的篡夺，之后又被用来辩解对不公或腐败皇帝的造反。没有精确规则来确定谁享有天命，其获得往往是在造反成功之后（第 20 章对此有更详尽的讨论）。显而易见，这种制衡是非常极端的，带有极大风险。

    君以民为贵的儒家思想，把负责制的原则带进了中国政府。但要注意，这个负责制不是正式或程序上的，而是基于皇帝自己的道德观念，而这观念又是官僚机构所塑造的。列文森（Levenson）和舒尔曼（Schurmann）认为，官僚机构所塑造的道德说教，主要反映了自身利益。也就是说，他们强烈反对法家君主赤裸裸的专制统治，因为儒家就是这种权力的首批受害者。他们只想在汉朝复辟时期保护自己的地位。这些官僚不是公众利益的监护人，而在代表基于亲戚关系的社会等级制度；他们自己，又恰恰身处该制度的顶端。⑩尽管如此，对这一执政的意识形态，还是要多讲几句。它至少在原则上坚持君主应对人民负责，并执意保护抗衡集权的现存社会制度。

    汉朝政府的性质

    汉朝时期涌现出的中央政府，在秦朝的独裁集权与周朝的亲戚制度之间，取得了更好的平衡。它日愈合理化和建制化，一步步解决家族统治的地方势力。在西汉末期王莽的土地改革之前，没有试图使用权力来从事大规模的社会工程。基本上，它不触及既存的社会人脉和产权。为营造公共工程，它也征用徭赋，但没有秦朝那样穷凶极恶。

    汉朝时期，中国政府愈益建制化。在家族制中，无论是周朝的中国，还是当代的非洲或中亚国家，政府官员获得任命，靠的不是自己的资格，而是与统治者的亲戚或私人关系。权力不在职位，而在担任此职的人。政治制度的现代化，就是指家族统治被官僚机构所取代。根据马克斯·韦伯的经典定义，现代官僚机构的特征包括：因功能而分的官职需有明确专长、在界定清晰的等级制度中设立各级官职、官员不得有独立的政治基础、官员必须遵守等级制度中的严格纪律、薪俸官职只是谋生的职业。⑪

    西汉的中国政府几乎符合现代官僚机构的全部特征。⑫政府内确实有很多留用的家族官员，尤其是在高祖统治的早期，因为皇帝需要反秦和内战盟友，以帮助自己巩固新政权。但在中央政府，非人格化基础上选出的官员逐一取代家族官员。朝廷显贵和执行君主决策的永久官僚机构之间，出现了日益明显的差别。

    始于公元前 165 年，皇帝昭告全国高级官员，推荐定额的优秀青年以任公职。汉武帝治下，官员被要求担保其推荐人选的孝悌和正直。在公元前 124 年，郡官推荐的学生赴都城长安的太学参加考试。考试成绩最好的，接受老师和学者的一年培训，以钦准的儒家经典为基础，然后再次参加考试，以担任政府要职。用人的来源也在进化，例如设立专职人员巡游帝国查找人才，或邀请公众就帝国现状撰文参加竞赛。这种非人格化用人，允许非汉族人才脱颖而出，例如出身匈奴的军事将领公孙昆邪。⑬

    公元前 5 年，中国的编户人口是六千万，在首都和省级供职的就有大约十三万官员。政府设立专门培养公职人员的学校，训练十七岁或以上的青年，测试他们阅读不同文体、管账等能力。（到隋唐时期，科举制度将变得更为成熟。）汉朝仍有很强的家族因素，高官可推荐儿子或兄弟担任要职，推荐制度肯定不能杜绝一切私人影响。就像后续的朝代，任人唯贤仍有教育条件的限制。只有富贵人家才能培育出满腹经纶的儿子，有资格获得推荐或参加考试。

    尽管尚有家族制的残余⑭，根据韦伯的定义，汉朝的中央政府日愈官僚化。职位最高的官员是三公，从高到低分别是丞相、御史大夫、太尉。有时，丞相职位一分为二，分成左右丞相，可以互相监督，互相制衡。三公之下是九卿，各有自己的僚属和预算。最重要的卿中，有掌管宗庙祭祀的奉常（后改称太常）、负责皇帝禁卫的光禄勋（秦时称郎中令）、负责皇宫和京城守军的卫尉、负责皇帝财政的少府、负责司法的廷尉、负责粮食和税收的大司农。在当时农业社会里，这最后一职无疑是非常重要的。他手下有六十五个机构，派遣高级官员去各州帮助管理谷仓、农活、水利。⑮

    理性的官僚机构不一定追求理性的目的。奉常手下的机构分管奏乐（太乐）、祝祷（太祝）、牺牲（太宰）、星象（太史）、占卜（太卜）。太史向皇帝提供举办大事和仪式的凶吉日期，还监督文官考试。太祝下设三十五名僚属，太乐掌管三百八十名乐人，政府的规模于此可见一斑。⑯

    汉朝政府最不寻常的特征之一，就是文官政府对军队的有效控制，这可追溯到中国历史的最早时期。中国截然不同于罗马，后者雄心勃勃的将军，如庞培（Pompey）和尤利乌斯·恺撒（Julius Caesar），经常争夺政治权力。中国也不同于军事政变频繁的现代发展中国家。

    这不是因为中国缺乏军人权威或魅力，其历史上充满了常胜将军和赫赫武功。即使在战国之后，中国仍继续打仗，主要与草原游牧民族，但也包括朝鲜、西藏以及南方部落。几乎所有朝代的创始皇帝，都凭借自己的军事能耐而登上龙位。如我们所知，刘邦原是农家子，全凭军事上的组织和战略能力才当上汉高祖，他当然不会是最后一个。到了唐朝，像安禄山那样野心勃勃的将军也试图争夺王位。唐朝的最终崩溃，是因为防御北方野蛮部落的边境军队得以挣脱中央政府的控制。

    一般来讲，征战成功的王朝创始人一旦登基，就会卸下戎装，实施文官统治。他们和他们的继承人，摒除将军于政治之外，放逐野心军人至遥远边境，镇压妄图起兵造反者。不像罗马近卫军（Praetorian Guards）或土耳其禁卫军（Janissaries），皇帝的宫廷卫士在中国历史上从没扮演过王者之王的角色。考虑到战争对国家形成的重要性，中国文官统治为何如此强大？弄清此事非常重要。

    原因之一是军事等级的建制化比不上文官。太尉、前将军、左将军、右将军、后将军，按理说，其地位都高于九卿，但这些职位经常是空挂的。它们多被认为是仪式性的，没有真正军事权力，通常由文官担任。此时，军队中尚无专业军官，皇帝手下的官员出将入相，被认作文武双全。一旦开国的内战结束，军事长官通常被派去边远的草原或要塞，远离文明。抱负不凡者所追求的，不会是这种职业。⑰

    这些理由又带出新的疑问，中国制度中的武官为何获得如此低下的威望，答案很可能是规范化。春秋和战国的严峻考验中涌现出一种思想：真正的政治权威在于教育和教养，而不在于军队威力。觊觎王位的军人发现，必须披上儒家学问的外衣，方能获得他人的信服；必须让儿子接受大儒的调教，方能继承王位。光说笔杆子比剑更为强大，这似乎还不够。我们应该考虑，文官政府得以成功控制军队，最终还得依赖有关合法权威的规范思想。如有需要，美国军队明天就可夺走总统权力，但它没有这样做。这意味着，大多数军官即使在梦中也不想去推翻美国宪法，如果真的想做，他们指挥的大多数士兵也不会服从命令。 汉朝在两种利益群体中取得平衡：一方面，大家都想创建强大统一的中央政府，以避免东周式的动乱和战争；另一方面，全国的地方精英又试图尽量保留自己的权力和特权。秦始皇打破制度上的平衡，过于偏向集权国家，所侵犯的不仅是家族精英的利益，而且是普通农民的利益。农民以前面对地方领主的暴政，现在则换成了国家暴政。汉朝重作平衡，既考虑曾是秦朝打击对象的封王和贵族的利益，又致力于逐渐减少他们的影响。它的儒家思想，虽糅入法家精神，但又矢口否认，使自己重归合法。西汉创建的国家是稳定的，因为大家达成妥协。但与秦朝比，它又是薄弱的，尽量避免与残余的贵族影响发生正面冲突。这一新平衡是成功的。除了篡位皇帝王莽（公元前 45—公元 23 年）短命的“新朝”，汉朝存活了四个多世纪，从公元前 202 年到公元 220 年。这是颇不寻常的政治成就，但很遗憾，最终还是不免寿终正寝。

    第 9 章 政治衰败和家族政府的复辟

    四百年汉朝为何倒塌；大庄园增长的意义和马尔萨斯式社会的不公；门阀士族攫取政府和国家变弱；中国意义的国家

    不能假定，政治秩序一旦出现就能自我持续。亨廷顿的《变化社会中的政治秩序》，开初只是一篇名叫“政治秩序和政治衰败”的文章。他认为，与现代化理论的循序渐进相反，没有理由可以假设，政治发展比政治衰败更有可能。社会中各竞争力量取得平衡，政治秩序便会涌现。随着时间的推移，内部和外部都会发生变化。当初建立平衡的参与者在进化，或干脆消失了，又出现新参与者；经济和社会条件也会发生变更，社会遭遇外部侵略，或面对新的贸易条件，或引进新的思想。因此，先前的平衡不再有效，引起政治衰败，直到现存参与者发明新的规则和制度来恢复秩序。

    汉朝的崩溃原因多种多样，涉及早先政治平衡方方面面的变迁。公元 2 世纪，由于外戚和宦官的干涉，汉朝皇族的团结和它的合法性受到严重破坏。除了中国，宦官还在很多帝王的宫廷中扮演重要角色。他们已被阉割，不再有性感觉和性能力，所以深得信任。他们没有家庭，在心理上完全依赖主人，也不会想方设法为子女（因为不存在）争夺利益。他们扮演重要角色，帮助中国皇帝避开强大自治的官僚机构，并慢慢发展了自己的集团利益。

    先是外戚梁太后一族的领袖挑选软弱的汉桓帝（公元 147—167 年在位）继承皇位，以便自己的宗族获得政府高位和特权。不久，大难临头。皇帝在宦官的帮助下发动了现代拉丁美洲人所谓的自我政变（auto-golpe），残杀梁氏外戚。宦官摇身一变，成了强大政治力量，获得皇帝褒奖的官职、免税等，从而威胁了官僚和儒家的地位。始于 165 年，官僚和儒家开始发起反宦官运动，最终取得彻底胜利。①

    环境条件令形势雪上加霜。173、179、182 年发生瘟疫；176、177、182、183 年发生饥荒；175 年发大水。广大民众的悲惨导致道教的兴起，它在农民和其他庶民中吸引众多信徒。儒家是一种道德，不是超现实的宗教，一直是精英的行为准则。道教源于古老的民间信仰，现在变成非精英的抗议宗教。184 年爆发的黄巾（他们头戴黄色头巾）起义以它为精神支柱，更因过去十年中农民所忍受的艰辛，而迅速星火燎原。虽在二十年后遭到血腥镇压（据传死去五十万人），它摧毁了大量的国家设施和生产力。②这些灾难的结果是中国人口的骤减，从 157 年到 280 年，骇人听闻地减少了四千万，等于人口总数的三分之二。③

    从中国政治发展的角度看，家族精英攫取国家权力以削弱中央政府，是汉朝衰败的最重要原因之一。秦朝消灭封建主义，创建非人格化现代国家，这一努力现在遭受极大挫折。在中国，亲戚关系再次成为权力和地位的主要途径，一直延续到 9 世纪的晚唐时期。④

    但这不是周朝封建主义的复辟。秦朝以来已有太多变动，包括强大的中央政府、官僚机构、披上礼仪合法性的宫廷。西汉已逐步消除封地上的家族影响，当贵族家庭卷土重来时，他们没有重建地方上的权力基础，而是直接参与中央政府机构。周贵族和汉贵族之间的区别，有点类似 17 世纪晚期英国贵族和法国贵族之间的区别：英国领主仍住在自己庄园，行使地方上的权力；而法国贵族被迫迁去凡尔赛，以靠近宫廷和国王来谋取权力。在中国，宫廷中的权力就是通向地产的阳关大道，有权有势的官员可获得土地、侍从、农民、免税特权。

    富人更富

    随着时间的推移，中国经历了大庄园（latifundia）愈益扩张。它们受贵族家庭的控制，其家人身居高位，要么在长安的中央政府，要么在地方州郡。这加剧了贫富悬殊，一小群贵族家庭掌控日益集中的财富。他们逐步剥夺政府的税收，因为自己的富饶农地无需纳税，这些家庭就是今天所谓的追求租金精英的早期版本。他们利用政治关系攫取国家权力，再使用国家权力使自己富上加富。

    农业社会有条大庄园的铁律：富人将变得更富，除非遭到遏制——或是国家的，或是农民起义的，或是国家害怕农民起义而采取的。在前现代农业社会里，财富上的不均不一定反映能力或性格上的不均。技术是呆滞的，创业或创新的人得不到奖励。农业机械化之前，没有大规模生产的好处，所以无法解释大庄园的扩张。大地主的耕田都是分成小块，让单独农民家庭各自耕作。因债务机制，最初资源的小差别将与日俱增。富农或地主会借钱给较贫困的；遇上坏季节或坏收成，负债人不但赔掉家产，甚至可能沦为农奴或奴隶。⑤大地主又可购买政治影响，以保护和扩充自己的财产，长此以往，富人优势自我更新，有增无已。

    所以，把现代产权理论误用于历史场景，只会导致根本上的误会。很多经济学家相信，健全的产权促进经济成长，因为它保护私人投资的回报，从而刺激投资和经济成长。但中国汉朝的经济生活，不像工业革命后二百年的世界，却像托马斯·马尔萨斯（Thomas Malthus）《人口学原理》中所描述的。⑥今天，我们期待技术革新所带来的劳工效率增长（人均产量）。但在 1800 年之前，效率增长全靠运气。开发农业、灌溉、印刷机、火药、帆船远航，都促进了生产效率的增长。⑦但在间隔的漫长岁月中，人口增加，人均收入反而降低。很多农业社会已达到其技术可能性的顶端，进一步投资不会增加产量。唯一的经济增长是粗放增长，即开发新耕地，或干脆争夺他人的。所以，马尔萨斯的世界就是零和，一方得益，另一方必然受损。富有地主不一定比小地主更为勤劳，他只是有更多资源来挨过难关。⑧

    在集约增长不可能的马尔萨斯式世界，健全产权只会巩固资源的既存分配。财富的实际分配，代表不了生产效率或勤劳与否，只能代表起初的运气，或者业主与政治权力的关联。（甚至在今天流动和创业的资本主义经济，古板的产权捍卫者经常忘记，现存财富分配并不一定反映富人美德，市场也不一定是高效的。）

    如由他们自由选择，精英们倾向于扩张大庄园。在这面前，君主有两种选择。他们可与农民站在一起，运用国家权力来促进土地改革和平均地权，剪去贵族的翅膀。这发生在斯堪的纳维亚，18 世纪末瑞典和丹麦的国王与农民站在一起，反对相对较弱的贵族（参看第 28 章）。或者，君主站在贵族一边，运用国家权力来加强地方寡头对农民的控制。这发生在俄罗斯、普鲁士、易北河以东地区，那里的农民原本多是自由的，但自 17 世纪以来，由于国家的同流合污，却逐渐沦为农奴。法兰西王国的君主政体太软弱，不能剥夺贵族，也不能取消其免税地位，只好把新税负担全部压在农民头上，直到整个制度在法国大革命中自我爆炸。君主的何去何从——保护现有的寡头政治，或反戈一击——取决于很多具体因素，如贵族和农民的凝聚力、国家面临的外部威胁、宫廷内部的钩心斗角。

    汉朝的中国君主最初选择支持农民，一起反对愈益强大的大地主。西汉时期，有人不时呼吁回到商鞅废除的井田制。当时，它被视作农业社会地方自治的象征，而不是封建制度。贫困农民因大庄园兼并而丧失土地，其困境促使了恢复井田制的呼吁。公元前 7 年，有人建议大庄园地产不得超过三千亩（1 亩等于 0.165 英亩），由于大地主的反对，最后无疾而终。篡夺王位终止西汉的王莽也尝试实施土地改革，使大庄园国有化。他也面对极大反抗，最终在应付赤眉军（他们把眉毛画成红色）起义中筋疲力尽。⑨

    王莽土地改革的失败，反让家族贵族在东汉恢复时扩充财产，巩固权力。大庄园成功控制成百上千的侍从、佃户、族人，还经常拥有私人军队。他们为自己和部下取得免税地位，减少帝国税收以及可供劳役和征兵的农村人口。

    中央政府因军队的衰退而进一步变弱。中国大部分军队专注于西北部的匈奴部落，驻扎在遥远的要塞，供应线拖得很长。农民很不愿意服这样的兵役，政府只好改在当地野蛮居民中招募雇佣军，或招募奴隶和罪犯。军人愈来愈像一个特殊阶层，在边境要塞的附近居住和务农，子承父业。这种情况下，获得军人忠诚的更可能是曹操和董卓那样的当地将领，而不是遥远的中央政府。⑩

    日益增加的土地不均，加上 2 世纪 70 年代的自然灾害和瘟疫，黄巾起义终于爆发。秩序荡然无存，中央政府因派系斗争而分崩瓦解，这一切促使大户家庭躲在围墙后的庄园和地区，不再接受软弱国家的控制。汉朝的最后几十年，中央国家完全崩溃，权力落到一系列地方军阀手中，他们要么选择自己中意的皇帝，要么自己黄袍加身。⑪

    国家分裂和家族制复辟

    秦朝统一中国之后最长命的朝代汉朝，终于在公元 220 年彻底崩溃。除了很短的例外，中国在今后的三百年中不再有统一国家。中国最伟大的历史小说之一《三国演义》，讲的就是东汉到晋朝这段时期。晋朝始于 280 年，但持续很短时间。小说作者罗贯中，在明朝写成（也许在 14 世纪晚期，但没有确定日期）这部作品。其时，明朝已从蒙古人手中解放中国，在汉人自己统治下，再度统一中国。⑫小说的潜在主题是中国的不统一（内乱），造成混乱和外国侵略（外患），还阐述了恢复国家统一的条件。在塑造现代中国人历史意识方面，《三国演义》可与莎士比亚的历史剧媲美。它被改编成电子游戏和无数电影版本。北京要求统一台湾，其背后对分裂的痛苦记忆，就可以追溯到这一时期。

    从中国政治发展的观点看，值得关注的是亲戚关系和家族制，如何在汉和隋之间的空白时期（581 年中国再度统一）重新成为中国政治的组织原则。中央国家的力量，正好与家族团体的力量成反比。即使在现代国家获得建立之后，各种形式的部落制仍是预设的政治组织。

    汉朝终止之后的时期是非常复杂的，但从发展角度看，细节就不那么重要。中国最初分裂成所谓的三国：魏、蜀汉、吴。魏得以在西晋名下重新统一中国，但很快发生内战。西晋的都城洛阳在 311 年遭到匈奴部落的洗劫和占领，匈奴国王在中国北部创建众多外族朝代中的第一个。逃至南方的西晋幸存者，在长江边上的建康（现代的南京），也建立数个南方朝代中的第一个，即东晋。北方和南方一分为二，都经受了持续动乱。在北方，洗劫洛阳导致了所谓十六国的部落战争。有两次新的野蛮人入侵，第一次是原始西藏人的氐和羌部落，第二次是拓跋部落，即突厥鲜卑人的分支。拓跋部落建立了北魏（386—534），随着时间的推移而日益汉化。他们冠中国人的姓，与汉人家庭通婚联姻。拓跋部落中的紧张导致再一次的内战，到 6 世纪早期分成东魏和西魏。在南方，迁自北方的旧宫廷重组东晋朝代，大量贵族家庭和侍从跟踪而来。到 4 世纪中，东晋灭于军事政变，之后又有武将建立的数个孱弱朝代。⑬

    汉朝军阀曹操和儿子曹丕在 220 年建立魏国，制定九品中正制，从而加速了始于东汉的家族制倾向。每个郡和州，都派有仲裁人，官名叫中正，依据品德和能力评议官职的候选人。不像早先的汉朝推荐制度，遴选仲裁人的不是中央，而是地方，显然要受更多地方精英的影响。新招聘制度将所有精英家庭排成正式等级，又与各层官位挂上钩。汉朝时，不做官的人仍可有高级地位。自从有了九品中正制，官位变成争取高级地位的唯一途径。加上对血统的愈益重视，子承父位便成家常便饭。⑭

    在强大中央政府的手中，九品中正制可以是削弱豪门、加强国家的对策。17 世纪和 18 世纪初，法国君主出售一套精细的爵位和等级给贵族阶层，从而削弱该阶层采取集体行动的能力。每个贵族家庭太忙碌了，沾沾自喜，瞧不起底下人，以致不能互相合作来保护自己广泛的阶级利益。3 世纪的中国，九品中正制却似乎成了贵族攫取国家的手段。庶民人才不能再通过推荐或考试攀至高位，这些官位只保留给现任官员的孩子，好像他们是战胜部落的领袖。其时的皇帝往往不能保证自己的宠臣得到高位，因为宠臣缺乏合适的血统。这一切证明，真正的权力不在国家手中，而在贵族家庭手中。⑮

    西晋垮台后，家族制在北方和南方各有不同发展。在南方，东晋宫廷由本地大户和洛阳迁来的贵族流亡者所掌控。他们把九品中正制也带来，政府操纵在王、陆、张姓的大户手中，都是高级血统的近距离表亲。⑯

    大庄园的继续扩张加剧了贵族控制。早在 3 世纪晚期，西晋颁布土地法，规定所有农民有权获得最低数量的土地，以换取他们的徭赋负担。它也规定了贵族家庭拥有土地、免税租户和侍从的最高限额。但它和东晋时颁布的类似法律，从没得到执行。像王莽夭折的土地改革，这些失败证明了大庄园势力的日益壮大，直接威胁到国家的控制和资源。⑰

    在北方，战胜的羌人和突厥人首先是部落组织，就把自己的主要宗族安插到重要官位。初期仍有持续的冲突和部落之间的争战，这些外族家庭便是整个地区的领导精英。汉朝时兴起的中国贵族家庭，要么南逃去投奔东晋宫廷，要么退回自己的庄园。他们仍拥有地方权力，但避开宫廷政治。5 世纪的后半叶，北魏朝代得以集中权力，5 世纪 90 年代迁都到历史名城洛阳，事情于是开始发生转变。魏孝文帝禁止在宫廷使用鲜卑语和鲜卑服，鼓励鲜卑人与汉人通婚，邀请主要的汉贵族家庭赴宫廷供职。他得以创造统一的贵族阶层，将所有精英家庭排成正式等级，就像南方的九品中正制。在这样的环境中，多数高级官员同属一个宗族，贵族等级又是晋升高级官位的必要条件。⑱大庄园兼并土地，贵族阶层权力日益增加，也都是北方的难题。485 年北魏颁布一条法令，限制大庄园，保证农民获得最低数量的土地。⑲

    强大的中国国家

    6 世纪中期，北方的东魏和西魏被北齐和北周所取代。577 年，北周进攻并打败了北齐。时任北周将领的杨坚成为风云人物，他出身鲜卑族，妻子来自匈奴一个强大氏族。杨坚在内斗中击败对手，于 581 年建立隋朝。他的军队在 587 年打败南方的梁，在 589 年打败南方的陈。这是 220 年汉朝崩溃以来，中国在单一中央政府治理下的首次统一（实际领土与秦汉时不同）。谥号为文帝的新皇帝把京城搬回长安，以汉朝为榜样重新打造强大的中央政府。他儿子兼继位人炀帝执迷于运河营造，还向朝鲜的高句丽王国发起草率的进攻最终失败。他死于 618 年，隋朝很快消失，这一段空白很短。名叫李渊的北方贵族在 617 年起兵，下一年攻取长安，宣布成立新朝代。唐朝是中国最伟大的朝代之一，持续了将近三百年，直到 10 世纪初。

    隋唐重建中央集权，但没能终止贵族家庭的影响。他们在间隔的空白时期，攫取了众多小国的政府权力。我们将在第 20 章和第 21 章看到，反对家族制的斗争将持续随后的三个世纪，一直要到 11 世纪的宋朝，行政机构才返回汉朝时的“现代”基础。中国国家的重新集权，得以激活像科举考试和学而优则仕那样的制度。在先前的数世纪中，这些制度在门阀贵族面前一输再输。

    汉隋之间三百年混乱所提出的最有趣问题之一，不是中国为何崩溃，而是中国为何再次统一。在如此广阔的领土上维持政治统一，这个命题绝对不是琐碎的。罗马帝国崩溃后，尽管有查理大帝和其他神圣罗马皇帝的努力，仍然得不到重组。汉朝之后的多国制度凝固成像欧洲一样的半永久制度，众多国家，相互竞争，这也不是不可想象的。

    这个问题的部分答案已经有了。中国国家早熟的现代化，使之成为社会中最强大的社会组织。即使中央国家崩溃了，它的许多继承者在自己边界内，仍尽量复制汉朝的中央集权制度，仍尽量追求在自己领导之下完成统一大业。合法性最终来自天命的继承，而不在于偏安一隅。那些继承国家在边界内复制汉朝机构，从而防止进一步的分崩离析。所以，没有在中国出现像欧洲那样的一再分封。

    中国何以再次统一的第二个原因也许更为重要，能向当代发展中国家提供启示。中国在秦汉时期所创造的，除了强大国家，还有共同文化。这种文化不能算所谓的现代民族主义的基础，因为它仅存在于中国统治阶级的精英阶层，而不存在于广大老百姓。但产生一种很强烈的感情：中国的定义就是共同的书面语、经典著作、官僚机构的传统、共同的历史、全国范围的教育制度、在政治和社会的层次主宰精英行为的价值观。即使在国家消失时，这种统一文化的意识仍然炽烈。

    遇上不同传统的外族野蛮人时，这种共同文化的力量变得尤为显著。占领中国的几乎所有入侵者——匈奴、鲜卑（拓跋），或更迟的女真（满人）、蒙古、党项（西夏）、契丹——起初都希望保留自己的部落传统、文化、语言。但他们很快发现，如不采用中国精湛的政治制度，便无法治理中国。更有甚者，中国文化的威望迫使他们要么同化，要么回到老家的草原或森林以维护自身文化。

    中国得以重新统一是因为秦汉两朝已创下先例，统治整体比统治其中一部更为合法。谁有此权利呢？这是个复杂题目，要作出回答，先要认真弄清中国对政治合法性的概念。在这个问题上，中国朝代的间隔期尤其富有启示。这段时期无疑是一场自由竞赛，政治权力的门外汉——农家子、可疑种族背景的外族人、未受儒家教育的军人——都有机会攀爬到制度的尖顶。中国人愿意向他们和其后裔提供合法性和绝对权力，其原因有点扑朔迷离。在后面论以及其他的改朝换代时，我会重新回到这一问题。

    中国是创造现代国家的第一个世界文明。但这个国家不受法治限制，也不受负责制机构的限制，中国制度中唯一的责任只是道德上的。没有法治和负责制的强大国家，无疑是一个专制国家，越是现代和制度化，它的专制就越是有效。统一中国的秦朝作出雄心勃勃的努力，想把中国社会重新整顿为一种原始极权主义国家。这个工程最终失败了，因为国家没有工具或技术来实现这个野心。它没有激励人心的意识形态来为自己辩解，也没有组织一个党派来实现它的愿望，凭借当时的通信技术还无法深入中国社会。它的权力所到之处，它的专制是如此暴虐，以至激起了导致自己迅速灭亡的农民起义。

    后续的中国政府学会收敛雄心，学会与现有的社会力量并存不悖。在这一方面，它们是专制的，但不是极权的。与其他世界文明相比，中国集中政治权力的能力颇不寻常。

    在这方面，中国政治发展的路程与印度截然不同。这两个社会作为“亚洲”或“东方”的文明，经常放在一起。它们在早期表现出相似特征，后来却各奔东西，南辕北辙了。过去两千年中，中国的预设政治模式是中央官僚国家，缀以分裂和衰败；而印度的预设模式是一系列弱小王国和公国，缀以短暂的政治统一。我们如果察看印度的历史长河，它是民主国家的事实就丝毫不足为奇。这不是说印度早期就有民主思想，从而创下先例；而是说很难在印度政治中，建立起专制统治。我们将在后续章节中看到，其原因在宗教和思想的领域。

    第 10 章 印度的弯路

    印度早期的发展因婆罗门教的兴起而不同于中国；瓦尔纳和迦提；印度早期的部落社会；印度亲戚关系的特征；印度在建国大道上的弯路

    印度早期的政治发展明显与中国形成分流。一开始，它们都是分支式的部落社会组织。到公元前第一个千年的中期，第一批酋邦和国家从印度北部的部落社会中脱颖而出，比中国晚不了太多。在这两个文明中，酋邦和国家不以亲戚关系为基础，而是由等级分明的政府，开始在领土范围内行使强制权力。

    就战争而言，它们的轨迹却截然不同。印度从没经历像中国的春秋和战国时期持续数世纪的暴力。原因不很明确，可能是由于印度河和恒河流域的人口密度大大低于中国，受地理局限较少；与其顺从等级分明的社会秩序，倒不如迁移他处。①无论如何，早期印度国家无须像中国所经历的那样，应对社会动员的极端要求。

    更为重要的是，印度出现一种独特的社会发展模式，对印度政治造成巨大影响，一直持续到今天。大约在国家刚刚形成之际，便涌现出界限分明的四大社会阶层，被称为瓦尔纳（varnas，阶层）：它们是祭司的婆罗门（Brahmins）、武士的刹帝利（Kshatriyas）、商人的吠舍（Vaishyas）、包罗其余的首陀罗（Sudras，主要是农民）。从政治观点看，这是非常重要的发展，它把世俗和宗教的权力一分为二。中国也有祭司和宗教官员，像主持宫廷礼仪和皇帝祖陵的礼部尚书，但只是国家雇员，严格屈从于皇家权力。中国祭司从没作为独立集团而存在，中国也就发展成“政教合一”的国家。另一方面，印度的婆罗门与刹帝利判然分开，甚至比武士享有更高权威。虽然它没有组成像天主教一样的严密集团，但仍享有类似的道德权威，不受国家干涉。此外，婆罗门阶层被当作神圣法律的监护人，而这法律不但独立于政治统治，且具更长历史。所以，国王必须遵从他人所编纂的法律，自己不是一言九鼎的法律制定者，如中国皇帝。跟欧洲类似，印度也有可称作法治的萌芽，以限制世俗的政治权力。

    第二项重要社会发展是迦提（jatis）的涌现，最终演变成种姓制度（caste）。它把所有的瓦尔纳，再细分为数百种分支式、对内通婚的职业群体，从各式祭司、商人、鞋匠到农民，达成评论家所谓的职业秩序的神圣化。②迦提重叠在现有血统结构之上，为氏族的异族通婚设定界限。也就是说，异族通婚的父系家族的血统，必须在迦提范围内谈婚论嫁，鞋匠女儿必须嫁给不同氏族的鞋匠儿子。成员相互合作，共同生活于自给自足的社区，在这一点上，迦提保留了其他部落社会的分支式特征。但他们又是相互依靠的，是更广泛分工的一部分。与工业社会相比，这种分工非常有限；尽管如此，它又远比单纯的部落社会复杂。依照涂尔干的标准，迦提显示了机械团结和有机团结的双重特征——这是指，个人既是自我复制相同单位的成员，又参与更为广泛的社会互助。

    在中国，出现于周朝的国家在社会顶端取代了分支式或部落的组织。宗族仍是重要的社会组织，国家和亲戚团体之间出现了权力的此起彼落，一方强大了，另一方就变弱。到最后，塑造中国文明的决定性因素是国家。在印度，瓦尔纳和迦提所创造的社会分类成为社会基石，大大限制了国家权力的渗透和掌控。以瓦尔纳和迦提为定义的印度文明，获得广泛扩散，从开伯尔山口（Khyber Pass）到东南亚，统一了语言和种族的众多群体。不像中国，这块辽阔领土从没受到独家政治权力的统治，也没发展出独家文学语言。20 世纪晚期之前，印度历史只是持久的政治分裂和政治软弱，最为成功的统一政治体中不少是外国入侵者，其政治力量依赖完全不同的社会基础。

    印度部落社会

    与中国相比，我们对印度部落社会以及其向国家的过渡，所知极其有限。虽然处于对应的社会发展阶段，印度社会的文化水平要低得多，绝对比不上记载商朝政治活动的大量甲骨文或东周的冗长编年史。印度最早的定居点是旁遮普（Punjab）和西部的摩亨佐—达罗（Mohenjo-Daro），它的哈拉帕（Harappan）文明仅留存于考古学资料。③我们所了解的印度早期社会组织，都是从“吠陀本集”（Vedic texts）中推断而来。该本集记载圣歌、祈祷、注释等，可追溯到公元前两千年或三千年，以前是口口相传，直到公元前一千年中期才变成书面记录。④印度第一个本土帝国是孔雀王朝（Mauryas，公元前 321—前 185 年），在很多方面，它又是最伟大的本土帝国。但它的文字记载仅有流散到次大陆的数块法令岩石，再加上希腊、中国和其他外国著作的提及。这里可能有因果关系：缺乏流传广泛的书面文化，尤其是在印度统治者和行政官员中，大大阻碍了强大集权国家的开发。

    印度—雅利安部落自黑海和里海（Caspian）之间的俄罗斯南部迁移至印度，由此开创了印度政治发展。某些部落群体转向西方，成为希腊、罗马、日耳曼和其他欧洲团体的祖先；另一群体朝南抵达波斯，第三群体向东到阿富汗东部，再穿越巴基斯坦西北部的斯瓦特峡谷（Swat Valley），直达旁遮普和印度河—恒河（Indo-Gangetic）分水岭。现在通过 Y 染色体和线粒体，可以追踪印度—雅利安群体之间的血缘关联，但首次确定相互关系的却是语言学家，他们在印度梵语（Sanskrit）和西方语言之间找出相似，因为它们同属更大的印欧语系。

    早期印度—雅利安部落是游牧民族，放牧牛群，以牛为食，并已驯养马匹。他们第一次迁入印度河—恒河平原时，碰上他们称作达萨（dasas）的其他定居者，后者可能属于不同种族，使用达罗毗荼语（Dravidian）或澳斯特罗—亚细亚语（Austro-Asiatic，又称南亚语）。⑤这段时期，这些部落的行为与他处部落非常相似。他们袭击达萨社区，偷他们的牛，与其他部落打仗。如果遇上强有力的军事抵抗，他们就退避三舍，该地当时仍属人烟稀少。吠陀本集中最古老的是《梨俱吠陀》（Rg Veda），它提及部落之间的频繁冲突、拉贾（Raja）或部落领袖的涌现、确保战争成功的祭司。印度—雅利安人开始在恒河平原安顿下来，从单一游牧业转为游牧业和农业的混合。种植由小麦改成稻米，农业技术因此获得改进，使更多盈余、更突出的送礼和礼仪奉献成为可能。大约同时，奶牛地位开始发生变化，从印度—雅利安人主要的蛋白质来源（像努尔人一样），到受人崇拜的图腾动物。⑥

    在这个发展阶段，与我们已经解说的其他分支式社会相比，印度—雅利安社会似乎没有任何的别具一格。例如，拉贾一词经常被译成国王，但实际上只是当时的部落领袖。历史学家罗米拉·塔帕（Romila Thapar）指出，拉贾的主要词根是“发光、带领”，但它的另一词根是“使人满意”。这显示，拉贾在部落中的权威有赖于众人的共识。⑦拉贾又是军事领袖，帮助保卫自己的社区，率领众人向邻近部落发起袭击以攫取战利品。他的权力受亲戚团体集会的制衡，如维达萨（vidatha）、萨巴（sabha）、萨米提（samiti）。其中的维达萨，专门负责在社区内分派战利品。像美拉尼西亚社会的头人，拉贾的地位取决于他在奉献和盛宴中分配资源的能力。拉贾们彼此竞争，看谁可摆出最多的财富以及最终的浪费，很像夸扣特尔（Kwakiutl）和其他西北太平洋海岸印第安人的庆典。⑧

    像其他部落社会，印度没有法律制度，以赔偿金解决争端（杀人赔偿金是一百头奶牛）。拉贾没有征税权力，也不在现代意义上拥有土地。所有权都在家庭手中，还有对亲戚团体的义务。像其他分支式社会，印度—雅利安部落可团结起来，组成像般庶王朝（Panchalas）那样的高层次分支，高层次分支之间可以再次联手，以达成更高层次的联盟。

    印度家庭和亲戚关系

    像希腊、罗马、中国，印度—雅利安部落也组成父系家族的血统。19 世纪的历史人类学家，包括甫斯特尔·德·库朗日和亨利·梅因，在希腊、罗马、凯尔特、条顿、当代印度人中，找到甚多相似的亲戚结构。我曾提及，希腊、罗马、早期印度人都在家庭祭坛供养圣火（参看第 3 章）。从 1862 年到 1869 年，梅因是在印度度过的。作为总督会议的法律成员，他潜心攻读印度的原始文献。他确信曾有过统一的“雅利安”文明，包括罗马和印度。由于共同的历史起源，他们有关财产、遗产、继承的法律条款都非常相似。他相信，印度以某种方式保存了法律和社会实践的古代形式，人们可从印度的现在看到欧洲的过去。⑨

    后来的人类学家对梅因提出严格批评，认为他过于简化印度的亲戚关系，并在它之上强加了不妥当的进化结构。在显示欧洲人和印度人的共同种族起源上，他似乎确有强烈兴趣，也许是为了提供英国统治印度的历史基础。但他仍是比较人类学的伟大创始人之一，并以渊博知识展示，不同文明发展了相似方案，以解决社会组织问题。当代人类学家都意识到，各社会的亲戚结构中存有难以置信的微妙差异，但有时只见树木不见森林，认不清同级发展水平的不同社会之间的相似程度。

    像中国一样，我们也不能将当代印度亲戚组织，投射到早期的印度—雅利安人。亲戚关系作为社会基本结构原则，从没在印度消失，这不像西方，倒与中国相近。所以，印度的社会组织自有其潜在的持续性，我们必须心领神会，方能解释其政治发展的此起彼伏。

    印度的亲戚组织分属三大区，与次大陆的三大民族语言区相对应：第一，北部，其居民是讲梵语的印度—雅利安后裔；第二，南部，其居民讲达罗毗荼语；第三，东部，与缅甸和东南亚其他地区非常相似。⑩几乎所有的印度亲戚团体，都形成分支式的世系，绝大多数是父系社会。然而，在印度的南部和东部又有重要团体，分属母系社会和母系中心，例如马拉巴地区（Malabar）的那雅人（Nayar）。⑪跟中国一样，后裔团体基于共同祖先，通过某种形式的共有财产而取得集团身份。

    印度亲戚关系不同于中国，因为瓦尔纳和迦提的等级制度参与其中。迦提确立异族通婚的界限。这意味着，任何人通常不得与自己瓦尔纳或迦提之外的人谈婚论嫁。瓦尔纳和迦提的制度等级森严，较低地位女子如何“高攀”较高地位男子，或较低地位男子如何“高攀”较高地位女人（后者比较少见）（人类学家称之为向上通婚[hypergamy]和向下通婚[hypogamy]），它都设有精细规则来作规范。每个瓦尔纳和迦提的本身，在地位级别上又作进一步的条分缕析。所以，即使在自己分类中通婚，也会遇上甚多禁忌。例如，婆罗门中有些必须主持家庭仪式，而另一些则不必；有些主持葬礼，而另一些则不必。婆罗门最高级别的男子，绝不可能娶最低级别婆罗门的女儿（即主持葬礼的）。⑫

    梵语的北方和达罗毗荼语的南方，它们在亲戚规则上的差别涉及表亲通婚，从而影响政治组织。在北方，儿子必须与父亲血统之外的人通婚，不可与第一表亲通婚。在南方，儿子同样必须与父亲血统之外的人通婚，但是，与父亲姐妹的女儿通婚，不但允许，而且获得鼓励。这种做法叫作交叉表亲（cross-cousin）的婚姻。而平行表亲（parallel cousin）的婚姻，即与父亲兄弟的女儿通婚，则不可，因为这违反了氏族的异姓通婚规矩。所以，男子可与姐姐的女儿和舅舅的女儿通婚。换言之，像很多阿拉伯部落一样，南方的印度部落倾向于把婚姻（以及相关的遗产）局限于狭窄的亲戚小圈子，相连的血统因此而聚居在一起。在北方，家庭为了孩子能找到合适的配偶，被迫在更大范围内撒网。达罗毗荼的交叉表亲婚姻，加强了其社会关系狭小内向的特征，这存在于所有的部落社会。⑬可以假定，这样的婚姻实践降低奖励，使南方的国王不愿去寻求远方的婚姻同盟，如建立现代西班牙的阿拉贡国王（Aragon）和卡斯提尔女王（Castile）的联姻。

    这段简洁的概述，尚未触及印度复杂亲戚关系的皮毛。对梵语的北方和达罗毗荼语的南方，虽然可做出一个概述，但这两个地区在亲戚规则方面，因地理位置、种姓制度以及宗教的不同，而展示出巨大的内部差异。⑭

    过渡到国家

    促使印度从部落社会过渡到国家，其原动力是什么？我们所拥有的相关信息，远远少于中国案例。我们有两种关于国家形成的虚幻解说，与人类学家的暴力和社会契约理论遥相呼应。第一种解说，“吠陀本集”中较晚文本的《爱达罗氏梵书》（Aitareya Brahmana，或译《他氏梵书》）解释：“众神与魔鬼大打出手，但在敌人手中吃尽苦头，便聚会讨论，决定要一名拉贾来率领打仗，于是指定因陀罗（Indra）为他们的国王，战势很快获得逆转。”这个传奇显示，印度最早的国王应人们和军事的需求而生，其首要职责是率领部下打仗。⑮第二种解说来自佛教资料：

    当人们丧失原始的光荣，阶级差别（瓦尔纳）遂出现。他们签订协议，接受私人财产和家庭的制度，盗窃、谋杀、通奸和其他罪行由此而起。人们聚会讨论，决定要选出一名成员来维持秩序，报酬是分享一份土地和畜牧的收获。他被称为“大选出王”（Mahasammata），头衔是拉贾，因为他取悦于其他成员。⑯

    佛教始终是印度教的翻版，只是更为仁慈，更为温和。它强调非暴力，以及轮回转生的更为可行。所以，佛教徒认为国家形成获得大家同意，也属意料之中。但上述两种解说都不是历史记载。

    实际的过渡也许牵涉到其他社会在建立国家时所遇到的所有因素。第一是征服：《梨俱吠陀》讲到印度—雅利安人遇上达萨人，发动战争，最终征服后者。最早提及的瓦尔纳，不是大家熟悉的四大社会阶层，而是两大社会阶层，分别是雅利安阶层和达萨阶层。所以很明显，从平等部落社会到等级国家社会的过渡，开始于军事征服。最初，达萨人只是因为自己的种族和语言而与征服者有所区别，到后来，达萨一词变成了从属或奴隶的代名词。这个转变是逐渐发生的，时间在印度—雅利安从游牧社会过渡到农业社会之后。⑰剥削从属阶级创造庄稼收获的盈余，自己部落不必投入劳动，便可收取一笔地租。“拉贾”的意思，也从部落领袖变为“自土地或村庄享受收入的人”。⑱大约在公元前 6 世纪早期，等级的日益分明又与永久定居、雏形城市、土地所有权紧密相连。⑲在土地上劳作的，不再是亲戚团体共同协作的家庭，而是与地主并不沾亲带故的农民。⑳为了使低级阶层永远处于被主宰的地位，为了防止他们逃逸，常备军和领土的政治控制变得不可或缺。

    跟中国相似，促进政治巩固的还有技术变化。其中之一是铁器，它在公元前 800 年之后得到与日俱增的使用。铁斧可用来清除密集的森林，铁犁可帮助耕地。国家没有控制铁的生产，但铁工具的使用带来威望，并增加国家可挪用的有效盈余的总水平。㉑

    像中国和其他从部落过渡到国家的社会，独特和永久的祭司阶层婆罗门，赋予部落领袖愈益增长的合法性，使后者权力获得很大提升。拉贾行使政治权力，祭司通过仪式使之合法化；拉贾又支持祭司，并提供资源来补偿这些服务。早期的拉贾凭借祭司而获得神性，从而将自己职位转为祖传财产，通过渐渐流行的长子继承权再传给儿子。显而易见，半神半人不再是部落长者中的老大。所以，部落集会的萨巴失去了选择氏族领袖的能力，开始扮演咨询的角色。国王的授权仪式发展成持续一年的献祭仪式；其间，拉贾经历净化和象征性的新生；到终结时，婆罗门再赋予他职位和神性。㉒

    公元前 6 世纪末，印度河—恒河平原上的社会已从部落过渡到雏形国家或酋邦，被称为伽那—僧伽（gana-sangha，编按：前者意为“众多”，后者意为“集合体”）。北方的国家，如鸯伽（Anga）、摩揭陀（Magadha）、俱卢（Kuru）、般庶，控制界定的领土，治理城市中相对密集的人口，完全是主权政治体。它们等级森严，王位世袭，其精英向农民抽取租金。相比之下，伽那—僧伽尚保留部落社会的特征：等级松弛，领导权模糊，不能像真正国家一样行使强制权力。㉓

    弯路

    到此为止，印度北部和两三千年前的中国西周，它们所经历的政治发展没有重大差别。最初，社会组成父系氏族的联合体，信奉祖先崇拜；大约在过渡到定居农业社会时，转向等级分明、世袭领袖、统治者和祭司的分工。很有可能，商朝统治者比印度的统治者行使更多权力，但差别不很惊人。

    首批真正国家出现于印度河—恒河平原时，印度的政治演变以戏剧性的方式与中国模式分道扬镳。印度国家没有经历五百年日益激烈的连续战争，就像中国早期国家在东周时所承受的。之后的数世纪内，印度国家也彼此打仗，也与伽那—僧伽交战，但从没达到中国所实施的相互灭绝的惨烈程序。如我们所知，中国独立政治体的总数，从东周初的数百持续下跌到东周末的一枝独秀。相比之下，印度只有较少较不激烈的战争，以及较低程度的统一。较为原始的伽那—僧伽，没被强大的国家所兼并，一直生存至公元第一个千年的中期，这就很说明问题了。在发展现代国家制度方面，战国时期的中国政治体不得不仿效邻国，而印度政治体显然没有此种压力。公元前 3 世纪末，孔雀王朝得以统一次大陆的大部，建成单一帝国，但仍有部分地区从没被征服，甚至其核心地带的统治也没得到彻底的巩固。孔雀王朝持续仅 136 年，这种幅员辽阔的政治体再也没有在本土政权下重现，直到 1947 年印度共和国出现。

    差别的第二领域涉及宗教。中国设立了专业祭司，主持向国王和皇帝赋予合法性的礼仪，但其国家宗教从没超越祖先崇拜的层次。祭司主持对皇帝祖先的崇拜，但没有自己的司法权。末代皇帝失去合法性时，或朝代之间没有合法统治者时，没有作为机构的祭司来宣布谁享有天命。这种合法性可由任何人赋予，从农民、军人到官僚。

    印度宗教则走上迥然不同的路。印度—雅利安部落的原始宗教，可能也像中国那样基于祖先崇拜。但始于公元前第二个千年，即“吠陀本集”创作时，它发展成精细的形而上学系统，以无形超然的世界来解释尘世的全部现象。新兴的婆罗门宗教，把重点从个人的祖先和后裔转到包罗万象的宇宙系统。为这超然世界把关的就是婆罗门阶层，其权威是很重要的。他们在未来世界中所保障的，不但是国王的血统，而且是最低级农民的福祉。

    在婆罗门教的影响下，分别是雅利安人和达萨人的两大瓦尔纳，进化成四大瓦尔纳：婆罗门、刹帝利、吠舍、首陀罗。处于顶端的是祭司阶层，他们创作了构成“吠陀本集”的仪式祈祷。随着宗教的发展，历代的婆罗门默记这些祈祷。这礼仪咒语的倒背如流成为他们的专业，与其他瓦尔纳争夺社会地位时，又变成其优势。法律就从这些仪式中脱颖而出，起初只是惯例，口口相传，最终写入法律书籍，像英国人所称的《摩奴法典》（Manava-Dharmasastra）。所以在印度传统中，法律并不来自政治权力，这不像中国；它的源泉既独立于统治者，又比统治者更为崇高。事实上，《摩奴法典》讲得很清楚，国王之存在是为了保护瓦尔纳制度，不可颠倒过来。㉔ 如果我们把中国案例当作政治发展的标准直线，印度社会大约在公元前 600 年走上一条大弯路。印度没有经历漫长的战争，以开发现代非人格化的集权国家。㉕权力没有集中于国王，而在界限分明的祭司阶层和武士阶层之间平分。他们相互依赖，以求生存。印度虽然没在当时开发出像中国一样的现代国家，但创造了限制国家权力和权威的法治雏形，中国则没有。很明显，印度始终不能以中国方式集中权力，其根源就是印度宗教，我们将对此作更仔细的审视。

    第 11 章 瓦尔纳和迦提

    经济与宗教，作为社会变化的源头；印度的社会生活因宗教而变得包罗万象；印度宗教对政治权力的启示

    作为社会变化的源头，经济利益与思想到底谁占鳌头？这是社会理论家最古老的争辩之一。从卡尔·马克思到持现代理性选择理论的经济学家都认为，物质利益享有优先权。马克思认为，宗教是大众的“麻醉剂”，这个神话是精英编出的，为了辩护其对社会他人的掌控。很多现代经济学家不像马克思那么尖刻，但仍认为他们的功利最大化的理性架构（rational utility-maximizing framework），足以解释几乎所有的社会行为。诺贝尔奖得主加里·贝克（Gary Becker）曾表示，不同意者只是研究得不够认真。①思想被认为是外在因素，也就是说，为了解释物质利益，它只是在事后建立的，并不是社会行为的独立原因。

    站在该论点对面的是一批现代社会学创始人，包括韦伯和涂尔干。他们认为，宗教和宗教观念是主要因素，既是人类行动的动力，又是社会身份的来源。韦伯坚持，在现代经济学家所运作的架构中，个人是主要决策者，物质利益是主要动机；但最终，这架构本身又是新教改革的观念的产品。写完《新教伦理与资本主义精神》后，韦伯继续写出有关中国、印度和其他非西方文明的著作。它们显示，要理解经济生活是如何组织的，宗教观念不可或缺。

    如果要举马克思一方的例子，即宗教在为少数精英掌控他人作辩护，一定不会选普世平等的基督教或伊斯兰教，而要选公元前最后两个千年出现在印度的婆罗门教。根据《梨俱吠陀》：

    众神奉献牺牲时，以普鲁沙（Man）为祭品……

    他们分解普鲁沙时，将他分成多少块？

    他的嘴和双臂叫什么？双腿和两足又叫什么？

    婆罗门是他的嘴，他的双臂成为武士。

    他的双腿成为吠舍，从两足生出首陀罗……

    众神作完奉献，这是神圣法律之首。

    这些大力神飞天，那里住有永久神灵。②

    婆罗门不仅将自己安置在这四大社会阶层的顶端，而且授予自己对祈祷和圣歌的永久垄断。那些祈祷和圣歌在赋予合法性的各种仪式中不可或缺，从最高级的国王授权，到最低级的婚礼或葬礼。

    以纯唯物主义来解释印度社会中的宗教功能，难以让人满意。首先，它无法解释神话中的实际内容。如我们所见，在过渡到国家的前夕，中国社会和印度社会有很多结构上的相似。中国精英，像每个已知社会的精英，也利用赋予合法性的仪式来提升自己的权力。但中国人想象不出一个像印度那样的既深刻又复杂的形而上学系统。事实上，即使没有超然宗教的帮助，他们仍能有效夺取和保有权力。

    此外，在印度占居首位的不是拥有强制和经济权力的精英，反而是仅有仪式权力的精英。即使有人相信物质原因是最重要的，他仍要回答这一疑问：为什么刹帝利和吠舍——武士和商人——甘愿臣服于婆罗门，不仅向后者提供土地和经济资源，而且让后者控制自己个人生活的隐私。

    最终，就印度社会而言，不管是经济解释，还是唯物主义解释，都必须解释该制度为何经久不衰。公元前 600 年，婆罗门教适合精英小团体的利益，但随着时间的推移，它并不适合印度社会中其他阶层和团体的利益。为何没有反精英运动的兴起，宣扬新的宗教思想，以提倡普世平等？在某种意义上，佛教和耆那教就是抗议宗教。两者继承了很多婆罗门教的形而上学假设，但在次大陆却得不到广泛接纳。对婆罗门教霸权的最大挑战，却是外国入侵者凭借武力进口的——莫卧儿帝国带来了伊斯兰教，英国人带来了西方自由和民主的思想。所以，必须把宗教和政治本身看作行为和变化的动力，不可视之为宏大经济力量的副产品。

    印度宗教的合理性

    就现代经济的需求而言，很难想象还有另外一个社会制度，其兼容度低于婆罗门教迦提制度。现代劳工市场理论要求，每个人通过在教育和技能方面的投资，自由地与人签约来出售自己的服务，从而“改善自己的处境”，这是亚当·斯密（Adam Smith）的原话。信息流通的灵活劳工市场，能够导致个人处境的最大改善和资源的优化分配。相比之下，根据迦提制度，个人天生只能从事有限行业。他们必须继承父业，必须与同一迦提团体的成员通婚。投资教育是没有意义的，因为个人永远都不能在生活中提高自己的地位。在迦提制度中，社会升迁只适用社区总体，不适用个人。所以，迦提的团体可决定搬往新区，或开发新的商机，但不允许个人创业。该制度对社会合作造成了巨大障碍，对某些婆罗门来说，光是看见贱民就需要一个冗长的净化仪式。

    从现代经济观点看，这很不合理；对接受婆罗门教根本前提的人来说，这又完全合理。整个社会制度，包括种姓制度中最细微的规则，作为宏观形而上学系统的逻辑结论，却是非常完美的。现代评论家经常试图以实用或经济功利来解释印度的社会规则，例如，禁食奶牛刚开始只是卫生措施，为了避开受污染的牛肉。除了不符合早期印度—雅利安人像努尔人一样吃奶牛的事实，这种解释无法看透主观上体验到的社会凝聚，反而折射了评论家自己的世俗偏见。

    韦伯认识到婆罗门教理后面的高度合理性——自然神学（theodicy），或上帝的理由，他称之为“天才的手笔”。③去印度修道院研读的西方皈依者，往往能体会到这一天才，其始于否认现实的现象世界。下面是皈依者自己的话语：

    所有印度宗教系统，其终级目的是为了超越生命（moksha）。它们都假设，感知的存在是对现实（maya）的误解，仅是外表，躲在背后的才是终级存在的梵（brahman）。它无形无体，正因为无形无体，所以永恒。它是唯一的现实。我们所感觉的，我们因自己的物质存在而有所依恋的，都是稍纵即逝的（都会凋零和死亡），所以是虚无缥缈的（maya）。不像有些解说者所宣称的，存在的“目的”实际上不是“获得”对梵的认同，而是排除万难去体会，个人内心（atman）中真实永久的东西就是梵。④

    凡人的生存涉及物质的生物生存，其对立面，就是超越此时此地的无形无体的真正存在。早期婆罗门认为，“与分娩有关的流血、与疾病和暴力有关的痛苦和变形、与人体排泄物有关的污浊恶臭、与死亡有关的衰败腐烂”，都会牵涉凡人生命，都需要得到超度。这就是为什么婆罗门在社会等级制度中授予自己特权地位：“污染物质渗透了凡人的生存，在现世和漫长的上升轮回（samsara）中，需要婆罗门主持的仪式来予以控制和削减，这是获得解脱（moksha）的必要途径。”⑤

    迦提制度源于业力（karma），即个人在现世所做的一切。职业的地位有高有低，取决于它们离污染源有多远——诸如血液、死亡、泥土、腐败的有机物。皮革匠、屠夫、理发匠、清扫夫、收生婆，以及处理动物尸体或死人的行业，被认为是最不洁净的。相比之下，婆罗门是最完美的，因为遇上血液、死亡、泥土时，他们可依赖他人的服务。这解释了婆罗门的素食主义，因为吃肉就好比吃尸体。⑥

    社会升迁在现世是不可能的，但可以指望来世。业力只在代代相传时才有变更，因此，个人一生都陷于自己的业力。在迦提等级制度中，个人到底获得升级还是降级，则取决于自己是否履行了所属迦提的法（dharma），即良好行为的准则。未能遵守准则的，将在来世等级制度中降级，从而更加远离真正的存在。婆罗门教将神圣化赋予现有的社会秩序，履行现存迦提的法变成了宗教责任。

    瓦尔纳秩序发展自同样的形而上学前提。前三级瓦尔纳——婆罗门、刹帝利、吠舍——被认为是“两次投胎”，所以获得允许，进入仪式地位。包含大多数人口的首陀罗是“一次投胎”，只能希望在来世获得仪式地位。历史上不是很清楚，印度社会离开部落组织时，瓦尔纳和迦提的出现谁早谁晚。可能是宗族进化为迦提，它们在很多方面非常相似，都有精细的亲戚关系规则。但也有可能是先进化为瓦尔纳，再为随后出现的迦提设置架构。⑦

    宗教信仰所造成的迦提制度，创造了颇不寻常的组合，既有分支式的隔离，同时又有社会中的相互依赖。每个迦提成为世袭地位，以调整现存的宗族系统。迦提设置了氏族的异姓通婚的外限，在众多分支式单位中，又倾向于成为自给自足的社区。另一方面，每种职业又是更大分工的一部分，所以需要相互依赖，从高级祭司到葬礼工。⑧法国人类学家路易·杜蒙（Louis Dumont）引用布兰特（编按：E. A. H. Blunt，1877—1941，英属印度殖民地官员）的资料：

    理发匠联合抵制曾拒绝为他们婚礼跳舞的舞女。

    在格拉克珀（Gorakhpur），一名地主试图中断皮革匠的生意。他相信他们在毒死自己的牛群（经常有如此的怀疑），便命令他的租户将无缘无故死去的牛的皮革故意割碎。皮革匠奋起反抗，命令他们的女人停止收生婆的服务。地主只好让步。

    在艾哈迈达巴德（Ahmedabad，又译阿默达巴德，位于古吉拉特邦），一名正在重盖屋顶的钱庄老板与糖果店主发生争执，糖果店主说服瓦片制造商，拒绝为钱庄老板提供瓦片。⑨

    这不单是经济上的相互依赖，因为每个执行自己功能的迦提，对其他迦提都具有仪式上的重要意义。

    思想及其政治后果

    瓦尔纳制度对政治有巨大影响，它要求武士的刹帝利服从婆罗门。⑩根据哈罗德·古尔德（Harold Gould），“婆罗门和刹帝利之间……有共生的相互依赖。王室权力需要连续获得祭司（即仪式）权力所赋予的神圣化，以维持神圣的合法性”。⑪每位统治者需要与宫廷祭司（purohita）建立私人关系，他作为世俗领袖所采取的每一次行动，都要得到宫廷祭司所赋予的神圣化。

    宗教权威和世俗权力在理论上的分离，何以在实践中对后者设限，初看上去不很清楚。婆罗门教的等级制度，没有像天主教那样组成正式的中央权威机构。它有点像巨大的社会网络，单独的婆罗门互相交流和合作，但并不行使制度化的权威。单独婆罗门拥有土地，但作为制度的祭司阶层，不像欧洲教会，却没有自己的领地和资源。婆罗门肯定不能像中世纪的教皇，召集统领自己的军队。教皇格里高利七世在 1076 年将神圣罗马帝国皇帝革出教门，并迫使后者赤脚来卡诺莎（Canossa）请求赦免，这在印度历史中绝对找不出可媲美的案例。世俗统治者需要宫廷祭司来祝福自己的政治计划，在收买后者一事上，好像总能如愿以偿。印度宗教和社会的制度等级分明，各有分支，但它们如何使政治集权难以实现，我们还需寻找其他原委。

    瓦尔纳和迦提的制度限制了军事组织的发展，这个影响很明显。武士的刹帝利是瓦尔纳制度四大阶层之一，自动限制了印度社会军事动员的潜力。像匈奴、匈人、蒙古人的武装游牧民族，之所以如此强大，原因之一就是可以动员几近 100% 的健壮男子。就必不可少的技能或组织而言，武装掠夺和游牧漂泊没有什么两样。仍是游牧民族时，印度—雅利安人曾经也很强大，但现已定居下来，建立了瓦尔纳社会。武士地位成为少数贵族精英的专业，如想加入，不但讲究训练和出身，还具有强烈的宗教意义。

    在实践中，该制度并没有始终限制他人的加入。很多印度统治者出生于刹帝利阶层，但也有不少来自婆罗门、吠舍、首陀罗。新统治者夺取政治权力后，倾向于在事后获得刹帝利地位。以这种方式成为刹帝利，比成为婆罗门更为容易。⑫瓦尔纳四个阶层都参与战争，婆罗门中有级别很高的军事将领，首陀罗倾向于充当辅助部队。就从属关系而言，军队的等级制度就是社会等级制度的拷贝。⑬不像秦国和其他后期东周列国，印度政治体从未能动员大部分的农民。⑭考虑到仪式上对血液和尸体的厌恶，很难想象，受伤军人能从高贵战友手中获得很多救助。在采用新兴军事技术方面，如此保守的社会显然是迟疑不决的。他们在基督时代之后才放弃战车，比中国人晚了好多世纪；大象继续用于战争，尽管其效用早已被人怀疑。印度军队从没开发有效的射箭骑兵，以致惨败于公元前 4 世纪的希腊人和 12 世纪的穆斯林。⑮

    从社会上层一直到底层，印度社会以迦提为基础形成众多紧密结合的小集团，其组织动力正是由婆罗门教提供的。这是限制政治权力的第二条途径。这些集团自我管理，不需要国家帮忙组织。事实上，它们抵抗国家的渗透和控制，政治学家乔尔·米格代尔（Joel Migdal）称之为软弱国家和强势社会。⑯这种情形维持至今，种姓制度和村民组织仍是印度社会的支柱。

    19 世纪的西方评论家，包括卡尔·马克思和亨利·梅因，注意到印度社会自我组织的特征。马克思宣称国王拥有一切土地，但又指出，印度村庄在经济上偏向于自治，以一种原始共产主义为基础（这种解释有点自相矛盾）。梅因指的是自我调整、一成不变的村庄社区，这种看法在维多利亚的英国非常流行。19 世纪早期，英国行政官员把印度村庄当作能幸存于帝国毁灭的“小小共和国”。⑰

    20 世纪的印度民族主义者，部分原因是依据上述解释，想象出一幅本土村庄民主的田园画像，即潘查亚特制度（panchayat）。他们声称，这是印度政治秩序的源头，直到被英国殖民者破坏。现代印度宪法的第 40 条，详细解释了复原的潘查亚特机构，旨在促进地方民主，曾在 1989 年获得拉吉夫·甘地政府的特别关注。其时，政府正试图在印度联邦制中推动权力分散。但印度早期的地方统治，不像后来评论家和民族主义者所宣称的，实际上不是民主和世俗的，而是基于迦提或种姓制度的。每座村庄倾向于有个强势种姓，也就是说，其人数和拥有的土地都超过其他种姓，而潘查亚特制度仅仅是该强势种姓的传统领导组织。⑱

    单独村庄自有地方的统治机构，不需要国家从外部提供服务。潘查亚特制度的重要功能之一是司法，它依据惯例来裁决迦提成员之间的争论。村庄中的产权不是共有的，这有悖于马克思的想象。像其他分支世系社会，财产为复杂的亲戚团体所拥有，单独家庭在处理土地时要面临很多责任和限制。这意味着，国王虽是名义上的主权君主，却没有真正“拥有”村庄土地。我们将在后续章节看到，在征税和征地时，印度政治统治者的权力往往非常有限。

    商业活动也依据迦提，宛如不需外界支持的自控公司。从 9 世纪到 14 世纪，印度南部的贸易大多由像阿育尔（Ayyvole）那样的商人行会控制。它们派出的代表满布次大陆，与印度之外的阿拉伯人商人打交道。古吉拉特邦的商人，不管是穆斯林还是印度教徒，长期控制印度洋、东非、阿拉伯半岛南部、东南亚的贸易。艾哈迈达巴德商人组成全市大公司，吸引所有主要职业团体的成员。⑲在中国，贸易网络只靠宗族，不像印度同行那样组织良好。中国宗族的司法权，往往局限于家法、遗产和其他家庭琐事（尤其在强大政府时期）。印度的迦提除了地方社会的行政管理，还发挥公开的政治功能。根据萨提希·萨贝瓦尔（Satish Saberwal），“迦提提供了社会动员的各式场合：进攻性的，则争取掌控权和统治权……防御性的，则抵制国家和帝国入侵迦提领域……破坏性的，则任职于更大政治体，运用其权力和高位来谋取私人利益”。⑳迦提还为成员提供地理和社会上的升迁。例如，泰米尔（Tamil）纺织种姓的凯寇拉（Kaikolar），在朱罗王朝（Chola）时期改行，变成商人和军人；19 世纪后期，锡克人的木匠和铁匠离开家乡的旁遮普，迁往阿萨姆邦（印度的 Assam）和肯尼亚（非洲的 Kenya）。㉑这些决定由众多家庭集体作出，以便在新环境中相互依赖、相互支持。在印度北部，拉杰普特（Rajput）迦提在扩充地域方面尤为成功，得以控制大片土地。

    限制政治权力的第三条途径是婆罗门教社会制度对文化的控制，这一习俗延续至今，使大批印度人陷于贫穷和绝望。现代印度处于某种吊诡状态。一方面有大量印度人接受良好教育，攀登众多领域的世界顶峰，从信息技术、医药、娱乐到经济。境外印度人始终享受较多的社会升迁机会，这一事实多年前便引起小说家奈保尔爵士（V.S. Naipaul）的注意。㉒经济改革在 20 世纪 80 年代晚期和 90 年代出现，境内印度人也开始兴旺起来。另一方面，接受良好教育的居民仍是少数，国内文盲和贫穷的程度高得惊人。快速增长的城市，如班加罗尔（Bangalore）和海得拉巴（Hyderabad），其郊外是广阔的乡村内地，那里的人类发展指数在世界上竟名列底层。㉓

    这些差距的历史根源最终还归罪于瓦尔纳和迦提的制度。作为仪式监护人，婆罗门当然掌控学习和知识。一直到公元前第一个千年末期，他们坚决反对把最重要的“吠陀本集”付诸文字。根据萨贝瓦尔，“为仪式上的使用而默记圣歌——既为自己，又为主顾——是婆罗门最独特的学习方式。仪式上和学习过程中的高效，并不要求弄懂所背诵的东西……很多婆罗门献身于浩瀚的默记、逻辑分析、辩论”。㉔为达到所需求的仪式效果，精确默记“吠陀本集”是必须的。据说，朗诵中的小错将导致灾难。

    也许并非偶然，婆罗门坚持口头传诵“吠陀本集”，设置加入婆罗门的额外障碍，更加强自己的至高无上。犹太人、基督徒、穆斯林，从他们宗教传统的一开始就是“圣书上的民族”，婆罗门却顽强抵抗文字和有关的书写技术。5 世纪和 7 世纪，中国取经人来印度寻求佛教传统的文献，竟找不到书面文本。中国人和欧洲人改用羊皮纸之后很久，印度人仍在使用棕榈树叶和树皮。讨厌耐用的羊皮纸有宗教起源，因为它来自动物的皮肤。11 世纪造纸技术来到时，婆罗门仍然迟迟不用。㉕在马哈拉施特拉（Maharashtra）的乡村，日常行政管理中的纸张使用一直要等到 17 世纪中期。一出现，它们就大大改善了记账和监管的效率。㉖

    公元 1000 年之后，书写才变得普遍，自婆罗门扩散到印度社会其他群体。商人开始制作商业记录，迦提开始记载家庭谱系。在喀拉拉邦（Kerala），“王家和贵族血统”的那雅人开始学习书面梵语，该邦的统治阶级开始制作大量政治和商业的记录。（20 世纪晚期，当地共产党政府治理的喀拉拉邦成为印度治绩最佳的邦之一。有人怀疑，这样的治绩是否植根于数世纪前的文化传统。）

    与中国相比，婆罗门垄断知识，抵制书写，严重影响了现代国家的发展。从商朝以来，中国统治者一直使用文字传递命令、记录法律、保管账目、书写详尽的政治历史。在中国，对官僚的教育集中于识字、攻读漫长复杂的文学传统；对行政官员的训练，依现代标准看仍属有限，但仍涉及反复分析书本、以史为鉴。汉朝以来，科举制度获得采用，政府用人基于对文学技能的掌握，并不局限于特定阶层。虽然在实际情形中，普通老百姓登上政府高位的机遇非常有限，但中国人都知道，教育是社会升迁的重要途径。所以，宗族和地方社区在儿子的教育上全力以赴，充分利用科举制度。

    如此情形在印度是不存在的。统治者自己是文盲，依靠同样无知的家族官员来维持治理。文化是婆罗门阶层的特权，他们维持对知识和仪式的垄断来保障自身利益。跟军队的情形一样，瓦尔纳和迦提的等级制度阻止了大多数人获得教育和文化，从而减少了可为国家所用的称职人才。

    在印度发展历史中，宗教影响政治权力的最后途径是建立了所谓法治的基础。法治的本质是一组反映社会正义感的规则，比国王的意愿更为崇高。这就是印度的情形，各种法典中的法律不是国王创建的，而是婆罗门依据仪式知识所制定的。这些法律讲得很清楚，瓦尔纳不是为国王服务的，更确切地说，国王只有变成瓦尔纳的保护人，方可获得合法性。㉗如果国王触犯了神圣法律，史诗《摩诃婆罗多》公开认可反抗，宣称此人已不再是国王，而是一条疯狗。在《摩奴法典》中，主权在法律，而不在国王：“在本质上，法律（danda）即是国王，享有权力，维持秩序，发挥领导作用。”（《摩奴法典》第 7 章第 17 节）㉘

    不少古典文献叙述有关梵那（Vena）国王的警世故事，他禁止除了给自己的所有其他祭品，还推行种姓之间的通婚。结果，神圣的众神向他发起攻击，以奇迹般化成矛的青草叶，将他杀死。很多印度朝代，包括难陀王朝（Nanda）、孔雀王朝、巽伽王朝（Sunga），都因婆罗门的阴谋而变弱。㉙当然，就像中世纪的天主教，很难弄清婆罗门是在捍卫神圣法律，还是在保护自己利益。像欧洲而非中国，印度的权威是分裂的，对政治权力造成了颇具意义的制衡。 印度的社会制度源于宗教，大大限制了国家的集权能力。统治者不能动员大批人口以建立强大军队；不能渗透存在于每座村庄的自治且严密组织的迦提；自己和部下缺乏教育和文化；还要面对维护规范化秩序的严密的祭司阶层；自己在这一秩序中仅扮演从属角色。就上述的方方面面而言，印度统治者的处境非常不同于中国。

    第 12 章 印度政体的弱点

    孔雀王朝何以成为印度第一个且最成功的本土统治者；孔雀王朝治下的国家性质；阿育王的性格；式微、分裂、笈多王朝的复兴；印度为何被外国所征服

    一开始，印度的社会发展就压倒政治和经济的发展。次大陆获得一种以宗教信仰和社会实践为特征的共同文化，在尝试取得政治统一之前，就被标为与众不同的文明。统一过程中，社会力量足以抵制政治权力，阻止后者对社会的改造。中国发展了强大国家，其社会因此而处于孱弱地位，并自我延续。印度有个强大社会，先发制人，反而阻止了强大国家的兴起。

    公元前第一个千年初的印度次大陆，成千上万的小国和酋邦，自部落社会脱颖而出。其中三个王国——迦尸（Kashi）、拘萨罗（Kosala）、摩揭陀——和酋邦（或伽那—僧伽）的弗栗恃（Vrijji），成为印度河—恒河平原上的逐鹿者。摩揭陀（其核心地区在现代的比哈尔邦[Bihar]）注定要扮演秦国角色，统一印度次大陆的大部。公元前 6 世纪的下半世纪，频毗娑罗王（Bimbisara）登基，凭借一系列战略性的婚姻和征服，使摩揭陀成为印度东部的主要国家。摩揭陀开始征收土地税和收成税，以代替国家形成之前低级血统的自愿进贡，由此而招聘征税人员。税率据说是农业产品的六分之一，如果属实，这在早期农业社会是相当高的。①国王并不拥有国内所有土地，只享有荒地，其时人口稀少，应该是相当广袤的。

    儿子阿阇世王（Ajatashatru）谋杀频毗娑罗，兼并西部的拘萨罗和迦尸，并与弗栗恃展开持久斗争。后来，他在伽那—僧伽领袖中挑拨离间，终获大胜。他死于公元前 461 年，其时，摩揭陀已迁都至华氏城（Pataliputra），控制了恒河三角洲和恒河下游的大部。统治权传给一系列国王，包括出身首陀罗的短命的难陀王朝（Nanda）。亚历山大大帝曾遭遇难陀军队，由于军队哗变，而不得不转向旁遮普。希腊的资料称，难陀军队有两万骑兵、二十万步兵、一千辆战车、三千头大象。这些数字肯定是夸大的，以证明希腊人的退却是正确战略。②

    继承难陀王朝的是旃陀罗笈多·孔雀（Chandragupta Maurya，又称月护王）。他极力扩充领土，在公元前 321 年建立了印度次大陆第一个本土政治体——孔雀帝国。他是婆罗门学者兼大臣考底利耶（Kautilya）的门生，后者的《政事论》（Arthasastra）被视作是印度经世王道的经典论文。月护王率军攻击亚历山大大帝的继承者塞琉古一世（Seleucus Nicator），征服西北部，并将旁遮普、阿富汗东部、俾路支地区并入孔雀王朝的版图。至此，他的帝国西到波斯，东到阿萨姆邦。

    对印度南方达罗毗荼人的征服，则留给了月护王的儿子宾头娑罗（Bindusara）和孙子阿育王（Ashoka）。宾头娑罗将帝国扩展到南方德干高原的卡纳塔克（Karnataka）。经过一场众所周知的持久的血腥征战，阿育王在公元前 260 年占领东南部的羯陵伽（Kalinga）（包含现代奥里萨邦[Orissa]和部分安得拉邦[Andhra Pradesh]）。其时，印度缺乏文学文化，阿育王的功绩从未见于史书，像中国的《尚书》和《春秋》。后代印度人一直要等到 1915 年，方才把他视作伟大的国王；其时，大批法令岩石的古文字获得译解，考古学家终于拼搭出他治下的帝国疆域。③

    孔雀王朝历经三代而建起的帝国，占据了喜马拉雅山脉以南的整个印度北方，西至波斯，东至阿萨姆，南至卡纳塔克。印度次大陆上，唯一没被统一的是南方边缘地带，分别是现代的喀拉拉邦、泰米尔纳德邦（Tamil Nadu）、斯里兰卡。没有单独的印度本土政权再一次统治这么辽阔的领土。④莫卧儿帝国所征服的德里苏丹国要小得多，英国人在次大陆的帝国更大，但不得不问：说阿育王、阿克巴（Akhbar）、英国总督统治印度，这到底意味着什么？

    孔雀帝国：何等国家？

    历史学家在古印度国家的性质上争论不休。⑤如果从比较眼光看，特别是对照阿育王的印度和秦始皇的中国，我们也许能看得更加清楚。这两个帝国几乎在同时形成（公元前 3 世纪的中到晚期），但它们政体的性质可说相差十万八千里。

    两个帝国都环绕一个核心而组成，分别为摩揭陀国和秦国。秦国是个真正的国家，具有马克斯·韦伯所界定的现代国家政府的许多特征。管理国家的世族精英，大多已在数世纪的战争中战死，取而代之的是日益凭借非人格化基础而获选的新人。秦国废除井田制，推翻传统的产权，以统一的郡县制取代世族封地。它最终打败对手，建立大一统帝国，便将这中央集权政府推向全中国。推广至被征服国家的，还有郡县制、统一度量衡、统一文字。我们已在第 8 章看到，秦朝君主的社会工程最终还是归于失败，因为在某种程度上，家族统治在西汉卷土重来。但汉朝统治者坚持中央集权，逐渐取消剩余的封地。它所建立的不算帝国，而是统一的中央国家。

    阿育王的帝国

    此类事项在孔雀帝国发生得很少，核心国的摩揭陀好像没有任何现代特征。与秦国相比，我们对其行政管理的性质了解得实在太少。政府用人完全是家族式的，受种姓制度的严格限制。考底利耶在《政事论》中讲明，高级官位的主要资格应是高尚出身，其“父亲和爷爷”必须是大臣（amatya）或更高，他们几乎全是婆罗门。官僚的薪俸非常悬殊，最低与最高之间的比率是 1∶4,800。⑥没有证据显示，官府用人是选贤与能的，或前三级瓦尔纳之外的人也可申请公职。这些事实曾得到希腊旅行家麦加斯梯尼（Megasthenes）的确认。⑦将摩揭陀推上战胜国地位的战争没有那么持久和残忍，不像秦国所经历的那样。旧精英得以留存，摩揭陀的处境从没恶化到非要动员男子总人口的地步。据我们所知，孔雀王朝没有统一度量衡，也没有在管辖地区统一语言。事实上，迟至公元 16 世纪，印度国家仍在努力推行统一标准，其最终实行是在英国治下，距孔雀王朝已将近整整两千年。⑧

    通过联姻和征服获得的地区，其与摩揭陀的关系也大大不同于中国。秦国灭绝他国，往往是消灭或放逐整个统治宗族，并鲸吞其领土。东周时期，中国精英宗族的数量大幅下降。孔雀帝国的建立则较为温和，涉及大量伤亡和焦土战术的唯一战役是对羯陵伽的攻占，给战胜者阿育王带来很大震撼。其他情形中，现有统治者吃了败仗后，便接受孔雀帝国在名义上的主权。《政事论》建议，孱弱的国王最好屈服，自愿向强大邻国进贡。没有出现中国或欧洲式的“封建主义”，即剥夺现有统治者，把领土赏赐给王室成员或侍从。印度历史学家有时谈到属臣国（vassal），但它没有欧洲属臣的契约意义。⑨说孔雀王朝重新分配权力是不准确的，因为它一开始就没有中央集权。孔雀王朝也没有设法将其国家制度，自核心国推向帝国其他地方。地方政府完全是家族的，没有试图建立永久且专业的行政制度。这意味着，每位新国王带来新的忠诚侍从，替换现有的行政官员。⑩

    孔雀帝国在它管辖区域内，仅行使松弛的统治；它称霸的整段时期，部落联盟或酋邦（伽那—僧伽）始终存活，就是明证。与等级分明的王国相比，伽那—僧伽的政治决策涉及较多的参与和共识，但它仍是基于亲戚关系的幸存的部落政体。印度历史学家有时称之为“共和国”，这只是在为它涂上现代光彩。⑪

    考底利耶在《政事论》中详尽讨论了财政政策和征税，只是不清楚他的建议究竟有多少被付诸实践。与“东方专制主义”的信徒相悖，国王并不“拥有”全部土地。他有自己地盘，另外宣称掌控荒地、森林等，但通常不向现存产权提出挑战。不过，国家坚持向各式地主征税的权利，缴税可依据个人、土地、收成、村庄、边界的小统治者，基本上以实物或劳役的形式。⑫似乎没有一名印度统治者尝试大型变革，像商鞅的废除井田制，或王莽雄心勃勃但一败涂地的土地改革。

    阿育王死于公元前 232 年，他的帝国旋即衰落。西北部落到了大夏国（Bactrian Greek）手中，部落的伽那—僧伽在西部的旁遮普和拉贾斯坦（Rajasthan）重又兴起，南方的羯陵伽、卡纳塔克和其他领土纷纷脱离，返回独立王国的地位。孔雀王朝重又回到中央恒河平原的摩揭陀王国，其末代国王波罗诃德罗陀（Brihadratha）于公元前 185 年遇害。还要等五百多年，笈多王朝（Gupta）方才崛起，再次统一印度，其规模可与孔雀帝国媲美。次大陆的孔雀帝国仅维持一代，它的王朝持续一百三十五年。孔雀王朝的终止导致帝国分崩离析，分割成数百个政治体，很多尚处于国家之前的层次。

    孔雀帝国的统治如此短暂，至少从外表上看，它对下辖区域从没实施强有力的控制。事实上，这不是牵强附会。孔雀王朝从没建立强大的国家制度，也从没自家族政府过渡到非人格化政府。它在整个帝国维持广泛的间谍网，但没有证据显示，它像中国一样建造道路或运河，以促进交通。很不寻常，除了首都华氏城，孔雀王朝没在任何地方留下有关它强盛国力的纪念物。后代没把阿育王当作帝国创建者，这也许是原因之一。⑬

    孔雀王朝的统治者从没想到国家建设，也就是说，没有尝试以一套新颖的共同规范和价值穿透整个社会。孔雀王朝没有真正的主权概念，即在全国范围实施非人格化统治的权利。次大陆没有统一的印度刑法，直到英国统治下诗人兼政治家托马斯·巴宾顿·麦考莱（Thomas Babington McCaulay）第一次引入。⑭国王没有从事大规模的社会工程，反而保护现存的各式社会秩序。

    印度从没开发出像中国法家一样的思想，即政治目标就是赤裸裸地集权。《政事论》之类的论述，可向马基雅维利式（Machiavellian）的君主提供建议，但只针对价值观和社会结构，与政治无关。此外，婆罗门教的精神孵育了非军事思想。非暴力主义（ahimsa）可在“吠陀本集”中找到根源，认为杀生对业力造成负面影响。它的有些文本批评吃肉和动物祭品，但另一些却予以批准。如我们所知，像佛教和耆那教的抗议宗教，非暴力更是中心思想。

    孔雀王朝第一位国王旃陀罗笈多最后皈依耆那教，为了遂愿当一名苦行者，而自动让位给儿子宾头娑罗。他与一批僧侣搬到印度南方，据说，最后以耆那教的方式慢慢饿死。⑮他的孙子阿育王起初是正统的印度教徒，在生命后期皈依佛教。羯陵伽征战中的伤亡激起阿育王深深的悔恨，据传十五万羯陵伽人被杀或受逐。根据他的岩石赦令（Rock Edicts），“羯陵伽已被兼并，此后，陛下便开始了对宗教法律的热诚追求”。他还宣布，“曾遭杀戮和俘虏的羯陵伽人，其百分之一或千分之一，如在今天遭受同样厄运，也会是陛下的遗憾。此外，如果有人冒犯他，只要还可以忍受，陛下也必须忍耐”。阿育王继续敦促仍在帝国边境的外人，“不用怕他，应信任他，应从他那里获得幸福，而不是悲伤”。他还呼吁他的儿子和孙子避免进一步征战。⑯帝国扩展由此戛然而止。不管阿育王后裔究竟是遵从他的意愿，还是本身就不中用，反正他们治下的帝国冰消瓦解。有人会问，如果印度开发了像中国法家一样的权力原则，而不是婆罗门教、耆那教、佛教，阿育王的帝国会变成怎样——如果真是这样，它就不是印度了。

    社会战胜政治

    孔雀帝国崩溃后，印度经历了政治衰败，尤其是在北方，部落政体在西部的拉贾斯坦和旁遮普再次出现。该地区又受到来自中亚部落的侵略者的骚扰，部分原因是中华帝国的政治发展太具优势。秦朝开始建设长城以御外人，迫使游牧的匈奴返回中亚，取代当地一系列部落。这一连锁反应又导致斯基台人（Scythians，即塞克人[Shakas]）对印度北部的侵犯，紧跟在后的是月氏，它在现为阿富汗的地方建起贵霜帝国（Kushana）。印度北方的王国中，没有一个组织良好，可以考虑像长城那样的浩大工程。所以，部分印度北方平原为这些部落所占。⑰

    在遥远的南方，地方上的酋邦发展成王国，例如公元前 1 世纪统治西部的等乘王朝（Satavahana）。但这个政治体持续不长，没有发展出强大的中央机构，尚比不上孔雀王朝。为了控制德干北部，它与其他小王国发生冲突。此外，小王国之间也在争斗，如注辇国（Cholas）、潘地亚国（Pandyas）、萨提亚普特拉国（Satiyaputras）。这段历史相当复杂，难以融入政治发展的大叙述，也就缺乏启发功能，从中呈现出来的只是普遍的政治衰败。南方国家经常无法发挥最基本的政府功能，例如征税，因为其治下的社区既强大，又组织严密。⑱没有一国得以在永久基础上扩展疆域，实现霸权，也没开发更为复杂的行政机构，以实施更为有效的统治。这个地区的政治分裂状态还要持续一千多年。⑲

    在印度第二次成功创建大型帝国的是笈多王朝（Guptas），始于旃陀罗笈多一世（Chandra Gupta I）。公元 320 年，他在摩揭陀国当政，其权力基础与孔雀王朝相同。他和儿子沙摩陀罗笈多（Samudra Gupta），再次统一印度北方的大部。沙摩陀罗笈多在拉贾斯坦和印度西北部其他地区，兼并了众多伽那—僧伽，这种政治机构因此而寿终正寝。他还征服克什米尔，逼迫贵霜帝国和塞克国进贡。在他儿子旃陀罗笈多二世（375—415）的治下，文化生活变得繁荣，建了不少印度教、佛教、耆那教的庙宇。笈多王朝再持续两代，直到塞建陀笈多国王（Skanda Gupta）死于 5 世纪的下半叶。其时，西北部的酋邦变得衰弱，中亚新兴的游牧部落匈人（Huns 或 Huna）趁虚而入。笈多帝国在这场战争中耗尽自身，在 515 年将克什米尔、旁遮普、恒河平原的大部都输给匈人。⑳

    姑且不论它的文化成就，笈多王朝没在国家制度方面作出任何革新，也没有试图把征服的政治体整合成统一的行政机构。被打败的统治者，以典型的印度方式留下来继续执政，只是以后需要上缴贡品。笈多王朝的官僚，甚至比孔雀王朝的前任更为分散，能力更差。它征收农业收成税，拥有关键的生产资料，像盐场和矿山，但没有干预现存的社会安排。笈多帝国的疆土更小，因为没能统一印度南方。它持续了将近两百年，最后分裂为相互竞争的众多小国，从而进入政治衰败的新时期。

    外国人的国家建设

    10 世纪后，印度的政治历史不再是本土发展史，而是一连串外国入侵史，先是穆斯林，后是英国人。从今以后，政治发展成为外国人如何将自己制度移植到印度土壤。他们仅取得部分成功。每个外国入侵者必须对付这同一的“小王国”社会，四分五裂，却又组织紧密；它们不团结，所以很容易征服；它们屈服后，又很难统治。外国入侵者留下了一层层新制度和新价值，在某些方面是移风易俗的，但在另外很多方面，又没触碰内在社会秩序的一根毫毛。

    10 世纪末之后，一系列突厥—阿富汗的穆斯林侵入印度北方。伊斯兰教在 7 世纪涌现后，阿拉伯人和突厥人，先后从部落过渡到国家层次，在很多方面开发了比印度本土政体更为精细的政治制度。其中最重要的是军事奴隶制和外国人充任行政官的制度（将在后续章节中讨论），允许阿拉伯人和突厥人超越亲戚关系，实施选贤与能的用人制度。一批批穆斯林入侵者来自阿富汗，最为著名的是拉杰普特人部队（Rajputs）。印度国家的军队竭力抵抗，但实在太薄弱、太分散。13 世纪早期，马穆鲁克（Mamluk）朝代的顾特布-乌德-丁·艾贝克（Qutb-ud-din Aybak）得以建立德里苏丹国。

    德里苏丹国维持三百二十年，长过任何一个本土印度帝国。虽然穆斯林建立持久的政治秩序，但其国家权力有限，仍不能改造印度社会。跟笈多王朝一样，它也没能向印度南方推进太多。用苏迪普塔·卡维拉吉（Sudipta Kaviraj）的话说，“伊斯兰政治统治者，在社会习俗方面，含蓄地接受了对自己权力的限制，这与印度本土统治者非常相像……伊斯兰国家知道自己像其他印度国家，既有局限，又游离于社会之外”。㉑今天，穆斯林统治的遗产体现在巴基斯坦和孟加拉两个国家，还有印度一亿五千多万的穆斯林公民。就幸存的制度而言，穆斯林的政治遗产不是很大，除了像查明达利（zamindari）土地所有制之类的实践。

    英国统治则不同，其影响既持久又深远。在很多方面，现代印度是外国人建国计划的产物。卡维拉吉认为，与印度民族主义者的叙述相悖，“英国人没有征服一个既存的印度。更确切地说，他们只是征服了一系列独立王国。在他们的统治时期，这些独立王国又聚合成政治层次的印度，也算是对英国统治的答复”。㉒这呼应了苏尼尔·基尔纳尼（Sunil Khilnani）的见解，与社会层次相对，政治层次的“印度”在英国统治之前是不存在的。㉓将印度凝成政治体的重要制度，如行政机构、军队、共同的行政语言（英语）、实施统一和非人格化的法律制度、民主本身，既是印度人与英国殖民政府互动之后的成果，又是西方思想和价值融入印度历史经验之后的产物。

    另一方面，就社会层次的印度而言，英国的影响又很有限。英国人修改了他们发现的可恶社会习俗，例如自焚殉夫（Sati），引进了人人平等的西方观念，促使印度人反思种姓制度的哲学前提，鼓励对社会平等的追求。自由主义和民族主义的印度精英，在 20 世纪争取独立的斗争中，以子之矛，攻子之盾。但种姓制度本身、自给自足的村庄社区、高度地方化的社会秩序，基本上完整无缺，远离殖民政府的权力。

    中国和印度

    21 世纪初，中国和印度作为快速增长的新兴市场国家，其前景引起极大的讨论。㉔讨论的大部分围绕它们各自政治制度的性质。作为威权国家，中国在推动大型基建工程方面比印度更为成功，像高速公路、机场、发电厂、大型水电项目。它的三峡大坝需要在漫水区迁走百万以上的居民。中国的人均储水量是印度的五倍，主要依靠大坝和灌溉工程。㉕中国政府一旦决定拆除街区，以建设工厂或公寓大厦，可以直接要求居民搬走。后者几乎没有途径保护自身权利或表述愿望。另一方面，印度是个多元的民主政体，各式社会团体都能组织起来，利用政治制度来达到自身的目标。印度的市或邦政府想建造新发电厂或新机场，很可能遭到反对，从环保非政府组织到传统的种姓协会。很多人认为，这会使决策程序瘫痪，经济增长的远景因此而变得暗淡。

    这类比较都有问题，因为他们没有考虑到，各自的政治制度均植根于自己的社会结构和历史。例如，很多人相信当代印度民主只是历史发展的副产品，而这历史发展又是相对近代的，甚至是出乎意料的。有些民主理论认为，印度自 1947 年独立以来一直维持成功的民主，这使很多人感到惊奇。印度丝毫不符合稳定民主“结构上”的前提：它过去非常贫困，从某种角度看，现在依然如此；在宗教、种族、语言、阶级等方面，它又是高度分裂的；它在公众暴力的狂乱中诞生，随着不同小团体的相互争斗，公众暴力又会定期重现。根据这个见解，在印度高度不平等的文化中，民主只是文化舶来品，由殖民政权输入，并不深植于国家传统。

    这是对当代印度政治相当肤浅的见解。这倒不是说，现代制度所表现出的民主深深植根于古代印度实践，如阿马蒂亚·森等评论家所提示的。㉖而是说，印度政治发展的历程显示，它从来没有为暴政国家的发展提供社会基础，以便其有效集中权力来渗透社会和改造基本社会制度。在中国或俄罗斯出现的专制政府，即剥夺全社会（包括精英阶层）财产和私人权利的制度，从没存在于印度大地——不管是印度本土政府，还是蒙古人和英国人的外来政府。㉗因此而引发了如下的吊诡事态：印度有很多对社会不公的抗议，但不像欧洲和中国，大体上从不针对印度的执政当局。更确切地说，它们只是针对婆罗门所控制的社会秩序，经常表现为异端的宗教运动，像耆那教或佛教，以否定现世秩序的形而上学基础。政治当局被认为离日常生活太遥远，也就太不相干了。

    中国情形则不同。那里，拥有现代制度的强大国家早已产生，可刻意追求对现有社会秩序的广泛干预，并在塑造国家的文化和身份上取得成功。当新的社会组合出现并提出挑战时，国家的早期独尊给自己带来优势。今天，由于经济发展和融入世界全球化，有迹象显示，中国公民社会正在渐渐成形，但中国的社会参与者始终比印度的更为薄弱，更加不能抵抗国家。公元前 3 世纪，秦始皇和阿育王正在建造各自的帝国，这一比照在当时很明显，在今天依然真实。

    中国早熟出世的强大国家，始终能够完成印度所做不到的任务，从建造阻挡游牧入侵者的长城，到兴建 21 世纪的大型水电工程。从长远看，中国人是否因此而得益，那是另外一个故事。中国强大的国家从来不受法治的约束，也就无法遏制其统治者的异想天开。它可睹的成绩，都以普通中国人的生命和生活作为代价，而老百姓基本上无力（过去和现在）来抵制国家的征召。

    印度人也身历专横，不是中国特色的政治专横，而是我前文提出的“表亲的专横”。在印度，个人自由受到诸多限制，如亲戚关系、种姓制度、宗教义务、风俗习惯。在某种意义上，印度的表亲专横允许他们对抗暴君的专横，社会层次的强大组织平衡和抑制了国家层次的强大机构。

    中国和印度的经验表明，强大国家和强大社会同时出现，随着时间的流逝，而互相平衡，互相抵消，这样才会有较好形式的自由。这个主题，我以后还会回顾。但此时，我将考察浮现于穆斯林世界的国家及其独特制度，它们允许阿拉伯和土耳其的政体走出部落制。

    第 13 章 军事奴隶制与穆斯林走出部落制

    奥斯曼帝国的军事奴隶制；部落制是阿拉伯政治发展的主要障碍；军事奴隶制最早兴起于阿拔斯王朝；部落成员长于征服，却短于管理；柏拉图应付家族制的对策

    16 世纪早期，奥斯曼帝国正处权力的巅峰，大约每隔四年就会看到一次非同寻常的征召。1453 年，拜占庭首都君士坦丁堡（Constantinople）落到土耳其手中。1526 年，奥斯曼帝国军队在莫哈奇（Mohács）战役中征服匈牙利；到 1529 年，才受挫于维也纳城门。在帝国的巴尔干半岛省份，官员分头寻找十二至二十岁的年轻男子，这便是德米舍梅征募制（devshirme）①，或基督徒壮丁征募制。这些官员像寻找足球明星的探子，在评判年轻人潜在体力和智力方面经验丰富，要完成首都伊斯坦布尔（Istanbul）规定的配额。官员访问村庄时，基督教士被要求提供所有获洗礼男童的名单，适龄的被带来供官员检验。多数富有潜力的男孩被强行从父母身边带走，编成一百至一百五十人的小组。他们的名字仔细登记在两本花名册中，一本是在家乡获选时，另一本是在抵达伊斯坦布尔时，互相对照，以防止父母把孩子赎回。如果儿子们长得特别强壮，父母身边可能一个也留不住。官员带着俘虏一起返回伊斯坦布尔，家人将永远见不到自己孩子。那段时期，这样带走的孩子估计为每年三千。②

    他们不是注定在卑微和耻辱中度过一生。恰恰相反，最优秀的 10% 会在伊斯坦布尔和埃迪尔内（Edirne）的宫殿中长大，受伊斯兰教世界中最好的培训，为充任帝国高级官员而作准备。其余的则被抚养成说土耳其语的穆斯林，加入著名的土耳其禁卫军。这是精英的步兵部队，陪伴苏丹左右，在欧洲和亚洲南征北战。

    服务于宫殿的精英男孩，在宦官的监督下接受两至八年的训练。最为杰出的，再被派去托普卡帕宫（Topkapi），以获取进一步的调教，那是苏丹在伊斯坦布尔的居所。他们在那里攻读《古兰经》，学阿拉伯语、波斯语、土耳其语、音乐、书法、数学，还参与严格的体育锻炼，以及学习马术、剑术和其他武器，甚至要涉猎绘画和书籍装订。那些进不了宫殿的，则在皇家骑士队（sipahis of the Porte）中担任高级职位。③如果年轻的奴隶军人证明是强壮能干的，可逐步升级为将军、维齐尔（vizier，大臣）、外省总督，甚至是苏丹治下最高级的大维齐尔（grand vizier），即政府首相。在苏丹皇家军队服完役之后，很多军人会被安置在指定的庄园，靠居民的缴税而安享晚年。

    另有一个平行的女奴制度，不属于军事奴隶制度。这些女孩是在奴隶市场从巴尔干半岛和南俄罗斯的掠夺者手中买来的。她们将担任奥斯曼帝国高级官员的妻妾，像男孩一样，也被养在宫殿，高度制度化的规则督导她们的成长和教育。很多苏丹是奴隶母亲的儿子，像其他君主的母亲，她们也可通过儿子施展重要影响。④

    但这些奴隶必须面对一个重要禁忌。他们的职位和庄园不算私人财产，既不可出售，也不能传予子女。事实上，这些军人中的多数被迫终生保持单身。也有人与来自基督教省份的女奴组织家庭，但孩子不能继承父亲的地位或职位。不管如何有权有势，他们永远是苏丹的奴隶。苏丹稍有不满，就可对他们罚以降级或砍头。

    奥斯曼帝国的军事奴隶制度是非常奇特的。没有一名穆斯林可成为合法的奴隶，所以，也就没有帝国的穆斯林居民追求政府高位。像中国一样，文武官员都是量才录用，以固定的程序招聘和提拔最能干的军人和文官。但又不像中国，这个招聘和提拔只对外国人开放，他们在种族上不同于自己所治理的社会各阶层。这些奴隶的军人和官僚在泡沫中长大，与主人和同僚建立亲密纽带，但与自己所治理的社会却格格不入。像在封闭阶层工作的许多人一样，他们发展了高度的内部团结，成为一个凝聚的团体。在帝国的晚期，他们变成了王者之王，擅自决定苏丹的废黜和任命。

    不出意料，面临此种征召的基督教欧洲人，包括那些住得遥远只是听说此事的人，都心怀恐惧。等级分明的奴隶在治理一个强盛的帝国，这一图像在基督教西方的眼中，成了东方专制主义的象征。到了 19 世纪，奥斯曼帝国已趋式微。不少评论家认为，土耳其禁卫军是怪诞且过时的制度，在阻挡土耳其帝国的现代化。禁卫军在 1807 年罢免塞利姆三世（Selim Ⅲ），在下一年拥戴马哈茂德二世（Mahmud Ⅱ）登基。后者在后续年份中巩固自己的地位，在 1826 年放火焚烧禁卫军兵营，害死大约四千人。扫除了挡道的禁卫军，奥斯曼帝国统治者现在可以推动改革，照现代欧洲的模式重建一支军队。⑤

    显而易见，把孩子从父母身边抢走，使之成为改信伊斯兰教的奴隶，这种制度非常残酷，与现代民主价值格格不入，即使这些奴隶享有特权。穆斯林世界之外，没有看到可以媲美的相似制度，丹尼尔·派普斯（Daniel Pipes）等评论家认为，它的创建最终归于伊斯兰教深处的宗教原因。⑥

    但进一步观察后发现，穆斯林的军事奴隶制并不从宗教原则进化而来，仅仅是强大部落社会中建国的对策。它发明于阿拉伯的阿拔斯王朝，其统治者发现，不能依赖部落组织的军队来维持帝国。阿拉伯部落的征召和扩军很快，以取得速胜。统一后，他们凭借伊斯兰教的激励，又成功占领中东的大部和地中海世界的南部。如我们所知，中国、印度、欧洲的部落层次制度，因不能完成持续的集体行动，而被国家层次的制度所取代。部落社会高度平等，以共识为基础，不轻易服从，倾向于发生内讧和分裂，很难长期守卫领土。

    为了创建国家层次的强大制度，军事奴隶制在世界最强大部落社会之一应运而生，成为一个精彩的适应。它作为集中和巩固国家权力的措施，极为成功，哲学家伊本·赫勒敦（Ibn Khaldun）认为，它挽救了伊斯兰教，使之成为世界主要宗教之一。⑦

    创建穆斯林国家

    先知穆罕默德诞生于阿拉伯半岛西部的古莱什部落，其时，该地不属于任何国家。如第 5 章所提及的，他运用社会契约、实力、超凡魅力的组合，首先统一了争吵不休的麦地那部落，然后是麦加和周边城镇的部落，从而建成了国家层次的社会。在某个意义上，先知的布道是故意反部落的。它宣称有个信徒团体，其忠诚只献给上帝和上帝的话语，而不是自己的部落。这个意识形态上的发展，在内争好斗的分支式社会中，为拓宽集体行动的范围和延伸信任的半径打下了非常重要的基础。

    维持政治统一始终是阿拉伯部落制背景下的艰辛斗争。穆罕默德死于公元 632 年，麻烦立即露出端倪。先知的超凡魅力足以凝聚他所创建的政治体，现在却面临四分五裂的威胁，其组成部分很有可能分道扬镳，如以麦加为基的古莱什部落、来自麦地那的“辅士”（Ansar）和其他部落的信徒。穆罕默德同伴之一的艾布·伯克尔（Abu Bakr），以他娴熟的政治运作，说服部落团体承认自己为第一任哈里发（caliph），即继承者。此外，他还是部落系谱的专家，借用他在部落政治上的渊博知识而赢得拥护自己的共识。⑧

    在头三个哈里发的治下——艾布·伯克尔（632—634 年在位）、欧麦尔（Umar，634—644 年在位）、奥斯曼（644—656 年在位）——穆斯林帝国以惊人的速度扩张，兼并整个阿拉伯半岛，以及今日的黎巴嫩、叙利亚、伊拉克、伊朗、埃及的主要地区。⑨最壮观的胜仗是卡迪西亚会战（Qadisiyyah），打败了波斯的萨珊帝国。20 世纪 80 年代两伊战争时期，萨达姆·侯赛因（Saddam Hussein）曾大肆庆祝这一历史战役。661 年，随着倭马亚王朝建立于大马士革，版图扩展仍在继续，进一步征服了北非、小亚细亚（Anatolia）、信德（Sind）和中亚。阿拉伯军队在 711 年占领西班牙，在比利牛斯山的北边继续挺进，直到 732 年在法国的图尔战役（Battle of Poitiers）中受到查理·马特（Charles Martel）的遏制。

    阿拉伯部落虽有宗教动机，但同样重要的是经济奖励。他们所征服的定居农业社会，可提供大量土地、奴隶、女子、马匹、动产。最初的统治问题是所有掠夺游牧民族所面临的：如何分配战利品，以避免各部落之间的内讧。通常当场分配可搬走的战利品，五分之一给哈里发，运回麦地那。被征服地区的土地变成哈里发治下的国家领土，不少干脆落到参与战役的各部落手中。⑩

    过不多久，阿拉伯部落男子必须由征服者变为管理富饶农地和居民的统治者。哈里发不需要重新开发国家制度，因为四周都是成熟的国家或帝国。被阿拉伯人征服之后，萨珊帝国提供最及时的中央管理模式。曾属君士坦丁堡的领土现已被阿拉伯征服，居住于此的很多基督徒前来参加穆斯林政府的工作，从而带来拜占庭政府的治理方法。

    真正的穆斯林国家何时出现？与文学描述相对的历史记载，相对来说比较缺乏，使精确判定变得异常困难。维持常备军队和警察、定期向居民征税、设立行政机构以收税、裁定司法以解决争端、主持像大清真寺那样的公共建设，从事上述这一切的政体，肯定存在于倭马亚王朝阿卜杜勒-马利克（Abd al-Malik，685—705 年在位）时期。或许更早，甚至在倭马亚王朝第二任哈里发穆阿维叶（Mu‘awiya，661—680 年在位）时期。⑪很难说先知穆罕默德创建的不是部落联合体而是国家，因为上述的制度特征在他生前尚未出现。

    波斯的理想绝对君主制中，其国王强大得能够维护和平和遏制贪婪的武装精英，后者是农业社会中冲突和混乱的主要来源。从现代民主角度看这样的社会，我们倾向于认为，农业社会的君主只是掠夺性精英团体的一员，也许由其他寡头选出来保护他们的租金和利益。⑫但实际上，这些社会中几乎总有三角斗争，分别是国王、精英的贵族或寡头、非精英的农民和市民。国王经常站在非精英一边来反对寡头，既可削弱潜在的政治挑战，又可争到份下的税收。于此，我们可看到国王代表大众利益的概念的雏形。我们已经知道，中国寡头精英的大庄园扩展，皇帝为此而受到威胁，遂运用国家权力来予以限制和破坏。同样道理，萨珊帝国的绝对君主政体被视作秩序的壁垒，以反对损害大众利益的精英的相互争执。所以有人强调，君主执行法律便是正义的标志。⑬

    从部落过渡到国家层次的社会，早期阿拉伯统治者享有几点优势。绝对君主制的中央行政官僚模式，作为国家层次社会的规范，早已存在于周边国家。更重要的是，他们拥有上帝之下人人平等的宗教意识形态。就某种意义而言，以巴士拉（Basra）和阿拉伯半岛为基地的哈瓦利吉派（Kharijites），从先知布道中得出了最符合逻辑的结论。他们认为，穆罕默德的继承人只要是穆斯林就够，不管他是不是阿拉伯人，也不管他来自哪个部落。如果穆罕默德的继承者如此照办，他们可能会尝试创建一个包容不同种族的超级帝国，基于意识形态，不靠亲戚关系，就像神圣罗马帝国。但对倭马亚王朝来说，光是维持帝国统一，且不谈建立横跨各地域的中央政府，已证明是一项异常艰巨的任务。顽强的部落忠诚胜过意识形态，穆斯林国家继续受困于亲戚关系的争吵和仇恨。

    先知死去不久就爆发了一起最重要的冲突。穆罕默德属于古莱什部落的哈希姆（Hashemite）血统，但又与竞争的倭马亚血统共享曾祖父阿卜杜·玛纳夫（Abd Manaf）。倭马亚血统和哈希姆血统争吵得很厉害，不管是先知出生之前，还是先知在世时，前者甚至起兵，反对穆罕默德和他在麦地那的穆斯林信徒。穆罕默德征服麦加后，倭马亚血统改信伊斯兰教，但两个血统之间的仇恨仍在继续。穆罕默德没有儿子，只跟最心爱的妻子阿以莎（Aisha）生了女儿法蒂玛（Fatima），长大后嫁给先知的表亲阿里（Ali）。第三位哈里发奥斯曼属于倭马亚血统，把很多亲戚带入权力圈，最终死于行刺。继承他的是阿里，却被赶出阿拉伯半岛，在库法（Kufa，今日伊拉克）祈祷时，又被哈瓦利吉派系的人杀死。随之，哈希姆血统、哈瓦利吉派、倭马亚血统之间爆发了一系列内战（fitnas）。等到阿里儿子侯赛因（Husain）战死于伊拉克南部的卡尔巴拉（Karbala）战役，倭马亚血统才得以巩固政权，开拓新朝代。阿里的党羽被称为什叶派（Shiites），信奉正统主义，认为阿拉伯帝国只能属于穆罕默德的直系后裔。⑭倭马亚王朝穆阿维叶的追随者发展成为逊尼派（Sunnis），声称自己是正统理论与实践的奉行者。⑮逊尼派和什叶派的大分裂，起源于阿拉伯部落竞争，在 21 世纪的今天，仍引发汽车爆炸、对清真寺的恐怖袭击等。

    早期的哈里发尝试创建超越部落忠诚的国家组织，尤其是在军队里，其十人和百人单位都是跨越部落的。如一位历史学家所说，新兴的穆斯林精英“知道部落身份在阿拉伯社会中植根太深，既不能以法令废除，也不能以超越部落排外性的措施将之驱走。他们能否将部落成员成功融入国家，既取决于为自身利益利用部落关系的能力，也取决于自己超越部落关系的能力”。⑯占领伊拉克安巴（Anbar）省的美国人，在 2003 年入侵之后发现，倚靠部落领袖的传统权威，比创建无视社会现实的非人格化单位，更容易掌控部落军人。部落成员与指挥官发生争吵，可能会悄悄溜走，返回自己的亲人中。如指挥官又是自己部落的酋长，他就会三思而不行了。

    但是，以部落为基础的国家本质上是孱弱和动荡的，部落领袖的暴躁闻名遐迩。他们缺乏纪律，经常因为争吵，或受到忽略，而与亲戚们逃之夭夭。早期哈里发对所招募的部落领袖满腹狐疑，通常不让他们担任重要的指挥职位。此外，新建国家经常受到独立游牧部落的威胁，穆斯林领袖对之只有轻蔑。据传，哈里发奥斯曼不愿理会一名重要部落领袖的见解，斥之为“低能贝都因人”的唠叨。⑰

    军事奴隶制的起源

    军事奴隶制发展于 9 世纪中期的阿拔斯王朝，用以克服之前穆斯林军队基于部落征召的重重弊端。⑱阿拔斯王朝属于哈希姆血统，在什叶派和波斯的呼罗珊（Khorasani）义军帮助下，于 750 年推翻倭马亚王朝，并把首都从大马士革迁至巴格达。⑲早期的阿拔斯王朝在巩固其统治方面非常残忍，尽量灭绝倭马亚王朝的血统，并镇压曾经的盟友什叶派和呼罗珊义军。国家集权有增无减，大权独揽的是称为维齐尔的首相。宫廷的规模和奢华均有增加，定居城市的帝国与其发源的部落区域则更加分隔。⑳

    一开始，阿拔斯王朝统治者就暗示，基于亲戚关系的政治权力趋于浮躁善变，可能的解决之道就是军事奴隶制。哈里发马赫迪（al-Mahdi，775—785 年在位）宁可选择一批毛拉（mawali，释奴）作为自己的仆人或助手，也不愿挑选亲戚或呼罗珊盟军。他解释道：

    我坐在观众席里，可以唤来毛拉，让他坐在身边，他的膝盖触碰我的膝盖。等到散席，我可命令他去侍候我的坐骑，他仍然高兴，不会生气。如果我要求其他人做同样的事，他会说：“我可是你的拥护者和亲密盟友的儿子”，或“我可是你（阿拔斯王朝）霸业的老兵”，或“我可是首先投入你霸业的人的儿子”。而且我不能改变他的（顽固）立场。㉑

    到马蒙（al-Ma’mun，813—833 年在位）和穆尔台绥姆（al-Mu’tasim，833—842 年在位）的治下，阿拔斯王朝征服中亚的河中地区（Transoxania），大批突厥部落投靠帝国，外国人充当国家军事力量的核心方才成为惯例。当阿拉伯人遇上生活在中亚大草原的突厥部落时，其领土扩展受到阻止，后者优秀的打仗能力获得很多阿拉伯学者的承认。㉒哈里发不能招募整个突厥部落为自己打仗出力，因为它们同样有着部落组织的缺陷。所以，突厥人只是作为个别奴隶，在非部落军队中接受训练。马蒙创建了四千突厥奴隶的卫兵队，称作马穆鲁克，到穆尔台绥姆时期，壮大至将近七万人。㉓他们是凶悍的游牧人，新近皈依伊斯兰教，充满了对穆斯林事业的热情。他们成为阿拔斯军队的核心，“因为他们在威力、血气、勇敢、无畏方面，都比其他种族优越”。根据一名见证马蒙征战的观察员，

    停战区道路两侧站着两行骑士……右首一侧是一百名突厥骑士，左首一侧是一百名“其他”骑士（即阿拉伯人）……大家都排成战斗行列，等待马蒙的莅临……时值正午，天气愈益炎热。马蒙到达时发现，除三四人外，突厥骑士依然危坐于马背，而“混杂的其他人”……早在地上东倒西歪。㉔

    穆尔台绥姆把突厥人组成马穆鲁克团，因为本地居民与突厥士兵的暴力争端，而把首都从巴格达迁至萨迈拉（Samarra）。他让他们在自己学院中接受训练，购买突厥女奴配给他们成家，但不准与本地人混杂，由此创建了一个与周围社会分隔的军事种姓。㉕

    忠于家庭，还是忠于公正的政治秩序，两者之间存在矛盾。这种思想在西方政治哲学中具有悠久历史。柏拉图的《理想国》记载了哲学家苏格拉底和一群年轻人的讨论，他们试图在“讲说中”创造一个“正义之城”。苏格拉底说服他们，正义之城需要特别激昂的保卫者阶层，为防御自己城邦而感到无比自豪；保卫者是武士，其首要原则是对朋友友善、对敌人凶狠；他们必须接受妥善的音乐和体操的训练，以培养公益精神。

    早期阿拉伯帝国治下的扩张

    《理想国》第五卷有段著名论述，谈到保卫者应实行妻小共有制度。苏格拉底指出，性欲和生儿育女都是自然的，但保卫者又要忠于自己防御的城邦，两者会有竞争；为此，必须告诉孩子一个“高尚谎言”，他们没有生身父母，只是大地之子。他还主张，保卫者必须过集体生活，可有不同的性伙伴，但不可跟单独女子结婚，生下的孩子也必须过集体生活。自然家庭是公益的敌人：

    那么，我们已讲过的和我们正在这里讲的这些规划，是不是能确保他们成为更名副其实的保卫者，防止他们把国家弄得四分五裂，把公有的东西各各说成“这是我的”，各人把他所能从公家弄到手的东西拖到自己家里去，把妇女儿童看作私产，各家有各家的悲欢苦乐呢？㉖

    不很清楚，苏格拉底或柏拉图是否相信此举的可行性。事实上，苏格拉底的对话者，对“讲说中”的正义之城能否成为现实，表示了巨大疑问。讨论的目的在于指明，亲戚关系和对公共政治秩序的义务之间永远存在紧张关系。它的启示是，成功的秩序需要通过某种机制来抑制亲戚关系，使保卫者把国家利益放在自己的家庭之上。

    如果说马蒙、穆尔台绥姆或其他早期穆斯林领袖读到了柏拉图的著作，或知道他的想法，这非常可疑。但军事奴隶制确实应答了柏拉图所提出的必需，没说他们是大地的孩子，只知道出生地非常遥远，除了代表国家和公益的哈里发，不欠任何人。奴隶们不知道生身父母，只认主人，忠心耿耿。他们获得通常是突厥语的普通新名，身处基于血统的社会，却与任何血统毫不关联。他们没有实行女人和孩子的共产主义，但隔离于阿拉伯社会，不准扎根，尤其不可自立门户，以避免“把能弄到手的所有东西都搬回家”。传统的阿拉伯社会中，裙带关系和部落忠诚的难题，就此获得一劳永逸的解决。

    作为军事制度的马穆鲁克来得太迟，以致不能保住阿拔斯王朝。9 世纪中期，帝国已分裂成一系列独立主权政治体。756 年，逃亡的倭马亚王子在西班牙设立第一个独立伊斯兰国，帝国分裂自此开始。8 世纪末 9 世纪初，独立王朝建立于摩洛哥和突尼斯；9 世纪末 10 世纪初，独立王朝又在伊朗东部出现。到 10 世纪中期，埃及、叙利亚、阿拉伯半岛也从版图上消失，阿拔斯国家只保留伊拉克的部分地区。阿拉伯政权，不管是王朝还是现代，再也没有统一的穆斯林或阿拉伯世界。统一大业只好留给土耳其的奥斯曼帝国。

    阿拔斯帝国灭亡了，但军事奴隶制得以幸存。事实上，它在后续世纪中，为伊斯兰教本身的生存发挥了至关重要的作用。三个新的权力中心涌现出来，都基于军事奴隶制的行之有效。第一个是伽色尼（Ghaznavid）帝国，曾在前一章中提及。它以阿富汗的伽色尼为中心，统一了波斯东部和中亚，还渗入印度北部，为穆斯林统治次大陆铺平道路。第二个是埃及的马穆鲁克苏丹国，在阻止基督教十字军和蒙古军方面，扮演了生死攸关的角色，可能因此而挽救了作为世界宗教的伊斯兰教。最后一个就是奥斯曼帝国，它改善军事奴隶制，为自己作为世界强国的崛起打下基础。所有三个案例中，军事奴隶制解决了部落社会中建立持久军事工具的难题。但在伽色尼和埃及马穆鲁克的案例中，亲戚关系和家族制渗入马穆鲁克制度，使该制度衰落。此外，作为埃及社会最强大制度的马穆鲁克，不愿接受文官的控制，进而接管国家，预示了 20 世纪发展中国家的军事专政。只有奥斯曼帝国清楚看到，必须把家族制赶出国家机器，其照章办事将近三个世纪。尽管文官政府严格控制军队，但从 17 世纪晚期起，当家族制和世袭原则重新抬头时，它也开始走下坡路。

    第 14 章 马穆鲁克挽救伊斯兰教

    马穆鲁克如何在埃及上台；中东阿拉伯的权力却在突厥奴隶之手；马穆鲁克挽救伊斯兰教于十字军和蒙古军；马穆鲁克实施军事奴隶制的缺陷导致政权的最终衰落

    军事奴隶制帮助穆斯林政权在埃及和叙利亚掌权近三百年，从阿尤布（Ayyubid）王朝终结的 1250 年到 1517 年。其时，马穆鲁克苏丹国败在奥斯曼帝国的手中。今天，我们把伊斯兰教和全球的穆斯林社区（现今总人口约 15 亿）视作理所当然。但伊斯兰教的扩张，不仅取决于宗教思想的号召和吸引力，很大程度上，还取决于政治权力。根据穆斯林的信念，穆斯林军队必须向身处战争土地（Dar-ul Harb）的非信徒发起圣战（jihad），再把他们带入伊斯兰土地（Dar al-Islam）。归功于穆斯林，基督教和琐罗亚斯德教（Zoroastrianism）在中东不再是主要宗教。同样道理，如果十字军得以掌控中东，或蒙古军一路扫到北非，伊斯兰教也可能成为次要流派。尼日利亚、象牙海岸、多哥、加纳等北部边界，就是当初穆斯林部队的远征终点线。要不是穆斯林部队的打仗威力，巴基斯坦、孟加拉、印度的穆斯林少数派就不复存在。它的出现不仅靠宗教狂热，还靠国家建立有效制度来集中使用权力——最重要的就是军事奴隶制。

    伊斯兰教本身的生存取决于军事奴隶制，这一见解与阿拉伯伟大的历史学家和哲学家伊本·赫勒敦不谋而合。他活在 14 世纪的北非，与埃及的马穆鲁克苏丹国同一时代。他在《历史绪论》（Muqadimmah）中说：

    （阿拔斯）国家淹没于颓废和奢华，披上灾难和衰弱的外衣，被异教的鞑靼所推翻。鞑靼废了哈里发的宝座，毁掉该地的辉煌，使非信徒在信念之地得逞。这全是因为信徒们自我放纵，只顾享乐，追求奢侈，精力日衰，不愿在防卫中重振旗鼓，放弃了勇敢的脸面和男子汉的象征——然后，善良的上帝伸出救援之手，复苏气息奄奄的人，在埃及恢复穆斯林的团结，维持秩序，保卫伊斯兰教的城墙。上帝从突厥人和其众多部落给穆斯林送来保护他们的统治者和忠实助手。这些助手借助奴役的渠道，从战争土地来到伊斯兰土地，本身便藏有神的祝福。他们通过奴役学习荣誉和祝福，荣获上帝的恩惠；受了奴役的治疗，他们以真正信徒的决心走进穆斯林宗教，保持游牧人的美德，没受低级品行的玷污、享乐的腐蚀、文明生活的污染，他们的激情不受奢华的影响，仍完好无缺。①

    马穆鲁克制度创立于库尔德人的阿尤布王朝末期，那是 12 世纪末 13 世纪初，阿尤布王朝短暂统治埃及和叙利亚，其最著名的子孙是萨拉丁（Salah al-Din，在西方被称作 Saladin）。阿尤布王朝曾在巴勒斯坦和叙利亚的反十字军战争中，投入了突厥奴隶军。它的最后一任苏丹萨里（al-Salih Ayyub），创建了伯海里（Bahri，编按：意即河洲）团，以总部所在地的尼罗河小岛的城堡命名。据传，库尔德士兵的不可靠使他转向突厥人。②该团含八百至一千的奴隶骑士，主要是钦察突厥人（Kipchak Turkish）。像钦察一样的众多突厥部落，开始在中东扮演日渐重要的角色。其时，他们受到另一强大游牧民族的挤压，蒙古人正在把他们从中亚传统的部落地域赶走。

    伯海里团很早就证明了自己的骁勇善战。法王路易九世 1249 年在埃及登陆，发动第七次十字军东征。翌年，他败在伯海里团手中。率领伯海里团的是一名钦察人，名叫拜伯尔斯（Baybars）。他曾是蒙古人的俘虏，作为奴隶卖到叙利亚，最后被招聘为新马穆鲁克的领袖。由此，十字军在埃及遭到驱逐，路易九世的赎金相当于法国一年的国民生产总值。

    1260 年，拜伯尔斯和伯海里团，在巴勒斯坦的阿音札鲁特（Ayn Jalut）战役中取得更为重大的胜利，他们打败了蒙古军。其时，蒙古军已经征服欧亚大陆的大部。成吉思汗于 1227 年去世，此前蒙古各部落已经在他手上完成统一。13 世纪 30 年代，他们摧毁了统治中国北方的金朝；打败了中亚的花剌子模帝国；同时又战胜了阿塞拜疆、格鲁吉亚、亚美尼亚的王国；侵犯和占领了俄罗斯的大部，1240 年洗劫基辅；在 13 世纪 40 年代挺进东欧和中欧。他们最终停止前进，不是由于基督教军队的威力，而是因为大汗窝阔台（成吉思汗的儿子）的去世。蒙古指挥官奉召撤退，以讨论继承人选。1255 年，蒙哥命令成吉思汗的孙子旭烈兀征服中东。他占领伊朗，建立伊儿汗国（Ilkhanid），再朝叙利亚挺进，旨在征服埃及。1258 年，陷落的巴格达遭到彻底蹂躏，阿拔斯王朝的末代哈里发也被处死。

    马穆鲁克在阿音札鲁特的胜利，一定程度上归功于兵力优势，由于蒙哥的去世，旭烈兀不得不率领主力部队撤退。尽管如此，为了攻击马穆鲁克，他仍留下最好的指挥官之一和实质性的兵力。蒙古人是优秀的战术家和战略家，以迅速转移和简易给养，设法包抄敌人。相比之下，马穆鲁克装备得更好，战马更为高大，携带更为坚实的盔甲、弓、矛、剑，并且纪律异常严明。③阿音札鲁特的胜利不只是侥幸，马穆鲁克曾与伊儿汗国发生一连串战役，以保卫叙利亚，直到 1281 年战争结束。它后来在 1299、1300、1303 年，又三次阻挡蒙古人的入侵。④

    伯海里系马穆鲁克苏丹国，1250—1392 年

    马穆鲁克取代阿尤布王朝，与伊儿汗国开战时，就以拜伯尔斯为第一任苏丹，开始了他们的统治。⑤以马穆鲁克为基础的政权比之前的王朝更为稳定。萨拉丁是伟大的军事领袖和穆斯林的英雄，但他组建的政体非常脆弱，与其说是一个国家，倒不如说是基于亲戚关系的公国联邦。他的军队并不忠于王朝，在萨拉丁死后，分裂成一群相互竞争的民兵。相比之下，马穆鲁克治理一个真正的国家，设有中央官僚机构和专业军队——实际上军队就是国家，这既是优点也是缺点。⑥不像阿尤布王朝，马穆鲁克没有瓜分国家，也没有分发封地给亲戚或宠臣。不像萨拉丁死后，叙利亚在马穆鲁克的治理下，也没有马上脱离埃及。⑦

    马穆鲁克制度在埃及马穆鲁克政权的统治下获得进一步的加强。苏丹国得以从中亚草原、西北和北方的拜占庭领土获得一波波新兵，这是成功的关键之一。有些新兵已是穆斯林，另外的是异教徒和基督徒。皈依伊斯兰教的过程是至关重要的，重建了他们的忠诚，并拉近了他们与新主人的感情。新兵与家庭和部落完全隔绝，经过从小伊始的培训而获得新家，即苏丹家庭和马穆鲁克相互的手足情谊，这是另一个关键。⑧

    太监在制度运作上也扮演重要角色。不像中国或拜占庭帝国的太监，穆斯林太监几乎都是在穆斯林土地之外出生的外国人。有位评论家这么说，“穆斯林没有生下他。他也没生下一名穆斯林”。⑨马穆鲁克几乎都是突厥人或欧洲人，太监则有可能是从努比亚（Nubia）或南方其他地区招募来的非洲黑人。跟马穆鲁克一样，他们也与自己家庭完全隔绝，因此对主人忠心耿耿。去势得以让他们发挥重要作用，成为年轻马穆鲁克的教师。后者的获选，除了体力和尚武，还取决于他们的健美。作为只有袍泽之谊而难近女色的军人集体，老牌马穆鲁克的同性恋索求，始终是一件头痛事，太监还可从中发挥缓冲的作用。⑩

    作为政治制度的马穆鲁克之所以成功，除了教育特殊，还因为贵不过一代的原则。他们不能将马穆鲁克地位传给孩子，儿子会融入普通老百姓，孙子则完全享受不到任何特权。其中的道理简单明了：穆斯林不能是奴隶，而马穆鲁克的孩子生来就是穆斯林。此外，马穆鲁克的孩子生于城市，没经历过草原上流浪生涯的锻炼，在那里，孱弱就等于夭亡。假如马穆鲁克地位变成世袭，就会违反当年获选时严格的量才录用原则。⑪

    马穆鲁克的衰退

    马穆鲁克制度的设计中至少有两个问题，随着时间的推移，使它本身变得日益软弱。第一，马穆鲁克军中没有制度化的统治机制。苏丹以下有等级分明的指挥链，但苏丹本身却没有明确的选任规则。有两条相互竞争的原则，第一条是王朝原则，当政的苏丹选择一个儿子来继位；第二条是非世袭原则，各派马穆鲁克一边争权夺利，一边试图达成人选的共识。⑫第二条比较占上风时，各资深埃米尔（emir，王公）所选出的苏丹，经常只是门面装饰。

    马穆鲁克国家结构的第二个缺陷是缺乏最高的政治权威。马穆鲁克创建时，仅是阿尤布王朝的军事工具。到最后一任阿尤布苏丹去世，马穆鲁克却接管了国家，造成了逆向的代理。大多数政治等级制度中，主人拥有权力，委任代理人去执行自己的政策。很多政体发生功能的紊乱，因为代理人自有打算，与主人的目标大相径庭。制度的设计就是要鼓励代理人遵循主人的命令。⑬

    相比之下，在马穆鲁克的案例中，代理人自己又变成了主人。他们既是服务苏丹的军事等级机构，同时自己又在争夺苏丹职位。这意味着，他们既要做军官工作，又要图谋攫取权力并削弱对手。这自然给纪律和等级制度造成极坏的影响，就像现代发展中国家的军政府。这个问题在 1399 年变得异常尖锐，其时，蒙古的帖木儿国侵犯叙利亚，洗劫阿勒颇（Aleppo），而马穆鲁克忙于内斗，无暇组织防御，竟撤回开罗。此外，他们也让地方部落夺走对上埃及的控制。最终幸免于难，只是因为帖木儿国需要应对另一新兴力量的威胁，即奥斯曼帝国。⑭如果马穆鲁克服从于文官政府，像奥斯曼帝国那样，文官政府就可采取措施予以解决。⑮

    反世袭原则逐渐衰退，最终导致埃及马穆鲁克国家的崩溃。随着时间的推移，世袭不但用于苏丹，甚至蔓延至马穆鲁克，他们也试图建立自己的朝代。像中国的非人格化科举制度，贵不过一代的原则违背人们的生物性追求，马穆鲁克都试图保障家人和后裔的社会地位。富有的马穆鲁克发现，他们可以捐赠给伊斯兰宗教慈善事业瓦克夫（waqf）、伊斯兰学校（madrassa）、医院和其他信托机构，让自己的后裔担任主管，从而战胜贵不过一代的原则。⑯此外，有些马穆鲁克没有直系亲戚，却把种族关系当作团结基础。苏丹盖拉温（Qalawun）废弃钦察人，开始招募切尔克斯人（Circassian）和阿布哈兹人（Abkhaz）的奴隶，以组建新的布尔吉团（Burji）。最终，切尔克斯派从钦察派的手中夺走苏丹国。⑰

    到 14 世纪中期，马穆鲁克制度的严重退化已经相当明显。事实上，其时的情形是一片和平繁荣，对马穆鲁克的纪律却有灾难性的影响。圣地巴勒斯坦的基督徒多已消失，马穆鲁克在 1323 年与蒙古人签订和平条约。自己不是马穆鲁克的苏丹纳绥尔·穆罕默德（al-Nasir Muhammad），开始委派非马穆鲁克的效忠者担任高级军职，并清洗他心疑的能干军官。⑱

    政府随着苏丹巴库克（Barquq）在 1390 年的上台而获得短暂活力。他的掌权全靠布尔吉，即切尔克斯人的马穆鲁克，他还恢复了招募外国奴隶的旧制度。后续的苏丹使用国家垄断所积累的资源，大大扩充了对年轻马穆鲁克的招募，从而造成代沟问题。老牌马穆鲁克开始演变成军事贵族，像现代美国大学的终身制教授，在等级制度中盘根错节，固守现状，以应对年轻一代的挑战。资深首领的平均年龄开始上升，人员流通显著减缓，古老贵族分为氏族。马穆鲁克开始提拔自己的家人，以财富的炫耀来确立自己的地位，女眷也在争取子孙利益上扮演更大角色。马穆鲁克制度，最初创建时是为了在军事招募中克服部落制，自己现在反而变成部落。⑲新的部落不一定基于亲戚关系，但反映出人们内心深处的冲动：应付非人格化社会制度，以促进和保障后裔、朋友、依附者的利益。

    久而久之，马穆鲁克制度从中央国家退化成军阀的寻租联合体。年轻的马穆鲁克不再忠于苏丹，如一名历史学家所说的，反而变成

    一个利益团体，它在战场上的可靠性是可疑的，它的造反倾向却是自然的。苏丹国的最后几十年，开罗的逐日编年史就是一个不断要求苏丹付款以换取国内稍稍稳定的故事。招募来的马穆鲁克以掠夺……欢迎甘素卧·胡里（al-Ghawri，一位晚期苏丹）的登基。受训新兵烧了五名高级长官的豪宅，以表达对自己低报酬的不满，作为对照，大首领通常聚敛巨额的财富。⑳

    将马穆鲁克与早期苏丹绑在一起的道德关系，已被经济考虑所替代。高级马穆鲁克向低级军人购买忠诚，后者再向国家或平民百姓榨取租金，以期获得赞助人的奖励。苏丹只是伙伴中的老大，有些遭到了马穆鲁克派系的行刺或撤职，所有晚期的苏丹都不免会提心吊胆。

    除了政治上的不稳定，政府在 15 世纪晚期又遭遇财政危机。葡萄牙海军在印度洋取得首要地位，切断了香料贸易，苏丹的收入在 14 世纪末开始下跌，只好依靠税率的增加。这迫使经济主体——农民、商人、手艺人——想方设法隐瞒资产来逃税，征税官员愿意低报税率来换取自己荷包的回扣。结果，虽然税率增高，实际税收反而下降。政府只好诉诸没收所能找到的资产，包括马穆鲁克用来为后裔隐藏财富的伊斯兰慈善事业瓦克夫。㉑

    作为犯罪集团的国家

    政治学家将早期现代的欧洲国家比作有组织犯罪。他们的意思是，国家统治者使用自己组织暴力的专长，向社会上其他人榨取资源，经济学家称之为租金。㉒有些学者使用“掠夺国家”的字眼来描绘一系列现代发展中国家的政权，像蒙博托·塞塞·塞科（Mobutu Sese Seko）治下的扎伊尔（刚果），或查尔斯·泰勒治下的利比里亚。在掠夺国家里，掌权精英试图向社会提取最高程度的资源，以供自己的私人消费。这些精英之所以追求权力，就是因为权力可向他们提供经济租金。㉓

    毫无疑问，有些国家是高度掠夺性的。在一定意义上，所有国家都是掠夺性的。在理解政治发展时要面对一个重要议题，即国家是否在掠夺最大化的租金，或出于其他考虑，仅在提取远远低于理论上最大化的租金。以租金最大化来描绘成熟的农业社会，如奥斯曼土耳其、明朝中国、“旧制度”下的法兰西王国，并不一定恰当。但对有些政治秩序来说，如蒙古人等游牧部落所设置的征服政权，这肯定是精确的，也愈来愈成为后期马穆鲁克政权的特征。马穆鲁克苏丹的征税，既是没收性的，又是任意的，使长期投资变得难以想象，主人只好将财产投入非优化的用途，像宗教慈善事业瓦克夫。有个有意思的推测：当商业资本主义开始在意大利、荷兰、英国起飞时，在埃及却被扼杀在摇篮中。㉔

    另一方面，高水平征税仅出现于埃及马穆鲁克三百年统治的末期。这表明，早期苏丹的征税远远低于最大化。换言之，最大化的租金提取并不是农业社会中前现代国家不可避免的特征。根据波斯的中东国家理论，君主功能之一就是保护农民，以正义和稳定的名义来对抗贪婪的地主和其他追求租金最大化的精英。这个理论为阿拉伯人所采用。所以，国家不单是占据领土的强盗，更是新兴公共利益的监护人。马穆鲁克国家最终走向完全的掠夺，归因于内外力量的交汇。

    诸多原因导致马穆鲁克政权的政治衰败，它在 1517 年遭到奥斯曼帝国的摧毁。从 1388 年到 1514 年，埃及承受二十六年的瘟疫。由于奥斯曼帝国的兴起，马穆鲁克越来越难以招募奴隶军，因为奥斯曼帝国直接挡在赴中亚的贸易途径上。最后，马穆鲁克制度证明太僵硬，不愿采用新军事技术，尤其是步兵军队的火器。面对欧洲敌人的奥斯曼帝国，早在 1425 年就开始使用火器，约在欧洲探索此项革新的一个世纪之后。㉕他们很快掌握这些新武器，其大炮在 1453 年攻陷君士坦丁堡时发挥了重要作用。相比之下，马穆鲁克要到甘素卧·胡里苏丹（1501—1516 年在位）时期，方才认真试验火器，离他们毁灭于奥斯曼帝国已经不远。马穆鲁克骑士发现使用火器有损自己尊严，而政府又受铜铁矿产匮乏的限制。经过一些夭折的测试（十五门火炮在试用时全部炸坏），苏丹国设法装备了有限数量的火炮，并组建了非马穆鲁克的火枪第五军团。㉖但这些革新姗姗来迟，无法保住这个资金短缺、堕落、传统的政权。

    阿尤布苏丹创建伯海里团，所想解决的问题与早期中国建国者所面临的完全相同，即在高度部落化的社会中组建军队，不得忠于自己的部落，只能忠于以他为代表的国家。他的对策是购买年轻外国人，切断其对家庭的忠诚。他们进入马穆鲁克奴隶大家庭后，在选贤与能的基础上获得晋升；每年招募新人，前途全凭自己的才干。如此建起的军事机器令人印象深刻，顶住两代蒙古军的进攻，将十字军战士赶出圣地巴勒斯坦，为保卫埃及而打退帖木儿国。如伊本·赫勒敦所说的，马穆鲁克在历史的关键时刻挽救了伊斯兰教，否则，后者可能早已变得无足轻重。

    另一方面，马穆鲁克的制度设计又包含了自己消亡的种子。马穆鲁克直接参政，不满足于担任国家的代理人。没人可以管教他们，每一名马穆鲁克都能追求苏丹一职，因此蓄谋弄权。王朝原则很早为最高层领袖所接受，很快传染给整个马穆鲁克上层，变成既得利益的世袭贵族精英。同时，这些精英没有安全产权，想方设法从苏丹手中保住自己的收入，以传给后裔。在布尔吉系马穆鲁克的治下，精英群体分化于年龄的差异，老牌马穆鲁克将年轻者招入自己的家族网络。曾将年轻马穆鲁克与国家绑在一起的训练不见了，只有为自己派别的赤裸裸的租金追求，他们使用强制力量，从平民百姓和其他马穆鲁克那里榨取资源。马穆鲁克精英为这些权力斗争煞费苦心，以致不得不采用非常谨慎的外交政策。仅仅凭运气，15 世纪早期的帖木儿国侵略，没给他们带来巨大的外部威胁，一直到奥斯曼帝国和葡萄牙逐一崛起的世纪末。由于瘟疫造成的人口减少和外贸的丧失，马穆鲁克的财政日渐捉襟见肘。没有外部威胁，也就没有军事现代化的激励。奥斯曼帝国完善了军事奴隶制，并组建了更为强大的国家。所以，马穆鲁克 1517 年败于奥斯曼帝国，早成定局。

    第 15 章  奥斯曼帝国的运作和衰退

    奥斯曼帝国以欧洲君主做不到的方式集中权力；奥斯曼帝国完善军事奴隶制；不稳定的土耳其国家依赖持续的对外扩展；奥斯曼制度衰退的原因；军事奴隶制走进发展的死胡同

    尼科洛·马基雅维利（Niccolò Machiavelli）著名的政论《君主论》写于 1513 年。其时，奥斯曼帝国正处在权力的巅峰，将征服匈牙利，还将向哈布斯堡首都维也纳发起首次进攻。在该书第 4 章中，马基雅维利作出以下观察：

    在我们的时代，两种各异的政府是土耳其和法国国王。土耳其整个君主政体由一人统治，其余的都是他的仆人。他将王国分割为众多桑贾克（sanjaks，编按：相当于中国的县或区），派去不同的行政官，可以随意调换。而法国国王身处自古就有的领主中间，后者在国内获得百姓的认可和爱戴，享有自己的特权，国王不可予以取消，否则会有危险。因此，无论谁在觊觎这两个国家，你将发现很难征服土耳其，但一旦征服，维持非常容易；作为对照，在某些方面，你会发现攫取法国比较容易，但很难维持。①

    马基雅维利抓住了奥斯曼帝国的本质：它在 16 世纪早期的治理，比法国更加集中、更加非人格化，因此更加现代化。16 世纪后期，法国国王攻击地主贵族的特权，试图创建同样集中统一的政权。他从巴黎派遣总督（intendents）——现代地方长官的前身——去直接管理王国，像治理各桑贾克的土耳其长官贝伊（bey，县长或区长），以取代地方的家族精英。奥斯曼帝国采用的制度与众不同，以征募制和军事奴隶制为基础，建成了高度强大且稳定的国家，可匹敌欧洲其时的任何政权，治理着比阿拉伯哈里发或苏丹所打造的任何一个都要大的帝国。奥斯曼社会与同时代的中国明朝有相似处，它们都有强大的中央国家，国家之外的社会参与者都相当薄弱，缺乏组织。（不同之处在于，奥斯曼政权仍受法律限制。）奥斯曼的国家制度是现代和家族制的奇怪混合体。家族制一旦以现代因素为代价来保护既得利益，国家制度就会衰败。奥斯曼帝国完善了马穆鲁克的军事奴隶制，但最终还是屈服于精英把地位和资源传给孩子的天性。

    仅一代的贵族

    马基雅维利所描述的行政制度，即土耳其苏丹随意派遣和调换去外省的行政官，其根源在于，奥斯曼帝国尚是新兴的征战朝代，没有古老的制度可以继承，只能创建全新的制度。蒙古人 13 世纪的征服把一系列土库曼（Turcoman）部落，从中亚和中东赶到小亚细亚西部的边境地区，使之夹在西方的拜占庭帝国和东方的塞尔柱（Seijuk，自 1243 年起成为蒙古伊儿汗国的属国）苏丹国之间。这些部落组织起来，向拜占庭发动攻击（gaza）。领袖之一的奥斯曼（Osman）1302 年在巴菲翁（Baphaeon）打败拜占庭军队，因此而声名鹊起，鹤立鸡群，吸引其他边境领袖前来投靠。于是，宛如暴发户的边境国家奥斯曼得以站稳脚跟。它东西出击，以征服新领土，并向周边的成熟国家借用现成制度。②

    16 世纪的奥斯曼帝国

    奥斯曼帝国的地方行政制度源于 15 世纪的西帕希骑士（sipahi）和其封地蒂玛（timar，养马的意思）。最小的封地只有一至数座村庄，其税收只能负担拥有马和其他装备的单名骑士。较大的封地叫扎美（zeamet），分配给称为扎伊姆（zaim）的中级官员，高级官员分到的封地叫哈斯（has）。骑士或扎伊姆住在自己的封地，向本地农民征收实物税，通常是每个农民每年上缴一车木材和饲料，再加上半车干草。该制度是拜占庭的，奥斯曼帝国只是信手拈来。像欧洲的领主，骑士也提供地方政府的功能，如安全和司法。他还要想方设法将实物转换成现金，以支付装备和奔赴前线的旅费。较大封地的主人被要求提供第二名骑士，包括侍从和装备。整个制度称作迪立克采邑制（dirlik），迪立克意即生计，这也是它的功能。其时的经济仅取得部分货币化，苏丹的军队由此获得维持，无须增税以付军饷。③

    地方政府围绕桑贾克组成，包括数千平方英里和将近十万人口。奥斯曼帝国征服新领土，便组成新的桑贾克，并实施详尽的土地清查，列出每个村庄的人力和经济资源，目的就是为了纳税和分配封地。起初，用于各地的规则因地制宜，但随着时间的推移和新领土的快速增加，法律和规则趋于统一。④桑贾克长官贝伊不是从本地招聘的，而由伊斯坦布尔的中央政府指派。跟中国的地方官一样，他们任职三年后必须改任他职。⑤参战时，他们又是率领自己治下的骑士军队的将领。⑥比桑贾克级别更高的行政区是州（beylerbeyilik），他们构成了帝国的主要区域。

    如马基雅维利承认的，迪立克制度与欧洲封建制的最重要区别在于，土耳其封地不能转换成遗传财产，不能传给骑士的后裔。由于新兴帝国的多数领土都是新近征服的，国家拥有大量土地（约 87% 在 1528 年获得），封给骑士的期限只是他的一生。封地是为了换取军事服务，如果没有提供军事服务，苏丹就可收回封地。跟欧洲不同，大片封地的主人不可再作进一步的分封。骑士太老不能参与战役，或中途夭亡时，他的封地便要上缴，被分配给新骑士。骑士的地位不可遗传，军人的孩子必须回归平民。⑦在封地上耕种的农民，只有使用权，但不像他们的主人，其孩子可继承这种使用权。⑧所以，奥斯曼帝国创造出仅一代的贵族，防止了享有资源基础和世袭特权的强大地主贵族涌现。⑨

    防止领土贵族的出现还有其他实际的原因。奥斯曼帝国经常处于战争，因此要求骑士在夏季前来报到候战。所以每年有好几个月，封地主人外出，既减轻农民的负担，又削弱了骑士与封地的联系。有时，骑士必须在他处过冬，妻子和孩子要在家里独立谋生。骑士经常利用外出机会，挑上新的配偶。所有这一切都在破坏贵族与封地的联系，而这种联系在欧洲发展中是异常重要的。⑩

    完善军事奴隶制

    迪立克采邑制得靠军事奴隶制，不然就会管理失当。奥斯曼帝国以阿拔斯王朝、马穆鲁克和其他土耳其统治者的军事奴隶制为基础，但剔除了使马穆鲁克制度失灵的缺陷。

    最重要的是文官和军官之间有明确差别，后者严格服从前者。军事奴隶制始于苏丹家庭的延伸，像阿尤布的马穆鲁克。但又有不像之处，奥斯曼帝国统治者一直保留对军事奴隶制的控制，直到帝国晚期。王朝原则仅适用于奥斯曼统治者的家庭。不管职位多高，才能多大，奴隶永远都不能成为苏丹，或在军事机构中创建自己的小朝廷。因此，文官政府可建立招收、训练、晋升的明确规则，侧重于建立高效的军事管理机构，不必担心其以军政府名义夺取政权。

    为了防止军事机构中的小朝廷，遂定下有关孩子和遗产的严格规则。禁卫军的儿子不得加入禁卫军，在帝国早期，他们甚至不得结婚和组织家庭。皇家禁卫骑士（sipahis of the Porte）的儿子可加入骑士团队充任侍从，但孙子绝对不可。奥斯曼帝国似乎一开始就明白，军事奴隶制就是为了避免既得利益的世袭精英。军事奴隶制中的招收和晋升全靠能力和服务，他们的奖励是免税地位和庄园。⑪神圣罗马皇帝查理五世派驻苏莱曼一世（Suleiman the Magnificent）宫廷的大使布斯贝克（Ogier Ghiselin de Busbecq）提及，缺乏世袭贵族的事实允许苏丹挑选奴隶，全凭能力来提拔，“出身于牧羊人的杰出大维齐尔，欧洲评论家对他一直着迷不止”。⑫

    奥斯曼帝国改善了马穆鲁克制度，将招募进执政机构的非穆斯林奴隶（askeri）与帝国的穆斯林和非穆斯林的百姓（reaya）严格分开。后者可有家庭和财产，可将财产和土地遗传给子孙。他们也可根据宗派附属关系，组织成半自治的社区米勒特（millets），但不能成为执政精英的一员，不能携带兵器，不能当兵或在奥斯曼政府中当官。非穆斯林奴隶的干部通常每年更新，因为年年都有新招募的基督徒。他们被切断与家庭的关联，只对奥斯曼国家效忠，没有行会、派别、自治协会，一切忠诚献给统治者。⑬

    作为治理机构的奥斯曼国家

    有证据显示，初期的奥斯曼帝国没有实施最大化征税。说得更确切些，他们视自己为监护人，除了较低水平的征税，还在保护农民对抗更像有组织犯罪的精英。我们这样说，是因为奥斯曼帝国晚期发生财政困难，苏丹不得不大大提高征税水平。

    继承于早期中东政权的自我约束已融入奥斯曼的国家理论。波斯萨珊王朝的库思老一世（Chosroes I，531—579 年在位）曾说，“如有公正和适度，百姓将生产更多，税收将增加，国家将变得富强，公正是强国的基石”。⑭这里的“公正”意味着适度的征税。⑮我们可能发现，这无疑是里根执政时流行的拉弗曲线（Laffer curve）的中东版本：低税率给予个人较多奖励，个人因此生产较多，最后的总税收也水涨船高。这种想法获得早期土耳其学者的赞同⑯，并进入所谓的公平圆圈（circle of equity），由八条谚语组成：
    1. 没有军队就没有皇家权力。
    2. 没有财富就没有军队。
    3. 百姓生产财富。
    4. 苏丹以公正统治来留住百姓。
    5. 公正需要世界的和谐。
    6. 世界是花园，国家是花园的围墙。
    7. 国家支柱是宗教法律。
    8. 没有皇家权力，宗教法律就失去支持。　

    这些谚语通常环绕一个圆圈写下，到了第八条再轮回到第一条。这显示，对皇家权力（第一条）来说，宗教合法性（第八条）又是不可或缺的。⑰这是一份异常简洁的声明，阐述军事力量、经济资源、公正（包括税率）、宗教合法性的相互关系。这表明，土耳其统治者的目标不是经济租金最大化，而是平衡了权力、资源和合法性的综合国力最大化。⑱

    与同期的欧洲君主政体相比，奥斯曼制度有个重大缺陷，因此而变得不稳定，那就是缺乏成熟的长子继承制或其他继承规则。按照中东的古老传统，统治者的继承权在上帝手中，建立继承规则有悖上帝的愿望。⑲在继承权未定时，不同候选人急需禁卫军、宫廷官员、乌里玛（ulama，教权阶层）、行政机器的支持。苏丹青春期的儿子跟导师一起去不同省城，以获取总督的工作经验，最靠近首都的儿子在影响禁卫军和宫廷方面就占了便宜。苏丹死后，儿子之间经常发生内战。偶尔，苏丹尚未死去就有人抢班夺权。在这些情况下，兄弟之间的残杀在所难免。穆罕默德三世（Mehmed Ⅲ，1595—1603 年在位）夺权时，在宫殿里处决了十九个兄弟。他终止将儿子送去外省的安排，让他们住在宫殿内特别居所，其生活宛如囚犯。⑳有人会说，这种制度确保新苏丹将是最严厉最残忍的儿子。但没有制度化的继承规则，往往造成致命弱点，在继承期间容易受到外国威胁，并让制度中的参与者获得过度的影响力，如仅是苏丹代理人的禁卫军。

    奥斯曼帝国混乱的继承机制，让人们怀疑其制度在总体上的建制化。像处理中国情形一样，马克斯·韦伯也把奥斯曼制度归为家族制，而不属于现代。如果把“家族制”定位为整个政府听从统治者家庭，一切取决于统治者的心血来潮，奥斯曼制度确实如此。几乎国家的所有雇员，其正式地位都是奴隶，这表明苏丹对整个官僚机构享有绝对控制权。跟中国皇帝一样，他可以命令处决上至大维齐尔（首相）的任何官员。苏丹还有权更改制度上的任何规则，如苏莱曼一世决定放松禁卫军不得组织家庭的禁令。

    另一方面，不管苏丹在理论上的权力，他治下的政府照章办事，所作的决定可以预测。首先，奥斯曼苏丹受穆斯林宗教法律——伊斯兰教法（sharia）——的束缚，不管是理论上还是实践中。像中世纪的基督教君主，苏丹正式承认上帝的主权和法律，他自己的权力只是来自上帝的委托。法律的监护人是庞大庄严的宗教机构，乌里玛（神职学者）解说法律，主持宗教法庭，裁决家庭、婚姻、遗产和其他私人事务。对日常层次的执法，苏丹不予干涉。私人产权和国家土地的使用权受到类似保护（参看第 19 章）。甚至混乱的继承权争斗，在一定意义上也以伊斯兰法律为依据，其原则就是禁止长子继承权。

    奥斯曼政府照章办事，还出于代理制的需要。绝对统治者必须将自己的权力和权威委托给代理人，这是简单的生活常识。由于专长和能力，代理人开始营建自己的权力。这在统治像奥斯曼帝国这样辽阔、多样、复杂的地域时，尤其如此。

    很奇怪，征募制和军事奴隶制却是奥斯曼帝国最现代的特征之一。在功能上，它的目标与中国科举完全相同：都是国家非人格化招聘的来源，确保源源不断的候选人面对激烈的选择，只效忠于国家，与家庭和亲戚没有牵连，以攀高位。与中国相比，它比较不合理，因为它只允许外国人参与。另一方面，这种限制是为了防止家族化，可以撇开与家庭或地方藕断丝连的本地精英。㉑

    衡量国家制度现代性的另一尺度是法律和程序在帝国的统一。理所当然，中国人设下了最佳标准，很早就创造了不同寻常的统一行政制度，很少例外。奥斯曼制度则允许较多的差异，帝国的中央地区、小亚细亚、巴尔干半岛开始实施相当统一的规则，如土地租佃、征税、司法等。奥斯曼帝国强迫奴隶军改信伊斯兰教，但没将自己的社会制度强加于外省的行政机构。希腊人、亚美尼亚基督徒、犹太人，虽然享受不到穆斯林的法律权利，但仍能组织半自治社区。这些社区的宗教领袖负责财政、教育、执法和其他有关家庭法律和人身地位的事务。㉒离帝国的中心越远，地方上的制度就越偏离核心规则。在 1517 年打败马穆鲁克之后，中东的重要地区，包括埃及、叙利亚、汉志（Hejaz，现代沙特阿拉伯沿红海的西部地区），并入帝国的版图。马穆鲁克获准保留自己的军事奴隶制，但必须承认奥斯曼帝国的主权。汉志则实施自己的特殊规则，因为拥有穆斯林圣城麦加和麦地那，奥斯曼帝国现是穆斯林的监护人。

    家族制的复辟和衰败

    奥斯曼制度的衰退归罪于内外两种因素。外部因素包括帝国的地理极限，以及人口和环境的巨大变化。这些 16 世纪末 17 世纪初的变化，不仅影响了土耳其，而且影响了所有的农业大国。内部因素包括军事奴隶制的崩溃、禁卫军由国家权力的工具蜕变成既得利益团体。

    如我们所知，奥斯曼制度一开始就是一个征服王朝，依赖领土的持续扩张来增加税收和封地。到 16 世纪 30 年代末，奥斯曼帝国面对两条战线，相隔几乎两千英里：在东欧与奥地利人对峙，在波斯与新近崛起的萨非王朝（Safavid）争锋。奥斯曼帝国虽能动员其人力的大部，但军队不能整年驻扎在外。以当时的技术，他们开发了先进的物流制度，但军队仍需在春天聚合，行军数百英里，奔赴前线。第一次征服维也纳败北，因为军队抵达维也纳郊外已是 1529 年 9 月 27 日，围攻不到三个星期，就不得不放弃，因为军队要在冬天之前返回自己的土地和家庭。类似的局限也存在于波斯前线。㉓

    奥斯曼帝国为此决定全年防守匈牙利，并改善海军，以开展地中海的军事行动。他们继续赢得战利品（如塞浦路斯岛和克里特岛），直到 17 世纪中期。但是，轻易的领土征服到 16 世纪中已近尾声，武装的外部掠夺不再是经济租金的良好来源。这给内部统治造成严重后果，因为更高水平的资源榨取必须来自帝国核心地区，而不是边境地区。没有新的基督教领土，也就减少了征募制人选的供应。

    另一个外部发展是持续的通货膨胀和人口增长，互为表里。从 1489 年到 1616 年，小亚细亚谷物的恒定银价上升了 400%。很多学者将价格上升归罪于来自西班牙新大陆的金银增长，但杰克·戈德斯通（Jack Goldstone）认为，有理由说奥斯曼帝国的通货膨胀不是货币事件，因为没有找到新金银进入奥斯曼土地的证据。实际上，政府因为白银短缺而一再降低铸币的含银量。更确切地说，通货膨胀是由于快速的人口增长。从 1520 年到 1580 年，小亚细亚的人口增长了 50% 到 70%。从 1520 年到 1600 年，伊斯坦布尔的人口从十万增至七十万。这种人口增长同时也在欧洲和中国发生，原因不明，但一定与 15 世纪摧毁欧亚大陆人口的瘟疫的退潮有关。戈德斯通认为这可能与气候有关，再加上人类由此而增强的免疫力。㉔

    这些变化大大影响了奥斯曼帝国的制度，通货膨胀使采邑制度愈来愈靠不住。采邑的骑士靠土地生活，但另有土地和军事装备的货币开支，现在变得不堪忍受。很多人拒绝参与战役，另外的干脆放弃封地，开始组成掠夺农民和地主的强盗帮派。驻扎在城市的禁卫军，为应付开支，获准从事手艺人或商人的民间职业，这模糊了奴隶和百姓之间的明显界限。有些禁卫军当上财政官员，操纵采邑登记以谋私利，或授予自己土地，或分配土地给百姓以换取贿赂。㉕

    16 世纪晚期，中央国家也面对财政危机。火器的引进使曾是 15 世纪奥斯曼部队支柱的骑士变成老皇历，国家必须以骑士为代价迅速扩充步兵。从 1527 年到 1609 年，禁卫军的人数从五千增至三万八千，再增至 1669 年的六万七千五百。此外，政府开始招募无地农民（sekbans）充任临时火枪手。㉖不像自我负担的旧骑士，这些新式步兵需配备现代武器，领取现金薪水。所以，政府急需将征税得来的实物，转换成已是经济交易基础的现金。骑士人数的跌幅相当于步兵人数的涨幅，放弃的采邑现在租给私人经营者，出身于非奴隶的税务承包商向他们征收现金。先前，政府约束对农民的剥削，现在为应付财政收入的燃眉之急，也就顾不上了。㉗

    考虑到财政困境，军事奴隶制的规则受到腐蚀也许是不可避免的。根据马穆鲁克的经验，阻止奴隶军人将地位和资源传给孩子的规则很难执行，因为这有悖人性。奥斯曼帝国的原始制度非常严格，规定禁卫军坚持独身，不得组织家庭。但在制度内部，一直有放松规则的压力。当遇上与日俱增的财政压力时，政府只得作出让步。这一过程始于塞利姆一世（Selim the Grim，1512—1520 年在位）和苏莱曼一世（1520—1566 年在位），先允许禁卫军结婚和组织家庭。随之，这些禁卫军又向宫廷施加压力，允许他们的儿子加入军队。这发生于塞利姆二世（Selim Ⅱ，1566—1574 年在位）时期，设立了专收禁卫军儿子的定额。苏丹穆拉德四世（Murad Ⅳ）在 1638 年正式废除征募制，这等于确认了禁卫军子承父业的纳新制度，甚至百姓也被允许加入军人阶层。㉘晋升不再依据规则，愈来愈靠国家制度中的私人关系。以前局限于宫廷政治的家族制，现在扩散到整个体系。㉙

    跟布尔吉马穆鲁克一样，将禁卫军与苏丹绑在一起的道德关系也受到蛀蚀，他们全神贯注于自己的福利和家庭，变成一个为己谋利的利益团体。纪律趋于崩溃，禁卫军开始定期在首都发动骚乱，以抗议薪酬的拖欠或铸币的贬值。跟马穆鲁克相似，他们与民用经济挂钩，收购商业，或提取被人遗弃的采邑的租金。㉚

    很多历史学家认为，奥斯曼帝国从 17 世纪初开始的衰落并非不可避免。事实上它还维持了三百多年，直到 1908 年的青年土耳其党人运动。奥斯曼帝国仍能展示令人惊讶的精力，例如 17 世纪的下半世纪，科普鲁律（Köprülüs）大维齐尔得以在帝国的中央省恢复秩序，在地中海继续扩张，征服克里特岛，并于 1683 年再一次向维也纳发起进攻。㉛但这次中兴又遭逆转。什叶派的萨非王朝在波斯崛起，导致什叶派和逊尼派的长期战争。奥斯曼帝国鼓励在全国贯彻逊尼派的正统观念，并杜绝外部新思想。它发现自己愈来愈无法赶上邻近欧洲帝国在技术和组织上的革新，从而不得不割让领土，每隔十年再来一次。虽然如此，土耳其仍在加里波利（Gallipoli）打败英国人，进入 20 世纪时，继续是欧洲政治的主要角色。

    奥斯曼帝国的遗产

    奥斯曼帝国是穆斯林世界中迄今最成功的政权。他们凭借自己创造的制度基础，集中权力，其规模在那个地区是空前的。他们在异常短暂的时间内，从部落过渡到国家层次的社会，然后发展了具有显著现代特征的国家制度。他们建立了中央集权的官僚和军队，以非人格化的择优标准，挑选和晋升有限的外国招聘对象。这一制度得以克服中东社会的部落机构的局限。

    此外，奥斯曼帝国创造了可从中央遥控的省级行政制度。通过这个制度，他们实施相对统一的规则，确定经济的日常运作，维护辽阔帝国的治安。不像欧洲的封建主义，奥斯曼帝国从没允许制造政治分裂的地方贵族涌现。所以，不像早期现代的欧洲君主，苏丹也无需向贵族讨回权力。奥斯曼帝国的制度，比 15 世纪同期的欧洲政治组织更为成熟和先进。

    就集权和支配社会的能力而言，鼎盛时期的奥斯曼帝国，比较不像同期的欧洲国家和印度次大陆上建立的本土国家，而更接近于中华帝国。跟中国类似，它只有很少独立于国家的组织良好的社会团体。如马基雅维利所注意到的，没有古老的贵族血统，没有获得宪章的独立商业城市，没有民兵组织和法律制度。跟印度不同，村庄没有依照古老的宗教社会规则组织起来。

    奥斯曼国家和其他阿拉伯先驱者，其不同于中国之处是存在立法的宗教机构，至少在理论上独立于国家。它能否限制国家的集权，说到底，取决于宗教权威本身的制度化程度。（我在第 21 章讨论法治起源时，将回到这一题目。）

    就全球的政治发展而言，作为奥斯曼帝国核心力量的军事奴隶制只是一条死胡同。它的产生基于一种担忧，同样的担忧促使中国人发明了科举制度。今天，中国科举制度的实用等同物都在应用之中，不管是现代欧洲和亚洲的官僚招聘，还是美国的学术能力评估测试（SAT）和法国的高中毕业会考（baccalauréate）。相比之下，军事奴隶制作为一种制度已从世界政治舞台消失，不留任何痕迹。穆斯林世界之外的人，从未认为它是合法的。问题不在奴隶，众所周知，直到 19 世纪西方都视奴隶制为合法制度。欧洲人或美国人所无法想象的，是奴隶后来又变成政府高官。

    从 14 世纪到 16 世纪，军事奴隶制充任奥斯曼帝国迅速崛起的基石。但它面对各种内部矛盾，不能幸免于 16 世纪晚期帝国面临的外部变化。奥斯曼帝国从没发展出本土的资本主义，不能长期取得持续的生产力增长，所以只能依赖粗放式增长来增加财政资源。经济和外交的政策失败，彼此雪上加霜，使本土制度无法承受。它继续生存于 20 世纪，多亏了创新的苏丹和最后的青年土耳其党人改用西方制度。但这一切不足以保住政权，继承它的土耳其共和国则依据截然不同的制度原则。

  • 玛丽安娜·沃尔夫《普鲁斯特与乌贼》

    前言 大脑天生不会读
    第一部分 我们是如何学会阅读和思考的:阅读脑的进化
    第1章 普鲁斯特与乌贼给我们上的阅读思维课
    阅读——智力的“圣殿
    阅读的认知过程
    阅读脑的设计原则品
    人类的大脑如何学会阅读
    个体的大脑如何学会阅读
    大脑无法阅读的情况
    第2章阅读脑与思考的自然史
    人类最早的语言
    文字的第一次突破:象征符号
    文字的第二次突破:楔形文字和象形文字苏美尔人如何教儿童阅读
    从苏美尔语到阿卡德语
    象形文字的发明率
    龙骨、龟甲与绳结:其他早期的奇妙文字
    第3章 苏格拉底反对的“阅读”是否会妨害人的思考
    什么是字母文字
    字母文字是否造就了不一样的大脑
    苏格拉底的抗议
    第二部分 阅读如何改变了我们的思维:阅读脑的发展
    第4章 阅读决定孩子拥有怎样的思维与人生
    从听故事到读儿歌
    我们还可以为孩子做什么
    第5章 阅读者的五大进阶(1)
    开始阅读之旅
    萌芽级阅读者
    初级阅读者
    解码级阅读者
    第6章 阅读者的五大进阶(2)
    流畅级阅读者
    专家级阅读者
    第三部分 不会读的大脑也有高品质的思维:阅读脑的变奏
    第7章 阅读脑的补偿机制
    盲人摸象般的历史
    说读障碍的诸多面貌
    世纪之谜
    第8章 不要错失阅读以外的才能
    阅读障碍者的石脑
    每个孩子都有自己的潜能
    第四部分 让大脑有时间来思考:超越阅读脑
    第9章 网络时代的阅读与思维方式
    对阅读进化的反思
    对阅读自然史的反思
    对阅读障碍的反思:跳出定式思维
    致读者:最后的思考

    前言：大脑天生不会读

    我以研究文字为生:寻找它们隐藏在脑海深处的秘密，探究它们意义与形式的各个层面，然后把这些奥秘教授给年轻人。在本书中，我邀请读者一起思考文字阅读中最深奥的创造特质。我们正加速进入数字时代，在这样一个历史转型期，任何关于智力发展的事都值得我们仔细思量。的确如此，过去从未有哪个时代的研究者能像现在这般深谙阅读过程的繁复之美。通过科学研究，我们越来越了解阅读的益处，然而这些益处似乎又有被新型传播方式取代的危险。审视现况并反思我们需要保留哪些阅读习惯，这将是本书从始至终的讨论主题。
    很久以前，埃德蒙·休伊(Edmund Huey)爵士写过一段让人印象深刻的话，他认为真正了解阅读时大脑的运作过程，会是“心理学家最大的成就，因为这将得以描述人类心灵中诸多错综复杂的运作，解开彼此纠结的现象，揭露出整个文明在历史中最了不起的成就”。
    在当代进化史与认知神经科学等诸多学科的帮助之下，我们累积的关于“阅读脑”( the reading brain)的知识想必会令休伊震惊。我们知道每-种新型的书写系统都从人类千年的历史中发展而来，需要人类大脑的不同适应方式;我们研究阅读发展的诸多层面，从婴儿时期逐渐深入到专家级阅读;我们发现难以学会阅读的大脑，混杂着阅读障碍的挑战与其他方面的天赋，这转变了我们对阅读的理解。综合起来，这些领域的知识彰显出大脑近乎神奇的能力，它可重组自身结构来学习阅读，并且在这一过程中形成新的想法。
    在本书中，我希望引导读者重新思考长久以来被视为理所当然的事情比如儿童自然而然地学会阅读。在我们大脑学习能力的进化中，阅读的行为并不是自然发生的，而且在许多人身上，尤其是儿童，可能会产生奇迹或悲剧性的后果。
    构思这本书需要一整套系统的观点，这花了我好几年的时间来准备。我是一个儿童发展与认知神经学的教师，是一位关注语言、阅读与阅读障碍问题的研究者，也是一个热爱文字的人。我是波士顿塔夫茨大学(Tufts University)阅读与语言研究中心的主管，在那里，同事和我一起研究各年龄层的阅读者，特别是阅读障碍者。
    我们研究全世界各语系中的阅读障碍，从与英语同源的德语、西班牙语、希腊语与荷兰语等，一直到与英语关系较远的希伯来语、日语与汉语我们知道学不会阅读的儿童要付出多大的代价，不论他们的母语是哪一种，不论他们来自贫困的菲律宾社区、美国原住民保留区，还是富裕的波士顿郊区。我们投入许多精力设计新的治疗方案，并且探讨这些方案在课堂教学和个体大脑中的效果。幸亏有脑成像技术的协助，我们可以真正“看到大脑在阅读时的情况，从而比较治疗前后的差别。
    我过去累积的经验、对众多研究项目的理解以及对社会传播模式转型的认识，促使我提笔写下第一本通俗读物。有一点必须在此说明，这本书的许多部分都来自众多学者的研究，但为了顺应通俗读物的写作形式，我不再像学术文献那样–列出注释与参考文献，在这里我真诚地向这些参考文献的写作者表示感谢。
    本书首先介绍文字系统的起源与演变，接着讲述个体阅读脑发展的不同阶段，最后揭示未来我们将要面临的机遇与危险。
    奇怪的是，作者通常会在前言中将自己成书时的最终想法传达给读者。这本书也不例外。不过与其用我自己的语言，倒不如引用玛里琳·鲁宾逊(Marilynne Robinson)在将她最好的作品《基列家书》(Gilead)送给她小儿子时所说的话:“我以最深沉的希望与信念来写出我所想写的一切。我的想法游移，措词也随之变幻，尝试说出真相。而我可以坦诚地告诉你，这真的很棒。

    第一部分 我们是如何学会阅读和思考的：阅读脑的进化

    文字与音乐乃是人类进化过程的轨迹。——约翰·邓恩
    欲了解事物如何运作，最佳途径莫过于了解它的起源。——特伦斯·迪肯

    第一章 普鲁斯特与乌賊给我们上的阅读思维课

    我相信就其本质而言，阅读是一个在全然的孤独之中，仍令 人心满意足的沟通奇迹。——马塞尔，普鲁斯特
    学习本身包含了对天性的培育。——约瑟夫，勒杜

    没有人生来就会阅读，人类发明阅读这项活动也只是几千年前的事情， 这项发明使大脑精密的结构重新排列组合，思维得以延伸，进而改变整个 人类物种的智力进化过程。阅读是历史上最卓越的发明之一，其结果之一 便是让我们有了记录历史的能力。我们的祖先之所以能够发展出这项技能， 是因为人类大脑拥有在已知的结构上建立新联结的超凡能力，经验对大脑 的塑造使得这一过程成为可能。大脑机能的核心是其可塑性，我们因此才 会思考自己是谁，未来又会成为什么样的人。

    本书主要讲述大脑如何进行阅读的故事，同时揭开智力进化的奥秘。 这个故事不断地在我们眼前更迭，在我们指间流转。由于大脑会持续建立新的联结，这种联结将驱使人类的智力发展朝着崭新且多元的方向前进， 于是在接下来的几十年内，我们将见证人类沟通能力的转变。了解阅读对 大脑的要求，以及阅读怎样促进我们的思考、感觉、推理及理解他人的能力， 在今天看来尤为重要，因为我们的大脑正从“阅读脑”向“数字脑”转变。 通过理解阅读的历史演变、儿童获得阅读能力的过程，以及阅读对大脑生 物基本架构的重整方式，我们可以发现人类作为智慧物种所具有的神奇性 和复杂性。这将会明确地告诉我们，人类的智力进化接下来可能发生什么， 以及在创造未来时我们将会面对怎样的选择。

    本书包含3个部分的知识：
    @人类在早期，即从苏美尔时代到苏格拉底时代，是如何学习阅读的；
    @人类生命发展周期中日益复杂的阅读学习方式；
    @大脑学不会阅读的原因，包含科学解说及案例介绍。

    总的来看，本书积累的有关阅读的知识，既展现了人类作为能阅读和 记录的物种所取得的巨大成就，又引导我们注意哪些习惯值得保持。

    从历史和进化的视角研究阅读脑，其中的价值还不能一眼看透。但关 于怎样去教授阅读过程的本质，它提供了一个既传统又新颖的方法：研究 那些能学会阅读的人，也研究那些在阅读方面存在障碍的人。阅读障碍者 的大脑系统组织方式有所不同。理解这些通过基因指令代代相传的独特大 脑系统，将以意料之外的方式扩充我们的知识，同时也暗示我们，新的探 索才刚刚开始。

    在本书的3个部分里，都交织着另一个话题：大脑是如何学习新事物 的。除了阅读，大脑鲜有重塑自身以学会新智力功能的惊人能力。在人 类进化史中一段很长的时间里，大脑中更多的结构和神经回路原本是专 门负责视觉和口头语言等更基础的能力的，阅读使大脑在这些结构上建 立起新的联结。现在我们知道这样一个事实：每当我们学会一项新的技 能，神经元之间便会建立新的联结和通道。计算机科学家们用“开放架构”这一术语来描述该系统：功能非常丰富，可以通过重新 排列来适应变化的需求。在人类基因遗传的约束下，大脑为我们展示了一 个“开放架构”的完美例子。在此设计模式下，我们生来就有能力适应外 部世界的变化，能够超越自然。因为从一开始，我们就注定要有所突破。

    因此阅读脑是“双向互动”理论的典型。我们之所以能够学会阅读， 仰赖的全是脑部可塑性的设计。当阅读发生时，个体的大脑无论是在生理 层面还是智力层面都发生了永久性的变化。例如，在神经元水平上，一个 人学习汉语阅读时使用的特殊神经联结模式，和学习英语阅读的神经联结 模式是完全不同的。当以汉语为母语的读者首次阅读英文时，他们的大脑 会尝试使用基于汉语模式的神经通路。学习阅读汉字的行为塑造了阅读汉语的大脑。

    同样，我们如何思考以及思考什么在很大程度上是基于阅读所产生的 见解和联想。正如作家约瑟夫·爱泼斯坦所言：“每一个 文学家的传记都要详细记录他在何时阅读了什么书籍，因为在某种意义上, ‘我即我所读’。”

    阅读——智力的”圣殿

    阅读脑的两个维度——个体智力的发展和生物学上的进化，很少被结 合起来描述。然而把两者并列来看， 我们会发现很多关键和精彩的启示。 在这本书里，我将以备受世人推崇的 法国著名小说家马塞尔，普鲁斯特为 例，与相对而言无比单纯的乌贼作对 照，从两种截然不同的角度探索阅读。

    阅读脑：不是”专门负责阅读的大 脑”，大脑中并没有生来就负责阅读的区域。阅读脑指的是”阅读中的大脑”，它会在学习阅读的过程中不断发展。

    普鲁斯特将阅读看做智力的“圣殿”，在那里，人们可以接触到众多永 远不能亲临或者不能理解的“另一种现实”，这些“另一种现实”的好处是 不需要读者离开舒服的躺椅，就可以感受到每一个新体验，以及由新体验 带来的心智的提升。

    早在20世纪50年代，科学家们就开始利用中央神经轴突较长、害羞 又狡猾的乌贼，来探究神经元之间是如何激活和传递信号的，以及在某些 情况下，当神经元出错时，大脑如何进行修复和补偿。当代的认知神经科 学家则致力于另一个层面的研究，即大脑中各种各样的认知（或称心智） 过程的运作方式。在此研究范畴中，阅读极具典型性，这种文化产物需要 从大脑已存在的结构中发展出新元素。阅读时大脑如何工作，出现问题时 大脑如何聪明地调整，这些都类似于早期神经科学对乌贼的研究。

    在阅读过程的不同维度上，普鲁斯特的“阅读圣殿”与科学家的乌贼 研究恰好提供了一种互补的模式。为了更具体地介绍本书的思路，我摘抄 了普鲁斯特《论阅读》一书中一段美得令人无法呼吸的文字，请读者以最快的速度阅读：
    恐怕不会再有如童年一般充实的岁月……一本喜爱的书陪伴我们 度过许多时光。仿佛其他一切皆为了阅读而存在，因此我们将所有打扰 阅读的种种，鄙视为对此神圣享受的粗俗妨碍，其中包括：在读到最有 趣的片段时，有朋友找我们出去玩游戏、害我们不得不抬起头或更换姿 势的恼人蜜蜂及阳光、即便到了黄昏天空由蓝转暗时搁在长椅上碰都没 碰的下午茶、到了得回家吃晚餐的时间；遇到这些事时，满脑子只想着 待会儿一定要立刻继续未读完的章节。尽管以上说的例子在那时只让我 们觉得烦人，但是它们却也深深烙印在甜美的记忆之中（现在想来，其 实远较当时深爱的书籍本身更为珍贵）。而若是改天我又重新拾起那时 读过的书本浏览，唯一的原因正是对于那些已经逝去的日子，深深缅怀 所致；在书本的字里行间，多希望能够再次看见孩童时代陪伴我读书、如今却不复存在的池塘与家园。

    首先思考一下，你在阅读上述段落时想到了什么？再试着分析一下在 阅读过程中，你是如何以普鲁斯特为起点进行各式联想的，并且另外还做 了哪些事？如果你和我一样，普鲁斯特会使你想起长久以来贮藏在脑海中 的关于书的记忆：

    为躲避兄弟姐妹和朋友的打扰而藏起来读书的秘密地点；简·奥斯汀、夏洛蒂·勃朗特和马克·吐温笔下惊心动魄的时刻；害怕被父母发 现而躲在被子里看书时手电筒微弱的光线。

    这些构成了普鲁斯特的“阅读圣殿”，也构成了我们的阅读王国。在 这里，我们第一次遨游中土世界、小人国和纳尼亚王国；我们第一次感受 那些永远不会身临其境的经历：王子和乞丐、恶龙和少女、功夫武士，还 有为逃避纳粹士兵躲在阁楼里的犹太小女孩。

    传说马基雅维利在阅读某本著作之前，会打扮成作者那个年代的样子，并为自己和作者准备一张双人桌子。由此可见他对作家 的才华有多重视，也可能是他与普鲁斯特对于“阅读境界”一事，有着十 足的默契。阅读时，我们可以暂时拋下本身拥有的观感，进入另一个个体、 另一个年代或另一个文化。

    神学家约翰·邓恩用“逾越”这个说法来 概括阅读的过程。在这个过程中，阅 读使我们试着去扮演、赞同并暂时进 人另一个与我们自身截然不同的个体的感观世界。当我们体验到一个骑士 是如何思考、一个奴隶是如何感受、一个英雄是如何作为、一个恶棍是怎 样忏悔或否认罪行时，我们很难没有 任何感想。有时候我们深受鼓舞，有时候倍感悲伤，但无论如何，我们的世界的确变得更加丰富多彩。通过这 些感同身受，我们同时理解到思想的普遍性和独特性，我们是个体，但并不孤独。

    逾越：约翰·邓恩认为，所谓的“逾越”现象，乃是当代的新宗教。邓恩对这个过程的描述是，”先是过渡到另一种文化的标准，另―种生活方式，另一种宗教……接下来就是所谓1归返’的过程，带着崭新的洞见归返自己原来的文化、生活方式和宗教”。

    当这一时刻发生时，我们便不再受限于自身的思想范畴。因此无论何 时，一旦“逾越”发生，个体既有的思想界限即受到质疑或嘲弄，进而一 步步地改变。如此一来，延伸的感知会改变对自我的认知，这对孩童来说 尤其重要，因为它改变的是对未来自我的想象。

    阅读的认知过程

    让我们回到之前。当我让你把注意力从本书转到普鲁斯特所写的段落， 尽快地阅读并理解这一段落时，为了执行我的要求，你的心智认知系统从 事了一系列包含注意力、记忆力、视觉能力、听觉能力和语言能力的活动。

    很快，你大脑的专注功能和执行系统开始计划：如何快速阅读并理解 这段文字。接着，你的视觉系统加快行动，快速浏览页面，将搜索到的字 母外形、单词形式和习惯用语等文字信息传递到等候信息的语言系统。这 些系统将包含细微差别的视觉符号和文字蕴含的意义迅速联系起来。在意 识几乎无法察觉的那一刻，你高度自动化地调用英语书写体系中的字母读 音规则，而这需要动用大量的语言处理能力。（作者主要基于英语文字的角度来分析，但原理是相通的，故保留原表述。书中 多处有类似情况。）这就是所谓的“字母原则”， 它依赖于大脑的奇特能力：迅速联系和整合所见、所闻、所知。

    当你将所有这些规则运用于眼前的文字时，你就迅速激活了相关的语 言和理解过程，这一过程运行速度之快至今令研究者惊讶不已。举一个语言领域的例子，当你阅读普鲁斯特所写的这233个单词时，你的语义系统 就调出脑海中你所读到的每个单词可能的意思，找出符合上下文的含义整合到这个文本语境中。这个过程的复杂和神奇远超想象。

    许多年前，认知科学家戴维，斯威尼发现了这样一 个事实：当读到一个简单的单词，如“虫子”（Bug）的时候，大脑不仅仅 是激活了它较常见的意思〔一种爬行的六腿生物〕也激活了使用得较少的其他意思，如间谍、大众汽车和软件漏洞（英文中—词有这些延伸意思）。斯威尼发现大脑不会只为某个单词找到一种简单的意思，而是会激活关于这个单词的大量知识以及与 之联系的众多其他单词。这种阅读语义层面的丰富程度依赖于我们之前储 存的词汇量，这对儿童的成长发育意义非凡，有时甚至有毁灭性的影响。 与那些词汇量和概念比较贫乏的儿童相比，有着丰富词汇的儿童会以一种 完全不同的方式阅读文字和进行对话。

    试着思考一下斯威尼的发现对于阅读不同的文本意味着什么，从如苏 斯博士的幼儿读物《哦，你要去的地方》那样 简单的文本，到像詹姆斯·乔伊斯的《尤利西斯》那样充满语义 复杂性的文本。那些尚未走出自己狭隘成长环境框架的孩童，无论是在理 解譬喻还是文字上的表现，与其他儿童都是截然不同的。我们会将所有储 存的知识运用到所读文本之上。

    如果将这一发现运用于刚刚所读的普鲁斯特的那段文字，那就意味着， 你的执行计划系统指导了一系列活动以确保你领会所读到的内容，并检索 出和文本相联系的所有个人信息。你的语法系统需要持续工作以避免你卡 在普鲁斯特文本中那些不熟悉的句型上，比如他在谓语前用了很多长分句， 并用逗号和分号将它们连在一起。（这里针对的是那段文字的英文原文）为了不致“过目即忘”，你的语义和语 法系统需要与你的工作记忆（这种记忆就像一块“认知黑板”，能暂时存储 稍后要用的信息）紧密合作。如此一来，当我们在读普鲁斯特特殊语法结构 的文字，并将每个单字串连成语义的同时，就能顺利了解全文的整体意义。

    当你将全部的语言形式和概念信息串联起来的时候，你就在自己背景知识的基础上产生了自己的推断和假说。如果这时你还读不懂，就需要重读某些部分，并试着找出符合上下文的意义。接着，当你把所有这些视觉 的、概念的以及语义的信息和自己的背景知识、推理综合在一起后，便能体会普鲁斯特在书中所描述的境界：“神圣的”阅读乐趣，让多姿多彩的童 年岁月永恒不朽。

    许多读者在读完普鲁斯特的文字之后，可能会稍加停顿，超越文本， 进入另一个境界，任思想驰骋。然而，在解读这个比较具有哲学性的问题 之前，让我们再回到生物学层面上，看看阅读行为的表象之下隐藏着什么。所有的人类行为都建立在层层叠加的各种基本活动之上，阅读也不例外。我请牛津大学的神经学科学家兼艺术家凯瑟琳·斯图德利画了一个金字塔图来阐述当我们读到一个单词时，这些不同层级 的生物学活动是怎么协同运行的（见图1-1）

    图1-1 阅读金字塔

    在金字塔的顶端，读到单词“bear”是表面行为，其下是认知层面， 包含着那些阅读所需的专注、知觉、概念、语言能力及神经系统的作用。 这些让很多心理学家终生研究的认知过程，依赖于有形的神经结构，这些 结构由神经元联系而成，并受基因和环境之间互动关系的引导。换言之，所有的人类行为都基于各种认知过程，这些认知过程则基于特定神经结构 中快速进行的信息整合。这些神经结构依赖于数十亿的神经元和上千亿的 神经联结，神经元的活动则在很大程度上受到基因的控制。为了维持人类 各项基本功能的正常运作，神经元需要从基因那里获得指令，在神经结构 中形成有效的神经回路或通道。

    这座金字塔像一幅三维地图，帮助我们理解视觉等受基因控制的行为 是如何产生的。但是它无法解释阅读的神经回路层面，因为在底层没有特 殊的阅读基因。阅读与其组成部分（如视觉和语言）相比，没有直接的基 因编码可以遗传给下一代。因此，个体大脑在开始学习阅读时，必须经由 后天努力重新形成金字塔上面4层所需的神经回路。这使得阅读等文化行 为，不能像视觉和口语一样通过基因编码遗传给下一代。

    阅读脑的设计原则

    那么，首次阅读又是如何发生的呢？法国神经学家斯坦尼斯拉斯·戴哈尼告诉我们：首批发明书写和算术的人类可以通过“神经元再利用”实现这一过程。例如，如果在猴子面前摆放两盘香蕉一个盘子里面放2根香蕉，另外一个盘子里放4根，猴子会直接去抓香蕉多 的盘子。通过灵长类动物实验，戴哈尼发现，在猴子行动之前的瞬间，其大脑后皮质的某个区域就被激活了。人类大脑中的相应区域现在负责数学计算过程。

    以此类推，戴哈尼与其同事们认为：人类阅读时的认字能力运用到了 我们祖先古老的专门用于物体识别的神经回路。更进一步看，我们祖先迅速区别天敌和猎物的能力来源于先天特殊的视觉功能，因此我们认识字母 和单词的能力可能源自更深层次的先天能力，是“特殊化后的特殊化”。

    如果稍微扩展一下戴哈尼的观点，我们不难发现，阅读脑不仅利用了古老的视觉神经通路，同样也利用了将视觉与概念和语言功能相联系 的神经通路。例如：通过脚印的形状能迅速判断出是否有危险；将常见 的工具、捕食者或者天敌同脑海中的词汇联结起来。因此当人类需要发 展出阅读或计算之类的新能力时，大脑便会自动遵循三项巧妙的设计原则：
    @在旧的神经结构中建立新的联结；
    @形成功能高度专门化的各个区域，别信息中的不同模式；
    @学会从这些区域中自动搜集信息。

    这三条建立脑部新功能的原则，正是所有阅读进化、阅读发展与阅读 障碍的基础，尽管在不同情况下有不同的表现。

    精密的视觉系统为我们提供了最好的例子，证明了大脑是怎样再利用原有的视觉神经回路，并进一步发展出阅读能力的。视觉系统的神经元可以变得高度专门化并且能在已有结构中发展出新的神经回路。这一切使新生儿在呱呱落地时，即拥有了一双可以随时工作的眼睛，毫无疑问，眼睛也是精密设计的完美例子。

    （视网膜拓扑围构建：人类出生后，视网膜上的神经元与脑部枕叶中的特定细胞群产生一一对应的关系，即视网膜所看见的每一条直线、斜线等都会激活枕叶高度专门化的区域。）

    人类出生后不久，视网膜上的 神经兀就开始和脑部枕叶中的特定细胞群产生对应的关系。视觉系统的这一特性被称 为“视网膜拓扑图构建”，简单来说就是视网膜所见到的每一条直线、斜线，以及每一个圆形或弧形都会在瞬间激活枕叶高度专门化的区域（见图1-2）。

    图2-2 视觉系统

    视觉系统的这一特性并不等同于下述情况:我们的祖先克罗马侬人(Cro-Magnon)能够分辨出视野尽头的动物;现代人能够认出400米外汽车的型号;鸟类观察者能够发现燕鸥的身影，而此时其他人什么都没看见。戴哈尼认为，我们祖先大脑内部主要负责物体识别的视觉区域，通过调整内置的识别系统，来破译书面语言中最初的符号和字母。关键在于，为了达到功能调整、专门化或建立新联结等目的，大脑会整合多种遗传功能在视觉区域和负责认知、语言过程的区域之间建立起新的神经回路，这些回路是阅读文字所必需的。

    阅读拓展出的第三条原则——神经回路自动化的能力，包含着前两条原则。这使我们在快速浏览过普鲁斯特的文字后，就能马上理解其中蕴涵的意义。然而冰冻三尺，非一日之寒，大脑不可能在一夜之间就发展出自动化的能力。这种能力不存在于一个初级观鸟者的脑中，也不存在于阅读初学者的脑中。儿童要接触上百次字母与单词,而对于阅读困难的儿童来说可能需要接触上千次，才能建立起新的神经回路。

    辨识字母、字母样式与单词等神经回路得以自动化，归功于视网膜拓扑图构建、物体识别能力，以及脑组织的另一项重要能力：高度“再现”举例来说，当负责辨别字母和字母样式专门化区域中已学过的信息模式。的神经元网络群“同时激活”时，大脑会构建出信息的视觉表征，以便快速提取信息。

    不可思议的是，长期“同时激活”的神经元网络群在眼前没有同样的信息时，仍可重现视觉信息的表征。任教于哈佛大学的认知神经科学家斯蒂芬·科斯林(Stephen Kosslyn)曾经做过一项颇具启发性的实验，实验内容是:在脑部扫描仪的监控下，成年阅读者闭上双眼在脑海中想象不同的字母。

    斯蒂芬·科斯林发现，当想象大写字母时，脑部视觉皮质层视觉区域的某些部分被激活了;当想象小写字母时，被激活的则是该区域的另一些位置。仅仅是在脑海中想象不同的字母，就会激活我们视觉皮质层不同的神经元。在专家级阅读者的脑中，当信息通过视网膜进入大脑时，会有一组专门的神经元来处理字母的各种物理特征，并将这些信息自动提供给其他更深层的视觉处理区域。大脑中的视觉自动化功能是分段、分批式的这使得所有的表征以及处理功能(不只是视觉)都变得极为迅速和轻松。

    从我们第一次接触字母到成为阅读专家，这之间发生了什么，对科学家来说相当重要，因为它提供了一个观察认知过程有序发展的难得机会视觉系统的各种特征包括:旧有的受基因控制的神经结构、模式识别、针对特定表征形成的专门化的神经元工作组、建立多功能的联结回路，以及达到熟能生巧的程度等。阅读发展中需要涉及的所有其他认知、语言系统的原理都和视觉系统大同小异。在进一步详述之前，首先我想强调一点:在每个读者的内心思想与大脑中所发生的事件之间,存在着惊人(却非巧合的一致性。

    就许多方面来说，阅读不仅反映了大脑超越原有设计结构的潜能，同时也反映了读者超越文本或作者所赋予内容的潜能。当你读到普鲁斯特(作者)描述与最爱的书一起度过童年的那段文字时，大脑系统会整合所有的视觉、听觉、语义、句型等信息，而你(读者)则自动将普鲁斯特的文字与你个人的思想及生活体验联系起来。

    我当然无法揣摩出你对于普鲁斯特文本的各种联想，但是我可以描述出我的体会。可能是由于刚刚才参观了波士顿美术馆的“莫奈与印象主义”展览，我发现自己很容易将普鲁斯特描写的回忆里童年美好的一天，与莫奈如何画出自己的代表作品《日出·印象》联系。如果他们准备完成一件生活的完美复制品，他们都会运用生活中点滴的信息来综合演绎出更加生动鲜明的印象。如此，画家与小说家都成了埃米莉·狄更生(Emily Dickinson)谜一般的诗中写的:
    以迂回的方式道出全部真理。

    当埃米莉·狄更生写下这些诗句时，可能从未想过神经回路的问题但是这些句子不仅具有诗的韵味而且又恰巧符合了生理学知识。正如普鲁斯特与莫奈利用间接表达的方法，迫使观众或读者在欣赏作品的过程中投入自身经验，反而能更加直接地体会作品。阅读正是一种神经上与智能上的迂回行为，文字所提供的直接信息与读者产生的间接且不可预期的思绪，都大大地丰富了阅读活动。

    阅读活动:阅读正是一种神经上与智能上的迁回行为，文字所提供的直接信息与读者产生的间接且不可预期的思绪，都大大地丰富了阅读活动。

    当想到我的孩子已经沉浸在谷歌的世界里时，我开始为阅读的独特魅力担忧。当我们的阅读媒介变成电脑文本，瞬间就能接收到大量信息时建构阅读核心的基本元素会不会发生改变，甚至崩解?换育之，当许多数字化媒介能够快速地提供几乎全部的信息时，我们是否仍能具备充分的时间与动机，以更具有推理性、分析性或批判性的态度，来处理这些信息?

    在这种背景下，阅读活动会不会产生戏剧性的变化?虽然基本的视觉语言过程是完全一致的，但是在理解过程中需要更多的时间、检验、分析以及创造的部分，会不会受到忽视?打开超链接所得的额外知识，是否有助于儿童思维的发展?当儿童逐渐掌握执行多重任务的能力以及整合大量信息的能力时，他们是否仍能保存人类的建构式阅读习惯?对于各式各样的阅读模式，我们是否应该开始提供明确的指导方法，以确保孩子能以多元的途径处理信息?

    在这些问题中我渐渐地迷失自己，但是阅读也往往会让我们迷失。这么说完全没有贬意，只是想表现阅读的另一项衍生出来的核心特质。达尔文在150年前发现了造物的奥秘，即“无限”形式从“有限”原则演变而来:“肇始于微，进化于斯，无限形体，美好至极。”文字也是如此。无论是生物学上还是心智上，阅读都会促使我们“超越信息的束缚”，创造出无限美好的思想。人类学习、处理以及理解信息的方式正处于历史的转折点但是我们绝不能丢掉阅读的本质特征。

    诚然，阅读者与文本之间的关系，在不同文化和历史时期中也不相同。古往今来无数人读过《圣经》这样的神圣书籍，他们可能按具体的、字面的方式解读，也可能是从衍生的、说明性的角度来理解，数以万计的生命可能因此改变。马丁·路德(Martin Luther)将拉丁文版的《圣经》翻译成德文，让普通大众都可以读到，并从自己的角度来理解，这对宗教的历史产生了深远的影响。正如某些历史学家所观察的那样，随着时间的推移文本与读者之间的关系，可视为人类思想史上的一个重要索引。

    然而本书的重点还是以生物学和认知神经科学为主，而非人类的文化就此看来，阅读时生成新思想的能力与大脑神经回路的可塑性相辅相史。成，两者共同辅助我们超越文本内容的限制。由此能力生成的丰富的联想力、推理力、领悟力启发人类超越所读，形成新的思维。从这个意义上去理解，阅读不仅反映而且重演了脑部认知能力发展历程中的重大突破。

    普鲁斯特对此已经讲过很多，对于能够启发我们思维的阅读能力，他自有一番或许拐弯抹角但却独到的见解：
    我们应能由衷体会，读者的智慧始于作者写作之终了。当我们渴望作者能够给予我们答案时，他能给的却只是更多的渴望。而他只有竭尽所能发挥他的艺术，让我们的思绪陷入作品里崇高的美好，他才能在我们身上挑起这些渴望。不过……规则可能意味着我们无法由任何人那里获得真相，我们只能创造真相;这是作者智慧展现的终点，也是读者智慧展现的起点。

    普鲁斯特对于阅读衍生性的思考，其实是矛盾的:阅读的目的在于超越作者的想法，产生自主的升华的思想，最终完全脱离文本。从儿童费劲地破解第一个字母开始，阅读经验不再只限于阅读行为本身，而是成了我们转变思想的最好工具，并且，在生理和智力上都将切实“改造”我们的大脑。

    总之，阅读带来了生理和智力的改变，这仿佛是一个具有非凡意义的培养皿，让我们能检验自己的思维方式。这项检验需要多种视角——古代及现代语言学家、人类学家、历史学家、文学家、教育家、心理学家及认知神经科学家等，以不同的角度进行研究。本书主旨在于融会贯通这些学科的论点，并提出三项新的观点:
    @ 阅读脑的进化(人类的大脑如何学会阅读);
    @ 阅读脑的发展(个体的大脑如何学会阅读);
    @ 阅读脑的变奏(大脑无法阅读的情况)。

    人类的大脑如何学会阅读

    让我们从苏美尔、埃及以及克里特岛这些书面语言的神秘起源地说起。在这些起源地中，我们发现了苏美尔人的楔形文字、埃及人的象形文字以及克里特岛人的原始字母文字。我们的祖先每发明一种重大的书写系统，大脑都需要进行些许调整，这也解释了为何上述的早期文字与古希腊人发明的意义重大且近乎完美的字母文字之间，时间相差了2000年之多。

    普鲁斯特与乌贼：普鲁斯特把阅读看做个体智力的圣殿在书本面前，我们“身未动，心已远”;认知神经科学家却把阅读比做乌贼学游泳，畅快淋漓的行动之下是复杂而精密的神经活动。

    字母规则在根本上呈现出了人类祖先深邃的洞察力，口语中的每一个单词都由一些有限的独立音位组成，而这些音位又可由一组有限的独立字母来表示。随着时间的流逝，我们发现这套看似单纯的发音原则是非常具有革命性的，因为它提供了这样一种可能性:每种语言的每一个口语词都可以被转换为文字。

    阅读史上有个很少提及的故事，苏格拉底竭尽所能地发挥他传奇性的口才，来反对发展希腊字母文字及其读写能力。在今天看来，苏格拉底很有先见之明，人类从口语时代转变到文本文化后确实遗失了一些东西。柏拉图对此沉默地抗议，他以文字记录下苏格拉底的每一句话。苏格拉底的反对格外契合当今我们的环境和心理，因为我们和孩子们正在从文本文化过渡到充斥着视觉影像与数字信息的时代，正在经历着同样的反对与妥协的过程。

    个体的大脑如何学会阅读

    有几种令人深思的关系，联结了人类书写的历史和儿童阅读的发展。首先，人类经历2000年之久，才实现了认知能力的突破，学会阅读字母表而现在的儿童只需大约2000天就学会了同样的知识。其次是一个为学习阅读而不断进行“重组”的大脑，有什么进化及教育学上的意义。没有特定的基因组直接负责阅读功能，我们的大脑还需要在负责视觉和语言的原有结构间建立联结去学习阅读这项新的技能，因此每一代的每一个儿童都需要重复大量的工作。

    认知科学家史蒂芬·平克(Steven Pinker)信誓且日地表示：“儿童天生就会辨认声音，然而文字是额外的需求，他们需要努力地学习才能把它们都读懂。”为了获得这项非天赋的技能，儿童需要一个全面的阅读教育环境，这样他们大脑中负责阅读的神经回路才能得到充分开发。但是目前的教学方式与该设想背道而驰，顶多只关注阅读的一两个层面。

    要理解自婴儿时期直至青少年时期的阅读发展，必须先理解阅读脑中所有的神经回路及其发展情况。假设有两个差不多大的孩子，他们都必须掌握成千上万个词汇和概念、数以千计的听觉及视觉认知，这些都是建构阅读的基本元素。但是由于他们生长环境的差异，其中一个儿童能掌握这些基本元素，另一个却不能。孩子本身并没有错误，但每一天都有许多儿童的学习需求无法被满足。

    最开始的阅读学习发生于幼儿期，那是我们躺在父母的怀抱里听故事的时候。事实证明，5岁以下的儿童听故事的频率会影响他们将来的阅读能力。给孩子提供丰富的语言环境或文本环境的家庭，与没有或是无法提供这种环境的家庭，形成了社会的两种阶层，然而很少有人关注这种隐性的阶层差异。一项著名的研究发现，在学龄前的小朋友们中，来自语言贫乏家庭的儿童与来自语言丰富家庭的儿童相比，他们接触到的词汇量差距大约是3200万。换言之，某些环境中，5岁以下的中产阶级家庭的儿童比来自贫困家庭的儿童，平均多接触3200万的词汇。

    在人学前已经听过、用过数以千计的词语，并能在大脑中理解、分类、记忆这些词语意义的儿童，人学后一定感到游刃有余。反之，另一群没有听过父母讲故事、没有听过儿歌、没有想象过与龙搏斗或与王子结婚的孩子，人学后经常会有挫败感。

    认识阅读活动发生的前兆，可以改变这种状况。在新科技的帮助下现在我们可以直接观察儿童学习阅读的过程，从解读一个词语，如“猫”开始，到流畅轻松地理解如“麦非斯特猫一般狡猾”一般复杂的句子，这中间发生了什么事情。我们发现人在生命周期中要经历一系列可预知的阅读阶段，这些阶段显示出初级阅读者与专家级阅读者的大脑有着不同的神经回路及其他必备条件，这些条件帮助专家级阅读者畅游《白鲸记》及《战争与和平》的世界，或是理解逻辑缜密的经济学书籍。

    随着时间的推移，我们关于大脑如何学习阅读的知识逐渐积累，这有助于我们预测、改善甚至预防一些原本未必会发生的阅读障碍的情况。如今，我们在阅读方面具备了充分的知识，不仅可以诊断出绝大多数幼儿园儿童是否有阅读障碍的风险，更可以教导已经出现困难症状的幼儿学会阅读。然而，这些积累的知识同时也突显出新的问题：数字化时代对大脑提出新的不同的要求，同时我们也不希望失去阅读脑的已有成就。

    大脑无法阅读的情况

    研究阅读障碍，有助于我们从另一个角度理解阅读行为。从自然科学的角度来看，阅读障碍之于人类，有点类似于游泳障碍之于小乌贼。这类天生有游泳障碍的乌贼，不仅让我们明白了学会游泳必须具备哪些条件，也使我们了解如果没有游泳这项独特的天赋，这些乌贼如何和其他乌贼样繁衍生存。

    我与我的同事采用了从字母测验到脑成像等多种研究方法，希望理解为什么许多儿童患有阅读障碍。我的大儿子也是这样，他除了阅读障碍的症状之外，在一些简单的语言行为上也有困难，例如他无法区别单词里的音素，也无法在看到某种颜色时立刻说出其名称。现在我们可以追踪正常儿童与阅读障碍儿童在进行各种行为时的大脑活动情况，分别建立动态的脑部影像。

    这些脑部影像每天都为科学家们带来新的惊喜。随着脑成像技术的进步，对阅读障碍者大脑的研究有了新的前景，特别是在干预治疗(intervention)方面的应用。这些成果有可能帮助许多原本无法对社会做出贡献的患者。将正常儿童的发展与阅读障碍者的发展相比较，能够帮助无数阅读障碍的儿童恢复潜在的能力，重拾生活的希望。

    （脑成像技术:在计算机等现代设备的辅助下，”看见”大脑在人做出反应、进行思考或想象时的情况的技术。常见的脑成像技术有计算机断层扫描、磁共振成像、正电子成像术。）

    关于阅读障碍者的大脑可能具备哪些特殊优势的问题，目前仍处于令人兴奋的早期研究阶段。但是许多发明家、艺术家、建筑学家、电脑设计师、放射学家或金融学家在童年时期都有过阅读障碍，这是毋庸置疑的事实。发明家托马斯·爱迪生、亚历山大·贝尔，企业家查尔斯·施瓦布大卫·尼尔曼，艺术家列奥纳多·达芬奇、奥古斯特·罗丹，以及诺贝尔奖得主医学家巴茹·贝奈赛拉夫等杰出人士，在儿童时期都出现过阅读障碍或者阅读困难的症状。

    某些阅读障碍者在设计、空间技能、模式识别等领域具备无可比拟的创造力，这些创造力与他们的阅读障碍之间有何关联呢?阅读障碍者的大脑结构，在比较注重建筑和探险能力的史前时代，是否更适合生存?阅读障碍者是否更容易适应视觉与科技主导的未来世界?现今最先进的脑成像与基因研究，是否能清晰描绘出阅读障碍者大脑的特殊构造，并最终解释这些已知的缺陷，以及各种正渐渐被发现的特殊天赋?

    上述关于阅读障碍者大脑的疑问，不但有助于回顾我们进化的过程也有助于展望符号发展的未来。许多年轻人选择以需要“持续部分注意力（continuous partial attention)的网络多元化文化取代书本原有的地位，他们将会获得什么，又会失去什么?无限信息时代对于阅读脑的进化有何影响，对人类的进化又有何影响?信息爆炸对原本需要时间才能形成的全面深刻的知识而言，是不是一种威胁?

    近年来，撰写科技文章的作家爱德华·特纳(EdwardTenner)，曾经质疑过谷歌这样的搜索引擎是否促进了“信息文盲”(information illiteracy的出现，这种学习方式是否会有意想不到的负面结果?他说:“若科技的光辉最终威胁到了创造它的智慧，这是多么使人羞耻的事情!”

    反思上述问题，我们会更加珍视人类通过文字发展出的各种智慧的价值。我们不愿丧失这些技能，即使它们可能被其他技能取代。本书分为三部分:两部分是科学研究，一部分是个人的观察，我尽可能以各种事实来证明，为了我们自己,也为了后代,我们迫切需要保存阅读发展的独特功能。我们已经不需要像柏拉图那样，在口语与文字两种交流方式之间左右摇摆;只是当新的维度加人智力发展的行列中时，我们必须警惕，不能失去阅读脑这项意义深远的传承。

    然而，和普鲁斯特一样，在已有知识的王国里，我只能带领读者走这么远。本书的最后一章将会超越现在我所知的信息，进入一个充满直觉与猜想的世界。在这场探索阅读脑的旅程的终点，希望每位读者都能体验并超越这个奇迹，这个每当人们阅读时都必然发生的认知奇迹。

    第2章 阅读脑与思考的自然史

    因此我雄心勒勃地从自己作为读者的个人历史开始，逐渐过 渡到阅读行为的历史，更确切地说是阅读的历史。许多事物的历 史都是由特定的社会习俗及不同的个人情况组成的，阅读史也不例外。 ——阿尔维托，曼古埃尔
    书写的发明堪称人类智力的最高成就之一。它多次独立发生 于不同地点、不同时代，甚至偶然还会发生于现在。没有书写， 今日我们所熟悉的文明，将成为难以理解的天方夜谭。 ——曾志朗、王士元

    一万多年前，书写以各种各样的形态出现在地球的各个角落：表面覆 以坚硬黏土的小小代币、印加文明中错综复杂的染色绳结（见图2-1）、龟甲表面的精致图案等。最近在南非布罗姆斯洞穴中的岩石上发现了约77 000年前留下的交叉符号，这有可能是人类从事“阅读” 的最早遗迹。

    图2-1 印加文明中的结绳文字

    无论阅读从哪里开始，在何时发生，阅读绝不是“突然发生的”。阅读 的故事伴随着人类重大的文化变革，反映了一系列认知和语言上的突破性 事件。它多姿多彩且间歇性的发展历史，揭示出大脑在进行每一次突破时 必须要做的努力。此外，这不仅仅是我们学会阅读的历史，也是大脑原有 结构以不同方式适应不同形式书写系统需要的历史，因此也是我们思维方 式改变的历史。从现代我们逐渐演变的交流方式来看，为什么每种新的书 写系统都对人类智力的发展产生特定的影响，阅读的故事为此提供了独一 无二的记录。

    纵观古今中外的书写系统，文字之成形通常有一些先兆：
    第一类是“符号表征”，其抽象程度远 远高于人类早期的绘画一令人惊讶的是，这些刻在黏土、石头或龟甲 上的简单线条，不仅能代表绵羊等大自然中的具体事物，而且能代表数 量或神谕等抽象意涵。
    第二类预兆是明白符号系统可以跨越时空，保存个体或整个文明的 思想。
    第三类预兆是发音与符号的对应关系，这个将语言抽象化的发明并非普遍存在于所有文字系统，然而此发明却使得所有单字都可以由更小的发音单位组成。同样， 每个符号也都对应着一个单字的部分发音。

    我们的祖先在书写系统上的突破性发展，为我们提供了一面特殊 的镜子，使我们更清楚地审视自己。正如神经科学家特里，迪肯所言，了解每个事件的起源能够帮助我们了解它如何运作，进而 认清我们拥有什么，又需要去保存什么。

    人类最早的语言

    历史上有不少君主曾经试图找出地球上最早的语言是什么，以下两个 故事就是其典型例子。

    古希腊作家希罗多德曾告诉我们：埃及法老普萨美 提克一世（公元前664年至公元前610年），曾下令将两 位婴儿隔离在牧羊人的小屋里，除了每天负责送食物及牛奶的牧羊人 之外，不准他们接触其他人类，也不许他们接触任何人类语言。普萨 美提克一世认为从这些婴儿口中说出的第一个字，就是人类最早的语言——一个聪明的假想，可惜是错的。终于，其中一个婴儿哭喊着说出”bekos”，在弗里吉亚语中的意思是“面包”。此故事使许 多人长久以来都坚信，在安纳托利亚西北地区使用的弗里 吉亚语是人类最早的语言，即”原始语”。
    几个世纪以后，苏格兰国王詹姆斯四世进行了类似的实验，结论不同却十分有趣：苏格兰的婴儿”说了一些希伯来文”。而在欧洲大陆，霍亨斯陶芬王朝的弗雷德里克二世以更多新生儿为样本又做了一遍同样的实验，不幸的是， 由于实验过度严苛，婴儿们还没开口就死了。

    关于哪一种语言才是最早的语言，我们可能永远无法做出权威的论断， 更不用说争议性更大的“最早的文字”。然而要回答文字的发明只有一次还 是有许多次，就容易许多。本章将通过追踪几套特定的书写系统，来探讨 在公元前8000年到公元前1000年的漫长时间内，人类如何学会从小小的代币或“龙骨”上阅读信息。在这段耐人寻味的历史背后隐藏了一个事实， 那就是大脑不断的调整与改变。每一种新文字的发明，都将使书写系统变 得更为错综精细，脑部神经回路因此重新排列组合，从而引导人类智力的 发展和思考能力的伟大突破。

    文字的第一次突破：象征符号

    仅仅是看着这些小碎片，就能够将我们的记忆延伸至太古之 初，即使思想的创造者早已终止思想，思想本身仍继续着。我们 参与了创造，并且只要刻下的图案有人看见、解释或阅读，这创 造便永远不朽。 ——阿尔维托，曼古埃尔

    在偶然发现了一些比铜板还小的黏土碎片后，现代人迈出了探索文字历史的步伐。现在这些黏土碎片被称为“代币”，其中一部分以黏土为外壳， 刻上记号来代表内容（见图2—2〉。现 在我们确认了这些碎片的使用可以追 溯到公元前8000年到公元前4000年 间，它们是古代世界里许多地方都会 使用的一种记数系统。这些代币最初 用来记录货物买卖的数量，比如买卖了几只羊、几瓶酒等。这项略带讽刺意味的事实说明，人类认知能力的增 长可能开始于黏土壳上的数字世界，随后才发展至文字世界。

    代币：代币上的象征符号是文字的前身。最初的象征符号是用来记录货物买卖数量的，人类认知能力的增长可 能开始于代币上的数字世界，逐渐发展至文字世界。

    图2-2 代币

    与此同时，数字及字母的发展也带动了古代经济与我们祖先的智力技 能的发展。有史以来第一次，人类终于可以在现场没有羊或酒的情况下, 计算货物交易。新的认知能力使得信息储存及永久记录这一文字出现的预 兆变成现实。举例来说，与近来在法国和西班牙发现的洞穴壁画一样，代 币系统反映了人类出现了新的能力一象征符号的运用，主要体现在视觉 系统能够辨认出代表具体实物的符号。

    除了认知语言系统，大脑必须建立新的联结，人类才能开始阅读符号。 于是大脑在原本已经建立的视觉、语言、概念等脑神经回路上，发展出新 的神经联结及视网膜拓扑通路，把眼睛和特殊的视觉区域联结起来，然后 指派此区域负责“阅读代币”。

    虽然我们无法对阅读代币的祖先进行脑部扫描，然而以现在对脑部功 能的了解，我们足以对他们的大脑做出精确的推测。神经科学家马库斯·莱 切尔、迈克尔·波斯纳和莱切尔在华 盛顿大学的研究团队曾经做过一系列具有开创性意义的实验：运用脑成像 技术，观察被试在看到一连串有意义或无意义的符号时，大脑是如何运作 的。试验中被试分别被安排看了无意义符号、有意义符号组成的字母、无 意义单词及有意义单词这4种不同的符号材料。

    虽然这项研究是为了其他目的而设计的，但是其结果让我们得以一窥 人类面对抽象难解的书写系统时大脑内部发生了什么。无论是数千年前，抑或是现代的大脑，其中的道理都是一样的。

    莱切尔的团队研究发现，人在看到没有意义的符号时，只有大脑后方枕 叶有限的视觉区域会被激活，此发现在某种程度上为前面提及的“视网膜拓 扑图构建”理论提供了范例。视网膜的细胞会激活枕叶区域一群特定的细胞， 这群特定的细胞与彼此独立的视觉特征，如直线和圆圈等，一一对应。

    但是如果要将这些直线和圆圈解读成有意义的符号，大脑则需要建立 新的路径。正如莱切尔的实验所显示的，出现有意义的“真词”时脑神经 的激活程度是看到无意义符号时的两到三倍。想要理解更复杂的阅读脑的 活动，应先从熟悉“代币阅读脑”的基本神经路径开始。

    我们的祖先之所以能够阅读代币，是因为他们的大脑能够将负责基础视 觉功能的区域与较为精密的视觉区以及概念处理区相连接。这些负责精密功 能的区域邻近枕叶的其他区域，以及毗邻的颞叶和顶叶区。其中颞叶区域与 听觉及语言处理活动息息相关，有助于我们理解词汇。而顶叶参与一系列与 语言相关的活动，同时也参与空间与运算功能。当代币这类视觉符号被赋予 意义时，大脑已将基础视觉区与语言及概念处理系统联系了起来，同时也联 结到了视觉、听觉的专门化区域，组成“联合区”。

    因此，即便是小小代币这样的象征符号化也开发和扩展了人类大脑最 重要的两项功能：专门化的能力，以及在联合区建立新联结的能力。人类大脑和其他灵长类动物大脑的一个最大的区别在于联合区占整个大脑区域的比重。为了能阅读符号，这些联合区不仅要承担更多的感官信息处理过 程，同时还要建立起供将来反复使用的信息的心理表征这种表征能力对于符 号的应用和我们的智力发展都非常重 要。从猛兽的脚印、代币符号这样的 视觉图像，到老虎的咆哮、单词发音 这样的听觉信息，表征能力能够帮助 我们迅速回忆并检索储存在大脑中的 各类表征。

    心理表征：信息或知识在心理活动中的表现和记载方式。心理表征是外部事物在心理活动中的内部再现，一 方面反映客观事物，另一方面又是心理活动进一步加的对象。

    此外，表征能力还为我们的进化奠定了好基础，使我们能够自动化地 辨认与我们相关的一切信息形式。这使得人类成为辨认各种感官信息的专 家，无论是长毛象的足迹还是买羊用的代币，都是小菜一碟。

    阅读符号要求我们的祖先具备更多的视觉专门化功能，而最关键的是 将视觉表征与语言、概念信息建立联系。大脑枕叶、颞叶、顶叶交界处的角回是联系不同感官信息的理想位置，杰出的行为神经学家诺曼·格施温德称其为“联合区中的联合区”。 19世纪的法国神经学家约瑟夫-朱尔斯·代热林经观察发现，一旦此区域受伤，即会造成读写能力的丧失。麻省理工学院的约翰·加布里埃利与加州大学洛杉矶分校的拉斯·波尔德拉克这两位当代的神经学家也通过脑成像的研究考现，当孩童发展阅读能力时，无论是从角回区域传出还是传导至角回的神经回 路都会被强烈地激活。

    从莱切尔、波尔德拉克及加布里埃尔的研究中，我们可以推断出人类 祖先最初“代币阅读能力”的生理构造基础，可能就是在角回与邻近一部分的视觉区之间产生的新而微弱的神经回路联结。若是戴哈尼没错的话，新的联结还涉及负责处理数字的顶叶，以及负责物体识别的颞叶及枕叶的 部分区域，也就是大脑皮层分区系统中的37区（见图2—3）。

    图2-3 第一个代表阅读脑的结构

    最初使用代币的时候，虽然脑内建立的联结只是一个基本的雏形，却 是人类在阅读方面最早的突破。通过教育下一代使用更丰富的象征符号， 我们祖先把与大脑能力相关的知识传递下去，逐渐调整、改变大脑结构， 促使它做好阅读的准备。

    文字的第二次突破：楔形文字和象形文字

    你可曾注意过Y这个字母就像一幅画？你可曾注意到它蕴 藏着许许多多含义？它可以代表树、岔路口、两条相交的河流、 驴子或公牛的脑袋、高脚玻璃杯、带柄的百合花以及高举双手的 乞丐等。对Y的观察也可扩展到所有由人类发明的字母元素。——维克多·雨果

    公元前3300年到公元前3200年间，发生了阅读史上的第二次突破： 苏美尔人的铭刻记号发展成为楔形文字，同时，埃及人使用的符号也演变 成象形文字。虽然现在仍在争论苏美尔人与埃及人是不是这两个书写系统 的发明者，但毫无疑问的是，苏美尔人创造出了一种最早的令人敬仰的文 字系统，它持续影响了整个美索不达米亚平原的阿卡德语系“楔形”—词源于拉丁文的意思是“钉子”，借以描 述苏美尔人的文字貌似钉子。苏美尔人利用芦苇尖端在柔软的黏土表面刻 下的字迹，对没有受过这种教育的人来说，看起来颇似鸟爪的痕迹（见图 2―4〉。

    这些形状奇怪的书写系统的发现年代距今不远，当时不少勇敢的语言学家都去研究文字的起源。最为当代语言学家津津乐道的是19世纪的一位 军人兼学者亨利·罗林森。罗林森曾经冒着生命危险，到现今的伊朗研究楔形文字，为了复制刻在悬崖上的最早一批苏美尔人文字，他用绳索把自己吊在离地面90米高的半空中。

    图2—4 楔形文字

    幸运的是，另外5 000多块刻有楔形文字的泥板能以比较轻松的方式 获得。在许多苏美尔文明的遗迹如宫殿、庙宇或仓库中都可以发现这些文字，它们的发明和使用主要是为了满足政治和会计方面的需求。

    古代居住在底格里斯河与幼发拉底河交汇的三角洲一带的居民，对于他们文字的起源，有着一个浪漫的传说。在一首史诗中有这样的描 述：库拉布国王派遣一位使者带着重要的信息前往远方的国 家，他担心使者到达时会因太过劳累而说不清这些重要的信息。为了保 证信息的传达，库拉布国王“拍打黏土，这些信息便一字不漏地留在泥 板上’ 文字因而诞生。然而，苏美尔人对于为何有人可以解读库拉布 国王的文字，并没有交代清楚。

    不过苏美尔人的楔形文字确实是书写系统演进过程中的一个里程碑。这是一套真正的书写系统，它暗示了书写者、阅读者以及教学者大脑中逐 渐出现的认知技巧。尽管楔形文字比代币的复杂度要高出很多，但最初的 苏美尔文字其实还只是象形的（仿照物体形状呈现的图像），只比代币多一点点抽象的成分。因此，这些象形文字很容易被视觉系统识别，需要的只是与口语中的物体名称进行匹配。

    观察世界上众多的书写系统和数字系统中所运用的符号与字母后，神 经学家戴哈尼发现，许多符号与字母的形状或特征有很高的相似度，且大 都取材自自然界或是我们世界中的各种物体形象。法国作家雨果则认为所 有的字母都源于古埃及的象形文字，而这些象形文字又是通过模拟自然界 中的河流、蛇或百合花的茎等物体形成的。文学家与科学家之间不谋而合 的推论虽然仍有争议，却也说明了为什么从一开始大脑就能学会辨认字母。 在戴哈尼的进化观点中，利用外部世界的已知形状创造出早期的象形文字 符号，其实是“再利用”了大脑内部负责物体辨识以及命名功能的神经 回路。

    但是苏美尔文字的简单形态并没有维持多久，在出现后的短时间之内，本就十分神秘的楔形文字的复杂程度又大大增加。符号快速发展，象 形的成分逐渐消减，而标记化和抽象化的成分则逐渐增加。这种意符文字可直接表达苏美尔人口语中的概念，但尚无发音单位的出现。 随着时间的流逝，苏美尔文字中的许多符号渐渐可以代表苏美尔人口语里的部分音节，这种有双重功能的文字系统，语言学家称之为“意音文字” 或“语素音节文字”。文字系统发展至此，对人类大脑功能 的需求又大幅增加。

    楔形文字：由苏美尔人创造，因其笔画形状像钉子而得名。楔形文字是人类历史 上最早出现的文字系统之影响了当时整个美索不达米亚平原的语言文化。

    事实上，为了实现文字系统的双重功能，必须在苏美尔人阅读大脑的 神经回路上建立起交叉回路。首先，视觉区及视觉联合区里必须增加更多的神经通路，以对上百个楔形文字进 行解码。在视觉区域做出这种调整， 就像在电脑中增加内存条。其次，语 素音节文字的概念处理不可避免地需 要更多认知系统的参与，因此，需要 在枕叶的视觉区、颞叶的语言区及额 叶区增加更多的神经联结。额叶区之 所以参与其中，是因为它在分析、计划、焦点注意等方面的“执行能力”，这些能力对于处理词语中的短促音节， 以及人类、植物、神殿等语义类别来说是必需的。

    对我们的祖先来说，专注于词语中的各种语音模式是一种崭新的体验， 是智慧的产物。当苏美尔人需要创造更多的词汇时，他们在文字中利用了 语言学的“假借”原理，即用一个单字（如：鸟）表示发 音，而非意义，这正是音节的发明。如此一来，“鸟”这个字即被赋予双重 任务：既可以表示语义，也可以表示发音。显然，要区别同一个字的两种 功能，需要新功能的介入，包括发音的标示，或语义的分类。反过来，要 同时记忆语音和语义，需要更多复杂精细的大脑神经回路。

    有两个方法可以帮助我们揣摩苏美尔人的大脑结构。首先，让我们 回想一下莱切尔团队的研究，他们探索的是当词汇被赋予意义时，大脑 内部如何工作。举例来说，研究团队给被试一个无意义的假词mbli也和一 个有意义的单词limb(四肢)，两者的组成字母完全相同，但是其中只有 一种排列具有意义。结果显示，被试看到两个词时，大脑视觉区都会被 激活，但在进一步辨认时，假词对视觉联合区的激活程度较小；而真词 则令大脑变得非常活跃。看到真词后，大脑的处理系统开始工作：视觉 区与视觉联合区对视觉模式，或称其“表征”，产生反应，然后额叶、颞叶、顶叶将词语中最小的发音单位，即音位，转换为信息提供 给大脑，最后颞叶与顶叶的部分区域联手处理词语的意义、功能以及与其 他相关词的联想。

    因此，尽管假字与真字组成字母完全相同，但动用到的大脑皮质区相 去甚远，几乎差了半个皮质。由此可见，第一批楔形文字或象形文字的阅 读者，不论是苏美尔人还是古埃及人，毫无疑问都使用了上述大脑区域的 一部分。就像他们当时创造这两套最初的书写系统的时候，两者势必运用 了重叠的大脑区域。

    而第二个得以窥见苏美尔人阅读脑构造的方法是，由具有相似结构且 至今仍极具生命力、蓬勃发展的汉字系统着手。汉字同样是从象形文字演 变至语素音节文字的典范，同样运用了语音及语义标记来区别符号的不同功能，最重要的是它有充足的脑成像样本可供观察。语言考古学家兼汉字 专家约翰·德弗朗西斯在把汉字与楔形文字进行比较后 发现，尽管两者有些许的差别，但是也有很多类似的元素，因此把它们都归类于语素音节文字系统。

    因此中国人的阅读脑（见图2—5）为我们提供了一个现代的、比较合理的类似于古代苏美尔人的阅读脑结构的范例。广泛分布的神经回路，取 代了代币阅读脑的小范围神经联结，这种新的调整要求视觉区与视觉联合 区在大脑的左右半球覆盖更多的表面区域。不同于其他的书写系统（如字母表），苏美尔语和汉语更多地涉及右脑，众所周知，右脑能更好地提供阅读表意文字所需的空间分析能力及整体处理能力。表意符号数量繁多，对视觉要求极为严格，它们不仅需要大量的视觉区域，大脑内负责识别物体的枕叶——颞叶区（37区）也同样重要。戴哈尼推测该区域是认识文字时“神经再利用”的主要区域。

    图2-5 “语素音节文字阅读脑”的结构

    虽然所有的阅读行为都或多或少地使用额叶、颞叶区规划分析词语的 语音及语义，然而阅读语素音节文字会激活大脑额叶和颞叶一些特殊的区 域，尤其是专门负责动作记忆的区域。匹兹堡大学的认知神经科学家谭力海和查尔斯·拍费提及其研究团队提出了一个重要的 观点：这些动作记忆区域在阅读中文时比阅读其他文字时更为活跃，因为年幼的初级阅读者就是通过反复书写来学习汉字的。而这也正是苏美尔人 学习楔形文字的方法，在一个小小的泥板上，一遍又一遍地练习。接下来 要谈的历史，可证明“此言属实”。

    苏美尔人如何教儿童阅读

    苏美尔人会将单字一行行地记录在小小的泥板上，让所有的孩童读出 来。这件事在人类智力发展史上看起来似乎微不足道，实则不然。因为教 学不仅要求老师对内容本身有扎实的知识背景，同时也要对其所教内容的 学习情况进行深入分析。此外，好的教学过程能从多元的角度将复杂的课 程，如特性复杂的文字系统，更清晰地传授给学生。因此，逐步地学习如 何进行最早的文字教学，促使世界上最早的文字教育者，身兼语言学家的 角色。

    来自特拉维夫大学的亚述研究专家尤里·科恩，近来在分析古老史料后，发现苏美尔人的学生要经过漫长的时间才能学会读写，他们必须在 “泥板屋”学校花费数年才能学会读写 技能。

    亚述：古代西亚奴隶制国家。位于底格里斯河中游，属于闪米特族的亚述人在此 建立亚述尔城后逐渐形成贵族专制的奴隶制城邦。

    “泥板屋”一词，暗示了苏美尔人的基本教学方法：教师会先把一 些楔形文字符号写在泥板上，接着学生必须在另一面模仿其写法。新生 还同时学习阅读含有表意符号及语音信息的文本，有时一个字里就有这 两种信息。如果想流畅地理解这些楔形文字，年轻阅读者必须具备丰富 的背景知识、训练有素的自动化技巧以及相当高的认知灵活度，这些需要数年的练习。最近新发现的练习泥板上描绘了学生的悲惨生活。他们 和老师待在一起的每一年都十分痛苦，经常重复书写这样一句话：“他 用鞭子打了我。”

    最让人惊讶的还不是频繁的鞭刑，而是这首批阅读指导老师使用了高 度分析性的语言学规则，这些规则在任何时代都是实用的。尤里·科恩观 察发现，初级阅读者学习词汇表时已经运用了一些特殊的语言学原则。有 些词汇表是用来教导不同的语义类别的，每一类都有特殊的标记。

    后来苏美尔人把音节符号纳入书写系统中，又出现了另一类依据发音 来分类的词汇表。这意味着苏美尔人在对语音系统进行分析，这也是现代以语音为基础的阅读训练的重点。20世纪的教育者还在为阅读该从发音教 起还是从意义教起争吵不停，而很久以前的苏美尔人在教育体系中已经同 时釆用了这两种方法。

    苏美尔人教学方法的另一项重要贡献是促进了认知能力的发展。要求学生从语音、语义两个角度学习词汇，有助于他们更有效率地记忆单词， 扩充词汇量，增长概念性的知识。以现在的术语来说，即是所谓的元认知策略。也就是说，苏美尔教师已经懂得利用教学 工具，明确地把学习与记忆的方法传授给学生。

    随着时间的流逝，苏美尔人的初级阅读者学会了一些带有词法特征的词汇。词法是利用语义的最小单位，即词素来构成词语的规则。举例来说，英语中bears这个单词是由两个词素组 成的：词根bear加上s，因此bears既能代表一个复数名词（一些熊），又 可以表示动词“忍受”的第三人称现在式。如果缺少了这种意义重大的语 言组合能力，我们的词汇量及思考能力的发展将会受到严重限制，人类智 力的进化与认知能力也会受到影响，我们人类与其他灵长类动物的差异也 许就不会这么明显。

    我们的一种灵长类亲戚，尼日利亚的白鼻长尾猴，其叫声系统也显示出语言组合能力的重要性。白鼻长尾猴与黑面长尾猴都有两种叫声来警告同伴有天敌接近。猎豹靠近时发出”Pyow”声，老鹰接近时则发出一种类似干咳的声音。近来，两位苏格兰动物学家在观察后发现白鼻长尾猴会 通过组合两种叫声创造出一种新的叫声，用来警告年轻的猴子”快离开”。白鼻长尾猴的这项创新，与苏美尔文字中频繁出现的利用词素构造新词 的做法有异曲同工之妙。

    文本框: 39苏美尔人的楔形文字及教学法的重要性，不仅在于他们了解了词法原 理，而且在于他们意识到阅读教学必须从研究口语的基本特质开始。这也 正是我们实验室目前正在开发的“前沿”课程，即在阅读教学中融人语言 的所有特点。这样的教学方法是非常有道理的。试想一下，如果你是地球 上第一批具备读写能力的人之一，在没有任何先人经验能指导你的教学时， 你必须搞清楚口语的所有特点，然后才能创造出书写系统并进行教学。苏 美尔文明的第一批教师就是在这样的情境下提炼出了可长期使用的语言规 则，不但增进了教学效率，还帮助了那些有读写能力的苏美尔人发展认知 和语言技巧。因此，苏美尔人在读写教育方面的贡献拉开了阅读脑改变人 类思考方式的序幕。

    这一切改变的是人类整体而不论男女，有一个鲜为人知的故事很好地 说明了这一点。我们在苏美尔人的遗留之物中发现，当时的苏美尔人规定 皇室女子必须学习阅读。女人拥有自己的语言变体，称为“艾米索”（Emesal）又名“优雅之语”，用来区别有“高贵之语”之称的标准语“艾米格”（Emegir）。艾米索在许多文字的发音上不同于艾米格。我们可以想象 得到，当时的学生在女神所属的“优雅之语”和男性天神所属的“高贵之 语”之间转换，需要何等复杂的认知技巧。这个古文明因此留下了一些美 丽的见证，世界上最早记录下来的情歌与摇篮曲有不少是由苏美尔女性创作的：
    睡吧，睡吧!
    我的孩子！
    快快睡吧，我的宝贝！
    轻轻地合上你颤动的双眼，
    妈妈的手来安抚你闪烁的双眸，
    安慰你梦中的咿呀，
    不让呢喃赶走你的美梦。

    从苏美尔语到阿卡德语

    苏美尔人留下的另一项证据是，包括早期波斯人、赫梯人在内的至少15个民族，在苏美尔语停止使用之后，仍继续沿用 楔形文字及相关的教学方法。文化会绝迹，语言亦然，在公元前2000年， 作为口语的苏美尔语渐渐消失，学生开始学习日渐占有主要地位的阿卡德语。到了公元前1600年，苏美尔口语时代正式宣告结束。

    然而阿卡德人的书写系统及其教学方法仍保留着许多苏美尔文化的文 字符号及方法。苏美尔人的学习方法对整个美索不达米亚平原的教学历史 都有深远影响。后来还有人发现，一直到公元前700年，依旧有人分别以 泥板与纸莎草来刻写这两种文字，泥板上是古老的楔形文字，纸莎草上是 当时的新字。

    直到公元前600年，苏美尔文字才真正绝迹。但是，它的影响力却 持续下去，体现在阿卡德语的某些字符和教学方法上。此外，在公元前 3000年到公元前1000年的所有共同语中，处处可以看到苏美尔文字的影 子。阿卡德语逐渐成为当时美索不达米亚各族人民的共同语，而且历史上 许多珍贵的古文献都是用阿卡德语记录的，如《吉尔伽美什史诗》，在此节录其中一段描述人生的不朽诗行：
    我辛勤地劳作，为了谁?
    我不停地旅行，为了谁？
    我遭受的磨难，为了谁？
    为什么最后我仍一无所有？

    这首史诗是在尼尼微城亚述巴尼拔图书馆中的12块 石板上发现的，年代是公元前668年至公元前627年的亚述王朝时期， 《吉尔伽美什史诗》上刻有“Shin-eq-unninni”的名字，他是历史上最早的 知名作家之一。这首史诗的母题来源于一个古老的传说：英雄吉尔伽美什 克服了种种困难，打败了可怕的敌人，却也失去了亲爱的朋友，最终领悟 到包括他自己在内，没有人能够逃离人类永远的敌人——死亡。

    《吉尔伽美什史诗》与其后风行一时的阿卡德语，是书写历史上重要改变的典型。书写系统的完整发展以及文学类型的百花齐放，奠定了公元前 第二个千年里人类的知识基础。许多古籍的内容从其书名就可以看出，例如令人感动的人生教诲书籍《父亲对儿子的忠告》、如带有宗教意味的著作《人与神的对话》、或是充满神话色彩的故事《恩利尔与尼利尔》等。 而编集成典的冲动更为人类带来了历史上第一部百科全书，这部书有一个 谦虚的名字：《关于宇宙万物》。同样的，编纂于公元前1800年的《汉谟拉比法典》，使社会一切事物都在此规则下运行，此外还有综合了所有已知医学知识的医学大全《论医疗诊断及预防》。

    阿卡德人在认知能力、组织力、抽象应用与创造力方面的水平，已将 人类智力发展的重点从先前的“个人学习文字需要什么样的认知能力”转 变为“认知发展的方向”。

    阿卡德语的某些特征让它较容易使用音节表。阿卡德语这类古代语言， 以及日语、切罗基语等其他一些语言，都有一套简单有序的 音节结构。这类口语很容易发展出音节文字（syllabary）书写系统，以一个符号代表一个音节，而不是一个发 音。例如，美国原住民领袖塞阔亚 决定为切罗基语创造一套 书写系统，他选择了音节文字系统， 这非常适合仅有86个音节的切罗基 语。这是一套非常完美的演绎，然而， 阿卡德语的“纯音节”意味着必须舍 弃苏美尔语的语素音节文字形态以及 与其联系紧密的过去，而这对阿卡德人来说是难以接受的。

    阿卡德语：一种已灭绝的闪米特人语言，属于亚非语系闪米特语族东闪米特语支，主要由古美索不达米亚的亚述人及巴比伦人使用。该语言约于公元前1世纪灭绝。

    因此随着历史的发展，折中的方案出现了，而这办法也常常运用于其 他语言。最终阿卡德语书写系统里面保留了苏美尔语中较为普遍或重要的 词汇，如“国王”，而将其他词汇纳入音节表。如此一来，阿卡德文化的骄傲——传统苏美尔语连同其文明——得以继续存在，然而阿卡德语也因此 变得更加复杂。由此可见，在许多至今仍存在的文字里，都包含着使用者 延续珍贵文化传统的心愿。

    英语的情况也类似，它是混合了传统与实用主义的历史产物。英语 为融合希腊语、拉丁语、法语、古英语以及其他语言，必须付出颇高的代价，特别是对小学低年级的学生而言。语言学家一般将英文归为词音文字，因为在英文单词的拼写里同时包含词素与音位 (phoneme，语音的单位）。因此如果初学者不了解相关的历史背景，这一 点将会给他们造成很大困扰。

    语言学家诺姆·乔姆斯基及卡罗尔·乔姆斯基曾经以英语单词muscle（肌肉）为例，来描述词素音位文字 的规律以及英文的历史演变过程，如同阿卡德语接纳苏美尔语的一些元 素。英语单词muscle中不发音的c似乎是多余的，但事实上却与它的拉 丁文词根musculus有莫大的关系，因此有了相关单词muscular（肌肉发达的）、musculature（肌肉系统）的存在。在这两个单词中，c是发音的，体 现了字母作为音位的一面，而muscle里的c则体现了字母作为词素的一面。换而言之，英语的本质是追求体现口语发音与展现词根两者之间的平衡。

    正是因为文字进化的这种“平衡”关系，古代阿卡德语的初学者要学 会这种文字，必须面对智力及大脑结构上的挑战。因此我们不难想象，阿 卡德语和早期苏美尔语一样，至少要花上6到7年的时间才能掌握。如此 漫长的学习时间与强权的政治环境，导致阿卡德文最终变成少数上层阶级专属的书写系统，只有神殿或法庭的人能够花费宝贵的时间学习。而在历 史上，另一个强权国家——至今仍很鲜活地存在于人们心中的古埃及王国， 也创造了最早的文字之一：古埃及象形文字。某些近代学者认为，象形文 字的出现比苏美尔文字至少早100年，是真正“最早”的文字。

    象形文字的发明

    长久以来，大多数学者都认为苏美尔人发明的楔形文字是人类最早的 文字，而古埃及象形文字则是由此系统演变而来的。然而，新的语言学证 据指出，象形文字出现在公元前3100年左右，应是独立于楔形文字的系统。 通过研究埃及阿比德斯的证物，德国的考古学家甚至认为，象 形文字的发明可能比苏美尔文字还早，大约在公元前3400年就存在了。若 这项新发现属实，那么象形文字才是阅读脑进化的起点。

    因为到目前为止尚未有确切的结论，所以在本书中，我们暂且认为埃 及人是独立发明文字的，并以此角度来介绍古埃及象形文字（见图2—6）。 与鸟爪形状的楔形文字不同，早期的象形文字可归类为一种表意文字，线 条抽象而优美，大部分解读文意的人很快就倾心于其纯粹的艺术美感。楔 形文字与象形文字的相似之处，在于两者都运用了 “假借”原理来发明新词， 而且两者都被当做是神的礼物。

    图2-6 古埃及象形文字：鸟、房屋、神殿

    随着时间的推进，象形文字逐渐演变成一种复杂的文字系统，既有表 示词义的意符，也有表示辅音的特殊符号，这样的象形字类似汉字中的形声字。例如图2-6中显示的象形文字“房屋”看起来像由上 往下，即从神的角度看到的房屋形状。此符号除了可以简单地表示“房屋” 之外，还可以读做复辅音pr，或置于其他意义符号的后面，表示pr的发音， 相当于注音符号（phonetic marker），这种造字方式在苏美尔文字中也可以 见到。另外，“房屋” 一字还可以与其他语义符号组合成新字，如上图的 “神殿”，使词义的类别一目了然。

    而在认知能力的需求上，对初级阅读者来说，阅读象形文字与阅读苏 美尔文字一样，都是极大的挑战。由于多元的造字原理，初学者必须凭借 认知判断力以及灵活性，判断每个符号在不同情况下的具体用法，如此一 来便自然而然地拥有了功能活跃的大脑。例如在辨识意义符号时，需要视 觉区与概念区的神经联结；辨识辅音符号时，需要视觉、听觉、发音区共 同合作；而在识别语音标记及语义标记时，则需要额外的抽象能力与分类 能力，以及语音和语义分析能力。

    此外，早期象形文字中没有标点符号，而且书写方向时而由左至 右，时而由右至左。象形文字及一些其他的早期文字，常以“牛耕式”来书写，也就是一行从左至右写到底后，再从右写到左， 就像牛犁地一样来回往返。因此与现代人直线式的阅读方向不同，阅读此 类文字时双眼必须随着文字移动到句末，再以反方向继续阅读；另外，根 据建构结构的要求，文字刻印的方向还可以由上至下，再由下至上。可见阅读象形文字需要各式各样的技巧，其中包括高度进化的视觉记忆能力、音位听觉分析能力、空间认知的灵活性等。

    经过数个世纪的洗礼，象形文字与苏美尔文字及其他古老的字母文字-样，增添了许多新的符号和元素。不同于其他文字系统的是，经过主要负责文字抄写的专职人员的改造，象形文字发生了两次变革。第一次的字体变革提高了抄写的效率，使抄写员的工作轻松不少。然而对于这些古代的抄写员来说，第二次的变革更是振奋人心。

    简单来说，古埃及人发现了一套简单来说，古埃及人发现了一套类似音位系统的东西，这虽然不至于令所有人欢欣鼓舞，但对抄写员而言，这项创举具有重大的意义，因为他们可以更容易地记录一些新的城市名、皇室成员的名字，以及更容易地拼写外语词和外国名字。假借原理能够达成此目的。如今日文的两种书写系统也具备此项特质，一是由古汉语而来的表意系统日文汉字(kanji)，另一个则是较晚创造的音节系统假名(kana)。跟古埃及文半拼音系统类似，假名用做日文汉字的补充，以便记录口语中的新词、外来词及外国名字。

    象形文字:古埃及人发明的象形文字是另一种古老的文字系统。随着象形文字的发展，古埃及人又发现了一套类似音位系统的东西，这使得他们可以方便地记录新词语和外来语。

    我们注意到这项人类语言学创举开始于古埃及象形文字，因为它吸收了一组表示口语发音的文字。如语言学家彼得·丹尼尔斯(Peter Daniels所言，书写历史中“半拼音文字”的诞生真是莫大的惊喜!这项古埃及文字中所诞生的新的文字类型，标志了人类文字第三次突破的曙光:依据文字内部的发音结构来建立书写系统。

    但是就像摩西无法在“应许之地”常住，古埃及人并没有充分开发自己发明的拼音字母前身。尽管创造出了半字母文字系统，但是由于文化政治、宗教等因素的限制，象形文字系统始终无法演变为更高效的文字，古埃及王朝中期出现了 700多个标准象形文字，在其后的1000年里，文字数量发展到几千个。其中一些文字表达了隐晦的宗教意义，书写起来层层叠叠，篇幅冗长，因此识字的人越来越少。这样的变动意味着象形文字需要更强的概念处理能力，因此对阅读者的要求反而更严格了。

    象形文字最终的没落，若单纯以人类无法负荷过重的视觉记忆来解释显然是站不住脚的。看看目前众多的汉语阅读者，就会明白为什么了。公元前 1000年，埃及文字在进人文字密码化的时代后，抄写员或许运用了人类有史以来最活跃的大脑皮质与最充分的认知资源。奇怪的是，由于象形文字的复杂性而产生的半字母文字系统，反而对早期文字历史中字母的演变贡献最大。

    龙骨、龟甲与绳结:其他早期的奇妙文字

    象形文字与苏美尔文字大相径庭的发展史，还是未能解答它们究竟是各自文化的独立产物，还是从一种语言传播至另一种语言而形成的。目前累积的考古证据显示，在公元前第四个千年的晚期，人类至少发生过三次以上的文字创造;稍后在不同的地区又至少出现过三次文字发明事件。除苏美尔文化和古埃及文化之外，由约公元前3300年的陶器刻记演变而来的印度河文明的书写系统，在公元前2500年左右成形;这种文字至今仍无人能够破解，一再使热衷的学者们无功而返。

    在希腊克里特岛(Crete)发现了公元前第二个千年出现的书写系统。可能是受古埃及文字的影响，克里特文字发展为包含象形特征的线性文字A(Linear A),而之后发展成另一种著名的文字形态线性文字 B(Linear B)。此外，还有萨波特克人(Zapotec)发明的语素音节文字，除了萨波特克人使用之外，还有玛雅(Mayan)、奥尔梅克(0lmec)等民族使用，整个中美洲几乎都可见到此文字的遗迹。

    玛雅文字及希腊的线性文字B被发现后，经过数十年的解读，依然是未知的谜团。然而斯大林时期的一位俄国学者尤里·科诺罗索夫(Yuri Knorosov)却取得了令人震惊的成就，他在几乎无法取得相关材料的环境中，成功破解了神秘的玛雅文字。而他的故事也因此巨细靡遗地记录在麦克尔·科尔(Michael Cole)所著的《破解玛雅密码》(Breaking the Maya Code)一书中，内容完全可以看成是20世纪一部引人人胜的智力推理小说。科诺罗索夫整理玛雅文字的线索后发现，玛雅人与苏美尔人或古埃及人相似，也是利用语音、语义标记造字。然而更令人感到意外的是，玛雅文字的建构原理与现今的日文更为接近，同时结合了表意符号及音节系统。

    中美洲另一个伟大神秘的发明仍然处在曙光乍现的阶段。在哈佛大学人类学系执教的加里·厄顿(Gary Urton)及杰弗里·奎尔特(Jeffrey Quilter )，针对美丽而神秘的印加结绳，提出了一个新的研究方向。印加人以染色的纤维缠绕编织成图案极为复杂的结绳(见图2-1)，厄顿有别于语言学家及其他印加文明的学者，他大胆推论现存的600多个绳结其实是一种尚未破解的印加书写系统:每一个绳结的类型，每一个绳结的颜色每一种编织的方向都代表了不同的语言信息，就像犹太人晨祷披肩或女用披肩的编织一般。

    人们至今认为印加结绳的功能就像算盘;但早在16世纪，西班牙的历史学家就已经记录，印加人曾经告诉西班牙传教士，所有的印加文明都记录在结绳上了。传教士知道后，立刻将能找到的结绳全部烧毁以免印加人与旧神之间有任何联系。

    而今天，厄顿及奎尔特的研究团队正试图利用剩余的结绳破解印加文明的神秘语言。

    另一种神秘的文字存在于古代中国的书写系统之中。尽管中文书写系统的发明常常以公元前1500年至公元前1200年的商朝为起点，但是一些学者认为确切时间应该远远早于商朝。早期汉字的发现可谓考古学中意外事件的经典案例，这些文字大量出现在19世纪的中药铺里，因为当时的中国人相信“龙骨”的神奇疗效。直到某天有人发现这些古老的龟甲或兽上竟然有一系列的符号。目前已经证实了这些符号是中国人求神问卜的记录。把要询问的事情事先记录在龟甲及牛的肩骨上,而后以烧红的火钳劈裂从龟甲内部裂痕的形状来推测神的答案。

    一个完整的龙骨或龟甲会记录问题、时间、神的回答以及真实的结果。例如某个龟甲记录了距今 3000年的商朝，武丁王询问他妻子的怀孕是否为一桩“喜事”，神明的答复为，只有当他的妻子妇好在特定的日子分娩时才是喜事。结果她的分娩日与神明的预测不一致，最终一行字也记载了神明预言的准确性:“不是喜事，因为出生的是女婴。

    这些在龟甲中埋藏数千年之久的精致文字讲述了古代中国的历史。汉字与楔形文字相似，是一种素音文字，文字的结构中也蕴含着过去点点滴滴的历史。因此，初级阅读者必须经过反复的书写练习，才能发挥出超强的视觉空间记忆力。与苏美尔文字与古埃及文字的语音标记一样，许多常见汉字都包含了声符，以标记汉字的发音。这些声符可以帮助阅读者辨别文字，以弥补意符的模糊性。

    然而，相较于其他古代的书写系统，汉字仍有一些不同之处。首先它目前仍在使用。汉字可以说是古代中国留给现代人的礼物，直到现在仍是神圣的存在。著名的美籍华裔小说家任碧莲(Gish Jen)曾经旅行到中国并在中国定居多年。她注意到有一位手执长杖的老人，每天都会到公园里游玩。整个下午，他都会用长杖蘸水在干泥地上书写巨大的汉字，每一个文字的特征都能得到完美的演绎。在这些文字被风吹干之前，公园里每一个看到的人都不免称赞一番。这一番场景，告诉我们汉字不仅是沟通工具更是艺术的载体。或许对老人而言，还是一种精神上的表达。

    我在指导研究生专题讨论时，发现了汉字与其他古文字的另一个不同之处。我询问塔夫茨大学的中国学生，他们是怎样在小小年纪就学会如此之多的汉字的，他们笑着回答道:“我们有一个秘密武器,那就是拼音系统。也就是说，初级阅读者先学习拼音，掌握读和写的概念，为在五年级前能学会2000个汉字做好准备。可是，拼音的秘密究竟是什么呢?拼音其实只是一套小型的字母系统。初级阅读者通过这套小型的字母系统来增进对文字的敏锐度，了解阅读究竟是什么，为大脑准备好第一套阅读的迷你神经回路。

    这还不是汉字唯一让人惊讶的地方。作为世界上最复杂的书写系统之古代汉字最可爱的地方是，它包含了一套专由女性使用的汉字。和素音文字的特征不同，这套系统完全是基于发音的。这种特殊而又美好的传统文字被称为“女书”，即女性的文字。
    在邝丽莎(Lisa See)的小说《雪花秘扇》( Snow Flower and the Secret Fan)中，对女书有极为详细的描述。女书通常画在优雅精致的扇子上，或者绣在美丽的纺织品上。几个世纪以来，这套令人震惊的书写系统帮助少数女性忍受生活的无奈，使她们在裹小脚的文化梏中获得精神上的升华。最后一位能够读写女书的阳焕宜(Yang Huanyi),于 2004 年去世，享年 96岁。

    女书深刻地提醒了我们文字在现实生活中扮演的重要角色。女书同时也是世界上多元文字系统的典型例子，它还体现了文字从表意向表音发展的趋势。就像汉字一样，字母文字系统同样蕴藏着许多谜题疑问以及让人意想不到的惊喜。我们试着去发掘我们之中有多少人是字母文字的阅读者，也在积极寻找那些为了学习而失去的、那些一知半解却仍然难以把握的东西。苏格拉底宁可我们从未学过文字。也许正是这个原因使人类在 2500年后的今天，暂时停下来，深刻地反思自己。

    优雅之语:苏美尔皇室女子使用的一种语言，她们用这种苏美尔语变体创作了最早的情歌和摇篮曲。中国也曾有一套仅供女性使用的汉字“女书”，女子们以此巩固姐
    妹情谊。

    第三章 苏格拉底反对的“阅读”是否会妨害人的思考

    有一片土地人称克里特……四周围绕着色深如酒的海，还有滚滚白浪袭来，国土俊丽而丰饶，人口众多，惜传统如金，其中九十座比邻的城市号称彼此的语言可以融合。 ——荷马，《奥德赛》
    喜欢阅读的人，就像拥有两个人生。 ——米南德，公元前4世纪

    近代在书写史上最令人着迷的发现之一，发生在埃及的瓦迪耶尔霍尔(Wadi el-Hol)河谷，译名为带有噩兆之意的“恐怖之谷”。在这个人迹罕至、炙热难耐的高山地区，埃及考古学家约翰·达内尔(John Darnell)和德博拉·达内尔(Deborah Darnell)发掘出一段奇特的铭文，将人类发明字母文字的年代提前了数百年之久。这段铭文的特征具备一切“失落的环节”所要求的条件，将早期古埃及文字系统(Egyptian precursor system)与之后的乌加里特文字(Ugaritic)联系了起来，后者被研究者归类为字 索斯(Hyksos)王朝时代，由居住于当地的闪族(Semitic)抄写员和工人发明。这种文字充分利用了小型的古埃及辅音系统(意料之中)，并结合了其后出现的乌加里特文字中的许多元素(意料之外)。

    在考察过出土于瓦迪耶尔霍尔的文字后,哈佛大学的学者弗兰克·穆尔克罗斯(Frank Moore-Cross)认为这套系统“显然是最古老的字母文字”他在其中找到了许多与较晚知道的字母相似或相同的符号，并推论出该系统“属于字母文字系统的传承和进化”。神秘的瓦迪耶尔霍尔文字非常重要，因为这涉及阅读脑的新调整，它使我们将注意力集中到两个多维度的问题上:第一，字母文字由什么组成?如何将这套文字系统与更早之前的音节文字及素音文字区分开来?而这些问题的答案又引出了第二个更大的问题:阅读字母的大脑是否需要特殊的智力资源?

    瓦迪耶尔霍尔的古老文字或许是语言学长久以来失落的环节，它连接了两种形式的文字:音节文字和字母文字。无奈可供研究的文字数量太少以致在分析上遭遇了很大的困难。稍晚出现的乌加里特文字更适合用来研究最早的字母文字，因为它既被归类为音节文字，也被归类为字母文字。

    乌加里特文字起源于富饶的乌加里特王国(今叙利亚北部海岸)。该地区贸易极为发达，海路的船只和陆路的马车熙熙攘攘，一派繁荣的景象在乌加里特地区，除自己的语言和文字之外，不同的民族至少还使用了10种语言、5种文字来进行沟通。乌加里特人遗留下的大量文献为我们提供了重要的线索，它们展现出对字母文字的关键性贡献。其中一项贡献是文字中符号数量的减少，以及由此带来的效率的增加。

    虽然阿卡德楔形文字是乌加里特文的发展基础，但阿卡德文字并不能解释乌加里特文字30个符号的书写系统，其中27个使用于宗教文献。在这套独特的类楔形文字中，独立的辅音符号与用来区别邻近元音的辅音符号结合了起来。根据语言学家威廉·丹尼尔(William Daniel)对文字的分类乌加里特文字可被看做辅音音位文字(abjad)，这是一种特殊的字母文字但人们对于此种观点仍有争议。

    不论如何分类，乌加里特文字本身就是一项了不起的成就。从管理性文件到赞美诗、神话、诗篇，尤其是宗教文献，这种文字涵盖范围极为广泛。其中最引人注意的是，乌加里特文的口语和文字对希伯来文的《圣经》产生了深远的影响。包括哈佛大学圣经研究所的学者詹姆斯·库格尔在内的少数学者强调：《旧约》的故事题材、人物形象甚至经常采用抒情诗句的写法，与乌加里特文献有着诸多相似之处。

    另一项不可思议的发现是，乌加 里特人用到了今日语言学家所谓的“字 母教材”，即按照固定的顺序排列字母。语言学家还发现，乌加里特文字的字母排列顺序与原始迦南文相同，进而发 展为腓尼基文字化的辅音系统，最后演变为希腊字母文字，这 一观点已被大多数学者接受。

    乌加里特文字：乌加里特人按照固定的顺序排列字母。语言学家发现，乌加里特文字的字母排列顺序与原始迦南文相同，进而发展为腓尼基文字的辅音系统，最后演变为希腊字母文字。

    字母的排列顺序证明乌加里特文确实在早期字母文字的发展中起着过 渡作用，同时也意味着早期教育系统采用了将字母按固定顺序排列的标准 化教学模式。类似于苏美尔人的生词表教学法，这样的排列给初学者提供 了一个更容易记忆文字特征的认知技巧。但令人着迷的乌加里特文字却在公元前1200年入侵者毁灭乌加里特王国时消失了，这古老而美妙的书写系 统留下了许多未解之谜。我们不能确定它对《圣经》启示性的语言风格是 否有影响，也不知道它是不是人类第一种实用性的字母文字。

    托马斯·曼受《圣经》启发而编写的短篇故事 《摩西十诚》中，曾提及字母文字的创造。上帝要求摩西雕刻两块石碑，每块刻上5条戒律，且内容必须为众人所理解。但是摩西担心的是，他该以哪种文字写下戒律？摩西通晓古埃及文，他曾经看到来自地中海的人使用类似眼睛、盔甲、牛角与十字架的符号，也看过某些沙漠部落使用的音节文字。但这些文字都不能把上帝的10条戒律传达给每一个人。忽然间灵光一闪，摩西突然领悟到，他必须发明一种通用的文字系统， 让说不同语言的人都能阅读。因此他创造出每个发音皆有与之对应的符号的文字系统，使得不同民族的人都能以自己的语言来阅读，这就是字母文字的由来。使用这种新发明的文字，摩西在离瓦迪耶尔霍尔不远的 西奈山上刻下了上帝的旨意。

    虽然托马斯，曼既不是语言学家也不是考古学家，但是他描述出了字 母文字的革命性贡献，也指出了文字历史上第三次认知突破的精髓：文字 系统仅需要有限的符号，就能表示出一种语言中所有的发音。通过减少文 字系统符号的数量，瓦迪耶尔霍尔文字及乌加里特文字获得了认知效率的 优势，人们更加经济地使用丨己忆力，减少了读写文字的能量消耗。

    认知效率取决于大脑的第三项伟大的特征：大脑内部专门化区域的运 转速度非常高，几乎达到自动化的程度。认知自动化意味着人类智力发展 的惊人潜力。当我们能以自动化的速度识别符号时，就可以把较多的时间 分配到智力活动上，因此可以在读写的同时持续地发展智力。苏美尔人、 阿卡德人、埃及人花费数年才发展出高效的阅读脑，而认知自动化为人类 提供了更多思考的时间。

    然而，由这些早期的类字母文字系统所引发的问题也相当复杂：符号 的减少是否再造了具有独特结构的大脑皮质？阅读字母文字的大脑是否发 展出了特殊的认知能力？在初级阅读者的发展过程中，如果具备这样的潜 能，会产生什么样的影响？为了寻求解答，我们必须再次面对一个基本的 问题：什么是字母文字？

    什么是字母文字

    不同领域的学者们一直在为“真正的字母文字”所需具备的条件争 论不休。早在瓦迪耶尔霍尔文字发现之前，古典主义者埃里克·哈夫洛克就提出了字母文字的三个标准：
    @这套符号的数量是有限的〔理想数量介于20到30之间〕；
    @这套符号可表达这种语言中最小的发音单位；
    @这种语言中的每一^音位都有符号与之对应。

    因此古典主义者认为希腊字母文字之前的“类字母文字系统”皆不符 合标准。举例来说，闪族文字没有元音；希伯来文字中的元音符号也是在 千年后才出现的，因为日常生活中使用的语言，如阿拉姆语和 希腊语更强调直接描述元音。哈夫洛克等古典主义者认为，字母文字代表 了所有文字系统的最高水平。公元前750年发明出来的希腊字母才堪称第 一套符合所有标准的“真正的字母文字”。希腊文也是第一种使人类思想产生巨大飞跃的文字。

    然而，大多数语言学家及古语言学者却对此持反对意见：亚述研究专 家尤里，柯恩强调了哈夫洛克从未提及的一些论点。他认为字母文字对于 本国的居民来说，是一套能够以最少记号来明确表达口语的文字系统。在柯恩看来，字母文字能表示任何口语中能够用人耳分辨的最小发音单位即可，而不是表示较大的发音单位，如音节或是整个单词。根据这个观点， 早期的瓦迪耶尔霍尔文字及乌加里特文字都可以归为字母文字。

    至今，对于人类历史上“第一种字母文字”的讨论仍没有达成共识。 但是近年来，有关古代书写系统的新信息越来越多，或许能给21世纪的 阅读者提供一个不同的、更宏观的视野。回溯人类认知和语言能力的系统 性变化，以及早期众多不同文字系统逐步走向希腊字母文字的历史，我 们可以换一个崭新的视角：从荷马、赫西奥德以及奥德修斯的口语世界，一直到苏格拉底、柏拉图和亚里士多德的雅典 时代，字母文字不断地发展。这其中不仅仅是地点和时间的变化，人类的 记忆与大脑结构也随之变化。这就意味着，阅读脑下一个重要的调整即将 出现。

    克里特岛的神秘文字与希腊的黑暗时代

    传说在克里特岛上，每一块石头下都藏着一个神话，仅仅这件事本身 就令人着迷。这些石块是古希腊克里特文明的一 部分，有可能是画满精美壁画的宫殿所留下的遗迹，宫殿中有代表当时时 尚的空气调节系统以及早期排水系统。古希腊克里特人在4000年前便建造 了许多纪念碑，制造了许多美得不可思议的艺术品和首饰。除此之外，他 们还创造了一套文字系统，尽管现代人尽了最大的努力，但是这套系统至 今难以解读，让我们充满挫败感。

    1900年，英国考古学家亚瑟·埃文斯挖掘出古希腊克 里特文明的中心——荷马所描述的伟大城市克诺索斯。根据希 腊神话，此地为米诺斯王的皇宫，其中也居住着米诺斯王骁勇的“飞牛怪” ，以及掌控迷宫的牛头怪弥诺陶洛斯。

    在此次考古行动中，埃文斯发现了一些令人震惊的东西——7000块刻满神秘文字的黏土石碑，这些石碑成为他终生的研究对象。这些文字既不 像古埃及象形文字也不像阿卡德楔形文字，它具备了某些早期克里特文字 (线性文字A）的特征，但是看起来却和稍晚出现的希腊字母文字没有任何关系。埃文斯将其命名为线性文字B，由此开始了此后40年艰辛的破解 生涯。

    1936年，一位勤奋的学生迈克尔·文特里斯认识了埃文斯，很快地，他也痴迷于这种神秘的文字。1952年，文特里斯终于 解开了克诺索斯石碑文字（线性文字B）之谜。尽管这种文字困扰了学者们长达半世纪之久，但事实证明线性文字B—点也不神秘。简单来说，不过是那时的希腊口语未经整理的记录罢了。在受过古典主义训练的文特里斯的思想中，这样的发现过程类似于破解古代版的即时信息软件。文特里 斯从未想过要破解希腊口语，但是塔夫茨大学备受尊崇的古典主义者史蒂 夫，赫什认为，文特里斯破解线性文字B“革新了人类对早 期希腊历史的认识”。

    然而，除了知道线性文字3在公元前15世纪开始出现于克里特岛、希 腊本土与塞浦路斯等地，消失于公元前12世纪至公元前8世纪之外，我们 对这种文字仍然知之甚少。公元前12世纪至公元前8世纪被称做希腊的黑 暗时代，侵略者摧毁了许多存放典籍的希腊神殿，只有极少数的文献能被 保留下来。但是在这样的黑暗时代，口头文化却因此蓬勃发展，成就了公 元前8世纪记录这一切的荷马史诗。

    关于荷马的传说众说纷纭：有人认为他是传说中的那位盲眼的游吟诗 人（近期又出现了支持这一说法的新证据）；有人称“他”其实是一群诗 人，甚至是那些仍未破解的口头文化的集体记忆。毋庸置疑的是，荷马史 诗《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》中包含的广博知识及神话，对每一个希腊人 的成长都做出了卓越的贡献。根据希腊史学家修昔底德的描述，每位受过教育的希腊公民都必须背诵许多史诗的段落，其中包括各位希腊男神、女神、男英雄、女英雄之间令人感动的爱恨故事。

    当代此研究领域的巨匠沃尔特·翁认为，史诗具备许多 便于背诵的特点：节奏感强烈，韵律感丰富，反复性高，描绘栩栩如生； 以及《伊利亚特》和《奥德赛》中的经典主题——交织着爱、战争、美德 和人性的脆弱，这些共同构成了超越时空的传说。举例而言，学者米尔曼·帕里发现，游吟者世世代代都会记忆那些记录了大量事实

    与事件的“公式”。这些公式与希腊著名的记忆术都对 古希腊人背诵大量材料有很大的帮助。其中一项方法就是将需要背诵的内容 与容易唤醒记忆的具体空间联系起来，例如图书馆或神殿的内部构造等。

    古希腊人的记忆力有多好，当时的诗人西蒙尼德斯为我们提供了一个典型的例子：某次他和许多人一起欢庆的时候，突然 发生了地震，整座建筑瞬间崩塌，事后他能完全记得所有参加者的名字 以及他们被瓦砾掩埋的位置。

    究竟西蒙尼德斯与其他古希腊人是如何获得这样强大的记忆力的？在 最近的4万年间，人类的大脑构造变化不大，因此可推论出现代人与古希腊人的海马杏仁核、额叶及其他记忆功能区 差异无几。真正区别两者记忆能力的关键在于古希腊人对口头文化与记忆 的高度重视。正如苏格拉底一样，他在反复的对话中考核学生的理解程度。 受过教育的希腊人不断练习他们的修辞和朗诵技巧，把包含知识与力量的 精辟口才看做学习的最高目标。古希腊人的记忆力可能就是这样练成的。 这群拥有不可思议的记忆力的老祖先提醒我们现代人，记忆力并不像之前 想象的那样是一种天生的认知过程，而是深受文化的影响。

    在这样高度发达的口头文化中，古希腊字母文字一开始的发展并不顺 利。今天的某些学者认为，希腊字母文字的出现在很大程度上是因为古希 腊人需要保存荷马史诗的口头文化传统。这就意味着，字母文字只是扮演了一个口语附属品的角色。不管怎样，若是古希腊人得知2700多年后的今 天，专家学者们仍非常敬畏他们发明 字母表的成就，想必也会相当惊讶。 这份成就逐渐消磨了古希腊人引以为 傲的记忆力与口才，却创造了大脑记 忆与认知资源的新形态，直到今天仍 然对我们有很大的影响。

    希腊的黑暗时代：在这个时期，希腊的口头文学蓬勃发展，出现了《荷马史诗》这 样伟大的作品。同时，由于 希腊公民非常重视背诵经典，他们的记忆力也好得超出我们的想象。

    “借来的”希腊字母

    如果古希腊人被问到他们的字母文字从何而来，你可能会得到这样的 答案：“借来的。”古希腊人称希腊字母为“腓尼基字母”，这更加巩固了这 样一个观点：希腊字母的最直接来源是以辅音为基础的腓尼基文字。而腓 尼基文字又源自更早的迦南文字，腓尼基人甚至称他们自己为迦南人。希腊字母的alpha和beta来自于腓尼基字母的aleph和bet，这是另一个表明 希腊字母和緋尼基字母有渊源的重要证据。然而近年来，有些学者发现两者间的联系并不是那么直接。关于希腊字母文字的起源问题，在持不同观 点的学者之间已经引发了一场悄悄的战争。

    德国学者约瑟夫，特罗拍提出了第一个理论：字母文字起源的“标准理论”。该理论认为：希腊字母文字起 源于腓尼基文字，而腓尼基文字的前身则是乌加里特文字或原始迦南文字， 迦南文字又可以进一步追溯到古埃及文字的小型辅音系统。但是另一位来 自德国的专家卡尔一托马斯·佐齐希强烈主张另一 种解释：希腊字母并不是腓尼基文字的传承者，而是它的“姐妹”，这两种 书写系统共同的祖先是失传已久的闪族文字。佐齐希认为与腓尼基字母相 比，希腊字母文字的字母更接近古埃及的草体文字。从这一点出发，再加 上其他证据，他总结道：希腊字母文字并不是腓尼基文字的分支，两者地 位相同，都源自同一个更早的文字系统，佐齐希形容这一关系就像“姐妹” 一样。

    神话是另一种较为微妙的考古资料。为数不少的希腊神话皆提及，字母由底比斯的创立者卡德摩斯（Cadmus，希腊语中称为Kadmos）传入古希腊，他的名字在闪族语中的意思是“东方”。这或许暗示了一些古希腊人知道希腊字母起源于闪族文字。希腊神话中众神将 文字赐予凡人卡德摩斯，这个故事的血腥程度与格林童话有得一比。至 少其中一个版本的结局是这样的：卡德摩斯将带血的牙齿（象征字母） 撒进土壤之中，使其生长和传播。

    希腊字母的起源：目前关于希腊字母的起源问题仍无定论，有学者认为希腊人借用了腓尼基的辅音字母系统；另一些学者则认为希腊字母和腓尼基字母共同起源于更早的闪族文字。

    正如这些传说中大有深意的牙 齿，有许多关于希腊字母起源的戏剧 性传说仍未浮出水面。目前，教材的 说法比较接近“标准理论”的观点， 其内容主要是这样的：公元前800年 至公元前750年之间，古希腊人设计 出自己的字母，通过贸易往来传播至殖民地，如克里特岛、锡拉、埃尔明亚与罗得岛。为达到此目的，在字母设计过程中，古希腊人系统地分析了希腊语和腓尼 基语的每一个音位。然后，以腓尼基文字的辅音系统为基础，他们创造了 自己的元音符号。希腊人非常执著，他们使所有已知的发音与字母之间 有了完美的对应关系。在此基础之上，希腊字母成为多数印欧字母和文 字系统的祖先，其范围从伊特鲁里亚语—直延伸至土耳其语。希腊字母的发展历程给认知科学家与语言学家留下了一系列的谜团，本章的第二个大问题就是谜团之一。

    字母文字是否造就了不一样的大脑

    当许多人聚集起来时，便总会有人称自己比别人更“优等”，文字亦然。 20世纪的许多学者认为，字母文字代表了书写系统演变的巅峰，也因此得 出结论，字母文字的阅读者“想的不一样”。在人类的认知历史中，有3种 观点认为字母文字更优越，下面我们就来逐一检验：
    @在所有的文字系统中，字母文字的效率最高；
    @字母文字最能雌新思想的产生；
    @字母文字对语音的重视使阅读学习变得更简单。

    观点一：在所有的文字系统中，字母文字的效率最高

    效率是指一种书写系统能够被快速阅读、流畅理解的特性。由于字母 文字的组成比较“经济”（与九百多个楔形文字或上千个象形文字相比，大多数字母文字仅需要26个字母），因此能够达到极高的效率。符号数量的 减少使得快速识别所需要的时间和注意力也相对减少，因此只需要较少的 感官、记忆资源。
    然而，文字的历史是否最终必然走向字母文字？通过观察大脑的活动， 我们可以检验这一观点是否正确。图3-1展示了 3种不同文字的阅读脑， 我们可以看到，不同语言激活了大脑的不同区域。

    图3-1 三种阅读脑：英文、中文、日文假名

    中文阅读者一般需要记忆数千个汉字，才能迅速有效地进行阅读。在 图3—1所示现代中文阅读者的脑部影像中我们可以看到，阅读中文时，左 右脑的视觉专门区域都需要参与运作。中文阅读者能够流利地阅读，这证 明了大脑使用效率的提升并非字母文字阅读者的专利。另一个有力的证据是 在音节文字的阅读脑中也发现了类似的情形。综合起来我们可以推断，许多 文字系统引起的大脑的调整都可以提髙阅读效率。然而，这并不能说明不同 文字系统的大多数阅读者，达到流利阅读程度所耗费的努力是否一样。

    与早期素音文字的阅读者相比，字母文学阅读者的大脑中，某些区域 的激活程度要低得多。字母文字阅读者更依赖左脑后方的专门区域，这些 视觉专门区域只激活了少量的双脑区域。相反，中文阅读者（或苏美尔楔 形文字阅读者〉在阅读时，左右脑两侧许多专门化、自动化的处理区域都 会被激活，从而提高了阅读效率。

    20世纪30年代晚期，3位中国神经科学家发现了一个有趣的双语使用 者案例，再次证实了阅读不同文字时，左右脑区域活跃程度的差异：一位 原先能流利使用中英文的商人，在一次严重的后脑中风发作后失去了阅读 中文的能力，但令人惊讶的是，他仍然能够阅读英文。

    如今，这个案例早已不值得大惊小怪了，因为现在的脑成像图告诉我们， 在处理不同的书写系统时，大脑会采取不同的组织方式。日文阅读脑便 是一个相当有趣的例子，因为日文阅读者需要同时学习两种不同的文字系统：第一种是效率极高的音节（假名）系统，常用于记录外来语、城市名、 人名或新名词等；另一种是来自传统中文的表意文字——日文汉字。阅读 曰文汉字时，大脑使用的神经通路与阅读中文时相似；但是阅读假名时， 大脑则使用近于字母文字阅读脑的神经通路。

    换句话说，不仅是中文阅读脑与英文阅读脑之间有所差别，同一个大 脑在阅读不同的文字类型时，也会转换不同的神经通路。由于大脑能够神 奇地改变其神经联结模式，阅读者可以学会多种语言，且都有可能熟练掌握。此外，大脑的使用效率并非二元的非此即彼的模式。日本的研究者就发现，同样的词语由假名或者日文汉字书写，前者的阅读速度比后者快很多。因此，阅读效率应当被理解为一个连续体，而不是字母文字所特有的。

    如果我们能一直观察早期人类学习阅读时大脑神经路径的变化，将会 发现某些改变仅限于特定的语言系统，但某些区域则具有惊人的相似性。 匹兹堡大学的认知科学家以研究开创性的元分析方法进行 了 25项不同语言阅读脑的成像研究，发现了阅读各种书写系统时通过的3 个区域。

    第一个区域是枕叶-颞叶区，这一区域包括 了学者曾推测是读写功能“神经再利用”的区域，该区域使得我们无论阅 读哪种文字，都是熟练的视觉专门化专家；第二个区域是环绕布洛卡区的额叶区域，该区域使我们成为两个层面上的专家，一是识 别音位，二是了解词义；第三个区域则是颞叶上下方相连顶叶区的多功能区域。在这个区域我们处理语音及语义的各种元素， 这对于阅读字母文字或者音节文字来说格外重要。

    匹兹堡大学的认知科学家查尔斯·拍费提以及他的 同事把所有的脑成像图排列在一起，发现了一个被珀费提称为“通用阅读 系统”的区域。这一系统连接了额叶区、颞叶- 顶叶区以及枕叶区，换句话说，这些区域遍布四大脑叶。

    一瞥之下，这些脑成像图可以帮助我们得到两个关于文字进化的结 论：一、无论阅读何种文字，皆会对整个大脑的长度和宽度进行重塑；二、 不同的书写系统会以不同的形式促进大脑的使用效率，且有多种神经通路 可以帮助我们获得流畅的理解能力。许多因素都会影响一个书写系统的效 率及其激活的特殊神经通路，如文字中符号的数量、口语的发音结构、文 字的规律性、抽象程度、学习文字时的肌肉运动量等。总之，这些因素决 定了初级阅读者学习文字时的难易程度。正如阅读音节文字（假名〉效率 高于阅读表意文字（日文汉字）一样，儿童在学习希腊文或德文之类规则 性较高的字母文字时，效率也会高于学习规则性较低的字母文字，如英文。

    哲学家本杰明·沃夫及沃尔特·本杰明曾提出这样的问题：不同的语言是否会以特殊的方式影响阅读者的心智？本书中提到的关于字母文字优越性的三种观点都认为这个问题 的答案是肯定的。虽然本书因篇幅有限，关于字母文字或许阐述得不甚周 全，但简单来说，正如乔治敦大学的神经科学家吉尼维尔·伊登观察到的：不同的书写系统，在阅读脑的发展过程中，会创建不同 的脑神经网络。字母文字阅读脑并非创造了一个“更好的”大脑，只是创 造了一个与其他文字系统阅读脑“不同的”大脑，它以自己特有的方式来 影响大脑的阅读效率。

    具体来说，相较于苏美尔文字和古埃及文字的年轻阅读者，希腊文字 年轻阅读者的“不同的脑神经网络”发展得较早也更有效率。但这并不意 味着阅读脑的发展效率是字母文字的独有之物。当音节文字能够更好地表 示口语时，如日文或切诺基文，音节文字无论是在习得时间 还是在脑皮质使用上，都同样高效。不论是字母文字还是音节文字，减少 文字符号的数量，都有利于提高脑皮质的使用效率，进而促进学习效率的 提升，这成为文字历史进程上的重要转折点。脑皮质使用效率与学习效率 除了提升阅读速度之外是否还有其他意义？这就涉及字母文字优越性的第二个观点——促进新思想的产生。

    观点二：字母文字最能促进新思想的产生

    语言决定论：沃尔夫等人认为，语言决定了经验，有多少种语言就有多少种分析世 界的方法，不同的语言塑造了不同的大脑和心智。

    古典主义者埃里克，哈夫洛克 以及心理学家戴维，奥尔森提出了一个发人深省的假说， 他们认为希腊字母的效率，使思考内 容发生了无可比拟的变化。当字母文 字把人们从口述传统的禁锢中解放出来时，其效率便“促进了新思想的产生”。

    试着想象一下这种情形，生活在希腊口头文化中的受教育者，必须完全依靠个人的记忆以及元认知策略来保存集体的知识。但是使用这些令人印象深刻的策略需要付出一定的代价。有时精妙有时肤浅，这些策略依赖 于韵律、记忆、公式，并且会约束那些本可以说出的、记住的或者创造出的内容。

    希腊字母文字及其他文字系统打破了上述种种限制，拓展了许多人思 想与书写的界限。但这是字母文字特有的贡献吗？还是说所有的书写行为都能提升大多数人的思想境界？如果回顾一下比古希腊文字还要早约1000年的乌加里特文字系统，我们就会发现一个很好的例证，那就是乌加里特 的类字母文字系统一样能对文化起到很大的促进作用。如果我们仔细研究 哈夫洛克未曾研究过的更早时期的阿卡德文字，我们同样能发现，这套语素音节文字系统记载的思想同样闪烁着智慧的光芒（其中一些是基于口述传统的）。

    从宏观的角度来看文字的整体历史，人类智力的发展进步并不取决于 第一套字母文字的诞生或是某个字母表的完美迭代，而是取决于文字本身。如20世纪俄国心理学家列夫·维果茨基所言，在将能说 的口语与不能说出的思想转化为文字的过程中，不仅表达了思想，更改变 了思想。当人类学会以文字更加精确地表达思想时，抽象及创新的思维能 力也随之提升。

    实际上每个儿童在学习阅读他人思想及写下自己的思想过程中，都会 在文字与新想法之间建立起新的、之前完全没有想象过的联系。这种生成 性的联系在众多古代的早期文字中也有突出的表现，如古埃及人通过巴比 伦人的《悲观主义的对话》来指引来世，以及柏 拉图《对话录》中的深邃思想。但是在这一段文字发展史上，希腊字母文 字确实是文字和思想之间创造力的最佳例证。

    因此，从认知学的角度来看，字母文字并不是唯一对促进新思想有贡 献的书写系统，但是字母文字或音节文字这两种系统提高了阅读效率，使 新思想有可能被更多人提出，对那些处于早期发展阶段的初级阅读者而言 更是如此。由此揭开了人类智力发展史上革命性的篇章阅读能力的民主化。在此广阔的背景下，我们就不会讶异，为什么随着希腊字母的传播，历史 上会出现一个在写作、艺术、哲学、戏剧、科学等许多方面都诞生了众多深刻作品的时代。

    观点三：字母文字对语音的重视使阅读学习变得更简单

    古希腊的字母文字确实不同于先前的文字系统，因为其中融人了成熟的语言学观点。古希腊人发现，口语的语音是可以作为一个整体来分析的，而且可以系统地切分为单个的语音单位。这种理解力不是任何时代的任何 人都会有的。但希腊人是口语文化最大的支持者，由他们来发现语音的潜 在结构和组成，是再正常不过的了。
    想要理解希腊人在分析语音方面的成就有多么伟大，只需姜看一下美国国防部的一个故事。

    现代对语音知觉研究的历史开始于第二次世界大战期间，当时的信 息传播条件是非常具有挑战性的，因此人们必须全力研究语音的组成。整场战役的胜负可能就取决于一位军官是否能在炮声隆隆的战壕里听清 楚一条至关重要的消息。贝尔实验室的科学家尝试建造出一台可以分析 所谓的”语音讯号”并最终能够合成人类语音的机器，这项研究可是高 度的军事机密。这些科学家们利用“声谱仪”改装后的一种新仪器，来观察语音中许多重要组成部分的视觉化形式：某段信 号中语音频率的分布、某段信号的时间长度以及某个既定信号的声音振 幅。每种语言中每个发音的特征都是由这三个属性体现出来的。

    随着现代研究人员逐渐“看到”人类语音各方面的特征，极度错综复 杂的语音也渐渐得以视觉化。举个简单的例子，语音学家格雷丝·耶尼-科 姆昔安研究指出，我们说话的频率是每分钟说出 125至180个连续的词，而且每个词的头尾都没有听觉线索（试着想象一下，一种陌生的外国语言在你听来，只是一系列连续但无法理解的声音）。在我们使用的语言中，我们都知道如何根据字句的意义、语法角色、词法单位，以及音律、重音和语调来区别语音单位。然而，这些信息对于辨别第一个词的结束与第二个词的开始只能提供极为有限的帮助。因为音 位与音位之间相互重叠，前后影响，所有的音位都通过这种协同发音的方式粘到一起。耶尼-科姆昔安曾这样描述：对于语音知觉 研究者来说，一个极大的挑战就是确定单个语音是如何从复杂的语音信号中切分出来，并被恰当识别的。

    协同发音： 指发音时在声道中的两个 (或偶遇多个）不同的部位形成阻碍。这两个阻碍可能 同样是完全阻塞，或其中一 个阻碍程度较轻。

    希腊字母文字的发明者把这两个问题都解决了。首先，如本书中所述， 他们系统地分析了腓尼基语的每一个音位，以及这些音位与腓尼基字母之 间的对应关系。其后他们利用同样的方式分析了希腊语的语音。接着再以 腓尼基文的字母为基础，最终给希腊语中的每个音位都配上了一个希腊字 母，这样使得元音有了新的字母。举个例子，表示元音a的希腊字母alpha是由腓尼基文字中的aleph—词变化而来，该词的原义为“公牛”。

    在一次有趣的语言改革中，希腊人改变了一些符号以便匹配某些地区 方言的特征。因此在希腊的不同城市，希腊文字会出现细微差异。这种改 变文字中的字母以符合方言的做法，体现了语言的实用主义和语音方面的 精妙知识。就算是今天法兰西学院的学者也未必会有如此的胆识。只有在完全理解所有语音令人震惊的复杂程度之后，我们 才能真正体会并欣赏希腊人的成就。如果说苏美尔人是最早的语言学家， 梵语学者是最早的语法学家，那么希腊人就是最早的语音学家。

    希腊字母的发明者有意识地系统地分析语音，这项伟大的创举在今日 每个学习阅读的儿童的身上都会无意识地发生。古希腊的莘莘学子拥有一 套近乎完美的字母文字，里面包含着近乎完美的字母与音位的对应关系。这使得他们比苏美尔人、阿卡德人或古埃及人都能更快地获得流畅读写的 能力。有人甚至提出这样的问题：是不是正因为古希腊人能较早达到这样 的阅读流畅程度，其思想才得以蓬勃发展，并开创了古典希腊文化的盛世？

    这是个目前无法回答的问题，但具有讽刺意味的是，古希腊人数百年 来对于教授希腊文字都持有矛盾心态。在创造出革命性的字母文字之后不 久，古希腊国内主要的反响却是持续长达400年之久的抨击声。与古埃及 人和阿卡德人完全不同，受过教育的希腊人认为他们高度发达的口语文化 要比文字文化更优越。

    历史上的苏格拉底是口语文化最具雄辩力的捍卫者，和对文字文化最 强烈的质疑者。在理解古希腊人对字母文字发明的矛盾态度前，我们首先 必须要问：为什么世界上最杰出的思想家和新思维的提出者要反对使用字母文字？现在我们必须把焦点转向古希腊的口语文化与文字文化之间那场 没有硝烟的战争。柏拉图小心翼翼地记载下苏格拉底反对读写能力的那些 令人震惊的观点，这些论断告诉我们为什么今天的人们还应该听从古代哲 人们的建议。

    苏格拉底的抗议

    苏格拉底自己完全不动笔，若我们采信柏拉图《对话录》中所记录的原因，这是因为他相信书本会造成积极判断思考的短路， 造就出仅拥有“虚妄智慧”的学子。——玛莎·努斯鲍姆
    不消多说，是因为亚里士多德，希腊社会才从“头口传授” 转型为“习惯阅读”。——弗雷德里克，凯尼恩爵士

    他的生活和衣着都很简朴，他形容自己是“在那头尊贵而懒惰、名为 ‘希腊’的马背上尽情吸吮的虻”。有着睿智的眼神、凸出的额头与脱俗的 外表，他站在中庭，四周围绕着学生，他们激烈地讨论着抽象之美、知识 以及“审视生命”的深刻意义。他讲话时就像拥有一种神奇的力量，规劝着雅典的年轻人为追求“真理”而奉献终生。他就是我们都熟知的苏格拉 底，那个哲学家、老师，同时也是雅典市民。

    在编写早期阅读脑的历史时，我意外地发现苏格拉底在两千多年前提 出的对读写能力的质疑，说中了众多21世纪我们所关心话题的要害。我开 始理解苏格拉底为什么会担心文化传承由“口耳相传”转化为“诗书继世” 可能会造成危害，尤其是在年轻人身上，因为这正如我们担心自己的孩子 沉溺在数字化世界中一样。正如当时的古希腊人处于重要的转型期，如今 我们正处于从“文字文化”向“数字文化”和“视觉文化”转变的时代。

    我把公元前5世纪至公元前4世纪苏格拉底及柏拉图讲学的时代当做一个窗口，由此来观察与我们不同但差异不大的希腊文化如何在不确定的 情况下，从一种主要的传播方式向另一种新的方式转型。没有几位思想家 能像苏格拉底这只“牛虻”一样，帮助我们审视口语及书面语言在21世纪的地位。

    希腊三杰”对文字的态度：苏格拉底强烈反对人们未经指导就随意使用文字；柏拉图则用文字把老师的话忠实 地记录了下来；而年轻的亚 里士多德早就养成了阅读的 习惯。

    苏格拉底强烈地谴责对书面语言 不加控制的传播；而柏拉图则以正反 并立的矛盾态度，用文字记录下了这 段书写史上最重要的对话；至于年轻 的亚里士多德，则早就沉迷于“阅读 习惯”之中。这三人组成了世界上最 著名的学术王朝之一，苏格拉底是柏 拉图的导师，而柏拉图又是亚里士多 德的导师。不过大多数人不知道这一点：如果柏拉图的《对话录》对苏格拉底本人的历史记载无误，那么苏格拉底师承自狄奥提玛，她是一位来自曼尼提亚的女哲学家，向来以对话的方式教导学生。

    苏格拉底与其学生的对话因柏拉图的文字而永垂不朽，这些对话展示出了苏格拉底心中的理想，他认为所有的雅典市民都应为达成人类自我成长而努力。在这些对话中，所有的学生都意识到：只有通过斟酌过的语句及分析过的思想才能达到真正的美德，而唯有真正的美德才能塑造一个公 正的社会，才能使人民更接近他们的神。换句话说，美德，不论是个人的 还是社会的，都要基于对已有知识的彻底审视，并吸收内化其中的最高原则。

    这种高强度的学习模式迥异于大多数早期希腊的传统教学模式。在早 期的教学模式中，个体要接受集体的智慧，例如《荷马史诗》。而苏格拉底 则教导学生质疑言谈中的话语及概念，并了解其背后隐含的信念和观点。 苏格拉底要求学生质疑所有的事物，《荷马史诗》中的章节、政治议题，甚 至每一个字，直至原文的本质变得逐渐清晰。学习的一贯目标在于了解这 些文本如何反映，或为何不能反映出社会的深层价值，而对话中的问题与 答案则是教导的载体。

    苏格拉底的教学被认为是蛊惑青年，他因此受到审判。当时有500个雅典市民宣称他罪可当死，部分人则谴责他不信神。对于苏格拉底而言， 反对者的这些控诉仅仅是为了掩饰他们的政治动机，其一是惩罚他成立了 一个似乎会危害国家的友谊圈；其二是制止他质疑已被广泛接受的智慧。 苏格拉底一生致力于“以全部的智慧”审视我们的言语、行动和思想。虽 然他被毒死，但他的精神是不朽的。他的训诫没有随时间消逝，而是在我 们的耳边回响了数个世纪。以下是他接受审判时的一段著名的申辩：
    如果我告诉你们，对一个人来说，最好的事情就是每天探讨美德的 问题，每天审视自己和他人的内心；如果我说未经检视的生命是不值得 活的，你们可能更不相信我所说的。但是各位，我所说的话，确为事实，只是我很难让你们相信。

    当审视书面文字时，苏格拉底的立场颇令人意外：他深信书面文字会对社会造成严重危害。他的三个顾虑看似简单，实则不然。随着现在信息 获取方式的转变，我们的智力也在发生改变，我们有必要理解他反对的理 由，并推敲其中的本质意义。首先，苏格拉底认为口语和书面文字在个人 的智慧生活中扮演不同的角色；其次，他认为书面文字对智力的新要求较 不严谨，对于记忆以及知识的内化吸收具有毁灭性的影响；最后，苏格拉 底极力推崇口语在社会的道德和美德发展中扮演的独一无二的角色。在每 一条理由中，苏格拉底都认为口语优于书面文字，他的理由至今仍值得我们深刻关注。

    苏格拉底的反对理由之一：书写文字缺乏弹性

    文字的道理，在于通晓文字与热爱文字，这是一条通往事物 和认知本质的道路。 ——约翰·邓恩

    在电影《寒窗恋》中，哈佛法学院教授查尔斯·金斯弗尔德每天以质问的方式威吓他的年轻学生，要求他们无论说什么都要 用法律案例来证明自己的论述。在第一场教室场景里，金斯弗尔德宣布： “我们在这里采用苏格拉底的方法……回答，提问，回答。通过我提出的问 题，你将学会自我教育……有时你可能会认为你有最终的答案，但是我可以肯定那是错觉。因为在我的教室里，永远都会有另一个问题在等着你， 我们在这里做的是脑部外科手术，我提出的所有小问题都是在探索你的大脑。”

    金斯弗尔德这个虚构的形象不仅是现代苏格拉底教学法的体现，也是 一个运行良好的阅读脑的体现。现在许多教师和教授在教室里讲课时，仍然延用这样的方式，让学生在每一次讨论中分析彼此的假设和智力基础。 这场戏再现了雅典学院的提问场景。金斯弗尔德教授要求学生理解法律案例，如此才能以法律来维护社会正义。苏格拉底则希望他的学生知道字词、 事物及思想的本质，这样才能培养出美德。

    苏格拉底的教学方法以一种特别 的视角来看待语言，他认为语言是丰 富的、有生命力的，经过指导，可以 用来追求真善美。苏格拉底相信，不 同于“死气沉沉”的书面语言，口语，或者说“活的语言”代表着动态的实体，到处都充满着意义、声音、旋律、重音、语调和节奏，时刻准备着在审视和对话中被一层层揭开。相比之下，写下 的文字不会回应它的阅读者。文字的沉默破坏了苏格拉底视为教育核心的 互动式对话。

    苏格拉底教学法：“通过讨论而探索。”不给学生现成的答案，而是用反问和反驳的方法使学生在不知不觉中接受其思想。

    大概没有几位学者比列夫，维果茨基更认同苏格拉底对生动的演讲及对话的价值的重视。在维果茨基的经典著作《思维与语言》这本书里，他描述了文字与思想、老师与学生之间的启发性的关系。同苏格拉底一样，维果茨基认为在儿童发展字词与概念对应关系的 问题上，社会交往扮演着极其重要的角色。

    但是维果茨基和当代的语言学者并不认同苏格拉底关于书面文字的狭 隘观点。在维果茨基短暂的生涯中，他观察到写作可以引导每个人精炼思想，并从中发现新的思维方法。在这个意义上，写作过程的确可以在一个人的 身上再现苏格拉底同斐德罗的对话。换言之，写作之人需要 在其内心的对话中，找到更精确的文字来捕捉思想。每个试图表达出自己 思想的人都有这样的经验：在写作的过程中，慢慢地可以观察到我们思想 的改变。苏格拉底从不曾体验到文字所具有的对话能力，因为在他的年代， 写作还处于萌芽阶段。如果他能晚一个世代出生，可能会对文字宽容许多。

    数百个世代之后，我很好奇若是苏格拉底还在世，他会对21世纪人与人之间的交流方式有何反应。现在有许多不同的方式能达到他所谓的“回应”，如人们互相发短信，互发电子邮件，使用可以朗读、识别并翻译多国语言的机器。对苏格拉底和今天的我们来说，本质的问题在于：这些有 “回应”的交流方式是否能培养出真正具有批判性的思想。

    苏格拉底更关心的是书面文字会让人误以为它们就是真理。文字看似无法看透的特性掩盖了其虚幻的本质。因为它们“看起来似乎……具有智 慧”，所以它更接近事物的本质。苏格拉底担心这种假象会让人们在刚开始 了解一件事物之时，就误以为自己已经完全了解了它。这会导致骄傲自负、 一无所获。

    在这种担忧之下，现在数以千计的老师和父母，与苏格拉底和金斯弗 尔德教授具有同样的心境，他们看着年轻人每天花费很多时间在电脑前接收大量信息，却未必能理解所有信息。苏格拉底一定无法想象这种没有经 过深思熟虑的学习方式，对他而言，教育的真正目的是追寻真理、智慧和美德。

    苏格拉底反对理由之二：记忆力的毁坏

    在今天的危地马拉，玛雅人这样评价外来者的行为：他们做 笔记不是为了记住什么，而是为了可以不必记住。 ——尼古拉斯·奥斯特
    如果人们学会了写字，他们的灵魂会变得健忘。他们不再会 训练自己的记忆力，因为他们依赖文字来记住某件事，对事物的 记忆不再来自内心而是来自外在的记录。事实上，你所发现的不 是记忆的秘诀，而只是提醒的技巧。 ——斐德罗

    苏格拉底认为，文字与口语在教育、哲学、描述事实、精炼思想以及 追求美德方面的差距还不是最严重的，最严重的是，文字会损害个体的记 忆力，影响知识的内化吸收。苏格拉底清楚地知道读写能力通过降低对个人记忆的需求，将极大地提高文化的 集体记忆，但是他无法接受以降低个 体的记忆力作为代价。

    古希腊人非常崇拜记忆力：古希腊人认为记忆力是女神妮莫辛的化身。妮莫辛是所有女神中漂亮的一个，宙斯跟她待在一起的时间最长。在希腊人看来，将活力（宙斯）注入记忆（妮莫辛）就会产生创造力和智慧。现在我们用来称呼记忆法的专用术语”记忆术”，即由女神妮莫辛的名字演变而来。

    受教育的古希腊年轻公民们利用超强的记忆力，反思、检查了大量的 口传资料，不仅保存了社会现有的文 化记忆，同时也增进了个人及社会整 体的知识。苏格拉底与当年审判他的 法官是不同的，他重视整个教育系统， 而不担心“保存传统”的问题，他相 信唯有通过勤勉的记忆过程，个体的 知识才得以巩固；唯有通过与老师的 对话，个体的知识才得以进一步精炼。

    在这个语言、记忆与知识相互作用的观点下，苏格拉底认为文字非但 不是记忆的“秘诀”，反而是摧毁记忆的潜在威胁。文字在保存文化的集体 记忆上的优势是毋庸置疑的，但更为重要的是，个体记忆的保存，以及个体记忆在知识的反思与实践方面所起到的作用。

    如今大多数人把记忆力看做从幼儿园到大学整个教育过程中的必备条 件，但是与古希腊人相比，甚至和我们的祖辈相比，我们需要背诵的知识 越来越少。有一年我问我的学生们这样一个问题：有多少诗是你们可以 “铭记在心”的？ 10年前的学生大约可以背诵5到10首，最近的学生只能 背诵1到3首。这个简单的调查不禁让我重新思考苏格拉底那些看起来过 时的论点。需要背诵的知识逐渐减少，诗歌，甚至是乘法口诀都不再需要 完整地记忆，这对我们的下一代意味着什么？当停电、电脑死机或火箭系 统出现故障时，我们的孩子又该怎么办？我们的孩子和古希腊的孩子在连 接语言与长期记忆的大脑神经通路方面，又会有什么区别？

    显然，我孩子的祖母，86岁高龄、犹太血统的洛蒂·诺姆肯定会令未来的孩子们感到震惊。在任何场合，她都能够给孙子们背出应景的里尔克三段诗、歌德的诗句，甚至是带点颜色的打 油诗，这给他们带来无穷的乐趣。有一次，我满怀羡慕之情地问她是如何 记忆这么多的诗篇以及笑话的。她回答得很简单：“我总是希望能拥有一些 即使进了集中营，别人也无法夺走的东西。”洛蒂的话促使我们停下来思索， 日常生活中“记忆”占有什么样的地位？随着世代更替，记忆又将蕴含什 么样的终极意义？

    关于苏格拉底对逐渐消失的个人记忆的态度，有一个生动的故事：有一次，他抓到学生斐德罗在背诵利西阿斯的演讲词时偷看小抄，这可能是人类有史以来的第一张小抄。为了帮助记忆，斐德罗把 演讲的内容记录下来，并且把小抄折叠起来放在长袍里。猜到了学生的所作所为，苏格拉底开始批评文字的本质及其在教育上造成的反面效果。

    苏格拉底将文字比喻成一幅美丽的绘画，仅仅是“逼真”而已，“如果 你问它任何问题，它依旧保持庄严的沉默。它看似充满智慧，能告诉你许 多事情，但当你因求知欲提问时，它也只能告诉你一成不变的答案，总是 如此”。

    不过，让苏格拉底生气的学生也不只是斐德罗一人而已，《普罗塔哥 拉》中记载，苏格拉底严厉抨击某些人的思维“像莎草纸般 僵硬，既不会回答问题，也不会提出问题”。

    苏格拉底反对理由之三：语言的失控

    其实，苏格拉底最深的恐惧并非阅读本身，而是知识泛滥及不求甚解 的学习态度，也就是“浅尝辄止”。不受教师指导的阅读常会于无形中导致 难以矫正的知I只失控。正如苏格拉底所言：“一旦某件事付诸文字、写成文 章，不论以何种形式传播，它不仅会流人理解的人手中，也会流入无知者 手中。文字并不会选择对象，也分不清对错。因此当它遭到误解或者滥用时，便再也无人替它阐释或辩驳了。”

    在苏格拉底随处可见的幽默与经验丰富的嘲讽之中，隐含着深深的忧 虑，那就是缺乏学校教育或社会教育的文字，将引发知识的危险性。在他 看来，阅读犹如新版的潘多拉之盒^文字一旦传播，对于什么该写、谁 来阅读以及阅读者该如何阐释文字，将会出现无人负责的情形。

    知识越多，疑问越多，这个规律贯穿着人类的历史一从“知识树上的果实”到现在的搜索引擎。苏格拉底的担忧在今天 显得更为严重，因为每个拥有电脑的人都可以随时随地以无人指导的方 式在电脑屏幕上迅速地获取各种知识。

    这个集“即时”、“虚拟现实”、“近乎无限”于一身的信息时代，是否 将给备受苏格拉底、柏拉图及亚里士多德推崇的知识与道德带来极大的威 胁？电脑屏幕上涌现的肤浅信息会淹没我们的好奇心还是引发我们对更深 刻的知识的求知欲？持续的部分注意力及多重任务的处理能力是否能引起 我们对文字、思想、现实及道德的深刻反思？文字、事物与概念的重要本 质能否通过32位操作系统来学习？被这些过于真实的影像惯坏了的孩子，仍能脚踏实地吗？当我们面对图片、电影或所谓的电视真人秀时，我们是 否更加自以为是地认为自己已经了解了真相？苏格拉底如果身处今日，在 电影上看到带有自己风格的对话场景，进入维基百科查到关于自己的条目， 他将做出何种反应？

    对于我们获取信息的方式，苏格拉底会持何种观点？这个问题每天都 困扰着我，尤其是当我看到两个儿子用网络完成功课，并告诉我他们“完 全懂了”的时候，我体会到很久以前苏格拉底对抗文字的那种无力感。我 不得不思考，目前的失控局面，正如苏格拉底在2500年前担心的那样。在 这种情况下，下一代将学到什么、如何学习、学到什么程度呢？不过这种 变化的好处也是显而易见的，柏拉图正是以文字保存了苏格拉底反对文字 的观点。

    综上所述，苏格拉底最终还是输了这场反对文字普及的战争，因为他 没有看到文字的全部能力，也因为新的沟通方式及知识形态的出现是无法逆转的。苏格拉底不能阻止阅读的普遍化，我们也不能拒绝接受日益先进 的科技。我们对知识的追求更加确定这是必要的。不过，思考苏格拉底的 反对理由和探索大脑与阅读的动态关系同样重要。其实，正如柏拉图所意 识到的，苏格拉底真正的敌人并不是文字。他所反对的是”丧失检视语言 的能力”，以及”没有使用我们所有的智慧”去使用语言。

    在这一点上，即使是在他那个时代，苏格拉底也不是孤独的。公元前 5世纪，世界另一端的印度梵文学者同样贬低文字，认为口语才是真正促 进智力与灵性成长的载体。这些学者质疑并批评任何对文字的依赖，认为 文字将破坏他们毕生的工作一对语言的分析研究。

    下一章将讨论“最年轻的人类群体”是如何发展语言及阅读能力的。 当我们帮助下一代或之后的子子孙孙学习文字与追求知识与道德时，我希 望苏格拉底的提醒犹在：别忘了检视它们对生活的真正意义。

    第二部分 阅读如何改变了我们的思维：阅读脑的发展

    在诸多人类凭借自己的精神、而非与生俱来 的天赋所创造的世界中，书本世界是最了不起的 一处。当孩子开始在他们的小黑板上涂写、识字 时，他们就此进入了一个错综复杂的人造世界，没 有人的生命长到足以完全了解、完美运用这世界运 行的法则。没有文字，没有书写，没有书本，就没 有历史，也就不可能产生人之所以为人的观念。 ——赫尔曼·黑塞

    第四章 阅读决定孩子拥有怎样的思维与人生

    当世上第一个婴孩发笑时，笑声碎裂成上千片，这就是童话 故事的开始。 ——《彼得·潘》
    在我看来，打从两岁起，每个孩子就都成了语言天才，不过 这个时期很短。到六岁时，这样的才能逐渐消退。到了八岁，完 全看不出来他们曾有过的文字创意，这是因为他们不再有这样的 需求。 ——科涅·丘可夫斯基

    我脑中常常浮现出一个画面：一个小孩坐在疼爱他的大人的腿上，全 神贯注地聆听着从大人口中流溢出的一字一句，讲述在此之前他想都不曾 想过的远方的精灵、神龙和巨人的故事。幼儿的大脑开始准备阅读的时间 比我们想象的要早很多，童年初期所接触的一切材料，每一个感知、概念 与文字几乎都会为他们所用。儿童会学习使用那些构成大脑常规阅读系统 的所有重要结构，接着将他们的所见所闻与书面语言结合起来，后者是人 类经过一次又一次的突破，在过去近两千年的历史中，才逐渐学会的。而 这一切都始于长辈温暖的臂弯和舒适的怀抱。

    数十年来的研究显示：一个儿童聆听父母或其他亲人阅读的时间长短， 与他数年后的阅读水平有很大关系。为什么？再仔细回想一下刚才所描述 的情景：一个孩子坐在妈妈的怀里，看着彩色图案，听着古老传说与新奇 故事，渐渐地认识书中构成字母的线条、构成文字的字母以及组成故事的 文字，而且故事可以一遍一遍地阅读。这种很久以前就存在的场景，蕴藏 着对儿童阅读发展至关重要的众多前提条件。

    儿童一开始究竟是如何学习阅读的？聆听充满魔法与精灵的传说？还 是错失听故事的机会？这两种情形代表着两种截然不同的童年：第一种童 年是大家所衷心期盼的，我们的每一个愿望在故事里都会成真；而第二种 情况，儿童没有听到多少传说与故事，没有学会多少语言，在还未开始阅 读之前，这些儿童就已远远地落后了。

    从听故事到读儿歌

    对婴儿的研究显示，亲人的抚摸对他们的发育起着至关重要的作用， 阅读发展的道理与此类似。只要婴儿可以坐在抚养者的腿上，就能将读书 和被宠爱的感觉联系起来。在《三个奶爸一个娃》这部搞笑而温馨的电影中，汤姆·塞莱克念赛狗的结果给婴儿听，大家都责骂他毒害孩子，但实际上他歪打正着。不论是赛狗的结果、股市行情还是陀思妥耶夫斯基，你都可以念给8个月大的婴儿听，如从此爱上文字。儿童有机会果是彩图版的效果就更好了。

    启蒙阅读：把婴儿抱在怀里给他读故事，他会把阅读过程和被爱的感觉联系起来，从此爱上文字。儿童有机会在故事里体验、揣摩各种情绪，学会理解别人，变得细腻敏感。

    试想一下，为什么许许多多的儿童夜复一夜地求着父母念玛格丽特-怀 斯.布朗的《月亮晚安》给他们听？是因为故事插画里有小夜灯、连指手套、一碗热乎乎的粥和摇椅这些属于童年世界的东西？是因为找到 每一页隐藏在不同地方的小老鼠而带来的成就感？还是因为朗读者随着一 页页的阅读而变得更加温柔的声音？这一切都为儿童长期的阅读学习过程 提供了理想的开始，因此有些研究者称此为自发的或早期的读写能力。聆 听文字与感受被爱之间的联系，为以后长远的学习历程奠定了最佳基础。 没有一个认知科学家或教育研究者可以设计出比这个更好的方案。

    重要的文字游戏

    这个过程的下一步涉及对图案的进一步理解。当儿童能够认出书本中的插图，就意味着这些书很快会被翻破。这个现象的背后暗藏着一套婴儿在6个月大就发育完备的视觉系统、一套离成熟还很遥远的注意力系统，以及每一天都在跳跃性成长的概念系统。随着时间一天天地过去，婴儿的 注意力与日俱增，对熟悉图案的理解与对新事物的好奇心也不断提升。

    儿童理解力与注意力的增长为阅读提供了最重要的前提条件——早期 的语言发展，领悟到小马、小狗这些东西都有一个名称。每个儿童的童年一 定都经历过与海伦，凯勒一样的认识水的过程，她通过触觉来感知水，第一 次明白了这种东西是有名字的，而这个名字是她通过符号语言与所有人交 流的一个标签。正如编撰《梨倶吠陀》的古代作家所认识的那 样：智者建立了命名系统，此乃语言的第一原则。

    对于成人来说，拋弃习以为常的概念，去理解“婴孩不知道这世上的 每样东西都有一个名字”，恐怕并不容易。渐渐地，儿童学会给他们世界里 最突显的部分安上标签，通常是从照顾他们的人开始。不过通常要到18个 月大时，他们才能意识到每样东西都有一个名称。虽然很少有人注意这一点，但是这可是个体生命前两年中了不起的突破之一。

    婴儿能发展出这种能力，有赖于大脑连接两个以上系统的能力，如此才得以判定新事物。婴儿顿悟的潜在基础是婴儿大脑能够联系、整合来自于视觉、认知与语言等几个系统的信息。当代儿童语言学家琼·伯科·格利森(Jean Berko Geason)强调:不论是亲人、小猫还是小象巴巴尔，婴儿每学会一个名字，大脑就会有一次重大的认知转变，开始将发展中的口语系统与逐渐成形的概念系统联系起来。

    儿童开始知道事物有名称后，书本内容的重要性便显现出来，因为这时儿童可以决定读什么。这里有一个重要的动态发展:对儿童说的话越多，他们对口语的了解也会越多;为儿童读的书越多，他们对周围语言的理解就越深，词汇量也会越大。

    童年初期这段将口语、认知与文字交织发展的时期是语言发展最为丰富的一个阶段。哈佛的认知学家苏珊·凯里(Susan Carey)研究儿童学习认字的过程，她戏称这是“快速制图”(zap mapping)。她发现大多数在2~5岁之间的儿童平均每天可以学会2~4个新字，在童年早期的这个阶段中可以学会上千个字。这正是俄国学者科涅·丘可夫斯基所谓的“语言天才”。

    语言天才来自于口语中的诸多元素，这些元素日后将融入文字的发展。随着语音能力的发展，儿童渐渐地能够听出、辨别、切分甚至操作文字中的音位，这些为他们明白文字是由声音组成的这一至关重要的事实铺平了道路。举个例子，cat一词是由三个不同的字音(/k//a//)组成的。语义的发展是指儿童词汇量的增加，这使得他们不断增进对文字意义的理解，是整个语言发展的主动力。语法的发展是指儿童理解并使用语言的语法关系，这为他们逐渐理解书本语言中复杂的句型打下基础。例如，这使得孩子懂得词语顺序会影响句子的意思:如“猫咬老鼠”和“老鼠咬猫”的意思是不同的。

    词法的发展则是理解与使用最小的意义单位(如cats中表示复数的s与walked 中表示时态的ed)，这有助于理解故事与句子中不同词性与词法功能的词汇。最后是语用(pragmatics)的发展，儿童在自然的语境中认识并使用语言的社会文化“规则”，还可以帮助他们日后理解文字如何运用在书中描绘的无数种不同语境中。

    口语发展的每一个方面，对于儿童的语言发展–对词句的理解以及在口头和书面语言中遣词造句，都做出了必不可少的贡献。

    快乐、悲伤与友情

    然而，上述这些语言能力都不是凭空出现的。这一切都基于儿童大脑的发育和概念性知识的积累，其中贡献最大的是儿童的情绪以及理解他人的能力的发展。儿童成长的环境决定了这些因素不是得到培养就是受到忽视。

    举个现实中的例子:假设有个三岁半的小女孩，具备了所有应该具备的语言天赋，经常有人抱着她，读书给她听。她已经明白哪些图片是出现在哪些故事里的，也能感受到故事通过文字想要传达出的感情，有快乐有恐惧，也有悲伤。通过这些故事与书本，她开始学习一整套的情绪。对她而言，故事与书本都是体验这些情绪最安全的地方，因此对她阅读的发展有着潜在的贡献。儿童的情绪发展和阅读之间是相互促进的关系。儿童通过阅读来探索新的情绪这种体验也为接下来理解更复杂的内容做好准备。

    童年时光为人类提供了学习社交、情绪与认知技巧最重要的基础，即了解他人观点的能力。对3~5岁的儿童来说，理解他人的感觉并不是一件容易的事情。20世纪最著名的儿童心理学家让·皮亚杰(Jean Piaget)曾表示:这一时期的儿童是以自我为中心的，意思是由于这段时期智力发展的限制，他们是以自己为中心来理解整个世界的。正是他们日益增进的“理感受。

    阿诺德·洛贝尔(Arnold Lobel)的〈青蛙与蟾蜍》( Frog and Toad)童书系列中，便有一个这样的例子。在一则故事中，青蛙病得很重，蟾蜍想都不想便赶去营救他，这完全是出于同情心。蜍每天喂青蛙吃东西，照料他的起居，一直到他可以起床玩要为止。这个小故事提供给孩子们一个意义深远的范本，让他们知道了解别人的感受是什么意思，以及这如何成为互助的基础。
    在另一本以河马为主角的故事书中也传达了人类似的概念，教导孩子们何谓共情。在詹姆斯·马歇尔(James Marshall)著名的系列书籍《乔治和玛莎》( George and Martha)中，有两只可爱的河马，他们是最好的朋友。在每一个故事里，他们都教导孩子如何做一个很好的、能够理解他人的朋友。其中有这样一个故事:有一天乔治被绊倒了，摔掉了他的两颗大门牙。门牙对河马来说非常重要，在换成金牙以后，他都不敢给玛莎看，但是善解人意的玛莎对他说:“乔治你帅呆了，你的新牙齿让你看起来与众不同!”乔治立刻就高兴起来了。

    许多小朋友在听这些故事时，会体验到故事传达的想法与感受，这些故事起了很好的示范作用。也许我们永远都不会坐在热气球中飞翔，不会在赛跑中跑赢兔子，或是和王子跳舞直到午夜钟响，但在故事书里，我们可以体验到那样的感受。在这个过程中，我们不断走出自我，开始理解“他而这正是普鲁斯特所谓的沟通的中心在于文字。

    书本语言教会了我们什么?

    我们开始意识到我们和他人的感受之间是有联结的，同时也能区分这当中的界线。大约就是在这个时候，我们更强烈地意识到了另一件事:书本上充满了长短不一的文字，每次念到时声音都相同，就跟图片一样。这种智能上的发展只是整个大发现的一部分，我们渐渐认识到，书本拥有一套自己的语言。

    “书本语言”这一概念很少在儿童的脑海里出现，我们自己也很少会考虑到。事实上，这套语言具备一些独特且重要的概念特征和语言特征，它对认知的发展可谓贡献良多。首先，最明显的是，一些书中特有的词汇不会出现在口语中。回想一下那些你喜欢的传说故事，开头通常是这样的:
    很久很久以前，在一个黑黑的、孤独的、永远看不到阳光的地方，住着一个小精灵，由于皮肤从来没有受到阳光的洗礼，所以脸颊消瘦面色苍白。在山谷的另一边，阳光在每一朵鲜花上舞蹈，那里住着一位少女，有着玫瑰花瓣一样的脸颊，金色丝绸般的头发在阳光下闪闪发光。

    没有人会这样讲话,至少我从来没有遇到过这样的人。“很久很久以前这样的语句，或是“小精灵”这种字眼，也不会出现在一般对话中。这些都是书本语言，给孩子们提供线索，帮助他们猜测这是哪种类型的故事以及可能发生的事情。实际上，到了幼儿园阶段，多数5岁左右的儿童的主要词汇来源是书中的文字，他们那时储备了10000左右的词汇量。

    在这成千上万的单词当中，有相当大比例的词形是由已知的词根变化而来的。举个例子，认识sail这个词根的孩子，很快就能了解并学会这个词的各种相关形式:sails，sailed，sailing，sailboat等。

    不过词汇的增长并不是故事与书本语言唯一的贡献。同样重要的还有日常对话中并不经常出现的语法结构。“永远看不到阳光”和“由于(for皮肤从来没有受到阳光的洗礼”这样的句子结构一般仅见于书本中，理解这些需要更多的认知灵活度与猜测能力。5岁以下的孩子很少听到for出现在这样的句子里，for在这句话里是连接词，意思是“由于”，和then、because 这类表现因果关系的词一样。孩子可以从故事的前后文中学到for这样的用法。当孩子学会类似的词汇用法以后，他们的语法、语义、词法与语用各层面的能力都会得到全面的发展。

    阅读研究者维多利亚·珀赛尔-盖茨(Victoria Purcell-Gates)的研究更加凸显出给孩子讲故事的深刻意义。珀赛尔-盖茨比较了两组还不会阅读的5岁儿童，他们的家庭经济背景、父母教育程度都相似，只是一组在过去两年内经常有故事可以听(每周至少5次)，我们暂且称之为“听故事组”;另一组则是没有故事听的对照组。珀赛尔-盖茨只要求这两组儿童做两件事情:首先讲一个关于自己的故事，比如过生日的情况，然后假装给洋娃娃念故事。
    结果两组的差异很明显:与对照组儿童相比，“听故事组”的儿童在讲自己的故事时，不仅会讲出许多书本上特有的文学语言，还会使用更为复杂的句型、更长的语段和从句。

    这样的差异之所以重要是因为:当儿童能使用自己的语言中一系列语义与语法后，理解他人的口语和文字的能力也会更强。这种语言和认知能力为孩子几年后的发展打下了独特的基础，当他们开始独立进行阅读时会掌握更多的理解技巧。
    最近,社会语言学家安妮·夏丽蒂(Anne Charity)与其同事霍丽斯·斯卡伯勒(Hollis Scarborough)的一项研究显示:语法知识对于母语是其他方言或外语的孩子来说更为重要。他们发现在说着一口非式美语(African-American English)而不是标准美语的儿童身上，儿童的语法知识和他们将来学习阅读的好坏关系密切。
    书本语言还可以帮助儿童理解什么是“修辞手法”，例如隐喻与明喻想想刚刚那个故事里的几个明喻:玫瑰花瓣一样的脸颊，金色丝绸般的头发。这样的段落是美好的，但是需要很高的认知能力才能理解。儿童必须将“脸颊”和“玫瑰色花瓣”进行比较，将“头发”和“金色丝绸”进行比较。在这一过程中，他们获得的不只是词汇技巧，还有类比这一复杂的认知技巧。类比的技能无比重要，足以作为每个年龄层主要智能发展的代表。
    在《好奇猴乔治》(Curious George)中可以找到一个关于早期类比技巧的有趣例子。《好奇猴乔治》讲述了一只猴子对气球有着无止境的好奇心，最终使他飞向天空，在那里“房子看起来都像是玩具屋，人就和洋娃娃一样”。这些简单的明喻实际上在帮助孩子进行复杂的认知练习，如比较大小、远近。20世纪40年代，作者汉斯·雷伊(HansRey)和妻子玛格丽特开始撰写这本书，他们那时可能不知道这本书对儿童的认知与语言发展有多大贡献。从他们写完的那天起，这本书已经持续影响了数百万学龄前儿童的发展。
    书本语言对提高儿童的理解力也有贡献。想想“很久很久以前”这句话，霎时它就能带你脱离现实，激起你对另一个世界的期待。“很久很久以前”是一个暗号，每个具有理解力的学龄前儿童都知道这意味着他们即将进入一个童话世界。这些故事在不同文化与不同时代中，仅有几百种不同类型，而且彼此出入不大。儿童最终将发展出理解许多不同类型的故事的能力，每一种都有其典型的情节、背景、年代与角色。这些认知信息日后会转变为“认知图式”(schemata)的一部分，认知图示是一种惯例化的思考方式，可以帮助我们更好地理解事件与加强记忆。这种规则以一种自我强化的螺旋方式来运行:故事越有条理，孩子就越容易记住，对孩子正在形成的认知图式贡献也越大;而孩子发展出的认知图式越多，也就越能读出其他故事的条理，儿童积累的知识越多，越有助于未来的阅读。

    认知图式:一种惯例化的思考方式，可以帮助我们更好地理解事件与加强记忆。

    能够预测即将发生的情节，对于儿童推理能力的发展(从旧有的信息演译或推测)有很大的帮助。拥有与巨人战斗、拯救美丽少女与破解巫婆咒语等经验的5岁儿童，能更容易地认出书中的生词(如“巨人”)。更重要的是，他们日后便能理解整段话的意思。
    明白了增加儿童与书本接触的机会，将有助于他们日后阅读能力的发展，我们可能会认为只要多读点故事给孩子听就算做足了学龄前的阅读准备，实则不然。根据一些研究者的研究，讲故事给儿童听只是帮助他们准备开始阅读的一部分，另一个有效的方法是教孩子辨认字母。

    字母的名称中蕴藏了什么 ?

    当儿童熟悉书本语言后，他们开始留意更多书本的细节。许多文化中的许多儿童都会通过在书本上移动手指来“阅读”，即便他指的地方一行字都没有。文字意识的一个方面开始于发现书本上的文字有一定的方向:比如英语和欧洲语言都是由左至右，希伯来语和阿拉伯语则是由右至左，还有一些亚洲的文字是由上而下。
    接下来是一系列更为复杂的技能。随着对某几行字的形状越来越熟悉有些儿童能够认出冰箱门上、浴缸上或是图画纸上的几个彩色字母。大脑能够识别出一个字母的视觉形状不是必然的成就，每个古代祖先阅读代币的大脑都是最好的证明。正如前几章提到的，这种能力来自于极为精密的视觉认知系统，还需要与相同的模式和特征有大量的视觉接触，这样才能让我们识别出猫头鹰、蜘蛛、箭头和蜡笔。
    在儿童能够自动辨认出字母之前，必须使用视觉皮质层专门化区域的些神经元来发现每个字母细微而独有的特征，就跟古代的代币阅读者一样。要想从视觉分析层面上理解儿童是如何学习阅读的，可以参考图4-1中的两个汉字。

    图4-1 两个汉字

    这两个汉字有许多和字母文字一样的视觉特征，如曲线、弧线和斜线等。注视这两个字几秒钟，然后立刻翻到本章的最后一页，看看那两个字是与这两个字一模一样，还是有些许不同?大多数成人觉得这个测试很简单，但对幼童的视觉系统来说，这需要复杂的知觉功能，儿童必须先知道西方字母系统中每个细微但明显的特征都能传达信息，还要明白字母是由这些特征组成的固定模式，而这些特征是不会改变的或至少改变不大。

    一个重要的早期概念技能——模式不变性(pattern invariance)有助于字母的学习。早在婴儿时期,儿童就知道他们看到的某些特征(如父母的脸)是不会改变的。这些都是不变的模式。本书第一章就曾讨论过，天赋的本能让我们能够在记忆中存储知觉模式式的表征，然后应用于新的学习情境。因此，当儿童尝试学习新事物时，从一开始就会寻找不变的模式，这有助于他们建立视觉表征和规则，最后他们可以认出冰箱上的任何字母，不论大小、颜色或字体如何。
    从认知发展的角度来看，儿童第一次努力给字母命名，不过就是“配对”学习而已。这就像训练鸽子，鸽子为了得到食物，必须学习将物体与标志进行配对。然而，不久后会出现更精细的字母认知学习，正如苏珊·凯里(Susan Carey)提出的那样:在儿童学习数字时，会出现“自展”（bootstrapping)的情形。举例来说，对许多儿童来说，数数到10与字母歌都提供了概念上的“占位符”(placeholder)表。渐渐地，列表上的每个数字与字母的名称都会与其书写体相对应，最后通过慢慢了解这些字母与数字的作用而完成整个命名过程。
    已故的神经心理学家哈罗德·古德格拉斯(Harold Goodglass )曾对我说他小时候一直以为背字母表中的L、M、N、0时发出的类似elemeno 的声音仅是一个很长的字母。这说明了儿童对字母的概念会随着他们语言和概念系统的发展，以及大脑中识别字母的视觉专门化区域的使用而发生改变。比较幼儿对事物与字母的命名可以发现，在拥有字母识别能力之前与之后，大脑中出现了令人意想不到的变化。简单来说，在识别、命名物体的过程中，儿童的大脑第一次将基础视觉区与语言处理区连接起来。之后在一个“神经再利用”的过程中，这些神经回路又被用到识别与命名字母的过程中，因此书写符号最终可以被快速地阅读。

    目前没有幼儿首次学习字母名称的脑成像研究，但是我们有成人给物体与字母命名时的脑成像图。在最初的几毫秒里，两个过程共同使用37区梭状回(fusiform gyrus)的大部分区域。针对此种现象，有种假设认为儿童早期字母命名的过程和识字前儿童的物体命名过程差不多。当儿童为每一个字母建立起独立的表征后，神经元工作组会逐渐专门化，所需要的区域也越来越小。从这个意义上来说，命名物体和稍后的命名字母代表着现代阅读脑的前两个阶段。
    德国哲学家沃尔特·本杰明(Walter Benjamin)认为命名是人类心智活动的精髓。虽然他从未看过任何一张脑部断层扫描影像，但就命名与阅读的早期发展来讲，他的看法再正确不过。学习在脑海中提取一个抽象的视觉字母符号，是一切阅读过程的基本前提，也是判断儿童能否开始阅读极为重要的指标。儿童在很小的时候具有了命名物体的能力，然后随着日益成长，掌握了命名字母的能力，我的团队经过多年的研究发现，这两种能力决定了孩子未来整个阅读脑神经回路的发展效率。

    不同文化中的儿童开始认识字母的年龄有很大差异。在某些文化或者国家中，比如奥地利，儿童要到一年级才开始学习字母。此外，同一种文化中的儿童也有个体差异。在美国，有些2岁大的孩子就认得出所有的字母，但有些到了5岁(尤其是男孩)还是很吃力。我曾听说有几个5到7岁的男孩，必须要轻声唱完整首字母歌，才能找到所要找的字母，确定其名称。

    应该鼓励父母在儿童看起来已经准备好时，帮助他们学习命名字母，同样的原则也适用于“阅读”环境文字(environmental print)，即儿童周围环境中常见的文字与符号，如停止标志、一盒麦片以及兄弟姐妹和朋友的名字。许多还没有上幼儿园的孩子和大多数幼儿园的孩子都可以认出熟悉文字的形状，像是“出口”(Exit)与“牛奶”(milk)，通常还有他们名字的前几个字母。有些孩子坚持“象牙色”(Ivory)这个词应该读做“肥皂”这并没有什么关系。

    环境文字:即儿童周围环境中常见的文字与符号，如停止标志、一盒麦片，以及兄弟姐妹和朋友的名字。

    在大多数文化中，每个儿童都先学会识别常见字母和文字，然后开始学习书写这些内容。这一阶段的阅读就像是儿童发展过程中的“表意文字阶段。儿童所理解的正是概念与书写符号之间的关系，这和我们阅读代币的老祖宗没什么两样。

    儿童应何时开始阅读

    一旦儿童开始学习认识字母，家长马上就想到是不是该早点让孩子学习阅读。父母认为早点让孩子读书，将来在学校就能多点优势。许多商家抓住家长的这点心理,为了招揽生意,打出了许多学前阅读系列产品的广告26年前，我在塔夫茨的同事儿童心理学家戴维·埃尔金德(David Elkind）针对这种社会风气写了一本发人深省的书——《揠苗助长的危机》(The Hurried Child)。在书中他提到父母要求孩子阅读的年龄越来越早。最近戴维决定推出这本书的新版，因为他认为这一情况比 20年前更为严重。
    在谈论这个问题时，必须要考虑一下我们的发育时间表。阅读依赖于大脑联结与整合各种信息来源的能力。具体来说，就是视觉、听觉、语言与概念区。整合能力则取决于每一个区域的成熟程度、区域间联合区的成熟程度,以及这些区域联结和整合的速度。而速度则仰赖于神经轴突的“髓鞘化”(myelination)程度。髓鞘是自然界最好的传导材料，由包裹在神经轴突四周的脂蛋白构成(见图4-2)。轴突上覆盖的鞘越多，神经传导的速度越快。大脑各个区域的髓鞘的发展程度是不同的，比如听觉神经在怀孕第6个月时就形成髓鞘，而视觉神经要到出生后6个月才有髓鞘形成。

    图4-2 神经元和髓鞘

    在5岁前，大脑各区的感觉与运动神经区域都有髓鞘形成，并且各自独立运作，但是大脑中快速整合视觉、语言与听觉信息的区域，如角回其髓鞘化过程要到5岁之后才陆续完成。行为神经学家诺曼·格施温德认为多数儿童角回区域的髓鞘一直要到学龄期才发育完成，大约是在5到7岁之间。格施温德还提出过一个假说:某些男孩大脑的重要皮质区的髓鞘形成更慢，这可能解释了为什么多数男孩的阅读能力发展比女孩要慢一些。我们的语言研究也支持这种说法，8岁以下的女孩在许多计时的识字测验中都比同龄男孩要快一些。

    格施温德对于儿童大脑发育到何时才该学习阅读的结论，得到了许多跨语言研究的大力支持。英国阅读研究者乌莎·戈斯瓦米(Usha Goswami）的研究团队进行的跨语言研究引起了我的注意。他们的研究涉及3种不同的欧洲语言，结论是欧洲5岁开始学习阅读的儿童，并不比7岁开始学习阅读的儿童优秀多少。从这项研究中我们可以知道，花许多功夫教导4至5岁的儿童读书识字，从生物学角度来看，其实是揠苗助长，在许多儿童身上可能会收到相反的效果。
    到底何时才准备好阅读，就跟人生一样，总是充满意外。在哈珀·李(Haper Lee)的《杀死一只知更鸟》( To Kill a Mocking bird)里，有个5岁之前就学习阅读的小女孩。故事中的斯考特(Scout)，能读出所有视线中的东西，这种超常能力吓坏了她的新老师:
    我读字母表时，她的眉头皱了起来。在叫我大声读出《我的初级读本》( My First Reader)与《莫比尔注册报》( Mobile Register)上的股市摘要后，她发现我识字，反而以更厌恶的眼神看我。卡罗琳小姐让我和爸爸说不要教我了，这样会干扰我的阅读。我从来没有想要学阅读……阅读是突然降临到我身上的……我不记得是何时，在阿提克斯移动的手指上方的那些线条变成一个个文字，在我的记忆里，每个夜晚，我都坐在阿提克斯的腿上，注视着这些文字，听他念每一个字。我从不喜欢阅读，直到我开始害怕会错过他念的东西。就像没有人喜欢呼吸一样。

    作家佩内洛普·菲茨杰拉德(Penelope Fitzgerald)也有相同的经历。她回忆道:“我4岁就开始阅读:好像突然间就看懂了书本上的字母:也了解它们的意义。瞬间，我对它们充满了感激。”像斯考特和菲茨杰拉德这类孩子，当然应该立刻就让他们阅读。至于其他的孩子，有充分的生物学理由让我们相信阅读应该开始于对他们来说最合适的时候。

    教导儿童阅读的时间:一般来说，5 岁之后儿童的大脑才做好学习阅读的准备，男孩可能要晚一些。花工夫教导5岁以下的儿童读书识字，从生物学角度来看是揠苗助长，甚至会适得其反。

    髓鞘形成前期的注意事项

    即便不接受正式的阅读训练，儿童在5岁前还是会发生许多美好的事情，他们各方面都已经发展得很好，可以为未来的阅读做准备，并享受学前生活的乐趣。例如，聆听诗歌朗诵可以强化儿童的听力，最终便能切分语言中最小的发音单位音位。尝试写字反映了儿童对口语与文字之间的联系日益增长的了解。首先，模仿着写出或是画出字母，这时候的确比较接近“草体艺术”而不是概念。接着，这些字母开始反映出儿童逐渐演变的书写概念，尤其是他们名字中的字母。渐渐地，孩子们注意到其他字母开始想到单词是由字母组成的，正如他们的名字一样，这真是一种天才的行为。
    读写研究专家格伦达·毕赛克斯(Glenda Bissex)在她的《孩童读写学习》( Gnys at Work: A Child Learns to write and Read)一书中给出了一个儿童以字母名称来拼写单词的生动例子。当毕赛克斯正专心写作时，她5岁大的儿子给了她一张纸条,上面写着RUDF。意思就是“你了吗?”(Areyou deaf?
    毕赛克斯的儿子就跟许多同龄的孩子一样开始明白两件事情:首先写字可以让大人偶尔转移注意力;其次，字母可以对应到文字的发音。他还不明白的是，字母所代表的发音和字母本身的读法并不相同。R这个字母并不代表 are，而是表示英语音位 //。字母与发音之间的对应是一个微妙而困难的概念，通常连父母，或是一些未受过阅读基础训练的教师，都会忽略其中的复杂性。在绝大多数用来教导儿童阅读的初级教材中，这样的概念几乎不存在。
    四五岁的学龄前儿童可能分不清这其中微妙的差异，不过他们的确开始进入到学习符号表征的新阶段。他们知道文字代表着口语，口语中的词是由语音组成的，最重要的是字母能够传达出这些发音。对多数儿童来说这一认识会引导他们写出一大堆不符合英文拼写规则的东西，但实际上却极具规则性。
    卡罗尔·乔姆斯基和查尔斯·里德(CharlesRead)称这种写作方式为“拼写法创造”，想想刚才提到的毕赛克斯的儿子就可以明白。但是这其中的原则比表面上看起来的要复杂得多。举个例子，试着破译一下“YN’的意思。这样的拼法在儿童的书写中至少代表两个词，分别是wine(酒)与win(赢)。在这两个词中，儿童都以Y来表达/w/的发音。在写wine这个词时，字母Y代表其完整的发音，但在win中则以完整的N的发音来表达 /in/，这两个可能的拼音规则都很合理。
    以“拼写法创造”进行的早期书写，还有一项不寻常的特征，那就是发音并不符合一般所接受的拼音方式。因为英语发音本身变异性很高，再加上其他诸多因素的影响，如地方方言。以我居住的波士顿为例，许多单词中的t，比如 1ittle，小朋友都会写成d(LDL);波士顿南区那些精英人七家庭的儿童要比全国各地的其他儿童多用一年的时间才能学会在cart(车子)里面写上r。大多数波士顿地区的儿童则和已故的肯尼迪总统一样，在AMREKR的后面大方地加上一个r的音。
    关于儿童最初的书写，一个最让人感兴趣的问题是:他们自己是不是能读懂自己写下的文字。实际上，多数的儿童都很难读出他们自己写的东西,不过他们也不见得想要这么做。这样的书写动机以及利用“拼写法创造组成文字的个别字音，都表明了儿童早期书写对阅读的学习有着极大的帮助，对阅读过程有极佳的辅助作用。

    音位意识与聪明的鹅妈妈

    幼儿所感知的发音单位与我们是不同的，正如之前提到的古德格拉斯“elemeno”的例子，以及儿童书写的不符合拼音规则的文字。不过，儿童会渐渐地从意识到是什么组成了单词，进展到了解一个单词内的音节(如sun-ny)，最终会明白单词还可以划分为单个独立的音位(如s，u，n)。
    在孩子学习写字与阅读的过程中，对一个单词的发音组成及音位的认识，是极为关键的一步，也是学习过程的必然结果。正如我们所了解的希腊人的光辉成就，他们对口语中的每个发音的元意识不会凭空出现在文字的历史中，也不会凭空出现在每个孩子身上。当阅读专家玛丽莲·亚当斯(Marilyn Adams)问孩子们 cat 这个词的第一个音是什么时，有个孩子马上回答“喵”。
    希腊字母发明者的一个创举是意识到了口语的各个语音。这是字母表最有力的贡献，也是用来衡量儿童未来阅读成就的最佳指标之一;另一个指标则是快速命名的能力。从RUDF这类创造性的拼法中，我们可以看出这类语言意识发展的一些线索，而这些活动也促进了语言能力的发展。

    除写字之外，还有其他同样具有娱乐性的方式也能帮助儿童音位意识的发展。鹅妈妈童谣便是一个极好的例子。“钟声滴响，老鼠爬上钟’(Hickory, dickory dock, a mouse ran up the clock!)这一句中的韵律，以及其他的韵律形式，如头韵、类韵、尾韵与重复等，都有助于语音意识的发展。头韵与韵律告诉儿童，单词会因头尾字母相同而有类似的发音。当你第一次听孩子们讲笑话时，马上会被他们古怪的韵律吓到。像小熊维尼，孩子们喜欢一遍遍地重复“配对”的声音(例如：Funny bunny, you’re funny bunny honey!)，仅仅是因为他们喜欢这样的韵律。
    同样重要的是，开始区分成对语音的儿童也开始将文字划分成几个部分。四五岁的儿童正在学习辨别单词的首音(如Sam的S)与韵脚(如Sam的am )，识别单词内的每个音位有助于阅读的学习，但这个漫长而重要的过程才刚开始。

    英国几位研究者进行了一个著名且极有创造力的实验，凸显出上述原则的重要性。琳恩·布拉德利(Lynne Bradley)与彼得·布赖恩特(Peter Bryant)以4组学龄前儿童为研究对象，他们在各方面的条件都很类似，唯一不同的是有两组儿童在4岁时受过头韵和押韵的训练。在训练中，研究者要求这些儿童听一组要么词首相同(押头韵)要么词尾音节具有相同元音(押韵)的单词。然后教他们将有相同发音的词归为一组。此外，上述两组受训儿童中的一组还会在根据声音分类时看到相应的字母。几年后，布拉德利与布赖恩特为所有的儿童进行测试，结果令人惊讶:接受过简单韵律训练的儿童，其音位意识的发展更为完备在学习阅读时更容易。而其中表现得最好的是接受韵律训练并且看见相应字母的那组儿童。巩固丘可夫斯基所说的幼儿时期的“语言天赋”有许多方法，其中一项便是托儿所中的押韵儿歌。

    那么这时期的儿童究竟发生了什么事，才会产生这样不可思议的能力呢?在最基本的层面，儿童首先学会用最不费力的方式去观察分析单词。例如通过对头韵与韵脚的认识，学习给单词分类。接着，他们将这些发音与字母或者视觉图像联系起来。把这些技能结合起来，聆听鹅妈妈童谣中的旋律、节奏与韵律，有助于提升儿童的音位意识。语音发展方面的大量研究显示，着重于韵律、词首、词尾发音的系统性文字游戏、笑话与歌曲，对儿童准备学习阅读有明显的好处。教导儿童欣赏诗歌与音乐是一项重要的儿童游戏。

    有助于阅读学习的游戏活动:我们小时候都会念一些内容上毫无逻辑、发音却朗朗上口的儿歌。这些游戏活动可以使儿童逐渐感觉到音节的内部构造，对准备学习阅读的儿童有很大好处。

    苏格兰语言研究专家凯蒂·奥弗里(Katie Overy)以及我们实验室的凯瑟琳·莫里茨(Catherine Moritz)和萨沙·杨波斯基(Sasha Yampolsky)，目前正在研究音乐训练的某些重点，例如韵律模式的生成，观察其是否有助于培养音位意识与其他阅读发展的必要条件。如这项研究假设被证实，他们希望根据节奏、旋律与韵律来编写-份早期的教学方案。

    幼儿园:各种必要条件的聚集之处

    当儿童五六岁的时候，所有学习阅读的必要条件都会集合出现在幼儿园中。优秀的老师不会白白浪费儿童先前学习到的任何概念、字母或文字，早期的学习成为儿童正式进人文字世界的引路灯。虽然多年来教师都在培育这些必要条件，但直到近几年，促进音位意识发展的系统性工具才得以推广。这些看似简单的方法可以帮助儿童学习各种困难的语言概念：
    @ 发音与符号之间存在着一一对应的关系；
    @ 每个字母都有自己的名称，此外还可以代表一个或一组语音;反过来每个语音可由一个或多个字母代表；
    @ 每个词语都可分解为音节与音位。

    阅读研究专家路易莎·库克·莫茨(Louisa Cook Moats)清楚地解释了将这些基本语言规则融合到阅读教学和早期阅读技巧发展中的重要性。儿童通常会经历一段痛苦的时间，才能搞清楚如何把发音组合成像cat或sat这样的单词。如果能明白s这个音可以一直持续，然后在后面加上韵(如at)，对于教师和儿童来说，指导发音的合成就会容易很多。因此，若是要教导发音的合成，从 sat与rat开始会比从 cat开始容易很多。

    我们还可以为孩子做什么

    迄今为止，阅读的不断发展发生在一个特别的世界里，那里有兔妈妈和可爱的河马解释文字与书中的喜怒哀乐，有巨龙传达概念与句型，而托儿所里潦草书写的儿歌与字母教导语音与文字的意识，以及这两者之间的关联。在这样的世界里，儿童用5年时间来发展高度复杂的认知、语言知觉、社交与情感能力。这一切在丰富的互动环境中，会得到很好的发展。
    而那些不曾在家里听过鹅妈妈童谣，不曾被鼓励去读符号、去乱写乱画或没有玩过任何书本游戏的孩子又会怎样呢?在美国，从小听西班牙俄罗斯或越南版本故事的小孩又会怎样呢?那些不会像其他孩子一样学习或是对语言刺激毫无反应的孩子呢?越来越多有着不同情况的孩子出现在教室里，每个人都有不同的需求。他们在幼儿园里的境遇将会严重影响他们的一生。

    向“词汇贫乏”宣战

    家长们可能不知道，在没有读写经验的家庭里成长的孩子，在进入幼儿园与小学时，就要开始拼命追赶他们的同学的学习进度。这可不只是生词词汇量的问题。某单词连听都没有听过，对其概念当然一无所知。从来没见过某种句型，当然就不容易理解故事的情节。连同类的故事都没听过自然就难以进行推理或预测。从来没有体验过他人的感觉与文化传统，当然就不容易理解他们的感受。

    之前曾提到托德·里斯利(Todd Risley)与贝蒂·哈特(Betty Hart)在加利福尼亚一个社区的研究，显示出让人不寒而栗的结果。冷酷的现实揭露出几个严重的问题:有些出生在语言环境贫乏的环境中的儿童，到5岁时，和中产阶级的儿童相比，少听过的词约有3200万个。路易莎·库克·莫茨所谓的“词汇贫乏”，不仅是指儿童所听到的词汇。另一项针对 3岁儿童口语词汇量的研究发现，语言贫乏环境中的儿童所用的词语数量，与其他儿童相比，整整少了一半。
    还有一项针对家中的书籍(任何种类)数量的研究。对洛杉矶三个社区的调查结果发现，不同家庭的孩子能读到的书籍量有着惊人的差异。在大部分贫穷的社区里，家里完全没有书供孩子阅读;在中低收入的社区里每家平均有3本;而在富裕社区则有 200本左右。这样的统计数字，让我们悉心策划的有关蟾蜍、文字与句型的故事显得没有一点价值。书籍的严重匮乏将损害儿童在童年早期应该学习到的文字知识和对世界的认识。

    加拿大心理学家安德鲁·比米勒(Andrew Biemiller)研究了儿童词汇量水平过低的后果。他发现在幼儿园里，词汇量居班级人数后25%的儿童在词汇与阅读理解这两个方面都一直落后。等这些孩子到了六年级，他们在词汇和阅读理解这两个方面至少比同年级的孩子落后三个年级，而比起当年幼儿园前75%的儿童他们差得就更多了。换句话说，词汇发展与日后的阅读理解能力相互关联，幼儿园里发生的一切不只是不幸的社会现象更是他们后期词汇增长缓慢的恶兆。在语言发展中，没有哪项因素对儿童的影响是单一的。
    在幼儿园中，儿童已明显表现出来的许多因素是不能更改的，但语言发展并不在其中。一般的家居生活为孩子语言正常发展提供了充足的机会。在一项读写技巧早期发展的大型研究中，哈佛的教育家凯瑟琳·斯诺(Catherine Snow)与其同事发现:除了文字材料之外，对以后的阅读能力最主要的一项贡献因素其实只是“晚餐闲聊”时间的长短。简简单单的讲话、朗读与聆听就是早期语言发展的重点，但事实上，在许多家庭中(有些是经济状况不好，有些不是)，家长在儿童5岁前做这三项基本工作的时间少之又少。

    “晚餐闲聊”时间:“晚餐闲聊”时间的长短是影响儿童以后的阅读能力的一项重要因素。简单的讲话、朗读与聆听是早期语言发展的重点。

    如同政策专家佩姬·麦卡德尔(Peggy McCardle)一再强调的那样，只需要一些很小的共同努力，儿童学龄前的日子就可以变得丰富多彩，充满语言发展的各种可能性。所有的儿童专家都可以帮助父母确定他们对于孩子潜能的贡献，帮助每个孩子拥有良好的学龄前生活。举例来说，他们为每个前龄前的孩子接种疫苗、在家访时和初为父母者谈一下“晚餐闲聊’时间的作用，以及向他们提供一系列有助于儿童发展的书籍。家庭访问机构如“健康人生”(Healthy Start)中的社会工作者与社会服务人员，可以提供此类宣传品和有关方面的训练。要做到在所有孩子进入幼儿园之前让他们都公平地享有这样的待遇，这并不是很难的事情。

    耳部感染对早期语言发展的影响

    让所有儿童得到公平待遇的最大阻碍来自幼儿的中耳炎，这是全美儿科诊所最常出现的病例。试想，对一个每天要学2到4个新词的幼儿来说没有诊断或是没有治疗他们的中耳炎，会有怎样的影响。孩子第一天听到的可能是 pur(咕噜声 )，第二天听到的可能是 pill(药丸 )，之后还会听到purple(紫色)。由于中耳炎的缘故，孩子接收到的听觉信息不一致，因此会认为 purple 这个词有三种不同的发音
    除了认知混淆以外，儿童学习新词的时间也会拉长。感染发生在何时发生过多少次，这些因素最终可能导致他们无法完整且良好地发展出一种语言系统中全部的语音表征。未经治疗的感染会影响到对阅读来说极为重要的两项必要条件，分别是词汇发展与音位意识。
    但是问题还不仅仅是这样，若是词汇发展与音位意识这两项对阅读至关重要的必要条件受到影响，后果也会波及阅读本身。在我指导的一项大型研究计划中，研究者要求父母在问卷中勾选儿童是否在学龄前得过中耳炎,并且尽可能地追踪有儿科病史的儿童。结果显示,经常患中耳炎的儿童日后遭遇阅读问题的可能性更大。
    这项研究最让人惊讶的地方不在于这个可预期的结果，而是有相当多的家长都会有“但是我每个孩子有大半的时间耳朵都在发炎”这样的解释换而言之，许多善意的家长从来都不明白中耳炎比起许多短暂的不适，会产生更严重的后果。未经治疗的中耳炎是一项对口语与文字发展的无形障碍，每个儿童工作者都必须了解这一点。就跟贫乏的语言环境一样，只要付出一致的努力，不需要花费很多工夫，中耳炎对于儿童来说就不会是个障碍。

    双语环境对阅读学习的可能影响

    在踏入学校的同时开始学习英语，这产生的影响是一项更为复杂的论题。学习两种或两种以上的语言,对儿童来说是非常吃力且复杂的认知投资目前这样的学龄儿童数量正在不断增加。一开始会有些损失，如语言之间转换的错误，但是如果(请注意，“如果”在这里很重要)孩子把每种语言都学好,那么肯定是利大于弊的。儿童大脑的可塑性比人生的其他阶段更强这使他们只需要少许的额外努力就能够精通两种以上的语言。青春期过后学生具备了许多学习语言的优势，但是对于学习说没有口音的语言，儿童的大脑在某些重要的方面显然更具优势。
    审视众多双语学习的相关议题，常常让人眼花缭乱，但是这其中有3项主要的原则。

    首先，以英语为第二语言的学习者，他们在母语中已经学过的词语与概念，比较容易在英语中使用。也就是说，家庭中丰富的语言环境，为所有的学习奠定了基本的认知与语言学基础，并不需要特别在学校的语言教学中给儿童提供这样的协助。儿童若是生活在语言较为贫乏的家庭环境中毫无疑问会缺少学习母语或第二语言的认知与语言学基础。
    第二项原则和第一项类似。在学习阅读英文时，语言发展的质量比学习阅读英语更为重要。上千名学龄儿童在进入学校时英语能力各有差异，在每个教室，针对每个学龄儿童，都必须系统性地教授英语“新的”音位和学校、书本中的新词汇。康妮·朱尔(Connie Juel)指出我们的教师常常会轻易忽略掉一个基本的语育问题:进入学校的儿童，英语对他们来说是新的，或者说他们没听过学校的标准美式英语。他们并不知道在阅读时正确的音位是什么样的。在过去的5年里，他们“学会忽略这些，只听他们自己的语言”。
    第三项原则与儿童何时开始讲双语有关，无论是口语还是书面语言的发展，接触双语环境都是越早越好。达特茅斯(Dartmouth)的神经科学家劳拉-安·贝蒂托(Laura-Ann Petitto)和他的同事发现，早期的双语环境(3岁之前)相比于单语环境，对于语言与阅读来说，具有更加积极的影响。他们进一步针对幼时接触双语环境的成人进行脑成像研究，结果也发现这些双语处理两种语言的大脑区域大幅重叠，就跟单语者所用的区域一样，对比之下，长大后才接触第二语言而成为双语者的成人大脑，则展现出两种不同的脑部运作模式，比较接近左右脑分别运作的模式。

    双语或多语学习:学习两种或两种以上的语言，对儿童来说非常吃力，但如果孩子能把每种语言都学好，肯定利大于弊。儿童大脑的可塑性非常强，他们只需要少许的努力就能够精通两种以上的语言。

    作为一个认知神经学家，我认为拥有一颗双语大脑是非常好的事。贝蒂托的研究还发现，早期接触双语环境的大脑，在语言灵活性与处理多重任务上，比单语大脑更具优势。我在许多社区进行教育工作，多半的家庭都不说英语，但是，我始终被学习两种语言所涉及的复杂且有争议的问题所困扰，这包括儿童的自尊、在某一社区文化中的归属关系、对自我能力的感知，以及这一切累积起来对阅读的影响。我知道我们必须帮助所有的儿童学习学校用语，这样他们才能在这个英语文化中发展自己的潜能，而这一切都要从成为一个阅读者开始
    对一些听西班牙语、日语或者俄语故事长大的儿童来说，学习阅读英语是一项尚可应对的挑战，并且听英语故事对他们将母语中熟悉的词语与概念对应到第二语言有极大的帮助。对那些小时候没有这样坐在大腿上听故事的小孩来说，上学还要同时学习第二语言，这一过程会对他们的认知、社交与文化产生重大的影响。他们都是这个国家的孩子，我们必须准备好照顾他们每一个人，从怀有一份教导每个儿童的热忱开始，随时增加自己关于各种语言阅读发展的知识。
    阅读不是自然而然就会发生的。在孩子出生后的2000个日子里，没有一个词语、概念或是社交习惯被浪费，这一切都在为这颗年轻的大脑做着准备工作，使大脑运用所有发展着的部分更好地进行阅读。儿童阅读的发展，以及他们的人生都是从这里开始的。

    第五章 阅读者的五大进阶(1)

    从未有人告诉我们，我们必须研究自己的生命
    研究生命，犹如学习自然史或音乐
    一切都应从最简单的练习开始
    慢慢地，由易到难
    不断练习
    直到拥有力度和准确度
    成为一个勇敢的人，
    才能跳跃到超越技巧的
    表现情感与意境的练习曲……
    ——阿德里安娜·里奇，《超然的练习曲》
    就某方面来说，整部人类书写的历史仿佛会在孩童身上重演一次。从早期摸索出字母文字的书写方式，一直到发现口语是由一定数量的字音所构成的事实，这两样智能上的壮举可说是不相上下。 ——珍妮·查尔

    普鲁斯特的名著《追忆似水年华》的灵感是由玛德琳蛋糕这种贝壳状的重油糕点的美味唤起的，这是20世纪文学史上一项近乎神话的典故。不管小说中叙事者的感觉记忆是否仅仅只是普鲁斯特自己幻想的再造，在现实生活中这样的事情真的会发生。人类大脑会以各种方式来存储和提取记忆，其中也有各种感官的作用。
    原本我想以寻找自己的“玛德琳蛋糕”来作为本章探讨学习阅读的开端，那会同样释放出我第一次真正在阅读的记忆。但是我办不到。我记不起第一次知道自己能阅读时的情形，不过我其他记忆中的一部分——一所只有两间教室的小学校，一共只有8个年级、两个老师，倒是唤起我许多过去的回忆片段，就像语言学家安东尼·巴希尔(Anthony Bashir)提出的阅读生命的“自然史”一样。阅读的自然史始于简单的运用、练习与正确性最后，如果幸运的话，在工具的帮助下，就能拥有“跳跃到超越技巧的表现情感与意境的练习曲”的能力。在我身上，这一切都发生在一个名叫埃尔多拉多(Eldorado)的小镇。

    开始阅读之旅

    学会阅读时，你将重生……从此以后再也不会感到这么寂寞。 ——鲁默·高登
    我在书中旅游，不只探索其他世界，也进入我自己的世界。我明白我是谁，我想要成为谁，我的想望以及我胆敢对我的世界与自己所怀抱的梦想。但也有很多时间我觉得自己身处在另一个不为人知的空间，时而清醒，时而沉睡。然后有书，一个与此乎行的宇宙，在那里什么都有可能发生，通常也是如此。在那个宇宙中，我也许是新人，但绝对不是个陌生人。对我而言，那是实实在在的世界，我完美的岛屿。——安娜·昆德伦
    是因为父亲的希望，我才能上学的。这可非比寻常，因为女孩通常不会去上学的……教育对像我这样的人来说能有什么作用?我只能说出我不曾拥有的，只能以我所有的来思量，然后在这些差异中明白自己的不幸。但是啊但是!正是因为这样，我才第一次见到，在往返家园的道路后面，还有另一个世界。——牙买加·金凯德

    意大利瓦尔道尔契亚(Val D’Orcia)的侯爵夫人艾丽斯·奥里戈(Iris Origo)是位历史学家，常常引用鲁默·高登(Rumer Godden)的话来描述她20世纪初在意大利佛罗伦萨学习阅读的经历。安娜·昆德伦(Anna Quindlen)则生动地描述了20世纪中期在费城学习阅读的场景。牙买加·金凯德(Jamaica Kincaid)在她那本《我母亲的自传》( The Autobiograph of My Mother)中捕捉到在加勒比海的安提瓜岛(Antigua)那里，童年的阅读对女孩子意味着什么。确实，金凯德小时候表现出来的阅读天分让老师相信她是个天才。
    在这些女作家之间虽然有着时空和文化的差异，但有一个共同点将她们和每一个爱书的人联系起来。这个共同点也发生在我的经历中，当我在伊利诺伊州的埃尔多拉多学习阅读的时候，我在书中发现了另一个平行于这个世界的宇宙，就是奥里戈所谓的“再也不会感到这么寂寞”的世界昆德伦的“完美的岛屿”，并且认识到金凯德“往返家园的道路后面，还有另一个世界”。
    用“拼写闹刷”(orthographic irony)来形容我家乡小镇名称的由来再恰当不过。在19世纪中期，埃尔德(Elder)和里德(Reeder)两人从城市里请来一位画家,想要为他们在的伊利诺伊州南方共同创立的这个小镇“艾尔德里德”( Elderreeder)画一个标志，用来欢迎每一个路过的人。自以为受过良好教育的画家自作聪明地更正了镇名，他认为这是政府人员的拼写错误。最后他将欢迎标志改成了“埃尔多拉多”(Eldorado)。也许是因为这个标志做得很好看，也许是因为没有钱再买一个，又或许是因为这个名称对小镇的人们来说，唤起了一些先前不可言表的梦想;不管怎样，这个名字就这样定了下来。一个世纪之后，我就在这个小镇长大。

    埃尔多拉多有两间学校供儿童念书。我就读的是一个很小的叫做圣玛丽的学校，教室看起来像是19世纪木板画上的建筑:深红色砖块搭建的两间大房子，每间有四排桌椅容纳4个年级的学生。一年级的学生坐在最左边靠窗的那排，每升一年级，就往门口移动一排。
    在靠窗坐的一年级的日子里，我开始大量地阅读，读得多说得少，这真的是很好的习惯。一开始我学习第二排的孩子们的功课，然后是第三排的。我不记得自己是什么时候把四年级的功课也读完了，应该是我坐在第二排的那段时间。在这样的环境中，教室里满满地挤着40个孩子，还有我这样的学生，除了圣人之外，每个人的耐心都会被消耗殆尽。但不论从哪个角度看，在那间小学校的每个老师，从罗丝·玛格丽特(Rose Margaret)修女、撒莱西亚(Salesia)修女到后来的伊格内修斯(Ignatius)修女，她们每个人都是圣人。
    在我坐第二排的时候，发生了一件重要的事情。我的老师对我父母说了些什么，突然之间房间后面出现了许多书，原本半空的书架神奇般地出现了许多书:童话故事、科学知识、英雄传奇，当然还有圣徒的传记当我上完四年级时，我弟弟乔伊坐在第三排，妹妹凯伦坐在第一排，另一个弟弟格雷格则在走廊上等着，我已经读完了每一本书，甚至还想要读更多。
    在这个过程中，我改变了。不管在这个世界里我看起来有多渺小，我每天都有文字与图画中的巨人陪伴，伐木巨人保罗·班扬(Paul Bunyan)顽童汤姆·索耶(Tom Sawyer)、精灵小矮人(Rumpelstiltskin)与阿维拉的圣女特蕾莎(Teresa of Avila)，这些人物对我来说就跟华纳街上的隔壁邻居一样真实。我开始沉溺于这两个平行的世界中，身处其中的任何一个我都不觉得奇怪或者孤单。这样的经验让我受益匪浅，尤其是对我以后的人生而言。在那段日子里，我出奇安静地坐在那间小教室里，每一天我都经历着加冕、结婚、成为圣徒的生活。
    关于这段日子的其他鲜明记忆，大都围绕着撒莱西亚修女，她努力教导那些似乎学不会阅读的儿童。我看着她耐心地倾听这些儿童在上课时痛苦地尝试，然后放学后把他们留下来，一个个辅导。我最要好的朋友吉姆也是被留校辅导的一个。当撒莱西亚修女尽力教导他的时候，突然之间他不再是我所认识的那个男孩子了，那个大家的领头者，那个无所不知的男孩，就像是马克·吐温笔下汤姆·索亚与哈克贝利·费恩混合版的男孩子竟然不见了。这个版本的吉姆看起来很柔弱，结结巴巴地发出撒莱西亚修女要他念出的字母的读音。看着这个从不退缩的男孩子变得对自己这么没有信心，我的整个世界都颠倒了。至少有一年的时间他们在放学后静静地坚持练习。撒莱西亚修女告诉吉姆的家人，有些聪明的孩子，像吉姆这样的在阅读学习上会需要特别的帮助。
    撒莱西亚修女那时只说了这些，但是我明白了两件事情。首先，我看到撒莱西亚修女与吉姆妈妈的决心和毅力，他们相信吉姆的潜力，甚至是在他自己都想放弃的时候。我心想他们是在进行一件非常特别的事情。其次，当吉姆升到第三排的时候，我留意到我的老朋友又回来了，就跟从前一样，狂妄、大胆、难以管教。那个时候，我觉得撒莱西亚修女与吉姆母亲正做着奇迹一般的事情。

    阅读阶段:学习阅读有许多发展阶段，这些阶段聚集起来，使儿童能够运用文字进入复杂的世界。

    学习阅读就像是一个神奇的故事充满了许多发展阶段，这些阶段聚集起来，使儿童能够运用文字进人复杂的世界。苏格拉底与古印度学者都担心，阅读文字与倾听和口头叙说相比，阻碍了我们了解文字的意义、字音、功能与可能性等许多层面。事实上，在早期阅读的探索阶段，当这些层面聚集起来，共同形成脑部新的阅读神经回路之时，古老的未专门化的结构对每一个层面都有所贡献。因此，研究早期阅读的发展，使得我们能够了解人类取得这项成就的基础。这一切开始于给5岁儿童做的各项相关准备，一直延伸到不同的但是可以预测的阅读发展模式(见表 5-1)。

    总之，以上所述的所有发展会加速儿童早期认识词语组成的能力，强化理解与拼写的熟练程度，促进儿童对已知与未知文字的理解力。儿童所接触到的文字越多，对语言的理解，无论是字面的还是隐喻的，就越好。就此看来，与苏格拉底所担心的相反，儿童更像是苏美尔人。
    哈佛的阅读研究学者珍妮·查尔(Jeanne Chall)表示，学习阅读是一个循序渐进的过程，从初级阅读者一路发展到专家级阅读者，我们可以采取“研究自然史或是音乐的方式”来研究。我个人真的很喜欢将阅读各元素之间互相交织的关系想象成音乐:我们最终所听到的是许多演奏家的整体表现，在当中很难区别出个人的演奏，他们早已融为一体。早期的阅读阶段，是我们一生之中唯一可以觉察出各元素的时候，让我们这些早已忘记往事的人，试着回想一下当初是如何读出每一个字的。

    阅读的发展

    我坐在婴儿床上，假装自己在读书。我的眼睛跟随着每一个黑色的符号，一个都没有跳过，大声地念每一个故事给自己听小心翼翼地发出所有的音节。家人非常惊讶地看着这样的我，总之是非常激动，他们决定是时候教我认识字母表了。我就像初学者那样兴奋，自己偷偷地学习。我带着早已烂熟于心的埃克多·马洛(Hector Malot)的《苦儿流浪记》(No Family)爬上婴儿床，半是预习，半是破解其中文字的意思。我一页一页地读着，翻到最后一页时，我知道怎么读书了。整个人欣喜若狂。 ——萨特

    在回忆录《文字生涯》( The Words)中，萨特详细叙述了第一次阅读的情景，以及伴随这段经历的狂喜。虽然层层的记忆会有疏漏，但是萨特的描述与无数个儿童的经验相似，一半靠记忆，一半靠解读地看一本自己喜爱的书，然后突然之间(或者在他们看来如此)就学会阅读了。事实上萨特不断地积累各种知识来源，全面的，片面的，直到“突然之间”跨过了阅读的门槛，他破解了文字的秘密语言。接下来本章将叙述我们成为阅读者这一渐进、动态的变化过程，从像萨特一样兴奋地破解密码，一直到不知不觉地转变成一个完全自动阅读的专家级阅读者。为了组织好这一过程，在本章与第6章我准备将阅读者分成5种类型:
    @ 萌芽级阅读者
    @ 初级阅读者
    @ 解码级阅读者
    @ 流畅级阅读者
    @ 专家级阅读者
    每一种类型代表了阅读发展中，我们穿越未知的动态变化。然而，并不是所有的儿童都经历了同样的过程。著名儿科医生梅尔·莱文(Mel Levine)曾提及“不同类型的心灵”涉及不同儿童学习的不同方式,类似地也有“不同类型的阅读者”，一些人遵循着不同的顺序,在阅读发展过程中开始和停止阅读都和我在此描述的不同。稍后我们将解释这一原因。

    萌芽级阅读者

    在人的一生中，会有两次知道自己受到每个人认可的时刻第一次是学会走路时，另一次是学会识字时。 ——佩内洛普·菲茨杰拉德

    正如第4章所描述的，萌芽级阅读者坐在“宠爱者的大腿上”，在生命最初的5年里，全面地尝试学习各种语音、词语、概念、图像、故事，接触文字、书面材料或是一般对话。这个阶段最重要的一点是，阅读不会平白无故地出现在一个人身上。萌芽期阅读来自于长年的感知、不断增加的概念与社交发展，并且持续地接触到口语与书面语言。

    初级阅读者

    我可以看见他们彬彬有礼地站在宽宽的书页上这书页，我还在学习如何翻动它穿着蓝色工作服的珍与棕褐色头发的迪克正在玩球，或是探索整个后院的世界，完全没察觉到他们自己就是开始幻想的儿童的第一对主角。 ——比利·柯林斯，《第一位读者》

    很少有比看着儿童学会识字，阅读书本上的文字并且理解一个故事更窝心、更愉快的时刻。不久前，我和一位名叫阿梅莉亚(Amelia)的小女孩一起坐在地板上,她十分害羞,就像森林里的小动物一样。她还不会读书也很少说话，更不可能在我这样的访客面前大声念出任何句子。
    但是那天注定有事情发生。阿梅莉亚跟往常一样，盯着“猫猫坐在毛毯上”( The cat sat on the mat.)这个短短的句子很长一段时间。她看起来像是一头吓坏了的小鹿。然后,缓慢但很完美地,她口齿清晰地念出了这些字她抬头望望我的眼睛，眉毛开始上扬。然后她开始念出下一个短句，接着再一句，每念完一句都会看看我，寻求确认。念完整个故事，她笑得合不拢嘴，也不再看我以寻求支持。她可以阅读了，她自己明白了这一点。阿梅莉亚的家里没什么书让她阅读，这往后的路恐怕很漫长，但是至少她开始阅读了。
    不论阅读的必要条件准备得如何，成长的文字环境如何，老师的教学方法是什么，对阿梅莉亚以及所有的初级阅读者来说，这时候的任务就是破解文字，并且了解其含义。要做到这一点，每个孩子都必须弄清楚几千年来我们的祖先所发现的拼音规则，以及这一路上林林总总的其他发现。

    类似地，学习每一件事情——从骑自行车，到理解死亡这样的概念儿童会不断地积累知识，从只有片面的概念，到建立起完整的概念。在初期的努力中，初级阅读者仅能理解部分字母原则。我最喜欢引用马萨诸塞州剑桥的阅读专家梅丽尔·皮查(Meryl Pischa)的一句话，每年她都会问那些莘莘学子同样的问题:为何万事开头难?
    总的来说，不论是在幼儿园，还是读一年级，大多数儿童开始阅读时脑中已有一些基本概念，即书本上的文字是带有某种意义的。他们中的绝大多数都见过父母、保姆以及老师读书。然而多数人都还没有一个完整的概念，不懂书中的文字是由我们语言中的发音所构成的，而发音是以字母来表示的，每个字母代表一个或两个特定的发音。
    初级阅读者的一大发现和阿梅莉亚逐渐成形的概念一样，即字母和语言中的发音互相联系。这是拼写原则的要义，也是阿梅莉亚往后阅读发展的基础。她的下一步将是学习解读文字中所有的字母音位对应原则，这有一小部分是她自己的发现，但是绝大多数来自于努力。这两项都仰赖3种解码能力:语言学习的语音、拼写与语义。

    初级阅读者语音的发展

    日常的牙牙学语，尝试破解文字中的字母时发生的逐日的、缓慢的改变，有助于培养儿童的音位意识，这是语音发展中一个相当重要的方面。渐渐地，儿童开始从言谈中听出或长或短的声音单位，像是短语中的几个词(kitty+cat)，一个词中的几个音节(kittty)，词语与音节中的音位(/k/+/a/+/t/)。这一切反过来将进一步促进阅读的发展。

    早期音位意识的重要性:在早期学习阶段中，儿童的音位意识是将来在一二年级学习理解文字的关键。在一年级无法顺利解码的儿童，大多到四年级时阅读水平依然
    较低。

    初级阅读者可以听出并切分大型语音单位。渐渐地，他们能听出并操作音节与文字中更小的音位，这项能力是预测儿童阅读学习成功与否的重要指标。斯坦福的研究员康妮·朱尔发现，在早期学习阶段中，儿童的音位意识是将来在一、二年级学习理解文字的关键。在一年级无法顺利解码的儿童，有88%到四年级时还是阅读水平较低。教师要把握各种机会来帮助儿童察觉文字中的音位，例如押韵的儿歌可以提高儿童的听觉与区分文字韵脚韵首的能力。一些随着词语发音拍拍手、书写或是舞动的简单的“即兴游戏”也很有帮助。
    语音的合成需要儿童更强的整合能力。语音的合成指的是混合各个单独的发音，形成更大的发音单位，如音节或单词(如s+a+t=sat)。跟音位意识一样，随着不断练习与越来越多的阅读，这种能力也随之发展。

    语音合成的教学方法越来越多。哈莱姆(Harlem)的教育学家乔治·丘尔顿(George 0. Cureton)采用的技巧就非常有趣。他给每个儿童指定一个字母的发音，然后将儿童排成一排，让他们“演出”字音合成文字的情况。想象一下这种情景，第一个儿童发出简单的嘶嘶声/sss/，然后轻推下一个孩子，第二个人要敞开喉咙尽量延长 /a/的字音，再传给下一个孩子，让他发出较不简单的结束音 //。第一轮可能有点混乱，但是在老师的指挥下孩子们的行动变得更快更协调，s-a-t最后就变成 sat(坐下)。

    要是文字中只有两个重音，儿童会学得更容易:一个音节的第一个音称为起音;一个音节最后的元音加上辅音，称为韵音(如cat中的at)。按照指示，儿童学习起音(c)再学习韵音(at)，最后将两者合成为一个词。之后，开始学难度较高的起音，然后加上韵音，如:ch+at=chat，fl+at-flat。这样的做法可能比丘尔顿的教学法文明些，不过两者的目标都是一样的:为了让儿童顺利地将发音单位整合起来。语音合成看似简单，但是这妨碍到许多儿童的阅读学习，特别是那些有阅读障碍的孩子。

    大声朗读的作用:可以让初级阅读者注意到口语与文字之间的关系，他们可以用这种方式来自学。此外，大声朗读还可以让老师与家长及时发现儿童学习阅读时出现的错误和问题。

    “语音再编码”的方法可以帮助初级阅读者提升音位意识能力与语音合成能力。乍看之下这不过就是大声朗读的冠冕堂皇的说法，不过若以“大声朗读”来表示，则其中涉及的两种动态过程又显得过于简单。大声朗读让儿童注意到口语与文字之间的关系。它还是初级阅读者的自我教学方式是“获得阅读能力的必要条件”。
    两位波士顿的阅读专家艾琳·方塔斯(Irene Fountas)与盖伊·苏·平内尔(Gay Su Pinnell)延伸了新西兰知名教育专家玛丽·克莱(Marie Clay)的教学方法，很早就指出大声阅读可以将某个孩子常犯的错误暴露给老师与其他听众。大声阅读有助于发现儿童对文字已知什么、还不知道什么，
    我永远不会忘记我们是如何发现蒂米(Timmy)，这位典型的一年级初级阅读者，一直念错词语中字母的情况。蒂米把house(家)念成horse(马)，然后继续“读完”他自己编的一个关于马的故事。蒂米自创的有趣故事，跟原本那篇乏味的关于家的文章毫无关联，但是却帮助我们了解了许多造成他错误的原因。
    比米勒研究了蒂米这个年纪的儿童所犯的典型错误。他发现年幼的初级阅读者在犯错时，一般会出现三个短暂但相当容易预料到的步骤。首先出现的错误是在语义与语法上正确，但是和真正的词之间没有发音或词形上的相似性(把father念成 daddy)。一旦他们学到部分字母与音位之间对应关系的规则以后，他们念错的词多半都是词形相似，但语义上没有什么关系的(如把house读成horse)。到了初级阅读者的最后一个阶段，儿童犯的错误在拼写与语义上都有一定的恰当性(如把ball 念成bat)。这些儿童很快就会进入顺利解码的阶段，开始整合他们所拥有的从各方吸取的文字知识。非常重要的是，比米勒发现能顺利学会阅读的儿童，从来不会停留在这些早期错误上，而是很快就能摆脱它们。

    初级阅读者拼写的发展

    英文具备让人愉悦的清教徒式的写作传统，比如以“sh_t”来表示众所周知的骂人字眼。每个人都知道空格处代表的字母是“i”，这种“字母代表”的办法兼顾了品位与拼写正确。这一条横线也彰显出所有视觉符号的任意性，以及一套被广泛接受的语言系统对猜测出当中的每个发音有多么必要。拼写的发展包含学习这一整套约定俗成的视觉符号、常用的字母组合以及看似没有规律的用法。最重要的是，这牵涉到将字母视觉形式和常用字母组合转化成能够自动产生的表征。
    儿童一步步地学习这些拼写习惯，从他们坐在年长读者的大腿上或是身边的经验中，萌芽级阅读者学习到英文中的每一行文字都是由左至右而读的，文字中的字母也是如此。接下来的认识则涉及认知而非空间的发现:例如，字母模式的不变性。孩子必须知道，无论何种字体，A永远都是A。类似地，还有些儿童必须学习上标与下标都代表同一个字母
    但真正的任务，是要学习英文以多种但特有的字母组合来表现其读音的独特方式。看看两种语言中源自同一个词根的单词:英语中的shout与德语中的 schreien。虽然英语中的sh与德语中的schr有很多相似之处，但在各自的语言中，这些字母却有不同的拼写表征，就像法语中的ois与西班牙语中的lla与n~a。
    初级阅读者在他们自己的母语中吸收全部的常见字母组合，以及许多常用但不遵循语音规则的单词，如have、who，以及在who said yachts are tough?一句中的所有单词。虽然儿童可以依赖他们具备的语音知识来破解绝大多数的常用单词，但还不足以应对少数重要的常用词。这些不规则拼写的单词，通常称为“英语常用词”，它们的发音必须以其自身为一个独立的表征。幸运的是，拼写不规则的单词比通常想象的要少得多，如果你注意到英语规则，大多数拼写不规则的单词，如yacht，也不是完全不规则的。初级阅读者的拼写发展需要多方面地接触文字——多练习。华盛顿大学的神经科学家兼教育学家弗吉尼娅·伯宁格(Virginia Berninger)和她的研究团队记录了年轻的大脑如何通过这些接触形成大多数常用视觉组块的拼写表征，如此一来，像ant这样简单的字母组合，可以眨眼间转变成chant 与jenchantment。
    无可否认，这其中需要的不仅仅是眼睛，而是视觉系统拆解辅音群的能力，像chant中的ch，以及拆解词素单位的能力，如enchantment中的en和ment，这将大幅度提高阅读速度。掌握常规元音模式、词素单位与英文中各种拼写模式(例如各种辅音群)，将有助于视觉系统的运作。
    据说英语的元音字母是全球语言中使用频率最高的符号。怎么会有人发明出一套书写系统，规定5个元音字母(偶尔加上y)来承担双重或三重任务，构成至少12种元音呢?马克·吐温对英文字母模式的愤怒，每天都会在每间英语教室里出现。下面这首无名氏的诗，正好表现了马克·吐温的愤怒，以及成千上万英语初学者的感受。学习所有的元音对与“元音+r”和“元音 +w”的组合可以解决部分难题;学会各种语义与词语中的常用词素也会加快初级阅读者阅读大量多音节词的速度。

    我想你已经明白，
    touch，bough,cough 和 dough ?
    其他人或许会出错，但是你不会弄不清，
    hiccough,thorough,slough 和through ?
    做得不错!现在你可能希望
    学些其他的把戏?
    当心 heard 这个可怕的词
    看起来像是 beard，读起来却像是 bird:
    还有 dead，说起来像是 bed 而不是 bead，
    看在上帝的份上，不要读成 deed!
    还要留意 meat，great 与 threat,
    它们的韵律类似 suite，straight 与 debt;
    moth 的发音和 mother 中的 moth 不一样,
    bother和 both，brother和 broth 的关系也是这样。
    而在 there 中的 here 也和单独的 here 读音不一样,
    以及 dear, fear, bear 和 pear,
    接下来还有 dose，rose 和lose,
    还有 goose和 choose,
    以及cork与 work, card 与ward,
    font 与front, word 与sword,
    do 与 go, 以及 thwart 与 cart.
    来吧!来吧!我真的千头万绪不知从何开始。
    一种可怕的语言?为什么人活着这么辛苦，
    我从5岁开始学说话:
    还要读它，努力又努力，
    到了 55 岁还没有学成。

    初级阅读者语义的发展

    早些时候，我引用了认知科学家斯威尼的有趣研究，大脑每读到一个字就会激活许多可能的意义，即便我们完全没有觉察到这个事实。童年时光最美好的一段便是玩要于各种各样的意义中，若没有经历过这些，真是非常可惜。对某些儿童来说，词义的知识会提升他们理解文字的能力，正如我们在阿梅莉亚的例子中所见到的那样，在开始学习解码的早期阶段每个词都是很大的挑战。对阿梅莉亚与其他上千名破解文字密码的初学者来说，语义的发展扮演的角色与许多人想象的都不一样。在语义的发展中有三项相互关联的原则，超越了所有的教学法的差异，
    第一，了解意义能促进阅读。如果儿童能立即知道他辛苦破解出来的那个字的意义，他可能会明白自己所发出的声音即是一个字，也比较容易记住它并且储存在记忆中。正如康妮·朱尔所强调的，在教导阅读时犯下的最大错误之一是，以阿梅莉亚为例，当她终于破解出一个词时，教师或家长以为她知道自己在读什么。大的词汇量使解码文字更容易，速度也更快。
    下面这个实验可以证明成人也遵循着同样的规则。请试着大声读出下面的单词:periventricular nodular heterotopia、pedagogy、fiduciary、micronspectroscopy。读这些单词的速度取决于你的解码能力，但同样需要你的背景知识。如果这些单词不在你的词汇库中,你很有可能是用当中的词素(如peri+ventricletar)来猜测这些词义，也以此来改进自己的发音。成人在读到自己理解的单词时，会更容易、更有效率。
    第二，阅读促进词汇知识。对大多数儿童来说，词汇量可以给他们提供特殊的“帮助”。就像临床语言学家丽贝卡·肯尼迪(Rebecca Kennedy)主张的那样，词汇是学习阅读时免费获得的礼物。有时候我会要求我的学生解释一个表示特定症候群的术语，比如agoraphobia(广场恐惧症)这个单词。如果他们有所迟疑，我就会给他们含有这个单词且前后有所关联的一句话:“斯巴克医生那位患有agoraphobia的病人拒绝参加在开放的演讲厅里举行的团体聚会。”这句话每次都能给他们提供足够的信息，让他们对这个单词有进一步的认识。
    我们利用语境的能力是通过阅读潜移默化得到的。随着文本难度的提高，初级阅读者们运用他们部分的概念以及“推导”和“语境化”能力将许多词语归类到已建立的类别中，从而增加他们的词汇量。当一个人了解到儿童在学校期间必须学会大约88700个单词，而且其中至少有9000个单词需要在三年级以前学完，就完全能明白儿童词汇的发展有多么重要，第三，多重意义强化理解力。回过头来看看早期阅读发展的两个故事我们就会发现同样的结论。路易莎·库克·莫茨计算出进入一年级的儿童在具有语言优势的和处于语言劣势的孩子之间差了约15000个单词。这些处于劣势的孩子怎么可能赶得上呢?在课堂上清楚地教授词汇可以解决部分问题，但即使是在简单的故事里，初级阅读者除了要懂得字面上的意义外，还需要学习更多。他们也需要对一个单词在不同语境中的多种用法与功能，有更多明确的认识与弹性变通能力。他们需要知道虫子会在人的身上蠕动、纠缠、爬动、侦查，还要对此感到很自然。

    阅读可促进词汇知识的发展:回想小时候的语文课老师很少直接解释生词的意思和用法，母语中大部分的词汇知识都是我们阅读时在语境中学到的。

    我的合作研究员斯蒂芬妮·戈特瓦尔德(Stephanie Gottwald)详细描述了我们研究工作中接触到的许多问题阅读者，他们对一个英语单词竟然可以有许多意思的想法感到非常恐惧，当教导bug、jam、ram与bat等单词时，他们的第一反应是:“你一定是在开玩笑吧!”当年轻的新手解码级阅读者知道词语和随口的玩笑或双关语中的话语一样会有多重意义时，理解力会提升许多。文字有多重用途的概念使初级阅读者想要从所读的内容中推敲与得到更多的意义，这正是下一阅读阶段的重心。但是在此之前，先让我们看看在阅读 bat、rat 或 bug 这些简单的单词时，大脑是如何开始破解文字的。

    初级阅读者的大脑

    姑且不论初级阅读者破解或理解的能力如何，卡特·斯图德利(Cat Stoodley)描绘了他们的大脑在读一个单词时的状况(见图5-1)。跟成人的通用阅读系统一样，幼儿阅读时也会动用三大区域。幼儿阅读脑的主要工作是连接这些区域。和成人不同的是，幼儿的大脑激活的第一个大片区域在枕叶(即视觉与视觉联合区)，以及枕叶深处一块与题叶相关联的在进化上相当重要的区域:梭状回。重要的是，这个时候两个半脑都出现高度激活的情形。
    乍看之下并不合理，但请想想学习任何技能之前的情况。一开始学习任何技能都需要动用大量的认知与运动过程，涉及许多神经区域。逐渐地熟能生巧后，就不需要下这么多认知工夫，神经通路也变得更直接和有效。这是脑部朝专门化与自动化的方向缓慢地发展。

    图5-1 早期阅读脑

    第二个大片区域也是横跨两个半脑，但在左半脑较为活跃，涵盖颞叶与顶叶的诸多区域。近来，华盛顿大学的神经科学家发现，儿童使用几个专门化区域的情形比成人更多，尤其是角回与缘上回，这两处是将语音过程与视觉、拼写及语义过程相整合的重要结构。儿童大脑题叶中韦尼克区(Wermicke’s area)也被高度激活，这是一个负责语言理解的基本区域，最有趣的是，这两个在通用阅读系统中使用的区域，除了在特定情况下之外，以儿童使用较多。当成人在遇到困难的单词时，动用这些区域的程度会多于儿童，这时我们便后退到孩提时代的策略，就好像许多人刚刚试着去读 periventricular nodular heterotopia 时经历的那样。
    额叶的许多部位，特别是位于左半脑的语言区，即布洛卡区，是儿童动用的第三大区域。这很合理，因为额叶本来就在各种执行过程中扮演着重要的角色，比如记忆过程以及各种语言的处理过程，如语音、语义等诚然，成人阅读者激活的额叶区域更多，这些区域与更为复杂的理解与执行过程有关。大脑下层的其他区域在儿童与成人身上都扮演着活跃的角色。举例来说，小脑(cerebellum)与多功能的丘脑(thalamus)–大脑的交汇区,连接着五大分层。小脑的意思是“小型的脑”，人们阅读时许多运动技巧、语言技巧的使用时机和准确度都与小脑有关。

    布洛卡区:位于左半脑的语言区。布洛卡区为语言的运动中枢，主要功能是编制发音程序。

    总之，任何一个看到年幼初级阅读者大脑的第一张图像的人都应该感到震惊。打从一开始，大脑便展现出产生新联结的能力，那些原本设计成负责其他功能——特别是视觉、运动与许多语言层面的区域正在加速相互之间的交流。等到孩子七八岁时，年轻的大脑开始解码，同时展示出它所能达到的成就，以及我们离最初代币阅读者的进化距离有多远。这三大分布区域将会成为基本解码，甚至提高流畅度(这是下一阶段阅读者的特征等所有阅读发展阶段的基础，这是阅读进一步发展的标志，为阅读脑尚未展开的图景增加一点趣味性的说明。

    解码级阅读者

    如果你去听解码阶段儿童的话语，你会听出一些不同之处。阿梅莉亚阅读时痛苦(可能会伴随些许兴奋)的过程已经消失了。解码阶段的阅读者声音较为平稳而有自信，他们即将成为流畅的阅读者。
    我最喜欢的解码级阅读者是一位叫范(Van)的越南男孩。第一次遇到他是在莫尔登(Malden)暑期学校，我们研究中心的人员在那里教导需要加强语言技能的儿童。4周的时间内，在独具慧眼的老师菲莉丝·希夫勒(Phyllis Schifer)的指导下，范从一个原本要被老师留级的二年级初级阅读者，转变成同等于甚至超越他这个年级阅读测试水平的能手。范在暑期学校开始时费劲阅读的情况完全消失，如今他不仅能够注意到文字的韵律成分，也会花更多时间来理解所读的内容。范的朗读极富表现力，他也几乎完全理解自己所读的内容。范从刚学会解码时犹犹豫豫的孩子，转变成几乎具有三年级学生水平的、完美的半流畅型解码级阅读者。有了优异的阅读测试成绩，我们只花了一点工夫就说服了范所在学校的校长和老师他们立即同意让他继续三年级的学习。我们和他的家人都非常高兴。

    但后来范的故事出现了奇怪的转折。接下来的一个暑假，范又回到我们的暑期学校。主持暑期学校计划的两位优秀教师凯瑟琳·唐纳利·亚当斯(Katharine Donnelly Adams)与特里·约菲·贝纳耶(Terry Joffe Benaryeh)被告知范有退步的危险。这次他们依旧安排希夫勒老师来指导他，奇怪的是范读给她听的时候十分流畅。学校主任和我对此非常不解。最后希夫勒老师将他拉到一旁，问他为什么明明朗读得很好，学校里的三年级老师却认为他的表现差。他害羞地回答道:“不然我怎么回到暑期学校?”我们当中还没有谁遇到过假装的阅读障碍者:范是第一个。

    解码级阅读者的语音与拼写发展

    在阅读半流畅的时期，阅读者的词汇量至少要增加3000个，之前学的 37个常用字母组合已不够用了。要做到这一点，除了要接触下一阶段的常用字母组合，还要学习麻烦的元音韵脚变化与元音字母组合。读一读下面这段文字，想想看这些相当常见的单词中元音字母ea的变化，以及各种可能的发音:

    There once was a beautiful bear who sat on a seat near to breaking and read by the hearth about how the earth was created. She smiled beatifically, full of ideas for the realm of her winter dreams.

    这一堆 ea 双元音的各种发音解释了有些教育者在教英语拼写时的无奈心理，让儿童自己在文章中学习一切，尽管这样做没什么效果。但是如果你仔细考虑一下整个单词中的字母组合，你就会发现一些常见的规律。举例来说，当ea后面接r时，通常只有两种可能(如bear与dear)，但是后面接m、n、p或t时，通常仅有一种可能。对半流畅型的解码级阅读者来说，这一阶段最主要的任务是学完组合后的字母模式，从入门程度进展到认识组成单词的元音字母的“视觉组块”。此外，他们得学会自动目测出这些区别。
    “视觉单词”为初级阅读者的成就添加了重要元素，而视觉组块则会促进处于半流畅阶段的解码级阅读者的发展。儿童看出beheaded是be+head+ed 组合的速度越快，辨别文字的能力也越强，越能将这些词语整合起来。顺便说一下，在进行下一阶段阅读时，这一现象比你想象的还要多很多。

    解码级阅读者的语法、语义及词法发展

    儿童对“文字组成”的认识非常重要，这将让他们从基本的解码发展到流畅的阅读。“两种童年的传说”可能在此重新改写，也可能就此保持一生。阅读研究者基思·斯坦诺维奇(Keith Stanovich)以《圣经》中的马太效应(matthew effect)来描述阅读发展与词汇之间建设性或者破坏性的关系，在文字世界里也是富者越富，穷者越穷。词汇量丰富的儿童，能自动认出旧词，同时飞快地累积新词，一方面来自于纯粹的基础，另一方面则是从新的语境中推敲出新词的含义与功能。这些阅读者准备好进入流畅阅读的阶段了。
    但在词汇贫乏的孩子身上，他们“发育不良”的语义与语法对其口语与书面语言都有影响，如词汇没有发展，那些一知半解的单词就永远不能被熟悉，他们也学不会新的语法结构。流利的单词识别能显著地推动词汇和语法知识的发展。若儿童很少或者从未接触与使用这些词语，面对即将变得日益复杂的材料，解码级阅读者掌握起来就很困难.
    对词汇贫乏的孩子来说，现实更加严峻，因为一般很少有人去讨论伊莎贝尔·贝克(Isabelle Beck)和其同事们最近描述的现象:在大多数课堂上，老师很少会清晰地教授词汇。了解“文字组成”的儿童，阅读水平要领先其他塱证儿童很多年。
    随着阅读与拼写渐渐地发展，儿童不知不觉地学会许多单词的内部组成，了解词干、词根、前缀、后缀等构成我们语言的语素。儿童已经认识了常用的“附着词素”，如s(表复数)、ed(表过去式 )，这些词素经常会附在另一个词后头(moons是由moon与s这个附着词素构成的)。解码级阅读者会接触到许多类型的词素，如前缀(un、pre)与后级(er、ing);而当他们学习这些“视觉组块”时，阅读力与理解力都会加速成长。
    例如，孩子在潜移默化中学到一些有可能改变一个词语法功能的语素:比方说在动词 sing(唱歌)后面加上er就会变成名词 singer(歌手)。他们也开始理解许多词虽然发音不同，但当中所含有的相同词根还是会传达出相关的意思，如sign(签名)、signer(签名者)、signed(签名的过去式)、signing(签名的现在式)、signature(签名的名词)。
    但是，儿童几乎不曾接受过英语这套“词素音位”书写系统后半部分内容的明确指导。正如词法专家马西娅·亨利(Marcia Henry)所提出的诸如sign与signature这些词，正是对儿童说明英文书写系统中词素音位特性的最佳范例，也正好可以说明那些看似不和谐的无声字母，如sign中的g与muscle 中的c。词法知识是儿童发现“文字组成”的一个美好面向，也是各种辅助流畅理解文字的方法中最少被探索的。

    “危险时刻”:迈向流畅理解

    也许只有在童年时，书才对我们的生活有很深的影响……我记得很清楚，突然之间就像钥匙打开了锁，我发现我会读书了不是那种阅读课本上的像火车车厢般一组组的音节组成的句子而是一本真正的书。那是一本平装书，封面上有个男孩，被绳索绑着，嘴巴被堵住，吊在井里面，水已经淹到他的脚踝–这是侦探狄克逊·布雷特(Dixon Brett)的探险故事。整个暑假我都守着这个秘密，不想让任何人知道我会读书了，我想即便是在那个时候我也有点意识到，这是个危险时刻。 ——格雷厄姆·格林

    过去我写了许多与流畅度有关的文章。我和来自海法(Haifa)大学的同事塔米·卡茨尔(TamiKatzir)一起，写出了对流畅度发展性的新定义，在这里我想讲的其实很简单。流畅度与速度无关，而是儿童能够动用他们对一个词的全部知识，包含字母、字母组合、意义、语法功能、词根与词尾等，要快到让他们有足够的时间思考与理解。跟一个词有关的一切都有助于阅读它的速度。
    因此，要变得流畅的关键在于阅读–真正的阅读，与理解。解码阶段的末尾会直接进入格林(Greene)所谓的“危险时刻”，以及金凯德和昆德伦所描述的“平行的世界”。这时候，儿童能非常快速地解码格林所谓的“火车车厢般一组组的音节”，足以推测当中英雄的处境、预测坏人的下一步行动、对女主人公的痛苦感同身受，并且深思他们正在阅读的内容。当然，解码级阅读者还很稚嫩，才刚开始学习如何运用他们不断增长的语言知识与厘清文本的推理能力。约翰·霍普金斯大学的神经科学家劳丽·卡廷(Laurie Cutting)表示，在这些孩子身上，有些非语言的技能有助于阅读理解:例如，通过工作记忆等获得主要执行功能;通过推理和类比等获得理解技能。工作记忆为孩子提供一种临时性的空间来存放字母与文字的信息，刚好让大脑有足够的时间使之与孩子日益增进的概念信息相结合。

    非语言技能:有些非语言技能有助于阅读理解。如通过工作记忆等获得主要执行功能，通过推理和类比等获得理解技能。

    随着解码级阅读者的成长，他们的理解力已经和这些执行过程、字词的认识以及流畅度密不可分，彼此相关。流畅度的逐渐提升让孩子能够进行推理，因为这延长了他们进行推理与思考的时间。流畅度并不确保有更好的理解力，但是会提供整个执行系统额外的时间，好将注意力直接放在最需要的地方，诸如推测、理解、预测或者回过头修正前后不一致的理解或是重新赋子一种意思。
    举个例子，在《夏洛的网》(Charlotte’s web)一书中，解码级阅读者必须明白要是没有夏洛帮忙，小猪韦伯将会有什么样的命运。但是怎样让儿童准备好去理解这个帮助背后错综复杂的关系呢?在这个阶段的阅读中儿童开始学习如何在故事中的明喻与暗喻之间进行推理。这是儿童第一次学习“超越已知信息”。这只是一个开端，最后将对阅读脑做出重大的贡献–思考阶段。
    但是有时候，这个发展阶段的儿童也需要知道，要想正确地理解，必须回头再次读一个单词、句子或是段落。知道何时重读(比方说修正之前错误的解释，或获得更多的信息)以改善理解，我的加拿大同事莫琳·洛维特( Maureen Lovett)称此为“理解力监测”。她对儿童元认知能力的研究特别是对他们思考自己理解文本能力的研究，强调了这个发展阶段的两个方面，一是儿童能够在无法理解某个事物时改变策略，二是在促进这类改变时，教师扮演着重要的角色。在这个阶段的最后，解码级阅读者能够在阅读时以新的方式思考。

    最大程度地投入

    任何年纪的阅读者，尤其是儿童，必定会遇到这样一种情况:阅读时不仅会参与整个故事，还会身陷其中，最为强烈的是感官经验被限制在故事里。——伊丽莎白·鲍恩

    正如每位老师都知道的那样，情绪上的投入通常是能否进入阅读生涯的关键，有些儿童可能就此打住，停留在童年的阅读水平，阅读仅仅是一种看懂事情的方法。在我们能够记忆、预测与推理之后，我们的感觉与认同会强烈影响到童年时理解力的发展;在这个过程中，我们能够更完整地理解，迫不及待地翻到下一页。从解读良好进展到解读流畅的儿童，通常需要来自学校老师、家庭教师与父母的真心实意的鼓励，才能努力面对日益困难的阅读材料。这就像阿梅莉亚需要我来肯定她的努力，范需要希夫勒老师的支持那样。
    不过，感觉还有另一个维度:儿童让自己完全进入《夏洛的网》的能力，或者投入任何故事、任何书籍的能力，“最大程度地投入”。在学会使用所有的字母与解码规则后，在掌握了文字隐藏的生活之后，在各种各样的理解过程展开之后，这种投人的感觉能使儿童终生热爱阅读，培养他们成为理解型阅读者。
    这种永久保持新鲜感的能力形成了阿德里安娜·里奇(Adrienne Rich)“跳跃到超级技巧练习曲”的基础，也形成了阅读发展的最后几个阶段的基础，这几个阶段使我们变成了今日的我们。没有经历过这种跳跃的儿童永远不会知道在伊利诺伊州埃尔多拉多小镇上，坐在教室第三排的那个小女孩，第一次被加冕、第一次结婚，以及第一次被王子亲吻的感觉。

    第6章 阅读者的五大进阶(2)

    我心里明白要是我能一路读回去，巨细靡遗地分析童年时阅读的所有书籍，便可以找到一切的线索。孩童就好像是住在书里一样，而其涉入的程度就是书在孩子生活中的分量。 ——伊丽莎白·鲍恩
    我想要享受自己独处的甜美时光。 ——卢克，9岁

    在我们实验研究的参与者中，我最喜欢的是一位叫做卢克(Luke)的小男孩。参与者们因为各种理由加入我们的治疗计划，而他是以最不寻常的方式参加的。一般来说，适合参与我们研究的阅读困难儿童都由他们的老师推荐，并经过诸多复杂的测试，但卢克不是。他是自荐来参加我们的治疗计划的。当我们问他原因的时候，他很少回答，只是说:“我必须读完咏叹调，但我就是记不住它们!”原来卢克是波士顿儿童歌剧团的团员他是一个有天赋的歌手，但却跟不上其他孩子阅读歌词的进度。

    学校的老师认为卢克的阅读能力很好，只是有点慢而已，因此没有推荐他参与我们的治疗研究。他们并没有注意到，尽管卢克可以正确地阅读但是他的表现和努力之间存在着很大的差异。在经过一系列的测试后，临床经验丰富的研究助理凯瑟琳·比德尔(Kathleen Biddle)冷静地说道，她从未测试过这样的儿童，在认识字母和阅读单词上需要花如此长的时间卢克在这方面的问题非常严重。接着她还说，卢克的智力和他的阅读测试成绩之间的落差相当惊人。
    在治疗计划中，经过我们的努力，卢克终于学会流畅地阅读，能读完他的咏叹调歌词，并从解码阅读转变到流畅阅读。但在这个过程中，他告诉我们，在阅读的高级阶段，要从正确地阅读迈向流畅地阅读有多么困难。
    许多儿童从未完成这样的转变，原因各异，但都不同于卢克的阅读障碍。最近美国国家阅读委员会(National Reading Panel)的一份报告提到:美国国家报告卡显示，有30%~40%的四年级儿童无法完全流畅地阅读无法恰当地理解所读的内容。这是一个恐怖的数字，再加上教师、教科书作者甚至整个学校系统对四年级学生的期望各不相同，情况变得更加糟糕。
    基于某种认识，一套教学方案中整合了这种方式:一到三年级的儿童是“学习阅读”(learn to read)，四至六年级则是“通过阅读来学习”(read to learn)。在儿童三年级结束之后，教师会期待他们有足够的自动阅读技能，能够在日益困难的文本材料中,“靠自己”来学习越来越多的知识。当我教导学生的时候，我也持有这种期待。虽然这不是四年级教师本身的错，但他们大多数从来没有学过如何去教导那些无法流畅阅读的儿童。
    在美国的教育中存在着一项近乎隐形的议题:能够正确阅读却无法流畅阅读的三四年级小学生的命运。除非及时处理这些问题，否则这些儿童的未来注定蒙上尘埃。目前对发展性的阅读障碍及其治疗有相当多的认识但对于那些无法流畅阅读的儿童，这类一般性的问题我们知之甚少。有许多原因会造成这样的结果，例如环境不好、词汇量缺乏，或是教学方法不符合他们的需求。
    这些儿童有些可以成为解码级阅读者，但是阅读的速度还是不快，且无法理解他们阅读的内容。他们当中有些与卢克相似的儿童，有着未被诊断出的“处理速率”型的阅读障碍，稍后我们会详加讨论。不论何种原因，我们的儿童中有近40% “未能发挥学习潜能”，这是对人类潜能的一大浪费，也 是美国教育的一个黑洞，有越来越多的孩子掉进这个半文盲的地狱深渊。

    流畅级阅读者

    孩提时代多半的时光是为他人而活的……当我是个孩子的时 候，每当黑暗降临，我就会关紧门，坐在床上读书，这是一种反抗的举动，是完全为我自己所做的事，也是唯一的一件。那是我 做回自己的方式。 ——琳恩·莎伦·施瓦茨

    在中学学校的书架上，很少有比《吉尼斯世界纪录》所更受欢迎的书。这本书将众多匪夷所思或惊险刺激的事迹分门别类，使其便于查询，正好可以用来比拟新的流畅型阅读脑。处于流畅理 解阅读阶段的阅读者，正在通过各种渠道来学习建立他们个人的知识库。

    阅读《吉尼斯世界纪录》这类书籍的儿童，通常解读很顺利，而且毫 不费力，要是没有脑成像技术，我们根本无法知道他们的大脑是如何运作 的。这时候的老师与父母会因为儿童流利的读书声而相信他们了解所读的 每一个字。

    苏格拉底所抨击的正是书面文字无法“作出回应”这种沉默的情况。因为解码并不意味着理解。即便一名阅读者理解内容里的许多事实，但是 这一阶段的目标更为深远：增进理解字词各类用法的应用能力，如反讽、语态、隐喻与观点表达，这些都已经超越了对字面意思的理解。随着阅读 的需求不断增加，好的阅读者发展出的比喻与反讽等语言知识，会帮助他 们在文本中发现新的意义，促进他们超越文字本身来理解。

    正如心理学家埃伦·温纳在《单词的意义》中所描述的，隐喻是“了解儿童分类技能的一扇窗户”，而反讽 则描绘出作者独特的世界观。举例来说，看看马克·吐温《哈克贝利·费恩历险记》中的一段文字。马克·吐温独特的反讽幽默与 隐喻让许多年轻阅读者理解起来比较困难，甚至有时候不能理解。在下面 这段文字中，哈克和他的朋友吉姆乘着木筏一同在密西西比河旅行，吉姆是一个逃走的奴隶，可能随时被抓捕。在一群人盘查吉姆的身份时，为了 使吉姆逃脱，哈克灵机一动，让吉姆假装得了天花，当别人急忙躲避时， 哈克又被焦虑困扰着：
    他们都走了，我也上了竹筏，但是感觉很糟，情绪低沉，因为我很 清楚地知道自己做错了，我明白试着做些对的事情也于事无补；人在小 时候刚幵始时没有做对，紧急关头来临时，不会有什么可以支持他，让 他信守承诺，所以会挨揍。我又想了一分钟，然后对自己说，等等，假 设你选择对的路走，放弃吉姆，你的感觉会比现在好吗？不会，我说，我会觉得很糟糕，就像现在一样。既然如此，我想，那你干嘛要在做对 的事情会导致麻烦，而做错的事情却不会造成任何麻烦，但付出的代价 一样的时候，学习做对的事情呢？我真不知该如何是好。

    哈克混乱的逻辑与自我谴责正是马克·吐温的高明之处。刚刚成为流 畅级阅读者的儿童会从马克，吐温的反讽与他富有表现力的画面和隐喻中 读出言外之意，欣赏作者试图传达的弦外之音。对于刚从简单的掌握内容 到发现言外之意的年轻读者来说，奇幻和魔法故事是再理想不过的读物了。
    想象托尔金在《魔戒》中描绘善恶的 诸多画面。中土、纳尼亚与霍格沃兹的世界正是培育隐喻、推理、类比等 技巧的温床。因为正像你在这些地方看到的那样，没有什么是永恒的。要 如何逃避戒灵与巨龙，如何做出正确的行动，都取决于一个人的智慧。在 哈克和佛罗多一连串艰辛的旅程中，无论他们的挑战多么困难，他们都学习采取各式各样的作为来应付，而一路相随的年轻阅读者们也是 如此。

    奇幻世界对刚刚从较为具体的认知处理阶段走出来、准备建构概念性 认知的儿童来说是最完美的环境。阅读生命中影响最为深远的时刻，有着 “苏格拉底式对话”的转化性效果。这发生在流畅级阅读者学习进人故事中 的男女主角生活的时刻，可能是沿着密西西比河，或是穿过衣橱。

    在这样的地方，儿童理解力的成长十分惊人，他们在其中学习联结先 前的知识、预测结果的好坏，在每一个充满危险的角落进行推理，修正他 们理解的漏洞，并且解释每一个新的线索与启示，或者以新增的知识来改 变旧有的认知。为了练习这些技能，他们学习在一个单词、一个片段或是 一个想法中层层分析，挖掘深层的意义。在这个漫长的阅读发展阶段中， 他们从了解文本字面的意义，进展到探索文字背后令人惊奇的领域。

    阅读专家理查德·瓦卡曾描述过从“流畅的解码级阅 读者”转变到“策略性阅读者”的这段转变：“阅读者知道要如何在阅读前、 阅读时及阅读后激活先前的知识，决定文章的重点，整合信息，从中推论，提出问题，自我检测并且修正错误的理解。”

    这段旅程通常会一直持续到青少年时期，一路上会遭遇许多障碍，就 像佛罗多、哈利，波特、吉姆与哈克所遭遇的那样。初中的年轻阅读者从 一开始就必须学会以新的方式进行思考，虽然有许多儿童都准备好了，但是也有许多儿童还没有。

    这个步骤是如何发生的？著名教育心理学家迈克尔·普雷斯利提出了一个论点，他认为有两项因素对流畅的理解最有帮助，一 是学习主要内容部分时老师对儿童的明确指导，二是儿童自身对阅读的渴望。学生和教师进行对话有助于他们 询问自己关键性的问题，从而获得他 们所读书本的本质。以安妮玛丽·佩林克萨与安妮·布朗的“相互教学法”为例，老师要尽力协助学生学 会询问自己不理解的部分，总结整篇文章，找出主题，归类并且推测接下来将要发生什么。要是成功的话，这 种“苏格拉底式对话”的变体会让学生终生受用，帮助他们从日益复杂的 文章中提取出意义来。

    流畅级阅读者：他们目标是学会理解反讽、隐喻，超越文字表面。对他们来说，奇幻文学是理想的书籍。在霍格沃兹和纳尼亚的世界里，儿童的理解力会有惊人的提升。

    儿童对阅读的渴望反映出他们沉浸在“阅读生活”中的程度。在儿童 先前的发展中，只有当认知、语言、情绪、社交与指导因素等一切都具备时，才能够理解文本。而普鲁斯特所描写的沉浸在阅读中的“神圣的愉悦”会将 儿童再往前推一步。在卡洛斯·鲁伊斯·萨丰的《风之影》中，描写了令人印象深刻的一幕，把这种观念带 入了生活。书中年幼的男主角丹尼尔正被他父亲带往一个神秘的图书馆, 这是他第一次对书本有更深的体会，他父亲要求他找出他“自己的书”：
    欢迎光临遗忘之书墓园，丹尼尔！每本书都有自己的灵魂，作者的灵魂以及和它一同生活、一起做梦的读者的灵魂。每一次被借阅，每一次某个人的眼睛注视着它的书页，书的灵魂就会再一次成长，再一次增强。

    丹尼尔的父亲清楚地表达了我们沉浸在书本中的那份神奇特质，告诉 我们书本拥有自己的生命，而阅读者只是稍作停留的受邀客人，而不是相反。 丹尼尔对他那本“遗忘之书”的着迷，带出整本书其余的情节，给我们展 现了阅读者如何彻底地进入“书的生命”，其整个人生也因此改变。

    知道青春、敏感与害怕是何种感觉的阅读者比较容易理解丹尼尔的生 活，了解丹尼尔的反应则增加了阅读者的阅历。通过角色认同，年轻阅读者 拓宽了他们生活的边界。在每一次深层的悸动中，他们都会学到一些新的并 且终生难忘的东西。如果被放逐到无人岛，我们当中的哪一个人不会想到鲁 滨逊的故事？在遇到一个骄傲自大的男子时，谁不会联想到简，奥斯汀笔下 的达西甚至暗自希望能发掘出他内心潜藏的善良？此外还有许许多多熟悉的 角色，我们认同这些角色的能力有助于我们自身的建构。

    让我们和书本共舞，在阅读生涯的每个时期，都潜在地改变我们自己。 但是在自主性与流畅理解力成长的时期，我们的可塑性最强。在阅读的第四个发展阶段，年轻人的任务是学习为自己的生命而阅读。随着内容领域的数量与日俱增，无论是在教室里，还是在学校之外，阅读生活都成了一 个安全之所，供年轻人探索千奇百怪的想法与感受。

    流畅而敏感的大脑

    流畅的阅读脑必须独自完成一段大脑皮层的旅程。不仅要扩充解码与 理解的能力，还要产生前所未有的细腻感受。正如将理论神经科学转化为 实用教育方法的杰出翻译家戴维·罗斯狀所言，阅读脑的三项 主要任务是模式识别、规划策略以及感受情绪。流畅级阅读者的脑成像图 清楚地显示出主管我们情绪的边缘系统和认知区联结部分 逐渐被激活。这套系统位于大脑皮层的下方（见图6-1），掌管我们在阅读时感受愉悦、恶心、恐惧与兴奋的能力，进而能够理解佛罗多、哈克与安娜·卡列尼娜的经历。正因为有这样的情感上的影响，我们的注意力与理 解力过程才能被激发或是被麻痹。戴维·罗斯提醒我们，边缘系统这个区 域在帮助我们决定阅读的优先顺序，评价所阅读的内容。

    图6-1 边缘系统

    正如我们在较为年幼的儿童身上所看到的，越是费力阅读，大脑激活得就越多，而且通常激活的区域也更大。记得之前提到，大脑两半球视觉区动用的大量皮质层，以及从视觉区到上颞叶、下顶叶最后到额叶这一 条较为缓慢、效率偏低的路径，反映出年幼的大脑在辨认字母与单词方面的努力程度。图6-2描绘出这条传导缓慢的路径—— 背侧路径，允许儿童有时间认识一个单词中的音位，也允许其有较多时间来察 看与单词有关的各种表征。因此，年轻的大脑会在解码上花费更多的时间。

    图6-2 流畅理解中的大脑（背侧与腹侧路径）

    流畅理解型的大脑则不需要花这么多时间，因为大脑中专门化的区域早已学会表征重要的视觉、语音与 语法信息，并以极快的速度提取这些 信息。根据耶鲁大学、哈斯金斯实验室以及乔治城 大学的肯·皮尤、丽贝卡·山达克等神经科学家的观点，儿童阅读得越流 畅，他们的大脑越倾向于用左半脑中效率较高的系统——腹侧途径，来取代两侧半脑的共同激活。

    流畅理解型大脑：大脑中专门化的区域已经学会表征重要的视觉、语音与语法信 息，并以极快的速度提取这 些信息。

    这套流畅的阅读路径一开始会比幼儿所用的视觉区与枕叶-颞叶区更 为集中与直接，接下来会用到颞叶中区与下区以及额叶部分。随着我们对 每一个单词日渐熟悉，就不再需要费力来分析它了。我们所存储的字母模 式与字词表征，在大脑尤其是左半脑中，会激活一个速度更快的系统。

    看似矛盾的是，这种基本解码过程在左脑专门化发展，反而激活了更 多两侧半脑来处理意义与理解过程。这样的转变反映着阅读与人类发展的 改变。我们不只是信息的解码级阅读者。

    这时候流畅理解型的大脑即将获得阅读脑进化中最得天独厚的一份礼 物一时间。当解码几乎自动化，年轻的流畅型阅读脑，每一毫秒都在学 习整合更多隐喻、推理、类比、情绪背景和经验知识。在阅读发展中，大脑阅读的速度第一次可以快到足够进行思考和体验情绪。这份时间的礼物， 是我们得以思考“世间万物，美好至极”的生理基础。在阅渎的行为中， 没有什么比这更重要的了。

    专家级阅读者

    要彻底分析阅读时我们究竟在做些什么，恐怕只有心理学家 可以完成。毕竟这需要描述许多人类大脑运作中最错综复杂的层 面，并弄清一个个复杂的故事。这些故事揭示出文明在自身历史 中学到的、意义最为重大的表现。 ——埃德蒙·休伊爵士

    在前言中我曾提到，埃德蒙，休伊爵士在上面这段文字中捕捉到了完 全流畅的专家级阅读者，如何在阅读的进化中体现出所有文化、生物与智 能的转变，以及在阅读者本身的“自然史”中所有认知、语言与情感转变。 休伊爵士1908年的这段话可能是有史以来对阅读最为清晰的描述。现代的 认知神经科学则强化了休伊的猜想——在仅仅半秒钟的阅读中，就动用了 大量复杂而广泛的大脑网络。

    半秒钟几乎就是专家级阅读者花在辨认出任何单词上的时间。在迈克尔·波斯纳与其他许多认知神经学家的研究基础上，我现在画出完全进入专家级层次的阅读脑运作过程的时间轴（见图6-3）。因 为阅读中的各种过程都是相互作用的，任何一种将阅读线性化的概念（如时 间线）都必须经过质化。有些是平行发生的，有些是先激活，然后在需要将 增加的概念信息进行整合的时候再次激活。举个例子，观察你在阅读下面这 句话时发生了什么，“船头被一个巨大的红色弓形物体所覆盖”（The bow on the boat was covered by a huge red bow.），大多数人在boat获得额外的概念性信息后，不得不回头第二次读再次激活这个单词，以判定词义。

    图6-3 阅读时间轴

    这条时间轴呈现出的那个时刻正是我所期待的：认知、语言与感受历 程，以及多处脑部区域与用于阅读的数亿神经元几乎瞬间融合到一起。接 下来，这些描述较为专业，也许并不适合每一个人。如果读者想跳过这个 部分，可以翻到“语言、语法与词法进程”部分，直接了解为何这一切 会在你和每一个专家级阅读者身上产生如此非凡的影响。

    认知——每个单词都有500毫秒的辉煌时刻

    （1） 0~100毫秒：将专家级阅读者的注意力转移到字母上

    一切阅读都始于注意力——实际上，是好几种注意力。当专家级阅读 者注视一个单词时（如bear），会首先进行3项认知操作：
    @从我们正在做的事情中抽离出来；
    @把我们的注意力转移到新的焦点上（将我们带入文本〕；
    @专注于的字母与单词。

    这三个步骤是再次定位注意力的网络，脑成像研究显示这三项操作分别动用到脑部的不同区域（见图6-4）。注意力的脱离要动用顶叶后侧的区域；注意力的转移涉及中脑中负责眼动的区域上丘； 而专注于某个东西则要动用我们的丘脑，它相当于大脑的内部交换机，负 责协调大脑中五大区域传出的所有信息。

    图6-4 注意力网络

    还有另一套注意力网络对阅读的每个阶段都极其重要，一般被称为执行注意力网络。执行系统位于额叶深处，占了相当大的一块被称为扣带回的区域，这个区域的前侧与许多阅读专门化功能密切 相关：指导视觉系统聚焦在给定字母或单词的独特视觉特征上（比如初级阅读者必须注意到bear中b的方位）；协调其他额叶区域传来的信息，尤 其是有关字词意义的语义过程的部分（比如说考虑你是否想要一个bear hug）；以及控制工作记忆这类特殊记忆的使用。

    认知科学家并没有将记忆看做单 一种类。大多数人所认为的记忆，即 我们回想个人信息与发生在我们身上 各种事件的能力，心理学家称之为情 景记忆，以和代表我们脑中存储的字词与事实的语义记忆区分。他们还区分出陈述性记忆与程序性记忆。陈述 性记忆是从我们知识库中提取知识内容（what）的系统，比如独立宣言是 于何时签署的；程序性记忆是我们知识中的动作技能（how），比如说怎样使用录影机，怎样骑自行车，或怎样钉钉子。

    语义记忆：人脑中存储的字词与事实。包括陈述性记忆 与程序性记忆。陈述性记忆 是从我们的知识库中提取知识内容的系统，程序性记忆是我们知识中的动作技能。

    下一种记忆类型对识字最有帮助——工作记忆。工作记忆是当我们必 须暂时掌握信息时所使用的，如此才能用以来执行一项任务。这是我们的“认知黑板”或是“便笺本”。工作记忆是专家级阅读者的关键，确保我们可以 在大脑中暂时记住一个词初始时的视觉形式，让我们有足够的时间加入与 这个词有关的其他信息（如字义或语法运用）。

    流畅级阅读者在辨认一串字符时，尤其是含有重要的语义与语法信息 的字符，他们会同时使用工作记忆与联想记忆。联想记忆会帮助我们回想 起长久以来存储的信息，比如我们的第一辆自行车、我们的初吻与其他值得记忆的时刻。

    （2）50~150毫秒：辨认字母与大脑的变化

    阅读学习的一个关键步骤牵涉到掌控文字具有的感知特质，如 此视觉系统才能有效地和语言系统对话。这样的学习成果会在前视 觉皮质区中形成一套新的运算结构，在阅读之前这是不存在的。 ——托马斯·卡尔

    学习阅读会改变大脑的视觉皮质区。因为视觉系统具有辨识物体和专 门化的能力，专家级阅读者的视觉区域会开始加入负责辨识字母、字母模式与单词的视觉图像的细胞网路。这些区域在专家级阅读者大脑中的运作速度极快，这要归功于几项非常重要的“处理原则”，其中有些已经被 20世纪的心理学家唐纳德·赫布(Donald Hebb)描述过。
    赫布提出“细胞生产线”的概念，各群细胞会聚集，以工作单位的形式来运作，以形成表征。如果专家级阅读者看到一个常见的字母模式或是bear 这样的单词，会激活一套专属的网络细胞，而不是激活大量互不相干的个别细胞去负责辨识字母中的直线、斜线与圆圈。这个操作性原则生动地体现了生物学准则“同步激活的神经细胞总是集合在一起”，它也是大脑创造大型神经回路、联结各细胞集合的基本工具，从而将整个大脑的网络联结成一个系统。专家级阅读脑是名副其实的网络拼贴画，大脑中每一种心理表征,从视觉与拼写表征到语音表征,无所不有。正如之前在斯蒂芬·科斯林的想象字母研究中所见，我们可以在瞬间提取这些表征，哪怕刚开始的刺激不是真的出现在眼前，而仅仅是在我们大脑的眼睛中。
    另一项对阅读自动化的贡献，来自看似简单的眼睛扫视文本的动作。这看起来顺利且毫不费力，但正如眼动专家基思·雷纳(Keith Rayner)所指出的那样，这只是假象而已。研究揭示出当我们从视觉区的中央(视网膜的中央凹)收集信息时，眼睛会短暂地停止跳动，出现注视点(fixation)随后则会持续进行微弱的运动，称为眼跳(saccade)。在这期间至少有10%的时间，我们的眼睛会稍微往回看去，拣选之前的信息。成人阅读时，一般的眼跳范围约是8个字母，儿童更少。人类眼睛一项卓越的设计是让我们能够在用中央凹的外围区域继续阅读每行文字的同时,以副中央凹区“向前看”。现在我们知道在读英文时，实际上看的是注视点右边14至15个字母，若读的是希伯来文，看的则是左边同样数量的字母。

    因为使用中央凹与副中央凹区的信息，我们总是可以预览将来要读到的一部分内容。稍后——约莫几毫秒的时间，预览的部分变得较易辨认，这对我们阅读过程的自动化有进一步的贡献。如雷纳所言，眼球运动与其规则中最令人惊叹的是眼睛和大脑之间的密切联系。

    这样的联结显而易见。看看刚刚那条时间线,在第50至150毫秒之间，发生了许多视觉与拼写表征过程;接下来，在150至200毫秒之间，额叶的执行系统与注意系统被激活。这是我们的执行系统影响下一步眼球运动的时刻。执行系统会决定此时收集到的字母与词语的相关信息是否已经足够，若是足够的话，则会在第250毫秒时进入下一回合的跳视，不然必须回去收集更多的信息。
    另一项对自动化有所贡献的是眼球运动的顺序，这关系到判断一组字母是否形成我们语言系统中可接受的一个模式(如bear相对于rbea)，以及一个像词的字母串是否真的是一个词(如bear相对于reab)。大约在时间线上的第150毫秒时，一些枕叶-颞叶的相关区域(37区)变得重要起来。
    之前曾讨论过,斯坦尼斯拉斯·戴哈尼(Stanislas Dehaene)与布鲁斯·麦坎德利斯(Bruce McCandliss)这两位研究人员认为儿童学会阅读后，这区域的一些神经元会因为某个书写系统的拼写模式而产生专门化。他们假设这项能力由物体识别的神经回路进化而来。若真是这样，维克多·雨果对字母及其特征源自于自然形象的观察——Y与河、S与蛇以及C与新月不仅耐人寻味，也相当有先见之明。戴哈尼的团队认为原来识别蛇、型与月亮的区域被用来识别字母。视觉专门化的这个改变在专家级阅读者身上达到顶峰，在学会阅读之前，他们的视觉皮质区不存在这样的神经回路。这样的变化凸显出文字对人类大脑改变的主要方式。到目前为止，一切都发展良好。
    然而，戴哈尼的团队继续提出一个争议性更大的假设，他们推测37区这群专门化的神经元，变成了“视觉单词形成区域”，使阅读者能够在150毫秒左右，就判断出一组字母串是不是一个真正的词。另一个英国的认知神经团队不同意这个假设，并提出一个更为复杂的版本。借助一种对时间非常敏感的脑成像技术，他们描绘出在前几毫秒大脑中各类受到激活的结构，发现早在37区将一个词形信息带到意识区之前，额叶可能已经将字母的信息对应到了音位。但是目前还不确定这些激活的额叶区域是否真的参与语音对应或规划的工作，因为它们也有可能与执行功能有关。但是这些脑成像图显示出，专家级阅读一开始几个过程几乎是同步发生的，令人感觉不可思议。
    不论哪一个团队的假设是对的，他们的研究都凸显出大脑在接下来的100至200毫秒之间，每次重新启动字母文字原则时的快速反馈与前馈机制。

    (3)100~200毫秒:拼写与语音的结合

    字母原则的本质是某种语言中字母-发音的对应规则，对这些规则的熟练掌握会改变大脑的运作方式。没有学会这些规则的人，成年后其大脑会和熟悉这些规则的人不一样，而且他们对本身语言的发音掌握较不准确。葡萄牙的研究人员设计了一系列有意思的研究，凸显出读写能力对大脑产生的极大影响。他们研究了葡萄牙的偏远乡镇，那里的人因为社会或政治原因而没有机会上学。他们将这群人与同样是在乡村、但是之后会想办法学会识字的类似群体作比较，结果发现在行为、认识语言与神经上，这两群人都表现出差异。语言任务的目的在于显示出我们是如何感知与理解我们语言中的音位的(例如试着念出birth，但是不要发出b音)，结果发现只有识字的人才能发掘到谈话中的音位。识字有助于他们理解单词由音节组成，可以拆分与重组。在要求重复无意义的词时(如benth)，文盲受试者无法马上做到，而且会试着将无意义的词转变成一个类似的真词(如 birth)。

    学习字母原则对大脑的影响:学习字母原则，不仅会改变大脑视觉皮质区的运作，也会改变听觉与语音的运作，如知觉、辨别、分析、语音的表征与操作等。

    后来，在这两群人六十几岁的时候，又进行了一次脑部扫描，结果发现他们之间的差异变得更大。文盲组的大脑以额叶来处理语言工作(就好像这些是需要记忆或解答的问题)，而识字组则是使用颞叶中的语言区。也就是说，成长背景相似的乡村居民:他们的大脑会根据识字与否，采取完全不同的方式来进行语言处理。学习字母原则,不仅会改变大脑视觉皮质区的运作,也会改变听觉与语音的运作如知觉、辨别、分析、语音的表征与操作等。目前的语音研究显示出在第150至 200毫秒之间，这些过程在皮质区的多处地方有大量的结构性活动包括额叶、颞叶与部分顶叶区(见图 6-5 )，以及右侧小脑。

    图6-5 语音处理区

    阅读时使用的具体语音技巧取决于阅读者的水平、要读的文字以及所使用的书写系统。高度规则化、高频率出现的单词,如“地毯”(carpet),比“语音”(phonological)这样艰深的单词所需的语音处理过程要少得多。正如我们之前在阅读早期阶段所看到的，初级英文阅读者痛苦地组装字母的音位表征,学习语音合成,使之组成一个词。这个过程有时会花上好几年时间。相反语法较为规则的语言，如德语或意大利语，阅读者只需花一年时间去努力解码，就可以很快学会这些比较固定的字母-发音对应规则。
    不同的字母书写系统影响到时间线上的皮质层部署它的语言区域。学习较为规则的芬兰语、德语与意大利语字母文字的人，会比英语和法语的阅读者更早使用颞叶区，并且使用的区域更为广泛。英语和法语的阅读者也使用到颞叶区，但是他们多半将这一区域用来确认文字，使用的是戴哈尼的团队所假设的那个“视觉单词形成区域”。英语和法语较为强调词素与不规则词语(如yacht)，因此在第100至200毫秒这段时间，可能需要更多的视觉与拼写表征知识。同样的原则也适用于中文与日文的汉字阅读者，比起其他语言的成人阅读者，他们会动用更多左脑枕叶-颞叶区后侧围绕 37 区的区域,以及右脑的枕叶区。汉字阅读者的语音区域在这期间(第100 至 200毫秒)并不特别活跃。

    (4)200~500 毫秒:知道一个字的一切

    人对一个字的认识总是不断地演进着，对阅读者来说如此，对研究它的科学家来说也是如此。一些认知神经科学家在语义处理的阶段追踪了字词的各种意义与关联被激活时，大脑电流活动的情况。举例来说，我在塔夫茨的同事菲尔·霍尔库姆(Phil Holcomb)研究我们如何处理前后文意不协调的句子(如“龙虾吞下了一条美人鱼”)。他运用一种称为“诱发反应电位”的技术，结果发现在我们读到前后不协调的字眼(如“美人鱼”)后的 200~600 毫秒之间，大脑爆发了大量电流活动，在400毫秒时达到顶点。这类研究为我们提供了两点关于时间轴的信息：首先，这表示对一般阅读者来说，第一次提取语义信息的时间为200毫秒左右;其次，这显示出若是文字和我们预期的语义不一致，我们会一直增加信息，特别是在400 毫秒左右时。
    不论是在童年，还是专家级的阅读时期，我们对一个词所确立的知识越多，阅读的正确性就越高，速度也越快。想想在前几章中读到的这个吓人的单词——“语素音位”(morphophonemic)。在你阅读本书之前，这个单词可能会降低你的阅读速度。但是现在，它所引发的知识会加速你的识别与理解。我们阅读一个词的速度可以有多快，很大程度上是由伴随着这个词被激活的、我们所拥有的语义知识的数量和质量来决定的。就跟童年的早期阶段一样，成人的词汇知识也是一个连续统一体，从未知到认识再到熟练。
    至于一个词到底位于统一体上的哪个位置，则取决于它的频率(在文本中出现的次数)个人的熟悉程度与接触时间的早晚。想想“冗长的单字”（sesquipedalian)这个词，正如散文家安妮·法迪曼(Anne Fadiman)所说:这个词看起来就像是一个“长的单词”，的确是这样。在她的《一个普通读者的自白》( Confessions of Common Reader)中，法迪曼列举出了-串可以测试任何专家级阅读者勇气的稀有单词:基督一性论者monophysite)、有毒的(mephitic)、全协和音(diapason)、容易打开的(adapertile)与巫技(goetic)是少数几个打败我的单词。法迪曼的单词便是在文字熟悉度的连续统一体的最底端，削低我们的效率，即便这个词当中有我们极其熟悉的词素，也只是在用一线希望折磨我们。
    芬兰的研究人员发现处理语音与语义时都会用到上颞叶区域，若是遇到连续统一体中“已构建好”的那端的单词，激活的速度就会更快。而且如前所述，一个字的语义“邻居”(相关的单词和意义)对我们单词知识的贡献越丰富，辨认一个词的速度也越快。此原则适用于各年龄层的人:你对一个词的认识越好，你知道得越多，那么你读得越快。此外，拥有一个联系丰富的、已经构建好的词汇和语义网络也会直接反应在大脑结构上:在 200~500毫秒之间，这片广泛分布的网络反映出将要负责处理听觉的各种语音过程和精密的语义网络。激活的网络越多，大脑阅读这个单词的整体效率也越高。

    语言——语法与词法进程

    与语义过程一样，语法信息在200毫秒后的某个时间点，似乎会自动地使用额叶的区域，如布洛卡区、左半脑的颞叶区以及右侧小脑。语法过程几乎都是与相联系的文本(如句子或是段落)一同使用，通常需要一些前后回馈的操作(好像在读 the bow on the boat这个短语时所用到的)，以及一定程度的工作记忆的运用。bear与bow这类单词在语法上具有模棱两可的信息，需要段落或句子的上下文来传达更多的信息。

    语法过程:语法过程几乎都是与相联系的文本一同使用，通常需要一些瞻前顾后的操作，以及一定程度的工作记忆的运用。

    语法信息在本质上和语义知识、词法信息都是相连的，而这些集合系统一起工作的能力会促进在 200~500毫秒期间的效率。例如，你要是知道ed 这个词素是表示过去时态的语法标志，就会很快地认出与理解bowed 这类单词。如图6-6所示，我们对一个单词认识得越多，脑部不同区域的累积性与整合度也就越高，阅读这个单词时理解得就越好，速度也越快。

    图6-6 大脑如何大声的读出一个单词

    一旦开始了解大脑阅读一个单词所需的条件，我们就不禁要问，我们究竟是怎样阅读整句话、整个段落的，更不用说整本书了。要了解这些我们需要从词语的时间轴上移开，考虑一下阅读以及理解《白鲸记》、物理学家史蒂芬·霍金的《时间简史》以及进化生物学家肖恩·卡罗尔(Sean Carroll)的《蝴蝶、胚胎与斑马:探索演化发生学之美》(Endless Forms Most Beautiful)时激动人心的成就感。

    感受——时光飞逝，阅读如何改变我们

    阅读是一种经验。任何一个文人的传记，都必须有相当的篇幅来描述他们的读物及其阅读年代，因为就某种层面来说，我们所阅读的成就了我们自身。 ——约瑟夫·爱泼斯坦
    对每一位思考者来说，每句诗每过几年都将以崭新的面貌显现，在他身上唤起不同的共鸣……这种阅读经验最棒、最神奇之处在于: 学习阅读时越能明辨、感悟与联想，我们在读每个思绪、每首诗时，越是能读出其独特之处及与众不同的地方，还有其确切的限制。 ——赫尔曼·黑塞

    专家级阅读改变成人生活的程度，主要取决于我们所读的书籍，以及我们阅读的方法。也许最能形容这类改变的，不是认知研究或脑成像图而是诗人。威廉·斯塔福德(William Staford)在文章中曾提到“你早已被赋予了注意力的品质”，这句话清楚地表现出这些改变的第一要素。他也许没有想过讨论注意力网络或专家级阅读者，不过这项几乎得来毫不费工夫的阅读专注力特质会随着我们学习阅读的过程而改变，正如德国小说家赫尔曼·黑塞(Hermann Hesse)所言:“越是明辨，越是感性，越是具有联想力。”
    随着我们逐渐成熟，面对文字时，我们不仅会动用词语时间轴上所列的一切认知才能，也会联系到我们的生活经验，我们的喜爱、遗憾、高兴痛苦、成功与失败都会左右我们的阅读生涯。我们对阅读的诠释通常会引导我们超越作者的思想，向新的方向思考。这点可以解释为什么我们在17岁、37岁、57岁或77岁时都会阅读《圣经》《米德尔马契》(Middlemarch)或是《卡拉马佐夫兄弟》(The Brothers Karamazov)等书而且每次都有全新的感受。我想用后面这两本书中的几个例子来说明，当我们每次将注意力的特质和生活经验带人阅读的过程中时，会造成多么不同的结果，我们可能错失了什么，或是获得了不同的见解。
    首先，介绍下面这个段落的背景:在19世纪乔治·艾略特的小说《米德尔马契》里，美丽而又满怀理想的年轻女主角多罗西娅·布鲁克(Dorothea Brooke)不顾多方的劝阻，执意要嫁给老迈的学者卡索邦(Casaubon)。她之所以这样做，主要是想帮助他完成其充满雄心壮志的文学巨作。在罗马的蜜月生活中，卡索邦去了很多图书馆，多罗西则只能沉浸在她自己的想法里。

    打从结婚以来，多罗西娅还不完全明白，却已感受到一份令人窒息的沮丧，原本梦想要在她丈夫脑海中寻找的远大前景和大片新鲜空气，如今却为厅堂与那些看似哪里也到不了的蜿蜒廊道所取代。

    艾略特在这段描述中使用了一系列的比喻，帮助我们揣测多罗西娅的心情,在看完卡索邦的笔记之后,多罗西娅明白他其实没有什么伟大的巨作更写不出什么书来，记录在卡索邦那些小白卡片上的，除了毫无关联的漫天思绪，什么都没有。
    这段节选自《米德尔马契》的片段，说明了专家级阅读的几个方面，首先，如阅读者没有读出隐含的意义，那么之后再读到后面五十几页中的精微玄妙之处，可能还是读不出什么。这些比喻向我们展示了“注意力在了解文章各层次的隐藏意义时的关键作用。少了这个方面，我们可能就读不出多罗西娅的困境。
    其次，这种标准的19世纪的句子彰显出熟悉语法结构对理解语义的重要性，以及语法形式如何强化作者试图表达的意思。在这段话的原文中艾略特连用了4个从句与6个短句，才最终表达了女主角“哪里也去不了的困境。这就好像她发挥了语法迂回的潜能，重新创造了代表卡索邦贫乏思想的无尽的厅堂。在句子的结尾，句型结构加上比喻修辞的组合，将我们的注意力更深一层地引导至对多罗西娅现实处境的揣测，对她产生更深一层的认同。
    第二个段落出现在前一段文字之后，这次是站在卡索邦先生的角度来进行叙述，一般阅读者可能记忆不深刻，这也不是没有道理的:

    他之前对她崇拜正确事物的能力表示赞赏:现在他突然感到一阵忍惧，因为他想着这样的能力可能会被另一种假设取代——只看到许多美好的结果，对研究它们需要付出的代价却没有任何概念。

    我已经看过好几遍《米德尔马契》。但直到去年读到这段关于卡索邦的片段时，才有了另一种想法。30年来，我完全站在多罗西一边，同情她理想的幻灭。直到现在我才开始理解卡索邦的恐惧、他的无法完成的希望以及不为年轻的多罗西娅所理解的另一种形式的幻灭。我从来没有想过自己有一天会同情起卡索邦来，但是现在，我大方地承认我确实同情他。我想艾略特也是如此，或许理由和我类似。在阅读改变我们生活的时候，我们的生活也改变了我们的阅读。
    为了描述最高层次的专家级阅读所动用的一切智能过程，现在我要以世界上最美好的一本书——陀思妥耶夫斯基的《卡拉马佐夫兄弟》中一个相当艰深难懂的段落为例。在这本深刻的俄罗斯小说里，愤世俗的哥哥伊凡对他性格温和、社会经验很少的弟弟阿辽沙说了一个关于善恶的故事——“大审判官”。这个故事里的一个情节描述了一段紧张的对话，作者把它设定在令人畏惧的大审判中。在这段对话中，90岁的老僧侣以你(you)、他(he,him)来讽刺神性。来看看你是否能达到陀思妥耶夫斯基对读者的要求，观察你自己要了解这段对话所需执行的任务，这段对话是僧侣在谴责沉默的“他”并讲述为何“他”必死。

    正是这种一致崇拜的需要，给每一个人以至从开天辟地以来的整个人类带来了最大的痛苦。为了达到普遍一致的崇拜，他们用刀剑互相残杀。他们创造上帝，互相挑战:“丢掉你们的上帝，过来崇拜我们的上帝，不然就立刻要你们和你们的上帝的命!”……你已知道，你不能不知道人类天性的这个根本的秘密，但是你却拒绝了对你提出的那面可以使一切人无可争辩地对你崇拜的唯一的、绝对的旗帜，——那一面地上的面包的旗帜，而且是以为了自由和天上的面包的名义而加以拒绝的。你瞧，你以后又做了什么。而且又是以自由的名义!………你不接过人们的自由，却反而给他们增加些自由，使人们的精神世界永远承受着自由的折磨。你希望人们能自由地爱，使他们受你的诱惑和俘虏而自由地追随着你。取代严峻的古代法律，改为从此由人根据自由的意志来自行决定什么是善，什么是恶…………更给他们留下许多烦恼事和无法解决的难题……

    经验对阅读的影响:阅读塑造我们的经验，经验也会改变我们对文字的理解。青少年时期读过的经典文学作品，现在再读一遍，我们必定会有不同的感受，而且现在的感受会比当时更深刻、更丰富。

    思考一下你刚读的这一大段想要读懂的话。首先，要知道僧侣到底说了什么;其次，要明白为何伊凡要把这个故事讲给阿辽沙听;最后，要知道天真的阿辽沙对于个人善恶观的偏见有何反应。
    在你开始阅读之前，我所提供的背景资料已经在你的脑中激发出一套预测、期望与计划的执行过程。这些过程为你准备好了一个特定的文学风格(俄国小说)与历史背景(在审判时僧侣与神的对话)。接下来，当你解读文字时，你将词语的表征临时储存(工作记忆)，来“维持”高度复杂的知识，不只是单个单词和短句(共同崇拜)的意义与语法的运用，还有文中许多艰深甚至不合常理的假设(崇拜的痛苦、自由的折、自由选择的诱惑)。与此同时，这些概念的意义激活了关于一般背景知识的长期记忆——19世纪的俄罗斯、大审判、善恶的哲学思考与陀思妥耶夫斯基小说的警世目的。
    接下来，在所有的可能性中，你开始揣摩可能的意思，并产生一系列关于伊凡和阿辽沙、审判官和“他”、陀思妥耶夫斯基和读者之间关系的假设例如你可能对僧侣真正所说的内容以及为何而说构建了新的想法。在读这些段落时，你检查自己的理解力，确保你的推论符合你所存储的背景知识。若在所读和推论之间出现偏差，你会再读一次，修正你对反常之处或者全文的理解。

    智能进化永不止步

    从字词的意义与语法需求到记忆中要维持的诸多概念性假设，每一个文本的整体复杂度都会影响到专家级阅读者的理解力(见图6-7)。正如上面摘录的文字所描述的，智力的变通性会先设法让与传统假设相抵触的概念具备意义(如自由的负面价值、谴责与迫害神性的僧侣)。如同我们在《米德尔马契》的那段中所看到的那样，理解力会受到阅读者对文本的所有认知的影响。伊凡与卡索邦先生也许不会随着年龄的增长而有所改变，但我们对他们的了解却与日俱增，在37岁、57岁与77岁时读到的，一定要比在17岁时多。

    图6-7专家级阅读者的理解力

    文本与生活经验之间是双向的动态关系:我们将自己的生活经验带人文本，而文本也会改变我们的生活经验。在捕捉这种互动关系方面，没有人能比得上阿尔维托·曼古埃尔(Alberto Manguel)，他在《阅读史》(4History afReading)中，将这种关系描述得淋漓尽致:整本书就是他与文本如何相互改变的历史。有时，我们沉浸到另一个思维世界之后，就会像曼古埃尔那样，自我浮现出来，以崭新的、充满勇气的方式来扩展思考、感受与行动的能力，不论这将我们带向何方，我们和昔日的自己都不同了。

    这样的经验和生理方面也有关系，这意味着当阅读达到专家级的层次之后，会有神经层面的改变。认知神经学家马塞尔·贾斯特(Marcel Just)与他在卡耐基梅隆大学的研究团队对此提出了一个假设，他们认为专家级阅读者在阅读中做出推论时，大脑中至少有两个阶段的过程，一是产生假设，二是将假设整合到他们对文本的固有知识中。

    专家级阅读者所用的这些技能，类似于《魔戒》的主角弗罗多在他最后一段旅程中，对佯装他向导的咕噜姆的理解。弗罗多看出来咕姆对魔戒反常的痴迷，在这种情况下，他首先强迫自己分析重构咕姆每个举动的真正意涵，然后将这些想法与他的行动相结合，最后预测出咕姆下一步企图做什么。
    跟弗罗多一样，专家级阅读者动用不同的理解过程、语义过程与语法过程，以及大脑皮质层中与此相关的区域，来理解文本。举例来说，研究人员发现当阅读者推测一段文字可能的含义时，在布洛卡区周围两个半脑的额叶系统都被激活了。此外，每当处理的文字在语义与语法上较为复杂时,额叶区就会与颞叶的韦尼克区、部分顶叶区以及右小脑相互作用。其次同样重要的发现是，当专家级阅读者将产生的推论与原本的背景知识进行整合时，似乎会动用整个右半脑与语言相关的系统。这项推理过程的第个步骤对右半脑系统运作的需求远远超过初级阅读者早期单纯的解码任务。
    在阅读发展过程中，右半脑的语言系统具有明显的改变，变得更为泛，就像左半脑的语言系统一样。最终，在专家级阅读者的脑部，更多地涉及了左右半脑的布洛卡区，以及包含右角回与右小脑的多处颞叶与顶叶区域。根据贾斯特的研究，图6-7向我们展示了专家级阅读者的理解型大脑，与初级阅读者相比，呈现出更美好的变化:专家级阅读者通过使用大脑的许多部位，鲜明地向我们证明了智能进化正在持续扩张的事实。
    如果我能用海明威毕生寻求的“真实的句子”来总结阅读发展的自然史那么肯定就是下面这句:阅读的发展永不结束，阅读这个永无止境的故事将永远继续下去，将眼睛、舌头、文字和作者带往一个新的世界，在那里鲜活的真相无时无刻不在改变大脑与读者。

    下一章，我们将进人另一个截然不同的阅读“自然史”，那就是阅读障碍者的故事，还有那些最终可能带来希望的遗传学研究。我们将探讨无法识字的阅读脑的过去与未来。因此，我们将探索未知的领域，在更为广阔的背景下探索文字的成就。在这个世界里，文字与图像等各种语言难以表达的形式相遇。

    第三部分 不会读的大脑也有高品质的思维:阅读脑的变奏

    对男孩子来说，从10岁起开始阅读与书写持续3年左右，是一段相当合理的时间。男孩与父母都不能因为个人好恶而延长或缩短这段时间。当然他们必须研读字母，达到能读能写的程度，但不应要求迅速地达到完美的境界，因为这段时间背后的自然过程要缓慢得多。 ——柏拉图

    第七章 阅读脑的补偿机制

    孩子最大的恐惧就是没人爱，而被拒绝则是他们最害怕的地狱。我想世上每个人或多或少都有过被拒绝的感受，再加上犯罪和罪恶感，这就成为一部人类的故事。得不到渴求的爱，有的孩子会踢猫一脚，然后怀着罪恶感瞒住这个秘密;有的会偷窃，用钱使自己感觉到被爱;另一种则是征服世界——总之就是罪恶感与报复，然后是更深的罪恶感。 ——约翰·斯坦贝克
    我宁愿清洗浴缸周围的霉菌，也不想读书。 ——一个阅读障碍儿童

    苏格兰赛车手杰基·斯图尔特(Jackie Stewant)在退休之前曾赢过27次大奖赛冠军，还被查尔斯王子封为爵士，可以说是全世界最成功的赛车手之一。他同样是个阅读障碍者。最近，在一个国际科学研讨会中，他以下面这段话结束了他的演讲:“你永远不知道阅读障碍者的感受，不论你在这个领域工作了多久，就算你自己的孩子是阅读障碍者，你还是不会理解整个童年都被人羞辱的感觉，每天都有人教育你，使你相信你永远做不成任何事情。

    身为一个阅读障碍者的母亲，我知道斯图尔特是对的。全世界阅读障碍者的故事都是一样的。一个聪明的孩子，假设是个男孩子，进入学校时满怀生命力与热情，和其他孩子一样努力学习阅读，但和其他人不同的是，他似乎学不会阅读。父母告诉他试着再努力一些，老师说他“没有发挥潜力”，其他孩子则说他是“智障”或“笨蛋”。他接收到的那些强烈信息都在说他做不成什么大事，离开学校时他与刚进人学校时那个性格热情的孩子大不相同。只因为无法学会阅读，这样的悲剧不断重复上演着，次数多到让我们只能叹息。
    幸运的话，实际上，要非常幸运，挣扎中的年轻阅读者会遇到贵人相助，帮他发现自己“意想不到的天赋”。斯图尔特说要是他没有发现自己可以赛车的话，一定会“进监狱，甚至更糟糕”，因为他曾学过如何用枪。一直到很久以后，他的两个儿子被诊断出阅读障碍，他才了解到自己小时候的生活到底是怎么一回事。他发誓绝不会让孩子们再经历这一切。
    晚期诊断是阅读障碍故事中常见的情况。金融家查尔斯·施瓦布Charles Schwab)、作家约翰·欧文(John Irving)与辩护律师戴维·博伊斯(David Boies)等人，一直到他们的孩子被诊断出阅读障碍时，才惊觉自己也有同样的问题。拉塞尔·科斯比(RussellCosby)也是直到他的侄子恩尼斯(Ennis)在大学里被教育与阅读障碍研究专家卡罗琳·奥利弗(Carolyn Oliver)诊断出阅读障碍时，才发现自己也有阅读障碍。
    有时这些故事是幸福的结局。在被好几所高中拒收后，保罗·奥法里(Paul Orfalea)最后成了图文快印行业巨头金考的创始人，大卫·尼尔曼成为美国捷蓝航空公司的总裁，约翰·钱伯斯成为思科的首席执行官。

    童年经历的影响:儿童如果有不断失败的经验，就可能对生活感到恐惧，童年的梦魇可能影响其一生。我们现在已经知道如何判断儿童是否会有阅读障碍，应当在他们经历失败之前进行诊断。

    当然这样的圆满结局并不常见。在对阅读障碍者的研究中，让我和我的许多同事最为沮丧的是，阅读障碍者人生失败的轮回在很大程度上是可以避免的。我们现在已经知道如何判断出许多可能会有阅读障碍的儿童，我们可以在他们开始经历种种挫败之前就诊断出来，否则这些经历会对儿童造成很大的伤害。儿童如果有好几年不断失败的经验，常常会对生活感到恐惧。斯图尔特曾透露，成年后无论他赢得多少奖项，或拥有多少车子与飞机，他也无法真正地认同自己。他童年的梦太长，即便后来跳出了阅读障碍者的轮回，早期学习时遭遇挫折的恐惧仍对他有持续的影响。
    研究有些大脑为何无法学会书写语言，让我们对大脑的运作有了新的认识，就像研究无法学会游得快些的乌贼的中央神经系统，立刻我们就知道游泳所需的必要条件。反过来也一样，了解阅读脑的发展给了解阅读障碍提供了新的希望。在检验这两者的过程中，我们以智力进化的宽广视野来进行探讨，把阅读这种文化产物只看成是大脑无尽潜力的一种表现。
    当我们着手阅读障碍的研究时，很快就发现这本身是一个棘手的浩大工程。之所以这样说，至少有3个原因:1.阅读脑的需求复杂;2.这项研究牵涉到许多门学科:3.阅读障碍者身上兼备强悍与极度软弱的特质。阅读障碍者的研究史正好反映出这一切的复杂度，它同时也反映了过去100年来我们的智力历史和社会的许多变化，例如诺姆·乔姆斯基的语言革命以及社会等级制度对阅读障碍诊断的影响。
    奇怪的是，一直以来关于阅读障碍都没有一个广为世人所接受的定义有些研究人员不用阅读障碍(dyslexia)这个词，而改为较一般性的描述，如无法阅读或无法学习。尽管柏拉图与古希腊人都注意到这个现象，还是有些人认为阅读障碍并不存在。由于历史原因，我个人倾向于使用“阅读障碍这个词，但不论我们称大脑无法学会阅读与拼写的状况是什么，最终并不会造成任何差异。只要我们了解这个概念中具有吸引力的观点，以及不重视这个问题所造成的悲剧就够了。

    盲人摸象般的历史

    这段复杂的故事应该从我们的进化史开始。英国神经心理学家安德鲁·埃利斯(Andrew Ellis)清楚地认识到这一问题的背景，他宣称无论阅读障碍最终被证明出是什么，“它绝不是一项阅读疾病”。埃利斯其实是要强调一个事实，大脑在人类进化的过程中从来就不是用于阅读的;正如我们所知，没有一个基因或生物构造是专门为阅读而设计的。相反，为了读，每个大脑必须学习在原本担负着物体识别等其他功能的旧的区域上建立起新的神经回路。

    阅读障碍:不是大脑的“阅读中心”出了差错，因为根本就没有这种结构。为了阅读，大脑必须学习在担负着其他功能的旧区域上，建立起新的神经回路。

    阅读障碍绝不是大脑的“阅读中心”出了差错这么简单，因为根本就没有这种结构。要找出阅读障碍的成因，务必要检视大脑旧有的结构，以及它们在处理过程、结构、神经元与基因的多个层面，每个层面的所有环节都必须在同一时间内迅速运作，才能形成阅读的神经回路。
    换句话说，我们必须再一次回顾之前提过的5层的阅读金字塔，这次需要更多的注意力。图7-1再次显示出这个金字塔，该金字塔显示出所有的活动都是为了支持顶层的基本行为，如阅读一个单词或一句话。我再次使用这个图，有新的用意:协助说明阅读神经回路发展时可能出错的各个部位与各个路径。

    图 7-1 阅读行为的金字塔

    金字塔的第二层是认知层，由基本的认知、概念、语言、注意力与运动等过程组成，是多数心理学家的主要研究范畴。20世纪的许多理论家相信阅读障碍的主要原因是这一层有了问题。因为这一层的许多过程建立在神经结构之上，这些神经结构联结起来，使我们能够学习阅读。近来许多的脑成像研究试着探索这些结构之间与其内部的联结，试图去了解阅读障碍。这一结构层的下一层是由许多神经元工作组所组成的。这些神经元工作组能够产生和提取如字母和音位等各种形式的信息的持久表征，并且自动化整个过程，使人类成为视觉与听觉的专家。
    金字塔最下层代表着控制这些神经元形成工作组和结构，最终控制视觉与语言等原有过程的神经回路的基因。近来有许多的阅读障碍研究着重于这个层面。事实上，这类研究工作非常复杂，因为阅读神经回路并没有代代相传的独特基因。每个大脑内的阅读金字塔的上面4层，必须在每次阅读时重新学会如何形成所需要的途径。因此，阅读与其他文化产物、其他过程大不相同，它们不像语言或视觉，不是“自然地”出现在儿童身上并且在年幼的初级阅读者身上尤为脆弱。
    本书所呈现的阅读脑进化的观点，将从3个让大脑能够读出第一个代币的组织规则开始。在所有的文字系统中，阅读的发展涉及以下几个原则:重新组合旧的结构，并以此创造新的学习神经回路;神经元工作组在这些构造内重现信息的专门化能力;这些神经元工作组与学习神经回路以几乎自动化的速度来提取与连接信息。如用这些设计规则来审视阅读障碍，许多可能的成因就会一一浮现:
    @ 语言或视觉结构的发展过程出现了问题，有可能是遗传的(比如这些结构中学习专门化的工作组出了差错);
    @ 自动化过程出现问题，可能是在专门化工作组中提取表征的地方出错了，或者神经回路结构间的联结有误，或者两者兼有;
    @ 这些结构之间的神经回路联结有障碍；
    @从原本特定的文字系统的固有结构中重新组合出一个全然术同的神经回路。有些阅读问题的原因在所有的文字系统中都有发现，而有些则专属于某个特定的文字系统。

    在过去120年来混乱的阅读障碍研究史上，这4种问题都曾出现在一种或者几种假设中。事实上，根据这些问题将阅读障碍的各种假设组织起来将会对理清这段历史极有帮助。更重要的是，以大脑设计为主轴来整理各种阅读障碍的理论，会让我们更清楚地明白阅读障碍研究如何增进我们对阅读脑的了解。

    假设1:固有结构的缺陷

    20世纪的阅读障碍理论主要是以神经回路中固有的结构来解释，并且从视觉系统开始探讨。现在我们所说的阅读障碍的第一个用语是“词盲”这个用语可回溯到19世纪70年代德国研究者阿道夫·库斯莫尔(Adolph Kussmaul)的研究。根据他的研究与X先生的奇怪病例，童年时期的阅读障碍被称为“先天性词盲”。

    X先生是一个法国商人，同时也是业余音乐家，有一天他起床后突然发现自己几乎一个字都读不出来。法国神经学家约瑟夫-朱尔斯·代热林(Joseph-Jules Dejerine)发现尽管视觉完好无缺，X先生却无法再读出文字、说出颜色，或者阅读音符。几年后，X先生中风，完全丧失了读写能力，最后因此而过世。

    解剖X先生的遗体后，发现他遭受到两次中风，分别损害脑部不同的区域。代热林以此作为他关于大脑和阅读的新理论的基础。第一次的中风损害了左侧视觉区与连接两侧半脑的胼胝体(corpus callosum)的后部(见图 7-2)。在第一次中风时，X先生的两个半脑的视觉区“失去了联结”虽然他可以用右半脑处理看见的事物，却无法和左半脑的语言区或是左侧受损的视觉区相联结。这是起初造成他无法阅读的原因。第二次中风时他完全丧失读写能力，这次受损的是角回区域。代热林所报告的这个经典失读症病例，成了阅读障碍研究真正开始的标志，也是关于视觉角色与联结重要性的第一个假设的基础。

    图 7-2 失读症的大脑

    20 世纪的神经科学家格施温德将代热林的案例转译成“联结阻断综合征”的一个个案，具体是指:脑部负责文字这类特定功能的部位与其他部位之间失去联结，便会导致该功能丧失。因此X先生的病例实际上反映出两个不同的假设:第一个假设，固有的视觉系统结构受损导致失读;第二个假设，阅读神经回路的联结出现障碍导致失读。

    联结阻断综合征:脑部许多部分共同负责一个给定的功能，若负责这类特定功能的部位与其他部位之间失去联结，便会导致该功能丧失。

    另一项关于阅读障碍的早期的、符合逻辑的解释是听觉系统出了问题(见图7-3)。1921年，阅读研究人员露西·法尔兹(Lucy Fildes)表示有阅读问题的儿童无法形成字母所代表字音的听觉图像，这个概念类似于我们今天所说的音位表征。1944年,神经学家兼心理学家保罗·席尔德(Paul Schilder)清楚地描述出阅读障碍者无法联系字母与其字音，也不能根据发音来区分口语单词。席尔德的观点与法尔兹早期听觉图像的研究，是现代阅读障碍最重要的一个方向的先驱:儿童无法处理单词内部的音位。

    图 7-3 视觉过程与听觉过程

    20世纪70年代初期，在语言学家乔姆斯基的影响下，心理语言学即研究语言的心理学，开始兴起，为阅读的研究另辟蹊径。早期心理语言学家的目标主要是系统地了解言语、语言、阅读发展与阅读障碍之间的关系。他们将阅读障碍视为语言疾病的观点，颠覆了之前以知觉与视觉为基础的理论。
    这种观点中最让人深思的研究之一是心理学家伊莎贝尔·利伯曼(Isabelle Liberman)与唐·尚克韦勒(Don Shankweiler)对一群患有严重耳聋的儿童的研究，当然这些儿童无法听见任何话语。他们发现其中只有少数人可以阅读得很好，而且他们和其他有音位表征的儿童有所区别。利伯曼与尚克韦勒解释道:这项研究结果加上其他的相关研究，意味着阅读更取决于语音分析语音意识等语言技能(见图7-4)，而不是以感官为基础的语音的听觉感知力。

    图7-4 语言假设与语音分析

    实验心理学家弗兰克·维卢蒂诺(Frank Vellutino)彻底将阅读障碍领域从以知觉结构为主的解释中脱离出来。维卢蒂诺与其同事证实阅读障碍中最常见的知觉问题，就是众所周知的“视觉”颠倒(如将b误读成d或将p看成q)，这并不是肇因于知觉缺陷，而是儿童无法正确提取这些语音的语音标志。在一个精心设计的研究中，维卢蒂诺首先给有阅读问题的儿童几组典型的颠倒配对(如b和d)，然后让他们画出(视觉过程的非语言任务)或是说出(语言任务)字母。儿童可以非常正确地画出字母，但老是读错，这表明问题存在于他们的语言过程中。
    目前有上百个语音研究显示出许多阅读障碍儿童无法像一般儿童一样感知、切分或操作个别音节与音位。这项发现具有深远的意义。无法意识到bat有3个独立音位的儿童，将来如果遇到老师开始一节这样的课程:“分解这个词的读音:/b/-/a/-t/”，会面对极大的困难。这些儿童无法及时删除一个单词的词首或词尾的音位，更不用说单词中间的部分，并且无法读出这些音位;他们的声韵模式意识(如判断fat和rat是否押韵)发展得极其缓慢。更重要的是，我们现在知道在学习阅读时，这些儿童所遭遇的最大困难，是要求他们自己把字母和发音之间的对应规则纳入自己的语言体系。
    实际上，以语音来解释阅读障碍的最大贡献在于它对早期阅读指导与补救的影响。研究人员约瑟夫·托格森(Joseph Torgesen)与理查德·瓦格纳(Richard Wagner)与其佛罗里达州立大学的同事的研究证明，系统、明确地教导年幼阅读者音位意识与字母-音位的对应规则，在处理读障碍问题时远比其他方式有效。在早期阅读技能的解码过程中，为了证明音位意识与明确指导的功效而积累的证据，多到足以填满图书馆的一面墙壁。语音研究代表了阅读障碍中研究最多的结构性假设。
    其他较少为人研究但依旧很重要的结构性假设有很多:从额叶的执行过程，包括注意力的组织、记忆力与理解力的监测，到小脑后侧这些与计时、语言过程以及运动协调和概念构成之间的联系等诸多层面相关的区域每个结构性假设的重要性都有两层意义。如华盛顿大学的弗吉尼娅·伯宁格(Virginia Berninger)所证明的那样，有些儿童的阅读问题源自较为基本的问题，如执行过程中的注意力与记忆力;有些儿童则是阅读与注意力的综合征。还有下面将介绍的，有些儿童的问题与时间相关。几位英国研究者则假设这可能与部分儿童的小脑功能不全有关。
    不过该部分的整体重点还是检验所有结构性假设的类型后得到的全体图像。从20 世纪初期至中期，善意的研究人员倾向以一个丧失功能的区域来作为大多数阅读障碍的主要解释。盲人摸象的故事在阅读障碍的研究领域或许已经成了一个滥用的比喻，但却是这项研究的最佳写照。

    阅读障碍研究:许多专家认为阅读障碍是由固有结构的缺陷造成的。把各种假设涉及的脑区在同一张图上标出来，就得到了阅读脑的主要结构图，阅读障碍研究反过来增进了我们对阅读脑的了解。

    许多理论家将自己对阅读障碍的独到见解冠以新的名称，这早已是司空见惯的事情。试想如果将所有过去针对“过程-结构”层面提出的各种假设列出，就像人类大脑地图上的拼图一样(见图7-5)，我们会得到什么?那就是:这些假设合起来就像“通用阅读系统”主要部位的最佳示意图。这以另一种方式来说明，将众多阅读障碍成因的假设合起来刚好映射出阅读脑的主要组成结构。

    图7-5 各种阅读障碍假设的集合

    假设2:无法进行自动化

    第二类假设重点强调了自动化失败的问题，或者说这些结构内部或彼此之间的处理速度不够快。其背后的假设是，这项障碍会造成阅读神经回路的各个部分,无论是在神经层面还是结构处理层面上,都无法流畅地运作导致用于理解的时间不够。
    和第一类假设一样，研究者会用许多与阅读流畅度有关的解释来说明金字塔的不同层次与结构。毫无疑问，其中一些和以前一样，开始于视觉。举例而言，布鲁诺·布赖特迈耶(Bruno Breitmmeyer)和威廉·洛夫格罗夫William Lovegrove)发现阅读障碍者在处理视觉信息的速度上有显著差异试想一颗星星的图像紧接在另一颗星星的图像后出现，在许多阅读障碍者的大脑中，两个快速出现的“闪光”会汇合成一个，因为他们处理视觉信息的速度不够快。
    类似的研究是针对阅读障碍者听觉信息的处理，同样也显示出他们和·般阅读者的差异。在这两种过程中，阅读障碍者和同龄的儿童在最基础的感觉层次上一样，如有视觉刺激或听觉信号发生时，会立刻有所感知。但是当复杂度增加时，就会出现落差。有些阅读障碍儿童和大多数语言缺失的儿童都比一般孩子需要更多的时间来处理两个简短的分开的音调，处理视觉图像也是这样。
    日益精密的研究显示出，处理语音的困难因为需要区分文字内细微的音位与音节等因素而加重。如剑桥大学的戈斯瓦米在英国、法国与芬兰进行的研究发现，阅读障碍儿童对自然语音中的韵律较不敏感，常规的韵律形成部分取决于字音中的重音与节奏模式的变化。这–切会导致形成不良的音位表征及以后的阅读障碍。
    有关阅读障碍脑部运动过程中速度差异的证据依旧是充满吸引力的话题之一，最后可能还是要回到戈斯瓦米关于言语的研究上。波士顿著名的心理学家彼特·沃尔夫(Peter Wolf)观察到儿童尝试按照节拍器来数出节奏，因此他总结道:当阅读障碍者必须将一个行为的各个部分组合成“临时而有序的一个整体”时，其运动区的自动化便会出现问题。换句话说，无论是眼睛还是耳朵的运动功能，有为数不少的阅读障碍儿童在需要正确有序快速地联结一项任务的各个部分时，就会出现问题，而不是在最基本的感觉处理方面。以色列心理学家扎维亚·布雷兹尼茨(Zvia Breznitz)为阅读障碍故事增加了另一个不寻常的情节。布雷兹尼茨研究阅读障碍儿童超过20年，她以一系列各种各样的测验来进行研究，结果发现有相当广泛的问题都与处理速度有关。顺着这个思路，她有了不寻常的发现。和其他人一样，她也发现阅读表现差的阅读者，在每种类型的任务中都有处理缓慢的情况，而阅读能力受损的阅读者似乎在视觉与听觉过程间有一个“时间差”，布雷兹尼茨称之为“非同步性”。似乎阅读最需要用来建立字母一发音对应关系的两个脑部区域之间处理各自信息时不能同步，无法把独立的信息整合起来进而影响到整个阅读过程。几年前珀费提也观察到布雷兹尼茨所说的时间“非同步性”现象。时至今日，这仍是阅读障碍之谜中最奇妙的一部分。
    在每种语言中最佳的阅读障碍预测指标,是一项和时间有关的称为“命名速度”的测试，这项任务几乎涵盖了金字塔第二层所有的认知过程。命名速度的故事要回到X先生的案例上，他脑部罕见的损害使他无法阅读也无法说出色彩的名称。从这点看来，格施温德推论“给色彩命名”与阅读系统一定使用了一些相同的神经结构，并且共用许多认知、语言与知觉过程。而且他还进一步推论，一般在进幼儿园之前就已经发展好的“给色彩命名”的能力，会是儿童日后学会或学不会阅读的一项良好预测指标。
    约翰霍普金斯大学的儿科神经学家玛莎·布里奇·登克拉(Martha Bridge Denckla)对这一推论做了测试，结果发现阅读障碍儿童可以正确无误地念出色彩名称，但是无法快速地念出。念色彩(或字母、数字)名称时，大脑用来联结视觉与语言过程所用的时间才是无法学习阅读者的预测指标。登克拉的发现以及她和麻省理工的神经心理学家丽塔·鲁德尔(Rita Rudel)的合作研究成果成为“快速自动命名”测试的基础，在这项测试中儿童必须尽可能快地念出成排重复的字母、数字、颜色或物体。我们实验室与世界上其他实验室的大量研究都显示出，在任何语系中，“快速自动命名”的结果都是“阅读表现的最佳指标之一”。
    后来我以此为基础发展出一个新的命名速度测试，称为“快速交替刺激”，这种测试的设计是为了在快速自动命名的需求中，增加更多的注意力与语义过程。你试想一下整个阅读发展由快速的解码能力来指导，以便让大脑有时间来思考输入的信息，就会明白这些命名速度研究的深层意义。在许多阅读障碍的案例中，大脑的阅读发展从未达到最高层次，这是因为花费在联结该过程的最早部分之上的时间过长。许多阅读障碍儿童在面对大量文字时，根本就没有时间思考。

    “快速自动命名”测试:在这项测试中，儿童必须尽可能快地念出成排重复的字母、数字、颜色或物体。大量研究显示，在任何语系中，”快速自动命名”的结果都是“阅读表现的最佳指标之一”。

    不过，研究人员从来就不打算以命名速度的缺陷来解释阅读障碍，而是将其作为阻碍阅读过程速度的某些潜在问题的指标。正如格施温德所说命名的过程与结构是阅读的主要过程与结构的子系统。命名速度涉及的过程与结构的缺陷，包括它们之间的联结、自动化或不同神经回路的使用都有可能导致命名或阅读上的缺陷。
    在命名速度的背后隐藏着一个进化的故事，并且不断丰富着第一个阅读脑进化的故事。图7-6是加州大学洛杉矶分校神经科学家拉斯·波尔德拉克(Russ Poldracle)与我们的研究团队绘制出的与命名速度有关的大脑图像，该图像完美呈现出这其中的关系。

    图 7-6 执行快速自动命名时的大脑功能核磁共振成像

    正如过去的研究者所假设的那样，在这些图像中，大脑使用枕叶-颞叶区(37区)的固有物体识别路径来命名字母与物体。功能性核磁共振成像(fiunctional magnetic resonance imaging,fMRI)支持这些研究人员的假设:人类的确是“神经元再利用”者。不过这些图像告诉了我们一个更为重要的故事反映出字母与物体之间的3个差异。

    首先，在命名物体时，左侧枕叶-颞叶区的激活程度远大于命名字母 时。物体通常不需要我们超级专门化的能力（除非是特别有趣的物体，如爱鸟者眼中的鸟），因为可能的物体实在太多了。因此，物体的识别过程并 没有完全自动化，需要更多的大脑皮质层面积。物体命名神经回路是我们 完全学会识字前的写照。

    其次，命名字母时更直接地使用枕叶-颞叶区，显示出识字的大脑视 觉专门化与特定信息自动化的能力。这正是为什么阅读者“快速自动命名” 字母永远比“快速自动命名”物体快。

    再次，也是非常重要的一点，在常规阅读脑中，相较于物体，字母这 种文化产物在每一个其他“固有构造”〔尤其是在颞叶-顶叶的语言区〕中 激活的程度明显偏高。这也是为什么“快速自动命名”与“快速交替刺激” 这类方法，可以预测所有语言的阅读表现。同样地，这也解释了为什么命 名物体与字母测试中的大脑图像，看起来像是大脑学习阅读前后的进化图 片的比较。

    最后，在为早期诊断出阅读前儿童的阅读障碍而进行的命名速度研究 当中，可能含有一些儿童发展的重要启示。我们知道绝大多数的阅读障碍 儿童在幼儿园早期，念出字母或物体的速度就明显地缓慢很多，而且那时 字母测试比物体测试更具有预测性。若以命名物体与字母的脑成像图来分 别代表阅读前与阅读后的大脑，我们可以检查小至3岁的儿童发展中的大 脑，来判断他们提取物体名称的能力是否较为薄弱。若是能及早发现任何 一个大脑的发育速度和他人不同，或者采用另一套神经回路来处理物体与 颜色，例如用右半脑回路，脑成像研究会显示出明显差异，我们便能及早 预测未来阅读失败的情况，也就有机会更早地进行治疗。

    我希望未来的研究者能在儿童开始学习阅读之前，就拥有他们进行物 体命名时的大脑图像，如此我们就能研究神经回路中一套特定的结构的使 用，究竟是无法学会字的原因还是结果。

    这样复杂的想法让我们从速度与自动化的问题，转移到这些与时间相 关的缺陷成因。原因之一可能与神经回路的联结有关。

    假设3 :结构间神经回路的联结障碍

    有一类假设强调了解结构间联结的重要性，而不是确定结构内部出问 题的位置。格施温德在翻译代热林第一个经典失读症的案例时，再次提到 19世纪神经科学家卡尔·韦尼克的“联结阻断综合征” 的概念，以此强调所有组成系统一起工作以完成每项认知功能的重要性。 因此，在X先生功能失常的案例中，右半脑的视觉信息无法经过胼胝体进 入左半脑的视觉-言语历程，而左半脑的结构性损害也一样重要。阅读神 经回路内部的联结和结构本身一样重要。

    20世纪中叶许多理论家提出的假说，都强调阅读神经回路的结构与过 程之间的联结。最普遍的两种想法都着眼于联结中断的问题来源，一是视觉-言语过程出了问题，再一个就是视觉-听觉系统有问题。现代神经科 学已经超越这些表面的解释，可以深入检查对阅读来说很重要的各种结构 间的功能性联结，或是交互作用的强度。对功能性联结感兴趣的神经科学 家倾向于研究阅读神经回路的主要组成结构的效率，以及这些结构间交互 作用的强度。

    在此种类型的研究中，至少有3种形式的联结障碍持续地受到关注。 这些积累起来的信息再次揭露出一个重大的事实。第一类型的神经回路运 作失常是由意大利神经科学家发现的：他们观察到意大利的阅读障碍者可扩大联结的脑部区域脑岛（insula）的活跃程度偏低，似乎暗示着他们额叶 与语言区后侧失去了联系。这个区域相当重要，是大脑内部距离相对较远 的各区域的中心，对自动化过程至关重要。

    耶鲁大学与哈斯金斯实验室的研究人员则发现了另一种不同却有潜在关联的联结障碍形式。他们在研究非常重要的枕叶-颞叶区时发现，无论 何种语言，该区域似乎都会在阅读初期被激活，但是阅读障碍者在该区域 37区的联结方式和其他人不同。在未受损阅读者的大脑中，最有力、最自动化的联结发生在左半脑的后侧与额叶区域之间。但是，在阅读障碍者的大脑中，最有力的联结却出现在左半脑枕叶-颞叶区和右半脑额叶区之间。 此外，一些神经科学家还发现，一般初级阅读者在阅读与处理语音信息时 所动用的左半脑角回，在阅读者障碍者大脑中运作时似乎和其他左半脑的 语言区失去联结。

    最后一种类型的联结障碍是在脑成像研究中发现的，这对整合上述所 有的发现颇有助益。休斯敦的一个研究团队采用脑磁图技术，提供了阅读 时大脑各区域中激活区域的大概图像与时间。他们发现阅读障碍儿童是从 左右半脑枕叶的视觉区开始，移动到右角回，再到额叶区。换而言之，阅 读障碍儿童使用的阅读神经回路和一般人全然不同。

    阅读障碍者的脑部活动：阅读障碍者的左脑角回区的激活程度较低，左脑枕叶-颞叶区激活程度大幅降低。这项意想不到的发现有助于解释许多谜团，包括我在麻省理工的一些 同事的发现：阅读者障碍者的左脑角 回区的激活程度较低，左脑枕叶-颞 叶区激活程度大幅降低。这些发现使 我们从神经回路内部明显联结障碍的 讨论，转向最让人兴奋的第4种假设：一颗以不同方式重塑的大脑。

    假设4 :阅读的不同神经回路

    在阅读障碍的研究史上，最不寻常也最容易理解的一项研究，来自于 杰出的神经学家塞缪尔·奥顿与他的同事安娜·吉林厄姆。根据他在20世纪二三十年代的临床研究，奥顿重 新命名阅读障碍为“视像颠倒症”，或称“扭曲的符号” (见图7-7）。

    图7-7 奥顿的“视像颠倒症”设想

    奥顿认为在大脑工作的常态分布中，通常处于主导的左半脑会选择字 母的正确方位（如b或d），或是字母的排列顺序（如是not而非ton）。但是在阅读障碍者脑中，由一侧半脑主导的模式要么不会出现，要么严重 地推迟。结果造成左右半脑之间的沟通失败，奥顿写道：有些儿童无法选 择正确的字母方向。这造成视觉空间的混淆、字母的扭转，阅读、拼字与 写字的困难，这也就是我们所说的阅读障碍。

    20世纪六七十年代的研究人员对这个想法非常着迷，他们急于发现阅 读障碍者左半脑在处理诸多与阅读相关的工作时，看似比右半脑弱势的现 象。例如，在让儿童分别以两只耳朵聆听以各种方式呈现的声音信号的任 务中（现在称为“双耳相异信息任务”），测验的普遍结果都是阅读障碍者 在使用左半脑执行听觉过程时，和正常的阅读者不一样。1970年，波士顿 退伍军人医院的神经心理学家以一系列的视觉、听觉与运动任务来测试一 般阅读者和阅读障碍者，结果不仅发现阅读障碍者在每项测验中成绩都明 显较差，还发现他们在双耳相异信息任务中具有右脑优势。
    同样地，也是20世纪70年代，研究人员在对阅读障碍者进行文字识 别测验时，在他们的脑部视觉区发现意想不到的对称性，同时发现左脑在 处理语言信息时弱化得令人吃惊。在这期间，“单侧化”研究一个接一个地 进行，显示出阅读障碍者的大脑在执行一系列工作时，都特别地倚重于右 半脑。多年来，这些发现一直被视为对右半脑与左半脑过程的认识太过简化，但是，稍后我们将看到脑成像研究者正开始重新思考奥顿的想法，以 及这些关于半脑过程的旧理论。

    在目前典型的阅读神经发展研究中，乔治城大学的研究组发现，随着时 间的流逝，右半脑中用于阅读文字的大型视觉识别系统会“逐步撤离”，而 左半脑的额叶、颞叶与枕叶-颞叶区的参与程度则持续增加。这进一步证明 了奥顿的观点：在发育时，正常阅读者的左半脑逐步承担着文字的处理工作。

    然而，我们再一次在阅读障碍者的脑中发现，阅读神经回路的这种持 续发展与正常阅读者也不一样。耶鲁大学的萨莉·谢维兹与贝内特·谢维兹夫妇领导的研究组率先观察到这一点， 他们让阅读障碍儿童进行持续性的阅读测试，从简单的视觉测试到复杂的押韵测试等，结果发现阅读障碍儿童较多使用额叶区，但却很少用到左脑 后侧区域，尤其是在发育上极为重要的左脑角回。更重要的是，这个研究 团队还在右半脑发现了潜在的“辅助”区域，补偿原本效能较高的左半脑 所执行的功能。

    近来耶鲁团队更进一步地研究了阅读正常的成人，以及另外两组有阅 读障碍但成因不同的成人，其中一组经过辅助可以正确地阅读，但是并不 流畅；另一组则是大脑没有发挥补偿作用的永久性阅读障碍，可能是受环 境影响而导致的这项缺陷。结果震惊了所有的人：无阅读障碍和因环境影 响导致的、无法辅助的阅读者所使用的神经回路相似。而较为接近典型阅 读障碍者的辅助组阅读者，使用了较多的右半脑区域，包括枕叶-颞叶区， 而其他两组使用的左半脑后侧区域在他们脑中的激活程度明显偏低。此外， 他们还发现环境影响型的永久性阅读缺陷者，使用枕叶-颞叶区的程度甚 至高于正常阅读者，这意味着这组人阅读时花费在记忆策略上的工夫远远 多于用在分析上的工夫。

    为了让读者对稍后即将介绍的最新研究有所兴趣，艺术家斯图德利绘制 了一套脑成像的素描，显示出阅读障碍者如何处理视觉、拼写规则、语音与 语义信息。图7—8显示出目前在阅读障碍自动化与流畅度的研究中，完全 可以预测的情况：从视觉-拼字规则的辨认，到语义处理过程中每一步的推 延。从150毫秒起，阅读障碍者没有一个步骤是在应有的时间点上。此外，不久前才提到的那项惊人发现也显示在这些图当中。阅读障碍者使用大脑回 路的情况似乎异于常人，他们的比较偏爱使用右半脑的结构，从视觉联合区 和枕叶-颞叶区开始，延伸到右脑角回、缘上回与颞叶区。对阅读很重要的 额叶区，使用程度是左右对称的，但在激活时有所延迟。

    图7-8 阅读障碍时间轴

    这条时间轴是世界各地诸多实验室积累的研究成果，包括美国、以色列 与芬兰等地。它很难完成。该时间轴的好处是具有启示性；缺点是很容易产 生误导。在脑成像与教育研究中，苏格拉底关于文本的警语同样适用于脑部 成像，关于这一点请阅读者牢记“他们看似真实的特性带来真理的幻觉”。

    事实上，它们只不过是我们就目前所有参与者的统计平均值所能做的 最佳诠释。只有时间与更多的证据可以揭露真相，告诉我们一个不同的半 脑所具备的能力。不过要是能在某些阅读障碍者身上证实阅读神经回路的 右脑优势这一新兴的概念是正确的，那就表示这些阅读障碍儿童的大脑不 仅在视觉、听觉、提取和整合拼写规则、语音、语义、语法与推理过程上 更为缓慢；而且还要在一个原本不是设计成处理时间准确度的半脑上，使 用一套完全不同的神经回路结构。

    几年前，曾志朗与王士元这两位杰出的研究者观察到，左半脑进化出 处理人类语言与文字所需要的精密准确度与掌握节奏的能力；与此相反， 右半脑适合从事大规模的活动，例如创造力、模式演绎和与上下文相关的 技能等。右脑优势的神经回路这项令人深思的发现有助于解释这一个世纪 以来种种关于阅读障碍的假设，这其中的每一个假设都正确地描述了这种 综合征的症状。就本书提出的“阅读金字塔”与组织这一金字塔的大脑设 计的基本原则来看，这些历史上的假设没有一项可以解释全部类型的阅读 障碍，尤其是在进行跨语言研究之后。

    左右半脑所具备的能力：左半脑进化出人类处理语言文字所需的准确度与节奏感；而右半脑擅长创造、模式演 绎和与上下文相关的技能。 有阅读障碍的大脑更依赖右半脑的神经回路。

    这让我们回到现在最迫切的问题，阅读障碍者之间的差异性，不仅存 在于不同的语言之间，而且在同样的 文字系统中也存在。了解大脑在阅读 方面的设计原则之后，我们对阅读障 碍的看法从单一的维度转移到更加有 价值的多重维度。阅读障碍的可能成 因很多，因此治疗也变得很困难。这 让研究的重点从寻找阅读障碍的基本 成因，转移到阅读障碍者中最普遍的亚型阅读者上。

    多余的假设：多重结构、多重缺陷与多种亚型

    阅读障碍者在发育过程中表现出来的阅读障碍类型会随着成长而改变， 因此接受亚型这个概念，比以经验为根据来分类要容易很多。为了考量多重缺陷的问题，我和我的加拿大籍同事帕特·鲍尔斯一起做 了一个简单的研究。我们根据两种最好的判断阅读障碍的指标区分出亚型 的种类：
    @亚型一，语音意识的问题〈一种结构性假设〉；
    @亚型二，命名速度缓慢（以替代方式处理速度与流畅度）；
    @亚型三，两种缺陷兼有。

    约有25%的英语阅读障碍者仅有语音缺陷问题。更重要的是，不到 20%的阅读障碍者仅出现流畅度缺陷，这种“不够流畅”的阅读障碍亚型, 虽然在英语中相对较少，但在其他语法较规则的语言，如德语和西班牙语中， 却占有很大的比例。在英语中，第6章提到的卢克就是不流畅亚型的例子， 他不能够快速地阅读并唱出他的咏叹调，但他的老师却不认为他有阅读问 题。这类儿童在大多数的学校常常被忽视，因为他们一开始并没有出现真 正的解码问题，只有到后来才出现流畅度与理解力的缺陷。

    在英语中，最常见也是最难以处理的是亚型三：这些儿童不仅命名速 度与语音出问题，同时也伴随着每个阅读层面的严重障碍。因为同时具备 结构性与处理速度的缺陷，历史上这类儿童都被当做典型的阅读障碍者。

    有趣的是，约有10%的阅读障碍儿童无法依照上述方式进行分类。正 如心理学家布鲁斯·彭宁顿所描述的那样，这意味着 要有更为详细的多种亚型分类系统，以便将结构性数据与遗传性数据联系起来。在这类复杂的分析中，佐治亚州立大学的罗宾‘莫里斯研究团队证明阅读障碍最为严重的儿童不仅出现复合式的缺陷，而且在短期记忆方面也有问题。

    在未能全面地了解所有的亚型系统之前，从国际上几种方言与语言系统 的暂时性双重缺陷的架构中，我们获得了一些有用的信息。比如，在英语地 区的研究中，儿童在每种亚型上的比例都相当接近，但在标准美语之外的方 言中，阅读障碍儿童亚型的比例则不一样。我们的研究团队发现在非裔和欧裔的美国阅读障碍儿童之间有不一般的差异，尽管他们的智力、受教育程度 与社会经济地位都极为相似。在非裔美籍阅读障碍儿童中，有很大的比例是 双重缺陷亚型及语音亚型，在整个阅读障碍人群中的人数极不均衡。

    对此，有一个很可能的假设，非裔美籍儿童使用的主要是“非式美语”， 这是英语中的一种方言。塔夫茨大学的社会语言学家奇普·吉德尼和我们的研究组正设法找出标准美语和非式美语间的细微差异。 我们想弄清楚，这些差异是不是长久习惯说母语的儿童学习第二语言的字 母和音位对应关系规则的阻碍。我们希望了解方言之间的细微差异，是否 会对说其他完全不同的语言，如西班牙语或法语的儿童造成更大的语音识 别问题。

    现在我们比较确定的是，说非式美语的儿童有比较多的语音问题，在 这一点上，他们和说不同语言的儿童，比如西班牙语或汉语儿童，有很大 的差别。这带领我们回到阅读脑的设计这个更普遍的话题上，我们将探索 阅读障碍在不同语言中是如何表现的。

    阅读障碍的诸多面貌

    奥地利心理学家海因茨·威默操着他带有德国腔的 标准英语，听起来很像是亨利·基辛格，他描述了阅读障碍在德语、荷兰语及其他字母文字中的情况。根据已知语言的需求（德语是流畅度；汉语是视觉空间记忆；英语是语音技巧），阅读障碍会有不同的面貌，因此阅读障碍的预测指标也随之而异。如我们在阅读脑的进化中所见到的，不同的书写系统在使用阅 读神经回路的主要结构时，会有些许 差异。因此，在中国出现的阅读障碍 在本质上有细微差异绝非偶然。比如 在香港地区，研究人员在汉语的阅读 障碍儿童中发现了几种亚型，类似于 英语的双重缺陷，但是还多了一种有 趣的亚型，毫无悬念，其主要的缺陷出现在拼写规则过程上。

    阅读陣碍因语言差异而不同：因不同的语言有不同的需求，如德语要求流畅度， 汉语要求视觉空间记忆，阅 读障碍呈现出不同的面貌， 因此其预测指标也随之而异。

    在汉语读者中会发现以组字规则与视觉记忆障碍为主的亚型，这个还 比较容易理解。汉字的视觉与空间特性较为复杂，而且许多字的组字规则 都很类似。刘文理的研究团队也发现一个类似的规模较小的亚型组，包括 以下几种：语音缺陷、快速命名或流畅度缺陷、双重或结合语音快速命名 缺陷、组字规则缺陷，或是综合轻度语音、命名与词法缺陷。

    研究不同的拼音系统后，自然浮现出一项议题：阅读障碍是否会因特 定书写系统的需求而出现不同的形态。在汉语系统中，阅读障碍的研究日 益增加，显示出这项原则的诸多表现。正如之前几章所提到的，汉语代表 的是一种语素音节文字，以复杂的视觉特征来表示词素（或意义单位〉，再 以部首等更小的记号来标记语音和语义类型的辨析信息。

    英文字母代表音位的各个层次，但汉语不一样，汉语的词素可能是一 个音节，且还有不同的音调来区分。因此汉语对年幼读者来说是一系列的 挑战，从认识词素、辨别部首、区分声调到将这些信息联结到文本中正确 的异义同音字，在部分读者身上，每一个步骤都是潜在的阻碍。比如，过 去在台湾有一项研究便主要依据儿童混淆部首、同音字、笔顺与笔画的错 误来分类。

    北京的吴思娜团队也进行过一项研究，强调汉语的阅读学习中声韵意识扮演着关键性的角色。吴思娜的研究团队以儿童的认知与语言特征，以及汉语写作的特别需求为依据，发现有5种阅读障碍亚型。不论是哪一种亚型，她发现大多数阅读障碍儿童最大的困难都出现在词素层次。
    在中文的阅读障碍中，词素扮演最关键的角色。这结果和英文世界对阅读障碍的想法大相径庭，在英语中阅读障碍主要来自音素层面的问题。事实上，在汉语语系中发现某些阅读障碍儿童无法阅读的原因，和音位意识或是音位分析的关系较不如字母文字密切，这对探求一个阅读障碍更为普遍的成因极其重要。
    第一点，这彰显出阅读障碍会因应特定书写系统的需求而展现出不同的形态。第二点，在不同语系中阅读障碍展现出来的差异性又可以显示出同一个文字系统中原则上可能存在不同类型(或称亚型)的阅读障碍。第三点，在有特定要求的特定语系中，某些亚型会特别明显或是更隐晦不明比如音位单位可能是英语中主要的困难点，但在汉语中也会出现。词素单位也是同样的状况，在汉语中较为明显，但在英语世界中则没有那么明显。
    由谭力海、萧慧婷与其同事进行的几项研究显示出了这些原则的部分现象。几年前谭力海的团队研究显示出汉语阅读障碍者，其左侧额叶中回的激活区域与常人不同，但英语阅读障碍者则是在较为偏后的地方出现不同程度的激活。谭力海的团队认为语系间的阅读障碍存在差异。在他们一个较新的研究中，他们检查了汉语使用者大脑灰质的体积，包括阅读障碍者和正常人的。
    结果非常有趣，他们发现中文阅读障碍儿童与正常儿童相比，左侧额叶中回的灰质区较少。这些区域对工作记忆极为重要，是阅读汉字的关键要素之一。有趣的是，这些阅读障碍儿童的大脑后侧区域(左颞叶-顶叶区)与正常儿童并无差异。听闻这样的结果，我在麻省理工的同事约翰·加布里埃利认为，这表示:很有可能，你在一个语系中的阅读毫无问题，但在另一个语系中会很辛苦!
    这也显示出我们低估了阅读障碍所具有的复杂性。若是在各种语系间会出现不同类型的阅读障碍，就有很大的可能在同一语系中出现不同的类型，而每个语系可能出现特有的几个类型。这在英文、中文及其他几个语系中都有发现。
    在西班牙语中，马德里的研究人员发现的亚型也类似于双重缺陷分类系统，但是有一个惊人的差异:在西班牙语中，影响最大的亚型阅读障碍者的理解力受损的程度要比英国的阅读障碍者轻微许多。类似的结果也出现在希伯来语中。在一项希伯来语与英语的研究中，以色列海法的研究人员比较了各方面条件都相当的研究对象，结果发现希伯来文阅读障碍者理解力受损的情况较轻微。似乎是因为这些语言和英语相比，所需的解码时间较短，因此有较多的时间留给理解过程。
    跨语言研究的好处是可以看出一个文字系统的特点会影响到它“瘫痪的原因。当语音技巧在阅读学习中占有相当重要的地位时，比方说在语法较为不规则的英语与法语中，通常会有的缺陷是音位意识与解码的正确性–这正是阅读障碍的良好指标。
    当阅读中这些技巧没那么重要时，比方说拼写规则透明度高的德语以及其他的表意文字，处理速度就成为阅读表现的最佳诊断指标，而阅读流畅度与理解力依旧是研究阅读障碍的重点。在透明度较高的语言中，如西班牙语、德语、芬兰语、荷兰语、希腊语及意大利语，阅读障碍儿童较少出现解码问题，反而是流畅度与理解力的问题较为严重。
    根据阅读发展中大脑的设计原则以及跨语言、跨方言的比较所累积的一个世纪的研究，为我们开启了一扇认识阅读脑的重要窗口。这让我们得以超越在文字系统的演变和儿童阅读发展中所学习到的知识。这也为我们展示了阅读所需的每项要点:视觉与听觉过程中最细微的侦测指标;在不同文字系统中，联系各过程所需的时间的差别;两个半脑各负责什么工作的问题。
    有了这一切作为基础，21世纪的研究人员开始探寻，在这段盲人摸象般的阅读障碍研究史中所发现的一切，最终是否基于一套有限的、掌管旧有结构发展的基因，以及它们通力合作的能力。这些假设我们将在第8章仔细推敲，最终可能产生一个综合这4类假设的总论，在当中有少数几个特别的基因造成了阅读所需结构的神经的异常发展，从而产生了一个效率偏低的全新神经回路，因为这套神经回路本来就不是用来阅读的。

    世纪之谜

    100年前，几乎没有人知道阅读障碍的存在。大约就在那时，我的曾曾祖父推着手推车在印第安纳州建立起一个小小的经济帝国。根据19世纪南印第安纳州地方史料的记载，尽管有着这样一个有趣的性格——“据说贝克曼(Beckmann)先生既不识字也不会写字，他采用笔画来表示所有的单位数量，以便用来记账，而不用数字;有时他也用数字，但是会混淆把10写成01”，但是他每年运送几百万磅的烟草到英国。
    我不会知道我的祖先对于自己无法阅读及颠倒数字的感受如何，但是我敢打赌他一定有像赛车手杰基·斯图尔特那样感到挫败的时刻，甚至是自卑，尽管他的事业有所成功。
    幸运的是，今天每位有阅读教学经验的教师都熟悉什么是严重的阅读障碍。预测阅读失败的知识开始运用到教学实践中。斯图尔特、奥法里、科斯比和其他许多人都表示知识和应用之间的差异深深地影响了他们的生活。目前，只有少数教师熟悉阅读障碍的历史，而仍然关心其研究趋势的人就更少了。如果我有5分钟时间跟全世界的父母与教师来谈论此事，我会用以下各点来总结20世纪阅读障碍研究历史的启示:
    学习阅读，就像红袜队的棒球比赛一样，是一件可以因为任何原因而失败的美好事情。如果孩子无缘无故地学不会阅读(既没有视觉异常也不缺乏适当的阅读指导)，让他们接受阅读专家与医生的评估是至关重要的。
    阅读障碍并没有固定的形式;相反，它是一个持续的发育障碍，反映出阅读以及特定语言中特定文字系统过程的众多组成问题。因此，阅读能力受损的儿童可能会表现出一系列的缺陷。这其中有些很细微，而且日后在学校中只会影响到流畅度与理解力，但多数儿童一开始还是以解码问题与无法学习字母-音位的对应关系规则为主，至少在英语中是如此。这样的缺陷也会出现在拼写能力上。
    众所周知的两项缺陷出现在语音与阅读流畅度的过程当中。因此，在大多数语言中，音位识别与命名速度这两项测试，再加上词汇量，都是读障碍的最佳预测指标。有音位缺陷的儿童一般都学不好字母-发音的对应规则以及解码。音位识别测试可以在幼儿园或一年级时就找出这些有问题的儿童。与之相反，仅有流畅度问题的儿童通常会在早期就表现出命名速度的问题。这类儿童的问题经常会被忽视，因为他们的解码是正确的尽管速度较慢。等成为高年级学生或是成年后，当阅读量增大时，他们缓慢的阅读速度跟不上时，就会产生阅读困难。他们比较像是使用德语和西班牙语这类规则语言的阅读障碍儿童，通常仅有流畅度与理解问题。快速命名测试和快速交替测试都可在幼儿园或一年级时就鉴别出有这些问题的儿童。同时有音位识别和命名速度这两项缺陷的儿童必须马上开始接受强化治疗。有少部分的儿童并没有出现音位识别与命名速度问题，但依旧有阅读缺陷，我们还需要进一步了解。
    一些阅读障碍严重的儿童，出生于语言贫乏的环境，因此词汇量成为关键因素。对有些儿童来说，英语是第二外语或方言(如非式美语或夏威夷英语 )，他们所展现出来的阅读障碍也会和一般以英语为第二语言的儿童不一样，因为他们处理英语音位的方式不同。因此有必要判断他们除了学习标准美式英语之外，在其他语言学习中是否也有阅读障碍，还是这纯粹只是因为学习第二外语或是方言的困难度而导致的问题。
    阅读障碍儿童的治疗应该处理到每一项影响阅读发展的因素，从拼写规则、语音到词汇与词法规则，以及当中的联结、流畅度和理解力的整合。任何一种阅读障碍儿童都不是“傻瓜”或“不听话”;也不是“不够用功，没有发挥潜力”，这三句话是他们最常听到而且长久忍受的。然而这些话通过许多人许多次的强调，经常会弄假成真，甚至连他们自己也误以为此。家长与老师必须确保所有的阅读障碍儿童，不论是何种形式的阅读问题，都立即受到强化治疗，而且没有一个孩子或成人因为阅读问题而被视为弱智。一旦发现儿童有阅读障碍，应立刻提供一个理解支持的方案直到儿童成为一个独立的流畅级阅读者，不然阅读障碍的挫败会引发另一个学习障碍、退学、行为不良的循环。更重要的是，社会与这些儿童都将失去他们尚未发挥的潜能。
    我的长子本就是这样一个例子。继一个世纪前他母系的曾曾曾祖父的阅读障碍后，本也出现了阅读的困难。尽管他跟许多其他阅读障碍儿童-样有相当的智力与天赋，还有积极协助的父母，他仍然在挣扎着。这本书最苦恼的时刻是在我介绍奥顿单侧化假说的时候，本就像他高中时一样，和我一同坐在餐桌旁，他在画画，那时我正写到为何奥顿的假设可能出错了。我看到了本的画，他正在仔细地画出整个倾斜的比萨斜塔，但却是上下颠倒的(见图7-9)!我问他为什么要这么画，他回答说这样画对他来说比较容易。

    阅读障碍研究的缺陷:在阅读障碍的历史与谜团中，我们已经知道了很多，但还有很多悬而未决的问题。其中一项便是右脑优势的阅读神经回路存在的可能性。

    我们这些研究人员没有一个可以用现阶段的知识来恰当地解释这个现象，在阅读障碍的历史与谜团中，我们已经知道了很多，但还有很多悬而未决的问题。其中一项便是右脑优势的阅读神经回路存在的可能性，这项极具争议的发现或许可以解释本异于常人的空间能力。
    2006年，本年满18岁，准备去读罗德岛设计学院，我决定和他讨论所有这些关于他的推测。我们画了一系列的图，从一般阅读者大脑使用两个半脑开始，然后是各种神经路径如何随着时间的变化而强化与自动化，最后探讨为什么阅读障碍者的神经回路路径可能异于常人。我丈夫吉尔和我早已习惯经常语出惊人的本;不过，这次他的第一个问题就让我不知所措。

    图 7-9 本17岁时画的比萨斜塔

    “那么，这是否意味着我比较有创造力是因为我比一般人更常使用右脑，增强了右脑的神经路径?还是说阅读障碍儿童天生就是有创造力的?我不知道要怎样回答本的问题，但我的确知道这个问题和近来右脑优势的阅读神经回路的新研究密切相关，这些问题反复出现在研究中:右脑优势的阅读神经回路，究竟是无法轻易命名字母与阅读文字的成因，还是结果。
    处于21世纪的我们正逐步揭开这个谜团，因为我们正在将过去的阅读障碍研究史中众所周知的与忽略的种种信息连接起来。再加上近来脑部成像研究所得到的新信息，对无法学习阅读的大脑到底发生了什么，我们眼前将会浮现出一个更为透彻的图像。我还不知道这项阅读障碍的新研究最后会有什么结局，身为一个研究者，我不愿多谈自己的直觉。但是如果我是正确的，我们将会发现阅读障碍是大脑补偿策略的一个惊人例子:当大脑无法正常运作一项功能时，它会重塑自身另辟蹊径。为什么会这样呢?这个问题将带领我们进入这座金字塔的最后两层，开始我们基因组成的有趣议题。

    第八章 不要错失阅读以外的才能

    “你读书的时候字母会在书页上漂浮，对吗?这是因为你的心智是由古希腊人打造的,”一起露营的、有着灰色眼睛的安娜贝什解释道，“还有注意力缺陷多动障碍–你太冲动，在教室里坐不住。那是你战斗力的条件反射。在真正的战斗中，这会保住你的性命。至于注意力问题，其实是因为你看到太多，而不是太少了!珀西，你的感觉超乎常人……面对它吧!你是一个混血儿。” ——里克·赖尔登
    倘若我们知道
    一如雕刻家所知
    木材中的缺陷
    如何引导他的刻刀
    找到最核心的地方
    ——戴维·怀特

    爱迪生、达·芬奇和爱因斯坦这三位举世闻名的伟人，据说都有阅读障碍。爱迪生小时候因为阅读障碍和健康状况不佳，不能进入正式学校学习，但他却是美国取得最多专利权的人，他创造出了无数惊人的发明，其中一项照亮了整个世界。

    达·芬奇是历史上最具创造力的人之一，他身兼发明家、画家、雕刻家、音乐家、工程师和科学家等诸多身份。虽然在各方面都很突出，他却经常被怀疑有阅读障碍。这样的猜测主要来自他留下的大量稀奇古怪的笔记。这些笔记都是从右至左的“镜像字体”，当中充满错别字、错误的语法和奇怪的语言错误。好多位为他写传记的作家都提到他不喜欢语言，而且经常提到自己缺少阅读能力。在描写理想的画家生活时，达·芬奇曾说过，最好身边总是有人为他朗读。神经心理学家阿伦(PG.Aaron)在分析达·芬奇的读写问题后，认为这正是“右半脑补偿机制”最有力的证据。
    爱因斯坦3岁以前都不大说话，他在任何需要动用文字的科目上，如外语，都表现平平。他曾说过:“我最大的缺点就是记忆力差，特别是记忆文字和内容。”他甚至还说文字在他的理论思考中,“似乎没有扮演任何角色”他“多半都是由清楚的图像来思考的”。
    爱因斯坦的状态是否如他自己和格施温德所认为的一样，是一种阅读障碍，目前仍然不得而知。不过，如果真的发现颠覆我们时间和空间认识的理论家，其脑部竟然有和时间相关的缺陷，该是怎样曲折的一段故事!要解开这个谜团，其中一个线索在他的大脑里。加拿大的神经科学家进行了一个有趣但备受争议的实验，他们解剖了爱因斯坦的大脑，发现在他扩大的顶叶中，两半脑异常地对称，不同于一般典型的左右不对称模式。
    多数的阅读障碍者并没有爱迪生或达·芬奇那样惊人的天赋，但似乎有不少的阅读障碍者具备不寻常的才能。我曾记录了一份在各领域颇有声誉的阅读障碍者名单，随着名单的不誉的阅读障碍者名单，随着名单的不断增长，我改成了只记录这些领域。

    患有阅读障碍的名人们:爱迪生、达·芬奇、爱因斯坦、冠军车手斯图尔特、建筑大师安东尼奥·高迪、思科CEO 约翰·钱伯斯、演员约翰尼·德普、凯拉·奈特利……

    在医学界，阅读障碍者可能出现在放射部门，在这里模式识别是工作的重心。在工程和计算机技术领域，他们大量集中在设计与模式识别部门。在商业界，奥法里和施瓦布这些阅读障碍者倾向于从事高级财务或资金管理，这类工作需要从大量的资料中预测趋势和进行推理。我小叔子是一位建筑师，他告诉我在他之前的事务所，建筑师的文章如果没有经过两次的拼写检查，绝对不会拿出去。有阅读障碍的演员包括丹尼·格洛弗(Danny Glover)、凯拉·奈特利(Keira Knightley)、乌比·戈德堡(Whoopi Goldberg)、帕特里克·登普西(Patrick Dempsey)以及约翰尼·德普( Johnny Depp )。

    另外两个例子则来自我的亲身经历。当我怀孕的时候，我被介绍去一名波士顿最有名的放射科医师那里做 B超。在我躺在那里等待时，听到旁边的技术员聊天，他们说全世界的患者都想到这个放射科医师的诊所来，因为这位医师是该领域最权威的人士。我的耳朵马上竖了起来，尽可能客气地问他们，为什么她是最好的，他们立刻回答我，因为她可以在几秒钟内找到一般人找不到的模式。后来，我才得知她和她的父亲都有阅读障碍。
    最近一趟巴塞罗那的旅行也有类似的经历。有5天时间，我都漫步于西班牙伟大的建筑师安东尼奥·高迪(Antonio Gaudi)的作品所在的街道上，那里的教堂和建筑充满着才华横溢的设计、异想天开的创造力和肆无忌惮的颜色运用。我猜想高迪应该也有阅读障碍。瞧，我是对的!每本高迪的传记都记录了他儿时学习与阅读时的悲惨经历。他差点儿被赶出学校，但在毕业之后，他却成为西班牙有史以来最杰出的艺术家，成为巴塞罗那建筑的守护神。

    阅读障碍者的右脑

    我们如何才能解释这么多阅读障碍者在创造力方面及其“跳出思维框架”的优势?正如我儿子本所问的，到底是因为阅读障碍者的左脑出现了问题，迫使他们使用右脑，进而增强了所有的右半脑的联结，因此发展出独特的策略来应对所有的事情，还是一开始他们的右脑联结就更有掌控性和创造力，因此接管了阅读这类活动?神经科学家阿尔·加拉布尔达(Al Galaburda)认为这两个推论可能都对了一半:“一开始没有形成左半脑的神经回路，使右半脑的神经回路能够动用许多空闲出来的神经突触。稍后，既然不能进行阅读，它们就往其他方面发展，尤其是那些擅长的方面。这些初步的证据所引发的问题并没有确切的答案，不过通过整合行为认知、神经结构与遗传学等多个层面来探讨阅读障碍问题却是一个很好的开始。基因基础是关键。尽管没有专门的阅读基因，但是这并不意味着没有与某些形成阅读脑固有缺陷有关的基因，这些基因也可能潜在地与其他强项有关。未来阅读障碍的研究方向将把我们关于行为强度和结构缺陷的知识与遗传信息结合起来，以探索是否某些阅读障碍儿童的右脑从一开始就具有建造大教堂的天赋。
    八十多年前，奥顿第一次提出大脑的两个半球无法整合各自存储的图像这一极具争议的假设。五十多年之后，格施温德写了一篇论文，标题很简单–“为什么奥顿是对的”。格施温德列出13个他和奥顿对于阅读障碍相同的见解，并认为这些见解应当纳人所有有关阅读障碍的探讨之中。
    这份清单以阅读障碍的遗传基础与大脑组织可能出现的结构差异开始，列出了在阅读障碍者受到影响的家族成员和未受到影响的亲戚中发现的优秀的空间天赋:意想不到的阅读能力，如阅读上下或镜像颠倒的文字如我的儿子和达·芬奇所做的那样);书写困难等其他不寻常的特征;并不是每个个案都会表现出说话、知觉与运动异常，这些问题需要更多深入的探索(如口吃、两手同样灵活、笨拙与情绪化等问题);以及口语与语言系统的发展缓慢。

    格施温德讨论“为什么奥顿是对的”的论文，给21世纪的研究人员留下了一份检查清单，要想解开阅读障碍之谜，获得一个满意的解释，就要先回答这些问题。以镰状细胞性贫血(这些患者的基因可以抵抗疟疾)为例，格施温德继续深入地观察，获得了这些现在看来依旧相当敏锐的发现:

    阅读障碍者经常在许多领域具有极高的天赋……我建议你别把这当做巧合。如果大脑左侧的某些改变造成其他区域尤其是大脑右侧的优越性，那表示在一个到处都是文盲的社会里，有着这样的改变的人反而具有优势，他们的天赋会让他们成为高度成功的公民……因此，我们陷入了-个矛盾的概念:大脑左侧的异常问题，在某些普遍识字的社会里是阅读障碍，同时也在同一颗大脑中决定了其优越性。

    这些观察和他大多数神奇的想法一样，是阅读障碍实证研究的先驱我们现在才跟上他的脚步。早逝的格施温德没能见到他的许多真知灼见对这个领域的持续影响，这些影响有的来自于他的直接贡献，有的来自于他的学生的研究，还有的来自于由他开始的阅读障碍研究计划，这些计划一直持续至今，将行为联系到结构、神经元乃至基因层面。
    格施温德所设想的研究计划早在二十多年前就在波士顿市立医院开始了:对于一颗保存完好的阅读障碍者大脑，没有人知道该如何处理。因此这颗大脑就交给了格施温德，他知道该怎么处理。他立刻将其交给他的两个年轻的神经科学学生加拉布尔达和托马斯·肯珀(Thomas Kemper)，他们立刻对此进行了仔细的研究，首先解剖几个宏观结构，其次是阅读必须用到的微观区域。
    此后没多久，就发生了另一个重大事件。格施温德和加拉布尔达与“奥顿阅读障碍学会”成立了“脑库”，在贝斯以色列医院保存了少数几颗阅读障碍者的大脑。这个机构的影响深远，目前右脑成像研究的发现就来自这个脑库。多数人的颞平面和语言有关。颞平面是颞叶上的一块三角形区域，包括一部分的韦尼克区，在左半脑的区域会比右半脑的大。加拉布尔达与肯珀发现成人阅读障碍者的脑部并没有呈现出不对称;相反，他们的两个半脑是对称的，因为他们右半脑的颞平面比一般人的稍大一些。

    颞平面:多数人的颞平面和语言有关。颞平面是颞叶上的一块三角形区域，包括一部分的韦尼克区，在左半脑的区域会比右半脑的大。

    加拉布尔达的研究团队从这些发现中推测，阅读障碍者脑部的单侧化不完全，或是和一般人不同–这一观点对许多语言过程的发展有很大的影响。他们推测右脑颞平面异常的大,可能源自于胎儿期间细胞的自然减少这可能导致颞平面神经元的数量增加，接下来，阅读障碍者在右半脑形成新的联结以及整套新的皮质结构。当他们尝试在活着的阅读障碍者的脑部寻找类似的对称性时，功能性核磁共振成像的结果比较复杂，因此他们的假设失去了基础。
    在结构层面得不到一致的结论,促使研究往细胞层面推进。加拉布尔达与其同事们采用“细胞建构学”方法，来研究可能与阅读障碍有关的一些区域的细胞微观结构、数量和神经元迁移模式。他们发现在胎儿期初期的发展中，有几处和语言与阅读相关区域的外胚层细胞会进行迁移:左侧颞平面、丘脑的几处区域以及视觉皮质区域。这些区域组成了阅读神经回路部分，它们发生的任何神经元迁移都可能影响到这些回路之间神经交流的准确度与效率。
    举例而言，加拉布尔达的研究团队发现，负责快速或瞬间处理过程的“巨细胞系统”，在丘脑内部与阅读相关的两个重要中心里，至少有两处表现出持续的异常现象:一处是脑内的外侧膝状体，负责协调视觉过程;另一处是内侧膝状体，负责协调听觉过程。我们再次发现了两个半脑之间的区别，右半脑的大型神经元要比左半脑多一些。加拉布尔达认为这些细胞的差异会影响到处理文字信息所需要的时间，而且可能意味着阅读障碍者使用了一个不同于常人的阅读神经回路。
    加拉布尔达慎重地指出，我们还不知道这些差异到底是阅读障碍的成因还是结果。这里浮现出来的问题是，各类神经元的改变如果发生在重要的部位(如阅读所需的固有结构)，就可能破坏阅读所需的神经效率，因而会促使大脑形成一个不同的阅读神经回路。该观点整合了过去许多基于结构、处理速度与神经回路改变等缺陷的有关阅读障碍的假设。

    有两项特别的研究阐明了这个结论。其中一项是在转基因老鼠身上测试神经元层面缺陷的影响,有时候,这种老鼠被夸张地称为“超级鼠”。贝斯以色列医院的神经科学家格伦·罗森(Glenn Rosen)在这些老鼠的听觉皮质区造成一处小小的损伤，类似于早期在阅读障碍者丘脑中发现的神经异常。实验发现，损伤导致了老鼠无法再快速处理呈现的听觉信息。此外，格伦的动物模型显示出重要区域的细胞可能导致处理信息的效率出问题。
    另一项由波士顿神经科学家主持的研究显示，患有罕见遗传性癫痫“脑室旁结状灰质异位症”的病人也有相似的情况。这种病人在出生前脑室旁会有“流氓细胞”形成的神经瘤。这些神经瘤类似于在超级老脑中诱发的损伤:它们出现在不该出现的地方，因此在某些情况下具有破坏性。在这个研究案例中,这些神经瘤造成以后生活中的癫痫发作-但也有可能是其他原因。

    这项研究的参与者之一张博士找到了我和我的同事塔米·卡兹尔(Tami Katzir)，因为他们在所有的患者身上都发现了一个同样的行为特征:阅读流畅度极差，他对此感到疑或不解。有些患者小时候就被诊断出阅读障碍有些则没有。有些出现语音缺陷，有些没有。但所有患者出乎意料地都是迟缓型阅读者。我们立刻意识到，不论是成人阅读障碍者，还是儿童阅读障碍者，关于他们阅读流畅度的问题，这些患者可以提供无法预测到的证据。
    将这些研究集合起来，我们得出了几项重要的启示:造成阅读流畅度受损或是迟缓的途径可能很广泛，阅读障碍的成因是多么各种各样。癫痫患者的例子暗示着阅读障碍可能是由脑部许多区域的缺陷导致的。例如在可能影响到视觉工作效率的地方或是在可能减弱语音过程的区域长出脑瘤，这两种情况都会造成阅读迟缓。但这些案例不能解释为什么在某些读障碍者身上会出现过多依赖右半脑的情况，但是它们确实显示出因为左脑的种种缺陷，大脑被迫使用相应的右半脑区域。
    在格施温德的逻辑之上发展出了一个新的假设。在没有文字的社会里，右半脑强化基因可能会高度发达，但在有文字的社会中，同样的基因却在右半脑中建立了基于时间功能的、负责精确度的阅读结构。而这些功能最终会用右脑的独特方式来执行，它们没有左半脑的准确度高，效率也不尽如人意。所以在阅读中不可避免地会遇到困难。一位杰出的遗传学家观察到，阅读受到许多基因的影响，这些基因的出现会增加阅读问题的风险，但是和由一个基因造成一种特定的遗传性疾病的情况不一样。举个例子，囊肿性纤维化症的一个基因就决定了其显型结果，或称为遗传结果。相反，阅读基于许多固有的过程，因此复杂度高不是一个基因就可以完全决定所有的阅读障碍类型。换句话说，阅读障碍不会只有一种显型。
    耶鲁大学的遗传学家埃琳娜·格里戈林克(Elena Grigorenko)的研究强化了这个观点。在对与阅读障碍相关的遗传区域进行地毯式分析之后她认为这个问题是多基因而非单基因遗传。这项结论解释了为什么有多种阅读障碍亚型的存在。彭宁顿和科罗拉多的研究团队也观察到，亚型如有语音缺陷、流畅度缺陷、双重缺陷与拼写规则缺陷等表现的阅读者是几种显型在行为层面的表现。而且，由于不同的文字系统所需的条件不同，有些表现型可能在拼写规则的语言中较为普遍，如德语，有些会在不规则的英语中居多，而在全然不同的文字系统如中文、日文这类语素音节文字中，又是另一种表现。

    阅读障碍是多基因的遗传现象:阅读障碍不是一种由一个基因造成的疾病。阅读涉及许多复杂的认知过程，没有哪个基因可以完全决定所有的阅读障碍类型，阅读障碍是一种多基因的遗传现象。

    目前一些跨国研究初步支持了这样的观点:在其他语言的阅读障碍者身上会发现遗传的差异。芬兰与瑞典的研究人员发表了一份资料，他们发现在第6条染色体上称为DCDC2的遗传位置可以用来辨别多数的德语读障碍者，他们主要都有流畅度缺陷的问题。耶鲁与科罗拉多的研究团队针对英语语系的阅读障碍者进行研究，结果也支持这个基因位置，但在他们的实验对象里仅有17%的人是阅读障碍者。有趣的是，我们发现在我们的亚型研究中，阅读障碍者中约有17%的人也只有流畅度缺陷的问题。

    DCDC2的故事里有一个有趣的转折，这与之前提到的阅读障碍使用不同的阅读神经回路有关。通过动物模型，耶鲁的研究人员研究发现压制这个遗传位置的表现时，新生的神经元不会迁移到右半脑皮质区。耶鲁的研究人员据此提出一个假设:有类似的遗传变异的阅读障碍儿童，他们的脑部可能会形成并使用一个“效率较低的阅读神经回路”。
    在另一个不同类型的研究中，研究者关注了一个具有悠久阅读障碍遗传史的芬兰大家族，发现他们一个称为ROBO1的区域表现出遗传变异有趣的是，如果按照奥顿早年提出的假设来看，ROBO1协助“发育期间塑造大脑两侧的神经联结，并且阅读障碍者的ROBO1可能受损”。另外，这些研究也在两种规则语言中发现了两个不同的区域–这正好反映出阅读障碍的多种解释以及为何在单一语言中发现诸多亚型的事实。
    其他支持来自美国一项大型且相当完善的遗传研究项目“科罗拉多双胞胎研究”。在这个项目中，心理学家迪克·奥尔森(Dick Olson)和其他研究者从幼儿园开始追踪了300对同卵与异卵的双胞胎。这个团队发现儿童在阅读能力、语音意识和快速命名的能力方面，表现出很大的遗传效应和一些环境效应。对理解阅读障碍中可能的亚型极为重要的是，语音技能与快速命名都显示出独立的、意义重大的遗传性。
    如果这些结果可以重复验证，那就表示有单独的基因来负责目前已有文献记载的英语阅读障碍亚型的两种过程，并且在许多语言中可以以此预测阅读障碍。倘若未来的研究可以准确地找到不同的显型，以及它们的结构和行为特征、缺陷和强度之间的关系，我们就有办法解开阅读障碍史中的许多谜团。

    每个孩子都有自己的潜能

    如果有好几种显型，有些儿童的阅读障碍可能同时遗传自父系与母系。我在思考儿子本的阅读障碍家族遗传史时，考虑到各种细微和明显的个案发现他和弟弟戴维的情况，就和奥顿与格施温德观察到的一样。虽然戴维具有写作天赋，还热爱足球，看起来似乎没有受到任何影响，但他提取文字的问题以及书写困难，无论如何补救都没有用。
    戴维的情况和本的双重缺陷可能来自两个家族基因综合的结果。我的公公厄恩斯特·诺姆(Ernst Noam)是一个欧洲知识分子，学的是德国法律，但在希特勒时代始终无法执业。我丈夫的姐姐从她父亲那不同寻常的求学史中，发现他有某种类型的阅读障碍，虽然他可以读4种语言。我自己的母系中，曾曾祖父颠倒数字与字母的事迹人人皆知，连印第安纳州的历史中都记载了这个事实。吉尔和我的兄弟姐妹、堂兄表妹、外甥和侄女中分别有人从事艺术家、工程师、律师、商人、外科医生的职业，都取得了成功，其中有些人曾有过轻微或不甚轻微的学习问题。
    格施温德花了不少篇幅来讨论，我们有必要了解“未受影响”的家族成员的基因情况。例如他注意到奥顿本身的“了不起的空间才能”。戴维的书写困难与文字提取问题，并不需要我特别花精力去研究，一直到我坐下来动笔写这一章时，我才开始审视自己的学习经历。我自己的阅读过程看似没什么特别之处，我的文字提取过程也毫不费力–这完全是因为我对文字的热爱无形中给我提供了已经准备好的替代方式。
    还有一件与此有关的事情，我也是现在才想通。多年前，我有个不为人知的梦想，希望能成为一个钢琴家。当我温柔的钢琴老师告诉我，她很喜欢听我弹莫扎特、肖邦或贝多芬，但我弹的并不是这些作曲家原本想要表达的，我的梦想就此破灭了。她说我有自己的时间感，总是跟作曲家不一样，而且她认为这个问题改正不了。刹那间我明白为什么我每次陪那些可怜的孩子弹钢琴时，总觉得他们的节奏不对。原来是我自己的时间感有问题，而不是他们错了!一直到现在我才想到我读乐谱的怪异方式可能是一种遗传的表现，来自我自身处理速度差异的遗传。

    在阅读障碍者的家庭里，其实没有“未受影响”的家庭成员。我们每-天都受到或多或少的影响，任何一个有孩子、孙子或兄弟姐妹是阅读障碍者的家庭，都明白这一点。不过我们受到影响的方式可能超乎我们的理解–这些方式打开了一扇门，让我们理解为什么在具有阅读障碍遗传史的家族中，会出现如此多的各式各样的家族成员。

    我对爱因斯坦大脑的重量和脑回没有太大的兴趣，我好奇的为什么拥有相同才能的人，却在棉花田或是毛衣店里耗尽了一生。 ——史蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德

    最后，阅读障碍研究最重要的启示，并不是要确保我们不妨碍未来达·芬奇或爱迪生的发展;而是要确保我们没有错过任何一个儿童的潜能并不是所有的阅读障碍儿童都天赋异禀，但他们每一位都具有独特的潜能然而大多无人知晓，因为我们不知道如何开发这些潜能。
    我们这些研究阅读障碍的人正尝试寻找能够实现他们潜能的方法。在所有该说的都说了、该做的都做了之后，最终需要将从行为开始一直到基因层面的阅读障碍研究与我们的教学方法和内容结合起来，看看是否适用于特殊的儿童。就我们所探索过的众多原因来看，目前大多数学校采取的是统一的教学模式，无法帮助阅读方面有困难的儿童。因此，有必要让教师们接受培训，使用一套可以用来辅导不同类型的儿童的教育规则。正如政策制定者里德·莱昂(Reid Lyon)一再强调的那样，我们还需要调查与了解不同条件的儿童所需要的最好照顾是什么。世界上并没有一个普遍有效的治疗计划，不过倒是有必须纳入所有语文教学计划的原则。
    在这些重要的原则中，有几项和文字本身一样古老。多年来，我和同事在阅读语言研究中心，以我们对阅读脑的了解，设计并且评估了一个治疗计划(RAVE-O)，可以帮助许多正在挣扎的阅读者克服诸多语言缺陷我们从来就没有意识到我们其实是在重复发明苏美尔人的那套教学规则这是目前人类史上所知的最早的阅读教学法。

    我们可以用全然不同的方式来组装教学法，但跟苏美尔人一样，强调每天大脑阅读所用的主要语言与认知过程:以词语的语义家族来指导语义的深层知识以便提取词语;强调语音意识及其与字母表征的关系;强调拼写规则的自动化学习:强调语法知识与词法知识。但跟苏美尔人不同的是我们采用多种策略来处理流畅度与理解力的问题。我们和苏美尔人一样想要每个有困难的阅读者尽可能多地认识字;但我们希望每个儿童都能快乐地学习。
    和儿童一起工作的我们，希望他们能了解，尽管学习方式不同，但他们每一位都可以学会阅读。寻找最好的方式来指导阅读障碍儿童是我们的工作，而不是儿童自己的责任。我和我们的同事莫里斯和莫琳·洛维特(Maureen Lovett)10年来开展了针对各种治疗计划的研究，我们都努力做着这样的工作。

    每个孩子都有自己的潜能:我们不能错过任何一个发展儿童潜能的机会。并不是所有的阅读障碍儿童都天赋异禀，但他们每一位都有独特的潜能，这些神奇的能力往往被埋没了，因为我们不知道应该如何开发。

    我们实验室与全国各地的研究中心未来的努力将放在治疗计划造成的改变上，不仅是行为的变化，也包括神经层次的变化。比如，现在我们正和麻省理工的加布里埃利的研究团队合作，研究和判断在我们的治疗计划前后，阅读障碍者的脑部重要区域是否发生了变化。好的老师不需要学习神经学也会知道口语和文字的许多层面是非常重要的，不过纳入神经科学的教育研究可以判定哪些方式对儿童最有效。只要我们能观察儿童在从事特定的测验时所动用的结构区域，以及在经过一套强化疗程后，他们改变的经过和情况，便可以知道这一切。
    这些新方向正改变着我对阅读障碍的看法，不论是身为一名研究人员还是一个母亲。如果阅读障碍依赖右脑的理论，在某些甚至大多数的儿童身上被证明是正确的，这相当于开辟了一条前所未有的道路——教育大脑组织架构不同于常人的阅读障碍者，这其中也混合着独一无二的优势和挑战。最后，所有关于以不同方式来学习阅读的儿童的研究，都将成为研究我们如何学习阅读的巨大知识体系的一部分。随着时间的演变，不论最终的解释是什么，这个领域的研究驱使着我们超越过去二十多年的所学，进入一个几乎尚未探索过的新领域。事实上，超越我们的所知，正是本书的最后一个目的。

    第四部分让大脑有时间来思考:超越阅读脑

    在传统书籍与电脑屏幕的冲突中，屏幕终将取得压倒性的胜利。地球上已有10亿人在看这样的屏幕，搜索技术会把零散的书籍转化为全人类知识的环球图书馆。 ——
    凯文·凯利

    第九章 网络时代的阅读与思维方式

    世界每一次沉闷的转折都有这样一些人被剥夺继承权，他们既不占有过去，也不占有未来。因为未来即使近在咫尺，对于人类也很遥远。 ——雷纳·玛丽·里尔克
    阅读是一种内在的纯净而简单的行为。其目的并不仅仅是吸收信息而已……相反，阅读是拷问自身……书，是人类创造出来的最美好的东西。 ——詹姆斯·卡罗尔

    每个社会都在担忧他们的年轻人以及他们未来将要面临的挑战。在人类进化的过程中，此刻所面临的这些挑战正步伐加速，对此没有人能比未来主义者兼发明家雷·克兹维尔(Ray Kurzweil)描述得更令人信服。他在充满远见的著作中说，通过人类发明的科技和人工智能，我们大脑内上千亿的神经联结将成倍地扩张:

    我们有信心在 21 世纪 20 年代看到供我们模拟整大脑的数据收集与运算工具，使人类智能的运作原则与智慧型信息处理的形式有可能结合起来。机器拥有储存、提取与快速分享大量信息的强大功能，人类也将因此受惠。然后，我们便能在电脑运算平台上应用这些强大的混合系统，这将远远超过构造上较为稳定的人类大脑的能力。
    受限于我们大脑目前每秒 1016~1019次的运算能力，我们甚至难以想象，2099 年我们的未来文明——届时大脑能以每秒 1060次的速度来运算，那么我们思考与行动的能力又将如何呢?

    有件事情倒是可以预见的，那就是人类行善与破坏的能力也将成倍地增强。如果要为这样一个未来做准备，那么我们做出重大抉择的能力势必来自于过去世代的学习者鲜少使用的严格标准。若是物种想取得完全意义上的进步，这样的准备工作，需要将大脑的注意力与抉择力为全人类的幸福服务。换而言之，要准备好迎接这样的未来，必须将我们目前的阅读脑调整到最好的状态，因为它已经开始经历下一代的改变了。
    克兹维尔暗示思想过程成倍地加速发展完全是件好事，我并不同意这种观点。在音乐、诗歌乃至生活中，休息、停顿、缓慢的变化是了解整体的必需要素。事实上我们的大脑中有一种“延迟神经元”，其主要的功能就是延缓其他神经元之间的神经传导，不过仅仅几毫秒而已。正是这些难以估计的几毫秒为我们对现实的领悟带来秩序，协调我们踢足球和演奏交响乐时的动作。

    “更多与更快必然就是更好”的假设也应当受到质疑，尤其是在从如何饮食到如何学习这样的想法都在不断影响美国社会的时候，很难说这是否真的会带来好处。
    举例来说，我们的孩子目前所经历的这些充满加速度的变化，是否将严重影响他们的注意力，是否会影响他们把一个词转化成一个想法、把个想法转化成一个超越想象的、充满任何可能性的世界的能力?我们的下一代在言语文字中发现见解、欢乐、痛苦与智慧的能力是否也将发生戏剧性的改变?他们和语言的关系是否也将产生本质上的变化?他们是否会因为习惯接收即时的电脑屏幕信息，而使得目前阅读脑的注意力、推理能力与反省能力发育不完全?未来一代又一代的孩子又会如何?苏格拉底对没有指导而随意接触信息的顾虑，在现今的世界中是否比古希腊时代更让人忐忑不安?
    或者我们的新信息科技所产生的需求，如多重任务以及整合与权衡大量的信息,也许有助于发展更有价值的新技能?那么人类的智力、生活品质以及作为一个种族的集体智慧是否会因此而增长?智力的加速提升，会给予人们更多的时间来反思与追求人性的美好吗?倘若真是如此，下一代人所具备的那套智力技能，是否将会导致产生一群新的、权利被剥夺的儿童就跟目前的阅读障碍者一样，被置于一般人之外?又或者是在对待儿童的学习差异时，我们会因为认识到大脑组织形式的差异性以及这些遗传变异所带来的优势与缺点，而对此准备得更充分一些?
    大脑的结构并不是天生设计用来阅读的，阅读障碍就是目前最好也是最鲜明的证据。阅读障碍在我看来是日常生活中一个关于进化的提醒，提醒自己世界上存在着组织极为不同的大脑。有些组织方式可能不适合用来阅读，但对于建筑物与艺术的创造，以及模式识别–不论是在古战场还是活体组织切片中，都至关重要。大脑组织的某些变异可能会为即将占主导的沟通模式带来一些新的装备。

    延迟神经元:“更多”、“更快”未必就是更好。我们的大脑中有一种“延迟神经元”，其主要功能就是延缓神经元之间的神经传导，正是这延缓的短短几毫秒为我们对现实的领悟带来了秩序与和谐。

    21世纪，人类身处重大而急速的转变之中，我们中的大多数几乎都不能预料到或者完全了解这些转变。正是因为意识到这种转变的意义，我将本书的主旨放在进化、发展以及阅读脑的不同组织方式上。文字的演变和阅读脑的发展提供了一面具有重要意义的镜子，让作为一个种族的我们看清自己。人类是众多口语与文字文化的创造者，其中许多学习者个体的智能形式都是不同的，而且正在不断地延伸发展。
    在本书的最后一章，我将以阅读为镜子，回过头来检视之前提出的几个重大观点，然后踏上“超越文本”的探险之旅。在那个未知的领域里我想讨论这些信息对这一代以及下一代的儿童有何影响。最后，阅读脑中的哪些部分是我们在进入下一次大脑重整前，应该倾尽全力保存的?我想就这个问题提出一些反思。

    对阅读进化的反思

    我对阅读脑进化的总体反应就是惊讶。为什么一小套代币符号在相对较短的时间里竟然茁壮成长，演变出一套完全成熟的书写系统来?为什么单单一个文化性的发明在不到6000年的时间里，就改变了大脑内部的联结方式，以及我们这个物种智力的可能性?然而更让人惊讶的是:大脑竟然神奇到能超越本身，在这过程中同时增强其功能与我们的智力能力。
    阅读说明了大脑如何学习新技能并且增加自己的智能:在旧有结构之间重塑神经回路与联结;充分利用自己的能力促使区域专门化，尤其是在模式识别方面;而且阅读也解释了新的神经回路如何转为自动化，如何释放出更多皮质运作的时间与空间，供其他更为复杂的思考过程使用。也就是说，阅读展现出大脑组织中最基本的设计原则，是如何塑造我们持续进化的认知发展的。
    大脑的设计让阅读成为可能，而阅读的设计则以多层次的、关键的、持续演变的方式来影响并改变大脑。这样相互的动态关系在我们这个物种的文字系统中诞生，并且在儿童学习阅读的过程中大放异彩。学习阅读将我们这个物种从许多先前人类记忆的限制中释放出来。突然间我们的祖先可以接触到不需要一遍遍地反复传诵的知识，还可以大幅扩展这些知识。有了文字就不需要重复发明轮子，也就有可能发明更为复杂的东西，就像雷·克兹维尔为阅读障碍者发明的阅读机器。
    与此同时，瞬间可成的识字能力让个体阅读者不仅从记忆的限制中释放出来，也从时间中释放出来。通过逐渐自动化，识字能让个体阅读者减少一开始花在解码过程中的时间，将更多的认知时间和皮质空间用于已记录思想的深层分析。在两个半脑的长度和宽度之间，随处可见初级解码时期与完全自动化的理解型大脑之间的神经回路系统的发展差异。通过专门化与自动化，系统可以变得更为流畅，也就有更多的时间思考。这是阅读脑赐予我们的神奇礼物。
    没有什么发明可以让大脑准备得如此充分，让物种如此的先进。随着社会文化中读写能力的广泛普及，阅读的行为默默地邀请每位阅读者超越文本本身;如此一来，更进一步地推动个体阅读者与文化的智能发展。阅读的“传承性”来自于生物性，是靠智力获得的，这是时间赐予大脑的一份礼物，贵重程度难以衡量。
    这项观点的生物证据要从我们意识到今日的大脑结构和4万年前不识字的原始人之间几乎没有什么差异谈起。我们和苏美尔人、埃及人的大脑结构并没有什么不同，但是我们使用与连接这些结构的方式却创造出极大的区别，就像在象形文字与字母文字等不同文字系统的阅读比较中所见的。
    珀费提、谭力海与他们的研究团队进行了一项先驱性的研究，证明了每种文字系统，不论是古代的还是现代的，都使用许多类似的以及一些独特的结构性联结。在用来阅读埃及象形文字或汉字的大脑中的某些激活的区域，在阅读希腊文或英文这类字母文字的大脑中绝对不会被激活，反之亦然。这些逐渐适应的变异，正是大脑重塑自身以执行新功能的内在潜能的鲜明佐证。
    在文字系统诞生之初，发生改变的不仅只有大脑神经回路而已。正如古典主义者埃里克·哈夫洛克所主张的，希腊字母文字代表的是人类历史上一场心理与教学法的革命:写作过程释放出前所未有的能力，使大脑产生新思维。一些顶尖的认知神经科学家研究了各种文字系统中这种能力的神经基础，不只是字母文字，还包括所有综合性的书写系统。他们描述了学习阅读时，大脑基本运算的重塑如何成为新思维的神经基础。换而言之，大脑为了阅读而规划的新的神经回路，成了能够以不同的崭新的方式来思考的基础。

    阅读革命:阅读革命是同时基于神经元与文化的，始于第一个综合性文字系统的出现。它所增进的书写效率与释放出的记忆，有助于新思维的形成。

    因此，阅读革命是同时基于神经元与文化的，而且始于第一个综合性文字系统的出现，而不是第一套字母文字。它所增进的书写效率与释放出的记忆，有助于新思维的形成，神经系统也是如此建立阅读系统的。学会重塑自身结构来阅读的大脑，更容易产生新的想法;阅读与书写促进智力技能日益复杂化，这又增加了我们的智能储备库，而且会持续增加。关于上述讨论，我们必须反思这样一个问题:哪些技能是不会出现在口语文化中，而必须靠文字来提升的?在创造出最早的代币符号后，紧接着是第一套会计系统，伴随而来的是要获取更多更好的信息而提升的决策力。因此，很明显第一套已知的符号(除了洞穴里的壁画)是服务于经济的。
    最初的综合性文字系统，即苏美尔人的楔形文字与埃及人的象形文字将简单的会计转变成系统性的文献记载，引发出具有组织性的系统与编码从而加速了智能的重大提升。到了公元前2000年，阿卡德语的文献就开始对整个已知的世界进行分类，例如百科全书式的《关于宇宙万物》(AIThings Known in the Universe )、法律经典著作《汉谟拉比法典》，以及其他各种著名的医药文献。就连科学方法本身，都是源自于我们祖先日益成长的记载、编撰与分类的能力。
    在许多地方都可以找到语言意识增进的证据，开始于苏美尔人教导阅读的方式。他们在“泥板屋”所用的方法对于词汇不同特性的高度认知有一定的贡献:例如，词语间多重语义或意义间的关系;不同的语法功能;词语内部组成的结合性，可以用已有的词根与词素组成新的词语;以及方言间、语言间不同的发音。
    苏美尔的年轻人痛苦地将老师刻在泥板上的一列列文字复制到另一面。这一过程不仅对语言意识的渐进发展极有帮助，也对思考本身贡献良多。几个世纪以后，我们从阿卡德人的文献，如《吉尔伽美什史诗》《悲观主义的对话》，与其他许多保存下来的乌加里特文献中了解了这些成长中的小学生的感受、想法、尝试与喜悦，走入了他们的内心世界。这些古老著作正是超越时间的见证，见证着现在我们经常思考到的现代意识的出现。
    很少有学者比耶稣会文化史学家沃尔特·翁更鲜活地表现出读写能力对于古代世界的意识出现有何贡献。在他毕生对口语和读写能力关系的研究中，沃尔特·翁重新构建了阅读对人类独特贡献的问题，这可能有助于我们思考目前正转移到数字化交流模式的问题。20年前，沃尔特·翁就主张人类智能进化的真正争议点不在于一种文化模式所推动的交流技巧比另一种先进，而是人类在两者间转换的能力。沃尔特·翁曾写过一段很有先见之明的文字:

    人类生来就会的口语，和后天学会的书写技术间的相互作用触及心灵的深处。正是口头的文字以清晰的语言来阐明意识，首先区分出主语与谓语，然后探究其中的相关性，并且使社会中的每个人互相联系。书写引入了区分与异化，但是也带来更高度的统一。它加强自我意识并且巩固人与人之间越来越多的意识交流。书写是一种意识的提升。

    对沃尔特·翁来说，对人类意识的全新理解是口语和文字交会时真正的改变:阅读改变人类关于思维的思考。从《安娜·卡列尼娜》中列文的揭露，到《夏洛的网》中蜘蛛的预言，洞察他人想法的能力让我们加倍意识到他人的意识，以及我们自身的意识。我们研究他人想法过程的能力贯穿了三千多年，使我们得以内化我们从未设想过的整体人类意识，包括苏格拉底最伟大的口语传统。正是因为我们可以阅读柏拉图充满矛盾思想的作品，才得以了解苏格拉底的想法与他所关心的普遍本质。
    显然，在该说的都说了、能做的都做了之后，苏格拉底忧虑的其实并不是读写能力，而主要是知识本身。他真正担心的是年轻人未经指导，尚未有批判力，就能任意接触到信息，这恐怕会影响到知识本身。对苏格拉底而言，寻找真正的知识并不需要在信息上来回思考，而是要去寻找生命的本质与目的。这样的搜索需要投入一生，发展出高度的批判与分析技巧并且通过大量记忆的运用与长期的努力来内化个人知识。
    只有在这些条件都具备的情况下，苏格拉底才认为学生能够从和老师对话以探求知识的阶段，转到一条原则性道路上，指引着他的行动、美德最终到达“和他自己的神友爱相处”的阶段。苏格拉底认为知识是达到至高境界的力量;任何可能有危害性的东西——比方说读写能力，都应该被禁止。
    苏格拉底的顾虑，有部分可以通过仔细理解知识与读写能力之间密不可分的关系，以及它们对年轻人的发展的重要性来解决。有讽刺意味的是，今日的超文本与在线文本,在电脑环境的阅读中,提供了一种真正对话的维度当代学者约翰·麦克尼尼(John McEneaney)表示:“线上读写能力的动态作用，改变了读者与作者的传统角色，以及文本的权威性。”这样的阅读需要新的认知技巧，不论是苏格拉底还是现代的教育学者都没有完全了解。
    我们才处于分析电脑的使用对认知影响的初级阶段，比如使用浏览器的“后退”键、URL语法、“cookies”与“教学性标签”方式，是否能提升理解力与记忆力。这些工具对于使用者的智力发展绝对有影响，尤其是对不同区域有缺陷的使用者来说，应用学习科技可以直接有效地处理他们的问题。应用科技专家戴维·罗斯(David Ross)与他的团队强有力地证明了数字化文本可以给教师与学习者提供更多的选择:“外观、支持度、支持类型、回应方法、内容……所有与参与度有关的重点。”而我们学习者的参与程度和古代雅典学院的学习者一样重要。
    其实苏格拉底的这些顾虑还有更深层的意义。从伊甸园到全球互联网谁应该知道什么、何时知道，以及怎样知道，一直是个贯穿于整个人类历史的悬而未决的问题。在一个超过 10亿人可以上网，接触到自古以来最海量信息的时代，有必要将我们的分析能力利用在知识传输的社会责任上。苏格拉底针对雅典青年提出的学习问题，最终还是会用到我们身上。这些未经指导的信息是否会造成知识的幻觉，因此阻碍了我们通往知识的那条更艰深更耗时更关键的思考之路?搜索引擎上分秒可得的大量信息，是否会将我们从那些较为缓慢、需要深思熟虑的过程中完全地剥离出来，而无法深度理解复杂的观念、他人的内在思想过程，以及我们自己的意识?在本书的开头，我引用了科技专家爱德华·特纳提出的问题，他质疑新的信息科技会“威胁到创造它的智慧”。本书提出的种种问题并没有不切实际地企图阻止科技的传播，毋庸置疑的是，这改变了我们全体的生活，特纳在科技层面上的顾虑与苏格拉底十分类似，也与接下来针对阅读脑对物种与儿童智能的贡献的讨论雷同。因此，由此所衍生出来的问题是:若真以坐在电脑屏幕前紧盯不放的“数字原生代”正逐渐成形的技能，来取代阅读脑千百年来进化而来的技能，我们将会失去什么?
    文字的演变提供了一个认知的平台，让人类智能历史的前几章中最重要的技能得以浮出水面:文献记载、编撰、分类、组织、语言内化、对自我与他人的意识、对意识本身的意识。阅读本身并不是直接造成这所有技巧逐渐成熟的主因，而是来自阅读大脑设计核心的神秘礼物:思考的时间，这对所有技能的成长产生了前所未有的推动力。纵观整个“阅读的自然史”审视这些技能的发展，等于是以慢动作展示出自从6000年前读写能力出现后，我们这个物种走了多远，又将失去什么。

    对阅读自然史的反思

    过去每一位祖先的阅读脑都必须学会联结许多区域来阅读象征符号。现在每个儿童也必须做同样的事情。全球的年轻初级阅读者都必须学习如何将阅读所需的一切知觉、认知、语言与运动系统联结起来。反过来，这些系统又要利用大脑旧有的结构，适应专门化区域，强迫其开始服务，不断地练习，直到整个过程自动化为止。
    因为这一切都是在没有任何专门用于阅读的遗传基础上变化发生的因此在相对较短的时间内，需要明确的学习与教导。尽管我们的祖先花了将近2000年的时间才发展出一套字母符号，一般来说我们期待儿童花费2000天的时间(大约在他们六七岁时)就能破解这套密码，不然他们会与整套教育体制——老师、校长、家长与同学，发生冲突。如果没有按照社会约定的时刻表学会阅读，这些突然被剥夺权利的儿童将感觉自己和以前再也不一样了。他们会意识到自己是异类，而且没有人曾告诉他们，在进化上，这有可能是件好事。
    当明白年轻的脑袋学习阅读所需完成的神经层面上的高难度任务之后作为社会的一分子，我们可以从教导个别儿童开始。有些儿童在阅读的某些环节会比其他儿童需要更多的帮助。我们对这些越加了解，教育所有儿童的能力就越好。在这种观点下，放之四海而皆准的教学方法将不复存在我们对于阅读发展日益扩展的知识，可能有助于达成两项非常重要的目标了解阅读脑的广泛成就;改善下一代每个儿童学习阅读的条件。
    阅读臻至成熟的发育转变始于婴儿期，而不是学校。儿童听父母以及其他关爱者阅读的时间长短，一直是日后阅读表现的最佳指标之一。他们每天晚上听小象巴巴尔、蟾蜍与好奇猴乔治的故事，睡觉时对着天空说“月亮晚安”，儿童渐渐地会明白这些书本上的神秘符号会构成文字，文字会形成故事，故事会告诉我们宇宙的所有事情。
    他们的世界充满故事、文字与神奇的字母，是一个充满上千个词语概念与知觉的小宇宙，让年幼的大脑发展自己以准备开始阅读。幼儿参与对话的程度越深，他们学到的词语与概念也就越多。读给儿童的东西越多他们对书本语言的理解也就越多，而且这还会提升他们的词汇量，增加他们的语法知识，并且他们会留意到文字内很小但是很重要的字音单位。这些内隐知识，例如 hickory、dickory、dock中相似的语音，bear 的各种意义小猪韦伯的骇人想法，都会让年轻的大脑准备好，将视觉符号与它储存的所有知识联系起来。
    因此，阅读的发展其实有两部分。首先，理想的阅读获得方式基于语音、语义、语法、词法、语用、概念、社交、情感、发音与运动等系统基于这些令人惊讶的配套设施的发展，以及将这些系统整合、同步化以达到流畅理解的能力。其次，随着阅读的发展，其中的每项能力都会日益增强。知道“词语的组成”会让你阅读得更好;在阅读中学习一个词则让你更深入地了解它在知识连续统一体中的位置。
    大脑对阅读的贡献与阅读对大脑认知能力的贡献之间是一个动态的关系。儿童的语音系统会帮助他们发展单词内部的音位意识，这份意识又会帮助他们学习字母-发音的对应规则而这些规则会帮助他们更容易地学会阅读。然后，随着儿童阅读得越来越多，越能灵敏地调和文字内的语音方面，让阅读变得更加容易。

    大脑与阅读:阅读与大脑认知能力之间的相互作用是一个动态的关系。儿童的语音系统会帮助他们发展单词内部的音位意识，这份意识又会帮助他们学习字母-发音的对应规则，而这些规则会帮助他们更容易地学会阅读。

    同样的道理也适用于语义系统语义系统发展良好的儿童，会知道较多的字词意义，所以能够更为快速地解码已知的字词。这有助于他们词汇量的增加，更能巩固他们的口语词汇而这又让他们准备好阅读更为复杂的故事–这一切都会增加他们语法词法、与字词关系的知识。“富者越富，穷者越穷”的道理在这里也适用。这种发展与环境之间的动态关系形成了由“学习阅读”跳跃到真正阅读的基础，或者令孩子什么都学不会。
    阅读发展后期的流畅理解都是默默进行的，可以说是苏格拉底所担心的读写能力危害最大的时期，因为这会赋予阅读者自主权。这一阶段每个新阅读者都有时间预测、形成新的想法，超越文本，成为一个独立的学习者。脑成像研究确认了这一点，流畅的阅读脑会在推理、分析与批判性评价等理解过程中，激活两个半脑的额叶、顶叶与颞叶等新扩展出的皮质层。苏格拉底曾担心若是识字普及后，这样的智能技巧可能会丢失一部分。
    苏格拉底其他的顾虑在转变为“专家级阅读”的发展期间，似乎不是那么容易解决。首先，大多数的年轻阅读者真的完全学会使用他们的想象力了吗?真能独立思考、明辨是非吗?还是这些比较耗时的技能，逐渐地因为儿童现在能从电脑屏幕上接收看似无限的信息而衰退?年轻阅读者阅读电脑屏幕的时间与阅读书本的时间相比，高得不成比例，他们会发展出不一样的能力来认同《简·爱》和《杀死一只知更鸟》中的世界吗?
    数字化世界以非比寻常的方式将种种现实、他人的想法与其他文化的观点带给我们，我并不质疑这一事实。这些典型的年轻阅读者认为文本分析与寻找深层意义越来越落伍，因为他们过于习惯电脑屏幕信息的即时性与似乎概括一切的性质–一切都唾手可得，毫不费力，也无须再超越眼前所提供的信息。因此，我真的怀疑我们的孩子是否能在其中学到阅读过程的核心:超越文本。

    最近我读到《华尔街日报》上的一篇文章，标题是:“到底能低到什么程度?”主要是在探讨近年来 SAT成绩日益下滑的趋势。作者述最近 SAT测验中的变动，着重在阅读技巧而忽视词汇，这大大有利于分析技能高的学生，而不利于那些在辨析和估测文本潜在含义方面准备较差的学生。他观察到 40 年前的学生在这样的测验形式中，成绩可能比今日的学生要好，因为现今学生阅读的批判力似乎变弱了。这一点他怪到学校头上，而不是测验本身。

    忠言逆耳，因此很难传开。这篇论文的作者也许是对的。但是这样的衰退其实有很多原因:有些是社会的，有些是政治的，还有些是认知的。许多学生从小就接触这些比较不费力的互联网，可能还不懂得如何自己思考。他们的视野狭窄，仅仅局限在可以迅速容易地见到和听到的事物上，他们也没有什么动力去思考我们这个最新最复杂的“盒子”之外的事物。这些学生并不是文盲，但是他们可能永远无法成为真正的专家级阅读者。在他们阅读发展的这个阶段，当阅读的关键技能被引导、塑造、练习与磨炼时，他们可能从来就不需要挑战阅读脑完全发展的顶端:自己思考的时刻。
    每个和儿童教育有关的人——父母、老师、学者、政策决定者，都需要确保从出生到成年的阅读过程或者教学过程的每个环节，都已经理智慎重、明确地准备好了。从入学前词语组成里最小的语音到诠释艾略特在《小吉丁》( Little Gidding)中微妙的推论，这当中没有一种知识是理所当然就有。

    超越文本:沉浸在数字化资源中的我们不应丧失评估、分析、权衡轻重与挖掘信息背后意义的能力。我们不能放弃挑战阅读脑完全发展的顶端: 超越文本、用心思考。

    在儿童发展为流畅级阅读者之前他们处于格外脆弱的转型期，我们必须竭尽所能地确保沉浸在数字化资源中的他们不会丧失评估、分析、权衡轻重与明辨任何形式的信息背后所隐藏的意义的能力。我们必须在每个发展阶段，针对任何文本的需求，给予更明确仔细的指导，教导孩子成为“双文本”或“多文本”阅读者，使他们能够灵活地以不同的方法进行阅读与分析。如果想在我们的公民社会中推动阅读过程，使其完全成熟并达到专家级的阶段，应教导儿童挖掘出隐匿在文字中的无形世界，因此需要明确的指导，以及教师与学生之间的对话。
    在审视阅读者的发展过程中，我得到的主要结论充满警告。我担心大多数的儿童正处于苏格拉底警告我们要提防的危险之中——一个信息解码者的社会，他们自认为知道一切的错觉，阻碍了他们智力潜能的深层发展如果我们好好教导他们，结果可能就不会这样，这一点同样适用于我们的阅读障碍儿童。

    对阅读障碍的反思:跳出定式思维

    在一本致力于介绍阅读脑的书中，我原本可以轻松地跳过造成不适合阅读的大脑的原因。但是，游不快的乌贼身上有许多地方教会了我们怎样去弥补这个缺陷。确实，这并不是一个很好的类比，因为乌贼的游泳能力是遗传的，游不快的乌贼通常都死得很快。但是，如果游不快的乌贼不仅没有死，还占了整个乌贼数量的5%~10%，那就值得我们问一下:它们究竟做了什么，为什么能在失去游泳能力的情况下，取得这样的成功。阅读不是遗传而来，学不会阅读的儿童也不会死。更重要的是，和阅读障碍有关的基因非常坚强地保留了下来。
    阅读障碍者中的天才人物名单–如罗丹和施瓦布，或许可以解释部分原因。另一个原因则与人类的多样性有关。正如格施温德经常强调的那样，人类的遗传多样性所带来的优势与缺陷使得我们形成了一个能满足各种需求的社会。阅读障碍，看似没有规律的遗传问题和文化弱势，显示了人类的多样性，而这种多样性给人类文化带来了众多贡献。毕加索的《格尔尼卡》、罗丹的《沉思者》、高迪的《米拉公寓》(La Pedrera)和达·芬奇的《最后的晚餐》，就像其他书写文本一样，都是我们智力进化的真实而具体的代表作。它们的创造者极有可能是阅读障碍者，而这并不是巧合。
    阅读障碍的真正悲剧是没有人告诉孩子这一切，他们多年来因为学不会阅读而遭受公开羞辱，尽管他们具有一切的智力，尽管他们这种类型的智力对整个物种都有关键的重要性。而且，也没有人告诉他们的同伴这件事情。认识到这点并不能减少每个阅读障碍儿童学习中所面对的困难。不过这使我们的这些儿童知道，他们对我们有多么重要，这也是为什么我们要找到更好的方法来教导这些组织结构不同的大脑学会阅读的原因。

    神经科学最有前景的一个应用与此有关。我们对阅读脑和阅读障碍大脑的发展认识得越多，就越能在治疗计划中锁定目标，更好地专注于一些儿童脑部不再发展的特殊部位或联结。阅读障碍的治疗和典型的阅读发展一样，需要明确处理阅读的每个组成系统，直到建立起一定水平的自动化和理解能力。对于天生处理文字过程效率低下的大脑来说，这是一些极为艰难和费力的任务，但这正说明了大脑在阅读上的不同适应性。
    为了社会的最高利益，有必要保护阅读障碍儿童潜在的贡献。正如哈佛学者基尔·诺姆(Gil Noam)在他的研究中所描述的那样，必须帮助他们渡过难关，强化他们的抗压能力，好让他们在准备好的时候发明出人类的下一个电灯泡。我不想过多强调忽视阅读障碍而造成的浪费和许多其他的学习困难。在这个有些人学会了阅读、有些人持续创造神奇的事物、有些人以异于常人的方式来思考的大型故事里，那是一个令人悲伤的章节。幸运的是，阅读脑和阅读障碍脑的故事，是一则孪生的传说，浮现在人类大家庭的宏大传说中。
    理解遗传多样性如何驱使我们的智力和技能产生差异，在转型到不久的将来的这段时间里显得格外重要。本书跟柏拉图的矛盾心态几乎类似同样也是从正反对立的两个观点来切入:一方面扮演着称赞阅读脑对我们智力库有贡献的辩护人角色;另一方面以一个警惕的观察者观看科技的变化将如何帮助重塑下一代的大脑。今天的人类不需要当二进制的思考者未来的世代子孙当然也不需要。正如一句流传在维也纳的名言所说:“如果你面前出现了两个选择，通常还会有第三个。”

    未来师生之间的知识传递不应是在书本与屏幕、报纸与网络新闻，或是印刷品和其他媒体之间进行选择。转型期的我们遇上一个很好的机会如果我们抓住了这个机会，暂停一下，运用我们最可贵的反思能力，使用我们能支配的所有东西，便能准备好迎接下一个即将成形的事物。分析推理、拓展视野，阅读脑具备一切打造人类意识的能力，和敏捷、多功能多模块、整合信息的数字化思维也并非相互排斥。现在有许多儿童学习两种或两种以上的口语，我们也可以教导他们，在不同的文字表现形式与分析模式间进行转换。也许，就像那个值得铭记的画面——公元前600年的苏美尔人，耐心地在阿卡德铭文旁雕刻上转译出来的楔形文字，我们也有能力保存两个系统，同时明白为何这两者都非常珍贵。
    总之，阅读发展的自然史呈现出达到阅读最高深层次的故事，表达出极大的希望，又充满着警示。它是一个宏大的、有时激烈但多半谦卑的故事。它开始于数千年前，那时某些具有胆识与神经适应性的祖先将他们的债务与经营情况记录在泥板与纸草卷上，因此我们才得知有这些文化的存在。
    同样有勇气的苏格拉底提出一个观点，他担心文字只是披着“真理的外衣”，它们看似永久的特质，会导致人们因此停止寻找真正的知识，而我们都明白丧失这一点意味着人类美德的死亡。苏格拉底从未明白阅读的核心机密:它所释放给大脑的时间，让大脑的思考一次比一次深入。普鲁斯特知道这个秘密，我们也知道。阅读脑最伟大的成就是这份神奇的、看不见的礼物:超越时间去思考。这些在脑内几毫秒建成的结构，形成了我们能力的基础，让我们得以增进知识，思考美德，清晰地表达过去无法表达出的——当这些思想被表达后，又建立了下一个供我们向下深入探索或向上翱翔攀升的平台。

    致读者:最后的思考

    一本关于人类这一物种如何跳出并超越文本的书，不应该有最后的结局。亲爱的读者们，这结局完全取决于你们……

  • 爱新觉罗·胤禛《大义觉迷录》-相关文献

    　　雍正颁布《大义觉迷录》始末
    　　雍正上谕：一、满清入主中原君临天下，是否符合正统之道？岂可再以华夷中外而分论？　　二、朕到底是不是谋父、逼母、弑兄、屠弟、贪财、好杀、酗酒、淫色、诛忠、好谀、奸佞的皇帝？
    　　奉旨问讯曾静口供十三条：一、大清朝的建立正是天命民心之所归，乃道义之当然　　二、华夷之间、人兽之间的本质区别到底是什么呢？　　三、清朝统治八十年后，造成地塌天荒，神哭鬼号吗？　　四、社会出现贫富差别的原因是否可以归咎于君王呢？　　五、整个大清国的人民到处都在呼号怨恨吗？　　六、像岳钟琪一样臣事清朝的人就是低头屈节、效忠于匪类吗？　　七、明朝亡于李自成之后，清兵的确是明臣请来除寇治乱的，是救亿万生灵于水火之中的仁义之师啊！　　八、对于孔子的《春秋》大义，岂可以乱臣贼子之心来解释？　　九、对于一个臣民来说，到底什么是荣辱生死的大义？　　十、那些狂肆毁谤皇帝的谣言传语到底从何而来？　　十一、这“山崩川竭”的传言到底是何等之事？　　十二、“五星聚，黄河清”的瑞祥征兆到底是什么因缘？　　十三、被曾静奉以为师的吕留良到底是何许人也？
    　　奉旨讯问曾静口供二十四条：一、曾静等人各处行走，纠合叛逆之人的缘由如何？　　二、大清国里考生增多，如何说是文人趋下，无耻奔竞呢？　　三、著述《格物集》的刘先生，其人其书是什么情形？　　四、如果皇帝只应孔、孟、程来做，那么汉、唐、宋、元的开国皇帝都是光棍”吗？　　五、你曾静真的是可以担当“天聪明，乾之九五”的大人物吗？　　六、“华夷之分大于君臣之伦”的道理讲得通吗？　　七、清朝得天下到底是盗窃天位的强盗呢，还是驱逐流寇的主人呢？　　八、到底是中华之外，四面皆是夷狄”呢，还是天下一家，万物一源”呢？　　九、大清王朝八十多年没有国君吗？臣民也禽兽不如吗？　　十、科举制度仅仅是讲名讲利、卑污苟贱而不知耻的方法吗？　　十一、你曾静为何尊敬悦服一个行走于市井江湖的吕留良呢？　　十二、春秋战国时期的封土建邦、割据而治真的适合大清国情吗？　　十三、边地民族全是无耻无状的小人，难道没有像尧舜一样的圣人吗？　　十四、对于夷狄入主中原，难道一定要诛戮讨伐，而不能和睦相处、共图大业吗？　　十五、大逆不道的吕留良真的能和孔子相提并论吗？　　十六、你曾静自命为济世英才，你真的有“宰相之量”，还是心怀异谋，图为不轨呢？　　十七、程颢提出的选拔人才方法在宋代已经证明行不通，难道能够在本朝实行的通吗？　　十八、雍正钱发行不久，不能普遍流通，你便造谣“雍正钱，穷半年”，是居何用心？　　十九、为什么山西百姓争先恐后为国效力，忠诚爱戴朝廷，而湖南竟有你这样猖狂悖逆之徒？　　二十、有人诬蔑你的父亲有盗窃的劣迹，母亲有淫乱的行为，你能不加审查便将父母唾骂一番，甚至著书立说到处宣扬吗？　　二十一、自称忠民义士的曾静，你为什么要甘愿赴蹈灭族死罪而谋反呢？　　二十三、云贵两地民风淳厚，服教乐善，以至感召丰收大稔，正是天人感应昭著啊！　　二十四、孔庙失火和庆云出现是礼乐制度遭受厄运的灾异呢，还是文明光华的祥瑞呢？
    　　曾静供词五条：一、皇上嗣位以来，是五谷丰登，人民乐业？还是四时易序，五谷少成？　　二、雍正皇帝是励精图治，爱抚百姓，还是谣言所传的虐待百姓呢？　　三、皇上调拨粮食是平抑物价，还是倒卖粮食做生意？　　四、雍正皇帝是有好生之德，还是草菅人命，滥杀无辜？　　五、雍正皇帝是霸嫂为妃，还是按照惯例让她们居在别宫呢？
    　　雍正上谕：忠诚报国、公正无私的岳钟琪与叛逆曾静有鲜明的对照
    　　曾静、张熙供词二条：一、我曾静这个文弱书生是怎样成为弥天重犯的？　　二、我张熙久居僻壤穷乡，怎么会误入歧途，随师造反呢？
    　　曾静供词二条：一、皇上不是有意遵循守孝三年的古制，不过是为了尽心尽孝才安心罢了　　二、雍正皇帝勤政爱民，与天理浑然一体，神功伟德实在是顶天立地
    　　雍正上谕：一、我雍正是将遗诏的“十”改成“于”字而谋取皇位的吗？　　二、朕诸兄弟不可以德化，不可以理喻，不可以情感，不可以恩结，而其悖逆妄乱，的确是百折不回　　三、朕之“屠弟”，正是为了不负皇考付托之重，顾及宗社之安危
    　　雍正上谕：吕留良怎么得罪了圣祖皇帝在天之灵，而落致戮尸枭首的下场
    　　曾静供词二条：一、我是怎样受吕留良思想毒害，而成为弥天重犯的？　　二、乱臣贼子吕留良是怎样把我们引入歧途的？
    　　雍正上谕：一、本朝子民严鸿逵追随吕留良效颦狂吠，谩骂诽谤朝廷，是何居心？　　二、曾静痛心疾首地说：“我这过去的禽兽，如今是怎样脱胎成人的？”

    　　附录：
    　　陕西总督岳钟琪奏折：一、秀才造反，实在是自投罗网　　二、假结同盟，这样才诱出真情　　三、追根溯源，吕留良正是罪魁祸首
    　　雍正上谕：急下诏书，各路兵马展开大缉捕
    　　陕西总督岳钟琪奏折：一、感泣悚惶，披肝沥胆再上奏折  二、谨慎行事，乞请皇上睿鉴　　三、追查谣言，务必要铲除祸根
    　　副都统海兰等奏折：　　天罗地网，长沙党羽插翅难逃
    　　湖南省巡抚王国栋奏折：一、境内出逆匪，以致巡抚受牵连　　二、检讨失误，湖南巡抚愿立新功
    　　刑部侍郎杭奕禄等奏折：曾静等人为什么要捕风捉影、诽谤雍正皇帝？
    　　湖广总督迈柱奏折：曾静等人在湖南被捕审的经过
    　　陕西总督岳钟琪奏折：一、张熙堂叔张勘被追捕的经过　　二、继续搜捕毛仪及其两子的经过
    　　刑部左侍郎杭奕禄等奏折：一、应将曾静案及其主犯押送湖南对质　　二、曾静等供词及押解犯人进京安排
    　　雍正上谕：沈在宽诗“陆沉不必由洪水”，其中大有深义
    　　广西巡抚金奏折三条：一、雍正收用密亲王妃嫔的谣言　　二、臣下的确夙夜兢兢，稽察办案　　三、风水先生摇唇鼓舌，祸从口出
    　　雍正上谕：仁君何以要对弥天重犯网开一面
    　　江苏巡抚尹继善奏折：冒名王澍传播谣言的犯人
    　　浙江总督李卫奏折：在浙江继续查访逆党情况
    　　陕西总督岳钟琪奏折：《大义觉迷录》一书的确是觉世道之宏模，指迷途之宝训
    　　浙江总督李卫奏折：谎供引起的草木皆兵、虚惊闹剧
    　　湖南巡抚赵弘恩等奏折：湖南人为什么非要将曾静沉潭溺死
    　　雍正上谕：对吕留良及家属最后应如何判决
    　　安徽巡抚程元章奏张秀公等供词：南方几省与王朝有关的人仍要大力追查
    　　江苏巡抚尹继善奏折：要继续对张应星的会客日记上的人逐加细问，一一根究
    　　雍正上谕：朱轼等编纂的驳吕留良之书应该颁发各地学宫
    　　湖南巡抚赵弘恩等奏折：曾静已到湖南观风整俗使衙门任职
    　　雍正上谕：一、对吕留良孙辈心有不忍，从宽免死，改判流放　　二、严鸿逵、沈在宽诸人应凌迟处死，戮尸枭首示众
    　　乾隆上谕：一、将攻击先王的曾静、张熙缉拿进京　　二、将大逆不道的曾静、张熙凌迟处死

    雍正颁布《大义觉迷录》始末

    雍正六年秋，湖南永兴文人曾静，遣徒张熙（化名张倬）赴西安向陕西总督岳钟琪投书策反。九月二十五抵西安，次日上午，当岳钟琪正乘轿抵总督署衙门前时，张熙手捧书信拦轿阻道，声言要亲交总督岳钟琪，并有要事与他讲。岳钟琪命随员接过书信，见那书信封面上写天吏元帅岳钟琪”，岳甚为惊奇，随将投书人交巡捕看守。急忙赶回总督署衙，走进密室，拆书细读。这封策反信，署名“南海无主游民夏靓、张倬”。所谓“无主游民”，就是不承认是清王朝统治下的民人。原信从未公开过，但从以后的审讯口供和《清文字狱档》中记载，大致有四个方面的内容：一、强调“华夷之分大于君臣之伦”。认为雍正帝是满洲”女真人，就是夷狄，“夷狄即是禽兽”，“满人”入主中原是夷狄”盗窃王位，清朝历经“八十余年天运衰歇，地震天怒，鬼哭神号”，这是夷狄”统治带来的恶果，所以要反对清朝的统治。二、谴责雍正帝是失德的暴君。列出雍正帝谋父、逼母、弑兄、屠弟、贪利、好杀、酗酒、淫色、怀疑诛忠、好谀任佞十大罪状。这么多的罪状，根本无资格当皇帝。三、指责雍正是用阴谋诡计而篡位的。因而天地不容，使天下“寒暑易序，五谷少成”，出现“山崩川竭，地暗天昏”。百姓饥寒交迫，流离失所，尸横遍野，反清愤忿，一触即发。四、策划岳钟琪同谋造反。称岳是宋代抗金民族英雄岳飞的后裔，劝其继承先祖遗志，不应效忠清王朝，要他用手握重兵之机，适时地举事谋反，为列祖列宗报仇，替大汉民族雪耻。

    岳钟琪才平息了疯子卢宗汉持同样理由的谋反事件，又碰到张熙投书策划谋反，于是当即向雍正帝如实地上了奏本。

    岳钟琪，字东美，号容斋。四川成都人。康熙五十年，开始担任武职军官，后因在云贵边陲屡建战功，于康熙六十年提升为四川提督。雍正元年，因平定青海罗卜藏丹叛乱立大功，授封三等公、参赞军机大臣。雍正三年七月，因大将军年羹尧事发，接替年羹尧出任川陕总督。这个职位重要，自康熙十九年定例，是满族八旗要员的专缺，岳钟琪获得破例提升。当岳接任年羹尧受命川陕总督之际，直隶总督蔡立即向雍正奏本称岳“不可深结”。并对岳钟琪说：“怡亲王对你当上川陕总督非常不满，皇上藩邸旧人傅鼐告你要小心。允祥是皇上最信任的兄弟。”

    　　岳钟琪接到张熙投书三个月前，成都人卢宗汉在大街呼喊：“岳公爷带领川陕兵马，想要造反！”并呼唤民众起来，“从岳公爷造反，西城门外开有黑店，要杀人”。这个举动使岳大为恼火，当即命提督黄庭桂将卢宗汉捉拿归案，被当作疯子砍了头。尔后正式上奏朝廷称：“卑职不敢檄讯，不敢隐匿”。并提出引咎辞职。雍正说这是蔡、程如丝等鬼魅之所为。并说：“多年来，曾在朕前密参的谤书有一箧之多，可朕从无理它”。要岳钟琪继续供职，不要理会那些佞言邪说，要他“愈加鼓励精神，协赞朕躬，利益社稷苍生，措天下于泰山之安，理大清于磐石之固，造无穷之福以遗子孙也！”

    　　但岳钟琪与皇上帝的关系不协调的舆论却在民间广为流传。四川、湖南民间传说，岳总督非常尽忠爱民，曾上奏谏本，说些不知忌讳的话，劝皇上修德行仁，皇上非常怀疑他，怕他威重权高，对朝廷形成威胁，屡次召他进京，要削夺他的兵权，并传说要杀掉他。那岳总督非常害怕，连召几次，他都不敢进京。皇上见他死守任上，不肯进京，越发对他疑忌。因他是大学士朱轼保举推荐的人，令朱轼召他才进京。皇上就派朱轼来陕西召他，不得已才同朱轼一同进京陛见，并向皇上奏说用人莫疑，疑人莫用等语。皇上听到这个谏议，也就不忌前嫌，仍派他回陕西继续任职，但要求有人保他他才肯去。皇上问朱轼，朱轼不愿再保；又问九卿大臣，九卿大臣也不敢保；皇上就亲自保他去了。岳钟琪出京门才四天，朝中就有一大臣向皇上奏了一本，说朱轼不保他，是和他暗结私党，里应外合预谋造反，等到朱轼到他任上保他，他才消除疑虑，欣然进京。这足可证明他同朱轼是同党合谋，今日回陕西，本来朱轼是原保举人，照理应该去保他，可是他推却不保了，这是朱轼脱身之计。皇上十分后悔，对他疑忌更深，马上派遣一个叫吴荆山的朝廷官员前去追赶，让他赶快回京，他不从命。这朝官吴荆山没有办法，就在路上自刎了。这总督回到任所之后，随即上了一道本章，说皇上很多不是之处。可见岳钟琪是朝野瞩目的人物，朝中有人因他是兵权在握的汉族重臣而忌防他；百姓则又认为他是忠义爱民而又反对雍正暴政的岳飞后裔，把反清复仇的希望寄托于他。使岳钟琪成为政治斗争和民族矛盾的试金石。二今见南海无主游民夏靓遣徒张倬上书“天吏元帅”岳钟琪，书信内容有“皆诋毁天朝，言极悖乱，且谓系宋武穆王岳飞后裔，今握重兵，居要地，当乘机反叛，为宋明复仇”等语，加上前因后果，使岳钟琪像骨鲠在喉，欲吐不能，暴怒之极，决定亲自提审张倬审讯，对投书人张倬施以重刑严加逼供，把张倬打得皮开肉绽，几次昏迷过去。但张倬誓不招供，宁愿“舍身可以取义”，尊从恩师所嘱“只去献议，不必告以姓名里居”的嘱托，只说他们的势力范围很广，湖广、江西、云南、贵州等省，这些地方民众反清情绪高涨，可以一呼百应群起反清。结果一无所获。岳钟琪怕事涉嫌疑，随即密奏皇上，恳请雍正批准“将张倬解送到京”，交朝廷审讯此案。雍正接到奏折，反应却沉着镇静，声称“世上竟有如此可笑之事，如此可恨之人”。同时奉劝岳钟琪要秘密审讯，用刑太过酷狠了，“料理急些了，当缓缓设法诱之”。他在大臣田文镜的奏折上批复道，“遇此种怪物，不得不有一番出奇料理”的手段，方能使悖逆之人就范。岳钟琪忠实地照雍正的谕旨办了，想出一套巧计诱供的计策，同时为撇开清廷猜忌，岳钟琪请出一位满州大员陕西巡抚西琳陪同审讯。在提审张倬时，张倬被绳捆索绑押进审讯庭堂，西琳暗躲在屏风后窥探审讯情景，岳钟琪一改过去怒斥责骂态度，笑容可掬地亲自为张倬解下绳索，并让坐捧茶以礼奉侍，大加夸奖张倬是位英雄好汉，难得的仁人志士。岳钟琪流着眼泪诚恳地对张倬说：“我岳某早有谋事反清意图，只为处境艰难，不得已对志士动用刑讯，以图掩人耳目，看你是真是假，不想兄弟真男子大丈夫，使兄弟受委屈了，请你体谅。”说着热泪横流，伪为发誓结为盟友，共讨满清，光复汉室。九月二十九日，岳钟琪导演的假戏成真。二人在秘室，照例又拉一位满州大员秘隐屏风之后以窃虚实，二人焚香对天跪拜，叩头泣血，结为金兰之交，风雨同舟，患难与共，共举义旗，迎聘曾静为师，决心为推翻满清为己任，这样骗取了张倬的信任。张倬于是将他恩师和平时与恩师交往密切而又诋毁清朝最严重人的姓名住址，一一告诉了岳钟琪。雍正对岳钟琪的做法甚为满意，用朱批道：“览虚实不禁泪流满面，卿此一心，天祖鉴之。……朕与卿君臣之情，乃无量劫之善缘同会，自乘愿力而来，协朕为国家养生者，岂泛泛之可比拟，朕实嘉悦之至。”

    　　激动得泪流满面说：“岳钟琪实朕股肱心膂之大臣。”

    　　“惟知有国，不知有身。”

    　　雍正对岳钟琪大加奖励，使岳钟琪“感泣悚惶，惊喜交迫”。这个投书策反人的真实姓名叫张熙，字敬卿，张倬是化名。他的老师叫曾静，夏靓是化名，湖南郴州永兴人，他出身于“家事单寒”的家庭，因应试屡次落第，中年放弃举业，以教书授徒糊口，自称“蒲谭先生”。他收张熙、廖易两个得意徒弟在家，住房不宽绰。他先有同居的兄、嫂，后来兄嫂夫妻反目，嫂子改嫁。张熙、廖易家事也很贫寒。岳钟琪审讯张熙为何谋反，张说：“百姓贫穷，只为救民起见”。曾静看到土地高度集中，财富占有不平等，从他们自身经历中深有体会，曾静著书说：“土地尽为富室所收，富者日富，贫者日贫”，所以具有浓厚的民族意识和政治见解，认为只有铲除满清统治，贫寒百姓才有出头之日。他根据社会传言和自己的分析，认为岳钟琪最有能力实现他的反清复明目的。雍正六年五月，曾静派遣张熙和他的堂叔张勘同行，张熙当出家产作路费，携带给岳钟琪的策反信和《生员应诏书》赴陕投书，一路晓行夜宿，风尘仆仆途经贵州到四川，听四川人讲岳钟琪已回驻西安，便由四川追踪到陕西。九月十三日到了西安，打听岳钟琪是当今皇上重用的封疆大臣，皇上非常宠爱他，所谓北京雍正皇帝三召不赴京之说，纯系编造的谣传。二人听后，心灰意冷，那同路人张勘更为惊慌，吓破了胆，便偷偷地扔下张熙，只身逃回家了。张熙投书意志坚决，心想当了家产做路费，千里迢迢专为投书而来，决不虚此一行，于是冒着九死一生的危险向岳钟琪投书。雍正帝自登基以来，常处于如履薄冰的险境，所以他采取铁血手腕，凡是危及皇位的人，无不在他面前倒下。几年来他处心积虑地分化瓦解了允集团；打击了允、允争夺皇位的势力；严加惩处隆科多结党联盟企图篡权的诸文武大臣。其诛连之广，处置之惨，堪称是清代“铁血皇帝”。雍正帝不仅是宫廷政变的高手，而对驭驾重臣也有新的创造。他为稳定西北，不让边陲要地出纰漏，不惜以君王身份向岳钟琪封官许愿，发誓赌咒。使岳感恩备至，以更大精力防守边陲，同时去查办这宗天字号谋反案。雍正帝早已觉察到，张熙投书谋反案，绝不是孤立偶然现象。特别是供出已撒手人寰四十五年的反清祖宗理学大师吕留良。张熙供称吕留良是我辈同志之人素所宗者”。曾静于雍正五年（年）曾派张熙去浙江购书，专门到吕留良后裔家坊求遗著手稿，吕留良的儿子将乃父遗稿交给张熙，其中有《备忘录》、《吕子文集》。曾静看到这些书稿，“始而怪，既而疑，继而信”。对吕留良佩服得五体投地，认为吕留良完全有资格作皇帝，反清思想更为浓厚。当曾静派张熙投书时，行李中尚有抄录吕留良的诗文手册。曾静、张熙同吕留良的高足徒弟严鸿逵交往极其密切，由反清思想变为反清行动。三雍正帝不仅察觉此案非偶然现象。而更深层次追究，其背景也非同小可。如那曾静、张熙深居穷乡僻壤，怎能知道宫廷中发生的错综复杂细节，怎能指责他犯有十大罪状呢？雍正帝分析，这些谋反言行的来源有两个方面：“盖其分别华夷中外之见，则蔽锢陷溺于吕留良不臣之说；而其谤及朕躬者，则阿其那（允）、塞思黑（允）、允、允之逆党奸徒，造作蜚语，布散传播，而伊误信以为实之所致。”

    　　雍正将被打倒在地的同父异母皇八子允改名为阿其那，皇九子允改为名为塞思黑。阿其那满语为狗，塞思黑满语是猪，可见雍正为争夺皇位，不惜将其同父异母兄弟当做狗猪对待，其性格刻薄枭乖可见一斑。曾静供称：他的“华夷之分大于君臣之伦”

    　　的反清排满言论来源于吕留良的《吕晚村文集》，他供称：“皇帝合是吾学中儒者做，不该把世路上英雄做。周末局变，在位多不知学，尽是世路上英雄，甚者老奸巨猾，即谚所谓光棍也。若论正位，春秋时皇帝该孔子做；战国时皇帝该孟子做；秦以后皇帝该程、朱做。明季皇帝该吕留良做。如今却被豪强占据去了。”

    　　“妄以此人是本朝第一等人物，举凡一切言议，皆当以他为宗。”

    　　“于是中留良之毒深，所以不察其非，而狂悖发论至此。”

    　　雍正明白了曾静等人的反清源于吕留良及其著作，认识到思想犯更比现行犯危险得多。那曾静见势却来个将计就计，顺水推舟，将全部反清思想和现行反清行动都推到受吕留良的蛊惑和影响。于是，雍正将曾静谋反和吕留良文字犯连结起来，精心将张熙投书和吕留良的著作摘录成条，分编整理，审讯时公开提问，要曾静、张熙等老实交待，重新认识，自我批判。尽管吕留良已死去四十余年，继承乃父衣钵的吕葆中也已魂归西天，也难逃口诛笔伐和刨棺戮尸的厄运。吕留良（公元—年），字用晦，号晚村，浙江石门人，明末清初著名理学家和思想家。少年时博览群书即有文名，十二岁时在家乡结文社。明亡后曾散家财，企图反清复明。清顺治十七年，参加科考，中秀才。此后连续参加科举考试，均名落孙山，始悔心迹相违，苦闷已极，后与同乡学者黄宗羲、黄宗炎结识，使他反清思想更为坚定。他决心不参加清朝科考，不做清廷官吏，更不与官场来往。隐逸山村，以“天盖楼”为名，评选时文，闭门著书授徒。康熙五年（公元年），他根据读书士子要求，选评历代八股文要义，辑评注释，成书为《时文评选》，刊刻发行后，流行极广，远近闻名，前往求教的士子络绎不绝，被誉为“东海夫子”。在学界产生较大影响。康熙十八年，浙省官员推荐他参加博学鸿词科考试，被他拒绝，次年地方官员又以“山林隐逸”荐举他，他坚辞不赴，吐血满地，索性削发出家当和尚去了，起法名为耐可，字不昧，号何求老人。他在《耦耕诗》写道：“谁教失脚下渔矶，心迹年年处处违。”

    　　“八年倦容违心做，九日黄花满意开。”

    　　表现他誓不仕清，蔑视现政的民族气节。吕留良于康熙二十二年病死，终年五十五岁，其后人将其诗文汇编刊刻，成书有《吕晚村诗集》、《吕晚村先生文集》、《惭书》、《四书讲义》、《论文汇钞》、《八家古文精选》及评选的明文和清人时文等。吕留良的基本理论是华夷之辨，大于君臣之伦”。反对尊君卑臣，反对官重民轻，反对清朝满族统治。这些基本理论同清朝统治者要求大相径庭，故而遭到雍正帝的怒斥呵责。雍正说，吕留良写的文章和日记，全是叛逆的词句，凡是做臣子的，都会不忍看，不忍读，更不忍写出来。因而雍正对吕留良的反清思想和曾静的谋反案，逐章摘句的进行口诛笔伐，以求达到消除反清排满思想。与此同时，雍正不失时机地穷打猛追允集团的残余势力。他清楚知道允集团党羽，还在各地兴风作浪，窥探时机，以求反扑，绝不能掉以轻心，因而他集中力量追查雍正失德等十大罪状的具体情节及其来源。关于雍正继位制造的种种议论，曾静供称：圣祖皇帝原传十四阿哥允天下，皇上（指雍正）将“十”字改为“于”字而篡了位；又d圣祖在畅春园病重，皇上给圣祖端碗人参汤，圣祖喝了后便驾崩了。”

    　　关于逼母，说是雍正逼太后在铁柱上撞死，雍正听后说：“但不料其诬蔑诋毁、怪诞奇特至于此极，亦并不料曾静、张熙辈遂信以为实，而便生背叛之心也。”

    　　人言可畏，直接关系他这个皇帝宝座是否能坐的大问题，因而他决心清除心腹隐患，不惜以万乘之尊同犯人逐条辩论。“你是怎么知道的？”“何以听闻？”“朕若有此事，皇天在上可以证之，”等等发咒和质讯，确实惹怒了雍正。据审讯曾静时，供称：他是听安仁县生员何立忠和永兴县医生陈象侯说的”，何、陈供称是听茶陵州看风水先生陈帝锡说的。经多次审讯陈帝锡，陈帝锡记不清楚了，便含糊其词说：“他是在衡州路上，碰见四个穿马褂、说官话，像是旗人的大汉子，说岳老爷上了谏本，不知避讳，皇上大怒。”

    　　但后来“皇上并未定他的罪，反加封他的官。”

    　　雍正要的他失德口供，所问非所答。经过反复审讯，辗转查访，顺藤摸瓜，查出是被判罪流放的允、允的得力太监和党羽达色、蔡登科、马守柱、耿桑格、耿六格、吴守义、霍成等人说的话扩散出去的，这些被诛连的宫中太监，心怀不满，从北京发配到广西充军，“沿途称冤，逢人讪谤”。肆无忌惮地攻击谩骂雍正，凡过村店城市，高声呼招：“你们都来听皇帝的新闻，我们已受冤屈，要向你们告诉，好等你们向人传说。”“只好问我们的罪，岂能封我们的口。”

    　　同时又查出以前发配东北三姓地方的允集团亲信党羽，同样“肆行诬捏，到处传播流言，欲以摇惑人心，泄其私忿。”

    　　雍正紧紧抓着发配远境的允集团残余势力散布流言不放，列出这些犯人的言行，同曾静谋反、吕留良文字狱结在一起，为彻底肃清允集团势力找到借口。凡查出散布流言而中伤当今皇上的允集团残余分子，罪加一等，重新加罪处置，这些人的下场之悲，清史资料中虽未记载，但可想而知。四这桩由雍正帝亲自领导并由他亲自审讯的清朝最大文字狱案，从雍正六年开始立案追查，直到雍正十年方告结案。而最后的处置，却一反历代皇帝处置钦犯的常例。雍正下令免罪释放曾静、张熙等谋反犯，让他们戴罪立功，到各地现身说法，清除流毒；政治思想犯吕留良被锉尸枭首。他的长子吕葆中、学生严鸿逵被刨棺戮尸，枭首示众。其他受诛连的依律处斩、杖毙、缘坐和发配等严刑惩处。对于雍正的“出奇料理”，九卿大臣大为不满，纷纷上书要求将曾静、张熙等谋反人凌迟处死，即是碎尸万段也不足平臣民之愤。雍正帝力排众议，他认为若不是张熙自投罗网，曾静等供出许多散布流言蜚语惑众造反的人和诽谤皇上的奸人恶党，如何能暴露无遗？“朕深居皇宫何以能知道，何以能去一一查清，又何以能使天下臣民得知朕继位之正。”

    　　这样去看问题处理问题，那曾静、张熙等人还是有功劳的，故而皇上不究其往，不究其罪，决定予以无罪释放，使其改过从新。并说：“以后不要再向朕上奏此处置曾事，即是上本奏章，朕也不再看了。”

    　　非但如此，雍正还降谕子孙后代：“朕之子孙将来亦不得以其诋毁朕躬而追求诛戮。”

    　　同时，雍正帝编纂刊刻这桩最大文字狱案的全部谕旨、审讯、口供秘密记录，后附曾静的认罪书《归仁说》，书名为《大义觉迷录》，发行全国各府州县以及“远乡僻壤，让读书士子及乡曲小民共知”。“要每学宫各贮一册”，永久存档，做到家喻户晓，人人皆知。“倘有未见此书，未闻朕旨者，经朕随时查出，定将该省学政及该县教官从重治罪”，“要使远近寡识之士子不至溺于邪说”。可见《大义觉迷录》是雍正帝的力作，具有非常特色的旷世大著，因为它能使人人都“觉迷”起来，紧跟雍正走。曾静、张熙被释放后，安排在湖南观风整俗使处，以便随叫随到听候遣使，地方官员和平民百姓，不能蔑视讥讽。之后，曾静、张熙携带《大义觉迷录》，到各地向民众现身说法，宣讲《大义觉迷录》。由此可知《大义觉迷录》刊刻数量之多，普及发行之广达到雍正年间最高水平。雍正对吕留良文字思想犯处置与曾静谋反案却大相径庭。其诛连数之多，刑惩之惨酷，可以说是达到登峰造极地步了。雍正朱批道：“逆贼吕留良，凶顽悖逆，私为著述，妄谓德以后，天地大变，亘古未有，于今又见。……岂非逆天悖理，无父无君。”

    　　于是下令将已死去的吕留良和长子吕葆中“俱著戮尸枭示，次子吕毅中著改斩立诀，其孙辈俱即正典刑。朕以人数众多，心有不忍，著从宽免死，发遣宁古塔给于披甲人为奴。倘有顶替隐匿等弊，一经发觉，将浙省办理此案之官员与该犯一体治罪”，“其财产，令浙江地方官变价充本省工程之用”。吕留良的徒弟严鸿逵，此时已死多年，但他“与吕留良党恶共济，诬捏妖言……为王法所不贷”。“严鸿逵应凌迟处死，即使死去，应戮尸枭示。其祖父、父亲、子孙、兄弟及伯叔父兄弟之子，男十六以上皆斩，立决。男十五以下及严鸿逵之母女妻妾姊妹子之妻，俱解部，给功臣之家为奴，财产入官。”

    　　“沈在宽（严鸿逵的学生）传习吕留良、严鸿逵之邪说，猖狂悖乱，附会诋讥，允宜速正典刑，凌迟处死。其嫡属等，均照律治罪。”

    　　吕留良案内，“黄补庵，自称私淑门人，所作诗词，荒唐狂悖；车鼎丰、车鼎贲，刊刻逆书，往来契厚；孙用克，阴相援结；周敬舆，甘心附逆，私藏禁书。黄补庵应拟斩立诀，妻妾子女给功臣之家为奴，父母子孙兄弟流二千里。车鼎丰等，俱拟斩监候。”

    　　吕留良案内：“被惑门徒房明畴、金子尚，应革去生员，杖一百，佥妻流三千里。陈祖陶、沈允怀、沈成之、董吕音、李天维、费定原、王立夫、施子由、沈斗山、沈惠候、沈林友应革去教谕、举人、监生、生员、杖一百，徒三年。朱霞山、朱芷年从学严鸿逵，时年尚小，张圣范、朱羽采令伊等幼子从沈在宽附学训蒙，审无与沈在宽交好之处，应无庸议。”

    　　在清代康熙、雍正年间，文人稍有不慎，就有遭文字之祸，其例很多。车鼎丰、车鼎贲平时有较强反清复明思想，他的兄车鼎晋，因奉诏校《全唐诗》，其弟鼎丰有句云：“清风不识字，何事乱翻书。”意谓清朝统治者不识文字，何能做皇帝理国政。有一日，车鼎丰与弟鼎贲喝酒，酒盅为明瓷，盅底有“成化年造”字样。鼎丰翻其杯表示酒已干了，说：“大明天子今重见”，鼎贲把壶放在一旁说：“且把壶儿搁半边”。取壶、胡同音之意思，以表示对异族统治者不满。后二人都被吕留良文字狱案所诛连被处斩刑。哥哥车鼎晋终日惊惧万分，忧悲成疾而死去。据《东华录》雍正十年十二月十七日记载，此案最后的处置结果是：“严鸿逵著戮尸枭示，其孙著发宁古塔给披甲人为奴。沈在宽著改斩立诀。黄补庵已伏冥诛，其嫡属照议治罪。车鼎丰、车鼎贲、孙克用、周敬舆俱依拟应斩，著斩监候，秋后处决。房明畴、金子尚，俱著佥妻流三千。陈祖陶等十一人，著以杖责完结。张圣范、朱羽采、朱霞山、朱芷年，著释放。”

    　　雍正驾崩后，皇子弘历即位，是为乾隆帝。乾隆当上皇帝仅四十三天，即雍正十三年十二月八日，就违背乃父“朕之子孙，将来亦不得以其诋毁朕躬，而追究诛戮”的遗命。降旨道：“曾静大逆不道，虽处之极典，不足蔽其辜。”

    　　乾隆强调按照处置吕留良案的先例处置曾静案，下令：“著湖广督抚将曾静、张熙即行锁拿，遴选干员解京候审，毋得疏纵曳漏。其嫡属交地方严行看守候旨。”

    　　同年十二月十九日，乾隆帝又下令将“曾静、张熙著照法司所拟，凌迟处死。”

    　　接着将雍正《大义觉迷录》宣布为禁书，停止刊刻，停止颁发，私藏者治罪，在全国范围内统统收缴销毁。《大义觉迷录》是雍正朝御制国书，刊行全国使其家喻户晓，欲以使人人“觉迷”。转眼之间，乾隆继位宣布为特号禁书，凡有私藏者，即有杀头灭身之罪，惟恐有一人“觉迷”。从此《大义觉迷录》成为绝世罕见的一部皇帝撰写的御制国书，湮没二百多年不见天日，这一切更增加了它的神秘色彩。乾隆之所以与雍正处置曾静谋反案大相径庭，有他周密的考虑。他在青年时代目睹了这场文字案的前前后后，他清楚认识到：父王对曾静谋反案和吕留良文字狱案的公开审讯和批判，实际是把父王自己推上审判台；雍正的“华夷之别”的新释、十大罪状的自我辩解、皇宫中的秘闻丑事泄露、皇子间尔虞我诈、文武大臣间明枪暗箭等等，统统详细地记录于《大义觉迷录》一书中，损害了万乘之尊皇帝的光辉形象，暴露了国祚和宫廷的绝密，起到反宣传作用，根本达不到使臣民“觉迷”的目的，只能更增强人们的反清排满情绪。因此必须彻底剪除禁锢异端思想的蔓延，肃清其流毒。同时留着这两个弥天重犯”当“反面教员”，更难以起到“感化”教育的作用。证明他父皇失德确有其事。乾隆深思熟虑，甘愿冒着违犯父王遗命的罪名，诛杀了曾静、张熙，以绝后患。乾隆此举，实际上是秦始皇“焚书坑儒”的翻版，比其乃父的深谋远虑“出奇料理”低劣多了。清朝文字狱是我国历史上数量最多的朝代。康熙、雍正、乾隆三代皇帝制造的文字狱，有案可查的就有一百七十多起。

    　　一、满清入主中原君临天下，是否符合正统之道？岂可再以华夷中外而分论？　

    　　上谕：自古帝王之有天下，莫不由怀保万民，恩如四海，膺上天之眷命，协亿兆之欢心，用能统一寰区，垂庥奕世。盖生民之道，惟有德者可为天下君。此天下一家，万物一体，自古迄今，万世不易之常经。非寻常之类聚群分，乡曲疆域之私衷浅见所可妄为同异者也。《书》曰：“皇天无亲，惟德是辅。”

    　　盖德足以君天下，则天锡佑之，以为天下君，未闻不以德为感孚，而第择其为何地之人而辅之之理。又曰：“抚我则后，虐我则仇。”

    　　此民心向背之至情，未闻亿兆之归心，有不论德而但择地之理。又曰：“顺天者昌，逆天者亡。”

    　　惟有德者乃能顺天，天之所与，又岂因何地之人而有所区别乎？我国家肇基东土，列圣相承，保万邦，天心笃佑，德教弘敷，恩施遐畅，登生民于衽席，遍中外而尊亲者，百年于兹矣。

    　　夫我朝既仰承天命，为中外臣民之主，则所以蒙抚绥爱育者，何得以华夷而有更殊视？而中外臣民，既共奉我朝以为君，则所以归诚效顺，尽臣民之道者，尤不得以华夷而有异心。此揆之天道，验之人理，海隅日出之乡，普天率土之众，莫不知大一统之在我朝。

    　　悉子悉臣，罔敢越志者也。乃逆贼吕留良，凶顽悖恶，好乱乐祸，拢彝伦，私为著述，妄谓“德以后，天地大变，亘古未经，于今复见”。而逆徒严鸿逵等，转相附和，备极猖狂，余波及于曾静，幻怪相煽，恣为毁谤，至谓“八十余年以来，天昏地暗，日月无光”。在逆贼等之意，徒谓本朝以满洲之君，入为中国之主，妄生此疆彼界之私，遂故为讪谤诋讥之说耳。不知本朝之为满洲，犹中国之有籍贯。舜为东夷之人，文王为西夷之人，曾何损于圣德乎？《诗》言“戎狄是膺，荆舒是惩”者，以其僭王猾夏，不知君臣之大义，故声其罪而惩艾之，非以其为戎狄而外之也。若以戎狄而言，则孔子周游，不当至楚应昭王之聘。而秦穆之霸西戎，孔子删定之时，不应以其誓列于周书之后矣。

    　　盖从来华夷之说，乃在晋宋六朝偏安之时，彼此地丑德齐，莫能相尚，是以北人诋南为岛夷，南人指北为索虏，在当日之人，不务修德行仁，而徒事口舌相讥，已为至卑至陋之见。今逆贼等于天下一统，华夷一家之时，而妄判中外，谬生忿戾，岂非逆天悖理，无父无君，蜂蚁不若之异类乎？且以天地之气数言之，明代自嘉靖以后，君臣失德，盗贼四起，生民涂炭，疆圉靡宁，其时之天地，可不谓之闭塞乎？本朝定鼎以来，扫除群寇，寰宇安，政教兴修，文明日盛，万民乐业，中外恬熙，黄童白叟，一生不见兵革，今日之天地清宁，万姓沾恩，超越明代者，三尺之童亦皆洞晓，而尚可谓之昏暗乎？

    　　夫天地以仁爱为心，以覆载无私为量。是为德在内近者，则大统集于内近，德在外远者，则大统集于外远。孔子曰：“故大德者必受命。”

    　　自有帝王以来，其揆一也。今逆贼等以冥顽狂肆之胸，不论天心之取舍，政治之得失，不论民物之安危，疆域之大小，徒以琐琐乡曲为阿私，区区地界为忿嫉，公然指斥，以遂其昧弃彝伦，灭废人纪之逆意。至于极尽狂吠之音，竟敢指天地为昏暗，岂皇皇上天，鉴观有赫，转不如逆贼等之智识乎？且逆贼吕留良等，以夷狄比于禽兽，未知上天厌弃内地无有德者，方眷命我外夷为内地主，若据逆贼等论，是中国之人皆禽兽之不若矣。又何暇内中国而外夷狄也？自詈乎？詈人乎？

    　　且自古中国一统之世，幅员不能广远，其中有不向化者，则斥之为夷狄。如三代以上之有苗、荆楚、狁，即今湖南、湖北、山西之地也。在今日而目为夷狄可乎？至于汉、唐、宋全盛之时，北狄、西戎世为边患，从未能臣服而有其地。是以有此疆彼界之分。自我朝入主中土，君临天下，并蒙古极边诸部落，俱归版图，是中国之疆土开拓广远，乃中国臣民之大幸，何得尚有华夷中外之分论哉！从来为君上之道，当视民如赤子，为臣下之道，当奉君如父母。如为子之人，其父母即待以不慈，尚不可以疾怨忤逆，况我朝之为君，实尽父母斯民之道，殚诚求保赤之心。而逆贼尚忍肆为讪谤，则为君者，不知何道而后可也。

    　　从前康熙年间，各处奸徒窃发，动辄以朱三太子为名，如一念和尚、朱一贵者，指不胜屈。近日尚有山东人张玉，假称朱姓，托于明之后裔，遇星士推算，有帝王之命，以此希冀鼓惑愚民，现被步军统领衙门拿获究问。从来异姓先后继统，前朝之宗姓臣服于后代者甚多。否则，隐匿姓名伏处草野，从未有如本朝奸民假称朱姓，摇惑人心若此之众者。似此蔓延不息，则中国人君之子孙，遇继统之君，必至于无噍类而后已，岂非奸民迫之使然乎？

    　　况明继元而有天下，明太祖即元之子民也。以纲常伦纪言之，岂能逃篡窃之罪？至于我朝之于明，则邻国耳。且明之天下丧于流贼之手，是时边患肆起，倭寇骚动，流贼之有名目者，不可胜数。而各村邑无赖之徒，乘机劫杀，其不法之将弁兵丁等，又借征剿之名，肆行扰害，杀戮良民请功，以充获贼之数。中国民人死亡过半，即如四川之人，竟致靡有孓遗之叹。其偶有存者，则肢体不全，耳鼻残缺，此天下人所共知。康熙四五十年间，犹有目睹当时情形之父老，垂涕泣而道之者。且莫不庆幸我朝统一万方，削平群寇，出薄海内外之人于汤火之中，而登之衽席之上。是我朝之有造于中国者大矣，至矣！至于厚待明代之典礼，史不胜书。其藩王之后，实系明之子孙，则格外加恩，封以侯爵，此亦前代未有之旷典。而胸怀叛逆之奸民，动则假称朱姓，以为构逆之媒。而吕留良辈又借明代为言，肆其分别华夷之邪说，冀遂其叛逆之志。此不但为本朝之贼寇，实明代之仇雠也。

    　　且如中国之人，轻待外国之入承大统者，其害不过妄意诋讥，蛊惑一二匪类而已。原无损于是非之公，伦常之大。倘若外国之君入承大统，不以中国之人为赤子，则中国之人，其何所托命乎？况抚之则后，虐之则仇，人情也，若抚之而仍不以为后，殆非顺天合理之人情也。假使为君者，以非人情之事加之于下，为下者其能堪乎？为君者尚不可以非人情之事加之人于下，岂为下者转可以此施之于上乎？孔子曰：“君子居是邦也，不非其大夫。”

    　　况其君乎！又曰：“夷狄之有君，不如诸夏之亡也。”

    　　夫以春秋时百里之国，其大夫犹不可非。我朝奉天承运，大一统太平盛世，而君上尚可谤议乎？且圣人之在诸夏，犹谓夷狄为有君，况为我朝之人，亲被教泽，食德服畴，而可为无父无君之论乎？韩愈有言：“中国而夷狄也，则夷狄之；夷狄而中国也，则中国之。”

    　　历代从来，如有元之混一区宇，有国百年，幅员极广，其政治规模颇多美德，而后世称述者寥寥。其时之名臣学士，著作颂扬，纪当时之休美者，载在史册，亦复灿然具备，而后人则故为贬词，概谓无人物之可纪，无事功之足录，此特怀挟私心识见卑鄙之人，不欲归美于外来之君，欲贬抑淹没之耳。

    　　不知文章著述之事，所以信今传后，著劝戒于简编，当平心执正而论，于外国入承大统之君，其善恶尤当秉公书录，细大不遗。庶俾中国之君见之，以为外国之主且明哲仁爱如此，自必生奋励之心，而外国之君见是非之不爽，信直道之常存，亦必愈勇于为善，而深戒为恶，此文艺之功，有补于治道者，当何如也。倘故为贬抑淹没，略其善而不传，诬其恶而妄载，将使中国之君以为既生中国，自享令名，不必修德行仁，以臻隆之治。而外国入承大统之君，以为纵能夙夜励精，勤求治理，究无望于载籍之褒扬，而为善之心，因而自怠。则内地苍生，其苦无有底止矣。其为人心世道之害，可胜言哉！况若逆贼吕留良等，不惟于我朝之善政善教，大经大法，概为置而不言，而更空妄撰，凭虚横议，以无影无响之谈，为惑世诬民之具。颠倒是非，紊乱黑白，以有为无，以无为有。此其诞幻张，诳人听闻，诚乃千古之罪人，所谓悯不畏死，凡民罔不憝，不待教而诛者也，非只获罪于我国家而已。此等险邪之人，胸怀思乱之心，妄冀侥幸于万一。曾未通观古今大势，凡首先倡乱之人，无不身膏斧，遗臭万年。夫以天下国家之巩固，岂鸟合鼠窃之辈所能轻言动摇？即当世运式微之时，其首乱之人，历观史册，从无有一人能成大事者。如秦末之陈涉、项梁、张耳、陈余等，以至元末之刘福通、韩林儿、陈友谅、张士诚等，虽一时跳梁，究竟旋为灰烬。而唐宋中叶之时，其草窃之辈，接踵叠迹，亦同归于尽。总之，此等奸民，不知君臣之大义，不识天命之眷怀，徒自取诛戮，为万古之罪人而已。

    　　夫人之所以为人，而异于禽兽者，以有此伦常之理也。故五伦谓之人伦，是缺一则不可谓之人矣。君臣居五伦之首，天下有无君之人，而尚可谓之人乎？人而怀无君之心，而尚不谓之禽兽乎？尽人伦则谓人，灭天理则谓禽兽，非可因华夷而区别人禽也。且天命之以为君，而乃怀逆天之意，焉有不遭天之诛殛者乎？朕思秉彝好德，人心所同，天下亿万臣民，共具天良，自切尊君亲上之念，无庸再为剖示宣谕。但险邪昏乱之小人，如吕留良等，胸怀悖逆者，普天之下不可言止此数贼也。用颁此旨特加训谕，若平日稍有存此心者，当问天扪心，各发天良，详细自思之。朕之详悉剖示者，非好辩也。古昔人心淳朴，是以尧舜之时，都俞吁，其词甚简。逮至殷周之世，人心渐不如前，故《殷盘》、《周诰》所以告诫臣民者，往复周详肫诚剀切，始能去其蔽固，觉其遇蒙，此古今时势之不得不然者。每见阴险小人，为大义所折，理屈词穷，则借圣人之言，以巧为诋毁，曰：“是故恶夫佞者。”

    　　不知孔子之以子路为佞，因子路“何必读书，然后为学”之语而发。盖以无理之论，而欲强胜于人，则谓之佞，所谓御人以口给也。若遇吕留良、严鸿逵、曾静等逆天背理，惑世诬民之贼，而晓以天经地义，纲常伦纪之大道，使愚昧无知，平日为邪说陷溺之人，豁然醒悟，不致遭天谴而罹国法，此乃为世道人心计，岂可以谓之佞乎？天下后世自有公论。著将吕留良、严鸿逵、曾静等悖逆之言，及朕谕旨，一一刊刻，通行颁布天下各府、州、县、远乡僻壤，俾读书士子及乡曲小民共知之，并令各贮一册于学宫之中，使将来后学新进之士，人人观览知悉。倘有未见此书，未闻朕旨者，经朕随时察出，定将该省学政及该县教官从重治罪。特谕。

    　　二、朕到底是不是谋父、逼母、弑兄、屠弟、贪财、好杀、酗酒、淫色、诛忠、好谀、奸佞的皇帝？　　

    　　上谕：朕荷上天眷佑，受圣祖仁皇帝付托之重，君临天下。自御极以来，夙夜孜孜，勤求治理，虽不敢比于古之圣君哲后，然爱养百姓之心，无一时不切于寤寐，无一事不竭其周详。抚育诚求，如保赤子，不惜劳一身以安天下之民，不惜殚一心以慰黎庶之愿，各期登之衽席，而无一夫不得其所。宵旰忧勤，不遑寝食，意谓天下之人，庶几知朕之心，念朕之劳，谅朕之苦，各安生业，共敦实行，人心渐底于善良，风俗胥归于醇厚，朕虽至劳至苦，而此心可大慰矣。岂意有逆贼曾静，遣其徒张熙投书于总督岳钟琪，劝其谋反，将朕躬肆为诬谤之词，而于我朝极尽悖逆之语。廷臣见者，皆疾首痛心，有不共戴天之恨，似此影响全无之事，朕梦寐中亦无此幻境，实如犬吠狼嗥，何足与辩？既而思之，逆贼所言，朕若有几微愧歉于中，则当回护隐忍，暗中寝息其事，今以全无影无声之谈，加之于朕，朕之心可以对上天，可以对皇考，可以共白于天下之亿万臣民。而逆贼之敢于肆行诬谤者，必更有大奸大恶之徒，捏造流言，摇众心而惑众听，若不就其所言，明目张胆宣示播告，则魑魅魍魉，不公然狂肆于光天化日之下乎？如逆书加朕以谋父之名，朕幼蒙皇考慈爱教育，四十余年以来，朕养志承欢，至诚至敬，屡蒙皇考恩谕。诸昆弟中，独谓朕诚孝，此朕之兄弟及大小臣工所共知者。朕在藩邸时，仰托皇考福庇，安富尊荣，循理守分，不交结一人，不与闻一事，于问安视膳之外，一无沽名妄冀之心。此亦朕之兄弟及大小臣工所共知者。　

    　　朕在身为亲王的时候，上托皇父的荫庇，安享荣华福贵，安分守礼，不随便交接一个私人，不干预一件国家政事，除了依礼制进见皇父问安问饮食以外，丝毫没有沽名钓誉和别的企图，这也是朕的兄弟和一切大臣、侍从们所共知的事实。至康熙六十一年十一月冬至之前，朕奉皇考之命，代祀南郊，时皇考圣躬不予，静摄于畅春园，朕请侍奉左右，皇考以南郊大典，应于斋所虔诚斋戒，朕遵旨于斋所至斋。至十三日，皇考召朕于斋所，朕末至畅春园之先，皇考命诚亲王允祉、淳亲王允、阿其那、塞思黑、允、公允、怡亲王允祥、原任理藩院尚书隆科多至御榻前，谕曰：“皇四子人品贵重，深肖朕躬，必能克承大统。”

    　　著继朕即皇帝位。是时唯恒亲王允祺以冬至命往孝东陵行礼，未在京师，庄亲王允禄、果亲王允礼、贝勒允、贝子允，俱在寝宫外祗候。及朕驰至，问安皇考，告以症候日增之故，朕含泪劝慰。其夜戌时龙驭上宾，朕哀恸号呼，实不欲生。隆科多乃述皇考遗诏，朕闻之惊恸，皆仆于地。诚亲王等向朕叩首，劝朕节哀。朕始强起办理大事。此当日之情形，朕之诸兄弟及宫人内侍与内廷行走之大小臣工，所共知共见者。夫以朕兄弟之中，如阿其那、塞思黑等，久蓄邪谋，希冀储位，当兹授受之际，伊等若非亲承皇考付朕鸿基之遗诏，安肯帖无一语，俯首臣伏于朕之前乎？而逆贼忽加朕以谋父之名，此朕梦寐中不意有人诬谤及此者也。又如逆书加朕以逼母之名，伏惟母后圣性仁厚慈祥，阖宫中若老若幼，皆深知者。朕受鞠育深恩，四十年来，备尽孝养，深得母后之慈欢，谓朕实能诚心孝奉。而宫中诸母妃咸美母后，有此孝顺之子，皆为母后称庆，此现在宫内人所共知者。及皇考升遐之日，母后哀痛深至，决意从殉，不饮不食。朕稽颡痛哭，奏云：“皇考以大事遗付冲人，今圣母若执意如此，臣更何所瞻依，将何以对天下臣民，亦惟以身相从耳。”

    　　再四哀恳，母后始勉进水浆。自是以后，每夜五鼓，必亲诣昭仁殿，详问内监，得知母后安寝，朕始回苫次。

    　　朕御极后，凡办理朝政，每日必行奏闻，母后谕以不欲与闻政事。朕奏云：“臣于政务素未谙练，今之所以奏闻者，若办理未合，可以仰邀训诲，若办理果当，可仰慰慈怀，并非于予政事也。”

    　　后朕每奏事，母后辄喜，以皇考付托得人，有不枉生汝，勉之莫怠之慈旨。母后素有痰疾，又因皇考大事，悲恸不释于怀，于癸卯五月，旧恙举发。朕侍奉汤药，冀望痊愈。不意遂至大渐。朕向来有畏暑之疾，哀痛擗踊，屡次昏晕，数月之内，两遭大事，五内摧伤，几不能支，此宫廷所共知者。朕于皇考、母后大事，素服斋居，三十三月如一日，除祭祀大典，及办理政事外，所居之地，不过屋宇五楹，不听音乐，不事游览，实尽三年谅阴之礼，此亦内外臣工所共知者。至于朕于现在宫中诸母妃之前，无不尽礼敬养，今诸母妃亦甚感朕之相待，岂有母后生我，而朕孺慕之心，有一刻之稍懈乎？况朕以天下孝养，岂尚缺于甘旨而于慈亲之前，有所吝惜乎？逆贼加朕以逼母之名，此更朕梦寐中不意有人诬谤及此者也。又如逆书加朕以弑兄之名。当日大阿哥残暴横肆，暗行镇魇，冀夺储位，二阿哥昏乱失德。皇考为宗庙社稷计，将二人禁锢。此时曾有朱笔谕旨：“朕若不讳；二人断不可留。”此广集诸王大臣特降之谕旨，现存宗人府。

    　　朕即位时，念手足之情，心实不忍，只因诸弟中如阿其那等，心怀叵测，固结党援，往往借端生事，煽惑人心，朕意欲将此辈徐徐化导，消除妄念，安静守法，则将来二阿哥亦可释其禁锢，厚加禄赐，为朕世外兄弟，此朕素志也。所以数年以来，时时遣人赉予服食之类，皆不令称御赐，不欲其行君臣之礼也。二阿哥常问云：“此出自皇上所赐乎？我当谢恩领受。”

    　　而内侍遵朕旨，总不言其所自。及雍正二年冬间，二阿哥抱病，朕命护守咸安宫之大臣等，于太医院拣择良医数人，听二阿哥自行选用。二阿哥素知医理，自与医家商订方药。迨至病势渐重，朕遣大臣往视，二阿哥感朕深恩，涕泣称谢云：“我本有罪之人，得终其天年，皆皇上保全之恩也。”

    　　又谓其子弘皙云：“我受皇上深恩，今生不能仰报，汝当竭心尽力，以继我未尽之志。”及二阿哥病益危笃，朕令备仪卫移于五龙亭。伊见黄舆，感激朕恩，以手加额，口诵佛号。以上情事，咸安宫宫人、内监百余人，皆所目睹者。及病故之后，追封亲王，一切礼仪有加，且亲往哭奠，以展悲恸。其丧葬之费，动支库帑，悉从丰厚，命大臣等尽心办理，封其二子以王公之爵，优加赐赉。今逆贼加朕以弑兄之名，此朕梦寐中不意有人诬谤及此者也。又如逆贼加朕以屠弟之名，当日阿其那以二阿哥获罪废黜，妄希非分，包藏祸心，与塞思黑、允、允结为死党，而阿其那之阴险诡谲，实为罪魁，塞思黑之狡诈奸顽，亦与相等。允狂悖糊涂，允卑污庸恶，皆受其笼络，遂至胶固而不解，于是结交匪类，蛊惑人心，而行险侥幸之辈，皆乐为之用，私相推戴，竟忘君臣之大义。以致皇考忧愤震怒，圣躬时为不豫，其切责阿其那也则有“父子之情已绝”

    　　之旨。其他忿激之语，皆为臣子者所不忍听闻。朕以君父高年，忧怀郁结，百计为伊等调停解释，以宽慰圣心，其事不可枚举。及皇考升遐之日，朕在哀痛之时，塞思黑突至朕前，箕踞对坐，傲慢无礼，其意大不可测，若非朕镇定隐忍，必至激成事端。朕即位以后，将伊等罪恶，俱行宽宥，时时教训，望其改悔前愆，又加特恩，将阿其那封为亲王，令其辅政，深加任用。盖伊等平日原以阿其那为趋向，若阿其那果有感悔之心，则群小自然解散。岂料阿其那逆意坚定，以未遂平日之大愿，恚恨益深，且自知从前所为，及获罪于皇考之处万无可赦之理，因而以毒忍之心肆其桀骜之行，扰乱国政，颠倒纪纲，甚至在大庭广众之前诅朕躬，及于宗社。此廷臣所共见，人人无不发指者。

    　　从前朕遣塞思黑往西大同者，原欲离散其党，不令聚于一处，或可望其改过自新。岂知伊怙恶不悛，悖乱如故，在外寄书允，公然有“机会已失，悔之无及”等语。又与伊子巧编格式，别造字样，传递京中信息，缝于骡夫衣袜之内，诡计阴谋，甚于敌国奸细。有奸民令狐士仪，投书伊处，皆反叛之语，而伊为之隐藏。其他不法之处甚多，不可胜数。允赋性狂愚，与阿其那尤相亲密，听其指使。昔年因阿其那谋夺东宫之案，皇考欲治阿其那之罪，允与塞思黑在皇考前袒护强辩，致触圣怒，欲手刃允。此时恒亲王允祺抱劝而止。皇考高年，知伊愚逆之性，留京必致妄乱启衅，后因西陲用兵，特遣前往效力，以疏远之。

    　　伊在军前，贪婪淫纵，恶迹种种。及朕即位，降旨将伊唤回，伊在朕前放肆傲慢，犯礼犯分，朕悉皆曲宥，仍令奉祀景陵。竟有奸民蔡怀玺，投书伊之院中，造作大逆之言，称允为皇帝，而称塞思黑之母为太后。允见书，将大逆之语剪裁藏匿，向该管总兵云：“此非大事，可酌量完结。”即此，则其悖乱之心，何尝改悔耶！允无知无耻，昏庸贪劣，因其依附邪党，不便留在京师，故令送泽卜尊丹巴胡土克图出口。伊至张家口外，托病不行，而私自禳祷，连书雍正新君于告文，怨望慢亵，经绪王大臣等以大不敬题参。朕俱曲加宽宥，但思若听其闲散在外，必不安静奉法，是以将伊禁锢以保全之，伊在禁锢之所竟敢为镇魇之事，经伊跟随太监举出，及加审讯，鉴鉴可据。允亦俯首自认，不能更辩一词。从前诸王大臣胪列阿其那大罪四十款，塞思黑大罪二十八款，允大罪十四款，又特参允镇魇之罪，恳请将伊等立正典刑，以彰国宪。朕再四踌躇，实不忍，暂将阿其那拘禁，降旨询问外省封疆大臣，待其回奏，然后定夺。仍令太监数人供其使。令一切饮食所需，听其索取。不意此际阿其那遂伏冥诛，塞思黑从西宁移至保定，交与直隶总督李绂看守，亦伏冥诛。夫以皇考至圣至慈之君父，而切齿痛心于阿其那、塞思黑等，则伊等不忠不孝之罪，尚安有得逃于天谴者乎？

    　　朕在藩邸，光明正大，公直无私，诸兄弟之才现实不及朕，其待朕悉恭敬尽礼，并无一语之争竟，亦无一事之猜嫌，满洲臣工及诸王门下之人，莫不知者。今登大位，实无丝毫芥蒂于胸中，而为报怨泄愤之举，但朕缵承列祖皇考基业，负荷甚重，其有关于宗庙社稷之大计，而为人心世道之深忧者，朕若稍避一己之嫌疑，存小不忍之见，则是朕之获罪于列祖皇考者大矣。古人大义灭亲，周公所以诛管蔡也，假使二人不死，将来未必不明正典刑。但二人之死，实系冥诛，众所共知共见。朕尚未加以诛戮也。至于朕秉公执法，锄恶除奸，原不以诛戮二人为讳，若朕心以此为讳，则数年之中，或暗赐鸩毒，或遣人伤害，随时随地皆可陨其性命，何必咨询内外诸臣，众意佥同而朕心仍复迟回不决，俾伊等得保首领以殁乎？至允、允将来作何归结，则视乎本人之自取，朕亦不能予定。而目前则二人现在也。朕之兄弟多人，当阿其那等结党之时，于秉性聪明，稍有胆识者，则百计笼络，使之入其匪党，而于愚懦无能者，则恐吓引诱，使之依附声势，是以诸兄弟多迷而不悟，堕其术中。即朕即位以后，而怀藏异心者，尚不乏人，朕皆置而不问。朕之素志，本欲化导诸顽，同归于善，俾朝廷之上，共守君臣之义，而宫廷之内，得朕兄弟之情，则朕全无缺陷，岂非至愿。无如伊等恶贯满盈，获罪于上天、皇考，以致自速冥诛，不能遂朕之初念。此朕之大不幸，天下臣庶，当共谅朕为国为民之苦心，今逆贼乃加朕以屠弟之名，朕不辩亦不受也。

    　　至逆书谓朕为贪财，朕承皇考六十余年太平基业，富有四海，府库充盈，是以屡年来大沛恩泽，使薄海黎庶，莫不均沾。如各省旧欠钱粮，则蠲免几及千万两，江南、江西、浙江之浮粮，则每年减免额赋六十余万两。地方旱涝偶闻，即速降谕旨，动帑遣官，多方赈恤，及灾伤勘报之后，或按分数蠲除，或格外全行豁免。今年又降谕旨，被灾蠲免分数，加至六分七分。至于南北黄运河工堤工，兴修水利，开种稻田，以及各省建造工程，备办军需，恩赐赏赉，所费数百万两，皆内动支帑项，丝毫不使扰民。

    　　夫以额徵赋税，内库帑金减免支给如此之多，毫无吝惜，而谓朕为贪财，有是理乎？只因从前贪官污吏，蠹国殃民，即置重典，亦不足以蔽其辜。但不教而杀，朕心有所不忍，故曲宥其死，已属浩荡之恩，若又听其以贪婪横取之资财肥身家，以长子孙，则国法何存，人心何以示儆？况犯法之人，原有籍没家产之例，是以将奇贪极酷之员，照例抄没，以彰宪典，而惩贪污，并使后来居官者，知赋私之物，不能入已，无益有害，不敢复蹈故辙，勉为廉吏，此朕安百姓，整饬吏治之心。今乃被贪财之谤，岂朕不吝惜于数千百万之帑金，而转贪此些微之赃物乎？

    　　至于属员，虚空钱粮，有责令上司分赔者，盖以上司之于属吏有通同侵蚀之弊，有瞻徇容隐之风，若不重其责成，则上司不肯尽察吏之道，而侵盗之恶习无由而止。是以设此惩创之法，以儆惕之。俟将来上官皆能察吏，下寮群知奉公，朕自有措施之道。若因此而谤为贪财，此井蛙之见，焉知政治之大乎？至逆书谓朕好杀，朕性本最慈，不但不肯妄罚一人，即步履之间，草木蝼蚁，亦不肯践踏伤损。

    　　即位以来，时刻以祥刑为念，各省爰书及法司成谳，朕往复披览，至再至三，每遇重犯，若得其一线可生之路，则心为愉快，倘稍有可疑之处，必与大臣等推详讲论，期于平允。六年以来，秋审四经停决，而廷议缓决之中，朕复降旨，察其情罪稍轻者，令行矜释，其正法及勾决之犯，皆大逆大恶之人，万万法无可贷者。夫天地之道，春生秋杀。尧舜之政，弼教明刑。朕治天下，原不肯以妇人之仁，弛三尺之法。但罪疑惟轻，朕心慎之又慎，惟恐一时疏忽，致有丝毫屈枉之情，不但重辟为然，即笞杖之刑，亦不肯加于无罪者，每日诚饬法司，及各省官吏等，以钦恤平允为先务。今逆贼谓朕好杀，何其与朕之存心行政相悖之甚乎？

    　　又逆书谓朕为酗酒，夫酒醴之设，圣贤不废。古称尧千钟，舜百，《论语》称孔子惟酒无量，是饮酒原无损于圣德，不必讳言。但朕之不饮，出自天性，并非强致。而然前年提督路振扬来京陛见。一日忽奏云：“臣在京许久，每日进见，仰瞻天颜，全不似饮酒者，何以臣在外任，有传闻皇上饮酒之说。”

    　　朕因路振扬之奏，始知外闻有此浮言，为之一笑。今逆贼酗酒之谤，即此类也。又逆书谓朕为淫色。朕在藩邸，即清心寡欲，自幼性情不好色欲。即位以后，宫人甚少。朕常自谓天下人不好色，未有如朕者。远色二字，朕实可以自信，而诸王大臣近侍等，亦共知之。今乃谤为好色，不知所好者何色？所宠者何人？在逆贼既造流言，岂无耳目，而乃信口讥评耶！

    　　又逆书谓朕为怀疑诛忠。朕之待人，无一事不开诚布公，无一处不推心置腹，胸中有所欲言，必尽吐而后快，从无逆诈，亿不信之事。其待大臣也，实视为心膂股肱，联络一体，日日以至诚训诲臣工。今诸臣亦咸喻朕心有感孚之意。至于年羹尧、鄂伦岱、阿尔松阿则朕之所诛戮者也。年羹尧受皇考及朕深恩，忍于背负，胸怀不轨，几欲叛逆。其贪酷狂肆之罪，经大臣等参奏九十二条，揆以国法，应置极刑。而朕犹念其西藏、青海之功，从宽令其自尽；其父兄俱未处分，其子之发遣远方者，今已开恩赦回矣。

    　　鄂伦岱、阿灵阿实奸党之渠魁。伊等之意，竟将东宫废立之权，俨若可以操之于己。当阿其那恶迹败露之时，皇考审询伊之太监，比将鄂伦岱、阿灵阿同恶共济之处，一一供出，荷蒙皇考宽宥之恩，不加诛灭。而伊等并不感戴悔过，毫无畏惧，愈加亲密，鄂伦岱仍敢强横踞傲，故意触犯皇考之怒。当圣躬高年颐养之时，为此忿懑恚恨，臣工莫不切齿。阿灵阿罪大恶极，早伏冥诛。伊子阿尔松阿，仿效伊父之行，更为狡狯。朕犹念其为勋戚之后，冀其洗心涤虑，以盖前愆，特加任用，并令管理刑部事务。而伊逆心未改，故智复萌，颠倒是非，紊乱法律。一日审理刑名，将两造之人，用三木各夹一足，闻者皆为骇异。

    　　又与鄂伦岱同在乾清门，将朕所降谕旨掷之于地，其他狂悖妄乱之处，不可殚述。朕犹不忍加诛，特命发往奉天居住，使之解散其党羽，尚可曲为保全，岂料二人到彼全无悔悟之念，但怀怨望之心，而在京之邪党，仍然固结，牢不可破。朕再四思维，此等巨恶，在天理国典，断不可赦，于是始将二人正法。至于苏努则老奸大蠹，罪恶滔天，实逆党之首恶。隆科多则罔上欺君，款迹昭著。二人皆伏冥诛，未膺显戮。

    　　逆书之所谓怀疑诛忠者，朕细思朕于年羹尧、鄂伦岱、阿尔松阿三人之外，并未诛戮忠良之大臣。想逆贼即以年羹尧、鄂伦岱、阿尔松阿、苏努、隆科多等为忠良乎？天下自有公论也。又逆书谓朕为好谀任佞。朕在藩邸四十余年，于人情物理，熟悉周知，谗谄面谀之习，早已洞察其情伪，而厌薄其卑污。不若冲幼之主，未经阅历者也。是以即位以来，一切称功颂德之文，屏弃不用，不过臣工表文，官员履历，沿习旧日体式，作颂圣之句，凑合成章，朕一览即过，不复留意。日日训谕大小臣工，直言朕躬之阙失，详陈政事之乖差，以忠谠为先，以迎合为戒。是以内外诸臣，皆不敢以浮夸颂祷之词见诸言奏，恐为朕心之所轻。今逆贼之所谓好谀任佞者，能举一人一事以实之否耶？

    　　以上诸条，实全无影响，梦想不及之事，而逆贼灭绝彝良，肆行诋毁者，必有与国家为深仇积恨之人捏造此言惑乱众听。如阿其那、塞思黑等之奸党，被朕惩创拘禁，不能肆志，怀恨于心，或贪官污吏，匪类棍徒，怨朕执法无私，故造作大逆之词，泄其私愤。且阿其那、塞思黑当日之结党肆恶，谋夺储位，也于皇考则时怀忤逆背叛之心。于二阿哥则极尽摇乱倾陷之术，因而嫉妒同气，排挤贤良，入其党者，则引为腹心。远其党者，则视为仇敌。又如阿其那，自盗廉洁之名，而令塞思黑、允、允贪赋犯法，横取不义之财，以供其市思沽誉之用。

    　　且允出兵在外，盗取军需银数十万两，屡次遣人私送与阿其那，听其挥霍。前允之子供出，阿其那亦自认不讳者。又如阿其那残忍性成，逐日沉醉。当朕切加训诫之时，尚不知改。伊之护军九十六，以直言触怒，立毙杖下，长史胡什吞，亦以直言得罪，痛加楚，推入水中，几至殒命。允亦素性嗜酒，时与阿其那沉湎轻生。允又复渔色宣淫，不知检束，以领兵之重任，尚取青海台吉之女，及蒙古女子多人，恣其淫荡，军前之人谁不知之？

    　　今逆书之毁谤，皆朕时常训诲伊等之事，伊等即负疚于心，而又衔怨于朕，故即指此以为讪谤之端，此鬼蜮之伎俩也。且伊等之奴隶太监，平日相助为虐者，多发遣黔粤烟瘴地方，故于经过之处，布散流言。而逆贼曾静等，又素怀不臣之心，一经传闻，遂借以为蛊惑人心之具耳。向因储位未定，奸宄共生觊觎之情，是以皇考升遐之后，远方之人皆以为将生乱阶，暗行窥伺。及朕缵承大统，继志述事，数年以来幸无失政。天人协应，上下交孚，而凶恶不轨之徒，不能乘间伺觉，有所举动，逆志迫切，自知无得逞之期，遂铤而走险，甘蹈赤族之罪，欲拼命为疑人耳目之举耳。殊不知实于朕无损也。又逆书云“明君失德，中原陆沉，夷狄乘虚入我中国，窃据神器”等语。

    　　我朝发祥之始，天生圣人起于长白山，积德累功，至于太祖高皇帝，天锡神武，谋略盖世，法令制度，规模弘远。是以统一诸国，遐迩归诚，开创帝业。迨太宗文皇帝，继位践祚，德望益隆，奄有三韩之地，抚绥蒙古，为诸国之共主。是本朝之于明，论报复之义，则为敌国，论交往之礼，则为与国。本朝应得天下，较之成汤之放桀，周武之伐纣，更为名正而言顺，况本朝并非取天下于明也。崇祯殉国，明祚已终，李自成僭伪号于北京，中原涂炭，咸思得真主，为民除残去虐。太宗文皇帝不忍万姓沉溺于水火之中，命将兴师，以定祸乱。干戈所指，流贼望风而遁。李自成为追兵所杀，余党解散。世祖章皇帝驾入京师，安辑畿辅，亿万苍生咸获再生之幸，而崇祯皇帝始得以礼殡葬。此本朝之为明报怨雪耻，大有造于明者也。是以当时明之臣民，达人智士，帖然心服，罔不输诚向化。今之臣民，若果有先世受明高爵厚禄，不忘明德者，正当感戴本朝为明复仇之深恩，不应更有异说也。况自甲申，至今已八十余年，自祖父以及本身，履大清之土，食大清之粟，而忍生叛逆之心，倡狂悖之论乎？

    　　逆书云：“夷狄异类，詈如禽兽。”

    　　夫人之所以异于禽兽者几希？以其存心也。君子以仁存心，以义存心。若僻处深山旷野之夷狄番苗，不识纲维，不知礼法，蠢然漠然，或可加之以禽兽无异之名。至于今日蒙古四十八旗，喀而喀等，尊君亲上，慎守法度，盗贼不兴，命案罕见，无奸伪盗诈之习，有熙宁静之风，此安得以禽兽目之乎？若夫本朝，自关外创业以来，存仁义之心，行仁义之政，即古昔之贤君令主，亦罕能与我朝伦比。且自入中国，已八十余年。敷猷布教，礼乐昌明，政事文学之盛，灿然备举，而犹得谓为异类禽兽乎？孔子曰：“夷狄之有君，不如诸夏之亡也。”是夷狄之有君，即为圣贤之流，诸夏之亡，君即为禽兽之类。宁在地之内外哉！《书》云：“皇天无亲，惟德是辅。”

    　　本朝之得天下，非徒事兵力也。太祖高皇帝开创之初，甲兵仅十三人，后合九姓之师，败明四路之众。至世祖章皇帝入京师时，兵亦不过十万，夫以十万之众，而服十五省之天下，岂人力所能强哉？实道德感孚，为皇天眷顾，民心率从，天与人归。是以一至京师，而明之臣民，咸为我朝效力驰驱。其时统领士卒者，即明之将弁，披坚执锐者，即明之甲兵也。此皆应天顺时，通达大义，辅佐本朝成一统太平之业。而其人亦标名竹帛，勒勋鼎彝，岂不谓之贤乎？而得以禽兽目之乎？及吴三桂反叛之时，地方督抚提镇，以至县令武弁攻城破敌，转饷挽粮，多半汉人也。且多临阵捐躯，守土殉节者，国史不胜其载，历历可数。又如三次出征朔漠，宣力行间，赞襄荡平之勋者，正复不少。岂不谓之忠且义乎？而得以禽兽目之乎？即如岳钟琪，世受国恩，忠诚义勇，克复西藏，平定青海，屡奏肤切，赤心奉主，岂非国家之栋梁，朝廷之柱石乎？如逆贼曾静者，乃汉人之禽兽也。盖识尊亲之大义，明上下之定分，则谓之人。若沦丧天常，绝灭人纪，则谓之禽兽。此理之显然者也。且夷狄之名，本朝所不讳。孟子云：“舜东夷之人也，文王西夷之人也。”

    　　本其所生而言，犹今人之籍贯耳。况满洲人皆耻附于汉人之列，准噶尔呼满洲为蛮子，满洲闻之，莫不忿恨之，而逆贼以夷狄为诮，诚醉生梦死之禽兽矣。

    　　本朝定鼎以来，世祖十八年建极开基，圣祖六十一年深仁厚泽。朕即位以后，早夜忧劳，无刻不以闾阎为念，是以上天眷佑，雨时若，奸宄不兴，寰宇享升平之福。在昔汉、唐、宋极治之时，不过承平二三十年，未有久安长治如今日者。百姓自龆龀之年，至于白首，不见兵革，父母妻子家室完聚，此非朝廷清明庶绩咸熙之所致乎？且汉、唐、宋、明之世，幅员未广，西北诸处，皆为劲敌，边警时闻，烽烟不息。中原之民，悉索敝赋，疲于奔命，亦危且苦矣。今本朝幅员弘广，中外臣服，是以日月照临之下，凡有血气，莫不额手称庆，歌咏太平。而逆贼谓乾坤反复，黑暗无光，此又犬获鸱之吠鸣，禽兽中之最恶者矣。或逆贼之先世为明代之勋戚，故恋恋于明乎，今昌平诸陵，禁止樵采，设户看守，每岁遣官致祭。圣祖屡次南巡，皆亲谒孝陵奠酹，实自古所未有之盛典，朕又继承圣志，封明后以侯爵，许其致祭明代陵寝，虽夏、商、周之所以处胜国之后，无以加矣。若逆贼果心念前明，更当感切肺腑，梦寐之中，惟本朝崇奉，而犹云：“内中国而外夷狄乎？”

    　　此逆贼也。非惟在本朝为汉人之禽兽，即在明代，亦一禽兽，且其意非仅比本朝为禽兽，其视明代亦一漠不相关之禽兽耳。

    　　又云：“五六年内寒暑易序，五谷少成，恒雨恒，荆、襄、岳、常等郡，连年洪水滔天，吴、楚、蜀、粤，旱涝时闻，山崩川竭，地暗天昏。”

    　　夫天时水旱，关乎气数，不能保其全无，所恃人力补救耳。如尧有九年之水，汤有七年之旱，曾无损于一帝一王贤圣之名，但朕自嗣位以来，赖天地祖宗之福庇，阴阳和顺，风雨时调，五谷丰收，农民乐业，各省之内，间有数州县旱涝不齐，即令动帑赈济，民获安全。湖广惟上年江水泛涨，有伤禾稼，即特发帑金，筑堤捍御，此天下臣民所共知者。幸六年之内，各省薄收之处不过数州县耳。倘遇大水大旱，不知又作何幸灾乐祸之说也。方今天下，凡有知识之人，以及草木昆虫，皆居于戴高履厚之内，而云“地暗天昏”，盖逆贼之心昏暗，入于鬼道，固不知有天地矣。至云：“孔庙既毁，朱祠复灾。”

    　　孔庙之不戒于火，唐宋皆有之。明弘治时，被灾尤甚。弘治非明代之贤君乎？若以此为人君之不德所致，则将来叛逆之徒，必藉此煽动人心，至有纵火焚毁，以及各府州县文庙者。逆贼既称东鲁腐儒，附于圣人桑梓，而忍为此言乎？若朱祠之焚，未知果有其事否？但朱子祠宇遍天下，偶一被火，即关君德，则诸儒之祠宇何穷，宁能保其一无回禄之灾乎？至云：“五星聚，黄河清；为阴尽阳生，乱极转治之机。”

    　　夫果至乱极之时，有此嘉详，犹可附合其说，今天下吏治虽不敢曰尽善，然已大法小廉矣，民生虽不敢曰安，然已衣食粗足矣。四方无事，百姓康乐，户口蕃庶，田野日辟，正万国咸宁之时，而乃云“乱极”乎？且食草木者何人，积尸者何地，逆贼能确指之乎？昧心丧理，总不举首仰观于天也。昊苍之所以恩眷本朝者，历代未有若斯之厚，而且显也。朕即位之初，孝陵蓍草丛生，六年之秋，景陵芝英产于宝城山上，以至双岐五秀之嘉禾，九穗盈尺之瑞谷，五星聚于奎璧，黄河清于六省，骈实连株之应，卿云甘露之祥，朕虽不言祯符，而自古史册所艳称而罕观者，莫不备臻而毕具。而逆书则云：“山崩川竭。”

    　　试问此数年来，崩者何山，竭者何川，能指出一二否乎？

    　　夫灾异之事，古昔帝王未常讳言。盖此乃上天垂象，以示儆也。遇灾异而能恐惧修省，即可化灾为福矣。遇嘉祥而或侈肆骄矜，必致转福为灾矣。朕于此理见之甚明，信之甚笃，故每逢上天赐福，昭示嘉祥，寤寐之间，倍加乾惕。并饬内外臣工，共深敬谨，若涉冰渊，所颂谕旨，已数十次，朕岂敢欺天而为此不由衷之语耶！数十年来，凡与我朝为难者，莫不上干天谴，立时殄灭。如内地之三逆，外蕃之察哈尔、噶尔丹、青海、西藏等，偶肆跳梁，即成灰烬。又幺么丑类，如汪景祺，查嗣庭、蔡怀玺、郭允进等，皆自投宪网，若有鬼神使之者。今逆贼曾静，又复自行首露。设逆贼但闭户著作，肆其狂悖，不令张熙投书于岳钟琪，其大逆不道之罪，何人为之稽察，不几隐没漏网乎？而天地不容，使之自败，朕实感幸之。昔明世嘉靖，万历之时，稗官野史所以诬谤其君者，不一而足。如《忧疑议录》、《弹园杂志》、《西山日记》诸书咸讪诽朝廷，诬及宫壶，当时并未发觉，以致流传至今，惑人观听。今日之凶顽匪类，一存悖逆之心，必曲折发露，自速其辜，刻不容缓，岂非上天厚恩我朝之明徵欤？又云：“自崇祯甲申，以至今日，与夫德以迄洪武，中间两截世界，百度荒塌，万物消藏，无当世事功足论，无当代人物堪述。”

    　　夫本朝岂可与元同论哉？元自世祖定统之后，继世之君，不能振兴国家政事，内则决于宫闱，外则委于宰执，纲纪废弛，其后诸帝，或欲创制立法，而天不假以年，所以终元之世，无大有为之君。

    　　本朝自太祖、太宗、世祖，圣圣相承。圣祖在位六十二年，仁厚恭俭，勤政爱民，乾纲在握，总揽万几，而文德武功，超越三代，历数绵长，亘古未有。朕承嗣鸿基，以敬天法祖为心，用人行政，无一不本于至诚。六年以来，晨夕惕厉之心，实如一日。朕虽凉德，黾勉效法祖宗，不敢少懈，是岂元政之可比哉？且元一代之制作，及忠孝节义之人物，亦史不胜书。《元史》独非明洪武时之所编辑乎？其称太祖则云：“深沉有大略，用兵如神。”

    　　称世祖则云：“度量弘广，知人善任，信用儒术，立经陈纪。”是明之于元帝誉美如此，而云“无当世事功足论”乎？且《元史》专传之外，其儒学、循良、忠义、孝友诸传，标列甚众。而云“无当代人物堪述”乎？

    　　《元史》系明太祖所修，而逆贼云尔，是厚诬明太祖矣。乃称欲为明复仇乎？夫天眷帝德，以为保定，朕惟兢兢业业，夙夜基命，则自蒙上天嘉佑，历世永享太平，为内外一家之主，岂一二禽兽之吠鸣，可以惑人心而淆公论哉！人生天地间最重者莫如伦常，君臣为五伦之首，较父子尤重。天下未有不知有亲者，即未有不知有君者，况朕之俯视万民，实如吾之赤子，朕清夜扪心，自信万无遭谤之理。而逆贼之恣意毁谤，果何自而来乎？

    　　夫造作蜚语捏饰诬词，加之平等之人，尚有应得之罪，今公然加之于君上，有是理乎？何忍为乎？朕思秉彝之良，人所同具，宇宙亿万臣民，无不怀尊君亲上之心，而逆贼独秉乖戾之气，自越于天覆地载之外，自绝于纲常伦纪之中，可恨亦可哀矣。逆贼之所诋毁者，皆禽兽不为之事，而忍心加之于朕，朕实不料吾赤子之内，有此等天良尽丧之人。普天率土之臣民，定不为其所惑于万一，但天壤间，既有此诞幻怪异之事，则天下之人情不可以常理测度，或者百千亿万人之中，尚有一二不识理道之人，闻此流言，而生几微影响之疑者。是以特将逆书播告于外，并将宫廷之事宣示梗概，使众知之。若朕稍有不可自问之处，而为此布告之词，又何颜以对内外臣工，万方黎庶，将以此欺天乎？欺人乎？抑自欺乎？朕见逆贼之书，坦然于中，并不忿怒，且可因其悖逆之语，明白晓谕，俾朕数年来寝食不遑，为宗社苍生忧勤惕厉之心，得白于天下后世，亦朕不幸中之大幸事也。特谕。

    奉旨问讯曾静口供十三条

    　　一、大清朝的建立正是天命民心之所归，乃道义之当然　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你上岳钟琪书内云“道义所在，民未尝不从；民心所系，天未尝有违。自古帝王能成大功建大业，以参天地，而法万世者，岂有私心成见介于其胸”等语。

    　　我朝积德累功，至太祖高皇帝神武盖世，统一诸国，成开创之功，太宗文皇帝，弘继统之业，世祖章皇帝，建极绥猷，抚临中外。此正顺天命，从民心，成大功，建大业，参天地而法万世之至道也。你生在本朝，不知列祖为天命，民心之所归，而云“道义所在，民未尝不从，民心所系，天未尝有违”，是何所指？

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯这些话，是泛说自古帝王之兴，与帝王之在位皆是顺天命，得民心的。天命顺，民心从，而兴起在位，即是道义之当然。弥天重犯生长楚边山谷，本乡本邑，以及附近左右，并没有个达人名士在朝，而所居去城市又最远，所以盛朝功绩，传闻不到。直至旧年到省城，由省城以至于帝畿，见闻渐广，方知东海龙兴，列祖列圣承承继继，不惟非汉、唐、宋、明所及，直迈三代成周之盛。盖天地精英日流日开，上世浑噩，人文未起，积到成周，而太和翔洽，文明大著。然天之笃生圣人以开治者，在周亦惟算文武二圣为极，至岂若本朝叠叠相因，日远日大，愈久愈光。自太祖高皇帝神武盖世，开创王基；太宗文皇帝继体弘业，统一诸国；世祖章皇帝建极绥猷，抚临中外；圣祖仁皇帝深仁厚泽，遍及薄海；迨至我皇上，天聪明，恢弘前烈，已极礼明乐，备海晏河清。此正是天命民心所归，乃道义之当然，参天地，法万世，为天运文明之隆会。从前弥天重犯实实陷于不知，不是立意要如何，以自外于圣世。

    　　二、华夷之间、人兽之间的本质区别到底是什么呢？　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你书内云“天生人物，理一分殊，中土得正，而阴阳合德者为人，四塞倾险而邪僻者，为夷狄。夷狄之下为禽兽”等语。禽兽之名，盖以居处荒远，语言文字，不与中土相通，故谓之夷狄，非生于中国者为人，生于外地者不可为人也。

    　　人与禽兽同在天地之中，同禀阴阳之气，得其灵秀者为人，得其偏异者为禽兽，故人心知仁义，而禽兽无伦理。岂以地之中外，分人禽之别乎？若如你所说，则中国阴阳和合之地，只应生人之一类，不应复有禽兽并育其间矣。何以遍中国之地，人与禽兽杂然共居，而禽兽之族，比人类为尤多。且即人类之中，还生出你这等叛逆狂悖、沦丧天良、绝灭人理、禽兽不如之物来呢，你有何说处？

    　　曾静供：天生人物，理一分殊，其有分别，实以理之偏，全不在所居之内外。弥天重犯读书浅少，义理看不透彻，妄意以地之远近分华夷，初不知以人之善恶分华夷，今日伏读皇上谕旨，谓如你所说中国只应生人之一类，不应复有禽兽并育其间矣。义更精实，理更显明，虽顽石无知，亦应灵动了。

    　　况本朝之兴，列圣相承，亘古所无，万国咸宁，历代罕睹，且开辟幅员之广，声教四讫。自有生民以来，到今日而极盛。又圣祖皇帝承天眷顾之笃厚，享年之久，三代以来所无。况更有几多善政善教，纬地经天，开万世之弘基，立百王之大法，所谓考诸三王而不谬，建诸天地而不悖，质诸鬼神而无疑，百世以俟圣人而不惑者，正于今日见之矣。所以圣祖皇帝宾天诏到，虽深山穷谷，亦莫不奔走悲号，如丧考妣，即以弥天重犯冥顽无知，至此亦曾废食辍饮，恸哭号涕，被素深山，居丧尽制。然在当时皆起于心之不及觉，发于情之不容己，非有所为而为也，若非圣德隆厚，皇恩浩大，何以使民至此，今日圣祖皇帝在天之灵，犹或洞鉴。只为向见《春秋》有华夷之辨，错会经旨，所以发出诞妄狂悖言语，其实到今日方晓得经文所说。只因楚不尊王，故攘之，而本朝之兴，与经文之所指天悬地隔。

    　　弥天重犯因思天地之内无气不通，无理不到，华夷之辨固不可以地言，即以地言，亦无定限。天地精英之气日散日远，而且循环无常，今日二五之精华尽钟于东土，诸夏消磨，荡然空虚，是实话实理。况夷狄本是论人，亦善恶五性克全，无所亏欠为人，五性浊杂，不忠不信，为夷狄。孟子既称大舜、文王为东西夷所生，又诋杨朱、墨翟之无父无君为禽兽，是中国岂无夷狄，要荒岂无圣人，至于有明之世，非鲁、卫、齐、晋之旧，而本朝之兴，直迈成周之辙，更不待言。弥天重犯识浅见小，未曾经历，又得这些无知流言，夹杂胸中，所以有此妄言，悔罪无及。弥天重犯记得前而两次亲供，前供就人而论，看得天地精英之气愈开愈远，循环无常，不以地限。而后供指出，有明之世非鲁卫齐晋之旧，而本朝之兴，直迈成周之辙。以今看来，益觉自信无疑，悔罪无及，是弥天重犯虽昔同禽兽，今蒙金丹点化，幸转人胎矣。

    　　三、清朝统治八十年后，造成地塌天荒，神哭鬼号吗？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你书云“聪明睿智，仁能育万物，义能正万事，礼能宣万化，智能察万类，信能孚万邦者，天下得而尊之亲之。概自先明君丧其德，臣失其守，中原陆沉，夷狄乘虚窃据神器，乾坤反复，地塌天荒，八十余年，天运衰歇，天震地怒，鬼哭神号”等语。

    　　从来皇天无亲，惟德是辅。我太祖、太宗、世祖，圣圣相承，圣祖在位六十二年，深仁厚泽，浃髓沦肌。正所谓聪明睿智，仁育万物，义正万事，礼宣万化，智察万类，信孚万邦者也。天与人归，懋昭大德。凡有血气，莫不尊亲，盖列祖之至德感孚，奉若天道者，为从古之极盛。是以皇天之保佑，申命恩厚于我朝者，为从古之极隆。若谓乾坤反复，地塌天荒，而我朝八十余年以来，享承平之福，凡叛逆之徒，稍萌奸回，即灭不旋踵。是岂天震地怒，鬼哭神号，皆无可奈何，而人力竟可胜天乎？此非敢于评诬稍诋我朝，乃敢于诬诋上天矣。曾静，你有何说处？

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯所说必聪明睿知而兼具五性之全德，乃是尊贵天位之语。到今日看来，列祖列圣之聪明睿智，仁义礼智信之施于薄海内外者，固己共信为圣神之极致。我皇上御极以来，圣德神功，上承列祖，尤无纤毫不惬于民心。惟弥天重犯为谣言蛊惑，遂戴天不知天之高，履地不知地之厚，出入作息，竟忘帝力于何。有以是酿成大恶，身陷乱贼。直到旧冬，得闻钦差大人宣传圣德之大，涵育宇宙，又伏读圣谕谆谆，光被四表，始觉心神开豁，脱然得悟从前之非。然耳虽闻圣德，心虽服圣教，目实为曾亲见有道盛世的光景。

    　　昨奉解来京，自湖南而湖北，以抵河南，由河南而到直隶京城，所过都邑省郡，自野及市，历人历境，不知凡几万千。但见民康物阜，风景和平，生其间者，皆气象古茂，性习淳厚，治化休明，太和翔洽，油然共庆太平有道之世。若不是皇上聪明睿智，仁育万物，义正万事，礼宣万化，智察万类，信孚万邦，休养抚育，励精不倦，为从古所未有。何以民心爱戴，休徵齐著，天眷隆笃至此，到此愈觉从前错误之罪大弥天，无地自容，惟日自痛悔号泣而已。至若谓“中原陆沉”以下等语，总因错听谣言，错解经义，一个病根，一路直错到底。今日虽万死万剐，亦所宜然，更何能稍置一喙？

    　　四、社会出现贫富差别的原因是否可以归咎于君王呢？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你书内云“土田尽为富户所收，富者日富，贫者日贫”等语。自古贫富不齐，乃物之情也。凡人能勤俭节省，积累成家，则贫者可富；若游惰侈汰，耗散败业，则富者亦贫。富户之收并田产，实由贫民之自致窘迫，售其产于富户也。今你说土田为富户所收，其果自雍正元年以后，富者始收民之土田乎？抑康熙年间，富者已收民之土田乎？其果本朝以前，若明若宋若汉、唐之代，民间皆贫富均齐乎？抑自古以来，民间即有富者，收民之土田乎？你以富者日富，贫者日贫，俱归咎于君上，有何理据呢？

    　　曾静供：此是太平日久，民间辗转积而成弊。固自然之势，不关君上事。亦汉唐以来的通弊，不起于本朝。但本朝历圣相继，承平之久，亘古少及。而皇上御极以来，德盛民化，风清弊绝，民间无丝毫烦扰，而惟田业一项，富户安于有余，贫民常苦不足，辗转流弊，土田将多为富户所收。此际似正须裁成辅相，因妄谓斯民所仰望君上者，在酌盈剂虚，衰多益寡。圣人成能，宜不忍任物情之自流。此是弥天重犯鄙之粗见，不通世事之愚论，岂知贫以游惰而致，富因勤俭而得。此等不齐，自天降下民已然，原非人力之所能挽。盖天之生物不齐，因五气杂揉，不能一致，人之昏明巧拙，才质不同，乃造化之自然，虽天亦无可如何。人之贫富，视乎作为营办，作为营办，又视乎才力之巧拙昏明，此自然之理势也。况天道福善祸谣，要幽远莫测，其穷困者，安知不是天厄之，其丰亨者，安知不是天相之乎？皇上以抚育为心，举一世而涵濡之，岂愿其有此。得圣谕点化，更觉分明。

    　　五、整个大清国的人民到处都在呼号怨恨吗？　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你书内云：“到处呼号怨恨，切日丧偕亡之愿”等语。这呼号怨恨的确是何人？确在何地？确有何被虐之事？确有何愿丧之情？须一一据实供来。

    　　曾静供：这等呼号的，乃是洞庭湖滨偶被水灾，不能安业之民。盖人生疾病痛苦，饥寒劳瘁，忍耐不过，多呼天呼父母，此情之不容自己者。而小民太平日久，素享丰盈，偶尔被水，觉苦不聊生，曾不如他郡他邑之群歌大有。皇上赤子，必帑赈济，存留者虽沐恩惠，而散流辗转者或远不遍及，其逃于外的，间有呼号。弥天重犯不能广览远稽，故有此语。其实寒暑怨咨，何伤天地之大，况沐恩者久，且多未遍者，暂而少不获安业者，以湖南计之，不过百分之一，以普天下计之，尚不及亿万分之一乎。此个缘故，到今方知。

    　　六、像岳钟琪一样臣事清朝的人就是低头屈节、效忠于匪类吗？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你书内云“戴皇祖之仇以为君，且守死尽节于其前”，又有“俯首屈节，尽忠于匪类”等语。曾静以岳钟琪之远祖武穆王，称为皇祖者，是奉岳钟琪为主而已，为其臣子也。且曾静狂言，以《春秋》大义自居。其逆书有云“人臣之择主，如女之子从夫，为臣者事非其主，而失身如女子已嫁于人而再醮者矣。而曾静又臣事于岳钟琪，是以失身再醮”等语。岳钟琪假若依曾静之说而叛本朝，是岳钟琪为不能守死尽节，而再醮之人矣。曾静以岳钟琪之臣事本朝为屈节尽忠于匪类，则曾静之愿奉岳钟琪为君，岂不为匪类中之匪类乎？且逆书内以岳钟琪为岳飞之后，称功颂德，乃钦差讯问时，又盛言本朝之恩泽勋业。未知曾静之心，仍欲臣事岳钟琪乎？抑愿臣事本朝乎？如愿臣事本朝，则曾静不亦屈节于匪类乎？设岳钟琪为曾静鼓惑，未知曾静此时以岳钟琪为是乎？抑为匪类也。可一一讯问，令其逐条供明。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯本心毫无所为，只为误听谣言，错解经义，故一切大义大分，都至混淆。加以闻见狭隘，不知本朝世德之隆，得统之正，深仁厚泽之久而且洽。所以上书岳钟琪。种种悖谬，直是痛悔无及。盖人臣之择主，固如女子之从夫，今岳钟琪以文武全材，笃生圣神之世，而事圣神之君，正如皋夔之事尧舜，伊周之事汤武，不但如正女之从贤夫而己者。固万无可叛之义，亦决无或叛之心。而弥天重犯以误听流言，遂至冒昧上书，不惟自昧君臣之大义，而并劝人以不忠。是微如蜂蚁，尚知有君臣，毒如蛇虎，尚不忘恩报，而腼然人面，直匪类之不若也。迨至去冬奉钦差大人审问，传宣圣德，已知从古盛世帝王莫与伦比；而且详告本朝来龙兴功德，事事仁至义尽，得统之正，全是天与人归。盖本朝来抚万国之初，明愍帝已身殉国难，而李贼猖狂，中原涂炭，毒逾水火，世祖章皇帝不烦一兵，不折一矢，而天下感戴，率从如赤子之依父母，较之汤武，昔尝为夏殷诸侯，而临时不免兵戈者，更名正言顺，神武而不杀。弥天重犯得闻此义，始如坠深渊，而痛哭追悔，万死莫及。嗣后蒙大人仰遵皇上高厚深恩，一路抚惜到京。而弥天重犯自长沙以抵京师，沿途目之所见，尽是圣世隆景，耳之所闻，莫非圣德仁声。且当身亲被，又有几多破格恩典，而一到京师出之囹圄，居以广厦，给食赐衣。

    　　弥天重犯生长山陬，不知圣天子忧切民瘼，曲谅民难，哀矜民隐，竟及于极恶重囚，万死莫赦之徒，直至如此。弥天重犯虽同草木无知，顽石无灵，亦当翻然感化。故在当时岳钟琪幸而怒斥，得免乱贼之名，万一误见听从，不惟弥天重犯为万世乱贼之罪魁，而岳钟琪亦不免为万世乱贼之巨恶了。岳钟琪之守正，固益显其为圣世之良臣，而弥天重犯到此尚有何别义可以借口？只痛恨谣言之害人，遂至陷身于大恶而莫解，然犹幸到今，尚得接天语下诘，省悟以翻身，纵不敢望苟免幸生，得为圣世之民。然得闻大义而知前此之非，是即为圣世之鬼，亦所甘心矣。至若奉岳钟琪为君，而己为其臣子，在弥天重犯初无此心，其称彼远祖为皇祖者，乃是见得礼经，自诸侯以下，概有皇考皇伯父之号，故欲用三代以上称呼而妄耳。盖当时止做旁人献义，未即输身归顺，总之大义既错，罪在恶极，一路皆错，尚有何是处可言。惟千万叩首感激隆恩盛德，自伤欲为圣世之民，而不可得。至于臣事本朝，乃天经地义之当然，又曷尝自即于匪类乎。

    　　七、明朝亡于李自成之后，清兵的确是明臣请来除寇治乱的，是救亿万生灵于水火之中的仁义之师啊！

    　　问曾静：旨意问你书内云“明亡之恨”等语。前明之亡国，亡于流寇李自成之手，与我朝毫无干涉。自有明之季，政教不修，纲纪废弛，内则盗贼纷起，李自成等扰乱残虐，沦陷京师，外则边警时闻，各处蒙古外藩，皆为劲敌。是蹂躏中国，消耗明之元气，非独本朝也。况我太祖创业以来，并无取明之天下之心。太宗皇帝曾勒兵入关徇地，直到山东临清，周视京城，纵猎南苑，数日乃归。明朝并不能一矢加遗。彼时若欲取明之天下，岂不易如反掌？盖我祖宗列圣惟冀息兵安民，解仇释忿。屡欲与明朝和好，而明之君臣总置之不问。迨李自成已陷北京，明愍帝殉国而死，明祚已绝，明位已移，始请兵我朝，来除寇乱。太宗皇帝命将兴师，兵至山海关，一战而胜。李自成二十万之众，望风逃窜，席卷长驱，是以我世祖皇帝君临万邦，廓清群寇，救亿万臣民于水火之中，为明朝报仇雪耻，是我朝深有德于前明，显然著明可白万世者也。我朝得国较之汤武征诛，更为名正言顺，何明亡之有恨乎？以李自成之横行中原，所过残破，明朝糜饷百万，曾不能少抗其锋。贼兵一至城下，长驱直入，李自成唾手得明之天下。是明之兵力，万万不如流寇甚明。当李自成既陷京师之后，其志方张，精锐之锋未尝少挫，更增明之叛臣降卒以助其势。而我朝兵威甫及，如摧枯拉朽，只经山海关一战，流贼即亡魂夺魄，奔逃溃败。由是而论，我朝之兵力声势，与明何啻相悬云壤乎？设若取明之天下，已早取矣，何待流贼之摧残乎？惟以仁义为心，不肯代有其国。本朝之光明正大若此，今你怀叛逆之心，若在明朝，即是流寇李自成。而乃以明亡致恨为词，曾不反心自问乎？你还有何说？

    　　曾静供：这个源头，弥天重犯从前全然不知，盖因失父太早，独居山僻穷陋者，已数十余年左右。附近不惟无史册可以借观稽考，而乡党邻里，并无知事老成传闻，但知本朝代明而有天下，初不知有明之天下，早已失之于流寇之手。直至旧冬，闻大人之说后，又得仰读圣谕，乃知本朝全是以仁义而兴，直驾千古莫媲，其弘功伟绩之在当世。不惟明之君臣感其恩，戴其力，即在当时之草木，亦莫不被德而蒙惠。盖有明之季，上下怠慢，政教全然荡废不举，纲纪颓然倒坠不整，内则任宦官把持国政，外则听诸藩剥削民力，荒淫纵恣，无礼无学，遂致民不聊生，奔入贼党，四起为敌。在外官兵望风而靡，所以贼得长驱，直抵京师。当此之时，生民流离困苦，残杀惨掠，直不啻如水火之告急。

    　　太宗皇帝龙兴东海，政举教修，仁声仁闻，施及薄海内外，并未萌一点取天下之心。曾勒兵入关，纵猎南苑，以期为明解仇释怨，息兵而安民。而明之君臣，竟置之不问，由是振旅东归，当时若有一毫利天下之心，取明直如反掌之易耳。又何待贼陷京城，愍帝身殉国难，明祚已绝，明位已移，请求除寇安乱，而后兴师命将乎？即此一举，较之武王观兵孟津，以冀纣恶之改悔，心事更光明正大，表里无憾。况入关一战而胜，李自成二十万之众流寇，亡魂夺魄，溃散奔逃，扫荡廓清，当时天下之众如出深渊，如睹父母。世祖皇帝由是发政施仁，抚临天下，救亿万生灵之苦于水火之中，而天下之感戴者，不惟在明之君臣雪耻复仇，衔结莫报。而为亿万生灵救死扶生，其大德直与天地同流。由是看来，汤武虽以仁兴，而君臣一伦犹不能脱然无憾。所以当时成汤不免有惭德，武庚不免以殷叛。岂若本朝之有天下得于流贼之手，名正言顺，明臣、汉人皆感激深切，乐为效力致死者乎！弥天重犯从前陷于不知，任臆狂悖，妄引《春秋》以自误，所以有“明亡之恨”等语。到今知之，痛悔流涕，几不欲生，而且蒙恩高厚，更觉无地自容了，复有何说。

    　　八、对于孔子的《春秋》大义，岂可以乱臣贼子之心来解释？　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你书内云“《春秋》大义，未经先儒讲讨，有明三百年，无一人深悉其故。幸得东海夫子秉持撑柱”等语。孔子成《春秋》，原为君臣父子之大伦，扶植纲常，辨定名分。故曰：“孔子成《春秋》而乱臣贼子惧。”

    　　今曾静以乱臣贼子之心，托《春秋》以为说，与孔子经文判然相背，无怪乎明三百年无一人能解。不但元、明之人，即汉、唐、宋以来之儒，亦无人能解也。惟逆贼吕留良凶悖成性，悍然无忌，与曾静同一乱贼之性，同一乱贼之见，所以其解略同耳。曾静之恶逆大罪，肆诋朕躬，已为自古乱臣贼子所罕见。而吕留良张狂吠，获罪于圣祖，其罪万死莫赎，宜曾静之服膺倾倒，以为千古卓识。可问曾静，吕留良所说《春秋》大义，如何昭然大白于天下？吕留良是域中第一义人，还是域中第一叛逆之人？着他据实供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯僻处山谷，离城甚远，左右邻里，无读书士子，良师益友就正，因应试州城，得见吕留良所本朝程墨，及大小题，房书诸评。见其论题理，根本传注，文法规矩先进大家，遂据僻性服膺，妄以为此人是本朝第一等人物，举凡一切言议，皆当以他为宗。其实当时并未曾晓得他的为人行事何如。而中国有论管仲九合一匡处，他人皆以为仁，只在不用兵车，而吕评大意，独谓仁在尊攘。弥天重犯遂类推一部《春秋》也只是尊周攘夷，却不知《论语》所云“攘”者止指楚国而言，谓僭王左衽，不知大伦，不习文教，而春秋所摈，亦指吴楚僭王，非以其地远而摈之也。若以地而论，则陈良不得为豪杰，周子不得承道统，律以《春秋》之义，亦将摈之乎。况舜为东夷之人，文王为西夷之人，其说载于《孟子》，更大昭著者也。由是看来，在当时吕留良固为背谬之极，而弥天重犯信而宗之，尤为失之千里矣。但吕留良议论弥天重犯所见者止此。其余文字著作，并不曾见过。惟到雍正五年，有学徒张熙，到浙江购书，到吕家传得吕留良题《如此江山图》及《钱墓松歌》诗。彼时闻之，不觉惊异，不敢信以为然，随复得谣言，叠叠惑乱，遂疑他的话是实，且妄悔当身大义之不能早闻。今奉旨将吕留良家藏旧作日记纂一本、诗集一本、日记草本四束、抄本文集四本、散诗稿一束赐看。其中不惟错看《春秋》，罪与弥天重犯同。且竟有讥诋圣祖皇帝处。

    　　圣祖皇帝在位六十余年，深仁厚泽，遍及薄海，即弥天重犯生长山僻，犹知感佩，况吕留良身居浙江大地，列名胶痒，食毛践土，亦已数十余年，如何丧心病狂，竟至如此。弥天重犯从前不知，姿以《春秋》之义说，虽出于吕氏，旨实发于孔子，不得不信。今日解出孔子不是如此说，又深知本朝得统之正，全是天与人归，历圣相承，无不道隆德备。而吕留良所云，如此到今，实实见得他是凶悖成性，悍然无忌，张狂吠，得罪圣祖，万死莫赎，诚为盛朝叛逆之罪魁。而弥天重犯山鄙无知，坐昧当身大义，姿信而附和之，万死亦不足以当其罪。今虽深痛无知而误信，切恨吕说之害人。俱嗟无及矣，更有何说。但吕留良之说行世日久，如弥天重犯之为其蛊惑者，谅复不少，今幸得因弥天重犯败露，莫非历圣德隆，皇天笃佑我朝，故水落石出，一至于此，此岂人力之所能与？弥天重犯今虽陷法网，由此而天下之人共知其叛逆，不为彼说所惑，弥天重犯死所甘心矣。

    　　九、对于一个臣民来说，到底什么是荣辱生死的大义？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你书内云“可荣可辱，可生可死，而此义必不可失坠”等语。今钦差审问之时，曾静缮写亲供全然改变，求哀乞怜，备极称颂。在曾静将以为荣乎，将以为辱乎？又未知曾静之心，此时愿生乎，抑愿死乎？其争持大义者何在？着他据实供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯向谓荣辱死生大义必不可失，只因错解《春秋》，错听谣言耳。其实弥天重犯原是皇上的赤子，非有历世功爵在先明难忘，素怀背叛不臣之心。今日发觉被执，只为谣言蛊惑，错解经义遂至狂悖若此。即在旧年狂悖蒙心之中，此心自问毫无别为，皆是从知识闻见上差错起。到今日解出经义，毫不相干，知得谣传是蜚语诋诬。弥天重犯是蝼蚁小民，实是心悦诚服，到此惟有痛哭流涕，自恨当身大义，自悔不能为顺则之民，其乞哀求怜，正是弥天重犯今日当身之正义，但恐求乞之诚不至不能赎补当前之罪，虽蒙皇恩浩荡，自计于法无可生耳。至若颂德称功，亦弥天重犯为臣民之分，所宜然，尚得似前日之陷于不知，而姿自诋诬，惟所虑者，识浅学陋，不能仰测龙德中正之备，而颂与称有不能至，以是死难瞑目也。盖君之尊同天，亲同父，民之称天，子之颂父岂得为过，况五伦从天而下，极之昆虫草木，皆有而君臣一伦，尤为五伦之首。弥天重犯从前错听流言，错解经义，所以陷身禽兽，自咎虽生犹死，今既晓得本朝龙兴，不同寻常万万，又亲被圣德，高厚从古所无，此时虽死犹生，虽辱亦荣了。

    　　十、那些狂肆毁谤皇帝的谣言传语到底从何而来？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，书内云“生当今日，遭逢今世，无志于当世之利禄以自污”等语。曾静果无志当世，则宜早为高尚，何以应试入学，身列青衿，及考居五等，然后愤懑穷居，肆为狂放？尚得云无志利禄乎？又书内“与一二同志，闭门空山，养鸡种瓜”等语。观曾静书内，见闻甚多，援据甚广，若闭门空山之中，蜚语讹言，何因入耳？是曾静同志之人，必非一二数也。着据实供吐，若供出何人传说，则曾静是误听传闻，罪尚可恕，不可以身犯大逆之罪，遂拼一死以含糊了事，甘为众人容隐。皇上恩旨，着你据实供吐，你须将书内所云若者得自何人，若者传自何处，逐一据实供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯书内千错万错，无一字著实者，总因错听谣言，误解经义，所以酿成大恶，到今日不可疏解。今圣德光洁，毫无瑕玷，而皇恩浩荡，不可名言。以弥天重犯如是之大罪大犯，尚如是优容宽待，另置幽闲清旷之地，且敕部给食赐衣，此诚千古未有奇典，尧舜所不到之殊恩。即此一事，弥天重犯粉身碎骨，亦不能仰酬皇恩于万一。此时此际，若果晓得造言首犯，方欲寝食其皮肉，又岂敢容隐他人奸回，以负皇恩？所以当日在长沙，大人审问再三，不敢说者，实为胸中不晓得个实在源头上造言的人。而传言的人，又实实是个忠厚守法，不惟不肯造言，并不肯乱言的人。且自计罪大咎深，自料必不能生，虽蒙大人屡宣皇上智虑神奇，聪明天纵，事事非常，法所得定，亦非常情所得拟。弥天重犯的死生，断非事前所得决然。在弥天重犯当身自计，万难自信，可以侥幸于不死，与其临死而又牵累他人，不如自家一死之安为稍愈。今感皇恩如此高厚，且奉旨意询问，思量自家一死何足轻重，即死亦要说明白自家的心事。

    　　赤子冒触父母，虽当父母盛怒之下，亦要向前号泣，说个明白，况今日旨意煌煌，得许弥天重犯直吐其人乎。此在自家分上计合，该要供出人来。因思水流毕竟有源即流，或可以寻源，胸中记出有两个偶尔传言的人，一是安仁县生员姓何名立忠，曾说他听闻有个茶陵州人姓陈字帝锡，传说朝中有人上议皇上多条，其大者如此如此。又永兴县十八都有个医生，姓陈字象侯，也说他在一处人家行医，听得人说茶陵州有个堪舆姓陈字帝锡，口传有个本章，谏议皇上如此不好，那上本的臣子姓岳名钟琪。弥天重犯听得二人之话符同，遂渐疑此为实事，其实源头造言的人，不知就是那陈帝锡，抑陈帝锡上手还递传有人否。且陈帝锡弥天重犯从未会面，不知其人形貌何如，即帝锡两字，也不知是此两字否，问何立忠便知。听闻比人会堪舆，前两年在安仁县起学官，何立忠是安仁县的秀才，或者知得他的名字。其实今日仰惟皇上如天如地，何可毁谤。天经云隔，何伤于天，反因云隔，而转见天之高；地经穿凿，何损于地，反因穿凿，而转见地之厚。今皇上之行，如日月经天，虽湖山万里，莫不共见共闻。弥天重犯幸今亦如盲，得视复见天地日月了。

    　　十一、这“山崩川竭”的传言到底是何等之事？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你在湖南供称“山崩川竭，是传闻泰山崩四十里，至于川并未竭，因笔头不谨，弄文致诬”等语。这泰山崩四十里之说，影响全无，你将传说笔之于书，已极悖逆了，况川竭之事，并无传说，而遂连类。并及这“山崩川竭”，是何等之事，竟可以笔头播弄得么？乃仅以“不谨”二字，轻忽戏玩之词掩饰此罪，如何使得呢？但所闻必有所自，你须据实供出。

    　　曾静供：“山崩”之说，虽有传闻，弥天重犯今日万死，记想个人不出。“川竭”之误，弥天重犯今日实实该死。盖寻常说话，犹庸言之谨，一涉不实，不惟于道理有碍。于心不能无愧，抑且当面受人诃责不小。此是何等重大的事情，如何可以轻易掠过，且以庶人小民之贱，而上议国家事体，即有实据，犹不免出位冒干之罪，况既复妄，虚中更虚。即此一项，已足粉骨莫偿了。而前供犹仅以“笔头不谨”，盖过是身陷于罪，而竟不自知其罪之大小轻重矣，今日省悟，万死何辞。

    　　十二、“五星聚，黄河清”的瑞祥征兆到底是什么因缘？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》，内云“以大事看来，五星聚，黄河清，某当此时如何死得。天不欲开治则止，天欲开治，某当此机会，毕竟也算里面一个，求人于吴楚东南之隅，舍某其谁？等语。从古治乱之数，必上有桀纣之君，下有生世涂炭之祸，方可谓之大乱。曾静以我朝为夷狄，为匪类，然必为君者实有昏德，纪纲法度，一切废弛，方为否极之时。以今日海宇承平，万民乐业，以朝廷政事而论，虽不敢谓为至治之世，然苟有人心之识者，断无有诬为乱极。当治之时也。且自开辟以来，未有如曾静禽兽不如之人，而以“五星聚，黄河清”为“舍我其谁”。又云“当此机会”，所谓机会者，何所指？据实供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯许多该死该剐的话，今日反复省悟，也有个病根。盖缘自幼以来，讲解经书，讲到《孟子》“滕文公问为国”章说，那井田法制，心中觉得快活，私地暗想，以为今日该行。由是屡去问人，却无一人说今日行得。心下听着人说行不得，甚不快活。后看见吕留良此章书文评语，竟以为行得，且说治天下必要井田封建，井田封建复了，然后方可望得治平。遂不觉赏心合意，从此遂深信吕留良的话。且执着这个死法子，放肚里。因而看轻汉、唐、宋、明之治，大不及三代，妄以为井田不复，贫富不均，其余言治，皆非至道，乃猥不自量，敢以经济抱负，超越寻常。自许一闻“五星聚，黄河清”，遂疑此必是文明开始的机会，既遇文明开治的机会，必行井田复三代，欲行井田复三代，在当身自计，竭其驽骀，亦足备一时犬马之用，因而有舍我其谁之语。即所谓当此机会者，亦是望上之人用我，故曰求人于吴楚东南之隅，非是说弥天重犯当此机会，另生个别见也。只因谣言见闻，遂深疑皇躬主德未纯，所以狂悖，而有是举。及昨自湖南一路以抵京师，所历过之地数千里，无不家给人足，薄海内外，无不化行俗，美道德，政教修举，详明较三代之井田学校，更因时损益，已精益精，正礼明乐备之极，天开文明之盛，当此如是之道隆德至，治著功成。我皇上犹求治之念孜孜不遑，不肯一时一刻少懈。伏读谕旨，尚曰：不敢谓为至治之世。德隆心下，圣不自圣，一至于此，此所以无人感孚，瑞呈详见，“五星聚，黄河清”者，正为皇上道德纯全，超越千古，本朝治教休明，迈盛三代，大圣人兴起在位应也。况井田疆界，自秦以来，已荡废二千余年，封洫沟渠，皆不可考。而今日承平日久，平原旷土，各成旧业，以理势论之，迹必不可行。且天下人文蔚起，不知有几千几万贤良，才智深于治体，精于治法者，用之不尽，而弥天重犯山鄙无知，禽兽不如，乃谓“舍我其谁”，其不自量，一至如此，狂妄之罪，万死何逃。

    　　十三、被曾静奉以为师的吕留良到底是何许人也？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“近世晚村夫子学问足，本领济，大有为得”。又“生非其时，在今日似恰逢其会”等语。这吕留良自以其先世为前明之仪宾，不忘故国，而在本朝应试诸生，以天盖楼选刻时文，将本朝制科内名人之墨卷文稿刊板求利，致富不赀，乃包藏祸心，肆行无忌。实一反复无赖、卑污狂悖、叛逆之人，天地覆载所不容。今你乃奉为师法，心悦诚服，以为孔孟复生。你所谓吕留良之学问本领，从何处见得？吕留良之大有为，从何处知道？是你与吕留良必曾会晤，亲承指授，而信敬畏服，一至于此。且云“今日恰逢其会”，又是何解？可从实供来。

    　　曾静供：圣人曰：“不患人之不己知，患不知人也。”

    　　又曰：“不知人则是非邪正莫能辨。”弥天重犯今日狂悖，一路错到底者，总因自家僻处山谷，眼孔小，见闻隘，胸次鄙陋，错认人故也。如这些话都是自家没识见讨人底里不着，遂妄意心悦诚服，奉以为师，不惟以为师，且以他为一世的豪杰。其实当时何曾晓得他的行径大有不好处。不过就语句言话上，见得与自家僻性相投合，遂不觉好之深。好之深，遂不觉信之笃。当时所谓学问本领者，妄意指他的说理明，论文精。谓他大有为者，期他得用，可行井田，复三代，从前谬妄信得他是如此。今日蒙圣恩开导点化，始晓得他的行事为人，到处不是。不特他当身大义背谬而已。从此回想，向日之信听他者，何啻陈相之悦许行，痛悔何及？至若谓亲承指授，实实没有。他生在浙江，弥天重犯生在湖南，近广东界，相去有数千里，且弥天重犯是康熙十八年生，吕留良是康熙二十一年死，弥天重犯只有四岁，实未曾与他会晤。至于“恰逢其会”等语，是弥天重犯胸中先有他一段看轻后世之心，又有他一段错解《春秋》之意，加以元年匪类之说在耳，而又适值永兴县那两年大雨，数月不断，遂以为世道有不好处。此全是山僻无知的识见。直到旧岁奉拿到长沙，今岁又由长沙到京城，见得年丰时和化行俗美，太平有道，普天薄海皆然。方知圣人在位，政教修举，礼乐明备，直盛千古。从前满肚疑团，始得一洗落实。而吕留良之欺世盗名，大逆不道，蛊惑人心，为覆载难容处，弥天重犯亦了然明白矣。

    奉旨讯问曾静口供二十四条

    　　一、曾静等人各处行走，纠合叛逆之人的缘由如何？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“敬卿、景叔西游，似亦不轻。那年二月初二日五星朕珠，日月合璧。某等七月初即有是行。天上这个朕兆不应则已，若应此事，必落于我辈之手。纵不能成于我手，亦必是我家眷属敬卿、景叔之手”等语。敬卿是张熙，所谓景叔又是何人？据你前次供云：“胸中原无确见，但传闻讹言，妄生疑惑，因而遣徒上书”等语。今据书中所云，是年七月，即有是行。是你于雍正三年已令张熙等各处行走，纠合叛逆之人，至六年方于岳钟琪处上书。你平日自命以为上应联珠合璧之祥，且云：此事必落于我辈之手，则是久蓄异谋，处心积虑要叛逆。你将三年七月以后差张熙等在何处行走，纠合何人，并所谓眷属，共有多少？景叔是何姓名，他又行住何处？逐一据实供来。

    　　曾静供：西游的话，是雍正三年事，当时并有别意。因弥天重犯所住的地最狭僻，在山谷中，左右方圆十余里，尽是耕户山农，并没有个读书识字的人相接。弥天重犯的父亲在日，曾尝有个迁居的志，而不能得遂。复因近来人多田贵，家事单寒，转移不得。后得学徒张熙、廖易在门往来，居宿安顿不得。而张熙、廖易家事亦贫寒，因见这些去四川的传来，以为四川田贱，乃与张熙、廖易商量，思欲去四川寻采个安静的所在，以为搬家安耕之计。且与张熙、廖易同往，并可以遂其读书之志。于是打叠去四川之行。于七月二十五日起身。搭船到长沙上岸，因到长沙城中走一回。盖弥天重犯从未出门，只因考试到过郴州，余并未曾走动。不意到长沙竟看见有一告示，上d五星联珠，日月合璧”的话。彼时大喜，以为有好世界来，毕竟会复井田封建，复井田封建，毕竟要用人，到那会用人时，我辈的行藏就不可得知。且既有井田则到处可以安身，又何必搬家带属，走四川做甚？于是去四川志遂灰了，就要转身来。那时并没有一点别样志向，惟有心中打量，要来京城上书献策，再三不决者，苦为匪类一篇说话在胸中狐疑，乃转身到长沙岳麓山一看。由是往湘潭一路回来，并没有会着别样人物，说一句异话，到九月初三日归家。唯回来有两年，见得这两年的收成不好，接年水荒，米贵，谷贵，百姓艰难，逃荒避水的多，乃翻疑此五星联珠、

    　　日月合璧的兆，恐另有别应，加以传闻日密，皆与前匪类之说相印证，于是狂悖有是话。盖此话是雍正五年冬说的，乃追忆雍正三年事，一前一后，前面的志向，与后面所见大不相贴。其实并没有到别处，并未曾会半个人。所谓西游者亦是因去四川西蜀取名。景叔即今在案解到之廖易。所谓眷属，即指张熙、廖易言。除此之外，并没有别人。总之，弥天重犯狂举的心肝肺腑，一丝一毫，点点滴滴，尽载于《知几录》、《知新录》。此两本书，虽有两个名号，确不是立意著作的书、装点的话。《知新录》乃是仿张横渠先生“心有开明，即便札记”之说。随每日所知所见，不论精粗是非，写放于此，以便自家翻阅。考其所学之得失议论，固未曾斟酌，文法亦未曾修饰，原是随便写出的口语。《知几录》不过写出叮咛张熙的话，明说与他，恐左右人听闻，且虑他未必记得，因写于纸上，到写得多了，遂取个名号，此是暗地递与他的话。今二书俱已搜获，进呈御览矣。弥天重犯当年情事何处掩藏？况皇上圣明天纵，明睿所照，丝毫尽露，并不能掩。且弥天重犯一路感戴皇恩如此高厚，自计虽粉骨碎身，亦莫能仰报万一，到此又何忍隐？

    　　二、大清国里考生增多，如何说是文人趋下，无耻奔竞呢？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“永兴童生应县试者二千四五百人，应道试者有二千人，何曾是今文风极盛，盖缘风俗日趋日下，无耻的多，所以奔竞成习”等语。从来以人材之众多，征国家培养教育之功。是以《兔》之诗，言化行俗美，贤才众多，未闻以人文日盛为风俗趋下者。且士人求名进取，有志观光，亦其本分当然。今曾静谓为无耻奔竞。试问曾静，伊既以应试为无耻，则自己不该应试，何以从前名列青衿？考试多年，及考居劣等，方不出来应试。曾静自问，为有耻安静之人乎？为无耻奔竞之人乎？着伊自评品。

    　　曾静供：这种狂悖说话，大病总坐于看轻举子，所以颠倒悖谬，竟至于此。当年之意，盖谓国家隆重师儒，养育人材，开此科举，以为士子荣进之阶，典至重大。读书均当仰体朝廷之意。亦须看此为至尊至贵之路，必敦行励节，有廉有耻，经义明晓，文理通达，然后从此应试上进，方不负朝廷取士之意。若文理全未通，经义全未解，行谊毫不加修，而唯日以应举应试为荣。岂不是以至重至贵之路，而反为争名夺利之场！所以狂悖，遂有此说。岂知我生之初应试少者，因明末丧乱之后，百姓流离困苦，不得安业读书所致。到后来蒙世祖章皇帝休养生息，圣祖仁皇帝至德流洽，仁渐义摩，所以盛朝人材蔚起，迥不同于先明，是这个缘故。如何当年不省？至于弥天重犯当身自问，从前未睹天日，狂妄丧心，看得一切皆不入眼，到今日得圣化，一洗从前谬妄，因翻思向之所知所行，直与禽兽无异，狗彘不如，更有何人行堪问，只有愧死无地耳。

    　　三、著述《格物集》的刘先生，其人其书是什么情形？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“刘先生所著《格物集》，他从子光斗过宁远县任所，带得一个稿本来”等语。这刘先生是何等样人？是何名字？他的从子光斗，于今现在何处？其所著《格物集》是何等样书呢？

    　　曾静供：刘先生即今案内解到之刘之珩，从子刘光斗，在湖南岳州府安乡县住。《格物集》是刘之珩所著的，其中专言物理，并没说别样话。书亦不多。因刘之珩原任在永兴县做教谕，弥天重犯做生员时，曾经接见。后于雍正元年刘之珩丁父忧，遂回归岳州府安乡县居丧去了。到服满起复，改补永州府宁远县教谕。有从子刘光斗，自安乡县到宁远县学署看问伯父刘之珩，路从永兴县过，弥天重犯见他带得《格物集》，故写在《知新录》内。前在长沙，这《格物集》已经钦差大人从刘之珩家搜获进呈矣。

    　　四、如果皇帝只应孔、孟、程来做，那么汉、唐、宋、元的开国皇帝都是光棍”吗？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“皇帝合该是吾学中儒者做，不该把世路上英雄做。周末局变，在位多不知学，尽是世路中英雄，甚者老奸巨猾，即谚所谓‘光棍’也。若论正位，春秋时皇帝该孔子做，战国时皇帝该孟子做，秦以后皇帝该程朱做，明末皇帝该吕子做，今都被豪强占据去了。吾儒最会做皇帝，世路上英雄他那晓得做甚皇帝”等语。孔孟之所以为大圣大贤者，以其明伦立教，正万世之人心，明千古之大义。岂有孔子、孟子要做皇帝之理乎？孔子云：“事君尽礼。”

    　　又云：“臣事君以忠。”

    　　又云：“君君臣臣，父父子子。”看《乡党》一篇，孔子于君父之前，备极敬畏小心。孟子云：“欲为臣，尽臣道。”

    　　又云：“齐人莫如我敬王者。”使孔孟当日得位行道，惟自尽其臣子之常经，岂有以韦布儒生，要自做皇帝之理！若依曾静所说，将乱臣贼子篡夺无君之事，强派在孔孟身上。污蔑圣贤，是何肺肠？且自汉唐以来，圣君哲后，代不乏人。汉高祖、唐太宗、宋太祖、金太祖、元太祖、世祖，或戡定祸乱，或躬致太平，皆天命所归，功德丕著。今乃概目为光棍！况曾静时切明亡之恨，而以周末局变之后，皇帝皆系光棍，则明太祖亦在光棍之列。曾静不但是本朝之叛臣贼子，亦即是明之叛臣贼子。且曾静亦知光棍应得何罪，今以开创之主，皆诋为光棍，则当时佐命冀赞之名臣，皆当治以光棍为从之律矣。又春秋至明，数千年间，曾静所谓合该做皇帝者，只有孔、孟、程、朱、吕留良五人。开辟至今，无此狂怪丧心之论。可问曾静是如何说？

    　　　曾静供：这狂怪的话，本是说做君的毕竟是聪明天，学问盖世。如前供所说，聪明睿智，仁能育万物，义能正万事，礼能宣万化，智能察万类，信能孚万邦，天下乃得而尊之亲之，奉以为君之意。盖天降下民，作之君，作之师。君以职位言，师以道德言。必道德极天下之至，然后职位居天下之尊。其实君师原是一人做的，君之外，另有一种道德高出天下者为师。所以二帝三王之世，尧、舜、禹、汤、文、武之君，皆是深于道德之至，精于学问之极，当明天下莫得而尚之，所以为君。春秋、战国之局变，有孔孟之道全德备，而世莫能用。在上周家天子，又未闻有道德高出于孔孟者，以唐虞三代极盛之例推之，却似春秋时的大君，合该有孔子之道德，方足以当之；战国时之大君，合该有孟子之仁义，乃足以当之；宋末时的大君合该有程朱的理学，方足以当之。当日之意，不是谓孔、孟必要出来做君，程、朱亦有志于临民。乃是谓君临天下，必有孔、孟之道德仁义，与程、朱之理学精详耳。盖敬君之至，莫如孔、孟，尊君之极，莫如程、朱。孔子事君尽礼，见于《乡党》一篇，后世人臣所少到，且不唯敬而已。推事君之诚，无所不至。为委吏则牛羊茁壮长，为乘田则会计当。举凡当官之职，尽到十分处，不肯一毫苟且者，皆是看得君命重大，所以职不敢旷耳。观孔子，则孟子、程、朱可类推矣。其所谓会做者，谓学问造到极处，成己自可以成物。《大学》讲明德，必及新民；《中庸》致中和，必到位育。盖性分中功用之全，自然贯通到此。所以说禹、稷、颜子易地则皆然。禹为君、稷为相、颜子是个陋巷匹夫，如何做得君相的事，亦是一理相通，修身就可以齐家，齐家就可以治国平天下。四书五经中，无一章不言及治天下的事。

    　　弥天重犯此条狂怪的话，是说出做大君的，原不是别样人可做，乃是聪明睿智而精深于学问道德的，正是看得君至重至大，轻易不得。伏惟今日皇上抚临天下，统一六合，神明天纵，睿智性成。性焉安焉，优入圣域，其实道德之微，无不经历学问之精，无不透过中和并致，方得天地位而万物育，如是岂不是圣人而精于学问，方得尊居天下之上，与尧、舜、禹、汤、文、武千载符合。他若汉高祖、唐太宗、宋太祖、金太祖、元太祖世祖，或戡定祸乱，或躬致太平，才智虽然有余，学问未免欠缺，故其发于政治，见于事功，未见得浑乎天理之正，而不能保其无一毫人欲之私。其实天下未闻有才德驾出其上，所以得而君之。弥天重犯狂怪之说，本系以英雄比历代诸祖，而以光棍指魏、晋篡窃之主，所云：“周末局变，在位多不知学，尽是世路中英雄。”

    　　这三句原指汉、唐、宋、金、元诸祖说。所云甚者老奸巨猾，即谚所谓光棍。这两句乃是指魏、晋诸篡夺者言，因辞不能达意，以致混同不明，一带说了。而光棍两字，亦是楚中俗语，山鄙无知，妄引以比例当时，立言大指原是如此。其实一种狂妄粗率，悍然无忌之罪，实有难容。况其中所举吕留良，尤为无知之极，不惟不识本朝历圣之德与尧、舜、禹、汤无异，竟把狂悖叛逆之吕留良，当孔、孟矣。从前如在云雾中，今得圣谕开导点化，不唯光天睹日，抑且自觉寸磔不足以抵其辜矣。

    　　五、你曾静真的是可以担当“天聪明，乾之九五”的大人物吗？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云：“敬卿、景叔语言文字推崇过量，把某看做莫大的人物。心心念念，望世变世革，想某乘运起来复三代。”

    　　又云：“仰观三代，天聪明，乾之九五，圣位莫乘。此等语在分上，固不敢当，只是他也不是一时躁率轻妄，信口说大话，抬高师长，确是他心中所见，实实如是”等语。这敬卿、景叔丧心病狂之语言文字，岂人所可当。而云：“不是抬高师长的大话，实实见的如是。”是你自承认担当莫大的人物了。“天聪明，乾位九五”，这话都是你可以承认担当的么？且你如何乘运起来，你须将敢于担当大话的意思，据实一一供出。

    　　曾静供：张熙、廖易，病狂丧心，猥以此等语，推尊弥天重犯，何异弥天重犯盲睛瞎眼，以千古人宗推尊吕留良。虽说话轻重稍有不同，其实皆是一样无知，一样狂妄。揆之于法，不唯万剐莫辞，即问之于心，亦且愧死无地。但当时此话下语未清，大意谓人之知识有浅有深，有大有小，浅不能骤使之深，小不能强扩之大。随所见到，以为大小浅深，如蛙居井底，所见者只井底之地，初不知井之外更有地，遂妄以为天下之地尽在于此，岂知天地间有几多大地宽广，山岳湖海，无穷无尽在。然不到过，亲见过，如何信得过？山鄙无知，何以异是。弥天重犯从前为谣言所惑，亦因生平五十岁人，从未见过满洲，从未见过京师、省城，又未亲目亲耳，晓得皇上道德政教如此经天纬地，所以谣言易惑，直到旧年，捉拿到长沙，见过大人，由是心中遂疑吕留良的说话有不当。复自长沙以抵京城，耳所闻，目所见，与胸中所传闻者，不啻昼夜之相反。及至到京，又身亲皇恩如此之极，心醉圣德如此之至，乃恍然大悟从前之狂悖，该死该剐莫逃，而深信皇上之道隆德盛，直驾千古，而莫敢媲。当时弥天重犯此条，本意说知有大小浅深，必要人见到方信得过，故末后所以敬卿、景叔异日见到，则必不肯说此狂悖之语。至若谓乘运起来，亦是谓如太公之遇文王，伊尹之受汤聘，此即张熙、廖易病狂丧心之意，而言之总之，皆到此处。皇上圣明天纵，天地包容，万万叩首，惟冀哀之怜之矜恤，其无知而已，更有何说分解得。

    　　六、“华夷之分大于君臣之伦”的道理讲得通吗？　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你所著逆书《知新录》内云：“如何以人类中君臣之义，移向人与夷狄大分上用。管仲忘君仇，孔子何故恕之？而反许以仁。盖以华夷之分，大于君臣之伦；华之与夷乃人与物之分界，为域中第一义。所以圣人许管仲之功。”

    　　又云“人与夷狄无君臣之分”等语。君臣为五伦之首，断无有身缺一伦，而可以为人之理。曾静当日以人与夷狄无君臣之分，不知从前以何人为君，且到今还是甘心俯首以君臣之义，移于夷狄分用乎？抑是始终以与夷狄无君臣之分乎？据实供来。

    　　曾静供：凡这悖逆狂妄之说，皆是雍正五年冬与雍正六年春写载的。实因见得吕留良论孔子称管仲之仁处，有华夷之分，大过于君臣之伦之说。以致推论到此。其实，弥天重犯平昔并无此说。岂知华夷之分，圣人原不在地上论，若以地论，则舜生于诸冯，东夷之人也；文王生于岐周，西夷之人也。都不通了。将谓大舜与文王不是人可乎？且更不是圣人可乎？况由舜、文以下，不知更有几多行为师表，道高百世，如周子、张子、陈良者，俱生于四裔之地，犹历历可数指者乎？弥天重犯当年中吕留良之毒深，所以不察其非，而狂悖发论至此。到今日亲被皇上德化之盛，且晓得本朝之得统，全是仁义，天与人归，浑乎天理。且我皇上道隆德盛，亘古所未见，即僻处在东海北海之隅，凡声名所到，犹尊之亲之，而无心不服。矧弥天重犯生居中土，身受抚绥之恩，而现为赤子者乎。故弥天重犯今日之甘心俯首，如七十子之服孔子者，一为本朝得统之正，从古所少；二为皇上道德之大，生民未有其心悦诚服，乃是当身之至情，天地之大义。弥天重犯即是草木无知，到此亦当欣然向荣了，况有血气者，敢不尊亲乎？

    　　七、清朝得天下到底是盗窃天位的强盗呢，还是驱逐流寇的主人呢？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“夷狄盗窃天位，染污华夏，如强盗劫去家财，复将我主人赶出在外，占踞我家。今家人在外者，探得消息，可以追逐得他”等语。明朝天下亡于流贼李自成之手，是强盗劫去家财，赶出明之主人者，李自成也。我朝驱逐流寇，应天顺人，而得天下，是乃捕治强盗，明罚敕法之天吏也。你等为家人者，既不能追逐李自成，索取家财，而于强盗花费家财之后，转向捕治强盗，明罚敕法之天吏，指令赔偿可乎？且由曾静之说推之，元之主人为明朝赶出，元人当索取家财于有明；而宋之主人，又为元朝赶出，宋人亦当索取家财于有元。等而类之，自唐以上，至于晋、汉，皆然矣。从古有曾静逆天背理之论否？试问曾静，教他自己细想此段议论，是何如说？

    　　曾静供：大义看错，遂总错到底。盖人身之主宰在心，心之所系在知，知上一错，凡发言行事，逆天背理，遂致不可穷诘。此等处总因错认本朝为夷狄，而不知圣人之生，原无分于东西也。且并不知明末之丧乱。生民受李自成残杀之毒，逾于水火。而本朝兴义师以除寇乱，功同天地，到今方知得本朝不唯不同于汉、唐之以智力取天下，而直过商、周之以仁兴，而不免于征诛者。且历圣相承，自有生民以来所未有之盛会。弥天重犯如何诬天诬父，至于此极。由今日看来，本朝当日即实实取明，代明而有天下，亦有德者兴，无德者亡，天理之当然。况有明当年与本朝原为与国，而天下又早已亡于流贼李自成之手。本朝之来抚中国，又不是以智谋力制中国，而使之服，乃是仁义感动中国，筐篚争迎，而心悦诚服。今弥天重犯误听人言，而反指以为盗窃，将明之取元，元之取宋，宋之取周等，而上之若唐若汉，以及周之代商，商之革夏，无一而不是盗窃，无一不当索回家财矣。其背理逆天之论，自家今日也解说不出。岂止于一处窒碍而已哉。今日细思此段议论，实实无知。其无知也，总因不知本朝龙兴之故，历圣功德之隆，徒为人言蛊惑，遂致狂悖如此，嗟悔无及，更有何说？

    　　八、到底是中华之外，四面皆是夷狄”呢，还是天下一家，万物一源”呢？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云：“天下一家，万物一源。”

    　　又云：“中华之外，四面皆是夷狄。与中土稍近者，尚有分毫人气，转远转与禽兽无异”等语。既云天下一家，万物一源，如何又有中华、夷狄之分？曾静但知肆其狂悖之词，而不知其自相矛盾。《中庸》云：“致中和，天地位焉，万物育焉。”

    　　九州四海之广，中华处百分之一，其东西南朔，同在天覆地载之中者，即是一理一气，岂中华与夷狄有两个天地乎？圣人之所谓万物育者，人即在万物之内，不知夷狄在所育之中乎，抑不在所育之中乎？可问曾静是如何讲。且《易经》言：“信及豚鱼。”是圣人尚欲感格豚鱼，岂以远与中国，而云禽兽无异乎？即如曾静之叛逆肺肠，真禽兽不如，然至今日可能如豚鱼之感格否？着他据实说来。

    　　曾静供：天下一家，万物一源，此两句是从本心出的话，不杂外诱，不被人惑，所以冲口说出，与道理尚无窒碍。至若后面中华之外，四面皆是夷狄等语，总因误听人言，错解经旨之所致。所以自相矛盾，以至于此。岂知《中庸》云“致中和，天地位焉，万物育焉”者，原兼人物而言之也。盖为人心广大，原通天地，天大无外，人心之大亦无外。凡天下之大理所贯，气所通，皆在人心胞与之内。是以圣人在位，举天下之大，四海九州之远，皆涵濡之，使之各遂其生，各复其性，无一物之不得其所者。亦为中外只有一个天地，心体性量所贯通，无一处不到耳。岂同然并生于天地之中，齐在覆载之内，而为人有中外之分乎？弥天重犯从前醉生梦死，强分中外，今日蒙皇上旨意，发明此章道理，至明至当。弥天重犯到此实实如醉初醒，如梦初觉，恍然大悟从前之非。至于《易经》所载信及豚鱼等语，弥天重犯自幼亦曾读过，既有此等诬天的说话，当时何不把这信及豚鱼等经文取来印证一印证，而竟狂悖率意，写放纸上，这就是天夺其魄了。今蒙皇上开示到此，弥天重犯便是豚鱼，亦当感格，何况人性未泯，尚有知觉乎。总之，山鄙无知，眼光小，胸次隘，道理不经点破，终看不出，今蒙皇上过化存神之德感孚，方得省悟。

    　　九、大清王朝八十多年没有国君吗？臣民也禽兽不如吗？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你所著逆书《知新录》内云：“君臣之义，一日不可无。天下岂有无君之国哉？孟子曰：‘无父无君，是禽兽也。’禽兽亦有君臣，蜂犹如依从。如今八十余年没有君，不得不遍历域中，寻出个聪明睿智人出来做主”等语。传云：“君，天也，天可逃乎？”

    　　曾静既知君臣之义不可一日无，本朝君天下八十余年，曾静之祖、父，皆是大清之子民，曾静年纪不过四十余岁，即其逆乱之谋，蓄无君之念，不过四十余年。其四十余年以前，伊祖伊父之心中，有君乎，无君乎？而云：八十余年没有君，是加其祖、父以无君之罪矣。孟子所谓无父无君，是禽兽者。言不知有君有父也。曾静现在食毛践土，而云没有君，且加祖、父之罪，此实孟子所谓无父无君之禽兽。又曾静云：禽兽亦有君长，而云：“八十余年没有君”，是又禽兽不如矣。且孟子之所谓无君者，谓不知有君，而曾静以为没有君，不更诬圣贤之言乎？曾静又云：“不怕利害辛苦，要从遍域中寻出个聪明睿智之人主来”，伊如何寻遍域中，可曾寻得个人来？曾静到今日还是要另寻个聪明睿智之人乎？抑将此寻遍域中之心歇息乎？或其心以夷狄禽兽、元凶巨恶感戴为君乎？着他据实供来。

    　　曾静供：无君之说，实非弥天重犯的本意，因吕留良《钱墓松歌》上有云：“其中虽有数十年，天荒地塌非人间。”

    　　彼时闻得此说，如坠深谷，语虽为元朝而发，而引例未尝不通于本朝。始而疑，因思弥天重犯世受国恩，祖、父皆列名胶庠，而当身亦现在食毛践土五十年，如何驾阁漏空八十余年没有得君，并不算人间得？反复思索，解此缘故不得。既而言，以为吕留良是大地人宗，他的学问海内通行，毕竟他的说话有所见。弥天重犯僻处山谷，有何知识，如何晓得这种义理，加以谣言叠叠满耳，遂妄以为人在天地间，君臣为五伦之首，今既不见得有君，如何安然自立得住。乃孟浪定志，不辞辛苦，不计利害，思想遍历域中，寻出个聪明睿智，能尽其性的人来做主。所以狂悖，激而有是举。非是当时心下另藏有别样不好意见，而甘为此谋反叛逆，以自取死地。其实此举原是妄为当身大义起见，原是错听人言，不知本朝得统之正，不知皇上道德之隆起见，但所见一错，则无所不错。既身犯大逆之罪，而为禽兽，又诬祖、父以无君之罪，并诬及圣贤立言之旨。种种悖谬，皆因山鄙无知见错来，岂知本朝圣德神功，垂于两间，与天地同大，而皇上道德隆盛，更为亘古所未有。弥天重犯从前妄意所云：寻个聪明睿智，能尽其性，以为当身之主者。当时虽极十分过望，亦梦想不得到这样田地，梦想不到今世有此圣明的君，而今日恭逢盛会，得近圣天子之清光，正与当年孟浪，遍历域中，不辞辛苦，不怕利害，诚恳寻君之始念相合而庆幸。且更出于望外，到此实实欢喜倒地，不惟为一身一家幸，实为天下苍生之大幸，大快事焉。得不极其尊亲爱戴之诚。至若当身从前见错，万死之罪，惟有痛哭自咎自悔而已，更有何说。

    　　十、科举制度仅仅是讲名讲利、卑污苟贱而不知耻的方法吗？　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“科举词章之习，比阳明之害更大更广。阳明之教，虽足以害道，尚依傍道理来；科举之习，公然讲名讲利，卑污苟贱，而不知耻，直把道理一笔勾消，人类尽灭”等语。朝廷用人，所以设立科举者，以科举之人，所习皆四书五经，诵法圣贤之道，讲求圣贤之义理故也。人能读书明理，其造诣底蕴，皆见之于举业文章。是以朝廷设立科举，以期多得读书明理之人，为国家之用。今曾静以科举之为害，直到得把道理一笔勾消，人类尽灭，这是何说？且若不设科举，更有何法可以发明圣人之道理乎？至人之贤愚不一，科举内卑污苟贱之人，原世间所有。惟在朝廷辨别此等卑贱之人，而不用耳。非可废科举之制，而后禁人之卑污苟贱也。况无耻之人，即使不设科举，而别开用人之途，如或乡举里选，或征辟聘荐，或改诗赋策论，则讲名讲利者，又必于别途行其卑污苟贱之事矣。曾静又有何术，可以禁人之讲名讲利，着据伊所见供来。

    　　曾静供：朝廷设立科举，以四书五经取士者，盖以修己治人之道尽备于四书五经，欲人童而习之素，讲明其理，理通然后发为文章。而朝廷即以考察其浅深得失，择其优者而升举之。其立法之意，原尽美尽善，无毫发可议。但在下之人，实能仰体朝廷之意者少，蒙昧不知者多。是以积之又久，不免忘其本而徒事其末。以为朝廷取士，取文字，只要文字说得尖隽，即可以中有司之选。初不知文字之上，原有一层义理，当学当讲也。因妄谓文字可以乖巧习得来，于是设立方便法门，拟定程课，日以讲文为事。其讲文也，又只是以临场描摹填凑，袭取割截，及卖弄笔头为计。而圣贤道理，当身行谊，遂置之高阁不论。且人身既有血气，营名图利，乃其常情。况乡人无知者多，能有几个晓得朝廷立法之意，原是要人通经明理，以备国家之用。只谓科场之设，乃是生人取名取利之途。是以一有子弟，未尝不使之读书，问读书何为，则曰取科名、获禄利而已。自少小时，即横这个俗鄙识见，在胸渐长渐大，名利之心日深，而从事于文字。到文字中式得选时，越发营名图利，而毫无忠君爱民，力图报效之心。此弥天重犯在山僻无知，不通世务，妄据蠢见，遂有是把道理一笔勾消之说。其实到今日看来，全不如是。举业何曾无人，几多奇勋伟烈，大半多是举业家做就。且皇上天聪明，无法不精，无弊不彻。即如圣谕，谓无耻之人即使不设科举，而别开用人之途，则讲名讲利者，又必于别途行其卑污苟贱之事。此皆洞彻人情，深悉世务，智能察万变方得见及于此。由是看来大半总要得人，何法无弊，唯得其人而行之，弊斯可免。如今养士之法，平昔总要教官得人，教官之品虽小，而所职之事甚大，必须择道明行修者，专使之教育其子弟。以圣贤中正之道，孝弟忠信之行，聚讲日专，丁宁反复，其或有行谊不修者，则即许责惩。如此三年教成，然后教官具文行优劣之册，申详学政，学政核考其实而高下之，并以其果否验教官之诚伪明暗。是教官劝其行于平日，而不徒以文。学政考其文于一时，而兼察其行，文行交备而真才以得，积弊庶几得减。抑近读圣谕，而知本朝用人，原不专恃科举一途。除科举之外，尚有选孝廉、优生、实学等法，有此诸法，庶几足以尽天下之才，而裕国家之用。便选举亦要得选举之人，方能无弊。若临考，学政独凭教官之荐举，苟教官非人，只取平日与己情文相接、酒食相征逐者，荐之举之，而闭户守正之士，仍终不得有闻，恐亦无补。故在今日国家取士用人之际，固超出千古，然欲历久成化，似当参用程明道所议宋熙宁间取士法，损益斟酌行之，方为更善。弥天重犯山鄙无知，不与人数，感佩皇恩，深重自计，衔结无由，仰承旨问，敢不剖心直供。

    　　十一、你曾静为何尊敬悦服一个行走于市井江湖的吕留良呢？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“程子、朱子、吕子，如今人做官一样。程子是世袭荫补出身，朱子是由科甲出来，吕子是市井江湖钻刺打点作来底”等语。你平日推尊吕留良及其崇奉，心悦诚服，如何又说他是市井江湖钻刺的人呢？且如为官，亦未有市井江湖之人，可以钻刺而得的道理。何况，这做圣贤也可以钻刺打点得么？且吕留良系一钻营打点的人，从前曾静如何尊敬悦服之诚，一至于此？今曾静还是尊敬此钻营打点之吕留良乎？抑忿恨此钻营打点之吕留良乎？务将心上实话供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯以吕留良为市井江湖钻刺打点作用来的者，是个譬喻的话。当时心下见得程明道先生天资纯和，道德粹美，浑然无一毫圭角，令人摹拟得，是天生下来德器就如此纯全，人学他不得。恰似做官的样，他是个荫补世袭官，生下来是他受用的；朱子天资未甚高，生质亦未甚美，然他从持敬致知，循循做法，由下学而直造上达，今日成法俱在，令人可学而至。恰如做官的，由科举正路来，是他辛苦读书读出的，人人可以学得他。若吕留良，观他文字所传，少年本不是正路学人，下学工夫并未拈起，东剽西掠，无事不揽，到中年只以批评文字为事。因批评文字，遂得窥探程朱之奥。所以当时说他是市井江湖钻刺打点来的。盖谓他本无临政治民之学，只是办得闲杂事好，效用有功，朝廷悯其劳，亦把个闲杂的职与他做样。此虽是当时妄意推崇他的话，其实心中天理发见，大是不满足他。可惜当时无人指破他的失处，且并未曾看过他的遗稿残编有许多大逆不道的说话，所以终为他所迷陷。此全是自家识见浅陋，窥他不破，而一时学人文士，多以他为文章宗匠，群然向慕他。所以山鄙无知，被他枉误，竟至于此。今日若不恭逢皇上圣德合天，洞悉致罪之有由，悯念陷罪之无知，弥天重犯之磔尸碎骨，灭门赤族，俱因吕留良之逆凶毒祸之所致也。今日使吕留良而在，弥天重犯当食其肉而寝其皮，岂但忿恨而已。此是心肝上的实话，天鉴在兹，如何欺罔得？

    　　十二、春秋战国时期的封土建邦、割据而治真的适合大清国情吗？　　

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“封建是圣人治天下之大道，亦即是御戎狄之大法”等语。三代以前，封建之制，原非圣人以为良法美意，万世无弊，而行之也。古者疆域未开，声教未通，各君其国，各子其民。有圣人首出庶物，而群然向化，虽不欲封建，而封建之势已定。是故圣人即因其地而封建之，众建亲贤，以参错其间。此三代以前之制，封建所以公也。后世干戈相寻，礼乐征伐之权下移于诸侯大夫，而乱臣贼子益多，至战国七雄并吞，而生民之祸极矣。其势虽欲封建，而封建之势必不可久。是以秦人乘便因势，混一天下而郡县之。封建之变为郡县者，其势不得不然也。自是以后，遂为定制。岂有去三代二千余年，而可复行封建之理乎？如欲复行封建，则三代以来，帝王苗裔，诸侯遗胄，皆湮失不可复知，而后世之勋臣，孰可以享茅土；后世之懿亲同姓，孰可以保万民。即分疆画界，置为万国，又何从得人而封建之乎？且以塞外蒙古言之，昔者各蒙古自为部落，亦互相战伐，至元太祖之世，而统于一。越有明二百余年，我太祖皇帝神武奋兴，遐迩归诚，而复统于一。我朝幅员广大，中外一家。为千古所莫伦，盖悉惟天时人事积渐使然也。至若封建以御戎狄，则尤为不通之论。曾静僻处东南，距边塞为远，妄意西北、中州各自为守可作藩蔽，为东南诸处假息偷安之计耳。不知前明之时，西北诸边各蒙古皆为劲敌，以天下之全力备御，而所在蹂躏，况以封建诸国，地方仅百余里，兵甲不满万人，遂能支拄门户，遏戎马之南牧乎？西北、中州诸处，既至离析残破，无以自存，则东南之人，虽欲安枕，亦何可得也？此其言至为愚陋无知，迂妄之甚者也。而叛逆之徒，动以封建为说者，盖自知奸恶倾险，不容于乡国，意谓封建行，则此国不可即去之他国，殊不知狂怪逆乱之人，如曾静辈，天地所不容，虽之海外何益？可问曾静，伊言封建之利是此意否？再如，曾静如此叛逆，天下可有容得他的国否？着他一一供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯生处穷乡陋谷，胸次极狭，眼界极小，往昔狂妄无知，依稀影响，孟浪自信，以为窥探得管中之天。到今日蒙圣化所被，反思从前五十年发言行事，不惟如此经国大计，毫无当于事理，即寻常日用一言一动，亦不见一毫是处。是前头五十年，今已除落，不算人了。感皇恩浩荡，破格宽宥，做人当自今兹始。是前头的行，原不算人行；前头的话，亦不算人话。只为旨意问及当初立言之意，不敢不说明其实耳。，弥天重犯所云，封建是圣人治天下之大道，亦是御戎狄之大法者，只见得天下之大，一人耳目所及，心思所系，海隅之远，必有遥隔不到之处。而天生人材，有圣有贤，有贤之大者，有贤之小者，类皆有治民之责。以圣统贤，以大统小，错壤以居，事虽分于众贤，政实颁于一人，此古之王者，所以有封建之制。且其中礼乐征伐，虽出自于天子，而抚民之任，治民之责，则永属各国诸侯之长。非若郡县之此去彼来，彼此可以推委，且在任不久，视民常多泛而不亲，即有极意为民，立为法制，然政随人转，新旧交迁，实不免于朝张暮弛之叹。所以妄谓郡县不如封建之好，其实当时何曾穷源究委，晓得自家看错事理，不是如此。直到今日伏读旨意，乃知古圣人之制为封建者，因当时疆域未开，声教未通，各君其国，各子其民，封建之势已定，圣人不过因其地，顺其势，而封建之。初非以为良法美意，万事无弊，而行之也。后世礼乐征伐之权，下移于诸侯大夫，干戈相寻，至战国并吞而封建之势必不可久。秦人所以乘便因势，混一天下，而郡县之。是封建之变为郡县者，势不得不然也。况今日欲复封建，亦实无许多勋旧懿亲，可以保万民，享茅土，又从何得人而封建之乎？且封建之变，为郡县本积渐所至，今既为郡县矣，岂有复为封建之理。而我朝幅员之广，中外一家，亘古未有。实因百年之内，圣德神功，亦亘古未有。所以天与人归，大成一统，无外之盛，是以今日之不可封建者，理也，势也，天命也，民从也。至若弥天重犯谓封建以御戎狄，当日愚陋无知之论，诚如圣鉴，所谓妄意西北、中州各自为守，可作藩蔽，为东南诸处假息偷安之计之说。岂知西北诸边，各蒙古皆为劲敌，当明以天下全力备御，而所在蹂躏，况以封建之地小兵少，而能支拄门户，遏戎马之南牧乎？弥天重犯到此乃得如梦而初觉，深愧从前妄论，极为愚陋无知。而且感服我皇上聪明首出，神睿无微不昭，天下之大，何理不透；古今之远，何义不精；学问精神，卓识超越，虽极帝尧之钦明，大舜之睿哲，不是过也。弥天重犯从前狂怪逆乱，虽蒙圣朝宽宥，稍缓寸磔之死。然自知负罪弥天，无颜得立于世，久为天地所不容，尚有何地何国可以潜处，所不敢自就死地者，恐以蝼蚁之命，负天地浩大之恩，思欲留余息以图报无疆之大德于万一耳。　

    　　十三、边地民族全是无耻无状的小人，难道没有像尧舜一样的圣人吗？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“中国人之诡谲反复无耻无状者，其行习原类夷狄。只是恶亦是人之恶，天经地义，究竟不致扫灭。若是夷狄，他就无许多顾虑了，不管父子之亲，君臣之义，长幼之序，夫妇之别，朋友之信”等语。中国之人既有行习类乎夷狄者，然则夷狄之人，岂无行同圣人者乎？你说中国之人虽恶，究竟天经地义不致扫灭，今你这等逆乱君臣，上下之义荡然无存，且身罹重罪，有衰老之母，而毫不相顾；犯赤族之诛，门无噍类而不恤，殃及子孙，害及朋友，尚得谓之有君臣、父子、长幼、夫妇、朋友之伦理乎？曾静将天经地义，尽情扫灭，是禽兽不如之类，亦还有顾虑乎？着曾静回心细想，据实供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯此等狂悖的说话，总因生平未到外面走过，并未接见一个外境人，兀坐山谷中，意想中外华夷之分，大约是如此，遂不觉狂悖，写放纸上。直至旧年到长沙，今年奉解来京，一路见得政教美盛，万物得所；复又伏读圣谕诸书，章章经天纬地，句句理精义透，不觉惊魂夺魄。始知天地之大，一理一气，无处不到。而近代之精英尽聚本土，所谓“东海有圣人出，此心同，此理同；西海有圣人出，此心同，此理同”者，今日方实信得。东海之圣人，其心理果与尧舜同世。若中国人物，则久已沦落不堪问。如弥天重犯生圣明之世，而竟不知有圣明之君在上，乃听信谣言逆说，大肆诋毁，虽圣人量同天地，包容群丑怨嗟而不计。然当身实已陷于极恶大罪而莫解。且不惟当身陷罪，君臣上下之伦，荡然无存，而堂有七十岁之老母，而不能顾，犯赤族之诛，门无噍类而弗知恤。若非皇上裕天地好生之德，开生民未有之典，将弥天重犯老母幼子宽宥释放，当此炎暑气候，必禁毙狱中，而莫能顾此。弥天重犯万死万剐，粉骨难偿当身之极罪。亦弥天重犯万死万剐，粉骨难报未有之洪恩。回心细想，到此实实天经地义，尽情扫灭，直禽兽不如了。尚得有人气乎？尚得谓之有顾虑乎？尚有君臣父子长幼夫妇朋友之伦理乎？万死万剐，罪尚何辞。

    　　十四、对于夷狄入主中原，难道一定要诛戮讨伐，而不能和睦相处、共图大业吗？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“夷狄侵凌中国，在圣人所必诛，而不宥者，只有杀而已矣，砍而已矣。更有何说可以宽解得”等语。曾静今日称功颂德，极口赞扬，可问你还是要杀，还是要砍，还是可以宽解，据实供来。曾静供：今日仔细检点，弥天重犯当身狂悖之举，狂悖之言，该死该剐的罪，尽是吕留良之说所陷。即如此等万剐不足以蔽其辜的说话，原不是从弥天重犯本心上说出来的，实因吕留良批《射不主皮》文，有云“弧矢之利，以威天下，圣人何故制此不祥之物？盖有所用也”句，推出这个说话，遂信以为实，而有是说。总之，弥天重犯识见浅小，学力不到，受他的著作语言蛊惑最深。所以到今日，当身受他的害更大。今日默自计来，凡旨意摘出所问的话，尽是弥天重犯当初错信吕留良的说话之所致。弥天重犯自己亦解说不出如何，误信至于此极，到今日亲见圣天子道德隆备，与天为一，学问高深，亘古未有，尊之如天，亲之如父，犹不足以惬其爱戴之诚，而万剐不足以蔽其辜的说话，尚敢萌之于心乎？尚忍萌之于心乎？此时此际，惟有稽颡流血，哀恳皇上终始垂怜山野无知，误受蛊惑而已，尚有何说？

    　　十五、大逆不道的吕留良真的能和孔子相提并论吗？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“开蒙书，叙道统，只该叙到吕子止”等语。曾静以孔子比吕留良，推尊诵法，心悦诚服之至，确是何见？曾静还是只就吕留良之著述文章因而信服，或是别有他故？今又极口痛斥吕留良之奸逆大罪，与前叙道统之意，迥然不侔。未知是真心痛斥吕留良之大逆乎？抑伪为怨恨而始终悦服推尊乎？据实供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯从前之所以心服吕留良者，实无他为，因山野僻性，未有见闻。读书只心服三代的治体治法，尽美尽善。遂谓三代君德之大，是个体天；三代立政之本，是个为民。一切政治，皆是推本天心，为民筹画。其教养之大者，则有井田、学校之制，然世儒多以为不可复，唯吕留良的著述文章内以为可复，与僻性相合，遂不觉心悦诚服，推尊他直接孔孟之统者以此，实无他故。是当日之推尊吕留良者，原是为他的著述文词蛊惑之所致。今日明目张胆，极口痛斥吕留良者，实因得见他的遗稿残篇内，有大逆不道之语，甚而至于良心丧尽，天理全无，竟忍于讥诋圣祖。凡为赤子者见之，焉有不切骨痛恨之理。此又弥天重犯今日当身之大义，发乎天理，本于至情，合该如此，到此岂尚有一点伪为怨恨之心乎？在弥天重犯今日之当身大义，固当如是，但若非弥天重犯亲见皇上之圣德、圣治、圣度，如此亘古未有，从前即使见得吕留良之残稿遗篇，亦未必至于如此之极口痛斥也。然使不得见他讥诋圣祖皇帝处，又未得至于极口痛斥，如是之甚也。引弥天重犯心肝中吐出的实语，无一字欺隐。

    　　十六、你曾静自命为济世英才，你真的有“宰相之量”，还是心怀异谋，图为不轨呢？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“湘湾陈梅鼎，识见气节，乡人中罕见。某为他侄婿，一日某到，他迎接某，吾岳翁出见，乃大声指某曰：‘此诗礼大家，方正君子。’又曰：‘吾老三生平作事，惟择婿一椿，眼力高过天下。’又曰：‘贤婿有济世之德，宰相之量。’又生平极鄙薄当今，屡叹先朝衣冠文物，最喜茶陵陈元章，以为大丈夫奇男子”等语。

    　　据此，则曾静平昔以济世自命，心怀异谋，图为不轨已久矣。可问曾静，伊叔岳陈梅鼎与岳丈是何等样人？茶陵陈元章又是何等人？此三个人，如今现在何处？可供来。至若衣冠文物之语，最为谬妄。盖衣冠之制度，自古随地异宜，随时异制，不能强而同之。亦各就其服习，便安者用之耳。其于人之贤否，政治之得失，毫无关涉也。向闻无知愚妄之徒，轻诋本朝衣冠，有云“孔雀翎，马蹄袖，衣冠中禽兽”之语，其说至为鄙陋。夫以冠言之，则周有雀弁、鹿弁，汉唐有獬豸冠、貂蝉冠、冠之类，以衣言之，则《尚书》云：“山、龙、华、虫作绘。”

    　　汉、唐以来，有羽衣、鹤氅，以及雉头裘、狮蛮带之类，不可胜数。皆取禽兽之名状，以为服饰之光华，岂有自古以来，用此等衣冠之人皆为禽兽可乎？若夫治天下之道，惟在政教之修明，纪纲之备举，从来帝王全盛之时，君明臣良，朝野宁谧，万民安生乐业，不问为何代之衣冠，皆足以为文明之治。如其不然，则桀纣时之衣冠，即禹汤时之衣冠也。岂以衣冠之相似，而遂可以文明不坠，礼乐不废，不至于乱乎？如元代混一之初，衣冠未改，仍其蒙古旧服，而政治清明，天下又安。其后改用中国衣冠，政治不修，遂致祸败。即此可见衣冠之无关于礼乐文明、治乱也。且如故明之末年，衣冠犹是明之衣冠也，而君臣失德，纲纪废弛，寇盗蜂起，生民涂炭。区区衣冠之制，礼乐文明何在世？可能救明代之沦覆乎？我世祖皇帝统一区夏，戡定祸乱，救民于水火之中。圣祖皇帝继天出治，久道化成，海内承平，恩周万类。凡我朝之仁育义正，鸿猷善政，不及往古者何事？岂容以我朝之衣冠而有妄议乎！盖我朝起自东土，诞膺天命，本服我朝之衣冠，来为万国臣民之主。是上天大命集于我朝祖功宗德者，即天心降鉴在于我朝之衣冠，谓可表中州而式万方也。夫衣冠既为天心降鉴之所在，则奕世相传，岂容擅为改易乎！且如曾静以山野穷僻、冥顽无知之人，尚因妄逆之见，心念故明之衣冠，况我朝席祖宗之鸿业，奉列圣之成规，历世相承，已有百余年，岂有舍己而从人，屈尊而就卑，改易衣冠之理乎？又如今之外藩各国，衣冠之制皆多不同，我朝受其职贡，亦不必强易其衣冠也。况我朝一统之盛，抚有万邦，其衣冠安可轻议乎！着并问曾静，屡叹先朝衣冠文物之语，是何意见呢？

    　　曾静供：陈梅鼎是安仁县的百姓，于康熙五十二年老死。弥天重犯的岳父名国衡，是陈梅鼎之弟，亦是个百姓，于康熙四十六年病死。其子贫不能自立，于康熙五十七年搬往四川去了。陈梅鼎之子，今不知其在否。陈元章是茶陵州人，不知是士，是民，不在已四十多年矣。陈梅鼎是弥天重犯的岳伯，弥天重犯十七岁娶他的侄女陈国衡之女，十八岁到他家中有是话。弥天重犯之所以记说此话者，亦是因见得吕留良诗“稚子诧衣冠”之句，所以言得此处。这话皆是雍正五年丁未岁，因张熙至浙江，传得吕留良的诗看见，序有此话。其实当年与陈梅鼎说话时，并未有别意。陈梅鼎本是个农家乡人，未曾读书学问，如何晓得别样说话！其所称许弥天重犯为“诗礼大家，方正君子”者，是因见弥天重犯在他家中比常儿厚重敦笃，不佻达耳。许弥天重犯有“济世之德，宰相之量”者，为心多慈爱而量能容受。因弥天重犯原同居有个兄嫂，因夫妻不睦，兄将嫂改嫁到陈梅鼎邻家，陈梅鼎与是妇语言之间，妇称言弥天重犯处待得他好，所以说有宰相之量。妇复说弥天重犯屡劝兄不得嫁妻。陈梅鼎闻得此话，所以说弥天重犯有济世之德。至于陈梅鼎屡叹先朝衣冠文物者，彼时有七十余岁，大抵他服过先朝衣冠来，所以叹其好。喜陈元章以为大丈夫、奇男子者，弥天重犯不知得陈元章的底里，亦不知陈元章是个什么样人，相隔有五百多里。当时只闻得茶陵州有个陈元章，因得罪州官，州官要捉拿处治他，他随聚众围城，几乎起变，当即被捉伏诛。陈梅鼎之所以称他者，大抵是喜他以匹夫而不受制于官长之故。此是陈梅鼎反常异俗狂怪的说话。弥天重犯见得吕留良前诗句，所以记忆到此。至若谓衣冠文物之说，在弥天重犯有何知识定见，能剖决其中道理丝毫不易而有是说，此乃听得这些俗儒鄙陋议论，不察其理，遂妄有是说。今伏读旨意，广大精深，惊天动地，乃知本朝衣冠之制，原是随地异宜，随时异制，全以道为归，初未尝有意立异，亦未尝强以求同。此正所谓上律天时，下袭水土而无私者也。观此则知本朝一切礼乐刑政，经天纬地之制，无一不顺天因地，因物付物，宜乎冠百王而超千古。弥天重犯得闻斯义，不惟当身喜极快极，冰释雾开，且私幸此说一出，竟足以破千古愚陋疑团。因思从前几多误听谣言处，皆是为心中愚暗，窥探义蕴理奥不到之所致。当时若有高明指示，当前妙理精义之所在，心中未有不喜悦诚服者。如今衣冠之说，从前未尝不因人言而心疑，今得旨意如此煌煌指示，虽木石也会动心点头，弥天重犯到此更有何说！只有叩首，叩首，干万叩首！将此段议论记于心，口传于当世，以解陋儒之疑。若得蒙恩宽宥，德教所被，期以数年，当身学问觊有寸进，笔传于万世，以为百王立政之准而已。

    　　十七、程颢提出的选拔人才方法在宋代已经证明行不通，难道能够在本朝实行的通吗？

    　　问曾静：旨意问，前曾静供内有“国家取士之法，宜当参用程明道所议宋熙宁间取士，损益斟酌行之方为更美”之语。查程子熙宁取士札子云：“宜先礼命近侍贤儒，各以类推及百执事、方岳州县之吏，悉心推访，有笃志好学，材良行修者，皆以名闻，命州县敦遣。”

    　　朕于雍正元年，即有举贤良方正之恩诏。迩年以来，有令各省州县延访孝友端方，才可办事，而文亦可观者，每岁各举一人之谕。又有六年选拔贡生，不拘考试名次，务取经明行修者之谕。又有令满汉内外文武诸臣，将有猷、有为、有守者，各举一人之谕。又有令中外诸臣，在京主事以上，在外知县以上，各举所知，或举贡生员，或山林隐逸，送部引见之谕。是程子所议，皆腾已行之事也。无如举贤良方正，则各省举者寥寥。惟福建巡抚黄国材荐彭鹏之孙二人，皆童稚无知，学识浅陋，不堪任用。至浙江巡抚李馥所举贤良方正，竟系积恶巨棍，夤缘荐举，后经地方大吏察出纠参，赃私累累，款迹狼藉。观此，则贤良方正之举，可尽信乎？自三代至汉，用乡举里选之法。迨其后，刺史守相，得专辟召之权；九品中正，得司人物之柄。用人之权不在上而在下，其势不可复行，于是改为糊名易书，以文艺科目取士。盖言为心声，人之文章，先由积学深造而成，尚可以略知其人之蕴蓄。若专取行谊，则必有伪为涂饰以欺世而盗名者。且心术至难窥测，每见曲谨自好之徒，一旦改涂易辙，即可无所不为。是以《汉书》史臣之论，谓“直言独行，高节沉隐之属，荣路既广，遂有窃名伪服，浸以流竞，权门贵任，请谒繁兴”者，可知前代德行之选，已不足为铨衡之准则，何如科场文艺之稍有凭据乎！

    　　宋臣郑樵谓“科甲一途，虽非古人德行之举，而犹可以得才能之士”。其言信而足征也。且朕用人之道，并未尝限于科甲一途，乃多方鉴拔，惟日孜孜，冀获贤才，以为莅政临民之选。用心甚苦，而其事甚难。此在廷诸臣所共知者，又岂程子奏议一格，所能尽朕求材之意乎！至于程子所云，取材能明达之士，受业于成德之士，其学业大明者为太学之师，其次分教天下，由州郡而县，以次而用。三岁宾兴，优者自县而州郡，自州郡而太学，以此递迁；劣者以此递降。欲以化成天下，其说迂远而难行，是以当熙宁之时，已不能见诸实用，况数百年以后乎！且今之选拔，即古贡士之法，而朕数年以来，用人之道，亦可谓详且尽矣。曾静以为当参用熙宁取士之法。

    　　试问曾静，熙宁取士之法果有实效否？今当何如斟酌损益，方为尽美？可详悉供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯本山野愚民，从前谬发狂言，固是井蛙之见，无当事理，然亦因平昔不知我皇上之所以因时立政致治政策敷猷者，其中损益变化，既详且尽，不惟非今人之谋虑所得及，并非从古圣贤之筹画所能备。直到今日，方知神化广运，无处不到。生天地之内，只有顺天地之化而已，又焉知天地之高厚哉！天地之高厚且不知，又焉知天地之大，造化之所以然哉！况当此极恶重罪之会，虽屡蒙皇上如天之仁，钦恤无知，沛生民未有之殊恩，宽宥重典。然在弥天重犯自悔自愧，惶恐战栗，自是无时无刻可释于怀，岂但感恩戴德，昊天罔极而已！又焉敢妄抒蚁见于经国大计万分中之一乎！不意我皇上宵旰图治，孜孜为民，既无一时少懈，复无一处不到，今明旨下颁，竟以前供取士之法，如何斟酌损益方为尽美，许弥天重犯详悉再供。自古算君德之备，君道之尽，以尧舜为极。然孔子称舜为大智，在不自用而取诸人，其言曰“舜好问而好察迩言”，其所问察世，亦只曰迩言而已，未闻察及于深囚重犯，不足齿数之人言也。况弥天重犯之山野穷僻、冥顽无知更甚者乎！于此可见我皇上虚中之极，用中之精，视当年大舜更进而上无疑矣。是不惟宽宥弥天重犯之重典，为沛生民未有之殊恩，即今日许弥天重犯之再供，亦属生民未有之大德。由是看来，我皇不特为明君、圣君，缵往古圣贤之绪而已，直继天立极，开万世之君统，立百王之大法，于天运再辟再造之中世。弥天重犯虽自量愚顽，本无说可以敷奏，然当此生民未有之盛会，焉敢不竭一线之明，因前供所未详悉者而直供之，以仰副我皇上好问好察、勤求不倦之至意。因思前供所谓程子取士之法者，彼时无知，妄谓古昔帝王治天下之道，皆是争先一著之法。如欲禁民为盗，不在盗上禁，要推其为盗之源，或是为饥起念，或是为寒生心，如何设法安置，使之农桑不失业，衣食饥暖，则盗自止。又如欲士习善行，亦不专在行上引，要先使之通道德、明理义，道德通，理义明，则人自乐于为善，虽强之为恶，亦不去矣。以此推之，事事皆要争先一著，虽极之日用寻常、百工末技、农圃医药之小，亦必要从原本上做来，方得妥贴，况治天下之大乎！所以当时妄意谓要取士，必以教士为先，教土又必以明理义、通道理为要。然欲教士明理义，通道德，必先择教官之理义明、道德通者，方可以当其职。此弥天重犯前供谬妄，谓当参用程子所议熙宁取士之法者，大意谓先要教士得法，教士得法，系于教官，又先要教官得人。

    　　今伏读旨意，方知我朝取士之典，除科举外，有举贤良方正之恩诏；有令各省州县延访孝友端方，才可办事而文亦可观者，每岁各举一人之谕；有选拔贡生，不拘考试名次，务取经明行修者之谕；有令满汉、内外、文武诸臣，将有猷、有为、有守者，各举一人之谕；有令中外诸臣，在京主事以上，在外知县以上，各举所知，或举贡生员，或山林隐逸，送部引见之谕。猗钦！何其盛欤！此不惟当年程子所议熙宁取士一格所不能尽，且自古隆盛之朝取士之典所不能备。弥天重犯至此，因感念我皇上一种忧民图治之苦心，体天求贤之至意，不觉泣下，移时不能言。其所以为我辈赤子抚绥谋者，亘古来有如是之我后乎！况监前代德行之选，不足为铨衡之准，勘出科举文章之发，尚由积学深造而成，尤无弊不彻，无隐不烛，皆历历如数家珍，若分黑白。以是思我皇上之用心甚切甚周，抑且良苦矣。

    　　夫以取士之方，如是之广，得人之念，如是之笃，宜贤才汇登，多士济济。而天下所荐举，间多不能仰副我皇上之深愿者，固是人才难得，然亦无乃在下之有司，以他政为急，视此荐举为稍缓欤！岂知我皇上治天下以得人为先，尧以不得舜为己忧，舜以不得禹、皋陶为己忧。自古政治之休明，生民之乐利，全视乎在上之得人，即为微末之邑宰，亦必以得人为先。所以子游为武城宰，圣人不问其他必先问其得人与否。诚以人才所关于政教风俗为至大而且重也。所以谕旨煌煌，广开仕路，立贤无方者，正为得人为治天下所必选之政。而今日之少能荐举与荐举而不实者，无乃有司视为泛常，而各省督抚亦少以此为事，而责望于所属之有司，所以至此。若使督抚以及有司执事知得为政必得人为先，仰体圣心，认真职分，在外早夜不遑，悉心推访，何患人才不得！自然千中选百，百中选士，可以仰副我皇上惟日孜孜，冀获贤才，以为莅政临民之选之德意。

    　　至若谓程子所云，取材能明达之士，受业于成德之士，其学业大明者为太学之师，其次分教天下，由州郡而县，以次而用，三岁宾兴，以此为黜陟。欲以化成天下，其说迂远而难行。今日得明旨剖分，反复看来，果是迂远难行。然我朝取士之法至矣，尽矣，无以复加矣。惟养士之典，稍有未备。弥天重犯因古法贡士，必本于乡里，而风俗适与人材相通。曾见有蓝田吕氏乡约，经朱子斟酌增损者，其纲领甚切，其节目甚密，其联络督率之法更精详美备，有关于德教风化甚大而远。大纲有四：一曰德业相劝；二曰过失相规；三曰礼俗相交；四曰患难相恤。每纲之下，类分节目，节目所载，准古酌今，更为尽善。乡中择一老成有齿德者为都约正，其次者为副约正，更择子弟中之端方正直、通道义而能文辞者为直月。直月每岁十二人，轮流掌其事。立三籍。愿入约者，书一籍；有善，书一籍；有过，书一籍。近者每月一会，远则每季一会。择四达之处立一约所。直月先期循环纠察同约中之善行与过行。临约之日，行礼读约毕，约正及同约以次就坐，酒三行，直月举约中之善与过，告于约正。约正当众询其实状，无异词，然后书于籍。善则约正率同约奖励之，过则约正率同约规戒之，仍将善、过两籍遍传在坐者观省，然后许各人就约所质疑问事，讲辨道理，区画家计，以及论文习射，至脯乃退。其中纲张目举，仪文度数，最为精密。

    　　弥天重犯妄谓今日于科举取士之中，似当取此全文，恳祈我皇上天聪，参以时宜，斟酌损益，颁行天下。敕令督抚责委有司，每县视地之大小远近，多立约所。不拘士农工商，居其土者，皆许其入约。读约之会，先将圣祖皇帝上谕十六条及我皇上圣谕广训宣读毕，然后取此约大纲细目，依其仪节，次第读过，讲解一遍。或并列祖圣德神功及前后所颁政令，凡有关于风俗民事者，俱着令有司行文到乡约中宣示。

    　　盖小民不知上之德教者，由于居乡之日多，到县城之日少，或又不通文义，不能仰会上意。今各乡有约，每月一会，得约正，直月等讲明，心下自无疑团，各知上意，且记善有籍，记过有籍，民固知劝惩，而乐于为善。即异日有司荐举，亦必先察此二籍，必有善而无过，与过而能改者，然后试之以文艺，文艺可观，然后得蒙荐举。如此则不惟荐举本于乡里，善恶无毫发之爽，可绝欺罔清托之弊。而且情文密而壅睦洽，教化明而礼乐兴，道德同而风俗一，人人相勉于善。他年科甲举子之从乡约中历练来者，岂不更有可观者乎？夫乡约本朝廷所已颁行之典，但联络无方，约束无法，彼此善恶之行不著，友朋规劝之义不行，早晚情谊不关，往来督率无人。甚至山州草县只行之于城而不行之于乡，讲之于官而不遍通于民。不唯善恶无人纠察劝戒，即宣讲亦多不能依期奉行，在官固视为泛常，而民之听之亦或作或辍，有来有不来。况居乡者多，在城市者少，乡民离远，无人督率，虽有讲宣，如何听见？即如弥天重犯所居，离城市远，县中讲约读法之事，生平并未撞逢一次。如所颁圣谕广训及我皇上斟酌取士之法，从前不惟不曾目见，并未曾耳闻。直至近日，伏读皇上圣谕，中间有圣谕广训序文，持以问人方知。

    　　从前只晓得圣祖皇帝上谕十六条而已。况乡人中之全不通文理者，如何晓得？似此法亦简易易行，但要责令有司实心奉行。若能天下之大，县县如此奉行，每县之中，到处如此宣讲行习，道德齐礼，其治效岂有极哉！况此规制既成于各县各乡之中，凡有善政善教，皆可照此仪节，遍晓民间。不惟无上行而下不效之患，且君民一体，呼吸竟可相通矣。弥天重犯山野冥顽，本不知是非可否，但管见及此，不敢不尽情直供。伏祈圣明，取此约全文，详览规制，裁夺可否为幸。

    　　十八、雍正钱发行不久，不能普遍流通，你便造谣“雍正钱，穷半年”，是居何用心？

    　　问曾静：旨意问你，所著逆书《知新录》内云“即观铸钱一事，自癸卯到今六年，尚铸个钱不顺。勉强铸就的，糊糊涂涂，不明不白，民间无人肯受。谣曰：‘雍正钱，穷半年。’若身上有一个雍正钱，即投之沟壑”等语。制钱为民间日所必需，务宜轻重适均，流通无弊，方于民生有益。钱文字画之清楚与否，皆关铜铅之多少，此人人所知者。

    　　向年圣祖皇帝时所铸制钱，以铜六铅四搭配，虽钱文字画清楚，而铜多于铅，遂有奸民销毁制钱改造器皿者，因而钱价日昂。康熙四十五六年间，每银一两仅可兑钱七八百文。朕在藩邸时，深悉其弊，是以令钱局以铅铜各半搭配鼓铸，使奸民无销毁之利。又严黄铜器皿之禁，方得钱价渐平。今银一两，可兑制钱一千，小民并受其利。其钱文字画虽未甚精工，然惟铜铅相半，方能禁止销毁，而制钱可得流通便民，并非吝惜铜斤而多加铅两也。且铸钱由模范而成，其样钱谓之祖钱，轮廓匀厚，字画完整。由祖钱套出，谓之母钱，即逊于祖钱。再由母钱套出，是谓铸钱，今民间日用之官钱也。较之祖钱，更不逮矣。盖即一板之内，所铸二枝之钱，下沉者必重，在中者适均，在上者必轻，而字画亦因之而不能一式完美。此从来铸钱皆然，非独今日之雍正钱为然也。乃曾静不知钱法，信狂妄之说，遂肆讥议，任意蛊惑咒诅，何殊昏梦中之呓唔乎！

    　　至云投之沟壑，尤为可笑。民间所有之钱，必以银两兑易而来，岂有以银易之物而委之沟壑乎！至于贸易之人，当其受钱之时，必细视钱文而后交易，若以雍正钱为不祥之物，孰肯收受！况既以货物售卖，人虽至愚，孰肯以银与货物换得之钱而轻弃之沟壑也！今直省内外，果不肯用雍正钱文乎？即如曾静之家，至为贫薄，然囊箧中亦必有制钱收贮，然后可以易米买薪，何以不投而弃之乎？

    　　江南地方，因雍正钱文尚少，元年、二年间，有以旧钱十文易一雍正钱以为宝玩者。其重雍正钱文何以又如此？向湖南之人情与江南迥别乎？至于铸钱未能流通普遍，此则事理之常，明而易见者。圣祖皇帝在位六十余年，康熙铸钱尚有流行未到之处。又如广东高、雷、廉等府，至今尚用宋时旧钱，并元、明代之钱亦流通未至。自雍正元年以来，甫及七年，所铸钱文，欲令遍及天下并荒僻之处，亦有是理乎！曾静所闻谣言，确系何人传说？曾静果否亲见投钱沟壑之人？其人系何姓名？确在何处？可据实供来。

    　　曾静供：此等狂悖说话，弥天重犯当时无知，听得人言如此，遂不穷究其事理，信以为实，随手写记放在纸上。其实到今日看来，无论人言己言，皆该杀该剐，尚有何说分解得！盖缘弥天重犯所住之地离城市远，无交易买卖，即间有买卖，亦是用稻谷，不惟不使钱，竟少有用银子。穷民无所出息，亦无处交易得银子，所用者只有谷耳。惟富户积得稻谷多，方以谷去卖得银子用。至若钱，则无论康熙钱，雍正钱，皆未用。皇上御极之初，雍正元年、二年、三年，雍正钱流通未遍楚疆。弥天重犯彼时心下常想求雍正钱一看，以为此是新天子的通宝，以此去问人，而人间有自城市中来者，遂妄传以为雍正钱铸不成。

    　　后又逾年，心下实要想求雍正钱看而不可得，又去随使问人，谣传遂以为如今新皇帝因铸钱不成，杀了几多铸匠。弥天重犯此话固不肯信，然无奈乡愚小民，不通钱法，每多如是说。后弥天重犯偶得一二雍正钱，细验其钱文字画，果不十分清楚。先疑以为模范新制，恐是初铸，所以未甚精工，后来再看，亦复如是。那会雍正钱少，到街市上用康熙钱熟识，又见得雍正钱文字画不完美，不知从何处遂造出这个谣言来。无知小民听得此言，遍传于乡里，弥天重犯心中渐次受了谣言悖论之毒，又加以不通钱法，解这钱文字画不清楚的缘故不出，遂不察而信以为实。直至雍正六年春，狂悖将萌，竟把此事做一个验证。

    　　其实到今日伏读我皇上旨意，方晓得钱文字画之清楚与否，原关铜铅之多少。康熙钱文字画清楚者，由于铜六铅四，铜多于铅；雍正钱文字画未甚精工者，由于铅铜各半。其铜多于铅，则致奸民销毁制钱，改造器皿，而钱价日昂；其铜铅各半，则奸民无销毁之利，而制钱可得流通便民。细思到此，全是我皇上一段爱民苦心，经天纬地的学问，方能鉴别物理之所以然，察照民间之积弊，直从源头整理下来，此岂寻常之智虑所能窥测万一！况钱有祖钱、母钱、铸钱，即一板之内，所铸二枝之钱，下沉者必重，在中者适均，在上者必轻，而字画亦因之不能一式完美。小民不知其由，竟以钱文字画未甚精工，遂从此妄生议论。而弥天重犯不知钱法，亦妄信而附和之，万死万剐，自如何辞！但念小民虽顽，天性亦难泯绝，未有不知爱戴君亲者。其所以狂悖如此者，实由于心中无知，不知圣天子之德意。其所以不知圣天子之德意者，又由于宣传之未遍。即如我皇上禁取黄铜一事，弥天重犯耳闻，亦有几多说话。山野无知，不解取铜禁铜之故，甚有谓我皇上欲取尽中国之铜，解往满州地方，熔铸以为宫殿者。弥天重犯虽心知谬传，然亦无话可解答。离县城远，未见衙门所张挂告示如何说，在外只有取铜禁铜之令，中间并未说出取铜禁铜之由。小民无知，焉得不妄生拟议！拟议出于一二人之口，传者遂遍递于千百人之耳。直至今日伏读圣谕，方晓得禁铜为防奸民销毁制钱，改造器皿，钱价日昂；禁铜不用，则钱无所毁，而价可渐平，民得利用。是我皇上几多深仁厚泽，为民善政，远鄙百姓，皆为心中不知，糊涂浪过。此弥天重犯前供乡约内，所以说到朝廷所颁政令，凡有关于风教民事者，须要在乡约中宣示，正为此类也。至若谓投之沟壑，从前不深究其事理，遂误听以为果有是说。今得明旨，反复推勘，而复心下思索，不惟信得无是理，且天地间并无是事，何其诞妄一至于此极耶！

    　　总之，愚民类多无知而悖谬，实非有心以肆妄。况毁谤讥议出于小民无知者之口，本无损于圣天子明德，而御极初年之毁谤，尤是以圣德神功之远大。盖有非常之主，必有非常人所得知之猷谋。众见未尝不惊，不知者未尝不疑，惊疑交集，此谤之所由生也。是以帝尧承帝喾之后，自唐侯而陟践帝位，始三年而谤作，又三年而颂兴，又三年而谤颂悉泯，乃得“不识不知，顺帝之则”。况我皇上初潜之时，韬光养晦，无求无欲，只尽己性分之当然，并未尝稍露一毫声光于人间。龙德中正，不惟非天下所得知，并非在廷诸臣所能识。惟我圣祖皇帝聪明未纵，本父子之亲，以圣知圣。早知我皇上天禀贵重，蕴蓄美富，为能聪明睿智，足以有临。然亦只以是存之于心，而不肯扬之于众。直至圣躬不豫，委以南郊大礼，方知我皇上圣德神谋久为圣祖皇帝所深契。所以当我皇上御极之初，一切政治，经天纬地，天下莫能仰测高厚之所以然，加以阿其那、塞思黑等久蓄奸谋，散布流言于山陬海隅，小民无知误听而起疑生谤者。

    　　以今看来，实属理势之所必至。如此等说钱的话，亦是二年、三年事，到雍正五年、六年来，实无人如此说，今若究问传说的姓名，此是深入乡愚，只听人如此说，亦依口学舌如此说，原是不识不知，随声妄和，今日如何记得哪一人说？指得哪一人姓名出？在弥天重犯固冥顽无知，然尚稍识得一两个字，稍通得丝毫义理，且不免以讹承讹，传妄踵妄，按其罪过，该杀该剐。其实在今日就杀就剐，浑身寸磔，亦抵当弥天重犯许多罪过不得；况蚩蚩之众，较弥天重犯之无知更甚乎！我皇上德量同天，明睿并日，今日实是弥天重犯万死万剐罪不容诿。其余传说，同在覆冒涵育之内者，惟恳矜之恤之，悯念小民之无知陷罪而已，如何妄扯得别人！

    　　十九、为什么山西百姓争先恐后为国效力，忠诚爱戴朝廷，而湖南竟有你这样猖狂悖逆之徒？

    　　奉上谕：据山西巡抚石麟奏称：“晋省绅士百姓，愿将军需应用之驼屉、苫毡、绳索三万副，从本地自备车骡运送，至归化城交收。臣等遵旨，令地方官给价雇送。而各属士民，挽车策骡，争先装载，给以脚价，感激涕零，稽首称谢，不肯领取。急公效力，旷古所稀”等语。着将此折令杭奕禄发与曾静看，并讯问曾静：湖南、山西同在戴天履地之中，何以山西之民踊跃急公，忠诚爱戴，实能视朕为后；而湖南之民，乃有猖狂悖逆、肆恶扰乱之徒如曾静等，至于视朕如仇？此朕所不解。着讯取曾静口供具奏。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯禀性愚顽，不知天高地厚。然圣人在上，恩深德大，感化到至处，虽木石亦知倾向起舞。是以数月以来，感恩被化之深，白昼对人，虽是无言可以称述，然梦寐恍惚，对人言及皇恩圣德，惊惶感泣，几次流涕痛号至醒，犹有不能自止者。以是知秉彝之良，原未尝尽绝，特从前偶为外诱浮言所惑乱，不知圣德高深万一之所致，非本性与人异也。今蒙恩旨，以山西巡抚所奏，奉旨动用正项钱粮，制造骆驼绳屉等以备军需。抚臣遵旨，动银给发通省。而通省士民咸称我皇上宵旰勤民，爱养百姓，直如赤子，安享升平。无以为报，情愿自备骡车，各从本地运送，期效犬马之劳，感激涕零，稽首称谢，不肯领受脚价折奏等情，命弥天重犯阅看。弥天重犯因思君臣一伦，至大至重，分虽有尊卑之别，情实同父子之亲，本于天命之自然，无物不有，无时不在，通古今，遍四海而未尝有异也。民之乖戾，不供顺其上，固是民之无良，然亦半由在上者不以民为子，或子焉而德惠偶有未洽于民，或及民而有司不能宣扬上意，以致民或不能以君为后，即或后戴其君，而不能至诚赤忠，实尽我赤子之道者，往往有之。若果能以民为子，食思民饥而为之谋其饱，衣思民寒而为之谋其暖，一体，每念不忘其民。则君民一体，民自不敢有其身，不敢私其财，不敢恤其力。虽赴汤蹈火，亦不肯避矣。然此虽有其理，从古未见有其事，不惟汉、唐、宋、明如文景、贞观、熙宁极盛之时所无，即三代郅隆之世，亦所少见。惟文王上承十五王之积累，下开八百年之太平，太和融洽，至德深仁，沦肌浃髓，见于经者，方有“庶民子来”之事。不然，以尧舜之德，亦难期此圣神功化之极救也。

    　　今我皇上子惠元元，时时刻刻以爱养抚绥为念，至德深仁，无隐不入，无处不到。所以天和萃聚，丰稔频登，民心爱戴，顶踵思捐，以期踊跃争先报效万一者，将遍宇内而皆然矣。何况山西省近京都，感德被化，尤为最先而更亲者乎！惟有湖南隔远，民习又夙浇漓，加以奸党犯罪充发广西，往来通衢，布散流言，传闻道左。致使圣德声称，湮郁未洽，然到今云开日丽，快爽欢欣，舆情谅是不同寻常爱戴。况我皇上治化，已几刑措而道德齐礼之教，犹时轸念远方，已蒙差使往湖南观风整俗矣。今又蒙恩旨，着弥天重犯往湖南观风整俗使衙门听用。弥天重犯虽愚陋不堪，然数月以来，被我皇上德教，耳闻目见京都风景，亦颇粗知圣教之万一。纵不能有所赞助裨补于观风整俗使之前，然以当身所感我皇上之德，被我皇上之恩，尽心竭力，以直道实，逢人说项，亦得期赎重罪之毫末。但念犯罪蝼蚁，自揣不足取信于人。所赖者，惟我皇上大德至诚，既可感召天和，屡奏成效，必能孚及豕鱼，而四方风动，从欲以治。自是家喻户晓，人人咸思尊君亲上，民情必不减山西爱戴之隆矣。

    　　二十、有人诬蔑你的父亲有盗窃的劣迹，母亲有淫乱的行为，你能不加审查便将父母唾骂一番，甚至著书立说到处宣扬吗？

    　　奉旨讯问曾静：你看了山西巡抚石麟奏折，供称“君臣一伦，情同父子，四海未尝有异，湖南民习浇漓，奸党犯罪，充发广西，往来通衢，布散流言，致使圣德声称，湮郁未洽”等语。夫“扶我则后，虐我则仇”，古有是语，朕于普天之下，一视同仁，湖南、山西之民，固皆抚之如子也。山西民俗醇良，感召天和，连年丰稔，无待朕之大加恩泽。湖南民俗浇悍，乖戾之气，上干天谴，以致浸间作，荒歉屡告。朕叠沛恩膏，所以子惠而抚绥者，不一而足，尚不得为抚我之后乎！朕揣山西之民，所以趋事赴功者，盖因圣祖仁皇帝六十余年深仁厚泽，浃髓沦肌，是以一遇国家公事，即输诚效力，踊跃争先，如此肫切。试问湖南之民，独不受圣祖六十余年之恩泽乎！即据曾静前供，圣祖宾天之时，亦尝哭泣尽哀，持服拜祭。夫既感圣祖之深恩，顾不念及朕躬乎！人情于亲戚朋友，素相契厚者，或闻其子孙有过失，则必曲为之掩护；或闻其子孙被谤议，则必力为之辨白。况于君臣之间乎！伊之于朕躬，万无忍于排斥之理，况以毫无影响之流言，不察真伪而便肆为诬蔑，敢行悖逆，尚得谓有人心者乎！伊既知君臣之伦，情同父子，今有人诬曾静之父有盗名，捏其母有淫行，曾静闻之，忍不与之辨乎？忍不察其言之虚实乎？抑不问其虚实，遽将其父母丑诋唾骂，且著书立说以扬播之乎！伊称往来奸党布散流言，被其煽惑。夫奸党充发往来之所，不止湖南一省也，即山西地方岂无此等逆党之流言！乃从无一人被其摇惑煽动者。独湖南奸民如曾静之辈，一闻奸徒之蜚语，即起叛逆之心，谓非其性与人殊者乎！且“抚我则后，虐我则仇”之语，亦非正论。

    　　夫君臣、父子皆生民之大伦，父虽不慈其子，子不可不顺其亲；君即不抚其民，民不可不戴其后。所谓抚我则后，虐我则仇者，在人君以此自警则可耳，若良民必不忍存是心，唯奸民乃是以借其口。然人虽甚无良，亦断无有以抚为虐者，朕于湖广已实尽其抚民之道，而不意曾静辈犹视朕如仇也。至曾静蛊惑于华夷之辨，此盖因昔之历代人君，不能使中外一统，而自作此疆彼界之见耳。朕读洪武宝训，见明太祖时时以防民防边为念。盖明太祖本以元末奸民起事，恐人袭其故智，故汲汲以防民奸；其威德不足以抚有蒙古之众，故兢兢以防边患。

    　　然终明之世，屡受蒙古之侵扰，费数万万之生民膏血，中国为之疲敝。而亡明者，即流民李自成也。自古圣人感人之道，惟有一诚，若存笼络防范之见，即非诚也。我以不诚待之，人亦以不诚应之，此一定之情理。是以明代之君，先有猜疑百姓之心，而不能视为一体，又何以得心悦诚服之效！先有畏惧蒙古之意，而不能视为一家，又何以成中外一统之规！虽当时蒙古之人，亦有入中国者，然皆闲散不足数之辈耳。若因此遂谓蒙古之人臣服于中国，则当时中国之人，亦有入蒙古者，是中国亦曾臣服于蒙古矣。至于我朝兴自东海，本非蒙古，向使明代之君果能以至诚之道，统御万方，使我朝倾心归往，则我朝入中国而代之，亦无解于篡窃之名矣。

    　　乃我朝自太祖、太宗以来，浸昌浸炽；明代自万历、天启而后，浸微浸熄。明代久已非我朝之敌，彼自失天下于流民，上天眷佑我朝为中国主。世祖君临万邦，圣祖重熙累洽，合蒙古、中国一统之盛，并东南极边番彝诸部俱归版图，是从古中国之疆域，至今日而开廓。凡属生民皆当庆幸者，尚何中外，华夷之可言哉！曾静有何辨说？据实逐一供来。钦此。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯山野无知，于人事无一得通，自犯罪以来，只有惶恐战栗，万死待罪而已，更有何说可以分辨？今承高厚之恩，复降谕旨语问。反复细读，字字句句皆发从古圣贤所未发，义蕴精深弘博，已到至处极处。在弥天重犯实无一言可以分疏、解免其罪，但自计当初狂举之念，处处皆从不知圣德高深，错执人言起见。因念人之五伦，虽有人合、天合之分，其实皆本天而出，根性而具，所以圣人谓之达道。惟其谓之达道，所以通古今、遍四海而不异。五伦之中，又惟君臣、父子为更大。君臣虽从义生，而以人合；父子虽从仁出，而以天合。其实君臣之伦，大过父子之亲。盖以父则对子，其尊只在子一身之上；君乃天下万物之大父大母，其尊与天配，在万物之上，故五伦以君臣为首。而所以处之者，彼此有当然各尽之道，本不相期待。在君之职以天自处，所以一切寒暑怨咨有不屑计；而为臣为民者，一身之生杀，唯君所命，不敢以私怨生怼叛之心。虽圣人说：“君使臣以礼，臣事君以忠。”

    　　两边平放，其实不相期待。臣之忠君，乃天命之自然，不是因君使臣以礼而后臣得事君以忠，所以朱子注云：“二者皆理之当然，各欲自尽而已。”玩“理之当然”四字，见得臣之忠君，原从天出，不是报答君恩。君加恩于臣，在臣固当忠君，即不加恩于臣，而臣亦当忠。诚如圣谕所示：“父虽不滋其子，子不可不顺其亲；君即不抚其民，民不可不戴其后。”

    　　盖臣之忠君，乃天命之当然，所性之自然，岂计君恩之轻重哉！试看文王遭纣之昏乱而不改小心服事之节，圣人称为至德。曾子作《大学》传，释“止至善”章，引文王作榜样，以为止善之极则，曰：“为人臣，止于敬”，而不及汤武者，正为此个缘故。今谕旨谓“抚我则后，虐我则仇”非正论，正合文王、孔、曾之旨。盖“抚我则后，虐我则仇”，乃武王将伐纣而誓师之权词。汤武之事，本非圣人之得己，但所遇之时不同，究其极而仍合于义耳。初非其所乐为，而可以为法于天下后世也。故必有汤武之至德深仁，而又遇桀纣之昏乱失德，以汤武而遇桀纣，又要看天命，验民心，方可行得。然在圣人心中，终是不满，终不免以此为惭，岂后世莽、操等所得借口乎！盖圣人处此，只为常经到此穿绝，理势不得不变，所以就时地上裁制，不得已而为古今之通义，以持续天理耳。故此一种道理，非大圣人不能用。所以圣人说个未可与权，虚悬此理于天地间，而未敢轻以许人耳。今我皇上因父子之亲则剖析分示，推出此理，兼使弥天重犯得以闻所末闻，此诚不幸中之大幸事也。

    　　因回思我皇上子惠元元，尽六合而皆然，所以抚绥我辈赤子者，本元间于山西、湖广，而山西之民醇良，湖广民俗浇悍，几烦圣虑，叠沛皇恩，以尽抚我之道。今圣德谦光，圣教诚笃，深仁厚泽，归美圣祖。于此见湖南之民，不唯沐我皇上之深恩，当思忠顺，以事其上，即推想圣祖至德，亦无不当输诚尽分以竭其忠。

    　　况为民当身正义，处覆冒之下，既食毛而践土，君即不抚其民，民不可不仰戴其君者乎！思量到此，弥天重犯虽粉身碎骨，不足以偿万剐之罪，更有何说可以解脱！况弥天重犯既知感圣祖之深恩而持服尽哀，独不思推圣祖大德于我皇上而思忠孝顺？今明旨诘问及此，虽木石亦当动心，况弥天重犯身带血气，有不割肝泣泪者乎！所痛恨者，只为自居山谷，我皇上御极初年，大德尚未遍洽，即为奸言先入，以此递递叠闻，遂尔步步生疑。唯其有元年之流谤在心，是以后此之谣传得以入耳。而奸党造谤之大，皆与圣祖皇帝为仇为敌之事。以弥天重犯当日看得君父之伦重大，痛当身受圣祖皇帝四十余年抚绥之恩，吃紧此义，不觉透骨彻髓，只思报效于圣祖，思为圣祖皇帝之忠民义士，于义合当为圣祖皇帝舍身致死，以是妄萌悖逆之念，甘蹈赤族之诛而不辞耳。即谓惑于吕留良之悖论，在当时尚属第二、第三义。逆书虽有其说，然亦是看得君父之伦重，故以是劝岳钟琪耳。其实多为感圣祖皇帝之深恩大德起念，所以圣祖宾天，弥天重犯持服尽哀，发于至性。在当时悲思，竟有不堪对人者，每暗地流涕拭泪，在己亦不自知其何以至是。原无意于人知，以为忠孝是读书人本分事，为各人自尽之道，岂敢希冀人知！一著人知之念，即为伪矣。尚得有忠孝乎！

    　　前供所以说到此处者，只为弥天重犯犯此大罪，心事未易明白，故缘此以为证据耳。

    　　其实当日一片赤心肫切并未说到。故在当时，非弥天重犯全然死心，只为谮言流毒，多切紧圣祖皇帝身上。岂意我皇上大孝大德，为圣祖皇帝同德嫡体而更有光者乎！倘若弥天重犯以毫无影响之流言，不察真伪，而使肆为诬蔑。揆以君臣之义，情同父子之亲，彼人有诬弥天重犯之父以盗名，捏弥天重犯之母淫行，在弥天重犯情必不安，必察而辨之，且为之掩护之。而人于我皇上之诬捏，则遽信以为实，漠不加察，较之父子之情，相去悬绝，弥天重犯万死之罪，实无所逃。但当初之狂举妄动，而误信以为实者，亦以圣祖皇帝之恩德在人者深，为民者无不冀圣子圣孙之继其统。当时心中所期，以为处今日，即皇上偶有德不及圣祖处，在民间亦必为之掩护，不忍宣扬。今所闻如此，且以为言出于京城往来道路人口，并非起于民间，因妄疑圣祖皇帝非有仇于人者，而今日所闻如是，必有其因。况天子本四海之共主，人只有爱戴颂扬，谁甘不良而肯造言讪谤！是以弥天重犯当日，一为从未历过世路倾险，识透人情有此变诈；二为从未到过京师，得闻奸党如此阴毒；三为圣德高深，湖山万里，未得骤闻。因此三事未谙，以致谮谤流言得以乱听。

    　　况阿其那、塞思黑、允等之奸党，流布民间，本非一处一种。除充发广西外，尚有诡名变迹，借游学为名者，而其所诋诬圣德，多由谈文论学引入。山野蝼蚁，从何窥测其底里？因此不觉为之摇惑煽动。若奸党充发，所过省郡极多，不止湖南一省，即山西地方，岂无此等逆党流言？独不能惑人之听，而唯湖南奸民一闻蜚语，即起叛逆之心？夫奸人有心造谤，每乘人之虚而避人之实，诚以虚则吾言易入，实则吾言易识。故其不肯在山西、河南等近处传布者，以山西、河南等省离帝都近，往来者多，皇上之至德声称，人人所习闻，心中实而有主故也。惟湖南离帝都远，往来者少，我皇上之至德声称，未得遍洽，山谷知之者少，心中虚而易惑故也。非山西与湖南之民全异，实所处之地有不同也。

    　　至若谕旨以华夷之辨，推原于昔之历代人君不能中外一统，而自作此疆彼界之见。且谓明祖以元末奸民起事，恐人袭其故智，故汲汲以防民奸；其威德不足以抚有蒙古之众，故兢兢以防边患；以及先有猜疑百姓之心，而不能视为一体，又何以得心悦诚服之效？先有畏慎蒙古之意，而不能视为一家，又何以成中外一统之规？大哉皇言！既与天地同体，复与天地同用。于穆天也，而我皇上配对之，不见其不足；我皇上也，而天全体之，不见其有余。况见透汉、唐、宋、明几多英主隐曲作用，直同儿戏。不唯德量同天，心公到至处；而且眼界高出日月之上，明察到极处。此等境界，自古帝王所少到，而此等议论，自古圣人所未发。苟非我皇上身亲历到，焉能辨别到此至处，焉能包容到此极处，焉能阐发到此至微至细处！况复以感人之道，总归一诚，尤俨然活露天体之大矣。盖惟天至诚，惟其至诚，所以覆冒无外，感而遂通。故《中庸》言：“诚”，必推极于天，惟其诚能合乎天，所以高明光大，博厚悠久，与天无异世。此我皇上所以合蒙古，中国成一统之盛，凡天所覆冒者，俱归版图，凡属民生，皆当庆幸，岂有华夷中外之间哉！理到至处，行到极处，虽尧舜复起，亦不能赞一词。而我皇上不惟规模弘远，开中天之隆会；抑且道德广大，立万世之成规。人君不能修身配天，强分中外华夷，到此直堪耻无地矣。况欺世盗名，假窃圣言余唾以混理学之正者，逆天不亦甚欤！至是而益信我朝名义之正，德业之隆，诚极生民所未有世。猗欤盛哉！

    　　二十一、自称忠民义士的曾静，你为什么要甘愿赴蹈灭族死罪而谋反呢？

    　　奉旨讯问曾静：你供称“身居山谷，我皇上御极初年，大德尚未遍洽，即为奸言先入，遂尔步步生疑，后此入耳谣传，皆与圣祖皇帝为仇为敌之事。因身受圣祖皇帝四十余年抚绥之恩，思为忠民义士，是以妄萌悖逆之念，甘蹈赤族之诛”等语。

    　　你自雍正元年以来，讹传逆党之言，是朕之失德备闻于耳，而阿其那贤孝之名，及圣祖皇帝欲传位于允之事，亦入于耳。你既感圣祖皇帝之恩，即以朕为君父之仇敌，不克缵承大统，则亦当劝岳钟琪世受国恩，当仰承先帝之志，辅佐阿其那、允等以以继先帝之基业。何以竟将叛逆之事，掀动岳钟琪？况你逆书内分别华夷，直指圣祖皇帝为夷狄，如何尚说感戴圣祖皇帝四十余年抚绥之恩，思为忠民义士乎？可据实供来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯狂悖之举，按其罪，触处皆是，本无一线可生。苟非大圣人在上，德量同天，精明并日，本大公无我之怀，虚心体察，使顽逆隐情毕露，虽磔尸磨骨亦不足以偿当身莫大之罪，尚有何说可以疏解！今承恩旨讯问，前供所称身受圣祖皇帝四十余年抚绥之恩，思为忠民义士，则当劝岳钟琪仰承先帝之志，辅佐阿其那、允等，以继先帝之基业，何以竟将叛逆之事，掀动岳钟琪？况逆书分别华夷，直指圣祖皇帝为夷狄，如何尚说感戴圣祖皇帝四十余年抚绥之恩，思为忠民义士？究问及此，弥天重犯惶恐战栗，万死何逃！不惟无说可以仰答天聪，即自问亦无说可通了。今亲观圣德之高深，极生平所未有，感被皇恩之浩荡，彻骨髓而融洽。此所以心悦诚服，而痛悔当年狂悖之举，切齿于阿其那、塞思黑、允等之奸党造言流谤者以终天也。然苟非我皇上之德量同天，精明并日，亦只有杀而已矣，剐而已矣。今承旨问，从肝滴出一字一泪，实无半语只字可以仰答天聪，理屈辞穷，自如万死万剐莫偿，只有惶恐战惧而已矣。

    　　二十二、山西嘉祥兆瑞迭现，湖南连年水灾，这些说明什么？

    　　奉旨讯问曾静：前因山西绅士庶民运送军前骆驼鞍屉，自备车骡，不肯领价，踊跃急公，争先恐后，已将晋民情节谕你。今不旬日间，晋省保德州等处，遂有庆云呈献之瑞。据巡抚、学政、布政使三处奏报前来，特将奏折发与你看。朕从来不言祥瑞，但天人相感之理，实捷于影响。晋民怀尊君亲上之心，是以连年丰稔，今又蒙上天特锡嘉祥，以昭示福佑万民之象。可见从前湖南地方屡被水灾者，实因民风浇薄，又有你与张熙辈心怀悖逆，以致乖戾之气上干天和。此理显然昭著。但朕凉德，不能化导湖南百姓，亦不能辞其咎。你从此更当猛醒，知天之不可欺矣。你今仍怨谤朕一人乎？

    　　曾静供：自古称圣王励精图治，虽不言祥瑞，然到治定功成，而祥瑞自然协应；必到祥瑞协应时，而后称得治定功成。此《中庸》推学问之极功，圣神之能事，而必归到“天地位，万物育”上去者，此诚以大君之身，与天相配，其精神运量，与天相通。君能心与天心融通无间，而克符合一，则和气致祥，自然云日辉煌，藻彩缤纷，以及河清海晏，万物顺成，百福骈集。若君心稍有一点与天心不相符合，则戾气致异，一切反是，此理之大致一定不易者。但其中不能尽同，亦微有辨。盖有君尽其道，而臣庶不能仰体君心，此又以君为天，君心为天心，臣庶之心不能仰体君心，即与天心相违，所以亦能致异。此普天之下，所以有嘉祥灾异之不能尽同也。恭惟我皇上克体天心，克肖天德，励精图治，仁恩厚泽，遍浴寰宇。其效至于薄海内外，物阜民康，皆歌乐育，礼陶乐淑，共被洪钧。惟圣心与天心合一，君德与天德无间，所以天和见彩，地灵垂祥，大者如五星聚、黄河清，嘉谷蓍芒，百瑞叠呈。我皇上天人感孚，成自古未有之治功，以只褡怨盼醇鹫鳎死碇萦谟跋於抟烧咭？？

    　　至于近者晋省庆云捧日，外绕三环，光华四射，藻彩缤纷，与湖南数年歉收，旱涝叠闻，灾异间见，其理复异者，何也？诚以晋省民心醇厚，知恩感戴，民心能仰体君心，一切输诚奉公之事，无不踊跃争先。故于办理驼屉之会，而天垂祥瑞，以协人心之顺。若湖南虽同处覆冒之下，而民俗浇滴，不能仰体我皇上之心，加恩而不以为恩，被德而竟忘其德。加以弥天重犯等之狂悖丧心，不惟不知我皇上之大德合天，而竟不能安业顺化。是湖南庶兆之心多与我皇上之圣心相违。即与天违，所以厉气致异，而灾寝独屡见于湖南也。但此理甚显示甚微，非我皇上精通性命之源，素能默契乎天，而复能与天合一，焉能知之！弥天重犯到今日读所报闻诸嘉祥奏折，并我皇上所讯问谕旨之理观之，不惟信我皇上之至德毫无瑕累，实实与天合一。在弥天重犯将插翅遍飞遍传，破谮除谤之不暇，岂尚复为谮谤所惑之理！抑且自痛悔当年狂悖之举，诚得罪于天，而不意今日戴天广大之德，推原致罪之由，宽宥以至于此极也。

    　　二十三、云贵两地民风淳厚，服教乐善，以至感召丰收大稔，正是天人感应昭著啊！

    　　奉旨问曾静：湖南地方，人心诈伪，风俗浇滴，而督抚大吏又不能宣朕之威德，化导愚民，以致风雨不时，灾屡作。云贵总督鄂尔泰实能体朕之心，教养百姓，而民风淳厚，又能服教乐善，以此感召天和。云南连岁大稔，而贵州今年通省丰收，所产嘉谷，岐穗繁多，科粒硕大，为从来所未见。今将贵州巡抚张广泗奏本，及所进嘉谷图样与你看，天人感应之理，显然昭著如此，你再有何说？

    　　曾静供：天人感应之理，捷于影响，弥天重犯已曾供过，不敢复赘。今观贵州巡抚所进献瑞图，共四十六种。稻谷粟米之多，有一茎两穗至十五六穗不等；稻谷有每穗四五百粒至七百粒数之多者；粟米有每穗长一尺八九寸至二尺有奇者。不惟从来目所未见，实从古耳所未闻。此必贵州人民被服圣教，革面涤心，输诚向化，熙乐利，一团忠顺太和之气，上应我皇上励精图治之苦心，于我皇上之大德无不洽，至教无不通，道德齐礼之化，无不顺应协从。所以与云南、山西等省同一尊亲爱戴之诚，上召天和，是以或垂天锦以示祥，或著地灵以呈瑞。其事虽异，其理则一也。惟湖南虽与山西、贵州、云南等省同居覆冒之下，同受生成之恩，而数年以来灾异屡见者，何也？实因阿其那、塞思黑、允、允等之奸党将圣德诋诬，造言惑乱，而湖南之民无知轻听，妄以我皇上之德，果如奸人之谤，各怀不平而怨咨嗟议，反以数年灾为皇德之亏所致。岂知我皇上以亘古未有之至德深仁而湮郁远鄙，是以上天震怒，屡示灾异，以遗责湖南之民。则湖南之民乃不知省，反听信奸党之谤而致怨乎上，故怨愈深而灾愈厉。盖湖南之多灾与贵州、云南、山西等省致祥，其事虽殊，其理实同，同一上天眷佑我皇上之大德所致。贵州、山西、云南等省之致祥，是贵州、山西、云南等省之民，能仰体我皇上之大德，各尽忠顺之道而乐业安化，皇上至德舒畅四达而无隔碍，所以和气融通而能致祥。

    　　湖南之多灾，是湖南之民不能仰体我皇上之大德，胸存悖逆之念，不肯安业乐化，皇上至德间隔湖山而多郁结，所以戾气否塞而能致灾。所谓同一上天眷佑我皇上之大德，实因我皇上之大德亘古未有，所以既有此等应处，又有此等异处。今弥天重犯得见阿其那、塞思黑、允、允等及伊等平日所蓄养之匪类等所供谤议，恰与湖南百姓所闻无异，于此见得奸党上误国家，下害生民，蓄心狠毒，一至于此。若非我皇上仁孝诚敬之至，上细于天，素孚于祖，感通默相，焉能使诸奸尽行败露，恶迹如此昭彰！而我皇上之大德，转因此光明显烁，耀中天。所谓“仲尼，日月也，人虽欲自绝，其何伤于日月乎！”此理至今日而益验矣。到此实实信得我皇上之德，超越古今，与天、与圣祖一而二，二而一，并无毫发彼此之间，故能为圣祖所笃爱，上天所眷佑，而天理响应如是，报验如是。

    　　二十四、孔庙失火和庆云出现是礼乐制度遭受厄运的灾异呢，还是文明光华的祥瑞呢？

    　　奉旨讯问曾静：你从前逆书内云“于今正值斯文厄运，是以孔庙焚毁”。今据督修庙工之通政使留保奏报：“十一月二十六日午刻，正当孔庙大成殿大梁之前二日，庆云现于曲阜县。形若芝英彩凤，五色缤纷，正南、东、西三面拱日朝阳，历久益加绚烂。万目共睹，无不称庆”等语。今将留保所奏之折及庆云图发与你看，还是斯文厄运之灾异？还是文明光华之祥瑞？你今又如何说？

    　　曾静供：道之在天下，本无处不有，无人不备，特凡民为气禀所拘，物谷所蔽，是以有的不适如其有，备的不能果见其备。故聪明睿智之资，气禀清明，义理昭著，生知安行，千万人中无一见焉，甚或数千年无一遇焉。然一有之，则天必命之以为亿兆之君师，所谓“禀聪明作元后，元后作民父母”。又曰“天降下民，作之君，作之师。”是君与师原属一道，并未尝有岐，此尧舜、禹汤、文武之世，所以只有君之重，并无师之名，盖以君职原兼师职故也。唯至春秋战国，二帝三王之道熄，时有孔子生安之圣，厄而在下，当时仁义之风微，功利之习兴。一时功名之士，以治天下为另有一种权谋术数之学。于是群指孔子为师道，而称君德者，视此则有彼此之分。

    　　而孔子之所谓仁义道德者，每多置而不讲。历汉及唐以至于明，二千余年，孔道晦塞，未有能明能行。孔道不明不行，又安望其有虞、夏、商、周之治效乎！惟我朝圣祖皇帝得尧舜、孔子之心传，是以六十余年，深仁厚泽，遍及薄海内外，已媲美于虞、夏、商、周。我皇上以天之聪，生安之资，加以初潜四十余年，研深味道之功，其于尧、舜、孔子之道，合圣祖家学精蕴而久已集其大成。不惟与尧、舜、孔子之心传无二，抑且于圣祖一切政治而更有光矣。此所以天人感应，随时随地莫不信而有征。盖有亘古未有之道德，自能成亘古未有之治功；有亘古未有之治功，斯能备亘古未备之休征，此理之一而不易者。兹因山东孔庙大成殿庙上梁之前二日，而庆云五彩捧日，光华融露于曲阜县，此盖孔子之圣，浑全一团天理，孔子之心即天心。今圣心与孔子之心为一，即是与天心为一。而祥瑞见于曲阜，适在兴修圣庙之会者，乃上天所以嘉予圣心与孔子之心为一处，比泛见于云、贵、山西等省，其庆幸为更大，其盛德之合于孔子，而感孚上天者为更极其至。此所以为一无之中，文明光华极盛之会，而为生民所未有也。弥天重犯从前无知，并不知天之高，地之厚，所以以为流言摇惑，而为是万剐之说，悔恨无及。今既含生被化于天高地厚之中，自验知之比他人更深，信之比他人更笃，到此只有尊之亲之，爱之戴之，传颂以为亘古未有此文明光华之圣德神功而已，更有何说。

    曾静供词五条

    　　一、皇上嗣位以来，是五谷丰登，人民乐业？还是四时易序，五谷少成？

    　　问曾静：你书内云“五六年之内，四时寒暑易序，五谷耕作少成，恒雨恒，荆、襄、岳、常等郡，连年洪水，吴、楚、蜀、粤，到处旱涝时闻”等语。皇上嗣位以来，阴阳和顺，风雨时调，五谷丰收，人民乐业。各省之内，间有数州县旱涝不齐，即动帑赈济，民获全安。今你所说四时易序，五谷少成，确是何年、何月、何地呢？吴、楚、蜀、粤到处旱涝，确有何见呢？至于荆、襄、岳、常之地，有你这样狂背逆乱之人，伏藏匿处其间，秉幽险乖戾之气，致阴阳愆伏之干，以肆扰天常为心，以更弃人理为志，自然江水泛涨，示儆一方。灾祸之来，实因你一人所致。你知道么？有何说处？

    　　曾静供：这是弥天重犯僻处山谷，正如坐井议天模样，不知天壤内如许广大，见偶尔一处旱涝，遂谓旱涝时闻，不知时序调和，丰收乐业，不旱不涝者，此外遍地皆是。此正不得事体之实，而其根实由眼孔小，不通世事之故也。且当时实不知皇上深居九重，视民间疾苦直如赤子，一遇偶尔旱涝，即动帑赈救，且免其赋供。弥天重犯今日始知圣恩高厚，虽尧舜不过如此，则愚顽无知之罪，实所甘受。一民狂背，皆足致灾，此则非精通天人之故者不能知，弥天重犯闻之，豁然如大寐初醒，虽朝闻夕死，亦实幸矣。

    　　二、雍正皇帝是励精图治，爱抚百姓，还是谣言所传的虐待百姓呢？　　

    　　问曾静：你书内云“抚我则后，虐我则仇”等语。我皇上夙夜孜孜，勤求治理，爱养百姓之心，无时不切于寤寐，无事不备其周详。屡年来大沛恩泽，薄海黎庶，莫不均沾。旧欠钱粮，蠲免几及千万，江浙等处浮粮，每年减免六十余万；至于赈恤蠲除，以及豁免之处，其数至多；南北黄、运河工、堤工，兴修水利，开种稻田，察吏安民，弭盗除奸，一切实心实政，日昃不遑。其所以抚天下之百姓者，洵乃养育诚求，如保赤子，所以抚之者至矣。海宇内外，无不深元后之戴。今你不以为抚，而以为虐；不以为后，而以为仇。此是何肺肠？且虐民者何事？你将所见实说。

    　　曾静供：皇上至德深仁，遍及薄海内外，其用意于民，固可谓亘古少媲。弥天重犯住在远方，不晓世事，不知天高地厚之恩，但见承平岁久，生齿繁多，远方之民，富者田多，而贫者或至无田。皇上屡年大沛恩泽，蠲免旧欠，减免浮粮，动计几百万，扶养非不极其至，然只有田业者，饱饫其惠，而无田业的，多致憾于雨露之不均。直至旧年到省，今年来京，方知皇上有几多爱养善所，有几多扶绥经画，端拱深宫，忧勤惕厉，无事不周，无微不到，且无时无刻不以天下苍生为念。功德昭然在目，传颂哄然满耳。自古圣帝贤君，用意加惠于民，称元后，颂父母，载之史册，垂之经典。以今准古，实所罕闻。此今日海宇内外，所以共深元后之戴。以弥天重犯如此狂诋，如此触冒，尚有几多钦恤，几多宽仁，恩惠频施，被服愧悔，直不啻如天如地之感。则天下之大，四海九州之广，无一发一物不在涵育生成之内，尤不等言矣。弥天重犯前之所以不以为抚，而以为虐者，总为谣言所掩隔，遂使帝德难名，食其力者忘其力，王道同天，蒙其化者自不知其化耳。

    　　三、皇上调拨粮食是平抑物价，还是倒卖粮食做生意？　

    　　问曾静：据你在湖南供称，有“皇帝使人从四川贩米至江南苏州发卖”，又云“广东、广西发卖水银”等语。这卖米事情，乃外省督抚条奏：江浙地方人多米贵，请动帑项于产米省份，采运平粜以济民食。此是古人移粟之道，且此项运到米石，皆减价粜卖于民，于正项钱粮尚有亏折。如何说贩米石争小民之利呢？至水银之事，乃因原任贵州巡抚金世扬亏空库帑，不能完交。署巡抚石礼哈奏称：金世扬有动帑收贮水银，可以变价完公。皇上允其所请，令于广东发卖，乃系保全金世扬身家性命，实出宽大之特恩。你如何说为争民之利呢？但此二事皆有其因，你在何处听来？须将传说之人供出。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯于这些事，当时都不晓得皇上神奇作为，经纬妙用。从四川贩米至江南苏州发卖的事，这等谣传，是这些往来搬家去四川的百姓回来说；广东发卖水银，是因走广东往永兴县过，弥天重犯是永兴县人，虽住居离县城百数十里，而乡间常有人在县来往，传得此说，并非远方人说。岂知卖米是移此就彼，乃酌盈济虚，圣人裁成辅相之能事，而平粜与减价尤一视同仁，万物各得其所之献谋。至变卖水银完公，则又体恤群臣，使法无犯而事得济，且有以见天地含弘之量，物各因物，而无伤于其中也。此皆帝王之运量，小民不知皇上苦心，遂至妄传，以为卖米、卖水银。而弥天重犯彼时莫知圣虑高深，遂误信以为争民之利，不知此乃利民之大者也。诬上之罪何逃！

    　　四、雍正皇帝是有好生之德，还是草菅人命，滥杀无辜？

    　　问曾静：你在湖南供内有“极好杀人，京城凛凛”等语。我皇上如天好生，自元年以来，凡矜恤民命之案，不可枚举。即今四月十一日以后，现有督抚及刑部拟定之案，如云南之黑夜杀人八十二岁老妇何氏一案；广东之殴伤服叔谢伯达一案；江西之不知情奸妇刘氏一案；安庆之误伤兄命郭国正一案；浙江之误伤妻命曹道生一案；山西之父为代首之劫盗查声闻一案。凡有一线可生者，皆令九卿详议，从宽减等。又逃纵之窃盗赵玉等一案，私铸钱文之张仙等一案。或以愚人未知定例，或情罪稍轻，俱从宽减。至同殴庶母之曹一案，以情罪尚轻，不忍处以极典，命确查定议。其廷臣所议，如定捕役治罪之例，符咒作奸之例，皆以未曾议及通行晓谕，及与以遵奉之期，敕部另行详议。此数日之内，成谳具在，可逐件与你详看。难道曾静未到之先，皇上预知你来，特为此详刑之事，以示宽大之恩么！这传说纷纷，“极好杀人”之说，确有何人枉杀？确于何年何月日滥杀一人？并传说何人？你须一一据实说来。

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯始以不知人情世事，误听谣言，发狂作悖，而身陷极恶大罪。自事发到长沙，及今大半年，旁听市井传颂，历睹当世休嘉，乃知圣德渊深，光被四表，原无丝毫瑕类，久为普天所共仰。到京以来，无一时一刻不痛悔感泣，惶愧悚栗，不惟无面见人，抑且无地自容，加以皇恩屡颁，更觉受恩愈重，罪过愈深。古今来有这样圣天子抚绥万方，直及于禽兽不如之重罪者乎！复蒙谕旨下问，于本月十一日，大人仰承旨意，恭捧皇上御批九卿所奏民间重案，国典条例，弥天重犯跪伏阶前，敬读感服，不觉慌恐汗背。虽圣虑高深，不能仰测毫末，而一种体天好生之德，焦劳爱养之念，盎然见于御批之下，实足令人感泣无穷。

    　　如云南所奏之黑夜杀人，以主谋造意，归于八十二岁之老妇，拟斩。复将其子何汪、何世逵、何永杰为同谋加功拟绞。盖妇人夫死，义当从子，何汪何故不谏止其母，而轻从八十余岁之老母以杀人，且开场下手打伤，何汪已有明供，似难更扯别人拟抵罪，而黑夜抱草烧尸，尤非八十余岁之妇人所能，今以何氏拟斩，复以三子拟绞，似伤民命太多。

    　　又广东之殴伤服叔，此因争祭田，县断银田，两未交清，谢日习亦不合持棍至谢伯逵门首詈骂，与平昔越分无礼，强悍而殴尊属致死者，必竟不同。

    　　又江西之不知情奸妇，此通奸在前，谋杀在后，两事不相涉。光离居又已多年，刘氏夫妻之义未绝，且有子八岁，岂肯弃夫以从奸！律之所谓“奸夫自杀其夫，奸妇虽不知情，绞而监候”者，此正就通奸时看，非若刘氏之别居有年，此时并无奸意萌发也。此三条圣虑通微，照及民隐，所以不肯依拟，而敕九卿议奏也。

    　　又江西之误伤兄命，此郭国正、郭国宾兄弟相好，素无嫌隙，因催丁钱小事，拂意生怨，且先是郭国宾以酒壶掷国正不中，而郭国正拾原壶反击郭国宾，以致殒命。初非立意杀兄，执凶向前殴击致死，是以改应斩监候。又曹道生之妻汪氏不循妇道，夫索茶不与，嗔责不受，反拾石还击，以头撞夫。道生气忿，乃用柴片连殴，以致殒命。此是汪氏自失三纲大义，非本无犯而道生有意欲杀，律当拟绞也。皇上从宽枷责完结，不惟使夫妇之义正，而钦恤之恩，益觉有加而无已矣。又查声闻虽盗首，实非本意行劫，乃误听李瞎子之言，志在焚毁契券，以图复占。此愚民无知，情有可原，所以一经伊父代首，圣心之念切，意许原例从宽免死，此皆一线可生，我皇上不忍置之死地也。

    　　又如赵玉、田群、刘五以犯盗监禁逃纵，例当加倍治罪。圣虑谓此本系行窍愚人，未必知有逃纵加倍治罪之例，其所犯罪，仍照旧拟。且敕部颁饬天下衙门，将新例张示禁门，使犯罪囚人，入监即知。又私铸钱文，律斩立决。张仙等私铸，睿照分出张仙以造卖铜器为业，因禁止黄铜器皿，遂将所存之铜私铸钱文，其罪与公行私铸者有间，着改为应斩监候，秋后处决。是不惟钦恤民命到至处尽处，并分出小民犯科到公私之极处，所谓茧丝牛毛辨析精微，竟至如此。

    　　又如曹同殴庶母，照律拟凌迟，似亦当罪。御批乃谓当孙氏挑唆曹霍柽，共殴狄氏之时，曹先不在旁，孙氏差使女小春唤至。曹听从父母之命，助殴狄氏，而狄氏至九日殒命，是曹虽行殴击，原无致死之心。曹著改应斩监候，秋后处决。盖因案呈有“孙氏差使女小春往唤曹”

    　　句，从此一句，遂推原曲谅，恰当其情，恰合其事。我皇上神明照烛，无微不到，又至如此。又如周元伯与周见南比屋而居，因舂米争碓，彼此詈骂，而周见南遂为周元伯殴伤。部议应斩立决，而旨下九卿议奏，不忍遽尔依议。看来皇上抚育天下苍生，纯是以道，并无一点用法之迹。盖道无定体，随时随地，变易无常，非大圣人之智虑精微，明聪天纵者不能用；法虽从道出，然一落乎法，就拘泥执滞，不能活变了。所以先儒谓三代以道治世，后世以法把持天下。如后世贤君算汉文、景，然文、景得黄老之术，全是以法，故谓黄老清静，流于惨刻。如犯死者，依法即以死抵，并不肯留心于其中推原曲谅其致死犯罪之由，任天下事来，皆以成法成例断之，所以得以清静无为。岂若皇上仁心恳至，全副精神尽用在民身上，宵衣旰食，至劳至勤，有几多斟酌裁制，权度时中，大用在其中，卓然与尧舜、禹汤同归一致。

    　　又如御批捕役治罪之例，符咒作奸之例，必须通行晓喻与以遵奉之期。凡有改定科条，俱宽其期限，悉令家喻户晓，如此而犹有不率教者，加以严惩，始为不枉。今法司更定律例，而不示以遵行之期，则彼无知之人，冒昧而犯重辟，是谓不教而杀，于心忍乎！看到此处，觉得一种念切生民之隐，此文王之视民如伤，更切更笃，惟恐民之无知，而自陷于法，这就是个天了。盖皇上宸宫，浑同天体，天之元气流行，直贯四时，故当秋肃，未尝不寓春生之机于其间，所以皇上用刑，亦有几多宽仁慈惠的苦心流贯于其中。故未事之先，既有许多善政善教，以移民恶而迁于善；万一偶入于刑，所以体恤而原谅之者，又无所不极其至。即今四月十一以后，数日之内，略举数端，莫非“肫肫其仁”之发。况前乎此者，不知几万千；所经纶裁制神运无方，常情不可得知者，又不知几万千。由是看来，皇上之好生德洽，施及薄海，固难以数计矣。

    　　况皇上勤民之下，敬天之念，尤无一时少懈，一时放过。如御批衍圣公孔传铎之奏贺卿云本章，江南学院李凤翥之奏贺瑞芝本章，一字未安，一义未当，亦所不受，皆不肯以臣工颂扬之词略过。而圣谕所颁，谓“朕之事天，亦犹臣之事君也。臣之视君也，以为九重之尊；而以人君视天，其相越之分，又不啻九重而已也。设以属员颂其上官，而称为‘上所崇奉’，或称为‘福与君齐’，彼为上官者，能安受而不战栗乎！今以‘效灵齐天’等语见诸奏章，其背理慢神，何以异是？”

    　　细玩此段，虽皇上德隆心下，谦光自贲，其实理正义大，至精至当，至实至透，为自古圣君哲后所少到，自当永为万世之法程。况皇上敬德之至，心细之极，一字之讹落，皆为睿鉴所洞照。如李凤翥贺本内，讹“赉”字的“赍”字，总督示其倬题参蔡国骏本，案呈内有“勒索官兵饷银二三两”句，落“两”字，经历多少衙门对过，多少大臣用心看过而不及，到今皆为皇上摘出、指出。自古帝王一日万机，多听内阁分理，即所阅览臣工本章，亦只看贴黄，贴黄尚虑不能周，何暇及于案呈！况案呈已经许多官员查照不出，而能知之乎！即此不惟见皇上留心国政，至周至密，抚育苍生，至劳至苦，而且见圣学主敬之纯。盖所谓敬者，无一毫苟且，无一事轻忽，神聚到极处，心细到至处，无一不极其精，无一不尽其详而已矣。故帝尧称圣以钦德为先，孔圣修己以持敬为本，而《中庸》归宿学问到尽头处，亦曰“笃恭而天下平。”

    　　今我皇上细密如此，正所谓“先圣后圣，同揆合符”者也。

    　　弥天重犯山野庸鄙，毫无知识，岂能仰测天地之大！但今日蒙旨下问，直据所见而心悦诚服如此，其实皇上经纬大用，参赞弘谟，弥天重犯何人何物？从何得知？况从前僻处深山，全未识睹天日，即有意见，亦属蝼蚁度天，何处测其高深？所以谣言一入于耳，即信以为实。今承大人捧出本章，有说马廷锡讹传说：皇上因钦天监启奏，紫微星落在福建地方，为此特差大人赴闽，凡三岁以上，九岁以下男子，尽行诛灭。现有巴兰泰一同听见可据。若使弥天重犯当日听闻，一定以为实事而笔之于书矣，小民无知，大率多同，况弥天重犯尤处深山穷谷中，为小民无知中之无知者！必到今日，一路所听闻如此，所目见如此，身亲被皇恩如此，今日又亲目看见皇上用意于民如此，焦劳于治政如此，方实实信得皇上德同天地，明并日月。

    　　从前在长沙，蒙三位大人屡将圣德宣传，心下虽亦信服，而犹未脱夫旧惑之深也，至今方拨云雾而睹青天，朗然日月之当心，自是知之明、见之切矣。但憾身陷法网，不能旋归故里，宣传皇上大德遍覆，如天如地；圣哲精明，如日如月；洪慈爱养，如父如母。使亲戚故旧，邻里乡党以及沿途所过市井都邑，共传圣神文武，共庆有道天子，共歌太平盛世。且使山陬海，共愤共恶造言流谤者之奸，而憾不共食其肉而寝处其皮，未免死难瞑目，深痛无以报皇上之万一耳。

    　　五、雍正皇帝是霸嫂为妃，还是按照惯例让她们居在别宫呢？

    　　问曾静：你在湖南供内，有“将二爷的妃嫔收了”等语。当日密亲王之妃，于康熙五十七年内已经病故。其余宫人等，密亲王病故之后，皇上念理郡王难以养赡多人，或至少有失所，于密亲王甚有关系。是以特降谕旨，令理郡王之生母分别区处，并传旨询问诸人，若有仍愿居宫中者，悉如圣祖皇帝之老妃居守寿宫之例。于时宫人有愿居宫中者，皇上令其另居别宫，厚加廪给以赡养之。此是皇上加恩密亲王宫人之盛德，凡宫中之人及廷臣所共知者。今你这话从何处来？又你以密亲王为三爷，语虽讹传，必有乱说的人，你可据实供出。

    　　曾静供：收妃嫔的话，是雍正五年五六月内，往来路上人传说，衡州路上押解一个犯官过，他如此说。弥天重犯听得此话不察，妄以为此话自犯官说出，毕竟是实事。其实到今日，万万记想个传说的人不出，亦不知是个什么犯官，查朝中那年那时月，有什么犯官往衡州过就晓得。直至旧年到长沙，所得舆论，方知皇上清心寡欲，励精图治，至勤至劳，非纯乎天理而无一毫人欲者，那得如此精明为国，如此焦劳为民！后复闻钦差大人宣传圣德无瑕，又伏读圣谕，表里无憾，恰与在长沙舆论符合。弥天重犯到此，益信得从前传闻，全无影响，况加恩宫人，厚赐赡养，乃圣主仁民爱物，发政施仁，必自亲亲托始之意，而谣言竟传以为收宫妃，岂不深可痛憾！凡此十余供，非弥天重犯畏死幸生，故为此语，实因奉拿出谷，见闻渐广，实见得皇上道德政教，从来未有，感戴奋兴，自愧不得为圣世之良民，故痛憾至此。其实自供自吐处，内多理屈词穷，义失气馁，所以语言无序，不成说话，且山野愚夫，从未知拜奏陈词，体式不免乖讹错谬之失。而自到京以来，又愧悔切心，感泣耗神，四肢整顿不起，惶恐战栗，手指颤震，点画并不成字，千万叩首，仰请圣照。

    雍正上谕忠诚报国、公正无私的岳钟琪与叛逆曾静有鲜明的对照

    　　雍正七年六月初二日，内阁奉上谕：朕从前所批岳钟琪奏折，偶检几件，发与曾静看。朕与岳钟琪，君臣之际，一德一心。在岳钟琪之忠诚报国，公正无私，实自古大臣中所罕见；而朕以至诚御下，恩眷大臣，亦极倚任之优崇。洵为上下交孚，明良盛事。且朕所批岳钟琪奏折甚多，此不过百分中之一分，而折内加恩岳钟琪之处，亦不过百分中之一分，而曾静乃欲上书劝之谋反，岂非醉生梦死，冥顽无知之人乎！此乃天道不容，令其自行败露也。查曾静逆书内，有传闻岳钟琪两次进京陛见，俱不允行，岳钟琪深自危疑，因而上书等语。曾静平昔夷狄之见，横介于胸中，又闻此无根之语，不觉其逆心之愈炽，遂为此孟浪之举。但此传闻之说，必有所自来，著曾静确实供出。以曾静之所犯如此大罪，今尚蒙朕之宽宥，则传说浮言者，若能悔改，亦必从宽贷，况传说者未必即为造言之人，若由曾静供出之人，转究造言之缘起，则此事可得归结。着杭奕禄、海兰详悉宣示曾静。钦此。

    　　一、我曾静这个文弱书生是怎样成为弥天重犯的？

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯幼承父训读书，粗知仰体朝廷作养人材之意，不肯虚度岁月，自了其生。平常有志于圣贤《大学》之道，期勉强躬行实践，以副朝廷之望。无奈身处幽僻山谷，名人文士足迹不到，而慈父弃世又早，且家贫力单，势不能出外远游，就正有道。直到中年，得知吕留良为文人所宗，而其议论，亦间有几处与本心相合者，遂不觉好之，妄引为修身之助。其中有论《论语》上问管仲两章，以为此乃论圣贤出处节义之大，且有说华夷之分，大过于君臣之义等语。遂妄听其说，以为士子立身，必先从出处起脚。初不知本朝列圣相承，备极礼乐文明之盛，亘千古所未有，与《论语》当时所指，何啻天悬地隔。因先错看此文在胸，适值雍正四、五两年，湖广、广东等处百姓搬家到四川，往还间有从弥天重犯门前过者，传说西边有个岳公，甚爱百姓，得民心，西边人最肯服他。

    　　那传说的百姓也不知道岳公是什么名字，是甚官职。后到雍正五年冬，弥天重犯前次所供何立忠，传说陕西有个总督，其肯尽忠爱民，当今皇帝每每过疑他，防他权重，屡次召他进京，要削夺他的兵权，杀戮他。那总督畏惧，连召几次不敢进京，皇上见得他守死不肯进京，转疑得深了。继而因这总督原是朝中大臣朱轼保举的人，皇上随遣大臣朱轼亲到陕西召那总督，那总督不得已，同朱轼一齐进京陛见，奏说皇上用人莫疑、疑人莫用等语。皇上听说如此，也就如此轻带过，又见他亲身来了，前疑稍释，乃复遣他回陕西去。

    　　那总督不肯去，要人保他方肯去。皇上问朱轼，朱轼不肯保，又问九卿大臣，九卿大臣亦不敢保，皇上乃亲自保他去了。出京门方四日，又有个大臣奏本，说那总督与大臣朱轼，内外阴结党援，观皇上屡次召那总督进京，那总督不肯进京，则他目中无君命可知。

    　　乃朱轼到他任上，他又不疑，而欣然进京，则他与朱轼为心腹又可知。今日回归陕西，朱轼是原保举的人，理应保他，乃又不保，此是朱轼脱身之法，明晓得那总督将来必有变志，所以不保他，期后日皇上责备他不得。于是皇上翻悔无及，前疑愈坚，乃差姓吴名荆山的朝官去赶追那总督，那总督不肯转身，这朝官吴荆山就在路上自刎了。于是这总督到任，随上本章，说皇上有如许不是处。此是何立忠在永兴县十九都石枧村，低声独自告诉弥天重犯的话。在何立忠当日，竟记不得那总督的姓名，他也只听说有此事。弥天重犯闻得此话，以为那上本的总督，毕竟晓得宫中事情的确，方敢如此直言。后又闻得弥天重犯前次所供陈象侯说，茶陵州有个陈帝锡，传说有个本章，其上本的臣子，姓岳名钟琪。弥天重犯到此方知前所传甚爱百姓之岳公者，即岳钟琪也，岳钟琪即何立忠所传之陕西总督也。其实当时发狂作悖，因先吃紧吕留良华夷之谬论在胸，复闻得何立忠、陈象侯传说陈帝锡所说有个本章如此，又适值四、五两年收成不好，遂孟浪有是举。谁知事事与所闻如寒暑昼夜之相反，而身徒犯一个极恶莫大的罪过。

    　　到今日弥天重犯伏读皇上朱批岳钟琪奏折，方知皇上之至诚御下，并无一点疑贰之心，而大德感人，恩礼又复两极其至。

    　　而岳钟琪之仰体圣心，委身报国，亦无一点避嫌之迹，而其赤忠血诚，一片敬事之念，到此也无以复加。即此处张熙一事而论，夫论道义到至精至当，不可毫发移易，而其谨慎周密，小心精详，不动声色，不露形迹，而自然使人献诚抒悃于其前。此非临事而惧，好谋而成者不能到，况其聪明睿智，更多神武而不杀者乎！

    　　此所谓君圣臣贤，元首股肱，同称一体；而上下交孚，一德一心，不啻如父之视子，子之事父之切。且于此有以见得我皇知人之明，用人之当，委人之专，任人之诚，渊衷至虚至明，处事至中至正，亘千古而罕觏。此天下之贤良才俊，抱道蓄德之儒，焉得不共聚一朝而乐为之用，各致其力，各致其身哉。弥天重犯到此，翻思从前以犯悖之举，献议于岳钟琪，实为醉生梦死，冥顽无知，更有何说！但当时虽是弥天重犯罪大恶极，天道不容，所以自行败露至此；其实弥天重犯此举，莫之为而为，觉得有个人在身后催促之使动一样，此不是今日方敢如此说，当时《知几录》上亦略言及此意，难逃圣明洞鉴。所不解者，弥天重犯自反，当身虽为禽兽，其实平日并无半点过恶得罪于天，而祖父以来，历世积善，常言三代行善人家，在弥天重犯的祖父，可称得一句十代积善人家，不知如何流到弥天重犯的身上，竟犯一个赤族磔尸的大罪。且事发奉拿之会，弥天重犯闻得此信，自料当身固不免于寸磔万剐，而且遗祸于家门，忧愤填心，决计自尽。此时思欲望火投火，望水投水，以求速死，以免诛连，然竟不能得死，彼时解此缘故不得。

    　　到今日想来，若使弥天重犯当时即死，不惟皇上不得洞鉴弥天重犯致罪之由，且皇上深居九重，又何由知得外面许多奸回造谤，有许多悖义兴讥？且事到今日，以弥天重犯如是之罪，蒙皇恩如是之宽宥，今又传旨释放弥天重犯之老母幼子，并悯念弥天重犯等炎暑过伤，命医调和，惟恐不得其所。

    　　然若弥天重犯生民未有之大罪，亦无以显皇上生民未有之大德。由是看来，弥天重犯无为而为，当年有此狂悖之举，求死不死，今日得蒙宽宥之典。皆因皇上道隆德盛，以天理言之，不当妄诋；本朝名正言顺，以天道方之，不可轻议。所以皇天笃佑，故默使弥天重犯之山鄙无知，冒昧上书于皇上一德同心之大臣，以显皇上之大德如天于山陬海，表本朝得统之正于地久天长。不然，湖山万里之外，奸党之流谤，何由得知？穷乡陋儒之胸，吕留良之逆说，何由得解？岂不全是个天在此主持默使！至若谓传言之人，弥天重犯以如是之罪，尚蒙皇上宽赦之典，则传说浮言者，若能悔改，亦必从宽贷。况传说者未必即是造言者，谕旨煌煌，早已体恤及隐，弥天重犯何所顾虑？而敢于隐匿，忍于隐匿，以负我皇上天高地厚之恩乎！除前此所供外，实实别未有人传说。

    　　二、我张熙久居僻壤穷乡，怎么会误入歧途，随师造反呢？

    　　张熙供：重犯愚暗浅陋，生长山隈，如蛙囿井。但身处光天化日之下，少小颇知以读书从学为大，然竟不知读书之错，从学之误，其害一至于此也。盖因重犯家世寒微，人文科第，寂寞无闻；僻外穷乡，无缘得见贤士大夫，以正其趣而发其蒙。迨后年二十五，始见有郴州永兴县曾静入学文字，原评为湖南第一卷，心窃慕之，遂欲负芨从游几席之下。在重犯只知学问是务，并不知有所谓人间事；彼时犯师曾静亦闭门扫轨，甘穷守寂，惟日以前言往行及近世文章道德指授。后因乡穷无书可读，于前岁承犯师曾静命，以四书五经之大全，以及朱子语类文集，隔于河山之险阻，要重犯往各省购求。因至浙江吕留良家买书，偶见其家有诗稿一本，重犯素闻犯师曾静说，吕留良评选时文论头批语，说理据章句集注，为近世名儒。因此即以其诗为必高，遂求取以归。

    　　犯师曾静看见其中有《钱墓松歌》及《题如此江山图》，始而怪，即而疑，继而信。以为吕留良生长江浙大地，其议论文章为天下人宗，夫岂有差？又限于素来不识本朝得统之正远迈商、周之盛，因此华夷之见横介于中心，加之当今皇帝之龙德贤于尧舜者，无由得知于云山万里之僻壤。而犯师曾静，初以错会华夷之分，而误听谣言蛊惑，既以误听谣言蛊惑，而大昧夫君臣之大伦。是以于去岁戊申之秋，忽有犯师书，命上陕西总督岳钟琪。重犯无知，属在弟子，遂误听师命，冒然前往。及到投递后，岳公始而严审。重犯以受犯师曾静“只去献议，不必告以姓名里居”之命，且彼时无知之见，误信师说，尚固执为事关天经地义之所在，舍生可以取义，所以宁受三木之重刑，至晕绝不变。

    　　岳钟琪知重犯死不肯供，不能改移，旋即放夹，许重犯为好汉子，且慰之谢之，以宾客礼待之。于逆书所言事理，无不盛称以为实，复告以其家亦有《屈温山集》，议论无不与逆书相合。既见重犯坚不告犯师姓名，乃呼天以示之信，乃言当身所处之危险，甚至垂泪以示其诚；且具书具仪时，告以必欲聘请曾静以辅己。命侄整装，即欲与重犯同行，更以长安县李知县扮作亲信之家人王大爷时刻相陪伴。无一不极其机密而浑然无迹。以重犯当时之固执师说，虽死不肯摇夺者，卒乃使重犯实情毕露，然后具折奏闻。

    　　由今看来，事固属上天笃爱皇上，故冥漠中默使此逆举败露于重犯之手，然使岳钟琪不备极其智虑之周密，则重犯之冥顽，只知拼一死以全义信于犯师曾静，则逆情亦未轻易得显著。凡此，皆岳钟琪之忠赤贯日，精诚动天，出其素蕴经济弘猷，为国家攘除奸凶，是以顽钝者莫逃其鉴，奸宄者自献其诚。然岳钟琪之尽心为国，而能至于此极者，实由我皇上知人之明，用人之当，虚公下应，至诚感孚之所致也。重犯从前毫不解其故，直至今日得蒙皇上之高厚洪恩，深被德化，又见旨意发出所批岳钟琪奏折数十通，重犯跪读越日，仰见皇上惟以至诚恩眷大臣，备极礼际之隆盛，恩意之周密不啻如父之视子，诚为亘古之所未有；而岳钟琪赤忠图报，不避嫌怨，只知有国，不知有身，不啻如子之事父，亦为自古名臣所罕见。以此回想，重犯前此之妄承犯师使令，冒昧上书者，实实醉生梦死，冥顽无知之极也。当此益觉愧死无地，痛恨追悔之莫及，敢不剖析隐曲，输情服罪，哀恳皇上之矜恤于万一乎！重犯之背逆心肝，实尽于此。至于传说浮言之人，俱在犯师曾静所供内，重犯实另无见闻。若稍有传闻，重犯当此时深沐皇上千古未有之殊恩，虽粉身碎骨，亦不足以仰报，何敢忍心昧理，为他人讳罪，以负我皇上天高地厚之恩哉！

    　　一、皇上不是有意遵循守孝三年的古制，不过是为了尽心尽孝才安心罢了

    　　曾静供：经曰：“先王有至德要道，以顺天下。”

    　　又曰：“慎终追远，民德归厚矣。”是古之帝王治天下，其大本大根，必在于孝。诚以孝为百行之源，万化所从出之地，所谓“亲亲而仁民，仁民而爱物”。如木之有根，水之有源，必根盛而后望得叶茂，源深而后可得流长，必亲亲无亏，而后德足以仁民，仁民量满，而后功足以覆物。是德教加于百姓，乐利普遍环区者，皆由一孝所致，即《论语》所谓：“孝悌也者，其为仁之本与”是也。然理虽一定而不易，其实躬行实践者少。至于三年之丧，虽曰“自天子达于庶人，父母之丧，无贵贱一也”。然新主当万机综理之下，苟非仁孝诚敬之至，实有难行。此不唯三代以下罕见，即三代以上之圣君哲后，从头算来，亦未闻历历有几。古称大孝，首推虞帝，然当上世浑噩，风气未开，礼制未备，三年之丧，未经记载，其详不可得知。继算武王为达孝，礼制略述于《中庸》。其中丧葬之制，春秋祖庙之修，继志述事之绩，与夫追王之礼，享帝之仪，可谓千古郁郁之盛。然在当时，武王亦不能独成其美备，大事多资周公之力，定于周公之手。其余只有高宗，书载谅阴三年，所以卒推商朝中兴贤圣之首君。然在当时，孔门高弟亦疑其势有难行，后儒注疏亦多疑谅阴之制为心丧，未必能实居庐被素也。后世以日易月，虽自汉文帝，然战国时，滕文公欲行三年之丧，访于孟子，父兄百官，皆不欲，谓吾宗国鲁先君莫之行，吾先君亦莫之行。则是短丧之制，自春秋战国时，已视为泛常矣，岂独自汉始乎！即在诸侯素称秉礼之国，亦不能行，况无子乎！自是以来，历代帝王固无有能行者，即向有一二好礼之君，仁孝之主，则有欲行而势不能行者，有勉强行之者，而不终者；有徒循其名，而不能尽其实者，求其实能尽礼尽制，出于至情，发于本心，表里无间，始终如一日者，则绝无焉。

    　　我皇上至孝至仁，至诚至敬，超越万古帝王。自圣祖仁皇帝升遐之后，继以孝恭仁皇后宾天，共历三十五个月，悲哀极至，感慕之诚，久而弥笃。抚时生悲，触绪增伤，见忾闻，追思永慕，无时或释于怀。每朝夕共奠，朔望殷祭，哀痛迫切。至扶送梓宫，赡拜山陵，惨怛号呼，一时万众感泣，不能仰视。即听政临朝，总理万机之下，偶有感触，辄欷流涕，哀情所发，忘不自胜。群臣日侍左右，仰瞻天颜，无不吞声哽咽。因诸王大臣援引古典，再三奏请，于天地宗庙之大祀，恭行典礼。皇上虽勉从所请，仍于养心殿斋居素服，以尽思哀思慕之诚，三年谅阴，恪遵古制。乃圣德谦让，却而不居，屡下谕旨，谓情不容以自禁，心不能自觉，遑论其合于古制否乎！细恩旨意，正得制礼之意，适合礼制之至，非精通性命之微者不能到。且当圣祖仁皇帝服阙之时，将近孝恭仁皇后大祥之侯，群臣奏请释哀即吉，我皇上谕以“臣民固有不同，朕于所生，何有二视！朕非有意遵循古制，但行其心之所安而已。”

    　　逮后诸王大臣屡疏恳慰，而明旨屡颁，反复晓谕，不允所请。仍素服斋居，触物生悲，感念孝恭仁皇后，即复追思圣祖仁皇帝，怙恃交慕，历久弥深。

    　　夫丧服本以期断，三年为加隆，所出古人制礼仪节以渐而减，诚以历时既久，人子之孝思，有所易匮故也。至若前丧未除而遭后丧，三年有加，为日益长，非仁孝诚敬之至，安能持久而不懈！况兼服行之母后，历三年始终如一日者，尤为仅见之事。此无论自古帝王所未有，即史册所载，士大夫中，秉礼之家，笃行之士，亦未闻有尽哀尽礼，初终不逾如是者也。

    　　况自古帝王，当丧则多废政之累，而临政又不免忘哀之咎。而我皇上于斋居永慕之中，孝思所及，无一事不体圣祖之心以为心。是以敬天法祖，大孝至诚，旰食宵衣，勤求民隐，扬清激浊，整饬官员，蠲数百万惟正之输将，开亿万年无疆之乐利；推继志述事之孝思，行存亡兴废之盛典；事事默契天心，念念感通圣祖。岂但徽号之议，协万世之人心；配天之典，冠百王之隆会。与夫晨昏之瞻拜，朔望之祭享，守陵之致敬，庙寝之告虔，无一时不思哀思敬，无一事不尽礼尽诚而已。此所以至诚至孝，感通天地。当圣祖仁皇帝袷祭之时，合璧联珠，即悬象于苍昊；迨孝恭仁皇后祥之候，一茎九穗，复呈瑞于郊圻。域中河清四省，孝陵蓍草丛生。非仁孝诚敬之至，与天无间，曷克臻此！此岂三代以下之贤君，所得仿佛其万一！进而上之，虽极虞帝之大孝，武王之达孝，其精详亦未闻是过也。

    　　弥天重犯从前僻居山谷，以谣言惑乱，何知圣德万分之一！今伏读《大礼记注》，不唯信从前之听闻出于诽谤，如坠深谷，而且信得我皇上之至孝纯仁，亘万古之圣帝明天子所不到。是以数日以来，不觉痛心割肝，刻刻泣流湿襟。一面感圣德之纯诚，思得法以宣传于穷乡海隅，并及故乡间里；一面痛老母之衰独远离，期遂志复亲音容，得详告圣天子如是之大恩大德，俾临年得以欢喜瞑目。夫以弥天重犯冥顽无知之极，今闻见圣主之至仁圣孝，至诚至敬，如此极至弗加，尚有以感动其天良，触发其至性，泣流湿襟，不觉欣欣戚戚，有归厚之思。况天下闻之，焉有不大昭于变之休，咸登比户可封之域乎！

    　　二、雍正皇帝勤政爱民，与天理浑然一体，神功伟德实在是顶天立地

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯读书浅少，如何晓得天地高厚？况属山鄙狭陋，负罪弥天。一旦身近圣天子之光，忽睹广大精深，胆寒心裂，愈觉窍口难开。只有圣德神化，感通于变，其效甚速。是以弥天重犯昔虽冥顽，同于禽曾，今得被化，幸转人胎。以此心下犹具蚁知蚊见，稍得窥于高深于万一。窃闻天以好生为德，而好生中有无限因时制宜，至当不易之法。在天不能运量裁制以成其能，尽举而畀之于聪明睿智，能尽其性，合其德者为之。是君之心即天之心，君之德即天之德。凡天所欲为者，君体天之心为之；天所欲行者，君体天之德行之。君未尝参一毫己意于其中，事事仰承天命而已。所以大君之号曰天子，言善继善述，与天不分两体，实一气贯注，如子之承父也。但天隐而难见，其本体之流露者，惟理而已。故先儒曰：“天即理也。”

    　　人君政刑德礼，浑然从一，理运量发，露于两间，斯方称得是天践形合德的肖子，而为大君当身之职分。以是粤稽历代帝王，虽代不乏英伟贤智，而求其运量裁制，浑乎天理之公，而无一毫人欲之私，得天之有子者，历数千载而罕见。今伏读圣谕，而知我皇上浑然一理，泛应曲当，其施之于政刑，见之于德礼者，无一处不知之极其精，无一事不处之极其当。神明尽化，化裁尽变，推行尽通，圣德神功，蟠际天地。而究其归，皆因物付物，初未尝稍存一毫成见，介于虚明应物之天也。只见得念念从民设想，处处体天定趋，所以无事无时不以圣祖皇帝为怀。盖圣祖皇帝乃天笃爱之肖子，圣祖皇帝之心即天心，圣祖皇帝之德即天德，一而二，二而一，怀想圣祖皇帝即是体天地。况敬天之至，至诚肫恳，本于性生，而儆戒乾惕之切，尤天一时或释于怀。所以天人交孚，呼吸相通，而感应之理，不惟见之最深最切，抑且屡试屡验，捷如影响。自是以敬天之念勤民，深宫几多经纬天地的筹画，神运无方的猷谋，无一时一刻，不以爱养天下苍生为念，为斯万物各得其所而后即安。是以忧勤惕厉不遑宁处，凡可以利生民之安，除生民之若者，思无不到，到无不行，行无不实。知民之艰难在食，蠲租减赋之典，无年不颁；赈灾救患之泽，无处不遍。

    　　偶闻一处旱涝，即悯念忧形，不惟减膳，甚或饮膳不御，弹竭精诚，为民祈祷，多修人事，以格天心。率至祷雨雨通，祈晴晴应。复以食乃民天，农为食本，每岁躬耕藉田，以重农事。而老农之勤劳俭朴者，亦岁举给以品秩荣其身。思明刑原以弼教，而群德期于好生。法虽一定，心本宽仁，稍有一线可生，则因事原情，时生恻隐之念。诚以民命至重，宁过乎仁，毋过乎义也。知察吏所以安民，而惩贪兼得以养廉，宵旰忧勤，无非为国计民生，思久安长治之策，所以隐微之中，疑似之间，辨晰精详，秋毫不爽。如谕公私二字，关系甚重，不可不辨。而公中有私，私中有公者，尤不可不时时警戒。与夫论因循苟且，一味求悦于人，称赞之者甚多，即如阿大夫之誉言日至也；杜绝私情，不肯取悦于众，谤议之者甚多，即如即墨大夫之毁言日至也。又如辨武断乡曲者非是武断，揽权者实非揽权，此毫厘千里之间，帝尧亦以为难，今皆剖决明晰，如丝过扣，毫发不混。此所以用赏用罚，忽用忽舍，无往而不得其公正之至者，为渊衷虚而权度精明也。

    　　盖皇上渊衷为止水，如明鉴，万物之过其前者，妍自然毕露而不容掩。原非鉴与水留恋于当前之物，而后得照见，若稍留一毫意见去照物，则鉴与水虚明之本体，反为此意见所掩蔽，而照物不见了。必浑乎天理之公，而不杂一毫人欲之私，方有此种境界。故举凡用人理财，养老恤幼，崇师训士，以及揆文奋武，皆开千古所未开之盛典，而实极千古所未到之至善。且诏诫所颁，反复丁宁，区画详密。

    　　内自大臣群僚，外及军民童叟，务期天下群登乐利之域，共享升平之福。其中旨意周切，理熟义精，一言一字，皆可与二典三谟并垂天地而不朽。是不惟仁天下之心，安天下之学，超越天下之才识，亘万古之圣君哲后莫与媲。而即比自朝至暮，一日万机，件件御览，字字御批。一应上任官员，无论内外大小，每日必逐一引见，谆谆告诫以爱民扶绥之至意，事至物来，随到随应，不留一毫不周不密、不精不当之憾。直至二三更，方得览批各省督扶奏折，竟不用一人代笔，其焦劳如此。此种历练天下之精神，亦亘古励精图治的至君哲后所不到。尚犹圣不自圣，每以为君难为虑，并以不及圣祖之圣德神功为忧。是以德合天地，至诚感孚。数年以来，诸瑞齐见，万福骈臻，而且道不拾遗，蔼然成周太和之盛，唐虞熙之隆，亘千古而再觏者。

    　　弥天重犯身犯寸磔之典，自痛生圣人之世，竟生不得为圣人之氓，庶几死为圣世之鬼。岂料圣德同天，生民未有之殊恩，既超禁处厦，复给食赐衣，今蒙恩旨，又复开锁，皇德皇恩已极荡荡难名。弥天重犯抢地呼号，痛心挖髓，此时即置之极刑，亦王法人情所当然，死亦知思感德，甘心瞑目。况蝼蚁百姓，当此皇恩无涯，何敢言报？只愿插翅遍飞宇内，凡人力所能到、足迹所可及，逢人逢地，宣扬圣德同天之大，无间内外，申明本朝得统之正，直近商周，一洗从前谣言之谤，共知吕留良为圣世之逆贼，共歌太平之世，共祝有道天子，万寿无疆，以赎补当身万死蒙赦之罪，斯幸耳。深情结胸，重义透髓，一字一泣。谨供。

    　　内阁九卿奏本曾静等即使是一失足铸千古恨，也应该殃及九族入牢狱刑部等衙门奏为遵旨复加讯问事。上谕：“曾静一案，前命侍郎杭奕禄、副都统海兰详加审讯。据曾静逐款回供，俱是悔过感恩之语，此等奸险之徒，语言诈伪，或畏惧诛戮，故勉强作此认罪之词；抑伊自知罪大恶极，愧耻悔恨，出于本心。著大学士、九卿詹事、翰林、科道，将从前诘问各款，逐一再加讯问，确取口供具奏。钦此。”

    　　臣等将杭奕禄等遵旨审讯曾静口供，逐款复讯，据曾静供出，与从前口供俱各相符，俯首认罪，甘服上刑。又据供：“弥天重犯罪案，今日蒙知大人逐款勘讯，自知万死万剐，更有何法可解！所痛恨者，实因住在深山穷谷，愚昧无知，是以吕留良之逆说情论，得以迷心。惟其有吕留良之悖论在心，所以阿其那、塞思黑、允之党羽匪类，并发遣广西人等之奸谋流谤，得以惑听。抑惟其有阿其那等之流谤在心惑听，而吕留良之邪说悖论，愈得以固志。二者交乘，相因为害，遂致酿成亘古未有之极恶而不自知。直到后来，实见得我皇上之至德同天，与我朝得统之正，直迈商周，方知从前之错谬，自悔自愧，自咎莫及。

    　　“盖我皇上之大德，弥天重犯自旧岁到今，饱饫已周年矣。不惟目睹耳闻，深仁厚泽之在天下，为自古所未有，即弥天重犯以蝼蚁之微，冒犯九五之尊，万死不足蔽辜，而当亲皇恩，尚容留苟延残生以到今日。虽尧舜之对，亦未见有此出格殊恩至于如此，又岂汉高之宽，唐太之明，所能拟似于万一！况我朝得统之正，治化之隆，并非泛说‘远迈商周’。一语所能尽。盖我朝龙兴，不由中土而起于满州，由满州而至中国，地之相去数千余里，而德化之盛，及于中土，薄海内外，无不倾心爱戴。由是天与人归，使大统一朝而成，不劳而得，并非汤武之居中渐化，而后民心乐从，始有天下者可比。其规模更大更远，所以为亘古莫及。

    　　“凡此皆是弥天重犯旧岁一路来，亲被我皇上的德化，亲见熙景象，颂德歌功，欢声载道，不觉倾心悦服至此。则前之狂悖，由于无知，后之爱戴，出于有见。前后虽异，其实皆发于本心。此固不是巧说以偷生，亦非旁人所能代为指拨开导而有是说话，实字字句句皆从一片良心发出。且弥天重犯从头一路细思，实由列祖列圣之功德，在天地间极其大，我皇上之圣仁，迈古今而极其至。故皇天默使弥天重犯传其害道悖义之论，露其奸党谤毁之行，以显圣德于深山穷谷，申名义于千秋万世，使天下之大，万世之远，人人悦服，处处倾心耳。“所以弥天重犯到今日感德被化之余，愿置身极典，以求其心之所安。且使天下万世，共知我皇上至德深仁，透民骨髓，即在无知悖逆之民，犹切被化改过，自愿伏罪以至如此。所以弥天重犯到今日，惟有仰恳众大人转奏，将弥天重犯速正刑典而已，更有何说！”等语。

    　　该臣等看得曾静狂逆凶狡，罪大恶极，妄信逆贱之悖论及奸党之流言，胆肆凶逆，辄敢诋毁本朝，诬蔑君上，编造逆书。从湖南至陕西，劝封疆大臣以反叛，欲构乱于升平之世。核其情罪，法无可宽。且曾静以一山野细民，戴高履厚五十余年，忽谋为叛逆之事，从古以来，乱臣贼子中无有其比。臣等审讯之下，无不切齿恨愤，咸愿食肉寝皮，虽寸磔族诛，不足以蔽其辜。

    　　查律内谋反大逆，但共谋者，不分首从，皆凌迟处死；正犯之祖父、父、子、孙、兄弟、及伯叔父、兄弟之子，男十六以上，不论笃疾、废疾皆斩；男十五以下，及正犯之母、女、妻、妾、姊妹、子之妻妾，给付功臣之家为奴；正犯财产入官；若女许嫁已定，归其夫；正犯子孙过房与人，及正犯聘娶未成者，俱不追坐等语，曾静应照此律，即凌迟处死。行文湖南巡抚，查明曾静之祖父、父、子、孙、兄弟及伯叔父、兄弟之子、男十六以上，照律皆斩立决；男十五以下，及母、女、妻、妾、姊妹，子之妻妾，解部，照律付功臣之家为奴。所有财产，查明入官，伏乞皇上允臣等所请，将曾静立正典刑，以彰国法，以快人心。至张熙与曾静共谋不轨，听从曾静指使，赴陕投送逆书，思欲构乱。亦应照“共谋者皆凌迟处死”律，即凌迟处死。为此，合词谨奏。请旨。

    　　一、我雍正是将遗诏的“十”改成“于”字而谋取皇位的吗？　　

    　　奉上谕：自古凶顽之徒，心怀悖逆，语涉诋诬者，史册所载，不可枚举。然如今日曾静此事之怪诞离奇，张为幻，实以古所未见，为人心之所共忿，国法之所断不可宽者。然朕往复思之，若伊讪谤之语，有一事之实，在朕有几微不可问心之处，则不但曾静当蓄不臣之心，即天下臣民，也应共怀离异之志；若所言字字皆虚，与朕躬毫不干涉，此不过如荒山穷谷之中，偶闻犬吠鸣而已，又安得谓之讪谤乎！上年此事初发之时，朕即坦然于怀，实无丝毫仇怒之意，笑而览之。此左右大臣皆深知之。嗣令侍郎杭奕禄、副都统海兰，前往湖南拘曾静到案，明白晓谕，逐事开导，动以天良，祛其迷惑。而伊始豁然醒悟，悔过感恩。其亲笔口供，不下数万言，皆本于良心之发见，而深恨从前之误听浮言，遂妄萌悖逆之念，甘蹈赤族之诛也。盖其分别华夷中外之见，则蔽锢陷溺于吕留良不臣之邪说；而其谤及朕躬者，则阿其那、塞思黑、允、允等之逆党奸徒，造作蜚语，布散传播，而伊误给以为实之所致。自上年至今，已将一载。朕留心体察，并令内外大臣各处根究，今日案内著邪书、造谤言之首恶俱已败露，确有证据，并不始于曾静者，尽明白矣。与朕初意毫无差谬。则曾静之误听，尚有可原之情，而无必不可宽之罪也。

    　　据曾静供称，伊在湖南，有人传说：先帝欲将大统传于允，圣躬不豫时，降旨召允来京，其旨为隆科多所隐，先帝宾天之日，允不到，隆科多传旨遂立当今。其他诬谤之语，得之于从京发遣广西人犯之口者居多等语。又据曾静供出，传言之陈帝锡、陈象侯、何立忠之人，昨从湖南解送来京。朕令杭奕禄等讯问，此等诬谤之语，得自何人？陈帝锡等供称：路遇四人，似旗员举动，憩息邮亭，实为此语。其行装衣履是远行之客，有跟随担负行李之人，言中京师王府中来，往广东公干等语。查数年以来，从京发遣广西人犯，多系阿其那、塞思黑、允、允门下之太监等匪类，此辈听伊主之指使，到处捏造，肆行流布。

    　　现据广西巡抚金奏报，有造作逆语之凶犯数人，陆续解到。讯据逆贼耿精忠之孙耿六格供称，伊先充发在三姓地方时，于八宝家中，有太监于义、何玉柱向八宝女人谈论：圣祖皇帝原传十四阿哥允天下，皇上将“十”字改为“于”字。又云：圣祖皇帝在畅春园病重，皇上就进一碗人参汤，不知何如，圣祖皇帝就崩了驾。皇上就登了位。随将允调回囚禁。太后要见允，皇上大怒，太后于铁柱上撞死。皇上又把和妃及其他妃嫔，都留于宫中等语。又据达色供，有阿其那之太监马起云向伊说：皇上令塞思黑去见活佛，太后说：“何苦如此用心！”皇上不理，跑出来。太后甚怒，就撞死了。

    　　塞思黑之母亲，亦即自缢而亡等语。又据佐领华赉供称，伊在三姓地方为协领时，曾听见太监关格说，皇上气愤母亲，陷害兄弟等语。八宝乃允管都统时用事之鹰犬，因抄抢苏克济家私一案，圣祖皇帝特行发遣之恶犯；何玉柱乃塞思黑之心腹；太监关格系允亲给之太监；马起云系阿其那之太监；其他如允之太监马守柱、允之太监王进朝、吴守义等，皆平日听受阿其那等之逆论，悉从伊等之指使。是以肆行诬捏，到处传播流言，欲摇惑人心，泄其私仇。昨据湖南巡抚赵弘恩等一一查出，奏称：查得逆犯耿六格、吴守义、达色、霍成等，经过各处，沿途称冤，逢人讪谤。解送之兵役，住宿之店家等，皆共闻之。凡遇村店城市，高声呼招：你们都来听新皇帝的新闻，我们已受冤屈，要向你们告诉，好等你们向人传说。又云：只好问我们的罪，岂能封我们的口！等语。是此等鬼蜮之伎俩，一无所施，蓄心设谋，惟以布散恶言为煽动之计，冀侥幸于万一而已。夫允平日，素为圣祖皇考所轻贱，从未有一嘉予之语。曾有向太后闲论之旨：“汝之小儿子，即与汝之大儿子当护卫使令，彼也不要。”

    　　此太后宫内人所共知者，圣祖皇考之鄙贱允也如此。而逆党乃云，圣意欲传大位于允，独不思皇考春秋已高，岂有将欲传大位之人令其在边远数千里外之理！虽天下至愚之人，亦知必无是事矣。只因西陲用兵，圣祖皇考之意，欲以皇子虚名坐镇，知允在京毫无用处，况秉性愚悍，素不安静，实借此驱远之意也。

    　　朕自幼蒙皇考钟爱器重，在诸兄弟之上，宫中何人不知！及至传位于朕之遗诏，乃诸兄弟面承于御榻之前者，是以诸兄弟皆俯首臣伏于朕前，而不敢有异议。今乃云皇考欲传位于允，隆科多更改遗诏，传位于朕，是尊允而辱朕躬，并辱皇考之旨，焉有不遭上帝皇考之诛殛者乎！

    　　朕即位之初，召允来京者，彼时朕垂涕向近侍大臣云：痛值皇考升遐大故，允不得在京，何以无福至此！应降旨宣召，俾得来京以尽子臣之心。此实朕之本意，并非防范疑忌而召之来也。以允之庸劣狂愚，无才无识，威不足以服众，德不是以感人，而陕西地方，复有总督年羹尧等在彼弹压，允所统者，不过兵丁数千人耳，又悉皆满州世受国恩之辈，而父母妻子俱在京师，岂肯听允之指使，而从为背逆之举乎！其以朕防范允，召之来京者，皆奸党高增允声价之论也。及允将到京之时，先行文礼部，询问见朕仪注，举朝无不骇异。

    　　及到京见朕，其举动乖张，词气傲慢，狂悖之状不可殚述。朕皆隐忍宽容之。朕曾奏请皇太后召见允，太后谕云：我只知皇帝是我亲子，允不过与众阿哥一般耳。未有与我分外更亲处也。不允。朕又请：可令允同诸兄弟入见否？太后方谕允。诸兄弟同允进见时，皇太后并未向允分外一语也，此现在诸王阿哥所共知音者。后允于朕前肆其咆哮，种种不法，太后闻知，特降慈旨，命朕切责允，严加训诲之，此也宫中人所共知者。允之至陵上，相去太后晏驾之前三、四月，而云太后欲见允而不得，是何论也？且何玉柱等云，太后因闻囚禁允而崩；马起云向伊妹夫达色又云，太后因闻塞思黑去见活佛而崩。同一诬捏之语，彼此参差不一者如此。

    　　且塞思黑去西大同，在雍正元年二月，朕将不得已之情，曾备悉奏闻太后，太后是而遣之者，并非未请慈旨太后不知不允之事也。即允之命往守陵，亦奏闻太后，欣喜嘉许而遣之者，亦非太后不知不允之事也。雍正元年五月，太后升遐之时，允来京，朕降旨封伊为郡王，切加教导，望其省改前愆，受朕恩眷。后伊仍回陵寝地方居住。其间阿其那在京，塞思黑在陕，悖乱之逆日益显著。是其逆心必不可折，邪党必不肯散。而雍正四年，又有奸民蔡怀玺投书允院中，劝其谋逆之事，朕始将允召回京师拘禁之。是允之拘禁，乃太后升遐三年以后之事，今乃云太后因允囚禁而崩，何其造作之舛错至此极耶！

    　　又马起云云，塞思黑之母亲自缢而亡。现今宜妃母妃，朕遵皇考遗旨，著恒亲王奉养于伊府中，而逆贼等以为昔年自缢，真鬼魅罔谈也。前康熙四十七年，圣祖皇考圣躬违豫，朕与诸医同诚亲王等，昼夜检点医药，而阿其那置若罔闻。至圣体大安，朕与之互相庆幸，而阿其那攒眉向朕言；目前何尝不好，虽然如此，但将来之事奈何？是阿其那残忍不孝之心，不觉出诸口矣。朕曾将伊不是处，对众宣扬羞辱之，而伊深为愧恨。今乃以六十年之进奉汤药，加恶名于朕，可谓丧尽天理之报复，无怪乎遭神明之诛殛也。至于和妃母妃之言，尤为怪异莫测。朕于皇考之宫人，俱未曾有一见面者，况诸母妃辈乎！七年来，如当年皇考宫中之人，即使令女子辈，若曾有一人在朕左右，朕实不对天日以君临兆庶也。又曾静供称，伊在湖南时，传闻皇上令浙江开捐纳之例，欲将银六百万两修造西湖为游幸之地。彼时为其所惑，今乃知皆奸党造作，毫无影响之语，无所不至。夫西湖所有昔年地方官盖造之行宫，朕尚皆令改作佛宇矣，而奸党云，欲捐纳银两修造西湖为游幸之地，不知出自何论。又三姓地方，有人造播流言：皇上在芦沟桥盖造官房，收往来客商之饭钱等语。朕因应试士子来京者，桥上查检行李，不免风雨露处之苦，是以特发帑金，盖造房舍，俾其住歇。令管理税务之人，到店验看应试文凭，即令放行。在士子辈既有投足之地，又可免奸商冒充应试之人，致于漏税之咎。此朕之仁政，直省举子感恩颂德之事，而奸党以朕为欲收容商饭钱，作此等诬谤之语，实为可笑，亦可怪也。

    　　阿其那、允纵酒无忌，而加朕以酗酒之名。阿其那等蓄心阴险，存倾陷国家之念，怀与皇考为仇之心，而反一一加之于朕。总因阿其那等平日之逆谋不遂，畜养匪类者久矣。播散讹言，分门立户，各各收买党羽，欲以蛊惑人之耳目，俾素蓄逆念之蠢动而起，然后快心，祖宗之社稷所不顾也。夫加朕以凶暴恶名，其罪犹轻，独不念圣祖皇考六十余年之丰功懋烈，而作如此归结，岂为人子者所忍为乎！阿其那、塞思黑等之罪，实万死不足以赎矣。

    　　伊等之奸谋若此，目今败露者，即不胜其数，其他匪类邪党之听其驱使者，奚止数千百人！造作种种诬谤之语，已流散于极边远塞，则宇宙之内，乡曲愚人，为其所惑者，岂止曾静数人而已哉！即如三姓之协领华赉，身在地方，有稽查之责，乃伊将所见所闻，俱行隐瞒，不以入告。朕在九重大内，何由而知之？何从而究之？又何自而剖晰开示，使天下臣民共晓之？今蒙上天皇考俯垂默佑，令神明驱使曾静自行投首于总督岳钟琪之前，俾造书造谤之奸人一一呈露，朕方得知若辈残忍之情形，明日张胆将平日之居心行事，遍谕荒陬僻壤之黎民，而不为浮言所惑于万一。亦可知阿其那、塞思黑等蓄心之惨毒，不忠不孝，为天祖之所不容，国法之所难宥处。天下后世，亦得谅朕不得已之苦衷矣。此朕不幸中之大幸，非人力之所能为者，即此则曾静不为无功，即此可宽其诛矣。

    　　从来奸宄凶丑，造作妖言，欲以诬民惑众者，无时无之。即如从前妖言云：“帝出三江口，嘉湖作战场”。此语已流传三十余年矣。又如广西张淑荣等言：钦天监奏紫微星落于福建，今朝廷降旨，遣人至闽，将三岁以上九岁以下之男子，悉行诛戮。又有山东人张玉，假称朱姓，系前明后裔，遇星士推算伊有帝王之命，似此诞幻荒唐，有关世道人心之语，往往地方大臣官员希图省事，目为疯癫，苟且掩护于一时，而未念及其迷惑之害，日月渐远，传播渐多，遂不能究问其所自来，转令无辜之人，受其牵累。此皆庸碌无能，视国家利害于膜外之大臣等养痈之害也。

    　　又如村塾训蒙之人，本无知识，而又穷困无聊，心怀抑郁，往往造为俚鄙怪妄之歌词，授于村童传唱。而不知者遂误认以为童谣，转相传流布。此皆奸民之欲煽惑人心，紊乱国法者。地方大吏有司，视为泛常，不加稽察惩创，以防其渐。可乎？

    　　前年，有人捏称侍郎舒楞额密奏八旗领米一事，欲以摇惑旗人之心。舒楞额闻之，据实入奏。此时朕随降旨根究，即得其造言之人，加以惩戒。凡属流言初起之时，若地方大臣能肯悉心穷究，必得其根由，使奸宄不至漏网，庸愚无知亦不至拖累，其有裨于人心世道者，良非浅鲜。今因曾静之事，而查出首先造谤之渠魁，盖以此案发觉尚早，易于追寻，故可递推而得其根源也。且朕之宽宥曾静，非矫情好名而为此举也。《虞书》曰：“宥过无大，刑故无小。”

    　　曾静之过虽大，实有可原之情。若我皇考时时训诲子臣曰：“凡人孰能无过？若过而能改，即自新迁善之机，故人以改过为贵。但实能改过者，无论所犯之大小，皆不当罪之也。”

    　　朕祗承圣训，日以改过望天下之人。盖过大而能改，胜于过小而不改者，若曾静可谓知改过者矣。朕赦曾静，正欲使天下臣民，知朕于改过之人，无不可赦之罪，相率而趋于自新之路也。且朕治天下，不以私喜而赏一人，不以私怒而罚一人。曾静狂悖之言，止于谤及朕躬，并无反叛之实事，亦无同谋之众党。彼跳梁逆命之人，果能束身归命，畏罪投诚，尚且邀赦宥之典，岂曾静独不可贷其一死乎！

    　　且曾静之前后各供，俱系他亲笔书写，并非有所勉强逼勒，亦并非有人隐受意指，实由于天良感动，是以其悛悔之心迫切诚恳，形于纸笔。此及可原之情，并非以其为谄媚颂扬之词，而欲宽其罪也。若今日喜其谄媚而曲宥之，则从前即当怒其诬谤而速诛之矣。况曾静今日颂扬之词，较之从前诬谤之语，其轻重悬殊，何止千百？论其情罪，岂足相抵！若有人议朕喜曾静之谄媚而免其罪者，则与曾静从前之犬吠鸣无以异矣。然朕亦不论。除造作布散流言之逆党，另行审明正法外，著将曾静、张熙免罪释放，并将伊之逆书及前后审讯诘问之语，与伊口供，一一刊刻颁布，使天下人共知之。

    　　湖南省地方大小官员等，平日既不能宣布国恩，敷扬朕训，化诲百姓，尽去邪心，致有此等愚昧狂乱之人，实有阄忝于父母斯民之责，此则深当愧耻者。今若以羞忿怨恨之心，或将曾静，张熙有暗中贼害情形，朕必问以抵偿之罪。曾静等系朕持旨赦宥之人，彼本地之人，若以其贻羞桑梓有嫉恶暗伤者，其活罪亦然。即朕之子孙，将来亦不得以其诋毁朕躬，而追究诛戮之。盖曾静之事，不与吕留良等。吕留良之罪，乃皇考当日所未知而未赦者，是以朕今日可以明正其罪。若曾蒙皇考赦免之旨，则朕亦自遵旨而曲宥其辜矣，特谕。

    　　二、朕诸兄弟不可以德化，不可以理喻，不可以情感，不可以恩结，而其悖逆妄乱，的确是百折不回　

    　　又奉上谕：“从来善恶之报，纤毫不爽。凡罪大恶极之人，虽一时宽宥，免于诛戮，而伊辗转行回，仍复自投法网，若有驱逐之使然者。即如阿其那、塞思黑、允、允门下同恶共济之徒，潜蓄邪谋，阴怀逆志，实国家之巨贼，贻宗社之隐忧。朕既洞烛其奸，本应将伊等置之于法，以绝根株。只以一时不忍，思古人“歼厥渠魁，胁从罔治”之意，予以宽典，发遣边方，保其性命，以为此辈稍有人心，或能感发天良，悛改夙恶。岂料逆天造孽之人，不可化诲，毒忍之性，愈益猖狂，上干天地，皇考之怒。委曲婉转，假手于曾静辈，使奸党匪类之罪状一一呈露，不容漏网。天道昭著若此，能不令人毛骨悚然，倍加警惕乎。

    　　朕即位之初，召诸兄弟于养心殿，朕以肝膈肺腑之言，痛哭向诸兄弟劝谕之曰：朕蒙皇考付托之重，于诸子之中，传朕以大位。不比前代继统之君，先后序立，父子之间，各成其是；非如禹汤之后而有桀纣，天下不得因其子孙之不善，而掩禹汤之功德。若朕之于皇考，则是非得失，实为一体。朕躬若是，则皇考之付托为是；朕躬若非，则皇考之付托为非。以皇考六十余年之圣德神功，超越千古，朕断不敢苟且怠荒，甘于自弃，使天下后世，共论皇考付托之误，致掩六十余年功德之崇隆。朕之此心，上天、皇考实鉴临之。

    　　凡我兄弟，均受皇考生成顾复，数十年天高地厚之深恩，当仰体皇考之心，并思天无二日，民无二王之义，各抒忠荩，协赞朕躬。于朕所不能者，辅之助之；于朕所错误者，规之谏之；朕便有过失，亦当谅之隐之。同心匡弼，让朕一个是字，使朕为一代之令主，以成皇考之是，即诸兄弟所以报皇考罔极之鸿慈也。似此谆谆劝告，乃阿其那、塞思黑等置若罔闻，而悖逆妄乱之念，百折不回。不可以德化，不可以理喻，不可以情感，不可以恩结。即如阿其那方封亲王时，伊即向人出怨望愤激之语，且向在廷大臣云：“皇上今日加恩，焉知未伏明日诛戮之意！其目下施恩，皆不可信。”

    　　又当大庭广众，咒诅朕躬，则其他可知矣。朕初即位时，塞思黑谓其左右人等曰：“不料事情竟至如此，我辈生不如死。”此伊太监王应隆亲口供出者。及令伊居住西宁时，伊则以多金邀买人心，以致奸民令狐士仪等人密投书札，劝其构逆。

    　　又如允依傍景陵居住，尚有奸民蔡怀玺投书院中，称伊为帝，而伊藏匿之。是伊等之逆心，断不改除；伊等之逆党，断不解散。朕早夜筹思，总无可以料理措置，以全顽梗，以安宗社之良法。万不得已，将阿其那、塞思黑、允、允分别拘禁，而不料阿其那、塞思黑相继皆伏冥诛。

    　　朕之办理此事，皆默告天地，虔对皇考，熟思审慎，量其轻重为宗社国家之大计，置此身于度外之举，此心可以对上天、皇考。至于众口之褒贬，后世之是非，朕不问也。从前储位未定时，朕之兄弟六、七人，各怀凯觎之心，彼此戕害，各树私人，以图侥幸。而大奸大恶之人，遂乘机结党，要结朝臣，收罗群小，内外连属，以成牢不可破之局。公然以建储一事，为操权于己，垂手可成，不能出其范围。此等关系宗社国家之大患，朕既亲见而深知之，若苟且姑容，不加以惩创儆戒，则凶恶之徒，竟以悖逆为寻常之事，其贻害于后世子孙者，将不可言矣。况古人云：“抚我则后，虐我则仇。”是君民、上下之间，有天冠地履之义，尚言施报之情，岂有臣下之分，作乱犯上，显然昭著，只因系出宗亲，遂可纵恶长奸，置宗社大计于不问乎！故以在下言之，则曰：抚我则后，虐我则仇。而以在上言之，则曰：忠我则臣，背我则敌。此一定之情理，千古之通义也。且孟子曰：“民为贵，社稷次之，君为轻。”

    　　夫与君与社稷相较君尚轻于社稷，则兄弟宗亲，更不待言矣。若但务敦睦九族之虚名，而不计宗社苍生之大患，岂不本末混淆，轻重倒置耶！今不必远引古昔之事，即以我朝与明代近事言之，我太祖、太宗刚毅明决，预烛机先，不以私情而存姑息之见，是以成大一统之规，贻世世子孙太平之福。明之建文优柔寡断，不知大义，不识极变，意欲保全骨肉而酿成永乐之祸，卒至国危身丧，为祖宗之罪人。永乐虽幸而事成，祖宗天下不至落他人之手，然俯对臣庶，能不赧颜乎？传之后世，能免讥议乎？

    　　且扰乱海内，荼毒生灵，宗社之危，臣民之厄，未有甚于此时者。又如明宸濠之乱，亦由于姑息酿成，可为天下后世之鉴戒也。总之，人君不幸遇此等之事，若见之既真，知之既确，则当权其利害之轻重而毅然决断，勿存小不忍之见，顾己身之毁誉，以贻祸患于无穷。倘见之不真，知之不确，而冒昧行之，或更有所怨参乎其间，则为天地祖宗之罪人，亦不能逃于谴责也。朕于阿其那等结党构逆之情，知之真确，而其显然背叛之迹，又大庭广众之所共见共闻者。彼时诸王大臣等屡次合词陈奏，请将阿其那、塞思黑等即正典刑，朕召入面见堕泪，复切谕之曰：“阿其那、塞思黑、允、允乃圣祖皇帝之子，朕之亲弟，骨肉手足。尔等皆受圣祖皇帝及朕深恩之人，今所奏如此，若稍有情罪不符之处，陷朕于不义，或稍有心口相违之处，抱歉于隐微，则得罪于上天、皇考者，莫大乎是。其能逃于天谴乎！”

    　　此时诸王大臣异口同声，无不以为阿其那、塞思黑等悖逆之情罪，断断不容宽宥。朕复逐一询问，人人皆言陈奏之处，实实出于公心。朕犹降旨询问各省督抚、提镇等，其所奏亦复佥同。只因尚有数处未曾奏到，朕未降旨，各令拘禁，仍欲详加斟酌而定之意。而二人乃相继而死，朕尚未将伊等明正典刑也。此京师亿万臣民所共知之事，不待朕之晓谕者。

    　　若天下之人，必欲以朕诛戮二人为言，据伊等罪情、朝廷法律而论，朕也不以诛戮二人为讳。盖有此一番惩创，使天下后世宗亲不肖之辈，知大义之不可违越，国法之不可幸逃，循理安分，以受国家宠荣，则所以保全骨肉宗亲者大矣，多矣！此遵古帝王“刑以弼教”之意，实尽敦睦九族，端本之道者。观今日阿其那、塞思黑已死，而其逆党匪类等仍不肯歇心，更加摇唇鼓舌，到处诬捏布传，冀惑天下民人之听，为构衅报复之端。若非上天、皇考俯垂默佑，使之败露，则传之天下后世，倘贻疑似之端，不但朕抱不白之讥，可惜皇考六十余年际天蟠地之功勋，上天六十余年锡福凝禧之恩眷，俱付之流水矣。朕又自幸抚躬内省，实毫无几微瑕疵之可指摘，理直气壮，因曾静此案，得以明目张胆，向薄海内外亿万臣民剖析而畅言之。不然则口将言而嗫嚅，岂能免于瞻顾回护，又何颜以对廷臣左右近侍之人乎！朕蒙皇考俯鉴悃忱，于众弟兄中，惟许朕以“诚孝”二字。

    　　朕时时自问，不但用人行政，起居出入之间，事事效法君父，即隐微之间，偶举一念，必思此一念果合于我君父，始敢存于胸臆，否则必屏去之。朕虽不敢自谓尽孝，然生平一片爱慕诚敬之心，实可对天地神明。是以仰蒙上天、皇考照察，保护提携，每显彰景象，而发奸摘伏之处，实非人力所能为者。朕惟有以手加额，感激项戴，刻骨铭心，益加黾勉而已。朕因匪类诬捏浮言，故明白剖析前后，降旨十数道，以示臣民。倘朕言有一字虚捏，是亦如若辈之居心，必遭上天之责罚也。特谕。

    　　三、朕之“屠弟”，正是为了不负皇考付托之重，顾及宗社之安危　

    　　又奉上谕：前曾静逆书，诬谤朕躬诸条，离奇荒唐，即梦寐中亦无此诞幻怪异之境，惟有加朕屠弟之名一切，朕不辩亦不受，已于前谕中述其梗概。但朕之苦衷，尚有未曾详析宣示者。当日阿其那阴险狡狯，实逆党之渠魁，塞思黑、允、允皆听其指挥，愿出死力，而不顾伦常之大义，其举动甚不可测，若阿其那果肯省愆悔过，革面革心，则其他断无有不效法悛改者。朕是以令塞思黑等分别居住，而留阿其那在京，所以加恩厚待，冀其感激醒悟者，无所不极其至。且披肝露胆，诚切劝告，至于泣下，所少者惟下跪恳求耳。岂知伊悖逆不臣之念，百折不回。前诸王大臣等所参恶迹数十条，皆举朝共见共闻之实事。及至拘禁之后，不但不知畏惧，转欢跃加餐，横肆之态，不堪枚举。是岂尚有悛改之日耶？塞思黑居住西宁，逆状种种，无丝毫畏惧之心。及令其来保定时，岂但无儆惕之意，一路谈笑自如。其解送人员，向伊称述朕即位以来所办政务，伊笑曰：“他从来伶俐”。全无臣弟之道，而其悖逆之念更炽，又何可望其悛改耶！允拘禁已四年有余，至今悍傲如昔。允在拘禁之地，尚为镇魇之术，被伊太监出首。朕遣大臣询问情由，并从前结党等事，伊云：“我若说出，只恐杀我，如果皇上免我从前重罪，则便一一实供。”

    　　所遣大臣云：“皇上原有旨意，汝若据实供出，丝毫不隐，必宽宥汝罪”。于是伊将从前阿其那、塞思黑、允等朋比作奸，阴谋秘计，暨朕即位后所怀逆议，一一供吐，且自认镇魇不讳。是以诸王大臣立请正法，朕仍将伊宽宥。看伊近来似稍有感愧之意。　

    　　至于阿其那、塞思黑从来之恶迹，其彰明较著，为朕所知者，不可胜数；而其处心积虑，鬼蜮之行踪，为朕所不知者，不知凡几。伊等自意为朕必皆悉知，料无可幸免之理，是以残毒之念，日益加深，妄乱之行，愈无忌惮，拼一死以累朕，逆志坚定，不可拔矣。似此万无可姑容之罪情，而朕尚未忍即置之于法，仍令拘禁，以待天下督抚大臣公奏到日再行酌定。不料旬日之间，二人相继俱伏冥诛，实奇事也。此时朕垂涕谕全朝大臣曰：“朕原欲为十全之令主，以报答我君父之恩。今有二人之事，便黾勉十分之善，亦减去其半矣。此朕所遭之不幸，岂非朕父子前因夙劫之冤孽耶！”

    　　总之，此等立心与国家君父为仇之人，暗结死党，潜蓄奸谋，不将国家至于扰乱倾危，其心不肯止息。朕既洞烛其逆情，若不先期防范，及彼谋成事就而后应之，则朕之力不能胜，彼时身死无名，为天下后世笑，不但负皇考付托之重，而宗社之安危，正不可必，天下生灵皆遭涂炭之厄矣。幸朕每事洞烛几先，伊等之伎俩，全无所施，惟力造作恶言，以为煽惑报复之计，由今日之事观之，虽渠魁数人被诛，而其同党胁从，至微至贱之人，仍复怀藏逆志，传布大逆之语。以此情形观之，然则朕之留心防范，早为经理者，岂非上天、皇考默启其心，使宗社苍生享太平之福耶！从来仇敌之人，造为谤议以泄其忿者，往往有之。朕从前未忍将逆党悉行正法，而充发边远时，亦料此辈奸邪匪类，必有怨望之词，想亦无人听信。但不料其诬蔑诋毁，怪诞奇特至于此极，亦并不料有曾静、张熙辈遂信以为实，而便生背叛之心也。所幸薄海之外，亿人兆人，受皇考圣祖六十余年深仁厚泽，浃髓沦肌，不为匪类流言摇惑于万一者，岂人力之所能哉！则皇考之留遗于朕者岂止天高地厚而已哉！今日不但雪朕不白之冤，而皇考又安宗社苍生之功德愈加彰著矣。挥泪书此，再示臣民，天下也可以知朕之心矣。

    　　和硕怡亲王等题为滔天之罪恶难宽，率土之同仇甚切，恳祈乾断，明正典刑，以昭国宪，以快人心事。臣等伏读上谕，宽宥曾静，仰见我皇上大度包涵，如天之无不覆，如地之无不载。虽恶兽毒蛇，魑魅魍魉，不忍以雷霆歼灭，欲使之改面回心。

    　　自尧、舜、禹、汤以至于今，未闻此宽大之典也。但臣等伏思我朝创业垂统，列祖圣圣相承，圣祖仁皇帝御极六十余年，丰功骏烈，炳耀日星，厚泽深仁，浃洽宇宙。皇上嗣统建极，大孝大德，至圣至诚，宵旰勤民，仁育义正。躬行节俭，俾藏富闾阎；广沛恩膏，以普寒黎庶。蠲赈动盈亿万，教养溥遍遐荒。数年以来，年岁丰登，民气和乐，嘉祥骈集，风俗阜成。举凡含齿戴发之俦，靡不沐浴皇风，歌咏帝德，山陬海，僻壤穷乡，咸顺则怀恩，心悦诚服。乃有曾静者，性与人殊，张为幻，蛊惑于逆贼吕留良之反书悖论，复道听阿其那、塞思黑门下之奸徒匪类散布诬捏毫无影响之流言。辄敢编集蜚语，缮写谤书，令其徒张熙从湖南远至陕西，赴总督岳钟琪衙门投递。虽不能为反叛之事，实素蓄反叛之心。是以恶贯满盈，神明驱遣，令其自行败露，身服典刑，以消异类之邪说，以正天下之人心也。经年以来，中外臣民闻其嗥吠，皆切不共戴天之忿，思食其肉而寝其皮。

    　　今皇上沛如天之仁，悯其始由误听，今已悔悟，情有可原，特加宽宥。臣等伏读圣谕，以改过望天下之人，过大而能改，胜于过小而不改，若实能改过，则无不可赦之罪。又念跳梁逆命者，畏罪投诚，尚邀赦宽之典。大哉皇言！宽仁好生之德，度越千古。但曾静枭獍性成，阴谋不轨，诬谤悖逆，罪恶弥天。查律例开载十恶，凡谋反叛逆及大不敬，皆常赦之所不原。是曾静之罪在十恶，乃三宥之所不及。而张熙与曾静共谋不轨，赴陕投递逆书，思欲构乱，亦所难宽。仰祈皇上俯允臣等所请，敕下法司，将曾静、张熙按律处决，碎尸悬首；查其亲属逆党，尽与歼除；以明朝廷之宪章，慰臣民之公愤。臣等无任恳笃激切之至。为此，谨题请旨。奉旨：宽宥曾静等一案，乃诸王大臣官员等所不可赞一词者，天下后世或以为是，或以为非，皆朕身任之，于臣工无与也。但朕再四详慎，所降谕旨，俱已明晰，诸王大臣官员等不必再奏。倘各省督抚提镇有因朕宽宥曾静复行奏请者，著通政司将本发还。

    　　雍正上谕吕留良怎么得罪了圣祖皇帝在天之灵，而落致戮尸枭首的下场

    　　上谕：我朝肇造区夏，天锡人归，列圣相承，中外景从。逮我圣祖仁皇帝，继天立极，福庇兆民，文治武功，恩施德教，超越百王，亘古罕有。此普天率土，心悦诚服。虽深山穷谷，庸夫孺子，以及凡有血气之伦，亦莫不尊亲者。讵意逆贼吕留良者，悍戾凶顽，好乱乐祸，自附明代王府仪宾之孙，追思旧国，愤懑诋讥。夫仪宾之后裔，于戚属至为疏贱，何足比数。且生于明之末季，当流寇陷北京时，吕留良年方孩童。本朝定鼎之后，伊亲被教泽，始获读书成立，于顺治年间，应试得为诸生。嗣经岁科屡试，以其浮薄之才，每居高等，盗窃虚名，夸荣乡里。是吕留良于明毫无痛痒之关，其本心何曾有高尚之节也。乃于康熙六年，因考校失利，妄为大言，弃去青衿，忽追思明代，深怨本朝，后以博学宏词荐，则诡云必死；以山林隐逸为荐，则剃发为僧。按其岁月，吕留良身为本朝诸生十余年之久矣，乃始幡然易虑，忽号为明之遗民，千古悖逆反复之人，有如是怪诞无耻，可嗤可鄙者乎？自是著邪书，立逆说，丧心病狂，肆无忌惮。其实不过卖文鬻书，营求声利，而遂敢于圣祖仁皇帝任意指斥，公然骂诅，以毫无影响之事，凭空撰造。所著诗文以及日记等类，或镌板流传，或珍藏秘密，皆人世耳目所未经，意想所未到者。朕翻阅之余，不胜惶骇震悼。盖其悖逆狂噬之词，非惟不可枚举，抑且凡为臣子者，所不忍寓之于目，不忍出之于口，不忍述之于纸笔者也。今姑就其中数条，略为宣示内外诸臣，庶天下后世共知其张，感愤之荒唐，犬吠狼嗥之忿戾。自生民以来乱臣贼子，罪恶滔天，奸诈凶顽，匪类盗名理学大儒者，未有如吕留良之可恨人也。

    　　其文集有云：“德以后，天地一变，亘古所未经”。又其行状云：“有故人死于西湖，为位以哭，坏墙裂竹，拟于西台之恸。”

    　　又云：“将以小庄为桃花源，为不知有汉，无论魏晋之人。”

    　　又云：“遂削发为僧，苟延性命。”

    　　又辞山林隐逸之荐，答友人书云：“有人行于途，卖饧者唱曰：破帽换糖。其人急除匿，已而唱曰：破网子换糖。复匿之。又唱曰：乱头发换糖。乃惶遽无措曰：何太相逼！留良之剃顶，亦正怕换糖者相逼耳。”

    　　又示诸子戒庆生辰云：“如其有重于生也，则偷息一日，一日之耻也。世有君子曰：夫，夫也，何为至今不死也。则其谬严于斧钺，又何庆之有？使以辱身苟活者为庆，将置夫年不满三十，义不顾门户，断飞首，以遂其志义者于何地也。”

    　　又日记内诗句云：“若论五百年间事，紫色蛙声总正传。”

    　　又云：“麻喇吉出城，送者填塞，饥渴易为饮食如此，观我民狼狈不知所归，可怜可痛也。”

    　　又云：“李雯，华亭人，甲申后入北幕，《与史道邻书》及《下江南诏》皆其笔也。中有‘六合一而泰阶平，礼乐兴而干戈息’之句，人传嗤之。”

    　　又云：“沈天彝为其妹求旌贞节，且云其尊公弃车先生遗命，不请有司之旌。予曰：‘尊公之识高，其命正当尊也。’弃车先生遭变后十余年，闭门不见宾客，颠毛全好，天彝忽以酒灌醉，尽髡之。醒为号痛而已。所著述将及栋，天彝尽取焚之，恐其有刺触累己也。嘻，亦异矣！”

    　　又祭友人云：“斯文将丧，逆天者亡，顾我逆天，死反得后。”等语。此即其梗化不臣，明目张胆，指我朝为闰统，托吠尧以自文者，皆此类也。夫吕留良食本朝之粟，履本朝之土，且身列胶庠，深被本朝之恩，何得视如仇敌，而毫无顾忌，普蜂蚁之不若乎？又文集有云：“人心恶薄日甚，即杀运所开，聊避睹闻，窃恐不免。”

    　　又日记云：吴三桂乞撤之语，甚有愤懑不平之气。三桂老不足虑，其下恐未必安。”

    　　又云：“滇中于甲寅元日寅时即王位，取四寅也。今按其时正彼中日食云。”

    　　又云：“董允出其新作，乃《平平凉颂》也，予不看，曰：先须改题目，去首字改颂作叹。”

    　　又云：“闻吴三桂死，有吴国贵者立，清遣人往讲，割云贵罢兵。”

    　　又云：“闻闽乱为范承谟激成，承谟亦死于闽。”

    　　又其行状内云：“夙兴夜寐，终日乾乾”等语。夫普天之下，莫非王土；率土之滨，莫非王臣。吕留良于我朝食德服畴，以有其身家，育其子孙者数十年，乃不知大一统之义，平日之谓我朝皆任意指名，或曰“清”，或曰“北”，或曰“燕”，或曰“彼中”。至于与逆藩吴三桂连书之处，亦曰“清”，曰“往讲”，若本朝于逆藩为邻敌者然，何其悖乱之甚乎！且吴三桂、耿精忠乃叛逆之贼奴，人人得而诛之，吕留良于其称兵犯顺，则欣然有喜，惟恐其不成；于本朝疆域之恢复，则怅然若失，转形于嗟叹。于忠臣之殉难，则污其过失，且闻其死而快意；不顾纲常之倒置，惟以助虐迎寇为心；不顾生民之涂炭，惟以兵连祸结为幸。何吕留良处心积虑，残忍凶暴之至，此极也。且乾乾夕惕，《易经》传注，皆以为人君之事，而其子孙公然以加吕留良之身，不更肆且妄乎？

    　　又云：“永历帝被执时，满汉皆倾心，东宫勒马前行，以鞭梢东指，则东边满汉兵皆跪，西指则西跪。弑之日，天地晦霾，日月失光，百里之内，凡关壮缪庙皆被雷击”等语。

    　　查伪永历朱由榔本窍立于流寇之中，在云贵广西等处，其众自相攻剽劫夺，贻害民生，后兵败逃窜缅甸。顺治十八年，定西将军爱星阿领兵追至缅城，先遣人传谕缅酋，令执送朱由榔，否则军临城下，后悔无及。大军随至城下，缅人震惧，遂执朱由榔献军前，杀伪侯王维恭等一百余人，于是全获朱由榔眷属以归。此永历之实迹，乃中外人所共知者。朱由榔穷蹙无归，为我朝满汉大兵所共擒，岂有擒寇贼之人，转于其马前行跪之理乎？其时之汉人兵丁，亦耻而不为之事，况于满人乎！此等瞽说，荒唐鄙谬，无中生有，不知何自而来也。至云关壮缪庙皆被雷击，尤为荒诞之甚。朱由榔之死，实系上天诛殛，而人力岂能强为耶！关圣帝君与雷神皆为奉天司命之正神，何以有凡关庙皆被雷击之事？于理亦甚为不顺。

    　　且本朝用兵以来，事事皆仰荷上天眷佑之恩，百神呵护之德。即如我兵之守永兴也，士卒不过千人，贼以重兵相攻，势甚危急，蒙真武之神，显化神兵，布满岩谷，狂寇寒心褫魄，众遂溃逃而散。此有御制碑文，详纪其事者。其克复云南城也，则有金马飞腾之兆，而逆寇即日荡平。此皆见之志乘，万目共睹之事，天下所共知者，然此不过举一二事而言，其它不可枚举，吕留良独闻之乎？总之，逆贼吕留良，于本朝应有征应之事迹，则概为隐匿而不书，而专以造作妖诬，欲快其私愤。伊之妄诞伎俩，能逆天乎？

    　　又文集内云：“今日之穷，为羲皇以来所仅见”等语。夫明末之时，朝廷失败，贪虐公行，横征暴敛，民不聊生，至于流寇肆毒，疆场日蹙，每发糜饷数百万，悉皆出于民力，乃斯民极穷之时也。我朝扫靖寇氛，与民休养，于是明代之穷民，咸有更生之庆。吕留良岂毫无耳目，乃丧心昧理，颠倒其说，转言今日之民穷乎？况逮我圣祖皇帝爱育黎元，海内殷庶，黄童白叟，不见兵革，蠲租减赋之政，史不胜书。民何由而穷，至为羲皇以来仅见之穷乎？试问之吕留良，如我圣祖皇帝六十余年，久道化成，休养生息，物阜民安，内外升平，兆民乐业，即自羲后以来，史册所纪屈指而数。蒙上天之眷佑，可以比并我朝之盛者，果可多得乎？而乃云：“羲皇以来未有之穷”，不太甚乎？即如吕留良怀不逞之心，动云万金结客，而其刊刻我朝时文，货卖牟利，富仍不赀。观其日记所载米盐琐碎，算及粪壤，营营求财之心，惟日不足，尚得谓之穷乎？又日记内云：“四月末京中起怪风三日，其色大红，著人面皆红。”

    　　又云：“石门镇堰桥水忽立二丈许，舟中芦席，有飞至南高桥，复还原舟者。”

    　　又云：“有大星如碗，后有细星随之，如彗。”

    　　又云：“十二月二十九日夜雨甚大，然大电，随发震雷，甚响而长，不知明年作何运数耳。”

    　　又云：“初五日午后，日光磨荡，有黑日如斗状。”

    　　又云：“日有三枚，日旁有一差小者，色白不甚动；白日旁又一小者，色赤而动甚。”

    　　又云：“河南郏县有凤至，百鸟朝会数日。有二赤鸟，长丈许，以身蔽凤，凤身五色陆离，鸣如箫韶。邑人怪之，驱牛厌胜，牛俱股栗不前。路上死鸟甚众。又有死金色鲤，狼藉地上。时予作《凤砚铭》云：‘德未尝衰，尔或不来，善以道鸣，必圣人生。’而忽闻此，又一异也”等语。凡此毫无影响，妄捏怪诞之记载甚多。总由其逆意中幸灾乐祸，但以捏造妄幻，惑心观听为事。其荒诞不经，皆不顾也。夫灾亦古所时有，上天垂象，原以儆戒人君，令其修省进德，未有事不实而可以为鉴者也。若如吕留良之记载，一一皆虚，天地间未有之事，何以示儆于将来？假使传诸后世，以捏影捕风之语，或信为实有之事，必以从前太平盛世，尚有如此非常奇怪灾异，倘遇日月星辰水旱之变，必轻忽为无关于治乱，而漫不经心，其所以启后世人君之怠玩者，其罪不可胜数矣。

    　　又日记云：“康熙甚吝，吴中顾云者，写真甚精，供奉内廷，不许其遍游公侯之门。一日入朝，仓遽用旧服。康熙曰：‘此要银子也。’荐之一王子，王子送元宝二百两及缎，康熙收之。临行辞，康熙只予二十四两而已”等语。不但岂有此事，而怪诞悖乱，何至于此极也。吕留良以此诬诋圣德。夫韩昭侯藏蔽裤曰：“欲待有功者。”

    　　史册相传，以为美谈。今一写真之人，即圣祖仁皇帝不轻加厚赐，亦圣主慎重赏赉之盛德耳。而吕留良捏此浮言，讥为吝惜财物乎？圣祖仁皇帝在位六十一年，除水旱赈恤外，特恩蠲免钱粮，不下数百万万，此天下臣民所共知，岂吝主所能为者？吕留良独无耳目乎！忍心害理，可谓极矣。且吕留良谊属臣民，而慢称康熙，其悖逆无状，何太甚矣。即此数条，猖狂悖乱，已极放言横逆之罪，况其它太甚之词，尤足令人痛心疾首，不共戴天。

    　　夫吕留良生于浙省人文之乡，读书学问，初非曾静山野穷僻，冥顽无知者比。且曾静只讥及于朕躬，而吕留良则上诬圣祖皇考之盛德；曾静之谤讪，由于误听流言，而吕留良则自出胸臆，造作妖妄。况曾静谬执中国夷狄之见，胸中妄起疑团，若不读吕留良之书，不见吕留良之议论蜂起，快心满意，亦必有所顾忌。而不敢见之文辞。是吕留良之罪大恶极，诚有较曾静更为倍甚者也。朕向来谓浙省风俗浇漓，人怀不逞，如汪景祺、查嗣庭之流，皆以谤讪悖逆，自伏其辜，皆吕留良之遗害也。

    　　甚至民间氓庶，亦喜造言生事。如雍正四年内，有海宁、平湖阖城屠戮之谣。此时惊疑相煽，逃避流离者有之。此皆吕留良一人为之倡导于前，是以举乡从风而靡也。盖浙江士人等，习见吕留良之恣为狂吠，坐致盛名，兼拥厚赀，曾无纤芥之患得婴其身。是以转相推服，转相慕效，多被愚迷而不知也。甚至地方官吏，怵其声热之嚣凌，党徒之众盛，皆须加意周旋，优礼矜式，以沽重儒之誉。如近日总督李卫，为大臣中公正刚直之人，亦于到任之时，循沿往例，不得不为之赠送祠堂匾额，况他人乎？此其陷溺人心，浊乱世俗，害已不可胜言矣。数年以来，朕因浙省人心风俗之害，可忧者甚大，早夜筹划，仁育义正，备极化导整顿之苦心，近始渐为转移，日归于正。若使少为悠忽，不亟加整顿，则吕留良之邪说诬民者，必致充塞胶固于人心而不可解，而天经地义之大闲，泯灭沦弃，几使人人为无父无君之人矣。吕留良之为祸浙省者，不知何所底止耶！今日天道昭然，逆贼恶贯时至，令其奸诈阴险尽情败露，则不容不明正其罪，以维持世教，彰明国法者也。且吕留良动以理学自居，谓已身上续周、程、张、朱之道统。夫周、程、张、朱世之大儒，岂有以无父无君为其道，以乱臣贼子为其学者乎？此其狎侮圣儒之教，败坏士人之心，真名教中大罪魁也。而庸流下愚，不能灼知其心迹行藏，乃以一不解天经地义之匪类，犹且群我以道学推之，则斯文扫地矣。即吕留良自撰之文亦云：“逆天者亡。”

    　　又曰：“顾我逆天，死反得后。”明知逆天之罪大，而必欲悍然蹈之，死而不悔，不知古今以来，天地间乖戾悍暴之气，何独钟于吕留良也。

    　　朕即位以来，实不知吕留良有何著述之事，而其恶贯满盈，人神共愤，天地不容，致有曾静上书总督岳钟琪之举，曲折发露，以著吕留良之凶顽。而吕留良之子如吕葆中者，曾应举成名，蒙恩拔置鼎甲，仕列清华。其余子孙多游庠序，乃不即毁板焚书，以灭其迹。且吕葆中既已身叨仕籍，而犹世恶相承，并未洗心涤虑，前此一念和尚谋叛之案，党羽连及吕葆中，其时逆迹早已彰著，蒙圣祖皇帝如天之仁，免其究问，而吕葆中遂忧惧以死。

    　　就常情而论，吕葆中之兄弟子孙，遇如此之惊危险祸，且荷蒙圣祖皇帝如此之高厚洪恩，自当感激悔悟，共思掩覆前非，以为幸逃诛殛之计。岂料冥顽悍鸷，习与性成，仍复抱守遗编，深藏笥箧。此固吕留良以逆乱为其家传，故吕葆中等逆竖昏愚，罔知警惕；而实乃天道昭然，不容少昧，如有鬼神驱遣，使逆贼之阴谋彻底呈现于今日。逆贼之遗毒，不致漏网于天诛也。前此曾静逆书，朕所以一一剖白者。缘朕即位以来，深知外间逆党甚众，自然散布讹言，惑乱人心志。其所以诋惟朕之一身者，朕可以己意自为判定归结。若如吕留良之罪大恶极，获罪于圣祖在天之灵者，至深至重，即凡天下庸夫孺子，少有一线良心之人知此，亦无不切齿而竖发，不欲与之戴履天地，此亦朕为臣子者情理之所必然。兹特降谕旨，将诸条略为宣示，其逆贼吕留良及其子孙嫡亲弟兄子侄，应照何定律治罪之处？著九卿翰詹科道会议，直省督抚、提督、两司，秉公各抒己见，详核定议具奏。

    　　一、我是怎样受吕留良思想毒害，而成为弥天重犯的？

    　　曾静供：弥天重犯生于楚边，身未到过大都，目未接见文人，见闻固陋，胸次尤狭，只有一点迂腐好古好义之心，时存于中而不可泯。加以吕留良之文评，盛行于世，文章举子家，多以伊所论之文为程法，所说之义为定义，而其所讥诋本朝处，又假托《春秋》之义，以寄其说于孔子口中，所以不得不令愚人信其实。弥天重犯心下虽不知本朝得统来历，与列圣相承功德，然生圣祖皇帝之朝，赖圣祖皇帝之恩，自祖父以来，无干戈之扰，无苛政之苦，休养生息，以乐以利，大是安业顺化，胸中原无此说。无奈吕留良将此义发得惊异，且以为说出于孔子。弥天重犯虽不识吕留良如何人，焉有不信孔子？且浅陋无知，胸中实别寻个义理解脱不出，因妄自揣量，以为士人读书，无事不当以孔子为法，岂有当前一个这样大的名义全不照管，竟将孔子一部《春秋》囫囵吞下去，如何使得。所以抱此疑团，陷身大逆而莫救。

    　　直到今日想来，当时之所以别寻个义理解脱不出者，只为心中不知本朝龙兴之原，与列圣递承之绩，所以为一部《春秋》缚束。若晓得这两个缘故，本朝名正言顺，大义亭亭，关《春秋》所摈甚事，与管仲所攘何涉，又何至为彼说所拘局。弥天重犯今日之所以切齿痛恨于吕留良者，为伊生于明末之季，身处江浙人文之区。于本朝功绩岂有不知，以伊之聪明才性，本朝如此亭亭大义，岂看不出，即托身于儒林，合该早将斯义表白于天下，使天下读书士子，晓然知本朝大功大德，名正言顺，尊之亲之，而勿致疑于孔子《春秋》之说。此方是吕留良当身之正义，如何反将此正大义理隐蔽，不见宣发，竟支吾旁引《春秋》之义，以抵当本朝。

    　　既背经文之旨，复乖当身之义，且流说于士林，遗累于国家。今日士子之从事举业文字，晓得他的说话者，胸中未尝不染其恶。但所知有浅深，是以受病有轻重，求其能卓然自信，知吕留良之说为非，而复解脱得一部春秋之义，与本朝丝毫无碍者实少。盖人纵晓得本朝功德之隆，治业之盛，远驾汉唐，而直接三代，与圣人之生，原无分于东西；然终不能去吕留良之说。而紧抱一部《春秋》义旨，在言下不是说坏本朝不是圣人，定会诽谤孔子错作《春秋》，此弥天重犯前在长沙两次亲供，解说此义。

    　　到今日思来，实是皇天眷佑我朝，知得我朝正义正名，久为逆说掩蔽于士庶人之胸，所以假弥天重犯之口，曲折阐发此义，使天下万世共尊共亲，无毫发遗玷于我朝之圣德神功，故必如弥天重犯之身亲经历，方晓得此义。

    　　从前错误，实由于无知，而过信吕留良之说所致，今得圣谕开示，复就伊荒唐鄙谬，无中生有的说话思之，并考吕留良的时地与其学问心术，知得彼非不知而看错，实出于有意以诋诬也。所以于本朝一切实有征应之事迹，则概为隐匿而不书，而专以捏造妄幻惑人观听为事，全不知食本朝之粟，履本朝之土，食德服畴，以有其身家，育其子孙者数十年，皇恩之当报，而竟无顾忌，相视如仇敌。今观其说话，全是以张佞利之口，逞其忿戾凶顽之习，而复七为藏奸隐诈，假托圣贤之说，盗名理学大儒，以欺世而惑人。自古以来乱臣贼子，包藏祸心，诱变士子，陷害良民者，未有如吕留良可痛可恨之甚也。然在重犯因过信吕留良逆说，与误听谣言，而身陷极恶大罪以来，每清夜自思，心虽无恶，罪实难解。

    　　即令自家判断，亦寻出路不著，况圣天子一日万机焉，能烛照心肝，洞悉民隐，知得无知误听，本心无恶而钦恤之？足以屡蒙皇上如天之仁，颁旨宽宥，自家心正觉得皇恩虽然好生，当身罪过重大，恐难得其生路解脱也。今蒙圣谕剖判吕留良罪案，复取弥天重犯罪案比较，此时在弥天重犯只有惶恐战粟，死生待命之下而已。又焉敢摇唇张口，指他人所犯之大小，诉自己罪恶之轻重！特以尧舜在上，无不达之民隐，圣谕所颁，原得许直供陈奏，而今日所供者，又皆在谕旨包涵遍覆之内，是以敢于冒死直供。且以弥天重犯如此极恶重罪，尚得容许自供自解，可以知我皇上宸衷虚明广大，直同天体，不惟为亘古首出之圣君，然即此一事，亦属亘古未有之奇典。弥天重犯当此盛会，又何敢隐忍回曲，而不直供其所以然。

    　　因是思得吕留良之著说纪载，是有心为恶，而假托于善，以掩其恶。弥天重犯之狂举上书，本不知是恶，乃用意为善，而自陷于恶。盖吕留良生明末之季，处江浙之省，读书学问，何事不晓，何义不讲，本朝功德，宜耳闻目见而身被熟矣。岂若弥天重犯之生晚而居处穷僻，心暗质鲁，不惟别事不知，即流贼李自成名姓亦不晓。若使早似吕留良之有知，不但不肯为此狂悖之举，且久已将我朝功德阐发，见之于言，论传之于士林，使天下共晓君亲之义矣。又何至有弥天重犯狂悖之举。盖生本朝而搜纪本朝之功绩，阐明本朝之道德仁义，正学士分内事，自古儒者所必先之举。吕留良何计不出此，而反以讥诋为事？今蒙圣谕开示：“吕留良生于浙处人文之乡，读书学问初非曾静山野穷僻冥顽无知者比。”

    　　此诚德同天地，明并日月，至公至明之至论也。且吕留良本心，不欲圣祖之圣，而伪捏不圣之说，以诬其圣。弥天重犯本心不知皇上之圣，忽听不圣之说，遂误信以为果是不圣。其实谤诬圣祖，罪固不容于死，而讥诋皇上，法又岂容独生乎？所不同者，只为山野愚民，不知圣德高厚，遂为奸党布散流言，惑乱民间听闻。岂若圣祖皇帝在位六十余年，深仁厚泽，沦肌浃髓，虽黄童白叟，皆所深知，况身列胶庠十余年之吕留良乎？皇上天视圣祖，浑忘己德。今蒙圣谕开示：“曾静诋讥及于朕躬，而吕留良则上诬圣祖皇考之盛德。”此又不惟德同天地，明并日月，至公至明，而并且流露我皇上平昔至仁至孝之深衷矣。

    　　又弥天重犯之狂举，心中本无成见，因闻吕留良逆说，复闻谣言，而弥天重犯附近之地，又偶尔歉收，且平昔并未晓得我皇上圣德万分之—。此时觉得当身道义既催，目前时势又迫，俨若有个鬼神在此驱逐之使动，容人安息不得。所以不计利害，不审成败，妄萌此狂悖逆乱之举，若吕留良，则明知有道，而若不知其道；明闻有德，而若不闻其德。观其立说，多幸灾乐祸之心，毫无忧民爱国之念。是吕留良之诋诬，独出己意，而弥天重犯之狂悖，全凭人使。今蒙圣谕开示：“曾静之讪谤，由于误听流言；而吕留良则自出胸臆，造作妖妄。”

    　　此诚德同天地，明并日月，至公至明之至论也。至若中外之分，弥天重犯虽曾闻其说，其实亦心知其不然，苦奈学浅无知，见闻未广，思想义理不出，分解不来，无可如何。且一面反覆细观吕留良议论，直指此为今日等一大义，读书人所必守。岂知本朝得统之正，列圣救济之功，皆千古所罕见，与春秋之所摈管仲之所攘义例，不惟不同；且以今较古，脱然如寒暑昼夜之相反。今蒙圣谕开示：“曾静胶执中国夷狄之见，胸中妄起疑团，若不读吕留良之书，不见吕留良之议论蜂起，快心满意，亦必有所顾忌，而不敢见之文辞。”

    　　此诚洞见肺肝，民情丝毫不能隐处。凡此乾断，固非具大舜之智，不能明察到此。抑非裕帝尧之仁，不能钦恤如是。仁智交融，圣神并至，焉得不令闻者拍案惊倒，以为千古圣明之君所不到。弥天重犯到此生固有荣，死亦何恨？况昨又蒙降旨，九分不杀，是即感明睿之德，照烛隐情；复荷高厚之恩，宽宥重典，恭逢这样神圣天子在上，竟无说可以颂扬比拟得，只有尊之敬之如天地，亲之如父母而已，更有什么话说得。

    　　二、乱臣贼子吕留良是怎样把我们引入歧途的？

    　　刘之珩、车鼎丰、车鼎贲、谯中翼、孙用克即孙学颜、陈立安、曹珏、廖易即景叔、张孝先、张勘即实安、张新华、张照、张熙同供：伏惟本朝圣圣相承，积厚流光，太祖高皇帝神武奋兴，肇基东北。太宗文皇帝举义师以除寇乱，为亡明雪耻，救生灵于水火，天下筐篚争迎，同登衽席。世祖章皇帝应天顺人，入登大宝，大一统之盛，虽殷周有未及者。迨我圣祖仁皇帝继统承乾，化神德盛。凡有血气，莫不尊亲。乃不意浙省有吕留良者，恃彼小才，欺世盗名，假评选以驰声，藉刊刻而射利。适值昭代右文之隆会，得以风行宇内，一时传习举业者，悉为其所惑，遂多奉为八股之金科，讲章之宗匠。之珩等庸陋迂愚，素未谙其为人底里，但见其现行选刻本头，论文说书，笔尖舌快，因随众而推服者有之。

    　　今得见留良和抄藏残稿，种种悖谬，率皆大逆不道之语，甚至轻肆诋讥，上及圣祖，诚有臣子所不敢入于目，不忍述诸口者。乃始惊其平日凶悍性成，乖戾无比，逞臆妄言，私心梗化，正是乱臣贼子之尤，罪大恶极，为王法所断不容。夫以留良身为圣代之诸生，谬附前朝之余烬，践土食毛者业经数十年，直视如蔑有，顾以绝我影响之事，毫无顾忌之谈，公然形诸笔墨。观其言殆桀犬以自居，其实曾蜂蚁之不若，一何其悖逆之至于斯极也。且其身后，长子葆中即成进士，缀清班，其余子孙，亦复多列胶序，则由今日而论，国家之恩泽，涵濡煦育于吕氏者甚深且厚，而回思留良之狂肆背负，愈觉可恨，而其罪益彰明较著，历劫难逃矣。此在忠臣义士固欲请上方以正显戮；而庸夫孺子，稍一线之良者，亦莫不痛恨而发指。即彼诗文中，亦尝自谓逆天，宜乎其享年不永，而旋已早伏冥诛也。窃思留良既死，凡秘笥所留，其子若孙即当速为毁弃，而乃应毁不毁，片纸只字，卒致莫能遁匿者，岂非上天之笃爱圣祖，而又欲有以显佑我皇上之纯孝，所以默使之败露，而表暴其罪状哉！从此宇内士民，幸得悟其背伦逆天，以共晓然于邪正之判，如大寐之忽醒焉。昭昭天理，盖非狂悖者之所能久诬，恢恢天网，亦非叛逆者之所能终漏也。之珩待共沐皇仁，粗知大义，睹此奸回，不胜不共戴天之愤。谨供。

    　　一、本朝子民严鸿逵追随吕留良效颦狂吠，谩骂诽谤朝廷，是何居心？

    　　上谕：浙江逆贼吕留良，凶顽梗化，肆为诬谤，极尽悖逆，乃其逆徒严鸿逵者，狂暴狠戾，气类相同。意见吻合，实为吕留良之羽翼，推尊诵法，备述其遗言绪论，又从而恢张扬厉，以附益之，其词有较吕留良为尤甚者。夫吕留良以本朝之诸生，追附前明仪宾之末裔，无端反噬，愤懑猖狂，已属从古乱臣贼子中所罕见；至若严鸿逵，则生今之世，为今之人，自其祖父，已为本朝之编氓，践土食毛，戴高履厚。严鸿逵之于明代，岂有故君旧国之思，而于我朝实被遂生乐育之泽，何所庸其感忿，何所庸其追忆，而亦敢效颦狂吠乎？兹择其悖逆之语、彰明较著者，一并宣示，庶使中外臣民知严鸿逵背理逆天，无父无君之罪，无所逃于天地之间。其日记有云：“索伦地方，正月初三地裂，横五里，纵三里，初飞起石块，后出火，迫三十里内，居人悉迁避。”

    　　旨云：此等异事，古来甚多，况在口外，何足为奇。又云：“徐姓在燕，有仆妇发狂，一夕见贵者三人坐堂上，忽报朱三太子来，三人下阶迎之。见一人浑身血痕，怒向三人索黑水三道，三人初不允，固索，乃允。约以某日发水始去。醒而言之。后几日，热河水大发，淹死满洲人二万余。计其日，则此妇所梦之日也。”

    　　又云：“江都邵穆布将死，如有所见，口呼‘惕斋先生，与我无预’者，月余而死。盖当时此事发于此人，有人在彼署中，见其死时如此。”

    　　又云：“十六夜月食，其时见众星摇动，星星如欲坠状，又或飞或走，群向东行。”

    　　又云：“旧年七月初四日星变，一钦天监云：此星出天沛垣，入天市垣，分野属吴越，应在数年内吴越有兵起于市井之中。其色白，应主国丧，在本年内其后说已验。”

    　　又云：“予所戴六合一统帽，以拟四方平定巾，今士人仿效渐多，因阅《日知录》，乃知先朝已有是名，亦太祖所制，若曰‘六合一统’云尔。”

    　　又云：“燕中人家门首悉土朱画圈，方圆点叉不一，或圈中有字。”

    　　又云：“徐孝先终身衣直领，戴孝头巾，言与先皇帝戴孝。”

    　　又云：“近日有雄鸡生卵，雌化为雄；又有犬产蛇鳖，胎生。”

    　　又云：“练市有沈开生名伦，不去发，白衣冠终其身。”

    　　又云：“河南有虾蟆食人异。奇哉！”

    　　凡此荒唐叛逆之语，自康熙五十五年至雍正六年内所记载者，已不胜枚举，其中惟索伦地方，拥石出火，实有之事，此盖彼地气脉使然，前此已经屡见，现今有相同九山为证。本地相传，皆言自土中拥出者，历年已久，无从考索。是以其地名九墩，与新出之石，凡十矣。其傍远迫山顶，亦有烈焰者，此圣祖皇帝深知之事，是以有“从前甚多”之谕旨。而严鸿逵以此为讥讪乎。至热河水发一事，口外重山叠嶂，五六月间大雨时行，凡涧溪悉成巨浸，行旅时为阻滞，然雨止，则一二时即退。热河山回峦抱，中惟一道河流，每雨水稍大，众山之水皆从此出，是以往往有冲决堤岸之事。

    　　康熙四十八年六月，大雨连昼夜，其时附近行宫一带，地处高阜，惟隔岸山根之下为水所漫溢。本地久居之民，实所习见，不以为异。而扈从之官兵，亦皆知雨止水即减退，皆安重不迁。惟寄居之匠人等，以生平所未见，惊惶迷惑。或有愚人编木为筏，谓可以乘流而渡，遂有木筏触石而解，以至沉溺者数人。又圣祖仁皇帝御用水井，在隔河山麓，有守水官兵，凛尊法度，水至不敢移徙跬步，亦至沉溺二三人。是时，朕以轮班，恭请圣安，随从官兵二三百人驻扎即在水发之地，因约束严整，无一妄动之人。及至水退，皆安然无恙，无一人被水者。乃严鸿逵谓淹死满人二万余，何其妄诞至于此极！江浙等处时有山水骤发，及起蛟之事。动辄冲没村落数百家，严鸿逵岂不闻之乎？何独以热河水发为异也。且热河之地，五方贸易之人毕集，而佣工力作者，多系山东山西之民。而严鸿逵谓独淹死满人，有此理乎？乃托之梦幻，造为朱三太子索黑水等语，不知严鸿逵是何肺肠也。

    　　夫从来讪骂诽怨之词，多言桀犬吠尧，吠非其主，以自卸其罪。然以严鸿逵生之今世，为今之民，明代沦亡已久，而我朝定鼎，经百年有余，按之天时，稽之人事，则明之太祖与崇祯帝，以及伪朱三太子，非严鸿逵之主也，明矣。若之何托心于遥遥不相关涉之非其主，而转吠及于神尧之主乎？且臆造讹言，好乱乐祸，于升平宁谧之时，作干戈扰攘之望；以圣祖之德盛化神，而公然诬蔑；以今日之民安物阜，而朝夕咒诅。种种丧心病狂，皆拾吕留良之唾余，而尤加幻妄，岂非凶虐性成，万死有余之逆贼乎！且伊既私自著述，造为妖罔嵘，而又貌作迂腐曲谨之态，以掩其奸顽。浙俗浮薄之士，簧鼓其虚誉，致有廷臣以纂修《明史》荐举及伊者，伊乃自鸣得意，抗慢诡激，其日记有云：“传之得炳仪字，仍嘱劝驾。有‘尧舜在上，不可徒事高隐’之语。予笑谓尧舜在上，独不可下放巢由耶。”

    　　又云：“总宪又有面奏，语嘱易斋令惟怀驰信劝驾，势不得辞云云。然予意自定，当以死拒之耳。”

    　　其大言藐抗，即已若此。乃日记又云：“有衡州人张熙，字敬卿来见，言其师曾静，永兴县人，在彼中讲学，学者称蒲潭先生。从前因读讲义，始弃诸生。”

    　　又云：“敬卿欲往江宁，作致双亭字，又寄冬之字。”

    　　夫以朕特旨诏修《明史》，旁求山林隐逸之士，而廷臣荐举及伊，则妄附巢由之洗耳，至欲以死力拒、视朝廷如儿戏，待征召于弁髦。而于逆贼曾静等叛乱悖恶之徒，尺书驰问，一介相通，则数千里之外，呼吸相应，亲如同气，辗转游扬，招纳党类，天地间，显图不轨，恣意横行，扰乱纲常，震世骇俗，未有凶狡至于此极者也。似此悖逆叛乱之人，煽惑民心，贻祸后世，王法所不容，神人所共嫉，且获罪于圣祖皇帝，与吕留良党恶共济，其罪不容于死。严鸿逵应作何治罪之处？著九卿翰詹科道会同速议，具奏。

    　　二、曾静痛心疾首地说：“我这过去的禽兽，如今是怎样脱胎成人的？”

    　　上谕：曾静悖乱凶顽，张为幻，从束狡恶狂肆之徒，未有其比。宜若性与人殊，不可化诲。乃今悔悟，从前为邪说流言所蛊惑，痛心疾首，历历吐供，自称“向为禽兽，今转人胎”等语。可见天地之大，无所不有，亦无物不可化诲。圣人有言，“信及豚鱼”。今以曾静豚鱼不如之物，亦能悔罪悛改如此。伊著《归仁说》一篇，奏云：“此身若在，愿现身说法，化导愚顽。倘不能生，则留此一篇，或使凶恶之徒，亦可消其悖逆之念。”

    　　可见人无智愚贤不肖，无不可感格之人。是以将曾静《归仁说》附于各供词之后，非以其称功颂德、谄谀而存之也。

    　　曾静著述　　归仁说

    　　圣人之出也非常，故其生也无常地，亦无常格。而其德业光辉之周于上下四方，心思运量之通于四海万世也。乃一皆超于前古，而并非数百年数千年之所尝有。昔人云：“非常者，常人之所异。”

    　　窃以为非独常人，即世俗所震聪明绝世，才智出群，竭其私智，足以压服众论；逞其著述，且可流及远境。而不足以知圣人之生，与对人之德业光辉，心思运量之迥出前古，则亦至愚之常人，不安分之常人而已矣。盖天之生圣人也，其积气也极厚，故其备德也极盛。以宇宙而言，必天地中和，积之之久，蕴蓄至数百年，而始生一圣人。又数千年，而始生一大圣人，不常有也。以一家而言，祖宗功德积之之久，至数十年，又至数百年，而始生圣子圣孙，并为大圣之子，大圣之孙。此则又圣祖、圣宗分所宜有。而自下而仰观，亦世所不常有者也。

    　　譬之未耕种之土，生气郁积既久，而一加耕种，收必数倍，嘉谷岂择地而生，天地于嘉谷亦岂择地而使之生者，而迥异他夫植。麒麟、凤凰不必尽出中土，奇珍大贝何尝不产海滨。同在此天地之中，一大胚胎，或左或右，孰分疆界，安得岐而二之，然则中国之生圣人，固已气竭力倦，而循环以出于远地也，抑何疑哉。况道之在天下无穷尽，无方体。今日与明日不同，此地与彼地各别，本极活脱变易，不容人以成格定式执持捉摸。所贵乎读书知道者，因时制宜，随地取中，即其活变之妙，以竭吾权度裁制之精，取吾与古人之同处勘出异，复使吾所处之异者归乎同，而后与古人五经垂训之旨合，而后人穷经明理，以定义之大用，斯无穷矣。然而斯义也，昔日扣盘扪龠，以瞽语瞽；桃源醉乡，由妄踵妄。若不经风霆鼓动，大冶熔铸，亦无由转头开盲，拨云雾而观天瞻日。盖生人之大迷，而至今乃得大觉也，抑厚幸矣。

    　　恭惟我朝，当明末之乱，明位之移，由东土而来，扫除寇乱，抚临诸夏，一统无外。至德深仁，沦洽四海，鸿功骏烈，耀两仪。自有生民以为，未有如此之盛者也。自夫世人智不足以知对人之生。与天地之生圣人，往往非常。误以东土为非中华文明之会，并不知列祖相承之德，皆为圣人。于是妄引《春秋》之义，与孔子所许管仲之仁诸说，以比例自矢，甚有惑于近世吕留良之逆说悖论，忘其当前衣被仁育之深恩，敢肆然讥诋诬谤，私形于论说文词者，亦或有之。其名欲正大义，而不知实反拂乎生人之大义；谓以明道，而不知竟大昧乎当然之常道。既昏迷错乱，枉误乎当身，复陷身悖逆，以取罪于当时，而贻讥于后世。此曾经身历者，不得不为天下之有志于学，而不知亦变易之道，徒为吕说所陷溺者，变色告之也。夫天地间二气，五行之精英，由聚而散，日流日广，且变动不拘，循环无常。唐、虞、三代之世，中土本狭、五服之地，荆、楚、吴、越已算要荒蛮服，其余粤、闽、古滇、巴蜀，封疆所建，贡赋所通，尚未属于中国。然计世运之升降，必以治统为转移。而稽治统之转移，又必以道统为依归。唐、虞、三代之盛，承帝治者首推大舜，颂至德者终惟文王。孟子曰：“舜生于诸冯，东夷之人也。文王生于歧周，西夷之人也。”

    　　是唐、虞、三代时之圣人，已有不尽生于中土者矣。自秦以及五季，千五百余年，二帝三王，周、孔之道，晦盲否塞，不明不行。至宋而天运始旋，其道虽仍不行于上，而实明于下。然开其统者，始于濂溪周子，集其成者盛于紫阳朱子。周子生于湖南永州，而迁于江西；朱子生于江南徽州，而学于福建。今考湖南乃楚地，而永州竟居两广之界，江南即吴江，而徽州实于东闽相接。江西则古三苗之地，福建原属八闽之区。由是观之，则知圣人之生，其不以地限也，昭昭矣。且《春秋》之摈吴楚为夷狄者，因时审地。按其事迹，与今日不惟如方圆体度之不相合，竟脱然如寒暑昼夜之相反，盖风气之开，由渐而著，自有天地以来，文运到周为极盛，而文、武、周公，以世德笃生之圣，制作礼乐，又鉴古为极精。故一时明备灿然，声名文物之隆，不惟非后代汉、唐所能及，实非前代唐、虞所得并。所以圣人赞曰：“郁郁乎，文哉！吾从周。”

    　　《春秋》之书，虽因平王迁以后，政教不行，王者之迹熄而作，然当时鲁、卫、齐、晋诸国，去文武之世未远，其故家遗俗，流风善政，犹蔼然是成周之旧。而吴、楚、山戎以侏不通诗书，不知礼义之习，逞其僭王猾夏之恶，冒于中华文明之治，此圣人所以深恶而摈斥之。其实圣人之心，即天心，因其当绝者而绝之，初未尝有意以吴、楚为处地，亦未尝立念以高置诸夏，而重内轻外也。使诸夏而不谨其常度，则其贬而抑之，也又甚于吴、楚矣。故先儒撮其旨曰：“夷狄而进于中国，则中国之；中国而夷狄，则夷狄之。是《春秋》之书，分华夷者，在礼义之有无，不在地之远近。心实至公至平，原视乎人之自处何如耳。况今日则更有事不同，而大相反者，何也？古来治统道统之合一，而从天定者，自暴秦变乱以后，虽历汉、唐、宋之盛，犹不免架阁漏空，无当于对人之万一。

    　　明末之世，尤君怠臣侈，百度废弛。内则宦官专权，把持国政；则藩封放恣，暴殄天物。官吏贪污，横征暴敛，所在皆然。荒淫骄奢，世家大族，习为高致。加以文德尽废，远人不服，各处蒙古外藩，皆为劲敌，边警时闻，应接不暇，元气尽丧。即极之前后五代之衰，亦不过是。座之流贼四起，惨杀屠掠，毒逾汤火。凡贼所经过府郡州县，以及市井村落，类皆片瓦不保，目惨心伤，自有生以来，其离乱未有如是之甚者也。论者不思此境，妄引三代、春秋之盛以此例，何其悖谬甚乎？况本朝太祖创业东海，以德行仁本，尤取明天下之心。至太宗皇帝，政举教修，仁声仁闻，四讫海内。当是时，曾勒兵入关，徇地直至山东临清，周视京城，纵猎南苑，以期为明解仇释怨，熄兵安民。而明之君臣，竟置之不问，由是振旅东归，明不能以一矢加遗。当时若有一毫利天下之心，取明直如反掌之易，又何待贼陷京城，愍帝身殉国难，明祚已绝，明位已移，请除寇乱而后兴卿命将乎？即此一举，较之武王大会孟津，观政于商，以冀纣恶之悛悔，心事更光明正大，表里无憾。况入关一战而胜李自成二十万之众，如摧枯拉朽，望风逃窜，席卷长驱，廓清海宇，救亿万生灵于水火之中。当时天下之众之依我朝也，如出深渊，如睹父母。由是世祖章皇帝发政施仁，抚临天下。而天下之感戴者，不惟明之君臣雪耻复仇，衔结莫报；且大者为我亿万生灵拔死育生，大德深恩，直与天地同流。

    　　由此观之，在昔汤、武为夏、商诸侯，虽以仁兴，而君臣一伦犹不能脱然无憾。所以当时成汤不免有惭德，武庚不免以殷叛。岂若我朝之有天下也，得于流贼李自成之手，视商、周之得统更名正而言顺。

    　　明臣、汉人，当时皆乐为效力致死乎。是春秋之吴、楚以夷狄之心，肆夷锹之行，蔑视诸夏礼乐文明之治，而来僭乱之。我朝以仁义之心，行仁义之政，不忍中国之生灵涂炭，而来抚绥之。一是为乱于至治之世，一是敷治于极乱之时，所谓不惟如方圆体度之不相合，竟脱然如寒暑昼夜之相反者此也。使圣人而在今日，其作《春秋》也所以大褒予于我朝者，当如何深切著明可知矣。盖圣人与天合德，天大无外，圣人之心亦无外，稍有一毫有外之心，即不能合天心，又何又为圣人。所以圣人判事，至虚至平，胸无一毫成见定义。原视天视民以定义。而天之于民，实无常亲，惟德是亲。今我朝不折一矢，不伤一众，不待年而成帝业。到今幅员之广，与天同大，享年之永，与天同久。承承继继，笃生圣人，愈远愈大，弥久弥光，四海升平，万国咸宁，此岂人力所能与？乃民之食德者厚，以至皇天亡眷顾者深，所以至是。圣人又何事违天拂民，而有彼此之间哉！故谓《春秋》大旨在谨华夷之辩则可。若概引《春秋》之例，以抵当我朝之盛，则罔诬圣人作经之旨，为大不可。谓圣人许管仲之仁，其功在于摈吴、楚则可，若妄以吴、楚例今日，则是非颠倒，害道害义，为大不可。是《春秋》不惟无碍于我朝，而我朝竟深有契于圣人之心，大有光于《春秋》之义旨也。审矣。

    　　盖我朝自太祖高皇帝神武盖世，开创帝基；太宗文皇帝弘继体之业，统一诸国；世祖章皇帝建极绥猷，抚临中外；圣祖仁皇帝圣德神功，遍及薄海内外，久道化成，沦肌浃髓，更为超越前古，业隆万世。可见皇天笃爱之至，非三代以下所及，即极之虞、夏、商、周，天运初开，太和极隆之会，亦罕有此圣圣相承，绵绵无间之盛。况我当今皇帝，尤圣神文武，时中变化，范围天地之化而不过，曲成万物而不遗，恢弘前烈，更有光于圣祖仁皇帝者哉。故其治效化功之显烁于两间者，已极礼明乐备之盛，而其验实亦已至于海晏而河清，特以治德渊微，圣学深，山陬海之间，间有不能与闻其大者，实因初潜藩邸，韬尧养晦，无求无欲，研经味道，以尽己性分之固有，职分之当，为未尝稍露一声光于人间，所以龙德中正，不惟非天下所得知，并非在廷诸臣所能识。

    　　惟我圣祖仁皇帝，聪明天纵，本父子之亲，以圣知圣，早知人品贵重，蕴蓄美富，为能聪明睿智足以有临。然亦以是存亡于心，而不肯扬之于众。直至圣躬不豫而大渐，委以南郊大礼，从方知我皇上至德天全，圣学性安，久为圣祖皇帝所深契。而于此尤可以见圣祖皇帝之揆道精义，传子即以传贤，并二帝，兼三王，而适于中者，迈百王而首出矣。所以当我皇上御极之初，一切政治，天下皆莫能仰测高厚之所由出。加以阿其那、塞思黑等，久蓄奸谋，散布流言于外，以致盛德至善，不能骤得遍闻于穷乡远鄙者，斯亦事理之所必有。

    　　岂知我皇上渊衷至仁，天性至孝，发虑至诚，修已至敬；而造德之纯熟，学问之渊深，历练之缜密，处事之精详，则又一理浑然，泛应由当。举凡之于政刑，见之于德礼者，既无一处不知之极其精，复无一事不处之极其当。神明尽智，化裁尽变，推行尽通，深仁大德，际天蟠地。究其归，皆因物付物，初未尝稍存一毫成见于未事之先。是以身虽至劳至苦，无一时一刻不以爱养天下苍生为事。凡可以利济斯民者，思无不到，到无不行，行无不实。自朝至暮，一日万机，目不停视，手不停批，不遑宁处，而心实至安至逸。常如明鉴、如止水，万物之过其前者，妍媸自然必露，而不容掩。今试于荡荡难名中，而以管窥及者略举其万一。如明王奉若天道，大义本于天经，自二帝三王唱和而后，后世人主皆以国家行政出治，生杀予夺，权由己制，竟不知大君之上，更有天焉，不可违也。

    　　我皇上念念从民设想，处处体天定趋。凡天所好者，体天之心好之；天所恶者，体天之心恶之；天所欲行欲止者，体天之心行之止之。由是体天之心以养民，知食为民天，农乃食本，务使各务本为，尽力南亩，不得贪利而废农功之大，不得逐末而忘稼穑之艰。每岁躬耕藉田，以重农事。而老农之勤朴无过者，令各州县岁举一人，荣给品秩，以示鼓励。而先啬神农，亦开千古未开之典，设坛崇祀，以报其功。偶间一处旱涝，即悯念忧形，减膳之下，殚精竭诚，为民祈祷，专务修少人事，以格无心。

    　　座至祷雨雨通，祈晴晴应。犹不以此为足蠲减赋之典，无年不颁，赈灾救患之泽，无地不遍。甚者如江南、江西、浙江，正供六十余万两，皆沛恩永免，深仁厚泽，与天罔极不朽。采运积贮，禁屠崇俭，以预防其不足。与夫疏浚河流，开导积淤，相地开垦，以奠民居。通民行而济民食者，可谓无处不到，无法不备参。推其极抚久绥尽六合之广，虽穷幽极僻之区，亦不至一夫失所，如西陲安插之众，不惜厚赐，使之衣食有赖。云贵等省，边塞土民，素受土司之害者，禁其鱼肉，革其科派，老有沿乡给发之养，孤贫有动用钱粮，务令得沾实惠之谕。存恤悯念，恻怛，恩膏直下及于行人气人之微贱，以期尽天子惠元元，包涵并育，大小高低遐迩，一体之本，量而后快也。

    　　体天之心以爱民，则察吏不得不极其明，惩贪不得不用其法。谓贪赃犯法之官，蠹国殃民，罪大恶极，即立置重典。亦不足以蔽其辜。但不教而杀，有所不忍，故曲宥其死，偶行抄没其家资，以备公事赏赉之用，盖所以昭国法而惩贪污，并使后来居官者，知贪赃之物不能入己，无益有害，自不肯复蹈故辙，以罹法耳。更或即其所有之资，填补亏空之数，其得豁免其罪，此皆以罚恶之内，隐寓宽仁之意，原非过刻也。至于人之心术，隐微之中，疑似之间，最为难测。睿照则辨析精微，而公中有私，私中有公，尤如丝过扣，毫发清楚。然犹不以此自用，必广行采访，以收好问好察之益，以为执两用中之资，抑兼欲得人擢用，为生民思久安长治之计，故一切政令所敷，治益求治，安愈图安，务求适中得当，立千百年不坏之良谟，以期移风易俗，潜移默化，使民日迁善。而不知其所以爱民者，又何无己也。

    　　体天之心以钦恤民命，谓明刑原以弼教君德，期于好生，法虽一定，心本宽仁。《书》云：“宥过无大，刑故无小。”所以斟酌权衡，广好生之德也，有不得已用刑者，不过欲国法申行，刑期无刑耳。故每有改定条例，必期三令五申，惟恐小民无知陷罪，不教而杀。时深恻隐之念，承审官司，滥刑有夹讯之戒；秋审应决，具奏有三复之谕。稍有一线可生，因事原情，宁过乎仁，毋过乎义。不惜反复批阅，至再至三，每年沛岁多格外生全之恩。其实皆准乎天理之至公，即乎人情之至安，宽而得中，非废法也，然亦间有应严者，则又用严，以顺适夫至正至平之则。

    　　如阿其那、塞思黑蓄奸树党，贪图不轨，已经圣祖皇帝贬而绝之，乃不知仰体君父之心，痛自改悔，竟怙终不悛，按其罪过实同周之管蔡。我皇上本大公无我之心，揆道执中，以事关国社生民之重，不惜数其罪，以大义灭之。此亦如四凶之在尧世，必有可容者，而后尧容之；其在舜世，必有不可留者，而后舜去之。尧舜何容心哉？皆因其人之自取何如耳。故皇上今日之义，即圣祖皇帝当年之仁，皇上今日之仁即圣皇帝当年之义，道无二致，同归一中，因时制宜便得其平而已。天语煌煌，反复剖析此理，已到至处尽处，而心事亦直与日月并明于千古矣。盖虚明应物之天，本无一毫成见、己意稍杂于其中，所以用宽用严，无往而非道之至当，不易有如此也。

    　　体天之心以为民，取士则于三年科举之外，有举贤良方正之恩诏，有令各省州县延访孝友端方，才可办事，而文亦可观者，每岁各举一人之谕。有选拔贡生，不拘考试名次，务取经明行修者之谕。有令满汉、内外、文武诸臣，将有猷有为有守者，各举一人之谕。有令中外诸臣，在京主事以上，在外知县以上，各举所知，或举贡生员，或山林隐逸，送部引见之谕。而于各省州县，文明极盛之学，又有升改增额，录取之谕。乡试中式各数，亦随着加增。广求博访，惟日孜孜，冀获贤才以为莅政临民之选。

    　　而犹忧人才难得，务在矜全器使，幽隐必录，所以于湖南等省，又特降分闱之旨，悯念士子之贫寒有志者。嗣后不为远险所隔，皆得以遂其观光之愿焉。体天之心以为民，尊师重道，则至圣先师追封一代。敬圣人如君亲，易讳为“邱”，重临雍之大典，改“幸”为“诣”，而诞降之期，斋戒禁屠，著为定例。且旌有节义，崇建祠守，奖劝善行，虚公核实，军民一体，直及于匹夫匹妇之贫且贱焉，风声之树更远也。体天之心以为民，优礼大臣，则赐坐赐茶；体恤群臣，有赏有赉。上下虽分，君臣一体，极至饮食之轻微，情至亦所必赐；器用、服物之小者，虽远亦所常颁。君臣之际，相期以诚，臣下隐微，无不洞烛，训诫开导。隆恩同于天地之钧陶万物，胜于父母之教育婴孺。至中至正，总以吏治戎政，物情民隐，各得其所为念。体天之心以为民，存亡修废，则合天下为一家，视异代而无外，大廓成例，封明祖之后以侯爵。考古仁恕之君，隆名之主，从未有如此之洪施公普者也。

    　　体天之心以为民，励精图治，则天德之刚，纯乎一敬，乾乾终日。法天行健，无时不极其精，无处不尽其详，广览博访，随机应变，无一不中节合宜，神聚到至处，心细到极处，即至群臣奏章，偶有一义未安，一字错落，几经廷臣历阅不到者，一经睿照，必为摘出。反复告诫，不以为倦。自朝至暮，凝坐殿室，扩然大公，物来顺应，非帝尧之钦明，大舜之恭己。殆未易臻此笃恭之境矣。体天之心以为民，垂训立教，则皇极之敷言，尤长江大河，浑浑灏灏，盘折自如，愈析愈精，实无一不行所无事，与天理之大中至正者相准。诚以宸衷虚明广大，昭融洞彻，海涵天覆，内外无间，浑乎天理之公，无一毫人欲之私，故发于文辞，理实气足，巍然经天纬地之作，与《二典》、《三谟》并垂不朽。

    　　自古圣明之君见之典谟，载之史册，所传诏诰，其精思神力，未有在纵之深厚目极如是也。极而至于体天之心，为民之深，直至作述之间，心融神契，道统、治统、心法、圣学，一气相承。诚以圣祖皇帝德合乾坤，功弘位育，开生民未开之大业，深仁厚泽，迈百王而独隆，为皇天笃爱之肖子。是圣祖皇帝之心即天心，圣祖皇帝之德即天德，故一切政治，祖述宪章，多以圣祖皇帝为准。然亦只学其道，而不拘泥其法，其中有时地异宜，损益殊方，所当更定者，则又未尝不推对祖之心，以承天之心，为民而更定之。其实继志述事，适与圣祖无违也。所以大孝纯笃，无处不到。当圣祖皇帝宾天，哀号恸慕，尽礼尽制，历三年如一日；继以孝恭仁皇后升遐，兼服不懈，悲思历久弥深。当斋居永慕之中，孝思所及，孝治所颁，徽号之议，协万世之人心；配天之典冠，百王之隆会。晨昏瞻拜，朔望祭享，望山陵而致敬，瞻庙寝以告虔。无一时不思哀思敬，无一事不尽制尽心。此虽一时怪于至情，由于至性，为所当为，不知其然而然。本无意于民，不求鉴于天，然天人一理，家园相通，此感而彼自应，上行而下自效，实无往而非继天立极，为民作则之大者。岂但区区致我仁孝诚敬之至于圣祖而已哉。

    　　凡此皆亲被德化之后，身近天日之光，管见所及，百千万分中之一耳。至于广大精神，浩浩肫肫，可以意想而不可以言尽者，不惟今日浅陋不得而知，抑人所不得而传。盖圣本不可知，而至德尤未易名言故也。此所以天人交孚。

    　　数年以来，休征并著，嘉瑞屡见，太和翔洽，民康物阜，四海同登乐利之域，万姓共享升平之福者，诚以我皇上道德既早与二帝三王合辙，而治效自当与虞、夏、商、周并隆无疑也。静生长楚边，山野穷僻，足迹未到通都大邑，生平未接见一名人达士，加以稍长失怙，身处露孤，形单影只，胸次极狭，见闻极陋。不惟列祖相承之圣德神功，有所不知，并我朝得统之大者，亦所未闻，徒以迂固执方之见，而痼其好古不化之癖。早年从事举业，翻阅八股时文，读吕留良文评，妄喜其议论之爽快，而不察其气象之粗暴；贪其意见之间与己合，而不知其发言立论之甚者，实多与道义大相悖也。且平昔徒知其刊刻之多为有功，而不知其实欲多刻以为阴图射利之计。知其立言之高为有德，而不知其故为高论，以逞其欺世盗名之术。由不知而错好，由错好而误信。日甚一日，不觉为其说所浸淫者实深。至近年以来，兼读其杂文残诗，甚有谓《春秋》华夷之分，大过于君臣之义。而今日有人实若无人，有世实若无世。以此为《纲目》凡例未发之蕴。始闻未尝不疑，迨久而不得不信。

    　　盖以其意借口于孔子之《春秋》，而例又窃附于朱子之《纲目》故也。因妄思君臣为人伦之首，本于天降，由于性生。人之思君如子之思父，天下未闻有父既失处，而于能晏然独安者。读书以明理为大，身忝士林，所干何事？又焉敢重计一己之死生利害，而委弃当身大义于不顾乎！加以我皇上圣德高远，初年洋溢未遍海内，即早为奸党布散流言，传闻满耳。此时不觉狂悖蛊心，顿忘天地之大，恍若当身道义之迫，甚于水火。乃敢定志，遍导域中，冀得聪明睿智能尽其性者，以为生民之依。遂即其谣传诋谤之词，大肆悖妄，冒昧上书于陕西总督岳公。直至事发之会，执讯庭阶，犹坚持吕留良悖论在心，以为道理当然，死何足惜。且妄谓纲常名教，而得其正，尤读书为士者之所乐，就而不避者也。

    　　殊意承问大人仰遵谕旨，早知穷陋无知，为谣言邪说所蛊惑，乃将逐条所诬一一剖示；及我朝得统事迹，反复详告；并宣皇上文德之大，励精图治，孜孜为民，忧勤不倦之苦心。伏听之下，恍然自失，如梦初醒。本若可信而无疑，然反覆细玩，所宣扬处实无往而非三王之极诣、二帝之盛德。数千年梦想不到之境，岂意今日而恭逢有此盛会，似又可疑而难信。未几，蒙恩特发圣谕一章，颁到长沙，剖析宣示，极尽详明，觉大德粹行，如日月经天，江河行地，而不容掩。较前所闻于大人者，蓄德蕴道，深弘广备，玩味更无穷尽焉。

    　　复自湖南以抵京城，一路所见，风清景和，文明灿烂，民康物阜，雍睦熙，不觉心醉神移，穆然远思三代，而旷怀唐虞矣。直至抵京，更伏读近年以来所颁示内外臣工圣谕若干卷，广大深渊，纯粹至精，盖自殷盘周诰以后，久矣未闻有此盛德至善，发挥透辟到此极处也。由是回思我皇上德量同天，以蝼蚁之微，冒犯九五之尊，自料万死不足以蔽辜。而我皇上竟埋然于衷，丝毫不怒。到京即超禁释囚，被以广厦，给以丰食，叠赐厚衣，暑悯其热，寒恤其冻。沛几多殊恩厚泽于千古仁惠之主，常法所不到之处。及至谳狱讯供，则又刑措不用，纯以至诚至德，感孚默化，使民不期格而格，竟不知其所以然而然也。

    　　于是实信圣德光明浑全，毫无瑕累遗漏，前谣传所闻，不惟无其事，无其影，且不啻如天渊之悬隔，南北之反向也。加以一面翻阅吕留良家藏日记诸篇，其所以讥诋我朝者，皆是无端妄捏，立意毁诋，实非虚心论道理，见之言词也。乃知其立心既险，为术复巧，平日所说《春秋》诸义，关通于我朝者，不过借圣贤言语，以为题目，肆逞其无忌惮之私见耳。

    　　况《春秋》正义与今日不相干涉者，有寒暑昼夜三反哉。静思量到此，如坠渊深，觉天壤虽大，无处可容，抢地号呼，痛悔何及。自咎数十年读书辛苦，修身砥行，无非欲敦伦笃义，俾或出或处，随在有以尽己性分之常，期无忝于名教，以仰副朝廷作养之意，并得有以报我父母鞠育之恩耳。今一旦身陷巨恶，罪犯弥天，生圣人之世，竟不得为圣人顺则之民，何颜立于世，何面见乎人？此种罪孽，从何处造作，从何处收赎填补？以是不得不切齿忍恨于奸党之造谤，与逆说悖论之陷害生民者，非小小事也。于是回审当身之义，前之所以孟浪上书者，为心中无知，惑于流言悖论，为当世求君起见。

    　　今我朝既如此得统之正，溯其功德，揆之道义，驾过商、周、汉、唐有不屑道。而我皇上又如此道全德备，超越千古。虽以孔孟之圣，处春秋战国之时，其所以汲汲皇皇，奔走不暇，欲引君当道，致之尧舜者，亦只为不忍生民之苦，求明圣之君以主治耳。而今日现有尧舜之主在上，实亘古未有之隆会，生民无疆之福庆。当其时者，即草木无知，犹被荣而向化，况身带血气者乎。所虑在静者，罪大恶极，虽有自悔自咎之诚，自怨自艾之行，剖心沥肝，亦惟恐后时不足补既往之阙，而仰希对鉴于万一。斯为可痛可悲耳，岂尚有旁说剩义，可以假借乎。是今日之心悦诚服者，正如赤子无知，被人欺隐其父；而寻父，寻父未几，而适遇父，遇父而相喜以从父。虽缘幸出于意外，梦想所不到，实乃当身之正义。与从前误听误信，冒昧遍寻域中，冀德聪明睿智，能尽其性之圣人，以为生民主之心，名违而实相合，原出一辙。特先迷而后得，昨非而今是耳。天经地义，本不容泯。而德盛物化，尤不期然而然，至性至情所发，夫岂有所为而为之哉。

    　　盖以我皇上道如此之全，德如此之备，不惟居中定治，处一统无外之下者所当服，即龙潜东海，未飞未跃，闻其声教，亦所当归当服。不惟今日宽仁不杀所当服；即按律治罪，置罪于极刑重典，亦所当悦当服。盖生死事轻，道义事重，若审之于义有所不可，静虽极愚不肖，又岂敢前既无知而犯莫大之罪，后复隐忍苟活以坏生民之大义，罪上加罪乎！故今日之倾心顺服，非是贪生，当身本无可据之义；皇上之宽仁不杀，实非废法，按罪实有可原之情。特以德非尧舜，则不能明照得情及此，即能明照得情及此，亦必不能大公无我至是。明照得情，圣也；大公无我，仁也。一举而仁圣并尽，此汉唐以后之贤君英主所万不能到，而必独让于唐虞三代之圣君哲后者也。

    　　况尚有几多盛世未开之令典，生民未有之殊恩，令民感戴无穷者乎！此静今日所以不徒于语言传闻间，信我皇上之大德同天，乃于当身经历中，亲见我皇上之圣，与尧与舜并参也。夫为国以正名为先，名不正其弊至于礼乐不兴；为学以定义为大，义不定其弊至于进退无据。今我朝得统如此堂堂正正，历三千余年而莫有能媲，而列祖列圣之功德，并非汉唐以来之贤君所能拟。而读书向道之士，未闻有能出分毫气力，阐发其正大之名义，申明其广远之功德，使天下后世共见共闻，以报食德被功之大，而尽己当身之职分，斯己不能无愧于衷矣。而反含愤嫉忌，诋德若仇，造为悖论，张妄说，奴号以掩盖其实，而又甚焉。徒使穷乡晚进之士，胸无定见，但喜其议论之高险，而不审夫神圣之生，总无常域，遂将身为其说所眩迷而不知返。而山林清谨之士，无从考其底里，尤见道不真，择义不精，不知道之变易无方，义例所值，各有不同，一闻当前有此名义，则恐得罪地当时，进又虑见恶于圣贤，徘徊歧路，进退两碍；久之不得不托为高蹈远引之行，以自放其轻世肆志之习，其害理悖义而得罪于天也，可胜道乎。

    　　夫人同此耳目心思，非甚无良，断无有食德而不见为德，被功而竟忘其功，生于圣世而不愿为圣人之氓者。今种种悖谬若此，盖为名主莫明天心，趋向莫知所定之所致，推其极皆由吕留良之悖论在前，错认题目，有以起之也。静至愚不肖，信其说最深，受其祸极大，以是犯罪弥天。幸蒙天子仁圣，体恤民隐曲，谅无知，得留残喘，以苟延岁月。然惟其信之深，是以于此中曲折知之甚悉；抑惟其受祸大，故于此中利害，言之稍切。乃敢忘其固陋，详述夫本朝得统之正，直迈商、周；当今皇帝之德，上参尧、舜者，以遍告焉。

    　　伏望沉潜向学之士，去井蛙习见，相观于昭旷之途。知覆载之大，原无畛域，神圣之钟，气流愈远。天亲民怀，亦只以其德其仁，而初无额定九州之例，则中外之谘释然矣。放勋重华，绍庥尚分二代；文谟武烈，盛德仅推二君。

    　　而我朝极帝王之隆，兼积累作述之全，则治统道统之归，晓然矣。尧舜生安而在上，孔子以生安而益加好古敏求于下，功在一世，万世不相兼也。而皇上以尧舜之君道，复备孔子之师道，而天纵神奇，丝纶直匹之典，则心悦诚服之戴，沛然矣。猗欤盛哉！麒鳞凤凰，犹欲先观为快，奇珍大贝，尚冀一见为荣。今圣仁天子在上，应非常之运，具非常之才德，成非常之勋华。日月所照，霜露所坠，凡有血气者，莫不尊亲，而犹以中外为疑，是天地本至大无外，而人自以为有外。正如尧舜之治，不过九州，则人遂以为九州之外，不复有九州，而并疑邹衍所论为荒唐也，岂不悖哉。昔益之赞尧也，曰：“乃圣乃神，乃武乃文。”

    　　说者以为惟其广运，是以变化莫测，而形容之不尽。窃尝谓皇上之圣神文武，由于仁孝诚敬之至，而仁与孝敬之至，又本于一诚之至，是以克合天地之量，克符天地之运，而无有远迩内外之间，为一无以内，对神文武之极谊也。孟子曰：“至诚不动者，末之有。”

    　　《书》曰：“百兽率舞”。《易》曰“信及豚鱼。”今上有至诚，而下不以诚应，是殆鸟兽昆虫之不若也。乌乎忍，乌处敢！今而后凡为臣民者，益悟覆载之无有限隔，对人之诞生，无有中外。君臣之大伦，必不可逃，毛土之深恩，决不可背。《春秋》义例，因时审地，天悬地隔。而吕留良之逆说，必当芟除。今日之正义，永有攸归矣。人人悦服爱戴之忱，在在守孝子忠臣之分，各有重夫人伦，以全其天理之大公，复多所性之固有。常以静之至愚不肖，误听误惑为戒。四海同化，九州一德，各安有道之天，长享无疆之福，斯不枉为圣世之民，而为生人之大幸耳。是为说。

    　　一、秀才造反，实在是自投罗网

    　　（雍正六年九月二十六日，曾静的徒弟张熙（化名张倬）投书给岳钟琪劝他谋反。岳钟琪未能从张熙口中问出书信背景，怕拖延日久，遂于九月二十八写了此奏折上报情况）

    　　陕西总督臣岳钟琪谨奏为冒昧密陈，恳祈恩鉴事：窃臣于九月二十六日己刻拜客回署，署前西街有人持书趋向臣舆，被从人呵止，臣见其形貌不似投书官役，令接书入舆，阅封面题签称臣系天吏元帅，臣甚为惊讶，当将其人交巡捕看守，随入署密拆。内写南海无主游民夏靓遣徒张倬上书，其中皆诋毁天朝，言极悖乱，且谓臣系宋武穆王岳飞后裔，今握重兵，居要地，当乘时反叛，为宋明复仇等语。臣不敢卒读，亦不忍详阅，惟有心摧目裂，发上冲冠，恨不立取逆兽夏靓，烹食其肉。即刻遣人密邀抚臣西琳，以便会讯张倬。无奈抚臣西琳因署将军印务，在教场考验满洲官兵，未能即臣署，臣逡巡数刻，忖度逆情，既敢明目张胆致书及臣，必非无所凭依，空言相耸，若遽加鞫讯，怨难得实情；又思彼书以叛逆劝臣，臣若一人独问张倬，旁无见闻确证，将来重刑拷讯，彼反得恣意造言。而臣遣人邀抚臣时，又不便明言，所以固未能促其速至。因传按察司硕色坐于密室，然后唤张倬入署，命坐待茶，霭言相接，问其里居。则云：昔年曾在江夏住过。至现在居址，并师夏靓里居，皆立誓不说。臣云：“然则欲见尔师，当于何处接取？”

    　　彼答云：“但实用来书所言，我自往邀师来见。”

    　　问：“汝师今在何处？”

    　　则云：“今在广东。”

    　　问：“汝自何处来？”

    　　则云：“自广东来。”

    　　问：“何时起身？”

    　　则云：“五月起身，由贵州到四川打听，皆言：总督去年便往西安，故我又自川来陕，昨九月十三日方到。”

    　　问：“尔师有何所见，突敢远致此书？”

    　　答云：“在广东，闻得朝廷三次召你不去，我师因此致书，及我到陕，方知并无三召不应之说，此书已不愿投；后思万里远来，不可虚返，故决意投递。”

    　　臣云：“方今圣明在上，如此盛时，尔师何故谋反？”

    　　彼云：“百姓贫穷，只为救民起见。”

    　　臣云：“陕西百姓不穷，你不知道么？”

    　　彼云：“你陕西虽好，我湖广连年大水，积尸载路。”

    　　臣云：“此乃天灾，何与人事？且闻湖广不过几县被荒，朝廷已屡加赈贷，况各省比陕西更好的去处甚多，你却不尽知道。”

    　　彼云：“官吏又性急，又刻薄，不知百姓苦楚。”等语。臣复云：“尔若不将尔师并实在住处开心见诚说出，则安知非我仇家，遣尔持书设局诱我，我岂肯轻信，误坠仇人术中。”

    　　彼坚称实在住处，死也不说。时届未末申初，抚臣西琳亦至臣署，随公同细讯。奈张倬依旧含糊不肯实供。臣等方行夹讯，张倬仍坚供宁死不说。臣等再三诘讯，但混供在南海之滨，广南，交趾交界之处。臣等恐遽加叠夹，重刑致毙，则此案愈无根据，随商之抚臣西琳，约次早密至臣署，再以甘言曲诱，或可得其实情。至二十七日，抚臣西琳复来，于密室坐听。臣复唤张倬入署，殷勤慰劳，设法问之。臣先绐之云：“即如你们湖广有个邹鲁，始与年羹尧同谋，后来便去首；你们这些游说之士，如何可以轻信，且安知不是有人打发你来特地试我。我昨晚所以不得不刑讯一番，看你诚伪。”

    　　张倬云：“你昨日如彼举动，我今日万不肯信了。”

    　　臣云：“尔以利害说人，人亦以利害试尔。尔昨日既不该当街递书，昭张耳目；又不该于初见时含糊其说，无一着实语，使我怀疑，至于刑讯，自古设鼎镬以待说客，实有深意。昨见你视死如归，知你大有气节，非利害所能摇夺。我今日所以推诚奉问，尔须切实指陈，使我心里了然，方不是捕风捉影之论。”

    　　彼云：“总之，有昨晚举动，知你断不肯行，知我断不得活，你这些话我万不肯信。”等语。因复再三婉讯，终一日不吐。

    　　臣复云：“自古以来总因天下多故，方有人从中取事；今天下承平，并无一省响动，尔师夏靓突令陕西冒昧举事，则接迎者是何地方，何等人物，何处传檄可定，何处必须用兵，今询尔茫然，一言不吐，终是胸无成见耳。”

    　　张倬云：“此固不难，但要尔确实凭据，则湖广、江西、广西、广东、云南、贵州六省，在我一呼可定。”

    　　臣问其何所见而云然，则云：“此六省百姓愁苦颠连，流离逃窜入川，而僵仆道路者，皆何处人民，此显而易见者也。臣云：“我在四川，深知云贵官民相安，你如何也说易动？”

    　　彼云：“吴三桂一麾即起，乃云贵之明征。”

    　　臣云：“江浙如何？”

    　　亦云：“不知。”

    　　问晋豫如何，亦云：“不知。”

    　　问：“四川如何？”

    　　亦云：“不知。”

    　　且云：“我惟知此六省耳。六省之外，若再有川、陕，他省不足忧也。”

    　　臣云：“尔求确凭据，莫如我处遣人随尔往聘尔师，并尔意中人物。”

    　　彼方唯唯，忽又云：“无是理也，我意中人物虽不多，亦断无使尔知悉之理。”

    　　臣云：“尔始终疑惑，不如竟放尔去，任尔自为，我亦不问，何如？”

    　　彼云：“你放我，不得了，昨晚刻讯之后，外间必有人知，将来朝廷责问，你岂不自贻祸患乎？”

    　　臣云：“我若不放你去，势必据实奏闻，从此朝廷知谋反的人都来约我，势必疑我、虑我，我何能一日自安？今日骑虎之势，不得不放你去。倘因外人传言，朝廷觉察，我只说是迂腐儒生，条陈时事，语言狂妄，当经刑讯逐释，便无形迹了。”

    　　彼云：“言亦至理，但我断不信。且我此来，死得其所，你即实意放我，我亦实意不去”

    　　等语。臣伏念受恩深重，今遇此等奇幻之事，但臣知有国不知有身，故为各种诡言，意在得具实状，方可奏闻。乃臣等细勘张倬狡黠奸深，加以严刑，既无惧色，即百计诱之，而仍坚不可破。不但一时不能确讯；即讯明请旨，奏折往返，未免时日耽延，为此密恳圣恩，准将张倬解送到京，请敕亲信大臣，设法细讯，务得其实，以便就近请旨，缉拿同党，庶事机可密，完结亦速，不致久羁时日矣。至夏靓逆书，理应随近进呈，但具言绝灭彝良，悖乱罔极，臣不敢冒昧呈觉，上亵天聪。（朱批：犬吠兽号之声耳，有何可介意，送来闲观之。）谨同抚臣西琳，密封候旨。又搜出张倬随身携带书二本，一系抄录《坐拟生员应诏书》，一系刻本《握机图注》，俱经密封一处，除将张倬严加收禁外，谨会同抚臣西琳，冒昧据实缮折密奏，伏岂皇上睿鉴施行，为此谨奏请旨。雍正六年九月二十八日。

    　　朱批：竟有如此可笑之事，如此可恨之人。朕观此人，不似内地匪类；就其言论天下时势光景、朕之用人行政，一些不知未闻之人，非是苗疆内多年汉奸，即系外洋逆党。其语言口声果似湖广人否？人品、相貌、学问何如人也？近文近武？不过市井俗人也。可将内闲言语试问，便可知矣。此事在卿利害所关，朕量卿不得已而然，但料理急些了，当缓缓设法诱之，何必当日追问即加刑讯。伊既有是胆为此事，必是一亡命闵不畏死之徒，便解京亦不过如此审问。伊必料无生理，何能得其实情！可从容暂缓，徐徐设法诱问，或此间有人探问消息之同来人，亦未可知。未必止此一人来也。密密访拿，或问他言：“将你情节书字未曾尽奏，将大概情节奏闻，有旨言：你必系疯痴之人，不然此人岂无耳目，着我随便发放你，并未动大怒。”

    　　如此言毕，作卿意将圣祖六十年深仁厚泽，百姓沦肌浃髓；朕继统六年，勤政爱民，将各省朕加恩于百姓之善政，整饬官防，大法小廉，用人行政处；将朕待卿之恩，卿便负恩而势亦不能处，详细开示，宣朕之仁爱公明，“汝等亦系人类，何不思中光天化日之下，共享太平之福，而造此无故涂毒生灵之念。便就你这一人聪明胆量，不论文武，足可以取功名干世业，只就你今日不审本宪之心迹，不料本宪之能否，如此孟浪轻生，取笑天下，后世实为汝惜之，耻之。据汝所方，似非汝一、二无知之人，必有有识见人，将你性命为伊乘侥幸之谋也！何不将你送之死地之人举出。”或如此，再不然，“看你如此豪杰，则伊师又不知如何超越之人物，汝既言六省一呼即应，汝同事人各省必多，何不回去将伊等劝化归正，为国家臣子，不但不徒老死于匪类，抑且垂名竹帛矣！”

    　　将此等言语诱问看，再将本朝得天下之正，待前朝之体，实前明之恩代也。再将明时百姓不聊生之处，本朝百姓蒙福处，备悉言之，将伊听闻对答、辞色，不必隐讳一二，据实奏闻，再另有旨谕。

    　　二、假结同盟，这样才诱出真情

    　　（岳钟琪采用了伪与张熙结盟设誓同意谋反的办法，套出了主谋人曾靓及同案人员名单，便立即写了这份奏章上报。名单是另纸抄写密封，故此奏折中未提姓名。）

    　　陕西总督臣岳钟琪谨奏，为逆犯已吐造谋之人，谨缮密折恭呈御览事。

    　　窃查逆犯张倬持其师夏靓逆书到臣，臣会同抚臣西琳设法讯诱，未得实状。缘由于九月二十八日具折密奏。臣因见张倬坚忍练刑，复难计诱，故请辞赴京师审讯，但因此等重情不求速得实状，以慰君父之心，则臣子所司更有何事大于此者，故拜发密折以后，未即令其赴狱。遣署长安县事咸宁丞李元，假称臣仆，就近署闲房与之共寝。又遣人送裘，致酒，缓言相询，被乃一味支吾。至二十九日酉刻，臣复传按察司硕色于密室坐听，然后令张倬入署与之盟誓。（朱批：览虚实不禁泪流满面，卿此一心，天祖鉴之，此等誓盟，再无不消灾灭罪、赐福延生之理。朕嘉悦处实难笔谕。朕与卿君臣之情，乃无量劫之善缘同会，自乘愿力而来协朕，为国家养生者，岂泛泛之可比拟，朕实嘉悦之至。）伪为激切之言，彼方将其师实在姓名、居址，并平素与伊师往来交好，诋毁天朝之人，各姓名、居址，一一吐出。臣谨亲缮密折，恭呈御览。伏乞皇上遴选忠实干员，潜行密捕，自当悉获以正典刑。至张倬未吐各情，臣现在设法陆续相绐，务以悉吐，以便次第芟除，使逆党尽绝。庶稍尽臣子之职分，为此缮折密奏，伏乞睿鉴施行，谨奏。雍正六年九月三十日。朱批：开单留中。朕自命妥协之人前往捕拿料理，将张熙仍好好设法宽其心，而羁留之。

    　　三、追根溯源，吕留良正是罪魁祸首

    　　（这份奏章写于雍正六年十月初二日。张熙继续供出了其师曾静主要受吕留良著述的影响，并供出了一些有关人员。岳钟琪因而上奏，请查抄吕留良家及拘拿其家属有关人员）

    　　陕西总督臣岳钟琪谨奏：为逆犯续吐情由，谨再密奏，兼封诗册进呈事。窃查逆犯张倬持其师夏靓即曾静逆书到臣，臣随将设法讯诱缘由于九月二十八日、三十日两次缮折奏闻。其时因刑讯之际，搜出张倬贴身随带之书，故于前折内逐一声明，而其行李中所有抄写《易经》、诗册、医方各一本，臣未暇细阅，惟同行李封贮，恭候谕旨到日，连逆犯一并解赴京师。但臣因其有湖广等省一呼可定之言，虑党已有成谋，必须速得实情，早图殄灭。故三十日酉刻，复传按察司硕色于密室坐听，然后令张倬入署，臣伪为恳切之言以相试探，力问湖广等处，何以一呼可定。彼言：“但据民情，乃不易之理。”

    　　臣云：“皇上御极以来，察吏安民，民情悦服，尔以民情为据，万不可信矣。尔等自必有兵、粮，将于何处举动，方自信一呼可定耳！”

    　　彼云：“我等但有同志数人讲此义理，其他悉非所知。”

    　　臣伪诘之云：“汝昨所言，大抵迂腐儒生，必更有智勇兼备之人，方可济事。”

    　　彼云：“我师曾静并刘之珩、严赓臣等俱有本领韬略，大不可量，但能聘用吾师，何愁不济，即何以使湖广等六省一呼可定之法，亦惟吾师有此智略，我后生小子岂能见及？不过奉命致书，传达吾师面嘱之言，有六省传檄可定之语耳。”

    　　臣细听其言，详审其状，但问及兵粮等语，彼即支吾。而极力崇奖其师，劝臣聘用。方此辈到处惑乱人心，潜谋不道。其谋逆确据，俟拿获伊师曾静，严讯必得实情。因又细问其平日往来相与之人，并其所祖述师承之据。彼云：“我辈同志之人素所宗者，系吕晚村，号东海夫子，我曾亲自到其家，见其所著备忘录，并《吕子文集》，惜其子孙不肖，忽背先志，贪慕荣利，已作仕宦，可为痛恨！今行李中所有抄录诗册，即晚村作也。”

    　　臣云：“诗无关系本朝语。”

    　　彼云：“其诗内如《钱墓松歌》、《如此江山图歌》及凡空字处皆是也。”

    　　臣又坚问其父兄名字，并同谋诋毁者，更有何人。彼一一吐出，臣谨详开密折，并诗册一本，密封进呈御览。

    　　但密伏查：吕晚村，名曰吕留良，本前朝逋儒，我朝定鼎之后，彼惟以著书论文为事。与绅士讲艺往来，未闻有不法形迹。是以伊孙前于一念和尚案内，犯赤族之诛，蒙圣祖仁皇帝念其为读书明理之人，必无知情怙恶之事，不特有其子姓，抑且原其本身。此诚天高地厚之仁，而吕留良自有当洗心感戴，凡从前所作悖逆诗谣，即应销毁，乃竟敢留存如故，以致传抄匪人，由此推之，罪大恶极，实神人之所共愤，国法之所不容者也。虽吕留良久已身故，而其子孙尚存，保无踵继前恶，伏慝衔奸。况据张熙现供，吕留良著有《备忘录》，藏匿在家，则其奸罔之辞，窃恐不至于此。抑恳圣主密饬浙江督臣李卫遴委亲信，文武干员，密至吕留良家内，仔细搜查《备忘录》等书，并拘拿吕留良子孙嫡属，讯有实据，上请天威，严戮尸之典，行族灭之诛，庶可靖逆孽以灭妖邪，正人心而彰国法。即臣于痛恨之中，亦惟有额手上庆矣！除张熙发交按察司硕色牢固监禁外，臣谨缮折密奏，伏乞皇上睿鉴，为此谨奏。雍正六年十一月初二日。朱批：卿此忠诚之心，天祖自然鉴之，朕之嘉悦之怀，笔难宜谕。湖南已差钦差前往，江浙已谕该督密审矣。此等匪类自寻败露者，实皆上天神明之大德，非人力之所能者。朕实庆幸，而感畏之情愈加数倍矣，期共勉之。

    　　雍正上谕急下诏书，各路兵马展开大缉捕

    （雍正接到岳钟琪十月初二日奏折后，于十月九日即指示执政大臣通知湖南巡抚逮捕曾静等人外，同时又下此谕旨，通知浙江总督李卫，查抄吕留良家，并拘拿其在浙同党）

    和硕怡亲王、大学士张、蒋，字寄浙江总督李。雍正六年十月初九日上谕：岳钟琪处有投书之奸民，始初不肯供出伙党之姓名，后被岳钟琪设计发誓引诱，始陆续供出十余人，其在楚省者已差人前往查拿；可将供出浙江之人开出，令李卫密行缉捕，明白究问，并将所供别省之人，亦开单内，令李卫知之。总之，查拿匪类以速慎为要，正犯勿使漏网，无辜不可拖累。又奸民口中供出浙江吕留良等，可将岳钟琪奏折抄寄李卫一一研究，并查其书籍，倘伙贼即获之后，再当诘问党羽，其应行拘缉者，即著李卫一面办理，一面奏闻。钦此。

    遵旨寄信前来，并将岳钟琪总督奏折及名单抄录，驰寄总督，可遵旨慎寄，速行办理。切。十月初十日。

    　　一、感泣悚惶，披肝沥胆再上奏折

    　（岳钟琪因张熙投书劝自己谋反，写此奏折以表示忠心）

    陕西总督臣岳钟琪谨奏，圣恩超越古今，特再沥陈谢悃事。窃臣因欲速得逆犯张熙谋逆实情，故伪与盟誓。在臣鄙念，惟知有国，不知有身。然方自愧识见迟钝，不能于初接逆书之时，即以甘言试诱，早得底里。至次日虽与盟誓，已觉无及。而逆犯张熙，竟肯吐露实情者，实由上天圣祖默夺其魄，非臣盟誓所能诱致。乃荷朱批谕旨：此等盟誓，消灾灭罪，赐福延生。又重之以天祖之鉴临，臣感泣悚惶，惊喜交迫。时伏念微臣自顾鄙野，逢旷代难遇之圣君，承古今未有之隆眷，正不知从前历劫何修得此，乃荷朱批。谓臣亦自乘愿力而来辅佐圣主。臣戴此恩纶，如蚊负天，不识措身何地，惟是君父期待之厚，注念之切，远迈隆古，至于此极。臣虽木石，能勿世世生生，矢忠诚于万祀也。为此沥陈感激之私，百叩恭谢，伏乞皇上睿鉴。谨奏。雍正六年十月十七日。

    朱批：朕生平居心行事，惟一诚实二字。凡谕卿之旨，少有心口相异处，天祖必佑之。朕之诚实，卿必尽知。而卿之忠赤，朕实洞晓。朕惟朝天焚香，对天祖叩头，祝愿祈我良佐多福多寿多男子耳。五内欣悦，览之。

    　　二、谨慎行事，乞请皇上睿鉴

    　　（岳钟琪收到雍正对上两奏折的朱笔批示后，因目前对此案又无新的进展可言，才写了曾怀疑张熙与西南少数民族有关，以及搜出二本书籍的事）

    　　陕西总督臣岳钟琪谨奏，为遵旨密封呈览事。窃查逆犯夏靓，即曾静，遣徒张倬，即张熙，持逆书到臣。随即会同抚臣西琳，将讯供情由，缮折密奏。续将设法诱讯各姓名、情事，节次奏闻。兹于本月十六日恭接朱批臣密折二件，臣跪读之下，仰见圣主天地之量，无所不容，日月之明，无微不照。伏念圣祖六十余年，深恩厚泽，天下臣民沦肤浃髓。我皇上仁孝恭俭，兢业忧勤，御极数年以来，凡所以厚民生而肃吏治者，史册不能尽书，朝野皆能共晓。乃夏靓逆书张倬供吐，不似生长盛世之人。于圣朝隆治，略无闻见。臣初亦疑其来自土司外彝等外处，亦总以土司外彝之事探之，彼悉懵然不知，故前折未敢附及。臣细探其语言居址，实系湖广人民。细看其形貌瘦弱，似通文墨，不谙武艺。至一切谋逆实状，臣屡为诱讯，俱言惟师曾静知之，必俟捕得其师，方可究诘实情。（朱批：朕览逆书，谅讶堕泪览之，梦中亦未料天下有人如此论朕也。亦未料其逆情如此之大也。此等逆物，如此自首，非天而何？朕实感沃祖之恩，昊天罔极矣。此书一无可隐讳处，事情明白后，朕另有谕。卿可将朕究抑处，伊从何处所闻？随便再与言之，看伊如何论议。若恐其畏惧自了，则可不必。寻常诬陷一平人，尚遭恶报，似此以毫无影响之事，诬捏君上，谅无人心者矣。可笑可恨之极。）兹惟遵旨，将逆犯张熙加谨防守，以待首逆曾静质对处，合将逆书并搜出张熙所带曾静坐拟《生员应诏书》一本，刘之珩所刻《握机图》一本，并遵旨密封，恭呈御览。为此，谨会同抚臣西琳，缮折密奏，伏乞皇上睿鉴施行。雍正六年十月十七日。朱批：西琳闻又不妥协，其才情居心人品办事如何？据实奏朕知之。回奏王廷瑞一折留中，有旨谕部矣。

    　　三、追查谣言，务必要铲除祸根

    　　（岳钟琪虽然引诱张熙供出了指使他投书的曾静，以及有关的一些人姓名。但雍正仍不满足，而下令岳钟琪追查逆书中的一些谣传，是从哪里听来的。至于逆书中说有那些谣传，不得而知，因为这封逆书，始终未被公布。不过，根据《大义觉迷录》“卷一”中为自己辩护的上谕中看来，无非是说雍正杀父逼母、屠杀兄弟和功臣、好酒、好色等等。像这种涉及皇宫和朝廷的内幕，曾静等穷山僻乡的人，是决不可能知晓的，必有传播的人。在雍正的心目中，一定是出自以前与他争夺皇位的几个兄弟的党羽之口，所以他才决心追查到底，将对手的余党一网打尽。所以后文有追查被流放到广西的几个太监和钦犯的事情）

    　　陕西总督臣岳钟琪谨奏，为遵旨密讯，根据实复奏事。

    　　窃查逆犯夏靓，即曾静。遣徒张倬，即张熙。所投逆书，臣遵旨密封进呈。兹于本月初九日，跪接朱批谕旨，命臣将伊从何处所闻，随便再与言之，看伊如何论议，钦此。伏念臣前于乍接逆书之始，粗阅数行，发竖目裂，未暇询其言所从来。即随后屡次诱讯，亦未忍再举共污藏之词究诘所自，实为疏忽。但彼时诱吐逆党实情，曾伪许其即行释放。及张熙吐露实情之后，数日不见释放，自觉被诱，遂忧惧仓惶，痛苦流涕。臣恐有他虞，随令署长安县事、咸宁县丞李元，持张熙携住长安县衙署中，仍派标员兵丁看守伴宿。近因李元禀称，张熙偶以感冒有疾，是以未即传讯。一二日后，闻已稍愈，随密唤入臣署，设法讯诱。臣思逆犯张熙，狡黠最甚，见兵弁看守月余，彼必料臣已经入告。臣是以先向张熙言，尔师书于我自断断不敢进呈。但尔既来，我亦不敢不奏，所以将尔暂留。不料圣天子浩荡仁恩，转怜尔等或系大有才猷，越在草莽，不但不加罪责，且欲收而用之，故今密唤尔来，告知此意，但如此圣主，尔等何以全然不知，甚至尔师书中，还有那些奇骇之说。当初是何处听来，便认以为实呢？据张熙供称，前自湖南往江浙时，乃由水路，有搭船之人所言如此。臣问同舟者何等之人，住居何处，是何姓名？据供偶然搭船，不过行路客商，实未问其里居姓字。臣问其人是何等形貌，据供匆匆回答，但记其言，至其人实不能记忆。臣问云贵等省有作此言否？据供并未走过云贵。臣问你由川到陕，亦闻有作此言者否？据供这是今年从旱路来，不但未闻此等语言，路上且有人说是好皇帝。我心里正也疑惑，要问是如何好处，他们走路的人就说，也说不明白。

    　　臣云：“此惟我辈大臣方知天德圣治之万一，其道路愚民，但知感颂，如何说得详细？皇上至性诚孝，谅阴三年，斋居素服，更行兼服之典，此其尽礼尽制，虽三代以上，亦所未闻。至今一动一言，无不慕效圣主，每逢称述，恻怆涕零。至于友爱弟昆，敦笃宗室，不以严胜慈，不以恩废法。尔等即通文墨，当知周旦何以作相，管蔡何以得辜。即知圣天子用法用恩，悉由天理，自然之极则矣。若乃治功高深广远，如尊心崇文，减豁丁条，治水营田，蠲租发帑，频施赈贷，视民如伤，立贤无方，求才若渴，体察群吏，信任大臣，无利不兴，无弊不革。凡此史不胜书，口难尽述者，尔等或不能遍晓，即如尔等如此大逆不道，虽遇尧舜，亦无不震怒，立置极刑，乃圣主父母之心天地之量，尚且殷殷拳拳，询及尔等学术才技，欲宥海山之罪案，曲收蚁介之微长。此其广大宽仁，自古帝王莫可比。似今但将舟中之人，据实说出，尔等即有生机，若仍执迷是自误也。”

    　　逆犯张熙闻臣此语，亦惶恐云：“果如此，是我等悖谬自作之孽，何可复活，舟中人实不能记忆”等语。臣因此伏思，从前于邸抄内，见提臣路振扬奏对，以圣主天性即恶旨酒，乃出于生安，并非有意，而外人竟有称圣天子惟酒无量等语。是虽股肱大臣，非亲侍燕饮，不能深悉。传言相反至于此极。此皆系从前不轨之徒，捏造流布。今曾静等既敢谋大逆，则其污天蔑日之言，何所不至。臣细讯张熙，既毫无指实，即所供舟中传说者，若果有其人，亦未必非前此造言之余党。统俟捕获曾静之日，再加研讯，自无遁情。臣谨将现今密讯事由，据实覆奏。伏乞皇上俯赐睿鉴施行。谨奏。雍正六年十一月十四日。朱批：欣悦览之。此事朕实庆幸，感天祖之慈见也，毫无愤怒处。朕从来秉性卒然临之不惊，无故加之不怒。二句实能之，何况此有益无损之妄言。此案审明，诸逆尽获时，自另有旨谕。

    　　副都统海兰等奏折天罗地网，长沙党羽插翅难逃

    　　（雍正向浙江总督李卫发出查抄吕留良家及密捕张熙招供出来的浙江案犯的旨意。与此同时，派副都统海兰亲往湖南密捕曾静等人，这份奏章，反映了海兰到长沙后，准备捕人的一些安排）

    副都统臣海兰，湖南巡抚臣王国栋谨奏，为奏明事。窃臣海兰于十月十一日奉命驰驿出京，于十月二十七日酉刻抵湖南长沙府抚臣驻扎公署。谨将谕旨交办事宜，密下与抚臣王国栋钦遵，会同办理。臣等随于本日戌刻，密委长沙协副将周宝，会同永州府知府姜邵湘，前往宁远县查拿刘之珩，并着要门人陈立安。又密委臣海兰带来守备韩祥，同抚标中军游击邬锦，署郴州知州张明叙，前往永兴县，查拿曾静。又密委长沙府知府孙元，前往安仁县，查章张熙之父张新华，及张照、张勘二犯，又密委岳州府知府尹土份，前往华容县，查拿谯中翼。均令多带兵役，谨密搜拿。臣王国栋又经密檄该管地方文武员弁，遣拨兵役，严行防范。臣等并面谕各委员，如各犯内或有结连党羽，不服擒拿等情，该员等一面移会该地本管，邻近文武，带领兵役，设法擒获，一面飞报臣等，添兵会擒，务获匪类，毋致疏脱。因各该县离长沙数百里或千余里不等，尚未据各官回覆，获俟陆续获到，追究党伙，讯取确供，另行具奏外，所有臣海兰到长日期，与会同臣王国栋，分委员弁密捕。缘由合先会折奏明，伏乞睿鉴。缘系奉旨交办紧要事件，谨遣抚标把总李松驰驿，齐捧奏闻。

    朱批：览。

    　　一、境内出逆匪，以致巡抚受牵连

    　　（曾静等被捕后的初审情况）

    臣王国栋谨奏，为陈明地方安静情形，及微臣感激私忱，仰祈睿鉴事。窃臣谬荷封疆，惭无报称，惟有督度属吏，整饬地方，以期稍尽职守。不谓永兴安仁县属，忽有逆贼曾静、张熙，敢为逆书，公行不道。臣疏忽之咎，自问莫逭。乃蒙我皇上不加谴责，仍命副都统臣海兰至长，同臣密行办理。此盖圣主鉴臣才本不及，而曲赐矜原，悯臣过获无心，而勉其后效。天恩高厚，感激涕零。臣随公同海兰，密委长沙府知府孙元等，将主谋逆贼曾静，逆贼张之熙之父张新华，兄张照，堂叔张勘，并供犯谯中翼等，先后拿获到案。除讯过口供，另折会奏外，臣窃以逆贼曾静，虽坚供并无同谋党类，但该犯住居处所，逼近苗疆，倘有伙党潜藏，关系匪细。臣又分饬干员，细加遴访，并密机该管文武严行稽察。据称“各属苗土人等，俱极安静，实无匪类藏匿，不敢矜张滋扰”等语。臣伏查现获伏逆贼曾静及张熙之父张新华等，均系猥琐下流，既无白莲、无为等教可以哄诱愚民，复无寸枝片长，以及家产巢穴，可以号召匪类，徒以略识点画，遂尔丧心病狂，深山穷径之中，闭户潜谋大逆不道，诚为禽兽之不若，覆载所不容，宜置极刑以彰国法。至地方有此匪类，臣平时不能觉察，虽邀圣恩格外宽厚宥，臣罪实无可辞。伏祈皇上即赐严加处分，以为疏忽之戒。除现在会同臣海兰，严追同谋知情伙党，质讯确实，另行会奏请旨外，所有地方，现在安静情形，及微臣感激私忱，合先具折奏闻。伏祈睿鉴。

    朱批：览。

    　　二、检讨失误，湖南巡抚愿立新功

    　　（雍正派杭奕禄到长沙审问此案。杭奕禄到长沙后，首先传达雍正谕旨，对王国栋作了严厉训斥，因此王国栋写下这份检查）

    　　臣王国栋谨奏，为敬复训旨事。本年十一月二十六日，刑部左侍郎署吏部尚书事臣杭奕禄，奉命至长。臣谨跪请圣安，随蒙臣杭奕禄口宣皇上训旨：“尔到去问王田栋，他在湖南一二年，如果时常宣扬德化，晓谕愚民，如何会有这样百姓，想河南必无此事。叫他从此以后，勉力改过自新，留心地方事务，不时晓谕愚蒙，稽查匪类等因，钦此。”

    　　臣跪聆之下，悚惭无地。伏念臣本愚贱，谬任封疆，楚南刁悍习俗，久属圣明洞鉴，今乃有大逆不道之曾静、张熙出臣属下。臣莅任一载有余，不能革易心志，化导于先，又不能抉摘隐微，觉察于后。负职之罪，百喙难辞。乃蒙我后上不加谴责，格外优容。复谕旨部臣，勉臣改过。天恩如此其高厚，训诲如此其谆切，臣虽短于才识，亦略具人心，若不知加意奋勉，则属下愚不移，何以对扬圣主，何以督率官民，更何以与田文镜、李卫诸臣比肩而共事？自今以往，臣惟有时刻凛遵天语，一念不敢懈弛，一事不敢姑息，殚心竭力，化导整顿，以期仰报殊恩万一耳。除会讯逆贼供情，及分咨各省提犯，缘由另行公同陈奏外，所有微臣恭领训旨，私心感激下清，理合具折附奏。臣谨奏。

    朱批：既为大臣，凡事只务远大二字。人多以因小而误大者，勉为之。

    （副都统海兰等奏折严刑逼供，已经是殃及无辜；海兰和王国栋将押解到长沙的犯人，依次审讯，采用重刑夹讯和到家搜查的办法，无甚大效果）

    　　副都统臣海兰、湖南巡抚臣王国栋谨奏，

    　　为报明拿获首恶日期，及讯过口供，仰乞睿鉴事。窃臣海兰于十月二十七日到长沙府城，同臣王国栋，遵旨密委长沙府知府孙元等，分路查拿逆犯曾静等。于十一月初八日，据岳州府知府尹士份、华容县知县赵念曾，解到谯中翼。该臣海兰、臣王国栋，即公同密讯。据谯中翼供，我年七十二岁，系华容县学文生。今岁因贫苦患病，考试不到除名。我入学二十八年，不入公门，不管闲事，平日只晓得读书教学，并不曾出外行走，不认得什么曾静、张熙。昨日忽然拿到这里，连一生积聚得几本书，都抄了来，不知什么缘故。那刘之珩，是安乡人，平日文字相知，曾替他做过一篇时文序是实，若不信，只求拿这些人来与我对质，再着两个人扮作我，叫曾静等认指，谁是谯中翼，我这冤就伸了等供。因取所搜书籍等项查，看并无与张熙等往来字迹，诗内止有题明太祖像一首。据供系前明华容县人黎禧永，号天山所作，并不是我做的等语。当查诗题，下确有天山二字，随将该犯发禁候质。

    　　于本月十二日，据长沙府知府孙元，拿解逆贼张熙之父张新华，兄张照，并与张熙同行上书之张勘到案，即公同密讯。据张新华供，我今年六十岁，原名张仕璜，是乙亥年进学，因考试不到除名。那张熙是第二的儿子，从永兴曾静读书，近年来见他大言不惭，我赶他出去，他就住在曾家。今年回来当田做盘费，说要往川陕上书去。我被曾静所愚，儿子做这样不法事，我不能管束，就该死了。据张照供，张熙是我兄弟，这两年通在永兴曾静家住，我只晓得种田，他们做的什么事，我不晓得。据张勘供，曾静是我师父，张熙是他族侄。他会行医，今年五月，曾静打发他大儿子同张熙到我家，把数两银子与我，叫我替他们背包袱，同到四川去。说前头有好处，并不晓得什么事情。我跟着他走，九月十四日到了陕西，张熙叫我到文王陵上拔蓍草。到二十四日回来，听见他说要往总督衙门上逆书的情由。我想这样不法的事，我若同做就该死了。心里害怕，即时卷起铺盖走回。不知张熙后来怎样了，我是十一月初二日回家，初三日就被捉住。这些事，总是曾静、张熙做的，我实不知情，求超豁。夹讯该犯，矢口不易。至本月十五日，据抚标中军游击邬锦，署郴州知州张明叙，同随带守备韩祥，拿解张熙之师曾静到案。臣海兰、臣王国栋，即公同密讯。

    　　据曾静供：“我年五十岁，是永兴县人。系生员，考了五等革除。这上书的事，是我数年前的想头，立志定向，今年同学生张熙商量做的。张熙当了屋和塘，设措盘缠，是今年五月初七日起身。那张勘是我叫他同张熙去的，那书中讲的话，必要有学问的方好与他商议，张勘是个没学问的，我如何肯替他讲，他不知道的。就是张熙父亲张新华，止晓得他儿子往川陕去上书，那书里事情他也做不得主。永兴有学问的人少，我在山里住，离县城远，并不相与人，刘之珩先做永兴教官，我从过他，知道他晓得性理、天文，学问尽好。那陈立安是他的学生，在他家认得的。刘之珩有六十多岁，极有涵养。听见我讲及这些道理，还大怒痛骂。今年上书的事，他隔的路远，并不曾与他商量。谯中翼平素不认得，曾见过他的文章，知道他的学问好，有志向。我生平讲究程朱性理，见吕晚村拒陆尊朱，直接濂洛之传，心里慕他。去年张熙曾到浙江访他书籍回来，知道湖州严赓臣、沈在宽们，都是吕晚村渊源一脉，必定有学问的了。就同张熙讲究这事，若做得成，我们举尔所知这些人，都可荐得的。其实不曾会过面，并无同谋的事，也没有什么党羽。永兴有个学生廖易，我平时讲论道理，他知道的，上书的事，他并不曾同谋，总是我一个做事一人当，我不肯赖，也不好诬扳别人的等供。臣海兰又追问张熙所说：“六省一呼可定之处”，据供这是我同张熙商量，看见时疫流行，像个天心不顺，想来天心是一样的，故如此说，并没有成见等语。臣等又细检各犯家中搜到书籍字札，于张新华家搜出逆书二册，并上总督岳钟琪书稿，及临行祭神祭祖等文。系张勘带回之物。讯据张勘，供这书是张熙带去的，他藏在被盖里，我不知道拿回来，被长沙府搜出的。书上的话，我不晓得，求问曾静便见明白。讯据曾静供：“这书上的话，俱是我做，就把与张熙的，我岂肯赖”等语。

    又查书内所开严赓臣、沈在宽、车遇上，俱系各省已经奉旨查拿之犯，又有施虹玉、毛仪、孙学颜名字。讯据曾静供：“施虹玉系江南徽州人，年九十六岁，其人已故。孙学颜系山西人，我在古文刻本上见他学问好，没有会过面，不晓得他年貌住处。毛仪系陕西凤翔府宝鸡县人，曾在晚村家里买过八十两银子的书，知道他学问好的”等语。臣海兰臣王国栋查书内辞义，类多借道学，以济其悖逆之说。满纸乱言，狂吠不道。翻阅一过，心胆欲裂，断不敢进呈御览。现在公同封固，俟追讯确实，即行请旨焚毁。似此丧心病狂逆贼，虽寸磔不足蔽辜，断难姑容时刻。第刘之珩虽经拿获，因途远尚未到案对质。但他省所拿各犯，不知口供果否相等，不便即请正法，或致同恶漏网。再查曾静状同禽兽，语属猖狂，昨游击邬锦等拿获之时，于该犯衣衫上写对句数联，并云：“蒲潭先生卒于此”。自知罪大恶极，欲寻自尽。幸赖皇上威德，天夺其魄，是以擒获。臣等因该犯自获到案，即经直认，未经查拿之犯，俱一一供明，且查逆书所载，亦无多余党伙。张新华又现在患病，窃虑夹讯致毙，或该犯自行绝食，不得明正极刑，无以快人心而彰国法，是以未加夹讯，现饬按察司加谨看守。似刘之珩、陈立安、廖易等到案质讯确实，即行会奏请旨定夺外。所有首恶曾静拿获日期，及讯过口供，理合会折。谨遣抚标把总李吉驰驿，赍捧奏报。又查曾静所供孙学颜，系山西人。臣等于搜到书籍内，检出《吕晚村古文》二本，系桐城孙学颜编次、作序。篇首又有“桐城孙用克编次”一条，似乎孙学颜即属孙克用。再臣海兰，前赍到供犯单内，开有孙克用一人，系江南淮安府人，与集内桐城孙用克，姓名略同，合并陈明，伏乞睿鉴。

    朱批：知道了。

    　　刑部侍郎杭奕禄等奏折曾静等人为什么要捕风捉影、诽谤雍正皇帝？

    　　（杭奕禄到长沙后，遵照雍正面授机宜，要平心静气，穷追邪说来源。所以改变用刑逼供为软语宽问，将逆书中所有传言，逐条追问消息由来。雍正的本心不在于杀不杀曾静这些无足轻重的小人物，关心的是逆书中所提及的一些宫廷内幕（参见《大义觉迷录》卷一雍正的二篇上谕），认为这些绝非一个居住深山的小百姓所能编造出来的，其根源必出自熟知宫廷情况之人，所以让杭奕禄等逐条追问其来源。不过杭奕禄虽然曾经雍正亲自交待，但思想仍有顾虑，不敢把一些涉及皇家稳私的事公然写入奏折。所以雍正看了这份奏折后并不满意。因而批示将曾静等犯人解送北京）

    　　刑部左侍郎臣杭奕禄，副都统臣海兰、湖南巡抚臣王国栋谨奏，为恭报会讯逆贼供情，并呈逆书底稿，仰乞睿鉴事。窃臣杭奕禄于十一月初三日，奉命出京，至二十六日抵长沙市城，恭述我皇上天地之量，尧舜之仁，不以逆贼狂言少介圣意。并命臣等平心静气，穷究邪说所由来，开导痴愚所未喻，务使折服认罪。臣海兰、臣王国栋恭聆之下，仰颂圣德之渊涵，益愤逆徒之妄诞。臣等随于长沙抚臣内署密室，提出曾静，将本朝得统之正，列圣功德之隆，圣祖仁皇帝六十余年，恩泽入人之深，当今皇天子孝敬慈惠，恭俭文明，与夫励精求治之实心，爱养斯民之实政，逐一开示宣扬。该犯谛听良久，乃俯首认罪云：“静生居天末，日坐井中，妄想成魔，造言诽谤，是诚罪大恶极，若非三位大人传示，几于至死不悟”等语，痛哭流涕，叩头不已。臣等见其醉醒梦觉，然后将逆书所载，逐条追究。该犯茫无所指，非云齐东之语，即云臆度之私。诘问再四，毫无风影。当给纸笔，令该犯详细写供。谨将亲笔供单进呈御览。臣杭奕禄，又会同追究其同谋党羽。据该犯坚供，当日遣张熙前去，实系独得之秘，毅然而行，既非他人所能参赞，亦不屑与闻于人。且自以为成，固有利，止也无害。故《知几录》内谆嘱张熙，一路访问。如所闻与在家所传不合，即便回来，另作主意，不可轻举。原非预有邀约，谋定后行。实无同党，有书可证”等语。

    　　臣等会讯续获之宁远县教谕刘之珩、陈立安，并书内查出之曹珏、廖易即景叔等，皆供不知投书情事。即质之曾静，亦云伊等实不知情。臣等又询刘之珩、果否通晓天文、兵法？据刘之珩共称：“因幼习《尚书》略晓得些星象图说。那里知道天文，至八阵握机图，俱是先贤朱熹成语。之珩纂刻起来，教武秀才的。何尝知道什么兵法。曾静看见了《握机图》、《格物集》他就混说之珩知道天文、兵法了。如今这两种刻本底稿现在，求查便明”等语。臣等细阅刘之珩《格物集》抄本，及《握机图注》刻本，实无妖妄悖乱之语。除将检得刘之珩《格物集》并封呈外，伏查逆贼曾静，即夏靓，生于山野，不明大义，因考试五等，遂丧心病狂，借前人道学之皮毛，以行无父无君之邪说。复敢诬谤圣主，捏造逆书，遣徒张熙即张倬，又字敬卿，带同张勘，即实安，赍往陕西，希图诱惑大臣，济其大逆。诚为罪恶滔天，神人共愤。臣等恪遵训旨，平心细讯。该犯自知诬妄，不待刑加，叩头伏辜。虽悔罪出于至诚，似类有苗之格，而下民敢于罔上，难逃大逆之诛。宜置极刑，以彰大法。同谋之张熙，知情之张勘、张新华，以及缘坐人等，律有明条，均难轻纵。至于曾静，行止乖张，久为乡党所不齿，其所谋情事，亦非邻里所得闻。昨事露被获，当地士民以为向年假称道学，今竟弄出事来，莫不称快。被其蛊惑信从者，不过张熙等一二门人。臣等细行查访，此外实无同伙党羽。其逆书所载，谯中翼、严赓臣、沈在宽、车鼎丰、车鼎贲、孙克用，并书内查出毛仪、施虹玉等，据该犯坚供，皆系背地推崇，并未谋面之人”等语。臣等查阅《知新录》、《知几录》内所载各条，原无与众人商谋字样，似非全出狡饰。再从前曾静遣张熙往浙访求吕晚村书时，曾见吕晚村第九子吕无尽，得伊《纲目凡例未发之蕴》，或彼此有所商谋，亦未可定。臣等现在行提并要《备忘录》、《吕子文集》及《纲目凡例未发之蕴》，以便查阅质审定拟。

    　　曾静系大逆重犯，理应刑讯。但各犯尚未到齐，若一加刑，该犯自知必死，势必绝食，则将来难于定案，统俟各犯到后，严行质取确供，斟酌律拟。臣等自当仰体皇仁，细心区别，有罪者断不敢纵漏一人，无罪者亦不敢诛连扰累也。所有曾静逆书底稿，及祭祖等文稿，前臣海兰、臣王国栋以臣子忠爱私心，不忍将犯上呓语，转呈君父。谨公同阅明封固，具折请旨。今臣杭奕禄面聆天语，知圣主如天之度，未尝以妄诞之语少介圣怀。既有逆书，理当进呈，臣等谨公同封进，仍望皇上即赐发回，容臣等细按追问，以免遗漏。除现在会咨陕西、江南、浙江三省督臣、提拿逆贼张熙，并逆书内一应有名人等，到案质明，另行分别律拟奏请外，所有臣杭奕禄、到长会讯缘由，及逆贼曾静供单，并搜获曾静大逆书三册，又所著《小学开蒙》一册，扇一柄，对联一纸；刘之珩书二册，谯中翼诗稿一纸。理合另匣一并奏呈，伏乞睿鉴。谨差抚标千总吴杰赍捧奏闻。朱批：览。逆犯之供单更属可笑人也。有旨部颁，遵谕将一起逆犯押解来京，一路着实宽慰带来。江浙逆党数人已解到部矣。俟到京对质。

    　　湖广总督迈柱奏折曾静等人在湖南被捕审的经过

    　　（湖广总督下辖湖北、湖南二省。湖南发生曾静案，虽然是由皇帝亲下密旨，由湖南具体执行，并未让迈柱过问。但迈柱身为总督，统管两省，不能不写折表态，这是清代官场惯例）

    　　湖广总督迈柱谨奏，为奏闻事。窃照臣驻扎湖北武昌，凡湖南事件，耳目稍远，闻见甚迟。先于四月内，臣经奏明在案。当蒙朱批，此自然之势，岂有不量之理等因，钦此。但臣身受总督重任，凡有关地方紧要事务，向经饬谕湖南文武属员，不时报闻，以便办理，不敢一事怠忽，更不敢一刻苟安。兹于本月初三日，据署衡州副将印务谢珑密禀，内称长沙知府孙元到衡，约同文武，密拿要犯。随令外委带兵，同至安仁，于十一月初二日，已拿获张新华、张照、张勘三名，各犯家产封固，理合禀明等因。又于本月初四日，据谢珑禀称，今有钦差同抚标游击、桂阳知州，在于永兴县渤潭地方，拿获匪犯曾静一名，衣内写有渤潭得道先生字样。当查明该犯家口，收永兴县禁等因。同日又据永州知府姜邵湘密禀，内称长沙协周宝，持巡抚公文，同至永城，折阅公文，系密拿宁远县教谕刘之珩，并追要门人陈立安及同志录。即同副将、县令，督同拿获。搜查寓所，据供同志录并未看见，又搜查册籍，往来书札，并家口财物，封贮看守。并拿获陈立安之子陈达，同刘之珩俱解赴长沙等因。同日又据长沙副将周宝密禀，与前禀同。又于初五日据岳州参将李佐喜密禀，十月二十九日夜，有岳州知府奉巡抚钉封公文一角，酌派武弁一员，带兵同往华容县，有县令奉巡抚飞檄，内开奉旨严拿要犯谯中翼。当令把总同往，至歇凉地方，于十一月初二日未时，拿获谯中翼并子谯大谷，押解到岳，拨兵转解长沙去讫等因。

    　　同一天，又据长沙副将周宝寄来密禀，和前一禀报内容相同。又于初五日，根据岳州参将李佐喜寄来密禀说，十月二十九日夜间，有岳州府知府，收到巡抚密封公文一份，让派武官一名，带兵前往华容县，由县令遵照巡抚紧急檄文办理，内容是奉圣旨严拿要犯谯中翼。当下便派一名把总带兵同往，到歇凉这个地方，于十一月初二日下午未时，逮捕了谯中翼和他的儿子谯大谷，押解到岳州，又派兵解送到长沙去了等情。又据岳州知府尹士份禀，同前由。同日又据华容县禀，亦同前由。随又据岳州知府尹士份密禀，内称奉巡抚檄文，拿获谯中翼父子，解赴长沙。

    　　巡抚当同钦差大人在内堂会审。即将书箱四个取进，又蒙巡抚传谕，驰驿往安乡，密拿陈立安，已获起解，至该犯家产，有水田，时文一小书箱等因。据此臣查此等密拿情节，三日之内，据文武各报，事同一类，揆其行径，显系地方奸匪，有谋为不轨情由，或系抚臣察觉奏闻事件，或有别经发觉之处，臣实未准抚臣知会，又恐系另奉密旨，令抚臣办理事体，不便违例询问。臣是以虽据报闻，仍应静候抚臣审明，知会到臣，再容具奏。但臣身任总督，地方有此等奸匪之徒，不能查察于先，直待拿获之后，据文武属员禀报，始有知觉，臣实惭悚无地，总惟仰恳皇上，俯念北南两省，远隔耳目，原有未周之处，恩赐曲原，庶臣得以稍免过愆。再臣原经访闻，有旗人金姓者，在衡州府城，与原任衡州革职知府金依尧往来情厚，并口称系奉诚郡王差遣等语，招摇滋事。臣已密谕衡州知府密拿，即就近解赴南省究审。今据按察使赵弘恩，亦通报前来此案。俟拿获审实，容臣另奏，合并陈明。臣谨缮折奏闻，伏乞皇上睿鉴批示。谨奏。雍正六年十二月初六日。

    　　朱批：览。

    　　一、张熙堂叔张勘被追捕的经过

    　　（张熙约其堂叔张勘赴西安投书，到达后，张勘才知是投逆书，心中害怕而逃走，岳钟琪派人追捕未获，因写此奏章。而张勘到家第二天，即被湖南方面逮捕）

    陕西总督臣岳钟琪谨奏，为据实复奏事。窃查逆犯张熙，供称伊弟张勘，由商州一路先回湖南等语。彼时臣一面奏闻，一面即飞遣确人追缉。先令由商州一路，挨门逐户盘察查拿，仍另遣人星夜兼程，预抵襄阳，在各饭店马头守候踪迹，密伺查捕。以凡自西安往湖南者，不拘水陆分途，冲偏各径，悉由襄阳径过也。兹奉朱批谕旨下，询张勘曾否拿获，仰见睿虑周详，恐其逃回，预漏消息，则逆犯曾静等，不无潜匿远之患。但臣曾细询张熙，自西安至湖南住家处，水陆必行，四十余日。今虽据商州一路蹑缉之人役回称，挨户盘查，并无张勘踪迹。而襄阳守候之人，至今尚未回陕。窃计钦差兼程南下，到彼必速，料张勘纵能脱漏，亦难迅速抵家，不至预透风声，令逆党潜遁也。兹奉朱批垂询，拟合缮折据实复奏，伏乞皇上睿鉴。谨奏。雍正六年十二月初七日。

    朱批：大奇事。张勘到家，次日已被钦差差役拿获，凡张熙开列名单所有之人，一人未曾免脱，皆就擒矣。谕卿喜之。

    　　二、继续搜捕毛仪及其两子的经过

    　　（由于张熙供出陕西人毛仪，曾在吕留良家购买过书籍。尽管张熙说此人已故去五六年，仍要派人前往搜捕）

    　　陕西总督臣岳钟琪谨奏，为奏明事。窃查逆犯曾静遣徒张熙投递逆书一案，于十二月十四日，准钦差侍郎臣杭奕禄等，会同湖南巡抚臣王国栋，咨提逆犯张熙质审，并提案犯毛仪，乃曾向浙江吕晚村家买过书籍者，系陕西凤翔府宝鸡县人等因。移咨到臣。随即密令署长安县事，县丞李元，将毛仪实在住址下落，仍用好言探问张熙去后，续据李元回称，据张熙供，毛仪系宝鸡县贡生，住在溪地方。前路过曾到他家，他已故五、六年了。他有两个儿子，都是务农的庄家汉等语。臣即遣把总王大谟，星夜前往，会同宝鸡县知县杜生，赴溪地方密访查拿。如毛仪现在，即行密拿到者，连张熙一并解楚；倘毛仪如果已故，即将张熙先行解楚。仍一面密拿毛仪之子，并搜其书籍。到日容臣审明，另奏外。合先缮折奏明，伏乞皇上睿鉴。谨奏。雍正六年十二月十五日。朱批：杭奕禄等已将逆情审明奏闻，有旨着将逆类解京完案。张熙若已解楚，则不必矣。若尚未动身，亦解送京交部，不必解往也。沿途着实宽慰，不可令受苦，差来押解之人，着实吩咐，好生送到。

    　　一、应将曾静案及其主犯押送湖南对质

    　（根据曾静、张熙供词，主要犯人已在各省纷纷被捕。杭奕禄等要求将这些犯人押送湖南对质后定案，而雍正则下令一律解送北京）

    臣杭奕禄、臣海兰、臣王国栋谨奏，为请旨事。雍正六年十二月初八，臣等将会审逆贼曾静亲笔供单，及逆书稿本，业经会折进呈御览。其逆贼张熙，并供犯严赓臣、车鼎丰等、亦经飞咨陕西、江南、浙江督臣分提去后。雍正六年十二月二十八日，准陕西督臣岳钟琪咨，称讯据张熙供毛仪，系宝鸡县贡生，前曾路过他家，他已故五六年了等语。现在差查如毛仪尚在，即一并移解，如毛仪果故，即当移解张熙听审，合先咨复等因。本年正月初七日，准浙江督臣李卫咨，称此案先奉密旨，随将严赓臣、沈在宽、已故吕晚村之第九子吕毅中，第四子吕黄中，长孙吕懿历，密提到案，研讯确供。委官李国正等，于十一月初六日管押起程，解赴刑部投收讫。其《备忘录》、《吕子文集》并别项书籍，俱经两次固封，具折进呈。并将吕留良家现存书目抄册，同送在案。相应粘抄供单咨复等因。该臣等查核单内，严赓臣等各供，与臣等前审曾静口供相同，其张熙赴陕上书之处，虽据曾静坚称严赓臣等并不知情，但必得对质严讯，始可完结。相应会折奏请，伏乞皇上敕部将严赓臣等，押发来楚，与曾静、张熙等三面质明，另容臣等按供律拟，请旨定夺。至供犯车鼎丰等，正月十二日据臣等差役王宗周回称，江南督臣范时绎，已经遣员解来。于正月二十外可到，理合一并奏明，谨遣抚标把总李吉赍捧奏闻。

    朱批：已有旨著汝等带各逆犯来京矣。

    　　二、曾静等供词及押解犯人进京安排

    　　（这是曾静遣徒张熙投书案在湖南审讯时的最后一份奏折。此案涉及人员均已在各省被捕，雍正下旨全部押送北京）

    　　臣杭奕禄、臣海兰、臣王国栋谨奏，为奏闻事。雍正七年正月二十一日，湖南抚标千总吴杰，赍捧朱批奏折。恭捧上谕：“览逆畜之供单，更属可笑人也。有旨部颁，遵谕将一起逆犯押解来京一路着实宽慰带来。浙江逆党数人，已解到部矣。俟到京对质，等因，钦此。”

    　　本月二十二日兵部火牌递到，怡亲王等公字，内开雍正六年十二月二十五日，奉上谕：“前岳钟琪奏呈曾静、张熙逆书，朕览之不觉失笑，不知从何处得此奇幻荒诞之语。但曾静等，既为此书，必有奸逆之人造作流言，希图煽惑者。朕不得不一一剖析，宣示于众。今将谕旨发出，着交与杭奕禄等，将朕此谕逐一询问曾静等，取具口供奏闻。至杭奕禄等前次所取曾静口供，今日方到，朕尚未细阅。大概看过，若果朕之居心行事有丝毫如伊逆书之所言，则人人当如曾静怀叛逆之心矣。并以此谕之。据曾静供称，此语得之传闻，是他人造作此语，而陷伊于重罪，则造作此语者，乃伊之深仇，伊更不当为之隐讳。即曾静等不能确指其人姓名，亦必略知其来由踪迹。着杭奕禄等委曲开导，推问根究，务得其造言之首犯，不必刑询。若供出之人审究确实，着同曾静等一并解京，如不得其人，即将曾静等解送。着杭奕禄、海兰带领前来，途中加意照看，勿令受苦。至各省提解人犯，其在浙江者，已经解京。其余人犯者已解楚，一并解送等因。并抄颁上谕一折，到臣等。钦此。”

    　　同日准陕西督臣岳钟琪差委县县丞管道沛等，将逆贼张熙押解到长，并查明逆书内有名之毛仪已经身故，其子毛仍世、毛延世现禁在陕等因。本月二十九日又准江南督臣范时绎，将逆贼供犯车鼎丰、车鼎赍、孙克用，委员押解到长沙府，并声明孙克用现在患病等因。均经分别严加收禁。该臣等随提曾静至抚臣内署，钦遵圣谕，详悉宣示，并将上谕，令伊捧阅，又委曲开导，反复追讯造言首犯，曾静惟有痛哭流涕，深悔前非，叩头服罪。据供：“小的书馆在安仁县路傍鹏塘地方，偶听来往路人传言，实未询确姓名住址，不敢信口妄报。惟雍正元年四月二十七日，有一人至小的书馆，据云向名王澍，号燕山，系丙戌进土，曾与十四爷同窗读过书来。小的恐系职官，不敢深问，因伊称有子现在川陕统兵，疑即系岳钟琪父亲，故《知几录》内亦载有此段，令张熙访问”等语。此外实不能指出造言之人，臣等诘问王澍居址，据供止知是江浙人，不知府县，又诘问年貌，据供“彼时有四十多岁，如今有五十余岁了，五短身材，胖肿的，微须”等语。

    　　提讯张熙，据供“赴陕投递逆书，系曾静主使，案内谯中翼，小的并不认识，至于刘之珩，陈立安等，虽有一面，并无往来，俱不知情。小的先于雍正五年，至浙江吕晚村家买书，会见吕无尽，因说起吕晚村有个门人严赓臣，遂复至湖州严赓臣家，又因严赓臣有门人沈在宽，在江南车鼎丰、车鼎贲家教书，遂写书交与小的，于八月间到车家，住两三日，临行车家送银一两。至孙克用，系小的在车家时听得说学问好，其实并未会面。在陕西时，亦无见过之供。总之，这事原是曾叫我前去，他平日师道最严，我怕他，不敢不去，其余诸人，均不知上书缘由”等语。臣等复提车鼎丰、车鼎贲密询，据供“原籍湖广，久住江南，与曾静、张熙毫无交往。雍正五年八月间，有浙江湖州严鸿逵，即严赓臣，字附张熙带投犯生处，犯生等念系原籍同乡，穷途告助，随留住两三天，送银一两而去。实不知何故牵及。且犯生等世受国恩，侄子车敏来，现任山西安邑县知县，犯生车鼎丰，系戊子科副榜，犯生车鼎贲，系监生，何敢结交匪类”等语。

    复提问孙克用，据供“实名孙用克，并不曾与张熙会面”等语。据此，除案内缘坐各犯逐一查拿监禁楚省，俟本案各犯解京审明，知照发落外，其逆贼曾静、张熙及照单拿获之张勘、张新华、张照、刘之珩、陈立安、谯中翼，逆书有名之廖易、曹珏，案外查出之张孝先，江南解到之车鼎丰、车鼎贲、孙克用等，臣王国栋捐给路费，遴委乾州同知沈元曾，长沙协守备仇之苞，抚千总吴杰，督率押解，臣杭奕禄、臣海兰带领，于雍正七年三月初十日，自长沙府起程进京。所有曾静亲笔供单，及臣等带押逆犯起程日期，理合奏呈，伏乞睿鉴。谨遣抚标把总刘起凤恭捧赍奏。

    朱批：览。不数日汝等即可至京也。

    　　雍正上谕沈在宽诗“陆沉不必由洪水”，其中大有深义

    　　（吕留良文字狱案所受诛连的人，除吕氏家族外，最重要的就是吕留良的徒弟严鸿逵，以及严鸿逵的徒弟沈在宽。雍正给严鸿逵定的罪状，有专门谕旨，已见于《大义觉迷录》卷四。而这篇公布沈在宽罪状的谕旨，主要抓住沈在宽的一句诗“陆沉不必由洪水”来作文章。雍正在黄、运两河是否决口，发生洪水上大作文章，摆出康熙治河的种种功绩。这篇谕旨没有收入《大义觉迷录》）

    　　雍正七年六月十五日谕内阁：我朝建极绥猷，遐迩率育，海隅日出，莫不尊亲。乃逆贼吕留良、严鸿逵凶悖严乱，无父无君，著书显为谤讪。于本朝之大统，肆为诋斥之词，于我圣祖仁皇帝之深仁厚泽，伟烈丰功，任意为诬蔑慢诅之语。其猖狂妄幻，肆无顾忌。人人痛心疾首，不共戴天。朕已降谕旨，将伊等极恶大罪之处，宣示中外诸臣，公议治罪。至于严鸿逵之徒沈在宽，生于本朝定鼎数十年之后，自其祖父，已在覆帱化育之中，非只身被德教育可比，纲常伦理之大义，尤当知凛。乃堕惑逆党之邪说，习染凶徒之余风，亦怀不逞，附会诋讥，慕效梗化之民。称本朝为清时，竟不知其身为何代之人，狂悖已极。此沈在宽与吕留良、严鸿逵党同，惑逆之彰明较著者也。至其所著诗集，有云：“更无地著避秦人。”

    　　又云：“陆沉不必由洪水，谁为神州理旧疆。”此以本朝之宅中立极，化理郅隆，目为神州陆沉，有同洪水之患，其谬戾尤为狂肆。且即以洪水言之，明代二百余年，黄运二河，时时溃决，生民日有沦为波臣之惧。我圣祖仁皇帝时廑忧勤，详示方略，躬亲相度，至再于三，凡所以修筑捍御之策，疏浚导刷之宜，悉经睿虑精详，尽美尽善，以致川流循轨，黄河安澜。数十年来，堤工巩固，亿姓永无昏垫之虞，共享平成之庆。迨朕绍膺丕绪，恪遵谟烈，加意修防。仰荷上天眷佑，七年以来，河流咸归故道，海口深通，清、淮迅畅，三省运道，遄行无阻。至于北直畿辅之地，南省浙江等处，凡有海塘河渠，以及应行经理水利之处，皆渐次兴修，蓄泄为时，旱涝有备，府事修和，桑麻遍野，此时之神州，何处可指为陆沉，又何地可指为洪水乎？且沈在宽云：“谁为神州理旧疆。”

    　　其意欲将神州付之何人经理也。沈在宽年未满四十，而亦效其师之狂悖，肆诋本朝，乃于逆贼曾静之徒张熙千里论交，一见如故，赋诗赠答，意同水乳。此其处心积虑，以叛逆为事，其罪实无可逭。著交与刑部，将沈在宽讯取口供具奏。

    　　一、雍正收用密亲王妃嫔的谣言

    　　（曾静供出谣传雍正收用密亲王妃嫔一事（参见《大义觉迷录》卷三），使雍正大为恼火，下令广西巡抚追查出此造谣人为谁，广西巡抚这份奏章，便是接到谕旨后的表态，而使曾静案牵连进一步扩大。）

    广西巡抚臣金谨奏，为奏闻事。窃本年六月十八日辰刻，奉怡亲王暨大学士等，寄到雍正五年五六月以前发往广西烟瘴人犯密单。据逆贼曾静供吐，五年充发人犯五六月间路经衡州，造作逆语，令臣查此犯所到充发去处，散播悖乱之词。臣看得此等充发烟瘴之犯，皆罪大恶极之人，蒙皇上天恩，宽其死罪，故每于该犯发到之时，该地方官俱派拨人役看守，不许擅自行走，原惟恐其害地方。今此中竟有如此大逆之犯，造为逆语，摇惑人听，臣益仰见皇上圣谕所照，如日丽中天，无微不悉。臣接到密字，当即密谕该管官，令其细心设法查访，务得实情。不但五年六月以前充发人犯，并来单所不及者，亦令其一体访察。俟查得其人，即星速押解赴部，断不使稔奸积恶得幸脱于恢恢之天网也。再本年七月初二日，准刑部咨，据福督高其倬奏，送马廷锡妄传讹言一案。行拿原任山东巡察御史蒋洽秀家人俞成一犯。当即飞檄该全州知州，密拿的犯俞成，五月到案。随于本月十二日给咨，委全州山角司巡检刘朝佐，押解赴部矣。理合一并奏闻。谨奏。雍正七年七月二十一日。

    朱批：览。

    　　二、广西钦犯的确是不少人有悖逆言论

    （金根据京中发来的名单，进行密查，发现不少人有悖逆言论，并又查出名单中漏开的二名饮犯也有悖逆言论。不久，又接到将这批钦犯解送京师的通知。在解送前写了这奏折先行报告）

    　　广西巡抚臣金谨奏

    　　为奏闻事。窃本年六月十八日辰刻，怡亲王暨大学士等，寄到雍正五年五、六月以前发往广西烟瘴人犯密单，令臣察访该犯所到去处散播悖乱之词；其来单所不及开者，并令臣留心细察。臣查来单，开列过衡人犯共五案，马守柱、蔡登科、耿桑格、六格、吴守义、霍成、达哈琏并子成德，共八名。除蔡登科、耿桑格二名已经病故，报明在案外，其现存在配人犯六名。有永康州知州高潢在省，臣见其人明白精细，即密令该员访查前去，今据查明密禀。惟原茶叶库大使达哈琏甚为安静守法，其子成德，年仅六岁，并据该管官上思州知州崔杰禀称，亦与高潢禀称无异。又太监吴守义，亦未闻其有何言语。查得太监霍成、马守柱二名，或为悖逆之语，或为怨望之语，俱一一具禀前来。又据河池州知州陈舜明查得六格一犯，实有悖逆之语。其来单所未及开者，再据高潢查访，得雍正四年十二月间准咨太监一名刘应试，又五年十月间准咨太监一名米儿，或为悖逆之语，或为怨望之语。

    臣正将各犯姓名语言缮具清单，并一面飞檄各地方官速行解省，以便请旨。兹于闰七月二十八日，又接得怡亲王、大学士等于七月二十六日，并闰七月初二日两字，宣传上谕，令臣将五年内充发广西人犯达色、蔡登科、马守柱、耿桑格、六格、吴守义、霍成共七名，遴选的当人员，押解赴京。臣查字内所开人犯，除已病故之蔡登科、耿桑格二名，现在五名。其达色一名，据该地方官称，该犯亦有逆语，但未得其确实，正在密查。吴守义一名，未闻有何言语，余犯六格、霍成、马守柱三名，俱已察出实情，臣接得来字，当又飞檄各地方官星速解省。一经解到，臣即遵奉谕旨，将字中所开存人犯五名，并未开之刘应试、米儿二名，陆续选员押解，不令一处行走，不令各犯相见，并令细察其动静言语，务使完全解部。再来字宣传上谕，令将从前押解各犯之人员查出，确加询问，令将所闻各犯悖逆之语，据实说出。臣伏绎谕旨，惟务在察出各犯实情，今各犯语言，除达色正在密查外，其余各犯俱已分别访实。从前原经押解人员，似可无庸询问。理合奏明。所有前后奏到谕旨查访得充发烟瘴人犯，容臣陆续起解。缘由合并先行奏闻。谨奏。雍正七年八月初一日。

    朱批：览。

    　　三、广西官犯已经出发押送京城

    　　（金奏报了押送各犯赴京日期，并讲了些诱犯人口供的实况，受到雍正在批语中嘉奖，同时对金原是允属下也点了一下）

    　　广西巡抚臣金谨奏

    　　为奏闻事。窃本年闰七月二十八日，接到怡亲王、大学士等寄字，宣传上谕，令臣将雍正五年充发广西人犯达色、蔡登科、马守柱、耿桑格、六格、吴守义、霍成共七名，遴选的当人员，押解赴京。臣当查明所开人犯，除蔡登科、耿桑格二名已经病故，又查出单内未及开出之刘应试、米儿二名，合共七名。业将访出各犯实情于八月初一日缮折具奏，并开列清单，恭呈御览。臣以监临乡试入闱，预将咨牌给发按察司衙门，随后各属押解刘应试、霍成、马守柱、米儿、达色、六格等六名先后到省。经该司于八月初八、初九、初十、十一、十四、二十二等日，陆续委员押解去后，其达色一名前来，得其确定逆语。兹据天河县知县吴正一具禀，现已备细察出。再六格一名，前据河池州知州陈舜明访闻，已将逆语缮奏。今又据该州禀称，密唤六格至署，予以酒食，设词探诱。而该犯逆语愈多，乃既以妄言之后，随复自吐其舌云：“我错了，老爷是个官，我如何向老爷说出这些话来！”

    　　此诚罪恶贯盈，天夺其魄，故不觉呈露如此。伏思我皇上至德光昭薄海，臣民无不共仰高厚，该犯等捏造谤侮，曾何伤于日月。而逆贼曾静之敢于见之笔墨，肆行狂吠，其为此辈之所煽惑确然无疑。谨将续查达色、六格二犯逆语，于出闱后再行详缮清单上呈。伏乞睿鉴。谨奏。雍正七年八月二十八日。

    朱批：料理可嘉之至。犯口供单留中。地方中既被此辈流言，已蛊惑数年矣。但乡愚无知者，信疑之间不可言无常。竭力留心开示，凡有发往人犯处，皆不可疏忽。务将阿其那等不忠不孝不法不臣处，一一详细委曲宣谕，务人人知悉方是，不可草率疏忽从事。况汝先在允属下，虽任外吏，朕弟兄辈从来情形，汝不可言全不知也。勉为之。

    湖南巡抚王国栋奏折：

    一、风水先生陈帝西兴风作浪，传播谣言

    （曾静供出所听谣言来源分二条线索，一是发往广西充军的官犯；一是出于看风水的先生陈帝西。这份奏折，即为审理陈帝西一案的情况，从中可看出，牵扯到的人互相推委，无个结果，所以王国栋受到雍正严厉批评。）

    　　臣王国栋谨奏

    　　为奏闻事。雍正七年六月初十日，准兵部火票递到和硕怡亲王等寄字。内开据逆贼曾静供称，记出有两个偶尔传言的人，一是安仁县生员，姓何名忠立。曾说他听闻有个茶陵州人，姓陈字帝锡，传说朝中有人上议皇上多条；又水兴县十八都有个医生，姓陈字象侯，也说他在一处人家行医，听得人说茶陵州有个堪舆，姓陈字帝锡，口传有个本章谏议皇上如此不好，那上本的臣子姓岳名钟琪等语。巡抚可密将安仁县生员何忠立、永兴县医生陈象侯、茶陵堪舆陈帝锡行提到省，细讯何忠立、陈象侯伊等向曾静如何说，并问陈帝锡所传之语，本于何处？伊若承认直供，则将伊供出之人，一面奏闻，一面提问；如伊等不肯承认，巡抚可委曲开导，晓以曾静乃首逆巨恶，面我皇上好生之德，尚以其听信流言，不忍即加诛戮。况尔等不过传说之人，但将传自何处，得自何人说出，尔等则皆系无罪之人，何苦为人隐讳，以身试法。如此劝谕，伊等犹不实供，则用刑讯，刑讯若仍不能得实，着将何忠立等解京与曾静对质。又：曾静供所传收密亲王妃嫔等语，是雍正五年五、六月内，往来路上人传说衡州路上押解一个犯官过，他如此说等语。巡抚可密行查访，五年五、六月间何犯过衡，查明一并具奏。且将五、六月间过衡人犯姓名密行知会广西巡抚等因到臣。随分差标员，密檄各州县，逐一查提。先据永兴县知县戴文谟获解医生陈象侯到。臣讯据该犯供称：“五、六年前，因曾静的妻子患病，他来接小的医治，所以认得他。那陈帝锡小的并不认得，前年在安仁行医，曾听得武生何献图说起，京中有一个臣子上了谏本，皇上说他是个忠臣，要加封他的官。后来会着曾静，讲闲话时，也曾说及过的。”臣即密拘何献图。

    　　去后，又据安仁县知县袁紫垣获解生员何立忠。即何忠立到，臣审据该犯供称：“我是文生，叫何立忠，平日与曾静并无往来，旧年因犯生女婿死了，曾静到女婿家来吊孝，犯生会着他，说起犯生女婿为人度量偏浅。犯生随口回他说，目今只有皇上的度量大，听见朝中有人不知避讳，上了谏本，皇上置之度外。这也是因话答话，并不是犯生造的，是族间何献图对犯生说，是一个堪舆陈帝西讲的。”

    　　续据署茶陵州知州李凤生获解陈帝西即陈帝锡到。臣审据该犯供称：“小的叫陈帝西，是做堪舆的，平日并不认得陈象侯，也没有在何献图面前讲过什么话。”

    　　随提何立忠质供：“那上本的话，是何献图亲口对我讲是你说的，并不是我赖你。”

    　　复据陈帝西供：“前年十月里，小的在何献图家看风水，他的妹夫叫张继尧，曾说有人去四川回来，闻得岳老爷上了一谏本，说些不知忌讳的话，劝皇上修德行仁。又说四川坍出一个孔明碑，那碑文上有几句诗，说‘孔汝仅留二八帮，花木流落在四方。秦楚士卒千万丈，郊外东方荒又荒。秦晋兵来燕赵地，秋后鸦鸟尽无粮。四民遍地遭淹没，天下从此动刀枪。若问人民太平日，除非山山口口藏。’这都是张继尧说的。”

    　　又据安仁县知县袁紫垣获解何献图到。臣讯据该犯供称：“犯生曾请一个堪舆陈帝西看风水，他曾说过有个臣子上了一谏本，皇上置之度外，还加封他的官职。犯生道听途说，原向族间何立忠并在犯生地方行医的陈象侯讲过，并不曾听见有什么孔明碑的话。”

    　　随提陈帝西质讯。据供：“那上本的话，是你妹夫张继尧对我讲的，就是他讲的孔明碑。我解说不出来，还要你写出来，你怎么赖呢？”

    　　据何献图又供：“那孔明碑的话，犯生实没有听见，若说犯生写的，有什么凭据？至上本的话，实在是陈帝西说的，并不是犯生妹夫张继尧讲的。随刑讯陈帝西，据供：“若提到张继尧不认，小的情愿与他对夹”等语。

    　　臣查逆贼曾静在京所供，陈象侯、何立忠传闻之言，均出堪舆陈帝西之口，及讯现犯何立忠，及供出之何献图，亦称陈帝西告知。是陈帝西实系传言要犯，经臣反复开导，诘其传自何处？得自何人？据供实系张继尧传说。臣恐狡饰仇诬，当经刑讯，该犯坚供必俟张继尧到案对质着落。除现在密提张继尧，并追取抄录孔明碑文到日，质审明确，再行具奏外，所有讯取犯供情，合先缮折奏闻。至奉查雍正五年五六月内，经过衡州官犯，臣即密查。是年五月二十二日，兵部递过人犯一名达色；六月初四日，兵部递过人犯一名蔡登科。臣恐五六月前后尚有遗漏，遵又细查，是年四月初七日，兵部递过人犯一名马守柱；七月初十日，兵部递过人犯二名耿桑格、六格，太监一名吴守义；七月二十四日，兵部递过太监一名霍成。俱系发往广西之犯。其原文内止有人犯、太监名色，并无官犯字样。臣复密行署衡州府知府杨浚、副将崔起潜查复无异。当即密行知会广西抚臣金在案，理合一并奏闻。伏乞皇上睿鉴。朱批：你地方上百姓如此风习，而不能觉知，而不肯奏闻。他处发觉，特命钦差来究审，而又不能将此等一类匪物究出。今从京指名交与你数人审究，原为恐奸民闻风远扬，方着你就近作速设法诱问。今但将此已经问出口供而令彼此推卸，耽延时日，总不能体察其出之谁口，亦可谓才德兼全，忠诚任事之巡抚矣。此干人犯自然亦解京审问者，再究问出他犯，自然亦在你地方上，但必将有名人犯一一交出方可。

    　　二、臣下的确夙夜兢兢，稽察办案

    　　编者按：上一封奏折，雍正在批语中对王国栋作了严厉训斥，使王国栋不能不作一番检查。但王国栋必竟缺少才干，自己无法审结此案，只好委托下属去分头审讯，这更引起雍正不满，在本奏折中夹批了“胡说，溺职之极！”这里，已伏下了雍正决心要撤换王国栋的想法。所以在奏折后朱批中，没给王国栋任何具体指示。

    　　臣王国栋谨奏，为恭谢天恩，敬复朱批谕旨事。闰七月十八日，臣标把总刘万志恭捧皇上批回奏折到长沙，并赍软赐鲜荔枝一瓶。圣恩高厚，感刻难名。臣谨恭设香案，望阙叩头祗领讫，随捧读朱批。臣奏湖南雨水，及恭请陛见两折，均恭皇上详悉训诲，一一指示。臣庸愚下质，谬任封疆，仰荷圣恩深重，虽于甄别吏治，体恤民瘼，清厘钱粮，慎重刑罚之处，夙夜兢兢，稽察办理，而上之不能感召天和，下之不能潜消匪类，即自顾亦觉怀惭。因恩才庸任重，或得面承圣训，庶几有所遵循。兹蒙我皇上训旨详明，不惜千万言，勉臣振作鼓舞。臣跪读之下，醉醒梦觉，昭若发蒙。惟有整励精神，倍加奋迅，以求天人感召之本源，以副圣主委用之至意。

    　　皇上圣明，自有远鉴。至陈帝西传播流言一案，臣将得自何人之处，设法诱问。委曲开导，刑讯数次，总不能实供得自何人。复发按察司郭朝祚，护岳常道孙元，署长沙府知府杨辅臣分别研讯（朱批：胡说，溺职之极！）亦不能别指造言之人。业经录供，于闰七月初四日具折请旨在案，现候皇上批示遵行。按察司郭朝祚，臣即将所奉圣旨，详悉宣谕，伊甚恐惧战栗（朱批：此等负恩无知之人，恐惧战栗即可赦宥乎？），已遵旨遣人至大学士臣张廷玉处转奏。再，臣前奏丈勘复测田亩一折，蒙皇上朱批：似此实心任事之员，当引朕旨，察其等次，题请议叙，以示鼓励，钦此。臣查湖南清查欺隐田亩，如系额内者，向例不清议叙；额外者，照例附请。今沅陵、辰溪、黔阳、攸县、安仁五县，俱系额内，惟酃县田亩除足额外，又查出额外垦熟田地六十六顷零。经臣于原题案内，将酃县知县刘朝佑，委勘之原任澧州知州黄炎附请议叙，已准。部复照例各准其纪录二次，奏旨俞允钦遵在案。合并附折奏闻，臣不胜感激悚惶之至。谨奏。

    　　朱批：览。

    　　三、风水先生摇唇鼓舌，祸从口出

    （奏折中重复抄录了雍正对王国栋审案的大段批评。王国栋也自知职位不稳，所以又抓紧审讯陈帝西，才算使陈帝西承认谣言出于自己之口，但又说是听路人所言，是否真实，则难以知道。王国栋未来得及禀报，又接到将陈帝西押解进京的通知。在这封奏折上报不久，王国栋即被免职）

    　　臣王国栋谨奏，为遵旨复讯事。雍正七年九月初六日，准兵部火牌，递到怡亲王等奉上谕：“湖南巡抚王国栋奏称，曾静在京供出陈象侯、何立忠转述陈帝西传说流言一案。审讯陈象侯、何立忠，供出何献图。据何献图供，得之陈帝西。及究问陈帝西，陈帝西又供出得之张继尧，以何献图为证。刑讯张继尧、何献图，皆呼冤不认。又陈帝西供出抄录孔明碑文，曾与何知来、何纯忠看过。提审茫无确据，显系陈帝西捏造。既经众证明白，难容狡赖。应否将陈帝西解京，一并拟结等语。“从前令尔等寄信与王国栋，令其将何立忠、陈象侯、陈帝西等，细讯所传之语本于何处。如伊等不肯承认，可委曲开导。尔等不过传说之人，但将传自何处，得自何人说出，则尔等皆系无罪之人，何苦为人隐讳，以身试法？如此劝谕，犹不实供，则用刑讯，刑讯犹不承认，则解京与曾静对质。

    　　今该抚讯问陈象侯、何立忠二人，俱称闻自何献图，得之陈帝西。何献图供亦相等。又究陈帝西，则供谏议碑文，系张继尧说的。是陈帝西已经自认传说流言，与曾静所供无异。更无再与曾静对质之处，何必又请将陈帝西解京？至陈帝西所供之张继尧及何知来、何纯忠等，该抚既称刑讯，张继尧呼冤不认，何知来等家中并无抄录碑文，显属陈帝西捏造。“则该抚应将陈帝西委曲开导，令其悔悟感激，则自必将传言之实，由何处何人招出。乃王国栋既不将陈帝西详悉晓谕，使之感悟，吐露实情，而但将扳出之张继尧加以刑鞠，不知王国栋出自何心？况陈帝西将孔明碑文烂熟胸中，随口背出，此决非陈帝西临时造作之语，其言必有所本。即此，可以推求其他流言之所自来。而王国栋先用严刑，讯究诬扳之人，刑讯不得，遂请将陈帝西解京，以卸彼地方之责。”

    　　“从前杭奕禄在湖广时，既不能详悉推求，是以特降旨令王国栋查讫。而王国栋又复草率，希图完结如此。有凭有据之事，尚不肯细心推究，以尽根株，设地方有疑难之事，则将作何办理？王国栋残为溺职。着王国栋再行详讯，务必追出传言之人，则此事方可归着。“又前令王国栋将雍正五年五、六月间，衡州路上解过犯官留心察访，王国栋亦未复奏。令其一并确查，具奏等因到臣，钦此。”

    　　臣于文闱竣后，复传陈帝西，几经询问，供吐游移。臣恐该犯乡愚畏罪，适刘之珩等奉旨释放回籍，臣即令刘之珩等将皇上宽大弘仁，当面逐为宣布，并又多方委曲开导。据陈帝西供：“前年八月初间，小的奉母亲的命，往衡州买绸子，走到地名唐堡司，是条大路，有个凉亭，小的走得吃力。在那里息息足，买茶吃。只见有四个长大汉子，还有一个挑担的，是走道儿的光景，身上都穿着马褂子，口里说的是官话，像京里内旗人模样。他们自己伙里，在那边讲什么岳老爷上了谏本，不知避讳，恐怕不便，内中一个人说，皇上竟不定他的罪，反加了他的官。因那挑担的来问小人要茶吃，小的随问他，你们是到那里去的？他说往城里去。那时路上偶然撞见，不知他是什么人，又不曾问他姓名，恐其着在小的身上要人，所以从前不敢供出。其实这句话，实在是道听途说的，就是小的告诉何献图，也讲是听见人说，若果向小人说的人，如今可以指得出姓名，其时小的又不晓得有今日的事，怎么不在何献图面前就讲是某个说的呢？

    　　至于那碑文，是前年九月初一，小的在衡州，去买鼎锅，在同年桥地方，见有许多人攒着一个背胡芦的道人，白发长须，约有九十多岁，据他讲有一百岁了。他招牌上写着云水道人，善观气色；又有一张诗句贴在桥上，说是什么孔明碑文。那时看相的人也多，要八文钱一相，小的也出了八文钱，相了一相。已往的事，有些对证。他自己说是四川来的，小的因识得几个字，就把那碑文看了几遍，记在肚里，也不知那诗句讲的是什么话。因小的从前病在何献图家，他郎舅说要缠绕，将小的用草荐裹了，逐出门外；又因何献图将小的对他说的话告诉别人，以致今日有这样事，所以怀恨，扯着他郎舅两人是正。如今小的供的都是实情，并没有半句假话”等语。

    　　正在具折奏复间，又准大学士公马尔赛等札，开前巡抚奏请，将陈帝西解京拟结。奉旨以陈帝西并未供出传言之人，王国栋不能详悉推求，但请解京，希图草率完结，务令再行详讯，追出传言之人，则此事方可归着，钦此。写字寄与巡抚在案。今在京有与陈帝西质问之处，我等遵旨再寄前来，巡抚可将陈帝西确讯取供，即将陈帝西并陈象侯、何立忠三人，遴员解送来京。臣复钦遵，详加讯问，坚称此番所说实系正情，并无捏造饰除。经遵旨将陈帝西、陈象侯、何立忠三人，遴委醴陵县典史陈继祖，于雍正七年九月二十八日，自长沙起程，管押解送刑部查收外，合将复讯供情再行缮折奏闻。至过衡犯官，随即密查，雍正五年五、六月内，递过军犯达色、蔡登科，臣恐前后尚有遗漏，又细查四、七两月，递过军犯马守柱、耿桑格、六格，太监吴守义、霍成等，姓名于六月二十九日备叙奏明在案，合并陈明，谨遣臣标千总宋启相恭赍奏闻。

    四、有人混水摸鱼，竟想诬告得赏

    　　（曾静一案，牵扯数省，到处追查余党。便有人想从告密中获得奖赏，而捕风捉影，任意诬告。王国栋未详察，便奏报上去。此折上奏后不数日，王即被免职）

    　　臣王国栋、臣李徽谨奏，为奏复事。本年九月二十五日，臣抚标下把总刘万志，恭捧批回奏折到省，臣等跪接开读。会奏周楠呈首袁炽与曾静交往一折，蒙皇上朱批：“讯问曾静，并不识此人，况陈学松等姓名，亦皆一人不知，可将周楠诬捏情节究审为何起见，亦不可严用刑具。袁炽可释放，此案无可究处。钦此。”

    　　臣等随将袁炽当堂释放，并提周楠复讯。据供：“小的原不认得袁炽，前因听见这话，一点忠心，就出首了，并没有心要害，并只想出首了，皇上自然说我好，并有加恩之处，并不为别的起见”等语。反覆研讯，别无异辞。臣等备查，周楠原供往滇之杨天佩等三犯，先经行据郴州永兴县细加察访，挨查烟户册内，并无其人，出有印结在案。惟传言之张凤一犯，现在移查广东未复，而既经部臣讯明，曾静未与袁炽认识，其余各犯，亦皆一人不知，自应遵旨，概予免究。其周楠诬捏之处，据供妄想皇恩，并无别故。可否俯念该犯异乡愚民，无知犯法，一并从宽，递回原籍安插，毋许出外滋事，以结斯案。臣等未敢擅便，理合缮折奏复，仰乞皇上睿裁批示遵行。

    　　雍正上谕：仁君何以要对弥天重犯网开一面

    　　雍正七年十月初六日，怡亲王、大学士、九卿、翰詹科道等，遵旨讯问曾静，合词公奏，将曾静、张熙照大逆不道律，即行正法。上谕乾清宫，召入诸臣等，并令李绂随入。谕曰：“今日诸臣合词请诛曾静、张熙。伊等大逆不道，实从古史册所未有，以情罪论之，万无可赦。但朕之不行诛戮者，实有隐衷，上年曾静之徒张熙，诡名投书与岳钟琪。岳钟琪仓猝之间，忿怒惊惶，不及筹算，即邀巡抚西琳、臬司硕色，坐于密室，将张熙严加根究，问其指使之人，张熙不肯供出真实姓名，旋即加以刑讯，而张熙甘死不吐，岳钟琪无可如何，越二三日，百计曲诱，许以同谋，迎聘伊师，与之盟神设誓，张熙始将姓名一一供出。彼时岳钟琪具奏前来，朕披览之下，为之动容。岳钟琪诚心为国家发奸摘伏。假若朕身曾与人盟神设誓，则今日亦不得不委曲，以期无负前言。朕洞鉴岳钟琪之心，若不视为一体，实所不忍。况曾静等僻处乡村，为流言所惑，其捏造谤言之人，实系阿其那、塞思黑门下之凶徒、太监等。因犯罪发遣广西，心怀怨忿，造作恶语，一路流传，今已得其实据。若非因曾静之事，则谣言流布，朕何由闻之，为之明白剖晰，俾家喻而户晓耶？且从来国家之法，原以惩一儆百，如曾静等之悖逆，谅宇宙内断无第二人，即后世亦可断其必无有与之比者。何必存惩一儆百之见，可以宽宥其罪，并非博宽大之名而废法也。一切朕另有谕旨。

    　　江苏巡抚尹继善奏折冒名王澍传播谣言的犯人

    　　（曾静招供出传播悖逆言论的犯人。而且供出梦见自己的同族人告诉他说，那人姓邓等话。江苏巡抚便依此追查，无结果）

    臣尹继善谨奏：臣于淮安，路遇刑部侍郎臣杭奕禄恭传谕旨，命臣等访拿曾静供出诡名王澍播散流言之人，并将图像交臣。窃思逆贼曾静，僻处乡野，敢于逆天悖理，皆由奸邪党羽造言四布，凡在人类者，闻之无不切齿痛心。臣现在多方设法密访查拿。再杭奕禄途中盘问曾静，伊又记诡名王澍之人曾言，在潘宗洛湖南学差任内，看过文字。臣查潘宗洛，原籍常州府宜兴县，访有伊孙潘文熙在家。臣着人将潘文熙并当日历任跟随潘宗洛之家人，唤至署中，称访延慕友，令将伊祖学院、巡抚并历任内所清幕友及教书看文字之人，姓名、年岁、相貌、住址一一列出，现在逐名密访。再，臣与杭奕禄淮安相见是夜，曾静梦回伊家，族人曾天祥向其说那人姓邓，在王澍家中教过书，是湖北人，兄弟曾又思在兴谷洞地方，知他跟底等语。杭奕禄到苏将此语向臣说知，臣思梦中之语虽难凭信，但如此罪大恶极之人，天理昭彰，无不败露，或者由此跟寻而得亦未可定。臣因遣人至无锡，寻见原任给事中王澍细问，曾在伊家教书往来者并无姓邓，亦无湖广之人。开出处馆数人，其年纪相貌俱不相同。但曾静既称梦中见曾天祥，告以其人姓邓，系湖北人声口，曾又思在兴谷洞知其底里，恐非无因。臣现在照图书像密札知会湖南巡抚赵弘恩，湖北巡抚费金吾，令其就近查询密访，并探兴谷洞地方踪迹。臣日夜筹度，展转于心，恨不能一时就获，以抒愤懑，不敢以为梦语而忽之也。谨将奉到密旨，遵行缘由，先行奏闻，谨奏。雍正八年二月初三日。

    朱批：览。但梦寐之语，何必如此认真也。

    　　浙江总督李卫奏折在浙江继续查访逆党情况

    　　（对曾静一案审讯已告一段落，雍正仍嫌供出的犯人太少。因又命令杭奕禄秘密带领曾静去浙江，企图指认浙江逆党，但无结果，因此，浙江总督李卫又派官兵将曾静押往湖南继续指认逆党。）

    浙江总督管巡抚事，驻扎杭州，在任守制臣李卫谨奏：为钦奉上谕事。雍正八年正月二十三日，钦差刑部左侍郎杭奕禄，密带曾静并悖逆妄人图像到杭，向臣宣示密谕，跪领钦遵。伏查此辈棍徒，造作讹言，往来煽惑，实可痛恨，断难容其漏网。臣细思江浙好事悖谬之人，莫过于现在拿获之甘凤池等各犯，诚恐其中或有在内因，将依稀仿佛年貌相近者，密令认识，逗问语音，皆不相像。据称江南稍有影响。杭奕禄回江之日，会同江南督抚二臣，再为推求。臣仍当加意留心，设法访察，不敢略有懈怠宣露。至臣前见曾静逆恶妄言，实深忿激，恨不能食肉寝皮，以抒公义。及观其补貌语言，乃系鄙陋不堪，甚属平常者，较浙省现获之陆同庵，行径执谬，大概相似。与其从前作为，迥不相同。乃知实属天地祖宗之灵，借此妄人以昭显千古是非邪正之别，而使天下无不咸知造言生事之徒，共相儆戒，诚非偶然也。今笔帖式杭嵩安，已密押该犯于正月二十九日起行，前往湖南。臣专派外委把总吴居功，带兵四名，宽裕发给盘费，随同护解至彼。并沿途拨兵六名，交替接送去讫。至极恶吕留良家口子孙，于臣旋浙之时，即已密令府县查点清楚，分别大小，监禁看守。迨此番回任后，又将其父子坟冢，严饬文武，派拨人役，加谨巡查，不敢疏忽。理合一并奏明，伏乞皇上睿鉴。为此顺交臣权外委把总黄文达，自备脚力赍进，谨奏。雍正八年二月初八日。

    朱批：览。曾静之感服情形如何？

    　　陕西总督岳钟琪奏折《大义觉迷录》一书的确是觉世道之宏模，指迷途之宝训

    　　（雍正亲自编定的《大义觉迷录》刻印出来后，颁发全国，使“曾静差徒投书案”告一段落。岳钟琪身为第一个接触此案的人，自然必须表态歌颂一番。才写了此奏章。最后又附上一笔，趁机交待了他在审问张熙时，曾假意称赞过屈大均的文章。这依然是为了怕以后被抓住辫子）

    　　宁远大将军，臣岳钟琪谨奏

    　　为圣德光昭，群迷觉悟，臣庆切于中，敬抒虔悃，仰祈睿鉴事。雍正八年三月十九日，准兵部咨送内阁，交出奉旨刊刻《大义觉迷录》二部到臣，臣恭设香案，望阙叩头。跪读圣谕，敬谨详绎，仰见睿照所临，无微不至，圣泽所被，万类咸沾，大义聿昭，愚蒙共启。此诚为觉世道之宏模，指迷途之宝训。析理义于至精至微；开聋聩于极顽极冥。稽之典、谟、训、诰实未有若此之深切著明者也。逆兽曾静，蠢顽不灵，恣肆狂悖，雍正六年遣其徒张熙持书至臣，其中词语丧心病狂，狼嗥犬吠，臣阅未竟，竖发裂眦，痛心切齿，畏欲食其肉而寝其皮，以消忿恨。遂将张熙严加刑讯，期于逆党全获，寸磔族诛，早申国宪，以蔽厥辜，讵逆恶张熙任刑不吐。臣是时忽怦然心动，以为若不设法引诱，则逆踪党恶究难必得。然此际臣心忽动之机，若有不自知其然而然者。至逆恶张熙于严刑夹讯之后，不辨臣设誓之诚伪，欣然将逆谋奸党，历历指供，悉诉其情，无稍遗遁。由今思之，诡谲如逆恶张熙，既能坚忍重刑，而不能不为假词所诱者，冥冥之中，如有鬼神若或使之而然也。随得将逆恶张熙所供逆谋，并逆兽曾静住址及所投逆书，密陈圣鉴。

    　　夫以逆兽曾静等，生逢盛世，戴高履厚，始而心服大奸大逆禽兽不若之吕留良讲义横蓄于心，继而又听信悖逆之阿其那、塞思黑等逆党，捏造全无影响之流言，肆加毁谤，声载成书。若非逆兽自为败露，不几以讹传讹，妄为扬播，迷惑人心，流毒无已。在逆兽曾静之罪恶，已通于天。而臣当时之假词谓诱，并逆恶张熙受刑之后，旋即信而不疑，悉吐实情，实乃神人共愤，不使奸谋逆恶暂容于天地之间。此种情事，有非思虑之所得，而预定蓄念之所得预防。良由我皇上深仁厚德，感格天祖，是以阴夺其魄，遣使投书，奸谋毕露，此即逆静今日所谓从前投书，自速天诛，乃今痛自悔恨，实有若或使之莫之为而为也。我皇上如天好生，以逆兽曾静僻处穷乡，罔知大义，先由误信逆恶吕留良邪说，继又妄信逆党道路诬谤之言，遂使迷而不语。乃远引“宥过无大”之蕴义，赦其狂背，予以自新。似此张为幻，悖恶凶头，实属千古未有之大憝；而我皇上宏仁大度，特宥无知，更属千古所未见之旷典。即蠢顽如逆静等醉生梦死之禽兽，尚有一线之明，感恩戴德，痛首痛心，自怨自艾，深知从前轻信邪说谣言之误。臣细阅逆兽曾静等全供，益信道盛德至，化及豚鱼，所感甚深，为效甚速；且我朝列圣相承，积功累仁，天与人归，抚有中夏，光明正大，远迈商周。自生民以来，得天下之正，未有如我朝之盛者也。

    　　我皇上乘乾首出，仁覆寰区，复念四海苍生，万一尚有为邪说所惑，是以万几之余，剖析圣贤之经义，以开万古群蒙，疏解至三，精详明切，特命刊刻，布告中外。俾茅檐屋，均知尊君亲上之常经；僻壤遐陬，共识践土食毛之大义。今现在之冥顽，既以趋义而归仁。被惑自愚蒙，自必格心而向化。臣谨遍谕阖营，敬宣圣德，官兵人等，莫不叩首欢呼，忭舞称庆。而臣之微悃愚忠，睹兹宝录，亦得稍为表白，永矢赤忱，以仰报皇上高厚洪恩于万一而已。臣感切于中，未由自己，敬抒愚悃，缮摺恭奏。再臣细阅逆恶张熙所供，臣言屈温山一段情节，缘比时逆恶张熙曾言，闻得广东有屈温山者，诗文甚佳，亦未出仕，并云惜未见其文集。其时臣正在诱之使言，随亦云其著作大意，仿佛与吕留良及而师曾静之意略同。其实屈温山之为人如何？并伊之诗篇文集，不唯臣从前并未寓目，抑且并未闻人说及，其书之有无邪说（朱批：此一语非卿提起，朕实未留意，而廷臣亦未有言及者。）无由而知。是时臣之所以信口称道者，盖欲探逆恶之实情，使之深信不疑，直言无隐也，理合一并奏明，伏乞皇上睿鉴。为此谨奏。雍正八年三月二十六日。

    　　朱批：览。

    　　浙江总督李卫奏折谎供引起的草木皆兵、虚惊闹剧

    　　（这个奏折是曾静案的余波，记录了一件十分可笑的事。杭州一个监生陈铨，在群众中吹嘘自己认识张熙，以夸耀、抬高自家身份，但被官府风闻而抓起来，又乱供与江西人吕东阳有往来。浙江总督遂通知江西省，请捕送吕东阳到案。结果江西错抓了一个叫吕学一的人，吕学一怕受刑打，无中生有地供出直隶、山东、江苏等省的同党，于是江西便发文照会各省，大加搜捕。后来吕学一被押送杭州，才审出全是他胡编乱供，将其释放；又通知江西火速撤销往各省搜捕同案犯的公文，演了一出虚惊闹剧。从这里也可看出，清政府各级官员，对吕留良、曾静一案，已紧张到草木皆兵的地步，以及在办案审问中的诸多弊端。）

    　　浙江总督管巡抚事，驻扎杭州在任守制，臣李卫谨奏

    　　为奏闻事。窃臣于上年冬月，访有杭城仁和县监生陈铨，少年狂诞，在外扬言曾与湖广逆犯张熙来浙时认识，并同党恶严赓臣，投拜门生，讲论诗文、自幸不曾扳入案内等语，当即拿究审问。又据供出，曾与江西人看风水之吕东阳，于杭州书坊相遇，因起大六壬数，彼此接谈，许以跟随同行，每月可得帮给银三两，尚有札付等语，随查吕东阳踪迹，已于雍正三年回归原籍。因陈铨供内有札付狂妄之语，不可不为究讯明白。一面移咨江西巡抚查缉解浙质对，一面再将陈铨细加研鞠。旋又改供吕东阳系浙江台州人方贤济冒名假称，亦在省城堪舆生理，错认为东阳。又复行提方贤济，于今年三月下旬到案，三面质讯，曾与陈铨会面起过六壬，彼此较量深浅争论是实，并无许银及札付之事，讯之陈铨，自认谎供。其熟识张熙等之处，反复推鞠，均属支离，并称曾静亦经到杭州拜望见过等语，更为荒唐，乃系好作不根之谈，造言生事，哄骗愚民，假做体面狂徒，随将陈铨咨革监生，从重枷责，仅留余生，交与伊父亲邻取保管束，永不许出门。正在备文移咨江西间，即于四月二十二日，准江西署抚臣谢，咨解吕学一即吕东阳到浙。臣查其在江西所供陈铨，年貌籍贯，及京师相遇情节，俱不符合。随将解到之吕东阳更换衣服，同别案犯及衙役等十余人间杂并跪。吊同陈铨及吕东阳当在杭寓主逐一识认，并非其人。

    　　讯据吕学一供称，实系打造银匠生理，招牌上有东阳吕记，并非名号。向在保定府涞水县开店，从没有到过浙江，且目未识丁，不会风水。其江西所在京与陈铨结盟，吃血酒，约会船只下海及供出各省田开玉等姓名，俱系畏刑信口妄指，毫无影响。诘其因何认供凿凿之故。据称彼地要严审，若不妄供，难逃夹讯。我族人说：“你到浙江，自然明白，何必先自受苦”等语。隔别研讯，实属误拿。查臣前咨，止于将吕东阳获解送浙质对，并未令其就近讯供，彼处既无活口来历，何从究审，自有错误。但因江南匪类正在浙省发觉，江西州县官疑为此件，奉公过甚所致。幸到杭不曾动刑，即与剖明省释。臣捐给盘费，交原解官带回江西，并咨明署抚臣谢，飞速行文直隶、山东、山西、江南、广东各省，将吕学一妄供之姓名，毋庸查拿，以免张皇滋扰。去后今已准有谢回咨，合将情由奏明。再，浙江各处地方安静，惟海盐县近日后有愚民，以“糍粑教”名目，聚会拜忏。恐其蛊惑人心，经臣访拿，为首及附和党羽等十余名，交杭嘉湖道细加严审，尚系乡愚初起，无别项为匪情，故现在分别重惩枷责，仅留余生，交保管束，朔望点卯不时稽察，以杜颓风。

    　　又，钱塘县知县李惺，缉得游方匪僧裕安、上乘等，讯出同伙甚多，皆系马流和尚，结党为匪，各处云游挂单，遇孤村静室，庵庙人少者，即用强行劫，或以蒙汗药投入饮食之中迷人，取其衣资，更有损害性命者。臣随拣造弁员，为发给路费，押带匪僧作眼，分头认缉，先后又获同党静参等二十余犯。所供江浙两省窃劫，历年为害，踪迹莫定。按址行查，皆属不虚。而乡僻僧尼弱门，止于失物未致伤命者，从前竟不赴官呈报，今现在逐案究明，定拟具题。此外，多党仍再上紧侦拿，断不使其漏网贻患。又，本年五月三十日，据臣差往江南巡缉私盐盗匪弁员禀称，祟明县花沙海稍等处民人，忽率众鸣锣到新开河市镇强勒各铺户，关闭店面，喧闹地方等情。随据苏松镇兵官施廷专呈，同前。由臣一面严批查拿首犯，解散余党，一面密加察访。因祟明佃户向夏冬二季交纳业主田租之外，尚有轿钱、折饭、家人杂费等项。经知县祖秉震于上年具详禁革，立碑文内分晰未明，刁民藉以为题，欲将夏季麦租不还。先写匿名谤纸粘贴。指称取租富户施大受与新任镇臣施廷专联宗，倚势收等语，聚众多人逼迫店户罢市，甚至殴辱巡检。

    　　虽有营县拿有朱锁等四、五人到案，尚有写匿名帖之夏君钦等棍脱逃未获。该县欲为掩饰，详文含糊，未将实情叙明，臣查崇明地居海外，各沙孤悬错杂，民情向称刁悍，今欲借端图赖额内一季正租，辄敢粘贴匿名，聚众妄行，恶风断不可长。现在批行江苏按察司，苏松太道严查确情，会同营员勒获为首鼓众要犯。咨会江省督抚二臣听其究审定拟，分别严处示儆外，事关海疆要地，棍徒聚众，合并附摺奏明，伏乞圣鉴。谨奏。雍正八年六月初六日。

    　　朱批：是施廷专已有旨着汝调补矣。朕意李灿似宜此任，若浙省镇臣调用有难行处，只管暂委员署理崇明。据实折奏以闻。

    　　湖南巡抚赵弘恩等奏折湖南人为什么非要将曾静沉潭溺死

    　　（曾静由反清转向多方吹捧雍正和清朝的统治，因被派往湖南“观风整俗使”衙门听用，向民众宣扬雍正盛德。曾静到湖南不久，长沙城内便出现了传单，内容是约定一批百姓要共同抓住曾静，投入深潭溺死。传单使湖南地方官员大为紧张，不得不奏报）

    　　湖南巡抚臣赵弘恩，观风整俗使臣李徽谨奏

    为奏请圣训事。八月十一日布政使杨永斌、按察使张灿面禀：省城贴有传单，约于十九日共执曾静沉潭。随据长沙县知县单含，揭送传单到臣。臣即出示晓谕，严行禁止。讫十四日，荷蒙圣恩特赦，将曾静切加训束。臣等当将曾静传赴公所，宣扬圣旨，明切教导，曾静惟俯首称谢。臣等窃思，曾静来楚，本欲令其宣扬圣德，化导愚民，今据该司等公禀前来，诚恐草野愚民共生义愤，无益人心，反滋事端。臣等未敢擅便，臣谨会同观风整俗使臣李徽，据实奏闻，并抄录传单呈览。伏讫圣主训示遵行。臣赵弘恩、李徽谨奏。雍正八年九月十三日。

    朱批：览。另有旨谕。

    　　雍正上谕对吕留良及家属最后应如何判决

    　　（这道谕旨是对吕留良及其家属的判决，对吕留良的著作也下令焚毁。但雍正仍惧怕吕留良思想影响仍在，所以在这篇谕旨中又用了一半篇幅去讲道理。最后，还下令让全国各级学校的秀才、监生，人人对吕留良的定罪恰当与否表态，并要写出书面具结。表面上讲可以各抒己见，提出异议，实际上是对不同意见的镇压。）

    　　雍正八年十二月十九日，刑部等衙门会议：吕留良身列本朝子衿，妄附前代仪宾之裔，追思旧国，诋毁朝章，造作恶言，妄行记撰，猖狂悖乱，罪恶滔天。甚至敢将圣祖仁皇帝诬蔑指斥，悖犯已极，臣等莫不切齿痛心，允宜按律定罪，显加诛灭，以扶人纪，以绝乱源。吕留良应尸枭示，财产入官。伊子吕葆中，曾叨仕籍，世恶相济，前此一念和尚谋叛案内连及，吕葆中逆迹彰著，亦应尸枭示。吕毅中应斩立决，伊子孙并兄弟伯叔，兄弟之子及女，妻妾姊妹、子之妻妾，应行文该督查明，按律完结。并行知各省、府、州、县，将大逆吕留良所著文集、诗集、日记及他书已经刊刷及抄录者，于文到日出示遍谕，勒限一年，尽行焚毁。得旨：吕留良怀悖逆不臣之心，假托先儒糟粕余论，欺世盗名。以致人心陷溺，为其迷惑已久，愚昧之徒，称为夫子，几谓其驾乎程朱之上，甚至奉祀书院以尊崇之。今其谋逆秽行无不败露，天下焉有丧灭伦常，犹得托名于理学之林，而著作尚有可取者乎？今内外臣工等合词陈奏，朕思吕留良之罪，从前谕旨甚明，在天理国法万无可宽。

    　　然天下至广，读书之人至多，或者千万人中，尚有其人谓吕留良之罪，不至于极典者。朕慎重刑罚，诛奸锄叛，必合乎人心之大公，以昭“与众弃之”之义。至其所著书籍，臣工等奏请焚毁，复思吕留良不过盗袭古人之绪余，以肆其狂诞空浮之论。有识见者，固不待言，即当日被其愚惑者，今亦自然窥其底里，而嗤笑之也。况其人品心术若此，其盲更何可取，今若焚灭其迹，假使毁弃不尽，则事属空文，倘毁其尽绝，则将来未见其书者，转疑伊之著述，实能阐发圣贤精蕴，而惜其不可复得也。即吕留良书籍中有大逆不道之语，伏思我圣祖仁皇帝圣德神功，际天蟠地，如日月之照临宇宙，万古为昭，岂吕留良所能亏蔽于万一乎？著将廷臣所议，行文直省学政，遍行询问各学生监等，应否照议，将吕留良、吕葆中尸枭示，伊子吕毅中斩决，甚所著文集、诗集、日记及他书，已经刊刻刷印暨抄录者，尽行燔毁之处，著秉公据实，作速取具该生监等结状具奏。其有独抒己见者，令其自行具呈该学政，一并具奏，不可阻挠隐匿，俟具奏到日，再降谕旨。

    　　安徽巡抚程元章奏张秀公等供词南方几省与王朝有关的人仍要大力追查

    　　（对曾静的审问虽已结束，《大义觉迷录》也刻印颁布全国了。但由于曾静供词中供出过有冒名王澍的人（同名王澍任给事中，已查出与此案无关，见附录江苏巡抚尹继善奏折），在湖南散布了一些朝廷内幕，故仍不甘心，继续下令南方几省大力追查。虽已证实这王澍已死，还要追查其家属下落，进一步扩大，结果以讹传讹，捕风捉影，便牵连了大批不相干的人。）

    　　安徽巡抚，臣程元章谨奏：
    　　今将审问张秀公等供词缘由开陈于后。

    　　问：“张秀公，你今年多少年纪，弟兄几个，有几个伯叔，你父亲张应星是哪一年到耒阳的任，哪一年病故，你必定常在任所的，据实供来。”

    　　供：“犯今年三十七岁了，弟兄原有四个。大哥早死了。弟兆鹏自雍正三年往广东谋生，至今杳无音信，不知存亡。还有幼弟兆凤，今年十五岁现在家里。父亲是康熙四十八年内到任，雍正元年病故，在任共十五年。犯生跟随到任时年纪只有十四岁，后来也常回家，也进过京，也到过广东，约算在耒阳不过五六年。前在臬司讯供已经供明。惟雍正元年犯生在家，到六月闻讣，继赶到耒阳的，现在孙仪周等可问。”

    　　又问：“你父亲是何年入学、怎么得官，死时有多少年纪呢？”

    　　供：“父亲进学时候，犯生还不曾出世，只听说是康熙三十二三年间，挈眷到浙江糊口，在颜学院任内商籍进学的。后于康熙四十年四月内，由杭州搬家回籍，不及一月就进京去，四十一年考取景山教习，四十七年报满，就选授耒阳县，冬底出京，四十八年四月到任，后来病故，时年五十四岁了。”

    　　又问：“你父亲在任十五年，你又常随任所，衙门中宾朋往来，你自然知道，曾有一个王澍，当日到过耒阳，与你父亲交好，因何县府司审你，你狡供怎么没有个王澍的影子呢？”

    　　供：“父亲衙内往来亲朋，犯生都是晓得的，若说王澍这个人，实在一点影子也没有，教犯生怎么供得出？”

    　　又问：“雍正元年四月里，王澍曾写书札寄你父亲，教祝融庵的僧人弥增，到你父亲衙门里去取五十两银子，你怎说不知王澍的影子呢？”

    　　供：“雍正元年四月间，犯生不在耒阳，但父亲衙门从没有个和尚弥增出入。犯生又细查过父亲日用银帐，元年上并没有这和尚弥增，拿着王澍的书札来取五十两银子的帐况。我父亲商籍进学，教习选官，是赤手空拳挣出来的，也没有亲朋帮衬，后来做官俭朴自守，死的时候尚且亏空了钱粮，那打抽丰的人来都没想头，若送五十两银子必是平素受过重恩的人，难道犯生还不知道。就是元年四月犯生不在耒阳衙门的，果有弥增取银子的事，他们犯不着隐瞒，况且取了五十两银子去。王澍既有字来，父亲必有字回答，只求咨查叫他们拿出回书来验就明白了。”

    　　又问：“现据僧人弥增在湖南供称，王澍曾说与你父亲同学，岂有你父亲同学的人，你倒不知道吗？”

    　　供：“如果与父亲同学，必是相好朋友，犯生是亲儿子，岂有不晓得的理。父亲实没有这个同学的人，只求咨查问弥增，是哪年上王澍与父亲同学，是在哪里同学。况前日在安庆府讯供，吩示王澍的年貌，说王澍于雍正二年死在桂东，时年纪有三十多岁。我父亲元年死的时候有五十四岁了，在杭州进学，年纪就有二十四五岁，计算起来，那时王澍不过几岁的小孩子，怎说与父亲同学？求详情。”

    　　又问：“同学之称不必定是同窗读书，才算同学，也有平日斯文相与，意气相投称同学的。你想你父亲平日文字相交，定有王澍这个人，及早供出，免得拖累。”

    　　供：“父亲平日文字相交，意气相投的人，犯生都知道，并没有王澍这个人，如今叫犯生如何凭空捏出个王澍来？”

    　　又问：“你父亲在杭州住了几年？又在京教习几年？他在外相与同学的人，必多来任所打抽丰，叙旧好，也是常事，就有王澍到耒阳衙门走动，你也无罪，快从头细想，据实供来。”

    　　供：“父亲到杭州才生了犯生，那几年犯生年少不记事，后在京教习，犯生跟在京读书。父亲相与的人从没有这个人。至于到任以后，非至亲没有到耒阳来的，那里有个王澎到衙门走动？犯生巴不得有个王澍，供出来就免拖累，只是千思万想没有这一个人，犯生也无可奈何了。”

    　　又问：“你这样狡供大错了，那湖广移来的口供，不但僧人弥增供你父亲与王澍同学，就是你父亲长随唐思，现在湖南把你父亲与王澍相与的实情都供出来了。还有王澍湖南相与的许多人，所供俱是一样，你还敢隐瞒么？”

    　　供：“这是死冤家对头了，和尚弥增，犯生不认得，唐思原叫唐诗，父亲衙里做裱褙，是有的，他若供出父亲与王澍同学，王澍在耒阳衙门行走，这是他诬扳了。湖南还有王澍相与的人，这样供的，只求同唐诗一起，咨提来与犯生对质，或把犯生解到湖南与他们对质，就见明白。”

    　　又问：“湖南的许多人，都供王澍是好夸才学，张狂古怪的人，或者王澍是他改换的姓名，你如今一时想不起来。现在王澍的图像在这里与你看，你要细细的想，你同乡亲友中可有这样像貌，这样性情的人？据实指出来，你就不受拖累了。”

    　　供：“犯生父亲的亲友并同乡认识的人，犯生照图像细想，实在没有这样形象，这样狂妄古怪的人，不敢捏供。”

    　　又问：“你今年三十多岁，也该晓得事体，这不过是要查问王澍的家属下落，只得问他相与的朋友。你看那湖南与王澍相与的人，供明实情就把他们放了。就是曾静那样弥天大罪的人，自知悔罪，供吐不讳，皇恩如天广大，尚且赦他，你若供出王澍实在下落，纵是你父亲在日与他相与，他的奸恶没有败露，你父亲也是不知情，无罪的人。你还怕甚么不说？你若到底含糊支饰，就要刑审，还要解到湖南，与王澍相与的人，并当日与王澍传帖的柬房门子，现在都要与你对质了。那时即说出实情来，你从前替奸人隐瞒，就是奸人党羽，就要问罪了。”

    　　供：“蒙这样这样谆切开导，皇恩如天广大。犯生若知有王澍，不将他实在下落供出来，就是鬼神也不容犯生的。况且供出来，犯生就有活命，不供出来，反要解往湖广对质，还要受刑拖累至死，犯生岂不知道？反情愿向死路上走？只是犯生晓得一点影子也好着想，如今一点影子也没有，叫犯生如何想起？况犯生供出表兄孙仪周来，我姑夫阖家人到犯生家吵闹，说犯生坏良心扳害他，恨入骨髓，如果有个王澍与父亲相与，孙仪周还不供出来，倒替犯生隐瞒，不受拖累么？况耒阳县有柬房有门子，有许多衙役。若王澍与父亲往来，又有个异言异服的和尚弥增，到衙门取银子，瞒得哪一个的眼，难道还查问不出来。况且弥增既代王澍取银子，必定与王澍相好，王澍方肯叫他到耒阳。他日亲日近的人，岂有不晓得这王澍的下落？湖南又有王澍相与的许多人，难道他们不知道王澍是何府何县的人？如何信口混供，捏出这些没着落的话来。犯生情愿与他质对。”

    　　又问：“唐思在湖南供他是徽州人，同你父亲读过书，府司审你，你如何说他是衡州人，并不识字呢？将来还要对质，你如何混说得。”

    　　供：“唐诗实在住在衡州，他兄弟唐俊，妹夫关弘道，外甥郁成，俱在衡州、湘潭等处住家。他是从康熙五十二年就在衙门裱褙字画，六十一年，他跟犯生回家走了一次。若是徽州人，只求行文到休宁县三十一都一图六甲十排之中，通县烟民册细查。如果他系徽州人，犯生的话都是假的，他连天地人三个字都写不出来。衙门记帐，都是打苏州马子，他怎说同父亲读过书的鬼话。”

    　　又问：“你父亲当日衙门，还有什么人帮同办事道，止你同你侄子张振蕃，和孙仪周、唐思么？”

    　　供：“我父亲在任十五年，同办事亲友长随也会死的，也有去的。后头父亲死了，又亏空了钱粮，他们也有逃走，欺瞒不得。”

    　　问：“张振蕃你今年多少年纪，你随祖父在耒阳任中时，可知道与你祖父相与的都是什么人，可有个王澎，时常往返。他曾叫和尚弥增，持字在衙门取过五十两银子，你可知道么？实供来。”

    　　供：“小的今年二十二岁，原在耒阳生的，到五岁上跟父母回家，第二年六岁，父亲死了，小的母亲在家里住。直到雍正元年，小的才十三岁，祖父差人叫小的到任上读书。二月里到了耒阳，祖父家训极严，终日关在学里读书，非初一十五，不许出来。就是家里事，一些不晓得，如何还晓得祖父相与的人？小的委实不知道甚么王澍，也不知道弥增和尚持书取银子的事。小的寡母在家，一贫如洗，一路来饭都没的吃，若知些影子，巴不得就说出来，好免拖累。只是不知道的人，就想一百年也想不出来了。”

    　　问：“你祖父任所用的人，除孙仪周和唐思外，还有几个，都是甚么姓名，实实供来。”

    　　供：“孙仪周是小的表叔，原在家里相熟的，唐思就不知道，只晓得有个唐诗，会裱画。问他讨些碎纸是有的。其余用的人，小的那时人事不知，又不管事，又不使用人，如何晓得。”

    　　问：“孙仪周，你在耒阳住过几年，王澍与你母舅往来相与，雍正元年四月内，王澍叫弥增和尚持字到衙门取五十两银子，你自然知情的，据实供来。”

    　　供：“小的是康熙六十一年六月内到耒阳，至雍正元年六月，母舅死了就回家来，并不曾见有个王澍。与母舅往来，那里有什么和尚取银子的事。”

    　　又问：“你愚了，你不过是张应星的外甥，帮他办事，他与王澍相与不相与，于你本不相干。你果知王澍踪迹，实说何妨，况这件事，是他张家的事，张秀公反把你扳出来受累，你何苦替他隐瞒，岂不枉受刑法，枉受拖累么？”

    　　供：“他家姓张，小的姓孙，今日张秀公丧良心扳害小的，家中父母吓病在床，存亡未知，小的与他成了切骨的仇恨，这事若有些影响，不等到今日，早直说了。为甚么受他的害，反替他隐瞒，求详情。”

    　　又问：“你不肯说出实情，自然是为亲戚的意思，要知道这件事，不过查问王澍的籍贯，你果知王澍的踪迹，供出来，根究出他的住址，连你母舅家也就脱然无累了。如执迷不吐实情，不但要受严刑，还要解往湖南质对，都要受累。反不是你为亲戚了，你想想，把实话说来。”

    　　供：“小的若知道王澍的住址踪迹，实说了就脱然无累，小的岂不知道？实在不晓得这个人，小的无从想起，今日被亲戚扳害，也是小的与张家前世冤业。”

    　　又问：“你母舅衙门还有甚么帮同办事的，把姓名一一供来。”

    　　供：“自六十一年至元年，小的在耒阳不过一年，母舅是个穷官，办事的人原少，自少的到了衙门，母舅就有亏空，从前的亲友长随，都散去了。”等情。各供在案。

    　　江苏巡抚尹继善奏折要继续对张应星的会客日记上的人逐加细问，一一根究

    　　（这篇奏折与安徽巡抚程元章的奏章一样，都是继续追查张应星与王澍的关系。这里又讲到得到张应星的会客日记，打算对所会之客一一根究）

    臣尹继善谨奏，为奏明事。臣先接大学士公马尔赛等，寄到奏复湖南抚臣赵弘恩查审奸人王澍一案，因跟随王澍之罗一奎供，王澍系江南人，行令臣等留心访察家属等因。臣在随处留心，密行查访外，查湖南抚臣原审供内，有僧人弥增供称：“王澍说与耒阳县知县张应星，曾在江南徽州同学，雍正元年王澍叫耒阳县人曾盛任代写一帖，要向张应星取银五十两”等语。据安庆按察司密提张应星之子张秀公、孙张振蕃，（和在耒阳任内当管事的张应星外甥孙仪周，押往安庆。抚臣程元章问供中，并没有查出王澍与张应星同学和借银子的事情，已经把问供的情况全部上奏。接皇上圣旨：“仍然遵照以前的谕旨行事。其中如果确实没有关系的，有的可令其保释，有的可在外边分散看守，不可使无辜的人长时间关在监牢内。总之，冤屈普通百姓和纵放匪人同样有罪，一定要秉公处理。钦此。”）

    接安徽抚臣密札知会到臣，此等紧要之案，臣未经亲讯，不敢放心，复亲提细问，据张秀公等供吐如前，再三开导，始据供有应星在任日记簿一本，复供出康熙六十一年雍正元年管宅门系秀公之侄张庆远，臣思王澍行踪诡秘，在湖南一带传说悖逆之言，自必改易姓名，既有应星会客日记，可从此根究。臣已密差妥人前往将日记簿提到，其所登记自康熙五十六年正月至雍正元年五月日行之事，所会之客，俱在其内。现在逐加细问，一一根究下落，密查踪迹。并提管宅门之张庆远，详加究讯外，合先奏明。谨奏。雍正九年十月初七日。

    朱批：览。

    （雍正鉴于吕留良的著述仍存在于世，所以批准了把朱轼等编的，批驳吕留良《四书讲义》的书，颁发到各地学宫）

    　　雍正九年十二月十六日谕，内阁逆贼吕留良，以批评时艺，托名讲义，今罪迹昭彰，普天共愤。内外臣工咸以罪犯私著之书急宜焚毁为请。朕以为，从来无悖逆之大儒，若因其人可诛而谓其书宜毁无论，毁之未必能尽。即毁之而绝无留遗天下，后世更何所据以辩其道学之真伪乎？以故毁书之议概未允行。顷者翰林顾成天奏称，吕留良所刊四书讲议，语录等书，浮浅鄙，毫无发明，宜敕学臣晓谕多士，勿惑於邪说，爰命在廷儒臣，详加检阅。兹据大学士朱轼等，放其讲义、语录逐条摘驳，纂辑成帙，呈请刊刻，遍颁学宫。朕以逆贼所犯者，朝廷之大法也。诸臣所驳者，章句之末学也。朕惟秉至公以执法，而于著书者之为醇为疵，与驳书者之或是，或非，悉听之天下之公论。后世之公评，朕皆置之不问也。大学士朱轼等既请刊刻，分布学宫，俾远近寡识之士子，不至溺于邪说。朕思此请亦属可行，姑从之，以俟天下后世之读书者。

    　　（雍正对曾静进行宽大处理，并让他到湖南观风整俗使衙门使用，利用他到处吹捧宣扬皇上圣德。引起社会上的不满，曾有传单要把曾静劫走，投入深潭溺死。曾静日子并不好过。因而他只好请假以购置家产为名，隐居躲避。这份奏章即是他假期期满，回到湖南观风整俗使衙门后，湖南主要官员向雍正及时报告的奏折）

    　　湖南巡抚臣赵弘恩、观风整俗使臣李徽谨奏，为奏闻事。查曾静系奉旨发到臣李徽衙门听用之人。曾静请假归家置产，臣等于去夏奏请圣裁。七月二十日接到朱批：“赏他一年假，期满仍着来汝处使用，奏闻候旨，钦此。”今曾静于八月二十二日期满到长，仍留臣李徽衙门使用。理合奏闻候旨，臣等谨奏。雍正十年九月初七日。

    　　雍正朱笔批示：览。

    　　（雍正下谕旨对吕留良进行开棺戮尸，并进行灭族。下令让全国所有学生“人人过关”表态，雍正以全国学生一致拥护来证明这个判决是公正至当的。此后，才下了这个谕旨，免去吕留良孙辈杀头之罪（其中有不少儿童））

    　　雍正十年十二月十二日谕内阁：吕留良治罪之案，前经法司、廷臣、翰詹科道及督抚、学政、藩臬、提镇等合词陈奏，请照大逆之例，以昭国宪。朕思天下读书之人甚多，或者千万人中，尚有其人谓吕留良之罪不至于极典者。又降旨令各省学臣遍行询问各学生监等，将应否照大逆治罪之处，取具该生结状具奏。其有独抒己见者，令自行具呈学臣为之转奏，不得阻挠隐匿。今据各省学臣奏称，所属读书生监，各具结状，咸谓吕留良父子之罪，罄竹难书，律以大逆不道，实为至当，并无一个有异词者。普天率士之公论如此，则国法岂容宽贷。吕留良、吕葆中供著戮尸枭示，吕毅中著改斩立决。其孙辈俱应即正典刑，朕以人数众多，心有不忍，著从宽免死，发遣宁古塔给与披甲人为奴。倘有顶替隐匿等弊，一经发觉，将浙省办理此案之官员与该犯一体治罪。吕留良之诗文书籍，不必销毁；其财产令浙江地方官变价充本省工程之用。

    　　（这一道谕旨，宣布了对吕留良的学生严鸿逵等人及其家族处理决定，使这件历时三年多的文字狱大案告一段落。但这份谕旨所涉及到人员，还只限于和吕留良有关的一小部分人。至于本书前边奏章所载的散布谣言的太监、犯官等人，均另有上谕处理）

    　　雍正十年十二月十七日，刑部等衙门议奏：逆贼严鸿逵枭獍性成，心怀叛逆，与吕留良党恶共济，诬捏妖言实，覆载所难容，为王法所不贷。严鸿逵应凌迟处死，已伏冥诛，应戮尸枭示。其祖父、父、子孙、兄弟及伯叔父兄弟之子，男十六岁以上，皆斩立决，男十五以下，及严鸿逵之母、女、妻、妾，子之妻妾，俱解部，给功臣之家为奴，财产入官。沈在宽传习吕留良、严鸿逵之邪说，猖狂悖乱，附会诋讥，允宜速正典刑凌迟处死。其嫡属等均照律治罪。又吕留良案内黄补庵，自称私淑门人，所作诗词，荒唐狂悖；车鼎丰、车鼎贲，刊刻逆书，往来契厚；孙用克阴相援结，周敬舆甘心附逆，私藏禁书。黄补庵应拟斩立决，妻妾子女给功臣之家为奴，父母、祖孙、兄弟流二千里。车鼎丰等俱拟斩监候。又吕留良案内被惑门徒房明畴、金子尚，应革去生员，杖一百，佥妻流三千里。陈祖陶、沈允怀、沈成之、董吕音、李天维、费定原、王立夫、施子由、沈斗山、沈惠候、沈林友，应革去教谕、举人、监生、生员，杖一百，徒三年。朱霞山、朱芷年，从学严鸿逵时，年尚幼小；张圣范、朱羽采令伊等幼子从沈在宽附学训蒙，审无与沈在宽交好之处，应无庸议。得旨，严鸿逵著戮尸枭示，其孙著发宁古塔，给与披甲人为奴。沈在宽著改斩立决，黄补庵已伏冥诛，其嫡属照议治罪。车鼎丰、车鼎贲、孙用克、周敬舆，俱依拟应斩著监候，秋后处决。房明畴、金子尚俱著佥妻流三千。陈祖陶等十一人，著以杖责完结。张圣范、朱羽采、朱霞山、朱芷年著释放。

    　　（雍正于十三年八月病死，由其子弘历嗣位，第二年，改年号乾隆。乾隆登基后一个多月，即下令逮捕曾静、张熙进京并判刑）

    　　雍正十三年十月初八日，上谕。曾静大逆不道，虽置之极典，不足蔽其辜，乃我皇考圣度如天，曲加宽宥。夫曾静之罪不减于吕留良，而我皇考于吕留良则明正典刑，于曾静则屏弃法外者，以留良谤议及于皇祖，而曾静止及于圣躬也。今朕绍承大统，当遵皇考办理吕留良案之例，明正曾静之罪，诛叛逆之渠魁，泄臣民之公愤。著湖广督抚，将曾静、张熙即行锁拿，遴选干员，解京候审，毋得疏纵泄漏。其嫡属交与地方官严行看守，候旨。

    　　雍正十三年十二月十九，谕刑部。曾静、张熙，悖乱凶顽，大逆不道。我皇考世宗宪皇帝，圣度如天，以其谤议，止及圣躬，贷其殊死。并有“将来子孙，不得追究诛戮”的谕旨。然在皇考当日，或可姑容；而在朕今日，断难曲宥。前后办理虽有不同，而衷诸天理人情之至当，则未尝不一；况亿万臣民所切骨愤恨，欲速正典刑。于今日者，朕又何能拂人心之公恶乎？曾静、张熙著照法司所拟，凌迟处死。

  • 丹尼尔·汉南《自由发明》

    引子 盎格鲁圈的奇迹
    第一章 同一种语言，同样的圣歌，同样的观念
    伟大的时刻 同一首圣歌 同样的观念
    第二章 盎格鲁—撒克逊式自由
    英国人是谁?   从“贤人会议”到水门事件 第一个民族国家  英格兰的形成 国家之法  英吉利民族的贤人
    第三章 重新发现英国
    诺曼杂种 盾墙倒塌  我们权利的根基 大宪章  重开议会
    第四章 自由与财产
    盎格鲁圈例外论  英国农民在哪儿?   法律打造的风景  资本主义有何特别?
    第五章 第一次盎格鲁圈内战
    第一批自由主义者 赋权于民  宗派主义、补贴和主权  第一场表亲战争 从复辟到革命  戴皇冠的共和国  修不起令人嫉妒的豪宅
    第六章 第二次盎格鲁圈内战
    汉普登的共鸣  钱、宗教和权力 第二次表亲战争
    第七章 盎格鲁圈在全球
    从盎格鲁到盎格鲁圈  难道不是上帝最先统一了这些王国?  第一个殖民地 旧日的荣光  真正的爱国者 她依然忠诚  是盎格鲁圈，不是盎格鲁人 麦考莱的孩子们  跨洋联盟的失败
    第八章 从帝国到盎格鲁圈
    盎格鲁圈群岛 新教伦理  古代法  不走极端主义。谢谢
    第九章 想想你们所属的民族 结语盎格鲁圈的曙光?

    引子

    盎格鲁圈的奇迹

    没有什么词比“文明”一词的使用更不严谨了。它究竟指什么?它是指一个 建立在民权观念之上的社会。在这样的社会，暴力、武备、军阀统治、骚乱与 独裁，让位于制定法律的议会，以及可以长久维护法律的公正的独立法庭。这 才是“文明”在此沃土上才会源源生出自由、舒适和文化。当文明统治国家，芸芸众生得享阔大安定之生活。我们珍惜过去的传统，前贤的遗赠正是人 人安居乐业的财富。 ——温斯顿 ·丘吉尔，1938
    自由，与生俱来、不可移易之权利，人的荣誉与尊严，公众的伟大与荣耀，普世的个人幸福。在英国普通法，这人类艺术不朽杰作中，自由得到了最 精妙而成功的体现。 ——约翰 ·亚当斯，1763

    我四岁那年，家里的农场闯进了一伙暴徒。农场还有个后门，一条 小路通向山里。妈妈牵着我逃出来，对我说：“我们来玩游戏吧!要想  回来，一定得悄悄地…… ”

    我爹很沉着，他要对农场里的伙计们负责。他说，绝不会让一伙城 里来的混混把他从自己的土地上赶走。

    我记得他当时正害着一种热带地区的白人特有的周期性传染病。他穿着睡袍，坐在那儿，用瘦得跟纸片一样的手给左轮手枪上膛。

    这就是胡安 · 贝拉斯科 (Juan Velasco) 将军治下的秘鲁。他发动了 1968年政变，把这个国家搞得一团糟。直到最近，秘鲁才从混乱中恢复过来。在那场政变中，贝拉斯科对重要工业推行国有化，颁布了一系列 土地改革法令，把所有农场都分给了他的军中好友。

    不过，每当政府对民众豪取强夺，总会有反抗者站出来，拿起他们 的法律武器。这跟西班牙第二共和国或者阿连德 (Allende) 治下的智利 如出一辙，见风使舵的警方自然不愿意保护个人财产。

    我爹自然知道当局靠不住，他和两个农场保卫朝那伙正在前门放火 想冲进来的混蛋开了枪，赶跑了他们。危险终于过去了。

    不过，不是所有人都这么走运。全国到处都有土地被抢占或没收以 及矿井和渔船被强征的事发生。外方投资纷纷撤离，跨国公司召回了他 们的员工，我出生时颇具规模的盎格鲁一秘鲁社区全都消失了。

    直到多年以后，我才震惊地发现，其实当时没有人在乎这一切。在 南美，人们默默地接受了财产安全无保障、法律成为一纸空文、民选政 府遥遥无期的现状。你拥有的随时可能被抢走，有时甚至连一个像样的 理由都不需要。政权迭换赛走马，宪法频修如变脸。

    但与此同时，南美人和移居海外的人一样，从不认为这样的事情会 在讲英语的国家发生。待到我长大后去英国读书，临假期再回秘鲁，我 才开始逐渐意识到两国间的巨大反差。

    毕竟，秘鲁名义上也是西方国家。它属于基督教文明体，其建立者视自己为启蒙运动的追随者，坚守理性、科学、民主和民权。

    然而，秘鲁和其他拉美国家一样，总体上从未达到过像北美那样理 所当然就存在的法治社会的高度。南北两块几乎同时被殖民的新大陆， 活脱脱像一组对照实验。北美由英国人拓殖，他们带去了对财产权、个 人自由和代议制政府的信仰。南美由伊比利亚人殖民，他们则复制了来 自西班牙本土的大庄园和半封建社会。尽管在自然资源上比她的南部邻 居更为贫乏，北美洲却成了全世界最理想的生活地区，吸引着成千上万 怀揣自由梦想的人。与此相反，南美洲仍旧保持着近乎原始的，如哲学 巨擘托马斯 ·霍布斯所描述的民选政府前的黑暗状态。合法统治从未来  自原始的物理性暴力之外，无论这权力采取的是动员群众还是控制武力 的方式。

    在这截然分殊下，要否认两种不同文化间的区别简直不可思议。不 过可别误解我。我是忠实的西班牙迷。我热爱西班牙文学、历史、戏剧 和音乐。我在每个拉丁美洲国家，以及西班牙17个自治区中的16个都过 得很开心。不用说，我喜爱西班牙文化。只是，待在那里越久，我就越 难相信“英语世界”和“西班牙语世界”会共属一个相同的西方文明。

    说到底，什么是“西方文明”?在开头的题引中，丘吉尔的言下之意 究竟是什么?他所说的话中，包含了三个不可缺少的要素。
    第一，法治原则。现代政府无权制定规则，规则存在于更高的维度，并且由独立的仲裁机构进行解释。换句话说，法律不是政府控制国 家的工具，而是保证任何个体寻求救济的运行机制。
    第二，个人自由。说任何想说的话的自由，和同气相求者举行集会 的自由，不受阻碍地做买卖的自由，自主处置个人资产的自由，选择工 作和雇主的自由，雇佣及解雇人员的自由。
    第三，代议制政府。不经立法者同意，不能颁布法律，也不得征收 税赋；而这些立法者应当是由民众选出并且向民众负责的人。

    现在，读者不妨自问(就想想这过去一百年间吧)有多少习惯上被贴上“西方国家”标签的国家坚持了上述原则?又有多少国家到今天仍然 坚定地遵循这些原则?

    1999年，我当选欧洲议会议员以后，这个问题就一直在脑海中萦绕 不去。欧盟建立的前提是，28个成员国属于同一个文明共同体。理论上，尽管各国文化会有差异，但所有成员都签字承诺共享西方的自由民 主价值观。

    但现实并非如此。法治原则、民主政府、个人自由——构成西方文 明的这三个原则，在欧洲各国中的地位是不一样的。当欧盟成员国采取 集体行动时，这三个原则随时都会被置于各国的政治需要之下。

    布鲁塞尔的精英们只要觉得碍事，就把法治原则扔一边去了。我举 一个最近的例子：欧元区的救市行为明显就是违法的。《欧盟宪法条约》第125条明确规定：“联盟不得对成员国的中央政府、地区和其他公 共机关，由公共法律管理的其他机构，以及公共事业部门提供担保。”这一条款不仅只是一条技术性规定，它是以德国同意停止流通马 克为前提的。所以，安格拉 ·默克尔说：“在这个条约下，我们不能做任 何救市行为。”

    但是，当大家发现，如果没有现金注入欧元就将不保之后，条约的 条条款款立刻被抛在了一边。时任法国财长、现在的国际货币基金组织 总裁克里斯蒂娜·拉加德 (Christine Lagarde) 为他们所做的一切加油打气，说：“我们违反了所有规定，因为我们要团结起来，采取行动拯救欧元区。《里斯本条约》是很明确，但它不能救市!”

    在英国人看来，这场行动不伦不类。规则已经用律师们可以使用的再清楚不过的语言明确制定出来了，但当它碍事儿的时候，条款就被“蒸发”了。当英国媒体这样报道此事件时，招来的却是诸如“岛国心态”“盎格鲁——撒克逊式的死脑筋”一类冷嘲热讽。正如欧洲议会一名葡萄牙议员对我说的那样，其他人都认为，“实际效果比立法更重要”。

    民主，也是一样。它被视为实现目的的手段，虽人人心向往之，却点到为止。《欧盟宪法条约》,后来叫《里斯本条约》,在各国全民公投中不断遭到否决：2005年，55%的法国人和62%的荷兰人否决了它；2008年，53%的爱尔兰人又投了反对票。欧洲的回应则是置之不理，继 续推行条约，并且抱怨英语国家不懂欧洲。

    至于个人应当尽可能自由而不受国家的强迫这个想法，则被认为是 彻头彻尾的盎格鲁圈的固执己见。欧盟不断将权力伸向新的领域：立法决定我们可以购买哪种维生素，银行需持有多少保证金，我们何时上下班，草药疗法该怎么规范……每当此时，我就问“到底有啥特殊问题需  要制定新规定来解决?”而得到的回答总是“以前的老欧洲不管啊!”似  乎凡事缺乏规制就等于反自然，虽然那可能恰恰是事情本该有的自然状 态。在欧洲大陆，“尚未规制”和“非法”这两个词的含义比在使用英语立 法的地区更为接近。

    这些以英语为第一语言的地方，在欧洲被统称为“盎格鲁——撒克逊 世界”。这一称号并非基于种族，而是依据文化。当法国人说“les anglo- saxons”或者西班牙人说“los anglosajones”时，他们指的不是塞尔迪克、 奥斯温和艾塞斯坦¹的后裔，而是说英语并认同小政府的人，无论他们身处旧金山、斯莱戈(Sligo)或者新加坡。

    在欧洲大陆的许多评论者看来，美国、英国、澳大利亚和其他英语 国家的人构成了一个“盎格鲁——撒克逊”文明体，他们最大的特点是都信 奉自由市场。对一些美国读者来说，这点可能有些意外。我个人感觉， 美国朋友们倾向于把联合王国和其他欧洲地方视为一体，而强调其自身 历史的例外之处。不过，正如我们看到，很少有其他国家的人这么看美 国。19世纪30年代早期，托克维尔访问美国。他常被引为美国例外论的 见证人。不过，在《论美国的民主》第一页，他指出，该书的主题之一，即英语国家为新大陆带去了他们独特的政治文化观念，并在新大陆 生根发芽，这一过程完全不同于法国和西班牙的美洲殖民地。他写道：“美国人是自治的英国人。”这句话常被引用，但肯定没有广泛传播。

    过去一百年的国际冲突中，这片自由大陆三度捍卫了自己的价值观。在两次世界大战和后来的冷战中，将个人置于国家权力之上的国家 战胜了与此相反的国家。在这三次冲突中，有多少国家一直坚定地站在 自由一方？这份名单很短，但其中包括了绝大多数以英语为第一语言的民主国家。

    读者可能会有异议：这样站队会不会只是简单粗暴地按民族和语言加以分类?!因为联合王国身陷战火，世界上所有说英语的国家自然同情他们的母国。这诚然是部分解释。1939年9月3日英国宣战几个小时后，新西兰工党总理迈克尔 ·约瑟夫·萨瓦奇 (Michael  Joseph  Savage) 在 病床上说，“怀着对过往的感激和对未来的信心，我们毫无畏惧地和不列颠站在一起。她走向哪里，我们跟向哪里；她站在何处，我们站在何 处”。每当我想起这个情景，总会禁不住热泪盈眶。但这不是全部解释。读者可以看看二战纪念碑在欧洲本土以外的分布，算一算志愿者的数量。第二次世界大战中，新西兰总共动员21.5万人，南非41万，澳大利亚99.5万，加拿大106万，印度240万，其中绝大部分人都是自愿入伍的。

    是什么力量召唤着这些年轻人跨过半个地球，就像一战中召唤他们 的父辈一样，去为一个他们可能从未亲眼见过的国家而战?仅仅是血缘和语言上的联系?!这两次世界大战难道仅仅是一场种族冲突、放大版 本的南斯拉夫分裂或者胡图族对图西族的屠杀 (Hutu-Tutsi massacres)?!

    这一切既不取决于政府动员士兵上战场，也不取决于人们立刻响应 了征召。士兵们很少沉溺于感情用事。但在他们的日记和通信中，我们 会发现，他们有一种坚定的斗志，即他们正在为捍卫一种优于敌人的生 活方式而战。在两次世界大战中，他们都相信，他们是在“为自由而战”,正如那个时代的口号一样。

    1915年，激进报纸《西印度》 (West Indian) 是这样写的：“大部分西印度人是奴隶的后代，今天，他们正与母国的兄弟们并肩为人类自 由而战。”同年，军士长官海勒姆 ·辛格 (Hirram Singh) 在法国北部湿 冷的战壕中写信给他的印度家人，信中说：“我们必须荣耀那给过我们  盐的人，我们的政治制度优良而高尚。”

    还有一位毛利人首领，他在1918年回忆起在德国殖民地的族人时说：“我们了解萨摩亚人 (Samoan), 他们是我们的亲戚。我们了解在 德国的东非和西非人，我们也知道赫雷罗人 (Herero)   是怎么灭绝的。 这已经够了。七十八年以来，我们不是在受英国人的统治，而是将他们 的治理融入我们自己的统治中。经验告诉我们，英国政权正是建立在自 由、平等和公正的永恒原则之上。”

    我们通常会认为，今天的普世价值早晚有一天能获得最终胜利。然而，没有什么东西是非赢不可的。如果第二次世界大战的结局有所不同，自由很可能会被逐回北美大陆。如果冷战采取的是不同的方式，那 么两大阵营有可能同归于尽。实打实地说，西方的胜利正是“英语民族”取得的一系列的军事成功。

    当然，这样说话实在缺乏外交技巧，所以，作家和政治家们更乐于 使用“西方”一词而不是“盎格鲁圈”。然而，“西方”究竟指的是什么?在 第二次世界大战中，这个名称是指与纳粹德国作战的国家。在冷战持续 的漫长岁月中，“西方”则指北约 (NATO)   成员国和他们在其他大洲的 盟友。

    随着柏林墙的倒塌，“西方”的含义迅疾又被刷新。塞缪尔 · 亨廷顿  在1992年一次演讲及后来的论著中，把世界划分为宽泛的文化圈。他将 自己的观点总结为“文明的冲突”,并且预言(就目前来看，不甚准确)  各文化圈之间而非文化圈内部的冲突将会越来越激烈。亨廷顿找到的西 方，起源于基督教的拉丁一支与希腊一支的分裂，而这一宗教分裂发生 于1054年。按照亨廷顿的划分，“西方”是由那些在文化上属于天主教或新教而非东正教的欧洲国家，以及美国、加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰等 国组成的。

    这样的界定与西方的军事框架紧密关联。当然，就前述国家的现状 看，这个大框架也处于不断变动中。现属于北约集团的一些国家就在依 然鲜活的记忆中，要么隶属于希特勒，要么听命于斯大林，或者兼从两者。事实上，在英语为母语的世界之外，数一数那些历史上持续拥有代议制政府和法治下自由的国家，这个数字少到可怜，扒着指头算也不过就是瑞士、荷兰以及北欧诸国。

    就像马克 ·斯泰恩 (Mark Steyn) 一贯地话粗理儿不糙，他说：“大陆欧洲为世界贡献了精美的油画、悦耳的交响乐、法国红酒、意大利女演员以及就算不是但也足以使我们迷上多元文化的种种事物。但当我们 审视这一段以忠于自由民主为特征的‘政治化的西方’概念形成的过程时，不难发现，这段历史看上去更像单质文化的和政治集权(即使可能实行了民主政体)的，而不是像美国那样由各州拥有一个共同的主权政府。葡萄牙、西班牙和希腊的所有政治领导人的童年都是在专制中度过  的，雅克 ·希拉克和安格拉 ·默克尔也是如此。我们忘了，和平的宪法改  革在这个世界上何其之少，而发生在盎格鲁圈以外的更是寥寥无几。”

    意识形态的边界推进得远比国境线要快得多。欧洲国家全面拥抱西方价值的浪潮，第一波发生于1945年后，第二波则在1989年。在此语境下使用“西方价值”一词，其实是相当客气了。我们真正的意思是说，这 些国家已经接受了盎格鲁——美利坚政治制度的基本特征。

    选举议会、人身保护令、契约自由、法律面前人人平等、开放的市场、出版自由、改变宗教信仰的自由、陪审制…..以上种种，无论如何 也不能说是一个先进社会生而就有的组成部分，它们是借助英语发展出的政治意识形态的独特产物。这种意识形态，连同这种语言，传播得如此广泛，以至于我们常常忘记了，它们的源头实际独一无二。

    举个服装的例子作类比。赫伯特 ·乔治 ·威尔斯2曾经断言英国人是世界各国中少数没有国服的人。这一点他可是说错了。西装加领带就是英 国国服，但现在已经完全看不出任何“英国性”了，它们在全球各地司空 见惯。绝大多数国家的男士在正式场合中都穿得像英国人，而在其他时 间则套上美式牛仔裤。

    当然，还是不乏防守阵地的。偶尔你能看到巴伐利亚男人穿着他们 的皮短裤，女士身着紧腰宽裙。有些阿拉伯人至今仍将自己裹在长袍头 巾里。但总的来说，盎格鲁圈失去了它独特的外表特征。这一切全拜工 业革命所赐；当然，身先士卒的，就是纺织面料的革命。整个20世纪， 英语民族的国家以他们的形象为全世界织布，而在这一过程中，他们似 乎忘了全球服装其实正是他们自己的服装。

    当我们提起某个国家时，往往会不由自主地把注意力集中于该国最 另类的亮点，而不是那些成功输出的特产。比如，若问最有名的英国餐，人们往往会说“牛肉腰子派”,而非“三明治”。而说到英国国球，答 案则是板球而非足球。谈及价值观时亦不例外。说起如何定义英国政治 制度的特征，外国人也罢，不列颠人也罢，几乎会异口同声地说起君主制，上院，议会程序中用到的法槌、马鬃假发以及其他象征性服饰。同样，要是把这个问题换成问美国的政治特征，答案可能是竞选活动的天 价经费、别有用心的企业捐款以及阴险的攻击性广告。其实，最后两个例子都未能真正抓住两国的最大特征，那就是，法律制定者要对每个人负责，政府换届是和平普选的结果。

    法律之治比我们认为的更少，压制和集权则更为普遍。人生来是好胜的动物，只要环境允许，总不免专断与任性。从政治上看，一个中世纪的欧洲君主和一个现代的非洲政府独裁者没什么两样。人们一旦有权制定规则，怎会不按自己的好恶来操纵规则?!他们会服从本能的驱使，制定出可使其后代保持优势特权的制度。垄断权力、身份继承、统治阶层制度性的特供资源，这些规则一度遍及全球，而今仍然普遍。真 正的问题不是自由民主能否赢在终点，而是它如何才能在起点开跑。

    我们至今仍受着那个划时代事件的后续影响。欧亚大陆西端一隅湿冷岛国上的居民，偶然地确立起政府必须服从法律、舍此别无他途的观念。法律之治确保了财产及合同的安全，反过来催生了工业化和现代资本主义。在人类历史上，第一次形成了总体上奖励生产而不是支持掠夺的制度。事实证明，这一制度具有高度适应性。它为讲英语者所携带， 一路漂洋过海，或者借助殖民统治者的强制推行，或者经由忠诚的拓殖 者自愿履践，在费城古老的议会大厅中，最终以精妙的方式结晶为美国 宪法。

    这个榜样如此成功，以至当今世界各国无一例外几乎都想复制此例，至少想克隆出其外壳。就算是无耻的独裁政权，现如今也一样有了所谓的国会。战战兢兢的代表们正云集于所谓的政党组织中扎堆开会， 仰承总裁的意志。甚至连最肮脏的专制政权也有了自己的最高法院，起码从纸面上看，它不再是权力的工具。但是真正有意义的政治自由——在代议制民主政体中的法治之下的自由——依然还只是一个不多见的现象。一厢情愿地认为这一制度会比英语民族的霸权更长寿，实在是个错误。

    这本书要讲的就是自由的故事，或者说，是盎格鲁圈的故事。我知 道这样说很可能会给一些读者造成优越感极强、必胜主义，甚至是种族主义的印象。然而，通过这些故事，我想要表达的绝非这些。首先，盎 格鲁圈与其说是一个民族概念，不如说是一个文化概念，而这正是她影 响力的最大来源。维多利亚时代的作家们尽力想证明英语民族在人种上 的优越，他们的证据在当时就有争议，而今更难立足。居住在墨尔本的希腊夫妇的孩子比他在米蒂利尼岛上的堂兄更富有也更自由，原因无关 种族，只关乎政治制度。

    问题部分出在术语本身的含混上。盎格鲁圈是最近发明的一个新词 儿，它的首次使用是在尼尔·斯蒂芬森³1995年出版的科幻小说《钻石时代》中。这个词很好地描述了讲英语国家组成的自由的共同体，很快在我们的政治文化词汇表中传播开来。《牛津英语词典》是这样解释盎格鲁圈的：“以英语为主要本地语言的国家组成的集团。”但是，美国作家詹姆斯 · 贝内特(James C.Bennett)的定义更加准确，从而使这个词流 行起来：
    要成为盎格鲁圈的成员，需要遵循那些构成英语文化核心的基本习俗和价 值观，它们包括个人自由、法律之治、注重合同与契约、自由是政治及文化价 值的第一追求。组成盎格鲁圈的国家分享着共同的历史记忆：《大宪章》,英国和美国《权利法案》,陪审制、无罪推定以及“一人之家即他的城堡”等普通法原则。

    那么,盎格鲁圈包括哪些国家呢?符合所有定义的是以下五个核心 国家：澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰、英国和美国(按英文首字母排序)。绝大多数定义也将爱尔兰(它独特的地理环境将在后文讨论)算 进来。此外，新加坡和前英国殖民地的群岛，比如百慕大群岛、福克兰 群岛 (Falkland Islands) 等，也被大多数定义列入这个圈子。有一些定 义中的盎格鲁圈还包括加勒比海岸的民主国家和南非。

    如果把“大象”——即印度(这个形象一度相当流行)——也计入在 内的话，那么,“大象”将占到盎格鲁圈人口的三分之二。本书稍后也将 单独讨论印度问题。

    将自由的传播与盎格鲁圈兴起的过程视为一体，这一观点一度毫无争议。宗教改革后，很多讲英语者将他们文明的优越视为天意所助。他们的文明就是要建一个新以色列， 一个被上帝选中、受命要给世界带来 自由的国家。《统治吧，不列颠尼亚!》4不愧为赞美英国自由的颂歌：“当不列颠在世界之初，由造物主安置于蔚蓝大海之上的时候…..”这首歌我们齐声高唱过太多次，以至于很少停下来仔细聆听。 同样的信念，以一种更强烈的形式，激励了第一批北美人。

    宗教激情与日俱损，但对天职的信守依然笃定。英美历史学家找到 了他们的先辈在走向现代化和伟大之路上的串串脚印：普通法的形成、 《大宪章》、《大谏章》5 、1689年英国《权利法案》、《美国宪法》、技术革命、废除奴隶制。

    20世纪以降，鼓吹英美历史的爱国主义观渐趋过时，马克思主义、反殖民主义、多元文化主义开始流行，编年史学登上舞台。那些为盎格 鲁一美利坚政治里程碑大唱赞歌的历史学家成了众矢之的，他们被斥为文化傲慢主义者，关起门来给自己道喜。最倒霉的是，他们过时了，被 扫进了历史的垃圾堆。

    据说，他们的错误在于，他们在历史事件中发现了规律，而事件本 身的参与者却没看出有什么意义。充满爱国情怀的历史学家们与好辩的 批评家们总是倾向于将重大历史危机视为通向人类文明高峰的台阶，而 在他们自己的生命中已经出现了这样的黄金时代。

    1931年，剑桥教授赫伯特 · 巴特菲尔德6出版了《辉格党式的历史解释》 (The  Whig Interpretation of History),这大概是迄今为止历史编纂学领域影响最大的一本专著。他在书中指出，辉格党人在探讨过去时， 犯了目的论的错误。也就是说，他们认为所有运动都指向了一个既定的目的。事实上，那些重大事件的演员们的动机往往与当代观众为他们叫好的理由截然不同。持目的论的作者们把历史写成了一幕将历史人物区 分为好人和坏人的讽刺剧。好人就是那些支持辉格党和自由政策(如扩 大选举权、普及公民权等)的人；而坏人当然是阻碍这一进步进程的家 伙。就像巴特菲尔德所说的，“以今人的眼光来审视过去，正是一切错  误之源，必然会陷入历史的诡辩。这也是我们说‘非历史的’的要害所在”。

    巴特菲尔德的批评一语中的，他的书彻底地改变了英国历史的书写 方式。举例而言，历史学者终于开始意识到，王权的反对者在他们自己 眼中，往往不是进步人士而是保守派，捍卫他们所信奉的古代宪法、反对现代化了的司法。

    然而，辉格党式的历史解释并不因其缺陷而减损它的正确性。辉格 党历史学家们高度评价的重大事件——《大宪章》运动、宗教改革、《权利请愿书》、费城制宪会议，即使在当代人眼里，其伟大意义也不 减丝毫。并且，如果说，在史学家们的观点与其后代观点基本一致的基 础上，给历史人物贴上“好人坏人”的标签，是一种时代错误的话，那么,要想写出有意义的历史而又不带任何价值判断，同样是不可能的。

    辉格党历史学者们窥见了重要的真相。现代的研究成果基本上印证 了他们的观点：宪法保障的自由早在诺曼底时代之前的英格兰就已扎下 了根。他们视(英国)例外论为自然而然的事，而大多数20世纪的史学 家们因为担心会背上“优越论者”或者“种族主义者”的罪名而对此噤声不 言，事实却已证明了这一观点。顺着辉格党历史学者的眼光，甚至还能 辨识出英语民族内长期存在的两大派系：一派忠于例外论所坚持的价值 观，另一派则紧盯着盎格鲁圈以外的世界更趋向于集权的模式。要是给 这两派分别贴上“辉格党”和“托利党”的标签，毫无疑问，又该被嘲笑为 时间错乱了；但其实，这种干脆利落的做法也颇能说明问题。

    说起来，这样的归类并非辉格党历史学者的发明创造，他们所记录 的那些历史事件中的关键人物对此早有体认。托马斯 ·杰斐逊以他鲜明的党派风格作出了解释：
    辉格党和托利党的区别，深藏于人的本性。人往往是弱则怠，富愈贪，因此难免将维护安全与获得保障寄托在强大的执行部门身上。而人若健康，坚定，正直，对自己的体质和品格充满自信，那么,他会将大部分权力握在自己 手中，除非为政府正当的、必须的要求，才愿意舍弃部分。这样的区别始终潜 藏在辉格党和托利党中。

    对杰斐逊和他的追随者而言，一个辉格党人不仅仅追求男子汉气概、独立自主、共和精神，他还具有与英国古老事业紧密相连的独特身 份。1775年间发行的一本广为流传的小册子，把爱国者的行为定义为遵 守“从1688年光荣革命之前到当时的辉格党人的原则”。

    这些原则究竟有哪些?小册子简单明了地开列出了清单：制定法律 的人必须直接从选票箱中产生并对之负责；行政部门受立法机关制约； 没有公众同意且法律授权，不得征税；人人免于任意处罚，个人财产不 得充公；决策的制定必须尽可能为受此影响的民众考虑；权力必须分散；没有人，甚至包括国王，可以凌驾于法律之上；财产安全受保障； 争议必须由独立的地方法官裁决；保护言论、宗教、集会自由。

    不论在英国还是美国，支持上述原则的人有理由把自己叫作“爱国者”。他们发现的问题，后代们浑然不觉：为他们所珍视的自由，很大程度上被限制在英语世界的范围内，而本国国内的反对者们则一心想把 政制拉入更趋于专制的国外模式中去。

    反对派们节节胜利，这正是我们这个时代的悲剧。英语民族在形成 并且输出了人类有史以来最为成功的政府制度后，却在他们自己的成就 面前变得畏首畏尾。

    不列颠的智识精英将盎格鲁圈的价值视为融入欧洲政治一体化的绊 脚石。他们的澳大利亚盟友则认为盎格鲁价值是本国返回亚洲政策的离 心力。在美国，尤其是本届政府看来，盎格鲁圈意识形态只不过是那些 欧洲男性“白死人”留下的遗产，是殖民主义者一场不愿醒来的宿醉。在 每一个讲英语的国家，多元文化格局使得学校不敢再教导小孩他们是单 一政治遗产的继承人。

    到如今，绝大多数盎格鲁圈国家正在逐步抛弃“辉格党在光荣革命  之前的原则”:法律的出台已经无需国会通过，只要采取行政命令的方  式即可办到；征税也可不经民众同意，银行救市即可暗度陈仓；本地、 省和国家层级的权力换届现在只在首都便完成了；过去由竞选产生的代 表被行政常设机构取而代之；政府开支高到先前的民众会认为早就足以引发叛乱的程度。如果我们想知道为什么盎格鲁圈的势力正在衰落，实在无需看更多。

    黑格尔写道，密涅瓦的猫头鹰只在薄暮降临时悄然起飞。当太阳在盎格鲁国家联盟之上升起，我们终于意识到我们失掉的是什么。让英语 民族崛起的，不是他们的基因有什么神奇特质，不是因为他们的土地丰沃多产，也不是他们的军事技术优势，而是他们的政治和法律制度。

    不管人们是否愿意承认，人类的福祉有赖于这些制度的存在和成功。作为一个松散的国家联盟，盎格鲁圈应当在本世纪继续发挥它亲和 的推动力。如果没有这一推动力，未来看上去无疑会更加灰暗和寒冷。

    1均为盎格鲁——撒克逊人的祖先(本书所有脚注均为译者所加)。
    2赫伯特 ·乔治 ·威尔斯(Herbert George Wells,1866—1946),英国著名小 说家、政治家、社会学家、历史学家和新闻记者。他创作的科幻小说对该领域  影响深远，如“时间旅行”“外星人入侵”“反乌托邦”等都是20世纪科幻小说的主流话题。

    3尼尔 ·斯蒂芬森 (Neal     Stephenson,1959—) 美国著名小说家，因推理小 说而闻名全美，《雪崩》为其成名作。

    4《统治吧，不列颠尼亚!》是英国海军军歌，这首歌曲后来成为英帝国 对外扩张形象的象征，也被定为英国第二国歌。

    5Grand Remonstrance,又译为《大抗议书》,在1641年11月22日由英国议 会下议院通过，同年12月1日向英王查尔斯一世提出。文件主要反映了资产阶级 和新贵族的要求，表达了对于英王暴政的不满，并提出一系列改革要求。其发 表被认为是英国内战爆发的原因之一。

    6赫伯特 · 巴特菲尔德 (Herbert Butterfield,1900-1979), 英国历史学家， 剑桥大学现代史教授，20世纪“剑桥学派”代表人物。其早年所著《辉格党式的历史解释》和《现代科学的起源》两书是其获得隆誉的代表作，他的史学观点主要强调了对一个历史学者道德判断的种种限制，“如果历史能有任何作用，那它只是在提醒我们，我们的所有判断都不过是时间和环境的产物”。

    第一章 同一种语言，同样的圣歌，同样的观念

    要么自由，要么死。我们说着莎士比亚说的语言，守着弥尔顿守着的信仰与道德。     威廉 ·华兹华斯¹,1807
    在美洲，由英国开拓的殖民地和西班牙拓殖的地区之间，实力差距不可以道里计。但我们没理由相信，西班牙人在16世纪初有任何一方面是输于英国人的。唯一可确信的是，北方的文明与繁荣很大程度上是新教改革结出的道德之果，而欧洲南部国家的衰落则主要归因于天主教的复兴。 ——麦考莱勋爵(Lord      Macaulay),1840

    伟大的时刻

    这也许是他总统生涯中最漫长的一段路。二十年来，富兰克林 ·罗斯福一直在美国公众面前尽力掩盖他的脊髓灰质炎：照片上，他总是站 得笔直，不需要任何扶助；要不，他就坐在椅子上。然而，这一次，总 统受邀登临英国皇家舰艇“威尔士亲王号”与温斯顿 ·丘吉尔会面，他坚持自己走上去。助手们试图说服罗斯福放弃这个举动：万一甲板突然颠 簸，总统摔倒了，这是何等狼狈?但是总统决意出席。罗斯福拄着拐杖，一侧由他儿子搀扶，另一侧是一位海军军官。他缓慢地走上“威尔 士亲王号”,那里，英国首相丘吉尔正等着他。此时，军乐队奏起了《星条旗永不落》。

    时间是1941年8月10日。这一天见证了两大英语强国的历史性会晤。地点在加拿大纽芬兰岛的普蕾森莎湾 (Placentia Bay)。丘吉尔对 加拿大的评价，一如他对自己的评价：“它是统一的盎格鲁圈的活的化身。”几个月后，他在渥太华对加拿大首相说：“加拿大在大英帝国中占有独特的位置，因为它与不列颠有着牢不可破的联系，同时又与美国保持着长期友谊和亲密关系。”

    罗斯福在美国是否维持中立问题上一度举棋不定。建国者们定下了 中立原则，20世纪30年代通过的一系列法案更是强化了这一原则。但即使美国没有参战，罗斯福也一直在支持盎格鲁世界的兄弟国家。

    罗斯福告诉他的国民，美国必须“成为民主制度的兵工厂”。他向英国提供了大量武器和军需物资，用以交换军事基地九十九年租借期。此举至少让胜利的天平倾向了英国。他发布指令，允许皇家海军使用美国 军事设施，开启了两国空军正式合作的先例。其后，他以更令人信服的 方式为英国政府提供了最可靠的支持，那就是众所周知的《租借法案》。

    大西洋两岸对于这段历史过往从不陌生。尽管托利党人还在抱怨美 国在帝国的地盘内建立政权，大多数不列颠人都接受了英语民族圈的利 益格局现已永久地改变了这一事实。其后的历史发展也证明了这一点。 在2001年打击塔利班的军事行动中，执行任务的美国飞机起起落落，他们的军事基地就建在英属印度洋领域内。可是两国人连眉头都没皱一下，这样的合作实在是太正常不过。想当年支持《租借法案》的美国人不也是一样么?他们不也一心希望英吉利在战争中获胜么?

    当然，就某种程度而言，英美的交情正是一个自由民主国家对另一 个民主国家的同情。德国和它的卫星国结成了法西斯独裁集团；丹麦、 挪威、法国、比利时和荷兰曾有过自由国会，但那时全都处于纳粹的占 领之下。然而，英美两国政治的相似性还有更深层的基础，这个更深层 的联系正是丘吉尔要竭力阐明的。

    这是一个星期日的上午，罗斯福乘坐的“奥古斯塔号”与“威尔士亲王号”正列队举行宗教仪式。丘吉尔希望“每一个细节都能做到尽善尽美”。祈祷文和赞美诗事先精心挑选过。牧师念诵起詹姆斯国王钦定版 《圣经》中《约书亚记》第一章的经文：“我怎样与摩西同在，也必照样与你同在。我必不撇下你，也不丢弃你。你当刚强勇敢。”在场人闻之无不对彼此的国家肃然起敬。礼拜仪式对于英美两国的海军军人来说，都是如此熟悉亲切，借用丘吉尔私人秘书的比喻，“就像一场婚礼仪式”。

    首相本人也为之振奋，他说，“大家使用同一种语言，齐唱同一首颂歌，而且拥有几乎同样的观念!”他补充道，“经历过那场仪式的每一 个人将永远不会忘记那个阳光灿烂的早晨，以及在那个早晨拥挤在后甲 板上的景象：讲坛上飘扬着英美两国国旗，每一句话都撞击着在场人的内心。这真是一个伟大的时刻!”

    战争以其独有的方式使得同宗同源的两个民族忘掉了他们过去的恩怨。自从1895年克利夫兰政府介入委内瑞拉与英属圭亚那领土争端后2,英美两国就再没红过脸。事实上，19世纪20年代后，可能爆发战  争的阴影烟消云散，两国交好，晴空万里。美国借助门罗主义，得以在 其势力范围内屏蔽掉来自欧洲国家的所有干预。而这一外交政策的推行，正是靠了英国皇家海军的支持；对此，两国政府心知肚明。

    英国在1898年美西战争中巧妙地帮助了美国。而在布尔战争中，尽 管国内爱尔兰裔选民提出抗议，麦克兰和罗斯福总统还是回报了英国。 两国在第一次世界大战期间终于结成同盟。德国凯泽政府认为“盎格鲁  一撒克逊人”总是捆绑在一起的，因此怂恿墨西哥入侵它的北邻，从而  刺激美国参战。

    其实，无论丘吉尔还是罗斯福都没有意识到，希特勒也有同样的判 断，否则，不可能有其他理由来解释他为什么在珍珠港事件后宣布对美 作战。盎格鲁国家圈的民众，可能非常看重他们的内部差异；但对于圈 外人而言，则完全不那么敏感。

    丘吉尔的母亲是美国人，他花了三年时间写出皇皇巨著《英语民族 国家史》,其第四卷因为战争而中断，直到1950年才出版。这位美国人 的儿子比其他任何人都更清楚，大西洋联盟的建立不仅仅是暂时的利益 结合，它的根基来源于一种共同的认同感。

    产生这种认同感的三个关键元素在纽芬兰岛的那个周日上午表露无 遗，这就是丘吉尔所说的三件法宝：同一种语言，同一首圣歌，以及几 乎相同的观念。

    让我们挨个看看这三件法宝。 同一种语言语言是民族性的公分母。当然，肯定还有别的特征。民族很多时候 是基于历史、地理或宗教而形成的自我认知。然而，语言一定是较之其 他特征更易识别的要素，因为它是人们互相理解的前提条件。正如被封 为“盎格鲁帝国先驱”的鲁雅德 ·吉普林3所写，

    站在门口的陌生人，
    他或许真诚又友善，
    但他不和我说话      
    我便不懂他的想法。
    我只能看见脸、眼和嘴，
    看不到藏在后面的心。

    英语民族在过去大部分时间里，都已星散于不同国家了。以一个基 本完整的语言群组成一个统一的政治体，在历史上只出现过两次。第一 次是在克伦威尔统治时期，依靠武力强制推行，时间从1653年到1660年。第二次存在于1707年到1776年，比一个人的寿命还短。这一政治体 的破裂并没有使它的子民在一夜之间变成陌路人。后来的总统约翰 ·亚  当斯，当时作为新生的美利坚共和国第一任大使，在拜见国王乔治三世 时，说过的那番感人至深的话差点让以前的敌人掉下泪来：
    如果我能有助于如今隔海相望、生活在两个不同政府下的人们恢复信任和 好感，或者再乐观一点，重拾那些古老的美德与善念，那么,这必将是我一生 最大的幸福。无论如何，我们两国人说着同样的语言，信奉同一个上帝，有着 相同的血缘。

    共同的语言创造出了人类关系中心领神会的玩笑、细腻的差异和微 妙的默契。而这一切，又反过来增进了同胞之情。在布尔战争4中， 一  个前拉夫骑兵从南非写信给他的老长官西奥多 ·罗斯福(那时他已是美  国副总统了),信中写道：“亲爱的泰迪，我到这儿来，本打算加入布  尔人的，因为他们告诉我这是共和国对抗独裁君主的战争。可是我来了 以后发现，布尔人讲荷兰语，而英国人说英语，所以…..我就参加英国军队了。”

    语言创造了跨越国界的同仇敌忾之情。1982年马岛战争5发生的时候，恰逢西班牙世界杯足球赛。西班牙球迷在每一场英国队的比赛中都高喊“阿根廷!阿根廷!”而美国人则刚好相反，他们毫不犹豫地站在了 英国一边：国会迅速通过动议强烈谴责阿根廷，要求阿根廷立即撤军。 这一决议只有一位议员投了反对票，就是那个永远说“不”的杰西 ·赫尔姆斯先生。6

    1995年，西班牙卷入与加拿大的渔业纠纷。英国各个城镇，尤其是 渔村社区，到处挂起了加拿大的枫叶旗。尽管欧盟在这场风波中一致倒 向西班牙，德国甚至向该海域派出了海军舰船；然而，两个盎格鲁成员 国——爱尔兰和英国，还是力挺加拿大。

    上述两个事例，语言战胜了地缘。人们不是根据他们在欧洲或者美 洲，在欧盟或者北美组织，在旧世界或者新世界来选择站边的。在很大 程度上，人们甚至不是根据争端本身的是非曲直来作决定。事实上，说 起来很平淡，他们不过是支持说同一种语言的老乡，反对那些他们听不 懂的人而已。

    现在我正用来写书的这种语言文字，它的独特之处可能出乎意料。 英语并不仅仅在下述意义上影响它的使用者：读同样的书，看同样的电 视节目，唱同样的歌，它似乎携带着形成某种世界观的遗传物质。

    相信任何一个会多种语言的人都有过这样的体验：当你从用一种语 言转为用另一种语言思考时，视角就会随之作出微妙调整。不同语言文 字之间并不是逐一对应的，有一些意思在翻译中可能不知不觉地被改变 了。即使某个句子被一字不落地转换过来，其隐含的意义也可能发生变 化。

    举一个例子。“民主”这个词在几乎每一种语言中都有相同的字面含 义，即一套由多数投票来做决定的机制。但在英语中，这个词的弦外之 音实在太美妙，以至于它现在成了一个万能的词儿。比如，人们在说“私立学校不是民主的”,实际上，就是想表达“我不赞成私校”的意思。但在俄语或别的什么语言中，“民主”这个词儿就没那么多丰富的联 想了，它仅仅是指几种相互竞争的社会管理理论中的一种。

    英语作为世界性语言与借助英语来理解、表达的思想观念之间，存在着天然的亲缘关系。语言学家罗伯特 ·克莱本 (Robert Claiborne)曾 说：“语言(英语)与哲学可不是毫不相关。盎格鲁——撒克逊人对不受限制的权力根深蒂固的不信任，无论从语言中还是在生活中，都可反映出来。”曾经担任过联合国教科文组织和平中心负责人、现印度曼尼帕尔大学 (Manipal University)国际关系与地缘政治系主任的马达夫 ·纳拉帕特 (Madhav Das Nalapat) 也表达过类似的看法，他说，“英语教育的普及有效地阻止了极端主义的扩散”。

    他说得对吗?过去60年间民主制度与自由贸易的胜利与英语作为世 界第一语言之间有联系吗?

    英语是从帝国扩张的前沿阵地奇迹般脱颖而出的。英语绝不是伴随 移民和征服一路得以传播的第一种语言：阿拉姆语 (Aramaic) 、 希腊  语、拉丁语、波斯语、阿拉伯语、俄语、荷兰语、法语和西班牙语都是 帝国语言。但是，想想去殖民化之后的情形?能够幸存下来的语种只有 那些被众多人口当作本土语言来使用的语言。印度尼西亚青年人现在说 英语多过荷兰语。西班牙语在中南美洲国家一向地位巩固，但几乎也快 被集体驱逐出菲律宾了。优雅的法语如今只有在老一辈儿叙利亚人和越 南人口中才能听到。实际上，“脱法入英”正是一个不可被忽视的政治维 度。举例而言，卢旺达实行种族屠杀的政权被推翻后，新政府下令学校 不再使用法语，全面教授英语。这一政策的推行，明确地释放出新政府 决心实现自由的信号。

    1492年，英语还是蛮荒海岛上使用的方言。西班牙学者安东尼奥 · 德 · 内夫里哈Z 见伊丽莎白女王时，使用的就是精妙的西班牙语。在这 次会晤前数周，克里斯托弗 ·哥伦布开始了他的航行；数月后，他带回的消息改变了世界。然而，内夫里哈对西班牙正走在帝国扩张的大道上 深信不疑。在献给帝国的致辞中，这位学者总结了一句在任何时代都足 以振聋发聩的话：“我非常肯定，语言是王权之友。”

    这句话抛出了一个线索，可以部分解释西班牙在新大陆的殖民地为 什么走上了与英帝国殖民地不同的道路。拓殖时期的讲英语者并没有意 识要去规范他们所使用的语言，那个时候人们所讲的英语听上去很像是 现在盎格鲁——撒克逊口音和诺曼底一法兰西口音的混合体。后来，投向 哪国语言就投向了哪国政府。

    讲英语的美洲人当时是散居的自由主义者，他们既不采用教会制度 也不实行贵族统治，而是组织起他们的本地自治政府。但讲西班牙语的 美洲人从一开始就组建了由王室和耶稣会联合统治的政权。在1787年后，政权由王室单独执掌，耶稣会因被控“图谋建立国中国”而遭到镇 压。顺便说一句，在任何独裁制度下，权力总是充满了妒意。

    对于西班牙殖民者而言，控制语言和控制墨西哥或者秘鲁的政府一 样，都是统治棋盘上的一步棋。而这样的控制，无论是语言的还是政治 的，都阻碍了社会正常发展。在这种中央集权的思维模式下，西属美洲 从来没能实现它的全部抱负。这就是为什么南美人总在流向美国而不是 相反；这也是为什么西班牙语覆盖的人口和领土虽然大大占优，而且是 对入门者来说最主流的欧洲语言，但它从来没有成为重要的国际化交流 媒介。

    再看看相反的例子吧。伴随英语的全球化进程，一系列盎格鲁习俗 和制度也开始普及，从两院制国会到童子军，从股票交易所到高尔夫球，从陪审团制到赛马。要我举出盎格鲁圈成功输出的例子，几乎可以 填满本书的整个后面部分；但相形之下，西班牙文化的输出，就有限多 了。无论如何，在新大陆发现之初，西班牙无疑是世界强国之一。然而，就像智利史学家克劳迪奥 · 贝利兹8指出的那样：
    要找到获得世界普遍承认的西班牙来源的文化特征及产物，不是件容易的 事儿。这些特征中，有些确实很伟大，比如天主教改革及其制度、教义的遗产。但是，即便加上那些典型的西班牙人物原型(唐璜、堂吉诃德),耶稣会 社，谐趣的段子和自由的文风，美利奴羊和现代改良后的波斯吉他，这份西班 牙特征的清单也急速瘦身了，只剩下很难推广的斗牛和响板。

    贝利兹对这个巨大反差有一个简单的解释。他认为，以英语为母语的文化有很强的适应性，而西班牙语为母语的文化则很僵化。早在公元 前7世纪，古希腊诗人阿尔齐洛克斯就写下过这样的诗句：“狐狸观天下事，刺猬以一事观天下。”对贝利兹来说，盎格鲁圈正像这样的狐狸，而西班牙圈则是刺猬无疑。以英语为母语的文化是非中心化和个人主义 的。历史上其他帝国由盛转衰，其文化影响力亦随之而消退，唯有像狐 狸一样灵活善变、滴水不漏的盎格鲁圈和它的语言在文明的潮涨潮落中 生存下来。

    英语现在是几乎所有国际组织的官方语言，比如东南亚国家联盟、 北约、世界银行、世界货币基金组织、亚太经合组织、石油输出国组织 等。甚至那些成员国都不是以英语为母语的组织也经常使用英语，比如欧洲自由贸易协会。

    我自己供职的欧洲议会，虽说过去在各种正式场合给予24种语言以 平等地位，但一直是法语垄断的最后堡垒。从20世纪90年代中期开始， 尤其是2004年允许东欧国家加入以后，英语日益成为非正式的通用语言。那些没有掌握英语的欧洲议会议员们明显就吃大亏了。在配有同声 传译的全体大会和分会上，他们表现尚佳，但走廊里的会谈，他们就很 难有份了，而这里往往才是交易达成的地方。

    多语工作环境使我越来越体会到，英语天生就擅长表达经验的、实 证的、平易近人的想法。我常常只在一只耳朵上罩着耳机，一边听原声一边翻译，以此来提高自己的语言能力。我发现，很多时候，某个政治家或者官员用他们自己的语言发表的演说非常有力量，但是，当其被转译为英语后，就常变得抽象难懂，甚至毫无意义了。

    澳大利亚哲学家大卫 ·斯托福9也注意到同样的现象。在他那篇著名  的论文《我们的思想出了什么错?》 (What Is Wrong with Our Thoughts?)  中，哲学家考察了一系列遭到灾难性误传的学术思想。他之所以能发现这些问题，不是靠拆穿马克思主义、弗洛伊德主义的弱点，只是因为读到了西方经典中那些更受尊重的作家们的作品：普罗提诺 (Plotinus) 、 黑格尔和福柯。他摘引了他们的译文，解释道，“没办 法，我在这里只能求助于译文。普罗提诺、黑格尔或者福柯的思想，一旦用英文表达出来，就变得面目全非了。我认为这种情况在我们的语言 中普遍存在”。

    斯托福所言，恐有失片面。现在很多英文论文写得莫名其妙，很明显，作者以为思想的深刻复杂与表达的含糊晦涩是一回事。但是，当涉及如何组织社会的问题时，这些作者往往会求助于赞成集权制的欧洲思想家，这一点恰恰证明了斯托福的观点。

    世界上最受喜爱的语言也打动不了这位彻底地坚持抽象化思考的作 家。卡尔 ·马克思谈论起莎士比亚，就跟他评论经济学一样无情。不妨  摘一段他在看完《雅典的泰门》 (Timon of Athens)后写下的观感：
    自从金钱成为价值的最现实和最活跃的代言人后，它就迷惑和颠覆了所有 事物。整个世界被钱弄颠倒了，金钱改变了自然和人的品性。如果金钱成为连 结我和人类生活的纽带，我和社会的纽带，我和自然和人类的纽带，那么,它 不就是所有纽带的纽带吗?它岂不是能连结也可以打散所有联系，因此，不也 就成了分裂和异化的最普遍的代理人?!

    哪位英语母语者会这么写?!除非当他经年累月训练自己模仿黑格尔、马克思、德里达，或者萨特们的风格。

    英语的稳定性和实用性与它发展和变迁的进程息息相关。讲英语者 认为，他们所使用的语言，跟他们所适用的法律和政治制度一样，与其 说是国家的产物，不如说是民族的产物。就像普通法的形成，一个案例 接着一个案例，如珊瑚礁一样缓慢长成，没有一个所谓的中央最高权威。英语语言的演进，也是如此。

    邻国成立了学会和学院，负责规范他们的语言文字该怎么说怎么写。他们中最优秀的公民被认为应按照规范严谨的拼字法、句法及语法 来说话。法兰西学院由枢机主教黎塞留(Cardinal     Richelieu) 于1635年 成立，西班牙皇家学院由菲利普五世创建于1714年。到今天为止，仍然 很难有什么荣誉可以比提名为学院院士更高。然而，按照创建之初的使 命，学院的任务就是规范和划定标准的语言的发展。

    英语通常就没有这样的限制。如果非得有这么一个纯正词汇表的标 杆的话，那么,在美国，此非《梅里厄姆韦氏词典》10莫属；在英国，则当称《牛津英语词典》11。这两部词典都是个人成就的硕果。

    英语灵活多变、能屈能伸甚至“如饥似渴”。其词汇量是法语的两倍 多，西班牙语的三倍。英语词汇数量庞大，部分得益于这样的现实原因：英语本身是从多语言社会中生长起来的，绝大部分人口说旧式英语，上流阶层说诺曼一法语，他们的书面语则是拉丁文。久而久之，很多英语词汇发展出盎格鲁——撒克逊、法语和拉丁语三种词源的形式，比如“升”(rise,mount,ascend), “问”(ask,question,interrogate), “时间”(time,age,era), “善”(goodness,virtue,probity) 等词，都有若干不 同词源的表达。

    但是，更重要的原因还在于英语从不自我设限，因而很容易吸收任 何有用的东西。历史上最有名的英语词典是由塞缪尔 ·约翰逊¹2在1755年 编辑出版的《约翰逊词典》,堪称一颗特立独行的伟大心灵耗时三年的 划时代成就。第一部法语词典刊于1694年，集结了40位编辑40年的心血。慢性胃病患者约翰逊博士曾对此调侃道：“让我来计算一下：四十乘四十，等于一千六百。三比一千六，正是一个英国人对一个法国人的 比例。”他的演员朋友大卫 ·加里克闻此随即写了首打油诗以示唱和：

    约翰逊啊，民族英雄!
    你已击败了40个法国人，纵使加倍亦不堪!

    单说英语词汇的数量，就足以保证作者准确无误地、毫不含糊地表 达自己的思想。如果他选择福柯或者葛兰西的风格，那仅仅是因为他试 图有意含糊其辞。

    乔治 ·奥威尔，于古今宇内皆可称最优秀的散文体作家，深深地懂得词汇的匮乏正是真相与自由的潜在大敌。在《1984》中，他借发明“新语”的语言学家赛姆斯(Symes) 之口，解释了如何通过减少词汇 来阻止独立思想：
    你想，我们的主要工作是发明新词语。….我们正在消灭老词儿     几十 个，几百个地消灭，每天在消灭!我们把语言削减到只剩下骨架。你没有瞧见 新语的总体目标就是要缩小思想的范围吗?最后我们要使得大家在实际上不可能犯任何思想罪，因为将来没有词汇可以表达。

    相反地，一种词汇量不断扩充、不受束缚的语言可以用来说出任何 想法。如果现存的词汇无法传达有用的观念，那就创造一个出来，比如“盎格鲁圈”这样的词。

    英语和盎格鲁圈独特的政治制度之间存在着直接联系，这种观点只 是一厢情愿的臆想吗?我可不这样认为。大部分自由主义的专有词汇都 来源于英语。安德鲁 ·罗伯茨 (Andrew Roberts) 圈出了早期英语创造出 的“新词”,如“良心自由”(1580)、“公民自由”(1644)、“表达自由”(1769)。这些词与政治制度之间，有多少仅仅是说说而已?又有多少具有实际的因果联系?很难说清。实际上，表达自由自1695年起就 在英国法中存在了，这是有文献记载第一次使用“良心自由”的一百年之 后，也是“新闻自由”出现的一个世纪以前。无论如何，这几者之间毫无 疑问存在着关联。

    想想历史上为民主制度辩护的著名言论。1863年11月19日，宾夕法尼亚葛底斯堡国家公墓前，罹患天花而虚弱不堪的亚伯拉罕 ·林肯总统  发表了一个仅仅两分多钟的简短演讲。在演讲的结尾，总统呼吁：“我们要使国家在上帝福佑下重生自由，要使这个民有、民治、民享的政府 永世长存。”

    这段文字自发表以后不断被引用，成了代议制政府最强有力的辩护。实际上，它们也常被用来引证美国例外论。但是，这段文字并非林 肯原创，总统的大部分听众应该能马上意识到这段话的出处，只是今人 多半对此不熟悉而已。它们来自可能是最早的英文版《圣经》前言：“这部大书正是为了一个民有、民治、民享的政府。”身为神学家的 作者约翰 ·威克里夫(John  Wycliffe),被誉为“宗教改革的晨星”。这段 话第一次出现是在1384年，委实让人震惊。

    在那个时代，任何别的语言都没有如此明确地表达过这样的概念。 数个世纪以来，英语既是自由的运输队，又是自由的保护人。1941年8月，两大巨头同坐在“威尔士亲王号”军舰的甲板上，为两个民族因为同说一种语言而取得诸多共识而感到欣慰。事实上，这种语言持续发挥这 样的作用，必将为人类谋取更大的福祉。

    同一首圣歌

    约翰 ·威克里夫，这位林肯名言的原创者，不愧为英国中世纪教会  史上最引人注目的人物。他是著名的哲学家、狂热的叛教者和顽梗不化 的异端分子，确立了若干新教教义和礼制。威克里夫认为教会腐化敛财，背离神的心意。他反对卖赎罪票，批评圣餐化体论13,主张人人可 因信称义。他倡议教士应被允许结婚，应在世俗法庭面前如其他人一样 受审，否定教皇在英格兰的权威，呼吁英国应受制于自己的国王而非教 廷。

    然而，最重要的，同时也是大异于他所处的时代的，是威克里夫相 信《圣经》的权威高于教会。他认为人们应该自己去阅读并理解《圣经》,而不是依赖牧师和教长的翻译。在其有生之年的最后那段时间， 威克里夫致力将《圣经》从拉丁文译为英文。罗马教廷对其“声名狼藉  的异端邪说”深恶痛绝，在他死后四十四年，将他的骸骨挖出，焚灰弃河。

    在威克里夫的观念中，“民有、民治和民享的政府”是一个兼具政 治、宗教和教育内涵的概念。如果人人得以自由地形成他们的宗教观 念，那么,在面对世俗事务时也能更好地独立与自治。

    宗教自由与世俗自由的结合，最终成为盎格鲁圈的核心信条，也成 为盎格鲁圈民族身份认定的关键标志。英语国家民族的历史被理解为是 这些价值在反抗压迫的斗争中取得的幸运的胜利     当然，如果缺乏理 性，胜利同样不可赢得。从最初一开始，自由的支持者们，不论教俗， 都无一例外遭到当时封建秩序的既得利益者们的压制。

    1381年，来自社会最贫困的阶层为反抗奴役，爆发了大起义。在随 之而来的镇压中，威克里夫的门徒被称为“罗拉德派”(Lollardy),     和起义者一同遭到了围捕。

    直到一个半世纪以后，新教正式传入英格兰为止，罗拉德派一直在 广大的底层信众中秘密传教，顽强求生。他们分赴一个又一个家庭传播 教义。作为一个以《圣经》为基础的教派，罗拉德派受制于缺少印刷机 的处境——而这正是在16世纪30年代抵达英格兰的欧陆教改者们得以充 分享受的好处。正如研究英国宗教改革的权威狄更斯 (A.G.Dickens)所言：“罗拉德派创造了一个地下党，最终迎来了解放者。直到解放的  曙光最终降临，和其他所有地下抵抗组织一样，罗拉德派也不得不服从 于拥有更精良和现代装备的正规武装力量。”

    很难说英国新教得益于欧陆教义的多，还是本土罗拉德派的多。早 期的权威们习惯于基本不加区分地用“路德宗”和“罗拉德派”来指新教徒。滕斯托尔主教在1528年写给托马斯 ·摩尔 (Thomas    More) 的一封信 中，提醒要警惕那些来自德国和低地国家的异教分子：“我们早就发现  了这伙邪恶之徒，他们企图将我们的国家带入威克里夫古老、可恶的异 端邪说和它的养女路德的邪说中。”在英国，罗拉德主义最为盛行的地  区，大致说来，也就是英格兰东南部。这里后来成了新教主义的腹地。 绝大多数新英格兰殖民者正是来自这个富饶的地区。

    新教成为识别盎格鲁圈民族身份的关键，是将英格兰、威尔士和苏 格兰统一成一个联合王国的主要黏合剂。而爱尔兰境内大部分地区至今 依然保留天主教信仰的事实，亦可解释为什么联合王国的边界止于今天 的版图。

    新教也把大不列颠人和他们隔海相望的亲戚连结在一起。直到1773 年，本杰明 · 富兰克林还在和他的同胞们一起祈祷他们与英国的联系不  要被割断，以免教皇统治下的欧洲均势再次被打破，“千万不要忘记：这个新教国家是我们的母国。尽管最近她对我们不太友好，但值得我们 去保卫，她在欧洲版图上的地位以及她的安全，一定程度上依赖于我们 与她的联系。”

    我正在讨论的这个话题也许不那么让人愉快。在盎格鲁圈，新教与民族身份的捆绑，导致了偏执、暴力以及罗马天主教徒公民权利的丧失。16到19世纪期间，用在天主教徒身上最多的两个贬义词就是“怪人”和“教皇制信奉者”,它们分别强调了天主教徒的异国特性和独特的个人信仰。即使到今天，你还能在英语世界的各个角落——贝尔法斯 特，格拉斯哥，利物浦，甚至多伦多——听到这两个词经久不散的回音。

    从我本人来说，一方面我汲取了北爱尔兰天主教教义的精髓，另一 方面我也接受苏格兰的长老宗教义。我可能会比其他人对于宗派主义更 多一份警觉，对于宗派主义始终不抱好感。但是，如果不理解盎格鲁圈 居民在近代早期的观念，就不可能刻画出真正的盎格鲁圈，正如历史学 家查尔斯·瑞彻森 (Charles       Ritcheson) 所说：“除了民族性本身，基督 教，尤其是新教，构成了英美人生活的最大共性。”

    在大不列颠、北爱尔兰、北美，以及后来的澳大利亚、南非和新西 兰，新教作为言论自由、良心自由和民主议会的保护者，其具有的政治 意义超过了宗教意义。这样的观念并非哪个辉格党精英的偏见，而是一 种坚定的、深入人心的信念。这种信念不断被来自欧洲的宗教迫害的消 息所激活，被对西班牙宗教裁判所的恐惧所滋养，被法国胡格诺教徒、 弗莱芒新教徒和散布于盎格鲁圈的其他逃难者的故事所鼓舞。

    在17、18世纪的英国，福克斯所著的《殉道史》14是继《圣经》之 后，最为家喻户晓的一本书。它记载了英国新教徒所遭受的残酷迫害， 尤其是在玛丽一世掌权六年间的事迹。即便是最穷的人也会买一些历书，那上面除标出播种和收割的日子以外，还列着这个国家历史上被认 为最重要的纪念日，比如：1534年，英格兰从罗马教廷分离出来；1588 年，英格兰击败西班牙无敌舰队；1641年，爱尔兰叛乱；1688年，新教 徒威廉即位，赶走了天主教徒詹姆斯二世；1714年，汉诺威王朝开始了 在英国的统治。在这些年份中，有一个日期具有双重神圣性：11月5日。1605年11月5日，黑火药阴谋被粉碎；而八十四年后的这一天，荷 兰执政威廉亲王进入英国。

    反对天主教的偏见并不是出于某一教义，它和一个人是否相信化体 论或者是否会为逝者的灵魂祷告没什么关系。正和大多数偏见一样，这 样的偏见毋宁说来自那种受迫害感。

    1570年，教皇庇护五世 (Pope Pius V) 颁布《开除教籍诏书》 (Regnans in Excelsis),发动了对信奉新教的伊丽莎白女王的攻势，正 式革除了伊丽莎白女王的教籍，并赦免了那些效忠于女王的英国信众。 他的继任者们无一人废止过这一诏书。

    那样的回忆，那样的威胁，对英格兰(后是大不列颠)的外交政策 造成了难以磨灭的影响。在接下来的两个半世纪中，英国一直处于与同 时代的天主教势力对抗的半战争状态：最初是西班牙，随后是法国，偶 尔同时面对两个敌国。如果那个年代的普遍焦虑可以用地图的形式来表 示的话，那么,它一定会化身为一支从欧洲大陆延伸至爱尔兰的大大的 箭，而两支小小的箭则顺着爱尔兰延伸至大不列颠天主教居民最集中的 区域：苏格兰高地和兰开斯特。

    今天的人抱着后见之明，可以很轻松地说这些忧虑是毫无根据的。 我们都知道大不列颠在它同邻国的战争中赢得了最后的胜利。但是这个 结果对于当时代的人来说并非显而易见，他们感觉正在进行着一场生死 攸关的较量，就像1679年艾塞克斯伯爵 (Earl of Essex) 在枢密院所说的，“对于天主教的忧虑，常使我不由自主地想到我的孩子正在史密斯  菲尔德遭受火刑的场面”。

    英国史专家肯尼恩(J.P.Kenyon)在他的专著中，对英国17世纪的 社会氛围和冷战时期作了有趣的比较。他写书的时候，正值冷战高峰。 正如那些西方共产主义者，即使他们中最爱国的，也会被看作某外国势 力的潜在代理人；也如同民主社会主义者整体受到的普遍怀疑，17世纪 讲英语的天主教徒总是被当作第五纵队队员，甚至高圣公会的某些仪式和活动也因为看上去太过“天主教化”而得不到信任。

    回头来看，我们可以说这些疑虑几乎就是无中生有。即使最带偏见 的辉格党新教徒史学家也乐于做这样的判断。这批学者中最有声望的麦 考莱勋爵曾说，假使在那个年代发生了法国或者西班牙入侵，天主教乡 绅们也会和他们的新教徒邻居一样，充满爱国热情，给他们的老枪套上 皮套，飞驰于国王麾下，给外敌迎头痛击。但乡绅们的邻居哪有这等后 见之明?再说，他们也不愿冒这样的风险。

    如果肯尼恩的写作是在今天，那么,他可能要用来作比较的，就不 是冷战，而是在西方世界中的伊斯兰教了。就像近代早期的讲英语的天 主教徒一样，穆斯林也常常成为政治阐发多过宗教内涵的偏见的靶子。 非穆斯林人对于朝觐的怨言，不会比过去的新教徒抱怨忏悔仪式少。根 据最近的研究，大多数针对穆斯林的敌意有着和反天主教情结一样的根 源，也就是担心信徒们不忠于他们的国家。约翰 ·洛克就是这样，他主  张宽容所有的基督教派，但罗马天主教除外，因为“事实上，那些信奉  罗马天主教的人只会吃里扒外”。

    英国天主教徒通过展现他们的爱国热诚、为国王祷告以及在教堂前 竖起国旗等举动，最终消除了对他们的种种偏见。19世纪末期，长长的 天主教徒阵亡者名单有力地驳斥了针对他们个人忠诚度的指控。用那个 时代的流行语来讲，天主教徒“证明了他们的忠诚”。盎格鲁圈的穆斯林 或许也将经历类似的过程，他们最终会明白：即使最缺乏依据的责难， 也需用耐心与风度来消解。

    在这两起事例中，执意坚持成见的人总能挖空心思地找到证据。的 确有对外战争；的确也有对敌人的同情    就算比通常认为的要少得多。就好像在任何时代任何国家，总会有那么一些持少数宗教信仰的人 散布极端煽动性言论。在有的事例中，阴谋确实存在。

    黑火药阴谋5就是17世纪的9 · 11事件，它发生在苏格兰国王詹姆斯 六世以英格兰国王詹姆斯一世身份即位后不久。一伙天主教亡命之徒，为了荣耀他们的宗教信仰，计划在议会开会期间炸死国王和议员，继而 发动一场大反攻。策划者盖伊 ·福克斯 (Guy       Fawkes) 是一个宗教极端 分子，阴谋败露后被捕。他就像4个世纪以后那个加入海外战争的圣战  组织成员穆罕默德 · 阿塔6 。直到今天，福克斯的名字仍在全国各地被人 提起。

    研究英国重要民俗的外国人类学家发现，很少有哪个公共庆典像盖 伊 ·福克斯之夜这么盛大。每年，在阴谋者被捕的纪念日，代表盖伊 ·福克斯的假人(偶尔连同教皇的一起)都要被烧掉。这是英国人无法忘记 的日子。

    记住，记住，11月5日 火药，叛乱和阴谋；
    我们想不出让火药和背叛 被世人遗忘的理由。
    盖伊·福克斯，盖伊 ·福克斯，
    他的意图即为 推翻国王和议会。
    藏着的60桶火药，
    要把可怜的老英格兰颠覆。

    几乎每个英格兰村落，焰火和篝火都是这一天的标志。来自世界各地的观光客常常会被这热闹的场面搞得迷惑不解，甚至心生反感。英吉 利不是一个典型的宗教型民族，定期去教堂的人本就是少数，而他们也 常会站出来强调宽容与大同精神。然而，盖伊 ·福克斯之夜看上去活像  一个全民大众反天主教的狂欢节，这种情况在别的地方实在少见。

    唯一的解释是，参与者几乎没有意识到其中的宗教寓意。在今天， 盖伊 ·福克斯之夜纯粹变成了一个焰火嘉年华，它为这个素来保守的民  族提供了一个难得的和陌生人一起愉快聊天的机会。某种程度上，人们知道的是这个节日的政治内涵，他们相信他们是在庆祝议会民主的幸存要是火药阴谋真的得逞，那议会可就被炸飞了。至于宗派层面的意 义，则全然淡忘。现在英国的天主教徒也和他们的邻居一起，高高兴兴 地欢庆这个节日。

    美国独立前，十三个殖民地，尤其是波士顿，都会隆重纪念这一 天。及至1775年，为与加拿大修好，乔治 ·华盛顿下令废止这一传统。 此后，美国就没有庆祝过这个节日了。政令如下：
    总督得知，为了遵守那个荒谬可笑的习俗，还要设计一个供焚烧用的教皇人偶。他实在掩饰不住自己的惊讶了!难道真有官兵如此缺乏常识，以至于在 此危急关头对这种不合时宜的做法完全视而不见?这正是需要我们精诚团结的 时刻，需要我们和加拿大人民同仇敌忾的时刻，我们应当考虑的是如何与我们 的兄弟为了共同的事业并肩作战。

    盖伊 ·福克斯之夜成了全盎格鲁圈拥有共同经历的迷人象征，只有  美国部分地区例外。庆典中的宗教内涵消失了，但新教的政治文化意义 保存了下来。今天，教堂不再是人们生活的中心，宗教文化变成了一套 泛盎格鲁圈价值，为讲英语的印度人、犹太人、无神论者及其他人共同 分享。过去那种由宗教宽容与政治多元、新教与议会民主、宗教自由与 世俗自由联合创造出来的内在联系，如今虽不再生长，但它所创造出来 的价值依旧顽强地存活。魂魄已散，但是机器仍在嗡嗡低鸣。

    盎格鲁圈的新教身份也不宜过度夸大。在普通大众眼中，这种身份认同具有的族群和政治色彩多过宗教教义色彩。丹尼尔 ·笛福，《鲁滨逊漂流记》的作者，曾说“十万乡亲愿为反对罗马天主教奋战到死，可他们连天主教是人是马都还没搞清”。

    如今，想要在不经常上教堂的人身上找到那种广泛存在的新教身份 意识，就只有去北爱尔兰了。今天这种意识被视为是这一地区的强烈特征，可事实上它一度盛行于盎格鲁核心地区。

    但是，如果认为宗教热忱的丧失意味着仅剩下沙文主义，那就大错 特错了。沙文主义当然是有的。但除此以外，一种与时共进的信念始终 鲜活，那就是，英语民族的宗教是政治自由的保护者。1679年，亨利 ·  卡博尔爵士 (Sir  Henry  Capel) 在下议院说：“罗马天主教强化了常备军 和专制权力的观念，早先的西班牙政府、现在的法国政府都是这种教皇 制根基的支持者。一旦天主教的特权丧失以后，专制政府和权力也必会 走到终结的那天。没了天主教，专制统治只是妄想。”

    当代人把英国、瑞士和荷兰共和国的议会宪制政体与法国、西班牙 的君主专制政体作了一番对比，看到了其与宗教的关联。虽然这种分析 本身也多多少少受到他们自己的宗教信仰的影响，但也不是全无根据。 他们发现：人人应读《圣经》这一观念结出了法治的、民主的硕果。那 些致力宗教改革的人，力主废除主教，要求通过集会选举教职；在政治 上，他们也自然地倾向代议制而非等级制。他们的宗教信仰自然地渗入 了政治观念中。这些团体，包括英格兰清教徒，苏格兰及北爱长老会， 威尔士的卫理公会及非国教徒，以及新大陆上所有的同教派兄弟们，自始至终坚定地支持辉格党精神，只是他们的名字在不同地方时有不同而 已 。

    大体上讲，这些团体在17世纪力挺国会反对国王，在19世纪为了扩 大选举权而战。它们在北美会聚了大量信众，比如新英格兰的英国清教 徒，弗吉尼亚和宾夕法尼亚的苏格兰一爱尔兰长老会会众。这些人正是 美国革命的中流砥柱。

    如果说英国因为其拥有世界上占绝对优势的新教力量而成为天佑之 国的话，那么,早期的美国，这个自由的避难所，则更是这样看待自身 的。那些最初移民(1620年前)的清教徒们不仅对天主教深恶痛绝，对 高圣公会疾恶如仇，而且怀有强烈的使命感。

    从一开始起，盎格鲁势力扩展到新世界就被看成天命使然。正如肯尼思 ·安德鲁斯17所说：
    一路支持弗朗西斯·德雷克 (Francis Drake) 狂热的、高唱圣歌的冒险“事业”的，正是这种军事上的清教主义和侵略性的民族主义的混合体。这种情绪不 仅仅是他和他的海盗朋友们的专利。这种情绪由宗教情感所激发，成为民族主  义的重要组成部分，极大地推动了那个时代的海外扩张运动。

    理查德 · 哈克卢特18是第一位号召拓殖美洲的宣传家。他在1584年写 下了《论西部种植》 (Discourse of Western Planting)一书，提出将人 口移民至大西洋彼岸广大富饶的沃土将极大地促进英格兰的繁荣，为那 些“不务正业的精壮汉子们”创造大量工作机会，并且，最重要的是，可 以拯救更多新教徒的灵魂。几乎像一个预言家，哈克卢特预见到北美将 会成为不仅仅是讲英语者，而且是“来自世界各地”为“寻找上帝真言而奔走”的流亡者的家园。

    为使迫害和流放的悲剧不再重演，他们建立的社会不能给败坏欧洲 教会的迷信、愚昧、市侩以任何容身之地。最早移民新英格兰的拓殖者 约翰 ·温斯洛普9就以他著名的布道辞留名青史：“不要忘记，我们应该 是一座山巅之城，所有人的眼睛都在看着我们。”直到今天，美国人依  然还在引用这段话，其中最著名的一次就是约翰 ·肯尼迪在1961年发表  的就职演说。然而，温斯洛普的布道辞中还有一段话，写在“山巅之城”之前，更清晰地表明了基督徒领袖移民的动机：
    为了这一事业，我们和上帝定下契约。我们已得到授权。上帝令我们自己 定出须尊奉的条款。我们已告白所有顾虑，明了所有目的。我们祈求袍的垂青 与福佑。如果上帝乐于倾听我们的声音，引我们平安抵达向往的乐土，则可见 他批准这份契约，为授权加封，并期待我们信守其中包含的每一条款。

    契约在新教徒的世界观中至关重要，里程碑式地反映出了整个盎格 鲁圈法律与政治的发展。在17世纪，苏格兰长老会宣誓反对斯图亚特王 朝推崇的“天主教化”形式时，就称自己是“圣约者”。他们与英格兰清教  议员在1643年签署《神圣盟约》(Solemn League and Covenant) 。1774 年，这份盟约的名字又被波士顿激进派原样照用。1912年，50万北爱尔兰新教徒签署《阿尔斯特盟约》 (Ulster Covenant),宣布拒绝效忠都柏林。1955年，3万讲英语的南非人签署《纳塔尔公约》 (Natal Covenant),    反对实行种族歧视，宣誓效忠女王和英联邦，堪称彰显盎 格鲁圈价值凝聚力的小插曲。

    然而，美国早期的契约观是最深入骨髓的。在此观念影响下，他们 一直认定自己及其后代都与上帝有个约定。这样的约定同时也就意味着 驱逐了天主教，扩展开来，甚至英国圣公会和美国圣公会的教义及活动 都被认为与天主教走得太近。

    不难理解，美国历史学者历来都乐于强调建国史中的宗教因素。美 国宪法珍视宗教宽容，这是建国时期最为重要的理念。同样不难理解， 后来的美国人也喜欢强调宗教宽容，而不去纠结反对乔治三世的马萨诸 塞宗教会议的宗派问题。

    因为我们这一代人本身对宪法问题颇有兴趣，我接下来想转向美国 革命的宪法意义。我们对此的传统解释是“无代表不纳税”。事实上也的 确如此。但这仅仅是历史的冰山一角。对很多北美人来说，革命也是对 远渡大洋的首批殖民者带来的宗教价值的一次确认。人们开始意识到， 这种宗教自由的思想遗产正是革命前的殖民地最激进的观念，而这种观 念本身是危险的。18世纪60年代，围绕殖民地英国教会作用的争吵渐渐 变味，很多美国人转而更热衷于为纳税和贸易的问题而争吵。

    在1758年荣任坎特伯雷大主教的托马斯 ·塞克 (Thomas   Secker), 生来就是异议者，在改宗后又变得过度狂热，一心想把殖民地变成圣公 会的地盘。塞克主张向马萨诸塞的剑桥(新英格兰公理宗的首府)派出圣公会教士团。他还竭力吁请枢密院废除《马萨诸塞法案》(Massachusetts  Act),这一法案允许清教使团在印第安人中传教。当然，最触怒殖民地神经的，还是他试图指定北美主教。

    最后这个方案引发了强烈的反对声浪，以至于很快被伦敦当局否决 掉了。掌权者颇识时务地判断出，殖民地人民看重其不尊奉英国国教的 新教徒或者清教徒身份，远胜于其无代表权的选民身份。

    流亡清教徒背井离乡的最初记忆，正是在《独立宣言》中唤起的惨 痛苦难：“我们也曾提醒过他们(我们的英国兄弟),我们移民并定居  在这里时的状况。”每一个美国人都明白这句话包含的意思。他们所建  立的是一个新教国家。这群男人和女人们建立了这个国家，正是为了逃 离母国教会改革半途而废留下的种种繁文缛节和等级制。

    对于历史学家来说，很难精确地指出当时的非小册子作家阶层讨论 得最多的是哪些议题。但我们若翻看当时的请愿书、新闻报纸，便能觉 察出一种态度。当时遭到13个殖民地几乎一致反对的，就是英国1774年 颁布的《魁北克法案》 (Quebec   Act)。这一法案承认了加拿大天主教 会的传统权利。在大多数殖民地人看来，这无异于国王向伊甸园放出了 一条毒蛇。他们来到新大陆，就是为了远离天主教的统治；现在，母国 政府又在他们的天堂重新制造出一个教皇。《独立宣言》中也曾愤怒地 提到了这一法案：“在一个邻近地区，废除英国法律的自由制度，在那  里建立专横政府，并扩大它的疆界，企图使之迅即成为一个样板和得心 应手的工具，以便向这里的各殖民地推行同样的专制统治。”

    乔治三世当然清楚冲突的症结所在。在他最后的日子里，国王哀叹 失去殖民地是“我的长老会战争”。

    当然，每一个国家都珍视它的建国历史。承认宗教自由，无论是作 为美国《权利法案》的一项原则，还是作为美利坚合众国一以贯之的特 征，都不是什么秘密。然而，我们也不能无视真相：美国革命，起码在 部分意义上，是宗教偏狭阵痛的产物。这种阵痛最终产下了世界上第一个真正的世俗化国家，在这个国家中，所有宗教都应平等地竞争。这， 近乎奇迹。

    同样的观念

    大概每个美国学童都听过保罗 ·列维尔 (Paul Revere)夜骑报信的故 事。这位波士顿银匠是众多勇敢的爱国英雄人物之一。在1775年4月的  一天晚上，他骑马警告邻居们，托马斯 ·盖奇将军 (General Thomas Gage)  已经率军偷偷开拔，正在来袭本地军队的路上。其他报信骑兵的 名字现在已经被忘记了。列维尔是本地知名商人、共济会会员，他对本 地地形了如指掌，他的报信迅速引起了警觉。

    穿过马萨诸塞东部密集的小社区，列维尔的马蹄当年踏过的地方： 萨默维尔 (Someville) 、 梅德福 (Medford) 、 阿灵顿 (Arlington)、莱克星顿(Lexington) 、 康 科 德 (Concord),      每年都会重新上演他的 故事。无论你去到何处，美国人都会告诉你，列维尔高喊“英国人来了!”

    事实上，当年的列维尔，怎么也不会说这样一句话。不妨想一想， 对着一群本来就自认是英国人莫属的乡邻，大喊“英国人来了!”这是何 等别扭的事儿!

    实际上，保罗 ·列维尔高喊的是“正规军来了!”(或者按其他史料  来源，那句话是“红衣军来了!”)在美国，也包括盎格鲁圈其他地区， 民众对常备军普遍抱有根深蒂固的不信任，视他们为对内镇压的工具。

    而这一点，也正是1642年英国内战爆发的导火索。内战的激烈冲突 常被新英格兰的清教徒们想起-     他们是英格兰圆头党人20的意识形态 以及家族遗传的继承人。这场战争的起因当然涉及很多方面，但正是查 理一世企图统率民兵²1直接触发了战争。查理一世的政敌们控制了陆军，与王军作战，并取得了最终胜利-    这就是为什么,联合王国至今 只有“皇家海军”和“皇家空军”而没有“皇家陆军”的原因。

    历史总在不断重演。保罗 ·列维尔在1775年4月19日夜打响的枪声， 标志着第二次英国内战的开始-    这是第一次内战在多年之后的延续。 在那个时代，没有人认为这场冲突是两个独立国家之间的战争。

    像现在的导游那样将莱克星顿和康科德战役称为英美两军之间的战 争，这纯粹是个错误。它其实应当是乔治三世的支持者和反对者之间的 战斗。当然，后来英美两国对此各持己见。

    把列维尔或者无论别的什么人在1775年高喊的“英国人”当成是外国 人——如果将这幅画面作为美国政治意识的背景，那么,确定这样的基 调不仅忽视了当时美国人的所言所写，也完全没有注意到《独立宣言》 的原文。我们已经提到过，这份文件中说，在魁北克废除“英国法律的  自由制度”是反对乔治三世的原因之一。签署者还直陈他们的苦难，“此 时他正在运送大批外国雇佣兵来完成屠杀、破坏和肆虐的勾当”。这里  的“外国雇佣兵”,本身就是说他们不是英国人。最终的证据是，倒霉的 国王决定在德国黑森和其他地区征募军队来镇压在北美的英国人。在独 立人士眼中，他们已经失去了不列颠国民的地位。

    当然，革命一旦成功，便可像其他所有成功的革命一样，为自己正 名：革命者追怀他们的事业，重新解释新近的历史，正仿佛美国自始就 存在一样      它变成了一个反抗殖民统治的国家。

    诗人朗费罗 (Longfellow)    在纪念列维尔的伤感的诗句中，流露的 正是这样一种情绪：

    听，孩子们!你们会听到，
    保罗 ·列维尔夜半骑马来。
    七五年，四月十九日，
    现在活着的人几乎没有一个
    能记得这个著名的日子和年份……

    这些句子写成的时候，距离事件发生已经过去了近一个世纪。在这 段时间里，美国不断地被描述为一个独立的国家，以至于很难想起当年 的革命战争其实只是一场盎格鲁圈内战。这场内战与其说是美国反对英 国，不如说是辉格党反对托利党。我们再来看看英国国内当时的民意。 至少在法国介入之前，英国国内的看法和殖民地的看法几乎没有两样， 大概有30%或者35%的民众站在托利党一边；区别在于，殖民地议会的 选举基础更为广泛，因此较之改革前的英国下院更能代表民意。

    稍后我们将进一步考察美国革命的更多细节。但是，到目前为止， 我们当意识到：温斯顿 ·丘吉尔在说两国有着“同样的观念”时，他并不  是对舰上的勇士们虚应故事。丘吉尔敏锐地意识到，英国在反对纳粹的 战争中所捍卫的原则，恰恰也正是美国自开国以来坚守的信条。

    他在《英语民族史》中写道：“《独立宣言》很大程度上就是辉格  党人反对后期斯图亚特王朝和1688年革命的重新申明。”实际上，仅从  字面形式来看，请愿权、禁止维持常备军、普通法与陪审团制度的司法 保护、持有武器的权利     所有这些，无一不是1689年革命成果的翻版。也就是说，1689年英国《权利法案》的很多条款几乎被原封不动地 复制了。举个例子，《权利法案》中关于刑事审判的规定是这样的：“不应要求过多的保释金，亦不应强课过分之罚款，更不应滥施残 酷非常之刑罚。”我们再来看看《美国宪法》的条文：“禁止过高的罚款 与过高的保释金，及禁止施予残酷且不寻常的惩罚。”这两条规定共同  的源头都在《大宪章》,条文起草者们从不认为这是“发明”了什么新的 权利，而只不过是对古老宪法的重新确认而已。

    实际上，我们在英美两国的宪法文件中发现的共同点越多，再讨论 它们之间是谁复制谁的问题就越没有意义了。这些文件都是世代传承的、由宪法加以确认的习惯权利的各自表述。而这样的习惯权利，过去 是、现在依然是全体盎格鲁社会共同享有的财富。

    如果保罗 ·列维尔戏剧性的高喊只是后世作者的演绎，那么,我们又该如何理解在北美人与伦敦的决裂之前早就开始使用的“爱国者”这个 词的含义?

    整个18世纪后半期，“爱国者”这个词在英国和在美国的含义是一模 一样的。一个爱国者，就是一个坚定地捍卫自由和财产权的人，一个服 从国家的整体利益，而不是正在走向没落的统治阶级利益的人。然而， 在1776年以前，还没有美国这个国家。于是，美国人对于其殖民地的忠 诚就被纳入到广义的对大英帝国的忠诚中来了。在这样的背景下，当某 人自称是爱国者的时候，他到底指的是什么?

    答案就是，他视自己为英国的爱国者。这意味着他为捍卫自古承之 的自由而战，反对任何想要侵夺这一自由的人——专制君主和他的弄臣。他总是支持他所在的社区，而不是讨好当权者；他随时准备释放奴 隶，放弃津贴和俸禄，他不愿为了那点尸禄再委屈自己去逢迎总督和殖 民当局。

    再戏谑一点，“爱国者”就是大西洋两岸的辉格党人给他们自己起的 名字了。这样的自我命名，意在强调盎格鲁一美利坚帝国的独特政治遗 产：普通法、《大宪章》、英国《权利法案》;而这也正是对他们的敌 人所钟情的独裁、专制和外国代理人的无声指责。爱国者们声称，个人 自由和抵制专制权力正是英语民族最显著的特征。在1742年“统治吧，布列颠尼亚!”的歌词中，就有这样一段：

    世上再也没有比我们更神圣的民族了! 因而必须要打倒暴君，
    使我们的国家繁荣且自由，
    让别的国家只能向我们投来嫉妒与恐惧的目光!

    当然，所有政治派别都少不了野心家和冒险者的份儿。有些自诩爱国者的人从来都将个人得失置于国家利益之前。约翰逊博士(Dr.Johnson)   曾有一句大名鼎鼎同时也最易招致非议的言论评价他 们：“爱国主义是流氓无赖最后的藏身之处。”

    记下这段酷评的传记作者詹姆斯 ·鲍斯威尔 (James  Boswell)随即 替传主解释：“不要忘了，他针对的并不是对祖国真正的、慷慨的热爱，而是在所有时代所有国家都存在的各种伪装的爱国主义，伪爱国主 义现在成了个人私利的华丽的袍子。”托利党死忠约翰逊说这句话，是  在嘲笑他所称的“辉格党走狗”;言下之意是，就算辉格党人口口声声言 自由，论起贪赃枉法又和其他人有什么两样?!在那个时代，约翰逊口 中的“爱国者”,成了对一个政治派系的命名——尽管这样的标签不乏贬 义。

    在北美，反对独立的人也是在这个意义上使用这个词的。他们是殖 民地上的少数派，对自身的宪法地位并无不满。他们说，“爱国者”都是 些投机分子，满口自由云云不过是为了掩盖自己的野心而已。他们还举 证说，有些“爱国者”其实是为了躲避他们在伦敦的债主，其余的则是些 强盗。然而，这些被他们斥为强盗的人仍在肆无忌惮地以各种平等论调 鼓动群众，目的在于令辉格党人将殖民地上的托利党精英取而代之。

    当时大洋两岸的人所使用的“爱国者”一词，并不是指那些视北美利 益高于英格兰利益的人。直到很久以后，小说家和编剧们才开始假称这 个词被赋予了新的含义。特定的“美国爱国主义”概念起于1776年。在那 以前，爱国者的含义就是保卫英国政体中专有的自由，不惜对抗在内和 在外的敌人。这样的含义，在大洋两岸，并无区别。

    出生于弗吉尼亚的阿斯特夫人22,把美国独立战争称为“在北美的英 国人为了英吉利理想反对德国皇帝”的战斗。把乔治三世说成是德国人，多少有点不公平。要知道，乔治三世不像早先的那两个乔治，他可 是土生土长的英国人，生下来就说英语，动辄把“以英国人的名义”挂在 嘴边。或许，在当时的背景下，我们可以体谅阿斯特夫人的这番仇外言 论。她说这话时，纳粹德国空军的炸弹正如雨点般投向伦敦上空，她在那个特殊年代有些夸大其词也不难理解了。尽管如此，这番言论还是说 到了某些要害，18世纪70年代的爱国者的确是在为英吉利理想而战，正 如他们的后代在阿斯特夫人那个年代所做的一样。

    这些理想    自由选举、人身保护令、不受审查的媒体，以及其他 ——现在已经得到了普遍承认(就算尚未普遍实现)。今天，我们很容 易看到，每个国家只要变得足够富裕、文明和安全，都会朝自由民主政 体发展。

    但是，站在1941年8月来看世界，却要经历巨大的内心煎熬。亿万民众处于极权政府的统治下。几乎整个欧亚大陆，从布列斯特(Brest) 、 里斯本到首尔、符拉迪沃斯托克，都在这种或者那种独裁之 下——法西斯主义或者日本军国主义。自由、法治与民主，几乎孤独地 残存于盎格鲁圈。当丘吉尔说英美两国有着“几乎同样的观念”时，他明白这些观念已经快没有立足之地了。它们能够顽强求生，靠的正是英语 民族的军事胜利。

    同样，在1941年，你也无法自我安慰地说，宪法政府只是暂时地被践踏在侵略者的军靴之下。在极少数国家，比如低地国家，法国和斯堪 的纳维亚，纳粹推翻了议会政体。这种情况在20世纪30年代相当少见。 而那些不待入侵即自动转向独裁政权的国家名单则长得多：奥地利、保加利亚、爱沙尼亚、希腊、匈牙利、意大利、拉脱维亚、立陶宛、波兰、西班牙、罗马尼亚。还有不少拉美国家也处在不同形式的独裁之下。

    20世纪30年代的人看不到民主的希望；相反，它正被一个又一个国 家驱逐出境。法西斯主义者在谈到议会政权时，老的民主资本主义秩序 被斥为“腐朽的”或者“衰落的”。

    “资本主义垂而不死”,希特勒在1934年告诉意气风发的墨索里尼。 法西斯视自由主义为自然秩序的颠覆，在这一秩序中，集体从来被认为 比个人更重要。议会政制之下的个人自由被认为是一种暂时性的反常，是“有钱阶级”建立的霸权中的一道裂缝。

    左派和右派的极权主义者使用一些新的、年轻的、革命的、代表新 起点的形象，拉开与他们视为老秩序之间的距离。他们都认为，平民民 主终结了，明天是属于他们的。

    我们现在当然知道，纳粹所说的“衰亡的盎格鲁——撒克逊自由主义”并没有寿终正寝。相反，它在20世纪的意识形态战争中崛起，并成  为全球最成功的体系。但是，在1941年，自由市场民主政体看上去还是 那个样子：政治意识形态局限于盎格鲁圈内。大部分观察者断言：国家 主义的意识形态能够提升军事力量、集体意识和自我牺牲，所以注定会 打败盎格鲁——撒克逊式自由的布尔乔亚的价值观。

    德国外交部长约阿希姆 ·冯 ·里宾特洛甫的私人秘书在晚年对这一断 言彻底失败深感痛惜，他说，“我们纳粹从没说过我们是好的民主主义  者。问题在于，英国人看起来像绵羊或者牧师，但当伪君子出现在他们 面前时，他们变成了如此强悍的一群人”。隐藏在英国人的民主制度中  的力量从何而来?这群被敌人嘲笑为垂死的、物质主义的、失去了所有 对信仰或荣誉追求的人又是如何战胜他们所有的敌人的?盎格鲁圈的秘 密到底在哪儿?

    注释

    1威廉 ·华兹华斯(William Wordsworth,1770—1850),英国诗人，与柯尔 律治、骚塞同被称为“湖畔派”诗人。华兹华斯的诗以描写自然风光、田园景色、乡民村姑闻名，文笔朴素清新，自然流畅，开创了新鲜活泼的浪漫主义诗 风，其中长诗《序曲》是代表作。

    21895年，时任美国总统的格罗弗·克利夫兰 (GroverCleveland)  向国会提 出特别咨文，要求英国将委内瑞拉与英属圭亚那的纠纷交由美国仲裁，由此造 成了英美关系紧张。

    3鲁雅德 ·吉普林(Rudyard Kipling,1865—1936),英国小说家、诗人，于 1907年获得诺贝尔文学奖，是英国第一个诺贝尔文学奖获得者。他生于印度孟  买，7岁回英国受教育，17岁大学毕业后从事报刊编辑和文学创作活动，曾到印 度、中国、日本和美国等地游历，素有“帝国诗人”之称。

    4历史上共有两次布尔战争，第一次发生在1880—1881年，第二次发生在 1899—1902年。布尔人主要是最早来到南非殖民地的荷兰人后裔，也包括部分 葡萄牙、法国殖民者后裔。19世纪晚期，南非先后发现了钻石矿和金矿。英国 人和布尔人为争夺采矿权爆发了布尔战争。到1902年战争结束，英国以全胜告 终，1910年南非联邦成立，成为英帝国的自治领。

    5马尔维纳斯群岛战争，简称马岛战争，或福克兰群岛战争，是1982年4月 到6月间，英国和阿根廷为争夺马岛(阿根廷称“马尔维纳斯群岛”)的主权而爆 发的战争。最终，英国赢得了胜利并重新占领马岛。

    6杰西 ·亚历山大·赫尔姆斯 (Jesse    Alexander     Helms,1921—2008),美国  参议员。他在1942年至1970年期间，是民主党党员；1970年后，转为共和党党 员。赫尔姆斯担任过5届参议员，是美国极右翼典型代表，以政治观点保守、言 论极端而出名，被称为“一辈子投反对票”的“No先生”。

    7 安东尼奥 ·德 · 内夫里哈 (Antonio de    Nebrija,1442—1522),文艺复兴时 期西班牙学者。他曾在萨拉曼卡大学和博洛尼亚大学学习，一生大部分时间讲 授古典文学，成为西班牙著名的人文主义学者。他于1492年出版了首部卡斯蒂 利亚西班牙语语法著作，是西班牙语语法的创始人之一。

    8克劳迪奥 · 贝利兹 (Claudio     Véliz,1930—),智利著名历史学家、社会学 家和作家。贝利兹是一位亲盎格鲁人士。在名著《中世纪狐狸的世界》一书中，他指出，西班牙的反改革传统及文化是阻碍拉美国家社会变革和经济发展 的壁垒，而“英国化”的北美则正好相反。他认为殖民主义历史学派的观点过度 强调殖民的政治动机，缺乏对大不列颠文明扩散至次大陆的客观评价。

    9大卫·斯托福(David  Charles   Stove,1927—1994),澳大利亚哲学家，他的 哲学著作包括对大卫 ·休谟怀疑论的批评，以及对卡尔 ·波普尔和托马斯 ·库恩的非理性主义的批评。在1986年出版的《归纳的合理性》一书中，他对归纳问题 作出了正面回应。斯托福对唯心主义论和社会生物学也持批判态度，称后者为“奉基因为上帝的新宗教”。

    10《梅里厄姆韦氏词典》 (Merriam-Webster Dictionaries),即《韦氏国际 英语词典》。1828年，诺亚 ·韦伯斯特自行出版《美国英语词典》,该书成为继 英国《约翰逊词典》后的经典辞书。韦氏去世后，梅里厄姆兄弟购买了该词典  的版权，以梅里厄姆 ·韦伯斯特公司的名义出版《梅里厄姆韦氏词典》。后词典 改名为《韦氏国际英语词典》,意即通用于英语国，并不断推出新版。

    11《牛津英语词典》(Oxford English Dictionary),被视为最全面和权威的英语词典，由牛津大学出版社出版。第一版前后花了71年编写，在实际编辑 的49年间(1879年至1928年),先后有四名主编担任词典编撰的主持工作。

    1933年，词典首次正式以《牛津英语词典》的名义发行。随着英语语言的发 展，《牛津英语词典》已经出到第三版，并衍生出电子版和其他若干词典。

    12 塞缪尔 ·约翰逊 (Samuel       Johnson,1709—1784),常称为约翰逊博士， 诗人、散文家、传记家。其耗时九年独力编定的《约翰逊词典》,对英语的发 展作出了重大贡献。自1755年出版以来，《约翰逊词典》一直是英语的词义标 准和使用法则，被评论家称为“英语史和英国文化史上的划时代成就”。直到一 百五十年后，《牛津英语词典》出版，英语才有了新的标准。《约翰逊词典》 影响了整个英语世界的语言发展，特别是在美国。1775年，美国革命爆发后， 国父们撰文表达政治理念时，都将《约翰逊词典》奉为行文圭臬。托马斯 ·杰弗 逊更把这本词典当作格言集来用，因为词典例句皆出自名家之手。其后，当美 国法院的法官们审理宪法案例时，常要借助《约翰逊词典》的解释，以便探讨 国父们制定宪法时的原初用意。

    13圣餐化体论，基督教教义的一种，认为神父有权主持圣餐，其中的酒与 饼会直接化为基督的血与身体。

    141563年，《殉教史》问世。该书记述了西方历史上1到16世纪基督徒为 信仰而殉难的事迹，着重叙述了从14世纪英国宗教改革的先锋威克里夫时代到玛丽一世统治期间，英国新教信徒或亲新教人士所受的各种患难与逼迫。该书 对于英国语言与文化的影响仅次于《圣经》,与加尔文的《基督教要义》以及 班扬的《天路历程》并称为基督教史上最有影响力的三部经典。

    15黑火药阴谋发生于1605年，是一群亡命的英格兰乡下天主教极端分子试 图炸掉英国国会大厦，并杀害参加国会开幕典礼的英国国王詹姆斯一世一次未 遂的计划。为庆祝阴谋败露，当时的英国国会通过了一条法案，纪念这次事件。此后，每年11月5日，英国人以大篝火之夜(即焰火之夜或盖伊 ·福克斯之  夜 ，Guy  Fawkes  Night) 来庆祝阴谋被粉碎，英联邦国家(如新西兰)的英国移 民后裔都会在这一天以篝火或烟火来庆祝。

    16 穆罕默德 · 阿塔，9 · 11事件中19名劫机者的领袖，操纵美国航空11号班机 于2001年9月11日第一个撞向纽约世贸中心北楼。

    1 7肯尼思 ·安德鲁斯 (Kenneth        R.Andrews,1916—2005),哈佛商学院教 授，企业战略管理理论设计学派的代表人物，SWOT 分析法的创始人。

    18 理查德 · 哈克卢特 (Richard   Hakluyt,约1552—1616),英国地理学家， 于1548至1600年出版了三大卷航海录，主张开发北美洲，建立殖民地以推进海 外贸易，改善国民生活。哈克卢特所写的《论西部种植》(1584)着力阐述了 此种殖民计划的政治和经济利益，建议政府给予财政资助，促成了伊丽莎白时 期的扩张主义思想和行动。

    19约翰 ·温斯洛普 (John          Winthrop,1588—1649),在1629年率领一批清教 徒前往新大陆并成立马萨诸塞湾殖民地，于1630年被选为殖民地总督。他于1631年到1648年之间共12次被选为总督，以布道辞《山上的城》而闻名。

    20圆头党人，英国1642—1652年内战期间的议会派分子。

    21 中世纪的英国一直实行封建制，地方贵族势力强大。在军事上，英国采 取民兵制，即由君主在战时号召国内领主，各领主在领地内临时征募民兵，然 后组成军队的组织模式。国王与各地方武装并不直接发生关系，也没有什么编 制固定的军事单位，自然就无所谓“皇家军”了。

    22    Nancy   Witcher    Astor(1879—1964),原为美国人，后随丈夫定居英国，并成为英国下议院第一位女议员。

    第二章 盎格鲁——撒克逊式自由

    我想申明一点。后期的盎格鲁——撒克逊英格兰是一个民族国家，是一个拥 有有效的中央政权、统一的组织架构、统一的民族语言、国家宗教和固定疆界 (尽管北方边界还可能有变)的整体。最重要的是，它具有强烈的民族认同  感。 ——詹姆斯 ·卡博尔(James  Campbell),2000
    英国法的存在，不是为了控制个人，而是为了使个人得到自由。 ——罗格·斯克鲁顿 (Roger Scruton),2006

    英国人是谁?

    我们从来不知最早的英国人到底是什么人，也不知道他们为什么来 到这里。或许，他们来到这片陆地是为了做生意，用自家林屋粗糙的出 产交换罗马时代不列颠的精美制品。或许，他们是一批好运的士兵，按 照古罗马军团传统，在服役二十年后梦想着稳定的退休金和土地的美好 前景定居于此。当然，在那些最早的辰光，他们也可能就是一伙强盗——对于来自寒冷北疆的汉子们来说，抢掠从来都是一笔过活的好营 生。

    无论动机如何，他们带来了比日耳曼军事首领所能获得的战利品还 要宝贵的东西。他们拥有一套与其他民族的习惯做法完全不同的事务管 理方法，发展出一套个人与部落关系的观念，而这套观念成为英语文明 为人类福祉所做的最大贡献，同时也是英语文明最伟大的出口产品。在 潮湿的绿原上，有他们的新家。他们创造出了王室和政府的理论、财产 与契约的理论、法律和赋税的理论，这些理论改变并最终提升了我们。

    彼时，这样的观念一定显得非常可笑。不列颠岛不过是众多繁荣有 序的罗马行省中的一员。横掠整个北海地区的条顿部落沦为遭人嘲笑和 令人胆寒的“绿林豪客”,而更高的文明则视其为野蛮人。

    但是，随着罗马的衰落，这些部落的力量日渐强大。起初，罗马军 事长官沿着不列颠东海岸线建起了座座堡垒，以保卫富饶的平原免遭海 上漂来的野蛮人的劫掠。但是，一旦保卫者的决心稍有松懈，劫掠就会 变得更加频繁。遍及全欧的条顿部落，无论是作为反叛者的雇佣军，还 是作为入侵者，正在全面颠覆罗马确立的秩序。公元410年，罗马军团  被召回帝国首都，独剩下不列颠行省自求安宁。

    岛上的基督教信众发现他们正受到三面攻击的威胁：西面是爱尔兰部族，盎格鲁——撒克逊人自东而来，皮克特人 (Pict,   他们在更早时被  不列吞人和罗马人赶到苏格兰北部和东部定居)踞守北面。如果罗马一 不列吞人 (Romano-Briton)   雇佣盎格鲁——撒克逊士兵的话，那么,他  们几乎可以轻而易举地以一敌而御其余二虎。这是一种相当传统的考虑，尽管这种策略考虑要到很久以后才会形诸文字。

    有一点可以确定，在整个5世纪，来自现在的德国、丹麦和低地国  家的那批人作为英国人的先辈开始大量定居下来。他们来此的动机，也 已显而易见。他们是奔着领土而来。移民者的数量现已无法统计，大约 有2万到20万人口在5—6世纪期间，离开纷乱的森林，来到这片新大陆。他们携带的物品与在易北河沿岸的墓葬中发现的一样。此外，他们 还带来了后人称为盎格鲁——撒克逊式自由的种子。

    今天，生活在英格兰土地上的人们，他们的先辈们身上都发生过什 么?过去的一切是灭绝了还是被吸收了?这个问题之所以重要，恰恰是 因为它涉及盎格鲁圈价值是否从最开始起就是在多民族背景下形成的?!历史学界对此问题长期以来争议不休，直到最近十年间才取得了 明确的共识。

    人们一度相信这样的观点：盎格鲁——撒克逊人几乎全部取代了本土 原住民。据说，幸存的不列吞人被赶到了威尔士、康沃尔、英格兰西北 部和苏格兰西南部。当然，还有布列塔尼，在那里，盎格鲁——撒克逊人 和不列吞人轮流为治。

    支持这一说法的两个主要证据前面都已提及。第一是语言。不列颠岛西部使用的语言，早先是不列吞本地语言，后来是盎格鲁——撒克逊语。其中一个语支，被称为坎伯兰语 (Cumbric), 直到11世纪或12世纪的不列颠斯特拉思克莱德王国 (British  Kingdom  of  Strathclyde,主要位于现苏格兰西南部)仍在使用。另一个语支，是康沃尔人说的凯尔特语，直到19世纪才完全消失。大概有五分之一的威尔士人，今天还在说 威尔士语。

    这些古老的语种被语言学家们通称为不列吞语或者凯尔特语。然而，不列吞语在英语中似乎已难寻踪迹。如果说，如某些历史学家所说 的，两种语言间还存在什么族群上的亲缘关系，那么,我们大概可以寄 望在我们今天的谈话中，找出一些凯尔特来源的词汇。然而，事实上， 这样的词几乎很难找到了。即便有极少数量的，比如峭壁 (crag) 、 突 岩 (tor) 、 深 谷 (combe),  也只有一些标示英国西北部独有地理特征 的专有词汇。这些地区如今已经成为讲英语的天下，盎格鲁——撒克逊遗 风已成绝响。

    第二个证据是一部6世纪以来的英国史史书《不列颠的颠覆与征服》 (De Excidio et Conquestu Britanniae),由威尔士修士吉尔达斯 (Gildas)  所著。

    吉尔达斯记载了一场种族屠杀。他引用了一封不列吞人向罗马求援 的信，信中叙述了不列吞人的处境：“野蛮人把我们赶进海里，海浪又把我们推回野蛮人那里。两头都是死：要么淹死，要么断头。”然而，吉尔达斯写下这本书时，已是他所记载的事件发生一个世纪以后。他在 书后加了一个年表，像那个年代的所有编年史家一样，吉尔达斯相信上 帝眷顾或惩罚整个国家。既然耶和华发动亚述人反对以色列人，那么, 吉尔达斯也支持异教入侵者声讨已经堕落的不列颠基督徒。这与他认为 盎格鲁——撒克逊人是上帝之鞭，是一支无情的、势不可挡的力量一脉相承。

    常识还提供给我们更加意味深长的画面。一部分不列吞人作为被征 服的属臣，不仅留在了岛上，还与新来的征服者结成了同盟。我们知道，数世纪之后的威尔士和英吉利联盟也是如此。类似情形在欧洲本土 不乏其例，日耳曼战争时期德国就与本地巨头联手而治。每当两民族之 间存在显著的技术性差距时，人口迁移就会发生(不过，在前述例子中，不存在这样的差距)。

    当然，这些语言学上的证据也不能说明：英语中不列吞词汇的消失就意味着其使用者也灭绝了。这和我的母国秘鲁的情况一样。在秘鲁， 大约有40%的人口是本地原住民，20%是白人，剩下40%是混血。本地  原住民中的一部分(大约占人口总数的15%)仍然说他们的本土语言克 丘亚语 (Quechua)和艾玛拉语 (Aymara),    其余部分，包括几乎所有 的梅斯蒂索混血族群，都说西班牙语。秘鲁西班牙语比起当代伊比利亚 人说的西班牙语还要纯正，它也包含极少量克丘亚词源的词汇，就像英 语还保留部分不列吞词汇一样。

    将来的历史学者，如果也只是依据语言学证据立论的话，很可能得 出本土秘鲁人已经被屠杀或驱赶殆尽的结论。这样的结论肯定有问题。 尽管这些人沿袭了征服者的生活习俗，以及更多的征服者的语言、法律、宗教和民族意识，但他们过去是、现在仍然是本土族裔的主体。我 们不难想象，类似的情况同样发生在5到6世纪的英格兰。

    甚至早在它可能成为DNA样本之前，历史学家们就已经开始讨论灭 绝的问题了。那些地点名词显示出英吉利人的生活足迹甚至到了日耳曼 腹地。举例而言，有几个英语市镇的名字中带有“eccles”的词干，这个  词干来自拉丁词的“教堂”。在诺福克现在还有“海上教堂”(Eccles-on-Sea)  的地方，显示出即使在英格兰最东边，也曾有大量的基督徒(当 然也是罗马一英吉利人)会集在此举行敬拜活动。

    此外，英语中还有一些双音词地名，也就是将不列吞词和盎格鲁一 撒克逊词叠加在一起来表达相同的意思。比如，在白金汉郡，有两个相 邻的村镇叫“布瑞尔”(Brill)和“切特伍德”(Chetwood)。 “布瑞尔”的 词根来自凯尔特语“白瑞格”(breg),  意思是“高山”(hill)。而“切特  伍德”一词，则来自凯尔特语“切特”(cet),      意思是“林地”(woodland) 。 于是，上述两个地理名词就成了“高山高山”和“树林树林”的双拼了。

    从这两个词，或许可以推测出撒克逊入侵者对了解本地原住民大概 没什么兴趣，以至于连本地词汇中最基本的“山”或者“树林”都不知道，还以为“布瑞格”和“切特”就是某座山或者一片树林的名字。不过，如果 把这两个词视为两种独立的语言共存的地方出现的联合命名的产物，也 未尝不可。比方说，你在比利时，看到某些路标，就能知道这个城镇曾 经有截然不同的法语和荷兰语名字，像卑尔根(Mons/Bergen) 等。又  比方，法国和荷兰两国交界的边境地区保留了极少数相当独特的外来词，这些联合词语清晰地显示出两大语种的共存。

    (《指环王》的粉丝们或许会发现“布瑞尔”“切特伍德”这样的词相 当眼熟。当霍比特人离开夏尔郡，他们投奔的第一站就是切特森林外、 布瑞山下的布瑞镇。要知道，托尔金可是牛津大学的盎格鲁——撒克逊语 教授，他对英语地名命名学当然颇有造诣。)

    很长时间以来，物种学方面的研究毫无进展，甚至至今仍无定论。 尽管越来越多的历史学者倾向于人种混合说，还是有些历史学家仍然坚 持灭绝论的说法。过去十五年间，人口遗传学这一相对年轻的领域开始 向我们展示越来越清晰的图景。

    大量研究表明，现代英国人的祖先，不仅来自古撒克逊人，而且来 自古凯尔特人。现代不列吞人的基因排序和他们石器时代的祖先有着惊 人的相似性。1997年，传来令人振奋的考古发现，在萨默塞特郡的切达 地区出土的一具最早的英国人(被称为“切达人”,Cheddar)   骨架，测  定为公元前7150年；并且，这具“切达人”骨架的DNA与两位切达现住居 民的DNA完全匹配。

    2007年，牛津遗传学教授布莱恩 ·赛克斯 (Bryan Sykes) 主持的一 项研究对超过6000份样本进行检测后，宣布，“现在的英格兰南部人中，只有10%是撒克逊人或者丹麦人的后裔…..英格兰北部，这个比例 上升到15%,东英格兰是20%”。另一位遗传学家斯蒂芬 ·奥本海默(Stephen Oppenheimer)则认为80%的英国人的DNA可上溯至公元前 4000年左右的早期农民，其中大部分农民来自伊比利亚。

    其他研究，尤其基于Y 染色体(也就是只在男性遗传基因中携带的片段)的，显示出英国男人的遗传基因中有着明显的盎格鲁——撒克逊人 成分融入。2002年的一项重要研究成果发现，英格兰中部男性在生物遗 传特征方面，与来自荷兰沿岸弗里斯 (Frisia)   的男性几乎无法分辨，但与威尔士人却存在明显不同。伦敦大学学院2011年的一个项目研究也 得出了类似结论。他们发现，50%的不列颠人携带的Y染色体片段与丹 麦和德国北部的人几乎一样。

    如何看待这些数据间存在的差异?部分解释是这个学科仍在发展  中，各项研究所使用的方法也不尽相同。然而，有一个结论渐已浮现， 那就是：Y  染色体调查(也就是父传子序列)显示出了强烈的日耳曼血 缘延续，从中我们大可推导出盎格鲁——撒克逊男人们娶了当地人为妻。

    这在任何时代任何地区都是最常见的婚姻模式。我们也可由此证据 合理地推定，当你自东向西横穿英国旅行，日耳曼祖先的血统逐渐稀释。

    我们也可看到，虽然英国人的后代热衷于追寻他们的种族起源，但，上帝保佑，他们从未采用过欧洲大陆当代人的做法。在英国内战中，有一些议会的支持者乐于将他们自己视为真正的盎格鲁——撒克逊人，他们在为推翻衰落的、诺曼底后裔的专制制度而战。在他们心目中，法律、自由和代议制政府是他们作为盎格鲁——撒克逊人生而具有的 权利的一部分，是塔西佗笔下远古的日耳曼部落会议的祖传家产。

    圆头党人约翰 ·黑尔 (John    Hare) 在1640年说：“我们的先辈继承了 日耳曼一支传下的血统，他们没有将自己混同于不列吞的原住民，而是 把后者赶了出去。他们取得了绝对的土地所有权，因而得以保全他们的 血缘、法律和语言不被破坏。”

    类似论调在革命时期的美国爱国者中也能听到。托马斯 ·杰斐逊将美利坚人视为真正的盎格鲁——撒克逊人，称他们为新世界带来自由，并 且使自由具有了比在旧世界更为纯粹的形式。(必须要申明一点，本杰 明 · 富兰克林则持完全不同的观点，对日耳曼一系评价甚低。)

    将自由视为一种传自先辈的习惯性权利，这一观念可以一路追溯到 古日耳曼部落最早的森林集会。这样的自由观直到20世纪30年代，依然 极大地激励着整个盎格鲁圈的作家们。其后，纳粹的疯狂举动使得种族 理论声名狼藉，英吉利与日耳曼的血缘联系说也随之失宠。

    从各种遗传学证据可以看到：即使不是毫无依据，这些理论也有颇 多夸大之处。英国人从来不是一个完整的日耳曼种族。最早的盎格鲁一 撒克逊人，起码在某种程度上，与古不列吞人相融合。他们的后代后来 又与丹麦人、诺曼底人、弗莱芒人、胡格诺教徒、犹太人、克什米尔人、孟加拉人、牙买加人相互融合。在新世界，他们更吸收了来自各个 大洲和群岛的人群。心智的交流，胜过了床第之欢，最终铺就了关于组 织社会的思想体系的坚实道路。

    盎格鲁圈的多种族特性不是现代才有的现象。丹尼尔 ·笛福1在1703年发表的《真正的英国人》 (The True-Born Englishman)，其嘲讽语气就刺激得没几个国家能消受得起：

    始于全人类的杂交体， 这就是英国人。
    激烈的强迫，愤怒的欲望，生下了
    涂脂抹粉的不列吞人，或者是苏格兰人?
    是谁的种，就学谁的样儿，
    给小母牛上轭，犁罗马的地。
    一开始，就是一半这一半那的混血种，
    也不知是谁的名字，哪国人，
    说什么语言，祖上名声如何。
    新的混合体快快地诞生，
    撒克逊人和丹麦人的后代。

    就像理查德 ·道金斯2所说，盎格鲁——撒克逊价值成为一种遗传基因，即使缺乏任何生物学介质，依然顽强地传承下来。它解释了为什么 百慕大不是海地，新加坡不是印度尼西亚。

    这些价值在最早的盎格鲁——撒克逊移民中，在黑暗年代，在暴力与 失控中，就已种下。三个相互关联的观念，注定要改变人类：第一，个 人自治的观念，包含在契约与财产权中；第二，集体决定须由代表作出，代表须向选出他们的共同体负责；第三，法律不仅仅是统治者意志 的具化，它作为传自先辈的习惯性权利，约束国王一如约束最卑贱的臣 民。

    盎格鲁——撒克逊价值在过去三个世纪以来改变了我们，使得数以亿 计的人得享前所未有的生活水准。今天，这些价值传布之广，以至于我 们视其为人类进步的成就。想象它们自最初提出至今，其间经历了多少 变革，还真得好好花一番功夫去考查。

    从“贤人会议”到水门事件

    当比尔 ·克林顿眯起他性感的眼睛，对电视节目采访者说“我跟那女 人没有发生过性关系”时，他正在一个由早先英国人发明的程序中艰难 求生。这套程序使得一国中即使权力最大的人也不得随意改变规则。

    弹劾被用于对抗那些王国中的头号人物：从1376年拉蒂默勋爵(Lord   Latimer) 因贪腐和勾结法国受弹劾，到1806年梅尔维尔勋爵 (Lord    Melville) 因挪用公共基金被弹劾(后虽被判无罪，但也遭到了 实质性惩罚)。

    共和党人在国会中发起的纠问克林顿总统的程序，并非碰巧和中世 纪英国使用的程序相类似，而是就是这套程序。英国人把这套程序带到 马萨诸塞和弗吉尼亚，被早期殖民地宪章奉为圭臬，其后又写进了《美 国宪法》第一条。

    弹劾是一种例外救济措施，它的极少使用正反映出它的分量。英国 议会往往在数十年甚至上百年间都没有弹劾案，例外集中于1640年到1642年的动荡时期。议会在经历了长达十一年的解散之后，被查理一世 国王重新召集。在这“十一年专制”期间，议员们积累了太多对政府的不 满，决意寻求司法救助。在英国历史上，大约有四分之一的弹劾案件都 发生在那两年间。议会领袖们想通过复活古代反对专制统治者的做法来 实现诉求，他们发起了弹劾查理一世大臣的程序。

    议员们的怀旧情结为盎格鲁——撒克逊主义增添了一抹罗曼蒂克色彩，但这也没什么错。通过会议决定革除违反法律的官员，甚至是国王，这样的观念实际上在诺曼时代前便已有之。如我们所见，盎格鲁一 撒克逊大会(也就是“贤人会议”),有时会以君主滥用职权为由拒绝其 提出的要求。

    等一等，让我们来回顾一下令人震惊的事实。早在一千多年前，英 格兰就已确立了统治者须到选举产生的大会前受审的先例。也就是说， 法律不仅仅是统治者的命令，也不仅是对《圣经》的权威解释，而毋宁 说是一套属于王国中每一个自由民的天赋之权。规则不是出自政府，而 是立于政府之上，约束国王一如其约束最贫穷的自由民。如果君主不遵 行王国内的古代法律和惯例，他就可能遭到罢黜。

    英语民族至今仍然常常提到“国家的法律”(但这其实很特殊了)。 国家的法律不是国王之法，不是上帝之法，而是人们在这个国家中固有 的一套权利和义务，世代相续，逐渐生长，成为每一代新人拥有的宝贵 遗产的一部分。

    当然，国家的法律是以国家为前提的。国家不仅仅只意味着单一政 府之下的领土，还是得到其所属的全体自由人承认的共同体。如果主权 者自身必须遵守法律，那么,就必然还有一个更高的合法性来源。这个 合法性存在于国家的固有规则的观念中，用英国人在反对试图毁掉这些 规则的约翰王、查理王和乔治三世时所使用的一个习语来说，即“不朽  的法律与惯例”。

    英格兰法律演进的历史，以及由此传遍盎格鲁圈的自由的历史，便 是英国成长为共同体，即民族国家的历史。

    第一个民族国家

    想要在民族国家之外，去发现正义、自由或者是代议制政府，几乎 是不可能的任务。我们看到，全世界范围内的移民几乎都是从专制国家 阵营流向基本上拥有单一民族的国家。民族国家的兴起是18世纪至今西 方成功的关键要素。然而，足以令人震惊的是，英格兰在数世纪前就已 经完成了这一过程。有了英格兰的民族统一，及由此产生的国民契约意 识，令人惊叹的进步接踵而来。

    历史学家倾向于认为民族国家的形成是一个早期现代现象。在欧洲 大部分地区，民族国家的形成与民主事业不可分割。

    在18、19世纪，当激进分子开始鼓动民有、民治和民享的政府理念 时，他们立刻发现“人民是什么”这个问题冒出来了。换句话说，民主进 程将在什么单元内展开?

    事实上，他们提供的答案也是唯一可能的答案。人人都认同政府是 从他们手中产生的时候，代议制政府运作得最好。民主需要“人民”,一 个可以表明“我们”身份的计量单位，就像1942年夏尔 ·戴高乐在伦敦向  已沦陷的巴黎发表广播讲话中所说的那样，“民主和民族主权是一回事”。

    大部分民主主义者同时也是民族主义者，他们都赞同按照被统治的 人民的愿望来配置政府部门。直到19世纪，欧洲大部分地区看上去还像 一幅各家王朝通过征服、联姻、偶然事件以及极偶尔回应当地民众的意 愿而打造的拼图。民主主义者希望用获得共同身份的民族统一体来替换 掉这些专制国家。

    他们认为，多民族国家从来不适合搞民主。因为缺乏民族意识，人 民无法形成对国家的忠诚感。一旦有一定数量的国民不愿意归属全体人民，就必然会引发压制措施，民主与自由将两败俱伤。

    事实也是如此。欧洲的大多数多民族大国，比如哈布斯堡、罗曼诺 夫和奥托曼王朝，实行的都是专制统治。一旦治下的民众获得了选举权，他们多半会要求民族独立。

    当然，也不是说，所有的民族国家都是民主的。事实上远非如此。 我的意思仅仅是，国家与民族疆界的重合能够创造出有利于代议制政府 产生的环境。

    历史学家和政治学家对于这些出现在19世纪欧洲的论调相当熟悉。 但是，也许担心这种论调可能导致政治失序，他们从未想过将此运用于 诺曼征服前的英格兰。

    然而，盎格鲁——撒克逊英格兰的议会，以及类似的单一民族国家， 比如丹麦和冰岛的议会比欧洲大陆的代议制政府早了几个世纪。这一显 著的领先很大部分要归功于英格兰出现了公认的单一民族国家。

    直到1861年，当加里波第3把一个统一的意大利半岛(现在需减去  罗马和威尼斯)交给维克多 ·伊曼纽尔二世国王4时，意大利人才涌起民 族自豪感。德国则须等到1871年，王侯功臣身着华服，在富丽堂皇的凡 尔赛镜宫宣布威廉加冕为德意志第二帝国皇帝。及至1918年，很多欧洲 国家依然处于这样那样的外国统治之下。

    然而，无论依照何种定义，英国在10世纪时就已形成了完整独立的 民族国家，将其他欧洲国家远远甩在身后。排在第二位的据说是丹麦， 在11世纪到13世纪期间完成了统一。冰岛从11世纪开始殖民，后来同样 因为一海之隔与它的邻居分治，成为另一个早期独立的排头兵。葡萄牙 或许创造了另一项记录，有证据显示，他们的民族意识从12世纪即已形 成。然而，大部分欧洲国家都出现在滑膛枪时代，而非战斧时代。

    如何定义民族国家至关重要。及至10世纪，英格兰民众形成了一种 明确的身份认同感。正如历史学者苏珊 ·雷诺兹(Susan   Reynolds)所 写：“英格兰王国的居民习惯于称自己为英国人，而不是盎格鲁一撒克逊人，并且称他们的王国为英格兰。这不是一个用连字符连接起来的王 国，而是国民认为他们归属同一个民族国家。”

    这样的身份认同维持了一个单一的政府，其合法性在政权所及的疆 域内获得普遍认同，政令实施畅通无阻。按照现代标准，10世纪的英格 兰富裕强大，发行统一货币；尽管也存在地区差异，仍然保有共同的司 法系统。自669年起，英国确立了自己的国教，奉坎特伯雷大主教为最  高主教，约克大主教为副手。

    有一点千真万确，那就是，在任何民族国家，事情都不是那么轮廓 分明的。盎格鲁——撒克逊人逐渐向西扩张，被征服的不列吞人先是被英 国人叫做“陌生人”或者“外族人”,后来被称为“威尔士人”(“威尔士人”的原意就是“陌生人”或“外国人”)。这是一个民族融合的过程。英  格兰的威尔士人最初作为臣服的部族，没有完全公民权，他们在法典中 被列入一个单独的类别。而在这个国家的另一边，与丹麦入侵者后代的 逐渐融合同时也在进行。北部边境变动不居，苏格兰王室周期性地承认 他们南部邻居的宗主权。南部苏格兰中讲英语的人口在11世纪急速膨胀。

    然而，每一个民族国家的边界都有某种程度的模糊。本章开头詹姆 斯 ·卡博尔的话完全成立。英国人是一个民族：盎格鲁民族；8世纪早期，历史学者比德用他们自己的语言称呼自己为“盎格鲁族”(Angelcynn)   或“安格鲁族”(Engelcynn)⁵ 。 不惟如是，他们还将他们的民族视为一个国家——这一点远早于其他西方国家，如果我们不把前罗马——以色列计算在内的话。

    独特的发展创造出了早期英国的另外一些特性。不像大多数欧洲国 家，英国没有实行半独立的世袭专制制度。法律由王室法庭在全国范围 内加以实施，而不是通过各地行政官员在本地画地为牢(最北部地区存 疑，那里证据尚不充分)。实权人物聚在全国议会中，而不是去统治半 独立的公爵领地。只有发生战争时，才会动员军队。对常备军的不信任，是后期盎格鲁圈政治的强劲特征，这可以追溯到盎格鲁——撒克逊王 国的民兵制。

    英格兰的相对稳定带给其居民有长期保障的财产安全。因为国家的 权威没有争议，政权也无颠覆之虞，百姓遇讼，乐于求诸法院，而不是 私以武力相决。一套建立在先例而不是条文法基础上的独特的法律体系 成长起来。英国的合同法及物权规则与大部分欧洲及亚洲国家有很多不 同。我们将会看到，正是这套法律体系日后滋养了现代资本主义。

    民族国家是保存自由的安全容器。公民对自身的身份意识，对国家 权威的忠诚以及所激发出的爱国热诚，都有利于培育公民社会以及减弱 对国家强制的需求。

    英吉利特殊论的这些方方面面将会持续(事实上也确实做到了)强 化英格兰同其他地区的融合，并最终促成了英伦群岛的形成。16世纪到 18世纪期间，不列颠英语文明的独特元素-     普通法、独立的法庭、议 会、契约神圣等-     被拓殖者和管理者带到海外。在前殖民地纷纷独立 后，这些特征基本得到保留。既然英格兰民族国家早期形成过程中还有 这么多故事，那我们不妨就来看一看。

    英格兰的形成

    早期日耳曼拓殖者来到英伦岛上，以家族或者部落为单位定居下来。这反映出他们在欧洲大陆上复杂的来源，而这些单位最终也形成了 独具特色的王国。一千年后，英国历史学者将这些王国称为“七国”。这 个词语完好地保存到20世纪中期，甚至直到今天，也还见得到。但是我 们无法想象七个疆界分明的盎格鲁——撒克逊王国，因为边境线总在不断 移动，一个政权可能吞并另一政权。被征服的王国得以保存它的身份， 而后，又重以古老的名字出现。

    在6世纪末期，一共有十二个王国；后来，兼并为七个；直至8世纪 末维京人入侵，七国合并为四国：诺森比亚(Northumbria)、 麦西亚 (Mercia) 、 东安格利亚 (East   Anglia) 和韦塞克斯 (Wessex)。

    早在英格兰实现政治统一之前，就已经有了在整个英吉利民族之上 的“霸权”观念。这一观念在7世纪早期模糊出现，到8世纪早期变得相当 确定，它指的是英吉利不确定的霸主。编年史书给这一霸主地位一个头衔：“不列颠瓦尔达”(bretwalda),     这个头衔几乎就是古英语词“不列  颠统治者”(Brytenwalda)   因抄写错误而产生的变体。一个不列颠瓦尔 达也就是一个可向英吉利其他君主宣布宗主权的最高统治者。

    而这些英吉利君主彼此之间并没有将对方视为外国。他们热衷于攀 亲认祖，展示长长的族谱，将他们的后代通过各支盎格鲁——撒克逊国王 世系一路追溯到古英吉利神——都诺 (Dunor)   和沃坦 (Wotan) 。 在皈依基督教后，他们又成功地搭上了更稀有的一系，从沃坦经诺亚(Noah)  发展到亚当(Adam) 。 显示血缘的目的，部分在于强调他们 庞大的家族——这是一个他们彼此都承认的家族，但不包括邻居爱尔兰、威尔士、法兰克和丹麦的部落首领。英国的概念还未形成之前，就已经存在一个英吉利民族的观念了：“安格利”(Anglii)   是其拉丁文的  书面语，“盎格鲁民族”是本地化的说法(不管哪一种说法，都是通过语 言来识别的)。相比而言，意大利和德国要等到一千多年后，通用语言 和身份意识才会成为统一的政治体制的前奏。

    在德国，普鲁士主导了统一进程。在意大利，皮埃蒙特(Piedmont)  完成了统一。而在早于前两国一千多年前的英格兰，担此 重任的是韦塞克斯。

    韦塞克斯可谓后来居上。在数国中最早崛起的盎格鲁——撒克逊王国 是诺森比亚。诺森比亚占据了今天英格兰的东北部地区，其势力在7世  纪达到最高峰。麦西亚据守西米德兰地区，称霸于8世纪。直到前述两  王国以及韦塞克斯均因维京人的掠夺而遭削弱后，他们的邻居才得以在 南部称雄并最终统一了讲英语的民族。

    8到9世纪的激进派在定义一个民族的地位时，往往会采用语言这一 标准，尽管他们承认语言并非永远都是唯一的判定标准。单一的民族为 维持强烈的爱国主义热情，可能会使用好几种语言，比如瑞士就是这样 的例子。相反，几个不同的民族也可能在同一个语言共同体内共存，比 如都说塞尔维亚一克罗地亚语的若干民族。然而，语言是最通常的起点，因为它总是一个清晰的界碑。

    民族国家依靠它的国民共同拥有且不能与其他族群分享的国民意识 得以维系。大多数民族运动，不管是否鼓动起一个民族形成一个单一国 家或者是从别的国家中独立出来，事实上总是借助于一个“外国身份”的 反面教材形成的。对意大利人来说，奥地利人就是外国身份。对德国人 而言，那就是法国人。

    9世纪的英吉利人也不例外。事实上，他们更有理由从包围他们的  外国人中区分出他们自己，因为这些外国人正是那个年代令全欧洲闻风 丧胆、恨之入骨的维京人。

    在8世纪末期，来自斯堪的纳维亚的强盗们开始侵扰英格兰东海岸。793年，维京人劫掠了林狄斯芬岛(Lindisfarne)的一座修道院，他 们为自己如此好运地撞上了一种在修道院里堆满金银财宝的文明而叹讶 不已；更令他们不解的是，修道院的保卫者们竟然会因为宗教信仰而放 弃战斗。和更早前的盎格鲁人、撒克逊人一样，海盗迅速从打劫转成入 侵，很快占据了英格兰东部和北部的大片土地。

    我们不难推想，最初的英吉利拓殖者——盎格鲁人、撒克逊人和朱 特人(Jute)——有着相似的血缘，讲属于同一语系的方言，遵循共同 的风俗。但是三百年独立发展的历史把他们塑造成了与北海另一边的日 耳曼民族不一样的人。盎格鲁——撒克逊人转向基督教，而丹麦人继续停 留在异教中。两个民族使用相近的语言，但不再能够通过普通的对话彼 此理解。简单地说，一种异质感使英吉利人清楚地意识到他们自己共同 拥有的是什么。

    北方人一点一点地征服了盎格鲁——撒克逊王国。他们吞并了东安格 利亚，在诺森比亚建立了一个傀儡政权推行统治，蚕食掉一半麦西亚， 留下另一半与韦塞克斯共治。

    他们渐又开始觊觎韦塞克斯，但最终被唯一一位拥有“大帝”名号的 阿尔弗雷德国王 (King    Alfred) 击败。阿尔弗雷德是一个有信仰有思想 的人，一心想把他的王国建成求知者心中的圣地，后来慢慢放弃了这个 梦想。在他执政的早年间，阿尔弗雷德有一回为躲避丹麦人突袭的追

    击，败逃至萨默塞特郡的一处沼泽地。按照后来的编年史的记载，就在 那一次，他烤糊了饼，养猪人的妻子没有认出他显赫的身份，叮嘱他一 定要留神照看好烤饼。据说，愤怒的农妇竟然责骂他，国王也就不再因 为惦记着对国家的责任而感到抱歉了。当然，这个故事是杜撰的。没有 杜撰的那部分是，从那以后，阿尔弗雷德扭转了战局，击退了丹麦人的 进攻。

    英格兰的第二次征服不是一个一帆风顺的过程。阿尔弗雷德开疆拓 土的成果由他的后辈所巩固。他的孙子阿塞尔斯坦 (Athelstan)   打造了领土大致相当于现代英格兰的王国，但是盎格鲁——撒克逊和丹麦国王之 间的战争一直延续到诺曼征服时期。无论如何，英格兰作为一个民族国 家的诞生在阿尔弗雷德战争时便已奠定了基础。《盎格鲁——撒克逊编年 史》 (Anglo-Saxon Chronicle)有载：“876年，所有自由的效忠于阿尔 弗雷德的英国人(换言之，不在丹麦人统治下)都称阿尔弗雷德为他们的王。”

    这不是英吉利民族的第一个证明。盎格鲁民族作为一个英吉利人种 的概念，起码在8世纪甚至可能更早以前就已经存在了。有所不同的是，所有盎格鲁民族的人，因为他们共同的身份，都应承认一个单一的 主权。

    我们不应过度夸大我们的问题。维多利亚时代的历史学者往往带着 目的论写作，认为英吉利国家的出现不可避免，并且将英吉利吸收丹麦 人也视为这一不可阻挡的进程的一部分。但是，9世纪到10世纪的英格  兰同样也是一个更为松散的北欧共同体的一部分。在1018年到1035年间，英格兰的国王是丹麦国王克努特(Cnut),  他同时还自称挪威和瑞 典部分地区的统治者。事实上，如果我们把英吉利、丹麦和挪威的人口 数量分开来各自统计，不难发现，如果不是征服者威廉将英吉利带出斯 堪的纳维亚世界的话，英格兰很可能成为最强大的北欧国家。有一些证 据可以证明这一点，比如，丹麦主教就承认坎特伯雷大主教的权威；再 如，英吉利货币在11世纪的丹麦曾是通用的清偿货币。

    不管怎么说，英国特色的观念和英吉利国家的观念从阿尔弗雷德时 代开始就已经非常强势了，甚至强到吸收了入侵的丹麦征服者的后代。

    阿尔弗雷德把维京人赶出韦塞克斯，持久和平协议使英格兰北部和 东部大部分地区得以保持一套丹麦法律和政府体系，因此，这片地区被 称为丹麦律法施行区。丹麦律法区以约克为首府，在并入英吉利王国之 前大概存在了七十余年(当然，该地区的居民也不全是丹麦人，其中包 括了不少盎格鲁——撒克逊人)。

    在盎格鲁一丹麦混杂时期，我们的语言以一种有趣的方式发生着改 变。尽管两种语言很大部分是不能互相兼容的，但是它们有共同的起源，说话者双方可以通过一种简化的洋泾浜英语相互理解。古英语和古 挪威语有相似的基本词汇，但它们的前缀和后缀使得交流几乎不可能进 行。只有略去不同的动词变体，不规则复数名词形式和名词的格，撒克 逊人和丹麦人才得以容易地相互理解。

    正是在这个时期，在丹麦律法区，英语开始大步朝它的现代形式演 进。比起其他语言，英语从不故步自封。我们通过添加前后缀，而不是 改变其形式的方式赋予词汇新的含义。在大多数英语动词中，只有第三 人称单数是不同的(随便举个例子：我吃。你吃。我们吃。你们吃。他 们吃。只有“他吃”是不同的)。古英语中的很多不规则名词复数形式在 那个时期被剔除，代之以一种简单的规则，即大多数情况下，你只需加“s”就可以了。诸如此类的改变，以及通过合并维京单词使得英语词 汇表发生的实质性扩展，都来自吸收丹麦人的语言。

    语言上的融合带来了体貌与身份的融合。维京人的后代很快便开始 效忠英吉利国王，以求诸后者保护他们免遭后来的北欧海盗侵扰。一个 世纪以后，他们也讲英语，并自认是盎格鲁人。

    原因不难理解。10世纪正是早期英吉利国家的黄金时期：统一，富 裕，依照法律施治，并且开始形成将自身与邻国区别开来的种种特质。 这些后来发展出议会民主、司法独立与个人自由的种种特征彼时已经在 子宫里孕育。现在，就让我们来看看这些特征中最重要的一项：依法施治。

    国家之法

    当历史学家埋首于盎格鲁——撒克逊人的书面记录，首先令他们震惊 的是这是一个何等好法的民族!盎格鲁——撒克逊人的历史很大部分都是 被成文化的法典占据的，有的采用了王室法令的形式，其余则是诸种对 沿袭下来的习惯法的重申。

    盎格鲁——撒克逊人初来时还是剽悍的蛮人，但是，在极短时间内， 便形成了去法庭和平解决争议的习惯。这样的做法向我们显示了早期英 国社会的同质性和有序性。

    英格兰文化与语言的统一在一套通用的法律体系中得到体现。当政 府的权威变弱或者受到挑战时，混乱便会加剧。从这个角度看，英格兰 是欧洲最稳定和坚固的民族国家。在欧陆，领主司法是最普遍的，大贵 族就是他们各自封地上的法律。但是英格兰，早在诺曼征服之前，就已 不再实行封建制度了。和所有武士社会一样，英格兰也有自己的大领主，并且很多领主都领有大片封地；然而，这些封地在各个郡往往被分 割为若干块。贵族从未能形成享有法律特权(举个欧洲最臭名昭著的例 子，贵族就可以不纳税)的世袭阶层；他们和其他人一样，都是国家法 律的臣民。

    我们可以在形成这一局面的源头中，找到法律面前人人平等这一了 不起的观念。詹姆斯 ·卡博尔引用了伊迪斯王后的一封信为例证。伊迪  斯是忏悔者爱德华的孀妇，她曾写信给萨默塞特郡的韦德摩尔百户法院，要求“给武杜曼一个公正的裁判，我把我的马都交托给他，他却拖  欠我租金六年之久”。韦德摩尔法院最后怎么裁判，我们不得而知，但  我们很难想象11世纪的地球上任何别的地方还会有类似案件，王国中的 第一夫人竟然会为一桩私人事务向如此卑微的公共法庭提交请愿书。

    “普通法”这一术语一直到12世纪中叶亨利二世统治时期才开始使用，但这一概念却是盎格鲁——撒克逊的。这一领域最优秀的历史学者帕 特里克·沃莫尔德 (Patrick   Wormald) 领衔的研究成果表明，诺曼人制定 的法典化法律大致可上溯至威廉征服时期，普通法的原则与实践在全国 范围内一体适用，其主要分支即百户法院。

    如今，全世界有接近三分之一的人口生活在普通法系地区。除英语 以外，普通法堪称整合盎格鲁圈的主要统治者。它在绝大多数前不列颠 领土上得到实施，爱尔兰也适用普通法，唯魁北克和苏格兰例外(这点 够让人奇怪的)。它的变体，与和英吉利有共同祖先的近亲一起生长起 来，在斯堪的纳维亚地区也能找到。

    普通法与盛行于欧陆及其殖民地的罗马法的最大区别在哪里?简单 地说：大陆法模式是演绎的。一部法律从大原则开始一路制定出来，然 后是那些运用于具体案件的小原则。对于那些在罗马法或者拿破仑法系 中成长起来的人来说，让他们震惊的是，普通法是恰恰相反的。它由一 个案例接着一个案例逐渐累积而成，每一个判决就像一个起点指向下一 个纠纷。“遵循先例”是所有律师都明白的原理：以前的判决结果作为先 例，具有不可更改的效力。普通法就是这样经验的而非概念性的，它总 是和来自真实案件的实际判决紧密关联在一起，并且始终关注这些判决 结果是否因为案件情况不同而需要做出修正。

    所以，普通法有时又被称作“法官造的法”;但是，正如哲学家罗杰 ·斯克鲁顿 (Roger Scruton,他本人也曾做过出庭律师)指出的：“普通 法是法官所造的法，正如道德法是诡辩家所造的法。”让我们想象一下  法律是如何逐步被重新发现的，这或许会很有帮助。正如一个好人不见 得就是一个高明的哲学家，普通法承认：做正确的事也不意味着就解释 得出为什么做对了的原理。我们通常知道正确的行动方式，但确实说不 清其中的道理。法律争议也是如此。某个单独的案件很可能有一个明显 公正的救济措施，一个符合每个人公正观念的解决方案，但是这个解决方案却不一定能干净利落地表达为一个普遍化原则。盎格鲁圈民族注重 经验的特性使得他们不喜欢纯粹的理论推理，这一特性从一开始起就被 熔铸进他们创造——或者毋宁说是发现-    法律的方式中。法律不是某 个抽象原则的具体化，毋宁说，原则通过现实的规则一步一步被淘洗出来。

    “国家的法律”这一观念，意味着法律是所有人的财富，而非统治者 的工具。这个观念在刑事司法体系中得到体现。法院是分散制的，各地 都设有法院。比较重大的案件由郡一级法院审理，不那么重大的则由更 小单元即百户法院处理。所有案件中最为重要的需提交国家一级的中央 法院管辖，最终导致了高等法院在中世纪的诞生。高等法院的法官们在 郡法院巡回审案，形成了“巡回区”。其中最高法院是盎格鲁——撒克逊贤 人会议，也就是枢密院，负责审理具有全国影响力的案件。

    在早期，重要的案件庭审开始引入由一些普通市民组成的陪审团。 盎格鲁——撒克逊陪审团和今天我们在盎格鲁圈看到的陪审团很不一样， 他们的作用是考察被告人的品格，并在证据基础上作出裁判。无论如何，是他们驯化了法律，强调法律为整个国家而存在，而不纯粹是政府 治理的工具。托克维尔把普通法看作保卫盎格鲁一美利坚自由的坚实堡 垒，他说“陪审团是人民主权原则最直接的应用”。

    尽管像所有人类的制度一样，陪审团制也是有缺陷的，但它始终是 盎格鲁自由的支柱。它确保事实问题和法律问题相区别，无罪推定不仅 仅只是形式，案件起诉必需超越合理怀疑。同时，它还防止法律过度偏 离大众普遍接受的常情，因为如果某一起犯罪可能导致不恰当的惩罚的 话，陪审团会拒绝定罪。总之，它使得整个国家都在司法监管之下。参 与陪审团服务过去是、现在依然是一项义务。由此，无论在理论上还是 在实践中，法律都依赖于这个国家中的每一个家庭。是的，这就是国家 的法律。

    作为国家的而不是国王的法律，盎格鲁——撒克逊普通法有四大根本特征与当代大多数民法体系相区别。第一，它尤其强调私人所有权和自 由契约。在很多欧洲国家，占有期限是国家决定的，财产权是不确定的 过去和现在都是这样。这种情形委实可笑。法律来自人民，而不是 政府的发号施令。

    直到现在，大部分欧洲国家的法律制度都限制个人对其财产的自由 处置权。举例来说，某个人去世后，一部分房产通常会留给在世的家庭 成员。英格兰在此方面的规定非常特殊。即使这个人死了，法律也更看 重他的遗愿，而不是在世家庭成员们可理解的需求。这一特殊规定产生 了诸多后果，它使得信托和市民社会的基础成为可能，并且在乡村地区 创造出了一个个人主义的社会，而不是一个农民社会。

    第二，普通法建立在“不禁止即合法”的观念上。想捣鼓什么新点子，无需得到政府许可。我们不妨再来看看不列颠和欧洲大陆的不同之 处。对欧盟持怀疑态度的英国人很大程度就是反感这种他们认为的不必 要的干预，但是，对欧盟官员来说，“没有规制”基本上就等同于“非法”。我几乎天天都能看到这种对比。我经常在欧洲议会上问：“为什么 我们需要一份新的草药指导目录?”看，答案马上就来了-    “因为没有 啊!”在英格兰，草药商自亨利三世统治时就已经实行行业自治了；而  在大部分欧洲国家，这种情况从来没出现过。

    第三，监督国家法律是每一个人的事。警察从来都是穿着制服的公 民，而不是国家的代理人。他并不比其他任何人拥有更多法律上的权力，除非地方法官临时性地、非永久地授予给他。在英格兰大部分地 区，法律官员直接对他们的社区负责-     这种情况一度在全国也是如 此。

    2012年11月，英格兰推行了——或者不如说恢复了——行政司法官 员直接责任制，要求警察队伍向郡长负责。我也曾为推行这一政策鼓与 呼，并且提议仿照美国的做法，将郡长称为“县治安官”。英国内政部(Home Office) 在一份关于英国人如何丧失历史感的悲观评论中放弃了这一建议，理由是其核心小组认为这个头衔听上去“太美国化了”。事 实上，治安法官一职和其他很多职位一样，都属于看似美国制造而实际 根在英国的产物。

    最后，也是最重要的，法律是国家的而非君主的这一事实，需要通 过一个反映民意的裁判庭来加以确认。这个裁判庭初现于盎格鲁一撒克 逊时期，复现于诺曼人入侵之后，在今天，则演变成国会。有些正式场 合，它们还会自称为“国会法院”。

    盎格鲁——撒克逊贤人会议起源于小一点的郡和百户法院，正如枢密 院之于中央法院。这种级别较低的大会，尽管被认为是法院，也具备了 很多议会特征。参加会议的人，不仅有大地产主和高级教士，还包括所 有世袭地产保有者。除了解决法律纠纷，他们还经常确定本地税率。实 际上，他们组成了本地议会。在这里，郡或百户区的事务得到公开解决。当英国成为统一国家之后，这样的特征通过贤人会议在全国一级得 到复制；而贤人会议在诺曼统治时期，有了议会的名字，这个名字一直 延用到今天。

    议会最初并且如今也不时作为最高法院出现，这一点常常被忽略。 英格兰历次宪法运动，从1215年宪章运动到1688年光荣革命，都演变为 法律危机，并且最终都通过新的法律章程得以解决。现在我们就来看看 议会的故事。

    英吉利民族的贤人

    两千年前，罗马史家塔西佗向他的同胞讲述了居住在帝国之外的蛮 族人的一些轶事。他写道，日耳曼原始部落习惯于召开公开的部族大会 来决定他们的事务。他们的首领从不独裁，总是依据众人的同意来施政。部落统治建立在“许可”之上，而非依赖“强制”。他们的人民不是臣 民，可以平等而自由地参与自身事务的管理。

    塔西佗的《日耳曼尼亚志》 (Germania) 在17世纪到18世纪的盎格 鲁圈广受欢迎，就像它在德意志、斯堪的纳维亚和法国一样风行。(孟 德斯鸠频繁地引用这本书来证明法国人的祖先是法兰克人，而不是高卢 人，因此他们也是日耳曼人的后裔。)召开民众大会是条顿民族自史前 时代就享有的与生俱来的权利，这一观念也自然地传递给了他们的后代，尤其是那些在他们的时代渴求民主政体的人。

    就像绝大多数历史学家一样，塔西佗在写作时心里始终有一个时间 表。他把日耳曼蛮族人奉为共和德性的模范，是想羞辱他那个时代的罗 马同胞正忍受的权威统治和奴隶制。当然，这也使得塔西佗在英、美、 德作家圈比在拉丁语国家更受欢迎，因为追随者们从天性和脾气上倾向 于自由的特性与他更为投契。

    进入20世纪，这样的观点开始变得有些过时，极端爱国主义分子、 反政府主义者以及种族主义者认为它们已经和时代脱节。但是，没有人 能够令人信服地证明塔西佗是错的。部落大会早已是日耳曼社会先民时 期的共同特征了。在后来的史料中，它们被视为理所当然的处理事务的 古老方式。随着部落大会结构和功能的演变，一些核心职能，诸如宣布 国王的合法性、解决法律争议、确定税率等，逐步稳定地出现在很多罗 马一日耳曼王国中。一般来说，这种现代议会的原型是依据一种共同的传统确立下来的，而非在某次革命后突然出现。

    史料明确显示：早期英国国王通过他的人民会议来统治。比如，有 这样的例子：7世纪20年代，诺森比亚的埃德温(Edwin) 在一次“贤人  会议”后改变了宗教信仰；而在都铎王朝时期，国王会要求议会批准接  受新教。我们还能读到，韦塞克斯王室在7世纪90年代通过主教和贵族  咨议会来发布法律。我们也知道，这些咨议会(尤其是郡一级的),在 确定税率时扮演了重要角色。早期的麦西亚史书也曾特别记录过一例本 地“议会”通过的免除某项财政负担的决定。

    当然，如果宣称这样的部落会议就是民主立法机关，无疑是荒谬 的。但无论如何，随着盎格鲁——撒克逊王国的发展和巩固，我们能发 现，这种“贤人会议”与后来的议会制的会议具有很多共同点：
    第一，它是主权和统治合法性得以确认的论坛。举一个例子，这类 会议是少数极庄重的场合之一：君主需着皇室服饰出席，后来发展为要 求君主持权杖且佩戴其他王位徽标。这一传统在大不列颠一直延续到今 天。
    第二，它有权批准王国内最重要的决定，比方说国库收入、重大法律纠纷的解决。
    第三，至少到9世纪，“贤人会议”一直常规性地召开，会期往往与  重要的基督教节日重合，比如复活节、圣诞节和显圣节。(在很多盎格 鲁圈国家，这些日期至今仍然限定了议会的会期表。)
    第四，它把教会高层、世俗贵族及第二序列的土地所有者拉到了一 起。主教、郡长和大乡绅⁶在会上共聚一堂。这种古代的代表构成在今  天英国上院仍然依稀可见。上议院中有主教，也有世袭贵族。这些世袭 贵族议员在1998年议会改革达成的方案中，保留了92名世袭议员席位。 当然，这样的代表构成与后来的中世纪代表大会非常相似，后者也具有 无可否认的议会特征，就像议会史权威J.R.麦蒂考特 (J.R.Maddicott)在评论10世纪的贤人会议时所说：“伯爵’代替了‘郡长’,‘男爵’代替了‘乡绅’,我们现在和早期议会的面貌其实相差不大。”

    我们可以从名称上看出这一机构的不断规范化。在历史记载中，“贤人会议”(witan)   变成了大写的“贤人会议”(Witan) 。9    世纪80 年代，阿尔弗雷德的咨议会被称为“盎格鲁伯爵的贤人会议”,是“全英  吉利的大会”。在后来的史书中(尽管为数极少),我们能看到一些明  显更为规范的名称：“贤人会议”(Witenagemot), “议会”——这是维多 利亚时期的人们最喜欢用的名字，那个时代的人们非常想建成有着最长 世系的永久议会。就像最常见到的情况，此后的历史学家也时常生出一 种反感，认为这样的议会谱系充满了自鸣得意和民族主义的骄矜。然而，直到最近，人们才开始逐渐反思。

    牛津大学中世纪史教授，同时也是盎格鲁——撒克逊晚期研究的权威 人物詹姆斯 ·卡博尔说：“代议制起源于黑暗时代及中世纪，这一观点没 有时代错误，是完全可以得到论证的。”….“实际上，它可以被看作宪 法性自由的历史在盎格鲁——撒克逊英格兰时期即有了极其重要的起点。”

    J.R. 麦蒂考特所写《英国议会的起源》 (Origins    of    the     English Parliament)  堪称此一领域杰作。他在书中将贤人会议和其他欧洲议会  进行比较，得出结论：无论在代表构成、税收的决定权，还是其存在方 式上，贤人会议与其他会议都有着质的不同。他说：“在西方世界其他  地区，日耳曼式的立法传统到10世纪时已告终结。而这一传统在英格兰 得以保存并发展，实在是罕见的特例。”贤人会议不仅是王室立法的伙  伴，同时也是那些有可能制约国王的制定法的守护者。麦蒂考特说：“在英国例外论这一点上，不存在任何疑议。”

    英国例外论在11世纪早期威廉征服之前的王位斗争中，可以得到更 加清楚的体现。

    英国早期的王位继承部分是通过选举决定的，后来才有了“法定继 承”和“天赋王权”的观念。在诺曼征服以前，加冕礼必须在贤人会议确定了王位继承人之后才能举行。比如说，阿尔弗雷德的儿子爱德华就  是“被王国中的智者选为国王的”,伊德雷德 (Eadred)   也是在946年“由 贤者选举”成为国王的。

    国王与贤人会议之间的互动机制通过加冕宣誓被确立了下来。首次 宣誓仪式是由973年埃德加国王在巴斯 (Bath)   举行的。宣誓的目的，当然在于加冕能够被所有在场的人理解，它很长时间一直作为英国独有 的，而非在拉丁语国家中常见的仪式而存在。埃德加国王在那个场合中 所立的誓言，与九百八十年后其后嗣伊丽莎白二世的加冕誓词惊人地相 似：“(我将)捍卫国家，谨守法律，保护教会，公正统治。”

    其实，这就是“政府依约而治”理念的雏形。按照这一理念，统治者 和被统治者均受某一特定协议的制约；如果统治者违背其他一方的契约，那这单交易就算结束了。契约在盎格鲁世界从来都是至关重要的， 反映出了人民对于法律、商业、宗教和政治的理解。透过约翰 ·洛克的  著作，契约最终成为盎格鲁圈政府理论的基石。国家的建立，正是我们 的祖先在远古过去立下的“原始契约”的具体表达。-     这里，洛克称之 为“原始契约”。他的理论在美国宪法中得到了实质性体现，后来传遍整 个自由世界。

    然而，真正具有批判意义的变革，是契约必须要由一个代表组成的 大会来执行的理念。很多欧洲中世纪国王都举行涂油宣誓仪式。涂油也 好，宣誓也好，都是一种精神上的宗教激励。它是在一国最高主教的见 证下，向上帝许下承诺。大主教主持整个仪式中最重要的部分，也就是 在新登基的君主头顶敷油。现任女王伊丽莎白二世六十年前加冕时，很 多英国人都去买电视，以便能收看这一盛况。直播中唯一没有播放的部 分便是涂圣油。

    真正的例外之处，不在君主的誓言，而是这样一个理念：君主是要 受其国民代表的约束。国王不能成为他本人是否兑现了守法誓言的法官，这个任务交给了贤人会议来裁定。

    1014年发生的事情，近乎奇迹。当时的英格兰处在“史上最倒霉的  国王”埃塞尔雷德二世 (Ethelred)    治下。埃塞尔雷德二世就是史家们所 称的“无准备者”,这个绰号来自时人的错误拼写。“无准备”的原意是“糟糕的主意”,因为埃塞尔雷德二世在位期间恰逢英格兰遭受着丹麦 人最频繁的侵袭，于是，国王便不断向入侵者支付赎金以换取和平。这 笔钱最后当然通过沉重的赋税加诸人民头上。-     这种情况在盎格鲁世 界实在不多见。最糟糕的是，这笔贿赂(又被称为“丹麦金”)没起到作 用。丹麦人接受了赎金，答应解甲归家；但仅仅等到下一个“狩猎季”,  他们又卷土重来并且要求得更多。就像吉普林后来写下的：

    说是拿钱可消灾；
    可我们已是一而再，再而三。 一旦给了丹麦金，
    你就永远别想摆脱丹麦人。

    到了1014年，一系列灾难降临到英国人头上。丹麦人占领了伦敦， 埃塞尔雷德弃位而逃，流亡诺曼底。接下来发生的事情，更是史无前例。贤人会议给了埃塞尔雷德一个复位的机会，前提是他同意他们提出 的条件。其中一个重要条件就是不再课以重税；古老的法律-     其第一 次出现是以“远古的习惯”或“古代良法”的面目-      必须受到尊奉；国王 必须发誓将来接受贤人会议意见的指导。

    这是一个非同寻常的进步，然而却奇怪地被人们忽视了。当我们回 顾英语世界宪法自由的历史，尤其是在代议制政府高于君主制这一点上，历史学家们总会列举《大宪章》的签订、西蒙 ·蒙特福特的胜利Z、英国内战、光荣革命，以及美国革命。然而，在这里，《大宪章》签订 整整两个世纪以前，我们看到了1688年光荣革命的先声：国王即位是有 条件的，法律大过国王。

    当然，也有人会说，1014年的事件并不算典型。因为彼时王国危如 累卵，国王又处于极度弱势的地位。然而，我们前面所提到的那些标志 性事件不也同样如此吗?召回埃塞尔雷德的特殊意义，恰因它不是一个 偶然事件，而是一种新宪法秩序的开始。

    之所以得此结论，是因为就在埃塞尔雷德于两年后去世，英国王位 被指定给丹麦国王克努特时，也附加了同样的条件。至于克努特，显然 是求之不得，他承诺不再加税、惩罚王室及城镇官员滥用职权，并且遵 守国家法律。

    在所有这一切中意义最为深远的，当属贤人会议逐渐实现了它的代 议制功能；也就是说，贤人会议不仅是为它的成员(乡绅和郡长),而 是为国家这个整体而存在。邀请埃塞尔雷德回来复位的是“全体贤人”,  但他的承诺针对的却是“全体人民”。换言之，他是在通过议会向由议会 代表的国家说话。

    同样，当克努特在两年后被贤人会议附条件地授予王位后，他也采 取了信守誓言的方式来接受这些条件。这一切用英语记载在一封信中。 这封信或许是希望在郡法院宣读的，写信人写给“他的大主教和地区主  教，索克尔伯爵以及所有伯爵，和他的全体人民，不管他们是要偿付1200还是200赔偿金，是教徒还是俗人，只要是英格兰的朋友就行”。后 世所称的“实质性代表”的概念，在此已经可见一斑。

    1035年，克努特撒手人寰，贤人会议在牛津召开了全体会议，决定 谁是下一个继承人。此时，再无可能将此类会议视为对王位争议的例外 性解决方案，它们已成为惯例。

    由此，1041年，当忏悔者爱德华被从诺曼底召回准备继承王位时，他先在汉普郡海岸的赫斯特角 (Hurst Head) 与“全英格兰的大乡绅”会晤。会上，他得知，如果他发誓遵守克努特时期的法律，方可被推举为 国王。在当时英国人心目中，克努特时期的法律已经变成了在王位赓续 时要求后世遵守的“古代良法”。

    不妨想一想这一进步的惊人之处。国王在索伦特海峡沙滩胜地参加 会谈，会上开出了一套我们今天称得上是“宪法性约束”(而不是专断)  的要求，即他必须服从为这个国家说话的机关所确定的法律。

    按照当时欧洲的标准，英格兰已是相当繁荣的地区。但是，无论如 何，对于全人类来说，那都是一段悲惨的时期。对有幸没有早夭的英格 兰人来说，预期寿命只有42岁左右。一项对公元400年到1000年间65处  墓葬的研究发现：没有人活过45岁。文学作品仅限于在数量极少的僧侣 和抄写员间流传。医学落后得难以置信。绝大部分人口的生活都得靠每 周七天的繁重劳动维持。不列颠岛总人口不超过200万。然而，我们也  能辨识出作为现代宪制政体的某些特征：国王不得高于法律，相反，法 律高于国王；法律不得被留给主权者或者教士的良心，而是掌握在自我 定位是为整个国家说话的代议制机构的手里。

    七个多世纪以后，在起草1780年马萨诸塞宪法的过程中，约翰 ·亚  当斯给宪制政体下了一个最简洁准确的定义。他这样写道：共和国的权 力必须被分开并保持平衡，“归根到底，它应该是一个法律的政府，而非人的政府”。

    10世纪的英格兰无可否认地踏上了追求宪政自由的道路。在这条路 上到底发生过什么,我们也许永远无从得知。因为，就在1066年，它被粗暴地拽出了北欧世界，臣服于欧洲的封建制。哈罗德 ·葛温森 (Harold Godwinson), 这位英国贵族，软弱的王位继承人，仅得到贤人会议顾  虑重重的支持。哈罗德被诺曼底的威廉赶跑，后者坚信自己才堪当位。 这是对英格兰、贤人会议以及自由的致命打击。实际上，从某种意义上 说，尤其是在相当部分权威人物看来，1066年后的六百年历史都是在为 翻转诺曼公爵登陆所做的长期不懈的努力。

    注释

    1 Daniel Defoe(1660—1731),英国作家、记者，代表作《鲁宾逊漂流 记 》 。

    2 Richard Dawkins,英国演化生物学家、行为学家和科普作家，牛津大学教授，代表作《自私的基因》(The Selfish Gene)。

    3 Giuseppe Garibaldi(1807—1882),意大利爱国者、军事家，献身于意大利统一运动。

    4 Victor Emmanuel IⅡ(1820—1878),意大利统一后的第一个国王。

    5“Angelcynn”和“Engelcynn”皆为古英语词汇。

    6盎格鲁—撒克逊时代的英格兰大乡绅，贵族阶层成员，级别在郡长之下，其身份可世袭，以提供某些服役而获得国王或其他贵族的土地。

    7 1258年4月，以西蒙·蒙特福特 (Simon de Montfort)为首的男爵，全副武装去见国王，要求后者放弃征税，进行政治改革，以更好地遵守《大宪章》的 要求。1258年6月，亨利三世被迫召开了被称为“狂暴议会”的会议，会议上贵族 们迫使亨利三世接受了《牛津条例》,规定由15名贵族参加的委员会与国王共 同施政，国王采取的任何措施均得他们同意方能实施。而这15名大贵族和另外 选出的12名大贵族组成“议会”,每年定期召开三次会议。未经会议同意，国王  不得任意没收土地及分配土地，亦不得擅自决定对外战争。从此“议会”这个词  就广泛出现在英国的社会生活中了。

    第三章 重新发现英国

    诺曼男爵临终遗言：“我的儿！吾命休矣，你将继位。英格兰广袤土地的每 一寸，都是威廉传下的家业，那是我们的先辈在黑斯廷斯和其他战场上浴血奋 战，征服撒克逊得来的。在你就要开始统治以前，我想让你知道：撒克逊人可 不像我们诺曼人。他们的举止可没那么斯文。但是，如果谈到公正和权利，那他们的态度就不能更严肃了!如果有个撒克逊人站在那，像站在犁沟里的公牛，阴沉着脸，两眼直直地盯着你，嘴里嘟囔着‘这可不公平!’我的儿，这时 候，你千万得离他远点。” ——鲁雅德 ·吉普林，1911
    这些北方民族不明白：任何人若未经他本人的同意而要受其他人绝对意志 的统治，皆会不惜诉诸武力，为荣誉而战；或者是司法官员按其一己之好、不 征求其他人的意见就下判决，必然会招致专断不公之声讨。因此，但凡国王对 他的主要封臣提出任何约定期限之外的服役，也不得不召集他们，以便得到他 们的同意；或者在贵族内部出现任何争议时，必须经由他们共同讨论，按照他 们的意见或者忠告作出决定。这些事关同意和忠告的活动，构成了古代贵族的 主要政务，同时也预示了日后政府可能发生的所有重大事件。  ——大卫 ·休谟，1778

    诺曼杂种

    1940年7月3日，海军中将詹姆斯 ·萨默维尔 (James Somerville)下 达了他职业生涯中最悲壮的命令。德国占领了法国，并且要求后者按照 军事协议将其地中海舰队交由德方指挥。英国当然不允许事态这样发展：意大利已经参战，站在希特勒一方；一旦他们控制了地中海，局势 将万分危急。

    丘吉尔指示一支庞大的英国海军在阿尔及利亚奥兰海军基地迎击法国舰队。法国舰队司令M.根索尔(Marcel-Bruno  Gensoul)海军上将只 有三个选项：驶往英国港口继续对德、意作战；撤离战区，驶往法属西 印度群岛港口；再或者，自行凿沉。

    三个选项都遭到了拒绝。闷热的一天即将过去，英军发出了最后通 牒，收到的答复仍是回绝。萨默维尔中将遂命令舰队炮轰法军。这是自 特拉法加 (Trafalgar)   海战后，英法海军唯一的一次敌对交火。炮轰持 续了10分钟，巨大的水柱直冲天际，在滚滚黑烟中，战列舰“布列塔尼号”被击中，至少1297名法国人丧生，351人受伤，这是法国海军在战时 遭到的最大损失。英军方面没有伤亡。

    萨默维尔终其一生厌恶这个他日后所称的“最违心和伤痛的决定”。 他在沉默和煎熬中度过了那个夜晚，陪伴他的军官眼里噙满泪水。但是，萨默维尔不可能没有注意到，在下层甲板，弥漫着一种截然不同的气氛，船员兴高采烈地宣称，他们“从来没这么讨厌过那些法国崽子们”。

    这是由来已久的社会裂痕的极端写照。英格兰(后来的大不列颠) 上流阶层通常都是说法语的。然而，这只是一个小众趋势，一个使得他 们在其后若干世纪被斥为没落和卖国的特征。

    阶级分化可以上溯至诺曼征服，它将英格兰置于讲法语的贵族统治 之下。英语成为议会、法庭、王室及教会的上层语言，要等到三个世纪 之后。即使在诺曼征服一千年以后，也就是现在，某些议会程序依然保持了诺曼一法国传统，比如，女王批准议会的立法案，就要用到法语句 子“女王惟愿其如此”。

    而本土被剥夺了继承权的英国人，则将他们的怨愤发泄在讲法语的 人身上。法国人留给大众的印象就像激进派所描绘的贵族的形象：矫情，狡黠，阴柔。

    甚至直到今天，大多数英国人依然怀疑(不是没有理由的)他们的 精英们总体上是“亲欧”(尤其“亲法”)的，媚外胜过爱自己的国家。精 英们的“亲欧”绝不仅仅意味着他们只是更乐于接受欧盟的司法管辖，尽 管人们通常相信问题如此简单。“亲欧”一词有着比这宽泛得多的内涵： 势利，蔑视大众舆论，骨子里的政治特权等级的优越感。

    我们的发现或许让你大感意外：过去九百年间没有哪一个时代缺少 过这样的感觉。法国风格与没落上层的混搭，被每一代英格兰人(其后 是大不列颠，再后是整个盎格鲁圈)制造出来。

    攻击约翰·克里 (John Kerry) 和米特 ·罗姆尼(Mitt Romney) 会说 法语，与当年讥讽约翰逊和贺加斯(Hogarth)   的“娘娘腔”可谓如出一辙。在那个时代，约翰逊和贺加斯之所以被抹黑，是因为年轻时赴欧陆 游学沾染上恶俗的外国习气，一味推崇欧陆艺术家而不看重本土。“涂脂抹粉的脸，廉价俗艳的服装，可劲的时尚范儿”,这就是18世纪苏格  兰作家托拜厄斯·斯莫利特 (Tobias Smollett) 对法兰西文明的总结。

    反过来，18世纪的爱国者们也与17世纪的议会主义者遥相呼应，对 斯图亚特王朝的亲法品味大加挞伐，明确宣称自己的责任就是要“砸烂  诺曼枷锁”。

    让我们回到更遥远的历史，看看莎士比亚在《亨利五世》中是如何 对比粗鲁、勇敢、吵吵嚷嚷的英国士兵和训练有素的法国骑士的。

    (“野种的诺曼人!诺曼人野种!”波旁公爵发现英国人的优点不受待 见，忍不住高叫起来。)

    不妨再走远一点，看看乔叟是怎样嘲讽盎格鲁一诺曼贵族的。他说，尽管这些人自命不凡，其实不过是法国人分裂出来的特殊的、错误 的一支。他在《坎特伯雷故事集》中是这样揶揄院长嬷嬷的：
    她的法语讲得高雅而流畅，
    但是带有浓重的伦敦腔    
    她是在斯特拉福学的法语，
    地道的巴黎法语不会半句。

    乔叟的作品是革命性的，不仅在于其内容的戏剧性，还在于其用英 语写作这一事实。在作家生活的时代，绝大多数文学作品依然是针对上 流社会的，因此都是用法文书写。英语不过是粗俗的下里巴人。只有在 苏格兰，那里的法庭在诺曼征服时期使用的是英语，这种语言也才会成 为被广泛使用的文学语言。

    就像其身后的作家一样，乔叟毫不掩饰地赞美他的民族语言：
    英语多么好!英语能够理解
    在英格兰土生土长的一切。

    然而，一个有99%的国民说英语的国家在诺曼征服整整三百二十年后才写出这一真相，多么奇特!

    再往回走，我们来到了盎格鲁——撒克逊人作为一个融合了的族群并 被一个说他国语言的外国阶层统治的年代。

    最后一次直接反叛“征服者”威廉可以追溯至1071年，“觉醒者”赫里 沃德和他的弟兄们在剑桥郡沼泽地被打败。但是，英吉利民族的反抗并没有随赫里沃德消失在沼泽地。

    诺曼征服一个世纪后，我们看到有关“忏悔者”爱德华轶事的一桩预 言应验了(爱德华的死引发了威廉的入侵)。据说有一棵绿树被砍倒， 移到3英里之外的地方，但后来又奇迹般地接回根上，结出了果子。再  后来，王国回到了英国人手中。有人把这个故事看作1154年亨利二世继 位的一个寓言。亨利二世是苏格兰女王玛格丽特的外孙，而玛格丽特是 爱德华之女。从外表上看，国王是一个法国人，但他无论如何都是忏悔 者爱德华的后代，因此也是阿尔弗雷德的子嗣。按照乐观主义者的说法，他的统治代表古老王朝的复兴。绿树开枝散叶了。

    也有人冷嘲热讽，说这个故事根本就是无稽之谈。砍倒的树怎么可 能接回到根上?正如英国人收回他们自己的国家就自由了吗?!

    随着时间的流逝，盎格鲁——撒克逊人的反抗退守到了语言阵地，并 且打上了阶级斗争的烙印。本地贵族被杀死、放逐或没收土地，大多数 讲英语者流离失所，贫困丧地。他们的民族斗争变成了对一个异国精英 的反抗。

    1381年，雇农和工匠在伦敦进行了激烈的示威活动，历史学家将其 称为“农民起义”。但在当时的英格兰，“农民”这个词是不存在的-    因为如我们所看到的，当时根本就没有“农民”这回事。示威者要求恢复古 老的秩序，他们的领袖，工匠瓦特·泰勒 (Wat Tyler) 提出要与国王直 接谈判——查理二世当时年仅十四岁。年轻的君主同意骑至伦敦北面的 史密斯菲尔德广场与愤怒的叛民谈判，此举令王公大臣们震骇不已。泰 勒要求国王废除诺曼人引进的农奴制，不仅如此，根据当时的编年史家 亨利·奈顿 (Henry Knighton) 记载，泰勒还要求“自由进出城做买卖的 权利，在所有森林、公园、公地狩猎的权利，在所有河流湖泊打渔的权 利；总之一句话，就是英吉利民族在诺曼征服中失去的那些权利”。

    法国历史学家奥古斯汀 ·西耶里(Augustine Thierry)在1825年所著的一本书中宣称，“1381年大反叛是一系列撒克逊起义的最后篇章”。19

    世纪的历史学者对于国民的民族身份意识是非常敏感的。事实上，一直 到最近，学者们才慢慢转向从一个更宽容的民族视角来看待历史，所以 才有了这样的例子：叶卡捷琳娜女皇曾打趣法国革命说，“高卢人正在  把法兰克人赶出去”。这样的评价现在看来，当然是相当不合时宜的，因为它让后代人搞不清楚那个年代的重心所在。

    英吉利身份在诺曼征服之后被强劲地保留了下来。这种身份意识， 较之盎格鲁一诺曼身份，无疑要顽强得多，这也是为什么后者最终被前 者所吸收的原因。从其形成之时起，英国的民族意识就被限定在后来历 史学家所描述的这样一种信念中：自由和法律面前的平等是天赋的，而 封建主义和农奴制则是异族的。

    想象一下一个民族跨越千年的记忆，是不是觉得很不真实?或许我 们不应该把盎格鲁——撒克逊的融合以及这种与“法国性”敌对的国民意识 看作一种人为的发明?一定程度上是成立的。当然，不管有意无意，后 世作家总是把历史剪裁进他们自己的叙事中，就像每一代人都会做的那 样。但民间记忆也切实存在。传统就这样通过口和耳、笔和纸，通过家 庭和学校，延续下来。

    让我再以我的母国秘鲁做一面镜子。皮萨罗和他的追随者通过一次 又一次打击最终征服了秘鲁，就像威廉和其侍从对英格兰的统治。事实 上，皮萨罗的征服更为彻底，因为技术上的不对等更为悬殊。绝大多数 秘鲁人失去了祖国，也失去了他们的宗教和语言，但是，秘鲁人的民族 意识、他们拥有的集体记忆却是剥除不掉的。这样的记忆穿越了西班牙 人征服的四个半世纪时间，在20世纪70和80年代的“光辉道路”及其他恐怖组织的暴力活动中复活了。而就在西班牙人征服秘鲁的同时，威廉 一世正和爱德华·柯克爵士、约翰·汉普登 (John Hampden) 闹得不可开 交，后者竭力想把“诺曼枷锁”的观念普及化。

    秘鲁是单一制国家，诺曼英格兰也是。全体公民名义上在法律面前 一律平等，成人享有投票权，并且选举产生了两任本土总统。然而，从征服时期开始的种族分化至今持续、公开地存在，从一个人的面相便可 以看出他的财富和社会地位基本不会出错     人们不需要历史书来告诉 他们这是为什么。

    这一切在英国历史上的相应时期也是如此：17世纪的政治权力很大 程度依然集中在诺曼入侵者手中。即使在今天，黑斯廷斯之战已过去了 接近一千年，从那些当年跟随威廉公爵渡过英吉利海峡的士兵们的姓氏 中依然可以辨识出某些贵族色彩：贝列尔 (Balliol) 、 巴斯克维尔(Baskerville) 、 达 西 (Darcy) 、 格兰维尔 (Glanville) 、 莱西(Lacy) 。 一项对1861年到2011年间家族姓氏的研究表明：那些有诺曼 姓氏的人通常要比其他人富有10%左右。

    萨默维尔中将旗舰上的船员们还在兴高采烈地欢庆，从没想到有什 么不妥。他们一刻也没意识到，海军司令除了是称职的长官，还是什么 人。谁又能想到呢(也许只有萨默维尔本人清楚吧)?长官的祖先，吉 尔特·萨默维尔爵士 (Sir   Gaultier    de    Somerville),正是与征服者一起来 到这里并得到了大片北部封地的贵族。不难想象，出身于这样显赫的家 族，中将对于法国人的同情自然要比为他效命的那些人多得多。世界就 是这样。

    盾墙倒塌

    下列人物都有什么共同之处?乔治 ·布什、巴拉克 ·奥巴马、比尔 ·盖 茨、贾斯汀 ·汀布莱克、鲁伯特 ·艾弗雷特、玛吉 ·吉伦哈尔、乔治 ·华盛  顿和威尔士亲王。答案是：他们全都是“征服者”威廉的后裔。大约90% 的有英国血统的人和60%的美国人被认为带有生殖力旺盛的诺曼王朝的 血统-     当然，尽管他们的家族树根系都不算太久远。跟随公爵渡海而 来的武士和商人数量虽少，但是，当他们在这片岛屿上播撒种子的同时，也将他们的意志施于被征服的土地。

    对于本土人而言，诺曼征服是一个悲剧，就像所有最优秀的悲剧一样，它原本可以上演完全不同的一幕。

    忏悔者爱德华，阿尔弗雷德家族最后一位君王，卒于1066年1月，没留下一男半子。侄孙埃德加 ·艾德林 (Edgar  the  Etheling) 被认为太过 年幼，无力当国。据说，爱德华曾指定其第二个侄子诺曼底公爵威廉为 继承人。但另有人说，这一遗嘱后来在病榻前被推翻，取而代之的是爱 德华的妹夫，根深叶茂的英国伯爵哈罗德 ·葛温森 (Harold Godwinson)。 而威廉的支持者则称，哈罗德在诺曼底遇到船难时，曾 发誓效忠他们的公爵。

    事实上，无论威廉还是哈罗德，从血统上都不具有问鼎王冠的资格。但是，维多利亚时代的历史学者们找出了无可反驳的合法性：威廉 受教皇支持，而哈罗德是被英格兰贤人会议推举的。

    哈罗德的加冕得到了王国中显要贵族的支持，由此促使威廉厉兵秣 马，枕戈待旦。失地的贵族，非嫡长子们，有钱的士兵，以及其他有武 装的人，从欧洲各地群集于威廉麾下。尽管威廉的嫡系部队是诺曼人， 但来自弗兰德尔、布列塔尼和法兰西的骑士也为数不少，甚至意大利人因为抢掠及没收土地的诱惑，也前来投奔。

    诺曼人在10世纪时征服了法国北部的维京人。从地理扩张来看，诺 曼人占领了英格兰、苏格兰、爱尔兰、格陵兰岛、北美、俄罗斯、西西 里以及小亚细亚部分地区。诺曼人直到晚近才开始使用法语，维京诗人 们直到1028年还在不断用斯堪的纳维亚语传诵他们的英雄传奇。

    诺曼民族尚武好战。他们的神威，部分来自勇气，部分依靠武装骑 兵采用的当时最先进的战术。说“最先进”,可不是吹牛皮：一个诺曼骑 兵团几乎就是一支势不可挡的力量，单凭这全副铠甲的人马就足以击溃 守卫者的防线。诺曼人还知道怎么使用混编部队，以步兵、弓箭手和弩 手支援骑士。

    然而，尽管占尽上述优势，威廉的胜算也仅仅是个未定之数。哈罗 德掌控着欧洲最稳固和强势的国家，而且随时能召集令人生畏的储备军 (即民兵)。当他铁下心来准备迎击威廉的入侵时，当然有足够的理由 自信。但哈罗德的手下就没那么轻松了。他们此前看到凶险的征兆：哈 雷彗星在1066年穿越英格兰，为将要降临到头上的连串灾祸惶恐不安。 他们是对的。

    首先，哈罗德的弟弟托斯提戈 (Tostig)  得到挪威国王哈罗德 · 哈得 尔达 (Harald    Hardrada) 的支持，已在北方登陆。英国君主不得不令他 的军队往返奔袭，以御新敌。随后，一直在海峡待命、准备迎击诺曼人 的舰队遭遇暴风雨，粮草损失殆尽，被迫返港补给。

    就在这个时候，威廉渡过了海峡。在那时，敌军跨海登陆是每一个 将领的噩梦(现在也是如此)。诺曼人的船上，载着重装骑兵。他们之 擅长进攻，声名远扬。但是，1066年9月28日，在这场战役中，威廉大  军在苏塞克斯 (Sussex)  的佩文西湾(Pevensey)  登陆后，竟没有遇到  任何抵抗。因为此刻，英国海军在肯特 (Kent) 、 陆军在约克郡(Yorkshire),    正为他们击败托斯提戈和挪威人设宴庆功。

    哈罗德率领疲惫不堪的军队回兵南下，在苏塞克斯黑斯廷斯镇(Hastings)附近的森勒克山(Senlac  Hill)迎击威廉。甚至直到这一 刻，国王本来还是有机会取胜的。对盎格鲁——撒克逊民兵来说，最有效 的战术之一就是组成盾墙。哈罗德命令每一个士兵将风筝盾和紧邻的盾 牌联结在一起，形成一道牢不可破的防线，同时再密布下利剑与战斧。 面对如此强大的阵营，就算训练有素的战马也止步不前。但是，幸运之 神还是站在了入侵者一方。当威廉军队的左翼，即布列塔尼分支开始溃 退时，盎格鲁——撒克逊民兵打乱阵型，发起追击。盾墙解体，威廉看到 了机会。哈罗德的两个弟弟，利弗温 (Leofwine) 和裘斯(Gyrthe),战死沙场。哈罗德本人，按照传说的记载，也被箭射中眼睛跌下马来。 盎格鲁——撒克逊人群龙无首，溃不成军，四散逃窜。

    葛温森三兄弟的死，使英国人失去了角逐王座的机会。威廉从苏塞克斯和肯特长驱直入，一路接受南部残余贵族和主教的投降。当他的大军逼近伦敦，那里的政权已经同意臣服他的统治-     只要新王不捣毁这 座城市。于是，1066年圣诞节，在威斯敏斯特大教堂，威廉顺理成章地 加冕为威廉一世，正式成为英格兰国王。

    诺曼征服对于英国人来说，是一场大灾难。本地贵族，或被夺爵驱 遣，或被籍没财产。有些逃亡苏格兰，有些去了爱尔兰，也有部分流散 欧洲。很多人加入了为拜占庭帝国效命的雇佣军，组成一支精兵，也就 是我们后世所知的瓦兰吉卫队。有史料记载，这些流亡者在黑海海岸建 立了他们的定居点，并称其为“新英格兰”。

    与此同时，老英格兰被牢牢地攥在一只铁拳中。此前不多见的城堡 已在全国各地兴建起来，相当一部分一直矗立到今天，宏大壮美，雉蝶交错。它们的地理位置正彰显出冷酷的目的。因为修筑这些城堡不是为 防御外敌，而是对内镇压。从垛口中飞出的利箭，撕开了这些新近崛起 的庄园主和被击败的民族之间的裂缝。

    威廉镇压了北部蛮族人愤怒的起义，将这片边陲变成了一片无人区。随后，他开始了一个绝对君主的统治。到底有多绝对呢?这可以从若干年后他主持编制的国家财产目录中看出。毫无疑问，在威廉心目中，英格兰现在已经是他的囊中之物，想怎么处置就怎么处置。按照盎 格鲁编年史的记载：“他要求财产清查必须彻底执行，哪怕隐瞒了一寸土地——即使漏记了也是耻辱，但他做如此要求似乎倒毫无羞耻可言——甚至一头公牛，一头奶牛，或者一头猪，逃脱了他的调查都不允许。”

    调查成果汇成的大部头，就是我们所知的《末日审判书》2。在古  英语中，“末日审判”意味着“最终审判日”,也就是说，如果你在接受最 终审判时，胆敢向国王派出的官员隐瞒你的土地和牛群，那就是在欺骗 上帝。这部国家档案印制于威廉征服后的20年，从其字里行间，我们可 以看到英国本土被盘剥得如何彻底。

    威廉把几乎整个国家都分赐给了他的雇佣军和忠实臣下。最少92% 的英格兰土地属于出生于海峡那边的人所有，超过200名大地主直接从国王那里获得土地，其中只有两个是盎格鲁——撒克逊人：阿尔丁的索克 尔 (Thorkell)   和林肯的考斯文 (Colswein)。

    在市镇以外的地区，大多数英国人是他们所属的庄园领主的臣民。 当新贵族安顿下来开始享受他们的特权以后，法律面前人人平等逐渐被 淡忘。按照新法，农人们被要求在领主的封地上劳作，没有领主的许可 不得离开。在市镇之间的宽广空间，大约有8%的人口居住在450个(实 际可能更多)实行大陆式农奴制的定居地上。

    如果按照标准的定义，英国性如今已变成贫困和屈服联姻的产物。 人性所使，一些盎格鲁——撒克逊人，尤其是伦敦商人，开始有意识地藏 起他们的英吉利身份，以便跻身上层社会。他们的口音带上了法国腔， 逢人便称“先生”,引得原先的诺曼领主厌恶不已。

    想攀高枝儿的不限于城里人。历史学者彼得 · 阿克罗伊德(Peter Ackroyd)  记载，1114年的某个农庄里，农人的登记簿上尽是些叫索朗 (Soen) 、雷诺(Rainald) 、 阿尔菲 (Ailwin) 、莱 马(Lemar) 、戈德温 (Godwin) 、 奥德里克 (Ordric) 、 阿尔里克 (Alric) 、 萨洛依(Saroi) 、 阿尔维特 (Ulviet) 、 阿尔菲斯 (Ulfac)   一类的名字。到这 个世纪末，这些名字全都消失了。

    在一个只有名叫罗格、罗伯特或理查德才可能变得有权有钱的社会 里，盎格鲁——撒克逊人中间流行诺曼名字自然不让人奇怪。12世纪，惠 特比市有个男孩因为老是受欺负，干脆把自己的名字从托斯提戈改成了 威廉。

    而那些古英国名字，只有五个幸存了下来：阿尔弗雷德  (Alfred) 、 埃德加 (Edgar) 、 埃德温 (Edwin) 、 艾德蒙得(Edmund),     以及惟一一个至今依然很流行的(大概是因为对老国王 的崇拜，诺曼人也这么称呼自己),爱德华(Edward)。

    英国人战败的地位，从肉类的词汇表中也可见一斑。说英语的农夫 用最质朴的撒克逊语招呼家畜：牛(cow),  猪 (pig),  羊(sheep) 。 但这些动物一旦成了他们诺曼领主的盘中餐时，便纷纷换 上了法语词源的新名字：牛肉(beef), 猪 肉(pork),  羊肉(mutton)。

    此外，由诺曼人引入的政治词汇还能告诉你更多…..“贤人会议”“群众大会”以及“习惯权利”等词语渐渐绝迹，新涌现出来的是“敬意”“效忠”以及“封臣”“佃农”和“农奴”。朝向个人自由、契约自由以及平 等地适用普通法的进程被阻断了，用12世纪早期编年史作家奥代里克 ·  塔维利斯 (Orderic Vitalis)的话来说：“英国人高声哀叹他们失去的自 由，不断谋划怎么撼动这个如此严苛、忍无可忍的枷锁。”

    砸碎诺曼枷锁的想法激励着后代英国人与斯图亚特王朝展开斗争， 后来又在北美爱国者们将英吉利自由推向极致的革命中复活。

    虽然我们认为这样的斗争是进步的，但那个时代的推动者却视他们 自己为保守主义者。在他们的心目中，他们想要恢复他们所信奉的1066 年前就已经存在于这片土地上的权利。他们使用“革命”这个词时，想要表达的是，车轮总在转动，那些被推上歧路的，最终会重回正途。此外，他们还特别强调一点：他们不懈捍卫的权利和自由，早在诺曼时代 之前，便已扎下了根。

    我们权利的根基

    瞥一眼11世纪末的英格兰，不难发现这个国家正处于军事占领之下。跟随征服者一同而来的骑士和文人，深知他们的统治有多依赖军事 技术。他们很快在征服地上遍筑城寨(就是用泥土、岩石和木头建成的 防御性要塞),后来更是升级为巨大石块叠筑的堡垒，坚固俊美，矗立 至今。和所有的占领区要塞一样，诺曼人的统治依靠的是被占区少数人 的积极配合，以及大多数人的消极默许。

    盎格鲁——撒克逊英格兰之花凋谢了，但它的根还在，深深扎进这片 潮湿的土地。伯爵、乡绅以及侍卫，作为一个阶级已不复存在；但在各 省，全欧最先进的行政管理机制依然默默运转。

    各级地方的古老单位——郡、百户区、小邑、教区——大部分都完 整地保留下来，依然运作如常。当地贤达在郡法庭的集会一如既往地召 开，决定财政方案，处理本地纠纷，基本不受盎格鲁——撒克逊上层阶级 被掏空的影响，因为对他们而言，这从来都不是权贵的集会。哪怕只有 一亩三分地的人也会参加会议，这带来了郡理事会在当时的欧陆所达不 到的代表性。

    征收丹麦金和其他赋税的机制推行得比较平稳，“十户联保制”也在 持续生效。依此法律规定，成年男子须发誓维护乡村治安，他们每十人 编为一组，一人违例，十人共担。

    尽管《末日审判书》显示盎格鲁——撒克逊的地产保有者们大多遭到 了清洗，但在财产登记簿上，仍有大量英国本土姓名的行政官员和城里 人。在威廉新特权阶层的阴影下，市镇官僚阶层正埋头打理各种闷声发 大财的生意。

    这些事情没有一样能使我们感到震惊。完成征服以后，诺曼人和他们的欧洲盟友在数量上大约有8000人。如果不通过原先已经在任的官员，从里夫长到教区牧师，他们几乎绝无可能管理这样一个人口超过百 万的国家。

    同时代人(比如历史学家)很自然地关注改变更甚于延续。因为各 种变化总是与时而进，紧张刺激，并且常常是血腥残酷的。而时代的延 续，则往往默默无闻，藏于乡土，充满了按部就班的沉闷。

    贤人会议让位于诺曼贵族的资政会，后者的主要职责在于恭维他们 的君主。议会是为整个国家而不仅仅是国王代言的观念已经丧失了，更 不要说什么批准国王的命令或者给他施加约束条件云云。但是，在表层 之下，郡和百户区法院仍在一个接一个的案件审理中推进着普通法的形 成。最终，到亨利二世一朝，普通法成为全国性法律，它的基本要素(包括陪审团审判制)得到了中央政府的承认。

    诺曼国王原本把自己视为绝对君主，可以随心所欲地处置王国内每一寸土地，但是，他们不能剪灭法律乃国家之财产、个人之护卫的观念，也不能消除重大决定须经民众大会批准的原则。

    涌动于地下的暗流，分布在各省的小河，最终汇聚成冲决王室绝对 主义堤坝的大水。威廉征服一个半世纪以后，诺曼人和撒克逊人联合起 来，向约翰王施压。他们组建了议会，支持约翰的儿子亨利三世。他们 还不只满足于恢复记忆中的贤人会议，事实上，他们组建的全国性议会 超越了在征服之前的地方性老议会。

    要是诺曼人把自己视为一支独立的种族，这样的事情或许就不会发 生了。但是，从12世纪早期开始，可以看到，大贵族们所做的正是几乎 所有外来统治者都会做的事，他们接受了融入新国家的身份。(我不想 在此重复我个人同样的例子：从我的母国秘鲁移民到英国。同样的过程 在不同国家、各个时代都可以看到。)

    这种新的自我认定，部分反映出联姻和通婚的事实，部分源自诺曼 人的家族在英格兰和诺曼底两岸分割地产——英伦岛上的继承人逐渐丧失了对岸的土地。还有部分原因，是他们为本地具有的成熟精巧的文明 所折服。诺曼历史学家当然会讲法语，但他们的兴趣集中在英格兰而非盎格鲁——诺曼帝国的历史。马姆斯伯里的威廉³重述了不列颠岛自撒克  逊人移入以来的历史，吉马的《英国人的历史》4很大程度上是一部盎格鲁——撒克逊编年史的法文版，甚至那些教会领袖——他们是几乎所有 人眼中的外国人——也迅速地接受了盎格鲁——撒克逊圣徒的各种传奇故事。

    诺曼人对新岛的兴趣，还集中于英国人管理自身事务的独特方式上，比如：他们如何驯化法律体系，契约神圣，以及在诺曼人看来同样重要的，他们如何组建、召开国家政务会。

    英国性与普通法、代议制政府的结合，远远早于《大宪章》之成。 1140年前后，英国出现了一部所谓“忏悔者爱德华的法律”,这是自诺曼 征服四年后收集的老国王爱德华制定的法律的汇编集。如果你认为，这 样的法典编撰事实上并不存在，不妨再想一想“古代良法”或者“不朽习惯”的理念。——而这正是英国政治的核心。根据该书作者的记载，征服者威廉于1070年召集全国的博学之士编制条例法。威廉的这一要求， 不啻是盎格鲁——撒克逊经验的复兴，还是对亚瑟王时代就已经有的每年一度的民众大会的恢复——从那个时代开始，亚瑟王就已经被认为是历史人物了。

    如今，这些事情已经可望而不可即了。它告诉我们12世纪的英国人 如何看待自己的国家。据说，后世历史学家，尤其是19世纪的学者，往 往会将英国中世纪早期的原始民主因素浪漫化。一定程度上，他们有这 个倾向。然而，他们这样做不正是抓住了古老传统的命脉么?!

    无论如何，一个国家美化自己的过去，本身无可厚非。欧内斯特 ·  勒南 (Ernest IRenan)  就说：“唯有塑造不真实的历史，国家方能形成。”英国之所以能成为例外，不是因为人种优越、军事强大或者岛国地理，而是由其法律、自由以及代议制所决定的。

    1204年，法国国王吞并诺曼底，将公爵领地纳入皇家资产，贵族们 的决定时刻到来了。英国上层阶级不能再自视为可以兼跨海峡的贵族集 团了；尽管他们的语言、音乐、诗文、穿着都保持着法式风格，但其政 治倾向转变了。

    只要诺曼底继续维持强大的自治状态，那么,依旧有可能作为盎格 鲁一诺曼王国不可撼动的一部分。威廉和他的儿子们早已习惯大部分时 间都待在那里，他的孙子亨利二世，在位34年11个月，有整整21年8个  月的时间耗在海峡那头，占了执政时期的63%。

    然而，到1204年，诺曼底被法国王室占有，只剩加来 (Calais,   保留在英国手中直到1558年)和海峡群岛(作为诺曼底公爵而非公爵夫人的领地，至今仍承认英女王的统治权)两块地方为英国君主所占领。一国两岸不复存在，毋宁说，现在变成了一个英吉利王国，再加上一小块近海自治区。

    与先祖之国的联系切断了，盎格鲁一诺曼寡头国王被抛回到他们所出生的国家。然而，盎格鲁——撒克逊身份对他们而言，却是完全陌生的。约翰王早就向外国趣味尤其是从他母亲那继承来的法国南部口味投降了。他们说欧西坦语 (Occitan), 而不是诺曼——法语。无论富豪，还是草根，都不肯承认他们。就像最经常看到的那样，外国人的出现只会 增强本地人互守的家族意识。在维护《大宪章》的贵族中，我们能找到 不少当年追随征服者而来的军官后代：克莱尔 (Clare) 、比戈德(Bigod) 、 曼德维尔 (Mandeville) 、 维勒尔 (Vere) 、费茨沃特(Fitz Walter)。对约翰王的反抗，对金雀花王朝的憎恶，把他们变成了英国人。在这里，我们再次看到盎格鲁价值的公民属性战胜了它的种 族特性，在适宜的环境下扎根于全体民众心中。

    实在不受人待见的约翰王无疑提供了这样的环境。很难想象还有比 他更不成功的英国君主。唯一能与之一争高下的当属亨利二世了，同样 成功地以出奇的固执、急躁和喜怒无常(此可集合为弱者之标志也)使得举国上下一体反对他。这两位国王之糟糕，可谓天定：若他俩哪怕再 稍微可信一点，再少那么一丝嚣张，那随之而来的令人可喜的宪法改革 也许都不会在其治下发生。

    约翰是一个招人恨和怕的人，矮小，害羞，自负，背信，专断，他被疑下令杀害了亲侄阿瑟王子。当他死时，历史学者马修 · 帕里斯(Matthew Paris) 写道，“如此卑劣，连地狱都被约翰王的恶污染了”。他的教名，尽管是这个国家后来若干世纪最常见的男孩名儿，从此不再被英国君主使用。

    约翰在位时期(1199—1216),英格兰爆发了一系列灾难，首当其 冲的就是丧失诺曼底。1209年，约翰与教会的冲突达到白热化，以致教 皇对整个国家实行了封锁。英格兰不得举行任何宗教仪式，甚至连婚礼 和葬礼都被取消了。两年后，被逐出教会、宣告失败的约翰来了个180度大转弯，将他的两个王国(英格兰和爱尔兰，后者是由其父征服而获取的)拱手交给教皇，并以每年一千马克的代价回租。

    如我们再三所见，征税在盎格鲁圈永远不受欢迎，然而，它又因君 主的虚荣与无能成为必需。1214年，当法国人开拔一支盎格鲁一日耳曼 军队，收税成了压死骆驼的最后一根稻草。

    男爵们对于国王肆无忌惮的征税与掠夺痛恨不已，他们提出的忠告 也被一口回绝，此外，他们还对国王专美外国宠臣耿耿于怀。这一切， 最终把他们推向了国王的对立面。他们从一开始起就把自己定位为英国 人，在关键时刻，更是比英国人还英国人。这一回，他们毫不含糊地回 到了英人的老路要求统治者对国家负责。

    1215年6月15日，在温莎堡附近，发生了真正具有全球意义的事件。政府应服从法律的理念第一次有了书面的、合约的形式。国王在一 份文件上盖了章，从那天起，它就被视为了盎格鲁式自由的基本宪章。

    这就是《大宪章》。

    大宪章

    1647年8月的伦敦，深陷紧张与恐慌。英国内战几乎榨干了整个国  家，把民众打回到石器时代。虽然国会取得了胜利，但有一点也变得越 来越清楚：这个国家的实权掌握在军队手里，就是那支打败了国王查理 一世的新模范军。此刻，士兵们正向首都挺进，没领到半文军饷，一路 怒气冲冲。

    国会为了表示姿态，任命模范军司令托马斯 · 费尔法克斯 (Sir Thomas Fairfax) 担任伦敦塔的巡警官。这位议会中的圆头党领袖上任 后做出的第一个动作足以让人振奋，他要求将伦敦塔的镇塔之宝带到他 面前。不是皇冠，不是王杖，正是那张早已干透的羊皮纸，上面的拉丁 文字迹已很难辨认。

    “这就是我们为之英勇奋战的，”费尔法克斯虔诚地说，“也是我们 必须继续维护的，愿上帝帮助我们。”

    费尔法克斯对《大宪章》的态度绝不是特例。英语民族的每一代人 都将《大宪章》视为他们的《圣经》,制作抄本分存各处。18世纪，激 进的国会议员约翰·威克斯 (John Wilkes) 也曾被关押于这座塔中。在 狱中，他写道，《大宪章》正是“全体英国人最突出的特征”。他把美国 人也算进有此资格的主体中，坚决支持他们维护自身的权利。因为疾恶 如仇的性格，他一反常态地将苏格兰人排除在外，认为苏格兰人都是专 制主义者和托利党人。英国20世纪最杰出的法学家丹宁勋爵，曾经这样 评价《大宪章》:它是“所有时代最伟大的宪法文件，是个人反对专制  政权、赢得自由的基石”。

    从13世纪幸存下来的少量《大宪章》抄本，如今绝大多数都被供奉 在英国天主教堂中，就像在宗教改革中被移出的圣骸。有一个抄本现在保存于堪培拉的澳大利亚议会大厦。另一个抄本高悬于华盛顿国家档案馆的大厅，紧邻《独立宣言》。如果我们想瞻仰形成盎格鲁圈的奠基性 文件，不妨去这些地方看看。

    如果你第一次拜读文件的内容，多半会感到匪夷所思。看到起草者 们在《大宪章》中规定如何处置威尔士人质、如何向犹太人借钱以及如 何在泰晤士河设下鱼梁，别提有多搞笑了。

    《大宪章》一直是不列颠法令全书的一部分，在此过程中，其绝大 部分条款在19世纪时废弃了。这段时期，英国清理了成百上千件古代和 中世纪法，只剩下三个条款至今仍然有效。

    那么,为什么只要讲英语处《大宪章》皆能享有尊荣的地位?是什 么使它如此与众不同?起码有一点可以确定，那就是，在不列颠法令全 书中保留下来的三个条款绝不是可有可无的：其一，不得侵犯教会自由；其二，伦敦城以及其他城市、市镇均保有其旧有之自由；其三，也 是最重要的，即第29条，是我们今日所理解的正当程序的基础。

    任何自由人，如未经其同级贵族之依法裁判，或经国法判决，皆不得被逮 捕，监禁，没收财产，剥夺法律保护权，流放，或加以任何其他损害。

    请再次注意“国法”一词。国法指的是哪些法?很明显，不是国王的 法令，因国王在这里正是要同意接受国法的制约的，也不是聚集在国王 身边、在《大宪章》上盖章的那些主教和贵族，他们也同样要发誓遵守 这些比他们更大的东西。被《大宪章》奉若神明的、不惜以明文形式规 定下来的，正是这个国家中最高的权力。这种最高权力，不是行政权， 而是一套确定的法律原则；并且，行政权若与之冲突，则法律高于政府。

    正如18世纪法学家威廉·布莱克斯通 (William Blackstone) 在解释这一条款时所说：
    既然在英格兰，法律是每个人生命、自由和财产的最高裁判者，那么，法院就必须在任何时候都要服从法律，由此，法律才能被执行。普通法依靠的不 是哪个法官的个人意志，它本身就是永恒的，确定的，不可更移的，除非被国 会修改或废止。

    可以说，布莱克斯通和洛克一样，也是美国革命的教父。他的巨著 《英格兰法释义》 (Commentaries  on  the  Laws  of  England) 被称为继 《圣经》之后十三个殖民地拥有读者量最多的书，每个律师都在自己的 公事包里备了一本。事实上，北美对《大宪章》的热情始终比英国人更 高(扬基佬在那时候就和现在一样，喜欢把《大宪章》这个词当做一个 特定名词)。

    《大宪章》加盖王室印章的地方靠近兰尼美德(Runnymede),  正 好在我的选区内。此地一直很不起眼，直到1957年美国律师协会在这里 建造了一座《大宪章》纪念碑。碑上的献词，正是给每一个想问为什么 我们今天还要对八百年前国王和贵族之间签订的这个协议如此小题大做 的人的答案：“纪念《大宪章》,法律下的自由的象征。”

    2012年，美国电视节目主持人大卫 ·莱特曼(David   Letterman) 在一 期娱乐节目中采访了英国时任首相戴维 ·卡梅伦。节目中，卡梅伦不知道《大宪章》的英语(常用的Magna   Carta是拉丁语)怎么说(温斯顿 · 丘吉尔曾经在下院为“在场的老伊顿公学校友们”翻译过《大宪章》的拉  丁文版),首相的美国观众们则明显比他熟悉得多。这也没什么好奇怪  的，因为美国本身就建立在最纯粹最正统的盎格鲁政治原则之上，人们  当然对宣示这些原则的第一份书面申明情有独钟了。

    我带着孩子们去林肯大教堂参观现存于世的四份《大宪章》手抄本 中的一份，那里既不热闹也无需排队。但就是这份《大宪章》手抄本于 1939年在纽约巡展时，有1400万人涌来一睹真迹。第二次世界大战爆发时，这份羊皮纸抄本还在美国，一直被安然无恙地保存在福特诺克斯堡 避难直至1945年。它不愧是我们能想见的英语国家为之浴血奋战的最为 贴切的象征。

    美国自初建之始，便何其幸运。第一个定居点落成时，正值英国国 内的宪章运动达到最高峰。17世纪头三十年间，殖民先驱们在弗吉尼亚 和新英格兰开基立业，英国国会议员和律师们正公开发表反对斯图亚特 王朝的宣言，他们自认享有与当年举国上下反对约翰王同样的特权。

    在爱德华·柯克爵士 (Sir Edward Coke,这个姓在英语中听上去 像“厨师”)这位杰出的法学家及议会领袖的领导下，议员们提出，新王 朝破坏了“古代宪法”。国王詹姆斯一世以及他的儿子查理一世(更是变 本加厉)被控任意加税，解散国会，侵犯法治。在对国王的控诉中，议 会权力的支持者明确地将他们的事业与前代人反对王权的运动联系在一 起。他们扫荡了图书馆，遍寻可以支持他们对“古代宪法”解释的中世纪 文献。几乎每一次，他们都发现自己又回到了《大宪章》。

    而在那些动荡的年月，跨过大西洋的英国人与柯克爵士的观点相当 合拍，因为他们这些人本身正来自最同情激进派的地区。尤其是在清教 徒中，支持议会至上的呼声最为强烈。从地理分布上，这些人集中来自 英格兰东南部和东部沿岸(柯克本人就来自诺福克郡，这是英国东部地 广人稀、平坦开阔的新教地区)。第一代北美人，尤其定居新英格兰的 那批移民，大多都来自这一地区。

    他们来到新世界，敏锐地意识到自身的权利也如英国人一样与生俱 来。在起草殖民地宪章(最为有名的，比如《马萨诸塞自由宪章》)的 过程中，他们有意识地使用《大宪章》的语句。1638年，马里兰获得许 可，承认《大宪章》是本省法律的一部分。最早的弗吉尼亚宪章诞生于 1606年，基本上就是由柯克本人负责起草的。

    早在1687年，北美大陆就首次印行了《大宪章》副本。该副本收录 于威廉 ·佩恩(William Penn)所著的《论自由与财产权之优越性：作为生而自由的英国臣民的天赋权利》 (The  Excellent  Privilege  of  Liberty and Property:being the birth-right of the Free-Born Subjects of England)一书。威廉 ·佩恩是宾夕法尼亚殖民地的创始人，他毫不怀疑正是《大 宪章》将英语民族和世界上其他国家区别开来。

    在其他国家，法律仅仅是国王的意志。君主一言，可叫人头落地，税率高 涨，或者原属某人的土地一夜间充公。而在英国，每个人都有一套与生俱来的、确定的基本权利，尤其是人身自由和属于他所有的财产。非经他本人同 意，或因犯罪而接受法律的惩处，这些权利不可剥夺。

    当然，英国人和美国人对于《大宪章》的理解，也存在一些细微的 差异。英国的宪法理论倾向于议会主权，由此，《大宪章》的意义更多 地被认为催生了代议制政府。相反，在殖民地，对于《大宪章》的认识 则与成文契约关联在一起，因此，它被认为同时居于议会和王室之上， 这一信仰后来导致了美国宪法的诞生。

    有一点需要解释一下，美国爱国者并没有提出什么受《大宪章》精 神启发而产生的新理念。他们将这一文本本身视为其所继承的遗产的一 部分，所以，当他们意识到乔治三世侵犯了这份遗产时，便毫不犹豫地 拿起武器来保卫它。

    那些提出“无代表不纳税”观点的小册子作家也没有宣布什么自然的 或者普世的原理，毋宁说，它就是作家们的先辈横渡大西洋所带来的自 古习得的古代宪法的一部分。《大宪章》第12条便是它的出处：“设无  全国公意许可，将不征收任何免役税与贡金。”

    1774年第一届大陆会议上，代表们明确地将他们的行动和兰尼美德 的贵族、英国内战中的议会派联系在一起。会议宣言痛陈的殖民地所受 苦难正与《大宪章》所载如出一辙：“每一殖民地都有权适用英国普通  法，尤其是依照法律，由近邻之同辈审理的宝贵权利。”乔治国王的行政班底侵犯了这样的祖传权利，违反了“英国宪法”,会议代表被迫起而 反抗君主，“就像英国人的祖先为捍卫他们的权利和自由所做的那样”。

    1775年，马萨诸塞州采用了一位一手拿《大宪章》、一手持剑的爱 国者的形象作为该州印章的图案。

    独立以后，《大宪章》的精神和语言被保留在美国宪法尤其是权利 法案当中。第五修正案就是对《大宪章》第29条的回应：“未经法律的  正当程序，任何人不得被剥夺生命、自由或财产。”

    《大宪章》或许没有正式出现在美国的法令全书中，但它被最高法 院引用已过百次之多。

    1937年，富兰克林 ·罗斯福总统破坏宪法的作为引起了得克萨斯法学家哈顿·萨姆纳斯 (Hatton    Sumners) 的警惕，他为此发表了一篇有关 美国宪法理论的真挚恳切的声明。他说：
    有一条笔直的路，从兰尼美德通向费城。我们的宪法条文不是从英国宪法 中“借”来的，它们源于人民；这些条文就是我们自己的，先辈们浴血奋战，为 之付出了生命的代价。我无需再重复这一事实。我要告诉你们，我们的宪法来 自一个懂得自我管理的民族共同体。但是，如果它得不到实施，我们将失去这 一能力。

    宣布《大宪章》在17世纪“复活”了，是一个相当流行的做法。这份 文件在各类完全无关的宪法讨论中被频繁地拉出来作为某种证据。然而，除了作为一个走投无路的国王和来势汹汹的贵族们的城下之盟(而 且这桩交易但得国王能摆脱它时便被抛弃),我们看不出还有什么别的 意义。不少历史学家至今仍是这么做的，因为他们不敢表达那些看起来 可能会为沾沾自喜的、时间错位的或者是辉格党式的历史观“背黑锅”的 观点。

    然而，《大宪章》在整个中世纪不断被引用的顽强的历史恰恰印证了辉格党历史学者后来所表达的观点：它是反对专制政府侵犯个人自由 的防护栏。爱德华一世治下饱受苛税之苦的臣民抓住了它，迫使专断的 君主在1297年重新发布这一宪章。14世纪贵族和议会监督政府的斗争中 也不断引用它。1369年，同样专断的国王爱德华三世颁布了一部条文法，宣布《大宪章》具有宪法效力，其他所有法律皆在《大宪章》之 下：“任何条文法若与《大宪章》相悖，皆宣告无效。”

    到15世纪为止，《大宪章》为历代国王重颁不下40次。爱德华 ·柯  克勋爵曾在故纸堆中发现了一个《大宪章》副本，就此认定该副本乃是 秉承《大宪章》最早立意的“镜像”。这种看法显然忽视了宪章颁布四个 世纪以来历经的种种变化，也遗漏了《大宪章》在实践中产生的直接后 果，即它建立起了一个旨在谈判中钳制君主的选举式议会。

    重开议会

    缺乏执行机制的宪章只是一纸空文。这一点似乎显而易见，但要真 正理解，却何其困难。我们这个时代见证了太多国内、国际的人权公约 和人权宣言。在这些公约和宣言的实施过程中，权力大多从选举产生的 代表手中转移到不计其数的行政官员和法官手中，最终，我们得到的自 由大打折扣。然而，如果不对人权原则采取不温不火的态度，我至今仍 找不到得出这一结论的方法。

    应当说，在《欧洲人权公约》或者欧盟《基本权利与自由宪章》中 确立的准则，与东德或者苏联宪法所承诺的并没有什么区别，比如言论 自由、集会自由，等等。但是，东德或苏联的公民们都清楚，缺乏民主 的监督机制，这些纸上的权利什么价值都没有。在盎格鲁圈，权利传统 上是和代表机关联系在一起的-     这样的联系可以在《大宪章》中找到 源头，而由此开启的时代又延续了这样的联系。

    《大宪章》差一点没能加盖上国王的印玺，因为约翰王在签署后随 即又反悔了，直接将英国推入内战。但是，正当战事陷入僵局，这遭天 谴的国王终于为他的国家做了件好事：死得早不如死得巧。1216年10月，约翰死于纽瓦克城堡(几乎可以确信的死因是痢疾，但也有史料说 是因为国王吃桃太多)。

    他9岁的儿子亨利三世，戴上了王冠。真是英国之幸，新王的母亲 完全没兴趣管她的幼子，权力转移到了贵族组成的御前会议手中。我们 可以看到御前会议数度集议的记录(差不多从13世纪30年代开始，该御 前会议就被称为议会了):设置税率，通过法律，讨论对外政策，以及 提名各公共职位的候选人。简而言之，即便御前议会的代表构成与今天 的不一样，该组织从功能上也与我们现在的议会并无二致。

    按照现代标准来衡量，这些议会有什么不同寻常之处吗?有一点是 千真万确的，当时的欧洲各国，也有不少大地产主和类似的咨询会议， 其中部分来自王室章程的授权。但是英国议会确实非常特殊。因为英国 议会不是君主意志的产物，而恰恰正是高于君主的，也就是法的裁判者 与保护人，它的法律地位、代表性以及权威性非常独特。

    1227年，一位法国写信人对法国和英国统治者的权力作了一番比较。他写道，如果法国国王想要发动战争的话，那么,他只需要去问两 个人：他的首席顾问和王宫总管。但是，如果英国国王想这么干，他就 得对付一个机构俨然的咨询会议中的一大帮顾问了。这就是后来的约翰 ·福蒂斯丘爵士 (Sir John Fortescue)在1470年前后所定义的英国“公共 及王室政府”与窄得多的法国“王室政府”的早期版本。

    亨利三世幼年统治时期非常关键，因为它建立起了《大宪章》所构 想的议会制政府的具体模式。但凡约翰能再活久些，《大宪章》的诸多 理想恐都难实现了。在中世纪，谦卑的国王是稀有动物：只要是扔给他 的，很少有人不挥舞起这权力大棒。摄政王代表了权力分散的独特机会，这是靠贵族们在兰尼美德的胜利所赢得的，英国贵族抓住了它。

    果真如此——一俟成年，亨利三世这个妄自尊大又摇摆不定的人， 立刻开始挣脱议会的束缚。他一次又一次违反《大宪章》的规定和精神，干扰普通法，无视御前会议，搜刮民脂，并且和他父亲一样，量宫 廷之物力，结法国南部和其他外国“友邦”之欢心。

    然而，当时的英国政治阶层已经具备了应战的第一手经验。经过同 意的、合议制的政府概念已经不再仅仅是纸上画饼，它有了新鲜的回忆。绝对君主制的反对者对他们所追求的目标有了一个清晰的理念，那 就是，存在着某些高于国王职能的形式上的权力。并且，他们掌握着实 现这一目标的机制：对国家钱袋子的控制。

    正如在之后那样，在13世纪，国王和议会的短兵相接也主要集中于 财政问题。亨利三世总是求钱若渴。他再三想要夺回父亲丢掉的法国领地，不惜耗费巨资兴建忏悔者爱德华的神龛，因他将其奉为本家族的创 始人。他还想为次子埃德蒙买下西西里的王冠。同时，他生性夸张浮华，无论是其个人生活方式，还是他认为对于君主而言，慷慨奢华就是 最合适的方式。他兴建了伦敦第一个动物园，有一头大象，一只犀牛， 一只在泰晤士河游泳的北极熊，还有狮子(参观者被要求给狮子带只猫 或狗来以作为门票)。

    按当时的标准，上述种种烧钱的项目，可称得上天文数字：1242年，远征普瓦图 (Poitou)，8万英镑；1253年，另一场对加斯科尼(Gascony) 的冒险，3.6万英镑；建忏悔者爱德华陵，扩建威斯敏斯特大教堂，4.5万英镑；购买教皇的债权，以换取教宗支持埃德蒙成为西西里王位候选人，9万英镑。议会当然不情愿批准这些开销。要想议会  同意，除非能有所回报。举例来说，1225年，大御前会议通过了国王可 对移动货物征收十五分之一的税金以作为对法作战的军费，条件是国王 需重新颁布《大宪章》。这次交易(花了一周以上的时间)确立了以后 若干世纪得以延续的模式，即，行政部门要求某项经费，立法机关会相 应提出某个议题，最终立法机关批准此项经费，但由此带来的负担需得 到补偿。

    在亨利三世统治时期，这样的负担真是五花八门，因为国王既无视 议会，也不拿《大宪章》当回事。“以国王的意志”肆意征收，皇室颁布 的永久性章程被推翻，继承人流亡于封地之外，女继承人为了王室利益 结婚，为提高财政收入的各种苛捐杂税和强行摊派师出无名。

    议会的支持者想方设法，终于为他们的机构争得了官方地位，一个 贵族组成的永久性咨议会最终确立，并在对外事务、皇室任命及大政方 针等问题上享有正式发言权。与此同时，议会开始定期召开，逐渐将地 点固定在威斯敏斯特。

    国王起初迎合这些改变，是急于从国会那获得直接征税权。但是， 在1261年，因为有了教皇做靠山，国王寻求再次显示他的权力，发动了内战。议会改革派在亨利三世的妹夫——法国人西蒙 ·蒙特福特的领导  下，打败了皇家军，生擒了威尔士王子(也就是后来的爱德华一世)。 蒙特福特后来被历史学家热情洋溢地称为“英国爱国者”,他的塑像也被 敬奉在美国众议院。1265年，蒙特福特在威斯敏斯特召集议会。

    历史学家传统上将这次会议视为在同一地点召开至今的议会的起点。“蒙特福特议会”与此前所有会议的不同之处在于，蒙特福特邀请每 个郡派出两名“谨慎且合法的”骑士，主要市镇派出两名自由民。比起当 时的欧洲，尤其特别的是，他还要求上述代表通过直接选举产生。用今 天的话来说，就是选举向每一个自由有产者开放，直到两百年以后，议 会才设定了一个纳税门槛来限制选举权。

    历史极少能提供泾渭分明的起点和终点。骑士们以前就参加议会， 所以入座也理所当然；自由民则是偶尔会加入进来。从那时开始，议会 就各种干扰不断。蒙特福特后来输掉了内战，战死疆场。直到1275年， 骑士和自由民才开始在威斯敏斯特碰面；而到1295年，他们的会期也逐 渐被认可为常规性的。1320年以后，骑士和自由民在议会有了单独的席 位，他们与领主和主教分席而坐。再后，因为1489年一个司法判决，确 立了法律必须经两院而不仅仅是上院通过的规则。

    至此以后，下议院(就像今天所称的那样)的地位不再晦暗不明。 但也有很长一段时期，根本没有议会议员。这种情况甚至一直延续到17 世纪：查理一世在1629年到1640年期间，实行了无议会统治。要不是他 需要财政支持他讨伐苏格兰，他完全可以彻底取消议会了。下议院高于 上议院的优势地位尽管实践中早成惯例，却要到1911年才经法律得以确 认。

    我们也不要以为议会代表性的不断增长是一帆风顺的事。地理区域 的改变与选区的改划相结合，使得选举权既可扩大，也可能缩水。按照 某一标准，1832年《选举改革法》通过前夕，下院所拥有的代表规模甚 至比5个世纪前的还小。有一些“衰败选区”,那里人口锐减，只剩下不足百人有选民资格。还有一些“口袋选区”,本地大佬，或者更多时候就 是现政府，即可操纵议员的提名。然而，不管出于什么动机或者目的， 一些新兴的工业市镇却无权选派代表。直到1918年，全体成年男子才获 得普选权；1928年，这一权利扩展至全体成年女性。

    无论如何，西蒙 ·蒙特福特都可称得上“议会之父”。如果说上院诞  生于兰尼美德，那么,下院则脱胎于半个世纪之后的蒙特福特在威斯敏 斯特召集骑士和自由民的选举。各郡和自治市分别产生代表的模式一直 延续到19世纪。下院的基本功能——批准职官人选，讨论国家大政，以 及最重要的，控制国家的钱袋子-     在近8个世纪以来基本不受干扰地  得到了实现。

    才华横溢的保守党议员因诺克 ·鲍威尔 (Enoch Powell)   曾经写道：“在这个国家，议会是一个充满魔力、代表权力的词语。”英格兰议 会不是世界上最古老的议会。冰岛在公元930年建立了联合大会(Althingi),但它的存在有过中断。马恩岛议会(Tynwald) 自970年 创建以后，从未中断。

    英国(也就是后来的大不列颠、现在的联合王国)议会的特别之处，在于其合法性及由此带来的权威性。这个国家中几乎所有重大的宪法事件——约翰王和亨利三世统治时期的内战、废黜爱德华二世和理查二世、宗教改革、英国内战、光荣革命及联合法案      最后都变为了议 会事件。

    从20世纪60年代开始，鲍威尔试图阐明英国性的特质。他正纠结于 英帝国在那一时期的终结。作为一个狂热的帝国支持者，鲍威尔和他那 个时代的其他英国人一样，从来都把自己(至少部分是)看作一个帝国 公民。随着各殖民地纷纷独立，他越发热切地渴望为英国的民族意识找 到一种更持久牢靠的外部形势，为此甚至把触角伸进英语民族迈向大海 前的若干年代。然而，当他找到了英国性的本质时，却发现，这份天赐 之礼正是讲英语者漂洋过海一路携带并最终成为整个盎格鲁圈共同财富的议会政体。

    在1961年的圣 · 乔治日，鲍威尔发表了一篇演讲，想象英国人在历  经漂泊与征战后，返回故乡，找到自身民族性的秘密。这篇演讲辞值得长篇引用，不光因其优美的韵律，更主要还在于它阐明了英格兰——后来是英联邦、再后是整个盎格鲁圈国家——议会的独特地位。

    重返时光之旅，我们的目光越过18世纪的近卫军和哲学家，越过17世纪的 民兵和牧师，穿过伊丽莎白女王开启的艰苦的海外探险的岁月和都铎王朝的物 质匮乏时期，最后，我们在那些乡村小教堂的朝东的石质中棂窗户下，在精美 装饰的祷告堂拱顶下，找到了他们。

    他们的目光，从黄铜制品和石雕板及雕塑和石膏线条后面注视着我们；我们亦望见他们，仿佛从他们的沉默中得到了答案：“告诉我们是什么把我们团结在一起，给我们看看这穿越千年的线索；告诉我们这无忧无虑的英格兰生活的秘密，以及在我们的时代怎样才能学会最快地掌握它。”他们会诉说什么?

    他们会用我们自己的语言来向我们倾诉。这语言隐秘道出真理，它的旋律汇成歌谣，萦绕不去，有如春日的忧伤。他们会向我们诉说这片阔大的土地， 一年四季，气候各有精彩，会堂、村舍、教堂，那是他们的家园。刺李花开随风扬，昔去落满古人头；人生代代无穷已，今来年年吹如雪。他们会向我们诉说英格兰的河网山涧、丘陵台地、白崖岛岸。

    无论兰开斯特人还是约克党派，乡绅或领主，牧师及信众，所有这些中他 们最不忘指明的，是英格兰的王室和她随处可见的徽章。

    他们也会向我们讲起临近罗马人建在泰晤士河边城堡的宫殿，来自全英格 兰各地的人代表他们的同胞在大厅聚会。他们身着毛皮镶边长袍、头戴奇怪的 帽子，对相同的案件作出同样的裁判，递送出同等的公正。

    议会不仅仅是代表们聚在一起决定国家大事的地方，它是法治的最 高监督者，个人自由的最后防护栏，以及国家例外主义的典型标志。

    这种例外主义从一开始即已存在。第一批讲英语者从日耳曼森林深 处走出来，信守着如下观念：他们认为法律是整个部落的共同财产，而 不是哪一个首领的意志。他们也带来了一种部落事务须经公开大会讨论 并决定的传统。他们甚至还具有其后代称之为“同意政府”的观念，如果 塔西佗所言可靠的话。

    罗马衰亡后，这些政治观念在各日耳曼国家发展出不同的表现方式。御前会议和咨议会遍及欧洲各国，它们既承担司法功能，又是立法 机关，某种程度上，它们裁决纠纷，同时也批准法案。

    在整个西方世界，这一传统在9世纪到11世纪期间终结了。国王和  贵族做了所有时代所有国家的统治者都会做的事情：为了他们自身和其 后代的利益，使用暴力来操纵统治。贵族变成了法律上享有特权的唯一 阶级。大地产拥有者在各自领地上享有近乎专断的权力。国王受到限制，但限制并不是来自法律，而是与他的大封臣们达到平衡。在市镇以 外的地区，封建主义、农奴制与世袭地位是最普遍的。

    普通法和民众大会仅在北欧世界的很小部分地区幸存下来，而在英 国则开出了灿烂的花朵。使英国变得如此例外的，正是它作为一个民族 国家的早期发展。这样的发展，很大程度归因于其地理位置。讫至10世 纪，英格兰不仅仅是一个岛，也毫无疑问是不列颠岛上具有绝对优势的国家，威尔士和苏格兰王子需要定期到英格兰宫廷来表示效忠。一种共 同的身份，也就是我们今天称之为“公民社会”的认同感产生了。那个时 期的政府强大而富裕，然而，只需维持相对很少的军队。所以，能拥有 相对独特的议会的地方都是岛国，比如冰岛、马恩岛，并非偶然。

    到11世纪时，英格兰已经可以享受早熟的宪制政体了：国王必须受 制于法律，而法律是被贤人会议决定的；司法制度对于显赫的伯爵和卑 微的下层自由民一律平等适用。

    1066年后，国家臣服于欧洲的封建主义，这是一个严重的倒退。但是，尽管土地占有模式、教会制度、议会议程和王室权威都发生了改变，但盎格鲁——撒克逊的行政管理体系在地方一级依然保留了下来。郡 和百户区法院继续依照普通法体系运作，到12世纪中期，上升为全国一 级。这些法院系统是代议制政府观念生长的沃土，最起码，它使重大决 定需获公共大会支持的观念得以延续。

    最后，这些观念影响了盎格鲁——撒克逊贵族，他们从13世纪早期开 始，逐渐将自己视为英国人，对英国人自古以来有权要求统治者对国家 负责的方式产生了兴趣。这一演变的结果是《大宪章》,以及同样重要 并确保条款被执行的全国议会。

    我们将会看到，从13世纪的早期议会开始，通往现代民主的道路充满了坎坷，有时甚至还是一段扎脚的煤渣小路。但是，让我们先在这里打住，转向盎格鲁圈例外论的另一个方面。这个方面——也就是从本质 上将英语社会与欧亚大陆区别开来的社会组织的特殊性——我们此前尚 未考虑过。现在就让我们来探寻现代资本主义的源头。

    注释

    1“光辉道路”是秘鲁一个极左的反政府游击队组织，自称为秘鲁共产党，其 目标是实行共产主义，以工农阶级取代中产阶级。“光辉道路”游击队成立于20  世纪80年代初，以制造绑架、暗杀和恐怖袭击闻名于世。1992年随着其最高头  领纷纷落网，该组织暴力活动有所减少，但仍时常对政府军发动袭击。

    2《末日审判书》(Domesday Book),又称“最终税册”。威廉一世在征服 英国后，下令进行全国土地情况调查，目的在于了解王田及国王直属封臣的地 产情况，以便收取租税，加强财政管理，并确定封臣的封建义务。1086年由国 王指定的教俗封建主在全境进行广泛的土地调查，调查结果汇总整理，编定成 册，称《末日审判书》。由于调查细致严苛，使被调查者如履薄冰，好像在接 受末日审判，故调查结果被称为《末日审判书》。

    3马姆斯伯里的威廉(William of Malmesbury,约1080/1095—约1143),12世纪英国历史学家，在1120年前后创作了《盎格鲁国王史》,记载从449年到 1120年间，英国国王事迹或者英国人的国王的事迹。该书被认为是英格兰最重 要的历史著作之一，以有说服力的文档资料和清晰生动的写作风格而留名。

    4吉马的《英国人的历史》是法国文学史中最早的历史文献。这部编年史 于1136—1137年撰于英国，是欧洲最早的以当地语言记载的编年史。这部编年 史以八音节段落的风格写成，是歌颂风雅与骑士精神的先驱。

    第四章 自由与财产

    每一个生而自由的英国人都是生而就有的自由和财产权的继承人。这样的 权利无人可及，除了在英国，全世界范围内其他任何国家都找不到。所以，我 们希望所有人能正确地理解到他们自身的幸福。     威廉 ·佩恩，1687
    在英格兰，大部分普通人最晚从13世纪开始就已经是奔放的个人主义者了。他们具有很高的地理和社会流动性，经济上很理性，以市场为导向，有求 必吁，在家族和社会生活中以自我为中心。这对于现代英国人来说，也许一点 也不奇怪，因为他们世世代代都是这样。      ——艾伦 ·麦克法兰 (Alan  Macfarlane),1978

    盎格鲁圈例外论

    2010年，我在欧洲议会曾经代表我的党派担任过很短时期的前座发 言人。这段经历不甚愉快，我需要起草、审查一个法律草案以协调全欧 洲的继承法。这是一个技术性法案，主要涉及在未立遗嘱的情况下，生 前移居其他欧洲国家的死者的财产处置问题。在这一问题上的法律规定，暴露出英国和欧洲大陆国家财产权的显著差异。

    在大多数欧洲国家，个人不得任意将他的财产遗赠他人。比如，有 的欧洲国家法律会将死者财产的一定份额保留给他的配偶和子女，而在 有的国家，你在立遗嘱时，只能对你财产的三分之一有自由处置权。

    相反，在英国，和在大多数盎格鲁圈国家一样，你基本完全可以按 你的心意来处理财产-   至少，交完遗产税以后的那部分归你处置。如 果你想把每样东西都交给信托人，让他来照看你的猫，这完全取决于你。或者你改变了心意，只想讨好你新交的十几岁小女友或者小男友， 那你的子女可就不走运了。

    意愿和继承常常等量齐观地出现在盎格鲁圈意识中。大量英文小说 都触及了这一点。我们早已将绝对所有权视为理所当然。

    然而，普通法对待财产的态度，在全球范围内看来，还是非常独特 的。这里有必要做些解释。从表面上看，大多数罗马法国家采取的做法，看上去更为理性。为什么死人的愿望应当凌驾于生者的需求之上? 无论如何，在考虑财产如何才能更有效地分配时，活着的人应当占有更 重要的位置。

    回答触及了不同社会对于所有权的不同理解这一核心问题。如果所 有财产最终是属于部落的、家族的或者国王的(或者，在今天，属于国 家的),那么,由部落成员(或者今天的政府官员)来决定资源的配置就是最合理的做法。在这样的社会，所有权事实上就是某种形式的租用 权：一种排他地享用特定资产的权利。这样一种权利通常不能延长至死 亡以后。

    人是一种社会动物，大多数人类社会都将部分财产视为是共同占有 的。在有法律之前，有城市之前，有庄园之前，有工具之前，甚至在有 文字之前，男人和女人就生活在亲属团体中。从史前时代到前现代(甚 至，实际上到现代世界大部分地区),最基本的经济单元还是扩展型家 庭。调整所有权与流转的法律就是在这一背景下发展演变的，所以，自 然地，宗族优先于个人。

    财产代表着单个个体所享有的完全所有权，这一观念是讲英语社会 所特有的。我在欧洲议会所遇到的分歧不仅仅将英国和欧盟其他部分区 隔开来，也将盎格鲁圈和整个地球从本质上区分出来。因此，很多殖民 地都遭遇了讲英语者和本地住民之间产生的误会和冲突。

    当习惯了普通法财产权的拓殖者们到达北美、非洲、新西兰，甚至 是数世纪前的爱尔兰，他们会发现其财产权观念早已超出了本地住民的 理解范围。拓殖者当然会买地，然而，本地人没有他们的部落将永久性 失去土地的概念。在本地人眼里，他们出售的是使用这块领地上的资源 的权利，因此，一个人不可能拥有比拥有风或阳光更多的权利。

    我们一次又一次在土著居民-     切诺基人 (Cherokee) 、 毛利人(Maori)  或者吉库尤人 (Kikuyu)——    的控诉中听到同样的不满。他 们说，殖民者窃取了他们从祖先那里继承下来的遗产，或者在他们没有 充分理解的土地交易中欺骗了他们，或者贿赂某个首领签订了未经他们 授权的协议。当然，有的殖民主义者的确肆无忌惮、为所欲为，导致很 多直接演变为偷盗的行为。同时，也存在一些理解上的根本分歧，正是 这些分歧最终导致了原本可以避免的流血事件。

    盎格鲁式土地法在很长时间内都没有引起人们的注意。历史学家们 总是有意无意地倾向于从广义的马克思主义视角来观察社会历史。按照马克思主义的教义，在过去五百年间，农民社会让位于资本主义社会。 前者是固定的、乡土的、等级制的和大体上自给自足的；后者是个人主 义的、专业化的、以货币为基础的和竞争性的。

    马克思自己也非常有兴趣把英格兰作为证明他理论的一个样板。他 相信，英格兰是资本主义最早萌芽的国家，所以也必然最有可能第一个 爆发社会主义革命。

    马克思教导说，英格兰直到15世纪仍然是一个农民社会，其后开始 逐渐向市场经济转化。他说的“农民社会”,指的是建立在自给自足的家 庭和封建义务之上，而非货币基础上的经济形态。他写道：“(英国的)生产模式仍然不具备典型的资本主义特征。”土地被视为一个普通  家庭通过继承而得来的家产，而不是一个可以自由买卖的商品。基本的 经济单元不是个人，而是农民的庄园。“归根结底，整体经济是由一个  个家庭构成的，家庭自成独立的生产中心，比如：在其中，手工业制造 被视为妇女的次要家内职业。”

    马克思认为，当货币租金开始取代其他类型的租金时，这一转变导 致了“贫困的白日劳工阶级的形成” 也就是那个日后受雇主剥削的阶级。

    马克思提出，他的经济模型来自经验的、科学的事实，而非一种政 治观点。他的追随者几乎一字不落地追随这一历史主义路线。性格随和 的弗里德里希 ·恩格斯写道，在英国的“自然经济”状态下，家长总在不断地变，而农民工人构成了“铁打的营盘”,他们在其位于农庄内的各自 家庭的支持下，生产出几乎所有他们需要的东西；现在，“自然经济”已 经被“资本主义经济”所取代，后者“瓦解了所有自古习得的以及传统的  关系，用贸易和买卖取代了源远流长的习惯和历史权利”。一百年后，受人尊敬的左派历史学家克里斯托弗 ·希尔(Christopher Hill)也发表了 惊人相似的言论，尽管他把这一经济模式转型的时间稍微推后了一些：
    1530年，大部分英国男人和女人都居住在乡村农舍(大部分都是小泥舍),经济上自给自足。他们穿着毛皮外套，吃的是盛在木盘里的黑面包，用 不起叉子和手帕。到了1780年，英国一步步实现了工业化：砖房、棉布衣服、白面包、餐盘和刀叉餐具，这些即使对下层阶级来说也是唾手可得的。

    读到这些文字时，我们往往会感到非常惊讶，作者似乎并不是什么马克思主义者。然而，这样的观点连同马克思的其他很多观点一起，在学术圈逐渐变成正统，以至于我们已然不知道它们到底是由谁第一个提出来的。实际上，几乎所有的知名学者在从家庭自给自足经济转向现代资本主义经济这一问题上，都追随了马克思，尽管他们在转型到底何时 发生以及导致转型的原因是什么等问题上可能各持己见。社会学的主要创始人之一、德国哲学家马克斯 ·韦伯认为，清教主义与自由劳工阶级的形成同样重要，它培养出了节俭而非慷慨的品质。

    英国最有影响力的历史学家R.H.托 尼(R.H.Tawney)赞同韦伯的 观点，并提出从“分配型的”天主教伦理向“索取型的”新教伦理的转向。

    然而，两位大学者和那些追随他们的社会历史学者一样，都毫不犹豫地 接受了马克思关于从自给自足的家庭单元(所有人在家庭中工作并参与 分配)转型为原子化的个人通过货币形成彼此社会关系的这一历史进程 的解释。托尼对于农民家庭单元的描述，其雄辩之势超过了他所回应的 马克思主义者，他说：“这就是一个迷你的合作社会，同住一个屋檐下，从属于同一个产业，这个经济单元里不仅包括男人、妻子和孩子， 还有仆人、长工、犁田者和打谷者、放牛人和挤奶工，他们同住同劳作 同玩乐。”

    如果我告诉你这样的观点其实就是正统的马克思主义，你肯定会感 到很震惊。其实，只要在学校学过一点社会历史学，大多数人应该都接 受过这样的教育。不计其数的历史小说和戏剧也在不断强化这一观点。 这样的一幕，还在全球瞩目的2012年伦敦奥运会开幕式上演：田园牧歌式的乡间，快乐的牧羊女簇拥在主人身边，主人打发农人们去磨坊和烟 囱林立的工厂干活儿。

    马克思对于社会转型的原因的分析征服了左派，并由左派广为传  播。他所给出的解释大部分是对的；或者应当说，除了一点，其余都是 对的。他概括出几乎每个欧洲国家都经历过的历史，尽管这一进程在各 国的发生有先有后。这一解释不仅仅适用于欧洲，也适用于俄罗斯、中 国和印度。这一理论概括对于几乎所有欧洲和亚洲社会都有很强的解释 力，而唯一不能适用的地方，就是马克思本人所说的：英国。

    英国农民在哪儿?

    我在前文中谈到过1381年农民起义，如何评价这一血腥的历史事件?目前有很多不同的观点：有人将其视为一场自耕农阶层对农奴处境 的反抗，这一阶层在黑死病造成人口锐减后，其影响力不断壮大；也有 人认为这是盎格鲁——撒克逊人对讲法语的贵族统治的最后一次反抗。但 无论持何种观点，当时的人们都不会称它为“农民”起义，因为理由明摆 着，英语中根本没有“农民”这个词。或者更准确一点，这个词只有在谈 到外国人的时候才会使用，来自对法文词“农夫”(paysan) 的直接翻译。

    这个词在英文中不存在，是因为它所描述的事实在英格兰不存在。 那个时代的人对“农民”一词的理解，正如今天的历史学家对它的理解。“农民”并不仅仅意味着住在乡下的人，也代表着被马克思、韦伯、 托尼以及其他人所定义的某种社会经济特征。

    按照广义的定义，一个农民是束缚于他的家庭所有的土地的。而他 不可以随心所欲地处置这块土地，这是他的扩展型的家庭单元的共同遗 产，只有在亟需援助或经全体男性继承人同意的情况下，土地才可以买 卖。农民的家庭单位倾向于在其内部完成生产与消费，同时附带极少量 的交易。家庭所需的主食可以栽种或者驯养，只有奢侈品和稀罕物需要 通过交换获取。即便如此，交换也常通过以物易物而非现金交易的形式 发生。货币也是有的，但通常被当作一种储备资产，而非交换工具。

    这样的农民社会形态存在于欧洲和亚洲的整个中世纪：从16世纪开 始，出现于西北欧洲；到19世纪时广泛存在于欧洲东部；20世纪，遍及 俄罗斯。

    英格兰的乡村经济始终不被认为与它的邻国存在什么实质性差异。

    直到20世纪70年代，年轻的牛津历史学者艾伦 ·麦克法兰开始研究英格  兰中世纪各教区的历史记录。他惊奇地发现，史料记录的社会组织形式 完全不符合通常所称的“农民社会”的标准。乡村社会的共通性横穿整个 欧亚大陆，从太平洋一直到大西洋，却止步于英吉利海峡。

    在欧洲大部分地区，土地所有权是固定的，庄园被视为一种不可剥 夺的祖上传下的遗产。在英格兰则相反，最迟从13世纪开始(因为更早 的记录难以找到)便有了活跃的土地市场。在欧洲大部分地区，子女会 在他们父母的农庄干活儿，以换取食宿而不是领工资。而在英格兰，子 女通常长到十来岁就离开家，要么去做学徒，要么到别处去工作-    这 一点往往会让外国观光客们大感惊诧，甚至偶有微词。家里的农活儿往 往是由雇来的人手干，并且给付竞争性工资。在欧洲大部分地区，家庭 被认为是习惯上的和法律上的基本单元，家庭计划也被家庭成员视作共 同资源。而在英格兰，几乎就没有“共同共有”这个概念。男孩一旦达到 法定成年年龄，在法律上就是一个完全自由的个体了，他的父亲无权再 对他宣布任何权利或者要求其承担任何义务。

    麦克法兰的观点在当时的时代氛围下显得很突兀。20世纪70年代的 学术界基本仍处于马克思主义历史观的强势影响之下，因为当时的学者 们大概都在有意识地吸收马克思主义政治学。但是，麦克法兰认为他的 结论是不容置疑的：“很清楚，英格兰自13世纪开始，即不再建立在‘共 同体’或‘若干共同体’之上。它已经成为一个开放、流动、以市场为导向 以及高度集权化的国家，不仅仅在程度上而且在类型上与欧洲和亚洲的 农民社会区别开来。”

    这样的差异是何时又为何发生的呢?提到时间的问题，麦克法兰坦 言他给不出答案。从他所能找到的最早的史料显示，英国社会独特的个 人主义已经被视为理所当然了。麦克法兰怀疑这一源头可追溯到最早一 批盎格鲁——撒克逊人上岛定居，而且早在塔西佗叙述的日耳曼共和国的 第一个世纪便已扎下了根。但是，因为缺乏坚实的证据，他也只能是猜测而已。

    至于为什么会产生这样的差异，麦克法兰则显得自信很多。英国社 会的个人主义特征是由两项相互关联的法律制度所支撑的：长子继承制，以及个人对土地的完全所有权。

    长子继承制是一种将全部家产分配给长子，而不是在众男性子嗣之 间平分或者集体共有的做法。这一制度和土地的可转让性密切相关，其 带来的最终结果无异于为某一个人的利益而剥夺了全体申索人的继承权。无论长子继承制还是绝对所有权都与小农社会的欧陆模式不相容， 它们从整体到细节上都是普通法系的产物。两套规则合在一起，从物理 上以及从政治上共同塑造了盎格鲁圈。

    法律打造的风景

    假设你正乘飞机旅行，比方说从布达佩斯到英国的伯明翰，当你打 个盹醒来，只消从舷窗往外看一眼，便知有没有飞过英吉利海峡了。英 国土地法在乡间是有清晰可辨的形象的。欧洲大陆的土地基本都是直线 切割的，有时也划分成条状，为了不浪费空间，地界通常用铁丝栅栏圈 出，以便其他兄弟继承时可以迅速移动。

    英国的情况则相反。土地往往是不规则的，呈波浪形的，随型就势。有时候某条溪流就是界线，不见得非划出条直线来不可。土地往往 被更趋永久性的篱笆圈起来，比如乡下常见的树篱，或者英国西部与北 部常见的干石墙。

    英国的法律塑造了英国的风景。因为财产不得被分割或共享，自然 的边界因此保持了原貌。

    一片被树篱标界出来的乡间土地就是一个产权得到长久安全保障的 世界。不像铁丝栅栏，树篱不能轻易移动。古老的英国树篱是一道致密 扎人的厚墙，由多种树木杂生而成，有矮橡树、枫树、金银花、铁线莲、野玫瑰、黄华柳、黑刺李、榛树，还有桤木。有个简便的小窍门可 以估算树篱的年纪：数出30码宽的树篱中的植物种类，不包括常青藤或 者黑莓，然后把这数乘以110。

    这样自古就有的篱墙，有些甚至从撒克逊时代起就立在那里。这些 竖着的边界告诉我们，土地不可在兄弟间进行分割。财运如水淌，时弱 时刚强。家庭可以买卖整块地产。土地市场由确定的产权期限支撑，始 终在运转。

    由此，大地产便成了英国乡村最显著的标志。今天，当我们走在前 人的土地上，想到这片土地18世纪的主人正是沿着这条路植下了幼苗，而今，数百年后，它们已经臻于完美，这是多么奇妙的感觉!使早先那 些营造这片风景的园艺师们如此笃定的，正是这个国家及其政治制度的 稳定。他们期望他们的花园在繁盛之时，能被孙辈的孙辈的孙辈代代享 用。与此同时，他们也非常自信，自己的家园不会被独裁者夺走，被强 盗洗掠，或者被外国入侵者征用为兵营。

    这些大地产不仅仅是房子和花园。对世世代代的英国人来说，它们 代表着这个国家的自由与活力。16、17世纪一些著名的大作家——本 ·  琼森 (Ben Jonson)、托马斯 ·卡鲁 (Thomas   Carew)、安德鲁 ·马维尔(Andrew Marvell)——都被称为“乡村别墅诗人”,因为他们常把乡间 花园用作一个政治隐喻，一剂政治解毒剂。在他们的诗行间，皇室往往 是娘娘腔、矫揉造作、犹疑而诡计多端；而乡村则质朴率真，天然无琢，忠诚而且坦率。在他们的后代眼中，高大的乡村别墅成了辉格党政 治哲学的物化的象征。

    乡间派最经典的例证还不在英格兰，而在弗吉尼亚的弗农山庄(Mount     Vernon)。山庄因纪念英国海军上将弗农而得名。今天，我们 依然可从俭朴的石砌建筑和蔬菜地头感受到庄园主人乔治 ·华盛顿的伟  大与谦逊。大卫·麦克洛夫 (David   McCullough) 写道，华盛顿没有留下 自传，而是留下了弗农山庄，这正是一个再恰当不过的说明。

    华盛顿是一个重行动的人，这一点已勿用再说，但英国辉格党传统 也深入他的骨髓。他用一个最“伟大的放弃”缔造了美国共和制的传统。 民众拥戴他坐上权力宝座，他拒绝了，因为他相信“解甲归田，采菊东  篱”才是公共生活的最终归宿。而这也正是乡村别墅诗人心心念念的梦  想。

    华盛顿对他的人民说：“刀剑只在最后一刻才能被当作保卫自由的  武器。当自由已经确立，第一件事就是该丢弃刀剑。”那些横渡大西洋  的讲英语者比留在家里的兄弟更讲究英国的例外原则。在新家，他们更 加坚定地履践了这些原则。

    殖民者坚守对私有财产的承诺，以及作为私有财产权应有之义的自 由企业制度——尽管当时尚没有这样的术语。我们前面已经提到过，威 廉 ·布莱克斯通在殖民地享有广泛影响，他认为“私有财产权这一神圣而 不可侵犯的权利”是“每一个英国人生而就有的绝对权利”。美国革命的  另一位教父约翰 ·洛克谈到这一问题时，强调这“是一项伟大而主要的成 果，人们因此团结在英联邦中，将他们自己置于政府之下，也就是在保 护他们的私有财产权”。对于所有权神圣的信仰，不仅仅意味着个人可  以任意处置他的所有，还意味着契约自由和税率最小化。不过，并不奇 怪的是，他们并不太在意英国财产法的第二重特质，即长子继承权。

    过去的美国人普遍都有兄弟姐妹。弗吉尼亚很多大家族(包括华盛 顿的家族)都是“次子”建立的。很多到新世界谋发展的次子们都感到不 公平，觉得他们仅仅因为出生顺序的偶然性就被拒斥于家族土地的所有 份额之外。就像《李尔王》中的埃德蒙，他们认为长子继承原则和自然 正义格格不入：

    大自然啊，你是我的女神，
    我愿意在你的法律面前俯首听命。
    为什么我要受世俗的排挤，
    让世人的歧视剥夺我应享的权利?
    只因为我比一个哥哥迟生了一年或者十四个月?

    除了对少数领有大片继承土地的贵族家庭来说，英国的长子继承制 是一种传统，而不是法定义务。父亲完全有权剥夺家中长子的继承权， 只要他愿意选择这样做。但是传统-     就是埃德蒙所说的“世俗的排挤”毕竟是个事儿，美国人决定根除这一制度。托马斯 ·杰斐逊在修 改弗吉尼亚法典以废除长子继承制的过程中，曾多次引用《李尔王》。 正如他饱含深情地写道，这样做的目的就在于“斩断可能复辟或导致未来贵族制的每一茎杂草”。杰斐逊的母亲来自赫赫有名的伦道夫家族。 最早来到弗吉尼亚的伦道夫就是教科书上所称的“次子”:威廉 ·伦道夫(William      Randolph),沃里克郡 (Warwickshire)   名门的小儿子。

    废除长子继承制，最终从美国扩展到盎格鲁圈其他地区。到20世纪 后期，这一传统只在极少数贵族家庭中延续。2012年，英国和其他英联 邦国家一致同意修改继承法，取消了男性继承人的优先权，为贵族家庭 的长女继承权敞开了大门。对大多数家庭来讲，头生男性继承人比他的 兄弟姐妹享有更大份额的继承权这一观念早已被抛弃。

    然而，在这一观念存续期间，长子继承制产生了巨大的社会影响。 与欧洲不一样，英国贵族阶层从来不是一个封闭的阶层。地产保有者的 小儿子们必须要自谋生路，比如入伍、从医、当教士或者做生意。而在 欧洲大部分地区，贵族是继承来的法定身份，其数量维持在一个比较稳 定的比例上：在一些国家大约是30%的样子。在英国，这个数量则要少 得多。1789年大革命前夕，法国有贵族14万人。英国在20世纪60年代实 行终身贵族制之前，上院议员通常在200人以下，最多时也未超过600人。

    这种情况所产生的一个结果，使得英国成为一个具有不同寻常的高 社会流动性的国家。今天的政治家和评论员使用“高社会流动性”这一术 语，意思是穷人通向成功的管道没有被阻断。不过，这样想的话，那只 是想对了一半。在一个高流动性的社会中，穷孩子能够上升到比他出生 时命定的社会地位更高的空间。然而，个人在社会地位上的上升必然伴 随着另外一些人的下降。我这里所谈论的，不是指绝对财富(对每一个 人来说，其绝对财富是可以增长的),而是指一个人的社会关系所决定 的社会地位。如果一个自耕农成了伯爵，那么,在这两者之间的某些人 的社会地位就有可能微妙地下跌。

    这种下降的社会流动性往往会因为长子继承规则被放大。一个儿子 一得俱得，其余的则必须自谋生路。在后者社会地位的下滑过程中，他们会一直携带着自幼养成的习惯，比如看书识字等。

    科普作家马特·里德利 (Matt       Ridley) 提出了一个很有意思的理论    (碰巧他也是一个世袭贵族，因此也是长子继承制的受益者)。他说， 这种下降的社会流动性很可能是英国在18世纪腾飞的原因，这种腾飞是 此前的人口统计学发生重大变动的结果。简单地说，从17世纪开始，富 人阶层“繁殖”出大量的穷人。

    2004年，加利福尼亚大学的两个学院承担了一个项目，调查17世纪 之交的英国人遗嘱，结果令人震惊。在遗嘱里留下不到10英镑的人，平 均可供养两个孩子；在遗嘱里留下超过500英镑的人，平均可供养四个  孩子。这是一个非常关键的时期：医疗条件落后，饥饿是普遍现象，婴 儿死亡率很高。但是，随着收入的增加，富有的阶层事实上可以为子女 购买到更高的存活率。既然这些孩子中只能有一个有权继承家庭财产， 那其余人就不得不去闯世界谋活路。

    17世纪是一个被法国人称为“社会等级降低”的时代：大部分英国男 人和女人都比他们的父母的生活状况更加糟糕。很多受过教育的人不得 不靠做小生意或干工匠活讨营生，其结果使得这些群体的识字率开始上 升(起码可以从在法律文件上签署自己名字的人的统计数量上看出)。 1600年，有35%的英国人认得字；到1700年，这个指数达到了60%,其 中25%是英国妇女。这样的人口结构为已经引爆的大规模的经济变革做 好了准备。

    尽管长子继承制在今天的盎格鲁圈社会几乎已完全绝迹，但它的遗 产并没有荡然无存。在每一个大洲的英语社会中，依然保留着财产权不 可分割的独特观念，而在过去这曾是英格兰独有的特征。

    个人权利甚至及于其身后的观念似乎是对集体主义的极端蔑视，产 生了深刻的政治后果。它促进了信托机构和基金会的建立，事实上，这 两个机构都是在执行已经去世的财产所有人的意愿。

    反过来，这些机构也有助于创造今天所称的公民社会：国家与个人之间的巨大空间被非官方的、志愿的和各种慈善努力所填充。来到盎格 鲁圈国家的大陆访客常常会被私人基金会所承担的广泛的社会责任所震 惊，因为在他们的国家，这些事务都是由政府负责，或者至少是由国家 教会负责的。各种捐赠导致了学校、医院、艺术馆以及孤儿院的诞生。

    而这些机构又反过来创造出了一种政治文化，在这种文化氛围之下，慈善性的非盈利活动不再被视为一种政府责任，其不过就是一种经济活动而已。甚至就在今天，我在欧洲议会就遭遇了这种差异。在英国，这些活动的合法性是不言而喻的；而在欧洲大部分地区，要策划什么活动，你得先拿到批文的授权。当得知某项新活动逃离了政府的视线，我在欧洲议会的伙伴们的第一反应通常是推出一个泛欧洲监管条例       国家主义的根系深深地扎进中世纪冰冷的泥土中。

    资本主义有何特别?

    盎格鲁圈中有些人始终对大陆模式情有独钟。他们认为，在那些没 有营利目的的事务上，只有国家才可能提供始终如一的、值得信赖的服 务。他们进而认为，如果依靠私人善举，很可能产生种种麻烦：比如，将过多的裁量权交到富人手中，如果他们考虑失当会怎么样?他们判断 偏差又会怎样?又或者，他们任性地决定受益者不配再享有优遇会怎么 样?就像工党领袖克莱门特 ·艾德礼¹在1920年所讲：“慈善是冰冷、灰色、无情的事业。如果哪个富人想要帮助穷人，他应当心甘情愿去纳 税，而不是一时兴起到处施舍钱财。”

    事实上，艾德礼刚好想反了。很难想象还有比现代福利国家更冷血、更灰暗或者更无情的事业。慈善允许捐赠者作出道德选择，也能针 对受助者的具体情况量体裁衣。决定怎么花掉你的钱可以看出个人的品 质，但通过税收系统从你那里拿走相同数额的钱则毫无道德性可言。

    盎格鲁圈对于自由的理解，从来不乏批评者，国内国外皆有之。是 的，唱衰的人说，资本主义是可能让人变得更富有，但有没有东西是无 价的呢?人们是不是失去了人性中某些可贵的品质?他们不是变得更自 私、更冷漠、更工于计算了吗?!

    事实不是这样。资本主义与自私自利无关。任何经济模式下，参与 经济生活的个体行为都有一个道德方面的考量。但有一点不会错，就是 没有哪一个经济系统会给个人的道德行为以完全对等的回报。

    在一个建立在财产权和契约自由基础上的开放市场中，你可以通过 为他人提供诚实服务变得富有。比如，我正在打字用的这台机器就是史 蒂夫 ·乔布斯发明的，他从市场交换中获益(一点一点地增加了他的净资产),我也一样(机器给我带来了很多便利)。

    而在别的地方推行的各种形式的合作模式下，有些人——通常会是 国家官员——就会渐渐取得分配产品的权力，为自己捞取好处源源不断地输送养料。

    当然，这不是说，资本主义就没有不法行为。人天性会堕落。任何制度下，都有经不起诱惑的人。但有一点很明显，在国有经济中，腐败 是制度性的、半合法的。实际上，在盎格鲁圈的经济运作中，最恶劣的 不法行径总是与政府脱不开干系：为不法利益游说议员，向纳税人提供 资助金，等等，诸如此类。

    贪婪      也就是对物质占有的欲望   不是市场的产物，而是从更 新世的非洲丛林间为生存而竞争的原始人类就已经携带着的基因了。资 本主义给贪婪套上了一个社会生产目的的笼头。在自由经济中致富的途 径是提供给他人所需要的东西，而不是依靠权力来敛财。

    对盎格鲁圈经济制度的一个大众化的批评是，它看重效率，胜过个人德性，比如：信仰，友善，忠诚，礼貌，等等。

    事实上，你很难想象出比自由契约所创造出来的关系更具伦理性的 关系：每一方都通过满足他人的预期来增进对方的福祉。而个人在其他 情形下所建立起来的关系，尽管可能初衷良好，但很少能达到这样的效 果。甚至是最亲密的朋友——就算是丈夫和妻子——有时候也可能会使 对方的预期落空。

    你或许会觉得我这里所写的似乎太过古板，甚至刻薄。契约当然没 错了，你也许会说：按时付款，给顾客发送他们想要的商品，保证质量，这都没问题。但它们怎么能和那种没有物质回报的行为相提并论呢?!比如在施粥场做义工，造访狱中的囚犯，或者给贫困区送去援助 物资，或许再简单点吧，做个好家长、好邻居或者好朋友。

    当然，你说得完全没错，但这不是我所讲的问题。我现在不是在谈 论慷慨与慈善是不是值得喝彩，我谈的是大政府该不该鼓励这种行为。

    约拿·戈德堡 (Jonah     Goldberg) 在2008年出版的《自由主义的法西斯》 (Liberal Fascism)中，用一系列研究成果表明：信任小政府的人 比信任大政府的人更愿意拿出他们的收入和时间用于慈善。

    这不是没有道理的。一旦你确立了向正确的事投否决票的基本立场，那为什么不会走得更远呢?一旦你号召提高税率，又为什么要去做 慈善呢?

    这话已经无需重复再三：如果你把钱给了好事业，那么你就是在做 正确的选择。而如果政府通过税收从你这里抽走了同样多的钱，然后再 用之于民，那你的选择就未必如此了。

    在盎格鲁圈从上升到辉煌的英雄年代，这样的论证几乎都是多此一 举。四个世纪以前，自由、财产和个人美德之间的密切关联就已经是社 会共识了。英格兰和北美对于所有权的特别强调被视为反抗专制的壁垒，以及对私人的博爱发出的邀请函。

    除了西印度群岛部分地区还在实行种植园奴隶制，讲英语者在他们 定居的每一个地方都创造出了产权式民主制。我们不妨再来比较一下北 美和南美。在北美，几乎每一个人都有机会获得土地，包括契约工人在 任期届满后也能享有这个资格。随着美国的扩张，政府通过一系列法案 成功地推动了私人所有权的发展，1862年的《公地法案》即是最有力度 的举措。该法案事实上鼓励小块土地可由业主无偿取得，其目的在于拓 殖边疆。到20世纪初，75%的美国郊区人口都拥有土地，而在阿根廷，这个比例是25%,墨西哥则是3%。

    最早进入现代化的英语民族已经具备了掌握当今时代全球霸权的工 具：普通法、契约神圣、代议制政府、良心自由、财产安全以及个人自 由。那个时代的英语圈内，凡受过教育的人都意识到，他们处理事务的 方式把他们和其他国家区别开来。有些人对这样的独特性深以为荣，有 些人则倒向了欧洲方案。

    在17、18世纪，这两种趋势日益固化为两大对立派别，双方的碰撞 越来越频繁。到17世纪40年代及18世纪70年代，两大派别最终被推向了通过血腥战争来解决争端的境地。这些冲突最终以珍视盎格鲁圈政治传 统的一方获胜而告终，此乃人类的幸运。而这就是我接下来要讲的故事。

    1克莱门特·理查·艾德礼 (Clement Richard Attlee,1883—1967),第一代艾 德礼伯爵，英国工党政治家，首相(1945—1951)。艾德礼在任期间放弃了对 印度和巴勒斯坦的控制，使英国加入了北大西洋公约组织，对国内执行经济紧 缩计划，对大工业实行国有化，创办国民保健事业，被称为20世纪和平时期最 具效率的英国首相。

    第五章 第一次盎格鲁圈内战

    你知道，在所有基督教王国中，自古以来就有议会。直到君主开始意识到 他们自己的力量，并且意识到议会是个麻烦事儿；最终，他们开始一点一点地 确立起特权，直至在整个基督教世界彻底地甩掉议会，而惟有我们这里是例外。 ——达德利 ·卡尔顿爵士 (Sir  Dudley  Carleton),内廷大臣，1626
    所有人生而平等，而且都同样生来喜欢财产和自由；因此，我们经由上帝 的自然之手降生在这个世界上时，每个人都具有自然的、先天的自由和财产权。甚至我们要活下去，每个人也平等地同样要享有他生而就有的权利。 ——理查德·欧佛顿 (Richard  Overton),平等派领袖，1646

    第一批自由主义者

    伯福德 (Burford)   是科茨沃尔德 (Cotswolds)   一个宁静的、有着  蜜糖般颜色的小镇，犹以镇上众多教区教堂著称。这些教堂堪称12世纪 建筑艺术的典范，即使在今天的英格兰也极具特色，每到周日便挤满了 信众。

    然而，在1649年，这里的教堂却是一派骇人可怖的行刑景象。英国 内战第二阶段以保皇党人的完败而告终，但国会军中有些士兵还不满意。他们坚信自己是在为恢复英国古代宪法而战：“砸烂诺曼枷锁”正是 那个时代最流行的口号。他们认为古代宪法意味着国会主权，建立在接 近今天一人一票的原则之上。然而，现实明摆着，新政权自有一套总体 上不那么激进的方案。

    自从1640年以来就坐在议会大厅中的议员们，长期以来已形同虚设，但他们似乎并不急于展开新的选举。国会军领袖奥利弗 ·克伦威尔  对于军队中的民主乌托邦主义毫无兴趣；这位清教徒将军已经自视为大 卫式的人物，受上帝指派来拯救他的国家。跟随他的很多老兵都说，就 算用上战争时期所有所谓“共和”的花言巧语，目前的境况也不过是一个 独裁者替代了另一个独裁者。他们开始行动，召开民众大会，印制小册 子，呼吁实行民主改革。

    最后，克伦威尔决定给闹事者一点颜色瞧瞧，这些人因认为所有人 都应平等而得了“平等派”的名号1。军队中闹得最凶的三百人被关在伯福德教堂。有些人为消磨时间，将自己的名字刻在洗礼盆的石墨沿儿  上，那些悲伤的涂鸦至今依稀可见。(洗礼盆直到今天依然还在使用， 我不久前才在那儿成为一个小女孩的教父。)

    受到不服从即处死的威胁，大部分被关押的平等派都为他们的激进观点发表了忏悔辞。有三个人拒绝这样做，被拖到教堂庭院枪杀了。如 此冷血的举动，即使在17世纪中叶对暴力已经司空见惯的麻木氛围中也 使人震惊。

    他们倒在滑膛枪口下的地方，如今成了左派激进分子的朝圣之地。 很多英国社会主义者非常景仰平等派敢于反抗权威的勇气，无论世俗   的，还是宗教的。他们为这些人的平等主义和支持普选的理念而喝彩， 要知道，这些理念在那样的年代几乎是不可想象的。

    然而，平等派并不是社会主义者；相反，他们更容易成为亲自由主 义者。他们的哲学起点是个人自由，正如一个人拥有他的身体和思想一 样，他也有权拥有其劳动果实。平等派提出，个人可以做不侵害他人自 由的任何事，这一观点甚至比约翰 ·穆勒早了两个多世纪。正如理查德 ·  欧佛顿在1646年的小册子《射向所有专制者的箭》 (An  Arrow  Against All Tyrants)中写道：
    每个人都被赋予了天生不可被任何人侵犯和剥夺的个人财产权。对每一个 人来说，只要他是他自己，那么他就有固有财产权；否则，他就不能成为他自 己。你我皆如此。没有人有权凌驾于我的权利和自由之上，我对他人也是如  此。我只能享受自己的快乐与财产，但决不能寄望更多；如果我这样做的话， 那我就是他人权利的入侵者和进犯者-     我不该有这样的权利。

    这样的观点包含了那个时代下一种特立独行的情感，仿佛是20世纪 自由主义者F.A.哈耶克和穆瑞·罗斯巴德 (Murray   Rothbard) 等人学说的 先声。事实上，上述哲学家一向乐于承认平等派是他们的先驱。

    在哈耶克看来，平等派在所谓盎格鲁——撒克逊式自由主义的发展中 扮演了重要角色，他们提出了自由与财产权的不成文原理，并且制定出 了一部成文宪法和正式的权力分立规则。

    奥地利经济学派知名学者、小政府理论的信徒穆瑞 ·罗斯巴德写道：“平等派自觉地发起了世界上最早的自由主义群众运动，约翰 ·李尔 本 (John       Lilburne)、理查德 ·欧佛顿和威廉 ·沃尔温 (William   Walwyn)  提出了系统的自由主义学说，支持自我管理、私有财产权、个人宗教自 由以及政府对社会的最小干预。”

    平等派们既展望现代自由主义，又缅怀盎格鲁——撒克逊自由失去的 那些日子。他们认为诺曼征服斩断了他们的自由传统，这个观点虽然有 些浪漫主义色彩，然而，如我们所见，也不是全无根据的。

    这些爱国者们是联结现代盎格鲁式自由和它们的早期起源之间的金 质链条。事实上，我们对平等派的学说读得越多，就越难理解为什么社 会主义者会极力宣传这些主张。

    也许，这正是某些人身份被误解的最直接的例证。“掘地派”是一个 现代派别，也常被稀里糊涂地称为“真正的平等派”,他们拥护最具社会 主义特点的政策，包括土地的共有产权等。他们恐怕是当代左翼人士由 衷崇敬的先驱。

    但是平等派是欧洲怀疑论者、支持减税和反对国家主义的爱国者。 他们要求用民主选举来取代政府任命，停止财政资助，从海外纷争中及 早脱身，负责任的司法体系，自由贸易，以及财产权的绝对神圣。他们 一方面支持选举权应普遍享有；另一方面，也信奉选票不能给申请社会 福利的人，用他们的话来说，就是那些“领救济金的人”。他们的这些哲 学通过约翰 ·洛克被引入到美国宪法以及当代盎格鲁帝国中。

    不妨看看平等派在他们的宣言《英格兰自由人民协议》 (An Agreement of the Free People of England) 中提出的主张：
    国会无权制定法律限制或者阻碍任何人进行贸易或者交易….国会也无权 继续统配任何种类的食物及其他商品、货物。前述两种做法都是对贸易的极度 负担和压制…..我们一致同意并宣布：任何代表均无权改变一个人的等级，剥 夺人的财产权，或者做其他类似的事情。

    平等派没有发明代议民主制的理念，也没有发明个人自由或者什么 不可侵犯的所有权。他们深受爱德华 ·柯克尊崇《大宪章》的影响；并  且，像今天那些被称为激进派的人一样，他们自认是保守主义者，只是 在寻求恢复他们认为的那些古代和自然的英国宪法。然而，他们做了以 前任何人都不敢做的事。他们抓住了英国早期的自由传统，并将其融入 一个独立的、统一的制度安排中去。

    他们的这些观念被不断提升和强化，最终升华为值得为之付出生命 的信念。伯福德就在我的欧洲议会选区和戴维 ·卡梅伦的议会选区内。

    首相是一个持正统观念的人，也是一个保守主义者。他总是坚持传统观 念，把平等派看作激进左翼。但是，如果公允地看，他们是最早一批自 觉践行个人主义哲学的人，而这正是英语民族得以崛起的动力。我每次 经过伯福德时，总会去瞻仰一下古老的教堂，在当年那些人倒在行刑队 火枪口前的地方踯躅良久，凭吊三位盎格鲁英雄：骑兵旗手汤姆森，下 士铂金斯，以及列兵丘奇。

    赋权于民

    平等派不愧是思想先驱，但在他们生活的那个时代，政治观念也在 急速地向前推进。就在伯福德枪杀案的四个月前，英国人砍掉了国王的 脑袋。

    查理一世不是第一个被他的臣民们推上断头台的英国君主。在他的 祖先中，爱德华二世和理查二世都被悄无声息地处死了。但是查理一世 的行刑完全是另外一回事。国王不是被秘密处死的，他接受了审判，被 宣告犯下种种滥用权力的罪行，随后，一个公开的法庭对国王定罪，这 一举动引起了整个基督教王国的震动。

    谁有权发布这样的命令?臣民举起手臂反对他们的主权者，这又是 一种什么权力?

    愤怒的国王在审判时针锋相对地提出了这样的问题：“我得知道是  什么权力把我传唤到这儿来，我得知道谁有这样的权力。世界上不合法 的权威多的是，大路上小偷劫匪成群。记住!我才是你们的国王，合法 的国王!”审判者之一约翰 ·布兰德肖 (John Bradshaw)答道，国王也应 当且必须守法，查理一世违反了统治者和被统治者之间的契约所以才被 起诉：“在国王和他的人民之间存在着一个契约协定。国王的就职宣誓  就是为保证履约。同时，先生，这一约定当然是相互的。”

    此足以堪称同意政府理论(如我们所见，这一理论有其诺曼根源) 的精确总结。然而，这句话还是没能回答查理一世的问题。坐在国王面 前的法官依据什么有权宣称他们可以决定查理一世是否违反了王室义务?是谁给了他们这样的裁判权?

    这个问题变得如此微妙。事实上，直到1649年还留在国会中的那批 议员，其本身的合法性已经不能再虚弱了：大概有九年时间未举行过选举，而且议员也极不情愿进行这场被军队清洗过的国王审判。无论如何，在内战中站在国会一边的人很少愿意论证下议院享有最高主权。他 们的立场，毋宁说是最高权力存在于“君临国会”,而这里的国会应被理 解为古代的两院制议会。

    然而，在这种情况下，上议院——因为议员不断开小差而缩水到不 足十二人了     直截了当地否决审判国王的决议。国会议员们因此公开 求助于平等派的理论，宣布主权被赋予人民，并且通过选出的代表得到 表达：“在国会中集议的下议院议员宣布，人民在上帝之下，是所有正  当权力的来源；同时，他们还宣布，在国会中集议的下议院议员，由人 民选出，是人民的代表，具有最高权力。”

    在今人看来，这样的申明无疑是相当具有前瞻性的，仿佛我们这个 时代民主理论的先声。然而，那个时代的人却几乎完全是从另外一种角 度来看待这一问题的。

    每当我们阅读历史，总存在这样一种诱惑：假定任何能朝向我们今 天的价值观及机制的，都是进步的；而任何朝向其他方向的，则是退步 的。然而，我们正在考察的那些人，对于宪法性安排在我们今天会是什 么样的毫无概念。1649年，也正如1941年一样，看不到任何一点民主的 希望。当时所谓进步的、激进的、可预见的观念是君主制绝对主义。欧 洲各国的议会      集议、咨议会、三级会议、国会等    都面临被清理 出局的命运，或是遭到严重挫败。中央集权被视为现代性力量，可以将 使国家倒退的各种本地特殊主义整饬一新。服从神圣的国王，这一理念 在当时也相当流行，得到路德教派、加尔文教派和天主教派的一致拥护。

    本章开篇达德利 ·卡尔顿勋爵的那番话，不是在警告议会丧失了独  立性，恰恰相反，是在庆贺君主权力的胜利。对这位游历大半个欧洲、 自由进出宫廷的先生来说，英格兰还顽强地保留中世纪的议会体制无疑 是桩憾事。

    17世纪的欧陆君主清除了加诸他们权力之上的最后那点障碍，在他 们的宝座上高悬起新的“王权神圣”学说。俄国的彼得大帝、普鲁士的弗 里德里克 ·威廉、瑞典的卡尔十一世以及最有名的法国的路易十四都建  立了一套精致的专制统治的体制，包括财政独立及司法至上。

    1614年，当英格兰国会议员们正在以最严厉甚至恶劣的方式攻击王 室费用超支的时候，法国的三级会议      尽管它的作用从没超出过一个 虚弱的咨询机构      被解散，直至1789年方得重开。1653年，英格兰正 值谱写共和主义凯歌的高峰，勃兰登堡议会正面临关张，并且将它手中 残存的征税权正式让与君主。1665年，查理二世无可奈何地发现，他在 财政上也得像他的父亲和祖父一样依赖国会，而丹麦正在实行“国王的  法律”,该法授权君主可关闭其他任何权力中心，并且宣布“从即日起， 国王应被他的臣民尊奉为世界上最正确最高贵的人，在所有人类法律之 上，除上帝本身以外，无论在精神上还是世俗事务上，无人有权审判他”。

    英格兰和苏格兰非常独特，他们在17世纪走上了相反的道路。英格 兰和苏格兰在共同抵抗斯图亚特王朝的斗争中得到了磨炼，其影响力也 扩展至北爱尔兰和新英格兰，最后以现代政治的形式铸造了盎格鲁圈。

    1603年，英格兰的詹姆斯一世同时也是苏格兰的詹姆斯六世的即位，标志着一个历史性时刻：英语民族统一在一个单一的政权之下     尽管这只是两个王国间形式上的联合，持续了不到一个世纪。然而，即 便在联合之后，詹姆斯一世的势力范围在欧洲版图上依然无足轻重，没 有什么力量能遏制欧洲走向绝对君主制的势头。直到詹姆斯一世的孙子 詹姆斯二世在1688年被废黜，一切才有所改变，盎格鲁王国从此踏上了 走向富裕、自由、世界霸主的道路。

    1689年，不列颠面临的最迫切的事就是要有一部成文宪法，一部与 后来的北美继承者相似的权利法案。与《大宪章》不同，1689年英国《权利法案》 (the 1689 Bill of Rights)被普遍视为一个宪法性解决方案。并且，也与《大宪章》不同，《权利法案》所提供的议会主权的机 制远远超越了此前的御前咨商会。因此，我们有必要花点时间来重温一 下反对斯图亚特王朝的斗争——是它第一次把英语民族联合在了一起， 并且为我们留下了议会政体。

    宗派主义、补贴和主权

    整个17世纪，当英国人在回顾伊丽莎白一世统治时，都免不了生出 一丝感伤的喜爱之情。“好女王贝丝”代表了她的斯图亚特王朝继承人所 不具备的一切：虔敬的新教徒，生机勃勃的爱国情绪，忠于职守。

    而今回首，这样的伤感无疑还会加重。当那位童贞女王老得不得不 用假发和脂粉装扮出一副哑剧造型并最终在1603年去世以后，继承王位 的侄子(苏格兰的)詹姆斯六世却丝毫没有哀痛之情。其后，这样的情 绪进一步升级：就像英国人所说的那样，这位意志强硬又随和可亲的国 王，凭借着他的名字所带给他的一切，终结了自1553年玛丽一世政权开 创的长达半个世纪的“女王政府”。

    詹姆斯即位时就很不走运。1598年，法国下令宽恕所有信奉新教的 臣民，减轻了英国四面楚歌的压力，也为1604年终结盎格鲁一西班牙战 争铺平了道路。战争为伊丽莎白的英格兰制造了同仇敌忾的团结情绪和 共同目标，也为这个好战的民族拥有的无穷精力提供了出口。现在，这 些精力开始向内转了。

    和平协议达成以后，詹姆斯，这位终其一生都对神学充满狂热的国 王，希望能够提高针对英国天主教徒的刑罚力度。在过去所有的惩戒天 主教的事件中，法律都是半心半意甚至很少真正被用到的。事实上，詹 姆斯寄望的是达成一桩大妥协：教皇能承认他对英国教会的控制；作为 回报，他将承认教皇是“所有万能的主教中最尊贵的主教”。

    然而，无论对梵蒂冈还是英国新教徒而言，这笔交易都是不可接受 的。詹姆斯被迫取消已经开始讨论的宽容计划和他一厢情愿的期许。这 一举动直接刺激了一伙英国天主教徒疯狂地策划黑火药阴谋。挫败这起 恐怖活动给君主带来了短暂的同情，但不久，国王和国会之间的争吵重新又变得严重起来。

    争吵主要集中在以下三个问题上：钱、宗教和权力。伊丽莎白在其 统治时期贱卖了部分王室土地，由此减少了君主的常规收入，也使得她 的继承人们不得不依赖国会的补贴。整个17世纪，通货膨胀不断加剧， 王室的固定租金因此大幅缩水。活该国王倒霉，就在他对于国会的财政 依赖达到顶点时，西班牙战争的结束已经耗尽了议员们的慷慨。为钱吵 架常使人情绪恶劣，而为宗教吵架则很少能给妥协留下任何空间。詹姆 斯很快发现自己同时处于两场争吵中的不利地位，并且对手常常是同一 批人。

    我们可能会担心17世纪的人很难适应英格兰圣公会2,但很多熟悉  的东西消减了这样的担心。圣公会切断了和罗马教廷的联系，但与宗教 改革后的教会不同，它们依然保留了古老的教会制结构，包括自称直接 从圣彼得那里获得继承权的主教。英格兰圣公会还保留了一些罗马天主 教礼拜的仪式和做法。对很多英国新教徒来说，这些仪式有如赘疣，必 须要清除。他们寄望在那个时代能有一位信守苏格兰长老教派传统的君 主力挽狂澜，完成宗教改革。他们注定要失望。詹姆斯已经被与古板的 长老宗教长们的经年争吵搞得精疲力竭，现在巴不得找到一个既能控制 教会又能尊重王室宗主权的主教。他实在没耐心再去迁就那些新教激进 分子，也不想再去取悦什么议会激进派-     通常，这两拨都是同一批人。

    为权力而进行的争吵打破了国王和国会之间艰难维系的平衡。传统 上，这常被历史学者们认为最具重要意义。毕竟，这一时期正是爱德华 ·柯克的黄金时代，他不懈地捍卫司法和立法独立，为摆脱行政干预而  奋斗，在接下来的两个世纪中最终形成了盎格鲁一美利坚法律教义。

    詹姆斯国王对王权绝对主义充满狂热。在他的政论集《自由君主制的真正法律》(The   Trew   Law    of  Free   Monarchies,1598) 和《王权》(Basilikon  Doron,1603)中，詹姆斯提出了“君权神授”理论。没有人敢质疑这位放言无忌的国王如此直陈自己的观点：“君主制国家是世界 上最高的事物。国王不仅是上帝在尘世的代理人，端坐于上帝的宝座， 而且他们本人就是被上帝亲口所称的上帝。”

    很多国会议员对国王的这一系列想法深感忧虑，频繁通过决议反对 最高权力当由王室掌握的主张。当然，我们应当再次警惕时代错位病。 我们当然知道围绕国会主权的争吵最终导致了一场内战，而当时的议员 则完全不可能意识到这一点。因此，始终存在一种诱惑，让我们不断回 溯那场战争的原因，去发现詹姆斯和国会反对者们之间的每一场战斗如 何一步步导向了17世纪40年代的激烈对抗。事实上，当时大部分国会议 员更关心的是他们作为纳税人和财产所有者的权利，而不是他们在民众 大会上的地位问题。无论如何，议员们关于财政和宗教问题的讨价还价 开辟出了一条通过更广泛的讨论巩固国会特权的通道。

    1614年，在被后世称为“昏乱国会”的骤雨般的会期以后，议员们开 始发出怒吼，只要是王室出台的政策一律反对。詹姆斯国王向西班牙大 使大吐苦水：“平民院就是一具无头之身。这伙人的想法不可理喻。在  他们的会上，除了狂呼大叫，一片混乱，别的什么也听不见。真是搞不 懂我的祖先为什么会允许这样一个机构存在到现在。”

    我们很难不对国王生出一丝同情。下议院从来都是吵吵闹闹的是非 之地，所以，今天的英国人马上就明白四百年前国王说的话是什么意思。然而，詹姆斯的态度让议员们相信，他一心要关闭他们视为财产和 宗教自由的庇护所的机构。议员们担心，没有了下议院，英格兰将变得 与专制主义的欧陆没有两样。

    詹姆斯的儿子查理一世(1625—1649)统治时期，这种担心变成了 现实。詹姆斯多多少少还算和蔼随和，查理则内向孤僻，一直无法克服 口吃。他很容易对他的臣民态度恶劣，尤其是那些当选的代表。

    议会与詹姆斯关于宗教、财政和权力的争吵，在查理统治时期进一 步激化，国王被指责在支持海外新教事业中做得太少。1618年，三十年战争爆发，这差不多要算有史以来全欧洲最大规模的一场战争。詹姆斯 完全无心参战，宁可与西班牙周旋。他的继承人也与宫廷中的亲西班牙 小集团过往从密。

    在臣民看来，还有更糟糕的事，那就是他们的国王娶了一位“教皇  一样的王后”。查理登基后不到两个月，在他本人缺席的情况下于巴黎  圣母院门外与法王亨利四世之女亨利埃塔 ·玛丽亚 (Henrietta     Maria) 举 行了婚礼。国王之所以如此匆忙草率，主要为了赶在国会开会之前，避 免议员们阻止这桩婚事。

    查理的婚姻让人怀疑他的子女将会成为天主教徒；人们甚至还认为 这下他本人也有天主教撑腰了。第一种怀疑是有根有据的；第二种则不 然，但它给查理所做的几乎任何事都抹上了这样一层色彩。不光他的外 交政策被认为不够强硬，国内的教会改革也得不到信任，频遭责难。

    查理与威廉·劳德 (William    Laud) 过往甚密。这位机敏过人的教士 迅速蹿红，1626年任巴斯和韦尔斯(Wells)   主教，1628年晋升伦敦主  教，1633年被指定为坎特伯雷大主教。劳德和他的党人决心要阻止英国 教会慢慢滑向新教主义的势头。他们拒绝加尔文教派的核心教义“预定  论”(该理论认为每一个人在出生以前，就已经被打上了“得救”或者“诅 咒”的印记),支持主教的至高权力。他们竭力宣扬英格兰国教是唯一  真正的天主教会，因为奉行中世纪的孤立主义而免受罗马教廷的错误及 迷信的污染，同时也因此独立于日内瓦和威腾伯格 (Wittenberg)的异  端邪说之外。这是一种革命性的教义。就像国王的很多追随者一样，劳 德派们是那个时代真正致力于现代化的人。

    最让清教徒党人感到沮丧的是，新任大主教为了伺奉的目的极力推 行与天主教一致的仪式。劳德派希望把仪式重点从布道转到圣餐上。他 们认为，冗长的训诫对于那些想要理解上帝的虔信者来说，太过专横。 而信众就是来崇拜上帝的，因此，仪式的重点应当放在神秘的信仰感知 上，牧师该回到媒介或者中介者的角色。此外，环绕教堂的美丽的装饰物、彩色玻璃大窗、蜡烛和华美的祭服也非常重要。

    部分英国人相当欢迎教会中仪式化及神秘元素的回归，其他人则看 到此间只有一个目的，即将国家变为天主教国家。这里需要再次强调： 反对劳德主义和事实上的罗马天主教，其政治性远大于其宗教性。查理 支持教会的等级制模式对应了劳德支持绝对君主制。在现代人心目中， 天主教与专制是分不开的，这样一种混合状态持续了近两个世纪之久。 成群的清教徒掀起横渡大西洋、涌向“新英格兰”的浪潮，与其说是为了 寻求完全的宗教宽容，不如说是想要远离他们相信已经被污染了的英国 教会的偶像崇拜和世俗气。

    宗教争议对财政分歧的“毒害”,不止在詹姆斯统治时期。国王虽然 忠于他的妻子，但也不见得就成了一名天主教徒。他对于国会提出的援 助欧洲的新教事业非常敏感，毕竟，他的姐姐伊丽莎白嫁给了普法尔茨 选帝侯 (Elector      Palatine) 弗里德里希五世。弗里德里希在1620年白山 之战中，被天主教势力击败后丢掉了王冠。现在麻烦大了，国会要求更 强硬的外交政策，不愿绥靖。议员们话里有话地谈到西班牙船队靠海盗 劫掠就足以实现补给了。同时，国会也只以年度为单位向国王拨款。随 着战事的恶化，局势进一步刺激国会去反对国王和他的宠臣。

    与此同时，查理开始想方设法，用尽一切准合宪甚至不合宪的手段 筹集经费。他的法律顾问恢复了一些中世纪国王们使用过的法律。比如，地产保有人会接到罚单，因为据称其祖上在四个世纪前理查德一世 统治时期侵占了王室森林的部分土地。一份早扔进了故纸堆的1279年文 件被翻了出来，该文件要求每一位年薪在40英镑以上的人都要到法庭上 去接受质询，并且像骑士一样服役。此外，查理的官员对所有没有参加 他1626年加冕仪式的人征收罚金。国王还恢复了另一部古代法律，即《造船税法》(Ship    Money),规定沿海城镇在战时都需缴纳造船税， 但法律顾问宣布该法也同样适用于内陆城镇。

    像全欧洲的其他君主一样，查理一心要建立起一套稳定的财政收入系统。如果他能实现财政独立——这个无论哪一方都容易理解——那 么,他就可以抛开国会实行统治了。

    1629年3月，查理觉得他的时机到了。议员们不知怎地得到了国会  将被解散的风声，拒绝在上议院坐等国王的召集令。两名议员把议长按 在椅子上，这样议程就不会被终止；同时，他们通过了一个议案，宣布 任何支持劳德宗教改革和参与征收国王的海关税的人，都是“这个共和  国的头号敌人”。事实上，哪怕仅仅是交了税的人也被认为是“对英格兰 自由的背叛，同样也是英格兰的敌人”。在这些简短而愤怒的议案中，国会意味深长地给他们的敌人贴上了“政府中的改革者”的标签。议员明 确表示支持古代宪法，而国王的人正试图破坏它。就在这天晚一些时候，查理用行动证明了他们是对的：国会被解散，此后整整十一年再未 被召集。

    随后的这段时期传统上被辉格党人称为“十一年暴政期”(ElevenYears’Tyranny),    但是，对历史学者来说，更严谨的说法是“个人统治 时期”。查理试图建立起某种海峡对岸的君主们正在建立的绝对王权制，要不是臣民的火爆脾气，他原本是可能成功的。

    17世纪30年代是宗教和财政争议不断激化的时期。劳德主义的反对 者们终于确信了他们的怀疑，相信教会仪式和威权统治本是同根而生， 开始采取激烈行动彻底废除主教制。与此同时，国王的各种名目繁多的 违法征税也受到司法系统和如今已星散的国会领袖们的抵制。身先士卒 的就是约翰·汉普登 (John         Hampden), 他发起了对《造船税法》的法 律挑战。一些历史学者认为，对于大多数英国人来说，这些年是和平而 稳定的：税率低，而且如果武断地来评价，修缮教堂建筑、注重宗教仪 式等与这个民族的性格也是相匹配的。

    当然，这只是部分英国人的看法。在即将到来的冲突中，他们形成 了保皇派和骑士团队的核心组织，他们的意识形态的继承人形成了日后 的托利党。然而，正如一切专制政体，这里也会有腐败、政府无能及残酷。政治垄断只会导致权力僵化和滥用。国王的宠臣开始清算他们的老对手了——政权批评者被关押和迫害。英国人终于尝到了拜独裁者所赐 的焦虑、羞辱和受挫的滋味。

    为什么查理没能成功?是什么阻止了英格兰和苏格兰变成另一个欧 陆?部分来看，这股力量又一次来自普通法的高度适应性。这套规则体 系是保卫个人自由、抵抗任何政府专断意志的天然屏障。因为没有了如 期集会的立法机关，对王室政令的反抗就落在法院身上。普通法法官们 在与滥用权力的国王的斗争中表现出令人惊叹的大无畏气概。甚至，即 便他们按照现行法律判案，他们也更趋向于审时度势，尽到司法之职。 举例而言，在1638年，法院支持了国王享有《造船税法》规定的征税权，但还是宣布国王“在未得国会普遍同意的情况下，无权向其臣民征  收任何费用”。首席法官罗伯特 ·伯克利爵士 (Sir Robert Berkeley)补充 说：“我王国之人民乃臣民，非为奴隶；乃自由民，非可任意盘剥之隶  农。”

    随着普通法的持续适用，本地一级法律和代议机构也得以发展。和 诺曼君主一样，斯图亚特王朝发现：在法庭和教堂中做些改变，远较控 制郡一级官员更为容易。像他们的先辈一样，郡治安法官、死因裁判庭 法官、民事法庭法官、和平法官、教堂监管员以及其他官职人员，从撒 克逊时代起，在大部分事件处理过程中都可不受限制地行事。这些官职 通常被本地豪门望族把持，而往往同样是这批人占据了下议院的席位。 这就意味着，即使国会被关闭，也不能完全消除对国王的批评之声。特 别值得一提的是，巡回法院在整个内战期间依然持续发挥功能，这可称 得上是最为顽强和长寿的地方机构。

    即便如此，如果不是因为大不列颠的另一个特征，查理也完全可能 胜出。这一特征就是不列颠作为一个岛国，不需要常备军。一旦国王能 维持国家的和平局面，他就可以做到独立统治。但是，即使用上他的法 律顾问能找到的所有的古老的财政手腕，没有国会提供的资金，查理也供养不起一场战争。所以，就在国会解散后不久，查理迅速和西班牙达 成了和平协议。但是，战争最终还是爆发了，双方都没有任何预警。

    1637年，一个名叫珍妮 ·杰德丝 (Jenny    Geddes) 的集市贸易商在爱 丁堡圣吉尔斯大教堂策划了一起掷折叠凳事件，最终把查理从王位宝座 上拉下马。苏格兰一直沿袭宗教的苦修传统，国王急切渴望把这一做法 推广至英格兰的所有教会。当爱丁堡主教身着白色法袍在某个星期日上 午走进大教堂时，信众发出了声声叹息。而就在这个可怜的人正准备宣 读国王新近批准的公祷书时，叹息变成了惊呼。

    珍妮 ·杰德丝太过分了。她跳出来，在教堂执事耳边尖叫：“魔鬼会 让你肚子绞痛的，你这个冒牌的窃贼!你竟敢在我耳边宣读弥撒?!”随后，她抄起事先带进来的折叠凳，向主教的头上猛掷过去。

    与此同时，她的一些教友也一拥而上，一边高叫“弥撒!弥撒!”一边七 手八脚地撕扯主教的法袍。

    骚乱迅速波及了整座城市，随后又延烧至低地地区。苏格兰清教徒 团结起来要求签署神圣盟约，发誓抵制那位虽然出生在法伊弗 (Fife)但大部分时间都耗在英格兰的国王的教皇改革举措。苏格兰教会全体大 会自认抗议者之首，组织他们掀起了全国性抗议声浪。

    查理国王的反应让人惊愕。他在英格兰境内组建了一支军队，准备 再度征服他的故乡。军队在边境线集结引发了边境两边的恐慌。很明显，一旦国王身后尾随着一支大军，那他就很可能实行更邪恶的统治。 随着查理不识时务地把若干天主教官员擢拔至高位，这样的担忧进一步 加深。英国人再也不愿继续奉陪顽固的国王玩这场军事冒险。这场冲突 的正式名称— “主教战争”(Bishops’War)——  已经告诉我们其不受欢 迎的程度。很多英国清教徒同情苏格兰长老教会，憎恶为战争买单，因 为如果这样，这位不受欢迎的国王就可以继续推行他们不喜欢的宗教改 革。那一年，造船税遭到了几乎全国范围的普遍抵制。

    在这样的背景下，查理的失败毫不奇怪。他的士兵完全不是誓为信仰和家园而战的盟约派的对手。随着苏格兰人节节推进，国王的金库已 经无法再维持战争了。在走投无路的情况下，查理召集了新国会。1640 年4月，在积累了十一年的怨愤之后，现在已经将国王认定为独裁者的  国会重新开张。议员们直接拒绝了国王提出的补贴要求，除非积怨得以 消除。私下里，他们开始单独同苏格兰进行谈判。惊怒之下的国王在三 周后立即解散了这届所谓的“短期国会”,但是，他的处境更糟了。苏格 兰盟约军已经进入英格兰，占领了北方部分城市。国王没有选项了。到 11月，他召集了后来所称的“长期国会”这届国会一直维持到1660年 才告解散。

    被召集回来的议员都清楚王室永久独裁者的危险；国王则尽力摆出 柔和的姿态，发誓一定会重视议员们对宗教、财税问题的诸多意见，把“宗教、政府事务减至伊丽莎白女王时代最简单的程度”。但国会已经 不再相信查理，他们要为这段非法统治的年月申冤，弹劾当时的王室顾 问。

    与此同时，他们也很担心查理一旦有机会就会驱散国会，重回武力 统治。有消息称，国王的一些官员正在积极谋求西班牙的军事援助，王 后已经从她的哥哥——法兰西的路易十三世——那里获得了支持。如果 不是长期存在于这个国家的两派宿敌的恩怨糟糕到这种地步，查理不会 解散在爱尔兰的军队——谣言四起，说军队就要在伦敦登陆了。

    国会再次面对来自伦敦平民的各种观点的众声喧哗，他们是整个17、18世纪代表激进主义、新教徒的生力军。发生宫廷政变的可能性变 得空前真实，宗教、财政和宪法大讨论让位于一个更加尖锐的问题：谁 将控制军队?

    1641年11月，爱尔兰天主教徒爆发了反对英格兰一苏格兰后裔庄园 主在爱尔兰东北部拓殖的大起义。消息传到伦敦，就前述问题达成妥协 的所有希望破灭了。法律随后颁布，宣布只有国王才有统率军队的权力。但国会作出决定，不得设立受国王支持的大规模常规军。议员纷纷宣布：除非国王把军队交给由国会任命的郡治安长指挥，否则不会授权 国王建立这样的军队。

    国会一直担心国王随时可能发动政变，这种迹象变得越来越明显。 1642年新年前后，查理动手了。他把伦敦塔的卫戍部队换成从北方调回 的皇家炮兵，声称国会从今往后受国王的军队保护，同时下令伦敦市长 在必要时可用火药枪驱散暴民。1月4日，查理一马当先，率领三百近卫 军来到威斯敏斯特寺，公然违反国会传统和特权，强行进入议会厅，坐 到议长的发言席上。他宣布，此次前来，是要逮捕带头反对他的政策的 国会议员。查理没找到“叛徒”,随即要求议长威廉·伦索尔 (William Lenthall)  说出那五个人的去向。

    议长不卑不亢地答道：“尊敬的国王陛下，我无眼可看也无舌可 言，下院引领着我，我是这儿的奴仆。”

    国王扫了一眼长长的席位，咕哝了一句“他也有眼睛”,接着 说：“啊…..我看到鸟儿已经飞走了。”

    五个国会议员逃到伦敦城，那里是坚决支持他们的商人阶层的大本 营。国王侵犯国会特权的暴行使民意倒向了国会议员一边。下议院议员 们逃到杂货商协会的侍从室避难。事态发展几乎不可避免，他们自命为 城市军的领袖，发起了与王军的武装斗争。接下来的一周，国王因为担 心家人的安全，撤离了伦敦。

    当政治派别纷纷选定站队以后，事态终于出现了明确的走向。双方 都在努力寻求妥协，但彼此间的信任早已耗尽。5、6月间，贵族和绅士 投奔国王驻扎在约克的军营，双方支持者之间的裂痕不可弥合。8月18  日，国会宣布所有支持查理的人都是“叛国者”。四天后，国王以中世纪 特有的显赫姿态，在诺丁汉升起了王军的旗帜，召集全体国王的臣民效 忠他们的领主。第二天，王旗在恶劣的天气中跌落在地。

    第一场表亲战争

    接下来的冲突横扫了所有讲英语者居住的王国。在苏格兰，主教战 争让位于盟约派与保皇党之间的内战，后者得到了爱尔兰军队的支持。 而在爱尔兰，教派冲突更为激烈，演变为联合战争(有时又被称为十一 年战争)。这场战争终结于英格兰和苏格兰方面的两线入侵，以及至今 想来仍叫人不寒而栗的大屠杀。至于英格兰境内，则先后发生了两场以 恢复君主制为目的但以破产而告终的战争，第一场苏格兰人支持国会， 第二场却支持国王。很多历史学家喜欢将这系列交错的战乱称为三国之 战 (Wars  of the  Three  Kingdoms,威尔士那时是英格兰的一部分),尽 管将它们视为第一次盎格鲁圈内战更为准确。

    然而，战争还波及其他讲英语的地区。在广袤的大西洋和北美大陆，最早的殖民地正沿着海岸线艰难地建立起来。盎格鲁圈内战史很少 提及它们，主要原因是它们的规模太小。17世纪中期，英格兰人口达到 500万，再加上50万威尔士人和大约200万爱尔兰人、100万苏格兰人。

    而当时北美殖民地上所有讲英语的人加起来不会超过4万，主要集中在  新英格兰地区。这个数量比英伦三岛人口的1%的一半还少。但是，这  并不妨碍拓殖者打响他们的国内战争，而且他们自己也常感是在与大西 洋对岸的同胞一起并肩战斗。

    战争是检验国民性的试金石。每当外敌压境，国内的民众就迅速忘 掉了内部争吵。17世纪40年代搅动了整个英语世界的战争并不是一个国 家对另一个国家的战争；换言之，战争不是发生在爱尔兰和苏格兰，或 者爱尔兰和英格兰，以及北美殖民地的分支之间。毋宁说，这场战争后 来在上述所有地区划分出两大阵营，并将对峙的双方推向不同的政治体 制。

    泛泛而言，在英格兰、苏格兰、北美和爱尔兰，出现了为君主制、 贵族制、主教制度、等级制以及王权和土地而战的一派，同时也出现了 为个人主义、新教、代议制政府和自由贸易而战的一派。这种分化脱胎 于为政治共识而进行的战斗，形成了盎格鲁圈的基础，也形成了盎格鲁 圈中常见的两党制。

    正是在三国战争时期，第一次出现了“辉格党”和“托利党”的名称(尽管在它们成为政治标签之前，类似的词语早就开始流通了)。“辉  格党”是“好斗的苏格兰长老会派教徒”的缩语，主要用来指那些反对向  查理国王妥协的苏格兰盟约派成员。“苏格兰长老会派教徒”一词出自苏 格兰语“好斗的倔脾气”,暗讽他们是一群乡下土包子。

    而“托利党”一词则来自于爱尔兰语中“穷追不舍的人”,或者掉书袋 的说法，即“不法之徒”。最早那批托利党人是战败的爱尔兰天主教徒。 17世纪50年代，这批人流亡岛内，衣食无着，在爱尔兰西部小岛断断续 续打游击。曾有克伦威尔的官员写过如下悬赏令，缉拿三种野兽：“第 一类是狼，每头五英镑；如是母狼，赏十镑。第二类是牧师，每颗人头 我们付十英镑。第三类野兽是托利党人，值二十镑。”

    这两个词最早在17世纪70年代出现，被用作政治攻击的工具。在宗 教极端分子常被声讨的社会氛围下，把某一反对派比作吵吵闹闹的苏格 兰长老派成员或者爱尔兰天主教流氓，肯定不是什么好词儿。然而，正 如我们看到的，这些攻击也常常被受攻击的对象骄傲地笑纳。它们在接 下来的一个世纪中奠定了整个盎格鲁圈两党制的基础，并且留下了传诸 后世的名称。英国和美国的辉格党一直存在到19世纪60年代，英国和加 拿大的保守党至今有时仍被称为托利党。

    然而，这种党派标签仅仅是全盎格鲁圈划分出的思想战线的外在表 现，与政客们实际怎么称呼自己无关。

    随便举个例子。乔治 ·艾略特(George    Eliot)的《米德尔马契》 (Middlemarch) 被誉为最伟大的英文小说，这本书于1871年和1872年分上下两册出版，讲述了一个英国乡间小镇四十年前的故事。这是一部 时间和空间跨度都很大的小说，穿插了众多乡绅家庭和镇上居民的生活 片段。小说读者很快就能看到，按照人们的社会偏好和宗教派别而不是 政治竞争，作为英国同类型乡镇代表的米德尔马契镇分为了两派-    尽 管人们的政治立场早就由1832年《改革法案》 (Reform  Act)划出了界 线。“托利党”和“辉格党”等词在小说中极少出现，因为作者认为，她的  读者不管生活于哪个年代，都可以立即辨识出，这种分裂既是文化的，也是政治的。托利党一辉格党的分化在艾略特写作小说之前，已经以保 守派一自由派的形式在英国存在了两个世纪以上；在小说出版后，又延 续了半个多世纪。直到20世纪20年代民主社会主义兴起，它才被另一种 意识形态斗争所取代。托利主义和辉格主义与孩子们自小在主日学校里 接受灌输而形成的宗教派别有着密切关联。这种分化，用杰斐逊的话来 说，是“深植于人性的”。

    最早的辉格党人和托利党人有意识地用前代人的圆头党和骑士党来 自况。(圆头党就是反对国王查理一世的议会党人的绰号。清教徒倾向 于反对当时留齐肩发的时尚，尽管很多画像表明大部分议会派也和他们 的保皇党政敌一样，蓄着奢侈的卷发。)

    这样的冲突在整个英语世界不断深化，由此形成了遍及盎格鲁圈的 政党制度。

    不言而喻，三国之战发生在不同的国家和不同的宗教之间。在任何 地方，本地冲突都会塑造出意识形态的斗争。在爱尔兰，爆发了占人口 大多数的天主教徒反抗异族统治阶级的民族起义。在苏格兰，战争进一 步激化了讲英语的长老派低地居民与被他们的语言、习俗和宗教信仰所 包围的讲盖尔语的部落之间的敌意。因为高地内部的相互仇杀，忠诚变 得更加复杂：一些部落自发地反对他们的世敌。在爱丁堡，这些人的首 领按照盎格鲁一日耳曼方式被封为伯爵或者公爵。他们像政治家一样谈 论问题，深知他们的权力依靠的正是从深沟巨涧中召集起成百上千阔刃大刀的能力。

    发生在英格兰、爱尔兰、苏格兰和美利坚的战争不仅仅被参战者的 同仇敌忾联系在一起，而且亲斯图亚特派和反斯图亚特派之间的战争超 越了国境线。苏格兰盟约派在同国王的战争中，推进到了英格兰；然后 又调转立场，与国王联盟，作为对后者作出的在英格兰境内承认长老宗 的报答；最后，他们又被克伦威尔所征服-     克伦威尔实际上吞并了苏 格兰。爱尔兰天主教同盟派出军队援助苏格兰保皇党人，军队受苏格兰 部落首领阿拉斯代尔 ·麦克考拉 (Alasdair    MacColla) 和他的爱尔兰表兄 马努斯 ·欧可汗 (Manus    O’Cahan) 统率。爱尔兰向苏格兰发兵以后，遭 到苏格兰和英格兰的清教徒的入侵。尽管爱尔兰军队从未真正踏入英格 兰领土，但他们随时可能登陆并且实行“主教制和奴隶制”的威胁始终不 曾消散。单此一条，就被圆头党人大加渲染，成了最有效的宣传战攻势。

    在北美殖民地，阵营与战线的分化也和别处一样。宽泛地讲，弗吉 尼亚人属于骑士党，而新英格兰人则是圆头党。重要战役多发生在马里 兰的天主教徒和清教徒之间。清教徒在战斗中略占上风，尽管巴尔第摩 总督和他的手下在查理二世于1660年即位时重又恢复了权力。

    那么，划分两派的分界线又在哪里?

    社会支持是一个方面。骑士党能够得到大多数贵族和效忠国王的自 耕农的支持。而圆头党则在商人阶层中更为流行，伦敦城就是他们最坚 固的大本营。

    地缘是另一个方面。在英格兰，对国会的支持主要自来东南部，这 一地区后来演变为“东部联盟”,包括诺福克 (Norfolk) 、 萨福克(Suffolk) 、 艾塞克斯 (Essex) 、 剑桥郡 (Cambridgeshire) 、 亨廷登 郡 (Huntingdonshire) 、 赫福德郡 (Hertfordshire)   和林肯郡(Lincolnshire)。奥利弗 ·克伦威尔招募的高唱圣歌的骑士正是来自这  一片平坦丰沃的土地。骑士党军则从湿冷的英格兰北部山区、西部乡村及威尔士获得支持。

    在苏格兰，保皇党的腹地位于主要信奉天主教的高地地区(坎贝尔 群岛是例外),以及天主教信徒占大多数的东北部地区。在爱尔兰，国 王的支持者们分布在新教徒聚居的东北部和部分东部海岸城镇以外的绝 大部分地区。

    北美人继承了他们在英伦岛上的先辈们的政治忠诚。在新英格兰居住的主要是来自“东部联盟”的拓殖者，他们以老地名命名新城镇：波士 顿、比勒里卡(Billerica)、 剑桥、戴德姆(Dedham)、  哈特菲尔德    (Hatfield) 、 哈里奇 (Harwich) 、 伊普斯维奇 (Ipswich) 。 这样一来，他们觉得自己与在英格兰的新教家族如此接近      事实上，这些家 族与他们相隔也不会超过一到两代。战争爆发后，马萨诸塞的清教徒们 又跨过大西洋回到家乡，与他们的表兄弟并肩战斗。

    17世纪40年代毕业的哈佛学生有一半以上见证过圆头党一方在英国 内战期间的行动。与之相反，大多数弗吉尼亚人都是圣公会教徒和英格 兰乡间大地产的仰慕者，他们早已复制并信守着对国王的效忠。

    总是强调社会和地区差异无异于一种忏悔室内的分裂。因为，我们 这个年代早已克服了宗教宗派主义。我们很想淡化战争的这一方面，不 要总是盯着阶级和地缘因素。但事实上，其他所有因素都被染上了宗教 色彩。

    清教势力在城镇比在乡间更强，在手工业者和商人中比在地主阶层 中更强，在英格兰南部和东部比在北部和西部更强，在新英格兰比在弗 吉尼亚更强，在阿尔斯特比在爱尔兰其他地区更强。同时，清教在老一 代人中较之新一代人中似乎拥有更多的拥趸。此外，还需提醒的是，王 权神圣在当时算得上是个时髦的新观念。

    战争的故事三言两语就能说完，因为本书不是要记录战争史。以后 见之明，我们不难发现：查理国王唯一获胜的机会就是在战争一开始就 抓住伦敦；而他的失误使得圆头党占据了财政和人口上的极大优势，随着时间的流逝，这一点越发明显。

    起初，战争被控制在相当温和的程度内。滥杀现象很少，暴行也几 乎看不到。如果一方占领了某个地区，那么对方最担心的通常莫过于挨 家搜捕了。有时，他们会被要求有条件的假释：只要他们发誓不再携带 武器，就可以释放了。

    我们只需看看同一时期的德国发生了什么,就不难知道这一切有多 么特殊。德国三十年战争此时正进入到血腥的最后挣扎阶段，恐怖事件 时有耳闻：屠杀平民，处死囚犯，烧毁民房。1500个镇和18000个村被  彻底洗劫，侥幸逃过一劫的也需花数十年时间才得恢复。德国和捷克境 内丧失了大概三分之一人口；在战争最为激烈的地区，人口锐减的程度 还要严重——全勃兰登堡大约有一半的人口丧生，在符腾堡，这个数字 达到了四分之三。

    英国内战相对温和的一个原因在于，英国人中占据压倒性多数的是 英国国教徒。也就是说，人们之间的宗教信仰差异仅仅是存在于同一个 教派内部的。五个英国人中就有四个自愿皈依英国国教。在1640年，天 主教徒的数量极少，大约只有六万人。他们一旦缴纳因不服从国教而遭 致的罚金，便可公开进行自己的宗教活动。还有更多的，是所谓的“教  奸”。他们表面上参加英国国教会的敬拜活动以免遭惩罚，私下里却为  教皇做事。这些人的数量很难统计，但应该不会多于总人口的5%。

    这个比例在上层阶级中更不容易算出。在清教徒中，这种“双重身份”的 教徒比例要高一点，大约是15%左右。

    在内战期间，有些天主教徒选择了鸵鸟战术，其余的则接受来自天 主教贵族的慷慨捐助，为国王而战。几乎所有清教徒都支持国会。但两 大宗教极端势力极少发生直接冲突。双方军队都由英国国教的人领导， 军官也基本都是英国国教的人。

    在英格兰，清教徒和天主教徒联合起来反对国教，胜过他们彼此之 间的相互敌对(而在爱尔兰，情况则稍微有所不同)。但是，也有少数例外，清教徒和天主教徒发生激烈冲突，其惨烈程度不亚于两派教徒在 德国战场上的血战。

    博尔顿 (Bolton) 是清教徒控制的纺织重镇，被邻近属于天主教的兰开夏郡 (Lancashire)包围。1644年5月28日，在一个风雨交加的夜晚，鲁珀特亲王 (Prince Rupert) 率领一支主要由天主教徒组成的王军 突袭了博尔顿镇，数百守军和平民被屠杀。次年，温切斯特侯爵(Marquess of Winchester) 把他的贝辛庄园 (Basing    House) 变成了天 主教徒的避难所，一些牧师和耶稣会成员也到此寻求庇护——他们被克 伦威尔四处缉拿，所提出集会商议的要求遭到无情拒绝。在贝辛，平民 与士兵一道遭到屠杀。[其中，建筑大师伊尼戈 ·琼斯(Inigo  Jones)侥 幸逃生。他当时几乎全身赤裸，跑出来时只裹着一条毯子。琼斯设计的 辉煌的意大利风格的作品   包括白厅的宴会厅    使清教徒们相信， 国王就算不在技术上，至少在审美上，也已经是一个十足的罗马天主教 徒了。]

    这些让人震惊的对抗在历史上显得尤为突出。然而，战乱波及的诸 郡虽然饱受征用与洗劫之苦，但还不至于像别国那样，已经将野蛮暴行 视为战时常态。一些圆头党人开始怀疑，他们的领袖——艾塞克斯和曼 切斯特伯爵      是不是正在打算就此收拳了?!国会军越来越不情愿靠 征用来维持战争。贵族将军们盼着和平谈判，寄望看到回来复位的国王 能变成立宪制下的君主。没有人想预先确定什么解决方案。正如曼切斯 特将军悲哀地说：“即使我们打败国王九十九次，他还是我们的国王，他的后代也是国王；如果国王打败了我们一次，我们就得上绞架，我们 的后代就得沦为奴隶。”

    然而，将军的军队却绝不会妥协。清教徒们被宗教激情点燃，要的 是全面胜利和一座新耶路撒冷城。最终，他们通过了《自抑法》 (Self-   Denying Ordinance),强迫全体国会议员(包括国会军总司令艾塞克斯 和曼切斯特将军在内)自行辞职。在1645年，领导权转移到托马斯 · 费尔法克斯爵士和新崛起的来自沼泽地区的骑兵团军官克伦威尔手中。清 教徒士兵们视这个唱歌和颂诗的军官为他们自己人。这支传统乡村地区 招募来的军队被公认为纪律如铁的骁勇之师，获得了“新模范军”的美誉。从此以后，一切就只是时间问题了。1645年6月，保皇党的两支军 队在北安普顿郡的纳斯比 (Naseby)   被击溃，查理一世的大业就此断  送。

    国会的人企图和战败的国王谈新条件；但他们很快发现，就在他们 和手下败将讨价还价的谈判过程中，国王悄悄地重新占了上风。最终， 查理一世和苏格兰盟约派达成了秘密协议：承认在英格兰的长老宗，以 此作为赢得后者支持的交换。保皇党又开始在英格兰境内起事，苏格兰 军队穿过边境线援驰王军。1648年，克伦威尔在普雷斯顿之战 (Battle    of Preston) 中一举击溃了联手的敌军，英国第二次内战结束。

    如果说第一次内战终结于宽容与慷慨之精神，第二次内战则充满了 复仇的欲望。国王的表现印证了他的反对者最为担心之处：狡诈善变， 两面三刀，而且噬权若渴。曼切斯特将军的抱怨言犹在耳：“只要给查  理一世翻身的机会，那就不可能有永久和平的解决方案，也不可能重回 限权宪法。”军队领袖和国会议员被迫得出和八年前同样的结论：英国  不能再为一个人冒险，国王必须死。

    1649年1月30日，查理一世被押解至伊尼戈 ·琼斯的白厅宴会厅外。

    国王要求再多加一件衬衣，以免冷得发抖让臣民以为他害怕了。正如当 时的诗人安德鲁 ·马维尔 (Andrew      Marvell) 所言：“他什么都没做，也 不要求任何纪念性的仪式。”查理一世从容赴死，引发了对殉道者的宗  教狂热，这使得他儿子在十一年后的复位变得相当顺利。

    战争以唤醒英语民族间跨边境的联合开始，如今，再以这些边境线 的真正消亡而结束。就像克伦威尔实行的严酷统治一样，这是第一次， 整个盎格鲁圈    也就是英伦三岛再加上北美殖民地    处于一个统一 的政权下。从1653年到1659年，一个单一的政府统治了被称为“英格兰、苏格兰和爱尔兰联合共和国”的国度。政府的最大敌人不是任何一  个区域的分离主义，而是分散在所有地区的保皇党人的敌意和对抗      这种情绪有时甚至能扇着翅膀飞过大西洋。

    1652年，一支军队被派往驻守弗吉尼亚，总督立刻意识到查理二世 将成为继他父亲死后的下一任国王，重返大位。弗吉尼亚保皇党人一枪 未发，立即接受了这一现实。爱尔兰大部分人口过去至少在名义上是支 持国王的，这一地区酿成了血腥的事件，直到今天，这一惨烈战事的名 字依然还在回响。

    在1653年9月，克伦威尔包围了爱尔兰德罗赫达城(Drogheda)，该城当时由一支天主教徒士兵组成的卫戍部队驻防。克伦威尔要求部队 司令(一个英格兰保皇党人)投降。司令知道邻近有一支奥蒙德公爵(Duke   of   Ormonde) 领导的四千人的保皇军，于是拒绝投降。克伦威 尔率军破城，损失惨重。国会军进入城后，大肆屠杀他们见到的每一个 士兵。平民送命，教堂被毁，教士们被追打致死，最少有两名保皇党军 官被送进大狱，后来又惨遭枪杀。

    克伦威尔的行径在英格兰引发震惊，至今仍是爱尔兰记忆中的伤痛 与仇恨。按照当时的标准，这样的情形并不罕见。那个时代的人们很容 易理解这一点：城池被围，城内的守军无疑是占优的，而围城的军队则 容易沦为饥饿、疾病和两面夹击的猎物。所以，战争惯例是，如果防守 一方拒绝投降，那么,他们就会被处死，尤其在欧洲战争规则下，这种 屠杀是正常的。

    然而，在盎格鲁圈，除了前述提及的博尔顿和贝辛之围是极少的特 例以外，这种大规模杀戮在当时几乎闻所未闻。教派解释是一种明显的 说法。如果没有中间道路的圣公会的温和影响，讲英语者也会习惯于像 欧洲的宗教狂热分子一样，彼此杀戮。在一封写给议会议长索尔的信中，克伦威尔为其在德罗赫达城的行径辩护，称这是“神圣的惩罚”:“我相信，这是上帝对那些可怜的野蛮人的公正裁判，他们的双手沾满了无辜者的鲜血。这样做(屠城)是为了防止将来他们的血和无辜 者混在一起，这总该是让人满意的理由吧；不这样做的话，不足以让他 们为自己的罪行感到自责和悔恨。”

    我们数度为圆头党人极富攻击性的爱国主义所震惊。这种爱国情绪 首先起于英格兰，随后扩展至整个讲英语人群。国会支持者们不断声讨 保皇党人认贼作父、卖国谄外的行径，这也是为什么美国《独立宣言》 中出现对“外国雇佣兵”的控诉的原因。国王向荷兰、丹麦、西班牙、法 国和梵蒂冈寻求支持。他的求助没有一次如愿，没有哪个欧洲王室愿意 帮助一个他们认为不值得信任同时也明知其是在投靠敌人的人。国王的 外交政策简直是个灾难，因为，正如辉格党历史学家特里维廉(G.M.Trevelyan)  在1924年所写，查理所要求的“军事援助，诋毁他的 人一直在说就要来了就要来了，可是从来没有兑现。国王是被这些他自 己招来的影子部队打败的”。

    然而，尽管英国圆头党人对这些阴魂不散的海外幽灵深恶痛绝，但 他们在邀请苏格兰人并肩战斗这一点上，从来没有丝毫迟疑。他们视爱 尔兰天主教盟军的支持者为反叛者，而非外敌。这并不是说盎格鲁圈认 同感已经取代了对英格兰的忠诚、对苏格兰的忠诚和对爱尔兰的忠诚； 但是现在，确已出现了一个“讲英语者联盟”,联盟成员彼此之间不像对 匈牙利人或者瑞典人那样完全是国与国的关系。

    这是建立在共同的政治原则之上的盎格鲁圈身份认同形成的关键时 刻。英语民族开始意识到，那些把他们和欧洲区别开来的事物-     个人 自由、法治原则、代议制政府以及其他-     正是盎格鲁世界的共同财富。长老会的神职人员在布道中将英格兰和苏格兰比作以色列和犹大  国，都是获得上帝恩宠的同宗同族的国家；阿尔斯特新教徒和新英格兰 人更是认定他们结成了被选中民族的神圣联盟。

    这种感情中，一方面夹杂着沙文主义的成分，另一方面也包含了坚 信内战的成果拯救了盎格鲁圈自由事业的信念——自由从来都与清教密不可分。特里维廉请他的读者想一下：如果内战的结果不是这样，“那 么,欧洲这股奔向专制主义的思想和实践潮流很可能就将英国裹挟其中，英国也就成为纯粹的欧洲国家体系的一部分。但纳斯比战役改变了 这一切，英国确立了它在新旧两世界之间的独立地位”。

    英格兰共和国时期见证了激进思想的爆发，有的怪诞，有的崇高。 小册子作家与布道者呼吁男女平等、完全民主、废除审查制。约翰 ·弥  尔顿3可称得上他们中最伟大的一位-     事实上，准确地说应该是继莎  士比亚之后最伟大的一位。弥尔顿曾在克伦威尔的政府中任职，他不仅 要求上述自由，还倡导离婚自由、言论自由。

    弥尔顿是盎格鲁自由主义万神殿中的一尊半神。在圣公会牧师、维 多利亚时代作家马克 · 帕蒂森 (Mark   Pattison) 笔下：
    他捍卫宗教自由，反对主教制；捍卫平民自由，反对王室；捍卫出版自  由，反对行政审查；捍卫良心自由，反对长老会贵族统治；捍卫国内自由，反 对教会法的独裁。弥尔顿撰写的小册子全都打上了塞尔登 (Selden) 用希腊语 在他每一部著作中的题词：“自由先于一切。”

    在弥尔顿心目中，自由并不等于不要规则(他将此称为“执照”)。 自由，毋宁说来自有德和理性的独立判断。自由之美德只能存在于参差 多态的不同观点中。弥尔顿相信，在多种观点彼此竞逐的缝隙间，自由 得以生长：“哪里有求知的热望，哪里就必然会有激烈的辩论、写作，以及多种观点，因为优秀者的观点只能是在竞争中产生的知识。”

    弥尔顿的政治思想使他最伟大的作品《失乐园》增色不少。《失乐 园》重述了亚当的堕落，“向世人昭示天道的公正”。读者若不为弥尔顿 对亚当甚至是撒旦的一腔同情所打动的话，是不可能读懂那些优美的诗 句的。相反，在书中，上帝的出场是无情的、高傲的、冷酷的。弥尔顿 痛恨任何权威，正如他那些谴责教皇和王室的申明一样，弥尔顿情愿让自己的激进自由主义染上他的宗教观色彩。

    过渡时期的一个好处是带来了欧洲闻所未闻的宗教多元主义。不少 国家都实行了宗教宽容政策，允许少数教派的信徒敬拜他们自己的神。 但是，允许不同教派间可以自由改宗，这在欧洲是从未听到过的。

    宗教多元主义与清教徒对《旧约》的强调两相结合，产生了一个更 妙的后果。1655年，一个名叫米那西 ·本 · 以色列 (Menasseh  Ben  Israel)  的犹太人向克伦威尔提交了一份请愿书，请求政府重新接纳他的族人他们自1290年后被逐出英格兰。克伦威尔，这位老骑兵团司令官、 亲犹太人士，一心想要发展与荷兰的贸易，欣然同意这一请求。结果， 犹太人得以重返英格兰，很少受到在欧陆那样的法律歧视。即使是王政 复辟之后，他们的地位也几乎没有改变。正如保罗 ·约翰逊(Paul Johnson)  在《犹太人史》 (History  of the  Jews) 中所说，在美国诞生之 前，英格兰无疑是犹太人生存、活动首选的乐土。因为，在宗教裁判所 宣布对非基督徒不具有管辖权的时代，犹太人是被分列在一个单独的法 律类别中的。这种单独的法律地位使得欧洲犹太人数个世纪以来一直活 在各种歧视和迫害之下；而在英格兰则相反，犹太人只是受到了其他所 有非国教徒也同样会受到的相当温和的限制。一个18世纪的英国犹太教徒和卫理公会教徒、天主教徒，是被一起列在同一个法律目录之下的 (所有限制直到19世纪才被提高)。

    说亲犹倾向是辉格党的特征，这听上去似乎有点不可思议；然而， 亲犹与辉格主义之间的关联古已有之，偶尔会以某些出人意料的方式表 现出来。20世纪90年代后期，也就是北爱尔兰暴力活动的最后阶段，你 可以从悬挂的旗帜判断出哪是独立派的地盘，哪是联合派的地盘。独立 派在爱尔兰三色旗旁边，会升起巴勒斯坦解放组织的旗帜；而联合派， 古老的辉格党和威廉三世事业的继承人，则会紧挨着联盟旗悬挂以色列 的大卫王星旗。

    共和国见证了自由的扩展，却并没有看到民主的同步跟进。议会军的胜利并不意味着议会制政府的胜利，相反，克伦威尔倒向了军事独裁。他解散了残余的下院，通过牧师与士兵统一了三国。英格兰、苏格 兰和爱尔兰如今都在军事政府的统治之下-     如果当时克伦威尔感觉哪 怕有任何需要的话，美利坚原本也会是同样的命运。然而，在这一过程 中，北美拓殖者成了共和国最坚定的拥护者，在复辟之后保护了很多出 逃的老兵。

    老统治阶层退出政坛，回到了他们在乡下的庄园。克伦威尔千方百 计想召他们回去，甚至任命了一个上院的召集人来敦促这一工作，但是 老贵族们拒绝再为这个如今自诩是“护国公”的人做任何事。

    克伦威尔在世时，依靠其个人强力维持统治；死后，像大多数军事 独裁者一样，他的儿子被推举为名义上的领袖，高级官员和军事将领则 各自把持要职。一位历史学家写道：“奥利弗在他的坟墓中统治英国。”事实很快就清楚了，继承人没法唤起必需的忠诚。这样一来，唯  一具有合法性的统治只能复活“古代宪法”了，换言之，也就是古老的议 会两院与君主的共治。要么这一代人、要么下一代人回到历史的主流， 只是一个时间问题。

    在当时，苏格兰总督乔治 ·蒙克 (George      Monck) 是国会军最高军 事长官。他的军队向伦敦挺进，无人敢挡。1640年议会下院中还没离开 的议员被召集，很快又被投票解散，要求重开新的选举。新议会产生了，这一次，两院议员齐集。新议会在第一次会期的任务就是接受先王 流亡在外的儿子的求和信，信中祈求国会谅解，愿意偿还拖欠的议会军 津贴，承认内战以来的地产变动以及附条件的宗教多元化政策。亲王以 其得体而又诚恳之态得到了国会的认可。新议会的成员比起前几届议会 来说，清教徒和激进派的数量更少-      部分原因大概是由于其成员来自 更年轻的一代，他们投票同意撤销过渡时期的立法机关，恢复君主制。 1660年5月29日，从法国被召回的查理二世抵达伦敦，这天正好是他30  岁生日。

    从复辟到革命

    保王党人得到稳定的议会多数支持，现在是他们秋后算账的时候了。还活着的弑君者，也就是那些直接参与了查理一世的审判和行刑的 人，统统受审，大部分随后被处死；那些已经死了的，则遭到掘墓戮尸 的对待。被驱逐的骑士重又回到他们原来的庄园。

    克伦威尔统治时期推行的清教主义被扫荡一空。剧院重新开张，酒 肆妓院生意兴隆，时髦的绅士在他们乐于纵欲的国王身上找到了效仿的 榜样。

    英国国教最终统一了宗教的制度和仪式，导致大量清教徒远走他乡。主教权威最终确立，劳德改革的很多措施得到认可。劳德是一个温 和虔敬的人，因为议会发布的一项报复性命令而被砍头。官方神学渐与 加尔文主义分道扬镳，开始把重点放在自由意志上(这倒不是说神学对 国教徒来说不重要，英国国教包含了宽泛的信仰)。

    然而，新确立的宗教制度已经悄然发生改变，这一重要性却少有历 史学家注意：国教如今已摆脱了国王的控制，处于国会管辖的范围之内；而此前这样的改革遭到每一任国王的抵制。

    还有一点必须要注意：今天的人总是想当然地认为我们如此需要政 府，所以，历史学家们总会在各类法案和决议中“发现”查理的“骑士议  会”有多拥护君主和国教会。然而，有些事情虽未言说却并不能视而不  见。下院现在已经毫无争议地垄断了通过征税获得财政收入的专属权。 任何君主再想对议会的言论自由擅加控制已经不可想象，更不用说像查 理一世那样肆无忌惮地咆哮议会。(直到现在，黑杖侍卫如果要召唤下 院议员参加女王的议会开幕式演讲，下院的门都会象征性地对着他“砰”地关上。)《三年集会法案》 (Triennial Act)稳固地保障了常规性选举，尽管查理二世总能千方百计找出法子规避这些条款。

    1660年复辟，对于合法的议会来说，是第一次；对于君主制来说， 这是第二次，也是最后一次。麻烦在于，新国王不这么看。查理二世在 流亡法国期间，目睹了更强势也更绝对的君主制。他和他的祖父、父亲 一样，不遗余力地希望筹到比议会准备拨付的多得多的钱。可惜他没那 么走运，无法像他的祖父和父亲一样通过法外途径捞到钱财。

    于是他开始打他的表弟路易十四的主意。很难找到比这更不受欢迎 的方案了。法国是英格兰的宿敌。查理二世流亡海外的经历、他的法国 母亲以及黧黑的面孔已经使他成为英国国内反法偏见的箭靶子-     就像 我们在本书第三章诺曼征服以后看到的那样。在当时，法国有着全世界 范围内最强的天主教力量，同时也被所有其他国家，尤其是荷兰新教徒，视为打破欧洲均势的威胁。当然，路易本人也是绝对君主制的典型 和象征。在太阳王的炫目光芒之下，即使英格兰和苏格兰最狂热的保王 党人也会忍不住退缩。

    然而，查理求财若渴，也没有比和朝内争论更高的热情去和议会讨 价还价。他乐于用路易的金币为自己买得一段清静日子。1662年，查理 以32万英镑的价钱卖掉了克伦威尔军队四年前拿下的敦刻尔克港(Dunkirk) 。 这一举动吓坏了英国人：不光伤害他们的爱国之情，而  且英国上下一直非常担心这座城市变成反攻英国船只的私人基地     事 实上也的确如此。

    民众的激烈反应迫使查理不得不陷入与法国的秘密谈判。1670年，他与路易签署了《多佛密约》 (Secret Treaty of Dover)。作为获得200 万王室经费的交换，查理同意放弃同瑞典、荷兰的三方同盟，转而联合 路易对荷宣战。他还向法王允诺，在时机合适时改信天主教。后来，查 理在临终前的病床上皈依了天主教。

    很难想象还能有哪个英国君主做得出比这更卖国的行径。查理把自 己出卖给了祖国的大敌，背叛同盟，试图凌驾于议会之上，而且所有这一切都是在秘密中进行的。

    秘密协议的条款直到下个世纪才得曝光，但它们已经不会使查理的 臣民们大惊小怪了。他的亲法倾向不是秘密，他对议会的不耐烦举国共 睹，而且他大加羡慕欧洲的绝对主义无需任何掩饰，甚至，他对天主教 的同情也受到普遍怀疑。

    事实上，让人奇怪的倒是查理的议员们比起他们的父亲在查理一世 的执政期间受到的约束更多。查理二世的反对派们相当温和，始终诉诸 宪法和议会斗争，只有在查理执政的最后时期才出现了直接对抗。对抗 来自极少数共和派狂热分子。在共和国时期，为什么“好的老事业”4招  来了那么多敌人?

    部分答案在于英国清教势力的衰退，它的生命力随着移民潮流向了 北美；但更多的解释是没人再关心那个已经没有悬念的继承人了。

    当查理的弟弟责备他缺乏防护时，我们不妨想象国王可能如何回答：“别担心，吉米。他们不会为了立你为王而杀我。”这个故事或许是 伪造的，但它表达的情绪却是真实的。查理和至少八个情妇生了十七个 孩子(他承认其中的十二个是他的子嗣),没有一个是合法的继承人。 他的妻子，不幸的葡萄牙公主凯瑟琳 ·布拉甘萨(Catherine of Braganza),也就是那位将茶饮带到英国而备受赞誉的王后，经历三次 流产，终至不孕。因此在查理死后，皇冠传到了他弟弟詹姆斯——约克 公爵     手上。

    1673年，在“天主教共谋”引发的近乎偏执的狂热氛围中，议会通过 了《宣誓法案》(Test Act), 要求所有担任英国公职者不得信奉天主 教教义。詹姆斯因为坚持其已经秘密信奉多年的天主教信仰，辞去了海 军大臣的职务。

    查理执政的余下时期由此被各种改变继承规则，以便取詹姆斯而代 之的企图所占据。现在轮到辉格党和托利党全面交锋了。辉格党担心一 个天主教君主会给他们带来法国式的或者西班牙式的专制制度，一心想要赶走詹姆斯二世。托利党人虽然普遍也对天主教不抱好感，但他们相 信继位权，而且纠结于一群凡人的集会就想挑战神圣的继承规则这一观 念。尽管这样的斗争从某个角度来说，是宗派性质的，但最终引发了一个更深层的问题，即：主权是赋予国王，还是议会?

    对于一个世纪甚至更长时间以后，大部分欧洲都闻所未闻的政党， 也就是有着特定信念的、超越了一般意义上赞成或者反对某政权的组织，我们有必要来好好审视一番。即使在今天，盎格鲁圈内的政党体系 的团结依然不多见。在很多国家，包括部分欧洲国家，很少有政党能活 得比它的创始人更长。然而，在17世纪70年代的伦敦，托利党人和辉格 党人的行为俨然已经具备了政党的形象。很多小细节把他们区别开来， 比如：佩戴不同颜色的徽章；在烟雾腾腾的房间里聚会密谋，辉格党喜 欢在咖啡馆，而托利党则去酒馆。

    托利党成功阻击了《排斥法案》5在议会中的通过，一时似乎正处  于黄金时期。但事态似乎从詹姆斯二世在1685年继位以后开始变得越来 越坏。新国王登基，当召集新议会，这早已是长久确立下来的惯例，但 詹姆斯基于各种理由却对此犹豫不决。这甚至让一个半世纪以后的辉格 党历史学家麦考莱爵士震怒不已。他说：

    这个时候实际上应当是举行普选的最好时机。自斯图亚特王朝执政以来， 选民团体从来没有对王室这么友善过。但是，新王的心中却萦绕着难以言喻的 顾虑。就算隔着这么长时间，也不能冲淡它的不光彩。国王担心召集议会会招 致法王的不快。

    讲英语者对于法国专制君主的反感常有回响。路易不愿看到海峡对 岸出现一个自由议会，以使他自己的臣民有所想法。对路易来说，詹姆 斯是一个比查理更可靠的同盟，或者用麦考莱的话说，一个“封臣和雇  员”。

    路易对他的表兄也不是事事帮忙。1685年，路易宣布撤销《南特敕 令》 (Edict     of     Nantes),取消此前授予法国清教徒的宽容措施，这一 决定的长期效果打破了长久以来从法国到盎格鲁圈的全球均势。数以万 计有胆有识的法国人流向英国、北美和南非-      其中就有保罗 ·列维尔  的祖先。决定的短期效果则引发了全大不列颠的恐慌。这种担心绝不是 挂在嘴上的，英国人从内心里害怕落到一个天主教君主的手里。詹姆斯 对此若有丝毫敏感，都该出面平复一下这种恐慌情绪。然而，他所做的 每一件事，只是在激怒他的国民。

    历代历史学家们一直试图推翻麦考莱对詹姆斯二世的恶劣评价，但没有一个人真正成功过。

    詹姆斯二世可能是斯图亚特家族中唯一一个毫无忏悔精神的君主。 詹姆斯一世为人粗俗、卑劣、善变，然而还算聪明、亲和。查理一世对 朋友两面三刀，对敌人冷酷无情，但起码相当勇敢。查理二世成天游手 好闲，奢侈逸乐，骄傲自负，但需要的时候，他也机敏过人，魅力十足。然而，在詹姆斯二世身上，你几乎找不到上述任何品质。他愚蠢， 狡诈，狭隘，自恋，毫无幽默感，固执不化，怯懦无能。据说他的宗教 信仰无比坚定，但他强制推行其宗教信仰的粗放做法对于英国天主教徒 来说，简直是场灾难。

    詹姆斯二世的高级政务官劳德黛尔公爵 (Duke  of  Lauderdale) 曾在 1679年这样评价未来的国王：“王储继承了他父亲的全部缺点。就像他  本人所说，他总是按自己的方式行事，简直就是一个没有教皇之名的教 皇，这早晚会毁了他。”

    事实比任何人估计的更快地证明了这一点。詹姆斯的臣民们不愿再 冒下一次内战的风险。重要的军事将领对反对君主制的事业不感兴趣， 英国国教的官方理论也臣服于主权者。当下议院最终被同意召开时，议 员们批准了拨付给国王的慷慨的津贴，也似乎乐于取消各种反对天主教 的限制措施，几乎没有议员质疑国王给予他的教友的种种宽松权利。

    但是詹姆斯无论对战略还是战术都毫无头脑。他立即着手在朝廷内、在牛津和剑桥大学以及军队中推行天主教——最后这一点正是他的 国民们最为紧张的。他命令国会彻底清除残存的《测试法案》,同时又 要求加紧对不信奉国教的新教徒进行限制。他对国会作出的种种妥协照 单全收，毫不感激，同时又继续索取更多。

    觉察到敌意不断高涨，詹姆斯开始清洗国内每一个独立机构：伦敦城、郡尉、大学、市政团体、地方长官。国王的反对者们意识到他已经 把超越宪法的权力攥在手里，而要想改变这一切决不能寄望合乎宪法的 手段。反对者们渐渐聚拢到詹姆斯的女婿、荷兰执政威廉的身边。威廉 此时正在欧洲发起新教运动。一个流亡荷兰共和国的辉格党反对派开始 探试取代国王的路子。

    最终，詹姆斯意识到他被先前与之结盟的议会抛弃了。国王在最后 一次试图声张其权力的努力失败后，来了个180度的大转弯，甚至同意  加强对任何反对清教的异议者的惩罚。然而，一切都太晚了，没人再相 信他，无论国教徒，还是异议者。只有极少数耶稣会士成员和年轻、不 切实际的天主教徒，还天真地看好他的政策可以引导他们。

    国王下令每一个教堂都要宣读他亲自编定的允诺宗教平等的诏书。 部分英国国教教士拒绝执行这一法令，认为这一措施威胁到国教的地位，而且国王的真实意图其实是要让天主教回到至尊位置。坎特伯雷大 主教和六名主教领导了这场抵制运动。这些温和的人与国王彻底决裂了，他们从骨子里相信自己的天职就是绝对服从教会的最高统治者，而 这一点正是对詹姆斯性格缺陷的针锋相对的挑战。

    七名主教向国王提交了一份言语很不客气的请愿书，要求免除宣读 诏书的义务。国王的回答是近乎卡里古拉6式的，指控这些人犯下煽动  诽谤罪，并下令将其送进伦敦塔。这一次，圣公会主教受到来自全国的 隆誉真是前无古人。民众涌向通往伦敦塔的道路，为德高望重的教士们 喝彩，以至于卫兵不得不下跪乞求人们让路。案件在1688年6月被提交到王座法院，七主教最终无罪释放；然而，另一个普通法法庭才是斯图 亚特治下的自由的最可靠的同盟。

    在主教们等待判决期间，发生了一件事，大大增加了国王实行专制 制度的可能性。1688年6月10日，詹姆斯的妻子生下了一名男婴。在此  以前，他们原定的继承人是玛丽公主，也就是詹姆斯和第一任妻子所生 的女儿。公主一直被作为新教徒养大。举国皆认为她不可能单独掌政， 权力的缰绳最终会握在她丈夫奥兰治的威廉手里，威廉是当时荷兰共和 国通过准继承的方式产生的执政。

    詹姆斯的第二任妻子是摩德纳的玛丽亚 ·碧翠丝公主 (Mary  Beatrice of       Modena),一个狂热的天主教徒，她的家族一直是法国的老主顾。 玛丽亚 ·碧翠丝此前已经生过三个孩子，但没有一个活到成年。民间普遍认为她不可能再怀孕了，一时间谣言四起，有说王后不孕的，也有说 国王在17世纪60年代患上性病所以不能再生育的。(詹姆斯和哥哥查理 一样好色；在晚年，他亲眼见证了自己皇冠落地，视为其通奸行为所遭 的天罚。)

    小王子，也就是叫詹姆斯的男孩诞生的消息传开后，大部分国人难 以置信。因为正当耶稣会盼望出现一个天主教男性继承人时，真就有这 样一个人变魔法般出现了——这一切似乎也太巧了。有人宣称王后怀孕 是一场骗局，那个来历不明的男婴是被放在一个暖床的汤婆子里偷运进 宫里的。

    这个故事可能很荒谬，但在那个年代，皇室继承人的诞生可是举国 大事，不光直接关系待位的公主，也影响到皇室其他男性高级成员。然 而，汤婆子的故事越传越广，越传越真，就连奥兰治的威廉对这桩八卦 消息也当起真来。数月以后，威廉带兵入英。同时，他还发表了两个声 明，即召集自由议会和对男婴的出生举行公开质询。

    其实威廉不必做这么多声明。这个新生的男婴，对他的支持者来  说，是詹姆斯三世；对反对者来说，就是个冒牌货。他的出生急速改变了局势。只要能保证继位的是新教徒，大部分托利党人和一部分辉格党 人都准备好继续忍受詹姆斯的压迫与残酷。国王已经到了知天命之年， 他本人内心也清楚，长女玛丽和女婿最终会以新教徒身份继承王位。然 而，一个有可能得到延续的旧教(天主教)王朝的前景改变了一切。现 在，詹姆斯已经具备了一切理由来实现那个被大家所相信的恢复王国中 兴的梦想，并将自己的宫廷转变成法国式的帝制。

    辉格党和多数托利党人开始联手废王。一些贵族给威廉写劝进书， 正式邀请他问鼎王位。起义在全国各处酝酿，威廉也在英吉利海峡广布 海军，准备一翼登陆多佛，另一翼登陆加来。11月5日，这是新教徒的 幸运日，威廉在多佛登陆。

    北部和中部的叛军并不多。詹姆斯的敌人包围了伦敦，大军压境迫 使他不得不做出让步。另一方面，叛军向西推进，准备与荷兰军队会师，也给首都造成很大压力。伦敦的居民随时准备起事支持议会和清 教，詹姆斯人心尽失，仓皇出逃，驻扎在索尔兹伯里(Salisbury)。

    在萨默塞特 (Somerset)  发生了一场小规模冲突，总共有十五人丧 生。这场冲突以后，詹姆斯的军队不战而败。士兵们开始溃逃，投到威 廉帐下。国王得了鼻出血，他把这视为上帝不再站在他这边的征兆。詹 姆斯似乎已下定决心要逃往法国。在逃亡路上，他在雷丁(Reading)遭遇了第二次突袭。国王完全丧失了斗志，听凭几个肯特郡渔夫将其抓 获，很快被押解回伦敦。威廉准备放詹姆斯一条生路，允许他借道荷兰 逃走。这一回，詹姆斯成功了。

    詹姆斯的怯懦，或者不揣用最善意的猜测来说，他的迷信，使国民 相信，政权更迭乃是上帝的旨意。几乎是兵不血刃地推翻了国王，这被 视为一个奇迹，而随之而来的新政权更是我们这个世俗化世界中小小的 奇迹。它确保盎格鲁圈日后走上了一条资本主义一民主化的道路，而不 是中央集权式的、国家干预的路子。它为联合王国留下了最接近成文宪 法的东西，它的原则直接、有力地激励了美国宪法的诞生。我们将之称为“光荣革命”,实在有太多理由。

    戴皇冠的共和国

    推翻国王，已不再是什么新鲜事。在此以前，也已经发生过好多起…叛乱，征服，宫廷政变，或者刺杀。据说君主是那个年代最危险 的职业之一。莎士比亚通过被废的理查二世之口，道出了君王内心的怨尤：
    为了上帝的缘故，让我们坐在地上，
    讲些关于国王们的死亡的悲惨故事。
    有些是被人废黜的；
    有些是在战场上阵亡的；
    有些是被他们废黜的鬼魂缠住不放的；
    有些是被他们的妻子所毒毙的；
    有些是在睡梦中被杀的….. 全都不得善终。

    因为在那围绕着一个凡世的国王头上的这顶空空的王冠之内， 正是死神驻节的宫廷。

    然而，光荣革命却完全不同。没有躲在后门楼梯的刺客——像废除 理查二世那样；也没有非法法庭宣判查理一世的死刑。詹姆斯二世是被 一个完整、合法的议会做出的严肃决定废黜的。

    自光荣革命以后，不列颠人民达成了这样一种默契，那就是，他们 可以立王，也可以废王，正如他们可以选举议员，也可以罢免议员。这 一令人惊愕的事实被掩盖在层层华丽的传统之下，直到今天，看上去依 然妥帖得体：皇家四轮马车和国王权杖，各种军事和宗教仪式，御前顾问和骑士，以及“女王陛下的政府”这一类正式用语。普通人多半会认为，十六个英联邦成员国共同承认伊丽莎白二世是他们的国家元首，这 怎么也不像是民主的做法。然而，从没有人质疑过他们的立法机关选择 其所拥戴的国家元首的权利。所以，英联邦成员国在2012年一致同意修 改《王位继承法》以消除对女性继承人的偏见时，没有遇到任何异议。

    光荣革命是盎格鲁圈“起飞”的时刻，此后，它们发展出一套小政府、个人主义、重视商业的国家制度。从这一刻起，英语民族开始把目 光朝向外面的世界，它们建立起强大的海军而不是陆军，以现代商业企 业取代老的行会和垄断，拓展全球市场。无论从哪个角度看，这样的发 展都不同于欧洲的演进趋势。到17世纪末，大部分欧洲国家进入到历史 学家现在所称的“开明专制”时期，而这个世界的其余部分则不得不生活 在绝对专制之下。

    有必要再次强调一下“革命”的现代用法。“革命”一词意味着车轮旋 转，又回到最初的开始。“革命者”对于他们正在做什么以及为什么要这 么做是一清二楚的。在逃亡路上，詹姆斯二世扔掉了国玺。这样一来， 国会就无法合法地被召集到泰晤士。由此，国会议员和贵族的代表们正 式要求奥兰治的威廉召开会议“保存我们的宗教、权力、法律、自由和  财产”,“我们所争取的这一切应当建立在稳固、合法的基础上，以免于 任遭破坏之虞”。

    詹姆斯的出逃使他们的任务变得轻松了不少。当大部分辉格党人为 赶走了国王而额手相庆的时候，更多托利党人，尤其是上院议员，关心 的则是合法的继承原则，毕竟，他们自己的地产和爵位都得从继承原则 的规定而来。在这一事件中，他们宣布詹姆斯“擅离职守，放弃行政权，因此自行退位了”。

    不管是相信还是假装相信汤婆子赝婴的故事，他们要求将王位传给 詹姆斯的长女玛丽。而后者表示，只要议会能接受她与丈夫共同治国， 便乐于担此重任。公认的长女继承表面上看起来完全符合合法的继承原则，但事实上并不是这么一回事。议会规定王位再后来应传给玛丽的妹 妹安妮，而不是威廉家族的任何成员。议员们阻止天主教徒和威廉夫妇 问鼎王冠。其后的法令也宣布，下院应在君主去世后继续开会，履职六 个月，不得自行解散，等待新王召集新一届议会。     现今各种借口的 结果只能造成议会依赖君主，看不到其他任何出路。

    我们在第二章讨论过的君主制的契约特性，在英格兰国王的加冕誓 言中表现得非常明确。现在，不妨再来重温一下：詹姆斯和他的前任们 向英格兰人民发誓“信守神授的法律和习惯，遵从国王特权和王国的古  老习俗”,威廉 ·玛丽夫妇和其继承者们也宣誓“依照议会通过的法案、法律和习俗统治英国的臣民”。

    新王给盎格鲁圈带来了双倍好运。威廉的兴趣集中在领导英国对路 易十四的战争，而不在国内政治；他高高兴兴地让议会主导国内政治， 以便自己可以放手海外事务。

    从威廉的角度来看，这桩交易是一个巨大的成功。英格兰(后为大 不列颠，再后是联合王国)开启了一系列对法作战，前后延续到1815年，其间还穿插着宗教及激烈的商业竞争。议会获得实权导致了反对法 国的外交政策的进一步强化，这一点正遂了威廉所愿，并且这一政策成 功地延续至新王身后。有些历史学家将这一时期称为“第二次百年战争”7。从1689年到1697年、1702年到1713年、1743年到1748年、1756年 到1763年、1778年到1783年、1793年到1802年、1803年到1815年，英法 两国一直战火不断。这一场场战争以及法国作为一个半“永久天敌”的角 色，激励着英伦岛上的民众坚定地保卫那些将他们和法国人区别开来的 事业：他们的议会体制，他们的普通法，他们的清教主义，他们的个人 自由。

    新王的个人背景对讲英语者来说，也是一种幸运。荷兰共和国和盎 格鲁圈一样，重视财产权、自由贸易和有限政府    尽管彼时荷兰推行 的是寡头政治而非民主制度。在某种程度上，荷兰人走在了讲英语者的前面：他们已经发展出一套建立在联合股份制和有限责任制之上的成熟 的资本主义经济。事实上，横行海上的荷兰人还是当时世界上除英国以 外唯一建立起自由民主政体的民族。只是这样的制度演进没有与英国同 步而已。在17世纪，海上旅行比陆上旅行更加安全、快捷、舒适。对于 英格兰东部的居民而言，阿姆斯特丹比伦敦近多了。英格兰、苏格兰的 沿海地区与荷兰以及挪威、丹麦、汉莎同盟的部分地区通过商业和宗教 纽带，形成了北海同盟。

    要不是因为偶然的地缘，自由的全球语言原本该是荷兰语，而非英 语：大不列颠是一个岛国，而荷兰占据的则是地势低洼，几乎毫无防御 能力的平原。1689年以后，荷兰在对法战争中耗尽国力，到18世纪20年 代，随着海军的衰落，荷兰把它主要的银行和商行从阿姆斯特丹迁到了 伦敦。

    然而，威廉早已适应了有限政府以及经过同意的统治等政治理念。 他此前一直在为荷兰执政的职位而奋斗。这个职位既不是民主选举的， 也不完全是世袭的。历史学家将联省时期的尼德兰称为“戴皇冠的共和  国”。其实，这一短语倒可用来描述自1689年至今的不列颠，以及其他  实行君主立宪的盎格鲁圈国家。

    1689年2月，议会起草了《权利宣言》(Declaration of Right)。当 年晚些时候，这一宣言成为议会的正式立法，也就是我们现在所称的《英国权利法案》(English Bill of Rights)。以今人的眼光看，它的形 式和内容都非常接近于《独立宣言》和美国宪法的先声-     尽管法案的 起草者并不是在向前看，而恰恰是往回看，从17世纪40年代的各种请愿 书，最终回到《大宪章》上。

    和《独立宣言》一样，1689年《权利法案》也是以痛陈国王詹姆斯 二世的种种罪行开始的。他滥用行政权力，践踏议会选举，非法解除清 教徒臣民的武装，干预司法，侵害经由陪审团审判的权利，超出国会许 可的范围征收税金，对人民施以“非法和残酷的刑罚”。接着，法案以最明确的措词宣告主权属于议会，只有议会才能征税筹集财政。法案否决 了议会所立的前法可被后法废除的观点，保障国民的请愿权，规定在和 平时期不得维持常备军，确认清教徒配置武器的权利，禁止课以过多的 保释金，禁止滥施“残酷及非常之刑罚”。1689年《权利法案》确立了议 会主权原则，宣布议会内的言论自由，“不应在议会以外的任何法院或  地方受到弹劾或讯问”。

    这些权利都被视为传统的自由，而非任何新造之物。光荣革命是保 守派反对斯图亚特王朝最后也是最大的一次行动。正如辉格党的雄辩家 埃德蒙·柏克 (Edmund    Burke) 在一个世纪后的评价：“光荣革命捍卫的 是我们古老的无可置疑的法律与自由，古老的宪法是我们的法律和自由 的唯一保障。”光荣革命和三国战争一样，是整个盎格鲁世界的事件，它触动了每一寸讲英语的土地，尽管在各个地方可能有所不同。

    苏格兰议会也做出了同样的决议，宣布拥戴威廉和玛丽。苏格兰的 《权利法案》被称为《权利宣言》。该宣言在形式上和其英格兰姊妹篇 非常相似，重申这个国家古老的自由，确认苏格兰议会高于君主的至上 性，同时还肯定了长老会的教尊地位。和英格兰境内几乎没有人公开站 在詹姆斯一边的情形不同，苏格兰议会中有一部分高地人，忠于他们自 己的领袖，不信任讲英语的长老会多数派。他们注定要发起反叛。这些 追随詹姆斯的人被称为雅各布党，得名于詹姆斯二世的拉丁名：雅各布 斯。

    和17世纪40年代的内战一样，苏格兰战事不仅仅只限于高地人和低 地人之间，它陆陆续续将各个部落卷入了西西里仇杀。其中，格兰克大 屠杀(Massacre of Glencoe)是苏格兰史上最不光彩的惨案。38名麦克 唐纳部落 (Clan   MacDonald) 的成员被对手坎贝尔部落 (Campbells)   和 其他政府军杀死在床上，而杀人者此前已和对方握手言欢。

    然而，苏格兰的动乱完全无法与蹂躏爱尔兰的全面战争相提并论。 大部分爱尔兰天主教徒和他们的祖父辈在17世纪40年代所作的一样，继续选择支持斯图亚特王朝；而这样的站队，对于他们来说无疑是灾难性 的。

    当英格兰和苏格兰宣布共拥威廉时，詹姆斯的副将、天主教徒、蒂 尔康奈伯爵 (Earl  of  Tyrconnel) 决心要把爱尔兰变成支持詹姆斯复辟大 业的堡垒。他惟一的一次败仗，是在德里城与北爱尔兰新教徒交手。守 卫德里城的军队由一伙小学徒领导，却在皇家海军解围前足足抵抗了105天。这次围城对北爱新教徒有着近乎神秘的重要性，它创造出了最 受欢迎的口号：“绝不投降!”同时还为那些被他们视为叛徒的政治领导 人发明了一个绰号“兰迪”(Lundy,   这是那个倒霉的总想在逃跑前搞和 谈的总督的名字)。

    詹姆斯想把爱尔兰当作绝地反击的基地，并于1689年3月率六千法  国士兵在金赛尔港登陆。詹姆斯和英格兰军队之间陆续交火，主要战役 发生在恩尼斯基林(Enniskillen) 。1690     年6月，已经失去耐心的威廉亲 自带领3.6万名英国人、荷兰人、丹麦人和德国人组成的联军前来剿灭  被废掉的前国王。两军于1690年6月12日在伯恩河遭遇，詹姆斯党溃不  成军。这是北爱新教徒日历上最重要的日子，詹姆斯又逃跑了。这样的 行径连他的法国赞助人也感到不耻。一个法国人在圣热曼看到逃亡的国 王时说：“你只有亲自跟他说话，才明白他为什么在这儿。”

    詹姆斯在面对威廉大帝的复仇时，抛弃了他的爱尔兰盟军。尽管参 加战斗的那些士兵得到了宽恕，但詹姆斯党官员以及天主教地产主们就 没那么幸运了。詹姆斯党人继续战斗，希图换取优越一点的条件。这些 条件最终得到了威廉的首肯，但后来未能在爱尔兰议会通过。很多爱尔 兰天主教徒被褫夺了土地，流亡欧洲。事实上，和平协议允许詹姆斯党 士兵被重新安置到法国，也允诺派出船只来运送他们。1.4万名士兵带  着一万妇孺，以詹姆斯的名义，选择为法国王室服役。这一移民过程就 是我们后来所称的“野鹅迁徙”(Flight of the Wild Geese)。

    光荣革命同样影响到了北美殖民地。在17世纪40年代的三国之战中，北美人作为海外志愿军参加了战斗。在纳斯比和马斯顿荒原战役中，很多新英格兰人和他们的东安格利亚兄弟们并肩冲锋。北美内部的 冲突相当本地化，而且草草了事。相反，光荣革命被视为一个北美事件，引发了波士顿和纽约的大量反叛，以及马里兰的反天主教叛乱，打 破了巴尔第摩统治家族的政治控制。

    在北美殖民者眼中，查理一世是一个远距离的怪物，詹姆斯二世也 是类似的仇敌。纽约就是以詹姆斯“约克公爵”的封号命名的。在他的哥 哥还在位时，詹姆斯就表现出对殖民地的特殊的个人兴趣。他尤其痛恨 1629年殖民宪章授予“爱吵架的”马萨诸塞人自治权，一提起该省的公理 会教徒，就想到当年杀他父亲的弑君者。《马萨诸塞宪章》在1684年被 废除，两年后，新总督埃德蒙 ·安德罗斯爵士 (Sir   Edmund   Andros) 和 冷酷的格恩西 (Guernsey)   保王党人启动了野心勃勃的扩展计划，要将 新英格兰、纽约、新泽西等殖民地都纳入新英格兰皇家领地。

    历史学家理查德 ·布希曼 (Richard    Bushman) 把这种扩张描述为“马 萨诸塞压制与贪婪噩梦的实现”。安德罗斯抛开议会实行统治，征收高  额罚金和税赋，要求拓殖者为他们所经营的合法生意缴纳昂贵的许可费，计划在殖民地内兴建圣公会教堂而引发极大恐慌。

    1689年英伦岛上所经历的一幕也同样发生在新英格兰和纽约。遭人 痛恨的新英格兰领地分崩离析，老殖民地各自重获单独的宪章(《康涅 狄格宪章》据称被藏在哈特福德的一株白橡树树洞里，因而得名“橡树  宪章”)。北美人就像英格兰、苏格兰和爱尔兰新教徒一样，都在庆祝  使他们恢复传统自由的革命。

    从某种程度来讲，他们是对的。1689年《权利法案》实际上是向全 体讲英语者允诺了自由，或者，至少是全体讲英语的新教徒。但是，大 西洋两岸对这一法案的理解也各有差别。北美人相信这一法案证明了他 们的“传统的权利”的正当性，并且，为实现这些权利，权力应当从总督 那里交还给他们自己的立法机关。然而，大部分英格兰人关心的是该有一个最高的议会，而光荣革命使得议会的权力达到顶峰。这一认识上的 不同带来了日后的不同后果。

    给这一伟大的历史事件找点毛病总是在所难免。没错，从现代人的 眼光看，1689年《权利法案》是有缺陷的，主要缺陷就在于它确认了对 天主教的体制化歧视。

    我们现在当然很熟悉个人主义的天主教社会观的内容。著名的西班 牙耶稣会领袖胡安 ·德 ·马里亚纳 (Juan    de    Mariana) 在自由主义传统中 占据了重要的地位。但是，总的来说，现代讲英语者对于天主教的认识 还基本是一个盲区，几乎本能地将其视为权威主义的象征，并且很难与 议会制政府相调和——大概因为天主教承认教皇至高权力的缘故。

    约翰 ·洛克与辉格党领袖沙夫茨伯里伯爵 (Earl  of  Shaftesbury) 过往 从密，这层关系促使他始终强调，为什么宗教宽容不仅对于罗马教廷而 且对于其他所有教派都是有益的。

    然而，如果我们以我们自己的道德标准来评断过去的人物，难免又 会造成历史错位之失。想一想，不管是《权利法案》本身还是其赖以依 据的经洛克阐释的哲学原理，在17世纪末的世界，都不啻是振聋发聩的 政治声明。

    洛克的《政府论》出版于光荣革命时期，其阐发的政治模式在当今 大多数讲英语社会中依然没有过时。洛克相信：所有合法政府都必须建 立在由组成社会的个人所订立的契约之上。这个契约是那些同意按照共 同规则生活在一起的第一代先辈制定的，其后，作为共同的遗产代代相 传。洛克论述了从第一原则中引出的理论：
    要了解政治权力，并追溯它的起源，我们必须考察人类在建立国家前自然 地处于什么状态。那是一种完备无缺的自由状态。人们在自然法的范围内，自 由地行动，自由地处理他们的财产和人身。在这种状态下，人们根据自己的理 性决定自己的行为，不需要得到任何人的许可或听命于任何人的意志。

    洛克的自然状态听上去比霍布斯的原始的无政府状态美好得多。他 问，是什么使得我们最早的祖先甘愿放弃他们的所有自由而同意生活在 规则之下?最终的答案是财产安全，这是所有人类福祉与进步赖以依靠 的基础。

    他为什么要放弃原有统治而主动臣服于另一种权力的统治之下?对此，最 明显的回答是：尽管在自然状态下，他可以拥有这一权利；但权利的实际享有 却非常不确定，并且持续暴露在其他人的进犯之下，因为按此，所有的王和每 个人都是平等的，而平等和公正很大程度得不到严格地执行，在这种情形下， 个人的财产权也处于相当不安全、无保护的状态。这使得他自愿放弃此种尽管 自由但充满恐惧和持续危险的状态，也给了他充分的理由去加入一个其他人已 经结成或者齐心打算结成的共同体，这个共同体能够为每个人的生命、自由和 财产(即通常所言的财产权)提供相互保护。

    洛克用抽象和概念化的术语阐述他的政治思想，但他非常清楚，他 的政坛赞助人和辉格党战友们需要一个直接的、管用的申明。洛克在阐 述他的理论时，吸收了《权利法案》中的种种具体规定，也就是旨在保 护个人自由和财产权的规则。

    出乎大多数人所料，这些规则其实从来就有。兴许它们才该当之无 愧地被称为世界上最成功也是最悠久的宪法，比它所孕育的《美国宪法》早了接近一个世纪。尤其值得一提的是，这些规则的制定者们真诚 地相信：他们不是在创制新法律，而毋宁说是肯定英语民族久已有之的 自由。所有这些自由      普通法、《大宪章》、可以追溯至史前时期的 代议制政府的传统-      现在终于具有了正式的、宪法性的力量。他们依 旧守护着自由。

    麦考莱在他的《英国史》末尾，盛赞1689年《权利法案》。他在1848年写道，当欧洲正饱受暴力和革命的蹂躏，当不列颠人也像我们一 样，在自己家中享受温暖安适的时光时，我们听见风雨声正敲打着窗户 玻璃。我们距离麦考莱与麦考莱距离他所记载的历史事件的时间，几乎 是完全一样的，但他对《权利法案》的高度评价却是无法超越的，值得 在这里大段引用：

    尽管《权利法案》没有创造任何此前没有过的新的法律，但它包含着给予 异议者宗教自由的法的基因，包含着保证法官独立的法的基因，包含着议会有 限任期的法的基因，包含着受陪审制保护的出版自由的法的基因，包含着禁止 奴隶制的法的基因、废除神圣考验的法的基因、去除罗马天主教对公民限制的 法的基因、改革代议制的基因，包含着过去一百六十年间每一部好法律的基因，以及在今后必将推进公共福利、满足公共舆论需要的每一部好法律的基 因。

    给予1688年革命的最高赞誉是，它是我们的最后一场革命。自从睿智爱国 的英国人与政府达成妥协后，已经过去了好几代人。在所有诚实和懂得反思的 人的心里，都存在着这样一种信念，这信念随着个人的经历不断增强，那就是：宪法所需要的所有改进的措施，都可以在宪法本身中找到。

    修不起令人嫉妒的豪宅

    伊尼戈 ·琼斯，那个从贝辛庄园裸逃未遂的建筑大师，曾设计了足  以令欧洲其他任何建筑都黯然失色的白厅宫。但是查理一世从没有足够 的钱来建完它。和所有继任者一样，查理一世的钱袋子似乎始终被议会 勒得紧紧的，以至于这位欧洲巴洛克建筑的痴迷者永远修不起大理石宫 殿和雕塑。

    在盎格鲁圈的地盘上，找不到在规模和装潢上能与路易十四在巴黎 城外的凡尔赛宫、圣彼得堡的冬宫、波茨坦的观景台、汉诺威的海恩豪 森皇家花园、马德里的丽池水晶宫媲美的皇室居所。

    我们曾经提及乡村诗人所歌颂的那种保持在盎格鲁式建筑中的独特 品位。从某种意义上，辉格党的作风或许可以从不列颠皇家宫殿的简约 风格中找到某些关联。当欧洲的君主们-      从拿破仑到圣彼得    醉心 于以象征权力的镶满珠宝的物品震慑臣民时，不列颠君主的皇室财富却 在一点一点缩水。中世纪及都铎时期的很多宫殿或毁于内战，或被普鲁 士军队洗劫，或遭到炮火的破坏，剩下一部分则被卖掉。就像历史学家 琳达·科莱 (Linda Colley) 所写：“亨利八世还可以在散布于英格兰的超 过二十处豪宅外狩猎、寻欢或者搜捕异教徒，等查理二世在1660年回来 时，就只剩下七处了：白厅宫、圣詹姆斯宫、萨默塞特庄园、汉普顿宫、格林尼治皇家天文台、温莎堡和伦敦塔。”

    虽然查理一心想要恢复这些宫殿的荣光，但威廉三世却无力继续完 成前任的工程，把格林尼治变成了一座残疾海员医院。

    假设斯图亚特王朝能够延续的话，我们不妨想象一下那座他们本来 可以按照伊尼戈 ·琼斯的设计完工的宫殿是什么样子，再来看看最终出  现在查理一世面前的那座白厅宴会厅。

    为了看得更真切些，你可能需要在地板上铺点东西，然后躺在上面           因为这座建筑最令人印象深刻的特点正在它的屋顶。屋顶有九幅鲁 本斯为庆祝英格兰和苏格兰联合所作的极具收藏价值的油画。

    这些画作都是华丽的杰作，旋转着拼在一起，洋溢着令人愉悦的气 息。在主要画作中，英格兰和苏格兰被画作丰满的少妇，每人各持皇冠 的一半。在她们中间，那位卷发少年正是未来的查理一世。智慧女神密 涅瓦 (Minerva)   则盘旋在半空，头上是战争武器。

    然而，当你摊在地板上细细品味时，或许有些东西会让你心生疑惑。这些天花板上的画作太过炫目了，要知道，查理一世为此花了几乎 难以置信的3000英镑，但是整个天花板的风格在一个英语国家中却显得 如此突兀。作为肖像画，它们太过夸饰，太过高调，也太过等级分明。

    你越看越能理解为什么盎格鲁圈的民众会如此反感斯图亚特王朝。 在他们的审美以及政治观中，这样的君主像是外来的：从阿尔卑斯山那 边来的，注重仪式，过分精致。这种艺术上的反天主教情绪很容易摒除，它们毫无疑问存在一种宗派特征。但艺术绝不仅仅是宗教身份的表 达，品味也不只是宗派的。比如说，在鲁本斯的老家安特卫普港，大部 分天主教市民兴建的是严谨的别墅，而非巴洛克式豪宅。鲁本斯在可以 完全不受任何限制时，为自己的同胞创作的油画比他贡献给查理一世的 奢华之作肃静得多。

    最后，来自宴会厅的自相矛盾可能击中了你。天花板的油画是为了 庆祝英语民族的联合。詹姆斯六世及一世喜欢自称“第一个不列吞人”,  热切地希望实现王国的完全统一。他的儿子和孙子也怀有同样狂热的愿 望。然而，他们的臣民，英格兰和苏格兰人，却把整个王朝视为异族。

    无论其个人品性如何，斯图亚特王朝从未被看作英国的。他们的血 统、艺术品位、宗教倾向，以及最重要的，他们的政治信念，与他们的 国民是隔离的。

    斯图亚特王朝开始统一英语民族，他们最终成功了，但不是以他们所希望的那种方式。实现统一的盎格鲁世界所形成的政治共识对这一王 朝抱有普遍敌意。更有意思的是，斯图亚特王朝从英伦岛上获得的最强 有力的支持来自于非英语地区：苏格兰高地和讲盖尔语的爱尔兰。

    我如此详细地记载反斯图亚特的斗争，原因有二：第一，英语民族 作为一个单一的政治共同体，不仅是简单的语言性的，而且是建立在共 同的价值观上的。这就是盎格鲁圈至今依然保持的统一的价值观：议会 至上，法治，财产权，自由贸易，宗教宽容，开放平等，用人唯贤，代 议制政府，立法控制行政，个人自由。

    这个价值谱系不能独立于政治联合。从英语民族史上看，英语民族 的人们生活在各个单独又相互联系的国家中。这些价值不仅在英格兰发 展、演进，而且通过征服与殖民，扩展到一个更大的英格兰。它们在英 语世界的其他地区以多种方式更加顽强地开花结果：在苏格兰，在北爱 尔兰，当然，首当其冲的，在北美。

    第二个理由主要是处于17世纪的政治制度。如果没有这一历史时期 的政治发展，就不可能理解创造出世界上最大的民主共同体的事件。我 们通常把这一事件称为“美国革命”,但是更恰当的称呼，或许是“第二  次盎格鲁圈内战”。

    注 释

    1平等派，英国资产阶级革命中的激进民主派，代表小资产阶级利益，成 员有中小店主、手艺匠、帮工、学徒以及公簿持有农等。平等派的理论基础是 人民主权说和自然权利说。平等派主张：未来的国家应该是共和国；废除王权 和上议院；由选举产生的下议院享有最高权力；扩大选举权；实行自由贸易； 减轻赋税，取消什一税、消费税和关税；将被圈占的土地归还农民等。1646  年，它从一个思想流派发展为一个政治派别。

    2英格兰圣公会 (Church  of  England),又称英格兰国教，大不列颠及北爱尔兰联合王国成员国英格兰的国家宗教，也是普世圣公宗的代表。从1543年开 始，独立于天主教的罗马大公教会。

    3约翰 ·弥尔顿(John Milton,1608—1674),英国诗人，思想家。英格兰 共和国时期曾出任公务员，因其史诗《失乐园》和反对书报审查制的《论出版 自由》而闻名于后世。

    4新模范军的士兵把他们所支持的英国国会以及为之战斗的事业称为“好的 老事业”(Good Old Cause)。在英国内战期间，他们反对查理一世王党，在1649年至1660年间，继续支持“共和国”。克伦威尔在1643年写给朋友的一封信 中说，“一个质朴的、穿着黄褐色军服的、知道他为何而战和为何而爱的上尉”的原型正是共和国士兵的理想。那些“老的好事业”的支持者往往同时也是本 地宗教事务自治的倡导者。

    51679年，英国国会提出《排斥法案》 (Exclusion  Act),要求取消詹姆斯 的王位继承权，由此形成了辉格党(拥护排斥法案者)和托利党(反对排斥法 案者)。1681年，英国国王查理二世以有人动议讨论《排斥法案》为由解散国 会，英国开始无国会统治时期。

    6 Caligula,   古罗马暴君。

    7 和“第一次百年战争”一样，第二次百年战争(约1689—1815)并不是一场 单一而连贯的战争，而是由英法两个主要交战国之间的一系列断断续续的战争  组成。这一历史分期术语由约翰 ·罗伯特 ·西利在其著作《英格兰的扩张：两场讲 座》中首次使用，也用来指代英法两个世界强国之间的竞争状态。第二次英法  百年战争是一场决定两个殖民帝国的未来的较量，英国在1815年最终胜利，确  立了日不落帝国的霸主地位。

    第六章 第二次盎格鲁圈内战

    大英帝国坚实的基础不是被保存在那些默默无闻、停滞不前的灰暗岁月中，而是矗立于那个比此前任何时代都更深刻理解并清晰界定了人的权利的时 代。          乔治 ·华盛顿，1783
    每个民族都有其独立于政治利益之外的独特的特性。人们可能会说，美国 人最准确地体现了英吉利民族的独特特性，无论好的方面还是坏的方面。美国 人就是英国人自己的后代。 ——亚里西斯 ·德 ·托克维尔，1840

    汉普登的共鸣

    今天的我们距离保王党人的事业在1781年约克镇最终失败的时间， 与约克镇的战友距离查理一世在1648年普雷斯顿的最终失败的时间差不 多刚好一样长。我们这一代人，尤其是生在美国的这一代人，往往对距 今更近的两场冲突更感兴趣；但美国革命者们自身却痴迷于17世纪40年 代。引爆第二次盎格鲁圈内战的原因也是导致第一次盎格鲁圈内战的事 由，大西洋两岸的人们都选择了站在他们的祖先所奠定的基础一边。

    我们知道第一次盎格鲁圈内战的起因，集中在三个相互关联的问题 上：征税、宗教以及主权归属。第二次盎格鲁圈内战可以说见证了用几 乎完全一样的语言重写的同样三个问题。战争的双方对这一相似性都心 知肚明。18世纪60年代，辉格党人借用当年议会党人送给保王党的绰号，把对手称为“心怀恶意的人”;而托利党人则回敬以“奥利佛瑞人”。

    战斗打响后，随之而来的是同样的伦理和宗教分歧，和一百三十年 前的战争令人惊异地相似。大西洋两边所发生的，几乎一模一样，英国 国内的观点对峙又在殖民地上重现了。尽管这样的战斗最终导致盎格鲁 圈中的一部分宣布其独立于其余部分，但是，如果认为这场战争是美利 坚和不列颠之战，那就实在是犯了时代错位的错误。事实上，这场战争 应该被理解且定性为托利党和辉格党之间的分歧，是在穷尽了所有和平 解决努力之后，通过武力获得的解决方案。

    在把这场战争和第一次盎格鲁圈内战联系起来的时候，我们必须重 新调整我们认识这段历史的心态。以今人的后见之明，我们当然知道战 争最后的走向，因此常会不由自主地犯巴特菲尔德教授所批评的“研究  过去的人总是有一只眼睛盯着现在”的错误。当我们试图理解矛盾在18  世纪60年代如何步步升级的时候，需要花点精力去构想一幅盎格鲁圈的全景图。

    光荣革命以后，英语民族开始把目光转向海洋。对大多数英国人来 说，欧洲是一个危险的根源，一块不自由的大陆，到处都是独裁者、耶 稣会士以及流亡的詹姆斯党人。与此相反，浩瀚的海洋才是机遇与商业 财富的宝库。英伦岛上的人们开始把他们的目标从欧洲转向大西洋。东 部城市，比如诺维奇，衰落了；财富转移至西部主要港口城市格拉斯哥、利物浦以及布里斯托尔等。

    讲英语者的定居点和基地形成了一个环大西洋的“岛链”,同时还不 断地闪现在两岸之间辽阔海域的零星岛屿上。大西洋几乎变成了盎格鲁 圈的一个内湖，银色的波浪轻拍着新斯科舍 (Nova      Scotia) 、 新英格 兰、弗吉尼亚、百慕大、牙买加、福克兰群岛、圣海伦娜 (St. Helena) 、 直布罗陀以及多个非洲贸易点。

    历史学家把这一片领地称为大英第一帝国1。而美国革命正需要被  放在这样一个大盎格鲁圈的语境下来理解。在《独立宣言》之前，是没 有美国的，只有一些讲英语的大西洋殖民地     从靠近北极的加拿大到 赤道附近的莫斯基托沿海保留地(主要分布在今天的尼加拉瓜)。当我 们观察现在所称的“美国独立战争”时，我们不能老盯着今天的地图。今 天的地图上显示的是美国、加拿大和数个作为独立国家的加勒比地区。 相反，我们的头脑中得有一幅18世纪60年代后期的世界地图。各殖民地 之间存在的差异，与其说是彼此分隔的民族身份不同，不如说是文化和 政治认同有异。

    我们不妨把北美殖民地分成六大组，其中有些部分表现出比其他地 区更强烈的辉格党战斗精神。纽芬兰岛、新斯科舍和加拿大在1763年被 法国人征服，对激进活动基本没什么兴趣。相反，新英格兰是脾气火爆 的清教徒的天下，所以不断制造事端。纽约、新泽西和宾夕法尼亚在政 治上走中间路线，其中的荷兰和德国后裔倾向于保皇，而纽约的苏格兰 高地人在战争爆发后对保王党军队深恶痛绝，低地教会的切萨皮克(Chesapeake) 贵族则主要是辉格党人。南部要塞佛罗里达在1763年被 西班牙人征服，这个地区无论是对新英格兰扬基人 (Yankees)   还是弗  吉尼亚激进分子的政治宣传都无动于衷。最后是加勒比地区的白人种植 园主，他们的数量远少于奴隶，是坚决的反民主派。

    当然，这幅图更像一张漫画。在盎格鲁圈的每一个地区，甚至每一 个城镇，都会有相互对立的观点。只要是讲英语的地区，这种语言都会 成为辉格党和托利党相互论战的媒介-      尽管论战双方并不总是使用辉 格党、托利党这样的名字。我这么写主要是出于行文的方便。鼓动革命 的三大主力军是新英格兰的公理会、激进的潮汐种植园²主和来自北爱  尔兰内陆地区的新教徒殖民者(对他们不够准确但更频繁的称呼是“苏格兰——爱尔兰人”),主要分布于从宾夕法尼亚到卡罗来纳等广大地区。新英格兰和弗吉尼亚最终从基本上已被政府抛弃的中部州中游离出 来，成为最具理性的共和精神的坚实支柱。

    北美大陆英语区的南北两缘加拿大和佛罗里达，人口稀少，且都实 行了军事化管理。这两个地区倾向于同情托利党，不愿介入什么爱国大 业。他们拒绝参加大陆会议，坚持效忠母国王室。在美国独立以后，这 两个地区成为那些从新生的大陆逃出来的保王党人的庇护所。

    美国革命是一场最终演变为内战的内部冲突，对此我已经不想再强 调了。只有在法国于1778年参战以后，人们才把这场冲突视为发生在不 同国家之间的冲突。美利坚托利党人申明他们忠于英国制度，尤其是国 王与议会共治；美利坚辉格党人则忠于英国价值，这一价值正是前述制 度的合法性得以建立的基础，他们认定正是国王侵犯了这些他们所坚守 的价值。

    当我们在欣赏19世纪艺术家们所作的历史全景图，或者观看好莱坞 工作室出品的各类战争题材影片时，总会看到拓殖者们高举星条旗一路 行军的场面。爱国者们展示的当然是著名的贝奇 ·罗斯 (Betsy       Ross)   旗，然而他们最钟爱的那面旗帜却往往已被大多数美国人遗忘，那就是“大联盟旗”(Grand  Union  Flag) 。“大联盟旗”也称“议会 旗”(Congress Flag)或者“大陆彩色旗”(Continental Colors),有13道 红白横条，跟今天的美国国旗一样；有所不同的是，旗帜左上四分之一 部位显示的不是星星，而是大不列颠国旗，由英格兰的圣乔治十字和苏 格兰的圣安德鲁十字构成。

    这一象征简洁地表达出爱国者们在为谁而战-    他们是在确保自己 作为不列颠人的权利。大陆会议在大联盟旗下召集起来。当会议最终通 过《独立宣言》时，会议厅外高高飘扬的正是大联盟旗。这面旗帜是乔 治 ·华盛顿率军出征的旗帜，是约翰 ·保罗 ·琼斯 (John    Paul    Jones) 在美 国海军第一艘军舰上升起的旗帜，几乎承载了全体美国人的集体回忆，告诉我们美国革命的故事后来是如何书写的。

    组成大英第一帝国的大部分地区现在基本都已独立了。只有极少数 ——直布罗陀、福克兰群岛、圣海伦娜岛和加勒比诸岛——还属于英  国。大英帝国有一种自我消解的特性，从某种意义上，这是一种趋向于 促进本地自治和自力更生的政治权利及政治价值观。

    大西洋殖民地的独立，多是通过和平以及同意的方式实现的。大部 分加勒比岛国在20世纪60至70年代间相继独立。加拿大从1867年开始实 行自治，通过1931年《威斯敏斯特法案》(Statute  of  Westminster) 获得 了独立的国家地位，并在1982年经伦敦批准取得完全修宪权。

    所有这些自治领，包括英国人占领的非洲、亚洲和太平洋地区，现 在都已独立，就像18世纪的美国那样。这就是所谓的“离心力理论”。这 些殖民地早已习惯了从最初的定居点到后来的完全自治。在他们的土地 上，既不曾有教宗制，也不知有贵族制，各自治领普遍实行土地私有制 和地方自治，寄望选出他们自己的领袖。然而，这样一种自力更生却不 是美国独立战争的主旋律。在战争打响后很长时间，即使最激进的爱国 者也依然坚信大英帝国有权管辖北美殖民地的外交事务和防卫，同时也 接受帝国管理对外贸易的事实，并且，他们所理解的对外贸易是盎格鲁圈和外国领地之间而非盎格鲁圈内部各部分之间的贸易往来。英国对法 国的胜利极大地鼓舞了殖民地上的人们，他们认为这是一个自由的民族 必然会战胜专制与奴役之敌的天意的显现。

    发起美国革命的那批英国人，正像他们的先辈在17世纪40年代所作 的那样，将君主制视为外来的、违反传统的，并不惜为捍卫自己反对君 主的权利而战。

    维多利亚时代的桂冠诗人阿尔弗雷德 · 丁尼生勋爵 (Alfred,  Lord Tennyson)   在一首题为《1782年的英格兰和美利坚》 (England and America  in 1782)的小诗中，道出了其中的关键联系：

    英王派人
    去统治那大陆和海洋
    大英帝国，如雄狮般一般的士兵们的母亲
    为你英勇的儿子们骄傲吧 他们正在为你而战
    奋勇杀敌，多么高贵的热诚 这都要感谢母亲的教诲
    此等精神
    来自英吉利先辈不竭的热血
    无论将来的世界会是怎样 大不列颠必将走向统一
    汉普登激起的深深共鸣
    即使厄运，也会为之战栗

    丁尼生在诗中所塑造的“将来的世界”,对于他的维多利亚时代的读者来说非常熟悉，对于我们则已成往事。他把美国革命看作英国革命的 顶峰。而在英国革命中，约翰 ·汉普登这个议会至上论的坚定倡导者无  疑是一个重要人物。

    汉普登在第一次盎格鲁内战中领导下议院反对绝对君主制，并在1643年的查尔葛洛菲尔德战役 (Battle of Chalgrove Field) 中被鲁珀特亲 王所杀。无论按照哪个标准，汉普登都是当之无愧的英雄，引无数追随 者竞折腰。麦考莱这样描述英雄的出场：“举国都在苦盼守卫者。温和  整洁的白金汉郡绅士平静而又坚定地走在国人队伍的最前头，带领同胞 踏上反抗独裁者的道路。”连他的敌人也敬重他的品德，保王派克拉伦  登伯爵 (Earl of Clarendon) 谈到汉普登时说：“所有人的眼睛都看着 他，把他视为国父，视为指挥他们的大船穿过惊涛骇浪的船长。”

    汉普登在北美殖民者心目中，更是一个伟人。缅因、马里兰和康涅 狄格的很多镇都以他的名字命名，马萨诸塞还有汉普登县。18世纪60和 70年代的激进小册子作家们经常用他的名字做笔名。坊间还流行着他在 新英格兰生活的故事(但很有可能是杜撰的)。北美爱国者们在阐述“无代表不纳税”的原理时，直接援引汉普登反对查理一世征收造船税 的证据。战争爆发后，他们用“汉普登”命名了美国海军首批战舰中的一 艘。

    汉普登情节对于我们理解第二次盎格鲁圈内战非常关键。在17世纪 30年代的财政、宗教和税收等一系列斗争中，汉普登领导议会展开了对 斯图亚特王朝的斗争。现在，同样的三个问题重新被提出来，他的意识 形态的继承人们正召唤他的灵魂，寻求他的帮助。

    钱、宗教和权力

    我们大多记得美国革命是从纳税人抗税开始的。然而，我们常常忘 记纳税人抗税是从大不列颠开始的。需要18世纪的政府忙活的事儿，远 不像他们的现代继任者那么多。那时候政府没有保健或者教育基金，维 持社会安全的费用通过本地税收来支付，中央政府的钱主要用在军队身 上，昂贵的外交政策有可能给纳税人施加沉重的负担。

    1756年到1763年，盎格鲁世界向它的老对手法国和西班牙发动了第 一次真正意义的世界战争。战火蔓延至亚洲、非洲、北美和西印度群岛。在每一个战场，英国获胜的捷报频传。加拿大被征服，印度群岛、非洲和加勒比的大部分法属殖民地紧随其后，马尼拉和哈瓦那从西班牙 属地中脱离出来。现在，没有人怀疑大英帝国是世界上最强大的国家，至少全体英吉利人是这样认为的：“我们从未遇到过敌人，但我们希望他们存在；他们从未遇到过我们，他们希望我们不在。”在庆祝军队凯旋的仪式上，当时经常演奏的这首海军军歌《橡树之心》(Hearts of Oak) 用戏谑之词传达出了大英的豪气。

    “提刀而立，为之四顾，”踌躇满志的辉格党政治家查尔斯 ·詹姆斯 ·  福克斯 (Charles  James  Fox) 向他的议员朋友们夸下海口，“看看我们大 都市的辉煌，帝国疆界的广袤，看看我们经济的繁荣，人民的富足。”

    但是胜利绝不是廉价的。国债从1755年的7200万英镑上涨到1764年 的1亿3千万。英语民族第一次有了“帝国过度扩张”的意识(就在那时， 爱德华 ·吉本着手写作里程碑式的巨著《罗马帝国衰亡史》)。除了必  须保护偏远省份不受法国、西班牙的反攻报复，盎格鲁世界开始首次吸 纳外来人口。但他们的忠诚并不能自动产生。英属魁北克接纳了7万讲  法语的天主教徒。印度的穆斯林和印度教徒也多次投入盎格鲁圈的怀抱。这个新全球帝国在各地的驻防费用使得高额的战争债务雪上加霜。

    到战争的最后阶段     英国人把这场战争称为“七年战争”,美国人 叫“法国一印第安战争”——大英帝国的居民人均每年要为此承担25先令 的税款。但是北美居民人均仅需支付6便士，只有前者的五十分之一。

    按当时的标准，北美纳的税几乎可以忽略不计：从历史学家罗伯特 · 帕  尔马(Robert    Palmer) 的统计数据来看，北美交纳的总税额大概是全英 格兰税额的二十六分之一。英国纳税者拒绝把这些议会想尽办法加在他 们身上的公民负担用于为北美殖民地提供防务。

    17世纪30和40年代的财政争议进一步引发了更深层次的讨论。伦敦 行政部门在税务问题上的处理真是愚蠢得可以，首当其冲的就是《印花 税法》 (Stamp    Act)。 该法案规定，凡出售印刷制品都需要获得许 可，包括扑克牌、法律文件以及让人匪夷所思的报纸。然而，引发的激 烈反弹使行政部门不得不很快收回成命，《印花税法》在生效一年后就 被废除了。

    其他一些法律   比如《食糖法》4—也陆续出现在控诉革命前  种种苦难的清单上，这可算得上是拉弗曲线5的早期例证。议会现已放  弃宣布名义上的高税率的做法，因为这只会引来走私者普遍逃税。当局 想做的是降低关税，同时还能收得上来-      这自然也是被那些走私者整 怕了。

    事实上，激怒波士顿茶党进而引爆战争的，正是立法机关调低了北 美进口茶叶的关税。

    尽管我们一直想要抵制揪住财政动机的诱惑，但还是可以得出以下 结论：殖民地人民因为“无代表不纳税”原则所遭受的挫折感，远甚于实 际被征收的税钱。相比起盎格鲁圈其他地区，北美的税率已经出奇的低 了，即使比起同时期的欧洲，也要低得多。

    那么,为什么对税收的不满后来演变为暴力冲突呢?因为，说一千 道一万，这个问题从根本上讲从来就不是一个钱的问题。激烈反对各种税目的记者协会、秘密行会以及参加审议《印花税法》的议会代表们， 自小就对反对斯图亚特王朝斗争的坊间野史耳熟能详，他们的祖辈也曾 参加过这样的斗争。他们反复引用汉普登在船税事件中的抗税名言，意 在唤起英语民族记忆中反抗暴君的传统：“英国国王无权要求的事物，英国臣民就有权反对。”汉普登说过的这句话回响在整个18世纪60和70  年代。北美的辉格党人就像英格兰的辉格党人一样，坚信这些新的负担 限制了他们的自由，贬损了他们作为英国人与生俱来的权利。

    我们已经看到，詹姆斯一世和查理一世时期的财政争议相当复杂， 因为这些个讨论又缠上了宗教分歧。同样的情况也出现在18世纪60和70 年代。在这两起事例中，王室都发现自己身处论战的尴尬境地，而且经 常面对同样的对手。

    美国革命的宗教维度常被大多数历史学者所忽视，几乎没有人重视殖民地好战的新教主义。著名的英美史教授J.C.D.克拉克(J.C.D.Clarke)   曾有过这样的论断：“北美大众对于天主教的敌意和反 抗是殖民地历史中一直被压制的主题。”

    反对这一观念很不容易。我们曾经提及在魁北克承认天主教堂合法 化后遭到的激烈反对。1774年，出席第一届大陆会议的代表们愤怒地声 讨他们眼中可耻的背叛：

    这一法案使得加拿大自治领进一步扩张…从欧洲来的天主教移民大量涌 入，人口激增。他们因此效忠行政当局，而当局又对他们的宗教优遇有加。由 此，他们可能成为当局手中强大的工具，用以把自古就有的自由的新教殖民地 降为和他们自己一样的奴隶制国家。

    这里，我们有必要再提醒前已述及的“反天主教主义总体上是政治  的，而非宗教性的”这一观点。就像在大不列颠的情况一样，北美殖民  地民众普遍认为，天主教徒不是值得信赖的爱国者，他们最终效忠的是外国势力。美国国父之一的约翰·杰伊 (John  Jay) 后来成了最高法院第 一任大法官，他曾经使用了与洛克几乎完全一样的理由来论证他的家乡 纽约州应给每一个教派以完全的宗教宽容，但是，除了那些罗马天主教的教牧    他们就不该得到土地，或者被允许享有和 吾国中其他成员一样的公民权利。除非这些人能到吾国最高法院来最庄严地发 誓，他们是发自内心地相信：教皇、教士或者任何外国当局都无权解除吾国国 民对本国的忠诚。

    第二任总统约翰 ·亚当斯提出了质疑：“一个自由政府能和罗马天主 教共存吗?”

    亚当斯的继任者、第三任总统托马斯 ·杰斐逊相信，天主教和政治  独裁主义有着千丝万缕的联系：“每个国家，每个时期，神父都是自由  的天敌。他们只会和独裁者结盟，支持他的暴政，以作为受到保护的回 报。”

    这些观点虽然流传甚广，但也不见得人人都接受。第四任总统詹姆 斯 ·麦迪逊似乎就没有什么宗教偏见，乔治 ·华盛顿也看不起任何一种宗 派主义。事实上，美国自建国之始，就不光是一个非集权化的共和国， 而且还是一个法律上不设宗教偏见的国家，这很大程度上要归功于第一 任总统政治上的远见卓识。

    华盛顿一直很注意为他那些容易头脑发热的国人树立一个良好的典 范。他遇到过很多宗教顽固分子，深知那些人的世界观。他们把国家的 兴亡看作上帝恩宠或者责难的结果，军事胜利则是天命所在。

    在当今的时代，我们已经很难再有那种心态，也很难理解为什么讲 英语的天主教和高教会成员会对教徒独自阅读《圣经》和自行决定敬拜 仪式如此紧张。事实上，信仰只能在当时代的具体场景下才能得到完全 地理解。

    与某些固执地追求其信仰的新教徒宗派的斗争，使得很多天主教徒 和圣公会教徒相信：脱离语境和缺乏具体指向地传播教义，只会带来混 乱。《圣经 ·启示录》就是一个典型例子，它宣布，当“大淫妇巴比伦”被推翻后，一个“新耶路撒冷”将会降临。当时有一些人把这些章节 看成政治申明而非神学教义，把任何碰巧不喜欢的人都冠以“大淫妇巴 比伦”之名。同样，如果缺乏语境和解释的话，《新约》的部分章节说 不定也可以煽起千禧年暴力。

    对很多人来说，有充分的理由可以解释：为什么数个世纪以来，人 们都不被允许任其喜好地生吞活剥《圣经》文本，而是必须按照经院派 发布的标准拉丁文本分章节地阅读经文。他们警告说，一旦用本地语言 写成的《圣经》广泛流行之后，你就可以看到会发生什么。

    17世纪诗人塞缪尔 · 巴特勒 (Samuel   Butler) 曾经言及他那个时代的 清教徒是如何“依靠使徒的敲打，来证明他的教义的正统性”的。

    马萨诸塞在18世纪所发生的一切就是这样。只不过一些新教徒士兵 把“大淫妇巴比伦”换成了包括罗马在内的任何宗教活动过度仪式化的基 督教派别。

    就像17世纪的英国清教徒怀疑圣公会投靠罗马教廷一样，他们来到 北美大陆的后裔也怀着同样的想法。在部分殖民地上建起的圣公会教堂，成了公理派、长老派和其他宗教少数派切齿痛恨的靶子——他们认 为圣公会是专制政府的最后堡垒。

    对于这些圆头党和盟约派意识形态上的继承者，同时也常是血缘上 的直系后裔来说，战争发生在精神领域-     这是一场反对偶像崇拜和迷 信的十字军东征。在他们眼中，乔治三世时期的英国教会的腐败已不可 救药，他们压制心灵自由，就像托利党人总是不死心想要压制政治自由。《魁北克法案》 (Quebec  Act)使长期以来还有些半信半疑的非国 教徒不再怀疑，圣公会的高教会派，连同他们的圣坛围栏、主教以及国 家团契等，都显示了与罗马教廷结盟的全部动机和目的。

    对于这些唱赞美诗的人来说，围绕《食糖法》和《印花税法》展开 的议会斗争正是上帝指示他们奔赴的战场，就好像税收问题是法利赛人 诱惑耶稣的鱼饵。宗教维度有利于我们更深刻地理解财政争分。美国宗 教史专家威廉·沃伦·斯维特 (William       Warren     Sweet)   有过精彩的论 断：“英国教会与持异议者之间的宗教分歧积累起了足以燎原的燃素，而印花税、茶叶税和其他税种的争议及管制所起的作用不过是点火的火 柴而已。”

    到17世纪30和40年代，两种争议混在一起，已近燃点。此后，财政 和宗教斗争被挤压进一场主权归属的大讨论中。

    在这一背景下，历史学者们因为知道争论的最后结果，所以都倾向 于强调留存在教派分歧中的宪法争论。然而，在当时人的心目中，有关 财政、教派和民主的辩论只是同一个议题的不同方面。新教主义、低税 率、财产权以及议会控制下的政府被熔铸进一块自由主义的合金中，而 这块合金现在已经无法再析出什么单独的元素了。

    议会独立被大多数美国人视为由他们的先辈带到普利茅斯岩6的与  生俱来的权利；同时，也被视为保证他们的宗教、财产权利的最可靠的 途径。这就是为什么随着争论的分歧越来越大，殖民地逐渐超越了税收 和美利坚主教的产生方式等问题(这些问题到1775年时，基本已经得到 了圆满解决),开始转向并最终集中到议会主权的问题。

    回顾1800年，麦迪逊，这位未来的总统，清晰简洁地总结了独立派 人士的宪法目标：“(美国)革命的基本原则是，殖民地能在属于同一  主权的帝国中成为与不列颠拥有平等地位的成员，并且，立法权被完整 地保留在美利坚国会中，跟保留在不列颠议会中的一样。”

    应当说，这一番立论相当温和，不列颠岛很多人也是这样看的。下 议院中的辉格党开始考虑同意殖民地提出的要求。1775年，老威廉 ·皮  特 (William  Pitt  the  Elder) 提出一个议案，要求撤销北美独立派反对的 那些议会法案：从《食糖法》到承认大陆会议——其实这个会议也就相当于不列颠的北美议会了。

    即使到了这个时候，如果议案获得通过，那么,很可能缔造出一个 统一的盎格鲁国家。北美殖民地本来可能通过非暴力的方式最终走上和 加拿大、澳大利亚一样的独立之路。美利坚王国今天可能就是英联邦成 员国的一部分了。

    但是上议院、托利党和行政当局不愿对他们所认为的反叛行为作出 妥协。皮特的提案被61票对32票否决，政治和解的最后一次机会丧失了。

    不列颠议会两院制衡的传统不应蒙蔽我们，使我们看不到对殖民地 苦难的同情。这种同情不光是抽象意义的，而且是在同一个政治国家内 的。那个时代最伟大的国会领袖在美利坚议题上站在了一起：皮特本人、激进派领袖查尔斯 ·詹姆斯 ·福克斯和盎格鲁保守主义传统之父埃德 蒙 ·柏克。事实上，美利坚是惟一一个让三巨头结成统一战线的议题。

    有必要提醒一下：争吵在这个时候仍被各方看作家庭内部矛盾。我 们不能带着今人的眼镜打量过去发生的一切，把英国国内对北美爱国者 的热切同情视作对外国势力的支持。辉格党在这个单一的政治体中已经 形成了独立的派别，此刻感受到政府决心要重返斯图亚特托利党路线的 威胁。

    皮特在数年前撕毁《印花税法》时宣布：“看到北美人已经奋起反  抗，我有多振奋!如果三百万人对自由已经麻木、自甘为奴的话，那就 只配成为制造更多奴隶的工具!”

    议会史上无出其右的雄辩家柏克代表殖民地人民做过精彩演讲。显 然，他始终坚决支持那些远在大洋彼岸的同胞们。事实上，在柏克看来，美国人是比留在母岛上的英吉利人“更英吉利”的人，因为他们如此 珍视作为英语民族独特特征的自由观念：“拓殖者在你的这一部分特征  处于最强势的时候开始了移民活动，他们在脱离你的掌控之时就带着这 样根深蒂固的偏好与明确坚定的指引。因此，他们不光忠于自由，而且是按照英国人的观念、英国人的原则投身自由。”

    柏克毫不怀疑美国激进分子在拥抱权利的过程中，保留而不是抛弃 了他们的英国遗产。他告诉议会议员，美国的宪法发展演变为税收问题，它从斗争中赢得的自由巩固了“惟人民选举的代表方有权征税”这一 原则，而这一原则正是惟英格兰才有的特征：“殖民地是你们设置的，携带着你们身上的血缘、理念以及原则。他们对于自由的热爱，正如你 们一样，在税收这一点上体现得尤为强烈和执着。”他们一方面看重他  们的民族身份，另一方面也特别珍视与政治自由有着千丝万缕联系的宗 教信仰：“殖民地人民是新教徒，这一类人的心智和观点是最难以屈服  的。这一特征不光易于导向自由，而且本身就是自由得以生长的基础。”

    柏克认为惟一可以平复动荡的做法就是承认殖民地人民拥有完整的 英国公民的权利：“我们不妨接受一个美利坚帝国，这样就能接受美利  坚财政。英国人的权利有哪些，他们就有哪些。只要能给他们英国人的 权利，问题就解决了。”

    柏克的观点在国内很受欢迎，但它们在下议院获得的支持却很少， 因为下院议员是通过严格的选举程序筛选出来的，有的情况下，选举人 需要夸张的效忠国王的忏悔仪式，而忠诚正是晋升与优俸的不二法门。 在查理二世复辟一个世纪之后，古老的裂痕在羊皮椅上依然可见。一项 研究表明，那些反对废止1776年《印花税法》的少数派议员们，他们的 名字大多跟在一串骑士家族的姓氏后面：巴戈特 (Bagot) 、 寇松(Curzon) 、 格罗夫纳 (Grosvenor) 、 哈 利(Harley)。

    政府打算就新税种的税率做出让步，但在有权向殖民地征税这一原 则问题上绝不妥协。在乔治三世和他的僚属看来，要解决分歧决不能手 软。他们相信，他们为满足殖民地的宗教和财政要求已经做得够意思了，绝无可能再交出英国议会的主权，因为这是整个盎格鲁文明国家的 最高议事机构。他们认为，可以考虑在殖民地颁发本地议会的特许状；但是，权力下放与封建制度是有区别的。

    大臣们承认，波士顿地区在下议院中的确没有代表。但是他们又  说，别忘了，很多地区的人都没有代表啊，比如伯明翰、英格兰，这  叫“实质代表”。也就是说，他们在议会中可以有一些支持者和同情者。 独立派们也反击说，伯明翰也应该有真正的代表啊。皮特称“实质代   表”这一概念是“最容易忽悠人的词儿，连认真反驳都不配”。

    但是诺斯勋爵 (Lord     North) 和他领导的政府则继续顽固地坚持己 见。就像每个时代中每一个不受欢迎的政权一样，大臣们相信他们要做 的就是处理一小撮麻烦制造者，只要秀肌肉，以无声胜有声，民众自然 就服帖了。然而，这回他们的算盘怕是打错了，就像17世纪40年代发生 的那样，事情已经有了他们自身的力量。争议的焦点不再是税收或者宗 教，而是权力，要求盖奇将军 (General      Gage) 解除马萨诸塞民兵的武 装的决定和查理一世控制英国民兵的企图简直如出一辙。在整个新英格 兰，人们涌向街头参加武装组织，共同抵抗统治者。第二次盎格鲁圈内 战开始了。

    第二次表亲战争

    战争一旦打响，王室在新英格兰的事业便已失败了一半。要控制一 个武装起来闹革命的民族，唯一的办法就只剩下镇压。这在英语世界来 说是从来不可想象的，即使对这个政权的最忠实支持者也是如此。接下 来的战争实际上是要决定其他哪些殖民地会追随新英格兰，以及殖民地 和帝国就脱离问题能达成何种条件。

    大不列颠的大部分居民并不赞同对北美实行恐怖统治，相比而言， 他们更同情独立派而不是王室。政府发现兵源短缺，尤其在英格兰征不 到士兵。跟斯图亚特朝的国王们一样，乔治三世不得不到苏格兰、爱尔 兰，甚至欧洲去招募军队——尤其最后这一个地方，再度刺激了反抗他 的那些北美温和派人士。

    前总督卡姆登伯爵 (Earl     of     Camden) 作了一个睿智而准确的预 言，作为对皮特在1775年发表的诉说殖民地苦难的著名演讲的回应：

    这片1800英里的大陆上拥有300万民众，他们如今都同仇敌忾地团结在辉格 党人信守的自由与公正的战线上。要征服这块土地似乎不是一个可以贸然作出 的决定。先生们，你们不能鼓动军队或者财政去完成镇压美国人的任务，但是  法国人和西班牙人能不能被策动?这些作壁上观的看客倒是值得诸位好好考虑。

    战争是一种强化双方观点的催化剂。就像17世纪40年代的圆头党那 样，北美独立派不久就发现自己走上了一条不屈不挠的共和主义道路， 因为他们不可能今天把国王当作军事上的敌人，明天又邀请他回来继续 统治。伦敦方面的心态也转变得很快，尤其是新英格兰人在1775年夏天进驻加拿大以后。当初通过《食糖法》和《印花税法》时，议员们的看 法是尽量降低大不列颠本土的土地税；如今下议院的乡绅们一致同意将 土地税提高到4先令以支付战争费。

    第一次盎格鲁圈内战把英语民族统一在一个单一的国家中，第二次 盎格鲁圈内战则结束于分裂。由此造成的一个后果就是，后世历史学家 们倾向于各自记录他们这一边的情况。我们已经看到，在美国，保罗 · 列维尔夜骑的故事被篡改成美国人和不列颠人之间的战斗，而这一观念 在当初那个时代是根本没有的。“独立战争”这个名字本身就存在相当的 误导性，因为它暗示在美国这片疆土上，正有另一个国家在统治；某种 意义上，这等同于刚果被比利时统治。

    大部分美国历史学家都把目光聚焦在他们这一侧的大西洋沿岸发生 了什么,偶尔会提到亲英派(他们中很多强硬分子都在战后离开了美国),但是极少关注英国国内的亲美倾向。大部分英国历史学家也犯了 同样的错误。就是说，当他们在探讨英国激进分子的动机时，总是把这 些人对美国辉格党的支持看作一种对海外事业的同情，好像后来的英国 激进分子支持西班牙共和派或者南非的反种族隔离运动。

    前里根政府官员凯文 ·菲利普斯 (Kevin   Phillips) 是一位能用通俗语 言揭示矛盾冲突的作家，他认为内战在盎格鲁圈内有其内在根源。1995 年，因为厌恶克林顿时期华盛顿的俗艳，菲利普斯退休后回到康涅狄格 家中著书立说。他在一本书中问道，假如“英国人”在1777年萨拉托加战 役中更狠一点，那么美国革命是不是有可能就被阻断了?!随着对革命 年代研究的深入，雄心勃勃的作家展开了他的研究计划。当菲利普斯在 考察英国将军们为什么这么积极地投入对美作战时，他开始意识到，美 国革命的根源事实上必须要到英伦岛上去发掘。当他在萨拉托加和约克 镇战场遗址上流连时，他很快得到了与在纳斯比和马斯顿摩尔(Marston   Moor)战场上一样的结果。(要知道，不像是在美国，英国 早就冷落了这些历史遗址。美国的战场遗址基本都保护得很好，竖起各种纪念碑。英国的战场遗址往往变成了萝卜菜地或者被新辟出的路拦腰 斩断。)

    作为一个政治战略家而不是一个职业历史学者，菲利普斯抓住了某 些更能吸引专业人士的东西，也就是那些在两场盎格鲁内战中具有连续 性的特质。在这两场战争中，那些叫以赛亚 (Isaiah) 、 俄巴底亚(Obadiah)  等名字的新教徒士兵在为反对他们眼中的腐败、独裁、秘  密的天主教统治而战。在这两场战争中，战火几乎燃遍了盎格鲁圈每一 个角落：英格兰、苏格兰、爱尔兰和北美。而且，这些地方往往都是按 照地理和宗教界线来分界的。

    事实上，菲利普斯把他的结论推进得更远。在他看来，美国内战同 样也是前两场盎格鲁圈内战的延续。他再度发现，美国内战中最常采用 的作战队形和新英格兰扬基人领导的反对查理一世和乔治三世的战斗一 样，都是受他们的“战神”护佑的新十字架型。他还发现，南部西班牙地 产拥有者使用的正是当年保王党用过的论据，声称他们保卫的是一种有 序的、稳固的、自然的生活方式，反对所有煽动者和狂热分子。他甚至 发现，当托利党人看好一个新联盟，党魁们寄望拥维多利亚为王以换取 大英的承认时，不列颠的一些派别又和非国教徒、支持邦联的天主教徒 站在了一起。

    所有这些研究成果后来都凝结在菲利普斯1990年出版的《表亲战争：宗教、政治以及盎格鲁的胜利》 (The             Cousins’Wars:Religion, Politics,and the Triumph of Anglo-America) 一书中。该书揭示的中心议 题是，英国内战、美国革命和美国内战是同一场持续冲突的三次爆发。 这一观点一经如此直截了当地说出来，总让人觉得有点不踏实。但菲利 普斯是做了很多功课的。他考察了三场战争中若干教会团体，甚至是个 人及家庭，发现了其中一以贯之的政治延续性。要知道，一个有说服力 的新观点的标志往往是：尽管最初看上去有点别扭，但最后会被证明是 显而易见的。一旦我们把美国革命理解为是一场内战，那么,很多问题都会水落石出、各归其位了。

    菲利普斯详细地考察了当时的美国人如何选择站边；随后他发现， 在大多数情况下，他们的情感立场根源于三国战争。最坚定地支持爱国 者事业的，是新英格兰扬基人，马里兰、弗吉尼亚、北卡罗来纳殖民地 低教会派的绅士们，以及北爱尔兰清教徒。在乔治 ·华盛顿一生中最黑  暗的时期，也就是他领导大陆军残部从日耳曼敦战役和布兰迪万河战役 的惨败中撤离的那段时期，他发出绝望的哀叹：“这一路屡战屡败，我  惟有从自己的家乡弗吉尼亚和苏格兰一爱尔兰人一起发起最后一击了。”

    忠实地站在王室这一边的，是圣公会高教派信徒、德国路德教派、 爱尔兰天主教徒和苏格兰高地人(杰斐逊曾经特意将《独立宣言》中攻 击苏格兰的一段文字删去)。

    不必说，这只是一个泛泛的归类。几乎每个县都分裂了，有些家庭 也因此陷入争吵，有些人开始希望能置身事外。约翰 ·亚当斯当时说：“我们大概有三分之一是托利党人，三分之一胆小怯战，还有三分 之一才是真正的蓝血。”这一评价并非虚言。现代历史学者最好的估计 是，13个殖民地中，大约20%的白人是亲英派，40%是独立派，另有  40%左右的人持中立立场。正是乔治三世在暴躁与虚弱两极间来回切  换，最终把很多“胆小鬼”推向了辉格党阵营。

    就像内战中经常发生的情况一样，族群矛盾有时候掩盖了本地冲突，使得原有的冲突反倒面目模糊。如果某一团体选择了某一边，那当 地的对手往往就会选择另一边。举个例子，很多北美土著人为王室而战，因为他们将其视为反对那些贪婪的侵占土地的殖民者的联盟。但是 他们的决定将某些与之有世仇的部落推到了独立派一边。很多奴隶保王 党人一起战斗，是为了求得自身的解放，这就把奴隶主逼到了一个更激 进的位置，使他们不得不成为“更坚定”的独立派。就像一个亲英的美国 历史学家所说的那样，“在每一个陷入长期争斗的社区，他们(亲英派)都是本地对峙双方中的一方。因为从战争一开始起，就始终伴随着 一些与之无关的冲突，这些冲突迅速地、几乎是随机性地发展为辉格党 与托利党的对峙”。

    对英国来说，一个尤其致命的错误是：王室在莱克星顿和康科德战 役首次打响后，没有立即大规模占领殖民地。内阁举棋不定，寄望调停，但实际上只是导致了武装反抗很快蔓延到马萨诸塞以外。菲利普斯 对于这一结果毫不怀疑。

    从1775年5月，莱克星顿和康科德事件发生后，到1777年11月，萨拉托加大 捷的消息传来，13个殖民地的绝大部分地区在近30个月的关键时期内都处于非  占领状态。英国没有派驻军队阻止反叛力量的联合，也没有分配任何人手负责  地区税务的征收、本地军力的掌控以及食品、武器和军需物资的采购。这真是  史无前例的镇压革命的方式。

    事实确实如此。但是，问题出在乔治三世的内阁。大不列颠几乎没 有兴趣去应付一场镇压她的同胞的战争，而这些同胞的苦难刚刚才震动 过大部分国民。

    几位在北美参加过对法作战的高级将领——阿莫斯特勋爵(Lord Amherst) 、 亨利 ·康威爵士 (Sir      Henry      Conway) 等——拒绝带兵作 战。那些接替他们职位的继任者也没多大热情。盖奇、卡灵顿(Carleton)  和 豪 (Howe)   将军都明确表示他们不愿参战，结果遭致美 国托利党人的痛恨；伯戈因 (Burgoyne) 和克林顿(Clinton)将军对于 镇压反叛需要的军力甚至无动于衷。我们基本可以得出这样的印象：这 些人哪里是在为胜利而战，不过做一天和尚撞一天钟罢了!

    英军的厌战情绪在岛内蔓延开来，然后又像17世纪40年代一样迅速 分化。当然，情绪这东西很难用科学测定。英国议会的议员是通过极其 有限的选举资格被选出的，未被代表的阶级的观点因此不能准确地评估。但是，我们不妨从当时立场鲜明的新闻报纸，从强硬派和妥协派提 交议会的请愿书，从议会少数派的态度(当时的议会选举体制仍是拜占 庭式的，较之1832年理性化改革之后更少代表性)中得到一些认识。

    我们的发现很有说服力，英国国内的民意与殖民地上的情况惊人地 相似。大约25%到30%的人在倾向上倒向托利党，其余的则属于不同程 度的辉格党。北美议会比英国下议院总体上更为激进的主要原因，依然 是老调重弹：在北美，土地的分配更趋平均，因为殖民地议会的选举比 例在男性人口中更高，他们作为一个整体更能够代表民意。

    不列颠岛内部分化的地缘特性更是令人惊奇，因为我们再次看到第 一次盎格鲁内战局势的完整翻版。坚决支持北美反抗的地区也是当年最 激烈反抗斯图亚特王朝的地区：苏格兰低地(尤其是西南部);伦敦及 周边城镇；克伦威尔起家的老东部清教徒平原区；非国教徒们占多数的 纺织城镇；以及北爱尔兰地区，这里一贯尚武的居民很快组建起军队， 模仿他们的宾夕法尼亚表亲进行操练。

    相反，英格兰地区则急切渴望压制，起码我们从提交给议会的请愿 书可以得出这样的判断。诸如西米德兰兹郡，尤其是兰开斯特，都是老 斯图亚特王朝的最后堡垒。因为在英格兰境内征兵赴美作战日益困难， 诺斯勋爵不得不转向爱尔兰和苏格兰高地这些老詹姆斯党的大本营去寻 找兵源。

    詹姆斯二世的继承人绝不可能坐视皇权旁落。18世纪上半叶见证了 詹姆斯党人持续不断的卷土重来，尤其是1715年和1745年的全面反攻； 而18世纪下半叶则终结于对詹姆斯党人的清洗。美王子查理(Bonnie Prince     Charlie), 詹姆斯二世的孙子，那个汤婆子故事男主角詹姆斯 ·斯 图亚特的儿子，兵败卡洛登沼泽地，宣告了斯图亚特家族重返英王宝座 的幻想彻底破灭。这场战役被绘在罗马风格的圣餐盘上：护手大刀的寒 光，石楠花丛间升起的轻烟，穿格子呢裙的王子仓皇出逃。但是那个时 代大多数讲英语者对此的反应只是微微一笑。对他们自由和财产的威胁，或者更掉书袋的说法，对他们的新教主义和经济成功的威胁早已升 级，这些见惯不惊的王党叛乱又算得了什么?!

    随着詹姆斯党的覆灭，苏格兰高地人又将当初送给斯图亚特王朝的 刻板的忠诚转而奉献给了汉诺威王朝。在七年战争中，他们以令人胆寒 的英勇同前盟友法军作战，事实上，从那时起，他们参与了大英扩张的 每一项事业。老威廉 ·皮特在1766年写道：

    我四处寻找美德。我可以骄傲地说，我是第一个想到要寻找它并真的在北 部山间找到它的首相。我呼唤它，最终发现它就在那群英勇无畏的人身上。那 些人曾作了你们的敌人的阴谋诡计的牺牲品，参加了那场想要颠覆国家的战争 (1745年詹姆斯党人叛乱)。如今，那些参加过那场战役的人正与你们并肩作 战，他们忠诚，你们勇猛，就这样征服了世界每一寸土地。

    北美动乱对于那些在卡洛登 (Culloden)   战役中战败者的儿子们来 说，是一个重新证明忠诚的机会；同时，也是他们打击老对手盟约派的 后代的好机会。苏格兰高地人成了北美战场上正规军的主体，最少组建 了10个兵团。此外，还有若干流落海外的苏格兰高地人组成的志愿军团。很多在七年战争后复员回家的苏格兰高地人在殖民地购买了土地， 有一部分沿着哈德孙河谷，其余则分布在卡罗来纳。现在，这些人纷纷 响应国王召集应征入伍，有人的软帽上甚至还别着詹姆斯党人的白帽徽。他们组建了几个托利党的后备团：北卡罗来纳高地人兵团，不列颠 北部皇家志愿军，以及女王的高地人突击队。最后这个连队变成了一个 加拿大团，即女王的约克突击队，连队中很多人后来死在了北方，没能 活到共和时期。

    爱尔兰基本上也是拥护王室的。为此能搜集到的证据必然很零散。 因为天主教被排除在政治生活之外，议会和市镇团体反映的仅仅是作为 少数派的新教的、同时大部分也是激进辉格党人的观点。然而，如果我们再次去翻看那些天主教神父们所写的各种请愿书，以及再看看志愿军 的数量，你就不能否认爱尔兰对皇室事业的热诚了。尽管，爱尔兰裔美 国人的后代自然会竭力否认这一点，然后顾左右而言其他，或者偶尔嘟 囔一下苏格兰一爱尔兰人与爱尔兰人其实差别很大呀!欧文 ·杜德利 ·爱  德华兹 (Owen       Dudley       Edwards)   和康纳 ·克鲁兹 ·奥布莱恩 (Conor  Cruise  O’Brien)的研究结论相当有权威性。他们说，爱尔兰天主教徒绝 大多数都是亲英派，因此他们的忠诚至少赢得了自从野鹅流亡后想要惩 罚他们的议会的谅解。美国战争期间通过的很多法案改善了爱尔兰天主 教徒长期以来受到的歧视性对待，恢复了他们参军入伍的权利。

    菲利普斯的书并没有什么新的重大发现。书中列出的所有事实都来 自公开出版的历史文献，有部分是20世纪早期的著作。然而，把所有这 些资料汇总在一个开放的头脑面前，菲利普斯给出了一个被众多学术史 家忽略了的理解盎格鲁圈内战(也就是表亲战争)的新视角。

    和第一次盎格鲁圈内战一样，第二次内战打得也是相当“斯文”—— 不仅按当时的标准是如此，即使按普遍的内战标准也是如此。几次中规 中矩的会战，随之而来的屠杀(如果按20世纪30年代西班牙内战的标准，这完全不能叫屠杀),以及任何一方的失误都极具新闻价值，因为 这样的情况实在不多见。部分托利党人的财产被褫夺，有些不受欢迎的 官员被粘上颜色羽毛或者涂上油污。但是，就像在英国内战中一样，地 方政府，包括郡守办公室，始终运转如常。

    在这样的时代背景下，伤亡之轻，几乎难以置信。按照美国国防部 的统计，那时辉格党一方计有4435人死亡，其他伤亡人数为6188人。托 利党方面的损失则更轻。想想那时英法战争中死掉的上万的士兵，约克 镇围城一役简直就是小菜一碟。

    尽管好莱坞的种种大场面可能会让我们不相信上述数据，但双方的 军事当局都尽力表现得相当有侠士精神。当魁北克总督盖伊 ·卡尔顿(Sir  Guy  Carleton)被问到为什么对辉格党俘虏如此仁慈时，他答道：“就算我们不能让他们把我们当成亲兄弟，起码在送走他们的时  候，让他们觉得我们是堂兄弟也好吧。”这一回答多多少少反映出当时 的实情。

    当然，所有战争都会有烧杀抢掠，但这种人祸在双方的正规军中都 没有发生，它们只是那些与民族冲突没多大关系的本地同室操戈的结果。

    最受华盛顿器重的纳撒内尔 ·格林 (Nathanael      Greene) 将军在南卡 罗来纳对他看到的埋伏战和牛群袭击深感震惊，他说：“这个国家中辉  格党和托利党之间的仇恨将使他们的处境变得更加悲惨，长此下去，他 们早晚会成为自身野蛮行径的牺牲品。辉格党是不是打算要将托利党斩 草除根?!托利党似乎也要置对方于死地而后快。”

    当然，辉格党最终占了上风。和17世纪40年代的情况不同，现在到 了他们终于可以秋后算账的时候了。80%的亲英派留了下来，而那些更 死忠的托利党人或者自愿或者迫于社会压力迁移出去：离开南部州的人 通常带着他们的奴隶到佛罗里达、西印度群岛或者巴哈马重新定居。大 部分离开中部州和新英格兰的人向北挺进，部分去了魁北克，更多的则 去了新斯科舍，最后在那里建成了一个新省：新不伦瑞克省。有少数人 走得更远，来到了不列颠群岛。

    哈佛历史学者玛雅 ·贾撒诺夫 (Maya     Jasanoff) 估计，总共有6万托 利党人(包括1万名亲英派黑人)迁徙出去。这当中，3.3万人在新斯科  舍和新不伦瑞克定居；6600人在魁北克；5000人在佛罗里达；还有1.3万人(包括5000自由黑人)到大不列颠。有一批托利党黑人最后在塞拉 利昂建立了定居点。

    与此同时，美国独立以后，开始迎来了从大不列颠来的辉格党和激 进人士的移民浪潮。自《独立宣言》发表后的一个半世纪中，大约有500万不列颠移民横渡大西洋来到美利坚。绝大部分移民是出于经济考  虑而来，美国对不列颠激进人士而言，比其他任何移民目的地都更具吸引力。

    托利党和辉格党的对峙局势尽管在不同地区有不同表现，但始终存 在于整个盎格鲁圈。然而，1776年后，辉格党赢得了一部分英语世界的 政治控制权。随后，辉格党哲学体现在美国宪法中，尤其是在《权利法 案》中达到了最高峰。

    所有国家都是依照它们在孕育之时就被植入的DNA 生长起来的。美 利坚合众国建立在以下一系列前提之上：集权必致腐败；司法需分散；决策者应负责；非经民选代表同意且法律批准不得征税；行政听命于立法。

    在费城老议会大厅开会的那群人决心要防止他们生活的那个年代权 力滥用的悲剧重演。最终，他们制定出世界上最成功的宪法，那部迄今 为止仍然在有效地控制政府、壮大公民的宪法。美国政府模式的特殊之 处在于：州权；几乎每一个公共职位的直接选举；负责任的司法系统； 预选制；投票表决；财政预算规则；任期限制，等等。所有这些都出自 杰斐逊式的分权最大化理念。如果第二次盎格鲁圈内战是遗传型的，那 么,由宪法建立的美国政治构架则是表现型的。

    然而，我们需要再次提醒我们自己：国父们始终以保守主义者自居，从不认为他们是革新派。在他们眼里，他们所做的一切都是在捍卫 他们作为英国人自始就有的自由的遗产。他们没有创造新的权利，而是 在重申自光荣革命以来，历经第一次盎格鲁圈内战、西蒙 ·蒙特福特运  动，甚至前溯至《大宪章》的盎格鲁——撒克逊式自由的习惯权利。

    我曾经多次表达过，他们这样一种历史观经常被说成是近乎于不切 实际的幻觉。但是，诺曼征服前的英格兰，其特殊性是完全真实的。事 实上，英语民族正因他们的政治结构而显得与众不同。然而，从某种意 义上，最重要的还是，这些东西被相信是真的。

    殖民地流传最广的历史著作——纳撒尼尔 ·培根 (Nathaniel Bacon)的《统一的英格兰政府的历史讲稿》(Historical Discourse of the Uniformity of the Government of England)、亨利 ·卡尔 (Henry Care) 的《英国的自由》(English Liberties)、卡姆斯勋爵 (Lord  Kames)的《古代英国》(British Antiquities)——讲述的都是同样的故事：1066 年，一个自由的民族因为大陆入侵者丧失了自由，其后就是为了恢复自 由而进行斗争的历史。甚至就在美国独立期间，有一些明知自己没有英 国祖先的美国人仍然热衷于为自己购得一个盎格鲁——撒克逊政治身份。

    这一身份现在已经绝迹。17世纪“砸碎诺曼枷锁”运动最终证明了自 身的合法性，征服者威廉和他的军官以及托利党后代消失在历史的尘烟 中。

    大西洋两岸都有不少人为这样的统一成就最终分裂而深感遗憾。杰 斐逊在起草《独立宣言》时，曾写下过这样一行：“我们原本该是同一  个伟大而自由的民族。”这句话在《独立宣言》最后一稿中被删掉了，我认为这该是其中最美的一句。

    然而，到了那时，局势已经变了。正如卡姆登伯爵的预言，法国和 西班牙在战争中可不是什么“老老实实、作壁上观的看客”。这对老冤家 的卷入对英国原本的温和政策产生了影响，英王乔治三世做了一个糟糕 的决定：对殖民地派出德国雇佣军。

    法国在1778年正式对英宣战，西班牙于1779年加入战争。战场很快 从加勒比扩展到直布罗陀，从印第安到中美洲。在这场新的世界大战中，北美成了一个枝节问题。甚至连乔治三世这样低智的人也意识到他 在殖民地的统治已经终结：“还想在宾夕法尼亚或者新英格兰待下去?开玩笑吧?”英王承认，“它们已经没了”。

    晚至1775年，建立某种形式的盎格鲁一美利坚联邦的跨洋构想在外 国滑膛枪的连排齐射中灰飞烟灭。盎格鲁圈的分裂已成事实-     尽管英 国托利党人能在感情上接受这一事实之前，还有1812年一仗要打。他们 必须要面对这样的事实：美国是一个完全独立的国家，而不再是天朝皇 恩之下的受保护国；它也有和其他国家一样的海权；移民到那里的英国臣民如今已是外国公民，不再是征兵的对象。

    英语民族的政治联合真是红颜命薄。第二次内战后，盎格鲁圈变成 了一个法律的、文化的和语言的共同体，不再是一个单一的国家。

    分离给双方都带来了好果子。在英国，腐败的诺斯政府倒台后，旋 即迎来了激进的行政改革：君主制和特权衰落，议会扩张，更加注重精 英主义和效率。老皮特的儿子小威廉 ·皮特 (William  Pitt  the  Younger)  在1783年当上了首相，时年24岁。除了其间一次中断，小皮特领导政府 一直到其英年早逝的1806年。这位唐宁街10号主人以其勇敢威武、冷静 理智和永不松懈，振兴了国家财政，为1807年废除奴隶制做好了准备， 击败了试图卷土重来的法国。

    美国的独立后来被证明给盎格鲁世界的军事霸业送了一份大礼。英 国不用再在北美耗费大量军力和物资，转而集中对付其他战线，因为他 们知道美国人可以依靠其主权主张而对法国和西班牙进行有力施压——事实上很快就把这两位从大陆上扫地出门了。

    分裂加速了从重商主义、垄断到自由贸易的转换。盎格鲁一美利坚 经济在1785年恢复到了战前水平，在1792年时翻了一番，随后进入持续 强劲的增长阶段。

    分离还直接刺激了盎格鲁圈中两大核心成员的殖民化运动。亲英派 人士大批离开，去到加拿大，使其成为盎格鲁圈的重要组成部分。要是 没有这4万讲英语的人挺进冰雪覆盖的北方，那么,这片地区的语言和  文化依旧还是高卢人的天下。佐治亚殖民州素来是英国流放那些身强力 壮的重刑犯的目的地，但丢失佐治亚又提出了寻找新流放地的需求。

    1770年，也就是承认美国独立前五年，英国宣布将罪犯流放到宜居的澳 大利亚东部去定居。

    在所有成就中，最重要的是，由这场战争的性质以及在战前就开启 的种种讨论所创造的最伟大的宪法。这部宪法在深察人的堕落本性的前 提下被制定出来，旨在防止权力集中。在现今大多数国家宪法每隔几十年就得翻新一回的情况下(更有如南美国家的宪法，几年一变),美国 宪法提供了一个可以超过两个世纪的范本。这个范本确保政府受到制约 而人民是自由的，司法权分散，任何会影响到民众的决定都尽可能贴近 民众，并且，权力均衡受制。

    这部宪法并不仅仅是美国人的成就。就像它的起草者们热切申明的 那样，它是英语民族奉守的信条的终极表达和见证。法治、代议制政府 以及个人自由的理念在塔西佗所描述的那些古老的森林部落大会中便种 下了基因，如今，它们在这部宪法中有了完整和最高的表达。

    1从1688年光荣革命到1783年北美独立战争结束，是英国历史上的第一帝  国时期。这时期的特点是：政治上，资本主义政治制度确立，政党政府得到发 展；经济上，进行资本积累，发展资本主义经济；外交上，积极推行对外扩张 政策，争夺世界霸权；思想上，奉行重商主义；军事上，大力发展海军力量。 1783年，北美独立战争后，大英第一帝国解体，英国殖民事业遭受严重挫折。

    2潮汐种植园所在的殖民地即为潮汐殖民地，主要指被从北美海湾和沿海 低地涌入的海潮影响到的地区，这一地区成为种植稻米和靛蓝植物的农业区。 在佐治亚和卡罗来纳等州部分地区分布了众多潮汐种植园，大米、靛蓝和糖是 其主要出口产品。

    31756年5月17日，英法“七年战争”爆发，战争断断续续持续到1763年，当 时世界上的主要强国均参与了这场战争。欧洲两大军事集团：英国一普鲁士同 盟与法国一奥地利一俄国同盟之间彼此对立，汉诺威与葡萄牙为英普的盟友，法奥俄的盟友则为西班牙、萨克森与瑞典，为争夺殖民地和霸权而进行大规模  战争。战场遍及欧洲大陆、地中海、北美、古巴、印度和菲律宾等地，造成约  90万到140万人死亡。在各国历史中，这场战争依照其所在区域发生的战斗被赋 予了不同的名字：在美国被称为“法国一印第安战争”;在加拿大法语区称为“征服之战”,而在加拿大英语区则被叫作“七年战争”(1754—1763);普鲁士与瑞 典之间的战争称为“波美拉尼亚战争”(1757—1762);普鲁士与奥地利之间的  战争称为“第三次西里西亚战争”(1758—1763)。这场战争对于18世纪后期的  国际战略格局的形成和军事技术的发展均产生了深远影响。

    41764年，英国议会通过了《食糖法》 (Sugar   Act),对运到北美的食糖 和葡萄酒征税，同时经由英国运往北美的其他产品的税率也提高了两倍。

    5美国供给学派经济学家亚瑟 ·拉弗 (Arthur Laffer)在20世纪70年代中期研 究了战后美国税率变化对经济的影响后，建立了一个反映税率和税收之间函数 关系的模型，这就是著名的“拉弗曲线”。根据拉弗的理论，如果政府调低针对  利润、收入和资本的税率，反而会得到更多的税收。上世纪80到90年代期间，这一理论在里根政府执时期变为经济政策，对于帮助美国经济摆脱“滞胀”、获 得高速增长、刺激投资等方面起到了积极的作用。

    6 Plymouth   Rock,又称为“移民石”,上刻“1620”字样，传说是欧洲新移民 踏上美洲大陆的第一块石头。

    第七章 盎格鲁圈在全球

    此前我一直认为帝国是无法产生民主的。 ——克里昂 (Cleon),      引自修昔底德《伯罗奔尼撒战争史》,公元前5世纪
    不列颠的殖民地与其他国家的殖民地相比，总是享有更多的内部自由和政 治独立。这也正是它们得以繁荣的原因之一。 ——亚历西斯 ·德 ·托克维尔，1835

    从盎格鲁到盎格鲁圈

    我写作此书时，联合王国正在筹备定于2014年9月举行的全民公投。勇敢者罗伯特在班诺克本 (Battle  of  Bannockburn) 战胜爱德华二世 已经过去七百年了，苏格兰却想要离去。国外的朋友和我讨论起此事时，他们通常觉得苏格兰人希望独立，而英格兰人则希望联合。然而， 民调结果恰恰相反，苏格兰人有三分之二不愿独立，而英格兰人却是五五开。

    当然，17、18世纪还没有民调这东西。但有证据表明，除了如20世 纪70年代初苏格兰石油工人罢工那段极短的时期外，这两个古老王国中，北边(指苏格兰)相较南边(指英格兰)总是更倾向于联合。而存 在“联合就是英格兰占便宜”这种想法，更多地反映了我们这个时代对权 力框架的认识和某种被害妄想的心理，而非实际发生的事实。

    所以，我有必要再来讲讲苏格兰和英格兰联合的历史。要知道，盎 格鲁圈可不仅仅是一个英格兰的放大版本。

    传统角度上，国籍依照语言和民族定义，因此在不列颠群岛内划定 国界并无多少意义。爱尔兰地区 (Gaeltacht)   一带将说爱尔兰语的泥炭 地和其他岛屿分隔开来。但在此处划界可能有争议。19世纪时，那里淳 朴的民族主义中产阶级不时带着他们的孩子乘坐小船前往不列颠群岛， 学习祖先的语言。耸立的威尔士群山定可划作边界，那里还能听到古老 的不列吞口音。或许赫布里底群岛和高地乡村地区周围还可再分出苏格 兰的高卢人。

    散落在上述世外桃源且仍旧操着前撒克逊时代语言的人们，通常被 说英语的邻居们奚落为落后的乡下人。直到19世纪，浪漫主义复兴，这 些古老的口音才再次流行，引起民俗学者和词典编纂者的关注。

    尽管学校里可能还在教一两种古老的语言，但现在的不列颠群岛已 经基本成为统一的盎格鲁圈疆域。如今，只有不到1%的人口在家中说  凯尔特语。爱尔兰的孩子学习爱尔兰语，就像是英格兰的孩子学习拉丁 语和希腊语，是为了完善自我，而非作为日常交流工具。

    必须承认，不列颠群岛内有繁多的英语口音，有些外人很难听懂。 我自己沉迷于传统的低地苏格兰口音，又称“辫子苏格兰”(Braid Scots)、“多利安苏格兰”(Doric Scots)或“拉兰”1。这种方言正符合我 母亲家族的脾气，还和我最喜欢的两桩苏格兰法官冷面如石的轶事有关。一个故事中，巧言善辩的被告出人意料地把法官说愣了；法官遂回 应他：“你个门槛精!那给你个舒服点的绞刑可好?”另一位法官在审判 一起煽动叛乱案时，辩护人声称耶稣也曾受到同样的指控，法官恼羞成 怒，说：“没错!看到伊的下场了吧?伊还被绞死了!”

    过去二十年间，苏格兰众多公共部门都把低地苏格兰语和苏格兰盖 尔语定为少数民族语言。这简短怪趣的英语文字能被保留下来当然是好 事，但这仅仅是英语的一种形式而已。当我们看到纸上印着这样的文字，哪怕是最通俗的形式，也觉得它们好像是英格兰达勒姆郡或爱尔兰 多尼戈尔郡的语言。

    不列颠群岛的人通过文化和语言结成一体。他们看同样的电视节目，在同样的连锁超市购物，吃同样的食物，一样地饮酒作乐，看同样 的报纸，穿同样风格的衣服。但这些还构不成他们的国家认同。联合王 国比绝大多数欧洲国家更乐于接纳其他种族、语言和宗教信仰-     不仅 仅是写在纸上的公民籍，而是发自内心的真诚的认同感。这一传统在新 兴的盎格鲁圈国家得到发扬，并在美国达到巅峰。为何这样的认同感显 得如此自然?这是因为尽管可以像其他民族一样通过地域和种族确切地 定义英格兰和苏格兰，“不列颠”却无法如此定义。

    这种对联合王国的认同感从一开始起就是跨越地域疆界的，它建立 在政治而非种族的基础上。这么多年来，人们已习惯于把“不列颠”叫作“英格兰”,反正没几个人会说“大英帝国”。甚至在盎格鲁圈的价值观 传播到海外之前，它就已突破了单一国家的界限。这种认同感模糊了母 国和殖民地之间的界限，使盎格鲁圈国家占得竞争对手的上风。如果国 籍主要通过一系列政治观念来定义，那么基于此，任何认同这些观念的 人便都属于这个国家。现在，这个概念可能并不那么新奇；但在欧洲诸 国兴起的时代，这无疑是革命性的。

    难道不是上帝最先统一了这些王国?

    当1603年苏格兰国王詹姆斯六世摇身一变成为英格兰国王詹姆斯一 世时，他想要统治一个全新的主权国家，而不是两个古老的王国。当新 君主莅临下议院，发表首次演说时，他宣称：
    难道不是上帝最先在语言、宗教信仰和习惯上统一了两个王国吗?是啊! 他让我们生活在同一个岛屿，被同一个海洋环绕，自然环境无法分隔，甚至在 国境两边居住的人们本身都难以区分、意识或辨别出他们自己的界限。

    许多苏格兰议员表示赞同。虽然越境突袭几个世纪来已见惯不怪， 高地(苏格兰)和低地(苏格兰)间的文化鸿沟却远比低地(苏格兰) 和英格兰之间的边界更难跨越。

    我们现在把格子花呢短裙和风笛视为苏格兰的民族象征，然而，这 个文化符号实际上是19世纪作家沃特 ·斯科特 (Walter Scott)的个人发 明。在他之前，在大多数低地苏格兰人-     也就是大多数苏格兰人眼里，只有小偷才会这副打扮。

    真正的疆界是苏格兰内部的语言和地理分界线。“撒克逊”(Sassenach)    一词，现在是苏格兰通用的对英格兰人的蔑称。但是  在20世纪以前，这个词被高地苏格兰人不加区分地用来统称低地苏格兰 人和英格兰人。低地苏格兰人觉得他们和邻居的风俗语言截然不同，反 而跟英格兰人更为接近。

    许多苏格兰人认为与英格兰联合好处多多：联合意味着得到财富、 庞大的本土市场和海外殖民地。此外，有个苏格兰血统的国王在位罩  着，在官府里也容易混个一官半职。

    英格兰人则不这么看：没有土地的苏格兰领主、乡绅跟着他们的君 主蜂拥南下，疯抢闲职头衔，还反倒觉得自己被侵略了似的。

    詹姆斯一世想正式合并他的国家，并自称“大不列颠国王”。他对自 己的历史知识感觉良好，并在即位之初就抓住时机，让他的英格兰臣民 们回忆起过去的七国时代。他说：“这个王国曾经一分为七，还不算威  尔士?难道我们忘记了?!而联合不是使它变得更强大吗?威尔士的加 入可不是锦上添花么!”

    英格兰的议员可不买账，他们否决了国王自封的名号。不过，尽管 名义上英格兰和苏格兰仍为两个独立王国，实际上政治和文化的融合却 加速了。

    上一章提到，17世纪民权和宗教上的分歧给两个国家带来了巨大的 裂痕。这些分歧并未使英格兰人仇视苏格兰人，而是激起了两国以及爱 尔兰和美利坚中的激进派和保皇派之间的斗争。

    对英吉利民族的认同感早在1707年两国正式联合以前就形成了。这 不是说所有人都欢迎联合，远远不是那样。人们往往会对现行制度产生 强大的依赖性，米尔顿 ·弗里德曼2后来将其称为“现状的专制”。不过，有必要再强调一下：对联合的抵触，英格兰比苏格兰更为强烈。

    1698年苏格兰在巴拿马达连 (Darien)   的一次失败的殖民行动，成 了要求国家立即重新立法的导火索。许多苏格兰人觉得，西班牙、葡萄 牙、法兰西、英格兰以及尼德兰都在横跨大洋大肆建立基地和贸易口岸，单单把他们落下了。所以，他们编造了一个诡异的计划，说要在巴 拿马地峡处建立一处苏格兰殖民地，叫“伽勒多尼亚”。殖民地将控制  地峡要塞，对往返大洋之间的货运骡车课以繁多税名。但没人解释如何 让西班牙人对此事睁一只眼闭一只眼，也没有人问起英格兰为何要冒着 激怒西班牙的风险去支持一个只有利于苏格兰人的殖民地。

    整个计划是个彻彻底底的悲剧。皮肤白皙、习惯了寒冷天气的殖民 者根本不适应热带丛林气候。很多人死于热带疾病、痢疾和饥饿。少数活下来的人向前来清剿殖民地的一小部西班牙军队投降。2500个拓殖者 从利斯出发，挤在甲板下逃过英格兰人的检查，最后活着回来的不到四 百人。

    但那时候，苏格兰上流社会和中产阶级中不少人已经砸锅卖铁投进 了这笔生意。殖民达连的失败不仅仅是国家耻辱，对苏格兰很多名门望 族来说，这更是一场财务灾难。在爱国主义和个人利益的驱使下，苏格 兰人寄希望于巴结阔气的英格兰邻居，请求他们来帮助自己稳定货币并 勾销债务。

    跟1603年一样4,英格兰方面迟疑不决。英格兰人想搞明白，他们 为何要给一个不及他们繁荣的政府救市背黑锅?苏格兰人关他们什么 事?还有，要是让苏格兰人进入他们的殖民地市场，能有什么好处?

    安妮女王则像斯图亚特王朝的所有先辈一样，下定决心统一两个王 国。英格兰当局指定了一个强大的统一游说团，最终促成了协议：苏格 兰将保留它的教会组织、立法机构和教育系统，但须在商业和政治上与 英格兰全面联合。爱丁堡议会自行解散，苏格兰的议员们统一前往威斯 敏斯特就席。

    议会当然不会轻易投票解散自己。要让这个联合方案分别在英格兰 和苏格兰议会通过，少不了对议员巴结奉承甚至直接行贿。双方议员皆 得到了大量政府闲职、世袭爵位，还有赤裸裸的数千英镑现金。

    奇怪的是：对这次行贿耿耿于怀的不是英格兰人，反倒是苏格兰人。罗伯特·彭斯 (Robert   Burns) 写过一首讽刺诗，挖苦这群“被英格兰 的金银收买”的“酒囊饭袋”。不过那时英格兰要是有公投，联合方案一  定会被多数票否决。苏格兰人虽然现在遍布不列颠，但当时人口仍在少 数。让英格兰和这样的邻居联合，当时特威德河5两岸的人都觉得不可思议。

    一直到18世纪下半叶，英格兰内部都还有一小股势力对苏格兰人的 入境愤愤不平。18世纪60年代，苏格兰人的典型形象第一次出现在英格兰剧场上。现在回头看挺有意思：激进的辉格党人把苏格兰人全部描绘 成保守的托利党和神秘的詹姆斯党。而当时的英格兰漫画不约而同地把 苏格兰人描绘成穿短裙戴毡帽的人      这身行头实际上在苏格兰早就过 时了，只因在英国军队的高地兵团中得以保留而显得格外惹眼。

    琳达 ·科莱在其名著《不列颠》(Britons) 中称，英格兰人的焦虑  无疑是非理性的。相较英格兰的同侪，彼时苏格兰大学培养的博士和工 程师出色不少。这些才俊自然而然跑到南边来工作。苏格兰人在军事和 殖民地要职中占据了与其总人口数不相称的巨大比例。1775年后的十年 里，苏格兰人占到派往孟加拉的文职人员和管理者中的47%,以及在那 里合法居留的商人中的60%。而高地苏格兰人的文化背景使辉格党人认 为苏格兰人倾向独裁。这种偏见也非全无道理：北美很多有影响力的保 皇派政府官员都有苏格兰的詹姆斯党背景。

    联合带来了苏格兰文化上的复兴。大卫 ·休谟在哲学上，威廉 ·罗伯 逊在历史学上，以及亚当 ·斯密在经济学上各领风骚，整个盎格鲁圈都  因苏格兰的启蒙而熠熠生辉。爱丁堡新城的街道和广场是18世纪60年代 的古典主义风格的建筑杰作，它们以自己的名字     诸如王子街、乔治 街、女王街和汉诺威街-     来标榜这联合的时代和造就这联合时代的汉 诺威王朝。

    鲁本斯在国宴厅天花板上的画作所描绘的预言实现了。战争的武器 和工具投进了熔炉。对当时的人来说，往事已有年月。人们很容易忘记，当初关于联合最大的争议在于它是否可以终结数世纪以来两国边界 上的频繁摩擦。而联合真的做到了。英格兰和苏格兰从此停止争吵，将 力量一致对外，而非内部消耗。

    英格兰人也渐渐尝到了甜头。苏格兰人在为自己创造史无前例的财 富的同时，也为整个盎格鲁圈带来了财富。今天，50英镑纸币上印着詹 姆斯·瓦特(James      Watt) 和马修·博尔顿 (Matthew     Boulton) 的头像， 以纪念这位杰出的格拉斯哥工程师和他的英格兰搭档。瓦特的发明造福了苏格兰，也造福了英格兰的新型工业城市-      他定居的伯明翰。要是 这张50英镑的纸币一撕为二，任何一半都值不了25英镑。

    英格兰人和苏格兰人开始视彼此为同胞，祖上的恩恩怨怨渐渐演变 成善意的戏谑，持续至今。两个民族的关系开始像英格兰的约翰逊博士 和他的苏格兰传记作家詹姆斯 ·包斯威尔 (James          Boswell),他们相互 挖苦、竞争，偶尔抱怨，但本质上相互敬爱。一位经历了1940年敦刻尔 克大撤退的高地苏格兰士兵对他的长官说：“要是英格兰也投降了，这  会是场漫长的战争。”他的话正是这种关系的生动阐述。

    我们已经知道：在面对真正的异类时，人们通常会建立起认同感。 18世纪的不列颠亦是如此。当时的不列颠人把一切不属于欧洲大陆尤其 是法兰西王国的东西定义成自身的文化属性。欧洲大陆人颓废、专制、 谄媚、迷信又无知；相反，英语国家的人民坦诚、爽快、独立、敢想又敢为。

    难能可贵的是，美利坚、苏格兰、威尔士以及爱尔兰新教地区，将 这种自我形象发扬光大。在赢得对詹姆斯党的最终胜利后，上述地区的 民众觉得他们自己是忠诚于辉格党和自由原则的最坚定、最无条件以及 最热忱的信徒。如果说英国全境属于新教文化，则还有更“新教”的地方：新英格兰有公理会，苏格兰、阿尔斯特和宾夕法尼亚有长老会，威 尔士有不信国教的新教徒。他们不都更“英国”吗?!

    那为何今天见到的情形却恰恰相反?为何我们会认为是英格兰对周 边地区施加影响力，而不是“非主流”的周边地区主导了新国家的方向?

    造成这个问题的部分原因是人口的绝对数量。1750年，英格兰人与 苏格兰人口比为五比一；一代代移民之后，如今这个比例上升到八比一。《联合法案》通过之时，伦敦成为一个超级城市，远比当时其他的 欧洲城市庞大。史学家至今仍找不到很好的解释。大都市吸引周边的贵 族和专业技术人员，造就了英格兰、苏格兰和盎格鲁爱尔兰家族的第一 次大融合，形成了一个统一的英国统治阶级。在很多英格兰人看来，这似乎是凯尔特人咄咄逼人的胜利。但从苏格兰、威尔士和爱尔兰的佃农 们看来，这一切不过是他们的主人得以进入英格兰，并成了英国人。

    人口比例和社会地位的双重不平衡，有助于理解盎格鲁圈内民族认 同的另一个重要方面，那就是对左派所推崇的爱国主义的抵制。在大多 数欧洲国家，祭起民族主义的大旗是最容易笼络民心的做法。但是在盎 格鲁圈，民族主义和支持弱势一方、构建一级级的受害者等级关系等问 题纠缠在一起。无论英国还是美国，都很难算作弱势群体吧，英格兰尤 其不是。苏格兰和威尔士的民族主义者因此将他们的事业重新定义为保 存各自小国自身的独立身份而进行的斗争。联合更有利于小国   这样 的理念尽管在18、19世纪广泛传播，却并不符合我们今天的偏见。

    比如常见的错误：把“联合王国”说成“英格兰”。这种随意的叫法遍 及欧洲，甚至在盎格鲁圈内部也不少见。20世纪末之前，联合王国自己 也普遍使用“英格兰”。直到伦敦放权给爱丁堡、加的夫和贝尔法斯特后，英国人才开始注意他们的用词。

    不过，人们对此的反应却相当有意思。在我小时候，哪怕强烈拥护 统一的人都觉得用“英格兰”指代联合王国的所有四个国家是对英格兰以 外的其他三国居民的挑衅。当某人指出说话人的错误时，通常会得到一 句随随便便的道歉：“不好意思啊”,“我落伍啦”,“都差不多啦”,或者“哦，没有别的意思”一类，而这只会令听者更加恼怒。

    然而，从18世纪中叶到20世纪，反倒常常是苏格兰、威尔士和爱尔 兰的文字工作者作这样含糊的省略。他们明知道两者不同，却辩称刻意 区分是迂腐之举。比如苏格兰人麦考莱或者约翰 ·布肯 (John Buchan) 、 爱尔兰人帕默斯顿勋爵 (Lord       Palmerston) 或奥斯卡 ·王尔 德…几乎所有的公众人物都下意识地自称“英格兰人”。

    尼尔森上将 (Admiral      Nelson) 在1805年特拉法加战役前对舰队下 达的命令恐怕是海军历史上最著名的命令：“英格兰希望人人各司其职。”[副将柯灵伍德 (Collingwood)   的回答不甚为人知，但却更符合民族性格：“尼尔森别再发号施令了，我们知道该干什么。”]那时候没人  觉得这是对联合王国的另三个国家的冒犯。正如一个苏格兰议员在下议 院所称：“我们习惯把不列颠的臣民称为‘英格兰人’,无论他们是英格兰 人、苏格兰人还是爱尔兰人。因此，我希望，今后用‘英格兰人’这个词 称呼国王陛下的任何臣属都不算冒犯，也不要误以为这是针对联合王国 任一地区的影射。”

    人们何时开始觉得这是冒犯呢?大约是在20世纪后半叶，当大英帝 国日暮西山、不列颠品牌备受嘲弄之后。权力和受害者的等级体制再次 起作用。尤其苏格兰和威尔士，受重工业衰落的打击最大，故把“英国  特色”和那些遥不可及的精英    保守党政客、圣公会地产主、伦敦官  僚们捆绑在一起。

    到20世纪90年代，联合王国四个组成部分的人们重新拾起了以前的 爱国热情。1996年，恰逢英格兰主办欧洲杯，英格兰和苏格兰队在一场 比赛中相遇，整个体育馆内扬起了圣乔治的红白十字旗。在此之前，英 格兰球迷在赛事中一直使用联合王国的米字旗，这面英格兰国旗已基本 废弃不用了。从那以后风气大转，英格兰国旗成了主流。

    这就回到我们一开始讨论的民调结果。显然，两方面都牢骚满腹。 苏格兰有人抱怨他们力挺左中派政党时，老被英格兰的多数票搞成了保 守党执政。而英格兰人反过来抱怨他们缴纳的税款流到北方，除了换回 来几个社会主义议员，啥都没干成。

    然而，这些问题不像车臣和科索沃等地的国家分裂问题那么严重。 无论苏格兰是否从联合王国独立，都不可能导致动武。原因很简单，苏 格兰人和英格兰人之间并没有车臣人或科索沃阿尔巴尼亚人和他们的母 国之间的种族和宗教信仰差异。联合王国不仅仅是亲近民族间形成的联 盟，更有共同的英吉利认同感作纽带。

    应当承认，和每个成员国内部的认同感相比，不列颠更偏向于一个 法理概念。它很难敌得过诗词、歌曲中的英格兰情结、苏格兰情结或威尔士情结。当联合王国的民众想起各自家乡的风景、田园诗中出现的地 名、热闹的传统赛事，那些古老的爱国主义情结便自动复活了。与之相 反，不列颠唤起的，则是对政治和宪法制度的认同，它们主要来自于共 同的政治制度和价值观。

    事实就是如此。《联合法案》通过后，英格兰人和苏格兰人的融合 进程加快，新国家的公民产生了不容置疑的自豪感。18世纪以后，这种“不列颠自古以来是一家”的自豪感在所有阶层和两性中都得到了广泛 认可，苏格兰和威尔士尤甚。对此，琳达 ·科莱曾有过详尽的描述。

    不能不说，这种超越了血缘和土地的爱国热情是多么难能可贵。不 列颠人将自己视为拥有独特制度的群体，包括议会主权、普通法系、不 可侵犯的财产权、独立司法、受国家行政控制的军队、新教，以及最重 要的，个人自由。

    我们经常说，美国作为一个“成功国家”是独一无二的。但这一切并 非凭空出现。早在独立宣言以前，共同的信仰而非种族身份，就令大西 洋两岸的不列颠人引以为豪。英格兰和苏格兰两个长久相互独立甚至彼 此敌对的王国的联合，多多少少是顺应了两国民众认同他们的新政治身 份而非种族身份的需要。

    英国正是以全新的统一多民族国家的姿态建立起了帝国事业。某种 意义上，美利坚也被英国人拉入了这个联盟。后来建成的殖民地无疑都 是英国式的。这里有一点很关键：没有人把“大英帝国”称作“英国”。

    从一开始，在帝国的管理者中苏格兰人的比例就高得出奇，而殖民 地驻军中不光苏格兰人比例高，爱尔兰人的比例甚至更高(相较于他们 的总人口)。到19世纪初，不列颠群岛内，英格兰人、苏格兰人和爱尔 兰人的人口比约为6:1:3。然而，在孟加拉驻军，这支大英帝国最庞  大的军队中，英格兰人占了34%,苏格兰人占了18%,爱尔兰人占了48%。

    尤其是苏格兰人，早早就看到了大洋对岸的机会，毫不犹豫地把它抓在了手里。苏格兰人口占到了大英帝国澳大利亚殖民人口的15%,加拿大的21%,新西兰的23%(爱尔兰人的比例分别是27%、21%和 21%)。

    由于英国人的国家认同来源于政治信仰，殖民者也必然把这种认同 传递给被殖民者。如果说法律前人人平等、代议制政府、财产权和其他 种种定义了英国人，那牙买加人、马耳他人和马来人在成为帝国的一部 分之后，他们自然也变成了英国人。

    这正是大英帝国最终会自发解体的关键。成为英国人不问出身，无 论你是德国人还是波兰人。英国人代表的是一系列政治权利。只要接受 这些价值观，任何人都可以成为英国人，就像任何人都可以成为美国人。而因为这些价值观中包括了代议制议会，那么,就只能发展出两种 可能性：要么帝国议会被人口占压倒性多数的印度人占领，要么每个殖 民地最终独立为国家。

    帝国的建立，乃是混乱之中、意料之外的产物。按维多利亚时期作 家J.R.西莱 (J.R.Seeley)     的说法，它是“为了填补心灵的空虚”。尽管如 此，英国的政策制定者们在19世纪就已经意识到他们的角色与管家无异。一旦殖民地的政治制度发展到一定水平，英国就应当帮助他们成为 享有独立主权的同盟者。

    激进派议员J.A.罗巴克 (J.A.Roebuck)   在1849年说：“每一个殖民  地都应当被我们视为注定要独立的国家。假以时日，一旦时机成熟，就 应当由他们自己管理自己。”他的观点在1856年得到托利党人亚瑟 ·米尔 斯 (Arthur     Mills) 的响应：“现在我们公认的殖民目标和政策，应当是 帮助这些殖民地尽早在社会、政治和商业方面成熟起来。母邦应最大限 度地提供一切帮助，授权他们自我管理，并最终帮助他们独立。”

    现在仍有很多前殖民地的人更愿相信他们的独立是自我抗争的结果，而非帝国给予的权利。这种感情可以理解。事实上，这一过程中确 实有很多不愉快的例子，塞浦路斯和巴勒斯坦都发生过战争，而肯尼亚的战争尤为惨烈。

    但是，兵戎相见只是例外。大多数殖民地的独立是通过协议的方式 和平实现的，而新独立的国家也乐意继续保持与英联邦和盎格鲁圈的联 系。只有一个被伦敦视为联合王国不可分割的而不是什么未来的主权国 家的地方，反倒拒绝如此。那就是爱尔兰。爱尔兰没能通过和平协商， 而是由一场血腥的起义，以及随之而来的两场内战完成了独立。南部一 役短暂而激烈，而北部的战事则断断续续地持续了很久。

    爱尔兰共和国本是盎格鲁圈最不舍的部分，但它的早期领导者一心 想同其他英语国家断绝联系，以建立一个自给自足的经济市场，并且复 兴爱尔兰语，使得爱尔兰在名义上脱离盎格鲁圈。

    现在回首，这一切不过是上世纪的事!如威廉 · 巴特勒 · 叶芝 (W.B.Yeats)  所说：“一切都变了，全变了。”

    第一个殖民地

    2011年，女王和爱丁堡公爵访问爱尔兰共和国。这是乔治五世以来 在位的英国君主首次访问爱尔兰。1911年乔治五世加冕时，爱尔兰还是 联合王国的一部分。女王和公爵访问了克罗克公园 (Croke Park)。

    1920年，爱尔兰皇家警卫队在此向一群观看爱尔兰式橄榄球的观众开枪，十四人丧生。女王向在那不幸年月中丧生的人们敬献了花圈，并在 爱尔兰共和党人的精神圣地科克 (Cork)   结束了访问。

    访问取得了巨大成功。这标志着联合王国和爱尔兰在长久的政治破 裂之后，尽弃前嫌，重新结盟。除了有极左翼团体酸溜溜地抵制女王的 访问，几乎所有爱尔兰媒体都盛赞此次访问，尤其为女王用爱尔兰语为 其官方演讲开篇而感到振奋。

    但政府间的分歧从未影响到两国公民的良好关系。1921年分裂以来，生活在英国政府管辖下的大不列颠岛上的爱尔兰国民一直都比在北 爱尔兰的多。就在分裂之后，两国都给予对方互惠社保权、大学录取权，甚至投票权。没有哪个英格兰和苏格兰城镇和爱尔兰切断了联系， 也没有哪个英国人觉得爱尔兰人是外国人。显然，除了政治之外，两国 就是一家人。

    需要再次强调，不要用现代人的眼光去看待历史，不要因为爱尔兰 二十六县在1921年脱离了联合王国，就老是不由自主地把从抵抗亨利二 世入侵以来的每个事件都看作分裂的证据。

    英格兰人      更确切地说是诺曼人    对爱尔兰的征服，事实上是 欧洲历史的大势所趋。更早以前，北部民族凭借其先进的军事技术占领 了欧洲大片土地。爱尔兰这片土地和从苏格兰到塞浦路斯的广大疆域都 处于其军事统治之下。1169年，被废黜的爱尔兰国王，伦斯特的德莫特·麦克默罗 (Dermot MacMurrough), 从英格兰和威尔士引来诺曼人来 帮助他夺回王位。这些诺曼人虽然挂着骁勇善战的金字招牌，实际上却 不过是雇佣兵。他们接受了德莫特的条件，渡河破敌，得到了封赏的土 地和城堡。亨利二世担心其中的一个男爵企图控制全岛，兴师伐之。

    1171年，他亲率部队登陆，并得到了爱尔兰地主和主教的拥戴。接下来 的8个世纪，英格兰和爱尔兰都在同一个君主的统治下。

    然而，无论你怎么想，这恐怕都不能算作共和人士口中流传的“英 格兰压迫”的开始吧。当时，英格兰和爱尔兰跟欧洲许多其他民族一样，都受到诺曼贵族的压迫。这些贵族，后来被弗里德里希 ·尼采夸张 地称为“在每一支贵族家族”中都找得到的“高贵血统的禽兽”。

    在诺曼人入侵之前，爱尔兰从未统一过，再往前追溯就没有独立的 爱尔兰一说。两国间的紧张气氛大致是在宗教改革后才开始形成的。宗 教改革颠覆了大不列颠，却几乎没有触及爱尔兰。我们知道，从伊丽莎 白女王继位一直到滑铁卢最终击败拿破仑  ,英格兰始终处于对西班牙 和法国长期作战的状态。爱尔兰在整个这一时期都是软肋，因为天主教 军队很有可能在此登陆进犯并得到当地教徒的支持。伊丽莎白女王和詹 姆斯一世在位期间，新教徒被安插在爱尔兰的北部和东部沿岸各地，以 防范这种入侵。这些教徒部分来自英格兰，大部分来自苏格兰。

    从此以后，爱尔兰就不断发生宗教派别斗争、叛乱和血腥的镇压。 不过，再次强调，我们可不能犯关公战秦琼式的错误。要知道，爱尔兰 天主教在盎格鲁圈第一次内战中力挺查理一世，在第二次内战中又效忠 王室。总的来说，16、17和18世纪的爱尔兰民族主义，并不是要寻求从 王国中独立出去。

    从伦敦方面说，爱尔兰问题很简单。要知道大部分爱尔兰人并未享 有完整的民主权利；但赋予他们这些权利，就相当于赋予天主教徒更多 政治权利，这可能牺牲岛上占少数的新教徒的利益。

    小威廉 ·皮特提出了一个可行的解决方案：他许诺在合并不列颠和爱尔兰议会时给予天主教徒更多的投票权。这样，爱尔兰天主教徒就可 以在更大的选举系统中平等地享有完全的政治自由，又不至于去侵夺他 们的死对头-     新教地产主们。

    小皮特的方案在上议院受阻，所以它到底能否解决爱尔兰问题成了 历史悬案。《联合法案》通过后，爱尔兰议会解散，议员迁往威斯敏斯 特，但是天主教解禁则是三十年后的事情了。

    这是恶性循环的开始。英国迟早会解决爱尔兰问题，但永远慢一拍。伟大的自由党首相、支持爱尔兰地方自治的威廉 ·格莱斯顿(W.E. Gladstone)  抱怨说，爱尔兰问题的麻烦在于每当找到解决方案的时候， 他们又切换主题了。他说的没错，因为伦敦的政策总滞后于爱尔兰的诉 求。一开始，爱尔兰独立运动要求解除天主教徒在民权上受到的限制。 等到处理了民权，问题又转移到土地改革。终于，土地问题被纳入议会 讨论了，但这时运动又变成了要求地方自治。地方自治权终于在1912年 不顾阿尔斯特新教徒的强烈抵制而姗姗来迟。这些新教徒效仿他们17世 纪的苏格兰先辈，订立了《阿尔斯特圣神圣盟约》 (Ulster Covenant),     坚决抵制任何形式的爱尔兰自治。但跟小皮特的方案一样，我们永远无法知道1912年的立法是否能解决这一问题，因为第一次 世界大战在法案实施前爆发了，于是就任由事态自行发展了。

    可以确定一点：直到1916年以前，爱尔兰民族主义者的诉求始终是 恢复一千八百年前国王治下的爱尔兰议会的状态，共和主义处于边缘位 置。领导爱尔兰党派发起1916年复活节起义的约翰 ·里德蒙 (John Redmond)  曾希望爱尔兰和英格兰尽可能不分离。一战爆发时，他恳求 爱尔兰人民参战，与其他英语国家的盟军并肩作战。爱尔兰确实也派出 了大量军队。

    尽管现在共和党人想证明曾经得到民众支持，历史记录则另有说  法。1900年4月，维多利亚女王访问都柏林，想要赞誉爱尔兰官兵在南 非战争中的英勇。当时的情形，有一段时文是这样记载的：“我们进入 都柏林，万人空巷，每一个窗口甚至屋顶都挤满了人。我经历过许多类 似的访问，但还从未见过像都柏林民众这样热情甚至可以说疯狂的场面。”

    也确有异议的声音，但不多。亚瑟 ·格里菲斯 (Arthur       Griffith) 创 办的《爱尔兰人联合报》(United     Irishman) 在访问两周后酸溜溜地评 论：“这奇怪而苦涩的一课，请诸位不要忘记。就因为短短几周的背叛，我们需要用无数的努力来为这片土地赎罪。”

    格里菲斯眼里的“赎罪”,十六年后实现了。一战在许多方面助推了 复活节起义。共和党领导人害怕一旦在盟军服役的大量爱尔兰士兵归来，全面独立的梦想将无法实现。尽管少有人提及，但在索姆河战役第 一天中牺牲的、着英国军装的爱尔兰南部天主教徒，比起义中死掉的还 要多。

    英国当局则视复活节起义为令人发指的叛乱，而此时的英国军队中 尚有数十万爱尔兰士兵在法国战场上出生入死!纵有千万个理由，当局 的反应在当时的情况下也极不光彩，且下手之重，可谓愚蠢至极。大批 反叛者在数周内被击毙，有些还只是青少年。爱尔兰的民意瞬间反转， 并且再也无法挽回。

    有人指出，复活节起义以致最终承认爱尔兰自由邦，可以一路上溯 至反对托利党人并同意地方自治的历史。也许吧。但当维多利亚女王完 成都柏林的正式访问时，联合王国的破裂并非必然，更别说之后的暴力 和流血事件。正是由于八百年压迫的种种议论，以及无数历史事件积压 并释放出的血腥暗流，最终汇集成混乱的大爆发。

    “血会白流吗?”叶芝问道。也许会的。因为整整一个世纪中大部分 时期，爱尔兰问题已吵得整个不列颠群岛的民众精疲力竭。直到近十年 来，双方关系才恢复到其本应有的正常状态。

    事实上，在大部分英国人看来，尽管爱尔兰是一个独立的国家，却 不是外国。爱尔兰人和我们书同文、衣同服、食同肴(悲惨啊，连喝的都一样),电视节目、足球队、购物品牌都是相同的。我们一半正经一 半玩世不恭的交谈风格，甚至和盎格鲁圈的其他国家相比都与众不同。

    不列颠和爱尔兰除了政府出台的政策，在其他方面，比如历史和地 理、习惯和思维、贸易和结算、血缘和语言，几乎都是共通的。然而， 尽管民间的通婚和融合从未间断，两国政府却顽固地坚持长期分裂。这 种情况下，在政府部门和职位上经常听到的爱尔兰口音，无疑具有重大 意义。

    最初的分裂可能无法避免。早先的爱尔兰领导人，就算不是事事反 对不列颠，起码也竭力避免做不列颠人做的事情以拉开他们同不列颠的 距离。(尽管在二战期间，许多爱尔兰公民一改常态，纷纷应征加入不 列颠军队，并且获得了780枚勋章，包括7枚维多利亚十字勋章。)我个 人认为，爱尔兰政界和欧盟走得太近，最初的部分原因就是基于对不列 颠的疏远。虽然不久以后，他们也跟所有政客一个德行，寄望从体制中 捞一票。

    21世纪后，以前的对抗不复存在了。欧元危机迫使两国重新联合， 女王的访问更强化了两国的同盟。

    2010年的民调显示，43%的新芬党选民 (Sinn   Féin    voters) 希望把 欧元换回英镑。此次危机中，其他欧元区政府对爱尔兰政府的冷酷和英 国政府可谓天壤之别。欧元区指责爱尔兰税收过低，要求提高企业税，而英国则毫不犹豫向爱尔兰提供金融援助。

    和解几乎每天都在发生。两次世界大战中为盎格鲁圈浴血奋战的爱 尔兰人终于得到了官方的认可和嘉奖。2012年伊始，爱尔兰进一步平反 了二战中为不列颠作战而抛弃己方军队的5000名爱尔兰士兵。恩达 ·肯尼 (Enda    Kenny) 政府释放这个信号有重大意义：他们要尽其所能否认 埃蒙 ·德 ·瓦莱拉(éamon   de   Valera)的中立政策。这5000名士兵怎么说 也是违反法令了，现在给他们恢复名誉，意味着当年的法令不得民心。 他们本应当作为爱尔兰军队的一部分，加入同盟国对抗法西斯主义。

    这5000名士兵是很特殊的，因为他们已经隶属另一国的军队。二战 中，还有超过7万南爱尔兰的天主教徒涌进北爱尔兰的征兵所，另有更  多爱尔兰人奔向英格兰。

    先父祖籍是阿尔斯特的天主教徒。在意大利服役期间，他待在一个 有多宗教背景的北爱尔兰骑兵团，亲身经历过这种情况。有次我曾问他 是否想得起士兵中的宗教差异。他唯一能想起来的，就是有一次，有一 些人轮流哼唱起爱尔兰亲英派和独立派的歌曲。而在面对共同外敌时， 他们的分歧涣然冰释。

    爱尔兰自由邦对20世纪20年代提出的各种帝国邦联方案非常头疼。 在澳大利亚、加拿大、新西兰和南非人热衷于如何维续各种形式的政治 联盟时，南爱尔兰则铁了心要走相反的路。想要继续留在联合王国中实 行自治的人和寻求完全独立的人在爱尔兰南部爆发了残酷的内战。起初，独立派处于劣势，后来逐渐取得决定性优势，并且希望把胜利带回 家。

    英国当局不愿接受一个缺少爱尔兰的主权协议，各种邦联方案最终 不了了之。这就是为什么,现在爱尔兰首相和英国首相一起站在唐宁街 10号宣称联合王国是最重要的盟国却不引起任何骚动是多么重大的事情。靠攻击不列颠外交政策而博取任何爱尔兰政党集团欢心的时代一去 不返了。这个国家不再犹豫，爱尔兰已经重返盎格鲁圈。

    旧日的荣光

    1877年印度的一场政治集会，光芒甚至盖过莫卧儿帝国的君王们。 是年1月，400个印度当地的亲王、侯爷、公主和领主带着他们的随从齐 聚德里，每个人都尽力在同僚前炫耀：满目都是珠光宝气的头巾、长袍 和饰带；拿着饰有圆形装饰盾牌和弯刀的黑胡子保镖走来走去；威武的 大象背上覆着金色坐垫，坐垫顶棚的银色流苏随风摇曳。

    同这些本地领主们会面的是1.5万名身着红黄制服的不列颠士兵，以及佩戴着羽饰和勋章的帝国官员。现场还有帝国所依靠的本地部队： 高大的印度骑兵身着绿色、蓝色和赭色相间长袍，亮丽的三角旗在他们 的矛尖飞舞。

    在德里召集的这次杜巴节6是为了庆祝维多利亚女王成为印度女皇，也是为了向世人集中展示皇家的权力与稳定。“此前，印度还是一  堆散石。现在房屋已经建好，从屋顶到地下室，每块石头都找到了自己 正确的位置。”印多尔大公 (Maharajah   of   Indore) 如是告诉总督利顿勋 爵 (Lord     Lytton)。这位总督既是浪漫主义诗人，也是托利党人。

    鲁雅德 ·吉普林曾写过一篇短篇小说，其中描写到前线的蛮族人目  睹了眼前印度前线军队的严明纪律，大为震惊。一个部落首领问当地官 员，你们甚至连上缰的牲口都能行动如一，这奇迹是怎么做到的?那位 当地官员自豪地回答：
    “它们和人一样遵守命令。驴、马、象和牛听赶车人的话，赶车人听中士  的，中士听中尉的，中尉听上尉的，上尉听少校的，少校听上校的，上校听领 导三个团的准将的，准将听上将的。而上将服从总督的命令，总督则效忠于帝 国。这样，事儿就成了。”

    “真希望阿富汗也是这样啊!”那位首领说，“在阿富汗，我们只听我们自己 的。”

    “正因如此，你们不愿服从的埃米尔Z必须到这儿来听命于我们的总督。”那 位官员弄着自己的胡子说道。

    德里杜巴盛会的排场几乎无人能及。而四分之一世纪之后，它在同 样是浪漫主义的托利党人寇松侯爵任上以更大规模再次上演，以庆祝英 王爱德华七世登基。不过，不管盛会有多辉煌，也不能代表英国的统治 规则。他们所象征的统治，如大排场、君主制度和军事化，任何一个帝 国都可以做得很好。而那些相信英国的独特性是建立在自由价值基础上 的人士，对这样的集会实在不可能抱有好感。

    我们可以看到，17世纪以来，英语世界分化出两大政治取向：一种 强调个人主义、代议制民主和盎格鲁圈的独特性，简单起见，不妨称之 为辉格党     尽管它的党徒并非总使用这个名号；另一种强调稳定、等 级制度和秩序，同样为简单起见，称为托利党人(可能有些过时)。

    当英语民族在建立他们横跨大洋的新家园时，也带去了这两种取向。在美利坚，这两种取向在第二次盎格鲁圈内战(美国革命)中演变 为独立派和亲英派。不过，它们也传播到了具有更古老的本土文明的地 区，印度最为明显。

    在不列颠政府统治下且拥有大量本土人口的地区，辉格党和托利党 争论的焦点在于当地人的政治地位。辉格党人希望当地人也能建立威斯 敏斯特式的代议制民主，并视教育为关键。托利党人则认为当地人不可 能接受外来不列颠文化和价值观，不如转而寻求传统权力结构，拉拢本 地首领、王公进行统治。

    德里杜巴就是托利党人方案恢弘的视觉呈现，尼尔 ·弗格森 (Niall Ferguson)称之为“托利主义”。然而，还是辉格党人的方案，最终塑造 了今日之盎格鲁圈——一个由独立国家依靠对自由和财产的共同信仰而非政权结构组成的联合体。这个方案已将殖民地一个一个变为独立的代 议制政府国家。这终将也会在印度实现。

    真正的爱国者

    1796年，悉尼第一家剧院开张(现址在布莱街上，Bligh     Street)。 一个几乎全部由刑满释放人员组成的剧团上演小爱德华(Edward Young) 的悲剧《复仇》 (The  Revenge)。演出并不成功。一点也不奇 怪，观众席里到处是扒手，剧院不久也倒闭了。这场演出现在还能被记 得的，是开演前会朗读序幕中的两行诗：
    因为要知道，我们才是真正的爱国者，
    我们离开祖国，是为了她好。

    这两行诗通常被认为是爱尔兰演员兼窃贼乔治 · 巴林顿 (George Barrington)所作。他的惯用伎俩是装成牧师行窃。多次被捕后，他在  1790年被判七年流放。实际上，这两行诗不是巴林顿的风格，几乎可以 肯定是伪作。但是剧本在流放地写成本身值得一提，而澳大利亚后代也 喜欢这出剧。

    一个由罪犯营地建成的国家如何变成了世上最富有、最自由的土地 之一?一个由不列颠嫌弃的人组成的殖民地如何反而成为不列颠不可缺 少的坚定同盟?直到现在，到澳大利亚旅游的英国人仍就会为众多的两 次世界大战纪念碑和成千上万年轻人拿起武器效忠国家的精神而动容， 即使他们中很多人的先辈是戴着脚镣流放到这片土地上的。澳大利亚在 一战中派出了40万人、二战中派出了近100万人与英国一同作战，这样 的忠诚怎么解释?

    这与伦敦方面吸取美国殖民地的经验教训有很大关系。诺斯伯爵内 阁的班子和政策被彻底抛弃。现在没人敢讨论不列颠海外臣民不应当享有和本岛臣民同样的政治权利这一问题了。

    可以想见，殖民地面临各种问题：距离遥远、环境陌生、如何处理 与原住民的关系。以上种种，皆困难重重。尽管如此，威斯敏斯特迅速 达成共识，认为不列颠的殖民地应当建成承认英国王室权力的议会制自 治政府，这之后被称为“负责任的政府”。

    早期的澳大利亚人很希望自治。违法者构成的人口主体并不妨碍其 政治发展。相反，那个年代的罪犯其实相当有闯劲儿，他们并非是我们 现在所理解的底层阶级。事实上，对他们量刑之重尤使我们震惊。我们 已经提过，英语社会非常看重个人财产权，这种极端的重视程度也反映 在刑事司法系统中。数千人被判七年的流放仅是因为入店行窃，其他被 流放的包括政治激进分子、抗命的海员以及爱尔兰民族主义者。

    1787年，第一批十一艘满载流放者的船队离开英格兰朴茨茅斯港驶 向布塔尼湾 (Botany       Bay) 。 船队上载有696名犯人和348名官员、水 手、海军，还有货物、医疗物品、手铐和脚镣，以及为统治者预制的玻 璃窗房屋。最后一批流放者则于1868年抵达西澳大利亚。在此期间，一 共有16.4万名男女和孩童(其中一些是在旅途中孕育出生的)从不列颠 群岛抵达澳大利亚，同时还有一些来自加拿大、印度和加勒比的捣乱者。

    行程险恶，许多人命丧途中，而上岸后的情况也不见得好到哪里去。除了严刑，他们还要面对未知的奇异植物、有毒的动物、恶劣的气 候以及长期敌对的原住民部落。

    然而殖民地仍旧繁荣了起来。犯人们在刑期届满后可以得到30英亩 的土地。不久，当地的经济开始起飞，首先基于牧羊，随后发展起了各 种商业、旅馆和其他第二产业。这些犯人绝大多数出身脏乱的贫民窟或 者处境更糟的贫农，但他们发现，在这里可以相对容易地成为土地拥有 者。他们建立了新的家园，并成为坚定的个人主义者。

    原住民成了他们成功的牺牲品。澳大利亚的殖民者和原住民之间的技术差距之大，在其他任何地方都不存在。那些原住民还生活在旧石器 时代，载满罪犯的船队给当地人带来了巨大的灾难：原住民失去了狩猎 的土地和水源，在牛羊牧场受苦役，以及最悲惨的，他们被未知的病原 体感染。尽管伦敦的政客们想尽办法帮助原住民融入英国社会，当地白 人殖民者却认为这些个所谓的方案不过自作多情。不管怎么样，威斯敏 斯特出台的法令并不能使本地人逃过麻疹、肺结核和天花的袭击。

    正当殖民者沿澳大利亚海岸线扩张时，一个类似于北美的社群开始 形成。在同时代欧洲大陆人看来，这样的社会具有明显的英国特征。历 史上，英国人就出了名地敢于反抗统治者，他们把个体的地位看得比国 家甚至家庭都更为重要，尊崇独立和自力更生。

    澳大利亚人则秉承了这些品质。和美利坚的殖民者一样，他们的土 地上没有地主贵族。土地广袤，并且还在扩张，都是属于不列颠的移民 自己的。这片伟大的红色大陆，不是一个被“挤走”的不列颠，而是一个 不断壮大的不列颠。

    任何赴澳旅行的游客都会惊异于澳洲人的性格：不拘小节，固执己 见，个人主义，自力更生。澳大利亚作家萨利 ·怀特(Sally White)制作 了一本小册子，向外国学生介绍澳大利亚人的民族性格。册子中写道：“澳大利亚人尊重他人，不仅仅是因为他们的社会地位或者出身。只要一个人的行为不影响到其他人的活动或者信仰，澳大利亚人待他总 是宽容和友善的。”

    简单说来，这是活生生的密尔的自由主义哲学，也正是我们一直期 望的。因为，尽管夸耀他们出身罪犯的祖先的人也对自己充满信心，但 终究抵不过大批前来淘金的冒险者。这些淘金者和流放犯人一样，绝大 部分是男性。因此，这更加强化了被游客和澳大利亚人自己与国家文化 联系在一起的个人主义精神。

    第一大批淘金者1851年登陆。此后的二十多年里，澳大利亚人口从 43万增至170万。新发现源源不断。整个19世纪后半叶，金矿开遍了新南威尔士 (New     South        Wales) 、 维多利亚(Victoria)   和昆士兰(Queensland)。最后一大批冒险者在1893年抵达卡尔古利(Kalgoorlie),     开启了西澳大利亚淘金的大潮。我有一位远房亲戚帕  迪·汉南 (Paddy       Hannan) 也是淘金者，他从爱尔兰克莱尔郡(County  Clare)  移民过来。和数以千计横跨半个世界前来的人一样，他是一位实 业家，一位永远信心满满地追求财富的探险家。澳大利亚人不是一群等 着“感谢政府”的人。

    澳大利亚人创造出了一种把他们离开的地方远远抛在身后的卡通画。漫画中的不列颠，阶级固化，挑三拣四，充斥着繁文缛节。尽管很 少有其他盎格鲁圈的游客这么认为，但在澳大利亚人的眼里或许真就是 这样的。

    然而很少有澳大利亚人质疑他们和不列颠的联系。在20世纪前，这 种联系就叫“家”,哪怕很多人其实根本没有踏上过“家”的土地。他们知 道，尽管和英国人有分歧和对抗，但大体上他们仍享有共同的政治文化。尽管往返两个国家要跨越半个地球，但旅行者会发现一样的法庭程 序，一样的议会，而维系社会运作的不成文习惯也相互兼容。正是这些 相似之处，而不是体育、电视、食物等，构成了国家认同的核心，并继 续吸引来自南欧和亚洲裔移民争相融入。

    直到20世纪60年代，大部分澳大利亚人都同时视自己为不列颠人和 澳大利亚人。这种认同后来逐渐消失，大致有三个原因：一是随时间自 然地淡化，二是大批其他地区的移民涌入，三是英国1973年灾难性地决 定加入欧洲经济共同体(现在的欧盟),两国间传统的贸易往来被欧洲 关税同盟取代。

    即使现在，许多澳大利亚游客在不列颠机场落地时心里都不好受。 他们眼睁睁地看着那些曾经和不列颠对抗的国家的公民可以走欧盟通道，自己却要和其他国家公民排在一起。“打加里波利 (Gallipoli)   战役 时都没排过这么长的队!”他们这么抱怨。在1915年试图打通黑海的那场惨烈的战役中，有无数澳大利亚和新西兰士兵牺牲。

    加里波利战役惨败时，澳大利亚和新西兰士兵的地位和他们的不列 颠战友没有差别。事实上，不列颠人比澳大利亚人的伤亡率还高一点点。这一点有必要强调一下，关于这场战役的一些传言不可信，尤其是 1981年梅尔 ·吉布森 (Mel Gibson)  主演的电影《加里波利》    (Gallipoli)   中，称澳大利亚人在海峡上因喝着茶的不列颠冷血军官的 命令而蒙受了不必要的损失。

    加里波利注定是澳大利亚(和新西兰)人建国史上的关键时刻。澳 新军团日 (ANZAC     Day)的纪念活动规模也超过了其他盎格鲁圈国家 在类似11月11日退伍军人节的活动。但如果说纪念活动的重要性在于疏 远和不列颠的关系，所有参战的人都会觉得荒诞不经。毫无疑问，加里 波利战役指挥无能，执行不力，但是那时人们不会怀疑英语国家民众并 肩对抗独裁暴君的事实。

    跟1776年不同了，有着大量不列颠人口的殖民地的独立运动并非起 因于殖民者。正是因为从第二次盎格鲁圈内战中吸取了教训，伦敦方面 总是试图先于殖民地一步，给予比殖民者所要求的更多的自治权。

    1931年通过的《威斯敏斯特法案》就已经废除了不列颠议会对自治 领的所有立法权限。不过南非直到1934年才批准，澳大利亚等到了1942 年，而新西兰一直拖到了1947年，加拿大则一直在争论联邦和行省的权 力问题，直到1982年才批准该法案。

    19世纪的不列颠政策制定者都很关心这些伟大的国家由从属国演变成盟友国的演进历程。在澳大利亚这里，这是一个漂亮的胜利。2000年 是6个自治殖民地联合成澳大利亚联邦的100周年庆。5位澳大利亚总理——约翰·戈顿爵士 (Sir John Gorton) 、 高夫 · 惠特拉姆 (Gough  Whitlam) 、 马尔科姆 ·弗雷泽 (Malcolm Fraser) 、 鲍勃 ·霍克 (Bob  Hawke) 和约翰 ·霍华德(John Howard)    来到不列颠下议院，这是 通过联合法案的地方。数月后他们又回到这里，在市政厅参加了国宴并在威斯敏斯特教堂做了礼拜。女王参加了仪式，因为在前一年的修正案 公投中决定保留女王作为国家元首。澳大利亚当时肯定也有纪念活动， 然而在联合王国本土为如此重大的澳大利亚民族纪念日举行仪式，意义 非凡。

    约翰 ·霍华德于2003年回到伦敦，参加了一个纪念馆开馆仪式，纪  念两次世界大战中为英语国家民众的价值观而战的数十万澳大利亚人。 仪式进行时我碰巧路过。两小时后我再次经过，看到媒体早就散去，而 这位和蔼质朴又非常成功的澳大利亚领导人仍在那里和众多身在伦敦的 澳大利亚人握手交谈。

    霍华德，第一次公开使用“盎格鲁圈”这个词的政府领导人，对纪念 馆所铭记的历史深信不疑。英语国家的民众曾两次在孤立无援的情况下 为了自由并肩战斗。在他眼里，他们现在仍旧会这样。正如2010年他对 美国听众所说的：“我从政治生涯中发现，我们的社会之间明显存在内  在相似性和紧密性。这或许在政府最高级领导人之间最能得到体现。毫 无疑问，世界上最紧密的情报共享体系就是由盎格鲁圈的5个成员国美国、澳大利亚、英国、加拿大和新西兰组成的。打击恐怖主义， 及时的情报极为重要。因此，十分庆幸我们有着重要的关系，并信任彼 此的合作和可靠性。”

    在同一篇演说中，霍华德也热情地提到了印度具有盎格鲁圈的特点。那么,他是如何定义“盎格鲁圈”的呢?是通过对个人自由、普通法 系、代议制政府，以及在他个人眼中非常重要的一点，就是随时准备部 署相当的战力保卫这些价值。“保卫自由是悠久而丰厚的遗产。”他总结 道。他是对的。

    她依然忠诚

    矛盾的是，正是加拿大让19世纪的殖民地政策制定者最为头疼。连 澳大利亚那些顽固的个人主义者都乐于接受不列颠的国籍，但前往加拿 大的美利坚人却抛弃了一切，并不效忠不列颠的王权。1837年和1838年，在上加拿大的英语人口(一些人向往美利坚的共和)和下加拿大的 法语人口(一些人向往法兰西的共和，更多的只是不喜欢生活在不列颠 治下)中爆发了起义。

    这让美国兴奋不已。因为美国在革命初期入侵加拿大，并在1812年 再次入侵。或许，乔治 ·华盛顿的泛大陆共和国的梦想就要实现了。

    这一次，伦敦方面没有像诺斯伯爵那次那样恼怒而强硬地回应。甚 至当局开始镇压起义时，还暗示他们准备回应殖民者合理的诉求。

    不列颠的辉格党政府给加拿大的方案与六十年前老威廉 ·皮特对美利坚提出的如出一辙。他们将认可一个效忠于国王的议会制自治政府。 加拿大起义的一些头目被遣送至澳大利亚，一小部分被绞死了。在判刑 时，大法官约翰 ·罗宾逊爵士 (Chief Justice  Sir John Robinson) 采用了标 准的洛克式理由。他说，这些反叛者完全有理由信奉共和主义，但是拿 起武器反对合法统治，便损害了其他人的自由和财产，因而对社会造成 了不良影响。

    杜伦伯爵 (Earl of Durham),因其推广大面积特许经营权的运动 而被人称为“激进者杰克”。这个软弱却又极其好战的辉格党人被派往处 理加拿大的申诉。他建议上加拿大和下加拿大联合(成功了),并统一 采取法语国家的政治和语言(没有成功)。他也建议成立责任制政府。 这成为后来一个接一个的殖民地相继变革的目标。先是新斯科舍省(Nova Scotia,1848年)和爱德华王子岛 (Prince Edward Island,1851年),然后传到新西兰(1856年)和南澳大利亚(1857年),最终波及 西澳大利亚(1890年)和纳塔尔 (Natal,1893年)。

    不列颠立法者不再寄望永久控制他们的海外领地，但他们想要维护 他们良好的声誉。1891年，一个帝国邦联的代表团求见首相索尔兹伯里 勋爵 (Lord Salisbury),希望不列颠的殖民地能够效仿德意志的关税同 盟。这位托利党的元老，曾一度通过撰写德语书评补贴家用。他在大胡 子后回答道，关税同盟很好，但他真正想要的是一个军事同盟。他做到 了，为全人类带来了福祉。

    在日益看重辉格党和自由原则的盎格鲁圈中，加拿大一开始显得格 格不入。毕竟，它是在反对这些价值观的情况下建立的。1783年后，美 国几乎没有人还会自称托利党人。不过这个词在北纬49度以北的地区得 以保留至今。起初，这个词指流亡的忠王党和他们的后代；后来变成指 代那些跟随不列颠而非美国外交政策的人；现在这个词则是保守党支持 者的代称。

    加拿大的托利党背后有魁北克省的天主教和封建领主文化撑腰。虽 说讲法语的人不喜欢不列颠，但他们对美利坚的革命者更加不屑一顾。

    一些美利坚的流亡者非常希望他们的新家园可以沿着托利党的路线发展，建立强有力的主教团和殖民地贵族阶级。诚然，所有忠王党都在1789年被多尔切斯特勋爵 (Lord Dorchester)、不列颠的北美总督盖伊 · 卡尔顿授予世袭头衔：
    这些忠王党拥护帝国的统一，并在1783年《巴黎条约》8签订前就加入了王 室旗。他们所有的子孙后代，无论男女，在其名字之后都应当加上大写U.E.,  以彰显他们维护帝国统一的荣光。

    尽管现在许多加拿大人还拥有这个名号，但没人拿它当一回事，因 为加拿大始于托利党，但迅速演变成了精英主义和个人主义的社会。这个发展过程的代价就是社会前沿飘忽不定的属性，以及魁北克人和忠于 联合王国的人被大批英格兰新教徒、苏格兰和阿尔斯特的长老会教徒以 及德意志和斯堪的纳维亚的路德教徒稀释的事实。这只是英语国家的一 个普遍趋势而已。大部分加拿大人仍旧记得他们的历史，效忠于不列颠 国王。但如果这层形式上的效忠变为实质效忠，他们定会像最激进的威 尔科斯 (Wilkes) 和潘恩 (Paine) 的支持者一样愤怒。

    但也不应把失败的忠王党的托利主义误读为中央集权或奴性。许多 人逃离刚建立的美利坚，不是因为他们是没头脑的忠王党，而是因为他 们担心暴民的统治会走向社会主义。马萨诸塞州流亡者丹尼尔 ·布利斯(Daniel Bliss) 说：“生活在千里之外的一个暴君的统治下，总比生活 在一里之外的千个暴君的统治下要好。”他后来成为了新布伦瑞克省(New  Brunswick) 的首席大法官。

    我在写作本书时曾到访加拿大，这次访问纠正了我以前的一些偏见。我曾经完全误读了这个国家。加拿大人震惊了我。我从小到大都以 为这片广袤的土地是一个情感丰富版的美国，充满了多元文化和联合国 的权威。无论是外交政策还是本土政策，渥太华政府似乎都更倾向于斯 堪的纳维亚而不是盎格鲁圈。加拿大作家罗伯逊 ·戴维斯 (Robertson Davies)  在他的三部曲中塑造了一个瑞典人形象，称他在另一个社会主 义君主国中感受到家的气氛。插一句，个人以为戴维斯是20世纪后半叶 最精细的小说家。

    《辛普森一家》 (The   Simpsons) 有一集中，霍默对女王说：“我知 道我们并不经常打电话联系，我们也不像那老好人兄弟加拿大那样举止 得当。顺便说一下，他从来没有过女朋友。我就是说说而已。”美利坚强大的流行文化让一些加拿大人都开始这样看待自己。

    许久之后我才意识到这个“老好人”有多大的偏颇。1968年皮埃尔 ·  特鲁多 (Pierre   Trudeau) 上台前，加拿大人自豪于比邻居美利坚更为强 硬和独立。与美国相比，他们的移民政策基于更优惠的税率，用以补偿更恶劣的气候环境。他们不像富兰克林 ·罗斯福或奥巴马一样挥霍无度。因此，他们的省和国家行政支出占全国国内生产总值的比例要比他 们南边的州和联邦政府要少。

    当然，若要深究，我们不列颠人便知这个“老好人”加拿大是装出来 的，马克 ·斯坦恩 (Mark    Steyn) 调侃为“特鲁多症”。我们记得战场上的 加拿大人。随便找个不列颠士兵，他都会告诉你加拿大士兵的冷酷和英 勇是出了名的。德怀特 ·艾森豪威尔曾经说过(当然是私底下)他们是他指挥过的最棒的部队。在维米岭战役 (Vimy      Ridge)、帕斯尚尔战役    (Passchendaele)  和索姆河战役，加拿大损失了7万人。他们的总人口  才700万。二战中，又有4.5万名加拿大军人长眠于意大利和法兰西。而  这都是为了一个他们中大部分人都没有见过的母国而战。我们不列颠人，应当高兴他们回归了他们原来的样子。

    真的，以前的他们又回来了。在做了三十年的北美洲的小欧洲大陆 之后，加拿大确切无疑地重返盎格鲁圈。2006年起就任并且支持率一路 上升的斯蒂芬 · 哈珀 (Stephen Harper),或许是世界上最亲英和亲美的 领导人了。

    哈珀在他的总理就职演讲中动情地对伦敦听众说，他的国家建立在 不列颠的政治传统上是多么幸运，普通法系内秉承的民权是加拿大自由 的基石。作为历史事实的陈述，他的立场非常清晰。但是这等于和前任 的加拿大领导人们划了一条激进的分界线，不同意说他们的国家是原住 民、阿卡迪亚人 (Acadians) 、 非法移民和其他各种人的欢乐大本营。

    不过，不光是那些强烈支持他的少数派保守党人，大部分加拿大民众对 此都还挺能接受的。

    的确，2010年加拿大选举时，移民比本土加拿大人更倾向于支持保 守党。想想这个结果是多么令人振奋。在世界上大多数国家，新移民几 乎压倒性地支持左中翼政党，各种原因有很多：新移民开始时通常身无 分文，因而希望政客支持并代表穷人说话；他们倾向于生活在左翼政客代表的社区，而这些政客是帮助他们了解新国家政治系统的第一人。当 然，还有一点，左翼党派常自诩为所有少数种族的代言人。

    加拿大保守党的成功归因于他们在少数种族和新移民中强有力的政 治宣传。但是，这一点也得益于英语国家社会不依靠种族而建立的认同 感。

    是盎格鲁圈，不是盎格鲁人

    联合王国本身就是多民族的融合体，它很早就通过观念而非种族来 定义国籍。这并非说不列颠社会不存在种族主义，远远不是。但是法律 中不涉及肤色，而国籍早已与出身或祖先脱钩。这和大部分欧洲民族国 家是相反的。二战后，联合王国接纳了大量非白人移民，比周围国家早 得多也成功得多。这次移民潮并不是什么对海外工人的善意邀请，它是 自发形成的，因为无论归化者来自亚丁湾还是牙买加，不列颠都给予所 有人相同的国籍和居留权。

    盎格鲁圈的核心国家现在都是多民族的，不过他们总体上却未受到 严重的种族冲突的困扰。只有南非有过严重的种族问题，而且，阿非利 卡人⁹当时在白人群体中占多数。假如占多数的是英裔南非人，情况肯  定会不一样。

    我们现在把种族隔离的结束视为南非黑人的解放，这是毫无疑问的。但我们忘了，这也解放了说英语的白人。我们也忘了，种族隔离期 间最严重的一次骚乱，是因为政府在1976年企图强行将布尔语也定为学 校教学语言(与英语一样)。南非的黑人视阿非利卡人的语言为压迫， 而视英语为机遇。

    2011年到2012年访问盎格鲁圈各国期间，我一再惊异于我的听众的 民族构成，尤其是在加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰。这些听众是自发前来 的，来听我颂扬英语民主国家的联盟。然而他们也代表了当地人口的种 族构成。尽管他们的祖父辈可能来自韩国、越南或乌克兰，但他们自发 地意识到成为澳大利亚或加拿大人不是简单的接受陪审团审判、多党制 民主以及契约的效力；同时还意味着与其他坚守了这些价值观的国家建 立特殊的关系。令人心酸的是，盎格鲁圈中向移民灌输这些价值观最失败的，恰恰是联合王国自己。

    种族向来是史学家的一个难题。有些评论家坚持用当代标准去评判 历史事件，常常化身事后诸葛来臧否杰斐逊、丘吉尔或几乎任何一个历 史人物。

    无疑，英语民族的到来对殖民地诸多原住民来说是个灾难。北美洲 和澳大利亚的原住民人口大量减少，而加勒比的原住种族几乎完全消失。这主要是殖民者带来的病毒造成的，而非人为的政策使然。

    不管怎样，殖民者的无情在我们这代人看来是骇人的。生于加拿大 的认知科学家和畅销书作家斯蒂芬 ·平克 (Steven    Pinker) 的观点很有说 服力：在过去几个世纪中人类的暴力不断减少。我们在更大的范围内建 立相互的责任，故而因谋杀和战争而死亡的人数不断减少；而这样的责 任范围在17世纪时还是很小的。

    看看本书多次提到的辉格党英雄洛克是怎么描述处在互惠范围之外 的人的。

    以政府理论闻名于盎格鲁圈的约翰 ·洛克认为野蛮人和罪犯一样，不受社会契约的保障：“故而，那些野蛮人也可以像野兽一样，像狮子 或老虎一样被杀死。人和他们在一起没有安全保障。”

    “上帝在那些地方的土著人中散布瘟疫，好使剩下的居民少一点。”马萨诸塞湾的朝圣殖民者领导人约翰·温斯罗普 (John    Winthrop) 为了给他们殖民地的扩张找一个理由，这样写道。而那些活下来的，“他们没有圈定土地，也居无定所，更没有耕牛来耕种土地，进而  除了自然权利，不该享有国家的其他权利。所以只要我们给他们留一点 生活必需品，就可以合法地拿走剩下的了”。

    伟大的议会领袖爱德华 ·柯克爵士，他的贡献造就了长达两个世纪  的盎格鲁一美利坚司法的传统。柯克在信仰基督教的外国人和野蛮人之 间划分了明确的界限。他说，讲英语者可以在双方都理解的道德和法律 前提下以礼相待；而对后者，“所有异教徒都是法律上永远的敌人(因为法律永远无法教化他们),因为在他们以及统治他们的恶魔与基督徒 之间没有和平，只有永久的敌对”。

    因患传染病、丧失狩猎土地和战争而死亡的美利坚原住民人口数量 很难估计。人类学家亨利 · 多宾斯(Henry Dobyns)估计前哥伦布时代美 国领土上的原住人口为1800万，其他统计资料的估计从210万到700万不 等。但我们可以确知的是，这个数值在1700年降到了75万，1800年降到 60万，而到1900年，则降到了30万。

    在澳大利亚，殖民者登陆布塔尼湾时还有75万人口的原住民，到 1900年只剩下9.3万。

    在新西兰，原住民大多死于疾病，其次则是不列颠人带来的技术落 差。一些毛利人部落搞到了毛瑟枪，于是在崇尚勇气和武力的文化中， 部落间的战争演变成了对没有相应武器的部落的大屠杀。

    尽管如此，新西兰的不列颠人热衷于将毛利人完全同化入当地的社 会和政治结构。原住民的搏击技能备受推崇。本地军—  一支由毛利人 组成的本地军      参加了1915年的加里波利保卫战。而在二战中，毛利 营在希腊、北非和意大利都参与过行动。毛利人迅速被赋予与殖民者同 样的政治和公民权利，包括投票权。

    新西兰殖民者的政治文化和普通法传统对于那些在法律上被列入单 独目录的毛利人是不可想象的。但在同一时期，生活在欧洲大陆帝国殖 民地中的原住民也是如此。19世纪中期后几乎所有的政策制定者都以全 面同化原住民为目标，有些甚至更进一步。1903年，独立派国会议员威 廉 ·赫里斯爵士(Sir William Herries)就希望新西兰出现一个“根本没有 毛利人，而是白种人加上少许世界上最精妙的肤色的人种”的时代。

    请不要站在现代政治对话的标准上，而要回到当时的语境中体会那 种情绪。原住人可以完全平等地融入白人殖民者中，这样的想法在当时 任何其他帝国的殖民地中都是难以想象的。

    不是讲英语的国家的人在种族问题上比比利时人、意大利人或德国人更开明，只是，他们的制度塑造了他们的态度。因此，历史的真正英 雄是普通法。

    1772年，英国法律体系实现了一次飞跃：通过了授予每个不列颠臣 民更高的社会地位的法案。一个名叫查尔斯 ·斯图尔特 (Charles Stewart)的海关官员在波士顿逗留(挺悲剧的),买了一个叫詹姆斯 · 萨默塞特 (James Somersett) 的黑奴。在他们回到英格兰途中，萨默塞 特先是逃跑，然后又被抓回来。废奴运动者争论说议会没有通过支持奴 隶制的法案，所以一个人对另一个人的所有权在不列颠的土地上自动废 除了。这个案子没有先例，因此法官曼斯菲尔德勋爵(Lord Mansfield)  决定从普通法原则中去“发现”判决理由。他的收获毫无争议：
    任何道德或政治上的理由都无法推出奴隶这种状态。奴隶制只能由实在法(议会法案)来规定。因为法律一经制定，即可独立于创制时的理由、情境和 时代本身，长期有效。但奴隶制如此可恶，不值得牺牲任何事物来支持它，除 非有实在法规定它合法。因此，无论这个判决会造成多大麻烦，我还是要说， 这个案子没有得到英格兰法律的允许或通过。因此，这个黑人必须被释放。

    这个判决是在不列颠帝国完全废除奴隶制六十年之前、美国废除奴 隶制九十年前做出的。它值得所有盎格鲁圈的民众为即将开启的废奴运 动而自豪。

    奴隶制违反了英语民族自视为独有的原则。显然，它与个人自由以 及自由市场所依赖的自由劳动力交换势同水火，尤其触怒了辉格党新教 徒的神经。废奴运动是由福音教会和非国教教会团体领导的。此次运动 中很多手段都非常现代化。著名的异见者乔赛亚 ·威治伍德 (Josiah Wedgwood) 在运动中创立了同名陶瓷品牌，其出品的纪念章上印有一 个带着镣铐的奴隶的形象，并配有一句口号：“我就不是男人和弟兄吗?”这些纪念章成了抢手货：贵妇们把它戴作项链坠或者耳坠，大点 的则被挂在墙上。

    1807年，议会回应民众呼声，禁止奴隶交易，并开始了一场旷日持 久的严打奴隶主的运动。这是由选民推动人道主义外交政策的一个早期 例子。联合王国劝说或者说迫使欧洲诸国以及非洲国王们一致同意停止 跨大西洋贸易，并派遣皇家海军打击奴贩。在1808年到1860年间，1600 余条船只被扣，15万名非洲人获得自由。

    英国没有在扣押行动中谋利或者捞取政策资本。事实上，甚至在和 拿破仑苦战期间，它仍给废奴运动分拨资源。

    这些事实应该再次受到重视。因为直到现在，在奴隶问题上，对盎 格鲁圈的批评者仍旧站在道德至高点上。但必须强调：奴隶制度在任何 时代、任何社会、任何大陆上都存在；而英国值得称道的一点，不在于 他们蓄了奴，而在于他们废了奴。

    有些批评家在1833年废奴行动中奴隶主得到补偿这件事情上，为他 们的偏见找到了证据。一份不列颠左翼报纸《星期日独立报》(Independent on Sunday) 在2013年称这些补偿款是“不列颠殖民的羞 耻”。布莱尔政府设立的联合王国平等与人权委员会总部称其为“可能是 这个国家历史上最为严重的不公”。

    真的吗?人们准备为消除奴隶制的错误而掏钱显然是好事，怎么就 成了丢脸的丑闻?!轻轻松松说句“奴隶制不好”又不会害腰疼；然而， 如果说“奴隶制太邪恶了，如果能去除它，我个人愿意做些牺牲”,又是 怎样的情形呢?

    三十年后，美国开始废奴行动，没有付一分钱，相反，爆发了一场 骇人的战争。10由此造成的种族紧张关系持续了一个多世纪。国会众议 员罗恩 ·保罗 (Ron    Paul) 提出，如果美国人也能学习不列颠的做法，从 奴隶主手里和平地赎出黑奴，或许对所有人都更好。可是，他却遭到了 世人耻笑。

    的确，除了极少数特例，奴隶本身没有得到任何补偿。这是个严重 的错误；但这个错误并不与赎奴政策相抵触。

    当然，如果你的出发点在于不列颠和合众国是邪恶而强大的殖民国 家，那你总能找到批评的地方。整个争论的可笑之处在于，我们其实要 么是奴隶的后代，要么是奴隶主的后代，非此即彼，概莫能外。人类社 会其实本来就如此。

    奴隶制普遍存在于农业社会，贯穿了每一个早期文明：乌尔(Ur) 、 苏美尔 (Sumer) 、 埃及、波斯、古印度和中国的夏朝，哪个 早期文明中没有奴隶?它存在于整个古代社会，直到中世纪。

    奴隶制在非洲和阿拉伯社会中也普遍存在。从17世纪到19世纪，大 约有1100万到1700万奴隶被从非洲运走。在新大陆也一样。奴隶制从人 类定居伊始就存在，玛雅、阿兹台克和印加文明都有奴隶。

    尽管奴隶制有时带有种族色彩，但它并不在乎种族。穆斯林奴隶主 之间买卖基督徒奴隶：格鲁吉亚人、切尔克斯人、亚美尼亚人等；而基 督徒又奴役摩尔人1。晚迄16世纪，数十万穆斯林奴隶在西班牙的种植 园做苦工。南北战争前夕，美国境内有3000名黑人奴隶主。

    换句话说，我们谁也脱不了干系。这个星球上每个人都是奴役者或 被奴役者的后代。正因此，什么认罪啊、致歉啊、补偿一类的争议才显 得如此愚蠢。我们都同意奴隶制是可憎的罪行。从现代角度看，人类社 会竟然可以容忍它似乎不可思议。我们的祖先曾热衷于此；想要为逝者 讳的心态是可以理解的，可地球上所有人的祖先都曾如此。在这种情况 下，如果非要把盎格鲁圈的国家单列开来，那我们更应该强调的是他们 在消除这项罪恶方面的不懈努力。

    我说的所有这些，并不是要遮掩英语民族在奴隶贸易中的所作所为，以及南部美国长期的蓄奴史。我只是想强调看问题的角度。回到当 时的时代，而非用现代标准来评判，盎格鲁圈之所以能成为盎格鲁圈， 正在于它对自由的尊崇。如果我们老是拿反美者的指控说事儿——一个奴隶只相当于五分之三个自由民12、废奴之后种族隔离仍旧继续，等等，那仅仅是给了历史一半的公平；而另一半呢?我们也应该看到废奴 运动者的热情和愿意付出的代价，为了自己的信仰哪怕战死沙场也在所 不惜。

    国际和国内有很多声音指责美国表里不一，就是完全无视了这一 点。表里不一是说我们没有按照心中的理想原则行动，可人类都这样 啊。要抠字眼，哪一个社会如果表里如一，就等于没有原则。

    指责美国说一套做一套，只不过是承认国家是由人组成的罢了。理 想是激励人们敢于尝试的动机，而美国确实去做了。美国人正是因为知 道理想和现实的差距，才会首先废除奴隶制，然后逐渐地废除合法的和 灰色地带的种族隔离。马丁 ·路德 ·金在演讲中很少诉诸普世理想，但一 直呼吁美国去实现自己的理想。他的演讲振聋发聩。“我们会在伯明翰  和全国赢得自由，”他在1963年写道，“因为美国的目标是自由。”你会  说，他们做到了。

    其他盎格鲁圈国家也差不多。在《不列颠帝国史》一书中，尼尔 · 弗格森提出了一个显而易见但几乎从未被认可的观点：殖民统治带来的 好处——公路、诊所和法庭——都是有代价的；但对于每一个被殖民的 民族来说，如果不接受不列颠帝国的殖民，那就得接受其他人的征服， 法国人、日耳曼人、土耳其人、意大利人、俄国人、日本人，或者最糟 糕的，比利时人。

    毫无疑问，和所有其他选项相比，还是加入盎格鲁圈更好一些。不 列颠的统治(在太平洋地区为美国统治),至少最终目标是实行民主制 的自治领。绝大多数不列颠殖民地最终在独立时，都没有开过一枪。

    例如，马来亚联合邦 (Malayan Federation)1957年独立时，总理东 古 · 阿卜杜勒 ·拉赫曼(Tunku  Abdul  Rahman)将前政府官邸连同其周围 40英亩土地献给不列颠，“作为马来亚民众对女王陛下政府敬意的象征”。有个反殖民主义的部长抗议说，如果不列颠人接受这么堂皇的殿宇，马来亚的后人会忘记为争取独立所作的艰苦斗争。议会桌前一片尴 尬的沉默     本来就没有斗争一说。

    大量不列颠后裔人口聚居的殖民地构成了今日盎格鲁圈的核心地区。殖民地原住民最终要面临两个选择：被同化，或者继续生活在保留 区。殖民后期，尤其是非洲的殖民地，英帝国的统治一开始是有权威的，当局也不乏真诚努力想要实现本地独立。只是，英国在二战后元气 大伤，匆忙从非洲撤离时，留下了不成熟的烂摊子，造成了一些后续麻 烦。

    在此两极之间，是帝国广袤的领土。这些土地原本不是不列颠的， 却接受了它的民主、普通法和个人主义价值观。它们形成了盎格鲁圈， 一个左右了本世纪历史的国家集团。

    麦考莱的孩子们

    印度到底是盎格鲁圈民主国家的成分多一些，还是亚洲超级帝国的 成分多一些?这或许是我们时代最重要的地缘政治问题。

    许多有教养的印度人在家说英语，通晓英国文学和哲学。他们觉得 这个问题有点冒犯。随手举个例子，塔克莎什拉研究所(Takshashila Institution)  怒斥澳大利亚政客将印度移出盎格鲁圈国家列表：

    印度是地道的英语国家。英语不光是中央政府和大学的用语，也是国家正 式语言之一。不止在官方场合，它还是全国知识界和部分商界交流的媒介。印 度也享有联结盎格鲁圈国家的其他社会文化特征，比如建立在普通法上的法律 系统、代议制民主以及多元的宗教和种族。除了美国、英国和前英国自治领， 很少有其他国家能拥有全部这些特征。

    没错。同样，全世界也没有几个国家的军队完全在行政当局的掌控 之下；进而，少有国家的权力可以通过选举在政党间实现和平更迭而不 至于驱逐或处死失势方。另外，必须注意印度还是世界第三大伊斯兰国 家，却相对很少闹出圣战组织的麻烦事。

    盎格鲁圈国家远不仅限于同享语言、普通法和多元宗教。盎格鲁圈 是多种金属熔铸成的合金，其中有的成分在中世纪就已埋下，历经17、 18世纪各种内战的洗礼。这种多重特征随后被讲英语的使者带到了北

    美、部分加勒比地区、好望角、澳大利亚和新西兰。不过，有着非常不 同的早期历史的印度又是如何融入盎格鲁圈的呢?是否能够把这片广袤 大地上被贾瓦哈拉尔 ·尼赫鲁称之为“不断重写”的世代更迭的社会观念，纳入其他盎格鲁圈国家标志性的“辉格一托利”的辩论式政治取向?

    是否能够通过明确的盎格鲁圈式的方式，实现个人主义，振兴实业?

    要回答这些问题，不妨想象一下，如果是法国东印度公司(Compagnie des Indes)而不是英国东印度公司 (East India Company) 在商战中胜出会是怎样的情形?这两家公司有着相似的名字和相似的业 务——贸易，但是他们的架构截然不同。法国东印度公司由国家创建， 由法兰西君主投资，公司高层也由政府任命。相对的，英国东印度公司 则是私人企业，对其股东负责。无疑，英国东印度公司的办事机构会恪 守财产权和契约自由。正是对此的坚守使今日的印度在周围国家中显得 与众不同。

    在英语民族标榜其“例外论”的时期，印度也和其他盎格鲁圈国家一 样遵循“辉格党一托利党”式的辩论。诚然，这样的辩论大多发生在不列 颠血统的精英圈子里。在英国统治期间，绝大多数印度人不说英语，约 翰 ·洛克的政府论对他们来说也如星辰远在天边。然而，大多数盎格鲁  圈核心国家其实也是如此。政治永远是少数人追逐的猎物。揭竿而起的 美利坚爱国者中也很少有谁听说过洛克，尽管如此，他的教诲还是影响 了他们的一生以及他们子孙的生活。理想，终将改变现实。

    我在本书中多次提到最伟大的辉格党历史学家麦考莱男爵，他编纂 的光荣革命编年史在出版后一个半世纪内不断再版。他同时也是一个政 治家，1834年到1838年间出任印度总督，住在当时英属印度首府加尔各 答。他预见到，随着科学、现代医学、代议制政府和个人自由等不列颠 文化渗透到印度民众中，民众就会燃起独立的期望。回想起来，他支持 独立前景的理由无可辩驳：
    对于我们这样的贸易和制造业大国来说，人类任何部分取得的知识，获得 的进步，以及由此带来生活的改善，财富的增长，都至关重要。欧洲文明输出 到人口巨大的东方世界所产生的利益无法估量。哪怕从最自私的角度看，印度 民众拥有一个良好并且独立的政府，也远远好过一个糟糕而依附于我们的政府。他们有自己的国王，却身穿我们的绒布，使用我们的刀具，这远好过让他 们向英格兰的税收和行政官额手行礼，也好过愚昧无识或者穷得买不起英国  货。和文明人做生意，比统治野蛮人不知要好上多少倍。

    麦考莱的想法启发了许多不列颠管理者。他们希望将印度最终领向 自治。尤其在孟加拉，提供不列颠式教育的学校流行起来。公务员职位 也向印度人开放，通过考试竞争上岗。铁路开始铺遍全国。 一个热情的 支持者曾说，这是“摧毁种姓制度最有力的工具”。

    随着教育的普及，越来越多的印度人进入行政系统。1908年，立法 会通过法案设立由印度人组成的选举制地方议会。1934年，《印度法案》 (India Bill)确定了走加拿大或澳大利亚模式的自治道路，由一位 不列颠自由派人士创立的国大党领导印度走向独立，并在此后多数选期 内执政。

    虽然辉格党总体上期望印度最终实现自治，但他们相当文化沙文主 义。他们认为印度宗教迷信落后，期望这些宗教会在西方理性前逐渐萎 缩。麦考莱1837年称：“没有一个印度人在受过英式教育后还会执迷于  他的信仰。”这句话的最大过失在于他的傲慢。但英国当局还是着手对  厌恶的行为实施直接干预。 一个著名的事例讲到不苟言笑的职业军人查 尔斯 ·纳皮尔 (Sir  Charles  Napier)。一个印度教神职人员的代表求见 他，抱怨英国禁止寡妇在丈夫葬礼的柴堆上活活烧死的习俗。据他的兄 弟称，纳皮尔如是回答：
    行啊。烧死寡妇是你们的习俗，准备柴堆去吧!但是我的国家也有一个习 俗：一个人要是把女人活活烧死了，我们就绞死他，并没收其所有财产。看来，我的木匠该立起绞刑架。寡妇殉葬一刻，也就是你等受刑之时。你们可以 遵守你们的习俗，我们也得遵守我们的习俗。

    与在美利坚和澳大利亚一样，伦敦当局和当地政府之间也有矛盾。 议会担心不列颠官员会被本地化-     换言之，丧失他们对独立和自由的 信仰，成为典型的东方君主；而那些干实事儿的东印度公司职员，则鄙 视那帮对印度毫无概念的蠢货。

    尴尬的地方在于印度是靠一系列明抢暗偷的勾当得来的，这一点双 方都心知肚明。随着当地统治者花钱请东印度公司出兵帮助他们解决纷 争，以及英国希望抢在法国之前控制更多的亲王领地，最初的商贸公司 渐渐变成了行政机构，不由自主地走上了以本地亲王的名义控制领地的 殖民之路。

    征服中贡献最突出的罗伯特 ·克莱武 (Robert Clive) 很瞧不起被他 打败的印度王公们。他说：“印度王国永远都是绝对独裁的政府。尤其  在孟加拉，被统治的居民奴颜卑躬，自轻自贱，而统治者则骄奢淫逸， 暴戾恣睢，奸狡诡谲，优柔寡断。”

    克莱武是东印度公司里最早一批被传唤到国会前，要求解释其滥用 职权行为的人。靠着一系列交易和军事同盟关系，他把孟加拉的大部分 税收都揣进了自己的腰包。

    他把东方描述成奢华和独裁的国度，迎合了国会议员的偏见。诚然，这证实了议员们的担忧。也就是说，像克莱武这样的人，没能提升 印度人；相反，他们丢失了新教徒的道德坐标，忘记了自己的英国人身 份，堕落为印度人。辉格党领袖罗金汉侯爵3谴责东印度公司在孟加拉“欺压劫掠”。该党议员约翰·伯戈因将军 (General   John   Burgoyne) 建 议用“不列颠宪法原则和精神”统治印度。这个伯戈因，正是那个后来在 美国独立战争中不愿对美作战的伯戈因。

    很多托利党人认为这样的想法太天真。其中的代表是理查德 ·韦尔斯利 (Richard Wellesley)。他曾于1798年至1805年间担任印度总督， 也是后来威灵顿公爵的哥哥。就像他那个时代的很多盎格鲁——爱尔兰 裔贵族一样，韦尔斯利挺势利的。“我希望印度由王族而不是公司来统治，”他写道，“遵从王公而非那帮倒卖纱布和靛蓝的贩子的意志。”

    他那更出名的弟弟阿瑟，曾在他当总督期间在印度服役。阿瑟同样 对辉格党希望印度接受不列颠的自由理念的想法不屑一顾。1833年，这 位滑铁卢战役的英雄反对在印度废奴，争论说不列颠必须“维持当地的  古老法律、习俗和宗教信仰”。

    宗教问题是英国统治的最大挑战，1857年印军哗变就是因此而起。 英国传教士团的福音活动让印度教徒和穆斯林的不安持续升级。英军中 的印度籍士兵(又称印度土兵)中流传着这样一个传闻：说他们用的李 恩飞步枪用牛油和猪油润滑枪膛。这对两大本土宗教来说都是不洁的。

    英国当局被叛乱打了个措手不及，随后进行了疯狂镇压，甚至炮击 反叛的士兵。一如所有突发事件中发生的那样，双方都越发偏激。托利 党人指责辉格党人引起了暴动，尤其针对他们不尊敬当地传统宗教领袖 这一点。辉格党人则反过来指责当时已归国有的东印度公司贪污腐败， 因为印度再怎么说也是正式归英国政府管理的。

    然而，“收归国有”并未终结现代化支持者和“托利主义者”之间的争 吵。负责筹办首届德里杜巴节的托利党总督莱顿伯爵到死都坚信英国的 精英主义和自由精神不可能在印度的土地上移植成活。他说：“我想象  不出比一帮吵来吵去的印度佬统治印度更糟糕的未来了。”

    这群“印度佬”被英国人叫作“巴布”(Babu),    尤其在孟加拉，他们 构成了主要的专业人才队伍。他们是教育改革的产物，理性，说英语， 忠诚于他们所受的教育，赞同印度自治-      尽管很快有批评指出，他们 的背景恰恰妨碍了他们成为统治阶级。

    与巴布们不同，王公拥有天然权威。筹办了第二届杜巴节的寇松侯 爵，在任期末对伦敦听众的演说中提到，他希望看到当地的王公们被视 为“统治者、活生生的管理者，在行政系统中承担起真正的作用，而不  是傀儡”。

    不过，不列颠最终还是在其自身的政治文化逻辑推动下，接受了印度的独立。可是好莱坞再一次制造了一个假象-      这次，是一个直到被 赶出之前都死死抓住印度不放的强硬的不列颠。事实上，自治原则早在 十三年前就确立了，虽然因二战迟迟未能实施。一小部分极端主义者把 注压在了从囚犯中招募的日本兵身上，但是绝大多数印度人乐意为盎格 鲁圈拿起武器。和日本扶持的4万印度国民军相比，将近250万印度人在 欧洲、亚洲和非洲为盎格鲁圈国家作战。这是历史上最大规模的志愿军。尽管他们中大多数倾向印度自治，但仍毫不犹豫地为了盎格鲁圈的 价值观而不是轴心国的价值观而战。在他们心中，印度已经成了自由、 法治的民主国家，尽管事实上数年之后印度才真正实现这个目标。

    莫罕达斯 ·甘地，在他的国民信众中一直被视为“圣雄”,他毫不怀  疑英国最终将兑现承诺。甘地早年在德兰士瓦(Transvaal)领导印度民 权运动时，已经意识到了英国人和布尔人的不同态度。1915年他在马德 拉斯律师协会 (Madras  Bar  Association) 的一次晚宴上说：
    作为非暴力的抵抗者，我发现我(在布尔共和国)无法得到像在英帝国中 的那么多自由机会。我发现不列颠帝国有着我深深爱上的特质，其中之一就是 大英帝国的每一个人都享有最自由的机会来实现自身的能力。

    因此他毫不犹豫地支持联合王国当时在欧洲的残酷战事。1918年， 当德意志侵略者总攻法兰西时，他告诉国会：
    没有英国人就没有印度的今天。如果英国失败了，我们向谁去要求平等的 合作关系?难道去找得胜的德国人，还是土耳其或者阿富汗人?我们无权这么 做。当热爱自由的英国人看到我们为他们前赴后继时，他们一定会胜利。

    当然不会这么简单。“平等的合作关系”的确切含义是有分歧的。有 本地的王公因为担心他们在民主印度的地位受影响，而希望不列颠继续统治。还有宗教分歧，最终起了决定性作用，导致了印度的分裂，由此 产生了独立的巴基斯坦。这些问题拖延了独立进程。印度人也因此在独 立前第二次为盎格鲁圈献出了生命      240万杰出的印度人为英语国家 与法西斯主义作战。

    直到英国统治的最末期，仍有极少数托利党人，包括温斯顿 ·丘吉  尔，坚持认为印度不可能成为一个成功的民主国家。这拨人基本也正是 当年反对在国内扩大选举权范围的继承人。而事实证明，他们对这两个 问题的悲观预测都是错误的。

    印度的民主制度空前成功。孟加拉的专业人士数量越来越多。他们 不再仅仅是孟加拉人，不再是巴布，而变成了世界上最大的中产阶级、 英语人口、消费者群体和民主人士。

    麦考莱的诗歌或许比他的历史更出名。但如果要说他一生中做过的 最有意义的事，就是决定在印度推行英语教育。理由或许充满了文化上 的强势。他曾断言，整个阿拉伯语和梵语文本都不值得占据欧洲图书馆 中的一个书架。然而，谁能否认这个决定造福了现在的印度?!谁又否 认使用这种全球通行语言给印度带来的无价的好处呢?

    麦考莱明白他做这件事的极限：
    凭我们有限的手段，我们不可能企图教育民众全体。我们当下必须尽力造 就一个阶级，使其成为我们和百万被统治者之间的中间人。这个阶级的人身体 里淌着印度的血，心中却装着英国的魂。他们有英国的品位、观念、道德和学 识。我们可以用这个阶级改造这个国家的本土语言，用西方的科学语言丰富  它，使之符合本土的表达习惯，然后以此为载体，运送知识，传播给大众。

    直到今天，在“中间人阶级”和“广大人口”之间仍旧存在着巨大的鸿 沟。盎格鲁圈在线聊天的网络上常能看到印度中产阶级的身影，然而， 印度乡村公路两旁住着的万千农人只求能有稳定的电力供应，更别说互联网了。

    再说了，有多少在巴尔的摩或者格拉斯哥的廉租房里的住户会参与 盎格鲁圈的网络聊天呢?政治本来就是小众的游戏。任何一个国家，有 实际影响力的都是一小部分活跃的人。

    印度的中产阶级急速增长，这个国家也明显地在变化。作家阿卡什 ·卡普尔 (Akash Kapur)20世纪90年代初离开印度，就读于一所美国寄 宿学校。他回国后感受到了这种变化，印度人突然之间开始在亚马逊网 站购物，频频光顾星巴克，称呼对方为“伙计”14。

    每个新兴的独立国家都会经过一个自我膨胀的过程，或者说至少会 强调与前殖民统治时期不同的东西。英属印度的时代结束后，这个疏远 过程表现为拥抱基于自给自足的传统经济政治，即自治运动和自给运动，以及试图将印地语定为国家语言。

    但是，发起独立运动的最后一代人已与世长辞，再加上经济快速增 长，印度已经不再需要证明什么了。我偶尔前往印度时也注意到了回国 的卡普尔所注意到的。这不仅仅是因为英语更为通用，更是因为印度本 国和其海外散居人口之间的往来已经日常化了。我最近一次在马德拉斯    (Madras)  游玩时，向一位穿着华美纱丽的异域女子问路。“唔，我不  知道，亲”,她用一口伦敦腔回答道。和我一样，她也是个游客。

    印度裔社区几乎遍及盎格鲁圈的任何一个角落，包括那些英国殖民 者老早就撤出了的地方，比如斐济、南非、马来西亚、东非、加勒比地 区、澳大利亚、新西兰和新加坡。印度人后裔在澳大利亚有50万，加拿 大有100万，南非130万，联合王国140万，合众国320万。盎格鲁圈的印 度人口分布由此壮观，并且还在继续增长。这庞大的说英语群体像光环 般围绕在印度周围。

    随着殖民时代从记忆变为历史，盎格鲁圈的认同感也不再同臣服或 怀念殖民有关。撇去其他所有不说，这认同感现在更多地和美国流行文 化而非英国流行文化联系在一起。

    不过最终，所有这些担心都是次要的。盎格鲁圈建立于一种共同的 向心力，一种全体都认同的感觉。跟几乎所有不列颠人一样，我在印度 也感受到了这种向心力，而这种向心力在欧洲却很难感受到。(偶尔有 例外：在斯堪的纳维亚和荷兰这些地方现在流行包括英语在内的诸多盎 格鲁圈的特征，因此他们可以说是“荣誉成员”。)它或许就存在于一本 大家都看的书，一个大家都懂的笑话，有时甚至只是共同的表情中，但 它就在那里。

    布鲁塞尔有一家印度餐馆，老板根本不说英语。每次我去那里，总 觉得不对劲。老板人很好，但是我不由地感觉他们和我们不是一伙人。 有次我邀请一个到访的印度议员和我在那里吃饭。“希望你不要见怪，”服务员点完单后我低声说，“不过我总觉着不得不跟一个印度服务 员说法语很不自然。”“你觉得不自然?”我的朋友说道，“敢情你觉得我 就好受吗?”

    也许，乔治 ·W. 布什最成功的外交政策就是在2006年承认了印度的 有核国地位，把其拉回到英语民主国家的同盟当中。戴维 ·卡梅伦努力 培植这种关系，但是巴拉克 ·奥巴马却忽视了它。幸好，印度似乎准备 好等待华盛顿态度的转变了。他们是耐心而大度的人。

    跨洋联盟的失败

    过去，把盎格鲁圈国家联合起来的努力受到来自四方面的阻碍。第 一，交流。从未有任何文明在地理上如此分散。第二，政治。只要民众 以政府统治的领土来定义统一，则不可能把政治文化上基于本地自治的 地区联合起来。第三，种族。维多利亚时代整合盎格鲁圈的梦想受制于 当时的种族观念。这一观念实际上将所有非不列颠血统的人排斥在外， 使得魁北克人、毛利人、非洲人、南非人以及印度人无法拥有一个共同 的国籍。第四，历史。爱尔兰和印度这两个盎格鲁圈核心区域都发生过 独立运动。运动首先造成分裂，然后造成新国家对殖民时代诸多内外部 特征的强烈抵触。

    直到21世纪，这些阻碍才逐渐消失。远程距离问题被蒸汽轮船、电 报、飞机以及互联网的全面普及一步步解决了，全盎格鲁圈的人随时都 可以加入英语的交流。

    一些左翼评论员对这些发展感到气馁。2010年，英国自由派的高端 报纸《卫报》发表题为“囚禁在盎格鲁圈”的专栏文章，哀叹互联网普及 之后，不列颠人对澳大利亚和美利坚政治的兴趣大过了关注法国和德国 时事：

    网络信息时代理论上应该促进精神和文化的多元化，从而促进欧洲语言和 文化(以及其他方面)的一体化。但实际情况恰恰相反。英语一下子成了世界 给我们的礼物，也成了我们的诅咒。英语的魔力使我们沉迷被英语征服的网上 盎格鲁圈，而不是去看看外面的世界。

    文章写到这里，作者不自觉地表露了心迹。老牌媒体不光期望寻求有悖民意的欧洲一体化，还想抓住国际新闻的眼球。他们毫不掩饰对我 们的鄙视，就因为我们这群“土鳖”更关注澳大利亚的选举(两党领袖都 生在不列颠啊),而不是欧洲精英们表示很重要的北部一加来海峡的民 调。

    互联网重新定义了民众和国家的关系，冲淡了政府在19世纪时享受 到的与公民的专属关系。不光从一个国家前往另一个国家的旅行变得史 无前例的容易，我们甚至不需要转动座椅就可以虚拟这个过程。这样一 来，我们只要借助语言和政治观念的一致性便可结成网络社区；而在此 之中，通常根本无法区分种族差异。

    用带有种族色彩的标准来定义盎格鲁圈，尽管往往都是少数派且短 命的做法，但可以理解，这种倾向常会遭致反弹：那些祖先来自其他地 方的人会觉得被排挤了。直到最近这一代人，盎格鲁圈所有领地的民族 融合才达到了不可能从个人的政治观点中推测出其种族来源的程度。

    与此同时，反殖民主义的思潮在消退。一开始一直强调其特殊性的 印度，现在已经坦然面对盎格鲁圈的民主和法律体系了。它不再以强调 其前殖民特征来反对前帝国政权。相反，它强调其议会制度和法治体系，以示与周边国家的区别。英语现在越来越被视为实现现代化的钥 匙，而不是一个死去的遗产。

    爱尔兰一度也曾是外围国家，它与中心的距离早就越过了远星点——离其他英语国家最遥远的位置。埃蒙 ·德 ·瓦莱拉和他那个时代的人 梦想建成一个特立独行的爱尔兰：经济自给自足、天主教享有崇高地位 和爱尔兰语得以复兴。现在看来，这个梦想仿佛来自远古。与此同时， 在英国几乎没有人再把新教设为民族认同的门槛。按理说，就购物、饮 食、体育和电视节目等日常生活内容而言，不列颠群岛上的人们从未如 此相似过。世界其他地方到此参观的游客恐怕很难想象形势曾一度紧张 到何种地步。

    盎格鲁圈正在变成一个由权力下放的、灵活的、独立国家组成的共同体。它们依靠文化、商业和家庭而不是政府机构联结在一起。也许， 直到现在，我们才明白这样的团结不需要国家纽带吧。

    这是一个全新的视角。哪怕在1776年前，当盎格鲁圈还在同一个国 王统治下时，也有多种形式的联邦和联盟存在。大西洋两岸的小册子作 家和政客都提出各种方案，呼吁在不列颠疆域内偶然得到的群岛上建立 一定程度的宪法秩序。有些人提议给予殖民地代表在威斯敏斯特的席位；更多的则设想设立一系列的本地议会，仅仅统一管理外交政策和国 际贸易。比如，“异见大臣”理查德 ·普赖斯就希望建立一系列独立的殖  民地，并受一个行使“共同的仲裁者”角色的参议院监督。

    亚当 ·斯密提出过类似方案，即“大不列颠及她的殖民地的宪法性联邦”——一个弱的联邦权威监督下的自治议会实体。他没指望用这个方  案说服任何人。他预言，联邦机构一开始可能设在伦敦，但随着美洲人 口的增长，中心迟早会移到大洋彼岸。

    所有这些方案都被当时严酷的自然条件否决了。在一个跨洋航程需 要至少花费9周的时代，任何形式的帝国参议院在物理上都无法企及选  民，也就无法反映他们的意志。远距离产生的现实结果在1812年战争中 出现了戏剧性的一幕：这次战争中唯一一场大决战在和平协议已经签署 后大打出手，因为停战消息还没有及时传到大洋对岸。

    18世纪不可能建成跨洋帝国。埃德蒙 ·柏克以其一贯的雄辩揭示了 这一点：

    我们彼此间横亘着三千哩大洋。没有办法可以阻挡这距离对政府力量的削 弱。从下令到执行，浪涛滚滚，岁月已逝。急切地解释命令的热望，足以击溃 整个系统。你一定见过复仇的信使，他们带着你的箭镞呼啸而去，去那最遥远 的海的天际线。但是一个神灵出现，扼住了这来势汹汹的狂怒，说：“若既及  斯，弗得益远。”

    在1775年，这几乎是无法驳倒的反对意见。但是，也有一个暗示， 如果将来有朝一日，能有方法克服距离的阻碍，某种政治上的联邦方案 便会重新抬头。

    显然，预言成真了。蒸汽轮船的发明把跨越大西洋的时间从66天缩 短到10天。不过真正的突破是在跨洋海底电报线路架设成功之后。1858 年，在爱尔兰凯里郡 (County    Kerry) 的瓦伦西亚岛 (Valentia    Island)  和另一端纽芬兰岛的哈特康腾特 (Heart’s       Content) 之间，第一条跨洋 电缆架设完成。两艘改装过的军舰，不列颠皇家海军的“阿伽门农号”(Agamemnon)  和美国海军的“尼亚加拉号”(Niagara), 从两岸出 发，一路沉下用涂着沥青的麻布包裹着的铜线缆，并在相遇时对接。维 多利亚女王愉快地向詹姆斯 ·布坎南总统发出了致美国的第一封电报，电报说：“这是两个有着共同兴趣和相互尊重的友好国家之间的新纽带。”祖籍阿尔斯特—苏格兰，出生于宾夕法尼亚的布坎南甚至用更为  盎格鲁圈的言辞回答：“祝大西洋电报在神佑之下成为我们血脉相连的  两国间永久和平友好的纽带，以及在神的旨意下向全世界传播宗教、文 明、自由和法律的工具。”

    就这样，数月之间，柏克时代“下令到执行”之间的数月缩短到了分 钟之间。“消灭距离”这个词儿听起来非常现代，其实早在19世纪60年代 就已经开始流行了。吉普林在他的诗《深海电缆》 (The  Deep-Sea Cables)  中描述了世界如何被改变：

    它们从永恒中醒来， 它们击败了时间父亲，
    在幽暗中牵手，来自最后一线夕阳余晖。
    嘘!如今人们通过废弃的泥浆说话，
    一个新世界出现了，轻声说：“成为一体吧!”

    想要建成政治上统一的盎格鲁圈的人们很快发现了它的用处。1884 年，自由党领袖W.E.福斯特 (W.E.Forster)   发表的名为《帝国联盟》(Imperial   Federation) 的短评，就以通讯革命开头：
    科学的发明克服了原被认为无法战胜的时空阻隔。我们不再是相互隔离的 不列颠的孤儿了。向前看吧!我们彼此团结，和母邦组成了一个永久的大家庭。

    19世纪后半叶，政治家和评论家提出了各种名称的邦联方案。新西 兰早期殖民者、律师弗朗西斯·德·拉比叶 (Francis    de     Labillière) 称之 为“不列颠联邦”,小说家和历史学家J.A.弗鲁德 (J.A.Froude)   称之为“跨洋联盟”,不过最后流行起来的名字是由另一个自由党议员查尔斯 ·迪尔克爵士 (Sir      Charles      Dilke) 起的。他于1868年写了著名的短评 《泛大不列颠》 (Greater Britain),其中出现了“帝国邦联”。这一方案 预备在澳大利亚、巴巴多斯 (Barbados) 、 英属圭亚那、加拿大、新西  兰和联合王国设活跃的分支机构。

    和现在一样，那时对盎格鲁圈的范围也存在激烈争论。大部分泛大 不列颠的鼓吹者志在重新联合英语世界的两大力量：美利坚共和国和不 列颠帝国。杰出的盎格鲁一加拿大裔历史学家戈尔德温 ·史密斯(Goldwin     Smith) 梦想联合“全世界的英语民族，包括在美国的、仅仅 因百余年前一次不幸的争吵而离开大家庭的数百万英语人口”。

    这个想法在合众国不乏支持者。1897年，《纽约时报》在一篇庆祝 维多利亚女王登基钻禧的社论中说：“我们是不列颠的一部分，伟大的  一部分。她注定要主宰整个星球。”

    在泛大不列颠的支持者中也包括卓越的实业家安德鲁 ·卡内基15,以 及非洲冒险家塞西尔 ·罗德斯(Cecil  Rhodes)。不过还是有个隐忧。这 些人写作的年代正是绝大多数公共知识分子(无论立场左右)都受到时兴的种族决定论影响的时代。

    泛大不列颠基本上是基于种族概念提出来的。比如，加拿大记者约翰·道加尔 (John Dougall) 将美国和英帝国的联合视为北欧一撒克逊人 的重新结合：“英格兰需要联盟，因为这个民族的将来取决于与美利坚  的联合；美国也需要联盟，因为这个民族的过去不可分割地属于英格兰 。 ”

    卡内基在他的《不列颠和美利坚的重新联合》(The  Reunion  of Britain and America) 一文中明确指出要剔除非白人的殖民地，以促进盎 格鲁圈核心国家间的“民族联合”。

    塞西尔 ·罗德斯创立了可能是世界上最具声望的国际奖学金项目，资助殖民地、美国和德国的年轻人前往牛津大学学习。他将德意志条顿 人和盎格鲁——撒克逊人视为同一民族，但他也该对受助来访的来自百慕 大、肯尼亚、印度和赞比亚等教育系统中的佼佼者感到震惊。

    以民族来定义盎格鲁圈的想法是一个相对短命的思潮的产物。哪怕 在19世纪末，评论家也应该已经认识到盎格鲁圈的价值观建立在多民族 的背景之下。这些价值观依靠知识交流而非基因播种得以传播。不过， 在一个移民相对缓慢、社会结构相对单一的时代，用民族来定义国家可 以理解。现在，随着20世纪大规模的人口流动，很少有人再以这种方式 定义国家认同。

    卡内基和罗德斯梦想的泛大不列颠严重忽视了美国迅速增长的非不 列颠裔人口。美国在扩张过程中并入了大量非洲裔和墨西哥裔人口，移 民人口的组成也从最初占绝对比例的不列颠群岛和西北欧洲人变得更为 多元。

    但是将盎格鲁圈视为扩大版的盎格鲁——撒克逊国家的最大问题，在 于印度就无处可放了。泛大不列颠的一些支持者公然断言印度永远不可 能加入，因为如克莱武所宣称，他们从根子里就是独裁、腐化和贪图享 受的。与集中保留了不列颠辉格党式民主文化的殖民地不同，印度被认为只适合威权统治。因此，正如历史学家J.R.西莱在他的《英格兰的扩  张》 (The Expansion of England)中所说：“当我们问泛大不列颠未来如 何时，我们必须更多地考虑我们的殖民地，而不是印度帝国。”

    印度1947年后的发展给了西莱和其支持者一记响亮的耳光。尽管面 对贫困、紧张的种族和宗教关系、分裂活动以及对外战争，印度仍旧挺 了过来，成为成功的议会民主国家。它的法律系统向寻求公正的个体开 放，而不仅仅是统治工具。和其他特征相比，这一点最能说明印度属于 盎格鲁圈。印度的经济也日益自由和开放。

    不列颠尤其留给了印度一份珍贵的遗产。不像帝国以前的其他殖民 地，印度从一开始就有一个基本起效的市场经济，财产权得到尊重，纷 争由独立的裁判法院仲裁。

    不过印度独立后才最终实现从代议制政府走向完全民主。和大多数 人一样，印度人在他们自己的机构管理下富裕起来。不列颠管理者一直 希望保护印度大众不受本地寡头的强取豪夺。不过对于外国官员来说， 无论他们多么热心，面对如此广袤的国家总是能力有限。不管印度民政 系统多么努力，英国统治下的印度仍旧发生了12次饥荒，最后一次是在 1943年。但印度独立以后，再也没发生过。

    印度本土，与其在盎格鲁圈其他国家立足的印度社区一道，以多姿 多彩的方式证明了盎格鲁圈的价值观是可以移植的。当帝国统一的支持 者不愿将英国人的权利给予印度人时，他们自我安慰，觉得数量庞大的 印度小农一定不适合自我管理。但是，也许他们内心深处惧怕的正是相 反的情况。如印度作家尼拉德 ·乔杜里(Nirad Chaudhuri)指出的，如果 泛大不列颠植根于其民主理念，那么它的政府中心应该迁至印度，因为 三分之二的人口生活在那里。全方位绕过这个问题也许更容易吧。

    现在，一系列事件让这个难题显得多余了。把盎格鲁圈变为政客控 制下的统一集团的想法有悖时代精神，也不符合区别英语国家文明和其 竞争者的价值观念。盎格鲁圈文化基于自治政府、地方主义以及个人高于国家的理念。

    现代盎格鲁圈不需要统一的货币或者联邦议会或任何其他联合的国 家机构，只需要一个灵活的军事同盟和免税区，或许还有劳动力自由迁 徙法案。他们的目标是民众的联合，而不是政府的联合。

    整个19世纪，围绕是主张促成殖民地民主独立还是把它们拉进某种 形式的联邦，两派争论激烈，没有一方真正说服了另一方。

    1901年，评论家伯纳德 ·霍兰 (Bernard Holland) 写道，他的理 想“不是联邦国家，也不是纯粹的军事同盟，而是介于两者之间”。这差 不多正是20世纪发生的情况，自由因此得以幸存。

    下一步是什么?英语民族的联盟会发展和演变吗?我们会拥有盎格 鲁圈的第三个世纪吗?要回答这些问题，需要分析促成它成功的种种元 素，并回想将它们合成到一起的无与伦比的化学反应。

    注 释

    1拉兰 (Lallans),    苏格兰语“低地”(lowlands)  的变体。

    2米尔顿·弗里德曼 (Milton   Friedman,1912—2006),美国著名经济学家，1976年诺贝尔经济学奖得主，被认为善用“最简单的语言表达最艰深的经济 理论”。

    3伽勒多尼亚 (Caledonia),  本为罗马帝国时代对苏格兰的称呼。 41603年，苏格兰国王詹姆斯六世同时成为英格兰国王詹姆斯一世。

    5特维德河(River   Tweed),英格兰和苏格兰界河。
    6杜巴节，即皇室聚会。

    7 Amir,伊斯兰国家对王公贵族、酋长等的称谓。

    8 Treaty of Separation,又称The Treaty of Paris,是1783年北美与英国在巴黎 签订的和平条约，结束了北美独立战争。

    9 Afrikaner, 南非白人，又称“布尔人”,南非的荷兰人等欧洲移民的后裔，多说混杂了荷兰语、法语、德语、马来语等的布尔语。
    10即南北战争。
    11中世纪伊比利亚半岛(今西班牙和葡萄牙)、西西里岛、马耳他、马格 里布和西非的穆斯林居民。

    12 指五分之三妥协，是1787年美国南方与东北方在美国制宪会议中达成的 协议。妥协将奴隶的实际人口乘以五分之三，以作为税收分配与美国众议院成 员分配的代表性用途。

    13 Lord Rockingham,第二代罗金汉侯爵查尔斯 ·沃森—文特沃斯，两度出 任首相。

    14“伙计”(dude), 美国口语称呼，通常有戏谑意或贬义。

    15 Andrew Carnegie,卡内基梅隆大学创办人，20世纪初钢铁大王，世界首 富。

    第八章 从帝国到盎格鲁圈

    我所在的这个国家和欧洲其他各国截然不同。英格兰极度热爱自由，每个人都那么独立。         孟德斯鸠男爵，1729
    最贫穷的人即使身在茅屋也可以蔑视一切王权。茅屋也许单薄，屋顶也许摇晃，风暴闯了进来，风穿了堂，雨漏了屋，但是英格兰国王不准进门，他所有的部下也不敢跨进这破烂屋子一步。         老威廉 ·皮特，1763

    联合王国三届首相斯坦利 ·鲍德温(Stanley  Baldwin   ,1867-1947)在其晚年被问及受过哪些政治哲学家影响时，这个一生从不受制于教条主义的人出人意料地说，他年轻时曾深受亨利 ·梅因爵士 (Sir Henry Maine)   的影响。梅因是鼎鼎大名的法官和史学家，其《古代 法》(1861)被誉为阐释盎格鲁圈特质的经典之作。鲍德温称，从梅因 伟大的文字中，他看到了人类“从身份到契约”的演进历程。随后他顿了 一下，蹙着眉说：“也很难说这个过程不是反过来的…. ”

    这个故事能说明什么?再伟大的思想也会因时代反复而褪色。在鲍德温的年代，梅因的“身份—契约”理论正从深刻洞见变为迂腐的教条。 现在它几乎已被遗忘，只有弗朗西斯 ·福山还在他的历史模型中一再说  它是自由民主所向披靡的伟大胜利。

    不过且慢，不妨欣赏一下梅因神一般的直觉。在几乎所有的历史阶段，人类的境遇生来就已确定。经济停滞不前的社会里，人们觉得资产 总量固定不变，土地是唯一有保障的收入。那些幸运地拥有土地的人想方设法确保维续这一体制，好让他们的子孙后代承袭同样的利益。从新石器时代开始，几乎所有的社会都实行了等级制度，印加的武士祭司、 印度的婆罗门、大革命前的法国贵族都是这种人类惯有的封闭、世袭的 组织形式的受益者。奴隶制则无处不在。

    过去的三个半世纪，人类在民主、人均寿命、自由、教育程度、食 物供应、婴儿存活率、身高和机会平等上取得了史无前例的巨大进步。 这主要归功于盎格鲁圈中发展起来的个人主义市场体系。

    所有奇迹都源自承认个体的自由和法律上的平等地位，并相信个体 能够自主地与他人订立互利契约。

    20世纪，德国社会学家发展了梅因的理论，提出了从“共同体”(Gemeinschaft)到“社会”(Gesellschaft)的转变。这两个概念之间 的本质区别在于个体是否可以自由地与他人就具体情况订立契约，而非 被迫接受由血缘、宗教或惯例定义的人际关系。理性主义哲学家欧内斯特·盖尔纳 (Ernest Gellner) 称：“转变造就了公民社会：人与人之间的 关系尽管变得不确定、具体化、目的性强，却得到了有效的强化。”

    社会科学的枯燥语言掩盖了这一概念的丰富内涵。任何农业社会中，掠夺的地位都优于生产。论投资回报率，抢别人的作物比自己种植 要高得多。以什一制、税收、杂费等合法形式鼓励掠夺，是最好的奖励 方式。农业社会倾向于寡头统治，大多数文明就困在这里止步不前。

    只有一个地方打破了铁律。盖尔纳发现盎格鲁圈内部具有明显的移 民迁徙特征，赞赏“这是处在农业社会的人类惟一一次踏上了一条曲折  而又近乎奇迹的道路”。

    17世纪后半叶，英语地区开始发生这样的转变。当时的荷兰也一样。若不是受制于地缘因素和路易十四的扩张野心，或许荷兰也会是成 功转型的国家。

    一旦踏上这条道路，便迎来了所有我们现在认可的现代、舒适、理 性，从人权到消费社会，从普遍选举到女性平权。而且，不妨看看这个 世界，这些观念哪怕在当下都是非常了不起的。

    经济学人智库 (Economist  Intelligence  Unit) 发布的“民主指数”年度 调查报告显示：在167个被调查国家和地区中，只有11.3%的人口生活在 完全民主之下，而这些人几乎全部集中在盎格鲁圈，以及邻近的北欧及 日耳曼欧洲的新教徒国家。除去这些，余下的完全民主国家仅剩7个：
    捷克共和国、乌拉圭、毛里求斯、韩国、哥斯达黎加、日本和西班牙。

    是什么神奇的力量催化了身份到契约的转变?回顾历史，我们找到 了五点：
    第一，民族国家的发展程度，即，一个政权有能力在基于共同的身 份认同而结成的群体中公正地实施法律。
    第二，与共同的国家认同感相联系的强大的公民社会，即，一个介 于个体与国家之间    活跃着大量的团体、协会和其他组织-     的中间 地带。
    第三，岛屿国家。英语世界其实是一个不断扩张的群岛。除了北美 和印度，它的疆域都是岛屿：加勒比共和国、爱尔兰、澳大利亚、新西 兰、福克兰群岛、新加坡、百慕大，还有联合王国自身。
    盎格鲁圈的本质是海上文明。“一个岛国如果不是英语国家，总让 我觉得很荒唐，这不合情理。”19世纪的船长杰克 ·奥布里(Jack Aubrey)  在准备进攻毛里求斯时如是说。奥布里是帕特里克 ·奥布莱恩 (Patrick   O’Brien) 小说中的角色。
    尽管北美在地理上算作大陆，但政治上其实是孤立的。杰斐逊在 1801年就职演说中说：“幸而有宽广的大洋，天生远离(欧洲)毁灭性 的打击。”
    第四，新教背景下的多元宗教。它不仅鼓励不同教派的繁荣，还鼓 励个人主义和民主思潮-      而这比起其宗教根源来说，更有长久的生命 力。
    第五，也是最重要的，普通法。一个使得国家服务于人民而非反过 来的独特法律体系。

    如果以上假设正确，如果这些独一无二的特质在盎格鲁圈的形成时 期保留下来，那我们就应该找得到当时的外国游客对这些特质的评价。

    18、19世纪有数位游历英国和美国的欧洲旅行者。从他们的旅行日 记和往来信件中找到的证据，足够拼出一幅使他们大为震惊的全景图。 这其中有几个主题反复出现，旅行者们发现英国和美国人缺乏等级观念，喜欢争吵，热衷挣钱，个人主义强烈，并且对外国事务不感兴趣。

    这些特征自然是盎格鲁圈政治结构的副产物，而不是政治制度本身。有兴趣介绍英美政治和法律体系的外国人不多，但其中包括当时最 鼎鼎大名的伏尔泰、孟德斯鸠和托克维尔等人。

    在那一时期，旅行者倾向于把美国视为更宽泛意义上的“英国”或“盎格鲁——撒克逊”文明的一部分。现在，引用托克维尔来证明美  国“例外论”几乎是美国保守党会议上的惯例。但是这位法国贵族不光学习美国，也学习英国。他两个国家都去过，还和一个英国妇人结了婚。 英美两国都是他人类学调查的主题。

    他相信英国和美国在文化上是连续的：“我觉得海洋的阻隔并未把  美国和欧洲分开及从欧罗巴隔离。美国人是英语人口的一部分，他们注 定要去探索新世界的丛林。”

    托克维尔是一个敏锐的观察者，这是他至今仍然流行的原因。他发 现了美国很多卓越的特征：重商主义、个人主义、宗教多元和地方主义。这些特征在两个世纪以后仍将这个国家和其他国家区别开来，但托 克维尔不认为这些特征是从新大陆产生的。在他看来，美国的核心优势 在于他称之的“赢在‘起点”。英语社会的特征表现在代议制政府、对税  收和国家权力的抗拒以及深入人心的物权观念。托克维尔相信这些倾向 完全遗传给了美国人：“美国把英国的反中心化体制发挥到了极致。一  个教区形成了一个独立的市政单元，几乎相当于一个民主共和国。构成 英国宪法基石的共和元素在这里自然呈现并且毫无阻碍地发展。”

    换言之，美国殖民者并不是借用了英国的政治价值观和宪法；毋宁 说，他们强化了它们。托克维尔深信，就像美洲的法国人加剧了路易十 四时期的威权主义和封建主义，美洲的西班牙人复制了菲利普四世的腐 败，美洲的英国人也放大了他们母国的自由主义特征。

    这份遗产包括非政府组织和民间团体的繁荣：从私人基金创办的孤儿院到乡村乐队，一切的一切。盎格鲁圈的民众不需要政府颁发任何执照就能自行组成社团，这一点让包括托克维尔在内的几乎每位外国访客 都感到震惊：“个人主义的精神是英国特质的底色。团体可以成就个人努力无法实现的事业。…..个体聚集到一起，结成社团也好，公司也好，任何民间的或政治的团体也好，还能有比这些更好的例子吗?”

    这些被埃德蒙 ·柏克称之为“小连队”的私人组织，既是“强国家”的产 物，也是“弱政府”的产物。说它是强国家的产物，是因为这样的国家对 于公民的爱国热情自信满满；说它是“弱政府”的产物，则是因为它的存在无需立法，通过商业或慈善团体便可轻易实现。

    但为什么这样的民族国家首先在英格兰，继而在盎格鲁圈帝国中兴 起了呢?是什么力量在背后限制了中央政府，并使得私有组织得以繁荣?相比本地人，外国访客对这些问题的答案更感震撼：除非远渡重 洋，不然到不了盎格鲁圈。

    盎格鲁圈群岛

    地缘阻隔促进了民族国家的形成，这一点在第二章已经讨论过了。 更关键的是，这也意味着国家不需要维持一支常备军。国防大部分交给 了海军，旨在拒侵略者于岛屿之外。除去战争时期，陆军的规模很小， 而且大部分由地区防卫力量兼领。

    无论海军还是陆军都无法轻易用来镇压国民，这样一来，政府发现 自己和民众相比处在劣势：当它希望通过法令时，它必须依靠代理人来 确保民众的同意；当它需要预算时，必须和声和气地向国会请求。

    孟德斯鸠一定程度上也算一个地缘决定论者，这一点尤其体现在他 所仰慕的英式自由中：
    相比大陆，岛屿上的居民享有的自由程度更高。岛屿通常地域狭小；部分 民众很难被调动起来去镇压另一部分民众；海洋把他们和大帝国分离开来；独 裁者在有限范围内难以维持统治；征服者被海洋阻隔；而岛民则因为不受其武 力影响，更容易保留他们自己的法律。

    英格兰率先在9世纪形成了民族国家，不过它还不算是个岛屿国家，因为它和另外一个王国¹共享不列颠岛。英格兰毫无疑问在财富和  人口上占绝对优势，有时候几乎把苏格兰视为藩属国，偶尔得到苏格兰 国王含糊的效忠。尽管如此，两国直到1603年才合并2,而两国议会一  直拖到1707年3。

    大不列颠最后的内部分界线不复存在，盎格鲁圈随之起飞。这样的 奇迹并非巧合，伟大的苏格兰哲学家亚当 ·斯密看到了两者的联系。

    1763年，他在格拉斯哥大学的一次讲座中，指出了孤立和自由之间的关系：
    自建立伊始，法兰西和西班牙封建领主的绝对权力就不断增强。唯独英格 兰，在事物自然发展的过程中建立起了不同的政治制度。英格兰的情况和局势 完全不同。它在地理上与苏格兰是一个整体。海洋包围了整个岛屿，成为与邻 国的天然屏障。因此，他们不用担心外国入侵。我们可以看到，自亨利三世以 来，英国没有遭遇过任何外国入侵(除了某些叛军引发的骚乱)。

    和当时大多数受过教育的苏格兰人一样，斯密所说的“英格兰”,既 指狭义的英格兰，也是广义的大不列颠的同义词。然而，他的核心思想 直指岛国上的常备军问题：
    苏格兰人频繁起事。如果两国仍旧分裂，英国人很可能永远恢复不了他们 的自由了。然而，联合王国把他们一起带离了侵略的危险。于是，他们不再需 要维持常备军，觉得常备军没有任何用途和必要。但在其他国家，当封建武装 和伴随的常备武力消亡后，他们便需要再建立一支常备军队来抵御邻国。

    斯密称，在波兰、法国和瑞典，国王可以废除立法机关：“在那些  国家，时刻待命的常备军使得国王的权力凌驾于国会、议会或者最高法 院等任何其他权力机构。”英格兰以及之后的盎格鲁圈，则不同：“既然 主权者没有常备军，他只得召集国会。”

    旧世界英语国家的政治倾向又一次在新大陆得到了发扬。美国人、 澳大利亚人和新西兰人对维持常备军更加警惕，甚至过度紧张     他们 深恐领导者假借对外作战的名义，暗地扩充在国内的权力。英国人视自 由为与生俱来的传统。美国人决心消除这个风险，直接将不得维持常驻 军和允许私人保有武器写进了早期宪法。

    美国可能不算严格意义上的岛国，但是实际上，美国从建国初期开始就奉行“孤立主义”的不干涉政策。国父和他们的政策继承人把美国的 外交政策与其地理环境联系在一起，他们是精神上的岛屿民族。

    来听听上议院至今每年都还在宣读的乔治 ·华盛顿的告别演说：
    我们与世隔绝的条件鼓励也允许我们追求另一条道路….为什么不抓住如 此得天独厚的优势?为什么要离开自己的土地，踏上别国的土地?为什么要把 我们的命运和欧洲其他部分的命运纠缠在一起，从而把我们的和平与繁荣陷入 欧洲的野心、竞争、利益、好恶和反复无常的罗网里去呢?

    就像托克维尔所说：“美利坚处在一片广袤大陆的中心，无尽的疆   土正等待冒险家们去开发，这联邦好似四面环绕着大洋，与世隔绝。”

    当时，盎格鲁圈内的政治理论将地缘上的隔离和责任制政府、贸易 及和平联系在一起。现代许多政治学家也认可类似关联。爱德华王子岛 大学的亨利 ·斯瑞伯尼克(Henry Srebrnik)曾做过一项综合调查，得出 了这样的结论：“一系列研究表明，无论经济发展水平如何，岛屿国家和其他国家相比更容易实现民主。尤其是不列颠群岛，在政治和公民权 利方面做得非常好，并为活跃的公民社会提供了基础。”

    无疑，岛屿并非全部原因。还有其他原因使得关岛有别于东帝汶， 百慕大有别于海地，福克兰群岛有别于科摩罗，不过，这些原因还是  和“起点”(出发点)有关。

    新教伦理

    福特·马多克斯·福特 (Ford Madox Ford)著名的悲剧小说《好兵》    (The Good Soldier) 中有一个场景，说主人公游历各处时，曾亲眼见到 马丁 ·路德1517年反对罗马教皇的《九十五条论纲》手稿，一位富裕的美国妇人郑重地说：

    你知不知道这就是为什么我们新教徒被称为“抗议者”4的原因?这 就是他们用铅笔起草的抗议书。正是这页纸使你成为诚实、冷静、勤劳、节俭、干净的人。如果不是这页纸，你恐怕和爱尔兰人、意大利或 者波兰人，尤其是爱尔兰人没有两样。

    在此前的三百年间，新教徒的品质可能已经被英语国家的人说滥了。英格兰将自己视为欧洲反对罗马运动的领军人。早期美国更进一步，自认“天定之国”,为上帝所造，肩负宗教使命。新教主义是将旧有 的英格兰身份、苏格兰身份和威尔士身份熔铸成一个共同的英吉利身份 的最大的催化剂。这一共同身份后来又被带到英国各殖民地。

    不过，直到20世纪，才有人试图用科学方法研究新教伦理。在1904 年到1905年间发表的一系列文章中，德国社会学家马克斯 ·韦伯讨论新  教主义和经济增长之间是否存在联系。在《新教伦理与资本主义精神》 中，韦伯认为两者显然存在关联，这源于新教徒视勤勉和繁荣为神赋美 德的独特观念。至此，韦伯指出，基督徒需要放弃世俗的事物：要禁欲，无视财富，克制欲望。但是清教徒相信，通过诚实艰苦的劳作获取 财富是神恩的显现。

    针对韦伯方法论的批评蜂拥而至。资本主义不是新教主义的专利。 意大利北部城邦的资本主义萌芽早在荷兰人和英格兰人完善新教理论前 就出现了。萨拉曼卡学派的天主教教义和新教一样崇尚自由。此外，韦伯的论著没有考虑进奥地利、巴伐利亚、捷克共和国和瑞士天主教地区 同样推崇工作的伦理。而且，显然，不论福特 ·马多克斯 ·福特笔下的角  色怎么嘲讽爱尔兰，这个国家在错误地选择加入欧元区之前，一直是资 本主义削减税收的辉煌案例。

    当然，韦伯的发现岂是轻易能驳倒的?!斯坦福大学一项针对1500 年到2000年间经济数据的调查显示，排除其他因素的影响，新教国家从 17世纪后半叶开始全面超越天主教国家，“到20世纪60年代时差距越拉  越大”。1940年，欧洲新教国家的人均GDP比天主教国家的高40%,而  美洲国家之间的差别还要大。

    如何解释这么大的差距?韦伯著作中关于不同的职业伦理的论述很 难把握。不过，还有相关的解释。其中一点是，新教主义因为以《圣经》为基础，所以尤其注重教徒的读写能力，由此，自我提升和自我教 育成了鼓励教徒研习经书的应有之义。

    文化的普及一开始可能由宗教虔诚所驱动，但很快，提高了的文化 程度自己终结了宗教因素。在欧洲西北部，中世纪的魔幻世界逐渐被理 性世界取代。

    新教国家并非只热衷于学校，他们更推崇非教会性质学校。也就是 说，他们总体上更追求世俗主义。当然，很难分清楚这其间究竟有多少 来自教义相信基督徒个体不需依赖牧师为中介来建立他和造物主的关系，有多少来自现实中单一教会垄断的情况被打破后不可避免的各教派 繁荣。正如伏尔泰所说：“如果一片土地上有两种宗教，他们会打得你  死我活；但如果有三十种，大家反而和平相处了。”

    即使是将新教确立为唯一国教的国家，也有逻辑上的原动力去实行 宗教宽容，最后达到包括传教在内的各宗教全面平等。狭义上，许多存 在多元文化的国家都实行了宗教宽容，包括奥斯曼土耳其等一些自由程 度很低的国家。但是，全面的宗教自由在盎格鲁圈之外似乎是找不到的。即使在盎格鲁圈内，天主教的平等地位也是慢慢取得的。

    尽管如此，从天主教欧洲来的访客常会不胜惊喜地发现还能有这么 一个地方：人们可以自由地反对教权，也不会因为信仰而被捕。1726年，伏尔泰因触怒了有权势的贵族，逃亡英格兰。他对新家的方方面面 赞不绝口。有一次，他被一群愤怒的伦敦民众当成法国间谍。他控诉道，没有生在不列颠是多么不幸!伏尔泰言辞恳切，结果这群人最后欢 呼着把他扛在肩膀上带回了酒吧。后来他极力模仿他的新朋友的口音， 写道：“天——我太喜欢英国佬了!…我喜欢他们一点也不比法国人  少，天—— ”

    孟德斯鸠敏锐地觉察到，平等地对待不同宗教正是世俗主义的表现 形式。因此，无论是否确立某一教派为国教，最终都会导致所有教派的 繁荣：
    说到宗教方面，这个国家中每个个体都是意志自由的。随之而来的，个人 要么由他自己的意志控制，要么受反复无常的异想控制。由此，如果人们不加 区别地求诸宗教，那他们就会皈依已有的教派；如果他们非常狂热，则可能创 造出新的教派。

    美国国父们再次把这种在盎格鲁圈其他部分形成的倾向直接变成了 结论。美国一开始就规定不设国教，其产生的部分结果就是，宗教活动 在这个国家比在欧洲更为活跃。国有化鲜有成功，它压制了创新，意味 着低效。国家教堂衰落的同时，私人资金支持的教堂则欣欣向荣。

    美国在宗教多元原则上建立近半个世纪后，英国才迎来了全面的宗 教自由，取消了天主教徒和犹太教徒在公民权上的不平等待遇。比如， 此前天主教徒和犹太教徒没有资格参选国会议员。这样的进步非同寻常，为了让大家有个概念，试比较一下：当盎格鲁圈全面拥抱宗教多元 化的时候，西班牙宗教审判所正如日中天    直到1834年才废除。

    在我为写作本书展开的研究中，最让我惊奇的发现就是新教主义在盎格鲁圈文化和政治认同上的中心地位。在今天，要想重新恢复新教的 重要地位当然很难了，部分因为宗教整体上的衰落，部分因为宗教改革 时提出的纲领已经模糊。天主教会迅速承认了早年宗教改革指出的明显 弊端。此外，在一个基督教信众已成少数群体的时代，不同教派之间也 越走越近。天主教现在比以前更强调《圣经》了，而新教反倒转向注重 圣餐。尽管教义的区别没有以前那么重要了，我们依然可以看到建立在 盎格鲁圈始终强调的个人主义之上的、由新教催生出的政治文化的发展 轨迹。

    这种宗教、政治和文化的内在联结也让托克维尔深感震撼。他发现 英语国家的民众非常忠于这种政治文化。他再次将此归结到他的“起点”理论：“所有这些我所观察到的现象都源于最初的起点。由此，我可 以从第一批登陆北美大陆的清教徒身上看到整个国家的命运。”

    这批最早坐船来到北美的清教徒和他们身后的同胞一样，自然地划 出公共和私人领域、政治和宗教、凯撒的王国和耶稣的王国之间的界限。这种区分并非有意为之，因为麻省的公理宗教徒5几乎是最晚才支  持全面平等对待新教各教派的，更别说对待天主教了。但是，不管是否 有意，他们创造的政治体系注定了宗教的多元化局面。

    换句话说，宗教区分其实并不存在于天主教徒和新教徒个体之间， 而是存在于在天主教和新教国家之间。托克维尔曾经预言澳大利亚的天 主教徒和他的新教徒邻居一样信奉自由，而法国新教徒则和法国天主教 徒一样认同强大的国家政权。他说：“事实上，我没见过哪个英国天主  教徒不和新教徒一样，珍视他们国家的自由制度。”

    这或许可以解释韦伯理论没有覆盖到的巴伐利亚、瑞士天主教区和 爱尔兰的政治文化。重要的不是人们对圣灵感孕说或者僧侣独身制度的 看法，重要的是人们对个人自由、自由贸易和私人合同神圣的态度。新 教主义也许在盎格鲁圈政治文化的形成中起了重要作用，但这样的政治 文化一经形成，便释放出持久的影响力，进而无论在爱尔兰还是新加坡都能促进繁荣。

    尽管如此，当我们用现代世俗化的观点回顾历史时，我们仍应向那 些以其行动促成了宗教、产业和自由之间的联系的人(一直到20世纪中 叶)颔首致敬。

    比如英格兰的阿尔夫 ·罗伯茨 (Alf Roberts),他的故事颇有代表 性。阿尔夫13岁辍学，完全靠艰苦劳作，经营起了杂货商的小买卖。他 是一个人缘很好的卫理宗牧师，把商业、信仰和政治视为一体。“一个人要是懒，”他在一次布道中说，“就丢了他的灵魂。”

    罗伯茨每周都会多烤一些面包，和他的女儿一起送给需要的邻里。 他还很小心地解释说“他烤多了，不然也要扔掉”,以免伤了别人的自尊。

    20世纪30到40年代，罗伯茨参加了很多盎格鲁圈中典型的公民组织。当他得知他热心支持的扶轮社(Rotarian)被纳粹德国取缔那一刻，他意识到希特勒的邪恶。战争爆发后，他组织了镇上受资助的餐馆 为参战的人服务。

    对市议员罗伯茨来说，繁荣、理智、勤劳不仅仅是新教徒的美德， 也是鲜活的政治原则。他是一个忠心耿耿的镇咨询委员会委员，一直致 力于削减开支，降低本地税收。他觉得他的社区，尤其是店主阶级，艰 难地生活在高高在上的精英扔出的税率和条例之下；而他们才是不列颠 真正的英雄。

    他是对的。如马特 ·里德利(Matt  Ridley)在《理性乐观派》 (The Rational Optimist)中所写，小企业者数世纪来都是进步的推动者。生活 在崇尚自由、实业和隐私的社会，相比崇尚武力、尊贵和信仰的社会更 为惬意。曾被嗤之以鼻的小布尔乔亚比任何卫道士对人类幸福的贡献都 要大，但他们大部分却从未得到过荣誉、感谢和关注。

    事实上，我们今天能够知道阿尔夫 ·罗伯茨的故事，惟一的原因是  他将他的价值观深深灌输给了他的女儿，而她成了20世纪后半叶英国最伟大的领导人，以及可能是盎格鲁圈最热烈的拥护者。她就是玛格丽特 ·撒切尔。

    古代法

    2000年，时任法国外交部长的于贝尔 ·韦德里纳 (Hubert Védrine)   在他的《法国地图》 (Les Cartes de la France)一书中列举了一个“欧洲  国家”的一系列特质，而这简直就是对盎格鲁圈例外论的全面总结：“完   全自由的市场经济，对国家权力的抵制，反对共同体的个人主义，相信   美国‘不可或缺’的角色，以及属于盎格鲁圈、普通法和新教徒的观念。”

    这是欧陆政治家除了在反美时期，无论在1700年、1800年还是1900 年都可能列出的一份清单。

    海外游客发现政府职能相当有限，而非政府组织却很活跃。他们常 常会有几分鄙视地谈起这个国家太看重贸易和挣钱了，同时也惊异于即 使最贫穷的阶级也藐视权威      他们从未怀疑过自己生来自由的权利。 如果这些游客来自天主教国家，恐怕他们还会惊异于不同教派的繁荣竟 能够导致形式上的政教分离(美国)或者实质上的政教分离(英国)。

    然而，对他们来说，最不可思议的，还是普通法的奇迹。相反，我 们好几个世纪都身在此山，当然习以为常了。在游客所来自的国家，法 律由政府起草，然后适用于具体案例。但是在盎格鲁圈(除了苏格兰),法律存在于一个又一个具体案例中，自下而上在人民中形成，而 非由政权机构施加在人民身上。

    担任过英国上议院高等法官及卷宗主事官的威廉 ·布莱特 (William Brett)在19世纪末颁布的一条法令中这样写道：
    普通法是由若干原则构成的。这些原则从一开始起就始终存在，直至被承 认，成为普通法。法官不能用新的判决来制定新的法律，他们没有这个权力。 他们只能宣布什么是从一开始起就存在的普通法。

    换言之，无论法官还是政治家都无权改变法律。法律如同传家宝一 样，作为遗产代代相传。它像一条纽带，联结着活着的人、死去的人和 尚未出生的人。正如17世纪的法官罗伯特 · 阿特金斯 (Robert   Atkyns) 所 说：“我们当代人选择普通法，并接受最古老的议会法案。因为我们生  活在千年前祖先的影响下，他们依然活在我们心中。”

    在罗马法传统下成长的法律工作者恐怕到现在都很难理解这种观念。不过他们不可能对大众掌控下的法律系统的实际效果视而不见。访 客们对司法独立、陪审制度和人身保护令赞誉有加。

    孟德斯鸠认为普通法是日耳曼法律体系伟大的幸存者。在(日耳曼 的)其他地方，贪图权力的国王用罗马法替代了日耳曼法。孟德斯鸠相 信英格兰得以幸免是因为其岛国属性，然后英格兰又将这一独特的法律 系统带到了殖民地。

    托克维尔一如既往地相信美国人为他们的英国遗产找到了更稳固而 纯粹的形式。他写道，没有任何其他地方，法律可以如此独立于国家的 行政和立法分支，而且对本该服从它的民众如此负责。跟其他观察者一 样，托克维尔除了赞叹陪审团制度，还痴迷于美国人用本地的管理系统 成功地置换了中央指派的法官和官员的想法：“美国人从他们的英国祖  先那里引进了一个欧洲大陆从未有过的机制，即治安法官。”

    亚当 ·斯密的老家苏格兰适用的是罗马法，所以他也同样感到惊奇：
    自由的保障之一就是所有法官终身任职，并完全独立于国王。这样每个人 才能受到独立和自由的判决。人身保护令也是避免压迫的保护措施。有了它， 只要付得起路费，任何人可以在40天内前往威斯敏斯特取保。没有这条法令前，枢密院可以不用通过庭审就把任何他们想抓的人抓进监狱。

    在本书中，我们可以多次看到普通法成为抵御国家权力的桥头堡。 它英雄般地先是反对查理一世，然后是詹姆斯二世；它发现英国的空气 如此纯净，以至任何在此中呼吸的人都不再为奴；它促成了美国革命。

    总之，普通法已被证明是物权的最有力保障。如今，全世界的公司 都宁愿为在普通法框架下签署协议多掏腰包。他们这样做，是因为他们 相信这一制度的平等、安全和公正。

    每年，美国传统基金会 (Heritage     Foundation) 都对全球各国的经 济自由度评级，考察指标包括企业税率、个人税率、所有权安全度以及 创业所需的时间。2012年，经济自由度排名前十的有六个国家和地区属 盎格鲁圈，前几名有新加坡、澳大利亚和新西兰。或许只有我们这个时 代才会觉得指出这一共同点失敬并失策吧。

    不走极端主义。谢谢

    不过有一个盎格鲁圈的领导人从不在意“失策”,那就是阿尔德曼 ·  罗伯茨 (Alderman     Roberts) 的小女儿。有一次，玛格丽特 ·撒切尔一针 见血地批评了“政治正确”的观点。据她毕生观察，英国的问题都出在欧 洲大陆，而解决方案都来自英语国家。

    她清楚原因。尽管她不够明智   或许她对那些指责她的人应该措 词更强硬一些，然而她确实知道盎格鲁圈例外论有其历史根源。

    1989年，她和其他国家领导人一道受邀至巴黎参加法国大革命200 周年纪念活动。她从骨子里不想去。不仅仅因为法国大革命导致了持续 近四分之一个世纪的英法战争，更因为这场革命的价值观——国家主义、暴力、奉行强制平等和反教权主义——与她心中自由的真正基石格 格不入。

    法国总统弗朗索瓦 ·密特朗向来行事奔放，决定在巴黎200周年纪念 庆典期间同时召开G7 峰会，这样多少可以迫使英国首相参加。她很不高兴，并在受一家法国报纸采访时表达了不满：

    人权并不是从法国大革命开始才有的，它植根于犹太教和基督教传统。我 们1688年的和平革命使议会权力超越了王权，这不是法国式革命。(法国革命 标榜)“自由、平等、博爱”,我想他们忘记了责任和义务，而且，博爱一直都 是一句空话。

    这番话也许不够外交辞令，但是背后的分析是准确的。盎格鲁圈例 外论并不在于民主。民主是一个老调重弹的词儿。欧洲大陆的革命传统 依靠多数人的统治，并不比威斯敏斯特议会传统做得更多。

    区别更多在于，法治、物权和个人自由的实现方式。雅各宾派之后 欧洲大陆对民主的追求将多数人统治置于个人自由之上，盎格鲁圈的民 主则完全不同。

    欧洲的激进主义和盎格鲁圈的激进主义同步发展，但基本各自独立。欧洲的激进主义很少跟平等派、宪章运动人士或者早期英语国家贸 易联盟的活动家有关。他们的哲学灵感归根结底来自黑格尔和赫尔德的 集体主义著作，尤其是卢梭所信奉的民众的“共意”可以剥夺公民私有权 利的理念。这样的哲学相信权利是普遍的，由法律授予并受到政府保障，而非从习惯中继承。这和普通法中“自由个体凝聚成自由社会”的观 念非常不同。

    欧陆模式有一个明显的缺陷：他们把人权全部规定在宪章里，这样 一来，相关原则就只能通过国家指定的法庭解释，最后守护自由的重任 就落在了少数人手中。如果这少数人沦陷了，自由即无从谈起。在盎格 鲁圈，对自由的争取是每一个人的事，而独裁或者革命几乎闻所未闻。 就如小说家奥尔德斯 ·赫胥黎观察到的，自由从不是恩赐，而是争取来的。

    稍微换一个说法：欧洲大陆的自由存在于理论中，而盎格鲁圈的自 由存在于事实中。19世纪保守党首相本杰明 ·迪斯雷利 (Benjamin Disraeli)说：“比起他们纸上谈兵的自由主义，我更喜欢自己享受到的 自由；比起人的权利，我更在乎英国人的权利。”

    欧洲的激进主义传统从诞生之日起就是暴力性的。众所周知，法国 大革命之后的专制统治就叫“恐怖”。这个名字并不是大革命的反对者们 强加的；相反，是雅各宾派自己起的。1792年9月5日，革命者宣布了他 们的政策：“是时候让平等的闸刀悬在每个人头上了，是时候吓倒一切  密谋者了。所以，立法者们，今天就执行‘恐怖’吧!法律的利刃将收割 一切罪行。”

    英语国家的左翼政党一般性格温和，这真是吾国之幸。随便打量一下，你就可以看出，欧洲左派的主力军无一不是从暴力和革命中诞生 的。用他们的行动派的话来说，革命只有“在最后一个国王被最后一个 神父的肠子勒死的时候”才算彻底成功。

    在美国，任何真正有影响力的社会主义运动都没有市场。按照欧洲 的标准，美国两党都是中右党派。在盎格鲁圈的其他主要领地，左派往 往脱胎于辉格党一自由主义的激进派别。

    从成立起，盎格鲁圈工党宣扬的政策就是自立自强，他们组织的活 动有英式铜管乐队、禁酒运动和员工图书馆等。威尔士煤矿工人摩根 ·  菲利普(Morgan    Phillips)在1944年到1961年间担任过英国工党总书 记，他宣称工党“得益于卫理宗比得益于马克思更多”。

    此言不虚。工党尽管总是带有几分“愤青”的情绪，另一个倾向却能 有效地平衡这一势头：它致力于通过提供更多机会帮助广大穷人提升自 己，而不是通过推翻现行体制来实现这一点。

    这些年来，盎格鲁圈取得的最值得骄傲的成就之一，就是将权力从 封闭的精英圈扩展到普通大众手中。这远大的志向引导着女性赋权、争 取普选以及普及教育。这些变革在英语国家中相继展开，尽管时间上略 有先后。比如，新西兰在1893年成为第一个将投票权赋予全体成年人的 国家，而另外的盎格鲁圈国家迅速跟进。但是，主要的英语国家没有一 个说他们需要颠覆整个体制来实现诉求的。1689年和1787年的方案依然 在生效；在英语中，“闹革命”这一类词听起来矫情、怪异，或者干脆就 是孩子气。

    所有这一切，提出了一个有趣的问题：为什么在英语国家社会中， 爱国主义通常和政治权利联系在一起?毕竟，和其他任何文明模式相  比，盎格鲁圈的发展程度遥遥领先。

    应当承认，英语国家社会中的个人主义确实存在反社会主义的偏见：对税收、国家权力和任何形式的集体主义的抗拒始终存在。但是， 我们也要看到天平的另一端：无论性别或种族，法律面前皆平等；世俗化；对少数群体的宽容；审查宽松；社会流动性高；重视教育。还有哪 些地方可以把所有这些视为理所当然呢?

    那么,问题又来了。为什么颂扬民族认同成了英语国家社会中保守 主义者的追求?这并不是说爱国主义天生是中右翼的立场。在欧洲大陆 传统中，不爱国才是右派哩。欧洲的民族主义者     那些相信国界线应 该由民族或语言的边界来划分的人-     多数都是激进分子。1848年欧洲 革命基本上是左派发起的。当起义被镇压，旧的王权和教权秩序重新建 立后，革命者纷纷逃往伦敦——他们知道伦敦会是他们的避难所。他们 对英国的开放、包容和自由表示敬意；除了卡尔 ·马克思，因为他预言  的革命没有发生，这位无产阶级革命家从未原谅这个帮他遮风挡雨的国 家。

    什么原因让众多英语国家的左翼分子如此不领情?为什么回忆历史 时，他们无视普选权的扩大、对奴隶制的反抗以及对纳粹的胜利，却偏 偏揪住英国然后是美国的帝国主义不放?

    答案无关历史也无关政治，而在心理学。我们越了解大脑的工作方 式，越能够发现人们的政治观点倾向于对直觉的理性化。我们潜意识中 接纳那些符合我们偏见的数据，却自动过滤了那些不符合的。我们通常 很容易指出别人的这种倾向，但几乎从来不会意识到自己也有这种毛病。

    这一症状有一个典型例子，这就是对全球变暖的争论。乍一看，气 候变化问题不至于导致评论者左右站队吧，毕竟科学建立在数据之上， 又不像我们对税收、国防或家庭的态度。

    问题在于人人都有假设，科学家也不例外。我们的祖先在更新世(Pleistocene)的非洲大草原上学会了从不断重复的现象中发现模式，以此来理解周围事物。这种倾向深深植入我们的基因中，可以解释认知 失调的现象。当有新发现时，我们下意识地试图将其纳入自己已有的信 仰体系；如果无法融入，我们首先质疑的是发现，而不是我们自己的信仰体系。有时候这个习惯可能导致错误，但是如果没有它，我们可能连 存活都很困难。正如埃德蒙 ·柏克所说，如果我们试图摆脱偏见，所有  努力对每一个新情况都从第一性原理开始思考，而忽略自身的经验和我 们民族已经积累起来的智慧的话，那日子就没法过了。

    如果你相信富有的国家因为剥削穷国而变得富有，这样的国家行为 的好处大于危害，而人人都应该接受稍高一些的税收，那你就更可能相 信要求政府干预、国际精英合作管理和全球财富再分配的论调。

    另外，如果你从“个人比政府更可靠”出发，则集体主义一定是个明 摆着的失败，而官僚们一定会想方设法扩张权力，那么你更有可能相信 全球变暖只不过是左翼分子希望集权的最后一个借口。

    每一方都坚信自己一本诚意，怀疑对方的动机-     这正是让争吵醋 意十足的原因。双方观点的支持者都认定各自依据的是真实有效的事实，而对方的批评一定出于欺骗或愚蠢。

    双方在数据的解释上有分歧，都质疑对方的数据。别说如何应对气 温的变化了，在地球是否在变热这一点上都没有达成一致。尽管我们都 认为我们是在处理坚硬的、纯粹的、冷冰冰的统计数据，其实已经多多 少少将我们自身有偏向性的世界观带入了这些数据中。

    对多数自我定位为中左翼的人来说，坚持支持弱势群体这个观念是 光荣而且崇高的理想。这样的理想当然不局限在左翼人士身上，但是左 翼人士将其夸大到了排斥其他理想的地步。

    乔纳森·海特 (Jonathan Haidt)  是心理学家，同时也是温和的左派。他试图解释为什么政治对话如此困难。在他2012年出版的《正义之 心》(The Righteous Mind)中，海特说，无论左翼还是右翼，他们观察 问题的视角从一开始起就已经注定了。两派都赞同对弱势群体的支持，但保守派会考虑其他因素的制约，比如尊重人的尊严；而对左翼分子来 说，则不存在任何制约。

    如果你能抓住这个神经学上的差异，就可以解释左翼分子所有表面上看来不一致和互相矛盾的地方了。它可以解释为什么有人认为移民和 多元文化在西方民主国家是好事，但到了亚马逊雨林部落就变成了坏事；可以解释为什么有人呼吁性别平等却又同时要求限制女性岗位的配 额；可以解释为什么以色列对英国作战就是正确的，而对巴勒斯坦作战 则不义。

    历史包含了一层层的受害者关系，历史叙事总是充满对底层受压迫 民众的同情。同一群人可以同时是压迫者和受压迫者，这取决于叙述的 角度。比如，拉丁裔美国人的社会地位处在盎格鲁人和美国原住民之间，当他们殖民墨西哥时，他们是坏人；但当他们加入美国时，他们又 成了好人。

    当然，所有历史学家也都有其偏见。我的目的仅仅是想解释为何盎 格鲁一美利坚文化中的民族自豪感如此集中在政治谱系这一端。答案很 简单，因为盎格鲁圈的民众很少被视为弱势群体，小国从与强大邻国的 对抗中得到满足，所有党派可以共享这种自豪感。在很多前殖民地国家，爱国主义被认为是左翼纲领的必需品，而保守主义则代表哪怕不是 合作，也至少肯定是文化上对前殖民权力的臣服。在阿拉伯复兴党控制 的国家，在桑蒂诺6影响下的尼加拉瓜，在庇隆7主义的阿根廷，在玻利 瓦尔传统的委内瑞拉，民族主义的信念将人民主权和国家权力、推翻  卖国者的独裁以及排除外国影响联系在一起。

    全世界的反美和反英鼓吹者无一例外都使用了民族主义者的语言， 这是讲英语的进步人士通常惟一能够接受的一种民族主义。乔治 ·奥威  尔极力贬低“英格兰左翼的受虐心理”:他们随时准备接受任何纲领——无论这样的纲领多么蹩脚，只要能反英就够了。他提到了爱尔兰共和军 和斯大林主义。要是他在现在来写这些话，无疑还会把美国左翼包括进来。

    民族主义也是盎格鲁圈左派反对人士的利器，包括威尔士的民族主 义者、拉丁美洲的反扬基主义者和魁北克的分裂主义者。他们把民族主

    义思想插入受害者等级序列之中，将自己视为弱势群体。与此相对，盎 格鲁圈的进步人士却很少这样做。只有极少数的例子，比如华盛顿领着 疲惫的部队经过冰封的福吉谷(Valley   Forge), 以及丘吉尔在伦敦暴 雪中振臂高呼。这类故事广为流传，但是，这也绕不过过去三百年间盎 格鲁圈总体上比其他文明技术更领先的事实。

    恰是这一巨大成功使得颂扬盎格鲁圈文化的卓越有几分尴尬，因为 这么做很可能被指摘自大或者排外。而在其他情况下，左翼分子本会直 白大赞的事例，却罩上了他们假想中的文化帝国主义或殖民者的傲慢的 阴影，比如纳皮尔对支持殉夫的印度教祭司的回答就是这样的例子。

    奥威尔所说的受虐倾向，是盎格鲁圈的健康品质——同理心——的 病变。我们常会觉得，我们这些英语民族的成员就应该包容，应该站在 对方的角度看问题。不难发现，这个特点可以被无限放大。如果不算特 别自我憎恶，我们不妨说它最后发展成了某种形式的文化相对主义。盎 格鲁圈文明的独特成就就这样被低估了。

    自从盎格鲁圈国家取得全球主导权之后，这个倾向就存在了。在1885年的滑稽剧《天皇》 (The Mikado)中，吉尔伯特 (Gilbert) 和沙利文 (Sullivan)这样调侃道：
    傻瓜们一个劲儿叫好，
    除了现在，所有时代都好；
    除了自己的国家，外国的月亮都圆。

    直到20世纪后半叶，文化相对主义还基本局限在大学校园和学者的 小圈子里。即使那些致力于发掘其他观点和发现自己文明瑕疵的人，也 不得不承认盎格鲁圈比斯大林治下的俄国或者埃塞俄比亚王国更为自由、公平，也更加进步。

    但是，观念终究会产生影响。学习了相对主义的学生们后来占领了学校教席，他们的学生则接受了这种教条的灌输。现在，在英语社会中，带着愧疚而不是自豪去学习自己的历史已经相当普遍。当然不是说 我们已经抛弃了道德判断，但是，当我们开始用左派的“万能药”而非按 照历史时期的标准来评判英语民族的行为，这岂不是荒唐?!

    一旦丢失了盎格鲁圈的自豪感，我们接下来很可能丢失的就是实现 这些成就的政治制度。

    注释

    1指苏格兰。

    21603年，英格兰伊丽莎白女王驾崩。苏格兰玛丽女王的儿子詹姆斯六世 继位成为英格兰国王詹姆斯一世，从此英格兰和苏格兰共主，两国联合。

    31707年，《联合法案》签署，英格兰、苏格兰两国议会合并。
    4新教徒 (Protestant),     字面意思就是“抗议者”。

    5英国第一批到达美国的殖民者于1620年乘“五月花号”登陆麻省的普利茅 斯。

    6桑蒂诺(Augusto Cesar Sandino),尼加拉瓜反美游击队领导人，被视为 民族英雄。

    Z胡安·庇隆 (Juan      Perón),阿根廷政治家，曾三次出任阿根廷总统。他提 出了介于资本主义和社会主义之间的“第三条道路”,后被人称为“庇隆主义”。

    8玻利瓦尔 (Simón   Bolívar)是19世纪解放南美大陆、领导拉丁美洲独立战 争的先驱，先后带领军队从西班牙殖民统治中解放了南美洲多个国家，被称为“南美洲的解放者”“委内瑞拉国父”。

    第九章 想想你们所属的民族

    英国的上议员和下议员们，请想想你们所属的和受你们管辖的民族究竟是 什么民族。这不是一个迟钝愚笨的民族，而是一个敏捷、颖慧、眼光犀利的民 族。他们勇于创造，精于辩论，其程度绝不下于全人类的禀赋可能达到的高度。 ——约翰·弥尔顿 (John     Milton),1644
    兴亡寻常事，飘零几多载。然而，我们对宪法的信仰从不曾减弱，宪法也 从未在我们的政治生活中失效。我们的原则一次又一次重被发现，并非因为它 们写在发黄的羊皮纸上，只因自由的永恒真谛已深深地蚀刻进人的灵魂。 ——马修·斯伯丁 (Matthew     Spalding),2009

    2012年7月，共和党总统候选人米特 ·罗姆尼(Mitt Romney)展开了 为其助选的外交访问。他选择了被奥巴马团队忽视的三个传统盟友：以 色列、波兰和英国。以色列和波兰之行相当成功，但对英国的造访却因 此前一位助手发表的言论(该人申明不是他说的)而蒙上阴影。据称那位助手说，美英两国一衣带水，因其共同的盎格鲁——撒克逊遗产而被 捆绑在一起。

    大西洋两岸的左翼人士都对这一评论大加挞伐，称这是一次“民族 失言”,奥巴马在竞选演说中更直言这是“赤裸裸的冒犯”。     尽管，就像大多数宣称被冒犯的人那样，他们其实对此都心知肚明。毕竟，就 算罗姆尼那个大大咧咧的职员也很清楚，盎格鲁——撒克逊人作为一个民 族来说，在美国选民中只占很小比例，我们就此可说，他们形成了一个 英国选区。看来，不只有我的国家充斥各种诸如叫“汉南”一类的非盎格 鲁姓氏的人。就像我们在第一章里看到的，盎格鲁——撒克逊人同其他民 族的联姻自始即有，并且“盎格鲁——撒克逊价值”也一直是在一个多种族 环境中发展起来的。相信那些假装很受伤的人其实也很清楚，这里指的 不是种族而是文化。

    盎格鲁——撒克逊政治文化中有一种特别可贵的品质，那就是，它是 在超越种族的观念上建立国家的。美国人一直以他们对外来者的强大的 融合力而自豪。这不是没有道理的，数以百万计的人从各自国家被吸引 到这片大陆，决心成为美国人。

    “成为美国人”到底意味着什么呢?第一，接受写进美国宪法的价值 观：言论自由，权力分立，宗教宽容，等等。第二，理解与前述价值密 切相关的不成文宪法：公民参与，开放竞争，私人契约，性别平等。第 三，说英语。追根溯源，这三项特征是从哪里来的?不是韩国，不是罗 马尼亚，也不是厄瓜多尔-     尽管来自这些国家的人们也可以像其他人 一样接纳这些特征。我们所说的盎格鲁—撒克逊文明是一整套被打包在 英语世界中的文化、社会和政治假设。

    围绕这次对罗姆尼竞选活动的攻击，从反面反映出我们看待过去的 看法近来有了改变(亲爱的读者，如果你正读到这里，我希望你能理解 我在这里使用的“我们”,指的正是全体自由的英语民族)。盎格鲁—撒 克逊价值不再被视为个人自由、普通法、代议制政府、反抗暴政、陪审 团制度的代名词；相反，编辑们的评论都被塞进了现时的流行话语，透 过这些话语，那些想要推行盎格鲁—撒克逊价值的人们发现他们自己落 入了受害者阶层的一端。

    我们在每一个盎格鲁圈核心国家，总能发现那些不待见盎格鲁文明 遗产的人往往会拒绝承认盎格鲁圈是一个全球性联盟：在英国，有些人 坚持认为英联邦是帝国的延续，英国将来的命运一定在欧洲。这样的观 点，在盎格鲁圈其他国家，也能找到社会、政治和文化等方面的知音。 比如，在澳大利亚，就有人认为澳洲与英国的亲密关系已经不合时代潮 流了，澳大利亚作为亚洲国家才能拥抱未来。

    这种情绪在学术界和媒体精英中相当有市场，民间倒少有人这么想。1999年，澳大利亚对是否要“抛弃”英王举行了公民投票。这次公投 被普遍认为，与其说是废除君主立宪政体，不如说是要摆脱国家与盎格 鲁文明世界的关系。发起共和运动的领导人大多是英格兰或者爱尔兰后 裔，他们很难掩盖与那些从别的地方来澳的移民的矛盾；后者拥护维持 现状，而不愿选择他们出生国或者他们自己的祖先留下的制度，因此议 案未获通过。

    互联网及在线媒体的繁荣暴露出反对盎格鲁文明的精英们的若干弱 点，而这些精英们过去则在广播电视系统一统天下。加拿大总理史蒂芬 · 哈珀、澳大利亚总理托尼 · 阿博特 (Tony   Abbott) 和新西兰总理约翰 ·基      (John  Key)认为他们三国的结盟理所当然，就像英美联盟一样。也许 因为他们看过民意调查，他们明白，光纤网络正是改变大众观念的力量。

    同情，或者更文艺一点的说法——同胞之谊，是人类在处理自身事务过程中的一种强大的力量，能感染很多对盎格鲁圈早期历史毫无认识 的人。在最近一次聚会中，我刚巧坐在米哈伊尔 ·伊格纳季耶夫(Michael Ignatieff)旁边，这位加拿大自由党党魁在2011年1是总理史 蒂芬 · 哈珀的对手。伊格纳季耶夫聪明，优雅，在学术及广播从业生涯中都取得了傲人成就，只可惜在从政以后没能延续这样的辉煌。我们谈 了很多，他提出各种理由证明为什么盎格鲁圈如今已经衰落了。他说， 加拿大见证了其英国传统如何被移民所消解。他还不忘提醒我，他自己 的姓氏伊格纳季耶夫不就能提供这方面的线索吗?!我回答他说：“没  错啊，但是如果澳大利亚和印度尼西亚之间发生战争     即使你认为澳 大利亚更有过错——你会站在哪一边呢?”他停了一会，然后说：“还是 你说得有道理。”

    长期以来，似乎不借助“帝国主义”或者“宗主权”这一类概念，就没 法推动盎格鲁圈的扩展。尤其在爱尔兰和印度，文化和政治发展的重点 始终是想要和殖民之前的政权拉开距离。但是现在独立斗争几乎早已淡 出人们的记忆。就算这些老制度一去不复返，我们也一样知道盎格鲁圈 的议会制普通法模式的重要性。

    互联网是盎格鲁圈的发明，现在已然成为英语语言最强大的工具。 整个盎格鲁圈的人们通过它联结在一起，建立了独立于政府的文化、经 济和社会联系。将“盎格鲁圈”推广为流行词的詹姆斯 · 贝内特相信，讲  英语的民主政体最适合形成他所谓的“分散化的、有弹性的网络共和国”。在其中，网络成为一种独特的文化纽带。一个人数庞大的印第安  流浪者社区借助于活跃在盎格鲁文化环境中的电影、音乐和其他文化活 动得以形成。

    后来担任爱尔兰内阁部长的丝蕾 ·德 ·瓦莱拉 (Sile    de    Valera, 埃蒙 的孙女)在2000年宣称，在波士顿的爱尔兰人比在布鲁塞尔的爱尔兰人 更有归属感，欧盟在统一成员国身份上走得太远了。她陈述了一个明显 的事实：在盎格鲁文化圈内，存在一个爱尔兰人社区，它可以把散居在每一个核心区域的爱尔兰联系起来。然而，她同时也指出了文化传统上 的一个重大转变，即，爱尔兰不再依靠欧盟来增强其对抗英国的独立性，而是自信地成为盎格鲁圈中平等的一员。

    有着阿尔斯特清教徒血缘的后人也发现互联网极大地促进了他们在 盎格鲁圈内的联系。阿帕拉契亚山区的乡民们为了纪念威廉三世在伯因 河战役的胜利，每年7月12日都会举行盛大游行。最近十年间，我们看  到了分散在北美、澳大利亚、大不列颠和爱尔兰的阿尔斯特后裔彼此间 文化联系的飞速发展。

    盎格鲁圈内核心成员国之间的关系正处于自第二次世界大战以来的 最好阶段。加拿大、澳大利亚和新西兰将它们的外交和防务政策建立在 首先与美国，其次与英国的紧密联系上。美国和爱尔兰自从结盟以来， 彼此关系从未这么近过。印度加入了与美国的战略同盟，并且暗示它将 与英语世界其他国家结盟，这好像突然之间变成了最自然不过的事情。 在2004年大海啸之后，美国、澳大利亚和印度海军联合展开救援，这是 他们继北约组织在近六十年前的联合行动之后都未曾采取过的。

    在所有盎格鲁圈的核心政府中，只有一个有意识地站到了圈外，那 就是美国政府。

    这个局面是明摆着的：巴拉克 ·奥巴马不喜欢盎格鲁圈，尤其不喜  欢英国。我们不妨来看看证据。总统先生收到戈登 ·布朗赠送的一只用 皇家海军舰只“加内”(Gannet)   号上的桅木制成的笔筒——“加内”号毕 生在海上服役，在反对奴隶贸易的海上护航中立下了赫赫战功。结果， 总统先生回赠了一套DVD 影碟。

    在与英国首相进行的第一次高峰会晤中，奥巴马先生圆滑地降低了 两国同盟的地位。美国总统在评价国际关系最高等级时当然要谨慎，以 免伤了与墨西哥、以色列或者其他一些友好国家的和气。但是，前美国 领导人从来都毫无顾虑地称英国是“我们最亲密的盟友”。乔治 ·W.布什  就走得更远了，他把英国视为“我们最亲密的朋友和最牢固的同盟”,还在2003年巴格达解放日那天宣布，“对于我们美国，没有比英国更好的 哥们儿了”。然而，在第44任总统的口中，英国仅仅是“我们的盟友之  一”,他把英国政府彻底降到了巴林岛和洪都拉斯之列。

    前阵子石油泄漏事故造成路易斯安那及墨西哥湾部分地区数百万元 损失，奥巴马总统在各种场合攻击他假想中的“英国石油”公司 (BP)。

    事实上，十年前就没有这个公司了。“英国石油”公司早已完成了和“美 国石油公司”(Amoco)   的合并，如今美国和英国对这家公司共同持股。

    乔治 ·布什在和女王的会晤中，又一次出现了口误。为了打圆场，布什咧嘴一笑(这可没经过彩排),赶紧说：“她看我的眼神就好像一  个母亲看着一个孩子。”这真是颇能打动人心的一句话，仿佛在优雅地  表白对英国遗产的感激。他的继任者呢?继任者献给女王陛下的是一个iPod里面录的是总统先生自己的讲话。

    奥巴马总统第一次出访西非时，在讲话中谈到为争取独立而与英国 发生的地区冲突(事实上，也算不上多大的冲突：大多数非洲殖民地未 费一枪一弹就取得了自治)。然而，在参观了奴隶堡以后，他却对奴隶 贸易基本上被皇家海军铲除这一事实闭口不言。

    他的高冷已经超出了必要的礼节。本届政府现在近乎危险地想要压 制庇隆统治下的阿根廷在福克兰群岛的立场。在一系列解决方案中，白 宫想要迎合那些激进的反西方分子，比如委内瑞拉总统乌戈 ·查韦斯(Hugo    Chavez) 和尼加拉瓜总统丹尼尔 ·奥尔特加 (Daniel     Ortega) 支 持的阿根廷在谈判中提出的主权要求。国务院甚至着手准备用它的阿根 廷名字马尔维纳斯来命名争议地区。

    奥巴马当然有权利选择谁做朋友。这里面特别有意思的一点是，他 不喜欢英国与他拒绝接受早期美国从英伦群岛继承来的价值和制度之间 不无联系。奥巴马拒绝的，不仅是英美的特殊关系，更是这种关系得以 建立的世界观。

    奥巴马对英国的厌恶之情一般被解释为因为祖父曾遭到英国人虐待 而耿耿于怀。奥巴马的祖父侯赛因 ·盎扬戈(Hussein      Onyango) 在20世 纪50年代肯尼亚茅茅党 (Mau    Mau) 人反对英国殖民统治的部落战争中 被拘禁。但这个解释与奥巴马自己所写的有很大出入。

    奥巴马从没见过他爷爷，但他后来了解到的家族史使他很受震撼。 尽管盎扬戈被英国当局拘捕，但他还是保留了一个帝国主义者的立场， 相信英国在肯尼亚的高层机构应有一席之地。盎扬戈常常提到，非洲人 太懒了，根本不可能争取到独立。为此，年轻的奥巴马感到很震惊。“我想象他是他的民族的一分子，反对白人的规则。”他在自传《我父亲的梦想》(Dreams  from   My    Father) 中写道，“奶奶告诉我的故事完全颠覆了我过去的印象，那些丑陋的字眼在我的脑海不断闪现：汤姆 大叔，投敌者，顺从的黑奴”。

    其实，总统的反英情绪并非来自他爷爷的经历，而是来自于他所崇 拜的父亲——尽管距离可能远了点。巴拉克 ·奥巴马的父亲抛弃了奥巴  马的母亲，对小巴里也几乎从来没管过(从他孩童时一直到青春期)。 然而，有一回他到夏威夷旅行，这次旅行给10岁大的未来的总统烙下了 深刻印迹。像很多小男生一样，巴里被告知了有关他消失的父亲的传奇 故事；他向班里的同学暗示，他爸爸是一位了不起的酋长，而自己有一 天也将会继位为部族首领。当老师要求巴里请爸爸来班上做演讲的时候，小奥巴马真是尴尬至极，为自己无伤大雅的小谎言就要被戳穿而坐 立不安。不过，当潇洒的肯尼亚人身着非洲服饰踏进教室，然后开始侃 侃而谈，小巴里的所有担忧都烟消云散了。这可真是奥巴马童年的决定 性一刻啊!

    他靠在赫福迪小姐 (Miss Hefty) 那厚重的橡木桌上，描述地球上一条深深 的峡谷，在那里，人类第一次出现。他讲了那些还奔跑在平原上的野生动物，那些仍然要求一个男孩去杀掉一头狮子来证明自己已经成年的部落。他讲了卢奥 (Luo)  部落的习俗，长者怎样获得崇高的威严，怎样在一棵大树下制定每个 人都必须遵循的法规。他还讲了肯尼亚为了获取自由而进行的斗争，英国人怎  样在那片土地上长久地驻扎而不愿离去，如何残暴地统治那里的人民，就像他  们曾在美国土地上做过的那样；但是肯尼亚人，就像我们所有在教室里的人一样，渴望自由，并且通过努力和牺牲来争取自由，发展自我。

    这种被压迫者反抗压迫者、被殖民者反抗殖民者、一无所有者反抗 物质充足者的持续斗争观构成了老奥巴马世界观的主体。在《奥巴马的 愤怒之源》 (The  Roots   of  Obama’s  Rage) 一书中，迪内 ·杜泽 (Dinesh D’Souza) 无可辩驳地证明了奥巴马的国内国际政策深受他父亲20世纪  50年代反殖民主义的影响。迪内 ·杜泽称：其他分析人士所犯的错误在  于他们总是想把奥巴马放进美国种族主义叙事话语中；但是，为民权而 战只是他经历中不那么重要的一个部分。事实上，奥巴马因其对最低工 资、肯定性行动等黑人所关注议题的忽视，而惹恼了很多黑人政治团体。他的斗争重点远不在反对密西西比的种族隔离，而是非洲的独立派 反对欧洲帝国主义。

    举个例子，奥巴马的气候改变政策似乎既不能抑制全球温室效应， 也无助于改善美国的形象。但是，这一政策产生的最大红利就在于将财 富从富国重新分配给了穷国。迪内 ·杜泽特别指出，奥巴马的行政班底  禁止开放美国的近海石油钻探，而将这一权限交给了巴西。奥巴马对于 无核化问题的热情也同样说明了这一点。总统在论坛上呼吁各国消除核 武器，却唯独不提伊朗和朝鲜，这实在有点让人费解。但问题不在于伊 朗或者朝鲜，问题在于他尽力想使美国看上去不那么好战，不那么强势，或者换个说法，不那么帝国主义。

    奥巴马不待见英国，也不待见英国遗赠给她的13个殖民地及继而建 成共和国的那些财富：普通法，对个人自由和财产权的坚持与强调，不 信任政府，必须由民选代表通过法律来决定征税。

    对于一个反盎格鲁文化的头脑来说，这样的遗产并不值得欣喜。美 国革命最吸引奥巴马的地方，不在于国父们宣扬的那套崇高的政治理念，而恰恰是在这阵风潮之后，他们被成功地塑造成了反殖民主义者。 奥巴马在他第一任就职演说上就抛出了这一主题：“在美国诞生之初，最寒冷的季节，一小拨爱国者围拢在冰封河谷边将熄的篝火周围。长官 已经溃逃，敌人正在推进。鲜血染红了白雪……”他多次在访问发展中  国家的行程中重复这一意象。2011年，阿拉伯爆发革命，他把这些民主 派人士比作波士顿茶党成员——要知道，这个词他可从来没用在美国国 内的抗税运动身上。

    继承保守主义遗产的早期独立派领袖观念可不是奥巴马所描绘的这 种形象。然而，我还是想告诉你们，独立派是多么有意识地在捍卫一种 仅通过英语表达出来的处理人类事务的政治哲学，而且，事实上这也是 为什么他们称自己为独立派的原因。一旦接受了这样一个事实，就意味 着要接受那些建立共和国的人的特殊之处。也就是说，承认美国不是一 个简单的多元文化的混合体，它得自阿拉巴霍人²的东西不可能与得自  亚当斯的相提并论；它是讲英语国家大家庭的一部分。

    美国成为盎格鲁圈联盟的独立的成员已经一个世纪有余，虽然并没 有和英国及其他英联邦成员国始终保持正式的结盟关系，但美国本能地 知道自己站在哪一边。英语民族为反对现代世界的集权主义并肩战斗： 法西斯、苏联以及伊斯兰原教旨主义。

    就算盎格鲁圈国家没有在同一问题上采取正式的统一军事行动，也 没有人怀疑他们同样的立场。英国政府在1898年美西战争中很有策略地 支持美国，美国政府同样低调地在两年后的南非战争中投桃报李。盎格 鲁圈核心国家在两次世界大战中，在朝鲜战争、伊拉克战争和阿富汗战 争中都站在了一起。唯一一次内讧发生在1956年苏伊士危机中，英美翻 脸，最后造成灾难性后果。艾森豪后来称他没有支持英国军方打击贾迈 勒 · 阿卜杜一纳赛尔 (Gamal  Abdel  Nasser) 的行动是“最大的遗憾”。

    阿根廷在1982年入侵福克兰群岛时，罗纳德 ·里根总统自然清楚谁  是他的朋友。他建议国防部为英国提供一切所需物资。事实上他做到了 最大限度的仁慈的中立，不表示出公开的敌意，为英国提供了情报和后 勤支持。在查尔斯·摩尔 (Charles     Moore) 为玛格丽特 ·撒切尔所写的传 记中有这样的记载：里根总统明白盎格鲁圈国家在思想观念上本是一家，这一点远较对南美采取共同军事行动更为重要。后来的事实证明， 的确足够幸运，加尔铁里³军政府的倒台使阿根廷走向了民主，而不是  独裁。

    里根眼中的受到独裁威胁的讲英语民主政体，在奥巴马看来，似乎 正是一个帝国主义残余。然而，如果福克兰群岛果真是一个帝国主义的 残余，这又偏巧是一块讲英语的定居者固执地追求个人自由和议会主政 的领地，那美国又是什么呢?建国者们有着坚定的信念，自认是英国自 由的继承者和守护者。当他们看到这样的自由被一个遥远的君主专断地 摧毁时，不惜一战以捍卫权利。独立派领袖们信守的自古相传的自由后 来被写进了神圣新宪法中，这就是美国例外论的精髓，只可惜现任总统 似乎并不承认它的存在。

    巴拉克 ·奥巴马就任后归还了安放在白宫的温斯顿 ·丘吉尔半身像，此举实际上是在全盘否定过去所倡导的盎格鲁圈国家共有一个梦想、共 担同一使命的理念。那时候，当其他人还在徘徊踟蹰，我们却坚守着我 们的天职：为捍卫个人自由、议会至上和法治原则而战。

    美国本届政府不只是反英，它还降低了自乔治 ·布什时代起建立的  与印度的同盟，甚至在近海钻油权问题上差一点与加拿大大打出手。与 此同时，奥巴马总统又和欧盟卿卿我我。他的第一任总统选战就是从欧 洲之旅开始的，柏林一站可谓巅峰。在访问德国期间，他的一席讲话博 得了欧盟领导人的满堂彩。他说，过去美国太自负了，没能好好向欧盟 学习，将来，他会竭尽所能深化与欧盟的合作关系。

    托马斯 ·杰斐逊写道：“如果全欧洲最后变成了一个单一的君主制，那绝不符合我们的利益。”巴拉克 ·奥巴马对此当然不可能不知道，但他 毫无心理负担地表示，欧洲超国家组织正是美国的利益所在。事实上， 自从冷战结束以后，欧盟就很少掩饰它的反美情绪。它和中国联合开发 了一套卫星系统，公开挑战美国的全球定位系统 (GPS),  雄心勃勃地 要打破雅克 ·希拉克所说的美国“技术帝国主义”。它对古巴境内的反卡  斯特罗势力不置可否，宣布美国制裁古巴是不合法的。它还向哈马斯组 织输送资金，当然现在需要通过非政府组织的管道来实现这一点，以免 与自身的反恐政策相违背。它在一系列重要国内问题上——比如能源价格、死刑和关塔那摩等 ——批评华府。

    那为什么华盛顿还是要迎合布鲁塞尔呢?到底欧盟有什么致命吸引 力?估计很难避免以下答案：巴拉克 ·奥巴马希望美国在各方面都更像  欧盟，高税率，重环保，半和平主义，再分配，中央集权化，财政赤字，等等。

    这张清单上的关键词是中央集权化。当权力从民众转移到政府，从 各州转移到中央，从民选代表转移到行政部门，其他的所有也随之而来。国家机器日益膨胀，越来越肆无忌惮，然而，也越来越低效。杰斐 逊卓有远见的分析完全可以适用于解释欧洲和美国的关系：
    我们的国家太大了，所以不能让所有事务都由一个政府来处理。那些公职 人员隔着这么老远的距离，又不在选民们的眼皮底下，因此必然会因为各种各 样的情况无法管理或者达到一个好政府所要求的各种具体事项。另外，基于同 样的原因，他们也会趁选民无法查知，给代理人们腐败、浪费、中饱私囊等种 种机会。

    美国人何其有幸，美国宪法正是按照杰斐逊式的原则制定的；欧洲 人何其不幸，他们不得不和前法国总统瓦勒里 ·季斯卡 ·德斯坦打交道，他曾荒唐地把起草《欧盟宪法条约》称作“我们的费城时刻”。当杰斐逊庄严地向他的国人承诺“生命、自由和追求幸福”时，《欧盟基本自由宪 章》则在保证欧洲人的“罢工、免费医疗和适足住房权”。

    当然，从短期来看，这些东西相当让人开心：公立大学，更短的工 作时间，两小时午餐和休息，长假，更早退休年龄。难怪欧洲人会自夸 他们的生活品质比扬基“砖工”们强多了。可麻烦在于，当人们更晚就业，更早退休，而且一门心思地在为政府工作的期间内少上班，那么,  他们就挣不了几个钱。然后，他们的钱早晚得花光。欧洲就走到了这一 步。

    准确地说，对于普通欧洲人来说，钱已经花光了，他们正深陷经济 危机。几十年劳工权利立法的效果是，欧盟的权利越来越多，而工人却 越来越少。

    然而，对欧盟官员以及日益膨胀的靠布鲁塞尔经费养着的咨询顾问、合同制人员、寻租者阶层来说，完全不存在钱荒的担忧。当各国政 府忙于缩减国内财政开支时，他们省下的每一分钱都流向了欧盟，欧盟 的财政预算以每年3%的速度递增。

    在布鲁塞尔，也和在华盛顿一样，政治家都在谈论钱应该被用来“刺激经济”。从某种程度上，是这么回事。举个最近的例子，时任欧盟委员会 (European              Commission)  主席巴罗佐和时任欧盟理事会(European Council) 主席赫尔曼 ·范龙佩分别乘各自的专机飞抵俄罗斯 参加同一个峰会，前后脚相差不到4个小时。调用两架喷气式专机可以  双倍刺激经济，何乐而不为呢?欧盟可以有两个首脑，何乐而不为呢?  两套平行系统可以产生双倍的规章制度，何乐而不为呢?

    美国还没有走到欧洲今天的地步。因为建国者们的远见卓识和爱国 忠诚，这个国家奠基于一个更好的起点上。但是，国家的走向却再明显 不过：长期赤字，联邦政府沙皇主义，奥巴马医疗保健计划，支持超国 家体制。美国正日复一日地欧洲化-     我的意思是，更多管制，更急于 辩护，更加僵化，以及更虚弱了。

    美国人素以自力更生、乐观主义和志向远大为傲，但这些特征并不 是密西西比河水或者土耳其烤肉的副产品，也不是美利坚民族基因中有 什么特异功能。人总是对激励作出正反馈，文化是被体制所形塑的。如 果税率、政府开支、债务不断攀升，如果美国人越来越依赖政府，那么,要不了多久，他们也得像法国人那样，为他们已有的权利而走上街头。

    玛格丽特 ·撒切尔的政治教父基斯 ·约瑟夫爵士(Sir Keith Joseph) 曾说过这样的话：如果你把责任交给人民，那么,他们就会负责任地行 动。推动个人的，必将最终推动整个国家。

    整整三十年，希腊都是欧盟经费开支的最大受惠国。每年，这个国 家中最优秀的毕业生都会在就业问题上面对一个单项选择题，是为欧盟 工作、为它的附属机构工作，还是要吃本国的行政饭?权力机关开出的 工资、优厚的津贴、税收优惠等已经远远超出了他们现实中在任何一个 私人部门可能享受到的待遇，这种情况下，谁想去创业或者做买卖?!

    这样的结果在今天的希腊也明摆着了。就像个人很容易被各种额外 的福利宠坏一样，一个选区也是如此。在被问到是否准备好为继续留在 欧盟而必须忍受经费削减时，希腊选民的回答就像一个撒娇的孩子：“我们要欧盟，但是我们不要削减经费!”

    奥巴马有次被问到是否相信美国例外论，他说：“我当然相信美国 例外论，不过我也怀疑，希腊人也相信希腊例外论吧。”那时，我觉得 总统先生做的类比真是有点奇怪，现在却不再如此了。

    那么,我们说的“美国例外论”到底包含了哪些东西?盎格鲁文明的 独特特征在美国都有哪些最纯粹、最自由的表现?要是我们来列一份清单，会发现它们看上去实在是没什么抓眼球的-     言论自由、契约自由、集会自由、所有权、国会对行政的控制。就是这些。

    然而，这些价值虽然都是老一套的陈词滥调，但确是实实在在的东 西。盎格鲁圈中除了美国以外的所有国家现在都对言论自由采取了正式的限制——甚至即使在美国，言论的边界也在不断紧缩。从20世纪90年 代初起，法律就开始陆陆续续对各种类型的观点实施惩罚，理由是这些 观点有可能冒犯某些人，尤其是某些种族或宗教上的少数派。

    最近一段时间，这些法律的实施引发了不少讼案。2007年，马克·斯泰恩 (Mark Steyn) 在加拿大入狱，因为他写了一些诋毁穆斯林的文 章。2011年，一个澳大利亚时事评论员安德鲁 ·博尔特 (Andrew Bolt)   撰写了一篇文章，称要清理那些“职业”土著居民。他的意思是现在很多 非土著民的后代为了种种个人好处“变成”了“澳大利亚土著民”。他因为这篇文章而被判有罪。然而，没有谁说这篇文章造成了煽动，按照普通 法，这一点才是犯罪标准；也没有谁认定它非法，因为它既没有攻击谁 也没有什么错。英国从1695年起就废除了书报审查机制，然而，在2013 年，一套国家监管制度正式恢复了。

    这样的法律在全世界大部分地区没什么特别之处。大多数欧洲国家 都宣布某些观点 ——比如否认大屠杀——是有罪的。2009年，联合国人 权理事会慎重地宣布(会上，沙特阿拉伯和俄罗斯坐在一起),其成员国通过了惩治“诋毁宗教”的法律。当然，人权理事会并没有提宗教迫害这层意思，因为这样做无疑将会使沙特阿拉伯相当尴尬。在整个冷战期 间，大多数英语国家的言论市场都是非常自由的，直到它们不再受到苏 联的威胁，盎格鲁圈国家才抛弃了他们一直为之奋斗的那些原则。

    1989年前，讲英语国家的人们习惯于互相打趣儿，说他们可不像铁 幕后面那些倒霉鬼，因为说错了什么话就要被警察抓住衣领。然而，现在，他们也时不时地会因为引用《圣经》章句可能冒犯同性恋群体或者 得罪圣战极端分子而被逮起来。2009年英国大选期间就出了一件荒唐的 事，有人因对候选人拉票不胜其烦，在自家窗玻璃上写下“让他们滚!”然后警察就找上门了，因为他们选择性地把这句话理解为是在攻 击移民。

    我希望我能说这样的事件毕竟少见，但事实是它们正变得越来越普遍。我选区里有一位钢琴家最近被警方调查了，因为他在一对华人夫妇的听证会上，在大家用餐时间演奏“功夫熊猫”。

    这些突然加诸于言论自由之上的限制可以看作自冷战结束以后另一 种发展趋势的结果，或者说，它们是压倒民选的立法机关的那些国内尤 其是国际人权宪章的产物。

    此外，我还想提醒大家注意盎格鲁圈和欧洲关于“公民权利和自由”的不同理解：在盎格鲁圈内，公民权利是先辈们在历史上某一时刻  明确赢得的、作为一项历经世代流传下来的确定不移的权利；而欧洲对 于公民权利的观念，则认为它是政府授予的。如果说各类欧洲和国际人 权条约的内容不容置疑，那么,这些条约的优先地位就可能伤害盎格鲁 圈内的国家主权和议会式民主政体，用杰斐逊的话来说，“自由不掌握  在人民自己手中，就绝不可能是安全的”。

    约翰·方特 (John Fonte)  在他的权威论著《主权还是屈服》(Sovereignty  or  Submission) 中写道，超国家主义突然兴起，然后迅速 变成不可争议的事实。在过去二十年的时间段中，国际法关注的重点从 跨国境问题，比如外交人员的身份地位和海权等，转移到国境线内的问 题，比如劳工法、少数人权利等。

    方特看到了非政府组织工作路线的细微之处，这些个非政府组织不 能通过国内议会达到目的时，就会转而寻求国际性大会。比如说，联合 国德班 (Durban)   反种族主义大会就是在一些左翼压力集团的动议下召 开的，后者公开要求联合国实施那些被投票箱否决的政策。

    如果你反对这种国际管辖论，则可能招来麻烦：你似乎正在变成那  些不招人待见的人，似乎和奥马尔 · 巴希尔 (Omaral Bashir)、拉多万 · 卡拉季奇 (Radovan             Karadzic)、斯洛博丹 ·米洛舍维奇 (Slobodan Milosevic) 之流为伍。如果这些武夫在本国不能受到审判，那么按照国际舆论，他们就该在别的地方受到公正的审判。然而，我们几乎不用想  就明白，这样做是在削弱国际秩序的传统基础。

    国际管辖权曾经是一个相当成功的概念。自从1648年《威斯特伐利 亚条约》 (Treaty   of   Westphalia) 生效以后，刑事惩罚就被广泛地理解 为犯罪发生地所在国家的内政。然而，琴弦崩坏，噪音就随之而来!西 方自由主义者如果说“既然卡拉季奇不在塞尔维亚受审，那我们就该把  他带到海牙来”,那么伊朗法官立马会针锋相对地回应，“西方国家那些 通奸偷情的家伙可以逍遥法外，我们是不是该把他们递解到他们该受惩 罚的地方去?!”

    国际管辖权切断了立法者和法律之间的联系。因为这样一来，法律 不是由向选民负责的议员们通过的，而是被国际法学家们创造出来的。 换句话说，我们正在转向这样一种现代理念，即，法律制定者应该向他 们自己的良知而不是对那些将受此约束的人负责。

    后果会怎样呢?就像罗伯特 ·波克(Robert   Bork) 在《强制的美 德：法官的全球规则》(Coercing  Virtue:The  Worldwide  Rule  of Judges)  中所预言的，那些被投票箱否决的计划、方案就有可能得到推 行。法院很可能对人权条约作出超出任何一个正常人合理理解范围的有 倾向性的、扩大化的解释。

    随便举个例子，一个偷渡到英国的非法移民拒绝遵守将他驱逐出境 的命令，理由是他没有得到在他输入国内的同等的健康保险。这个纠纷 就挑战了《欧洲人权公约》第三条“禁止酷刑”的规定。4我举的是一个  代表了日益普遍化趋势的比较极端的例子，但它反映出法官很愿意在他 们所认为的法律应该是什么而不是法律本身是什么的基础上进行裁判。

    国际法律师们不用经过什么有实际意义的审查，就可以在他们觉得 不便的时候轻松地改变他们自己的规则——他们必须要在庞大的预算中 趟出一条路来。约翰 ·劳兰德 (John     Laughland) 对米洛舍维奇审判进行 了一系列研究，他发现，前南问题国际刑事法庭承认他们采用了谣言证 据，不停修补程序规则，并且，当被告人在法庭上滔滔不绝地自我辩护 时，他们不得不外聘特别顾问来对付。还没等到长达八年、耗资2亿美元的“世纪诉讼”作出最后判决，法官和被告人都已撒手人寰了。

    那么,这里就有一个纯粹的建立新秩序的假设了。向一个国家的首 脑发指示，就像国际刑事法庭在2009年签发的对苏丹总统的逮捕令，这 等于宣布了一场无人愿意应战的战争。要将总统巴希尔带到法庭受审的 唯一途径，只能是占领他的国家，把权力移交给占领军，这也是同盟国 之所以能对纽伦堡审判享有管辖权的基础。做不到这一点，那所谓的国 际传唤就只能是宣示性地做做样子：发出指令的人自我感觉良好，但实 际的效果恐怕只会使独裁者藏得更深。

    还是让我们言归正传吧。一方面，独裁者无视国际规则；另一方面，民主政体，或者更准确地说，民主政体中的法官则不会。西方国家 的法院不断地想通过国际条约来挑战本国选举式政府的决定。比方说， 四位英国内政大臣试图遣返一伙阿富汗劫机者，他们在伦敦斯坦斯特德 机场差点搞成了一桩劫机。然而，尽管这起犯罪行动如此严重，尽管他 们声称要逃离的塔利班政权已经被推翻了，但是，最后，这伙劫机犯还 是被法院授权留在了英国境内。

    国际管辖权的政治化似乎永远来自同一个方向，那就是签发的逮捕 令只会针对阿里尔 ·沙龙5,不会针对亚西尔 · 阿拉法特6。皮诺切克?被捕 了，但是卡斯特罗照样还能参加国际峰会。唐纳德 ·拉姆斯菲尔德在欧  洲被起诉，但萨达姆 ·侯赛因却没有。

    2010年，以色列温和派政治家齐皮 ·利夫尼(Tzipi  Livni),因 为 一 纸错误逮捕令，不能到英国参加会议。英国政府修改了相关法案，如此，总检察长有权驳回政治敏感人物的逮捕令。如果这一切发生在别的 国家，恐怕即使再温和的人也会愤怒。试想一下，罗伯特 ·穆加贝宣布，他的官员可以自行决定哪一位到访的外国领导人应该到津巴布韦法 院受审，这会引起什么样的反应。

    类似的荒唐事总是不可避免地紧随国家主权的概念而来，国家主权 观念从1648年到20世纪90年代一直盛行不衰。那么,管辖权的国际化又是从什么时候起得到承认的呢?或者说，它是什么时候被列上议事日程 的呢?再次援引波克法官的话：“我们所做的，就是一场政变。悄悄的，缓慢的，但毫无疑问，是一场政变。”

    立法机关的地盘节节失守，不仅相对于积极的司法部门，对活跃的行政常设机构也是如此。盎格鲁圈国家的行政机构和组织大量繁殖：在 英国，它们被称为“半官方机构”,也就是准自治、非政府组织；在美国，它们的领导人获得了一个足以精确概括其专断特质的名字——联邦沙皇。

    在每一个讲英语的民主国家中，各种顶着首字母缩写名牌的行政机 构已经发展到它们的前代完全不可想象的程度。如果平等派能穿越到我 们今天的时代，当他们看到英国的权力现如今都掌握在儿童援助中心、 健康与安全管理委员会、食品标准局和其他各种行政部门手中，一定会 感慨他们的努力都白费了。平等派在他们那个年代发起的斗争就是为了 控制他们所说的“王室的官吏”。如今这些官吏全都回来了，摇身变成了 各种代理人，只不过不在皇室(然而，在英国和那些自治领，也还保留 了很多类似名义上的机构),而在从摇篮到坟墓的各种管理机构中。

    国家随着权力的不断集权化而生长起来。我们已经知道权力的分散 化一直是盎格鲁圈政治机构的独有特征。从17世纪至今，当欧洲国家不 断地消除本地特殊主义并将权力集中到王室时，盎格鲁圈则将法律的统 一实施和决策权的分散化整合在一起，这是除了瑞士外其他任何地方都 无法比拟的。当其他国家日益将权力集中到王室咨询机构的手中，盎格 鲁圈依然保持着一套由选拔出的人才、治安法官和郡长来维持的自治系 统和负责任的本地政府。很多美国人相信，这套机制是早期扬基人发明 的，但事实上，正如大卫 · 哈克特 · 费舍尔 (David Hackett Fischer)在 《阿尔比恩的种子》 (Albion’s     Seed) 一书中所写，这些职位，连同它 们所寄身的文化，都是从老英格兰尤其是东英格兰带到新英格兰的。

    按托克维尔的看法，英国体制中的本地主义在北美被不断放大。杰斐逊担心政府与政府之间距离过远会“给公职代理人们腐败、浪费、中 饱私囊等种种机会”,这实际上几乎是道出了每一个美国人的心声，而 且不得不承认，他们是对的。

    有这样一条政治铁律：小政府总是比大政府更有效率。如果作出的 决定远离那些将要影响到的人，那么,浪费、重复建设、以权谋私等就 会变得更加常见。

    联邦制是盎格鲁圈国家最常采用的结构形式。澳大利亚、加拿大、南非、加勒比部分地区、印度、马来西亚和美国都实行联邦制，除了特别小的英语国家——只有新西兰和英国采取单一制。

    然而，在所有的联邦制国家，权力都平稳地从外围转移到中心。这 一切的发生不是没有原因的。联邦宪法由最高法院解释，而最高法院的 法官们通常是由联邦政府任命的，因此，法官们通常也会有一个全国性 视野。实际上，惟一一个延缓过集权化过程，因此能更多保留联邦性质 的盎格鲁圈国家是1982年以前的加拿大。直到1982年为止，英国枢密院 仍是加拿大最高当局，而它一直把渥太华当作省来对待，始终没有太大 兴趣强化对加的权力。

    与此同时，州或者省的行政当局为了绕开本地议会的反对意见，常 常会在决策过程中求助于联邦，结果发现，一旦“上交”了权力，就很难 再拿回来。

    这种权力集中化的现象在紧急情况下也时有发生，在很多偶然情况 下被转移到中央政府的权力，即使在危机过后，也很难再完璧归赵。

    战争是盎格鲁圈国家产生大政府的最大推手。相对于其他盎格鲁圈 国家来说，英国人自由的缩减应该追溯至第二次世界大战。战争使英国 国力耗竭，其程度远胜过圈内其他国家。这不是1945年创造福利国家的 工党政府，这是农神萨图努斯在吞食他自己的孩子。真正的“抓权”是从 1940年开始的。出于战争需要，大量劳动力和资产被征用，政府管辖逐 渐扩及医疗服务、教育和社会治安等领域，一切似乎变得再自然不过。

    哈耶克几乎同步记录下这一变化过程，他的《通往奴役之路》在温斯顿 ·丘吉尔尚在唐宁街的时候就出版了。

    丘吉尔之所以能当选首相，因为他是最能接受工党的保守派政治家。总体上，战争期间的两党合作包含了大量交易：丘吉尔被允许可动 用国内一切资源维持战争；与此同时，工党则放手执行国内政策。

    在那个供应券、强制招募、征用和各种史无前例的开支横飞的年代，创造出了一套社会民主分配制度。这套制度一经产生就存在了四十 年，很大部分直到今天依然有效。在那个只要质疑官方就会被认为不爱 国的年代，国家教育系统、国民医疗保健体制、福利国家等所有这些体 制都被催生出来。那时，但凡有任何针对国家官僚体系的抱怨，都会被 反问这样的问题：“难道你不想想我们现在正在打仗吗?”

    尽管英国的海外盟友受到的冲击不像它们的母国这么严重，但在两 次世界大战期间也同样经历了政府权力的飞速膨胀。

    比如，在加拿大，直接征税直到第一次世界大战之前都是各省的特 权。1916年，联邦政府开始直接征收企业税；1917年，征收收入税；并 且，联邦政府从1941年开始对大多数省实行直接征税。澳大利亚从1915 年开始第一次引入联邦收入所得税，中央政府在1942年强化了所有收入 税的控制。在一战期间，税收在GDP中所占的比例翻了一番，从5%增  长到10%;在二战期间，这个数字又翻了一番，从11%涨到22%。

    美国的情况也一样，集权化的后果就是政府权力暴涨。当然，造成这一局面的主要推手不是战争，而是罗斯福政府从1933年开始大量攫取权力。著名经济学家米尔顿 ·弗里德曼在其晚年回顾他一生中所经历的变动时说：
    从美国建立一直到1929年，联邦和州各级的政府开支除了在战时期间，从 未曾超过国民收入的12%,其中，联邦政府的支出通常不超过政府支出的3%。 然而，在1933年以后，政府支出没有低于过国民支出的20%,现在已经超过了40%。

    当然，这种情况是在2008年财政危机以前，彼时联邦政府相当阔气。

    这样的税收标准如果放在盎格鲁圈国家先辈们身上，恐怕早就引发 革命了。1900年，一个典型的英国家庭只有8.5%的收入用于负担政府， 这个指数从中世纪征收什一税以来几乎没有变过。在美国，这一指数同 期维持在6.5%左右。

    现在，在英国，这一比例已经升至46%,而美国是36%。税是最大 宗的家庭开支，远比工薪家庭在房贷、私家车以及各类账单上的费用都 高。

    当然，不是说这些统计数字就能说明全部问题。税率已经接近临界 点，但是开支依然持续增长。为了弥补两者之间的差异，西方国家正在 向莎士比亚笔下的“你还未出生的孩子”借债。美国人人均年收入是7万  美金，从表面上看，美国早就进入“富裕社会”的阶段了。和人均收入相 对应的，美国人人均承担的公共债务是13.5万美元，远高于人均私人债 务。仅是支付政府债务的年利息，就得让每个美国公民每年花掉1.1万  美元。

    从某种意义上，这些指数都是我们了解现在面临的危机所必须知道 的。盎格鲁圈培育出了一种独特的政治文化，在这种政治文化氛围中， 个人大于国家，制度是为要求政府负责而存在的。

    这样的制度如今已不再运行。国家机器疯长，超出了民主审查的范 围；各类代理和执行机构大量繁殖，不受民选代表的监督。就像阿西莫 夫的机器人那样，它们完全懂得如何不受人类干预自动运行。

    在政治实践中，是执行机构的成员而非代表纳税人的立法机关的成 员在编制预算，而这些人往往在年年攀升的巨额开支中植入了他们的直 接利益。盎格鲁圈的政治模式正日益变得和其他人看到的模式越来越像：像明代的，像莫卧儿的或者奥斯曼土耳其的，或者像印加王朝的、像加洛林王朝的以及其他什么王朝的随意征用国民财产的模式；它们的 举动也像19世纪法国哲学家弗里德里克 · 巴斯夏(Frédéric Bastiat)所称的“合法的抢劫”。

    这种模式在盎格鲁圈内被突破，特别是在1689年后，随之带来了以 后年代的极度繁荣：垄断和行会被竞争性企业取代，自由贸易和开放竞 争等现代观念获得了生机。尼古拉斯 · 巴伯 (Nicholas    Barbon) 在1690年 写道：
    禁止贸易是衰亡的起因；各种舶来品都是通过本地人的交易带来的。由  此，禁止外国商品交易只会阻碍本地的制造业和出口业。制造商和贸易商是因 好产品而存在的，如果没有交易，就必然失业。那些由贸易而产生的利润也因 此化为乌有。相应地，想要通过这些出口而获利的本国股票也会全线下挫，土 地租金必然随之跌落。

    低关税导致专门化、比较优势和史无前例的财富增长；契约安全带 来良好的信用；大众舆论为税率设置了上限；个人自由激励了企业文化；社会流动性得到了回报。在经过了数千年的经济持平后，我们的民 族终于起飞了。然而，我们只需要看看我们周围，就可以知道如今我们 走得离那些曾使我们起飞的原则有多远了。

    注 释

    12011年加拿大举行了联邦大选。

    2  Arapaho,一支印第安部落。

    3加尔铁里·卡斯特利 (Leopoldo Fortunato Galtieri Castelli),阿根廷政治 家、军事独裁者，1982年他因马尔维纳斯群岛主权对英国宣战，战败后辞职下

    台。

    4《欧洲人权公约》第三条规定禁止酷刑以及不人道或侮辱的待遇。欧洲 人权法院在解释这一条时认为，任何成员国皆应被禁止将任何人驱逐或遣返至 可能使其遭受酷刑或不人道或侮辱之待遇的国家。

    5 Ariel Sharon,以色列前国防部长、前总理。

    6 Yasser Arafat,巴勒斯坦政治家、军事家、前总统。

    7 Augusto José Ramón Pinochet Ugarte,智利政治家、军人、前总统。

    8 Robert  Mugabe,津巴布韦前总统。

    结语

    盎格鲁圈的曙光?

    我们从公元之初薄雾冥冥的日耳曼丛林一路走来，已经走过了漫长 的征途。我们看到，英语民族的历史就是人民如何将他们的意志加诸他们的统治者的历史。我们注意到，条顿民族的原始部落大会是如何演变 为英格兰拓殖者的本地集会，又如何成为盎格鲁——撒克逊人的贤人会议，再经过残酷的斗争，最终发展为现今遍及盎格鲁圈的议会组织的前 身的。

    我们也见证了普通法所发挥的英勇的作用：这一套属于人民而不是 国家的精巧的、非同寻常的系统，成功地解决了民事纠纷，实现了刑事 公正。我们看到普通法创造了使英语民族获得自由的种种特征，从陪审 制度到人身保护令，不一而足。由普通法所点燃的价值观，帮助推翻了 斯图亚特王朝的独裁，帮助北美人建立了共和国。它所扮演的角色，正像一个反对奴隶制和独裁的抗体。

    我们找到了这样一种深植于神学观中的理念，即，每一个个体必须 对自己负责，不受神父或教士的干预。这样的理念贯穿于整个政治理论。我们看到，这一理念的孢子游离于它们的宗教根系之外，是风把它 们带到了更远的土地，然后在全盎格鲁圈生根发芽，结出个体责任学说的果实。

    我们也喜见造化的偶然催生了宪法性自由的胜利。因为大不列颠是 一个岛国，盎格鲁圈覆盖的区域是一个超大型的群岛，因此，没有永久 性常规军存在的必要，税率相对很低，政府也相对较弱。盎格鲁圈国家 的政权需要募集任何资源，都得经过民选代表的普遍同意。

    最后，我们看到，建立在个人而非家庭，尤其是建立在长子特权基 础上的英国财产法滋养了一种个人主义文化。这种文化最后发展为了我 们所知的资本主义：一套个人自由地依照法律和通过私人契约出售自身劳务的体系。事实上，我们已经抓住了盎格鲁圈秘密的要害，那就是亨 利 ·梅因爵士所说的，从身份到契约的运动。这是一个自由经济和自由  社会的最终保证。

    说了这么多，我们在面对我们的后代挥霍这些遗产的时候，怎样才 不会心存不安?

    在盎格鲁圈中，对这些遗产抛弃得最多的要数英国了。当英国向欧 盟交出主权的同时，也就相应地放弃了它的民族性中的若干元素。法律 由欧盟委员会的委员们通过，他们是被任命而非选举产生的。从讲英语 的偏远内地到数量正在减少的欧洲关税同盟，贸易无处不受到人为的指 导。无论在国内还是在布鲁塞尔，权力从议会转移到了常设机构。随着 欧盟提出财政征收权的要求，征税与代表之间的联系被切断了。国家日 益膨胀到前人无可想象的规模。甚至就连普通法，这个盎格鲁圈自由最 初的和最后的堡垒，也正面临坍塌。

    丹宁勋爵，英国当代最伟大的法学家，上议院高等法官及卷宗主事 官，在20世纪70年代曾把欧盟法比作一波正向英国河口打来的大浪。到 1990年，在他辉煌一生将临终点之时，男爵修正了这个比喻。他说：“我们的法院不能再适用我们的国内法了，必须要适用共同体法。 欧洲法不再是涌向英国河口的波浪，它现在更像冲垮我们海墙的大潮， 正流进我们的每一户人家——这一切真是让人无可奈何。”

    法律的实施不断推动英国的大陆化进程，这是明摆着的。而在盎格 鲁圈其他地方，这一进程则没那么明显，其推手更多的来自文化而非法 律。一方面，在打退极端主义分子在整个20世纪的持续挑战之后，对盎 格鲁圈模式优越性的自信普遍减退；另一方面，文化相对主义又在不断 为强硬政策输送养料。一旦你把英美例外论当成沙文主义拒之门外时， 你很快也会拒绝例外论得以建立的种种机制：绝对产权，言论自由，议 会制政府，个人自治。逐渐地，你的国家也开始变得和别人的国家没有 两样：税率不断上升；立法机关失去相对于行政和司法机关的原有的地位；外国法和国际条约至上；契约自由的观念衰落，雇佣什么人有什么 条件预先被规定；行政权扩张；历史被遗忘。

    当上述变化一点一点发生，权力被转移还有任何疑问吗?过去的以 大西洋为中心的世界地图再也反映不出地缘政治的现实。经济重心正在 快速移动。1950年，它徘徊在大西洋，远离冰岛。1980年，重心移向挪 威。今天，它正穿过俄罗斯的冻土层快速东移。10年以内，它将越过哈 萨克斯坦的东北前线。

    这一变化的部分原因在于亚洲国家的民主化。中国和俄罗斯已经走 出了各自的20世纪80年代，印度也实行了经济开放政策。

    然而，与此同时，英语国家却正走向相反的方向，朝着大明王朝一 莫卧儿一奥斯曼帝国的道路速奔：大一统，中央集权，高税率，以及国 家控制。毫无疑问，他们正在丧失他们的卓越。

    在这一过程中，没有任何事情是必然的。这是我们自己的选择，不 是命运之惘然。布鲁图斯是对的：“如果我们受制于人，过错不在我们  的星座，而在于我们自身。”

    那么,如何才能弥补这一切?在讨论了这么久的盎格鲁圈例外论的 本质和其敌人的种种特征以后，答案听上去或许过于简单，但依然可以 用心感受到：我们应当记得我们是谁。

    盎格鲁文明世界建立在共同的价值和制度之上，而非各国政府之间 形式上的联系。一定程度上，这样一些联系指的不是任何超国家组织或 者国家权力的扩张，毋宁说，这样的联系形成的是一个盎格鲁圈的自由 贸易区。

    美国和加拿大最近形成了一个单一的市场，澳大利亚和新西兰也是如此。美国和澳大利亚在2005年签署了自由贸易协议，在我写作此书时 新西兰也正加入谈判。新加坡的18个自由贸易协议涉及的伙伴国家就包 括美国、澳大利亚、新西兰。印度起步较晚      从后殖民时期才开始， 但自由化进程很快。英国和爱尔兰面临的主要问题，是他们作为欧盟成员国不能签订独立的经济协议，不得不受布鲁塞尔保护主义的干预。

    如果这两个国家脱离欧盟，那么一个盎格鲁自由贸易圈就得以在商 品、服务和资金顺畅流通的基础上建立起来，并且，对劳工自由流动的 限制即使不会完全解除，起码也可大为放宽。

    有一个颇为中肯的建议，认为英联邦应当是实现经济整合的最合适 的工具。英联邦曾经有过辉煌的成长期；但目前的麻烦在于，这个联邦 包括了某些完全背离盎格鲁圈价值的独裁政权，同时，又没能纳入两个 关键性成员国家：美国和爱尔兰。

    我们这个时代之初即有的重要关系现在扩展为了盎格鲁圈核心国家 和印度的关系。印度当不结盟运动的领头羊推行反西方外交政策的时代 已经一去不复返了，这个国家现在是美国和英国重要的军事同盟国，尽管奥巴马政府和印度的关系不如他的前任那么亲热。

    这是保证盎格鲁圈能取得根本性胜利的军事上的原因。1946年，在 密苏里的富尔顿 (Fulton)  小镇，温斯顿 ·丘吉尔发表了一个演说，其中 谈到“从波罗的海的斯德丁到亚得里亚海的里雅斯特，一幅横贯欧洲大陆的铁幕已经落下”一句，至今常被记起。首相明确提到他的主要目的：
    我要讲一讲此行要谈的关键问题。没有我所称之为各英语民族同胞手足一 样的联合，有效地防止战争和继续发展世界组织都是办不到的。这种联合就是 英联邦与帝国要和美利坚合众国建立特殊的关系。

    这并非修辞上的虚饰。丘吉尔很清楚，自由的幸存必须靠盎格鲁圈的军事胜利为保障。在20世纪的三大冲突中，丘吉尔扮演了英勇的角色。他在第一场冲突中战斗，在第二场冲突中激励同胞，后来又定义了 第三场冲突。他清楚地知道他想要什么,那就是永久的、正式的军事同盟。事实上，应该是一个超越任何现有主权国家之间的联盟：

    女士们，先生们，现在不是泛泛空谈的时候，我要明确地谈谈。兄弟般的 联合不仅要求我们两个庞大的、有血缘关系的社会制度之间存在着日益增长的 友谊和相互谅解，而且要求双方军事顾问继续保持密切的联系，以便共同研究 潜在的危险，武器的异同，训练的教材，以及在军事院校互换军官和学员的问 题。它还应包括联合使用两国在世界各地掌握的所有海空基地，使现有的设施 继续用于共同安全的目的。这很可能会使得美国海军和空军的机动性翻倍，也 将极大地增强英国皇家军队的力量。如果能等到世界变得理性的那一天，这样 的联合无疑会节省大量财政支出。我们已经成功地共同开发过许多小岛，在不 远的未来，可能会有更多的岛屿交由我们共同照管。

    丘吉尔想要实现的，不只是一个盎格鲁——美利坚联盟。他明白，盎格鲁圈远比这两个核心国家大得多。

    美国已经和加拿大自治领签订了永久防卫协议，加拿大是英联邦和帝国最 忠诚的成员。这个协议比其他很多已经达成的正式联盟还要有效。这一原则应 该均等地及于整个英联邦。如此，也惟有如此，我们才能保全我们自己，才能为我们所珍视的崇高而纯粹的事业共同奋斗，而这些事业对任何人来说都不是坏事。

    他在演讲的结尾提出了一个今天几乎已被遗忘的愿望：“最终或许还将会出现——我认为这终将到来——两国共同公民身份的原则，不过 我们对这一点倒不妨顺势而为，这一势头我们很多人都早已清楚看到了。”

    如果这位伟人来到我们今天的时代，他会怎么想?他所呼吁的共同 防卫的基础设施在他两届任职期间已经建立起来，并且保留到今天。五 大盎格鲁圈核心成员国在军事技术领域(包括核技术)保持着密切的合作，其所发挥的效力是地球上任何单一国家不可比拟的。他们一起联合 实施了一个代号为“梯队”(Echelon) 的全球窃听计划，共享获取的各类 情报。这一计划的构想，源自1947年的UKUSA条约。我们不难想象，这个计划值得那个深沉的胸膛中发出一声好不惊讶的赞许。

    然而，在这位老领袖意料之外的，也许是印度。印度现已成为继美 国之后的英国的第二大投资国，印度经济正在稳步赶超英国。同时，它 也是核武国，在建设法治民主的基础上取得了多方面的成就。

    一旦这位老领袖不再觉得大惊小怪，他就会很快得出结论：印度也 是盎格鲁圈经济和观念结构中的一部分。他会承认印度达到了他所认为 的文明的基本标准，也就是有一套和平移交政府权力的机制，一个独立 于统治者意志的法律体系，以及一系列保护个人自由的财产权观念。

    印度也不该是惟一的让人惊诧的国度。他该四处转转，探头看看， 新加坡已经从一块充满蚊蝇瘴气的沼泽地变成了一个新兴的城市国家。 他也会对保留了权杖、马鬃假发和蓝紫色护照的加勒比国家的民主化进 程表示赞许，尤其会为南非的发展感到欣慰     尽管与那些南非布尔人 狱卒设想的不同，但南非如今也同样是英联邦的民主国家了。

    不过，有件事情也许会让他郁闷。那就是，他不得不去解释那存在 于英语民族历史上的自信为什么一点一点地在丧失。事实上，他也想知 道为什么他们现在这么急于抛弃那些曾经化解了法西斯主义并缔造了昔 日辉煌的遗产。然而，他终究还是一个乐观主义者，即使在所有可能性 都耗尽以后，他还会抛出一些俏皮话，说自己在做正确的事。

    因为我们没有绝望。我们拥有有创造力的、能自嘲的、奋发进取的 人民。我们需要做的，就是赶快回到那曾经创造出我们的模式中。埃德蒙 ·柏克在评价1775年美国革命时所用的词——“已做必要修正”,同样  适用于今天的盎格鲁圈。英国人的权利曾创造出了过去的一切，英国人 的权利也将创造出它能创造的一切。

    几乎就在埃德蒙 ·柏克发表那场著名演说的同时，在盎格鲁圈的另一端，一位年轻的波士顿医生约瑟夫·沃伦 (Joseph Warren, 就是他派 保罗 · 内维尔去报信)正在召集他的同胞为捍卫同样的原则而战。他说过的话流传过数个世纪：“你正在决定那些数百万尚未出生的人的幸福 和自由。行动吧!像一个真正的人。”

    此时此刻，当你读到这段文字，你也是这一优良传统的继承人。这一传统给了我们自由、财富和民主，让我们的民族屹立于繁荣富强的山 巅。行动吧!你是一个真正的人。

  • 雅各布·索尔《自由与干预》

    序言：利伯维尔场思想的新起源 
      第 一 章  西塞罗之梦 
      第 二 章  神圣经济 
      第 三 章  中世纪市场机制中的神 
      第 四 章  佛罗伦萨的财富与马基维利的市场 
      第 五 章  以国家为手段的英格兰自由贸易 
      第 六 章  荷兰共和国的自由与财富 
      第 七 章  尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝与国家市场 
      第 八 章  太阳王的噩梦和利伯维尔场的美梦 
      第 九 章  行星运动与英国自由贸易的新世界 
      第 十 章  英国与法国：贸易战、赤字与找到天堂的美梦 
      第十一章  法国的自然崇拜与启蒙经济学的发明 
      第十二章  利伯维尔场与自然 
      第十三章  亚当斯密和良性自由贸易社会 
      第十四章  利伯维尔场帝国 
      第十五章  美德的终结：自由主义与放任自由主义 
     结语：威权资本主义、民主和利伯维尔场思想 

    序言：利伯维尔场思想的新起源

    最令人恼火的发现，往往是那种揭露了思想谱系的发现。
    ──阿克顿勋爵，弗里德里希．海耶克（Friedrich Hayek）引用于《通往奴役之路》（The Road to Serfdom ），约一九四○年

    “利伯维尔场”或许是美国人最熟悉的经济学代名词了。至少自大萧条以来，这个词汇一直都是美国政治论述的标准用语，既用来赞美政策，也用来批评政策。利伯维尔场是一种与诸多强大的政治意识形态彼此交织的经济哲学，几乎已经成了一种罗夏克测验。在论及对于利伯维尔场的看法时，许多人会出现如同谈及其他个人信念时的强烈情绪反应。

    与此同时，每个人对利伯维尔场未必都抱持着相同的定义。法国理性主义经济学家里昂．瓦拉斯（Léon Walras，一八三四至一九一○）提出的著名论述认为，市场的运作处于“一般均衡”（general equilibrium），他指的是供给与需求的相互作用创造出一个平衡的、自适应的经济系统，能调节价格与利率，制造出稳定的货品流动，并在没有政府干预的状况下创造财富。在特定的脉络中，利伯维尔场可能代表特定类型的经济自由或经济特权：在自由贸易区支付较低关税的权利，甚或是进行受到允许的垄断。因此，利伯维尔场变成了低税收和政府只能对经济进行有限干涉的同义词。如今，在多数富裕工业化国家中，人们认为利伯维尔场经济是社会民主的基本元素，其他基本元素包括公共教育、交通、退休计划、公共卫生系统、监管机关、国家银行与思想的自由交流。不过话说回来，市场的自由与否往往是见仁见智的。1

    现代社会大众最熟悉的利伯维尔场定义，来自得到诺贝尔奖的经济学家米尔顿．傅利曼（Milton Friedman）的研究，他将利伯维尔场定义为经济活动中没有任何政府活动，或者更广泛地说，没有法律去干涉“人们追求幸福”。傅利曼最著名的其中一个观察评论是：“大多数反对利伯维尔场的论点背后，隐含的是对于自由本身缺乏信念。”利伯维尔场被视为所有经济成长的通用模式，其支持者认为利伯维尔场在任何时空皆有效。理想上来说，在傅利曼的总体系统中，市场响应着私人供需，由个人、公司和股东的意愿与选择所推动，无需任何政府干预。依据傅利曼的观点，像这样解放市场能确保商品有效率地生产与流通，也确保财富的创造并有利创新。2

    然而，在过去三十年来，事实证明了利伯维尔场并非无庸置疑，而比较像是个谜团。来自政治光谱各方的重要人士开始对正统的利伯维尔场信条抱持批判的态度，至少在政治修辞方面是如此。美国出现了惊人的逆转，如今共和党开始支持贸易关税，而英国保守党则带领英国离开了欧盟自由贸易区，并在过程中提高了税收与社会支出。如今在主张这个世界必须捍卫自由贸易、放宽对国际市场管制的，居然是中国专制共产党的领导人习近平。现在捍卫保护主义的成了美国，捍卫国际开放市场的却是中国，事情究竟是如何变成这样的？3

    要回答这个问题，我们需要探究利伯维尔场思想的悠久历史，利伯维尔场的意识形态在威权中国的兴起，绝非违反傅利曼观点的唯一例证。就让我们提出最简单的事实吧：傅利曼对美国的理想利伯维尔场愿景根本从未实现。自一九八○和九○年代以来，美国的中产阶级不断萎缩，同时中国的中产阶级兴起。虽然有些人可能会批判政府对市场有所干预，但美国的经济与商业利益确实靠着低利率、联邦货币政策与国家援助而成长：自二○○八年以来，美国政府曾两度为金融系统和各种企业纾困，方便且刻意地回避了正统利伯维尔场思想──这套学说显然不能解释为什么美国会出现周期性且毁灭性的市场失灵。4

    但是，且让我在此提醒读者，傅利曼可不是个简单的人物。他的正统利伯维尔场论述在多数领导企业的董事会中仍是主流，就连那些从美国政府手中赚进大量利润的公司也不例外──此外还有商学院，甚至是公立的商学院。至今美国商会（US Chamber of Commerce）仍奉傅利曼的正统学说为圭臬。因此，美国与其他自由经济的民主国家往往不会承认，我们和利伯维尔场思想在本质上是恐怖情人般的关系，我们以为利伯维尔场能创造财富与带来革新，但现实中却不断上演各种无止尽的循环：法规松绑、债务危机、破产、诈欺与市场崩溃，随之而来的是政府纾困、日益严重的垄断、财富不均与政治不稳定。于是，我们一次又一次地因为矛盾且自扯后腿的政策而回到原点。我们正步入关键新世纪，即将要面对各种经济挑战，为此我们必须去理解“利伯维尔场”这个词汇的意义、它的历史，它何时能顺利运作，以及何时无法。5

    如果傅利曼是利伯维尔场的拥护者最喜爱的儿子，那么十八世纪的苏格兰哲学家亚当斯密（Adam Smith）就是这个传统的父亲。然而，将亚当斯密视作傅利曼式放松管制、不受约束的利伯维尔场之拥护者，这样的现代概念并不完全准确。斯密的论述早已被错误理解、错误引用，脱离了他著述的十八世纪背景脉络并沦为陈腔滥调，但他的著作仍提供了宝贵的经验，让我们理解如何看待经济学。在斯密于一七七六年撰写《国富论》（The Wealth of Nations ）之前，从没有人把规模这么大又这么复杂的经济体与社会体，视为一个巨大的、自我调节的财富创造系统。不过，斯密也认为政府与其机构在市场中扮演了重要角色。在他看来，让市场以绝佳状态运作的状况，就是品德高尚的斯多噶领袖──他们通晓希腊与罗马哲学中透过自知与纪律追求幸福的理念──和富有的地主并肩合作，共同主导政治与市场，制定适当的指导、诱因与调查制度，维持经济体运行。

    斯密所生活的世界，与我们这个世界有着截然不同的社会观、哲学观与宗教观。那时帝国和商业正在扩张，是个有着奴隶制、君主立宪制、菁英议会制和地主寡头制的时代──要特别留意的是，他以热情的态度接纳了上述所有事物。作为一个修习哲学与历史的学生，斯密察觉到了大不列颠与罗马共和国及罗马帝国之间的相似之处，这就是他为什么如此着迷于公元前一世纪的罗马元老院议员暨哲学家马库斯．图利乌斯．西塞罗（Marcus Tullius Cicero）的著作。斯密是十八世纪的自然神论者──这并不代表他就是基督徒──他热切相信神是一名“建筑师”，在地球上设计出如发条机械般的自然系统；这个系统也与遵循牛顿万有引力定律的行星运动相互映照。虽然他认为没有任何政治家“应该指示人民（private people）要以何种方式应用他们的资本”，但他也希望人类的经济生活能反映出他眼中的和谐自然法则。要做到这一点，人（他指的是男人〔man〕）必须固守古老的斯多噶哲学与纪律。唯有如此，社会才能培植出优秀的政府与机构，使个人创造出良性财富。6

    斯密并不认为“贪婪是好的”。没有任何斯多噶学派的哲学家会这么认为。相反地，斯多噶主义的基础概念是透过道德纪律与公民责任来提升自我。斯密当时的使命就是去厘清，如何使商业社会及其固有的贪婪和一套道德系统相契合。商业社会的普通成员──“屠夫、酿酒师或烘焙师”──在日常生活中会受到单纯的利己动机所驱策。社会必须找到方法利用这种商业的利己动机，将之引导到共同利益上。斯密对无情的商业竞争充满警觉，担心这种竞争会削弱社会与国家，取而代之的，他认为受过道德陶冶、具有文化素养且公正无私的领导人才能引导社会走向和平且有效率的商业协作模式。

    斯密期望社会能朝着哲学与伦理的启蒙成长，反映出罗马共和的美德，但这样的愿景难以适应米尔顿．傅利曼那自由放任企业式的社会达尔文主义（social Darwinism），更不用说艾茵．兰德（Ayn Rand）在流行文化中描绘的经济学了；也就是只有最强大、竞争力最高的企业才能攀升到社会顶端。事实上，我们不该奇怪现代利伯维尔场思想家鲜少提到、甚或从不提到：斯密其实很仰慕罗马的元老院寡头制，他打从心底不信任贸易商、实业家和大企业，甚至本身就是一名政府官僚（他的职务正是税吏）。更有甚者，这位所谓的利伯维尔场之父是一位自豪而激进的博雅学科教师，靠着在大学里担任教授和管理职赚取薪水维生。请试着想象兰德在一九四三年出版的小说《源泉》（The Fountainhead ）中的主人翁，那位积极奋发且缺乏耐心的现代主义建筑师霍华德．洛克（Howard Roark），他能否容忍亚当斯密的种种想法：关于悠久传统、责任、耐心学习、温文儒雅的同理心和对税收感到自豪的想法。7

    西塞罗与斯密这些哲学家感兴趣的是打造出高教育程度、富有哲学思维和农业道德的社会，他们相信国家对市场自由来说是必要的。那么，我们究竟是如何从这类寡头市场建构者发展出像傅利曼这种自由主义的亲商提倡者呢？而现代利伯维尔场思想又是如何演变成一种严格的非此即彼哲学，把国家对经济的任何参与，都视为一种对财富创造与自由的生存威胁？本书的目的正是回答这些问题。

    矛盾的是，解开利伯维尔场之谜的关键人物早在亚当斯密出生前四十年就已经过世了，他长久以来被经济学家视为站在斯密的对立面：法国国王路易十四的著名内政大臣尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝（Jean-Baptiste Colbert），柯尔贝打从一六五○年代中期开始监督法国经济，直至一六八三年离世为止。法国皇家与公共财政的组织方式与管理良好、标准化的度量衡系统，以及法国道路、港口与运河的商业流通系统建造，全都要归功于柯尔贝。他一手创建了巴黎警察与工业检验单位，以至法国工业、法国海军与凡尔赛宫。他同时也是国家研究的主任，设立了皇家图书馆与档案馆，以及法国皇家科学院（French Royal Academy of Sciences）。柯尔贝认为这些努力对于一个能够顺利运作的流动市场来说是必要的，他是那个时代最成功的大规模市场建造者，使用关税、补贴、国家垄断与政治压迫来达成各种目标。

    柯尔贝用国家的强硬手段介入市场建设，其最主要的目标是推动法国商业发展到足以和英格兰商业自由竞争。他相信他所谓的“商业自由”（liberty of commerce）源自于相互对称的市场与平衡的贸易条约。柯尔贝将国际贸易视为零和游戏，认为黄金和财富是有限的，同时他也确信把焦点放在商业与工业的社会能在经济上获得最大的成功。在他初掌权时，法国主要还是农业国家。他以推动经济发展为使命，比起农业更偏爱工业、创新与贸易；他相信这些事物能铺设一条道路，通往更自由、更顺畅的经济循环，使法国变成富裕且辉煌的国度。

    柯尔贝引起了亚当斯密的兴趣。斯密在《国富论》中创造了“重商制度”（mercantile system）这个词汇，用以描绘柯尔贝重视贸易与工业胜过农业。斯密并非全盘反对柯尔贝，他不同意柯尔贝的某些关键观点，主要是因为：在他看来，这位法国内政大臣采用的手段会造成经济退步──柯尔贝在聚焦于贸易与工业的过程中显然误解了“农业是所有国家财富之源”这句古训。斯密相信柯尔贝已经沦为“商人诡辩”的猎物，认为柯尔贝制定了太多压制型的贸易法规，而且“不幸的是”，他“采纳了所有重商制度的偏见”。斯密认为，单靠商业本身是无法创造出财富的，商业无视于自然的力量与农业美德，同时还会允许商人──这是斯密最嫌恶的一种人──控制政策并创造出种种垄断。政府的任务是帮助农业支配商业，使贸易能根据自然法则，自由地运作。8

    柯尔贝与斯密并非彼此对立，他们只是各自代表了截然不同又相互牵涉的利伯维尔场历史流派。不过，随着时间推移，斯密对柯尔贝的批判在放任主义的经济学家与历史学家的心中不断放大，巩固了此一迷思：柯尔贝与其支持“国家主导之工业市场建设”的一派，必定是利伯维尔场的敌人。斯密提出的重商制度概念逐渐演化──并且完全脱离了脉络──转变成现代所谓的重商主义 （mercantilism）。这是个过度简化且笼统的经济词汇，被用来指称早期的现代经济思想家支持干预主义、征税、补贴，和目标只是为了囤积黄金的好战国家。一九三一年，瑞典经济史学家以利．赫克歇尔（Eli Heckscher）在他的重量级研究《重商主义》（Mercantilism ）中，把柯尔贝的“重商”经济学和单纯的放任主义制度进行对比，后者允许个人自由和商业自由不受国家干预，赫克歇尔认为斯密体现的正是放任主义制度。在这之后，这套简单却强大的二分法维持了下来，形塑了我们如今对利伯维尔场的观点。在傅利曼的著作中，我们仍能看见这种二分法。9

    然而，在市场哲学的漫长历史中，多数时候基础经济思想家都认为，要创造自由、公平交易的环境条件，国家是必要元素之一。斯密的学派清楚阐述了利伯维尔场思想的潮流，一路追溯至西塞罗与封建制度传统，当时的人认为农产品是所有财富的根源，农产品与自然的亲近关系使之具有一种先天的道德优越性。为了维持稳定生产与他们所认为的自然界平衡，地主必须控制政府，确保农业不被征税也不受法规管制。但这并不代表无政府主义。这只是代表，为了让农业能主导社会并推动经济发展，政府必须积极放宽农业方面的限制。

    至于利伯维尔场思想的另一个传统，则把能量聚焦在创新、贸易与工业上；这个传统如今被我们错误地称之为重商主义。从佛罗伦萨的哲学家尼科洛．马基维利（Niccolò Machiavelli）到尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝和亚历山大．汉米尔顿（Alexander Hamilton），此派拥护者支持一个不假辞色的强大政府，来扶植创新与工业发展，他们认为如此能创造出健康的国内市场，同时使国家获得国际竞争力。根据这些崇尚工业的经济思想家所述，经济自由对于财富创造来说是必不可少的，而这种经济自由不代表自给自足，也未必是以农业为基础；正好相反，此种经济自由需要重视工业的政府帮忙规划与培植。

    各个利伯维尔场模型的相互关系在十九世纪出现变化，此时英国成为了无庸置疑的世界经济主宰，英国的利伯维尔场思想家终究全心接纳了工业的潜力与一般均衡理论。当时的自由派经济学家想当然耳地认为，如果市场自由了，那么大英帝国这些勤奋节俭的基督徒就会继续带来创新、财富与各邦国之间的和平。接着，到了二十世纪，随着一些经济学家愈来愈确信市场具有自我调节的能力，他们试图把利伯维尔场定义为：政府只能扮演最基本的角色，此外什么都不做。他们坚称只要允许供给与需求在没有干涉的状况下运作，市场系统──以及社会──就会神奇地靠自己维持下去。可惜啊！如今我们已经学到教训，市场系统与社会是无法自行维持下去的。

    为了帮助我们了解古代对自然与农业的信仰如何渐渐地演进成现代的自由工业市场理论，我在本书阐述的主题将会超越对经济理论本身的研究，援引各种数据源，从国家数据库到私人信件，以及有关道德、自然科学、宗教、文学与政治的书籍。有些数据对于了解经济史与哲学的读者来说应该十分熟悉，有些可能比较陌生，甚至是看起来不该出现在此。但若想明白为什么经济领域一直以来都缺乏透明度或共识，我们就必须领略这些彼此相异的元素──从西塞罗的古典伦理学、佛罗伦萨商人的指导手册与资产负债表、法国政府官员的国家文件与内部备忘录，到公爵与大主教的彬彬有礼的信函。

    这一切的目标是让我们看见，在理解经济学的过程中，光是仰赖方程式与数据库来构思理论是不够的。我们必须挖掘那些已深深根植在现代思维习惯中，以至于无人深究的历史假设与古老信仰体系。如今事实不断证明，市场与社会的复杂性是无法透过一般均衡理论来解释的，正统的利伯维尔场思想已落入了防守的位置。但正如我在本书表明的，利伯维尔场思想的伟大先驱们始终都很清楚，任何交易系统都没办法独立于真实的、堕落的、充满瑕疵的人类之外去讨论，是人类维持着这些系统，并在其中运作着。

    说到底，利伯维尔场是无法将人类从自身之中解放出来的。若要蓬勃发展，利伯维尔场就需要许多劳动、许多关注与许多谨慎的道德判断，就像所有其他人类事业一样。最神奇的是，尽管遭遇了这么多次失败，经济学家、哲学家、政治家和其他人们仍紧抓着“经济能百分之百自我调节”的梦想不放，每当他们发现事情并非如此，都会表现出无比的震惊。但是话说回来，我们确实很难去放弃一个如此吸引人又如此历史悠长的理念，这个理念发展自马库斯．图利乌斯．西塞罗（公元前一○六年至四三年）的哲学体系，他是罗马传统中最具影响力的思想家，而他的作品成为此后近两千年的经济思想核心。

    1. Léon Walras, Elements of Pure Economics; or, the Theory of Social Wealth , trans. William Jaffe (London: Routledge, 1954), 153–155; Bernard Cornet, “Equilibrium Theory and Increasing Returns,” Journal of Mathematical Economics 17 (1988): 103–118; Knud Haakonssen, Natural Law and Moral Philosophy: From Grotius to the Scottish Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996), 25–30. 

    2. Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom , 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 15; Milton Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement , 3rd ed. (New York: Harcourt, 1990), 20, 145. 

    3. Anat Admati, “Anat Admati on Milton Friedman and Justice,” Insights by Stanford Business, October 5, 2020, www.gsb.stanford.edu/insights/anat-admati-milton-friedman-justice ; Diane Coyle, Markets, State, and People: Economics for Public Policy (Princeton, NJ: Prince ton University Press, 2020), 98–101; Rebecca Henderson, Reimagining Capitalism in a World on Fire (New York: Public Affairs, 2020), 19, 67; Bonnie Kristian, “Republicans More Likely Than Democrats to Say the Free Market Is Bad for America,” Foundation for Economic Education, December 9, 2016, https://fee.org/articles/republicans-more-likely-than-democrats-to-say-the-free-market-is-bad-for-america ; Jonah Goldberg, “Will the Right Defend Economic Liberty?” National Review , May 2, 2019; Martin Wolf, “Why Rigged Capitalism Is Damaging Liberal Democracy,” Financial Times , September 17, 2019, www.ft.com/content/5a8ab27e-d470-11e9-8367-807ebd53ab77 ; Ben Riley-Smith, “The Drinks Are on Me, Declares Rishi Sunak in Budget Spending Spree,” The Telegraph , October 27, 2021; Inu Manak, “Are Republicans Still the Party of Free Trade?,” Cato Institute, May 16, 2019, www.cato.org/blog/are-republicans-still-party-free-trade ; Aritz Parra, “China’s Xi Defends Free Markets as Key to World Prosperity,” Associated Press, November 28, 2018. 

    4. Erik S. Reinert, How Rich Countries Got Rich, and Why Poor Countries Stay Poor (London: Public Affairs, 2007); Ciara Linnane, “China’s Middle Class Is Now Bigger Than America’s Middle Class,” MarketWatch, October 17, 2015, www.marketwatch.com/story/chinese-middle-class-is-now-bigger-than-the-us-middle-class-2015-10-15 ; Javier C. Hernández and Quoctrung Bui, “The American Dream Is Alive. In China,” New York Times , November 8, 2018; Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957), 267–268; Fred Block and Margaret R. Somers, The Power of Market Fundamentalism: Karl Polanyi’s Critique (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 2; David Sainsbury, Windows of Opportunity: How Nations Create Wealth (London: Profile Books, 2020). 

    5. Martin Wolf, “Milton Friedman Was Wrong on the Corporation,” Financial Times , December 8, 2020, www.ft.com/content/e969a756-922e-497b-8550-94bfb1302cdd . 

    6. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations , ed. Roy Harold Campbell and Andrew Skinner, 2 vols. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), vol. 1, bk. IV, chap. ii, para. 10; William J. Barber, A History of Economic Thought (London: Penguin, 1967), 17; Lars Magnusson, The Tradition of Free Trade (London: Routledge, 2004), 16. 

    7. Joseph A. Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis (London: Allen and Unwin, 1954), 185. 

    8. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. ix, para. 3. 

    9. D. C. Coleman, ed. , Revisions in Mercantilism (London: Methuen, 1969), 91–117, at 97; William Letwin, The Origins of Scientific Economics: English Economic Thought, 1660–1776 (London: Methuen, 1963), 43; Lars Magnusson, Mercantilism: The Shaping of an Economic Language (London: Routledge, 1994); Philip J. Stern, The Company State: Corporate Sovereignty and Early Modern Foundations of the British Empire in India (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011), 5–6; Rupali Mishra, A Business of State: Commerce, Politics, and the Birth of the East India Company (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018); Philip J. Stern and Carl Wennerlind, eds. , Mercantilism Reimagined: Political Economy in Early Modern Britain and Its Empire (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 6; Schumpeter, History of Economic Analysis, 94; Eli F. Heckscher, Mercantilism , trans. Mendel Shapiro, 2 vols. (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1935); Steve Pincus, “Rethinking Mercantilism: Political Economy, the British Empire, and the Atlantic World in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” William and Mary Quarterly 69, no. 1 (2012): 3–34. 

    第一章 西塞罗之梦

    由于大自然更加安稳，也更加坚固，所以当财富与大自然发生冲突时，简直就像凡人与女神之间的战斗。 ──西塞罗，《论责任》（On Duties ），公元前四四年

    若要了解利伯维尔场思想的起源，我们首先得理解西塞罗的哲学观点，其提供了以下概念：透过贵族的农业行为、道德行为与政治运作，人类得以把自然转变成无穷无尽且能够自我延续的财富之源。西塞罗的作品往往会让人觉得罗马共和国已实现了均衡状态，带来了好几个世纪的和平与繁盛。他理想中的罗马此后成为利伯维尔场思想家的灵感泉源，一直到十九世纪都是如此。

    事实上，在西塞罗的时代，罗马共和国正在崩溃。身为公元前一世纪的贵族罗马元老院议员，他其实是在捍卫着旧秩序。他对于商人渴望利润的贪婪心态感到惊恐万分，也恐惧那些潜在暴君的野心──例如在公元前四九年成为独裁者的尤利乌斯．西泽（Julius Caesar）。西塞罗认为，理想的市场交易是一种制造财富的杠杆，并且在安然以农为生、遵从共和国法律的贵族之间进行。他在政治与写作生涯中发展出了一套理论，认为罗马共和国的领导人们若能遵循斯多噶派的道德标准，并为国家提供无私的服务，他们便能效法稳定的自然法则，维持着一个自我延续的财富系统。

    不过，西塞罗的经济愿景实与“自然”相差甚远。他的愿景反映的是当时建立近五百年的罗马共和国之价值观，共和国中的古老菁英家族自从罗慕路斯（Romulus，传说中他于公元前七五三年建立了罗马）时代以来，就靠着其资产带来的大量财富生活。我们可以在西塞罗的著作中看到，经济学与其产生的特定历史、文化与物质条件从来都是密不可分。他确信贸易应该要支持罗马的统治阶级──这是一种哲学观点，或者更确切的说，是一种政治理念，非但适用于不同种类的菁英阶层，更一直留传到蒸气机时代。甚至到了今日，我们仍能在现代利伯维尔场思想中看见这种理念。

    历史学家并未把西塞罗视为理解现代经济思想起源的关键。然而，西塞罗确实是第一个主张人类道德与感受会推动市场自主运作，并创造出经济均衡的人。在他看来，受过教育的地主之间建立的友谊不但创造出信任，也创造出理想市场环境条件的哲学基础。西塞罗出生在罗马东南方八十英里外拉吉欧区（Lazio）的阿皮诺市（Arpinum），家里务农，他那丝毫不光鲜亮丽的名字清楚地说明了这一点──西塞罗的意思是“鹰嘴豆”。他的家族属于罗马骑士阶级 （equites），一群在公元前二世纪声名鹊起的低阶贵族。他们的地位低于元老院阶级，著名特点是象征性地捐赠马匹来代替骑兵兵役。虽然他们往往从事公共财政、收税或放贷等业务，但骑士阶级的首要身分仍是土地拥有者和农民。身为一个向上攀升的新人 （novus homo），一个刚得到贵族地位没多久的人，西塞罗透过家族建立了强大的关系网络，帮助他在政治界崛起。但是，即便在西塞罗获得了元老院议员的席位之后，甚至是在他当选了共和国的最高职位──执政官之后，他仍背负着一定程度的社会污名。矛盾的是（又或许一点也不矛盾），西塞罗的作品在欧洲传统中定义了贵族伦理，但他自己却永远都不会是真正的贵族。但无论如何，他已攀升至罗马体制的顶峰，现在他则要努力保护这个体制。

    公元前一世纪，罗马帝国的人口超过了四千万人，罗马城本身就有一百多万名居民。帝国内只有五百万居民享有完整的公民特权，能拿到免费的面包，享有法律权利与公民权利。奴隶占了百分之十的人口，其余的罗马非公民人口则是由下层阶级组成。人口中的最顶层是统治阶级，仅有大约七百多个元老院家族和三万名罗马骑士。因此，罗马菁英之间的关系紧密，熟知彼此的家族历史。他们共享易于识别的服装样式与相似的教育，围绕着亲属关系与主顾网络组织起来。他们交易商品、互相贷款并从彼此手上购买资产。到了西塞罗的时代，罗马已经建立起一个持续运作了数个世纪的封闭市场，因而获得了一种永恒不变的自然秩序表象。1

    西塞罗在罗马元老院的权力范围中成长，从小就对政治、法律与哲学耳濡目染。他的家族不仅和罗马最伟大的学者来往，更和手握大权的政治家打交道。西塞罗的老师来自声名显赫的斯凯沃拉家族（Scaevola）与克拉苏家族（Crassus），这两个家族是捍卫元老院制度与文化的保守知识分子。他们支持祖宗成法 （mos maiorum ），其内容为罗马农业生活的习俗与常规，包括了罗马人认为农业生活所代表的自然法则与社会阶级制度。这两个家族厌恶任何变化，拥护古罗马宪法。理想上来说，共和国应透过人民大会（popular assemblies）运作，其中包括了被选入平民院（Plebian Council）的平民；论理他们应该要和元老院以及管理行政人员的执政官密切合作。然而在现实状况下，共和国早已僵化成寡头制度，元老院大权独揽，而不择手段的独裁者则希望能掌控元老院本身。尽管如此，西塞罗心中怀着一种强烈的意识，觉得捍卫元老院阶级、共和政体与良性市场社会，也就等于捍卫了罗马的自然秩序概念。2

    这种身分认同的中心是对于自然与农业的理解，而西塞罗也慎重其事地借鉴了一长串农业思想家的观点。对于他的愿景来说，不可缺少的人物是老加图（Cato the Elder），一名极端保守派的军人、史学家暨罗马父权制的捍卫者，他在公元前一六○年的著作《论农业》（On Farming ）中阐述道，贵族财产依靠的是良好的农业管理。对于了解农耕的人来说，大自然的每一丝恩赐都与共和体制一样安定稳固。对于创新与贸易，老加图直接表达了鄙视。只有大规模的土地拥有制才是真正“良好”的，才能培养出具有道德良知的公民与士兵。3

    在西塞罗的时代，罗马的多数人口都艰苦劳动，这就是他们的生活，人们并未就此事提出太多想法。虽然在罗马社会中也有商人与仆役阶级，但绝大部分人口都从事体力劳动，有些是奴隶，其他则是工资微薄的自由人。西塞罗对于这些人毫无兴趣。在大自然的设计中，辛苦的劳动是命定的。农民注定会是农民，奴隶注定会是奴隶。他坚定地认为，所有人都“必须被要求工作”，并且必须获得“他们应得的报酬”，就只是这样罢了。只有贵族的地位高于这种苦工。他并不是因为身为地产拥有者，才获得贵族这个自然地位；菁英的地位本就是自然状态的一部分。因此，西塞罗和相同阶级者都很嫌恶土地税。他们拥有这些土地，也拥有土地上的劳动力。那么，对大自然的恩赐征税无疑是一种暴政的象征。土地拥有者的唯一工作，就是榨取奴隶与劳工的劳动力，以达到基本的作物产出，为那些有权拥有财富的人创造财富。4

    凭借着与大自然的密切关系，并且为了延续贵族社会，地主阶级的成员自认有责任去研究他们所谓的大自然神圣法则。西塞罗在《论共和国》（On the Republic ，公元前五四至五一年）中指出，在“最好的人”用“合度的方式”进行统治时，就能透过和平与繁荣使“公民们享受到最大程度的幸福”。富裕的贵族阶级因为没有“任何烦恼或担忧”的负荷，能够专注于以纯粹的美德为基础来运作政府。西塞罗对于“最好的人”的概念，立基于自然并非平等地创造出每一个人类。而如果自然在创造人类时有所区别，那么人类也应该要效仿自然的区别。真正的政治自由与经济自由本就只属于少数地主。5

    在西塞罗的世界观里，贵族“对财富淡然置之”。他们会自然而然地鄙视那些专业的放贷业者与市场上的小贩。他声称自己厌恶贪婪，也憎恨为了赚钱而赚钱，认为商业价值必然会带来道德方面的堕落，把商人的拉丁文“mercator”视为侮辱性的词汇。西塞罗认为，理想的市场会引导人们将共同财产用于共同利益，与此同时，又会保护私有财产。他解释道，根据斯多噶学派所述，“地球创造出来的一切事物，都是为了供人类所用而创造的。”这样的看法衍生出了自我延续的自由交易之概念。同样道理，道德与哲学方面的理论也会引导人们透过辩论与善行，去为共同利益做出贡献，如此才能“巩固人类社会，使人与人更加团结”。西塞罗认为，如果私有财产的交易始于理念的交流，那么一旦这些理念被表达出来了，就应该属于所有人，应该共享于对真理的共同追求，以及为国家提供服务的崇高目标。智识的交流应该遵循这句希腊谚语：“在朋友之间，所有事物都是共享的。”具有品德的哲学性交流有利于罗马共和国及其领导人的“共同利益”。6

    在西塞罗的体系中，责任义务（duty）是至关重要的。其代表的是一个“良善之人”在一种公民宗教（civic religion）的框架中对国家提供的服务。然而，即使每个人对“其他公民同胞与所有人类”都负有责任，但西塞罗提出警告，单凭一个人不可能帮助“无限多”的贫困者。一个人应该要把自己的绝大部分资源保留给亲友。西塞罗认为，这种以“友谊”与“仁慈”的“共同连结”作为基础的封闭菁英市场，能“维护正义”并保卫财富与社会。他接着进一步将真实、亲近的友谊描述成“为繁荣添加了更明亮的光芒”，因为此种友谊能“透过分担与分享减轻逆境带来的负荷”。长存的财富并非来自贪婪，也不是来自从他人身上获利，而是来自“善意”的共同连结。真正“支撑家业，使田地得以耕作”的正是这种诚实的情感。7

    如上所示，在斯密写下利伯维尔场概念的一千八百年前，西塞罗就针对思考模式相似的统治阶级成员，提出了一个在道德方面十分完善的自由商业交易制度。这种正派交易所产生的链接，以决定性的方式保护着社会，以避免那些不自然、不正派、若缺乏此种保护则可能发生的状况。西塞罗指出：“若一个人从邻居那里拿取了东西，靠着邻居的损失赚取利益，他的行为比死亡或贫困还要更加违反自然。”交易必须是自给自足的，否则就会导致“掠夺”。若想维护一个和谐且富有的社会，就必须遵守高道德标准的原则──也就是在交易的过程中维持“礼仪、公正与慷慨”。8

    于是罗马贵族透过他们对国家的奉献达成这点，他们经由广大的小麦分配系统（annona civica）捐献面包给公民，这个系统是经济体制的支柱。罗马帝国的船队把小麦分送至地中海彼岸，当时罗马人将地中海称作“我们的海”（mare nostrum）。若说罗马是身体的话，地中海就像是身体里的器官──博物学家暨军事领袖老普林尼（Pliny the Elder）在他的著作《自然史》（Natural History ）中，把地中海称作“肠海”（mare intestinum），因为地中海促进了罗马经济的自由流动。如此一来，财富──首先便是地主阶级的小麦收获──就会根据自我调节的自然法则，在罗马帝国中自然而然地流动。在看似永恒不坠的国家与元老院阶级的协助下，罗马透过四季的无形之手制造出商品并养活自己。罗马资助的不只有意大利与北非之间的交易与船运航道，也扩及了伊比利亚、希腊、安纳托利亚（Anatolia）与黑海。各种商品在幅员辽阔的罗马贸易区中自由地流通。9

    如果说西塞罗在罗马攀升到权力顶峰是一件令人惊叹的事，那么他的逝世就更加戏剧化了，他的死亡肇因于他对罗马宪法、前述的良性交易规则，以及私有财产与自由贸易基本原则的捍卫。公元前六三年，年仅四十二岁的西塞罗成为了罗马的两位执政官之一，这是罗马政府最高阶的职位了。在他担任罗马执政官的期间发生了暴力叛乱，他很快就陷入和元老院议员喀提林（Catiline）之间的冲突，喀提林当时正在竞选执政官，他的改革主义聚焦在免除穷人债务与分配土地。西塞罗蔑视所有行事不符合贵族精神的人民改革家。他觉得提供土地给穷人不但破坏了市场规则，更破坏了现有的秩序本身。因此，西塞罗在元老院中，当着喀提林的面发表了那名留青史的演说。他花了好几天的时间痛斥喀提林目无法纪，也谴责喀提林的朋友亏欠债务，并质疑喀提林救济穷人的动机。最后，西塞罗成功要求当局处决了喀提林的几个同谋者。当西塞罗高呼：“喔，时代！喔，习俗！”（O tempora, o mores!）时，指的是喀提林对法律的彻底漠视，与他在金融上的腐败和贪婪。同时，西塞罗也是在捍卫他眼中的自然道德经济秩序。10

    我们可以从西塞罗捍卫现状的戏剧化行为了解到，他如何把荣誉看作市场的必要条件。贿赂和诈欺不只是“不公正”的行为，更是一种“虚伪”。举例来说，西塞罗在公元前六三年通过了一项禁止用选票换取好处的法律，名为《图利亚贿选法》（Lex Tullia de ambitu ）。我们必须在此指出，包括尤利乌斯．西泽在内的许多人都认为西塞罗本身也贪污，更多人相信他不过是善于营造自我形象──我们确实无法否定这一点。但西塞罗与西泽不同，他捍卫了严格的元老院法律，也从未试图推翻宪法。11

    公元前四九年，尤利乌斯．西泽开始对罗马共和国行使终身独裁权。接着，在公元前四四年的三月十五日──也就是著名的日子“三月中”（Ides of March）──马库斯．尤尼乌斯．布鲁图斯（Marcus Junius Brutus）带领一群共和派的元老院议员暗杀了西泽。西塞罗本人没有参与暗杀行动，但他如今也希望能引导元老院回到共和政府。在罗马共和国殒落及罗马帝国崛起的暴力动荡中，西塞罗在命运处于最低谷的时刻写下他最为永垂不朽的著作《论责任》（公元前四四年）。他声称这本充满哲学性建议的著作是写给儿子的，但后来《论责任》变成了西方传统中影响力最广泛的书籍之一，也成了利伯维尔场思想的蓝图。12

    西塞罗在《论责任》中描述的经济愿景，是靠着友谊与对知识的追求带来和谐与和平、财产安全，并创造出一个以政治奉献、情感、仁慈与自由为基础的公正社会。换句话说，好的道德标准能推动健康的市场，使具有伦理良知的人们能放心地进行交易。信任是自由贸易所需的机制。这样的贸易过程要存续下去，西塞罗理想中的庄重和斯多噶式的自律在其中扮演着核心角色。我们可以看到这些理念后来如何吸引了基督徒，并在更之后吸引了十八世纪的启蒙运动哲学家──他们都追求着关于贸易的道德典范。13

    《论责任》有修养又温和的正直态度，可说是西塞罗在目睹了罗马社会的猖獗暴力后做出的响应，他也时常在信件中提及这个部分。他在书中不只谴责了西泽非法的独裁野心所追求的大目标，也痛斥了更加普遍的贪婪倾向。西塞罗在此画下了一条道德界线，斥责狮子的野蛮力量是“身为人类不该拥有的”，也指出狐狸的“欺瞒”是“更加卑劣的”。他告诉读者，这种对权力与财富的兽性追求绝不能被允许，因为这种追求“永无餍足”。菁英在面对独裁的背德行为时不能屈服，而须保持自律，遵从宪法。14

    在经济活动中，责任不仅必须重于贪婪，也必须重于享乐。西塞罗无法接受以利己或欲望来驱动经济的互动，亦无法接受希腊伊比鸠鲁学派的哲学家所提出的：生命的所有都围绕着对享乐的追求打转。他反对生命是逃避痛苦与寻找享乐的一种追求，抨击这种思维模式是无可救药的过度简化，并指出那些被视为痛苦的事物最终可能会带来快乐，正如同放弃享乐可能有助于避免痛苦。责任、学习与友谊无疑是更优越的目标，再者，亦有助于打造自由交易所需的信任基石。15

    西塞罗在他的著作《学院思想》（Academica ，公元前四五年）中，将“首要之善”（chief good）定义为人类去学习理解自然。与其追求享乐，透过怀疑主义式的哲学来追求真理才能为人类“增添面对死亡的勇气”，并提供“心灵的平静，因为它能消除对于自然奥秘的所有无知”。学习的美德会创造出纪律与信任，使人类得以超越庸俗的利己心态。举例来说，在研究希腊的物理学理论时，西塞罗冀望能了解宇宙的自我调节系统，他在《论共和国》的最后一章中提出相关讨论，该章节就是著名的“史奇皮欧之梦”（The Dream of Scipio）。他在寻找“永恒运动”的“第一因”时，认为最基础的市场原则是爱，而非贪婪。具有品德的交易是这些神圣机制的一部分，若能充分发挥作用，则能产出稳定、可靠的财富。16

    西塞罗梦想的是一个充满了学习、情感与自由交易的世界，这个世界是自然的、能自我调节且高尚的，然而这个梦想却和他周遭的真实世界产生碰撞，制造出不和谐的音符。在争夺至高帝国权力的斗争中，占据主导地位的罗马公民毫不掩饰地抛弃了过去的元老院传统与先例。公元前一世纪，罗马受到持续不断的内战所摧残，这场内战的终结是西塞罗的光荣时刻，但同时招致了他可怕的死亡──他身处在强大的马克．安东尼将军（Marc Antony）和屋大维（Octavian，也就是未来的奥古斯都大帝〔Augustus〕）的权力争夺战之中。

    正是在这场悲剧性斗争的混乱中，西塞罗针对马克．安东尼发表了他著名的演说《反腓力辞》（The Philippics ），抨击了包括不道德交易等诸多事物。他在元老院内语带讽刺地责备安东尼违背了共和国法律，嘲笑他目无法纪又行事草率，不但贪污还做了假帐。他质问安东尼：“你在三月十五日还积欠四千万罗马币（sestertius），怎么会在四月一日之前这些债款就全部消失了？”17

    最奇特的是，在正在解体的共和体制中，西塞罗竟然认为他当着所有贪腐人士的面公开发表这种攻击言论之后，还可能存活下来。或许他相信自己有屋大维的支持，胆子就大了起来。然而，这位未来罗马皇帝的首要目标是确保自己能获得皇权。当他和安东尼协商要除掉哪些敌人时，两人在致命的政治条件互换中交易了名字，安东尼坚持要处决西塞罗，屋大维最后屈服并背叛了西塞罗。这大概不是西塞罗的愿景中会出现的那种交易。但是，西塞罗已经没有其他位高权重的盟友，他只能孤身一人捍卫已经死去的罗马共和。

    西塞罗听闻这项判决后，逃到了位于乡间的一处宅邸，希望能在那里准备好光荣赴死。当士兵到来时，他请求他们干净利落地一刀斩断他的脖子。最后士兵却斩了三次才成功。除了砍下这名命运悲惨的哲学家的头颅之外，一名士兵还砍掉了他的一只手。彼时马克．安东尼的举动完全符合西塞罗生前所犀利指控的残暴粗俗形象，他下令把西塞罗的头和手钉在集会广场的主要讲台（rostra）上，面对着元老院。这就是罗马最伟大的雄辩家暨共和政体捍卫者最后遗留的东西，一个将在未来数千年回荡不止的象征。西塞罗的出现比拿撒勒的耶稣（Jesus of Nazareth）还更早，作为一个世俗的共和主义殉道者，他的政治与经济美德理念被赋予了一种接近基督教式的悲怆，也使得西塞罗成为了西方历史上最重要的人物之一。他实现了自己的理想，与暴政和贪腐交易的背德行为战斗。他试图维护自然秩序与经济道德，揭示了一条通往财富的有德之路。

    西塞罗如此预示了亚当斯密后来提出的市场思想之核心原则：如果受过教育的菁英阶层能聚焦在农业上，用公正且符合伦理的方式交易商品，那么市场就能自行运作，制造出财富，共和政体也会兴盛发展。而随着基督教在西欧占据优势，这种均衡模型也成为经济哲学中最历久不衰的概念架构之一。基督徒用天堂的救赎取代了世俗的公民政治，作为社会的终极目标，而上帝也将会进入交易系统中。

    1. Titus Livy, History of Rome , trans. John C. Yardley, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2017), bk. 1, chap. 8. For an online version of Livy edited by Rev. Canon Roberts, see the Perseus Digital Library, Tufts University, gen. ed. Gregory R. Crane, www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=urn:cts:latinLit:phi0914.phi0011.perseus-eng3:pr . 

    2. Livy, History of Rome , bk. 23, chap. 24; bk. 1, chap. 35; Ronald Syme, The Roman Revolution , rev. ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2002), 15. 

    3. Cato, On Agriculture , in Cato and Varro: On Agriculture , trans. W. D. Hooper and H. B. Ash, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1935), bk. 1, paras. 1–2. 

    4. Cicero, De officiis , trans. Walter Miller, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), bk. 1, sec. 13, para. 41. 

    5. Cicero, On the Republic , in Cicero, On the Republic, On the Laws , trans. Clinton W. Keyes, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1928), bk. 1, sec. 34, paras. 52–53; bk. 1, sec. 5, para. 19; bk. 1, sec. 8–9, para. 24. 

    6. Dan Hanchey, “Cicero, Exchange, and the Epicureans,” Phoenix 67, no. 1–2 (2013): 119–134, at 129; Wood, Cicero’s Social and Political Thought , 55, 81–82, 112; Cicero, De officiis , bk. 3, sec. 6, para. 30; bk. 1, sec. 7, para. 22. 

    7. Cicero, On Ends , trans. H. Rackham, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1914), bk. 2, sec. 26, para. 83; Hanchey, “Cicero, Exchange,” 23; Cicero, De officiis , bk. 1, sec. 13, para. 41; bk. 1, sec. 16, para. 50; bk. 1, sec. 17, paras. 53–54; Cicero, De amicitia , in On Old Age, On Friendship, On Divination, trans. W. A. Falconer, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1923), sec. 6, para. 22; sec. 7, paras. 23–24; sec. 7, paras. 23–24; sec. 14, paras. 50–52. 

    8. Cicero, De officiis , bk. 14, sec. 5, paras. 21–22; bk. 3, sec. 5, para. 23. 

    9. Caesar, The Gallic War , trans. H. J. Edwards, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1917), bk. 5, para. 1. 另见 “Internum Mare,” in William Smith, Dictionary of Greek and Roman Geography , 2 vols. (London: Walton and Maberly, 1856), 1:1084; Peter Brown, Through the Eye of the Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 69; Pliny, Natural History , trans. H. Rackham, 37 vols. , Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1942), bk. 3. 

    10. Wood, Cicero’s Social and Political Thought , 48; Cicero, In Catilinam, in Cicero, Orations: In Catilinam, I–IV, Pro Murena, Pro Sulla, Pro Flacco , trans. C. Macdonald, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977), bk. 2, para. 21. 

    11. Cicero, De officiis , bk. 1, sec. 13, para. 47; Hanchey, “Cicero, Exchange,” 129; Brown, Through the Eye of the Needle , 253. 

    12. A. E. Douglas, “Cicero the Philosopher,” in Cicero , ed. T. A. Dorey (New York: Basic Books, 1965), 135–171. 

    13. Douglas, “Cicero the Philosopher. ” 

    14. Cicero, De officiis , bk. 1, sec. 13, para. 41; bk. 1, sec. 7, para. 27. 

    15. Cicero, On Ends , bk. 1, sec. 9, para. 30; bk. 1, sec. 10, paras. 32–33. 

    16. Cicero, On Ends , bk. 1, sec. 19, para. 69; Cicero, On the Republic , bk. 6, sec. 24, paras. 26–28. 

     17. Emily Butterworth, “Defining Obscenity,” in Obscénités renaissantes , ed. Hugh Roberts, Guillaume Peureux, and Lise Wajeman, Travaux d’humanisme et Renaissance, no. 473 (Geneva: Droz, 2011), 31–37; Cicero, Orations: Philippics 1–6 , ed. and trans. D. R. Shackleton Bailey, rev. John T. Ramsey and Gesine Manuwald, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009), chap. 2, paras. 96–98. 

    第二章 神圣经济

    施予面包就能抓住天堂。 ──约翰（Saint John Chrysostom），〈讲道集三：思考救济与十个童女〉（Homily 3: Concerning Almsgiving and the Ten Virgins），约公元三八六年

    在西塞罗逝世的两百多年后，除了罗马共和已经让位给帝国之外，罗马也开始了与基督教的长期融合。罗马帝国本身仍然存在，但帝国中的新基督教领袖开始试着改造西塞罗的经济愿景。早期的基督教几乎完全回避了“公民道德是一种美德”的想法。取而代之的是，公元第三世纪与第四世纪的基督教思想家创造出了一种全新的生活理想状态，并随之为市场交易带来了新的愿景。西塞罗认为商业应该要有道德准则作为基础的原则仍然存在。但在早期基督教的经济体制中，良好的道德选择必来自你诚心渴望能用世俗商品换到天堂中的一席之地。道德转而以死后生命为核心，而非从自然法则中推导出来的世俗“首要之善”。这个市场的核心是对个人救赎的渴望，以及对灵性奖赏的追求。

    如此一来，基督教使商业交易的内涵为之一变，此概念的基础不再只是西塞罗体制中的责任与美德，还包括了人类的渴望。这种渴望不是伊比鸠鲁派寻求世俗享乐的渴望。与之相对的是，基督徒认为如果人类愿意选择虔诚地生活并拒绝财富，那么“上帝的无形之手”──圣奥古斯丁（Saint Augustine）在此处指的完全是字面上的意思──将会为他们带来天堂的宝藏。基督教的救赎概念为后来的利伯维尔场思想提供了一套概念模型，即个人的选择可以带来充满了无尽财富的天堂。早期基督教为现代经济文化遗留下了一个重要的观念：尽管完美的市场状态目前并不存在，但为了达到这种完美，我们必须一直抱持着强烈的渴望。

    虽然当时基督教遍布罗马帝国，但古罗马的诸神信仰仍拥有十分强大的势力。尽管君士坦丁大帝在公元三一二年左右归信了基督教，但一直到四世纪末为止，西塞罗仍在学院课程中占据主要地位。在基督诞生后的数个世纪中，教会教父（Father of the Church，有圣德的特定基督徒，其著作与教导对基督教有很大的贡献 ）主要都是罗马贵族出身，这代表了他们是在非基督教的帝国文化中长大的。他们很熟悉罗马法律，并且他们得依靠皇帝来确保生活稳定。有些教会教父努力和西塞罗的思想搏斗，希望用一种基督教版本的新道德愿景取代西塞罗的论述，包括米兰主教圣安博（Saint Ambrose），以及后来在西方基督教最有影响力的神学作家圣奥古斯丁。到了最后，他们对财富的态度变得比西塞罗所设想的更加个人主义，也更加民主。

    在西塞罗笔下，欲望从本质上就是一种负面特质。基督徒则相信，如果他们的欲望是被救赎，那么这种欲望就是道德的──举例来说，当一个人藉由把钱施舍给穷人、放弃世俗的享乐来交换天堂的奖赏时，这个人就是在满足符合道德的欲望。他们以《马太福音》和《路加福音》为基础，不但把这种对于天堂财宝的欲望视为一种好事，甚至视为神圣的事。基督徒引述福音书与其他典籍，用利益、选择、意志、交易与奖赏等经济语言来建构基督教的救赎。事实上，基督被钉在十字架上的本质就是一笔交易，《希伯来书》（Book of Hebrews ）的作者写道，如果“不流一滴血”，罪就不会被赦免。换句话说，基督偿还了人类的集体债务。1

    虽然基督教会得仰仗罗马帝国提供保护，甚至是提供经济支持，但犹太教与基督教共有的传统却明确地拒绝接受西塞罗的信念：一个人能做到最好的事，就是钻研哲学并为国家做出贡献。相信救世主存在的基督教带来了取而代之的末日论：他们摒弃这个不完美的世俗世界，将目光放在《启示录》中预言的末日，届时上帝之怒将会降临在那些紧抓着世俗财富的人身上，并将神圣永恒的死后生命赐予真正的信徒。

    福音传道士圣路加（Saint Luke the Evangelist）坚持基督徒应该要施舍穷人，藉此摆脱世俗财产，如此才能获得天堂的财富。耶稣在传福音时说：“你们要变卖所有的赒济人，为自己预备永不坏的钱囊，用不尽的财宝在天上，就是贼不能近、虫不能蛀的地方。”圣马太（Saint Matthew）原本是一名税吏，而后在耶稣的召唤下成为门徒，他也对此做出呼应。圣马太在《新约》中跟着马可和路加引用了一句耶稣曾提及的古老犹太谚语：富人上天堂的机率比骆驼穿过针眼的机率更渺茫。他也引述道，耶稣曾说过世俗财宝的本质是转瞬即逝的，并将世俗财宝描述为：“地上有虫子咬，能锈坏，也有贼挖窟窿来偷。”他呼吁信徒应该在心中寻找永恒的宝藏。马太的叙述和路加一样，他指出耶稣在描述救赎时其实是以贫困为前提的，那是一种交换的过程，一个人若想获得救赎就必须施舍穷人：“耶稣说：‘你若愿意作完全人，可去变卖你所有的，分给穷人，就必有财宝在天上；你还要来跟从我。’”2

    不过，马太在论及财富时传达出了相互矛盾的讯息。他指出，耶稣说那些没有为了丰厚回报而投资钱财的人都是罪人。在《马太福音》中，耶稣在讲述“按才干接受托付的比喻”时提到，一名主人因为仆人没有投资钱财而形容这名仆人“又懒又恶”。耶稣警告说：“凡有的，还要加给他，叫他有余；凡没有的，连他所有的，也要夺去。”3

    所谓天堂的财宝并非隐喻。由于罗马帝国里有非常多绝望的穷困者，在死后的生命提供真正的财宝引起了极大的共鸣，基督教的传道士利用这种承诺来赢得信徒。基督教对贫困如此执着的根源，无疑是巴勒斯坦与整个罗马帝国普遍极度贫困的生活条件。在犹太人的思想与神学中，很早就出现了穷人必须受到保护的想法，犹太人时常劝诫人们施舍，甚至宣扬社会公平，所罗门的其中一则箴言就是：“怜悯贫寒人的，就是借给耶和华，他的报偿，耶和华必归还他。”圣马太也呼应了这个概念，他指出耶稣认为对穷人展现慈善等同于和上帝交流。4

    在基督教盛行早期，罗马经济中最重要的原物料商品是黄金和白银。但是福音书中也涉及了其他世俗的利益，包括性、身体以及对享乐的追求。圣马太指出，耶稣认为戒欲甚至自我阉割是献给上帝的礼物。耶稣说：“因为有生来是阉人，也有被人阉的，并有为天国的缘故自阉的。这话谁能领受就可以领受。”享乐连同财富与利己行为，一起被放进了个人救赎的市场交易体制中。5

    这一点在早期教会教父的生活型态中表现得非常明显，他们的生活与罗马贵族的传统奢华生活形成了鲜明对比。基督教领导人实践的是自我克制的极端生活型态，这种自我克制承袭自悠久的禁欲主义传统。“亚历山大的革利免”（Clement of Alexandria）在《富人的救赎》（The Rich Man’s Salvation ）中虽然承认了世俗财富必须存在，但他说明道，这些财富的使用有其规则，人们尤其应该遵循“供给”的虔诚实践，将财富施舍出去。若一名富人把所有财富都施予穷人与教会，并藉此过程把他的热忱倾注于耶稣，就能找到救赎。6

    在公元前一世纪，禁欲主义的基本原则透过非基督教的希腊道德家塞克斯都（Sextus）的作品，流传至罗马帝国各处，塞克斯都协助创造了一种能够自我调节的灵性交易市场概念，他的行为准则和新基督教的道德规范是互通的。《塞克斯都语录》（The Sentences of Sextus ）在论及人与上帝之间的关系还有死后生命时，描述了一种货币流通过程。塞克斯都写道，唯有“放弃肉体的事物，人才能自由地获得灵魂的事物”，并直言不讳地补充道：“富人难以获得救赎。”他阐述了柏拉图式的观点，认为一个人可以透过灵性研究与自我克制成为贴近上帝的“圣人”。透过“征服肉体”，圣人可以“把一切能给的全都施予穷人”。世俗的依附情感──甚至对于儿女的情感──都应该受到鄙夷。塞克斯都感叹道：“信仰虔诚的人会心怀感激地承受失去孩子的痛苦。”他警告道，世俗享乐的罪恶将会“被邪恶的恶魔追究，直到还清最后一分为止”。7

    塞克斯都的行为准则很快就传遍了希腊的基督教社群。首屈一指的神学家们也欣然接受了这些准则──包括亚历山大学派的基督教学者欧利根（Origen），他在三世纪时惊叹地指出阅读塞克斯都作品的人“为数众多”。随后问世的一系列基督教作品也响应了这个概念：人们必须用天堂市场来取代世俗市场。原罪代表了人类不能真正享受世俗的快乐。例如，大约在公元九○年至一五○年间出现的《黑马牧人书》（The Shepherd of Hermas ）就是以这个概念作为核心。书中包含了最早由圣马太写下的基本原则，也就是富人“在上主的事物方面”是贫乏的，并补充道，人类唯有透过贫困与谦卑才能享有上帝的赏赐。该书大加赞颂禁食与禁欲的生活，这是古典时代晚期的宗教文学中随处可见的主题。在《启示录》（公元九五年）中，拔摩岛的约翰（John of Patmos）描述了耶稣对安纳托利亚的七个城市的罪予以谴责。这七个城市──以弗所（Ephesus）、士每拿（Smyrna）、别迦摩（Pergamum）、推雅推喇（Thyatira）、撒狄（Sardis）、非拉铁非（Philadelphia）、老底嘉（Laodicea）──被视为世俗世界的隐喻，代表了《圣经》对于肉体和商业都市生活的不信任。大约在公元二○八年，神学家特土良（Tertullian）以同样戏剧化的方式痛斥罗马是浸染了殉道者鲜血的现代巴比伦。他也同样呼吁人们压抑性冲动，甚至反对人们在配偶逝世后再婚。他赞扬人们透过鳏寡生活与童贞将自己一心奉献给上帝的神圣行为。他坚持认为处女应该蒙上头巾，如此一来才更能全心全意仰望基督。蒙头可保护她们不受罪恶沾染，因而“值得进入天堂”。8

    基督徒用这种极端的、自愿的性欲克制去换取救赎，这使得基督教从根本上来说比犹太教更具有交易的特质。钱财、色欲、享乐，甚至吃饭、说话和微笑──从基督教的观点来看，这些全都是坏事，都是原罪的产物，必须抛弃这些事物才能换取天堂作为报偿。在三世纪刚开始的数十年，欧利根撰写了一本讨论死后生命的奠基之作，他在书中主张唯有透过自我克制才能获得进入天堂的奖赏。欧利根将贞操能够换到救赎的观点推到极端，而阉割了自己。写下《罗马帝国衰亡史》（The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire ）的启蒙时代重要作家爱德华．吉朋（Edward Gibbon），曾就欧利根对《圣经》的字面解释做出著名的评论，说那是一个“不幸的”错误。9

    神圣市场与它追求更高目标的模式，逐渐变成基督教生活的核心，其中强调的是选择、纪律、报偿和奖赏。古典时代晚期有许多人以戏剧化的形式自我牺牲，希望能藉此进行神圣交易，欧利根只是其中之一。男性守贞变成一种寻求上帝财富的自律形式而受到重视，而后成了神职人员与修道士守贞传统的基础。沙漠教父（Desert Father，指的是在三世纪、四世纪隐居于埃及沙漠的一群基督教徒 ）为这种新兴的修道院主义与禁欲经济定下了基调。一代又一代的修道士进入了埃及的沙漠，只接受最微薄的捐献，他们活着的唯一目的就是和上帝交流。其中最有名的可能是柱顶修道士西蒙（Simeon the Stylite，约公元三九○至四五九年），他在叙利亚阿勒坡市（Aleppo）一根柱子上方的小平台生活了三十七年。10

    西蒙是牧羊人之子，不过有许多淡泊名利的基督教领导人都来自富有的贵族。部分贵族依据罗马的公民义务理想，成为了主教和首屈一指的神学家。值得注意的例子包括教会领导人圣巴西略（Saint Basil，约三二九年至三七九年），和他的兄弟“尼撒的贵格利”（Gregory of Nyssa，约三三五年至三九五年）、圣金口约翰（约三四七年至四○七年）及圣安博（约三四○年至三九七年）。对他们来说，美德就是“祷告”与拒绝肉体。人与人之间的友谊也只应该以基督教团契为基础。贵格利拒绝了异教徒西塞罗对自然世界的崇拜，他写下了后来变成基督教格言的句子：“大自然是软弱的，并非永恒的。”是上帝创造了大自然，上帝才是永恒的，而所有自然系统都源自神。11

    教父们在传福音方面的一部分使命就是说服罗马贵族信仰基督教，有鉴于当时贵族的享乐主义生活型态与基督教坚持的贫困戒欲生活有着天壤之别，这样的使命似乎是很大的野心。教父们也必须提供充分的理由，让人相信天堂救赎胜过了罗马的世俗享乐。讽刺的是，传福音其实所费不赀。教会的有限资金必须花费在无数贫困信徒身上，更不用说建筑、神父和传教所需的钱财了，于是教会要求富裕的信徒奉献钱财，如此一来主教们才能用食物与灵性救赎来喂养饥饿的信徒。

    从安提阿（Antioch）到迦太基（Carthage），再到新的帝国首都君士坦丁堡，主教们必须苦苦争取希腊人、叙利亚人、德鲁兹教徒（Druze）、犹太人等仍信仰各种帝国古老宗教的人。身为君士坦丁堡的大主教和希腊最重要的传教者，圣金口约翰不但得控制住底下的基督徒，还希望能改变君士坦丁堡众多人民的信仰。他的父亲是一名非基督徒的军官，他自己则大约在三七○年左右改信基督教。约翰知道这个伟大首都的罪恶每天都在上演，就连基督徒也会参与非法勾当和观赏色情表演。他必须找到一个方法，灌输恐惧到教区居民的心中，并提供一种切实的救赎感，才能使他们改信基督教，采取虔诚的行为举止。

    约翰利用恐惧和宗教狂热式的舞台展演来鼓动当地居民，他热中于对犹太人与同性恋者传道，并且警告基督徒，观赏君士坦丁堡的淫秽表演会使他们入地狱。他在以弗所城呼吁暴徒拆除古代世界七大奇迹之一的阿提密斯神庙（Temple of Artemis）。他在安提阿布道时，藉由听众的经济敏感度来号召：他在著作〈讲道集三：思考救济与十个童女〉（约公元三八六至三八七年）中提出了简短有力的请求，要人们把所有享乐与经济活动纳入神圣交易的逻辑中。

    约翰坚持，基督徒不该参与带着公民意识的贵族交易、协助维持罗马的现状，他们唯一该参与的只有属灵的市场。他质疑人们为什么要选择欠债并让自己陷入贫困，明明他们只要放弃所有金钱相关事物、抛弃债务和贫穷，就能“获取利益”，也就是轻而易举地“进入天堂”。他说，只要简单地许下忏悔的誓言，就能开始往天堂前进。一旦决定了未来只从救赎中“获利”，之后这个人就必须执行具体的交易行为。约翰认为“施舍”这个社会行为是在偿还“原罪带来的债务”。他使用的语汇带有无法忽视的经济色彩。他说，当一名女性施舍穷人时，这名女子“手里就拿着属于她的买卖契约”。而她可以用这张卖契换得天堂的财富。12

    约翰向听众清楚表明，他们必须确实离开世俗商品的市场。光是贫困这件事本身是无法让人进入天堂的，他指出：“天堂并不昂贵。”当一个人“购买了天堂”，就是与神立下一个在物质方面全然自我克制与奉献的契约。也就是说，在对的情境下，就算只是施舍一杯水也会推动足以自我延续的救赎连锁反应。他讲授的内容并非只是寓言。约翰在一个妙不可言的段落中解释道：“天堂是一门生意〔或者说是一项交易的承诺〕，是一种事业……施予面包就能抓住天堂。”他感叹道，人们总是想要尽可能购买更多便宜划算的商品，但却不愿意投资自己的灵魂。13

    圣金口约翰的《讲道集三》为君士坦丁堡与东罗马帝国提供了神圣交易的模型，也为当时很可能是最有影响力的拉丁基督教领导人圣安博创造了一个范本。虽然圣安博也使用了灵性交易经济的概念，只不过他以此为基础来执行的计划是西方拉丁世界的基督教化。圣安博出生于古老的罗马贵族世家，故乡位于今天的比利时。他接受了罗马的高等官职训练，在帝国的系统中成长与受教育，研习修辞学、法律和哲学。他就像东方希腊世界的非基督徒一样，精通古希腊与罗马的学科。但是，他在公民世界与宗教世界间搭起了桥梁。他是昆图斯．奥热流．西马库斯（Quintus Aurelius Symmachus）的表亲，西马库斯是当时最富有的贵族之一，也是罗马执政官。事实上，安博后来也成为北意大利的艾米利亚-罗马涅区─利古里亚省（Aemilia-Liguria）的总督，该省的首都是米兰。

    安博是基督教徒，以罗马基督教派总督的身分进行治理。在三七一年，他卸下了总督职位，成为米兰的主教，但同时仍在西罗马帝国的基督教皇帝瓦伦提尼安一世（Valentinian I）的宫廷中任职。笼罩在安博身上的阴影，是从来不曾消失的西塞罗──他是罗马公民美德的殉道者，也是善尽公共职责的典范。接受罗马帝国官职训练的圣安博，必定要和西塞罗遗留的建树抗争一番。而这终究成为了安博任职罗马官员及后来担任主教时的使命。安博做的是最矛盾的工作。他必须一面尊奉西泽，一边在布道中宣扬拒绝世俗世界的理念。

    身为一个罗马帝国公民、一名公务员与西罗马帝国的基督教领袖，圣安博是一个引人注目的过渡型角色。他很清楚，自己最大的挑战是让罗马帝国的中心人物归信基督教。他的使命核心是金钱为重。身为教会管理人，他要担心的不只是如何招募信徒，还有如何找到能维持教会运作的资源。他以真正基督徒该有的行为，把大量的私人财产都奉献给教会，并抨击贸易一事非基督徒所为。他对个人财富的态度非常明确：金钱是“万恶之源”。领导人理应“不像叙利亚商人和基列商人那样渴望不义之财，也不把所有美好希望都寄托在金钱上，更不能像一名伙计那样加总着每天的薪水、计算存了多少钱”。安博借助自由流通和对更高目标的渴望为隐喻，强调透过自主选择的交易能获得更好的事物。安博认为，如果财富停滞，金钱就会因为“蛀虫”而“腐朽”，所以人们不该囤积财富。另一方面，流通则能使金钱变得“甜美”且“有用”，就像能够灭火的“水”一样。刺激市场循环流动的方法，是把“白银”赠与穷人。唯有如此，上帝才会回以“圣徒的友谊与永恒的居所”作为恩赐。14

    安博身上结合了帝国的官员职责与坚实的基督教信仰，因此成为了热心传教的现实主义者。他认为自己必须直面西塞罗，才能改变所谓职责的本质。因此我们也无需讶异，安博用他最重要的著作之一《论神职人员的责任》（On the Duties of the Clergy ，约公元三九一年）来抨击西塞罗的作品。他谴责西塞罗的修辞理论，坚信优雅与美丽并非存在于言语的艺术中，而是存在于上帝之中。真正的知识只可能出自神性的启示，而非出自世俗的科学。安博也直接攻击了私有财产：“我们认为一切都毫无意义，只有能帮助我们获得永生祝福的事物例外。”人类理所当然不可能拥有任何事物，因为上帝赐予人类的比人类能给予上帝的还要更多，使人类不可避免地“在救赎方面成为债务人”。15

    安博和西塞罗之间的分歧如此严重，严重到他试图扭曲西塞罗派的道德语言，使之符合基督教灵性市场的用语。他认为施舍给穷人与奉献给教会是伟大的“责任”，因为这种施舍与奉献会带来恩典，而神的真爱胜过了世俗友谊。除此之外，安博不只把焦点放在死后生命上，他还敦促神职人员透过团契与“洗礼的连结”来建造世俗教会的主体。16

    最重要的是，安博把耶稣的自我牺牲描述成具有商业性质的神圣交易。毕竟，耶稣是用“神圣自由”来交换人类的“赎罪”，才在十字架上献出宝血。因此，人类的生命不是为了空洞的共和理想，应该是为了救赎而生。当时帝国已濒临崩解边缘，所以他的主张吸引了许多人改信基督教。17

    在所有教会教父中，圣奥古斯丁（三五四年至四三○年）掌握权力的时间最久，对经济思想的影响也最大。奥古斯丁认为上帝透过预定论（predestination），在基督教的宇宙中创造了一种自我调节的秩序。这代表了一个人是否会被拯救，并非取决于这个人的选择或意志，而是取决于神的恩典来决定──上帝在一个人能采取行动之前就已经做出决定了。预定论代表的是上帝不但能选择哪些灵魂可以在天堂被拯救，也代表他能选择哪些信徒在世俗世界变得富有。这并没有免除富有的好基督徒必须把钱奉献给教堂的责任。不过，奥古斯丁在提出这种主张的同时也为新的财富观念打开了大门，从而改变了基督教。

    奥古斯丁出生于罗马上层阶级一个拉丁化的北非家族。他的母亲莫妮卡是一名虔诚的基督徒，他的父亲则是非基督徒。奥古斯丁起初全心拥抱了彻底的异教生活，并在罗马研习柏拉图哲学与西塞罗的修辞学。他几乎都住在妓院里，热爱葡萄酒，还生了一个私生子。不过在三八六年，在他成为罗马帝国米兰市的首席修辞学教师两年后，他听到了一名孩子用上帝的声音呼唤他阅读经文，就在这瞬间顿悟了。他阅读了圣保罗（Saint Paul）在写给罗马人的信中对于道德败坏的批判，就此归信基督教，强烈抗拒非基督教、西塞罗式的怀疑主义，以及他过去对于肉欲享乐的爱好。由于个人需要，以及基督教福音传播的莫大吸引力，他决定要用信仰取代世俗的一切享乐与知识。对奥古斯丁来说，原罪带来的堕落与对上帝的奉献带来的赎罪，是他亲身体验的人生故事。圣安博在三八七年公开为奥古斯丁施洗，这位新基督教徒在三九五年荣升为希波（Hippo，如今阿尔及利亚的安纳巴〔Annaba〕）的主教。18

    奥古斯丁在离开意大利之前开始撰写《论意志的自由选择》（On Free Choice of the Will ），旨在理解善恶与预定论。这是一部了解恩典与救赎的道德市场逻辑的关键作品。奥古斯丁在书中解释道，若一个人想要从原罪中解脱与获得恩典，首先必须被上帝拣选。换句话说，人类必须经由神的意图才能做出正确的选择。当上帝能预见一切后果，他仍为人类保留了犯下极端错误的自由。奥古斯丁指出，交易市场中只有两种人，一是善用纪律的美德，二是成为“欲望的奴隶”，这样的主张透露出西塞罗的斯多噶主义带来的影响。

    奥古斯丁的自由意志概念对经济思想造成了广泛的衍生影响。如果上帝会帮助人行善，又如果人们会接着凭借自己的自由意志成为虔诚的非物质主义者，那么他们所拥有的钱财与商品就会是正向的，当他们决定要把钱奉献给教堂尤其如此。奥古斯丁使用自己的威权与说服力去指出，有些世俗财富其实是上帝赐予，因此这些是好的财富。这样的观念和早期的基督教作者提出的禁欲主义背道而驰。这代表的是富裕的基督徒可以在赚钱的同时保持美德。这种对于世俗财富的宗教性理据是一种悖论。但奥古斯丁清楚意识到，人们不可能每时每刻都维持自我克制的苦修状态。有些人也许拥有财富与权力，但他们必须把这种世俗财富连结到慈善的态度、良善的意图和真正的“自愿”追求恩典。世俗财富的流动是取决于神的旨意与自由意志两者的结合。这对基督教思想来说是非常剧烈的变化。教会再也不需要谴责所有财富。19

    西塞罗的经济理念反映了他对罗马农业菁英阶级的忠诚拥护，而奥古斯丁的神学理论也深受希波主教这个身分所影响。北非并不像意大利，尽管希波是一个相对繁荣的城市，大约有三万名人口，但奥古斯丁成为主教后仍必须从头打造一座教堂。他藉由鼓励人们奉献达成目标。这项任务并不容易。奥古斯丁和安博不一样，他没有巨额财富，是依靠教会维生。对他来说，教会是通往天堂的必要通道，但教会依然是一个非常世俗的工具。出于必要，奥古斯丁比安博更加关注如何求生存的世俗细节。他承认自己必须苦苦挣扎才能找到钱财来维持教堂的建筑、为神职人员添购衣服与食物，并在北非这个充满敌意的环境中保护他们。他一点也不觉得贪图金钱是一件该羞愧的事。如果他的会众不捐献，就不会有教堂存在了。

    奥古斯丁身处于穷困的乡村，到处都是好勇斗狠的异端分子，和一些富裕且咄咄逼人的非基督徒，再加上一群难以管束的信众，奥古斯丁遭遇了其他教会神职人员所未有的腹背受敌之景况。他长期面临多纳图派（Donatist）的威胁，这个异教扎根在三百英里外的迦太基（如今的突尼斯市〔Tunis〕）。多纳图派是柏柏尔人（Berber）主教多纳图．马格努斯（Donatus Magnus）所创立的，他在布道时指出神职人员必须全然免除于罪──他引用了《以弗所书》第五章第二十七节：“毫无玷污、皱纹等类的病”──才能有效地布道与管理圣礼。这种正统的严格主义要求建立“圣人教堂”，所有与教堂相关的都必须是彻底纯洁的人。这代表了多纳图拒绝所有在基督教受迫时期，曾和罗马政府协商谈判或屈服的人。奥古斯丁认为，没有人是免于罪恶的，而这种僵化的观点只会对教会造成破坏。他认为，若只有一小群信徒能独自掌握上帝的神秘计划，拥有无可挑战的美德之垄断权，那这样的说法就是一种异端邪说。然而，多纳图派会对不愿意接受相同信仰的其他神职人员进行肢体攻击。20

    对奥古斯丁来说，把教会限制在一小群经过拣选的人之中，非但是一种错误，而且也会威胁到教会的生存和扩张。他和多纳图之间的斗争是一场既属世又属灵的战斗，把金钱变得更加必要了。传福音并不是便宜的活动。教会需要取得金钱和市场位置，如此才能对抗仇敌和重建基督教罗马。这代表教会必须取得西塞罗所代表之共和精神的部分地位，牧师则成为半神权国家的公仆。这在奥古斯丁的一次布道中表达得相当清楚，他呼吁人们应该直接奉献给教会，而不是“一视同仁”地施舍给穷人。对个人来说，在毫无灵性专业知识的状态下施舍他人并不是理想状况。唯有教会才能妥善管理那些救济金和圣礼，并为人们带来救赎。由此可见，这条路线的重点不是单纯舍弃世俗世界；重点是执行对教会有利、协助教会成长壮大的世俗交易。21

    就像所有世间事物一样，这个新基督教的罗马也无法长久存在。西哥德王国（Visigoths）的国王阿拉里克（Alaric）在四一○年洗劫了罗马，整座城市就此沦陷。部分罗马菁英阶层为了逃离入侵的日耳曼军而一路逃到了奥古斯丁所在的希波，但那里理所当然地同样一片恐慌。希波没有任何军事资源能保护自己。不过，对奥古斯丁来说，教会面对的世俗挑战提供了一个机会，能让他推展他对救赎经济中之个人主义的所思所想。过去西塞罗在面对罗马共和崩溃的艰苦逆境时，展示了文学的力量。而现在，罗马的真正陷落则启发了奥古斯丁写下他的不朽著作《天主之城》（City of God ），他在书中阐释了尘世财富的必要性，与这些财富在神圣经济中的位置。22

    他说，并不是所有金钱都能抛弃或施舍给穷人。相反地，教会其实需要信徒基于自由意志创造出基督教市场经济。奥古斯丁坚称，那些有道德的人有比较高的机率能过上比较好的生活与保住他们的财富。他解释说：“上帝在分配好与不好的财富时，更加清晰地展现出祂的运作方式。”他认为，到头来，有道德的虔诚信徒在落入西哥德王国的手中后，受到的折磨会最少：“那些服从上主忠告，按照吩咐在对的地方用对的方法积累财富之人，他们甚至在野蛮人入侵时连世俗钱财都无所损失。”被选中的人非但注定要上天堂，上帝也会赐予他们世俗的财富与保护。23

    奥古斯丁的讯息所产生的颠覆性与影响力已经达到顶点。灵性市场会直接影响世俗市场。奥古斯丁说，上帝用看不见的手创造了这个世界：“上帝的『手』就是祂的力量，上帝甚至能透过不可见的方法获致不可见的结果。”但他说的并不是后来亚当斯密在讨论经济时提到的看不见的手，奥古斯丁清楚表明了，他认为有一更高的权柄在调控财富。一个人­只要凭自由意志进入了上帝的体制中，并完成了必要的交易，就可以高枕无忧了。上帝的恩典将会就此接管接下来的事。就像西塞罗所说的自然系统一样，奥古斯丁认为救赎是“一道水流”，会连结一切，也是一切的“成因”，能把人送到天堂的上帝跟前。24

    奥古斯丁在生命快走到尽头时，写下了他对《诗篇》最后的阐释，明确地将虔诚与一套看不见的财富体系连结起来。“这难道不是一种幸福吗：儿子平安、女儿美丽、仓库充满、牛只繁多、没有任何倾颓──我说的不是墙，甚至也不是树篱──街上没有骚乱与喧嚣，有的只是宁静、平和与富饶，在他们的家中与城市里充满了各式各样的事物。”他说上帝会确保“义人”（the righteous）拥有这一切。他提问：“亚伯拉罕（Abraham）家中难道不是充满了黄金、白银、孩子、仆役、牲畜吗？”25

    如果一个人相信了奥古斯丁对于尘世财富的看法，也相信上帝对于自由意志与预定论之间的平衡所产生的影响，那么这个人就有可能推展出比奥古斯丁更进一步的观点，认为上帝可以把“针眼”扩大，让被选中的少数富人通过。奥古斯丁和追随他的教会教父建立了一套经济希望的模型。就算罗马解体了，他们的神学仍保证守贞、施舍穷人与帮助教堂等行为能带来这一生的富裕与死后的财宝。这是最初始的“双赢”概念。你要做的事，就只有对这个体制抱持信仰。

    但是基督教的救赎市场并无法在世俗中带来眼前的财富。在奥古斯丁逝世后又过了数百年，欧洲才找到获得世俗财富的方法──无论上帝是否认可。此后，神圣经济的哲学概念与语言将会再次为世俗经济所用，诸如早期的资本主义与利伯维尔场理论。但在奥古斯丁过世后，随着世俗财富的增加，新的基督教派开始拥抱世俗的、西塞罗式的价值观。

    1. Matthew, 13:44; Luke 12:33; Hebrews 9:22; Giacomo Todeschini, Les Marchands et le Temple: La société chrétienne et le cercle vertueux de la richesse du Moyen Âge à l’Époque Moderne (Paris: Albin Michel, 2017).

    2. Luke 12:33; Matthew 6:19–21. 另见 Mark 10:25 and Luke 18:25. 

    3. Matthew 25:29. 投资与报偿的概念变成了 Robert K. Merton’s “Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science Are Reconsidered,” Science 159, no. 3810 (1968): 56–63 的基础。 

    4. Proverbs 19:17. See also Matthew 25:45. 

    5. Matthew 19:12. 

    6. Clement of Alexandria, The Rich Man’s Salvation , trans. G. W. Butterworth, rev. ed. , Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1919), 339; Todeschini, Les Marchands et le Temple , 28. 

    7. Walter T. Wilson, ed. and trans. , Sentences of Sextus (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2012), 33–38, 74, 261–264. 

    8. Wilson, Sentences of Sextus, 2; The Shepherd of Hermas , trans. J. B. Lightfoot (New York: Macmillan, 1891), Parable 2, 1[51]:5, available at Early Christian Writings, www.earlychristianwritings.com/text/shepherd-lightfoot.html ; Tertullian, “On the Veiling of Virgins,” trans. S. Thelwall, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers , ed. Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe, vol. 4, revised for New Advent by Kevin Knight (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1885). 

    9. Edward Gibbon, History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire , 6 vols. (London: Strahan, 1776–1789), vol. 1, chap. 15, n. 96. 

    10. Richard Finn, Almsgiving in the Later Roman Empire: Christian Promotion and Practice, 313–450 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2006), 93. 

    11. Benedicta Ward, The Desert Fathers: Sayings of the Early Christian Monks (London: Penguin, 2005), 20–54; Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity , ed. D. P. Curtin, trans. William Moore (Philadelphia: Dalcassian Publishing, 2018), 19. 

    12. John Chrysostom, “Homily 3: Concerning Almsgiving and the Ten Virgins,” in On Repentance and Almsgiving , trans. Gus George Christo (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1998), 28–42, at 29–31. 

    13. Chrysostom, “Homily 3,” 32. 

    14. Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy , trans. A. M. Overett (Savage, MN: Lighthouse Publishing, 2013), 55, 89, 205–206; Ambrose, De Nabuthae , ed. and trans. Martin R. P. McGuire (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1927), 49. 

    15. Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy , 55, 78, 83. 

    16. Ambrose, On the Duties of the Clergy , 122–124. 

    17. Ambrose, “The Sacraments of the Incarnation of the Lord,” in Theological and Dogmatic Works , trans. Roy J. Deferrari (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1963), 217–264, at 240. 

    18. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley: University of California Press, 2000), 169. 

    19. Augustine, On the Free Choice of the Will, On Grace and Free Choice, and Other Writings , ed. and trans. Peter King (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 1; Peter Brown, “Enjoying the Saints in Late Antiquity,” Early Medieval Europe 9, no. 1 (2000): 1–24, at 17. 

     20. Brown, Augustine of Hippo , 218–221. 

    21. Augustine, “Sermon 350,” in Sermons , ed. John E. Rotelle, trans. Edmund Hill, 10 vols. (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 1995), 3:107–108, available at https://wesleyscholar.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Augustine-Sermons-341-400.pdf ; Peter Brown, Through the Eye of a Needle: Wealth, the Fall of Rome, and the Making of Christianity in the West, 350–550 AD (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2014), 355; Augustine, Letters , vol. 2 (83–130), trans. Wilfrid Parsons (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1953), 42–48; Brown, Augustine of Hippo , 198. 

    22. Brown, Augustine of Hippo , 299. 

    23. Augustine, City of God , trans. Henry Bettenson (London: Penguin, 1984), bk. 1, chap. 8; bk. 1, chap. 10. 

    24. Augustine, City of God , bk. 12, chap. 23; Augustine, Divine Providence and the Problem of Evil: A Translation of St. Augustine’s de Ordine , trans. Robert P. Russell (Whitefish, MT: Kessinger, 2010), 27–31. 

    25. Augustine, “Exposition of the Psalms,” ed. Philip Schaff, trans. J. E. Tweed, in Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers , First Series, vol. 8 (Buffalo, NY: Christian Literature Publishing, 1888), revised for New Advent by Kevin Knight, www.newadvent.org/fathers/1801.htm . 

    第三章 中世纪市场机制中的神

    事实上，正是因为某些事物非常稀少或难以寻获，这些事物才变得更加被需要。根据这样的准则，相较于足以满足所有人的小麦丰收期，小麦在短缺时期的价值更高。 ──彼得．约翰．奥利维（Peter John Olivi），《合约论》（Treatise on Contracts ），一二九三年

    罗马帝国在四○○年代初解体，随之解体的是支持着非基督教哲学家、元老院的领主与基督教强大的新兴教会教父的经济体制与市场。而在国家规模缩减的同时，教会的金库规模也缩减了。罗马帝国殒落时，随之殒落的是“支配一切的自然经济体制”这个概念。在有效的人类政府解体后，自然突然变得没那么和谐、没那么看顾人类了，人们开始觉得“经济既富饶又能自我调节”的概念不再合理。未经驯化的大自然变得充满威胁。日耳曼人进犯之下，教会为了生存转而求助于世俗经济。教会必须靠自身组织一个国家，必须协助创造与维持经济成长。市场并不会自己复原。

    对于中世纪的思想家而言，能制造出财富的交易并不像西塞罗想象的那样潜藏在大自然中，等待具有美德的执法者伸出稳定的手推动它走向正轨。这种交易也不像奥古斯丁在布道时所说的那样，是个人的自由意志能靠着在世俗交易灵性商品，去推动的一种预定论神圣秩序。事实上，在发展现代市场与其机制的过程中，人类的管理与监督都属必要，包括打造强大的政府结构与发展创新科技──举例来说，九世纪的重型犁提高了回报率，而十三世纪晚期至十四世纪早期的复式记账法带来了有效的财务管理。教会的经院哲学家（scholastic philosopher）在一一○○年代占据了大学的主导位置，所谓的经院哲学家指的是那些透过演绎推理来解决神学矛盾的人（他们最著名的辩论是透过支持与反对的论据来证明上帝的存在）。这些中世纪的哲学家在探索人类自由的过程中，率先开创了个人权利与能动性（agency）的概念。他们认为国家──无论是教会的还是世俗的──必定得在欧洲社会与经济的重建上扮演重要的角色。在一二○○年至一四○○年之间，新一个世代的基督教思想家开始建立理论，分析要如何创造世俗财富与如何拒绝这些财富。他们不认为有一个全方位的利伯维尔场存在，取而代之的，他们研究的是在有限规模内的自我调节市场机制，希望能找到方法将这些机制放进他们自己的基督教道德规范中。

    当政治状况稳定，并且有一个发达的经济体制存在时，市场看起来就像是自行出现并维持运作。然而，罗马的殒落让我们看见，当社会分崩离析，就需要强力且持续的国家干预才能重建市场。罗马帝国的航行路线为地中海的私人贸易确保了稳定性，也使人们觉得商品自由流通是自然秩序的一部分。事实上，商品自由流通是罗马的一大国家成就。在小麦粉随着航线流通后，橄榄油、陶器和其他商品也跟着开始流通。这种由国家打造出来的自由流通创造了财富。但是，当载着小麦粉的船队消失了，以及当汪达尔（Vandal）入侵者占领了北非，崩解的不只是地中海的防护措施，更是整个罗马的商业体系。随着西班牙、高卢（Gaul）和奥地利的矿场关闭，金钱变得十分稀缺。贸易逐渐冻结，使西罗马帝国陷入贫困。1

    西方的城市与省分失去了原本将它们和东希腊帝国以及北非连结起来的贸易与通联系统。罗马帝国大约有百分之十至三十的人口住在城市里，其中有一百万人住在罗马。共有数十个城市的人口超过一千人。随着国际贸易与城市在公元四○○至七○○年间逐渐衰落，城镇菁英的财富也减少了。随着较不稳定的乡村经济占据主导地位，贫困取代了相对的繁荣。与此同时，气温大约下降了摄氏一点五度，使得作物产量减少，冬天也更加寒冷，加遽了经济危机。2

    贫困逐渐扩大后，紧接而来的是疾病、瘟疫和人口数量下降。随着公民管理与国家食物系统停摆，各种疾病开始出现在较脆弱的人口中。病毒大流行变成了当时很常见的情况。疟疾在缺乏整治的沼泽地滋生。痲疯病，也就是汉生病，在过去的罗马是很罕见的，此时却因为卫生条件不佳而在欧洲各地蔓延。最糟糕的是，腺鼠疫（俗称黑死病）在五四一年首次出现在帝国中。希腊拜占庭历史学家波寇披厄斯（Procopius）将五四一年至五四二年的查士丁尼大瘟疫（Justinian’s plague）描述为一种来自埃及的神秘疾病，他写道：“整个人类种族几乎被赶尽杀绝。”这场瘟疫在罗马帝国的东部与西部共导致了五千多万人死亡，摧毁了地中海沿岸剩余的劳动人口和各种产业。到了公元六○○年，前西罗马帝国似乎就要全面土崩瓦解了。商人和工匠无法填补这个缺口，他们已经消失了。不再有市场，也不再有任何方式能流通商品。在高卢北部和莱茵兰（Rhineland），农业用地变成了森林，而较大且较有组织的罗马庄园系统被聚集在村庄的小型家庭农场所取代。随着土壤变得贫瘠以及能犁地的动物减少，带来的是更加耐寒的北欧谷物，例如黑麦和燕麦。3

    讽刺的是，罗马帝国的解体使得教会更加接近西塞罗的世俗公民精神。没有了强权国家，又必须面对秩序混乱、贫困与瘟疫，教会在新日耳曼王国中扮演起领导角色，成为了一股世俗的力量。教会这么做不只是为了维护自身利益，也是因为当时已经没有其他公民组织存在了。教会领导人希望利用他们所拥有的组织与统治力量发展出规模更大的欧洲经济体。

    由于罗马皇帝与日耳曼国王都需要扩张组织权力，于是双方都借着赠与土地与自治的自由来支持教会扩张，使得西欧的修道院获得大量的权力与财富。基督教修道运动的创始人“努西亚的圣本笃”（Saint Benedict of Nursia）注意到，修道院必须协助重建与组织经济体。以庄园为基础的罗马农业体系把农业奴隶劳动制度传承给了中世纪早期的社会。修道院成了当时的财富管理核心。修道士的土地日益富饶，他们除了祷告和劳动外，还得监督在这些土地工作的奴隶。圣本笃的修道院会规（Benedict’s monastic Rule，五一六年）本质上就是一套管理大型修道院社群的操作指南。这些富有的机构利用他们的庞大资产来产出高价值的农产品，例如羊毛纺纱、小麦粉、干酪、香肠、葡萄酒和啤酒。修道院长成了上帝在世俗的财富之“分配者”。4

    对于这些神圣的“托管人”，或者“食品管理人”来说，财富的创造并非自然的产物，甚至也不是古典意义上的农业产物，而是以优秀的方式管理稀缺商品。当时没有人会认为这笔新的财富是市场或任何个人自行生产的。这笔财富来自集体纪律、强大的机构与大规模的奴隶农场。换句话说，教会的统治在中世纪早期经济的发展和建设上功不可没。5

    神职人员必须依据稀缺性和道德准则二者来管理货品。教会得确保信徒能获得足够的食物和衣服。教宗额我略一世（Pope Gregory I，在位期间五九○年至六○四年）认为良好的管理等同于“财富”（largine）与“慈善”（caritas）的重新分配。而后，大型宗教机构成为了金融管理中心，像是英格兰东北部的富有组织杜伦大教堂修道院（Durham Cathedral Priory）。他们用大量的会计账簿来管理存货、商店、家户、员工、租金和通行费。6

    到了一○五○年，重型犁、耙、锄头和新型挽具出现了，农作物产量倍增，这不仅使人民的生活水平上升，也使得人口迅速增加。随着人口成长，城市纷纷建立，贸易也跟着扩张。以往只有教会、国王、贵族军阀、奴隶、农奴和周期性贸易的存在，如今西欧的乡村经济让位给了发展蓬勃的城市中心，城市里满是商人与技巧纯熟的工匠，他们享有的自由使他们与乡村里的大量受制人口截然不同。7

    中世纪的城市之所以会难以理解自由贸易，是因为当时的商业自由最初是以明显的垄断形式出现的：教会和国家都把自由贸易的特权授予城市与城市里的行会，也只把特权限制于此。这种结合带来了经济发展与市场扩张。一一二七年，在法国北部法兰德斯郡（County of Flanders）的圣奥梅尔（Saint-Omer），威廉．克利托伯爵（William Clito）授予特权给市区居民──也就是圣奥梅尔的城市公民，允许他们无论犯了什么罪，都可以在自己的城市法庭中受审。此外，他也免除了他们在法兰德斯服兵役、缴交通行费与缴纳多项税款的义务。大致上来说，这些市民摆脱了封建的束缚，不需要缴纳日耳曼的汉萨税（hansa tax），也不需要支付安全过路费给神圣罗马帝国的皇帝，或通行费给法国王室。他们也可以随心所欲地维持地方垄断，伯爵保证所有在城市内签署的合约都必定会履行。在一份海关文件中，伯爵列出了他与各国统治者达成的协议，以保护当地居民的免税权利。此外，伯爵也保证会对市镇提供军事保护。8

    当然了，城市的居民绝不会享有国王、教士或领主那般的自由。不过，他们已经拥有了稳固的个人自由，这使他们有权随意通行；保护他们免于封建制度的农业劳役、义务事项、税务和任意监禁；并赋予他们对城市政府的选举权。自由交易与地方垄断特权的交换条件是，这些市民必须赚取金钱，为法兰德斯郡带来财富，并缴纳税金给伯爵。正是从这种混合了城市自由、垄断与专业规范的制度中，欧洲市场首次崛起，早期资本主义也随之诞生。9

    尽管亚当斯密会认为行会是一种纯粹的压迫──与利伯维尔场文化相对──但行会对于市场发展来说是必要的。在城市财富开始扩张的那一刻，行会法规就出现了。行会的规定几乎像修道院一样严格。在行会会馆中吃饭的行会成员享有折扣价，外来者则必须支付更多钱。就算只是想要从行会里夹带一杯葡萄酒出来也会被罚款。那些打架的人，以及“因为没有武器而用整块面包或石头”袭击其他行会成员的人也会被罚款。行会成员就像修道士一样，他们的衣服、食物与祷告都受到规范（举例来说，任何在行会会馆中穿木鞋的人都必须支付罚金）。加入行会的其中一个好处，是能在特定城镇中享有特权待遇。行会成员能用折扣价购买产品，非行会成员则必须支付更高的价格。不过最重要的是──这也是斯密忽略的一点──在佛罗伦萨和锡耶纳（Siena）等城市中的行会是专业技能、创新与财富的核心。10

    神学家往往对商人抱持戒心。这是因为商人为了谋取利润而汲汲营营，他们不耕作土地，被视为在精神上甚至比真正的穷人还要更贫穷。十世纪，“维洛纳的瑞提尔”（Rathier of Verona）把商人归类成“流浪者和贫民”。但到了十一世纪，神学家对于商业的看法有了转变。从意大利主教暨法律神学家格拉提安（Gratian）到神学家“克莱尔沃的伯纳德”（Bernard of Clairvaux），这些首屈一指的思想家都以正向态度看待虔诚的商人。本笃会修道士暨教会改革者伯多禄．达弥盎（Peter Damian）指出，一个优秀的主教应该要像优秀的商人一样管理自己的教区。如果商人能把财富奉献给慈善事业，那么商人当然就是好的。教会藉由这种方式清楚区分哪些人是自然经济的一部分，哪些人不是：举例来说，“不信基督者”和“犹太人”被视为侵占基督教合理财富的有罪者，他们是“坏”商人，不得与任何有道德的当权者交易。但在多数情况下，教会并不想要抨击商人的财富，他们只希望商人分享财富。因此，教会开始利用强大的影响力去控制正在成长的经济，同时在市场中坚持基督教的道德观。11

    虽然教会没有权力控制商业生态，但会指导行会设下有道德的价格，这些价格同时反映着市场价值公平公正的交易原则，其中也包括了对利润的限制。基督教自行定义了他们的道德商业社群与新市场规则，只要遵循基督教的方法，基督徒就可以自由交易。这里出现了与西塞罗相互呼应的观点：正如弗兰伯勒的罗伯特牧师（Robert of Flamborough）在《忏悔书》（Penitential ，约一二○八年至一二一三年）中写下的，建立在基督教式关系的“文明友谊”上而执行的交易，就是一种美德。12

    从许多方面来说，中世纪经济思想的故事都始于方济各会（Franciscan Order）的创办者“亚西西的圣方济各”（Saint Francis of Assisi）的人生。他在一一八一年出生于意大利翁布里亚（Umbria），原名为约翰．伯铎．伯纳戴德（Giovanni di Pietro di Bernardone），他的父亲是丝绸商人，母亲是普罗旺斯贵族。他的家族属于富有商人这个新阶级，居住在拉丁地中海地区──大约是从意大利与法国南部延伸到巴塞罗那的区域。这个社会经济阶级在往后被方济各拒之门外。一二○五年，他所目睹的异象引领他舍弃了世俗的财富。他声明放弃继承遗产，而为了展现自己将以基督之名献身于绝对的贫困，他惊世骇俗地当众脱去自己的衣物，这使他的父亲惊恐不已而和他断绝关系。从那时候开始，他只穿农民的粗布衣，成为了一名托钵修士，居住生活皆与穷人为伍，只靠着捐献过活。他是欧洲文化传统中第一位真正关注自然的生态学家，将动物视为有灵性的存在，并向牠们传道。他认为他的教堂没有墙壁，他的教堂就是自然本身，而从本质上拒绝富裕的修道院生活。当时宗教机构已经成了整个西欧的财富核心，而方济各的追随者、方济各会以及他们向绝对贫困立下的誓言对这些机构来说是莫大的威胁。

    放弃财富会带来的深刻哲学反思，除了审视财富究竟为何，也审视了价格是如何由道德力量与市场力量创造出来。方济各经院派（Franciscan Scholastic）的神学家──他们接受过使用辩证法与演绎推理来解决哲学问题的训练──以巴黎大学（University of Paris）为中心，汲取柏拉图、亚里士多德和西塞罗的论点，去理解市场的运作要如何才能符合基督教的道德观。他们将亚里士多德的平衡观念与罗马的自然法结合起来，正如中世纪的法律典范著作，格拉提安的《教令集》（Decretals ，一一四○年）中描述的一样。《教令集》是一部中世纪罗马教会法的创始性汇编与典范之书，书中声明道，每一次不公平的损失──也就是教会认为对交易双方来说价值不相等的协议，或者诈欺──都必须用价值完全对等的事物来“恢复”。此一概念来自亚里士多德的《尼各马可伦理学》（Nicomachean Ethics ）与“公平交换”（equal for equal）的原则。《尼各马可伦理学》更描述了人们要如何以私人财产、合约和许可为基础进行交易。这是公平价格理论的基础，此一理论指出，所有价格都应该反映出交易的公正平衡性，参与交易的人应该要平等获利。13

    经院派哲学家面临的挑战，是要定义出什么才是一项商品和服务的公平且道德的价格，以及怎样才能计算相等的价值。公共当局和生产商会负责制定价格。神职人员相信，交易商在决定公平的价值时，可以藉由利用一种中立的个人选择逻辑，来做出有道德的商业决定。这与现代个人自主性的概念其实并不相同，只是代表了商人可以针对价格做出专业决策罢了。基督教相信，商人只要结合道德考虑与当时的市场价格，就能设下公正且公平的价格与利润率。

    道明会修士暨意大利经院派思想家圣多马斯．阿奎那（Saint Thomas Aquinas）在他的著作《神学大全》（Summa Theologica ，一二六五年至一二七四年）中，也同意方济各会的说法，认为商人必须具备道德并使用“公正”的价格。然而，阿奎那不认同方济各为绝对贫困立下的誓言。他主张贫困不应该是一种要求或规则，而应该是个人选择或志向。事实上，他认为完全的贫困是不可能做到的事，这是因为所有人都必定拥有某些东西，他认为方济各会的誓言会带来犯下大罪与下地狱的风险，毕竟违背对上帝的誓言是非常严重的。这或许只是一个为了自身方便而提出的观点，鉴于道明会十分富有，拥有面积广袤的封建土地，在阿奎那看来，以道德方法取得的财富不会使他产生任何疑虑：他觉得教会需要变得富有。这样的观点影响了他对市场自然运作方式的理解。14

    阿奎那指出，诚实的商业与获利并不是一种罪。人们可以在契约中明确约定对双方都有利的价格。如果买卖或交换的其中一方想要从另一方身上谋取不公平的利润，那么公共机构（无论是世俗机构还是宗教机构）就必须出手介入，使交易恢复公平。阿奎那引用西塞罗的话，主张事先说明商品有何缺陷是所有交易人的责任。他遵循西塞罗的理念，认为好的道德观能形成商业与政治的基础。依照这种严格的道德观行事，就可以在赚进利润的同时维持虔诚。15

    方济各会所面临的挑战是非常艰巨的。只要他们在无意间拥有或使用了并非基本必需品的财产──举例来说，如果他们拥有了任何一件以实用性来说并非必要的衣服──他们就会因为违反了神圣誓言而下地狱。方济各会开始研究定价与价值的机制，旨在确保成员能保持“绝对的贫困”。方济各会的规则剥夺了成员住进修道院的权利，因为许多修道院都很富裕。他们也不能拥有任何形式的财产。他们甚至根本不应该触摸到钱。修道士可以帮助穷人、病人和虔诚之人，可以出于忠实和虔诚而劳动，但他们绝不能直接为了钱而工作。16

    方济各会的严格规则使教会成员惊愕不已。如果没有了阶级制度、财产和资金来维持住房、生计和慈善工作，就几乎不可能有修道院制度的存在。阿奎那认为方济各会太过激进，成员不但拒绝接受机构阶级与社会阶级的制度，也拒绝私人财产。当时教会是全欧洲最庞大的封建财产持有者，在欧洲各地都有税收。贫困誓言对世俗教会与其巨额财富产生了威胁。当时的农民，甚至连各地国王都对教会的强权感到不满，因此教会必须以强制的手段维护这种权力。此外，阿奎那等人也担心方济各会的誓言暗示了教会成员没有生活在贫困中──或者说生活在奢侈中──是一种不虔诚的罪恶。

    方济各会的贫困对教会构成了莫大威胁。虽然方济各会的多处成员都支持和平，但也有一些激进的托钵修道士团体──例如一三○○年代早期位于北意大利的多契尼安教派（Dolcinian sect）──会定期推动影响巨大的暴力运动，推翻社会秩序并将教会视为私有财产机构而加以摧毁。教会派出军队镇压，在一三○七年，他们抓到了该运动的领导人弗拉．多奇诺（Fra Dulcino），绑在火刑柱上烧死。17

    苏格兰方济各会修道士暨经院派哲学家董思高（John Duns Scotus）对定价的看法比阿奎那更加复杂，他指出价格既不是来自平衡的交易，也不是来自道德规则。与之相对的，他认为价格来自世俗市场的自由运作过程。私有财产不在教会的管辖范围之内，而理解各式各样能创造价值的市场活动并非教会所具备的能力。在董思高看来，价格来自数量，也来自劳动力与专业的价值。要去理解一个价格，必须考虑到“勤恳、谨慎、细心和从事此类工作会带来的风险”。因此，对神职人员来说，要计算出市场价格是很困难的。正因为如此，方济各会也同样很难确定他们是否真的遵守了贫困誓言。若想遵守誓言，他们就需要咨询那些熟悉世俗市场价格的商人与其他专家。18

    凑巧的是，方济各会士往往来自受过良好教育的经商背景，这也就代表了其中有些人对于商业与定价的运作方式具有较深入的认识。方济各会的领导人与信奉者逐渐开始认为，若想要确实遵守贫困誓言，就应该要更仔细地编订誓言内容。方济各会神学家圣文德（Saint Bonaventure）的《纳波内教会法规》（Constitutions of Narbonne ，一二六○年）对富裕与贫困进行了详细分析，目的是制定出严格的规范帮助方济各会士维持誓言。章程中最重要的主题之一是服装，在意大利，服装是最明显的财富象征，因此处的蓬勃经济核心正是布料生产。圣方济各认为服装对于保持贫困来说是一种物质阻碍，也是富裕的象征。举例来说，《纳波内教会法规》因此规范每位弟兄都只能拥有一件外衣，甚至特别阐明了修道士在外衣损坏或者需要用其他布料修补外衣时该怎么做。19

    一二八六年，方济各会开始探讨他们是否不该把书籍（当时的书籍是昂贵的羊皮纸手稿）视为一种有价值的物品，而看成一种单纯的学习工具。依照方济各会士的看法，如果在使用昂贵的书籍时能恪守灵性实用目的，那么在方济各会的严格经济规范中，书籍就不算是奢侈品。据此，一般信徒可以把书籍当作礼物来赠送给修道士或修道院，但是必须由宗教机构的领导人或托管者来决定谁能使用这些书籍。一二九七年，波隆那的巴塞洛缪修士（Brother Bartholomeus of Bologna）从另一位修道士那里收到两本书。而后他把这两本书遗赠给了吴高利诺修士（Brother Hugolinus）。我们可以肯定的是，他们的行为符合灵性实用原则。这些修道士们谨慎地记录这些物品，明确写下自己的使用方式，如此一来他们才能用属世与属灵的标准算出这些物品的价值。20

    教宗尼阁三世（Pope Nicholas III，在位期间一二七七年至一二八○年）支持方济各会的誓言，他认为有许多虔诚的方济各会士都证明了这个誓言是可以遵守的。他在一二七九年颁布了主题为“方济各会规范之确认”的教宗诏书《撒种的出去撒种 》（Exiit qui seminat ），并在其中提出了一项实现贫困誓言的革命性方法。教宗尼阁三世认为，方济各会士是不可能违背贫困誓言的，因为方济各会名下所有财产的实际拥有人其实是教宗；也就是说，方济各会士从来没有实际“拥有”任何事物。不只如此，尼阁还进一步用市场价值观念来解释道，就算方济各会士手上拥有任何货品与地产，这些财产的价值也不是固定的，而是取决于这些修道士在哪里、为了什么、用什么方式使用这些财产。每一件事物的价值都会依据它的实际用途与灵性用途而改变。尼阁强调，放弃财产“并不表示修道士在任何情况下都必须放弃使用物品”。他解释道，物品的价值来自“地点与时节”，而且也和特定的责任有关。他指出““科学是需要研究的”，如果没有““使用书籍”，修道士不可能执行这种研究。尼阁认为，宗教当局可以监督定价的过程，这么做不只能确保方济各会士只拥有必要的事物，也能减轻他们对于违背誓言的恐惧。为了解决教堂内部的冲突，教宗尼阁藉由这次的教宗诏书传达了他全心接受市场机制的观点。21

    在同一年，法国方济各会士彼得．约翰．奥利维写下了《简约使用商品论》（De usu paupere ），此著作说明了发下贫困誓言者在使用商品时有何限制。奥利维在其中针对要如何在遵守誓言的同时拥有世俗物品的问题加以阐释。他创造了一些最早期、最创新的自我调节市场机制的特定概念。他出生于法国蒙彼利埃（Montpellier），曾在意大利佛罗伦萨生活过一段时间，也曾住在普罗旺斯一个有三万人口的城市──纳波内市（Narbonne）。他因此身处于地中海商业世界的核心，这里的方济各会士往往是商人的告解对象。奥利维曾在尼阁三世的教宗管理系统中工作，他试着为方济各会士的誓言辩护，并因此提出了第一个边际效用递减法则的理论，根据该理论的描述，在商品的可取得数量与消费量增加时，该商品的价值也会随之减少。奥利维指出，如果人们“普遍地”或“惯常地”使用某些物品的话，这些物品的价值就会受到影响。愈容易取得的事物，价值就愈低。举例来说，像是油和蔬菜这类为大众大量生产、又能“轻易”获得的原物料，价值就比稀有商品要低。22

    货品的效用与价值跟能因此产品而受益的人数相关。如果有数以百计的人都能获得某种货品的话，这种货品的价值就不高。奥利维主张，如果某种物品罕见到只有一个人拥有它──例如罕见的手稿或珠宝──那么这个物品就会因为稀缺性而变得珍贵。他指出“耐用性”也会影响价格。举例来说，在食品方面，新鲜度是重要因素，刚收成的食物比摆放较久的“陈旧”食物要更有价值，后者会迅速失去价值。货品的寿命也很重要。像是谷物这一类可储藏的货品也具有较高的价值。像是衣物或房屋这一类可以使用更久的物品，要依据它们的耐用度来计算价值。这代表的是，没有任何单一权威机构可以指定或修正物品的公平价格。奥利维强调，公平的价格可以用道德准则当作基础，更甚者，公平的价格取决于一个包含了数量、效用、可取得性与耐用性的系统，这个系统会自我调节且不断改变。23

    奥利维认为创造价值的是效用，而不是道德，这个论点对教会、甚至对世俗当权者来说都是一种挑战，长久以来，教会与世俗当权者都认为判断价值是他们的职责。除此之外，奥利维也批判圣奥古斯丁认为人类认知必须仰赖神圣启示的观点，他认为人类思想中的判断力来自自由意志。这样的想法把能动性从上帝与教会的手上夺走，而将能动性更加集中于个人。对于教会的领导人来说，这样的观点已经越界，对于巴黎大学那些有权有势的博士来说尤其如此。他们主张奥利维的思想是异端。当权者把奥利维带到巴黎由七名方济各会法官主持的法庭，这些法官判他有罪，毁掉了他在巴黎教书的机会。24

    奥利维最终洗清了自己的罪名，成功在纳波内获得了一份教职，并在一二九三年写下了可说是中世纪经济理论中最具有远见的一本着作《合约论》。他在书中强调，神职人员不能理解定价，因此需要依靠世俗商人的“专业”才能说明市场的运作方法。他的一个主要担忧是，如果人们不理解契约，他们就无法理解自己的罪。对方济各会士来说也是如此，他们在履行行政职责时不可避免要签署契约，同时还必须遵守绝对贫困的誓言。奥利维担心若其他教友无法在告解中妥善描述自己未遵守契约的过失，可能会坠入地狱──因为缺乏经济专业知识而无法在告解中认罪。因此，理解合约是至关重要的一件事，这不只是为了维持贫困誓言，也是为了告解自己打破誓言的行为。

    奥利维认为，唯有商人“社群”的“判断”才能公正地建立价格，因为仅有这些商人理解“商品与服务”之间的关系，也了解“共同利益”的需求。奥利维主张，是诚实与准确的商业决策推动了各种市场机制的因果关系。不过，商人当然也有不诚实的时候，但奥利维从没解释过诈欺是否也会推动市场机制。尽管如此，他确实以敏锐的洞察力意识到，商人理解特定市场中的劳动力价值，并且会把这种价值加诸到特定商品的价格上。人们可以靠着对商品“效用”的知识去估算商品价格，而这种“效用”是根据“买方”而决定的。举例来说，在流行病期间，特定的稀有药草会变得较贵，在这些药草变成生存必需品时尤其如此。25

    奥利维观察到，商人的劳动奔走与专业能力往往会为商品增添额外的价值。他提醒读者，为了经商而旅行是很危险的，也需要丰富的背景知识。商人必须熟悉贸易路线，更不用说还要了解外国的海关与货币状况。远距贸易需要投资极高的资本，也存在极大的风险。奥利维是第一个讨论资本市场概念的思想家，比卡尔．马克思（Karl Marx）早了将近九百年。他注意到，货币缺乏本质上的价值，“因为单靠货币本身是无法营利的”。而价值来自于“商人在商业交易中进行的活动”。他将货币视为一种未来投资的资本；它的价值是可以成长的，但也是不确定的，并且取决于商人的技巧与决策，也取决于更广阔的市场动态。26

    虽然奥利维观察到定价的机制是自然出现，他仍认为这些机制需要受到道德约束，并警告说，稀缺性并不是一个提高价格的正当借口。商人必须抵抗在贩卖稀缺商品时索价过高的诱惑。此外，他认为转售这个行为就是不道德的。转售的人不事生产，也不是运用自己的技能为资本增加价值，只是在没有付出劳力的状况下把物品带进市场中，用较高的价格贩卖，这样的行为极其不道德，因此社群应该“驱逐”这些人。评估哪些商人有真正的、符合道德的生产力，是一项艰巨的责任。有鉴于此，奥利维建议教会应该要了解商品相关知识，包括其中的劳动力、专业技能与风险等，才能评估商人订定的价格是否反映了公正的价值。27

    方济各会的思想，将会在杰出的经院哲学家暨英国方济各会士“奥坎的威廉”（William of Ockham）的研究中出现革命性转变，奥坎把焦点转向市场上的个体与主观选择，趋近于现代观念。和奥利维一样，奥坎在一三二○年代为完美与绝对贫困的概念辩护，但他捍卫贫困誓言使用的是全新方法。奥坎认为，没有法律能强迫任何人违背自己的意愿去拥有任何事物，他开始宣扬“宽容式”法律的必要性，比如让人有权利拒绝私有财产。拥有个人选择，代表的是方济各会可以拒绝拥有财产，就像他们可以拥有财产一样毫无疑问。28

    亚维农（Avignon）的第二任教宗若望十二世（John XXII，在任期间一三一六年至一三三四年）是一名君主，拥有大量地产与可观的军事武力，他认为方济各会的贫困誓言确实对私有财产造成伤害。若望在一三二二年的教宗诏书《因为有时》（Quia nonnunquam ）中抨击贫困誓言，并把一群极端的小兄弟会（Fraticelli，又称精神派方济各会〔Spiritual Franciscans〕）逐出教会，这些修道士狂热地以基督为榜样，相信人们应该彻底抛弃私有财产制。教宗若望认为私有财产制是上帝所创造。他推翻了尼阁三世的诏书《撒种的出去撒种》，坚持使徒们亦拥有财产，正如方济各会士一样拥有自己的财产与货品，其拥有者并非教宗。教宗若望希望能用这种方式来撤销尼阁为方济各会的誓言所做的辩护。29

    奥坎的威廉用一个建立许久的观点反驳了教宗若望，即私有财产制是一种世俗制度，是人类从伊甸园堕落至人世间后才建立的。他大胆地宣示，教宗没有权利对财产做出总体决定。奥坎和董思高一样，认为上帝已经把世俗的财产交给西泽──也就是人世间的君主与领主了，他们才是真正有最终权威能决定世俗财产问题的人。世俗法律允许人们在经济问题上行使“传教的自由”，这是依据他们的个人意志，而非遵循宗教权威。奥坎进一步指出，没有人可以剥夺自由个体的“财产、权利与自由”。因此，商人和方济各会士都有选择的自由，教会既不能控制他们，也不能压迫他们。教宗与道明会士可以选择赚钱，而方济各会士也同样有权可以拒绝所有财产。30

    奥坎利用一系列复杂的神学技巧指出，天堂就像伊甸园一样，所有事物都是众人共同拥有的。但在人类堕落后，亚当与夏娃的原罪为人类创造出了不完美的永恒污点。人类居住在一个有缺陷的世界里，必须在其中找到正确方向，透过自己的道德决定得到救赎。换句话说，教会不能“要求”一个人遵守既定的道德戒律。奥坎坚持认为，“教宗权威”不能够用来强迫人们做出慈善施舍、维持童贞或节制性行为的道德决定。另一方面，世俗的君主则可以制定和执行法律，前提是他们的权威应该“建立在爱之上，而非恐惧之上，并且是藉由人民选举而产生”。奥坎提出的个人自由愿景十分不同凡响，也是早期为经济选择的利伯维尔场辩护的观点之一。31

    如今看来，奥坎对于宗教、政治与经济自由的观点非常贴近现代的看法。而这些理念在北意大利的一些宪政共和城邦中也有所呼应，该处的公民享有相对较高的个人自由与经济自由。奥坎的财产理论也正好有利于英格兰国王爱德华一世的世俗利益，爱德华一世甚至试图藉此强迫神职人员缴税。然而，奥坎对世俗权力的信念并没有推动个人权利的时代来临。在欧洲的多数区域，封建制度仍然方兴未艾。封建制度的基础并不是个人的自然权利，而是封建制度的传统与特权。君主与领主仅愿意透过契约提供商人在城市活动的自由。他们统治着长久以来受尽折磨的农奴，所榨取的不只是劳动力，更经常会透过暴力与私人司法体制来榨取财富本身。32

    无论如何，城市的居民享受着更大的自由。商人出于完全相反的动机，也开始研究市场的运作机制。他们相信这个世界上需要一种更加世俗的价值观，才能配合不断蓬勃发展的市场所创造的惊人财富。特别值得一提的是，佛罗伦萨人提出了一个以利伯维尔场思想为核心的新观点：勤劳的商人赚取财富、甚至歌颂财富，是一件符合道德的事。

    1. Michael McCormick, Origins of the European Economy: Communications and Commerce AD 300–900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 37, 87. 

    2. Georges Duby, The Early Growth of the European Economy: Warriors and Peasants from the Seventh to the Twelfth Century , trans. Howard B. Clarke (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1974), 29; J. W. Hanson, S. G. Ortman, and J. Lobo, “Urbanism and the Division of Labour in the Roman Empire,” Journal of the Royal Society Interface 14, no. 136 (2017), Interface 14, 20170367; Rosamond McKitterick, ed. , The Early Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 100. 

    3. McCormick, Origins of the European Economy , 38, 40–41, 87, 101; Procopius, The Wars of Justinian , trans. H. B. Dewing, rev. Anthony Kaldellis (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 2014), bk. 2, chaps. 22–33; Guy Bois, La mutation de l’an mil . Lournand, village mâconnais de l’antiquité au féodalisme (Paris: Fayard, 1989), 31. 

    4. Valentina Tonneato, Les banquiers du seigneur (Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2012), 291. 

    5. Tonneato, Les banquiers du seigneur , 315; Giacomo Todeschini, Les Marchands et le Temple: La société chrétienne et le cercle vertueux de la richesse du Moyen Âge à l’Époque Moderne (Paris: Albin Michel, 2017), 37. 

    6. Tonneato, Les banquiers du seigneur , 160; Alisdair Dobie, Accounting at the Durham Cathedral Priory: Management and Control of a Major Ecclesiastical Corporation, 1083–1539 (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2015), 145–146. 

    7. McKitterick, Early Middle Ages , 104. 

    8. “Customs of Saint-Omer (ca. 1100),” in Medieval Europe , ed. Julius Kirshner and Karl F. Morrison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1986), 87–95. 

    9. Alan Harding, “Political Liberty in the Middle Ages,” Speculum 55, no. 3 (1980): 423–443, at 442. 

    10. “Customs of Saint-Omer,” 87. 

    11. Giacomo Todeschini, Franciscan Wealth: From Voluntary Poverty to Market Society , trans. Donatella Melucci (Saint Bonaventure, NY: Saint Bonaventure University, 2009), 14; Todeschini, Les Marchands du Temple , 70. 

    12. Henry Haskins, The Renaissance of the Twelfth Century (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1933), 344–350; D. E. Luscumbe and G. R. Evans, “The Twelfth-Century Renaissance,” in The Cambridge History of Medieval Political Thought , c. 350–c. 1450, ed. J. H. Burns (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988), 306–338, at 306; F. Van Steenberghen, Aristotle in the West: The Origins of Latin Aristotelianism , trans. L. Johnston (Leuven, Belgium: E. Nauwelaerts, 1955), 30–33. 

    13. Odd Langholm, Price and Value in the Aristotelian Tradition: A Study in Scholastic Economic Sources (Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget, 1979), 29; Gratian, The Treatise on Laws (Decretum DD. 1–20 ), trans. Augustine Thompson (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1993), 25; Brian Tierney, The Idea of Natural Rights: Studies on Natural Rights, Natural Law, and Church Law, 1150–1625 (Atlanta: Emory University, 1997), 56. 

    14. David Burr, “The Correctorium Controversy and the Origins of the Usus Pauper Controversy,” Speculum 60, no. 2 (1985): 331–342, at 338. 

    15. Saint Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica , vol. 53, Question 77, Articles 1, 3; Raymond de Roover, “The Story of the Alberti Company of Florence, 1302–1348, as Revealed in Its Account Books,” Business History Review 32, no. 1 (1958): 14–59. 

    16. W. M. Speelman, “The Franciscan Usus Pauper : Using Poverty to Put Life in the Perspective of Plenitude,” Palgrave Communications 4, no. 77 (2018), open access: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-018-0134-4 ; Saint Bonaventure, The Life of St. Francis of Assisi , ed. Cardinal Manning (Charlotte, NC: TAN Books, 2010), 54–55. 

    17. Norman Cohn, Pursuit of the Millennium: Revolutionary Millenarians and Mystical Anarchists of the Middle Ages (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1970), 148–156. 

    18. John Duns Scotus, Political and Economic Philosophy , ed. and trans. Allan B. Wolter (Saint Bonaventure, NY: Franciscan Institute Publications, 2000), 27. 

    19. Lawrence Landini, The Causes of the Clericalization of the Order of Friars Minor, 1209–1260 in the Light of Early Franciscan Sources (Rome: Pontifica Universitas, 1968); David Burr, Olivi and Franciscan Poverty: The Origins of the Usus Pauper Controversy (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1989), 5, 9. 

    20. Burr, Olivi and Franciscan Poverty , 11–12. 

    21. Nicholas III, Exiit qui seminat (Confirmation of the Rule of the Friars Minor ), 1279, Papal Encyclicals Online, www.papalencyclicals.net/nichol03/exiit-e.htm . 

    22. Piron Sylvain, “Marchands et confesseurs: Le Traité des contrats d’Olivi dans son contexte (Narbonne, fin XIIIe–début XIVe siècle),” in Actes des congrès de la Société des historiens médiévistes de l’enseignement supérieur public, 28e congrès 28 (1997): 289–308; Pierre Jean Olivi, De usu paupere: The quaestio and the tractatus , ed. David Burr (Florence: Olschki, 1992), 47–48. 

    23. Olivi, De usu paupere , 48. 

    24. Sylvain Piron, “Censures et condemnation de Pierre de Jean Olivi: Enqûete dans les marges du Vatican,” Mélanges de l’École française de Rome—Moyen Âge 118, no. 2 (2006): 313–373. 

    25. Pierre Jean Olivi, Traité sur les contrats , ed. and trans. Sylvain Piron (Paris: Les Belles Lettres, 2012), 103–115. 

    26. Peter John Olivi, “On Usury and Credit (ca. 1290),” in University of Chicago Readings in Western Civilization , ed. Julius Kirshner and Karl F. Morrison (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987), 318–325, at 318; Langholm, Price and Value , 29, 52. 

    27. Langholm, Price and Value , 119, 137. 

    28. Tierney, Idea of Natural Rights , 33; William of Ockham, On the Power of Emperors and Popes , ed. and trans. Annabel S. Brett (Bristol: Theommes Press, 1998). 

    29. Tierney, Idea of Natural Rights , 101. 

    30. Tierney, Idea of Natural Rights , 35; Ockham, On the Power of Emperors and Popes , 35–37, 97. 

    31. Ockham, On the Power of Emperors and Popes , 15, 76, 79, 96. 

    32. Harry A. Miskimin, The Economy of Later Renaissance Europe, 1460–1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 11. 

    第四章 佛罗伦萨的财富与马基维利的市场

    秩序良好的共和国必须保持公众的富裕，但同时保持公民的贫困。 ──马基维利，《利瓦伊论》（Discourses on Livy ，一五一七年）

    奥坎的威廉为了捍卫方济各会的贫困誓言，而撰文证明个人自由之正当性的同时，佛罗伦萨的商人正为了追求财富，而寻求一种能证明个人自由之正当性的哲学。到了一三○○年代，拥有宪法、公民自由、复杂市场与惊人物质财富的商业共和国──例如锡耶纳、佛罗伦萨、热那亚与威尼斯──纷纷脱离了国王与领主的封建统治。它们的财富并非来自传统的农业与封建体制，而是来自工业、贸易与金融。支配着这些中世纪城市的商业界菁英很清楚他们身处的状况是前所未有的。事实上，在基督教世界里，没有任何重要文本曾单纯地赞颂商业财富。这些人已经掌握了真正的权力，于是开始试着透过描述与赞美市场的运作方式来寻求改变。
    与奥坎和经院哲学家不同，意大利商人并不以消极的眼光看待对金钱的渴望。富有的意大利商人和文艺复兴时期的人文主义者全心拥抱了西塞罗对于人民要服务国家的理想，他们认为若想创造出一个有道德的商业共和国、一个健康的市场，就必须先有个人的利己和利益追求。这是一二五○年至一四五○年间的重大文化转变，这代表了维持这种美德的关键不是农业，而是商业，而世俗对于财富的欲望与渴望也可以是好的。1

    到了一二○○年代，锡耶纳的托斯卡纳（Tuscan）城邦已经变成欧洲金融业的领导者，这是因为该城邦许多公民都擅长金融，各国对于此共和国的银行机构充满信心。锡耶纳的政府官员意识到，若想让借债人和投资人在他们的城市里存款与进行金融交易，就必须先让借债人和投资人认为，这里的市场会按照他们的预期运作。从一二八七年至一三五五年，锡耶纳社群与人民的九位总督与辩护者（Nine Governors and Defenders of the Commune and the People of Siena）把焦点放在维护良好金融管理的法律规范与声誉上。政府监管的不只是高度组织化的税收系统，还有稳定的信用网络。2
    良好政府与商业美德的价值观弥漫在社会中。在锡耶纳的著名中世纪公共机关建筑“锡耶纳市政厅”（Palazzo Pubblico）中，画家安布罗乔．洛兰采蒂（Ambrogio Lorenzetti）创作了一组三连幅的湿壁画，《好政府与坏政府的预言》（The Allegory of Good and Bad Government ，一三三八年至一三三九年），画中传达出守法的商人能维护良好的政府。这些壁画显然是参考了西塞罗与罗马哲学家塞内卡（Seneca，公元四年至六五年）的思想，描绘了正义、智慧、和平、坚韧、谨慎、宽容与节制等斯多噶美德围绕在好政府周围。洛兰采蒂把斯多噶主义和良好的商业行为划上等号。他将锡耶纳描绘成一个充满富裕公民、商店、商人和工匠的城市。他传达了很明确的道德与经济讯息：在法律规范的支持下，优秀的菁英共和政府可以为创造财富的交易打造出所需的环境条件。健康的市场也会相应地支持共和国的发展。另一幅画则重述了西塞罗派的古老讯息：政治的暴君将会直接导致贪腐，暴君破坏的不只是信任与和平，也会破坏市场本身与市场本应创造的财富。3

    对于充满美德的斯多噶式政府与城市财富的称赞，很快就在佛罗伦萨的商人作家手下变得屡见不鲜。到了一三○○年代后期，佛罗伦萨已经超越锡耶纳，成为托斯卡纳的经济生活中心。托斯卡纳的古典人文学者暨作家法兰切斯科．佩脱拉克（Francesco Petrarch）着手复兴西塞罗派思想，藉此支持世俗公民义务是一种美德的观点。佩脱拉克既是诗人，也是教宗的行政官员，他引领了一场运动，旨在寻找与恢复古罗马的文本。一三四七年的黑死病和随之而来的战争使得佩脱拉克拒绝了“上帝在惩罚意大利”的观点；相对地，他认为人类是因为放弃了公民美德才会为自己带来灾祸。因此，意大利必须效仿罗马，建立更好的政府以打造新气象。4

    佩脱拉克希望能找到一种足以吸引菁英执行公民义务的哲学。他在西塞罗的“派代亚”（paideia）公民教育思想中找到此一哲学，希望能藉此带动罗马美德在佛罗伦萨的复兴。佩脱拉克解释道，托斯卡纳的菁英必须要付出努力，研读古代的伦理、修辞与法律来学习何谓优秀的治理方式，如此才能实践西塞罗所谓的公民“首要之善”（summum bonum）。他在《统治者应该如何治理他的国家》（How a Ruler Ought to Govern His State ，一三七三年）此一专著中，使用了西塞罗的作品来描述自己理想中具备道德正义的统治者。这些统治者付出努力是出于共和国的爱，也是出于“大众”的共同利益。佩脱拉克认为成功国家的基础不是军事武器，而是财富与优秀的公民。他追随西塞罗的观点，指出领导人应该是清廉且高效率的管理者。5

    佩脱拉克对“派代亚”的论述吸引了意大利共和国菁英阶层中的古老家族，也吸引了瘟疫过后才跻身菁英行列的新家族。随着贸易兴起，佛罗伦萨的商人开始把自己看作名正言顺的新菁英的领导者，这种领导并非基于封建权力和宗教权力，而是基于商业与世俗法律。长久以来，教会都把商人描绘成“道德贫民”，如今商人成了欧洲最富有的其中一群人。因此我们也不难理解，为什么商人想把自己的财富与政治义务描述成一种好的德行。6

    佛罗伦萨的商人在信件、账本和正式的商业与家族回忆录中写下了这些崭新观点，这些回忆录（ricordi）可以视为商业艺术之书。多数时候，经济史学家认为上述文字内容充其量只是实用文件，不会把它们纳入经济思想的政治历史中。然而，若经过仔细检视，我们会发现这些文件揭示了商人对于商业与其美德的激进新观点。佛罗伦萨商人乔瓦尼．迪．帕戈洛．莫雷利（Giovanni di Pagolo Morelli）在他的《回忆录》（Ricordi ，一三九三年至一四一一年）中大力赞扬市场，并夸耀“托斯卡纳的市场”之“富饶”，使得佛罗伦萨与他自己的家族都变得富有。他对于祖先赚得的财产非常骄傲，甚至为他们“富有地死去”而感到自豪──他认为这是一种殊荣。然而，以无关公民美德、无关共和国公民义务的方式累积个人财富，这样的追求有待商榷。一四二八年，佛罗伦萨的人文主义者暨历史学家马泰奥．帕尔米耶里（Matteo Palmieri）明确指出，追求利润的行为必须对国家利益有直接的贡献。帕尔米耶里引用了西塞罗的话，坚称商人必须把“口才”与“美德”结合，避免贪图小利，聚焦于把对财富的欲望导向“有用的商业艺术”，这样的行为对于“共和国政府”的参与者有“很大的效益”。7

    在这些著作中，涵盖范围最广且最杰出之作是班尼迪托．科特鲁利（Benedetto Cotrugli）的《贸易艺术之书》（The Book of the Art of Trade ，写于一四五八年，但直到一世纪后的一五七三年才付梓出版）。来自威尼斯贸易城市拉古沙（Ragusa，如今的杜布罗夫尼克〔Dubrovnik〕）的商人科特鲁利（Cotrugli，现代克罗地亚语拼法为Kotrulj）十分钦慕佛罗伦萨的价值观，并加以仿效。他比同年代的其他人更进一步建立了如下观点：良好的西塞罗派伦理与得体的行为，能创造出市场运作所需的信任与政治稳定性。这是很核心的论点。科特鲁利观察到，贪婪和必需性无处不在，就算是最贫困的地区也一样有市场，但并不是所有市场都会创造出财富或宏伟的城市。他清楚表明，若要使商业与投资蓬勃发展，市场终究需要制度支持、信心与合作，少了这些事物，交易是无法妥善运作的。8

    科特鲁利家族非常熟悉这个复杂市场体系中的每一个元素，他们认为佛罗伦萨是稳定这个市场的核心。他们是涉及羊毛、谷物和汇票交易的染布商家族，其强大的关系网络远超出拉古沙，扩及威尼斯、佛罗伦萨与拿坡里。在科特鲁利和佛罗伦萨的内罗尼公司（Neroni，和拉古沙的商人交易白银与羊毛的公司）合作时，他注意到各处都有彼此类似的卓越商业行为，因此受到启发。9
    科特鲁利认为，商人对于财富的渴望是某种形式的利己，却能创造出更广大的利益，这是现代利伯维尔场思想的一个重要观念，无可否认的是，此观点稍微扭曲了西塞罗的哲学。在他眼中，西塞罗的《论责任》是一本教导人们赚钱的指南。他解释道，我们或许可以把财富（或者说“正当收益”）视为一种“商人尊严”的基础，因为商人可以透过财富“把自己的家打造成富丽堂皇的建筑，为公众福利的发展做出贡献”。这代表拥有华丽的住宅、家具和衣物，以及为自己的孩子安排有利可图的联姻都是良好的行为。这些行为有助于城市的财富、国家，最终也就有助于共同利益。10
    科特鲁利和早期的商人作家一样，改变了西塞罗的贵族公式，把商人放在领导人的位置，用商业与工业取代了农业。科特鲁利错误地声称西塞罗说过“商人是国家的资源”，在他的笔下，彷佛西塞罗认为受过良好教育且遵守商业法规的商人是社会的自然领导者。他就此将罗马元老院换成了辛勤工作的托斯卡纳商人。科特鲁利遵循西赛罗的模型，接着主张“自然”的商业“巧思”是“一股活水”，能够刺激市场。他说，商人是“以获利为希望”而工作。他们在这么做的过程中促进了“人类种族的存续”。而贸易帮助了“每一个家户与家族、共和国与公国、王国与帝国”，并制造出无尽的世俗财富泉源。11
    英荷哲学家伯纳德．曼德维尔（Bernard Mandeville）在十八世纪提出了著名的观点，他认为个人的贪婪之恶能带来财富与合作的公众美德，而科特鲁利则在更早之前就主张，商人的正当获利是商业国家的驱动力：“正如西塞罗所说，让所有人都获得利润的行为与正当获利是相符合的。”科特鲁利精通古代哲学，很清楚他正在扭曲旧的美德以创造出新的美德。事实上，他扭曲的不只是西塞罗的理论，还有基督教的贸易规范，他同意教会对于放贷的传统态度，同时又在口头上支持公正价格理论。施舍当然对于商人来说是一种道德上的必需。然而，科特鲁利对于一个人完全捐出自己财富的想法定会大为震惊。毕竟投资资本、世俗尊严和支持世俗国家都需要金钱。12

    科特鲁利的著作可以说是代表了欧洲交易中心的强大商人对自身理想的捍卫。然而，到了一四○○年代晚期，意大利的商业共和国已经衰退，同时西班牙与法国的强大欧洲君主政体挟着富足的金库与庞大的军队逐渐崛起。这些新强权由国王与拥有大量土地的贵族统治，他们仍然怀抱着古老的农业理想。西班牙与法国在一四○○年代晚期开始入侵意大利，当时意大利商人只有两个选择，一是靠着买通成为拥有大量土地的贵族，二是失去自己的阶级与地位。一四九二年，克里斯多福．哥伦布（Christopher Columbus）以西班牙君主的名义，到达了所谓的新世界，开辟了贸易路线，人们开始感到世界遍地都是黄金。除非成为统治者并使用国家财富，像佛罗伦萨梅迪奇家族（Medici）这样强大的商业家族已经不再能发挥一四○○年代早期曾拥有的那种政经影响力。
    佛罗伦萨的科西莫．梅迪奇（Cosimo de’ Medici）靠着金融技巧以及对学习和艺术的支持赢得了声誉。然而在十五世纪中叶，他抛弃了所有西赛罗式的道德原则，削弱了佛罗伦萨的共和宪法，成为托斯卡纳多数地区的实际统治者。十五世纪下半叶，佛罗伦萨的宪政共和国逐渐解体。一四九四年，法国国王查理八世为了夺取拿坡里的王位，率领两万五千多人的军队入侵意大利。讽刺的是，法国封建国王将梅迪奇的暴政赶出佛罗伦萨，使原本的佛罗伦萨共和国出现了短暂的回归。重建共和国的领导人对于寡头政治与暴政的危险一直保持警戒，希望能恢复宪法与法治。这些领导人中最重要的一个是尼科洛．马基维利，他为了捍卫共和法与市场平衡而创造出一套哲学。13
    在新共和国存在的这十八年间，马基维利担任过许多职位，并在一四九八年成为第二任总理。这位近代政治学之父尽管聪明绝顶，却没能成功为佛罗伦萨挡下红衣主教乔凡尼．梅迪奇（Giovanni de’ Medici），梅迪奇借助西班牙军队攻打普拉托市（Prato），迫使佛罗伦萨屈服，使得梅迪奇家族在一五一二年毫无阻碍地进入佛罗伦萨。接着，梅迪奇家族解散了共和国，重新掌权。他们怀疑马基维利想要密谋推翻新政权，尽管从未证实马基维利曾参与阴谋，但梅迪奇家族还是“用绳子”刑求马基维利，接着在红衣主教乔凡尼获选成为教宗利奥十世（Leo X）时，马基维利因大赦而获释，他自愿离开佛罗伦萨并隐居乡间。怀着满腹愤懑，他着手撰写两本后来成为旷世巨作的书：《君王论》（The Prince ）和《利瓦伊论》。

    思想史学家阿尔伯特．赫绪曼（Albert Hirschman）认为，马基维利是此一现代概念的“源头”：社会是利己之争的战场，人们的“热情”在这里彼此碰撞并推动市场力量。马基维利特别热中于研究如何透过掌控热情来实现自我利益。他同意追求个人财富是很重要的。他担忧众人对私人财富的倾向会在无意间转往贪腐与寡头政治。马基维利坚称国家必须足够强大，才能管理与监督这些个人的热情与利益，如此才不会有任何一个人能掌控这座城市。14

    马基维利相信国家至上，这和梅迪奇家族的暴政、意大利各地的寡头政治以及君王形成对比。梅迪奇家族接管佛罗伦萨后，时常偏袒亲友，利用毫无法律依据的主张获得私人权力和利益，同时淘空了国库。这种利己的暴政毁掉了佛罗伦萨，也几乎摧毁了这个城市的自由贸易。因此，马基维利对于贵族的美德毫无信心可言。若想要在马基维利那个时代的意大利生存，就像在西塞罗时代的罗马生存一样，若非生活在强大的共和国并遵守法律规范，就只能靠着各种可能的手段来保护自己了。换句话说，马基维利相信法治，但前提是你要拥有法治。

    身为一名政治家兼历史学家，马基维利非常务实，而他的作品就像商人指导手册一样，旨在让读者可以应用在生活中，去管理他所谓的“财富”（fortune，亦有命运、机运之意 ）。出于上述目的，虽然马基维利赞同西塞罗的公民共和主义，但他不接受佩脱拉克所说的贵族乐观主义，也就是统治者可以维持道德上的慷慨与善良，甚至能够和臣民成为朋友。马基维利曾目睹经济不平等与糟糕的政府所带来的暴力与冲突。作为响应，他开始推广法治共和国的概念，希望能藉此保障和平稳定的政府与正常运作的市场。马基维利对于人类的悲观看法带有十分浓重的奥古斯丁色彩。15

    马基维利在一五一三年写下了《君王论》，希望能在梅迪奇家族的政权下受雇，这本着作至今仍充满谜团。有些人仍旧认为《君王论》是在鼓励不道德的行为，因此现代词汇“马基维利式”（Machiavellian）的意思就是以狡诈的手段获取自身利益。还有些人认为这本书是在批判与揭露暴君犯下的罪恶。这两种观点很可能都是对的。毕竟马基维利一向痛恨寡头政治与暴政，正如他热爱政治和尽责地为共和国服务一样。就连梅迪奇家族接管佛罗伦萨后，他在进行批判的同时仍希望能于政府任职。

    马基维利不认同西塞罗拒绝一切不道德行为的观点；在他看来，人类的过失是生命中无可避免的事实。但他同意西塞罗所说的，共和政府是对抗贪腐的最佳解药。马基维利警告道，野心勃勃的暴君就像野兽一样。因此，如果人们想要避免意大利在一四○○年代中期所遭遇的那种暴力，就应该要建立某种形式的法律监督。马基维利解释道，国家必须保护个体不受无人监管、追求自身利益又反复无常的悖德君主所伤害，他提出罗马共和国与罗马帝国作为实际范例，希望能提供足以对抗贪腐与暴政的手段。马基维利在《利瓦伊论》（一五一八年）提出了著名的主张：“秩序良好的共和国必须保持公众的富裕，但同时保持公民的贫困。”16

    这句话并不代表公民们一定必须是贫困的。马基维利曾在商业共和国中治理人民，协助推动商业财富。他担心的是金钱集中在少数人手中而威胁到共和政体与市场的稳定性。他亲眼看见梅迪奇家族靠着他们的财富腐化国家、侵蚀国家的代议制度与法律系统，进而崛起。马基维利很清楚，佛罗伦萨共和国的国库是如何被用来图利上层阶级与削弱共和体制。他反对西塞罗的寡头政治观点，赞扬罗马农业法的规定：将土地重新分配给穷人，制衡贵族的权力。他认为罗马之所以能维持和平与秩序，是因为靠着限制而避免了大规模的财富不平等。如果有钱人获得过多权力，就像罗马内战（Roman Civil Wars）和尤利乌斯．西泽（他用西泽暗指梅迪奇家族）帝国建立期间的贵族那样，最后将会带来“共和的灭亡”。17

    马基维利认为羊毛工人暴动（Revolt of the Ciompi，一三七八年至一三八二年）这场发生在佛罗伦萨的劳动阶级起义，能为众人带来经济自由方面的教训。在他献给第二任梅迪奇教宗克勉七世（Clement VII）的《佛罗伦萨历史》（Florentine Histories ，一五二五年）中，他主张寡头垄断是很危险的，会阻碍稳定的贸易与财富。他说，是寡头政治与经济不平等为佛罗伦萨带来了内战。共和国与其市场必须拥有一定程度的经济公平性才能正常运作。他利用西塞罗的说法批判那些“靠着诈骗或武力”获得财富的商人，他把这种赚钱方式称为“丑陋的收购”。马基维利不赞同佛罗伦萨的上层阶级限制了行会中只有哪些人能成为羊毛工人的代表，他相信正是这样的限制导致了充满杀戮与不稳定的激进政治。《君王论》指出，唯有在共和国解体后，才会轮到禽兽般的法律治理这个社会。唯有稳定的国家能抵御“狐狸”和“狮子”做出的危险野蛮行为，藉此维护美德，保护良好的贸易与市场。18

    马基维利对于专业行会也同样充满疑虑。若这些行会要顺利运作，行会里的人就应该要同时代表权贵和工人的利益。两个世纪后，这种行会寡头政治与正常运作的利伯维尔场间彼此对立的观点，将会成为亚当斯密的经济思想基础之一。斯密认为，专业行会就是压低薪水的专制集团。不过，马基维利身为文艺复兴时期的佛罗伦萨公民，他的观点更加复杂。他认为若想建立与维持交易、质量和信任，就必须有行会的存在。正如佛罗伦萨的商人一而再、再而三做出的声明，这些专业协会确实使佛罗伦萨变得富裕。多数中世纪与文艺复兴时期的商人都知道，行会规则为他们的商业共和国提供了一些规范与治理的原始框架。这就是为什么每个行会的纹章上都刻画着佛罗伦萨政府著名的塔楼建筑“旧宫”（Palazzo Vecchio）。但是，马基维利坚持认为行会必须确保财富流入所有公民手中，也必须允许新人加入。他认为佛罗伦萨的土地税（catasto）对共和国来说是必要的，因为土地税“对暴政的强权设下了部分限制”，也维持了市场运作的公平性。19

    马基维利作为现代犬儒主义的伟大创始人，认为不受规范的利己行为可能会摧毁市场。为了维持稳定，人们需要世俗国家比个人更富有、更强大。据此，马基维利概略描述了一个至今仍适用的经济论点：他认为强大的国家必须监管权贵阶级与平民阶级之间的平衡，藉此保证政治与经济的稳定性，避免寡头政治与暴政。这或许是他带来的教训中最伟大的一个，未来许多世代的市场建立者都将会从中受益，这些建立者希望能缩限拥有大量土地的寡头群体，以发展出自由的商业社会。

    1. Raymond de Roover, “The Story of the Alberti Company of Florence, 1302–1348, as Revealed in Its Account Books,” Business History Review 32, no. 1 (1958): 14–59, at 46; Marcia L. Colish, “Cicero’s De officiis and Machiavelli’s Prince ,” Sixteenth Century Journal 9, no. 4 (1978): 80–93, at 82; N. E. Nelson, “Cicero’s De officiis in Christian Thought, 300–1300,” in Essays and Studies in English and Comparative Literature , University of Michigan Publications in Language and Literature, vol. 10 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1933), 59–160; Albert O. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), 10. 

    2. William M. Bowsky, The Finance of the Commune of Siena, 1287–1355 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1970), 1, 209. 

    3. Nicolai Rubenstein, “Political Ideas in Sienese Art: The Frescoes by Ambrogio Lorenzetti and Taddeo di Bartolo in the Palazzo Pubblico,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 21, no. 3/4 (1958): 179–207; Quentin Skinner, “Ambrogio Lorenzetti’s Buon Governo Frescoes: Two Old Questions, Two New Answers,” Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 62, no. 1 (1999): 1–28, at 6. 

    4. Arpad Steiner, “Petrarch’s Optimus Princeps ,” Romanic Review 23 (1934): 99–111; Christian Bec, Les marchands écrivains: Affaires et humanismé à Florence, 1375–1434 (Paris: École Pratique des Hautes Études, 1967), 49–51; Francesco Petrarca, “How a Ruler Ought to Govern His State,” in The Earthly Republic: Italian Humanists on Government and Society , ed. Benjamin G. Kohl and Ronald G. Witt (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978), 35–92, at 37. 

    5. James Hankins, Virtue Politics: Soulcraft and Statecraft in Renaissance Italy (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2019), 2, 42, 46; Steiner, “Petrarch’s Optimus Princeps ,” 104. 

    6. Raymond de Roover, “The Concept of the Just Price: Theory and Economic Policy,” Journal of Economic History 18, no. 4 (1958): 418–434, at 425; Cicero, De officiis , trans. Walter Miller, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1913), bk. 1, sec. 13–14, paras. 43–45. 

    7. Gertrude Randalph Bramlette Richards, Florentine Merchants in the Age of the Medici: Letters and Documents from the Selfridge Collection of Medici Manuscripts (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932), 5; Armando Sapori, La crisi delle compagnie mercantili dei Bardi dei Peruzzi (Florence: Olschki, 1926); Robert S. Lopez, The Commercial Revo lution of the Middle Ages, 950–1350 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1976), 27–36; Gino Luzzato, Breve storia economica dell’Italia medieval (Turin: Einaudi, 1982); Giovanni di Pagolo Morelli, Ricordi , ed. V. Branca (Florence: F. Le Monnier, 1956), 100–101; Matteo Palmieri, Dell’ Ottimo Cittadino: Massime tolte dal Trattato della Vita Civile (Venice: Dalla Tipografia di Alvisopoli, 1829), 20, 66, 167–168. 

    8. Benedetto Cotrugli, The Book of the Art of Trade , ed. Carlo Carraro and Giovanni Favero, trans. John Francis Phillimore (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017). 

    9. Cotrugli, Book of the Art of Trade , 4. 

    10. Cotrugli, Book of the Art of Trade , 112–115. 

    11. Cotrugli, Book of the Art of Trade , 25, 30, 33. 

    12. Cotrugli, Book of the Art of Trade , 46–49, 62, 86, 112–113. 

    13. Felix Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guicciardini: Politics and History in Sixteenth-Century Florence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965), 160–161. 

    14. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests , 33; Niccolò Machiavelli, The Prince , ed. and trans. William J. Connell (Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2005), 61–62; Colish, “Cicero’s De officiis and Machiavelli’s Prince ,” 92. 

    15. Jacob Soll, Publishing The Prince: History, Reading, and the Birth of Political Criticism (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005), 23; Niccolò Machiavelli, The Discourses , ed. Bernard Crick, trans. Leslie J. Walker, rev. Brian Richardson (London: Penguin, 1970), 37–39, 201. 

    16. Machiavelli, The Discourses , 39; John McCormick, Machiavellian Democracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2011), 55, 201; Gilbert, Machiavelli and Guicciardini, 184–185; Machiavelli, The Prince , 61–62. 

    17. Machiavelli, The Prince , 55; Jérémie Bartas, L’argent n’est pas le nerf de la guerre: Essai sur une prétendue erreur de Machiavel (Rome: École Française de Rome, 2011), 32–36; McCormick, Machiavellian Democracy , 87; Machiavelli, The Discourses , 201–203. 

    18. McCormick, Machiavellian Democracy , 26; Charles Tilly, “Reflection on the History of European State-Making,” in The Formation of National States in Western Europe , ed. Charles Tilly (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 3–83, at 52–56; Margaret Levy, Of Rule and Revenue (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1988), 202; Niccolò Machiavelli, Florentine Histories , trans. Laura F. Banfield and Harvey K. Mansfield Jr. (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 121–123. 

    19. Machiavelli, Florentine Histories , 159. 

    第五章 以国家为手段的英格兰自由贸易

    贸易欣欣向荣时，国王的收入会增加，土地和租金会上涨，航海技术会发展，穷人会受到雇用。但如果贸易衰败，这一切也会随之衰退。 ──爱德华．米塞尔顿（Edward Misselden），《自由贸易，又名，使贸易蓬勃发展的方法》（Free Trade, or, the Means to Make Trade Flourish ），一六二二年

    十六世纪之初，欧洲出现了剧烈的变化。一五一七年，也就是马基维利写下《利瓦伊论》的那一年，日耳曼的新教创始人马丁．路德（Martin Luther）将他执笔的《九十五条论纲》（Ninety-five Theses ）钉在威登堡大教堂（Wittenberg Cathedral）的门上，启动了未来将导致基督教分裂的第一步。首批新教徒如同马基维利一样，对于人类本性无比悲观，他们认为人类是堕落的，会按照自身的兽性行事。但是，他们也如同马基维利一样相信个人选择与利己有其力量。只要做出适当的个人选择，人类就能形塑自己的命运。1
    在同一时期，西班牙探险家胡安．庞塞．莱昂（Juan Ponce de Léon）发现了佛罗里达，并进一步探索该地。欧洲人感到美洲的自然资源远比他们所能想象的更加富饶。哲学家开始把科学与探索视为获得这些资源财富的关键。而崭新的世界探索任务也为人们带来了新的体认：国家必须扮演主导角色，资助与保护探险家进行长途海上交易，并与其他帝国交涉，这些探索对于个人与公司来说太过昂贵也太过复杂了，他们无法靠自己做到。十六与十七世纪的经济思想家一再强调，财富生产需要国家投资与个人冒险精神彼此结合。
    当时欧洲站在科学革命的临界点，这场革命将会迎来对各种自然法则的发现，从行星运动到血液循环皆尽有之，因此，我们也无需意外十六世纪的经济思想见证了全新的自然市场机制运作理论如雨后春笋般涌现。其中，最引人注目的就是利伯维尔场的相关概念了，诸如货币数量理论、报酬递减法则、“进入壁垒”的概念、通货膨胀、劳动生产力和企业家精神──当时的先驱经济思想家认为，这些概念全都得依赖某种形式的国家干涉。

    到了一五三○年代，欧洲遍地都是来自日耳曼与波希米亚矿坑的黄金，还有些黄金来自葡萄牙与西班牙帝国。西班牙船队从新世界带回了堆积如山的贵金属，这些贵金属从塞维利亚（Seville）的瓜达几维海岸（Guadalquivir）与安特卫普（Antwerp）的法兰德斯港口（Flemish port）等地上岸。尽管更多的黄金能带来财富，但这些黄金同时也导致了通货膨胀，甚至货币短缺，破坏了从波希米亚到马德里、巴黎与伦敦的经济稳定性。2
    突如其来的不稳定状态使得哲学家开始研究货币，以及是什么为货币赋予了价值。他们开始意识到市场力量在其中扮演了关键角色。正如早期的经院哲学家认为个人行为会创造出定价与价值的市场机制，晚期的经院哲学家──尤其是西班牙的经院哲学家认为，王室法令与国家其实无法完全控制货币的价值。一个新的法律思想流派出现在西班牙的萨拉曼卡大学（University of Salamanca）与葡萄牙的埃武拉大学（University of Evora），他们把焦点放在理解市场机制上。一五五○年代，西班牙巴斯克（Basque）的神学家马丁．阿兹匹区塔（Martín de Azpilcueta）提出了一种货币数量理论，指出货币的价值同时来自流通的货币多寡（铸币数量上升会抑制货币价值，而这种通膨又会反过来导致货币短缺）以及人们对货币能买到什么的认知。3

    “市场力量订定货币价值”的观点使得人们对于借贷有了新看法。过去长久以来，基督教思想家与经院思想家都认为金钱是邪恶的。这些思想家的其中一个主张是，根据亚里士多德在《政治学》（Politics ）中的论点，金钱是“不结果实的”，在没有货品交易的状况下无法制造财富。因此，金钱不应该“繁殖”，赚取利息是一件不自然的事，甚至可以算是窃盗。在另一个主张中，货币是从虚无（nothingness）中制造出来的，而虚无就是邪恶的。金钱本身没有任何效用，只有实体事物才有价值，金钱只是反映了那些事物的价值。由于金钱是虚无，所以赚取利息──创造财富──是一种黑魔法。此外这些思想家也把高利贷连结到犹太人身上，而犹太人在基督教观点中本是邪恶的。然而，假使决定货币价值的是数量与效用，那就代表了赚取利息并不是邪恶或盗窃，而只是市场机制的关键元素之一罢了。新教的经济思想家在这样的观点之下，很快就往前迈进一大步，终止了过去对高利贷的禁令。

    支持卡尔文主义的日耳曼新教改革者马丁．布塞珥（Martin Bucer）以最强烈的力道为有息放贷辩护，他挑战的不只是天主教对于高利贷的禁令，也挑战了“货币的本质是不结果实的”背后的基础概念。4 当时有愈来愈多神学家认为，只要以纯粹的基督教脉络行事，那经商就是正向的事，布塞珥也是其中之一，他帮助当时的人们解除对于货币的偏见（不过他并没有帮助人们解除对于犹太人的偏见，而希望能将犹太人逐出公民生活与商业生活）。布塞珥在一五四七年因为宗教冲突而向英格兰新教寻求庇护，国王亨利八世在宫廷里接见了他。一五四九年，他成为剑桥大学的钦定教授，写下了《论基督的王国》（On the Kingdom of Christ ），在其中勾勒出他的愿景，他认为若借贷双方都同意一个并非“滥用”的利率，那么借贷就是对经济有益的行为。布塞珥引用了西塞罗和圣安博的话来正当化基督教社群中的商品获利，指这些利润可以“用来为上帝的子民购买和平”。他专注于透过商业支持公民生活，这代表了基督教思想正逐渐向世俗世界靠拢。“金钱同样是上帝的恩赐，上帝要我们以正确的方式使用金钱。”他在《论高利贷》（Treatise on Usury ）中如此写道。如果金钱能帮助基督徒好好生活，还能支持西塞罗过去提出的公民稳定性的“首要之善”观点，那么金钱也就未必是“不结果实的”。5

    卡尔文派的新教主义在法国产生了重大的影响，法国是当时西欧人口最多的国家，也可能是最富有的国家。然而，从一五六二年开始的法国宗教战争（French Wars of Religion）延续了超过三十五年，天主教极端分子攻击了新教教徒，甚至也攻击了天主教的温和派，使法国面临攸关存亡的威胁。城市与富有的工业产业纷纷解体。有些法国思想家希望能找到一个理论来停止宗教冲突并重建社会，于是他们全心接纳了马基维利的观点，认为若想要稳定国家与社会并创造有利的市场条件，马基维利的理论至关重要。

    其中一位思想家是法国法学家、历史学家暨自然哲学家尚．布丹（Jean Bodin）。他在宗教战争最高峰期间写下许多政治理论，为专制君主制辩护，他认为这种制度不仅能维持政治和平，还能发展法国经济。他的理论是他对圣巴托罗缪大屠杀（Saint Bartholomew’s Day Massacre，一五七二年）做出的反馈，在这场大屠杀中，天主教狂热分子于巴黎杀害了数百名新教的高阶贵族，且在法国各地共杀害了数千人。这场史无前例的暴力事件对法国造成重挫，那些暴徒摧毁了各个城市与商业财富，使法国一夕之间变得动荡不安。布丹对于宗教派系斗争与内乱所做出的响应就是“专制主义”。布丹认为，如果经济是透过自然程序运作的，那么国家就必须稳定社会并重建市场。布丹采用了马基维利的观点来为国家的稳定性与权力辩护，但他的主张中更加明确地指出，国家能促进财富，并使市场得以自然系统的状态运作。别忘了，布丹和马基维利的地位截然不同──布丹是一名在各国都受人尊敬的学者、律师暨国王顾问，因此能够直言不讳地表达意见。

    布丹在《国家六论》（Six Books of the Republic ，一五七六年）中解释道，在面对消耗着政治实体的“热情”时，专制君主制是唯一的答案。虽然布丹不同意马基维利为不道德行为提出的辩护，但他认为马基维利优先关注政治稳定性是正确的。仇恨与狂热的宗教信仰会打破政治实体的和谐，摧毁商业与财富。布丹和过去的无数市场理论家一样，也向西塞罗借鉴，他指出，有权制定法律且有道德的君主会实行斯多噶式的“节制”，把自然平衡带回经济中。6

    布丹承袭了马基维利的准则，认为国家若想要稳定，就必须变得富有。他也同样认为极端富有的寡头阶级会威胁到市场机制的稳定性。“少数人过度富裕”和“多数人极度贫困”必定会导致内乱。唯有强大的国家能控制极端财富与贫困所带来的“瘟疫”。但布丹和西塞罗一样，认为试图创造“平等”是另一个危险的海市蜃楼。他认为经济需要成长，而健康的国家能带来信心与信任，创造出理想的市场条件──也就是公平的税率与削减债务。按照罗马的模式，国家还应该要透过扩张殖民地来增加资金。对布丹来说，优秀的政府也就代表了优秀的公共财政管理。他认为国家应该要透过“计算人口”了解公共净资产值，以便评估人民的劳动生产力和可能的城市工业所具有的价值。后来的事实证明了这种早期形式的经济人口统计学对于了解市场来说非常关键。7

    我们可以在布丹的身上看到十六世纪经济思想的复杂性：他在稳定经济与确保市场条件方面为国家所扮演的角色做了辩护，但他同时也是那个时代首屈一指的货币理论学家，对市场机制进行了突破性的观察分析。一五六八年，布丹在职涯早期写下《响应马列斯妥先生》（Response to the Paradoxes of Monsieur de Malestroit ）作为对欧洲通膨问题的响应，并用此作品为货币数量理论进行强而有力的辩护，指出钱币的流通数量会影响货币价值。8

    皇家顾问暨会计师马列斯妥（Malestroit）在一五六六年写道，货币的价值存在于货币本身，而通膨危机的基础其实是贬值、钱币纯度与钱币剪边（coin clipping，指的就是字面意义上的剪裁金币与银币的边缘）。马列斯妥认为，价格在三百年来都没有改变，而通货膨胀源自钱币本身的质量。布丹很清楚，钱币的固有价值是有限的，钱币具有的价值有更大一部分其实来自市场的力量。身为历史学家，他曾研究过钱币价值在过去一段时间内的文献数据。他知道来自日耳曼矿产、西班牙矿产与新世界的黄金与白银涌入后，导致了稀有金属过剩。真正带来通膨的是钱币的数量，而不是钱币的质量。改变货币的官方价值与打击硬币剪边是无法阻止通膨的。如果黄金与白银数量的增加会削弱货币价值，而国家又无法控制金属的流入，那么国家就必须要进行干预才能帮助经济成长。想要对抗通膨、增加流通的货币数量与稳定货币价值的唯一途径，就是创造更多贸易。9

    布丹的《响应马列斯妥先生》是率先以数据为基础，对货币与市场功能进行实际研究的著作之一。他追随经院哲学的脚步，认为数量是决定价值与价格的因果力量。举例来说，流通的钱币数量愈多，钱币的价值就会愈低。同样的道理也适用在谷物上。（布丹更提供了具有充分历史依据的论述，解释人们为何可能在拥有更多黄金的同时，却矛盾地变得更贫困。）他观察到，价格的历史波动和行星运动很相似；他引用了波兰天文学家尼古拉．哥白尼（Nicolaus Copernicus）对行星运动提出的因果理论，藉此解释为何货币数量增加会使价格下降。质量与速度是行星运动的自然力量，控制了行星如何绕着太阳转。哥白尼认为，行星与货币都遵循相同的定律，而布丹也赞同这个强而有力的模拟。10

    布丹利用西塞罗死于马克．安东尼之手的著名例子来指出，在人类之间发生的事情就像大自然一样，并非总是和谐的。国家有责任要确保这些冲突不会恶化成大规模的动乱，就像罗马共和国的解体，或者他所处时代的宗教战争，以及随之而来的货币崩溃风险。布丹确信，只要有上帝的旨意与人类的斯多噶式审慎态度，当代的天主教君主就能赢得与极端主义派的争斗，为法国带回平衡、和平与繁荣。11

    马基维利、经院哲学家与布丹启发了乔凡尼．博泰罗（Giovanni Botero）对于经济与政治的思想，他是一名耶稣会神职人员、哲学家暨外交官。博泰罗最重要的构想之一，是为城市培育出工业并刺激市场。有别于农业，这些构想把核心放在探索、创新与制造，再加上透过大量累积资产，来开启一个持续创造出财富的动态过程。这意谓着各国必须把焦点放在管理和投资城市上。博泰罗赞同马基维利的观点，认为国家应该要为自身的存续与繁荣做出艰难的决定，博泰罗是第一个将此概念称作“国家理性”（reason of state，或国家利益）的人。经济史学家将这个后来在法文中写作“raison d’état”的概念与现代的重商主义概念连结在一起，根据此概念，君主或领导人必须在能力所及内尽自己的一切努力去增强国家经济，无论是囤积黄金还是补贴工商业。不过，博泰罗并不认为单靠国家就可以管控经济；国家必须和商人合作，才能创造出使生产最大化的恰当环境条件。12

    尽管博泰罗进一步推展了西塞罗的主张──即应该为了维护公民利益而把所有精力集中在稳定国家，但他同时也远离了西塞罗的农业理想，也远离了当代贵族仍旧认为贸易与工业并不光彩的看法。博泰罗认为人类工业具有无限可能性，以此取代了农业和矿业能带来无限财富的观念。他描述着欧洲各地的城市如何把焦点从农业转移到城市财富，并因此变得富裕；这些城市里坐落着大学、法院和地方工业，这些机构全都能培养技能，进而创造出更多工业。13

    博泰罗指出，实现这种可能性的关键核心其实在于人类的狡猾特质，以及使用权宜之计（expedient devices）来创造财富的手段。他所谓的诡计（artifice）指的有可能是在政治中利用马基维利式的情感伪装。不过，他指的也可能是字面意义上的“技巧纯熟的灵活双手”，也就是工匠的双手，以及工匠为了生产与增加社会财富而努力创造出来的、族繁不及备载的创新“工具”（device）与“巧妙方法”（artifice）。博泰罗曾亲眼见过工匠的“勤奋”所带来的收益，是如何“远远超过”“大自然”、农业甚或是矿业能带来的财富。在他看来，由于大自然的效率很差，所以推动财富的力量有限。他指出，威尼斯与荷兰共和国的强大经济中心就是以城市为核心的范例，这些城市透过创造性获得了无可比拟的财富。他写道，一座城市愈是远离农业的原物料端，而透过制造业与全球贸易为原物料增加经济价值，这座城市就愈能以有效率的方式持续扩展其创造财富的能力。14

    拿坡里哲学家安东尼奥．塞拉（Antonio Serra）也利用市场分析来支持工业胜过农业的观点。他在一六一三年的著作《国家贫富短论》（Short Treatise on the Wealth and Poverty of Nations ）中详细阐述了农业产品是如何导致收益递减，而收益递减会导致生产成本提高，充其量也只能带来有限的盈余。农业根本无法为大规模投资创造出足够的财富。唯有制造才能“利用产品的倍增来使收入倍增”，并产出不会迅速贬值的耐久货品。塞拉解释道，随着生产量增加，成本将会下降，这使得工业有机会同时提高薪水并压低价格。这就是能够使收益增加的机制。因此具竞争性的工业市场具有很大的潜力，至少在塞拉描述的这种收益增加导致了后来所谓的“进入壁垒”之前都是如此──进入壁垒是一种创造出寡头与垄断的机制。15

    塞拉和多数意大利城市居民一样，认为若要让上述制造业策略成功运作，国家就必须透过法规与标准来支持工业。也因为如此，现代经济学家将塞拉视为“重商主义者”，而非利伯维尔场思想家。但塞拉自己绝不会这么认为。他是那个时代对市场机制最有意识的人，也对贬值、边际成本与商业投资的资本建立等等的运作方式有着深刻的理解，他只不过试图解释自己眼前的现象：在意大利北部，诸如威尼斯、热那亚和米兰等稳定的商业国家，都协助制造业与贸易获得远大于农业的生产力。

    意大利是十六世纪的商业发展中心之一。当时英格兰也正透过国家干预与利伯维尔场政策之间的平衡再次逐渐崛起。反观法国的内战削弱了稀疏分布在广阔农业封建领地中的大型贸易城市，但英格兰则有愈来愈多城镇变成制造业与贸易的中心。举例来说，在一五五○年至一五七○年之间，南安普敦（Southampton）的商店数量就变成了两倍。到了一五七○年代，南安普敦已经有三百间商店，提供一千多种产品，包括一百多种布料、一千多种鱼钩，以及彷佛源源不绝供应的铁矿和煤矿。在十六世纪后半，英格兰的人口成长了将近百分之三十，各城市的人口密度随之增加，甚至向外扩张到没多久之前还只是乡村的区域。16

    随着英格兰的经济发展，对市场成长不可或缺的合法商业合约和信贷也在全国各地兴起。对金钱的需求增加导致货币开始短缺，这时人们转而求助于信贷，于是英格兰社会各个角落的债务都增加了。随处可见的举债现象并不能代表经济美德正逐渐低落，反而是市场发展的象征。很快地，贷款、债券与合约所组成的庞大网络发挥了作用而创造出流动性，刺激商业进一步成长。在一五六○年至一六四○年间，以信贷为基础的经济活动不断成长，贷款次数增加，人们也养成找证人来见证合约签署的新常规。经济信任感持续增长，就连平凡的英格兰商人也可能会吹嘘自己能在短时间内获得一笔巨额贷款。由于合约增加，英格兰人的算数能力也在增强，一般的会计知识逐渐普及，人们愈来愈信任投资体制。尼古拉斯．葛瑞默德（Nicholas Grimalde）在一五五八年翻译出版了西塞罗的《论责任》，这个广受欢迎的译本使用了许多当时流行的词汇：“忠诚是正义的基础：它体现在文字（worde）、契约（covenaunt）、真相（trouth）与坚定不移（stedfastnesse）之中。”17

    伴随着贸易、信任与贷款的蓬勃发展而出现的，是一波重要的英格兰经济著作。由英格兰议员、剑桥学者暨先驱市场思想家汤姆士．史密斯爵士（Thomas Smith）撰写的《论英格兰共同体》（A Discourse on the Common Weal of This Realm of England ，约一五四九年）指出，政府必须给予农业市场自由，同时严密管控工业以推动城市制造业。史密斯主张，议会干预人们在过去的公有农业土地上进行圈地，这样的行为削减了作物产量，并回过头来削减了城市的财富。史密斯不但赞成建立一个工业供需的国际市场体制，他也对于国家要如何帮助具企业家精神的工匠有一套看法。虽然他相信富裕的市场本身就具有自我扩张的力量，但他也引用西塞罗的话，主张国家必须利用“奖励”（rewardes）来帮助、甚至“强迫”城市工业发展，并利用“痛苦”（paine）来进行监管。史密斯认为，虽然农业需要的是自由，但工业需要的是国家的监督，也需要国家协助往国际市场发展。扩张的工业为整个国家创造出一道财富之流，藉此，“城镇与都市将会重新充满各种工匠；不只是如今我们视为日常的布匠，还有帽匠、手套匠、造纸匠、玻璃匠、指标工、金匠、铁匠与各种金属的锻造工、床罩制造商、针匠和针头匠。”所有这些交易和行业彼此扶持，创造出能带来经济成长的市场体制。18

    英格兰政府支持的不只是国内工业，他们也支持英格兰市场往殖民世界扩张。一五七九年，英国女王伊丽莎白一世资助了弗朗西斯．德瑞克（Francis Drake）环绕世界航行的计划。她也特别准许华特．雷利（Walter Raleigh）带领探险队在一五九五年前往奥利诺科河（Orinoco River），这条河位于如今的委内瑞拉，此前克里斯多福．哥伦布也是在委内瑞拉找到了他心目中通往天堂的道路。比哥伦布晚一百多年出生的雷利，在一本名为《发现广阔、富裕又美丽的圭亚那帝国，以及伟大的黄金之城马诺亚，西班牙人称之为黄金国》（The Discovery of the Large, Rich, and Beautiful Empire of Guiana, with a Relation of the Great and Golden City of Manoa Which the Spaniards Call El Dorado ，一五九六年）的书中描述了他的旅行，并声称自己找到了无尽的财富，找到了“黄金之母”。19

    虽然许多英格兰人都认为国家必须参与商业帝国的打造，但他们同时也在试着了解他们眼中推动市场持续生产的自然法则。盎格鲁─法兰商人暨德斯贸易商杰拉德．马林斯（Gerard de Malynes）在他的著作《商人法》（Lex Mercatoria ，一六二二年）中，以极为精深的观点看待规章制度与自由在商业建立中扮演的角色。他援引了《圣经》、斯巴达、克里特、迦太基和西塞罗的法律，也引用了尚．布丹的研究，坚称国家必须带有策略地支持贸易。20

    马林斯和布丹一样，抱持着一种同等依赖国家干预与利伯维尔场机制之自我调节的经济理论，使现代利伯维尔场／重商主义二分法的概念为之混淆。依照自然法则，如果自然元素以特定方式运作，或依照某些固定原则移动，那么人类的行为与贸易也应该要反映出这些原则。但是这种“反映”并不是一个自发的过程；这种“反映”需要人类监督与维持体制不偏离路线。马林斯把贸易描述成一种炼金的流程，汲取自那些相信科学可以把普通的石头与元素转化成黄金与长生不老药的人。在某种程度上，人们正是因为炼金术这个原始科学才会相信金钱可以创造出金钱。炼金术也使马林斯与其他思想家相信，黄金和财富的创造是大自然运作程序的一部分，人类不但可以透过哲学家了解这种程序，还可以透过科学家运用这种程序。21

    马林斯同意布丹在货币数量理论中提出的部分要素，不过他看得更远。在他眼中，有大量的自然因素与人类因素──诸如时间的流逝、贬值、数量，以及王室在铸造和监管优质钱币方面的权威──都会影响货币的价值。马林斯在《自由贸易主张》（The Maintenance of Free Trade ，一六二二年）中警告道，如果国家因为贸易不平衡而失去太多钱币，就会使工业受到损害。如果英格兰人购买了太多荷兰布料，英格兰黄金就会流入荷兰，导致英格兰人没有足够的钱币能进行贸易。马林斯是一名金银本位主义者，他认为一个国家拥有的钱币与贵金属数量就等于这个国家的财富，并且主张这样的观点是工业发展与自由贸易的基础。马林斯在谈的是当时的时事。那时的英格兰缺少货币，因此商人没有足够的硬币能交易或缴税。他认为这种货币短缺破坏了原本可以扩张英格兰布料工业的投资。22

    与此同时，马林斯也觉得政府必须保护羊毛商人不受外国竞争的伤害。唯有透过关税，才能确保“英格兰商人”获得公平的价格，并因此支持与外国的“自由贸易”。从现代利伯维尔场思想的角度来看，这样的观点似乎很矛盾，事实上此观点只是在对抗英格兰的硬币短缺现象。十七世纪早期的英格兰经济思想家已经不是经济原始人了，并非不理解放任主义式的财富创造机制；事实上，他们试图让贵金属回流至国内，藉此恢复贸易与工业发展。马林斯和其他商人认为国家是唯一有能力达成这项艰难任务的一方；由此可知，国家是保持经济自由与稳定的必要保证人。关税会带回足够的资金，使国内商业能够成长，如此一来英格兰就能在国际市场的竞争中不受限制，并取得有利的位置。23

    马林斯并不是唯一一个这么认为的人。多数英格兰经济中的领导人都赞同这个观点：国家可以在创造自由贸易条件的方面发挥作用。在这些人之中，最具有影响力的是东印度公司（East India Company）的董事托玛斯．孟恩（Thomas Mun）和商人爱德华．米塞尔顿。对于孟恩与米塞尔顿来说，国家执行保护主义会推动贸易自由的这个概念没有任何矛盾之处。因此，虽然经济史学家一直以来都因为他们两人坚持要王室透过关税来保护英格兰船运与制造业，而认为他们是重商主义的理论家，但我们也必须把他们视为利伯维尔场思想的先驱。

    对孟恩来说，通往自由贸易的最可靠途径，就是允许市场设立价格，同时由政府来保护与扶植英格兰工业的成长。孟恩是一六二○年代的东印度公司董事，当时经济萧条，他采用了混合自由策略与保护主义的营运方式，藉此帮助王室扭转贸易的不平衡。社会大众抨击他用珍贵的白银来换取奢侈的货品，他则为自己治理公司的方式辩解，指出这种贸易会使英格兰变得更富饶。唯有“购买与付款的行动”所推动的“规律商品流动”才能增加英格兰货币的价值，这也就代表了较少的货币能买到更多货品，从而阻止货币从英格兰外流到其他国家。虽然孟恩认为自由贸易有助于控制货币危机，但他觉得这样是不够的。他认为若想加强英格兰的自由贸易能力，社会需要同时采用市场的解决方案与国家的干预。他支持国家针对那些会和国内工业竞争的一系列进口商品征收关税，并坚持能够运送英格兰货物的只有英格兰船舰，例如他们公司的船。如今看来，这样的观点似乎不太像是自由贸易，但对于孟恩和其他商业领导人来说，他们需要在面对荷兰人时创造出优势条件，才能享有贸易自由，因为荷兰人在交易方面具有很大的优势。24

    爱德华．米塞尔顿在他的著作《自由贸易，又名，使贸易蓬勃发展的方法》中表达了类似的观点。他反对垄断，认为贸易是一种能够自然而然地永续成长的买卖体制。他认为市场订定的货币价格与货币能购买的“货品”（wares）有关。然而米塞尔顿的自由贸易思想和孟恩一样，受到艰难的国际市场情势以及英格兰还没有经济主导权的事实之影响，而显得有些模棱两可。他认为英格兰工业是脆弱而必须受保护的。在认为垄断是不健康的同时，他依然认为国家应该监管贸易，他写道：“在缺乏秩序 与政府 的状况下交易的人，就像船上一意孤行的乘客 一样，不断在自己的船底打洞 。”若没有政府的监督，“缺乏技巧和纪律的人”将会摧毁贸易、破坏信任与价值，而那些伪造的产品和卷标错误的商品更是如此。25

    一六二○年代至一六三○年代，天主教与新教两方势力的宗教战争对法国与日耳曼造成了很大的伤害，使得国际贸易权力转移到英格兰手中，但很快的，英格兰自身的内战（一六四二年至一六五一年）也威胁到了国内工业，这场内战使得斯图亚特王朝（Stuart）的国王查理一世与清教徒议会暨军队领导人奥利佛．克伦威尔（Oliver Cromwell）陷入对立。英格兰的奢侈品贸易逐渐萧条，国际航运也遭到封锁，使得英格兰在面对荷兰共和国时失去了他们过去努力取得的贸易优势。一六五一年，清教徒成功掌权，英格兰议会通过了《航海法》（Navigation Act ），英格兰商人一直以来都在推动市场保护以对抗国际竞争，以及推动建立能对抗荷兰商业巨头的法律阵线，这些长期努力终于在此刻迎来了极盛期。26

    《航海法》除了保护国家工业外，也限制了只有英格兰的船只能进入国内。此法律使英格兰与荷兰的竞争进入白热化。英格兰内战才刚结束，第一次英荷战争就在一六五二年展开，但这场为期两年的战争并没有为英格兰带来决定性的胜利。虽然英格兰在一六五三年的席凡宁根战役（Battle of Scheveningen）成为胜利者，却没能击败荷兰船队，也无法封锁英格兰海岸。荷兰继续维持着优势商业国家的地位，于是英格兰政府的决策者采纳了孟恩和米塞尔顿的建议，打造了关税体制以扶植国家工业。他们也请求国家协助他们挑战荷兰在印度、非洲直至北美洲的全球贸易优势地位，尤其是奴隶贸易这一部分。

    在商人对政府的强大影响力之下，透过商业资本的扩张与政府法规二者间的配合，英格兰的商业就此扶摇直上。这份国家与商业间的伙伴关系运作良好，到了十七世纪中，英格兰已经成为了先进的商业国家，在国内具有相当影响力的商人阶级与国家携手完善关税法。这些商人在国家的帮助下，打造了十七世纪的英国强大经济。对他们来说，自由贸易代表的就是限制外来竞争，并在抢夺优势与无限财富的战争中保护他们刚开始发展的产业，这一切在他们眼中并不矛盾。英格兰开始步入缓慢但稳定的崛起，往全球首屈一指的商业国家迈进。但首先，英格兰必须在与荷兰和法国的竞争中取得胜利。27

    1. Quentin Skinner, The Foundations of Modern Political Thought , 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1978), 2:5, 284. 

    2. Harry A. Miskimin, The Economy of Later Renaissance Europe, 1460–1600 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1977), 36. 

    3. Skinner, Foundations of Modern Political Thought , 2:139; Francisco de Vitoria, Political Writings , ed. Anthony Pagden and Jeremy Lawrence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), xv–xix; Martín de Azpilcueta, Commentary on the Resolution of Money (1556) , in Sourcebook in Late-Scholastic Monetary Theory: The Contributions of Martín de Azpilcueta, Luis de Molina, S. J. , and Juan de Mariana, S. J. , ed. Stephen J. Grabill (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2007), 1–107, at 79; Martín de Azpilcueta, On Exchange , trans. Jeannine Emery (Grand Rapids, MI: Acton Institute, 2014), 127. 另见 Alejandro Chafuen, Faith and Liberty: The Economic Thought of the Late Scholastics (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2003), 54; Marjorie Grice-Hutchinson, The School of Salamanca: Readings in Spanish Monetary Theory, 1544–1605 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1952), 48. 

    4. Raymond de Roover, Money, Banking and Credit in Medieval Bruges (Cambridge, MA: Medieval Academy of America, 1948), 17; Mark Koyama, “Evading the ‘Taint of Usury’: The Usury Prohibition as a Barrier to Entry,” Explorations in Economic History 47, no. 4 (2010): 420–442, at 428. 

    5. Martin Bucer, De Regno Christi , in Melancthon and Bucer , ed. Wilhelm Pauk (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1969), 155–394, at 304; Steven Rowan, “Luther, Bucer, Eck on the Jews,” Sixteenth Century Journal 16, no. 1 (1985): 79–90, at 85; Bucer, Regno Christi , 302; Constantin Hopf, Martin Bucer and the English Reformation (London: Blackwell, 1946), 124–125; Martin Greschat, Martin Bucer: A Reformer and His Times , trans. Stephen E. Buckwalter (Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2004), 236–237. 

    6. Jacob Soll, “Healing the Body Politic: French Royal Doctors, History and the Birth of a Nation, 1560–1634,” Renaissance Quarterly 55, no. 4 (2002): 1259–1286. 

    7. Jean Bodin, Les six livres de la République , ed. Gérard Mairet (Paris: Livre de Poche, 1993), 428–429, 431, 485, 487, 500. 

    8. Louis Baeck, “Spanish Economic Thought: The School of Salamanca and the Arbitristas,” History of Political Economy 20, no. 3 (1988): 394. 

    9. Henri Hauser, ed. , La vie chère au XVIe siècle: La Réponse de Jean Bodin à M. de Malestroit 1568 (Paris: Armand Colin, 1932), xxxii; J. H. Elliott, “Self-Perception and Decline in Early Seventeenth-Century Spain,” Past and Present 74 (1977): 49–50. 

    10. Hauser, La vie chère , lviii. 

    11. Hauser, La vie chère , 499–500. 

    12. David Sainsbury, Windows of Opportunity: How Nations Create Wealth (London: Profile Books, 2020), 11. 

    13. Giovanni Botero, The Reason of State (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 4; Giovanni Botero, On the Causes of the Greatness and Magnificence of Cities , ed. and trans. Geoffrey Symcox (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2012), xxxiii, 39–45. 

    14. Botero, On the Causes of the Greatness and Magnificence of Cities , 43–44; Sophus A. Reinert, Translating Empire: Emulation and the Origins of Political Economy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), 117; Erik S. Reinert, “Giovanni Botero (1588) and Antonio Serra (1613): Italy and the Birth of Development Economics,” in The Oxford Handbook of Industrial Policy , ed. Arkebe Oqubay, Christopher Cramer, Ha-Joon Chang, and Richard Kozul-Wright (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2020), 3–41. 

    15. Antonio Serra, A Short Treatise on the Wealth and Poverty of Nations (1613) , ed. Sophus A. Reinert, trans. Jonathan Hunt (New York: Anthem, 2011), 121; Jamie Trace, Giovanni Botero and English Political Thought (doctoral thesis, University of Cambridge, 2018). 

    16. Craig Muldrew, The Economy of Obligation (New York: Palgrave, 1998), 53. 

    17. Muldrew, Economy of Obligation , 97, 109, 138, 151; Nicolas Grimalde, Marcus Tullius Ciceroes Thre Bokes of Duties, to Marcus His Sonne, Turned Oute of Latine into English , ed. Gerald O’Gorman (Washington, DC: Folger Books, 1990), 207. 

    18. Joyce Oldham Appleby, Economic Thought and Ideology in Seventeenth-Century England (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1978), 34. 另见 Elizabeth Lamond, ed. , A Discourse of the Common Weal of This Realm of England. First Printed in 1581 and Commonly Attributed to W. S. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1929), 15, 59, 93; Mary Dewar, “The Authorship of the ‘Discourse of the Commonweal,’ ” Economic History Review 19, no. 2 (1966): 388–400. 

    19. Sir Walter Raleigh, The Discovery of the Large, Rich, and Beautiful Empire of Guiana, with a Relation of the Great and Golden City of Manoa Which the Spaniards Call El Dorado , ed. Robert H. Schomburgk (New York: Burt Franklin, 1848), lxxix. 

    20. Gerard de Malynes, Lex Mercatoria (Memphis: General Books, 2012), 5. 

    21. Malynes, Lex Mercatoria , 27; William Eamon, Science and the Secrets of Nature: Books and Secrets in Medieval and Early Modern Culture (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1994); Claire Lesage, “La Littérature des secrets et I Secreti d’Isabella Cortese,” Chroniques italiennes 36 (1993): 145–178; Carl Wennerlind, Casualties of Credit: The English Financial Revolution, 1620–1720 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), 48. 

    22. Wennerlind, Casualties of Credit , 79, 114, 211; Gerard de Malynes, The Maintenance of Free Trade (New York: Augustus Kelley, 1971), 47. 

    23. Malynes, Maintenance of Free Trade , 83, 105. 

    24. Appleby, Economic Thought and Ideology , 37; Thomas Mun, The Complete Works: Economics and Trade , ed. Gavin John Adams (San Bernardino, CA: Newton Page, 2013), 145. 

    25. Edward Misselden, Free Trade, or, The Meanes to Make Trade Florish (London: John Legatt, 1622), 20, 80, 84. 

    26. Lawrence A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws: A Seventeenth-Century Experiment in Social Engineering (New York: Octagon Books, 1960), 40. 

    27. Charles Henry Wilson, England’s Apprenticeship, 1603–1763 (London: Longmans, 1965), 65; Jean-Baptiste Colbert, “Mémoire touchant le commerce avec l’Angleterre, 1651,” in Lettres, instructions, et mémoires de Colbert , ed. Pierre Clément, 10 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1861–1873), vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 405–409; Harper, English Navigation Laws , 16; Moritz Isenmann, “Égalité, réciprocité, souvraineté: The Role of Commercial Treaties in Colbert’s Economic Policy,” in The Politics of Commercial Treaties in the Eighteenth Century: Balance of Power, Balance of Trade , ed. Antonella Alimento and Koen Stapelbroek (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 77–104. 

    第六章 荷兰共和国的自由与财富

    上帝创造了人的αὐτεξούσιον，意即“自由与法权”，所以每个人的行为以及对自身财产的使用，都应该出于自己的意志，而不是出于他人的意志……因此，俗话说：“每个人在论及与自身财产相关的事物时，都是自己的统治者与仲裁者。” ──雨果．格劳秀斯（Hugo Grotius），《论捕获法》（De Iure Praedae Commentarius ），一六○三年

    一五七六年，荷兰人起事反抗世袭的西班牙统治者，西班牙国王菲利普二世，而后他的军队洗劫了伟大的贸易城市安特卫普。大约有一半的人口往北逃向之后将成为全球贸易中心的阿姆斯特丹。一五八一年，荷兰北部的七个省脱离了西属尼德兰，成立了荷兰共和国。荷兰共和国是一个由卡尔文派主导，采取地方分权制度的联省国家，其特别之处是相对宽容的宗教信仰与商人阶级为主的政府统治。这些商人成为了新共和国领导人，自然而然地以利伯维尔场与积极亲商的创新思维当作基础，推动这个国家往他们的愿景前进。

    就算此时英格兰也有条不紊地建立起商业实力，荷兰仍继续主导着欧洲经济。后人所谓的荷兰黄金时代（Dutch Golden Age）培养出了许多关于经济学的复杂概念，其中以利伯维尔场的观点特别值得一提。无论从后见之明来看，这个利伯维尔场的概念有多超前，其实它就和英国与法国的经济思想一样，是以政府大量干涉经济作为前提。政治与帝国的经济现实并不总是完全符合荷兰共和国的思想家所拥护的自由理想。正如历史中的许多其他时期，荷兰的利伯维尔场理想也同样与更加复杂的国家干预现实并存。

    荷兰的一位杰出人文学家西蒙．斯蒂文（Simon Stevin）在荷兰共和国成立时从布鲁日市（Bruges）搬到了莱顿市（Leiden）。他出生于一个普通的商人家庭，在莱顿念大学时认识了纳绍伯爵，伯爵后来成为奥兰治亲王的“奥兰治的莫里斯”（Maurice of Orange, Count of Nassau）。身为沉默者威廉一世（William I the Silent）的儿子，莫里斯在一五八五年成为荷兰共和国的省总督，他选择了斯蒂文来担任他的首席顾问与导师。莫里斯担任省总督直到他在一六二五年逝世。在任职期间，他指定斯蒂文负责处理最重要的供水系统──运河、堤防、水坝和挡海的水闸，又让斯蒂文成为军队的军需官，并帮助他成立了莱顿的工学院。斯蒂文是个博学的人，他写了一本影响力深远的会计手册《亲王会计》（Accounting for Princes ，一六○四年），主张政府必须由熟悉商业之道的人来治理。1

    斯蒂文解释了复式簿记对商业公司来说具有何种重要性，并强调在荷兰国内市场建立信任时，国家与市政的管理是必要的。他说，在一个健康的商业共和国中，所有成员都应该要具备金融素养。一旦每个人都能读懂资产负债表，他们就可以进行买卖、有自信地进行财务审计，并规范自己与他人。他向亲王保证，相较于亲王雇用的官僚和税务员，商人一定会成为更好的国库管理者，同样的道理，一名精通会计的君主也可以自己读懂国库账簿，而非只能一味听从财政官的话。2

    斯蒂文和其他荷兰领导人都认为，在激发市场信心与吸引外国人进入荷兰共和国的过程中，容忍政策会扮演很重要的角色。许多卡尔文教派的纺织品制造商在又称为八十年战争（Eighty Years’ War）的荷兰独立战争（Dutch War of Independence，一五六八年至一六四八年）期间，逃到了荷兰共和国北方的城市寻求庇护。到了一六○九年，阿姆斯特丹的卡尔文主义者和天主教徒数量已经持平了，另外也有许多犹太人与路德教徒。这些人全都有权可以投资与建立公司。容忍与信心，再加上金融素养、透明度和效率，这些因素迭加起来，推动着一个仍在不断成长的丰富市场文化。3

    不出所料，荷兰市场开始扩张。荷兰利用大量的可燃泥炭以及无限量供应的水力和风力作为制造业的天然能源。一五九二年，荷兰开始为了砍伐木材等工业目的而建造了庞大的风车网络。风车是荷兰公共投资传统的产物，历史可以追溯到私人资助的中世纪公共工程。举例来说，单单一个风车就可以有多达七十名投资人持股。这代表的是公民投资人共同努力打造公共基础建设。这种私人与公共间形成伙伴关系的悠久传统，奠定了荷兰共和国的许多商业基础。4

    到了十七世纪中叶，荷兰已经变成了全世界最复杂而成熟的经济体。荷兰农民很清楚经济成长不是基于农业，而是基于工业，所以他们把焦点放在为了制造业种植作物，开始进口小麦作为食物。他们发现纯粹从事农业耕作的生产力，比不上以更复杂的工业目标来耕作。他们种植多年生的茜草，这种植物的根部能制造出长期以来用于皮革与纺织品的红色染料。并且也发展出先进的烟草产业，在乡村地区种植作物，接着送到阿姆斯特丹加工与包装。5

    透过强大的市政管理，国家在荷兰的经济发展方面扮演了关键角色，积极地签下各种对荷兰有利的贸易条约。法国人与英格兰人因为无法智胜荷兰外交官，所以愤怒地用制定关税作为响应。但荷兰共和国凭借着其他国家无可匹敌的市场，再加上能够控制进入北海、波罗的海与汉萨同盟（Hanseatic League）各城市的通道，以及其他国家对荷兰制造业的广泛需求，在整个十七世纪都持续占据主导的经济地位。6

    荷兰就像之前的佛罗伦萨一样，依靠行会来发展工业与控制质量。艺术家、烘焙师、银行家、裁缝和制革商都有自己的行会。荷兰的德芬特（Deventer）等城市为了吸引外国的纺织品制造商前往当地发展工艺，提供了特权与垄断权。他们甚至还提供现金补贴，并利用关税来保护初创产业。这样的措施使荷兰出现了各地产业的专门化。举例来说，在高达市（Gouda）的两万名居民中，有四千人都在制作长杆的陶制烟斗──事实上，该市直到今天仍有一家硕果仅存的烟斗制造商。7

    当时的荷兰船队比史上任何时候的威尼斯船队还要更庞大，就算法国与英格兰的船队加起来的规模也及不上荷兰船队；在欧洲所有国家中，荷兰的商船水手是技巧最熟练、最精通航海知识，效率也最高的。只要九至十名荷兰船员就能操纵一艘两百多吨的福禄特帆船（flute ship），而类似的英格兰船只则需要三十名船员来操纵。一五九○年代，西班牙对荷兰实行的贸易禁运结束了，荷兰人开始沿着非洲海岸向东方航行。到了一六三四年，他们已经扩张到西印度群岛，占领了阿鲁巴岛（Aruba）、波纳尔岛（Bonaire）和古拉索岛（Curação），并把这些岛屿拿来当作奴隶贸易的据点。8

    荷兰商人在西班牙与葡萄牙帝国内设立了贸易站，藉此侵吞更多贸易量，他们成为欧洲赚进最多钱的一群人。一五九九年，雅各布．哥尼拉斯．范尼克（Jacob Cornelius van Neck）在东印度群岛的香料探索获得了高达百分之三百九十九的利润。新成立的公司在荷兰各地大量涌现，使得人们开始担忧荷兰内部的过多竞争可能会导致贸易受损。荷兰最重要的其中一位领导人，类似于首相的“土地倡导者”（land’s advocate）约翰．奥登巴那维（Johan van Oldenbarnevelt）坚持认为，荷兰七个省的所有公司应该要联合起来，组成一间共同对外贸易的联盟公司。因此，他在一六○二年协助成立了荷兰东印度公司（United Dutch East India Company，荷兰文为Vereenigde Oost Indische Compagnie，简称ＶＯＣ）。公司的章程说明了私人资本与国家利益的连结方式，奥登巴那维认为这对荷兰共和国是最有利的营运制度。荷兰东印度公司的任务不只是发展出贸易垄断，还得维护国家利益。就像英国东印度公司一样，荷兰东印度公司是一间由国家建立的私人企业，在成立时就获得了国家赋予的各种独有特权；举例来说，他们有权编组属于公司的海军和陆军。根据公司内部文件指出，立法机关对荷兰东印度公司与其他公司的监督和管制，在一六二○年代形成的商业奴隶贸易政策中扮演重大的角色。荷兰政府也参与了东印度公司的决策，并与公司共享档案与情资，帮助公司拟定策略。于是，就像英国与法国一样，荷兰的帝国企业以及史上首批大规模跨国公司的建立，全都源自于国家和私营部门的合作。9

    在荷兰东印度公司成立不久后，荷兰政府与公司股东在一六○二年一起执行了一个大型的市场建设计划。在荷兰东印度公司的帮助下，奥登巴那维与荷兰当局在阿姆斯特丹设立了第一间真正的股票交易所，藉此推动该公司的股票交易。荷兰东印度公司是史上第一间上市公司，其股份在欧洲各国皆有销售。这个具开创性的成熟、先进市场并不是凭空出现的。一六○九年，阿姆斯特丹的领导阶层在市政厅成立了交易银行（Exchange Bank），又称为阿姆斯特丹银行（Bank of Amsterdam），政府监督此银行的运作，希望能藉此建立信心；并保证了贵金属货币与存款的价值，以便支付帐款给荷兰东印度公司。10

    依据荷兰东印度公司的章程所规定，任何荷兰公民都可以购买东印度公司的股票，而且“在货物所带来报酬的收益兑现了百分之五之后，就应该要分配股息”。管理荷兰东印度公司的是十七名主要股东，又称“十七绅士”（Heren Seventien），以及六十多名具无限责任的投资人“执行董事”（Bewindhebbers）。荷兰公民只要买卖公司股票，就可以自由地投资和减资，而不需透过与公司的合伙关系来撤回他们的资本投资。荷兰股市既是商业创意方面的胜利，也是市场信任的胜利。这是有史以来第一次，投资人有足够的信心，愿意相信公开出售的纸面股票能够代表部分的所有权。11

    社会大众对这间新公司的投资臻至了前所未有的高点。荷兰东印度公司的资本额是六百四十二万四千五百八十八荷兰盾（guilder），是英国东印度公司的十倍。这代表写在公司章程中的庞大帝国野心是可能实现的。公司把投资人的资金有效地运用在建造船只上（英国人的船则是用租的），也用来派遣军队去和西班牙以及葡萄牙抢夺莫桑比克、果亚（Goa）、摩鹿加群岛（Moluccas）与安汶岛（Ambon）的商业利益。12

    荷兰东印度公司所代表的是一个强大的混合体：企业家精神、谨慎的国家管理以及市场原则与政府规范的平衡。荷兰领导阶层透过建立信任实现了这个目标。本着荷兰的开放政府精神，荷兰东印度公司在章程中宣称，公司每隔六年会透过举办一次完全公开的听证会或审计，公开会计账目与审计报告。作为一家私营公司，它必须对股东负责，而股东则可以向国家提出申诉。一六二○年，荷兰东印度公司未支付股利，且遭受内线交易的指控。公司内部出现了靠着私下协议赚取利润的情形，再加上公司没有把股份资本计入资产负债表中，导致公司的资产在表面上比实际上更高。荷兰东印度公司的平均报酬率从百分之十八下降到百分之六点四。舆论开始反对荷兰东印度公司，人们纷纷抛售该公司的股票──不是出于金融数据，而是出于市场中的谣言。保密机制与会计诈欺似乎正在损害这史上第一间公开发售股票的资本主义事业。13

    一六二二年，股东们的抗议终于说服了莫里斯亲王对荷兰东印度公司进行审计。我们可以在此清楚看见，只有在投资人相信国家监管的稳定性与完整性时，“自然”市场机制才能稳定运作。因此，荷兰的领导人进行了不公开审计，结束了这些管理者的贪腐行为，开始重建社会大众对这间公司的信任。荷兰东印度公司将会在接下来一个世纪继续获得高额利润与惊人的回报率。14

    荷兰共和国在一五八一年成功脱离西班牙哈布斯堡王朝（Hapsburg Spain）并宣布独立后，开始试着进入原本向他们紧闭大门的西班牙与葡萄牙市场与贸易站。东印度公司的计划是控制亚洲贸易。在荷兰攻击与窃取伊比利亚人的财富与贸易的过程中，海盗行为发挥了重要作用。一六○三年二月，荷兰船长雅各布．希姆斯科（Jacob van Heemskerck）在新加坡海岸以东袭击并俘虏了葡萄牙船只圣卡特琳娜号（Santa Catarina）。荷兰海军部门先前已经直接命令希姆斯科不得涉入战争一类的行为。然而这艘船上的财富比荷兰法令更有说服力。圣卡特琳娜号抵达阿姆斯特丹时，船上载着一千两百捆的稀有中国丝绸和数百盎司的麝香，价值超过三百万荷兰盾──约三十万英镑。希姆斯科当然没有合法权力可以接管这艘船。虽然荷兰海事法庭最终裁定这些来自船上的战利品是合法取得的，仍有一些荷兰东印度公司的股东认为这种完全就是窃盗的行为并不道德，这使得正积极进军新帝国市场的荷兰东印度公司面临了挑战。15

    荷兰共和国渴望能进入伊比利亚帝国贸易的大门，这样的想望催生了该时期最具影响力的一些利伯维尔场哲学。当圣卡特琳娜号的丑闻持续延烧，荷兰东印度公司找来了希姆斯科刚满二十岁的表亲，著名的人文主义法学天才雨果．格劳秀斯，请他撰写一篇文章来捍卫公司的利益。他们希望格劳秀斯能主张在抢攻西班牙与葡萄牙帝国市场的过程中，东印度公司拥有采用海盗行为的道德权利。格劳秀斯是著名的学者暨政治家的儿子，在十一岁时就被著名的莱顿大学（University of Leiden）录取。大学时期的他沉浸在经典典籍中，特别喜欢西塞罗的作品。而格劳秀斯接下来的人生就和这位著名的罗马法学家一样多彩多姿。他将会从卢夫斯泰因堡（Loevestein Castle）的囚牢逃脱，藏匿在一只本应该装满了书的箱子前往巴黎（这个箱子至今仍展示在该城堡），他将会在一场船难中幸存，并成为一名大政治家。他会运用具人文主义的渊博知识，成为那个时代最重要的法学理论家与卡尔文派神学家。

    格劳秀斯的《论捕获法》（Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty ，一六○四年）是一部对利伯维尔场思想产生了深远影响的著作，开启了格劳秀斯作为现代自然权利理论奠基者的法学作者生涯。《论捕获法》运用了普遍自然法的逻辑，为荷兰攻击甚至入侵葡萄牙帝国领土的行为进行辩护。这部充满专业术语的长篇著作很可能不是荷兰东印度公司原本想要的政治宣传文稿。无论如何，《论捕获法》为格劳秀斯的未来作品奠定了框架。格劳秀斯借用了西塞罗的观点，指出道德与自然的法则是举世通用的，任何个人都可以透过理性判断来厘清这些法则是什么。“背信弃义又残暴”的葡萄牙人想要控制全世界海洋的行为，已经造成了道德损害。此外，葡萄牙人拒绝荷兰进入帝国领土和原住民贸易，剥夺了荷兰人的自然权利，根据格劳秀斯的说法，这也是一种罪行。因而荷兰人对葡萄牙船只的俘获是合理的战利品，这样的行为是具有“诚实信用”（good faith）的。由于主权是一项自然权利，而非基督教专属，所以西班牙帝国的原住民也同样有选择和荷兰成为贸易盟友的权利与自由。考虑到荷兰大炮与堡垒的规模，这个针对伊比利亚提出的“原住民自由选择论”也就显得很有说服力了。16

    一六○九年，格劳秀斯匿名出版了这本书的第十二章〈海洋自由论〉（The Free Sea），他这么做不只是为了东印度公司，也是为了发表他身为法律学者的第一篇公开著作。这篇文章在哲学与政治宣传两方面都带来了意想不到的成功。格劳秀斯针对自然、海洋与个人自由的本质提出了他的观点，这些观点为后来十七世纪的塞缪尔．普芬道夫（Samuel von Pufendorf）、约翰．洛克（John Locke）与之后其他关注自然权利与人类权利的欧洲思想家打下了基础。

    格劳秀斯的观点是，自由源于自然，而上帝是为所有生灵而创造出自然的。虽然西塞罗认为，人类是靠着公共契约创造出了财产这个概念，格劳秀斯却不赞成，他认为有些事物过于庞大，超出了任何人类所有权、甚至国家所有权的范围。他引用西塞罗在《论责任》中的论述，指出地上万物“是大自然为了让所有生灵共同使用而创造出来的”。以海洋为例，覆盖了全世界的海洋是“无限”的、无法被占有的；任何国家都不能主张自己拥有海洋中源源不绝的鱼类资源。换句话说，在捕鱼这件事情中没有“外国人”的概念，因此英格兰和葡萄牙禁止荷兰渔夫进入他们的水域，就侵犯了荷兰人在海上自由贸易的自然权利。17

    格劳秀斯并且再次引用西塞罗的话，主张任何干涉自由的国家都是在招致一场正义的战争。此论点将会成为格劳秀斯在国际法方面的巨作《战争与和平的权利》（The Rights of War and Peace ，一六二五年）之核心。在阐述国家间互动应遵守的规则时，格劳秀斯坚持认为，个人应该有自然权利能选择自己的行为。“国际法律”（law of nations）和自然法则是相互独立的，国际法律清楚表明，只要以不伤害他人为前提，个人就拥有积极自由，可以去做他们选择的事。而这同样也是私有财产所有权的基础论点。任何国家都不能占有大自然中“不会耗竭”的广大资源；个人与国家只能拥有明确位于国界内部的有限事物，例如“湖泊、池塘和河流”。18

    在格劳秀斯于《战争与和平的权利》提出的论点，以及他支持荷兰东印度公司的主张中，最关键的就是他对奴隶制度的辩护。格劳秀斯和法国法学家尚．布丹一样，认为奴役那些在正义的战争中擒获的俘虏是合法的。他主张成为奴隶远好过死亡，这是因为“生命远比自由更重要”。上帝给予那些在战争中被俘虏的人一个“自由”的选择：他们可以选择死亡，或选择接受“俘虏”的新身分。在市场机制这个严酷的道德与经济算式中，战俘有所选择（或者说有自然权利），可以在死亡与成为俘虏中择一。很显然的，这些俘虏指的是原住民。19

    格劳秀斯清楚知道荷兰东印度公司靠着奴隶贸易赚了钱，他也知道那些俘虏并不算是真正的战俘。并且，我们很难想象他居然会用这种对奴隶制度的辩护，来响应欧洲战争中的俘虏问题──虽然奴隶制度牢牢刻在罗马法律中，也一直在欧洲施行至公元一○○○年左右才由农业封建制度取代。至于封建制度，虽远没有动产奴隶制（chattel slavery）那么残酷，但仍保留了许多后者的强制性质。封建主义是以自由签订契约的概念为前提，劳动者选择以服从来交换领主的保护，这样的概念与格劳秀斯在他针对海外俘虏与战俘的“罗马式”奴隶制度中使用的逻辑是相通的。因此，奴隶制也就稳当地存在于格劳秀斯的自然法与自然权利愿景中。虽然在战争与和平的逻辑中，这种对于选择自由的解读有违常理，但这样的解读对于依靠奴隶劳动赚取丰厚利润的荷兰东印度公司来说是有利的。20

    除了对于奴隶贸易的辩护之外，格劳秀斯的著作还威胁到了西班牙王室，甚至威胁到了与荷兰比较友好的贸易邻国。苏格兰的威廉．威尔伍德（William Welwod）认为，荷兰这么做是想悄悄地窃取苏格兰周遭岛屿和“窄海”（narrow seas）中属于苏格兰的渔获。不过，许多英格兰思想家注意到格劳秀斯的论点有助于英格兰人进入帝国世界的大门，英格兰在一五九九年已成立了他们自己的东印度公司。一六○九年，殖民推动者理查德．哈鲁特（Richard Hakluyt）将格劳秀斯的作品翻译成英文并出版，可能是为了把相同的论点套用在英格兰的殖民扩张，而之后很快就出现了许多与此主题相关的著作。21

    虽然自由海洋、自由贸易与个人经济政治权利的理论在格劳秀斯的笔下显得一清二楚，真实状况却更加晦涩难明。荷兰东印度公司在追求贸易自由的过程中仰赖着国家的协助与自身的军事力量，在牵涉到奴隶制度时，又直接忽略格劳秀斯对于人权与自由的概念。到头来，能够自由开发海洋的就只有那些力量最强大的国家。英格兰与法国终将会取代荷兰，成为印度洋上的主要强国，并以联合垄断的方式合作，以维持他们的殖民强权。

    不过，跨国经济力量的现实状况并没有引起荷兰经济思想家的太多关注。在十七世纪中叶，荷兰的商业霸权正处于颠峰，这段时期的荷兰经济理论中最重要的著作是身为新教徒的布料制造商、经济学家暨利伯维尔场与共和国理论家彼得．寇特（Pieter de la Court）所撰写的《荷兰共和国的真正利益与政治准则》（The True Interest and Political Maxims of the Republic of Holland ，一六六二年）。这部作品是当时最精密成熟的利伯维尔场理论之一，寇特在其中主张，政治自由与自由贸易胜过了君主制的权柄。在荷兰大议长的支持下，掌握实权的首相约翰．维特（Johan De Witt）写道，寇特的作品是针对君主制的一记致命攻击，并指出这部作品详细描绘出了政治自由与宗教自由、自由贸易与自由竞争、制造业与船运都是自我调节的经济体制的一部分。寇特直接引用了英荷商人作家杰拉德．马林斯与其著作《商人法》（一六二二年）来主张商人的地位凌驾于君主之上。22 寇特主张的观点很单纯：君主制度对经济成长有害，荷兰的居民“在他们的政治体系中遭受的最大祸害，莫过于受到君主和最高领主的统治”。“伯爵”追求权力的野心会使政治变得不稳定，而“阿谀奉承的臣子”则会破坏那些使国家富裕的东西：“航海、制造业与商业”。23

    寇特主张，“捕鱼和运送”不足以维持国家经济。财富并非来自农业与自然的恩赐，而是来自“制造”。只有获取原物料、将之转变成货品并卖进国际市场中的工业，才能创造真正的财富。因此，大自然应该要为商业目的所用。荷兰之所以能拥有成功的制造业与船运业，关键是用“节约和妥善的管理”来有效率地利用水资源。光是从大自然中采集物资是不够的；物资需要透过制造业与复杂的市场分销系统的加工。24

    寇特主张，荷兰经济体制能顺利运作的唯一原因，是因为荷兰居民处于“自由的状态”。个人、宗教与经济方面的自由是能透过制造业创造出财富的“真正有利因素”。他相信正是因为宗教机构没有控制大量财富，荷兰共和国才得以兴盛繁荣。寇特认为，荷兰公民不但应该要免受行会管制，甚至应该要摆脱荷兰东印度公司的垄断。而荷兰共和国如此成功的另一个原因，是对外国人的欢迎与宽容，让他们能融入社会，给予他们创立与投入制造业的自由。阿姆斯特丹是透过贸易自由、个人自由与宗教自由，才成为了世界货品市场的中心。25

    帝国的丰富资源都存放在荷兰大大小小的“仓库”里，所以荷兰的杰出商人可以将原物料拿来加工，迅速送上船只，以无与伦比的速度流通至全世界。荷兰共和国甚至是在高税收的规定下做到这一点的。与西班牙开战的期间，荷兰轻而易举地辗压了英格兰对手。荷兰的公民自由吸引了欧洲各地的人才。寇特很清楚，几乎所有国家都在与荷兰对抗，这些国家都对荷兰的贸易政策感到恼火；即使如此，他仍宣称对荷兰的所有盟友来说，荷兰的“利益”就是“共同利益”与“互惠互利”。寇特的傲慢语调并没有说服荷兰的贸易伙伴相信荷兰的商业政策是公平的。政治利益、殖民利益与贸易利益点燃了火花，使得英荷战争在一六六五年至一六六七年与一六七二年至一六七四年爆发。法国则在一六七二至一六七八年间入侵荷兰。26

    在经历了无与伦比的经济成功之后，荷兰共和国于一六七二年遇上了史上恶名昭彰的灾难年 （Rampjaar），当时维特为了控制整个共和国，试图镇压国内权势最大的荷兰贵族，奥兰治的威廉三世亲王（Prince William III of Orange）。那一年，尽管在好战的法国国王路易十四入侵了荷兰共和国的境况下，威廉仍试图主张自己统治荷兰的权力。威廉自称为终身军队总司令，此举引起了法国打算让他担任国王的传言。荷兰共和国屈服后，威廉在七月九日成为总督，并公开挑战维特与寇特的影响力。七月二十三日，多德雷赫市（Dordrecht）的奥兰治派支持者抓到了维特的兄弟柯奈尔（Cornelis），对他用刑，并指控他意图谋反对抗威廉。威廉下令要约翰．维特支付巨额罚款换取释放柯奈尔。在约翰抵达多德雷赫市时，他原本以为自己可以使愤怒的奥兰治派群众冷静下来，却遭到了攻击与刺杀。群众谋杀了这对兄弟，斩下他们的头颅，吊起他们的身体，吃掉他们的肉──而威廉没有否认这些暴力行为。27

    随着奥兰治亲王大权在握，荷兰共和国及其自由都进入了衰退期。威廉取得了高额贷款，并且为了巩固权力而建立军队。但他还有更宏大的计划。他开始秘密谈判，想要成为英格兰的新教国王，最终成功推翻了天主教国王詹姆士二世。一六八八年十二月二十三日，威廉和他的妻子，也就是詹姆士的女儿玛丽，成为了新英国这个君主立宪制国家的君主。但是，如果说英国的光荣革命（Glorious Revolution）开启了宪政自由与经济扩张的年代，那么他同时也敲响了荷兰共和主义的丧钟，并宣判荷兰作为全球贸易霸主身分的死亡。28

    法国和英国取代了荷兰共和国在欧洲的商业领袖地位，开启了一路持续到十九世纪的激烈竞争。荷兰进入君主制后，再也无法在商业、科学、帝国力量与工业方面跟法国和英国进行真正的竞争。到了最后，荷兰的自由并没有实现寇特自信满满的预言，也没有带来决定性的自由放任运动。取而代之的是在法国与英国两大巨头的长久冲突中，利伯维尔场思想里力量最强大、寿命持续最久的论述即将浮现。

    1. M. F. Bywater and B. S. Yamey, Historic Accounting Literature: A Companion Guide (London: Scholar Press, 1982), 87. 

    2. Jacob Soll, The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Rise and Fall of Nations (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 77. 

    3. Maarten Prak, The Dutch Republic in the Seventeenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 29. 

    4. Prak, Dutch Republic , 102. 

    5. Prak, Dutch Republic , 91. 

    6. Koen Stapelbroek, “Reinventing the Dutch Republic: Franco-Dutch Commercial Treaties from Ryswick to Vienna,” in The Politics of Commercial Treaties in the Eighteenth Century: Balance of Power, Balance of Trade , ed. Antonella Alimento and Koen Stapelbroek (Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 195–215, at 199. 

    7. Prak, Dutch Republic , 105. 

    8. Prak, Dutch Republic , 96; Margaret Schotte, Sailing School: Navigating Science and Skill, 1550–1800 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 2019), 42, 53. 

    9. J. M. de Jongh, “Shareholder Activism at the Dutch East India Company, 1622–1625,” January 10, 2010, Palgrave Macmillan 2011, available at SSRN,https://ssrn.com/abstract=1496871 ; Jonathan Koppell, ed. , Origins of Shareholder Activism (London: Palgrave, 2011); Alexander Bick, Minutes of Empire: The Dutch West India Company and Mercantile Strategy, 1618–1648 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, forthcoming); Theodore K. Rabb, Enterprise and Empire: Merchant and Gentry Investment in the Expansion of England, 1575–1630 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2014), 38–41. 

    10. Lodewijk J. Wagenaar, “Les mécanismes de la prospérité,” in Amsterdam XVIIe siècle: Marchands et philosophes . Les bénéfices de la tolérance, ed. Henri Méchoulan (Paris: Editions Autrement, 1993), 59–81. 

    11. “A Translation of the Charter of the Dutch East India Company (1602),” ed. Rupert Gerritsen, trans. Peter Reynders (Canberra: Australasian Hydrographic Society, 2011), 4. 

    12. De Jongh, “Shareholder Activism,” 39. 

    13. Soll, Reckoning , 80; Kristof Glamann, Dutch Asiatic Trade, 1620–1740 (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1981), 245. 

    14. Soll, Reckoning , 81. 

    15. Hugo Grotius, Commentary on the Law of Prize and Booty , ed. Martine Julia van Ittersum (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2006), xiii. 

    16. Grotius, Commentary , 10, 27; Hugo Grotius, The Free Sea , ed. David Armitage (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2004), xiv, 7, 18. 

    17. Grotius, Free Sea , 5, 24–25, 32. 

    18. Grotius, Free Sea , 57; Hugo Grotius, The Rights of War and Peace , ed. Richard Tuck, 3 vols. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 2005), 3:1750, 2:430–431. 

    19. Grotius, Rights of War and Peace , 2:556–557; Brett Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance: Indigenous and Atlantic Slaveries in New France (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012), 90. 

    20. Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance , 93. 

    21. Rushforth, Bonds of Alliance , 70; Grotius, Free Sea, xii–xxiii. 

    22. On new attitudes of merchant virtue, see J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 478. 

    23. Pieter de La Court, The True Interest and Political Maxims of the Republick of Holland and West-Friesland (London: 1702), vi, 4–6, 9. 

    24. De La Court, True Interest and Political Maxims , 24–35. 

    25. De La Court, True Interest and Political Maxims , 63, 51, 55. 

    26. De La Court, True Interest and Political Maxims , 45, 51, 55, 312, 315. 

    27. Prak, Dutch Republic , 51, 53. 

    28. Prak, Dutch Republic , 59. 

    第七章 尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝与国家市场

    在重建商业的过程中，有两个必要条件：确定性和自由。 ──尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝，《英格兰商业备忘录》（Mémoire Concerning Commerce with England ），一六五一年

    十七世纪中期，就在荷兰与英格兰为了商业主导权针锋相对时，法国这个沉睡的巨人逐渐苏醒了。在一六六○年，法国这头巨兽的人口是两千三百万，使得英格兰的五百万人口与荷兰的一百八十万人口相形见绌。尽管法国幅员广阔，却因为内战而疲软无力。除了法国宗教战争之外，还有引起一系列战争的投石党运动（Fronde，一六四八至一六五三年），掌握强权的贵族在这段期间起身反抗王室的中央权威。尽管最后是王权赢得了这场斗争，但在法国国王路易十四于一六六一年掌权时，君主政体几乎已经破产了，法国的商业也陷入停滞。在十七世纪初，法国曾是欧洲羊毛产业的主导者，却在一六四○年代眼见羊毛产量急遽下降。法国的海军、殖民地、贸易网络与制造业基础全都比荷兰和英格兰要远远落后许多。在经历了这么多宗教与社会动荡后，里昂（Lyon）、波尔多（Bordeaux）、马赛（Marseille）和鲁昂（Rouen）等法国商业大城市早已经没有技术纯熟的工匠了，这使得法国整体都处于明显的竞争劣势。1

    路易十四身为一位充满野心、相对穷困的年轻国王，他急需新的收入来源。由于拥有地产的富有贵族和高级神职人员都无须缴税，所以国家能仰赖的税收来源只有乡村的农民，以及在过去惨淡的数十年间勉力支撑的法国商业。这些钱对于“太阳王”路易十四来说并不足够。正如拿坡里经济学家安东尼奥．塞拉曾警告过的，作物收成是靠不住的，充其量只能带来有限的盈余和不隐定的税收。一个现代王国需要的是工业、创新与经济扩张。

    一六六一年，路易十四选择了尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝成为握有实权的首相，路易十四很欣赏柯尔贝谨慎又精准的管理技巧、无情但忠诚的行事原则，以及对工业和贸易的深入了解。柯尔贝的出身背景和古老的佛罗伦萨商业传统颇有渊源。他的家乡汉斯（Reims）是香槟区（Champagne）的首都，也是从里昂到佛罗伦萨的布料贸易中轴的一部分，其兴起来自勃艮第在中世纪累积的巨大财富以及法兰德斯的博览会。柯尔贝家族就像其他早期的佛罗伦萨商人一样，透过羊毛贸易、金融与为国家服务而致富。柯尔贝是一名训练有素的会计师，他忧心于法国缺乏足以与荷兰及英国竞争的商业技巧和纪律。此外，他对于王室依靠农业而非工业来取得收入也感到挫折。柯尔贝写道，诸如“古罗马、亚洲的王国、法国和西班牙”等强权国家就是因为没有“投身于商业”，才削弱了他们维持繁荣光景的能力。他责怪法国把经济重心摆在农业“对工业造成损害”，并认为法国需要更新我们今天所谓的“品牌形象”，成为一个工业、创新、金碧辉煌之国。因此，柯尔贝希望能结合意大利的科技专业与文化影响力、西班牙的帝国实力，以及荷兰与英格兰的商业能力，创造出一个能在世界舞台获得应有地位的法国。2

    柯尔贝在职涯的一开始，就知道自己的研究可以透过今天所谓的“发展经济学”来将法国工业化。法国必须扶助商业与工业，才能提高竞争力。柯尔贝当时想必没有指望法国能在他的有生之年超越荷兰的商业实力。他明白荷兰与英格兰拥有极大的优势，这两个国家在过去数十年来一直都致力于打造公司与制造业，更不用说英格兰制定了有利国家商业成长的保护主义航海法。现在轮到法国政府该有所作为了，他们必须采取动作更快、规模也更大的行动。况且，法国做得到这件事：柯尔贝知道，法国的国家权力和中央集权，正是法国拥有而英国缺少的发展工具。虽然斯图亚特王朝的国王想推行绝对的统治，但他们与议会发生了意见分歧，最终失败了，并导致威廉三世推翻了詹姆士二世。英格兰的国王与大臣没办法透过法令来通过大规模的经济政策。但法国可以。柯尔贝采用一种原始的威权手段将法国推入了早期工业阶段，发展出了一种市场建立模式，与如今亚洲的动态威权经济有些类似之处。

    柯尔贝的其中一个核心思想是，在有能力参与国际利伯维尔场之前，法国首先需要在国内拥有稳定的市场条件。由于当时的法国没有这些条件，所以必须由国家来打造。一六五一年，柯尔贝抱怨内乱使得法国“失去了商业的技能与优势”。商人失去了“运输货物”的“自由”与“信心”。法国是一个幅员辽阔的农业封建社会，存在着中世纪的内部关税；有着特权、法院与通行费的地方制度；各省对外封闭的市场──柯尔贝指责这些状况全都对贸易造成了损害。在他看来，若缺少了信心与让货物自由流通的方法，商务活动就不可能顺利运作。柯尔贝希望解除法国国内市场的种种限制，同时打造基础建设，藉此建立商业信心。3

    商业成长要面对的另一个挑战，是充满滥诉与过度诉讼的法律体制，及声名不佳的市政债券市场，他认为这两个因素“抑制”了商业并破坏了信任感。除此之外还有法国商人与工会所带来的损害，柯尔贝认为他们设下的标准过低，且对海盗行为过于宽容。柯尔贝想绕过种种地方限制，制定国家级的工业标准，以及产品──尤其是布料──在尺寸、名称和质量方面的一致规范。并且由一套严苛的国家监督制度来强制执行这些新规定。到了一六七○年代，他坚持要求所有市长和行会会长都应该“一直将我为工厂与染坊寄出的规则放在手边，以便按部就班地执行这些规则”。柯尔贝坚信，统一的标准可以创造出人们的信心，并且在更好的基础建设协助下，能使城市与地方之间的贸易变得自由。4

    柯尔贝也打造了一个庞大且同样具争议性的计划，望能发展法国薄弱的工业基础。他推动商业的方式和意大利商人的做法颇为雷同，甚至有点像是荷兰的城市，后者有着藉由补助金吸引外国工作者的悠久历史。柯尔贝建立了由国家资助的新工业，例如歌布朗挂毯工厂（Gobelins）和圣戈班玻璃工厂（Saint-Gobain）。他吸引了荷兰制造商前往鲁昂市建立布料交易的行当，以及荷兰工程师来帮忙建造运河。就像在现代的免税开发区一样，柯尔贝为这些新人提供国家薪酬、资金与垄断的权力，帮助他们创立新事业与开发新科技。5

    柯尔贝对于建立羊毛与丝绸产业特别感兴趣，他希望能引入新的纺织技术，在亚眠（Amiens）等城市重振纺织业。他打造数个港口，并藉此建立供法国的殖民企业所用的航运业。他扩大了印度、北美洲、非洲与法属西印度群岛各个现有公司的规模。现在，法国将会开始和西班牙、葡萄牙、荷兰和英格兰竞争世界商业帝国的地位，致力于扩大领地，推动利润丰厚的奴隶贸易与甘蔗种植。

    创新并不是柯尔贝关注的唯一焦点。他以增强国家实力的名义，使用间谍、凶残的国内政策与严酷的牢狱刑罚来对付制造假货的人和所有制作文宣反对国王的人。在现代人的眼中，这使得柯尔贝成为一个令人费解的角色：他既是一个有远见的市场建立者，也是早期威权政府的先驱。然而，对他来说这两者并不互斥。

    柯尔贝的成功长久以来都充满着争议。然而，统计数据显示他的改革确实扩张了制造业，并为长期成长奠定了基础。举例来说，在他改良了纺织技术后，鲁昂和亚眠等城市的纺织学徒人数变成了两倍。在他补贴了亚眠市的萨亚特里布料（sayetterie ，绵羊毛或山羊毛与丝绸混合的布料）后，这个城市的登记名册上出现了更多专业工匠，提高了纺织业产品的质量与产能。一六八○年代，里尔（Lille）等制造业中心城市的纪录中新增了八百多种与纺织业相关的职称。就算要说这样的发展进程并不算突飞猛进，但仍是一种实实在在的进步。正是在这段时期，法国发展出了成功的羊毛、丝绸与棉布工业。在柯尔贝执政期间，法国的工业出口开始能与法兰德斯、荷兰及英格兰竞争，并且他引入的技术将会在十八世纪的法国经济扩张中扮演非常关键的角色。鲁昂的棉花制造以每年百分之三点二的速度成长，到了一七八○年代已经达到了每年八十万匹布。6

    柯尔贝的经济计划并非全都取得惊人的成功，且当时英格兰的成长比法国更优异。不过，若说英格兰在煤炭、金属、棉花与造船方面取得了领先地位的话，那么法国则在柯尔贝推动的强大工业中占据了领先地位，从最重要的羊毛产业，到帆布、蕾丝和里昂丝绸等。到了十八世纪，英国将会因为顾忌这些法国产业的强大，而拒绝自由放任主义的召唤，转而执行保护主义政策。虽然根据预估，英国的人均生产力提高了百分之二十，但法国的贸易量在整个十八世纪差不多和英国相当。对于一个在一六五○年失去了商业竞争力的国家来说，这可不是什么小事。7

    当时国际贸易的世界和现代一样，是非常残酷而危险的，经常导致战争的爆发。想当然耳，柯尔贝认为法国需要强大的海军去和荷兰、英格兰、西班牙与葡萄牙等敌对海上强国竞争。尽管柯尔贝向来以军国主义者闻名，但所有通讯数据与法国政府内部文件等证据都显示，他认为战争对于经济成长有害。直到战争已经无可避免之前，他都反对路易十四与荷兰开战，相较于战争，他比较偏好使用吓阻和贸易条约的手段，并坚信这些方法能成功削弱荷兰与英格兰的霸权。柯尔贝曾写道，法国应该运用外交手段攻击荷兰与英格兰，藉此获得“安全与自由”。这将会为法国带回“商业的自由”。8

    荷兰是柯尔贝最大的担忧，因为尽管彼得．寇特针对利伯维尔场发表了许多高尚的言词，但真实状况就是荷兰的国家主义贸易政策非常具有侵略性，还拥有一支傲视其他国家的海军。对于“法国商业的糟糕处境”与法国高达四百万英镑的贸易逆差，柯尔贝始终充满怨言，他认为这是荷兰制定的条约导致的直接结果，该条约以牺牲竞争对手为代价来换取荷兰的贸易自由。柯尔贝认为荷兰对法国的种种侵犯，特别是他们对法国各种出口货品的劫持──举例来说，荷兰控制了法国在波罗的海这个富裕市场的酒类贸易──侵害了法国的自然权利。此外，荷兰也禁止那些可能在国内市场真正具有竞争力的法国商人与工匠进入荷兰境内。柯尔贝知道法国还太弱小了，还没有做好竞争的准备。如果他直接关闭与荷兰的贸易边界，只会对法国的发展造成损害。因而他追求的并不是贸易壁垒，而是设计良好的贸易条约，至少实现两国互惠。为此，柯尔贝认为政府应该招募经验丰富的商人来管理与撰写商业条约和法律。9
    柯尔贝在打造法国工业时采用的策略，有一部分是基于他对一六五一年的英格兰《航海法》的理解，他（以及后来的亚当斯密）认为这项法令是英格兰获得发展优势的关键。同时，柯尔贝也主张荷兰人制定关税是为了要扼杀法国的贸易与制造业。一六七○年，在法国与荷兰进行了长时间的协商后，柯尔贝仍持续抱怨荷兰不但把所有法国商品排除在荷兰市场之外，同时还将矛头指向里尔市，想要扼杀该处的工业。此外，荷兰还致力于控制法属西印度群岛的贸易，迫使法属群岛购买荷兰商品。10
    由于荷兰将一些法国边境城市、甚至法属殖民地的法国贸易商排除在交易对象之外，所以柯尔贝认为法国的保护主义关税是很公正合理的。因此，他想要追求的是巩固法国在自身领土内的贸易自由。他提议安地列斯群岛的居民靠着武装自己来抵御荷兰的干涉，如此一来他们才能以“完全自由”的状态来做生意。手段残酷的尚─查尔斯．巴斯（Jean-Charles de Baas）是法属安地列斯群岛的奴隶殖民地总督，柯尔贝在他寄给巴斯的信中写道，“商业的自由”不只是为了让法属西印度公司进行垄断而已。为了柯尔贝声称的“共同利益”，这种自由必须延伸至所有法国商人身上才行。他仍抱持着中世纪的概念，也就是经济自由是国家授予的特权。自由不会延伸到农奴、契约劳工、罪犯或奴隶的身上。自由仅限于贵族，以及那些持有国王通行证的法国商人和具有人身自由的定居者身上。经济自由不是一种普遍的自然权利，而是国家给予的特权。不过，无论这种想法有多局限，都一样建构出某种自由贸易的愿景。11

    柯尔贝的多方努力，成功把法国转变成一个强大、步伐笨重的全球商业强国。虽然法国没有英格兰那么成功，但可以肯定的是到了一七○○年代早期，法国已经超越了荷兰，成为英格兰在贸易方面的主要合作与竞争对象。就算说柯尔贝在支配亚洲贸易上大致失败了，但旧有的法属加勒比群岛的奴隶殖民地与制糖殖民地仍在继续扩大生产这一点，对法国跟英格兰以及荷兰的竞争来说是有利的。法国当时亦成功在地中海黎凡特（Levantine）的贸易中取得了主导地位。我们可以透过英格兰人对柯尔贝所施行政策的模仿与钦佩，来判定柯尔贝在经济方面的成功。这正是他想要的。他认为，其他国家企图复制法国的想法，正是让法国市场成功运作的关键。柯尔贝确信，如果其他国家对于法国与法国产品充满信心与钦慕，那些国家就会购买法国货品，进而刺激法国内部的经济。因此，柯尔贝在很大程度上帮法国创造了一个经得起时间考验的事物：至今仍非常强而有力的、专门贩卖奢侈品与专业技术的国家品牌形象。12

    然而，在打造市场的过程中，重要的不只是经济发展和改革而已，还包括了信任与信心。利伯维尔场有很大一部分的基础在于感知与选择。使人们决定要购买某件事物的，往往是许多古怪又时常自相矛盾的情绪与环境条件：需求、可得性、定价、欲望、执着、信仰和信心。有些商业上的感知是理性且客观的，有些则不是。柯尔贝提出了一个计划，希望能在法国创造出信任和信心，实质的与想象的都包括在内；他确信这种结合了国家品牌塑造与实质政策推行的措施，能赋予法国一个商业强国的形象。

    他为此颁布了一套商业的法律与标准，任何违反的人都会遭到重罚。柯尔贝手下的警察局长加布里埃尔．尼古拉斯．莱尼（Gabriel-Nicolas de La Reynie）是个聪明而无情的人，他负责监督巴黎的市场与街道──肉店、裁缝店、性工作者、街道照明与印刷业──并管理贸易行会，确保行会成员都遵守规定。他制裁了外国印花布料的非法流通，当时这些违禁布料在法国处处可见，而对法国工业造成了损害。意大利人、荷兰人和英格兰人长久以来一直利用法国宽松的商业监管措施来占便宜。作为响应，柯尔贝打造了一套印章系统来标示法国布料的质量，这使外国市场对法国布料充满信心。当英格兰人找到方法伪造法国皇家印章时，莱尼没收了数千令（ream）的外国布料。他帮助法国确保国内的羊毛业能够对英格兰羊毛业构成高度的商业威胁。13

    对柯尔贝来说，在建立商业贸易与外国殖民地贸易的过程中，建立人们对法国声誉的信心就和法规以及保护主义同样重要。因此，在他建立法国商业市场的计划中，宣传（也就是如今所谓的广告）是一个关键。他定期邀请备受尊敬的学者担任代言人，藉此提高法国作为知识、文化与科技创新中心的声誉。一六六三年，柯尔贝正在成立法国东印度公司（French East India Company）时，邀请了院士暨学者法朗索瓦．夏邦提耶（François Charpentier）针对东印度贸易的历史与实用性撰写一篇文章。这篇文章的目的不只是刺激法国商业，同时也是在向外国竞争对手做宣传。夏邦提耶遵循柯尔贝的路线，主张“危险的自由放任主义”已经占据了法国，因此使得这个王国的繁荣发展受到战争和动荡的侵害。商业“就像博雅教育（liberal arts）一样”──是可以透过聚焦与专注来“培育”的。于是，夏邦提耶向读者提出挑战，要他们航向崭新的海洋，透过发现新“财富”。他说，“创新者”会创造出富裕。14

    同时柯尔贝也雇用了耶稣会学者皮耶．丹尼尔．辉特（Pierre-Daniel Huet），他是阿夫杭士市（Avranches）的主教，也是一位博学的法兰西学术院（Académie Française）成员。柯尔贝令他负责撰写商业历史，将路易十四统治的法国与罗马帝国的荣光相比拟。在他的著作《商业与古代航海之历史》（History of Commerce and of the Navigation of the Ancients ，一七六三年）的序言中，辉特解释了柯尔贝如何利用法国的“优点”展示出商业对国家的重要。法国人们若想要与他国进行商业竞争，就必须开始重视航海与帝国建设。他解释说，罗马帝国的成功源自于贸易与帝国制度；如今法国也应该要跟随这种模式，成为国际商业界的新罗马。15

    柯尔贝认为，信心与确定性的“再建立”，也取决于国家财政管理与会计的质量。他希望能扫荡那些碌碌无为且“腐败”的政府官员，这些人没有能力正确记账来衡量负债与贬值。至少，在担任内政大臣的头十年中，他成功在一六七○年代初的短暂期间使法国公共财政呈现盈余，那可说是一个历史性的时刻。亚当斯密后来称赞柯尔贝的公共财政管理是法国打造出市场社会的关键。16

    柯尔贝在一六六三年写下了〈为历史而写的法国金融事务备忘录〉（Memoirs on France’s Financial Affairs to Serve History），这篇文章循着马基维利、布丹和博泰罗的观点，认为一个国家唯有在“其方法得到妥善管理”时才能生存下去。换句话说，内政大臣必须运用财政能力来管理国家、有效征税，并妥善管理收入、支出、资产与负债。这种良好的管理将会创造出信心，使贸易之轮转动得更顺畅，并且如同柯尔贝反复提起的那样，创造出“商业自由”。柯尔贝动用了所有他能使用的经济模型与工具──从马基维利的国家愿景，到荷兰对会计的聚焦，再到英格兰的发展保护主义──去为市场带来信心。17

    为接触法国的广大读者，柯尔贝赞助出版了他认为能够在法国公民身上培养商业知识与信心的一系列书籍。举例来说，他委托数学家暨会计大师法兰索瓦．巴雷姆（François Barrême）撰写复式记账会计的手册与关于货币兑换的书籍。会计学校采用了他撰写的实用数学手册《巴雷姆的算数》（The Arithmetic of Sir Barrême ，一六七二年）。巴雷姆在序言中指出了法国在财务素养方面的缺乏，就算在国家的最高层也一样：“柯尔贝先生一直希望国王管辖之下的所有业务都能使用复式记账，但他找不到足够多的熟悉复式记账的人才，使得财务监察机构的老旧做法迟迟无法革新。”巴雷姆的著作大获成功，后来成为了《巴雷姆通用手册》（Barrême Universel ），这本会计手册一直到十九世纪仍持续出版。18

    一六七三年，柯尔贝和商人暨贸易专家雅克．萨瓦里（Jacques Savary）合着并出版了他最著名的《商法典》（Commercial Code ）。正是因为书中这些著名的法条，让柯尔贝的浮雕肖像被纳入美国众议院画廊的二十三位伟大立法者之中，其他立法者包括了摩西（Moses）、莱克尔葛斯（Lycurgus）、查士丁尼（Justinian）与托马斯．杰佛逊（Thomas Jefferson）。《商法典》的内容简明扼要到令人讶异，里面共有十二个章节与一百二十二项条款，不但设立了法律架构与贸易典范实务的标准化，更描述了要如何实行复式记账、完成文书工作、组织展会，以及在柯尔贝看来非常重要的，如何处理破产与诉讼。该法典中甚至包括了汇票与本票的准则与用法。19

    萨瓦里将柯尔贝的计划进一步扩展，出版了一本更详细的商业手册与参考书籍《完美商人》（The Perfect Merchant ，一六七五年）──等于是文艺复兴商人班尼迪托．科特鲁利《贸易艺术之书》的现代版本。萨瓦里主张这本书所包含的商业法律、规则和实务典范，可以“为商业界人士带来信心”。萨瓦里的这本书不仅是非常独特的商业信息汇编，也是法国的对外宣传中非常成功的一步。柯尔贝的行动向世界展现出法国已成为商业标准与商业专业的全球核心，而这在二十年前是无法想象的事。柯尔贝很清楚，尽管事实在贸易中是很重要的，但错觉也一样重要。即使在他于一六八三年逝世后，他的法典计划（与对法典的宣传）仍持续产生深远的影响。一六八五年，法国政府出版了恶名昭彰的奴隶法《黑色法典》（Code noir ）。亚当斯密后来赞扬这部可怕的法典使法国奴隶制度变得比英国奴隶制度更不残酷、更有效率──好像这是真的做得到的事一样。20

    柯尔贝最知名的事迹，当然还是打造了至今都还留存的凡尔赛宫和路易十四的各个学院。历史学家将文化视为路易十四追求“荣耀”的其中一步，也是塑造太阳王形象的一种工具。柯尔贝建造的凡尔赛宫与所创办的著名皇家学院当然提升了路易十四的形象，但这个观点有些流于表面。柯尔贝真正希望的，是这些机构能够促进人们对法国商业的信心。如果法国拥有最好的科学家、最美丽的艺术与建筑、最令人渴望的时尚潮流，那么法国就能为国内商品建立一个国际贸易市场。柯尔贝非常了解形象与市场信心之间的核心关联。21

    柯尔贝认为，他可以善用科学方面的专业知识与检验方法，将科学商业化。他在〈备忘录〉中指出，科学、艺术与文学上的“伟人”将会为法国带来“良好的声誉”，并吸引外国的消费者与贸易。出于这个原因，柯尔贝直接写信给欧洲各地的著名科学家与历史学家，例如在斯德哥尔摩的荷兰人尼古拉斯．海因斯（Nicolas Heinsius），以及当时在温莎的艾萨克．佛斯厄斯（Isaac Vossius），他向这些人说明路易十四想要对他们的“功绩”表达赞赏，并且寄给他们大笔现金的“嘉奖”。无需明说他们也会知道，如果他们选择把重要作品献给太阳王的话，太阳王的感激之情将会继续推动这段互利关系。22

    一六六三年，设计了罗浮宫东面的著名院士暨建筑师克劳德．佩罗（Claude Perrault）开始和柯尔贝合作执行一项建造皇家科学院（Royal Academy of Sciences）的计划。佩罗写信给柯尔贝，说皇家科学院不只能光耀路易十四，更能宣传法国科学可信度，“出版科学发现，使这些发现为人所知”，并让法国“在全世界声名远播”。关于此计划的最初摘要显示，化学、解剖学、几何学、天文学和代数等研究领域具有实用性，且可以应用在法国的商业与金融事业中。他们的目标是使皇家科学院成为实验与公共教学的中心，把科学权威交到王室手中，接着再向全世界广为宣传。23

    一六六六年，在荷兰数学家、物理学家、天文学家暨发明家克里斯蒂安．海更斯（Christian Huygens）的帮助下，柯尔贝在曾属于红衣主教马萨林（Cardinal Mazarin）的宫殿中创立了新的皇家图书馆与科学院，马萨林是过去路易十三的内政大臣。海更斯在一六六六年写道，皇家科学院将会测量并建立子午线和经度，这些测量数据将用于“测量地球的大小……〔并〕为地理图表的制作提供迄今以来最精确的方法”。这些具有权威性的新地图不但能改善航海技术，还能提高法国占领殖民地的能力。海更斯进行了一长串天文实验与实用科学实验，其中也包括了后来成为柯尔贝伟大成就之一的实验：“透过钟摆模型建立通用的尺寸测量法”。海更斯概述了他的计划：他要创造一种实用性的摆锤钟，即“航海钟”，可用来计算执行殖民任务的船只航行时的经度。24

    海更斯说服了柯尔贝：皇家科学院最重要的其中一个活动是出版自然历史著作，使用“共通”且容易理解的语言来解释科学实验，让社会大众也能了解。一六六五年，柯尔贝开始赞助丹尼斯．萨罗（Denis de Sallo）的计划，创办由国家控管的科学期刊《科学家周刊》（Journal des sçavans ），这份期刊使得法国成为了受信任的科学权威来源。《科学家周刊》主张他们会刊登“学术共和国（Republic of Letters）中的新事物”，也就是全球学界中的新事物。发行人表示，此期刊会聚焦在“有用”的事物上，人们将会在这里找到“每年的重大事件”。甚至到后来路易十四统治的法国进入了战争与政治、宗教压迫的最高峰时，欧洲各地的学者仍视此期刊为科学、数学、力学、哲学与最重要的“艺术与工艺”（也就是工程学）之重要权威。就连战争时期，法国仍因为《科学家周刊》而享有国际信誉。25

    柯尔贝下令皇家科学院着手编写一部大型的机械与工业图解百科全书。柯尔贝用这部百科全书让实用的商业知识与正规教育平起平坐，使商业知识藉此获得威信。海更斯和佩罗等人都为这个项目提出了发明计划。柯尔贝的百科全书计划将会对接下来的十八世纪产生惊人的影响，指引艺术、科学与科技的未来发展，从而对法国的经济扩张产生至关重要的帮助。26

    这些科学出版品使法国获得了工业与商业领导者的声誉──这样的声誉甚至有些言过其实。这项策略十分成功，在一六七○年代，英格兰人开始把法国视为比荷兰更大的商业强国──这在一六六一年还是无法想象的事。柯尔贝的弟弟是克鲁瓦西侯爵查尔斯．柯尔贝（Charles Colbert, marquis de Croissy），柯尔贝在一六六八年派查尔斯到伦敦担任大使，查尔斯让英国人留下绝佳的印象，成功说服了当时的英国国王查理二世私下支持法国对抗荷兰的行动，以换取每年二十三万英镑的个人报偿。尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝在短短的数年内，使法国成为其他国家的真正商业竞争对手，甚至成为国际间的领导强国──至少表面上看起来是如此。27
    著名的英国日记作者暨海军部秘书山缪．皮普斯（Samuel Pepys）对于这位“来自克鲁瓦西的柯尔贝”印象深刻，就皮普斯与其他人的了解，查尔斯是在哥哥的命令下来到英国监视英国工业与海军计划的。这使得尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝显得更加令人生畏。皮普斯也热中阅读柯尔贝为商业宣传出版的作品。一六六九年一月三十日，皮普斯在日记中写道，他“认真阅读了一本法国的专书”，他担心这篇关于航海的书籍会使得人们觉得法国的海军与贸易能力就快要超越英国了。那本书正是法朗索瓦．夏邦提耶为东印度公司的成立所写的宣传著作，而这样的手法显然奏效了，使得皮普斯感到法国已经转变为成功的贸易大国，是英国最重要的竞争对手。法国的科技专长也同样使各国感到钦佩。皮普斯在一六九○年代的“海军会议纪录”（Naval Minutes）中记载道，法国拥有最精良的造船技术、船舰、港口和水手，并引用了柯尔贝在一六七一年制定的造船规范和一六七三年的战舰规范。皮普斯认为，从这些书籍就可以看出法国的海军能力远比英国更优越，他感叹道：“我国海军中的每一条优秀规范，有哪个不是法国早就设立好的规范呢？”柯尔贝的政策与宣传正中要害。28

    在尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝于一六八三年逝世时，他已经成功为法国打开了英国市场。法国甚至取得了对英国的贸易顺差。这对于英国商人来说是一场危机，他们认为法国占了上风，必须立刻予以阻止。在十七世纪，由于每个国家都在抢夺竞争优势，所以自由贸易条约的进步十分缓慢。29
    不过，当时已有迹象显示，柯尔贝试图把法国转变成商业国家让太阳王很不满意。路易十四鄙视商人，认为他们是庸俗的暴发户，因而撤回了柯尔贝的许多改革政策。路易十四非但没有努力促进法国与最大贸易伙伴英国的自由贸易，反而想要发动战争。他不顾柯尔贝的意见，在一六七二年入侵荷兰。
    光是向外侵略还不能让路易十四满足，他甚至在国内也走上了公民暴力的路线。一六八五年，也就是柯尔贝逝世两年后，路易十四废除了《南特诏令》（Edict of Nantes ），此法令原本旨在保护法国的新教徒少数族群。有超过二十万名法国新教徒遭受酷刑、被迫改信天主教，及受到镇压、监禁和驱逐。路易十四很清楚柯尔贝因为对贸易不利而反对宗教压迫，残暴成性的路易十四派了柯尔贝的儿子，也就是塞涅来侯爵（marquis de Seignelay）负责强迫新教徒转信天主教。法国新教徒的流亡目的地从荷兰、丹麦与英格兰，扩散到了日耳曼与美洲殖民地的多个地点。这对法国商业造成了严重打击。新教的胡格诺派（Huguenot）商人和工匠离开时，也带走了柯尔贝当初砸重金发展的专业技能；欧洲各国的君主都因为玻璃工匠、银匠、橱柜工匠和各种商人具有的优秀技术而乐于迎接他们的到来。事实上，正是《南特诏令》的废除使得法国今日没有制表的优良传统，法国的新教钟表匠全都逃到了卡尔文派的瑞士日内瓦（Geneva），那里至今仍是全球钟表贸易的中心。
    与经济史学家一直以来所认知不同的是，大幅削弱柯尔贝主义与扩张市场自由可能性的，正是路易十四。作为在辉煌的贵族宫廷中心统治一整个王朝的国王，路易十四从不认为自己是普通商人的国王。目光短浅的路易十四更停止了对海军的经费支持，对殖民地的关注也下降了。现在，他的目光转向了战争。一六八八年，他开启了九年战争（Nine Years’ War），美洲将之称作威廉王之战（King William’s War），路易十四在这场战事中越过了莱茵河，积极地把法国的边界与领土向外扩张。为了对抗路易十四的侵略，英格兰、荷兰共和国、奥地利哈布斯堡神圣罗马帝国（Austrian Hapsburg Holy Roman Empire）、西班牙、葡萄牙与萨伏依（Savoy）结成了同盟。此外再加诸那些公开反对路易十四的胡格诺派教徒带来的影响，新教君主开始将太阳王视为巨大的威胁。长期的战争与饥馑，消灭了自由贸易的所有可能性。
    一六九三年，法国北部的作物收成欠佳。在战争税与食物短缺造成的压力下，饥荒恶化成了伤寒疫情，此外还有类似沙门氏菌的细菌引起的腐热（putrid fever）与瘟疫腹热（pestilent abdominal fever）。一六九三年至一六九四年的大饥荒（Great Famine），扣掉正常死亡率后大约导致了一百三十万人死亡。士兵纷纷感染伤寒，不得不抱病作战。法国的财政陷入混乱，人民被大规模死亡的阴影尾随，整个国家都活在路易十四造成的无常战争与其灾难性影响的威胁之下。当路易十四发现自己无法入侵荷兰共和国与英格兰之后，便开始骚扰他们分布在世界各地的商人，威胁到了从西印度群岛至印度的英格兰殖民地和贸易路线。等到九年战争终于在一六九七年结束时，法国在所有层面上都元气大伤。威廉三世现在随时保持着英格兰与法国间的备战状态，英国商人也将法国视为军事与商业上的威胁。
    这一切和柯尔贝过去的希望背道而驰。柯尔贝的梦想是以平等贸易的条约和互利作为基础，实现平衡的自由贸易，如今这个梦想已被暴力战争与大规模死亡取代。改革者为了与过去切割，便把路易十四毫无道理的破坏行为归咎到柯尔贝身上。那些推动法国改革与利伯维尔场的人，开始把柯尔贝这位逝世已久的内政大臣拿来作为法国需要改变之事物的象征。柯尔贝主义和柯尔贝在经济史上的地位遭到扭曲，并因为路易十四晚期的灾难性统治而蒙上污点。法国的利伯维尔场思想发展之所以窒碍难行，不是因为柯尔贝执行的经济政策，而是因为路易十四好战又专制的愚行扭曲了这位内政大臣的余荫。

    1. Pierre Deyon, “Variations de la production textile aux XVIe et XVIIe siècles: Sources et premiers résultats,” Annales. Histoire, sciences sociales 18, no. 5 (1963): 939–955, at 949. 

    2. Daniel Dessert and Jean-Louis Journet, “Le lobby Colbert,” Annales 30, no. 6 (1975): 1303–1329; Georg Bernhard Depping, Correspondance administrative sous le règne de Louis XIV , 3 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1852), 3:428; Philippe Minard, “The Market Economy and the French State: Myths and Legends Around Colbertism,” L’Économie politique 1, no. 37 (2008): 77–94; Jean-Baptiste Colbert, “Mémoire sur le commerce: Prémier Conseil de Commerce Tenu par le Roy, dimanche, 3 aoust 1664,” in Lettres, instructions, et mémoires de Colbert , ed. Pierre Clément, 10 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Impériale, 1861–1873), vol. 2, pt. 1, p. cclxvi; Jean-Baptiste Colbert, “Mémoire touchant le commerce avec l’Angleterre,” in Lettres , vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 407. 

    3. Colbert, “Mémoire touchant le commerce avec l’Angleterre,” vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. cclxviii, 48, 407; D’Maris Coffman, Excise Taxations and the Origins of Public Debt (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013). 

    4. Colbert, “Mémoire sur le commerce, 1664,” vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. cclxii–cclxxii, at cclxviii, cclxix; Jean-Baptiste Colbert, “Aux maires, échevins, et jurats des villes maritimes de l’océan, aoust 1669,” in Lettres , vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 487; Colbert to M. Barillon, intendant at Amiens, mars 1670, in Lettres , vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 520–521; Colbert to M. Bouchu, intentant at Dijon, juillet 1671, in Lettres , vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 627. 

    5. Gustav von Schmoller, The Mercantile System and Its Historical Significance (New York: Macmillan, 1897); Erik Grimmer-Solem, The Rise of Historical Economics and Social Reform in Germany, 1864–1894 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2003). 有关发展经济，参见 Erik S. Reinert, “The Role of the State in Economic Growth,” Journal of Economic Studies 26, no. 4/5 (1999): 268–326. 

    6. Deyon, “Variations de la production textile,” 949, 951–953; François Crouzet, “Angleterre et France au XVIIIe siècle: Essaie d’analyse comparé de deux croissances économiques,” Annales. Économies, sociétés, civilisations 21, no. 2 (1966): 254–291, at 267. 

    7. Crouzet, “Angleterre et France au XVIIIe siècle,” 266, 268; Eli F. Heckscher, Mercantilism , trans. Mendel Shapiro, 2 vols. (London: George Allen and Unwin, 1935), 1:82; Stewart L. Mims, Colbert’s West India Policy (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1912); Charles Woolsey Cole, Colbert and a Century of French Mercantilism , 2 vols. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1939), 1:356–532; Charles Woolsey Cole, French Mercantilism, 1683–1700 (New York: Octagon Books, 1971); Glenn J. Ames, Colbert, Mercantilism, and the French Quest for Asian Trade (DeKalb: Northern Illinois University Press, 1996); Philippe Minard, La fortune du colbertisme: État et industrie dans la France des Lumières (Paris: Fayard, 1998). 

    8. Colbert, Lettres , vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 457. 

    9. Colbert, “Mémoire sur le commerce, 1664,” vol. 2, pt. 1, pp. cclxii–cclxxii, at cclxviii; Colbert, “Mémoire touchant le commerce avec l’Angleterre,” 405–409; Georg Bernhard Depping, Correspondance administrative sous le règne de Louis XIV , vol. 3 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1852), 90, 428, 498, 524, 570; Moritz Isenmann, “Égalité, réciprocité, souvraineté: The Role of Commercial Treaties in Colbert’s Economic Policy,” in The Politics of Commercial Treaties in the Eighteenth Century: Balance of Power, Balance of Trade , ed. Antonella Alimento and Koen Stapelbroek (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2017), 79. 

    10. Colbert, “Mémoire touchant le commerce avec l’Angleterre,” 405–409, 496, 523, 570; Lawrence A. Harper, The English Navigation Laws: A Seventeenth-Century Experiment in Social Engineering (New York: Octagon Books, 1964), 16; John U. Nef, Industry and Government in France and England, 1540–1640 (repr. , Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1957 [1940]), 13, 27. 

    11. Colbert, “Mémoire touchant le commerce avec l’Angleterre,” 487; Colbert to M. du Lion, September 6, 1673, in Lettres , vol. 2, pt. 1, p. 57; Colbert to M. de Baas, April 9, 1670, in Lettres, vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 479. 

    12. Ames, Colbert, Mercantilism , 189; Mims, Colbert’s West India Policy , 232; Mireille Zarb, Les pivilèges de la Ville de Marseille du Xe siècle à la Révolution (Paris: Éditions A. et J. Picard, 1961), 163, 329; Jean-Baptiste Colbert, “Mémoire touchant le commerce avec l’Angleterre,” 407. 

    13. Jacques Saint-Germain, La Reynie et la police au Grand Siècle: D’après de nombreux documents inédits (Paris: Hachette, 1962), 238, 240. 

    14. François Charpentier, Discours d’un fidèle sujet du roy touchant l’establissement d’une Compagnie Françoise pour le commerce des Indes Orientales; Adressé à tous les François (Paris: 1764), 4, 8; Paul Pellisson, Histoire de l’Académie François e, 2 vols. (Paris: Coignard, 1753), 1:364. 

    15. Urban-Victor Chatelain, Nicolas Foucquet, protecteur des lettres, des arts, et des sciences (Paris: Librarie Académique Didier, 1905), 120; Pierre-Daniel Huet, Histoire du commerce et de la navigation des anciens (Lyon: Benoit Duplein, 1763), 1–2. 

    16. Huet, Histoire du commerce et de la navigation , cclxxii. 

    17. Heckscher, Mercantilism , 1:81–82; Jean-Baptiste Colbert, “Mémoires sur les affaires de finances de France pour servir à leur histoire, 1663,” in Lettres , vol. 2, pt. 2, pp. 17–68; J. Schaeper, The French Council of Commerce, 1700–1715: A Study of Mercantilism After Colbert (Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1983); Colbert, “Mémoire sur le commerce,” 44–45. 

    18. François Barrême, Le livre nécessaire pour les comptables, avocats, notaires, procureurs, négociants, et généralement à toute sorte de conditions (Paris: D. Thierry, 1694), 3; François Barrême, Nouveau Barrême universel: Manuel complet de tous les comptes faits (Paris: C. Lavocat, 1837). 

    19. Ordonnance du commerce du mois de mars 1673; et ordonnance de la marine, du mois d’août 1681 (Bordeaux, France: Audibert et Burkel, an VIII), 5, Art. 4. 

    20. Jacques Savary, Le parfait négociant; ou, Instruction générale pour ce qui regarde le commerce des Marchandises de France, & des Païs Estrangers , 8th ed. , ed. Jacques Savary Desbruslons, 2 vols. (Amsterdam: Jansons à Waesberge, 1726), 1:25; Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations , ed. Roy Harold Campbell and Andrew Skinner, 2 vols. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. vii, pt. 2, para. 53. 

    21. Peter Burke, The Fabrication of Louis XIV (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1994); Colbert, “Mémoire sur le Commerce,” vol. 2, pt. 1, p. cclxiii; Alice Stroup, A Company of Scientists: Botany, Patronage, and Community in the Seventeenth-Century Parisian Royal Academy of Sciences (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990), 30. 

    22. Colbert, Lettres , vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 62; vol. 5, pp. 241–242; Charles Perrault, “Autre note à Colbert sur l’établissement de l’Académie des Beaux-Arts et de l’Académie des Sciences,” 1666, in Colbert, Lettres , 5:513–514. Also see Roger Hahn, The Anatomy of a Scientific Institution: The Paris Academy of Sciences, 1666–1803 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1971), 15; Lorraine Daston, “Baconian Facts, Academic Civility, and the Prehistory of Objectivity,” Annals of Scholarship 8 (1991): 337–363; Steven Shapin, A Social History of Truth: Civility and Science in Seventeenth-Century England (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995), 291; Michael Hunter, Science and Society in Restoration England (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1981), 48; Anthony Grafton, The Footnote: A Curious History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 202–205; Jean-Baptiste Say, A Treatise on Political Economy , 2 vols. (Boston: Wells and Lilly, 1821), 1:32–33; Margaret C. Jacob, Scientific Culture and the Making of the Industrial West (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), chap. 8. 

    23. Perrault, “Autre note à Colbert,” 5:514; Charles Perrault, “Note de Charles Perrault à Colbert pour l’établissement d’une Académie Générale, 1664,” in Colbert, Lettres , 5:512–513. 

    24. Christiaan Huygens, Oeuvres completes, 22 vols. (The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff, 1891), 19:255–256. 中括号内的批注来自麦可．马奥尼（Michael Mahoney）的翻译，在此采用：“[Memorandum from Christiaan Huygens to Minister Colbert Regarding the Work of the New Académie Royale des Sciences],” Princeton University, www.princeton.edu/~hos/h591/acadsci.huy.html . 

    25. Huygens, “Note from Huygens to Colbert, with the Observations of Colbert, 1670,” in Colbert, Lettres , 5:524; James E. King, Science and Rationalism in the Government of Louis XIV, 1661–1683 (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1949), 292; Joseph Klaits, Printed Propaganda Under Louis XIV: Absolute Monarchy and Public Opinion (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1976), 74; Denis de Sallo, “To the Reader,” Journal des sçavans (January 5, 1665): 5; Jacqueline de la Harpe, Le Journal des Savants en Angleterre, 1702–1789 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1941), 6, 8; Arnaud Orain and Sylvain Laubé, “Scholars Versus Practitioners? Anchor Proof Testing and the Birth of a Mixed Culture in Eighteenth-Century France,” Technology and Culture 58, no. 1 (2017): 1–34. 

    26. Liliane Hilaire-Pérez, Fabien Simon, and Marie Thébaud-Sorger, L’Europe des sciences et des techniques: Un dialogue des savoirs, xve–xviiie siècle (Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2016); John R. Pannabecker, “Diderot, the Mechanical Arts, and the Encyclopédie in Search of the Heritage of Technology Education,” Journal of Technology Education 6, no. 1 (1994); Cynthia J. Koepp, “Advocating for Artisans: The Abbé Pluche’s Spectacle de la Nature (1731–1751),” in The Idea of Work in Europe from Antiquity to Modern Times , ed. Josef Ehmer and Catherina Lis (Farnham, VT: Ashgate, 2009), 245–273. 有关柯尔贝艺术协会（Colbertist Société des Arts）转变成重农主义的转变过程，参见 Hahn, Anatomy of a Scientific Institution , 108–110; Robert Darnton, The Business of Enlightenment: A Publishing History of the Encyclopédie, 1775–1800 (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1979); Kathleen Hardesty, The Supplément to the Encyclopédie (The Hague: Nijhoff, 1977); John Lough, Essays on the “Encyclopédie” of Diderot and d’Alembert (London: Oxford University Press, 1968); Dan Edelstein, The Enlightenment: A Genealogy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010); Jacob Soll, The Information Master: Jean-Baptiste Colbert’s Secret State Information System (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2009), 161; Robert Darnton, “Philosophers Trim the Tree of Knowledge: The Epistemological Strategy of the Encyclopédie,” in The Great Cat Massacre and Other Episodes in French Cultural History (New York: Vintage, 1984), chap. 5; Colbert, 1619–1683 (Paris: Ministère de la Culture, 1983), 168; Paola Bertucci, Artisanal Enlightenment: Science and the Mechanical Arts in Old Regime France (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2017), 214.
    另见 Linn Holmberg, The Maurist’s Unfinished Encyclopedia (Oxford: Voltaire Foundation, 2017), 175. 

    27. Colbert, “Mémoire touchant le commerce avec l’Angleterre,” vol. 2, pt. 2, p. 405. 

    28. Samuel Pepys, Naval Minutes , ed. J. R. Tanner (London: Navy Records Society, 1926), 352–356, at 356; King, Science and Rationalism , 272. 

    29. D. G. E. Hall, “Anglo-French Trade Relations Under Charles II,” History 7, no. 25 (1922): 17–30, at 23; Jacob Soll, “For a New Economic History of Early Modern Empire: Anglo-French Imperial Codevelopment Beyond Mercantilism and Laissez-Faire,” William and Mary Quarterly 77, no. 4 (2020): 525–550. 

    第八章 太阳王的噩梦和利伯维尔场的美梦

    我们的美德往往是经过伪装的恶行。 ──拉侯谢傅科公爵（Duc de La Rochefoucauld），《格言录》（Maxims ），一六六五年

    等到九年战争（一六八八年至一六九七年）结束时，法国和欧洲各国一样都疲惫不堪，他们经历的是二十多年间几乎未曾止歇的冲突。路易十四恐吓西属尼德兰，并利用他的影响力追捕与迫害各个邻国的法国新教难民。他的战争大臣，个性极为残忍的卢瓦侯爵（marquis de Louvois）在欧洲与世界各地推行暴力统治。为了应付战争的开支，法国征收了额外税金，使广大法国人民陷入悲惨的生活，多数人只能不断挨饿。

    这种看似永无止境的暴力与苦难的循环，正好对应到了法国工业的兴起，使得许多哲学家回头张望过去他们视为比较自由、和平且繁盛的模式。有些法国思想家受到西塞罗与古老贵族农业价值观的启发，拒绝接受财富只能来自城市、创新与制造业的观点。他们想要以农业和斯多噶道德为基础，发展出一套经济成长的利伯维尔场模式。

    以后见之明来看，由柯尔贝的继承人来带领这次的改革运动似乎是极为矛盾的一件事。在十七世纪之交，柯尔贝的孩子与外甥在皇室中形成了势力最为强大的一个团体。他们的目标是为新改革时代量身打造新的柯尔贝主义。他们认为，路易十四忽视了良好的政府管理，漠视对利伯维尔场与和平的追求，这样的行为破坏了柯尔贝最基础的政策。柯尔贝家族对此的响应，是设计与推行一系列的政府政策和书籍，这些行动后来将点燃十八世纪的利伯维尔场运动。

    或许不令人意外，到了十七世纪的后半叶，愈来愈多思想家对人性与人类社会感到无比绝望。部分哲学家因为战争与压迫而得出了愤世嫉俗的结论：自我利益主宰着一切，在世俗的茫茫苦海中，是不可能有真正高尚且无私的行为。自从西塞罗首次提出，拥有大量土地的罗马贵族之间的爱、责任与友谊等感情是市场交易的催化剂与担保之后，哲学家就一直在争论情感与经济之间的关系。

    基督教思想家把人们对于天堂救赎的渴望引入了市场中，坚称想要用世俗财富交换天堂财富的渴望与个人自由意志，是推动神圣机制运转的力量。如今哲学家开始寻找一种更实际的政治经济体制，希望能运用人类没那么高尚的情操，促使他们为公众福祉付出努力。与其为了宗教信仰或贵族的军事荣耀而战，不如把这种人类的渴望力量投入交易契约中：透过商业协议实现人们的理性利己倾向。1

    英国政治理论学家托马斯．霍布斯（Thomas Hobbes）已经在一六五一年的著作《利维坦》（Leviathan ）中，提出了“利己是政治经济生活的基础”这个概念。霍布斯呼应了奥古斯丁和马基维利的观点，指出人类的本质就是恶的，认为所有人都是“所有人的敌人”，并且处于一种持续的争斗状态中，这些争斗是由人类对于“利益”、“名声”和“自我保护”的天生欲望引起的。自然法则赋予人类不惜一切去保护生命与财产的权利。人类若想脱离这种为了财产持续争夺的状态，唯一的方法就是在政治上达成共同的“契约”，进行和平的商业交易。霍布斯就像专制主义者尚．布丹一样，认为个体必须把个人自由交付给专制君主，此君主要谨慎地“争取共同利益”。2

    十七世纪最重要的其中一位探讨利己的哲学家，是著名的法国贵族法朗索瓦（François），即拉侯谢傅科公爵（Duc de La Rochefoucauld）。他的著作推动了人们相信个人机会主义能推动商业社会与市场，对利伯维尔场思想造成了重大的影响。拉侯谢傅科公爵质疑西塞罗那套“爱与友谊推动交易”的说法，他承袭圣奥古斯丁与霍布斯的观点，认为人类的行为并非出自仁慈，而是出自对于自身的关注。因此，他希望能了解欲望，也就是他所谓的“自爱”（self-love，法文为amour propre），会如何影响人类的所有行为。他相信在更好的环境条件下，人类确实可以透过斯多噶派的纪律找到美德。但当统治者是专制且道德破产的帝王时，这种道德自由是不可能的事。拉侯谢傅科公爵尤其反对路易十四用君主专制主义剥夺贵族的古老农业美德，他将凡尔赛宫的皇室比做交易荣誉和特权的“股票交易所”，而贵族们正试图从中获利。他谴责道，在路易十四的世界中，所有行为与友谊都“只以利己为基础”。3

    尽管如此，拉侯谢傅科公爵还是看见了希望。他相信只要适当引导这些自私的情感，就能为共同利益所用。他写道：“我们总是将不当行为归咎于利己，但事实上我们也应该为了良好行为而赞扬利己。”这段话传达出当代市场思想的一个基本信条。利己“能推动贸易行为，而我们之所以付钱，并不是因为结清账务是对的事，而是因为付钱后别人比较愿意继续相信我们”。因此，贪婪和欲望打造了强大的交易力量，促使人类保持诚实，哪怕只是为了保护自己的利益。4

    对于路易十四压迫性的天主教主义，最主要的批判来自杨森主义天主教徒（Jansenist Catholics）。他们和拉侯谢傅科公爵一样，希望能找出一套系统来运用利己，将之转变成好的事物。法国的杨森主义信徒受到十七世纪初法兰德斯的伊珀尔主教（bishop of Ypres）康涅留斯．杨森（Cornelius Jansen）的启发，追求的不只是灵性上的完善，还要寻找一套能够减轻原罪与改善世俗生活的体系。杨森主义者是圣奥古斯丁的忠实深度读者，他们相信上帝创造出了一个完美的世界，人类的罪行却扰乱了这个世界。杨森主义者因为路易十四的贪婪与自恋而感到疲惫，认为自给自足的商业市场最可能让人类有机会把原罪与欲望转换成美德。他们相信奇迹的时代已经结束了，“上帝已经隐藏了”。除一小群被选中的人能透过上帝的恩典获得救赎之外，其他人类不会得到上帝的解救，只能赤身裸体地留在孤独之中，成为自身罪恶本质的猎物。包括著名的法京剧作家尚．拉辛（Jean Racine）在内，些许法国思想家因为杨森主义者的观点深受感动，从世俗中完全抽身并独自住在小房间里，追求奥古斯丁式的自我克制和虔诚美德。但是这种纯粹主义缺乏广泛的吸引力。广大人类中的绝大多数不可能在社会中生活的同时完全避免罪恶与利己。事实上在路易十四统治下的法国，若不参与他的政权就无法完全正常地生活。于是，有些人开始寻找新方法，希望至少能用这个方法来应付受到人类的贪婪与利己所主宰的世界。5

    尚．多马（Jean Domat）是一位信奉杨森主义的著名罗马法学专家，他塑造了基督徒版本的旧佛罗伦萨理想，把商业视为能够使国家富强的一种公民货品。多马仔细研究市场机制如何疏导、甚至消除罪恶，为利伯维尔场思想设计了一套基督徒观点的框架，对后世产生长远的影响。他的著作《公民法之自然法则》（The Civil Law in Its Natural Order ，一六八九年至一六九四年）是一部国际知名的罗马法摘要集，清楚描述了市场如何自由地对人类的渴望与情绪做出回应。多马承袭了西塞罗的看法，认为人类可以在自然之中辨认出永恒不变的法则，一旦我们允许这些法则自然运作，就能启动一种动态的市场系统，控制住人类唯利是图的倾向。

    多马认为，身在伊甸园之外的人类已经失去“纯真的状态”，而肉体劳动就是上帝“施加”在这些人类身上的惩罚。人类必须找到方法来善加运用上帝的惩罚，靠着劳动来制造“对象”，靠着财富推动“商业”。在多马的理论中，上帝把“共同利益”放在世俗中，供“人类”“转变”成“农业、商业、艺术、科学”和“生活的需要可能索求”的一切。因此，这些“对象”成为了这个社会中的“协议”（也就是契约）之基础。当人们透过交易履行自己的“责任”时，他们的行为不会导致社会公众的“失序”，而是会把能量从“不忠、双面人、欺瞒、不诚实与其他会造成伤害的错误行为”等负面“协议”中疏导出来。市场就像一股潮流，可以在罪行的系统中把人们往美德的方向推进，透过商业交易明确地抵销对方的罪恶。如此一来，上帝的劳动惩罚就会转化成公民利益，既能创造财富，也能为国家公共利益支付“税金和关税”。多马的系统有效地把旧基督教的神圣救赎市场转变成幸福与公民美德的完全世俗市场。多马主张法律的目标是让个人透过交易找到满足感与救赎，这样的主张为商业社会提供了宗教理由。6

    若说拉侯谢傅科公爵和多马这一类的哲学家在寻找的，是一个把个人罪恶转变成公共美德的公式，那么其他更直接参与路易十四国家事务的哲学家，在寻找的就是能够治疗法国痼疾的解药。来自鲁昂的杨森主义税吏暨利伯维尔场与经济均衡的先驱理论家，布阿吉尔贝尔男爵皮耶．皮森特（Pierre Le Pesant, sieur de Boisguilbert）甚至直接向路易十四的财政大臣提出了利伯维尔场作为解决方案，其他提案参与者中，也包括柯尔贝的外甥和他在专业知识方面的继承人尼古拉斯．德马雷兹（Nicolas Desmaretz）。

    布阿吉尔贝尔在柯尔贝最成功的其中一个商业区担任警方督察（intendant of police）：拥有羊毛加工业的繁荣城镇鲁昂。运用他在自己的贵族领地与行政辖区实施收税的经验，为国家政策的实际应用发展出了第一个自我延续市场的现代观念。他认为法国的经济困境源自人类的错误判断，于是开始撰写一本说明经济能如何自我驱动的著作。他在一六九五年出版的《详述法国》（Detail of France ）是史上第一本专门讨论自我延续市场机制之经济思想的详尽书籍。他在书中指责，虽然有货币在法国境内流通，但它们并没有在创造财富，这些货币若非只对富人的利益有帮助，就是被税收侵蚀掉。针对农民的税收制度既不公平又具有惩罚性，此一制度瘫痪了消费、破坏了农业、使货币的价值与流通性下降，还阻碍了能带来财富的生产与市场本身。7

    从很多方面来说，布阿吉尔贝尔都是对的，尤其是市场需要消费者基础这部分的观念。但他认为从根本上来说，财富是建立在农业的基础之上。布阿吉尔贝尔是一个观点偏向传统的贵族，没能意识到鲁昂羊毛业的经济权力足以威胁到英国商人。反之，他就像西塞罗一样认为所有财富都源自农业，相信货币的价值来自农产品。与此同时，他却也反对封建经济的不公。他认为若想使市场发挥作用，农场劳动人口必须获得更好的报酬。他指出法国的广大农业经济到了这时候已经残破不堪了，此观点也并没有错；法国人口大多是农民，而路易十四对农民征收的税金使他们身陷饥饿与痛苦中。

    布阿吉尔贝尔建议国家取消对贫困农业劳动者的高税收，如此一来货币才能“像血液一样”重新进入循环系统，在经济体中自由流动。布阿吉尔贝尔是提出用税务改革促进经济成长的先驱者，他也指出针对穷人的不公平税收会在自然市场系统中创造出“人为的干扰”。布阿吉尔贝尔提出了人头税 （capitation），也就是依经济状况调整税额的按人征税制度，用以取代法国不向贵族征税的制度。换句话说，他想要向不工作的有钱人征税──那些贵族和富有神职人员，并根据他们的收入来制定税金；同时他还希望能降低农业劳工的税金。如果贵族能纳税，而穷人能幸免，这必定会启动消费与经济成长的良性循环、提高生活水平，并改进农民的工作状况与生产力。8

    布阿吉尔贝尔把市场描述成一具装置，如果能维持适当平衡，那么它自己就会制造财富，这样的说法与尚．多马早期的经济均衡理论相互呼应。布阿吉尔贝尔指出，减税的最佳方法就是停止战争。他是第一个把利伯维尔场思想与和平主义做出明确连结的人，他声称战争会创造饥荒、破坏农业、拉高税金并破坏贸易和健康的市场机制。他主张，如果法国能与他国保持和平，并停止对农业征税的话，自然市场系统可能就会自行运作。布阿吉尔贝尔为利伯维尔场提出的计划既具有开创性，又充满理想，在某种层面上，这个计划和西塞罗的计划正好相反：布阿吉尔贝尔追求自由农业的目的是为穷人创造财富，这些财富会进而为所有人都创造出财富。9

    布阿吉尔贝尔不是一个只会空想的人。身为一名高阶税吏，他一直和财务大臣，也就是柯尔贝的外甥尼古拉斯．德马雷兹保持直接联络。根据布阿吉尔贝尔这位史上首位系统性利伯维尔场经济理论学家和柯尔贝的继承人在财政部的初次会面状况显示，事实和某些经济史中的陈腔滥调相反，柯尔贝的后继者对于这些新思想其实抱持着相对开放的态度。

    德马雷兹曾在柯尔贝身边担任财政督察、和他一起受训，并将他使用的方法全都铭记在心。柯尔贝显然对德马雷兹的表现很满意，把这位外甥安排为他的继任者，德马雷兹在一七○三年成为财政官，在一七○八年至一七一五年担任财政总监督。德马雷兹的任务是听从路易十四的命令，以及保护他舅舅创造的工业规范与政府规范，他并不信奉特定的经济意识形态，以令人讶异的开放态度接受了布阿吉尔贝尔的自由放任思想。布阿吉尔贝尔一开始先把他针对利伯维尔场思想的文章寄给了柯尔贝家族的一位亲近朋友，米歇尔．夏米拉（Michel Chamillart），他是在一六九九年至一七○八年手握大权的财政总监督，并于一七○一年至一七○九年担任战争大臣。夏米拉同时也是鲁昂的总督，或许正是因此，他对布阿吉尔贝尔的响应是探讨要如何“把理论转化为现实”。夏米拉后来和德马雷兹分享了布阿吉尔贝尔的信。这些信件的边缘写满了潦草的笔记，提出布阿吉尔贝尔这些理论的可能应用方式，并由此得知，虽然两位长官起初抱持着怀疑的态度，最终还是和这位来自鲁昂、支持自由放任思想的税吏开始往来。10

    德马雷兹的回应让我们清楚看出，现代把柯尔贝主义描述成利伯维尔场对立面的陈腔滥调是不准确的。柯尔贝和德马雷兹并不像现代经济史学家所描述的那样，是所谓的重商主义者。柯尔贝家族改革计划的特点是他们谨慎地管理自身利益，并融入对市场建设的信念，以及将商业管理技能（例如会计和海事管理）、法律和外交专业纳入政府的理念。

    一七○四年，布阿吉尔贝尔开始摘录《详述法国》的部分内容寄给德马雷兹，希望这位大臣能听取他对于谷物贸易自由化与税制改革的想法。布阿吉尔贝尔解释，如果他愿意这么做的话，大自然的神圣系统将会推动与维持法国经济的运作。他将德马雷兹称作是经济这个“发条装置的最高统帅”，这样的称呼揭示了许多事。若说布阿吉尔贝尔认为自我延续的市场系统运作时就像发条装置一样，那么他也会相信这个系统需要位高权重的政府高官来上紧发条。德马雷兹有那个权力能解放国家的财富，让这些金钱再生产更多财富，接着采取更公平也更有效率的方式收税，如此一来市场就能独立运作。我们应该留意的是，在这一系列的信件中，这位自由放任主义的早期支持者也要求国家提供一个职位给他儿子。11
    虽然德马雷兹告诉他的助手，布阿吉尔贝尔的信里面有许多有趣的构想，他仍在页边的笔记中批评道，有鉴于法国此刻在财政上的立即需求，布阿吉尔贝尔的提议不切实际又难以实行。不过，到了一七○五年，德马雷兹在无计可施之下开始重新检视布阿吉尔贝尔的税制建议，并承诺他会认真“考虑”这些改革。德马雷兹显然左右为难，他最后采纳了布阿吉尔贝尔的建议，但却削弱了该计划的核心精神。在法国的经济因为战争而陷入灾难之际，德马雷兹建立了一种短期的普遍税制：什一税（dixième ）。唯一的问题在于，他在实施时不是用新税制取代旧税制，而是在旧税制上添加新税制。也就是说，虽然富人现在必须缴纳一些税金，穷人却必须负担比以前更重的税。而德马雷兹向布阿吉尔贝尔解释，路易十四的战争已吸干了每一分钱，如今他们没有空间能容纳理想主义了。尽管柯尔贝的外甥想要尝试自由放任主义的改革，但他们必须继续等待。12

    在柯尔贝的直系继任者们所制定的政策中，利伯维尔场哲学发挥作用的例子并非只有这次。事实上，在十七世纪末，柯尔贝家族已站在利伯维尔场思想的先锋位置。德马雷兹并不是家族中唯一一个和其他人连手进行利伯维尔场改革的人。柯尔贝的女婿和康佩（Cambrai）主教法朗索瓦．萨利尼克．莫斯─芬乃伦（François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon）密切合作，芬乃伦是一位狂热的自由放任主义理论家，也是当时影响力最大的作家之一。
    芬乃伦在一六八九年至一六九七年担任路易十四的推定继承人勃艮第公爵（duc de Bourgogne）的导师，因而成为皇室家庭的成员，能定期接触到国王、他的家人和他的大臣。芬乃伦不但是一位才华洋溢的宗教演说家，后来也成为了提出自由放任主义愿景的十七世纪作者中，拥有最广大阅读群众的一位。芬乃伦的老师是路易十四的首席神学家雅克─贝尼涅．波苏维（Jacques-Bénigne Bossuet），负责在凡尔赛宫的皇家礼拜堂里布道的波苏维不仅支持宗教绝对主义的政治理论，也提倡宗教不宽容。在一六八五年的《南特诏令》废除后，路易十四派出波苏维和芬乃伦执行国家任务，到法国西南大西洋沿岸的拉荷歇尔（La Rochelle）周边改变新教徒的信仰。在拉荷歇尔的这段期间，芬乃伦对他们以暴力军事手段改变宗教信仰一事感到心灰意冷，也对路易十四的政治和经济政策感到失望。
    芬乃伦在宫廷中的人脉很广，与柯尔贝的女婿第二代圣艾尼昂公爵保罗．波维利尔（Paul de Beauvilliers, 2nd duc de Saint-Aignan）过从甚密，并在其他人的引见下和德马雷兹变得关系密切。波维利尔的另一位密友是在宫廷中声势逐渐崛起的吕纳公爵（duc de Luynes）查尔斯．奥诺雷．达贝尔（Charles-Honoré d’Albert），他是柯尔贝的另一个女婿，一般对他的称呼来自另一个家族头衔谢夫勒斯公爵（duc de Chevreuse）。如今柯尔贝的女婿波维利尔和谢夫勒斯在宫廷中掌权，德马雷兹进入财政部，柯尔贝的侄子托尔西侯爵尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝（Jean-Baptiste Colbert, marquis de Torcy，又称作托尔西的柯尔贝〔Colbert de Torcy〕）则在一六九六年被任命为外交事务大臣，于是柯尔贝家族集团得以在路易十四的宫廷与政府高层中呼风唤雨。我们可以从他们的通信中得知，他们是以家族为单位在运作，持续累积他们的财富，就连在支持芬乃伦的构想时也一样。在波维利尔和德马雷兹的带领下，这个强大的集团一起制定战略，希望能找回柯尔贝的优秀政府管理，建立更加自由的市场。13

    波维利尔同时也是皇室未成年子女的监护人，因此在皇室中拥有绝大的影响力。路易十四知道他们是一个集团，所以在召开正式会议时，只会召集柯尔贝政府集团里的领导成员：托尔西的柯尔贝、波维利尔和德马雷兹。他让柯尔贝集团任命芬乃伦担任路易十四的七岁孙子的家教老师，这个孙子就是最终继承了王位的勃艮第公爵。波维利尔和芬乃伦相信，这名年幼的君主是通往改革的道路，更是能让他们获得更多权力的途径。他们打算以柯尔贝的治理方法为基础为这位年轻公爵制定学习计划。一六九七年，波维利尔和芬乃伦开始执行这项勃艮第公爵计划，使用一套庞大的统计书籍《绍讷列表》（The Tables of Chaulnes ），希望让这位继承人了解，要如何透过一套能带来经济自由的治理改革，来扩张法国的人口与商业规模。其内容聚焦于透过柯尔贝当年的统计法去计算、测量与在地图上标示法国的所有重要财富与管辖区。此外，计划的另一个目的是创造更好的税收制度：每一种形式的应税财产都要确实记录下来。14

    一六九九年，柯尔贝家族密切支持芬乃伦撰写小说《忒勒马科斯的冒险》（The Adventures of Telemachus ），供勃艮第公爵的教育所用。《忒勒马科斯的冒险》是那个时代最明确、影响力也最大的农业利伯维尔场思想著作，也是十八世纪的畅销书，启发了从莫扎特到亚当斯密等多位重要人物。芬乃伦的小说填补了荷马的著作《奥德赛》（Odyssey）中缺漏的情节，描述了奥德修斯的儿子忒勒马科斯在冒险中学习的故事。故事中，有一位睿智的老师一直陪在忒勒马科斯身边，芬乃伦透露，这位老师其实是伪装过后的智慧女神密涅瓦（Minerva）。15

    这部作品非但没有赞扬歌颂路易十四，反而是一份对他的统治和凡尔赛皇室的控诉，同时也是对自由贸易的呼吁。书中讲述了忒勒马科斯透过做出种种与路易十四相反的行为，学着成为一名优秀的国王。芬乃伦认为理想的君主会拒绝战争、侍臣、奢侈品、不断变化的流行和缺乏实际用途的宏伟建筑。他会维护正义，仁慈慷慨地对待臣民。他应该和西赛罗一样，认为人们可以在友谊与忠诚里找到“美德”和好的交易。国王本人应该要向人们示范基督教式的斯多噶价值观：“热爱正义……忠诚、节制与无私。”他应该要推动国内人民聚焦在“严肃的”农业工作上。16

    根据芬乃伦的说法，道德高尚的君主会重视“所有公民的自由”。他警告，最“专制”的统治者是最弱小的统治者。他指出，那些靠着恐惧统治的人就像是“人类种族的瘟疫”：他们认为自己“远比其他人类还要优越”，以至于他们“无法用自己的双眼看见真相”，只能用“谄媚”把自己包围起来。最后的最后，一名优秀国王的职责就是避免战争。17

    《忒勒马科斯的冒险》结合了芬乃伦对皇室美德的西塞罗式见解，以及普遍性的柯尔贝式经济信条。芬乃伦就像柯尔贝一样，提到在发展良好的商业时，需要“航海”、储备充足的“军火”与“海上霸权帝国”作为后盾。他引述柯尔贝的商业法，呼吁国家必须使用良好的“法规”来限制“破产”与审计商人的账簿。他说“罚则”能防止商人用不诚实的经营方式，拿他人的财富来冒险。然而，芬乃伦反对以奢侈品作为基础的工业经济。在目睹了宫廷中的各种愚行后，他强硬地要求各个国王都要禁止“奢侈品和阴柔行为”、“音乐”、“舞会”和宫殿。无论社会阶级是高是低，法国人民都应该要亲近土壤，保持刻苦坚韧的个性。他不希望法国人把钱花在“外国制造”的“东西”上，例如“昂贵的金底板与银底板刺绣”或“烈酒与香水”。芬乃伦警告说，“奢侈品会毒害整个国家”，使富人与穷人区分开来，直到“罪恶”被“当成美德来称颂”。18

    在芬乃伦的设想中，自由放任经济具有“简单且明确”的规则。他说，一切之中最重要的是个体必须能自由地按照自己的选择进行贸易。这种自由将会吸引外国人与更多财富流入法国。经过专门训练的国家法官会负责维持自由贸易，以及在过于复杂的项目中，负责协助缺乏相应知识的商人建立“公司”。一名优秀的国王该做的工作是确保所有人都拥有自由与自然创造的财富。19

    书中的一句对白，灵感可能来自罗马保守农业派作家加图（Cato），芬乃伦用这句话告诫统治者，绝对不要忽略他的土地，也不要征收过高的税金。土地拥有者必须能够自由地把所有资金应用在提高作物产量上，并且他们兴旺的大家庭必须以健康的状态在土地上工作、进公立学校学习，并参与“体能锻炼”。靠着制造业与贸易赚来的不健康“人造财富”应该受到鄙视。芬乃伦强调，简而言之，富有国家的基础就是农业，“一块妥善耕种的田地是真正的宝藏”。20

    想当然耳，路易十四既没有听从芬乃伦的建议，也没有理会柯尔贝家族中的其他成员。芬乃伦提出的利伯维尔场改革方案全都没有问世。不如说，我们可以认为路易十四后来的统治彻底摧毁了柯尔贝与其后继者真正追求的目标。路易十四对于芬乃伦的批判怒火中烧，在一六九九年将他逐出宫廷，继续进行西班牙王位继承战争（War of Spanish Succession，一七○一年至一七一四年）。这正是芬乃伦曾提出警告的那种噩梦。路易十四的战争使得法国开始对抗英格兰大同盟（Grand Alliance of England），包括荷兰共和国、奥地利大公国以及后来的西班牙和萨伏依。根据军事史学家的估计，交战中的死亡人数大约落在七十万至一百二十万之间──且法国在之前一六九三年至一六九四年间的大饥荒已经死了一百二十万人。一七○九年，太阳黑子引起的气温骤降导致了大霜冻（Great Frost），法国在这段期间又死了六十万人。在虚弱、饥饿与绝望中，法国人口共减少了数百万之多。

    接受了精心教育的勃艮第公爵在妻子感染麻疹时拒绝离开她身边，因而受到传染并在一七一二年逝世。他过世前已经把麻疹传染给了三名儿子之中的两人，这两名儿子也因此死亡。公爵的小儿子被一名奶妈隔离起来，这名幸存者在一七一五年于五岁的年纪成为路易十五世，当时他的曾祖父路易十四因为腿部坏疽而死亡。路易十四的健康状况宛如在隐喻他的统治政权：他的王朝从内部开始腐败，他离开时所留下的法国受到严重创伤，陷入饥饿与破产。没有人为路易十四哀悼，在送葬的那天，街道上空无一人。有些人甚至在私下庆祝此事。

    路易十四践踏了柯尔贝留下的功绩，也抹煞了可能随之而来的商业自由与经济成长。不过，在这些惨烈的失败中，柯尔贝最重要的其中一些改革存活了下来。虽然法国仍是农业社会，受到贵族与专制君主的统治，但法国工业仍有持续产出，在全球商业的舞台上和英格兰继续竞争。法国非但仍是全世界的两大科学强国之一，而且还成为了欧洲启蒙运动的摇篮。启蒙运动是一场错综复杂的科学与思想进步的运动，事实将证明此运动是现代利伯维尔场思想哲学的核心。法国经济思想家将会透过哲学家查理．路易．德．色贡达（Charles-Louis de Secondat），也就是孟德斯鸠男爵（baron de Montesquieu）所谓的“温和”商业，以贸易的互利性取代自爱的战争本能，寻找通往和平与繁荣的永久道路。换句话说，自由贸易就是嫉妒、战争与贫困的解药。法国将会在这方面对英国经济哲学造成深远的影响。在这两个国家中，人们此刻还坚持认为，只要人类能靠着解放农业市场来妥善利用大自然，那么市场就能在和平之中创造奇迹，制造无穷尽的财富。21

    1. Albert O. Hirschman, The Passions and the Interests: Political Arguments for Capitalism Before Its Triumph (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1977), 16. 

    2. Thomas Hobbes, Leviathan , ed. Richard Tuck (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997), pt. 1, chaps. 13–14. 

    3. La Rochefoucauld, Maxims , trans. Leonard Tancock (London: Penguin, 1959), maxims 48, 85, 112, 563; Pierre Force, Self-Interest Before Adam Smith: A Genealogy of Economic Science (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003), 146, 176; Norbert Elias, The Court Society (New York: Pantheon Books, 1983), 105. 

    4. La Rochefoucauld, Maxims , 66, 77, 223, 305. 

    5. David A. Bell, The Cult of the Nation in France: Inventing Nationalism, 1680–1800 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003), 28; Dan Edelstein, On the Spirit of Rights (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2019), 120; Pierre Nicole, “De la grandeur,” in Essais de morale , 3 vols. (Paris: Desprez, 1701), 2:186; Dale van Kley and Pierre Nicole, “Jansenism, and the Morality of Self-Interest,” in Anticipations of the Enlightenment in England, France, and Germany , ed. Alan C. Kors and Paul J. Korshin (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987), 69–85; Gilbert Faccarello, Aux origins de l’économie politique libérale: Pierre de Boisguilbert (Paris: Éditions Anthropos, 1985), 99. 

    6. Jean Domat, The Civil Law in Its Order Together with the Publick Law , 2 vols. (London: William Strahan, 1722), vol. 1, chap. 2, sec. 2; vol. 1, chap. 5, sec. 7; vol. 2, bk. 1, title 5; Faccarello, Aux origins de l’économie politique libérale , 146; Edelstein, On the Spirit of Rights , 120; David Grewal, “The Political Theology of Laissez-Faire : From Philia to Self-Love in Commercial Society,” Political Theology 17, no. 5 (2016): 417–433, at 419. 

    7. Pierre Le Pesant de Boisguilbert, Détail de la France (Geneva: Institut Coppet, 2014), 18, 61–63. 

    8. Boisguilbert, Détail de la France , 77, 89, 99. 

    9. Faccarello, Aux origins de l’économie politique libérale , 115, 119. 

    10. Gary B. McCollim, Louis XIV’s Assault on Privilege: Nicolas Desmaretz and the Tax on Wealth (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press, 2012), 106, 149; A. -M. de Boislisle, Correspondance des contrôleurs généraux des finances , 3 vols. (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1883), 2:530. 

    11. Boisguilbert to Desmaretz, July 1–22, 1704, Archives Nationales de France, G7 721; Boislisle, 2:207, 543–547, 559. 

    12. Boislisle, Correspondance des contrôleurs généraux , 2:544. 

    13. Georges Lizerand, Le duc de Beauvillier (Paris: Société d’ÉditionLes Belles Lettres, 1933), 43, 153. 

    14. Lionel Rothkrug, Opposition to Louis XIV: The Political and Social Origins of the French Enlightenment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1965), 263–269, 286–287; Louis Trénard, Les Mémoires des intendants pour l’instruction du duc de Bourgogne (Paris: Bibliothèque Nationale, 1975), 70–82; David Bell, The First Total War: Napoleon’s Europe and the Birth of Warfare as We Know It (New York: Houghton Mifflin, 2007), 62; Lizerand, Le duc de Beauvillier , 46–77; marquis de Vogüé, Le duc de Bourgogne et le duc de Beauvillier: Lettres inédites, 1700–1708 (Paris: Plon, 1900), 11–23; Jean-Baptiste Colbert, marquis de Torcy, Journal Inédit , ed. Frédéric Masson (Paris: Plon, Nourrit et Cie, 1884), 57; Louis de Rouvroy, duc de Saint-Simon, Projets de gouvernement du duc de Bourgogne , ed. P. Mesnard (Paris: Librarie de L. Hachette et Cie, 1860), xxxix, 13; Edmond Esmonin, “Les Mémoires des intendants pour l’instruction du duc de Bourgogne,” in Études sur la France des XVIIe et XVIIIe siècles (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1964), 113–130, at 117–119; Boislisle, Correspondance des contrôleurs généraux, 2:ii. 

    15. Georges Weulersse, Le movement physiocratique en France de 1756 à 1770 , 2 vols. (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1910), 2, 302; François Fénelon, Telemachus , ed. and trans. Patrick Riley (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994), 60, 195, 325. 

    16. Fénelon, Telemachus , 195. 

    17. Fénelon, Telemachus , 16, 18, 25, 28, 60, 164, 170, 297. 

    18. Fénelon, Telemachus , 37–39, 161–162, 165, 297. 

    19. Fénelon, Telemachus , 37, 38, 105, 161, 166. 

    20. Fénelon, Telemachus , 166, 195, 260. 

    21. Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois , ed. Victor Goldschmidt, 2 vols. (Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1979), vol. 2, bk. 20, chap. 1. 

    第九章 行星运动与英国自由贸易的新世界

    贸易的本质是自由的，它会找到自己的渠道，决定最好的路线：所有针对贸易制定的规则、引导、限制和约束，往往都是对特定个人有利的法律，鲜少对公众有利。 ──查尔斯．达凡南特（Charles Davenant），《论东印度贸易》（An Essay on the East India Trade ），一六九六年

    一五○○年代早期，波兰数学家暨天文学家尼古拉．哥白尼为了理解宇宙而提出了崭新的日心说模型，解释说根据已知的运动定律，行星是围绕着太阳转动的。二十世纪的哲学家路德维希．维根斯坦（Ludwig Wittgenstein）认为哥白尼的发现是一种对自然运作方式的“新观点”；如果行星会按照看起来充满智慧的设计，依循既定模式绕圈运动的话，那么社会与经济也必然如此。在那个把大自然视为神圣谜团的世界中，这种新观点令人激动。十七世纪的哲学家想要寻找一种力量（force），为人类带来类似行星系统的平衡，藉此打造一个和平且繁荣的世俗世界，因此他们的研究全都执迷于自我延续的系统。他们无论往哪里看，都好像看到了自我延续的运作方式：星辰、大自然的四季、人类的躯体，以及人类的法律与经济市场。1

    在十七世纪的前数十年，佛罗伦萨仕绅暨天文学家伽利略．伽利莱（Galileo Galilei）延续了哥白尼的研究，坚持认为基础物理可以透过严谨且客观的数学定律，应用在行星上。伽利略试着透过惯性的力量来了解行星运动，惯性力量会使行星能抗拒方向的变化，藉此维持绕行太阳的轨迹。伽利略的发现在该世纪早期带来了巨大的影响，但他并不是唯一一个致力于动力学的杰出科学家。一六二八年，英国医师威廉．哈维（William Harvey）发表了《论心脏与血液之运动》（Anatomical Account of the Motion of the Heart and Blood ），指出心脏会推动血液流往全身，形成自我延续的回路；人体像是一个能够运输与流动的有机器械，反映了星辰的运动方式。伽利略和哈维的作品启发了法国哲学家勒内．笛卡儿（René Descartes）写下《世界》（The World ，一六三三年），此著作描述了物质是如何遵循自身的自然轨迹运行，推动这种运行的并不是神秘学性质的力量，而是物质之间的相互作用力。他认为运动的动力并非来自上帝，而是来自较小的物体，也就是微粒（corpuscule）之间的机械式相互作用力。2
    英国自然哲学家、数学家暨天文学家艾萨克．牛顿主张，大自然会按照物理的自我延续法则，以可预测的方式运作。牛顿因此建立了一套对于上帝神圣行动的崭新观点，认为上帝是大自然运行的监督者，而不是直接执行者。举例来说，上帝并没有创造闪电与暴风雨当作惩罚，彗星也不是预兆；这些只是大自然这个巨大机械中的零件在移动罢了。牛顿认为，自然现象所遵循的恒定物理定律，是人类可以藉由数学去理解的。更有甚者，他认为行星的运行定律也可以套用在社会与市场上。如果人类能了解社会与市场的运作机制的话，那么人类也将能预测社会与市场。3
    牛顿相信，如果人类能理解大自然的运作流程，就可以揭露无限量创造黄金与白银的秘密方法。他遵循悠久且神秘的炼金术传统，推测地球是透过“植物精神”（vegetable spirit）的力量运作，此外，地球本身就是一种“巨大的动物”，会呼吸、寻求“更新”并维持自身的生命。牛顿确信地球内部有一种秘密能量，源自硫磺与水银组成的“贤者之石”（philosopher’s stone）。这其实并不只是幻想而已。牛顿在一六八七年写下的典范之作《数学原理》（Principia mathematica ）中描述了行星的引力运动与日心说的数学原理，希望能让无神论者别再主张宇宙的混乱代表了这个世界上没有所谓的神圣计划。牛顿认为，从根本上来说，这个世界的系统是以明确规律为基础在运行的机械式系统，而他相信这种规律让我们看见了上帝之手的创造痕迹。4
    和牛顿同一时代的日耳曼新教哲学家戈特弗里德．威廉．莱布尼兹（Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz）也同样在寻找宇宙的驱动力。莱布尼兹是一名博学之士，他发明了微积分和现代物理学，认为是上帝创造了人类的生命和大自然，使这两者像精密的时钟一样运作，并且拥有无限种运动的可能性。他指出，手表中的平衡摆轮的德文是“Unruhe “，同时也有“不安”和“骚动”的意思。莱布尼兹认为，这种骚动不安就是制造出运动的源头。这个宇宙是所有事物在一个“预先建立的和谐系统”中不断流通的无限总和。他以辨给的口才指出，理解这种无休止运动的困难之处就像要理解“一座由连续体（continuum）构成的迷宫”。5

    十七世纪的哲学家推测，正如重力使行星运动一样，人类的自由道德选择也以同样方式创造出了社会与经济的运动。“个人行动能驱动世俗机制”这个想法将会成为利伯维尔场思想的基石。英国哲学家威廉．佩第（William Petty）在他著名的社经统计学书籍《政治算数》（Political Arithmetick ，一六七二年）中提出了一个新概念，描述个人能如何影响到整个经济体。佩第的其中一个主要构想是，财富可以被计算成人类劳动效率与自然资源价值一起制造出来的产物。他指出，某些人的工作会为社会创造出较多财富，他并且利用英格兰各阶层人口的经济生产力，来计算国家资产净值的基本负债表。6

    佩第指出，有些人担心英格兰会因为和法国的贸易逆差而受害，那些人从根本上误解了国家财富。我们在衡量英国经济时，采用的不该是总产出──也就是我们今天称为国内生产毛额（ＧＤＰ）的数字，而是应该采用英国的人均生产净值。这是因为，虽然英国的产出低于法国，但根据佩第的数据显示，英国人口的生产力其实比法国更高。他依据计数贸易额度、按职业划分的人均产出和税收统计来比较这两个国家，以左证他的理论。法国对英格兰的贸易威胁一直持续到七年战争爆发（一七五六年至一七六三年），当时法国的总经济产出远超过英格兰，在制造业方面最为明显。然而，佩第的看法是对的：他认为按照英格兰当时的方向， 他们的经济产出总有一天会超过法国。7

    佩第认为法国在经济方面的弱点，是天主教削弱了个人的劳动生产力。他采用古老的反天主教论点，坚持认为教会凭借在经济方面扮演的强权角色和人口众多的神父、修道士与修女，在不创造商业财富的状况下大量吸收资产，严重阻碍了法国的人均效率和整体经济状况。根据佩第的看法，在法国实施宗教自由将会支持新教发展，使效率低落的神职人员数量减少，进而提高生产力。此外，若国家为经济方面较成功的专业产业移除借贷限制并降低税额，也会刺激工业发展。8

    尽管佩第对于市场效率有信心，并建议国家采取自由放任政策，但同时他也认为，若社会与经济的发条无法靠着自身运作的话，人类就必须依据当下状况上紧发条──而负责这么做的往往都是国家。由于人类已经从伊甸园坠落至俗世，不可能达到完美，所以若想善加利用上帝创造的自然系统，前提条件永远是人类的行为。按照佩第的想法，如果爱尔兰人的生产力不足，那么他们就会失去拥有资源的权利，英格兰政府有道德特权能征服他们并夺取他们的土地。他认为，把爱尔兰天主教会的财产分配给更有生产力的圣公会英格兰教徒，将会使爱尔兰更加富裕。他参加了奥利佛．克伦威尔的爱尔兰征服战（一六四九年至一六五三年），英格兰军队没收了爱尔兰的土地，残酷地使爱尔兰人陷入贫困之中。佩第把爱尔兰当成了十七世纪的殖民征服实验场，将土地分配给定居在此的英格兰军人，对他们没收的地产与其潜在生产力进行经济调查，并声称这些经济数据对于管理国家来说是必要信息。但事实证明了，这些统计工具在合理化他的土地掠夺行为这方面或许才是最有用。真正使佩第致富的并不是自由贸易，而是掠夺。这位布商的儿子总共获得了五万英亩的土地，跻身富有的地主仕绅阶级、享誉盛名并成为牛津大学铜鼻学院（Brasenose College）的副院长。9

    政治理论家约翰．洛克认为，人类社会是依据各种理性原则自行组织而成的，这些原则反映了牛顿的运动力学理论和佩第的观点，也就是个人可以透过自由选择创造出经济效率。洛克强烈反对政治专制主义，成为那个时代在宪政与个人权利方面影响力最高的理论家。洛克正是因为极端厌恶斯图亚特和波旁（Bourbon）的专制军权与践踏个人权利的行为，才写下了《政府论两篇》（Two Treatises on Government ，一六八九年）。他的灵感同时来自西塞罗和基督教，解释说私有财产是政治自由与有效运作市场的重要关键。伊甸园的所有事物都是共享的，而在亚当从伊甸园坠落至俗世时，也就创造出了我们对私有财产与人类劳动的需求。10

    对洛克来说，私有财产使地主有机会能依据个人选择将经济生产力最大化。他们可以自由选择要买什么、要和谁交易，因而创造出市场条件。与此同时，洛克也认为自由代表的是只要你的行为不会伤害他人或侵犯他人的财产，你就可以做你想做的事。因此，个人必须为人类的共同利益着想。人类受制于“自然法”，此法则赋予人类权力，可以透过民选公民政府、合约和法律来管制货币与交易，进而保护自己的财产；但自然法同时也赋予人类责任，必须维持优良且有效率的管理方式。财产拥有者有责任要为了共同利益而进行生产与交易。11

    洛克眼中的法律和规则会保护政治、宗教与经济的自由，但同时也为国家保留了很大的监管空间。事实上，洛克认为社会中有可能存在自我监管的系统，但他也是原罪的信奉者，认为政府必须在人类不可避免会失败的状况介入。人类从伊甸园坠落至凡间后，已经失去了伊甸园那种一切共享的状态了，所以我们才会需要政府。政府是一种契约，社会透过这种契约以“多数人 的决断”来决定法律，洛克观察道：“契约 和协议决定了 劳动与生产造成的财产 之归属。”因此，订定契约会推动财产拥有权的动态。洛克并没有完全排除国家对于经济或私有财产的干预，他认为只要国家透过议会来按照宪政代议程序进行这种干预，就是在政治上反映了自然法。12
    与此同时，洛克认为并不是每个人都该拥有自由。未发展出私有财产、农业和贸易的社会，也就未赢得自由的权利。只有住在基督教社会中、拥有私有财产又受法律契约限制的人，才能完全享有自由。对于那些缺乏财产与契约的社会，必须透过武力让他们加入。这就是洛克认为他们应该透过殖民来扩张与推动市场活动的理论基础。尽管奴隶和美洲原住民天生拥有自由的自然权利，且洛克认为“印第安人”比欧洲人更加“正派、有文化”，但他仍坚持，他们若想获得自由，就应该要创造出契约并发展出以财产为基础的社会。他认为，虽然原住民拥有丰富的土地和自然资源──这些事物是“大自然提供给所有人的”──但他们没有为了更大的利益而发展出财产、农业和商业，因此糟蹋了这些天然财富。所以，那些北美的原住民需要殖民政府来纠正他们在道德与经济上的失败，强迫他们参与市场。为此基督教殖民国家将会需要强大的强制力之手，既要安抚殖民地，又要保证私有财产的出现，并引导原住民与欧洲人有效运用这些财产。然而，洛克从来没有完整解释过，那些原住民在他们的土地被剥夺之后，要如何成为拥有权利的财产拥有者。13

    洛克属于十七世纪末一个充满矛盾的英格兰经济学学派，该学派认为国内的宪政法治和海外的殖民征战是创造财富的关键。英国保守党的经济学家、哲学家、税务员暨国会议员查尔斯．达凡南特认为，英格兰应该要透过个人自由与炮舰帝国主义来实现自由贸易，他是这派理论的辩护者中最能言善辩也最坦白的一个。
    达凡南特坚持一种守旧的观点，认为虽然自由贸易是透过贸易的“链结”与“链”而存在的，也是最有利、最自然的经济方法，但国家仍然必须“适时照顾整个”商业界。14
    达凡南特担心英格兰与法国的战争造成的国家负债，会反过来导致贪腐与债权人专业阶级的寡头政治。他提出的解决方案，是透过殖民贸易偿还国家债务，摆脱在英格兰根深蒂固的寄生金融阶级。达凡南特恪守一种马基维利式的古老政府愿景，认为国家应该保持富裕与避免债务，藉此维护自由和透明度，抵御寡头政治、暴政与贪腐的持续威胁。15
    达凡南特在国内是政治自由与市场的支持者，但他同时也倡导在海外进行镇压，视其为国家创造财富的关键之一。若说洛克总是避谈帝国与奴隶之间的各种重大道德困境的话，那么达凡南特就是以明目张胆的利伯维尔场帝国经济学接纳了这个困境。达凡南特在《论东印度贸易》（一六九六年）中阐释道，能使英格兰通往和平、繁荣与政治自由的直接途径，就是奴隶栽培业和殖民贸易。英格兰可以透过掠夺远方的领土来换取自由，对他来说这样的想法既不冲突，也不矛盾。之后，他更详细描述了非洲奴隶贸易是如何透过复杂的股份公司进行良好的管理，成为英格兰财富与“国家优势”的基础──后来的亚当斯密也同意达凡南特的部分观点。而后达凡南特说出了一句名言：“贸易的本质是自由的，它会找到自己的渠道，决定最好的路线。”16

    达凡南特认为，英格兰的帝国自由贸易区会降低制造业与零售商品的价格，同时提高生活水平。栽培业可以用低廉的价格生产必要的基本商品，又能成为国内“制造业”的重要额外市场。因此，奴隶栽培园将会成为“祖国英格兰取之不尽的宝藏来源”。印度的贸易对这个计划来说也是必要的，主要原因在于丝绸的价格因此下降了百分之二十五。若想维持印度贸易，就需要“驻军”和海军，如此一来，即使是伟大的蒙兀儿王朝统治者也无法“侮辱”英格兰人。荷兰人和雨果．格劳秀斯已经证明了在维持跨国自由贸易体系时，军火是必要的。现在英格兰人将会利用这种经济策略，成为全世界都前所未见的、最为强大的帝国。从英格兰在加勒比群岛经营的栽培业，到利用军事化的自由贸易区去掠夺印度与全球各地的富裕殖民地，帝国政府将会利用这些收入来培育国内的工业革命。17

    达凡南特的《论东印度贸易》显示出英格兰是如何借鉴了柯尔贝的老方法。达凡南特认为，在解放自由贸易与支持经济这两方面，政府都必须扮演重要角色。他建议国家使用立法权打造劳动济贫所，低薪雇用贫困者，藉此降低制造成本，生产更便宜的商品。与此同时，他也相信自由贸易的力量，并认为自由贸易的运作是由动态的法律所推动的。但是，达凡南特所提出的这种早期一般均衡概念，只会单方面地让英格兰获利。他认为，在国内压低价格的同时出口昂贵的奢侈品，才能使国家获得最繁盛的发展。他也主张要为英格兰国内市场创造廉价的当地奢侈品产业，这么做既不会削弱国家财富，也不会削弱国家美德。

    洛克和达凡南特的想法十分符合当时的科学与政治观点。事实上，在一六八八年的英国光荣革命（Glorious Revolution）中，奥兰治的威廉与他的英格兰妻子玛丽推翻了她的父亲，也就是倾向专制的詹姆士二世；威廉实施了《权利法案》（bill of rights ）与君主立宪制，带领英格兰迈入真正的全球商业时代。英法之间的全球经济霸权争夺战又再进一步升温。讽刺的是，这两个国家为了经济主导地位而进行的斗争，将会催化新的政治经济思想运动。英法愈是在商业与工业相互竞争，哲学家们就愈渴望把西塞罗对农业与和平的信念，结合到永恒运动和财富创造的概念中，藉此达成他们理想中的自由贸易。18

    1. Ludwig Wittgenstein, Culture and Value , ed. Georg Henrik Wright, Heikki Nyman, and Alois Pichler, trans. Peter Winch (London: Blackwell, 1998), 18; Richard J. Blackwell, “Descartes’ Laws of Motion,” Isis 52, no. 2 (1966): 220–234, at 220. 

    2. Vincenzo Ferrone, “The Epistemological Roots of the New Political Economy: Modern Science and Economy in the First Half of the Eighteenth Century,” paper presented at the conference “Mobility and Modernity: Religion, Science and Commerce in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries,” University of California, Los Angeles, William Andrews Clark Memorial Library, April 13–14, 2018. 

    3. Margaret C. Jacob, The Newtonians and the English Revolution, 1689–1720 (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1976), 174; Rob Iliffe, The Priest of Nature: The Religious Worlds of Isaac Newton (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 6. 

    4. Betty Jo Teeter Dobbs and Margaret C. Jacob, Newton and the Culture of Newtonianism (Amherst, NY: Humanity Books, 1990), 26, 100; William R. Newman, Newton the Alchemist: Science, Enigma, and the Quest for Nature’s “Secret Fire” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2019), 64, 70. 

    5. Dobbs and Jacob, Newton and the Culture of Newtonianism , 42; Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, Theodicy , ed. Austen Farrer, trans. E. M. Huggard (Charleston, SC: BiblioBazaar, 2007), 43, 158; G. W. Leibniz, “Note on Foucher’s Objection (1695),” in G. W. Leibniz, Philosophical Essays , ed. and trans. Roger Ariew and Daniel Garber (Indianapolis: Hackett, 1989), 146; G. W. Leibniz, The Labyrinth of the Continuum: Writings on the Continuum Problem, 1672–1686 , trans. Richard T. W. Arthur (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2001), 566. 

    6. William Letwin, The Origins of Scientific Economics: English Economic Thought, 1660–1776 (London: Methuen, 1963), 128. 

    7. François Crouzet, “Angleterre et France au XVIIIe siècle: Essaie d’analyse comparé de deux croissances économiques,” Annales. Économies, sociétés, civilisations 21, no. 2 (1966): 254–291, at 268; T. S. Ashton, An Economic History of England: The Eighteenth Century (London: Methuen, 1955), 104; François Crouzet, Britain Ascendant: Comparative Studies in Franco-British Economic History (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), 17–23, 73. 

    8. William Petty, “A Treatise of Taxes and Contributions,” in William Petty, Tracts Chiefly Relating to Ireland (Dublin: Boulter Grierson, 1769), 1–92, at 23–26, 32. 

    9. William Petty, “The Political Anatomy of Ireland, 1672,” in Petty, Tracts , 299–444, at 341. 

    10. John Locke, Two Treatises of Government , ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1960), 171; John F. Henry, “John Locke, Property Rights, and Economic Theory,” Journal of Economic Issues 33, no. 3 (1999): 609–624, at 615. 

    11. Locke, Two Treatises , 291, 384. 

    12. John O. Hancey, “John Locke and the Law of Nature,” Political Theory 4, no. 4 (1976): 439–454, at 219, 439. 

    13. Holly Brewer, “Slavery, Sovereignty, and ‘Inheritable Blood’: Reconsidering John Locke and the Origins of American Slavery,” American Historical Review 122, no. 4 (2017): 1038–1078; Mark Goldie, “Locke and America,” in A Companion to Locke , ed. Matthew Stuart (Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell, 2015), 546–563; Letwin, Origins of Scientific Economics , 163–165; David Armitage, “John Locke, Carolina, and The Two Treatises of Government,” Political Theory 32, no. 5 (2004): 602–627, at 616; J. G. A. Pocock, The Machiavellian Moment: Florentine Political Thought and the Atlantic Republican Tradition (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1975), 283–285, 339. 

    14. Charles Davenant, An Essay on the East India Trade (London, 1696), 25. 

    15. Pocock, Machiavellian Moment , 437, 443. 

     16. Pocock, Machiavellian Moment , 446; Charles Davenant, Reflections upon the Constitution and Management of the Trade to Africa (London: John Morphew, 1709), 25, 28. 

    17. Davenant, Reflections , 27, 36, 48, 50, 58. 

    18. Steven Pincus, 1688: The First Modern Revolution (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 308. 

    第十章 英国与法国：贸易战、赤字与找到天堂的美梦

    因此，尽管每一个角落都充满了罪恶，但整体来说这里却是天堂。 ──伯纳德．曼德维尔，《蜜蜂的寓言》（The Fable of the Bees ），一七一四年

    在利伯维尔场思想的起源中，西班牙王位继承战争扮演了重量级的角色。哲学家冀望战争尽快结束，并且找到方法来建立能够自我延续的长久和平。他们期盼能找到一种使国家之间再也没有商业嫉妒和战争的财富创造系统。但是比这些问题更加迫切的，是公债的问题，这两个国家的人均债务额度相近：在战争结束时，英格兰的总债务金额高达前所未有的五千万英镑左右，而法国的国家债务和各种负债则达到了惊人的二十三亿法国里弗尔（livre，一英镑大约等于十三里弗尔），这个金额是一六七五年的三倍，约达国民产值的百分之七十。1
    经济学家开始着手寻找新的市场解决方案，以应付这场势不可挡的公共财政挑战。到了一七○○年代早期，英法两国首屈一指的经济学家都希望能设计出一套工具，让私人公司藉由支付公债来换取垄断权。如今我们可能会觉得这样的想法听起来一点也不像利伯维尔场式的解决方案，但从很多方面来说，它都确实具有利伯维尔场特质。这个解决方案的前提假设是，如果经济学家和企业家能适当利用他们视为无穷无尽的美洲自然财富，那么这个崭新的殖民市场系统就能解决政府和税收都无法解决的债务问题，同时还能推动整体经济。

    此时的英国正处于金融革命（Financial Revolution）之中。一六九四年，威廉三世的政府需要更好的信用条件才能在英格兰与法国的战争中继续坚持，而英格兰银行（Bank of England，通称英国央行）的成立对政府带来了很大的帮助，英格兰银行不但以合理的利率借钱给政府，让政府能管理债务，同时也在信贷市场中建立了信心，并资助创业计划。正如约翰．洛克的主张，社会需要信心与达成共识的体制，才能建立对市场的信任。但是债务仍然不断成长，从一六八八年的一百万英镑增加到一六九七年的一千九百万英镑，这些债务是个大杂烩，包括利率百分之七的年金、浮动债务、抽签公债（lottery loan），以及来自英格兰银行和南海与东印度公司的贷款。就算有了这间新银行，国家债务仍是一个棘手的问题。2

    除此之外，英格兰也处于政治动荡之中。一七○七年，英格兰和苏格兰合并成为大不列颠（Great Britain）。威廉与玛丽的女儿安妮女王（Queen Anne）于一七一四年在没有继承人的情况下过世，这推动了宪制的《光荣革命嗣位法令》（Act of Settlement of the Glorious Revolution ）的制定，明确规定王位由女王关系最近且仍旧存活的新教徒亲戚来继承，当时的王位正好落在日耳曼血统的汉诺威选帝侯（imperial elector of Hanover），布伦瑞克─吕讷堡公爵乔治．路易（George Louis, Duke of Brunswick-Lüneburg）的身上，也就是后来的大不列颠国王乔治一世（George I of Great Britain）。他在一七一四年八月一日登基，同时也继承了国家的债务。3

    为了应对经济状态的新复杂性，以及看似无法控制的债务成长，政府首长、企业家、哲学家、炼金术士和早期科学家开始寻找能够创造无尽财富的魔法解药，希望能解决永无止境的金融危机。他们希望美洲的财富能带来解决方案。在仕绅探险家华特．雷利描述了自己沿着奥利诺科河（位于今天的哥伦比亚与委内瑞拉境内）的航行经历后，找出黄金国便成了十八世纪早期经济思想的一个重要元素。以剑桥大学为中心的国际学者团体哈特利柏圈（Hartlib Circle）坚称“炼金术和科学”具有“点燃隐藏资源”的力量。有些人希望能在美洲找到这些隐藏资源，还有些人则认为通往财富之路是推测出市场机制的秘密。因此，他们研究了信用和机率法则，甚至是博弈。计算风险与意外事件、甚至计算一副扑克牌中的牌数，理论上都应该可以帮助投资人制定出保险与可靠的投资计划。4

    这些想法很快就引起了社会大众的注意。一七○七年，伦敦出现了一本标题非常精彩的匿名小册子：《论有效应对方法；又名，图隆等式：改善美洲西南部贸易的友好认购提案，每年为东印度贸易和王室收入增加三百万黄金与白银，若得到鼓励则将会产生相应的结果》（An Account of What Will DO; or, an Equivalent for Thoulon: In a Proposal for an Amicable Subscription for Improving TRADE in the South-West Part of AMERICA, and Increasing BULLION to About Three Millions per Annum, Both for the East India Trade and the Revenue of the Crown, Which by Consequence Will Be Produced if This Is Encouraged ）。这本小册子主张，美洲是“所有黄金与白银的唯一泉源”，任何占领了美洲的国家就能拥有“这个世界上的所有物质财富 “，并控制“全天下的贸易”，并坚持英格兰应该要比法国先一步统治西印度群岛。英格兰应该要帮助“计划者”──也就是冒险家暨企业家──占领美洲，在必要时使用强烈手段，以便英国能控制美洲的所有财富。如此一来，英国就能打造一支胜过所有国家的海军，建立起一个全球帝国。5

    在这样的氛围中，英荷讽刺作家、医师暨经济哲学家伯纳德．曼德维尔写下了《蜜蜂的寓言：又名，个人恶行，公众利益》（The Fable of the Bees: or, Private Vices, Public Benefits ，一七一四年），这是早期利伯维尔场哲学中最清楚好懂、也是引起最多争议且最知名的著作之一。《蜜蜂的寓言》为英国的商业社会总结出一个同时充满批判与希望的愿景。曼德维尔遵循马基维利、霍布斯、拉侯谢傅科描述人类本质时采取的愤世嫉俗观点，描述了一种充斥着恶行的商业文化，在这个宛如蜂巢的国家中，律师、商人、神职人员和乡绅都无异于“骗子、寄生虫、皮条客、赌徒、扒手、伪币制造者、江湖医师〔和〕占卜师”，全都对于“诈骗、奢侈品和傲慢”轻微上瘾。事实上，他还以押韵的文体指出：“所有交易和每个角落都必定有欺骗存在／没有任何志愿能免于诈欺的残害。”他相信是“自私”在推动人类的行为。6

    然而，曼德维尔也认为个人恶行并不全然是坏事，因为个人恶行能推动蜂巢中的蜜蜂共同创造出财富：“因此，尽管每一个角落都充满了罪恶／但整体来说这里却是天堂。”曼德维尔最著名的其中一个主张是，个人恶行就是公众利益，且这些恶行和“诡计”共同形成宛如行星运作般的“和谐”，创造出财富与“辉煌成就”。他认为英国需要正贸易平衡才能使国家成长。为此，英国应该出口、而非消费奢侈品。但是，真正刺激市场活动的潜在能量其实是贪婪。这样的观点确实会引发道德争议。就连柯尔贝都认为商人应该要谨守西塞罗式的礼貌与诚实。但永无止境的战争与贸易斗争已经使许多人厌倦了。曼德维尔等人大胆的态度承袭了杨森主义的观点，认为只要把罪行纳入贸易体系中，就可以靠着罪行打造出世俗天堂。7

    法国就和英国一样，想要为他们的债务与不断衰退的经济系统找到神奇解方。法国被饥荒压垮了，现在已濒临破产。一七一四年，柯尔贝的外甥，也就是财政总监督尼古拉斯．德马雷兹正绞尽脑汁，希望能解决法国实际上已经面临的破产问题。所有改革都停滞不前，他仍在努力试着从法国饱受摧残的人民手中榨取每一分税收。法国没有国家银行，税收基础薄弱，这是因为法国贵族不需要定期缴税。德马雷兹已经无路可退。他曾听闻著名的苏格兰经济理论学家暨赌博玩家约翰．劳（John Law，在法语中，他的姓氏〔l’as〕念起来像是“王牌”〔the ace〕）提出一个计划，要在苏格兰建立国家银行并印制纸钞。一七○五年，劳出版了一本非同寻常的小册子《货币与贸易的思考》（Money and Trade Considered ），指出一个国家拥有愈多货币，就能进行愈大量的贸易。他的点子就是印制货币，这并不是在制造财富，而是制造一种推动财富创造的催化剂。8

    劳有着现代市场工具方面的远见。他提出要创造一种纸钞，与白银价值和土地价值挂钩。阿姆斯特丹、纽伦堡、斯德哥尔摩和伦敦的银行都已经根据硬币储备量发行纸钞了。劳的理论为这些银行的行动背书。货币必须是稳定的、可信任的、充足的，才能支持英国在经济方面的高交易率与高成长率。纸钞和贵金属硬币不同，没有锈蚀或剪边的问题；劳认为，纸钞因此比硬币更稳定，能创造更高的市场信心。9

    劳没能成功为苏格兰建立国家银行和纸钞计划，之后他转而向法国政府提案。他觉得柯尔贝的外甥已经准备好要对市场改革做出承诺了。德马雷兹想要把劳的计划上呈给路易十四，但年老的国王已经病了──这不是适合革新的时机。不过，在路易十四于一七一五年驾崩后，机会的大门就为劳而大开了。虽然德马雷兹在一七一五年已丢了工作，但与此同时，劳已经和路易十四的侄子奥尔良公爵（duc d’Orléans），即腓力二世（Philippe II）成了朋友，五岁的国王继承人路易十五继位后，奥尔良公爵成为法国的摄政王。劳向这位摄政王提出了更加野心勃勃的建议，摄政王当时正需要资金，愿意放手一搏。10

    这位苏格兰人与法国摄政王在法国的上层阶级赌场碰面。劳是一名赌徒，既会研究赚钱的机率方法，同时也对风险上了瘾。这样的个性着实不像是成为未来法国财政大臣的最佳人选。一七一六年，奥尔良公爵批准劳建立私人资助的通用银行（Banque Générale），可以依据法国的黄金储备量发行纸钞。法国政府接受人民用这些纸钞来缴税。一七一八年，劳创办的通用银行变成了皇家银行（Royal Bank）。这间银行承办存款与借贷业务，也进行有利可图的国家垄断，营运殖民地的烟草贸易与销售。劳在同一年新成立了西部公司（Company of the West，为密西西比公司〔Mississippi Company〕的前身），接着和几间在塞内加尔与几内亚进行奴隶贸易的公司合并。一七一九年，劳的公司并购了法属东印度公司与中国公司，成为全球金融集团“永存印度公司”（Perpetual India Company），靠着包括奴隶买卖在内的殖民贸易获利。摄政王希望劳成立的垄断公司能为国家管理财政，并带来他们急需的资金。11

    一七二○年，奥尔良公爵任命劳担任财政总监督──也就是过去曾属于柯尔贝和德马雷兹的财政大臣职位。这位苏格兰赌徒晋升至法国政府职位的颠峰。他成功合并了皇家银行和永存印度公司，现在永存印度公司为了回报当初在殖民贸易方面的垄断，承揽了所有政府的债务。这笔交易似乎解决了棘手的法国财政问题。但是，劳的殖民贸易公司必须迅速赚进一大笔钱，才能履行他们在这笔交易中的承诺。劳已经取得了摄政王的信任；如今他需要社会大众投资他的新计划。

    乍看之下，所谓的“劳氏体制”（Law’s System）似乎和利伯维尔场没有半点关系。然而，劳的货币理论和创新构想──也就是可以靠着一间公司来处理整个国家的债务──至少被视为与被宣传为一种以市场为基础的因应方式。身为赌徒的劳深知在推动信贷与驱动市场的过程中，想象力将扮演重要的角色，因此他发起了一场大规模的宣传活动，宣扬美国有多少潜在财富，希望能说服社会大众投资他的银行和公司股份。密西西比河谷（Mississippi Valley）就是劳的黄金国与法国版的美国梦。劳引用了拉萨勒男爵勒内．罗伯特．卡维利耶（René-Robert Cavelier, sieur de La Salle）对密西西比探险经历的描述，又出版了制图师纪尧姆．迪莱尔（Guillaume Delisle）为路易斯安那州的广阔未开垦领地绘制的杰出地图，并聘请皇家学院的成员撰写书籍，颂扬法国新世界的自然财富。12

    劳所描绘的愿景为：路易斯安那州是财富的奇迹，而对此最关键的一篇宣传就是法国的尚．特拉松神父（Jean Terrasson）撰写的《无限创造论》（The Treatise on the Creation of Infinity ，约一六九五年至一七一五年）。这篇文章声称地球具有“无限可能”，对于那些前往美洲的人来说，美洲的丰富资源也充满“无限可能”，这本书在巴黎风行一时，广受欢迎。特拉松断定国家经济不需要专家、金融管理人员和会计师的指导。只要有信心的驱使，经济就会逐渐进入一个能够自我调节的系统。皇家银行将会提供贷款给所有想要投资劳的公司的人，进而把“整个国家转变成一个商人主体”。这项国家投资计划将会得到永存印度公司的担保和纸钞产生的经济燃料作为支持。如此一来，财富就会普遍化，社会中的所有成员将公平地共享财富。这样的财富没有任何风险，“开明”且拥有无上权力的君主，也就是摄政王本人，将会克服所有困难。13

    劳声明他已经拟定了一个完美的市场计划，推动此计划的是信贷、稳定的货币供给、密西西比州的无穷财富，以及致力降低税额、对商业友善的专制皇家政府。这个计划只有一个大问题：这是个庞氏骗局。劳玩得太过火了，他发行的纸钞超过了皇家银行的贵金属储备价值，还开始以不符合公司实际价值的价格出售股份。他的忠实追随者特拉松对计划的致命缺陷视而不见，在一七二○年五月十八日发表了最后一封为劳氏体制辩护的信件。与此同时，劳的敌人持续买进股票，推高所谓“密西西比泡沫”（Mississippi Bubble）的价值，接着又大量兑现，藉此耗尽银行的贵金属储备。这种攻击奏效了。市面上的纸钞比银行的硬币储备还多，导致劳氏体制开始崩溃。
    一七二○年五月二十一日，法国下令将股票的价值从每股九千里弗尔下降到每股五千里弗尔，但公司的大股东纷纷反抗。恐慌随之而来，皇家银行外与旧巴黎中心的著名股票交易街昆坎波瓦街（rue Quincampoix）都出现了暴力抗议。政府宣告纸币失去了价值，皇家银行就此倒闭。而史上第一个尝试建立自我调节市场的人，也是史丹利．库柏利克那部描写一名十八世纪赌徒与冒险家的电影《乱世儿女》（Barry Lyndon ，一九七五年）真实写照的约翰．劳在十二月逃离法国，前往布鲁塞尔，接着抵达威尼斯，他在那里以赌博维生并于一七二九年逝世。而他的股东则失去了一切。14
    在劳离开之后，摄政王召来了两位国家财务官暨专业会计帕立斯兄弟（Pâris brothers），希望他们能试着达到收支平衡，解决法国不断急遽攀升的债务。一夕致富的美梦变成了一页页资产负债表，而且上头的数字可不漂亮。克劳德．帕立斯．蒙塔尼亚（Claude Pâris La Montagne）在写给摄政王的秘密文件中提出警告，说劳的计划背后的原则导致了贪腐，唯一解决方法就是维持透明：只要有复式记账的“正确表格”带来的“稳定且符合几何原理的计划”，就能让整个法国的经济获得“总体控制”。他总结道，健全的公共财政管理是“公众利益”的基础。对帕立斯．蒙塔尼亚来说，制造财富的市场体系不会出现在美洲的黄金梦里，而是出现在账目的平衡中，只要以正确的方式维持账目平衡，就会拥有其自身的引力。但是社会大众想要的不是严肃的资产负债表，他们想要的是美国梦。虽然劳失败了，但他也揭露了利伯维尔场思想的一些基础：推动利伯维尔场的往往是热情与欲望，而非确凿的证据。尚．多马和伯纳德．曼德维尔主张，利伯维尔场在受到贪婪和利己的“个人恶行”推动后就会自动化地运作──没错，个人恶行能带来财富，但同时也会导致灾难和经济崩盘。15

    有鉴于英国金融、甚至英国政治与商业阶级的精密与成熟，我们可能会对英国试图用类似的计划来处理公债感到不可思议。但英国也同样着迷于靠美洲致富，认为美洲的财富就是能撑起信贷市场的希望。一个能解决所有财务问题的系统，这样的美梦拥有强大的力量。首席国库大臣暨财政大臣罗伯特．哈雷（Robert Harley）决定与约翰．布伦特（John Blunt）连手，后者曾是抽签公债的推动者，和劳一样是股份公司与银行的董事。他们在一七一一年成立了南海公司（South Sea Company）。王室将会赋予该公司贸易垄断权，使公司能垄断南美洲的整片东海岸──从最北的奥利诺科河到到最南的火地岛（Tierra del Fuego），传说中的财富之源──以及整片西海岸。一七一九年，该公司效法了劳的做法，把公司股份提供给所有政府债券持有人。如此，英国的政府公债一样神奇地变成了南海公司的股份。16
    手握大权的辉格党（Whig）政治家，未来的首相罗伯特．沃尔波尔（Robert Walpole）希望能透过市场提供公债，让投资者“利用这个大好机会，使社会大众共同分享正蓬勃发展的国家公共信贷带来的益处”。这笔交易被誉为现代金融奇迹，可以在支付国家债务的同时为投资者带来股利。不过，英国的状况和法国一样，没能实现预期的收入。南海公司靠着假造的利润报表创造了投机热潮。该公司依循劳采用的庞氏骗局逻辑，靠着发行更多股票来支付股利。17
    不意外地，股价在一七二○年八月暴跌，整个系统彻底崩溃，使投资人损失惨重，其中一些投资人甚至是知名贵族和政府首长。就连艾萨克．牛顿也在该计划的热潮高峰进行投机交易，因此损失了一笔两万英镑的巨款。这名发现行星运动的天才是英国铸币厂的董事，正是他的研究使许多人相信市场也会像万有引力定律一样运作，而这一场向大众承诺了“永远不会崩盘的自给自足的市场”之骗局就这样让牛顿重跌在地。18
    不过，劳认为法国需要国家银行与纸钞的看法是对的。虽然遭遇了前所未有的失败，但社会对市场机制有了更深的了解与信念，人们因此仍怀抱着希望，期待能在某个光明的未来找到创造财富的完美秘诀。不可思议的是──或者，也许显而易见的是，一种关于自给自足的利伯维尔场的哲学将在凡尔赛宫中，在这个路易十四宣告破产的幻想宫殿中，卷土重来。

    1. Guy Rowlands, The Financial Decline of a Great Power: War, Influence, and Money in Louis XIV’s France (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 2; Richard Dale, The First Crash: Lessons from the South Sea Bubble (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 77. 

    2. Carl Wennerlind, Casualties of Credit: The English Financial Revolution, 1620–1720 (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2011), 68, 89; Stephen Quinn, “The Glorious Revolution’s Effect on English Private Finance: A Microhistory, 1680–1705,” Journal of Economic History 61, no. 3 (2001): 593–615, at 593; Julian Hoppit, Britain’s Political Economies: Parliament and Economic Life, 1660–1800 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017), 149; P. G. M. Dickson, The Financial Revolution in England: A Study in the Development of Public Credit, 1688–1756 (New York: Macmillan, 1967), 80. 

    3. John Brewer, The Sinews of Power: War, Money and the English State, 1688–1783 (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1989), 116–117. 

    4. Wennerlind, Casualties of Credit , 10; Ian Hacking, The Emergence of Probability: A Philosophical Study of Early Ideas About Probability, Induction and Statistical Inference (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1975); Lorrain Daston, Classical Probability in the Enlightenment (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1988), 164. 

    5. An Account of What Will DO; or, an Equivalent for Thoulon: In a Proposal for an Amicable Subscription for Improving TRADE in the South-West Part of AMERICA, and Increasing BULLION to About Three Millions per Annum, Both for the East India Trade and the Revenue of the Crown, Which by Consequence Will Be Produced if This Is Encouraged (London: Mary Edwards, 1707), 3. 

    6. Bernard Mandeville, The Fable of the Bees , ed. Philip Harth (London: Penguin, 1970), 64. 

    7. Mandeville, Fable of the Bees , 67–68. 

    8. Antoin E. Murphy, John Law: Economic Theorist and Policy-Maker (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 94–95. 

    9. John Law, Money and Trade Considered (Glasgow: A. Foulis, 1750), 167. 

    10. Arnaud Orain, La politique du merveilleux: Une autre histoire du Système de Law (1695–1795) (Paris: Fayard, 2018), 10; Charly Coleman, The Spirit of French Capitalism: Economic Theology in the Age of Enlightenment (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 2021), 119. 

    11. Coleman, Spirit of French Capitalism , 119. 

    12. Coleman, Spirit of French Capitalism , 20, 81. 

    13. Jean Terrasson, Lettres sur le nouveau Système des Finances , 1720, 2–5, 29, 32, 33; Jean Terrasson, Traité de l’infini créé , ed. Antonella Del Prete (Paris: Honoré Champion, 2007), 225–227. 

    14. Orain, La politique du merveilleux , 13. 

    15. Claude Pâris La Montagne, “Traité des Administrations des Recettes et des Dépenses du Royaume,” 1733, Archives Nationales, 1005, II: 3–8, 48–49, 55. 

    16. Norris Arthur Brisco, The Economic Policy of Robert Walpole (NewYork: Columbia University Press, 1907), 43–45; Richard Dale, The First Crash: Lessons from the South Sea Bubble (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004), 74. 

    17. Cited by Dickson, Financial Revolution in England , 83. 

    18. Jacob Soll, The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Rise and Fall of Nations (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 101–116. 

    第十一章 法国的自然崇拜与启蒙经济学的发明

    所有能够制造出财富的泉源与物质，都来自土地。 ──理查德．卡丁伦（Richard Cantillon），《贸易本质概论》（Essay on the Nature of Trade in General ），约一七三○年

    到了十八世纪中叶，全球最大的两大经济强权国家法国和英国都遇上了股市崩盘，同时仍在进行一系列代价高昂的毁灭性战争。两个国家都认为自己正被对方赶上，陷入了亚当斯密的导师──苏格兰哲学家戴维．休谟（David Hume）──所说的，一种商业上的“嫉妒恐惧”。值得注意的是，尽管法国在金融与外交上比英国更惨，但法国仍继续主导着羊毛贸易。法国的出口之所以能超过英国，都要感谢柯尔贝的工业政策，以及在鲁昂和里昂成功发展的制造业。更令人讶异的是，尽管法国的财政和外交出了问题，更不用说还缺乏国家银行，但路易十五仍成功以英国政府向国家银行贷款的相同利率借到了钱。1
    没变的是，经济前景依然不乐观。法国在劳的计划带来的混战中失去了纸钞和皇家银行。为了建立市场制度和市场信任所付出的努力都付诸东流，法国手上没有任何工具，无法打造出有效的资本和股票市场来偿还已经濒临极限的债务。那些支持农业主导型社会的哲学家和贵族指望藉由重农抑商来解决问题，使得新兴的商业阶级受到打击。人们再一次老调重弹地回归了西塞罗的古老信念，也就是社会阶级和经济单纯只是宛如发条装置般的大自然“因果”机制的反映，于是当时出现了一群被称作重农主义者（physiocrats，源自希腊语“phusis”，意思是“自然”）的法国经济学家，他们狂热地相信，唯有在政府对工业课税，并放任农业以不需尽义务与遵守法规的状况下运作，自由的农业才能产生出财富。2

    农业利伯维尔场思想的出现，是阶级意识历史上一个非同寻常的时刻。有些人依然比较信任土地阶级制度和农业主导的世界，他们认为农业放任主义是一种自然疗法，可以应对专制政府的威胁与商人阶级的崛起。法国在经历了一七二○年的崩盘后，经济信心落到了新低点，经济哲学家不仅带头抨击劳的失败计划，也抨击制造出这个计划的金融界。他们不相信金融工具，因此也不相信国家银行、纸钞和早期的主权债券，而想要设计一套以农业为基础的自我驱动经济系统，他们说，这种系统具有社会美德。当时的商人尚未完全控制法国的社会和经济，十八世纪初的改革家下定决心要维护农业的经济主导地位。

    支持西塞罗与牛顿的自然崇拜学说的人们在法国组成了一个势力庞大的利伯维尔场游说团体。一七三○年代早期，爱尔兰裔的法国利伯维尔场经济学家理查德．卡丁伦写下了奠基性的农业经济著作《贸易本质概论》，该著作以手稿的形式流通，在一七五五年于作者逝世后正式出版。卡丁伦的著作拥护的是一个过度简化又机械式的观点：不受税制与法规约束的农业将会产生资本，并转化成经济成长。十九及二十世纪的两位经济学家威廉．史坦利．杰文斯（William Stanley Jevons）和约瑟夫．熊彼得（Joseph Schumpeter）一致将卡丁伦誉为比亚当斯密更早出现的第一位“系统性的”经济思想家。对他们来说，所谓系统性经济学意思就是所有听起来像是经济均衡理论的事物。事实上，许多思想家都对创新与工业蕴含的财富创造潜力有所误解，卡丁伦只是其中之一，他们都认为解放农业是创造富裕社会的唯一途径。3

    卡丁伦是爱尔兰地主的儿子，于一七○○年代早期移居法国，他在西班牙王位继承战争中靠着融资与供给军队装备赚了钱。他很早就投资了劳的计划。事实上，他的投机行为也协助推动了股价的飙涨。他及时抛售了股票，靠着投机赚进一笔可观的财富，接着声称自己只不过是早就知道劳氏体制会崩溃罢了。而那些被他说服去买股票的人却因此赔得惨兮兮。卡丁伦生活富裕，在欧洲各处云游，后来定居伦敦。大家都觉得他是个骗子──至少在他去世前。卡丁伦身上仍缠着许多投资人与债权人提出的诉讼官司，甚至有传言说他靠着伦敦家里的一场火灾假装死亡，藉此躲避债权人。4

    卡丁伦也是农业劳动理论的先驱之一。虽然十七世纪的经济哲学家威廉．佩第认为是人口与生产力驱动了国家财富，卡丁伦却表示国家财富只和农业劳动力有关，他主张：“所有能制造出财富的泉源与物质，都来自土地。”在卡丁伦声称的观点里，农业劳动成本是所有成本、价格与价值的基础。如果农业能摆脱税收、规则和法条的话，这种首要的经济驱力就会生产财富，使市场达到均衡。对卡丁伦来说，创造出经济平衡也就代表了要找出最重要的资本生产者，提供完全自由放任的特殊地位给他们。卡丁伦针对拥有大量土地的贵族提出了现代化的理论：地主是财富创造过程中的领导者，应该“独立于”国家，而国家应该依赖地主。“领主和地产所有者”拥有高于政府的近乎神圣地位，此地位也同样凌驾于较次等的商业与工业中的“创业家与技师”。5

    卡丁伦的自由贸易信念仅限于农业，并提倡立法规范制造业成品的贸易。这种版本的放任主义只适用于那些被视为经济赢家的人。他希望外国买家用黄金购买国内农产品，如此一来，农业劳动力就会比制造业更加值钱，使制造业成品的价值下降，进而保护农业。在当时的英格兰，工业财富具有极高的重要性，因此卡丁伦会出现这种想法其实十分古怪。但这种农业偏见是很难摆脱的。依据卡丁伦的推论，归根究柢所有市场力量都是由农业劳动成本所推动的，他坚称在计算所有市场价格时，都应该要从农民在农业生产中支付的租金与成本开始计算。唯有确定了农产品的价格之后，数量与供给才会开始在决定价值的过程中发挥作用。6

    卡丁伦靠着他不怎么科学的统计数据，依照土地生产所需的劳力量来算出农业产出的净值。接着，他又计算了这些产出中有多少回到了土地拥有者的手上，能让他们维持劳力、租金与整建维护。制作这些数据窗体时，他没有参考商业数据，也没有比较农业和制造业的劳动生产率价值。他对农业利伯维尔场的愿景忽视了数百年的城市史和商业统计数据。与此同时，尽管他早期提出的价值劳力理论具有缺陷，还是为经济思想的悠久传统奠定了基础，亚当·斯密、戴维·李嘉图（David Ricardo）和卡尔·马克思都因此获益。

    卡丁伦没有描述工业如何为原物料附加价值，只打造了一个等式，显示出原物料决定了工业制成品的价值。“企业家”──也就是商人和工业家──只不过是制造业成品的中间商，把农产品的原初价值与市场需求彼此混合，得出最终的销售价格。而这些企业家付出的劳力与使用的科技一文不值。卡丁伦坚持认为，无论“企业家”有多重要，他们对货品价格仍然只有微乎其微的影响，商品价格依然是以土地上的劳力价格为主。卡丁伦甚至还主张，虽然贸易和制造业能把农产品带进市场并影响定价，但他们其实是把资本从地主手上夺走了，因此这些产值不能计入经济净值资产中。虽然工业能补偿农业的不足，但工业同时也是一种负担；如果国家允许工业支配经济的话，工业将会削弱农业与国家的财富。卡丁伦错误地相信，如果国家不进行市场干预、允许地主自由耕作的话，经济将会出现指数成长。7

    卡丁伦的著作将会对他之后的农业利伯维尔场思想家造成深远的影响。然而，其他当代经济学家虽然相信农业经济自由主义，但他们同样承认金融成长的核心要素也包括了工业、商业与金融。他们对“农业比工业更有生产力”的想法感到困惑。约翰．劳的前秘书，法国经济思想家尚─法朗索瓦·梅隆（Jean-François Melon）把柯尔贝在市场建设方面的旧概念与自我延续的经济系统概念结合在一起。梅隆的重要著作《商业政治概论》（Political Essay on Commerce ，一七三四年）重申了纸钞在帮助国家扩展经济发展与商业活动中的重要性。但他同时也认为市场必须由国家来连结、弭平障碍──举例来说，将度量衡标准化。8

    梅隆相信“商业自由”，他曾说过，站在自由的那一边永远都会是比较好的选择，因为商人无论如何都会找到方法绕过制度与法规。与此同时，他也描述了具有西塞罗和洛克思想元素的自由商业愿景：自由不是“让每个人去做他们觉得适合的事情的许可证”，而是要努力达到“共同利益”的一种授权。他警告说，给予商人完全的自由是“轻率”的行为，商人倾向于欺骗他人。政府必须拣选出口与进口的货物，如此一来制造业所需的宝贵自然资源才不会被卖到海外。换句话说，梅隆认为市场会透过自由与国家法规之间的平衡状态运作，而国家法规的制定目的是支持国家经济策略。9

    梅隆进一步坚持，为了确保法国能在欧洲经济中占优势，他们需要成立数间国营的垄断公司。政府必须把劳曾试着建立的系统设计得更好，打造一个能够创造信贷与资本的系统，藉此发展经济。若想为法国创造更多投资资本，最好的方法就是在自由、信贷、货币、利率与贸易间找到正确的平衡。梅隆希望政府能创造出一套“普遍化且能广泛应用”的经济计划，使法国变得富裕。但是他也承认，建立此种市场系统的计划是令人却步的，而且这个系统很可能不是个一体适用的模型。他警告说，法国不是一张白纸，而是一个受到自身历史与特定国情所限制的国家。必须要先考虑到法国的特殊背景，才能设计出一套成功的经济制度。10

    其他思想家寻求的则是更通用的经济计划，能像万有引力定律和行星运动定律一样适用于所有时空。法国哲学家孟德斯鸠在影响力深远的著作《法的精神》（On the Spirit of Laws ，一七四八年）中指出，繁荣来自和平，社会与国家必须用和谐的方式自我管理。他进一步断言，“和平是商业自然而然带来的结果”。各国可以透过贸易合作分享共同的利益，使他们“温和”地对待彼此。11

    一七五二年，在启蒙哲学和经济思想大量萌发的期间，法国商业总督雅克─克劳德─马里．文森．古尔奈（Jacques-Claude-Marie Vincent de Gournay）决定他要建立一个经济思想家的“圈子”，藉此处理法国面对的商业挑战，并发展出不同的方法来打造市场机制。古尔奈出生于法国圣马洛（Saint-Malo），曾在家族位于西班牙的公司中从事国际贸易产业工作。除了商业方面的实务经验外，他也因为柯尔贝的国家总督传统而接受过商业法规管理训练。他同样认为若想管理法国商业，就应该采用具有连贯性的国家经济政策。古尔奈很清楚法国需要改革，包括在政治与经济方面都需要更高的自由，他为此邀请了许多年轻的经济思想家加入他的团队。12

    虽然古尔奈不支持某些政府干预，但他的格言是“放任作为，放任通行”（Laissez-faire, laissez-passer），也就是让商业随心所欲地自行发展。赫赫有名的哲学家暨经济思想家，也是利摩日（Limoges）总督与未来的财政大臣奥尼男爵安．罗伯特．雅克．杜尔哥（Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, baron de l’Aulne）写道，古尔奈的观点可以用两个词来表达：“自由与保护，但自由才是最重要的。”古尔奈也打造了官僚主义（bureaucratie）一词作为一个讽刺笑话，这意思是用办公桌来管理政府。虽然他大加批判法国的严格法规和保密机制，并希望公众的意见与喜好能协助推动市场，但他仍然在柯尔贝式发展和自由放任主义之间选边站。13

    古尔奈的圈子是一群致力于研究经济思想的哲学家。法朗索瓦．维隆．福尔博纳（François Véron de Forbonnais）是来自布商家族的金融家，而后攀升至铸币监察长的高位，在古尔奈的团体中是主要成员，他不同意农业致富理论。福尔博纳是柯尔贝的崇拜者，支持自由开放版本的国内经济监督。他相信商业自由，认为国家不应该在没有具体目标的情况下帮助工业发展并干预经济。他的著作《商业要素》（Elements of Commerce ，一七五四年）是针对卡丁伦提出的谨慎批判。福尔博纳指出，虽然财富同时来自农业与制造业，但他不偏不倚地坚持，制造业和商业才是能创造财富的真正泉源。他和柯尔贝一样，认为一旦达到了特定的贸易平等水平，市场就可以自由化。14

    福尔博纳认为不受管理的自由贸易很可能无法顺利运作，与之相对的，他相信每个国家在设计贸易政策时，应该要依据自身的需求与优势做出调整。他建议国与国之间发展出平等互惠的交易制度，使双方都能受益。他不认为市场能够自行做到这一点。一旦各国建立了设计完善的互惠贸易协议，这些国家就可以提高关税，使市场获得自由。如果各国和商人能共同设计一套“完美的商业平等”，将会带来国家之间的和平与蓬勃发展。15

    福尔博纳谈到，如果农产品短缺的状况出现在一个商业高生产的时候，那么开发程度较高的国家可以效法荷兰的模式，去购买国外的农产品。参照柯尔贝的做法，他坚持认为一个国家能做到的事情中，最重要的就是发展艺术和科学，藉此建立信心、专业与制造业。福尔博纳反驳卡丁伦的观点，他认为经济要素并非来自土地；经济要素源自于国家对教育、对创新产业与制造业中需要扶植与保护的特定局部进行投资。他举例，英格兰正是因为透过这种方式审慎地发展布料贸易，才成为富裕又成功的贸易国家。16

    但是，即使是这种柯尔贝式的自由开放式国家工业发展愿景，也在哲学界遇到了很大的阻力。古尔奈和福尔博纳代表的观点可以被视为放任主义的中间立场，但在古尔奈的圈子中，有一位成员透过著作对卡丁伦的农业模式表达了强烈支持，这位成员是法朗索瓦·魁奈（François Quesnay）。魁奈是农民的儿子，先是成为了医师，而后开创了被称为重农主义的经济思想学派。魁奈把卡丁伦的思想推到了新高度，使用数学方法建立了早期的均衡理论，在该理论中，低税金与谷物自由进出口能把价格降低、提高农业生产，并为农业再投资创造愈来愈多的盈余。因此，卡尔·马克思认为魁奈是资本主义与剩余价值的先驱思想家，而二十世纪的美国诺贝尔经济学奖得主保罗·萨谬尔森（Paul Samuelson）则视他为均衡理论的发明者。除了坚持自己的自由贸易哲学外，魁奈也深信农业是财富的唯一形式，而工业与商业本身是“不结果实的”，仅仅只是推广农产品时的助力。他像卡丁伦一样，认为农业劳动的价值会决定制造业成品的价值。这代表了在他的国家资产负债表上，商业和工业被计算为一种经济亏损，只有农业才能产生盈余。17

    魁奈在凡尔赛宫居住与工作，他撰写了卷帙浩繁的著作来描述放血这种致命的医疗技术在治疗病人上具有何种医学优势。他的医学背景让他相信，经济的运作原理就像血液循环一样。他是路易十五才华洋溢的情妇暨哲学家赞助者──庞巴杜夫人（Madame de Pompadour）─的医师，随后因此被封为贵族，这令他欣喜万分。他们两人都是新晋贵族，且都在路易十四的旧权力殿堂中爬升至具有重要影响力的职位。事实上，庞巴杜夫人后来还资助魁奈推广他的经济哲学。她与生俱来的聪慧、财富与远近驰名的谈吐技巧，使她成为巴黎文学沙龙中光彩夺目的人物。她主动去吸引路易十五的目光，在一七四五年成为正式情妇，为这位国王带来严重丑闻。路易十五为表达他对这位平民的爱，赐予了贵族头衔和土地，又替她买下巴黎最好的城市宫殿艾佛宅邸（Hôtel d’Évreux），这栋建筑如今被称作艾丽榭宫（Elysée Palace），是法国总统的居所。
    在庞巴杜夫人权力窜起的一年之前，魁奈搬进了凡尔赛宫地下室的住所。这位即将领导早期最强大的利伯维尔场思想家运动的人，就在国王的宫殿中开始构思他的哲学观。利伯维尔场思想就这样在非常专制、非常亲工业的国家内部逐渐发展起来，许多利伯维尔场主义者都想用他们的哲学来抗衡这样的国家。但魁奈并没有因这种矛盾而感到困扰。他是“法治专制主义”这个巨大矛盾修辞的信奉者。他受到哲学家皮耶─保罗．卢梅希．利瓦伊耶赫（Pierre-Paul Lemercier de la Rivière）的启发，相信自然系统会透过君主的意志进行自我表达。魁奈说，只有国王才有能力解放谷物市场，为地主创造更多财富。18
    魁奈时而前往庞巴杜夫人位于巴黎的宫殿，在那里举办晚宴招待当时的重要哲学家们。他邀请的客人包括畅销著作《百科全书》（Encyclopédie ，一七五一年至一七七二年）的主要作者丹尼斯·狄德罗（Denis Diderot）与尚·瑞恩·达朗贝尔（Jean le Rond d’Alembert）；无神论者、平等主义哲学家暨路易十五的虔诚波兰皇后玛丽．莱什琴斯卡（Marie Leszczyńska）的医师克劳德─安德林·艾尔维修（Claude-Adrien Hélvetius）；著名的自然学家与皇家植物园（Jardin des Plantes）管理者布丰伯爵乔治─路易．勒克莱尔（Georges-Louis Leclerc, comte de Buffon）；以及杰出的放任主义经济学家杜尔哥。庞巴杜夫人身为皇室的情妇，既不能正式邀请这些人参加餐宴，也不能自行举办沙龙，所以她会不时参加魁奈的聚会，这些宾客在优雅的环境中讨论有关形上学与经济学的新哲学。除了在关于农业放任主义的哲学对话中尽情畅谈，魁奈的高贵客人也能享受惊人的奢侈品、王室厨房提供的精致美食，此外还能透过庞巴杜夫人把话直接传进国王的耳中。19

    重农主义者在巴黎沙龙滔滔不绝地主张人们应该重视农业财富胜过工业时，海峡的另一边出现了截然不同的景象。英国的第一次工业革命已然展开，大力驱动着英国经济。蒸气引擎登场了。英国人托马斯．萨维里（Thomas Savery）在一六九八年打造了无活塞引擎，托马斯．纽科门（Thomas Newcomen）在一七一二年制造了一种可以产生连续能量与运动的蒸气泵引擎。除了蒸气动力，到了一七○○年代，机械纺纱也出现了。一七三三年，约翰．凯（John Kay）发明了一种可以自动配线给线轴的飞梭，加快了手工编织的速度。一七三八年，刘易斯．保罗（Lewis Paul）和约翰．怀亚特（John Wyatt）则打造了能生产羊毛布和棉布的纺纱架。到了一七五○年代与六○年代，魁奈和他的重农学派追随者开始写作的当下，英国制造业已经开始在大规模工厂中广泛使用水力磨坊了。整个一七五○年，英国的手工纺织业共制造了两百五十万磅的原棉。到了一七八○年代末，英国织布机曾加工过的棉花总计已经有两千两百万磅。这对于欧洲和贵族地主的农业社会秩序造成了威胁。随着工业蒸蒸日上，法国这个仍然实施封建制度、农业挂帅的社会中展开了一场商业地位争夺战。利伯维尔场思想家努力想找回农业的优势。他们认为针对谷物的自由放任改革将能彻底激发大自然的潜能，届时农业将会气势如虹地返回经济主导地位。20
    一七五六年，北美爆发了七年战争。战事从欧洲席卷至北美与南美，再蔓延到印度与非洲，这是史上第一场全球冲突，法国与英国陷入国际贸易控制权的争夺战，同时也把其他欧洲强权给牵扯了进来。这场战争像是法国利伯维尔场思想的催化剂，因其清楚显示出农业社会正在让位给一套新的商业秩序。出于显而易见的原因，保守派的法国贵族统治阶级不愿意顺从地坐视商人接手他们的位置；有些人甚至建议，贵族应该要掌控制造业的生产方法，把这些方法从工业阶级手中夺走。一七五六年，法国神职人员暨亲工业经济思想家盖比尔．法朗索瓦．科耶（Gabriel François Coyer）写下了一部颠覆性作品《商业贵族阶级》（The Commercial Nobility ），在其中大力抨击贵族农业社会秩序。科耶是古尔奈的圈子里的一员，他呼吁贵族对担任士兵与牧师的天职放手，别再被动地生活在他们的土地上，只想靠着农业榨取财富。他警告说，法国正承受着经济竞争和战争的压力，需要利用贸易与工业制造财富。科耶不认为坐拥土地的贵族是经济的驱动力，反而将他们视为寄生虫。科耶指控道，由于法国的封建法禁止这些贵族参与贸易，所以这些贵族在经济方面“一无是处”。21
    科耶认为，相较于商业和制造业，农业和相关封建体系的生产力极为低落。科耶要求法国改变贵族的地位。根据他的计算，如果法国贵族能成为商人并去工作的话，法国会变得富有得多，像英格兰就让贵族的第二个儿子从事贸易。他这是在实质上呼吁要推翻法国的封建宪法。科耶的作品大受欢迎，被收录在广泛流通的期刊《法国信使》（Mercure de France ）中，而他的书也获得了无数次的再版与翻译。22

    这部作品的回响来得很快。身为贵族的亚克骑士（chevalier d’Arcq）菲利普─奥古斯特．圣富瓦（Philippe-Auguste de Sainte-Foix）发表了《反对商业贵族的军事贵族，又名，法国爱国者》（The Military Nobility Opposed to the Commercial Nobility, or The French Patriot ，一七五六年）作为响应，捍卫传统秩序。一场文字论战随之而来，接着政府禁止了所有追随科耶并呼吁修法改变贵族地位的著作。不过作为商业与工业的信徒，古尔奈和福尔博纳继续公开支持科耶。23 科耶和他的追随者想要实现经济自由，但他们也希望透过工业化和商业来实现广泛的社会改革。地主必须对这种日益增长的威胁做出回应，而他们的响应则是更彻底的利伯维尔场农业主义。

    强大的法国贵族拥有各种特权。贵族不但持有法国绝大多数的土地，而且在战争的特殊时期之外拥有不缴税的特权。布阿吉尔贝尔和德马雷兹当时尝试对富有的贵族征税，导致了十七世纪末贵族和中央集权王室彼此对立，并史上头一遭，产生了将富人纳税议题连结到不只要保护穷人、也要保护具生产力之阶级的经济论点。贵族地主仍旧认为，任何要求贵族缴税的举措都会加剧不平等，他们声称贵族是唯一的财富创造者，若国家对农场课税就会损害经济成长。他们拒绝接受此一概念：利伯维尔场必须建立在公正且平等的税收上。24

    作为利伯维尔场重农主义的领袖，魁奈强烈反对工业崛起与对农业实施征税。他把资产阶级的商人和制造业者称作“蠢货”，呼吁政府取消他们的所有特权和自由。魁奈想要把重农主义转变成一场狂热的社会运动，促使那些认为社会的基础是自由主义农业经济的人去对抗柯尔贝想要提升的阶级──商人、制造商、高阶政府官员和金融家，那些认为法国的未来在于工业与贸易的人。25

    在工业与贸易崛起的十八世纪中期，魁奈的想法着实令人惊愕不已。他无视于狄德罗和达朗贝尔在著名的《百科全书》中的主要论述：科技、实用机械、贸易、手工艺和工业如今举足轻重，应该跟神学与哲学一样列入正式知识。从许多方面来说，《百科全书》都宣告了西欧的资产商业阶级正逐渐成为社会的显学。虽然魁奈也受到《百科全书》的撰稿邀约，把他的利伯维尔场农业理论也纳入了该著作兼容并蓄的经济学派与思想内容中，但这种包容对他来说是不够的。他希望自己的想法能独占鳌头。

    魁奈开始寻求追随者，来将重农主义转变成一场日益壮大的意识形态运动。一七五七年，他邀请年轻的米拉波侯爵维克多．里克提（Victor de Riqueti, marquis de Mirabeau）到他位于凡尔赛宫地下室的住所，和他讨论农业经济学奠基者理查德．卡丁伦的著作。小米拉波（Mirabeau the Younger）出身贵族家庭（他的父亲是恶名昭彰的米拉波伯爵，将会成为法国大革命的领导人之一），是孟德斯鸠的朋友。他在《人类之友，又名，族群论》（The Friend of Mankind, or Treatise on Population ，一七五六年）中为贵族的财产权与免税权辩护，反对政府侵犯这些权利。魁奈请年轻的米拉波帮助他完成他的新计划《经济表》（Tableau économique ），这本书试图证明卡丁伦的理论，而他的理论是用伪科学方式主张财富来自土地。这本书后来成为重农主义与十八世纪利伯维尔场思想的《圣经》。26

    米拉波后来声称，他和魁奈对话的时候经历了一种智识与精神上的“归信”，成为大自然经济教派的信徒。若想阻挡工业潮流并赢得重要哲学家和决策者的信任，需要的是对农业的盲目信仰，再加上魁奈自行提出的科学方法。他们立刻着手研究魁奈的《经济表》，试图透过简单的理论来吸引想要改革和扩大法国农业的人，也就是更好的土地管理将会透过农业盈余产出更大的财富。27

    在七年战争的背景下，魁奈这个古怪的理论模型所提出的国家自给自足确实有其卖点。只要解放与改善农业，法国就能存活下去并变得更富有。法国的农场生产力低于英国，魁奈在这一点上是对的。他希望降低税收并移除所有农业法规能在贵族间建立起新的农业伦理，当时贵族往往拥有广袤的土地，以及对于百分之四十的农民财产具有封建权力，但这些地主常常人都不在现场，也不会花钱投资土地改良。28

    不过魁奈的《经济表》并非一本农业改革的实用手册。魁奈的目标是以“只有土地能产生财富”的理论为基础，透过对法国经济产品的伪科学式计算为实施自由农业市场提供充分理由。《经济表》的左侧字段中，魁奈在收入下方列出了经济的生产面：农业、森林、草地、牲畜、原物料和某些制造业加工商品。右侧字段中，他在支出下方列出了“破坏性”的非农业产品，把它们归类在“无生产力等级”：制造业加工商品、仓储、商业成本和销售。《经济表》在这两侧字段的各种经济活动之间画了许多曲折的箭头，以说明只有农业才能产生财富；而工业和商业则从魁奈所谓的国家“生产净值”（net product）中减去，他在第三版《经济表》中计算出了生产净值这个数字。魁奈明白劳动价值可以创造财富，也知道资本盈余的重要性；但他不理解的是，投资工业生产带来的附加价值和报酬，绝对比农产品还要多上无数倍。29

    魁奈大肆宣扬地主应该拥有市场自由的同时，他也相信只有强而有力的国家才能创造并维持这些市场自由。重农主义者希望国王能成为完整掌权的专制统治者，可以独断独行，并保证地主阶级获得经济自由。魁奈的典范就是中国。在他的著作《中国专制主义》（Despotism in China ，一七六七年）中，他指出皇帝能维护自然的父权制与农业秩序，经由训练他的子民聚焦在“种养”技能，让社会集中关注纪律严明的农业活动。魁奈认为，中国皇帝的绝对权力，代表他永远都不会违法，也不会做出任何违背普遍利益的事，因为他就代表了普遍利益。所以，魁奈相信中国皇帝的子民享有纯粹的自由，可以无拘无束地耕作养畜。30

    根据魁奈的说法，法国也需要一个拥有无上权力的专制统治者，把工业推到一旁，让国家摆脱垄断和无用的监管。这一点在殖民地尤为重要。魁奈提议要废除殖民垄断，给予那些出口糖和奴隶的法属殖民岛屿的栽培园主自由的权利。这个自由的“君主帝国”不但能激发殖民者的农业能力，更能激发奴隶的农业能力──依照魁奈的计划，让奴隶成为契约工人，努力工作以争取自由。魁奈相信让殖民者与奴隶获得自由有助于法国的复兴。但栽培园主并不打算放弃他们的奴隶。这终究是一个徒劳无功的理想主义式绝对君主愿景。31

    对于重农主义者来说，所有批评都无关紧要，即使这些批评来自古尔奈的圈子里备受尊敬的成员、即使人们对魁奈的统计数据提出了具体质疑，都没有差别。福尔博纳直言不讳地批评了魁奈在数字方面的错误。他提出数据，指出法国的农业产量比魁奈声称的更高，且许多《经济表》中的数字都不准确。他无法理解为什么魁奈会认为农民有生产力，而商人却没有，他在魁奈对国家生产净值的计算中找到严重错误，货品与货币流通的部分也谬误百出。对福尔博纳而言，最后一个重大分歧点是魁奈认为经济可以一种用他在《经济表》中提出的“超然经济真理”来理解。福尔博纳不认同有一种普遍的经济模型能适用于任何时空，并断定魁奈的虚假统计数据不能证明经济能透过自由放任主义自动运作的理论。32
    尽管面对种种批评，魁奈和他的信徒仍不知疲倦地捍卫与宣扬他们对农业与王室专制的愿景。在魁奈的追随者中，最成功的其中一位是皮耶─山缪．杜邦．内穆赫（Pierre-Samuel du Pont de Nemours），他是一名充满热忱的重农主义者、法国革命支持者，也是奴隶制度的批评者。杜邦．内穆赫是一个新教徒钟表匠的儿子，但他为了追求抱负而离家前往巴黎，加入米拉波成为重农主义教的信徒。一七六五年，杜邦．内穆赫针对“自然权利”撰写了一系列文章，这些文章奠定了他后来最著名的著作《重农主义》（Physiocracy ，一七六八年）。他透过这些文章为劳工与财产的积极自然权利辩护，自然权利代表人类有权拥有土地，也有权靠着在土地上的劳动赚进财富。杜邦重申了洛克的观点，认为个人享有自我保护的自由，且只要不去侵犯他人的财产或“所有权”，他们就应该有致富的自由。政府的作用是为民众确保个人自由与私有财产权。这种个人权利的观点使杜邦反对奴隶制，他认为此制度违反了全人类与生俱来的自由。在此要留意的是，杜邦和魁奈一样，都支持贵族封建主义原则。事实上，他热切地接受了路易十五赐予的贵族头衔。33
    魁奈和杜邦联手合作，坚称自由的国际谷物贸易对农业有利，并能够建立起一套系统：各国透过天然的相对优势，和谐地只进口自己所需的农产品。对魁奈来说，自由贸易的重点不是竞争，而是和谐。大自然给予每个国家不同的在地农业资源。因此，他们不需要任何规则：国家只会进出口他们需要的货品，从而避免了直接竞争。当时英国在工业发展方面突飞猛进，而七年战争却已经使法国陷入更严重的贫困、债务与破产之中，这使得魁奈的讯息显得充满希望又容易理解。34

    一七六三年，英国赢得了七年战争，巩固了他们在殖民市场与奴隶贸易中的优势地位。与此同时，英国正在经历第一次工业革命（一七六○年至一八二○年），发明家与制造商纷纷从手工生产转为使用蒸气与水力，打造出机械化的工厂、化学产品和金属制品。在实质层面，这使得重农主义除了一系列自我安慰的理想外，什么也不剩了。正如杜邦．内穆赫的后代──也就是杜邦公司（DuPont fortunes）在新大陆的创办人──后来将发现到的，释放美洲奴隶的并不是大自然，而是经过工业化的炮兵部队与最终获得了胜利的联邦军。35
    尽管英国的工业实力日渐明朗，重农主义者与其信徒仍紧抱着“农业可以带来经济成长”的怀旧观念。在那个时间点，利伯维尔场思想与经济现实是彼此脱节的，对于商业强国的经济政策几乎没有影响力。若非要说利伯维尔场思想有什么发展的话，那就是英国、欧洲和北美的工业革命曙光见证了柯尔贝观点的重生，即国家对于建立与维持复杂的经济市场来说至关重要。除此之外，民主的脚步也慢慢近了。虽然英国在君主立宪制度与贸易方面都取得了经济上的进展，但对于法国来说，专制君主和少数农业菁英就有能力监督整个国家的经济状态的想法，在经历了一千年的封建制度后已经不再有说服力。

    1. Charles M. Andrews, “Anglo-French Commercial Rivalry, 1700–1750: The Western Phase, I,” American Historical Review 20, no. 3 (1915): 539–556, at 547; David Hume, Selected Essays , ed. Stephen Copley and Andrew Edgar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 189, 214. 

    2. Georges Weulersse, Le mouvement physiocratique en France (de 1756 à 1770) , 2 vols. (Paris: Félix Alcan, 1910), 1:23; Montesquieu, De l’Esprit des lois , ed. Victor Goldschmidt, 2 vols. (Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1979), vol. 2, bk. 20, chap. 2; David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding, with a Supplement: An Abstract of a Treatise on Human Nature , ed. Charles W. Hendel (Indianapolis: Liberal Arts Press, 1955), 173. 

    3. Robert B. Ekelund Jr. and Robert F. Hébert, A History of Economic Theory and Method , 6th ed. (Longrove, IL: Waveland Press, 2014), 70. 

    4. Tony Brewer, Richard Cantillon: Pioneer of Economic Theory (London: Routledge, 1992), 8. 

    5. Richard Cantillon, Essai sur la nature du commerce en général , ed. and trans. Henry Higgs (London: Macmillan, 1931), 58. 

    6. Cantillon, Essai sur la nature du commerce , 97, 123; Marian Bowley, Studies in the History of Economic Theory Before 1870 (London: Macmillan, 1973), 95. 

    7. Cantillon, Essai sur la nature du commerce , 51–55, 85; Bowley, Studies in the History of Economic Theory , 96. 

    8. Jean-François Melon, Essaie politique sur le commerce , in Eugène Daire, Économistes financiers du XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Guillaumin, 1851), 659–777, at 671, 666. 

    9. Melon, Essaie politique sur le commerce , 673, 708. 

    10. Melon, Essaie politique sur le commerce , 683, 746, 765. 

    11. Paul Cheney, Revolutionary Commerce: Globalization and the French Monarchy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 22; Montesquieu, De l’esprit des lois , bk. 20, chaps. 1–2. 

    12. David Kammerling-Smith, “Le discours économique du Bureau du commerce, 1700–1750,” in Le Cercle de Vincent de Gournay: Savoirs économiques et pratiques administratives en France au milieu du XVIIIe siècle , ed. Loïc Charles, Frédéric Lefebvre, and Christine Théré (Paris: INED, 2011), 31–62, at 34. 

    13. R. L. Meek, The Economics of Physiocracy (London: Allen and Unwin, 1963), xiii. 

    14. François Véron de Forbonnais, Éléments du commerce , 3 vols. (Paris: Chaignieau, 1793–1794), 1:62. 

    15. Forbonnais, Éléments du commerce , 1:67–68, 75–76. 

    16. Forbonnais, Éléments du commerce , 1:3, 38, 45. 

    17. Steven L. Kaplan, Bread, Politics, and Political Economy in the Reign of Louis XV , 2nd ed. (New York: Anthem Press, 2012), 108; Gérard Klotz, Philippe Minard, and Arnaud Orain, eds. , Les voies de la richesse? La physiocratie en question (1760–1850) (Rennes, France: Presses Universitaires de Rennes, 2017), 11; Gustav Schachter, “François Quesnay: Interpreters and Critics Revisited,” American Journal of Economics and Sociology 50, no. 3 (1991): 313–322; Paul Samuelson, “Quesnay’s ‘Tableau Économique’ as a Theorist Would Formulate It Today,” in Paul Samuelson on the History of Economic Analysis: Selected Essays , ed. Steven J. Medema and Anthony M. C. Waterman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 59–86, at 60. 

    18. Pierre-Paul Mercier de la Rivière, L’ordre naturel et essentiel des sociétés politiques , 2 vols. (London: Jean Nourse, 1767). 

    19. Liana Vardi, The Physiocrats and the World of the Enlightenment (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2012), 42. 

    20. Vardi, Physiocrats , 84; David S. Landes, Unbound Prometheus: Technological Change and Industrial Development in Western Europe from 1750 to the Present (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1969), 82. 

    21. Steven Pincus, The Global British Empire to 1784 , unpublished manuscript; Gabriel François Coyer, La noblesse commerçante (London: Fletcher Gyles, 1756), 33–34, 45, 72. 

    22. Simone Meyssonnier, La balance et l’horloge: La genèse de la pensée libérale en France au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Les Éditions de la Passion, 1989), 264. 

    23. Meyssonnier, La balance et l’horloge , 265. 

    24. Meyssonnier, La balance et l’horloge , 249. 

    25. Meyssonnier, La balance et l’horloge , 80–81; Coyer, La noblesse commerçante , 33–34, 279. 

    26. Le marquis de Mirabeau, L’ami des hommes, ou traité de la population , 2 vols. (Avignon: 1756); Meek, Economics of Physiocracy , 15. 

    27. Meek, Economics of Physiocracy , 18. 

    28. Meek, Economics of Physiocracy , 23; E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (New York: Vintage, 1966), 218; Boaz Moselle, “Allotments, Enclosure, and Proletarianization in Early Nineteenth-Century Southern England,” English Economic History Review 48, no. 3 (1995): 482–500. 

    29. Meek, Economics of Physiocracy , 109–114, 136. 

    30. François Quesnay, Despotism in China , trans. Lewis A. Maverick, in Lewis A. Maverick, China: A Model for Europe , 2 vols. (San Antonio: Paul Anderson and Company, 1946), 1:216; W. W. Davis, “China, the Confucian Ideal, and the European Age of Enlightenment,” Journal of the History of Ideas 44, no. 4 (1983): 523–548; Stefan Gaarsmand Jacobsen, “Against the Chinese Model: The Debate on Cultural Facts and Physiocratic Epistemology,” in The Economic Turn: Recasting Political Economy in Enlightenment Europe , ed. Steven L. Kaplan and Sophus A. Reinert (London: Anthem Press, 2019), 89–115; Cheney, Revolutionary Commerce , 203; Pernille Røge, Economists and the Reinvention of Empire: France in the Americas and Africa, c. 1750–1802 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2019), 10. 

    31. Quesnay, Despotism in China , 11; Røge, Economists and the Reinvention of Empire , 88. 

    32. Loïc Charles and Arnaud Orain, “François Véron de Forbonnais and the Invention of Antiphysiocracy,” in Kaplan and Reinert, Economic Turn , 139–168. 

    33. Meek, Economics of Physiocracy , 46–50. 

    34. Meek, Economics of Physiocracy , 70. 

    35. Jean Ehrard, Lumières et esclavage: L’esclavage colonial et l’opinion publique en France au XVIIIe siècle (Brussels: André Versaille, 2008); Røge, Economists and the Reinvention of Empire , 176; David Allen Harvey, “Slavery on the Balance Sheet: Pierre-Samuel Dupont de Nemours and the Physiocratic Case for Free Labor,” Journal of the Western Society for French History 42 (2014): 75–87, at 76. 

    第十二章 利伯维尔场与自然

    人虽生而自由，却无处不在枷锁之中。 ──鲁索（Rousseau），《社会契约论》（The Social Contract ），一七六二年

    在制造业蒸蒸日上、海外帝国扩张且国际贸易蓬勃发展的年代，重农主义可算不上受欢迎的经济理论。尽管重农主义哲学家的著作受到现代利伯维尔场思想家的热烈赞赏，但这些作品在他们那个年代并不畅销。事实上，十八世纪最畅销的那些经济学书籍都在批评“经济完全可以自我调节”的观点。处于经济成长前线的人都在寻找方法推动工业与利伯维尔场的发展。这意谓着除了自由放任的要素外，还必须让国家扮演具有建设性的经济角色。
    于是无须讶异，接下来亲工业改革运动出现在意大利这个欧洲资本主义与贸易的起源地。意大利哲学家寻求的是更加贴近柯尔贝主义的道路，透过新的法律体系与开明的政府机构来建立市场。博学多闻的卢多维科．安东尼奥．穆拉多利（Ludovico Antonio Muratori）是神职人员、历史学家，也是米兰宏伟的安布罗西亚那图书馆（Ambrosiana Library）的图书馆员，他的著作《论公共幸福》（On Public Happiness ，一七四九年）受到柯尔贝和孟德斯鸠的启发。穆拉多利的文章解释了人类要如何透过政府改革与立法来改善安全、教育、健康与宗教生活，使这个世界变成一个“更幸福”的所在。包括奥地利女皇玛丽亚．特蕾莎（Maria Theresa）在内的几位专制君主都遵循他的建议，支持自然科学与宗教宽容，并透过宪政主义扩张个人与市场的自由──尽管是有限的自由。意大利和奥地利的启蒙运动思想家与巴黎、伦敦和苏格兰的思想家密切合作，致力于打造出更公正的社会，一些意大利人把这种概念称作“社会主义”，也就是透过现代化的法院与法典、学校和基础设施等国家机构来打造社会与市场的一套计划。（历史学家伊斯凡．洪特〔István Hont〕将此时社会主义“socialism”的追随者称作“society-ists”。）此一社会运动后来也影响了斯密。1

    在意大利的国家市场建造者中，最重要的一位就是拿坡里的政治经济学家安东尼奥．杰诺维齐（Antonio Genovesi），他可以说是亚当斯密的前辈，认为经济是一系列能够自我延续的市场机制。身为一名有远见的市场思想家，他认为政府必须打造适合市场的条件。他不赞成劳动力本身就能创建价格的观点，而认为驱动价格的是无形的社会条件与劳动条件。在他广受赞誉的《商业课，又名，论公民经济》（Lessons on Commerce, or On Civil Economics ，一七六五年）中，他指出效用性、个人关系与公共信任决定了劳动与货品的价值。虽然国家必须给予市场自由，但同时也要小心翼翼地扶植市场。举例来说，政府必须修建道路，并保护道路不受盗匪侵扰。杰诺维齐引述了梅隆、休谟和孟德斯鸠，认为财富是有效率的农业与工业之间的互相作用。他和福尔博纳一样，认为消除商业上的障碍通常是好事，但商人仍然必须遵守法规与支付一定的关税。因此，利伯维尔场是国家与商人之间持续且小心地互相退让的成果。并不存在一种通用法则，反之，需要具备的是一种务实的意识：信任与商业自由必须根据当地环境去协商、建造与维持。2

    意大利和奥地利的工业没有英国那么发达。二者的国家领导人相信，他们必须要像过去的英格兰与荷兰一样，努力刺激创新。透过拒绝重农主义准则，并走上更偏向柯尔贝主义的路线，意大利北部后来成为了全球最富有、工业化程度最高的地区。米兰哲学家皮耶特罗．维利（Pietro Verri）等早期城市工业思想家认为，保守又倾向农业的重农主义者，对于现代工业改革来说是一种障碍。维利警告道，认为工业是“不结果实的”这种重农主义观念是个严重的经济谬误。要说起来，工业和具有专业工业知识的人才应该是“丰足”的源头。3

    在众多意大利经济思想家中，重农主义的头号敌人是一名翻译了洛克著作的拿坡里人，修道院长费迪南多．加利亚尼（Ferdinando Galiani）。一七五九年，拿坡里国王查理四世派遣这位杰出的经济学家到巴黎的拿坡里大使馆担任秘书。他成为巴黎社交场合与时尚沙龙的常客，和狄德罗交上朋友，并向狄德罗介绍了经济学研究。加利亚尼曾在拿坡里执行过货币改革，并因此和重农主义者有过密切往来，他向来没有耐心应对那些魁奈信徒无知的农业乐观主义。他相信社会必须和大自然彼此合作，而非只是追随自然。加利亚尼在《谷物商业对话》（Dialogues on the Commerce of Grains ，一七七○年）中坚称，只有国家才有足够的外界信用，能够在歉收、饥荒与战争的处境下处理食物短缺的问题。4 他同意自然与社会都是以系统的形式在运作的。他也认为制造业需仰赖农业。然而，他同时坚持农业仍然太不可靠，不能让农业完全控制市场体系。在歉收的时期，不只有农业，相关产业也会跟着停滞不前，接着社会就会陷入经济与财政灾难之中。若国家没有储备与管理粮食供应，农民很容易会“失去所有资金”而无法重新开始种植。换句话说，加利亚尼认为成功的农业系统既不能完全依赖自然，也不能完全依赖市场。他坚称大自然带来的灾难规模只有国家才能应对。5

    一七七○年代之间，古尔奈的圈子中具有最高知名度和影响力的成员，法国哲学家暨国家总督杜尔哥最终成为了财政总监督。他将会成为第一位欣然接受利伯维尔场原则，并尝试应用在国家政策上的重要政治家。他的努力与他的失败不但导致大规模的群众起事，更巩固了对“市场可以依赖农业，无需国家干预”抱持反对的哲学观点。杜尔哥是富有的贵族与政府官员，而他相信人类和社会可以不断进步；他对经济自由有着坚实的信仰，全心接纳货币数量理论，并且反对政府垄断与国家监管。他创造了农业中的边际收益递减法则理论──这个市场理论指出，生产能力是有限度的，在无法生产更多财富的状况下，增加劳动力是一件低效率的事。杜尔哥相信，社会和经济都跟大自然一样，具有自然均衡。国家可以帮忙打破这个平衡，给予人类创造财富所需的自由与协助。6

    虽然杜尔哥是利伯维尔场的支持者，但他在一七五七年出版的《百科全书》中的〈市集与市场〉（Fairs and Markets）一文中，表达得比魁奈反复强调重农主义观点的文章还要更加隐晦。杜尔哥主张，大型的中世纪市集──著名的现代法国历史学家费尔南．布劳岱尔（Fernand Braudel）后来把这些市集连结到资本主义的崛起──是一种压迫性垄断。中世纪的博览会往往坐落在各个国家或各个地区之间的主要贸易路线交会点，例如法国香槟区。每年都有数周的时间，农民、工匠、商人和银行家会带着他们的商品和技能来到这里，创建一个推动中世纪经济的巨大商业区。杜尔哥说，“方便性”使博览会地点不会变动；这也使得博览会成为控制价格的垄断场所。博览会有一群固定的参加者，因此限制了竞争与交易总量。固定地点的博览会也使国家得以简化和控制货品税收。他说这种做法“不理性”，让博览会只有利于税收，而不利于财富创造。7

    杜尔哥主张，他们需要的不是在固定地点举办年度博览会，而是持续在任何有需求的地方进行自由贸易，并不对此课税。这样的经济自由会使社会进步。只要移除了特权与规则，贸易就会欣欣向荣；尽管君主会失去一些税收，但社会整体会更加富裕。杜尔哥比重农主义者更重视商人。他认为，随着交易量增加，贸易会变得更有效率，并藉由降低价格、刺激消费与生产来创造出边际效益。杜尔哥说，荷兰没有所谓的博览会举办日；取而代之的是贸易会每时每刻发生在所有地点，荷兰人因此变得更加富裕。或许杜尔哥没有注意到荷兰已经彻底放弃把农业当作贸易与工业的经济基础，更没有注意到荷兰政府在经济政策与商业法规中，扮演了非常积极的角色。8

    在杜尔哥眼中，市场不是由拥有财产的个体驱动的，而是由农村的劳动者驱动的。杜尔哥和杜邦．内穆赫合作撰写了《对财富的形成与分配之反思》（Reflections on the Formation and Distribution of Wealth ，一七六六年），杜尔哥在书中透过效益主义劳动的概念，为封建贵族进行了革命性的现代辩护，即地主没有生产力，但地主是合乎情理的闲置者。他在他对贵族财产的辩护中，主张物业拥有者对经济制度来说具有社会必要性，他写道：“仅仅是因为人类习俗以及公民法律，耕种者需要物业拥有者。”杜尔哥的看法呼应了西塞罗、洛克和孟德斯鸠的论点，他认为虽然地主本身是闲置的，但对整个制度的平衡来说至关重要，这些地主产生了一个菁英阶层，他们具备道德能力，因此得以精通法律、博雅教育和科学，也能领导社会与农业耕种。9

    与此同时，杜尔哥运用他的效益主义农业劳动理论，去批判奴隶制度与殖民主义。他坚持自由必须是积极的，不得侵犯其他人的权利，而财产拥有权不能应用在奴隶制度上；奴隶制度是某种剥夺之下的产物，即“暴力分子”剥夺了劳动者在他们“创造”的“产品”中自然拥有的份额。杜尔哥进一步批评殖民经济是一种非长远之计的窃盗行为。他对封建主义也抱持同样的态度，并且倡导初步版本的劳动分工，自由的工人藉此朝向专业化、变得更有生产力。对于贵族、农业经济的倡议者与皇家政府首长来说，这是非常革命性的想法。10

    重农主义者在凡尔赛宫的沙龙与居所中提出了他们的劳动理论，而杜尔哥则不同，他以国家督察的身分进入了法国政府，实际尝试把他的利伯维尔场理论应用在真实世界中。从一七六一年至一七七四年，他担任着法国中西部的贫困城市利摩日的总督。作为王室在利摩日的直接代理人，他致力于透过税收与谷物市场的改革来减缓当地的贫困问题。重农主义者在农业方面的论述聚焦于谷物市场中的生产和流通，而杜尔哥不一样，他希望能把财富分配给穷人，如此一来谷物市场就能为整个社会带来经济发展。11

    虽然有些重农主义者批判杜尔哥太依赖国家，但杜尔哥仍坚守柯尔贝主义的观点，认为除非国家先进行大范围的改革，市场是无法发挥潜力的。杜尔哥相信，在让市场自由化之前，首先要做的是保护穷人免受自由化带来的直接冲击，国家必须插手协助那些没有工作、没有食物的人。他强制要求地主们为穷困人口提供支持，并订定修建公路用的税制，藉此废除封建制度中修路的强迫劳役。他提议建立国家支持的“慈善办公室与工作坊”来为穷人提供就业机会，甚至为妇女提供“公共职务”。其中最重要的计划非道路建设莫属，因为道路能促进粮食与其他产品的自由流通。杜尔哥甚至尝试进口食物来帮助这个贫困区域，为那些无法工作的人提供食物。本着柯尔贝的精神，他随后动用国家权力的帮忙，创建了如今举世闻名的利摩日陶瓷产业。杜尔哥用非正统而高度务实的方法将柯尔贝主义与重农主义改革相结合，并取得了一定的成功，这使他渴望推动更具野心的计划。12

    一七七四年，杜尔哥有了机会可以更大范围地尝试他的政策，他接掌了曾经属于柯尔贝的、手握大权的财政总监督一职。杜尔哥上任后采取的第一步非常成功。他坚持中止国家借款，并设法降低了利率。然而，杜尔哥想要使谷物贸易自由化的尝试却一败涂地。他取消了价格控制与政府补贴，废除了法国境内复杂而古老的面粉与面包分配系统，接着他们马上遇到了歉收。食物短缺、混乱、投机买卖、价格上涨和饥荒酿成了一七七五年四月与五月的一系列抗议行动，史称面粉战争（Flour Wars）。加利亚尼利用这个机会重申了他的观点，也就是在自然灾害发生时，政府必须介入提供帮助。在法规松绑的同时若没有对穷人提供援助，将会导致一场大灾难。杜尔哥已经忘却他当初的市场发展原则了。13
    在面粉战争的高峰期，贾克．内克（Jacques Necker）出版了《论立法与谷物商业》（On the Legislation and the Commerce of Grain ，一七七五年），抨击杜尔哥和重农主义。内克是一位非常成功的瑞士新教银行家、金融家暨哲学家，他住在巴黎，而且借了一大笔钱给法国。身为一名经济思想家，他同意自由比监管更好，而且一般来说，贸易自由都是好的。他主张人们应该有权利能依照自己想要的方式，来运用自己的金钱、劳力与产业。内克追随柯尔贝的观点，坚持认为国家立法者必须制定“禁制性法律”，如此一来，谷物贸易中才不会出现“对自由的滥用”而导致饥荒。他同意加利亚尼的想法，认为人们不能只是把谷物留给市场力量操作──自然太过反复无常，社会又太过脆弱。他就像加利亚尼一样，认为易受影响的食物供应需要政府提供护栏。因此，内克提出了古老的论点：虽然市场自由很重要，但这种自由比较适合非必需品。14
    尽管受到了这样的批评，杜尔哥仍铁了心要进行他的自由化改革。他希望能打破封建制度中的强制性农民劳动与行会特权。他在这过程中成功与所有人为敌──从农民、商人到贵族。杜尔哥的改革和宫廷中的角力斗争导致所有政府派系都和他作对。一七七六年五月，国王路易十六令他辞职。他在农业自由放任方面进行的大型自由主义实验，被人们视为一次无比壮观的失败。在这场颜面尽失的惨败所带来的混乱中，他的许多其他现代化改革也化为泡影了。15

    对于“利伯维尔场无需政府干预就能自动运作”这一观点的反对，因为杜尔哥的失败而更加牢不可破。有些基进派的哲学家认为封建社会与文化需要的不是改善，而是革命性的转变。政府首长在君主制度下未能取得成果，哲学家们于是又重新回到拉侯谢傅科公爵与曼德维尔的观点，也就是情绪感受是市场的主要驱动力。他们试着去理解这些人类情感能如何创造出更加公正的市场社会。
    关于人类情感与经济之间的关系，出生于瑞士的哲学家尚─贾克．鲁索（Jean-Jacques Rousseau）提出了其中一些最有力的观点。尽管他也相信农业在经济上占首要地位，和杜尔哥不同的是，鲁索反对由贵族地主支配的社会制度。他设想的是一个民主而平等的农村社会，此社会以原始状态的自然为基础，人们共同管理财产，也共享地球上的果实。鲁索回过头去研究拉侯谢傅科公爵对市场运作方式的看法。他不相信大自然会自发性地打造出健康或和谐的社会与经济秩序。相反地，“自然”和农业创造出了社会阶级，导致贫困、不公正与不平等。他认为贵族拒绝纳税是法国经济问题的根源。鲁索对于法国社会的严重不平等感到怒火中烧，这启发他写下了基进立场的《论人类不平等的起源与基础》（Discourse on Inequality ，一七五五年）。这本书划下了一条清楚的战线，区分了菁英式的自由放任主义哲学，以及基进的共和式民主的呼吁，这种民主以马基维利和霍布斯的政治思想为基础，要求制衡市场与向富人征税。鲁索指出，很显然地多数派政府必须要严格监管财富、商业和地主掌握的权力。在他看来，西塞罗一派对自然状态的尊崇，以及效法大自然永恒法则的社会，都导致了不公正。民主政治必须介入并打破这种“自然”阶级制度，打造更加公正的世界。16
    鲁索将会成为那个年代最负盛名的作家以及伟大的基进派领袖，他的思想将会启发托马斯．潘恩（Thomas Paine）和其他大西洋两岸的革命者。他的政治手册《社会契约论》（一七六二年）将会动摇欧洲体制的根基，为国家地位和民主奠定了框架。正是在这本着作中，鲁索写下了这句名言：“人虽生而自由，却无处不在枷锁之中。”与霍布斯以及洛克相反，鲁索并不认为社会能使人类变善良；相反地，他认为社会破坏了人类最原初的善良状态，从而堕落。真正的原罪就是社会与财产本身。对鲁索来说，不平等是自爱（self-love）与骄傲的产物，透过自爱与骄傲，个人只藉由与他人比较来定义自己。人会为了满足自己的骄傲，而创造出不自然的“常规”与“特权”，藉此在阶级制度中区分自己和歌颂自己。反洛克和反重农主义的思想在此昭然若揭。人类的枷锁就是私有财产和菁英阶级，是少数决的政治和经济规则。17

    鲁索声称，我们可以在怜悯的情感中找到最正向的人类价值，这种情感与“理性公正的崇高准则”并肩而行。怜悯带来了一种同理的本能。当我们看见苦难时，我们会有所共鸣，并且实践“己所欲，施于人”的理想。鲁索相信，如果没有这些与生俱来的慷慨之情，人类早就已经不复存在了。更甚者，他认为财产是一种腐败的恶习，需要用同情心、同理心和朝向经济平等的政治努力才能与之对抗。强大贵族地主与农民的存在只不过代表了现代人需要去纠正传统。鲁索抨击洛克所提出对于私有财产的基督教史观，洛克认为伊甸园的堕落创造了财产所有权的法律。鲁索则抗议道，第一个找到一块土地并说出“这块土地属于我”的人不过是个“冒牌货”，而这个冒牌货必须对人类承受的苦难和不平等负责。他认为，承认财产的存在是通往封建主义、寡头政治和暴政之漫长道路上所踏出的第一步，因为承认财产就等于把个人权利让渡予贵族和君王。鲁索觉得，法律不该来自财产，也不该来自文明与礼仪的采用，而应该来自社会多数人的共同民主决策：“这显然违反了自然法则……一小撮人狼吞虎咽着过多的食物，而饥饿的大多数却缺乏必需品。”18
    鲁索的著作对各门各派的经济学家提出了一个骇人的问题，他热切地反对利益导向的市场，支持透过基进民主制度来实现市场干预与平等主义。鲁索与早期的经济理论家不同，诸如马基维利、曼德维尔和多马都认为人类的激烈情绪是市场交易的强大驱力，个人恶行（或者以多马的基督教词汇来说，叫作原罪）所推动的交易可以带来公共利益，而鲁索断然拒绝此一观点。反之，他认为多数人类必须有意识地拒绝骄傲和自爱的弊病，并且调动怜悯与同理的情感，藉此创造一个更幸福、更平等也更公正的社会。
    鲁索的哲学直接威胁到了当时的所有掌权者：君主、神职人员、贵族、商人和金融家，后两者的财富已经逐渐和古老贵族平起平坐了。那是对一切事物中的人民主权的呼吁，尤以农业为最；这可以被视为一种极端形式的马基维利思想，也就是任何个人或任何寡头团体都不应比国家更富有。这种观点冒犯了西塞罗对礼仪与反映自然秩序之阶级社会的理念。透过他无比畅销的著作，鲁索要求着农业的民主化，并说服社会大众他们在经济方面应该拥有立法上的发言权。
    鲁索不只是平等政治基进主义的先驱。他对人类情绪与经济的分析也成为了启发亚当斯密的主要来源。斯密在鲁索身上看到了一种思考利伯维尔场的方式，讽刺的是，他最终也是用这种方式为利伯维尔场提供合理性。但斯密会彻底反转鲁索的等式：鲁索认为怜悯和同理心等较高层次的人类情绪，是贪婪、骄傲和自爱等驱动市场的热切情绪之解药；斯密则认为推动市场的不只贪婪──人类的同理心与道德责任等美德本身就是市场驱动力。鲁索认为，由同理心带动的基进民主制度是通往和平、道德社会的途径；斯密则相信，传统的农业英国议会制社会是具有天然的道德性，在适当的环境下，这样的社会可以引导贪婪与阶级制度去创造一个为公共利益而运作的良性利伯维尔场。

    1. Erik S. Reinert and Fernanda A. Reinert, “33 Economic Bestsellers Published Before 1750,” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 25, no. 6 (2018): 1206–1263; Derek Beales, Enlightenment and Reform in Eighteenth Century Europe (London: I. B. Tauris, 2005), 64; Istvan Hont, Jealousy of Trade: International Competition and the Nation-State in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 45, 134; Sophus A. Reinert, The Academy of Fisticuffs: Political Economy and Commercial Society in Enlightenment Italy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2018), 7; John Robertson, The Case for Enlightenment: Scotland and Naples, 1680–1760 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), 22; Koen Stapelbroek, “Commerce and Morality in Eighteenth-Century Italy,” History of European Ideas 32, no. 4 (2006): 361–366, at 364; Antonio Muratori, Della pubblica felicità: Oggetto de’buoni principi (Lucca, 1749), p. 3 of “To the Reader. ” 

    2. Eric Cochrane, Florence in the Forgotten Centuries, 1527–1800 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1973), 461; Reinert, Academy of Fisticuffs , 299; Antonio Genovesi, Delle lezioni di commercio, o s’ia d’economia civile , 2 vols. (Naples: Fratelli di Simone, 1767), 2:77, 133; Robertson, Case for Enlightenment , 356–357. 

    3. Steven L. Kaplan and Sophus A. Reinert, eds. , The Economic Turn: Recasting Political Economy in Enlightenment Europe (London: Anthem Press, 2019), 3–13; Pietro Verri, Meditazioni sulla economia politica (Venice: Giambatista Pasquale, 1771), 18, 33–34. 

    4. Ferdinando Galiani, Dialogues sur le commerce des blés , ed. Philip Stewart (Paris: SFEDS, 2018), 59. 

    5. Galiani, Dialogues, 115–116; Franco Venturi, “Galiani tra enciclopedisti e fisiocrati,” Rivista storica italiana 72, no. 3 (1960): 45–64, at 53. 

    6. Jean-Claude Perrault, Une histoire intellectuelle de l’économie politique (XVII–XVIIIe siècles) (Paris: Éditions de l’EHESS, 1992), 238. 

    7. Perrault, Une histoire intellectuelle , 16–17. 

    8. Perrault, Une histoire intellectuelle , 19. 

    9. Meek, The Economics of Physiocracy (London: Allen and Unwin, 1963), 47–49. 

    10. Meek, Economics of Physiocracy , 51; Madeleine Dobie, Trading Places: Colonization and Slavery in Eighteenth-Century French Culture (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2010), 14–15. 

    11. Benoit Malbranque, Le libéralisme à l’essaie. Turgot intendant du Limousin (1761–1774) (Paris: Institut Coppet, 2015), 44. 

    12. Emma Rothschild, Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the Enlightenment (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 79; Malbranque, Le libéralisme à l’essaie , 58. 

    13. Cynthia A. Bouton, The Flour War: Gender, Class, and Community in Late Ancien Régime French Society (University Park: Penn State University Press, 1993), 81; Gilbert Foccarello, “Galiani, Necker, and Turgot: A Debate on Economic Reform and Policy in 18th Century France,” European Journal of the History of Economic Thought 1, no. 3 (1994): 519–550. 

    14. Jacob Soll, “From Virtue to Surplus: Jacques Necker’s Compte Rendu (1781) and the Origins of Modern Political Discourse,” Representations 134, no. 1 (2016): 29–63; Jacques Necker, Sur la législation et le commerce des grains (Paris: Chez Pissot, 1775), 50–52. 

    15. Steven L. Kaplan, Bread, Politics, and Political Economy in the Reign of Louis XV , 2nd ed. (New York: Anthem Press, 2012), 589–595. 

    16. Kaplan, Bread, Politics , 247; Istvan Hont, Politics in Commercial Society: Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Adam Smith , ed. Béla Kapossy and Michael Sonensher (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2015), 18–19. 

    17. Antoine Lilti, The Invention of Celebrity (Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2017), 117; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Du contrat social , ed. Pierre Burgelin (Paris: Garnier-Flammarion, 1966), 41; Jean-Jacques Rousseau, A Discourse on Inequality , ed. Maurice Cranston (London: Penguin, 1984), 77. 

    18. Rousseau, Discourse on Inequality , 101, 109, 127, 137. 

    第十三章 亚当斯密和良性自由贸易社会

    他们〔商人与制造商〕正是凭借着对自身利益拥有较多知识，因此经常强迫利用他〔乡绅〕的慷慨，并说服他放弃自己的利益与公众的利益，出于非常简单且正直的信念：他们的利益才是公众的利益，而他的利益则不是。然而，无论在贸易或制造业的任何一个分支，商人的利益总是会在某些方面和公众利益有所分歧，甚至相反。 ──亚当斯密，《国富论》（The Wealth of Nations ），一七七六年

    亚当斯密和鲁索一样不欣赏贪婪。并且他也同样有些担心曼德维尔在《蜜蜂的寓言》中表达的愤世嫉俗。斯密是在格拉斯哥大学（University of Glasgow）研究斯多噶道德哲学的教授，他不认为恶行会是美德。美德是一种艰苦的努力，而他的工作就是教导何谓美德。斯密不同意鲁索对于纯粹天生的人类情绪的看法，无论是贪婪还是怜悯都一样，他也不同意鲁索认为社会的本质是罪恶的论点。西塞罗的斯多噶哲学教导我们，个人可以学习自律和道德，进而使社会变得更美好，斯密相信这一点。如果要从斯密的经济作品中提炼出一个明确的概念，那这个概念就是：道德是市场运作的必备要素。我们可以从《国富论》（一七七六年）清楚看出，斯密不是现代所谓的经济自由主义者，更不用说自由意志主义者（libertarian）了。他认为只有道德农业社会搭配上强大的统治菁英阶级，才能够创造与维持利伯维尔场。
    现代经济学家对斯密的看法多半不是这样。人们往往觉得他是个为贪婪与商业利益辩护的人。但就和柯尔贝一样，现代经济学家用讽刺的手法将他扭曲成一种截然不同的样貌。举例来说，一九四四年，弗里德里希．奥古斯特．海耶克（Friedrich August von Hayek）将斯密描绘成一个反对所有政府干预，并且聚焦于经济效率的思想家。米尔顿．傅利曼也依循同样的脉络，把斯密在《国富论》中提及看不见的手的段落，解读为呼吁社会将政府从经济生活之中完全移除。傅利曼主张，斯密的“关键见解”是经济合作应该维持“严格自愿”，必须“没有外力、没有胁迫、没有对自由的侵犯”。然而，海耶克和傅利曼引用的段落都经过精心挑选，在过程中把斯密从一位道德哲学家──不信任商人和企业，相信强大的菁英政府、殖民规范、奴隶制度、公共教育和针对性关税──转变成了一位现代企业的自由意志主义辩护者。1
    不过老实说，要阅读斯密那本将近一千页的《国富论》确实是件苦差事，而且他引述的许多语句都使得他像是在提倡完全的自由放任主义。他提出警告，政府“试着指示人民要以何种方式应用他们的资本”是一种愚行。他也批判政府不该干预个人的直接经济决策：“在人类社会这个巨大的棋盘上，每一枚棋子都有自身的移动原则，与立法机关可能选择强迫采用的原则完全不同。”此外，尽管他在未来成为了关税部长，但他也对税收带来的痛苦有所深思：“一个政府向另一个政府学习经验时，学得最快的就是从人民的口袋里搜刮钱财的艺术。”斯密认为，生产和消费必须免受政府的任何阻碍：“消费行为是所有生产行为的唯一终点和目的；生产者的利益只应在促进消费者利益的必要范围内予以关注。”斯密的部分文章段落使他看起来像是彻头彻尾的利伯维尔场支持者：“〔在没有贸易限制的状况下，〕自然自由（natural liberty）这个理所当然又单纯的系统会自行建立起来。每个人……都可以全然自由地以自己的方式追逐自己的利益。”2
    然而，如果我们按照当时的历史脉络去解读斯密针对市场自由所写的这些引述内容，就会清楚看到他的愿景和现代利伯维尔场思想家相去甚远。《国富论》是一部充满雄心壮志的作品，旨在调和当时实际存在的农业寡头和愿景中的自我调节的市场，同时应对商业与帝国的崛起。斯密认为，贸易只会在农业主导的社会中蓬勃发展，在这样的社会中，拥有大量土地的统治阶级菁英能够限制商人的利益、推广学习与提倡斯多噶美德。斯密是罗马道德哲学教授，这个身分很适合协助引导这种西塞罗式的道德复兴。

    英国与法国之间的持续冲突，打碎了重农主义者对于农业、利伯维尔场与国际和平能卷土重来的希望。这两个国家都采取了保护性策略，藉此发展国内产业，相互争夺全球市场的主导地位。十八世纪上半叶，英国的经济景气衰退。法国的布料制造业正在蚕食英国经济。法国紧密控制地中海市场，阻碍了英国与土耳其以及西班牙的贸易。法国也主宰着糖业市场，他们的国家出口总糖量和英国持平，甚或略胜一筹。到了一七四○年代，法国的海外贸易成长速度是英国的三倍。在一七二○至一七五○年代间，法国的出口以每年百分之三至五的速度成长，英国的出口成长率则是百分之一点五。奥地利王位继承战争（War of Austrian Succession，一七四○年至一七四八年）是英法的全球代理战争，将这两大强权的对抗置于帝国的舞台上，而七年战争（一七五六年至一七六三年）则成为一场更大规模的全球商业与帝国霸权斗争。战事从欧洲扩及美洲、印度和西非。人们需要达成某种协议来平息纷乱，而许多经济思想家认为利伯维尔场就是能带来和平的解决方案。3
    斯密是一名学者，他认为国际学术互动证明了自由交流是一种互惠的模式。在法国与英国军事上互相对抗的期间，两国在知识与科学方面的合作仍十分自由。英法两国的杰出思想家时常进行跨海峡的研究工作，这是源远流长的传统，他们在冲突、友谊与学习中共同发展。托马斯．霍布斯在一六三○年代于法国接受教育，一六四○年代再次为了躲避英国内战初期的政治冲突而逃到法国，并在这里写下了《利维坦》（一六五一年）。这样的交流是双向的。法国哲学家伏尔泰流亡至伦敦，写下了有关英国哲学、政治与生活的作品。到了十八世纪中叶，全欧洲与美洲的知识分子都涌入了巴黎的沙龙，哲学家在那里谈论科学、政治、无止尽全球冲突的可能解决方案，以及如何面对市场带来的挑战。英法知识交流的悠久传统对于斯密的利伯维尔场理论来说至关重要。4
    此外，斯密在社交与知识两种层面上也很依赖他的导师，苏格兰哲学家戴维．休谟；休谟的法国知识渊源和关于利伯维尔场思想的文章，为斯密铺设了一条通往《国富论》的道路。休谟的作品是斯密的作品蓝图。自小就是神童的休谟出生在贫困的贵族家庭，拥有爱丁堡大学（University of Edinburgh）的学位，他到法国继续接受教育以“增进”他的“文学才能”。一七三四年至一七三九年，休谟在罗亚尔河谷（Loire Valley）的安朱（Anjou）就读弗莱彻耶稣会学院（Jesuit college of La Flèche），该学校以笛卡儿曾就读过而闻名。许多当地的耶稣会士曾是传教士，他们向年轻的休谟讲述他们旅行至亚洲与南美洲的故事，听得津津有味的休谟因此对于各个社会与民族之间的对比深感着迷。他充分利用了学校图书馆中有关希腊哲学、欧陆哲学、法国历史、道德与经济思想的广泛藏书。5

    休谟在弗莱彻学院写下了开创性的著作《人类理解论》（Essay on Human Understanding ），而后在一七三八年返回伦敦后发表此作。休谟的书是启蒙认识论的基础──认识论是研究人类如何学习与认识事物的一种学科。休谟认为，人类可以透过对伦理的了解，建立道德的经济制度与社会。他描述了斯多噶学派与伊比鸠鲁学派的希腊哲学家如何对自然运动与行为建立历久不衰的原则，并将这些原则拿去和托勒密（Ptolemy）以及哥白尼如何发展出他们对行星运动的理解进行比较。他相信若能把斯多噶主义和天文学结合起来，就能更深入了解人类行为与经济。这个方法后来对斯密的经济思想产生了深刻的影响。6

    休谟是个宗教怀疑论者，他认为人类的进步并非来自努力去理解上帝，而是来自人类透过观察去认识与理解自然和社会的能力。他认为所有未采用理性与科学理解方法的宗教哲学著作都应该要“付诸”于“火焰”。休谟从未宣称自己是无神论者，但他拒绝接受所有超自然与神迹的论调。他认为一切的一切都能用自然和机率来解释。7

    以他对历史的研究为基础，休谟主张人类可以透过自由思想、教育、艺术、科学与自由贸易来避免社会陷入失败。休谟并非透过基督教原罪的视角来看待生命，而是汲取西塞罗、罗马皇帝马可．奥理略（Marcus Aurelius）与希腊斯多噶哲学家爱比克泰德（Epictetus）的观点，为美德打造出了一种乐观的愿景，此愿景以世俗形式的正义与慈善义务为起点，而遵循这种义务将能走向幸福与繁荣。马可．奥理略藉由思考“作恶者的观点”构思了一种达成社会和平的方法。他认为，要达到社会和平必须调节个人的虚荣心，并培育仁慈的行为。马可．奥理略承袭柏拉图与西塞罗的观点，主张“艺术与科学”是让人性更加完美的道路。成功获得学问的唯一途径，是透过自由政府和“有礼且博学的社会”，这样的社会在遇到“暴政”时会成为公民同胞的堡垒。依循这些古早的斯多噶式方案，休谟希望在理想情况下，英国领导阶层能制定完善的法律，来支持道德的、以农为本的自由贸易。8

    休谟指出，若要让自由贸易和商业蓬勃发展，英国就必须克服与法国之间的“对贸易平衡的嫉妒恐惧”。他声称这种对法国的“仇恨”是“没有界限的”，会破坏幸福与繁荣。柯尔贝和孟德斯鸠也抱持同样的期望。按照休谟的预测，一旦商业社会臻至成熟，自由贸易就会带来和平与商业财富的种种益处。他从自己在法国的正向经验出发，指出与其追求对英国有利的贸易平衡或一个没有奢侈品的世界，不如追求和法国之间的“开放性商业”，这不仅能带来和谐，也会带来英法双方都能获益的比较优势。9

    休谟和斯密写作的时间都是在一七○七年《合并法案》（Act of Union ）签订之后的那段期间，英格兰与苏格兰根据此法案合并为大不列颠。苏格兰因为《合并法案》而进入了英格兰市场与殖民市场。爱丁堡与格拉斯哥（Glasgow）成为富裕的帝国贸易城市，取得筹码可以进行有利的条款与契约协商。休谟与斯密都见证了当时的经济扩张，也都因此受益。一七四七年，格拉斯哥市经交涉后签署了一项从法国殖民地进口烟草的垄断协议。克莱德河（Clyde）变成了烟草与制造业商品的贸易枢纽，苏格兰商人在此处的贸易圈交易奴隶，这对五十年前的格拉斯哥人来说是作梦也想不到的。烟草、奴隶、棉花、糖和兰姆酒使苏格兰商人发家致富，使学院和优秀的大学蓬勃发展。苏格兰人终于品尝到了财富的滋味，那滋味令人陶醉又充满诱惑力。很显然的，正是这种帝国自由贸易带来的确凿承诺与随之而来的富饶，使得戴维．休谟与其门生亚当斯密支持《合并法案》，也支持自由贸易和帝国的广阔愿景。10

    亚当斯密就是在这么一个充满冲突、经济扩张和知识野心的时代下步入成年。他于一七二三年出生于苏格兰的古老商业制造城镇克尔卡迪（Kirkaldy），隔着福斯湾（Firth of Forth）与爱丁堡遥遥相望。他的父亲（在他两个月大时去世）是一名律师与海关首长。他的母亲来自拥有土地的乡绅家族，而斯密就读的是镇上一所出色的自治学校，他在那里接受丰富的古典教育，打下扎实的拉丁语基础。斯密从小聪颖过人，十四岁就进入格拉斯哥大学就读，他的老师是杰出的道德哲学家弗朗西斯．哈奇森（Francis Hutcheson）。在哈奇森充满感召力的鼓励下，斯密开始对当时的启蒙运动风潮产生了兴趣，启蒙运动重视罗马伦理、科学、言论自由与洛克的自由思想。一七四○年，斯密获得了奖学金，成为牛津大学贝里欧学院（Balliol College）的研究生。斯密痛恨这个地方，觉得这里既堕落又缺乏智识上的挑战。他靠自己大量广泛地阅读，但却受神经颤抖所苦。他在奖学金耗尽之前，于一七四六年离开了牛津。一七四八年，他开始在爱丁堡大学（University of Edinburgh）授课，一七五○年，他成为格拉斯哥大学的教授，教学内容包括古典修辞学、道德哲学、法律与纯文学。

    斯密的作家生涯始于一七五六年他写给《爱丁堡评论》（Edinburgh Review ）的一封信，他在信中抨击了鲁索关于不平等与同理心的理论。斯密不接受鲁索的观点：人天生就具有道德素养，这种道德的唯一基础是怜悯。而身为斯多噶主义者的斯密则认为，道德来自教育、社会、财产、后天哲学交流与个人纪律。斯密在批评中指出，鲁索对社会的愤世观点创造出了一种虚无主义式的“对善恶漠然”。斯密承认商业社会确实有糟糕又贪婪的倾向，但他反驳道，要解决这个问题就需要那些拥有土地、富裕、守法、受过教育、理性、充满善意又“富有同情心”的人来做公民的领导人。斯密指出，若不这么做的话，世界将陷入战争与“绝望”中。11

    一七五九年，斯密出版了《道德情感论》（Theory of Moral Sentiments ），在书中提出了他的核心思想：人可以透过斯多噶式的道德哲学建立道德的社会。在霍布斯和鲁索的描述中，情绪的根源是与生俱来且野蛮的，斯密则不同，他依循的是斯多噶派的理想，认为道德情绪是可以培养的，而我们可以藉此创造美好的社会。斯密认为：“悲痛与憎恨带来的情绪是苦涩且疼痛的，更加需要同情的治疗与安慰。”他撰写此书的背景是一七五○年代末的英法冲突期间，他希望能找到一种哲学方法以摆脱战争的控制，在他看来，战争是人类在道德方面失败后制造出来的产物。12

    斯密借鉴自爱比克泰德，提出了一种拒绝贪婪的哲学。若要让社会与市场能运作良好，有道德的个人就必须控制愤怒与欲望等激烈情绪。最重要的是，永远都不要“对犯下错误的人生气”。反之，我们必须成为“无偏见的旁观者”，让他们明白自己的错误为何与“如何修正这些错处”。斯密希望能找到方法引导这种自我控制与客观公正的个人斯多噶派理想，并将此方法融入他所处的社会中，他想要打造一个更美好的世界。13

    虽然斯密的行文带有一种基督教的口吻，但他的作品没有提及过《圣经》。他使用的语言是绝对的自然神论。他将神描述成“自然的全智创作者”，这个作者创造了人类当作“他在人间的代理人，监督他的弟兄的所作所为”。斯密也把神称作“宇宙监督者”。但这位神祇并不是道德判官。取而代之的是，人类必须成为彼此行为举止的道德判官。斯密希望人类可以透过道德、透过牛顿式的因果概念，建立一个自我规范的社会。而后，他在一七七三年的著作《天文学历史》（The History of Astronomy ）中写道：“一连串看不见的对象，链接着两个按照全世界都很熟悉的顺序发生的事件。”在牛顿提出的“系统”中，是一只“看不见的手”设置了一种理性的、发条式的平衡状态。14
    在斯密看来，人类的道德行为、爱与合作都是杠杆，共同维持社会机制的平衡与恒动。他认为在劳动分工的机制中，自由、合乎道德、以农业为重点的贸易是必不可少的一个零件。这种分工机制能有效率地分配具有差异且相互协作的制造业活动与贸易活动，使人们能够共同努力，和平地创造出财富。斯密把论述导向西塞罗，并写道，商业“应当是联系国与国、人与人的一种友谊团结的纽带”。斯密的杰出见解是，如果人类和国家能在经济上彼此合作，就能为所有人创造财富。15
    然而，斯密理想中那个仁慈、合作且自我规范的社会是无法单靠自己实现的；这个社会需要领导人与立法者，而对斯密来说，这些人只能是受过教育的富裕贵族地主。斯密很早以前就注意到，鲜少有人能真正理解治理的法律原则，就连瑕不掩瑜的都很少见。用一种带有亚里士多德和西塞罗色彩的观点，他把理想的立法者描述成受过良好教育、礼貌、仁慈并且只会对法律偏心的人。只有这种人才能实践公民法律所需的自我约束和“科学精神”。16
    具有道德良知的贵族政府，将会为国家带来著名的路易十四批评家芬乃伦在小说《忒勒马科斯的冒险》中所描述的那种自由与富裕。斯密主张，法国也许比英国有钱，但法国缺乏成为商业领导国家的道德社会特质，原因在于法国没有自由的议会政府能维持“我国公民享有的安全、体面且幸福的境况”。法国的君主制专制且不容异己，在这种缺乏政治与社会美德的国家中，社会无法实现真正的仁慈。斯密相信，英国从一六八八年的光荣革命后开始实施的菁英代议制政府，是唯一能够避免“国际战争与国内派系斗争”并打造一个幸福、阔绰国家的途径。这也是唯一能成就利伯维尔场的方法。值得注意的是，斯密的理论未能解释英国为什么会和法国交战将近一个世纪，而且仍然没有通过利伯维尔场法规。但是，他似乎十分乐观，觉得英国有道德基础能做到他热切相信的这些进步。17

    我们在检视亚当斯密的哲学时，绝不能忽略他的个人生活与物质环境，正是他的所处环境使他的第一本书《道德情感论》大获成功。在休谟的帮助下，斯密悉心建立了有权有势的朋友网络，藉此累积财富与推广他的作品。《道德情感论》在一七五九年首次出版时，休谟和斯密在《爱丁堡评论》的朋友联络了斯密的出版商安德鲁．米勒（Andrew Millar），确保他将其中几本书寄给拥有权力与影响力的几位著名苏格兰贵族：王室宠儿暨首相比特伯爵（Earl of Bute）、阿盖尔公爵（Duke of Argyll）、曼斯菲德勋爵（Lord Mansfield）、塞尔伯尔尼伯爵（Earl of Shelburne）与查尔斯．汤森（Charles Townshend），也就是巴克勒公爵（Duke of Buccleuch）的继父。经由休谟优越的人脉关系，《道德情感论》“送到了所有受欢迎人物的手中”。这些权贵之手能够形塑斯密的职业生涯与社会大众对其作品的接受度。18
    一七五九年的夏天，斯密成为了第一代塞尔伯尔尼伯爵（Earl of Shelbourne）的小儿子托马斯．费兹莫里斯（Thomas Fitzmaurice）的老师。对斯密来说，这是一段激动人心的时期，他开始教授许多伟大苏格兰贵族的儿子。他引导这些晚辈认识古代哲学、法律与罗马贵族美德。作为一个长年单身的学者，斯密喜欢奢侈品，也渐渐喜欢上昂贵的服装。他生活在所谓的英国“寡头时代”（Age of Oligarchy），当时主导社会的是“独立的乡村仕绅”，他们往往是托利党员（Tories）或保守派的辉格党员（Whigs），一手掌控着下议院。这些世袭的贵族族长在议会掌握的权力几乎达到了有史以来的最高峰。尽管斯密曾批评过专断的社会阶级制度，但他成功爬上苏格兰地主社会的顶端，对此感到称心如意。如果他的经济愿景看起来像是为他的赞助人量身打造的，或许并非偶然。19

    斯密能被雇用为年轻的巴克勒公爵的教师和旅伴，有部分原因在于当初致赠的那本《道德情感论》。巴克勒公爵的继父支付给斯密的教师薪水是每年五百英镑（在今天超过十万美元），之后又提供斯密每年三百英镑的终身津贴。除了这些薪酬之外，巴克勒家族最终还帮助斯密取得海关部长这个能带来丰厚收入的政府职位。20

    如往常一般，休谟为这位门生铺平了道路，并确保他会在成功之后与老师共享。一七六三年，赫特福德伯爵（Earl of Hertford）招揽休谟担任英国驻巴黎大使馆的秘书，这是一个有利的职位。休谟写信给斯密，表示这项工作邀约“伴随着绝佳的前景与期望”。法国在七年战争败北后陷入经济萧条。尽管如此，休谟的巴黎社交生活还是非常丰富，他几乎连“翻开书”的时间都没有，忙着和其他的知名哲学家往来。斯密在汤森的重金资助下，于一七六四年跟随休谟的脚步前往欧陆。他曾提及他利用这个机会开始“撰写一本小书来打发时间”。一般认为这本书就是《国富论》。21

    在休谟的引见下，斯密认识了法国最有影响力的几位经济思想家，和他们一起讨论当时的一些重要观念。他在日内瓦认识了伏尔泰。而在巴黎，休谟介绍他认识法裔德国无神论哲学家霍尔巴赫男爵保罗─亨利．提利（Paul-Henri Thiry, baron d’Holbach），霍尔巴赫男爵非常欢迎斯密进入他的圈子，魁奈与其他重农主义者也同样乐见他的到来。彼时欧洲菁英的通用语言是法语，有鉴于斯密是当时少数不会说流利法语的知识分子，他在社交上的成功令人十分惊叹。他成为各个重要沙龙的常客，也时常穿上崭新的巴黎服装在歌剧院留下潇洒的身影。这是有史以来第一次，人们可以在欧洲的繁荣城市中找到经济哲学家的社交团体。斯密觉得和重农主义者相处起来最自在，他从这些人手中拿到了许多手稿，以及他们毕生力作的早期版本。魁奈、杜邦．内穆赫和米拉波都向斯密概述了自己的主要论点：土地是国家财富的唯一泉源。与重农主义者相处时，斯密感觉自己找到了智识上的同道。22

    一七六六年，他结束旅行并回到苏格兰，一年后，他因为健康因素不得不搬回克尔卡迪和母亲同住。他正是在此时写下了《国富论》。斯密的谬斯女神就是英国及其殖民帝国，而专制主义的法国站在其对立面，至少在修辞上是如此。斯密的利伯维尔场思想具有鲜明的民族主义和帝国主义色彩。当他谈及利伯维尔场时，他谈的其实是英国及其殖民地。他相信英国是因为君主立宪制与《权利法案》才能获得这些成功，这对于采用不同社会制度与政治体制的各个欧陆国家而言，是不可能实现的。

    以“财富来自农业”的老生常谈为开头，斯密在《国富论》中发展出了属于他自己的重农经济学。斯密同意魁奈的观点，认为农业劳动是一切财富的泉源，而多余的农产品是工业能制造出财富的基础。工业本身不会生产财富，其作用只是广泛发挥多余农产品的价值。对斯密来说，魁奈的《经济表》是“我们这个时代的伟大发现”，原因在于《经济表》展现出农产品是如何喂养商业，带来经济成长与“富饶”。斯密和休谟一样，认为农业不应该被课税，如此一来才能保护农业生产力。他也不认同对工业的投资。在一个健康自然的体系中，即使是非农业的商业与工业利润，都应该要直接回归到农业上，因为“任何同等的资本带来的生产劳动量，都比不过农民所带来的”。斯密研究了经济流动以及经济要如何实现传说中的均衡，但他不了解的是，创造指数成长财富的唯一途径不是把资本投资在农业，而是投资在科技与工业。23

    斯密深切怀疑工业与私营企业是社会的潜在敌人，指责公司和贸易行会不仅导致垄断，更导致工人待遇不佳。《国富论》花了可观的篇幅警告“大公司”和“雇主”会如何侵蚀“工人”的薪资、诚信和劳动力，而“工人”如果直接和“顾客”交易则生产力会更高。斯密认为企业是寄生于社会的中间人，拉低薪资的罪魁祸首。他说，促进工业发展的不是发明家、公司和投资人，而是各个劳工本身。他认为如果劳工能摆脱公司，就会导致薪水整体上涨和社会进步。24

    斯密引用魁奈的话，坚称商人和制造商在经济上是“不结果实的”，他主张：“工匠和制造商付出的劳力，永远都不会使土地原始产品的整体年产量之价值出现任何增加。”商业阶级的成员只有把资本重新投资于农业，才能够“提高社会的收入与财富”。对斯密来说，唯有让农业领域更加富有，才能使商业扩张、工业成长，甚至能使“勤劳的穷人”及其家人的薪水足以供应“有益健康”的饮食、合用的衣物和舒适的居所。基于这些理由，斯密提出，如果社会能赋予农业生产自由，任由地主主导社会，那么此一制度将会创造出一个充满仁慈美德的社会，这个社会中有一只“看不见的手”，把商业带入农业的道德栅栏之内。25

    斯密在他的著作中三度使用“看不见的手”这个比喻：一次在《道德情感论》中、一次在《天文学历史》中，一次在《国富论》中。他每次使用此比喻的方法都相当模棱两可，甚至带有批判意味，这使得历史学家埃玛．罗斯柴尔德（Emma Rothschild）假定他是“讽刺性”地使用这个隐喻。斯密不喜欢“系统能像移动棋子一样移动人类”这样的情况。相对的，他认为人类会在社会中自行移动，而道德可以帮助他们采取对集体有益的举措。然而斯密也认为，若放任商人自行其是的话，他们并不会做出符合道德良知的经济决定。他认定商人很自私，就算有某个商人做了一件好事，那也是因为“有一只看不见的手推动了这个事件，而非出自商人的意图”。这只“看不见的手”就是社会，它会拉着商人远离本能的贪婪，而引导这只手的是我们完全看得见的地主统治菁英，他们藉由精心打造的税收制度来支持重农抑工，让大自然获得自由并为国家创造财富。唯有与农耕密切相关的农民和劳动者不需要社会道德来推他一把；在农业生产中，他们已经依据劳动分工在工作了，这种劳动分工并非来自智识，而是来自一种斯密认为是与生俱来的事物：对效益主义交换行为的“人性倾向”。社会中的领导者必须透过政治支持农业领域，从而创造出经济平衡。斯密表示，透过这种方式，他们得以效法西塞罗式的罗马美德。26

    社会领袖必须确保商人无法控制政治。如果商人控制了政治，他们将会建立垄断，并破坏市场。斯密认为柯尔贝犯的错误是给予商人和企业家太多权力。斯密错认为是商人的影响力导致柯尔贝通过了太多政府法规，更过分的是，柯尔贝甚至因此高估了“城镇工业”又低估了农业。斯密是第一个使用“重商制度”（mercantile system）一词的人，他在此指的是由商人管理并且为商人牟取利益的政府。斯密坚持认为，商人阶级的垄断倾向对市场的道德与自由构成了最大的危险，因此国家必须进行反制。政府角色该做的就是解放大自然，和阻止商人具有破坏性与垄断倾向的行为，让道德的市场把商人拉回到农场这个财富之源。27

    然而，就算在斯密提出了这么多批判之后，他的观点还是与柯尔贝有诸多共通之处，他赞扬柯尔贝的“杰出能力”和“诚实正直”。斯密的学说并不反对如今和柯尔贝以及重商主义连结在一起的经济民族主义，而他在《国富论》中某些章节里的论述简直就像是柯尔贝说的，在他描述如何建立帝国贸易区时尤其如此。斯密解释，看不见的手的部分任务是引导商人去支持“本国”而非“国外工业”，进而产生“最大价值”。他大加称赞一六五一年通过的保护主义性质《航海法》，认为此法规“或许是英格兰所有商业法规中最明智的一项”，因为《航海法》的目的是防止外国商人损害英国贸易，并推动国内与帝国市场的扩张。28

    按照现代的标准来看，斯密所赞扬的英国社会并不是什么自由主义的天堂。十八世纪的贵族对生活在他们土地上的人们仍保有强制性的封建权力。他们控制了法官、警察、民兵、领地中的所有公共生活与大多数私人生活。而国家也并不友善：这是个“强征队”（press gang）四处横行的时代，军队从路上抓走贫穷的男孩与男人，未经同意就征召他们进入海军生涯。一七二三年，英国制定了《血腥法典》（Bloody Code ），列举了两百种可予以判处死刑的罪行，包括偷羊、偷兔子与未经许可砍树。绞刑官的绳索逼近人们眼前，罪犯常常被烙上铁印。斯密并不是鲁索。他不打算改变英国。但他确实希望增加国家财富能带来适度的社会进步。他所谓的进步指的是工人能达到合宜的生活水平，让他们一家人都有足够的食物、象样的居所、温暖的衣物。29

    英国社会的看不见的手，得负责将英国的文明力量带到殖民地，这意谓着要教育殖民地的人口，他们因为距离大都市很遥远，需要花时间才能发展为成熟的商业社会。斯密以美洲为例，说明商人之所以不适合执政，是因为他们在决策过程中只会考虑自身利益。斯密并没有提到是约翰．洛克自己创造出马里兰州的烟草垄断的，只是抱怨商人“出于怪异的荒谬想法”，认为“君主的特质”只不过是贸易与商人利益的“附属品”，一心只想要排除竞争对手。对于先进商业社会尚未完全形成的地方，一个洛克的菁英式开明政府，必须先透过文明的影响力介入，将自然之手引导向适当的位置。斯密写作的时候正值美国独立战争（American War of Independence，一七七五年至一七八三年），虽然他反对美国殖民地脱离大英帝国，但若这件事真的发生了，他希望两国能结成自由贸易联盟。但新生的美利坚合众国做的决定却正好相反，美国在一七八三年对所有外国商品征收关税，以保护正在发展中的脆弱经济。30

    斯密相信社会进步的阶段性，也相信英国的洛克式农业契约社会，所以他热切地支持殖民征服与奴隶制。因大英帝国将会把农业社会带到“猎人与渔民的野蛮国度”，让这些猎人与渔民可以创造出盈余，朝着商业社会的文明化“便利”而进步。此外，斯密也相信更好的法律有可能改善奴隶制度。斯密显然对法国殖民地普遍实施的刑求、强暴和肢解等行为毫不知情，他不知为何认为法国奴隶制度是一种“温和的手段”，使受奴役者更加忠诚、更有生产力，还能增进他们的“智识”，使他们把自己的利益与主人的利益连结在一起，并逐渐进步成为“自由的仆人”。斯密看待自由的观点如同他看待经济：两者都是进步的连续体中的一部分。虽然看不见的手也为奴隶而运作，但先决条件是这些奴隶必须演化到斯密所认定的更高道德程度与社会层次。31
    斯密认为奴隶制度没有根本性问题，忽略了重农主义者其实反对限制人类，他也同样忽视了第一次工业革命的经济潜力，而当时那场革命就在他眼前改变了整个世界。他认识工业蒸气引擎的发明者詹姆士．瓦特（James Watt），还帮助他在格拉斯哥大学找到一个可以当作实验室的地点。然而，没有任何证据显示斯密了解工业化纺织与工厂的真正经济意义，他甚至可能根本不了解瓦特的蒸气引擎具有何种革命性的力量。32
    像瓦特这样的先驱工业发明家很清楚，财富源自于附加价值、创新的制造业与工业，而非源自农业。一七七五年，马修．博尔顿（Matthew Boulton）和瓦特成立了引擎制造公司，到了一七八一年，他们开始在英国中部地区建造大规模工业纺纱厂。这件事发生时，斯密还活得很健康，正在收税。英国经济因为创造力、自然科学、企业创造、工业、煤矿，以及亲工业与亲殖民的政府政策而取得优势。斯密会分别在一七七八年、一七八四年、一七八六年与一七八九年重新编辑并出版《国富论》，他修改了有关斯多噶主义和其他关键主题的段落，但只字未提这些年来发生的科技进步和劳动力改变。他的行为就像是在二○○○年于旧金山写下一本有关经济学的书，却不去提及科技和软件创造财富的能力。无论如何，在历史的另一个伟大而发人深省的反讽中，这位写下了最具影响力的利伯维尔场经济书籍的作者，把他的晚年耗费在重新撰写有关罗马道德与经济自由的历史，以领取高薪的国家官僚身分度过余生。他的身分也就是一名与高层关系良好的税吏。33

    从现代的角度看来，斯密的思想显得很矛盾。他所设想的是一个由道德和交易为基础的市场。这是一种柯尔贝式的思想，希望靠着保护主义与帝国来帮助国内发展，让投资资本留在国内。这也是一种重农主义思想，将农业视为财富的动力。现代经济学家往往把斯密描绘成社会自由意志主义者，但是事实恰恰相反，斯密支持拥有财产的寡头统治一个洛克式的、受限的、代议的政府，且他认为此政府能在特定状况下纠正商人的自私倾向。34
    斯密在促进初生经济科学方面带来很大的帮助。他理解在商业化的制造业社会中，劳动的分工──或者该说是专业产业的合作──的重要性。他体认到政府立法的关键作用在于阻止垄断，藉此保证自由竞争并提高工资。他预见了凯因斯式经济刺激的到来，也就是富人会在经济困难期间消费以维持就业。他也相信某种形式的一般均衡理论，根据此理论，农业劳动、供给和需求、代议制政府与具有道德良知的社会，应该能维持一个运作良好的市场和定价系统，无需太多政府干预，也无需侵犯个人财产和消费者权利。35
    到头来，斯密的核心项目其实是为了新商业时代重新塑造古代道德。一旦地主能摆脱设计不良的税收制度和其他经济“禁令”，自由农业贸易就会继续为英国带来富庶、秩序与仁慈。同时也会带来和平。正如西塞罗曾保证过的，以及斯密在《道德情感论》中解释过的，自由与农业将带来健康的友谊。斯密坚持认为，商业不需要成为敌意与不和谐的来源，而是可以成为个人之间与国家之间“结盟与友谊的纽带”。36
    更重要的是，斯密解决了伊甸园的古老道德问题，正是这个问题促使安博、奥古斯丁和圣方济各推动如此高强度的宗教紧缩与物质撙节。在基督教传统中，人是一种堕落的造物，唯一能使自己进步的方法就是寻求基督的救赎。斯密发现了一个新颖的方法能绕过原罪，也绕过鲁索对人类与公民社会提出的奥古斯丁式、卡尔文主义式悲观看法。亚当和夏娃犯的错是打破了伊甸园的规则。此一行为导致他们遭受驱逐，在堕落的人类世界中成为全人类的祖先。斯密乐观地认为，人类可以藉由斯多噶式道德与优秀的政府，回归到接近世俗农业天堂的状态。只要人类愿意拥抱自然，那么即使是商业行为也可以符合伦理道德，并成为人类世俗进步的一部分。上帝，或者说自然（取决于个人的神学观点，斯密从未清楚透露过他自己的看法），希望人类实现这种地上的富庶与进步。休谟、斯密和其他许许多多启蒙运动中首屈一指的思想家，都把进步视为自然过程的一部分，只待人类的自由、教育、科学、仁慈之情、农业和商业去实现。在斯密的哲学中，人类会自然而然地从进步中受益，且正如伏尔泰说的，人类可以藉此创造“所有可能世界中最好的世界”。37
    在斯密的晚年，他对工业崛起带来的成就与挑战一语未发。马修．博尔顿、詹姆士．瓦特、乔舒亚．玮致活（Josiah Wedgwood）和其他发明家在当时都已经成为极其富有的实业家了，这证明了通往未来财富的路径就是工业。然而，尽管工业为许多人创造了不可估量的财富，同时也为其他人创造出了可怕的工作和生活环境。船只和薪水并没有随着商业社会与市场自由的浪潮一起均衡上涨。从某些方面来说，斯密对工业的担忧成真了。就连瓦特和玮致活也开始意识到，工业污染会对他们的工人、他们自己与所有人的家人造成致命的伤害。
    除此之外，这些庞大的新财富与惊人的经济发展也带来了其他挑战。财富与发展并没有带来和平与农业乌托邦。到了一七七○年代末期与一七八○年代，英国已经成为全球最富有、工业化程度最高的国家，在世界舞台上掌握了最大的帝国权力。然而，英国仍就北美独立与印度洋的殖民统治权继续和法国争斗不休。本应透过“温和商业”达成的世界和平并未成真。尽管如此，斯密留下的遗产就是商业社会能在未来变得充满道德与良善的一份希望，此愿望至今仍是许多经济思想的核心。这种新的世俗市场理想将对维多利亚时代的英国产生巨大的影响。对于一个在贸易、工业和创新方面即将卫冕近八十年、享有超越所有对手之优势的国家来说，“潜在的财富可以任人开采”的利伯维尔场信念是非常有吸引力的。
    令人不可置信的是，英国在世界上的主宰地位竟然把斯密转变成了制造业与公司行号的支持者。最重要的是，英国将会把利伯维尔场思想应用在他们的工业与帝国霸权时代。问题在于，这个由斯密打造了其中一部分的利伯维尔场思想，成为了经济胜利者和“全球代理人”专属的哲学。因此，就算是那些愿意全心接纳利伯维尔场的思想家，也仍在寻找一种方法，使他们的理念适用于那些并非自然而然获得财富的人。

    1. Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom , ed. Bruce Caldwell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 88, 100; Milton Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement, 3rd ed. (New York: Harcourt, 1990), 1–2. 

    2. Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations , ed. Roy Harold Campbell and Andrew Skinner, 2 vols. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), vol. 1, bk. I, chap. vii, para. 12; vol. 2, bk. V, chap. iih, para. 12; vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. viii, para. 49; vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. 9, para. 3; Adam Smith, The Theory of Moral Sentiments , ed. D. D. Raphael and A. L. Macfie (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1984), pt. 6, sec. 2, chap. 2, para. 17. 

    3. Steven Pincus, The Global British Empire to 1784 , unpublished manuscript; Paul Butel, “France, the Antilles, and Europe in the Seventeenth and Eighteenth Centuries: Renewals of Foreign Trade,” in The Rise of Merchant Empires , ed. James D. Tracy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 168–172; T. S. Ashton, An Economic History of England: The Eighteenth Century (London: Methuen, 1955), 104; François Crouzet, “Angleterre et France au XVIIIe siècle: Essaie d’analyse comparé de deux croissances économiques,” Annales. Économies, sociétés, civilisations 21, no. 2 (1966): 254–291, at 268; Ralph Davis, “English Foreign Trade, 1700–1774,” Economic History Review , n. s. , 15, no. 2 (1962): 285–303, at 286; François Crouzet, La guerre économique franco-anglaise au XVIIIe siècle (Paris: Fayard, 2008), 367–370; Paul Cheney, Revolutionary Commerce: Globalization and the French Monarchy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2010), 101; François Crouzet, Britain Ascendant: Comparative Studies in Franco-British Economic History , trans. Martin Thom (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990), 216. 

    4. Dan Edelstein, The Enlightenment: A Genealogy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2010), 9. 

    5. David Hume, An Inquiry Concerning Human Understanding , ed. Charles W. Hendel (Indianapolis: Library of the Liberal Arts, 1955), 1–11, 17; Dario Perinetti, “Hume at La Flèche: Skepticism and the French Connection,” Journal of the History of Philosophy 56, no. 1 (2018): 45–74, at 57–58; Margaret Schabas and Carl Wennerlind, A Philosopher’s Economist: Hume and the Rise of Capitalism (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2020), 33; Pedro Faria, “David Hume, the Académie des Inscriptions, and the Nature of Historical Evidence in the Eighteenth Century,” Modern Intellectual History 18, no. 2 (2020): 288–322. 

    6. Perinetti, “Hume at La Flèche,” 54; Hume, Concerning Human Understanding , 168. 

    7. Hume, Concerning Human Understanding , 172–173; James A. Harris, Hume: An Intellectual Biography (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 97. 

    8. Carl L. Becker, The Heavenly City of the Eighteenth-Century Philosophers (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1932), 85, 102; Anthony Grafton, The Footnote: A Curious History (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1997), 103; David Hume, Selected Essays , ed. Stephen Copley and Andrew Edgar (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), xiii, 56, 58, 61. 

    9. Hume, Selected Essays , 188–189, 193, 194. 

    10. Jesse Norman, Adam Smith: The Father of Economics (New York: Basic Books, 2018), 194. 

    11. Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments , sec. 1, chap. 1, para. 1; sec. 3, chap. 2, para. 9; Adam Smith, “Letter to the Edinburgh Review ,” 1755, in Smith, Essays on Philosophical Subjects , with Dugald Stewart’s “Account of Adam Smith,” ed. W. P. D. Wightman, J. C. Bryce, and I. S. Ross (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1982), 253. 

    12. Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments , pt. 1, sec. 1, chap. 2, para. 5. 

    13. Epictetus, The Discourses, The Handbook, Fragments , ed. J. M. Dent (London: Orion Books, 1995), 42, 44, 58; Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments , pt. 1, chap. 1, para. 5. 

    14. Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments , pt. 3, chap. 5, paras. 6–7; pt. 7, sec. 2, chap. 1, para. 39; Adam Smith, Essays on Philosophical Subjects , ed. W. P. D. Wightman and J. C. Bryce (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1980), 45, 49, 104; Emma Rothschild, “Adam Smith and the Invisible Hand,” American Economic Review 84, no. 2 (1994): 319–322, at 319. 

    15. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 1, bk. IV, chap. iiic, pt. 2, para. 9. 

    16. Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments , sec. 2, chap. 3, para. 1; sec. 5, chap. 2, paras. 10–13; sec. 7, chap. 4, paras. 36–37; Donald Winch, Riches and Poverty: An Intellectual History of Political Economy in Britain, 1750–1834 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 1996), 98–99; Fonna Forman-Barzilai, Adam Smith and the Circles of Sympathy: Cosmopolitanism and Moral Theory (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010), 226. 

    17. Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments , pt. 6, sec. 2, chap. 2, para. 13. 

    18. Nicholas Phillipson, Adam Smith: An Enlightened Life (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2010), 159–166. 

    19. Phillipson, Adam Smith , 166; Geoffrey Holmes and Daniel Szechi, The Age of Oligarchy: Pre-Industrial Britain, 1722–1783 (London: Longman, 1993), 282. 

    20. Phillipson, Adam Smith , 182. 

    21. Harris, Hume , 409–415; Phillipson, Adam Smith , 188. 

    22. Phillipson, Adam Smith , 193. 

    23. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. ix, para. 38; vol. 1, bk. II, chap. v, para. 12. 

    24. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 1, bk. I, chap. viii, paras. 15–22; vol. 1, bk. I, chap. x, paras. 19, 31. 

    25. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. ix, paras. 11–14, vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. ii, para. 9; vol. 1, bk. I, chap. viii, para. 35; vol. 1, bk. IV, chap. ii, para. 9; vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. ix, para. 9; vol. 2, bk. V, chap. iik, para. 7. 

    26. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 1, bk. I, chap. ii, paras. 1–2. 

    27. Emma Rothschild, Economic Sentiments: Adam Smith, Condorcet, and the Enlightenmen t (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 127. 

    28. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 1, bk. IV, chap. ii, para. 38; vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. ix, paras. 1–3; vol. 1, bk. IV, chap. ii, para. 30. 

    29. E. P. Thompson, “Eighteenth-Century English Society: Class Struggle Without Class?,” Social History 3, no. 2 (1978): 133–165, at 135; Frank McLynne, Crime and Punishment in Eighteenth-Century England (London: Routledge, 1989); Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 1, bk. I, chap. xic, para. 7. 

    30. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. viib, para. 20; vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. viic, para. 103. 

    31. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 1, “Introduction and Plan of the Work,” para. 4; vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. viib, para. 54. 

    32. John Rae, Life of Adam Smith: 1895 , ed. Jacob Viner (New York: Augustus M. Kelley Publishers, 1977), 71–72. 

    33. Rothschild, Economic Sentiments , 133; Dugald Stewart, Account of the Life and Writings of Adam Smith , in Works, ed. Dugald Stewart, 7 vols. (Cambridge, MA: Hilliard and Brown, 1829), 7:1–75, at 67. 

    34. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 1, bk. III, chap. iv, para. 20. 

    35. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 2, bk. IV, chap. ii, paras. 10–20. 

    36. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 1, bk. IV, chap. iiic, paras. 9, 13. 

    37. Rothschild, Economic Sentiments , 133–136; Voltaire, Candide , ed. Philip Littell (New York: Boni and Liveright, 1918), 168; Jacob Soll, The Reckoning: Financial Accountability and the Rise and Fall of Nations (New York: Basic Books, 2014), 129–130. 

    第十四章 利伯维尔场帝国

    你们认为保护政策如何能增加一个国家的财富？你们能否透过立法使国家的财富增加任何一文？你们或许可以透过立法，在一夜之间摧毁一世纪的劳动带来的成果和累积；但在我看来，你们不可能透过本院的立法，为国家财富增加任何一文。财富来自勤奋与智慧，你们无法找到比任其自行发展更好的方法。 ──理查德·科布登（Richard Cobden），《下议院演讲》（Speech to the House of Commons ），一八四六年

    十九世纪，利伯维尔场思想出现了根本性的变化。自由思想运动中最有影响力的部分都集中在英国及其工业。利伯维尔场理论家认为，如果政府取消了针对制造业的关税和管制，国家将会兴盛起来。这种方法将提高生活水平，创造一个以制造业与消费主义为基础的市场均衡。但工业时代的经济理论家面临着一个由来已久的问题：国家始终在维持市场均衡方面发挥着重要作用。

    亚当斯密是十八世纪末与十九世纪初最重要的市场思想家，他的思想继承者是杰里米．边沁（Jeremy Bentham）、托马斯．马尔萨斯（Thomas Malthus）和戴维．李嘉图。这三位学者都在和一个能够自我延续且创造财富的市场概念搏斗，一方面将这个构想建立在斯密对劳动与价值的愿景上，一方面寻求修正、甚至驳斥斯密的许多观点。同时，他们也试图针对道德与经济设计出自己版本的斯密式“宏大动力学”。但那个时代的政治情绪已经出现了变化，追随斯密哲学的人很难继续维持斯密的乐观态度，认为市场能带来幸福的结果。1
    边沁是英国法学家与改革家，也是效益主义哲学的创始人，他或许是斯密的思想继承者之中最乐观的一个，他认为人类的情感推动着经济活动，尽可能为最多人带来幸福。边沁采用了希腊伊比鸠鲁哲学的信念，即追求幸福是一种有道德的善意行为。根据边沁的“幸福计算法”（felicific calculus）概念，人类会依据在他们制造的快乐和痛苦之间达成的平衡，来选择他们的行为。边沁的《道德与立法原理》（Principles of Morals and Legislation ，一七八一年）解释了快乐与痛苦的感觉决定了哪些事物对社会来说最有用。在边沁的理想世界中，一个人愈富有，财富增加为这个人带来的快乐就愈少，这使得人们变得愈发重视更高的智识成就与社会进步所带来的快乐。根据他的计算，获得财富带来的乐趣消减时，便会自然而然地抑制贪婪，因此财富创造者会追求把钱投资回小区所带来的道德回报。2
    边沁认为，个人的欲望和自由会驱动经济，并带来经济与社会这两方面的进步。他是个人自由最早的倡导者之一，也捍卫女性权利、同性恋自由与非常规性别。然而，他的幸福计算法有时会需要政府进行修补，才能保持经济平稳运行。边沁坚信，当这个由快乐与痛苦所驱动的市场没能导致好的结果时，政府就必须进行干预。举例来说，政府应该要透过改革监狱、改善公立学校和禁止移民来促进社会大众的福祉和幸福。此外，政府也应该资助有生产力的移民工作者、依据需要扩建城市，并确保医疗服务的供给。3

    并不是所有人都用边沁这种相对乐观的视角看待市场。随着法国大革命转为暴力行动，和紧接而来的全球拿破仑战争（Napoleonic Wars），有些经济思想家对于利伯维尔场带来幸福结局的能力表示悲观。不苟言笑但才华洋溢的剑桥大学教师托马斯．马尔萨斯与重农主义者以及斯密相反，马尔萨斯相信市场的力量，同时也警告其危险性。马尔萨斯是圣公会的神职人员，他眼中的人类因为原罪而具有缺陷，因此他拒绝接纳启蒙主义所相信的人类进步的自然系统，也拒绝接纳所谓由个人选择的美德。他虽然同意其他经济学家的观点，认为人类的欲望推动了市场体制，但并不认为这种推动是一种进步。对马尔萨斯来说，欲望推动着市场，也将会摧毁这个世界。他不像斯密一样认为劳动者可望成为得体之士，而将劳动者视为一群饥饿且无望的恐怖存在，只会受到性欲这类动物本能的驱使。他早期的著作采用了斯密对于自我延续系统的构想，但赋予这个系统一个崭新的、更具威吓性的描述：人类是原始的罪人，与生俱来的欲望致使人类以破坏平衡的方式繁衍。过剩的人口最终会耗尽地球上的所有富饶资源，人类会脱离自然的均衡机制，自己将自己消灭。

    马尔萨斯的人口过剩理论是建立在旧的重农主义和较近期的斯密经济概念之上，即所有财富都来自农业，且市场是由情绪驱动的，但马尔萨斯同时也拒绝了他们的另一个观点：财富可以为人类创造出恒久的富裕生活与仁慈之情。马尔萨斯相信的是财富的增加将会引发一种指数型成长的人口爆炸，这种“成长速率”很快就会使人口超越地球资源能承载的数量。在《国富论》中，斯密亦提出了类似的主张，他说：“每种动物都会自然按照其生存条件成比例地繁殖。”虽然斯密认为增加财富会为贫困的工人带来更好的生活条件──例如更好的衣物与食物──但同时他也担心他们的生育率。身为单身学者的斯密指出：“住在苏格兰高地（Highland）且时常吃不饱的女人往往会生养二十多个孩子，而娇生惯养的高雅淑女则经常连一个孩子都无法生养。”4

    斯密当然不是生育议题的专家，而马尔萨斯对于工业经济中更大人口规模的生产潜力所知甚少。尽管如此，马尔萨斯仍旧附和了斯密对于穷人生育能力的担忧，他认为济贫法和慈善事业对“稍微减轻个体的不幸程度”毫无用处。马尔萨斯预见了维多利亚时代工人阶级会遇到的骇人苦难，但他完全忽视了创新与工业提高生活水平的可能性，他预测城市的大量贫穷人口将受到疾病与苦难的折磨。致命的流行病将会导致饥荒，饥荒是“自然界最可怕的终极资源”，唯有这种最终的、令人不忍卒睹的市场转折，能够淘汰与削减人口，并予以控制。就像重农主义的意大利批评者加利亚尼一样，马尔萨斯警告社会大众大自然是残酷的。他抨击斯密对“人类的可完美性”与善良本性的信念，并反驳道，在这个充满不确定的残酷世界中，只有基督教的信仰才能带来救赎的希望。到了晚年，他开始相信世俗法规可能在抑制人类冲动方面发挥作用，并认为政府实施的人口限制能增加经济与社会的稳定性。5

    在斯密的早期追随者中最具影响力的戴维．李嘉图呼应了斯密对自我调节之自然市场系统的信念。他和斯密一样，认为农业是所有财富的基础。虽然利伯维尔场理论者的背景非常广泛，从天主教徒到新教徒、从自然神论者到无神论者皆有之，李嘉图是第一位较著名的犹太血统利伯维尔场经济学家。不过他后来弃绝了犹太教，在一七九三年，他于二十一岁时与一名贵格教徒结婚，归信了一位论（Unitarian）的基督自然神论教派。这让他与斯密的信念又更近了一步。他很早就对利伯维尔场思想产生了兴趣，并与边沁和马尔萨斯有书信往来。李嘉图设计了一场操纵主权债券市场的诈欺骗局，并因此致富。那是在一八一五年，他收到了可靠的信息指出拿破仑即将输掉百日统治（Hundred Days）的最后一场战争，于是李嘉图散播了相反的谣言──拿破仑快打赢了──导致许多英国的债券持有人开始抛售。他在债务市场崩盘时买下了所有债券，等到英国最终战胜了拿破仑后，他靠着那些因谣言卖掉债券的倒霉投资人大赚了一笔。

    他在发家致富后确立了自己的乡绅地位，并继续撰写经济哲学相关著作，主要着眼于如何提高农业生产力。他成了盖特科姆公园（Gatcombe Park）的拥有者、格洛斯特夏郡（Gloucestershire）的高级治安官，并当选为国会议员。身在地主和贵族的地位上，他矛盾地为了降低农产品价格而和地主利益相对抗，认为这么做能为最多的人争取到最大的利益。

    十九世纪初，李嘉图形塑与捍卫着斯密遗留下来的建树，坚持认为财富来自农业。不过他跟斯密不同的地方在于，他认为财富是有限的。在《论政治经济与赋税原则》（On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation ，一八○九年）一书中，他发展出了地租法则（Law of Rent），此法则的基础概念是土壤的肥沃决定了劳动的价值。他认为定价与薪水会随着土地的生产能力而起伏，而需求不会带来任何影响。李嘉图在马尔萨斯的影响下，发展出了工资铁律（Iron Law of Wages），根据该定律的描述，穷人的收入总是会持续下降到可维生的最低水平。一旦农场工人得到报酬，他们就会生下更多孩子，这只会使他们变得更加贫困，抵销任何工资增长。唯一能够大幅提升工资的方式就是解放国际谷物市场以创造竞争，如此一来，英国的土地拥有者就会投资农场，推高生产率与工资，也可能一并提高生活水平。然而，李嘉图警告如果土地拥有者是靠着固定的总资本来支付工人高薪，他们以后就没有钱重新投资农场了，这将会再次压低工资。6

    若说李嘉图对薪资的态度是悲观的，那么他在另一方面则乐观地认为，对于在经济方面占主导地位的英国来说，自由贸易能够压低价格、创造更多商业并提高生活水平。考虑到英国在世界经济中的主导地位，李嘉图说的没错：英国将会在开放的经济竞争中获胜。另外，他也提倡比较优势（comparative advantage）这个较古老的观念，这是一种劳动分工，指的是每个国家都要生产和销售另一个国家未生产和销售的事物，藉此提高国家生产力、拓展市场，或许还能改善生活条件。在李嘉图看来，自由全球贸易会使世界更加富裕，每个受到允许的人都能从中受益。7

    斯密和李嘉图提出的例子之中，都包含了英葡贸易和一七○三年的梅休因条约（Methuen Treaty），尽管英国与葡萄牙的经济能力不同，双方都因为此条约受益。斯密认为，就算贸易对于其中一国来说比较有利，另一国则否，这样的贸易仍会因为竞争加剧而导致社会推动潜在的财富创造。在斯密和李嘉图的思想中，若英葡两国能完全开放市场，能够帮助葡萄牙的葡萄酒业（绝大部分都是由英国港口的制造商所有）和英国的布料产业，当然也会对两国的整体经济有帮助。然而，他们的说法听起来头头是道，做起来却不是那么一回事。大量较便宜、质量较高的英国商品涌进了葡萄牙，使葡萄牙的经济陷入挣扎，这种状况下，葡萄牙是不可能将国内工业发展到足以和英国竞争的。如今人们普遍认为，这种不对称的交易必定会使英国获得竞争优势，同时严重破坏葡萄牙的工业发展。无论如何，李嘉图都是为了英国与其持续的经济优势地位而建立这套经济理论的。8

    到了十九世纪初，英国无庸置疑成为了世界工厂──在工业与殖民方面首屈一指的国家。同时英国也是谷物的主要生产国。李嘉图身为议员的伟大计划就是支持自由贸易。他支持废除谷物法，也就是一八一五年拿破仑战争结束时设立的保护主义谷类关税，当时设立关税的目的是保护英国地主不受定价更便宜的外国谷物影响。­李嘉图借鉴了斯密对于自由贸易自我调节本质的牛顿式信念，主张土地拥有者只不过是利用关税来创造国家对谷物的垄断，并推高价格。尽管李嘉图没来得及亲眼目睹，但后来在实业家理查德．科布登的带领之下，反谷物法联盟（Anti-Corn Law League）的自由放任提倡者施加压力，使英国的谷物法于一八四六年遭到废除，科布登是来自制造业中心──曼彻斯特的企业家与国会议员，他代表了历史学家称作“自由贸易国度”的英国时代之起始。9

    谷物法的终结不仅是自由英国的开始，更标志了利伯维尔场政治神话的开端。在“普遍适用市场法则”的这面大旗之下，人们在推动自由贸易的过程中牺牲了英国的农业菁英阶层──斯密非常珍惜的一群人──并藉此使制造业获益，这些制造业者需要更便宜的外国谷物，才能压低工人的面包价格。自由派的亲制造业辉格党以利伯维尔场思想及其令人向往的特质作为中心，成功建立了一套经济叙事。辉格党政治家大声赞扬反谷物法联盟的成功，视为普通人赢过了贪腐与贵族的一场胜利。然而，这场成功也代表了维多利亚社会的秩序与财富正在兴起。10

    即使在世界市场占据了主导地位，英国仍必须面对贫困与财富不均的棘手问题。正如马尔萨斯所警告的那样，任由市场自生自灭是无法解决这些问题的。经济与政治哲学家约翰．史都华．弥尔（John Stuart Mill）认为，自由贸易是一把双面刃，我们在欢庆自由贸易的自由面时，也必须承认它并没有为穷人带来更好的生活水平。从许多方面来说，弥尔都是最能代表十九世纪早期利伯维尔场思想内部矛盾的思想家──他相信利伯维尔场的生产能力，同时也承认国家需要为了打造出更公正的经济系统而进行社会改革，并在两者间达到平衡。

    弥尔出生于一八○六年，由他的父亲扶养长大，他的父亲是边沁效益主义教义的追随者，而弥尔则在长大后成为了政治经济学家。这里又出现了另一个充满讽刺意味的经济史片段，伟大的自由思想家弥尔曾为国家垄断的东印度公司工作，直到公司私有化，而他遭到解雇，且在这之后他也从没有停止过为这间公司和帝国主义辩护。弥尔追随斯密的理论，他相信利伯维尔场会带来财富与社会进步。在他的设想中，国际贸易的运作方式就是一套自我调节的系统，能够压低英国的价格，并推高生产量、资本财富与发展。这个系统会产出“多余”的商品，再加上低价的进口商品，必定会改善社会与经济条件。弥尔写道：“自由放任主义”应该成为“普遍做法”；那些背离自由放任主义的行为都是“某种邪恶之举”。11

    然而，弥尔也在斯密的进步系统与李嘉图对市场的信心之上加了一道警示。弥尔避开了斯密对于自然神论、创造财富的“宇宙监督者”的信仰，他转而将信仰寄托在西塞罗式与洛克式的民主政治上。最好的政府不会出现在寡头之中，而是会出现在普通公民中，这些公民受过义务教育，将会成为具有道德良知的立法者。弥尔接受了马尔萨斯的主张，认为经济虽然能够机械式地运作，但终究有其自然极限，并不是所有人都能因此繁荣。弥尔相信工人和投资资本家能共同创造价值，但他也预言了工业会出现边际效用的递减，坚称制成品数量的增加会压低价格和平均工资，最后就会如同马尔萨斯所预测的那样，导致“劳动报酬”降低。12

    弥尔和斯密同样天真地认为存在一个市场上限，当富有的人累积到了足够的钱财，他们就会满足。一旦上层阶级的生活水平够高了，他们就会放弃赚钱，自然而然地转向休闲活动和追求学问。这将导致一种经济的“恒定状态”，能够产出规则且持续的财富流。到了这个时候，国家就必须实施“社会主义”改革，帮助那些陷入马尔萨斯工资陷阱的穷人与“劳动者”。13

    弥尔还认为，资本拥有者、劳动者及其工会之间的竞争有助于改善社会。理想上来说，国家应该帮助劳动者取得财产，使他们摆脱贫困，进入一个道德的、效益主义的拥有和竞争的状态。弥尔混合了洛克对财产的信念、斯密的自然神论乐观主义、边沁的效益主义和马尔萨斯的奥古斯丁式悲观，抵达了社会民主主义的大门之前。14

    弥尔在一八六九年写下了《论社会主义诸篇》（Chapters on Socialism ），距离查尔斯．达尔文出版《物种起源》（The Origin of Species ，一八五九年）正好十年。达尔文透过商业的视角思考生物学，他的演化理论将会对利伯维尔场思想留下深远影响。根据他的理论，演化看起来就像是把斯密的理想主义进步观点结合马尔萨斯认为自然会剔除弱者的想法，形成了某种积极的、超出道德范畴的演化方式。虽然达尔文在《人类的由来及性选择》（The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex ，一八七一年）引用了马尔萨斯“令人永远难忘”的著作，但达尔文与马尔萨斯的基督教道德观完全切割。达尔文不再受《旧约圣经》的创世纪故事所限制，他眼中的大自然只会按照自然本身的无情逻辑运作。在自然选择（natural selection，又称天择或物竞天择）中，既没有高尚的西塞罗观点，也没有基督教伦理的存在，只有适者才能生存与繁衍。15

    达尔文的自然选择论为同一时代的卡尔．马克思提供了哲学参考数据，马克思是名德国记者，也是革命性的共产经济的发明者。马克思研究了斯密和李嘉图的“古典经济学”，他认为斯密的多数想法都是错的，却也认同斯密的地租论在理论上来说有部分是正确的。虽然马克思是无神论者，但他同意斯密认为经济学可以发展成自我延续的系统之观点。不过，马克思也延续了马尔萨斯的想法，认为市场会向消极的方向前进。马克思指责道，斯密简直是在历史的真空中形塑了有关劳动分工与资本的理论，且他竟然还认为是仁慈的自然上帝推动了人类进步和经济，这根本就是一套“幼稚的错误观念”。斯密认为资本是存在于大自然中的“自然”要素，甚至连弥尔也认为劳工阶级的贫困是市场机制与生俱来的特质，而马克思则认为所有这些经济现象，其实是社会权力不平等所带来的历史产物。按照马克思的看法，资本拥有者会使用股票、劳动分工和机械等工具，去窃取劳工阶级的剩余劳动量。市场机制不会创造出财富，这个系统单纯只是资产阶级为了欺骗无产阶级而设置的。马克思认为，当面对这种权力差异，弥尔的社会改革理论一无是处。想要改变市场与历史的轨迹只有一个方法，那就是无产阶级革命。16

    马克思不是唯一一个抨击资本主义与利伯维尔场的人。外国的批评者逐一出现，他们认为英国的利伯维尔场政策是为了进一步增加自己的竞争优势，并破坏国际竞争。十九世纪末成长得最快的那些国家──美国、普鲁士和日本──都拒绝接受全面的利伯维尔场做法，他们转而采用来自十七世纪英国与柯尔贝主义发展策略。美国的第一位财政部长是亚历山大．哈密尔顿（Alexander Hamilton），他制定的经济政策十分接近柯尔贝的市场建构模型；美国将会在之后的一个多世纪按照此路线前进，不断抵制自由放任经济，直到一九三○年代为止。这个新兴的商业共和国接纳的政策，与李嘉图所说的竞争优势与自由贸易彻底相反。美国经济的基础是保护主义、增加国内回报，仰赖着移民、奴隶制度与国家引导的进步，美国的状况完全颠覆了英国的自由放任主义法则。17

    哈密尔顿十分钦佩柯尔贝成功把处处都是乡村的法国转变成一个拥有集中税收、统一度量衡和国家补贴交通道路的工业强权。他写道，法国如今发展繁荣，从农业转移到了制造业，这都是因为“伟大的柯尔贝所具有的能力与他坚持不懈的努力”。哈密尔顿的个性大胆，甚至有些鲁莽，他是一位精明干练的政府管理者，对美国这个年轻国家怀抱着清晰的经济愿景。他认为，如果美国向极度发达的法国和英国开放市场，将会被廉价货品给淹没，导致国内的制造业基础就此崩塌。执行自由放任主义是绝对不可能的，因为美国的巨额债务与力乏兵衰的海军，将他们置于一个脆弱的位置。相反地，这个新国家必须像十七世纪初的英国一样，引导相对原始的经济逐步发展。18

    哈密尔顿坚信，共和体制必须由强大的政府来建立。他认为国家应该要由多位握有重权的首长来管理，“就像法国的那些首长一样”──正如他后来在《联邦党人文集》（Federalist Papers ）第三十五篇中坚持的──这些人应该各自专精不同的领域，像是金融。一七九一年，哈密尔顿在“致国会之制造业报告”（Report to the Congress on the Subject of Manufactures）中坚称，处于起步阶段的国家政府必须把焦点放在发展工业上，而非农业。虽然农业是生活中不可或缺的，但农业其实不如重农主义者、休谟和斯密所说的是创造财富的基础。事实上，哈密尔顿深深认为这个概念必须在公众面前接受挑战，并由此明确声明，真正使得英国获得“大幅进步”的是工业的“棉花纺织厂”，而不是农耕。19

    哈密尔顿依循柯尔贝的观点，认为政府必须保护国家市场，吸引有才能的人透过移民来到国内打造初创产业。且政府还要为投资人提供“诱因”。作为一个自给自足的信奉者，哈密尔顿得出结论，由于美国独立战争期间在“自我供给”的方面“极度难堪”，所以美国在开放市场之前必须先“促进制造业”。

    美国在亨利．克莱（Henry Clay）的支持与保护下，依循着这套初创的工业发展模式。克莱是强大的参议员暨国务卿，他的“美国体制”（American System）推动了关税、国家商业银行与产业补贴。克莱抨击自由贸易理论是一种“英国殖民主义”，主张只要保护美国不受英国侵害，这个初创的共和国就会繁荣发展。美国的出口从一七九○年的两千万美元，成长至一八○七年的一亿八百万美元，而美国就这样持续朝着贸易盈余的方向发展，直至一八七○年。20

    德国经济学家佛瑞德里克．李斯特（Friedrich List）也将会从哈密尔顿和克莱提出的美国体制中获得灵感。李斯特在一八二五年移居宾州，因为美国内部受到外部关税保护的自由贸易区而获得启发，主张要建立德国关税同盟（Zollverein ），将德国各州都纳入经济同盟的各个方面。李斯特在《政治经济学的国家体系》（National System of Political Economy ，一八二七年）中，解释了德国各州之间为何需要贸易条约来支持德国国内工业。关税将会在他们遇到国外竞争力时保护他们，如此一来，德国才能顺利发展，养成国际竞争力。李斯特的想法在法国也很受欢迎。这些观点反映了内部自由贸易的有效性，并且可以由内部关税同盟来促进，此外，策略性保护主义可以刺激德国在面对英国工业巨头时蓬勃发展。

    美国的自由贸易辩护者往往都是农业奴隶主，例如美国第七任副总统约翰．卡尔洪（John Calhoun），他希望能找到更简便的方法来出口棉花。但棉花和奴隶制不是美国的未来。李斯特就像哈密尔顿一样，提倡的是工业而非农业，斥责奴隶制度是一场“公共灾难”，表现出一个国家的软弱。李斯特确信，能够创造财富的只有工业发展策略，而不是残酷的农业自由贸易。德国终究采用了李斯特的国家发展模式与传统的柯尔贝方法，到了十九世纪的最后数十年，美国与德国的经济发展都超过了英国。当时就和现在一样，当我们的竞争对手、身为经济主导者的国家采取的是自由放任政策时，最成功的回应就是以谨慎的方法建立市场。

    然而，这些针对自由贸易的批判，和反制自由贸易的模式，并没有浇熄十九世纪的英国自由主义经济思想家心中的如火热情。凭借着经济与帝国获得了极高的竞争优势，英国和国内的利伯维尔场思想家觉得自己全然不受国际竞争影响。反谷物法联盟的建立者理查德．科布登领导了支持自由贸易主义的曼彻斯特学派（Manchester School）。然而，科布登接纳了工业，也接纳了制造业财富与市场自由之间的关系，藉此转变了自由贸易的概念。虽然他们仍然非常重视“自由贸易是能够反映出自然的一面镜子”这个概念，但是自由贸易支持者必须选出一个经济赢家，在工业化的英国，这个赢家显然是制造业。21

    科布登也提出了一个古老的利伯维尔场议题，也就是支持“自由贸易是结束战争的关键”的观点。科布登是充满热忱的和平主义者、废奴主义者、女权的信奉者，也是认为帝国主义必须付出代价的批评者（他希望国家把资金花在国内），他依循斯密的观点，坚信自由贸易将会带来和平，造福工人与全体人类。一八四三年，他在柯芬园（Covent Garden）的一次演讲中，把废除谷物关税描述得像是一场宗教圣战：“我们相信商业自由将会发展出智识与道德的自由， “他高声疾呼，“教导不同阶级互相依靠彼此，在兄弟情谊中彼此团结。”科布登抨击奴隶制是不道德的，并呼吁众人抵制巴西产的糖。一八四九年，他更进一步地声称自由贸易将会带来国与国之间的和平、减轻殖民地的国防需求；科布登不但通过了自由贸易法，还力劝其他国家解除武装。值得注意的是，科布登的和平主义愿景有时并不会延伸到受殖民的人身上。出于互惠互利的想法，他认为殖民主义应该要维持和平与价格低廉。然而，他同时也认为殖民主义者应该要保留警察权力，以便在必要时镇压当地的“野蛮部落”。22

    尽管如此，在科布登的脉络中，他的自由主义是基进的自由主义。对他来说，自由贸易代表的是和平主义、政治自由、一定程度的容忍与社会进步。此外，自由贸易也代表了新闻自由，以及另一件几乎难以想象的事：与法国建立友谊。他坚持人们有必要“相信其他国家具有荣誉与诚信”，他很确定各国只要透过自由贸易结成经济体，就能带来世界和平。他说服了英国政府与法国皇帝拿破仑三世在一八六○年同意具有重大历史意义的“科布登─谢瓦利埃条约”（Cobden-Chevalier Treaty），此条约从各种层面上实现了柯尔贝的自由贸易梦想，也为这两个彼此为敌许久的国家带来了和平。随着制造货品的关税下降至百分之三十，英国出口至法国的货品量变成了两倍，法国的葡萄酒出口也变成了两倍。在过去两个多世纪以来，利伯维尔场思想背后的引擎，一直以来都是人们对于这种难以捉摸之和平的追求。可惜的是，这种局面只持续了三十二年。法国注意到英国的竞争力正在损害法国工业与制造业的工作机会，于是法国在一八九二年开始对英国商品征收“默林关税”（Méline Tariff），藉此减轻损失。尽管如此，“科布登─谢瓦利埃条约”还是开启了崭新的自由贸易条约的欧洲网络，最终建立了较先进的自由贸易区，而今存于欧盟内部。23

    至于英国，对自由贸易和帝国的信任却占了上风。英国经济思想家开始把利伯维尔场经济理论和宗教连结起来，利用宗教复兴的精神打造出一场强大而独特的民族运动。斯密对于自然神的旧式信仰如今已经被福音派基督教所取代。英国的福音派关注的不是斯多噶道德观，他们相信只要有信仰和自由贸易，就能透过“经济、节俭、专业技能、金融道德”解放上帝的天然能量，使社会进步。24

    这场福音教派的利伯维尔场运动充满了阳光与乐观，和维多利亚时代的英国劳工生活现实形成了强烈对比。虽然工业化提高了英格兰的生活水平，但正如小说家暨社会改革者查尔斯．狄更斯观察到的，这绝不代表英国经济已经自由且公平了，也不代表一个人只要付出努力就能改善经济状况。工业中的悲惨事件、童工、低工资、粗劣的生活环境、工会活动与工人阶级的愤怒，全都助长了社会主义和共产主义。维多利亚时代的英国人显然没有达到斯密和科布登的道德标准。因此，自由贸易辩论在讨论的，不只是经济学家与政治家之间的问题，而是还会受到工会成员、宪章派工人协会和反工业卢尔德分子的攻击。工人阶级的困境也引起了某些英国自由主义者的悲观情绪，其中包括了隶属《经济学人》（The Economist ）且具有强大影响力的记者暨编辑华特．白芝浩（Walter Bagehot）。英国工党在一九○○年形成的动力，正是在社会经济方面对自由放任主义的不满。

    尽管利伯维尔场政策是有些缺点的，但英国的利伯维尔场思想者仍继续拥抱着政治经济自由主义，把焦点放在低税率、有限政府、自助与个人自由。属于一位论派的基督教经济学家威廉．史坦利．杰文斯既不承认美国、德国与日本获得了柯尔贝式的成功，也不曾因为劳工阶级承受的苦难而减损他对利伯维尔场的正统信仰。杰文斯遵循他那个时代的科学方法，坚持使用数学来分析经济。在他的著作《政治经济学》（Political Economy ，一八七一年）中，他呼应了边沁的理论，也就是所有人类的行为都来自“快乐与痛苦”的“泉源”，但要用“定量方法”来理解与整理“个人数据”。其中完全不牵涉到西塞罗式的高尚道德哲学。杰文斯坚称，这种由数据驱动的经济学比较像是硬自然科学，并说它类似地质学。他坚持经济学是简单直白的学问：学习经济学时，不需要像李嘉图和弥尔使用的文学阐述技巧，需要的应该是有效率的数学研究方法和图表──例如“财富”和“人类效用”的量化。25

    杰文斯使用定量方法抨击斯密和李嘉图的劳动价值方法。他认为，一件事物的“价值完全取决于效用”，而不取决于它在农场劳动中的价值。杰文斯接受了边沁的快乐原则，并将其变成了消费者效用原则。在他看来，只要能尽可能用最低的价格、最轻松的方法买到东西，就能把幸福感最大化。这套逻辑引导他发展出了边际效用理论（marginal utility）。如果今天有一件物品很便宜，人们就会想买，因为这是一笔划算的交易。但是，一旦这个物品的价格达到了实际的市场价值，购买的人就会变少，这是因为交易的利润会突然变得较小。如果有某个物品的价格高于市场价值，利润就会再次改变，购买这个物品带来的快乐与效用会开始消失。根据杰文斯的说法，欲望、效用、可得性和数量之间的关系全都会推动价格。杰文斯的这一切理论都是根据数学原理推断的，他藉此推翻了劳动价值理论，协助推动了经济学的革命性剧变。26

    尽管杰文斯的效益主义理论也具有达尔文主义的元素，但他同时也相信改良主义的社会。举例来说，他支持工会，也相信他们能够透过与业主协商，来表达劳工的需求，并改善工作环境条件与工资，甚至加强科技与工作的效率。他认为工业合作是财富与道德经济的关键，并指出工业合作将能使“劳动与资本彼此协调”，藉此“补救”不平等带来的“邪恶”。杰文斯比马尔萨斯和弥尔更乐观，他确信工业与劳工的合作能让资本家自由地支付公平的薪资，而劳工将会因为卓越的表现获得“奖励”。在斯密提出“公正旁观者”的角色时，杰文斯则设想了资本家与劳工阶级之间可以有一个正式的“调解人”，调解人会帮助双方理解他们的共同利益，并了解到要如何从“自愿协议”中获利。比起单纯反映市场，他认为协商更能帮助资本家计算出要怎么做才能和劳工共享最佳利润。想当然耳，杰文斯的模式在维多利亚时代的英国只取得了有限的成功，当时英国的劳工阶级生活条件正日益恶化。许多人渐渐开始相信，只有新的基进政治运动才能充分代表劳工阶级的利益。27
    杰文斯将他对于理性与永续管理的信念，延伸到煤炭等自然货品的节约使用上，原因在于他预测这些自然货品将会因为经济成长与需求而耗尽。28 在面对马尔萨斯对于过度消耗与成长限制所提出的观点时，他表示解决方法是良好的管理与坚定的信念，也就是相信人类有能力合作处理公平薪资、自我规范与替代能源等基本议题。因此，杰文斯认为工业与社会必定会持续适应环境，譬如寻找新的能源就是一例。他认为市场并不是所有人都能为所欲为，他相信的是效益主义式的合作。然而，杰文斯对于政府的复杂性与能源政治的利害关系还没有深入的理解。当时的市场就像现在一样，能源并不是唾手可得的。欧洲列强与美国开始争抢煤炭与油田，各国政府仍在帮助各大公司争夺广大偏远地区的自然资源，从德法打了三场战争来抢夺的煤炭产区阿尔萨斯─洛林（Alsace-Lorraine），一直到坐拥大片油田、位于前俄罗斯帝国的阿塞拜疆巴库（Baku）。29

    值得注意的是，就在实施保护主义的经济大国：美国、德国和日本在经济成长方面赶上了英国时，剑桥大学哲学家阿尔弗雷德．马歇尔（Alfred Marshall）则在继续挥舞着教条式的自由贸易旗帜。就好像剑桥与世隔绝一样。马歇尔的《经济学原理》（Principles of Economics ，一八九○年）取代了弥尔的《论政治经济与赋税原则》，成为英国最重要的经济学教科书，马歇尔也成为了剑桥大学最举足轻重的经济思想家。他不但继续发展杰文斯提出的边际效用等概念，也提出了新的构想，诸如价格弹性、需求与定价的关系，以及部分均衡理论，这些构想对往后的经济学思想来说至关重要。他深入研究单一市场（例如羊毛）的供需流动，针对特定经济领域的运作提出细部分析，而不是提出他对整体经济的综合看法。马歇尔认为供需的运作就像机械一样，能创造出经济活动的“连续链”，他指出正是这具机械决定了价格。这具机械能为市场带来“均衡”，使市场能够靠自身运作，创造恒定的回报。30
    马歇尔和斯密一样，是一名道德哲学教授。虽然他把焦点放在总量与边际效用价值等，但他仍在大自然中寻求经济“法则”，他认为这套法则能使得经济学变得类似于天文学等自然科学。因此，马歇尔盼望能靠着与天文学和物理学的模拟，去理解斯密所说的普遍驱动经济系统。他希望经济学的“个别学生”能够变得有资格“使用他的科学权威发话”。对马歇尔来说，在理解创造财富与经济活动时，必须结合工业生产价格、数量、效率，以及“需求层次”和竞争一起理解，这些要素彼此连结在一起后才创造出了成长。31
    尽管马歇尔对于一直持续存在着的贫困感到有些不知所措，但他相信，只要靠着市场就能解决经济问题，工资终究会上涨，生活水平终究会提高。他没注意到的是，他这具巨大的经济机械已经快解体了。他在一九二四年逝世，五年后发生了一九二九年的华尔街大崩盘，美国开始步入经济大萧条。马歇尔不断寻找新的市场机制，而从没想过市场会崩盘。有一些二十世纪利伯维尔场思想家一心追随马歇尔的思想──他们就像《白鲸记》中的船长亚哈（Captain Ahab）一样，站在对市场的固定立场，愈来愈执着于传统观念：市场会自行运作，政府对经济事务几乎没有影响。

    1. William J. Baumol, Economic Dynamics: An Introduction (New York: Macmillan, 1951); D. M. Nachane, “In the Tradition of ‘Magnificent Dynamics,’ ” Economic and Political Weekly , June 9, 2007. 

    2. Jeremy Bentham, The Principles of Morals and Legislation (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1988), 1–3, 29, 40. 

    3. Jeremy Bentham, “Bentham on Population and Government,”Population and Development Review 21, no. 2 (1995): 399–404. 

    4. Thomas Malthus, An Essay on the Principle of Population and Other Writings , ed. Robert J. Mayhew (London: Penguin, 2015), 19; Adam Smith, An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations , ed. Roy Harold Campbell and Andrew Skinner, 2 vols. (Indianapolis: Liberty Fund, 1981), vol. 1, bk. I, chap. viii, para. 36. 

    5. Malthus, Essay on the Principle of Population , 40, 65, 74, 155–163. 

    6. David Ricardo, Works , ed. John Ramsay McCulloch (London: John Murray, 1846), 50–55; Paul Samuelson, “The Canonical Classical Model of Political Economy,” in Paul Samuelson on the History of Economic Analysis: Selected Essays , ed. Steven J. Medema and Anthony M. C. Waterman (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 89–116, at 102–105. 

    7. Ricardo, Works , 55. 

    8. Smith, Wealth of Nations , vol. 1, bk. I, chap. viii, para. 37; Joan Robinson, “What Are the Questions?” Journal of Economic Literature 15, no. 4 (1977): 1318–1339, at 1334; Andre Gunder Frank, Dependent Accumulation and Underdevelopment (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1979); Henk Ligthart, “Portugal’s Semi-Peripheral Middleman Role in Its Relations with England, 1640–1760,” Political Geography Quarterly 7, no. 4 (1988): 353–362, at 360–361; Matthew Watson, “Historicising Ricardo’s Comparative Advantage Theory, Challenging the Normative Foundations of Liberal International Political Economy,” New Political Economy 22, no. 3 (2017): 257–272, at 259; John Gallagher and Ronald Robinson, “The Imperialism of Free Trade,” Economic History Review 6, no. 1 (1953): 1–15, at 5; D. C. M. Platt, “The Imperialism of Free Trade: Some Reservations,” Economic History Review 21, no. 2 (1968): 296–306; Joan Robinson, Contributions to Modern Economics (New York: Academic Press, 1978), 213; Joan Robinson, The Economics of Imperfect Competition , 2nd ed. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1969). 

    9. Frank Trentmann, Free Trade Nation: Commerce, Consumption, and Civil Society in Modern Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 1–8. 

    10. Anthony Howe, Free Trade and Liberal England, 1846–1946 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), 4, 113; Eileen P. Sullivan, “J. S. Mill’s Defense of the British Empire,” Journal of the History of Ideas 44, no. 4 (1983): 599–617, at 606; John Stuart Mill, Principles of Political Economy and Chapters on Socialism , ed. Jonathan Riley (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1994), xxxix, 112–113. 

    11. Mill, Principles of Political Economy , 113. 

    12. John Stuart Mill, Considerations on Representative Government (Ontario: Batoche Books, 2001), 46; Gary Remer, “The Classical Orator as Political Representative: Cicero and the Modern Concept of Representation,” Journal of Politics 72, no. 4 (2010): 1063–1082, at 1064; Mill, Principles of Political Economy , 86. 

    13. Mill, Principles of Political Economy , 124–125, 377. 

    14. Mill, Principles of Political Economy , 381. 

    15. Charles Darwin, The Life and Letters of Charles Darwin , ed. Francis Darwin, 3 vols. (London: John Murray, 1887), 3:178–179; Charles Darwin, The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or, The Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life (New York: Signet Classics, 2003), 5; Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (New York: Appleton and Company, 1889), 44. 

    16. Geoffrey Martin Hodgson, Economics in the Shadows of Darwin and Marx: Essays on Institutional and Evolutionary Themes (Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar, 2006), 12; Karl Marx, “The Production Process of Capital: Theories of Surplus Value,” in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, Collected Works , vol. 31, Marx, 1861–1863 (London: Lawrence and Wishart, 1989), 551; Gareth Stedman-Jones, Karl Marx: Greatness and Illusion (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2016), 174–175, 382–383; Karl Marx, Capital , ed. Ernest Mandel, trans. David Fernbach, 3 vols. (London: Penguin, 1992), 2:218; Bela A. Balassa, “Karl Marx and John Stuart Mill,” Weltwirtschaftsliches Archiv 83 (1959): 147–165, at 150. 

    17. Michael Hudson, America’s Protectionist Takeoff, 1815–1914: The Neglected American School of Political Economy (New York: Garland, 1975). 

    18. Hudson, America’s Protectionist Takeoff , 54. 

    19. Jack Rackove, Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution (New York: Vintage, 1997), 236; Alexander Hamilton, Report on the Subject of Manufactures (Philadelphia: William Brown, 1827), 20. 

    20. Maurice G. Baxter, Henry Clay and the American System (Lexington: University of Kentucky Press, 1995), 27–28; Brian Reinbold and Yi Wen, “Historical U. S. Trade Deficits,” Economic Research, Federal Reserve Bank, 2019, no. 13, https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/economic-synopses/2019/05/17/historical-u-s-trade-deficits . 

    21. Cheryl Shonhardt-Bailey, From the Corn Laws to Free Trade: Interests, Ideas, and Institutions in Historical Perspective (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2006), 285; Francis Wrigley Hirst, Free Trade and Other Fundamental Doctrines of the Manchester School (London: Harper and Brothers, 1903). 

    22. Richard Cobden, “Repeal of the Corn Laws,” May 15, 1843, in Hirst, Free Trade , 143–190, at 190; Richard Cobden, “Free Trade and the Reduction of Armaments,” December 18, 1849, in Hirst, Free Trade, 239–257, at 252. 

    23. Richard Cobden, “Armaments, Retrenchment, and Financial Reform,” January 10, 1849, in Hirst, Free Trade , 291–308, at 305; David Todd, Free Trade and Its Enemies in France, 1814–1851 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), 201. 

    24. Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Social and Economic Thought, 1785–1865 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986), 7, 261. 

    25. William Stanley Jevons, “Brief Account of a General Mathematical Theory of Political Economy,” Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, London 29 (June 1866): 282–287; William Stanley Jevons, Political Economy (New York: Appleton and Company, 1878), 7; Eric Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire: The Birth of the Industrial Revolution (London: Penguin, 1999), 17, 211. 

    26. Hobsbawm, Industry and Empire , 31–38. 

    27. Jevons, Political Economy , 62, 76, 77, 79, 81; Donald Winch, “The Problematic Status of the Consumer in Orthodox Economic Thought,” in The Making of the Consumer: Knowledge, Power, and Identity in the Modern World , ed. Frank Trentmann (Oxford: Berg, 2006), 31–52. 

    28. William Stanley Jevons, The Coal Question (London: Macmillan,1865). 

    29. Jennifer Siegel, For Peace and Money: French and British Finance in the Service of the Tsars and Commissars (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014). 

    30. Alfred Marshall, Principles of Economics (New York: Cosimo, 2006), 233. 

    31. Marshall, Principles of Economics , 30–31, 68–69, 273. 

    第十五章 美德的终结：自由主义与放任自由主义

    执着于体制的人则相反，往往对自己的智慧自负不已；他经常为自己理想中的政府计划如此美好而深深着迷，以致于无法忍受计划中的任何部分出现最微小的偏差。 ──亚当斯密，《道德情感论》，一七五九年

    若说在十九世纪，利伯维尔场思想转而接纳了工业经济与大英帝国的抱负，那么到了二十世纪，利伯维尔场思想将会让古典经济学在世界舞台上担任一个作用更加广泛的政治角色。随着苏维埃共和国与共产中国的崛起，利伯维尔场思想家开始把自己视为对抗集权国家的个人自由捍卫者。经济学家不只是学者；他们同时也是冷战中为理想而奋斗的军人，并且对于自身思想中的细微差别和矛盾都缺乏耐心。经济就像政治一样，变成了一场非此即彼的战斗，参战双方分别是善良的利伯维尔场国家，以及罗讷德．里根总统（Ronald Reagan）口中那些由国家政府掌控的社会主义“邪恶帝国”。
    当我们以历史的后见之明来解读从弗里德里希．海耶克到米尔顿．傅利曼等二十世纪的利伯维尔场思想家，从某部分来说其实是在给予肯定。他们组成了一股强大而保守的力量，预见了欧洲、甚至美国即将面临的威权主义与集权主义危机──无论是左派或右派的。然而，利伯维尔场思想家除了带来杰出的道德成就与经济观点之外，也随之带来了形式非常特殊的偏执、意识形态执念与短视近利。亚当斯密透过仁慈的道德纪律、教育、基进科学与农业崇拜所带来的进步愿景早已消失无踪了。二十世纪的正统利伯维尔场经济学家认为，纯粹的个人欲望与能动力是所有社会利益和经济利益的催化剂。在他们看来，任何偏离此种观点的体制都应该受到质疑。与其说这是一种学术立场，不如说这是一种信仰还比较贴切。

    一九○五年，阿尔弗雷德．马歇尔在剑桥的同事威廉．康宁汉（William Cunningham）发表了《自由贸易运动的兴衰》（The Rise and Decline of the Free Trade Movement ），表达他对正统利伯维尔场思想的控诉。康宁汉在这篇针对英国正统经济观念的抨击文章中指出，传统观念源自杜尔哥和斯密的观点，在这些观点中，“经济学把社会视为一种机械”，提供了“宝贵的真理，至少就目前状况来说是如此；但问题在于这并不是完整的真相”。康宁汉主张，如果经济学想要被视为科学的话，就必须承认，经济学中的许多人类活动根本和机械运作截然不同。他使用了达尔文的说法，说社会应该是一种“在面对环境时具有自我适应能力的有机体”。因此，市场只是整具机械的一部分，而且还常常故障。为了让机械保持运转，必须“一遍又一遍地测试”，即便如此，这种利伯维尔场思想的伟大机械真理仍有可能根本行不通。1
    康宁汉认为，经济学只不过是一种“沉闷的阅读材料”，人们可以利用供需原则等简明扼要的原理来代替整段沉闷的经济学阅读。他明白“自由贸易原则”，根据该原则所述，货品与服务的交换是没有限制的，而消费者可以依照此原则自由选择货品，追求舒适与效率。康宁汉用讽刺又强而有力的言词指出，他“打从心底完全支持自由贸易倡导者所假设的目标”，但如果他到富裕又实施保护主义的美国去，询问一个住在纽约的美国人，想必会发现这个人对自由贸易学说抱持着截然不同的态度。2
    一九○○年，英国仍是一个实施自由贸易的国家，自由贸易的理念几乎就像是邪教一样：消费者就是国王，人们把自由贸易的圣战士理查德．科布登视为国家英雄，建立雕像与纪念碑来荣耀他。然而康宁汉主张这种意识形态已经破产。从剑桥大学这块阴暗、舒适且与世隔绝的区域深处，他所发出的批判开始萌芽。康宁汉提出警告，欧洲和羽翼未丰的美国提出的“柯尔贝派”改革计划将会成为英国最大的敌人。他指出，佛瑞德里克·李斯特的发展模型在欧洲与美国奏效了，这是各国能顺利通往自由贸易先进国家的唯一可行路径。除此之外，科布登对和平与裁军的盼望一直都没有实现。康宁汉预测，军国主义在欧洲与美国已逐渐发展起来，作为优势帝国的英国将会继续仰赖国家的海军和其他军事的压制力量。帝国竞争仍在持续引发殖民冲突，一八九九年在南非爆发的波耳战争（Boer War）就是一例。3

    康宁汉认为，英国与其他工业强国之间的“巨大分歧”对于国际和平与英国的经济来说都很危险。他有些鄙夷地提出警告，说自由贸易者已经变成了“宛如拉比的评论家”（Rabbinical commentator），再三翻阅《旧约圣经》、想要找到更多能够支持正统观念的真理。自由贸易不再是个实用的学说，反而变成了一种古老又具有约束力的消费主义宗教，使英国注定只得遵循“没有任何偏差的严格规范”。4

    英国的经济发展即将进入停滞期，另一方面，尽管德国、美国和日本都拒绝了自由贸易的部分核心原则，但这三个国家的经济正呈现指数型成长。康宁汉认为，德国与美国的工业扩张与迅速的人口成长，带来了更大也更有效率的成长潜力。与之相对的，英格兰面对的则是人口数量下降的可能性，与逐渐逼近的燃料短缺问题。康宁汉呼应了斯密的观点，提出警告说，虽然“自由放任主义的原则过去曾一度”使得“富有开创精神的”人能够打造国家利益，但如今自由放任主义已经“变成一种纯粹的烟幕弹”，让贪婪以及对共同利益的“冷漠”能够藉此“掩盖自己”。大英帝国的国内市场使其他觊觎大英帝国财富的国家开始对帝国贸易产生“嫉妒”；更糟糕的是，康宁汉谴责道，科布登与“曼彻斯特人”（Manchester Men）的帝国自由贸易政策其实导致了全球武装起来反对英国。如今的自由放任主义原则变成了一种“自我放纵的怠惰”，如果继续以这种怠惰当作政策基础，英国的劣势对整个国家与帝国来说可能是“致命”的。5

    康宁汉利用亚当斯密对英国的自由贸易帝国提出指控。他说，在他看来，斯密在思想上绝对不会如此脆弱且缺乏鉴别能力。相较于他那些走向极端的正统继承人，斯密本人的经济哲学对于政府的作用抱持着更加开放的态度。康宁汉主张科布登和杰文斯的“推断”并没有带来预期中的效果，他认为若要找到继续前行的路，就必须“回过头检视克尔卡迪”。康宁汉义正严词地解释说，斯密早就知道通往自由贸易与经济成长的路就是让国家参与商业发展，正如一六五一年《航海法》的精神。康宁汉强调斯密曾清楚指出，有时我们必须为了刺激工业与发展而给予“暂时的垄断”。他也提醒读者，斯密曾警告我们要小心那些出卖国家利益的商人与贸易商怀抱着怎样的自私动机。斯密在《道德情感论》中写道，他建议人们遵循西塞罗与柏拉图的教诲，如此立法者才可以学习其他国家的榜样。6

    康宁汉和弥尔一样，引用了斯密认为“社群福祉比个人利益更重要”的观点。如果个人的成功发展无法为全体国民带来国家的成功发展，那么这个系统就无法顺利运作，必须重新调整和改变。康宁汉认为，十九世纪的利伯维尔场思想家忽略了斯密理论中的细微末节和警告。因此，他将斯密的著作解读为向立法者提供指导，而不是将经济原则当成“某种政治机制的素材”来建立。康宁汉指出，斯密并不是想创造出一套自我调节的系统，他认为斯密的务实个性足以让他了解，在一九○五年马基维利式的帝国权力大型竞赛中，保护主义规范是必要的。7
    康宁汉不可能预测得出来，斯密在逝世的一个多世纪后的今天会做出哪些事。但他说对了一件事，斯密拒绝了封闭系统，以及充满福音派、必胜主义者色彩的新利伯维尔场思想信条。康宁汉在一九○五年对于英国在帝国系统中执行的“单边”自由贸易做出的描绘可谓相当贴切。德国与日本已经全副武装，将目光转向了大英帝国。一八九八年与一九○○年，德国开始通过一系列的舰队法案，意在打造一支德国海军以抗衡大英帝国的霸权。在一九○四年至一九○五年的日俄战争中，日本现代舰队轻而易举地摧毁了俄国的过时舰队，这场战争象征着军事技术出现了划时代变化，已达到了能发动“总体战”（total war）的新水平。康宁汉的担忧确实有理有据。一次世界大战迫在眉睫，而大英帝国和英国商业霸权已经开始解体了。
    接下来就是现代战争的时代，科布登派的利伯维尔场福音主义与和平主义将会遭受沉重的打击。康宁汉将斯密视为道德与社会方面的实用主义者，也视为发展保护主义的信徒，这样的观点只是众多解读亚当斯密的看法之一，而且并不是最具代表性的观点。无论从哪方面来看，时代的潮流都已经转向了，就算是阿尔弗雷德．马歇尔对自由贸易的信念都不得不动摇。一次大战使众人对自我调节的国际经济系统能带来和平的希望暂时止息了。

    在两次世界大战期间，阿尔弗雷德．马歇尔的学生开始攻击市场系统能完全自我调节的概念。剑桥经济学家约翰．梅纳德．凯因斯（John Maynard Keynes）支持的是利伯维尔场──他在一九二○年代警告，共产主义与个人自由放任主义将会交战，而自由放任主义必须获胜。但凯因斯认为，利伯维尔场主义是有漏洞的，并且为了生存和对抗共产主义，而必须去理解自己的弱点。凯因斯指出，他和导师马歇尔的不同之处在于他认为利伯维尔场需要保护，凯因斯相信放任市场自行运作是不行的。他在《就业、利息和货币的一般理论》（General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money ，一九三六年）中提出了一项根本性的经济新发现，他认为薪资并不是透过市场机制自然调节而出现的。凯因斯主张，在经济大萧条期间，只有透过政府、公司与劳工之间进行的“谈判”，才能让市场创造出充分就业的结果。经济大萧条让我们看到的是，如果经济体的支出──也就是“总需求”──出现了急剧下降，就像一九二九年的股市崩盘与接踵而至的经济大萧条那样，那么就业率也会下降，这将会再次使总需求随之下降，造成恶性循环。更糟的是，边际价值理论可能反过来损害市场，将之吞噬。如果不能实现资本的边际效率（也就是由于投资回报大于利息，使得投资在通货膨胀的状态下仍然能长期获得利润），那么市场就不会提供投资的动机，进一步削弱成长与就业的希望。消费者无法只靠自己维持总需求，正如美国总统赫伯特．胡佛（Herbert Hoover）发现他放任市场的做法只让经济大萧条变得更糟那样。8
    这也就代表了，如果政府不愿透过支出与推动市场流动来帮助提高总需求的话，经济危机将会愈滚愈大，让更多人失去他们的工作和财富。以经济大萧条这种情况来说，光靠有钱人是没办法把总支出的水平提高到足以停止经济危机恶性循环的程度。唯有国家才有资源透过总支出来催化整体的就业与经济机能。简而言之，在大规模的金融或经济危机中，必须由政府这只可见的手来增加总需求。任何无形的市场力量都无法做到这一点。国家必须承担“直接参与和规划投资的更重大责任”。凯因斯在批判的是提倡利伯维尔场的“古典经济学”和马歇尔认为供给与需求可以自我调节的构想。9
    马歇尔的另一位知名学生琼．罗宾逊（Joan Robinson）和凯因斯一起加入论战，并告诉我们所有所谓的自我调节市场系统都可能失败的原因。罗宾逊是剑桥大学的教授，也是最早的重要女经济学家之一，至今人们仍无法理解，她为什么会在中国共产党主席毛泽东执行了可怕且造成经济灾难的文化大革命期间（一九六六年至一九七六年）支持毛泽东。无论是否受到误导，她之所以会支持毛泽东对社会与经济方面的暴力国家干预，都是基于她的此一信念：贫困国家无法在经济上和富裕国家竞争，需要冲击式的刺激。罗宾逊成为发展经济学的创始人，激发人们对马克思研究产生了新一波的兴趣。发展经济学旨在为没有大规模商业与工业基础的国家寻求致富的途径。此经济学可溯源至十七世纪所谓的重商主义著作，以及柯尔贝和亚历山大．汉米尔顿的政策。发展经济学在二十世纪的出现与经济未开发国家（所谓的第三世界）有关，这类国家没有能力进行必要的结构性经济改革，因此无法实现现代化并建立具有竞争力的商业与工业基础。

    罗宾逊带头指出，经济未开发的国家在实质上无法与经济已开发的国家竞争，那些属于弱势群体的人们也无法与根基稳固的外国公司或个人竞争。她的著作《不完全竞争经济学》（Economics of Imperfect Competition ，一九三三年）创造出了“买方垄断”（monopsony，又称独买）的概念，指的是具有强大权力的单一买家控制了商品出售给其他买家的定价，因此市场价格会被一种买家对薪资的垄断所扭曲──就像是在一个“公司市镇”（company town，指大部分居民受雇于同一家公司的城镇）中，所有薪资与经济生活都由单一公司所控制的状况。买方垄断破坏了边际效用的逻辑。买方垄断的基础并不是市场力量，而仅仅是少数买家的决定或偏见，他们可以把薪资压低到低于边际价值的水平。买方垄断也解释了为什么女性的薪资比男性低，和少数族群的薪资比其他族群低。举例来说，如果一名雇主单纯出于偏见而决定要降低所有女性的薪资，那么这就会协助确立一个既定的市场价值；其他公司也可能效法此一趋势，而女性薪资就会受到整体削弱。10

    一九五六年，罗宾逊出版了《资本的累积》（The Accumulation of Capital ），延续了凯因斯的传统，指出在一些未发展的经济体中，存在的只有资本家和劳工。劳工的薪资只能勉强维持生活，资本家在这个原始生产经济体中的消费很少，把钱都拿去买外国商品，损害了能够创造财富的当地消费者社会的发展。她提出的模式批判了由供需驱动的经济模型在较贫困国家的适用性。在较贫困国家中，不仅资本成长极低，而且资本会被拉向经济发展较高的市场，近一步削弱国内经济发展。11

    剑桥曾是福音派利伯维尔场经济学的发源地，但后来成为了凯因斯主义的中心。如果说注重均衡的利伯维尔场思想在英国失去了优势，那么此种思想将会在奥地利找到最有力的新追随者。现代自由意志主义经济传统正是在奥地利出现，而在之后流传到了美国，在二次世界大战期间造成了巨大的影响。律师、记者暨奥地利经济学派创始人卡尔．门格尔（Carl Menger）大力抨击斯密的劳动价值理论，并用边际效用理论取而代之，根据后者所述，驱动经济的是互利的交易。他的自由主义思想，是斯密和边沁提出的“透过实现由市场驱动的人类需求来实现人类进步”之概念的简化版本。一八七一年，也就是杰文斯出版《政治经济学》的那一年，门格尔出版了《经济学原理》（Principles of Economics ）。门格尔清楚地认识到，斯密和李嘉图的劳动价值理论是行不通的。他带我们回到曼德维尔的《蜜蜂的寓言》，宣称能够推动经济发展的只有一件事：对商品的渴望。与曼德维尔不同的是，门格尔不认为恶行能创造出美德，他描绘了一个简陋而单纯的经济系统，单单只由“渴望”造成的“因果关系”来驱动，并且是这些因果关系建构了社会关系与经济关系。他认为社会主义者──无论是民主的或其他形式的──是不能去计划经济关系的。人类渴望各种事物，这种需求会创造供给，在这个不断循环的循环中持续发展成更加复杂的商业与工业社会。12

    备受尊敬的经济学家暨学者路德维希．冯．米塞斯（Ludwig von Mises）是名犹太裔的利伯维尔场思想家，住在国际化且学术思想丰富的奥地利城市维也纳，他改信基督教的行为十分符合自身的经济意识形态。利伯维尔场思想已经远离了原本的自然神论源头，变得更加贴近基督教运动。冯．米塞斯和科布登一样，反对政府干预经济，他谴责战争，也谴责战争使个人屈从于一个虚无目标的可怕行为。一九二○年，冯．米塞斯根据他的信念，以惊人的先见之明痛斥了“社会主义国家联合体”中的国家中央经济计划。他认为当时苏联的中央计划方式在预测商品价值时，其准确度与效率都比不上供给与需求的自然定价过程。早在苏联出现惊人的经济崩溃之前，冯．米塞斯就看出了社会主义的中央计划经济无法有效地选出应该重视哪些产业，只有利伯维尔场能做到这一点。13

    此外，冯．米塞斯也认为货币除了市场交易功能之外，并不具有本质上的价值。对他来说，就连货币数量理论也毫无意义。唯一能决定货币价值的，是货币价值与商品之间的相对关系。因此，货币价值会根据事物的边际效用产生变化。未来的发展证明了，这个看似单纯的原则后来变成了共产计划经济的最大绊脚石之一。苏联政府当然可以宣布货币或面包的价值，但供应与需求仍会在创造价值方面造成决定性影响，就算是极权国家也无法完全加以掌控。14

    奥地利学派的特点是对于威权主义毫不懈怠的警戒。冯·米塞斯在共产主义中看见了威权主义的幽灵。他确信李斯特的“重商”柯尔贝式国家主义，和现代社会主义的福利计划，都将会通往威权政府。他未能注意到，美国民主正是在哈密尔顿与克莱的“重商体系”中诞生与成长的。尽管冯．米塞斯十分担忧社会主义的专制制度，但讽刺的是，他在一九四○年代却是因为右派纳粹分子而被迫逃往美国。因此我们也无需讶异，他后来开始坚持利伯维尔场不只是创造财富的必要条件，也是自由民主的必要条件。不过从他的历史观来看，经济自由主义比政治自由更加重要。这样的观点在现代会带来危险的后果。15

    奥地利经济学家弗里德里希．海耶克在英国与美国是奥地利利伯维尔场思想的主要提倡者，对新芝加哥学派利伯维尔场思想的创建造成了很大的影响。他的身上带有对二次世界大战的深刻创伤与狂热的反国家主义。海耶克来自一个在财富、学识与农业方面都具有一定成就的家族。他经历了世纪的交替、两次世界大战和冷战，并在一九八○年代成为了美国新自由经济思想的典范。他在道德方面的权威经过了千锤百炼，从独裁统治与战争的创伤，到西方和工业化国家的多数人口在战后经历的特殊和平繁荣时期。他亲眼目睹了苏联的兴衰，也目睹了英美在玛格丽特．撒切尔（Margaret Thatcher）与罗讷德．里根的带领下开始放宽经济管制，更目睹了中国经济自由化的开端。

    海耶克在一九四四年出版的《通往奴役之路》将成为战后利伯维尔场经济与自由意志主义经济的标准手册。这是有史以来最畅销的经济哲学书之一，销量超过两百万本，与其说这是一本经济理论作品，不如说《通往奴役之路》是在对个人自由意志主义信念的全面宣言，包括这种信念在市场机制中扮演的重要角色，也包括经济上的任何政府干预都具有绝对危险性的主张。以后见之明来看，再加上我们在二战后对于政府能如何帮助经济成长的新体认，我们会发现这本书的特殊之处在于书中缺乏各国在战后成长时期的真实状况，以及海耶克把国家视为一种邪恶力量的狂热观点。16

    斯密认为利伯维尔场源自和平的、甚至彬彬有礼的社会与经济进步过程，而海耶克则以好战的眼光看待利伯维尔场，认为利伯维尔场源自善与恶的竞争。我们只有两个选择，一是没有政府的经济自由主义，二是接受奴役。海耶克的急迫心态与忧惧都是可以理解的。在一九四四年，战争尚未获胜。对他来说，德国与奥地利就是血淋淋的例子，让他看见了威权政体利用国家机器实行平民暴力、战争与种族灭绝时会是什么样子。但他的视野受到了局限。海耶克想必知道，打从希特勒开始恐怖统治到结束的这段期间，德国私人企业为希特勒提供了多大的支持。纳粹主义的经济学十分符合斯密反企业的质疑论点。许多来自美国与欧洲的领导企业都和大力支持希特勒的德国企业家弗利兹．泰森（Fritz Thyssen）有密切合作。无论如何，海耶克都选择了忽略希特勒若没有德国资本家的稳固支持，是既不可能获得权力，也不可能长期维持权力的，这些德国资本家认为用法西斯主义来代替工会、共产主义、甚至社会民主主义，是一个诱人的解决方案。17

    海耶克在《通往奴役之路》一书的开头引用了戴维．休谟的话：“自由很少是在一夕之间丧失的。”海耶克在谴责种族主义与威权主义时展现出了深切的人道主义精神。但他并不像十八世纪的苏格兰哲学家那样，抱持一种温和与开明的态度──十八世纪的苏格兰哲学家希望能建立良好的制度，并且觉得为政府工作是光荣的。海耶克警告说，所有社会计划都是一种极权主义。他并没有解释私人垄断是如何运作的，也没有将垄断和寡头集团连结在一起，而是连结到国家和工会的“工团主义”。所有统合主义运动，以及所有会损害海耶克对竞争和个人主义之纯粹观点的事物，都是一种垄断。根据海耶克的偏执逻辑，任何集体的国家目标都会导致法西斯主义或共产主义──只要国家想要“组织整个社会与资源去完成某个单一目标”，那国家到头来就是剥夺了个人自由。他认为自由意志资本主义是唯一足以对抗威权主义的力量。他指出，民主只是达到这个经济目标的一种手段而已。18

    海耶克采纳了卡尔．门格尔和路德维希．冯．米塞斯对中央政府抱持的怀疑观点，再加上他自己对于个人能动力的绝对信念，重新包装出一种全新的、精简的、自由意志主义视角的利伯维尔场思想。海耶克认为，自由代表了没有“强制”的存在。自由并非来自理性决定或道德，而是来自他人的自由选择带来的制衡。他的思想含括了法国杨森主义学者尚．多马的观点，即罪恶的竞争行为会彼此抵销。此一思想把亚当斯密的斯多噶美德转变成了另一种信念：唯有个人行为能驱动市场，而且个人行为在自身之中具有完全的道德。19

    海耶克的自由意志主义观点具有很大的影响力，但带来更大影响的，是获得了诺贝尔奖的美国经济学家米尔顿．傅利曼，他将这一派的利伯维尔场经济学转变为二十世纪后期的主要意识形态之一。傅利曼是出生于布鲁克林、在芝加哥接受教育的匈牙利犹太移民之子，傅利曼是最杰出、最有魅力也最具影响力的现代利伯维尔场思想家。透过他的研究、雄辩和个人魅力，他成功把自己的学术成果转变成了芝加哥经济学派在政治与经济方面的自由意志主义意识形态。傅利曼解决了一部分的通膨难题，这是美国在一九七○年代面临的最严重问题之一。凯因斯认为政府必须修补国家经济引擎，才能确保国家继续运作，这是个已经被广泛接受的观点，但傅利曼在此一观点中找到了具体的谬误。傅利曼相信经济经验主义，同时对自由意志主义的利伯维尔场抱持着近乎宗教式的信仰，这套奇异的组合使他重新开始提倡阿尔弗雷德．马歇尔的自我调节市场均衡论这套老观点，但外加了一道条款，要求政府必须实行稳定的货币供应增长政策，每年定期增加货币的供应量。

    从许多方面来说，傅利曼都具有斯密的利伯维尔场思想传统特征。他和斯密一样是思想开明的教授，重视自由辩论，也认真对待反对意见。他同样是一位著名且受人爱戴的大学教师。此外，他也和斯密一样不是传统的宗教人士，他声称自己在精神方面是犹太人，但在信仰上是不可知论者。傅利曼属于战后一代包含犹太人在内的经济学家，在此之前，鲜少有犹太人是利伯维尔场思想家。利伯维尔场思想不再专属于欧洲贵族、英国福音派、基进派和帝国主义者，它正逐渐变得更加美国化。傅利曼承袭了启蒙运动的无限乐观主义信念。但是，他拒绝接受斯密对于公共学校、代议制政府的集体行动以及阶级体制的信心。傅利曼眼中是一个纯粹由消费者驱动的社会，这种简化的观点和西塞罗学派以及斯多噶式的概念相去甚远。他和妻子暨共同作者萝丝·傅利曼（Rose Friedman）成为了个人“选择的自由”的热烈支持者，但他们没有认真讨论过这些选择的道德含意。他似乎没有意识到，斯密追随着西塞罗拒绝了享乐原则，认为这套原则过于简化，他们认为符合道德的选择只能源自严肃的哲学纪律。傅利曼则用简单易懂的欲望与财富的现代商业计算来取而代之。20

    在傅利曼的设想中，政府在教育、医疗健保以及社经生活中所扮演的角色非常有限。他对税收的看法也极为负面，认为政府对任何行业征收的税金都是一种强制，因此等同于政府拥有权：在他眼中，税收相当于强行接管部分的私人企业。但他和海耶克不同的地方在于，他不认为经济自由主义比政治自由更重要。对傅利曼来说，政治自由才是首要的。21

    傅利曼和许多利伯维尔场思想家一样，生活在矛盾之中。他的事业始于富兰克林．罗斯福（Franklin Roosevelt）的罗斯福新政（New Deal），协助政府进行预算研究，接着进入国家经济研究局（National Bureau of Economic Research）工作。他后来指出，虽然政府的创造就业计划并不完美，但在遭遇经济大萧条时，这种计划是必要的。不过，傅利曼认为罗斯福新政的其余部分都在以马克思主义的方式“控制”个体的经济生活。傅利曼在回顾罗斯福的改革时，避开了尖锐的党派偏见，称赞总统怀抱着“崇高的意图”，但同时也十分遗憾地指出，他认为社会安全保险、国家福利、公共住宅与其他政府计划全都彻底失败了。斯密同样曾警告过，亲商的经济政策只会对特殊利益有利。傅利曼坚持认为社会政策也是一样的，他指出政府的援助破坏了“上帝面前人人平等”的原则。22

    傅利曼对经济学的重要贡献始于一九五六年，他在那年发表了对于货币主义的研究，利用此理论与方法指出，控制货币供应量是稳定经济的主要方法。他在著名文章〈货币数量理论：重述〉（Quantity of Money Theory: A Restatement）中主张，经济体在逐年成长的过程中会创造出稳定的货币需求。他的看法与早期的货币数量理论学家互相呼应，认为货币的价值与经济体中的货币数量互有关联，但是他比早期的理论学家更像是柯尔贝，原因在于他担心经济体若没有定期提供货币，就会使经济交易的速度变慢、数量减少。他感兴趣的并非货币的价值，而是经济体如何创造出了必定出现又必须被满足的货币需求。这也就代表了政府必须每年都提供货币，而供给量应该相当于经济体的平均成长值。他回到了约翰．劳提出纸币理论时的中心思想，也就是政府必须稳定供应才能打造出信心，而傅利曼将这套观点称为经济行为者的“理性期待”。23

    傅利曼的货币数量理论批判了凯因斯的“政府能靠支出刺激经济”的观点。傅利曼认为，除了军队和警察之外，所有国家支出都是错误，所有涉及联准会（Federal Reserve）的事情都很危险。事实上，他认为美国应该完全废除联准会，直接根据统计出来的预期成长数字来发行货币。他和共同作者安娜．舒瓦兹（Anna Schwartz）一起写下的巨著《美国货币史》（Monetary History of the United States ，一九六三年）指出，美国的货币存量正随着时间推移而不断成长。然而在经济大萧条期间，联准会限制了货币供给，希望能藉此抑制通膨。根据傅利曼所述，这些行为加剧且延长了经济大萧条的“大收缩”（great contraction）。他和舒瓦兹做出结论，认为联准会能够为国家的成长与扩张做出贡献的方式只有两种，一是什么都不做，二是拿出更多钱。24

    这种有关经济、通膨和成长是如何运作的货币观点，是具有革命性的。根据傅利曼所述，货币流通速度（velocity），或者说货币需求的成长，等同于国内生产总值（GDP）的年成长。傅利曼的理论逆转了新西兰经济学家暨发明家威廉．菲利普斯（William Phillips）于一九五八年提出的典型菲利普斯曲线（Phillips curve），根据该曲线的计算，紧缩货币与高利会导致通膨。傅利曼主张，菲利普斯曲线是具有缺陷的思维，并证明了虽然货币宽松会导致暂时的通膨，但经济终究会回归稳定。接着，由于那些期待经济体中会有更多货币的人，会怀抱着“合理的期待”，所以对于经济的信心会逐渐成长。虽然在一九七○年代与一九八○年代，货币主义对于美国的通膨抑制产生了一定的影响，但在玛格丽特．撒切尔于英国实施了货币主义后，随之而来的却是大幅上升的失业率与国内经济紧缩。尽管傅利曼不想承认这一点，不过能够证明总体经济平衡的证据仍然难以捉摸。25

    一九七四年，傅利曼的朋友暨同事弗里德里希．海耶克赢得了诺贝尔经济学奖，但他不得不和瑞典经济学家冈纳·米达尔（Gunnar Myrdal）共享这个奖项，米达尔是国家主导现代福利制度的著名提倡者。海耶克赢得诺贝尔奖的原因，是他指出了国家控制的低利率如何导致了通膨。他主张，美国在经济大萧条之前试图以低利率刺激投资，却因此鼓励了过多借贷，导致了繁荣的泡沫经济，而最终崩溃。这就是海耶克强而有力的经济周期理论，也是对于一九七○年代通膨危机的杰出见解。

    另一方面，诺贝尔委员会颁奖给米达尔，是为了表彰他指出了在美国战后经济快速成长的过程中，非裔美国人是如何被落在后头的。诺贝尔委员会精彩地引用了加利亚尼与内克的旧观点：在我们对市场失望之前，市场一直都是最好的政策，而如今市场正在使美国的少数族群失望。委员会想要传递的讯息是，利伯维尔场主义者与政府干预主义者都发现了经济真理，若他们能彼此合作，将会带来最好的结果。然而，海耶克和傅利曼似乎无法找到经济方面的折衷观点，此外，他们显然也不愿意为了矫正经济不平等与种族不平等的问题而提出市场的失败之处。一九七六年，诺贝尔委员会再次展现出了他们对于理解市场机制的兴趣，将诺贝尔经济学奖颁发给了傅利曼，原因是他在货币理论与货币稳定化这两方面的研究。然而，委员会仍然没有全盘接受市场均衡的普遍思维。

    货币主义变成了现代政府的基本原则。傅利曼的新构想中保留了凯因斯式支出的一些基本要素。每当出现重大危机时，政府都应该要出手管理货币供给。尽管傅利曼坚持认为，只有稳定的、渐进式的货币注入才是必要的，也认为政府不需要调整货币注入的时间与数量，但政府央行如今是依据特定的脉络制定货币政策──无论你是否同意都没有差别──央行如今成为了国家部门，对经济生活的影响比过去任何时期都还更重要。

    傅利曼是理想主义者，更对美国例外主义（American exceptionalism）深信不疑。对他来说，利伯维尔场代表除了提供最低限度的货币供给，，政府对于经济成长没有任何作用。他不认为经济未开发的国家与区域需要政府的投资。此外，他也坚信无拘无束的资本主义已经帮助了少数族裔、弥补了代议政府的失败之处。傅利曼拒绝接受米达尔的研究和数据，他认为政府计划才应该为不平等负责，并提出警告说，少数族群绝不能寄望政治多数派会捍卫他们的利益。他提出了一种虚无主义的、甚至近乎是一种反民主的自由意志主义概念：“所有坏事都来自政府”。26
    傅利曼忽略自己对政府的巨大影响力，也忽略了政府对于成长与创新研究的资助（私立的芝加哥大学〔University of Chicago〕一部分仰赖的是联邦政府提供的大量研究资助，过去和现在都如此），他认为只有个体、股东、私营与上市的股份有限公司才能创造财富。他建议把所有药物合法化，也是教育选择权（school choice）的先驱提倡者。他认为移民是推动美国经济增长的引擎。傅利曼主张，他在保护个人自由方面最伟大的其中一个成就，在于他帮忙推动了结束征兵制，并协助政府建立了全志愿兵役制的军队。他公开表示他反对不宽容，同时他也是同性恋权利的捍卫者。然而在一九八○年代，傅利曼掌握了最颠峰的影响力，却有些奇怪地对市场的失败一声不吭，此外，有些利伯维尔场提倡者──例如智利独裁者奥古斯托·皮诺契（Augusto Pinochet）──拒绝接受傅利曼在个人自由与民主方面的核心思想，但傅利曼也没做出回应。事实上，傅利曼还把皮诺契的镇压式军事独裁和经济政策称作“一个奇迹”，却未曾认真对皮诺契在政治刑求与谋杀方面的恶行表达疑虑，更绝口不提在皮诺契的暴力政变之前，智利就已拥有成功商业发展的悠久历史。27

    海耶克和傅利曼两人理想主义式的反国家自由意志主义，在美国旧有的、更复杂且更令人忧虑的自由意志主义传统中找到了归宿。早在二次大战之前，有个反国家的利伯维尔场思想运动就已在美国工业、福音派基督教运动和南方的新联邦国权利运动中广受欢迎了。
    虽然斯密和他的十九世纪后继者都是基进改革者，但美国仍有许多利伯维尔场支持者怀抱着深切的保守信念。一九三四年，杜邦（du Pont）三兄弟皮耶（Pierre）、伊赫内（Irénée）和拉莫特（Lammot）因为极度厌恶罗斯福新政，开始书写他们有多担忧正在美国蔓延的社会主义。这三兄弟是工业家，他们是皮耶─山缪·杜邦·内穆赫的后代，后者是魁奈最忠实的追随者之一，也是废除奴隶制度的热心倡导者。杜邦是农业财富论的信徒，在他从巴黎搬到特拉华州之前，曾协助推动法国大革命──也就是那场针对滥用权利的落后社会发动的大型政府干预。28
    杜邦兄弟一直对美国总统赫伯特．胡佛透过《美国宪法第十八条修正案》执行了禁酒令感到非常不满。他们同样不满的还有政府在罗斯福新政时期试图禁止童工，皮耶．杜邦写了一封信给一九三三年至一九三五年的国家复兴总署（National Recovery Administration）署长休．强森（Hugh Johnson）：“除非小区中的家长认为童工不该存在，否则任何联邦法律或宪法修正案都不能废除童工。”杜邦兄弟认为，就算论及虐待儿童的行为，国家也不应该介入。对他们来说，应该由“社会”这个模糊的概念在没有法律干预的状况下管理童工。若美国的合法当选政府决定要废除童工，这就是个民主决定，但杜邦兄弟对此表示反对。29

    杜邦家族的新世代缺乏他们的法国哲学家祖先怀抱的明确道德观。到了一九三○年代，杜邦公司（DuPont Company）已成为全球最大的工业公司之一。杜邦公司的化学产品与塑料产品定义了现代，也刺激了工业发展、创新与财富，但一直以来，杜邦公司都因为污染而声名狼籍。重农学派的后代竟然成立了一家跨国工业化学公司，靠着尼龙赚进大笔财富，这样的转折实在出人意料。杜邦公司已经远远脱离了他们奉行自然论的祖先所怀抱的农业信念与基进政治观点。

    当保护公司免受政府干预的运动在美国展开，希望能阻止罗斯福新政在社会、教育与社会福利方面的计划，杜邦兄弟也在行列之中。当时有许多亲利伯维尔场的团体都获得了工业家的支持，杜邦兄弟支持的是美国自由联盟（American Liberty League），他们与该联盟同心协力，试图撤销罗斯福的政策。若想达成目标，他们就需要一套意识形态。到了一九四○年代后期，另一个保守的基督教团体也开始反对罗斯福新政，这些福音派信徒认为罗斯福新政正在把人民的信仰从基督教转移到世俗国家。30

    美国大型公司与企业利伯维尔场意识形态建立了伙伴关系，再加上保守的福音派基督徒，以及来自美国南部和西南部的反民权政客，共同编写出了利伯维尔场思想历史中最不同寻常、最反动的章节之一。利伯维尔场运动过去的关键词是基进、自然神论与无神论、早期法国革命，受到废奴主义者、和平主义者与女权倡议者的拥护，也受到约翰．史都华．弥尔这类效益主义兼社会主义者的支持。此刻利伯维尔场却转变成了另一整套全新的福音，而宣扬这套福音的是美国极端保守主义者与支持种族隔离的新联邦种族主义者。某种程度上来说，这样的转变是有道理的。美国受到经济大萧条与二战的严重冲击，对于这样的一个国家来说，苏联的解体加上罗斯福以前所未见的方式进行的联邦政府扩张，想必会使人民大受惊吓──同时也松了一口气。无论是对美国民主或自由企业来说，苏联共产主义都是一种威胁。二战过后，罗斯福几乎大举获胜，他的大国经济政策持续了下去，最后带来了大幅的经济扩张。商业团体、福音派信徒与反对种族和平的政客都把这个活跃的新政府视为威胁，他们开始将充满理想主义的新利伯维尔场思想家──例如海耶克等人──视为盟友，能和他们一起在美国反对政府事业。

    一九四○年代，南方浸信会福音派领袖葛理翰（Billy Graham）大力宣扬混合了反共言论的亲利伯维尔场论述，并提出警告说，有劳工团体和性滥交将会导致《圣经》中的末日大战。一九五○年代，福特（Ford）、奇异集团（General Electric）、美孚石油（Mobil）和美国钢铁（US Steel）等公司，为了维护自身利益而成立了多个支持自由意志主义的亲商团体，例如美国企业协会（American Enterprise Association，后改为美国企业机构〔American Enterprise Institute〕）与经济教育基金会（Foundation for Economic Education）。这些公司还招募了米尔顿．傅利曼等经济学家替他们撰稿，并且变得更加亲近保守派的共和党领袖，例如小威廉．Ｆ．巴克利（William F. Buckley）、他创办的《国家评论》（National Review ）以及他的政治盟友，像是支持种族隔离的新联邦种族主义者斯特罗姆．瑟蒙德（Strom Thurmond）和杰西．赫姆斯（Jesse Helms）。一九六○年代，野心勃勃的政治家贝利．高华德（Barry Goldwater）写下了《一个保守派的良心》（The Conscience of a Conservative ）。高华德一直希望能推翻较温和的共和党建制派，他在书中为新联邦国权利运动辩护，并让广大读者认识海耶克与冯．米塞斯的研究。高华德抨击所有形式的工会活动，并谴责政府对经济的干涉是“一种邪恶”，剥夺了美国人民决定要如何花钱的权利。因此我们也无需讶异三Ｋ党（Ku Klux Klan，通称三Ｋ党）在高华德于一九六四年与林登．约翰逊（Lyndon Johnson）竞选总统时选择支持他，不过高华德最终落选了。然而，高华德的理念其实比较倾向较古老的自由主义。他在后来全心接纳了美国西南方一派的自由意志主义，倡导利伯维尔场、同性恋权利、堕胎权和大麻合法化，因而为今天美国西方各州历久不衰的社会自由主义奠定了基础。31

    大约在高华德竞选总统失败的同时，福音派电视布道人士帕特．罗伯森（Pat Robertson）和杰瑞．法威尔（Jerry Falwell）加入了共和党的自由主义极右翼。他们呼吁美国应该建立利伯维尔场，在抗议政府官员时引用了海耶克和傅利曼的著作，同时照三餐谴责摇滚乐、同性恋、堕胎、公民权利和色情作品。在新利伯维尔场运动中，强硬的右翼福音派人士是最有影响力的领导人之一。共和党的意识形态逐渐混杂了美国东北部主流建制派、美国浸信会清教徒主义、种族主义和偏见，以及傅利曼式的美国西南学派个人自由意志主义和放纵心态──将上述所有事物结合在一起的，是对于跨国企业集团公司的一种近乎宗教式的崇敬，以及资本控股股东具有的神圣性。32

    在这个美国利伯维尔场的万花筒中，还要加上俄罗斯犹太自由意志主义作家暨利伯维尔场流行理论家艾茵．兰德。兰德的虚构作品比任何经济学家的文章都更通俗易懂、更受欢迎，这些作品创造出一种以海耶克的超个人主义式反集体理论为核心的叙事。她在一九四三年出版的畅销小说《源泉》的主角是具有强烈企业企图心的建筑师霍华德．洛克，无畏地对抗集体主义者和“无所事事”的官僚，靠着纯粹的个人意志实现了创新与进步。这部作品传达的讯息是，企业家就像现代的尼采式超人一样，他们是“兰德式英雄”，这些体格优越的男人需要挣脱政府的束缚，才能实现他们的伟大事迹，并促进人类的福祉。美国许多有影响力的经济学家──例如联准会主席暨艾茵兰德集团（Ayn Rand Collective）的成员艾伦．格林斯潘（Alan Greenspan）──以及无数商界领袖和政治家，都全心拥抱了兰德的作品。一九九一年，柏林围墙倒塌，而《源泉》获选成为对美国议员的影响力仅次于《圣经》的书籍。33

    傅利曼的美国企业自由意志主义和兰德的理想，全都抵触了斯密过去对商业企业家──“计划者”──提出的警告，也抵触了斯密希望市场能够修正贪婪心态的想法。兰德笔下的极端个人主义人物非常类似贵族和拥有大量土地的菁英，重农主义者一直都希望能让他们摆脱国家暴政的那些人。兰德和傅利曼的思想反映了古老的重农主义观念，认为创造财富的特定人士应该要在社会中拥有特殊地位。利伯维尔场思想家认为，只要是财富的生产者都不应该被征税，无论是十八世纪的农民，还是二十世纪的生产商、企业家或富有的股东都一样。社会必须透过自由放任主义的简单原则，解放社会原本就拥有的财富创造能力。

    如今，当来自各方的批评者开始抨击傅利曼的利伯维尔场思想时，我们不禁要问：哪些版本的利伯维尔场思想是到了现今仍然有用的？正如我们在中国、新加坡乃至所有经济已开发国家中看到的，没有一种经济模式能占据主导地位。从以前到现在，从来没有任何一个。我们总是根据环境状况而不断变化。但我们能确定一件事：在没有政府的地方，例如南苏丹这类充满极端暴力的“边境经济体”，正统的自由意志主义利伯维尔场模式并不存在，也从未存在过。大多数已开发工业经济体都会遵循一种相对类似的配方，即自由社会民主制度，搭配上普遍的利伯维尔场机制，以及政府对于经济体的广泛监督和参与。多数私营公司会根据供给与需求的市场机制来生产和销售商品及服务，但也有些公司的根据来自私人国家垄断（如波音公司〔Boeing〕和空中巴士〔Airbus〕），有些则依据政府合约（如ＩＢＭ和微软〔Microsoft〕）、或者依据国家补贴公司和社会福利的计划来获得可观的国家援助（请回想一下亚马逊〔Amazon〕早期使用美国邮政署〔United States Postal Service〕，或者沃尔玛和麦当劳靠着国家医疗补助〔Medicaid〕作为低工资战略的一部分）。34
    每个国家都会依据环境的不同，在发展的过程中采用极独特的方法与途径，这些发展往往违背了纯粹的经济模式。因此，我们不可能把新加坡拿去和中国、德国或美国相提并论，中美德皆拥有庞大且多样化的国内市场。虽然全球规模最大的公司大多都位于美国，但目前看来，亚洲的公司成长率比美国高得多。它们全都具有不同的优势与策略。把美国拿去和中国比较，就像是在一七○○年把英国与法国拿来比较一样。双方需要的是彼此不同的一系列经济政策，藉此发展经济状况并进行有效的竞争。35

    1. William Cunningham, The Rise and Decline of the Free Trade Movement (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1905), 5–9. 

    2. Cunningham, Rise and Decline ; Frank Trentmann, Free Trade Nation: Commerce, Consumption, and Civil Society in Modern Britain (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), 91–98, 243. 

    3. Cunningham, Rise and Decline , 37, 85. 

    4. Cunningham, Rise and Decline , 97. 

    5. Cunningham, Rise and Decline , 119, 121–123, 158, 160. 

    6. Cunningham, Rise and Decline , 191–194, 197–198. 

    7. Cunningham, Rise and Decline , 200, 210. 

    8. John Maynard Keynes, Laissez-Faire and Communism (New York: New Republic, 1926), 65. 

    9. Keynes, Laissez-Faire , 31, 164. 

    10. Joan Robinson, The Economics of Imperfect Competition , 2nd ed. (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 1969), 211–228. 

    11. Joan Robinson, The Accumulation of Capital (New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), 248, 330. 

    12. Carl Menger, Principles of Economics , trans. James Dingwall and Bert F. Hoselitz (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 2007), 51, 72–73; Janek Wasserman, The Marginal Revolutionaries: How Austrian Economists Fought the War of Ideas (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2019), 33; Wasserman, Marginal Revolutionaries, 73. 

    13. Ludwig von Mises, Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth , trans. S. Alder (Auburn, AL: Ludwig von Mises Institute, 1990), 1–10. 

    14. Von Mises, Economic Calculation , 9; Wasserman, Marginal Revolutionaries , 82. 

    15. Wasserman, Marginal Revolutionaries , 35, 134. 

    16. Stephan A. Marglin and Juliet B. Schor, eds. , The Golden Age of Capitalism: Reinterpreting the Postwar Experience , 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), 41. 

    17. Henry Ashby Turner Jr. , “Big Business and the Rise of Hitler,” American Historical Review 75, no. 1 (1969): 56–70. 

    18. Friedrich Hayek, The Road to Serfdom , ed. Bruce Caldwell (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007), 35, 76, 89, 100, 110. 

    19. Elisabetta Galeotti, “Individualism, Social Rules, Tradition: The Case of Friedrich A. Hayek,” Political Theory 15, no. 2 (1987): 163–181, at 169. 

    20. David Levy, “Interview with Milton Friedman,” Federal Re serve Bank of Minneapolis, June 1, 1992, www.minneapolisfed.org/article/1992/interview-with-milton-friedman . 

    21. Milton Friedman, “Market Mechanisms and Central Economic Planning,” in Milton Friedman, Sidney Hook, Rose Friedman, and Roger Freeman, Market Mechanisms and Central Economic Planning (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1981), 1–19, at 9. 

    22. Milton Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement , 3rd ed. (New York: Harcourt, 1990), 94–97, 129. 

    23. Milton Friedman, “Quantity of Money Theory: A Restatement,” in Milton Friedman, ed. , Studies in the Quantity Theory of Money (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1956), 3–21, at 12. 

    24. Milton Friedman and Anna Jacobson Schwartz, A Monetary History of the United States, 1867–1960 (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1963), 7, 11. 

    25. Milton Friedman, “The Demand for Money: Some Theoretical and Empirical Results,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Occasional Paper 68, 1959, www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c5857/c5857.pdf , 1–25, at 2. 

    26. Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom , 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 137. 

    27. Milton Friedman, An Economist’s Protest: Columns in Political Economy (Sun Lakes, AZ: Thomas Horon and Daughter, 1972), 6; Milton Friedman, “Say ‘No’ to Intolerance,” Liberty Magazine 4, no. 6 (1991): 17–20. 

    28. Kim Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands: The Businessmen’s Crusade Against the New Deal (New York: Norton, 2009), 3. 

    29. Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands, 4, 61 (du Pont quotation p. 4); Kevin M. Kruse, One Nation Under God: How Corporate America Invented Christian America (New York: Basic Books, 2015), 25. 

    30. Kruse, One Nation Under God , 61. 

    31. Kruse, One Nation Under God , 35; Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands , 69, 77; Barry Goldwater, The Conscience of a Conservative (Shepherdsville, KY: Victor Publishing, 1960), 53. 

    32. Phillips-Fein, Invisible Hands , 228. 

    33. Jennifer Burns, “Godless Capitalism: Ayn Rand and the Conser vative Movement,” Modern Intellectual History 1, no. 3 (2004): 359–385; Brian Doherty, Radicals for Capitalism: A Freewheeling History of the Modern Libertarian Movement (New York: Public Affairs, 2008), 11. 

    34. Doug Bandow, “The West Fails to Social Engineer South Sudan,” American Conservative , September 19, 2019, www.cato.org/commentary/west-fails-social-engineer-south-sudan . 

    35. Richard H. K. Vietor, How Countries Compete: Strategy, Structure, and Government in the Global Economy (Boston: Harvard Business School Press, 2007), 18. 

    结语：威权资本主义、民主和利伯维尔场思想

    虽然利伯维尔场经济学家对市场的运作方式提供了精辟的见解──举例来说，藉由对边际效用的理解提出观点──但他们同时也形成了一种含括一切的乌托邦式信念，认为唯有透过纯粹均衡的形式，经济才能顺利运作。他们坚信只要透过供需关系来创造成长，在政府只扮演最低限度角色的情况下，市场系统就会神奇地自行维持下去。但如今看来，这种经济模式似乎显得不切实际也不具意义。经过数十年的法规松绑和自由贸易扩张，这个世界经历了周期性的经济崩溃和政府纾困，也遇上了迅速加剧的财富不平等、战争、气候危机和公共健康灾难。我们无法达到均衡。

    若非要说些感想的话，在这段过程中，国家仍然是强大的经济驱动力，而中国以世界第二大经济体的地位崛起，只加剧了利伯维尔场的难题。一九七八年，中华人民共和国领导人邓小平宣布“中国改革开放”，共产党开始将渐进式的市场改革引入中国社会。一九八八年，共产党邀请了利伯维尔场愿景最有力的捍卫者米尔顿．傅利曼正式参访中国。不出所料，傅利曼表示，对中国来说，“没有任何真正令人满意的替代品可以替代全面自由化的市场。”傅利曼与共产党总书记赵紫阳促膝详谈时指出，就像“物理学原理一样，经济学原理也能平等地适用于所有国家”，他指出通往财富的唯一途径只有扩大“私有财产”并松绑国家的工业法规。他告诉赵紫阳，若没有政治自由，中国市场是无法运作的。换句话说，如果中国不走向自由政治体制，永远不可能成为富裕国家。1

    尽管如此，邓小平仍在一九八九年决定中国可以混合执行计划经济和市场经济，而市场经济也可以在他所谓的“社会主义”内发展。因此，邓小平和其他中国领导人开始着手创建“社会主义市场经济”，汲取了傅利曼在私有财产和诱因机制方面的观点，同时保留了中国的威权政体。中国领导阶层如今希望能在减少中央计划、解除对私有制的限制的同时，仍保持国家对重要公司和巨额主权财富基金的控制权。2

    一九九○年代，国家经济体制改革委员会的副司长姜春泽针对计划经济与市场经济编写了报告。姜春泽是利伯维尔场改革史上最有影响力的女性之一，她意识到市场经济的“生产力”是很优越的。然而她也指出，成功的市场经济并非纯粹的自由放任主义。市场经济需要一定程度的国家干预。因此，姜春泽建议将政府干预和私有财产结合至个人利润诱因上。3

    她建议的做法成功了。中国政府实施了对私营企业、房地产、财富诱因和私营公司的监督，投资并创建了国有资本主义公司，这些措施使中国成为全球第二富有的国家。中国确实遵循了一些利伯维尔场规则，但也违反了部分规则，成功证明了老掉牙的利伯维尔场圣经是错误的，中国在没有政治自由的状况下，还是达到了经济自由或经济成长。4

    事实上，中国人使用的是种旧的发展模式，源自十七世纪的尚─巴提斯特．柯尔贝。中国领导阶层和其他先驱一样，清楚看见一样傅利曼没有注意到的东西──也就是不同程度的私有财产、效率甚或是活跃的创业精神等利伯维尔场理念，都可以与国家控制并存，且成长茁壮。更令人讶异的是，中国发现利伯维尔场教条的某些元素，实际上可以在威权主义的环境下使国家变得繁荣。中国的社会主义市场经济看起来只不过是柯尔贝式专制资本主义更有效率的版本，具有政治专制主义的所有优势、风险与可怕之处。5

    利伯维尔场思想如今面临的是非常艰难的选择。对于那些拒绝科学与开放社会的人，以及那些团结起来反对民主与个人自由、支持独裁者和盗贼统治者（kleptocrat）的人来说，利伯维尔场思想会是盟友吗？又或者，一种新版本的民主利伯维尔场实用主义会变成一股强大的力量？亚当斯密担心企业对政府的影响，而路德维希．冯．米塞斯、弗里德里希．海耶克和米尔顿．傅利曼则担心政府对私人生活可能造成的危险。在如今这个社群媒体和大规模个资探勘的时代，利伯维尔场思想家不得不面对和克服这个事实：政府和市场都有阴暗面，而且这两者不一定互相冲突，有可能会协同合作，这本就是常常发生的事，而当政府和市场走入歧途时，它们必须受到管理，甚至抵制。有一件事是我们可以肯定的：如果我们想要摆脱人类如今面临的巨大阻碍，那么利伯维尔场思想就必须调整状态，变得比二战过后至今的利伯维尔场思想都更灵活变通、更精于世故。6

    若说我们在此学到了任何教训，那必定是当我们听到任何理论宣称“经济系统可以在缺乏大幅政治干涉的情况下自我维持或保持平衡”，一定要心怀质疑。即使是那些相信经济均衡的利伯维尔场哲学先驱，也认为国家对经济均衡至关重要。西塞罗或许对财富垂涎三尺，但他终究为了维护罗马共和国这个更重要的志业而献出了自己的性命。他认为服务公众是身为人类所能做到的最伟大善行，而市场运作的基石，则是优秀的政府以及人们对与自然和谐共存的理解。到头来，只有在社会和平与法治的基础上，人们才能进行诚实又具生产力的交易。7

    圣奥古斯丁等基督教领袖认为人类不可能在地球上建立完美的制度，只有在救赎中寻求完美。在犹太教与基督教共有的传统中，地球是上帝提供给堕落人类的不完美家园，这就是为什么洛克等基督教理论家认为财产和政府是必要的，这些事物的目的是确保人们的经济生活不至崩溃，也不至走入歧途而做出不道德和浪费的行为。这种将人类和自然视为不完美的观点，在启蒙运动哲学家（如魁奈、休谟和斯密）对世俗的热情中出现了改变，这些哲学家希望能透过经济均衡的利伯维尔场哲学，为人类的进步创造出科学方法。但是，若说斯密从某方面看来是乐观主义者的话，那么我们应该先将他视为怀疑论者，他并不确定自己的经济愿景是否有实现的可能。因此，《国富论》并非宣言，而是一种假说，斯密自己就是率先承认此一事实的人。

    就如同十八世纪的前辈一样，约翰．史都华．弥尔等十九世纪的哲学家乐观地认为利伯维尔场可以创造出均衡，同时他们也对利伯维尔场失败的状况感到困惑，因此，这些哲学家相信国家必须掌控经济的舵柄，防止经济失衡。就连在维多利亚时代提出“完美市场”理论的利伯维尔场倡导者威廉．史坦利．杰文斯也认为，在个体无法执行有效率的交易时，政府就必须进行干预。8

    这并不代表政府对经济的干预必定是理想的或有效的。但根据历史纪录所示，随着经济体成长得愈来愈复杂，政府也会随之成长，无论这是好是坏。利伯维尔场、个人野心和企业家精神都是至关重要的，它们带来了人类历史上许许多多最伟大的成就。但我们必须面对的现实是，政府是不该消失的，而那些断言国家必定对经济造成负面影响的论点，可说是既懒惰又充满误导性。那些严厉谴责政府在商业界所扮演的角色的人，事实上有很多都非常清楚国家能对经济造成的重大影响，想当然耳，他们也正是因此才总是在觊觎政治权力，并愿意为了获得权力付出高昂代价。

    如果我们要改造利伯维尔场思想，并使这套思想再次具有实际意义，我们就必须重新设计它，不仅把它看作一种以民主为导向的哲学，而且是一种接受国家与市场彼此有着根深蒂固关系的哲学。无论是政府还是市场，都永远不会是完美的；市场──或者自然界──不会按照人类哪怕是最周密的计划发展。自由的个人行动对于市场动力来说是必要的，但仅靠着这些行动不足以保证经济稳定运行。到了最后，我们最好还是回到西塞罗的古老书本中，不是为了找到完美的市场机制，而是为了吸取两千多年来不断吸引读者回头阅读的那些教训。西塞罗认为，如果人们能使用财富来支持宪政、城邦的和平与文明礼仪，财富就只会是良善的。对他来说，比财富更重要的是与自然和谐相处、培养学问、建立友谊以及履行道德管理的艰苦工作。单靠对市场的信心无法拯救我们，但坚守这些古老的美德或许能为我们带来某种救赎。

    1. Isabella M. Weber, “The (Im-)Possibility of Rational Socialism: Mises in China’s Market Reform Debate,” 2021, University of Massachusetts, Amherst, Economics Department Working Paper Series, no. 2021-19, available at ScholarWorks@UMassAmherst, https://scholarworks.umass.edu/econ_workingpaper/316 ; Isabella M. Weber, How China Escaped Shock Therapy: The Market Reform Debate (Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2021); Steven Mark Cohn, Competing Economic Paradigms in China: The Co-Evolution of Economic Events, Economic Theory and Economics Education, 1976–2016 (Abingdon, Oxon, UK: Routledge, 2016), 26; Milton Friedman, Friedman in China (Hong Kong: Chinese University Press, 1990), 74; Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom , 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002), 3–4; Milton Friedman, Free to Choose: A Personal Statement , 3rd ed. (New York: Harcourt, 1990), 57. 

    2. Cited in Weber, “The (Im-)Possibility of Rational Socialism. ” 

    3. Isabella Weber, “Origins of China’s Contested Relation with Neoliberalism: Economics, the World Bank, and Milton Friedman at the Dawn of Reform,” Global Perspectives 1, no 1 (2020): 1–14, at 7; Milton Friedman, “Market Mechanisms and Central Economic Planning,” in Milton Friedman, Sidney Hook, Rose Friedman, and Roger Freeman, Market Mechanisms and Central Economic Planning (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1981), 3; Weber, “The (Im-)Possibility of Rational Socialism. ” 

    4. Keith Bradsher and Li Yuan, “China’s Economy Became No. 2 by Defying No. 1,” New York Times , November 25, 2018. 

    5. Justin Yifu Lin, Economic Development and Transition: Thought, Strategy, and Viability (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009); Barry Naughton, The Chinese Economy, Adaptation and Growth (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2018); Pankaj Mishra, “The Rise of China and the Fall of the ‘Free Trade’ Myth,” New York Times , February 7, 2018; Keith Bradsher and Li Yuan, “The Chinese Thought They Had Little to Learn from Conventional Wisdom. Now It’s the West That’s Taking Notes,” New York Times , November 25, 2018. 

    6. Jason Brennan, Against Democracy (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2016), 192–193. 

    7. Karl Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Boston: Beacon Press, 1957). 

    8. Ellen Frankel Paul, “W. Stanley Jevons: Economic Revolutionary, Political Utilitarian,” Journal of the History of Ideas 40, no. 2 (1979): 263–283, at 279.   

  • 萧红《呼兰河传》

    一

        严冬一封锁了大地的时候，则大地满地裂着口。从南到北，从东到西，几尺长的，一丈长的，还有好几丈长的，它们毫无方向地，便随时随地，只要严冬一到，大地就裂开口了。

        严寒把大地冻裂了。

        年老的人，一进屋用扫帚扫着胡子上的冰溜，一面说：

        “今天好冷啊！地冻裂了。”

        赶车的车夫，顶着三星，绕着大鞭子走了六七十里，天刚一蒙亮，进了大车店，第一句话就向客栈掌柜的说：

        “好厉害的天啊！小刀子一样。”

        等进了栈房，摘下狗皮帽子来，抽一袋烟之后，伸手去拿热馒头的时候，那伸出来的手在手背上有无数的裂口。

        人的手被冻裂了。

        卖豆腐的人清早起来沿着人家去叫卖，偶一不慎，就把盛豆腐的方木盘贴在地上拿不起来了，被冻在地上了。

        卖馒头的老头，背着木箱子，里边装着热馒头，太阳一出来，就在街上叫唤。他刚一从家里出来的时候，他走的快，他喊的声音也大。可是过不了一会，他的脚上挂了掌子了，在脚心上好像踏着一个鸡蛋似的，圆滚滚的。原来冰雪封满了他的脚底了。他走起来十分地不得力，若不是十分地加着小心，他就要跌倒了。就是这样，也还是跌倒的。跌倒了是不很好的，把馒头箱子跌翻了，馒头从箱底一个一个地滚了出来。旁边若有人看见，趁着这机会，趁着老头子倒下一时还爬不起来的时候，就拾了几个一边吃着就走了。等老头子挣扎起来，连馒头带冰雪一起拣到箱子去，一数，不对数。他明白了。他向着那走不太远的吃他馒头的人说：

        “好冷的天，地皮冻裂了，吞了我的馒头了。”

        行路人听了这话都笑了。他背起箱子来再往前走，那脚下的冰溜，似乎是越结越高，使他越走越困难，于是背上出了汗，眼睛上了霜，胡子上的冰溜越挂越多，而且因为呼吸的关系，把破皮帽子的帽耳朵和帽前遮都挂了霜了。这老头越走越慢，担心受怕，颤颤惊惊，好像初次穿上滑冰鞋，被朋友推上了溜冰场似的。

        小狗冻得夜夜地叫唤，哽哽地，好像它的脚爪被火烧着一样。

        天再冷下去：

        水缸被冻裂了；

        井被冻住了；

        大风雪的夜里，竟会把人家的房子封住，睡了一夜，早晨起来，一推门，竟推不开门了。

        大地一到了这严寒的季节，一切都变了样，天空是灰色的，好像刮了大风之后，呈着一种混沌沌的气象，而且整天飞着清雪。人们走起路来是快的，嘴里边的呼吸，一遇到了严寒好像冒着烟似的。七匹马拉着一辆大车，在旷野上成串地一辆挨着一辆地跑，打着灯笼，甩着大鞭子，天空挂着三星。跑了两里路之后，马就冒汗了。再跑下去，这一批人马在冰天雪地里边竟热气腾腾的了。一直到太阳出来，进了栈房，那些马才停止了出汗。但是一停止了出汗，马毛立刻就上了霜。

        人和马吃饱了之后，他们再跑。这寒带的地方，人家很少，不像南方，走了一村，不远又来了一村，过了一镇，不远又来了一镇。这里是什么也看不见，远望出去是一片白。从这一村到那一村，根本是看不见的。只有凭了认路的人的记忆才知道是走向了什么方向。拉着粮食的七匹马的大车，是到他们附近的城里去。载来大豆的卖了大豆，载来高粱的卖了高粱。等回去的时候，他们带了油、盐和布匹。

        呼兰河就是这样的小城，这小城并不怎样繁华，只有两条大街，一条从南到北，一条从东到西，而最有名的算是十字街了。十字街口集中了全城的精华。十字街上有金银首饰店、布庄、油盐店、茶庄、药店，也有拔牙的洋医生。那医生的门前，挂着很大的招牌，那招牌上画着特别大的有量米的斗那么大的一排牙齿。这广告在这小城里边无乃太不相当，使人们看了竟不知道那是什么东西，因为油店、布店和盐店，他们都没有什么广告，也不过是盐店门前写个“盐”字，布店门前挂了两张怕是自古亦有之的两张布幌子。其余的如药店的招牌，也不过是：把那戴着花镜的伸出手去在小枕头上号着妇女们的脉管的医生的名字挂在门外就是了。

        比方那医生的名字叫李永春，那药店也就叫“李永春”。人们凭着记忆，哪怕就是李永春摘掉了他的招牌，人们也都知李永春是在那里。不但城里的人这样，就是从乡下来的人也多少都把这城里的街道，和街道上尽是些什么都记熟了。用不着什么广告，用不着什么招引的方式，要买的比如油盐、布匹之类，自己走进去就会买。不需要的，你就是挂了多大的牌子，人们也是不去买。那牙医生就是一个例子，那从乡下来的人们看了这么大的牙齿，真是觉得稀奇古怪，所以那大牌子前边，停了许多人在看，看也看不出是什么道理来。假若他是正在牙痛，他也绝对的不去让那用洋法子的医生给他拔掉，也还是走到李永春药店去，买二两黄连，回家去含着算了吧！因为那牌子上的牙齿太大了，有点莫名其妙，怪害怕的。

        所以那牙医生，挂了两三年招牌，到那里去拔牙的却是寥寥无几。

        后来那女医生没有办法，大概是生活没法维持，她兼做了收生婆。

        城里除了十字街之外，还有两条街，一条叫做东二道街，一条叫做西二道街。这两条街是从南到北的，大概五六里长。

        这两条街上没有什么好记载的，有几座庙，有几家烧饼铺，有几家粮栈。

        东二道街上有一家火磨，那火磨的院子很大，用红色的好砖砌起来的大烟筒是非常高的，听说那火磨里边进去不得，那里边的消信可多了，是碰不得的。一碰就会把人用火烧死，不然为什么叫火磨呢？就是因为有火，听说那里边不用马，或是毛驴拉磨，用的是火。一般人以为尽是用火，岂不把火磨烧着了吗？想来想去，想不明白，越想也就越糊涂。偏偏那火磨又是不准参观的。听说门口站着守卫。

        东二道街上还有两家学堂，一个在南头，一个在北头。都是在庙里边，一个在龙王庙里，一个在祖师庙里。两个都是小学：

        龙王庙里的那个学的是养蚕，叫做农业学校。祖师庙里的那个，是个普通的小学，还有高级班，所以又叫做高等小学。

        这两个学校，名目上虽然不同，实际上是没有什么分别的。也不过那叫做农业学校的，到了秋天把蚕用油炒起来，教员们大吃几顿就是了。

        那叫做高等小学的，没有蚕吃，那里边的学生的确比农业学校的学生长得高。农业学生开头是念“人、手、足、刀、尺”，顶大的也不过十六七岁。那高等小学的学生却不同了，吹着洋号，竟有二十四岁的，在乡下私学馆里已经教了四五年的书了，现在才来上高等小学，也有在粮栈里当了二年的管账先生的现在也来上学了。

        这小学的学生写起家信来，竟有写到：“小秃子闹眼睛好了没有？”小秃子就是他的八岁的长公子的小名。次公子，女公子还都没有写上，若都写上怕是把信写得太长了。因为他已经子女成群，已经是一家之主了，写起信来总是多谈一些个家政：姓王的地户的地租送来没有？大豆卖了没有？行情如何之类。

        这样的学生，在课堂里边也是极有地位的，教师也得尊敬他，一不留心，他这样的学生就站起来了，手里拿着“康熙字典”，常常会把先生指问住的。万里乾坤的“乾”和乾菜的“乾”，据这学生说是不同的。乾菜的“乾”应该这样写：‘’乾”，而不是那样写：“乾”。

        西二道街上不但没有火磨，学堂也就只有一个。是个清真学校，设在城隍庙里边。

        其余的也和东二道街一样，灰秃秃的，若有车马走过，则烟尘滚滚，下了雨满地是泥。而且东二道街上有大泥坑一个，五六尺深。不下雨那泥浆好像粥一样，下了雨，这泥坑就变成河了，附近的人家，就要吃它的苦头，冲了人家里满满是泥，等坑水一落了去，天一晴了，被太阳一晒，出来很多蚊子飞到附近的人家去。同时那泥坑也就越晒越纯净，好像在提炼什么似的，好像要从那泥坑里边提炼出点什么来似的。若是一个月以上不下雨，那大泥坑的质度更纯了，水分完全被蒸发走了，那里边的泥，又黏又黑，比粥锅瀙糊，比浆糊还黏。好像炼胶的大锅似的，黑糊糊的，油亮亮的，哪怕苍蝇蚊子从那里一飞也要黏住的。

        小燕子是很喜欢水的，有时误飞到这泥坑上来，用翅子点着水，看起来很危险，差一点没有被泥坑陷害了它，差一点没有被黏住，赶快地头也不回地飞跑了。

        若是一匹马，那就不然了，非黏住不可。不仅仅是黏住，而且把它陷进去，马在那里边滚着，挣扎着，挣扎了一会，没有了力气那马就躺下了。一躺下那就很危险，很有致命的可能。但是这种时候不很多，很少有人牵着马或是拉着车子来冒这种险。

        这大泥坑出乱子的时候，多半是在旱年，若两三个月不下雨这泥坑子才到了真正危险的时候。在表面上看来，似乎是越下雨越坏，一下了雨好像小河似的了，该多么危险，有一丈来深，人掉下去也要没顶的。其实不然，呼兰河这城里的人没有这么傻，他们都晓得这个坑是很厉害的，没有一个人敢有这样大的胆子牵着马从这泥坑上过。

        可是若三个月不下雨，这泥坑子就一天一天地干下去，到后来也不过是二三尺深，有些勇敢者就试探着冒险地赶着车从上边过去了，还有些次勇敢者，看着别人过去，也就跟着过去了。一来二去地，这坑子的两岸，就压成车轮经过的车辙了。那再后来者，一看，前边已经有人走在先了，这懦怯者比之勇敢的人更勇敢，赶着车子走上去了。

        谁知这泥坑子的底是高低不平的，人家过去了，可是他却翻了车了。

        车夫从泥坑爬出来，弄得和个小鬼似的，满脸泥污，而后再从泥中往外挖掘他的马，不料那马已经倒在泥污之中了，这时候有些过路的人，也就走上前来，帮忙施救。

        这过路的人分成两种，一种是穿着长袍短褂的，非常清洁。看那样子也伸不出手来，因为他的手也是很洁净的。不用说那就是绅士一流的人物了，他们是站在一旁参观的。

        看那马要站起来了，他们就喝彩，“噢！噢！”地喊叫着；看那马又站不起来，又倒下去了，这时他们又是喝彩，“噢噢”地又叫了几声，不过这喝的是倒彩。

        就这样的马要站起来，而又站不起来地闹了一阵之后，仍然没有站起来，仍是照原样可怜地躺在那里。这时候，那些看热闹的觉得也不过如此，也没有什么新花样了。于是星散开去，各自回家去了。

        现在再来说那马还是在那里躺着，那些帮忙救马的过路人，都是些普通的老百姓，是这城里的担葱的、卖菜的、瓦匠、车夫之流。他们卷卷裤脚，脱了鞋子，看看没有什么办法，走下泥坑去，想用几个人的力量把那马抬起来。

        结果抬不起来了，那马的呼吸不大多了。于是人们着了慌，赶快解了马套。从车子把马解下来，以为这回那马毫无担负地就可以站起来了。

        不料那马还是站不起来。马的脑袋露在泥浆的外边，两个耳朵哆嗦着，眼睛闭着，鼻子往外喷着突突的气。

        看了这样可怜的景象，附近的人们跑回家去，取了绳索，拿了绞锥。用绳子把马捆了起来，用绞锥从下边掘着。人们喊着号令，好像造房子或是架桥梁似的，把马抬出来了。

        马是没有死，躺在道旁。人们给马浇了一些水，还给马洗了一个脸。

        看热闹的也有来的，也有去的。

        第二天大家都说：“那大水泡子又淹死了一匹马。”

        虽然马没有死，一哄起来就说马死了。若不这样说，觉得那大泥坑也太没有什么威严了。

        在这大泥坑上翻车的事情不知有多少。一年除了被冬天冻住的季节之外，其余的时间，这大泥坑子像它被赋给生命了似的，它是活的。水涨了，水落了，过些日子大了，过些日子又小了。大家对它都起着无限的关切。

        水大的时间，不但阻碍了车马，且也阻碍了行人，老头走在泥坑子的沿上，两条腿打颤，小孩子在泥坑子的沿上吓得狼哭鬼叫。

        一下起雨来这大泥坑子白亮亮地涨得溜溜地满，涨到两边的人家的墙根上去了，把人家的墙根给淹没了。来往过路的人，一走到这里，就像在人生的路上碰到了打击，是要奋斗的，卷起袖子来，咬紧了牙根，全身的精力集中起来，手抓着人家的板墙，心脏扑通扑通地跳，头不要晕，眼睛不要花，要沉着迎战。

        偏偏那人家的板墙造得又非常地平滑整齐，好像有意在危难的时候不帮人家的忙似的，使那行路人不管怎样巧妙地伸出手来，也得不到那板墙的怜悯，东抓抓不着什么，西摸也摸不到什么，平滑得连一个疤拉节子也没有，这可不知道是什么山上长的木头，长得这样完好无缺。

        挣扎了五六分钟之后，总算是过去了。弄得满头流汗，满身发烧，那都不说。再说那后来的人，依法炮制，那花样也不多，也只是东抓抓，西摸摸。弄了五六分钟之后，又过去了。

        一过去了可就精神饱满，哈哈大笑着，回头向那后来的人，向那正在艰苦阶段上奋斗着的人说：

        “这算什么，一辈子不走几回险路那不算英雄。”

        可也不然，也不一定都是精神饱满的，而大半是被吓得脸色发白。有的虽然已经过去了多时，还是不能够很快地抬起腿来走路，因为那腿还在打颤。

        这一类胆小的人，虽然是险路已经过去了，但是心里边无由地生起来一种感伤的情绪，心里颤抖抖的，好像被这大泥坑子所感动了似的，总要回过头来望一望，打量一会，似乎要有些话说。终于也没有说什么，还是走了。

        有一天，下大雨的时候，一个小孩子掉下去，让一个卖豆腐的救了上来。

        救上来一看，那孩子是农业学校校长的儿子。

        于是议论纷纷了，有的说是因为农业学堂设在庙里边，冲了龙王爷了，龙王爷要降大雨淹死这孩子。

        有的说不然，完全不是这样，都是因为这孩子的父亲的关系，他父亲在讲堂上指手画脚地讲，讲给学生们说，说这天下雨不是在天的龙王爷下的雨，他说没有龙王爷。你看这不把龙王爷活活地气死，他这口气哪能不出呢？所以就抓住了他的儿子来实行因果报应了。

        有的说，那学堂里的学生也太不像样了，有的爬上了老龙王的头顶，给老龙王去戴了一个草帽。这是什么年头，一个毛孩子就敢惹这么大的祸，老龙王怎么会不报应呢？看着吧，这还不能算了事，你想龙王爷并不是白人呵！你若惹了他，他可能够饶了你？那不像对付一个拉车的、卖菜的，随便的踢他们一脚就让他们去。那是龙王爷呀！龙王爷还是惹得的吗？

        有的说，那学堂的学生都太不像样了，他说他亲眼看见过，学生们拿了蚕放在大殿上老龙王的手上。你想老龙王哪能够受得了。

        有的说，现在的学堂太不好了，有孩子是千万上不得学堂的。一上了学堂就天地人鬼神不分了。

        有的说他要到学堂把他的儿子领回来，不让他念书了。

        有的说孩子在学堂里念书，是越念越坏，比方吓掉了魂，他娘给他叫魂的时候，你听他说什么？他说这叫迷信。你说再念下去那还了得吗？

        说来说去，越说越远了。

        过了几天，大泥坑子又落下去了，泥坑两岸的行人通行无阻。

        再过些日子不下雨，泥坑子就又有点像要干了。这时候，又有车马开始在上面走，又有车子翻在上面，又有马倒在泥中打滚，又是绳索棍棒之类的，往外抬马，被抬出去的赶着车子走了，后来的，陷进去，再抬。

        一年之中抬车抬马，在这泥坑子上不知抬了多少次，可没有一个人说把泥坑子用土填起来不就好了吗？没有一个。

        有一次一个老绅士在泥坑涨水时掉在里边了。一爬出来，他就说：

        “这街道太窄了，去了这水泡子连走路的地方都没有了，这两边的院子，怎么不把院墙拆了让出一块来？”

        他正说着，板墙里边，就是那院中的老太太搭了言。她说院墙是拆不得的，她说最好种树，若是沿着墙根种上一排树，下起雨来人就可以攀着树过去了。

        说拆墙的有，说种树的有，若说用土把泥坑来填平的，一个人也没有。

        这泥坑子里边淹死过小猪，用泥浆闷死过狗，闷死过猫，鸡和鸭也常常死在这泥坑里边。

        原因是这泥坑上边结了一层硬壳，动物们不认识那硬壳下面就是陷阱，等晓得了可也就晚了。它们跑着或是飞着，等往那硬壳上一落可就再也站不起来了。白天还好，或者有人又要来施救。夜晚可就没有办法了。它们自己挣扎，挣扎到没有力量的时候就很自然地沉下去了，其实也或者越挣扎越沉下去得快。有时至死也还不沉下去的事也有。若是那泥浆的密度过高的时候，就有这样的事。

        比方肉上市，忽然卖便宜猪肉了，于是大家就想起那泥坑子来了，说：

        “可不是那泥坑子里边又淹死了猪了？”

        说着若是腿快的，就赶快跑到邻人的家去，告诉邻居。

        “快去买便宜肉吧，快去吧，快去吧，一会没有了。”

        等买回家来才细看一番，似乎有点不大对，怎么这肉又紫又青的！可不要是瘟猪肉。

        但是又一想，哪能是瘟猪肉呢，一定是那泥坑子淹死的。

        于是煎、炒、蒸、煮，家家吃起便宜猪肉来。虽然吃起来了，但就总觉得不大香，怕还是瘟猪肉。

        可是又一想，瘟猪肉怎么可以吃得，那么还是泥坑子淹死的吧！

    本来这泥坑子一年只淹死一两只猪，或两三口猪，有几年还连一个猪也没有淹死。至于居民们常吃淹死的猪肉，这可不知是怎么一回事，真是龙王爷晓得。

        虽然吃的自己说是泥坑子淹死的猪肉，但也有吃了病的，那吃病了的就大发议论说：

        “就是淹死的猪肉也不应该抬到市上去卖，死猪肉终究是不新鲜的，税局子是干什么的，让大街上，在光天化日之下就卖起死猪肉来？”

        那也是吃了死猪肉的，但是尚且没有病的人说：

        “话可也不能是那么说，一定是你疑心，你三心二意地吃下去还会好。你看我们也一样地吃了，可怎么没病？”

        间或也有小孩子太不知时务，他说他妈不让他吃，说那是瘟猪肉。

        这样的孩子，大家都不喜欢。大家都用眼睛瞪着他，说他：

        “瞎说，瞎说！”

        有一次一个孩子说那猪肉一定是瘟猪肉，并且是当着母亲的面向邻人说的。

        那邻人听了倒并没有坚决地表示什么，可是他的母亲的脸立刻就红了，伸出手去就打了那孩子。

        那孩子很固执，仍是说：

        “是瘟猪肉吗！是瘟猪肉吗！”

        母亲实在难为情起来，就拾起门旁的烧火的叉子，向着那孩子的肩膀就打了过去。于是孩子一边哭着一边跑回家里去了。

        一进门，炕沿上坐着外祖母，那孩子一边哭着一边扑到外祖母的怀里说：

        “姥姥，你吃的不是瘟猪肉吗？我妈打我。”

        外祖母对这打得可怜的孩子本想安慰一番，但是一抬头看见了同院的老李家的奶奶站在门口往里看。

        于是外祖母就掀起孩子后衣襟来，用力地在孩子的屁股上哐哐地打起来，嘴里还说着：

        “谁让你这么一点你就胡说八道！”

        一直打到李家的奶奶抱着孩子走了才算完事。

        那孩子哭得一塌糊涂，什么“瘟猪肉”不“瘟猪肉”的，哭得也说不清了。

        总共这泥坑子施给当地居民的福利有两条：

        第一条：常常抬车抬马，淹鸡淹鸭，闹得非常热闹，可使居民说长道短，得以消遣。

        第二条就是这猪肉的问题了，若没有这泥坑子，可怎么吃瘟猪肉呢？吃是可以吃的，但是可怎么说法呢？真正说是吃的瘟猪肉，岂不太不讲卫生了吗？有这泥坑子可就好办，可以使瘟猪变成淹猪，居民们买起肉来，第一经济，第二也不算什么不卫生。

        东二道街除了大泥坑子这番盛举之外，再就没有什么了。

        也不过是几家碾磨房，几家豆腐店，也有一两家机房，也许有一两家染布匹的染缸房，这个也不过是自己默默地在那里做着自己的工作，没有什么可以使别人开心的，也不能招来什么议论。那里边的人都是天黑了就睡觉，天亮了就起来工作。一年四季，春暖花开，秋雨冬雪，也不过是随着季节穿起棉衣来、脱下单衣去地过着。生老病死也都是一声不响地默默地办理。

        比方就是东二道街南头，那卖豆芽菜的王寡妇吧：她在房脊上插了一个很高的杆子，杆子头上挑着一个破筐。因为那杆子很高，差不多和龙王庙的铁马铃子一般高了。来了风，庙上的铃子格棱格棱地响。王寡妇的破筐子虽是它不会响，但是它也会东摇西摆地作着态。

        就这样一年一年地过去，王寡妇一年一年地卖着豆芽菜，平静无事，过着安详的日子，忽然有一年夏天，她的独子到河边去洗澡，掉河淹死了。

        这事情似乎轰动了一时，家传户晓，可是不久也就平静下去了。不但邻人、街坊，就是她的亲戚朋友也都把这回事情忘记了。

        再说那王寡妇，虽然她从此以后就疯了，但她到底还晓得卖豆芽菜，她仍还是静静地活着，虽然偶尔她的菜被偷了，在大街上或是在庙台上狂哭一场，但一哭过了之后，她还是平平静静地活着。

        至于邻人街坊们，或是过路人看见了她在庙台上哭，也会引起一点恻隐之心来的，不过为时甚短罢了。

        还有人们常常喜欢把一些不幸者归划在一起，比如疯子傻子之类，都一律去看待。

        哪个乡、哪个县、哪个村都有些个不幸者，瘸子啦、瞎子啦、疯子或是傻子。

        呼兰河这城里，就有许多这一类的人。人们关于他们都似乎听得多、看得多，也就不以为奇了。偶尔在庙台上或是大门洞里不幸遇到了一个，刚想多少加一点恻隐之心在那人身上，但是一转念，人间这样的人多着哩！于是转过眼睛去，三步两步地就走过去了。即或有人停下来，也不过是和那些毫没有记性的小孩子似的向那疯子投一个石子，或是做着把瞎子故意领到水沟里边去的事情。

        一切不幸者，就都是叫化子，至少在呼兰河这城里边是这样。

        人们对待叫化子们是很平凡的。

        门前聚了一群狗在咬，主人问：

        “咬什么？”

        仆人答：

        “咬一个讨饭的。”

        说完了也就完了。

        可见这讨饭人的活着是一钱不值了。

        卖豆芽菜的女疯子，虽然她疯了还忘不了自己的悲哀，隔三差五地还到庙台上去哭一场，但是一哭完了，仍是得回家去吃饭、睡觉、卖豆芽菜。

        她仍是平平静静地活着。

        再说那染缸房里边，也发生过不幸，两个年轻的学徒，为了争一个街头上的妇人，其中的一个把另一个按进染缸子给淹死了。死了的不说，就说那活着的也下了监狱，判了个无期徒刑。

        但这也是不声不响地把事就解决了，过了三年二载，若有人提起那件事来，差不多就像人们讲着岳飞、秦桧似的，久远得不知多少年前的事情似的。

    同时发生这件事情的染缸房，仍旧是在原址，甚或连那淹死人的大缸也许至今还在那儿使用着。从那染缸房发卖出来的布匹，仍旧是远近的乡镇都流通着。蓝色的布匹男人们做起棉裤棉袄，冬天穿它来抵御严寒。红色的布匹，则做成大红袍子，给十八九岁的姑娘穿上，让她去做新娘子。

        总之，除了染缸房子在某年某月某日死了一个人外，其余的世界，并没有因此而改动了一点。

        再说那豆腐房里边也发生过不幸：两个伙计打仗，竟把拉磨的小驴的腿打断了。

        因为它是驴子，不谈它也就罢了。只因为这驴子哭瞎了一个妇人的眼睛（即打了驴子那人的母亲），所以不能不记上。

        再说那造纸的纸房里边，把一个私生子活活饿死了。因为他是一个初生的孩子，算不了什么。也就不说他了。

        其余的东二道街上，还有几家扎彩铺。这是为死人而预备的。

        人死了，魂灵就要到地狱里边去，地狱里边怕是他没有房子住、没有衣裳穿、没有马骑，活着的人就为他做了这么一套，用火烧了，据说是到阴间就样样都有了。

        大至喷钱兽、聚宝盆、大金山、大银山，小至丫鬟侍女、厨房里的厨子、喂猪的猪倌，再小至花盆、茶壶茶杯、鸡鸭鹅犬，以至窗前的鹦鹉。

        看起来真是万分地好看。大院子也有院墙，墙头上是金色的琉璃瓦。一进了院，正房五间，厢房三间，一律是青红砖瓦房，窗明几净，空气特别新鲜。花盆一盆一盆地摆在花架子上，石柱子、全百合、马蛇菜、九月菊都一齐地开了，看起使人不知道是什么季节，是夏天还是秋天，居然那马蛇菜也和菊花同时站在一起。也许阴间是不分什么春夏秋冬的，这且不说。

        再说那厨房里的厨子，真是活神活现，比真的厨子真是干净到一千倍，头戴白帽子、身扎白围裙，手里边在做拉面条。似乎午饭的时候就要到了，煮了面就要开饭了似的。

        院子里的牵马童，站在一匹大白马的旁边，那马好像是阿拉伯马，特别高大，英姿挺立，假若有人骑上，看样子一定比火车跑得更快。就是呼兰河这城里的将军，相信他也没有骑过这样的马。

        小车子、大骡子，都排在一边。骡子是油黑的，闪亮的，用鸡蛋壳做的眼睛，所以眼珠是不会转的。

        大骡子旁边还站着一匹小骡子，那小骡子是特别好看，眼珠是和大骡子一般的大。

        小车子装潢得特别漂亮，车轮子都是银色的。车前边的帘子是半掩半卷的，使人得以看到里边去。车里边是红堂堂地铺着大红的褥子。赶车的坐在车沿上，满脸是笑，得意洋洋，装饰得特别漂亮，扎着紫色的腰带，穿着蓝色花丝葛的大袍，黑缎鞋，雪白的鞋底。大概穿起这鞋来还没有走路就赶过车来了。他头上戴着黑帽头，红帽顶，把脸扬着，他蔑视着一切，越看他越不像一个车夫，好像一位新郎。

        公鸡三两只，母鸡七八只，都是在院子里边静静地啄食，一声不响，鸭子也并不呱呱地直叫，叫得烦人。狗蹲在上房的门旁，非常地守职，一动不动。

        看热闹的人，人人说好，个个称赞。穷人们看了这个竟觉得活着还没有死了好。

        正房里，窗帘、被格、桌椅板凳，一切齐全。

        还有一个管家的，手里拿着一个算盘在打着，旁边还摆着一个账本，上边写着：

        北烧锅欠酒二十二斤

        东乡老王家昨借米二十担

        白旗屯泥人子昨送地租四百三十吊

        白旗屯二个子共欠地租两千吊

        这以下写了个：

        四月二十八日

        以上的是四月二十七日的流水账，大概二十八日的还没有写吧！

        看这账目也就知道阴间欠了账也是马虎不得的，也设了专门人才，即管账先生一流的人物来管。同时也可以看出来，这大宅子的主人不用说就是个地主了。

        这院子里边，一切齐全，一切都好，就是看不见这院子的主人在什么地方，未免地使人疑心这么好的院子而没有主人了。这一点似乎使人感到空虚，无着无落的。

        再一回头看，就觉得这院子终归是有点两样，怎么丫鬟、侍女、车夫、马童的胸前都挂着一张纸条，那纸条上写着他们每个人的名字：

        那漂亮得和新郎似的车夫的名字叫：

        长鞭

        马童的名字叫：

        快腿

        左手拿着水烟袋，右手抡着花手巾的小丫鬟叫：

        德顺

        另外一个叫：

        顺平

        管账的先生叫：

        妙算

        提着喷壶在浇花的侍女叫：

        花姐

        再一细看才知道那匹大白马也是有名字的，那名字是贴在马屁股上的，叫：

        千里驹

        其余的如骡子、狗、鸡、鸭之类没有名字。

        那在厨房里拉着面条的“老王”，他身上写着他名字的纸条，来风一吹，还忽咧忽咧地跳着。

        这可真有点奇怪，自家的仆人，自己都不认识了，还要挂上个名签。

        这一点未免地使人迷离恍惚，似乎阴间究竟没有阳间好。

        虽然这么说，羡慕这座宅子的人还是不知多少。因为的确这座宅子是好：清悠、闲静，鸦雀无声，一切规整，绝不紊乱。丫鬟、侍女，照着阳间的一样，鸡犬猪马，也都和阳间一样。阳间有什么，到了阴间也有，阳间吃面条，到了阴间也吃面条，阳间有车子坐，到了阴间也一样地有车子坐。阴间是完全和阳间一样，一模一样的。

        只不过没有东二道街上那大泥坑子就是了。是凡好的一律都有，坏的不必有。

        东二道街上的扎彩铺，就扎的是这一些。一摆起来又威风、又好看，但那作坊里边是乱七八糟的，满地碎纸，秫杆棍子一大堆，破盒子、乱罐子、颜料瓶子、浆糊盆、细麻绳、粗麻绳……走起路来，会使人跌倒。那里边砍的砍、绑的绑，苍蝇也来回地飞着。

        要做人，先做一个脸孔，糊好了，挂在墙上，男的女的，到用的时候，摘下一个来就用。给一个用秫杆捆好的人架子，穿上衣服，装上一个头就像人了。把一个瘦骨伶仃的用纸糊好的马架子，上边贴上用纸剪成的白毛，那就是一匹很漂亮的马了。

        做这样的活计的，也不过是几个极粗糙极丑陋的人，他们虽懂得怎样打扮一个马童或是打扮一个车夫，怎样打扮一个妇人女子，但他们对他们自己是毫不加修饰的，长头发的、毛头发的、歪嘴的、歪眼的、赤足裸膝的，似乎使人不能相信，这么漂亮炫眼耀目，好像要活了的人似的，是出于他们之手。

        他们吃的是粗菜、粗饭，穿的是破烂的衣服，睡觉则睡在车马、人、头之中。

        他们这种生活，似乎也很苦的。但是一天一天地，也就糊里糊涂地过去了，也就过着春夏秋冬，脱下单衣去，穿起棉衣来地过去了。

        生、老、病、死，都没有什么表示。生了就任其自然地长去；长大就长大，长不大也就算了。

        老，老了也没有什么关系，眼花了，就不看；耳聋了，就不听；牙掉了，就整吞；走不动了，就瘫着。这有什么办法，谁老谁活该。

        病，人吃五谷杂粮，谁不生病呢？

        死，这回可是悲哀的事情了，父亲死了儿子哭；儿子死了母亲哭；哥哥死了一家全哭；嫂子死了，她的娘家人来哭。

        哭了一朝或是三日，就总得到城外去，挖一个坑把这人埋起来。

        埋了之后，那活着的仍旧得回家照旧地过着日子。该吃饭，吃饭。该睡觉，睡觉。外人绝对看不出来是他家已经没有了父亲或是失掉了哥哥，就连他们自己也不是关起门来，每天哭上一场。他们心中的悲哀，也不过是随着当地的风俗的大流，逢年过节地到坟上去观望一回。二月过清明，家家户户都提着香火去上坟茔，有的坟头上塌了一块土，有的坟头上陷了几个洞，相观之下，感慨唏嘘，烧香点酒。若有近亲的人如子女父母之类，往往且哭上一场；那哭的语句，数数落落，无异是在做一篇文章或者是在诵一篇长诗。歌诵完了之后，站起来拍拍屁股上的土，也就随着上坟的人们回城的大流，回城去了。

        回到城中的家里，又得照旧地过着日子，一年柴米油盐，浆洗缝补。从早晨到晚上忙了个不休。夜里疲乏之极，躺在炕上就睡了。在夜梦中并梦不到什么悲哀的或是欣喜的景况，只不过咬着牙、打着哼，一夜一夜地就都这样地过去了。

        假若有人问他们，人生是为了什么？他们并不会茫然无所对答的，他们会直截了当地不假思索地说了出来：“人活着是为吃饭穿衣。”

        再问他，人死了呢？他们会说：“人死了就完了。”

        所以没有人看见过做扎彩匠的活着的时候为他自己糊一座阴宅，大概他不怎么相信阴间。假如有了阴间，到那时候他再开扎彩铺，怕又要租人家的房子了。

        呼兰河城里，除了东二道街、西二道街、十字街之外，再就都是些个小胡同了。

        小胡同里边更没有什么了，就连打烧饼麻花的店铺也不大有，就连卖红绿糖球的小床子，也都是摆在街口上去，很少有摆在小胡同里边的。那些住在小街上的人家，一天到晚看不见多少闲散杂人。耳听的眼看的，都比较地少，所以整天寂寂寞寞的，关起门来在过着生活。破草房有上半间，买上二斗豆子，煮一点盐豆下饭吃，就是一年。

        在小街上住着，又冷清、又寂寞。

        一个提篮子卖烧饼的，从胡同的东头喊，胡同向西头都听到了。虽然不买，若走谁家的门口，谁家的人都是把头探出来看看，间或有问一问价钱的，问一问糖麻花和油麻花现在是不是还卖着前些日子的价钱。

        间或有人走过去掀开了筐子上盖着的那张布，好像要买似的，拿起一个来摸一摸是否还是热的。

        摸完了也就放下了，卖麻花的也绝对地不生气。

        于是又提到第二家的门口去。

        第二家的老太婆也是在闲着，于是就又伸出手来，打开筐子，摸了一回。

        摸完了也是没有买。

        等到了第三家，这第三家可要买了。

        一个三十多岁的女人，刚刚睡午觉起来，她的头顶上梳着一个卷，大概头发不怎样整齐，发卷上罩着一个用大黑珠线织的网子，网子上还插了不少的疙瘩针。可是因为这一睡觉，不但头发乱了，就是那些疙瘩针也都跳出来了，好像这女人的发卷上被射了不少的小箭头。

        她一开门就很爽快，把门扇呱哒地往两边一分，她就从门里闪出来了。随后就跟出来五个孩子。这五个孩子也都个个爽快，像一个小连队似的，一排就排好了。

        第一个是女孩子，十二三岁，伸出手来就拿了一个五吊钱一只的一竹筷子长的大麻花。她的眼光很迅速，这麻花在这筐子里的确是最大的，而且就只有这一个。

        第二个是男孩子，拿了一个两吊钱一只的。

        第三个也是拿了个两吊钱一只的。也是个男孩子。

        第四个看了看，没有办法，也只得拿了一个两吊钱的。也是个男孩子。

        轮到第五个了，这个可分不出来是男孩子，还是女孩子。

        头是秃的，一只耳朵上挂着钳子，瘦得好像个干柳条，肚子可特别大。看样子也不过五岁。

        一伸手，他的手就比其余的四个的都黑得更厉害。其余的四个，虽然他们的手也黑得够厉害的，但总还认得出来那是手，而不是别的什么，唯有他的手是连认也认不出来了。说是手吗，说是什么呢，说什么都行。完全起着黑的灰的、深的浅的，各种的云层，看上去，好像看隔山照似的，有无穷的趣味。

        他就用这手在筐子里边挑选，几乎是每个都让他摸过了，不一会工夫，全个的筐子都让他翻遍了。本来这筐子虽大，麻花也并没有几只。除了一个顶大的之外，其余小的也不过十来只，经了他这一翻，可就完全遍了。弄了他满手是油，把那小黑手染得油亮油亮的，黑亮黑亮的。

        而后他说：

        “我要大的。”

        于是就在门口打了起来。

       他跑得非常之快，他去追着他的姐姐。他的第二个哥哥，他的第三个哥哥，也都跑了上去，都比他跑得更快。再说他的大姐，那个拿着大麻花的女孩，她跑得更快到不能想象了。

        已经找到一块墙的缺口的地方，跳了出去，后边的也就跟着一溜烟地跳过去。等他们刚一追着跳过去，那大孩子又跳回来了，在院子里跑成了一阵旋风。

        那个最小的，不知是男孩子还是女孩子的，早已追不上了。落在后边，在号啕大哭。间或也想拣一点便宜，那就是当他的两个哥哥，把他的姐姐已经扭住的时候，他就趁机会想要从中抢他姐姐手里的麻花。可是几次都没有做到，于是又落在后边号啕大哭。

        他们的母亲，虽然是很有威风的样子，但是不动手是招呼不住他们的。母亲看了这样子也还没有个完了，就进屋去，拿起烧火的铁叉子来，向着她的孩子就奔去了。不料院子里有一个小泥坑，是猪在里打腻的地方。她恰好就跌在泥坑那儿了，把叉子跌出去五尺多远。

        于是这场戏才算达到了高潮，看热闹的人没有不笑的，没有不称心愉快的。

        就连那卖麻花的人也看出神了，当那女人坐到泥坑中把泥花四边溅起来的时候，那卖麻花的差一点没把筐子掉了地下。他高兴极了，他早已经忘了他手里的筐子了。

        至于那几个孩子，则早就不见了。

        等母亲起来去把他们追回来的时候，那做母亲的这回可发了威风，让他们一个一个地向着太阳跪下，在院子里排起一小队来，把麻花一律地解除。

        顶大的孩子的麻花没有多少了，完全被撞碎了。

        第三个孩子的已经吃完了。

        第二个的还剩了一点点。

        只有第四个的还拿在手上没有动。

        第五个，不用说，根本没有拿在手里。

        闹到结果，卖麻花的和那女人吵了一阵之后提着筐子又到另一家去叫卖去了。他和那女人所吵的是关于那第四个孩子手上拿了半天的麻花又退回了的问题，卖麻花的坚持着不让退，那女人又非退回不可。结果是付了三个麻花的钱，就把那提篮子的人赶了出来了。

        为着麻花而下跪的五个孩子不提了。再说那一进胡同口就被挨家摸索过来的麻花，被提到另外的胡同里去，到底也卖掉了。

        一个已经脱完了牙齿的老太太买了其中的一个，用纸裹着拿到屋子去了。她一边走着一边说：

        “这麻花真干净，油亮亮的。”

        而后招呼了她的小孙子，快来吧。

        那卖麻花的人看了老太太很喜欢这麻花，于是就又说：

        “是刚出锅的，还热忽着哩！”

        过去了卖麻花的，后半天，也许又来了卖凉粉的，也是一在胡同口的这头喊，那头就听到了。

        要买的拿着小瓦盆出去了。不买的坐在屋子一听这卖凉粉的一招呼，就知道是应烧晚饭的时候了。因为这卖凉粉的，一个整个的夏天都是在太阳偏西时他就来的，来得那么准，就像时钟一样，到了四五点钟他必来的。就像他卖凉粉专门到这一条胡同来卖似的。似乎在别的胡同里就没有为着多卖几家而耽误了这一定的时间。

        卖凉粉的一过去了，一天也就快黑了。

        打着拨浪鼓的货郎，一到太阳偏西，就再不进到小巷子里来，就连僻静的街他也不去了，他担着担子从大街口走回家去。

        卖瓦盆的，也早都收市了。

        拣绳头的、换破烂的也都回家去了。

        只有卖豆腐的则又出来了。

        晚饭时节，吃了小葱蘸大酱就已经很可口了，若外加上一块豆腐，那真是锦上添花，一定要多浪费两碗苞米大芸豆粥的。一吃就吃多了，那是很自然的，豆腐加上点辣椒油，再拌上点大酱，那是多么可口的东西；用筷子触了一点点豆腐，就能够吃下去半碗饭，再到豆腐上去触了一下，一碗饭就完了。因为豆腐而多吃两碗饭，并不算吃得多，没有吃过的人，不能够晓得其中的滋味的。

        所以卖豆腐的人来了，男女老幼，全都欢迎。打开门来，笑盈盈的，虽然不说什么，但是彼此有一种融洽的感情，默默生了起来。

        似乎卖豆腐的在说：

        “我的豆腐真好！”

        似乎买豆腐的回答：

        “你的豆腐果然不错。”

        买不起豆腐的人对那卖豆腐的，就非常地羡慕，一听了那从街口越招呼越近的声音就特别地感到诱惑，假若能吃一块豆腐可不错，切上一点青辣椒，拌上一点小葱子。

        但是天天这样想，天天就没有买成，卖豆腐的一来，就把这等人白白地引诱一场。于是那被诱惑的人，仍然逗不起决心，就多吃几口辣椒，辣得满头是汗。他想假若一个人开了一个豆腐房可不错，那就可以自由随便地吃豆腐了。

        果然，他的儿子长到五岁的时候，问他：

        “你长大了干什么？”

        五岁的孩子说：

        “开豆腐房。”

        这显然要继承他父亲未遂的志愿。

        关于豆腐这美妙的一盘菜的爱好，竟还有甚于此的，竟有想要倾家荡产的。传说上，有这样的一个家长，他下了决心，他说：

        “不过了，买一块豆腐吃去！”这“不过了”的三个字，用旧的语言来翻译，就是毁家纾难的意思；用现代的话来说，就是：“我破产了！”

        卖豆腐的一收了市，一天的事情都完了。

        家家户户都把晚饭吃过了。吃过了晚饭，看晚霞的看晚霞，不看晚霞的躺到炕上去睡觉的也有。

        这地方的晚霞是很好看的，有一个土名，叫火烧云。说“晚霞”人们不懂，若一说“火烧云”就连三岁的孩子也会呀呀地往西天空里指给你看。

        晚饭一过，火烧云就上来了。照得小孩子的脸是红的。把大白狗变成红色的狗了。红公鸡就变成金的了。黑母鸡变成紫檀色的了。喂猪的老头子，往墙根上靠，他笑盈盈地看着他的两匹小白猪，变成小金猪了，他刚想说：

        “他妈的，你们也变了……”

        他的旁边走来了一个乘凉的人，那人说：

        “你老人家必要高寿，你老是金胡子了。”

        天空的云，从西边一直烧到东边，红堂堂的，好像是天着了火。

        这地方的火烧云变化极多，一会红堂堂的了，一会金洞洞的了，一会半紫半黄的，一会半灰半百合色。葡萄灰、大黄梨、紫茄子，这些颜色天空上边都有。还有些说也说不出来的，见也未曾见过的，诸多种的颜色。

        五秒钟之内，天空里有一匹马，马头向南，马尾向西，那马是跪着的，像是在等着有人骑到它的背上，它才站起来。再过一秒钟，没有什么变化。再过两三秒钟，那匹马加大了，马腿也伸开了，马脖子也长了，但是一条马尾巴却不见了。

        看的人，正在寻找马尾巴的时候，那马就变没了。

        忽然又来了一条大狗，这条狗十分凶猛，它在前边跑着，它的后面似乎还跟了好几条小狗仔。跑着跑着，小狗就不知跑到哪里去了，大狗也不见了。

        又找到了一个大狮子，和娘娘庙门前的大石头狮子一模一样的，也是那么大，也是那样地蹲着，很威武地、很镇静地蹲着，它表示着蔑视一切的样子，似乎眼睛连什么也不睬。看着看着地，一不谨慎，同时又看到了别一个什么。这时候，可就麻烦了，人的眼睛不能同时又看东，又看西，这样子会活活把那个大狮子糟蹋了。一转眼，一低头，那天空的东西就变了。若是再找，怕是看瞎了眼睛也找不到了。

        大狮子既然找不到，另外的那什么，比方就是一个猴子吧，猴子虽不如大狮子，可同时也没有了。

        一时恍恍惚惚的，满天空里又像这个，又像那个，其实是什么也不像，什么也没有了。

        必须是低下头去，把眼睛揉一揉，或者是沉静一会再来看。

        可是天空偏偏又不常常等待着那些爱好它的孩子。一会工夫火烧云下去了。

        于是孩子们困倦了，回屋去睡觉了。竟有还没能来得及进屋的，就靠在姐姐的腿上，或者是依在祖母的怀里就睡着了。

        祖母的手里，拿着白马鬃的蝇甩子，就用蝇甩子给他驱逐着蚊虫。

        祖母还不知道这孩子是已经睡了，还以为他在那里玩着呢！

        “下去玩一会去吧！把奶奶的腿压麻了。”

        用手一推，这孩子已经睡得摇摇晃晃的了。

        这时候，火烧云已经完全下去了。

        于是家家户户都进屋去睡觉，关起窗门来。

        呼兰河这地方，就是在六月里也是不十分热的，夜里总要盖着薄棉被睡觉。

        等黄昏之后的乌鸦飞过时，只能够隔着窗子听到那很少的尚未睡的孩子在嚷叫：

        乌鸦乌鸦你打场，

        给你二斗粮……

        那漫天盖地的一群黑乌鸦，呱呱地大叫着，在整个的县城的头顶上飞过去了。

        据说飞过了呼兰河的南岸，就在一个大树林子里边住下了。明天早晨起来再飞。

        夏秋之间每夜要过乌鸦，究竟这些成百成千的乌鸦过到哪里去，孩子们是不大晓得的，大人们也不大讲给他们听。

        只晓得念这套歌，“乌鸦乌鸦你打场，给你二斗粮。”

        究竟给乌鸦二斗粮做什么，似乎不大有道理。

        乌鸦一飞过，这一天才真正地过去了。

        因为大昴星升起来了，大昴星好像铜球似的亮晶晶的了。

        天河和月亮也都上来了。

        蝙蝠也飞起来了。

        是凡跟着太阳一起来的，现在都回去了。人睡了，猪、马、牛、羊也都睡了，燕子和蝴蝶也都不飞了。就连房根底下的牵牛花，也一朵没有开的。含苞的含苞，卷缩的卷缩。含苞的准备着欢迎那早晨又要来的太阳，那卷缩的，因为它已经在昨天欢迎过了，它要落去了。

        随着月亮上来的星夜，大昴星也不过是月亮的一个马前卒，让它先跑到一步就是了。

        夜一来蛤蟆就叫，在河沟里叫，在洼地里叫。虫子也叫，在院心草棵子里，在城外的大田上，有的叫在人家的花盆里，有的叫在人家的坟头上。

        夏夜若无风无雨就这样地过去了，一夜又一夜。

        很快地夏天就过完了，秋天就来了。秋天和夏天的分别不太大，也不过天凉了，夜里非盖着被子睡觉不可。种田的人白天忙着收割，夜里多做几个割高粱的梦就是了。

        女人一到了八月也不过就是浆衣裳，拆被子，捶棒硾，捶得街街巷巷早晚地叮叮当当地乱响。

        “棒硾”一捶完，做起被子来，就是冬天。

        冬天下雪了。

        人们四季里，风、霜、雨、雪地过着，霜打了，雨淋了。

        大风来时是飞沙走石，似乎是很了不起的样子。冬天，大地被冻裂了，江河被冻住了。再冷起来，江河也被冻得锵锵地响着裂开了纹。冬天，冻掉了人的耳朵，破了人的鼻子，裂了人的手和脚。

        但这是大自然的威风，与小民们无关。

        呼兰河的人们就是这样，冬天来了就穿棉衣裳，夏天来了就穿单衣裳。就好像太阳出来了就起来，太阳落了就睡觉似的。

        被冬天冻裂了手指的，到了夏天也自然就好了。好不了的，“李永春”药铺去买二两红花，泡一点红花酒来擦一擦。擦得手指通红也不见消，也许就越来越肿起来，那么再到“李永春”药铺去，这回可不买红花了，是买了一贴膏药来。

        回到家里，用火一烤，黏黏糊糊地就贴在冻疮上了。这膏药是真好，贴上了一点也不碍事。该赶车的去赶车，该切菜的去切菜。黏黏糊糊的是真好，见了水也不掉，该洗衣裳的去洗衣裳去好了。就是掉了，拿在火上再一烤，就还贴得上的。

        一贴，贴了半个月。

        呼兰河这地方的人，什么都讲结实、耐用，这膏药这样地耐用，实在是合乎这地方的人情。虽然是贴了半个月，手也还没有见好，但这膏药总算是耐用，没有白花钱。

        于是再买一贴去，贴来贴去，这手可就越肿越大了。还有些买不起膏药的，就拣人家贴乏了的来贴。

        到后来，那结果，谁晓得是怎样呢，反正一塌糊涂去了吧。

        春夏秋冬，一年四季来回循环地走，那是自古也就这样的了。风霜雨雪，受得住的就过去了，受不住的，就寻求着自然的结果。那自然的结果不大好，把一个人默默地一声不响地就拉着离开了这人间的世界了。

        至于那还没有被拉去的，就风霜雨雪，仍旧在人间被吹打着。

    二

        呼兰河除了这些卑琐平凡的实际生活之外，在精神上，也还有不少的盛举，如：

        跳大神；
        唱秧歌；
        放河灯；
        野台子戏；
        四月十八娘娘庙大会……

        先说大神。大神是会治病的，她穿着奇怪的衣裳，那衣裳平常的人不穿；红的，是一张裙子，那裙子一围在她的腰上，她的人就变样了。开初，她并不打鼓，只是一围起那红花裙子就哆嗦。从头到脚，无处不哆嗦，哆嗦了一阵之后，又开始打颤。她闭着眼睛，嘴里边叽里咕噜的。每一打颤，就装出来要倒的样子，把四边的人都吓得一跳，可是她又坐住了。

        大神坐的是凳子，她的对面摆着一块牌位，牌位上贴着红纸，写着黑字。那牌位越旧越好，好显得她一年之中跳神的次数不少，越跳多了就越好，她的信用就远近皆知，她的生意就会兴隆起来。那牌前，点着香，香烟慢慢地旋着。

        那女大神多半在香点了一半的时候神就下来了。那神一下来，可就威风不同，好像有万马千军让她领导似的，她全身是劲，她站起来乱跳。

        大神的旁边，还有一个二神，当二神的都是男人。他并不昏乱，他是清晰如常的，他赶快把一张圆鼓交到大神的手里。大神拿了这鼓，站起来就乱跳，先诉说那附在她身上的神灵的下山的经历，是乘着云，是随着风，或者是驾雾而来，说得非常之雄壮。二神站在一边，大神问他什么，他回答什么。好的二神是对答如流的，坏的二神，一不加小心说冲着了大神的一字，大神就要闹起来的。大神一闹起来的时候，她也没有别的办法，只是打着鼓，乱骂一阵，说这病人，不出今夜就必得死的，死了之后，还会游魂不散，家族、亲戚、乡里都要招灾的。这时吓得那请神的人家赶快烧香点酒，烧香点酒之后，若再不行，就得赶快送上红布来，把红布挂在牌位上，若再不行，就得杀鸡。若闹到了杀鸡这个阶段，就多半不能再闹了，因为再闹就没有什么想头了。

        这鸡、这布，一律都归大神所有。跳过了神之后，她把鸡拿回家去自己煮上吃了。把红布用蓝靛染了之后，做起裤子穿了。

        有的大神，一上手就百般地下不来神，请神的人家就得赶快地杀鸡来。若一杀慢了，等一会跳到半道就要骂的。谁家请神都是为了治病，请大神骂，是非常不吉利的，所以对大神是非常尊敬的，又非常怕。

        跳大神，大半是天黑跳起，只要一打起鼓来，就男女老幼，都往这跳神的人家跑。若是夏天，就屋里屋外都挤满了人。还有些女人，拉着孩子，抱着孩子，哭天叫地地从墙头上跳过来，跳过来看跳神的。

        跳到半夜时分，要送神归山了，那时候，那鼓打得分外地响，大神也唱得分外地好听；邻居左右，十家二十家的人家都听得到，使人听了起着一种悲凉的情绪，二神嘴里唱：

        “大仙家回山了，要慢慢地走，要慢慢地行。”

        大神说：

        “我的二仙家，青龙山，白虎山……夜行三千里，乘着风儿不算难……”

        这唱着的词调，混合着鼓声，从几十丈远的地方传来，实在是冷森森的，越听就越悲凉。听了这种鼓声，往往终夜而不能眠的人也有。

        请神的人家为了治病，可不知那家的病人好了没有？却使邻居街坊感慨兴叹，终夜而不能已的也常常有。

        满天星光，满屋月亮，人生何如，为什么这么悲凉。

        过了十天半月的，又是跳神的鼓，当当地响。于是人们又都着了慌，爬墙的爬墙，登门的登门，看看这一家的大神，显的是什么本领，穿的是什么衣裳。听听她唱的是什么腔调，看看她的衣裳漂亮不漂亮。

        跳到了夜静时分，又是送神回山。送神回山的鼓，个个都打得漂亮。

        若赶上一个下雨的夜，就特别凄凉，寡妇可以落泪，鳏夫就要起来彷徨。

        那鼓声就好像故意招惹那般不幸的人，打得有急有慢，好像一个迷路的人在夜里诉说着他的迷惘，又好像不幸的老人在回想着他幸福的短短的幼年。又好像慈爱的母亲送着她的儿子远行。又好像是生离死别，万分地难舍。

        人生为了什么，才有这样凄凉的夜。

        似乎下回再有打鼓的连听也不要听了。其实不然，鼓一响就又是上墙头的上墙头，侧着耳朵听的侧着耳朵在听，比西洋人赴音乐会更热心。

        七月十五盂兰会，呼兰河上放河灯了。

        河灯有白菜灯、西瓜灯，还有莲花灯。

        和尚、道士吹着笙、管、笛、箫，穿着拼金大红缎子的褊衫，在河沿上打起场子来在做道场。那乐器的声音离开河沿二里路就听到了。

        一到了黄昏，天还没有完全黑下来，奔着去看河灯的人就络绎不绝了。大街小巷，哪怕终年不出门的人，也要随着人群奔到河沿去。先到了河沿的就蹲在那里。沿着河岸蹲满了人，可是从大街小巷往外出发的人仍是不绝，瞎子、瘸子都来看河灯（这里说错了，惟独瞎子是不来看河灯的），把街道跑得冒了烟了。

        姑娘、媳妇，三个一群，两个一伙，一出了大门，不用问到哪里去，就都是看河灯去。

        黄昏时候的七月，火烧云刚刚落下去，街道上发着显微的白光，嘁嘁喳喳，把往日的寂静都冲散了，个个街道都活了起来，好像这城里发生了大火，人们都赶去救火的样子。非常忙迫，踢踢踏踏地向前跑。

        先跑到了河沿的就蹲在那里，后跑到的，也就挤上去蹲在那里。

        大家一齐等候着，等候着月亮高起来，河灯就要从水上放下来了。

        七月十五日是个鬼节，死了的冤魂怨鬼，不得脱生，缠绵在地狱里边是非常苦的，想脱生，又找不着路。这一天若是每个鬼托着一个河灯，就可得以脱生。大概从阴间到阳间的这一条路，非常之黑，若没有灯是看不见路的。所以放河灯这件事情是件善举。可见活着的正人君子们，对着那些已死的冤魂怨鬼还没有忘记。

        但是这其间也有一个矛盾，就是七月十五这夜生的孩子，怕是都不大好，多半都是野鬼托着个莲花灯投生而来的。这个孩子长大了将不被父母所喜欢，长到结婚的年龄，男女两家必要先对过生日时辰，才能够结亲。若是女家生在七月十五，这女子就很难出嫁，必须改了生日，欺骗男家。若是男家七月十五的生日，也不大好，不过若是财产丰富的，也就没有多大关系，嫁是可以嫁过去的，虽然就是一个恶鬼，有了钱大概怕也不怎样恶了。但在女子这方面可就万万不可，绝对地不可以；若是有钱的寡妇的独养女，又当别论，因为娶了这姑娘可以有一份财产在那里晃来晃去，就是娶了而带不过财产来，先说那一份妆奁也是少不了的。假说女子就是一个恶鬼的化身，但那也不要紧。

        平常的人说：“有钱能使鬼推磨。”似乎人们相信鬼是假的，有点不十分真。

        但是当河灯一放下来的时候，和尚为着庆祝鬼们更生，打着鼓，叮当地响；念着经，好像紧急符咒似的，表示着，这一工夫可是千金一刻，且莫匆匆地让过，诸位男鬼女鬼，赶快托着灯去投生吧。

        念完了经，就吹笙管笛箫，那声音实在好听，远近皆闻。

        同时那河灯从上流拥拥挤挤，往下浮来了。浮得很慢，又镇静、又稳当，绝对地看不出来水里边会有鬼们来捉了它们去。

        这灯一下来的时候，金呼呼的，亮通通的，又加上有千万人的观众，这举动实在是不小的。河灯之多，有数不过来的数目，大概是几千百只。两岸上的孩子们，拍手叫绝，跳脚欢迎。大人则都看出了神了，一声不响，陶醉在灯光河色之中。灯光照得河水幽幽地发亮。水上跳跃着天空的月亮。真是人生何世，会有这样好的景况。

        一直闹到月亮来到了中天，大昴星、二昴星、三昴星都出齐了的时候，才算渐渐地从繁华的景况，走向了冷静的路去。

        河灯从几里路长的上流，流了很久很久才流过来了。再流了很久很久才流过去了。在这过程中，有的流到半路就灭了，有的被冲到了岸边，在岸边生了野草的地方就被挂住了。

        还有每当河灯一流到了下流，就有些孩子拿着竿子去抓它，有些渔船也顺手取了一两只。到后来河灯越来越稀疏了。

        到往下流去，就显出荒凉孤寂的样子来了。因为越流越少了。

        流到极远处去的，似乎那里的河水也发了黑。而且是流着流着地就少了一个。

        河灯从上流过来的时候，虽然路上也有许多落伍的，也有许多淹灭了的，但始终没有觉得河灯是被鬼们托着走了的感觉。

        可是当这河灯，从上流的远处流来，人们是满心欢喜的，等流过了自己，也还没有什么，惟独到了最后，那河灯流到了极远的下流去的时候，使看河灯的人们，内心里无由地来了空虚。

        “那河灯，到底是要漂到哪里去呢？”

        多半的人们，看到了这样的景况，就抬起身来离开了河沿回家去了。于是不但河里冷落，岸上也冷落了起来。

        这时再往远处的下流看去，看着，看着，那灯就灭了一个。再看着看着，又灭了一个，还有两个一块灭的。于是就真像被鬼一个一个地托着走了。

        打过了三更，河沿上一个人也没有了，河里边一个灯也没有了。

        河水是寂静如常的，小风把河水皱着极细的波浪。月光在河水上边并不像在海水上边闪着一片一片的金光，而是月亮落到河底里去了。似乎那渔船上的人，伸手可以把月亮拿到船上来似的。

        河的南岸，尽是柳条丛，河的北岸就是呼兰河城。

        那看河灯回去的人们，也许都睡着了。不过月亮还是在河上照着。

        野台子戏也是在河边上唱的。也是秋天，比方这一年秋收好，就要唱一台子戏，感谢天地。若是夏天大旱，人们戴起柳条圈来求雨，在街上几十人，跑了几天，唱着，打着鼓。

        求雨的人不准穿鞋，龙王爷可怜他们在太阳下边把脚烫得很痛，就因此下了雨了。一下了雨，到秋天就得唱戏的，因为求雨的时候许下了愿。许愿就得还愿，若是还愿的戏就更非唱不可了。

        一唱就是三天。

        在河岸的沙滩上搭起了台子来。这台子是用杆子绑起来的，上边搭上了席棚，下了一点小雨也不要紧，太阳则完全可以遮住的。

        戏台搭好了之后，两边就搭看台。看台还有楼座。坐在那楼座上是很好的，又风凉，又可以远眺。不过，楼座是不大容易坐得到的，除非当地的官、绅，别人是不大坐得到的。

        既不卖票，哪怕你就有钱，也没有办法。

        只搭戏台，就搭三五天。

        台子的架一竖起来，城里的人就说：

        “戏台竖起架子来了。”

        一上了棚，人就说：

        “戏台上棚了。”

        戏台搭完了就搭看台，看台是顺着戏台的左边搭一排，右边搭一排，所以是两排平行而相对的。一搭要搭出十几丈远去。

        眼看台子就要搭好了，这时候，接亲戚的接亲戚，唤朋友的唤朋友。

        比方嫁了的女儿，回来住娘家，临走（回婆家）的时候，做母亲的送到大门外，摆着手还说：

        “秋天唱戏的时候，再接你来看戏。”

        坐着女儿的车子远了，母亲含着眼泪还说：

        “看戏的时候接你回来。”

        所以一到了唱戏的时候，可并不是简单地看戏，而是接姑娘唤女婿，热闹得很。

        东家的女儿长大了，西家的男孩子也该成亲了，说媒的这个时候就走上门来，约定两家的父母在戏台底下，第一天或是第二天，彼此相看。也有只通知男家而不通知女家的，这叫做“偷看”，这样的看法，成与不成，没有关系，比较地自由，反正那家的姑娘也不知道。

        所以看戏去的姑娘，个个都打扮得漂亮。都穿了新衣裳，擦了胭脂涂了粉，刘海剪得并排齐。头辫梳得一丝不乱，扎了红辫根，绿辫梢。也有扎了水红的，也有扎了蛋青的。走起路来像客人，吃起瓜子来，头不歪眼不斜的，温文尔雅，都变成了大家闺秀。有的着蛋青市布长衫，有的穿了藕荷色的，有的银灰的。有的还把衣服的边上压了条，有的蛋青色的衣裳压了黑条，有的水红洋纱的衣裳压了蓝条。脚上穿了蓝缎鞋，或是黑缎绣花鞋。

        鞋上有的绣着蝴蝶，有的绣着蜻蜓，有的绣着莲花，绣着牡丹的，各样的都有。

       手里边拿着花手巾。耳朵上戴了长钳子，土名叫做“带穗钳子”。这带穗钳子有两种，一种是金的、翠的；一种是铜的、琉璃的。有钱一点的戴金的，少微差一点的带琉璃的。反正都很好看，在耳朵上摇来晃去，黄忽忽、绿森森的。再加上满脸矜持的微笑，真不知这都是谁家的闺秀。

        那些已嫁的妇女，也是照样地打扮起来，在戏台下边，东邻西舍的姊妹们相遇了，好互相地品评。

        谁的模样俊，谁的鬓角黑。谁的手镯是福泰银楼的新花样，谁的压头簪又小巧又玲珑。谁的一双绛紫缎鞋，真是绣得漂亮。

        老太太虽然不穿什么带颜色的衣裳，但也个个整齐，人人利落，手拿长烟袋，头上撇着大扁方。慈祥，温静。

        戏还没有开台，呼兰河城就热闹得不得了了，接姑娘的，唤女婿的，有一个很好的童谣：

        拉大锯，扯大锯，
        老爷（外公）门口唱大戏。
        接姑娘，唤女婿，
        小外孙也要去。
        ……

        于是乎不但小外甥，三姨二姑也都聚在了一起。

        每家如此，杀鸡买酒，笑语迎门，彼此谈着家常，说着趣事，每夜必到三更，灯油不知浪费了多少。

        某村某村，婆婆虐待媳妇。哪家哪家的公公喝了酒就耍酒疯。又是谁家的姑娘出嫁了刚过一年就生了一对双生。又是谁的儿子十三岁就定了一家十八岁的姑娘做妻子。

        烛火灯光之下，一谈谈个半夜，真是非常地温暖而亲切。

        一家若有几个女儿，这几个女儿都出嫁了，亲姊妹，两三年不能相遇的也有。平常是一个住东，一个住西。不是隔水的就是离山，而且每人有一大群孩子，也各自有自己的家务，若想彼此过访，那是不可能的事情。

        若是做母亲的同时把几个女儿都接来了，那她们的相遇，真仿佛已经隔了三十年了。相见之下，真是不知从何说起，羞羞惭惭，欲言又止，刚一开口又觉得不好意思，过了一刻工夫，耳脸都发起烧来，于是相对无语，心中又喜又悲。过了一袋烟的工夫，等那往上冲的血流落了下去，彼此都逃出了那种昏昏恍恍的境界，这才来找几句不相干的话来开头；或是：

        “你多咱来的？”

        或是：

        “孩子们都带来了？”

        关于别离了几年的事情，连一个字也不敢提。

        从表面上看来，她们并不是像姊妹，丝毫没有亲热的表现。面面相对的，不知道她们两个人是什么关系，似乎连认识也不认识，似乎从前她们两个并没有见过，而今天是第一次的相见，所以异常地冷落。

        但是这只是外表，她们的心里，就早已沟通着了。甚至于在十天或半月之前，她们的心里就早已开始很远地牵动起来，那就是当着她们彼此都接到了母亲的信的时候。

        那信上写着迎接她们姊妹回来看戏的。

        从那时候起，她们就把要送给姐姐或妹妹的礼物规定好了。

        一双黑大绒的云子卷，是亲手做的。或者就在她们的本城和本乡里，有一个出名的染缸房，那染缸房会染出来很好的麻花布来。于是送了两匹白布去，嘱咐他好好地加细地染着。一匹是白地染蓝花，一匹是蓝地染白花。蓝地的染的是刘海戏金蟾，白地的染的是蝴蝶闹莲花。

        一匹送给大姐姐，一匹送给三妹妹。

        现在这东西，就都带在箱子里边。等过了一天二日的，寻个夜深人静的时候，轻轻地从自己的箱底把这等东西取出来，摆在姐姐的面前，说：

        “这麻花布被面，你带回去吧！”

        只说了这么一句，看样子并不像是送礼物，并不像今人似的，送一点礼物很怕邻居左右看不见，是大嚷大吵着的，说这东西是从什么山上，或是什么海里得来的。哪怕是小河沟子的出品，也必要连那小河沟子的身份也提高，说河沟子是怎样地不凡，是怎样地与众不同，可不同别的河沟子。

        这等乡下人，糊里糊涂的，要表现的，无法表现，什么也说不出来，只能把东西递过去就算了事。

        至于那受了东西的，也是不会说什么，连声道谢也不说，就收下了。也有的稍微推辞了一下，也就收下了。

        “留着你自己用吧！”

        当然那送礼物的是加以拒绝。一拒绝，也就收下了。

        每个回娘家看戏的姑娘，都零零碎碎地带来一大批东西。

        送父母的，送兄嫂的，送侄女的，送三亲六故的。带了东西最多的，是凡见了长辈或晚辈都多少有点东西拿得出来，那就是谁的人情最周到。

        这一类的事情，等野台子唱完，拆了台子的时候，家家户户才慢慢地传诵。

        每个从婆家回娘家的姑娘，也都带着很丰富的东西，这些都是人家送给她的礼品。东西丰富得很，不但有用的，也有吃的，母亲亲手装的咸肉，姐姐亲手晒的干鱼，哥哥上山打猎打了一只雁来腌上，至今还有一只雁大腿，这个也给看戏小姑娘带回去，带回去给公公去喝酒吧。

        于是乌三八四的，离走的前一天晚上，真是忙了个不休，就要分散的姊妹们连说个话儿的工夫都没有了。大包小包一大堆。

        再说在这看戏的时间，除了看亲戚，会朋友，还成了许多好事，那就是谁家的女儿和谁家公子订婚了，说是明年二月，或是三月就要娶亲。订婚酒，已经吃过了，眼前就要过“小礼”的。所谓“小礼”就是在法律上的订婚形式，一经过了这番手续，东家的女儿，终归就要成了西家的媳妇了。

        也有男女两家都是外乡赶来看戏的，男家的公子也并不在，女家的小姐也并不在。只是两家的双亲有媒人从中媾通着，就把亲事给定了。也有的喝酒作乐的随便地把自己的女儿许给了人家。也有的男女两家的公子、小姐都还没有生出来，就给定下亲了。这叫做“指腹为亲”。这指腹为亲的，多半都是相当有点资财的人家才有这样的事。

        两家都很有钱，一家是本地的烧锅掌柜的，一家是白旗屯的大窝堡，两家是一家种高粱，一家开烧锅。开烧锅的需要高粱，种高粱的需要烧锅买他的高粱，烧锅非高粱不可，高粱非烧锅不行，恰巧又赶上这两家的妇人，都要将近生产，所以就“指腹为亲”了。

        无管是谁家生了男孩子，谁家生了女孩子，只要是一男一女就规定他们是夫妇。假若两家都生了男孩，都就不能勉强规定了。两家都生了女孩也是不能够规定的。

        但是这指腹为亲，好处不太多，坏处是很多的。半路上当中的一家穷了，不开烧锅了，或者没有窝堡了，其余的一家，就不愿意娶他家的姑娘，或是把女儿嫁给一家穷人。假若女家穷了，那还好办，若实在不娶，他也没有什么办法。若是男家穷了，男家就一定要娶，若一定不让娶，那姑娘的名誉就很坏，说她把谁家谁给“妨”穷了，又不嫁了。“妨”字在迷信上说就是因为她命硬，因为她某家某家穷了。以后她就不大容易找婆家，会给她起一个名叫做“望门妨”。无法，只得嫁过去，嫁过去之后，妯娌之间又要说她嫌贫爱富，百般地侮辱她。丈夫因此也不喜欢她了，公公婆婆也虐待她，她一个年轻的未出过家门的女子，受不住这许多攻击，回到娘家去，娘家也无甚办法，就是那当年指腹为亲的母亲说：

        “这都是你的命，你好好地耐着吧！”

        年轻的女子，莫名其妙地，不知道自己为什么要有这样的命，于是往往演出悲剧来，跳井的跳井，上吊的上吊。

        古语说，“女子上不了战场。”

        其实不对的，这井多么深，平白地你问一个男子，问他这井敢跳不敢跳，怕他也不敢的。而一个年轻的女子竟敢了。上战场不一定死，也许回来闹个一官半职的；可是跳井就很难不死，一跳就多半跳死了。

        那么节妇坊上为什么没写着赞美女子跳井跳得勇敢的赞词？那是修节妇坊的人故意给删去的。因为修节妇坊的，多半是男人。他家里也有一个女人。他怕是写上了，将来他打他女人的时候，他的女人也去跳井。女人也跳下井，留下来一大群孩子可怎么办？于是一律不写。只写，温文尔雅，孝顺公婆……

        大戏还没有开台，就来了这许多事情。等大戏一开了台，那戏台下边，真是人山人海，拥挤不堪。搭戏台的人，也真是会搭，正选了一块平平坦坦的大沙滩，又光滑，又干净，使人就是倒在上边，也不会把衣裳沾一丝儿的土星。这沙滩有半里路长。

        人们笑语连天，哪里是在看戏，闹得比锣鼓好像更响。那戏台上出来一个穿红的，进去一个穿绿的，只看见摇摇摆摆地走出走进，别的什么也不知道了，不用说唱得好不好，就连听也听不到。离着近的还看得见不挂胡子的戏子在张嘴，离得远的就连戏台那个穿红衣裳的究竟是一个坤角，还是一个男角，也都不大看得清楚。简直是还不如看木偶戏。

        但是若有一个唱木偶戏的这时候来在台下，唱起来，问他们看不看，那他们一定不看的，哪怕就连戏台子的边也看不见了，哪怕是站在二里路之外，他们也不看那木偶戏的。因为在大戏台底下，哪怕就是睡了一觉回去，也总算是从大戏台子底下回来的，而不是从什么别的地方回来的。

        一年没有什么别的好看，就这一场大戏还能够轻易地放过吗？所以无论看不看，戏台底下是不能不来。

        所以一些乡下的人也都来了，赶着几套马的大车，赶着老牛车，赶着花轮子，赶着小车子，小车子上边驾着大骡子。

        总之家里有什么车就驾了什么车来。也有的似乎他们家里并不养马，也不养别的牲口，就只用了一匹小毛驴，拉着一个花轮子也就来了。

        来了之后，这些车马，就一齐停在沙滩上，马匹在草包上吃着草，骡子到河里去喝水。车子上都搭席棚，好像小看台似的，排列在戏台的远处。那车子带来了他们的全家，从祖母到孙子媳，老少三辈。他们离着戏台二三十丈远，听是什么也听不见的，看也很难看到什么，也不过是大红大绿的，在戏台上跑着圈子，头上戴着奇怪的帽子，身上穿着奇怪的衣裳，谁知道那些人都是干什么的。有的看了三天大戏台子，而连一场的戏名字也都叫不出来。回到乡下去，他也跟着人家说长道短的，偶尔人家问了他说的是哪出戏，他竟瞪了眼睛，说不出来了。

        至于一些孩子们在戏台底下，就更什么也不知道了，只记住一个大胡子，一个花脸的，谁知道那些都是在做什么，比比划划，刀枪棍棒地乱闹一阵。

        反正戏台底下有些卖凉粉的，有些卖糖球的，随便吃去好了。什么黏糕、油炸馒头、豆腐脑都有，这些东西吃了又不饱，吃了这样再去吃那样。卖西瓜的，卖香瓜的，戏台底下都有，招得苍蝇一大堆，嗡嗡地飞。

        戏台下敲锣打鼓震天地响。

        那唱戏的人，也似乎怕远处的人听不见，也在拼命地喊，喊破了喉咙也压不住台的。那在台下的早已忘记了是在看戏，都在那里说长道短，男男女女的谈起家常来。还有些个远亲，平常一年也看不到，今天在这里看到了，哪能不打招呼。所以三姨二婶子的，就在人多的地方大叫起来。假若是在看台的凉棚里坐着，忽然有一个老太太站了起来，大叫着说：

        “他二舅母，你可多咱来的？”

        于是那一方也就应声而起。原来坐在看台的楼座上的，离着戏台比较近，听唱是听得到的，所以那看台上比较安静。姑娘媳妇都吃着瓜子，喝着茶。对这大嚷大叫的人，别人虽然讨厌，但也不敢去禁止，你若让她小一点声讲话，她会骂了出来：

        “这野台子戏，也不是你家的，你愿听戏，你请一台子到你家里去唱……”

        另外的一个也说：

        “哟哟，我没见过，看起戏来，都六亲不认了，说个话儿也不让……”

        这还是比较好的，还有更不客气的，一开口就说：

        “小养汉老婆……你奶奶，一辈子家里外头没受过谁的大声小气，今天来到戏台底下受你的管教来啦，你娘的……”

        被骂的人若是不搭言，过一回也就了事了，若一搭言，自然也没有好听的。于是两边就打了起来啦，西瓜皮之类就飞了过去。

        这来在戏台下看戏的，不料自己竟演起戏来，于是人们一窝蜂似的，都聚在这个真打真骂的活戏的方面来了。也有一些流氓混子之类，故意地叫着好，惹得全场的人哄哄大笑。

        假若打仗的还是个年轻的女子，那些讨厌的流氓们还会说着各样的俏皮话，使她火上加油越骂就越凶猛。

        自然那老太太无理，她一开口就骂了人。但是一闹到后来，谁是谁非也就看不出来了。

    幸而戏台上的戏子总算沉着，不为所动，还在那里阿拉阿拉地唱。过了一个时候，那打得热闹的也究竟平静了。

        再说戏台下边也有一些个调情的，那都是南街豆腐房里的嫂嫂，或是碾磨房的碾倌磨倌的老婆。碾倌的老婆看上了一个赶马车的车夫。或是豆腐匠看上了开粮米铺那家的小姑娘。有的是两方面都眉来眼去，有的是一方面殷勤，他一方面则表示要拒之千里之外。这样的多半是一边低，一边高，两方面的资财不对。

        绅士之流，也有调情的，彼此都坐在看台之上，东张张，西望望。三亲六故，姐夫小姨之间，未免地就要多看几眼，何况又都打扮得漂亮，非常好看。

        绅士们平常到别人家的客厅去拜访的时候，绝不能够看上了人家的小姐就不住地看，那该多么不绅士，那该多么不讲道德。那小姐若一告诉了她的父母，她的父母立刻就和这样的朋友绝交。绝交了，倒不要紧，要紧的是一传出去名誉该多坏。绅士是高雅的，哪能够不清不白的，哪能够不分长幼地去存心朋友的女儿，像那般下等人似的。

        绅士彼此一拜访的时候，都是先让到客厅里去，端端庄庄地坐在那里，而后倒茶装烟。规矩礼法，彼此都尊为是上等人。朋友的妻子儿女，也都出来拜见，尊为长者。在这种时候，只能问问大少爷的书读了多少，或是又写了多少字了。

        连朋友的太太也不可以过多地谈话，何况朋友的女儿呢？那就连头也不能够抬的，哪里还敢细看。

        现在在戏台上看看怕不要紧，假设有人问道，就说是东看西看，瞧一瞧是否有朋友在别的看台上。何况这地方又人多眼杂，也许没有人留意。

        三看两看的，朋友的小姐倒没有看上，可看上了一个不知道在什么地方见到过的一位妇人。那妇人拿着小小的鹅翎扇子，从扇子梢上往这边转着眼珠，虽说是一位妇人，可是又年轻，又漂亮。

        这时候，这绅士就应该站起来打着口哨，好表示他是开心的，可是我们中国上一辈的老绅士不会这一套。他另外也有一套，就是他的眼睛似睁非睁地迷离恍惚地望了出去，表示他对她有无限的情意。可惜离得太远，怕不会看得清楚，也许是枉费了心思了。

        也有的在戏台下边，不听父母之命，不听媒妁之言，自己就结了终生不解之缘。这多半是表哥表妹等等，稍有点出身来历的公子小姐的行为。他们一言为定，终生合好。间或也有被父母所阻拦，生出来许多波折。但那波折都是非常美丽的，使人一讲起来，真是比看《红楼梦》更有趣味。来年再唱大戏的时候，姊妹们一讲起这佳话来，真是增添了不少的回想……

        赶着车进城来看戏的乡下人，他们就在河边沙滩上，扎了营了。夜里大戏散了，人们都回家了，只有这等连车带马的，他们就在沙滩上过夜。好像出征的军人似的，露天为营。

        有的住了一夜，第二夜就回去了。有的住了三夜，一直到大戏唱完，才赶着车子回乡。不用说这沙滩上是很雄壮的。夜里，他们每家燃了火，煮茶的煮茶，谈天的谈天，但终归是人数太少，也不过二三十辆车子，所燃起来的火，也不会火光冲天，所以多少有一些凄凉之感。夜深了，住在河边上，被河水吸着又特别地凉，人家睡起觉来都觉得冷森森的。尤其是车夫马倌之类，他们不能够睡觉，怕是有土匪来抢劫他们的马匹，所以就坐以待旦。

        于是在纸灯笼下边，三个两个地赌钱，赌到天色发白了，该牵着马到河边去饮水去了。在河上，遇到了捉蟹的蟹船，蟹船上的老头说：

        “昨天的《打渔杀家》唱得不错，听说今天有《汾河湾》。”

        那牵着牲口饮水的人，是一点大戏常识也没有的。他只听到牲口喝水的声音呵呵的，其他的则不知所答了。

        四月十八娘娘庙大会，这也是为着神鬼，而不是为着人的。

        这庙会的土名叫做“逛庙”，也是无分男女老幼都来逛的，但其中以女子最多。

        女子们早晨起来，吃了早饭，就开始梳洗打扮。打扮好了，就约了东家姐姐、西家妹妹的去逛庙去了。竟有一起来就先梳洗打扮的，打扮好了，才吃饭，一吃了饭就走了。总之一到逛庙这天，各不后人，到不了半晌午，就车水马龙，拥挤得气息不通了。

        挤丢了孩子的站在那儿喊，找不到妈的孩子在人群里边哭，三岁的、五岁的，还有两岁的刚刚会走，竟也被挤丢了。

        所以每年庙会上必得有几个警察在收这些孩子。收了站在庙台上，等着他的家人来领。偏偏这些孩子都很胆小，张着嘴大哭，哭得实在可怜，满头满脸是汗。有的十二三岁了，也被丢了，问他家住在哪里？他竟说不出所以然来，东指指，西划划，说是他家门口有一条小河沟，那河沟里边出虾米，就叫做“虾沟子”，也许他家那地名就叫“虾沟子”，听了使人莫名其妙。再问他这虾沟子离城多远，他便说：骑马要一顿饭的工夫可到，坐车要三顿饭的工夫可到。究竟离城多远，他没有说。问他姓什么，他说他祖父叫史二，他父亲叫史成……

        这样你就再也不敢问他了。要问他吃饭没有？他就说：“睡觉了。”这是没有办法的，任他去吧。于是却连大带小的一齐站在庙门口，他们哭的哭，叫的叫，好像小兽似的，警察在看守他们。

        娘娘庙是在北大街上，老爷庙和娘娘庙离不了好远。那些烧香的人，虽然说是求子求孙，是先该向娘娘来烧香的，但是人们都以为阴间也是一样地重男轻女，所以不敢倒反天干。

        所以都是先到老爷庙去，打过钟，磕过头，好像跪到那里报个到似的，而后才上娘娘庙去。

        老爷庙有大泥像十多尊，不知道哪个是老爷，都是威风凛凛、气概盖世的样子。有的泥像的手指尖都被攀了去，举着没有手指的手在那里站着，有的眼睛被挖了，像是个瞎子似的。有的泥像的脚趾是被写了一大堆的字，那字不太高雅，不怎么合乎神的身份。似乎是说泥像也该娶个老婆，不然他看了和尚去找小尼姑，他是要忌妒的。这字现在没有了，传说是这样。

        为了这个，县官下了手令，不到初一十五，一律地把庙门锁起来，不准闲人进去。

        当地的县官是很讲仁义道德的。传说他第五个姨太太，就是从尼姑庵接来的。所以他始终相信尼姑绝不会找和尚。自古就把尼姑列在和尚一起，其实是世人不查，人云亦云。好比县官的第五房姨太太，就是个尼姑。难道她也被和尚找过了吗？这是不可能的。

        所以下令一律地把庙门关了。

        娘娘庙里比较地清静，泥像也有一些个，以女子为多，多半都没有横眉竖眼，近乎普通人，使人走进了大殿不必害怕。

        不用说是娘娘了，那自然是很好的温顺的女性。就说女鬼吧，也都不怎样恶，至多也不过披头散发的就完了，也决没有像老爷庙里那般泥像似的，眼睛冒了火，或像老虎似的张着嘴。

        不但孩子进了老爷庙有的吓得大哭，就连壮年的男人进去也要肃然起敬，好像说虽然他在壮年，那泥像若走过来和他打打，他也绝打不过那泥像的。

        所以在老爷庙上磕头的人，心里比较虔诚，因为那泥像，身子高、力气大。

        到了娘娘庙，虽然也磕头，但就总觉得那娘娘没有什么出奇之处。

        塑泥像的人是男人，他把女人塑得很温顺，似乎对女人很尊敬。他把男人塑得很凶猛，似乎男性很不好。其实不对的，世界上的男人，无论多凶猛，眼睛冒火的似乎还未曾见过。就说西洋人吧，虽然与中国人的眼睛不同，但也不过是蓝瓦瓦的有点类似猫头鹰眼睛而已，居然间冒了火的也没有。

        眼睛会冒火的民族，目前的世界还未发现。那么塑泥像的人为什么把他塑成那个样子呢？那就是让你一见生畏，不但磕头，而且要心服。就是磕完了头站起再看着，也绝不会后悔，不会后悔这头是向一个平庸无奇的人白白磕了。至于塑像的人塑起女子来为什么要那么温顺，那就告诉人，温顺的就是老实的，老实的就是好欺侮的，告诉人快来欺侮她们吧。

        人若老实了，不但异类要来欺侮，就是同类也不同情。

        比方女子去拜过了娘娘庙，也不过向娘娘讨子讨孙。讨完了就出来了，其余的并没有什么尊敬的意思。觉得子孙娘娘也不过是个普通的女子而已，只是她的孩子多了一些。

        所以男人打老婆的时候便说：

        “娘娘还得怕老爷打呢？何况你一个长舌妇！”

        可见男人打女人是天理应该，神鬼齐一。怪不得那娘娘庙里的娘娘特别温顺，原来是常常挨打的缘故。可见温顺也不是怎么优良的天性，而是被打的结果。甚或是招打的原由。

        两个庙都拜过了的人，就出来了，拥挤在街上。街上卖什么玩具的都有，多半玩具都是适于几岁的小孩子玩的。泥做的泥公鸡，鸡尾巴上插着两根红鸡毛，一点也不像，可是使人看去，就比活的更好看。家里有小孩子的不能不买。何况拿在嘴上一吹又会呜呜地响。买了泥公鸡，又看见了小泥人，小泥人的背上也有一个洞，这洞里边插着一根芦苇，一吹就响。那声音好像是诉怨似的，不太好听，但是孩子们都喜欢，做母亲的也一定要买。其余的如卖哨子的，卖小笛子的，卖线蝴蝶的，卖不倒翁的，其中尤以不倒翁最著名，也最为讲究，家家都买，有钱的买大的，没有钱的，买个小的。

        大的有一尺多高，二尺来高。小的有小得像个鸭蛋似的。无论大小，都非常灵活，按倒了就起来，起得很快，是随手就起来的。买不倒翁要当场试验，间或有生手的工匠所做出来的不倒翁，因屁股太大了，他不愿意倒下，也有的倒下了他就不起来。所以买不倒翁的人就把手伸出去，一律把他们按倒，看哪个先站起来就买哪个，当那一倒一起的时候真是可笑，摊子旁边围了些孩子，专在那里笑。不倒翁长得很好看，又白又胖。并不是老翁的样子，也不过他的名字叫不倒翁就是了。其实他是一个胖孩子。做得讲究一点的，头顶上还贴了一簇毛算是头发。有头发的比没有头发的要贵二百钱。有的孩子买的时候力争要戴头发的，做母亲的舍不得那二百钱，就说到家给他剪点狗毛贴。孩子非要戴毛的不可，选了一个戴毛的抱在怀里不放。没有法只得买了。这孩子抱着欢喜了一路，等到家一看，那簇毛不知什么时候已经飞了。于是孩子大哭。虽然母亲已经给剪了簇狗毛贴上了，但那孩子就总觉得这狗毛不是真的，不如原来的好看。也许那原来也贴的是狗毛，或许还不如现在的这个好看。但那孩子就总不开心，忧愁了一个下半天。

        庙会到下半天就散了。虽然庙会是散了，可是庙门还开着，烧香的人、拜佛的人继续地还有。有些没有儿子的妇女，仍旧在娘娘庙上捉弄着娘娘。给子孙娘娘的背后钉一个纽扣，给她的脚上绑一条带子，耳朵上挂一只耳环，给她戴一副眼镜，把她旁边的泥娃娃给偷着抱走了一个。据说这样做，来年就都会生儿子的。

        娘娘庙的门口，卖带子的特别多，妇人们都争着去买，她们相信买了带子，就会把儿子给带来了。

        若是未出嫁的女儿，也误买了这东西，那就将成为大家的笑柄了。

        庙会一过，家家户户就都有一个不倒翁，离城远至十八里路的，也都买了一个回去。回到家里，摆在迎门的向口，使别人一过眼就看见了，他家的确有一个不倒翁。不差，这证明逛庙会的时节他家并没有落伍，的确是去逛过了。

        歌谣上说：

        小大姐，去逛庙，
        扭扭搭搭走得俏，
        回来买个搬不倒。

        这些盛举，都是为鬼而做的，并非为人而做的。至于人去看戏、逛庙，也不过是揩油借光的意思。

        跳大神有鬼，唱大戏是唱给龙王爷看的，七月十五放河灯，是把灯放给鬼，让他顶着个灯去脱生。四月十八也是烧香磕头地祭鬼。

        只是跳秧歌，是为活人而不是为鬼预备的。跳秧歌是在正月十五，正是农闲的时候，趁着新年而化起装来，男人装女人，装得滑稽可笑。

        狮子、龙灯、旱船……等等，似乎也跟祭鬼似的，花样复杂，一时说不清楚。

    三

        呼兰河这小城里边住着我的祖父。

        我生的时候，祖父已经六十多岁了，我长到四五岁，祖父就快七十了。

    我家有一个大花园，这花园里蜂子、蝴蝶、蜻蜓、蚂蚱，样样都有。蝴蝶有白蝴蝶、黄蝴蝶。这种蝴蝶极小，不太好看。好看的是大红蝴蝶，满身带着金粉。

        蜻蜓是金的，蚂蚱是绿的，蜂子则嗡嗡地飞着，满身绒毛，落到一朵花上，胖圆圆地就和一个小毛球似的不动了。

        花园里边明晃晃的，红的红，绿的绿，新鲜漂亮。

        据说这花园，从前是一个果园。祖母喜欢吃果子就种了果园。祖母又喜欢养羊，羊就把果树给啃了。果树于是都死了。到我有记忆的时候，园子里就只有一棵樱桃树，一棵李子树，因为樱桃和李子都不大结果子，所以觉得它们是并不存在的。小的时候，只觉得园子里边就有一棵大榆树。

        这榆树在园子的西北角上，来了风，这榆树先啸，来了雨，大榆树先就冒烟了。太阳一出来，大榆树的叶子就发光了，它们闪烁得和沙滩上的蚌壳一样了。

        祖父一天都在后园里边，我也跟着祖父在后园里边。祖父戴一个大草帽，我戴一个小草帽；祖父栽花，我就栽花；祖父拔草，我就拔草。当祖父下种，种小白菜的时候，我就跟在后边，把那下了种的土窝，用脚一个一个地溜平，哪里会溜得准，东一脚的、西一脚地瞎闹。有的把菜种不单没被土盖上，反而把菜子踢飞了。

        小白菜长得非常之快，没有几天就冒了芽了，一转眼就可以拔下来吃了。

        祖父铲地，我也铲地；因为我太小，拿不动那锄头杆，祖父就把锄头杆拔下来，让我单拿着那个锄头的“头”来铲。其实哪里是铲，也不过爬在地上，用锄头乱勾一阵就是了。也认不得哪个是苗，哪个是草。往往把韭菜当做野草一起地割掉，把狗尾草当做谷穗留着。

        等祖父发现我铲的那块满留着狗尾草的一片，他就问我：

        “这是什么？”

        我说：

        “谷子。”

        祖父大笑起来，笑得够了，把草摘下来问我：

        “你每天吃的就是这个吗？”

        我说：

        “是的。”

        我看着祖父还在笑，我就说：

        “你不信，我到屋里拿来你看。”

        我跑到屋里拿了鸟笼上的一头谷穗，远远地就抛给祖父了。说：

        “这不是一样的吗？”

        祖父慢慢地把我叫过去，讲给我听，说谷子是有芒针的。

        狗尾草则没有，只是毛嘟嘟的真像狗尾巴。

        祖父虽然教我，我看了也并不细看，也不过马马虎虎承认下来就是了。一抬头看见了一个黄瓜长大了，跑过去摘下来，我又去吃黄瓜去了。

        黄瓜也许没有吃完，又看见了一个大蜻蜓从旁飞过，于是丢了黄瓜又去追蜻蜓去了。蜻蜓飞得多么快，哪里会追得上。好在一开初也没有存心一定追上，所以站起来，跟了蜻蜓跑了几步就又去做别的去了。

        采一个倭瓜花心，捉一个大绿豆青蚂蚱，把蚂蚱腿用线绑上，绑了一会，也许把蚂蚱腿就绑掉，线头上只拴了一只腿，而不见蚂蚱了。

        玩腻了，又跑到祖父那里去乱闹一阵，祖父浇菜，我也抢过来浇，奇怪的就是并不往菜上浇，而是拿着水瓢，拼尽了力气，把水往天空里一扬，大喊着：

        “下雨了，下雨了。”

        太阳在园子里是特大的，天空是特别高的，太阳的光芒四射，亮得使人睁不开眼睛，亮得蚯蚓不敢钻出地面来，蝙蝠不敢从什么黑暗的地方飞出来。是凡在太阳下的，都是健康的、漂亮的，拍一拍连大树都会发响的，叫一叫就是站在对面的土墙都会回答似的。

        花开了，就像花睡醒了似的。鸟飞了，就像鸟上天了似的。虫子叫了，就像虫子在说话似的。一切都活了。都有无限的本领，要做什么，就做什么。要怎么样，就怎么样。都是自由的。倭瓜愿意爬上架就爬上架，愿意爬上房就爬上房。

        黄瓜愿意开一个谎花，就开一个谎花，愿意结一个黄瓜，就结一个黄瓜。若都不愿意，就是一个黄瓜也不结，一朵花也不开，也没有人问它。玉米愿意长多高就长多高，它若愿意长上天去，也没有人管。蝴蝶随意地飞，一会从墙头上飞来一对黄蝴蝶，一会又从墙头上飞走了一个白蝴蝶。它们是从谁家来的，又飞到谁家去？太阳也不知道这个。

        只是天空蓝悠悠的，又高又远。

        可是白云一来了的时候，那大团的白云，好像洒了花的白银似的，从祖父的头上经过，好像要压到了祖父的草帽那么低。

        我玩累了，就在房子底下找个阴凉的地方睡着了。不用枕头，不用席子，就把草帽遮在脸上就睡了。

        祖父的眼睛是笑盈盈的，祖父的笑，常常笑得和孩子似的。

        祖父是个长得很高的人，身体很健康，手里喜欢拿着个手杖，嘴上则不住地抽着旱烟管，遇到了小孩子，每每喜欢开个玩笑，说：

        “你看天空飞个家雀。”

        趁那孩子往天空一看，就伸出手去把那孩子的帽给取下来了，有的时候放在长衫的下边，有的时候放在袖口里头。他说：

        “家雀叼走了你的帽啦。”

        孩子们都知道了祖父的这一手了，并不以为奇，就抱住他的大腿，向他要帽子，摸着他的袖管，撕着他的衣襟，一直到找出帽子来为止。

        祖父常常这样做，也总是把帽放在同一的地方，总是放在袖口和衣襟下。那些搜索他的孩子没有一次不是在他衣襟下把帽子拿出来的，好像他和孩子们约定了似的：“我就放在这块，你来找吧！”

        这样地不知做过了多少次，就像老太太永久讲着“上山打老虎”这一个故事给孩子们听似的，哪怕是已经听过了五百遍，也还是在那里回回拍手，回回叫好。

        每当祖父这样做一次的时候，祖父和孩子们都一齐地笑得不得了。好像这戏还像第一次演似的。

        别人看了祖父这样做，也有笑的，可不是笑祖父的手法好，而是笑他天天使用一种方法抓掉了孩子的帽子，这未免可笑。

        祖父不怎样会理财，一切家务都由祖母管理。祖父只是自由自在地一天闲着；我想，幸好我长大了，我三岁了，不然祖父该多寂寞。我会走了，我会跑了。我走不动的时候，祖父就抱着我；我走动了，祖父就拉着我。一天到晚，门里门外，寸步不离，而祖父多半是在后园里，于是我也在后园里。

        我小的时候，没有什么同伴，我是我母亲的第一个孩子。

    我记事很早，在我三岁的时候，我记得我的祖母用针刺过我的手指，所以我很不喜欢她。我家的窗子，都是四边糊纸，当中嵌着玻璃。祖母是有洁癖的，以她屋的窗纸最白净。

        别人抱着把我一放在祖母的炕边上，我不假思索地就要往炕里边跑，跑到窗子那里，就伸出手去，把那白白透着花窗棂的纸窗给通了几个洞，若不加阻止，就必得挨着排给通破，若有人招呼着我，我也得加速地抢着多通几个才能停止。手指一触到窗上，那纸窗像小鼓似的，嘭嘭地就破了。破得越多，自己越得意。祖母若来追我的时候，我就越得意了，笑得拍着手，跳着脚的。

        有一天祖母看我来了，她拿了一个大针就到窗子外边去等我去了。我刚一伸出手去，手指就痛得厉害。我就叫起来了。那就是祖母用针刺了我。

        从此，我就记住了，我不喜欢她。

        虽然她也给我糖吃，她咳嗽时吃猪腰烧川贝母，也分给我猪腰，但是我吃了猪腰还是不喜欢她。

        在她临死之前，病重的时候，我还会吓了她一跳。有一次她自己一个人坐在炕上熬药，药壶是坐在炭火盆上，因为屋里特别地寂静，听得见那药壶骨碌骨碌地响。祖母住着两间房子，是里外屋，恰巧外屋也没有人，里屋也没人，就是她自己。我把门一开，祖母并没有看见我，于是我就用拳头在板隔壁上，咚咚地打了两拳。我听到祖母“哟”地一声，铁火剪子就掉了地上了。

        我再探头一望，祖母就骂起我来。她好像就要下地来追我似的。我就一边笑着，一边跑了。

        我这样地吓唬祖母，也并不是向她报仇，那时我才五岁，是不晓得什么的，也许觉得这样好玩。

        祖父一天到晚是闲着的，祖母什么工作也不分配给他。只有一件事，就是祖母的地榇上的摆设，有一套锡器，却总是祖父擦的。这可不知道是祖母派给他的，还是他自动地愿意工作，每当祖父一擦的时候，我就不高兴，一方面是不能领着我到后园里去玩了，另一方面祖父因此常常挨骂，祖母骂他懒，骂他擦得不干净。祖母一骂祖父的时候，就常常不知为什么连我也骂上。

        祖母一骂祖父，我就拉着祖父的手往外边走，一边说：

        “我们后园里去吧。”

        也许因此祖母也骂了我。

        她骂祖父是“死脑瓜骨”，骂我是“小死脑瓜骨”。

        我拉着祖父就到后园里去了，一到了后园里，立刻就另是一个世界了。绝不是那房子里的狭窄的世界，而是宽广的，人和天地在一起，天地是多么大，多么远，用手摸不到天空。

        而土地上所长的又是那么繁华，一眼看上去，是看不完的，只觉得眼前鲜绿的一片。

        一到后园里，我就没有对象地奔了出去，好像我是看准了什么而奔去了似的，好像有什么在那儿等着我似的。其实我是什么目的也没有。只觉得这园子里边无论什么东西都是活的，好像我的腿也非跳不可了。

        若不是把全身的力量跳尽了，祖父怕我累了想招呼住我，想让我停下来，那是不可能的，反而他越招呼，我越不听话。

        等到自己实在跑不动了，才坐下来休息，那休息也是很快的，也不过随便在秧子上摘下一个黄瓜来，吃了也就好了。

        休息好了又是跑。

        樱桃树，明是没有结樱桃，就偏跑到树上去找樱桃。李子树是半死的样子了，本不结李子的，就偏去找李子。一边在找，还一边大声地喊，在问着祖父：

        “爷爷，樱桃树为什么不结樱桃？”

        祖父老远地回答着：

        “因为没有开花，就不结樱桃。”

        再问：

        “为什么樱桃树不开花？”

        祖父说：

        “因为你嘴馋，它就不开花。”

        我一听了这话，明明是嘲笑我的话，于是就飞奔着跑到祖父那里，似乎是很生气的样子。等祖父把眼睛一抬，他用了完全没有恶意的眼睛一看我，我立刻就笑了。而且是笑了半天的工夫才能够止住，不知哪里来了那许多的高兴。把后园一时都让我搅乱了，我笑的声音不知有多大，自己都感到震耳了。

        后园中有一棵玫瑰。一到五月就开花的。一直开到六月。

        花朵和酱油碟那么大。开得很茂盛，满树都是，因为花香，招来了很多的蜂子，嗡嗡地在玫瑰树那儿闹着。

        别的一切都玩厌了的时候，我就想起来去摘玫瑰花，摘了一大堆把草帽脱下来用帽兜子盛着。在摘那花的时候，有两种恐惧，一种是怕蜂子的勾刺人，另一种是怕玫瑰的刺刺手。好不容易摘了一大堆，摘完了可又不知道做什么了。忽然异想天开，这花若给祖父戴起来该多好看。

        祖父蹲在地上拔草，我就给他戴花。祖父只知道我是在捉弄他的帽子，而不知道我到底是在干什么。我把他的草帽给他插了一圈的花，红通通的二三十朵。我一边插着一边笑，当我听到祖父说：

        “今年春天雨水大，咱们这棵玫瑰开得这么香。二里路也怕闻得到的。”

        就把我笑得哆嗦起来。我几乎没有支持的能力再插上去。

        等我插完了，祖父还是安然地不晓得。他还照样地拔着垅上的草。我跑得很远地站着，我不敢往祖父那边看，一看就想笑。所以我借机进屋去找一点吃的来，还没有等我回到园中，祖父也进屋来了。

        那满头红通通的花朵，一进来祖母就看见了。她看见什么也没说，就大笑了起来。父亲母亲也笑了起来，而以我笑得最厉害，我在炕上打着滚笑。

        祖父把帽子摘下来一看，原来那玫瑰的香并不是因为今年春天雨水大的缘故，而是那花就顶在他的头上。

        他把帽子放下，他笑了十多分钟还停不住，过一会一想起来，又笑了。

        祖父刚有点忘记了，我就在旁边提着说：

        “爷爷……今年春天雨水大呀……”

        一提起，祖父的笑就来了。于是我也在炕上打起滚来。

        就这样一天一天地，祖父，后园，我，这三样是一样也不可缺少的了。

        刮了风，下了雨，祖父不知怎样，在我却是非常寂寞的了。去没有去处，玩没有玩的，觉得这一天不知有多少日子那么长。

        偏偏这后园每年都要封闭一次的，秋雨之后这花园就开始凋零了，黄的黄、败的败，好像很快似的一切花朵都灭了，好像有人把它们摧残了似的。它们一齐都没有从前那么健康了，好像它们都很疲倦了，而要休息了似的，好像要收拾收拾回家去了似的。

        大榆树也是落着叶子，当我和祖父偶尔在树下坐坐，树叶竟落在我的脸上来了。树叶飞满了后园。

        没有多少时候，大雪又落下来了，后园就被埋住了。

        通到园子去的后门，也用泥封起来了，封得很厚，整个的冬天挂着白霜。

        我家住着五间房子，祖母和祖父共住两间，母亲和父亲共住两间。祖母住的是西屋，母亲住的是东屋。

        是五间一排的正房，厨房在中间，一齐是玻璃窗子，青砖墙，瓦房间。

        祖母的屋子，一个是外间，一个是内间。外间里摆着大躺箱，地长桌，太师椅。椅子上铺着红椅垫，躺箱上摆着硃砂瓶，长桌上列着座钟。钟的两边站着帽筒。帽筒上并不挂着帽子，而插着几个孔雀翎。

        我小的时候，就喜欢这个孔雀翎，我说它有金色的眼睛，总想用手摸一摸，祖母就一定不让摸，祖母是有洁癖的。

        还有祖母的躺箱上摆着一个座钟，那座钟是非常稀奇的，画着一个穿着古装的大姑娘，好像活了似的，每当我到祖母屋去，若是屋子里没有人，她就总用眼睛瞪我，我几次地告诉过祖父，祖父说：

        “那是画的，她不会瞪人。”

        我一定说她是会瞪人的，因为我看得出来，她的眼珠像是会转。

        还有祖母的大躺箱上也尽雕着小人，尽是穿古装衣裳的，宽衣大袖，还戴顶子，带着翎子。满箱子都刻着，大概有二三十个人，还有吃酒的，吃饭的，还有作揖的……

        我总想要细看一看，可是祖母不让我沾边，我还离得很远的，她就说：

        “可不许用手摸，你的手脏。”

        祖母的内间里边，在墙上挂着一个很古怪很古怪的挂钟，挂钟的下边用铁链子垂着两穗铁苞米。铁苞米比真的苞米大了很多，看起来非常重，似乎可以打死一个人。再往那挂钟里边看就更稀奇古怪了，有一个小人，长着蓝眼珠，钟摆一秒钟就响一下，钟摆一响，那眼珠就同时一转。

        那小人是黄头发，蓝眼珠，跟我相差太远，虽然祖父告诉我，说那是毛子人，但我不承认她，我看她不像什么人。

        所以我每次看这挂钟，就半天半天地看，都看得有点发呆了。我想：这毛子人就总在钟里边待着吗？永久也不下来玩吗？

        外国人在呼兰河的土语叫做“毛子人”。我四五岁的时候，还没有见过一个毛子人，以为毛子人就是因为她的头发毛烘烘地卷着的缘故。

        祖母的屋子除了这些东西，还有很多别的，因为那时候，别的我都不发生什么趣味，所以只记住了这三五样。

        母亲的屋里，就连这一类的古怪玩意也没有了，都是些普通的描金柜，也是些帽筒、花瓶之类，没有什么好看的，我没有记住。

        这五间房子的组织，除了四间住房一间厨房之外，还有极小的、极黑的两个小后房。祖母一个，母亲一个。

        那里边装着各种样的东西，因为是储藏室的缘故。

        坛子罐子、箱子柜子、筐子篓子。除了自己家的东西，还有别人寄存的。

        那里边是黑的，要端着灯进去才能看见。那里边的耗子很多，蜘蛛网也很多。空气不大好，永久有一种扑鼻的和药的气味似的。

        我觉得这储藏室很好玩，随便打开哪一只箱子，里边一定有一些好看的东西，花丝线、各种色的绸条、香荷包、搭腰、裤腿、马蹄袖、绣花的领子。古香古色，颜色都配得特别地好看。箱子里边也常常有蓝翠的耳环或戒指，被我看见了，我一看见就非要一个玩不可，母亲就常常随手抛给我一个。

        还有些桌子带着抽屉的，一打开那里边更有些好玩的东西，铜环、木刀、竹尺、观音粉。这些个都是我在别的地方没有看过的。而且这抽屉始终也不锁的。所以我常常随意地开，开了就把样样似乎是不加选择地都搜了出去，左手拿着木头刀，右手拿着观音粉，这里砍一下，那里画一下。后来我又得到了一个小锯，用这小锯，我开始毁坏起东西来，在椅子腿上锯一锯，在炕沿上锯一锯。我自己竟把我自己的小木刀也锯坏了。

        无论吃饭和睡觉，我这些东西都带在身边，吃饭的时候，我就用这小锯，锯着馒头，睡觉做起梦来还喊着：

        “我的小锯哪里去了？”

        储藏室好像变成我探险的地方了。我常常趁着母亲不在屋我就打开门进去了。这储藏室也有一个后窗，下半天也有一点亮光，我就趁着这亮光打开了抽屉，这抽屉已经被我翻得差不多的了，没有什么新鲜的了。翻了一会，觉得没有什么趣味了，就出来了。到后来连一块水胶、一段绳头都让我拿出来了，把五个抽屉通通拿空了。

        除了抽屉还有筐子笼子，但那个我不敢动，似乎每一样都是黑洞洞的，灰尘不知有多厚，蛛网蛛丝的不知有多少，因此我连想也不想动那东西。

        记得有一次我走到这黑屋子的极深极远的地方去，一个发响的东西撞住我的脚上。我摸起来抱到光亮的地方一看，原来是一个小灯笼，用手指把灰尘一划，露出来是个红玻璃的。

        我在一两岁的时候，大概我是见过灯笼的，可是长到四五岁，反而不认识了。我不知道这是个什么。我抱着去问祖父去了。

        祖父给我擦干净了，里边点上个洋蜡烛，于是我欢喜得就打着灯笼满屋跑，跑了好几天，一直到把这灯笼打碎了才算完了。

        我在黑屋子里边又碰到了一块木头，这块木头是上边刻着花的，用手一摸，很不光滑，我拿出来用小锯锯着。祖父看见了，说：

        “这是印帖子的帖板。”

        我不知道什么叫帖子，祖父刷上一片墨刷一张给我看，我只看见印出来几个小人，还有一些乱七八糟的花，还有字。祖父说：

        “咱们家开烧锅的时候，发帖子就是用这个印的，这是一百吊的……还有五十吊的、十吊的……”

        祖父给我印了许多，还用鬼子红给我印了些红的。

        还有带缨子的清朝的帽子，我也拿了出来戴上。多少年前的老大的鹅翎扇子，我也拿了出来吹着风。翻了一瓶莎仁出来，那是治胃病的药，母亲吃着，我也跟着吃。

        不久，这些八百年前的东西，都被我弄出来了。有些是祖母保存着的，有些是已经出了嫁的姑母的遗物，已经在那黑洞洞的地方放了多少年了，连动也没有动过。有些个快要腐烂了，有些个生了虫子，因为那些东西早被人们忘记了，好像世界上已经没有那么一回事了。而今天忽然又来到了他们的眼前，他们受了惊似的又恢复了他们的记忆。

        每当我拿出一件新的东西的时候，祖母看见了，祖母说：

        “这是多少年前的了！这是你大姑在家里边玩的……”

        祖父看见了，祖父说：

        “这是你二姑在家时用的……”

        这是你大姑的扇子，那是你三姑的花鞋……都有了来历。

        但我不知道谁是我的三姑，谁是我的大姑。也许我一两岁的时候，我见过她们，可是我到四五岁时，我就不记得了。

        我祖母有三个女儿，到我长起来时，她们都早已出嫁了。

        可见二三十年内就没有小孩子了。而今也只有我一个。实在的还有一个小弟弟，不过那时他才一岁半岁的，所以不算他。

        家里边多少年前放的东西，没有动过，他们过的是既不向前、也不回头的生活。是凡过去的，都算是忘记了，未来的他们也不怎样积极地希望着，只是一天一天地平板地、无怨无尤地在他们祖先给他们准备好的口粮之中生活着。

        等我生来了，第一给了祖父无限的欢喜，等我长大了，祖父非常地爱我，使我觉得在这世界上，有了祖父就够了，还怕什么呢？虽然父亲的冷淡，母亲的恶言恶色，和祖母的用针刺我手指的这些事，都觉得算不了什么。何况又有后花园！

        后园虽然让冰雪给封闭了，但是又发现了这储藏室。这里边是无穷无尽地什么都有，这里边保藏着的都是我所想象不到的东西，使我感到这世界上的东西怎么这样多！而且样样好玩，样样新奇。

        比方我得到了一包颜料，是中国的大绿，看那颜料闪着金光，可是往指甲上一染，指甲就变绿了，往胳臂上一染，胳臂立刻飞来了一张树叶似的。实在是好看，也实在是莫名其妙，所以心里边就暗暗地欢喜，莫非是我得了宝贝吗？

        得了一块观音粉。这观音粉往门上一划，门就白了一道，往窗上一划，窗就白了一道。这可真有点奇怪，大概祖父写字的墨是黑墨，而这是白墨吧。

        得了一块圆玻璃，祖父说是“显微镜”。它在太阳底下一照，竟把祖父装好的一袋烟照着了。

        这该多么使人欢喜，什么什么都会变的。你看它是一块废铁，说不定它就有用，比方我捡到一块四方的铁块，上边有一个小窝。祖父把榛子放在小窝里边，打着榛子给我吃。在这小窝里打，不知道比用牙咬要快了多少倍。何况祖父老了，他的牙又多半不大好。

        我天天从那黑屋子往外搬着，而天天有新的。搬出来一批，玩厌了，弄坏了，就再去搬。

        因此使我的祖父、祖母常常地慨叹。

        他们说这是多少年前的了，连我的第三个姑母还没有生的时候就有这东西。那是多少年前的了，还是分家的时候，从我曾祖那里得来的呢。又哪样哪样是什么人送的，而那家人家到今天也都家败人亡了，而这东西还存在着。

        又是我在玩着的那葡蔓藤的手镯，祖母说她就戴着这个手镯，有一年夏天坐着小车子，抱着我大姑去回娘家，路上遇了土匪，把金耳环给摘去了，而没有要这手镯。若也是金的银的，那该多危险，也一定要被抢去的。

        我听了问她：

        “我大姑在哪儿？”

        祖父笑了。祖母说：

        “你大姑的孩子比你都大了。”

        原来是四十年前的事情，我哪里知道。可是藤手镯却戴在我的手上，我举起手来，摇了一阵，那手镯好像风车似的，滴溜溜地转，手镯太大了，我的手太细了。

        祖母看见我把从前的东西都搬出来了，她常常骂我：

        “你这孩子，没有东西不拿着玩的，这小不成器的……”

        她嘴里虽然是这样说，但她又在光天化日之下得以重看到这东西，也似乎给了她一些回忆的满足。所以她说我是并不十分严刻的，我当然是不听她，该拿还是照旧地拿。

        于是我家里久不见天日的东西，经我这一搬弄，才得以见了天日。于是坏的坏，扔的扔，也就都从此消灭了。

        我有记忆的第一个冬天，就这样过去了。没有感到十分地寂寞，但总不如在后园里那样玩着好。但孩子是容易忘记的，也就随遇而安了。

        第二年夏天，后园里种了不少的韭菜，是因为祖母喜欢吃韭菜馅的饺子而种的。

        可是当韭菜长起来时，祖母就病重了，而不能吃这韭菜了，家里别的人也没有吃这韭菜的，韭菜就在园子里荒着。

        因为祖母病重，家里非常热闹，来了我的大姑母，又来了我的二姑母。

        二姑母是坐着她自家的小车子来的。那拉车的骡子挂着铃铛，哗哗啷啷地就停在窗前了。

        从那车上第一个就跳下来一个小孩，那小孩比我高了一点，是二姑母的儿子。

        他的小名叫“小兰”，祖父让我向他叫兰哥。

        别的我都不记得了，只记得不大一会工夫我就把他领到后园里去了。

        告诉他这个是玫瑰树，这个是狗尾草，这个是樱桃树。樱桃树是不结樱桃的，我也告诉了他。

        不知道在这之前他见过我没有，我可并没有见过他。

        我带他到东南角上去看那棵李子树时，还没有走到眼前，他就说：

        “这树前年就死了。”

        他说了这样的话，是使我很吃惊的。这树死了，他可怎么知道的？心中立刻来了一种忌妒的情感，觉得这花园是属于我的，和属于祖父的，其余的人连晓得也不该晓得才对的。

        我问他：

        “那么你来过我们家吗？”

        他说他来过。

        这个我更生气了，怎么他来我不晓得呢？

        我又问他：

        “你什么时候来过的？”

        他说前年来的，他还带给我一个毛猴子。他问着我：

        “你忘了吗？你抱着那毛猴子就跑，跌倒了你还哭了哩！”

        我无论怎样想，也想不起来了。不过总算他送给我过一个毛猴子，可见对我是很好的，于是我就不生他的气了。

        从此天天就在一块玩。

        他比我大三岁，已经八岁了，他说他在学堂里边念了书的，他还带来了几本书，晚上在煤油灯下他还把书拿出来给我看。书上有小人、有剪刀、有房子。因为都是带着图，我一看就连那字似乎也认识了，我说：

        “这念剪刀，这念房子。”

        他说不对：

        “这念剪，这念房。”

        我拿过来一细看，果然都是一个字，而不是两个字，我是照着图念的，所以错了。

    我也有一盒方字块，这边是图，那边是字，我也拿出来给他看了。

        从此整天地玩。祖母病重与否，我不知道。不过在她临死的前几天就穿上了满身的新衣裳，好像要出门做客似的。说是怕死了来不及穿衣裳。

        因为祖母病重，家里热闹得很，来了很多亲戚。忙忙碌碌不知忙些个什么。有的拿了些白布撕着，撕得一条一块的，撕得非常地响亮，旁边就有人拿着针在缝那白布。还有的把一个小罐里边装了米，罐口蒙上了红布。还有的在后园门口拢起火来，在铁火勺里边炸着面饼了。问她：

        “这是什么？”

        “这是打狗饽饽。”

        她说阴间有十八关，过到狗关的时候，狗就上来咬人，用这饽饽一打，狗吃了饽饽就不咬人了。

        似乎是姑妄言之、姑妄听之，我没有听进去。

        家里边的人越多，我就越寂寞，走到屋里，问问这个，问问那个，一切都不理解。祖父也似乎把我忘记了。我从后园里捉了一个特别大的蚂蚱送给他去看，他连看也没有看，就说：

        “真好，真好，上后园去玩去吧！”

        新来的兰哥也不陪我时，我就在后园里一个人玩。

        祖母已经死了，人们都到龙王庙上去报过庙回来了。而我还在后园里边玩着。

        后园里边下了点雨，我想要进屋去拿草帽去，走到酱缸旁边（我家的酱缸是放在后园里的），一看，有雨点啪啪地落到缸帽子上。我想这缸帽子该多大，遮起雨来，比草帽一定更好。

        于是我就从缸上把它翻下来了，到了地上它还乱滚一阵。这时候，雨就大了，我好不容易才设法钻进这缸帽子去。因为这缸帽子太大了，差不多和我一般高。

        我顶着它，走了几步，觉得天昏地暗。而且重也是很重的，非常吃力。而且自己已经走到哪里了，自己也不晓得，只晓得头顶上啪啪啦啦地打着雨点，往脚下看着，脚下只是些狗尾草和韭菜。找了一个韭菜很厚的地方，我就坐下了，一坐下这缸帽子就和个小房似的扣着我。这比站着好得多，头顶不必顶着，帽子就扣在韭菜地上。但是里边可是黑极了，什么也看不见。

        同时听什么声音，也觉得都远了。大树在风雨里边被吹得呜呜的，好像大树已经被搬到别人家的院子去似的。

        韭菜是种在北墙根上，我是坐在韭菜上。北墙根离家里的房子很远的，家里边那闹嚷嚷的声音，也像是来在远方。

        我细听了一会，听不出什么来，还是在我自己的小屋里边坐着。这小屋这么好，不怕风，不怕雨，站起来走的时候，顶着屋盖就走了，有多么轻快。

        其实是很重的了，顶起来非常吃力。

        我顶着缸帽子，一路摸索着，来到了后门口，我是要顶给爷爷看看的。

        我家的后门坎特别高，迈也迈不过去，因为缸帽子太大，使我抬不起腿来。好不容易两手把腿拉着，弄了半天，总算是过去了。虽然进了屋，仍是不知道祖父在什么方向，于是我就大喊。正在这喊之间，父亲一脚把我踢翻了，差点没把我踢到灶口的火堆上去，缸帽子也在地上滚着。

        等人家把我抱了起来，我一看，屋子里的人，完全不对了，都穿了白衣裳。

        再一看，祖母不是睡在炕上，而是睡在一张长板上。

        从这以后祖母就死了。

        祖母一死，家里继续着来了许多亲戚。有的拿着香、纸，到灵前哭了一阵就回去了，有的就带着大包小包的来了就住下了。

        大门前边吹着喇叭，院子里搭了灵棚，哭声终日，一闹闹了不知多少日子。

        请了和尚道士来，一闹闹到半夜，所来的都是吃、喝、说、笑。

        我也觉得好玩，所以就特别高兴起来。又加上从前我没有小同伴，而现在有了。比我大的，比我小的，共有四五个。

        我们上树爬墙，几乎连房顶也要上去了。

        他们带我到小门洞子顶上去捉鸽子，搬了梯子到房檐头上去捉家雀。后花园虽然大，已经装不下我了。

        我跟着他们到井口边去往井里边看，那井是多么深，我从未见过。在上边喊一声，里边有人回答。用一个小石子投下去，那响声是很深远的。

        他们带我到粮食房子去，到碾磨房去，有时候竟把我带到街上，是已经离开家了，不跟着家人在一起，我是从来没有走过这样远。

        不料除了后园之外，还有更大的地方，我站在街上，不是看什么热闹，不是看那街上的行人车马，而是心里边想：是不是我将来一个人也可以走得很远？

        有一天，他们把我带到南河沿上去了，南河沿离我家本不算远，也不过半里多地。可是因为我是第一次去，觉得实在很远。走出汗来了。走过一个黄土坑，又过一个南大营，南大营的门口，有兵把守门。那营房的院子大得在我看来太大了，实在是不应该。我们的院子就够大的了，怎么能比我们家的院子更大呢，大得有点不大好看了，我走过了，我还回过头来看。

        路上有一家人家，把花盆摆到墙头上来了，我觉得这也不大好，若是看不见人家偷去呢！

        还看见了一座小洋房，比我们家的房不知好了多少倍。若问我，哪里好？我也说不出来，就觉得那房子是一色新，不像我家的房子那么陈旧。

        我仅仅走了半里多路，我所看见的可太多了。所以觉得这南河沿实在远。问他们：

        “到了没有？”

        他们说：

        “就到的，就到的。”

        果然，转过了大营房的墙角，就看见河水了。

        我第一次看见河水，我不能晓得这河水是从什么地方来的？走了几年了。

        那河太大了，等我走到河边上，抓了一把沙子抛下去，那河水简直没有因此而脏了一点点。河上有船，但是不很多，有的往东去了，有的往西去了。也有的划到河的对岸去的，河的对岸似乎没有人家，而是一片柳条林。再往远看，就不能知道那是什么地方了，因为也没有人家，也没有房子，也看不见道路，也听不见一点音响。

        我想将来是不是我也可以到那没有人的地方去看一看。

        除了我家的后园，还有街道。除了街道，还有大河。除了大河，还有柳条林。除了柳条林，还有更远的，什么也没有的地方，什么也看不见的地方，什么声音也听不见的地方。

        究竟除了这些，还有什么，我越想越不知道了。

        就不用说这些我未曾见过的。就说一个花盆吧，就说一座院子吧。院子和花盆，我家里都有。但说那营房的院子就比我家的大，我家的花盆是摆在后园里的，人家的花盆就摆到墙头上来了。

        可见我不知道的一定还有。

        所以祖母死了，我竟聪明了。

        祖母死了，我就跟祖父学诗。因为祖父的屋子空着，我就闹着一定要睡在祖父那屋。

        早晨念诗，晚上念诗，半夜醒了也是念诗。念了一阵，念困了再睡去。

        祖父教我的有《千家诗》，并没有课本，全凭口头传诵，祖父念一句，我就念一句。

        祖父说：

        “少小离家老大回……”

        我也说：“少小离家老大回……”

        都是些什么字，什么意思，我不知道，只觉得念起来那声音很好听。所以很高兴地跟着喊。我喊的声音，比祖父的声音更大。

        我一念起诗来，我家的五间房都可以听见。祖父怕我喊坏了喉咙，常常警告着我说：

        “房盖被你抬走了。”

        听了这笑话，我略微笑了一会工夫，过不了多久，就又喊起来了。

        夜里也是照样地喊，母亲吓唬我，说再喊她要打我。

        祖父也说：

        “没有你这样念诗的，你这不叫念诗，你这叫乱叫。”

        但我觉得这乱叫的习惯不能改，若不让我叫，我念它干什么。每当祖父教我一个新诗，一开头我若听了不好听，我就说：

        “不学这个。”

        祖父于是就换一个，换一个不好，我还是不要。

        “春眠不觉晓，处处闻啼鸟。

        夜来风雨声，花落知多少。”

        这一首诗，我很喜欢，我一念到第二句，“处处闻啼鸟”那“处处”两字，我就高兴起来了。觉得这首诗，实在是好，真好听，“处处”该多好听。

        还有一首我更喜欢的：

        “重重叠叠上楼台，几度呼童扫不开。
        刚被太阳收拾去，又为明月送将来。”

        就这“几度呼童扫不开”，我根本不知道什么意思，就念成“西沥忽通扫不开”。

        越念越觉得好听，越念越有趣味。

        还当客人来了，祖父总是呼我念诗的，我就总喜念这一首。

        那客人不知听懂了与否，只是点头说好。

        就这样瞎念，到底不是久计。念了几十首之后，祖父开讲了。

        “少小离家老大回，乡音无改鬓毛衰。”

        祖父说：

        “这是说小的时候离开了家到外边去，老了回来了。乡音无改鬓毛衰，这是说家乡的口音还没有改变，胡子可白了。”

        我问祖父：

        “为什么小的时候离家？离家到哪里去？”

        祖父说：
        “好比爷像你那么大离家，现在老了回来了，谁还认识呢？‘儿童相见不相识，笑问客从何处来。’小孩子见了就招呼着说：你这个白胡子老头，是从哪里来的？”

        我一听觉得不大好，赶快就问祖父：

        “我也要离家的吗？等我胡子白了回来，爷爷你也不认识我了吗？”

        心里很恐惧。

        祖父一听就笑了：

        “等你老了还有爷爷吗？”

        祖父说完了，看我还是不很高兴，他又赶快说：

        “你不离家的，你哪里能够离家……快再念一首诗吧！念‘春眠不觉晓’……”

        我一念起“春眠不觉晓”来，又是满口的大叫，得意极了。完全高兴，什么都忘了。

        但从此再读新诗，一定要先讲的，没有讲过的也要重讲。

        似乎那大嚷大叫的习惯稍稍好了一点。

        “两个黄鹂鸣翠柳，一行白鹭上青天。”

        这首诗本来我也很喜欢的，黄梨是很好吃的。经祖父这一讲，说是两个鸟，于是不喜欢了。

        “去年今日此门中，人面桃花相映红。

        人面不知何处去，桃花依旧笑春风。”

        这首诗祖父讲了我也不明白，但是我喜欢这首。因为其中有桃花。桃树一开了花不就结桃吗？桃子不是好吃吗？

        所以每念完这首诗，我就接着问祖父：

        “今年咱们的樱桃树开不开花？”

        除了念诗之外，还很喜欢吃。

        记得大门洞子东边那家是养猪的，一个大猪在前边走，一群小猪跟在后边。有一天一个小猪掉井了，人们用抬土的筐子把小猪从井里吊了上来。吊上来，那小猪早已死了。井口旁边围了很多人看热闹，祖父和我也在旁边看热闹。

        那小猪一被打上来，祖父就说他要那小猪。

        祖父把那小猪抱到家里，用黄泥裹起来，放在灶坑里烧上了，烧好了给我吃。

        我站在炕沿旁边，那整个的小猪，就摆在我的眼前。祖父把那小猪一撕开，立刻就冒了油。真香，我从来没有吃过那么香的东西，从来没有吃过那么好吃的东西。

        第二次，又有一只鸭子掉井了，祖父也用黄泥包起来，烧上给我吃了。

        在祖父烧的时候，我也帮着忙，帮着祖父搅黄泥，一边喊着，一边叫着，好像拉拉队似的给祖父助兴。

        鸭子比小猪更好吃，那肉是不怎样肥的。所以我最喜欢吃鸭子。

        我吃，祖父在旁边看着。祖父不吃。等我吃完了，祖父才吃。他说我的牙齿小，怕我咬不动，先让我选嫩的吃，我吃剩了的他才吃。

        祖父看我每咽下去一口，他就点一下头，而且高兴地说：

        “这小东西真馋。”或是：“这小东西吃得真快。”

        我的手满是油，随吃随在大襟上擦着，祖父看了也并不生气，只是说：

        “快蘸点盐吧，快蘸点韭菜花吧，空口吃不好，等会要反胃的……”

        说着就捏几个盐粒放在我手上拿着的鸭子肉上。我一张嘴又进肚去了。

        祖父越称赞我能吃，我越吃得多。祖父看看不好了，怕我吃多了，让我停下，我才停下来。我明明白白地是吃不下去了，可是我嘴里还说着：

        “一个鸭子还不够呢！”

        自此吃鸭子的印象非常之深，等了好久，鸭子再不掉到井里。我看井沿有一群鸭子，我拿了秫秆就往井里边赶，可是鸭子不进去，围着井口转，而且呱呱地叫着。我就招呼了在旁边看热闹的小孩子，我说：

        “帮我赶哪！”

        正在吵吵叫叫的时候，祖父奔到了，祖父说：

        “你在干什么？”

        我说：

        “赶鸭子，鸭子掉井，捞出来好烧吃。”

        祖父说：

        “不用赶了，爷爷抓个鸭子给你烧着。”

        我不听他的话，我还是追在鸭子的后边跑着。

        祖父上前来把我拦住了，抱在怀里，一面给我擦着汗一面说：

        “跟爷爷回家，抓个鸭子烧上。”

        我想：不掉井的鸭子，抓都抓不住，可怎么能规规矩矩贴起黄泥来让烧呢？于是我从祖父的身上往下挣扎着，喊着：
        “我要掉井的！我要掉井的！”

        祖父几乎抱不住我了。

    四

        一到了夏天，蒿草长没大人的腰了，长没我的头顶了，黄狗进去，连个影也看不见了。

        夜里一刮起风来，蒿草就刷拉刷拉地响着，因为满院子都是蒿草，所以那响声就特别大，成群结队地就响起来了。

        下了雨，那蒿草的梢上都冒着烟，雨本来下得不很大，若一看那蒿草，好像那雨下得特别大似的。

        下了毛毛雨，那蒿草上就迷漫得朦朦胧胧的，像是已经来了大雾，或者像是要变天了，好像是下了霜的早晨，混混沌沌的，在蒸腾着白烟。

        刮风和下雨，这院子是很荒凉的了。就是晴天，多大的太阳照在上空，这院子也一样是荒凉的。没有什么显眼耀目的装饰，没有人工设置过的一点痕迹，什么都是任其自然，愿意东，就东，愿意西，就西。若是纯然能够做到这样，倒也保存了原始的风景。但不对的，这算什么风景呢？东边堆着一堆朽木头，西边扔着一片乱柴火。左门旁排着一大片旧砖头，右门边晒着一片沙泥土。

        沙泥土是厨子拿来搭炉灶的，搭好了炉灶，泥土就扔在门边了。若问他还有什么用处吗，我想他也不知道，不过忘了就是了。

        至于那砖头可不知道是干什么的，已经放了很久了，风吹日晒，下了雨被雨浇。反正砖头是不怕雨的，浇浇又碍什么事。那么就浇着去吧，没人管它。其实也正不必管它，凑巧炉灶或是炕洞子坏了，那就用得着它了。就在眼前，伸手就来，用着多么方便。但是炉灶就总不常坏，炕洞子修得也比较结实。不知哪里找的这样好的工人，一修上炕洞子就是一年，头一年八月修上，不到第二年八月是不坏的，就是到了第二年八月，也得泥水匠来、砖瓦匠来，用铁刀一块一块地把砖砍着搬下来。所以那门前的一堆砖头似乎是一年也没有多大的用处。三年两年的还是在那里摆着。大概总是越摆越少，东家拿去一块垫花盆，西家搬去一块又是做什么。不然若是越摆越多，那可就糟了，岂不是慢慢地会把房门封起来的吗？

        其实门前的那砖头是越来越少的。不用人工，任其自然，过了三年两载也就没有了。

        可是目前还是有的。就和那堆泥土同时在晒着太阳，它陪伴着它，它陪伴着它。

        除了这个，还有打碎了的大缸扔在墙边上，大缸旁边还有一个破了口的坛子陪着它蹲在那里。坛子底上没有什么，只积了半坛雨水，用手攀着坛子边一摇动：那水里边有很多活物，会上下地跑，似鱼非鱼，似虫非虫，我不认识。再看那勉强站着的，几乎是站不住了的已经被打碎了的大缸，那缸里边可是什么也没有。其实不能够说那是“里边”，本来这缸已经破了肚子，谈不到什么“里边”“外边”了，就简称“缸碴”吧！在这缸碴上什么也没有，光滑可爱，用手一拍还会发响。小时候就总喜欢到旁边去搬一搬，一搬就不得了了，在这缸碴的下边有无数的潮虫。吓得赶快就跑。跑得很远地站在那里回头看着，看了一回，那潮虫乱跑一阵又回到那缸碴的下边去了。

        这缸碴为什么不扔掉呢？大概就是专养潮虫。

        和这缸碴相对着，还扣着一个猪槽子，那猪槽子已经腐朽了，不知扣了多少年了。槽子底上长了不少的蘑菇，黑森森的，那是些小蘑；看样子，大概吃不得，不知长着做什么。

        靠着槽子的旁边就睡着一柄生锈的铁犁头。

        说也奇怪，我家里的东西都是成对的，成双的。没有单个的。

        砖头晒太阳，就有泥土来陪着。有破坛子，就有破大缸。

        有猪槽子就有铁犁头。像是它们都配了对，结了婚。而且各自都有新生命送到世界上来。比方坛子里的似鱼非鱼，大缸下边的潮虫，猪槽子上的蘑菇等等。

        不知为什么，这铁犁头，却看不出什么新生命来，而是全体腐烂下去了。什么也不生，什么也不长，全体黄澄澄的。

        用手一触就往下掉末，虽然它本质是铁的，但沦落到今天，就完全像黄泥做的了，就像要瘫了的样子。比起它的同伴那木槽子来，真是远差千里，惭愧惭愧。这犁头假若是人的话，一定要流泪大哭：“我的体质比你们都好哇，怎么今天衰弱到这个样子？”

        它不但它自己衰弱，发黄，一下了雨，它那满身的黄色的色素，还跟着雨水流到别人的身上去。那猪槽子的半边已经被染黄了。

        那黄色的水流，直流得很远，是凡它所经过的那条土地，都被它染得焦黄。

        我家是荒凉的。

        一进大门，靠着大门洞子的东壁是三间破房子，靠着大门洞子的西壁仍是三间破房子。再加上一个大门洞，看起来是七间连着串，外表上似乎是很威武的，房子都很高大，架着很粗的木头的房架。柁头是很粗的，一个小孩抱不过来。都一律是瓦房盖，房脊上还有透窿的用瓦做的花，迎着太阳看去，是很好看的。房脊的两梢上，一边有一个鸽子，大概也是瓦做的，终年不动，停在那里。这房子的外表，似乎不坏。

        但我看它内容空虚。

        西边的三间，自家用装粮食的，粮食没有多少，耗子可是成群了。

        粮食仓子底下让耗子咬出洞来，耗子的全家在吃着粮食。

        耗子在下边吃，麻雀在上边吃。全屋都是土腥气。窗子坏了，用板钉起来，门也坏了，每一开就颤抖抖的。

        靠着门洞子西壁的三间房，是租给一家养猪的。那屋里屋外没有别的，都是猪了。大猪小猪，猪槽子，猪粮食。来往的人也都是猪贩子，连房子带人，都弄得气味非常之坏。

        说来那家也并没有养了多少猪，也不过十个八个的。每当黄昏的时候，那叫猪的声音远近得闻。打着猪槽子，敲着圈棚，叫了几声，停了一停。声音有高有低，在黄昏的庄严的空气里好像是说他家的生活是非常寂寞的。

        除了这一连串的七间房子之外，还有六间破房子，三间破草房，三间碾磨房。

        三间碾磨房一起租给那家养猪的了，因为它靠近那家养猪的。

        三间破草房是在院子的西南角上，这房子它单独地跑得那么远，孤伶伶的，毛头毛脚的，歪歪斜斜地站在那里。

        房顶的草上长着青苔，远看去，一片绿，很是好看。下了雨，房顶上就出蘑菇，人们就上房采蘑菇，就好像上山去采蘑菇一样，一采采了很多。这样出蘑菇的房顶实在是很少有。我家的房子共有三十来间，其余的都不会出蘑菇，所以住在那房里的人一提着筐子上房去采蘑菇，全院子的人没有不羡慕的，都说：

        “这蘑菇是新鲜的，可不比那干蘑菇，若是杀一个小鸡炒上，那真好吃极了。”

        “蘑菇炒豆腐，嗳，真鲜！”

        “雨后的蘑菇嫩过了仔鸡。”

        “蘑菇炒鸡，吃蘑菇而不吃鸡。”

        “蘑菇下面，吃汤而忘了面。”

        “吃了这蘑菇，不忘了姓才怪的。”

        “清蒸蘑菇加姜丝，能吃八碗小米子干饭。”

        “你不要小看了这蘑菇，这是意外之财！”

        同院住的那些羡慕的人，都恨自己为什么不住在那草房里。若早知道租了房子连蘑菇都一起租来了，就非租那房子不可。天下哪有这样的好事，租房子还带蘑菇的。于是感慨唏嘘，相叹不已。

        再说站在房间上正在采着的，在多少只眼目之中，真是一种光荣的工作。于是也就慢慢地采，本来一袋烟的工夫就可以采完，但是要延长到半顿饭的工夫。同时故意选了几个大的，从房顶上骄傲地抛下来，同时说：

        “你们看吧，你们见过这样干净的蘑菇吗？除了是这个房顶，哪个房顶能够长出这样的好蘑菇来。”

        那在下面的，根本看不清房顶到底那蘑菇全部多大，以为一律是这样大的，于是就更增加了无限的惊异。赶快弯下腰去拾起来，拿到家里，晚饭的时候，卖豆腐的来，破费二百钱捡点豆腐，把蘑菇烧上。

        可是那在房顶上的因为骄傲，忘记了那房顶有许多地方是不结实的，已经露了洞了，一不加小心就把脚掉下去了，把脚往外一拔，脚上的鞋子不见了。

        鞋子从房顶落下去，一直就落在锅里，锅里正是翻开的滚水，鞋子就在滚水里边煮上了。锅边漏粉的人越看越有意思，越觉得好玩，那一只鞋子在开水里滚着，翻着，还从鞋底上滚下一些泥浆来，弄得漏下去的粉条都黄忽忽的了。可是他们还不把鞋子从锅里拿出来，他们说，反正这粉条是卖的，也不是自己吃。

        这房顶虽然产蘑菇，但是不能够避雨。一下起雨来，全屋就像小水罐似的，摸摸这个是湿的，摸摸那个是湿的。

        好在这里边住的都是些个粗人。

        有一个歪鼻瞪眼的名叫“铁子”的孩子。他整天手里拿着一柄铁锹，在一个长槽子里边往下切着，切些个什么呢？初到这屋子里来的人是看不清的，因为热气腾腾的这屋里不知都在做些个什么。细一看，才能看出来他切的是马铃薯。槽子里都是马铃薯。

        这草房是租给一家开粉房的。漏粉的人都是些粗人，没有好鞋袜，没有好行李，一个一个的和小猪差不多，住在这房子里边是很相当的，好房子让他们一住也怕是住坏了。何况每一下雨还有蘑菇吃。

        这粉房里的人吃蘑菇，总是蘑菇和粉配在一道，蘑菇炒粉，蘑菇炖粉，蘑菇煮粉。没有汤的叫做“炒”，有汤的叫做“煮”，汤少一点的叫做“炖”。

        他们做好了，常常还端着一大碗来送给祖父。等那歪鼻瞪眼的孩子一走了，祖父就说：

        “这吃不得，若吃到有毒的就吃死了。”

        但那粉房里的人，从来没吃死过，天天里边唱着歌，漏着粉。

        粉房的门前搭了几丈高的架子，亮晶晶的白粉，好像瀑布似的挂在上边。

        他们一边挂着粉，也是一边唱着的。等粉条晒干了，他们一边收着粉，也是一边地唱着。那唱不是从工作所得到的愉快，好像含着眼泪在笑似的。

        逆来顺受，你说我的生命可惜，我自己却不在乎。你看着很危险，我却自己以为得意。不得意怎么样？人生是苦多乐少。

        那粉房里的歌声，就像一朵红花开在了墙头上。越鲜明，就越觉得荒凉。

        正月十五正月正，

        家家户户挂红灯。

        人家的丈夫团圆聚，

        孟姜女的丈夫去修长城。

        只要是一个晴天，粉丝一挂起来了，这歌音就听得见的。

        因为那破草房是在西南角上，所以那声音比较地辽远。偶尔也有装腔女人的音调在唱“五更天”。

        那草房实在是不行了，每下一次大雨，那草房北头就要多加一只支柱，那支柱已经有七八只之多了，但是房子还是天天地往北边歪。越歪越厉害，我一看了就害怕，怕从那旁边一过，恰好那房子倒了下来，压在我身上。那房子实在是不像样子了，窗子本来是四方的，都歪斜得变成菱形的了。门也歪斜得关不上了。墙上的大柁就像要掉下来似的，向一边跳出来了。房脊上的正梁一天一天地往北走，已经拔了榫，脱离别人的牵掣，而它自己单独行动起来了。那些钉在房脊上的椽杆子，能够跟着它跑的，就跟着它一顺水地往北边跑下去了；不能够跟着它跑的，就挣断了钉子，而垂下头来，向着粉房里的人们的头垂下来，因为另一头是压在檐外，所以不能够掉下来，只是滴里郎当地垂着。

        我一次进粉房去，想要看一看漏粉到底是怎样漏法。但是不敢细看，我很怕那椽子头掉下来打了我。

        一刮起风来，这房子就喳喳地山响，大柁响，马梁响，门框、窗框响。

        一下了雨，又是喳喳地响。

        不刮风，不下雨，夜里也是会响的，因为夜深人静了，万物齐鸣，何况这本来就会响的房子，哪能不响呢。

        以它响得最厉害。别的东西的响，是因为倾心去听它，就是听得到的，也是极幽渺的，不十分可靠的，也许是因为一个人的耳鸣而引起来的错觉。

        比方猫、狗、虫子之类的响叫，那是因为它们是生物的缘故。可曾有人听过夜里房子会叫的。谁家的房子会叫，叫得好像个活物似的，嚓嚓的，带着无限的重量，往往会把睡在这房子里的人叫醒。

        被叫醒了的人，翻了一个身说：

        “房子又走了。”

        真是活神活现，听他说了这话，好像房子要搬了场似的。

        房子都要搬场了，为什么睡在里边的人还不起来，他是不起来的，他翻了个身又睡了。

        住在这里边的人，对于房子就要倒的这回事，毫不加戒心，好像他们已经有了血族的关系，是非常信靠的。

        似乎这房一旦倒了，也不会压到他们，就像是压到了，也不会压死的，绝对地没有生命的危险。这些人的过度的自信，不知从哪里来的，也许住在那房子里边的人都是用铁铸的，而不是肉长的。再不然就是他们都是敢死队，生命置之度外了。

        若不然为什么这么勇敢？生死不怕。

        若说他们是生死不怕，那也是不对的。比方那晒粉条的人，从杆子上往下摘粉条的时候，那杆子掉下来了，就吓他一哆嗦。粉条打碎了，他还没有敲打着。他把粉条收起来，他还看着那杆子，他思索起来，他说：

        “莫不是……”

        他越想越奇怪，怎么粉打碎了，而人没打着呢。他把那杆子扶了上去，远远地站在那里看着，用眼睛捉摸着。越捉摸越觉得可怕。

        “唉呀！这要是落到头上呢。”

        那真是不堪想象了。于是他摸着自己的头顶，他觉得万幸万幸，下回该加小心。

        本来那杆子还没有房椽子那么粗，可是他一看见，他就害怕。每次他再晒粉条的时候，他都是躲着那杆子，连在它旁边走也不敢走，总是用眼睛溜着它，过了很多日才算把这回事忘了。

        若下雨打雷的时候，他就把灯灭了，他们说雷扑火，怕雷劈着。

        他们过河的时候，抛两个铜板到河里去，传说河是馋的，常常淹死人的，把铜板一摆到河里，河神高兴了，就不会把他们淹死了。

        这证明住在这嚓嚓响着的草房里的他们，也是很胆小的，也和一般人一样是颤颤惊惊地活在这世界上。

        那么这房子既然要塌了，他们为什么不怕呢？

        据卖馒头的老赵头说：

        “他们要的就是这个要倒的么！”

        据粉房里的那个歪鼻瞪眼的孩子说：“这是住房子啊，也不是娶媳妇要她周周正正。”

        据同院住的周家的两位少年绅士说：

        “这房子对于他们那等粗人，就再合适也没有了。”

        据我家的有二伯说：

        “是他们贪图便宜，好房子呼兰城里有的多，为啥他们不搬家呢？好房子人家要房钱的呀，不像是咱们家这房子，一年送来十斤二十斤的干粉就完事，等于白住。你二伯是没有家眷，若不我也找这样房子去住。”

        有二伯说的也许有点对。

        祖父早就想拆了那座房子的，是因为他们几次的全体挽留才留下来的。

        至于这个房子将来倒或不倒，或是发生什么幸与不幸，大家都以为这太远了，不必想了。

        我家的院子是很荒凉的。

        那边住着几个漏粉的，那边住着几个养猪的。养猪的那厢房里还住着一个拉磨的。

        那拉磨的，夜里打着梆子，通夜地打。

        养猪的那一家有几个闲散杂人，常常聚在一起唱着秦腔，拉着胡琴。

        西南角上那漏粉的则喜欢在晴天里边唱一个《叹五更》。

        他们虽然是拉胡琴、打梆子、叹五更，但是并不是繁华的，并不是一往直前的，并不是他们看见了光明，或是希望着光明，这些都不是的。

        他们看不见什么是光明的，甚至于根本也不知道，就像太阳照在了瞎子的头上了，瞎子也看不见太阳，但瞎子却感到实在是温暖了。

        他们就是这类人，他们不知道光明在哪里，可是他们实实在在地感得到寒凉就在他们的身上，他们想击退了寒凉，因此而来了悲哀。

        他们被父母生下来，没有什么希望，只希望吃饱了，穿暖了。但也吃不饱，也穿不暖。

        逆来的，顺受了。

        顺来的事情，却一辈子也没有。

        磨房里那打梆子的，夜里常常是越打越响，他越打得激烈，人们越说那声音凄凉。

        因为他单单的响音，没有同调。

        我家的院子是很荒凉的。

        粉房旁边的那小偏房里，还住着一家赶车的。那家喜欢跳大神，常常就打起鼓来，喝喝咧咧唱起来了。鼓声往往打到半夜才止，那说仙道鬼的，大神和二神的一对一答，苍凉，幽渺，真不知今世何世。

        那家的老太太终年生病，跳大神都是为她跳的。

        那家是这院子顶丰富的一家，老少三辈。家风是干净利落，为人谨慎，兄友弟恭，父慈子爱。家里绝对地没有闲散杂人。绝对不像那粉房和那磨房，说唱就唱，说哭就哭。他家永久是安安静静的。跳大神不算。

        那终年生病的老太太是祖母，她有两个儿子，大儿子是赶车的，二儿子也是赶车的。一个儿子都有一个媳妇。大儿媳妇胖胖的，年已五十了。二儿媳妇瘦瘦的，年已四十了。

        除了这些，老太太还有两个孙儿。大孙儿是二儿子的，二孙儿是大儿子的。

        因此他家里稍稍有点不睦，那两个媳妇妯娌之间，稍稍有点不合适，不过也不很明朗化。只是你我之间各自晓得。做嫂子的总觉得兄弟媳妇对她有些不驯，或者就因为她的儿子大的缘故吧。兄弟媳妇就总觉得嫂子是想压她，凭什么想压人呢？自己的儿子小，没有媳妇指使着，看了别人还眼气。

        老太太有了两个儿子，两个孙子，认为十分满意了。人手整齐，将来的家业，还不会兴旺的吗？就不用说别的，就说赶大车这把力气也是够用的。看看谁家的车上是爷四个，拿鞭子的，坐在车后尾巴上的都是姓胡，没有外姓。在家一盆火，出外父子兵。

        所以老太太虽然是终年病着，但很乐观，也就是跳一跳大神什么的解一解心疑也就算了。她觉得就是死了，也是心安理得的了，何况还活着，还能够看得见儿子们的忙忙碌碌。

        媳妇们对于她也很好的，总是隔长不短地张罗着给她花几个钱跳一跳大神。

        每一次跳神的时候，老太太总是坐在炕里，靠着枕头，挣扎着坐了起来，向那些来看热闹的姑娘媳妇们讲：

        “这回是我大媳妇给我张罗的。”或是：“这回是我二媳妇给我张罗的。”

        她说的时候非常得意，说着说着就坐不住了。她患的是瘫病，就赶快招媳妇们来把她放下了。放下了还要喘一袋烟的工夫。

        看热闹的人，没有一个不说老太太慈祥的，没有一个不说媳妇孝顺的。

        所以每一跳大神，远远近近的人都来了，东院西院的，还有前街后街的也都来了。

        只是不能够预先订座，来得早的就有凳子、炕沿坐；来得晚的，就得站着了。

        一时这胡家的孝顺，居于领导的地位，风传一时，成为妇女们的楷模。

        不但妇女，就是男人也得说：

        “老胡家人旺，将来财也必旺。”

        “天时、地利、人和，最要紧的还是人和。人和了，天时不好也好了。地利不利也利了。”

        “将来看着吧，今天人家赶大车的，再过五年看，不是二等户，也是三等户。”

        我家的有二伯说：

        “你看着吧，过不了几年人家就骡马成群了。别看如今人家就一辆车。”

        他家的大儿媳妇和二儿媳妇的不睦，虽然没有新的发展，可也总没有消灭。

        大孙子媳妇通红的脸，又能干，又温顺。人长得不肥不瘦，不高不矮，说起话来，声音不大不小。正合适配到他们这样的人家。

        车回来了，牵着马就到井边去饮水。车马一出去了，就打草。看她那长相可并不是做这类粗活的人，可是做起事来并不弱于人，比起男人来，也差不了许多。

        放下了外边的事情不说，再说屋里的，也样样拿得起来。剪、裁、缝、补，做哪样像哪样，他家里虽然没有什么绫罗绸缎可做的，就说粗布衣也要做个四六见线，平平板板。一到过年的时候，无管怎样忙，也要偷空给奶奶婆婆、自己的婆婆、大娘婆婆，各人做一双花鞋。虽然没有什么好的鞋面，就说青水布的，也要做个精致。虽然没有丝线，就用棉花线，但那颜色却配得水灵灵地新鲜。

        奶奶婆婆的那双绣的是桃红的大瓣莲花。大娘婆婆的那双绣的是牡丹花。婆婆的那双绣的是素素雅雅的绿叶兰。

        这孙子媳妇回了娘家，娘家的人一问她婆家怎样，她说都好都好，将来非发财不可。大伯公是怎样地兢兢业业，公公是怎样地吃苦耐劳。奶奶婆婆也好，大娘婆婆也好。凡是婆家的无一不好。完全顺心，这样的婆家实在难找。

        虽然她的丈夫也打过她，但她说，哪个男人不打女人呢？

        于是也心满意足地并不以为那是缺陷了。

        她把绣好的花鞋送给奶奶婆婆，她看她绣了那么一手好花，她感到了对这孙子媳妇有无限的惭愧，觉得这样一手好针线，每天让她喂猪打狗的，真是难为了她了。奶奶婆婆把手伸出来，把那鞋接过来，真是不知如何说好，只是轻轻地托着那鞋，苍白的脸孔，笑盈盈地点着头。

        这是这样好的一个大孙子媳妇。二孙子媳妇也订好了，只是二孙子还太小，一时不能娶过来。

        她家的两个妯娌之间的摩擦，都是为了这没有娶过来的媳妇。她自己的婆婆主张把她接过来，做团圆媳妇，婶婆婆就不主张接来，说她太小不能干活，只能白吃饭，有什么好处。

        争执了许久，来与不来，还没有决定。等下回给老太太跳大神的时候，顺便问一问大仙家再说吧。

        我家是荒凉的。

        天还未明，鸡先叫了；后边磨房里那梆子声还没有停止，天就发白了。天一发白，乌鸦群就来了。

        我睡在祖父旁边，祖父一醒，我就让祖父念诗，祖父就念：
        “春眠不觉晓，处处闻啼鸟。
        夜来风雨声，花落知多少？”

        “春天睡觉不知不觉地就睡醒了，醒了一听，处处有鸟叫着，回想昨夜的风雨，可不知道今早花落了多少。”

        是每念必讲的，这是我的约请。

        祖父正在讲着诗，我家的老厨子就起来了。

        他咳嗽着，听得出来，他担着水桶到井边去挑水去了。

        井口离得我家的住房很远，他摇着井绳哗啦啦地响，日里是听不见的，可是在清晨，就听得分外地清明。

        老厨子挑完了水，家里还没有人起来。

        听得见老厨子刷锅的声音刷拉拉地响。老厨子刷完了锅，烧了一锅洗脸水了，家里还没有人起来。

        我和祖父念诗，一直念到太阳出来。

        祖父说：

        “起来吧。”

        “再念一首。”

        祖父说：

        “再念一首可得起来了。”

        于是再念一首，一念完了，我又赖起来不算了，说再念一首。

        每天早晨都是这样纠缠不清地闹。等一开了门，到院子去，院子里边已经是万道金光了，大太阳晒在头上都滚热的了。太阳两丈高了。

        祖父到鸡架那里去放鸡，我也跟在那里，祖父到鸭架那里去放鸭，我也跟在后边。

        我跟着祖父，大黄狗在后边跟着我。我跳着，大黄狗摇着尾巴。

        大黄狗的头像盆那么大，又胖又圆，我总想要当一匹小马来骑它。祖父说骑不得。

        但是大黄狗是喜欢我的，我是爱大黄狗的。

        鸡从架里出来了，鸭子从架里出来了，它们抖擞着毛，一出来就连跑带叫的，吵的声音很大。

        祖父撒着通红的高粱粒在地上，又撒了金黄的谷粒子在地上。

        于是鸡啄食的声音，咯咯地响成群了。

        喂完了鸡，往天空一看，太阳已经三丈高了。

        我和祖父回到屋里，摆上小桌，祖父吃一碗饭米汤，浇白糖；我则不吃，我要吃烧苞米；祖父领着我，到后园去，趟着露水去到苞米丛中为我擗一穗苞米来。

        擗来了苞米，袜子、鞋，都湿了。

        祖父让老厨子把苞米给我烧上，等苞米烧好了，我已经吃了两碗以上的饭米汤浇白糖了。苞米拿来，我吃了一两个粒，就说不好吃，因为我已吃饱了。

        于是我手里拿着烧苞米就到院子去喂大黄去了。

        “大黄”就是大黄狗的名字。

        街上，在墙头外面，各种叫卖声音都有了，卖豆腐的，卖馒头的，卖青菜的。

        卖青菜的喊着，茄子、黄瓜、荚豆和小葱子。

        一挑喊着过去了，又来了一挑；这一挑不喊茄子、黄瓜，而喊着芹菜、韭菜、白菜……

        街上虽然热闹起来了，而我家里则仍是静悄悄的。

        满院子蒿草，草里面叫着虫子。破东西，东一件西一样地扔着。

        看起来似乎是因为清早，我家才冷静，其实不然的，是因为我家的房子多，院子大，人少的缘故。

        哪怕就是到了正午，也仍是静悄悄的。

        每到秋天，在蒿草的当中，也往往开了蓼花，所以引来了不少的蜻蜓和蝴蝶在那荒凉的一片蒿草上闹着。这样一来，不但不觉得繁华，反而更显得荒凉寂寞。

        据说，那团圆媳妇的灵魂，也来到了东大桥下。说她变了一只很大的白兔，隔三差五地就到桥下来哭。

    五

        我玩的时候，除了在后花园里，有祖父陪着，其余的玩法，就只有我自己了。

        我自己在房檐下搭了个小布棚，玩着玩着就睡在那布棚里了。

        我家的窗子是可以摘下来的，摘下来直立着是立不住的，就靠着墙斜立着，正好立出一个小斜坡来，我称这小斜坡叫“小屋”，我也常常睡到这小屋里边去了。

        我家满院子是蒿草，蒿草上飞着许多蜻蜓，那蜻蜓是为着红蓼花而来的。可是我偏偏喜欢捉它，捉累了就躺在蒿草里边睡着了。

        蒿草里边长着一丛一丛的天星星，好像山葡萄似的，是很好吃的。

        我在蒿草里边搜索着吃，吃困了，就睡在天星星秧子的旁边了。

        蒿草是很厚的，我躺在上边好像是我的褥子，蒿草是很高的，它给我遮着荫凉。

        有一天，我就正在蒿草里边做着梦，那是下午晚饭之前，太阳偏西的时候。大概我睡得不太着实，我似乎是听到了什么地方有不少的人讲着话，说说笑笑，似乎是很热闹。但到底发生了什么事情，却听不清，只觉得在西南角上，或者是院里，或者是院外。到底是院里院外，那就不大清楚了。反正是有几个人在一起嚷嚷着。

        我似睡非睡地听了一会就又听不见了。大概我已经睡着了。

        等我睡醒了，回到屋里去，老厨子第一个就告诉我：

        “老胡家的团圆媳妇来啦，你还不知道，快吃了饭去看吧！”

        老厨子今天特别忙，手里端着一盘黄瓜菜往屋里走，因为跟我指手划脚地一讲话，差一点没把菜碟子掉在地上，只把黄瓜丝打翻了。

        我一走进祖父的屋去，只有祖父一个人坐在饭桌前面，桌子上边的饭菜都摆好了，却没有人吃。母亲和父亲都没有来吃饭，有二伯也没有来吃饭。祖父一看见我，祖父就问我：

        “那团圆媳妇好不好？”

        大概祖父以为我是去看团圆媳妇回来的。我说我不知道，我在草棵里边吃天星星来的。

        祖父说：

        “你妈他们都去看团圆媳妇去了，就是那个跳大神的老胡家。”

        祖父说着就招呼老厨子，让他把黄瓜菜快点拿来。

        醋拌黄瓜丝，上边浇着辣椒油，红的红，绿的绿，一定是那老厨子又重切了一盘的，那盘我眼看着撒在地上了。

        祖父一看黄瓜菜也来了，祖父说：

        “快吃吧，吃了饭好看团圆媳妇去。”

        老厨子站在旁边，用围裙在擦着他满脸的汗珠，他每一说话就眨巴眼睛，从嘴里往外喷着唾沫星。他说：

        “那看团圆媳妇的人才多呢！粮米铺的二老婆，带着孩子也去了。后院的小麻子也去了，西院老杨家也来了不少的人，都是从墙头上跳过来的。”

        他说他在井沿上打水看见的。

        经他这一喧哗，我说：

        “爷爷，我不吃饭了，我要看团圆媳妇去。”

        祖父一定让我吃饭，他说吃了饭他带我去。我急得一顿饭也没有吃好。

        我从来没有看过团圆媳妇，我以为团圆媳妇不知道多么好看呢！越想越觉得一定是很好看的，越着急也越觉得是非特别好看不可。不然，为什么大家都去看呢。不然，为什么母亲也不回来吃饭呢。

        越想越着急，一定是很好看的节目都看过。若现在就去，还多少看得见一点，若再去晚了，怕是就来不及了。我就催促着祖父：

        “快吃，快吃，爷爷快吃吧。”

        那老厨子还在旁边乱讲乱说，祖父间或问他一两句。

        我看那老厨子打扰祖父吃饭，我就不让那老厨子说话。那老厨子不听，还是笑嘻嘻地说。我就下地把老厨子硬推出去了。

        祖父还没有吃完，老周家的周三奶又来了，是她说她的公鸡总是往我们这边跑，她是来捉公鸡的。公鸡已经捉到了，她还不走，她还扒着玻璃窗子跟祖父讲话，她说：

        “老胡家那小团圆媳妇过来，你老爷子还没去看看吗？那看的人才多呢，我还没去呢，吃了饭就去。”

        祖父也说吃了饭就去，可是祖父的饭总也吃不完。一会要点辣椒油，一会要点咸盐面的。我看不但我着急，就是那老厨子也急得不得了了。头上直冒着汗，眼睛直眨巴。

        祖父一放下饭碗，连点一袋烟我也不让他点，拉着他就往西南墙角那边走。

        一边走，一边心里后悔，眼看着一些看热闹的人都回来了，为什么一定要等祖父呢？不会一个人早就跑着来吗？何况又觉得我躺在草棵子里就已经听见这边有了动静了。真是越想越后悔，这事情都闹了一个下半天了，一定是好看的都过去了，一定是来晚了。白来了，什么也看不见了，在草棵子听到了这边说笑，为什么不就立刻跑来看呢？越想越后悔。

        自己和自己生气，等到了老胡家的窗前，一听，果然连一点声音也没有了。差一点没有气哭了。

        等真的进屋一看，全然不是那么一回事。母亲，周三奶奶，还有些个不认识的人，都在那里。与我想象的完全不一样，没有什么好看的，团圆媳妇在哪儿？我也看不见，经人家指指点点的，我才看见了。不是什么媳妇，而是一个小姑娘。

        我一看就没有兴趣了，拉着爷爷就向外边走，说：

        “爷爷回家吧。”

        等第二天早晨她出来倒洗脸水的时候，我看见她了。

        她的头发又黑又长，梳着很大的辫子，普通姑娘们的辫子都是到腰间那么长，而她的辫子竟快到膝间了。她脸长得黑忽忽的，笑呵呵的。

        院子里的人，看过老胡家的团圆媳妇之后，没有什么不满意的地方。不过都说太大方了，不像个团圆媳妇了。

        周三奶奶说：

        “见人一点也不知道羞。”

        隔院的杨老太太说：

        “那才不怕羞呢！头一天来到婆家，吃饭就吃三碗。”

        周三奶奶又说：

        “哟哟！我可没见过，别说还是一个团圆媳妇，就说一进门就姓了人家的姓，也得头两天看看人家的脸色。哟哟！那么大的姑娘。她今年十几岁啦？”

        “听说十四岁么！”

        “十四岁会长得那么高，一定是瞒岁数。”

        “可别说呀！也有早长的。”

        “可是他们家可怎么睡呢？”

        “可不是，老少三辈，就三铺小炕……”

        这是杨老太太扒在墙头上和周三奶奶讲的。

        至于我家里，母亲也说那团圆媳妇不像个团圆媳妇。

        老厨子说：

        “没见过，大模大样的，两个眼睛骨碌骨碌地转。”

        有二伯说：

        “介（这）年头是啥年头呢，团圆媳妇也不像个团圆媳妇了。”

        只是祖父什么也不说，我问祖父：

        “那团圆媳妇好不好？”

        祖父说：

        “怪好的。”

        于是我也觉得怪好的。

        她天天牵马到井边上去饮水，我看见她好几回，中间没有什么人介绍，她看看我就笑了，我看看她也笑了。我问她十几岁？她说：

        “十二岁。”

        我说不对。

        “你十四岁的，人家都说你十四岁。”

        她说：

        “他们看我长得高，说十二岁怕人家笑话，让我说十四岁的。”

        我不知道，为什么长得高还让人家笑话，我问她：

        “你到我们草棵子里去玩好吧！”

        她说：

        “我不去，他们不让。”

        过了没有几天，那家就打起团圆媳妇来了，打得特别厉害，那叫声无管多远都可以听得见的。

        这全院子都是没有小孩子的人家，从没有听到过谁家在哭叫。

        邻居左右因此又都议论起来，说早就该打的，哪有那样的团圆媳妇一点也不害羞，坐到那儿坐得笔直，走起路来，走得风快。

        她的婆婆在井边上饮马，和周三奶奶说：

        “给她一个下马威。你听着吧，我回去我还得打她呢，这小团圆媳妇才厉害呢！没见过，你拧她大腿，她咬你；再不然，她就说她回家。”

        从此以后，我家的院子里，天天有哭声，哭声很大，一边哭，一边叫。

        祖父到老胡家去说了几回，让他们不要打她了；说小孩子，知道什么，有点差错教导教导也就行了。

        后来越打越厉害了，不分昼夜。我睡到半夜醒来和祖父念诗的时候，念着念着就听西南角上哭叫起来了。

        我问祖父：

        “是不是那小团圆媳妇哭？”

        祖父怕我害怕，说：

        “不是，是院外的人家。”

        我问祖父：

        “半夜哭什么？”

        祖父说：

        “别管那个，念诗吧。”

        清早醒了，正在念“春眠不觉晓”的时候，那西南角上的哭声又来了。

        一直哭了很久，到了冬天，这哭声才算没有了。

        虽然不哭了，那西南角上又夜夜跳起大神来，打着鼓，叮当叮当地响；大神唱一句，二神唱一句，因为是夜里，听得特别清晰，一句半句的我都记住了。

        什么“小灵花呀”，什么“胡家让她去出马呀”。

        差不多每天大神都唱些个这个。

        早晨起来，我就模拟着唱：

        “小灵花呀，胡家让她去出马呀……”

        而且叮叮当，叮叮当的，用声音模拟着打鼓。

        “小灵花”就是小姑娘；“胡家”就是胡仙；“胡仙”就是狐狸精；“出马”就是当跳大神的。

        大神差不多跳了一个冬天，把那小团圆媳妇就跳出毛病来了。

        那小团圆媳妇，有点黄，没有夏天她刚一来的时候那么黑了。不过还是笑呵呵的。

        祖父带着我到那家去串门，那小团圆媳妇还过来给祖父装了一袋烟。

        她看见我，也还偷着笑，大概她怕她婆婆看见，所以没和我说话。

        她的辫子还是很大的。她的婆婆说她有病了，跳神给她赶鬼。

        等祖父临出来的时候，她的婆婆跟出来了，小声跟祖父说：

        “这团圆媳妇，怕是要不好，是个胡仙旁边的，胡仙要她去出马……”

        祖父想要让他们搬家。但呼兰河这地方有个规矩，春天是二月搬家，秋天是八月搬家。一过了二八月就不是搬家的时候了。

        我们每当半夜让跳神惊醒的时候，祖父就说：

        “明年二月就让他们搬了。”

        我听祖父说了好几次这样的话。

        当我模拟着大神喝喝咧咧地唱着“小灵花”的时候，祖父也说那同样的话，明年二月让他们搬家。

        可是在这期间，院子的西南角上就越闹越厉害。请一个大神，请好几个二神，鼓声连天地响。

        说那小团圆媳妇若再去让她出马，她的命就难保了。所以请了不少的二神来，设法从大神那里把她要回来。

        于是有许多人给他家出了主意，人哪能够见死不救呢？

        于是凡有善心的人都帮起忙来。他说他有一个偏方，她说她有一个邪令。

    有的主张给她扎一个谷草人，到南大坑去烧了。

        有的主张到扎彩铺去扎一个纸人，叫做“替身”，把它烧了或者可以替了她。

        有的主张给她画上花脸，把大神请到家里，让那大神看了，嫌她太丑，也许就不捉她当弟子了，就可以不必出马了。

        周三奶奶则主张给她吃一个全毛的鸡，连毛带腿地吃下去，选一个星星出全的夜，吃了用被子把人蒙起来，让她出一身大汗。蒙到第二天早晨鸡叫，再把她从被子放出来。她吃了鸡，她又出了汗，她的魂灵里边因此就永远有一个鸡存在着，神鬼和胡仙黄仙就都不敢上她的身了。传说鬼是怕鸡的。

        据周三奶奶说，她的曾祖母就是被胡仙抓住过的，闹了整整三年，差一点没死，最后就是用这个方法治好的。因此一生不再闹别的病了。她半夜里正做一个噩梦，她正吓得要命，她魂灵里边的那个鸡，就帮了她的忙，只叫了一声，噩梦就醒了。她一辈子没生过病。说也奇怪，就是到死，也死得不凡。她死那年已经是八十二岁了。八十二岁还能够拿着花线绣花，正给她小孙子绣花兜肚嘴。绣着绣着，就有点困了，她坐在木凳上，背靠着门扇就打一个盹。这一打盹就死了。

        别人就问周三奶奶：

        “你看见了吗？”

        她说：

        “可不是……你听我说呀，死了三天三夜按都按不倒。后来没有办法，给她打着一口棺材也是坐着的，把她放在棺材里，那脸色是红扑扑的，还和活着的一样……”

        别人问她：

        “你看见了吗？”

        她说：

        “哟哟！你这问得可怪，传话传话，一辈子谁能看见多少，不都是传话传的吗！”

        她有点不大高兴了。

        再说西院的杨老太太，她也有个偏方。她说黄连二两，猪肉半斤，把黄连和猪肉都切碎了，用瓦片来焙，焙好了，压成面，用红纸包分成五包包起来。每次吃一包，专治惊风、掉魂。

        这个方法倒也简单。虽然团圆媳妇害的病可不是惊风、掉魂，似乎有点药不对症。但也无妨试一试。好在只是二两黄连，半斤猪肉。何况呼兰河这个地方，又常有卖便宜猪肉的。虽说那猪肉怕是瘟猪，有点靠不住。但那是治病，也不是吃，又有甚么关系。

        “去，买上半斤来，给她治一治。”

        旁边有着赞成的说：

        “反正治不好也治不坏。”

        她的婆婆也说：

        “反正死马当活马治吧！”

        于是团圆媳妇先吃了半斤猪肉加二两黄连。

        这药是婆婆亲手给她焙的。可是切猪肉是他家的大孙子媳妇给切的。那猪肉虽然是连紫带青的，但中间毕竟有一块是很红的，大孙子媳妇就偷着把这块给留下来了。因为她想，奶奶婆婆不是四五个月没有买到一点荤腥了吗？于是她就给奶奶婆婆偷着下了一碗面疙瘩汤吃了。

        奶奶婆婆问：

        “可哪儿来的肉？”

        大孙子媳妇说：

        “你老人家吃就吃吧，反正是孙子媳妇给你做的。”

        那团圆媳妇的婆婆是在灶坑里边搭起瓦来给她焙药。一边焙着，一边说：

        “这可是半斤猪肉，一条不缺……”

        越焙，那猪肉的味越香，有一匹小猫嗅到了香味而来了，想要在那已经焙好了的肉干上攫一爪。它刚一伸爪，团圆媳妇的婆婆一边用手打着那猫，一边说：

        “这也是你动得爪的吗！你这馋嘴巴，人家这是治病呵，是半斤猪肉，你也想要吃一口？你若吃了这口，人家的病可治不好了。一个人活活地要死在你身上，你这不知好歹的。这是整整半斤肉，不多不少。”

        药焙好了，压碎了就冲着水给团圆媳妇吃了。

        一天吃两包，才吃了一天，第二天早晨，药还没有再吃，还有三包压在灶王爷板上，那些传偏方的人就又来了。

        有的说，黄连可怎么能够吃得？黄连是大凉药，出虚汗像她这样的人，一吃黄连就要泄了元气，一个人要泄了元气那还得了吗？

        又一个人说：

        “那可吃不得呀！吃了过不去两天就要一命归阴的。”

        团圆媳妇的婆婆说：

        “那可怎么办呢？”

        那个人就慌忙地问：

        “吃了没有呢？”

        团圆媳妇的婆婆刚一开口，就被他家的聪明的大孙子媳妇给遮过去了，说：

        “没吃，没吃，还没吃。”

        那个人说：

        “既然没吃就不要紧，真是你老胡家有天福，吉星高照，你家差点没有摊了人命。”

        于是他又给出了个偏方，这偏方，据他说已经不算是偏方了，就是东二道街上“李永春”药铺的先生也常常用这个方单，是一用就好的，百试百灵。无管男、女、老、幼，一吃一个好。也无管什么病，头痛、脚痛、肚子痛、五脏六腑痛，跌、打、刀伤，生疮、生疔、生疖子……

        无管什么病，药到病除。

        这究竟是什么药呢？人们越听这药的效力大，就越想知道究竟是怎样的一种药。

        他说：

        “年老的人吃了，眼花缭乱，又恢复到了青春。”

        “年轻的人吃了，力气之大，可以搬动泰山。”

        “妇女吃了，不用胭脂粉，就可以面如桃花。”

        “小孩子吃了，八岁可以拉弓，九岁可以射箭，十二岁可以考状元。”

        开初，老胡家的全家，都为之惊动，到后来怎么越听越远了。本来老胡家一向是赶车拴马的人家，一向没有考状元。

        大孙子媳妇，就让一些围观的闪开一点，她到梳头匣子里拿出一根画眉的柳条炭来。

        她说：

        “快请把药方开给我们吧，好到药铺去赶早去抓药。”

        这个出药方的人，本是“李永春”药铺的厨子。三年前就离开了“李永春”那里了。三年前他和一个妇人吊膀子，那妇人背弃了他，还带走了他半生所积下的那点钱财，因此一气而成了个半疯。虽然是个半疯了，但他在“李永春”那里所记住的药名字还没有全然忘记。

        他是不会写字的，他就用嘴说：

        “车前子二钱，当归二钱，生地二钱，藏红花二钱。川贝母二钱，白术二钱，远志二钱，紫河车二钱……”

        他说着说着似乎就想不起来了，急得头顶一冒汗，张口就说红糖二斤，就算完了。

        说完了，他就和人家讨酒喝。

        “有酒没有，给两盅喝喝。”

        这半疯，全呼兰河的人都晓得，只有老胡家不知道。因为老胡家是外来户，所以受了他的骗了。家里没有酒，就给了他两吊钱的酒钱。那个药方是根本不能够用的，是他随意胡说了一阵的结果。

        团圆媳妇的病，一天比一天严重。据他家里的人说，夜里睡觉，她要忽然坐起来的。看了人她会害怕的。她的眼睛里边老是充满了眼泪。这团圆媳妇大概非出马不可了。若不让她出马，大概人要好不了的。

        这种传说，一传出来，东邻西邻的，又都去建了议，都说哪能够见死不救呢？

        有的说，让她出马就算了。有的说，还是不出马的好。

        年轻轻的就出马，这一辈子可得什么时候才能够到个头。

        她的婆婆则是绝对不赞成出马的，她说：

        “大家可不要错猜了，以为我订这媳妇的时候花了几个钱，我不让她出马，好像我舍不得这几个钱似的。我也是那么想，一个小小的人出了马，这一辈子可什么时候才到个头。”

        于是大家就都主张不出马的好。想偏方的，请大神的，各种人才齐聚，东说东的好，西说西的好。于是来了一个“抽帖儿的”。

        他说他不远千里而来，他是从乡下赶到的。他听城里的老胡家有一个团圆媳妇新接来不久就病了，经过多少名医，经过多少仙家也治不好，他特地赶来看看，万一要用得着，救一个人命也是好的。

    这样一说，十分使人感激。于是让到屋里，坐在奶奶婆婆的炕沿上。给他倒一杯水，给他装一袋烟。

        大孙子媳妇先过来说：

        “我家的弟妹，年本十二岁，因为她长得太高，就说她十四岁。又说又笑，百病皆无。自接到我们家里就一天一天地黄瘦。到近来就水不想喝，饭不想吃，睡觉的时候睁着眼睛，一惊一乍的。什么偏方都吃过了，什么香火也都烧过了，就是百般地不好……”

        大孙子媳妇还没有说完，大娘婆婆就接着说：

        “她来到我家，我没给她气受，哪家的团圆媳妇不受气，一天打八顿，骂三场。可是我也打过她，那是我要给她一个下马威。我只打了她一个多月，虽然说我打得狠了一点，可是不狠哪能够规矩出一个好人来。我也是不愿意狠打她的，打得连喊带叫的，我是为她着想，不打得狠一点，她是不能够中用的。有几回，我是把她吊在大梁上，让她叔公公用皮鞭子狠狠地抽了她几回，打得是狠着点了，打昏过去了。可是只昏了一袋烟的工夫，就用冷水把她浇过来了。是打狠了一点，全身也都打青了，也还出了点血。可是立刻就打了鸡蛋青子给她擦上了。也没有肿得怎样高，也就是十天半月地就好了。这孩子，嘴也是特别硬，我一打她，她就说她要回家。

        “我就问她：‘哪儿是你的家？这儿不就是你的家吗？’她可就偏不这样说。她说回她的家。我一听就更生气。人在气头上还管得了这个那个，因此我也用烧红过的烙铁烙过她的脚心。

        “谁知道来，也许是我把她打掉了魂啦，也许是我把她吓掉了魂啦。她一说她要回家，我不用打她，我就说看你回家，我用锁链子把你锁起来。她就吓得直叫。大仙家也看过了，说是要她出马。一个团圆媳妇的花费也不少呢，你看她八岁我订下她的，一订就是八两银子，年年又是头绳钱，鞋面钱的，到如今又用火车把她从辽阳接来，这一路的盘费。到了这儿，就是今天请神，明天看香火，几天吃偏方。若是越吃越好，那还罢了。可是百般地不见好，将来谁知道来……到结果……”

        不远千里而来的这位抽帖儿的，端庄严肃，风尘仆仆，穿的是蓝袍大衫，罩着棉袄，头上戴的是长耳四喜帽，使人一见了就要尊之为师。

        所以奶奶婆婆也说：

        “快给我二孙子媳妇抽一个帖吧，看看她的命理如何。”

        那抽帖儿的一看，这家人家真是诚心诚意，于是他就把皮耳帽子从头上摘下来了。

        一摘下帽子来，别人都看得见，这人头顶上梳着发卷，戴着道帽。一看就知道他可不是市井上一般的平凡的人。别人正想要问，还不等开口，他就说他是某山上的道人，他下山来是为的奔向山东的泰山去，谁知路出波折，缺少盘缠，就流落在这呼兰河的左右，已经不下半年之久了。

        人家问他，既是道人，为什么不穿道人的衣裳。他回答说：

        “你们哪里晓得，世间三百六十行，各有各的苦。这地方的警察特别厉害，他一看穿了道人的衣裳，他就说三问四。他们那些叛道的人，无理可讲，说抓就抓，说拿就拿。”

        他还有一个别号，叫云游真人，他说一提云游真人，远近皆知。无管什么病痛或是吉凶，若一抽了他的帖儿，则生死存亡就算定了。他说他的帖法，是张天师所传。

        他的帖儿并不多，只有四个，他从衣裳的口袋里一个一个地往外摸，摸出一帖来是用红纸包着，再一帖还是红纸包着，摸到第四帖也都是红纸包着。

        他说帖下也没有字，也没有影。里边只包着一包药面，一包红，一包绿，一包蓝，一包黄。抽着黄的就是黄金富贵，抽着红的就是红颜不老。抽到绿的就不大好了，绿色的是鬼火。抽到蓝的也不大好，蓝的就是铁脸蓝青，张天师说过，铁脸蓝青，不死也得见阎王。

        那抽帖的人念完了一套，就让病人的亲人伸出手来抽。

        团圆媳妇的婆婆想，这倒也简单、容易，她想赶快抽一帖出来看看，命定是死是活，多半也可以看出来个大概。不曾想，刚一伸出手去，那云游真人就说：

        “每帖十吊钱，抽着蓝的，若嫌不好，还可以再抽，每帖十吊……”

        团圆媳妇的婆婆一听，这才恍然大悟，原来这可不是白抽的，十吊钱一张可不是玩的，一吊钱捡豆腐可以捡二十块。

        三天捡一块豆腐，二十块，二三得六，六十天都有豆腐吃。若是隔十天捡一块，一个月捡三块，那就半年都不缺豆腐吃了。

        她又想，三天一块豆腐，哪有这么浪费的人家。依着她一个月捡一块大家尝尝也就是了，那么办，二十块豆腐，每月一块，可以吃二十个月，这二十个月，就是一年半还多两个月。

        若不是买豆腐，若养一口小肥猪，经心地喂着它，喂得胖胖的，喂到五六个月，那就是多少钱哪！喂到一年，那就是千八百吊了……

        再说就是不买猪，买鸡也好，十吊钱的鸡，就是十来个，一年的鸡，第二年就可以下蛋，一个蛋，多少钱！就说不卖鸡蛋，就说拿鸡蛋换青菜吧，一个鸡蛋换来的青菜，够老少三辈吃一天的了……何况鸡会生蛋，蛋还会生鸡，永远这样循环地生下去，岂不有无数的鸡，无数的蛋了吗？岂不发了财吗？

        但她可并不是这么想，她想够吃也就算了，够穿也就算了。一辈子俭俭朴朴，多多少少积储了一点也就够了。她虽然是爱钱，若说让她发财，她可绝对地不敢。

        那是多么多呀！数也数不过来了。记也记不住了。假若是鸡生了蛋，蛋生了鸡，来回地不断地生，这将成个什么局面，鸡岂不和蚂蚁一样多了吗？看了就要眼花，眼花就要头痛。

        这团圆媳妇的婆婆，从前也养过鸡，就是养了十吊钱的。

        她也不多养，她也不少养。十吊钱的就是她最理想的。十吊钱买了十二个小鸡仔，她想：这就正好了，再多怕丢了，再少又不够十吊钱的。

        在她一买这刚出蛋壳的小鸡子的时候，她就挨着个看，这样的不要，那样的不要。黑爪的不要，花膀的不要，脑门上带点的又不要。她说她亲娘就是会看鸡，那真是养了一辈子鸡呀！年年养，可也不多养。可是一辈子针啦，线啦，没有缺过，一年到头没花过钱，都是拿鸡蛋换的。人家那眼睛真是认货，什么样的鸡短命，什么样的鸡长寿，一看就跑不了她老人家的眼睛的。就说这样的鸡下蛋大，那样的鸡下蛋小，她都一看就在心里了。

        她一边买着鸡，她就一边怨恨着自己没有用，想当年为什么不跟母亲好好学学呢！唉！年轻的人哪里会虑后事。她一边买着，就一边感叹。她虽然对这小鸡仔的选择上边，也下了万分的心思，可以说是选无可选了。那卖鸡子的人一共有二百多小鸡，她通通地选过了，但究竟她所选了的，是否都是顶优秀的，这一点，她自己也始终把握不定。

        她养鸡，是养得很经心的，她怕猫吃了，怕耗子咬了。

        她一看那小鸡，白天一打盹，她就给驱着苍蝇，怕苍蝇把小鸡咬醒了。她让它多睡一会，她怕小鸡睡眠不足。小鸡的腿上，若让蚊子咬了一块疤，她一发现了，她就立刻泡了艾蒿水来给小鸡来擦。她说若不及早地擦呀，那将来是公鸡就要长不大，是母鸡就要下小蛋。

        小鸡蛋一个换两块豆腐，大鸡蛋换三块豆腐。这是母鸡。再说公鸡，公鸡是一刀菜，谁家杀鸡不想杀胖的。小公鸡是不好卖的。

        等她的小鸡略微长大了一点，能够出了屋了，能够在院子里自己去找食吃去的时候，她就把它们给染了六匹红的，六匹绿的，都是在脑门上。

        至于把颜色染在什么地方，那就先得看邻居家的都染在什么地方，而后才能够决定。邻居家的小鸡把色染在膀梢上，那她就染在脑门上。邻居家的若染在了脑门上，那她就要染在肚囊上。大家切不要都染在一个地方，染在一个地方可怎么能够识别呢？你家的跑到我家来，我家的跑到你家去，那么岂不又要混乱了吗？

        小鸡上染了颜色是十分好看的，红脑门的，绿脑门的，好像它们都戴了花帽子。好像不是养的小鸡，好像养的是小孩似的。

        这团圆媳妇的婆婆从前她养鸡的时候就说过：

        “养鸡可比养小孩更娇贵，谁家的孩子还不就是扔在旁边他自己长大的，蚊子咬咬，臭虫咬咬，那怕什么的，哪家的孩子的身上没有个疤拉疖子的。没有疤拉疖子的孩子都不好养活，都要短命的。”

        据她说，她一辈子的孩子并不多，就是这一个儿子，虽然说是稀少，可是也没有娇养过。到如今那身上的疤也有二十多块。

        她说：

        “不信，脱了衣裳给大家伙看看……那孩子那身上的疤拉，真是多大的都有，碗口大的也有一块。真不是说，我对孩子真没有娇养过。除了他自个儿跌的摔的不说，就说我用劈柴棒子打的也落了好几个疤。养活孩子可不是养活鸡鸭的呀！养活小鸡，你不好好养它，它不下蛋。一个蛋，大的换三块豆腐，小的换两块豆腐，是闹玩的吗？可不是闹着玩的。”

        有一次，她的儿子踏死了一个小鸡仔，她打了她儿子三天三夜，她说：

        “我为什么不打他呢？一个鸡子就是三块豆腐，鸡仔是鸡蛋变的呀！要想变一个鸡仔，就非一个鸡蛋不行，半个鸡蛋能行吗？不但半个鸡蛋不行，就是差一点也不行，坏鸡蛋不行，陈鸡蛋不行。一个鸡要一个鸡蛋，那么一个鸡不就是三块豆腐是什么呢？眼睁睁地把三块豆腐放在脚底踩了，这该多大的罪，不打他，哪儿能够不打呢？我越想越生气，我想起来就打，无管黑夜白日，我打了他三天。后来打出一场病来，半夜三更的，睡得好好的说哭就哭。可是我也没有当他是一回子事，我就拿饭勺子敲着门框，给他叫了叫魂。没理他也就好了。”

        她这有多少年没养鸡了，自从订了这团圆媳妇，把积存下的那点针头线脑的钱都花上了。这还不说，还得每年头绳钱啦、腿带钱的托人捎去，一年一个空，这几年来就紧得不得了。想养几个鸡，都狠心没有养。

        现在这抽帖的云游真人坐在她的眼前，一帖又是十吊钱。若是先不提钱，先让她把帖抽了，哪管抽完了再要钱呢，那也总算是没有花钱就抽了帖的。可是偏偏不先，那抽帖的人，帖还没让抽，就是提到了十吊钱。

        所以那团圆媳妇的婆婆觉得，一伸手，十吊钱，一张口，十吊钱。这不是眼看着钱往外飞吗？

    这不是飞，这是干什么，一点声响也没有，一点影子也看不见。还不比过河往河里扔钱，往河里扔钱，还听一个响呢，还打起一个水泡呢。这是什么代价也没有的，好比自己发了昏，把钱丢了，好比遇了强盗，活活地把钱抢去了。

        团圆媳妇的婆婆，差一点没因为心内的激愤而流了眼泪。她一想十吊钱一帖，这哪里是抽帖，这是抽钱。

        于是她把伸出去的手缩回来了。她赶快跑到脸盆那里去，把手洗了，这可不是闹笑话的，这是十吊钱哪！她洗完了手又跪在灶王爷那里祷告了一番。祷告完了才能够抽帖的。

        她第一帖就抽了个绿的，绿的不大好，绿的就是鬼火。

        她再抽一抽，这一帖就更坏了，原来就是那最坏的，不死也得见阎王的里边包着蓝色药粉的那张帖。

        团圆媳妇的婆婆一见两帖都坏，本该抱头大哭，但是她没有那么的。自从团圆媳妇病重了，说长的、道短的、说死的、说活的，样样都有。又加上已经左次右番地请胡仙、跳大神、闹神闹鬼，已经使她见过不少的世面了。说活虽然高兴，说去见阎王也不怎样悲哀，似乎一时也总像见不了的样子。

        于是她就问那云游真人，两帖抽的都不好，是否可以想一个方法可以破一破？云游真人就说了：

        “拿笔拿墨来。”

        她家本也没有笔，大孙子媳妇就跑到大门洞子旁边那粮米铺去借去了。

        粮米铺的山东女老板，就用山东腔问她：

        “你家做啥？”

        大孙子媳妇说：

        “给弟妹画病。”

        女老板又说：

        “你家的弟妹，这一病就可不浅，到如今好了点没？”

        大孙子媳妇本想端着砚台，拿着笔就跑，可是人家关心，怎好不答，于是去了好几袋烟的工夫，还不见回来。

        等她抱了砚台回来的时候，那云游真人，已经把红纸都撕好了。于是拿起笔来，在他撕好的四块红纸上，一块上边写了一个大字。那红纸条也不过半寸宽，一寸长，他写的那字大得都要从红纸的四边飞出来了。

        他家本没有识字的人，灶王爷上的对联还是求人写的。这四个字，一模一样，好像一母所生，也许写的就是一个字。

        大孙子媳妇看看不认识，奶奶婆婆看看也不认识。虽然不认识，大概这个字一定也坏不了，不然，就用这个字怎么能破开一个人不见阎王呢？于是都一齐点头称好。

        那云游真人又命拿浆糊来。她们家终年不用浆糊，浆糊多么贵，白面十多吊钱一斤。都是用黄米饭粒来黏鞋面的。

        大孙子媳妇到锅里去铲了一块黄黏米饭来。云游真人就用饭粒贴在红纸上了。于是掀开团圆媳妇蒙在头上的破棉袄，让她拿出手来，一个手心上给她贴一张。又让她脱了袜子，一只脚心上给她贴上一张。

        云游真人一见脚心上有一大片白色的疤痕，他一想就是方才她婆婆所说的用烙铁给她烙的。可是他假装不知，问说：

        “这脚心可是生过什么病症吗？”

        团圆媳妇的婆婆连忙就接过来说：

        “我方才不是说过吗，是我用烙铁给她烙的。哪里会见过的呢？走道像飞似的，打她，她记不住，我就给她烙一烙。好在也没什么，小孩子肉皮活，也就是十天半月的下不来地，过后也就好了。”

        那云游真人想了一想，好像要吓唬她一下，就说这脚心的疤，虽然是贴了红帖，也怕贴不住，阎王爷是什么都看得见的，这疤怕是就给了阎王爷以特殊的记号，有点不大好办。

        云游真人说完了，看一看她们怕不怕，好像是不怎样怕。

        于是他就说得严重一些：

        “这疤不掉，阎王爷在三天之内就能够找到她，一找到她，就要把她活捉了去的。刚才的那帖是再准也没有的了，这红帖也绝没有用处。”

        他如此地吓唬着她们，似乎她们从奶奶婆婆到孙子媳妇都不大怕。那云游真人，连想也没有想，于是开口就说：

        “阎王爷不但要捉团圆媳妇去，还要捉了团圆媳妇的婆婆去，现世现报，拿烙铁烙脚心，这不是虐待，这是什么。婆婆虐待媳妇，做婆婆的死了下油锅，老胡家的婆婆虐待媳妇……”

        他就越说越声大，似乎要喊了起来，好像他是专打抱不平的好汉，而变了他原来的态度了。

        一说到这里，老胡家的老少三辈都害怕了，毛骨悚然，以为她家里又是撞进来了什么恶魔。而最害怕的是团圆媳妇的婆婆，吓得乱哆嗦，这是多么骇人听闻的事情，虐待媳妇世界上能有这样的事情吗？

        于是团圆媳妇的婆婆赶快跪下了，面向着那云游真人，眼泪一对一双地往下落：

        “这都是我一辈子没有积德，有孽遭到儿女的身上，我哀告真人，请真人诚心地给我化散化散，借了真人的灵法，让我的媳妇死里逃生吧。”

        那云游真人立刻就不说见阎王了，说她的媳妇一定见不了阎王，因为他还有一个办法一办就好的；说来这法子也简单得很，就是让团圆媳妇把袜子再脱下来，用笔在那疤痕上一画，阎王爷就看不见了。

        当场就脱下袜子来在脚心上画了，一边画着还嘴里咕噜咕噜地念着咒语。这一画不知费了多大力气，旁边看着的人倒觉十分地容易，可是那云游真人却冒了满头的汗。他故意地咬牙切齿，皱面瞪眼。这一画也并不是容易的事情，好像他在上刀山似的。

        画完了，把钱一算，抽了两帖二十吊。写了四个红纸贴在脚心手心上，每帖五吊是半价出售的，一共是四五等于二十吊。外加这一画，这一画本来是十吊钱，现在就给打个对折吧，就算五吊钱一只脚心，一共画了两只脚心，又是十吊。

        二十吊加二十吊，再加十吊，一共是五十吊。

        云游真人拿了这五十吊钱乐乐呵呵地走了。

        团圆媳妇的婆婆，在她刚要抽帖的时候，一听每帖十吊钱，她就心痛得了不得，又要想用这钱养鸡，又要想用这钱养猪。等到现在五十吊钱拿出去了，她反而也不想鸡了，也不想养猪了。因为她想，事到临头，不给也是不行了。帖也抽了，字也写了，要想不给人家钱也是不可能的了。事到临头，还有什么办法呢？别说五十吊，就是一百吊钱也得算着吗！不给还行吗？

        于是她心安理得地把五十吊钱给了人家了。这五十吊钱，是她秋天出城去在豆田里拾黄豆粒，一共拾了二升豆子卖了几十吊钱。在田上拾黄豆粒也不容易，一片大田，经过主人家的收割，还能够剩下多少豆粒呢？而况穷人聚了那么大的一群，孩子、女人、老太太……你抢我夺的，你争我打的。为了二升豆子就得在田上爬了半月二十天的，爬得腰酸腿疼。唉，为着这点豆子，那团圆媳妇的婆婆还到“李永春”药铺，去买过二两红花的。那就是因为在土上爬豆子的时候，有一棵豆秧刺了她的手指甲一下。她也没有在乎，把刺拔出来也就去他的了，该拾豆子还是拾豆子。就因此那指甲可就不知怎么样，睡了一夜那指甲就肿起来了，肿得和茄子似的。

        这肿一肿又算什么呢？又不是皇上娘娘，说起来可真娇惯了，哪有一个人吃天靠天，而不生点天灾的？

        闹了好几天，夜里痛得火喇喇地不能睡觉了。这才去买了二两红花来。

        说起买红花来，是早就该买的。奶奶婆婆劝她买，她不买。大孙子媳妇劝她买，她也不买。她的儿子想用孝顺来征服他的母亲，他强硬地要去给她买，因此还挨了他妈的一烟袋锅子，这一烟袋锅子就把儿子的脑袋给打了鸡蛋大的一个包。

        “你这小子，你不是败家吗？你妈还没死，你就作了主了。小兔崽子，我看着你再说买红花的！小兔崽子我看着你的。”

        就这一边骂着，一边烟袋锅子就打下来了。

        后来也到底还是买了，大概是惊动了东邻西舍，这家说说，那家讲讲的，若再不买点红花来，也太不好看了。让人家说老胡家的大儿媳妇，一年到头，就能够寻寻觅觅地积钱，钱一到她的手里，就好像掉了地缝了，一个钱也再不用想从她的手里拿出来。假若这样地说开去，也是不太好听。何况这拣来的豆子能卖好几十吊呢，花个三吊两吊的就花了吧。一咬牙，去买上二两红花来擦擦。

        想虽然是这样想过了，但到底还没有决定，延持了好几天还没有“一咬牙”。

        最后也毕竟是买了，她选择了一个顶严重的日子，就是她的手，不但一个指头，而是整个的手都肿起来了。那原来肿得像茄子的指头，现在更大了，已经和一个小冬瓜似的了。

        而且连手掌也无限度地胖了起来，胖得和张大簸箕似的。她多少年来，就嫌自己太瘦，她总说，太瘦的人没有福分。尤其是瘦手瘦脚的，一看就不带福相。尤其是精瘦的两只手，一伸出来和鸡爪似的，真是轻薄的样子。

        现在她的手是胖了，但这样胖法，是不大舒服的。同时她也发了点热，她觉得眼睛和嘴都干，脸也发烧，身上也时冷时热，她就说：

        “这手是要闹点事吗？这手……”

        一清早起，她就这样地念了好几遍。那胖得和小簸箕似的手，是一动也不能动了，好像一匹大猫或者一个小孩的头似的，她把它放在枕头上和她一齐地躺着。

        “这手是要闹点事的吧！”

        当她的儿子来到她旁边的时候，她就这样说。

        她的儿子一听她母亲的口气，就有些了解了。大概这回她是要买红花的了。

        于是她的儿子跑到奶奶的面前，去商量着要给他母亲去买红花。他们家住的是南北对面的炕，那商量的话声，虽然不甚大，但是他的母亲是听到的了。听到了，也假装没有听到，好表示这买红花可到底不是她的意思，可并不是她的主使，她可没有让他们去买红花。

        在北炕上，祖孙二人商量了一会，孙子说向她妈去要钱去。祖母说：

        “拿你奶奶的钱先去买吧，你妈好了再还我。”

        祖母故意把这句说得声音大一点，似乎故意让她的大儿媳妇听见。

        大儿媳妇是不但这句话，就是全部的话也都了然在心了，不过装着不动就是了。

        红花买回来了，儿子坐到母亲的旁边，儿子说：

        “妈，你把红花酒擦上吧。”

        母亲从枕头上转过脸儿来，似乎买红花这件事情，事先一点也不晓得，说：

        “哟！这小兔羔子，到底买了红花来……”

        这回可并没有用烟袋锅子打，倒是安安静静地把手伸出来，让那浸了红花的酒，把一只胖手完全染上了。

        这红花到底是二吊钱的，还是三吊钱的？若是二吊钱的倒给的不算少，若是三吊钱的，那可贵了一点。若是让她自己去买，她可绝对地不能买这么多，也不就是红花吗！红花就是红的就是了，治病不治病，谁晓得？也不过就是解解心疑就是了。

    她想着想着，因为手上涂了酒觉得凉爽，就要睡一觉，又加上烧酒的气味香扑扑的，红花的气味药忽忽的，她觉得实在是舒服了不少。于是她一闭眼睛就做了一个梦。

        这梦做的是她买了两块豆腐，这豆腐又白又大。是用什么钱买的呢？就是用买红花剩来的钱买的。因为在梦里边她梦见是她自己去买的红花。她自己也不买三吊钱的，也不买两吊钱的，是买了一吊钱的。在梦里边她还算着，不但今天有两块豆腐吃，哪天一高兴还有两块吃的！三吊钱才买了一吊钱的红花呀！

        现在她一遭就拿了五十吊钱给了云游真人。若照她的想法来说，这五十吊钱可该买多少豆腐了呢？

        但是她没有想，一方面因为团圆媳妇的病也实在病得缠绵，在她身上花钱也花得大手大脚的了。另一方面就是那云游真人的来势也过于猛了点，竟打抱不平起来，说她虐待团圆媳妇。还是赶快地给了他钱，让他滚蛋吧。

        真是家里有病人是什么气都受得呵。团圆媳妇的婆婆左思右想，越想越是自己遭了无妄之灾，满心的冤屈，想骂又没有对象，想哭又哭不出来，想打也无处下手了。

        那小团圆媳妇再打也就受不住了。

        若是那小团圆媳妇刚来的时候，那就非先抓过她来打一顿再说。做婆婆的打了一只饭碗，也抓过来把小团圆媳妇打一顿。她丢了一根针也抓过来把小团圆媳妇打一顿。她跌了一个筋斗，把单裤膝盖的地方跌了一个洞，她也抓过来把小团圆媳妇打一顿。总之，她一不顺心，她就觉得她的手就想要打人。她打谁呢？谁能够让她打呢！于是就轮到小团圆媳妇了。

        有娘的，她不能够打。她自己的儿子也舍不得打。打猫，她怕把猫打丢了。打狗，她怕把狗打跑了。打猪，怕猪掉了斤两。打鸡，怕鸡不下蛋。

        惟独打这小团圆媳妇是一点毛病没有，她又不能跑掉，她又不能丢了。她又不会下蛋，反正也不是猪，打掉了一些斤两也不要紧，反正也不过秤。

        可是这小团圆媳妇，一打也就吃不下饭去。吃不下饭去不要紧，多喝一点饭米汤好啦，反正饭米汤剩下也是要喂猪的。

        可是这都成了已往的她的光荣的日子了，那种自由的日子恐怕一时不会再来了。现在她不用说打，就连骂也不大骂她了。

        现在她别的都不怕，她就怕她死，她心里总有一个阴影，她的小团圆媳妇可不要死了呵。

        于是她碰到了多少的困难，她都克服了下去，她咬着牙根，她忍住眼泪，她要骂不能骂，她要打不能打。她要哭，她又止住了。无限的伤心，无限的悲哀，常常一齐会来到她的心中的。她想，也许是前生没有做了好事，此生找到她了，不然为什么连一个团圆媳妇的命都没有。她想一想，她一生没有做过恶事，面软、心慈，凡事都是自己吃亏，让着别人。虽然没有吃斋念佛，但是初一十五的素口也自幼就吃着。虽然不怎样拜庙烧香，但四月十八的庙会，也没有拉下过。娘娘庙前一把香，老爷庙前三个头，哪一年也都是烧香磕头的没有拉过“过场”。虽然是自小没有读过诗文，不认识字，但是“金刚经”“灶王经”也会念上两套。虽然说不曾做过舍善的事情，没有补过路，没有修过桥，但是逢年过节，对那些讨饭的人，也常常给过他们剩汤剩饭的。虽然过日子不怎样俭省，但也没有多吃过一块豆腐。拍拍良心，对天对得起，对地也对得住。那为什么老天爷明明白白地却把祸根种在她身上？

        她越想，她越心烦意乱。

        “都是前生没有做了好事，今生才找到了。”

        她一想到这里，她也就不再想了，反正事到临头，瞎想一阵又能怎样呢？于是她自己劝着自己就又忍着眼泪，咬着牙根，把她那兢兢业业地养猪喂狗所积下来的那点钱，又一吊一吊地，一五一十地，往外拿着。

        东家说看个香火，西家说吃个偏方。偏方、野药、大神、赶鬼、看香、扶乩，样样都已经试过。钱也不知花了多少，但是都不怎样见效。

        那小团圆媳妇夜里说梦话，白天发烧。一说起梦话来，总是说她要回家。

        “回家”这两个字，她的婆婆觉得最不祥，就怕她是阴间的花姐，阎王奶奶要把她叫了回去。于是就请了一个圆梦的。那圆梦的一圆，果然不错，“回家”就是回阴间地狱的意思。

        所以那小团圆媳妇，做梦的时候，一梦到她的婆婆打她，或者是用梢子绳把她吊在房梁上了，或是梦见婆婆用烙铁烙她的脚心，或是梦见婆婆用针刺她的手指尖，一梦到这些，她就大哭大叫，而且嚷她要“回家”。

        婆婆一听她嚷回家，就伸出手去在大腿上拧着她。日子久了，拧来拧去，那小团圆媳妇的大腿被拧得像一个梅花鹿似的青一块、紫一块的了。

        她是一份善心，怕是真的她回了阴间地狱，赶快地把她叫醒来。

        可是小团圆媳妇睡得朦里朦胧的，她以为她的婆婆可又真的在打她了，于是她大叫着，从炕上翻身起来，就跳下地去，拉也拉不住她，按也按不住她。

        她的力气大得惊人，她的声音喊得怕人。她的婆婆于是觉得更是见鬼了、着魔了。

        不但她的婆婆，全家的人也都相信这孩子的身上一定有鬼。

        谁听了能够不相信呢？半夜三更的喊着回家，一招呼醒了，她就跳下地去，瞪着眼睛，张着嘴，连哭带叫的，那力气比牛还大，那声音好像杀猪似的。

        谁能够不相信呢？又加上她婆婆的渲染，说她眼珠子是绿的，好像两点鬼火似的，说她的喊声，是直声拉气的，不是人声。

        所以一传出去，东邻西舍的，没有不相信的。

        于是一些善人们，就觉得这小女孩子也实在让鬼给捉弄得可怜了。哪个孩儿是没有娘的，哪个人不是肉生肉长的。谁家不都是养老育小……于是大动恻隐之心。东家二姨，西家三姑，她说她有奇方，她说她有妙法。

        于是就又跳神赶鬼、看香、扶乩，老胡家闹得非常热闹，传为一时之盛。若有不去看跳神赶鬼的，竟被指为落伍。

        因为老胡家跳神跳得花样翻新，是自古也没有这样跳的，打破了跳神的纪录了，给跳神开了一个新纪元。若不去看看，耳目因此是会闭塞了的。

        当地没有报纸，不能记录这桩盛事。若是患了半身不遂的人，患了瘫病的人，或是大病卧床不起的人，那真是一生的不幸，大家也都为他惋惜，怕是他此生也要孤陋寡闻。因为这样的隆重的盛举，他究竟不能够参加。

        呼兰河这地方，到底是太闭塞，文化是不大有的。虽然当地的官、绅，认为已经满意了，而且请了一位满清的翰林，作了一首歌，歌曰：

        溯呼兰，

        天然森林，

        自古多奇材。

        ……

        这首歌还配上了从东洋流来的乐谱，使当地的小学都唱着。这歌不止这两句这么短，不过只唱这两句就已经够好的了。所好的是使人听了能够引起一种自负的感情来。尤其当清明植树节的时候，几个小学堂的学生都排起队来在大街上游行，并唱着这首歌，使老百姓听了，也觉得呼兰河是个了不起的地方，一开口说话就“我们呼兰河”；那在街道上捡粪蛋的孩子，手里提着粪耙子，他还说：“我们呼兰河！”可不知道呼兰河给了他什么好处。也许那粪耙子就是呼兰河给了他的。

        呼兰河这地方，尽管奇才很多，但到底太闭塞，竟不会办一张报纸，以至于把当地的奇闻妙事都没有记载，任它风散了。

        老胡家跳大神，就实在跳得奇。用大缸给团圆媳妇洗澡，而且是当众就洗的。

        这种奇闻盛举一经传了出来，大家都想去开开眼界，就是那些患了半身不遂的，患了瘫病的人，人们觉得他们瘫了倒没有什么，只是不能够前来看老胡家团圆媳妇大规模地洗澡，真是一生的不幸。

        天一黄昏，老胡家就打起鼓来了。大缸，开水，公鸡，都预备好了。

        公鸡抓来了，开水烧滚了，大缸摆好了。

        看热闹的人，络绎不绝地来看。我和祖父也来了。

        小团圆媳妇躺在炕上，黑忽忽的，笑呵呵的。我给她一个玻璃球，又给她一片碗碟。她说这碗碟很好看，她拿在眼睛前照一照。她说这玻璃球也很好玩，她用手指甲弹着。她看一看她的婆婆不在旁边，她就起来了，她想要坐起来在炕上弹这玻璃球。

        还没有弹，她的婆婆就来了，就说：

        “小不知好歹的，你又起来疯什么？”

        说着走近来，就用破棉袄把她蒙起来了，蒙得没头没脑的，连脸也露不出来。

        我问祖父她为什么不让她玩？

        祖父说：

        “她有病。”

        我说：

        “她没有病，她好好的。”

        于是我上去把棉袄给她掀开了。

        掀开一看，她的眼睛早就睁着。她问我，她的婆婆走了没有，我说走了，于是她又起来了。

        她一起来，她的婆婆又来了，又把她给蒙了起来说：

        “也不怕人家笑话，病得跳神赶鬼的，哪有的事情，说起来，就起来。”

        这是她婆婆向她小声说的，等婆婆回过头去向着众人，就又那么说：

        “她是一点也着不得凉的，一着凉就犯病。”

        屋里屋外，越张罗越热闹了，小团圆媳妇跟我说：

        “等一会你看吧，就要洗澡了。”

        她说着的时候，好像说着别人地一样。

        果然，不一会工夫就洗起澡来了，洗得吱哇乱叫。

        大神打着鼓，命令她当众脱了衣裳。衣裳她是不肯脱的，她的婆婆抱住了她，还请了几个帮忙的人，就一齐上来，把她的衣裳撕掉了。

        她本来是十二岁，却长得十五六岁那么高，所以一时看热闹的姑娘媳妇们，看了她，都难为情起来。

        很快地小团圆媳妇就被抬进大缸里去。大缸里满是热水，是滚熟的热水。

        她在大缸里边，叫着、跳着，好像她要逃命似的狂喊。她的旁边站着三四个人从缸里搅起热水来往她的头上浇。不一会，浇得满脸通红。她再也不能够挣扎了，她安稳地在大缸里边站着，她再不往外边跳了，大概她觉得跳也跳不出来了。

        那大缸是很大的，她站在里边仅仅露着一个头。

        我看了半天，到后来她连动也不动，哭也不哭，笑也不笑。满脸的汗珠，满脸通红，红得像一张红纸。

        我跟祖父说：

        “小团圆媳妇不叫了。”

        我再往大缸里一看，小团圆媳妇没有了。她倒在大缸里了。

        这时候，看热闹的人们，一声狂喊，都以为小团圆媳妇是死了，大家都跑过去拯救她，竟有心慈的人，流下眼泪来。

        小团圆媳妇还活着的时候，她像要逃命似的。前一刻她还求救于人的时候，并没有一个人上前去帮忙她，把她从热水里解救出来。

    现在她是什么也不知道了，什么也不要求了。可是一些人，偏要去救她。

        把她从大缸里抬出来，给她浇一点冷水。这小团圆媳妇一昏过去，可把那些看热闹的人可怜得不得了，就是前一刻她还主张着“用热水浇哇！用热水浇哇！”的人，现在也心痛起来。怎能够不心痛呢，活蹦乱跳的孩子，一会工夫就死了。

        小团圆媳妇摆在炕上，浑身像火炭那般热。东家的婶子，伸出一只手来，到她身上去摸一摸，西家大娘也伸出手来到她身上去摸一摸。都说：

        “哟哟，热得和火炭似的。”

        有的说，水太热了一点，有的说，不应该往头上浇，大热的水，一浇哪有不昏的。

        大家正在谈说之间，她的婆婆过来，赶快拉了一张破棉袄给她盖上了，说：

        “赤身裸体羞不羞！”

        小团圆媳妇怕羞不肯脱下衣裳来，她婆婆喊着号令给她撕下来了。现在她什么也不知道了，她没有感觉了，婆婆反而替她着想了。

        大神打了几阵鼓，二神向大神对了几阵话。看热闹的人，你望望他，他望望你。虽然不知道下文如何，这小团圆媳妇到底是死是活，但却没有白看一场热闹，到底是开了眼界，见了世面，总算是不无所得的。

        有的竟觉得困了，问着别人，三道鼓是否加了横锣，说他要回家睡觉去了。

        大神一看这场面不大好，怕是看热闹的人都要走了，就卖一点力气叫一叫座，于是痛打了一阵鼓，喷了几口酒在团圆媳妇的脸上，从腰里拿出银针来，刺着小团圆媳妇的手指尖。

        不一会，小团圆媳妇就活转来了。

        大神说，洗澡必得连洗三次，还有两次要洗的。

        于是人心大为振奋，困的也不困了，要回家睡觉的也精神了。这来看热闹的，不下三十人，个个眼睛发亮，人人精神百倍。看吧，洗一次就昏过去了，洗两次又该怎样呢？洗上三次，那可就不堪想象了。所以看热闹的人的心里，都满怀奥秘。

        果然的，小团圆媳妇一被抬到大缸里去，被热水一烫，就又大声地怪叫了起来，一边叫着一边还伸出手来把着缸沿想要跳出来。这时候，浇水的浇水，按头的按头，总算让大家压服又把她昏倒在缸底里了。

        这次她被抬出来的时候，她的嘴里还往外吐着水。

        于是一些善心的人，是没有不可怜这小女孩子的。

        东家的二姨，西家的三婶，就都一齐围拢过去，都去设法施救去了。

        她们围拢过去，看看有没有死？

        若还有气，那就不用救。

        若是死了，那就赶快浇凉水。

        若是有气，她自己就会活转来的。若是断了气，那就赶快施救，不然，怕她真的死了。

        小团圆媳妇当晚被热水烫了三次，烫一次，昏一次。

        闹到三更天才散了场。大神回家去睡觉去了。看热闹的人也都回家去睡觉去了。

        星星月亮，出满了一天，冰天雪地正是个冬天。雪扫着墙根，风刮着窗棂。鸡在架里边睡觉，狗在窝里边睡觉，猪在栏里边睡觉，全呼兰河都睡着了。

        只有远远的狗叫，那或许是从白旗屯传来的，或者是呼兰河的南岸那柳条林子里的野狗的叫唤。总之，那声音是来得很远，那已经是呼兰河城以外的事情了。而呼兰河全城，就都一齐睡着了。

        前半夜那跳神打鼓的事情一点也没有留下痕迹。那连哭带叫的小团圆媳妇，好像在这世界上她也并未曾哭过叫过，因为一点痕迹也并未留下。家家户户都是黑洞洞的，家家户户都睡得沉实实的。

        团圆媳妇的婆婆也睡得打呼了。

        因为三更已经过了，就要来到四更天了。

        第二天小团圆媳妇昏昏沉沉地睡了一天，第三天，第四天，也都是昏昏沉沉地睡着，眼睛似睁非睁的，留着一条小缝，从小缝里边露着白眼珠。

        家里的人，看了她那样子，都说，这孩子经过一番操持，怕是真魂就要附体了，真魂一附了体，病就好了。不但她的家里人这样说，就是邻人也都这样说。所以对于她这种不饮不食、似睡非睡的状态，不但不引以为忧，反而觉得应该庆幸。她昏睡了四五天，她家的人就快乐了四五天，她睡了六七天，她家的人就快乐了六七天。在这期间，绝对地没有使用偏方，也绝对地没有采用野药。

        但是过了六七天，她还是不饮不食地昏睡，要好起来的现象一点也没有。

        于是又找了大神来，大神这次不给她治了，说这团圆媳妇非出马当大神不可。

        于是又采用了正式的赶鬼的方法，到扎彩铺去，扎了一个纸人。而后给纸人缝起布衣来穿上——穿布衣裳为的是绝对地像真人——擦脂抹粉，手里提着花手巾，很是好看。穿了满身花洋布的衣裳，打扮成一个十七八岁的大姑娘，用人抬着，抬到南河沿旁边那大土坑去烧了。

        这叫做烧“替身”，据说把这“替身”一烧了，她可以替代真人，真人就可以不死。

        烧“替身”的那天，团圆媳妇的婆婆为着表示虔诚，她还特意地请了几个吹鼓手。前边用人举着那扎彩人，后边跟着几个吹鼓手，呜哇当、呜哇当地向着大土坑走去了。

        那景况说热闹也很热闹，喇叭曲子吹的是句句双。说凄凉也很凄凉，前边一个扎彩人，后边三五个吹鼓手，出丧不像出丧，报庙不像报庙。

        跑到大街上来看这热闹的人也不很多，因为天太冷了，探头探脑地跑出来的人一看，觉得没有什么可看的，就关上大门回去了。

        所以就孤孤单单地，凄凄凉凉在大土坑那里把那扎彩人烧了。

        团圆媳妇的婆婆一边烧着还一边后悔，若早知道没有什么看热闹的人，那又何必给这扎彩人穿上真衣裳。她想要从火堆中把衣裳抢出来，但又来不及了，就眼看着让它烧去了。

        这一套衣裳，一共花了一百多吊钱。于是她看着那衣裳的烧去，就像眼看着烧去了一百多吊钱。

        她心里是又悔又恨，她简直忘了这是她的团圆媳妇烧替身，她本来打算念一套祷神告鬼的词句。她回来的时候，走在路上才想起来。但想起来也晚了，于是她自己感到大概要白白地烧了个替身，灵不灵谁晓得呢！

        后来又听说那团圆媳妇的大辫子，睡了一夜觉就掉下来了。

        就掉在枕头旁边，这可不知是怎么回事。

        她的婆婆说这团圆媳妇一定是妖怪。

        把那掉下来的辫子留着，谁来给谁看。

        看那样子一定是什么人用剪刀给她剪下来的。但是她的婆婆偏说不是，就说，睡了一夜觉就自己掉下来了。

        于是这奇闻又远近地传开去了。不但她的家人不愿意和妖怪在一起，就是同院住的人也都觉得太不好。

        夜里关门关窗户的，一边关着于是就都说：

        “老胡家那小团圆媳妇一定是个小妖怪。”

        我家的老厨子是个多嘴的人，他和祖父讲老胡家的团圆媳妇又怎样怎样了，又出了新花头，辫子也掉了。

        我说：

        “不是的，是用剪刀剪的。”

        老厨子看我小，他欺侮我，他用手指住了我的嘴，他说：

        “你知道什么，那小团圆媳妇是个妖怪呀！”

        我说：

        “她不是妖怪，我偷着问她，她头发是怎么掉了的，她还跟我笑呢！她说她不知道。”

        祖父说：“好好的孩子快让他们捉弄死了。”

        过了些日子，老厨子又说：

        “老胡家要‘休妻’了，要‘休’了那小妖怪。”

        祖父以为老胡家那人家不大好。

        祖父说：“二月让他搬家。把人家的孩子快捉弄死了，又不要了。”

        还没有到二月，那黑忽忽的、笑呵呵的小团圆媳妇就死了。是一个大清早晨，老胡家的大儿子，那个黄脸大眼睛的车老板子就来了。一见了祖父，他就双手举在胸前作了一个揖。

        祖父问他什么事？

        他说：

        “请老太爷施舍一块地方，好把小团圆媳妇埋上……”

        祖父问他：

        “什么时候死的？”

        他说：

        “我赶着车，天亮才到家。听说半夜就死了。”

        祖父答应了他，让他埋在城外的地边上。并且招呼有二伯来，让有二伯领着他们去。

        有二伯临走的时候，老厨子也跟去了。

        我说，我也要去，我也跟去看看，祖父百般地不肯。祖父说：

        “咱们在家下压拍子打小雀吃……”

        我于是就没有去。虽然没有去，但心里边总惦着有一回事。等有二伯也不回来，等那老厨子也不回来。等他们回来，我好听一听那情形到底怎样？

        一点多钟，他们两个在人家喝了酒、吃了饭才回来的。前边走着老厨子，后边走着有二伯。好像两个胖鸭子似的，走也走不动了，又慢又得意。

        走在前边的老厨子，眼珠通红，嘴唇发光。走在后边的有二伯，面红耳热，一直红到他脖子下边的那条大筋。

        进到祖父屋来，一个说：

        “酒菜真不错……”

        一个说：

        “……鸡蛋汤打得也热乎。”

        关于埋葬团圆媳妇的经过，却先一字未提。好像他们两个是过年回来的，充满了欢天喜地的气象。

        我问有二伯，那小团圆媳妇怎么死的，埋葬的情形如何。

        有二伯说：

        “你问这个干什么，人死还不如一只鸡……一伸腿就算完事……”

        我问：

        “有二伯，你多咱死呢？”

        他说：

        “你二伯死不了的……那家有万贯的，那活着享福的，越想长寿，就越活不长……上庙烧香、上山拜佛的也活不长。像你有二伯这条穷命，越老越结实。好比个石头疙瘩似的，哪儿死啦！俗语说得好，‘有钱三尺寿，穷命活不够’。像二伯就是这穷命，穷命鬼阎王爷也看不上眼儿来的。”

        到晚饭，老胡家又把有二伯他们二位请去了，又在那里喝的酒。因为他们帮了人家的忙，人家要酬谢他们。

        老胡家的团圆媳妇死了不久，他家的大孙子媳妇就跟人跑了。

        奶奶婆婆后来也死了。

        他家的两个儿媳妇，一个为着那团圆媳妇瞎了一只眼睛。因为她天天哭，哭她那花在团圆媳妇身上的倾家荡产的五千多吊钱。

        另外的一个因为她的儿媳妇跟着人家跑了，要把她羞辱死了，一天到晚的，不梳头、不洗脸地坐在锅台上抽着烟袋。有人从她旁边过去，她高兴的时候，她向人说：

        “你家里的孩子、大人都好哇？”

        她不高兴的时候，她就向着人脸吐一口痰。

        她变成一个半疯了。

        老胡家从此不大被人记得了。

        我家的背后有一个龙王庙，庙的东角上有一座大桥。人们管这桥叫“东大桥”。

        那桥下有些冤魂枉鬼，每当阴天下雨，从那桥上经过的人，往往听到鬼哭的声音。

        据说，那团圆媳妇的灵魂，也来到了东大桥下。说她变了一只很大的白兔，隔三差五地就到桥下来哭。

        有人问她哭什么？

        她说她要回家。

        那人若说：

        “明天，我送你回去……”

        那白兔子一听，拉过自己的大耳朵来，擦擦眼泪，就不见了。

        若没有人理她，她就一直哭，哭到鸡叫天明。

    六

        我家的有二伯，性情真古怪。

        有东西，你若不给他吃，他就骂。若给他送上去，他就说：

        “你二伯不吃这个，你们拿去吃吧！”

        家里买了落花生、冻梨之类，若不给他，除了让他看不见，若让他找着了一点影子，他就没有不骂的：

        “他妈的……王八蛋……兔羔子，有猫狗吃的，有蟑螂、耗子吃的，他妈的就是没有人吃的……兔羔子，兔羔子……”

        若给他送上去，他就说：

        “你二伯不吃这个，你们拿去吃吧。”

        有二伯的性情真古怪，他很喜欢和天空的雀子说话，他很喜欢和大黄狗谈天。他一和人在一起，他就一句话没有了，就是有话也是很古怪的，使人听了常常不得要领。

        夏天晚饭后大家坐在院子里乘凉的时候，大家都是嘴里不停地讲些个闲话，讲得很热闹，就连蚊子也嗡嗡的，就连远处的蛤蟆也呱呱地叫着。只是有二伯一声不响地坐着。他手里拿着蝇甩子，东甩一下，西甩一下。

        若有人问他的蝇甩子是马鬃的还是马尾的？他就说：

        “啥人玩啥鸟，武大郎玩鸭子。马鬃，马尾，都是贵东西，那是穿绸穿缎的人拿着，腕上戴着藤萝镯，指上戴着大攀指。什么人玩什么物。穷人，野鬼，不要自不量力，让人家笑话……”

        传说天上的那颗大昴星，就是灶王爷骑着毛驴上西天的时候，他手里打着的那个灯笼。因为毛驴跑得太快，一不加小心灯笼就掉在天空了。我就常常把这个话题来问祖父，说那灯笼为什么被掉在天空，就永久长在那里了，为什么不落在地上来？

        这话题，我看祖父也回答不出的，但是因为我的非问不可，祖父也就非答不可了。他说，天空里有一个灯笼杆子，那才高呢，大昴星就挑在那灯笼杆子上。并且那灯笼杆子，人的眼睛是看不见的。

        我说：

        “不对，我不相信……”

        我说：

        “没有灯笼杆子，若是有，为什么我看不见？”

        于是祖父又说：

        “天上有一根线，大昴星就被那线系着。”

        我说：

        “我不信，天上没有线的，有为什么我看不见？”

        祖父说：

        “线是细的么，你哪能看见，就是谁也看不见的。”

        我就问祖父：

        “谁也看不见，你怎么看见啦？”

        乘凉的人都笑了，都说我真厉害。

        于是祖父被逼得东说西说，说也说不上来了。眼看祖父是被我逼得胡诌起来，我也知道他是说不清楚的了。不过我越看他胡诌我就越逼他。

        到后来连大昴星是灶王爷的灯笼这回事，我也推翻了。我问祖父大昴星到底是个什么？

        别人看我纠缠不清了，就有出主意的让我问有二伯去。

        我跑到了有二伯坐着的地方，我还没有问，刚一碰了他的蝇甩子，他就把我吓了一跳。他把蝇甩子一抖，嚎唠一声：

        “你这孩子，远点去吧……”

        使我不得不站得远一点，我说：

        “有二伯，你说那天上的大昴星到底是个什么？”

        他没有立刻回答我，他似乎想了一想，才说：

        “穷人不观天象。狗咬耗子，猫看家，多管闲事。”

        我又问，我以为他没有听准：

        “大昴星是灶王爷的灯笼吗？”

        他说：

        “你二伯虽然也长了眼睛，但是一辈子没有看见什么。你二伯虽然也长了耳朵，但是一辈子也没有听见什么。你二伯是又聋又瞎，这话可怎么说呢？比方那亮亮堂堂的大瓦房吧，你二伯也有看见了的，可是看见了怎么样，是人家的，看见了也是白看。听也是一样，听见了又怎样，与你不相干……你二伯活着是个不相干……星星，月亮，刮风，下雨，那是天老爷的事情，你二伯不知道……”

        有二伯真古怪。他走路的时候，他的脚踢到了一块砖头，那砖头把他的脚碰痛了。他就很小心地弯下腰去把砖头拾起来，他细细地端详着那砖头，看看那砖头长得是否不瘦不胖合适，是否顺眼。看完了，他才和那砖头开始讲话：

        “你这小子，我看你也是没有眼睛，也是跟我一样，也是瞎模糊眼的。不然你为啥往我脚上撞，若有胆子撞，就撞那个耀武扬威的，脚上穿着靴子鞋的……你撞我还不是个白撞，撞不出一大二小来，臭泥子滚石头，越滚越臭……”

        他和那砖头把话谈完了，他才顺手把它抛开去，临抛开的时候，他还最后嘱咐了它一句：

        “下回你往那穿鞋穿袜的脚上去碰呵。”

        他这话说完了，那砖头也就啪嗒地落到了地上。原来他没有抛得多远，那砖头又落到原来的地方。

        有二伯走在院子里，天空飞着的麻雀或是燕子若落了一点粪在他的身上，他就停下脚来，站在那里不走了。

        他扬着头。他骂着那早已飞过去了的雀子，大意是：那雀子怎样怎样不该把粪落在他身上，应该落在那穿绸穿缎的人的身上。

        不外骂那雀子糊涂瞎眼之类。

        可是那雀子很敏捷地落了粪之后，早已飞得无影无踪了，于是他就骂着他头顶上那块蓝瓦瓦的天空。

        有二伯说话的时候，把“这个”说成“介个”。

        “那个人好。”

        “介个人坏。”

        “介个人狼心狗肺。”

        “介个物不是物。”

        “家雀也往身上落粪，介个年头是啥年头。”

        还有，有二伯不吃羊肉。

        祖父说，有二伯在三十年前他就来到了我们家里，那时候他才三十多岁。

        而今有二伯六十多岁了。

        他的乳名叫有子，他已经六十多岁了，还叫着乳名。祖父叫他：“有子做这个。”“有子做那个。”

        我们叫他有二伯。

        老厨子叫他有二爷。

        他到房户、地户那里去，人家叫他有二东家。

        他到北街头的烧锅去，人家叫他有二掌柜的。

        他到油房去抬油，人家也叫他有二掌柜的。

        他到肉铺子上去买肉，人家也叫他有二掌柜的。

        一听人家叫他“二掌柜的”，他就笑逐颜开。叫他“有二爷”叫他“有二东家”，叫他“有二伯”，也都是一样地笑逐颜开。

        有二伯最忌讳人家叫他的乳名，比方街上的孩子们，那些讨厌的，就常常在他的背后抛一颗石子，掘一捧灰土，嘴里边喊着“有二子”“大有子”“小有子”。

        有二伯一遇到这机会，就没有不立刻打了过去的，他手里若是拿着蝇甩子，他就用蝇甩子把去打。他手里若是拿着烟袋，他就用烟袋锅子去打。

        把他气得像老母鸡似的，把眼睛都气红了。

        那些顽皮的孩子们一看他打了来，就立刻说：“有二爷，有二东家，有二掌柜的，有二伯。”并且举起手来作着揖，向他朝拜着。

        有二伯一看他们这样子，立刻就笑逐颜开，也不打他们了，就走自己的路去了。

        可是他走不了多远，那些孩子们就在后边又吵起来了，什么：

        “有二爷，兔儿爷。”

        “有二伯，打桨杆。”

        “有二东家，捉大王八。”

        他在前边走，孩子们还在他背后的远处喊。一边喊着，一边扬着街道上的灰土，灰土高飞着一会工夫，街上闹成个小旋风似的了。

    有二伯不知道听见了这个与否，但孩子们以为他是听见了的。

        有二伯却很庄严地，连头也不回地一步一步地沉着地向前走去了。

        “有二爷……”老厨子总是一开口“有二爷”，一闭口“有二爷”地叫着。

        “有二爷的蝇甩子……”

        “有二爷的烟袋锅子……”

        “有二爷的烟荷包……”

        “有二爷的烟荷包疙瘩……”

        “有二爷吃饭啦……”

        “有二爷，天下雨啦……”

        “有二爷快看吧，院子里的狗打仗啦……”

        “有二爷，猫上墙头啦……”

        “有二爷，你的蝇甩子掉了毛啦。”

        “有二爷，你的草帽顶落了家雀粪啦。”

        老厨子一向是叫他“有二爷”的。惟独他们两个一吵起来的时候，老厨子就说：

        “我看你这个‘二爷’一丢了，就只剩下个‘有’字了。”

        “有字”和“有子”差不多，有二伯一听正好是他的乳名。

        于是他和老厨子骂了起来，他骂他一句，他骂他两句。越骂声音越大。有时他们两个也就打了起来。

        但是过了不久，他们两个又照旧地好了起来。又是：

        “有二爷这个。”

        “有二爷那个。”

        老厨子一高起兴来，就说：

        “有二爷，我看你的头上去了个‘有’字，不就只剩了‘二爷’吗？”

        有二伯于是又笑逐颜开了。

        祖父叫他“有子”，他不生气，他说：

        “向皇上说话，还称自己是奴才呢！总也得有个大小。宰相大不大，可是他见了皇上也得跪下，在万人之上，在一人之下。”

        有二伯的胆子是很大的，他什么也不怕。我问他怕狼不怕？

        他说：

        “狼有什么怕的，在山上，你二伯小的时候上山放猪去，那山上就有狼。”

        我问他敢走黑路不敢？

        他说：

        “走黑路怕啥的，没有愧心事，不怕鬼叫门。”

        我问他夜里一个人，敢过那东大桥吗？

        他说：

        “有啥不敢的，你二伯就是愧心事不敢做，别的都敢。”

        有二伯常常说，跑毛子的时候（日俄战时）他怎样怎样地胆大。全城都跑空了，我们家也跑空了。那毛子拿着大马刀在街上跑来跑去，骑在马身上，那真是杀人无数。见了关着大门的就敲，敲开了，抓着人就杀。有二伯说：

        “毛子在街上跑来跑去，那大马蹄子跑得呱呱地响。我正自己煮面条吃呢，毛子就来敲大门来了，在外边喊着：‘里边有人没有？’若有人快点把门打开，不打开毛子就要拿刀把门劈开的。劈开门进来，那就没有好，非杀不可……”

        我就问：

        “有二伯你可怕？”

        他说：

        “你二伯烧着一锅开水，正在下着面条。那毛子在外边敲，你二伯还在屋里吃面呢……”

        我还是问他：

        “你可怕？”

        他说：

        “怕什么？”

        我说：

        “那毛子进来，他不拿马刀杀你？”

        他说：

        “杀又怎么样！不就是一条命吗？”

        可是每当他和祖父算起账来的时候，他就不这么说了。他说：

        “人是肉长的呀！人是爹娘养的呀！谁没有五脏六腑。不怕，怎么能不怕！也是吓得抖抖乱颤……眼看着那是大马刀，一刀下来，一条命就完了。”

        我一问他：

        “你不是说过，你不怕吗？”

        这种时候，他就骂我：

        “没心肝的，远的去着罢！不怕，是人还有不怕的……”

        不知怎么的，他一和祖父提起跑毛子来，他就胆小了，他自己越说越怕。有的时候他还哭了起来。说那大马刀闪光湛亮，说那毛子骑在马上乱杀乱砍。

        有二伯的行李，是零零碎碎的，一掀动他的被子就从被角往外流着棉花，一掀动他的褥子，那所铺着的毡片，就一片一片地好像活动地图似的一省一省地割据开了。

        有二伯的枕头，里边装的是荞麦壳。每当他一抡动的时候，那枕头就在角上或是在肚上漏了馅了，哗哗地往外流着荞麦壳。

        有二伯是爱护他这一套行李的，没有事的时候，他就拿起针来缝它们。缝缝枕头，缝缝毡片，缝缝被子。

        不知他的东西，怎那样地不结实，有二伯三天两天地就要动手缝一次。

        有二伯的手是很粗的，因此他拿着一颗很大的大针，他说太小的针他拿不住的。他的针是太大了点，迎着太阳，好像一颗女人头上的银簪子似的。

        他往针鼻里穿线的时候，那才好看呢，他把针线举得高高的，睁着一个眼睛，闭着一个眼睛，好像是在瞄准，好像他在半天空里看见了一样东西，他想要快快地拿它，又怕拿不准跑了，想要研究一会再去拿，又怕过一会就没有了。于是他的手一着急就哆嗦起来，那才好看呢。

        有二伯的行李，睡觉起来，就卷起来的。卷起来之后，用绳子捆着。好像他每天要去旅行的样子。

        有二伯没有一定的住处，今天住在那咔咔响着房架子的粉房里，明天住在养猪的那家的小猪倌的炕梢上，后天也许就和那后磨房里的冯歪嘴子一条炕睡上了。反正他是什么地方有空他就在什么地方睡。

        他的行李他自己背着，老厨子一看他背起行李，就大嚷大叫地说：

        “有二爷，又赶集去了……”

        有二伯也就远远地回答着他：

        “老王，我去赶集，你有啥捎的没有呵？”

        于是有二伯又自己走自己的路，到房户的家里的方便地方去投宿去了。

        有二伯的草帽没有边沿，只有一个帽顶，他的脸焦焦黑，他的头顶雪雪白。黑白分明的地方，就正是那草帽扣下去被切得溜齐的脑盖的地方。他每一摘下帽子来，是上一半白，下一半黑。就好像后园里的倭瓜晒着太阳的那半是绿的，背着阴的那半是白的一样。

        不过他一戴起草帽来也就看不见了。他戴帽的尺度是很准确的，一戴就把帽边很准确地切在了黑白分明的那条线上。

        不高不低，就正正地在那条线上。偶尔也戴得略微高了一点，但是这种时候很少，不大被人注意。那就是草帽与脑盖之间，好像镶了一趟窄窄的白边似的，有那么一趟白线。

        有二伯穿的是大半截子的衣裳，不是长衫，也不是短衫，而是齐到膝头那么长的衣裳。那衣裳是鱼蓝色竹布的，带着四方大尖托领，宽衣大袖，怀前带着大麻铜钮子。

        这衣裳本是前清的旧货，压在祖父的箱底里，祖母一死了，就陆续地穿在有二伯的身上了。

        所以有二伯一走在街上，都不知他是哪个朝代的人。

        老厨子常说：

        “有二爷，你宽衣大袖的，和尚看了像和尚，道人看了像道人。”

        有二伯是喜欢卷着裤脚的，所以耕田种地的庄稼人看了，又以为他是一个庄稼人，一定是插秧了刚刚回来。

        有二伯的鞋子，不是前边掉了底，就是后边缺了跟。

        他自己前边掌掌，后边钉钉，似乎钉也钉不好，掌也掌不好，过了几天，又是掉底缺跟仍然照旧。

    走路的时候拖拖的，再不然就趿趿的。前边掉了底，那鞋就张着嘴，他的脚好像舌头似的，每一迈步，就在那大嘴里边活动着；后边缺了跟，每一走动，就踢踢趿趿地脚跟打着鞋底发响。

        有二伯的脚，永远离不开地面，母亲说他的脚下了千斤闸。

        老厨子说有二伯的脚上了绊马锁。

        有二伯自己则说：

        “你二伯挂了绊脚丝了。”

        绊脚丝是人临死的时候挂在两只脚上的绳子。有二伯就这样地说着自己。

        有二伯虽然作弄成一个耍猴不像耍猴的，讨饭不像讨饭的，可是他一走起路来，却是端庄、沉静，两个脚跟非常有力，打得地面咚咚地响，而且是慢吞吞地前进，好像一位大将军似的。

        有二伯一进了祖父的屋子，那摆在琴桌上的那口黑色的座钟，钟里边的钟摆，就常常格棱棱、格棱棱地响了一阵就停下来了。

        原来有二伯的脚步过于沉重了点，好像大石头似的打着地板，使地板上所有的东西，一时都起了跳动。

        有二伯偷东西被我撞见了。

        秋末，后园里的大榆树也落了叶子，园里荒凉了，没有什么好玩的了。

        长在前院的蒿草，也都败坏了而倒了下来。房后菜园上的各种秧棵，完全挂满了白霜。老榆树全身的叶子已经没有多少了，可是秋风还在摇动着它。天空是发灰的，云彩也失了形状，好像被洗过砚台的水盆，有深有浅，混沌沌的。这样的云彩，有的带来了雨点，有时带来了细雪。

        这样的天气，我为着外边没有好玩的，我就在藏乱东西的后房里玩着。我爬上了装旧东西的屋顶去。

        我是登着箱子上去的，我摸到了一个小琉璃罐，那里边装的完全是黑枣。

        等我抱着这罐子要下来的时候，可就下不来了。方才上来的时候，我登着的那箱子，有二伯站在那里正在开着它。

        他不是用钥匙开，他是用铁丝在开。

        我看着他开了很多时候，他用牙齿咬着他手里的那块小东西……他歪着头，咬得格格拉拉地发响。咬了之后又放在手里扭着它，而后又把它触到箱子上去试一试。

        他显然不知道我在棚顶上看着他。他既打开了箱子，他就把没有边沿的草帽脱下来，把那块咬了半天的小东西就压在帽顶里面。

        他把箱子翻了好几次，红色的椅垫，蓝色粗布的绣花围裙，女人的绣花鞋子……还有一团滚乱的花色的丝线，在箱子底上还躺着一只湛黄的铜酒壶。

        有二伯用他满都是脉络的粗手把绣花鞋子、乱丝线抓到一边去，只把铜酒壶从那一堆之中抓出来了。

        太师椅上的红垫子，他把它放在地上，用腰带捆了起来。

        铜酒壶放在箱子盖上，而后把箱子锁了。

        看样子好像他要带着这些东西出去，不知为什么，他没有带东西，他自己出去了。

        我一看他出去，我赶快地登着箱子就下来了。

        我一下来，有二伯就又回来了，这一下子可把我吓了一跳。因为我是在偷墨枣，若让母亲晓得了，母亲非打我不可。

        平常我偷着把鸡蛋馒头之类，拿出去和邻居家的孩子一块去吃，有二伯一看见就没有不告诉母亲的，母亲一晓得就打我。

        他先提起门旁的椅垫子，而后又来拿箱子盖上的铜酒壶。

        等他掀着衣襟把铜酒壶压在肚子上边，他才看到墙角上站着的是我。

        他的肚子前压着铜酒壶，我的肚子前抱着一罐墨枣。他偷，我也偷，所以两边害怕。

        有二伯一看见我，立刻头盖上就冒着很大的汗珠。他说：

        “你不说么？”

        “说什么……”

        “不说，好孩子……”他拍着我的头顶。

        “那么，你让我把这琉璃罐拿出去。”

        他说：“拿罢。”

        他一点没有阻挡我。我看他不阻挡我，我还在门旁的筐子里抓了四五个大馒头，就跑了。

        有二伯还在粮食仓子里边偷米，用大口袋背着，背到大桥东边那粮米铺去卖了。

        有二伯还偷各种东西，锡火锅、大铜钱、烟袋嘴……反正家里边一丢了东西，就说有二伯偷去了。有的东西是老厨子偷去的，也就赖上了有二伯。有的东西是我偷着拿出去玩了，也赖上了有二伯。还有比方一个镰刀头，根本没有丢，只不过放忘了地方，等用的时候一找不到，就说有二伯偷去了。

        有二伯带着我上公园的时候，他什么也不买给我吃。公园里边卖什么的都有，油炸糕，香油掀饼，豆腐脑，等等。他一点也不买给我吃。

        我若是稍稍在那卖东西吃的旁边一站，他就说：

        “快走罢，快往前走。”

        逛公园就好像赶路似的，他一步也不让我停。

        公园里变把戏的、耍熊瞎子的都有，敲锣打鼓，非常热闹。而他不让我看。我若是稍稍地在那变把戏的前边停了一停，他就说：

        “快走罢，快往前走。”

        不知为什么他时时在追着我。

        等走到一个卖冰水的白布篷前边，我看见那玻璃瓶子里边泡着两个焦黄的大佛手，这东西我没有见过，我就问有二伯那是什么？

        他说：

        “快走罢，快往前走。”

        好像我若再多看一会工夫，人家就要来打我了似的。

        等来到了跑马戏的近前，那里边连喊带唱的，实在热闹，我就非要进去看不可。有二伯则一定不进去，他说：

        “没有什么好看的……”

        他说：

        “你二伯不看介个……”

        他又说：

        “家里边吃饭了。”

        他又说：

        “你再闹，我打你。”

        到了后来，他才说：

        “你二伯也是愿意看，好看的有谁不愿意看。你二伯没有钱，没有钱买票，人家不让咱进去。”

        在公园里边，当场我就拉住了有二伯的口袋，给他施以检查，检查出几个铜板来，买票这不够的。有二伯又说：

        “你二伯没有钱……”

        我一急就说：

        “没有钱你不会偷？”

        有二伯听了我那话，脸色雪白，可是一转眼之间又变成通红的了。他通红的脸上，他的小眼睛故意地笑着，他的嘴唇颤抖着，好像他又要照着他的习惯，一串一串地说一大套的话。但是他没有说。

        “回家罢！”

        他想了一想之后，他这样地招呼着我。

        我还看见过有二伯偷过一个大澡盆。

        我家院子里本来一天到晚是静的，祖父常常睡觉，父亲不在家里，母亲也只是在屋子里边忙着，外边的事情，她不大看见。

        尤其是到了夏天睡午觉的时候，全家都睡了，连老厨子也睡了。连大黄狗也睡在有阴凉的地方了。所以前院，后园，静悄悄地一个人也没有，一点声音也没有。

        就在这样的一个白天，一个大澡盆被一个人掮着在后园里边走起来了。

        那大澡盆是白洋铁的，在太阳下边闪光湛亮。大澡盆有一人多长，一边走着还一边咣郎咣郎地响着。看起来，很害怕，好像瞎话儿上的白色的大蛇。

        那大澡盆太大了，扣在有二伯的头上，一时看不见有二伯，只看见了大澡盆。好像那大澡盆自己走动了起来似的。

        再一细看，才知道是有二伯顶着它。

        有二伯走路，好像是没有眼睛似的，东倒一倒，西斜一斜，两边歪着。我怕他撞到了我，我就靠住了墙根上。

        那大澡盆是很深的，从有二伯头上扣下来，一直扣到他的腰间。所以他看不见路了，他摸着往前走。

        有二伯偷了这澡盆之后，就像他偷那铜酒壶之后的一样。

        一被发现了之后，老厨子就天天戏弄他，用各种的话戏弄着有二伯。

        有二伯偷了铜酒壶之后，每当他一拿着酒壶喝酒的时候，老厨子就问他：

        “有二爷，喝酒是铜酒壶好呀，还是锡酒壶好？”

        有二伯说：

        “什么的还不是一样，反正喝的是酒。”

        老厨子说：

        “不见得罢，大概还是铜的好呢……”

        有二伯说：

        “铜的有啥好！”

        老厨子说：

        “对了，有二爷。咱们就是不要铜酒壶，铜酒壶拿去卖了也不值钱。”

        旁边的人听到这里都笑了，可是有二伯还不自觉。

        老厨子问有二伯：

        “一个铜酒壶卖多少钱？”

        有二伯说：

        “没卖过，不知道。”

        到后来老厨子又说五十吊，又说七十吊。

        有二伯说：

        “哪有那么贵的价钱，好大一个铜酒壶还卖不上三十吊呢。”

        于是把大家都笑坏了。

        自从有二伯偷了澡盆之后，那老厨子就不提酒壶，而常常问有二伯洗澡不洗澡，问他一年洗几次澡，问有二伯一辈子洗几次澡。他还问人死了到阴间也洗澡的吗？

        有二伯说：

        “到阴间，阴间阳间一样，活着是个穷人，死了是条穷鬼。穷鬼阎王爷也不爱惜，不下地狱就是好的。还洗澡呢！别玷污了那洗澡水。”

        老厨子于是说：

        “有二爷，照你说的穷人是用不着澡盆的啰！”

        有二伯有点听出来了，就说：

        “阴间没去过，用不用不知道。”

        “不知道？”

        “不知道。”

        “我看你是明明知道，我看你是昧着良心说瞎话……”老厨子说。

        于是两个人打起来了。

        有二伯逼着问老厨子，他哪儿昧过良心。有二伯说：

        “一辈子没昧过良心。走得正，行得端，一步两脚窝……”

        老厨子说：

        “两脚窝，看不透……”

        有二伯正颜厉色地说：

        “你有什么看不透的？”

        老厨子说：

        “说出来怕你羞死！”

        有二伯说：

        “死，死不了；你别看我穷，穷人还有个穷活头。”

        老厨子说：

        “我看你也是死不了。”

        有二伯说：

        “死不了。”

        老厨子说：

        “死不了，老不死，我看你也是个老不死的。”

        有的时候，他们两个能接续着骂了一两天。每次到后来，都是有二伯打了败仗。老厨子骂他是个老“绝后”。

        有二伯每一听到这两个字，就甚于一切别的字，比“见阎王”更坏。于是他哭了起来，他说：

        “可不是么！死了连个添坟上土的人也没有。人活一辈子是个白活，到了归终是一场空……无家无业，死了连个打灵头幡的人也没有。”

        于是他们两个又和和平平地、笑笑嬉嬉地照旧地过着和平的日子。

        后来我家在五间正房的旁边，造了三间东厢房。

        这新房子一造起来，有二伯就搬回家里来住了。

        我家是静的，尤其是夜里，连鸡鸭都上了架，房头的鸽子、檐前的麻雀也都各自回到自己的窝里去睡觉了。

        这时候就常常听到厢房里的哭声。

        有一回父亲打了有二伯。父亲三十多岁，有二伯快六十岁了。他站起来就被父亲打倒下去，他再站起来，又被父亲打倒下去。最后他起不来了，他躺在院子里边了，而他的鼻子也许是嘴还流了一些血。

        院子里一些看热闹的人都站得远远的，大黄狗也吓跑了，鸡也吓跑了。老厨子该收柴收柴，该担水担水，假装没有看见。

        有二伯孤伶伶地躺在院心，他的没有边的草帽，也被打掉了，所以看得见有二伯的头部的上一半是白的，下一半是黑的，而且黑白分明的那条线就在他的前额上，好像西瓜的“阴阳面”。

        有二伯就这样自己躺着，躺了许多时候，才有两个鸭子来啄食撒在有二伯身边的那些血。

        那两个鸭子，一个是花脖，一个是绿头顶。

        有二伯要上吊。就是这个夜里，他先是骂着，后是哭着，到后来也不哭也不骂了。又过了一会，老厨子一声喊起，几乎是发现了什么怪物似的大叫：

        “有二爷上吊啦！有二爷上吊啦！”

        祖父穿起衣裳来，带着我。等我们跑到厢房去一看，有二伯不在了。

        老厨子在房子外边招呼着我们。我们一看南房梢上挂了绳子。是黑夜，本来看不见，是老厨子打着灯笼我们才看到的。

        南房梢上有一根两丈来高的横杆，绳子在那横杆上悠悠荡荡地垂着。

        有二伯在哪里呢？等我们拿灯笼一照，才看见他在房墙的根边，好好地坐着。他也没有哭，他也没有骂。

        等我再拿灯笼向他脸上一照，我看他用哭红了的小眼睛瞪了我一下。

        过了不久，有二伯又跳井了。

        是在同院住的挑水的来报的信，又敲窗户又打门。我们跑到井边上一看，有二伯并没有在井里边，而是坐在井外边离开井口五十步之外的安安稳稳的柴堆上。他在那柴堆上安安稳稳地坐着。

        我们打着灯笼一照，他还在那里拿着小烟袋抽烟呢。

        老厨子、挑水的、粉房里的漏粉的都来了，惊动了不少的邻居。

        他开初是一动不动。后来他看人们来全了，他站起来就往井边上跑。于是许多人就把他抓住了。那许多人，哪里会眼看着他去跳井的。

        有二伯去跳井，他的烟荷包、小烟袋都带着，人们推劝着他回家的时候，那柴堆上还有一枝小洋蜡，他说：

        “把那洋蜡给我带着。”

        后来有二伯“跳井”“上吊”这些事，都成了笑话，街上的孩子都给编成了一套歌在唱着：“有二爷跳井，没那么回事。”“有二伯上吊，白吓唬人。”

        老厨子说他贪生怕死，别人也都说他死不了。

        以后有二伯再“跳井”“上吊”也都没有人看他了。

        有二伯还是活着。

        我家的院子是荒凉的，冬天一片白雪，夏天则满院蒿草。

        风来了，蒿草发着声响，雨来了，蒿草梢上冒烟了。

        没有风，没有雨，则关着大门静静地过着日子。

        狗有狗窝，鸡有鸡架，鸟有鸟笼，一切各得其所。惟独有二伯夜夜不好好地睡觉。在那厢房里边，他自己半夜三更地就讲起话来。

    “说我怕‘死’，我也不是吹，叫过三个两个来看！问问他们见过‘死’没有！那俄国毛子的大马刀闪光湛亮，说杀就杀，说砍就砍。那些胆大的、不怕死的，一听说俄国毛子来了，只顾逃命，连家业也不要了。那时候，若不是这胆小的给他守着，怕是跑毛子回来连条裤子都没有穿的。到了如今，吃得饱，穿得暖，前因后果连想也不想，早就忘到九霄云外去了。良心长到肋条上，黑心痢，铁面人……”

        “……说我怕死，我也不是吹，兵马刀枪我见过，霹雷，黄风我见过。就说那俄国毛子的大马刀罢，见人就砍，可是我也没有怕过，说我怕死……介年头是啥年头……”

        那东厢房里，有二伯一套套地讲着，又是河沟涨水了，水涨得多么大，别人没有敢过的，有二伯说他敢过。又是什么时候有一次着大火，别人都逃了，有二伯上去抢了不少的东西。又是他的小时候，上山去打柴，遇见了狼，那狼是多么凶狠，他说：

        “狼心狗肺，介个年头的人狼心狗肺的，吃香的喝辣的。好人在介个年头，是个王八蛋兔羔子……”

        “兔羔子，兔羔子……”

        有二伯夜里不睡，有的时候就来在院子里没头没尾地“兔羔子、兔羔子”自己说着话。

        半夜三更的，鸡鸭猫狗都睡了。惟独有二伯不睡。

        祖父的窗子上了帘子，看不见天上的星星月亮，看不见大昴星落了没有，看不见三星是否打了横梁。只见白煞煞的窗帘子被星光月光照得发白通亮。

        等我睡醒了，我听见有二伯“兔羔子、兔羔子”地自己在说话，我要起来掀起窗帘来往院子里看一看他。祖父不让我起来，祖父说：

        “好好睡罢，明天早晨早早起来，咱们烧苞米吃。”

        祖父怕我起来，就用好话安慰着我。

        等再睡觉了，就在梦中听到了呼兰河的南岸，或是呼兰河城外远处的狗吠。

        于是我做了一个梦，梦见了一个大白兔，那兔子的耳朵，和那磨房里的小驴的耳朵一般大。我听见有二伯说“兔羔子”，我想到一个大白兔，我听到了磨房的梆子声，我想到了磨房里的小毛驴，于是梦见了白兔长了毛驴那么大的耳朵。

        我抱着那大白兔，我越看越喜欢，我一笑笑醒了。

        醒来一听，有二伯仍旧“兔羔子、兔羔子”地坐在院子里。后边那磨房里的梆子也还打得很响。

        我梦见的这大白兔，我问祖父是不是就是有二伯所说的“兔羔子”？

        祖父说：

        “快睡觉罢，半夜三更不好讲话的。”

        说完了，祖父也笑了，他又说：

        “快睡罢，夜里不好多讲话的。”

        我和祖父还都没有睡着，我们听到那远处的狗吠，慢慢地由远而近，近处的狗也有的叫了起来。大墙之外，已经稀疏疏地有车马经过了，原来天已经快亮了。可是有二伯还在骂“兔羔子”，后边磨房里的磨倌还在打着梆子。

        第二天早晨一起来，我就跑去问有二伯，“兔羔子”是不是就是大白兔？

        有二伯一听就生气了：

        “你们家里没好东西，尽是些耗子。从上到下，都是良心长在肋条上。大人是大耗子，小孩是小耗子……”

        我不知道他说的是什么，我听了一会，没有听懂。

        他的儿子也和普通的小孩一样，七个月出牙，八个月会爬，一年会走，两年会跑了。

    七

        磨房里边住着冯歪嘴子。

        冯歪嘴子打着梆子，半夜半夜地打，一夜一夜地打。冬天还稍微好一点，夏天就更打得厉害。

        那磨房的窗子临着我家的后园。我家的后园四周的墙根上，都种着倭瓜、西葫芦或是黄瓜等类会爬蔓子的植物；倭瓜爬上墙头了，在墙头上开起花来了，有的竟越过了高墙爬到街上去，向着大街开了一朵火黄的黄花。

        因此那磨房的窗子上，也就爬满了那顶会爬蔓子的黄瓜了。黄瓜的小细蔓，细得像银丝似的，太阳一来了的时候，那小细蔓闪眼湛亮，那蔓梢干净得好像用黄蜡抽成的丝子，一棵黄瓜秧上伸出来无数的这样的丝子。丝蔓的尖顶每棵都是掉转头来向回卷曲着，好像是说它们虽然勇敢，大树，野草，墙头，窗棂，到处地乱爬，但到底它们也怀着恐惧的心理。

        太阳一出来了，那些在夜里冷清清的丝蔓，一变而为温暖了。于是它们向前发展的速率更快了，好像眼看着那丝蔓就长了，就向前跑去了。因为种在磨房窗根下的黄瓜秧，一天爬上了窗台，两天爬上了窗棂，等到第三天就在窗棂上开花了。

        再过几天，一不留心，那黄瓜梗经过了磨房的窗子，爬上房顶去了。

        后来那黄瓜秧就像它们彼此招呼着似的，成群结队地就都一齐把那磨房的窗给蒙住了。

        从此那磨房里边的磨倌就见不着天日了。磨房就有一张窗子，而今被黄瓜掩遮得风雨不透。从此那磨房里黑沉沉的，园里，园外，分成两个世界了。冯歪嘴子就被分到花园以外去了。

        但是从外边看起来，那窗子实在好看，开花的开花，结果的结果。满窗是黄瓜了。

        还有一棵倭瓜秧，也顺着磨房的窗子爬到房顶去了，就在房檐上结了一个大倭瓜。那倭瓜不像是从秧子上长出来的，好像是由人搬着坐在那屋瓦上晒太阳似的。实在好看。

        夏天，我在后园里玩的时候，冯歪嘴子就喊我，他向我要黄瓜。

        我就摘了黄瓜，从窗子递进去。那窗子被黄瓜秧封闭得严密得很，冯歪嘴子用手扒开那满窗的叶子，从一条小缝中伸出手来把黄瓜拿进去。

        有时候，他停止了打他的梆子，他问我，黄瓜长了多大了？西红柿红了没有？他与这后园只隔了一张窗子，就像离着多远似的。

        祖父在园子里的时候，他和祖父谈话。他说拉着磨的小驴，驴蹄子坏了，一走一瘸。祖父说请个兽医给它看看。冯歪嘴子说，看过了，也不见好。祖父问那驴吃的什么药？冯歪嘴子说是吃的黄瓜籽拌高粱醋。

        冯歪嘴子在窗里，祖父在窗外，祖父看不见冯歪嘴子，冯歪嘴子看不见祖父。

        有的时候，祖父走远了，回屋去了，只剩下我一个人在磨房的墙根下边坐着玩，我听到了冯歪嘴子还说：

        “老太爷今年没下乡去看看哪！”

        有的时候，我听了这话，我故意地不出声，听听他往下还说什么。

        有的时候，我心里觉得可笑，忍也不能忍住，我就跳了起来了，用手敲打着窗子，笑得我把窗上挂着的黄瓜都敲打掉了。而后我一溜烟地跑进屋去，把这情形告诉了祖父。祖父也一样和我似的，笑得不能停了，眼睛笑出眼泪来，但是总是说，不要笑啦，不要笑啦，看他听见。有的时候祖父竟把后门关起来再笑。祖父怕冯歪嘴子听见了不好意思。

        但是老厨子就不然了。有的时候，他和冯歪嘴子谈天，故意谈到一半他就溜掉了。因为冯歪嘴子隔着爬满了黄瓜秧的窗子，看不见他走了，就自己独自说了一大篇话，而后让他故意得不到反响。

        老厨子提着筐子到后园去摘茄子，一边摘着一边就跟冯歪嘴子谈话。正谈到半路，老厨子蹑手蹑足地，提着筐子就溜了，回到屋里去烧饭去了。

        这时冯歪嘴子还在磨房里大声地说：

        “西公园来了跑马戏的，我还没得空去看，你去看过了吗？老王。”

        其实后花园里一个人也没有了，蜻蜓、蝴蝶随意地飞着，冯歪嘴子的话声，空空地落到花园里来，又空空地消失了。

        烟消火灭了。

        等他发现了老王早已不在花园里，他这才又打起梆子来，看着小驴拉磨。

        有二伯一和冯歪嘴子谈话，可从来没有偷着溜掉过。他问下雨天，磨房的房顶漏得厉害不厉害？磨房里的耗子多不多？

        冯歪嘴子同时也问着有二伯，今年后园里雨水大吗？茄子、芸豆都快罢园了吧？

        他们两个彼此说完了话，有二伯让冯歪嘴子到后园里来走走，冯歪嘴子让有二伯到磨房去坐坐。

        “有空到园子里来走走。”

        “有空到磨房里来坐坐。”

        有二伯于是也就告别走出园子来。冯歪嘴子也就照旧打他的梆子。

        秋天，大榆树的叶子黄了，墙头上的狗尾草干倒了，园里一天一天地荒凉起来了。

        这时候冯歪嘴子的窗子也露出来了。因为那些纠纠缠缠的黄瓜秧也都蔫败了，舍弃了窗棂而脱落下来了。

        于是站在后园里就可看到冯歪嘴子，扒着窗子就可以看到在拉磨的小驴。那小驴竖着耳朵，戴着眼罩，走了三五步就响一次鼻子，每一抬脚那只后腿就有点瘸，每一停下来，小驴就用三条腿站着。

        冯歪嘴子说小驴的一条腿坏了。

        这窗子上的黄瓜秧一干掉了，磨房里的冯歪嘴子就天天可以看到的。

        冯歪嘴子喝酒了，冯歪嘴子睡觉了，冯歪嘴子打梆子，冯歪嘴子拉胡琴了，冯歪嘴子唱唱本了，冯歪嘴子摇风车了。只要一扒着那窗台，就什么都可以看见的。

        一到了秋天，新鲜黏米一下来的时候，冯歪嘴子就三天一拉磨，两天一卖黏糕。黄米黏糕，撒上大芸豆，一层黄，一层红，黄的金黄，红的通红。三个铜板一条、两个铜板一片地用刀切着卖。愿意加红糖的有红糖，愿意加白糖的有白糖。加了糖不另要钱。

        冯歪嘴子推着单轮车在街上一走，小孩子们就在后边跟了一大帮，有的花钱买，有的围着看。

        祖父最喜欢吃这黏糕，母亲也喜欢，而我更喜欢。母亲有时让老厨子去买，有的时候让我去买。

        不过买了来是有数的，一人只能吃手掌那么大的一片，不准多吃，吃多了怕不能消化。

        祖父一边吃着，一边说够了够了，意思是怕我多吃。母亲吃完了也说够了，意思是怕我还要去买。其实我真的觉得不够，觉得再吃两块也还不多呢！不过经别人这样一说，我也就没有什么办法了，也就不好意思喊着再去买，但是实在话是没有吃够的。

        当我在大门外玩的时候，推着单轮车的冯歪嘴子总是在那块大黏糕上切下一片来送给我吃，于是我就接受了。

        当我在院子里玩的时候，冯歪嘴子一喊着“黏糕”“黏糕”地从大墙外经过，我就爬上墙头去了。

        因为西南角上的那段土墙，因为年久了出了一个豁，我就扒着那墙豁往外看着。果然冯歪嘴子推着黏糕的单轮车由远而近了。来到我的旁边，就问着：

        “要吃一片吗？”

        而我也不说吃，也不说不吃。但我也不从墙头上下来，还是若无其事地待在那里。

        冯歪嘴子把车子一停，于是切好一片黏糕送上来了。

        一到了冬天，冯歪嘴子差不多天天出去卖一锅黏糕的。

        这黏糕在做的时候，需要很大的一口锅，里边烧着开水，锅口上坐着竹帘子。把碾碎了的黄米粉就撒在这竹帘子上，撒一层粉，撒一层豆。冯歪嘴子就在磨房里撒的，弄得满屋热气蒸腾。进去买黏糕的时候，刚一开门，只听屋里火柴烧得噼啪地响，竟看不见人了。

        我去买黏糕的时候，我总是去得早一点。我在那边等着，等着刚一出锅，好买热的。

        那屋里的蒸气实在大，是看不见人的。每次我一开门，我就说：

        “我来了。”

        冯歪嘴子一听我的声音就说：

        “这边来，这边来。”

        有一次母亲让我去买黏糕，我略微地去得晚了一点，黏糕已经出锅了。我慌慌忙忙地买了就回来了。回到家里一看，不对了。母亲让我买的是加白糖的，而我买回来的是加红糖的。当时我没有留心，回到家里一看，才知道错了。

        错了，我又跑回去换。冯歪嘴子又另外切了几片，撒上白糖。

        接过黏糕来，我正想拿着走的时候，一回头，看见了冯歪嘴子的那张小炕上挂着一张布帘。

        我想这是做什么，我跑过去看一看。

        我伸手就掀开布帘了，往里边一看，呀！里边还有一个小孩呢！

        我转身就往家跑，跑到家里就跟祖父讲，说那冯歪嘴子的炕上不知谁家的女人睡在那里，女人的被窝里边还有一个小孩，那小孩还露着小头顶呢，那小孩头还是通红的呢！

        祖父听了一会觉得纳闷，就说让我快吃黏糕罢，一会冷了，不好吃了。

        可是我哪里吃得下去。觉得这事情真好玩，那磨房里边，不单有一个小驴，还有一个小孩呢。

        这一天早晨闹得黏糕我也没有吃，又戴起皮帽子来，跑去看了一次。

        这一次，冯歪嘴子不在屋里，不知他到哪里去了，黏糕大概也没有去卖，推黏糕的车子还在磨盘的旁边扔着。

        我一开门进去，风就把那白布帘吹开了，那女人仍旧躺着不动，那小孩也一声不哭。我往屋子的四边观查一下，屋子的边处没有什么变动，只是磨盘上放着一个黄铜盆，铜盆里泡着一点破布，盆里的水已经结冰了，其余的没有什么变动。

        小驴一到冬天就住在磨房的屋里，那小驴还是照旧地站在那里，并且还是安安敦敦地和每天一样地抹搭着眼睛。其余的磨房里的风车子、罗柜、磨盘，都是照旧地在那里待着，就是墙根下的那些耗子也出来和往日一样地乱跑，耗子一边跑着还一边吱吱喳喳地叫着。

        我看了一会，看不出所以然来，觉得十分无趣。正想转身出来的时候，被我发现了一个瓦盆，就在炕沿上已经像小冰山似的冻得鼓鼓的了。于是我想起这屋的冷来了，立刻觉得要打寒颤，冷得不能站脚了。我一细看那扇通到后园去的窗子也通着大洞，瓦房的房盖也透着青天。

        我开门就跑了，一跑到家里，家里的火炉正烧得通红，一进门就热气扑脸。

        我正想要问祖父，那磨房里是谁家的小孩。这时冯歪嘴子从外边来了。

        戴着他的四耳帽子，他未曾说话先笑一笑的样子，一看就是冯歪嘴子。

        他进了屋来，他坐在祖父旁边的太师椅上，那太师椅垫着红毛哔叽的厚垫子。

    冯歪嘴子坐在那里，似乎有话说不出来，右手不住地摸擦着椅垫子，左手不住地拉着他的左耳朵。他未曾说话先笑的样子，笑了好几阵也没说出话来。

        我们家里的火炉太热，把他的脸烤得通红的了。他说：

        “老太爷，我摊了点事……”

        祖父就问他摊了什么事呢？

        冯歪嘴子坐在太师椅上扭扭歪歪的，摘下他那狗皮帽子来，手里玩弄着那皮帽子。未曾说话他先笑了，笑了好一阵工夫，他才说出一句话来：

        “我成了家啦。”

        说着冯歪嘴子的眼睛就流出眼泪来，他说：

        “请老太爷帮帮忙，现下他们就在磨房里呢！他们没有地方住。”

        我听到了这里，就赶快抢住了，向祖父说：

        “爷爷，那磨房里冷呵！炕沿上的瓦盆都冻裂了。”

        祖父往一边推着我，似乎他在思索的样子。我又说：

        “那炕上还睡着一个小孩呢！”

        祖父答应了让他搬到磨房南头那个装草的房子里去暂住。

        冯歪嘴子一听，连忙就站起来了，说：

        “道谢，道谢。”

        一边说着，他的眼睛又一边来了眼泪，而后戴起狗皮帽子来，眼泪汪汪地就走了。

        冯歪嘴子刚一走出屋去，祖父回头就跟我说：

        “你这孩子当人面不好多说话的。”

        我那时也不过六七岁，不懂这是甚么意思，我问着祖父：

        “为什么不准说，为什么不准说？”

        祖父说：

        “你没看冯歪嘴子的眼泪都要掉下来了吗？冯歪嘴子难为情了。”

        我想可有什么难为情的，我不明白。

        晌午，冯歪嘴子那磨房里就吵起来了。

        冯歪嘴子一声不响地站在磨盘的旁边，他的掌柜的拿着烟袋在他的眼前骂着。掌柜的太太一边骂着，一边拍着风车子，她说：

        “破了风水了，我这碾磨房，岂是你那不干不净的野老婆住的地方！青龙白虎也是女人可以冲的吗！冯歪嘴子，从此我不发财，我就跟你算账；你是什么东西，你还算个人吗？你没有脸，你若有脸你还能把个野老婆弄到大面上来，弄到人的眼皮下边来……你赶快给我滚蛋……”

        冯歪嘴子说：

        “我就要叫他们搬的，就搬……”

        掌柜的太太说：

        “叫他们搬，他们是什么东西，我不知道。我是叫你滚蛋的，你可把人糟蹋苦了……”

        说着，她往炕上一看：

        “唉呀！面口袋也是你那野老婆盖得的！赶快给我拿下来。我说冯歪嘴子，你可把我糟蹋苦了。你可把我糟蹋苦了。”

        那个刚生下来的小孩是盖着盛面口袋在睡觉的，一齐盖着四五张，厚墩墩地压着小脸。

        掌柜的太太在旁边喊着：

        “给我拿下来，快给我拿下来！”

        冯歪嘴子过去把面口袋拿下来了，立刻就露出孩子通红的小手来，而且那小手还伸伸缩缩地摇动着，摇动了几下就哭起来了。

        那孩子一哭，从孩子的嘴里冒着雪白的白气。

        那掌柜的太太把面口袋接到手里说：

        “可冻死我了，你赶快搬罢，我可没工夫跟你吵了……”

        说着开了门缩着肩膀就跑回上屋去了。

        王四掌柜的，就是冯歪嘴子的东家，他请祖父到上屋去喝茶。

        我们坐在上屋的炕上，一边烤着炭火盆，一边听到磨房里的那小孩的哭声。

        祖父问我的手烤暖了没有？我说还没烤暖，祖父说：

        “烤暖了，回家罢。”

        从王四掌柜的家里出来，我还说要到磨房里去看看。祖父说，没有什么的，要看回家暖过来再看。

        磨房里没有寒暑表，我家里是有的。我问祖父：

        “爷爷，你说磨房的温度在多少度上？”

        祖父说在零度以下。

        我问：

        “在零度以下多少？”

        祖父说：

        “没有寒暑表，哪儿知道呵！”

        我说：

        “到底在零度以下多少？”

        祖父看一看天色就说：

        “在零下七八度。”

        我高兴起来了，我说：

        “嗳呀，好冷呵！那不和室外温度一样了吗？”

        我抬脚就往家里跑。井台，井台旁边的水槽子，井台旁边的大石头碾子，房户老周家的大玻璃窗子，我家的大高烟囱，在我一溜烟地跑起来的时候，我看它们都移移动动的了，它们都像往后退着。我越跑越快，好像不是我在跑，而像房子和大烟囱在跑似的。

        我自己觉得我跑得和风一般快。

        我想那磨房的温度在零度以下，岂不是等于露天地了吗？

        这真笑话，房子和露天地一样。我越想越可笑，也就越高兴。

        于是连喊带叫地也就跑到家了。

        下半天冯歪嘴子就把小孩搬到磨房南头那草棚子里去了。

        那小孩哭的声音很大，好像他并不是刚刚出生，好像他已经长大了的样子。

        那草房里吵得不得了，我又想去看看。

        这回那女人坐起来了，身上披着被子，很长的大辫子垂在背后，面朝里，坐在一堆草上不知在干什么。她一听门响，她一回头，我看出来了，她就是我们同院住着的老王家的大姑娘，我们都叫她王大姐的。

        这可奇怪，怎么就是她呢？她一回头几乎是把我吓了一跳。

        我转身就想往家里跑，跑到家里好赶快地告诉祖父，这到底是怎么回事？

        她看是我，她就先向我一笑。她长的是很大的脸孔，很尖的鼻子，每笑的时候，她的鼻梁上就皱了一堆的褶。今天她的笑法还是和从前的一样，鼻梁处堆满了皱褶。

        平常我们后园里的菜吃不了的时候，她就提着筐到我们后园来摘些茄子、黄瓜之类回家去。她是很能说能笑的人，她是很响亮的人。她和别人相见之下，她问别人：

        “你吃饭了吗？”

        那声音才大呢，好像房顶上落了喜鹊似的。

        她的父亲是赶车的，她牵着马到井上去饮水，她打起水来，比她父亲打得更快，三绕两绕就是一桶。别人看了都说：

        “这姑娘将来是个兴家立业好手！”

        她在我家后园里摘菜，摘完临走的时候，常常就折一朵马蛇菜花戴在头上。

        她那辫子梳得才光呢，红辫根，绿辫梢，干干净净，又加上一朵马蛇菜花戴在鬓角上，非常好看。她提着筐子前边走了，后边的人就都指指划划地说她的好处。

        老厨子说她大头大眼睛长得怪好的。

        有二伯说她膀大腰圆的带点福相。

        母亲说她：

        “我没有这么大的儿子，有儿子我娶她，这姑娘真响亮。”

        同院住的老周家三奶奶则说：

        “哟哟，这姑娘真是一棵大葵花，又高又大，你今年十几啦？”

        周三奶奶一看到王大姐就问她十几岁？已经问了不知几遍了，好像一看见就必得这么问，若不问就好像没有话说似的。

    每逢一问，王大姐也总是说：

        “二十了。”

        “二十了，可得给说一个媒了。”

        再不然就是：

        “看谁家有这么大的福气，看吧，将来看吧。”

        隔院的杨家的老太太，扒着墙头一看见王大姐就说：

        “这姑娘的脸红得像一盆火似的。”

        现在王大姐一笑还是一皱鼻子，不过她的脸有一点清瘦，颜色发白了许多。

        她怀里抱着小孩。我看一看她，她也不好意思了，我也不好意思了。我的不好意思是因为好久不见的缘故，我想她也许是和我一样吧。我想要走，又不好意思立刻就走开，想要多待一会又没有什么话好说的。

        我就站在那里静静地站了一会，我看她用草把小孩盖了起来，把小孩放到炕上去。其实也看不见什么是炕，乌七八糟的都是草，地上是草，炕上也是草，草捆子堆得房梁上去了。那小炕本来不大，又都叫草捆子给占满了。那小孩也就在草中偎了个草窝，铺着草盖着草地就睡着了。

        我越看越觉得好玩，好像小孩睡在喜鹊窝里了似的。

        到了晚上，我又把全套我所见的告诉了祖父。

        祖父什么也不说。但我看出来祖父晓得的比我晓得的多的样子。我说：

        “那小孩还盖着草呢！”

        祖父说：

        “嗯！”

        我说：

        “那不是王大姐吗？”

        祖父说：

        “嗯。”

        祖父是什么也不问，什么也不听的样子。

        等到了晚上在煤油灯的下边，我家全体的人都聚集了的时候，那才热闹呢！连说带讲的。这个说，王大姑娘这么的，那个说王大姑娘那么着……说来说去，说得不成样子了。

        说王大姑娘这样坏，那样坏，一看就知道不是好东西。

        说她说话的声音那么大，一定不是好东西。哪有姑娘家家的，大说大讲的。

        有二伯说：

        “好好的一个姑娘，看上了一个磨房的磨倌，介个年头是啥年头！”

        老厨子说：

        “男子要长个粗壮，女子要长个秀气。没见过一个姑娘长得和一个抗大个的（抗工）似的。”

        有二伯也就接着说：

        “对呀！老爷像老爷，娘娘像娘娘，你没四月十八去逛过庙吗？那老爷庙上的老爷，威风八面，娘娘庙上的娘娘，温柔典雅。”

        老厨子又说：

        “哪有的勾当，姑娘家家的，打起水来，比个男子大丈夫还有力气。没见过姑娘家家的那么大的力气。”

        有二伯说：

        “那算完，长的是一身穷骨头穷肉，那穿绸穿缎的她不去看，她看上了个灰秃秃的磨倌。真是武大郎玩鸭子，啥人玩啥鸟。”

        第二天，左邻右舍的都晓得王大姑娘生了小孩了。

        周三奶奶跑到我家来探听了一番，母亲说就在那草棚子里，让她去看。她说：

        “哟哟！我可没那么大的工夫去看的，什么好勾当。”

        西院的杨老太太听了风也来了，穿了一身浆得闪光发亮的蓝大布衫，头上扣着银扁方，手上戴着白铜的戒指。

        一进屋，母亲就告诉她冯歪嘴子得了儿子了。杨老太太连忙就说：

        “我可不是来探听他们那些猫三狗四的，我是来问问那广和银号的利息到底是大加一呢，还是八成？因为昨天西荒上的二小子打信来说，他老丈人要给一个亲戚拾几万吊钱。”

        说完了，她庄庄严严地坐在那里。

        我家的屋子太热，杨老太太一进屋来就把脸热得通红。母亲连忙打开了北边的那通气窗。

        通气窗一开，那草棚子里的小孩的哭声就听见了，那哭声特别吵闹。

        “听听啦，”母亲说，“这就是冯歪嘴子的儿子。”

        “怎么的啦？那王大姑娘我看就不是个好东西，我就说，那姑娘将来好不了。”杨老太太说，“前些日子那姑娘忽然不见了，我就问她妈：‘你们大姑娘哪儿去啦？’她妈说：‘上她姥姥家去了。’一去去了这么久没回来，我就有点觉景儿。”

        母亲说：

        “王大姑娘夏天的时候常常哭，把眼圈都哭红了。她妈说她脾气大，跟她妈吵架气的。”

        杨老太太把肩膀一抱说：

        “气的，好大的气性，到今天都丢了人啦，怎么没气死呢。那姑娘不是好东西，你看她那双眼睛，多么大！我早就说过，这姑娘好不了。”

        而后在母亲的耳朵上嘁嘁喳喳了一阵，又说又笑地走了。把她那原来到我家里来的原意，大概也忘了。

        她来是为了广和银号利息的问题，可是一直到走也没有再提起那广和银号来。

        杨老太太，周三奶奶，还有同院住的那些粉房里的人，没有一个不说王大姑娘坏的。

        说王大姑娘的眼睛长得不好，说王大姑娘的力气太大，说王大姑娘的辫子长得也太长。

        这事情一发，全院子的人给王大姑娘做论的做论，做传的做传，还有给她做日记的。

        做传的说，她从小就在外祖母家里养着，一天尽和男孩子在一块，没男没女。有一天她竟拿着烧火的叉子把她的表弟给打伤了。又是一天刮大风，她把外祖母的二十多个鸭蛋一次给偷着吃光了。又是一天她在河沟子里边采菱角，她自己采的少，她就把别人的菱角倒在她的筐里了，就说是她采的。说她强横得不得了，没有人敢去和她分辩，一分辩，她开口就骂，举手就打。

        那给她做传的人，说着就好像看见过似的。说腊月二十三，过小年的那天，王大姑娘因为外祖母少给了她一块肉吃，她就跟外祖母打了一仗，就跑回家里来了。

        “你看看吧，她的嘴该多馋。”

        于是四边听着的人，没有不笑的。

        那给王大姑娘做传的人，材料的确搜集得不少。

        自从团圆媳妇死了，院子里似乎寂寞了很长的一个时期，现在虽然不能说十分热闹，但大家都总要尽力地鼓吹一番。虽然不跳神打鼓，但也总应该给大家多少开一开心。

        于是吹风的，把眼的，跑线的，绝对地不辞辛苦，在飘着白白的大雪的夜里，也就戴着皮帽子，穿着大毡靴，站在冯歪嘴子的窗户外边，在那里守候着，为的是偷听一点什么消息。若能听到一点点，哪怕针孔那么大一点，也总没有白挨冻，好做为第二天宣传的材料。

        所以冯歪嘴子那门下在开初的几天，竟站着不少的探访员。

        这些探访员往往没有受过教育，他们最喜欢造谣生事。

        比方我家的老厨子出去探访了一阵，回家报告说：

        “那草棚子才冷呢！五风楼似的，那小孩一声不响了，大概是冻死了，快去看热闹吧！”

        老厨子举手舞脚的，他高兴得不得了。

        不一会他又戴上了狗皮帽子，他又去探访了一阵，这一回他报告说：

        “他妈的，没有死，那小孩还没冻死呢！还在娘怀里吃奶呢。”

        这新闻发生的地点，离我家也不过五十步远，可是一经探访员们这一探访，事情本来的面目可就大大的两样了。

        有的看了冯歪嘴子的炕上有一段绳头，于是就传说着冯歪嘴子要上吊。

        这“上吊”的刺激，给人们的力量真是不小。女的戴上风帽，男的穿上毡靴，要来这里参观的，或是准备着来参观的人不知多少。

        西院老杨家就有三十多口人，小孩不算在内，若算在内也有四十口了。就单说这三十多人若都来看上吊的冯歪嘴子，岂不把我家的那小草棚挤翻了吗！

    就说他家那些人中有的老的病的，不能够来，就说最低限度来上十个人吧，那么西院老杨家来十个，同院的老周家来三个：周三奶奶，周四婶子，周老婶子，外加周四婶子怀抱着一个孩子，周老婶子手里牵着个孩子——她们是有这样的习惯的，那么一共周家老少三辈总算五口了。

        还有粉房里的漏粉匠，烧火的，跑街送货的等等，一时也数不清是几多人，总之这全院好看热闹的人也不下二三十。

        还有前后街上的，一听了消息也少不了来了不少的。

        “上吊”？为啥一个好好的人，活着不愿意活，而愿意“上吊”呢？大家快去看看吧，其中必是趣味无穷，大家快去看看吧。

        再说开开眼也是好的，反正也不是去看跑马戏的，又要花钱，又要买票。

        所以呼兰河城里凡是一有跳井投河的，或是上吊的，那看热闹的人就特别多，我不知道中国别的地方是否这样，但在我的家乡确是这样的。

        投了河的女人，被打捞上来了，也不赶快地埋，也不赶快地葬，摆在那里一两天，让大家围着观看。

        跳了井的女人，从井里捞出来，也不赶快地埋，也不赶快地葬，好像国货展览会似的，热闹得车水马龙了。

        其实那没有什么好看的，假若冯歪嘴子上了吊，那岂不是看了很害怕吗！

        有一些胆小的女人，看了投河的、跳井的，三天五夜地不能睡觉。但是下次，一有这样的冤魂，她仍旧是去看的。看了回来就觉得那恶劣的印象就在眼前，于是又是睡觉不安，吃饭也不香。但是不去看，是不行的。第三次仍旧去看，哪怕去看了之后，心里觉得恐怖，而后再买一匹黄钱纸、一扎线香到十字路口上去烧了，向着那东西南北的大道磕上三个头，同时嘴里说：

        “邪魔野鬼可不要上我的身哪，我这里香纸的也都打发过你们了。”

        有的谁家的姑娘，为了去看上吊的，回来吓死了。听说不但看上吊的，就是看跳井的，也有被吓死的。吓出一场病来，千医百治地治不好，后来死了。

        但是人们还是愿意看，男人也许特别胆子大，不害怕，女人却都是胆小的多，都是乍着胆子看。

        还有小孩，女人也把他们带来看，他们还没有长成为一个人，母亲就早把他们带来了。也许在这热闹的世界里，还是提早地演习着一点的好，免得将来对于跳井上吊太外行了。

        有的探访员晓得了冯歪嘴子从街上买来了一把家常用的切菜的刀，于是就大放冯歪嘴子要自刎的空气。

        冯歪嘴子，没有上吊，没有自刎，还是好好地活着。过了一年，他的孩子长大了。

        过年我家杀猪的时候，冯歪嘴子还到我家里来帮忙的，帮着刮猪毛。到了晚上他吃了饭、喝了酒之后，临回去的时候，祖父说，让他带了几个大馒头去。他把馒头挟在腰里就走了。

        人们都取笑着冯歪嘴子，说：

        “冯歪嘴子有了大少爷了。”

        冯歪嘴子平常给我家做一点小事，磨半斗豆子做小豆腐，或是推二斗上好的红黏谷做黏糕吃，祖父都是招呼他到我家里来吃饭的。就在饭桌上，当着众人，老厨子就说：

        “冯歪嘴子少吃两个馒头吧，留着馒头带给大少爷去吧……”

        冯歪嘴子听了也并不难为情，也不觉得这是嘲笑他的话，他很庄严地说：

        “他在家里有吃的，他在家里有吃的。”

        等吃完了，祖父说：

        “还是带上几个吧！”

        冯歪嘴子拿起几个馒头来，往哪儿放呢？放在腰里。馒头太热，放在袖筒里怕掉了。

        于是老厨子说：

        “你放在帽兜子里啊！”

        于是冯歪嘴子用帽兜着馒头回家去了。

        东邻西舍谁家若是办了红白喜事，冯歪嘴子若也在席上的话，肉丸子一上来，别人就说：

        “冯歪嘴子，这肉丸子你不能吃，你家里有大少爷的是不是？”

        于是人们说着，就把冯歪嘴子应得的那一份的两个肉丸子，用筷子夹出来，放在冯歪嘴子旁边的小碟里。来了红烧肉，也是这么照办。来了干果碟，也是这么照办。

        冯歪嘴子一点也感不到羞耻，等席散之后，用手巾包着，带回家来，给他的儿子吃了。

        他的儿子也和普通的小孩一样，七个月出牙，八个月会爬，一年会走，两年会跑了。

        夏天，那孩子浑身不穿衣裳，只戴着一个花兜肚，在门前的水坑里捉小蛤蟆。他的母亲坐在门前给他绣着花兜肚子。

        他的父亲在磨房打着梆子，看管着小驴拉着磨。

        又过了两三年，冯歪嘴子的第二个孩子又要出生了。冯歪嘴子欢喜得不得了，嘴都闭不上了。

        在外边，有人问他：

        “冯歪嘴子又要得儿子了？”

        他呵呵笑着。他故意地平静着自己。

        他在家里边，他一看见他的女人端一个大盆，他就说：

        “你这是干什么，你让我来拿不好么！”

        他看见他的女人抱一捆柴火，他也这样阻止着她：

        “你让我来拿不好么！”

        可是那王大姐，却一天比一天瘦，一天比一天苍白，她的眼睛更大了，她的鼻子也更尖了似的。冯歪嘴子说，过后多吃几个鸡蛋，好好养养就身子好起来了。

        他家是快乐的。冯歪嘴子把窗子上挂了一张窗帘，这张白布是新从铺子里买来的。冯歪嘴子的窗子，三五年也没有挂过帘子，这是第一次。

        冯歪嘴子买了二斤新棉花，买了好几尺花洋布，买了二三十个上好的鸡蛋。

        冯歪嘴子还是照旧地拉磨，王大姐就剪裁着花洋布做成小小的衣裳。

        二三十个鸡蛋，用小筐装着，挂在二梁上。每一开门开窗的，那小筐就在高处游荡着。

        门口一来担挑卖鸡蛋的，冯歪嘴子就说：“你身子不好，我看还应该多吃几个鸡蛋。”

        冯歪嘴子每次都想再买一些，但都被孩子的母亲阻止了，冯歪嘴子说：

        “你从生了这小孩以来，身子就一直没养过来。多吃几个鸡蛋算什么呢！我多卖几斤黏糕就有了。”

        祖父一到他家里去串门，冯歪嘴子就把这一套话告诉了祖父。他说：

        “那个人才俭省呢，过日子连一根柴草也不肯多烧。要生小孩子，多吃一个鸡蛋也不肯。看着吧，将来会发家的……”

        冯歪嘴子说完了，是很得意的。

        七月一过去，八月乌鸦就来了。

        其实乌鸦七月里已经来了，不过没有八月那样多就是了。

        七月的晚霞，红得像火似的，奇奇怪怪的，老虎、大狮子、马头、狗群。这一些云彩，一到了八月，就都没有了。那满天红洞洞的、那满天金黄的、满天绛紫的、满天朱砂色的云彩，一齐都没有了。无论早晨或黄昏，天空就再也没有它们了，就再也看不见它们了。

        八月的天空是静悄悄的，一丝不挂。六月的黑云，七月的红云，都没有了。一进了八月，雨也没有了，风也没有了。白天就是黄金的太阳，夜里就是雪白的月亮。

        天气有些寒了，人们都穿起夹衣来。

        晚饭之后，乘凉的人没有了。院子里显得冷清寂寞了许多。

        鸡鸭都上架去了，猪也进了猪栏，狗也进了狗窝。院子里的蒿草，因为没有风，就都一动不动地站着。因为没有云，大昴星一出来就亮得和一盏小灯似的了。

        在这样的一个夜里，冯歪嘴子的女人死了。第二天早晨，正过着乌鸦的时候，就给冯歪嘴子的女人送殡了。

        乌鸦是黄昏的时候，或黎明的时候才飞过。不知道这乌鸦从什么地方来，飞到什么地方去，但这一大群遮天蔽瓦的，吵着叫着，好像一大片黑云似的从远处来了，来到头上，不一会又过去了。终究过到什么地方去，也许大人知道，孩子们是不知道的，我也不知道。

        听说那些乌鸦就过到呼兰河南岸那柳条林里去的，过到那柳条林里去做什么？所以我不大相信。不过那柳条林，乌烟瘴气的，不知那里有些什么，或者是过了那柳条林，柳条林的那边更是些个什么。站在呼兰河的这边，只见那乌烟瘴气的、有好几里路远的柳条林上，飞着白白的大鸟。除了那白白的大鸟之外，究竟还有什么，那就不得而知了。

        据说乌鸦就往那边过，乌鸦过到那边又怎样，又从那边究竟飞到什么地方去，这个人们不大知道了。

        冯歪嘴子的女人是产后死的，传说上这样的女人死了，大庙不收，小庙不留，是将要成为游魂的。

        我要到草棚子去看，祖父不让我去看。

        我在大门口等着。

        我看见了冯歪嘴子的儿子，打着灵头幡送他的母亲。

        灵头幡在前，棺材在后，冯歪嘴子在最前边，他在最前边领着路向东大桥那边走去了。

        那灵头幡是用白纸剪的，剪成络络网，剪成胡椒眼，剪成不少的轻飘飘的穗子，用一根杆子挑着，扛在那孩子的肩上。

        那孩子也不哭，也不表示什么，只好像他扛不动那灵头幡，使他扛得非常吃力似的。

        他往东边越走越远了。我在大门外看着，一直看着他走过了东大桥，几乎是看不见了，我还在那里看着。

        乌鸦在头上呱呱地叫着。

        过了一群，又一群，等我们回到了家里，那乌鸦还在天空里叫着。

        冯歪嘴子的女人一死，大家觉得这回冯歪嘴子算完了。

        扔下了两个孩子，一个四五岁，一个刚生下来。

        看吧，看他可怎样办！

        老厨子说：

        “看热闹吧，冯歪嘴子又该喝酒了，又该坐在磨盘上哭了。”

        东家西舍的也都说冯歪嘴子这回可非完不可了。那些好看热闹的人，都在准备着看冯歪嘴子的热闹。

        可是冯歪嘴子自己，并不像旁观者眼中的那样地绝望，好像他活着还很有把握的样子似的。他不但没有感到绝望已经洞穿了他，因为他看见了他的两个孩子，他反而镇定下来。

        他觉得在这世界上，他一定要生根的。要长得牢牢的。他不管他自己有这份能力没有，他看看别人也都是这样做的，他觉得他也应该这样做。

        于是他照常地活在世界上，他照常地负着他那份责任。

        于是他自己动手喂他那刚出生的孩子，他用筷子喂他，他不吃，他用调匙喂他。

        喂着小的，带着大的，他该担水，担水；该拉磨，拉磨。

        早晨一起来，一开门，看见邻人到井口去打水的时候，他总说一声：

        “去挑水吗！”

        若遇见了卖豆腐的，他也说一声：

        “豆腐这么早出锅啦！”

        他在这世界上他不知道人们都用绝望的眼光来看他，他不知道他已经处在了怎样的一种艰难的境地。他不知道他自己已经完了。他没有想过。

        他虽然也有悲哀，他虽然也常常满满含着眼泪，但是他一看见他的大儿子会拉着小驴饮水了，他就立刻把那含着眼泪的眼睛笑了起来。

        他说：

        “慢慢地就中用了。”

        他的小儿子，一天一天地喂着，越喂眼睛越大；胳臂，腿，越来越瘦。

        在别人的眼里，这孩子非死不可。这孩子一直不死，大家都觉得惊奇。

        到后来大家简直都莫名其妙了，对于冯歪嘴子的这孩子的不死，别人都起了恐惧的心理，觉得这是可能的吗？这是世界上应该有的吗？

        但是冯歪嘴子一休息下来就抱着他的孩子，天太冷了，他就烘了一堆火给他烤着。那孩子刚一咧嘴笑，那笑得才难看呢，因为又像笑，又像哭。其实又不像笑，又不像哭，而是介乎两者之间的那么一咧嘴。

        但是冯歪嘴子却喜欢得不得了了。

        他说：

        “这小东西会哄人了。”

        或是：

        “这小东西懂人事了。”

        那孩子到了七八个月才会拍一拍掌。其实别人家的孩子到七八个月，都会爬了，会坐着了，要学着说话了。冯歪嘴子的孩子都不会，只会拍一拍掌，别的都不会。

        冯歪嘴子一看见他的孩子拍掌，他就眉开眼笑的。

        他说：

        “这孩子眼看着就大了。”

        那孩子在别人的眼睛里看来，并没有大，似乎一天更比一天小似的。因为越瘦那孩子的眼睛就越大，只见眼睛大，不见身子大，看起来好像那孩子始终也没有长似的。那孩子好像是泥做的，而不是孩子了，两个月之后，和两个月之前，完全一样。两个月之前看见过那孩子，两个月之后再看见，也绝不会使人惊讶，时间是快的，大人虽不见老，孩子却一天一天地不同。

        看了冯歪嘴子的儿子，绝不会给人以时间上的观感。大人总喜欢在孩子的身上去触到时间，但是冯歪嘴子的儿子是不能给人这个满足的。因为两个月前看见过他那么大，两个月后看见他还是那么大。还不如去看后花园里的黄瓜，那黄瓜三月里下种，四月里爬蔓，五月里开花，五月末就吃大黄瓜。

        但是冯歪嘴子却不这样的看法，他看他的孩子是一天比一天大。

        大的孩子会拉着小驴到井边上去饮水了。小的会笑了，会拍手了，会摇头了。给他东西吃，他会伸手来拿。而且小牙也长出来了。

        微微地一咧嘴笑，那小白牙就露出来了。

    尾声

        呼兰河这小城里边，以前住着我的祖父，现在埋着我的祖父。

        我生的时候，祖父已经六十多岁了，我长到四五岁，祖父就快七十了。我还没有长到二十岁，祖父就七八十岁了。祖父一过了八十，祖父就死了。

        从前那后花园的主人，而今不见了。老主人死了，小主人逃荒去了。

        那园里的蝴蝶，蚂蚱，蜻蜓，也许还是年年仍旧，也许现在完全荒凉了。

        小黄瓜，大倭瓜，也许还是年年地种着，也许现在根本没有了。

        那早晨的露珠是不是还落在花盆架上，那午间的太阳是不是还照着那大向日葵，那黄昏时候的红霞是不是还会一会工夫会变出来一匹马来，一会工夫会变出来一匹狗来，那么变着。

        这一些不能想象了。

        听说有二伯死了。

        老厨子就是活着年纪也不小了。

        东邻西舍也都不知怎样了。

        至于那磨房里的磨倌，至今究竟如何，则完全不晓得了。

        以上我所写的并没有什么幽美的故事，只因它们充满我幼年的记忆，忘却不了，难以忘却，就记在这里了。

        1940年12月20日香港完稿。

  • 海德格尔：诗歌中的语言——对特拉克尔诗歌的一个探讨

    “探讨”在这里首先意味着：指示位置；然后也意味着：留意位置[海德格尔在此强调了动词“探讨”（erörtern）与名词“位置”（Ort）之间的字面及意义联系]。这两者——指示位置和留意位置——乃是探讨的准备步骤。可是，如果我们下面仅只满足于这两个准备步骤，我们也已经十分冒险了。适合于某条思想道路，我们的探讨结束于一个问题。它追问位置之所在。

    我们的探讨仅限于思索格奥尔格·特拉克尔的诗歌的位置。对于一个以历史学、生物学、精神分析学和社会学等学科热衷于赤裸裸的表达的时代来说，这样一种做法即使不是一条歧路，也始终有明显的片面性。而我们探讨所思索的是位置。

    “位置”（Ort）一词的原本意思是矛之尖端。一切汇合到这个尖端上。位置向自身聚集，入于至高至极。这种聚集力渗透、弥漫于一切之中。位置这种聚集力收集并且保存所收集的东西，但不是像一个封闭的豆荚那样进行收集和保存，而是洞照被聚集者，并因此才把被聚集者释放到它的本质之中。

    我们眼下的任务是探讨那样一个位置，这个位置把格奥尔格·特拉克尔的诗意道说聚集到他的诗歌那里——我们要探讨他的诗歌的位置。

    每个伟大的诗人都只于一首独一之诗来作诗。衡量其伟大的标准乃在于：诗人在何种程度上被托付给（anvertraut）[用（Brauch）-作者边注]这种独一性，从而能够把他的诗意道说纯粹地保持在其中。

    一个诗人的独一之诗始终是未被道出的。无论是他的任何一道具体诗作，还是具体诗作的总和，都没道说一切。可是，每一首诗作都是出于这首独一之诗的整体来说话的，并且每每都道说着这首独一之诗。从这首独一之诗的位置那里涌出一股泉流，它总是推动着诗意的道说。但是这股泉流并不离弃这首独一之诗的位置，它的涌出倒是让道说（Sage）的一切运动又流回到这个总是愈来愈隐蔽的源头之中。作为运动着的泉流之源泉，这首独一之诗的位置蕴藏着那个最初可能对形而上学和美学的表象活动显现为韵律的东西的隐蔽本质。

    因为这首独一之诗始终是未曾被道出的，所以，我们只能以下述方式来探讨它的位置：我们试图从具体诗作所说出发来指示这个位置。但为此，每一首具体诗作就已经需要一种解释了。这种解释使得那种在一切诗意地被道说的东西中闪光的纯粹性首度显露出来。

    我们不难看到，一种真正的解释已然要探讨为前提。惟出于这首独一之诗的位置，那些具体的诗作才得以闪亮、发声。反过来讲，一种对这首独一之诗的探讨首先就需要有一种对具体诗作的先行解释。

    与诗人的独一之诗所做的一切思想对话，始终保持在上面这种探讨与解释的交互关系中。

    与诗人的独一之诗的本真对话不外乎是诗意的对话：诗人之间的诗意对话。但也可能是——甚至有时必须是——思与诗的对话，这是因为两者与语言之间都有着一种突出的关系，尽管是各各不同的关系。

    思与诗的对话旨在把语言的本质召唤出来，以便终有一死的人能重新学会在语言中栖居。

    思与诗的对话何其漫长。它几乎尚未开始。对于格奥尔格·特拉克尔的独一之诗，此种对话需要有一种特别的节制。思与诗的对话只能间接地效力于这首独一之诗。因此，这种对话始终含着一个危险，那就是：它很可能扰乱了这首独一之诗的道说，而不是让它在其本己的安宁中歌唱。

    对这首独一之诗的探讨便是一种与诗的运思的对话。它既不是描绘一位诗人的世界观，也不是考察诗人的工作环境。首要地，对这首独一之诗的探讨绝不能取代对诗歌的倾听，甚至也不能指导对诗歌的倾听。此种思想探讨充其量只能使我们的倾听更可置疑，在最佳情形下，它也只能使我们的倾听更有深思熟虑的意味。

    念及这些局限，我们首先想指示出这首未曾被道出的独一之诗的位置。为此，我们必须以已经被道出的诗作为出发点。而问题依然在于：到底要从哪些诗作出发呢？尽管特拉克尔的每一首诗形式迥异，但它们概无例外地指向其独一之诗的位置。这就表明，他的全部诗作所具有的独特的和谐，是以其独一之诗的基调为根据的。

    然而，如果我们试图指示出其独一之诗的位置，则势必要从这位诗人的诗作中选出少量的段、行和句。如此就不可避免地造成一种假象，仿佛我们的做法是随意妄为的。而实际上，这种选择是有意图的。其意图就在于：几乎以一种跳跃式的目光把我们的注意力集中在其独一之诗的位置上。

    一

    特拉克尔诗作中的一首如是说：

    灵魂，大地上的异乡者。

    这个诗句让我们觉得突然置身于一个流俗的观念中了。依照这个流俗的观念，大地是稍纵即逝之物意义上的尘世的东西；反之，灵魂则被视为永恒的、超凡的东西。自柏拉图学说以降，灵魂就被归于超感性的领域。而如果灵魂出现在感性领域，那它只不过是往堕落其中了。在这里，“大地上”与灵魂是不合拍的。灵魂不属于大地。灵魂在此是一个“异乡者”（ein Fremdes）。身体乃是灵魂的牢笼，甚至是更糟糕的东西。所以，除了尽可能快地离开感性领域，灵魂似乎没有其他出路；而以柏拉图的方式来看，感性领域乃是非真实存在者，只不过腐败堕落者。

    然而多么奇怪！

    灵魂，大地上的异乡者。

    这个诗句竟然出自一首题为《灵魂之春》的诗作（第149—150页）[页码据奥托-米勒出版社（萨尔茨堡）出版的特拉克尔著作第一卷《诗歌》。这里用的是1948年第6版。由其友人卡尔•娄克编辑的诗全集首版于1917年，在库特-沃尔夫出版社（莱比锡）出版。新版（附生平和回忆材料）由K.奥维茨编辑，1946年在埃黑出版社（苏黎士）出版]。关于不朽灵魂的超凡家园，这首诗只字未提。我们要深思熟虑，并且最好关注一下这位诗人的语言。灵魂：“异乡者”。在其他诗作中，特拉克尔往往喜欢用另一些表达，诸如：“终有一死者”（第55页）、“阴暗者”（第78，170，177，195页）、“孤独者”（第78页）、“衰亡者”（第101页）、“病者”（第113，171页）、“人性者”（第114页）、“苍老者”（第138页）、“死者”（第171页）、“沉默者”（第196页）。撇开这些表达各自内容上的差异不论，它们的意义也不尽相同的。“孤独者”、“异乡者”可以指某种个别之物，它在任何情况下都是“孤独的”，偶然地，在一种特殊的、有限的角度来看是“异乡的”。这种“异乡者”可以归入一般异乡者的种类中。这样来看，灵魂或许就只是诸多异乡者情形中的一种情形而已。

    但何谓“异乡的”？人们通常把异乡理解为不熟悉的东西，让人不感兴趣的东西，更多地让人烦恼和不安的东西。不过，所谓“异乡的”（fremd），即古高地德语中的“fram”，根本上却意味着：往别处去，在去往……的途中，与此前保持的东西相悖。异乡者先行漫游。但它并不是毫无目的、漫无边际地乱走一气。异乡者在寻找之际走向一个它能够在其中保持为为漫游者的位置。“异乡者”几乎自己都不知道，它已经听从召唤，走在通向其本己家园的道路上了。

    这位诗人把灵魂命名为“大地上的异乡者”。灵魂之漫游迄今尚未能达到的地方，恰恰就是大地。灵魂首先寻找大地，并没有躲避大地。在漫游之际寻找大地，以便它能够在大地上诗意地筑造和栖居，并且因而才得以拯救大地之为大地——这就是灵魂之本质的实现。所以，灵魂绝非首先是灵魂，此外还由于无论何种原因而归于大地。相反，

    灵魂，大地上的异乡者。

    这个诗句却命名了那被叫做“灵魂”的东西的本质。这个诗句并不包含任何关于这个本质上已经熟知的灵魂的陈述，仿佛这里仅仅是要作一个补充，确定灵魂遭遇到了某种与之格格不入的、因而奇异的事情，即：它在大地上既找不到庇护之所，也得不到欢迎之辞。与之相反，就其本质的基本特征来看，灵魂之为灵魂乃是“大地上的异乡者”。所以，它始终在途中，并且在漫游中遵循着自己的本质形态。这当儿就有一个问题向我们逼来，那就是：上述意义上的“异乡者”的步伐被召唤到何方？《梦中的塞巴斯蒂安》一诗第三部分中的一节（第107页）给出了答案：

    噢，多么寂静的行进，顺着蓝色河流而下
    思索着那被遗忘的，此刻茵绿丛中
    画眉鸟召唤着异乡者走向没落。

    灵魂被唤向没落了。原来如此！灵魂要结束它在尘世的漫游，要离弃大地了。上面的诗句虽然并没有说这个话，但它们却说到了“没落”。确实如此。不过，这里所谓的没落既不是灾难，也不是颓败之中的单纯消隐。沿着蓝色河流而下者，

    它在安宁和沉默中没落。
    ——《美好的秋日》（第34页）

    在何种安宁中？在死者的安宁中。但那是何种死者？又是在何种沉默中呢？

    灵魂，大地上的异乡者。

    包含这个句子的诗句继续道：

    ……充满精灵，蓝光朦胧
    笼罩在莽莽丛林上……

    此前已经道出了太阳。异乡者的步伐迈入朦胧之中。“朦胧”首先意味着渐趋阴暗。“蓝光朦胧”。难道是晴日的蓝光趋于阴暗？难道是因为夜幕降临，蓝光在傍晚时分消失了？但“朦胧”不光是白日的没落，不光是指白日的光亮堕入黑暗之中。根本上，朦胧未必就意味着没落。晨光也朦胧。白昼随早晨升起。朦胧也是升起。蓝光朦胧，笼罩着荆棘丛生的“莽莽”丛林。夜的蓝光在傍晚时分升起。

    “充满精灵”，蓝光趋于朦胧。“精灵”（das Geistliche）表示朦胧的特证。这个多次提到的“精灵”一词的意思，是我们必须加以思量的。朦胧乃是太阳行程的尽头。这就意味着，朦胧既是白昼之末，也是年岁之末。一首题为《夏末》的诗作（第169页）的最后一节如是唱道：

    绿色的夏天变得如此轻柔，
    异乡人的足音
    响彻银色夜空。
    一只蓝色的兽怀念它的小路，
    怀念它那精灵之年的悦耳之声！

    特拉克尔的诗作中总是一再出现“如此轻柔”。我们认为，“轻柔”（leise）仅仅意味着：几乎听不到什么。在此意义上，“轻柔”之所指便与我们的表象活动相关。可是，“轻柔”也意味着缓慢；gelisian 意即“滑行”。轻柔之物就是滑离的东西。夏天滑入秋天，滑入年岁的傍晚。

    ……异乡人的足音
    响彻银色夜空。

    这个异乡人是谁呢？“一只蓝色的兽”所怀念的又是哪一条小路？怀念意味着：“思索那被遗忘的”，

    ……此刻在茵绿丛中
    画眉鸟召唤异乡者走向没落。（第107页，参看第34页）

    “一只蓝色的兽”（参阅第99，146页）何以能怀念那没落的东西呢？这只兽是从那道“充满精灵地趋于朦胧”、并且作为夜晚而升起的“蓝光”中获得它的蓝色的吗？尽管夜是阴暗的，但阴暗未必就是漆黑一片。在另一首诗中（第139页），诗人用下面这些话来召唤夜晚：

    哦，夜的温柔的蓝芙蓉花束。

    夜是一束蓝芙蓉花，一束温柔的蓝芙蓉花。依此，蓝色的兽也被叫作“羞怯的兽”（第104页），“温柔的动物”（第97页）。蓝光之花朵把神圣者（das Heilige）的深邃聚集在它的花束根部。神圣从蓝光本身而来熠熠生辉，但同时又被这蓝光本身的阴暗所掩蔽。神圣者抑制在自行隐匿之中。神圣在抑制性的隐匿中保存自己，由此赠予自己的到达。庇护在阴暗中的光亮乃是蓝光。那从寂静之庇所中召唤出来、因而自行澄亮的声响，原本就是光亮的，也即响亮的。蓝光鸣响，在其光亮中发出响声。在其响亮的光亮中，蓝光的阴暗熠熠生辉。

    异乡人的足音响彻发出银色闪光和音响的夜空。诗人的另一首诗（第104页）唱道：

    而在神圣的蓝光中，闪光的步伐继续作响。

    另一处（第110页）也谈到蓝光：

    ……蓝色花朵的神圣者……感动了赏花人。

    另一首诗说道（第85页）：

    ……一张动物的脸孔
    惊呆于蓝光，惊呆于蓝光的神圣。

    蓝色并不是对神圣之意义的比喻。蓝光本身就是神圣者，因为蓝光具有聚集着的、在掩蔽中才闪现出来的深邃。面对蓝光，同时又被这种纯粹的蓝光所攫住，动物的脸孔惊呆了，转变为野兽的相貌。

    动物脸孔的木然惊呆并不是一张枯死者的僵固。在这种木然惊呆中，动物的脸孔收缩起来。它的样子聚精会神，为的是有所克制地直面神圣者，观入“真理的镜子”（第85页）。观看说的是：进入沉默之中。

    石头中的沉默多么巨大。

    这是紧接着的一个诗句。石头是痛苦的山脉[此处“山脉”原文为 das Ge-birge。海德格尔在此似要强调它与下文的“庇藏、庇护”（bergen）的字面和意义联系。-译注]。岩石把镇静力量聚集起来，庇藏在石块中；作为镇静之力，痛苦静默出入于其本质要素中。“在蓝光面前”，痛苦沉默了。面对蓝光，野兽的相貌收敛起来了，变得温柔了。因为按照字面来讲，温柔乃是安静地聚敛着的东西。温柔克服了暴虐和酷烈的野蛮，使之进入平静了的痛苦之中，从而改变了不和。

    谁是诗人所召唤的蓝色的兽？它倒是怀念着异乡人？它是一个动物么？当然啰！而仅仅是一个动物吗？绝不是。因为，它是要怀念的。它的脸是要守望什么，向着异乡人观望。蓝色的兽是一个动物，其动物性也许并不在于它的动物本色，而在于诗人所召唤的那种有所观看的怀念。这种动物性还是渺远的，几乎不可观察。因此，这里所指的动物的动物性是动摇不定的。它尚未被引入自己的本质之中。这个动物，思维的动物，animal rationale[理性的动物]，亦即人，用尼采的话来说，是尚未确定的。

    这一说法的意思绝不是：人尚未“被断定”为事实。人只是太过明确地被断定了。这话的意思是：人这个动物的动物性尚未被带入固定，也即尚未被“带回家”，尚未被带入其隐蔽本质的居所之中。柏拉图以降的西方-欧洲形而上学都在争夺这种确定。也许形而上学的争取是徒劳的。也许它进入“途中”的道路是死路一条。这个其本质尚未确定的动物就是现代人。

    在“蓝色的兽”这个诗意名字中，特拉克尔召唤着那种人之本质（Menschenwesen），后者的相貌，即脸孔，在对异乡者的足音的思念中被夜的蓝光所洞见，并且因此就为神圣者所照亮。“蓝色的兽”这个名称是指终有一死者，那些怀念异乡人并且想随异乡人漫游到人之本质家园中去的终有一死者。

    开始作这样一种漫游的是谁呢？如果说本质性的东西在寂静中突兀而稀罕地发生，那么，开始作这种漫游的也许就是少数无名者。在《冬夜》（第126页）一诗中，这位诗人提到这些漫游者[参看本书第一篇文章对特拉克尔《冬夜》一诗的探讨。——译注]。这首诗的第二节开头如下：

    只有少量漫游者
    从幽暗路径走向大门。

    蓝色的兽，无论它在何时何地成其本质，都离弃了以往的人的本质形态。以往的人沉沦了，因为他丧失了自己的本质，也就是说，他腐朽了。

    特拉克尔把他的一首诗命名为《死亡七唱》。七是一个神圣的数字。这诗咏唱死亡的神圣。在这里，死亡并没有不确定地、泛泛地看作尘世生命的完结。“死亡”在此诗意地指那种“没落”，就是“异乡者”已经被召唤入其中的那种“没落”。因此之故，如此这般被召唤的异乡者也被叫做“死者”（第146页）。他的死亡并不是颓败腐朽，而是离弃人的腐朽的形象。所以《死亡七唱》（第142页）一诗的倒数第二节说：

    哦，人的腐朽形象：
    充满冰冷的金屋，
    暗夜和颓朽森林的恐怖
    还有那动物的酷烈野性；
    灵魂的寂静无风。

    人的腐朽形象听任酷烈的折磨和荆棘的刺扎。它的野性并没有为蓝光所照耀。这个人之形象的灵魂没有领受神圣者之风。因此它没有行驶。风本身，即上帝之风，因此依然是孤独的。有一首诗命名了蓝色的兽，但后者几乎不能从“荆棘丛中”脱身；这首诗的结尾几行如下（第99页）：

    在黑色的墙旁
    始终鸣响着上帝的孤独的风。

    所谓“始终”意思是：只要年岁及其太阳运行依然停留在冬天的阴郁中，并且还没有人走向那条小路，即异乡人在上面发出响彻夜空的足音的那条小路。这黑夜本身只是对太阳运行的庇护的掩蔽。[行、走”（Gehen），希腊文的ίέναι（动词είμι的不定式），在印欧语系中叫做ier-，就是年岁]

    一只蓝色的兽怀念它的小路，
    怀念它那精灵之年的悦耳之声！
    年岁的精灵特性取决于黑夜的精灵般朦胧的蓝光。
    ……哦，朦胧之雅桑特的相貌多么严肃。[雅桑特（Hyazinthe）：希腊神话中阿波罗神的爱人]《途中》第102页

    精灵的朦胧具有如此重要的本质，以至于这位诗人专门把自己的一首诗冠以《精灵的朦胧》的标题（第137页）。在这首诗中也出现了兽，却是一只阴暗的兽。它的兽性既是走向昏暗，又是趋向那寂静的蓝光。这当这儿，诗人本身在“滚滚乌云上”驶入“夜的池塘”，驶入“那星空”。

    这首诗如下：

    《精灵的朦胧》​
    在森林边缘，有一只黑暗的兽
    悄无声息地出现；
    晚风在山丘上款款伫息。
    山鸟的悲啾归于沉寂，
    温柔的秋笛
    也在苇管中沉默。
    在滚滚乌云上空，
    罂粟使你陶醉，
    你驶入夜的池塘，
    驶入那星空。
    姐妹的冷月般的声音，
    始终在精灵之夜回响。

    星空在夜的池塘这一诗意形象中得到了表现。这是我们的习以为常的看法。但就其本质之真相来说，夜空就是这个池塘。相反地，我们通常所谓的夜，毋宁说只是一个形象，亦即对夜之本质的苍白而空洞的余象。在位诗人的诗歌中常常出现池塘和池塘水面。那时而黑色时而蓝色的池水向人们显示出它的本来面貌，它的反光。但在星空的夜的池塘中，却显现出精灵之夜的朦胧蓝光。它的闪光是清冷的。

    这道清冷的光来自月亮女神（δελάυυα）的照耀。正如古希腊诗歌所说的，在她的光芒照映下，群星变得苍白，甚至变得清冷。一切都变成“冷月般的”。那个穿过黑夜的异乡者被称为“冷月般的人”（第134页）。姐妹“冷月般的声音”始终在精灵之夜回响着。当兄弟坐在他那依然“黑色的”、几乎没有受到异乡人的金光照耀的小船上，企图跟随异乡人那驶向夜的池塘的行程的时，他便听到了姐妹“冷月般的声音”。

    如果终有一死的人要跟随那被召唤而走向没落的“异乡者”去漫游，那么，他们自己也就进入异乡，他们自己就会成为异乡人和孤独者（第64、87页等）。

    惟有通过在夜的星池（即大地之上的天空）中的行驶，灵魂才经验到浸润于“清冷的汁液”中的大地（第126页）[此处“经验”被书作er-fähren，意在强调与句中“行驶”（Fahrt）的联系]。灵魂滑入了精灵之年的暮色朦胧的蓝光中。它变成“秋日的灵魂”，并且作为“秋日的灵魂”，它变成“蓝色的灵魂”。

    我们眼下提到的少数几个段落和诗句指向精灵的朦胧，引向异乡人的小路，显示那些怀念异乡人、并且跟随他走向没落的人们的方式和行程。在“夏末”时分，漫游中的异乡者变得秋天一般，变得阴暗模糊。

    特拉克尔把他的一首诗命名为《秋魂》，这首诗的倒数第二段唱道（第124页）：

    鱼和兽倏忽游移。
    蓝色的灵魂，阴暗的漫游，
    很快使我们与爱人，与他人分离。
    傍晚变换着意义和形象。

    跟随异乡人的漫游者很快就发现他们与“爱人”相分离，“爱人”对他们来说就是“他人”。他人——这是人的腐朽形象的类型。

    我们的语言把这种带有某个类型特征、并且为这个类型所规定的人称为“种类”（Geschlecht）。“种类”这个词既意味着人类意义上的人种，又意味着种族、民族和家族意义上的族类——所有这些族类又体现着种类的双重性。诗人把人的“腐朽形象”的种类称为“腐朽的种类”（第186页）。它是一个离开其本质方式的种类，因而是“被废黜的”（第162页）的种类。

    这个种类受到了何种伐咒？伐咒（Fluch）在希腊语中叫πληγή，即德语中的“Schlag”[德语中的Schlag 既有“打击”之意，又有“类型”之意。大概依海德格尔之见，诗人特拉克尔一方面揭示了“腐朽的种类”，另一方面又期待着“真正的类型”]。对这个腐朽种类的伐咒在于：这个古老的种类已经分裂为诸族类的相互倾轧。每个族类都力求摆脱这种倾轧而进入野兽的各各不同的、彻头彻尾的兽性状态所具有的未得释放的骚动中。双重性（das Zwiefache）本身并不是伐咒，相反，伐咒乃是那种倾轧。这种倾轧出于盲目的兽性之骚动而把这个种类分裂为二，并因此把它变成一盘散沙。于是，这个被分裂、被粉碎的“衰败的种类”自己再也找不到它真正的类型（Schlag）。真正的类型只与那个种类相随，后者的双重性摆脱了倾轧，并且先行漫游到某个单纯的二重性（Zwiefalt）的温和之中，也就是说，它是某个“异乡者”并且跟随着异乡人。

    在与那个异乡人相比，腐朽的种类的所有后裔都不外乎是他人。但他们也获得了热爱和尊敬。不过，那种追随异乡人的阴暗漫游却把他们带入其夜的蓝光之中。漫游的灵魂逐渐变成“蓝色的灵魂”。

    但同时，这灵魂也离去。去往何处？去那个异乡人所去的地方。有进修，诗人仅仅用一个指示代词把这个异乡人称为“那人”(Jener）。“那人”在古语言中叫“ener”，意即“他人”。所谓“Enert dem Bach”就是小溪的另一边。“那人”，即异乡人，就是对于那些他人（即对于腐朽的种类）而言的他人。那人是被召唤离开那些他人的人。异乡人乃是是孤寂者。[此处“孤寂者”被写作 der Ab-geschiedene，按字面直译就是“离去者”，故可承接上文的解说]

    这样一个本身接受了异乡者之本质（即先行漫游）的人被引向了何方？异乡者被召唤到何方了？到没落中去。没落就是自行沦丧于蓝光的精灵的朦胧中。它发生在精灵之年的末日。如果说这样一种未日必须经历将至的冬天的摧毁，必须经历十一月，那么，那种自行沦丧却并不意味着被废除，崩落于动摇不定，沦于毁灭。按其词义来看，自行沦丧倒是意味着：自行解脱和缓慢地滑离。虽然自行沦丧者在十一月的摧毁中消隐，但它绝不进入十一月的摧毁之中。它经历这种摧毁过程，滑离它，进入蓝光的精灵般的朦胧之中，滑向“晚间”，也即傍晚时分。

    晚间，异乡人在黑暗的十一月的摧毁中自行沦丧，
    在腐烂的树枝间，沿着颓败的城墙，
    神圣的兄弟先前来过的地方，
    异乡人沉醉于他的疯狂的温柔弹奏中。
    ——《海利安》第87页。

    傍晚乃精灵之年的尾声。傍晚完成一种变换。这个趋向精灵的傍晚使我们去直观另一个东西，去沉思另一个东西。

    傍晚变换着意义和形象。（第124页）

    诗人们道说闪现者（das Scheinende）的外观（形象）；闪现者通过这个傍晚不同地显现出来。思想者沉思本质现身者（das Wesende）的不可见性；本质现身者通过这个傍晚而达乎不同的词语。从不同的形象和不同的意义而来，傍晚改变着诗和思的道说（Sage）以及它们之间的对话。但傍晚之所以能这样做，只是因为它本身亦有所变换。白天通过傍晚而趋向一个末端，但这个末端并不是结束，而仅仅是趋向没落，由于这种没落，异乡人便开始了他的漫游。傍晚变换着它自身的形象和意义。在这种变换中，隐蔽着一种对以往的日和年的运作秩序的告别。

    然而，这傍晚要把蓝色的灵魂的阴暗漫游引向何方呢？引向一切都在其中以另一种方式得到汇聚、庇护，并且为另一种升起而得以保藏起来的那个地方。

    前面所举的段落和诗句向我们指示出一种聚集，也即把我们引向一个位置。这是何种位置呢？我们当如何命名之？当然应根据诗人的语言来命名。格奥尔格·特拉克尔的诗作的一切道说始终聚集在漫游的异乡人上。这个异乡人是“孤寂者”，并且也的确被称为“孤寂者”（第177页）。贯穿并且围绕着这个异乡人，诗意的道说乃以一首独一之歌（Gesang）为基调。由于这位诗人的诗作聚集于孤寂者之歌中，所以，我们把它那首独一之诗的位置命名为“孤寂”（die Abgeschiedenheit）。

    现在，我们的探讨必须深入到第二步，尝试对前面只还约略指示的那个位置作更清晰的考察。

    二

    能不能把上文所说的孤寂特别地带到我们的心灵的目光面前，并且把它当作那首独一之诗的位置来加以沉思呢？如若竟可以，那么只能这样来做，即我们现在要以更为明亮的眼睛来追踪异乡人的小路，并且要追问：谁是这个孤寂者？他的小路上的风光如何？

    他的小路通过夜的蓝光。映照着他的步伐的光是清冷的。有一首专门写“孤寂者”的诗的结尾指出了“孤寂者月光般清冷的小路”（第178页）。对我们来说，孤寂者也就是死者。但这个异乡人死于何种死亡呢？在《赞歌》（第62页）一诗中，特拉克尔说：

    癫狂者已经死去。
    接着一节说道：
    人们埋葬了异乡者。

    在《死亡七唱》中，他被称为“白色的异乡人”。《赞歌》一诗的最后一节说：

    白色的魔术师在其墓穴中玩耍他的蛇。（第65页）

    这个死者生活在他的墓穴中。他在自己的小屋里生活，如此寂然而出神，竟至于玩耍着他的蛇。蛇们伤害不了他。蛇们并没有被扼杀，但它们的凶恶已经被改变了。与此相反，《被诅咒者》一诗（第120页）却说：

    一窝猩红色的蛇懒散地
    盘踞在它们被翻掘开来的窠中。（参看第161，164页）

    这个死者是狂人。这里的狂人是指神经病人吗？不是的。癫狂（Wahnsinn）并不意味着一个充满痴心妄想的心智。“Wahn”出自古高地德语中的wana，意思是：没有（Ohne）。狂人思索着，甚至无人像他那样思索。但他总是没有其它人那样的心智（Sinn）。他有别一种心智，“Sinnan”原本意味着：旅行、追求……选择某个方向；印欧语系中的词根sent和set意味着道路。这个孤寂者乃是狂人，因为他正在通向它方的途中。从这个它方而来，他的癫狂可以被称为“温柔的”癫狂；因为他的思索追踪着一种更寂静的东西。有一首诗干脆把异乡人当作“那人”即他人来谈论，其中唱道：

    但那人走下僧山的石阶，
    面露蓝色的微笑，奇怪地
    被裹入他的更寂静的童年中死去；

    这首诗的标题叫《致一个早逝者》（第135页）。孤寂者早早地死去了。因此，他是“一具柔软的尸体”（第105，146页等），被裹入那个更寂静地保藏着一切野性之烈焰的童年中。于是，这个早逝者显现为“清冷的阴暗形象”。关于这个形象，一首题为《僧山脚下》的诗唱道（第113页）：

    清冷的阴暗形象与漫游者形影相随
    在那骨制的小桥上，少年的雅桑特般的声音，
    轻轻地诉说着那被遗忘的森林的传说……

    “冷冷的阴暗形象”不是跟在漫游者后面。它先行于漫游者，因为少年的蓝色声音召回那被遗忘的东西，并且先行道出中那被遗忘的东西。

    这个早逝的少年是谁呢？这个少年，他的
    ……额头静静地流血
    古老的传说
    和飞鸟的阴暗迹象？（第97页）

    这个在骨制小桥上的行者是谁呢？诗人这样召唤着他：

    哦，爱利斯，你逝去已有多久。

    爱利斯（Elis）就是被唤向没落的异乡人。爱利斯绝不是特拉克尔用来意指自己的一个形象。爱利斯与这位诗人有本质性区别的，犹如思想家尼采与查拉图斯特拉这个形象之间的区别。但这两个形象有一点是一致的，即它们的本质和漫游都始于没落。爱利斯的没落是进入古老的早先（die Frühe），这个早先比已经衰老的腐朽的种类要更古老，之所以更古老，是因为它更能深思熟虑；而之所以更能深思熟虑，是因为它更寂静；之所以更寂静，是因为它更能镇静自身。

    在少年爱利斯的形象中，少年并不是与少女相对立的。少年是更寂静的童年的表现。童年在自身中庇护和储存着种类的柔和的二重性（Zwiefalt），即少男和“金色的少女形象”（第179页）的二重性。

    爱利斯不是一个在衰亡者后期腐朽的死者。爱利斯是一个在早先中失去本质的死者。这个异乡人先行把人之本质展开到那个最初开端中，即尚未被孕育（古高地德语的 giberan）的东西的最初开端。在终有一死者的人的本质中那个更寂静、因而更有镇静作用的未受孕育者，诗人称之为未出生者。

    这个早逝的异乡人就是未出生者。“未出生者”与“异乡者”这两个名称说的是同一个东西。在《晴朗的春天》一诗中有这样一个诗句（第26页）：

    未出生者照拂他自己的安宁

    未出生者守护并且维持着更寂静的童年，使之进入将来的人类的苏醒之中。如此安宁地，这个早逝者还活着。孤寂者并不是衰亡者意义上的死者。相反，孤寂者倒是先行观入精灵之夜的蓝光。白色的眼睑照管着他的观看，它们在新娘的首饰中熠熠闪光（第150页），这首饰允诺种类的更柔和的二重性。

    在死者白色的眼睑上，桃金娘花静静地开放。

    这个诗句与下面这一句出于同一首诗：

    灵魂，大地上的异乡者。

    上面两个诗句是紧挨着的。“死者”就是孤寂者、异乡者、未出生者。
    但还有

    ……未出生者的小路
    绕过幽暗的村庄旁，
    绕过孤独的夏天向前伸展。
    ——《时辰之歌》（第101页）

    未出生者的道路从那个没有把他当作客人来接待的地方绕了过去，而已经不再穿越那地方了。尽管孤寂者的行程也是孤独的，但这乃是由于“夜的池塘，那星空”的孤独特性。狂人不是在“滚滚乌云”上驶入这个池塘，而是在金色小船中驶入这个池塘。这个金色是怎么回事？《林中角落》（第33页）一诗以如下诗句来回答：

    温柔的癫狂也常常看到金色、真实。

    异乡人的小路穿越“精灵之年”，“精灵之年”的日子往往都被转向了真实的开端，并且为这一开端所支配，这就是说，它们是公正的。异乡人的灵魂的年岁就聚集在这种公正之中。

    哦，爱利斯，你的所有日子是多么公正！

    《爱利斯》一诗如是唱道（第98页）。这一呼声只不过是我们前面已听到过的另一个召唤的回声：

    哦，爱利斯，你逝去已有多久。

    异乡人进入其中而逝去的那个早先（die Frühe）庇藏着未出生者的本质公正性。这个早先乃是一种特殊的时间，是“精灵之年”的时间。特拉克尔把他的一首诗质朴地冠以《年》的标题（第170页）。这首诗开头说：“童年阴暗的寂静”。与这种阴暗的寂静相对，更明亮的童年——因为它是更寂静的童年，因而是另一个童年——乃是孤寂者在其中没落的早先。这首诗的最后一行把这个更寂静的童年命名为开端：

    开端的金色眼睛，终结的阴暗耐力。

    在这里，终结并不是开端的结果和余响。终结作为腐朽的种类的终结要先行于未出生种类的开端。但这个开端作为更早的早先已经超越了终结。

    这个早先保存着时间始终还被掩蔽的原始本质。只消那种自亚里土多德以降普遍地还起决定作用的时间观依然生效，那么，当今占上风的思想就一如既往地不能认识时间的原始本质。根据传统时间观，无论我们在机械的或动力学的角度，还是从原子裂变的角度来表象时间，时间都是对先后相继的绵延的量或质的计算之维度。

    然而，真实的时间乃是曾在者之到达（Ankunft des Gewesenen）。曾在者并不是过去之物，而是本质现身者的聚集；[此处“曾在者”（das Gewesene）是发生性的，与“本质现身”（wesen）、“本质现身者”（das Wesende）相关，而“过去之物”（das Vergangene）则是流俗时间观所见的流逝之物。-译注]这种聚集先行于一切到达，因为它作为这样一种聚集返回去把自身庇护入它向来更早的早先之中。与终结和完成相应的是“阴暗的耐力”。这种耐力把遮蔽的东西带到它的真理面前。它的忍耐把一切都带向那种向精灵之夜的蓝光的没落之中。但与开端相应的却是一种观看和思索，后者金光闪闪，因为它为“金色、真实”所照耀。当爱利斯在其行程中对夜晚洞开心扉时，这种“金色、真实”便映现于夜的星池中（第98页）：

    一只金色的小船，爱利斯，
    它把你的心荡向孤独的天空。

    异乡人的小船颠簸不已，但那是游戏的，并不像早先的那些仅仅与异乡人亦步亦趋的后代所乘的小船那样“胆怯”（第200页）。他们的小船尚未达到池塘水面的高度。它沉没了。但在何处沉没？在衰败中沉没吗？不是的。它沉到哪里去了？沉入空洞的虚无中吗？绝对不是的。特拉克尔的一首题为《哀怨》（第200页）的后期诗作结尾如下：

    深深的忧伤的姐妹
    望着那艘胆怯的小船
    沉没在群星之中
    在夜的沉默的面貌中。

    这种由群星的闪烁所映照的夜的沉默庇藏着什么呢？与这一夜本身相随的沉默属于何方呢？属于孤寂。这种孤寂不止于少年爱利斯生活在其中的状态，即不止于死亡状态。

    孤寂包含着：更寂静的童年的早先，蓝色的夜，异乡人的夜间小路，灵魂在夜间的飞翔，甚至作为沉落之门的朦胧。

    孤寂把所有这些共属一体的东西聚集起来，但此种聚集并不是事后追加的，而是这样，即：孤寂把自身展开到共属一体的东西的已经运作着的聚集之中。

    诗人把朦胧、夜、异乡人的年岁和小路都命名为“精灵的”（geistlich）。孤寂是“精灵的”。这个词意指什么？它的含义和用法都是古老的。所谓“精灵的”，说的就是某种精神意义上的东西，某种源自精神并且服从精神之本质的东西。如今流行的语言用法把“精灵的”一词限制在与“圣事”、与僧侣秩序及其教会的关系中。当特拉克尔写《在明井里》（第191页）时，他似乎也是指上面这种关系的——至少乍听之下是这样的。这首诗说：

    ……于是，在死亡者的被遗忘的小路上，
    橡树披上一层精灵的绿色。

    诗人此前提到“主教的身影，贵妇的身影”，提到那仿佛在“春天的池塘”上才晃动的“早逝者的身影”。但是，当这位在此又唱着“傍晚的蓝色衰怨”的诗人说橡树“披上一层精灵的绿色”时，他所想到的并不是“僧侣”（Geistlichkeit）。他想到的是久已逝去者的早先，这个早先允诺“灵魂之春”的到来。时间上更早的诗作《精灵之歌》（第20页）唱的无非也是这些内容，尽管更含蓄，更有试探性。这首《精灵之歌》具有一种罕见的歧义性，个中的精神在最后一节中得到了相当清晰的表达：

    古老的石头旁有个乞丐
    仿佛已在祈祷中死去，
    牧人款款地离开山丘，
    树林中有一位天使在歌唱，
    在树林近处，
    孩子们进入了梦乡。

    但是，即使“精灵的”（Geistliche）一词对这位诗人来说并没有僧侣方面的意思，他也完全可以把与精神有关的东西称为“精神的”，完全可以说精神的朦胧，精神的夜。为什么他避而不用“精神的”（geistig）这个词呢？因为“精神的”意指物质的对立面。这种对立表现为两个领域之间的差异性，并且指示着——用柏拉图主义的西方语言来讲——超感性之物（νοητόν）与感性之物（αίσθητόν）之间的鸿沟。

    这样理解的精神性的东西后来也就成了理性、理智和思想；它连同它的对立面一并归于那个腐朽的种类的世界观。但是，“蓝色的灵魂”的“阴暗漫游”却离开了这个腐朽的种类。异乡者进入其中而没落的那个夜的朦胧，以及异乡人的小路，几乎不能被叫做“精神的”。孤寂是精灵的，是由精神所规定的，但并不是在形而上学意义上“精神的”。[这里出现的“geistlich”和“geistig”两词，都是从名词“精神”（Geist）衍生出来的形容词，在日常德语中难以把这两个词区分开来。根据海德格尔这里的解说，geistlich是与非传统形而上学意义上的“精神”（如特拉克尔所思的“精神”）相合的，译为“精灵的”；而 geistig 则仍译为“精神的”，与传统形而上学意义上的“精神”（与“物质”对立的“精神”）相合]

    但什么是精神呢？在其最后一首诗作《格罗德克）中，特拉克尔谈到“精神之炽热火焰”（第201页）。精神是火焰，而且也许只有作为火焰，精神才是一个飘扬的东西。特拉克尔首先不是把精神理解为圣灵（Pneuma），理解为心智，而是把它理解为火焰，熊熊燃烧、奋力向上、不断运动、变化不息的火焰。火焰是炽热的闪光。燃烧乃是出离自身（das Außer－sich），它照亮并且让它物闪闪发光，但同时也能不断地吞噬，使一切都化为白色的灰烬。

    “火焰是最苍白者的兄弟”，这是《恶之转变》（第129页）一诗中的诗句。特拉克尔根据原始意义上的“精神”一词所命名的那个本质来观照“精神”；因为 gheis 就意味着：发怒的、惊恐的、出离自身。

    如此这般被理解的精神在既温柔而毁灭性的状态的可能性中成其本质。所谓温柔绝不阻止燃烧的东西出离自身，而是把它聚集起来，并把它保持在友好之物的安宁中。毁灭性来自放纵无度的东西，后者在自己的骚动中耗尽自身，并且因此来从事恶端。恶始终是精神之恶。恶及其恶性并不是感性的东西、质料性的东西。恶也不只具有“精神的”本性。恶是精灵的，因为它是惊恐者的炽热眩目的骚动；这种惊恐者把一切置于不妙之物（das Unheile）的涣散状态中，并且有把聚集起来的温柔之绽放付之一炬的危险。

    但温柔之聚集力量何在？什么是它的约束？何种精神能驾驭它？人之本质如何是“精灵的”，如何成为“精灵的”？

    因为精神之本质在于燃烧，所以精神开辟了道路，照亮了道路，并且上了路。作为火焰，精神乃是“涌向天空”并且“追逐上帝”的狂飙（第187页）。精神驱动灵魂上路，使灵魂先行漫游。精神置身于异乡者之中。“灵魂，大地上的异乡者”。精神是灵魂的馈赠者。精神是灵魂的赋予者。但反过来，灵魂也守护着精神；而且这种守护是根本性的，以至于要是没有灵魂的话，精神也许永远不可能成其为精神。灵魂“养育”精神。以何种方式呢？要不是灵魂把它的本质所特有的火焰交精神支配，此外又能如何呢？这火焰乃是忧郁之迸发，是“孤独灵魂的温厚”（第55页）。

    孤独并不在一切单纯的被离弃状态所蒙受的那种散乱中成为零星个别的。孤独把灵魂带向惟一者，把灵魂聚集为一，并且因此使灵魂之本质开始漫游。作为孤独的灵魂，灵魂乃是漫游者。它的内心的热情必须承荷沉重的命运去漫游——于是就把灵魂带向精神。

    你的火焰赋予精神以炽热的忧郁；

    这是《致启明星》一诗的开头。致启明星也就是致一个投下恶之阴影的发光体（《遗著》，萨尔茨堡版，第14页）。

    只有当灵魂在漫游中深入到它自己的本质——它的漫游本质——的最广大范围中时，灵魂的忧郁才炽热地燃烧。当灵魂直面蓝光的面孔并且观看到这蓝光的闪现时，上面的情形就发生了。如此这般观看之际，灵魂便是“伟大的灵魂”。

    哦，痛苦，你是伟大的灵魂的
    燃烧着的观看！
    ——《暴风雨》（第183页）

    衡量灵魂之伟大的尺度是：它如何能做到这种燃烧着的观看——灵魂由于这种观看而在痛苦中变得游刃有余。痛苦之本质乃是自身逆反的。

    痛苦在“燃烧”之际不断撕开。痛苦的撕扯力量把漫游的灵魂标画入那种裂缝（die Fuge）中。即涌向天空的狂飙和寻索上帝的追逐的裂缝中。如此看来，这种撕扯力量似乎就征服了它撕开的一切，而没有让后者在掩蔽性的光芒中起支配作用。

    可是，“观看”却能够做到后面这一点。观看并没有熄灭燃烧着的撕扯，而是把它嵌回到有所直观的接受活动中可驾驭的东西之中。观看乃是痛苦中的回扯（Rückriß），而痛苦则因此获得缓解，并据此达到它的揭蔽着一护送着的运作。

    精神是火焰。这火焰灼灼闪光。它的闪光发生在观看的目光中。闪现者之到达向这样一种观看发生出来，一切本质现身者就在其中在场。这种燃烧着的观看就是痛苦。这里，任何从感觉方面来想象痛苦的做法都无法理解痛苦的本质。燃烧着的观看决定了灵魂的伟大。

    作为痛苦，给出“伟大的灵魂”的精神乃是灵魂的赋予者。但如此被赋予的灵魂却是生命的赋予者。正因此，所有按灵魂的意义来看活着的东西，都贯穿着灵魂之本质的基本特征，贯穿着痛苦。凡有生者，皆痛苦。

    惟有富于灵魂的活物才能够实现自己的本质规定性。借助于这种能力，它便适宜于相互承受的和谐；一切生命体由此得以共属一体。依照这种适宜关联来看，一切活物都是适宜的，即善的。但这种善是痛苦地善的。

    与伟大的灵魂的基本特征相符合，一切秉有灵魂的东西都不仅仅是痛苦地善的，而且惟一地以这种方式同样也是真的；因为，根据痛苦的对立性，生活者能够在遮蔽其具备各自特性的共同在场者之际也把它揭示出来，让它真实地（wahr-haft）存在。

    在一首诗的最后一节的开头，诗人写道（第26页）：

    活着是如此痛苦地善和真；

    人们或许会认为，这句诗仅仅对痛苦稍有触及而已。实际上，它引发了整节诗的道说，这节诗的基调始终是痛苦之沉默。为了倾听这节诗，我们既不可忽略诗人用心安排的那些标点符号，更不能改动它们。这节诗接着说：

    一块古老石头轻柔地触摸着你：

    这里又响起了“轻柔地”一词，它总是把我们引向本质性的关联。这里又出现了“石头”一词，倘若这里允许作一种计算，这个词在特拉克尔的诗中大约出现过三十多次。石头中隐藏着痛苦，痛苦在石化之际自行保藏到岩石之锁闭状态中；在岩石之显现中，闪现着那从最早的早先（die früheste Frühe）的寂静光辉而来的古老渊源；而这个最早的早先作为先行的开端走向一切生成者、漫游者，并且把后者带向其本质的永远不可赶超的到达。

    古老的岩石就是痛苦本身，因为这痛苦趋向大地，关注着终有一死的人。这句诗结尾的“石头”一词之后是一个冒号。这个冒号表明，在此是石头在说话。痛苦本身有话可说。在久久地沉默之唇，痛苦对跟随异乡人的漫游者所说的，无非是它自己的支配作用和持续：

    真的！我将永远伴随你们。

    对于痛苦的这句话，那些聆听早逝者进入树丛的漫游者接着以下面这行诗来回答：

    哦，嘴！颤抖着透过白杨树的嘴。

    整节诗与另一首诗《致一个早逝者》（第135页）的第二节的结尾相吻合：

    花园里留下了朋友的银色面容，
    在落叶或古老的石头中倾听。

    这节诗开头一句：

    活着是如此痛苦地善和真；

    也正好与《致一个早逝者》第三部分的开头相呼应：

    所有生成者却显得如此病弱！

    被困扰、受阻碍、不幸和无救——沉沦者的所有困苦实际上只是一些表面现象，其中隐藏着“真实的东西”，即：贯穿一切的痛苦。因此，痛苦既不是可恶的，也不是有益的。痛苦是一切本质现身者之本质的恩惠（Gunst）。它的逆反本质的纯一性决定着一切从遮蔽的最早的早先而来的生成，并且使之谐调于伟大灵魂的明朗。

    活着是如此痛苦的善和真；
    一块古老的石头轻柔地触摸着你：
    真的！我将永远伴随你们。
    哦，嘴！颤抖着透过白杨树的嘴。

    这节诗是纯粹的痛苦之歌，它的歌唱使这首由三个部分组成的题为《明朗的春天》的诗得以完成。一切开端性的本质所具有的最早的早先之明朗从那遮蔽着的痛苦之寂静中突现出来。

    通常的表象思维容易把痛苦的逆反本质——即它只在向后撕扯之际才真正向前撕扯——看作是背谬的。但是，在此表面现象中隐藏着痛苦之本质纯一性（die Wesenseinfalt）。这种本质纯一性在观看之际最内在地持守自身，同时在燃烧中承荷最广。

    所以，作为伟大灵魂的基本特征，痛苦始终与蓝光之神圣性保持着纯粹的应合。因为通过退隐到它本己的深处，蓝光照亮了灵魂的面容。神圣成其本质，一向只是通过保持在这种退隐（Entzug）之中并且把观看转向适恰的东西，这当儿，神圣才得以持续。[“神圣者”（das Heilige）一词在海德格尔那里有独特的意义，它高于一般意义上的“神性”（Gottlichkeit）和“神”（Gott）。海德格尔尤其对荷尔德林的“神圣者”作过深入的思索，思之为“存在本身”或“大道”本身。可参看海德格尔：《荷尔德林的阐释》，《全集》第四卷，美茵法兰克福 1996年]

    痛苦的本质，痛苦与蓝光的被遮蔽的关联，在一首题为《美化》（第144页）的诗作的最后一节中得到了表达：

    蓝色的花，
    在雕零的岩石中轻柔地鸣响。

    “蓝色的花”乃是精灵之夜的“温柔的蓝芙蓉花束”。这些诗句唱出了特拉克尔的诗作由之而来的那个源泉。它们结束同时也承载着《美化》一诗。这首歌（Gesang）乃是歌曲、悲剧和史诗集于一体。在特拉克尔的所有的诗作中，这首诗是独一的，因为在这首诗中，看的广度、思的深度和说的纯朴以一种不可言传的方式亲密而永久地闪现出来。

    只有当痛苦为精神效力时，它才真的是痛苦。特拉克尔写的最后一首诗叫《格罗德克》。人们把它当作一首战争诗来加以称颂。但它并非战争诗，它远远超出了战争诗。这首诗的最后几行如下（第201页）：

    如今，一种巨大的痛苦养育着精神的炽热火焰，
    尚未出生的孙子们。

    这里所谓的“孙子们”绝不是那些从腐朽种类而来的堕落的儿子们的尚未出生的儿辈。倘若这无非是以往种类之繁衍的中断，那么，这位诗人一定要为这样一个终结而欢呼。但他却在悲伤。当然，这是一种“自豪的悲伤”，它燃烧着去观看那未出生者的安宁。

    未出生者被称为孙子们，因为他们不可能是儿子，也即说，不可能是这个沉沦的种类的直接后裔。在他们与这个种类之间还生活着另一代人。那是另一代人，因为按它的从未出生者之早先而来的不同的本质渊源来看，它具有不同的特性。“巨大的痛苦”乃是席卷一切的燃烧着的观看。它先行观入那个死者的依然自行隐匿的早先；正是面向这个死者，早早堕落者的“精神”死去了。

    但是，谁能守护这种巨大的痛苦，让它养育精神的炽热火焰？具有这种精神者类型者，乃是带我们上路者。具有这种精神类型者，被称作“精灵的”。因此之故，诗人必得首先地同时也是惟一地把朦胧、夜和年岁称为“精灵的”。朦胧让夜之蓝光升起，使之燃烧。夜作为星池的闪亮镜子来燃烧。年岁只有投身于太阳运行的道路上，即日出日落的道路上，它才燃烧。

    这种“精灵”（Geistliche）得以唤醒以及它所跟随的是何种精神呢？它就是《致一个早逝者》（第136页）一诗中特别被称为“早逝者之精神”的那种精神。这种精神把《精灵之歌》（第20页）中的那个“乞丐”置于孤寂中，以至于他就像《在村庄里》（第81页）一首诗所说的那样，始终是一个“在精神中孤寂地死去”的“穷人”。

    孤寂作为纯粹的精神而成其本质。它是在精神深处更寂静地燃烧着的蓝光之闪现；这蓝光在开端之金色中点燃了一个更寂静的童年。爱利斯形象的金色面容迎向这个早先。在其面面相觑的对视中，它维护着孤寂之精神的夜的火焰。

    可见，孤寂既不仅仅是早逝者的状况，也不是早逝者的不确定的栖留空间。孤寂以其燃烧方式本身就是精神，从而是一种聚集力。这种聚集力把终有一死的人的本质带回到它更寂静的童年中，把童年当作尚未成熟的类型——它标志着未来的种类——来加以庇护。孤寂之聚集力使未出生者越过衰亡者而进入那来自早先的人种的未来复活之中。作为温柔之精神，这种聚集力也镇定着恶的精神。当恶的精神从诸族类的仇视中爆发出来并且侵入到兄弟姐妹情谊中去时，它的骚动便登峰造极了。

    但在童年的更寂静的纯一性（Einfalt）中，还隐蔽着人类的亲热和睦的二重性（Zwiefalt）。在孤寂中，恶的精神既没有被消灭和否定，也没有被释放和肯定。恶被转换了。为了经受这种转换，灵魂必须转向其本质之伟大。这种伟大的程度取决于孤寂之精神。孤寂乃是聚集，通过这种聚集，人之本质重又被庇藏到它更寂静的童年和另一个开端的早先之中。作为聚集，孤寂拥有位置之本质。

    然而，孤寂何以是一首诗歌的位置，而且是特拉克尔的诗作所表达出来的那首独一之诗的位置呢？难道孤寂根本上而且固有地与作诗有某种关联吗？即便有这样一种关联，孤寂又如何能把一种诗意的道说收集到自身那里而成为它的位置，并且从那里出发来规定它呢？

    难道孤寂不是一种独一无二的寂静之沉默吗？孤寂如何能使一种道说和歌唱上路？孤寂倒也不是死亡之荒漠。在孤寂中，异乡人测度着与以往的种类的告别。异乡人在一条小路的途中。这条小路是何种小路呢？关于这一点，在《夏末》一诗着重拎出的最后一句诗中，诗人已经说得很清楚了：

    一只蓝色的兽怀念它的小路，
    怀念它那精灵之年的悦耳之声！

    异乡人的小路是“它那精灵之年的悦耳之声”。爱利斯的步伐在鸣响。鸣响的步伐在黑夜中发光。它们的悦耳之声传入虚空中了吗？那个进入早先的逝者是孤寂的，是在被分割意义上孤寂的吗？抑或，它是被分离出来的，是在被遴选出来意义上被分离出来的，也就是说，它被汇集到一种聚集之中，这种聚集进行着更温柔的聚集和更寂静的召唤——是这样吗？

    《致一个早逝者》一诗的第二、三节对我们的问题作了一种暗示的回答（第135页）：

    但那人走下僧山的石阶，
    面露蓝色的微笑，奇怪地
    被裹入他的更寂静的童年中死去。
    花园里留下了朋友的银色面容，
    在落叶或古老的石头中倾听。
    灵魂歌唱死亡，歌唱肉体的绿色腐朽，
    那就是林涛的澎湃，
    野兽的厉声哀鸣。
    在朦胧的钟楼里，不断传来傍晚的蓝色钟声。

    一位朋友在倾听着异乡人。倾听之际，他跟随着孤寂者，从而自己也成为一个漫游者，一个异乡人。朋友的灵魂在倾听着死者。朋友的面容是“死去的”面容“（第143页）。它通过歌唱死亡而倾听。因此之故，这种歌唱的声音乃是“死者般的鸟之声音”（《漫游者》第143页）。这一声音应合于异乡人的死亡，应合于异乡人向夜之蓝光的没落。但随着孤寂者的死亡，他同时也歌唱着那个种类的“绿色腐朽”——阴暗的漫游已使他与这个种类“分离开来”。

    歌唱乃是赞美，乃是守护在歌中受到赞美的东西。倾听着的朋友乃是一个“赞美着的牧人”（第143页）。然而，只有当那种孤寂向追随者响起，只有当孤寂的悦耳之声鸣响，只有“当阴暗的悦耳之声传到灵魂那里”（如《晚歌》一诗（第83页）所说的），这时候，那位朋友的“喜欢听白色魔术师的童话”的灵魂才能跟随孤寂者而歌唱。

    若是这样，则早逝者的精神便在早先之光辉中显现出来。早先的精灵之年乃是异乡人及其朋友的真实时间。在它们的光辉中，以往的乌云变成金色的云彩。它现在犹如那“金色小船”，犹如在孤独的天空中荡漾的爱利斯的心。

    《致一个早逝者》一诗最后一节如是唱道（第136页）：

    金色的云彩和时间。在孤独的小屋子里，
    你时常邀死者作客，
    娓娓交谈，漫步在绿色小河旁的榆树下。

    向朋友发出的交谈邀请是与异乡人的步伐的悦耳之声相符合的。朋友的道说就是沿河而下的歌唱着的漫游，就是追随到那种向夜之蓝光的没落中去——这里的夜受着早逝者的精神的激励。在这种交谈中，歌唱着的朋友观看着那个孤寂者。由于他的观看，在面面相觑的对视中，他成为异乡人的兄弟。与异乡人一起漫游之际，这位兄弟便达到了在早先的更寂静的逗留。在《孤寂者之歌》（第177页）中，他能够如是召唤：

    哦，栖居在生气勃勃的夜之蓝光中。

    而朋友在聆听之际唱着“孤寂者之歌”，并因此成为他的兄弟；只有这样，他作为异乡人的兄弟才成为异乡人的姐妹的兄弟，而异乡人的姐妹的“冷月般的声音在精灵之夜回响”——这是《精灵的朦胧》一诗（第137页）的最后一行。

    孤寂是那首独一之诗的位置，因为异乡人鸣响着并且闪光着的步伐的悦耳之声把他的追随者的阴暗漫游燃放成倾听着的歌唱。这漫游是阴暗的，因为它只不过是跟随的漫游；但这阴暗的漫游却照亮了追随者入于蓝光之中的灵魂。于是，歌唱着的灵魂的本质就只还是一种独一的先行观望，也就是对那庇护着更寂静的早先的夜之蓝光的先行观望。

    灵魂只不过是一个蓝色的瞬间。

    《童年》一诗（第104页）如是说。

    孤寂之本质达乎自行完成。只有当孤寂作为对更寂静的童年的聚集，同时作为异乡人的坟墓把那些人聚集到自身那里——这些人倾听着早逝者，把早逝者的小路的悦耳之声带入被说出的语言的有声表达之中，从而成为孤寂者——这时，孤寂才是那首独一之诗的完全的位置。他们的歌唱就是作诗。何以见得？什么叫作诗呢？

    作诗意谓：跟随着道说，[此处海德格尔把“诗作”（Dichten）规定为“跟随着道说”（nach-sagen），强调“作诗”与“思想”一样皆为对“存在-大道”的“应合”（Entsprechen）、“倾听”（Hören），或者说是从“存在-大道”而来的“道说”（Sagen）]也即跟随着道说那孤寂之精神向诗人说出的悦耳之声。在成为表达（Aussprechen）意义上的道说之前，在极漫长的时间内，作诗只不过是一种倾听。孤寂首先把这种倾听收集到它的悦耳之声中，借此，这悦耳之声便响彻了它在其中获得回响的那种道说。精灵之夜的神圣蓝光的月亮一般的清冷在一切观看和道说中作响并闪光。观看和道说之语言就成了跟随着道说的语言，即成了诗作（Dichtung）。诗作之所说庇护着本质上未曾说出的那首独一之诗。以此方式，被召唤入倾听之中的跟随着道说变得“更加虔诚”，也就是说，在那条小路的劝说（Zuspruch）面前变得更加柔顺——异乡人先行走在这条小路上，从童年的阴暗中走出而进入更寂静、更明亮的早先中去。因此，聆听着的诗人能够对自己说：

    你更虔诚地知道阴暗之年的意义，
    在孤独小屋里的清冷和秋日；
    而在神圣的蓝光中，闪光的步伐响个不停。
    ——《童年》（第104页）

    歌唱着秋日和年岁之末的灵魂并没有沉没在衰败之中。它的虔诚被早先的精神之火焰点燃，并因此是火热的：

    哦，灵魂，轻柔地歌唱着枯萎的芦苇的歌；
    火热的虔诚。

    《梦和迷乱》（第157页）一诗如是唱道。这里所谓迷乱并不是单纯的精神之阴郁，正如癫狂不是神经错乱。使异乡人的歌唱着的兄弟迷乱的那个黑夜始终是那种死亡的“精灵之夜”——孤寂者去赴这种死亡而进入早先之“金色颤栗”中。在观看这种死亡之际，聆听着的朋友观入更寂静童年的清冷。但这种观看依然是一种与早已出生的种类的分离，这个种类遗忘了那作为还被保持着的开端的更寂静的童年，并且从未孕育过未出生者。《阿尼夫》——这是萨尔茨堡附近一座水上宫殿的名字——这首诗说道（第134页）：

    出生者的罪过大矣。可悲啊，
    你们对死亡的金色颤栗，
    因为灵魂梦想更清冷的花朵。

    但是，这一痛苦的“悲叹”不仅包含着与旧种类的分离。这种分离以一种隐蔽的、命定的方式决然成为告别，而此种告别乃是从孤寂那里召唤出来的告别[此处“孤寂”（Abgeschiedenheit）、“分离”（Scheiden）和“告别”（Abschied）等词语之间的意义关系，难以在中译文中很好的传达出来]。在孤寂之夜中的漫游乃是一种“无限的折磨”。这并不是一种无止境的痛苦。无限是指摆脱了一切有限的限制和萎缩。这种“无限的折磨”是完成了的、完全的痛苦，是达到其本质丰富性的痛苦。只有在穿过精灵之夜的漫游中—一这种漫游总是告别了非精灵之夜，痛苦之逆反特征的纯一性才会起纯粹的作用。精神之温柔被唤向对上帝的追逐，精神之胆怯被唤向天空的狂飙。

    《夜》（第187页）一诗如是说：

    无限的折磨，
    温柔的精神，
    你追逐上帝
    在急流中，在起伏的松涛中
    发出阵阵叹息。

    这种狂飙和追逐的燃烧着的撕扯并没有撕掉“陡峭的堡垒”；它并没有杀死猎物，而是让它在对天空景象的观望中复活——天空景象之纯粹清冷掩蔽着上帝。这样一种漫游的歌唱着的思索为一个完全由完成了的痛苦所烙印的脑袋所拥有。因此，《夜》（第187页）一诗以下面的诗句结束：

    一个石化了的脑袋
    向着天空冲击。

    与此相应的是《心》（第180页）一诗的结尾：

    陡峭的堡垒。
    呵，心，
    在雪一般的清冷中闪烁。

    实际上，《心》、《暴风雨》和《夜》这三首后期诗作的三和弦是如此隐蔽地被调谐于那种对孤寂的歌唱的独一和同一之物，以至于我们可以认为，如果放弃对这三首诗的歌唱作一种充分的解释，那么，我们现在着手进行的对那首独一之诗的探讨就会获得加强。

    在孤寂中漫游，对不可见景象的观看，以及完成了的痛苦，这三者是一体的。忍耐者顺从于痛苦的裂隙（Riß）。只有这个忍耐者才能跟随着返回到种类之最早的早先之中，这个种类的命运保藏在一本古老的纪念册中。诗人的一首题为《在一本古老的纪念册中》写有这样一节诗：

    忍耐者恭顺地服从痛苦
    悦耳之声和温和的癫狂在鸣响。
    看哪！天色已趋朦胧。

    在道说的这种悦耳之声中，诗人把上帝得以在其中向癫狂的追逐隐蔽自身的那种闪光的景象显露出来。

    因此，诗人在《午后低语》（第54页）中所歌唱的，确实只是一种午后的低语：

    额头梦想着上帝的色彩，
    感受到癫狂的温柔翅膀。

    只有当写诗的人追随着那个癫狂者，他才成为诗人；[此处“写诗的人”（der Dichtende）也可译为“作诗者”，显然比“诗人”（Dichter）更广义]那个癫狂者入于早先而消陨，并且从他的孤寂而来，通过他的步伐的悦耳之声来召唤跟随着他的兄弟。于是，朋友的面孔观入异乡者的面孔。这一“瞬间”的光辉触动了倾听者的道说。[此句中的“瞬间”（Augenblick）来得突兀。“瞬间”由“眼”（Augen）和“观”（Blick）合成，故此处的“瞬间”当联系于前句的“观”]在这种从那首独一之诗的位置闪发出来的感动人心的光辉中，起伏着那种推动诗意的道说走向其语言的滚滚波涛。

    那么，特拉克尔的诗作的语言是何种语言呢？这种语言通过应合于异乡人先行于其上的那条路途来说话的。异乡人所踏上的小路是一条离开古老的、蜕化了的种类的道路。它护送异乡人达到没落，进入未出生种类被保存下来的早先之中的没落。诗人那首在孤寂中有其位置的独一之诗的语言，应合于这个未出生的人类向其更寂静的本质之开端的还乡（Heimkehr）。

    这种诗作的语言由此转渡（Übergang）而来说话。此种转渡的小路从衰败者的没落转渡到向神圣之朦胧蓝光的没落。这首独一之诗的语言就是从这种穿越精灵之夜的夜色池塘的摆渡而来说话的。这种语言歌唱着孤寂的还乡之歌，而还乡就是从腐朽的晚期返回到更寂静的、尚未现身的早先。在这种语言中说话的乃是路途（das Unterwegs）；此路途的闪现既照耀又鸣响，使孤寂的异乡人的精灵之年的悦耳之声显现出来。用《启示和没落》（第194页）一诗的话来说，“孤寂者之歌”歌唱“一个还乡的种类的美”。

    由于这首独一之诗的语言是从孤寂之路途而来说话的，因此它始终也是从它在分离中离弃的东西以及这种分离所顺应的东西而来说话的。这首独一之诗的语言本质上也是多义的，而且有其独特的方式。只要我们仅只在某种单义意见的呆板意义上来理解这首诗的道说，那么我们就听不到它的什么。

    朦胧与黑夜，没落与死亡，癫狂与野兽，池塘与石头，鸟的飞翔与小船，异乡人与兄弟，精神与上帝，同样还有色彩词语：蓝和绿，白和黑，赤红和银白，金色和阴暗等——这一切总是道说着多重的东西。

    “绿”是腐朽和繁盛，“白”是苍白和纯洁，“黑”是幽暗的锁闭和阴暗的庇藏，“赤红”是朱红的丰满和玫瑰色的温柔。“银白”是死亡的惨淡和星斗的闪烁。“金色”是真实之光辉和“金子的可怕笑声”（第133页）。这里所谓的多义性首先只是两义性。但这种两义性本身作为整体只是事情的一个方面，另一方面则是由那首独一之诗的最内在的位置所决定的。

    这首诗是从一种模糊的两义性而来说话的。不过，诗意道说的这样一种多义性并不分解为不确定的歧义性。特拉克尔这首独一之诗的多义音调来自一种聚集，也即来自一种协调（Einklang），这种协调就其本身而言始终是不可道说的。这一诗意的道说的多义性并不是松懈的不准确，而是那个已经投身于细心的“正当观看”并且服从这种观看的参与者的严格性。

    我们往往难以在特拉克尔的诗作所特有的、本身完全可靠的多义性的道说与其他诗人的语言之间画一条清晰的界线；其他诗人的语言的歧义性乃起于诗意的探索的不确定性，因为他们的语言缺乏那首真正的独一之诗及其位置。特拉克尔的本质上多义的语言所具有的独特的严格性在一种更高意义上是如此明确，以至于与单纯地在科学上单义的概念的一切技术精确性相比较，它始终具有无限的优越性。

    也有一些来自圣经和教会的观念世界的常见词语，是以上述由特拉克尔那首独一之诗的位置所决定的语言多义性说话的。从古老种类向未出生者的转渡穿越了这一领域以及它的语言。特拉克尔的诗作是否以基督教方式说话，在何种程度上以及在何种意义上以基督教方式说话，这位诗人以何种方式成了基督徒，所谓的“基督教的”、“基督教”、“基督教徒”和“基督教义”[原文依次为：christlich, Christenheit, Christentum, Christlichkeit]等在此是什么意思，一般地又是什么意思——凡此种种，都是一些根本性的问题。但是，只要他的那首独一之诗的位置尚未得到关注，那么，对上述问题的探讨就始终还悬在虚空之中。此外，对上述问题的探讨还要求作一种沉思，对于这种沉思来说，无论是形而上学神学的概念，还是教会神学的概念，都是不够的了。

    要判断特拉克尔那首独一之诗的基督教性，我们首先就要思索他后期的两首诗：《哀怨》和《格罗德克》。我们必得问：如果诗人真的是一位如此坚定的基督徒，那么，为什么他在这里，在他最后的道说的极端困境中没有召唤上帝和基督？为什么他在这里不提上帝和基督，而只提“姐妹的摇晃的身影”，并把姐妹称为“问候的姐妹”？为什么最后这首歌不是以对基督之救赎的充满信心的展望为结束，而要以“未出生的孙子”的名字来结束呢？为什么姐妹也出现在后期的另一首诗《哀怨》（第200页）中呢？为什么在这里把“永恒”叫作“冰冷的波涛”？这难道是基督教式的思索吗？不，它甚至也不是基督教式的绝望。

    然而这首《哀怨》歌唱什么？在“姐妹……看……”这些诗句中，难道不是回响着一种内在的纯一性（Einfalt）——那些不顾一切美妙[此处“美妙”（das Heile）与“神圣者”（das Heilige）相关]彻底隐匿的危险而依然坚持向“人的金色面容”漫游的人们的纯一性？

    特拉克尔的诗作所说的多音调的语言具有严格的协调，而这同时也意味着：沉默，应合于那种作为他的独一之诗的位置的孤寂。对这个位置加以适当的关注，这就已经要求我们思想。到最后，我们几乎还不敢大胆去追问这个位置的所在。

    三

    当我们迈出第一步去探讨特拉克尔的那首独一之诗的位置时，《秋魂》（第124页）一诗的倒数第二节为我们提供了最终的指示，指示出孤寂乃是那首独一之诗的位置。这节诗谈到那些漫游者，他们为了“栖居在生气勃勃的蓝光之中”而去追随异乡人穿越精灵之夜的小路。

    鱼和兽倏忽游移。
    蓝色的灵魂，阴暗的漫游，
    很快使我们与爱人，与他人分离。

    对于允诺和保证某种栖居的开放区域，我们的语言把它称为“土地”（Land）。向异乡人的土地的行进在傍晚时分穿透精灵的朦胧。所以，这节诗的最后一行说：

    傍晚变换着意义和形象。

    早逝者没落入其中的土地就是这个傍晚的土地。把特拉克尔那首独一之诗聚集于自身中的那个位置的所在就是孤寂的隐蔽本质，并且被叫作“傍晚的土地”[原文为 Abendland，或通译为“西方”。在德语中“西方”（Abendland）由“傍晚”（Abend）和“土地”（Land）两词合成，在此语境中可直译为“傍晚的土地”]。这一傍晚的土地比柏拉图一基督教的土地甚至欧洲观念中的土地更古老，也即更早，从而也更有希望。因为孤寂乃是一个上升的世界之年（Weltjahr）的“开端”，而不是颓败的深渊。

    遮蔽在孤寂之中的傍晚的土地并没有没落；它作为向精灵之夜没落的土地期待着它的栖居者，从而保持下来。没落之土地乃是向那个被遮蔽在其中的早先之开端的转渡（Übergang）。

    如果我们有了这一番思索，那么，当特拉克尔的两首诗专门提到傍晚的土地时，我们还能说这是巧合吗？这两首诗中的一首题为《傍晚的土地）（第171页以下）；另一首题为《傍晚土地之歌》（第139-140页）[这两首诗的标题或以译为《西方》和《西方之歌》。英文本把前者译为“Evening”或“Occident”，把后者译为“Occidental Song”(参看英文本《在通向语言的途中》，纽约1971年，第194页) ]。后一首诗所唱的内容与《孤寂者之歌》相同。它以一种令人惊奇的召唤开头：

    哦，灵魂在夜间飞翔：

    这行诗是以一个冒号结束的，它包括了后面的全部内容，直至那种从没落到升起的转渡。在另一处，在最后两行诗之前，还有第二个冒号。之后是简单的短语：“一个种类”(Ein Geschlecht)。这个“一”加了着重号。就我所知，它是特拉克尔诗作中唯一加着重号的词。这个重点强调的“一个种类”隐含着一种基调，由之而来，特拉克尔那首独一之诗在沉默中保持着神秘（Geheimnis）。这一个种类的统一性来自那个类型，后者从孤寂出发，借助于那种在孤寂中运作的更寂静的宁静，借助于它的“森林之道说”，它的“尺度和法则”，通过“孤寂者的冷月般的小路”而把诸种类的仇视一体地聚集到更为柔和的二重性（Zwiefalt）之中。

    “一个种类”中的“一”（Ein）并不意昧着与“二”相对立的“一”。这个“一”的意思也不是单调相同的千篇一律。在这里，“一个种类”根本不是指某个生物学上的事实，既不是指“单种”，也不是指“同种”。在这重点强调的“一个种类”中，隐含着那种借助于精灵之夜的聚集性的蓝光而起统一作用的统一力量。这个词是从那首歌唱傍晚的土地的歌而来的。所以，“种类”一词在此就具有上面提到的丰富的多方面的含义。它首先是指历史的人的种类，亦即区别于其它生物（动物和植物）的人类。进而，“种类”一词还指这个人的种类的诸种族、部落、氏族、家族等。同时，“种类”一词也往往指诸种族的二重性。

    为诸族类打上“一个种类”的统一性标志，并因此把人类诸氏族以及人类本身带回到更寂静童年的温柔之中的那个类型，是通过使灵魂踏上进入“蓝色的春天”的道路而发挥作用的。灵魂对蓝色的春天保持沉默，以此来歌唱蓝色的春天。《在阴暗中》（第151页）一诗开头一行唱道：

    灵魂对蓝色的春天保持沉默。

    “沉默”这个动词在此作及物动词用[日常德语中的“沉默”（schweigen）一般为不及物动词]。特拉克尔的诗作歌唱傍晚的土地。它是对那个真正的类型之居有事件（Ereignis）的唯一的召唤；这个真正的类型诉说着那进入温柔之中的精神的火焰。《卡斯帕尔·豪塞之歌》（第115页）如是唱道：

    上帝对他的心诉说着温柔的火焰：
    呵，人啊！

    这里的“诉说”一词与前面所讲的“沉默”，《致少年爱利斯》（第97页）中的“流血”，以及《僧山脚下》（第113页）最后一行中的“沙沙作响”一样，都作及物动词用。

    上帝的诉说乃是判归。这种判归为人指定了一个更寂静的本质，并且因此召唤人进入那种应合——由于此种应合[注意此处“诉说”（Sprechen）、“判归”（Zusprechen,或译“劝说”）与“应合”（Entsprechung）之间的字面和意义联系。-译注]——由于此种应合，人才从本己的没落中复活而进入早先之中。“傍晚的土地”庇护着这“一个种类”之早先的升起。

    如果我们把《傍晚土地之歌》的作者看作一位颓败的诗人，那么，我们的思想未免太浅薄了。在探讨特拉克尔的另一首诗《傍晚的土地》（第171页以下）时，如果我们始终只根据它的最后一部分（即第三部分），并且固执地对这个三部曲的中间部分以及作为其前奏的第一部分充耳不闻，那么，我们就会听得既残缺又乏味。在《傍晚的土地》中重又出现了爱利斯这个形象；而在最后期的诗作《海利安》和《梦中的塞巴斯蒂安》中则没有提到这个形象。异乡人的步伐在鸣响。他的步伐的基调是由古老的森林传说的“柔和的精神”规定的。这首诗中间部分已经洋溢着最后一部分的内容；而在最后一部分中提到了“巨大的城市”，“在平地上由石头垒造起来”！这些城市已经有了自己的命运。这命运与“在变绿的山丘旁”所说的命运不同，在那里，“春天的暴风雨在吼叫”，山丘具有“公正的尺度”（第134页），它也被叫作“傍晚的山丘”（第150页）。据说，特拉克尔的作品具有“最内在的无历史性”。在这个判断中，“历史”是指什么呢？如果这个名称是指历史学上的历史，即对于过去事物的观念，那么，特拉克尔就是无历史的[这里出现的Historie和Geschichte 在日常德语中似无大区别，但海德格尔却对两者作了明显的区分 ：前者是“历史学上的历史”，是“显”出的历史；后者则是真实发生的历史，是亦“显”亦“隐”的历史。Geschichte 与德文动词“发生”（geschehen）有字面和意义上的联系，可见是真实发生着的历史]。他的作诗活动（Dichten）毋需历史学上的“对象”。为什么不需要呢？因为他那首独一之诗是历史性的，具有至高意义上的历史性。他的诗作歌唱那个把人类投入到依然扣留着的本质之中的命运，也即那个拯救人类的命运。

    特拉克尔的诗咏唱着灵魂之歌，这个灵魂——“大地上的异乡者”——才漫游在大地上，漫游在大地上，作为还乡种类的更寂静家园的大地上。

    这是在现代集块性生存（Massendasein）之技术－经济世界的边缘做的浪漫主义美梦吗？或者，这是那个所见所思与新闻记者截然不同的“癫狂者”的清晰认识吗？——这些记者们挖空心思去记述当前的事件，而他们所估测的将来无非是当前现实的延长而已；这种将来始终是没有那种唯在人的本质的开端处才与人相关涉的命运的到来的。

    诗人看到，灵魂这个“异乡者”被命定在一条小路上，这条小路不是通向颓败，而是导向没落。此种没落屈服并顺从于强大的死亡，即早逝者先行去赴的那个死亡。兄弟歌唱着追随早逝者去赴死。赴死之际，朋友追随着异乡人渡过了孤寂之年岁的精灵之夜。朋友的歌唱乃是“被捕获的山鸟之歌”。诗人以此为标题来命名一首他献给费克尔的诗。山鸟就是那只召唤爱利斯走向没落的鸟。被捕获的山鸟就是虽生犹死者的鸟音。山鸟被囚禁在金色步伐的孤独之中，这些步伐应合于那金色小船的航行；爱利斯的心就在这金色小船上，穿越蓝色之夜的星池，并且因此向灵魂指明了它的本质的轨道。

    灵魂，大地上的异乡者。

    灵魂漫游着走向傍晚的士地。这傍晚的土地贯穿着孤寂之精神；由于这种精神，灵魂才是“精灵的”。

    一切套式讲法都是危险的。它们迫使被道说出来的东西成为那种匆匆形成的肤浅的意见，并且容易败坏我们的思想。但这些套式也可能有所裨益，对持久的沉思来说至少是一种推动和依据。以此为保留条件，我们也不妨用套式的方式说：

    一种对特拉克尔诗歌的探讨向我们表明，特拉克尔乃是那依然被遮蔽着的傍晚的土地的诗人。[den Dichter des noch verborgenen Abend-Landes.]

    灵魂，大地上的异乡者。

    这个诗句出现在《灵魂的春天》（第149—150页）的最后几节中。而下面的诗句就是向这最后几节的过渡：

    强大的死亡和心中歌唱着的火焰。

    于是，诗人的歌唱便上升到精灵之年的悦耳之声的纯粹回响中；异乡人穿越精灵之年而漫游，兄弟则跟随着异乡人，开始在傍晚的土地上栖居：

    幽幽流水环绕着鱼的欢快游戏。
    悲哀的时刻，太阳沉默的面容；
    灵魂，大地上的异乡者。充满精灵，
    蓝光朦胧，笼罩在莽莽丛林上，
    村庄里，阴暗的钟声久久地鸣响，
    护卫着村庄的平和。
    在死者的白色眼睑上，桃金娘花静静地开放。
    渐渐西沉的太阳下，水声潺潺，
    岸边茵绿的荒野变得阴暗，
    玫瑰般的风是多么欢乐；
    傍晚的山丘旁，传来兄弟的温柔的歌唱。

  • 帕斯捷尔纳克《日瓦戈医生》6

    第六章

    商人大街沿着通往小斯帕斯卡亚街和诺沃斯瓦洛奇内巷的斜坡近通而下。城市较高地区的房屋和教堂从上面俯瞰着这条街。

    街道拐角的地方有一座带雕像的深灰色房子。在立倾斜屋基的巨大的四角形石板上，新近贴着政府报纸、政府法令和决议。一群过路人已站在人行道上默默地看了半天了。

    不久前解冻后天气已经干燥。现在又上冻了。气候明显地变得寒冷起来。现在天还很亮，可不久前这时候天已经黑了。冬天刚刚过去。空出来的地方填满了阳光，它没有离开，被黄昏留住了。阳光使人们木安，把人们带往远方，恫吓他们，令他们提心吊胆。

    不久前白军撤出城市，把它交给红军。射击、流血和战时的惊恐停止了。这同样使人惊恐不安，如同冬天过去、春天变长一样。

    街上过往的行人借着一天天变长的白天的光线，读着墙上的通知。通知上写道：

    居民须知：本市合格居民可到尤里亚金苏维埃粮食局

    去领取工作证，每张缴纳五十卢布。地点在十月革命街，即

    原总督街五号，一百三十七室。

    凡无工作证者，或误填以至伪造工作证者，将依据战时

    法律严惩。工作证的细则和使用方法公布于本年度尤里亚

    金执委会第八十六号（1013）通知中，该通知张挂在尤里亚

    金苏维埃粮食局一百三十七室中。

    另一张布告通知道，本市粮食储备充裕，只是被资产者藏匿起来，目的在于破坏分配制度，在粮食问题上制造混乱。通知用这样一句话结尾：

    囤积粮食者一旦被发现就地枪决。

    第三张公告说：

    为了正确安排粮食工作，不属于剥削分子者准许其参

    加消费者公社。详情可向尤里亚金粮食局查询，地点在十月

    革命街，即原总督街五号，一百三十七室。

    另外一张对军人警告道：

    凡未上缴武器和未经新制度许可携带武器者依情严

    惩。持枪证可到尤里亚金革委会换取，地点在十月革命街六

    号，六十三室。

    一个瘦弱不堪、很久没洗过脸因而显得脸色乌黑的流浪汉模样的人，肩上挎着一个背包，手里握着一根木棍，走到看布告的人群跟前。他的头发长得长极了，但没有一根白发，可他满脸深棕色的胡子已经发白了。这便是尤里·安德烈耶维奇·日瓦戈医生。他的皮袄大概在路上早被人抢走了，不然便是他自己拿它换了食物。他穿了别人的一件不能御寒的短袖破旧上衣。

    他口袋里还剩下一块没吃完的面包，这是他经过城市附近一个村子时别人给他的，还有一块腑猪油。他从铁路那边走进城里来已经快一个钟头了，但从城门口到这条十字路口竞走了一小时，最近这些日子他已经走得筋疲力尽了。他时常停下来，拼命克制倒在地上吻这座城市石头的欲望，他没想到有一天还能见到它，看见它就像看见亲人那样高兴。

    他走了很久，一半路都是沿着铁路线走的。铁路完全废置不用了，积满了雪。他经过一列列白军的车厢，有客车和货车，都被雪埋住了。由于高尔察克全线崩溃和燃料耗尽，白军不得不丢下火车。这些陷在雪地里、永远也不能开动的火车像带子一样伸延几十俄里，它们成为沿途抢劫的土匪的堡垒，躲藏的刑事犯和政治难民——当时迫不得已流浪的人的避难所，但更主要的是成了死于严寒和斑疹伤寒者的公墓。铁路沿线伤寒猖獗，周围整村整村的人都死于伤寒。

    这时应验了一句古谚：人比狼更凶狠。行路人一见行路人就躲；两人相遇，一个杀死另一个，为了自己不被对方杀死。还出现了个别人吃人的现象。人类文明的法则失灵了。兽性发作。人又梦见了史前的穴居时代。

    有时，尤里·安德烈耶维奇前面很远的地方，出现几个孤单的身影，有时悄悄躲在一旁，有时胆怯地跑过小道。医生尽量绕开这些身影，他常常觉得它们很熟悉，曾在哪儿见过。他觉得他们也是从游击队营地里跑出来的。在大多数的情况下他都弄错了，可是有一次眼睛并没欺骗他。一个少年从遮住国际列车卧车车厢的雪堆里钻出来，解完手又钻回雪堆里。他确实是林中兄弟中的一员。这便是大家都以为被枪毙了的捷连秀·加卢津。他没被打死，只受了伤。他躺在地上昏迷了很久，后来恢复了知觉，从行刑的地方爬走了，躲进树林里，在那儿养好了伤，现在改了姓，偷偷赶回圣十字镇自己家里去，路上见到人便躲进被雪掩埋的火车里。

    这些画面和情景使人产生一种非人间的、超验的印象。它们仿佛是某种玄妙的、另一个星球上的生命的一小部分，被错误地搬到地球上来。而只要自然仍然忠于历史，它显现在眼前的样子就同现代画家所表现的一样。

    冬天的黄昏是寂静的，浅灰色的和深红色的。晚霞的余辉映照出白作树乌黑的树顶，清秀得宛如古代的文字。黑色的溪流在薄冰的灰雾下飞驰在雪白的峡谷中。峡谷的上端白雪堆积如山，而下端则被深色的河水浸蚀了。这便是尤里亚金的黄昏，它寒冷，灰得透明，富于同情心，如同柳絮一般，再过一两个小时便要降临到带雕像的房子的对面了。

    医生想走到房子石墙上政府布告栏跟前，看看官方的通告。但他向上凝视的目光不时落在对面二层楼的几扇窗子上。这几扇沿街的窗户曾经刷过白灰。窗内的两间屋子里堆放着主人的家具。尽管下窗榻上结了一层晶莹的薄冰，但仍然能看出现在的窗户是透明的，白灰洗刷掉了。这种变化意味着什么？主人又回来了？或者拉拉搬走了，房间里搬进新的房客，现在那儿一切都变了样？

    情况不明使医生很激动。他控制不住自己的激动。他穿过街道，从大门走进过道，爬上对他如此亲切而熟悉的正门楼梯。他在林中营地时就时常回想起生铁阶梯的花纹铁格，连花纹上的涡纹都回想起来。在某个向上转弯的地方，从脚下的栅栏里可以看到难在楼梯下面的破桶、洗衣盆和断腿的椅子。现在依然如此，毫无变化，一切都跟先前一样。医生几乎要感谢楼梯忠于过去了。

    那时门上就有个铃。但它在医生被游击队俘虏之前就坏了。他想敲门，但发现门锁得跟先前不一样，一把沉重的挂锁穿在粗笨地拧进旧式柞木门里的铁环里。门上的装饰有的地方完好无损，有的地方已经脱落。先前这种野蛮行为是不允许的。门上使用的是暗锁，锁得很牢，要是坏了，有钳工修理。这件琐事也说明总的情况比过去坏了很多。

    医生确信家里没有拉拉和卡坚卡，也许尤里亚金也没有她们，甚至她们已不在人世。他做了最坏的打算。只是为了免得以后后悔，他决定到他和卡坚卡都很害怕的墙洞里摸一摸。他先用脚端了瑞墙，免得摸到墙洞里的老鼠。他并不抱在他们过去约定的地方摸到什么的希望。墙洞用一块砖堵住。尤里·安德烈耶维奇掏出砖，把手伸进里面去。嗅，奇迹！钥匙和一张便条。便条相当长，写在一张大纸上。医生走到楼梯台的窗口跟前。更为神奇，更加不可思议！便条是写给他的！他马上读了：

    上帝啊，多么幸福！听说你活着，并且出现了。有人在

    城郊看见了你，便赶快跑来告诉我。我估计你必定先赶到瓦

    雷金诺去，便带着卡坚卡上那儿去了。但我把钥匙放在老地

    方，以防你万一先到这儿来。等我回来，哪儿也别去。对啦，

    你还不知道呢，我现在住在前面的房子里，靠街的那一排。

    楼里空荡荡，荒芜了，只好变卖了房主的一部分家具。我留

    下一点吃的东西，主要是煮土豆。把熨斗或别的重东西压在

    锅盖上，像我那样，防备老鼠。我快活得不知如何是好。

    便条正面上的话完了。医生没注意到背面也写满了。他把打开的便条托到唇边，然后没看便叠起来，连同钥匙一起塞进口袋。刺骨的痛苦掺进无比的快活中。既然她毫不犹豫地、无条件地到瓦雷金诺吉，他的家必然不在那里了。除了这个细节所引起的惊恐外，他还为亲人生死末卜而痛不欲生。她怎么～句话也没提到他们，说清他们在哪儿，仿佛他们根本不存在似的？

    但已经没有考虑的时间了。街上开始黑了。天亮前还来得及做很多的事。看挂在街上的法令也是很要紧的事。那时，这可不是闹着玩的。由于无知而违犯某项行政命令可能会送掉性命。于是他没打开房门，也没放下把肩膀压得酸痛的背包，便下了楼，走到墙跟前，墙上各式各样的印刷品贴了一大片。

    墙上贴有报刊文章、审判记录、会议演说词和法令。尤里·安德烈耶维奇迅速地看了一下标题。《对有产阶级征用与课税的办法》、《工人的监督作用》、《建立工厂委员会的决定。这是进城代替先前制度的新政权所公布的指令。公告提醒居民新政权准则的绝对性，担心他们在白军暂时统治期间忘记了。但这些永无止境的单调的重复把尤里·安德烈耶维奇的头弄昏了。这些都是哪一年的标题？属于头一次变革时期还是以后的几个时期，还是白卫军几次暴动当中？这是哪年的指示？去年的？前年的？他生平只有一次赞许过这种专断的言辞和这种率直的思想。难道为了那一次不慎的赞许，多年之内除了这些变化无常的狂妄的呐喊和要求，他就得付出再也听不见生活中的任何东西的代价吗？况且这些呐喊和要求是不合实际的，难于理解并无法实践的。难道他因为一时过分心软便要永远充当奴隶吗？

    不知从何处撕下来的一页工作报告落到他眼前。他读道：

    有关饥饿的情报表明地方组织极端不称职。明显的舞

    弊事实，投机倒把活动，极为猖獗，可当地工会委员会都干

    了什么？城市和边区的工厂委员会都干了什么？如果我们

    不对尤里亚金至拉兹维利耶地区和拉兹维利耶至雷巴尔克

    地区的商店仓库进行大规模的搜查，不采取直至将投机倒

    把分子就地枪决的恐怖手段，便无法把城市从饥饿中拯救

    出来。

    “多么令人羡慕的自我陶醉啊！”医生想。“还谈什么粮食，如果自然界里早已不长粮食的话？哪儿来的有产阶级，哪儿来的投机倒把分子，如果他们早已被先前的法令消灭了的话？哪儿来的农民，哪儿来的农村，如果他们已经不再存在了的话？他们难道忘记了自己早先的决定和措施早已彻底完蛋了吗？什么人才能年复一年对根本不存在的、早已终止的题目如此胡言乱语，而对周围的一切闭目不见，一无所知呢？”

    医生头晕了，失去知觉，倒在人行道上。等他恢复过知觉来，别人把他从地上搀起来，要把他送到他准备去的地方。他道了谢，谢绝了别人的帮助，解释说他只要走到街对面就行了。

    他又上了楼，打开拉拉住所的门。楼梯口上还很亮，一点都不比他头一次上楼时黑。他发现太阳并没催他，心里很高兴。

    开门声引起里面一阵骚动。没住人的空房迎接他的是打翻罐头盒的呕嘟声。一只只老鼠整个身子扑通掉在地板上，向四下逃窜。医生很不自在，竟无法对付这群可恶的东西。它们大概太多了。

    但要想在这里过夜，首先得防备老鼠，躲进一间门能关紧、容易躲避它的房间，再用碎玻璃、破铁片堵住所有的老鼠道。

    他从前厅向左拐，走进他所不熟悉的那一半房间。穿过一条黑暗的走廊，他来到两个窗户朝街的一间明亮的房间里。窗户正对着街那边那座带雕像的灰房子。灰房子墙的下面贴满了报纸。过路的人背对着窗户站着读报纸。

    室内同室外的光线一样，都是清新明亮的早春傍晚的光线。室内室外的光线如此相仿，仿佛房间没同街道分开。只有一点微小的区别，尤里·安德烈耶维奇所在的拉拉的房里比外面商人街上冷一点。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇快走到尤里亚金的时候，一两个钟头以前，他在走最后一段距离的时候，忽然觉得体力骤减，仿佛马上就要病倒，自己吓了一跳。

    现在，室内和室外的光线一样，对此他不知为何非常高兴。院子里和住宅里充满同样的寒气，使他同傍晚街上的行人，同城里的气氛，同人世间的生活接近起来。他的恐惧消失了。他已经不再想自己马上要病倒。穿透四周的春天傍晚透明的光线使他觉得是遥远而慷慨的希望的保证。他相信一切都会变好，生活中的一切他都能得到，亲人都能找回来，都能和解，什么都能想到并表达出来。他把等待同拉拉会面的快乐看作最近的保证。

    极度的兴奋和遏止不住的忙碌代替了刚才体力的衰弱。这种活跃比起不久前的虚弱是即将发病的更为准确的征兆。尤里·安德烈耶维奇在屋里坐不住。他又想到街上去，想去干什么。

    他在这里安顿下来之前，想先理个发，把胡子刮掉。他蓬头垢面地穿过城市时一直往先前理发店的橱窗里张望。一部分理发店空了，或者改作别的用途了。照常营业的几家上了锁。没有地方理发刮胡子。尤里·安德烈耶维奇自己没有剃须刀。要是能在拉拉屋里找到剪刀，也能使他摆脱困境。但他在慌乱中翻遍了拉拉的梳妆台，也没找到剪刀。

    他想起小斯帕斯卡亚街上有一家裁缝店。他想，如果裁缝店还存在并且工人还在干活的话，如果他能在她们关门前赶到，便能向一位女裁缝借一把剪刀。于是他又上街去了。

    他的记忆并没欺骗他。裁缝店还在老地方，女裁缝们还在里面干活。裁缝店总共一间门面，门面有一扇朝街的大玻璃窗，一直垂到人行道。从窗口能看到店铺的内部，直到对面的墙。女裁缝们就在过往行人的眼下干活。

    屋里挤满了人。除了真正的女裁缝外，还加上一些业余缝纫爱好者，尤里亚金社会上的上年纪的太太们，是为了领取工作证才到这儿来的。带雕像的房子墙上贴的法令里提到过领取工作证的办法。

    她们的动作同真正女裁缝的麻利动作木同，一眼便能看出来。裁缝店里做的全是军服，棉裤和棉上衣，还用各种毛色的狗皮缝皮袄，这种皮袄尤里·安德烈耶维奇在游击队的营地里见过。业余缝纫爱好者用僵硬的手指把衣边折短，放在缝纫机下缝起来，对一半是熟制毛皮的活儿很不习惯，几乎难以胜任。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇敲了敲窗户，做了个手势让她们放他进去。里面同样做手势回答他，她们不接私人活计。尤里·安德烈耶维奇不走，重复那些手势，坚持让她放他进去，他有话对她们说。她们向他做推辞的动作，让他明白，她们的活儿很急，他别来纠缠，别妨碍她们，赶快往前走。一个女裁缝脸上现出困惑不解的神情，为了表示懊恼，手掌向上翻着，用目光问他究竟想干什么。他用食指和中指做出剪刀的动作。但她们没看懂他的动作。她们认为这是某种下流动作，挑逗她们。他那身破烂的服装和古怪的举止让她们觉得他不是病人便是疯子。女裁缝们吃吃笑起来，挥手叫他从橱窗前走开。他终于想到去找通往后院的路，找到了裁缝店的后门，敲了起来。

    开门的是一个黑脸膛的上年纪的女裁缝，穿了一身黑衣月R，神色严厉，大概是店里管事的。

    “你这家伙怎么赖着不走！真该惩办。我说，你快点说有什么事？我没空。”

    “您别大惊小怪，我想借剪刀用一下。我就在这儿当您的面剪掉胡子，剪完就还您。我先向您表示谢意。”

    女裁缝的眼里现出诧异。显然，她怀疑跟她说话的人神经不正常。

    “我是从远处来的。刚来到市里，头发长得很长，满脸胡须。我想理个发，可一家理发店都没有。所以我想自己动手，只是没有剪刀。劳驾借我用一下吧。”

    “好吧。我给您理发。您可得放明白。如果您有什么打算，玩什么花样，为了伪装而改变相貌，出于某种政治原因，那您可别怪我告发您。我们不想为您去送命。”

    “天啊，您哪儿来的那儿多顾虑呀！”

    女裁缝把医生放进去，把他带到旁边比贮藏室大不了多少的一间屋里。他马上像在理发店里似的坐在椅子上，脖子上围了～块不可缺少的白罩单，白罩单的边塞进衣领里。

    女裁缝出去取工具，一会儿便拿着剪子、几把不同型号的梳子、推子、磨刀皮带和剃须刀回来了。

    “我一生当中什么都干过。”她解释道，发现医生很惊讶，怎么她手头什么都有。“我当过理发师，上次战争时当过护士，学会了理发刮胡子。咱们先用剪刀把胡子剪短，然后再刮。”

    “头发清理短点。”

    “我尽力而为吧。这样的知识分子却装成大老粗。现在不按星期计算，而是十天一计算。今天十七号，理发店逢七休息。您好像不知道似的。”

    “我是不知道。我干吗要假装呢？我已经说过我从远处来，不是本地人。”

    “坐稳了，别动弹。～动弹就要割破。这么说您是从外地来的了？坐什么车来的？”

    “走着来的。”

    “走的是公路？”

    “一半是公路，一半沿铁路线。多少列火车被雪埋住了！什么样的都有，豪华的啦，特快的啦，都有。”

    “剪完这一点就完了。这儿再去一点，好啦。为了办家务事？”

    “哪儿来的家务事！为了先前信用合作社联盟的事。我是外埠视察员。派我到各地视察。天晓得都到过什么地方。困在东西伯利亚了。怎么也回不来。没有火车呀。只好徒步行走，别提多苦啦。走了一个半月。我见过的事讲一辈子也讲不完。”

    “也用不着讲。我教您长点心眼。现在先等等。给您镜子。把手从白罩单里伸出来，接住它。欣赏欣赏自己。喂，怎么样？”

    “我觉得剪得太少。还可以剪短点。”

    “那样就流不起头来了。我对您说，现在可什么都别说。现在最好对什么都沉默。像信用合作社、豪华火车被雪埋住、检查员和监察员这些话，最好统统忘掉。您说这些话要倒霉的！这不合时宜。您最好说您是大夫或教师。先把胡子剪短，再刮干净。咱们擦上肥皂，喀嗓喀呼一刮，年轻十年。我去打开水，烧点水。”

    “这女人是谁呀？”她出去的时候医生想。“我有一种感觉，仿佛我们之间会有共同点似的。我得弄清她是谁。是否见过或者听说过她。也许她使我想起别人来。可真见鬼，到底是谁呢？”

    女裁缝回来了。

    “咱们现在刮胡子吧。对啦，永远也别多说话。这是永恒的真理。说话是白银，沉默才是黄金呢。什么免费火车和信用合作社都别说。顶好编造点什么，比如大夫或教师。把您见过的一切都搁在心里。这年头您还想向谁炫耀？刮得疼不疼？”

    “有点疼。”

    “剃须刀不快，我也知道。忍一忍，亲爱的。不这样不行。长得太长了，发硬了，皮肤不习惯了。是啊，这年头见过的场面没什么可炫耀的。人人都长心眼啦。我们也吃了不少苦。那帮土匪什么没干过！抢劫、杀人、绑人、搜捕人。比如，有个小暴君，伊斯兰教徒，不喜欢一位中尉。他让士兵埋伏在克拉普利斯基住宅对面的树林子里，解除了他的武装，把他押到拉兹维利耶去。拉兹维利耶那时跟现在的省肃反委员会一样，是执行死刑的地方。您干吗摇头呀？刮疼了？我知道，亲爱的，我知道。一点办法也没有。需要一直刮到头发根，可头发硬得像猪鬃。那种地方。妻子歇斯底里大发作。那个中尉的妻子。科利亚！我的科利亚！直接找最高长官。直接找最高长官不过说说罢了。谁放她进去。找人求情。隔壁那条街上住着一个女人，她能见最高长官，替所有人说情。只有一个人心肠慈善，富有同情心，别人都不能同他比。他就是加利乌林将军。而到处都是私刑、残暴和嫉妒的悲剧。跟西班牙小说里写的一样。”

    “她说的是拉拉。”医生猜想，但由于谨慎没作声，也没详细询问。“当她说‘跟西班牙小说里写的一样’的时候，又非常像一个人。特别是她所说的这句不恰当的话。”

    “现在当然完全是另一码事了。不错，现在侦查、审讯、枪决也多得到处都是。但在观念上完全不同。首先，政权是新的。他们刚刚执政，还没入门。其次，不论怎么说，他们为的是老百姓，他们的力量也就在这儿。算上我，我fIJ一共姐妹四个，都是劳动者。我们自然倾向布尔什维克。一个姐姐死了，她生前嫁给了政治犯。她丈夫在当地一家工厂里当管事的。他们的儿子，我的外甥，是当地农民起义者的首领，可以说是个有名气的人。”

    “原来如此！”尤里·安德烈耶维奇恍然大悟。“这是利韦里的姨妈，当地的笑柄，米库利钦的小姨子，理发师，裁缝，铁路上的扳道员，赫赫有名的多面手。可我还照样不吭声，别让她认出我来。”

    “外甥从小就向往人民。在父亲那儿的时候，在工人当中长大。您也许听到过瓦雷金诺的工厂吧？哎呀，瞧咱们干了什么事！我真是个没记性的傻瓜。半个下巴刮光了，半个没刮。都是说话走了神。您看什么呢，怎么不提醒我？脸上的肥皂干了。我去热水，水凉了。”

    通采娃回来后，尤里·安德烈耶维奇问道：

    “瓦雷金诺不是个安全的偏僻地方吗？到处是密林，任何动乱都波及不到那里。”

    “要说安全看怎么说了。这些密林也许比我们遭灾遭得还厉害。～伙带枪的人从瓦雷金诺经过，不知是哪边的人。说的不是咱们这儿的话。把一家家的人赶到街上，统统枪毙。走的时候也没说过一句难听的话。倒在雪地上没人收的尸体现在还躺在那儿呢。是冬天发生的事。您怎么老抽搐？我差点割破了您的喉咙。”

    “您刚才说过您的姐夫是瓦雷金诺的住户。他也没逃过这场惨祸吧？”

    “不，怎么会呢，上帝是仁慈的。他同他妻子及时逃脱了。同他第二个妻子。不知他们在什么地方，但确实脱险了。还有从莫斯科来的一家人。他们离开得更早。年纪轻的男人，医生，一家之主，失踪了。可什么叫失踪？说他失踪，只是免得家里人伤心罢了。实际上他必定死了，被打死了。找呀，找呀，可没找到。这时另一个男人，年纪大的那个，被召回莫斯科。他是农业教授。我听说是政府召回的。他们在白军再次占领尤里亚金之前经过这里。您又犯老毛病了，亲爱的同志。要是在剃须刀底下动弹、抽搐，顾客准会被割伤。您可真是一位难伺候的顾客呀！”

    “这么说他们在莫斯科了！”

    “在莫斯科了！在莫斯科了！”他第三次沿着生铁楼梯往上爬的时候，每迈一步都从心里发出这样的回声。空住所迎接他的仍然是一群乱跑乱窜的老鼠。尤里·安德烈耶维奇很清楚，不管他多么劳累，同这群脏东西一起别想合眼。他准备过夜先从堵老鼠洞开始。幸好卧室里老鼠洞比别的房间里少得多，就是地板和墙根坏得比较厉害。得赶紧动手，黑夜慢慢降临了。不错，厨房的桌上放着一盏从墙上取下来的灯，灯里加了一半油，想必是等候他的到来。油灯旁边一只打开的火柴盒里放着几根火柴，尤里·安德烈耶维奇数了一下，一共十根。但煤油和火柴最好还是保存好。卧室里还发现了一个油盏，里面有灯芯和长明灯灯油的痕迹，油几乎被老鼠喝光了。

    有几个地方墙脚板离开了地板。尤里·安德烈耶维奇往缝里平着塞进几层玻璃碎片，尖朝里面。卧室里的门同门槛合得很严。门本来能合得很严实，～上领，便把这间堵上老鼠洞的房间同其他房间牢牢隔开。尤里·安德烈耶维奇用了一个多小时把该堵的地方都塔好了。

    卧室的瓷砖壁炉把墙角挤斜了，砌着瓷砖的飞檐几乎顶到天花板。厨房里储存着十几捆劈柴。尤里·安德烈耶维奇打定主意烧拉拉两抱劈柴。他一条腿跪下，往左手里搂劈柴，把劈柴抱进卧室，像在炉子旁边，弄清炉子的构造，匆忙检查了一下炉子是否还能使用。他想把门锁上，但门锁坏了，便用硬纸把门塞紧，以免敞开。尤里·安德烈耶维奇开始不慌不忙地生炉子。

    他往炉子里添柴的时候，在一根方木条上看到一个印记。他惊奇地认出了这个印记。这是旧商标的痕迹，两个开头字母“K”和“江”印在尚未锯开前的木材上，表明它们属于哪座仓库。克吕格尔在世时从库拉贝舍夫斯克林场运到瓦雷金话来的木材底端都打着这两个字母，那时木材过多，工厂把用不完的木材当燃料出售。

    拉拉家里出现这类劈柴说明她认识桑杰维亚托夫，后者关心她，就像他当年供应医生一家日常所需要的一切一样。这个发现像一把刀子扎在医生心上。他先前也曾为安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇的帮助而苦恼。现在，在人情中的不安里又掺入了别的感觉。

    安菲姆这样关照拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜未必仅仅为了她那双美丽的眼睛。尤里·安德烈耶维奇回想起安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇的那种无拘束的举止和拉拉作为一个女人的轻率。他们之间木可能完全清白。

    炉子里的库拉贝舍夫斯克劈柴很快就僻僻啪啪地着旺了，尤里·安德烈耶维奇起初还只有一种由缺乏根据的猜测所引起的盲目的嫉妒，但随着劈柴越烧越旺，他已深信不疑了。

    他的心受尽了折磨，一个痛苦挤掉另一个痛苦。他无法驱散心头的怀疑。他控制不住自己的思想，它付自己从这件事跳到另一件事。一阵对亲人的思念向他袭来，暂时压住了嫉妒的猜疑。

    “原来你们在莫斯科，我的亲人？”他已经觉得通采娃证实了他们安全抵达莫斯科。“那就是说你们没有我的照料又重复了一次艰辛而漫长的旅行？”“你们是怎么抵达的？亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇这次被召回是什么性质？大概是学院请他回去重新执教？咱们的房子怎么样了？算了吧，还有没有都很难说。嗅，上帝啊，多么艰难和痛苦啊！别想了，别想了。脑子多乱！我怎么啦，东尼娜？我觉得病了。我和你们大家将会怎么样？东尼娜，托汉奇卡，东尼姐，舒罗奇卡，亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇，将会怎么样？上帝为什么要遗弃我？为什么永远把你们同我分开？为什么我们永远分开？让我们很快就结合在一起，团聚在一块儿，对吧？如果没有别的办法，我走也要走到你们身边。我们会相见的。～切都会称心如意，对吧？

    “可世上怎能容得下我这个坏东西，我竟连东尼娜该生产，或许已经生产了这件事都忘记了？我已经不是头一次健忘了。她是怎么分娩的，他们回莫斯科的时候到过尤里亚金。不错，尽管拉拉不认识他们，可同他们完全无关的女裁缝兼文理发师对他们的命运都不陌生，你拉拉怎么在便条里对他们只字不提呢？一张多么奇怪、不关心和不留意的便条啊！如同她只字不提同桑杰维亚托夫的关系一样无法解释。”

    这时，尤里·安德烈耶维奇换了一副挑剔的眼光打量了一下卧室的墙壁。他知道摆在这里和挂在周围的东西没有一件是属于拉拉自己的，躲藏在不知何处的神秘的主人的陈设不能说明拉拉的情趣。但不管怎么说，他在墙上这些放大相片上的男人和女人的注视下突然感到不大舒服。粗笨的家具似乎对他怀有敌意。他觉得自己在这间卧室里是个多余的陌生人。

    可他这个傻瓜多少次回想起这座住宅，思念它，他走进的并不是一个房间，而是进入自己心中对拉拉的思念。在别人看来这种感觉方式大概太可笑了。那些坚强的人，像桑杰维亚托夫那样的实践家、美男子，也像他这样生活，这样表现吗？拉拉为什么非看上性格软弱的他，以及他所崇拜的、晦涩的、陈腐的语言不可？她需要这种混乱吗？她自己愿意成为他眼中的她吗？

    像他刚才所表达的，她在他眼中算什么人呢？懊，这个问题他随时都可以回答。

    院子里是一片春天的黄昏。空气中充满声音。远近都传来儿童的爆戏声，仿佛表明整个空间都是活的。而这远方——俄罗斯，他的无可比拟的、名扬四海的、著名的母亲，殉难者，顽固女人，癫狂女人，这个女人精神失常而又被人盲目溺爱，身上带着永远无法预见的壮丽而致命的怪病！嗅，生存多么甜蜜！活在世上并热爱生活多么甜蜜！嗅，多么想对生活本身，对生存本身说声“谢谢”呀！对着它们的脸说出这句话！

    而这正是拉拉。同它们不能说话，而她是它们的代表，它们的表现形式，它们的耳朵和嘴巴，不会说话的生存原则因她而有了生命。

    他在猜疑的一刹那对她的所有责备完全不对，一千倍不对。她身上的一切都多么完美无假啊！

    欣喜和悔恨的眼泪遮住他的视线。他打开炉门，用火钩拨了拨火。他把烧得通红的柴火拨到炉子的顶里面，没烧着的木头拨到炉门口，那儿很通风。他半晌没关上炉门。温暖的火光照射在手和脸上对他来说是一种享受。微微跳动的火焰的反光终于使他清醒过来。嗅，他现在多么需要她，他在这一刹那多么需要触及她所接触过的东西啊！

    他从衣袋里掏出揉皱的便条。他把便条打开翻过来，不是他刚才读过的那一面。现在他才看清这一面也写满了字。他把便条抹平，在跳跃的火光中读道：

    “你想必知道你们家人的下落了。他们到了莫斯科。东尼娜生了个女儿。”下面的几行字划掉了。后面接着写道：“我划掉了，因为写在便条里太蠢了。我们当面谈个够。我急着出门，跑去弄马。不知道弄不到马怎么办。带着卡坚卡太困难了……”句子的末尾磨得模糊了，字迹模糊不清。

    “她跑去向安菲姆借马，大概借到了，因为她走了。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇平静地想。“如果她的良心在这件事上不绝对清白，她便不会提到这个细节了。”

    炉子生着后，医生关上烟道，吃了些东西。吃完东西他已经困得支撑不住了。他和衣倒在沙发上便睡着了。他没听见门后和墙那边老鼠放肆的、震耳的吵闹声。他接连做了两个噩梦。

    他在莫斯科，在一间玻璃门上了锁的房间里，为了保险起见还抓住门把手使劲拉住它。门外他的男孩子舒罗奇卡要进来，哭着拉门。他穿着小外套，水手裤，戴着一顶小帽子，既可爱又可怜。他背后自来水哗啦哗啦从坏管道或下水道里冲在他身上和门上，那个时代管道破裂是常见的事，说不定正是这道门堵住了从几世纪寒冷和黑暗积蓄的峡谷中冲击下来的山洪。发出轰鸣的飞瀑把小男孩吓得要死。听不见他的喊叫声，喊叫声淹没在轰鸣里。但尤里·安德烈耶维奇从他嘴唇的蠕动上看出他在喊：“爸爸！爸爸！”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇的心都要碎了。他整个身心想把小孩抱起来，贴在胸前，头也不回地往前跑，跑到哪儿算哪儿。

    但他泪流满面，拉住上锁的门的把手，不放小男孩进来，出于对另一个女人的虚假的荣誉和责任感，牺牲了小男孩。那个女人并非小男孩的母亲，她随时都可能从另一个门里走进屋里来。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇醒了，惊出一身冷汗，眼睛里含满泪水。“我发烧。我生病了。”他立刻想。“这不是伤寒。这是一种可怕的、危险的、类似疾病的疲劳，一种转变期的疾病，像所有传染病那样，问题就在于什么占上风，生命还是死亡。可我多想睡觉呀！”于是他又睡着了。

    他梦见昏暗的冬天早晨在莫斯科一条熙熙攘攘的大街上，街上还点着灯。从各种迹象来看，清早街上拥挤的交通，第一班电车的叮当声，街灯在石板路的黎明前的白雪上投下的一个个黄圈，这是革命前莫斯科的冬天早晨。

    不是他自己，而是某种更为普遍的现象在哭号，倾吐出温存的、明亮的、在黑暗中像磷火一样闪光的话语。他自己也随同哭诉的灵魂一起哭诉。他真可怜自己啊。

    “我生病了，病了。”他在清醒的时刻，在睡眠、发烧、说呓语和昏迷的间隙想道，“这也是一种伤寒，但没写在我们在大学医学系所读过的教材上。得准备点东西，吃点东西，不然我会饿死的。”

    他刚想从沙发上撑起来，便明白他已经动弹不了。他失去知觉，又昏睡过去。

    “我穿着衣服在这里躺了多久啦？”他有一次暂时恢复知觉的时候想道，“几个小时？几天？我病倒的时候春天刚开始。可现在窗户上结了霜花。这么松散、肮脏，房间里都变得昏暗了。”

    厨房里的老鼠把碟子撞得唱剧匡嘟响，往隔壁那面墙上爬，肥硕的身子摔在地板上，讨厌地尖叫起来，像女低音一样哭号。

    他昏睡过去又醒过来，发现结满霜花的玻璃上映照出玫瑰色的霞光，霞光在霜花中发红，就像倒在水晶酒杯里的红葡萄酒。他不知道，便问自己，这是朝霞还是晚霞？

    有一次他觉得旁边有人说话，他极为沮丧，以为这是神经错乱的开始。他怜悯自己，流出了眼泪，用无声的耳语抱怨上苍，为何抛弃他不管。“你为何遗弃我，永不落的阳光，并把我投入可诅咒的黑暗中！”

    突然他明白，他并不是在做梦，这完全是现实。他脱了衣服，擦洗干净，穿着干净的衬衫，没躺在沙发上，而躺在刚刚铺好的被子里，拉拉坐在床边，俯身向着他，头发碰着他的头发，眼泪同他的眼泪流在一起。他又幸福得失去了知觉。

    不久前他在病中说胡话时，还责备过天空对他无动于衷，可整个辽阔的天空都降临到他的床榻上，还有女人的两条一直裸露到肩膀的雪白丰腴的胳膊向他伸过来。他快活得眼睛发黑，仿佛失去知觉，坠入极乐的深渊。

    他一生都在做事，永远忙碌，操持家务，看病，思考，研究，写作。停止活动、追求和思考，把这类劳动暂时交还给大自然，自己变成它那双迷人的手里的一件东西、一种构思或一部作品，那该有多好啊！那双慈悲的手正到处散播着美呢。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇康复得很快。拉拉忙忙碌碌地用白天鹅般的妩媚护理他，用充满潮润气息的喉音低声询问他或回答他的问题。

    他们的低声细语，即便是最空泛的，也像相拉图的文艺对话一样，充满了意义。

    把他们结合在一起的因素，是比心灵一致更为重要的把他们同外界隔开的深渊。他们俩同样厌恶当代人身上必然会产生的典型特征，他们那种做作出来的激情，耀武扬威的昂扬，还有那些数不清的科学和艺术工作者拼命宣传的极度的平庸，其目的仍然是使天才成为世所罕见的现象。

    他们的爱情是伟大的。然而，所有相爱的人都未曾注意到这种感情的奇异。

    对于他们呢——这正是他们与众不同的地方——当一丝柔情从心中升起，宛如永恒的气息飘进他们注定灭亡的尘世时，这些短暂的时刻便成为揭示和认识有关自己和生活更多新东西的时刻。

    “你必须回到自己亲人身边去。我多一天也不留你。但你看见周围的形势了吧。咱们刚并入苏维埃俄国，马上便被它的崩溃所吞没。他们用西伯利亚和远东来堵它的窟窿。可你什么都木知道。你生病的时候城里发生了很多变化！把我们仓库里储存的粮食运往中心，运往莫斯科。对莫斯科来说简直是沧海一票，这批粮食在莫斯科消失，就像倒进无底的桶里，可我们便没有粮食了。邮政不通，客车停止运行，只剩下运粮食的货车了。城里又像盖伊达暴动前夕那样怨声载道，肃反委员会又像对待任何不满表现那样猖獗肆虐。

    “可你瘦得像皮包骨，只剩下一口气了，往哪儿走呢？难道又步行吗？那你可到不了啦！养好身子，恢复元气，到时候再说吧。

    “我不敢劝告你，说我要是处在你的地位，寻找亲人之前先找份差事干。一定要符合自己的专业，他们很重视这点，比如，就上我们的省卫生局。它就设在先前的医疗管理局里。

    “不然你自己想想。一个自杀的西伯利亚百万富翁的儿子，妻子又是当地地主兼工厂主的女儿。在游击队里呆过，又逃跑了。不管你怎么说，这是脱离革命部队，是开小差。你绝对不能不干事，当个根夺公民权的人。我的处境也不牢靠。我也要去工作，进省国民教育局。我正站在火山口上。”

    “怎么站在火山口上呢？斯特列利尼科夫呢？”

    “正是因为斯特列利尼科夫，我才站在火山口上呢。我过去对你说过，他树敌太多。红军胜利了。现在非党的军人都被从军队里撵出来，因为他们靠近上层，知道的事情太多。要是仅仅从军队里撵出来，不干掉，销踪灭迹，那还算好呢。帕沙在这批人中首当其冲。他的处境极端危险。他到过远东。我听说他逃跑了，躲藏起来。据说正在搜寻他。不说他了。我不喜欢哭，如果再多说他一句，我便要嚎啕大哭了。”

    “你爱他，你至今仍非常爱他？”

    “我嫁给了他，他是我的丈夫呀，尤罗奇卡。他是个品格高尚的人。我很对不住他。可我没做过任何伤害他的事，因此这样说可能不确切。但他是个了不起的人，非常非常爽直的人，可我是个下贱的女人，同他比起来微不足道。这就是我的过错。行啦，不说这些啦。我答应你，什么时候我会再对你说的。你的那个东尼娜多迷人啊！波提切利油画里的人物。”她生产的时候我在她身边。我同她非常要好。可这些以后再说吧，我求你。好啦，咱们一起做事吧。两个人都上班。每月能有几十亿卢布的收入。西伯利亚的票子前些日子咱们这儿还通用呢。刚刚废止，很长一段时间，你生病的全部期间，我们都没有钱。是的。简直难以想象，可也熬过来了。现在往过去的国库里运来一整列车纸币，四十车厢，不会少。票子印得很大，蓝红两种颜色，跟邮票一样，上面分了许多细格，蓝的有五百万个方格，红的每张一千万个方格。褪色，印得不好，颜色模糊。”

    “我见过那种票子。我离开莫斯科前夕刚刚流通。”

    “你在瓦雷金诺这么久干什么？那儿不是一个人都没有，荒废了吗？什么耽搁了你？”

    “我跟卡坚卡打扫你们的住宅。我怕你先上那儿去。我不想让你看见住宅那种样子。”

    “什么样子？那儿房子倒塌了，杂乱不堪？”

    “杂乱不堪。肮脏。我打扫过了。”

    “你怎么吞吞吐吐，回答得这么简单。你有话没都说出来，对我隐瞒了什么。随你的便，我不会追问你。给我讲讲东尼姐的事吧。给小女孩起了什么教名？”

    “玛莎。纪念你母亲。”

    “给我讲讲他们的情况。”

    “以后再讲吧。我对你说过了，我快要哭出来了。”

    “借给你马的桑杰维亚托夫是个讨人喜欢的人物。你看呢？”

    “非常讨人喜欢。”

    “我很熟悉安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇。他是我们一家人在新地方的朋友，帮助过我们。”

    “我知道。他告诉我了。”

    “你fll大概很要好？他也尽量替你效力吧？”

    “他给我的恩惠实在太多了。没有他，我真不知道该怎么办才好。”

    “这不难想象。你们之间的关系大概是亲密的、同志式的，交往很随便？他一定拼命追求你噗。”

    “那还用说。死缠着不放。”

    “可你呢？对不起。我说得太过分了。我有什么权利盘问你？对不起。这太放肆了。”

    “嗅，随你的便吧。你感兴趣的大概是另一个问题——我们关系的性质？你想知道，在我们良好的关系中是否掺入更多的私人因素？当然没有。我对安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇感恩不尽，欠了他不知多少情，但即使他给我一大堆金子，为我献出生命，也不会使我更接近他一步。我从小就仇视那种气质不同的人。在处理实际事务的时候，他们精明强悍，自信，发号施令，简直是无价之宝。可在爱情上，留着小胡子男人的自鸣得意，动不动就发火，叫人无法忍受。我们对男女间的私情和生活理解得完全不同。除此之外，安菲姆在对待道德的态度上，使我联想起另一个更为讨厌的人，我变成今天这样子是他一手造成的。”

    “我不明白。可你是什么人呢？你指的是什么？给我解释解释。你是世上最好的人。”

    “唉，尤罗奇卡，你怎么这样说呢？我认真跟你说话，可你却像在客厅里似的恭维起我来。你问我是什么样的人。我是心灵受了创伤的人，一生带着污点的人。人们过早地，早得不能容忍，把我变成了女人，让我看到生活最坏的一面，并用旧时代～个老寄生虫的虚假而庸俗的眼光看待它。这个自信的家伙为所欲为，利用可以利用的一切。”

    “我猜到了。我多少感觉到了。可等一等。那个时代你所受到的痛苦，由于缺乏经验而被惊吓出来的恐怖，未成年少女初次经受的屈辱，都是不难想象的。但这都是过去的事了。我想说的是，现在为此而难过的不应是你的悲伤，而应是像我这样爱你的人的悲伤。应当痛不欲生、陷入绝望的是我，因为我知道得太迟了，因为我当时没同你在一起，以便阻止事情的发生，如果它对你确实是痛苦的话。真妙。我觉得，我只会强烈地、极端地、发狂地嫉妒低贱的、与我毫无共同之处的人。同上流人竞争在我心中唤起的完全是另一类的情感。如果我所敬爱的并同我精神相近的人爱上我所爱的那个女人，我便会对他产生一种可悲的手足之情，而不是争吵或竞争。我当然决不会同他分享我所钟爱的对象，但我会怀着完全不同的痛苦感情退让：这种感情不是嫉妒，不那么火辣辣的和血淋淋的。我同艺术家接触的时候，只要他在与我类似的工作中以优越的力量征服了我，我也会产生同样的感觉。我大概会放弃我的追求，因为这种追求所重复的正是他已胜过我的尝试。

    “可我离题了。我想，如果你没有什么可抱怨的或没有什么可遗憾的，我不会爱你爱得这样热烈。我不爱没有过失、未曾失足或跌过跤的人。她们的美德没有生气，价值不高。生命从未向她们展现过美。”

    “我说的正是这种美。我觉得要看到它，必须有本经触及的想像力和混沌的感受力。而这些正是我被剥夺的。如果我最初没看到生活同自己格格不入的庸俗化的痕迹，也许会形成自己对生活的看法。但还不仅如此，由于一个不道德的、只顾自己享乐的庸才干预了我刚刚开始的生活，此后我同一个伟大而卓越的人的婚姻才很不美满，尽管他热烈地爱我，我也回报他以同样热烈的爱情。”

    “等一下。此后再告诉我你丈夫的事。我对你说过，通常引起我嫉妒的是低贱的人，而不是和我同等的人。我不嫉妒你丈夫。可那个人呢？”

    “哪个‘那个人？”

    “毁了你的那个生活放荡的人。他是什么人？”

    “在莫斯科相当有名的一名律师。他是我父亲的同事，爸爸去世后，我们贫困的时候他接济过母亲，独身汉，有财产。我这样诋毁他反而使他显得过分有趣，增加了他的分量，其实他是很普通的人。如果你想知道，我可以说出他的姓名来。”

    “木用。我知道他是谁。我见过他一次。”

    “真的？”

    “你母亲服毒的那天在旅馆里，已经很晚了。我们那时还是孩子，中学生呢。”

    “我记得那天晚上的情景。你们来了，站在黑楼道里。也许我自己永远也回想不起这一幕来，是你帮我回想起来的。你曾对我提起，我想是在梅留泽耶沃。”

    “科马罗夫斯基在那儿。”

    “真的？完全可能。很容易看见我同他在一起。我们经常在一起。”

    “你怎么脸红了？”

    “听见‘科马罗夫斯基’从你嘴里说出来。由于突然和不习惯。”

    “跟我一块去的还有一个中学生，我的同班同学。他认出科马罗夫斯基来，科马罗夫斯基就是他在意外情况下偶然看见的那个人。有一次，在路上，就是这个男孩子，中学生米哈伊尔·戈尔东，亲眼看见我父亲——一个百万富翁兼工业家自杀的情景。父亲从飞驰的火车上跳下去自杀，摔死了。陪同父亲的是科马罗夫斯基，他的法律顾问。科马罗夫斯基常常把他灌醉，搅乱他的生意，弄得他破产，把他推到毁灭的道路上。他是父亲自杀和我成为孤儿的罪魁祸首。”

    “这不可能！这个细节太重要了。居然是真的！这么说他也是你的丧门星了？这使我们更亲近了。简直是命中注定的！”

    “这就是我疯狂地、不可挽救地嫉妒的人。”

    “你说什么？我不仅不爱他，还蔑视他。”

    “你真完全理解你自己？人的天性，特别是女人的天性是不可理喻的，充满了矛盾。你所厌恶的某个角落也许正是使你比起你所真心地、毫不勉强地爱上的人更愿意屈从于他的原因。”

    “你说的多么可怕。并且，像你通常所说的那样尖锐，使我觉得这种反常现象是真的。那就太可怕了！”

    “安静点。别听我说的话。我想说我嫉妒神秘的、无意识的东西，嫉妒无法解释和不能猜测的东西。我嫉妒你为他人梳妆打扮，嫉妒你皮肤上的汗珠，嫉妒弥漫在空气中的传染病菌，因为它们能够依附在你身上，毒害你的血液。我嫉妒像科马罗夫斯基那样的传染病，他有朝一日会把你夺走，正像我的或你的死亡有一天会把我们分开一样。我知道，你准会觉得这是一大堆晦涩难懂的话。我无法说得更有条理、更好理解。我爱你爱到顶点，永远永远爱你。”

    “多给我讲讲你丈夫的事。‘在命运之书里我们同在一行字之间’，就像莎士比亚所说的那样。”

    “这是哪个剧本里的话？”

    “《罗密欧与朱丽叶》里的话。”

    “我寻找他的时候，在梅留泽耶沃镇已经对你讲过不少他的事了。后来在这儿，在尤里亚金，咱们刚相遇的时候，从你的话里知道他在自己的车厢里曾想逮捕你。我仿佛告诉过你，也许并没告诉过你，只不过我那样觉得罢了。有一次我远远地看见他上汽车。简直难以想象，多少人保卫他，我觉得他几乎没变样。他的脸仍然那样英俊，诚实，刚毅，是我所见过的所有人当中最诚实的脸。毫不卖弄，性格坚强，没有一丝做作的痕迹。先前总是那样，现在仍然那样。但我仍然发现一点变化，使我深感不安。

    “仿佛某种抽象的东西注入他的面孔中，使它失去了光泽。一张活生生的脸变成思想的体现，原则的化身。我观察到这一点时心揪在～起。我明白这是一种力量的结果，他献身于这种力量，这是一种崇高的力量，但也是一种能置人于死地的无情力量，总有一天连他也不会放过。我觉得他太引人注意了，而这就是他注定灭亡的原因。也许我没弄清楚。也许你向我描绘你们会面时说的那些话深深印在我心里。除了咱们心O相印外，我还受了你多大的影响呀！”

    “你还是给我讲讲你们革命前的生活吧。”

    “我很小的时候就开始幻想纯洁。他就是纯洁的体现。我们可以说是在一个院子里长大的。我和他，还有加利乌林。我是他童年迷恋的对象。他看见我便发呆，浑身发冷。也许我知道并说出这一点不大好。但如果我假装不知道，那就更坏。我是他童年时依恋的人，孩子的骄傲不允许他流露出那种人们都遮掩的服帖的爱情，但却写在脸上，每个人都能看见。我们很要好。我同他不同的程度就像我们相像的程度一样。我那时真心挑选了他。我打定主意，只要我们一成人，便把自己的一生同这个绝妙的小男孩结合在一起，而在心里我那时已经嫁给他了。

    “真了不起，他多么有才能啊！非凡的才能！一个普通扳道工或铁路看守员的儿子，凭自己的才能和顽强的努力达到当代两门大学专业课程（数学和人文科学）的——我差点说水平，不，我应当说——高峰。这可不是闹着玩的！”

    “既然你们如此相爱，什么破坏了你们家庭的和睦呢？”

    “唉，这可真难回答。我现在就讲给你听。真妙极了。像我这样的弱女子竟然向你，这样一个聪明人，解释在现在的生活中，在俄国人的生活中，发生了什么，为什么家庭，包括你的和我的家庭在内，会毁灭？唉，问题仿佛出在人们自己身上，性格相同或不相同，有没有爱情。所有正常运转的、安排妥当的，所有同日常生活、人类家庭和社会秩序有关的，所有这一切都随同整个社会的变革，随同它的改造，统统化为灰烬。日常的一切都翻了个个儿，被毁灭了。所剩下的只有已经被剥得赤裸裸的、一丝不挂的人的内心及其日常生活中所无法见到的、无法利用的力量了。因为它一直发冷，颤抖，渴望靠近离它最近的、同样赤裸与孤独的心。我同你就像最初的两个人，亚当和夏娃，在世界创建的时候没有任何可遮掩的，我们现在在它的末日同样一丝不挂，无家可归。我和你是几千年来在他们和我们之间，在世界上所创造的不可胜数的伟大业绩中的最后的怀念，为了悼念这些已经消逝的奇迹，我们呼吸，相爱，哭泣，互相依靠，互相贴紧。”

    她停顿了一会儿，继续说下去，已经平静多了。

    “我告诉你吧。如果斯特列利尼科夫再变成帕申卡·安季波夫，如果他不再发狂，不再暴动，如果时间倒流，如果在某个远方，世界的尽头，我们家窗口的灯奇迹般地亮了，照亮了帕沙书桌上的书，我大概爬也要爬到那儿去。我身上的一切都会猛地一振。我抵挡不住过去的召唤，抵挡不住忠诚的召唤。我会把一切统统牺牲掉，甚至你和我同你的亲密关系，这么信然自得、这么自然而然的亲密关系。嗅，原谅我。我说的木是这个意思。这不是真的。”

    她扑到他的怀里放声大哭。但她很快就镇静下来，擦掉眼泪说道：

    “这便是把你赶到东尼妞那儿去的责任的呼声。上帝啊，咱们多么可怜！咱们将会发生什么事？咱们该怎么办？”

    等到她完全恢复常态后，她继续说下去：

    “我还是没回答你，为什么我们的幸福遭到破坏。我后来完全明白了。我讲给你听吧。这不只是我们俩的故事。这将是很多人的命运。”

    “告诉我，我聪明的孩子。”

    “我们是战前结婚的，战争爆发的两年前。我们刚刚按照我们的理智生活，刚刚建立起自己的家，便宣战了。我现在深信，所有的一切，随之而来的、至今仍落在我们这一代头上的不幸，都应归咎于战争。我清晰地记得童年的生活。我还赶上了上个世纪的和平。信赖理性的声音是愉快的。良心所提示的被认为是自然而需要的。一个人死在另一个人手里是罕见的，是极端例外的、不寻常的现象。拿谋杀来说吧，只在悲剧里、侦探小说里和报纸新闻里才能遇见，而不是在日常生活里。

    “可突然～下子从平静的、无辜的、有条不紊的生活跳入流血和哭号中，跳入每日每时的杀戮中，这种杀戮是合法并受到赞扬的，致使大批人因发狂而变得野蛮。

    “大概这一切决不会不付出代价。你大概比我记得清楚，一切是如何一下子开始崩溃的。列车的运行、城市的粮食供应、家庭生活方式的基础以及意识的道德准则如何崩溃于一旦。”

    “说下去。我知道你下面要说什么了。你分析得多么透彻啊！听你说话多么快活！”

    “那时谎言降临到俄国土地上。主要的灾难，未来罪恶的根源，是丧失了对个人见解价值的信念。人们想象，听从道德感觉启示的时候过去了，现在应当随声附和，按照那些陌生的、强加给所有人的概念去生活。兴起了辞藻的统治，先是君主的，后是革命的。

    “这是一种笼罩一切、到处感染的社会迷误。一切都置于它的影响之下。我们的家也无法抵挡它的危害。家庭中的某种东西动摇了。在一直充满我们家庭的自然欢快气氛中，渗入了荒谬的宣言成分，甚至渗入我们的谈话中，还有那种对于非谈不可的世界性话题不得不放意卖弄聪明的风气。像帕沙那样感觉敏锐、严于律己的人，像他那样准确无误地区别本质与假象的人，怎能注意不到这种隐蔽的虚伪呢？

    “这时他犯了一个命中注定的错误。他把时代的风气和社会的灾祸当成家庭现象。他把不自然的语气，把我们议论时生硬的官腔归咎于自己，归咎于他是干面包，庸才，套子里的人。你也许会觉得不可思议，这些琐事竟对我们的共同生活产生影响。你简直难以想象，这件事多么重要，帕沙出于这种幼稚干了多少蠢事。

    “他去打仗，可谁也没要求他去。他这样做是为了把我们从他想象出来的压抑中解脱出来。他的疯狂就是由此而开始的。一种少年的、毫无根据的自尊心促使他对生活当中谁也不会见怪的事恼火了。他开始对事件的进程恼火，对历史恼火。于是他同历史呕气。他至今还在同它算账。这便是他那些疯狂行为带有挑衅色彩的原因。由于这种愚蠢的自负，他必死无疑。唉，要是我能挽救他就好了！”

    “你爱他爱得多么真挚，多么强烈！爱吧，爱他吧。我不嫉妒你对他的感情，我不妨碍你！”

    夏天不知不觉来到并过去了。医生恢复了健康。他打定主意去莫斯科，暂时在三个地方工作。飞涨的物价迫使他想尽一切办法多干几份差事。

    医生天一亮就起床，出门来到商人街，沿商人街往下走，经过巨人电影院到先前乌拉尔哥萨克军团印刷所，这所印刷所现在已改为红色排字工印刷所。在市杜马的拐角，管理局的门上他看见挂着一块“索赔局”的木牌子。他穿过广场，转入小布扬诺夫卡街。经过斯捷贡工厂，他穿过医院的后院走进陆军医院门诊所。这是他主要的职务。

    他所经过的一半路被从院子里伸向街道上空的树枝的浓荫所覆盖，经过的木房子大多数都是奇形怪状的，屋顶陡峭，方格栅栏，门上饰着花纹，护窗板上镶着饰框。

    门诊所隔壁，在女商人戈列格利亚多娃先前的花园里，有一座与一般建筑沙然不同的、具有古俄罗斯风格的木高的房子。房子外面砌了一层棱形着釉的瓷砖。从对面看，各个边角都是锥形体，很像古代莫斯科大贵族的邮宅。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇每十天都要到旧米阿斯克街利相吉家先前的住宅去，参加设在那里的尤里亚金州卫生局的会议。

    在相反的一端，离陆军医院很远的地方，有一所安菲姆的父亲，叶菲姆·桑杰维亚托夫，为了悼念亡妻所捐献的房子，他妻子生了安菲姆后死于难产。在这所房子里，桑杰维亚托夫开办了一所妇产科学校，现在改为以罗莎·卢森堡命名的外科医生速成班。尤里·安德烈耶维奇给他们上普通病理学和几门选修课。

    他办完了所有的公务，回到家里已经是夜里了，又累又饿，总碰到拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜忙得不可开交，不是在炉灶前便是在洗衣盆前。她家常打扮，头发乱蓬蓬，袖口卷起来，下摆掖在腰里，她身上那股使人屏住呼吸的强健的魅力几乎吓坏了他，即使他突然看见她要去参加舞会，穿着使身材变高了的高跟鞋、大开领的连衣裙和引起轰动的宽裙子，他也不会如此着迷。

    她做饭或者洗衣服，然后用洗过衣服的肥皂水擦地板。或者平心静气，不急不躁地缝补自己的、他的和卡坚卡的内衣。或者，做完饭、洗过衣服和打扫完房间之后，教卡坚卡读书认字。或者专心阅读教材，进行自身的政治再教育，以便重新回到新改造过的学校当教师。

    这个女人和小姑娘对他越亲近，他越不敢把她们当成一家人，他对亲人的责任感和他的不忠实所带来的痛苦对他的思想也禁烟得越严厉。在他这种克制中没有任何侮辱拉拉和卡坚卡的成分。相反，这种非家庭的感情方式包含着全部的敬意，排除了放肆和押呢。

    但这种双重人格永远折磨他，伤他的心，不过尤里·安德烈耶维奇已经习惯了这种双重人格，就像他能够习惯尚未长好并经常裂开的伤口一样。

    这样过了两三个月。十月的一天，尤里·安德烈耶维奇对拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜说：

    “你知道吗，看来我好像该辞职了。老一套又来了。开始的时候好得不得了。‘我们永远欢迎诚实的劳动，特别欢迎新观点’等等。怎么能木欢迎呢。欢迎欢迎。工作呀，奋斗呀，寻求呀！

    “实际上，原来他们所指的新观点无非是他们的假象，颂扬革命和当局那套陈词滥调。这太乏味了，令人厌恶。我不擅长干这种事。

    “也许真是他们对。我当然不同他们站在一起。但我很难容忍这种看法：他们是英雄，是光明磊落的人，而我是渺小的人，拥护黑暗和奴役的人。你听说过尼古拉·韦杰尼亚平这个名字吗？”

    “当然听说过。认识你之前就听说过，后来你还经常提起他。西拉菲玛·通采娃也时常提到他。她是他的追随者。但他的书，说来惭愧，我没读过。我不喜欢纯哲学著作。照我看，哲学不过是对艺术和生活加上的少量佐料而已。专攻它就像光吃姜一样古怪。算了，对不起，我用蠢话岔开了你的话。”

    “不，恰恰相反。我同意你的观点。这同我的思维方式非常接近。好啦，再说我舅舅吧。也许我真受到了他的影响的毒害。可他们异口同声喊道：天才的诊断医师，天才的诊断医师。不错，我很少误诊。可这正是他们所仇视的直觉力，仿佛这是我的罪过，一下子便能获得完整的认识。

    “我对保护色的问题入了迷，也就是一种机体外表适应环境颜色的能力。在对颜色的适应中隐藏着从内向外的奇妙过渡。

    “我在讲义中大胆地触及了这个问题。立刻有人喊道：‘唯心主义，神秘论。歌德的自然哲学，新谢林主义。’

    “该离开了。我自己请求辞掉州卫生局和速成班的职务，但还尽量留在医院里，直到他们把我赶走。我不想吓唬你，但我有时有一种感觉，不是今天便是明天，他们就会把我抓起来。”

    “上帝保佑，尤罗奇卡。幸好到这一步还远着呢。但你说得对。谨慎些总不是坏事。就我所见到的，这种年轻政权的每一次确立都要经历几个阶段。开始时是理智的胜利，批判的精神，同偏见进行斗争。

    “以后进入第二个阶段。‘混入革命分子’的黑暗势力占据上风。怀疑、告密、阴谋和仇恨增长。你说得对，我们正处在第二阶段的开端。

    “眼前就有个例子。两名工人出身的老政治犯季韦尔辛和安季波夫从霍达斯克调到这儿的革命法庭委员会里来。

    “他们两人都非常了解我，其中的一个是我丈夫的父亲，我的公公。但他们一调来，不久前，我就开始为自己和卡坚卡的生命担忧了。他们什么事都干得出来。安季波夫向来不喜欢我。说不定有一天他们会为了最崇高的革命正义而把我同帕沙一块消灭掉。”

    这次谈话很快就有了下文。这时，小布扬诺夫卡四十八号、门诊所旁边的格列格利亚多娃寡妇家夜间被搜查了。在寡妇家里搜出了武器库，揭发出一个反革命组织。城里很多人被捕了，搜捕仍在继续。人们交头接耳说，一部分被怀疑的人已经逃到河对岸去了。还有人发表了这样的议论：“可这能帮他们多大的忙？河跟河不一样。想必河多得很。海兰泡边上的黑龙江就是一条河，岸这边是苏维埃政权，岸那边是中国。跳进河里游过去，再见啦，一去无音信。那才算是河呢。这是另一码事儿。”

    “气氛一天比一天紧张，”拉拉说，“咱们的安全时期过去了。我们，你和我，必然遭到逮捕。那时卡坚卡怎么办？我是母亲。我应当防止不幸发生，想出个办法来。对这一点我必须做好打算。一想到这儿，我便失去理智。”

    “让咱们一块儿想想办法，能想出什么解救办法。我们是否有力量防止这次打击？这是命中注定的事啊。”

    “无法逃脱，也无处可逃。但可以躲到隐蔽的地方，退居次要地位。比如上瓦雷金诺去。我仔细考虑过瓦雷金诺的房子。那是个非常偏僻的地方，那里一切都荒芜了。我们在那儿不碍任何人的眼，不像在这儿。冬天快到了。我愿意上那儿过冬。在他们到我们那儿之前，我们又赢得一年的生命，这可是个胜利。桑杰维亚托夫可以帮助我们同市里联系，也许他同意接待咱们。啊？你说呢？木错，那儿现在一个人也没有，可怕，荒凉。至少我三月份在那儿的时候是那样。听说有狼。可怕。可人呢，特别是像安季波夫和季韦尔辛那样的人，现在比狼更可怕。”

    “我不知道该怎么对你说才好。可你自己一直往莫斯科赶我，说服我赶快动身，不要拖延。现在容易走了。我到车站打听过。看来不管投机倒把的人了。不能把所有黄鱼都赶下火车。枪毙人枪毙累了，枪毙的人也就少了。

    “我寄到莫斯科的信都没有回音，这使我很不安。得想办法上那儿去一趟，弄清家里出了什么事儿。你一再这样对我说。现在又怎样理解你所说的上瓦雷金诺去的话？难道没有我，你一个人能到那荒野的地方去？”

    “不，没有你当然不可能去。”

    “可你自己又让我上莫斯科？”

    “是的，必须如此。”

    “你听我说。你知道吗，我有一个绝妙的计划。咱们一起上莫斯科。你带着卡坚卡跟我一块儿走。”

    “上莫斯科？你疯啦。干什么去？不，我必须留下。我必须在附近某个地方准备好。这里决定帕沙的命运。我必须等待结果，以便需要的时候呆在他身边。”

    “那咱们想想卡坚卡该怎么办吧。”

    “西姆什卡，就是西玛·通采娃，时常上我这儿来。前两天我同你谈起过她。”

    “是谈过。我在你这儿时常见到她。”

    “你让我感到惊奇。男人的眼睛上哪儿去了。我要是你准会爱上她。多有勉力！多漂亮！个头，身材，头脑。读过很多书，心眼好，有主见。”

    “我从游击队逃到这儿的那天，她姐姐，女裁缝格拉菲拉，给我理过发。”

    “我知道。姐妹们都跟大姐叶夫多基娘，一个图书馆管理员，住在一起。一个诚实的劳动家庭。我想在最坏的情况下，如果咱们俩都被抓起来，请她们收养卡坚卡。我还没决定。”

    “这确实是最坏的打算。上帝保佑，还远不亚于糟到这一步。”

    “听说西玛有点那个，情绪不正常。确实不能把她当成完全正常的女人。但这是因为她的思想深刻新奇。她的学识确实罕见，但不是知识分子那种，而是民间的那种。你同她的观点极端相似。把卡佳交给她教育我完全放心。”

    他又到车站去了一趟，还是空手而归。什么都没走下来。他和拉拉前途未卜。天气寒冷阴沉，就像下头场雪的前夕。十字街头的上空，那儿的天空比拉长了的街道上的天空更辽阔，显出一派冬天的景色。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇回到家的时候，遇见拉拉的客人西姆什卡。她们俩在谈话，不过倒像客人在给主人上课。尤里·安德烈耶维奇不想打搅她们。除此之外，他还想一个人呆一会儿。女人们在隔壁的房间里说话。通往她们那个房间的门半开着。门框上挂着的门帘一直垂到地板，隔着门帘，她们说的每一句话都听得很清楚。

    “我缝点东西，您可别在意，西姆什卡。我聚精会神地听你说呢。我上大学的时候听过历史课和哲学课。您的思想体系很合我的心意。此外，听您说话我心里痛快得多。老是操不完的心事，我们最近这几夜都没睡好。作为卡坚卡的母亲，一旦我们遭殃的话，我有责任使她免遭危险。应当清醒地想想如何安置她。但我在这点上并不擅长。承认这一点使我很悲伤。我悲伤是因为疲倦和缺少睡眠。您的话使我心情平静。此外马上就要下雪了。在下雪的时候听聪明的长篇议论是一种享受。在下雪的时候如果向窗户斜视一眼，真的，仿佛有谁穿过院子向门前走来？您开始吧，西姆什卡，我听着呢。”

    “上次我们讲到哪儿啦？”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇没听见拉拉回答了什么。他开始注意听西玛说话：

    “可以使用时代、文化这类字眼。但人们对它们的含意理解得太不相同。由于它们含意的混乱，咱们避免使用这类字眼，把它们换成别的词吧。

    “我想说人是由两部分组成的。上帝和工作。人类精神在长期发展过程中分解成各别的活动。这些活动是由多少代人实现的，一个接着一个实现的。埃及是这种活动，希腊是这种活动，《圣经》中先知的神学是这种活动。从时间上来说，这种最后的活动，暂时任何别的行动都无法代替，当代全部灵感所进行的活动是基督教。

    “为了让您感到完全新鲜，出乎意外，不像自己所熟悉并习以为常的那样，而是更简单明了、更直接地向您介绍它所带来的、新的、前所未有的教益，我想同您一起分析几段经文，极少的几段，并且是节略。

    “大多数的颂歌都把《们日约》和《新约》中的概念并列地结合在一起。把〈们日约件的概念，如烧不成灰烬的荆棘、以色列人出埃及、火窑里的少年、鲸鱼腹中的约拿等等，同《新约》中圣母受胎和耶稣复活等概念加以对比。

    “在这种经常的并列中，〈们日约》陈旧和《新约》新颖显得极其明显。

    “在很多诗篇中，把马利亚的贞洁的母性同犹太人过红海相对比。比如，在诗篇《红海就像处女新娘》中说道：‘红海在以色列人通过后无法穿过，就像童贞女怀孕生下基督一样不朽。’那就是说以色列人过后海水又无法通过，童贞女生了主后仍是贞洁的，这是把两件什么性质的事并列在一起呢？两件事都是超自然的，两件事同样被认为是奇迹。各个时代，远古的原始时代和新的罗马以后时代，已经有了很大进步的时代，怎样看待这种奇迹呢？

    “在一个奇迹中，按照人民领袖、教祖摩西的命令，他的神杖一挥动，海水便分开了，放过整个民族，数不清的、由几万人组成的人流，但等最后一个以色列人过去后，海水又汇合在一起，淹没了追赶他们的埃及人。这幅古代的情景服从耶和华声音的自然力，像罗马军队行进时浩浩荡荡拥挤的人群，人民和领袖，看得到和听得见的事物，令人震惊的事物。

    “在另一个奇迹中，少女是平常的人，古代世界对她毫不留意，但她悄悄地、隐秘地给婴儿以生命，在世界上产生生命，生命的奇迹，一切的生命，‘无所不在的生命’，后来都这样称呼奇迹。不仅从书呆子观点看她的非婚生育是非法的。它们还违反自然规律。少女生育并非由于必然，而是由于奇迹，凭借灵感。《圣经冲所说的这种灵感把特殊同普遍对立起来，假日同非假日对立起来，想建立一种背离任何强制的生活。

    “具有何等重大意义的转变啊！从古代的观点来看是微不足道的人的私生活，何以在上苍看来竟与整个民族的迁移具有同等意义呢？因为要用上苍的眼睛并在上苍面前评价一切，而这一切都是在唯一的圣框中完成的。

    “世界有所进展。罗马统治结束了，数量的权力结束了，以武器确定全体人口、全体居民生活的义务废弃了。领袖和民族已成过去。

    “取而代之的是个性和对自由的宣传。个别人的生活成了上帝的纪事，充满宇宙的空间。像报喜节的赞美歌中所说的那样，亚当想当上帝，但他想错了，没当上，可现在上帝变成人，以便把亚当变成上帝（‘上帝成了人，上帝同亚当便相差无几了’）。”

    西马继续说下去：

    “关于这个话题，我还有话要对你说，不过暂时先岔开一下。在关心劳动人民、保护母亲和同财迷政权斗争上，我们的革命时代是未曾有过的、永志不忘的时代，并具有永恒的成果。至于说到对生活的理解，现在向人们灌输的幸福哲学，简直难以相信，这是严肃地解释荒谬可笑的历史残余。如果这些歌颂领袖和人民的朗诵真能让我们回到《旧约》中所提到的畜牧部族和族长时代的话，如果它们真能使生活倒退，让历史倒转几千年的话。值得庆幸的是这是做不到的。

    “再谈几句耶稣和抹大拉的马利亚。这不是出自福音书中的故事，而是出自受难周的祈祷文，在大斋期的星期二或星期三。这些我不说您当然也清楚，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜。我不过想提醒您一下，决不想教训您。

    “在斯拉夫语系里，您当然知道得很清楚，情欲这个词首先表示痛苦，上帝的情欲意味着上帝自愿受苦。此外，后来这个词在俄语中用来表示恶习和色欲。‘我的灵魂变成情欲的奴隶，我成了畜生。’‘我们已被逐出天堂，让我们克制情欲以求重返天堂。’等等。也许我的道德极其败坏，但我不喜欢斋戒前这段束缚肉欲和禁绝肉欲的祈祷文。我总觉得这些粗俗的、平淡的祈祷文，缺乏其他经文所具有的诗意，出自大腹便便、满脸发光的教士手笔。问题倒不在于他们自己不遵守戒律并欺骗别人。就算他们生活得问心无愧吧。问题木在他们身上，而在这几段经文的内容里。这种悲痛赋予人体的虚弱以过分的意义，不管它是营养良好还是极度疲惫。这是很讨厌的。这儿把某种肮脏的、无关紧要的次要东西抬到它所不应有的、并不属于它的高度。对不起，我离题太远了。我现在就为自己的拉杂而酬劳您。

    “使我一直很感兴趣的是，为什么就在复活节的前一天，在临近耶稣的死和他复活的时候提到抹大拉的马利亚。我不知道是什么原因，然而在同生命告别之际以及在生命复返的前夕提到什么是生命，却是非常适时的。现在您听着，《圣经》中提到这一点时是多么真诚坦率啊。

    “不错，这是抹大拉的马利亚，或是埃及的马利亚，或是另一个马利亚，一直有争论。不论如何，她乞求主道：‘请解脱我的责任，像解开我的头发一样。’意思是说：‘宽恕我的罪孽，就像我散开头发一样。’渴望宽恕和忏悔表达得多么具体！手都可以触到。

    “在同一天的另一首祭祷歌中，有一段相近的祈祷文，更加详尽，确切无疑指的是抹大拉的马利亚。

    “这里她极为坦率地哀痛过去，哀痛先前每夜根深蒂固的！日习煽起的性欲。‘因为黑夜勾起我无法克制的性欲，昏暗无月光便是罪恶的话语。’她乞求耶稣接受她忏悔的眼泪，倾听她内心的叹息，以便她能用头发擦干他最洁净的脚，天堂中被惊呆和受到羞辱的夏娃便躲藏在她用头发擦脚的声音中。‘让我吻你最洁净的脚，用眼泪洗它们，用头发把它们擦干，夏娃在天堂中被惊呆和受到羞辱的时候便躲藏在头发擦脚的声音中。’突然，在头发后面迸出一句祈祷词：‘我的罪孽深重，你的命运何其坎坷，又有谁能查清？’上帝和生命之间，上帝和个人之间，上帝和女人之间，多么接近，多么平等！”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从车站回来已经筋疲力尽了，这是他每工作十天之后的一次休假日。这一天，他通常都要补足十天没睡够的觉。他靠在沙发上，有时半躺着，把身子完全伸直。尽管他听西玛说话时一阵阵犯困，但她的见解仍令他感到愉快。“当然，她这一套话都是从科利亚舅舅那儿听来的。”他想道，“可这个女人多么有才华，多么聪明啊！”

    他从沙发上跳起来走到窗口。窗户对着院子，就像在隔壁的房间里一样，拉拉和西姆什卡正在那儿低声说话，他已经听不清她们说什么了。

    天气变坏了。院子里黑了下来。两只喜鹊飞进院子里，在院子上空盘旋，想找个地方栖息。风刮起它们的羽毛，把羽毛吹得蓬松起来。喜鹊在垃圾箱盖上落了一下，飞过栅栏，落在地上，在院子里踱起步来。

    “喜鹊一来就快下雪了。”医生想道。这时他听见门帘后面西玛对拉拉说：

    “喜鹊一到就有消息了。您要有客人了，要不就有信。”

    过了一会儿，尤里·安德烈耶维奇不久前才修好的门铃响了。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜从门帝后面出来，赶快到前厅去开门。从门口说话的声音中，尤里·安德烈耶维奇听出客人是西玛的姐姐格拉菲拉·谢韦里诺夫娜。

    “您接妹妹来啦？”拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜问道。“西姆什卡在我们这儿。”

    “不是，不是来接她。当然，要是她想回家，我们就一起回去。我完全是为了别的事情。有您朋友的一封信。他得谢谢我在邮局当过差。这封信经过很多人的手才转到我手里。从莫斯科来的。走了五个月。找不到收信人。可我知道他是谁。他在我那儿理过发。”

    信很长，有好几张信纸，已经揉皱，弄污，信封拆开，磨烂了。这是东尼姐来的信。医生弄不明白，信怎么会到他手里，也没注意到拉拉如何把信交给他。医生开始读信的时候还意识到他在哪座城市，在谁家里，但读下去之后渐渐失去了这种意识。西玛从里屋出来，向他问好，告别，他都机械而有礼貌地回答，但并未注意到她。她的离去已从他的意识中消失。他渐渐已完全忘了他在哪里，也忘了他周围的一切。

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜写道：

    尤拉，你知道咱们有个女儿了吗？给她取的教名叫玛

    莎，以表示对去世的妈妈玛丽亚·尼古拉耶夫娜的纪念。

    现在谈另外一件事。立宪民主党和右翼社会党人中的

    著名社会活动家和教授梅利古诺夫、基泽维杰尔、库斯科瓦

    以及其他人，其中包括伯父尼古拉·亚历山德罗维奇·格

    罗梅科，还有我和爸爸也作为他的家庭成员，正在被赶出俄

    国。

    这真是不幸，特别是你不在我们身旁。但只得服从，并且还要感谢上帝在这种可怕的时代只对我们采取了这样温和的驱逐方式，因为我们的遭遇还可能坏得多。如果你出现了，也在这里，你会跟我们一起走的。可你现在在哪儿？我把这封信寄到赛季波娃的地址。如果她能遇到你，会把信转交给你的。我不知道伯父的事是否也会使你受到牵连，因为你是我们的家庭成员嘛。以后，如果肯定使你受到牵连的话，你也出现了，不知能否允许你出国，这使我非常痛苦。我相信你活着，并且一定会出现。这是我的爱心告诉我的，而我相信这个声音。也许你出现的时候，俄国的生活环境变得温和了，你能够弄到一张单独出国的护照，我们又能在一个地方相聚了。但我写到这儿的时候并不相信这种幸福能够实现。

    全部的不幸在于我爱你可你并不爱我。我竭力寻找这种论断的意义，解释它，为它辩解，自我反省，把我们整个的共同生活以及对自己的了解都逐一回忆了一遍，但仍找不到起因，回想不起我做了什么才招来这样的不幸。你好像错误地用不怀好意的眼光看待我，你曲解了我，就像从哈哈镜里看我一样。

    可我爱你呀，唉，但愿你能想象出我是多么爱你！我爱你身上一切与众不同的东西，讨人喜欢的和不讨人喜欢的，你身上所有平凡的地方，在它们不平凡的结合中可贵的地方，由于内在的美而显得高尚的面容，如果没有这种内涵可能显得并不好看，你的才华和智慧，仿佛代替了你所完全缺乏的意志。所有这些对我都非常珍贵，我不知道还有比你更好的人了。

    可你听着，你知道我要对你说什么吗？即便你对我不这样珍贵，即便我爱你还没爱到这种程度，我的冷漠的可悲的事实还没显露出来，我仍然认为我爱你。不爱是一种叫人多么难堪的无情的惩罚啊！仅仅出于对这一点的恐惧，我就不可能承认我不爱你。不论是我还是你，永远也不会明白这一点。我自己的。心会向我隐瞒，因为不爱有如谋杀，我决不会给任何人这种打击。

    尽管一切都没最后决定，但我们可能到巴黎去。我将要到你小时候到过和爸爸、伯伯受过教育的遥远的异乡去。爸爸向你致意。舒拉长高了，并不漂亮，但已经是个结实的大孩子了，提起你时总要难过，非常伤心地哭泣。我不能再写了，心都要哭碎了。好啦，再见啦。让我给你画个十字，为了我们无休止的分离，为了各种考验和茫然的相见，为了你将走过的十分漫长的黑暗道路。我在任何事情上都不责备你，决不怪你，照你自己的意愿安排生活吧，只要你自己满意就行了。

    在离开这个可怕的、决定我们命运的乌拉尔前夕，我对拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜已经相当了解。谢谢她，在我困难的时候她一直守在我身边，帮我度过生产期。我应当真诚地承认，她是个好人，但我不想说昧心话，她和我是完全相反的人。我诞生于人世就是为了使生活变得单纯并寻找正确的出路，而她却要使它变得复杂，把人引入歧途。

    再见啦，该结束了。他们已经采取信，也该整理行装了。嗅，尤拉，尤拉，亲爱的，我亲爱的丈夫，我孩子的父亲，这是怎么回事啊？我们永远、永远不会再相见了。所以我写下了这些话，你能明白其中的含意吗？你能明白吗？他们催我了，这就像发出了拖我上刑场的信号。尤拉！尤拉！

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从信上抬起茫然的、没有眼泪的眼睛。他什么也看不见，悲痛灼干了泪水，痛苦使他眼睛失神。他看不见周围的一切，什么都意识不到了。

    窗外雪花飞舞。风把雪向一边刮，越刮越快，刮起的雪越来越多，仿佛以此追回失去的时光。尤里·安德烈耶维奇望着眼前的窗户，仿佛窗外下的不是雪，而是继续阅读东尼姬的信，在他眼前飞舞过的不是晶莹的雪花，而是白信纸上小黑字母当中的小间隔，白间隔，无穷无尽的白间隔。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇不由自主地呻吟起来，双手抓住自己的胸膛。他觉得要跌倒。他摇摇晃晃地走到沙发跟前，昏倒在沙发上。

    重返瓦雷金诺

    冬天来到了。大雪纷飞。尤里·安德烈耶维奇从医院回到家。

    “科马罗夫斯基来了。”拉拉出来迎接他的时候压低嘶哑的声音说。他们站在前厅里。她神色惊慌，仿佛挨了一闷棍。

    “他上什么地方去？找谁？在咱们这儿？”

    “不，当然木在咱们这儿。他早上来过，晚上还想来。他很快就回来。他有事要跟你谈。”

    “他到这儿干什么来了？”

    “他说的话我没完全听明白。他好像说经过这儿到远东去，特意拐了个弯儿到尤里亚金来看咱们。主要是为了你和帕沙。他谈了半天你们两个的事。他一再让我相信，咱们三个人，你、帕沙和我，处境极端危险，只有他能救咱们，但咱们要照他的话办。”

    “我出去。我不想见他。”

    拉拉大哭起来，想跪倒在医生脚下，抱住他的腿，把头贴在腿上，但他没让她那样做，制止住了她。

    “我求求你为我留下。我不论从哪方面都不怕同他单独在一起。可这太让人难以忍受了。别让我单独同他会面吧。此外，这个人有阅历，办法多，也许真能给咱们出点主意。你讨厌他是很自然的。我请你克制自己，别走。”

    “你怎么啦，我的天使？安静点。你干什么呀？别跪下，起来，高兴点。解除缠在你身上的魔力。他让你一辈子担惊受怕。我陪着你。如果有必要，如果你命令我的话，我就杀死他。”

    半小时后夜幕降临了。天完全黑了。半年前地板上的窟窿都已堵死。尤里·安德烈耶维奇注意新出现的窟窿，把它们及时堵死。他们还养了一只长毛大猫，这只猫一动不动，神秘地凝视着周围的一切。老鼠并没离开屋子，但小心多了。

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜把配给的黑面包切成薄片，桌上放了一盘煮熟的土豆，等待科马罗夫斯基的到来。他们准备在旧主人的餐厅里接待客人，这个餐厅现在还当餐厅使用。餐厅里摆着几张大柞木餐桌，还有一个作木制做的策重的大黑酒柜。桌上放着一盏用药瓶罩着的蓖麻油灯，灯捻露在外面——这是医生平时携带的灯。

    科马罗夫斯基从十二月的黑夜中走进来，身上落满了雪。雪片从他的皮大衣、帽子上落下来，落了一层，在地板上融化成一块水洼。科马罗夫斯基先前不留胡子，现在却留起胡子来。他的胡子上沾满了雪，像小丑演出时戴的假胡子。他穿了一套保护得很好的西服，条纹裤子熨得笔挺。他在同主人打招呼之前，先用小梳子梳了半天压皱打湿的头发，并用手绢把胡子擦干理手，然后带着意味深长的表情默默地同时伸出两只手，左手伸给拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜，右手伸给尤里·安德烈耶维奇。

    “可以认为我们是老相识了。”他对尤里·安德烈耶维奇说，“我同您的父亲很熟嘛，这您大概也知道。他死在我的怀里。我一直在端详您，想找出您像他的地方。不，看来您不像父亲。他是个胸襟豁达的人，好冲动，做事麻利。从外表上来看，您更像母亲。她是个温柔的女人，幻想家。”

    “拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜说您有话要对我说，要我来听听。她说您有事找我。我只好答应了她的请求。咱们的谈话是迫不得已的。我本人并无结识您的愿望，并不认为咱们是熟人。因此，请快说正题吧。您有何贵干？”

    “你们好，亲爱的朋友们。一切的一切我都感觉到了，我全都明白。请原谅我斗胆说一句，你们俩太合适了。最和谐的一对儿。”

    “我得打断您的话。请不要管与您不相干的事。我们并没乞求您的同情。您太放肆了。”

    “您不要马上就发火嘛，年轻人。不，您还是像父亲，也是个爱冲动的人。好吧，如果您允许的话，我祝贺你们，我的孩子们。然而遗憾的是，不是我说你们是孩子，而是你们的确是孩子，什么也不知道，什么也不考虑。我在这儿只呆了两天，知道了你们的很多事，你们自己万万料想不到。你们想过没有，你们正在悬崖的边缘上。如果不预防危险，你们自由自在的日子，也许你们活着的日子，已经没有几天了。

    “世上存在着某种共产主义方式。很少有人符合这种标准。可任何人也不像您这样，尤里·安德烈耶维奇，如此明显地违背这种生活和思想方式。我不明白您平吗要惹是生非。您成了这个世界的活嘲弄，对它的一种侮辱。这要是您的秘密也好。但这里有从莫斯科来的有影响的人物。他们对您了解得一清二楚。你们俩很不合当地法律仆人的心意。安季波夫同志和季韦尔辛同志对拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜和您恨得咬牙切齿。

    “您是男人，您是自由的哥萨克，或者像这儿怎么说的。如果您任性胡来，拿自己的生命当儿戏，这是您神圣的权利。可拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜是个有牵挂的人。她是母亲。她掌握着孩子的生命，孩子的命运。她不应当异想天开，想入非非。

    “我白白劝说她一个上午，劝她正视当前的情况。她根本不听我的话。请您运用您的威望影响影响拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜。她没有权利拿卡坚卡的生命当儿戏，不应该不重视我的意见。”

    “我一生中从未劝说过谁，也没强迫过谁，特别是亲近的人。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜听不听您的劝告那是她的自由。这是她的事。此外，我根本不知道您说的是什么。您所谓的您的意见我并不清楚。”

    “真的，您越来越让我想起您的父亲，同样地固执己见。好吧，咱们谈主要的吧。这是个相当复杂的话题，您要有足够的耐心。请您听的时候别打断我。

    “上面正策划大的变动。木，木，我的消息来源极为可靠，您可以不用怀疑。我所指的是向更为民主的轨道过渡，对一般法律制度的让步，这是最近就要实行的事。

    “但正因为如此，必须废除的惩罚机构在它快要完蛋的时候必将更为猖獗，更急不可待地清算部分旧账。除掉您，尤里·安德烈耶维奇，已成为当务之急。您的名字已经上了黑名单。我决不开玩笑，我亲眼看到的，您可以相信我。想想您如何逃脱吧，不然就晚了。

    “但这些话不过是开场白。现在我要说到正题了。太平洋的滨海地区忠于被推翻的临时政府和被解散的立宪会议的政治力量正在集结。国家杜马成员，社会活动家，先前地方自治分子中的著名人物，生意人，工业家，都向那里聚集。白军的将军也把自己的残余军队集中到那里。

    “苏维埃政权对远东共和国的出现睁一只眼闭一只眼。在它的边界地区组织这样一个政府对它有益，成为红色西伯利亚和外部世界的一个缓冲国。共和国将成立一个联合政府。一大半席位留给了共产党员，以便借助他们的势力在机会成熟的时候发动政变，攫取共和国。这种打算相当明显，但问题在于如何利用剩下的这点时间。

    “革命前我曾在海参鼓替阿尔哈罗夫兄弟、梅尔库洛夫家族和其他几家商号和银行当过律师。那里的人知道我。政府正在组成，一半秘密、一半受到苏维埃政权的默许。他们的密使给我送来一份邀请书，邀请我担任远东共和国政府的司法部长。我答应了，现在就到那里去上任。所有这一切，我刚才已说过，苏维埃政权都知道，并得到它的默许，但并不很公开，所以你们也不要声张。

    “我能把您和拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜带走。从那里您很容易走海路去找自己的家人。您当然知道他们已被驱逐出境了。整个莫斯科都在议论这件轰动一时的事。我答应拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜搭救帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇。我作为莫斯科所承认的独立政府的成员，可以在东西伯利亚找到斯特列利尼科夫，并协助他进入我们的自治领域。如果他无法逃脱，我便建议用他来交换莫斯科中央政权极为关注的某个被联军扣押的人。”

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜费劲地理解他们的谈话内容，其中的意思常常从她耳边滑过。但科马罗夫斯基最后谈到斯特列利尼科夫和医生处境危险的话，使她从无动于衷的恍惚状态中惊醒过来。她的脸微微涨红，她插话道：

    “你明白吗，尤罗奇卡，这些想法对你和帕沙何等重要呀？”

    “你太容易轻信人了，我的朋友。你不能把仅仅打算办的事当成已经办成的事。我并不是说维克托·伊波利托维奇存心让我们上当。但这一切现在只是空中楼阁！现在，维克托·伊波利托维奇，我代表自己说两句话。感谢您关心我的命运，难道您以为我会把自己的命运交给您安排？至于您对斯特列利尼科夫的关心，拉拉倒应当考虑考虑。”

    “你说这话是什么意思？咱们是否考虑一下他的提议，跟他走或不跟他走。你知道得很清楚，我没有你是不会走的。”

    科马罗夫斯基不停地呷着掺了水的酒精（那是尤里·安德烈耶维奇从门诊部带回来放在桌子上的），一面嚼着土豆，渐渐有了醉意。

    夜已经很深了。不时剪去灯花的灯捻儿，僻僻啪啪地燃得更旺了，把屋里照得亮堂堂的。火苗又渐渐缩小，屋里也变得昏暗了。主人们想睡觉了，他们需要单独谈谈。可科马罗夫斯基仍然不走。他呆在这里让他们感到窒息，就像笨重的酒柜和窗外十二月严寒的黑夜让他们感到压抑一样。

    他并不望着他们，目光越过他的头顶，一双呆滞的眼睛瞪着远处的一点，快要转不过弯来的舌头半睡半醒地重复着他们早已听腻了的那一套。现在他的话题离不开远东。他翻来覆去地讲这一点，向拉拉和医生发挥关于蒙古的政治意义的论点。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇和拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜没注意到他在什么地方转到了这个话题上。他们没听见他是怎么转到这个话题上的，说明这个与他们不相干的话题是何等令人厌烦。

    科马罗夫斯基说道：

    “西伯利亚，正像人们所说的那样，是真正的新大陆，蕴藏着极为丰富的资源。这是俄国伟大未来的摇篮，是我们走向民主、昌盛繁荣和政治健全的保障。蒙古的未来吸引人的东西更多。外蒙古是我们伟大的远东共和国的邻国。你们对它有何了解？你们打哈欠，心木在焉地眨眼睛，不觉得难为情吗？那可是一块一百五十万平方俄里的土地啊，是一个有史以来尚未开发的国家，中国、日本和美国都想攫取它，侵犯所有竞争者所公认的、在地球这个遥远的角落里历次划分势力范围时划归为我们的利益。

    “中国通过对喇嘛和活佛的影响从蒙古落后的封建神权政体中攫取利益，日本则依靠各旗的王爷。共产主义红色俄国同蒙古的平民，换句话说即牧民起义者革命联合会，结成盟友。至于说到我本人，我愿看到一个在自由选举的全国代表大会统治下的真正安居乐业的蒙古。我想引起你们自身对下列情况的兴趣：一跨过蒙古的边界，世界便在你们脚下，你们便成为自由飞翔的鸟儿。”

    科马罗夫斯基滔滔不绝地谈论同他们毫不相干的讨厌的话题，终于激怒了拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜。他拖了这么长的时间，让她疲惫不堪，厌烦得要命，于是拉拉果断地向科马罗夫斯基伸手告别，带着毫不掩饰的敌意说：

    “太晚了。您该走了，我想睡觉了。”

    “我希望您不至于木好客到这种地步，这时候把我赶出门外。黑夜里我未必能在这座陌生的城市找到路。”

    “应该早点想到这一点，别坐得这么久。没有任何人挽留您。”

    “嗅，您何必同我说话这么尖刻呢？您甚至没问我一声，我是否有地方住？”

    “我对此毫不感兴趣，反正您不会委屈自己。要是您非要在这儿过夜不可，我不能把您安顿在我跟卡坚卡住的那个房间里，其他房间里老鼠会闹得您不得安宁。”

    “我不怕老鼠。”

    “那就随您的便好了。”

    “你怎么啦，我的天使？你有几夜不睡觉了，桌上的食物你连碰都不碰，像傻子似的走个不停。老是想呀，想呀！什么使你不得安宁？不能整天想着惊恐不安的事。”

    “医院里的看门人伊佐特又来了。他跟楼里的洗衣女工关系暧昧。他顺便偷偷地拐到我这儿来，安慰了我一番。他说有个绝密的消息：您的那位非坐牢不可。您就等着瞧吧，早晚得把他关起来。然后轮到您，苦命的人啊。我问他，伊佐特，这你是从哪儿知道的？您就放心吧，消息绝没错，他说。从波尔堪那儿听说的。他所说的波尔堪你大概能猜到，就是执行委员会。”

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜和医生哈哈大笑。

    “他说得完全对。危险已经迫近，到了门口。咱们得赶快溜走。问题只是往哪溜。到莫斯科去根本不用想。这要做大量的准备，必定会引起他们注意。要走得非常隐蔽，任何人都丝毫察觉不到。你知道吗，亲爱的？咱们就照你的打算办吧。咱们得失踪一个时期。就让这个地方是瓦雷金诺吧。咱们到那儿躲藏两个礼拜或一个月。”

    “谢谢，亲爱的，谢谢。嗅，我真高兴。我明白你身上的一切如何反对这样的决定。但我们要去住的并不是你们住过的房子。住在那里对你确实难以忍受。空房间，内疚，对比，都让你受不了。难道我不明白？把自己的幸福建立在别人的痛苦上，作践对你灵魂珍贵而神圣的东西。我永远不会接受你这种牺牲。但问题并不在这里。你们的住宅已经破损得很难再住人了。我首先想到的是米库利钦留下的房子。”

    “你说得都对。谢谢你的体贴。等一下。有件事我一直想问可又老忘。科马罗夫斯基在什么地方？他仍然在这儿还是已经走了？自从我同他吵翻，把他从楼上推下去之后，再没听到过他的任何消息。”

    “我也没听到他的任何消息。去他的吧。你打听他干什么？”

    “我越来越觉得咱们俩应当不同地对待他的提议。咱们的处境不同。你得抚养女儿。即使你想和我同归于尽，你也无权这样做。

    “但躲到瓦雷金诺去就意味着冬天钻进荒山野岭，没有储备的食品，没有力量，没有希望，疯狂中的疯狂。如果生活中除了疯狂外咱们一无所有，那就让哗fi疯狂一下吧。呶fi再忍受一下屈辱，央求安菲姆借给咱们一匹马。跟他，甚至不是跟他，而是跟他手下的投机倒把的人借点面粉和土豆，这是他不应推卸的责任。我们还要说服他，不要因为对我们有恩惠就马上去看我们，而要等到我们快要离开的时候，他要用马的那一天再去。让我们单独呆几天。去吧，我的宝贝。咱们砍伐很多木柴，一个礼拜烧的劈柴够勤俭持家的主妇烧一年的。

    “再次请你原谅我。原谅我脱口说出的慌乱的话。我多希望跟你说话不带这种可笑的激昂腔调。不过我们确实别无选择了。你怎么形容都行，死亡确实在敲咱们的门。但所剩不多的日子还掌握在我们手中。我们可以按照自己的心意安排它们，把它们用在告别生命上，用在我们分手前最后的团聚上。我们同我们所珍惜的一切告别，同我们习已为常的概念告别，同我们如何幻想生活、良心又如何教导我们的一切告别，我们同希望告别，我们互相告别。我们再互相说一遍我们夜里说过的那些悄悄话，伟大而轻微的话，宛如太平洋这个名称。你并非平白无故地站在我生命的尽头，在战争和起义的天空下，我隐蔽的、禁忌的天使，在你童年和平天空下，你同样会在我生命的开端站起来。

    “那天夜里，你还是高年级的中学生呢，穿着咖啡色的制服，昏暗中站在旅馆的隔板后面，同现在完全一样，同样美得令人窒息。

    “此后在我一生中，我曾尝试确定你那时照亮我心中的迷人的光芒并准确说出它的名称，那种渐渐暗淡的光芒，渐渐消逝的音响，它们从那时起便扩散到我的全部生活中，并成为洞察世间一切的钥匙。

    “当你穿着学生制服像影子一样从旅馆深处的黑暗中显露出来的时候，我，一个对你一无所知的男孩子，立即被你强烈的痛苦所感染，并明白：这个娇小虚弱的女孩像充了电一般充满世界上可能有的一切女性美，真是美得无以复加了。如果走近她，或用手指碰她一下，火花就会照亮房间，或者当场电死，或者一生带着爱慕的渴望和悲伤的电波。我心里充满迷误的眼泪，内心在闪烁，在哭泣，我那时非常可怜自己，一个男孩子，更可怜你，一个女孩子。我的全部身心感到惊奇并且问道：如果爱并且消耗电流是如此痛苦，那么作为女人，充当电流并激起爱情必将更为痛苦。

    “好了，我终于都说出来了。不说出来会发疯的。而我整天想的就是这些话。”

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜和衣躺在床边，她不大舒服。她错编起身子，蒙了一块头巾。尤里·安德烈耶维奇坐在床旁边的椅子上，轻轻地说，常常停顿半天。有时拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜用手掌托着下巴，微微撑起身子，张大嘴望着尤里·安德烈耶维奇。有时她紧紧靠在他肩膀上，不知不觉流出了眼泪，轻轻地、幸福地哭泣。最后她把身子探出床边，快活地低声说：

    “尤罗奇卡！尤罗奇卡！你多聪明啊！你什么都明白，什么都猜到了。尤罗奇卡，你是我的堡垒，还是我的避难所和支柱，让上帝原谅我的亵读行为吧。嗅，我多么幸福！咱们去吧，去吧，我亲爱的。到了那儿，我告诉你我担心的一件事。”

    他估计她要向他暗示她可能怀孕了，但多半是假的，于是说道：

    “我知道了。”

    一个灰暗的冬天早上，他们离开了尤里亚金。这天不是休息日。人们各自上街办事。路上时常碰见熟人。在凹凸木子的十字街口配水所的周围，排了一长串家里没有水井的居民，把水桶和扁担放在一边，挨个打水。医生勒住向前冲的烟黄色的维亚特卡种马，这匹马是他们向桑杰维亚托夫借的。他小心翼翼地驾着马绕过围在一起等着打水的主妇们。雪橇飞驰起来，从挑水人洒了水又结上冰的陡峭的石板路上斜滑下去，冲到人行道上，雪橇的跨杠撞在路灯和石柱上。

    他们飞速地赶过在街上走的桑杰维亚托夫，没回头看他是否认出他们和自己的马来，是否追着他们喊什么。他们在另一个地方绕过科马罗夫斯基，也没同他打招呼，不过顺便确定他还在尤里亚金。

    格拉菲拉·通采娃从人行道对面朝他们喊道：

    “都说你们昨天就走了。以后还能相信谁的话呢？拉土豆来啦？”她做手势表示听不见他们的答话，便向他们挥手告别。

    为了西玛，他们试着把雪橇停在小山坡上，但这是个很不容易停雪橇的地方。即便不在小山坡上停下来，也得拉紧组绳勒住飞驰的马。西玛从上到下裹了两三条披巾，因此她的体形看上去像一段僵硬的圆木头。她迈着两条冻得发僵的腿，走到停在石板路当中的雪橇跟前，同他们告别，祝他们平安到达。

    “您回来的时候，尤里·安德烈耶维奇，咱们得好好谈谈。”

    他们终于驶出了尤里亚金。尽管尤里·安德烈耶维奇冬天曾走过这条路，但他记得的多半是夏天的样子，现在已经认不出来了。

    他们把装粮食的口袋和其他行李塞进雪橇前头的干草堆里，并用绳子系牢。尤里·安德烈耶维奇驾驭雪橇，他一会儿像当地人那样跪在宽大的雪橇板上，一会儿侧身坐在雪橇帮上，把穿着桑杰维亚托夫的毡靴的腿垂在外面。

    过了中午，离日落还早，但在冬天，人容易受骗，仿佛一天马上就过完了。这时，尤里·安德烈耶维奇狠命地抽起马来。它像箭似的向前飞驰。雪橇在一条起伏不平的道路上颠簸，犹如大海中的一只小舟。卡佳和拉拉穿着使她们动弹不得的皮袄。雪橇经过斜坡和坑洼时，她们惊叫着，笑得肚子疼，从雪橇的这边滚到那边，像两只笨重的麻袋似的理进干草堆里。有时医生故意同她们开玩笑，把一侧的滑木驰到雪坡上，让雪橇侧翻过来，毫无伤害地把拉拉和卡佳翻到雪地里。等到雪橇冲出好几步远之后，他才勒住马，把雪橇端正过来，架在两根滑木上。拉拉和卡佳骂了他一顿，抖掉身上的雪，上了雪橇，又气又笑。

    “我指给你们看游击队劫持我的地方。”等他们离开城市相当远了之后，医生答应她们道。但他没有做到，因为冬天树木一片光秃，周围的死寂和空荡改变了面貌，当初的地点认不出来了。“就是那儿”他很快地叫道，误把竖立在田野里的“莫罗与韦钦金公司”广告牌当成他被抓走的树林里的第二个路标了。当他们飞驰过仍然竖立在萨卡玛岔道口密林里的第二个路标时竟没认出来，因为栅栏上凝聚了一层耀眼的冰霜，给树林隔出一条银黑色的细丝。他们没有发现路标。

    天黑以前雪橇飞驰进入瓦雷金诺，停在日瓦戈一家住过的房子前，因为它是大道上的第一所住宅，离米库利钦的住宅最近。他们像强盗似的冲进屋子，因为天马上就要黑了。屋里已经很黑。被毁坏一半的住宅和令人厌恶的东西，尤里·安德烈耶维奇匆忙中没看清。一部分熟悉的家具还完好无损。在荒无人迹的瓦雷金诺，没有人能把开头的破坏完成到底。家中的日常用品他一件也没发现。家庭离开的时候他不在场，所以木知道他们带走了什么，留下了什么。这时拉拉说话了：

    “赶快收拾吧。天马上就黑了。没时间通想啦。如果我们在这儿住下，就得把马牵进仓库，粮食搬进过道，吼住这间屋子。但我不赞成住在这儿。这一点我们已经谈得够多的了。你，因而还有我，都会感到难堪。这是你们先前的卧室吧？不是，是儿童间。你儿子的小床。卡佳嫌小了点。对面的窗户没坏，墙和顶棚都没裂开。此外，炉子好极了，我上次来的时候就非常赞赏。你要是坚持我们仍然住在这儿，尽管我反对，那我就脱掉皮袄马上干活了。头一件事就是生炉子。烧呀，烧呀。头一个昼夜白天黑夜都得烧。你怎么啦，亲爱的，你怎么什么话也不说呀！”

    “等一下。没什么。请原谅我。不，你听我说。咱们还是去看看米库利钦的房子吧。”

    于是，他们又向前驶去。

    米库利钦的住宅上了挂锁，是从木门上的吊环里穿过去的。尤里·安德烈耶维奇砸了半天，想把锁砸下来，最后还是连同木头上的螺丝钉一起拔了下来。同刚才一样，他们又急忙闯了进去，没脱衣服，穿着大衣、毡靴，戴着帽子直入内室。

    他们立即发现住宅角落里的某些东西放得井井有条，比如阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇的书房里便是如此。这儿不久前有人住过。到底是谁呢？如果是主人们或他们当中的一员，那大门为什么不上门锁而要安挂锁呢？此外，如果主人们经常住在这里，那整个住宅都应打扫干净，而不会只打扫个别几个地方。这些现象表明，这儿住过的不是米库利钦家的人。那到底是谁呢？医生和拉拉并不为弄不清谁在这儿住过而感到不安。他们不想为此而伤脑筋。现在有多少一半动产都被偷走的遗弃的住宅啊？有多少隐藏的在逃犯？“某个被通缉的白军军官。”他们一致这样想，“他要是来了，就一块儿住在这儿，一起商量办法。”

    像刚才一样，尤里·安德烈耶维奇又站在书房门槛上发起呆来，欣赏书房的宽敞，窗前书桌的宽大和使用方便令他惊讶。于是他又想到，这种严整舒适的环境将多么有利于需要耐性而富有成效的工作啊。

    在米库利钦杂用房当中，紧挨着仓库有间马厩。可它上了锁。尤里·安德烈耶维奇不知它能否使用。为了不浪费时间，他决定头一夜把马牵进没上锁的仓库里。他卸下马，等它汗干了，用从井里打来的水饮过它。尤里·安德烈耶维奇想从雪橇上取些干草喂它，可干草被乘客压成碎末，已经无法喂马了。幸好仓库和马厩上面的大干草棚的角落里还有相当多的干草。

    他们没脱衣服，盖着皮袄睡了一夜，像孩子奔跑玩耍了一整天之后睡得那样香熟。

    他们起床后，尤里·安德烈耶维奇从一清早便对那张诱人的书桌看个不停。他的手想写东西已经想得发痒了。但他把这种享受放在晚上，拉拉和卡坚卡上床睡觉之后。在这之前，即便收拾好了两个房间，也有的是活干。

    他在幻想夜间工作时，并未抱定重要宗旨。支配着他的是通常对墨水和钢笔的向往和对写作的渴望。

    他只想随便涂写点什么。开头，他能把过去没写下来的回想起来，写下来就满足了，想借此活动活动由于无所事事而凝滞了的、在长久中断期间沉睡过去的才能。然后，他希望能和拉拉在这儿呆的时间长一些，有充裕的时间写出一些新的、有分量的东西来。

    “你忙吗？你干什么呢？”

    “烧火呀，烧火呀。有什么事儿？”

    “递给我洗衣盆。”

    “如果这样烧的话，劈柴连三天都不够。应该上我们日瓦戈家先前的仓库去看看。也许那儿还剩点？要是那边剩得多，我用雪橇拉几次就都拉到这儿来。明天去拉。你要洗衣盆。你瞧，我刚才在哪儿看见过，可是在哪儿，怎么也想木起来了，真莫名其妙。”

    “我也一样。在哪儿见过可想不起来了。也许没放在该放的。地方，所以记不起来了。算了吧。你心里有个数，我烧了很久水，想洗个澡。剩下的水洗洗我和卡佳的衣服。你把你的脏衣服一起都给我。晚上，咱们把该打扫的地方都打扫干净之后，再考虑下一步该怎么办，不过睡觉前一定得洗上澡。”

    “我马上把内衣找出来。谢谢。衣橱和笨重的家具统统照你说的那样从墙边移开了。”

    “好极了。我用洗碗碟的大盆当洗衣盆好了。就是太油腻了。得把盆边的油垢刷掉。”

    “炉子一点着，我关上炉门就去翻其他抽屉。桌上和五斗橱里到处都能发现新的东西。肥皂、火柴、铅笔、纸和文具。到处都让人感到意外。比如桌上的油灯里装满了煤油。这不是米库利钦的油灯，这我是知道的。肯定有另外的来源。”

    “真太幸运了！这都是神秘的住客弄来的。仿佛凡尔纳作品中的人物。唉，你究竟想说什么？你瞧，我们又聊起天来，可水桶烧开了。”

    他们忙成一团，在屋子里乱转，两人跑着撞在一起，或者撞在卡坚卡身上。她横挡着他们来回经过的路，在他们脚底下转来转去。小姑娘从这个屋角闪到那个屋角，妨碍他们收拾房间，他们说她时还生了气。她冻坏了，一直喊冷。

    “可怜的当代儿童，我们吉卜赛生活的牺牲品，我们流浪生活的顺从的小参加者。”医生想，但却对小姑娘说：

    “得啦，亲爱的，哆喀个什么劲儿。说谎淘气。炉子都快烧红了。”

    “也许炉子暖和，可我冷。”

    “那你就忍一忍，卡秋莎。晚上我把炉子烧得旺旺的，再添一次劈柴，妈妈说晚上还要给你洗澡呢，你听见了没有？好了，现在你把这些拿去玩吧。”他把从冰窖似的储藏室里抱出来的利韦里的！日玩具堆成一堆，有的坏了，有的没坏。其中有积木和拼字方块，小火车，一块打了格、涂了彩、标明数字的马粪纸，是玩掷骰子和计算游戏的底盘。

    “您怎么啦，尤里·安德烈耶维奇。”卡坚卡像大人似的感到委屈。“这都是别人的。再说是给小孩玩的，我已经大了。”

    可过了一会儿她就在地毯当中坐好，手底下的各种形状的玩具都变成了建筑材料，卡坚卡用它们替从城里带来的洋娃娃宁卡盖住宅。这座住宅盖得很合理，比经常带她住的临时住所强得多。

    “这种爱家的本能真了不起，对家庭和秩序的渴望是消灭不了的。”拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜说，她从厨房里观察女儿搭房子。“孩子们是真诚的，做什么都不拘束，不会为真理感到害羞，可我们怕变成落伍者，准备出卖最珍贵的东西，夸奖令人厌恶的东西，附和无法理解的东西。”

    “洗衣盆找着了。”医生打断她的话。从昏暗的过道里拿着木盆走进来。“真没放在应该放的地方。它大概从秋天起就放在漏雨的天花板底下了。”

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜用刚从城里带来的食物做了一顿足够吃三天的午饭。她端上从未见过的菜，土豆汤和羊肉炸土豆。卡坚卡吃了还想吃，没个够，一边吃一边格格地笑，不停地淘气，后来终于吃饱了。屋子里很热，她觉得浑身没劲儿，盖着妈妈的披肩倒在沙发上睡着了。

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜刚离开厨灶，满脸的汗，像女儿一样，疲倦，昏昏欲睡，对她做的饭菜所产生的印象非常满意，并不忙着收拾盘碟，坐下来喘口气。看到女儿已经睡熟之后，她便趴在桌子上，一只手撑着头说道：

    “假如我知道，我做的事没白做，能够达到一定的目的，那我就会拼死拼活地干，并会从中找到幸福。你得时刻提醒我，我们到这儿的目的就是为了在一起。给我打气，别让我回心转意。因为严格地说，如果冷静地看我们在干什么，我们之间发生了什么，那会很可怕的。侵入旁人的住宅，破门而入，擅自当家作主，一进来就拼命收拾，以致看不见这不是生活，而是舞台演出，不是认真过日子，而是像小孩们常说的‘过家家’，是木偶戏，荒唐极了。”

    “可是，我的天使，是你自己坚持到这儿来的。你还记得吧，我一直反对，不赞成。”

    “是这样。我不辩解。所以这都是我的过错。你可以动摇，犹豫，可我的一切都应是始终如一的，合乎逻辑发展的。我们一进家门，你便看见你儿子的小床，便开始不舒服，差点痛苦得晕倒。你有这种权利，可我就不行。为卡坚卡担心，对未来的考虑，都让位给对你的爱了。”

    “拉里莎，我的天使，你清醒清醒。改变主意，放弃决定，永远来得及。我头～个劝你对待科马罗夫斯基的话要认真一些。咱们有马。你要愿意，咱们明天就赶回尤里亚金去。科马罗夫斯基还在那儿，还没走。我们穿过街的时候不是从雪橇上看见他了吗？而他，照我看，并没发现咱们。我们大概还能碰到他。”

    “我差不多什么还没说呢，可你说话的声音里已经带着不满意的腔调了。可你说，我的话不对吗？藏得这么不牢靠，这么欠考虑，同待在尤里亚金还不是一样。如果要想解救自己，大概还得制定一个深思熟虑的计划，而其最终结果，还得像那个有阅历并且头脑清醒、尽管令人厌恶的人所提议的那样。因为我们在这儿，我真不知道比在其他任何地方更加危险多少倍。无边无际的原野，随时可以被暴风雪掩埋。我们孤零零三个人，夜里被雪掩埋，早上从雪里也招不出来。要不然光顾过咱们住宅的那位神秘的恩人突然出现，原来却是强盗，会把咱们杀死。你有什么武器？你看没有吧。你那种无忧无虑的态度让我害怕，可又感染了我。所以我的脑子里很乱。”

    “在这种情况下你想干什么？要我做什么？”

    “我自己也不知道该怎么回答你。永远支配我吧。不停地提醒我，我永远是盲目爱你、不会同你争辩的奴隶。嗅，我告诉你，咱们的亲人，你的东尼娜和我的帕沙，比咱们好一千倍。但问题在这里吗？爱的才能同其他才能一样。它也许是伟大的，但没有祝福便无法表现出来。咱们好像在天堂上学会了接吻，然后同时降临在大地上，以便相互在对方身上检验这种本领。和谐的顶峰，没有边际，没有等级，没有高尚，没有低贱，整个身心的对等，一切都给予欢乐，一切都是灵魂。但在这种粗野的、时刻戒备的柔情中孕育着某种孩子般不驯服的、不允许的东西。这是一种任性的、毁灭的本能，同家庭的和睦水火不相容。我的天职是惧怕它，不信任它。”

    她用两只手搂住他的脖子，尽量不让自己哭出来，接着把话说完：

    “你明白吗，我们的处境不同。上帝赋予你翅膀，好让你在云端翱翔，可我是个女人．只能紧贴地面，用翅膀遮住推雀，保护它不受伤害。”

    她所说的一切他都非常爱听，但他没表露出来，免得甜蜜得腻人。他控制住自己的感情，说出自己的看法：

    “咱们这种野营式的生活确实是虚假而刺激人的。你说得太对了。但这种生活并不是咱们想出来的。发疯似的东奔西跑是所有人的命运，这是时代的精神。

    “我今天从早上起差不多也是这样想的。我想竭尽一切努力在这里呆得时间长一些。我简直说不出我多想干活。我指的不是农活。我们全家已经投身到农活里一次了，也干成功了。我没有精力再干一次。我想的已经不是农活了。

    “生活从各方面逐渐就绪。说不定什么时候又能出版书了。

    “我现在考虑的就是这件事。我们不妨同桑杰维亚托夫谈妥，给予他优厚的条件，请他供养我们半年，用我的劳动成果作抵押。我在这半年期间一定写出一本医学教材，或者，比方说，一本文艺作品，比如一本诗集吧。再不，翻译一本世界名著。我精通几种语言，不久前读过彼得堡一家专门出版翻译作品的大出版社的广告。这类工作具有交换价值，能变成钱。能干点这类的事我是非常快活的。”

    “谢谢你提醒了我。我今天也想到这类事了。但我没信心在这里坚持住下去。恰恰相反，我预感到我们很快就会被冲到更远的地方去。但我们还居留在这里的时候，我对你有个请求。为我最近几个晚上牺牲几小时，把你在不同时期凭记忆给我朗读过的一切都写出来。有一半遗失了，而另一半又没写出来，我担心你以后会统统忘记的，它们就消失了，用你自己的话说，这种事以前经常发生。”

    当晚他们用洗衣服剩下的热水痛痛快快地洗了个澡。拉拉也给卡坚卡洗了澡。尤里·安德烈耶维奇怀着清爽喜悦的感觉背朝着屋里坐在窗前书桌前面。拉拉浑身散发出清香，披着浴衣，湿头发用一块毛茸茸的毛巾高高挽起来，把卡坚卡放在床上，替她盖好被子，自己也准备就寝。尤里·安德烈耶维奇已经预感到即将聚精会神写作的愉快了。他动情地、恍豫地感受着周围发生的一切。

    到了深夜一点钟，一直装着睡着了的拉拉真的睡着了。拉拉身上换的，卡坚卡身上换的，还有放在床上的内衣，光洁耀眼，清洁，平整，镶着花边。拉拉在这种年代仍然平方百计地浆洗内衣。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇的周围是一片充满幸福、散发出甜蜜的生活气息的宁静。灯光在白纸上投下一片悠闲的黄影，在墨水瓶的瓶口上洒了几滴金点。窗外是微微发蓝的冬天的寒夜。尤里·安德烈耶维奇走进隔壁那间没点灯的冰冷的房间，从那儿看外面的景致看得更清楚。他向窗外望去。满月的清光紧裹着雪地，仿佛在雪地上涂了一层粘乎的鸡蛋白或白色的乳漆。寒冬之夜的华美是无法形容的。医生的心中异常平静。他又回到烧得暖暖的点着灯的房间，坐下来写作。

    他的字写得很大，行距也很宽，生怕字迹表现不出奋笔疾书的劲头，失去个性，变得呆板无神。他回想起并用不断完善的措词记下最为定形的和最难忘记的诗句，《圣诞节的星星》和《冬天的夜晚》以及诸如此类的许多短诗，这些诗后来被人遗忘了，失传了，以后也没再被人发现。

    然后，他又从这些固定的和先前写好的东西转向曾开过头但又放下的东西，把握住它们的风格，继续写下去，并不抱立刻补写完的任何希望。后来他写顺了手，心向神往，又开始写另一首。

    不费劲地写出了两三节诗和他自己感到惊讶的比喻之后，他完全沉浸在工作中，感到所谓的灵感已经来临了。支配创作的力量对比仿佛倒转过来了。第一位的不是人和他寻求表达的精神状态，而是他想借以表达这种精神状态的语言。语言、祖国、美和含义的储藏所，自己开始替人思考和说话了，不是在音响的意义上，而是在其内在的湍急奔流的意义上，完全变成音乐了。那时，有如急流的河水以其自身的流动磨光河底的乱石，转动磨坊的轮盘，从心中流出的语言，以其自身法则的扭力在它流经的路途上，顺便创造出诗格和韵律以及成千上万种形式和构型，但至今仍未被人们认识、注意和定名。

    在这种时刻，尤里·安德烈耶维奇觉得，主要的工作不是他自己在完成，而是那个在他之上并支配着他的力量在替他完成，那就是：世界思想界和诗歌的现状，还有诗歌未来所注定的，在其历史发展中它所应做出的下一步。于是，他觉得自己不过是使它进入这种运动的一个缘由和支点罢了。

    他摆脱了对自己的责备和不满，个人渺小的感觉也暂时消除了。他回头张望，又四下环顾。

    他看见枕着雪白枕头熟睡的拉拉和卡坚卡两个人的脑袋。洁净的床单，洁净的房间，她们两人洁净的轮廓，同洁净的冬夜、白雪、星星和月牙融合成一股意义相等的热浪。它穿过医生的心底，使他兴高采烈，并由于感到身心洋洋得意的洁净而哭泣。

    “主啊，主啊！”他想低声叫出来。“而这一切都属于我！为什么赏赐我的这么多？你怎么会允许我接近你，怎么会允许我误入你的无限珍贵的土地，在你的星光照耀下，匍匐在这位轻率的、顺从的、薄命的和无比珍贵的女人脚下？”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从稿纸上抬起眼睛的时候已经是凌晨三点了。他从与一切隔绝的凝思中苏醒过来，又回到自己身旁，回到现实中来，他是幸福的、强健的和平静的。突然间，他在窗外伸向远方的沉寂的寥廓空间中听到凄凉的声音。

    他走进隔壁没点灯的房间，从那里向窗外张望。在他写作的时候，玻璃上已结满窗花，外面什么也看不清了。尤里·安德烈耶维奇抽出塞在大门下面挡风的地毯卷，披上皮袄，走到台阶上。

    一片毫无遮掩的白雪在月光下晶莹耀眼，起初晃得他睁不开眼，什么也看不见。但过了～会儿，他听见从远处传来从胸腔里发出的、模糊的呜咽，并发现峡谷后面的雪地边上有四个不比连字符号长多少的长影子。

    四只狼并排站着，嘴脸朝着房子，扬起头，对着月亮或米库利钦住宅窗户反射出的银光降叫。它们一动不动地站了几秒钟，但当尤里·安德烈耶维奇明白它们是狼时，它们便像狗一样夹着尾巴小步从雪地边上跑开，仿佛它们猜到了医生的心思。医生没来得及看清它们是朝哪个方向逃走的。

    “倒霉的消息！”他想道，“还有这种倒霉的事儿。难道它们栖息的地方就在附近？也许就在山谷里。多可怕呀！而桑杰维亚托夫的马就在马厩里。它们可能闻到马的气味了。”

    他决定暂时什么也不对拉拉说，免得吓着她，便回到屋里，锁上大门，关上通向没生火的那一半房间的过道的门，塞好门缝，走到桌子跟前。

    灯还像先前一样明亮而诱人。但他再也写不下去了。他的心平静不下来。脑子里除了狼和其他威胁人的现象外，什么也想不起来。再说他也疲倦了。这时拉拉醒了。

    “你还点着灯写呢，我心中的明灯！”她用睡得有点沙哑的嗓子低声说，“到我身边来，挨着我坐一会儿。我告诉你我做了一个什么样的梦。”

    于是他熄了灯。

    第二天又像在忧郁性精神病中过去了。住宅里找到一副小雪橇。卡坚卡穿着皮袄，脸冻得通红，大声笑着，从冰堆上沿着花园里没扫过雪的小路往下滑。这个冰难是医生替她做的，他先把雪拍紧，再洒上水，于是冰堆便做成了。她带着稚气的笑容，不停地爬上冰堆，用绳子把雪橇拉上去。

    天气变冷，严寒凛冽，但院子里充满阳光。雪在中午的阳光照耀下变成黄色，又在它蜂蜜般的黄色中仿佛甜蜜的沉淀物似的注入了黄昏过早降临的余晖。

    昨天拉拉在屋里洗衣服洗澡，弄得屋里一股潮气。窗户上给了松软的窗花，被水蒸气熏潮的壁纸从天花板到地板挂满水珠流淌的痕迹。屋里显得昏暗、憋闷。尤里·安德烈耶维奇打水劈柴，继续察看没有察看过的角落，不停地发现新的东西，一面帮助拉拉做事。拉拉从早晨起一直在忙家务，做完了一件又做一件。

    他们俩的手又在干活最紧张的时候碰在了一起，一只手放在另一只举起来搬重东西的手里，那只手没触到目标便把东西放下了，一阵无法控制的、使他们头脑发昏的柔情解除了他们的武装。东西又从他们手里滚落下来，他们把什么都忘了。几分钟过去了，几小时过去了，等他们猛地想起半天没管卡坚卡或者没喂马饮马的时候，天色已经晚了，于是怀着内疚的心情急忙去干该干的活。

    医生由于觉睡得不够而感到头疼。脑袋里有一种甜蜜的迷糊，像喝醉了酒似的，浑身有一种快活的虚弱。他急不可待地等待夜晚的降临，好重新恢复中断了的写作。

    充满他全身的腾俄倦意替他做好了准备工作。而周围的一切都迷离恍惚，都被他的思绪笼罩住了。准备工作使一切都显得或隐或现，这正是准确地把它体现出来的前一阶段。有如杂乱的初稿，一整天无所事事的情倦，正是夜晚写作的必不可少的准备。

    无所事事的情倦对任何东西并非原封不动，毫无变化。一切都发生了变化，变成另一种样子。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇感到，他想在瓦雷金诺长期居住的幻想无法实现，他同拉拉分手的时刻＿天天临近，他必将失掉她，随之也就失掉生活的欲望，甚至生命。痛苦吮吸着他的心。但更折磨他的还是等待夜晚的降临，把这种痛苦用文字倾吐出来的愿望，哭得任何人看了都会落泪。

    他一整天都在回想的狼已经不是月光下雪地上的狼了，而是变成有关狠的主题，变成敌对力量的代表，这种敌对力量一心想要毁灭医生和拉拉，或把他们挤出瓦雷金诺。这种敌意的思想渐渐发展，到了晚上已经达到如此强烈的程度，仿佛在舒契玛发现了史前时代骇人怪物的踪迹，仿佛一条渴望吮吸医生的血、吞食拉拉的神话中的巨龙躺在峡谷中。

    夜幕降临了。医生像昨天那样点亮了桌上的油灯。拉拉和卡坚卡比昨天还早便躺下睡觉了。

    昨天写的东西分成两部分。修改过的过去所作的诗，用工整的字体誊写干净。他新作的诗，潦草粗略地写在纸上，其中有许多逗点，字体歪斜得难以辨认。

    辨认这些涂写得一塌糊涂的东西，使医生像通常那样感到失望。夜里，这些草稿片段使他激动得落泪，几段得意之作让他惊讶不已。现在，他又觉得这几段想象中的成功文字十分勉强，又让他感到伤心。

    他一生都幻想写出独创的作品来，文字既流畅又含蓄，形式既新颖又通俗；他一生都幻想形成一种淡雅朴实的风格，读者和听众遇到他的作品时。自己也不知道怎么就领悟了它们，掌握住它们的内容。他一生都追求朴实无华的文风，常常由于发觉自己离这种理想尚远而惶恐不安。

    在昨天的草稿中，他本打算用简朴得像人们的随意闲谈、接近摇篮曲的真挚方式表现出自己那种爱情与恐惧、痛苦与勇敢的混合情绪，让它仿佛不需凭借语言而自然流出。

    现在创览这些诗稿时，他发现缺乏把分散的诗篇融为一体的内容丰富的开端。尤里·安德烈耶维奇在修改写好的诗篇时渐渐采用先前那种抒情风格记述勇敢的叶戈里的神话。他从广阔的、写起来无拘束的五音步格开始。与内容无关的、诗格本身所具有的和谐，以其虚假的形式主义的悦耳声音刺激他的神经。他抛弃了夸张的带停顿的诗格，把诗句压缩成四音步格，就像在散文中与长篇大论搏斗一样。这写起来更难了，也更吸引人了。写作进展得快多了，但仍然掺入过多的废话。他强迫自己尽量压缩诗句。在三音步格里，字显得过挤了，萎靡的最后痕迹从他笔下消失了。他清醒过来，热血沸腾，狭窄的诗行本身向他提示用什么字填充诗行。几乎难以用文字描绘出的事物开始老老实实地显现在他所提及的背景之内。他听见马在诗歌中的奔驰声，宛如肖邦的一支叙事曲中骏马溜蹄的啥啥声。常胜将军格奥尔吉在无边无际助草原上骑马奔驰，尤里·安德烈耶维奇从背后看见他渐渐变小的身影。尤里·安德烈耶维奇奋笔疾书，刚刚来得及把自己落到恰当的位置上的字句记下来。

    他没注意到拉拉从床上爬起来走到桌子跟前。她穿着垂到脚跟的长睡衣显得苗条，比她本人高一些。当面色苍白、惊恐的拉拉站在尤里·安德烈耶维奇身旁时，他吓了一跳。她伸出一只手，低声问道：

    “你听见了没有？一只狗在曝叫。也许是两只。唉，多可怕，多么坏的兆头！咱们好歹忍到早上就走，一定走。我多一分钟也呆不下去了。”

    过了一小时，尤里·安德烈耶维奇劝说了她好久，她才平静下来，又睡着了。尤里·安德烈耶维奇走出房间，走到台阶上。狼比昨天夜里离得更近，消失得也更快。尤里·安德烈耶维奇又没来得及看清它们逃走的方向。它们挤在一起，他来不及数它们一共几只。但他觉得狠更多了。

    他们在瓦雷金诺已经栖身十二天长地久了，情况同头一两天没有什么差别。在这星期的中间，消失的狼又像他们到的第二天夜里那样噙叫。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜又把它们当成狗，再次被这种坏兆头吓坏了，决定第二天早上就离开。她的精神状态一会儿平稳，一会儿慌乱，这对一个劳动妇女是很自然的。她不习惯整天倾吐柔情，过着那种无所事事、尽情享受过分荒唐的奢侈的爱情生活。

    同样的情景一再重复，以致第二个星期的一天早上，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜像每次一样收拾行装准备返回尤里亚金的时候，甚至可以这样想，在这儿过的一个多星期根本不曾存在过似的。

    屋子里又潮湿又昏暗，这是因为天气阴沉的缘故。严寒没有前几天那么凛冽，布满乌云、阴暗低沉的天空马上就要下雪了。尤里·安德烈耶维奇由于一连几个晚上睡眠不够，已经感到身心憔悴，心灰意懒了。他的思绪很乱，身体虚弱，冷得发抖，缩着脖子搓两只手，在没生火的房间里踱来踱去，不知道拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜如何决定，以及自己相应地干些什么。

    她的打算并不明确。现在她宁肯献出自己一半的生命，只要他们不这样自由散慢，而是服从于任何一种严格的、必须永远遵守的秩序，那时他们便能上班，便能诚实而理智地生活。

    这一天同往常一样，她先铺好床，打扫房间，给医生和卡佳端早餐，然后整理行装，请医生套雪橇。离开的决定是她做出的，坚决而不可更改。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇不打算说服她改变主意。他们曾经突然消失，现在在逮捕的高潮中返回城市简直是发疯。但他们孤单单地躲在冬天可怕的荒野里，没有武器，又处于另一种可怕的威胁之中，也未必明智。

    此外，医生从邻近的几家仓库中耙来的干草已经不多了，而新的干草还不知道到哪儿去弄。当然，如果有可能在这儿长期居住下来的话，医生会到周围去搜寻，想办法补充草料和粮食。不过，如果只是短期地、毫无指望地在这里过几天，便不值得到各处搜寻了。于是医生什么都不再想了，出去套马。

    他笨手笨脚地套马。这还是桑杰维亚托夫教给他的呢。尤里·安德烈耶维奇忘记了他的指点。他用自己那双毫无经验的手把要做的都做了。他用包着铁皮的皮带头把马轭系在车辕上，在车辕的一侧打了个扣，并把扣拉紧，剩下的皮带在车辕头上绕了几绕，然后用一条腿顶住马腹，拉轭上松开的曲杆，然后再把其余该做的事都做完，把马牵到台阶前，控好，进去对拉拉说，可以前身了。

    他发现她极度慌乱。她和卡坚卡都已穿好行装，东西都已捆好，但拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜激动地搓着手，尽量不让眼泪流出来，请尤里·安德烈耶维奇坐一会儿，自己倒在椅子里又站起来，用悦耳的高音调断断续续地抱怨着，上句不接下句地飞快说道：(手机TXT小说下载网.整*理*提*供)

    “我没有过错。我也不想知道是怎么回事儿。可怎么能现在走呢？天马上要黑了。夜里我们在路上。正好在你那片可怕的树林里。我说得不对吗？你怎么吩咐我就怎么办，可我自己下不了决心。有什么东西阻止我走。我心里乱极了。随你的便吧。我说得不对吗？你怎么默不作声，一句话不说呢？我们糊涂了一上午，不知道把半天的工夫都浪费到什么上去了。这件事明天不会再发生，我们会谨慎小心一些，我说得不对吗？要不咱们再留一夜？明天早点起，天一亮，六七点钟的时候就动身。你说呢？你生着炉子，在这儿多写一个晚上，咱们在这儿再住一夜。唉，这多么难得，多么神奇！你怎么一句话也不回答呀？我又做错了事，我是个多么不幸的女人啊！”

    “你又夸大其词了。到黄昏还早看呢。天还很早。随你的便吧。我们留下来好啦。可你得平静点。你瞧你多激动。是啊，打开行李，脱下皮袄。你瞧，卡坚卡说她饿了。咱们吃点东西。你说得对，今天动身准备得太差，太突然。可你千万别激动，别哭。我马上生火。最好还是趁着没卸马，雪橇就在门口，我到日瓦戈旧房子的仓库里去拉点劈柴，要不我们一根劈柴也没有了。你别哭。我马上就回来。”

    仓库前面的雪地上有几条尤里·安德烈耶维奇前几次去和转回头的时候轧出的圆形雪橇痕迹。门槛旁边的雪被他前天拉劈柴时踩脏了。

    早上布满天空的云飘散了。天空变得洁净。天又冷了起来。从不同距离围绕着这些地方的大园子一直伸展到仓库跟前，似乎为了想看医生的脸一眼，向他提醒什么事。今年的积雪很深，高出仓库的门槛。它的门振仿佛低了不少，仓库就像歪斜了一样。屋檐下悬挂着一块融雪凝聚而成的冰片，像一个硕大无朋的蘑菇，像一顶帽子似的顶在医生脑袋上。就在屋顶凸出的地方，像被一把利刃戳进雪里，挂着一弯新月，沿着月牙的边散发出灰暗的黄光。

    现在尽管是白天，非常明亮，但医生却有一种仿佛在很晚的时候置身于自己生命的黑暗密林中的感觉。他的灵魂中就有这样的黑暗，因此他感到悲伤。预示着分离的新月，象征着孤独的新月，几乎挂在他的眼前，低垂到他的脸旁，向他泛着黄光。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇累得站不住了。他从仓库里往雪橇上扔劈柴，每次尽量抱少点，不像前几次那样。就连戴着手套抱粘雪上冻的木块，也冻得两手疼痛。活动加快了，但他并没暖和过来。他身体内部有什么东西停顿了，扯断了。他用最恶毒的语言诅咒自己不幸的命运，祈祷上帝保护这位忧伤的、顺从的、纯朴的、美貌如画的女人的生命。而新月仍然悬挂在仓库上，说发光又不那么发光，说照耀又不那么照耀。

    马突然转向他们来的方向，扬起头，嘶叫起来，开始时低声而胆怯，后来竟高声而自信了。

    “它这是怎么啦？”医生想道。“怎么这么兴奋？绝不可能受到惊吓。马受了惊吓是不嘶叫的，真胡闹。它不会傻得闻到狼的气味就嘶叫起来给它们报信吧。瞧它是多么快活呀。看来是预感到家了，想回家了。等一下，马上就动身。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇又拣了不少碎木头片和几大块从禅树上撕下来的、像靴腰子似的卷起来的禅树皮，把它们扔到码好的雪橇上，准备回去当引火柴用。他把劈柴用粗席包好，用绳子捆牢，跟在雪橇旁边，把劈柴运往米库利钦仓库。

    马又嘶叫起来，回答从对面远处传来的明显的马嘶声。“这是谁的马？”医生哆咦了一下想道。“我们以为瓦雷金诺空无一人。原来我们想错了。”他万万没想到这是他们的客人，马嘶声来自米库利钦的庄园，他们住所的门前。他赶着雪橇绕到米库利钦庄园的杂物房，穿过遮住住宅的小山坡后面，从那儿看不见住宅前面的房子。

    他不慌不忙地（他何必着急呢？）把劈柴扔进仓库，卸下马，把雪橇放在仓库里，然后把马牵进旁边冰冷的空马厩，拴在有墙角的柱子上，那儿比较背风，又从仓库里抱出几抱干草，塞进倾斜的牲口槽里。

    他满腹狐疑地走回家去。台阶旁边停着一辆套好的雪橇。这是一辆农民用的非常宽的雪橇，乘坐起来很舒服，上面套着一匹喂得很肥的小黑公马。一个他不认识的小伙子，穿着漂亮的紧腰长外衣，围着马转来转去，拍拍它的两胁，看看马蹄上的距毛。马的毛色光滑，膘肥体壮，同小伙子一样。

    屋里有喧哗声。他不想偷听，也听不见里面说的是什么。尤里·安德烈耶维奇不由得放慢脚步，停住了，一动不动地站在那里。他听不懂他们说的话，但听出了科马罗夫斯基、拉拉和卡坚卡的声音。他们大概在靠近门口的头一间屋子里。科马罗夫斯基正在同拉拉争论，从她回答的声音里可以听出；她很激动，哭了，一会儿激烈地反驳他，一会儿又赞同他的话。根据某种不明确的迹象，尤里。安德烈耶维奇听出，科马罗夫斯基此刻正在谈论他，大概是说他是个不可靠的人（“脚踩两只船”——尤里·安德烈耶维奇这样觉得），不知道谁对他更亲近，家庭还是拉拉，拉拉不能信赖他，因为如果信任医生，她就会两头落空，哪一个也得不到。尤里·安德烈耶维奇走进屋子。

    科马罗夫斯基果真站在头一间屋里，穿着一直拖到地的皮袄。拉拉抓着卡坚卡大衣的上端，正在给她扣领钩，可怎么也扣不上。她对女儿发火，喊叫，让她别乱动，别挣扎。可卡坚卡抱怨道：“妈妈，轻点，你要勒死我了。”他们三人都穿好了衣服准备出发。尤里·安德烈耶维奇一进门，拉拉和维克托·伊波利托维奇都争着跑过去迎接他。

    “你这半天上哪儿去啦？我们正需要你呢！”

    “您好，尤里·安德烈耶维奇！尽管上次我们互相说了不少蠢话，可您瞧，我不经邀请又来了。”

    “您好，维克托·伊波利托维奇。”

    “你这半天上哪儿去了？听他说什么，赶快替自己和我作出决定吧。没有时间了。赶快决定吧。”

    “咱们干吗站着？坐下吧，维克托·伊波利托维奇。怎么半天没见我，上哪儿去了？拉罗奇卡，你不是知道嘛！我去运劈柴，然后照料马。维克托·伊波利托维奇，请您坐下。”

    “你怎么一点都不感到惊奇？你怎么没显出惊讶？咱们曾经懊悔过这个人走了，咱们没接受他的建议，可他现在就在你面前，而你却不感到惊讶。他带来的新消息更惊人。请您把新消息告诉他，维克托·伊波利托维奇。”

    “我不知道拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜指的是什么消息，我想说的是下面的几句话。我故意散布流言，说我已经走了，可我又留了几天，为了给您和拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜时间重新考虑咱们谈过的问题，经过深思熟虑之后，也许不会作出过于轻率的决定。”

    “但不能再推迟了。现在是离开的最好时机。明天一早——还是让维克托·伊波利托维奇自己对你说吧。”

    “等一下，拉罗奇卡。对不起，维克托·伊波利托维奇。干吗不脱皮袄呢！脱掉外衣，咱们坐一会儿。谈话并不是严肃的事嘛！怎么能马上决定呢。对不起，维克托·伊波利托维奇。咱们的争吵触及灵魂中某些敏感的地方。分析这些私事既可笑又不方便。我从未考虑过跟您走。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜的情况不同。当我们在罕见的环境中所担心的并不是一回事儿的时候，我们才醒悟到，我们并不是一个人，而是两个人，各有各的命运。我认为拉拉应当，特别是为了卡坚卡，更为认真地考虑您的计划。而她也正是不停地这样做的，一次又一次地考虑接受您的建议的可能性。”

    “但条件是你必须一起走。”

    “我同你一样难以想象咱们的分手，但也许要强迫自己作出牺牲。因此，根本不用谈我走的问题。”

    “可你还什么都不知道呢。你先听听他说。明天清晨……维克托·伊波利托维奇！”

    “拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜大概指的是我带来的消息，这些消息我已经告诉她了。尤里亚金的铁道线上停着正在生火的远东政府的专列。它昨天从莫斯科开来，明天又要向前开。这是我们交通部的火车。它的一半车厢是国际卧车。

    “我必须乘这列火车走。他们为我邀请的工作助手留了座位。我们的旅行将会非常舒适的。这种机会不会再有。我知道您不会信口开河，不会改变您拒绝跟我们走的打算。您是个不轻易改变决定的人，这我知道。可您还得为了拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜改变您的决定。您听见了，没有您她不走。跟我们一起走吧，即使不到海参成，到尤里亚金也行呀。到了那儿再说。这样就得赶快动身。一分钟都不能耽搁。我带来一个人，我自己驾不好雪橇。我这辆无座雪橇装不下五个人。如果我没弄错的话，桑杰维亚托夫的马在您这儿，您刚才说用它拉过劈柴。它还没卸下来吧！”

    “木，我把马卸了。”

    “那就赶快再套上。我的马车夫会帮您的忙。不过，算了。让您的雪橇见鬼去吧。咱们一起对付着坐我的雪橇。您可得快点。带上手头必不可少的东西。房子不锁算了。得拯救小孩生命，而木是替房子去配钥匙。”

    “我不明白您的意思，维克托·伊波利托维奇。您跟我说话的口气仿佛我答应跟您走了。你们走你们的吧，如果拉拉这样想走的话。你们用不着担心房子。我留下，你们走后我把它打扫干净，安上领。”

    “你说的是什么呀，尤拉？你明摆着胡说八道。你自己也不相信你所说的话。什么‘如果拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜已经决定了的话’？你心里明明非常清楚，你不一起走的话，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜不可能作出任何决定。那又何必说这种话呢：‘我打扫房子，剩下的一切都归我管。”’“这么说您毫不动摇了。那我对您有另外一个请求。如果拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜不在意的话，我想单独同您说两句话。”

    “可以。如果如此必要的话，请上厨房里去吧。你不反对吧，拉里莎？”

    “斯特列利尼科夫被捕了，判处极刑，判决已执行。”

    “太可怕了。难道是真的吗？”

    “我是这样听人说的，并且相信是真的。”

    “别告诉拉拉。她听了会发疯的。”

    “那当然。因此，我才把您叫到另一间屋子里来。枪毙了斯特列利尼科夫之后、她和女儿的生命就危在旦夕了。帮助我拯救她们吧。您断然拒绝同我们一起走吗？”

    “我已经对您说过了。当然如此。”

    “可是没有您她不走。我真不知道怎么办才好。那我要求您从另一个方面帮助我。您假惺惺地在话里表露出准备让步，装出您可以说服的样子。我无法想象你们分别的情景。不论在当地还是在尤里亚金车站，如果您真去送我们的话。必须让她相信您也走。如果不马上同我们一起走，那就过一段时间，等我再为您提供新的机会，您答应利用那次机会。您一定要向她发个假誓。但对我来说并不是空话。我以人格向您担保，只要您一表示离开的愿望，我在任何时候都能把您从这里弄到我们那儿去，然后再把您送到您想去的地方。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜必须相信您给我们送行。您必须让她绝对相信这一点。比如您假装跑去套马，劝我们马上离开，不必等您套好马，然后您在路上赶上我们。”

    “帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇被枪决的消息使我震惊，我无法平静下来。我听您的话很费劲儿。但我同意您的看法。按照现今的逻辑，镇压了斯特列利尼科夫之后，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜和卡佳便有生命危险。我们两人当中必定有人被捕，反正我们仍然得分开。倒不如让您把我们分开好。您把她带走，越远越好，带到天涯海角。现在，我对您说这些话的时候，一切都照您的意思办。我大概支撑不住了，得抛弃自己的骄傲和自尊，顺从地匍匐到您的脚前，从您的手中接受她、生命和通向自己家人的海路——自己的生路。但让我把所有的一切都分析一下。您告诉我的消息使我太吃惊了。我被痛苦所压倒，它夺去我思考和分析的能力。如果屈从您，我会犯一个命中注定无法弥补的错误，为此而一生担惊受怕，但在痛苦使我的神智渐渐衰弱和模糊的时刻，我现在唯一能做的是机械地附和您，盲目而懦弱地服从您。好吧，我做出准备走的样子，为了她的幸福，向她宣称我去套马，追赶你们，可我一个人留在这里。只剩下一点小事了。你们怎么走呢，天马上就黑了？道路穿过树林，到处都是狠，您当心点！”

    “我知道。我带着猎枪和手枪呢。您不用担心。我还顺便带了点酒精，以备天太冷的时候喝。我带了不少，您要不要留一点？”

    “我干了什么？我干了什么？我把她送走了，舍弃了，让步了。跑着去追他们，赶上他们，把她接回来。拉拉！拉拉！

    “她听不见。风朝相反的方向刮。他们大概大声说话呢。她有一切理由快乐和平静。她受了骗，不知道自己处于何等的迷怅中。

    “这大概是她的想法。她这样想：一切都办得再好不过，完全合她的心意。她的尤罗奇卡，幻想家和固执的人，感谢造物主，终于软了下来，同她一起到一个安全的地方去，到比他们聪明的人那儿去，生活在法律和秩序的保护下。万一他坚持自己的主张，并且坚持到底，明天固执地不肯上他们的火车，那维克托·伊波利托维奇也会派另一辆车来接他，不久就会开到他们那儿去。

    “他现在当然已经在马厩里，着急和激动得双手发抖，笨手笨脚地套雪橇，马上在他们后面飞快地赶来，在田野上他们尚未进入树林之前便能赶上他们。

    “她大概正是这样想的。他们甚至没好好告别，尤里·安德烈耶维奇只挥了挥手便转过身去，拼命吞下堵住喉咙的痛苦，好像被一块苹果噎住了。”

    医生一只肩膀上披着皮袄站在台阶上。没被皮袄的那只手使劲摄门廊下面的花纹柱颈，好像要把它掐死。他全神贯注于旷野中远方的一个小黑点上。那儿的道路爬上一段山坡，在几株单独生长的白杨树中间显露出来。这一刻斜阳的余晖正落在这片开阔的土地上。刚刚隐没在凹地中的飞驰的雪橇马上就要出现在这块阳光照耀的空地上了。

    “永别了，永别了！”医生在雪橇出现之前无声地、麻木地重复着，把这些微微颤抖的声音从胸中挤到傍晚的严寒空气中。“永别啦，我永远失去的唯一的爱人！”

    “他们出现了！他们出现了！”当雪橇从凹地飞也似的驶出，绕过一棵棵白杨树，开始放慢速度，令人高兴地停在最后一棵白杨树旁的时候，他发白的嘴唇冷漠而急切地说。

    嗅，他的心跳得多厉害，跳得多厉害，两条腿发软。他激动得要命，浑身软得像从肩上滑下来的毡面皮袄！“嗅，上帝，你仿佛要把她送回到我的身旁？那儿出了什么事？那儿在干什么，在那遥远的落日的水平线上？该当如何解释？他们干吗停在那儿？不，完了，他们又向前奔驰了。她大概请求停一下，再次向他们住过的房子看上一眼，向它告别。也许她想弄清，尤里·安德烈耶维奇是否已经出发，正飞快地追赶他们？走了，走了。

    “如果来得及，如果太阳不比平时落山早（在黑暗中他看不清他们），他们还会闪现一次，也就是最后的一次了，在峡谷那一边的空地上，前天夜里狼呆过的地方。”

    而这一刻终于来到了，来到了。维紫色的太阳又一次显现在雪堆的蓝色线条上。雪贪婪地吮吸太阳洒在它上面的凤梨色的光辉。瞧，他们出现了，飞驰而过。“永别了，拉拉，来世再见面吧，永别了，我的美人，永别了，我的无穷无尽的永恒的欢乐。”现在他们消失了。“我这一生永远、永远、永远也见不到你啦。”

    这时天已黑了。晚霞洒在雪地上的紫红色光点倏然褪色，黯然消失。柔和的淡灰色旷野沉入紫色的暮震中，颜色越来越淡。在淡紫色的、仿佛突然暗淡下来的天空中用手描绘出的大路上白杨树镶了花边的清晰轮廓，同灰漾漾的薄雾融合在一起。

    心灵的悲伤使尤里·安德烈耶维奇的感觉变得异常敏感。他捕捉周围的一切比过去清晰百倍。周围的一切都具有罕见的独一无二的特征，连空气也包括在内。冬天的夜晚，像一位同情一切的证人，充满前所未有的同情。仿佛至今从未有过这样的黄昏，而今天头一次，为了安慰陷入孤独的人才变黑了似的。环绕着山峦的背对着地平线的树林，仿佛不仅作为这一地带的景致生长在那里，而是为了表示同情才从地里长出来安置在山峦上的。

    医生几乎要挥手驱散这时刻的美景，仿佛驱散一群纠缠人的同情者，想对照在他身上的晚霞说：“谢谢。用不着照我。”

    他继续站在台阶上，脸对着关上的门，与世界隔绝了。“我的明亮的太阳落山了。”他心里不停地重复着这句话。他无力把这几个字按顺序吐出来，因为喉头抽搐，一阵阵发疼，使它们时刻中断。

    他走进屋子，心里开始两种不同性质的独白：对自己本人的枯燥的、虚假的事务性的独白和对拉拉的冗长的、漫无边际的独白。他是这样想的：“现在上莫斯科去。第一件事是活下去。不要失眠。不要躺下睡觉。夜里写作到头脑发昏，直到疲倦得不省人事。还有件事。马上生好卧室里的炉子，别冻死在今天夜里。”

    可是，他另外又对自己说：“我永生永世忘不了的迷人的人儿。只要我的肘弯还记着你，只要你还在我怀中和我的唇上。我就同你在一起。我将在值得流传的诗篇中哭尽思念你的眼泪。我要在温柔的、温柔的、令人隐隐发疼的悲伤的描绘中记下对你的回忆。我留在这儿直到写完它们为止。我将把你的面容描绘在纸上，就像掀起狂涛的风暴过后，溅得比什么都有力、比什么都远的海浪留在沙滩上的痕迹。大海弯曲的曲线把浮石、软木、贝壳、水草以及一切它能从海底卷起的最轻的和最无分量的东西抛到岸上。这是无穷尽地伸向远方的汹涌澎湃海浪的海岸线。生活的风暴就是这样把你冲到我身边，我的骄傲。我将这样描绘你。”

    他走进屋里，锁上门，脱下皮袄。当他走进拉拉早上细心打扫过、匆忙离开时又都翻乱的房间，看见翻乱的床铺、乱堆在地板上和椅子上的东西的时候，他像小孩一样跪在床前，胸口紧贴着坚硬的床沿，把脸埋在垂下来的羽毛褥子里，像孩子似的尽情哭起来。但他哭的时间并不长。尤里·安德烈耶维奇站起来，急忙擦掉眼泪，用惊奇的、心不在焉的疲惫眼光把周围打量了一遍，拿出科马罗夫斯基留下的酒瓶，打开瓶塞，倒了丰杯酒精，掺了水，又加了点雪，有如他刚刚流过的、无法慰藉的眼泪，开始急煎煎地、一小口一小口地喝起这种混合物来，并且喝得津津有味。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇身上发生了古怪的变化。他渐渐丧失了理智。他还从未有过这种古怪的生活。他不订扫房间，不再关心自己的饮食，把黑夜变成白天。自从拉拉走后他已经忘记了计算时间。

    他喝掺水的酒精，写献给她的作品。但他的诗和札记中的拉拉，随着他的不断涂改和换词，同真正的原型，同银卡佳一起正在旅途中行驶的卡坚卡的活生生的妈妈，相去越来越远。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇所做的这些删改，出于表达准确和有力的考虑，但它们也符合内心克制的暗示，这暗示不允许他过分坦率地披露个人的感受和并非臆造的过去，唯恐伤害或冒犯同他写出的和感受的一切直接有关的人们。这样，血肉相关的热气腾腾的和尚未冷却的东西便从诗中排除了，而代替淌血和致病的是平静之后的广阔，而这种广阔把个别的情形提高到大家都熟悉的空泛的感受上去了。他并未追求过这个目的，但这种广阔，自动而来，像行驶中的拉拉从路上向他致以慰问，像她遥远的致意，像她在梦中的出现或者像她的手触到他的额头。他喜欢诗中的这种使人精神高尚的印痕。

    在哭泣拉拉的同时，他也把与自己各个时期有关的各种事物，比如关于自然、关于日常生活等涂沫的东西加了一遍工。像他往常一样，在他写作的时候，许多有关个人生活和社会生活的思绪一齐向他袭来。

    他又想到，对历史，即所谓历史的进程，他与习以为常的看法完全木同。在他看来，历史有如植物王国的生活。冬天雪下的阔叶树林光裸的枝条干瘪可怜，仿佛老年人赘疣上的汗毛。春天，几天之间树林便完全改观了，高人云霄，可以在枝叶茂密的密林中迷路或躲藏。这种变化是运动的结果，植物的运动比动物的运动急剧得多，因为动物不像植物生长得那样快，而我们永远不能窥视植物的生长。树林不能移动，我们不能罩住它，窥伺位置的移动。我们见到它的时候永远是静止不动的。而在这种静止不动中，我们却遇到永远生长、永远变化而又察觉不到的社会生活，人类的历史。

    托尔斯泰否定过拿破仑、统治者和统帅们所起的创始者的作用，但他没有把这种看法贯彻始终。他想的正是这些，但未能清楚地说出来。谁也不能创造历史，它看不见，就像谁也看不见青草生长一样。战争、革命、沙皇和罗伯斯庇尔们是历史的目光短浅的鼓动者，它的酵母。革命是发挥积极作用的人、片面的狂热者和自我克制的天才所制造的。他们在几小时或者几天之内推翻旧制度。变革持续几周，最多几年，而以后几十年甚至几世纪都崇拜引起变革的局限的精神，像崇拜圣物一样。

    他在痛哭拉拉的时候也为很久之前在梅留泽耶沃度过的夏天哭泣。那时革命是当时的上帝，那个夏天的上帝，从天上降到地上，于是每个人都按照自己的方式疯狂，于是每个人的生活各不相干，但都一味肯定最高政治的正确，却又解释不清，缺乏例证。

    他在删改各式各样旧作时，又重新检验了自己的观点，并指出，艺术是永远为美服务的，而美是掌握形式的一种幸福，形式则是生存的有机契机，一切有生命的东西为了存在就必须具有形式，因此艺术，其中包括悲剧艺术，是一篇关于存在幸福的故事。这些想法和札记同样给他带来幸福，那种悲剧性的和充满眼泪的幸福，他的头因之而疲倦和疼痛。

    安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇来看过他。他也带来伏特加，并告诉他安季波娃带着女儿同科马罗夫斯基一起离开的经过。安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇是乘铁路上的手摇车来的。他责骂医生没把马照料好，把马牵走了，尽管尤里·安德烈耶维奇请求他再宽限三四天。他答应三四天之后再亲自来接医生，带他永远离开瓦雷金诺。

    有时，尤里·安德烈耶维奇沉浸在写作中的时候，会忽然极为清晰地想起那个已经远行的女人，心中涌起一股柔情，心如刀割，痛苦得不知所措。就像在童年的时候，在夏天富饶的大自然中，在鸣禽的啼啥中他仿佛听到死去母亲的声音，如此习惯于拉拉、听熟了她的声音的听觉现在有时竟会欺骗他。他有时产生幻觉，仿佛她在隔壁的房间里叫“尤罗奇卡”。

    这一星期里他还产生过别的幻觉。周末的夜里，他梦见屋子下面有龙穴，马上惊醒了。他睁开眼睛。突然，峡谷底被火光照亮，啪地响了一声，有人放了一枪。奇怪的是，发生了这种不平常的事之后，不到一分钟医生又睡着了。第二天早上，他认为这一切都是他做的梦。

    这就是那夜之后一天所发生的事。医生终于听从了理智的声音。他对自己说，如果打定主意一定要弄死自己，他可以找到一种更为有效而痛苦更少的办法。他暗自发誓，只要安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇一来接他，他马上就离开这里。

    黄昏前，天还很亮的时候，他听见有人踏雪的咯吱咯吱声。有人迈着轻快而坚定的步子朝住宅走来。

    奇怪。这能是谁呢？安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇一定坐雪橇来。荒芜的瓦雷金诺没有过路的人。“找我的。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇暗自确定。“传唤我回城里。要不就是来逮捕我。但他们用什么把我带走呢？他们必定是两个人。这是米库利钦，阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇。他觉得他从脚步声认出了来的客人是谁，便高兴起来。暂时还是谜的那个人，停在扯掉插销的门旁，因为没在门上找到他所熟悉的锁，但马上又迈着自信的步子向前走来，用熟悉的动作，像主人似的打开路旁的大门，走了进来，又小心翼翼地带上门。

    那人做出这些古怪动作的时候，医生正背对着门口坐在桌前。当他从桌前站起来，转过身去迎接陌生人的时候，那人已经站在门槛上，呆住了。

    “您找谁？”医生无意识地脱口而出，没有任何意义；当没有听到回答的时候，尤里·安德烈耶维奇并不感到惊奇。

    进来的人身体强壮，体格匀称，面容英俊，身着皮上衣和皮裤子，脚上穿着一双暖和的羊皮靴，肩上背着一枝来复枪。

    让医生惊讶的只是他出现的那一刹那，而不是他的到来。屋里找到的东西和其他的迹象使尤里·安德烈耶维奇有了这次会面的准备。显然，屋里储备的东西是属于这个人的。医生觉得他的外表很熟，在哪儿见过。来访者好像对于房子里有人也有准备。房子里有人居住并不使他感到特别惊讶。也许他也认识医生。

    “这是谁？这是谁？”尤里·安德烈耶维奇拼命回想。“生啊，我究竟在哪儿见过他呢？这可能吗？记不清哪一年的一个炎热的五月早上。拉兹维利耶火车站。凶多吉少的政委车厢。明确的概念，直率的态度，严厉的原则，正确的化身。对了，斯特列利尼科夫！”

    他们已经谈了很久，整整几个小时，只有在俄国的俄国人才会这样谈话，特别是那些惊恐和悲伤的人，那些发疯和狂怒的人，而当时俄国所有的人都是那样的人。黄昏来临。天色渐渐黑了。

    除了同所有人都操心地谈个没完的习惯外，斯特列利尼科夫之所以喋喋不休还有另外的、自己的原因。

    他有说不完的话，全力抓住同医生的谈话，以免陷入孤独。他惧怕良心的谴责还是惧怕追逐他的悲伤的回忆，还是对自己的不满在折磨他？他对自己的不满已经到了无法忍耐、仇恨自己、羞愧得准备自杀的地步了。或者他已作出了可怕的、不可更改的决定，因此他不愿意一个人孤单单的，如果可能的话，他借同医生谈话和呆在一起的机会而推迟决定的执行？

    不管怎么说，斯特列利尼科夫隐藏着使他苦恼的重大秘密，而在其他的一切话题上倾吐肺腑。

    这是世纪病，时代的革命癫狂。心里想的是一回事儿，说的和表现出来的又是另一回事儿。谁的良心都不干净。每个人都有理由认为完全是自己的过错，自己是秘密的罪犯，尚未揭露的骗子。只要一有借口，想象中就会掀起自我谴责的狂浪。人们幻想，人们诽谤自己不仅是出于畏惧，而且也是～种破坏性的病态的嗜好，自愿地处于形而上学的恍惚状态和自我谴责的狂热中，而这种狂热如果任其发展，便永远无法遏止。

    作为高级将领，有时还担任过军事法庭成员的斯特列利尼科夫，曾经读过或听过多少次这类临死前的供词，书面的和口头的。现在他自己的自我揭发症也同样地发作了，对自己整个地作了重新的评价，对一切都做出总结，认为一切都是狂热的、畸形的、荒诞的歪曲。

    斯特列利尼科夫讲得语无伦次，从表白突然转到坦白上去。

    “这发生在赤塔附近。我在这屋中的橱柜里和抽屉里塞满了希奇古怪的东西，这大概让您感到惊奇了吧？这些都是红军占领东西伯利亚时我们征用的军事物资。当然不是我一个人拖到这里来的。生活对我很厚爱，总有对我忠心耿耿的人。蜡烛、火柴、咖啡、茶、文具和其他的东西，一部分来自捷克军用物资，另一部分是日本货和英国货。非常奇怪吧，我说得不对吗？‘我说得不对吗？’是我妻子的口头禅，您大概注意到了。我当时不知道是否立刻告诉您，可现在我要向您承认了。我是到这儿来看她和我女儿的。人家很晚才告诉我，仿佛她们在这儿，所以我来迟了。当我从谣言中听说您同她的关系亲近，并头一次听说‘日瓦戈医生’这个名字时，我从这些年在我眼前闪过的成千上万的人当中，不可思议地回想起有一次带来让我审问的医生叫这个名字。”

    “您是不是后悔当初没把他毙了？”

    斯特列利尼科夫放过他这句插话。也许他根本没发觉他的对话者用插话打断他的独白。他继续心不在焉地说下去：

    “当然，我嫉妒过她对您的感情，现在还嫉妒。能不这样吗？我最近几个月才躲藏在这一带，因为东边更远地区我的其他接头的地方都被人发觉了。我受到诬告，必须受军事法庭审讯。其结果不难预测。但我并不知道自己犯了什么罪。我产生了等将来环境改变之后再洗清罪名、证实自己无罪的希望。我决定先从他们的视野内消失，在被逮捕之前躲藏起来，到处流浪，过隐士生活。也许我终将得救。但是，一个骗取了我的信任的年轻无赖坑害了我。

    “我冬天步行穿过西伯利亚来到西方，忍饥挨饿，到处躲藏。我躲藏在雪堆里，在被大雪覆盖的火车里过夜。西伯利亚铁路干线上停着数不清的空列车。

    “我在流浪中碰见一个流浪的男孩子，他被游击队判处死刑，同其他死囚排在一起等待处决，但没被打死。他仿佛从死人堆里爬了出来，缓过气来，恢复了体力，后来像我一样躲藏在各种野兽的洞穴中。起码他是这样对我说的。这个少年是个坏蛋，品行恶劣，留级生，由于功课太坏曾被学校开除。”

    斯特列利尼科夫讲得越详细，医生越清楚地认出了他说的男孩子。

    “他姓加卢津，叫捷连季吧？”

    “对了。”

    “那他说的游击队要枪毙他们的话是真的。他一点都没胡编。”

    “这个男孩子唯一的长处就是爱母亲爱到极点。他的父亲被人当作人质绑走后便无消息了。他得知母亲被关进监狱，命运将同父亲一样，便决定无论如何也要搭救母亲。他到县非常委员会自首，并愿意为他fIJ效劳。他们答应免除他的一切罪行，代价是必须供出重要的罪犯。他便指出我藏身的处所。幸亏我防备他叛变，及时躲开了。

    “历尽难以想象的艰辛和干百次的冒险，我终于穿过西伯利亚来到这里。这儿的人都非常熟悉我，最想不到会在这儿碰到我，料想我没那么大的胆量。确实，我在附近一家空房子里躲避的时候，他们还在赤塔附近搜寻了我很久。但现在完了。他们在这地盯上了我。您听着，天快黑了，我不喜欢的时刻！临近了，因为我早就失眠了。您知道这多么痛苦。要是您没点完我所有蜡烛的话——多好的硬脂蜡烛啊，难道我说得不对吗？——咱们再谈一会儿吧。咱们一直谈到您挺不住为止，咱们就奢侈一点，点着蜡烛谈一整夜。”

    “蜡烛都在。我只打开了一盒。我点的是在这儿找到的煤油。”

    “您有面包吗？”

    “没有。”

    “那您是怎么过的？算啦，我问的是傻话。您用土豆充饥。我知道”

    “是的。这儿土豆有的是。房主有经验，善于储备，知道怎样把土豆埋好。它们在地窖里都保存得很好。没烂也没冻坏。”

    斯特列利尼科夫突然谈起革命来。

    “这对您来说都是毫无意义的空话。您无法理解。您是在另一种环境中长大的。有一个城市郊区的世界，一个铁路和工人宿舍的世界。肮脏，拥挤，贫困，对劳动者的凌辱，对女人的凌辱。有被母亲疼爱的儿子、大学生、阔少爷和商人子弟，他们的欢笑和无耻不会受到惩罚。他们用玩笑或轻蔑的怒容摆脱开被掠夺一空的、被欺凌和被诱骗的人的诉怨和眼泪。一群登峰造极的寄生虫，他们所得意的仅仅是从不感到为难，没有任何追求，不向世界贡献什么，也不留下什么。

    “可我们把生活当成战役，我们为自己所爱的人移山倒海。尽管除了痛苦外我们没给他们带来任何东西，我们丝毫没欺侮过他们，因为我们比他们要忍受更多的痛苦和折磨。

    “然而，我在继续说下去以前有责任告诉您一件事。如果您还珍惜生命的话，赶快离开这里。搜捕我的圈子正在缩紧，不管结果如何，都会牵连到您，咱们谈话的这个事实已经把您牵进我的案子里去了。此外，这儿狼很多，前两天我开枪把它们打跑了。”

    “啊，原来是您开的枪？”

    “是我。您自然听见了？当时我上另一个躲藏的处所去，但没走到之前，根据各种迹象断定，那里已经暴露，那儿的人大概都被打死了。我在您这儿呆不长，住一夜明天早上就离开。好了，如果您允许的话，我就继续讲下去。

    “难道只有莫斯科，只有俄国才有特维尔大街和亚玛大街？才有带姑娘乘马车飞驰而过的歪戴着帽子、穿着套带长裤的花花公子？街道，夜晚的街道，～个世纪以来的夜晚的街道，骏马，花花公子，到处都有。什么构成时代，十九世纪以什么划分成一个历史时期？社会主义思想的产生。发生了革命，富于自我牺牲和青年人登上街垒。政论家们绞尽脑汁，如何遏制金钱的卑鄙无耻，提高并捍卫穷人的人的尊严。出现了马克思主义。它发现了罪恶的根源和医治的方法。它成为世界强大的力量。然而，一世纪以来的特维尔大街和亚玛大街，肮脏和圣洁的光芒，淫乱和工人区，传单和街垒，依然存在。

    “啊，她是女孩子、中学女生的时候多么可爱！您根本无法想象。她经常到她同学住的院子里去，那儿住满了布列斯特铁路职工。那条铁路先前就叫这个名字，后来换了几次名字。我的父亲，现今尤里亚金军事法庭的成员，那时是车站地段的养路领工员。我常到那个院子去，在那儿遇见过她。她那时还是个小姑娘呢，但在她脸上、眼睛里，已经能够看到警觉的神色，世纪的惊恐。时代的所有主题，它的全部眼泪和怨恨，它的任何觉醒和它所积蓄的全部仇恨和骄傲，都刻画在她的脸和她的姿态上，刻画在她那少女的羞涩和大胆的体态的混合上。可以用她的名字，用她的嘴对时代提出控诉。您同意吧，这并非小事。这是某种命运，这是某种标志。这本应是与生俱有的，并应享有这种权利。”

    “您对她的说法太妙了。我那时也见过她，正像您所描绘的那样。中学生的形象同不是儿童的某种神秘的女主角结合在一起了。她在墙上移动的影子是警觉自卫的影子。我见到她时她就是那样的。我记得她那时的样子。您形容得极为出色。”

    “您见过并且还记得？可您为此做了什么？”

    “那完全是另外一回事了。”

    “所以您瞧，整个十九世纪和它在巴黎的所有革命，从赫尔岑算起的几代俄国侨民，所有见诸行动或不见诸行动的企图谋杀沙皇的人，世界上所有的工人运动，欧洲议会和大学里的全部马克思主义，整个思想的新体系，新奇而迅速的推论和嘲弄，一切为怜悯而制定出来的辅助性残酷手段，所有这一切都被列宁所吸收并概括地表现出来，以便对过去进行报复，为了过去的一切罪恶向陈旧的东西袭击。

    “俄国木可磨灭的巨大形象在全世界的眼中同他并排站立起来，它突然为人类的一切无所事事和苦难燃起赎罪的蜡烛。可我干吗对您说这些呢？这一切对您来说不过是漂亮而空洞的词句，没有意义的音响而已。

    “为了这个女孩子找上了大学，又为了她当了教师，到我那时从未听说过的这个尤里亚金去任教。我贪婪地读了一大堆书，获得了大量的知识，以便她一旦需要我帮助时，便能对她有益，出现在她身边。我去打仗，以便在三年夫妻生活后重新占有她的心，而后来，战后，从俘虏中逃回来后，我利用人们认为我已经被打死的讹传，改换名字，全心投身到革命中，以便为她所忍受的一切痛苦彻底报仇，洗清那些悲伤的回忆，以便过去永远不再返回，特维尔大街和亚玛大街不再存在。而她们，她和女儿就在附近，就在这里！我需要付出多大的毅力才能克制住奔向她们跟前，看见她们的愿望啊！但我想把毕生的事业进行到底！现在只要能再见她们一面，我愿付出任何代价。当她走进房间时，窗户仿佛打开了，屋里立刻充满阳光和空气。”

    “我知道她对您是何等珍贵。但对不起，您知道她爱您爱得多么深吗？”

    “请原谅。您说什么？”

    “我说，您是否知道您对她珍贵到何等程度，您是世界上她最亲的人？”

    “您根据什么这么说？”

    “这是她亲口对我说的。”

    “她？对您说的？”

    “是的。”

    “对不起。我知道这种请求是不可能答应的，但如果这不显得轻率的话，如果这在允许的范围内，请您尽可能地把她的话原原本本告诉我。”

    “非常愿意。她把您称为人的典范，她，还未见过一个同您一样的人，唯一真诚到顶点的人。她说，如果在世界的尽头再次闪现出她和您共同居住过的房子，她不论从什么地方，哪怕从天边爬也要爬到房子跟前。”

    “请原谅。如果这不涉及某些对您来说不可涉及的事的话，请您回想一下她是在什么情况下说的那些话？”

    “她打扫这间房子的时候、然后到院子里抖地毯的时候。”

    “对不起，哪一张？这儿有两张。”

    “那张大点的。”

    “她一个人拿不动。您帮她拿了吧？”

    “是的”

    “你们俩各抓住地毯的一头，她身子向后仰，两只手甩得高高的，像荡秋千一样，掉过脸躲避抖出来的灰尘，眯起眼睛哈哈大笑？我说得不对吗？我多么熟悉她的习惯啊！然后你们往一块靠拢，先把笨重的地毯叠成两折，再叠成四折，她还一边说笑话，做出各种怪样。我说得不对吗？说得不对吗？”

    他们从座位上站起，走向不同的窗口，向不同的方向张望。沉默了一会儿之后，斯特列利尼科夫走到尤里·安德烈耶维奇跟前，抓住他的手，把它们按在自己胸上，继续像先前那样急急忙忙地说下去：

    “对不起，我明白，我触到你隐藏在心中最珍贵的角落了。但如果可能的话，我还要详细地问您呢。千万别走开。别把我一个人丢下。我自己很快就走。请您想想，六年的别离，六年难以想象的忍耐。但我觉得自己并未赢得全部自由。于是我想先赢得它，那时我便全部属于她们，我的双手便解开了。但是我的一切打算都落空了。明天他们就会把我抓住。您是她亲近的人。也许您有朝一日还能见到她。不，我在请求什么呢？这是发疯。他们将把我抓住，不让我分辩，马上朝我扑过来，又喊又骂地堵住我的嘴。我还不知道他们会怎么干吗？”

    他终于睡了个好觉。许久以来尤里·安德烈耶维奇头一次一躺下便睡着了。斯特列利尼科夫留在他那儿过夜。尤里·安德烈耶维奇把他安顿在隔壁的房间里。尤里·安德烈耶维奇夜里醒了，翻个身，把滑到地板上的被子拉好，在这短暂的时刻，他感到了酣睡的舒畅，马上又香甜地睡着了。后半夜他开始做短梦，梦见的都是他童年时的事，一会儿梦见这个，一会儿又梦见那个，清晰，有很多细节，真不像做梦。

    比如，梦见墙上挂着一幅她母亲画的意大利海滨水彩画，绳子突然断了，掉在地板上，摔碎玻璃的声音把尤里·安德烈耶维奇惊醒了。他睁开眼睛。不，不是那么回事儿。这大概是安季波夫，拉拉的丈夫帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇，姓斯特列利尼科夫，像酒神所说的那样，又在舒契玛吓唬狼了。不，别瞎说了。明明是画框子从墙上掉下来。它掉在地板上，玻璃摔碎了。他确信不疑之后又回到梦中。

    他醒来后感到头疼，因为睡得时间太长了。他没马上明白他是谁，在什么地方，在哪一个世界。

    他突然想起来：“斯特列利尼科夫在我这儿过夜呢。已经晚了。该穿衣服了。他大概已经起来，要是还没起来，就叫醒他，煮咖啡，一块喝咖啡。”

    “帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇！”

    没有任何回答。“还睡呢。睡得可真香。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇不慌不忙地穿好衣服，走进隔壁的房间，桌上放着斯特列利尼科夫的皮军帽，可他本人却不在屋里。“大概散步去了，”医生想道，“连帽子都不戴。锻炼身体呢。今天应当结束在瓦雷金诺的生活了，回城里去。可是晚了。又睡过头了。天天早上如此。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇生好炉子，提起水桶到井边打水。离台阶几步远的地方，帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇横躺在路上，头埋在雪堆里。他开枪自杀了。他左边太阳穴下面的雪凝聚成红块，浸在血泊中。四外喷出的血珠同雪花滚成红色的小球，像上冻的花揪果。

    结局

    只能讲完尤里·安德烈耶维奇死前最后八年或十年相当简单的故事了。这段时间他越来越衰弱，越来越迫退，渐渐丧失医生的知识和熟练技巧，也逐渐失掉写作的才能。有一个短时期，他从抑郁和颓丧的心情中挣脱出来，振作精神，恢复先前的活力，但不久热情便消失了，他又陷入对自己本人和世界上的一切漠木关心的状态中。这些年他早就有的心脏病发展得很严重，其实他生前就诊断出自己有心脏病，但却不知道它的严重程度。

    他在新经济政策开始的时候回到莫斯科，这是苏联历史上最难于捉摸和虚假的时期之一。他比从游击队回到尤里亚金的时候还要瘦弱，还要孤僻，脸上的胡子也更多。路上，他又渐渐把值钱的衣物脱下来换面包和破烂衣服，免得赤身露体。这样他又吃完了第二件皮袄和一套西装，当他出现在莫斯科大街上的时候，只剩下一顶灰皮帽、～副裹腿和一件破士兵大衣，这件所有扣子都拆了下来的大衣变成犯人穿的发臭的囚农了。他穿着这身衣服同挤满首都广场、人行道和车站的数不清的红军士兵没有任何区别。

    他不是一个人走到莫斯科的。一个漂亮的年轻农民到处跟着他，这农民跟他一样，也穿着一身士兵服装。他的这身打扮出现在莫斯科幸存的几家客厅中。尤里·安德烈耶维奇的童年便是在那里度过的，那里的人还记得他，让他们进门，打听他们回来后洗过澡没有——斑疹伤寒仍然很猖獗；在尤里·安德烈耶维奇刚到的那几天，那里的人便向他讲述了他的亲人们离开莫斯科到国外去的情形。

    他们怕见人，由于极端羞涩，如果做客的时候无法沉默，还得参加谈话的话，他们便尽量避免单独前去做客。每当熟人聚会的时候，通常出现两个又高又瘦的人，他们躲进某个不引人注目的墙角，不参加别人的谈话，默默地度过一个晚上。

    这个穿着破旧的衣服、高大瘦弱的医生，在年轻的伙伴陪同下，很像民间传说中探求真理的人，而他经常的伴随者像一个听话的、对他愚忠的信徒。可这年轻的伙伴是谁呢？

    靠近莫斯科的最后一段路程，尤里·安德烈耶维奇是乘火车抵达的，但前面的一大半路是走过来的。

    他沿途看到的农村景象，一点也不比他从游击队里逃出时在西伯利亚和乌拉尔所看到的景象好。只是那时是在冬天穿过俄国最远的地方，现在是夏末秋初，气候温暖干燥，走起来方便得多。

    他所经过的一半村庄荒无人烟，仿佛敌人征讨过一样，土地被遗弃了，庄稼无人收割，这也真是战争的后果，内战的后果。

    九月末的两三天，他一直沿着陡峭的河岸走。迎面流过来的河水从尤里·安德烈耶维奇的右边穿过。他的左边，从大路一直伸展到难聚着云彩的天边，是一片未曾收割的田野。田野常常被阔叶树林隔断，其中大部分是柞树、榆树和械树。树林沿着深峪一直延伸到河边，像峭壁或陡坡一样截断道路。

    在没有收割的田野里，熟透的黑麦穗散裂开，麦粒撒在地上。尤里·安德烈耶维奇捧了几捧塞在嘴里，用牙齿费劲地磨碎，在最困难的情况下，不能用麦粒熬粥的时候，便生吞它们充饥。肠胃很难消化刚刚嚼碎的生麦粒。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇一生中从未见过暗褐色的、发乌的旧金子颜色的黑麦，通常收割的时候，它的颜色要谈得多。

    这是一片没有火光的火红色的田野，这是一片无声呼救的田野。已经进入冬季的广阔的天空，冷漠而平静地从天边把它们镶嵌起来，而在天上不停地飘动着长条的、当中发黑两边发白的雪云，仿佛从人脸上掠过的阴影。

    而一切都在有规律地慢慢移动。河水在流动。大路迎面走来。大路上走着医生。云层沿着他行进的方向移动。就连田野也不是静止不动的。有什么东西沿着田野移动，碰得田野里的庄稼仿佛也不停地微微蠕动，让人感到一阵厌恶。

    自古以来，田野里从来不曾有过这么多的老鼠。医生还没走出田野，天便黑了，每当他不得不在某个地界旁边过夜的时候，老鼠便从他身上和手上跑过，穿过他的裤子和衣袖。白天，它们成群结队地在脚底下跑来跑去，要是踩到它们，它们就变成一滩动弹、尖叫、滑溜的血浆。

    村里的长毛看家狗变成可怕的野狗，彼此不时交换眼色，仿佛商量什么时候朝医生扑过去，把他撕成碎片。它们成群地跟在他后面，同他保持较远的距离。它们以尸体为食，但也不嫌弃田野里成堆的老鼠。它们从远处望着医生，信心十足地跟在他后面，一直在等待着什么。奇怪的是它OJ不进树林，医生接近树林的时候，它们便渐渐落在后面，向后转去，终于消失了。

    树林和田野当时形成强烈的对比。田野没有人照料变成孤儿，仿佛在无人的时候遭到诅咒。树林摆脱了人自由生长，显得更加繁茂，有如从监狱里放出的囚犯。

    平时人们，特别是村里的孩子们，不等核桃长熟，青的时候就把它fll打下来。现在，山坡上和山谷里的核桃树挂满没人触动过的木平整的金色叶子，仿佛经过风吹日晒，落上灰尘，变得粗糙了。树叶中间挂满一串串撑开的、仿佛用绳结或飘带系在一起、三个或四个长在一起的核桃。核桃熟了，尽管还缀在树上，仿佛马上就会从树枝上落下来。尤里·安德烈耶维奇一路上不停地喀吧喀吧地咬碎核桃。他的衣袋和背囊里都塞满核桃。一星期之内核桃是他的主要粮食。

    医生觉得，在他眼里田野患了重病，在发烧说呓语，而树林正处于康复后的光润状态。上帝居住在树林中，而田野上掠过恶魔嘲讽的笑声。

    就在这几天，在这段路程中，医生走进一座被村民所遗弃的、烧得精光的村庄。火灾之前，村子里只盖了一排靠近河这面大路的房子。河的那一面没盖房子。

    村子里只剩下几间外表熏黑、里面烧焦的房子。但它们也是空的，没有住人。其他农舍化为一堆灰烬，只有几只熏黑的烟囱向上翘着。

    河对岸的峭壁上挖满了坑，那是村民们挖磨盘石的时候留下来的，先前他们靠招磨盘石为生。三块尚未凿成的磨盘堆在残留下来的一排农舍中的最后一家农舍对面。它像其他农舍一样也是空的。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇走进这间农舍。傍晚很寂静，但医生刚一跨进门，便像有一阵风刮进农舍。堆在地板上的干草屑和麻絮四外飞扬，搭拉下来的糊墙纸来回摇晃。农舍里的一切都动起来，沙沙作响。老鼠尖叫着四下逃窜，这里的老鼠同其他地方一样，成群成堆。

    医生走出农舍。田野尽头的太阳渐渐落下去。落日的余辉映照着对岸，岸上孤零零的几株树把暗淡下去的倒影一直伸展到河当中。尤里·安德烈耶维奇跨过大路，在草地上的一个石磨盘上坐下来休息。

    从峭壁下边伸出一个长了一头淡黄头发的脑袋，然后是肩膀，然后是两只手。有人从那里提了满满一桶水爬上来。那人一看见医生便停下来，从峭壁上露出半个身子。

    “好心人，你要喝水吗？你别碰我，我也不动你。”

    “谢谢。让我喝点水。出来吧，别害怕。我干吗要碰你呢？”

    从峭壁后面爬出来的提水人原来是个少年。他光着脚，头发乱蓬蓬的，穿着一身破烂的衣服。

    尽管医生说话和蔼，但他仍用犀利的目光不安地盯着医生。出于一种无法解释的理由，男孩子忽然充满希望地激动起来。他激动地把桶放在地上，突然向医生扑过去，但跑了几步又停下来，喃喃地说道：

    “不可能，决不可能，大概是做梦吧。对不起，可是同志，请允许我问一声。我觉得您确实是个熟人。对啦！是呀！医生叔叔！”

    “可你是谁？”

    “没认出来？”

    “没有。”

    “从莫斯科出来的时候，咱们坐的是同一辆军用列车，在同一个车厢里。赶我们去做劳工。有人看押。”

    这是瓦夏·布雷金。他倒在医生跟前，吻着医生的手哭起来。

    遭水灾的地方原来是瓦夏的老家韦列坚尼基镇。他的母亲已不在人世。当村子被洗劫并被放火烧毁的时候，瓦夏藏在凿出的石洞里，可母亲以为他被带进城里，急得发了疯，跳进佩尔加河里淹死了。现在，医生和瓦夏正坐在这条河的岸上谈话。瓦夏的姐妹据说在另一个县的保育院里。医生带瓦夏一起上莫斯科。路上他告诉了尤里·安德烈耶维奇许多可怕的事。

    “地里撒的是去年秋天种的庄稼。刚种完就遭了难。波利哑姨妈刚走。您还记得那个帕拉莎姨妈吗？”

    “不记得了。我根本不认识她。她是谁呀？”

    “您怎么会不认识佩拉吉娜·尼洛夫娜呢！她跟咱们坐的是一趟火车。那个佳古诺娃。什么事儿都挂在脸上，长得又白又胖。”

    “就是那个老是编辫子解辫子的女人？”

    “辫子，辫子！对啦！一点不错。辫子！”

    “懊，想起来啦。等等。后来，我在西伯利亚一座小城市里的街上遇见过她。”

    “真有这回事儿！是帕拉莎姨妈吗？”

    “你怎么啦，瓦夏？你干吗像发疯似的摇我的手？小心别摇断了。别像大姑娘似的满脸通红。”

    “她在那儿怎么样？赶快告诉我，快点。”

    “我看见她的时候她身体很健康。她说起过你们。我记得好像她在你的家里住过或做过客。可也许我记错了。”

    “那还用说，那还用说！在我们家，在我们家。妈妈像亲妹妹那样爱她。不声不响，爱干活，手很巧。她在我们那儿住的时候，家里充满欢乐。村里的人把她从韦列坚尼基镇挤走了，说了她很多坏话，让她不得安宁。

    “村里有个人叫长脓疮的哈尔拉姆。他追求过波利姬。他没鼻子，最爱说人坏话。她瞧都不瞧他一眼。他为这件事恨上了我，说了我和波利哑的很多坏话。好了，她走啦。他把她折磨苦了。我们就从此开始倒霉了。

    “离这儿不远的地方出了件凶杀案。一个孤单的寡妇在靠近布依斯科耶村的树林子里被人杀死了。她一个人住在树林子里。她爱穿带松紧带的男人皮鞋。她家门口锁着一条凶狗，锁链够得着房子的周围。那条狗叫‘大嗓门’。家里地里的活都是她一个人干，用不着帮手。好了，谁也没想到冬天突然到了。很早下了雪。寡妇还没刨土豆呢。她上韦列坚尼基镇找人帮忙。‘帮帮忙吧。’她说，份一份土豆也行，付钱也行。’

    “我自告奋勇帮她刨土豆。我到她那儿的时候，哈尔拉姆已经在那儿了。他在我之前就非要上那儿去不可。她没告诉我。可是，也不能为这事儿打架呀。于是就两人一块儿干活。在最坏的天气里刨土豆。又是雨又是雪，一片烂泥。刨呀，刨呀，点燃了土豆秧，用热烟烤干土豆。嗯，刨完土豆她同我们公平地算了账。她打发哈尔拉姆回去，可对我使了个眼色，说还有事儿找我，让我以后再来，要不就留下不走。

    “过几天我又上她那儿去了。‘我不想，’她说，‘让多余的土豆被人没收，被国家征收去。你是好小伙子，我知道你不会出卖我。你瞧，我什么都不瞒你。我本来可以自己挖个坑，把土豆藏起来，可你瞧外面什么天气。我明白过来已经晚了，冬天到了。一个人干不了。给我挖个坑，我不会亏待你。咱们烤干了，倒进去。’

    “我给她挖了个坑，为了藏得严实，挖得下边宽，出口窄，像个瓦罐。坑也用烟熏干、熏热。那天正刮着暴风雪。把土豆藏好，盖上土，该做的都做了。一点痕迹都没有。我当然没对任何人说起挖坑的事，对妈妈和妹妹们都没说。决不能干那种事呀！

    “就这样，刚过了一个月，她家就被人抢了。从布依斯科耶村来的人经过那里，他们说，大门敞开，全部东西被洗劫一空。寡妇不见了，那只名叫‘大嗓门’的狗挣脱了锁链，跑了。

    “又过了些日子。到了新年前后，圣诞节前，冬天头一次解冻的日子，下起了暴雨，冲净了土丘上的雪，融化到地面。‘大嗓门’跑来了、用爪子在露出的地面上刨起来。那儿便是埋土豆的坑。它扒开湿地，往上刨土，刨出穿着系松紧带皮鞋的女主人的脚。你瞧多可怕！

    “韦列坚尼基镇的人都可怜寡妇，为她祈祷。谁也不怀疑哈尔拉姆。又怎么会往他身上想呢？怎么可能呢？倘若是他干的，他哪儿来的胆子留在韦列坚尼基镇，在镇子里大摇大摆地走呢？他早跑得离我们远远的了。

    “村子里好闹事的富农对行凶的事很开心。他们要把村子搅乱。瞧吧，他们说，城里人干的好事。这是对你们的教训，惩罚。别藏面包，理土豆。他们这群混蛋反复说，树林子里有强盗，仿佛看见小村子里来了强盗。实心眼的人们！你们别再听信城里人的话了。他们这是要给你们厉害看呢，饿死你们。要是愿意村子好的话就跟我们走。我们教会你们长点脑子。他们把你们用血汗挣来的东西夺走，查封，你们呢，就把余粮藏起来，连一粒多余的麦子都没有。如果出事就拿起耙子。谁反对村社就当心点。老家伙们吵吵开了，吹牛，聚会。好搬弄是非的哈尔拉姆要的就是这些。他把帽子往怀里一揣就进城了，到了那儿一报告。你们知道村里在干什么吗？可你们坐在这儿子看着？需要成立贫农委员会。发话吧，我马上就把兄弟同兄弟划分开。可他自己从我们村里跑了，再没露过面。

    “后来的一切都是自然而然发生的。谁都没暗中使坏，谁都没有错儿。从城里派来红军战士。设立了巡回法庭。头一个审问的便是我。哈尔拉姆散布了我很多坏话，说我逃跑过，逃避劳役，煽动村里人暴动，杀死了寡妇。把我锁了起来。幸亏我撬开地板，溜走了，藏在地下的山洞里。村子是在我头上烧的——我没看见。就在我头上，我亲娘跳进冰窟窿里了，我当时并不知道。一切都是自然而然发生的。他们分给红军战士一座单独住宅，招待他们喝酒，把他们灌得烂醉如泥。夜里木小心烧着了房子，把临近的房子也引着了。村里的人，谁家房子着了火，都逃了出去，外来的人，虽然没人放火烧他们，却明摆着都一个个活活烧死。谁也没把遭了火灾的韦列坚尼基镇的人从烧焦的房子里赶走。他们害怕再出什么事自己逃走了。黑心的富农们又散布谣言，十岁以上的男人统统枪毙。我爬出来的时候一个人也没碰见，都跑光了，还不知道在什么地方流浪呢。”

    医生和瓦夏在一九二二年春天，新经济政策开始的时候，走到莫斯科。天气晴朗而温暖。照耀着救世主大教堂的阳光，洒在铺着四角石块、石块缝隙里长出杂草的广场上。

    取消了禁止私人经营的命令，允许严加限制的自由贸易。只限制在旧货市场上进行旧货交易。它们只在规模极小的范围内进行，这种极小规模的贸易助长了投机活动，造成人们舞弊。生意人的这种小规模的投机倒把活动没增加任何新东西，对缓和城市的物资辰乏毫无益处。这种无意义的十几次的倒卖却使有的人发了财。

    几个极其简陋的图书室的所有者，把书从书架上取下来，运到某一个地方。他们向市苏维埃申请开设一家合作书店，并请求批给他们开业场地。他们获准使用革命最初几个月便关了门的空闲的鞋店仓库和花店暖房，便在它们宽阔的屋顶上出售他们所搜集到的几本薄书。

    教授夫人们先前在困难的时候违背禁令，偷偷出售烤好的白圆面包，现在则在这些年一直被征用的自行车修理铺公开出售。她们改变了自己的立场，接受了革命，说话的时候用“有这么回事”代替“是的”或“好吧”。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇到莫斯科后说：

    “瓦夏，你该干点事儿。”

    “我觉得我该念书。”

    “那还用说。”

    “我还有个理想，凭记忆把我母亲的模样画出来。”

    “那太好了。可要画先得学会画画。”

    “我在阿普拉克欣大院里跟叔叔学徒的时候，背着他用木炭画着玩过。”

    “好吧。祝你成功。咱们试试看。”

    瓦夏并没有了不起的绘画才能，只有中等的天分，进工艺美术学校倒是完全够格的。尤里·安德烈耶维奇通过熟人把他安置到先前的斯特罗甘诺夫斯基工艺美术学校的普通班，从那儿又转到印刷系。他在那儿学习石印术、印刷装订技术和封面设计。

    医生和瓦夏同心协力工作。医生撰写论述各种问题的一印张纸的小册子，瓦夏把它们当作考试项目在学校里印刷出来。书的印数很少，在朋友们新近合资开办的书店里出售。

    小册子包含尤里·安德烈耶维奇的哲学思想、医学见解、他对健康和不健康所下的定义、对转变论和进化论的思考、对作为机体生理基础的个性的思考、对历史和宗教的看法（这些看法接近舅舅和西姆什卡的看法）、描述医生所到过的布加乔夫活动地区的随笔，还包括尤里·安德烈耶维奇所写的小说和抒情诗。

    作品是用通俗的文笔写的，但还远没达到通俗作者所提出的目标，因为书中包括引起争议的见解，这些见解是随意发表的，未经过充分的检验，但又永远是生动而独特的。小册子卖得很快。爱好者很赏识它们。

    那时一切都成了专业，诗歌创作和文学翻译，一切都有理论研究，开设了各式各样的学校。产生了各类思想宫和艺术观念学院。尤里·安德烈耶维奇在半数这样的名不副实的机构中担任医生职务。

    医生和瓦夏住在一起，一直很要好。在这段时间内，他们一处接一处地换了很多住房和半倒塌的角落，由于各种不同的原因，这些地方不是无法居住，就是居住不便。

    一到莫斯科，尤里·安德烈耶维奇马上打听西夫采夫街上的！日宅，据他所知，他的亲人路过莫斯科时没到那所住宅里去过。他们被驱逐出境改变了一切。属于医生和他家里人名下的房间里住满了人，他自己的和家里人的东西一件也不剩了。他们见到尤里·安德烈耶维奇仿佛见到一个可怕的陌生人，连忙躲开。

    马克尔飞黄腾达，已经不住在西夫采夫街上了。他到面粉镇当房管员去了。按照职务他应当住先前房管员的房子。但他甘愿住在没有地板但是有自来水和一个大俄国炉子的旧门房里。城市所有楼房里自来水和暖气管道冬天都冻裂了，只有门房里暖和，水没冻上。

    这期间医生和瓦夏的关系疏远了。瓦夏有了很大的长进。他说话和思考完全不像佩尔加河边韦列坚尼基镇上那个蓬头赤脚的男孩子了。革命所宣传的显而易见的真理越来越吸引他。医生所说的那些他不能完全听懂的、形象生动的语言，让他觉得是受到谴责的错误的声音，这种错误已经意识到自己的虚弱，因此是模棱两可的。

    医生到各部门去奔走。他有两件事要办。一是在政治上为自己的家庭平反，并使他们获准回国；一是替自己申请出国护照，以便去巴黎接妻子儿女。

    使瓦夏感到奇怪的是，这两件事他都办得毫不起劲。尤里·安德烈耶维奇过于匆忙并且过早地认定自己的努力是徒劳的，他过于自信而且几乎是毫不介意地声称，自己今后的种种打算是不会有结果的。

    瓦夏越来越经常谴责医生。医生并没为他那些不公正的指责生气。但他同瓦夏的关系恶化了。他们终于翻脸分手。医生把他们共同住的房间让给瓦夏，自己搬到面粉镇去住。本领高强的马克尔把斯文季茨基先前住宅顶头的房子隔开让他住，其中包括：不能使用的卫生间，卫生间旁边只有一扇窗户的房间和歪斜的厨房，一条快坍塌的过道，还有一条下陷的黑通道。尤里·安德烈耶维奇搬到这儿来之后便放弃了行医，变成一个邀遏的人，不再同熟人见面，过起穷苦的日子。

    一个冬天阴沉的星期日。炉子里往外冒黑烟，但烟往没从屋顶上升起，而从通风窗口溢出。尽管禁止使用铁炉子，可大家照旧安装铁炉子上用的生铁烟囱。城市生活尚未走上正轨。面粉镇的居民都蓬头垢面，肮脏不堪，身上长出疖子，冻得感冒。

    每逢星期日，马克尔·夏波夫全家人都团聚在一起。

    在凭卡定额分配面包时期，一清早他们便把本区所有住户的面包票在桌子上剪开，分类，点好，按等级卷进纸卷或纸包里，送往面包店，然后，从面包店取回面包，再把面包在桌子上切成碎块，一份份分给本区居民。如今这一切都变成传说了。粮食配给制被其他的分配办法所代替。现在，他们正坐在这张桌子前吃午饭。大家围着长桌子吃得津津有味，嚼得耳朵后面的筋不停地动弹，嘴吧略吧喀响。

    房间当中，宽大的俄国炉子占了门房的一半，高木板床上，红过的被子的被角搭拉下来。

    入口处前面墙上没上冻的自来水龙头竖在盥洗池上。门房两侧摆着两排凳子，凳子底下塞满装着零碎用品的口袋和箱子。右边放着一张厨桌。桌子上方的墙上钉着一个小橱柜。

    炉子生着。房里很热。马克尔的妻子阿加菲姬·吉洪诺夫娜站在炉子前面，袖口挽到胳膊肘，用一根长得够得着炉壁的炉叉倒动炉子里的罐子，一会儿放在一堆，一会儿又放得很开，什么时候需要往哪儿放就往哪儿放。她的脸上出了一层汗，一会儿被炉子照亮，一会儿又被菜汤的蒸气蒙住。她把罐子挪到一边，从炉子深处夹出馅饼，放在一块铁板上，一下子把它翻了一个个儿，再放回去把另一面烤黄。尤里·安德烈耶维奇提着两只桶走进门房。

    “祝你们胃口好。”

    “欢迎您。坐下跟我们一块吃吧。”

    “谢谢。我吃过了。”

    “我们知道你吃的是什么。坐下来吃点热乎的，别嫌弃。土豆是用小罐子烤的。馅饼加粥，肉馅的。”

    “真不吃，谢谢。对不起，马克尔，我老来打水，把你们屋里的热气都放跑了。我想一下子多打点水。我把斯文季茨基家的锌浴盆擦得错亮，想把水盛满，再把大桶盛满。我再进来五次，也许十次，以后便会很久不来打搅你们。对不起，我到你们这儿来打水，除了你们这儿我没地方可去。”

    “爱打多少打多少，我不心疼。糖浆没有，可水随你要。免费供应，不讨价还价。”

    坐在桌子旁边的人哈哈大笑。

    可尤里·安德烈耶维奇进来第三次，打第五桶和第六桶的时候，马克尔的声调已经有些变了，说出另一种话来。

    “女婿们问我那个人是谁。我说了，可他们不相信。你打你的水，别介意。可别往地上洒水，笨家伙。你瞧门槛上都洒了水。一冻上，你可不会拿铁钉凿下来。把门关严点，蠢东西。从院子里往里灌风。不错，我告诉女婿们你是什么人，可他们不相信。在你身上花了多少钱！念书呀，念书呀，可有什么用？”

    等到尤里·安德烈耶维奇进来第五趟、第六趟的时候，马克尔皱起眉头：

    “好啦，再打一次就算了。老弟，你该懂点礼貌。要不是我小女儿马林娜护着你，我才不管你是什么高贵的共济会员呢，早把门镇上了。你还记得马林娜吗？那木是她吗，坐在桌子顶头那个，皮肤黑黑的。瞧，脸红了。‘别欺侮他，’她说，‘爸爸。’谁能碰你呢？马林娜在电报总局当电报员，会说外国话。‘他多可怜呀！’她说。她可怜你极啦，愿意为你赴汤蹈火。你没出人头地，难道该怨我不行？不该在危险时候把家扔了跑到西伯利亚去。怪你们自己。你瞧，我们在这儿挨过了饥饿和白军的封锁，没动摇，全家没事儿。自己怪自己吧。东尼姐没保护住，让她到国外流浪。关我什么事。你自己的事儿。我问一声，请别见怪，你要这么多水干什么？没雇你在院子里泼溜冰场吧？你呀，怎么能生你这么个不争气的少爷羔子的气呢。”

    桌子旁边的人又哈哈大笑起来。马林娜不满意地扫了大家一眼，发火了，说起家里人来了。尤里·安德烈耶维奇听见她的声音，感到声音奇怪．但没法弄清其中的奥妙。

    “家里有很多东西要洗，马克尔。得打扫干净。擦地板。我还想洗点东西。”

    桌子旁边的人惊讶不已。

    “你说这种话不害臊吗？你开了中国洗衣店吧！”

    “尤里·安德烈耶维奇、请您允许我女儿上您那儿去。她上您那儿去，帮您洗衣服擦地。有穿破的衣服也能帮您缝补。闺女，你别怕他。你不知道，像他这样好的人少有，连苍蝇都不敢欺侮。”

    “不，您说什么呀，阿加菲娜·吉洪诺夫娜，不用。我决不答应马林娜为我弄得一身脏。她又不是我雇的女工。我自己能对付。”

    “您能弄得一身脏，怎么我就不能呢？您可真不好说话，尤里·安德烈耶维奇。您干吗拒绝呢？要是我非上您那儿去做客，您难道把我轰出来？”

    马林娜能成为女歌唱家。她的嗓音纯正洪亮，声调很高。马林娜说话的声音不高，但她的嗓音比说话所需要的有力得多，同马林娜合不到一块儿，具有独立的含意。仿佛从她背后的另一间屋里传过来的。这声音是她的护身符，是保护她的天使。谁也不想侮辱有这种声音的女人，伤她的心。

    从打水的这个星期天之后，医生同马林娜之间产生了友谊。她常到他那地帮他做家务。有一天她留在他那儿，没再回门房去。这样她成了尤里·安德烈耶维奇第三位没在户籍登记处登记的妻子。因为尤里·安德烈耶维奇并没同头一个妻子离婚。他们有了孩子。马林娜的父母不无骄傲地管女儿叫作医生太太。马克尔抱怨尤里·安德烈耶维奇没同马林娜举行婚礼，也没登记。“你发昏了吧？”妻子反驳他道，“这在安东宁娜还活着的时候哪办得到呢？重婚？”“你自己才是傻瓜呢。”马克尔回敬道，“提东尼娘干什么。东尼娜跟死了一样。没有任何法律保护她、”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇开玩笑说，他们的浪漫史是二十桶水，同二十章或二十封信构成的小说里的浪漫史～样。

    马林娜原谅医生这时变得古怪的脾气和他的堕落，以及意识到自己堕落后的任性，也原谅他把屋里弄得又脏又乱。她忍受他的呼叨、刻薄话和爱发脾气的毛病。

    她的自我牺牲还不止于此。等到他们由于他的过失而陷入自愿的、他们自己所造成的困境时，马林娜为了不在这种时刻把他～个人丢下，竟扔掉了工作。电报局非常器重她，在她被迫离职后还愿意让她回去。她屈从于尤里·安德烈耶维奇的幻想，跟他一块儿挨家给人打零工。他们给住在各层楼的房客计件锯木头。某些人，特别是新经济政策初期发了财的商人和靠近政府从事科学和艺术的人，开始自己盖房，置备家具。有一次马林娜和尤里·安德烈耶维奇把锯剩的木头小心翼翼地抱进房屋主人的书房，生怕毡鞋把木屑从外面带到地毯上。房屋主人对锯木头的男人和女人毫不理睬，傲慢地沉浸在阅读中。女主人跟他们讲干活条件，支付他们工钱。

    “这头肥猪专心读的是本什么书？”医生动了好奇心。“他干吗这样拼命地往书上做记号呢？”他抱着劈柴绕过他的写字台时，从看书人的肩膀上往下瞟了一眼。桌上摆着瓦夏先前在国立高等工艺美术学校里印的尤里·安德烈耶维奇的小册子。

    马林娜和医生住在斯皮里东大街，戈尔东在旁边小布隆纳亚街上租了一间房子。马林娜和医生有两个女儿，卡帕卡和克拉什卡。卡皮托林娜，即卡帕卡，六岁多了，不久前诞生的克拉夫吉娜才六个月。

    一九二九年的初夏天气很热。熟人穿过两三条街彼此做客都不戴帽子，不穿上衣。

    戈尔东的房间建筑得很古怪。它原先是一家时装店的作坊，有上下两个单间。一整块玻璃橱窗从当街的那一面把两个房间嵌在一起。橱窗玻璃上用斜体金字写出裁缝的姓名和他的职业。橱窗里面有一条从楼下通往楼上的螺旋梯。

    现在这个作坊隔成三个房间。

    在两层楼之间用木板隔出一道夹层，上面有一个对住房来说显得稀奇古怪的窗户。窗户有一米高，一直伸到地板上。“它遮住了剩下的金字母。从它们之间的隙缝中能看到屋里人的腿，一直看到膝盖。房间里住着戈尔东。日瓦戈、杜多罗夫和马林娜带着孩子们坐在他的房间里。孩子们跟大人不同，从窗外看得见全身。马林娜不久便带着小姑娘们走了。屋里只剩下三个男人。

    他们正在闲谈，那种夏天老同学之间懒洋洋的闲谈，老朋友们之间的友谊长得已经无法计算了。他们平时怎么闲谈呢？

    谁要有足够的词汇，谁就能说得和想得自然连贯。只有日瓦戈具备这个条件。

    他的朋友们缺乏必要的表达手段。他们俩都缺乏口才。他们能够使用的词汇太贫乏，说话的时候在屋里走来走去，不停地使劲吸烟，挥动着两只手，一连几次重复同一个意思（“老兄，这不诚实；就是说，不诚实；对了，对了，木诚实”）。

    他们没意识到，他们交谈当中这种过分的紧张情绪毫不表示性格的热烈和开阔，恰恰相反，暴露出它们的不完美和缺陷。

    戈尔东和杜多罗夫属于有教养的教授圈子。他们的一生都在好书、好思想家、好作曲家和那种昨天好、今天好、永远好、就是好的音乐当中度过的。但他们不明白，中等趣味的贫乏比庸俗趣味的贫乏更坏。

    戈尔东和杜多罗夫不明白，就连他们对日瓦戈的种种指责，也并非出于忠于朋友的感情和影响他的愿望，而只不过由于不会自由思想和按照自己的意志驾驭谈话罢了。而谈话像一匹撒级的野马，把他们带到他们完全不想去的地方。他们无法掉转马头，最后必定会撞到什么东西上。他们用全部说教猛烈地冲撞尤里·安德烈耶维奇。

    他看透了他们兴奋的动机、他们靠不住的关切和他们见解的机械。然而他却不能对他们说：“亲爱的朋友们，嗅，你们和你们所代表的圈子，还有你们所敬爱的姓名和权威的才华和艺术，是多么不可救药的平庸啊。你们身上唯一生动而闪光的东西是你fIJ和我生活在同一个时代并且认识我。”怎么能对朋友们坦率到这种程度呢！为了不让他们伤心，尤里·安德烈耶维奇恭顺地听他们说教。

    社多罗夫不久前服满了第一次流放的期限，恢复了他暂时被派夺的权利，并获准到大学重新执教。

    现在，他向朋友们倾吐他在流放期间的内心感受。他是真诚地、毫不虚假地同他们谈的。他的见解并非出于胆怯或其他考虑才说出来的。

    他说，控诉的理由，在监狱里和出狱后对待他的态度，特别是同侦查员的单独谈话，使他的脑筋清醒，政治上受到再教育，擦亮了他的眼睛，他作为一个人成熟了。

    杜多罗夫的议论之所以授合戈尔东的心意，因为正是他听得烂熟了的那些话。他同情地向因诺肯季点头，赞同他的看法。打动戈尔东的恰恰是杜多罗夫的话中和感受中的公式化的东西。他把对干篇一律感觉的模仿当成全人类的共性。

    因诺肯季合乎道德的言论符合时代精神。但正是他们那种虚伪行为的规律性和透明度惹得尤里·安德烈耶维奇恼火。不自由的人总美化自己的奴役生活。这种事发生在中世纪，耶稣会教徒往往利用这一点。尤里·安德烈耶维奇所无法忍受的正是苏维埃知识分子政治上的神秘主义，把它当成最高成就或像当时所说的，当成“时代的精神天花板”。尤里·安德烈耶维奇避免，同朋友们争吵，把这种感觉也隐藏在心里。

    但吸引他的完全是另外的一件事，是杜多罗夫所讲的有关博尼法季·奥尔列佐夫的故事。奥尔列佐夫是因诺肯季的同监难友，一个神甫，吉洪分子。此人有个名叫赫里斯京娜的六岁女儿。父亲的被捕以及他以后的命运对她是个打击。“宗教人士”、“被视夺公民权的人”这一类名词对她来说是不光彩的污点。她也许在自己炽热的童心里发誓，一定要洗掉自己慈父名字上的这个污点。这么早就立下这样的目的，并充满不可动摇的决心，使她现在仍然是她所认为的共产主义当中最不容置疑的一切的孩子般狂热的追随者。

    “我要走了，”尤里·安德烈耶维奇说，“别怪我，米沙。屋子里闷气，街上热。我有点透不过气来。”

    “你瞧，地板上的通风窗敞开着。对不起，我们烟抽得太多了。我们老忘记你在的时候不该抽烟。房子盖得这么糟，我有什么办法。帮我另找一间房子吧。”

    “我走啦，戈尔多沙。咱们聊够了。谢谢你们对我的关心，亲爱的伙伴们。这可不是我故意扫你们的兴。这是一种病，心血管硬化症。心肌壁磨损得太厉害，磨薄了，总有一天会破裂。可我还不到四十岁呢。我不是酒鬼，也不是放荡的人。”

    “你做临终祈祷还早着呢。别说傻话了。你还有的活呢。”

    “我们这个时代经常出现心脏细微溢血现象。它们并不都是致命的。在有的情况下人们能活过来。这是一种现代病。我想它发生的原因在于道德秩序。要求把我们大多数人纳入官方所提倡的违背良心的体系。日复一日使自己表现得同自己感受的相反，不能不影响健康。大肆赞扬你所不喜欢的东西，为只会带来不幸的东西而感到高兴。我们的神经系统不是空话，并非杜撰。它是人体的神经纤维所构成的。我们的灵魂在空间占据一定的位置，它存在于我们身上，犹如牙齿存在于口腔中一样。对它不能无休止地施加压力而不受到惩罚。因诺肯季，我听你讲到流放的时候你如何成长、如何受到再教育时感到非常难受。这就像一匹马说它如何在驯马场上自己训练自己。”

    “我替杜多罗夫打抱不平。你不过不习惯人类的语言罢了。你对它们已经无法领悟了。”

    “也许如此吧，米沙。可是对不起，你们还是放我走吧。我感到呼吸困难。真的，我不夸张。”

    “等一下。这完全是托辞。你不给我们一个干脆诚恳的回答，我们就不放你走。你同意不同意你应当转变，改正自己的观点？在这方面你打算做什么？你应当明确你同东尼姬的关系，同马林娜的关系。这可是活人，女人，她们会感觉，会痛苦，而不是随意组合在一起、蔡绕在你脑子里的空灵观念。此外，像你这样的人白白糟蹋自己未免太可耻了。你必须从睡梦和懒散中清醒过来，打起精神，改正毫无根据的狂妄态度。是的，是的，改正对周围的一切所持的不能允许的傲慢态度，担任职务，照旧行医。”

    “好吧，我回答你们。最近我也常常这样想，因此可以毫不脸红地向你们做某些允诺。我觉得一切都会顺利解决，而且解决得相当快。你们会看到的，是的，真的，一切都会变好。我太想活了，而活着就意味着挣扎向前，追求完美，并达到它。

    “戈尔东，你护着马林娜，像你先前总护着东尼娜一样，我很高兴。可我跟她们并没有不和，跟谁都没吵过架。你起先责备我，她跟我说话用‘您’，我跟她说话用‘你’，她称呼我时带父称，好像我不觉得别扭似的。但这种不自然态度中的深层次的紊乱早已消除，什么隔阂也没有，互相平等。

    “我还可以告诉你们一个好消息。他们又开始从巴黎给我写信了。孩子们长大了，在法国同龄伙伴当中非常快活。舒拉马上就要小学毕业了，他上的是初级学校，玛尼娜也要上这所学校。可我从来没见过自己的女儿。我不知为何相信，尽管他们加入了法国籍，但他们很快就要回来，一切都将以某种微妙的方式完满解决。

    “从很多迹象来看，岳父和东尼姐知道马林娜和女孩子们。我自己没写信告诉过他们。这些情况大概间接地传到了他们那里。亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇觉得受到侮辱，伤了他父亲的感

    情，他为东尼娜感到痛心。这可以解释为我们五年没通信的原因。我刚回到莫斯科时同他们通过一段时期的信。他们突然不给我写信了。一切都中断了。

    “不久前我又从他们那儿收到信，收到所有的人甚至孩子的信。亲切温暖的信。不知道他们的心怎么软了。也许东尼娘发生了什么变化，交了新朋友，愿上帝保佑她。我说不清。我有时也给他们写信。可说真的，我不能再呆下去了。我走了，不然非被整死不可。再见。”

    第二天早上，半死不活的马林娜跑到戈尔东家里来。家里没有人帮她照看孩子，她把最小的克拉什卡用被子裹起来，用一只手搂在胸口上，另一只手拉着跟在她身后不肯进来的卡帕卡。

    “尤拉在您这儿吗，米沙？”她问道，声音都变了。

    “难道他昨天晚上没回家？”

    “没有。”

    “那准在因诺肯季那儿。”

    “我上那儿去过了。因诺肯季到学校上课去了。但邻居认识尤拉。他没上那儿去过。”

    “那他上哪儿去了？”

    马林娜把裹在被子里的克拉沙放在沙发上，歇斯底里地大哭起来。

    戈尔东和社多罗夫两天没离开马林娜。他们轮流看护她，不敢把她一个人留在家里。他们在看护马林娜的间隙还四处寻找医生。他们跑遍了他可能去的地方，到过面粉镇和西夫采夫街上的住宅，到他曾任职的思想宫和意识之家打听过，找遍他们知道并有地址的他的所有老熟人，但寻找了半天仍毫无结果。

    他们没报告民警局，因为不想引起当局对他的注意，尽管他有户口，没判过刑，但在现今的概念中远非模范公民。只在万不得已的情况下才报请民警局寻人。

    到了第三天，马林娜、戈尔东和杜多罗夫在不同时间收到尤里·安德烈耶维奇的信。信里对让他们惊恐不安深表遗憾。他央求他们原谅他，千万放心，并恳求他们不要再寻找他，因为反正找不到他。

    他告诉他们，为了尽快地彻底改变自己的命运，他想单独呆一段时间，以便集中精力做事，一旦在新的领域中安定下来，并坚信转变之后不再故态复萌，他便离开秘密的隐蔽所，回到马林娜和孩子们身边。

    他在信中通知戈尔东，把寄给他名下的钱转交给马林娜。他请戈尔东替孩子们雇个保姆，以便把马林娜从家务中解脱出来，让她有可能再回到电报局工作。他解释道，没把钱直接寄给她，是因为担心汇单上的款额使她遭到抢劫。

    钱不久就汇到了，其款额超过医生的标准和他的朋友们的经济水平。替孩子们雇了保姆。马林娜重新回到电报局。她一直不放心，但已经习惯尤里·安德烈耶维奇以往的怪癖，终于容忍了他这次的古怪行为。尽管他请求并警告他们不要寻找他，但朋友们和这位他亲近的女人仍然继续寻找他，但同时也渐渐相信了他的预言是不错的。他们没找到他。

    其实他就住在离他们几步远的地方，就在他们鼻子底下显眼的地方，在他们寻找的最小的圈子之内。

    他失踪的那天，黄昏前，天还亮的时候，他走出戈尔东的家，走到布隆纳亚街，向自己的家斯皮里东大街走去的时候，还没走出一百步，便撞上迎面走过来的同父异母弟弟叶夫格拉夫·日瓦戈。尤里·安德烈耶维奇已经三年多没见过他了，他的消息一点也没有。原来，叶夫格拉夫偶然到莫斯科来，刚刚不久。他像往常那样从天而降，什么情况也问不出来，问他什么他都用默默的微笑或笑话岔开。但他绕过生活琐事，问了尤里·安德烈耶维奇两三个问题，马上弄清他的全部悲伤和麻烦，便在街道狭窄的拐角处，在绕过他们和朝他们走过来的拥挤的人群当中，制定了一个如何帮助并挽救哥哥的计划。尤里·安德烈耶维奇的失踪和隐藏起来便是他的主意，他的发明。

    他在艺术剧院旁边一条那时还叫卡梅尔格尔斯基的街上替他租了一个房间。他供给他钱花，为医生张罗具有广阔科学实践活动的差事，总有一天会把他安置在医院中。他在日常生活的各个方面保护哥哥。最后，他还向哥哥保证，他的一家在巴黎的不稳定状况终将结束。或者尤里·安德烈耶维奇到他们那儿去，或者他们回到他这儿来。叶夫格拉夫自告奋勇把这一切办好。弟弟的支持使尤里·安德烈耶维奇受到鼓舞。像先前一样，他的势力仍是一个无法解释的谜。尤里·安德烈耶维奇也不想探索这个秘密。

    他住的房间朝南。两扇窗户对着对面剧院的屋顶，屋顶后面夏天的太阳高悬在奥霍特内街的上方，街道的石板路被屋顶遮住，阳光照射不到。

    对尤里·安德烈耶维奇而言，房间不仅是工作室，也不仅是他的书房。在这个完全被工作吞没的时期，当堆在桌上的札记本已经容纳不下他的计划和构思，他构思出的和梦想到的形象悄悄地飘荡在空中的时候，仿佛画室中堆满刚刚开始的、画面对着墙的画稿，这时，医生住的房间便成为精神的宴会厅、疯狂的贮藏室和灵感的仓库。

    幸好叶夫格拉夫同医院领导的谈判拖了很长时间，上班的日子遥遥无期。正好利用延期上班的时间写作。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇开始整理先前写过的、现在还能记得的诗篇的片断，还有木知叶夫格拉夫从什么地方给他弄来的诗稿，一部分是他自己抄下来的，一部分不知是什么人重印的。整理杂乱的材料使天生思想杂乱的尤里·安德烈耶维奇更加无法集中思想。很快他就扔下了这项工作，从修改尚未完成的作品转向写新作品，沉浸在新鲜的手稿中。

    他先迅速地打出文章草稿，要像头一次在瓦雷金话那样，写出脑子里涌现出的诗篇片断，开头、结尾或中间，想到什么写什么。有时他的笔赶不上喷涌的思绪，他用速记法记下开头的字母和缩写字，但手还是跟不上思绪。

    他急忙写下去。每当他的想像力疲倦了，写不下去的时候，他便在纸边上绘画，用图画鞭策想象力。于是纸边上出现了林间小道和城市十字路口，十字路口中央竖立着广告牌：“莫罗与韦钦金公司。出售播种机和脱谷机。”

    文章和诗都是同一个题材。它的描写对象是城市。

    后来在他的文稿中发现了一则札记：

    一九二二年我回莫斯科的时候，我发现它荒凉，一半已

    快变成废墟了。它经历了革命最初年代考验后便成为这副

    样子，至今仍是这副样子。人口减少了，新住宅没有建筑，旧

    住宅不曾修缮。

    但即便是这种样子，它仍然是现代大城市，现代新艺术

    唯一真正的鼓舞者。

    把看起来互不相容的事物和概念混乱地排列在一起，

    仿佛出于作者的任性，像象征主义者布洛克、维尔哈伦、

    惠特曼那样，其实完全不是修辞上的任意胡来。这是印象的

    新结构，从生活中发现的，从现实中临摹的。

    正像他们那样，在诗行上驱赶一系列形象，诗行自己扩

    散开，把人群从我们身边赶走，如同马车从十九世纪末繁忙

    的城市街道上驶过，而后来，又如二十世纪初的电气车厢和

    地铁车厢从城市里驶过一样。

    在这种环境中，田园的纯朴焉能存在。它的虚假的朴实

    是文学的赝品，不自然的装腔作势，书本里的情形，不是来

    自农村，而是从科学院书库的书架上搬来的。生动的、自然

    形成并符合今天精神的语言是都市主义的语言。

    我住在人来人往的十字路口。被阳光照得耀眼的夏天

    的莫斯科，庭院之间的炽热的柏油路面，照射在楼上窗框上

    的光点，弥漫着街道和尘土的气息，在我周围旋转，使我头

    脑发昏，并想叫我为了赞美莫斯科而使别人的头脑发昏。为

    了这个目的，它教育了我，并使我献身艺术。

    墙外日夜喧嚣的街道同当代人的灵魂联系得如此紧

    密，有如开始的序曲同充满黑暗和神秘、尚未升起、但已经

    被脚灯照红的帷幕一样。门外和窗外不住声地骚动和喧嚣

    的城市是我们每个人走向生活的巨大无边的前奏。我正想

    从这种角度描写城市。

    在保存下来的日瓦戈的诗稿中没有见到这类诗。也许《哈姆雷特》属于这种诗？

    八月末的一天早上，尤里·安德烈耶维奇在加泽特内街拐角的电车站上了开往尼基塔街方向的电车，从大学到库德林斯卡亚大街去。他头一天到博特金医院去就职，这所医院那时叫索尔达金科夫医院，这也许木是他头一次上那儿接洽工作。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇不走运。他上了一辆有毛病的电车，这辆电车每天都出事故。不是大车轮子陷进电车轨道，阻挡电车行驶，便是车底下或者车顶上的绝缘体出了故障，发生短路，僻僻啪啪冒火花。

    电车司机常常拿着扳钳从停住的电车前门上下来，围绕着电车察看，蹲下来钻进车底下修理车轮子和后门之间的部件。

    倒霉的电车阻挡全线通行。街上已经挤满被它阻挡住的电车，后面的电车还源源不断地开来，都挤在～起。这条长龙的尾巴已经到了练马场，并且还在不断地加长。乘客从后面的车上下来，跑去上前面出事故的那辆电车，仿佛换乘一辆车能占多大便宜似的。炎热的早晨挤满人的车厢又闷又热。在从尼基塔门跑过石板路的一群乘客头上，～块黑紫色的乌云越升越高。快要下暴雨了。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇坐在车厢左边的单人座位上，被挤得贴在窗户上。音乐学院所在的尼基塔街有侧的人行道一直在他眼前。他望着这一侧步行的和乘车的人，一个也没放过，脑子却不由自主地、漫不经心地想着另一个人。

    一个头戴缠着亚麻布制成的雏菊花和矢车菊花的淡黄色草帽、身穿紫丁香色的老式紧身连衣裙的女人，在人行道上吃力地走着，累得气喘吁吁，用手里拿着的一个扁平小包不停地扇自己。她穿着紧身胸衣，热得浑身无力，满脸都是汗，用花边手绢擦着被浸湿的眉毛和嘴唇。

    她行走的路线和电车轨道平行。修好的电车一开动，便超过她。她有几次从尤里·安德烈耶维奇的视线中消失。电车再次发生故障停下来的时候，女士赶过电车，又有几次映入医生的眼帘。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇想起中学的算术题，计算在不同时间内以不同速度开动的火车的时间和顺序。他想回忆起通常的演算方法，可什么也回忆不起来。他没想出演算的方法来，便从这些回忆跳到另外的回忆上，陷入更为复杂的沉思中。

    他想到旁边几个正在发育成长的人，一个靠着一个以不同的速度向前走去，想到在生活中不知谁的命运能超过另一个人的命运，谁比谁活得更长。他想起某种类似人生竞技场中的相对原则，但他终于思绪紊乱，于是放弃了这种类比。

    天空打了～个闪，响起一阵雷声。倒霉的电车已经卡在从库德林斯卡亚大街到动物园的下坡上了。穿淡紫色连衣裙的女士过了一会儿又出现在窗外，从电车旁边走过，渐渐走远了。头一阵大雨点落在人行道上、石板路上和那个女士身上。一阵夹带着尘土的风扫过人行道上的树木，刮得树叶翻滚，掀动女士的帽子，卷起她的衣裙，突然又止住了。

    医生感到一阵头晕，四肢无力。他强撑着从座位上站起来，一上一下地拼命拉窗户的吊带，想打开车厢的窗户。但他怎么也拉不开。

    有人向医生喊道，窗户都钉死了，可他正在同头晕作斗争，心里充满惊恐，因此并不认为那是对自己喊叫，也没理解喊叫的意思。他继续开窗子，又一上一下地拽了两三次吊带，猛地往自己身上一拉，突然感到胸中一阵从未有过的剧痛。他马上便明白内脏什么地方被拉伤了，铸成致命的错误，一切都完了。这时电车开动了，但在普列斯纳街上没走几步又停住了。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇以超人的毅力摇摇晃晃地挤开站在两排凳子之间的乘客，挤到车的后门口。人们不让他过去，大声责骂他。他觉得涌入的清新空气使他有了精神，也许一切尚未完结，他会好一些。

    他从后门口人堆里往外挤，又引起一阵骂声、踢瑞和狂怒。他不顾乘客的喊叫，挤出人群，从电车的踏板上迈到石板路上，走了一步、两步、三步，咕略一声栽在石板上，从此再也没起来。

    响起一片喧哗声，乘客纷纷争着出主意。有几个乘客从后门下来，围住摔倒的人。他们很快便断定，他已不再呼吸，心脏停止跳动。人行道上的人也向围着尸体的人群走来，有的人感到安慰，有的人觉得失望，这个人木是轧死的，他的死同电车毫不相干。人越来越多。穿淡紫色连衣裙的女士也走到人群眼前，站了～会儿，看了看死者，听了一会儿旁人的议论，又向前走去。她是个外国人，但听明白了有的人主张把尸体抬上电车，运到前面的医院去，另外一些人说应当叫民警。她没等到他们作出决定便向前走去。

    穿紫色连衣裙的女士是从梅留泽耶沃来的瑞士籍的弗列里小姐。她已经非常衰老了。十二年来，她～直在书面申请准许她返回祖国。不久前她的申请被批准了。她到莫斯科来领取出境护照。那天她到本国大使馆去领取护照，她当扇子扇的东西便是用绸带扎起来的卷成一卷的证件。她向前走去，已经超过电车十次了，但一点都不知道她超过了日瓦戈，而且比他活得长。

    从通向房门的走廊便能看见屋子的一角，那儿斜放着一张桌子。桌上放着一具棺材，它低狭的尾端像一只凿得很粗糙的独木舟，正对着房门。死者的腿紧顶着棺材。这张桌子便是尤里·安德烈耶维奇先前的写字台。屋里没有别的桌子。手稿放过抽屉里，桌子放在棺材底下。枕头垫得很高，尸体躺在棺材里就像放在小山坡上。

    棺材周围放了许多鲜花，在这个季节罕见的一簇簇丁香，插在瓦罐或花瓶里的仙客来和爪叶菊。鲜花挡住从窗口射进来的光线。微弱的光线透过摆在桌旁的鲜花照在死者蜡黄的脸上和手上，照在棺材的木板上。美丽的花影落在桌子上，仿佛刚刚停止摇曳。

    那时火葬已经很普遍了。为了孩子们能领取补贴，保证他们今后能上中学和马林娜在电报局的工作不受影响，决定不做安魂弥撒，实行普通火葬。向有关当局申报了。等待有关的代表们到来。

    在等待他们的时刻，屋里空荡荡的，仿佛是旧房客已经迁出而新房客尚未搬入的住宅。只有向死者告别的人跟着脚小心翼翼的走路声和鞋子木小心蹭地的声音打破屋子的寂静。来的人不多，但比预料的多得多。这位几乎没有姓名的人的死讯飞快地传遍他们的圈子。聚集了很多人，他们曾在不同的时期认识死者，又在不同时期同他失去联系或被他遗忘。他的学术思想和诗歌获得更多的不相识的知音，他们生前从未见过他，但被他所吸引，现在头一次来看他，见他最后一面。

    在这种没有任何仪式的共同沉默的时刻，在沉默以一种几乎可以感触到的损失压抑着每个人的心的时刻，只有鲜花代替了房间里所缺少的歌声和仪式。

    鲜花木仅怒放，散发芳香，仿佛所有的花一齐把香气放尽，以此加速自己的枯萎，把芳香的力量馈赠给所有的人，完成某种壮举。

    很容易把植物王国想象成死亡王国的近邻。这里，在这绿色的大地中，在墓地的树木之间，在花畦中破土而出的花卉幼苗当中，也许凝聚着我们竭力探索的巨变的秘密和生命之谜。马利亚起初没认出从棺材中走出的耶稣，误把他当成了墓地的园丁。

    当死者从他最后居住地运到卡梅尔格斯基大街的寓所时，被他的死讯惊呆了的朋友们陪着被噩耗吓得精神失常的马林娜从大门冲入敞开的房间。她一直无法控制自己，在地板上打滚，用头撞带坐位和靠背的长木柜。在订购的棺材运到、零乱的房间整理干净之前，尸体便停放在木柜上。她哭得泪如雨下，一会儿低声说话，一会儿又喊又叫，泣不成声，而一半话是无意识地嚎叫出来的。她像农村中哭死人那样哭嚎，对什么人都不在乎，什么人都看不见。马林娜抓住尸体不放，简直无法把她拉开，以便把尸体抬到另一间打扫过的、多余的东西都搬开的房间，做人殓前的净身。这都是昨天发生的事。今天，她悲痛的狂澜已经止住，变得麻木不仁了，但他仍然不能控制自己，什么话也不说，神经尚未恢复正常。

    她从昨天起在这儿坐了一整夜，一步也没离开房间。克拉什卡被抱到这儿来喂奶，卡帕卡和年幼的保姆也被带到这儿来过，后来又把她们带走了。

    伴随她的是亲近的人，同她一样悲痛的杜多罗夫和戈尔东。父亲马克尔在一条长凳上靠着她坐下，轻声啼泣，大声摄鼻涕。她的母亲和姐妹也哭着到她这里来过。

    有两个人，一男一女，同所有吊丧的人迥然不同。他们没有强调自己同死者的关系比上述的人亲近。他们不想同马林娜、她的女儿们和死者的朋友竞争悲痛，把悲痛的优先权让给他们。这两个人没有任何过分的要求，但却有自己的、特殊的哀痛死者的权利。他们不知何故都具有无法理喻的无声的权利，没有任何人触犯他们的权利，或对他们的权利提出异议。看来正是这两个人一开始便在操办丧事，他们手心静气地办理各种事，仿佛办理这种事给他们带来某种乐趣。他们的崇高精神境界引起大家的注意，大家对他们产生一种奇异的印象。仿佛这两个人不仅同殡葬事宜有关，而且还同这次死亡有关，但又并非医生死亡的肇事者或间接的原因。他们仿佛是事情发生后答应承办丧事的人，安心料理丧事。认识他们的人不多，有的人猜到他们是谁，但大部分人对他们一无所知。

    但当那位长着一双既表示好奇又引起旁人好奇的吉尔吉斯人的细眼睛的男人，和这位并未精心打扮便很漂亮的女人走进安放着棺材的屋子时，所有坐着、站着或走动的人，包括马林娜在内，都顺从地让出地方，仿佛他们之间有过默契似的，，躲在一旁，从沿墙的一排椅子和凳子上站起来，互相拥挤着从房间里走进走廊和前厅，只有这位男人和这位女人留在掩上的门后面，仿佛两个鉴定人，在无人打扰的安静的环境中，被请来完成同殡葬直接有关的事，并且是极为紧要的事、现在的情形正是如此。只有他们两人留下来，坐在两把靠墙的凳子上，谈起正事来：

    “办得怎么样了，叶夫格拉夫·安德烈耶维奇？”

    “今天下午火葬。半小时后医务工作者工会派人来拉遗体，运到工会俱乐部。四点钟举行追悼会。没有一份证件合用。劳动手册过时了，旧的工会会员证没换过，几年没缴纳会费。这些事都得办。所以拖延了半天。在把他抬出之前——顺便说一句，抬他的人马上就要到了——还得做些准备，我遵照您的请求，把您一个人留在这儿。再见。您听见了吗？电话铃响了。我出去一下。”

    叶夫格拉夫走进走廊。走廊里挤满医生陌生的同事、中学的同学、医院的低级职员和书店的店员，还有马林娜和孩子们。她搂着两个孩子，用技在肩上的大衣襟裹着她们（那天很冷，冷风从大门口吹进来），坐在凳子边上等待房门什么时候再打开，就像探监的女人，等待守卫把她放进探监室。走廊里光线很暗，装不下所有吊丧的人，打开了通楼梯的门。很多人站在前厅和楼道上抽烟，不时走来走去。其余的人站在楼梯下面的台阶上，越靠近大街，说话的声音越大，越随便。在一片压低声音的低语中，叶夫格拉夫费劲地听电话里的声音，尽量把声音压低到符合吊丧的气氛，用一只手遮住听筒，在电话里回答对方的问题，大概是有关安葬的程序和医生死亡情况的问题。他又回到房间，同那个女人继续谈下去。

    “火化之后请别离开，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜。我对您有个过分的请求。我不知道您下榻在什么地方。告诉我在什么地方能找到您。我想在最近，明天或者后天，便着手整理哥哥的手稿。我需要您的帮助。您知道那么多他的事，大概比所有的人知道得都多。您刚才顺便提到，您刚从伊尔库茨克到这儿，并不准备在莫斯科久留，您上这儿来是出于别的原因，偶尔来的，并不知道哥哥死前的几个月住在这里，更不知道这里出了什么事儿。您说的有些话我不明白，但我并不要求您解释，可您别离开，我不知道您的住宅在哪儿。最好在整理他的手稿的几天里，我们呆在一间房间里，或两间房间里，但不要隔得太远。这能办到。我认识房管会的人。”

    “您说有些话您没听明白。这有什么不好明白的。我来到莫斯科，寄存了行李，信步沿着莫斯科大街走去，有一半都不认识了——忘了。走啊，走啊，走下库兹涅茨基桥，进了库兹涅茨基胡同，突然见到熟得不能再熟的卡梅尔格斯基街上那所任务被枪毙的安季波夫，我死去的丈夫，当大学生的时候租的房间，正是我们现在坐在里面的这个房间。我想，进去看看吧，也许旧主人侥幸还活着呢。至于他们早不在了，这儿的一切都变了样，我是以后才知道的，是第二天和今天，慢慢打听出来的。您不是也在场吗，我何必还说呢？我仿佛被雷打了一样，朝街的门敞着，屋里有人，还有口棺材，棺材里躺着死人。死的人是谁呢？我进了门，走到跟前，我想我真发疯了，在做梦吧，可这一切您都看见了。我说得不对吗，我何必还要给您讲呢？”

    “等等，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜，我打断您一下。我已经对您说过，我和哥哥没料到这间屋子有这么多不寻常的往事。比如，安季波夫在这儿住过。可您刚才无意中说出的一句话更让我惊讶。我马上就告诉您为什么惊讶，对不起。说到安季波夫，他在革命战争时期姓斯特列利尼科夫，有一个时期，内战初期吧，我经常听到他的名字，听过不知多少遍，几乎每天都能听见，还见过他一两次面，没料到由于家庭原因他竟会同我关系如此密切。可是，请您原谅，也许我听差了，我觉得您好像说，也许您无意中说错了——‘被枪毙的安季波夫’。难道您不知道他是自杀的吗？”

    “有过这种说法，可我不相信。帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇决不会自杀。”

    “但这绝对可靠。安季波夫自杀的房子，听哥哥说，就是您去海参象前住的那座房子。就发生在您带着女儿离开后的两三天。哥哥替他收了尸，把他埋葬了。难道这些消息没传到您那里？”

    “没有。我听到的是另外的消息。这么说他自杀是真的了？很多人都这么说，可我不相信。就在那座房子里？决不可能！您告诉了我一个非常重要的细节！对不起，您是否知道他同日瓦戈见过面？说过话？”

    “据哥哥说，他们有过一次长谈。”

    “难道真有这回事？谢天谢地。这样更好（安季波娃慢慢地画了个十字）。这种巧合太妙了，简直是天意！您允许我以后再向您详细打听所有的细节吗？每个细节对我都非常珍贵。可我现在没有力气问。我说得不对吗？我太激动了。让我沉默一会儿，歇一下，集中集中思想。我说得不对吗？”

    “嗅。当然对。请便吧。”

    “我说得不对吗？”

    “自然啦。”

    “唉，我差点忘了。您让我火化后不要离开。好。我答应您。我不离开。我同您回到这幢房子里，留下来，您让我住哪儿我就住哪儿，让我呆多久我就呆多久。咱们一起整理尤罗奇卡的手稿。我帮助您。我也许真会对您有些用处。这对我将是莫大的快乐！我的每一滴血液、每一根血管都能辨认出他的笔迹。然后我还有事求您，需要您的帮助，我说得不对吗？您好像是法学家，不管怎么说吧，您对现存的秩序，先前的和今天的，非常熟悉。此外，知道到哪个机关去打听哪一类的事，这可太重要了。并不是所有的人都能说清楚，我说得不对吗？我有一件极为可怕的、非常令人烦心的事要找您商量。我指的是一个孩子。可这从火化场回来后再说吧。我一生都在寻找什么人，我说得不对吗？告诉我，如果在某种假想的情况下必须寻找一个儿童的下落，一个交给别人抚养的孩子的下落，有没有一份现存保育院的总档案，全苏联的档案？全国是否有流浪儿童的统计数字或记录？我央求您现在别回答我的问题。以后再说。嗅，太可怕了，生活是一件可怕的事，我说得不对吗？我不知道我女儿来了以后怎么办，但我暂时可以住在这所房子里。卡秋莎展现出卓越的才能，一部分是戏剧才能，另一部分是音乐才能。她能够巧妙地摹仿所有的人，表演自己编的整场戏，此外，凭听觉便能唱歌剧中的大段唱词，真是了不起的孩子，我说得不对吗？我想让她上戏剧学院或音乐学院的预备班，初级班，看哪儿录取她，再把她安顿在寄宿学校里。我就是为办这件事而来的，首先一个人把事情办好，然后再回去接她。难道能把所有的事一下子讲清，我说得不对吗？但这以后再说吧。现在让心情平静下来，沉默一会儿，集中思想，设法驱逐掉心中的恐惧。此外，我们让尤拉的亲人在走廊里呆的时间太长了。我觉得已经敲过两次门了。而那边乱哄哄的。大概殡仪馆的人来了。我坐在这儿思考的时候，您把门打开，放他们进来。到时候了，我说得不对吗？等一下，等一下。棺材底下得放一把小凳子，不然够不着尤罗奇卡。我跟起脚试过，很费劲。而马林娜·马尔克洛夫娜和孩子们需要垫把椅子。此外，这也是礼仪所要求的。‘请给我最后的一吻。’嗅，我受不了啦，受木了啦。多痛心啊。我说得不对吗？”

    “我马上让大家进来，但要先把这件事办好。您说了这么多难以理解的话，提出了这么多问题，看来这些问题一直在折磨您，可我不知道如何回答是好。我只希望您明白一点。我愿意竭尽全力帮助您解决让您操心的事。请您记住我的话：在任何情况下都不要绝望。希望和行动便是我们在不幸中的义务。没有行动的绝望是对义务的遗忘和违犯。我现在让吊丧的人进来。垫凳子的事您说得对。我找一把垫上。”

    但安率波娃已经不听他说话了。她没听见叶夫格拉夫·日瓦戈打开房间的门，没听见走廊里的人群拥进屋里，没听见他同殡仪馆的负责人和主要送葬的人如何交涉，也没听见人们走动的脚步声、马林娜的哭嚎声、男人的咳嗽声和女人的啜泣和叫喊户O

    回旋在屋里的单调说话声使她感到头晕。她尽量挺住，不让自己晕倒。她的心决要碎了，头疼得要命。她垂下头，陷入推测、回忆和反省中，仿佛堕入深渊、降到自己不幸的最底层。她想道：

    “再没有一个人了。一个死了。另一个自杀了。只有那个应该杀死的人还活着。她曾想把那个人杀死，但没打中，那是个她所不需要的卑鄙小人，是他把她的一生变成她自己莫名其妙的一连串的罪行。而那个平庸的怪物正在只有集邮者才知道的亚洲的神话般的偏僻小巷逃窜，而她所需要的亲近的人却一个也不在了。

    “啊，那是在圣诞节那天，在决定向那个庸俗而可怕的怪物开枪之前，在黑暗中同还是孩子的帕沙在这间屋里谈过话，而现在大家正在吊唁的尤拉那时还没在她的生活中出现呢。”

    于是她尽量回忆，想回想起圣诞节那天同帕沙的谈话，但除了窗台上的那支蜡烛，还有它周围玻璃上烤化了的一圈霜花外，什么也回想不起来。

    她怎么能想到，躺在桌子上的死者驱车从街上经过时曾看见这个窗孔，注意到窗台上的蜡烛？从他在外面看到这烛光的时候起——“桌上点着蜡烛，点着蜡烛”——便决定了他一生的命运？

    她的思想紊乱了。她想道：“不管怎么说，不举行安魂弥撒太遗憾了！出殡多么庄严，多么隆重！大多数死者不配举行这种仪式！可尤罗奇卡是当之无愧的！他值得举行任何仪式，他足以证明“下葬时痛哭的阿利路亚那首歌”是完全正确的。

    于是她感到心里涌起一股骄傲的松决的感觉，就像她每当想起尤里或者同他一起度过短暂的时光时一样。他总那样轻松自然，无牵无挂，现在这种精神也笼罩了她。她不慌不忙地从板凳上站起来。她身上发生了一种无法完全理解的变化。她想借助他的力量，哪怕时间短暂，也要从囚禁中挣脱出来，从痛苦的泥潭中爬到新鲜的空气中，像先前一样体验解脱的幸福。她所梦想的同他告别的幸福正是这种幸福，有机会和权利，毫无阻碍地痛哭一场的幸福。她怀着强烈的感情急忙环顾了一下屋里的人，但充满泪水的眼睛仿佛被眼科医生上了刺激眼的眼药水，什么也看不见，于是人们开始移动，提鼻涕，闪到一旁，走出房间，最后把她一个人留在半俺着门的房间里。而她迅速画了个十字，走到安放在桌子上的棺材跟前，踏上叶夫格拉夫搬来的凳子，慢慢地向尸体画了三个大十字，并用嘴唇去吻死者冰冷的前额和两只手。她不理会变冷的前额仿佛缩小了，手掌仿佛握成拳头，她做到了不去注意这些变化。她呆住了，好一会儿不说话，不思想，不哭泣，用整个身体，用头、胸、灵魂和像灵魂一样巨大的双手匍匐在棺材中，匍匐在鲜花和尸体上。

    压下去的哭声使她浑身颤抖。她尽量憋住眼泪，但突然控制不住，眼泪夺眶而出，流到腮上，洒在衣服和手上，洒在她紧贴着的棺材上。

    她什么也不说，不想。一连串的思想、共同熟悉的人和事，不由自主地在她胸中翻腾，从她身旁掠过，仿佛天上的浮云或往昔他们的夜间谈话。这些都曾经出现过，并带给他们幸福和解脱。一种自发的、相互唤起的热烈的知识。本能的，直接的知识。

    她心中曾充满这种知识，而现在则是关于死亡的模糊的知识，对死亡的心理准备，面对着死亡而毫不惊慌失措。仿佛她在世上已经活了二十次，失掉尤里·日瓦戈不知多少次了，在这一点上心里积累了丰富的经验，因此她在棺材旁边所感受的和所做的都恰到好处，极为合适。

    嗅，多么美妙的爱情，自由的、从未有过的、同任何东西都不相似的爱情！他们像别人低声歌唱那样思想。

    他们彼此相爱并非出于必然，也不像通常虚假地描写的那样，“被清欲所灼伤”。他们彼此相爱是因为周围的一切都渴望他fIJ相爱：脚下的大地，头上的青天，云彩和树木。他们的爱情比起他们本身来也许更让周围的一切中意：街上的陌生人，休想地上的旷野，他们居住并相会的房屋。

    啊，这就是使他们亲近并结合在一起的主要原因。即便在他们最壮丽、最忘我的幸福时刻，最崇高又最扣人心弦的一切也从未背弃他们：享受共同塑造的世界，他们自身属于整幅图画的感觉，属于全部景象的美，属于整个宇宙的感觉。

    他们呼吸的只是这种共同性。因此，把人看得高于自然界、对人的时髦的娇惯和崇拜从未吸引过他们。变为政策的虚假的社会性原理在他们看来不过是可怜的家乡土产而已，因此他们无法理解。

    她现在开始不拘礼节地用生动的日常话向他告别。这些话打破现实的框子，没有意义，就像合唱和悲剧独白一样，就像诗的语言、音乐和其他空洞的话一样，没有意义，只表达出一种情绪。在这种情况下，可以为她勉强说出的没有意义的话语辩解的是她的眼泪。她的那些普通的沉痛的话淹没在泪水中，在泪水中浮游。

    仿佛正是这些被眼泪浸湿的话同她温柔而飞快的低语融合在一起，就像轻风伴着被暖雨吹打得光滑潮湿的树叶发出一片沙沙声。

    “我们又在一起了，尤罗奇卡。上帝再次让我们重逢。你想想，多么可怕呀！嗅，我受不了！上帝啊！我放声痛哭！你想想啊！这又是我们的风格，我们的方式了。你的离开，我的结束。又有某种巨大的、无法取代的东西。生命的谜，死亡的谜，天才的勉力，质朴的魅力，这大概只有我们俩才懂。而像重新剪裁地球那样卑微的世界争吵，对不起，算了吧，同我们毫不相干。

    “永别了，我亲爱的知心人；永别了，我的骄傲；永别了，我的湍急的小河；我多么爱你那日夜不息的拍溅声，我多么想投入你那寒冷的波浪中。

    “还记得我那时在那里，在雪地上同你告别的情景吗？你骗得我好苦啊！没有你我会走吗？嗅，我知道，我知道你是昧心这样干的，为了我假想的幸福。但那时一切便都完了。上帝啊，我尝尽了苦难，受尽了折磨！可你还什么都不知道呢。嗅，我干了什么，尤拉，我干了什么！我罪孽深重，你一点都不知道。但并不是我的过错。我那时在医院里躺了三个月，其中一个月昏迷不醒。从那时起我过的是什么日子啊，尤拉。悔恨和痛苦使我的灵魂没有一天安宁。可我还没告诉你最重要的事。但我不能说出这件事来，没有这种力量。每当我想到生命当中的这个地方，都要吓得头发直竖。你知道，我都不敢保证我的神经完全正常。可你知道，我不像很多人那样喝酒，我没走上那条路，因为女人一酗酒便完蛋了，这是不可思议的，我说得木对吗？”

    她还说了些别的，接着放声大哭，痛不欲生。她突然惊讶地抬起了头，向四外打量了一下。屋里早有人了，担忧，走动。她从凳子上下来，摇摇晃晃地离开棺材，用手掌抹眼睛，仿佛想挤出没哭干净的眼泪，把眼泪甩在地板上。

    男人们走到棺材跟前，用三块木板把棺材抬起来。出殡开始了。

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜在卡梅尔格尔斯基街上的房子里住了几天。她同叶夫格拉夫·安德烈耶维奇谈过的整理文稿的事，在她的参与下，已经开始，但没整理完。她曾经请求同叶夫格拉夫·安德烈耶维奇谈一件事，这件事谈过了。他从她那儿知道了一件重要的事。

    一天，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜从家里出去没再回来。看来那几天她在街上被捕了。她已被人遗忘，成为后来下落不明的人的名单上的一个无姓名的号码，死在北方数不清的普通集中营或女子集中营中的某一个里，或者不知去向。

    尾声

    一九四三年夏天，红军突破库尔斯克包围圈并解放奥廖尔后，不久前晋升为少尉的戈尔东和杜多罗夫少校分头回到他们所属的同一部队。一个从莫斯科出差回来，另一个在那儿度完三天假归队。

    他们在归途中不期而遇，一同在切尔尼小镇过夜。这座小镇像“沙漠地带”的大多数居民居住的城镇一样，尽管惨遭破坏，但尚未完全毁灭；敌人撤退时曾打算把它们从地球上抹掉。

    在城内一块块烧焦的残砖碎瓦中，他们找到一个完好无损的干草棚，两人便在那里过夜。

    他们睡不着觉，整整谈了一夜。凌晨三点，社多罗夫刚刚打脑儿，便被戈尔东吵醒。他笨手笨脚地钻进柔软的干草里翻腾，像在水里扑腾一样，把几件衣服打成一捆，又笨手笨脚地从干草堆顶上爬下来，来到门口。

    “你穿好衣服上哪儿？还早着呢。”

    “我上河边去一趟。想洗几件衣服。”

    “你真疯了。晚上到达部队后，洗衣员塔尼妞会替你洗的。你着什么急呀。”

    “我不想拖了。汗都浸透了，穿得太脏了。上午太阳毒，涮一涮，把水拧干，在太阳底下一晒就干。洗个澡，换上干净衣裳。”

    “可总不大雅观吧。你好歹是军官，我说得对吧？”

    “天还早，周围的人都在睡觉。我找个树丛躲在后面。谁也看不见。你别说话了，睡吧，要不然困劲就过去了。”

    “不说话我也睡不着了。我跟你一块去。”

    他们经过～堆堆石头废墟向小河走去。白石头已经被初升的太阳晒热了。在先前的街道当中，人们躺在地上睡觉、打鼾，被太阳晒得满脸通红，浑身流汗。他们大多数是当地没地方住的老人、妇女和孩子，还有追赶自己部队的掉队的红军战士。戈尔东和杜多罗夫小心地看着脚下，从睡觉的人当中穿过，生怕踩着他们。

    “说话声音低点，别把城里人吵醒，不然我就洗不成衣服了。”

    他们低声地继续夜晚的谈话。

    “这是条什么河？”

    “我不知道。没打听过。大概是祖沙河。”

    “这不是祖沙河。而是另一条什么河。”

    “可一切都发生在祖沙河上。我说的是赫里斯京娜牺牲的事。”

    “不错，但是在河的另外的地方。靠下游。听说教堂已经把她奉为圣女。”

    “那里有座叫‘马厩’的石建筑物。确实是国营农场的养马场，现在这个普通名词成为历史名词了。旧式建筑，墙很厚。德国人又加固了，使它成为无法攻陷的堡垒。从那儿很容易射击整个地区，阻止住我们的进攻。非拿下马厩不可。赫里斯京娜凭着勇敢和机智，神出鬼没地潜入德国人的防线，把马厩炸掉，但被敌人活捉后绞死了。”

    “为什么叫赫里斯京娜·奥尔列佐娃，而不姓杜多罗娃呢？”

    “我们还没结婚。一九四一年夏天我们互相发誓，战争不结束决不结婚。这之后我便随部队到处转战。我们那个部队不停地调来调去。在调动过程中我同她失去了联系。此后我再没见过她。关于她的英雄事迹和牺牲情形，我同大家知道得一样多，都是从报纸、从团队命令里看到的。听说这儿要为她建立一座纪念碑。还听说日瓦戈将军，死去的尤拉的弟弟，正在这一带视察，搜集她的材料。”

    “对不起，我不该跟你提起她。这对你太沉重了。”

    “并不像你想的那样。可我们一谈起来就没完。我不想妨碍你洗衣服。脱衣服下水吧，干你自己的事。我躺在岸上嚼草叶，我想能打个脑儿。”

    过了几分钟他们又谈起来。

    “你在哪儿学会洗衣服的？”

    “逼出来的。我们木走运。我进了一个最可怕的惩罚劳改营。活着出来的人很少。从我们到的那天起就开始受罪。我们一群人被从火车里带出来。一片茫茫雪原。远处有树林。看押的人把来福枪口对着我们，还有狼狗。这时，先前的犯人也赶到这里来了。让我们在雪地里排成多角形，脸朝外，免得互相看见。命令我们跪下。我们怕被枪决，不敢向四外看。然后便开始了侮辱性的点名，点名的时间拖得长极了。所有的人都一直跪着。后来让大家站起来，有的分别被带走了，可是对我们宣布：‘这里就是你们的劳改营。你们爱怎么办就怎么办好了。’天空下的雪地，雪地当中插着一个柱子，柱子上写着‘古拉格92fi H90’，此外什么都没有。”

    “我们那时要好～些。我们走运。我第二次进去是头一次牵连的。此外，我判的罪不同，条件也就不同。我出来后像头一次一样，再度恢复名誉，又准许我上大学讲台。动员我参军的时候结了我个少校军衔，真正的少校，不是准备戴罪立功的惩罚营的劳改犯，像你似的。”

    “是啊。一根写着‘古拉格92月H90’的柱子，此外什么都没有。刚到的时候在严冬里空手撅树干搭草棚。没什么，信不信由你，我们给自己盖了牢房，圈上栅栏，修了单身禁闭室和降望塔，都是我们自己干的。我们伐树，拉木材。八个人拉一辆雪橇，雪陷到胸口。一直不知道爆发了战争。对我们隐瞒着。突然来了通知。惩罚营的人以志愿兵的身份上前线。万一几次战役没被打死，就恢复你的自由。以后便是一次次进攻，剪几千米的电网，埋地雷，发射迫击炮，一连几个月在隆隆的炮火声下。在这些连里称我们为敢死队。全都死光了。我怎么活下来了？我究竟怎么活下来了？可是，你想不到吧，这个流血的地狱同集中营相比还是一种幸福，这并非因为条件恶劣，而是因为别的原因。”

    “是啊，伙计，你可真吃了不少苦啊。”

    “那儿别说洗衣服了，什么都能学会。”

    “真不可思议。不仅同你的苦役生活相比，就同过去的三十年代的生活相比，同监狱以外的生活相比，同我在大学执教，有书读有钱花，所过的宽裕舒适的生活相比，战争仍然是一场冲洗污垢的暴风雨，一股新鲜的空气，一阵解脱的轻风。

    “我想，集体化是一个错误，一种不成功的措施，可又不能承认错误。为了掩饰失败，就得采用一切恐吓手段让人们失去思考和议论的能力，强迫他们看到并不存在的东西，极力证明与事实相反的东西。由此而产生叶若夫的前所未闻的残忍，由此而公布并不打算实行的宪法，进行违背选举原则的选举。

    “但是当战争爆发后，它的现实的恐怖、现实的危险和现实死亡的威胁同不人道的谎言统治相比，给人们带来了轻松，因为它们限制了僵化语言的魔力。

    “不仅是处于你那种苦役犯地位的人，而是所有的人，不论在后方还是在前线，都更自由地、舒畅地松了口气，满怀激情和真正的幸福感投入严酷的、殊死的、得救的洪炉。

    “战争——是十几年革命锁链中特殊的一个环节。作为直接变革本质的原因不再起作用了。间接的结果，成果的成果，后果的后果开始显露出来。来自灾难的力量，性格的锻炼，不再有的娇惯，英雄主义，干一番巨大的、殊死的、前所未有的事业的准备。这是神话般的、令人震惊的品质，它们构成一代人的道德色彩。

    “这些观察使我充满幸福的感觉，尽管赫里斯京娜受折磨而死，尽管我多次负伤，尽管我们受到巨大损失，尽管经历了这场代价昂贵的流血战争。自我牺牲的光芒帮我忍受赫里斯京娜死亡的重负，这种光芒照亮她的死亡，也照亮我们每个人的生活。

    “你这可怜的家伙忍受无穷尽的折磨的时候，我获得了自由。奥尔列佐娃这时考入了历史系。她的研究兴趣的范围使她成为我的门下。我很早以前，第一次从集中营里放出来后，便注意到这个出色的姑娘了，不过那时她还是个小女孩呢。那时尤里还活着，你记得吗，我跟你们讲过她。现在呢，她竟成了我的学生。

    “那时，学生教训教师刚刚成为一种时髦风气。奥尔列佐娃狂热地卷入这种风气中。她为什么疯狂地申斥我，只有上帝一个人知道。她的攻击如此固执，如此气势汹汹，又如此不公正，以致系里的其他同学纷纷起来替我打抱不平。奥尔列佐娃是个了不起的幽默家。她在墙报上写文章，用假名代替我的真名把我嘲笑了个够，而且谁都知道她指的就是我。突然，完全出于一个偶然的机会，我才明白这种根深蒂固的敌意原来是年轻姑娘爱情的伪装形式，一种牢固的、埋藏在心里的、产生多年的爱情。我一直以同样的态度对待她。

    “一九四一年，战争爆发的前夕以及刚刚宣战之后，我们度过了一个美妙的夏天。几个青年人，男女大学生们，她也在其中，住在莫斯科郊区的别墅区，我们的部队也驻扎在那里。我们产生了友谊。我们的友谊是在他们的军训环境中、民兵分队的组建过程中、赫里斯京娜受跳伞训练的期间，以及击退初次对莫斯科进行夜袭的德国飞机的时候发展起来的。我已经对你说过，我们就在那时订了婚，但很快就由于我们部队的调动而分手了。我再没见过她。

    “当战局开始好转，成千上万的德国人开始投降，我受过两次伤并两次住院治疗之后，把我从高射炮部队调到司令部的第七处，那里需要懂外语的人，在我仿佛大海捞针似的找到你之后，就坚持把你也调到这里来。

    “洗衣员塔尼姐非常了解奥尔列佐娃。她们是在前线认识的，成了好朋友。她讲了很多赫里斯京娜的事。塔尼娜一笑满脸开花，笑法跟尤里一样，不知你注意到了没有？高颧骨和翘鼻子不那么明显的时候，脸就变得非常迷人和可爱了。这是那种同一类型的人，这种人我们这儿非常多。”

    “我知道你指的是什么。也许吧。我没留意。”

    “塔尼娜·别佐切列多娃这绰号多粗野，多不像话。不管

    怎么说，这也不是她的姓，而是胡编出来糟蹋她的。你说是木是？”

    “她不是解释过嘛。她是个无人照管的流浪儿，不知父母是谁。在俄国内地，语言粗俗生动，可能管她叫无父儿。她住的那条街上的人不懂得这个外号的意思，叫着叫着就叫成她现在的牲了，这么叫同他们方言的发音接近。”

    戈尔东和杜多罗夫在切尔尼小镇夜间谈话后木久，便来到夷为平地的卡恰列沃。在这里，两个朋友正赶上追赶主力部队的后勤部队。

    秋天，炎热晴朗的天气已经持续半个多月了。奥廖尔和布良斯克之间的伏林什内的肥沃黑土地带在万里无云的蓝天下泛着咖啡色。

    把城市切成两半的街道同公路汇合在～起。街道一侧的房屋被地雷炸成一片瓦砾，把果园里的树木烧焦、炸成碎片、连根拔起。街道的另一侧也是一片荒凉，不过受炸药的破坏较轻，那是因为先前房子盖得也不多，没有什么可毁坏的。

    先前房子盖得多的那边，无家可归的居民还在冒烟的灰烬中翻腾、挖掘，把从离火堆较远的地方搜寻到的东西放在一个地方。另一些人忙着盖土房，把地上的草皮切成一块块的，用它们去盖屋顶。

    街道房子盖得少的那一侧搭起一排白帐篷，挤满第二梯队的卡车和马拉的带篷大车、脱离营部的野战医院以及迷失道路、互相寻找的各种军需后勤部门。这里还有从补充连队来的男孩子，戴着灰船形帽，背着打成卷的大衣。他们非常瘦弱，面无血色，拉痢疾拉得虚弱不堪。他们解手，放下行囊休息，吃点东西，以便继续向西前进。

    一半变为灰烬的城市仍在燃烧，远处迟缓引爆的地雷仍在不断爆炸。在园子里挖掘的人不时停下手里的活儿，伸直身子，靠在铁锨把上休息一下，把头转向爆炸的地方。

    从垃圾里冒出的烟，灰色的、黑色的、红砖色的和火红色的，升上天空，先像立柱或喷泉，后在空中懒洋洋地扩散开，最后又像羽毛似的散落到地面上。挖东西的人继续干起活来。

    在荒地的这一边，有一块四边围着树丛的林间空地，被参天古树的浓荫覆盖着。古树和灌木丛把这片空地同周围的世界隔开，仿佛把它变成一个单独的带篷的院子，阴凉而昏暗。

    洗衣员塔尼妞同两三个要求同她一起搭车的同连队的伙伴，还有戈尔东和杜多罗夫，从早上就在这块林间空地上等候派来接塔尼娘的汽车。团部委托她顺便把一批东西带走。东西装在几个箱子里，箱子装得鼓鼓地放在地上。塔尼娜寸步不离地守着箱子。其余的人也站在箱子旁边，唯恐失去上车的机会。

    他们已经等了五个多小时。等车的人无事可干。他们听着这个见过世面的姑娘没完没了的话。她正在给他们讲日瓦戈将军接见她的经过。

    “怎么不记得，就跟昨天发生的事一样。他们带我见将军本人，见日瓦戈少将。他路过这里，了解赫里斯京娜的情况，寻找见过她的见证人。他们把我推荐给他，说我是她的好朋友。将军下令召见我。于是他们就把我带去了。他一点都不可怕。跟大家一样。黑头发，眼睛有点斜。我知道的都说了。他听完了说谢谢。他问我是哪里人。我当然支支吾吾。有什么可夸口的？一个流浪儿。你们都知道。感化院，四处流浪。可他让我别难为情，讲下去。起先我只说了～点，他直点头。我胆子大起来，越说越多。我确实有很多事可讲。你们听了准不相信，以为是我瞎编的。我想他也一样。可我讲完后他站起来，在屋子里走来走去。他说：‘你讲的可真不寻常，现在我没空，我还要找你，你放心，我还会召见你。我简直没想到会听说这些事。我一定会照顾你。还有些细节需要核实。说不定我还认你作侄女呢。我送你上学念书，你想上哪个学校就上哪个学校。真的，我说的是真话。’多会逗笑啊。”

    这时，一辆高帮的空大车赶进空地。这是波兰和俄国西部运干草的那种大车。两匹驾辕的马由一名运输队的士兵驾驭着，这种人过去被称作马车夫。他赶进空地后便勒住马，从驭手台上跳下来，开始卸马。除了塔尼姬和几名士兵外，其他的人把马车围住，求他别卸马，把他们拉到指定的地方去，当然付给他钱。土兵拒绝了，因为他无权私自使用马和马车，他得执行任务。他把卸下的马牵走了，以后再没露面。坐在地上的人都站起来，爬上他留在空地上的空马车。大车的出现和大家同马车夫的交涉打断了塔尼娜的话，现在大家又让她继续讲下去。

    “你对将军讲的，”戈尔东请求道，“能不能再给我们讲一遍？”

    “怎么不能呢？”

    她给他们讲了自己可怕的一生。

    “我真有不少可讲的。我好像并不是普通人家出身。是谁告诉我的还是我自己记在心里的，就说不清了。我只听说我妈妈，拉伊莎·科马罗娃，是躲藏在白色蒙古的一位俄国部长科马罗夫同志的妻子。我猜这位科马罗夫不是我生父。好啦，我是个没念过书的姑娘，无父无母的孤儿。我说的你们也许觉得可笑，可我只说我所知道的，你们必须设身处地听我讲。

    “是的。我下面讲的事都发生在克鲁什茨那一边，西伯利亚另一头，哈萨克地区的那个方向，靠近中国边界的地方。当我们，我说的是红军，靠近他们白军首都的时候，这个科马罗夫便让妈妈和全家上了一列军用专车，命令把她们送走。妈妈早就吓坏了，没有他的话一步也不敢动。

    “科马罗夫根本不知道有我这个人。妈妈一直把我藏在别的地方，并唯恐有人说漏了嘴。他特别恨小孩，又喊又跺脚，说小孩把家里弄得脏得要命，不得安宁。他常喊他受不了这些。

    “大概就像我说的那样，红军接近的时候，妈妈派人把纳格尔纳亚会让站上巡守员的女人马尔法找来。会让站离城里三站地。我马上就给你们解释。头一站是尼佐瓦亚，其次是纳格尔纳亚会让站，下面便是萨姆松诺夫斯基山口。现在我明白我妈妈怎么认识马尔法的了。大概马尔法在城市卖蔬菜，送牛奶。

    “看来现在有些事我还不清楚。她大概骗了妈妈，没对她说实话。契约上写的是带我一两年，等这阵混乱过去就送回来，并不是让我永远留在别人家。要是永远留在别人家，妈妈不会把亲生孩子送出去的。

    “骗小孩还不容易。走到大婶跟前，大婶给块饼干，大婶好，别怕大婶。后来我哭得伤心极了，心都要碎了，最好还是别去想。我想上吊，我很小的时候就差点发疯。我还太小呀。肯定给了马尔福莎大婶很多钱，我的赡养费。

    “信号室的院子很阔气，有牛又有马，当然还有各种家禽，一大块园子。地想要多少就有多少。房子也是铁路上的，不用花钱。火车在我们家乡好不容易才爬上来，费很大劲，可从你们俄罗斯这边，开得快极了，还得时常刹车。秋天，叶子落了以后，从下面能看见纳格尔纳亚车站，就像放在盘子里一样。

    “巡守员瓦西里叔叔，我按照当地的叫法管他叫爹。他是个好心眼的快活人，就是耳朵太软，特别是喝醉了酒的时候。像俗话所说的，肚子里藏不住一个屁，见着谁都掏心窝子。

    “可我从来不管马尔法叫妈。不知是我忘不了妈妈还是由于别的原因。马尔福莎大婶可怕极了。是的，我只管她叫马尔福莎大婶。

    “时间过去了，一年年过去了。多少年我记不得了。我那时也上站上去摇旗子。我还能卸马，把牛牵回来。马尔福莎大婶教我纺线。家里活更不用说了。擦地，收拾屋子，做饭，样样都会。和面我也不当一回事，什么我都会干。对啦，我忘记说了，我还看彼坚卡。彼坚卡是个瘫子，三岁还不会走路，老躺着，我看着他。已经过了多少年，我一想起马尔福莎大婶斜眼看我的腿还吓得浑身打哆喀呢。她好像说为什么我的腿是好的，最好我是瘫子，而彼坚卡不是，都是我害的，你们想想她这人心眼多黑，多愚昧。

    “现在你们听着，还有更可怕的呢，你们听了准会哎呀一声叫起来。

    “那时是新经济政策，一千卢布顶一个戈比使。瓦西里·阿法纳西耶维奇在山下卖了一条牛，背回两袋子钱，叫克伦斯基票子，对不起，说错了，叫柠檬票。他喝多了，便到纳格尔纳亚车站上告诉大家他有多少钱。

    “记得那一天刮大风，风快把屋顶掀下来了，把人能刮倒，火车顶风，爬不上来。我看见山上有个朝圣的老太婆，风吹得她裙子和技巾在空中乱飘。

    “老太婆走过来，抱着肚子直哼哼，求我放她进屋。我让她坐在凳子上，她喊着肚子疼得受不了，马上就要死了，让我看在上帝的份上把她送进医院，她给我钱，她不心疼钱。我套上爹的马，搀着老太婆上了马车，把她送进十五俄里以外的县医院。

    “我和马尔福莎大婶刚躺下，便听见爹的马叫起来，我们的马车进了院子。爹回来得太早了点。马尔福莎大婶点着灯，披上上衣，没等爹敲门便去给他开门。

    “开门～看，门槛上站着的哪是爹呀，是个陌生男人，黑得怕人。他说：‘指给我卖牛的钱搁在哪儿啦。我在树林里把你男人宰了，可我可怜你是老娘儿们，只要说出钱在哪儿就没你的事儿了。要是不说出来，你自己明白，别怪我了。别跟我泡，我没空跟你吵嚷。’

    “嗅，老天爷呀，亲爱的同志们，你们要遇到这种事儿怎么办！我们吓得半死不活，浑身哆佩，说不出话。第一，他自己说，用斧子把瓦西里·阿法纳西耶维奇劈死了；其次，强盗在家里，而家里就我们两个人。

    “马尔福莎大婶大概一下子就吓掉魂了。丈夫的死让她心碎了。但得挺住，不能让他看出来。

    “马尔福莎大婶先给他跪下。‘发发慈悲吧，’她说，‘别杀我。你说的钱我压根儿没听说过，头一次听你说。’可这个孩杀的没那么傻，用话支不走他。她突然想了个主意骗他：‘好吧，我告诉你，钱在地窖里，我给你掀开地窖的门，你钻进去找吧。’可那魔鬼一眼就看穿了她的诡计。‘不，’他说，‘你钻进去，快点，我不管你下地窖还是上房顶，把钱给我就行。可你记着，你要耍弄我可不会有好果子吃。’那时她说：‘上帝保佑你，你要那么多心我就自己下去，可我腿脚不方便。我从上面用灯给你照着行不行。你别害怕，为了说话算数，我让女儿陪你下去。’她指的是我。

    “嗅，老天爷呀，亲爱的同志们，你们想想，我听见这些话当时是什么感觉！得了，我的末日到了。我眼睛发黑，腿发软，我觉得我要倒下了。

    “可那个恶棍还不上当。他斜着眼睛看了我一眼，眯起眼睛，张开大嘴狞笑了一下，好像说：‘跟我开玩笑，可骗不了我。’他看出她不心疼我，我可能不是她的亲骨肉。他一只手抓起彼坚卡，另一只手拉住地窖门的铁环，拉开门。‘瞧着。’他说，便带着彼坚卡从梯子下到地窖里。

    “我想，马尔福莎大婶那时神经已经错乱了，什么都不明白了。恶棍和彼坚卡刚一下去，她便把地窖的门砰的一声关上，还上了锁。她还想把一只重箱子推到地窖门上，朝我点点头，让我帮她推箱子，因为箱子太沉了。压好箱子后，这个傻瓜便坐在箱子上笑。她刚坐下，强盗就在下面喊起来，使劲敲地板。恶棍喊道，赶快放他出来，不然他就要彼坚卡的命。地板太厚，里面的话听不清楚，可听不清楚也能明白他的意思。他吼叫得比野兽还可怕。他喊道，你的彼坚卡马上就没命了。可她还是不明白，只管坐在那儿傻笑，对我眨眼。好像说你爱怎么喊就怎么喊，反正钥匙在我手里。我想尽一切办法让她明白，对着她耳朵喊，想把她从箱子上推下来。得打开地窖，把彼坚卡救出来。可我哪里办得到呢！我怎么对付得了她？

    “他一个劲地在下面敲打，时间一点点过去，她坐在箱子上眼珠乱转，什么也不听。

    “过了很长的时间，嗅，老天爷呀，老天爷，我这辈子受过很多吉，见过的事多了，可我永远忘不了这悲惨的一幕，不论我活多久，都能听见彼坚卡可怜的叫声——小天使彼坚卡在地窖里呻吟，叫喊。那该杀的恶棍把他掐死了。

    “我该怎么办？我想。我拿这个半疯的老太婆和杀人的强盗怎么办？时间过去了。我听见马在窗外叫，一直没从大车上卸下来。对了，马在叫，仿佛想对我说，塔纽莎，赶快去找好心人，找人帮忙吧。我一看天快亮了，心想：‘就按你的意思办吧，谢谢，爹的好马，你指教了我，你的主意对，咱们走吧。’可我正这样想的时候，仿佛树林子里有个声音对我说：等等，别急，塔纽莎，咱们还能想出别的办法。’在树林子里又不是我一个人了。公鸡仿佛向对自己同类那样对我幄幄啼，一辆熟悉的机车在下面用汽笛向我招呼。我从汽笛声听出它是纳格尔纳亚车站的机车，正在生火待发，他们管它叫推车，推货车上山；可这次是一列混合列车，每天夜里这时候都打这儿经过。我听见，我所熟悉的机车在下面叫我。我听见，我的心快跳出来了。我想，难道我和马尔福莎大婶神经都出了毛病，每个活物，每个木会说话的机器，都会跟我说人话？

    “可是还想什么，火车已经很近，没工夫想了。我提起已经不怎么亮了的提灯，拼命沿着铁轨跑去，站在两条铁轨当中，拼命摇提灯。

    “还有什么好说的。我拦住火车，亏得风大，它开得很慢，慢速行车。我拦住火车，熟识的司机从司机室的窗口伸出身子来，因为风大我听不见他的问话。我对司机喊，有人攻击铁路信号室，杀人枪劫，强盗就在家里，叔叔同志，保护保护我们吧，急需救援。我说话的时候，从取暖货车上下来几名红军战士，问我出了什么事，列车为什么夜里停在树林里的陡坡上。

    “他们知道出了什么事后，便从地窖里把强盗拖出来、他用比彼坚卡还尖细的声音求他们饶了他。‘好心的人，’他说，‘别杀死我，我再也不敢了。’他们把他拖到路基上，手脚绑在铁轨上，火车从他肚子上轧过去——处以私刑。

    “我没回去取衣服，那儿太可怕了。我请求叔叔们把我带上火车。他们便把我带走了。此后，我不吹牛，带着流浪儿的名声，走遍半个俄国和半个外国，什么地方都到过了。经过童年的痛苦，我才懂得什么是幸福和自由。当然也有过不少过错和灾难。那都是以后发生的事了，我下次再讲给你们听吧。我刚才说的那天夜里，一个铁路职员走下火车，走进马尔福莎的院子，接收了政府的财产，做了安置马尔福莎大婶的指示。听说她后来在疯人院里发疯死了。也有人说她病好出院了。”

    戈尔东和杜多罗夫听完塔尼娜讲的经历后，默默地在草地上徘徊了很久。后来卡车开来了，笨拙地从大道上拐进林间空地。人们开始往卡车上装箱子。戈尔东说：

    “你明白这个洗衣员塔尼姐是难吗？”

    “嗅，当然明白。”

    “叶夫格拉夫会照顾她的。”他沉默了一会儿又补充道，“历史上这种事已经发生过几次了。高尚的、理想的、深沉的变粗俗了，物质化了。这样希腊成为罗马，这样俄国教育变成俄国革命。你不妨对比一下布洛克的话‘我们是俄国恐怖年代的孩子们’，马上便能看出两个时代的区别。布洛克说这话的时候，应当从转意上、从形象意义上来理解。孩子并不是孩子，而是祖国的儿女，时代的产物，知识分子，而恐怖并不可怕，不过是天意，具有启示录的性质而已，这是不同的事物。而现在，一切转意的都变成字面上的意义了，孩子就是孩子，恐怖是可怕的，不同就在这里。”

    又过了五年或十年、一个宁静的夏天傍晚，戈尔东和杜多罗夫又聚在一起，坐在高楼敞开的窗口前，俯视着在暮色渐渐变浓中的辽阔无垠的莫斯科。他们正翻阅叶夫格拉夫编辑的尤里耶夫的著作集。他们不止读过一遍了，其中的一半都能背诵。他们交换看法，陷入思考之中，读到一半的时候天黑了，他们看木清字体，不得不点上灯。

    莫斯科在他们脚下的远方，这座作者出生的城市，他的一半遭遇都发生在这里。现在，他们觉得莫斯科不是发生这类遭遇的地点，而是长篇故事中的一个主角。今晚，他们手中握着著作集已经走近故事的结尾。

    尽管战后人们所期待的清醒和解放没有伴随着胜利一起到来，但在战后的所有年代里，自由的征兆仍然弥漫在空气中，并构成这些年代唯一的历史内容。

    已经变老的两位朋友坐在窗前还是觉得，心灵的这种自由来到了，正是在这天晚上，在他们脚下的街道上已经能感触到未来了，而他们自己也步入未来，今后将永远处于未来之中。想到这神圣的城市和整个地球，想到没有活到今晚的这个故事的参加者们和他们的孩子们，他们心中便感到一种幸福而温柔的平静，而这种平静正把幸福的无声的音乐撒向周围。而他们手中的这本书仿佛知道这一切，支持并肯定他们的感觉。

    （蓝英年译）

    附诗

     哈姆雷特

    喧嚷嘈杂之声已然沉寂，

    此时此刻踏上生之舞台。

    倚门倾听远方袅袅余音，

    从中捕捉这一代的安排。

    膝跪的夜色正向我对准，

    用千百只望远镜的眼睛。

    假若天上的父还前宽容，

    请从身边移去苦酒一搏。

    我赞赏你那执拗的打算，

    装扮这个角色可以应承。

    但如今已经变换了剧情，

    这一次我却是碍难从命。

    然而场景已然编排注定，

    脚下是无可更改的途程。

    虚情假意使我肾信自叹，

    度此一生决非漫步田园。

    三月

    阳光曝晒汗如雨下，

    发疯的溪谷难忍热浪的冲刷。

    早春的农事正繁忙，

    件件操劳在牧羊女健壮手上。

    赢弱的残雪更苍白，

    身下的树枝露出一条条筋脉。

    畜栏的生活更沸腾，

    翻飞的草权闪耀着尖利齿锋。

    日复一日夜复一夜！

    屋檐下病诉慢的冰着一节节，

    　日中又在滴滴溶解，

    化作涓涓小溪诉说无眠梦吃！

    马厩牛栏门扉四开，

    鸽群在雪地上争食颗颗燕麦。

    作祟的兴奋莫责怪，

    这都是那股新熟的粪香带来。

    复活节前七日

    四周仍是夜的昏暗，

    时光还是这般的早。

    苍穹悬挂星辰无数，

    颗颗如白昼般光耀。

    若是大地有此机缘，

    梦中迎来复活诗篇。

    四周仍是夜的昏暗，

    时光还是这般的早。

    广场始终这样平展，

    从十字路铺向街角。

    待到黎明暖风吹拂，

    于年的日子还嫌少。

    大地仍是光秃一片，

    无奈依旧赤手空拳。

    夜半钟声如何敲响，

    配合圣歌婉转回环。

    从复活节前的三日，

    直到节前的那一天，

    拧成了漩涡的水花，

    不停地淘掘着两岸。

    就在基督受难之日，

    树木没有一丝装扮，

    仿佛祈祷者的行列，

    松林挺起排排躯干。

    但是在那城镇之中，

    会聚在狭促的空间，

    光秃秃的林木一片，

    凝望着教堂的栅栏。

    它们眼中充满恐惧，

    惊骇之色一目了然。

    土地崩裂摇撼震荡，

    庭园举步走出栅栏，

    它们要为上帝安葬。

    在坛o看到了灯光，

    黑披风和蜡烛成行，

    还有那悲哭的面庞——

    遮住坛巾

    捧送十字架的仪仗，

    你要躬身低首施礼，

    　门外肃立两株白杨。

    行列绕过一座院落，

    沿着人行道的一旁，

    把春天和她的言语，

    一并带到教堂门廊，

    空中散发圣饼余香。

    阳春三月晴空飞雪，

    洒向阶前残疾人堆；

    似乎门内走出一人，

    奉献打开银色约相，

    布施净尽毫无反悔。

    连绵歌声迎来黎明，

    悲怆号阳已然尽兴。

    使徒们默默地行进，

    遥看那旷野的孤灯，

    小心泛起空冥寂静。

    待到得知春的消息，

    一夜消失七情六欲，

    只须红日喷薄欲出，

    面对复活更生伟力，

    死神也要悄然退避。

    　白夜

    久已远去的时光又在眼前飘荡，

    那幢房屋就在彼得堡的一方。

    地主之家掌上明珠降在草原上，

    你来自库尔斯克才走进了学堂。

    美好迷人的你自有多少钟情郎，

    那个白夜却只有你我人一双。

    互相依偎着坐在你家的窗沿上，

    仿佛从你的摩天大厦凌空眺望。

    瓦斯街灯真像那纷飞的蝶儿狂，

    初次的战栗催来了黎明时光。

    轻声曼语我向你倾诉肺腑衷肠，

    心儿飘向那片蒙咙沉睡的远方。

    同样的情感拴紧了你我各一方，

    心底都在把羞怯的忠诚隐藏。

    真像是那尽收眼底的全景图像，

    宏伟的彼得堡在涅瓦河边依傍。

    就在这样溢着春意的白夜时光，

    沿着那远去的河流山川走向，

    夜驾为一支支赞颂曲卖弄舌黄，

    无边的林海尽情让那歌声倘样。

    惹人怜的黄口鸟儿也无法拒抗，

    婉转啼鸣出自那弱小的胸膛。

    这一切唤醒的只是不安和叹赏，

    充满在深远而迷人的林海茫茫。

    像是那赤脚的朝圣者漫步估俊，

    白夜沿着篱栅走来不声不忙

    它身后牵出几丝窗边絮语声浪，

    偷听到私房知心话回响在耳旁。

    沿着一家一户庭院的木板围墙，

    顺路听来的言语产流连倘佯，

    苹果树和樱桃树舒展枝条臂膀，

    披上了淡白色繁花点点的新装。

    这一株株一片片的林木排成行，

    幽灵似的白色身影投在路旁。

    仿佛为了告别白皮再挥手张扬，

    赞赏她此行不虚并且见多识广。

    　春天的泥泞小路

    天边燃尽晚霞的余光，

    在荒僻的松林泥泞路上，

    朝向远方乌拉尔的田庄，

    骑者脚踢仿惶。

    慢走的马儿悠悠晃晃，

    像是迎合着蹄铁的音响，

    还有那呼咯夜接的泉水，

    一路匆匆赶上。

    暂且松开手中的磋绳，

    骑者让那马儿慢步倘佯，

    春汛泛起了沉闷的轰响，

    近在身边路旁。

    仿佛是有人哭笑无常，

    原来是蹄下的砾石相撞，

    还有那连根掀起的树桩，

    卷入漩涡飘荡。

    燃尽的晚霞闪烁余光，

    衬出远山林木墨色苍茫，

    宛如那报警的钟声敲响，

    枝头夜营欢唱。

    沟谷旁一株孤单垂柳，

    俯身低下枝叶纷披的头；

    骑者学那古时绿林魁首，

    咯哨一声长啸。

    这炽热的情怀和操守，

    是为了怎样的恋人烦忧？

    填满雷弹的枪口岛油油，

    要在密林寻仇？

    原来是带着满身污垢，

    走出政治逃犯的藏身沟，

    朝着骑马或徒步的朋友，

    走向游击哨口。

    苍天大地丛林和田畴，

    都捕捉到这声音的稀有，

    里面包含着迷惆和痛苦。

    幸福伴着忧愁。

    　倾诉

    生活又是无缘由地返回，

    和它曾古怪地中断一样，

    我依旧在那古老街道上，

    也是相同的仲夏日时光。

    同是那些人和那种烦忧，

    夕阳的余辉也不曾尽收，

    但死样的昏暗匆匆奔走，

    把那霞光抹上马场墙头。

    女人们披上廉价的裙衫，

    夜晚才把那高跟鞋试穿，

    过后在那铅皮的屋顶上，

    反射出敲击阁楼的音响。

    依然是迈着倦怠的脚步，

    迟缓地跨过了那道门槛，

    从地下室上来走到地面，

    取了一条斜径穿过庭院。

    我仍是准备了种种借口，

    可又觉得总是依然如旧。

    善意的女邻居绕开避走，

    留下我们两人在她身后。

    千万不要哀伤痛哭失声，

    也无须撮起肿胀的双唇。

    这会勾起心中痛楚深沉，

    别触动火热青春旧伤痕。

    红酥手不要抚在我胸间，

    你我有传情达意一线牵。

    无心无意之中时时相见，

    任它摆布听凭命运偶然。

    年华流逝你会结成婚配，

    　忘却那一时的迷恋沉醉。

    　成为妇人需要跨一大步，

    　神魂颠倒也须勇气十足。

    　面对女性的迷人的双手，

    　俏丽颈背和圆润的肩头，

    　满怀缠绵和眷恋的感受，

    　我的虔诚景慕永世不休。

    　暗夜尽管投下一副铁环，

    　把我完全限在忧伤之间，

    　还有更强的力牵向一边，

    　那是激情在召唤着割断。

    　城市之夏

    细语轻声，

    伴着热切的步履匆匆；

    青丝漫卷发顶，

    颈后略见蓬松。

    头饰之下，

    女人的目光透过面纱，

    抬头回首刹那，

    辫梢飘拂挥洒。

    酷热街巷，

    预示着夜来雷雨一场；

    沙沙脚步声响，

    紧傍庭院宅旁。

    断续雷鸣，

    天边响彻清脆的回声，

    帘卷徐徐清风，

    窗前轻轻飘动。

    万籁俱寂，

    大地依旧蒸腾着暑气，

    闪电时断时续，

    扫亮暗夜无际。

    灿烂辉煌，

    又是一天炎热的朝阳，

    街心积水闪光，

    夜来骤雨一场。

    苦脸愁眉，

    仿佛惺倍睡眼低垂，

    百年殿树巍巍，

    浓香繁花未褪。

    　风

    死去的是我活着的是你，

    风儿如泣如诉，

    撼动了丛林和房屋。

    它摇荡的不是棵棵松树，

    却是成片林木，

    在无尽的远方遍布；

    就仿佛是帆格桨橹无数，

    港湾水上沉浮。

    决非争那豪气十足，

    也不是为了无名的怨怒，

    只是伴着饭忧，

    为你把摇篮曲寻求。

    　酒花

    常春藤缠绕着爆竹柳，

    树下把避雨的地点寻求。

    一件风衣披在你我的肩头，

    拥抱着你的是我有力的双手。

    原来这并不是常春藤，

    却是浓密的酒花一丛丛。

    那就更好让我们打开披风，

    让它在自己身下宽舒地展平。

    　初秋艳阳天

    醋栗叶子长得粗厚繁茂，

    人在家中笑得门窗在叫，

    主妇们切碎盐渍加调料，

    丁香嫩芽放在卤汁里泡。

    树林子像是在一边嘲笑，

    把这些笑声朝山坡上抛，

    樟树在那里受阳光炙烤，

    像是被黄火的热气烧焦。

    这里一条小路下到山谷，

    还有许多干枯的水朽木，

    那片片积水怜爱这初秋，

    把这一切都收容在一处。

    世界原本单纯而又清楚，

    决非聪明人设想的糊涂，

    就好比水淹了苍翠林木，

    一切的一切都有着归宿。

    一旦面前的一切都烧光，

    眼睛也无须徒然地迷惆，

    那白色的秋天的雾茫茫，

    却像蛛丝一般粘到窗上。

    从庭院篱墙引出的小路，

    消失在一片烨树林深处，

    院里笑声伴着家务忙碌，

    同样的笑语欢声在远处。

    婚礼

    贺客走过一侧的庭院，

    轻松愉快地参加喜筵，

    手风琴伴着笑语欢颜，

    早早就来到新娘门前。

    一扇扇门用毡布镶边，

    遮不住门后片语只言，

    说不尽的话断断续续，

    子夜以后才求得安闲。

    极度的困倦迎来黎明，

    多么想合上睡眼惺松，

    客人们纷纷告别散尽，

    回去的路上伴着琴声。

    琴手也从甜梦中惊醒，

    再把那琴键按在手中，

    白色键盘上手指飞腾，

    伴送远去的笑语欢声。

    一切又一次重新开始，

    说不尽的话无休无止，

    这是温暖的亲人酒宴，

    直接送在新人的床边。

    新娘裹起雪白的衣裳，

    喧闹衬托出仪态端庄，

    像一只白孔雀在飞翔，

    轻轻地擦过你的身旁。

    她频频地轻轻点着头，

    不时举起纤细的右手，

    轻快的舞步踏出拍节，

    活像那一只只的孔雀。

    欢乐的喧闹掀起激情，

    旋转的轮舞脚步轰鸣，

    恨不能寻找一个地缝，

    跳过去消失无影无踪。

    小小的庭院睡醒了觉，

    你言我语的声音喧闹，

    夹杂着家务事的商讨．

    不时爆发出一声大笑。

    抬头望见天际的天穹，

    一些瓦蓝的斑点腾空，

    原来是一群家养驯鸽，

    欢快地飞出小小樊笼。

    它们好像是忽然想起，

    也急忙赶来参加婚礼，

    祝一对新人百年长寿，

    表达了养鸽人的心意。

    生命原本只是一瞬间，

    我要融化为一点点，

    混合在所有人的心田，

    也是对所有人的奉献。

    然而现在只有这婚礼，

    还有窗外传来的歌声，

    衬托着瓦蓝色的鸽群，

    还有这如睡如醒的梦。

    秋

    家里的仆人已被我遣散，

    亲朋好友各在天之一边，

    总是那种一个人的孤单，

    充满我心中和那大自然。

    在这荒凉的看林人小屋，

    只留下你和我厮守居住。

    像是歌中唱的那些小路，

    丛生的杂草淹没了半数。

    凝望着我们的圆木围墙，

    如今也带上满面的忧伤。

    我们答应不要任何阻挡，

    我们宁愿死得公开坦荡。

    我们常无言对坐到夜深，

    你埋头女红我手捧书本，

    直到天明我们竟未发觉，

    记不清何时才停止亲吻。

    让满树的秋叶尽情喧闹，

    无所顾忌地在风中飘摇，

    昨日的悲伤还迟迟未了，

    却胜不过又添新愁今朝。

    让我倾听九月的音声，

    都是些卷记和叹赏之情！

    　一切都成了秋天的絮语，

    　直到精疲力竭生命告终！

    　像那丛林一样枝秃叶光，

    　你也仿效着卸去了衣裳，

    　就这样投入拥抱的臂膀，

    　只是一件绸衫遮在身上。

    当生活陷入烦恼与痛苦，

    你为我阻挡了绝望之路，

    你的美就在于勇气十足，

    就是它把你我牢牢系住。

    　童话

    这是在很久以前，

    一个神话般的远方，

    一个骑士沿着河旁，

    穿过广阔的草场。

    他忙着寻条小路，

    但透过草原的尘雾，

    迎面看到浓密树木，

    就在前方远疑。

    飒爽的精神减弱，

    心中一个念头闪过：

    饮马不能走近小河，

    快把缰绳松脱。

    但骑士并不听从，

    驱使马儿任意奔腾，

    飞快地跑了这一程，

    朝向山岗树丛。

    转过了一座山丘，

    又来到了一条干谷，

    林中草地遇在半途，

    越过山峰一处。

    眼前是一片洼地，

    一条小路出没草际，

    循着野物点点足迹，

    来到它们饮水地。

    像是聋人不听唤，

    也不信自己的感官，

    只顾牵马走下陡岸，

    让马儿畅饮一番。

    幽暗的洞在河边，

    洞的前方一片浅滩，

    仿佛一股琉璜绿火，

    照亮洞口山岩。

    骑士眼前之所见，

    是血色的烟雾一片，

    还有那茫茫的林海，

    似在远方召唤。

    骑士急忙挺起腰，

    策马越过一个山包，

    迎着那个召唤快跑，

    响应它的感召。

    他紧紧握住长矛，

    原来是他亲眼看到，

    一条龙的头和尾消，

    还有坚硬鳞爪。

    龙张口打个呵欠，

    喷出火光像是闪电，

    绕着一个妙龄少女，

    整整盘了三圈。

    当中还有一头蛇，

    身躯蜿蜒像根长鞭，

    用它那凉滑的脖颈，

    搭在少女双肩。

    按照当地的习惯，

    凡是美丽的女俘虏，

    都要当作最好贡献，

    送给林中怪物。

    少女的父老乡亲，

    情愿拿出房舍田庄，

    作为这姑娘的赎金，

    向龙提出报偿。

    那蛇缠住她的手，

    又紧紧裹住她咽喉，

    要把牺牲者的痛苦，

    让这姑娘尝够。

    看到这样的哀求，

    骑士又怎么能忍受，

    手持长矛腾空而起，

    誓与龙蛇搏斗。

    转眼就是几百年，

    同样的云同样的山，

    同样的溪流河水间，

    悠悠岁月依然。

    骑士头上的战盔，

    厮杀中被打得开花，

    忠实的马踏住了毒蛇，

    让它死在蹄下。

    那马和龙的尸体，

    并列着倒在沙滩上，

    少女受惊神志不清，

    骑士昏迷不醒。

    头上是红日当空，

    瓦蓝的天清明无风。

    这姑娘是大地之女？

    还是郡主王公？

    有时是感到幸福，

    不禁流下欢乐的泪，

    有时仍旧如痴如醉，

    忘记一切昏睡。

    两人的心还在跳，

    他和她在争取生命，

    有时渐渐恢复清醒，

    有时重入梦中。

    转眼就是几百年，

    同样的云同样的山，

    同样的溪流河水间，

    悠悠岁月依然。

    八月

    像是忠实地遵守着诺言，

    旭日早早就在天边出现，

    一道道红里透黄的光线，

    从窗帘直照到长椅跟前。

    这储石色的温热的阳光，

    照遍了附近的树木村庄，

    潮湿的枕巾和我的卧床，

    还有书架后面那一面墙。

    我想起是为了什么原因，

    才会稍稍沾湿了这枕巾，

    就是梦见你们为我送行，

    一个随着一个走在林中。

    你们三三两两或是一群，

    这当中不知谁忽然想到，

    今天按旧历是八月六号，

    基督变容节恰好在今朝。

    那是没有火的普通的光，

    来自那基督变容的山上，

    让秋日显现上天的征兆，

    普天下的人都受到感召。

    你们穿越过走过的地方，

    是一片细小光秃的赤杨，

    但这墓地树叶上的颜色，

    却像刻花糕饼似的姜黄。

    摇动树顶的风已经平静，

    仰望着温柔闲适的天庭，

    远处的雄鸡一声接一声，

    不断地唱出报晓的啼鸣。

    在这丈量过的国有墓地，

    到处都是死一般的静寂，

    看着我已经逝去的面庞，

    掘个墓穴比照我的身量。

    你们大家都会亲耳听见，

    一个平静的声音在身边，

    那是已经预知天意的我，

    说话的嗓音丝毫没有变：

    “永别了，在基督变容节

    和救主节这晴朗的一天，

    请用那女性温柔的手掌，

    最后抚平我命运的创伤。

    “永别了，多年不幸时光：

    女人的变幻莫测的召唤，

    无止境的卑微还有低贱，

    一生我都在充分地承担。

    “永别了，伸展宽阔翅膀，

    为的是勇敢自由的飞翔，

    伴送着世间的创造之神，

    还有那应验的言语篇章。”

    冬之夜

    没有了任何分界，

    天地之间是一片白。

    桌上燃起了蜡烛一台。

    像那夏日的蚊虫，

    一群群地追逐亮光，

    团团的雪花扑向门窗。

    风雪在窗面凝挂，

    结成圈圈道道冰花。

    桌上燃起了蜡烛一台。

    烛光映照在屋顶，

    投去手足交叉的影，

    那是结合一起的运命。

    脱下的两只小鞋，

    落到地面发出轻响，

    几点烛泪滴落衣裳。

    一切都已经消失，

    风雪的夜是一片白。

    桌上燃起了蜡烛一台。

    灯火在风中摇荡，

    诱惑的天使在飞翔，

    展开那两只爱的翅膀。

    整个二月是这样，

    天地之间是一片白，

    桌上燃起了蜡烛一台。

    分离

    他从门槛上向里张望，

    认不出这就是家。

    她的离去就像是逃亡，

    把凌乱痕迹留下。

    这儿一切都是乱糟糟，

    看不出怎样才好，

    因为两眼布满了泪痕，

    只感觉头脑昏沉。

    圣诞夜的星(手机TXT小说下载网.整*理*提*供)

    那是个冬天。

    风来自草原。

    山坡上的一个洞，

    里面的婴儿受冻。

    健牛用呼吸

    暖他的身体，

    一些家畜也在洞里，

    马槽上散出温暖的气息。

    牧羊人抖动皮衣，

    甩掉草屑和谷粒，

    睡眼望着夜半的远方，

    背靠着峭壁。

    那是一片旷野，

    白雪覆盖了村舍和篱墙，

    墓碑歪斜地立在雪中，

    头上是满天繁星。

    仿佛就在近旁，

    打更人的窗台上，

    一盏小小的灯碗，

    通伯利恒的路闪出星光。

    这星燃出的火，

    仿佛烧起了草垛，

    又像是起火的谷仓，

    但远离上帝的天堂。

    这星向上腾飞，

    带着炽热的谷草灰，

    整个的宇宙天庭，

    都被这新星惊动。

    越来越旺盛的火，

    似乎为了什么在减弱，

    随着天意的安排，

    三颗小星匆匆赶来。

    配了挽具的驴和驼队，

    就在后面跟随，

    它们戴了足够的贡献，

    迈着碎步走下山。

    这奇迹般的一切，

    未来都要变换地出现：

    包括几代人的思想和希望，

    还有将来的博物馆和画廊，

    相逢

    大雪封了路，

    埋住了幢幢房屋。

    　我要去暖暖两只脚，

    你刚巧就倚在门后。

    　不曾戴着帽，

    　也没有穿上套靴，

    　为了冷却。心的激动，

    　你口含了冰凉的雪。

    　树木和篱栅，

    　隐没在远方雾中。

    　大雪纷飞凛冽的天，

    　只有你站在墙角边。

    　雪融在发辫，

    　湿透了领口农边，

    　晶莹的露珠一点点，

    　在你头上一闪一闪。

    　一绝淡黄发，

    　在你的额边斜挂，

    发辫衬着你的面颊，

    全身都裹在大衣下。

    雪湿了睫毛，

    眼里是悲伤情调，

    整体的你如此匀称，

    仿佛一块碧玉雕成。

    像是一块铁，

    也是炼好的合金，

    命运让你握在手中，

    在我心上划一刻痕。

    深深的刻痕，

    永远印上你全身，

    因此一切都无所谓，

    尽管人世残酷无情。

    同样的原因，

    这个雪夜加倍长，

    我不能划一条界限，

    割断在你和我之间。

    你我何处来，

    有谁能说个明白？

    尽管留有闲言碎语，

    那时我们已不存在。

    圣诞夜的星

    那是个冬天。

    风来自草原。

    山坡上的一个洞，

    里面的婴儿受冻。

    健牛用呼吸

    暖他的身体，

    一些家畜也在洞里，

    马槽上散出温暖的气息。

    牧羊人抖动皮衣，

    甩掉草屑和谷粒，

    睡眼望着夜半的远方，

    背靠着峭壁。

    那是一片旷野，

    白雪覆盖了村舍和篱墙，

    墓碑歪斜地立在雪中，

    头上是满天繁星。

    仿佛就在近旁，

    打更人的窗台上，

    一盏小小的灯碗，

    通伯利恒的路闪出星光。

    这星燃出的火，

    仿佛烧起了草垛，

    又像是起火的谷仓，

    但远离上帝的天堂。

    这星向上腾飞，

    带着炽热的谷草灰，

    整个的宇宙天庭，

    都被这新星惊动。

    越来越旺盛的火，

    似乎为了什么在减弱，

    随着天意的安排，

    三颗小星匆匆赶来。

    配了挽具的驴和驼队，

    就在后面跟随，

    它们戴了足够的贡献，

    迈着碎步走下山。

    这奇迹般的一切，

    未来都要变换地出现：

    包括几代人的思想和希望，

    还有将来的博物馆和画廊，

    诱人的巫术和美女的轻狂，

    世上的圣诞树和孩子们的梦想。

    跳动的烛火连成一线，

    法衣的彩绣烟熔生辉—…·

    草原的风狂暴肆虐……

    苹果树和金光菊风中摇曳。

    赤杨林遮住了一角池塘，

    从这里可以看到另一角，

    但要越过树顶和白嘴鸦巢。

    驴子和驼队沿着池塘前进，

    一旁跟随着牧人。

    “来吧，一同去向神迹祈祷。”

    牧人说着掀开御寒的皮袄。

    雪地上疾走发出了热，

    赤裸的双脚匆匆踏过，

    足迹指向一座小屋，

    牧羊大轻轻叫个不住，

    似乎在担心迷途。

    这一夜冷得出奇，

    一个人肩上的落雪成堆，

    他总是悄悄地混进驼队。

    牧羊犬警觉地把脚步放慢，

    等待着主人和可能的灾难。

    同是这一条路径，

    几名天使也在行进，

    他们的身影虽然隐去，

    雪地上依然留下足迹。

    人群吵嚷着站在巨石前，

    曙光照出了红松的树干。

    “你们是些什么人？”马利亚在发问。

    “我们是牧羊人，是上天指派，

    送来对你和他的赞美，是目的所在。”

    一都进去不可能，请在外面稍待。”

    黎明前灰黑的昏暗当中，

    赶牲口的和牧羊的聚集着在骂。

    步行人和骑手对骂着开起玩笑，

    驴子和驼队在饮水槽前嘶叫。

    提慢的天色开始放明，

    空中消失了最后的星。

    术士受马利亚的召请，

    走进神奇的岩洞。

    他安睡在橡木的马槽，

    光辉的全身像月光普照。

    驴子和健牛的嘴唇，

    代替了温暖的银褓。

    阴影里站立的畜群，

    似乎耳语着分辨人的声音。

    马槽左边站定的一个人，

    伸手把术士报到一旁，

    他转身回首张望：

    天边那颗圣诞的星，

    像临门的佳宾把圣婴照亮。

    黎明

    是你主宰了我的命运。

    后来爆发了战争，

    一切的一切都烧净，

    得不到你丝毫音讯。

    又一次听到你的声音，

    多年后使我震惊。

    整夜读着你的遗训，

    似乎从昏厥中苏醒。

    我非常想要走进人群，

    和他们迎接黎明。

    我愿把一切都奉献，

    把大家都拥在膝前。

    我沿着阶梯飞快地跑，

    像初次得到逍遥，

    奔向那雪盖的街头，

    踏上那结冰的大道。

    到处飘起清早的炊烟，

    饭后都赶向车站。

    城市完全变了模样，

    只不过几分钟时间。

    鹅毛一样的浓密雪片，

    像帷幕挂在门前。

    为了抓紧分秒时间，

    大家不曾从容进餐。

    我几乎为所有人担忧，

    仿佛他们的骨肉。

    我愿像雪一样融化，

    像这清晨紧锁眉头。

    和我同在的无名无姓，

    不论是妇老儿童。

    他们都已把我战胜，

    我的胜利就在其中。

    　神迹

    他走的是去耶路撒冷的路，

    。心中充满预感的痛苦。

    峭壁上的树丛已经烧光，

    火后的烟雾凝聚在茅屋上，

    无声的苇丛呼吸着炽热的空气，

    死海泛不起一丝涟海。

    胜过海水的苦涩他已饱尝，

    彩云伴着他在这土路上奔忙，

    去耶路撒冷城寻一家栈房，

    门徒在那里期待着探望。

    他深深沉入自己的思索，

    无力地把长满苦艾的田野走过。

    仁立在寂静之中的只他一人，

    这一带到处昏昏沉沉。

    干旱和沙漠已混杂在一起，

    还有那泉水溪流和渐锡。

    不远处有一株挺拔的树棵，

    那是只有枝和叶的无花果。

    他问树说：“你生来对人何益？

    光秃的枝干有什么乐趣？”

    “我又机又渴，你却无花无果，

    和你相遇令人无可奈何。

    啊，你无才无学真晦气！

    让你一生永远如此站立。”

    这树因受责而周身颤抖，

    又像是通过了一道电流，

    顷刻间化为乌有。“

    你或许会找到闲暇时光，

    深入自然规律的殿堂，

    读懂这枝干茎叶的文章。

    然而神迹终归是神迹，

    神迹也就是上帝。

    每逢惊慌失措或遇到危机，

    他会来得出其不意。

    　土地

    春天似乎杂乱无章，

    匆匆闯进莫斯科的住房。

    橱后飞出的虫蛾，

    爱停留的是件件夏装，

    快把裘农收进木箱。

    阁楼的木板，

    一排排盆栽的紫罗兰，

    人们的呼吸更加顺畅，

    屋子里飘散着泥土香。

    泥泞的街巷和源脱的窗，

    短暂的白夜和晚霞的光，

    在莫斯科的河边，

    这是不能错过的景象。

    发生在户外的音响，

    也回响在走廊，

    那是四月的雨滴，

    送来点点偶然的消息。

    四月的故事是一条长河，

    把人间的痛苦诉说。

    篱栅凝住了霞光，

    时间在这里倘佯。

    无论空旷的田野，

    或是舒适的厅堂，

    到处是无数的灯光，

    空气也变得异样。

    在那街道和工场，

    泥泞的路和檐下窗旁，

    稀疏的柳枝把嫩芽催放。

    远方的雾中谁在哭诉，

    苦涩的气息来自腐熟的土？

    须知这就是我的使命，

    为了这隔阂不生出寂寞，

    为了这自由的土地不唱出悲歌。

    正是为了这个目的，

    早春的朋友和我相聚。

    我们的相会是为了分手，

    我们的欢宴是为了留言，

    让那苦难的暗流，

    温暖生活的冷酷。

    　受难之日

    那是最后的七天，

    他来到耶路撒冷，

    身后有手举橄榄枝的人群，

    迎面一片祈祷的呼声。

    严酷的日子一天胜似一天，

    慈爱已经脱离心间，

    到处是横眉怒眼，

    历史翻到了最后一篇。

    铅灰色的天，

    在这城的上空高悬，

    法利赛人在寻找罪证，

    狡猾的犹拉在他们面前。

    邪恶的力拥进神殿，

    把他交付露贼审判，

    先前的歌颂和礼赞，

    变成了诅语咒言。

    外乡的人聚成了群，

    窥望着拥在殿门，

    大家都等待着结局，

    推操着前拥后挤。

    悄悄的耳语在流传，

    都是四面八方的谣言。

    唤起了儿时的记忆，

    那是逃亡去到埃及。

    有人说起了那片土坡，

    还有悬崖边的沙漠，

    撒旦在那里施了诱惑，

    　应许给他世上的万国。

    也提到了道南的喜宴，

    神迹曾显现在席间，

    他履海如平地，

    从容登上了小船。

    穷苦的人聚了一群，

    捧着蜡烛来到坟莹，

    奇景吓灭了烛火，

    复活的他正在起身……

    二十三

    　忏悔的女人

    （之一）

    死神入夜就要光临，

    这是我一生的报应。

    荒唐放荡的回忆，

    会啮咬我的心灵。

    被玩弄于男人的股掌，

    我曾愚蠢而疯狂，

    欢乐在繁华的街上。

    坟墓的寂静到来之前，

    只有不多的时间。

    当我走近生命的边缘，

    愿剖开肺腑心肝，

    呈献在你面前。

    啊，我的导师和救主，

    多么渴望那片乐土。

    受我的引诱而来的人，

    像是被罗网缠身，

    永远等不到我的音讯。

    假如在众人眼中，

    苦痛使我与你同在，

    宛如幼芽与母本不可分开，

    那么罪恶、毁灭与地狱之火，

    又会意味着什么？

    我主耶稣，

    你一旦双膝跪倒，

    我会把木十字架拥抱，

    若是将你埋葬，

    我将无知无觉倒在你身旁。

    　忏悔的女人

    （之二）

    节日前都在清扫，

    我离开这嘈杂与喧闹，

    用一桶尘世的水，

    洗净你的双脚。

    我找不到床下的软靴，

    只因两眼噙满了泪水，

    还有那散开的发卷，

    这在我眼前。

    主的双脚落在我裙边，

    挂上我的项链，

    沾满泪痕一片，

    垂发掩住泪眼。

    我看到了未来清晰图景，

    恰如你所规定。

    我已有预言的才能，

    学会了女巫的本领。

    教堂的帷幕明天就要落下，

    我们都会被抛到一边，

    大地要在脚下震颤，

    也许为了我的可怜。

    送葬的人重整队形，

    骑在马上的各奔回程。

    仿佛起了一股龙卷风，

    十字的木架要挣向天空。

    爿、倒在你受难的十字架下，

    我无言地紧咬双唇。

    你双手拥抱了众人，

    如今在十字架两端平伸。

    客西马尼的林园

    远方闪烁的群星，

    无意照亮蜿蜒的路程。

    小路盘旋在橄榄山，

    脚下水流急湍。

    芳草地中断在半途，

    后面开始的是银河路。

    亮灰色的橄榄果，

    要拼命乘风举步。

    尽头就是那沃土的林园，

    他吩咐门徒留在墙边：

    “我的心万分悲痛，

    你们要和我一同警醒。”

    无所不能地显现神迹，

    他已从容地放弃，

    如同拒绝了高利借贷。

    如今已经和我们一样，

    无需任何赎买。

    遥远的夜，

    已是一片空幻，

    茫茫的虚无缥缈间，

    只有这一处可住的林国。

    眼望这昏暗的虚空，

    既无始也无终，

    他极力祈求天父，

    把这苦林免除。

    祈祷减轻了倦怠，

    他又一次来到园外。

    但门徒已被困乏战胜，

    纷纷倒在路边草丛。

    他把众人唤醒：

    “天父让你们与我同在，

    却睡在这里一动不动。

    太子的时刻已到，

    他已被卖在罪人手中。”

    话音刚刚落下，

    出现了流浪的奴仆一群，

    他们手持刀剑棍棒，

    前面的犹大是带路人，

    准备好出卖的一吻。

    彼得拔剑和暴徒对抗，

    一人的耳朵被砍落地上。

    他的声音响在众人耳旁：

    “收起你的剑，

    刀枪解决不了争端。

    “难道不能请求我的父，

    派来无数的天兵相助？

    仇敌那时就会四散奔逃，

    不会损害我丝毫。

    “生命的诗篇己读到终了，

    这是一切财富的珍宝。

    它所写的都要当真，

    一切都将实现，阿门。

    “请看，眼见的这些

    都应验了箴言，

    即刻就会实现。

    为了这警喻的可怖，

    我愿担着苦痛走向棺木。

    “我虽死去，

    但三日之后就要复活。

    仿佛那水流急湍，

    也像是络绎的商队不断，

    世世代代将走出黑暗，

    承受我的审判。”

    附录

    蓝英年：帕斯捷尔纳克和他的红颜知己

    去年秋天我应邀到俄罗斯远东大学任教。五年前我曾在这所大学任教过两年。那时苏联开始解体，政治风云变幻莫测，我被各加盟共和国层出不穷的政治事件弄得眼花镜乱，整天看报看电视，两年内竟未读过一部文学作品，回想起来觉得白白浪费了许多时光。这次决意不看报，不看电视，教学之余只读文学作品。一天下课回宿舍，路上碰见五年前结识的一位俄国朋友。他大概觉得我对俄罗斯形势的兴趣不减当年，一见面便把手里的仍紧急报》塞给我，让我快回宿舍看。午休时候我随便翻了一下，是九月十五日的报纸，刚到的，都是竞选国家杜马的消息，刚想放下，一条消息映入眼帘：奥莉加·伊文斯卡妞九月八日在莫斯科逝世，享年八十四岁。我一下子兴奋起来，一口气读完这篇报道。伊文斯卡妞是帕斯捷尔纳克晚年的知音，创作的缓斯。十几年前在北京翻译《日瓦戈医生》的情景立即浮现在眼前。记得译第十四章《重返瓦雷金诺》时曾激动得几次搁笔，无法译下去。暴风雪袭击旷野中久无人住的住宅，四周渺无人迹，只有四只狼对着窗内的灯光嚎叫。栖身在屋内的日瓦戈医生和拉拉陷入绝境，等待着他们的不是逃脱便是死亡。在这性命攸关的时刻，两颗相爱的心互相温暖、支撑。拉拉的原型便是伊文斯卡妞，日瓦戈同拉拉的爱情便是诗意化的帕斯捷尔纳克词伊文斯卡歧的爱情。

    帕斯捷尔纳克是苏联著名的诗人、小说家，出身于艺术气氛浓厚的家庭，从小受到家庭的熏染，对欧洲文学艺术造诣很深，精通英、德、法三国语言。他性格孤僻，落落寡合，同十月革命后从工农兵当中涌现出来的作家格格不入。由后者组成的文学团体拉普也把他视为异己，即所谓的同路人。但不知为何他受到布尔什维克领袖布哈林的青睐，在苏联作家第一次代表大会上被树为诗人的榜样。但这并未改变作协领导人对他的态度，因为他们不是前拉普成员便是他们的支持者。自一九三五年起，斯大林用死了五年的马雅可夫斯基代替帕斯捷尔纳克。一九三八年布哈林被处决后，帕斯捷尔纳克在作家圈子里便完全孤立。无产阶级作家不屑同他交往，他对他们也敬而远之。与他同属异己的作家也不敢同他交往。例如，同他教养相似的阿赫玛托娃因丈夫和儿子被捕自身难保，怎敢再连累他。在家庭中，帕斯捷尔纳克同样孤独。第二个妻子奈豪斯虽决然离开前夫义无反顾地把身心献给他，但文化修养的差异不能同他在精神上产生共鸣、帕斯捷尔纳克的心灵渐渐干涸，亟待友人理解的甘露。不久二战爆发，他同全体苏联人民一样投身反法西斯战争，同绥拉菲莫维奇一起上前线，并获得一枚奖章，暂时忘却了内心的孤寂。战争胜利后他渴望新鲜空气吹进苏联，曾令人民胆战心惊的清洗、镇压不再重演。一九四六年，他乘着这股清新的风开始写《日瓦戈医生》。就在这一年，他在西蒙诺夫主编的文学杂志《新世界》编辑部里结识了伊文斯卡如。伊文斯卡妞是编辑还是西蒙诺夫的秘书，说法不一。帕斯捷尔纳克一直是伊文斯卡妞热爱的诗人、崇拜的偶像。她亲眼见到他激动不已。帕斯捷尔纳克也被伊文斯卡妞超尘拔俗的美貌所震撼。两人目光一接触便激起心灵的火花。帕斯捷尔纳克几天后便把自己所有的诗集签名赠给伊文斯卡妞，并请她到世界著名钢琴家尤金娜家听他朗读《日瓦戈医生》的前三章。伊文斯卡妞觉得，第二章《来自另一个圈子的姑娘》中的拉拉的气质同自己非常相似。后来，帕斯捷尔纳克便以她为原型塑造拉拉，把伊文斯卡妞的经历也写入这个形象。伊文斯卡妞第一个丈夫是在大清洗中被迫自杀的，第二个丈夫病故，她同女儿伊琳娜相依为命。拉拉的丈夫也是被迫自杀的，她也同女儿卡佳厮守在一起。帕斯捷尔纳克同伊文斯卡妞在《新世界》编辑部的邂逅，改变了他们两人的命运，使伊文斯卡妞历尽磨难，把帕斯捷尔纳克过早地送入坟墓。一九四六年伊文斯卡妞三十四岁，帕斯捷尔纳克五十六岁，但年龄的差异并未阻碍他们相爱。一年后，帕斯捷尔纳克对伊文斯卡妞说：“我对您提出个简单的请求，我要同您以‘你’相称，因为再以‘您’相称已经虚伪了。普希金没有凯恩。心灵不充实，叶赛宁没有邓肯写不出天才诗句，帕斯捷尔纳克没有伊文斯卡妞便不是帕斯捷尔纳克、”他们相爱了。

    帕斯捷尔纳克在西方的影响超过苏联国内许多走红的作家。这些社会主义现实主义大师多次荣获斯大林奖金，他的作品选入中学文学课本，他们的名字几乎家喻户晓，可国外却没人听说过他们、但欧洲文化界都知道苏联有个帕斯捷尔纳克。自一九四五年至一九五七年．他十次被提名为诺贝尔文学奖候选人。这必然招致作协领导人的嫉妒。他们想出种种压制帕斯捷尔纳克的办法，不发表他的作品，迫使他向他什1靠拢、低头。帕斯捷尔纳克并未屈服，见诗作无处发表，便译书维持生计。他所翻译的《哈姆雷特》和《浮士德》受到国内外一致好评，威望反而增高。为制服帕斯捷尔纳克，一九四七年，苏联莎士比亚研究者斯米尔诺夫对他的译文横加挑剔，致使已经排版的两卷译文无法出版。同年三月，作协书记苏尔科夫在《文化与生活》杂志上发表《论帕斯捷尔纳克的诗》一文，指责帕斯捷尔纳克视野狭窄，内。心空虚，孤芳自赏，未能反映国民经济恢复时期的主旋律。然而，帕斯捷尔纳克依然我行我素，不买作协的账，除继续译书外、潜心写小说《日瓦戈医生》，并把写好的章节读给邻居楚科夫斯基、伊万诺夫和伊文斯卡妞听。有时，他还在伊文斯卡姚家给她的朋友们朗读。作协为了教训帕斯捷尔纳克，阻止他写《日瓦戈医生》，想出一个狠毒的办法，一九四九年十月九日逮捕了伊文斯卡妞，罪名是她伙同《星火画报》副主编奥西波夫伪造委托书。帕斯捷尔纳克明白伊文斯卡妞与此事无关，逮捕她的目的是为了恫吓自己，迫使他放弃《日瓦戈医生》的创作。他无力拯救自己。心爱的人，除悲愤和思念外，把所有精力都投入小说写作中。他被传唤到警察局，民警把从伊文斯卡妞家中抄出的他的诗集退还给他。帕斯捷尔纳克拒绝领取，声明诗集是赠给伊文斯卡妞的，已不属于他，应归还原主。帕斯捷尔纳克的倔强态度使监狱里的伊文斯卡妞受罪更大。审讯员对她连轴审讯，让耀眼的灯通宵对着她眼睛，不让她睡觉，一直折磨她三天三夜，逼她交待“犹太佬”的反苏言行。帕斯捷尔纳克是犹太人，审讯员都管他叫“犹太佬”。为了压下她的“气焰”，审讯员把她关进太平间，暗示帕斯捷尔纳克已死，她还顶什么？伊文斯卡妞一人在几十具蒙白布的尸体之间并不害怕，—一揭开白布，发现没有自己的爱人，反而增加了对抗的勇气。这时，审讯员发现她怀有身孕，不再审讯她，把她送入波季马劳改营。她同其他女劳改犯用铁镐刨地时流产了，这是她和帕斯捷尔纳克的孩子。伊文斯卡妞在劳改营里关了五年，一九一五三年才被释放。伊文斯卡妞在劳改营期间，帕斯捷尔纳克无法同她联系，每次忆起他们在一起的情景便痛不欲生，写了不少思念她、赞美她的诗：

    我们常无言对坐到夜深，
    你理头女红我手捧书本，
    直到天明我竟未发觉，
    记不清河时才停止接吻。
    当生活陷入烦恼与痛苦，
    你为我阻拦了绝望之路，
    你的美就在于勇气十足，
    就是它把你我牢牢系住。

    伊文斯卡妞释放后，帕斯捷尔纳克急于见她又怕见她，五年的折磨不知会把人变成什么样。帕斯捷尔纳克见到伊文斯卡妞后惊喜万分，劳改非但未摧毁她的精神，也未改变她的容颜，依然楚楚动人。他们的关系更加密切，伊文斯卡还不仅是帕斯捷尔纳克温柔的情人，还是他事业的坚决支持者。拉拉的形象可以说是他们共同创造的，伊文斯卡妞的亲身经历丰富了拉拉的形象。形象原型参与塑造形象在文学史上也属罕见。从此，帕斯捷尔纳克的一切出版事宜皆由伊文斯卡妞承担。这是帕斯捷尔纳克的妻子奈豪斯无法胜任的。帕斯捷尔纳克对这两个女人的态度同日瓦戈医生对妻子东尼妞和拉拉的态度一样，对妻子深感内疚，下不了决心同她离异，因此也无法同伊文斯卡妞正式结合。

    一八五六年，帕斯捷尔纳克写完《日瓦戈医生》，把稿子同时交给《新世界》杂志和文学出版社。《新世界》编辑部否定了小说，把稿子退还给作者，|手机TXT小说下载网|还附了一封由西蒙诺夫、费定等人签名的信，严厉谴责小说的反苏和反人民的倾向。接着，文学出版社也拒绝出版小说。一九五七年，意大利出版商费尔特里内利通过伊文斯卡如读到手稿，欣赏备至，把手稿带回意大利，准备出版意文译本。他同帕斯捷尔纳克洽商时，帕斯捷尔纳克提出必须先在国内出版才能在国外出版。伊文斯卡妞又去找文学出版社商议，恳求他们出版，并提出他们可以随意删去他们无法接受的词句以至章节，哪怕出个节本也行，但遭拒绝。这时，被称为“灰色主教”的苏斯洛夫出面了，要求帕斯捷尔纳克以修改手稿为名向赛尔特里内利索回原稿。帕斯捷尔纳克照苏斯洛夫的指示做了，但费尔特里内利拒绝退稿。苏斯洛夫亲自飞往罗马，请求意共总书记陶里亚蒂出面干预，因为费尔特里内利是意共党员。没料到赛尔特里内利抢先一步退党，并在一九五七年底出版了《日瓦戈医生》的意文译本，接着欧洲又出版了英、德、法等各种语言的译本，《日瓦戈医生》成为一九五八年西方最畅销的书。苏联领导人发怒了。大概不完全由于小说内容，因为他们当中谁也没读过这本书，而是由于苏斯洛夫亲自出马仍未能阻止小说出版丢了面子。就其暴露苏联现实的程度而言，《日瓦戈医生》不如一九五六年在国内出版的杜金采夫的小说《不只是为了面包》。为何容忍杜金采夫却不容忍帕斯捷尔纳克？读过手稿的西蒙诺夫、赛定等人愤怒是因为他们无法理解社会主义现实主义以外的作品，当然还夹杂着嫉妒等感情因素。至于广大群众则因为领导人愤怒而愤怒，这已成为他们根深蒂固的习惯了。党一直是这样教育他们的，他们相信领导人的每句话。总之，帕斯捷尔纳克成为众矢之的。报刊连篇累股发表抨击《日瓦戈医生》的文章，可是没一位文章作者读过这本小说。许多作家本来就同他关系疏远，现在躲避惟恐不及，只有几位老作家见面同他打招呼。他大部分时间都同伊文斯卡妞在一起。她对帕斯捷尔纳克忠贞不二，预言小说迟早会被苏联人民接受，劝他原谅现在反对他的人，并挺身而出，把一切责任都揽在自己身上。伊文斯卡妞被苏斯洛夫召到苏共中央，苏斯洛夫对她厉声申斥，并追问帕斯捷尔纳克同意大利出版商费尔特里内利的关系。伊文斯卡妞一口咬定手稿是她转交的，同帕斯捷尔纳克无关，帕斯捷尔纳克得知后坚持先在国内出版。苏斯洛夫召见伊文斯卡妞后，对帕斯捷尔纳克的批判进入新阶段，一些天真的学生还到帕斯捷尔纳克住所前骚扰，使他终日不得安生。伊文斯卡妞找到同上层关系密切的赛定，向他郑重声明，如果继续骚扰帕斯捷尔纳克，她和帕斯捷尔纳克便双双自杀。她的威胁果真发生作用，一九五八年十月以前帕斯捷尔纳克得到了短暂的安宁。一九五八年十月二十三日，瑞典文学院宣布将一九五八年度诺贝尔文学奖授予帕斯捷尔纳克，以表彰他在“当代抒情诗和伟大的俄罗斯叙事文学传统领域所取得的重大成就”。帕斯捷尔纳克也向瑞典文学院发电报表示感谢：“无比感激、激动、光荣、惶恐、羞愧。”当晚，楚科夫斯基和伊万诺夫两家邻居到帕斯捷尔纳克家向他祝贺。次日清晨，第三个邻居费定来到帕斯捷尔纳克家，不理睬正在厨房准备早餐的奈豪斯，径直上楼走进帕斯捷尔纳克书房，逼他公开声明拒绝诺贝尔文学奖，不然作协将开除他会籍，并让帕斯捷尔纳克到他家走一趟，苏共中央文艺处处长波利卡尔波夫正在那里等候他。帕斯捷尔纳克拒绝发表声明，也不肯同他去见波利卡尔波夫。费定急忙回去向波利卡尔波夫汇报。奈豪斯见费定匆忙离去，脸色阴沉，连忙上楼看丈夫，只见帕斯捷尔纳克晕倒在地板上。对帕斯捷尔纳克的压力越来越大，但他始终未屈服。他在致作协主席团的信中写道：

    “任何力量也无法使我拒绝入家给予我——一个生活在俄罗斯’的当代作家，即苏联作家——的荣誉。但诺贝尔文学奖金我准备转赠给保卫和平委员会。

    “我知道在社会舆论压力下必定会提出开除我会籍的问题。我并未期待你们会公正对待我。你们可以枪毙我，将我流放，你们什么事都干得出来。我预先宽恕你们。但你们用不着过于匆忙。这不会给你们带来幸福，也不会增添光彩。你们记住，几年后你们将不得不为我平反昭雪。在你们的实践中这已经不是第一次了。”

    辞而过了几小时，帕斯捷尔纳克同伊文斯卡奶通过电话后，立即到邮电局给瑞典文学院拍了一份电报：“鉴于我所从属的社会对这种荣誉所作的解释，我必须拒绝这份决定授予我的、我本不配获得的奖金。希勿因我自愿拒绝而不快。”与此同时，他也给党中央发了份电报：“恢复伊文斯卡妞的工作，我已拒绝奖金。”

    帕斯捷尔纳克为了悍卫荣誉不畏惧死亡和流放，但荣誉在爱情面前却黯然失色。为使伊文斯卡妞免遭迫害，帕斯捷尔纳克一切都在所不惜。

    然而一切都晚了，听命于领导的群众在当时团中央第一书记谢米恰特内的煽动下，在帕斯捷尔纳克住宅前示威，用石块打碎门窗玻璃，呼喊把帕斯捷尔纳克驱逐出境的口号。如果不是印度总理尼赫鲁直接给赫鲁晓夫打电话，声称他本人准备担任保卫帕斯捷尔纳克委员会主席的话，帕斯捷尔纳克很可能被驱逐出境。在一连串猛烈的打击下，帕斯捷尔纳克身心交瘁，一做不振。他孤独地住在作家村，心脏病不时发作，很难出门。奈豪斯不准伊文斯卡妞进他们家门，他们两人极少见面，甚至无法互通消息。一九六O年五月三十日，帕斯捷尔纳克涛然逝世。官方当然不会举行任何追悼仪式，报上只发了一条消息：“文学基金会会员帕斯捷尔纳克逝世。”连他是诗人、作家都不承认了。但他的诗歌爱好者们在作家村贴出讣告，民警揭掉后又重新贴上。帕斯捷尔纳克下葬的那天，成千上万的人到他的住宅同他告别。奈豪斯不准伊文斯卡妞同他告别，伊文斯卡妞在门前站了一夜，最后只能在人群后面远远望着徐徐向前移动的灵枢。此时她五内俱焚，晕倒在地。但她万万没料到等待着她的是更大的磨难。帕斯捷尔纳克逝世后，伊文斯卡妞同二十岁的女儿伊琳娜同时被捕，罪名是向国外传递手稿并领取巨额稿酬。伊文斯卡妞除了在莫斯科给意大利出版商看过《日瓦戈医生》手稿外，从未向国外传递过任何手稿，至于稿酬则更是一戈比也未领取过。当局把对帕斯捷尔纳克的气都撒在伊文斯卡妞身上，她被判处四年徒刑，伊琳娜两年。赫鲁晓夫下台后，伊文斯卡妞才被释放。她同帕斯捷尔纳克相爱了十三载，共同经历了人生旅途的惊风骇浪。她把这一切都写入了回忆利时间的俘虏》中。书名取自帕斯捷尔纳克一九五六年所写的抒情诗《夜》的最后一节：
    别睡，别睡，艺术家，
    不要被梦魂缠住，
    你是永恒的人质，
    你是时间的俘虏。

  • 帕斯捷尔纳克《日瓦戈医生》3-5

    第三章

    已经到了三月的最后几天，一年中开始暖和的日子，而送来的却是春的虚假的信息，每年在这以后还会急剧地冷起来。

    格罗梅科一家正忙着收拾行装上路。在这幢住户大大增加、人数比街上的麻雀还要多的楼里，他们把这件事做得好像复活节前的大扫除一般。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇一度反对迁移。他并不干预他们的准备工作，认为这种多此一举的行动不会实现，希望在关键的时刻一切告吹。然而，事情颇有进展并且接近于完成，于是就到了必须认真地谈一谈的时候。

    “这么说，你们都认为我不对，我们还是应该走？”他用这句话讲完自己的反对意见。妻子接过话头：

    “你说是再勉强凑合一两年，那时候调整好了新的土地关系，可以在莫斯科郊区申请一块地，开个菜园子。不过当中这一段日子怎么过，你并没说出个主意。这才是最让人关心的事，想听的正是这个。”

    “完全是说梦话。”亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇是支持女儿的。

    “那好，我投降。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇同意了。“让我裹足不前的就因为这一切都还是未知数。我们是眯着眼睛向下滑，木知道往哪儿去，对那个地方毫无所知。在瓦雷金诺住过的三个人当中，妈妈和祖母两个人已经去世，剩下的第三个人就是祖父克吕格尔，他如果活着也准会在铁廖后面当人质。

    “战争的最后一年，他在森林和工厂方面做了一些手脚，装作把它们卖给了某一个冒名顶替的人或银行，也许和什么人象征性地办了过户手续。对这些勾当，我们谁了解？那些土地如今是谁的，我指的不是那该死的所有权，而是谁在照管？哪个机关负责？林木有没有砍伐？工厂还开不开工？最后，那地方是谁的政权，等我们到了以后又会变成谁的政权？

    “对你们来说，米库利钦就是救命的寄托，这是你们常爱提到的人。可是谁告诉过你们，这位老管家还健在，而且照旧住在瓦雷金诺？除了祖父好不容易说出这个姓名才让我们记住了以外，对这个人还了解什么呢？

    “不过还争论这些干什么？你们决定要走，我也同意。现在就是需要弄清楚这事该怎么办。不要再拖了。”

    为了办这件事，尤里·安德烈耶维奇就到雅罗斯拉夫斯基车站去了。

    直穿大厅的一条两边有栏杆的小通道，使外出的人流不能走得很快。大厅的石头地面上躺着许多穿灰色军大衣的人。他们不住地翻身，咳嗽，吐痰，只要彼此一讲话，声音都异乎寻常地高，毫不考虑在共鸣很强的穹顶下面会造成多么大的回声。

    这些人大多数都是传染斑疹伤寒的病人。因为医院超员，危险期一过，第二天就让他们出院了。作为一个医生，尤里·安德烈耶维奇自己也遇到过必须如此办的情况，但是不知道这种不幸的人会有这么多，而且车站成了他们的栖身之地。

    “您应该弄个出差证明。”一个系着白围裙的搬运工对他说。“每天都得来看看。现在车次很少，要碰机会。事情明摆着……（他用拇指在食指、中指上捻了捻）得用点什么打点打点。不花钱就走不了。哦，就这个……（他用手指弹了弹喉咙）这可是宝贝。”

    就在这段时间前后，亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇被邀请去参加了几次国民经济高级会议，尤里·安德烈耶维奇则被请去给一个得了重病的政府要员看病。两方面都给了在当时来说是最高的奖赏——可以到刚设立的第一个内部供应点领东西的配给券。

    供应点设在西蒙诺夫修道院内卫戍部队的一个仓库里。医生和岳父穿过教堂的和营盘的两道院子，直接走进没有门槛就从地面逐渐延伸下去的地下室，上面是石砌的拱顶。展宽了的地下室的尽头横着拦了一条长柜台，旁边站着一个神态安详的保管员，正在不紧不慢地称发食品，发过的就挥动铅笔从单于上划掉，偶尔离开一会儿去库房取货。

    领东西的人并不多。“拿出你们盛东西的口袋。”保管员很快地看了一眼医生和教授的单子，就对他们说。他们看着往那几个用女式小枕头套和大靠垫罩做的口袋里装进去的面粉、大米、通心粉、白糖，接着又塞进了成块的猪油、肥皂和火柴，然后每个人又给了一块用纸包着的什么东西，到家以后才知道是高加索干奶酪，当时两个人惊奇得眼珠子几乎都要瞪了出来。

    女婿和丈人尽快把许多小口袋捆成两个可以搭在肩上的大包，免得在这里磨磨蹭蹭，让保管员讨厌，他那种宽容大度的神气已经让他们感到很不自在了。

    从地下室上来走到露天地里，两个人像喝醉了似的，但不是因为可以享受一点口腹之乐，而是意识到他们并非庸碌无为地白白活在世上，回到家里还能赢得年轻主妇东尼娜的夸奖，能让她领情。

    男人们一天到晚忙着去各有关机关办理出差的证件和保留现在住的这几间屋子的契约，这时候安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜就在家里挑选应该打点的东西。

    在目前登过记属于格罗梅科一家的这三间房子里，她心事重重地走来走去，每当要把随便一件什么小东西放到应该带走的那一堆行李以前，都没完没了地在手里掂量来掂量去。

    只有一小部分较为值钱的东西放到个人的行李当中，其余的都准备在路上和到了目的地以后当作交换手段去使用。

    从敞开的小气窗吹进来的春风，带着点地刚切开的新鲜白面包的味道。院子里有鸡在叫，还听得见玩耍的孩子们的说话声。房间通风的时间越长，从箱子里拿出来的冬天穿的那些旧衣服就发散出更浓的樟脑丸的气味。

    至于说什么东西应该带着走，什么东西不能带，可是有一整套的道理。那是先走的一些人研究出来的，在留下来的熟人圈子里依旧照办。

    这些嘱咐都是简短的、非照此办理不可的交待，清晰地出现在安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜的脑子里，以至于她在想象中似乎随着院子里麻雀的叫声和做游戏的孩子们的喧嚷都能听得到，又仿佛是有个神秘的声音从外面不断地向她提醒。

    “布匹，布匹之类的东西，”想象中的声音说，“最好裁开，木过路上要检查，这也危险。最可行的办法是弄成一块块的，做成把毛边缝起来的样子。一般来说，可以带衣服料子或者半成品，成件的衣服也行，顶好是穿得木太旧的上衣。不值钱的、分量重的东西越少越好。因为经常要靠自己拿，别想带什么篮子、箱子。这些经过多次挑选出来的为数不多的东西，要捆成女人和孩子都能拿得动的小包袱。盐和烟草最有用，这是实践证明了的，不过也有很大的风险。钱要带二十或四十卢布面额的纸币。最难办的还是证件。”另外，还有诸如此类的其他注意事项。

    出发的前一天刮起了暴风雪。风把一片片灰云似的飘荡的雪花吹到高高的天空，然后又变成一股股白色的气旋降落到地上，飞入黑暗的街道深处，给街道铺上一条白色的被单。

    屋子里的一切都收拾停当了。照看这几间房屋和里边留下的财物的事，托付给了叶戈罗夫娜在莫斯科的一家亲戚——一对上了年纪的夫妇。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜去年冬天通过他们卖了些旧破烂和用木着的家具，换来了劈柴和土豆，这样才同他们认识的。

    这事不能指望马克尔。他现在把民警局当成了自己的政治俱乐部，在那里虽然没有控诉过去的房主格罗梅科一家喝他的血，但是后来却责怪他们以往这些年总是让他无知无识，有意不让他知道人是从猴子变成的。

    叶戈罗夫娜的这两位亲戚，男人过去是商业部门的职员，这时正由安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜领着最后一次检查各个房间，捐给他们哪把钥匙开哪把锁，什么东西放在什么地方，同他们一起把柜橱的门打开又关上，把抽屉拉出来又推进去，什么都要教给他们，一切都要解释清楚。

    房间里的桌椅都推到墙边，路上带的包袱放在一旁，所有窗户都取下了窗帘。狂暴的风雪要比那为了防寒把门窗遮得严严实实的时候更加无阻拦地从外面窥视着空落落的房间。这就使每个人都回想起来一点什么。尤里·安德烈耶维奇想起了童年和母亲的死，安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜和亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇想到的是安娜·伊万诺夫娜的逝世和葬礼。一切都让他们觉得这是今后再不会见到的这幢房子里度过的最后一个夜晚。在这一点上他们都想错了，不过，当时是在不愿让对方伤心而彼此都不承认的迷们心情的影响下，每个人都在心中重新回顾在这个屋顶下所过的生活，都强忍着在眼睛里打转的眼泪。

    但这并没有妨碍安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜在外人面前保持上流社会的礼节。她不断地同受托照管房屋的那个女人交谈。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜不住地夸大她帮忙的意义。为了表示不能白白地接受他们的关照，她一次又一次地向她道歉，到隔壁房间去一下，从那里一会儿给这个女人拿出一块头巾、一件女短衫，一会儿又拿出一块印花布或薄绢，当作礼物送给她。所有这些东西的料子都是黑色衬底上面带白格子或白斑点的，仿佛是雪地里黑暗的街道衬托着砖墙上一个个白色的楼空方格，在这临别的夜晚注视着没有遮挡的光秃秃的窗户。

    天刚蒙蒙亮他们便上火车站去了。这幢房子里的住户都还没有起床。住在这儿的一位姓泽沃罗特金娜的妇女，平时最爱凑热闹，这时挨家挨户跑着敲那些还在睡觉的人家的门，一边喊着：“注意接，同志们！去告别吧！快点，快点！先前在这儿住的格罗梅科一家子要走啦。”

    出来送行的人拥到墙边和备用楼梯的遮檐下面（楼前的正门现在一年到头都上了锁），贴着台阶围成半圆形，仿佛聚在一起照集体相似的。

    不住打哈欠的人们佝偻着腰，免得技在肩上的单薄的短大衣滑下来，一面哆哆咦噱地倒换着匆忙中套上毡靴的光脚。

    在这个见不到一滴酒星地的时期，马克尔居然能灌得烂醉如泥，现在像是被砍倒了一样，瘫倒在楼梯栏杆上，让人担心会不会把栏杆压断。他自告奋勇要把东西送到车站，遭到回绝还生了气。他们好不容易才摆脱掉他的纠缠。

    天还没有亮。雪在无风的空中下得比头天晚上更加稠密。鹅毛大雪懒洋洋地落下来，在离地不远的空中停滞一会儿，似乎对是否降到地面还迟疑不决。

    从巷子里走到阿尔巴特街的时候，天色亮了一些。飘着的雪像一面白色的蠕动的帘幕悬挂在街道上方，它那毛边的下端摆动着，和那些行人的脚混在一起，让人觉得他们像是在原地踏步似的。

    街上还看不到一个人影。从西夫采夫走来的这几个赶路的人，迎面没有遇到任何人。不久，一辆像是在湿面粉里滚过的沾满雪的空马车，赶上了他们。驾车的驾马也是满身白雪。讲妥了只用当时值不了什么的低得出奇的几戈比的价钱，马车就连人带东西都装了上去，只有尤里·安德烈耶维奇除外，他要求不带行装徒步走到车站。

    在车站，安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜和父亲已经站到挤在两排木栏杆里的数不清人数的长队里。如今不是从月台上车，而是从离这儿差木多半俄里远的出站场旗处的路轨附近上车，因为要清理出靠近站台的通道人手不够，车站周围的一半地面上都是冰和污物，机车也不开到这儿来。

    纽莎和舒罗奇卡没有和妈妈、外祖父一起站在长队里。他们自由自在地在进口处外面的大遮檐下边走来走去，只是偶尔从大厅过来看看是不是该和大人们呆在一起了。他们两个人身上发出很浓的煤油味儿。为了预防伤寒病的传染，在他们的脚腕、手腕和脖子上涂了一层煤油。

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜一看到丈夫赶到，连忙朝他招手，但是没让他走过来，而是从远处喊着告诉他在哪个窗口办理出差证件。他于是就朝那边走去。

    “拿来看看，给你盖的是什么章。”刚一回来，她就问他。医生从栏杆后边递过来几小张折起来的纸。

    “这是公务人员车厢的乘车证。”站在安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜后面的一个人，从她肩上看清了证件上加盖的印鉴以后说。站在她前面的另一个了解在各种情况下的一切规章、通晓刻板法令的人，更详细地作了解释：

    “有了这个图章，您就能要求在高等车厢，换句话说就是在旅客车厢给座位，只要列车挂上了这种车厢的话。”

    这立即引起了所有排队的人的议论。

    “要等一等，高等车厢得到前面去找。人真是太多啦。现在能坐到货车的缓冲器上，也得说声谢谢。”

    “这位出公差的先生，您别听他们的。您听我给您说说。现在已经取消了单一编组的车次，只有一种混合的。它既是军车，也是囚车，既能拉牲口，也能装人。舌头是软的，随便怎么说都行，不过要是让人家明白，就应该给人家讲清楚。”

    “你可真能解释，够得上是个聪明人。他们拿到了公务人员车厢的乘车证，这不过是事情的一半。你应该替他们往下一步多想想，然后再说话。这么显眼的身份，难道能上那个车厢？那节车上坐的都是部队的弟兄们。水兵不只是眼光老练，腰带上还有枪。一眼就能看出来——这是有产阶级，何况还是原先老爷堆里的医生。水兵抄起家伙，就能像拍苍蝇一样给他一下子。”

    要不是又有了新情况，这番对医生和他～家人表示同情的议论不知道还会扯到什么地方去。

    候车的人群早就透过车站的厚厚的窗玻璃把目光投向远方。长长的月台上的遮檐只能让人看到远处线路上的落雪。在这么远的距离，雪花看起来像是停在半空中，然后慢慢地落下去，好像是沉到水里喂鱼用的面包渣。

    早就有一群群的人和单个的人朝很远的地方走去。当走过去的人为数不多的时候，影影绰绰地出现在雪花帘幕的后面，让人以为是些铁路员工在检查枕木。可是他们～下子聚成一堆。在他们要去的远处腾起了机车的烟雾。

    “开门，这帮骗子！”排队的人吼叫起来。人群拥上来靠到门前。后面的开始向前边拥挤。

    “瞧他们干的好事！这里用墙挡着，那边不排队就绕进去啦！人家一会儿就把车塞得满满的，我们还像绵羊一样站在这儿！开门，鬼东西！我们砸门啦！喂，伙计们，用力挤，加油！”

    “傻瓜，你们羡慕什么人呢？”那位无所不知的懂法律的人开了口。“那帮人是从彼得格勒押解来眼劳役的。原先派到北部地区的沃洛格达，现在又往东部前线赶。不是自愿的，有押送队。去挖战壕。”

    路上已经走了三天，不过离开莫斯科并不远。沿路一片冬日景象，铁路、田野、森林和村舍的屋顶都理在雪下。

    日瓦戈一家幸运地在车厢左侧靠前的上层铺位安顿下来，旁边是一扇长方形的昏暗小窗。一家人坐在一起，没有分开。

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜是头一次坐货车。在莫斯科上车的时候，尤里·安德烈耶维奇用双手把女人们举到车厢上，车厢边沿上有一扇沉重的活动拉门。上路以后，女人们开始逐渐适应，自己也能爬上这辆取暖货车了。

    开始，安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜觉得这些车厢就像是装上轮子的牲畜栏。照她的想法，这种小笼子似的东西，一碰撞或者震荡肯定就要垮掉。但是一连三天在行进途中经过改换方向和弯道、岔道前后左右的晃动，整整三天车厢下面的轮轴像玩具鼓鼓相似的敲敲打打，火车还是顺顺当当地行驶，说明安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜的担心毫无根据。

    由二十三节车厢组成的列车（日瓦戈一家坐的是第十四节），只能有一部分，或是车头，或是车尾，或是中间的几节，能靠

    近沿路那些很短的站台。

    前边的一些车厢坐的是军人，中间的是普通乘客，尾部是征集来服劳役的。

    后一类乘客将近五百人，包括各种年龄和形形色色的身份、

    职业。

    这一类形形色色的乘客占了八个车厢。除了那些穿戴得很好的有钱人、彼得格勒的交易所经纪人和律师以外，还可以看到那些被列人剥削阶级的胆大妄为的马车快、地板打蜡工、澡堂杂工、买卖旧货的邀靶人、从精神病院跑出来的病人以及小商贩和

    修道土。

    第一种人围着烧得通红的小炉子坐在立放着的短圆木桩上，彼此你一言我一语地高声谈笑。这些人都有各种关系。他们并不灰心丧气，家里有影响的亲属正在为他们打点，在途中就可能得到赦免。

    第二种人穿的是高筒靴和开襟的长袍，或是外套和一件束了腰带的长衬衫，光着脚，有的蓄了胡须，有的脸刮得干干净净。他们站在闷热的取暖货车的稍稍推开一点的车门跟前，手扶着门框和栏在门前的横杠，阴郁地望着沿路经过的地方和那些地方的人，不和任何人交谈。他们没有所需要的熟人，也没有什么可以指望的。

    所有这些人并没有都坐上规定的车厢。一部分散在列车的中部，和普通乘客混在一起。第十四节车里就有这类人。

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜在上边躺得很不舒服，而且碍着低矮的车顶又直不起身子。每逢列车临近一个车站的时候，她总要从上铺位垂下头，从开着的门缝看看远处出现的停车点，判断一下是不是有东西可换，值不值得从铺位上下来到外面去。

    这一次也是如此。减慢的车速把她从瞌睡中惊醒。取暖货车在许多条道岔上颠动着，说明这是一个大站，停车时间不会短。

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜错曲着身子坐起来，揉了揉眼睛，理了埋头发，然后把手伸到装东西的口袋里，从底下翻出一条大毛巾，上面绣着几只公鸡、几个青年小伙子、一些弧形线条和几个车轮。

    这时候医生也醒了，他第一个从铺位上跳下来，然后帮着妻子从铺位上下来。

    也就在这个时候，随着几声汽笛和闪过的灯光之后，打开的车门外面已经出现了车站的树木，上面压着一层沉甸甸的积雪，挺拔的枝干像捧着面包和盐似的迎向列车。车还开得很快就首先跳到没有被人踩过的站台雪地上的是那些水兵，他们赶在所有人的前面跑向车站站房的拐角后边，那儿常常是凭借山墙的遮挡而藏着一些出售违禁食品的买卖人的地方。

    水兵的黑色制服、无檐帽的飘带和越向下越肥大的喇叭裤，使他们的脚步显出一种冲击猛进的姿态，让人不得不像面对着飞速冲过来的滑雪或滑冰的人那样闪开一条路。

    车站拐角后面，附近村子里的农妇激动得仿佛等待算命似的，一个接一个彼此遮挡着躲在那里，带来的有黄瓜、奶酪渣、煮熟的牛肉和黑麦纳渣饼，为了防寒，都用缝好的棉套使这些东西保持住热气和香味。妇女们和姑娘们把头巾扎到短皮袄下面，被一些水兵开的玩笑弄得脸像罂粟花一样涨得通红，同时又非常害怕，因为各种反投机倒把和禁止自由买卖的行动队大部分都是由水兵组成的。

    农妇们不知所措的情绪并没有持续多久。列车停稳以后，其余的乘客接踵而来。人群开始混杂，生意马上兴旺起来。

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜围着这些做生意的女人转圈子走着，把那条大毛巾搭在肩上，装作要在车站旁边用雪擦擦脸的样子。人堆里已经有人好几次朝她喊着：“喂，喂，那位城里来的太太，想用毛巾换点儿什么？”

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜并没停下来，和丈夫一起继续朝前走。

    在卖东西的行列最末尾的地方，站着一个女人，围着黑底红花纹的头巾。她发现了那条绣花的毛巾，锐利的眼睛立刻一亮。她看了看两侧，确认不会有什么危险，然后就快步走到安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜的紧跟前，把盖住自己要卖的东西的布掀开，飞快地喷着热气悄声说：

    “看看这是什么。大概没见过吧？不流口水吗？好啦，别划算太久，不然会被没收的。用毛巾换这半只威兔子吧。”

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜没听清楚她最后这句话，心里想着她好像说的是一条什么毛巾，于是又追问了一句。

    这女人说的就是她手里拿着的那半只从中间劈开、从头到尾整个用油煎过的兔子。她重又说：“用毛巾换这半只兔子。你还瞧什么？兴许以为是狗肉吧。我男人是打猎的。这是兔子，是兔子呀。”

    交换成功了。双方都认为自己占了便宜，对方吃了亏。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜感到很羞愧，觉得是不诚实地愚弄了这个可怜的农妇。那女人对这笔交易很满意，于是急忙离开这块是非之地，招呼一个也做完生意的女邻居，踏上雪地上踩出来的向远处延伸的一条小路，一同回家去了。

    就在这个时候，人群里起了骚动。一个老太婆不知在什么地方喊叫：

    “往哪儿走，骑兵老爷，给钱哪？什么时候给过我，你这没良心的？喂，你这个贪得无厌的东西，人家喊他，可他只管走，连头也不回。站住，我说你站住，同志先生！哨兵！有强盗！抢东西啦！就是他，就是他。把他抓住！”

    “怎么回事？”

    “就是那个没胡子的，一边走还一边笑呢。”

    “是那个胳膊肘破了的？”

    “不错，就是。哎呀，老爷子们，抢东西啦！”

    “是那个袖口打了补丁的？”

    “不错，就是。哎呀，老爷子们，抢东西啦！”

    “出了什么怪事？”

    “那家伙要买老太太的馅饼和牛奶，吃饱喝足了，拔腿就走。她不是在那儿哭嘛，真坑人。”

    “不能白白放过他。应该抓起来。”

    “别忙着去抓。没看见他身上缠满了子弹带。他不抓你就算便宜了。”

    第十四节车厢里也坐上了几个被征到劳役队的人。看守他们的是个叫沃罗纽克的押送兵。他们当中由于种种原因最引人注意的有三个人：彼得格勒一家公营小酒店的出纳员普罗霍尔·哈里托诺维奇·普里图利耶夫，车上的人都管他叫“出纳”；小五金店的一个十六岁的男学徒瓦夏·布雷金；头发已经花白的合作主义者革命家科斯托耶德一阿穆尔斯基，在旧时代曾经服过种种的苦役，到了新时期又尝到许多新的滋味。

    这些被征集来的人原本互不相识，只是随着无可选择的机遇凑到一起，一路上才彼此熟悉起来。从车上的谈话当中才知道，出纳员普里图利耶夫和学徒瓦夏·布雷金原来是同乡，都是维亚特省的人，而且过不了多久，火车就要路过他们出生的地方。

    普里图利耶夫本是马尔梅田市的小市民，他身材长得敦敦实实，留着平头，脸上有些浅麻点，浑身上下邀迫退遏。他穿了一件已经发黑的灰色敞领上衣，腋下浸透了汗渍，紧贴在身上，仿佛是女人的长裙上半截紧包住丰满的腰身的那一段。他很少讲话，显得有些迟钝，一连几个小时都在想心事，一面不住地找两只生有雀斑的手上已经开始化脓的小疣子，直到挠出了血。

    前一年的秋天，他在涅瓦大街和铸工街拐角上正好遇到一次街上的大搜捕。人家检查他的证件。他拿的原来是发给非劳动分子的第四类的食品供应卡，不过凭这张供应卡从来没领到过任何东西。根据这个就把他扣住了，接着就和许多因同样理由在街上被拦住的人一起被押送到了兵营。用这个办法收拢来的一批人，按照先前去阿尔汉格尔斯克战线修战壕的惯例，开始是要发送到沃洛格达去，后来中途返回，又经过莫斯科派往东部战线。

    普里图利耶夫在路加还有妻子，来彼得堡以前的战前年代，他就在那里工作。妻子听说了他的不幸，就直奔沃洛格达去寻找，打算从劳役队里把他解救出来。可是两个人走的路线不一样，她的辛苦成为徒劳。如今是一切毫无头绪。

    在彼得堡，普里图利耶夫和一个叫佩拉吉娜·尼洛夫娜·佳古诺娃的女人同居。在涅瓦大街的十字路口他被拦住的时候，刚好他和她在街角才分手，准备到另一个地方去办事，在铸工路的行人当中，他远远地还能看到她那逐渐消失的背影。

    这个佳古诺娃是个体态丰满、仪表端庄的女人，有两只很美的手，每逢长叹一口气的时候，背后的一根粗辫子就从这边或那边的肩上甩到胸前。她自愿随车陪送普里图利耶夫。

    在像普里图利耶夫这样有几个女人追求的偶像身上能找出什么美好的地方，也真令人难以理解。除了佳古诺娃之外，在离机车不远的另一节取暖货车上，还有普里图利耶夫另一个相好的——姓奥格雷兹科娃的姑娘，头发是淡黄色的，身材瘦小。佳古诺娃轻蔑地管她叫“大鼻孔”和“喷壶”。

    这～对情故水火不相容，都避免直接见面。奥格雷兹科娃从不到这节取暖货车上来。教人猜不透的是她究竟用什么办法和自己崇拜的对象见面。也许，在全体乘客一起往车上装木柴和煤的时候能打个照面，她就满足了。

    瓦夏却另有一番经历。他父亲是在战争中被打死的。母亲把他从乡下送到彼得堡，在叔叔那里当学徒。

    在阿普拉克欣大院开小五金店的叔叔，冬天有一次被叫到苏维埃去说明一些情况。他认错了办公室的门，走到指定的那一间的隔壁去了。凑巧那里是劳役委员会的接待室，里边人非常多。等到应召的人数凑足了的时候，来了一些红军士兵把他们包围起来，带到谢苗诺夫兵营去过了一夜，第二天一早就押到车站，准备送上开往沃洛格达的火车。

    这么一大批人被征去的消息在市民当中传开了。第二天，不少家属都到车站去给亲人送行，瓦夏和他婶娘也在其中。

    在车站，叔叔请求卫兵放他到栅栏外边去一会儿，见见自己的妻子。这卫兵就是如今在第十四节车厢押送这批人的沃罗纽克。瓦夏的叔叔没有提出一定回来的确实保证，沃罗纽克就不能同意放他出去。叔叔和婶娘于是就提出把侄子留下作担保。沃罗纽克这才同意了。瓦夏于是被关了进去，叔叔被放了出来，可是叔叔和婶娘从此就没再回来。

    瓦夏对换人毫没有存过疑心，发现了这个假把戏以后，不禁痛哭失声。他倒在沃罗纽克的脚下，吻他的两只手，哀求把他放了，但是毫无结果。这个押送兵如此无动于衷并非性格残忍。当时是非常时期，制度是严厉的。押送兵对点过名交他押送的人数是要以身家性命负责的。瓦夏就这样到了劳役队。

    合作主义者科斯托耶德一阿穆尔斯基无论是在沙皇时代还是现政府的治下，都受到所有看守的敬重，他和他们也总保持一种亲密的关系。这回他也不止一次请押送兵注意瓦夏所处的无法容忍的境况。后者也承认这的确是骇人听闻的误会，不过又说在手续方面中途还不能了结此事，只好指望到了目的地之后再去澄清。

    瓦夏是个五官端正、长相很好的孩子，酷似肖像画里的沙皇御前侍卫和上帝身边的小天使。他少有地喜欢整洁，并能够保持。这孩子最大的乐趣就是坐到大人们脚边的地上，两手交叉着拢住膝盖，仰起头听他们的谈话。每逢这种时候，从他那忍住眼泪不哭或含笑不露而引起的面部肌肉的动作上，就能判断出人家说的是什么。他那表情丰富的脸就像一面镜子，反映着谈话的内容。

    科斯托耶德坐到上铺日瓦戈一家人这里来做客。他滋滋响地吸吮着请他吃的一块兔子的肩肿骨肉。这人特别怕穿堂风和感冒。“怎么一个劲地吹！从哪儿来的风？”他一边问，一边改换坐的位置，想找个避风的地方，最后总算在一个风吹不到的地方坐定了，就说：“这下子行啦。”他啃完了骨头，舔净了手指头，又用手帕擦了手，并且向男女主人道了谢，又接着说道：

    “你们这儿窗缝透风，应该堵上。不过渐渐还是回到刚刚争论的正题吧。您说得不对，医生。油煎兔子肉——这当然是了木起的美味。不过，要是因此认为农村的生活挺不错，对不起，这种看法至少是过于轻率，这个认识的飞跃也太冒险了。”

    “唉，您先别忙，”尤里·安德烈耶维奇反驳说，“请看看这些车站。树木没有被砍掉，栏栅围墙也完好无缺。还有这些小市场！还有那些卖东西的妇女！想想看，这够多么心满意足！有些地方还过着正常的生活，还是有人高高兴兴的。木是所有的人都唉声叹气。这一切都能说明问题。”

    “那好，就算如此吧。不过，这并不真实。您从哪儿得出这个结论？您不妨离开铁路走出一百俄里去看看。农民到处接连不断闹事。您一定要问，他们反对的是谁？既反对白党，也反对红色分子，这就要看是谁掌权(手机TXT小说下载网.整*理*提*供)。您一定又要说，好哇，这种乡下人是任何一种制度的敌人，他们自己也不知道要的是什么。对不起，您不要过早地得意。他们要比我们知道得更清楚，不过，他们要求的完全不是你我所要求的那些。

    “一旦革命唤醒了农民，他们就认定几百年来梦想的一家一户的独立生活就要实现，希望能靠自己双手劳动建立无政府的田园生活，不隶属于任何方面，也不向任何人承担义务。但是从被推翻的旧的国家体制的束缚下解脱出来以后，他们又落入了新的革命的超国家体制的更狭窄的夹缝。所以农村就要作乱，什么地方都不安定。您还在说农民心满意足。老兄，您是什么都不了解，依我看，您也不想了解。”

    “那又怎么样，我当真也不想了解。完全不错。啊，您先别忙！我为什么要全都了解呢，为了这个还得费力气吧？时代共木买我的账，而是随心所欲地强加于我。现在我也要蔑视一下事实。您刚才说，我的话不符合实际。可是，如今在俄国还有没有实际呢？我认为，实际已经被吓得躲了起来。我宁愿相信农村已经取胜而且正走向繁荣。如果连这一点也是糊涂认识，那么我该怎么办？我将靠什么生活，听信谁的？但是我要生活，我是个有家室的人。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇把手一挥，让亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇去和科斯托耶德争论到底，自己挪到铺位边上，探头去看下边的人在干什么。

    在下边，普里图利耶夫、沃罗纽克、佳古诺娃和瓦夏几个人正在一起谈话。因为火车离故乡越来越近，普里图利耶夫就说起了到那里去的路途，在哪一站该下车，下一步怎么走，是徒步还是骑马。瓦夏听到说起那些熟悉的家乡村镇，两眼亮闪闪地不断站起身来，兴奋地重复看那些个地名，因为数说这些地名对他来说就已经像是一个神奇的童话。

    “您是在苏霍依渡口下车吧？”他气喘吁吁地问。“那还用说！是我们的会车站！然后，您大概朝布依斯克耶村那个方向去吧？”

    “对，往下就走布依斯克耶土路。”

    “我说的就是它——布依斯克耶乡道。布依斯克耶村，哪能不知道！我们就是从那里拐弯，到我们那儿去得往右走，一直往有，直到韦列坚尼基镇。要是到您那里去，哈里托诺维奇叔叔，我看是该往左，朝离开河的方向走。听说过佩尔加河吧？那还用说！就是我们的那条河。到我们那儿去是沿着河岸走，照直顺着河岸。我们的韦列坚尼基镇就在这条河上，在佩尔加河上游不远的地方，那就是我们村。村子在陡岸边上，河岸真陡！我那地管它叫采石场。站在那里都不敢往下看，就这么陡。简直就像要掉下去似的。一点儿也不假。那里的人都会开采石头，做磨盘。我妈妈就是韦列坚尼基镇的人。还有两个妹妹，阿廖卡和阿里什卡。帕拉莎大婶，佩拉吉娜·尼洛夫娜，我妈妈也和您一样，长得又白又年轻。沃罗纽克大叔！沃罗纽克大叔！我以基督上帝的名义求求您……沃罗纽克大叔！”

    “干什么？你怎么总像布谷鸟似的反反复复地叫我‘沃罗纽克大叔，沃罗纽克大叔’？难道我不知道我不是大婶？你想要干什么，求我什么？让我悄悄地放了你？你说，是不是？放了你，我可就完蛋啦，蹲小房子去啦！”

    佩拉吉娜·佳古诺娃心不在焉地朝一边远处的什么地方张望，默默地不说一句话。她用手抚摩着瓦夏的头，在想什么心事，一面拨弄着他那淡褐色的头发。她偶尔用点头、眼神和微笑向这孩子作暗示，意思是让他放聪明些，不要公开当着大家的面和沃罗纽克说这件事。她似乎是说，过一段时间，问题自然就会解决，只管放心好了。

    当旅途远离中部俄罗斯地带向东方延伸以后，意外的情况就不断发生。列车开始穿越不安定的地区，那一带是武装匪帮出没、不久前才平息了叛乱的地方。

    列车在旷野频繁停车，车厢周围有拦阻的队伍往来巡视，检查行李和证件。

    有一次夜里又停了车。没有人查看车厢，也没有让大家起来。尤里·安德烈耶维奇出于好奇，同时也怕发生什么不幸的事，从取暖货车上跳了下去。

    夜色漆黑，列车看不出为什么偶然地停在正常区间的一个路标附近，路基两边是一片人工种植的云杉林。比尤里·安德烈耶维奇先下去的几个邻座的人，在取暖货车前的地上跺着脚，告诉他说，据了解并没出什么事，似乎是司机自己停的车，理由是这一带有危险，如果探路的检道车不能确保这个区间情况正常，就拒绝继续开车。据说，旅客代表已经去劝说他，必要的话还可以塞点儿钱。可是，又风传水兵们也插手干预，这些人可要把事情搞坏。

    就在大家向尤里·安德烈耶维奇说明情况的时候，路基前方机车旁边一片平坦的雪地像筹火的闪光一样，被机车烟筒和取暖炉灰箱里迸出的火星照亮。其中的一道火舌突然照亮了一小块雪地、机车和几个顺着机车旁边跑过去的人影。

    前面的人影一闪，看来大概就是司机。他跑到踏板一端，向上一跳，越过缓冲器的长杜就从视线中消失了。在后面追赶的几个水兵接着重复了同样的动作。他们也是跑到踏板一端，跳起来在空中一闪，落下去就不见踪影了。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇被看到的景象吸引住了，就和另几个好奇的人朝前边的机车走了过去。

    在列车前方空旷的一段路基上，他们看到的是这样一个场面：枕木一侧光滑的雪地里站着司机，身子一半理在雪里。水兵们像追捕野兽的猎手一样站成半圆形围住了他，同样有一半身子埋在雪里。

    司机喊道：

    “谢谢你们啦，小海燕们！居然到了这个地步！拿起枪来对准自己的工人弟兄！我干吗说这车不能再往前开呢？乘客同志们，请你们大家作证，这是个什么地点。随便什么人都能在这儿把铁路道钉拧走。滚你们的蛋，你们要干什么，难道是为了我自己？我只不过给大伙儿开车，不是为了我，是为你们，怕大家出事。一片好心却得到这样的回报。行啊，朝我开枪吧，你们这些吃了火药的！乘客同志们，请你们给作证，我连躲都不躲。”

    站在路基上的人群发出了各式各样的叫喊。一部分人惊慌地叫着：

    “你这是怎么回事呀？……清醒点儿……没有的事……谁能让他们这么干？……他们就是这个样子……吓唬一下……”

    另一些人挑逗地高声叫喊：

    “别理他们，加夫里尔卡！别松劲，加足了汽！”

    第一个从雪堆里拔出腿来的水兵，原来是个棕黄头发的魁梧大汉，脑袋也特别大，所以显得脸是扁平的。他不慌不忙地转身朝向大家，嗓音极低地轻声说了几句话，也像沃罗纽克一样夹带着乌克兰的字眼儿：

    “对不起，干吗都聚在这儿？难道不怕喝西北风，公民们？大冷的天，回车厢去吧！”在这个深夜不寻常的情况下，他那非常镇静的态度倒使这几句话显得有点可笑！

    当散开的人群渐渐返回各自车厢去的时候，这个棕黄头发的水兵来到还不十分清醒的司机跟前，说道：

    “别发神经啦，机师同志。还不从雪窝子里出来，开车走吧。”

    第二天车行平稳，但时常减慢速度。因为担心刮起来的大风雪埋住路轨使车轮下滑，列车终于停在一处毫无生气的旷野，见到的只是被大火烧毁的车站遗迹。在那被烟熏黑的残垣断壁的正面，可以辨认出“下开尔密斯”的字样。

    不只是站房保留了火烧的痕迹。车站后面也看得到一个被雪覆盖的空荡荡的小村落，以及把它和车站隔开的那片凄凉的空地。

    村落最靠外的一栋房子已经烧焦，隔壁一家屋角的几根圆木坍落下来，一头搭到室内；路上到处是烧剩下的雪橇残骸、倾倒的篱笆墙、生锈的铁器和破碎的家用什物。被烟垢和焦灰弄得肮脏不堪的积雪露出一片片烧秃了的黑糊糊的地面，流进去的污水结了冰，把一些烧焦的碎木头和着火与灭火的痕迹冻在一起。

    村落和车站还没有完全断绝人烟。一两处仍然可以看到人影。

    “整个村子都烧啦？”跳到站台上去的列车长同情地问着从废墟中走来的站长。

    “您好。祝贺您顺利到达。烧是烧了，不过情况要比火烧还要糟。”

    “不明白您的意思。”

    “最好别多问。”

    “莫非是斯特列利尼科夫？”

    “就是他。”

    “你们犯了什么过错啦？”

    “根本不是我们，完全没有关系。是我们邻居惹的事，把我们也扯到一起了。看见后面那个村子了吧？他们是祸首。就是乌斯特汉姆金斯克乡所属的下开尔密斯村。全都因为他们。”

    “他们怎么啦？”

    “好几桩滔天大罪。赶跑了贫农委员会，这是一桩；抗拒向红军交送马匹的命令，而且您要知道，动靶人本来是个个都骑马的，这又是一桩；不服从动员令，这是第三桩。您看，就是这些。”

    “原来是这么回事，都明白了。所以就挨了炮轰？”

    “就是。”

    “从装甲车上开的炮？”

    “那可不是。”

    “真惨，太可惜啦。不过，这不是我们该议论的事。”

    “况且事情已经过去了。再没有什么好消息能让您高兴啦。在我们这儿停几天吧。”

    “别开玩笑。我这车上坐的可不是随随便便的什么人，是给前线补充的兵员。我可不习惯停车。”

    “这可不是开玩笑。您自己看吧，这些雪堆。这么大的风雪在整个区间刮了一个星期才停住。找不到人除雪。半个村子都跑光了。让剩下的人都去干也干不完。”

    “啊，您现在是两手空空！这下可是糟了，真糟糕！现在怎么办？”

    “总得想办法把路清出来让你们走。”

    “雪堆得多吗？”

    “还不能说特别多。是一条一条的雪优。风是斜着刮的，同路基有个角度。中间的一段最困难、要措三公里。那地方确实伤脑筋，理得相当厚。再过去就没什么了，树林子给挡住啦。需要挖的前面这一段也不要紧，因为是平川地，风把雪都吹跑了。”

    “唉，那就让您见鬼去吧。真是莫名其妙！我把车停在这儿，让大家都来帮忙吧。”

    “我想也只好这样啦。”

    “可是不要惊动水兵和赤卫军战士。这儿有整车的劳役队，还有将近七百人的普通乘客。”

    “那就足够了。只要把铁锹运来就可以开始。现在工具不够，已经派人到附近的村子去了。能弄到的。”

    “我的老天爷，这又是糟糕事！您认为能办到吗？”

    “没问题。俗话说，众志成城。这是铁路，是交通的大动脉。您别那么想啦。”

    清路的活儿干了三天三夜。日瓦戈一家，包括纽莎在内，都实实在在地参加了。这是他们路上最好的一段时光。

    这个地方有一种内在的、难以言传的气氛。它让人感到此地还保留着普希金笔下农民起义领袖普加乔夫的遗风和阿克萨科夫所描写的那种蛮野特色。

    村落的破坏和少数留下来的居民那种不露声色的态度，更增加了这个地方的神秘色彩。村民们已经被吓坏了，都避免同车上的乘客接触，他们互相之间也不交往，怕有人告密。

    铲雪的工作不是全体乘客同时参加，而是分批进行。作业地点的周围有人把守。

    清除线路的积雪是把人分成小队，在不同的地段同时从各自那头开始的。各个清除干净了的地段最后都留了一个雪堆，把相邻的小队隔开了。这些雪堆要留到全线的工作结束时再一起铲掉。

    严寒的晴明天气，乘客们白天被送出去干活儿，晚上才回车厢过夜。劳动是间隔很短就倒班轮换，所以并不累，因为铁锹木够而干活儿的人多。这种轻松的劳动给人带来的只是一种享受。

    日瓦戈一家参加劳动的地点是个景色优美的开阔地。从他们所在的路基开始，地势向东缓倾，然后呈波浪状起伏上升，直到远方的地平线。

    山包上有一幢四面没有遮挡的孤零零的房屋，周围是个花园。在夏天它肯定有着斑斓的色彩，如今稀稀落落的树木在霜雪之下对房屋起不到丝毫保护作用。

    那一带的雪层更显得浑圆而平坦，不过从几处起伏的坡度来看，积雪不可能覆盖住斜坡，春天一到肯定会沿着弯曲的谷地化作一条小溪流到路基下面旱桥的涵管里，后者现在被厚雪埋住，仿佛是个从头到脚用松软的毛毯裹住睡在那里的一个婴儿。

    房子里还有没有人住，或许是已经毁坏了，空在那里，由乡或县土地委员会造册登了记吧？它先前的主人如今身在何方，遭遇如何？他们也许已然隐居国外？还是在农民的手下丧了命？也可能凭借赢得的好名声作为有专长的人在县里作了安排？要是他们一直留到最后时刻，是不是会得到斯特列利尼科夫的宽恕？还是和富农一起受到他的惩治？

    这幢房屋在山包上不时地撩拨人的好奇心，自己却哀伤地默默耸立在那里。当时并没有人提出和回答这些问题。明晃晃的阳光照到无垠的雪地上，雪白得让人目眩。铁锹从它上面方方正正地切掉一块又一块！铲下去的时候散开的干燥的雪花又多么像一粒粒钻石粉末！这不禁使人回想起遥远的童年，幼小的尤拉头戴有银饰的浅色长耳风帽，身穿一件缀了一圈圈卷毛黑羊皮的小皮袄，在院子里也是用这样白得耀眼的积雪堆出金字塔、方柱、奶油蛋糕、一座座城堡和岩洞。啊，那时候的生活多么香甜，周围的一切都是那样让人看不够，享用不尽！

    三天的户外生活给人的印象是充实而丰富的。这自然有其原因。每天晚上给参加劳动的人发放的是不晓得按什么规定、从什么地方运来的新烤的精粉面包。喷香的面包脆皮泛光，两边撑开裂口，下面是烤得焦黄的厚厚的一层外皮，上边还沾着些小粒的煤渣。

    正像在白雪皑皑的山间旅行途中短时间的驻留会让人流连木舍一样，大家都很喜爱这个残破的车站。它所处的地势、房屋的外观和受到破坏的一些特征，已经刻印在记忆当中。

    傍晚回到车站的时候，正值日落。夕阳对过去是无限忠诚的，依旧在报务员值班室窗边那片苍老的白禅林后面的老地方逐渐沉落下去。

    这间房子的外墙是从里面坍塌的，不过残砖碎瓦并没有把房间堆满，完好的窗户对面靠后的一角仍然空着。那里的东西都还保留着，未受损坏，包括咖啡色的壁纸、瓷砖火炉和浑圆的通风口上用链子拴住的铜盖，另外还有镶在黑镜框里挂在墙上的财产用品登记表。

    沉到地平线的太阳仿佛是很不幸地触到了炉灶的瓷砖，为咖啡色的壁纸增加了热度。余辉映挂到墙上，白禅树的阴影像是给它披上了一条女人的披巾。

    房间的另一侧有一扇封起来的通向接待室的门，上面还留着大概是二月革命开始那几天或是不久前写的字，内容是：

    鉴于室内存有药品和包扎敷料，请诸位患者暂勿入内。

    根据上述原因，此门已封闭。乌斯特涅姆达高级医士某某谨

    此通知。

    最后的雪被铲掉以后，隔在各个工段之间的小山丘似的雪堆一扫而光，开始可以看到笔直伸向远方的平坦的轨道。路的两侧由抛出去的雪堆成了白色的山脊，外缘镶嵌了两道黑松组成的林墙。

    极目望去，轨道的各个地方都站着手执铁锹的一群群的人。他们是第一次看到全体乘客在一起，对人数如此之多感到吃惊。

    虽然天色将晚，黑夜就要到来，但据说列车再过几小时就要开出。发车以前，尤里·安德烈耶维奇和安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜最后一次走去欣赏清理干净的线路上的风光。路基上已经圆无人迹，医生和妻子停下来向远方看了一阵，互相交换了几句感想，然后转身朝自己的那节取暖货车走去。

    回来的路上，他们听到两个女人对骂的凶狠而又伤心的喊叫声。夫妇两个立刻就听出了这是奥格雷兹科娃和佳古诺娃的嗓音。两个女人和医生夫妇走的是同一个方向，从车头走到车尾都是这样，只不过是在对着车站的列车的另一侧。当时，尤里·安德烈耶维奇和安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜正走到路旁树林的末端，两对人中间隔着连绵不断的车厢。那两个女人总是离医生和安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜不很近，走得比他们稍稍靠前或者靠后一截。

    她们两个都很激动，但双方花的力气互有增减。这大概是走路途中偶尔陷到雪里，或是腿脚发软，由于脚步不平稳，所以嗓音有时高得像喊叫，有时又低得像耳语。看得出，佳古诺娃是在追赶奥格雷兹科娃，赶上之后可能还动了拳头。她向对手像连珠炮似的骂出那些精心挑选的不堪入耳的话，但它们出自这个仪态万方的女士的悦耳动听之四，就显得比男人难听的粗鲁的咒骂更不知羞耻。

    “你这个婊子，你这破烂货！”佳古诺娃喊叫道，“你上哪儿，她马上跟到哪儿，身子一扭一扭，乱作媚眼！你这母狗嫌我那个傻瓜不够，还要眼巴巴地盯住那可怜的孩子，想勾引他，非要把这小孩子给毁了不可。”

    “这么说，你是瓦先卡合法的妻子噗？”

    “我让你瞧瞧我这合法妻子的厉害，你这臭不要脸的瘟神。你别想活着从我这儿走开，别让我犯罪！”

    “哟，瞧瞧，还张牙舞爪的！把手放回去，疯子！你能把我怎么样？”

    “我要让你断了气，下贱货，痴皮猫，无耻的东西！”

    “说我什么都行。当然啦，我是猫狗不如，这都清楚。你可是有爵位的不寻常的人哪。你是阴沟洞里出身，门缝底下举行的婚礼，和大耗子一起怀的胎，生下来的是个刺猖……哨兵啊，哨兵啊，好心的人哪！这凶娘儿们要杀我。喂，救救我这个姑娘家，保护我这孤苦伶仃的人吧……”

    “快点走吧。我真听不下去，太让人厌恶啦。”安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜催丈夫快走。“这不会有好结果的。”

    突然间，地势和天气一下子都变了。平原已经消失，现在的路是在山丘和高山之间。前一阵不住刮着的北风也停了，从南面飘散过来阵阵暖空气，像是从炉灶里吹出来的。

    两侧山坡的台地上有一片片的树林。从这里穿行过去的铁路路基不得不开始爬坡，到中间又变为平缓下降。列车喘着粗气在树林当中艰难地行驶着，仿佛上了年岁的护林员徒步走着，带领一群东张西望、对什么都感兴趣的游客。

    不过，现在还没有什么值得观赏的。密林深处仍像沉浸在冬日的恬静睡意之中。只是偶尔有几丛灌木和大树藏籁地抖落下部技极上的积雪，仿佛摆脱了箍在脖子上的脖套或是解开了领口似的。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇完全被克制不住的睡意纠缠住了。这几天他一直在上边的铺位上躺着睡觉，醒来的时候就想心事，而且希望能听到些什么。然而，暂时还什么也听不到。

    就在尤里·安德烈耶维奇怎么也睡不够的时候，春天娜娜降临，不断消融着大量的积雪。那雪还是从他们离开莫斯科的当天开始下起，一路不曾停过，在乌斯特涅姆达又有整整三天铲雪，这真是以不可思议的厚度一层又一层地覆盖了几千俄里空间的大雪。

    开始，雪是从内部融化的，悄悄地不让人觉察。当这鬼斧神工之举完成一半的时候，就再也木可能掩盖下去。奇迹开始显露出来，从松动的雪层下面已经有了温湿流水。人迹罕至的密林抖擞精神，那里的一切也都苏醒了。

    任流水倘佯的天地是广阔的。它从悬崖上飞落，蓄成一处处清潭，然后就四面八方地漫溢出去。木久，茂密的林子里就响起了它那沉闷的响声，升起氛氯的水雾。一股股的水流像蛇似的在林中蜿蜒前进，遇到阻挡的积雪就钻到下面，在平坦的地面上沙沙地畅流过去，一旦向下跌落，还伴随着扬起的一片水的尘埃。土地已经容纳不了更多的水分，于是那些令人目眩的耸入云天的几百年的云杉用自己的根须把它吸吮进去，树根周围留下一团团变干的浅褐色泡沫，仿佛是喝啤酒的人唇边留下的残迹。

    天空也染上了春日的醉意，惺极呼呢之中盖上了片片乌云。毛毡似的黑云低悬在森林上空，垂下的云脚不时地洒下散发出土腥气的暖乎乎的阵雨，冲掉了地面上最后剩下来的碎裂的黑色冰块。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇终于睡醒了。他把身体挪到那扇取掉了窗框的方形小窗口，把头支在撑起的臂肘上，开始倾听外面的声音。

    列车离矿山区越来越近，这一带的人口也越来越稠密，区间缩短，靠站停车的次数越发频繁。乘车的人也有了较多的流动，多数是在中间小站上下车的短途乘客。路途更短的人，并不需要安顿下来久坐和躺下睡觉，夜里就在车厢中部靠门的地方凑合呆一会儿，彼此小声地谈些只有他们才了解的当地的事，到了下一个换车点或者小站就下了车。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从最近三天车厢里不断变换的当地人谈话的片言只语当中得出一个结论，那就是白党分子在北边占了优势，已经或者准备攻占尤里亚金。除此以外，如果传闻属实而又不是和他在梅留泽耶沃医院的一个同伴同姓的话，在这个方向指挥白党武装的就是尤里·安德烈耶维奇很熟悉的那个加利乌林。

    在这个谣传没有得到证实以前，尤里·安德烈耶维奇对家里人只字没有谈这件事，免得让他们白白担心。

    在深夜刚刚开始的时候，一种模糊不清但相当强烈的幸福感使尤里·安德烈耶维奇从睡梦中醒了过来。列车已经停下。车站笼罩在凝滞的半明半暗的白夜之下。这源俄的夜色渗透着某种纤细而又恢宏的气氛。它说明列车停下的地方是开阔的，车站坐落在一个视野宽广的高地上。

    沿着站台有几个人影无声地从车厢旁边走过，互相交谈的声音很轻。这也在尤里·安德烈耶维奇的心中唤起一股柔情。从这小心翼翼的脚步和悄声低语当中，他感觉到这是对深夜时刻的一种尊重和车上睡着的人的关心，似乎是战前和更早的年代才会有的情况。

    其实医生的感触完全错了。和其他地方一样，站台上也是～片喧嚷的人声和皮靴沉重的走动声。木过附近有个瀑布，它送来的清新自在的空气扩大了白夜的范围，也让医生在梦中生出一种幸福感。一刻不停的瀑布的轰鸣压倒了车站上的所有声音，让后者有了一个寂静的假象。

    虽然没有想到有这瀑布，但是当地这种奥妙而强劲的空气使医生又沉沉地入睡了。

    铺位下边有两个人在谈话。一个问另一个：

    “怎么样，自己人都安静下来了吧？对那帮人给点教训没有？”

    “那些小铺老板，是吗？”

    “对，就是那帮粮食贩子。”

    “都老实啦，非常听话。为了杀一儆百，从他们当中处置了一个，其余的就都老实了。罚的款也拿到了。”

    “一个乡罚多少？”

    “四万”

    “你瞎说！”

    “我干吗瞎说？”

    “好家伙，四万！”

    “四万普特。”

    “嗯，你们干得真不错，好样儿的！都是好样儿的。”

    “四万普特精磨粉。”

    “想想看，这事也真巧。地点是没说的，正是做面粉生意的头等好地方。沿着雷尼瓦河往上一直到尤里亚金，从一个村子到另一个村子，都是码头，都是粮食收购点。舍尔斯托比托夫弟兄几个，还有佩列卡特奇科夫和他那几个儿子，都是干倒手批发的！”

    “轻声点！别把人吵醒。”

    “好吧。”

    说话的人打了个呵欠，另一个就说：

    “躺下再迷糊一会儿，怎么样？车好像又开了。”

    这个时候从后面传来迅速变大的震耳欲聋的隆隆声，淹没了瀑布的轰响。在停着的这列车旁边的第二股道上，一列老式的快车响着汽笛全速赶上来，闪过几点灯光，随即毫无痕迹地消失在前方。

    下面的人又开始了谈话：

    “嗯，这回该开车了。停够啦。”

    “快啦”

    “大概是斯特列利尼科夫。这是有特殊任务的装甲快车。”

    “可能就是他。”

    “他对付反革命分子就像一头野兽。”

    “他是去追赶加列耶夫。”

    “追赶什么人？”

    “白党的长官加列耶夫。据说是带了一批捷克人守在尤里亚金附近。这家伙占了一个码头，就守在那儿。加列耶夫长官。”

    “也许是加利列耶夫公爵，你记错了。”

    “没有这个姓的公爵。恐怕是阿里·库尔班。你弄混啦。”

    “也许就是库尔班。”

    “那就是另一回事啦。”

    快天亮的时候，尤里·安德烈耶维奇又一次醒来。他又梦到了一些愉快的事，心里始终充满着一种乐陶陶的解脱之感。列车还是停着，也许是在一个新的小站上，也可能仍旧是原先的那一站。轰轰的瀑布声也照旧，很像是先前的那个站，也许是另外一个。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇接着又进入了梦乡。但在瞌睡中却依稀听到了乱糟糟的叫嚷声。原来是科斯托耶德和押送队队长吵了起来，两个人对着叫喊。车厢外面的气氛变得比前一阵更好。空气中散发出一种原先没有的味道。这种味道很奇怪，像是春天所特有的，又像是五月间飘来一阵灰白色的淡薄稀疏的雪花，落下来不仅显不出～片白色，反而使土地更加黝黑。空气中还像是有一种灰白透明而又芬芳好闻的东西。“啊，是稠李！”尤里·安德烈耶维奇虽然没有醒过来，但却猜到了。

    清早，安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜就说：

    “不论怎么说，尤拉，你可真奇怪。你整个人是由各种矛盾构成的。有时候飞来只苍蝇就能把你惊醒，一夜到天亮再也合不上眼。这里又吵，又闹，又乱，你却怎么也醒不了。夜里，那个出纳员普里图利耶夫和瓦夏·布雷金都跑了。想想看，还有佳古诺娃和奥格雷兹科娃。等一等，我还没说完。另外还有沃罗纽克，对，对，也跑了，都跑了。你瞧这事。再听我说，他们怎么逃的，一起行动，还是分散开来，用什么办法，完全是个谜。可以想得出，这个沃罗纽克一发现其他人都跑了，为了逃避责任，当然也要自找活路。可是另外那几个呢？全都自觉自愿地走了，还是有谁受了胁迫？比方说，那两个女的就让人起疑。不过，她们谁又能杀害谁呢？是佳古诺娃害了奥格雷兹科娃，还是奥格雷兹科娃害了佳古诺娃？谁也不清楚。押送队队长车前车后跑了个遍。‘你们好大的胆子，’他扯开嗓子喊着说，‘居然敢给发车信号。我要以法律的名义要求在找到逃跑的人以前不准开车。’列车长可不理这一套。他说：‘您是不是发了疯。我这趟车是给前线补充兵员的，是最重要的紧急任务。难道还能听您的指挥！亏您想得出！’于是两个人都责备起科斯托耶德来。作为一个合作主义者，应该是有头脑的人，况且就在旁边，却不去阻止那个两眼漆黑的没觉悟的士兵走这要命的一步。‘还算个民粹派呢！’队长就这么说。依我看，科斯托耶德没什么责任。列车长说：‘真有意思！照您这么说，囚犯倒应该把看守管起来？那可真是让母鸡替公鸡打鸣啦。’当时我从旁边推你，又扳你肩膀，喊着叫你：‘快起来，有人跑了！’你可真行，大炮也轰不醒……对不起，这以后再说吧。现在是……啊，真不得了！……爸爸，尤拉，你们快看，多壮观哪！”

    在他们躺着探头张望的窗口外面，展现出一片无垠的泛滥的水面。不知是什么地方的河流漫过了堤岸，一侧的水已经淹到了路基跟前。因为是从很高的铺位上往下看，造成距离缩短的错觉，平稳行驶的列车就像是直接滑行在水面上。

    它那平滑的表面只有极少的几处染了～层铁青色，其余的部分任凭温暖的清晨的阳光追逐着一片片镜面似的油亮的光斑，真像是一位厨娘用浸了油的羽毛在热馅饼上涂来涂去。

    在这酷似无边际的水域，一条条拱形的白云的云脚，也和那些草地、坑洼、灌木丛一起沉没在水中。

    中间的一处，可以看到有一窄条土地，上面的树木似乎是悬在天地之间的双重影像。

    “鸭子！是家鸭！”亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇朝那个方向望去，便喊了一声。

    “在哪儿？”

    “小岛旁边。别往那边看。往有，再往有。唉，见鬼，飞走了，吓跑啦。”

    “啊，不错，看见了。我有些话要和您谈谈，亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇。另找个时间吧。咱们车上那几个服劳役的和那两位太太真是好样的，都跑掉了。我看不会出什么事，只要别给什么人添麻烦就没关系。跑就跑啦，这和水总要流动一个样。”

    北方的白夜已经过去了。什么东西都看得很清楚，不过一切又都像是缺乏自信似的，一座小山、一片树林和一处悬崖，仿佛是人造出来的。

    树林刚刚染上了一层嫩绿，林中几丛稠李已经开花。这片林子长在峭壁下面一块向远处倾斜的不大的平地上。

    不远就是瀑布。但不是从每个方向都能看到，只有从峭壁边上顺着小树林的方向看过去才行。瓦夏已经疲乏得走不到那里去，既感到害怕，又觉得惊奇。

    周围没有任何东西能和这瀑布相匹敌。这独一无二的景观使它令人望而生畏，仿佛它具有生命和意识似的，变成了一条神话中的龙蛇，掠取贡品并让这一带荡然无存。

    跌落到半空的瀑布，被突出的悬岩利齿不断地劈成两股。上边的水柱看起来几乎是停住的，下面的两股一刻也不停地微微向左右两侧摆动，整个瀑布总像是刚刚要滑倒，紧接着又挺起身来，刚要滑倒，立刻又挺起身来。

    瓦夏把羊皮袄垫在身下，在林子里的一片空地上躺了下来。曙色变得更加明亮起来的时候，从山上飞下来一只大鸟，展开沉重的翅膀在树林上空平稳地滑行了一圈，然后落到离瓦夏躺下的地点不远的一棵冷杉树冠上。他抬头看了看这只佛法僧鸟的蓝色脖颈和青灰色的胸脯，迷迷惑惑地小声说：“野鸽子。”乌拉尔地区就是这个叫法。随后他站了起来，捡起羊皮袄披在身上，穿过空地走到同伴跟前，说道：

    “咱们走吧，婶子。瞧把我冻的，上下牙都合不拢了。唉，您还看什么，吓坏了吧？我跟您说的是正经话，该走啦。要适应环境，朝着有村庄的方向走。到了村子里，自己人不会让我们受委屈，会护着咱们的。要总是像现在这样，两天没吃没喝，咱们也得饿死。恐怕是沃罗纽克叔叔惹了什么乱子，人家才追赶他。和您在一起我可倒了霉，婶于，几天几夜您一句话也不说！您这是愁得不会说话了，我的老天爷。您瞧，还有什么可伤心的？就说卡佳大婶，卡佳·奥格雷兹科娃，您从车上推她并没有恶意，她是侧着身子倒下去的，我看见了。后来她从草地上站起来，好好的，站起来就跑了。普罗霍尔叔叔，普罗霍尔·哈里托诺维奇，也是这样。他们会赶上咱们的，大家又能在一起啦，您还想什么？主要的是别让自己发愁，只要木这样，您的舌头就又灵了。”

    佳古诺娃把一只手伸给瓦夏，从地上站起来，轻声说：

    “走吧，好孩子。”

    车厢发出咋味的响声，在很高的路基上向山里爬行。路基下边是新生的混杂林，树冠还没有铁路高。再下去就是一片草地，不久前被水淹没过。混了泥沙的青草地上东躺西卧地排满了做枕木用的圆木。大概是哪个采林区伐下来准备用木筏送走，让大水冲到了这里。

    路基下边的新生林几乎还像冬天那样光秃秃的。只是在那些仿佛一滴滴蜂蜡似的嫩芽上，杂乱地生出了一种像污垢又像赘疣似的额外的东西。然而也正是这些额外的、杂乱的污物才是生命，靠了它们才会用枝头浓密的绿叶装点林中开始生发的树木。

    一处处的白禅艰难地挺起躯干，伸展开的对称的锯齿形叶片像箭羽似的指向四面八方。它们的气味是可以用眼睛看出来的。那一层发亮的就是散发出气味的木醇，是熬制清漆的原料。

    铁路很快就要靠近那大概是木料原来被冲散的地点。在一个孤形的树林地段，地面上见到了一层木料的腐质粉屑和碎木片，当中还有一堆堆三丈来长的圆木。司机就在这片伐过的林地刹了车。列车颤动一下，就稍有点倾斜地停在弯道的中心。

    机车拉响了几声很短的嘶哑的汽笛，接着又有人喊了些什么。其实，不用听这个信号，乘客们也都知道，司机停车是为了储备燃料。

    各节取暖货车都拉开了车门。下到路基上的人，数量不亚于一个小城镇的居民，但是前面车厢里那些应征的军人除外，他们不参加这类全体动员的临时劳动。

    那一堆堆的木柴有些不好往煤水车上装，一部分太长的圆木还需要锯开。

    机车乘务组那里有锯，于是就分给自由结合的每两个人组成一组。教授和自己的女婿也分到了一把锯。

    从那几节开了车门的军人车厢里，不时有笑容满面的脸孔探出来。还不曾受过炮火洗礼的海军学校高年级的青年后生们，似乎是出于某种误会才遇到这些有了家室、但只受过一点军训而同样没有闻过火药味的神情严峻的工人。为了排解烦闷，他们和年纪大些的水兵们一起，有意地大声开着玩笑。大家都感觉到考验的时刻临近了。

    这群说说笑笑的军人朝那些锯木头的男女乘客大声开着粗野的玩笑：

    “喂，老爷子！你去跟他们说，我是个吃奶的孩子，妈妈离不开我，还干不了力气活儿。喂，玛芙拉！小心别锯开了裙子，那可要受风啦。喂，那位年轻姑娘！别往林子里去，还是嫁给我吧。”

    树林子里有几个用削尖的木桩绑成的十字形，把它两根木头的一端理到土里作支架。有一副架子是空着的，尤里·安德烈耶维奇和亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇就准备在这上边锯木料。

    这时正是春天，土地刚刚从积雪下面显露出来，却几乎还是半年前被雪覆盖时的那种样子。林子里散发着潮气，遍地是隔年的落叶，仿佛是来不及打扫的房间，到处是撕碎的旧单据、信件和表册的碎片。

    “来回锯的次数不要太多，不然会累的。”医生对亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇边说边锯得慢了，接着就提出休息一会儿。

    林子里响着其他人吱吱哑哑的锯木声，有的一来一往听起来报协调，有的间断不匀。在很远的什么地方，头一只夜写在试它的歌喉。另一只鸽鸟却是隔了很长时间才叫一声，像是演奏一支不大通气的长笛。就连机车的气阀也学着咕咕叫的白鸽，向上喷吐着蒸汽，仿佛育儿室里酒精炉上煮沸了的一壶牛奶。

    “你曾经说过有些事要谈谈，”亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇提醒说，“没忘记吧？那是路过一片水泛地的时候，看到几只野鸭子飞起来，你似乎有所考虑地说：‘我想和您谈谈’。”

    “啊，不错。不知道怎么能说得简单明白些。您看，我们越来越深入到内地……这里整个地区处在动荡之中。咱们的目的地就要到了。还不清楚会面对一个什么样的局面。为了防备万一，彼此应该取得一致意见。我指的不是个人的信念。这种问题不可能在这春意盎然的树林子里通过五分钟的交谈就说清楚，或者作出什么决定。我们彼此是很了解的。咱们三口人，包括您、我和东尼妞，目前是和另外许多人一起活在这个世界上，彼此的差别只是对外界环境理解的程度木一样罢了。我要谈的不是这个常识性的问题。我想说的是另外的事。我们应该事先约定今后在某些情况下如何处置自己，为的是彼此不要因对方的行为而脸红，不会由于对方而感到羞愧。”

    “不用往下说了，我明白。你提出这个问题，我很高兴。这正是需要谈一谈的。好吧，听我跟你说。大概你还记得冬天有一个大风雪的夜晚，你带回来印着第一批法令的号外传单。也还该记得，当时我们对它是有一种多么罕见的无保留的态度。这是坦诚直率赢得了人心。不过，这类事只能存在于创业者头脑的原始纯洁性之中，只能存在于宣告胜利以后的第一天。政治的诡计多变第二天就可以把它翻个里朝外。所以，我还能对你说什么？这种哲学对我是格格不入的。这个政权是和我们对立的。人们并没有问我是不是同意这种破坏，却对我表示了信任，因此即使我的行为举止是出于不得已，我也有责任这样做下去。

    “东尼娜问了几次，我们会不会误了种菜园的季节，会不会错过播种的时机。怎么回答她呢？我不了解当地的土质。气候条件又是什么样的？夏季太短，究竟能不能种熟什么？

    “是这样，不过我们到这么遥远的地方来，当真是为了种菜园？甚至连‘跑七俄里去喝一口粥’这句俗话都不完全适用，因为遗憾的是此地有三四千俄里之遥。不行，坦率地说，我们如此长途跋涉完全是有另外的目的。我们到这里来是应付当前情况的权宜之计，要想方设法把外祖父一辈留下的森林、机器和用具彻底抛弃。我们来不是为了恢复它的所有权，而是为了靠几个戈比谋生，所以才把千百万卢布公有化，并且一定要过当前这种莫名其妙的乱糟糟的生活。这似乎就像让人光着屁股去赛跑，或者强迫忘掉已经识的字那样悻于清理。不对，私有制在俄国已经寿终正寝，至于我们个人，也就是格罗梅科一家，早在上一代就和敛财的欲望分了手。”

    由于闷热和空气木新鲜，简直无法入睡。医生满头大汗，在湿滚滚的枕头上翻过来、侧过去。

    他小心翼翼地从铺位上下来，为了不惊醒别人。悄悄地拉开了车门。

    粘乎乎的潮湿空气迎面扑来，仿佛在地窖里撞上了蜘蛛网。“有雾，”他一下子就猜到了，“下雾就肯定是火辣辣的热天气。怪不得喘气都这么困难，心里也像压了块重东西似的。”

    下到路基上以前，医生在门边站了一会儿，听听周围的动静。除了悄无声息和雾气以外，列车仿佛还被一种空旷、废弃和被遗忘了的气氛包围着。因为列车停在一条最偏僻的线路上，在它和车站站房之间还隔着那么多轨道，就是站台那边天坍地陷，在列车上什么也不会知道。

    远方隐隐约约地传来两种声音。

    后面，也就是他们来的那个方面，听到的是均匀的噗噗的响声，仿佛是有人在漂洗衣服，又像是风吹动一面潮湿的旗子扑打到旗杆上似的。

    前面传来的是隐约的隆隆声，经历过战争的医生听了不禁打了个冷战，于是就聚精会神地听下去。

    “远射程火炮。”医生听到这种均匀平稳地滚过的低闷的隆隆响声，下了判断。

    “原来是这样。靠近前线了。”医生心里这么盘算着，摇了摇头，然后从车上跳了下来。

    他往前走了几步。过了两节车厢，列车就中断了。机车带着前边的几节不知开到什么地方去了。

    “难怪昨天他们显得什么都不怕的样子，”医生在想，“大概已经感觉出一到地方就要立刻上战场。”

    他打算绕过车尾，再越过线路找一条到车站去的路。

    在车厢拐角后面，一个持抢的哨兵像从地底下冒出来似的站在眼前。

    “到哪儿去？通行证！”

    “这儿是什么站？”

    “什么站也不是。你是什么人？”

    “我是从莫斯科来的，一个医生。带着家眷，坐的是这趟车。这是我的证件。”

    “你那证件骗不了人。黑糊糊的我才不看哪，别伤了我眼睛。这么大的雾，你没看见。一里地以外就能看出来，你没有证件，也能知道你是个什么样的医生。你们那帮医生正在那边使唤着十二时的家伙哪。真应该正经地敲你一顿，不过还没到时候。趁着还有条命，快回去。”．

    “大概是把我当成另外的什么人了。”医生认定是这样。和哨兵吵一架毫无意义。不错，最好是离开这里，还来得及。医生转身朝相反的方向走了。

    他身后的炮声停止了，那个方向是东边。雾中升起了太阳，不时从浮动的昏漾雾气的间隙露出头，仿佛在浴室的水汽当中偶尔闪过光着身子的人影。

    医生顺着列车的一节节车厢走着，到了尽头还继续向前。他的两脚一步步越来越深地踩在疏松的沙地上。

    噗噗的声音均匀地越来越近，地势随之平缓下降。又走了几步以后，医生在一个由于雾气而显得轮廓很大的不清晰的物体面前停了下来。再走前一步，尤里·安德烈耶维奇才在昏暗中看出迎面是拖到岸上来的几条船的船尾。他是站在一条大河的岸边，水面的涟调缓慢无力地拍打着渔船的船舷和岸边栈桥的木板。

    “谁让你在这儿闲逛的？”岸上另一个哨兵发问。

    “这是什么河？”经过方才那场遭遇，医生本来不想再打听什么，可是禁不住又脱口而出。

    哨兵并不回答，却把哨子放到嘴里，不过还没来得及吹响。他本想吹哨叫来的先前那个哨兵，原来一直尾随在尤里·安德烈耶维奇后面，现在就径直走到同伴身边。两个人同时开了口：

    “这回没什么可说的。是个送上门来的家伙。‘这儿是什么站，那儿是什么河？’真能打马虎眼。你说，是索性让他下去洗个澡，还是回车上去？”

    “我想还是送他回车上去。看看首长怎么说。身份证！”后一个哨兵大声呵斥，一把抓起医生交过去的证件捏成一团。

    “看住他，老乡。”不清楚他是向谁这么说了一句，然后就和头一个哨兵一起朝线路另一侧的车站走去。

    为了弄清是怎么回事，一个躺在沙地上的像是打渔的人咳了几声，起身走了过来：

    “你算有运气，他们等的就是你。我的好人，说不定你有救了。也不用责怪他们。这是任务。如今是人民的天下，往后日子也许会好起来。现在可还不能这么说。看得出，他们认错了人。他们一直在等着捉一个什么人。这回一想，准是你。心里大概还盘算着，就是他，工人政权的敌人，这下可抓到了。其实是错了。你呀，一定要提出见负责人。别让这些人摆布你，在他们来说，算不了一回事。要是让你跟他们走，可别答应。你就说，一定要见负责人。”

    从这个渔民口中，尤里·安德烈耶维奇知道了他面前这条河就是有名的雷尼瓦河，可以通航；离河不远的车站叫拉兹维利耶，是尤里亚金市郊的一个靠水吃水的小工业区。他还了解到，坐落在上游两三俄里处的尤里亚金，一直抗拒着白党的进攻，现在好像已经挺住了。渔民还对他说，拉兹维利耶的局势也一度发生过混乱，目前似乎控制住了，周围这一带这么安静，因为已经没有平民百姓了，外面设了一圈严格的警戒线。最后他还打听到，线路上停着的一列列火车上设了不少军事单位，其中有一列就是区军事委员斯特列利尼科夫的，他们拿了医生的证件就是送到这列车上。

    过了一会儿，从那边来了另一个哨兵。和前两位不同的是，他拖着步枪，枪托蹭到地面，有时候又斜抱在身前，像是扶着一个跌跌撞撞、烂醉如泥的伙伴似的。这个哨兵把医生带到军事委员的车上。

    和警卫说明了准许放行之后，哨兵领着医生登上一条里面蒙了一层皮革的过道。过道连结着两节有客厅的瞬望车。两个人刚一进去，车厢里原来有人说笑和走动的声音立刻停止了。

    穿过狭窄的过道，哨兵把医生领进中间一节很宽敞的车厢里。这儿很安静，一切都井然有序。几个衣着整洁的人正在这节干净、舒适的车厢里工作。这位短时期内就在全州赢得荣誉并以威严出名的非党军事专家，他的指挥兼起居的地方居然是这个样子，和医生原来的想象完全不同。

    不过，他主要的活动地点肯定不在这儿，大概是在接近火线的前方司令部，此地只是他的私人办公室，是个流动宿营地。

    因此，这里才这么安静，很像海滨热水浴室的一条供休息用的走廊，地面铺了软木和小块地毯，服务人员穿上软底便鞋，走路悄无声息。

    车厢中部原先是餐室，现在铺了地毯，有几张桌子，成了一个收发文件的地方。

    “马上就好。”坐在最靠门口的一位青年军人应了一声。后来，桌子后面坐着的几个人都觉得自己完全可以把这个医生丢在脑后，就都不再去注意他。答话的那个军人漫不经心地点了点头，示意哨兵可以走了，后者就拖着步枪，让枪托在过道的金属横梁上碰得咋咋响地出去了。

    医生在门口远远地就看到了自己的证件。证件被放在最里边一张桌子的边上，坐在桌后的是个年纪比较大、像是；日军队里上校模样的军人。这是个军事统计员。他一边用鼻子低声哼着，一边翻阅资料，看看军用地图，然后比比划划地剪贴着什么。过后，他依次把车厢的每一扇窗都看了一遍，就说：“今天要热起来啦。”仿佛从每一个窗口得出的印象不完全一样，只有都看过一遍才能下这个结论似的。

    在几张桌子中间的地毯上，一个穿军装的技术员爬来爬去地在修理一条出了故障的电线。当他爬到一个年轻军人桌子下面的时候，那人就站起身来，免得碍事。旁边一个穿着男式战地保护色上衣的女文书，正吃力地对付一架坏了的打字机。打字机的滚筒在一例出了槽，卡在支架上移动不了。那人年轻军人站到她坐的凳子后边，从上面帮她查找出毛病的原因。技术员这时也爬到打字员这边，从下面检查打字机的传动曲柄。上校模样的军官也起身走了过来，所有的人都在对付这架打字机。

    这个情况倒让医生放了心。因为这几个人对他的处境比他本人了解得更清楚，很难设想他们会在一个肯定要遭殃的人在场的情况下，还能如此专心致志地处理这种琐事。

    “不过也难说，谁知道这些人是怎么回事？”他心里又这么想。“他们怎么会这么平静？附近炮声不断，每时每刻都有人丧命，他们却估计今天的天气要热，想的根本不是会有激烈的战斗。大概是看得太多了，所以他们对不论什么事情都变得迟钝了吧？”

    由于无事可做，他就从自己站立的地方穿过整个车厢望着对面的一个窗口。

    列车这一侧的前方是许多条铁路线的最后一段，看得见坐落在小山上的拉兹维利耶城郊的这个同名的大车站。

    从铁路到车站有条未经油饰的木结构的天桥，中间有三处转弯的小平台。

    从列车的这边看过去，线路上已经成了一片废机车的堆弃场。那些样子像茶杯和皮靴筒的没有煤水车的老式蒸汽机车，烟筒对着烟筒停在一堆堆破损的车厢当中。

    下面这片机车坟场和山上城郊的墓地，连同线路上那些七扭八歪的金属物件和市郊一片片生锈的屋顶、招牌，汇合成一种荒芜颓败的景观，在清晨的阳光下受着煎熬。

    在莫斯科的时候，尤里·安德烈耶维奇还想不到那许许多多的招牌会遮住很体面的房屋的外表。这里的招牌却让他意识到了这一点。此地的招牌尺寸很大，从火车上能看清上面的字。它们低悬在倾斜的单层房屋的窗前，矮小的房子遮在下面让人看不到，仿佛乡下孩子的头上扣着父亲的帽子。

    这时，雾已经完全消失了，只有远方东边天际的左侧还留下一丝痕迹。就连这一部分也开始像剧场的帷幕一样移动着分开了。

    离拉兹维利耶三俄里远、比城郊地势更高的山上，露出一座不小的城市，规模像是区的中心或者省会。阳光给它涂了一层淡黄色，因为距离远，所以轮廓看上去不很分明。整个城市阶梯式地一层层排列在高地上，很像廉价木版画上的阿丰山或是隐僧修道院，屋上有屋，街上有街，中间还有一座尖顶的教堂。

    “尤里亚金！”医生激动地猜到了。“这是死去的安娜·伊万诺夫娜经常说到的地方，安季波娃护士也总要提到它！对这个城市我听到的真是太多了，如今却是在这种情况下才初次见到它！”

    就在这一刻，低头摆弄打字机的那几个军人的注意力被窗外的什么东西吸引过去了。他们都朝那边扭过头去。医生的视线也跟着转到那个方向。

    天桥上，几个被俘的或被捕的人被带着走过，其中有个头部受了伤的中学生。在什么地方已经给他包扎过，可是从纱布下面还渗出血来，他就用手掌抹到被太阳晒黑了的、流着汗的脸上。

    这个学生在这一行人末尾，走在两名红军士兵中间，引人注目的不只是他那漂亮的脸上流露出的坚决神态，而且还有这么一个年纪轻轻的反叛分子惹人生出的怜悯。他和他身边跟随的那两个人，不断以自己的荒唐的行动引起大家的注意。他们一直在做不应该做的动作。

    那个头缠纱布的学生戴的一项制帽，总是往下掉。他不但不把帽子摘下拿到手里，反而不顾对伤口有害，往下戴得更紧，两位红军士兵也心甘情愿地帮他这么做。

    这种一反正常人想法的愚蠢举动，似乎有某种象征的意思。就算是这里头有什么文章，医生还是禁不住想要跑出去拦住这学生，准备告诫他注意的话几乎就要脱口而出。他还情不自禁地要向这学生和车里所有的人高喊一声，让他们知道，求得拯救并非一定要恪守形式，而是应该摆脱形式的束缚。

    医生的目光移向另一边。刚刚健步走进来的斯特列利尼科夫已经站在车厢当中。

    在医生偶然结识的无数人物当中，为什么迄今为止还不曾见到像他这样一个显得突出的人？他们两个人的生活竟然各不相干？竟然没有相识的机缘？

    不知为什么他立刻就意识到，这个人正是意志的完美无缺的化身。他可以说是达到了随心所欲的境界，身上所有的一切都必然带有典范性。包括他那匀称的身材，漂亮的头型，坚定敏捷的步伐和套上高筒靴的两条长腿；就是已经沾了泥污的皮靴在他脚上也显得干净得体；还有身穿的那件灰呢制服，尽管可能是揉皱了的，但给人的印象仍是十分平整。

    一个人天资很高，自然不矫揉造作，随遇而安并且在任何处境下都具有征服力，就会产生这样的影响。

    此人肯定具有某种天赋，但不一定是出类拔革的。这种天赋表现在他的一举一动之中，成为一种榜样，于是大家就有一个学习的典范。他可以是历史上的英雄，可以是战场上或城市动乱中的风云人物，或者是最受人民尊崇的权威，也许是走在前列的一个同志。总之，非此即彼。

    出于礼貌，他丝毫没有流露出一个局外人在场会让他感到奇怪或拘束的意思，相反，倒像是把医生当作他们当中的一员。他说：

    “祝贺各位。我们把他们赶跑了。这不过是玩一场军事游戏，算不上真正的作战行动，因为他们和我们同样都是俄国人，只不过不愿意和愚蠢分手，不得不让我们费些力气帮他们去掉这个毛病罢了。他们的指挥官曾经是我的朋友。他出身要比我更加无产阶级化。我和他是在一个大杂院里长大的。在生活中他为我做了不少事，我对他是欠了债的。把他赶到河对岸去了，也可能更远一些，这我很高兴。古里扬，赶快恢复电话联络。只靠信件和电报可不行。天气真热，各位注意到了没有？我总算睡了一个半小时。啊，对了……”他两手一拍，转向了医生。这时他才想起来为什么把他喊醒。是为了一桩什么小事，因此才扣押了眼前站着的这个人。

    “是这个人？”斯特列利尼科夫从头到脚用审视的眼光看着医生，心里在想。“根本不像。这些傻瓜！”他微笑着对尤里·安德烈耶维奇说：

    “对不起，同志。把您误认为另一个人了。我的哨兵搞错了。您自由啦。这位同志的证件在哪儿？好，这是您的证件。原谅我不客气，想顺便看看。日瓦戈……日瓦戈医生……来自莫斯科……

    还是请您到我那里坐一下吧。这儿是秘书处，我的车厢在旁边。请吧，不会耽误您很长时间。”

    不过，这人究竟是怎么回事？奇怪，一个鲜为人知的非党人士能被提拔担任这样的职务而且居然能胜任。他出生在莫斯科，大学毕业以后在外省教书，战争开始木久就被俘了很长一段时期，不久以前还渺无音信，一度被认为已经牺牲了。

    童年时期的斯特列利尼科夫是在进步的铁路工人季韦尔辛家里长大的。是季韦尔辛保举了他。管人事的那些人对他很信任。在局势混乱和偏激观点最盛行的时期，斯特列利尼科夫的革命性在任何方面都不落于人后，但他突出表现的是真诚与狂热，但他的狂热并非出于模仿，而是个人的生活所孕育的，是独立自主的，非偶然的。

    斯特列利尼科夫的确没有辜负人们对他的信任。

    最近一个时期，他的工作记录中就包括在乌斯特汉姆金斯克和下开尔密斯发动的战役，还有古巴索夫的农民武装反抗粮食征收队的暴乱和大熊洼车站第十四步兵团抢劫粮食的事件。经他处理的问题，还有土尔卡图拉市的拉辛派士兵武装倒戈投靠白卫军，以及奇尔金河口码头发生的武装暴乱、忠于苏维埃政权的指挥员被杀等几件事。

    所有这些地方，他都像从天而降的暴风雪一样及时赶到，判断局势，作出决定，迅速、严酷、毫不手软地解决了问题。

    在整个边区，他的列车所到之处，士兵大批逃亡的现象就会被制止。对征兵机构的监察很快就使工作面貌一新。红军的兵员补充进展得很顺利，新兵接待站也是热火朝天。

    不久前，就在白党分子从北边压过来而造成有威胁的局面的时候，又给他肩上增加了新的担子，既有直接的军事行动，又有战略性、战役性的任务。只要他一插手，就立见成效。

    斯特列利尼科夫也知道，人们送给他一个绰号：“枪决专家”。他对此淡然处之，他是无所畏惧的。

    斯特列利尼科夫生在莫斯科，是个工人的儿子。父亲参加过一九O五年的革命并因此而遭了殃。当时他由于年龄小而置身革命运动之外，后来在大学读书，因为是贫家子弟进了高等学府，对学习就更加重视和勤奋。富裕的大学生们的骚动并未触及他。他带着丰富的知识走出校门，以后又靠自己努力在原有历史、语文专业的基础上钻研了数学。

    按照法令，他可以免服军役，但自愿上了战场，以准尉的军阶被俘，后来知道俄国发生了革命，就在一九一七年逃回了祖国。

    有两个特点、两样激情使他不同于常人。

    他的思路异常清晰和正确，天赋的追求高洁品德和正义的气质也是少有的，而且感情奔放，知恩必报。

    但是作为一个开创新路的有学识的人来说，他还缺少应付偶尔情况的思考力，还不善于利用意料之外的新发现去改变不会有结果的原来的完整设想。

    此外，为了办些好事，他的原则性还缺少内在的非原则性，只了解个别与局部，不懂得还有普遍与一般，他心胸博大就在于肯做琐碎小事。

    从幼年时代起，斯特列利尼科夫就向往着崇高、光辉的事业。他把生活看成是一个宏伟的竞技场，大家尽可以在那里进行夺取胜利的较量，但必须老老实实地遵守比赛规则。

    当事实证明并非如此的时候，他根本意识不到是自己的想法不对，把治世之道简单化了。他长久地把屈辱埋藏在内心深处，后来就开始喜欢让自己的想法有朝一日能在生活与败坏了生活的种种恶势力之间充当仲裁，目的在于捍卫生活并为它进行报复。

    失望使他变得越来越严酷。革命给了他思想上的武装。

    “日瓦戈，日瓦戈。”他们来到斯特列利尼科夫的车里以后，他继续自言自语地说，“好像是商人，或许是贵族。啊，这里写的是从莫斯科到瓦雷金诺。奇怪，从莫斯科一下子突然要到这么偏远的地方去。”

    “正是为了这个。想找个安静的去处。偏远，不为人知。”

    “清说说，这是怎么个道理。瓦雷金诺？这里的许多地方我都熟悉。那里从前是克吕格尔家的工厂。也许您是他的亲属？继承人？”

    “您干吗用这种讽刺的口气？这和‘继承人’有什么关系？不错，我妻子的确是……”

    “您看，我说对了。是不是想念白党啦？那我可要让您失望。晚啦，全区都把他们清除了。”

    “您是不是还想挖苦人？”

    “不是这个意思，医生。我是个军人，现在是战争时期。这直接关系到我的职责。现在逃兵也都想到森林里躲起来。找个安静的地方，有什么理由？”

    “我两次负伤，完全免除服兵役了。”

    “您能不能拿出教育人民委员部或者保健人民委员部签署的意见，说明您是‘苏维埃的人’，是‘同情革命人土’和‘奉公守法者’？现在人间正在进行最后的审判，慈悲的先生，您也许是启示录中带剑的使者和生翼的野兽，而并非真正同情革命和奉公守法的医生。不过我方才说过，您已经自由了，我决不食言，但是就这一次。我预感到将来我们还会见面的，那时候就要另当别论，您要注意。”

    威吓和挑衅并没有让尤里·安德烈耶维奇感到困扰。他说：

    “我知道您对我的一切想法。从您那方面来说，这完全正确。但是，您打算把我扯进争论中去的话题，在一生当中我心里始终同想象中的指控人在进行争论，而且可以认为，这已经有了结论。不过三言两语是说不清楚的。如果我确实自由了，现在请允许我不作什么解释就离开，要是相反，就请您处置吧。我不想在您面前为自己辩解。”

    一阵铃声打断了他们的谈话。电话联系恢复了。

    “谢谢，古里扬。”斯特列利尼科夫拿起听筒，朝里边吹了几口气以后说。“好伙计，请派个人来送一送日瓦戈同志。免得再出什么问题。请给我接通拉兹维利耶的肃反委员会运输局。”

    只剩下一个人以后，斯特列利尼科夫打通了车站的电话：

    “那边带来一个男孩子，帽子戴到耳朵上，头上缠了绷带，真木像话。对，需要的话给他提供医疗。对，要注意保护，你个人要对我负责。如果他要吃饭，就发一份口粮，是这样。喂，我还有话要说。见鬼，又插进来一个人。古里扬！古里扬！电话串线了。”

    “可能是我教过的学生。”他心里想，暂时放下了要和车站把话讲完的打算。“长成人了，就来造我们的反。”斯特列利尼科夫盘算着自己教书、参战和当战俘的年数是不是和这孩子的年龄对得上。然后，他通过车厢的窗口在看得到的地平线的背景上寻找河道上游的尤里亚金城门附近的一个地方。那里曾经有他的家。也许妻子和女儿还在那儿？那可应该去找她叫现在立刻就去！不过这是可以想象的吗？那完全是另一种生活。要想回到原先那种被中断了的生活，首先应该结束现在这种新生活。将来会有这一天的，会有的。不过，究竟是什么时候，什么时候呢？

    第四章

    火车把日瓦戈一家载到这个地方后，仍停留在车站的倒车线上，不过被别的列车挡住，使人觉得整个行程中同莫斯科保持的联系在这个早晨中断了。

    这里的居民比居住在首都的人更互相了解。虽然尤里亚金至拉兹维利耶铁道两旁的人都已被轰走，被红军部队封锁起来，但当地郊区的旅客不知怎的还能钻到铁轨上来，仿佛人们所说的“漏了进来”。他们已经拥进车厢，挤满取暖货车的门口，沿着列车在铁轨上走着，有的站在自己车厢入口处的路基上。

    这些人彼此都认识，隔老远便打招呼，走到跟前互相问候。他们的穿戴和言谈与首都的居民有点不同，吃的也不一样，习惯也不同。

    真想知道他们的日子是怎么过的，吸收的都是什么样的精神营养和物质营养，怎么样同困难作斗争，又怎么样逃避法律的制裁？

    答案很快就会以最生动的方式出现了。

    医生在那个把步枪拖在地上或当手杖一样拄着的哨兵的陪同下，返回自己的列车。

    天气闷热，太阳烤着铁轨和车厢顶。地上洒了汽油而变得污黑的地方，在太阳光下泛着黄光，仿佛镀了一层金似的。

    哨兵的枪托子在沙土地上划了一道沟，在沙地上留下了痕迹，碰到枕木上发出砰的一声。哨兵说道：

    “天气不会再变化了。到了播种春麦、燕麦、黍子的黄金季节。播种养麦还嫌早点。我们那里要到阿库林娜节才种养麦吧。我们是唐波夫省的马尔山人，木是本地人。唉，医生同志！要不是这祸害人的内战，世界上的不和，我干吗这季节还在他乡消磨时间？它使我们阶级之间闹得不和，你瞧，它干的是什么呀！”

    “谢谢，我自己上得去。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇谢绝了别人的帮助。不少人从取暖货车里弯下腰，伸手拉他上车。他双手攀着车门拔起身子，登上车厢，同妻子拥抱在一起。

    “到底上来啦。谢天谢地，终于没事儿了。”安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜反复说。“其实，幸运的结局对我们早木是什么新鲜事儿了。”

    “怎么不是新鲜事儿？”

    “我们全都知道了。”

    “从哪儿知道的？”

    “哨兵报告的。要是我们一点不知道，又如何受得了？尽管如此，我和爸爸都快急疯了。你瞧，他睡着了，叫都叫不醒，激动得倒下了，像一捆木柴似的，谁也推木醒。又上来了几个新旅客，我马上给你介绍一两个。可你先听听周围都在说什么吧。全车厢都在祝贺你脱险。这就是他！”她突然转换话题，转过头去，从肩膀上把丈夫介绍给一个刚挤上车的旅客，他被周围的人挤到车厢的最里边。

    “桑杰维亚托夫。”声音从那边传过来，一项软帽从拥挤在一起的人头上举起来，报名的人想穿过挤成一团的人丛，挤到医生这边来。

    “桑杰维亚托夫。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇这时想道。“我还以为他会带点旧俄罗斯风味，壮士歌风味，一脸大胡子，穿着腰里带把的外衣，系着镶有金属装饰品的皮带。可他却像艺术爱好者协会里的人，留着髦发，头发里露出银丝，还留着一把山羊胡子。”

    “怎么样，斯特列利尼科夫没吓着您吧？您跟我说实话。”

    “没有，怎么会吓着呢？说话很严肃。无疑是位有魄力有分量的人物。”

    “那还用说。我对这位人物略知一二。他不是我们这地方的人，是你们莫斯科人。像我们所有最新流行的东西一样，都是从你们首都传过来的。我们自己的脑袋瓜想不出这些玩艺儿。”

    “这是安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇，尤罗奇卡！一个无所不知的人。他听说过你，也听说过你爸爸，认识我外祖父，什么人都认识。你们认识一下吧。”安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜毫无表情地随口问道：“您大概认识当地的女教师安季波娃吧？”桑杰维亚托夫回答时脸上也没有表情：“您提安季波娃干什么？”尤里·安德烈耶维奇听见了他们俩的对话，但没搭腔。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜接着说下去：

    “安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇是布尔什维克。当心点，尤罗奇卡。跟他在一起的时候可得多个心眼。”

    “真的？我可从来没想到。看样子还很有点演员的派头呢。”

    “我父亲开过旅店。有七辆三套马车在外面拉脚。可我受过高等教育，并且是个货真价实的社会民主党党员。”

    “你听听，尤罗奇卡，安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇都跟我说了什么吧。顺便说一句，可不是想惹您生气，您的名字和父称可真拗口。好啦，尤罗奇卡，你就听我对你说吧。我们算走运了。尤里亚金站不放我们通行。城里起了火，桥炸断了，无法通过。让我们转到与这条铁路相连的另一条路线的支线上，而我们要去的托尔法纳亚正在那条路线上。你说巧不巧！不必转车，也不必提着东西穿过城市，从这个车站到另一个车站。可是在火车真正开动之前，一会儿叫我们到这边，一会儿又叫我们到那边，真把我们折腾坏了。我们还要转好几次车。这都是安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇告诉我的。”

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜没估计错。火车除了重新挂车厢外，还加了新车厢，在挤满列车的轨道上倒来倒去，同时别的列车也在移动，使他们这趟列车半天也无法开到辽阔的原野上去。

    远处的城市有一半被山坡遮住。只有屋顶、工厂烟囱的顶端、钟楼的十字架偶尔显露在地平线上。郊区有个地方起火了。浓烟被风刮起，像马鬃似的飘过天空。

    医生和桑杰维亚托夫坐在取暖货车尽靠边的地板上，两条腿垂在车门外。桑杰维亚托夫一只手指着远方，不停地向尤里·安德烈耶维奇解释什么。取暖货车发出的轰隆声有时盖过说话声，他说的话便听不清了。尤里·安德烈耶维奇便再问一遍。安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇把脸凑近医生，直对着他的耳朵拼命喊叫，重复刚才说过的话。

    “他们把‘巨人’电影院点着了。主官生盘踞在那里。可是他们早就投降了。要不就是战斗还没有结束。您瞧钟楼上的黑点。那是我们的人正在清除捷克人呢。”

    “我什么都看不见。您怎么都能看清楚呢？”

    “着火的是霍赫里基区，作坊区。旁边就是柯洛杰耶夫市场区。所以我才注意它。我们的旅店就在市场区。火势不大，蔓延不到市中心去。”

    “您再说一遍，我听不清。”

    “我是说，城市中心。有大教堂啦，图书馆啦。我们桑杰维亚托夫家族，这是圣·多纳托的俄文译音。我们据说是杰米多夫家族的后裔。”

    “我还是什么也没听懂。”

    “我是说，桑杰维亚托夫是圣·多纳托的译音。我们据说是杰米多夫家族的后裔。圣·多纳托·杰米多夫公爵。也许纯粹是胡说人道，是家庭传说罢了。这块地方叫作下斯皮尔金。到处是别墅和游乐场所。地名怪不怪？”

    辽阔的原野展现在他们眼前。铁路支线从各个不同方向把原野切断。电线杆飞快地向后退去，退到天边。宽阔婉蜒的铺石公路像一条飘带，与铁轨媲美。它忽而消失在地平线的尽头，忽而又在转弯的地方变成起伏的弧形，一连几分钟呈现在你眼前，接着又消失不见了。

    “我们的公路是出名的，横贯整个西伯利亚。受到苦役犯的赞扬。现在是游击队的据点。总的说来，我们这儿还算可以，住长了就会习惯的。您会喜欢城里的新奇事儿的。比如我们的公用供水所，每个交叉口都有。这是妇女们的冬季露天俱乐部。”

    “我们不打算住在城里。我们想住在瓦雷金诺。”

    “我知道。您的妻子告诉过我了。住哪儿都一样。您还要进城办事儿呢。我一眼就看出她是谁来了。眼睛、鼻子、额头都跟克吕格尔一模一样，跟外祖父像极了。这个地区的人都记得克吕格尔。”

    原野尽头的几座高大的砖砌圆型油库泛着红光。竖立的高柱子上钉着工业广告。其中有一幅同样的竟两次从医生眼前闪过，上面写的是：

    莫罗与韦钦金公司。出售播种机和打谷机。

    “本来是一家很像样的公司。出产精良的农业工具。”

    “您说什么？我没听清。”

    “我说的是公司。明白吗——公司。出产农业工具。股份公司呀。家父曾经是股东。”

    “可您刚才说他开旅店。”

    “旅店是旅店。互不妨碍嘛。他可不是傻瓜，知道把钱投入赚钱的企业。‘巨人’电影院里也有他的股份。”

    “您好像以此为荣？”

    “以家父的精明为荣？那还用说！”

    “可你们的社会民主党呢？”

    “得了吧，这于他们什么事？什么地方说过，一个用马克思主义观点看问题的人就一定是个流口水的窝囊废？马克思主义是真正的科学，解释现实的学说，研究历史情况的哲学。”

    “马克思主义与科学？同一个相知不深的人辩论这个问题至少是太轻率了。但不管怎么说，马克思主义作为一门科学太不稳重了。科学要稳重得多。马克思主义与客观性？我木知道还有什么比马克思主义更封闭和更远离事实的学派了。每个人只留心在实验上检查自己，而全力宣扬自己永远不会犯错误的神话的当权者又背离了真理。政治不能告诉我什么东西。我不喜欢对真理无动于衷的人。”

    桑杰维亚托夫把医生的话当成一个说话刻薄的怪人的奇谈怪论。他只笑了笑，没有反驳他。

    这时火车又倒车了。每当火车开到出站道岔上的时候，宽腰带上系着盛牛奶的铁桶的女扳道员，倒了倒手里的毛线活，弯下腰，扳动出站道岔的圆盘，让火车倒回去。当火车慢慢向后滚去时，她便直起腰来，冲着火车后面挥拳头。

    桑杰维亚托夫还以为她朝自己挥拳头呢。“她这是对谁呢？”他忖量着。“有点面熟。不是通采娃吧？有点像她。可是我又怎么得罪她了？未必是她。要是格拉莎又太老了。可这又于我什么事儿[手机TXT小说下载网]？俄罗斯母亲正在发生大变革，铁路上发生混乱，她这个可怜虫生活困难，就认为是我的错儿，就向我挥拳头。见她的鬼去吧，还值得为她伤脑筋呀！”

    女扳道员终于挥了挥小旗，又对司机喊了句什么话，便放列车通过信号旗，驶向旷野，但当第十四节取暖货车从她身旁飞驶过去的时候，她对几个坐在车厢地板上嚼舌头嚼得让她讨厌的人吐了吐舌头。桑杰维亚托夫又陷入了沉思。

    燃烧着的城市的郊区、圆柱型的蓄油槽、电线杆和商业广告都消失在远方，眼前出现了另外一番景色：小树林、山冈以及其间显露出的境蜒的公路。这时，桑杰维亚托夫说道：

    “站起来舒展舒展腿脚吧。我快要下车了。您也就剩一站地了。当心点别坐过站。”

    “这一带您当真很熟吗？”

    “熟到家了，方圆一百俄里都熟悉。我是个律师啊，开业二十年了，因公务到处跑。”

    “直到现在？”

    “可不是嘛。”

    “现在还有什么样的业务？”

    “您想要什么样的，就有什么样的。没有办妥的旧契约，财贸业务，没有还清的债务——堆成山，多得不得了。”

    “难道这类活动还没废止？”

    “名义上当然废止了。可实际上同时还是有互相排斥的事物。既要企业国有化，燃料也要归市苏维埃，省国民经济委员会还需要兽力牵引的交通工具。同时所有人都渴望生活。这是理论与实践尚未结合起来的过渡时期的特点。所以，需要具有我这样性格并善于经营的机灵的人。得意的是那些不跟他们走，抓住大把钱就什么都看不见的人。可是像我父亲所说的那样，有时也得挨嘴巴。半个省的人现在都得靠我供养。我还要到你们那儿去串门，办理木材供应的事。到你们那儿去非骑马不可，可我的马腿瘸了。要是它好好的，我干吗坐这破车挨颠。您瞧走得这个馒劲，还叫火车呢。您要到瓦雷金诺去的话，准能用得上我。我对米库利钦一家人了如指掌。”

    “您知道我们旅行的目的和我们的打算吗？”

    “多少知道点，猜得出来。有个概念。人对土地的某种向往，用双手养活自己的理想。”

    “那又怎么样？您好像不赞成？您看行吗？”

    “理想大天真，太田园式了。干吗要上那儿去呢？愿上帝帮助您。可我不相信。有点乌托邦味道，太手工业方式了。”

    “米库利钦会怎么对待我们呢？”

    “不让你们进门，拿鸡毛掸子把你们赶出去，并且做得对。他那儿没有你们也够乱的了，怪事多得不得了，工厂停了工，工人跑散了，说到生计，更是一筹莫展，饲料缺乏，可是你们突然大驾光临，真是岂有此理，可恶至极。就是他把你们宰了，我也认为他无罪。”

    “您瞧瞧，您是布尔什维克，可是您并不否认这不是生活，而是一场前所未有的荒诞不经的怪梦。”

    “一点不错。但这是历史上不可避免的现象，必须通过这个阶段。”

    “为什么是不可避免的现象？”

    “怎么啦，您是小孩，还是故意装傻？您是不是从月亮上掉下来的？馋鬼和寄生虫驾驭着挨饿的劳动者，并把他们驱向死亡，这样能够长久下去吗？还有其他凌辱和暴虐的形式呢？难道您不明白人民的愤怒、要求正义生活的愿望、寻求真理的精神是合法的吗？您以为在杜马里通过议会制、不采取专政手段就能根本摧毁旧制度吗？”

    “我们说到两岔去了，就是辩论一百年也辩论不出个所以然来。我是非常赞成革命的，可是我现在觉得，用暴力是什么也得不到的。应该以善为善，但问题不在这里。再回到米库利钦身上。如果等待我们的竟是那样一种局面，那我们又何必去呢？我们应当向后转才是。”

    “别胡说了。首先，难道米库利钦是窗子里唯一的灯光？其次，米库利钦善良极了，善良到了犯罪的地步。他会大吵大闹一番，死也不肯答应，接着就会软下来，把身上的最后一件衬衣脱给你，同你分食面包皮。”于是，桑杰维亚托夫又讲开了。

    “二十五年以前，米库利钦作为工学院的大学生，从彼得堡来到这里。他在警方的监督下被遣送出彼得堡。米库利钦来到这儿后，当了克吕格尔的管家，并结了婚。那时，我们这儿有通采娃四姐妹，比契河夫的作品里还多一个。阿格里平娜、叶夫多基哑、格拉菲拉和西拉菲玛，父称是谢韦里诺夫娜。尤里亚金所有的学生都追求她们。大家通常用父称称呼这四位姑娘，或干脆管她们叫谢韦良卡小姐。米库利钦娶的就是谢韦良卡大小姐。

    “他们很快就有了一个儿子。傻瓜父亲出于对自由思想的崇拜，给小男孩取了一个古怪的名字：利韦里。利韦里，平时说话的时候都管他叫利夫卡。利夫卡长大了，很顽皮，但表现出多方面的杰出才能。他改了出生证上的年龄，还是个十五岁的少年，便自愿上前线了。阿格里平娜·谢韦里诺夫娜本来就是个病秧子，没有承受住这次打击，躺倒了，就再也没起来，前年冬天死了，死在了革命前夕。

    “战争结束了，和韦里回来了。他是谁？这是一位身佩三枚十字勋章的准尉英雄，自然啦，还是一个从前线派回来做宣传工作的彻头彻尾的布尔什维克代表。您听说过‘林中兄弟’吗？”

    “对不起，没听说过。”

    “那讲起来就没意思了。效果会失掉一半。那您从车厢里就没必要向公路张望了。它有什么出色的地方？眼下——是游击队。什么是游击队？这是内战中的骨干。两种因素创建了这支力量。取得革命领导权的政治组织和战败后拒绝服从旧政权的普通士兵。这两部分人的联合便产生了打游击的队伍。它的成分五花八门。其中大多数是中农。但在同他们一道的人当中，您什么人都能碰见。这里有贫农，有免去神职的教士，有同老子作战的富农的儿子。有虔诚的无政府主义者，有没有身份证的乞丐，有被中学开除的到了结婚年龄的二流子。有受到给予自由和遣送回国的允诺诱惑的德、奥战俘。而在这支浩浩荡荡的人民军队中，有一支由列斯内赫同志，利夫卡，利韦里·阿韦尔基耶维奇，阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇·米库利钦的儿子所指挥的部队，叫作‘林中兄弟’。”

    “您说的是什么呀？”

    “就是您听见的。让我继续说下去。阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇在妻子死后又结婚了。他的第二个妻子叫叶连娜·普罗科洛夫娜，一个直接从学校拉到教堂去结婚的中学生。她本来就天真，可还故作天真；她本来就年轻，可还打扮得更年轻。就这样子卿卿喳喳，装得天真无邪，像个小傻瓜，像只小云雀，见到谁就考谁：‘苏沃洛夫是哪一年诞生的？’——‘举出三角形相等的条件。’她要是考住了你，问得你张口结舌，就乐不可支。几个小时以后，您就能亲眼看见她了，看看我说得对不对。

    “他本人则有另外的弱点：抽烟斗，说话爱咬文嚼字儿。什么‘绝不迟疑片刻’啦，什么‘勿使’、‘鉴于’啦。他本应在海洋上施展宏图。他在学院里学的是造船。这在他的外表和习惯方面都留下了痕迹。脸刮得干干净净，烟斗整天不离嘴，说话的时候从容不迫，和蔼可亲，一个个字从牙缝里吐出来。像所有爱抽烟斗的人一样，下巴突出，灰色的眼睛显得冷漠。差点还漏了两个细节：他是社会革命党党员，并被边区选入立宪会议。”

    “这可太重要了。父子互为水火，岂不成了政治敌人？”

    “表面上自然如此。其实绿林好汉并不同瓦雷金诺作战。可您听我往下说。通采娃的几个妹妹，阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇的小姨们，至今仍住在尤里亚金。她们都是没出嫁的老姑娘。时代变了，姑娘们也变了。

    “最大的叶夫多基灰·谢韦里诺夫娜当了市图书馆馆员。黝黑的女郎很可爱，羞涩到了极点，常常无缘无故涨红了脸，像芍药一样。阅览室里静得疹人，仿佛置身于坟墓中。可她得了慢性感冒，一连打二十个喷嚏，臊得恨不能钻进地缝里。您说有什么办法？神经过敏。

    “老二格拉菲拉·谢韦里诺夫娜是姐妹当中的使使者。厉害的姑娘，神奇的女工，什么活儿都不嫌弃。大家一致认为游击队的首领列斯内赫像他这个小姨。你刚看她在缝纫作业组或者在织袜子，一眨眼又变成了理发员。您注意到了没有，尤里亚金铁路上有个女扳道员向我们挥拳头？我当时想，真想不到，派格拉菲拉看守铁路去了。不过好像又不是她，人太老了。

    “最年轻的西拉菲玛——家庭的磨难和考验。她是个聪明的姑娘，读过很多书。她研究哲学，喜爱诗歌。到了革命的年代，在共同高涨的情绪、街头游行、广场上登台演说的影响下，她精神失常了，陷入宗教的狂热中。姐姐们上班去的时候把门锁上，可她从窗口跑出去，沿街挥手召集群众，宣传耶稣第二次降世，世界到了本日。可我只顾说话了，到站了，您下一站下，准备准备吧。”

    等安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇下了火车，安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜说道：

    “我不知道你怎么看，我觉得这个人是命运给我们派来的。我觉得他将在我们生活中起好作用。”

    “这完全可能，托汉奇卡。但令我懊恼的是你跟你外祖父太像了，人家会认出你来，而这儿的人对他记得太清楚了。就拿斯特列利尼科夫来说吧，我刚一提到瓦雷金诺，他马上不怀好意地插嘴道：‘瓦雷金诺，克吕格尔的工厂？不是亲戚吧？不是继承人吧？’

    “我担心我们在这儿比在莫斯科还显眼，我们跑出来就是为了逃避别人的注意。

    “现在当然已经没有法子可想了。脑袋掉了，还会哭头发吗？但最好不要暴露自己的身份，隐藏起来，少抛头露面。总的说来，我有一种不祥的预感。叫醒咱们的人，收拾好东西，系紧皮带，准备下车吧。”

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜站在托尔法纳亚车站的月台上，不知把人和东西数了多少遍，生怕车厢里还落下什么东西。她感到脚下踩的已是被人踩结实的月台沙地，但担心坐过站的紧张心情还没过去，火车行驶的轰隆轰隆的响声仍在耳边鸣响，虽然她眼睛明明看见火车一动不动地停在她面前的月台旁边。这妨碍她的听觉和视觉，也使她不能集中起思想来。

    不下车的旅客从上面，从取暖货车上向她告别，但并没有引起她的注意。她没有注意到火车开走，直到她看见火车开走后露出的第二条铁轨、绿色的原野和湛蓝的天空时，才发觉火车不见了。

    车站是用石头建筑的。人口的两边有两条长凳。从西夫采夫来的莫斯科旅客是在托尔法纳亚车站下车的唯一旅客。他们放下行李，坐在一条长凳上。

    车站的寂静、间无人踪和洁净使刚下车的人感到惊讶。他们感到不习惯，因为周围没有人拥挤，没有人吵架了。生活仿佛处于荒僻的地方，停滞在历史的长河中，迟误了。它尚未达到首都的那种野蛮。

    车站隐蔽在白禅林中。火车进站的时候，车厢里的光线变得暗淡了。微微摇曳的树顶在人们的脸和手上，在清洁的灰黄色的月台沙地上，在屋顶和地上，投下移动的阴影。林中的鸟鸣与它的清幽非常和谐。木掺杂别的音响的纯粹的鸟鸣，响彻整个儿的树林，把它联成一片，仿佛世界上除了鸟鸣便不存在其他的声音了。树林被两条道路——铁路和土路割开。它用自己向下垂着的枝叶，仿佛一双低垂到地面的广袖，把两条道路同样遮盖住了。

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜的眼睛和耳朵突然恢复了正常。她立刻意识到了一切。比如乌的鸣哈，林中的清幽，笼罩着四周的寂静。她的心中涌出了话语：“我不敢相信我们能平安到达。你知道吗，你的斯特列利尼科夫在你面前可以表现得宽宏大量，放了你，但可以往这儿拍一份电报，命令一下火车就把我们所有的人都逮捕起来。亲爱的，我不相信他们的高尚。一切都是做出来给人看的。”不过她说出来的却是另外的话。“多美啊！”她看到周围的迷人风景脱口说道。别的话她再也说不出来了。眼

    泪使她感到窒息，她大哭起来。

    听到她的哭声，车站站长，一个小老头，从屋里走出来。他小步跑到长凳跟前，很有礼貌地把手伸到红项制服帽的帽檐前，问道：

    “小姐，您要不要镇静剂？车站药箱里有。”

    “不要紧。谢谢。一会儿就过去了。”

    “旅途上心情不好，又受了惊吧。这是常有的事儿。还有天气热得像非洲，在我们这个纬度地带是罕见的。再加上尤里亚金发生的事。”

    “火车经过的时候，我们从车厢里看到了火灾。”

    “如果我没猜错的话，你们是从俄罗斯来的吧。”

    “从白石城来的。”

    “从莫斯科来的？那夫人神经不正常就一点也不奇怪了。听说莫斯科全被毁了？”

    “那是人们言过其实。不错，我们什么都见识过了。这是我女儿，这是女婿。这是他们的男孩子。这是我们年轻的保姆纽莎。”

    “您好，您好。非常高兴见到你们。我多少听说了。安菲姆·叶菲莫维奇·桑杰维亚托夫从萨克玛会车站打过电话来。他说日瓦戈医生带着家眷从莫斯科来，请多加关照。您大概就是日瓦戈医生本人了？”

    “不是我，日瓦龙医生是他，我的女婿，我在另一个部门，农业部门供职，我是农学家格罗梅科教授。”

    “对不起，认错人了。请原谅。非常高兴认识您。”

    “从您的话来看，您认识桑杰维亚托夫？”

    “怎么会不认识他这位魔法师呢。我们的思主和希望。没有

    他我们早蹬腿了。不错，他说要我多加关照。我说照办。答应他了。因此，如果你们需要马的话，或者需要别的什么东西的话，我愿效劳。你们打算到哪儿去？”

    “我们要到瓦雷金诺去。那儿离这儿不远吗？”

    “上瓦雷金诺？怪不得我怎么也猜不出您女儿像谁呢？可您上瓦雷金诺！一下子都明白了。这条路还是我们跟伊万·埃内斯托维奇一起修的呢。现在我去张罗一下，准备准备上路的东西。找个带路的人，弄辆大车。多纳特！多纳特！先把东西拿到乘客大厅的候车室里去，趁着办事的时候先在那儿歇会儿。弄得着马吗？伙计，到茶馆里跑一趟，问问能不能借匹马？仿佛早上瓦克赫还在那儿呢。问问他走了没有？告诉他把四个人拉到瓦雷金诺，什么行李都没有。快点儿。夫人，我给您一个老年人的忠告。我故意没向您打听你们同伊万·埃内斯托维奇的亲戚关系多么近，但在这件事情上您可要当心。不能对所有人都敞开胸怀。现在是什么时候，您自己想想吧。”

    一提到瓦克赫的名字，刚下车的旅客们惊讶地互相看了看。他们还记得去世的安娜·伊万诺夫娜讲过的打了一副打不破的铁内脏的神话般铁匠的故事，以及当地其他的荒诞不经的传说。

    替他们赶车的是一个长着一双招风耳、一头雪白的乱发的老头，拉车的是匹刚下了驹的化马。由于种种不同的原因，他身上所有的地方都是白的。新草鞋还没穿黑，而裤子和上衣由于穿的时间过久全都褪色变白了。

    马驹乌黑得跟黑夜一样，像只乌鸦似的在白扎马后面跑着，迈着骨头还没长硬的小腿；它的小脑袋上长着馨曲的鬃毛，就像雕花的玩具一样。

    大车经过坑洼的地方摇晃起来，坐在车边上的旅客连忙抓住车上的木柱，以免从车上滑下来。他们的心里是一片平静。他4fi的理想正在实现，越来越接近旅途的终点，晴朗美妙日子最后

    的几小时，黄昏前最迷人的时刻，迟迟不肯降临。

    马车一会儿穿过树林，一会儿经过林口的旷野。车轮撞着树

    根的时候，坐在车上的人便挤做一团，躬腰弯背，皱紧眉头，你紧

    靠着我，我紧贴着你。大车经过林间空地时，由于心灵的充实而

    产生了辽阔之感，仿佛有人替他们脱帽向周围致敬似的。旅客伸

    直了腰，坐得松快了些，甩了甩头。

    这一带是山地。山地总有自己的面貌，自己的模样。从远处

    望去，它们像一条条雄伟傲慢的影子，一声不响地注视着赶路的

    人。玫瑰色的余晖欣慰地伴随着旅客越过田野，慰藉着他们的灵

    魂，赋予他们以希望。

    一切都使他们高兴，一切都使他们惊奇，而最让他们高兴和

    惊奇的是这个古怪的赶车老头滔滔不绝的闲话。在他的话里，古

    俄罗斯语言的痕迹，须担语言的质层，地方语言的特征，同他自

    己发明的难懂的用语混杂在一起了。

    马驹一落到后面，牧马便停下来等它。它便不慌不忙地、一

    窜一蹦地跳过来。它那靠得很近的四条腿，迈着拙笨的步子，走

    到大车的旁边，把长脖子上的小脑袋伸进车辕里去，唱牧马的奶

    头。

    “我还是不明白。”安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜上牙碰着书

    牙，一个字一个字对丈夫喊道，担心意想不到的颠簸咬掉舌尖。

    “这个瓦克赫就是母亲讲过的那个瓦克赫吗？还记得那些胡说八

    道的事吗？他是个铁匠，有一次打架的时候肠子打断了，他又做

    了一条新的。一句话，铁匠瓦克赫有条铁肠子。我明白这完全是个故事。可难道这是他的故事吗？难道这就是他本人吗？”

    “当然不是。首先，正如你所说的，这是个故事，民间传说。其次，母亲说过，她听到的时候这个民间传说已有一百多年了。可你干吗大声说话？老头听见会不高兴的。”

    “没关系，他听不见，耳朵背。就是听见了也不会懂——他脑子有点傻。”

    “唉，费多尔·汉费德奇！”不知老头干吗用男性的名字和父称来唁喝牧马，他当然比乘客更知道它是杜马。“该死的热天！就像波斯炉子里烤着的阿拉伯子孙！快走啊，该死的畜生！我是对你说的，混蛋！”

    他突然唱起了从前这儿工厂里编的民间小调：

    再见吧，总账房，

    再见吧，隧道与矿场。

    老板的面包我吃腻了，

    池子里的水已经喝干。

    一只天鹅飞过岸边，

    身下划开一道水波。

    我身子摇晃不是因为美酒。

    而是要送万尼亚当兵吃粮。

    可我，玛莎，不是傻瓜，

    可我，玛莎，不会上当。

    我要上谢利亚巴城，

    给辛杰丘利哈当雇工。

    “哎，母马，上帝都忘啦！你们瞧，它这个死尸，它这个骗子！你抽它，可它给你停下。费加·汉费加，什么时候才能走到家？这座树林子，绰号就叫大莽林，一望无边。那里面藏着农民的队伍，晦，晦！‘林中兄弟’就在那边。哎，费加·汉费加，又停下啦，你这不要脸的死鬼。”

    他突然转过头来，眼睛紧盯着安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜说道：

    “年轻的太太，你真以为我不知道您是打哪儿来的吗？我看你，太太，脑子太简单啦。我要认不出来还不羞得钻进地缝里去。认出来啦！我简直不相信自己的眼睛，活脱脱是格里果夫（老头把克吕格尔说成格里果夫）。我没有见过格里果夫还是怎么着？我在他家干了一辈子，替他干过各种各样的活。打过矿坑柱，伐过木头，养过马。——我说，走啊！又停下啦，没长脚的东西！中国的天使啊，我跟你说呢，听不见还是怎么的？

    “你刚才说这个瓦克赫是不是那个铁匠？夫人，你长着那么大的眼睛怎么那么没脑筋呢！你说的那个瓦克赫姓波斯坦诺果夫，铁肠子波斯坦诺果夫，半个世纪前就入土了，进棺材了。我们姓梅霍宁。同名不同姓，木是一个人。”

    老头一点一点地用自己的话又把他们从桑杰维亚托夫那儿听到的有关米库利钦的事又说了一遍。他称他为米库利奇，称他妻子为米库利奇娜。他把管家的第二个老婆叫后老婆，而提到“第一个老婆，死了的那个”时，说她是个甜女人，白衣天使。他说起游击队的首领利韦里，知道他的大名还没有传到莫斯科，莫斯科没听说过“林中兄弟”，他觉得简直不可思议：

    “没听说过？没听说过列斯内赫同志？中国的天使啊，那莫斯科的人长耳朵干什么用呢？”

    天渐渐暗下来。旅客的影子变得越来越长，在他们前面跑着。他们还要穿过一片空旷的林中空地。木质的滨基、飞廉、柳兰的枝茎高高地挺立在路面上，上面开满了一个样式的穗子般的花。它们被落日的余晖从下面，从地面上照亮了，在虚幻中增大了轮廓，仿佛骑手们为了巡逻起见在原野上设置的间隔稀疏的不会动的哨兵。

    在很远的前方，道路的尽头，原野一直伸展到一道小山似的横坡脚下。横坡像一堵墙似的挡住了去路，仿佛那一边必然会有峡谷或溪流似的。那儿的天空就像被围墙围起来的城堡，而通向围墙大门的正是这条土道。

    上面，山坡陡峭的地方，浮现出一幢孤零零的白色平房。

    “看见山顶上的那座小楼吗？”瓦克赫问道，“那就是米库利奇和米库利奇娜住的地方。他们下面有一条峡谷，俗名叫舒契玛。”

    从那个方向传来两声枪响，一声接一声，四周引起一阵回响。

    “怎么回事？别是游击队吧，老爷爷？别是朝我们射击吧？”

    “基督保佑你们！哪儿来的游击队。斯捷潘内奇在山沟里放枪吓唬狼呢。”

    刚抵达的客人是在管家的院子里同主人见面的。这是一幅令人难堪的场面，先是沉默不语，后来吵成一团。

    叶连娜·普罗科洛夫娜傍晚刚从林中散步归来，走进院子。几乎同她的金发一样颜色的落日余晖，紧紧跟在她的身后，从这棵树射到那棵树，一直穿过整个的树林。叶连娜·普罗科洛夫娜穿着一身轻盈的夏装。她脸涨红了，用手绢擦着走得发热的脸。她裸露的脖子上套着一条松紧带，松紧带上的草帽背在背上。

    正背着枪往家走的丈夫向她迎过去。丈夫刚从峡谷里上来，打算马上擦烟熏过的枪筒，因为退子弹的时候发现了毛病。

    突然间，瓦克赫和他载着不速之客的大车不知道从哪儿威风凛凛地、轰隆轰隆地滚进了大门口的石板地。

    亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇飞快地从还坐着其他人的大车上跳下来，一会地摘下帽子，一会儿又戴上帽子，先结结巴巴地解释来意。

    不知所措的主人们惊呆了，不是装出来的，而是真正惊呆了，半晌说不出话来。而羞红了脸的倒霉的客人们一个个张皇失惜，也不是虚假的，而是真诚的。情况再明白不过了，不仅对当事人，就连瓦克赫、纽莎和舒罗奇卡也没有一丝一毫含混的地方。难堪的感觉也传染给了此马、马驹、金色的阳光和那些围着叶连娜·普罗科洛夫娜转的、不时落在她脸上和脖子上的蚊子了。

    “我不明白，”到底还是阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇打破了沉默，“我不明白，一点都不明白，而且永远也不会明白。我们南方，白军占领地区，是粮食丰裕的省份，为什么单单选择我们这儿，何苦到我们这儿来呢？”

    “真有意思，您想过没有，阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇要承担多大的责任啊？”

    “列诺奇卡，你别插嘴。说得不错，正是这样。她说得完全对。您想过没有，这对我该是多大的负担啊？”

    “您怎么能这么说呢。您没有理解我们的来意。这说的是什么事呀？不值得一提的小事。我们决不会侵害你们，打搅你们。我们只要倒塌的空房子里的一个角落。要菜园旁边谁也不要的、白白荒芜的一小块土地。别人看不见的时候，再从树林子里拉一车劈柴。难道这样的要求过高吗？算得上侵害吗？”

    “可是世界如此之大，干吗非找我不可？为什么偏偏是我们，而不是别人，能有这种荣幸？”

    “我们知道你们，也希望你们听说过我们。我们对你们不是外人，所以我们投靠的也不是外人。”

    “懊，原来因为克吕格尔，因为你们是他亲戚？您的舌头现在怎么转得过弯来承认这种事？”

    阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇生得五官端正，头发向后梳看，走道迈大步子，夏天穿着一件斜领衬衫，腰里系着一条带穗的带子。古时候这种人走起路来就像水上强盗，现在他们老是做出一副幻想当教师的大学生的样子。

    阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇把自己的青春献给了解放运动，献给了革命，只担心他活不到革命到来的那一天，或者革命爆发得太温和，不能满足他激进的、渴望流血的热望。如今革命来到了，把他最大胆的设想都翻了个儿，而他，天生的和始终不渝的工人阶级的热爱者，第一批在“勇士”工厂建立工厂委员会并设立工人监督的人，却什么都没捞到，没有谋到职位，呆在一个荒芜的村子里。工人们从这个村子里逃散，一部分还跟着孟什维克走了。而现在这件荒唐事，这些不清自来的克吕格尔的不肖子孙，不啻命运对他的嘲弄。它是有意的恶作剧，使他再也无法忍受了。

    “不，这太莫名其妙了，根本无法理解。您是否明白，您对我是何等危险，您使我陷于什么处境？看来我真疯了。我不明白，什么也不明白，而且永远也不会明白。”

    “真有意思，您明白不明白，你们不来，我们就已经坐在火山口上了？”

    “别急，列诺奇卡。我内人说得完全对。你们不来，我们就已经很不好过了。真是狗的生活，疯人院。两边挨打，没有出路。一边责备我，你儿子干吗当红军，当布尔什维克，成了人民爱戴的人。另一边也不满意，为什么把你选进立宪会议。两边都讨不了好，只好在中间挣扎。现在你们又来了。为了你们，被拉出去枪毙才愉快呢。”

    “得了！您冷静点！上帝保佑您！”

    过了一会儿，米库利钦的气消了点，说道：

    “好啦，在院子里喊够了就行啦。进屋继续喊吧。不过，我看不出有什么好结果，掉进墨水缸里洗也洗不清，然而我们不是土耳其大兵，不是异教徒，不会把你们赶到树林子里喂狗熊。列诺奇卡，最好先把他们安顿在书房旁边那间放猎枪的屋子里。然后咱们再想想让他们住在哪儿。我想，可以让他们住在花园里。请进屋里去。欢迎光临。瓦克赫，把行李搬进来，帮帮他们的忙。”

    瓦克赫照他的吩咐办了，只是不断叹气：

    “圣母啊！他们的财产跟朝圣的人一样。只有几个小包裹，一口箱子也没有。”

    清凉的夜晚来临了。客人们洗过了澡。女人们在她们住的房间里整理床铺。舒罗奇卡不知不觉地习惯了用他儿童式的格言引起大人们的哄笑，所以平时为了迎合他们的口味，一胡说八道起来就没完，可今天他很扫兴。他的胡说八道没有引起大人们发笑，没有人理睬他。他对没把黑马驹李进家里来也不满意，当大人呵斥他住嘴的时候，竟大哭起来，害怕把他当作一个不合格的坏孩子送回婴儿商店。在他的观念中，他一出世便从那儿送到父母的家里来了。他把内心中真诚的恐怖说给周围的人听，但他这些可爱的荒唐话并没有产生通常的效果。大人们在别人家里显得拘束，动作比平时急促，不声不响地想自己的心思，于是舒罗奇卡生气了，像保姆们常说的那样，发蔫了。大人们照顾他吃了饭，好不容易才哄他睡下。后来他睡着了。米库利钦家的女仆乌斯季妮姐把纽拉带到自己屋里用晚饭，并向她诉说这一家的秘密。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜和男人们被请去喝晚茶。

    亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇和尤里·安德烈耶维奇请求允许他们离开一会儿，到台阶上呼吸呼吸新鲜空气。

    “多少星星啊！”亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇说。

    外面很黑。岳父和女婿相隔两步，彼此却看不见。窗内的一道灯光从他们背后住宅的一个角落里射入峡谷。在这道光柱中，沐浴在潮湿清凉空气中的树丛、树木以及其他一切看不清的东西，变得膜增俄俄。亮光没照着谈话的人，更加深了他们周围的黑暗。

    “明天早上得看看他们打算让我们住的地方，如果能住人，我们就马上动手修理。等我们把住的地方整理好了，他也解冻了。那时，我们就要不失时机地翻畦了。我听见他在谈话中好像答应给我们点马铃薯种。是不是我听错了？”

    “他答应了，答应了。还有别的种子。我亲耳听见的。他让我们住的地方，咱们穿过花园的时候我看见了。您知道在什么地方吗？正房后面被尊麻遮住的那几间房子。木头造的，可正房是石头盖的。我在大车上还指给您看来着，记得吗？那儿开畦才好呢。那里曾经是花圃。我从远处觉得是那样。也许我看错了。还得修一条小路，旧花坛的土地一定上足了肥，腐殖质非常丰富。”

    “我不知道，明天看看再说。地上准长满了杂草，像石头一样硬。房子周围大概有个菜园。也许那块地方保留下来了，空闲着。明天就全清楚了。早上还会有霜冻。夜里一定有寒气。我们已经抵达了，多大的福气啊。为此我们应该互相祝贺。这儿不错。我喜欢这儿。”

    “这儿的人非常可爱。特别是他。她有点装腔作势。她对自己有什么地方不满意，她不喜欢自己身上的什么东西。所以，她要噪噪不休地说那些过于殷勤的废话。她好像急于把你的注意力从她的外表上引开，免得产生不利于她的印象。就连她忘记摘掉帽子，把它背在背后，也不是出于粗心大意。这样对她很相称。”

    “咱们进屋吧。咱们在这儿呆的工夫太长，主人会见怪的。”

    主人们和安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜正在灯火明亮的餐厅里，坐在吊灯下的圆桌旁喝茶。岳父和女婿到他们那儿去的时候，穿过管家漆黑的书房。

    书房的墙上有一扇同墙一样宽的窗户，是用一整块玻璃镶成的，正好耸立在一道峡谷的上边。从这扇窗口可以鸟瞰远方峡谷外的平原。瓦克赫拉着他们从这里经过的时候，天还没有黑，医生就注意到这个窗口了。窗前摆着一张同墙一样宽的桌子，不是供设计师就是供绘图员使用的。桌上横放着一支枪，枪的左右两边空着很大的一块地方，足以显得桌子之宽了。

    现在，尤里·安德烈耶维奇经过书房的时候，又注意到视野开阔的窗户，桌子的宽大和它的位置，陈设华丽的房间的宽阔。当他和亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇走到饭厅茶桌跟前的时候，他首先向主人表示惊叹的是：

    “你们这儿太好了。您有一个能促使人劳动、激励人工作的多么好的书房啊。”

    “您愿意用玻璃杯还是茶杯？喜欢淡点还是浓点？”

    “尤罗奇卡，你瞧阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇的儿子小时候做的立体镜多好啊。”

    “他到现在也没长大，还没成熟，尽管他为了苏维埃政权从科木奇手里夺回了一个又一个地区。”

    “您说什么？”

    “科木奇。”

    “什么是科木奇？”

    “这是为了恢复立宪会议权力而作战的西伯利亚政府的军队。”

    “我们整天不停地听到对令郎的夸奖。也许您真能以他为骄傲。”

    “这些是乌拉尔的风景照片，是双重的，立体的，也是他的作品，是他用自制的镜头拍摄的。”

    “小饼里摘了糖精吧？饼干真出色。”

    “嗅，哪儿是啊。这么偏僻的地方，哪儿来的糖精？纯粹的白糖。我刚才还从糖罐里给您往茶里加了糖呢。您难道没看见？”

    “对了，真没看见。我欣赏相片来着。菜好像是真的？”

    “花茶，自然是真的了。”

    “从哪儿弄来的？”

    “有那么一种魔术台布，一铺上它就什么都有了。一个熟人，当代活动家，信仰非常左，是个省经委会的正式代表。从我们这儿往城里运木头，靠这点交情送给我们米、黄油和面粉。西韦尔卡（她这样叫阿韦尔基），西韦尔卡，把糖罐推到我跟前来。现在请回答我一个问题：格里鲍耶阳夫是哪一年逝世的？”

    “他好像生于一七九五年，但哪一年初被打死的就记不清了。”

    “再来点茶？”

    “谢谢，不要了。”

    “现在有这么个问题。告诉我，奈梅亨和约是哪一年和在哪几个国家之间签订的？”

    “得啦，列诺奇卡，别折磨人啦。让他们消除消除旅途疲劳吧。”

    “现在我想知道放大镜一共有多少种，影像在什么情况下是真实的和变形的，又在什么情况下是正的和倒的？”

    “您哪儿来的这么多的物理学知识？”

    “尤里亚金有位杰出的数学家。他在两所中学——男校和我们那儿上课。他讲得多好啊，多好啊！像上帝一样！有时候都嚼烂了才放进你嘴里。他姓安季波夫。同这儿的一位女教师结婚了。女孩子们都为他着了迷，全爱上他了。他自愿上了前线，从此就没回来，被打死了。有人说仿佛上帝的鞭子，上天的惩罚，这里的斯特列利尼科夫委员就是复活了的安季波夫。当然是神话了。不像真事。可是谁又说得准呢？什么事情都可能发生。再来一杯吧。”

    瓦雷金诺

    到了冬天，尤里·安得烈耶维奇的时间多了，他开始记各种类型的札记。他在札记本上写道：

    多么美的夏天，夏天多美丽！

    这简直是魔术般的神奇。

    我问你，它为什么令我们念念不忘，

    这样地没有原因？

    从清晨到黄昏，为自己和全家工作，盖屋顶，为了养活

    他们去耕种土地，像鲁滨逊一样，模仿创造宇宙的上帝，跟

    随着生养自己的母亲，使自己一次又一次地得到新生，创造

    自己的世界。

    当你的双手忙于使肌肉发胀的体力活儿的时候，当你

    给自己规定将报以欢乐和成功、体力适度的任务的时候，当

    你在开阔的天空下，呼吸着灼热的空气，一连六小时用斧子

    钦木头或用铁锹挖土地的时候，多少念头闪过你的脑海，在

    你的心里又诞生多少新鲜的想法！而这些思绪、揣测、类比，

    没记在纸上，转眼就忘了，但这不是损失，而是收获。用黑色的浓咖啡和烟草刺激衰弱的神经和想像力的城市中的隐士，你不会知道最强大的麻醉剂存在于真正的需要里，存在于强健的体魄中。

    我不会超过我所讲过的东西，我不想宣扬论尔斯泰的平民化和返朴归真的思想，我也不想在农业问题上修正社会主义。我只想弄清楚事实，而不是把我偶然的命运视为常规。我们的例子是有争议的，不宜由此而作出结论。我们的经济属于另一类型的组合。只有蔬菜和土豆，我们经济中的一小部分——是我们自己生产的。其余的一切都有其他的来源。

    我们使用土地是不合法的。我们违背国家政权制定的核算，擅自使用土地。我们到林中砍伐木材，更是不可原谅的盗窃行为，因为我们是盗窃国家的——先前是克吕格尔的财产。米库利钦纵容并庇护了我们，他们过着差不多同样方式的生活。远离城市的地理位置救了我们，幸运得很，城里对于我们干的勾当暂时还一无所知。

    我放弃了行医，对我是医生这件事讳莫如深，因为不想限制自己的自由。可总会有那么一位住在老远地方的善良的人，打听出瓦雷金话来了一位医生，便赶上三十来里路，到这儿来找我看病。这个带着母鸡，那个带着鸡蛋，第三个带着黄油或者别的东西。我不管怎么对他们说不收报酬，可仍然无法拒绝他们的东西，因为他们不相信看病不要报酬。这样，行医也有些收入，但我们和米库利钦一家的主要支柱还是桑杰维亚托夫。

    我简直猜不透，这个人身上包含着多少相互矛盾的东西。他真心拥护革命，并且完全没辜负尤里亚金市苏维埃对他的依赖。他凭借手中强大的权力，可以轻而易举地征用瓦雷金诺的木材，把它们运走，甚至用不着对我们和米库利钦家说一声，而我们也一点奈何他不得。另一方面，要是他乐意盗窃国家资财，他可以不费吹灰之力把D袋装满，也不会有人出来吭一声。没有人可以同他分肥，他也用不着向任何人送人情。那又是什么促使他照顾我们，帮助米库利钦一家，支援区里所有的人，比如，托尔法纳亚车站的站长呢？他整天东奔西跑，老给我们送点什么东西来；他谈论起陀思妥耶夫斯基的《群魔》和《共产党宣言》来同样津津有味，而且我觉得，如果他不把生活毫无必要地弄得如此复杂和失调，他准会活活闷死。几天之后医生又写道：

    我们搬进老宅子后面那两间木头房子里。这两间房子在安娜·伊万诺夫娜小的时候是克吕格尔指派给特殊用人——家庭裁缝、女管家和已经干不了活的保姆住的。

    这个角落已经破旧不堪了。我们很快就把它修理好了。我们在行家的帮助下改修好了连着两间屋子的炉子。现在，改修过的烟道，散发出的热气更多一些。

    在曾经是花园的地方，先前地面上的痕迹已经淹没在到处生长着的新植物下面了。现在是冬天，周围的一切都已死亡，活的东西再也遮掩不住死的东西，被雪掩埋住的过去的面貌，便较为清晰地显露出来。

    我们的运气还算不错。今年秋天干燥、暖和。我们来得及在雨季和严寒到来之前把土豆挖出来。除了还清米库利钦的之外，我们还收获了二十袋土豆。所有的土豆都收藏在地窖中最大的粮囤里。上面，地面上，盖了一层干草和几条破被子。东尼任脆的两桶黄瓜也放进地窖里，还有两桶她渍的酸白菜。新鲜的卷。心菜一对对地系在一起挂在房梁上。准备过冬的胡萝卜埋在干沙子里。沙子里还埋着收获得相当多的萝卜甜菜、芜青，而阁楼上还堆放着不少豌豆和青豆。草棚里存放的柴火够烧到明年春天。我喜欢在清晨时分或冬日黄昏，手里举着一盏微弱得马上就要熄灭的灯，去揭开地窖的小门。门刚一打开，一股根茎、泥土和雪的温暖气息便扑面而来。

    当你走出草棚的时候天尚未破晓。门吱地响了一声，你不由得打个喷嚏，或者不过是雪在脚下发出的咯吱声，而从远处菜畦里，从竖立在积雪上面的白菜茎下，突然跳出几只野兔，急忙向四外逃窜，在周围的雪地上留下纵横交错的宽大的足迹。附近的拘一条接一条叫起来，狂叫了好半天。最后的几只公鸡刚才已经啼过，现在不啼了。天已微微发白。

    除了野兔的足迹外，在一望无际的覆盖着白雪的平原上，还有山猫穿过的足迹，一个坑接着一个坑，像一条条穿起来的线，印在雪地上。山猫走路跟猫一样，脚掌一个接着一个，并且像人们所说的那样，一夜能走好几俄里。

    人们为了捕捉山猫挖掘了陷附，这儿管陷阱叫捕兽坑。可是掉进去的不是山猫而是灰兔，等到把它们从陷阶里取出来的时候，都冻得硬邦邦，快让雪埋住了。

    刚来的时候，春天和夏天是很艰难的。我们累得一点劲儿也没有了。现在，冬天晚上，我们就可以休息了。还得感谢供给我煤油的安菲姆，使我什1能够围着煤油灯坐在一起。女人们缝纫或者编织，我同亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇出声地读书。生着了炉子，我作为一个公认的管炉子的好手，负责看管炉子。我要及时关上风门，以免放走热气。要是有块没烧透的木头压住火，我就把它取出来，夹起这块冒着烟的木块跑出屋门，朝雪地里使劲往外一扔。它像一个火星迸射的火炬从空中飞过，照亮了沉睡的黑糊糊的花园以及银白色的四角形的草地。木块发出吱吱的声音，落进雪堆里，熄灭了。

    我们一遍遍地阅读《战争与和平人《叶南根尼·奥涅金》和其他史诗，我们阅读斯汤达尔的《红与黑》和狄更斯的《双城记》的俄译本，还有克莱斯诗的短篇小说。春天临近的时候医生写道：

    我觉得东尼娘怀孕了。我把我的想法告诉了她。她不相信我的话，可我对此毫不怀疑。在不容置疑的症候出现之前，不易察觉的先期征兆是骗不了我的。

    女人的脸发生了变化。不能说她变得难看了。但先前完全置于她控制之下的外表，现在脱离了她的监督。她受到她所孕育的未来的支配，而她已经不再是她本人了。这种摆脱她的控制的女人外表便具有一种生理上恫然若失的形态。处在这种形态中，她的脸失去了光泽，皮肤变得粗糙，眼晴并不像她所希望的那样放出异样的光彩；仿佛她管不了这一切，只好听其自然了。

    我同东尼妞从未疏远过。而这辛劳的一年使我们更加亲密了。我注意到她是何等麻利、强健和耐劳，又多么会安排活计呀，在两种活计交替的时候她尽量不浪费时间。

    我总觉得，每次受孕都是贞洁的，在这条与圣母有关的教义中，表达出母性的共同观念。

    但是每个女人生产的时候，都会产生孤独、被遗弃和只剩下自己独自一人的感觉。在这紧要关头，男人如此无用，仿佛他从未有过，一切都是从天而降似的。

    女人自己繁殖后代，自己退居到生存的次要地位，那儿比较安静，可以平安地放一只摇篮。她独自一人在默默的谦卑中哺育孩子，把他抚养大。

    人们乞求圣母：“为儿子和你的上帝用心祈祷。”人们向她的口中注入了圣诗的篇章：“我。心尊主为大，我录以上帝我的救主为乐。因为他顾念他的使女的卑微，从今以后，万代称我有福。”她这是说她的婴儿，他将使她变得伟大（“那有权能的为我成就大事”），他是她的荣耀。每个女人都能这样说。她的上帝就在孩子身上。伟人的母亲们一定熟悉这种感觉。不过，所有的母亲无一例外地都是伟人的母亲——以后生活欺骗了她们并不是她们的过错。

    我们一遍又一遍地阅读《叶甫根尼·奥涅金｝）和其他史诗。安菲姆昨天来了，带来不少礼物。我们大饱口福，点亮了煤油灯，没完没了地谈艺术。

    我早就有过这样的看法，艺术不是范畴的称谓，也不是包罗无数概念以及由此派生出的各种现象的领域的称谓，恰恰相反，它是狭窄而集中的东西。作为构成艺术作品原则的标志，它是作品中所运用的力量或者详尽分析过的真理的称谓。我从来不把艺术看作形式的对象或它的一个方面，而宁愿把它看成隐匿在内容中的神秘部分。这对我就像白天一样明确，我全身都感到这一点，可是怎样表达和形成这种观点呢？

    作品能以各种方式说话。题材啦、论点啦，情节啦，人物啦。但它们主要是以存在于其中的艺术说话。存在于《罪与罚》书页上的艺术，比拉斯科利尼科夫的罪行更能震撼人J心。

    原始艺术，埃及艺术，希腊艺术，还有我们的艺术，这大约在几千年之间仍是同一个艺术，唯一存在的艺术。这是某种思想，对生活的某种确认，一种由于无所不包而难以划分为个别词句的见解。如果这种见解有哪怕一丁点儿掺入某种更为复杂的混合作，艺术的成分便会压倒其余部分的意义，成为被描写对象的本质、灵魂和基础。

    轻微感冒，咳嗽，大概还有低烧。喉头那儿整天憋气，嗓子里堵着一块东西。我的情况糟糕了。这是大动脉在作怪。从我可怜的妈妈那儿遗传来的最初征兆，她一生都患有心脏病。难道这是真的吗？这么早？这么说，我将不久于人世了。

    屋里有一股轻微的木炭味，还有熨衣服的味道。她们在熨东西，不时从烧得不旺的炉子里取出一块散发出热气的燃烧着的木炭，放入盖子像牙齿似的上下打战的烤熨斗里。这使我想起了什么？记不起来了。身体不好，太健忘啦。

    为了庆祝安菲姆给我们带来上等的肥皂，我们来了个大扫除，舒罗奇卡也两天无人看管，我写日记的时候，他钻到桌子底下，坐在两条桌腿之间的横档上，模仿每次来时都带他坐雪橇的安菲姆，也装着带我坐雪橇。

    等病好了一定到城里去一趟，读一读本地区民族志和历史方面的著作。别人都对我说，这里有几个相当不坏的图书馆，接受过好几个人的重要捐赠。真想写东西。得抓紧啦。要不，一晃眼春天就到了。到那时候就没工夫读书和写东西了。

    头疼得越来越厉害。睡不好觉。我做了一个杂乱的梦，那种一醒马上就忘的梦。梦忘得干干净净，意识里只留下惊醒的原因。一个女人的声音把我惊醒，我在梦中听到空中响彻她的声音。我记住了这个声音，在记忆中复现它，挨个儿回想我所熟悉的女人，想找出具有这种浑厚、低沉和圆润嗓音的人。她们当中谁也没有这种嗓音。我想，也许我对东尼妞太习惯了，所以我的听觉对她迟钝了。我设法忘记她是我的妻子，把她的形象置于足以阐明真理的距离之内。不，这也不是她的声音。到底是怎么回事，直到现在也解释不清。

    顺便说到做梦。通常都认为，白天什么给你印象最深，夜里就会梦见什么。可是，我的观察恰恰相反。

    我不止一次注意到，正是白天恍惚看到的东西，不明确的思想，脱口而出而又不引人注意的话，夜间便化为具体的

    形象返回脑子里来，变成梦的主题，仿佛特意前来偿还白天对它们的怠慢似的。

    晴朗的寒夜。有形的东西显得特别真切和完整。大地、

    空气、月亮和星星都凝聚在一起，被严寒冻结在一起了。树

    影横投在林阴道上，现出清晰的黑印，仿佛雕成了凸形。总

    觉得各处老有黑影从小路上掠过。大星星挂在林中枝叶当

    中，宛如一盏盏蓝色的云母灯笼。小的则有如点缀着夏天草

    地的野菊，缀满整个天空。

    每天晚上继续谈论普希金。分析第一卷中皇村中学时

    代的诗。诗的韵律多么重要啊！

    在充满长诗句的诗歌中，阿尔扎玛斯是少年虚荣。心

    的顶点，想不落在成人后面，用神话故事、夸张的描写、故意

    装出的道德败坏、纵情欢乐和思维过早成熟来蒙骗叔叔。

    几乎从模仿奥西扬或帕尔尼起，或者从《皇村回

    忆》起，年轻人忽然找到像树。城》或《致姐妹臧晚期在基什

    尼奥夫写的《献给我的墨水瓶》中的短诗句，以及《致尤金》

    中的韵律，未来的普希金在少年身上苏醒了。

    阳光和空气、生活的喧嚣、物品和本质冲进诗歌之中，仿佛从大街上穿过窗户冲进屋里。外部世界的物体、日常生活的用品和名词挤压着占据了诗行，把语言中语意含混的部分挤了出去。物体，物体，物体在诗的边缘排成押韵的行列。

    后来变得十分著名的普希金四步韵脚，仿佛成了俄国生活的测量单位和它的标尺，似乎四步韵脚是从整个俄罗斯的存在上剥制下来的，就像画出脚样裁制皮靴的皮子，报出手套尺码寻找戴得合适的手。

    稍后，俄语的节奏，俄国人说话的腔调，也表现在涅克拉索夫的三步韵脚诗歌里和涅克拉索夫扬抑格的韵律中。

    我多想在履行职务的同时，即农业劳动或行医的同时，酝酿具有永恒价值的东西，写一部科学著作或艺术作品啊。

    每个人生来都同浮士德一样，渴望拥抱一切、感受一切和表达一切。前人和今人的错误促使浮士德成为学者。科学遵循摒弃的法则进展，推翻占统治地位的谬误和虚假的理论。

    大师们富有感染力的榜样促使浮士德成为艺术家。艺术遵循吸引的法则进展，模仿和崇拜心爱的主题。

    什么东西妨碍我任职、行医和写作呢？我想并非穷困和流浪，并非生活的不稳定和变化无常，而是到处盛行的说空话和大话的风气，诸如这类的话：未来的黎明，建立新世界，人类的火炬。刚听到这些话时，你会觉得想像力多么开阔和丰富！可实际上却是由于缺乏才能而卖弄词藻。

    只有触及过天才之手的平凡事物才是神奇的。在这方面，普希金是最好的例子。他是如何赞美诚实的劳动、职责和日常生活习俗呀！可是今天在我们这儿，‘小市民’和‘居民’都带有责备的意味。《家谱》中的诗行已经预言过这种指责了：

    我是小市民，我是小市民。在《奥涅金的旅行》中又写道：

    壬。今我的理想是家庭主妇，

    我的愿望是平静的生活，

    还有一大沙锅汤。

    在所有俄国人的气质中，我最喜欢普希金和契河天的天真无邪，他们对诸如人类的最终目标和自身拯救这类高调羞涩地不予过问。他们对这类话照样能理解：但他们哪儿能那么不谦虚——没有那种兴致，况且也不属于那种官阶！果戈理、托尔斯泰、陀思妥耶夫斯基做好死的准备，他们劳心烦神，寻找人生的真谛，得出种种结论，然而他什1都被艺术家天职所留意的生活细节吸引开了。就在这些细节更迭的时候，生命仿佛同任何人无关的个人细节已经悄悄到了尽头，而现在这种细节变成公共事业，就像从树上摘下的青涩苹果，自己在后代人手中成熟，并且越来越甜，越来越有意义。

    春天的最初信息是解冻。就像过谢肉节似的，空气中充

    满了薄油饼和伏特加酒味。太阳在树林里无精打采地眯缝

    着油光光的小眼睛，睡意蒙咙的树林半闭着睫毛似的松针，

    水洼在中午泛着油腻腻的光。大自然在打瞌睡，伸懒腰，翻

    了一个身又睡着了。

    《叶甫根尼·奥涅金》的第七章里——春天，奥涅金走

    后荒芜的邱宅，山麓的水边连斯基的坟墓。

    而夜芬，那春天的恋人，

    彻底啼略。野玫瑰正在开放。

    为什么要用“恋人”这个词？一般说这个修饰语是自然

    而恰当的。自然是恋人。此外，也能和野玫瑰押韵。但为

    了押韵，就不能用壮士歌中的“夜费强盗”了吗？

    在壮士歌中奥狄赫曼的儿子就叫“夜营强盗”。歌中把”

    他刻画得多生动啊！

    一听到夜芬的口哨，

    一听到他野兽般的呼啸，

    小草挤在一起，

    蓝色的花朵纷纷坠落，

    昏暗的树林垂向地面，

    至于百姓们啊，都纷纷倒毙。

    我们是初春来到瓦雷金诺的。不久草木便被上了绿装，特别是米库利钦房子后面的那条叫作舒契场的山谷，野樱、赤杨、胡桃更是一片碧绿。几夜之后夜驾开始歌唱。

    我仿佛头一次听到夜写的歌唱，我再一次惊奇地感到，夜营的啼畴同其他的鸟鸣何等不同啊！它不是渐渐提高，而是突然拔起，大自然使它的啼嫩达到如此丰润和独特的地步。每个音有多少变化，又多么喷亮而有力呀！屠格涅夫不知在什么地方描写过这种宛如魔笛的啼畴。在两个地方旋转得特别悦耳。一处不厌其烦地重复华丽的“巧克”，有时一连三次，有时不计其数，唱得披着露水的草木抖掉身上的露珠，更加精神抖擞，仿佛被搔着痒处，笑并且颤抖起来。另一处啼声化为两个音节，像召唤，像饱含真情，像请求或规劝：“醒来！醒来！醒来！”

    春天到了。我们准备播种。没空写日记了。写这些札记真是件愉快的事。现在只好搁笔，待来年冬天再说了。

    这两天——这一回正好是谢肉节——一位生病的农夫，坐着雪橇穿过泥泞的道路，来到我们的院子里。我当然拒绝替他治病。“请别见怪，亲爱的，我已不行医了——没有真正的药品，没有必要的器械。”可是哪能摆脱得了。“救救我吧。身上的皮越来越少。发发慈悲吧。身体上的病。”

    有什么办法？我不是铁石心肠的人，只得替他看病。“脱下衣服。”我检查了一下。“你得的是狼疮。”我替他看病的时候，斜眼看了一下窗户，看见窗台上放着一瓶石炭酸（公正的上帝啊，不用问石炭酸还有其他必不可少的东西是从哪儿来的！所有这一切都是桑杰维亚托夫拿来的）。我住院子里一看，又停了一辆雪橇，最初我还以为又来了个病人呢。叶夫格拉夫弟弟仿佛从天而降。全家人，东尼妞、舒罗奇卡、亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇，都忙着招待他。等我完了事，也加入他们一伙之中。我们七嘴八舌地问他：怎么来的？从哪儿来的？他像往常那样支支吾吾，闪烁其词，没有说一句正面回答的话，只管微笑，说大家对他来感到奇怪吧，这是一个谜啊。

    他住了将近两个礼拜，经常到尤里亚金去，后来又突然消失，仿佛钻进地底下去了。在这期间，我发现他比桑杰维亚托夫更有影响力，他办的事和他的交往更无法解释。他从哪儿来？他哪儿来的那么大的势力？他在干什么？他在消失之前答应减轻我们的家务劳动，好让东尼妞有时间教育舒拉，我有时间行医和从事文学事业。我们问他怎样才能做到他所允诺的事，他又笑而不答。但他并没骗我们。出现了真正改变我们生活条件的征兆。

    真是怪事。他是我的异母兄弟，和我姓一个姓。可是说实在的，我比谁都不了解他。

    这是他第二次以保护者和帮我解决困难的救世主的身份闯入我的生活。说不定，在每个人的一生中，除了他所遇到的真实的人物，还会有一种看不见的神秘力量，一位不请自至的宛如象征的援救人物。莫非在我生活中触动这根神

    秘的行善弹簧的人就是我弟弟叶夫格拉夫？

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇的札记就写到这里。他没再写下去。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇在尤里亚金市图书馆阅览室里翻阅订购的书籍。能容纳一百人的阅览室里有许多窗户，摆了几排桌子，窄的那面靠着窗户。天一黑，阅览室就关门了。春季城里晚上不点灯。可尤里·安德烈耶维奇从未坐到过黄昏，在城里也从未耽搁过午饭的时间。他把米库利钦借给他的马挂在桑杰维亚托夫的旅店里，读一上午书，中午骑马回瓦雷金带。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇上图书馆之前，很少到尤里亚金去。他在城里没有一点私事。医生很不熟悉它。可是当他看着阅览室大厅里渐渐坐满了人，有的坐得离他远一点，有的就坐在他旁边时，他仿佛觉得自己站在行人往来的交叉路口上观察城市，而汇集到阅览室里的不是到这儿来的尤里亚金居民，而是他们居住的房屋和街道。

    然而从阅览室的窗口能够看到真正的、不是虚构的尤里亚金人。靠着最大的窗户那儿有一桶开水。阅览室里的人休息的时候就到楼梯上抽烟，围着大桶喝水，喝剩的水倒在洗杯盆里，挤在窗口欣赏城市的景色。

    看书的人分为两类：当地的知识分子老住户——他们占大多数——和普通的人。

    第一类人当中的大多数都穿得很破旧，不再注意自己的仪表，很遍遍。他们身体不好，拉长了脸，由于各式各样的原因——饥饿、黄疽病、水肿病——而肉皮搭拉着。这些人是阅览室的常客，认识图书馆里的职员，在这儿如同在家里一样自在。

    来自普通人的阅读者，个个面色健康红润，穿着干净的过节服装。他们就像上教堂似的腼腆地走进大厅，但是弄出的声音却违犯了阅览室的规则。这不是因为他们不懂得规则，而是因为他们想一点声不出，可没有管好自己健壮的脚步和说话的声音。

    窗户对面的墙上有个凹处，在这个用高台子同大厅隔开的壁龛似的凹处里，阅览室的职员，老管理员和他的两名女助手，在办自己的事。一位助手满脸怒气，披着一件羊毛披巾，不停地把夹鼻眼镜摘下来又戴上，显然不是由于视力的需要，而是由于情绪的变化。另一位穿着黑丝上衣，大概胸口疼，因为手绢几乎没离开过鼻子和嘴，说话和呼吸都对着手绢。

    图书馆职员的脸也像大多数到阅览室来的人一样，同样浮肿，同样拉长了脸，松弛的皮肤同样搭拉下来，脸色灰中带绿，如同胞黄瓜或灰尘的颜色一样。他们三人轮流做同样的事，那就是低声向新来的阅读者解释借书规则，讲解各种标签的用途，借书或还书，还利用其中的空闲编写年度总结。

    怪事，面对窗外真实的城市和大厅里想象出来的城市，甚至从大家普遍的浮肿所引起的某种相似，他仿佛觉得所有人都患了扁桃腺炎。尤里·安德烈耶维奇想起那天早上他们抵达时尤里亚金铁轨上的那个郁郁不乐的女扳道员，想起从远处看到的城市远景，想起坐在他身旁车厢地板上的桑杰维亚托夫，以及他所说的那番话。尤里·安德烈耶维奇想把远在这一地区之外听到的话，同他到达这一地区之后所看到的联系起来。但他没记住桑杰维亚托夫告诉他的标志，所以他什么道理也没悟出来。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇坐在阅览室的尽头，身旁堆满书。他面前放着几份当地地方自治会的统计簿和几本人文志。他还想借两本有关普加乔夫暴动史的著作，但穿丝上衣的女图书管理员用手绢紧压着嘴唇低声对他说，一个人一次不能借这么多书，他要想借他感兴趣的著作，先得还一部分手册和杂志。

    于是，尤里·安德烈耶维奇急忙翻阅那一大堆尚未打开的书，从中拣出最必要的，把其他的书还掉，再去借他所感兴趣的历史著作。他聚精会神，目不旁视，飞快地翻阅各种集子，眼睛只瞟一下书目。阅读室里的人很多，但他们并不妨碍他，没分散他的注意力。邻座的人他早研究透了，他不抬眼睛便知道他们坐在自己的左边或右边，并能感觉到，他们的位置在他离开前不会改变，就像窗外的教堂和城里的建筑物不会挪动一样。

    然而太阳并没停止不动。它一直在移动，这时候已绕过图书馆东边的墙角，现在正照着南墙上的窗户，晃得离窗户最近的人睁不开眼，得难阅读。

    患伤风的女管理员从围起来的高台上走下来，走到窗户前。窗户上装着能使光线变得柔和的用白料子做的带把的窗帘。她放下所有的窗帘，只留下阅览室尽头最暗的那扇窗户。她拉了一下线绳，把活动气窗拉开咱己不停地打喷嚏。

    当她打了十个或十二个喷嚏之后，尤里·安德烈耶维奇便猜到，她是米库利钦的小姨，即桑杰维亚托夫所提到过的通采夫家的四姐妹之一。尤里·安德烈耶维奇随着别的阅读的人抬起头朝她那方向看了看。

    于是，他发现阅览室里发生了变化。对面的那一端增加了一个女读者。尤里·安德烈耶维奇立刻认出她是安季波娃。她转过身子，背对前面的桌子坐下。医生就坐在其中的一张前面。她低声同伤风的女管理员交谈。女管理员站着，俯身向拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜耳语。看来，她们的谈话对女管理员产生了良好的效果。她不仅立刻医好了恼人的伤风，还医好了精神紧张。她向安季波娃感激地瞥了一眼，把一直捂着嘴唇的手帕拿开，放进衣袋，脸上露出幸福的微笑，满怀信心地回到借书台后的座位上。

    这个动人的小小的～幕，没能瞒过另外几个读者。读者从阅览室的各个角落同情地望着安季波娃，并同样微笑着。尤里·安德烈耶维奇根据这些难以察觉的迹象断定，城里的人认识她，并且非常爱她。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇的头一个愿望是站起来走到拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜跟前。然而，一种违背他本性的羞怯和缺乏自信阻止了他。他决定不去打扰她，继续看自己的书。为了使自己免于受到向她的方向张望的诱惑，他把椅子横对着桌子，几乎背对着阅览室的读者，把一本书举到面前，另一本打开的书放在膝盖上，完全钻进书里。

    然而他的心思早已离开研究的对象，跑到九霄云外去了。与他的研究对象毫无联系，他忽然领悟到，那个冬天夜里他在瓦雷金诺梦中所听到的声音正是安季波娃的声音。这个发现使他大吃一惊，他急忙把椅子转回原来的位置，以便从他的座位上看安季波娃。他开始看她。他的动作惊动了旁边的人。

    他几乎从背后侧身看她。她穿了一件浅格短衫，腰间系着一条宽带子，头微微偏向右肩，贪婪地阅读着，简直像小孩一样到了忘我的地步。有时她抬头望着天花板沉思，不然便眯起眼睛凝视着前方，然后又把头倚在一只手上，用铅笔飞速地往笔记本上摘录。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇检验并肯定自己在梅留泽耶沃小镇所做过的观察。“她不想讨人喜欢，”他想道，“不想成为迷人的美人。”她蔑视女人本性中的这一方面，仿佛由于自己长得太美而惩戒自己。而这种骄傲的敌意使她更加十倍地令人倾倒。

    “她不论做什么事都做得多么好啊。她读书，使人觉得这不是人类的最高级活动，而是某种简单木过的、连动物也能做的事，就像她提水或削马铃薯一样。”

    想到这里医生不再激动了。他心中产生了一种罕有的平静。他的思想不再从一个对象跳到另一个对象上。他情不自禁地笑了笑。安季波娃对他的影响就像对神经质的女管理员一样。

    他不再管转动椅子造成的后果，不再怕别人妨碍或自己分心，比安季波娃进来之前更专心致志地工作了一个或一个半小时。他翻阅完像小山一样堆在他面前的一大堆书，选出最需要的，还顺便一口气读完了在书中发现的两篇主要文章。他对今天所做的事已经感到满意，便开始收拾书，准备送到还书台去。任何败坏情绪的不相干的念头都离开了他。他丝毫没有别的用心，问。已无愧地想道，诚实地工作了一上午，赢得了会见一位好心肠老友的权利，可以合法地享受一下相逢的欢乐了。但当他站起来，环视了一下阅览室，却没发现安季波娃，大厅里已经没有她了。

    医生还书的还书台上，安季波娃还的书还没收走。她还的都是马克思主义的教科书。看来，作为一个旧教师，在重新登上讲台之前，她在家里全力以赴地进行政治进修。书中还夹着拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜的借书单。借书单的下端露在外面，很容易被看见，上面写着拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜的地址。尤里·安德烈耶维奇觉得地址很古怪，抄了下来：商人街，带雕像住宅的对面。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇向人打听了一下才知道，“带雕像住宅”这种叫法在尤里亚金非常流行，就像在莫斯科以教区命名市区，或者在彼得堡称为在“五个角”那儿一样。

    一座带女神像柱和手持铃鼓、竖琴和假面具的古代级斯雕像的铁青色住宅被人称为“带雕像住宅”。这是上个世纪一位爱好戏剧的商人为自己建造的私人剧场。他的后人把住宅卖给了商会，由于这座住宅占了街的一角，于是就把这条街叫做商人街了。带雕像住宅又表示与这条街连接的这片地方。现在党的市委会便设在带雕像住宅里，地基倾斜下沉的那一面墙上，过去贴话剧和马戏海报的地方，现在贴着政府的法令和决议。

    这是五月初寒冷而刮风的一天。尤里·安德烈耶维奇在城里办完事，到图书馆转了一下，突然改变全部计划，去寻找安季波娃。

    路上时常刮起～团团的风沙，挡住他的去路，使他不得不停下来。医生转过身子，眯起眼睛，低下头，等一阵风刮过，再向前走去。

    安季波娃住在商人街角上诺沃斯瓦洛奇巷内，对着昏暗发青的带雕像住宅。医生现在看见这座住宅了。住宅确实同它的绰号一致，令人产生一种古怪不安的感觉。屋顶四周环绕着一圈比真人高一倍半的女神雕像。在一阵遮住住宅正面的风沙过后，医生突然觉得，所有的女人都从住宅里走上阳台，弯过栏杆看他，看渐渐从风沙中显露出来的商人街。

    有两条路通往安季波娃的住所：从商人街穿过正门，从小巷穿过院子。尤里·安德烈耶维奇不知道有头一条路，选择了第二条路。

    他刚从小巷拐进大门，～阵风把院子里的尘土和垃圾刮到天上，遮住院子。在这扇黑色帘幕后面，从他脚下飞起一群被公鸡追赶得咯咯叫的母鸡。

    当尘土消散后，医生看见安季波娃站在井旁。刮风的时候她左肩上刚刚挑起两只汲满水的水桶。为了防止风把尘土刮进头发里，她连忙披上头巾，在前额上打了一个“鸳鸯结”，用膝盖夹住吹开的长衫，以免被风掀起。她想担水往家里走，但被另一阵风挡住。这阵风刮掉她的头巾，吹乱她的头发，又把头巾刮到栅栏的另一头，刮到还在咯咯叫的母鸡那里。

    尤里·安德烈耶夫跑去追头巾，把它拣起来，递给站在井边发呆的安季波娃。她像平时那样泰然自若，没有发出惊叫，显露出自己的惊讶和困惑。她只喊了一声：

    “日瓦戈！”

    “拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜！”

    “您怎么来的？什么风把您吹来的？”

    ‘肥水桶放下，我来挑。”

    “我从不半路转弯，从不放下开始干的事。您要是来看我，咱

    们就走吧。”

    “我还能看谁呢？”

    “那谁知道呢。”

    “还是请您把扁担让给我吧，您干活儿的时候我不能空手闲着。”

    “多了不起的活儿呀。我不让您担，您会把楼梯溅湿的。您不如告诉我，哪阵风吹您来的？您来这儿已经一年多了，一直抽不出工夫来？”

    “您从哪儿知道的？”

    “到处都有传闻。何况我还在图书馆里见过您呢。”

    “那您怎么没叫我？”

    “您用不着让我相信您没看见我。”

    医生跟在颤动的水桶下微微摆动的拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜的后面穿过低矮的拱门。这是一楼的昏暗过道。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜迅速蹲下来，把水桶放在泥土地上，从肩膀上抽出扁担，伸直身子，开始用不知从什么地方掏出来的一块小手绢擦手。

    “走吧，我带您从里面的小道进大门。那边明亮。您在那边等我。我从小道把水提上楼，把上面收拾一下，换身于净衣服。您瞧瞧我们这儿的楼梯。生铁梯阶上都有楼空花纹。从上面透过它们，下面什么都看得见。房子老了。打炮的那几天受到轻微震动。大炮轰击嘛。您瞧石头都错缝了。”砖上大窟窿套小窟窿。我和卡坚卡出去的时候就把钥匙藏在这个窟窿里，用砖头压上。记住点。说不定您什么时候来的时候我不在家，那就请自己开门进去，在里面随便坐坐，等我回来。钥匙就在那儿。可我用不着，我从后面进去，从里面开门。唯一发愁的是耗子，多得对付木了，在脑袋上跳来跳去。建筑太老了，墙都酥了，到处是裂缝。能堵的地方我都堵上了，我同它们作战，可没有用。您什么时候有空，能不能来帮帮忙？咱们一块儿把地板和墙角堵上。行吗？好吧，您在楼梯口上等着，随便想点什么吧。我不会让您在这儿多受罪，马上就招呼您。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇等待安季波娃叫他，目光开始在墙皮剥落的入口处和生铁梯阶上转来转去。他想道：“在阅览室里我把她专注的读书精神同于真正事业和体力劳动的热忱相比较。可完全相反，她担水像读书那样轻松，一点不吃力。她干什么都从容不迫。仿佛她在很久以前，还在童年时代，便开始了向生活起跳，现在干什么都～跃而起，自然而然，出于从小养成的习惯，毫不吃力。这从她弯腰时脊背形成的线条、微笑时分开的嘴唇和变圆的下巴上，以及从她的谈话和思想里都能看出来。”

    “日瓦戈！”从上面一层楼梯口的一扇门里有人喊了一声。医生爬上楼梯。

    “把手给我，跟我走，不许乱动。这儿有两间推东西的房间，东西顶到天花板，很暗。碰上就会撞伤的。”

    “真像一座迷宫。我差点找不着路。怎么会这样？正在修理住宅？”

    “根本不是那么回事儿。问题不在这儿。住宅是别人的。我连是谁的都不知道。我们在中学里有一间房间，公家的。尤里亚金市苏维埃房管会占用学校后，便把我和女儿迁到这座别人遗弃的空房里来。旧主人们的全部家具都留在这里，家具多极啦。可我不需要别人的财富。我把他们的东西堆在这两间屋子里，只把窗子剧成白色。别松开我的手，不然您要迷路的。就这样握着，向右拐。现在穿过密林了。这就是通我房间的门。马上就会亮一点了。门槛，别踩空。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇随女向导走进房间后，看见正对着门的墙上有扇窗户。医生被窗外的情景吓了一跳。窗户开向住宅的院子，对着邻居的后院和河边的一块荒地。绵羊和山羊在荒地上吃草，长长的羊毛像敞开的皮袄大襟扫着地上的尘土。除了绵羊和山羊外，两根柱子当中有一块对着窗户的招牌，医生熟识这块招牌：“莫罗与韦钦金公司。出售播种机和打谷机。”

    医生见到招牌触景生情，马上便向拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜描绘他们一家人到乌拉尔的情景。他忘记人们把斯特列利尼科夫当成她丈夫的谣传，不假思索地讲述了他在车厢里同政委会面的经过。这给拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜留下了深刻的印象。

    “您看见斯特列利尼科夫了？！”她急切地问道。“我暂时什么都不对您说。可是这太重要了！简直命中注定你们一定要见面。我以后再向您解释，您一定会惊叹不已。如果我对您的话理解得不错的话，他留给您的印象与其说是不良的，不如说是良好的，对吧？”

    “对，正是如此。他本应对我冷淡。我们经过他镇压和毁坏过的地方。我原以为他是个粗野的讨伐者或者是个革命的狂暴的刽子手，可他两者都不是。当一个人不符合我们的想象时，同我们事先形成的概念不一致时，这是好现象。一个人要属于一定类型的人就算完了，他就要受到谴责。如果不能把他归入哪一类，如果他不能算作典型，那他身上便还有一半作为一个人必不可少的东西。他便解脱了自己，获得了一星地半点不朽的东西。”

    “听说他不是党员。”

    “是的，我也觉得他不是。他身上有什么吸引队呢？那就是他必定灭亡。我觉得他不会有好下场。他将赎清自己所犯下的罪行。革命的独裁者们之所以可泊，并非因为他们是恶棍，而是他们像失控的机器，像出轨的列车。斯特列利尼科夫同他们一样，是疯子，但他不是被书本弄疯的，而是被往昔的经历和痛苦逼疯的。我不知道他的秘密，但我相信他一定有秘密。他同布尔什维克的联盟是偶然的。他们需要他的时候，尚可容忍他，他同他们走同样的路，但一旦他们不需要他了，便会无情地把他甩掉并踩死，就像在他之前甩掉并踩死许多军事专家一样。”

    “您这样想？”

    “绝对如此。”

    “他就没救了吗？比如，逃跑？”

    “往哪儿跑，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜？先前在沙皇时代还可以这样做。现在您试试看。”

    “真可怜。您讲的故事引起我对他的同情。可您变了。先前您提到革命的时候没这么尖刻，没这么激动。”

    “问题恰恰在这里，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜，凡事总该有个限度。这段日子总该见成效了吧。但很清楚，混乱和变动是革命鼓动家们唯一凭借的自发势力。可以不给他们面包吃，但得给他们世界规模的什么东西。建设世界和过渡时期变成他们自身的目的。此外他们什么也没学会。您知道这些永无休止的准备为何徒劳无益？由于他们缺乏真正的才能，对要做的事事先并未做好准备。而生活本身、生活现象和生活的天赋绝对不是开玩笑的事！为什么要让杜撰出来的幼稚闹剧代替生活，让契河夫笔下的逃学生主宰生活呢？够了。现在该我问您了。我们是在你们城里发生政变那天抵达的。交战的那天您在城里吗？”

    “懊，那还用问！当然在城里。四处起火。我们自己差点被烧死。我对您说过了，房子震得很厉害。院子里至今还有一颗没爆炸的炮弹。抢劫，炮轰，什么可怕的事都有，像历次改变政权一样。对那种时期我们已经司空见惯，成专家了。不是头一次了。白军占领的时候都干过什么事呀！杀人，报私仇，勒索敲诈。对，我忘了告诉你一件重要的事。咱们的加利乌林，在捷克人那里当上了大人物。总督之类的官。”

    “我知道，听说过了。您见过他吗？”

    “我们经常见面。多亏了他，我不知救过多少人！掩护过多少人！应当公正地对待他。他的表现无可指摘，像个骑士，同哥萨克大尉和警察那群卑鄙小人完全不一样。但那时操纵局势的正是这帮小人，而不是正派的人。加利乌林帮过我很多忙，真得谢谢他。您知道我们是老熟人。我还是小姑娘的时候经常到他长大的院子里去玩。院子里面住的是铁路工人。我小时候就看清楚了什么是贫困和劳动。因此，我对革命的态度跟您不一样。它同我更接近。这里有许多同我亲近的东西。突然这个小男孩，扫院子人的儿子，当上了上校，甚至是白军将军。我是文职家庭出身，分不清军衔。我的职务是历史教师。是啊，就这么回事儿，日瓦戈。我帮助过很多人。我常去看他。我们常提到您。我在所有的政府部门里都有关系和保护人，也从各个方面招致不少痛苦和损失。只有蹩脚书里的人才分为两个阵营，互不来往。可在生活中，一切都交织在一起了。要想一生中只扮演一个角色，在社会中占据一个位置，永远只意味着同一个东西，需要成为一个多么不可救药的微不足道的角色呀！啊，原来你在这儿？”

    一个枕着两条小辫的八岁小女孩走进屋。两只距离很宽的细眼睛赋予她一种调皮的神态。她笑的时候眼睛微微抬起。她进门前已经知道妈妈有客人了，但跨过门槛时仍然认为有必要在脸上装出惊讶的神情，行了个屈膝礼，毫无畏惧地盯着医生，眼睛没眨一下，只有很早就学会沉思并在孤寂中长大的孩子才会这样看人呢。

    “我的女儿卡坚卡。请多关照。”

    “您在梅留泽耶沃给我看过她的照片。长大啦，都认不出来了！”

    “原来你在家？我还以为你出去玩了。你进来我都不知道。”

    “我从窟窿里取钥匙，可那儿有那么大的一只耗子。我叫起来，连忙跑开。我以为要吓死了。”

    卡坚卡说，可爱的小脸做出怪样，瞪着两只调皮的小眼睛，小嘴撅着，就像一条从水里捞出来的小鱼。

    “得啦，上自己屋里去吧。我请叔叔留下来吃午饭。我从烤炉里把粥取出来就叫你。”

    “谢谢，可我不得不谢绝。由于我常进城，我们改在六点吃饭。我已习惯不迟到，可骑马得三个小时，有时还得四个小时，因此我才这么早来看您，对不起，我过一会儿就要走了。”

    “再坐半小时吧。”

    “好吧。”

    “现在，既然您对我坦率，我也对您坦率，我要告诉您，您刚才提到的斯特列利尼科夫就是我的丈夫帕沙，帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇·安季波夫，就是我到前线找的那个人。都说他确实死了，可我不相信。”

    “我并不惊奇，思想上做好了准备。我听到那种谣传时也认为是荒谬的。因此，我才忘乎所以到这种地步，随心所欲地同您谈起他，就好像根本没有过这种谣传似的。但这种谣传荒谬至极。我见过这个人。可怎能把您同他联系在一起？你们之间有什么共同点？”

    “可都是真的，尤里·安德烈耶维奇。斯特列利尼科夫就是安季波夫，我的丈夫。我同意大家的看法。连卡坚卡都知道，并为自己的父亲感到骄傲。斯特列利尼科夫是他的化名，像所有革命活动家一样。出于某种原因，他必须用假名生活和活动。

    “他攻打尤里亚金，向我们打炮，他知道我们在这里，为了不泄露秘密，一次也没打听过我们是否还活着。这当然是他的职责。如果他问我该怎么办，我也同样会劝他这样做。您甚至可以说，我的不受侵犯、市苏维埃为我们提供的还算过得去的住房条件以及其他等等——间接证明了他对我们的秘密关心。可您怎么也不能说服我相信您的看法。人就在身边，竟然能顶住见我们的诱惑！这我怎么也想不通，超出了我的理解力。这是某种我不”能理解的东西，不是生活，而是某种罗马公民的美德，现今的一种深奥的智慧。可我受到您的影响，开始同您唱一个调子。但我并不想这样做。咱们不是同道。我对某种难以觉察的、非必然的东西理解得一致。但在具有广阔意义的问题上，在人生哲学上，我们还是作为论敌为好。还是再回到斯特列利尼科夫身上来吧。

    “现在他在西伯利亚，而且您说得对，对他的责难也传到我的耳朵里了，听了简直叫我寒心。现在，他在西伯利亚我们最向前挺进的一块阵地上，把可怜的加利乌林——同～个院子里的朋友，以后同一条战线上的伙伴——打得一败涂地。他的名字以及我们的夫妻关系对加利乌林并非秘密，但他出于无法估量的委婉从未让我感觉到这一点，虽然一提起斯特列利尼科夫就气得浑身发抖。不错，这么说他现在在西伯利亚。

    “而他在这里的时候（他在这里驻扎了很久，住在铁路线上的车厢里，您在那儿见过他），我一直渴望什么时候能够意外地与他相遇。有时他到司令部去，司令部就设在科木奇的军事指挥部（立宪会议的军队）。简直是命运奇怪的嘲弄。司令部入口处的厢房，正是先前我有事求见加利乌林时他接见我的地方。比如，有一次土官学校闹事，土官生埋伏起来，向他们不喜欢的教官开枪，借口他们拥护布尔什维主义。还有迫害和屠杀犹太人的时候。每次去的都正是时候。如果我们是城市居民并且是脑力劳动者，那么，犹太人便占我们朋友人数的一半。在屠犹的日子里，当这些可怕而卑鄙的行为开始的时候，除去气愤、羞愧和怜悯外，还有一种感觉始终追逐着我们，那就是难堪的骑墙感觉，仿佛我们的同情有一半是装出来的，有一种不真诚的不快之感。

    “一度把人类从偶像崇拜中解放出来而现在又大批献身于把他们从社会恶行中解放出来的人，竟不能从自己本身，从忠于过时的、失去意义的、古老的信仰中解脱出来，不能超越自己的思想意识，完全融合在其他人之中，而那些人的宗教基础原是他们所建立的，那些人本应同他们非常亲近，如果他们更好地理解那些人的话。

    “大概迫害是产生这种无益的、甚至是致命的态度的原因，是产生这种只能带来灾难的羞怯的、充满自我牺牲精神的孤立状态的原因，但这其中还有内在的衰颓，多少世纪所形成的历史性的疲倦。我不喜欢他们那种嘲讽式的自我鼓吹，平庸的概念，羞怯的想像力。这令人气恼，就像老年人谈旧事和病人谈病一样，您同意我的看法吗？”

    “这些问题我没想过。我有位姓戈尔东的同学，他也有这种看法。”

    “因此我到这里来守候帕沙，希望在他进出的时候碰见他。厢房曾是总督的办公室，现在门上挂着牌子：‘控诉处’。您也许看见了？这是城里最美丽的地方。门前的广场是用条石铺成的。穿过广场便是市立公园。里面长着绣球花、枫树和山植。我停在行人道上，在求见的人群里等着见他。当然，我没去敲接待室的门，说我是他妻子。我们不姓一个姓呀！况且良心又有什么用呢。他们有完全不同的规则。比如，他的生身父亲，帕维尔·费拉蓬特维奇·安季波夫，工人出身，当过政治流浪犯，就在公路旁边的一家法院里工作。那就是他流放时住的地方。那儿还住着他的朋友李韦尔辛。都是革命法庭的成员。可您猜怎么着？儿子并没告诉父亲自己是谁，父亲也认为他这样做完全应该，并不生气。既然儿子隐瞒身份，那就意味着木应当问。他们是除石，而不是人。除了原则就是纪律。

    “就算我终于能证明我是他妻子，那又有多大意义！妻子又管什么用？这是什么时代？世界无产阶级，改造宇宙，这是另外一码事儿，这点我懂。可像妻子那样的两条腿动物算什么，呸，一只最蹩脚的跳蚤或虱子。

    “副官转了一圈，询问了许多人，放进了几个人。我没报告自己的姓名，回答问题时只说为了私事。可以想象，事情当然办得糟极了——拒绝接见。副官耸了耸肩，怀疑地打量着我。因此我一次也没见过他。

    “您以为他厌恶我们，不爱我们了，把我们忘了。嗅，恰恰相反。我太了解他了！正因为他感情太丰富了，才想出这种办法！他要把所有在战争中获得的律冠放在我们脚下，因此不能空手回来，要以一个满载荣誉的征服者的身份回来，要使我们永垂不朽，眼花缭乱！多像孩子呀！”

    卡坚卡又进来了。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜抱住困惑的小女孩，抱起来转圈，胳肢她，吻她，把她紧紧抱在自己怀里。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从城里骑马回到瓦雷金诺。这些地方他经过不知多少次了。这条路他已经走熟，失去新鲜的感觉，不再注意它。

    他走近林间小路的岔口，那儿从通往瓦雷金诺的直路分出一条通往萨克玛河上瓦西里耶夫沃渔村的支路。在分岔口的地方矗立着这片地区的第三块路标，路标上挂着出售农业机器的招牌。同往常一样，医生总是落日的时候抵达岔口。

    自从他那次进城后，已经过了两个多月。那天他住在拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜那儿，可对家里却说他因事耽搁在城里了，在桑杰维亚托夫的旅店里住了一夜。他早已同安季波娃以“你”相称了，管她叫拉拉，她管他叫日瓦戈。尤里·安德烈耶维奇欺骗了东尼娜，向她隐瞒了这件事，而且事情越来越严重，越来越不可原谅。这是从未有过的事。

    他爱东尼娜爱到崇拜的地步。她心灵的平静对他比世界上任何东西都重要。他比她的生身父亲和她本人更竭力维护她的荣誉。为了维护她那受过刺激的尊严，他会亲手撕碎触犯她尊严的人。然而，他自己正是触犯她尊严的那个人。

    在家里，在亲人中间，他觉得自己是个尚未被逮捕的罪犯。家里人毫无察觉，仍像往常那样亲热地对待他，这使他十分痛苦。大家谈得正起劲的时候，他突然想起自己的罪行，呆住了，周围人讲的什么他听不见，也听不懂。

    如果这发生在饭桌上，一块食物便会卡在他的喉咙里。他把场匙放在一边，推开碟子。眼泪窒息得他出不来气。“你怎么啦？”东尼娜莫名其妙地问道。“你大概在城里听到了坏消息？又把谁关进监狱或者枪毙了？告诉我。不用怕我听了心烦。那样你会好受些。”

    他对东尼娜不忠实，是因为他更爱别人吗？不，他没选择过任何人，设比较过。“自由爱情”的想法，“感情的权利及要求”这类话，对他是格格不入的。谈论或想到这类事他都觉得庸俗。他在生活中不摘取“享受的花朵”，他不把自己算在半神或超人之列，不要求优待和特权。良心不安过于沉重，简直把他压垮了。

    这样下去如何是好？有时他问自己，但找不到回答，于是他把希望寄托在某种无法实现的干预上——某种无法预见但能解决矛盾的干预。

    但现在他不这样想了。他决定用自己的力量斩断绳结。他怀着这样的决心回家。他决定全部向东尼娜坦白，乞求她的宽恕，决不再同拉拉会面。

    不错，并非所有问题都想到了。他现在觉得，还有一点不大清楚，即他是否同拉拉永远断绝往来。他今天早上对她说想把一切都告诉东尼娜，他们以后不可能再见面，但他现在觉得，他对她说话的口气太柔和，不够果断。

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜不想用哭闹让尤里·安德烈耶维奇伤心。她明白，没有这件事他已经够痛苦的了。她竭力平静地听完他的新决定。他们是在拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜没住人的那间空屋子里谈的，这间房子对着商人街。泪珠从拉拉脸颊上滚下来，就像这时雨水从对面带雕像住宅的石雕像上摘下来一样，但她没感觉到。她真挚地、毫无做作地表现出宽宏大量，轻声说道：“别管我，你觉得怎么好就怎么办吧。我什么都能克制。”她不知道自己在哭，所以没去擦眼泪。

    一想到拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜可能误解他，怀有不现实的希望，他便想掉转马头回城里去，把没有说透的话说透，而主要是分手应分得热烈些、温柔些，更像真正的诀别。他好不容易才克制住自己，继续向前赶路。

    随着太阳渐渐落山，树林也渐渐充满寒气和昏暗。树林中散发出一种仿佛刚一走进浴室便能闻到的潮湿的禅树枝味。空中悬挂着一层展翅飞翔的蚊纳，就像浮在水面上的浮标，齐声～个调子。尤里·安德烈耶维奇在额头和脖子上拍打蚊子，不知拍打了多少次。手拍在出了一层汗的身体上发出的啪啪声，同骑马行走的声音非常协调：勒马皮带的吱吱声，沉重的马蹄踏在泥泞里的吧卿吧卿声，以及马奔驰时听到的一排排清脆的枪声。突然，从仿佛悬在天上的落日那边传来了夜营的啼陪。

    “清醒吧！清醒吧！”夜驾呼唤并劝告道，听起来仿佛复活节前的召唤，“我的灵魂！我的灵魂！从睡梦中醒来吧！”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇的脑子里突然出现一个非常简单的想法。何必急着赶路呢。他并未违背自己的誓约。一定要说穿。可谁又说过一定在今天呢？还未对东尼娜宣布过一个字呢。把解释推迟到下一次并不迟。这样他还可以进城一趟，同拉拉把话说透。谈的时候充满能消除她全部痛苦的深情挚意。那样多好，多妙！真奇怪，先前怎么没想到呢！

    一想到还能再见安季波娃一面，尤里·安德烈耶维奇快活得不知如何是好，心急剧地跳动。他再次品尝到相见的快乐。

    城外的木屋小巷和木头铺的人行道出现在眼前。他向那个方向走去，现在，走进诺沃斯瓦洛奇巷，走进一块空地，木屋小巷走完了，开始了石头屋子。城郊的房子闪过，就像飞快地翻阅一本书，并且不是用食指翻，而是用拇指按着书边，叫书页在拇指下咽啪滑过。激动得快喘不过气来了。她就住在那边，街的那一头。在向晚放晴的天上的一块亮光下面。他多么爱通向她住处的那些熟悉的房屋啊！要是能把它们从地上抱起来使劲地亲吻一番该多好啊！这些横压在屋顶上的独眼阁楼啊！油灯和神灯反射在水洼中有如一个个浆果！在这笼罩在街道上空的阴霾天空的一片亮光之下，他仍将从造物手中接受上帝所创造的这件白色神奇的礼物。一个裹着黑东西的身影打开了门。而她那矜持而冰冷的亲密允诺，宛如北方明亮的夜，不属于任何人，就像你黑夜沿沙滩向大海跑去时向您冲来的第一个海浪。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇扔下级绳，身子从马鞍上欠起，抱住马颈，把脸埋在鬃毛里。马把这种温存当成让它用尽力气奔跑，就飞驰起来。

    马平稳地奔驰，马蹄只是偶尔点地，大地总是不断地离开马蹄，向后飞去。尤里·安德烈耶维奇除了由于狂喜心怦怦地跳动外，还听到人的喊声，他觉得那是他的幻觉。

    附近的一响枪声把他震昏了。医生抬起头，猛地抓住级绳，把它拉紧。马在急驰中猛地停下，前后脚撇开，向旁边跳了几下，又向后倒退了几步，开始往下蹲，准备直立起来。

    前面的道路分为两岔。晚霞照着路旁的招牌：“莫罗与韦钦金公司。出售播种机和打谷机。”三个带武器的骑马人横在路上截住他的去路。一个戴着制服帽、穿着腰部带格上衣的中学生，身上挂着几条子弹带；另一个穿着军官大衣，戴着长筒皮帽，样子吓人，像化装舞会上的打扮；还有一个穿着红过的棉裤和棉袄的骑兵，一顶宽边神甫帽低压在头上。

    “不许动，医生同志。”戴长筒皮帽的骑马人说，他是三人中最年长的。“您只有服从，保证您平安无事。否则，请别见怪，我们就会开枪。我们游击队的医生被打死了。我们想征用您做医务工作。下马，把缰绳交给较年轻的这位同志。我提醒您一句：如果您有逃跑的念头，我们就要对您不客气了。”
    “您是米库利钦的儿子利韦里·列斯内赫同志？”
    “不，我是他的联络官卡缅诺德沃尔斯基。”

    第五章

    公路两旁散落着城市、乡村和驿站。圣十字镇、奥梅利奇诺车站、帕仁斯克、特夏茨科耶、新出现的小村庄亚格林斯科耶、兹沃纳尔斯克镇、沃利诺耶、古尔托夫希基驿站、克梅姆斯克自然村、卡泽耶沃镇、库捷内镇和小叶尔莫莱村。

    一条驿道穿过这些村镇，这是西伯利亚最古老的驿道。它穿过市里主要街道，像切面包似的把这些市镇切成两半，至于村庄，它径直经过，把一排排农舍甩在后面，或者把它们变成弧形，或者急转弯绕过它们。

    在遥远的过去，铁路还未铺设到霍达斯克村以前，驾驶三匹马的邮车在驿道上往来奔驰。装载茶叶、粮食和铁货的大车朝一个方向走，卫兵押解步行的囚犯一站站地朝另一个方向走。|手机TXT小说下载网|他们齐步向前走，每一迈步脚镣便一齐哗啦啦响。他们都是亡命的和绝望的人，像天上的闪电一样可怕。无法穿过的阴森森的莽林在周围喧响。

    驿道沿线的居民像一个大家庭。城市与城市，乡村与乡村，互相往来，结为亲戚。在雷达斯克村，驿道与铁路交叉的地方，有铁路附设的机车修配厂和机械厂，聚集在劳动营里穷得像叫花子一样的人在那里忍饥挨饿。他们患病，死掉。有技术的政治犯服完苦役便留在这里当技师，他们在这里定居了。

    驿站沿线最初建立的苏维埃早已被推翻。一个时期建立了西伯利亚临时政府，而现在整个地区都被最高统治者高尔察克的政权所代替。

    有段驿道要爬半天坡。展现在眼前的远景越来越开阔。坡好像永远爬不完，视野也愈来愈开阔。但当人和马都疲倦了，停下来喘口气的时候，他们已经爬上了山顶。前面的驿道跨越一道桥，湍急的克日姆河在桥下奔腾。

    河对面更为陡峭的一个山头上，现出圣十字修道院的砖墙。驿道环绕着修道院门的斜坡，在它后面城郊的院子中间转了几个弯后直通城内。

    驿道再次穿过修道院属地的边缘，因为修道院染成绿色的铁门是朝中心广场开的。人口处拱门的圣像周围有一圈金字，看起来像半个花圈：“欢乐吧，有生命力的十字架，木可征服的虔诚的胜利。”

    冬季将尽。复活节前的一个礼拜，大斋的结尾。驿道上的雪发黑了，透露出解冻的信息，但屋檐仍是白的，悬挂着结实的高高的冰帽。爬上圣十字钟楼找敲钟人的男孩们，觉得地上的房屋就像难成一堆的小匣子和小船。同逗点一般大小的小黑人向房屋走去。根据动作从钟楼上能认出几个人来。走近的人读着墙上贴的最高统治者颁发的征收三种年龄的人入伍的命令。

    黑夜带来许多意想不到的事。开始转暖，这时候就转暖是很少见的。天上飘着雨丝，雨丝如此轻盈，仿佛碰不到地面便化为湿雾，在空气中飘散。但这不过是从表面上看。一道道温暖的水流足以冲干净地上的积雪。现在整个地面黑得发亮，仿佛出了一层汗。

    长得手高的苹果树发满新芽，奇迹般地把细枝穿过花园的篱笆伸到街上。雨水从树枝上零零落落地滴在木板人行道上。全城都能听到雨水的滴答声。

    照相馆院子里锁着的小狗托米克一直哀怨地叫到天亮。也许加卢津家花园里的乌鸦被小狗的叫声激怒了，叭叭叫起来，叫得全城都听得见。

    城市地势低的那边住着商人柳别兹诺夫。别人给他运来三车货。他拒绝收货，说运错了，他从未订过这批货。赶大车的年轻人说天色太晚了，请他收留一夜。商人同他们对驾起来，轰他们，不给他们开门。他们的对骂全镇都听得见。

    凌晨一点，即修道院的七点，从圣十字修道院最大的钟上发出一阵神秘、缓慢、甜蜜的钟声，同昏暗的细雨混合在一起。它从钟L飘出，仿佛被春汛冲化的泥块，离开河岸，沉入河中，融化在那里。

    这是大斋的前夜，安良日那天。在雨网的深处，几个刚能辨清的烛光缓缓移动、飘浮，照亮人的额头、鼻子和面孔。斋戒的信徒去做早祷。

    一刻钟后，人行道的木板上传来从修道院走过来的脚步声。这是店主加卢津的妻子回家，早祷才刚刚才始。她头上包着头巾，皮袄敞开，迈着不均匀的步子，时而跑几步，时而停下来。教堂里空气憋闷，她感到窒息，出来呼吸新鲜空气，现在感到羞愧和遗憾，因为自己没能做完祷告，第二年没斋戒了。但这还不是她悲伤的原因。白天，到处张贴着的动员入伍的公告让她伤心，因为这涉及她可怜的傻儿子捷廖沙。她想把这念头从脑子里赶出去，但在昏暗中泛光的布告总提醒她有这样的命令。

    转过墙角就是她的家，两步路就到，但她在街上要舒服些。她愿意呆在街上，家里憋气，不好受。

    各种忧郁的念头在她心里翻腾。她想把这些念头—一说出来，却没有足够的词汇，况且说到天亮也说不完。但是在街上，这些向她袭来的一团团阴沉的念头她在几分钟之间便能摆脱，从修道院墙角到广场拐角走两三趟就行了。

    复活节马上就到，可家里一个人也没有，都走散了，就剩下她一个人。难道真是一个人吗？当然是一个人。她收养的克秀莎不算。她又是什么人？知人知面不知心啊。她也许是朋友，也许是敌人，也许是潜在的情敌。是符拉苏什卡前妻的女儿，他说是他的养女，可也许并非养女，而是私生女？也许根本不是养女，完全是另外一码事儿。男人的心能看透吗？可也看不出姑娘有任何不好的地方。聪明，漂亮，无可指摘。比小傻瓜捷廖沙和养父机灵多了。

    于是，复活节前夕就剩她一个人在家，被人遗弃，其他的人各去各的地方。

    她的丈夫符拉苏什卡沿驿道向新兵发表演说、劝导他们在战场上立功。他要是能关心关心自己的亲生儿子，使他免遭死亡的危险该多好！

    儿子捷廖沙也受不住了，在大竞前夕跑掉了，在自己遭到倒霉的事之后，跑到库捷内镇亲戚家寻开心去了。小伙子被职业中学开除了。留了四次级，到了八年级学校不再可怜他，把他赶出了学校。

    唉，多悲伤啊！嗅，主啊！怎么变得这么糟，简直一点希望也没有了。什么都办不好，真不想活下去了！怎么会弄成这样呢？是革命的力量？不，啊，不是。都是因为战争。男人的精华全在战争中被杀害了，只剩下毫无用处的废物。

    当承包商的父亲家里是否也同样呢？父亲不喝酒，是个知书识礼的人，家郑“常富有。还有两个妹妹波利亚和奥莉妮。就像名字那样协调，她们俩也非常融洽，一对美女。上父亲那儿去的木匠师傅都是仪表堂堂的漂亮男人。有一次，她们突然想编织六种毛色的围巾（并非家里困难而需要她们编织），变着法子玩耍。可是怎么样呢，她们的手艺那样巧，全县都称赞她们编的围巾。有时什么都能让她们高兴，比如浓密的头发、苗条的身材、教堂里的祈祷、跳舞、客人、姿势等等，别看是普通人家，小市民，工农出身。俄罗斯也像一位待嫁的姑娘，她有真正的追求者，真正保护她的人，而不是现在这些家伙。如今一切都失去光泽，只剩下一群卖狗皮膏药的文人，白天黑夜颠来倒去地说那几句话，早晚要被话噎死。符拉苏什卡和他的朋友们想凭借香槟酒和善良的愿望返回那黄金时代！但怎能夺回失去的爱情呢？为此必须移山倒海！

    加卢津娜已经几次走到圣十字市场。她的家就在市场左边。但每次她都改变了主意向后转，又走进连接着修道院的小巷里。

    市场大得像旷野。先前每逢赶集的日子，农民的大车摆满整个市场。市场的一头紧靠着叶列宁街。另一头由不大的一层或两层的房子围成弧线形。房子里挤满货仓、账房、做买卖的地方和手艺人的作坊。

    太平年月，憎恨女人的布留汗诺，穿着长礼服，戴着眼镜，坐在他家敞开的大门前的椅子上，装模作样地看小报。他是个粗野不堪的人，做皮子、焦油、车轮、马具、燕麦和干草等买卖。

    这里，在昏暗的小窗户上，放着几只硬纸盒，盒上积满多年的尘土，盒里装着几对装饰着缎带和小花束的结婚蜡烛。在窗户那边的小空屋里，没有家具，几乎没有存放过商品的影子，如果不算一个个擦在一起的一堆蜡圈的话。可就在这间屋里，那位不知住在何处、拥有百万资财的蜡烛制造商的神秘的代理人，做过成千卢布的地板蜡、蜡和蜡烛的交易。

    这里，在街上的一排商店当中，是加卢津家开设的杂货铺。杂货铺有三间门脸，出售茶叶、咖啡、糖等货物。每天都要扫三遍没上漆的干裂地板，因为老板和伙计们喝起茶来就没节制，把泡过的茶叶都倒在地板上。年轻的老板娘特别乐意坐在这儿的钱柜后面。她心爱的颜色是淡紫色，这是教堂举行大典时候神甫教袍的颜色，丁香花苞的颜色，她最讲究的天鹅绒服装的颜色，她那套维也纳器皿的颜色。这是幸福的颜色，回忆的颜色。她觉得革命前俄罗斯处女时代的颜色也是紫丁香色的。她喜欢坐在钱柜前，因为在玻璃罐散发出淀粉、糖和深紫色黑醋栗水果糖香味的铺子里，黄昏时淡紫色的光线正好同她心爱的颜色吻合。“

    这里，在院子的一角，存放木材仓库的旁边，有一座四面都已破裂的旧二层楼房，楼房是用旧木板盖成的，像一辆用旧的轿式马车。楼房里有四套房间，两个楼角都有出口。楼下左首是扎尔金德的药房，右首是公证人的办事处。楼上药房那）L住着什穆列维奇裁缝一大家子人，裁缝的对面，公证人的楼上，挤了好几家住户，门上贴满的招牌和牌子说明他们都是干什么的。这儿管修表和补鞋。茄克和施特罗达克在那I［合伙开了一家照相馆，此外还有卡明斯基的刻字铺。

    由于房间太挤，摄影师的两个助手，修版的谢尼亚·马吉德松和大学生布拉仁，在院子的木仓库过道里搭了～间实验室。从红指示灯可以看出他们正在那儿干活，指示灯一闪，窗户也微微一亮。窗户下锁着一条叫托米克的小狗，小狗叫起来整条叶列宁街都听得见。

    “大家乱哄哄地挤在一起，”加卢津娜经过灰楼房时想道，“贫困和肮脏的破窝。”但她马上得出符拉斯·帕霍莫维奇排斥犹太人的做法不对的结论。这些微不足道的人影响不了俄罗斯帝国的命运。不过，如果问问什穆列维奇老头，为什么世道这么乱，他一定会向你鞠个躬，做个怪相，附着牙说：“全是犹太佬揭的鬼。”

    唉，可她想的是什么呀，脑子里塞的什么东西呀？难道问题在这里？倒霉倒在这里？倒霉倒在城市里。决定俄罗斯兴衰的不是它们。受到城市文化水平的迷惑，想追赶它们，可没赶上。离开自己的岸，并没靠上别人的岸。

    也许恰恰相反，倒霉就倒在无知上。学者隔着墙便能看到，什么都能预见猜测到。可我们掉了脑袋才想起帽子。仿佛在一片黑暗的树林子里。可有文化的人现在日子也不好过啊。饥饿把他们从城市里赶出来。越想越糊涂。魔鬼折断了自己的腿。

    可我们农村亲戚的情况就大木相同。就拿谢利特温一家、舍拉布林一家、帕姆菲尔·帕雷赫、莫德赫家的兄弟俩、汉斯托尔和潘克拉特来说吧。靠双手劳动，自己当家作主。大道两旁盖了新房，看着叫人喜欢。每户种了十五俄亩的地，有马、羊、牛和猪。储备的粮食足够吃三年。生产工具——令人赞叹不已。连收割机都有。高尔察克拍他们马屁，想把他们拉到自己一边，政委们想把他们诱惑到林中游击队里去。他们打完仗戴着乔治十字勋章回来，马上都抢他们去当教官，不管你戴不戴肩章。只要你在行，哪儿都需要你。决不会没用。

    可是该回家了。一个女人闲逛这么久的时间是不规矩的。要在自己的菜园子里就好了、可那儿全是稀泥，站不住脚。心里仿佛松快了一点。

    加卢津娜一路上胡思乱想，终于木知道自己想的是什么了，这时已经走到家门。但在她迈进门槛之前，在台阶前跺掉脚上的泥的时候，她还在心里把很多事掂量了一遍。

    她回想起眼下霍达斯克村的头头们，从首都来的政治流放犯季韦尔辛和安季波夫，无政府主义者“黑旗”伏多维钦科，当地的木匠“发疯的”格罗仁科。她对他们都很了解。他们一生当中闯过很多乱子，大概又要策划什么了。不然他们便没法活。他们一生都是在依靠机器度过的，他们自己冷酷无情，如同机器一样。他们在缴衣外面套一件上衣，抽烟时把烟卷插在骨头烟嘴里。只喝开水，免得传染上病。符拉苏什卡白费劲，不会有任何结果。这些人想把一切都按自己的意志翻过来，永远按照自己的主意办。

    于是她想到了自己。她知道自己是个出色的、与众不同的女人，身子保养得很好，聪明，人也不坏。但在这偏僻的地方，她哪一种优点也没人赏识，也许别的地方也没人赏识。整个外乌拉尔都熟悉的、嘲笑傻瓜先杰秋利哈的那支下流小曲，只能引用开头的两行：

    先杰秋利哈卖了大车，

    用卖大车的钱买了一把三弦琴……

    下面便是淫秽的词儿了，她觉得人们在圣十字市场上唱这支小曲是在影射她。

    她长叹了一口气走进家门。

    她没在前厅停留，穿着皮大农直接走进卧室。卧室的窗户对着花园。此刻正是夜间，窗内和窗外的各种影子几乎重叠在一起。垂下的窗帘的阴影，同院子里光裸漆黑的树木的阴影几乎一模一样，轮廓都模糊不清。冬天快要过去，花园里的黑绸般的黑夜，被即将来临的春天暗紫色的气息温暖了。屋里两种近似的因素大约也这样结合在一起，即将；临近的暗紫色的节日气息，使本拍打干净的窗帘的尘土飞扬的闷气变柔和了，把它冲淡了。

    圣龛中的圣母把两手从银衣怖下面伸出，乌黑的手掌向上举起。她的每只手掌里似乎握着她的拜占庭圣名的最前与最后的两个希腊字母。放在金灯托上的石榴石圣灯，宛如一只黑墨水瓶，把仿佛被牙齿咬碎的星形闪光洒在卧室的地毯上。

    加卢津娜脱下被巾和皮大衣，笨拙地转了一下，肋骨又仿佛被刺了一下似的疼痛起来，她感到胸口发闷。她喊了一声，害怕了，喃喃自语起来：

    “替悲伤的人除忧，圣洁的圣母，及时助人，保护世界。”她木禁哭起来。等疼痛过去之后，她开始脱衣服。衣领下面的和背上的束胸扣钩从她手里滑下来，落进衣服烟色的皱纹里。她费了很大劲儿去摸它们。

    她进家门的时候惊醒了养女克秀莎，克索莎走进她屋里。

    “您怎么没点灯呀，妈妈，要不要给您拿盏灯来？”

    “不用。不点灯也看得见。”

    “好妈妈，奥莉加·尼洛夫娜，我来帮您脱衣服。别受罪了。”

    “手指木听使唤，一点办法也没有。裁缝不长脑子，没把扣钩钉在该针的地方，瞎眼的东西。我想从上到下扯开，把整条布边甩在他那张丑脸上。”

    “圣十字镇的赞美诗唱得真好。夜里静，空气都把歌声传到这儿来了。”

    “唱得确实不错。可我，妈呀，一点不舒服。浑身又疼起来，哪儿都疼。真造孽呀！不知道该怎么办才好。”

    “顺势疗法医生斯特多勃斯基给您治过。”

    “他提出的治疗方法总没法实行。这位顺势疗法大夫原来是个兽医。什么也不懂。这是其一。其二是他走了。走了，走了，还不止他一个人。都在节前从城里走了。是不是他们预先知道这儿要发生地震？”

    “可那个俘虏过来的匈牙利大夫给您治得满不错嘛。”

    “又胡说八道了。我告诉你吧，谁都没留下，都各奔东西了。克列尼·劳什同其他的匈牙利人到分界线那边去了。他们强迫那家伙看病，把他带到红军里去了。”

    “您太多心了。神经官能症。普通的民间暗示疗法能创造奇迹。您还记得吗，那个巫婆，一个士兵的老婆，给您念咒治病，效果不是很好吗？真是手到病除。忘了那个士兵老婆叫什么了。名字忘了。”

    “不，你完全把我看成愚昧无知的人了。你恐怕还会背着我唱先杰秋利哈小调挖苦我呢。”

    “您怎么不畏惧上帝呀！您不该说这种话，妈妈。您还是想想士兵老婆叫什么名字吧。名字就在嘴边上。想不起来我心里不踏实。”

    “可她的名字比裙子还多。我不知道你要哪一个。她叫库巴利希娜，又叫梅德维吉哈，还叫兹雷达里哈。此外还有上十个外号。她也不在附近了。巡回演出结束了，上哪儿去找她。把上帝的奴仆关进克日木监狱，因为她给人打胎还制造什么药粉。可你瞧她，嫌牢房里闷气，从监狱里逃出来，跑到远东去了。我对你说吧，都逃散了。符拉斯·帕霍莫维奇，捷廖沙，好心肠的波利哑姨妈。城里正派女人就剩咱们这两个傻瓜了，难道我在开玩笑？哪儿也不能看病了。要出了什么事，一个人也叫不来。听说在尤里亚金有个从莫斯科来的名医，教授，一个自杀的西伯利亚商人的儿子。我正打算请他的时候，红军在大路上设立了二十个哨所，哪能找他啊。现在说别的吧。你睡觉去吧，我也躺会儿。大学生布拉仁把你迷住了。何必抵赖呢？你不管怎么着也躲不开他，瞧你脸红得像虾米一样。你那倒霉的大学生在复活节晚上还得洗相片，自己显影自己印。自己不睡觉也不让别人睡觉。他们那条狗叫得全城都听得见。该死的乌鸦在咱们苹果树上叭叭乱叫，我这一夜又甭睡觉了。可你生哪门子的气呀，怎么这么小性子，啊？大学生嘛，当然会讨姑娘们欢心喂。”

    “那边狗怎么叫得那么厉害？应该过去看看出了什么事儿。它不会无缘无故叫唤的。等一下，利多奇卡，怎么一个劲骂人呢，停～下吧。得弄清情况。万一警察冲进来怎么办。你别走开，乌斯金。你也站在这儿，西沃布留伊，用不着你们。”

    但中央代表利多奇卡没听见请他停一下的话，继续像演说家似的用疲惫的嗓子讲下去，并且越说越快：

    “存在于西伯利亚的资产阶级军事政权所推行的掠夺、勒索、暴力、枪杀和拷打的政策，必然会使迷途的人睁开眼睛。它不仅与工人阶级为敌，实际L也与全体劳动人民为敌。西伯利亚和乌拉尔的劳动农民应当明白，只有同城市无产阶级和士兵结成联盟，只有同吉尔吉斯和布里亚特的贫农结成联盟，才能……”

    他终于听见有人打断了他的话，停下来，用手绢擦擦脸上的汗，疲惫不堪地垂下浮肿的眼皮，闭上眼睛。

    站得离他近的人低声对他说：

    “喘口气吧，喝口水呀。”

    有人对激动不安的游击队首领说：

    “你干吗激动？什么事儿也没有。窗台上有信号灯。岗哨，说得形象点，正牢牢地盯着周围的空间。我认为可以继续作报告。说吧，利多奇卡同志。”

    大仓库里的木材都搬空了。在搬干净的地方正举行秘密会议。一堆顶到天花板的圆木垛，像一面屏风，把聚集在这里的人挡住，并把空着的那一半同过道里的照相室和出口隔开。如果发生情况，开会的人便钻进地道，从修道院墙后面康斯坦丁死胡同的地下出来，躲进偏僻的地方。

    报告人戴着黑棉布帽，帽子把他的秃顶遮住。他的一张橄揽形的脸苍白无光，黑络腮胡子一直长到耳根。他一激动就出汗，一直大汗淋漓。他对着桌上煤油灯的火焰对火，贪婪地抽没抽完的烟头，身子低垂在摊在桌上的文件上，用他那双近视眼急躁地在文件上面掠来掠去，仿佛在用鼻子嗅它们，然后用单调而疲倦的声音继续说下去：

    “这种城市和农村贫苦人的联盟只能通过苏维埃来实现。西伯利亚的农民，不管他们愿意还是不愿意，所要达到的，正是西伯利亚工人早已为之奋斗的目标。他们共同的目的是推翻海军将军们和哥萨克军事首领们的仇视人民的专制政权，并通过全体人民武装起义的手段建立农民士兵苏维埃。同时，在同武装到牙齿的资产阶级所雇佣的哥萨克骑兵进行斗争的时候，起义者不得不进行正确的阵地战，这种战争是顽强而持久的。”

    他又停下来，擦掉汗，闭上眼睛。有人违背会议议程，站起来，举起手想插话。

    游击队首领，说得更准确点，外乌拉尔克日水游击纵队指挥官，坐在报告人紧跟前，做出满不在乎的挑衅姿势，粗暴地打断他，不给他一点面子。真难相信，一个这么年轻的军人，差不多还是男孩子呢，指挥几个军和几支联合纵队，可他的部下都服从他，崇拜他。他坐着，手脚都暴在骑兵大衣衣襟里。脱下来的大衣上半截和袖口搭在椅背上，露出他穿军装的身躯。军装上撕掉准尉肩章的地方留下两个黑印。

    他两旁站着两个与他年龄相仿的一声不响的卫兵，他们身上穿的镶着卷毛粗羊皮羔的白羊皮袄已经发灰了。他们呆板的外貌除表现出对长官的盲目忠诚和准备为他赴汤蹈火外，没有任何其他的表情。他们对会议无动于衷，对会议所涉及的问题以及争论过程也无动于衷，不说话，脸上也没笑容。

    除了这几个人之外，仓库里还有十到十五个人。有的站着，有的坐在地板上，伸长腿或把膝盖错起来，身子靠在墙上或靠在堆在墙边的圆木头上。

    给贵宾们摆了一排椅子。坐在这几把椅子上的是三四个老工人，第一次革命的参加者。他们当中有脸色阴沉的季韦尔辛，他一点都没变样，还有对他言听计从的他的朋友安季波夫老头。他们被列入神明的行列，革命把自己的祭礼和牺牲奉献给他们。他们一声不响地坐在那里，像两个严厉的木偶，但从他们身上流露出来的政治上的傲气是每个人都能感觉到的。

    仓库里还有值得注意的其他人物。比如，无政府主义的支柱、“黑旗”伏多维钦科。他一刻也不安宁，一会儿从地板上站起来，一会儿又坐在地板上，在仓库里走来走去，停在仓库当中。他是个胖子，身材高大，脑袋和嘴都很大，一头长发像狮雷。他是俄主战争中或者日俄战争中幸存下来的几乎唯～的军官了。他是个梦想家，整天陷入妄想中。

    他由于天性过分忠厚，个子高大得惊人，使他注意木到与他木相应的、规模较小的现象。他对发生的一切都没给予足够的注意，对什么都误解，把相反的意见当成自己的看法，对什么都赞同。

    坐在他旁边的是他的熟人，森林猎人，捕野兽的能手斯维利德。尽管斯维利德不务农，但从他黑呢衬衣的襟口里仍流露出农民的土地气息。他把衬衣和领口下面的十字架抓成一团，来回擦身体，挠胸脯。这是有一半布里亚特人血统的农民，诚恳，没文化，头发梳成几根细辫子，鬃须很稀，胡须更稀，总共木过几根。蒙古人的脸形使他的脸显得苍老。他永远带着同情的笑容，笑容又给他脸上增添不少皱纹。

    报告人带着中央委员会的军事指示走遍了西伯利亚，他的思想已经跑遍他将要去的广阔地区。他对大多数出席会议的人都漠不关心。但作为一个从小就参加革命的热爱人民的人，他钟爱地望着坐在他对面的年轻统帅。他不仅原谅这个男孩子粗鲁的态度，在老头看来这是具有乡土气息的真正革命性的表现，还很欣赏他那些放肆的举止，就像一个痴恋女子喜欢她的征服者的无耻和放肆一样。

    游击队领袖是米库利钦的儿子利韦里，中央来的报告人便是劳动大军里的合作主义者科斯托耶德一阿穆尔斯基。他先前追随过社会党人革命分子，近来他改变了自己的立场，承认自己立场的错误性，并在几次慷慨激昂的声明中表示忏悔，于是他不仅被吸收加入共产党，还在他入党后不久便被委以这样的重任。

    把这项工作委托给他，一个从来没打过仗的人，是出于对他的革命资历和监狱生涯的尊敬，并且还估计到他作为过去的一名合作主义者，熟悉西伯利亚起义地区农民群众的情绪。在这个问题上，熟悉农民情绪比军事知识更为重要。

    政治信仰的改变使科斯托耶德有了极大的变化。它改变了他的外表、动作和作风。谁也不记得他先前的秃顶和满脸胡须了。也许这都是伪装？党严禁他暴露身份。他的化名是贝伦杰和利多奇卡同志。

    伏多维钦科提前声明赞同读过的命令条款，这种作法引起一阵骚乱，等骚乱平静下来后，科斯托耶德继续说下去：

    “为了尽可能地利用不断高涨的农民群众运动，必须尽快地确立省委会管辖地区内所有游击支队的联系。”

    后来，科斯托耶德谈到设立接头点、暗号、密码和联络方法等问题。接着他又谈起细节。

    “把白军机构和组织存放武器、装备和粮食仓库的地点以及他们存放大量金钱的地点和他们的储存体系通知游击队。

    “必须详细地分析游击队内部的组织问题，详细分析它们的指挥官、军事和作战纪律、秘密活动、游击队同外部世界的联系、对待当地居民的态度、战地革命军事法庭、在敌占区的破坏策略，如破坏桥梁、铁路、轮船、驳船、车站、修配厂及其技术设施、充话局、矿山、粮食等策略问题。”

    利韦里已经忍了半天，终于忍不住了。他觉得科斯托耶德所说的一切都不切合实际，都是外行人的胡说八道。他说：

    “十分美妙的演讲。我牢记心间。看来要想不失去红军的支持，必须接受这一切而不得反对吧。”

    “当然如此。”

    “我的美妙非凡的利多奇卡，你劈头盖脸地训斥我们的时候，我的队伍，三个团还包括炮兵和骑兵，早已出征狠狠打击敌人去了，叫我怎么对待你那些像学生小抄儿上的话呢？”

    “说得多么妙！多么有力量！”科斯托耶德想道。

    季韦尔辛打断了他们的争论。他不喜欢利韦里那种傲慢口气，说道：

    “对不起，报告人同志。我有疑问。也许有一条指示我没记对。我念一下。我想证实一下是否记错了：‘最好把革命时期在前线并加入士兵组织的老战士吸收进委员会。在委员会中最好有一两名下级军官和军事技术专家。’科斯托耶德同志，我记得对不对？”

    “对。一字不差。记得对。”

    “那么请允许我提出下列看法：有关军事专家这一条款让我感到不安。我们工人们，一九O五年革命的参加者，信不过丘八长官。他们当中总有反革命分子。”

    周围的人喊了起来：

    “行啦！表决，表决！该散会了。时间不早了。”

    “我赞成大多数人的意见。”伏多维钦科插话了，嗓子大得像打雷。“要想表达得有诗意一点应当这样表达：民事指示应当来自下层，在民主的基础上生长，就像往地里压枝一样，而不像打桩子似的从上面打下去。雅各宾党专政的错误就在这里，因此国民会议才在热月政变中被推翻。”

    “这再清楚不过了。”同他一起流浪的朋友斯维利德支持道，“这连吃奶的小孩都懂。应当早点想到，现在晚了。我们现在要干的是作战，勇敢地向前冲，木喘气地往前冲。指手画脚地说一通，再往后退，那算怎么回事儿？自己种下的苦果自己吃。自己跳进水里就别喊救命——淹死完蛋。”

    “表决！表决！”四面八方都要求表决。大家又发了一会儿言，越说越离题，各有各的主张，黎明时宣布散会。大家散开，一个个警惕地走了。

    在路上有一处风景如画的地方。陡坡上有两个几乎挨着的村子——库捷内镇和小叶尔莫莱，被湍急的帕仁卡小河隔开。库捷内从上面沿着陡坡境蜒而下，小叶尔莫莱在它下面呈现出五彩缤纷的颜色。库捷内镇里正欢送征募来的新兵，施特列泽上校领导的验收委员会正在小叶尔莫莱村里验收新兵，替小叶尔莫莱村和几个邻近的乡应征入伍的青年检查身体，这项工作由于过复活节停顿了一段时间。为了保证征兵工作顺利进行，村里驻扎着骑兵民警和哥萨克兵。

    这是复活节来得特别晚而早春又来得特别早的节后的第三天，温和而宁静。库捷内镇的街上，一张张款待新兵的桌子摆在露天里，从大路的那头开始，免得妨碍车辆通行。桌子不完全在一条直线上，像一条弯曲的肠子，弯弯曲曲拉开。桌上铺着垂到地面的白桌布。

    大家合伙款待新兵。款待的主要食品是复活节剩下的东西，两只熏火腿，几个圆柱形大面包，两三个奶渣甜糕。沿桌摆满装咸蘑菇、黄瓜和酸白菜的磁盆，还有盛切成片的面包的碟子，这些面包都是农民自己烤的；一碟碟堆得像小山似的复活节彩蛋。彩蛋上主要涂的是淡红色和浅蓝色。

    外面淡红、浅蓝而里面谈白的空鸡蛋壳乱丢在桌子周围的草地上。从小伙子们上衣里露出的衬衫也是淡红色和浅蓝色的。淡红和浅蓝也是姑娘们连衣裙的颜色。浅蓝色是天空，淡红色是云彩。云彩在天空中慢慢地、整齐地飘动，仿佛天空同它一起飘动。

    符拉斯·帕霍莫维奇·加卢津穿着粉红色衬衫，腰里系了一条宽丝腰带，用皮靴的鞋跟咯咯咯地敲着路面，两只脚一会儿往左伸，一会儿往右伸，从潘夫努金家高台阶上跑下来，跑到桌子跟前，潘夫努金的房子在桌子上面的山坡上，他马上讲起话来：

    “我用这杯老百姓自己酿的酒代替香槟酒为你们干杯，兄弟们。祝你们长寿！新兵先生们！我祝你们万事如意。请注意！你们即将踏上遥远的征途，挺起胸膛保卫祖国，打退让俄国人民自相残杀、血染大地的暴虐者们。人民希望不流血地谴责革命的成果，可布尔什维克党作为外国资本的奴仆，把人民朝夕思慕的理想——立宪会议用刺刀的暴力驱散，无辜的人民血流成河。即将上战场的年轻人！俄国武装的荣誉受到拍污，把它洗刷干净，因为我们欠下我们诚实盟友的债，我们蒙受耻辱，我们注意到，紧跟着红军，德国和奥地利也无耻地抬起头。兄弟们，上帝与我们同在。”加卢律还想说下去，但乌拉的喊声和要求符拉斯·帕霍莫维奇不要再说下去的喊声压住了他说话的声音。他把酒杯端到唇边，一口口慢慢喝着没过滤的白酒。这种饮料并不能让他满足。他喝惯了美味的葡萄酒。但他意识到他在为社会牺牲，便感到心满意足。

    “你老子是头雄鹰。这家伙真会骂人。那个米留可夫算什么东西。”人们喝醉了，在一片吵闹声中，格什卡·里亚贝赫对坐在自己身旁的朋友，捷连秀·加卢津，夸他的父亲。“真的，真是头雄鹰。大概不会平白无故卖劲。他想用舌头免除你服兵役。”

    “得了吧，格什卡！你真没良心。居然想得出‘免除兵役’。咱们会同一天收到通知书，什么免服兵役！咱们要去同一个部队。他们把我从中学里赶了出去，这群混蛋。我妈伤心得要命。幸好没当志愿兵。说让我当士兵。爸爸自然会说话，那不用说，能手。他这种本领是从哪儿来的？天生的。没受过任何系统教育。”

    “听说过桑卡·潘夫努金得病了吗？”

    “听说过。传染得真那么厉害？”

    “一辈子也治不好。疾病一烂到脊髓就完蛋了。自作自受。警告过他别去。主要是同什么人鬼混。”

    “他现在怎么办？

    “悲剧。想自杀。今天，叶尔莫莱村的征兵委员会检查他，也许要他。我参加游击队，他说。我要对社会上的流言蜚语报仇。”

    “你听我说，格什卡。你说传染上了，可如果不上她们那儿去，还会得别的病。”

    “我知道你指的是什么。看来你正研究这个问题。这不是病，而是木可告人的隐疾。”

    “格什卡，你说这种话真该给你一个嘴巴。你胆敢欺侮你的伙伴，你这个说谎的瘌痢头！”

    “我说着玩呢，你别激动。你猜我想告诉你什么。我在帕仁斯克开的斋。一个过路的人在帕仁斯克发表了一篇‘个性解放’的演说。我，妈的，要参加无政府主义。他说，力量在我们自身。他说性和性格是动物电磁的激发。啊？妙吧！可我喝酒喝得太多了。周围喊得什么都听不见，耳朵都要震聋了。我受不住啦，闭住嘴，捷廖什卡。我说，脓包，妈妈的乖宝贝，堵住耳朵。”

    “你告诉我点别的吧，格什卡。我对社会主义还不大清楚。比如，什么叫怠工者。什么意思？干什么用？”

    “我尽管是这个问题的专家，可我告诉你，捷廖什卡，离开我远点，我喝醉啦。怠工者同其他人属于一伙。一说怠工者，你就同他是一帮。明白啦，笨蛋？”

    “我想也是一句骂人话。说到电磁力，你说得对。我按照广告，打定主意从彼得堡订购一条电磁腰带，为了开展活动。用代收货款的办法。可突然发生了革命。顾不得腰带了。”

    捷连季没说完……醉汉们的吵闹声被不远的地方发出的一声爆炸声压住了。桌上的喧哗声停止了一下。一分钟之后又恢复了，并且吵闹得更厉害。一部分坐着的人站起来。清醒点的还能站住。另一些人两条腿摇摇晃晃，想走到一边去，但站不稳，倒在桌子底下，马上打起呼喀来。女人们尖叫起来。一片混乱。

    符拉斯·帕霍莫维奇两眼向四下打量，寻找罪魁祸首。起先他觉得，轰隆声就在库捷内镇，紧旁边，也许就隔着几个桌子。他脖子上的青筋暴起，脸涨得通红，他扯着嗓子喊起来：

    “这是哪个犹大钻进我们这伙人里来捣乱？哪个小子扔手榴弹玩？不管是谁，就是我亲生的儿子，我也要把这个恶棍掐死。公民们，我们不能允许开这种玩笑！我要求搜捕。咱们把库杰内镇包围起来。一定要抓住好细！不让兔惠子逃走！”

    起先大家还听他讲话，后来注意力被从小叶尔莫莱乡公所冲天升起的烟柱吸引过去了。大家都跑到悬崖上看看出了什么事儿。

    从燃烧起来的乡公所里跑出几个没穿外衣的新兵，有的光着脚，有的只穿着～条紧身短裤，施特列泽上校和几个验收新兵的军人也从乡公所里跑出来。哥萨克和民警骑着马在村子里来回奔驰。他们挺直身子，挥舞马鞭，骑在身子像蛇一样东扭西扭的战马上。他们在搜寻什么人。一大群人沿着通往库杰内镇的大路跑过来。叶尔莫莱村的钟楼当当当地敲起来，民警追赶往这边跑的人。

    事情进展得极快。黄昏的时候，施特列泽带着哥萨克到跟小叶尔莫莱村紧挨着的库捷内镇来搜寻。巡逻队包围了村子，挨家挨户搜查。

    这时，一半参加庆祝的人还未离开，他们喝得烂醉如泥，脑袋靠着桌子边或者躺在桌子底下睡着了。等到大家知道村子里来了民警，天已经黑了。

    几个小伙子躲开民警，互相碰撞着从小道跑了，钻进头一个碰到的地下货栈的栅栏门。在黑暗中弄不清这是哪家的货栈，但从鱼味和煤油味上判断，这是合作社的地窖。

    躲藏起来的人并没干过亏心事。他们的过错便是躲藏起来。大多数人这么做是因为慌张，喝醉了酒，一时糊涂。有的人觉得自己认识的人不体面，他们也许会毁了自己。现在一切都带政治色彩。淘气和耍流氓在苏维埃政权这边被视为黑色百人团的证据，而在白军那边把爱惹是生非的人当成布尔什维克。

    原来不少人比这几个小伙子还先钻进地窖。地窖里挤满了人。躲在这里的有库杰内镇的人，也有小叶尔莫莱村的人。库捷内镇的人烂醉如泥，他们中的一部分人像呻吟似的打呼嗜，咬牙，发出一阵阵呼啸声，另一部分恶心呕吐。地窖里黑得要命，叫人出不来气，臭味熏人。最后进来的一批人从里面把他们爬进来的通道用土和石块堵死，免得洞口把他们暴露出来。不久，醉汉们的鼾声和呻吟声完全停止了。地窖里一点声音也没有。都在安安静静地睡觉。只有被死吓破了胆的捷连秀·加卢津和小叶尔莫莱村好打架的科西卡·涅赫瓦林内安静不下来，在一个角落里低声说话。

    “小点声，兔崽子，你这好哭鼻子的鬼东西，别把大伙儿都坑了。听见没有，施特列泽的人到处搜查人呢。他们从村口回来了，到了集市，很快就会到这儿来的。别动，别喘气，木然我就勒死你！——算你走运——他们走远了，过了咱们这儿。你干吗上这儿来？瞧你这个笨蛋也躲到这儿来了。谁会动你一根指头？”

    “我听见格什卡喊‘快躲起来’，就钻进来了。”

    “格什卡是另一码事儿。里亚贝赫一家都是注意对象。他们在霍达斯克有亲戚。是耍手艺的人，工人家庭出身。你别哆嚷，傻蛋，安安静静躺着。周围都是屎，吐了一地，你一动弹便粘一身，连我都得抹上。你闻不见多臭吗？施特列泽干吗沿村子跑？搜寻从帕仁斯克来的人。”

    “科西卡，这是怎么一回事啊？怎么闹起来的？”

    “全是桑卡闹的，那个桑卡·潘夫努金。我们脱光了站在一排检查身体。该轮到桑卡了。他不脱衣服。桑卡喝了酒，到村公所的时候还没清醒过来。文书提醒他，客气地叫他脱衣服。对桑卡称呼您。军队上的文书。可桑卡对他粗野极了：‘我偏不脱。我身体的一部分不想让你们大家看见。’仿佛他害臊。他侧身靠近文书，抡起拳头照他腮帮子就是一拳。一点不假。你猜怎么看，一眨眼的工夫，桑卡弯腰抓住办公桌的腿，把桌上的墨水瓶和兵役名单都倒在地上！施特列泽从门后头喊道：‘我决不允许在这儿胡闹。我要让你frl看看不流血的革命，你们胆敢在政府所在地不尊重法律。谁是带头起哄的？’

    “桑卡奔向窗口，喊道：‘救命啊，各人拿好自己的衣服！我们的末日到了，伙伴们！’我抓起衣服，跟在桑卡后面，一边跑一边穿。桑卡一拳打碎了玻璃，一下子跳到街上。我跟在他后面。还有几个人跟在我们后面。我们撒腿就跑，追捕的人在后面追。你问我这是怎么回事儿？谁也弄不清楚。”

    “炸弹呢？”

    “什么炸弹？”

    “谁扔了炸弹？要不是炸弹，是手榴弹？”

    “老天爷，这难道是我们干的？”

    “那是谁干的？”

    “我怎么知道。准是别人干的。他一看见乱了，便想在混乱中把整个乡炸掉。让他们怀疑是别人干的，他准这么想。准是政治犯。这儿到处都是帕仁斯克的政治犯。轻点，闭上嘴。有人说话，听见没有？施特列泽的人回来了。唉，完蛋啦。别出声。”

    声音越来越近。皮靴吱吱声，马刺叮当声。

    “您不用辩解，骗不了我。我可不是那种容易上当的人。这儿一定有人说话。”传来上校盛气凌人的彼得堡口音，地窖里听得越来越清楚。

    “大人，也许是您的错觉。”小叶尔莫莱村长奥特维亚日斯金老头想说服上校，村长是个渔夫。“既然是村子，自然有人说话，这有什么可奇怪的。这儿不是坟地呀。也许有人说话。屋子里住的不是不会说话的牲口。也许家神在梦里掐得人喘不过气来。”

    “轻点！您要再装傻，做出一副可怜相，我就给您点颜色看！家神！您也太不像话了。自作聪明到共产国际可就晚了。”

    “哪儿能呢，大人，上校先生！哪儿来的共产国际！都是大字不识的文盲。连旧圣经书都看不下来。他们哪儿懂得革命。”

    “没拿到证据之前你们都这么说。给我把合作社从上到下搜查一遍。把所有箱子里的东西都抖搂出来，柜台底下也都看一遍。跟合作社挨着的房子统统搜查。”

    “是，大人，照您的吩咐办。”

    “潘夫努金、里亚贝赫、涅赫瓦林内几个人活的死的都要。从海底捞出来我也不管。还有加卢津那个小伙子。尽管他爸爸发表爱国演说，想把我们说糊涂了。正相反。我们可不会打脑儿。如果铺子老板发表演说，其中必有缘故。这让人起疑，不符合本性。我们的秘密情报说他们在圣十字镇的家里窝藏政治犯，举行秘密会议。我要捉住那小杂种。我还没打定主意怎么处置他，可如果发现什么，我就绞死他，杀一儆百嘛。”

    搜查的人往前走了。等他们走远了后，科西卡·埋赫瓦林内向吓得半死的捷廖什卡·加卢津问道：

    “听见了没有？”

    “听见了。”他低声回答，声音都变了。“如今咱们同桑卡和格什卡只有进树林这一条路了。我并不是说永远呆在那儿。等他们明白过来再说。等他们清醒过来就知道该怎么办了。说不定还能回答。”

    林中战士

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇已经在游击队里做了一年多的俘虏。但这种囚禁的界线很不明确。囚禁尤里·安德烈耶维奇的地方没有围墙。既没人看守他，也没人监视他。游击队一直在移动，尤里。安德烈耶维奇同他们一起转移。这支部队并没同人民群众隔开，移动的时候经过居民点和居民区。它同居民混杂在一起，融化在他们当中。

    仿佛这种从属关系、这种囚禁并不存在似的，医生是自由的，只不过不会利用它罢了。医生的从属关系，他的囚禁，仿佛同生活当中的其他强迫形式没有任何不同，同样是看不见和摸不着的，似乎并不存在，是一种空想和虚构。尽管医生没戴手铐脚镣，也没人看守他，但他不得不屈从仿佛想象出来的囚禁。

    他三次试图从游击队里逃走，但三次都被抓回来。三次逃走虽然没受到惩罚，但他是在玩火。他以后没再尝试。

    游击队长利韦里·米库利钦对他很宽容，让他住在自己的帐篷里，喜欢跟他在一起。这种一厢情愿的亲近很使尤里·安德烈耶维奇恼火。

    这是游击队几乎木停地向东方撤退的时期。有时，这种转移是把高尔察克驱逐出西伯利亚的攻势的一部分。有时，白军迂回游击队后方，企图把他们包围起来。这时候，游击队仍向同一个方向撤退。医生很久都不明白其中的奥妙。

    游击队常常同大路两旁的城镇和乡村保持平行的方向撤退，有时还沿着大路撤退。这些城镇和乡有时属于红军，有时属于白军，就看谁的军事运气好了。但从外表很难断定是谁的政权。

    游击队经常穿过农民义勇军的村镇，它们当中最主要的正是这支拉长了的队伍。大路两旁的农舍仿佛缩进地里，骑兵、马匹、大炮和背着大衣卷、互相挤碰的高大射手们踩得路面上都是泥，仿佛比房子还高。

    一天，医生在这类村镇上接收游击队缴获的战利品——一座英国药品库，这座药品库是卡比尔将军的军官撤退时丢弃的。

    这是一个漆黑的雨天，只有两种颜色：有光的地方是白色，设光的地方是黑色。医生的心里同样是这种单调的明暗，没有缓和的过渡，没有半明半暗。

    军队的频繁调动完全把道路踩坏了，道路变成一条黑色的泥浆，而且不是所有地方都能胜过。街道上只有几处相隔很远的地方可以通过，不管从街道哪一边，都得绕很大的弯才能走到这些地方。医生便是在这种情况下在帕仁斯克遇到火车上的旅伴佩拉吉娜·佳古诺娃的。

    她先认出他来。他没马上想起来这个面熟的女人是谁。她从大路那边，像从运河河岸上似的向他瞥来含有双重意义的目光，决心同他打招呼，如果他认出她来的话，不然便准备随时离开。

    过了一分钟，他全都想起来了。在挤满人的货车厢、赶去服劳役的人群、押解他们的卫兵和辫子撩到胸脯上的女旅客这幅图画当中，他看见了自己家里的人。去年一家人乘车的情景都清晰地出现在他脑海中。他刻骨思念的亲切的面容生动地浮现在他眼前。

    他用头向佳古诺娃指了指，让她往前走几步，走到踩着几块石头便可以通过的地方。他也走到这个地方，向佳古诺娃那边走过去，同她打招呼。

    她告诉了他很多事。她提起被非法抓进劳工队里却没受到坏影响的漂亮的男孩子瓦夏，瓦夏曾和医生同坐在一节加温车厢里，她还把自己在瓦夏母亲住的韦列坚尼基镇的生活向医生描述了一遍。她在他们那儿过得很好。但村里的人时常给她难堪，因为她不是本村人，是外来户，还责备她同瓦夏有私情，全是村里人编出来的。她不得不离开，不然便会被他们用各种难听话糟踏坏了。她到圣十字镇姐姐奥莉加·加卢津娜家来住。传说有人在帕仁斯克见过普里图利耶夫，她便被吸引到这里来。但消息原来是假的，可她在这儿找到了工作，无法离开了。

    这段时期她的亲人们一个个遭了难。从韦列坚尼基镇传来消息，由于违背余粮征收法，村子遭到军队屠杀。布雷金家的房子大概烧光了，瓦夏家里有人烧死。在圣十字镇，加卢津的房子被强占，财产被剥夺。姐夫木是被关进监狱便是被枪毙了。外甥失踪。姐姐奥莉加最初挨饿受穷，后来在兹沃纳尔斯克镇给一家农村亲戚当用人，挣一口饭吃。

    佳古诺娃在帕仁斯克洗刷器皿的药店正好是被医生征用的财产。对所有靠药店生活的人来说，包括佳古诺娃在内，征用使他们陷入绝境。但医生无权取消征用的决定。药品移交的时候，佳古诺娃在场。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇的大车一直赶到药房后院仓库的门口。一捆捆药品，一筐筐装着药瓶和药盒的柳条筐，从地下室里抬出来。

    药房老板那匹长了癣的瘦马同人一起悲伤地从马厩里望着别人往大车上装货。阴雨的天快到黄昏了。天空已经放晴。被乌云紧紧裹着的太阳露了一下面。太阳快要落山了。它的综紫色的余光洒进院里，把粪便坑染成金色，这大概是不祥之兆。风吹木动它们。粪浆稠得摇不动。但大路上的积水被风吹得泛起涟确，现出朱红色的斑点。部队绕过深水沟和坑洼的地方，沿着大路边缘向前移动。在缴获的药物中发现了一罐可卡因，游击队队长最近吸它吸上了痛。

    医生的工作多得要命。冬天是斑疹伤寒，夏天是痢疾，此外，战斗重新爆发，在战斗的日子里伤员不断增加。

    尽管打败仗，队伍不停地撤退，但游击队的人数还是不断增加，有的来自农民义勇军经过的地方，有的来自敌人阵营中的逃兵。医生在游击队度过的一年半的时间里，游击队员人数增加了一倍。利韦里在“十字架节”镇地下司令部的会议上提到过他的部队的人数，那时他大概夸大了十倍。现在，他们已经达到利韦里所说的人数了。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇有几个助手，几个具有一定经验的新来的卫生兵。他的主要医疗助手是匈牙利共产党员、当过战俘的军医克列尼·劳什，在战俘营里大家都管他叫狗叫同志。还有个助手是医士安格利亚尔。医士是克罗地亚人，也是奥地利战俘。尤里·安德烈耶维奇同军医用德语交谈，医士出生于斯拉夫人居住的巴尔干半岛，勉强听得懂俄语。

    根据国际红十字公约，军医和部队医务人员不得参与作战双方的军事行动。但有一次医生违背自己的意志被迫违反了条约。战斗打响的时候他正好在野地里，迫使他分享战斗人员的命运，向敌人射击。

    游击队的散兵线布置在林子边上。游击队的背后是大森林，前面是一片开阔的林中草地，四周毫无遮掩，白军从那里向游击队进攻。敌人一开炮，医生马上躺倒在游击队电话员的旁边。

    敌人越来越近，医生已经看清他们每个人的脸。这是出身于彼得堡社会非军事阶层的青少年和被动员起来的后备部队中的上年纪的人。但其中的主力则是头一类人，青年，一年级的大学生和八年级的中学生，不久前才报名参加志愿军的。

    他们当中医生一个也不认识，但他觉得有一半脸孔他都熟

    悉，曾经见过。他们使他想起过去的中学同学。也许这些青少年是他们的小兄弟？另一部分人他仿佛过去在剧场里或街道上的人群当中遇见过。他们一张张富于表情的、讨人喜欢的脸使他感到亲切，就像见到自己圈子里的人一样。

    忠于职责，像他们所理解的那样，使他们激动大胆，显出不必要的挑衅的样子。他们排开一字形队列向前进，挺直身子，英勇的姿势超过正规近卫军，做出藐视危险的样子，既不跳跃前进也不卧倒，尽管草地不平，有可供掩蔽的土丘和坑洼。游击队的子弹几乎把他们挨个扫倒。

    白军前进的宽阔光秃的野地上有一棵烧死的枯树。它不是被雷电或黄火烧焦，便是被前几次战斗炸毁。每个前进的志愿兵射击时都要看它一眼，克制住躲在树干后较为安全也较容易瞄准的诱惑，继续前进。

    每个游击队队员的子弹数目是有限的。必须珍惜子弹。下了绝对的命令，只能在近距离，在看得见的目标同步枪数目相等的情况下才能开枪。

    医生没有枪，躺在草地里观察战斗进程。他全部的同情都在英勇牺牲的孩子们一边。他全心祝愿他们成功。这是那些在精神上、教养上、气质上和观念上同他接近的家庭的子弟。

    他脑子里突然产生一个念头：朝他们向草地那边跑去，向他们投降，以此获得解脱。但这一步太冒险了，伴随着极大的危险。

    当他跑到草地中间，举起双手的时候，两边都可能把他撂倒，打中他的前胸或后背，自己人为了惩罚他的彻底背叛，白军则由于弄不清他的真正动机。他已经不止一次遇到这种情况，考虑过所有的可能性，并早已确认这种解脱的办法是不可取的。医生在这种矛盾的心情下继续趴在地上，脸朝着草地，没有武器，注视着草地中进行的战斗。

    然而在周围进行殊死战斗的时候，一个人无所事事，冷眼旁观是不可思议的，是活人所办不到的。而且问题并不在于个人自卫，而在于必须遵从现实的秩序，服从发生在他眼前和周围的事件的法则。置身度外是违背规则的。必须做别人所做的事。战斗正在进行。他和同伴们遭到射击。必须还击。

    当他身旁的电报员在散兵线内抽搐起来，后来伸直身子不动了的时候，医生解下他的子弹袋，拿过他的步枪，回到原来的位置上，一枪接一枪地射击起来。

    但怜悯心木允许他瞄准他所欣赏并同情的年轻人。胡乱朝天射击又太愚蠢，违背他的意愿。于是他选择在他和他的目标之间没有任何进攻者的时刻，对准枯树开枪。这便是他的射击方法。

    医生瞄准目标，越瞄越准，不知不觉地勾动扳机，但并未勾到底，仿佛没有射击的打算，直到扳机勾下，子弹像走火一样射出为止。医生像通常一样，射击得很准确，把枯树底下的枯枝打得纷纷落在它的周围。

    可是，太可怕了。不管医生多么小心，多么不想射中人，但进攻的敌人，一会儿这个，一会儿那个，在关键的一刹那冲进他和枯树之间，在开枪的时刻穿过他的瞄准线。他打伤了两个，第三个倒霉鬼倒在离枯树不远的地方，大概也没命了。

    白军司令终于确信进攻是无益的，便下令撤退。

    游击队人数不多。他们的主力一部分在行进，另一部分撤往～侧，同更为强大的敌军作战。支队为了不暴露人数不足，没去追赶退却的敌人。

    医士安格利亚尔把两个抬担架的卫生兵带到树林边。医生命令他们救护伤员，自己走到躺着不动的电话员跟前。他暗暗希望，也许电话员还有口气，还能把他救活。可电话员已经死了。尤里·安德烈耶维奇为了证实他是否确实死了，便解开他胸前衬衣趴上去听。心脏已经不跳了。

    死者脖子上挂着一个护身香囊。尤里·安德烈耶维奇把它解了下来。香囊的破布里包着一张折叠得快要磨烂了的纸片。医生打开一半已经磨烂的纸片，碎纸屑从他手指间散落下来。

    纸上写的是第九十一诗篇的摘录，但同原诗篇略有出入，这是人民在祈祷时自己加进去的。人民传诵时以讹传讹，所以出入越来越大。古斯拉夫文的片段在抄时改写成了俄文。

    诗篇中说：“得到全能者的荫庇。”在俄文中这一句改成咒语的标题：“荫庇”。诗篇：“你不必再惧怕黑夜的恐怖或白昼的危险”。改为鼓励的话：“你不必再惧怕战争的危险。”“因为他信奉我的名”，诗篇这样说。可俄文改为：“知我名已晚。”“在患难的时刻，我必与他同在。我将拯救他……”在俄文中变成了“很快把他带入冬天”。

    诗篇被认为具有不受子弹伤害的神效。上次帝国主义战争时期，士兵便把它当作护身符带在身上。过去了几十年，或在更晚的时候，被捕的人把它缝在衣服里，每当夜间提审犯人的时候，他们便在心里背诵这些诗篇。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从电话员身旁走到林中草地上被他打死的白卫军尸体跟前。少年俊秀的脸上现出纯洁无假和宽恕一切的痛苦表情。“我干吗要杀死他呢？”医生想道。

    他解开死者的大衣，把衣襟撩开。衣服上工整地绣着死者的姓名：谢廖扎·兰采维奇。大概是疼爱他的母亲用手精心绣上的。

    从谢廖札衬衣领口垂下挂在项链上的十字架、鸡心和一个扁平的小金匣或扁烟盒，损坏的盒盖仿佛用钉子钉上去的。小匣子半开着。从里面掉下一张叠着的纸片来。医生打开纸片，简直不敢相信自己的眼睛。这也是诗篇中的第九十一篇，不过是按照古斯拉夫体印刷的。

    这时谢廖扎抽搐了一下，呻吟起来。他没死。后来发觉，他内脏受到轻微的震伤。子弹打在母亲的辟邪物壁上已经无力了，这挽救了他。但怎样处理这个躺在地上不省人事的白军呢？

    这时作战双方都凶残到顶点。俘虏不活着押送到目的地，受伤的敌人就地扎死。

    当时游击队的人员流动很大，一会儿新队员加入了，一会儿老队员离开并投到敌人～边，如果能严格保密的话，可以把兰采维奇说成不久前参加游击队的新队员。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从打死的电话员身上脱下上衣，在安格利亚尔的帮助下（医生把秘密告诉了他），给尚未恢复知觉的少年穿上。

    他和医士护理这个男孩子。等到兰来维奇完全康复后，他们放了他，尽管他不向自己的救护者们隐瞒，他还要回到高尔察克部队去，继续同红军作战。

    秋天，游击队在高山坡上～片小树林里扎营，这块地方叫作狐湾，一条湍急的小河从三面环绕着它，并把河岸冲出一条条小沟。

    游击队到这里之前，卡比尔的部队曾在这里过冬。他们自己动手，并利用当地居民的劳动力，在树林里修筑了工事，但春天他们便撤离了树林。游击队队员们现在便分散住在他们没烧毁的掩护体、战壕和通道里。

    利韦里·阿韦尔基耶维奇同医生合住一个窑洞。他夜里同医生谈话，医生已经两夜无法睡觉了。

    “我真想知道，我那位最可敬的父亲大人，令人尊敬的老爷子，现在干什么呢。”

    “天哪，我简直无法忍受这种小丑腔调，”医生心里叹道，“跟他老子一模一样！”

    “从我们过去的谈话中我得出结论，您相当熟悉阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇。我觉得您对他的看法相当不坏。是这样吧，阁下？”

    “利韦里·阿韦尔基耶维奇，明天我们要到高坡上并预备会。此外，对几个酿私酒的卫生兵马上就要开审。我同劳什还没准备好这方面的材料。明天我们还要就这件事碰头。我已经两夜没睡觉了。以后再谈行不行？您行行好吧。”

    “木行，”队长又把话题拉回到阿韦尔基·斯捷潘诺维奇身上，“您对老头儿有什么看法？”

    “您的父亲还相当年轻，利韦里·阿韦尔基耶维奇。您平吗管他叫老头呢？现在我就回答您。我时常对您说，划分不清社会阶层的各种关系，看不出布尔什维克同其他的社会党人之间有什么特殊的区别。您父亲属于最近这几年造成俄国骚乱的那类人。您父亲的外表和性格都是革命的。他同您一样，是俄国发酵因素的代表。”

    “这是夸奖还是否定？”

    “我再次请您以后找个方便时候再同我辩论吧。此外，我还要提醒您注意，您又无节制地吸可卡因了。您擅自把它从我储备的药品中取走。它有其他用途，且不说这是毒药，我得为您的健康负责。”

    “晚上您又没来上课。您的社会活动机能萎缩，跟不识字的老娘们或顽固到底的保守庸人～样。然而您是医生，读过很多书，好像自己还在写东西。请解释一下，这两件事怎样联系在一起？”

    “我也不知道怎样联系在一起。也许根本无法联系，一点办法也没有。我值得怜悯。”

    “谦虚胜于骄傲。与其恶毒嘲笑，不如熟悉一下我们讲习班的大纲，承认自己傲慢得不是地方。”

    “随您怎么说好了，利韦里·阿韦尔基耶维奇！哪来的傲慢呢！我对您的教育工作崇拜得五体投地。议事日程上每天都重复您对问题的概述。我都读过。我熟悉您对士兵道德发展的想法，并且钦佩不已。您所说的人民军队士兵对待同志、弱者、无法自卫的人、女人以及整洁和荣誉的观念的看法，同宗教改革团体的主张几乎一模一样，这是托尔斯泰主义的一种，这是人必须活得有意义的理想，我少年时代满脑子都是这套东西。我怎能嘲笑它们呢？

    “但是，首先，共同完善的观点，像十月革命后人们对它所理解的那样，已经不能打动我了。其次，所有这一切离现实还很远，可仅仅为了这些议论，人们就血流成河，目的抵偿不了手段。第三，这是主要的，我一听见改造生活这类话，就无法控制自己，陷入绝望之中。

    “改造生活！人们可以这样议论，也许还是颇有阅历的人，可他们从未真正认识生活，感觉到它的精神，它的心灵。对他们来说，这种存在是未经他们改良的一团粗糙的材料，需要他们动手加工。可生活从来都不是材料，不是物质。它本身，如果您想知道的话，不断更新，永远按着自我改进的规律发展，永远自我改进，自我变化，它本身比咱们的愚蠢理论高超得多。”

    “然而我斗胆奉劝您一句，参加会议，同我们那些绝妙的、出色的人接触，仍然能提高您的情绪。您就不会那样忧郁了。我知道它是从哪儿来的。我们挨打，您看不见一丝希望，所以感到压抑。可是朋友，任何时候都不要陷入恐慌。我知道的事，并且同我个人有关的事，要可怕得多（它们暂时不能公开），可我仍没惊慌失措。我们的失败是暂时的。高尔察克的灭亡是注定的。记住我的话。您会看到的。我们必胜。打起精神来吧。”

    “这可真太妙了！”医生想。“如此幼稚！如此短见！我整天对他说我们的观点相反，他把我抓来，又把我扣押在身边，可他却觉得他的失败必然会使我灰心丧气，而他的打算和期望一定能使我振奋起来。竟如此盲目！在他看来，革命的利益和太阳系的存在是一回事儿。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇哆喀了一下。他什么也没回答，只耸了耸肩膀，并毫不掩饰利韦里的天真超过了他忍耐的限度，他勉强克制住自己。这并没逃过利韦里的眼睛。

    “朱庇特，你生气，因为你错了。”他说。

    “您总该明白，这些话不必对我说。‘朱庇特’，‘不要陷入恐慌’，‘你说一，我就得说二’，‘摩尔人效劳已毕，该让他走了’——这些陈词滥调用不着对我说。我说一，可不说二，您就是有天大的本事也办不到。我假定你们是明灯，是俄国的解放者，没有你们它便要陷入贫困和愚昧的深渊，可我对你们还是不感兴趣，我瞧不起你们，不喜欢你们，让你们统统见鬼去吧。

    “你们思想的主宰者爱说成语，但主要的一条却忘记了：强扭的瓜不甜。他们特别习惯解放并施思于那些并不曾请求他们解放和施恩的人。您也许认为，对我来说，世界上最好的地方莫过于你们的营房以及跟您呆在一起了。我大概还应祝福您，为了我被囚禁向您道谢，因为您把我从我的家庭、我的儿子、我的住宅、我的事业以及我所珍爱并赖以为生的一切当中解放出来了。

    “传说一支来历不明的外国军队袭击了瓦雷金诺。听说他们被击溃，但村子遭到了洗劫。卡缅诺德沃尔斯基并未否认这个消息。据说我家里的人和您家里的人逃脱了。一群神奇的斜眼睛的人，身穿短棉袄，头戴羊皮高帽，在严寒中从冰上穿过雷尼瓦河，没说一句难听的话，对村里一切有生命的东西统统开枪打死，然后又不知去向，就像他们出现时那样神秘。您难道没听说过？这是真的吗？”

    “胡说八道。捏造。搬弄是非的人所造的谣，未经证实的流言。

    “如果您真像对士兵进行道德教育时那样善良，那样宽宏大量，那您就把我放了吧。我去寻找亲人，连他们是否还活着，他们在哪儿，我都不知道。如果您不放我，就请住口，不要再打扰我，因为我对其他的一切都不感兴趣，还会干出蠢事来。最后，活见鬼，我总还有睡觉的权利吧！”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇往床上一扑，脸趴在枕头L。他竭力不听利韦里的辩解，对方还在劝他放心，到不了春天，白军一定会被击退。内战将结束，自由会到来，到处都是幸福与和平。那时谁也不敢扣留医生。但需要耐心等待那个时刻的到来。已经忍受了这么多的苦难，做出了这么大的牺牲，再用不着等多久了。现在医生又能上哪儿去呢。为了他自身的安全，现在不能放他一个人到任何地方去！

    “又是他那一套，魔鬼！说起来就没完！多少年反复磅叨这一套也不害臊？”尤里·安德烈耶维奇气得叹气。“他听自己的话听得入迷了，这个好说漂亮话的人，倒霉的可卡因鬼。夜晚对他不是夜晚，跟他这个该死的东西在一块没法睡觉，没法活。嗅，我恨死他了！上帝作证，我总有一天宰了他。

    “嗅，东尼娜，我可怜的小姑娘！你还活着吗？你在哪儿？天哪，她早该分娩了！你分娩顺利吗？咱们又多了个男孩还是女孩？我的所有亲人们，你们怎么样了？东尼哑，我永恒的责备和我的过错！拉拉，我不敢呼唤你的名字，怕把灵魂从胸口中吐出来。天哪，天哪！可这位还在演说，安静不下来，可恶的、感觉麻木的畜生！嗅，我总有一天会忍受不住把他宰了的。”

    晴和的初秋过去了。天气晴朗的金色秋天来临了。狐湾西端一座木塔矗立在白军修筑的地堡里。尤里·安德烈耶维奇约好在这里同他的助手劳什医生会面，商量几件公事。尤里·安德烈耶维奇按时来到这里。他无事可做，便在坍塌的战壕边上走来走去，爬上木塔，走进守卫室，从机枪巢的空枪眼里眺望河对岸的一片伸向远方的树林。

    秋天已经在树林中针叶树木和阔叶树木之间划了一条明显的界线。针叶树木橡～堵黑墙竖立在树林深处，阔叶树木则在针叶树木之间闪烁出一个个葡萄色的光点，仿佛在砍伐过的树林中用树干修建的一座带内城和金顶楼阁的古代城市。

    壕沟里、医生的脚下和被晨寒冻硬的林间道路的车辙里积满了枯干的柳叶，柳叶仿佛剪过似的蜷成一个个小圆卷。秋天散发出这些褐色树叶的苦涩气息，还夹杂着许多其他的气息。尤里·安德烈耶维奇贪婪地把霜打过的苹果、苦涩的干技、发甜的潮湿和九月蓝色的晨雾混合而成的芳香吸进肺里。晨雾令人联想起被水浇过的黄火和刚刚扑灭的火灾的蒸气来。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇没发现劳什走到他背后。

    “您好，同事。”他用德语说。他们商量起公事来。

    “咱们要商量三件事。第一，如何处理酿造私酒的人；第二，改组野战医院和药房；第三，根据我的要求，研究如何在野外环境下对精神病进行门诊治疗。亲爱的劳什，也许您认为没有这种必要，可据我的观察，我们正在发疯，而现代种类的疯狂具有传染的性能。”

    “这是个非常有趣的问题。我等会儿再来谈它。现在先说别的。军营里出现不安迹象。酿造私酒者的命运引起大家同情。不少人还担心从白军占领的村子里逃出来的家属的命运。一部分游击队员拒绝开拔，因为运载他们妻子、儿女和父母的大车队快到了。”“是啊，应该等待他们。”

    “可这一切都发生在选举统一指挥司令官的前夕，他将统一指挥原来不隶属于咱们的支队。我想利韦里同志是唯一的候选人。一伙青年人推举另一个人，伏多维钦科。有一派同我们不合，但同私酿烧酒的人勾结在一起，他们支持他。他们都是富农和店员子弟，还有高尔察克的逃兵。他们闹得特别厉害。”

    “依您看，对那些卖私酸白酒的卫生兵如何处置？”

    “我看先判枪决，然后赦免，改为缓刑。”

    “可扯远啦，还是商量正经事儿吧。如何改组野战医院。这是我想跟您商量的头一件事儿。”

    “好吧。不过我想告诉您，您的有关精神病预防的建议毫不令人惊讶。我自己也有这种看法。现在出现并流行的精神病是最典型的精神病，具有特定的时代特点，是时代的历史特征所直接引起的。咱们这儿有个士兵，帕姆菲尔·帕雷赫，在沙皇军队里当过兵，觉悟很高，具有天生的阶级本能。他正是这样发了疯，因为担心亲人发了疯：如果他被打死了，他们落到白军手里，将替他承担一切责任。非常复杂的心理状态。他的家属在逃难大车队中，正在追赶我们。我的蹩脚俄语使我没法详细询问他。您向安格利亚尔或卡缅诺德沃尔斯基打听吧。应该给他检查一次。”

    “我非常了解帕雷赫。我怎么会木知道他呢。有一个时期，我们在军人苏维埃里经常接触。一个黑脸膛的、前额很低的残忍的人。我不明白您在他身上发现了什么好品德。他总赞成极端措施，最严厉的措施，处决。我对他一直很反感。好吧，我替他做检查。”

    这一天天气晴朗，阳光灿烂。同整个上星期一样，天气干燥，没有风。军营里传出一大堆人模糊不清的嘈杂声，仿佛远处大海的波涛。还轮流传来在树林里行走的脚步声、说话声、斧子砍木头声、铁砧叮当声、马嘶声、狗叫声和公鸡啼声。一群皮肤黝黑、牙齿雪白的人在树林里笑着往前走。有的人认识医生，向他鞠躬，不认识他的人不打招呼便从他身边走过。

    尽管游击队队员在追赶他们的家属赶上他们之前不同意撤离狐湾，但家属已经离营地不远了，所以树林里仍在做着开拔的准备，准备把宿营地再向东转移。该修理的修理了，该洗干净的洗干净了，木箱钉好了，大车检查过，看看它们有没有毛病。

    树林当中有一大块踏出的空地，像土丘或城堡遗址，当地人都管这块地叫高地。通常都在这里开会。今天要在这儿召开全体会议，宣布重要消息。

    树林里还有很多没发黄的树。在林子深处它们还鲜嫩发绿。下午西沉的太阳的阳光从背后把树林穿透。树叶透过阳光，背面映出绿光，像透明的绿玻璃瓶。

    联络官卡缅诺德沃尔斯基在一片开阔的草地上，一大捆档案的旁边，烧毁测览过的没用的废纸，这是卡比尔军官团留下的文件，还有～堆游击队自己的报告。纸摊开得让火苗对着太阳。阳光穿过透明的火焰如同透过绿树林一样。火焰看不见，只从云母般颤动的热气流上可以断定有什么东西正在燃烧，烧得炽热。

    树林里挂满五颜六色的熟浆果：碎米养的漂亮的悬垂果、红砖色的发蔫的接骨木和颜色闪变着的紫白色的绣球花串。带斑点的和透明的情蜒，如同火焰或树林颜色一样，鼓动着玻璃般的薄翼，在空中慢慢滑行。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从童年时起就喜欢看夕阳残照下的树林。在这种时刻，他觉得自己仿佛也被光柱穿透了。仿佛活精灵的天赋像溪流一样涌进他的胸膛，穿过整个身体，化为一双羽翼从他肩肿骨下面飞出。每个人一生当中不断塑造的童年时代的原型，后来永远成为他的内心的面目，他的个性，以其全部原始力量在他身上觉醒了，迫使大自然、树林、晚霞以及所有能看到的一切化为童年所憧憬的、概括一切美好事物的小姑娘的形象。“拉拉！”他闭上眼睛，半耳语或暗自在心里向他整个生活呼唤，向大地呼唤，向展现在他眼前的一切呼唤，向被太阳照亮的空间呼唤。

    但日常例行的事照旧进行，俄国发生了十月革命，他是游击队的俘虏。他不知不觉走到卡缅诺德沃尔斯基点着的火堆跟前。

    “销毁文件？到现在还没烧完？”

    “早着呢！这些东西还够烧半天的。”

    医生用皮鞋尖踢了一下，从纸堆中扒出一堆文件。这是白军司令部的往来电报。他心中闪过一种模糊的预感。说不定他在这难文件中能碰到兰采维奇的名字，但预感欺骗了他。这是一堆枯燥的去年密码汇总。简略得没人看得懂。他用脚扒开另外一堆。里面散开的是游击队会议的旧记录。顶上面的一张纸上写着：“火速。释放事宜。重新选举监察委员会。鉴于乡村女教师伊格纳托德沃尔察的控诉无凭据，军队苏维埃认为……”

    这时，卡缅诺德沃尔斯基从口袋里掏出一张纸片递给医生，说道：

    “这是你们医务部门撤离时的安排。载运游击队家属的大车离这儿已经不远了。军营里的分歧今天便能解决。一两天内咱们就要开拔。”

    医生看了纸片一眼，哎呀了一声：

    “这比您上次给的少。可又增加了多少伤员！能走的和缠绷带的叫他们自己走。可他们人数很少。我用什么拉伤病员？还有药物、病床和其他设备怎么办？”

    “想办法压缩一下。人得适应环境呀。现在说另外一件事。我代表大家向您提出一个请求。有个久经锻炼的同志，他经过考验，忠于事业，是位优秀的战士。他有点不对劲。”

    “帕雷赫吧。劳什跟我说过了。”

    “那好。您上他那儿去一趟，替他检查检查。”

    “精神上有毛病？”

    “大概是阳。他说他看见了小鬼。大概是错觉。夜里失眠，头疼。”

    “好吧。我马上去看看。现在我有空儿。什么时候开会？”

    “我想快开了。可这跟您有什么关系？您瞧，我也没去。咱们吉不去没关系。”

    “那我就上帕雷赫那儿去了。尽管我快迈不开步了，困得要命。利韦里·阿韦尔基耶维奇喜欢夜里高谈阔论，说得我厌烦。上帕姆菲尔那儿怎么走？他住在哪儿？”

    “石头坑后面的那片小禅树林您认识吧？”

    “我找得着。”

    “林子空地上有几个指挥官的帐篷。我们拨给了帕姆菲尔一个，等待他家属来。他老婆孩子的大车快到了。所以他就住在军官帐篷里了。享受营长待遇。因为他对革命有功嘛。”

    在去帕姆菲尔住处的路上，医生觉得再也走不动了。他困倦极了。他无法克制睡意，这是一连几夜没睡够觉的结果。他可以回地窑睡一会儿，可尤里·安德烈耶维奇不敢去。利韦里随时都可能回去，妨碍他睡觉。

    他倒在一块铺满金色树叶的小草地上，树叶都是从周围的树枝上飘落下来的。树叶像一个个方格似的交叉地落在草地上。阳光也这样落在这块金色地毯上。这种重叠交叉的绚烂多彩照得医生眼睛里冒金星。但它像读小字印刷品或听一个人单调的喃喃自语那样催人入睡。

    医生躺在沙沙作响的丝一般柔软的草地上，头枕着垫在青苔上的手臂，青苔蒙在凹凸不平的树根上，把树根变成枕头。他马上打起瞌睡来。催他入睡的绚烂的光点。在他伸直在地上的身子上照出一个个方格。他融化在阳光和树叶的万花筒中，同周围的环境合成一体，像隐身人那样消逝在大自然里。

    对睡眠的过分渴望和需要，很快又使他醒了过来。直接的原因只能在一定范围内发生作用，超越限度便会发生反作用。得不到休息的警惕的意识毫无意义地、狂热地活跃着。思想的片断像旋风似的飞驰，像一只破汽车轮子擦着地面旋转。这种心灵的慌乱折磨着医生，使他气愤。“利韦里这个畜生，”他气愤地想。“现在世界上已经有千百种理由让他发疯了，可他还嫌不够。他把你俘虏过来，然后用友谊，用废话，毫无必要地把一个健康的人折磨成神经病患者。我非杀了他不可。”

    一只带花点的褐色蝴蝶像一块彩色布片，翅膀一张一合地从太阳那边飞过去。医生睡眼惺松地注视着它。它落在跟它颜色最相似、带花点的褐色鳞状的杉树皮上，并与杉树皮融为一体，分辨不出来了，如同尤里·安德烈耶维奇在阳光和阴影笼罩下，外人无法发现他～样。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇又陷入通常的思绪中。这些思绪曾在他多年从事医务工作的过程中间接地触及过他。想到作为逐渐善于适应环境的结果的意志和适应性，想到拟态，想到保护色。想到最适应生存的人活下来，想到自然淘汰的途径就是意识形成和诞生的途径。何谓主体？何谓客体？如何给它们的一致性下定义？在医生的沉思中，达尔文同谢林相遇了，而飞过的蝴蝶就像现代派的油画和印象派的艺术。他想到创造、生物、创作和伪装。

    他又睡着了，但顷刻又醒了。附近有人压低声音说话，他们的说话声把他惊醒。传到尤里·安德烈耶维奇耳朵里的几句话足以使他明白有几个人正在图谋不轨。密谋的人显然没发现他，没料到他就在旁边。如果他现在动一下，暴露了自己，就可能送命。尤里·安德烈耶维奇屏息不动，偷听他们谈话。

    有的声音他能听出是谁来。他们是游击队里的败类，混入游击队的顽童桑卡·潘夫努金、格什卡·里亚贝赫、科西卡·涅赫瓦林内以及追随他们的捷连季·加卢津，所有害人精和胡作非为的首领都在这里。扎哈尔·戈拉兹德赫也同他们在一起。他是个更为阴险的人，参与酿私酒的勾当，但暂时还未受到惩处，因为他供出了为首的人。让尤里·安德烈耶维奇感到吃惊的是，他们当中还有“银连”里的游击队员西沃布留伊，他是游击队队长的贴身卫兵。继承拉辛和布加乔夫的传统，利韦里极端信任他的贴身侍卫，因此这位亲信被称为首领的耳目。原来他也是阴谋的参与者。

    阴谋分子们正同敌人前哨侦察队派来的人商谈。敌方特使的话一句也听不清，他们同叛徒们商量时声音非常低。尤里·安德烈耶维奇只在阴谋者们耳语中断的时候猜到，现在说话的是敌方代表。说得最多的是酒鬼扎哈尔·戈拉兹德赫。他声音沙哑，一边说一边骂街。看来他是主谋。

    “你们大家都听着。最要紧的是不能走漏一点风声。谁要是吱声，告密，瞧见这把刀子没有？我把他肠子捐出来。明白啦？咱们现在已经没有退路。咱们得将功赎罪，得大大地露一手。他fi］要求捉活的，用绳子把他捆起来。听说他们的大头儿古列沃正靠近树林（有人提醒他，大头儿的姓名他说得不对，应当是加利乌林，但他没听清，改成加列耶夫将军）。这可是千载难逢的好机会。这就是他们的代表。该干什么他们会告诉你们的。他们说一定要捆起来，捉活的。你们自己问问伙伴们。大伙说说吧。伙计们，告诉他们该怎么办吧。”

    派来的几个陌生人开始说话了。尤里·安德烈耶维奇一个字也听不清。不过，从双方长时间的沉默中可以想象出谈话的内容。戈拉兹德赫又说话了：

    “听见了吧，弟兄们？现在你们看清咱们落到什么宝贝手里了，什么恶棍手里了。为这种人去卖命？难道他算人吗？这是中了邪的傻瓜，就像不懂事的毛孩子或者隐修士。我叫你笑，捷廖什卡！你咧什么嘴，色鬼？没你说话的份儿。不错，他小时候就是隐修士。你要听他的，他准会把你变成和尚，变成老公。他说的都是什么话？要去掉身上的毛病，不许骂人，同酗酒做斗争，对女人要注意。能这样活下去吗？我最后决定了。今天晚上在河流渡口的石堆旁边，我把他骗到野地里，咱们大家一块补上去。对付他有什么难的。不费吹灰之力。麻烦的是他们要活的。要把他捆起来。要是捆不住他，我就用两只手结果了他。他们会派人接应咱们的。”

    说话的人继续发挥密谋计划，但同其他人一起渐渐离去，医生也不再听他们说话。

    “他们这是想活捉利韦里，这群恶棍！”尤里·安德烈耶维奇惊恐而厌恶地想道，忘记他曾多少次诅咒过自己的折磨者，巴不得他死。“这伙坏蛋想把他出卖给白军或杀死他。怎样才能防止这件事发生？应当仿佛无意地走到火堆跟前，不提任何人的名字，让卡缅诺德沃尔斯基知道这件事。怎么也得警告利韦里有危险。”

    卡缅诺德沃尔斯基已经不在原处了。火堆快要烧完。卡缅诺德沃尔斯基的助手看着火堆，以免火势蔓延。

    但阴谋并未得逞。它被粉碎了。原来利韦里等人已经知道他们策划的阴谋。当天阴谋彻底被揭穿，参与阴谋的人统统被抓起来。西沃布留伊扮演了双重角色：密探和拉人下水者。医生对他更为反感。

    已经清楚，游击队队员的家属离狐湾还剩下两昼夜的路程。游击队队员们准备同家属相聚，接着马上开披。尤里·安德烈耶维奇去找帕姆菲尔·帕雷赫。

    医生看见他手里拿着斧子站在帐篷门口。帐篷前堆了他砍下来的一大堆小烨树。帕姆菲尔还没把树干上的细枝砍掉。有的还倒在原处，折断的枝权插进湿土里。有的已经被他拖到旁边，像起来。树干压着颤悠悠的有弹性的枝叶，没碰着地，互相也不挨着。它们仿佛用双手抵挡砍他们的帕姆菲尔，整堆绿枝挡住了他进帐篷的去路。

    “为贵客准备的，”帕姆菲尔解释他为什么砍树干，“帐篷太低了，不适合让妻子和孩子住。我想再支几根桩子，就砍了几根树干。”

    “帕姆菲尔，你以为他们会让你的家庭住进帐篷里，那你就想错了。怎么能让非军人——妇女和孩子住在军营里呢。他们会安排在树林边上的大车里。有空的时候去同他们聚会，帮他们干点什么。未必会放他们进军营里的帐篷。可我不是为这个来的。听说你一天比一天瘦，不吃饭，木喝水，不睡觉？可气色还不错嘛。只是长了一脸胡子。”

    帕姆菲尔是个强壮的汉子，长了一头乱蓬蓬的黑头发，一脸大胡子，额头长满疙瘩，乍一看好像长了两个额头。额骨宽厚，像一只环或箍箍在太阳穴上。这使帕姆菲尔显得凶狠，仿佛永远斜着眼睛。

    革命初期，人们担心它会像一九O五年革命那样，也是受过教育的上层分子历史中的一个短暂现象，深入不到底层，不能在他们当中扎根，便向人民竭尽全力宣传革命性，把他们搅得惊恐不安，怒气冲天。

    在革命初期的日子里，像士兵帕姆菲尔这样的人，不用宣传便刻骨仇恨知识分子、老爷和军官，成了狂热左派知识分子的无价之宝，身价百倍。他们的凶残被视为阶级意识的奇迹，他们的野蛮行为被当成无产阶级的坚毅和革命本能的典范。帕姆菲尔牢固地树立了这种名声。游击队的首领和党的领袖们都很看重他。尤里·安德烈耶维苛觉得这个阴沉、孤僻的大力土是个不完全正常的怪物，因为他毫无心肝，单调乏味，缺乏吸引他和他所感到亲近的一切。

    “咱们上帐篷里坐吧。”帕姆菲尔邀请医生。

    “何必呢，我也钻不进去。外面更好。”

    “行啊。听你的。真是个狗洞。咱们坐在树干堆上聊吧。”

    他们坐在晃来晃去的烨树干上了。

    “都说故事一讲就完，可事情不能一下子办好。而我的故事一下子讲不完。三年也说不完。我不知道从哪儿说起。

    “我就试试吧。我跟女人一块过日子。我们都年轻。她管家，我下地干活，没什么可抱怨的。有了孩子。我被抓去当兵。送上前线。是啊，上了前线。那次战争我有什么可对你说的。你见过，军医同志。革命了。我恍然大悟。士兵睁开了眼睛。敌人不是外来的德国人，而是自己本国人。世界革命的士兵，刺刀朝下，从前线回家打资本家！等等。这你都知道，军医同志。等等。内战打起来了。我加入了游击队。很多地方我都跳过去不说了，要不永远也说不完。现在，不知过了多长时间，我这会儿看到了什么？他，那个寄生虫，从俄国前城撤走了斯塔夫罗波尔第一和第二兵团，又撤走了奥伦堡的哥萨克兵团。难道我不明白？我又不是三岁的小孩子！难道我没在军队里干过？咱们的情况很不好，糟透了。他那个畜生想干什么？他想让一伙敌人朝咱们扑过来。他想把咱们包围起来。

    “现在老婆孩子在我身边。万一他胜了，来了，他们往哪儿跑？他哪能明白，他们都是无辜的，跟我的事儿一点不沾边？他可不这么看。他会为了我的缘故把我老婆的手捆起来，拷打她，为了我的缘故折磨孩子，把他们的骨头折断。你还能睡觉吃饭？就算人是铁铸的吧，也不能不心烦呀。”

    “帕姆菲尔，你可真是个怪人。我无法理解你。多少年不跟他们在一起也过来了，没有他们一点消息，也没难过过。现在一两天就要见着他们了，非但不高兴，反而哭起丧来。”

    “那是先前，可这是现在，大不相同。该死的白军杂种要打败咱们。我说的不是自己。我反正要进棺材了。看来那是我该去的地方。可我不能把亲人也带到那个世界去呀。他们会落入恶棍的魔爪。他会把他们的血一滴滴放光。”

    “鬼就是从这儿来的吧？听说你见过鬼。”

    “得啦，大夫。我没都告诉你。没告诉你主要的。那你就听听全部真相吧。你别刨根问底，我都亲口告诉你。

    “我干掉过你们很多人，我手上沾满老爷、军官还有不知道什么人的血。人数和姓名我记不住了。往事如烟嘛。有个孩子我老忘不了，我干掉过一个孩子，怎么也忘不了。我为什么要把小伙子杀死呢？因为他逗得我笑破了肚皮。我一时发昏，笑着朝他开了枪。毫无缘由。

    “那是二月革命的时候。克伦斯基还当政呢。我们叛乱过。事情发生在火车站。派来一个鼓动家，是个毛孩子，他用嘴皮子动员我们进攻，让我们战斗到最后胜利。来了个士官生，劝我们党制。那么个层头。他的口号是战斗到最后胜利。他喊着口号跳上消防水桶，消防水桶就在车站上。他跳上水桶是想站得高些，从那儿号召大家参加战斗，可脚底下的桶盖翻了，他扑通一声掉进水里，脚踩空了。哎呀，笑死人了。我笑得肚子疼。真要笑死了。哎呀，滑稽极了！我手里有枪。我笑个不停，一点办法也没有。好像他在胳肢我。我就瞄准他开了一枪，他当场完蛋。我自己也不明白这是怎么一回事儿。就像有人把我的手推了一下。

    “这就是我白日见的鬼。夜里老梦见那个车站。当时觉得可笑，现在真可怜他。”

    “是在梅留泽耶沃镇吧，比留奇车站？”

    “我记不清了。”

    “跟济布申诺村的居民一块儿叛乱的？”

    “我记不清了。”

    “在东线还是西线？在哪条战线，在西线吧？”

    “仿佛是西线。很可能是西线。记不清了。”

    粘满白糖的花揪树

    游击队的家属带着孩子和生活用品，坐在大车里，已经跟着游击队走了很久。他们后面跟着一大群牲畜，大部分是奶牛，大概有几千头。

    自从游击队员们的妻子来到后，军营里出现了一个新人，士兵妻子兹雷达里哈，又叫库巴里哈。她是兽医，还是秘密的巫婆。

    她总戴着一顶馅饼似的帽子，穿着苏格兰皇家射手浅绿色的大衣，这是供应英国最高统治者的～种服装。她还非让别人相信这些东西是她用囚帽和囚服改成的，仿佛红军把她从克日木监狱里解放出来，而高尔察克不知为何把她关在了那里。

    这时游击队驻扎在新的地方。原以为在这里不过暂时驻扎，一旦查清附近的地形，找到适于长期居住的稳定地点，就转移到那里去过冬。但后来情况变了，游击队不得不在这里过冬。

    这个新宿营地同他们不久前撤离的狐湾没有任何相似之处。这是一片无法通过的密林。大路和营地的一侧是无边无际的树林。部队刚刚在树林里扎营的那几天，尤里·安德烈耶维奇比较空闲。他从几个方向深入树林考察，结果确信在里面很容易迷路。头一次巡察有两个角落引起他的注意，他暗暗记在心里。

    现在，在宿营地和树林的出口处，秋天的树叶都脱落了，像一扇打开的门，从树与树之间的空隙能看很远。就在这出口处有一棵孤零零的美丽的花揪树。它是所有的树木中唯一没脱落树叶的树，披满赤褐色的叶子。它长在泥洼地中的一个小土丘上，枝叶伸向天空，把一树坚硬发红的盾牌似的浆果呈现在阴暗的秋色中。冬天的小鸟，长了一身霜天黎明般的明亮羽毛的山雀，落在花揪树上，挑剔地、慢慢地啄食硕大的浆果，然后仰起小脑袋，伸长脖子，费劲地把它们吞下去。

    在小鸟和花揪树之间有一种精神上的亲近。仿佛花揪树什么都看见了，抗拒了半天，终于可怜起小鸟来，向它们让步了，就像母亲解开了胸衣，把乳房伸给婴儿一样。“唉，拿你们有什么办法？好吧，吃我吧，吃我吧，我养活你们。”它自己也笑了。

    树林中的另一个地方更迷人。这是一片尖顶似的高岗，～面是陡峭的深渊。悬崖下面仿佛与上面不同，有另一番景象——河流或峡谷，还有长满没人割过的杂草的草地。其实下面仍然是上面的重复，只不过是在令人头晕的深渊里，脚下便是从深渊里长起来的树梢。这大概是山崩的结果。

    仿佛这片高人云端的莽树林绊了一跤，坠落下来，本应粉身碎骨，钻入地下，但在关键的一刹那，却奇迹般地降落在地上，看起来并未受到损伤，依然在下面喧嚣。

    但这并不是林中高坡真正引人入胜的特征。它的四边都被陡峭的花岗石块围住。这些石块很像史前时期凿成的砌石家用的扁平石板。尤里·安德烈耶维奇头一次登上这个高坡时，敢赌咒发誓，这块四周堆积石块的地方决不是天然形成的，而带着人工的痕迹。这儿可能是古代多神教教徒的神庙，他们祈祷和祭扫的地方。

    十一名参与谋杀队长阴谋的首要分子和酿造私酒的卫生兵，便是在一个阴暗寒冷的清晨在这里处决的。

    以司令部特别卫队为核心的二十名对革命最为忠诚的游击队队员把他们带到这里。卫队在判处死刑的人周围困成半圆形，在他们背后推推搡搡，很快把他们挤到峭壁的一个角落里，死囚们除了跳崖外别无退路。

    他们在拷问、长期关押和受到种种凌辱之后已经不像人了。他们满脸胡须，脸色发青，推怀枯槁，像幽灵一样可怕。

    开始对他们审讯的时候便解除了他们的武装。没人想到行刑前对他们再次搜身。因为那太卑鄙，是临死前对人的嘲弄。

    同伏多维钦科并排走的是他的朋友勒扎尼茨基，同他一样，思想上也是一个无政府主义者，突然朝围着他们的卫队开了三枪，是对准西沃布留伊开的枪。勒扎尼茨基是名出色的射手，但他激动得手发抖，没有射中。出于礼貌还是出于对先前同志的怜悯，卫队没向勒扎尼茨基扑过去，也没在下命令前先向他一齐开枪。勒扎尼茨基的左轮手枪里还有一颗子弹，但他激动得把子弹忘了，因自己没有打中而懊恼，把手枪摔在石头上。手枪撞在石头上射出了第四颗子弹，打在被判处死刑的帕契科利亚的腿上。

    卫生兵帕契科利亚抱住腿喊了一声，倒在地上，痛得不停地尖叫。离他最近的潘夫努金和戈拉兹德赫把他架起来，抓着他的双手架着他走，免得在慌乱中被别的同志踩死，因为除了自己以外谁也不知道旁边还有别人了。帕契科利亚一瘸一拐地向石坡的边上走去，死囚都被逼到那里。他简直迈不开打伤的那条腿，不停地喊叫。他的不像人声的奖号很能感染人。仿佛有谁发出了信号，他们便都失去了理智。出现了谁也没料到的场面。有人咒骂，有人祈祷哀求。

    一直戴着黄边学生帽的少年加卢津，摘下帽子，跪在地上，在人群中跪着向可怕的石壁倒退。他向卫兵们鞠躬，头常常碰到地，哭得便便咽咽，已经失去了一半知觉，大声地央求他们：

    “我错了，弟兄们，饶了我吧，我再也不敢了。别把我毁了。别杀我。我刚开始生活，死得太早。我还要活呢，还想见我妈一次。弟兄们，原谅我，饶了我吧。我愿意亲你们的脚，替你们挑水。唉呀，倒霉呀，真倒霉，我没命啦，妈呀！”

    他们当中有人哭着数落，但看不见是谁：

    “好心的同志们，这是怎么回事儿？你们清醒清醒吧。咱们一块儿在两次战争中流过血，捍卫过共同的事业。可怜可怜我们，放了我们吧。我们一辈子也忘不了你们的恩德，我们用行动证明决不忘恩负义。你们怎么不答腔呀，都哑巴了吗？难道你们脖子上没戴着十字架？”

    他们对西沃布留伊吼道：

    “你这出卖耶稣的犹大！跟你比我们算什么叛徒？你这狗杂种才是双料叛徒呢。真该把你续死！你向沙皇效忠，却杀死了合法的沙皇。你发誓对我们忠诚，又把我们出卖了。你在出卖自己主子之前跟他亲嘴去吧，可你早晚要出卖他。”

    伏多维钦科站在坟墓边缘仍面不改色。他扬起脑袋，灰白色的头发随风飘扬，像公社社员对公社社员那样对勒扎尼茨基高声喊道，喊得全体都能听见：

    “不要作践自己！你对他们抗议没用。这伙新武士，这伙刑讯室里的刽子手，不会理解你。别灰心丧气，历史会把一切都弄清楚。后代将把政委统治制下的野蛮人和他们的肮脏勾当钉在耻辱柱上。我们像殉道者那样死在世界革命的前夕。精神革命万岁。全世界的无政府主义万岁。”

    只有射手们才分辨得出的无声的命令一下，二十支枪齐发，一半囚犯被打倒，大部分立即毙命。剩下的被再次开枪打死了。男孩子捷连季·加卢津比别人抽搐得时间都长，但他最后也伸直身子不动了。

    把宿营地转移到更加向东的另一个地方并在那里过冬的主意，并非一下子就打消了。多次在维茨科河与克日姆斯克河分水界公路的一侧察看地形。利韦里时常把医生一个人留在帐篷里，到大森林里去察看。

    但已经没地方可转移，再说也晚了。这是游击队遭到最严重失败的时期。白军在彻底覆灭之前决定对游击队进行一次打击，把树林里的非正规部队消灭干净。于是他们集结起前线的一切力量，把游击队包围起来。他们从各个方向向游击队逼近。如果他们包围的半径小一点，游击队便会遭到惨败。白军的包围圈过大，这挽救了他们。冬天的来临使敌人无法在通不过的无边的大森林里收缩包围圈，把这支农民部队更紧地包围起来。

    向任何地方转移都已经不可能了。当然，如果能制定出具有军事优势的计划，他们还能突破包围圈，进入新的阵地。

    但是，并没有这种深思熟虑的作战意图。人们已经精疲力竭了。下级军官自己都已灰心丧气，失去对下属的影响力。高级军官每天晚上召开军事会议，提出互相矛盾的突围方案。

    必须放弃寻找别的过冬地方的打算，在树林深处修筑防御工事，并在那里过冬。冬天雪深，使缺乏雪橇的敌人无法进入树林。必须挖战壕，储备更多的粮食。

    游击队的军需主任比休林报告，面粉和土豆奇缺。牲畜足够，比休林估计，到了冬天，主要的食品是肉和牛奶。

    冬季服装短缺。一部分队员衣不蔽体。营地里的狗统统被续死。会棵皮子的人用狗皮替游击队队员缝制翻毛皮袄。

    不准医生使用运输工具。大车现在有更重要的用途。最后一段路程用担架把重伤员抬了四十俄里。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇的药品只剩下奎宁、碘和芒硝了。用于手术和包扎的碘是结晶体，使用时需要在酒精中溶解。悔不该毁掉酿造私酒的设备，又让那次审讯中罪责最轻的酿造私酒的人修理酿酒装置，或者再修建一个新的。又恢复了用于医疗目的的私酒生产。人们在营地里只相互使使眼色，摇摇头。酗酒现象又重新出现，使军营中涣散的空气更加涣散。

    蒸馏出来的液体几乎达到一百度。这样浓的液体很容易溶解结晶体。后来，初冬的时候，尤里·安德烈耶维奇把金鸡纳树皮泡在这种私酿的酒里，用它治疗随着严寒季节的到来再度出现的斑疹伤寒。

    这些日子，医生常看到帕姆菲尔·帕雷赫和他的家属。整个夏天，他的妻子和小孩都在尘土飞扬的大道上奔波。他们被经历过的灾祸吓破了胆，正等待新的灾祸。流浪在他们身上留下不可磨灭的痕迹。帕姆菲尔的妻子和三个孩子（一个儿子和两个女儿）的淡黄色头发晒成了亚麻色，因风吹日晒而发黑的脸上长着整齐的白眉毛。孩子们还太小，在他们身上看不出惊恐的痕迹，但惊恐把他们母亲脸上的生气驱赶得一千二净，只剩下枯干端正的脸庞，闭成一条缝的嘴唇，以及随时准备自卫的凝滞在脸上的惊恐和痛苦。

    帕姆菲尔爱他们大家，特别是孩子，爱得要命。他用锋利的斧头角在木头上给孩子们刻出各种玩具，什么兔子呀，熊呀，公鸡呀，技术之拥熟令医生惊讶不已。

    他们来了后，帕姆菲尔非常快活，精神为之～振，身体渐渐康复。后来传出消息，鉴于家属对军营的情绪产生了有害的影响，必须把游击队员同他们的心上人分开，使军营摆脱非军事人员，把运载难民的大车护送到更远的地方，在那里把大车围起来过冬。把家属同游击队员分开的议论很多，但实际的准备却很少。医生不相信这种措施行得通。但帕姆菲尔心里压了一块石头，先前的幻觉又出现了。

    冬季来临之际，不安、茫然、恐怖和混乱的形势，荒唐和古怪的现象，搅乱了整个军营。

    白军按照预定的计划包围了暴乱者。·这次成功的战役是维岑、克瓦德里和巴萨雷格三位将军指挥的。他们都以行动坚决果断著称。军营暴乱者的妻子们，尚未离开故乡的和平居民，以及留在敌人包围圈内的村子里的居民，听到他们的名字便吓破了胆。

    上面已经说过，白军找不到缩小包围圈的办法。在这点上游击队用不着担心。然而，也不能对敌人的包围置之不理。屈从环境会增长敌人的气焰。尽管在包围圈中也许没有危险，但总得冲破包围圈，哪怕算是向敌人示威呢。

    为此分出游击队大部分力量，把他们集中起来向西面的圆弧突围。经过几天苦战，游击队击溃了白军，在这里打开了缺口，进入他们的后方。

    这个缺口成了自由通行的地带，打开了通向大森林中的暴乱者的道路。大批新难民从这里奔向游击队。这批从农村逃出来的和平居民并非游击队员们的直系亲属。周围的农民惧怕白军的惩罚措施，都离开自己的家园，自然而然地投向树林中的农民军队，因为他们把游击队看成自己的保卫者。

    但游击队正想摆脱已有的吃闲饭的人。他们管不了新的难民。他们到树林外去阻挡难民，把他们阻挡在大道上，把他们领到树林旁边契里姆卡小河上一座磨坊附近的空地里。这块空地是磨坊四周的农舍形成的，人们管它叫农舍村院。打算把难民安置在这里过冬，并把分配给他们的食物也存放在这里。

    既然作出这样的决定，事情便自然而然地进行下去，连游击队司令部的措施也无法跟上。

    对敌人取得的胜利反而使情况复杂化了。白军把冲破包围圈的那股游击队员放进自己的后方后，又缩紧并封闭了缺口。那股脱离主力部队的人返回森林的道路被切断了。

    逃到游击队里来的家属也出了事儿。在无法通行的密林里很容易走错路。派去接她们的人没找到她们，同她们走岔了，只好自己回来，可女人们本能地走进大森林的深处，一路上创造出许多机智的奇迹：把两旁的树木砍倒，架起木桥，开出＿条路。

    这一切都是违背游击队司令部意愿的，把利韦里的计划和决定完全打乱了。

    因此，他同斯维利德一起站在离公路不远的地方，在那里大发脾气。公路从离这儿不远的地方穿过大森林。他的军官们站在公路上辩论，是否割断沿公路的电话线。最后决定权属于利韦里，可他同流浪汉兼捕兽人正谈得起劲，向他们直摆手，表示他马上就到他们那儿去，请他们等他一下，先别走。

    斯维利德对判处伏多维钦科死刑的事一直愤愤不平，他认为伏多维钦科根本无罪，只不过他的影响、他同利韦里争高下造成了军营的分裂。斯维利德想脱离游击队，去过先前那种自由自在的生活。但这当然不可能。他被游击队雇用了，把自己卖给了游击队，如果他离开林中弟兄，等待他的将是枪毙的命运。

    气候坏得不能再坏了。一阵离地面很低的急风，吹散了一块块如同飞舞的煤烟片似的乌云。从乌云中突然降下雨雪，仿佛一个穿白衣服的怪物突然拍起风来。

    刹那间远处便是白茫茫一片，大地铺上了一层白雪。但白雪马上又融化得一干二净。天地黑得像木炭，从远处刮来的暴雨从天上斜泼下来。地面再也吸收不了水。但过了一会儿乌云散开，仿佛要给天空通风，从上面打开泛着寒冷青光的玻璃窗户。土壤无法吸收的积水仿佛回答天空似的，也打开泛着同样光泽的水洼和池塘的窗户。

    阴雨像一团烟雾滑过针叶林灌满松脂的松针，但无法穿透它们，就像水流不进油市一样。雨水落在电话线上，仿佛穿了一串晶莹的珠子。它们一颗挨着一颗紧紧地挂在电话线上，落不下来。

    斯维利德是派到大森林深处接游击队员家属的人之一。他想告诉队长他所见到的一切，告诉队长根本无法执行的、相互矛盾的命令所造成的混乱，告诉队长妇女当中最软弱的、失去信心的那部分人所干出的暴行。年轻的母亲们背着包裹和吃奶的婴儿徒步跋涉，奶水没有了，迈不动步子，发了疯，把孩子扔在路上，把口袋里的面粉倒掉，掉头向后转。决死比慢慢饿死好。落在敌人手里比喂树林里的野兽好。

    另一些妇女，最坚强的妇女，表现出的忍耐和勇敢是男人所无法理解的。斯维利德还有其他许多情况要向利韦里报告。他想提醒队长预防威胁军营的另一次暴乱，比被镇压下去的那次更危险的暴乱，但不知道该怎么说，因为利韦里很不耐烦，急躁地催他快说，催得他失去了说话的本领。利韦里不断打断他并非因为大路上有人等他，向他招手，喊他，而是因为最近两星期以来人们不停地向他提出这些看法，利韦里心里对一切都已经清楚了。

    “你别催我，队长同志，我本来就笨嘴拙舌。话卡在嗓子眼里会把我憋死的。我对你说什么来着？你上难民车队去一趟，叫那些西伯利亚娘儿们别胡闹。她们闹得太不像话了。我倒要问问你，咱们是‘全力对抗高尔察克’还是跟娘儿们激战一场？”

    “简单点，斯维利德。你瞧他们喊我呢。别绕弯子。”

    “现在说说那个女妖精兹雷达里哈，鬼知道那个泼妇是什么东西。她说要给我当女通风机……”

    “是女兽医，斯维利德。”

    “我说了什么？我说的就是女兽医，给牛治病。可她现在哪儿管给牲口治病啊，成了老虔婆，替牛做弥撒，把刚逃来的家属教坏了。她说怪你们自己吧，谁叫你们撩起裙子跟着小红旗跑的？下次别再找他们啦。”

    “我不明白你说的是什么难民，咱们游击队的还是从旁的地方来的？”

    “当然是从旁的地方来的。”

    “可我已经命令把她们安顿在农舍村院里了，就是契里姆卡河上的磨坊。她们怎么到这儿来啦？”

    “还说农舍村院呢。你的农舍村院早烧成一堆灰了，连磨坊和树木都统统烧光了。她们到契里姆卡河岸上～看，光秃秃的一片。一半人马上疯了，大哭大闹，又跑回白军那儿去了。另一半掉转车辕，都上这儿来了。”

    “穿过密林，穿过泥塘？”

    “锯子和斧子干什么用的？咱们已经派人去保护她们了——帮助她们。听说砍通了三十俄里，还架了桥，这群鬼东西。你还能说她们是娘儿们吗？这群坏东西一天干的咱们三天也干木出来。”

    “好家伙！你高兴什么，蠢东西，砍通了三十俄里的道路。这正中维岑和克瓦德里的下怀。开通了一条通向大森林的路，炮兵也能开进来。”

    “挡住。挡住。派人挡住不就完了。”

    “这一点用不着你提醒我也能想到。”

    白天缩短了，五点钟天就黑了。快到黄昏的时候，尤里·安德烈耶维奇从几天前利韦里同斯维利德说话的地方穿过大道。医生向军营走去。在被视为军营标界的林中空地和生长着一棵花揪树的小山丘附近，他听到库巴里哈逗乐的激昂的声音。他把这位巫医戏称为自己的对手。他的竞争对手尖声唱着一首快活的、下流的曲子，大概是民间小曲。有人听她唱。她的歌声不时被一阵赞赏的笑声打断，有男人的笑声，也有女人的笑声。后来周围寂静下来。大概听她唱歌的人走散了。

    库巴里哈以为就剩下自己一个人的时候，又低声唱起另一支小曲。尤里·安德烈耶维奇担心掉过沼泽里，在黑暗中慢慢向花揪树前环绕着泥泞的林间空地的小径走去，停在那里不动了。库巴里哈唱的是一支古老的俄罗斯民歌。尤里·安德烈耶维奇没听过这支歌。也许是她即兴编出来的？

    俄罗斯民歌像被拦河坝拦住的流水。它仿佛静止不动了，但在深处却并未停止流动，从闸门里流出来，它平静的表面是骗人的。

    她想方设法，用重复和平行叙述的方法，限制住不断发展的内容的进度。一段唱完马上又开始另一段，让我们感到惊讶。克制自己并驾驭自己的悲伤的力量便这样表现出来。这是用话语制止时间流动的狂妄的尝试。

    库巴里哈边说边唱道：

    一只野兔在大地上奔跑，

    在大地和白雪上奔跑。

    它在狭窄的树林里奔跑，从花揪树旁跑过，

    它在狭窄的树林里奔跑，向花批树哭诉。

    我这兔儿是不是有一颗羞怯的心，

    一颗羞怯的心，一颗缩紧的心。

    我害怕，兔儿，野兽的踪迹，饿狼的空腹。

    可怜我吧，花批树枝，美人儿花揪树。

    你不要把自己的美丽送给凶狠的敌人，

    凶狠的敌人，凶狠的大乌鸦。

    你把美丽的浆果迎风扬散，

    扬敬在大地上，扬散在白雪上，

    把它们扔向故土，

    扔向村里最后一座茅屋，

    扔向最后一扇窗户或者最后一间草屋，

    对肝隐藏着一位女修士，

    我亲爱的，日夜思念的人儿。

    你对我的妻子低声说句热情的话。

    我这个士兵被人俘虏，倍受熬煎，

    在别国的土地上心里寂寞。

    我要从痛苦的俘虏营里挣脱，

    飞向我的心肝，我的美人。

    士兵老婆库巴里哈给帕雷哈的母牛念咒治病。帕雷哈便是帕姆菲尔的妻子阿加菲妞·福季耶夫娜，但大家都管她叫法杰夫娜。母牛从牛群中牵出来，李进树丛，把它的一只角拴在树上。女主人坐在母牛前腿旁边的树墩上，会念咒语的士兵老婆坐在后腿旁边的挤奶凳上。

    其余的数不清的牛群挤在一块不大的林中空地里。宝塔形的云杉像一堵高墙从四面八方把牛群围起来。云杉粗壮的树干仿佛坐在地上，底下的树枝横七竖八地叉开。

    西伯利亚繁殖的都是瑞士良种牛，几乎都是黑白花的。没有草吃，长途跋涉，互相紧紧挤在一起，已经把母牛折磨得一点劲都没有了，它们所受的罪不比人少。它们身子挨着身子挤得发了狂。它们昏了头，忘记自己的性别，竟像公牛似的叫着趴在别的母牛身上，使劲拽搭拉下来的大乳房。压在下面的母牛竖起尾巴，从它们身子下挣脱出来，踩断矮树林冲进密林，看牛的人和他们的孩子喊叫着追赶它们。

    林中空地上雨雪凝成的黑白云团，仿佛被云杉顶锁在秋天的空中。它们杂乱地挤压在一起，竖立起来，互相重叠，同地上的母牛一样。

    挤在一旁看热闹的人群妨碍巫婆念咒语。她用不怀好意的目光把他们从头到脚打量了一遍，但承认他们使她困惑未免有失身份。能手的自尊心制止了她。她做出没看见他们的样子。医生从人群后面观察她，但她没看见医生。

    他头一次认真打量她。她戴着一成不变的美国船形帽，穿着干涉军的淡绿色军大衣，衣领马虎地斜向一边。然而，从她脸上傲慢的表情里流露出隐秘的情欲，从她为了显得年轻而描黑的眼圈和眉毛上可以明显地看出，这个不年轻的女人穿什么和不穿什么都无所谓。

    但帕姆菲尔妻子的样子使尤里·安德烈耶维奇感到惊讶。他几乎认不出她来了。几天来她老得不像样子。两只鼓起的眼睛快要从眼眶里迸出来了。瘦得像车辕的脖子上鼓出青筋。这是暗中恐惧的结果。

    “挤不出奶来，亲爱的。”阿加菲娜说，“我以为它怀孕了，早该有奶啦，可就是不下奶。”

    “哪里是怀忠了！你瞧奶头上有脓。我给你点草药膏抹一抹。当然，我还要念咒。”

    “另一件倒霉的事是我丈夫。”

    “我念咒让他不胡闹。这办得到。他会紧紧粘着你，分都分木开。说第三件倒霉的事吧。”

    “哪儿是胡闹呀。要是胡闹倒好了。倒霉的是恰恰相反，他简直跟我和孩子们长在一块了，为我们把心都操碎了。我知道他操的是什么心。他想的是把军营分成两半，他上一个地方去，我们上另一个地方去。我们可能碰上巴萨雷格手下的人，他又不跟我们在一块。没人保护我们。他们折磨我们，拿我们的痛苦取乐。我知道他的想法。可别对自己人干出蠢事儿呀。”

    “让我想想。我们会减轻你的悲伤。说第三件倒霉事儿吧。”

    “哪儿有第三件呢！就这么两件，母牛和丈夫。”

    “唉，你就这么一点倒霉的事呀，亲爱的，上帝会宽恕你的。这样的人上哪儿找去！可怜的人儿有两件伤心事，而一件是疼爱你的丈夫。我给你治母牛，你给我什么？咱们开始治母牛啦。”

    “可你要什么呢？”

    “一个大白面包外加你丈夫。”

    周围的人哈哈大笑。

    “你在开玩笑吧？”

    “你要太心疼的话，那就除掉面包。光你丈夫，咱们保管成交。”

    周围的人笑得更厉害了。

    “它叫什么名字？不是你丈夫，是母牛。”

    “美人儿。”

    “这儿有一半的牛名叫美人儿。好吧，画十字吧。”

    于是她开始对母牛念咒。起初她的咒语是针对牲口的。后来她念得入了迷，向阿加菲妞传授了一整套巫术。尤里·安德烈耶维奇仿佛着了魔，听她念念有词，就像他从莫斯科坐火车到西伯利亚来的时候听马车夫瓦克赫绘声绘色地闲扯一样。

    士兵老婆念道：

    “圣姑莫尔格西娜，请到我们家做客。星期二，星期三，除掉邪病和脓疮。脓疮快离开乳头。美人儿，别动弹，别碰翻凳子。站得稳如山，牛乳流成河。骇人的斯特拉菲拉，揭掉它身上的癫疤，把癫疤扔进尊麻。巫师的话将同圣旨一样灵验。

    “阿加菲什卡，你什么都得学会，辞谢，训示，逃避咒和保护咒。你瞧，你以为那是一片树林。其实那是妖精在同天使开仗，互相砍杀，就像你们同巴萨雷格作战一样。”

    “我再举个例子，你看我指的地方。你看的方向不对，我亲爱的。你用眼睛看，别用后脑勺看，朝我指的地方看。对啦，对啦。你看那是什么？你以为风把禅树上的两根树枝卷在一起？你以为鸟儿要筑巢？可别那样想。那是玩的把戏。那是美人鱼在给女儿编花冠。它听见人从旁边走过，扔下花冠，被人吓跑了。夜里它准能编好，你瞧着吧。

    “再拿你们的红旗来说吧。你怎么想？你以为它是一面旗子？其实它才不是旗子呢，而是瘟疫姑娘诱惑人的紫手绢。我为什么说诱惑？她向年轻的小伙子们挥手绢，眨眼睛，诱惑他们去残杀，去送死，然后放出瘟疫。而你们却相信了：全世界的无产者和穷人都到旗子底下来。

    “现在什么都得知道，亲爱的阿加菲妞，一切都得知道。不管哪只鸟儿，哪块石头，哪株草。比如，那只鸟儿是灰欧惊鸟，那只野兽是灌。

    “现在我再举个例子。你看上谁了尽管说，我准能让他迷上你。哪怕是你们的长官呢，不管是列斯内赫还是高尔察克，或者是伊万皇太子。你以为我在吹牛？我才不吹牛呢。不信你就听着吧。到了冬天。刮起暴风雪，卷起雪柱，我拿刀子插进雪柱，一直插到刀柄，拔出来的时候刀子上全是鲜血。什么，你没听说过？啊？你以为我吹牛？可雪柱里哪儿来的鲜血？这是风呀，空气呀，雪沫呀。妙就妙在这儿，大嫂，这雪柱不是风刮起来的，而是女巫丢失的孩子变成的。女巫正在野地里找他，哭号，但无法找到。我刀子插的就是他，所以才有血嘛。我还能用这把刀把任何男人的脚（赌u下来，用丝线缝在你的裙子上。你上哪儿，甭管是高尔察克，斯特列利尼科夫，还是新的皇太子，都会跟在你屁股后头。你上哪儿他上哪儿。你以为我吹牛，这也跟‘全世界无产者和穷人都到旗子底下来’一样？

    “再比如石头从天上掉下来，像下雨似的。人一迈出家门口，石头就落在他脑袋上。有人见过骑兵在天空奔驰，马蹄碰着屋顶。先前魔法师还发现：有的女人身上有五谷或者蜜或者皮货。武士们便打开她们的肩膀，像打开箱子一样，用剑从一个女人肩肿骨里挑出一斗麦子，另一个身上有一只松鼠，还有一个身上有一个蜂房。”

    人世上有时会遇到一种博大而强烈的感觉。这种感觉中总掺杂着怜悯。我们越爱我们所钟爱的对象，我们便越觉得她像牺牲品。有些男人对女人的同情超越了想象的限度。他们的同情心把她置于无法实现的、在人世上找不到的、只存在于想象中的处境当中。他们嫉妒她周围的空气，自然规律，以及她出生前的儿千年。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇的文化修养足以使他在巫婆最后的话里听出某部编年史，不是诺夫戈罗德编年史便是伊帕契耶夫编年史开头的几段，但已被歪曲得不像样子，变成伪书了。多少世纪以来，它们一代代口头流传，被巫师和说故事的人随意歪曲。它们早先就弄乱了，又被抄录的人照抄下来。

    为何暴虐的传说竟如此打动他？为何他竟把这种胡说八道，这种荒谬已极的话当成现实状况呢？

    拉拉的左肩被扎开了一点。就像把钥匙插进保险箱的铁锁里一样，利剑转动了一下，劈开了她的肩肿骨。在敞开的灵魂深处露出了藏在那里的秘密。她所到过的陌生的城市，陌生的街道，陌生的住宅，陌生的辽阔地方，像卷成一团的带子一下子抖开了。

    嗅，他多爱她！她多美啊！她美得正像他梦寐以求的那样。但她哪一点可爱呢？能说出来并能分析出来的是什么呢？懊，不。那是造物主从上到下一气勾勒出来的无与伦比的单纯而流利的线条，而她便在这绝妙的轮廓中把灵魂交给了他，就像浴后的婴儿紧紧裹在襁褓中一样。

    可他现在在哪儿？出了什么事？树林，西伯利亚，游击队队员。他们被包围了，而他同他们分享共同的命运。多么荒谬。尤里·安德烈耶维奇又开始头昏眼花了。一切都从他眼前浮过。这时本应下雪，但却落起雨点来。仿佛一条横跨街道的条幅上的标语，林间空地从这一边到那一边的空气里延伸着一个奇异的、令人肃然起敬的巨大头像的模糊幻影。头像在哭泣，下得越来越大的雨亲吻着它，冲洗着它。

    “你走吧。”女巫对阿加菲娜说，“我已经替你的牛念过咒，它会好的。向圣母祷告吧。全世界最辉煌的宫殿，一本兽语的书。”

    大森林的西部边界发生了战斗。但大森林太大了，在它看来战斗仿佛发生在一个大国的遥远边界上，而隐没在它的密林中的营地里的人是如此之多，不管多少人出去参加战斗，都还有更多的人留在营地里，它永远不会是空的。

    战斗地方的枪炮声几乎到达不了营地深处。树林里突然响起了几声枪响。在很近的地方枪声一声接一声，一下子又变成了混乱的密集射击。他们听到枪声的地方发生一片骚乱，大伙儿急忙向四面八方冲去。属于营地后备队的人向自己的大车跑去，引起一片惊慌。人人都作好了作战准备。

    惊慌很快就消失了。原来是一场虚惊。人们又都奔向开枪射击的地方。人越来越多。新来的人不断地走到围着的人群跟别。

    人群围着一个砍掉手脚的人。他躺在地上，浑身都是血。他的右手和左腿被砍掉，但还没断气。简直不可思议，这倒霉的家伙竟用剩下的一只手和一条腿爬到了营地。砍下来的血肉模糊的手和腿绑在他的背上，上面插了一块木牌子，木牌子上写了很长的一段话，在最难听的骂街的话当中写道，这是对红军支队兽行的报复。但林中的游击队员同那支部队毫不相干。此外，木牌子上还写道，如果游击队员们不按照木牌子上规定的期限向维岑军团的军代表缴械投降的话，他们将这样对待所有的游击队员。

    被砍掉手脚的人浑身冒血，用卷起的舌头低声向大家讲述他在维岑将军的后方军事侦查队和讨伐队里所受到的拷打和折磨。他几次失去知觉。原来判处他死刑，但没把他吊死，改为砍去手脚，以示宽大，然后把他放回营地，恐吓游击队员。他们把他抬到通往游击队营地前哨线的路上，然后放在地上，命令他自己爬，又追着在他后面向天空鸣枪。

    被折磨得快要断气的人微微龛动着嘴唇。周围的人弯下腰，把头垂到他嘴边，想听清他含混木清地说的是什么。他说：

    “弟兄们，小心点。他冲破咱们的防线了。”

    “已经派出了阻截队。一场恶战。我们挡得住。”

    “缺口。缺口。他想出其不意。我知道。哎呀，我不行啦，弟兄们。你们瞧我浑身冒血，咳血。我马上就完了。”

    “你躺一会儿，喘口气。你别说话了。别让他说话了，没心肝的家伙们。这对他有害。”

    “我身上一块好肉都没有了，吸血鬼，狗日的。他说，你要不说出你是谁，我叫你用你自己的血洗澡。我告诉他，我是一名真正的逃兵。我就是这么说的。我从他们那儿跑到你们这儿来了。”

    “你老说‘他’。审问你的到底是谁？”

    “哎呀，弟兄们，内脏都要出来了，让我喘口气。现在我告诉你们。别克申首领。施特列泽上校。都是维岑的部下。你们在树林里什么也不知道。全城的人都在惨叫。他们把人活活煮死，活剥皮，揪住你的衣领把你施进死牢。你往四外一摸——囚笼。囚笼里装四十多个人，人人只穿一条裤权。不知什么时候打开囚笼，把你抓出去。抓着谁算谁。都脸朝外站着，像宰小鸡似的，抓住哪只算哪只。真的。有的绞死，有的枪毙，有的审讯。把你打得浑身没有一块好肉，往伤口上撒盐，用开水浇。你呕吐或大小便，就叫你吃掉。至于孩子和妇女，嗅，上帝呀！”

    不幸的人只剩下最后一口气了。他没说完，尖叫了一声，便噎了一下，便断气了。大家不知怎的马上就明白了，摘下帽子，在胸前画十字。

    傍晚，另一件比这桩惨无人道的事件更可怕的消息传遍了整个营地。

    帕姆菲尔·帕雷赫也在围绕着死者的人群当中。他看见了他，听了他讲的遭遇，读了木牌上充满恐吓意味的话。

    他为他死后妻子儿女的命运担心害怕到了极点。他在想象中看到他们受着缓慢的拷打，看到他们疼痛得变形的面孔，听到他们的呻吟和呼救声。为了免除他们将受到的痛苦并减少自己内心的痛苦，他在一阵无法克制的悲伤中自己结果了他们。他用锋利得像剃刀似的斧子砍死了妻子和三个孩子，而那把斧子正是几天前他替女儿们和爱子费烈努什卡削木头做玩具的那把。

    令人不解的是，他并没有马上杀死自己。他在想什么呢？他会出什么事？有何打算和意图？这是个明显的疯子，无法挽救的废人。。

    利韦里、医生和士兵委员会成员开会讨论如何处置他的时候，他正把头低垂在胸前，在军营里游荡，两只浑浊的黄眼睛发直。任何力量也压制不下去的、非人的痛苦挤出的痴呆笑容一直没离开过他的脸。

    没人可怜他。人人躲避他。有人说应当对他处以私刑，但得不到支持。

    世上再没他可做的事了。第二天清晨，他从军营里消失了，他躲避自己就像躲避得了狂犬病的狗一样。

    冬天来临了。天气冷得彻骨。严寒的大雾里出现撕裂的声音和看起来并无联系的影像，它们凝滞，移动，消逝。太阳不是通常看到的太阳，而换成了另外一个，像个红球挂在树林中。像蜜似的摇用色的光线，仿佛在梦中或童话里缓慢地向四外扩散，但扩散到一半的地方便凝滞在空气中，冻结在树枝上。

    许多只看不见的穿着毡鞋的脚，沿着所有的方向移动，像一堵墙似的擦着地面，踩在雪上的每一步都发出愤怒的吱吱声。那些戴着围巾帽、穿着短皮袄的形体仿佛在空中飘浮，仿佛沿着星体的天球旋转。

    熟人们停下步，聊起天来。他们把像洗过蒸汽浴那样通红的和胡须冻成一团的脸互相靠近。粘成一团的蒸气像云团似的从他们嘴里喷出，同他们仿佛冻僵的不多的话相比，显得大得木成比例。

    利韦里在小路上碰见医生。

    “啊，是您吗？多少日子没见面了！晚上请您回窑洞，跟我一块过夜。咱们像过去那样聊聊天。我有消息。”

    “信使回来啦？有瓦雷金诺的消息吗？”

    “我们家的人和你们家的人在信使的报告里～个字也没提。可我正是从这里得出了令人欣慰的结论。这意味着他们逃脱了危险。不然准会提到他们的。其他的情况，咱们晚上见面时再谈。说好了，我等您。”

    在地窑里，医生又重复了一遍他白天问的问题：

    “我只请您告诉我，您有我们家的人什么消息没有？”

    “您又不想知道鼻子以外的事。您家里的人看来活着，没危险。不过，问题不在他们身上。我有绝妙的新闻。要不要来点肉？冻小牛肉。”

    “不，谢谢。别把话扯远了。”

    “随您的便。我可要吃啦。营房里的人得了坏血病。大家都忘了面包和蔬菜是什么味了。早知道这样，秋天应当组织更多的人采胡桃和浆果，趁逃难的妇女还在这里。我告诉您，情况好得不得了。我一向预言的都实现了。形势有了转机。高尔察克正从各条战线上撤退。这是自发的全面溃败。我说的您明白吗？可您却在唉声叹气。”

    “我什么时候唉声叹气了？”

    “时时刻刻。特别是维岑紧逼我们的时候。”

    医生回想起刚刚过去的秋天，枪毙叛乱分子，帕雷赫砍死妻子和儿女，没完没了地杀人，把人打得血肉模糊。白军和红军比赛残酷，你报复我，我报复你，使暴行成倍增加。鲜血使他呕吐，涌进他喉咙，溅到他的头上，浸满他的眼睛。这完全不是唉声叹气，而是另外一回事儿。可怎样才能对利韦里讲清呢？

    窑洞里有一股芬芳的焦炭味。焦炭味直冲上脸，呛得鼻子和喉咙发痒。劈碎的木头在三脚铁炉上燃烧，把窑洞照得很亮。木头烧完后，炭灰便落进下面的水盆里，利韦里又点燃一段插进三脚炉的铁圈里。

    “您看我烧的是什么？油点完了。劈柴晒得太平，所以烧得快。是啊，营区发现了坏血病。您真的不吃点小牛肉吗？坏血病。您怎么看，医生？要不要召开队部会议，讲清形势，给领导上一堂坏血病的课，再提出同它进行斗争的方法？”

    “天啊，别折磨我了。您都确切知道我的亲人的哪些情况？”

    “我已经对您说过了，他们一点确切的消息都没有。可我还没说完从最近的军事情报中所得到的消息呢。内战结束了。高尔察克被打得头破血流。红军沿着铁路线把他们往东面赶，一直把他们赶进海里。另一部分红军赶来同我们会合，共同消灭他分散在各处的后勤部队。俄国南方的白军已经肃清。您怎么不高兴呢？这还不够吗？”

    “不，我高兴。可我的亲人们在哪里？”

    “他们不在瓦雷金诺，这是莫大的幸运。尽管卡缅诺德沃尔斯基夏天对您讲的那些话，我当时也那样估计过，没得到证实。您还记得有什么神秘的民族进犯瓦雷金话的荒谬传说吗？可镇子完全荒废了。看来那里还是来过什么人，幸好两个家庭提前离开了。我们就相信他们得救了吧。据我的侦察员们报告，留下的少数人就是这样想的。”

    “可尤里亚金呢？那边怎么样？在谁手里？”

    “说法也有点荒谬，肯定是个错误。”

    “怎么说的？”

    “好像城里还有白军。这完全是胡说八道，决不可能。我现在用确凿的事实向您证明这一点。”

    利韦里又在三脚炉里加了一根松明，把一张揉搓得破烂不堪的地图卷到露出划分这一地区的地方，其余的部分卷进去，手里握着一支铅笔指着地图向他解释道：

    “您看。这些地区的白军都撤退了。这儿，这儿，整个儿圆周里。您注意看我指的地方了吗？”

    “是的”

    “他们不可能在尤里亚金方向。换句话说，他们的交通线一旦被切断，必定会陷入包围圈。木管他们的将军多么缺乏指挥才能，也不可能不明白这一点。您穿上皮袄啦？上哪儿去？”

    “对不起，我出去一下。我马上就回来。屋里马合烟味太哈鼻子了。我不大舒服，到外面透透气。”

    医生从窑洞里爬出来，用手套把洞口前当凳子坐的粗木墩子上的雪掸掉，坐在上面，两手托着头撑在膝上，沉思起来。冬天的大森林，树林里的营地，在游击队里度过的十八个月，仿佛都不存在了。他把它们忘了。他的想象中只有自己的亲人。他对他们命运的猜测一个比一个更可怕。

    东尼娜出现在眼前。她抱着舒罗奇卡在刮着暴风雪的野地里行走。她把他裹在被子里，两只脚陷入雪中，用尽全身的力气从雪里拔出脚来。可暴风雪把她往后刮，风把她吹倒在地上，她跌倒又爬起来，两条发软的腿无力地支撑着。嗅，他老是忘记，她已经有两个孩子，小的还在吃奶。她两只手一手抱一个，就像契里姆卡的难民，痛苦和超出他们控制力的紧张使他们丧失了理智。

    两手抱着孩子，可周围没有人帮助她。舒罗奇卡的爸爸不知到哪儿去了。他在远方，永远在远方，他一辈子都不在他们身边。这是爸爸吗，真正的爸爸是这样的吗？而她自己的爸爸呢？亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇在哪里？纽莎在哪里？其他的人在哪里？嗅，最好不要提这些问题，最好木要想，最好不要弄清楚。

    医生从木墩上站起来，打算回到窑洞里去。突然，他的念头转了个方向。他改变了回到利韦里那儿去的念头。

    雪橇、一袋面包干和逃跑所需要的一切他都早已准备好了。他把这些东西埋在营地警戒线外的一株大冷杉下面的雪地里，为了准确起见，他还在树上砍了一个特殊的标记。他沿着行人在雪堆里踏出的小径向那里走去。这是一个明亮的夜晚。一轮圆月在天空中照耀。医生知道夜间岗哨的配置，成功地绕开了他们。但当他走到冻了一层冰的花揪树下的空地上的时候，远处的哨兵喊住了他，直着身子踏着滑雪板飞快地向他滑过来。

    “站住！我要开枪啦！你是谁？讲清楚。”

    “我说老弟，你怎么糊涂啦？自己人。你不认识啦？你们的医生日瓦戈。”

    “对不起。别生气，日瓦戈同志。没认出来。就是日瓦戈我也不放你过去。咱们得照规矩办事。”

    “那好吧。口令是‘红色西伯利亚’，回答是啊倒武装干涉者’。”

    “那就没说的了。你愿意上哪儿就上哪儿好啦。夜里出来找什么鬼？有病人？”

    “睡不着，渴得要命。想道个弯儿，吞两口雪。看见花揪树上的冻浆果，想摘几个吃。”

    “真是老爷们的糊涂想法，冬天摘浆果。三年来一直在清除你们的糊涂想法，可就是清除不掉。一点觉悟也没有。去摘你的浆果吧，脑筋不正常的人。我有什么舍不得的？”

    哨兵使劲一蹬滑雪板，踏着吱吱响的长滑雪板，像来时一样快，站着滑到旁边去了，在没有人迹的雪地上越滑越远，滑到像稀稀拉拉的头发似的光裸的冬天树丛后面。而医生走的雪中小径把他带到刚才提到过的花揪树前。

    它一半理在雪里，一半是上冻的树叶和浆果，两枝落满白雪的树枝伸向前方迎接他。他想起拉拉那两条滚圆的胳膊，便抓住树枝拉到自己跟前。花揪树仿佛有意识地回答他，把他从头到脚撒了一身白雪。他喃喃自语，自己也木明白说的是什么，完全把自己忘了：

    “我将看见你，我如画的美人，我的花揪树公爵夫人，亲爱的小。乙肝。”

    夜是明亮的。月亮在天上照耀。他继续穿过树林向朝思暮想的冷杉走去，挖出自己的东西，离开了游击队营地。

  • 帕斯捷尔纳克《日瓦戈医生》1-2

    第一章

    他们走着，不停地走，一面唱着《永志不忘》，歌声休止的时候，人们的脚步、马蹄和微风仿佛接替着唱起这支哀悼的歌。行人给送葬的队伍让开了路，数着花圈，画着十字。一些好奇的便加入到行列里去，打听道：“给谁送殡啊？”回答是：“日瓦戈。”“原来是他。那就清楚了。”“不是他，是他女人。”“反正一样，都是上天的安排。丧事办得真阔气。”

    剩下不多的最后这点时间也无可挽回地流逝了。“上帝的土地和主的意志，天地宇宙和苦苦众生。”神甫一边念诵，一边随着画十字的动作往玛丽亚·尼古拉耶夫娜的遗体上撒了一小把土。人们唱起《义人之魂》，接着便忙碌起来，合上棺盖，把它钉牢，然后放人墓穴。四把铁锹飞快地填着墓坑，泥土像雨点似的落下去。坟上堆起了一个土丘。一个十岁的男孩踏了上去。

    在隆重的葬礼将要结束的时候，人们往往有一种迟钝和恍您的感觉。正是在这种情况下，大家觉得这个男孩似乎要在母亲的坟上说几句话。

    这孩子扬起头，从高处先神地向萧瑟的荒野和修道院的尖顶扫了一眼。他那长着翘鼻子的脸顿时变得很难看，脖颈直伸着。如果一头狼意也这样仰起头来，谁都知道它马上就要嚎叫。孩子用双手捂住脸，失声痛哭起来。迎面飞来的一片乌云洒下阴冷的急雨，仿佛用一条条湿源源的鞭子抽打他的手和脸。一个身着黑衣、窄袖上镶了一圈皱壁的人走到坟前。这是死者的兄弟、正在哭泣的孩子的舅父，名叫尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇·韦杰尼亚平，是个自愿还俗的神甫。他走到孩子跟前，把他从墓地领走了。

    他们过夜的地方是修道院里的一间内室，这是靠着过去的老关系才给舅舅腾出来的。正值圣母节的前夕。明天，这孩子就要和舅舅到南方一个很远的地方、伏尔加河畔的一个省城去。尼古拉神甫在当地一家办过进步报纸的书局里供职。火车票已经买好，单间居室里放着捆扎停当的行李。从邻近的车站那边，随风传来远处正在调车的火车头如泣如诉的汽笛声。

    到了晚上，天气骤然变冷了。两扇挨近地面的窗户，朝向周围种着黄刺槐的不值得观赏的一角菜园，对着大路上一个结了冰的水洼和白天埋葬了玛丽亚·尼古拉耶夫娜的那片墓地。除了几畦冻得萎缩发青的白菜以外，园子里空空荡荡。一阵风吹来，一丛丛落了叶的刺槐便发疯似的晃来晃去，向路边俯下身去。

    夜里，敲窗声惊醒了尤拉。幽暗的单间居室不可思议地被一道晃动的白光照得很亮。尤拉只穿一件衬衣跑到窗前，把脸贴在冰冷的玻璃上。

    窗外看不见道路，也看不到墓地和菜园。风雪在院子里咆哮，空中扬起一片雪尘。可以这样想象，仿佛是暴风雪发现了尤拉，并且也意识到自己的可怕的力量，于是就尽情地欣赏给这孩子造成的印象。风在呼啸、哀嚎，想尽一切办法引起尤拉的注意。雪仿佛是一匹白色的织锦，从天上接连不断地旋转着飘落下来，有如一件件尸衣覆盖在大地上。这时，存在的只有一个无与匹敌的暴风雪的世界。

    尤拉从窗台上爬下来，头一个念头就是要穿好衣服到外面去干点什么。他担心修道院的白菜被雪埋住，挖不出来；他害怕风雪在荒野里湮没了母亲，而她无力抗拒，只能离他更远、更深地沉睡在地下。

    结果仍然只是流泪。舅舅醒了，给他讲基督的故事，安慰他，后来打了一个呵欠，踱到窗前，沉思起来。他们开始穿衣服。天色渐渐发白。

    母亲在世的时候，尤拉还不知道父亲早就遗弃了他们，一个人在西伯利亚的各个城市和国外寻欢作乐，眠花宿柳，万贯家财像流水一般被他挥霍一空。尤拉常听人说，父亲有时住在彼得堡，有时出现在某个集镇，但经常是在伊尔比特集市上。

    后来，病魔缠身的母亲又染上了肺疾。她开始到法国南方和意大利北部去治疗，尤拉曾经陪她去过两次。就这样，在动荡不定的环境中，在一连串哑谜似的事件中，在常常变换的陌生人的照料下，尤拉度过了童年。他已经习惯于这些变化，而在无止境的不安定的情况下，父亲不在身边也就不使他感到奇怪了。

    当初那个时代，许多风马牛不相及的东西都要冠上他家的姓氏，不过那时他还是个很小的孩子呢。

    有过日瓦戈作坊，日瓦戈银行，日瓦戈公寓大楼，日瓦戈式领结和领带别针，甚至有一种用甜酒浸过的圆点心就叫日瓦戈甜饼。另外，无论在莫斯科的哪条街上，只要朝车夫喊一声：“到日瓦戈公馆！”那就等于说：“到最远的地方去！”小雪橇就会把您送到一个很远的地点。在您周围是一处幽静的园林。落在低垂的云杉枝权上的乌鸦，扑撒下树上的寒霜。它们“叭、叭”的联噪，仿佛干枝爆裂时的脆响，传送到四面八方。几条纯种猎狗从林间小径后面的几幢新房子中间跑出来，越过了大路。它们跑来的那个方向，已经亮起了灯火。夜幕降临了。

    突然间这一切都烟消云散了。他们家破了产。

    一九O三年的夏天，尤拉和舅舅并排坐在一辆四轮马车上，顺着田野驶向纺丝厂主、知名的艺术赞助者科洛格里沃夫的领地杜普梁卡，去拜访教育家兼普及读物作家伊万·伊万诺维奇·沃斯科博伊尼科夫。

    正赶上喀山圣母节，也是收割大忙的时候。可能恰好是吃午饭的时间，或者也许是因为过节，田野里不见一个人影。阳光暴晒下还没有收割完的庄稼地，就像是犯人剃了一半头发的后脑勺。小鸟在田野上空盘旋。没有～丝风，地里的小麦秆挺立着，垂下麦穗。离大路远些的地方堆起了麦垛，如果长时间地凝望过去，它们就像是些活动的人形，似乎是丈量土地的人沿着地平线边走边往本子上记什么。

    “这一片地呢？”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇向书局的杂役兼门房帕维尔问道；帕维尔斜身坐在驭者的位置上，拱着腰，一条腿搭在另一条腿上，这就表明他不是真正的车夫，赶车并非他分内的事。“这片地是地主的还是农民的？”

    “这一片是老爷们的。”帕维尔一边答话，一边点着了烟，“那边的一片，”他用力吸了一口，烟头闪出了红火，停了半晌才用鞭梢指着另一边说，“才是农民的哪。驾！又睡着了？”他不时地朝马这么险喝，又不住地斜眼看看马背和马尾，仿佛火车司机不停地看气压表。

    这两匹牲口也和天下所有拉车的马一个样，辕马天生憨厚，老实地跑着，拉边套的马不知为什么却像个十足的懒汉。

    尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇带来了沃斯科博伊尼科夫写的一本论述土地问题的书的校样。因为书刊审查制度越来越严，书局要求作者重新审阅一遍。

    “乡下的老百姓造反了。”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇说，“潘科夫斯克乡里杀了个做买卖的人，烧了地方自治局的种马场。对这类事，你怎么看？你们乡里的人怎么说？”

    帕维尔的看法原来比一心想打消沃斯科博伊尼科夫对土地问题的热情的书刊审查官还要悲观。

    “他们怎么说？对老百姓太放纵了，宠坏了，就是这么说的。对待我们这些人能这样吗？要是由着农民的性子，他们会自己互相卡脖子，我敢向上帝发誓。驾！又睡啦？”

    这是舅舅和外甥第二次到社普梁卡去。尤拉还以为记得这条路。每当田野向两旁远远地延伸开去，前后～望仿佛被树林镶上一条细边的时候，他觉得马上就能认出那个地方，从那儿起大路应该朝右转，拐过弯去，科洛格里沃夫庄园的全景就会展现在眼前，还有那条在远处闪闪发亮的河以及对岸的铁路，不过这一切很快又会从视野中消失。可是，每次他都认错了。田野接连不断，四周是一片又一片的树林。不断变换的一片片田野令人心旷神怡，情不自禁地产生出幻想并思考未来的渴望。

    使尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇日后成名之作，那时连一本也没有写出来，不过他的想法已臻成熟。他还不知道，造就他的时势已经迫近了。

    这个人必将跻身于当代作家、教授和革命哲学家的行列并将崭露头角。他思索的是他们所考虑的所有命题，但是除了那些通用的术语外，他同他们通然不同。那些人都抱残守缺地信奉某些教条，满足于咬文嚼字，不求甚解。然而尼古拉神甫担任过神职，体验过托尔斯泰主义和革命，并且不停地继续探索。他热心追求的思想，应该是可以鼓舞人的东西，在前进中如实地指明种种木同的道路，能使世间的一切趋于完善；它有如横空的闪电或滚滚的雷鸣，即便是黄口小儿和目不识丁的人都可闻可见。他渴求的是崭新的观念。

    和舅父在一起，尤拉觉得非常愉快。舅舅很像妈妈，同她一样，也是个崇尚自由的人，对自己不习惯的东西不抱任何成见。他像她一样，怀着同一切人平等相处的高尚感情。他也像她一样，对一切事一眼就能看穿，并且善于用最初想到的方式表达自己的思想。

    尤拉很高兴舅舅带他到杜普梁卡去。那是个很美的地方，它的景色会让他记起酷爱大自然、常常带他一同散步的妈妈。另外使尤拉高兴的是，又可以和寄居在沃斯科博伊尼科夫家里的一个名叫尼卡·杜多罗夫的中学生见面。尤拉觉得尼卡可能看不起他，因为比他大两岁，每次问好的时候，尼卡总是握住手用力往下拉，头垂得很低，头发披下来遮住前额，挡住了半边面孔。

    “赤贫问题之关键——”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇读着修改过的手稿。

    “我认为最好改用‘实质’。”伊万·伊万诺维奇边说边在校样上作必要的改动。

    他们是在一个带玻璃棚的昏暗的凉台上工作的。眼睛还可以分辨出地上乱放着的喷水壶和园艺工具。一把破椅子的靠背上搭了一件雨衣。墙角立着一双沾了干泥巴的沼泽地用的水靴，靴筒弯到地上。

    “同时，死亡与出生的统计也表明——”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇口授着说。

    “应该加上统计年度。”伊万·伊万诺维奇边说边写了下来。

    凉台上透风。小册子的书页上压着花岗石块，免得让风掀起来。

    修改结束以后，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇忙着要回家。

    “要有雷阵雨，该回去了。”

    “没有的事，我不放你走。我们这就喝茶。”

    “天黑以前我必须赶回城里去。”

    “说什么也没用，我不管你这些。”

    从房前小花园里刮进茶炊的煤烟子味，冲淡了烟草和茉莉花的味道。仆人们正把熟奶油、浆果和奶渣饼从厢房端过去。这时候又听说帕维尔已经到河里去洗澡，把马也牵去了。尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇只好答应留下来。

    “趁着准备茶点的工夫，咱们到悬崖上去看看，在那儿的长凳上坐会儿。”伊万·伊万诺维奇提议。

    因为是多年的至交，伊万·伊万诺维奇便占用了家资富有的科洛格里沃夫的管家住的两间厢房。这幢小屋子和屋前的花圃，坐落在大花园的一个阴暗、荒芜的角落里，门前是一条半圆形的旧林明路。林阴路杂草丛生，如今已经没有往来的车辆，只有垃圾车经过这里往堆放干垃圾的一条沟谷里倒立和废弃的砖石料。科洛格里沃夫是个既有进步思想又同情革命的百万富翁，目前正和妻子在国外旅行。住在庄园里的只有他的两个女儿娜佳和莉帕，还有一位家庭女教师和为数不多的仆人。

    生机盎然的黑绣球花长成一道稠密的篱笆，把管家的小院同整个花园、池塘、草地和老爷的住宅隔开。伊万·伊万诺维奇和尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇从外面沿着这道开满鲜花的篱笆走着，每走过同样距离的一段路，前方绣球花丛里就有数量相同的一群麻雀飞出来，使这道篱笆荡起一片和谐的惆嗽声，仿佛在尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇和伊万·伊万诺维奇前面有一条流水淙淙的管道似的。

    他们走过暖房、园丁的住房和一座不知道做什么用的石头建筑物的废墟。

    “有才能的人并不少。”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇说道，“不过，目前盛行各式各样的小组和社团。任何一种组织起来的形式都是庸才的栖身之地，无论他信奉的是索洛维约夫，是康德，还是马克思。寻求真理的只能是独自探索的人，和那些并不真正热爱真理的人毫不相干。世界上难道真有什么值得信仰的吗？这样的事物简直是凤毛群角。我认为应该忠于不朽，这是对生命的另一个更强有力的称呼。要保持对不朽的忠诚，必须忠于基督！啊，您又皱眉头了，可怜的人。您还是什么也没有听懂。”

    “嗯。”伊万·伊万诺维奇支吾了一声。淡黄色的细馨发和两络翘起的胡须使他很像个林肯时代的美国人（他不时地把胡子捻成一缕，用嘴唇去够它的两端）。“我当然不会表示意见。您也知道，对这类事我的看法完全不同。对了，顺便问一下，能不能告诉我您是怎么被免去教职的。我早就想问问。是不是胆怯了？革出教门了吗？”

    “您不必把话扯开。就是革出教门又怎么样？别说啦，已经用不着再诅咒这些了。总之，是摊上了几件晦气的事，到现在还受影响呢。比方说，相当长的时期内不得担任公职，不允许到京城去。不过这些都无所谓。还是言归正传吧。方才我说过，要忠于基督。现在就来讲讲这个道理。您还不懂得，一个人可以是无神论者，可以不必了解上帝是否存在和为什么要存在，不过却要知道，人不是生活在自然界，而是生存于历史之中。接照当前的理解，历史是从基督开始的，一部《新约》就是根据。那么历史又是什么？历史就是要确定世世代代关于死亡之谜的解释以及如何战胜它的探索。为了这个，人类才发现了数学上的无限大和电磁波，写出了交响乐。缺乏一定的热情是无法朝着这个方向前进的。为了有所发现，需要精神准备，它的内容已经包括在福音书里。首先，这就是对亲人的爱，也是生命力的最高表现形式，它充满人心，不断寻求着出路和消耗。其次，就是作为一个现代人必不可少的两个组成部分：个性自由和视生命为牺牲的观点。请注意，这是迄今为止最新颖的观点。在这个意义上，远古是没有历史的。那时，只有被天花弄成麻脸的罗马暴君所干出的卑鄙的血腥勾当，他丝毫也意识不到每个奴役者都是何等的蠢材。那时，只有被青铜纪念碑和大理石圆柱所夸大的僵死的永恒。只是基督降生之后，时代和人类才自由地舒了一口气。只是在他以后，后代人的身上才开始有了生命，人不再死于路旁沟边，而是终老于自己的历史之中，死于为了战胜死亡而从事的火热的劳作之中，死在自己为之献身的这个主要任务之中。唉，俗话说得真不错，讲的人大汗淋漓，听的人一窍不通！”

    “这是玄学，我的老兄。医生禁止我谈玄学，我的胃口也消受不了。”

    “让上帝保佑您吧。算了，您不愧是个幸运儿！这儿的景色真美，简直叫人看不够！身在福中不知福，住在这儿的人反而感觉不到。”

    往河面上看去，令人目眩。河水在阳光下起伏不停地流着，如同整块的铁板，突然间又皱起一条条波纹。一条满载着马匹、大车、农夫和农妇的渡船，从这边向对岸驶去。

    “想不到刚过五点钟。”伊万·伊万诺维奇说道，“您瞧，那是从塞兰兹开来的快车，总在五点零几分从这儿经过。”

    在平原的远处，一列明显的黄蓝颜色的火车从右向左开去。因为距离很远，显得很小。突然，他们发现列车停住了。机车上方升起一团团白色的蒸气。稍后，就从它那里传来了警笛的响尸。

    “奇怪，”沃斯科博伊尼科夫说，“可能出事了。它没理由在那片沼泽地停车。准是发生了什么事。咱们回去喝茶吧。”

    尼卡既不在花园，也没在屋子里。尤拉猜对了，他是有意躲避他们，因为觉得和他们在一起枯燥乏味，况且尤拉也算不上是他的伙伴。舅舅和伊万·伊万诺维奇到凉台上工作去了，于是尤拉有机会一个人漫无目的地在房子附近走走。

    这儿真是个迷人的地方！每时每刻都能听到黄鹤用三种音调唱出清脆的歌，中间似乎有意停顿，好让这宛如银笛吹奏的清润的声音，丝丝入扣地传遍四周的原野。薄郁的花香仿佛迷了路，滞留在空中，被褥暑一动不动地凝聚在花坛上！这使人想起意大利北部和法国南部那些避暑的小村镇！尤拉一会儿向右拐，一会儿又转到左边，在悦耳的鸟啼和蜂呜当中，似乎听到了妈妈在天上的声音飘扬在草地上空。尤拉周身颤抖，不时产生一种错觉，仿佛母亲正在回答他的呼喊，召唤他到什么地方去。

    他走近～条沟谷，沿着土坡走下去，从上边覆盖着的稀疏、干净的林木中间下到长满谷底的赤杨树丛。

    这里潮湿而晦暗，地面上到处是倒下的树木和吹落的果实。花很少，枝节横生的荆树权权很像他那本插图《圣经》里面的刻着埃及雕饰的权标和拐杖。

    尤拉越来越感到悲伤，情不自禁地想哭。他双膝跪倒在地，放声痛哭。

    “上帝的天使，我的至圣的守护神，”尤拉作起了祷告，“请指引我的智慧走上真理之路，并且告诉妈妈，我在这儿很好，让她不要牵挂。如果死后有知，主啊，请让妈妈进入天国，让她能够见到光耀如星辰的圣徒们的圣容。妈妈是多么好的一个人啊！她不可能是罪人。上帝啊，对她发慈悲吧，不要让她受苦。妈妈！”在心肝欲碎的痛苦中，他向上天呼唤着，仿佛呼唤上帝身边一个新的圣徒。他突然支持不住，昏倒在地上。

    他昏厥的时间木长，苏醒后听到舅舅在上边的什么地方叫他。尤拉回答了一声，便向上走去。这时他忽然想起，还不曾像玛丽亚·尼古拉耶夫娜教给他的那样为自己那杳无音信的父亲祈祷。

    可是一时的昏迷过后，他觉得心情很好，不愿失掉这种轻快的感觉。他想，如果下次再替父亲祈祷，也不会有什么不好。

    “他会耐心等着的。”尤拉这么想着。对自己的父亲，他几乎没有任何印象。

    在火车的一间二等卧车厢里，坐着从奥伦堡来的中学二年级学生米沙·戈尔东和他的父亲戈尔东律师。这是个十一岁的男孩子，沉思的面孔上长着一对乌黑的大眼睛。父亲是到莫斯科供职，孩子随着去莫斯科念中学。母亲和姐妹们已经先一步到达，正忙于布置新居。

    男孩和父亲在火车上已经过了两天多。

    被太阳照得像石灰一样白的灼热的尘雾中，俄罗斯、田野、草原、城市和村庄，飞快地掠过。大路上行驶着络绎不绝的大车，笨重地拐向铁道路口，从飞驰的列车上看去，车队仿佛是静止的，只见马匹在原地踏步。

    每到一个大站，乘客们便忙不迭地跑向小卖部，西斜的太阳从车站花园的树林后边照到他们匆匆移动的脚步，照亮车厢下的车轮。

    世界上任何个人的独自的活动，都是清醒而目标明确的，然而一旦被生活的洪流汇聚在一起，就变得混沌不清了。人们日复一日地操心、忙碌，是被切身利害的作用所驱使。不过要不是那种在最高和最主要意义上的超脱感对这些作用进行调节的话，这作用也不会有什么影响。这个超脱感来自人类生存的相互关联，来自深信彼此之间可以相互变换，来自一种幸福的感觉，那就是一切事物不仅仅发生在埋葬死者的大地上，而且还可以发生在另外的某个地方，这地方有人叫作天国，有人叫作历史，也有人另给它取个名称。

    对这条法则来说，这个男孩却是个伤心而沉痛的例外。忧郁始终左右着他，无牵无挂也不能使他轻松和振作。他自知身上有着继承下来的特性，常常以一种神经过敏的警觉在自己身上捕捉它的征兆。这使他痛心，伤害着他的自尊。

    从记事的时候起他就始终觉得奇怪，为什么有的人体质发育得同旁人并无二致，言语、习惯也与常人无异，却不能成为和大家一样的人，只能得到少数人的喜爱，却要遭到另一些人的嫌弃。他无法理解这样一种状况，那就是如果生来低人一等，便永远不可能改善处境。做一个犹太人意味着什么？为什么他还需要生存？这个只会带来痛苦的无能为力的名称，能得到什么报偿或者公正的解释？

    当他请求父亲回答这些问题的时候，父亲便说他的出发点是荒谬的，不应该这样判断事物，但也提不出让米沙认为是深刻的想法，使他在这个摆脱不掉的问题面前无言地折服。

    因此，除了父母以外，米沙渐渐对成年人充满了蔑视，是他们自己把事情弄糟而又无法收拾的。他相信，长大以后他一定要把这一切弄个一清二楚。

    就拿眼前发生的这件事来说，谁也不能判定他父亲向那个冲到车厢门口的精神病人紧追过去的举动不对；谁也不能说那个人用力推开格里戈里·奥西波维奇，拉开车门，如同从跳板上跳水似的从快车上倒栽葱跳到路基上，他当时不应该让火车停下。

    正因为扳了紧急制动闸的不是别人，而是格里戈里·奥西波维奇，结果列车才这么不明不白地停了下来。

    谁都不了解火车耽搁下来的缘由。有人说是突然停车损坏了气动刹车装置；也有人说是因为列车停在一个坡道上，没有一个冲力机车就启动不了。同时又传来另一个消息，说死者是个很有地位的人，他的随行律师要求从离这里最近的科洛格里沃夫卡车站找几位见证人来作调查记录。这就是为什么司机助手要爬到电话线杆上去的原因，大概检道车已经在路上了。

    车厢里隐隐约约可以闻到有人想用盥洗水冲净厕所时发出的气味，还有一股用油腻的脏纸包着的带点臭味的煎鸡肉的味道。几位两鬓已经灰白的彼得堡的太太，被火车头的煤烟和油脂化妆品弄得一个个活像放荡的茨冈女人，可是照旧往脸上扑粉，拿手帕擦着手掌，用低沉的吱吱哇哇的声音谈天。当她们用头巾裹住肩膀，走过戈尔东的包房的时候，拥挤的过道就成了打情骂俏的地方。米沙觉得她们正在用沙哑的声音抱怨着什么，要是从她们把嘴～撇的模样来判断，仿佛是说：“哎呀，您说说看，这可是多么让人激动呀！我们可和别人不一样！我们是知识分子！我们可受不了！”

    自杀者的尸体躺在路基旁边的草地上。一条已经发黑的凝结了的血印，很清楚地横过死者的前额和眼睛，好像在他脸上画了个一笔勾销的十字形符号。血仿佛木是从他身体里面流出来的，倒像是旁人给贴上去的一条药膏，一块干泥，或者是一片湿烨树叶。

    好奇的和抱着同情心的人围在死者身边，去了一批，又来一批。他的朋友，也就是和他同车厢的那个身体健壮、神态傲慢的律师，仿佛裹在汗湿的衬衣里的一头种畜，麻木地紧皱着眉头站在那里望着死者。他热得难过，不停地用帽子扇风。无论问什么，他都似理不理地耸耸肩膀，连身子都不转，回答说：“一个酒鬼。这难道还不清楚？这是典型的发酒疯的下场。”

    一个身穿毛料连衣裙、披着一条带花边的头巾的消瘦的妇人，两三次走到死者身边。这是两名火车司机的母亲、上了年纪的寡妇季韦尔辛娜。她带着两个儿媳免票坐在三等车上。那两个女人把头巾裹得很低，一声不响地跟在她后面，像是修道院长身后的修女。周围的人对这三位妇女肃然起敬，给她们让开了路。

    季韦尔辛娜的丈夫是在一次火车事故中被活活烧死的。她在离死者几步远的地方停下来，为的是在这儿能从人群的中间看得更清楚一些。她不住地叹息，仿佛在比较两起意外事故。“人的命运都是生来注定的。”她似乎在这样说，“你瞧，天主要是让他生出个什么傻念头，就一定躲不开，放着荣华富贵不去享受，偏要到这儿来发疯。”

    所有的乘客都到尸体这里来过，只是因为怕丢了东西，才又回到车上去了。

    当他们跳到路基上，舒展一下筋骨，摘几朵野花，小跑几步的时候，大家都有一种感觉，似乎只是因为意外停车才来到了这个地方，如果没有这件不幸的事，这片起伏不平的沼泽草地，这条宽阔的河和对岸上那高高的教堂和漂亮的房子，好像原本在世界上就不存在似的。

    就连那太阳也像是当地特有的，含着傍晚的羞涩照耀着路轨旁边发生的这个场景，悄悄地向它接近，有如附近牧放的牛群中的一头小牛，走到路基跟前，向人群张望。

    米沙被这意外的事惊呆了，一开始竟因为怜悯和惊吓而哭了起来。在漫长的旅途中，这个现在自杀了的人曾经到他们的车厢里来过好几次，一连几个小时同米沙的父亲谈话。他说，最使人神往的是心灵的纯洁、宁静和对尘世的领悟。他还向格里戈里·奥西波维奇问了许多法律上的细节，以及有关期票、馈赠、破产和伪造等方面的诉讼问题。“啊，原来是这样！”他对戈尔东的解释表示惊讶。“您所说的都是挺宽大的法令。我的律师提供的情况可不一样。他对这些问题的看法要悲观得多。”

    每当这个神经质的人安静下来以后，他的律师就从头等车厢过来拉他到有公共客厅的车厢去喝香槟酒。这就是那位身体结实、态度傲慢、脸刮得精光而且衣着考究的律师，如今正俯身站在死者身旁，显出一副见怪不怪的神气。旁观者无法摆脱这样一种感觉：他的委托人经常处于情绪激动的状态，这在某种程度上似乎正合他的心意。

    父亲说，死者是个出名的富翁，一个和善的、对自己的一半行为已然不能负责的鞭身泥的信徒。他当着米沙的面毫无顾忌地谈起和米沙年纪相同的自己的儿子和已故的妻子，说到了后来同样被他抛弃的第二个家。讲到这儿他又突然想起了另外的什么事，脸色由于惊恐而变得苍白，谈话也显得语无伦次。

    他对米沙流露出一种无法解释的怜爱，这可能是对另一个人的眷恋的反映。他不断地送给米沙一些东西。为了此事，一到大站他就要跑到头等车的旅客候车室去，那里有书摊，还出售各种玩具和当地的纪念品。

    他一边不停地喝酒，一边抱怨说已经有两个多月不能睡觉了，只要酒意一消，哪怕是一会儿工夫，就得忍受一般人无法想象的痛苦。

    直到结束生命前的最后～分钟，他还跑到车厢里来，抓住格里戈里·奥西波维奇的手，想要说什么，但又没能说出口，然后就跑到车门口的平台上，从车上跳了下去。

    米沙翻看着小木箱里一套乌拉尔的矿石标本，这是死者最后送给他的。忽然，周围的一切都震动起来，在另一条轨道上驶来了一辆检道车。从那车上跳下来一个制帽上缀着帽徽的侦查员、一位医生和两名警察。传来了打着官腔谈公事的说话声，提出了几个问题并且做了笔录。几个乘务员和两名警察沿着路基往上拖尸体，脚下还不住地在沙土上打滑。不知是哪一个农妇放声哭了起来。乘客被请回车厢，拉响了汽笛。列车开动了。

    “又是那个讨厌的家伙！”尼卡恶狠狠地想着，在屋子里走来走去。客人的说话声越来越近，已经没有退路了。卧室里放了两张床，一张是沃斯科博伊尼科夫的，另一张是尼卡的。尼卡没怎么考虑就钻到第二张床底下。

    他听见人们在找他，在另外一个房间里喊他，对他不在觉得奇怪。过后，他们就到卧室来了。

    “唉，有什么办法，”韦杰尼亚平说道，“进去吧，尤拉，也许一会儿就能找到你的同伴，那时再一块玩吧。”他们谈了一会儿彼得堡和莫斯科大学生的骚动，让尼卡在这个荒唐而丢脸的藏身之处受困二十分钟。最后，他们终于到凉台上去了。尼卡轻轻地打开窗户，跳了出去，走进花园。

    今天他觉得很不舒服，前一天夜里没有睡觉。尼卡已经年满十三岁，他感到烦恼的是还被人当成小孩子看待。他整整一夜没有睡，黎明时从厢房走了出来。太阳已经升起，在花园的地面上洒下露水沾湿的斑驳的长长的树影。影子并不阴暗，而是深灰色的，像湿毛毯一样。清晨沁人心脾的芳香，似乎就从这片湿润的土地上升起，树影中间透出条条光线，仿佛女孩子纤细的手指一般。

    突然有一条水银似的带子，像草尖上的露珠一样在离他几步远的地方流过。它不停地流过去，也不向土里渗透。骤然间这带子猛地弯向一边，消失不见了。原来是条赤练蛇。尼卡打了一个冷战。

    他是个很奇特的孩子，兴奋的时候就大声地自言自语。他仿效母亲，也喜欢高谈阔论，追求一些怪僻的想法。

    “活在世界上真是美妙！”他心中在想，“不过为什么又要常常为此而痛苦呢？当然，上帝是存在的。不过，上帝要是存在的话，他就是我。现在我就给这白杨下命令。”他朝一棵从树梢到树干都在微微颤动的白杨看了一眼（这棵树德湿、发亮的叶子仿佛是用马口铁剪成的），这么想着，“我这就给它下命令。”他像发疯似的用全力克制自己不发出声音，却用整个身心和全部血肉祝祷着，想象着：“你给我停止！”杨树立刻顺从地一动木动了。尼卡高兴得笑起来，接着就跑下河里游泳去了。

    他的父亲杰缅季·杜多罗夫是个恐怖主义分子，曾被判处续刑，后来蒙沙皇特赦才改服苦役。他母亲是出身于格鲁吉亚的埃里斯托夫家族的郡主，是个性情乖张但还很年轻貌美的女人，总是醉心于某些事情，比如同情暴动和反抗分子，主张极端的学说，吹捧著名的演员和帮助可怜的失意人，等等。

    她宠爱尼卡，把他的名字变幻出一连串毫无意义的、温存而又傻气的呢称，像什么“伊诺切克”或“诺亲卡”之类，把他带到梯弗里斯给亲戚们看。在那里，最使他惊奇的是院子里的一棵枝叶繁茂的树。那是一棵粗壮的热带巨树。它那大象耳朵一般的叶子遮住了南方的灼热的晴空。尼卡无论如何也不习惯于认为这是一棵树，是一种植物，而不是动物。

    让孩子使用父亲的可怕的姓名是要担风险的，所以伊万·伊万诺维奇征得尼娜·加拉克季奥诺夫娜的同意，准备上书沙皇陛下允许尼卡改用母亲的姓氏。

    就在他躲在床上对世界上的许多事情感到愤想不平的时候，其中也想到了这件事。沃斯科博伊尼科夫算个什么人，怎么能这样过分地干涉他的事？等着看他会怎样教训他们吧！

    还有那个娜佳！难道因为她十五岁，就可以翘鼻子，像对待小孩子一样和他讲话吗？瞧着吧，要给她点厉害看看！“我恨她，”他自言自语地反复说了几遍，“我要杀死她！叫她去划船，把她淹死。”

    妈妈倒是盘算得挺好。她走的时候肯定是骗了他和沃斯科博伊尼科夫。她在高加索一天也没有停留，就在最近的一个枢纽站换车北上，到了彼得堡以后，又和大学生们一起枪击警察。可是他却该在这鬼地方活活地烂掉。不过，他～定要把所有的人都捉弄一番。把娜佳淹死，离开学校，到西伯利亚去找父亲发动起义。

    池塘四面长满了睡莲。小船钻进稠密的睡莲丛中，发出干涩的缓牵声。只有空隙的地方才露出池水，仿佛是西瓜汁从切口当中渗了出来。

    尼卡和娜佳开始采摘睡莲。两个人同时抓住了一枝如同橡皮筋一样绷得紧紧的结实的茎干，结果被它拖到一起，头碰到了一块儿。小船就像被钩竿搭住似的向岸边漂去。莲梗续在一起，越来越短，只见一朵朵白花绽开艳丽的花心，仿佛带血的蛋黄，一忽地沉到水里，一忽儿又淌着水珠浮出水面。

    娜佳和尼卡继续摘花，把小船压得越来越斜，两个人几乎是并排地俯在倾斜的船舷上。

    “我已经讨厌念书了，”尼卡说，“已经到了挣钱谋生，走上社会的时候了。”

    “可是我正要请你讲讲联立方程式哪。我的代数不行，差一点要补考。”

    尼卡觉得她的话里有刺。不用说，这是提醒他还是个小孩子呢。联立方程式！尼卡根本还没尝过代数是什么滋味哪。

    他丝毫没有露出受了侮辱的样子，故意满不在乎地问了一句话，但是立刻就觉得太蠢了：
    “长大以后，你要嫁给谁呢？”
    “嗅，这还早着哪，不过可能谁都不嫁。我还没想过这事。”
    “请你别以为我对这事很感兴趣。”
    “那为什么要问呢？”
    “你是傻瓜。”
    他们开始争吵起来。尼卡想起了早晨他曾经十分讨厌女人的心情。他警告娜佳说，如果还继续说混话，就把她淹死。

    “你试试看吧。”娜佳回答说。他拦腰一把将她抱住，两个人挣扎起来，结果失去重心，一齐跌到了水里。

    两个人都会游泳，不过睡莲有些缠手缠脚，而且还够不到底。最后，他们总算踩着陷脚的淤泥，躺水走到岸边。水像小溪一样从两个人的脚下和口袋里流出来。尼卡感到很疲乏。

    如果这事发生在不久以前，比如说今年的春天，他们一定会这样浑身湿透地叫嚷、嘲骂或是哈哈大笑起来。

    可是现在他们却都一言不发，还端不过气来，由于刚才发生的荒唐事而感到压抑。激怒的娜佳默默地生着闷气。尼卡周身疼痛，手脚和两肋像是被棍子打了一顿。最后，娜佳像个大人那样轻轻地说了声：“神经病！”尼卡也像个成人似的说：“请原谅！”

    两个人朝住宅的方向走去，仿佛是两只水桶，在身后留下一道湿滴滴的印迹。他们走的路穿过一片有蛇出没的土坡，就离尼卡早晨见到．赤练蛇的地方不远。

    尼卡想起了夜间自己那种奇怪的精神昂奋状态，想起了黎明时刻和清晨曾经使大自然听命的那种无所不能的力量。现在该命令她做什么呢？尼卡在想。他如今最需要的又是什么？他似乎觉得最需要的是什么时候能和娜佳再次一起滚到水里去，而且现在就情愿付出很大的代价，以弄清这个希望是否会实现。

    同日本的战争还没有结束，另外的事件突然压倒了它。革命的洪流激荡着俄罗斯，一浪高过一浪。

    在这个时候，一位比利时工程师的遗编、已经俄国化的法国女人阿马利哑·卡尔洛夫娜·吉沙尔，带着儿子罗季翁和女儿拉里莎从乌拉尔来到莫斯科。她把儿子送进武备中学，女儿送到女子寄宿学校，正好和娜佳·科洛格里沃娃同校、同班。

    吉沙尔太太从丈夫手里得到一笔有价证券，先前的行情曾经上涨，目前却正往下跌。为了财产不受损失和避免坐吃山空，吉沙尔太太从女裁缝的继承人手里买了一处不大的产业，就是。坐落在凯旋门附近的列维茨卡哑缝纫作坊，取得了使用老字号的权利；照应先前的老主顾并留用了全体裁缝女工和学徒。

    吉沙尔太太这么办，完全是听从了丈夫的朋友、自己的保护人科马罗夫斯基律师的劝告。此人是个精通俄国事务、沉着冷静的实干家。这次举家迁移，是她和他事先通过信商定的。科马罗夫斯基亲自来车站迎接，并且穿过莫斯科全城把他们送到在军械胡同“黑山”旅店租下的一套带家具的房间。把罗佳送进武备中学，是他的建议；拉拉人学的女子学校，也是经他介绍的。他以漫不经心的神气和这个男孩子开着玩笑，同时用令人脸红的目光盯着那个女孩子。

    在搬进作访三间一套的小小住宅去之前，她们在“黑山”住了将近一个月。

    那一带是莫斯科最可怕的地方，聚居着马车夫，有整条街道专供寻花问柳，又是许多下等妓女穷困潦倒的所在。

    不整洁的房间、屋里的臭虫和简陋的家具，这都不会让孩子们感到奇怪。父亲死后，母亲一直生活在贫困的恐惧当中。罗佳和拉拉已经听惯了说他们全家处于死亡的边缘之类的话。他们知道自己还算不上是流落街头的穷孩子，可是在有钱人的面前，总像是被孤儿院收留的孩子那样忐忑不安。

    他们的母亲就是这样一个整天生活在提心吊胆之中的活榜样。阿马利哑·卡尔洛夫娜年已三十五岁，体态丰满，一头黄发，每当心血来潮的时候总要做些蠢事。她胆子小得出奇，对男人怕得要命。正因为是这样，才由于惊吓而张皇失措地从一个男人的怀抱投入另一个男人的怀抱。

    在“黑山”，她家住的房间是二十三号，二十四号从一开始就住着一位大提琴手特什克维奇。这人是个好出汗、秃顶上戴着扑粉假发的和事佬，每逢要说服别人，两手就像祈祷似的合起来放到胸前，在音乐会上演奏的时候，头向后仰着，兴奋地闪动着眼睛。他常常不在家，往往～连几天都留在大剧院或者音乐学院。这两家邻居已经彼此熟悉了，相互照应使他们接近起来。

    有孩子们在跟前，科马罗夫斯基每次来访都让阿马利灰·卡尔洛夫娜觉得不方便，于是特什克维奇走的时候，就把自己房间的钥匙留给她接待朋友。对他这种自我牺牲的精神，吉沙尔很快也就习以为常，甚至有好几次为了逃避自己的保护人，她噙着眼泪敲他房门求他保护。

    这是幢平房，离特维尔街的拐角不远。可以感觉得出布列斯特铁路干线就在附近，因为从隔壁开始就是铁路职工宿舍、机车修理场和仓库。

    奥莉妮·杰明娜每天回家就是往那个方向去。这个聪颖的女孩子是莫斯科商场一个职员的侄女。

    她是个很能干的学徒，是当初的商场老板物色到的，如今很快要成为一名工匠了。奥莉姬·杰明娜非常喜欢拉拉。

    一切还都保持着列维茨卡妮在世时的老样子。在那些满面倦容的女工脚踏或手摇之下，缝纫机发狂般地转动着。有些人坐在椅子上默默地缝纫，不时抬起拿着针的手，针上穿着长长的线。地板上乱丢着碎布头。说话必须用很大的力气才能压过缝纫机的塔塔声和窗拱下面笼子里的金丝雀的啼叫声。大家都管这只鸟叫基里尔·莫杰斯托维奇，至于为什么取了这么个名字，先前的主人已然把这个秘密带到坟墓里去了。

    在接待室里，太太们都像图画中的人物似的围在一张放了许多杂志的桌子旁边。她们站的、坐的或是半倚半坐的姿势，都模仿着画片上的样子，一边翻看服装样式，一边品评着。在另一张桌子后面经理的位子上，坐着阿马利哑·卡尔洛夫娜的助手、老裁剪工出身的法伊娜·西兰季耶夫娜·费秀京娃。她骨骼突出，松弛的两须长了许多疣德。

    她用发黄的牙齿叼住一支装了香烟的象牙烟嘴，眯起一只瞳孔也是黄色的眼睛，从鼻子和嘴里向外喷着黄烟，同时往本子上记着等在那里的订货人提的尺码、发票号码、住址和要求。

    在作坊里，阿马利娘·卡尔洛夫娜还是个缺少经验的新手。她还不能充分体会自己已经是这里的主人。不过大家都很老实，对费季索娃是可以信得过的。可是，正赶上这些让人操心的日子。|手机TXT小说下载网|阿马利灰·卡尔洛夫娜害怕考虑未来。绝望笼罩着她，事事都不如意。

    科马罗夫斯基是这里的常客。每当维克托·伊波利托维奇穿过作坊往那一边走去的时候，一路吓得那些正在换衣服的漂亮的女人们躲到屏风后面，从那里戏该地和他开着放肆的玩笑；成衣工就在他背后用不大看得起和讥讽的口气悄悄地说：“又大驾光临了。”“她的宝贝儿来了。”“献媚的情人来了。”“水牛！”“色鬼！”

    最招人恨的是他有时候用皮带牵来的那条叫杰克的叭儿狗。这畜生快步向前猛冲，扯得他歪歪斜斜地走着，两手前伸，好像是让人牵着的一个盲人。

    春天，有一次杰克咬住了拉拉的脚，撕破了一只袜子。

    “我一定把它弄死，这魔鬼。”杰明娜像孩子似的凑近拉拉的耳朵哑声说。

    “不错，这狗真叫人讨厌。可是你这小傻瓜有什么办法？”

    “小声点，别嚷，我教给你。复活节的时候不是要准备石头鸡蛋吗。就是你妈妈在五斗橱里放的……”

    “对，有大理石的，还有玻璃的。”

    “是呀，你低下点头，我悄悄跟你说。把它们拿来涂上猪油，弄得油糊糊的，这条跟撒旦一样坏透了的杂毛畜生这么一吞，就算大功告成！保准四脚朝天！”

    拉拉笑了，同时带点羡慕地思量着：这个女孩子生活环境很穷困，自己要参加劳动。在乎民当中有些人成熟得很早。不过，在她身上还保留着不少没有受到损害的、带着纯真的稚气的东西。石头鸡蛋，杰克——亏她想得出来。“可是，我们的命运为什么这样？”她继续想下去，“为什么要让我看到这一切，而且要为这一切感到痛心呢？”

    “对他来说，妈妈就是……他也就是妈妈的……这个丑字眼儿我可说不出口。既然如此，为什么他还用那种眼神看我呢？我可是她的女儿呀。”

    虽然十六岁刚过，拉拉已经是个完全成熟的少女了。看上去像是十八岁或者更大一些。她头脑清晰，性格明快。她出落得非常标致。

    她和罗佳都懂得，生活中的一切要靠自己用双手去挣。和那些花天酒地的人不同，她和他都来木及过早地学会钻营之术，也不会从理论上去辨别那些实际上还接触不到的事物。只有多余的东西才是肮脏的。拉拉是世界上最纯洁的。

    姐姐和弟弟都很清楚，事事都有自己的一本账，已经争取到手的要万分珍惜。为了能够出人头地，必须工于心计，善于盘算。拉拉用心学习并非出于抽象的求知欲，倒是因为免缴学费就得做个优秀生，就得有好成绩。如同努力读书一样，拉拉也毫不勉强地干着洗洗涮涮之类的家务活，在作坊里帮帮忙，照妈妈的吩咐到外边去办些事。她的动作总是无声无息而又和谐轻快，她身上的一切，包括那不易觉察的敏捷的动作、身材、嗓音、灰色的眼暗和亚麻色的头发，都相得益彰。

    这是七月中旬的一个礼拜日。每逢假日，清晨可以在床上懒散地多呆一会儿。拉拉仰面躺着，双手向后交叉在枕头下。

    作坊里异乎寻常地安静。朝向院子的窗户敞开着。拉拉听到远处有一辆四轮马车隆隆地从鹅卵石的大路走上铁轨马车的轨道，粗重的碰撞声变成了像是在一层油脂上滑行似的均匀的响动。“应该再睡一会儿。”拉拉这样想着。隐约的闹市声犹如催人入睡的摇篮曲。

    透过左边的肩肿和右脚大趾头这两个接触点，拉拉能够感觉出自己的身材和躺在被子下面的体态。不错，就是这肩膀和腿，再加上所有其余部分——在一定程度上就是她本身、她的心灵或气质，这些加在一起匀称他形成了躯体和对未来的无限憧憬。

    “该睡了。”拉拉这么想，脑海里浮现出车市商场向阳的一面、打扫得干干净净的车库附近的地评上停放着的出售的马车、车灯的磨花玻璃、熊的标本和丰富多彩的生活。往下，拉拉的心里出现了另一个场面：龙骑兵正在兹纳敏斯基兵营操场上训练，绕圈走着井然有序的马队，一些骑手在跳跃障碍、慢步、速步、快跑。许多带着孩子的保姆和奶娘，站在兵营的篱墙外面看得目瞪口呆。

    “再往下走，”拉拉继续想，“就该到彼得罗夫卡了，然后是彼得罗夫铁路线。拉拉，你这是怎么回事？哪儿来的这么多想象？原先只不过是要描绘出我的房子，它应该就在附近。”

    科马罗夫斯基的一个住在车市商场的朋友，为小女儿奥莉卡庆祝命名日。于是成年人有了开心的机会，又是跳舞，又是喝香按。这位朋友也邀请了妈妈，可是她身体不好，不能去。妈妈说：“带拉拉去吧。您不是常告诫我说：‘阿马利哑，要好好照看拉拉。’这回就让您好好地照看她吧。”他真照看了她，没得说，哈，哈，哈！

    多么令人销魂的华尔兹！只管转啊，转啊，什么都用不着去想。只要乐声继续回荡，生活就像在小说中一样飞逝，一旦它文然而止，就会产生一种丢丑的感觉，仿佛被人浇了一盆冷水或者赤身裸体被人撞见。除此之外，你允许别人放肆是出于夸耀，借此表示你已经是个大人啦。

    她始终不曾料到他居然跳得这么出色。那两只乖巧的手，多么自信地拢住你的腰肢！不过，她是决不会让任何人吻自己的。她简直不能想象，另一个人的嘴唇长时间贴在自己的嘴唇上，其中能够凝聚多少无耻！

    不能再胡闹了，坚决不能。不要装作什么都不懂，不要卖弄风情，也不要害羞地把目光低垂。否则迟早是要出乱子的。可怕的界限近在咫尺，再跨一步就会跌入万丈深渊。忘记吧，别再想舞会了，那里边无非都是邪恶。不要不好意思拒绝，借口总是能够找到的：还没学过跳舞，或者说，脚扭伤了。

    秋天，在莫斯科铁路枢纽站发生了骚动。莫斯科到喀山全线罢了工。莫斯科到布列斯特这条线也应当参加进去。已经作了罢工的决定，不过在罢工委员会里还没有议定什么时候宣布罢工日期。全路的人已然知道要罢工，就是还得找个表面的借口，那样才好说明罢工是自发的。

    十月初一个寒冷多云的早晨。全线都是在这一天发薪金。账房那边好久不见动静。后来才看到一个男徒工捧着一叠表册、薪金登记表和一堆拣出来准备处罚的工人记录簿往账房走去。开始发薪了。在车站、修配厂、机务段、货栈和管理处那几幢木头房子中间，是一长条望不到头的空地。来领工钱的列车员、扳道工、钳工和他们的助手，还有停车场的那些清扫女工，在这块空地上排了长长的一队。

    市镇的冬天已经来临，这是可以感觉到的。空气中散发着踩烂的械树叶子的气味，还有机车煤烟的焦臭和车站食堂的地下室里刚刚烤出炉的热面包的香味。列车驶来驶去，一会地编组，一会儿拆开，有人不住地摇晃着卷起或者打开的信号旗。巡守员的喇叭、挂车员的哨音和机车粗重的汽笛声，很协调地融合在一起，白色的烟柱仿佛顺着没有尽头的梯子向天空上升。机车已经停在那里升火待发，灼热的蒸汽炙烤着寒冷的冬云。

    沿着路基的一侧，担任段长职务的交通工程师富夫雷金和本站的养路工长帕维尔·费拉蓬特维奇·安季波夫，前后踱来踱去。安季波夫对养护工作已经厌烦了，不住地抱怨给他运来换轨的材料质量不合格，比如说，钢的韧性不够，铁轨经受不住挠曲和破裂的试验。安季波夫估计，如果一受冻，就会断裂。管理处对帕维尔·费拉蓬特维奇的质问漠然置之。这里头可能有人捞到了油水。

    富夫雷金穿的是一件外出时穿的皮大衣，敞着扣子，里面是一套新的哗叽制服。他小心翼翼地在路基上迈着脚步，一边欣赏着上衣前襟的招缝、笔挺的裤线和皮鞋的美观式样。

    对安季波夫的话，他只是一只耳朵进，一只耳朵出。富夫雷金想的是自己的事，每分钟都要掏出表来看，似乎急于要去什么地方。

    “木错，很对，老爷子，”他不紧不慢地打断了安季波夫的话，“不过这只是在某一个地方的正线上，或者是哪一段车次多的区间。可是请你想一想，你已经到手的是什么？有备用线，有停车线，万不得已的时候还可以空车编组，调用窄轨机车。怎么，还不满意！是不是发疯了！其实问题并不在于铁轨，换上木头的也没关系！”

    富夫雷金又看了一次表，合上表盖，然后就向远处张望。一辆长途轻便马车正从那个方向朝铁路这边驶来。这时，大路的转弯处又出现了一辆四轮马车，这才是富夫雷金自己家的那辆，妻子坐车来接他。车夫在路基跟前才使马停住，两手仍然扯紧经绳，一边不停地用女人似的尖嗓子险喝着，好像保姆对待淘气的孩子。拉车的马像是有点怕铁路。车厢角落里一位漂亮的太太随便地倚在靠枕上。

    “好啦，老兄，下次再谈吧，”段长说着摆了一下手，“现在顾不上考虑你说的这些道理。还有比这更要紧的事呢。”夫妇两个坐车离开了。

    过了三四个小时，已经接近黄昏。路旁的田野里像从地底下冒出来似的出现了先前没见到的一双人影，不时回头张望，一边快步向远处走去。这两个人是安季波夫和季韦尔辛。

    “走快点，”季韦尔辛说，“我倒不是怕侦探跟踪。这个会开得拖拖拉拉，肯定快结束了。他们从地窖一出来就会赶上咱们。我可不愿见他们。都这么推来推去，又何必多此一举。当初成立什么委员会啦，练习射击啦，钻地洞啦，看来都是白费！你倒是真不错，还支持尼古拉耶夫街上的那个废物！”

    “我的达里哑得了伤寒病，得把她送进医院。只要还没住上院，我什么都听不进去。”

    “听说今天发工钱，顺路去一趟账房。看在上帝的面上，我敢说，今天要不是开支的日子，我就会朝你们这帮家伙牌上一口唾沫，紧接着一分钟也不多等，就结束这吵闹的局面。”

    “那我倒要听听，你有什么法子？”

    “没什么新奇的，到锅炉房把汽笛一拉，就算大功告成了。”

    两个人分了手，各走各的路。

    季韦尔辛走的是去城里的路。迎面不断遇到从账房领钱回来的人。人很多。季韦尔辛估计，车站区域内他几乎不欠任何人的账。

    天色暗了下来。在空旷的广场上，账房旁边的灯光下聚了一些没上班的工人。广场的人口停着富夫雷金的马车。富夫雷金娜坐在车里，还是先前的那个姿势，似乎从早晨起就不曾下过车。她在等着到账房去取钱的丈夫。

    骤然间下起了湿润的雨夹雪。车夫从座位上下来，支起皮车篷。他用一只脚撑住车厢的后帮，用力扯动篷架的横梁。坐在车里的富夫雷金娜却在观赏在账房的灯光辉映下闪烁飘过的、裹着无数银白色小珠子的水气。她那一眨也不眨的眼睛向聚在一起的工人头上投去一瞥，带着期望的神色，如果有必要，这目光似乎可以像透过雾气或寒霜一样，洞穿这人群。

    季韦尔辛无意中看到了她的神色，觉得非常厌恶。他没有朝富夫雷金娜鞠躬问好就退到一旁，决定过一会儿再去领钱，免得在账房见到她丈夫。他往前走了走，来到灯光较暗的修配厂这边。从这里可以看到黑暗中通向机务段去的许多支线的弯道。

    “季韦尔辛！库普里克！”暗处有好几个声音朝他喊道。修配厂前边站了一群人。厂房里有谁在叫喊，夹杂着一个孩子的哭声。“基普里扬·萨韦利耶维奇，替孩子说说情吧。”人堆里有个女人这么说。

    老工长彼得·胡多列耶夫又照老习惯在打他那个受气包——小学徒尤苏普卡。

    胡多列耶夫原先并不这么折磨徒弟，不是酒鬼，手也不重。从前有个时候，莫斯科市郊工场作坊区的买卖人和神甫家里的姑娘们，见到这个仪表堂堂的有手艺的工人都要偷偷看上几眼。季韦尔辛的母亲当时还刚刚从教区学校毕业，拒绝了他的求婚，后来就嫁给了他的同伴、机车修理工萨韦利·尼基季奇·季韦尔辛。

    萨韦利·尼基季奇惨死以后（在一八八八年一次轰动一时的撞车事故中被活活烧死），在她守寡的第六个年头上，彼得·彼得罗维奇再次向她求婚，马尔法·加夫里洛夫娜又拒绝了他。从此，胡多列耶夫喝上了酒，开始胡闹，固执地认为他之所以落到如此糟糕的地步，是整个世界的过错，一心要同整个世界算账。

    尤苏普卡是季韦尔辛住的那个院子的看门人吉马泽特金的儿子。在厂子里，李韦尔辛总是护着这个孩子，这也让胡多列耶夫对他不大满意。

    “你是怎么用锉刀的，你这个笨蛋！”胡多列耶夫吼着，抓住尤苏普卡的头发往后拖，使劲打他的脖梗儿。“铸工件能这么拆吗？我问你，是不是成心糟踏我的活儿？你这个斜眼鬼！”

    “哎哟，我下次不敢了，大爷！哎哟，我下次不敢了。啊，疼啊！”

    “告诉他一千遍了，架子要往前推，拧紧螺栓，可是他根本不听。差一点断了大轴，这个狗娘养的。”

    “大爷，主轴我可没动，老天爷，我真没动。”

    “干吗要折磨一个孩子？”季韦尔辛从人堆当中挤进去问道。

    “家狗咬架，野狗可别往前凑。”胡多列耶夫回了一句。

    “我问你，为什么折磨孩子？”

    “跟你说，趁早赶紧走开，少管闲事。打死他也算不了什么，下流坯，差点地把大轴给我毁了。应该让他亲亲我的手，饶他一条活命，这个斜眼鬼。我只不过揪着他耳朵、头发教训教训。”

    “还要怎么样，照你说是不是该把脑袋揪下来，胡多列耶夫大叔？应该懂得害臊。已经是老师傅啦，活到白了头发还不通情理。”

    “走开，走开，我说，趁着你身子骨还是整个儿的。要不我打你个魂灵出窍。敢来教训我，你这个狗屁股！你是在枕木上让人日出来的，就在你爹眼皮子底下。你妈是只烂猫，这瞒不了我，破鞋！”

    接着发生的事不超过一分钟。两个人都顺手从放着沉重的工具和铁锭的车床上头抄起了家伙。这时候要不是人们一下子上去把他们拉住，两个人都会把对方打死。胡多列耶夫和季韦尔辛站在原地，低着头，前额几乎碰到一起，脸色煞白，瞪着充血的眼睛。暴怒之下，谁都说不出话来。大家从后面紧紧抓住他们俩的手。几分钟的工夫缓过了气力，他们扭动身子要挣开，拖曳着吊在身后的伙伴。衣服领钩、扣子都挣脱了，上衣和衬衫从肩膀上滑了下来。乱糟糟的喊叫声在他们周围一直不停。

    “凿子！把凿子夺下来。”“这会把脑袋凿穿的！”“平静一点吧，彼得大叔，不然把手给你扭脱臼！”“干吗还跟他们废话？把他们拉开，锁起来就完了。”

    突然，季韦尔辛以一股超人的力气甩掉了扑在身上的人，挣脱出来，几步就冲到了门口。人们刚要冲过去揪住他，可是看到他已经没有了那股发疯的劲头；就作罢了。他砰的一声关上门，头也不回地大步向前走去。秋夜的潮气和黑暗包围了他。“要想给大家办点好事，就有人往你助上插刀子。”他自己嘟饿着，也不知道要干什么和往哪儿去。

    在这个卑鄙、虚伪的世界上，养尊处优的太太竟然用那种眼光看着卖力气干活儿的人；可是在这个制度下受罪的人，却让酒灌得昏迷不醒，只能在方才这样的作践自己当中得到某种满足。对这样的世界，如今他比任何时候都更加憎恨。他走得很快，似乎急促的脚步可以使他发热的头脑里渴望的世上只有理智和安宁的时代更快到来。他懂得，最近一些日子他们的各种努力，铁路上的混乱，集会上的演说以及尚未执行、但也没有取消的罢工的决定，都是今后这条漫长道路的一部分。

    但现在他兴奋得急不可耐地想要一口气跑完全程。他大步向前走着，心里还不大清楚究竟往哪里去，然而两只脚却知道应该把他送到什么地方。

    季韦尔辛事后很久都不曾料到，就在他和安季波夫从地窖里出来走了以后，会议决定当晚罢工。委员们立刻分了工，规定了谁该到哪儿去和把谁从什么地方撤回。好像是从季韦尔辛心坎儿里发出来的一样，机车修理场里响起了开始是暗哑的、随后逐渐变得峻亮和整齐的信号声。这时候，从车库和货运站拥出的人群已经从进站的信号机那儿向城里走去，接着就同听见李韦尔辛的哨声而放下工作的锅炉房的人群汇合到一起了。

    好多年来季韦尔辛都以为，那天晚上是他一个人让整条铁路停止了运行。只是在最后审讯过程中，根据全部事实审判的时候，没有添加上指使罢工这条罪名，他才明白过来。

    人们纷纷跑了出来，不住地问：“这是叫大家上哪儿去？”黑暗中有人回答说：“你又不是聋子，没听见吗，这是警报，得救火。”“什么地方着火了？”“当然是着火了，要不为什么拉汽笛。”

    门砰砰地响，又走出来一批人。传来另一些人的说话声。“真会说，着火了！乡巴佬！别听这傻话。这就叫歇工，懂不懂？你看，这是套具，这是笼头，可咱就是不上套。回家去吧，小伙子们。”

    人越来越多。铁路罢工开始了。

    到第三天才回家的季韦尔辛，冻得不住打寒颤，觉没睡够，脸也没有刮。前一天夜里突然变冷，这个季节从来没有这么冷过，可是季韦尔辛穿的是一身秋衣。

    在大门口碰见了看门人吉马泽特金。

    “谢谢，季韦尔辛先生，”他一连说了好几遍，“没让尤苏普卡受屈，让他一辈子替你祷告上帝吧。”

    “你是不是变傻了，吉马泽特金，我对你算得上什么先生？求你别这么说了。有话快讲吧，你瞧这天气够多冷。”

    “怎么能让你挨冻呢，你会暖和的，萨韦利耶维奇。昨天我们帮你妈妈马尔法·加夫里洛夫娜从莫斯科商场运了整整一棚子木柴。全是一色的烨木，又干、又好的烧柴。”

    “太谢谢啦，吉马泽特金。你好像还有话要说，请快讲吧，我都冻僵了。”

    “我要告诉你，你别在家过夜了，萨韦利耶维奇。得躲一躲。警察来过，警察分局长也来过，打听同你来往的都是什么人。我说没见到有什么人来，只有他的徒弟、机车乘务组和铁路上的人来过。另外的什么人可向来没见过。”

    独身的季韦尔辛和他母亲、一个已经结了婚的哥哥一起住的这幢房子，是邻近的圣三一教堂的房产。房子的一部分住了教士和两家在城里零售水果、肉类的摊贩，其余的住户大多数是莫斯科至布列斯特这条线上的铁路职工。

    房子是石砌的，几条木结构的回廊从四面围住一个肮脏、零乱的院子。同回廊相连的几条通到楼上去的又脏、又滑的木头楼梯，总散发着一股猫尿和酸白菜气味。紧靠楼梯转角的平台是厕所和门上挂着锁的储藏室。

    李韦尔辛的哥哥应征入伍，当了一名列兵，在瓦房沟负了伤，目前正在克拉斯诺雅尔斯克的陆军医院治疗。他妻子已经带着两个女儿到那里去探望和照料。李韦尔辛一家几代人都是铁路员工，出门行路是方便的，可以使用俄罗斯全境的免费公务车票。家里如今非常安静，显得空落落的，只住着季韦尔辛和母亲。

    他们住在二楼，在回廊一进门的前边，门口有一只由送水夫装满了水的木桶。当基普里扬·萨韦利耶维奇走上自己住的这一层的时候，发现木桶的盖子被挪到一边，水面的冰上冻住了一只铁菜缸。

    “不会是别人，准是普罗夫。”李韦尔辛想着就笑了。“真是个喝不足的无底洞，一肚子的火气。”

    普罗夫·阿法纳西耶维奇·索科洛夫是个诵经士，一个出了名的不服老的人，和马尔法·加夫里洛夫娜是远亲。

    基普里扬·萨韦利耶维奇把茶缸从冰面上掀下来，放好桶盖，然后拉了一下门铃。一股家居的热气和香味迎面扑来。

    “妈妈，炉子烧得真旺。咱家多暖和，真好。”

    母亲一下子扑过来搂住他的脖子，拥抱着他哭了起来。他抚摸着她的头，过了一会儿，轻轻脱开身。

    “勇敢就能扫除一切障碍，妈妈，”他轻声说道，“从莫斯科到华沙的铁路都瘫痪了。”

    “知道，就是为这个我才哭呢。你可别闯了祸。库普林卡，是不是到远处躲一躲。”

    “您那位可爱的朋友、好心肠的羊倌彼得·彼得罗夫，真叫我伤脑筋。”他想逗她高兴。不过她没理解这是开玩笑，正经地回答说：

    “拿他开玩笑可真作孽，库普林卡。你应该可怜他。他是个没办法的不幸的人啊，整个心都给毁了。”

    “安季波夫，就是那个帕维尔·费拉蓬特维奇，给抓走了。半夜里来的人，到处搜查，弄得乱七八糟，早晨把他带走了。他的达里哑正害伤寒病，还在医院里。帕夫卢什卡是个孩子，还在职业学校念书哪。家里就剩下他一个人和聋子姑姑。还要把他们从家里赶出去。我想应该把这孩子接到咱们家来。普罗夫干什么来了？”

    “你怎么知道他来过？”

    “看见水桶了，盖子没盖，还有那只茶缸子。我想准是他。普罗夫是个喝水喝不够的家伙。”

    “你真会猜，库普林卡。说对了，就是普罗夫。普罗夫·阿法纳西耶维奇跑来借木柴。我给了他。难道我傻了，把木柴给人！可当时我已经想不到这些，因为他带来的是什么样的消息啊！你知道吗，皇上已经签署了一份公告，一切都要照新章程办，不让任何人受屈，给种田的分地，大家都和贵族平等。签了字的命令，你想想看，就差宣布了。主教公会也写了新的呈文，要增加一次祷告，为他的健康祈祷，我可不哄你。普罗武什卡说过，可我忘了。”

    被捕的帕维尔·费拉蓬特维奇和住院的达里哑·菲利蒙诺夫娜的儿子帕图利亚·安季波夫搬到了季韦尔辛家里。这是个很爱整洁的孩子，生着一张五官端正的脸，一头淡褐色的头发从中间分开。他不时地要用小梳子拢拢头发，整理一下上衣和带着职业中学制服扣环的宽腰带。帕图利亚是个非常爱开玩笑的孩子，而且观察力很强。他能逼真而又滑稽地摹仿看到、听到的东西。

    十月十七日公告发布以后，很快就考虑举行一次从特维尔门到卡鲁日斯克门的示威游行。这次正像俗话所说：“一个人担水吃，两个人抬水吃，三个人没有水吃。”参与此事的好几个革命组织互相争吵不休，然后一个接一个地宣布退出。但当得知在原先规定的那天清晨人们无论如何也要上街之后，又各自急忙派出自己的代表们参加示威游行。

    不顾基普里扬·萨韦利耶维奇的劝阻和反对，马尔法·加夫里洛夫娜还是带着快活的、好同人交往的帕图利亚参加游行去了。

    这是十一月初干燥而又寒冷的一天，宁静的铅灰色的天空飘着几乎稀疏可数的小雪花，落地之前长时间地上下左右翻飞着，然后像一层蓬松的尘土似的填撒在路上的坑洼里。乱哄哄的人流沿街向下挤去，只见一排排的脸孔、冬天的棉大衣和羔皮帽子。这都是些老人、女子学校的学生和孩子们，也有穿制服的养路工、电车场的工人、穿着高筒皮靴和皮上衣的邮电工人，还有中学生和大学生。

    有一阵子大家唱着《华沙工人歌》、《你们已英勇牺牲》和《马赛曲》，可是在前头倒退着走的、一只手紧抓着库班帽摇摆着指挥歌唱的那个人，忽然戴上了帽子，停止唱歌，转过身去听井然走的另外几个带队人在谈些什么。歌声散乱了，停止了。这时只听到巨大的人群走在结了冰的路面上踏出咯吱咯吱脆响的脚步尸。

    一些好心人通知游行的发起人说，前边哥萨克已经布置了警戒线，准备对付示威游行的人。也有人从就近的药房打来电话，告诉游行的人前面有埋伏。

    “那又怎么样，”带队的人说，“最要紧的是冷静，不要慌。应该立刻占据前边路上的一座公共建筑物，向大家说明面临的危险，然后解散队伍，化整为零。”

    究竟往哪里去最好，几个人开始争起来。有的主张到商业经纪人协会，有的说应该去高等工科学校，也有人要去外国记者学校。

    正在争论的时候，前边已经看到了一幢公用建筑物的屋角。这也是一所学校，比上边提到的那几处毫不逊色，很适合作避难所。

    大家来到房子跟前的时候，领队的走上大门口半圆形的台阶，打手势让队伍的排头停住。入口的几扇大门已经打开，整队的人摩肩接路地拥进学校的前厅，走上迎面的楼梯。

    “到礼堂去，到礼堂去！”后边异口同声地喊，但是人不停地拥进来，沿走廊和教室散开。

    好不容易把大家招呼回来，安顿坐好以后，领队的几次要说明前边路上已经设下埋伏，但是谁也不听。停止前进并进入这所房子，被当成立刻召开一次临时集会的邀请。

    经过长时间的边走边唱以后，人们都想静静地坐一会儿，但愿别的人替他们吃点苦，出来叫喊一番。大家现在主要是对休息感到满意，至于在主要方面看法一致的几个发言人的分歧，也就觉得无所谓了。

    所以，一位不想哗众取宠使人厌倦的最蹩脚的演说家，反而取得了最大的成功。他每讲一句都引起同情的呼喊。大家毫不吝惜地用表示赞同的喊叫压过了他的讲话。人们已经等得不耐烦，便急忙表示同意，一面喊着“可耻”，一面通过了一份抗议电。后来终于听厌了讲演人那单调的声音，索性把他撇到一边，一个跟着一个成排地走下楼梯，奔到街上。队伍又继续前进了。

    开会的时候，外面下起了雪，这时路面已经～片银白，雪也越下越密。

    当龙骑兵飞快地迎而冲过来的时候，后排的人还完全没有察觉。队伍前方突然传来越来越大的响声，像是人群里喊起了“乌拉！”“救命啊！”“打死人啦！”以及另外许多叫喊声混成一片，分不清还喊了什么。几乎是同时，趁着这阵混乱的声浪，顺着急忙闪到两旁的人群形成的狭窄的通道，无声而迅速地闪过许多匹马的嘴脸、鬃毛和挥舞着马刀的骑兵。

    半个排跑过去了，然后掉转马头，整好队形，从后边冲进了游行队伍的队尾。屠杀开始了。

    几分钟以后，整条街差不多已不见一个人影。人们沿着小巷跑散了。雪已经变得稀疏，昏黑的傍晚景色很像是一幅炭笔画。已经落到屋后的太阳，忽然像用手指点着一样，从街角照出路上所有带红颜色的东西：龙骑兵的红顶皮帽，倒下的大幅红旗，洒在雪地上的～条条、一点点的血迹。

    一个头盖骨裂开的人不住地呻吟，两手紧紧抠住地面，在大街的一侧爬着。有几名骑兵排成一队从街道下首放马缓步行来。他们是追踪到大街另一头之后又返回来的。几乎就在他们脚下，头巾掉到脑后的马尔法·加夫里洛夫娜跌跌撞撞地走着，一边用变了音的嗓子朝整条街喊着：“帕沙！帕图利亚！”

    他起先一直和她走在一起，惟妙惟肖地学着最末一个演讲人的样子逗她开心，可是当龙骑兵冲过来的时候就突然不见了。

    在最危险的时候，马尔法·加夫里洛夫娜背上也挨了一鞭子。尽管身上那件絮得厚厚实实的短棉袄减轻了她挨打的感觉，她还是一边咒骂，一边吓人地朝跑远了的骑兵挥着拳头，对他们竟敢在体面的老百姓面前往她这个老太婆身上抽鞭子气得要命。

    马尔法·加夫里洛夫娜激动不安的目光扫向大街两侧，突然喜出望外地在对面人行道上看到了那孩子。在那边，在一座有廊柱的店铺和一所独家的砖房子的突出部中间的角落里，聚了一小群无意中路过的看热闹的人。

    一个闯入人行道的龙骑兵，用马的后聘把他们赶到那个地方。人们受惊的样子使他很开心，于是他把出路挡住以后，就紧贴着大家的身子装腔作势地表演起驯马的动作来，先来几个急转弯，然后又像演马戏似的慢慢让马用后腿立起来。当他看到那些慢慢返回来的伙伴以后，才用马刺刺了马一下，三窜两跳地归了队。

    被挤在角落里的人散开了。先前不敢作声的帕沙，立刻向老太太跑来。

    他们往家里走。马尔法·加夫里洛夫娜不住地嘟娥：“该干刀万剐的杀人犯，天杀的刽子手！老百姓原本高高兴兴，皇上给了自由，这帮家伙就受不住了。什么都给搅得一团糟，把每句话的意思都弄拧了。”

    她气得对龙骑兵发狠，对周围的一切都发狠，这一刻连她的亲生儿子也包括在内。在暴怒的瞬间，她仿佛觉得现在发生的这一切，都是被那些既不会拿主意、又自作聪明的库普林卡～伙糊涂虫惹出来的。

    “真阴险狠毒啊！可是他们这些吵吵嚷嚷的人到底需要什么呢？一点儿也不明白！就知道骂呀，吵呀。还有那一个，特别会说话的那个，你怎么学他来着，帕申卡？再给我学一遍，亲爱的，学学看。哎哟，笑死我了，笑死了！简直一模一样。你这个讨厌鬼，大马蝇。”

    回到家里，她不停地埋怨儿子，又说，不能活到这把年纪还让那个头发乱蓬蓬的麻脸蠢货从马上用鞭子抽屁股教训她。

    “您可真是，妈妈！好像我就是哥萨克中尉或者宪兵队长。”

    当奔跑的人出现在窗前的时候，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇正站在窗前。他知道这是游行的人，于是聚精会神地向远处看了一阵子，看看在走散的人当中有没有尤拉或另外的什么人。但他没有发现熟人，只觉得快步走过去的那个人是杜多罗夫那个不要命的儿子（尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇忘了他的名字），不久前才从他左肩取出一颗子弹，今天又在他不该去的地方窜来窜去。

    尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇是秋天从彼得堡来到这里的。在莫斯科他没有自己落脚的地方，但是又不喜欢住旅馆，如今是住在～房远亲斯文秀茨基家里。人家在顶楼角上给他让出了一间书房。

    这幢两层楼的厢房对没有子女的斯文季茨基夫妇来说有点过大，这是已故的老斯文李茨基多年以前从多尔戈鲁基公爵手里租下来的。多尔戈鲁基的产业一共有三个院落、一座花园和许多格局零乱、不同风格的房屋，连着三条巷子，过去被人称作磨坊小城。

    虽然开了四扇窗，这间书房依旧稍嫌阴暗。屋子里摆满了书籍、纸张、地毯和雕塑品。书房有个半圆形的外阳台，遮住了房子的这一角。冬天通往阳台的双重玻璃门关得严严实实。

    透过书房的两扇窗和阳台的玻璃门，可以看到笔直的一条小巷、一条雪橇压出来的通向远处的路、排列不整齐的房子和歪斜的栅栏。

    从花园向书房投来～片淡紫色的阴影。树木从外面窥探着室内，似乎要把蒙了一层雪青色凝脂般寒霜的枝条伸到地板上。

    尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇眼望着小巷，回想起彼得堡去年的冬天，回想起加邦牧师、高尔基、维特的来访和那些时髦的现代作家。他远远地离开那个令人眼花缭乱的环境，来到莫斯科这个安静和睦的地方写一本已经构思成熟的书。谁知根本不可能！他如同从火里出来又掉到炭上。每天都要讲演，作报告，没有喘息的机会。一会儿是女子高等学校，一会儿又是宗教哲学院，再不就是红十字会或者罢工基金委员会。真想到瑞士去，拣一个到处是森林的偏远的县份。那里会有静温、清明的湖光山色和一切都能引起回响的凛冽的空气。

    尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇转身离开窗口。他情不自禁地想出去随便看望一个人，或者漫无目的地走走，但是立刻又想到那位信奉托尔斯泰主义的维沃洛奇诺夫有事要来找他，所以不能离开。于是他在室内踱来踱去，思想转到外甥身上。

    从伏尔加沿岸一个偏僻的地方迁往彼得堡的时候，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇把尤拉带到莫斯科，让他见见韦杰尼亚平、奥斯特罗梅思连斯基、谢利亚温、米哈耶利斯、斯文秀茨基和格罗梅科这几家亲戚。他先把尤拉安顿在既无头脑、又爱饶舌的奥斯特罗梅思连斯基家里，亲戚们平时都管这个老人叫费吉卡。费吉卡同自己的养女莫佳暗中同居，所以自认是个足以动摇通常的伦常基础和捍卫自己的主张的人。不过他手脚不干净，辜负了对他的信任，连尤拉的生活费都被他挪用了。于是他又把尤拉转到格罗梅科家，此后尤拉便一直寄居在那里。

    在格罗梅科家里，尤拉处在令人羡慕的和睦的气氛中。

    “他们在那儿简直成了一个三人同盟，”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇想到尤拉、他的同年级伙伴戈尔东和主人的女儿东尼妞·格罗梅科。三个人在一起已经读腻了《爱情的意义》和《克莱采奏鸣曲》之类的书，于是又迷上了贞洁的说教。

    在少年时代，应该体验一下那种偏于极端的纯洁情感。但是他们太过分了，以致反而糊涂起来。

    三个人都有着可怕的怪脾性和孩子气。凡是使他们激动的、属于清欲方面的东西，不知为什么都被说成“庸俗化”，而且不顾是否恰当，到处都把这个词挂在嘴上。简直是极端的用词不当。“庸俗化”——他们用来指的是人的本能的呼声、诲淫的作品、作践妇女，甚至还包括整个物质世界。每逢说这话的时候，他们那张激动的脸由涨红而变得苍白。

    “如果我在莫斯科，”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇这样想，“决不让他们发展到这种地步。羞耻心是必要的，但要在一定的限度之内……”“啊，尼尔·费奥克蒂斯托维奇，欢迎您。”他高声说着，走上前去迎接进来的客人。

    一个身穿灰色上衣、腰束宽皮带的胖子走进房来。他脚上穿着一双毡靴，裤子的膝盖部分胀了出来。他给人一种印象，仿佛自己是一朵五彩祥云笼罩着的善行使者。一副用黑色宽绦带系住的夹鼻眼镜在鼻子上恶狠狠地跳动着。在过道里，他没来得及把该办的事办完。围巾没有摘，一头拖在地上，手里还拿着一项圆形呢礼帽。这几件东西使他无法同尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇握手，甚至妨碍问好。

    “唉，唉。”他不知所措地应答着，一面打量四周。

    “随便放吧，”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇说，让维沃洛奇诺夫恢复说话能力和自制能力。

    这一位是列夫·尼古拉耶维奇·托尔斯泰的追随者。在他们这些人的头脑里，那个永远不甘寂寞的天才大师的思想，只是安然享受着欢乐的休想，而且被无可救药地庸俗化了。

    维沃洛奇诺夫是来请尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇到一所学校去为政治流放犯演讲的。

    “我已经在那里讲过一次了。”
    “是为政治流放犯讲的吗？”
    “是啊。”
    “还得再讲一次。”
    尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇稍加推辞，然后就同意了。

    来访所要谈的事情完全谈妥了，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇也就没有过分地挽留尼尔·费奥克蒂斯托维奇。他本来可以起身告辞了，但觉得这么快就离开不大礼貌，走之前应该找个轻松、活泼的话题谈一谈。结果谈话却拖得很长，而且不大愉快。

    “您颓废了？陷入神秘主义里去了？”
    “这是为什么？”
    “人毁了呀。还记得地方自治会吗？”
    “那还用说。我们还在一起筹备过选举哪。”
    “还为乡村学校和教师学习会的事冲锋陷阵呢，记得不？”
    “当然，那可是一场苦战。后来您好像转到民众福利和社会救济方面去了，对吗？”
    “有过一段时间。”
    “是啊，可如今时兴的都是些放荡的牧羊神呀，黄色的睡莲呀，受戒者呀，还宣传什么《我们要像太阳》。我是死也不相信。让一个富于幽默感的人，一个如此了解人民的聪明人去干……算啦，您不必说了……也许我触到您的隐私了吧？”
    “何必信口开河地瞎扯呢？我们又何必非要争论这些？您根本不了解我的思想。”
    “俄国需要的是学校和医院，不是淫荡的牧羊神和黄色的睡莲。”
    “这谁都不反对。”
    “乡下人没有穿的，饿得浮肿……”

    谈话就这样跳跃式地进行着。意识到这样谈下去毫无意义，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇向他解释是什么使他同一些象征主义派的作家接近起来，接着把话题转到托尔斯泰身上。

    “在某种程度上我同意您的看法。不过列夫·尼古拉耶维奇说过，人如果对美的追求越来越强，就会离善越来越远。”

    “您以为正相反吗？能够拯救世界的究竟是美，是宗教的神秘仪式或类似的东西，还是罗赞诺夫和阳思妥耶夫斯基？”

    “请等一等，让我谈谈自己的想法。我认为，如果指望用监狱或者来世报应恐吓就能制服人们心中沉睡的兽性，那么，马戏团里舞弄鞭子的驯兽师岂不就是人类的崇高形象，而不是那位牺牲自己的传道者了？关键在于干百年来使人类凌驾于动物之上的，并不是棍棒，而是音乐，这里指的是没有武器的真理的不可抗拒的力量和真理的榜样的吸引力。直到现在还公认，福音书当中最重要的是伦理箴言和准则。我以为最要紧的是应该懂得，耶稣宣讲的时候往往使用生活中的寓言，用日常生活解释真理。从这里引出的看法是：凡人之间的交往是不朽的，而生命则是象征性的，因为它是有意义的。”

    “我一点也听不懂。您应当把这些想法写成一本书。”

    维沃洛奇诺夫走后，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇的情绪非常激动。他恼恨自己对呆头呆脑的维沃洛奇诺夫谈了一部分内心的看法，但没有产生丝毫影响。像通常那样，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇的懊恼突然换了目标。他一下子就完全忘记了维沃洛奇诺夫，仿佛这人根本不曾来过。他又想起另外一件事来。尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇平时不写日记，但一年之中总有一两次要把感受最深的思想写在一册厚厚的普通记事本上。他取出这个本子，开始用那大而端正的字体写起来。下面就是他所写的。

    这个施莱辛格傻女人使我整天感到不自在。早晨就来

    了，一直坐到吃午饭时，一连两个小时朗诵歪诗。招人厌烦。

    这是象征派作家A为天体起源交响乐作曲家B所写的一

    篇散文诗，里边有各大行星的神袛、四首诗的唱词和另外一

    些东西。我一直是忍着，忍着，终于忍无可忍，于是恳求说：

    “受不了啦，请便吧。”

    突然间我恍然大悟，懂得了为什么就连在浮士德身上

    这种东西也往往约对难以忍受而又虚假。现代人没有这方

    面的要求。当他们被宇宙之谜弄得困惑不解的时候，他们要

    深入探索的是物理学，而不是赫西奥德的六音步诗。

    然而，问题不仅仅在于这种陈旧过时的形式，也不在于

    这些水火之神把科学明显弄清楚的东西重新弄得含混不

    清，而在于这种体裁与当今艺术的精神、实质以及创作动机

    格格不入。

    在人类还很稀少、大自然尚未被人所掩盖的古老的大

    地上，相信天体演化是很自然的。大地上徘徊的还有猛妈，

    对恐龙和各种龙记忆犹新。那时，大自然是如此引人注目、

    如此凶猛而威风地扑向人的脖颈，似乎当真充满了各种神

    批。这就是人类编年史最初的几页，而且还仅仅是开始。

    由于人口过剩，这个上古世界在罗马结束了。

    罗马挤满借用来的神袛和被征服的民族，挤成天上地

    下两层，像肠子紧紧扭成三个结的垃圾堆。那里有达吉人、

    赫鲁人、斯基泰人、萨尔马特人、极北人，看到的是没有辐条

    的笨重的车轮、浮肿的眼睛、兽奸、双下颠、用受过教育的奴

    隶的肉喂鱼，还有不识字的皇帝。人要比后来的任何时候都

    多，在斗兽场的通道里被践踏，忍受痛苦。

    如今，这个轻快的、光芒四射的人，突出了人性，故意显

    出乡土气息。这个加利利人，来到这俗气的大理石和黄金

    堆中。从此，一切的民族和神不复存在，开始了人的时代，做

    木工的人，当农夫的人，夕阳晚照之下放牧羊群的人。人这

    个音听起来没有丝毫傲气，他随着母亲们的摇篮曲和世界

    上的所有画廊崇高地向各地传播。

    彼得罗夫大街给人的印象仿佛就是彼得堡在莫斯科的一个角落。街道两旁是对称的建筑，都有雕塑精致的大门，再往下去是售书亭、阅览室、图片社，还有高级的烟草店和考究的餐厅，餐厅门前笨重的支柱上是装在磨砂玻璃圆罩里的煤气灯。

    冬天这个地方阴暗得难以通行。这里居住着稳重、自重而又富裕的自由职业者。

    维克托·伊波利托维奇·科马罗夫斯基在这里租下的一套讲究的独身住宅是在二层楼上，通到那里的是一条有宽大、结实的橡木栏杆的宽楼梯。为他操持家务的女管家，不对，他幽居处所的女总管埃玛·埃内斯托夫娜，对样样事都关心，都打听，但似乎对任何事又都不干预，是个不声不响、不惹人注意的人。他对她则报以一个绅士所应有的骑士般的感激，而且在住宅里从不容忍同她那老处女平静的生活圈子不相容的客人和来访者。在这里，主宰一切的是修道院般的宁静——帝幕低垂，纤尘不染，如同手术室一般。

    每逢礼拜天的上午，维克托·伊波利托维奇照例带着自己的叭儿狗沿彼得罗夫大街和库茨涅茨基大街闲逛，在一个街角，与从家里出来的演员兼纸牌迷康斯坦丁·伊拉里奥诺维奇·萨塔尼基会合。

    他们一同在人行道上缓步踱着，讲着笑话，时断时续地交换一些无足轻重、对一切都瞧不起的见解。其实，即便不讲话，随意哼哈几声，也能起同样的作用，但必须要让库茨涅茨基大街两旁的人行道都能听见他那响亮的、满不在乎地发呛的、像是由于颤抖而憋住气的低音嗓门，才算达到目的。

    天气也是病怏怏的样子。水珠滴滴答答地敲打着铁皮泄水管和屋檐板。各家的屋顶交错发出这种响声，似乎到了春天。开始融雪了。

    她一路上迷迷糊糊地走着，只是回到家才明白发生了什么事。

    家里的人都已入睡。她又陷入了麻木状态，失神地在妈妈的小梳妆台前坐下来，身上穿的是一件接近白色的浅紫色的长连衣裙，连衣裙上镶着花边，还披着一条面纱。这些都是为了参加假面舞会从作坊里拿来的。她坐在镜中自己的映像面前，可是什么也看不见。然后她把交叉的双手放在梳妆台上，把头伏在手上。

    妈妈要是知道了，一定会打死她的。把她打死，自己再自杀。

    这是如何发生的呢？怎么会出现这种事？如今已经迟了，应该事先想到。

    正像通常所说的，她已经是个堕落的女人了，成了法国小说里的那种女人，可是，明天到了学校还要和那些女学生坐在一张书桌后面，同她相比，她们简直是一群吃奶的孩子。上帝啊，上帝，怎么会有这种事呀！

    多年之后，如果可能的话，拉拉也许会把这一切都告诉奥莉娜·杰明娜。奥莉娜一定会和她抱头痛哭。

    窗外滴水喃喃自语，这是融雪滴落的声音。街上有人在敲邻居家的大门。拉拉没有抬头。她双肩抖动，痛楚地哭着。

    “唉，埃玛·埃内斯托夫娜，亲爱的，木大好过。我烦死了。”

    他往地毯上、沙发上胡乱丢着套袖、胸衣和别的东西，把五斗橱的抽屉拉开又关上，自己也不知道要找什么。

    他非常需要她，可是这个礼拜天又不可能同她见面。科马罗夫斯基像头野兽似的，在屋子里胡乱走着，坐立不安。

    她的心灵无比之美。她那两只手，像崇高的思维形象所能令人惊讶的那样，让人销魂。她那投在室内糊墙纸上的影子仿佛纯洁无假的侧影。贴身的上衣像是一幅绷在绣架上的细麻布，服帖而又紧紧地裹住她的前胸。

    科马罗夫斯基用手指有节奏地敲打窗上的玻璃，合着柏油路上缓缓走动的马匹的脚步。“拉拉。”他轻声低唤，闭上了眼睛，脑海中出现了枕在他臂弯里的她的头。她已然入睡，睫毛低垂，一副无忧无虑的神态，让人可以～连几小时不眨眼地端详。头发散落在枕上，她的美恰似一股清烟，刺痛科马罗夫斯基的眼睛，侵入他的心灵。

    礼拜天的散步没有实现。科马罗夫斯基带着杰克只在人行道上走了几步就停住脚步。他想起了库茨涅茨基大街、萨塔尼基开的玩笑和他所遇到的许多熟人。不行，他实在受不了啦！科马罗夫斯基向后转了。狗觉得奇怪，用木乐意的眼光从地上向他望着，不情愿地跟在后面。

    “哪儿来的魔力！”他这样想。“这一切又意味着什么？是苏醒过来的良心，怜悯，还有悔恨？或许是不安？都不是，他明明知道她平安无事地呆在自己家里，可为什么一直没法不想她？”

    科马罗夫斯基进了门，顺着楼梯走到中间转弯的楼梯口。这里的墙上有一扇窗户，玻璃的四角装饰有华丽的纹章。照进来的缕缕阳光，五彩缤纷地投射在地板和窗台上。走到第二层楼梯的中间，科马罗夫斯基站住了。

    “决不能在这种恼人而刺心的苦闷面前屈服！已经不是小孩子了，应该懂得，如果作为一种消遣方式，这个姑娘，已故的老朋友的女儿，成了使自己神魂颠倒的对象，将会有什么后果。要清醒！要有自信，不能破坏自己的习惯，否则全都会化为乌有！”

    科马罗夫斯基用力紧紧抓住宽大的栏杆，抓得手都疼了。他闭了一会儿眼睛，然后坚决地转身走下楼去。在有阳光照进来的楼梯转弯的楼梯口，他看到叭儿狗的崇敬的目光。杰克从下向上望着他，抬着头，活像一个双颊松弛、流着口水的老年作儒。

    叭儿狗不喜欢那个姑娘，撕破过她的长筒袜子，朝她哪牙乱叫。它不高兴主人到拉拉那里去，仿佛怕他从她那儿染上人的气味。

    “啊，原来如此！你也希望一切照旧——仍然是萨塔尼基、卑鄙的诡计和下流的笑话吗？好，那就给你这个，给你，给你！”

    科马罗夫斯基用手杖和脚照着叭儿拘一阵踢打。杰克跑开，尖声鸣叫着，摇摆着尾巴上了楼，前腿扒在门上向埃玛·埃内斯托夫娜诉苦。

    几天和几个礼拜过去了。

    这是一个多么可怕的迷魂阵啊！科马罗夫斯基闯进拉拉的生活，如果只是引起她反感、厌恶的话，拉拉原是可以抗拒和设法摆脱的。然而事情并非如此简单。

    姑娘自己也感到惬意，因为这个论年龄可以作为父亲、容貌已经开始秃顶的男人，这个在集会上受欢迎、报纸上也常提到的人，居然在她身上花费金钱和时间，把她称作女神，陪伴她出入剧场和音乐会，即所谓让她“精神上得到发展”。

    她只不过还是个穿褐色长裙、未成年的寄宿学校的女生，学校里那些天真的恶作剧也都少不了她。无论是在马车里当着车夫的面，还是众目暖暖之下在剧院的幽静的包厢里，科马罗夫斯基的那种暧昧而大胆的举动迷惑住了她，挑逗起她心中渐渐苏醒的也想模仿一番的不良念头。

    但这种学生淘气的激情很快就过去了。一种刺心的沮丧和对自己的畏惧长久地留在她的心里，在那里扎下了根。她总想睡觉，这是由于夜晚的失眠，由于哭泣和不断头痛，由于背诵功课和整个身体的疲乏。

    他是她所诅咒的人，她恨他。每天她想的都是这些。

    如今却终身成了他的奴隶。他是靠什么制服她的呢？用什么恫吓她顺从，而她便屈服了，满足他的欲望，用毫不掩饰的羞耻的颤抖让他快活？莫非因为地位的差异，妈妈在钱财上对他的依赖，他善于恫吓她拉拉？不是，都不是。这一切都是无稽之谈。

    不是她受他支配，而是他受她支配。难道她看不出来，他是怎样因她而苦恼。拉拉是无所畏惧的，良心是清白的。假如她把这一切揭穿，可耻和害怕的应该是他。然而问题就在这里，因为她永远不会那样做。她还没有这么卑鄙，还没有科马罗夫斯基对待下属和弱者的那股狠劲。

    这就是他和她的区别。因此，她也就越发感到周围生活的可怕。生活中什么让她震惊？是雷鸣，还是闪电？不，是侧目而视和低声诽谤。到处都是诡计和模棱两可的话。每一根线都像蛛丝一样，一扯，线使断了，但要想挣脱这个网，只能被它缠得更紧。

    卑鄙而怯懦的人反而统治了强者。

    她也曾经自问：如果她是已婚妇女，会有什么不同？她开始求助于诡辩。有时，绝望的忧郁控制了她。

    他又是多么不知羞耻地匍匐在她脚下哀求：“不能这样继续下去了。想想看，我和你做了些什么呀。你正在沿着陡坡向下滑。让我们向你母亲承认了吧。我娶你。”

    他哭着，坚持着，好像她争辩着并不同意似的。不过这只是空话，拉拉甚至懒得听他这套悲剧式的空话了。

    可是他继续带着披着长面纱的她到那家可怕的餐馆的单独的房间里去。侍者和顾客目送着她，他们的眼光似乎要把她剥个精光。她只能自问：“难道人们相爱，就要受屈辱吗？”

    有一次她做了一个梦：她被埋在土里，外面剩下的只有左肋、左肩和右脚掌；从她左边的乳房里长出了一丛草，而人们在地上歌唱着《黑眼睛和白乳房》和《别让玛莎过小溪》。

    拉拉并不信奉宗教，也不相信那些教堂仪式。但为了承受生活的重压，有时也需要某种内在音乐的陪伴。这种音乐并不是每一次都能自己谱写的。它是上帝关于生命的箴言，拉拉到教堂正是去哭他。

    十二月初的一天，拉拉的心情就像《大雷雨》中的卡捷琳娜。她跑去祷告时的感觉，似乎脚下的大地随时都会裂开，教堂的穹顶随时都会崩塌。活该。让一切都完结吧。可惜她带了奥莉妮·杰明哪这个话匣子。

    “看，那是普罗夫·阿法纳西耶维奇。”奥莉妞对着她耳朵悄悄说。

    “嘘，别讲话。哪个普罗夫·阿法纳西耶维奇？”

    “普洛夫·阿法纳西耶维奇·索科洛夫，我的堂叔父。正在读经文的那个。”

    “嗅，你说的是那个诵经土，季韦尔辛家的亲戚。嘘，别作声。别打搅我吧。”

    她们进来的时候，仪式刚刚开始。人们在唱赞美诗：“赞美我主，我的灵魂，以我所有，赞主圣名。”

    教堂里显得空荡荡的，四处响起回声。只有前边挤着一群做祷告的人。这幢房子是新建的，不带颜色的窗玻璃不能使积雪的灰色小巷和往来的行人增添色彩。这扇窗前站着教堂长老，不顾正在进行的祈祷，用大家都能听到的声音对一个呆傻耳聋的乞丐开导着什么，他的声音像那扇窗和窗外的小巷一样呆板而平淡。

    拉拉手里摸着几枚铜币，慢慢绕过祈祷的人，到门口替自己和奥莉妮领取蜡烛，然后小心翼翼地免得碰撞任何人，回到后边。这时普罗夫·阿法纳西耶维奇已经急促地念完九段经文，仿佛在念一篇大家早已熟悉的东西。

    “祝福吧，心灵空虚的人……祝福吧，痛哭失声的人……祝福吧，渴望并追求真理的人……”

    拉拉走着，打了一个冷战，停了下来。这说的就是她。他说：受践踏的人的命运是值得羡慕的。他们关于自己有许多话可以诉说。他们的前途是无量的。他就是这么认为的。这是基督的意思。

    正值普雷斯尼亚区武装起义的日子。他们恰好住在起义区。在离他们几步远的特维尔街上筑起了街垒，从旅馆的窗口就可以看到。人们从院子里用桶提水浇街垒，为的是把构筑街垒用的石头和废铁冻在一起。

    隔壁院子里是义勇队员集合点，有些像救护站和食品供应点。

    有两个男孩子到那儿去。这两个人拉拉都认识。一个是娜佳的朋友尼卡·杜多罗夫，拉拉就是在前者家里认识他的。他的性格同拉拉相似——耿直，孤傲，不爱讲话。他和拉拉相似，引不起她的兴趣。

    另一个是职业中学学生安季波夫，住在奥莉妮·杰明娜外祖母季韦尔辛老太太家里。拉拉到马尔法·加夫里洛夫娜家里去的时候已经觉察出她对这男孩子产生的影响。帕沙·安季波夫还没有失掉童稚的纯朴，毫不掩饰她的到来带给他的快乐，仿佛拉拉是夏季的一片小白排林，地上遍布着清新的小草，天空飘荡着如絮的白云，所以对她用不着掩饰牛犊似的又蹦又跳的狂喜，更用不着担心别人讥笑。

    拉拉刚刚一发现自己对他产生的影响，便不自觉地开始利用了这种影响。不过，过了好几年之后，在他们交往的后期，她才更加认真地把握住他那温顺的性格。那时，帕图利亚已经知道自己发狂地爱着她，知道在自己的生活中已经别无选择了。

    这两个男孩子正玩着一种最可怕的、成年人的游戏，战争的游戏，而且参加这种游戏的人不是被绞死便是被流放。可是他们头上戴的长耳风帽还从后面扎着结子，清楚地表明他们不过还是两个孩子，还都受着父母的管教。拉拉像是大人看待小孩子那样看着他们。在他们危险的娱乐中有一种天真无邪的味道。其他的一切也都烙上了这种痕迹。冬天的寒冷的黄昏似乎泛起一层黑色的浓重的霜；还有这灰蓝色的庭院以及对面孩子们躲藏的那幢房屋。而主要的是从那儿不断传来的手枪射击声。“男孩子们在开枪。”拉拉想道。她想的已经不仅是尼卡和帕图利亚了，而是开枪射击的整个城市。“两个诚实的好孩子，”她想道，“正因为是好孩子，所以才开枪。”

    听说可能要向街垒射击，而且她们的房子有危险。但这个时候再考虑搬到莫斯科另一个区的熟人家里去已经太迟了，因为这个区已然被包围。只能在这包围圈附近找个角落，于是她们想起了“黑山”旅馆。

    原来最先想到这里的并不只是她们。旅馆已经住满了人，同她们处境相同的人还有很多。只是因为她们算是老主顾，所以才答应把她们安顿在被眼间里。

    皮箱太惹眼，于是她们把最必需的东西包成了三个包袱，一天天拖延搬入旅馆的日期。

    由于作坊里充满古朴的风习，所以尽管外面闹罢工，工人直到这一天仍继续干活。但在那一个寒冷而又沉闷的傍晚，外面有人按铃。进来的人指责了一番。大家要求店主到大门口去。法伊娜·西兰季耶夫娜到前厅去平息来人的火气。“姑娘们，到这儿来！”不一会她把女工们都招呼到那里，把她们一个个地介绍给进来的人。那人热情而笨拙地和每个人握手问候，同费季索娃讲妥了什么事之后便走了。

    女工们回到大厅后，开始围披肩，一个个把手举过头，伸进瘦小的皮大衣袖子。

    “出了什么事？”阿马利哑·卡尔洛夫娜急忙赶过来问道。

    “把我们撵走了，太太，我们罢工了。”

    “难道我……有什么地方对不起你们？”吉沙尔太大哭了出来。

    “阿马利妞·卡尔洛夫娜，您别难过。我们对您没有恶意，而是非常感激您。问题不在于您，也不在于我们。如今大家都这样做，全世界都这样。能有什么法子反对呢？”

    她们都走了，连奥莉哑·杰明娜和法伊娜·西兰季耶夫娜也走了。后者在告别的时候悄声对店主说，为了东家和作坊的利益只好装出罢工的样子。但店主并未平静下来。

    “多么忘恩负义！真想不到，把她们看错了！就拿那个姑娘说吧，在她身上我操了多少心啊！好吧，就算她还是个孩子，可是还有那个老妖婆呢！”

    “您应该明白，妈妈，她们不能对我们例外。”拉拉安慰着她。“谁对咱们都没有恶意，恰恰相反。现在周围发生的这一切，都是为了人的权利，为了保护弱者，为了女人和孩子们的幸福。是的，真是这样，您不用不相信地摇头。总有一天，这会对我和对您都有好处”

    可是母亲一点也听不明白。“每回都这样，”她啜泣着说，“本来心里就乱糟糟的，你还说这种话，让人听了只能惊讶得瞪眼。都骑到我的头上拉屎来了，你还说对我有好处。不对，准是我老糊涂了。”

    罗佳仍然在武备学堂。空落落的楼房里只剩下拉拉和母亲了。没有灯光的街道和房屋都用空洞的眼睛相互凝望着。

    “到旅馆去吧，妈妈，趁现在天还没黑。您听见没有，妈妈？马上走吧。”

    “菲拉特，菲拉特。”她们喊来了看门人。“菲拉特，送我们，亲爱的，到‘黑山’旅店去。”

    “是，太太。”

    “拿上包袱。还有，菲拉特，这阵子就请你在这儿照看着。别忘了给基里尔·莫杰斯托维奇这只鸟儿喂水、添食。东西都锁上。还有，请常到我们那儿看看。”

    “是，太太。”

    “谢谢，菲拉特。基督保佑你。怎么样，要分手了，一起坐一会儿吧，愿上帝保佑。”

    她们来到街上，就像大病初愈一样，一下子适应不了新鲜的空气。凛冽澄澈的空间把圆润的、仿佛经过车床加工的光滑的声音轻轻地散向四方。炮声和枪声砰砰响，像要把远方炸成一堆废墟。

    不管菲拉特如何说服拉拉和阿马利她·卡尔洛夫娜，要她们相信真的在放枪，她们仍然认为放的不过是空枪。

    “菲拉特，你真傻。想想看，根本见不到放论的人，怎么会不是空枪呢。照你说谁在开枪，莫非是圣灵不成？当然是放空枪。”

    在一个十字路口，巡逻队把她们拦住了。狞笑着的哥萨克对她们进行搜查，放肆地对她们从头到脚瞅来瞅去。他们的系带的无檐帽膘悍地拉到耳朵上，一个个好像都只有一只眼睛。

    “真太好了！”拉拉想道，她们和城里其他地方隔绝的这段时间，可以不再见到科马罗夫斯基了。因为母亲的关系，她不能和他断绝来往。她不能够说：妈妈，别接待他。那一切就都公开了。说了又怎么样呢？为什么伯说呢？啊，上帝，让一切都完蛋吧，只要这事能了结。上帝啊上帝！她厌恶得就要昏死在街上。可是现在她又想起了什么呀？！就在开始发生这种事的那个单间屋子里，画着一个肥胖的罗马人的那幅可怕的画叫什么来着？好像是叫《妇人或花瓶》。当然，一点不错。这是一幅名画。要是和这件珍品相比的话，她那时还算不上妇人，后来才是。餐桌摆设得真够排场。

    “你要到哪儿去呀，走得这么快？我赶不上你。”阿马利妞·卡尔洛夫娜在后边哭着说，喘着气，勉强赶上她。拉拉被一股什么力量推着，一股骄傲的、令人振奋的力量推动她仿佛凌空疾走。

    “枪声多么清脆，”她想道，“被践踏的人得福了，受侮辱的人得福了。枪声啊，愿上帝赐你健康！枪声啊，枪声，你们也该有同感吧！”

    格罗梅科兄弟的房子坐落在西夫采夫一弗拉日克街和另一条巷子的拐角上。亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇和尼古拉·亚历山德罗维奇·格罗梅科都是化学教授，前者在彼得罗夫斯基学院任教，后者在大学任教。尼古拉·亚历山德罗维奇是个单身汉，亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇娶的是安娜·伊万诺夫娜。她娘家姓克吕格尔，父亲是铁矿场主，另外在乌拉尔的尤里亚金附近还有一座很大的林中别墅，那儿有几座已经废弃的、没有收入的矿山。

    他们的房子是一座两层楼。楼上是寝室、孩子们的学习室、亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇的工作间和藏书室。另外还有安娜·伊万诺夫娜的小客厅、东尼娜和尤拉居住的房间；楼下是接待客人的地方。灰绿色的窗慢，大钢琴盖上镜子般发亮的光点，鱼缸，橄榄色的家具和样子像水藻似的室内植物，使楼下接待室给人一种梦幻般浮动的绿色海底的印象。

    格罗梅科一家都是非常有文化修养、慷慨好客的人，非常喜欢而且懂得音乐。他们经常邀请一些人在自己家里举行钢琴、提琴独奏和弦乐四重奏的室内音乐会。

    一九O六年一月，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇出国以后不久，在西夫采夫街照例又要举办一次室内乐晚会。预定演奏塔汉耶夫学派的一位初露锋芒的作曲家新谱写的一首小提琴奏鸣曲和柴可夫斯基的三重奏。

    前一天就开始准备，把家具搬到一边，腾空了大客厅。在大厅的一角，调音师上百次地弹奏同一个音符，又像撒珠子似的弹出一连串音符。厨房里忙着退鸡毛，洗蔬菜，把芥茉调到橄榄油里，作调汁和拌凉菜用。

    舒拉·施莱辛格一清早就来惹人讨厌了。她是安娜·伊万诺夫娜的密友和律师。

    舒拉·施莱辛格是位生得略带男相的女人，面目端正，身材瘦高。她的相貌和皇上有些相似，尤其是斜斜地戴上那顶羔皮帽子的时候。她作客的时候不摘帽子，只把扣在上面的面纱稍稍掀起一点儿。

    每逢调到伤心和心烦的时候，这对朋友的交谈可以使双方都感到轻松。这种轻松感在于她们相互都说越来越恶毒的挖苦话。一场风暴爆发了，但很快就以眼泪与和解而结束。这种周期性的争吵对双方都起镇静作用，就像用水蛙放血一样。

    舒拉·施莱辛格嫁过好几次人，但一离婚便把丈夫忘了，不再理睬他，因此仍保留着单身女人冰冷善变等癫性。

    舒拉·施莱辛格是神智学者，对东正教的一整套仪式，甚至包括心灵传递在内，都非常清楚，所以在她兴致非常高的时候，总会按捺不住地要提醒神职人员该说什么，该唱什么，不断让人听到她那声音沙哑、脱口而出的提示：“请听吧，我主上帝”，“无所不在，无时不在”，“荣耀的天使”，等等。

    舒拉·施莱辛格懂得数学和印度密宗教义，知道莫斯科音乐学院知名教授的住址以及谁跟谁同居之类的事。天啊，没有她木知道的事。正因为如此，日常生活中发生什么重要的事，她总要被请来裁决和调停。

    到了约定的时间，客人们陆续到了。来的人有阿杰莱达·菲力波夫娜、金茨、富夫科夫一家、巴苏尔曼先生和巴苏尔曼太太、韦尔日茨基一家和卡夫卡兹采夫上校。天正在下雪，每次打开前厅正门的时候，扑进来的冷气像是被纷纷扬扬的大小不一的雪花团团裹住似的。男人们从寒冷的街上进来，脚上穿的是宽松的深筒长靴，一个个都装出心不在焉和呆头呆脑的样子，可是那些在严寒中容光焕发的太太们，解开皮大农最上边的两个扣子，蒙上一层白霜的头发后边披着毛茸茸的头巾，反而像是老好巨滑的骗子、奸诈的化身，没人敢惹。“居伊的侄子。”当一位初次被邀请的新的钢琴家来到的时候，大家相互低声转告。

    通过两端开着的侧门，从大厅可以看到餐室里已经摆好一条长桌，像冬天覆盖着白雪的一条路似的。颗粒状花纹瓶里的花揪露酒闪光耀眼。银托架上摆着各种装着奶油、香酵的小巧玲现的五味汁瓶，唤起你的种种想象。一盘盘野味和冷荤拼成的彩色图画，乃至折成三角形的餐巾、排列整齐的刀叉和花篮里散发出杏仁味的蓝紫色的小花，都刺激着人的食欲。为了不拖延品尝这人间美味的渴望的时刻，大家尽快开始精神的筵席。他们在客厅里一排排地就了座。当钢琴家在钢琴前坐下来的时候，又听到人们低声在说：“居伊的侄子。”音乐会开始了。

    大家事先就知道，打头的这首奏鸣曲枯燥而做作。结果不出所料，而且曲子长得不得了。

    关于这支奏鸣曲，休息的时候评论家克林别科夫还和亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇争论了一番。评论家骂这支曲子，亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇却替它辩护。周围都是吸烟的人，响起一片移动椅子的声音。

    但是大家的目光再次落到隔壁餐桌上那张浆洗得平整光洁的桌布上，于是齐声建议音乐会赶快继续下去。

    钢琴家用眼角扫了一下听众，向合奏者点了点头，示意开始演奏。小提琴手和特什克维奇挥动琴弓，如泣如诉的三重奏开始了。

    尤拉，东尼娜，还有大部分时间都在格罗梅科家寄居的米沙·戈尔东，三个人一起坐在第三排。

    “叶戈罗夫娜向您打手势。”尤拉低声告诉坐在他前面的亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇。

    客厅门槛旁边站着头发斑白的格罗梅科家的老女仆阿格拉费娜·叶戈罗夫娜。她用焦急的目光向尤拉这边望着，同时朝亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇使劲点头，让尤拉明白她有急事找主人。

    亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇掉过头来，责怪地看了叶戈罗夫娜一眼，耸了耸肩膀。叶戈罗夫娜并不罢休，于是两个人就在大厅的这一头和那一头像聋哑人那样“交谈”起来。大家都朝他们看去，安娜·伊万诺夫娜狠狠地瞪了丈夫几眼。

    亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇站起身来。应当想法处理一下。他红着脸从墙边绕过大厅走到叶戈罗夫娜跟前。

    “您怎么不懂规矩，叶戈罗夫娜！您有什么大不了的事？好吧，快说，出了什么事？”

    叶戈罗夫娜低声对他说了几句话。

    “从哪个‘黑山’来的时

    “‘黑山’旅馆。”

    “那又怎么样？”

    “要求马上回去，他的一个什么亲戚快要死了。”

    “都快死了。我想象得出来。不行，叶戈罗夫娜。等演奏完了一小段，我就去说，早了可不行。”

    “来送信的茶房等着哪，赶车的也等着哪。我跟您说，人快死了，您明白吗？是位太太。”

    “不行，不行。大不了就是五分钟，有什么了不起的？”

    亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇又蹑手蹑脚地沿着墙回到自己的座位，皱起眉头，用手揉鼻梁。

    第一乐章结束后，他走到演奏的人跟前，在大家的掌声中，告诉法杰伊·卡济米罗维奇外面有人找他，出了一件不幸的事，演奏只好中止。然后，亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇用手掌向客厅里的人挥了挥，让大家停止鼓掌，大声说道：

    “先生们，三重奏不得不停下来。让我们向法杰伊·卡济米罗维奇深表同情。他遇到了心烦的事，不得木离开我们。在这种时候，不能让他一个人走。我陪他去可能是必要的，我跟他一同去。尤罗奇卡，亲爱的，出来一下，告诉谢苗把车赶到大门口来，他早就套好车了。先生们，我不和诸位告别。请大家留下来，我只是暂时离开一会儿。”

    两个男孩子请求跟亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇一起在寒夜里坐车兜兜风。

    虽然生活已经恢复正常，十二月以后有些地方仍有枪声，新的火灾也时有发生，好像早先的余烬还未烧完似的。

    他们从来还没有像今天夜里坐车走这么远，走这么久。离“黑山”旅店只有一箭之遥，穿过斯摩棱斯克大街、诺温斯克大街和花园路的一半就到了，但酷烈的寒雾把天昏地暗的空间隔成一块一块的，仿佛它在世界各处都不相同。黄火的浓烟、马蹄的喀塔声和滑轨的轧轧声加强了这种印象，让人觉得已经走了不知多久的路，而且驶入了令人惊骇的远方。

    旅店门前停着一匹披着马衣、缠着跨腕骨的马，套在一辆窄小、讲究的雪橇上。驭者座上坐着一个马车夫，用戴着手套的双手抱住缩进脖子里的脑袋取暖。

    旅店的前厅很暖，在把入口处和存衣室隔开的栏杆后面，守门人在打诚地，鼓风机的噪音、熊熊炉火的呼呼声和沸腾的茶炊的尖叫声催得他昏昏欲睡，但又不时被自己响亮的鼾声惊醒。

    前厅左边的镜子面前站着一个浓妆艳抹的太太，由于脂粉涂得过多，脸孔显得虚肿，身上穿了一件在这种天气里过于单薄的皮上衣。这位太太正在等人从楼上下来，她转过身背朝着镜子，一会儿从左边肩头、一会儿从右边肩头打量自己，看看自己从后面看上去是不是好看。

    冻僵了的车夫从外边探进身子来，长上衣的形状看起来像招牌上画的8字形小面包，身上冒出的一股股哈气更加强了这种印象。

    “他们快来了吗，小姐？”他向站在镜子前面的女人问道。“跟你们这帮人打交道，马准保要冻坏。”

    二十四号客房里发生的事不过是茶房们平时最恨的一件小事。走廊里几乎每分钟都要响起铃声，墙上玻璃长匣子里就跳一个号码，告诉你是哪个房里的客人发神经病了，自己也不知道要干什么，就是不让茶房安生。

    现在正给二十四号客房里的老傻瓜吉沙罗娃急救，给她灌催吐剂，洗肠胃。女仆格拉莎忙得团团转，又是擦地板，又是把脏桶提出来，把干净的桶送进去。眼下的这场风波早在这阵慌乱之前就在下房里开始了，不过那时候还没觉得会出什么事，还没有派捷廖什卡坐车去请大夫和这位可怜的提琴师，科马罗夫斯基也还没来，门前走廊里也没聚集这么多人妨碍走动。

    今天发生在下房里的这场乱子，起因是白天在窄小的过道里不知谁从小吃间里出来，转身的时候不留心碰了餐厅招待员瑟索伊一下，刚巧他右手高举着摆满菜肴的托盘，弯着身子从门里飞跑进走廊。瑟索伊扔了托盘，泼了汤，打碎了三个深盘子和～个浅盘子。

    瑟索伊一口咬定碰他的那个人就是女洗碗工，应该让她赔，扣她的工钱。现在已经到了晚上十一点钟，一半人快下工了，可他们还在为这件事争吵不休。

    “都是你手脚发颤，白天黑夜就知道像接老婆一样搂着你那酒瓶子，连鼻子都舔饱了，像公鸭那样。干吗要碰人家，砸了盘子又拨了汤！谁撞你了，你这个不要脸的斜眼鬼？谁撞了你？”

    “马特廖娜·斯捷潘诺夫娜，我已经跟您说了，您讲话可要当。乙”

    “又吵又闹，又摔盘子打碗的，要是值得也就算了。什么稀罕东西，骚货太太，小心眼的小市民，好好地的就要吞砒霜，这种过时的贞洁。我们在‘黑山’旅店里干了不少年，还没见过这号拨弄是非的婆娘和欺侮女人的公狗。”

    米沙和尤拉在门前的过道里走来走去。这一切都出乎亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇的意料之外。他原先以为大提琴家生活中出现悲剧，准是某种纯洁而庄严的不幸。可鬼知道这算什么。不外乎是肮脏下贱的丑事，尤其是对孩子们来说。

    两个男孩子在走廊里来回转。

    “你们进去看看大婶吧，少爷们。”条房走到男孩们跟前，再次不紧不慢地说。“你们进去吧，别犹豫了。放心吧，他们都没事了，都好好儿的。这里不能站人。今天就在这个地方发生了那件倒霉的事，把贵重的餐具摔碎了。你们瞧，我们得随时伺候着，跑来跑去，这地方窄，你们进去吧。”

    两个孩子听从了。

    客房里点着的煤油灯，已经从吊在餐桌上方的灯架挪到房间另半边，中间隔了一道发出臭虫气味的屏风。

    那一边有个睡人的角落，被一条落满尘土、掀起的门帘隔开，遮住前室和外人的视线。大家在忙乱中忘记把它放下来，只是下半边搭在屏风的上面。煤油灯就放在一把扶手椅里。这一角像剧场脚灯从下向上照着似的，亮得刺眼。

    太太吞服的是碘，不是洗碗女工胡说的砒霜。屋里有一股嫩核桃果皮发出的酸涩难闻的气味，尚未变硬的果皮让人摸得发了黑。

    一个姑娘在屏风后面擦地板，床上躺着一个被水、汗和眼泪弄得浑身精湿的半裸的女人。她把头俯在一个面盆上大声哭号，粘成一缕一缕的头发披散下来。两个男孩子立刻把眼睛掉开，往那边看实在不好意思，不成体统。不过，已经让尤拉感到惊讶了：当女人处于木舒服的竖立姿势中，在紧张和吃力的状态下，就不再是雕塑所表现的女性，而成了肌肉发达的穿着短裤参加比赛的半裸的角力士。

    屏风那边终于有人想到应该把帘子放下来。

    “法杰伊·卡济米罗维奇，亲爱的，您的手在哪儿？把您的手给我。”女人说，眼泪和恶心憋得她喘不过气来。“唉，我这是经受了多么可怕的事呀！我太多心了！法杰伊·卡济米罗维奇……我觉得…··不过还算幸运，原来这都是蠢念头，是我的想像力错乱了，简直难以想象，法杰伊·卡济米罗维奇，真不得了，心想多轻松啊！结果……您看，我还活着。”

    “安静点，阿马利姐·卡尔洛夫娜，求求您，安静下来。这真不像话，老实说，太不像话了。”

    “咱们马上回家。”亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇对孩子们嘟嚷一声。他们窘得不知如何是好，站在昏暗的过道里，就在客房没有隔开的那一半的门槛上，因为他们不自在，便望着原来放灯的方向。那边墙上挂了几张照片，地上放着一个琴谱架，书桌上堆满纸张和画册；铺着手织台市的餐桌的那边，一个姑娘坐在扶手椅上睡觉，双手拢着椅子扶手，脸也贴在上面。她大概疲乏到了极点，周围的吵闹声和人的走动并没有妨碍她睡觉。

    他们到这儿来可说是毫无意义，而且继续再呆下去也不礼貌。“马上就走，”亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇又说了一遍，“等法杰伊·卡济米罗维奇出来，我就向他告别。”

    从屏风后面出来的却是另一个人。这是一个身体健壮的男子，脸刮得干干净净，威风凛凛，十分自信。他把从灯架上取下来的那盏灯举在头顶上，走到姑娘睡觉的那张书桌跟前，把它放在灯架上。亮光惊醒了那个姑娘。她朝这人笑了一笑，微微眯起眼睛，伸了个懒腰。

    一见到这个陌生人，米沙不觉全身颤抖了一下，两眼死死地盯着他看，同时扯了一下尤拉的衣袖，想对他说什么。

    “你在生人面前南咕什么，多不害臊？人家会怎么看你？”尤拉止住了他，而且也不听他说。

    这时，在姑娘和那个男人之间演出了一幕哑剧。两个人一句话也没说，只是交换一下眼色，但相互的理解简直像着了魔法似的。他仿佛是耍木偶戏的，而她就是任凭他耍弄的木偶。

    脸上露出的疲倦的微笑使姑娘半闭着眼睛，半张开嘴唇。对那男人嘲弄的眼色，她则报以一个同谋者的狡黠的眨眼。两个人都挺满意，因为结果如此圆满，隐私没有暴露，服毒的也没死。

    尤拉死死地盯着他们。他从谁也看不见的昏暗中不转眼地望着灯光照亮的地方。姑娘屈从的情景显得不可思议的神秘而又厚颜无耻的露骨。他心里充满矛盾的感情。尤拉的感情被这些从未体验过的力量揪成一团。

    这也就是他同米沙和东尼娜一直不断热烈争论的、并称之为什么也说明不了的庸俗的那种东西，就是那种即使他们惊恐又吸引他们的东西，在安全距离内口头上容易对付的东西。而现在出现在尤拉眼前的正是这种绝对物质的、模糊的力量，既是毫无怜悯的毁坏性的，又是哀怨并且求助的。他们的童稚哲学到哪儿去了？尤拉现在该怎么办？

    “你知道这个人是难吗？”他们走出门外以后米沙问道。尤拉只顾想自己的心事，没有回答。

    “这就是教会你父亲喝酒并害死他的那个人。记得吗，在火车上，我对你讲过。”

    尤拉想的是那个姑娘和未来，而不是父亲和过去。开始他甚至没弄明白米沙说的是什么。在严寒的天气里无法交谈。

    “冻坏了吧，谢苗？”亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇问了一句。他们坐上车走了。

    斯文季茨基家的圣诞晚会

    那年冬天，亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇送给安娜·伊万诺夫娜一个老式的衣柜。他是偶然买到手的。这只黑檀木衣柜非常大，整个搬动的话，哪个门都进不去。这是拆开运来的，一部分一部分搬进屋子里，接着就考虑把它摆在什么地方。楼下客厅最宽敞，木过摆在那儿用起来不方便，楼上又挤，摆不下。最后还是把主人夫妇卧室门内楼梯口的东西搬开，把衣柜摆在那里。

    把衣柜拼装起来的是扫院子的仆人马克尔。他把自己六岁的女儿马林娜也带来了。有人给了马林娜一根大麦芽律糖。她鼻子呼味呼墟地舔着律糖和沾满口水的细细的小指头，一面皱着眉头看父亲干活。

    有一阵子活儿干得挺顺利。安娜·伊万诺夫娜眼看着柜子渐渐装起来。等到只剩下装柜顶的时候，她忽然心血来潮，想给马克尔帮个忙。她踩到离地很高的柜底上，可是身子一晃，碰上了只靠样头连住的一块侧板。马克尔暂时捆住柜壁的绳扣散开了。随着柜板轰然倒地的声音，安娜·伊万诺夫娜也仰面朝天跌下来，摔疼了身子。

    “哎呀，太太，”马克尔说着，朝她奔过去，“您这是何苦来，我的好太太。没伤着骨头吧？您快摸摸。要紧的是骨头，皮肉倒不算什么，可以再长，俗话说，皮肉不过是让太太们图个好看。别嚎了，没心肝的东西！”他骂起哭嚎的马琳卡来。“擦干净鼻涕，找你妈去。唉，太太，难道没有您我就装不上这个衣柜？您准是想，我只不过是个扫院子的，其实，说正经的，我们都是干木工的材料，干过木工活儿。兴许您不信，就是这些家具，什么柜子啦，食品橱啦，打我们手里一过才这么油光瓦亮的；再不就是那些细木料活儿，什么红木的、胡桃木的，都是我们干的。还可以打个比方说，早先也有人给我提过好几门亲事，全是体面人家的姑娘，请您原谅我这么说，都从眼皮子底下溜过去了。全都是因为我好喝酒，还非得劲儿大的不可。”

    马克尔推过一把扶手椅，扶着安娜·伊万诺夫娜坐下。她哼哼卿卿地揉着摔疼的地方。马克尔重新组装碰散了的柜子。上好项后，他说：“行啦，现在就差上柜门了，您就是送去展览都行。”

    安娜·伊万诺夫娜不喜欢这衣柜，它那样式和大小都很像灵柜台或者皇陵，使她产生一种迷信的恐惧。她管这衣柜叫“阿斯科里德陵”，实际上她指的是奥列格的坐骑，也就是只会给自己主人带来死亡的那种东西。安娜·伊万诺夫娜是个胡乱读过不少书的女人，在这里她把两个有关联的概念弄混了。

    自从跌了一跤之后，安娜·伊万诺夫娜肺病的征兆开始显露出来。

    一九—0年十一月的整整一个月，安娜·伊万诺夫娜卧床不起。她得了肺炎。

    翌年春天，尤拉、米沙·戈尔东和东尼娜将分别在大学和高等女子学校毕业。尤拉将是医学士，东尼娜是法学士，米沙是哲学系的语言学土。

    在尤拉的心灵里，一切都被搅乱、被颠倒了，一切都是非常独特的——他的观点、习惯和禀赋。他极端敏感，他的见解之新颖是无法描述的。

    不管艺术和历史对他有多大的吸引力，尤拉选择自己的生活道路时并未踌躇。他觉得，正如天赋的乐观或者生就的郁闷不能成为一种职业一样，艺术在这个意义上也难完成它的使命。他感兴趣的是物理学和自然科学，认为在实际生活中应当从事对公众有益的工作。就这样，他选择了医学。

    四年前还在读一年级的时候，他在大学的地下室里作了整整一学期的尸体解剖。他经常沿着一道曲折的扶梯下到地下室里。头发蓬松的大学生几个人一起或是单独一个人呆在解剖室的深处。有的一面翻看封面快磨破的教科书，一面默记着什么，身边堆放着骨骼；有的在角落里不声不响地作解剖；也有的在谈话，开玩笑，追赶在停尸间石板上逃窜的老鼠。在这半明半暗的解剖室里，那些身份不明的赤裸裸的尸体，年轻的自杀者，几具保存得很好、尚未腐烂的溺水的女尸，像磷火那样刺目。注射过明矾的尸体显得很年轻，造成肢体丰满的假象。尸体被剖开、支解和制成标本，但即便分成多少段，人体的美仍然不变，因此，当一具美人的尸体被粗野地扔到镀锌桌上的时候，仍然能引起人们的赞赏，他们并且把这种赞赏移到她被切下来的手臂或手上。地下室里弥漫着福尔马林和石炭酸的气味，从那些直挺挺的尸体的不可知的命运直到盘踞在这里的生与死的奥秘，到处都给人一种神秘的感觉，仿佛这里就是奥秘之家，它的大本营。

    这种奥秘的声音压倒其余的一切，折磨尤拉，妨碍他解剖尸体。可是生活当中还有许多事同样妨碍他。对此他已经习以为常，让他分心的干扰并没使他不安。

    尤拉善于思考而更善于写作。还在中学的时候，他就曾幻想过写散文，写一本传记体的书，书中就像埋藏炸药似的把他所见到的并经过反思的事情当中感触最深的东西加进去。但写这本书他还嫌过于年轻，于是便用诗来代替，犹如画家一生都在为一幅深思熟虑的巨作勾画草图一样。

    尤拉宽厚地对待这些刚刚出世的诗的弱点，因为它们具有一种力量和独创性。尤拉认为，这两种品格，即力量和独创性，才是艺术中现实性的有代表性的特点，其余都是无目标的、空泛的、不需要的。

    尤拉知道，他的全部性格特征的形成应该大大地归功于他的舅父。

    尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇这时住在洛桑。在当地用俄文出版的著作和译著当中，他进一步发展了很早以前的对历史的想法，即把历史看成人类借助时代的种种现象和记忆而建造起来的第二个宇宙，并用它作为对死亡的回答。这些书的中心意思是对基督教的一种新解释，其直接结果是一种新的艺术思想的产生。

    这些思想对尤拉的朋友产生的影响更大。在这些思想的影响下，米沙·戈尔东选定了哲学作为专业。在系里，他听神学课，甚至几次考虑过以后转入神学院。

    对尤拉而言，舅舅的影响促使他前进，解放了他的思想，然而对米沙则是一种束缚。尤拉也知道，米沙的出身对他那种极端的迷恋所起的作用。他出于审慎的分寸感，并没有劝说米沙放弃那些古怪的想法。不过，他经常希望看到米沙能更加看重实践经验，更加接近生活。

    十一月末的一个晚上，尤拉从大学里回来得很晚，非常疲倦，一整天没有吃东西。家里人告诉他说，白天发生了让人担惊受怕的事：安娜·伊万诺夫娜不停地抽搐，来了好几位医生，还商量过请神甫，后来又打消了这个念头。现在她已经好些了，清醒过来，并且吩咐过，只要尤拉一回来，就立刻到她那儿去。

    尤拉依照她的吩咐，衣服也没换，就到她卧室里去了。

    屋子里还有不久前的惊慌忙乱的痕迹。助理护土不声不响地在床头小柜上叠东西。周围乱放着冷敷用的揉成一团的餐巾和湿毛巾。洗杯缸里的水是淡红色的，里面有血丝，还有安瓶药针的碎片和被水泡胀了的药棉。

    病人浑身是汗，不断用舌头舔干燥的嘴唇。同早晨尤拉最后一次见到她的时候相比，她瘦了不少。

    “会不会误诊，”他想道。“完全是哮喘性肺炎的症状。看来是转变期。”他同安娜·伊万诺夫娜打过招呼，说了几句通常在这种情形下总要说的那类空洞的安慰话，便打发助理护士离开了房间。他握住安娜·伊万诺夫娜的一只手给她诊脉，另一只手伸到制服上衣里取听诊器。安娜·伊万诺夫娜摇摇头，表示这是多余的，毫无用处。尤拉这才明白，她要见他是为了别的事。安娜·伊万诺夫娜鼓足了力气说道：

    “你看，他们都要我忏悔了……死亡已经临头……每分钟都可能……就是拔颗牙，还怕疼呢，得有准备……这可不是一颗牙，是整个的你自己，是整个的生命……只要咯噎一下子，就让钳子拔掉了……这究竟是怎么一回事？……谁也说不清……我又烦闷又害怕。”

    安娜·伊万诺夫娜不说话了。大颗的泪珠顺着她的面颊滚了下来。尤拉什么也没有说。过了一会儿，安娜·伊万诺夫娜接着说下去。

    “你很有才能……才能这个东西……不是人人都有的……你该懂点事了……跟我谈点什么……好让我安心。”

    “可我说什么好呢？”尤拉回答说，身子在椅子上不安地动来动去，站起来走了一会儿，重新坐下。“首先，明天您就会好一些，已经有了征兆，我可以拿脑袋担保。其次，死亡，意识，相信复活，等等……您想听听我这个学自然科学的人的意见吗？是不是另外找时间再谈？不行？现在就谈？好吧，随您的便吧。这问题一下子很难说清。”于是他只得即兴给她上了整整一课，自己也奇怪居然能说得出来。

    “复活，那种通常用于安慰弱者的最简陋的形态对我是格格不入的。就连基督关于生者和死者所说的那些话，我一向也有另外的理解。干百年所积累起来的一大群复活者往哪儿安置？整个宇宙都容纳不下，连上帝、善良和理性都要被他们从世界上挤掉，否则在这贪婪的动物般的拥挤中会被压碎的。

    “可是，同一个千篇一律的生命永远充塞着宇宙，它每时每刻都在不计其数的相互结合和转换之中获得再生。您担心的是您能不能复活，而您诞生的时候已经复活了，不过没有觉察而已。

    “您会不会感到痛楚，生理组织会不会觉出自身的解体？换句话说，您的意识将会怎样？但究竟什么是意识？我们不妨分析一下。有意识地希望入睡，这就是确实的失眠症；有意识地要感觉出自己的消化作用，这肯定是消化功能紊乱。意识是一种毒品，当用在自己身上作为自身毒害的手段的时候。意识也是一股外射的光，当它照亮我们面前的路，使我们不致跌倒的时候。意识又是在前面行驶的火车头的两盏明亮的灯，如果把它们的光照向火车头里面，就会酿成惨祸。

    “那么，您的意识又将会怎样呢？我说的是您的意识，您的。不过您又是什么呢？问题的症结就在这儿。我们还是可以分析一下。您是靠什么才能感觉出自身的存在，意识到自己身体的某一部分？是肾，是肝，还是血管？不论您怎么去琢磨，都不会是这些。您总是在外在活动的表现当中感觉到自己，譬如通过手上做的事，在家庭中，在其他方面。现在我说的您要特别注意听：在别人心中存在的人，就是这个人的灵魂。这才是您本身，才是您的意识在～生当中赖以呼吸、营养以致陶醉的东西。这也就是您的灵魂、您的不朽和存在于他人身上的您的生命。那又意味着什么呢？这意味着您曾经存在于他人身上，还要在他人身上存在下去。至于日后将把这叫作怀念，对您又有什么关系呢？这将是构成未来成分的您了。

    “最后再说一点。没有什么可担心的。死亡是不存在的，它和我们无缘。您刚才说到人的才能，那是另一回事，它属于我们，被我们所发现。从最广泛而崇高的意义上来说，才能是生命的恩赐品。

    “圣徒约翰说过，死亡是不会有的，但您接受他的论据过于轻易了。死亡之所以不会有，是因为先前的已经过去。几乎可以这么说：死亡是不会有的，因为这已经见到过，已经陈旧了，厌烦了，如今要求的是崭新的，而崭新的就是永恒的生命。”

    他一边说，～边在屋子里来回走着。“睡一会儿吧。”他说，走到床前把手放到安娜·伊万诺夫娜的头上。过了几分钟，安娜·伊万诺夫娜渐渐睡着了。

    尤拉悄悄走出房间，吩咐叶戈罗夫娜把助理护士叫到卧室里去。“真见鬼，”他想，“我简直成了个江湖术士，嘴里一边念念有词，一边把手放在病人身上治病。”

    第二天，安娜·伊万诺夫娜有了起色。

    安娜·伊万诺夫娜的病情一天天见轻。到十二月中，她已经试着起床了，不过身体还很衰弱。医生建议她还要好好卧床休养。

    她经常让人把尤拉和东尼姬找来，一连几小时地讲述她在乌拉尔的雷尼瓦河边祖父领地瓦雷金诺度过的童年。尤拉和东尼妞从来没有到过那里，但是从安娜·伊万诺夫娜的话里，尤拉很容易想象出那片人迹罕至的五千俄亩的森林，林中漆黑如夜，还有那条沿着克吕格尔高耸陡峭的两岸湍急奔流的卵石铺底的河流，有两三处的河湾像尖刀似的插入密林。

    这些天，尤拉和东尼娜有生以来第一次定做了过节穿的衣服。尤拉的是一身黑色的常礼服，东尼哑的是一件稍微袒露颈部的浅色缎子晚礼服。他们两个准备二十七日在斯文季茨基家一年一度的圣诞晚会上一展丰采。

    在男装成农作坊和女服裁缝那里定做的这两套衣服，是同一天取回来的。尤拉和东尼哑试过之后很满意，但还没来得及脱下来，安娜·伊万诺夫娜便打发叶戈罗夫娜喊他们过去。尤拉和东尼妞就穿着新衣服去见她。

    两个人一来，她就用臂肘支起身子，从侧面看了他们一遍，又让他们转过身去，说道：

    “挺好，简直类极了。我还一点不知道已经做好了呢。东尼娜，让我再看看。不错，很好，就是肩头有点发皱。知道吗，为什么叫你们来？不过，有几句话得先跟你说，尤拉。”

    “我知道，安娜·伊万诺夫娜。是我让人把那封信给您看的。您肯定也跟尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇一样，认为我不应该拒绝继承权。您先忍一会儿，您还不适于过多讲话。我马上说清楚，其实这些您都很清楚。

    “总之，首先，有一件支付律师费和偿付诉讼费的日瓦戈遗产的案子。但实际上并没有任何遗产，有的倒是债务和一笔扯不清的胡涂账，以及在这当中暴露出来的肮脏勾当。要是有什么东西可以变卖成钱的话，难道我会白白把它们送给法院，不自己拿来享用？关键在于这场官司打到底也是一场空，与其在里面折腾，不如放弃并不存在的财产，把它让给那几个假冒的竞争对手和贪婪的自封的继承人。至于那位姓日瓦戈、带着孩子住在巴黎也想染指的艾丽斯夫人，我也早就听说了。但如今又增加了要求，这是不久前才对我公开的，不知您知道不知道。

    “原来家母在世的时候，父亲就迷恋上一个耽于幻想而又性情怪僻的女人，斯托尔本诺娃一恩利茨女公爵。这个女人和父亲生了一个男孩，如今已经十岁，名字叫叶夫格拉夫。

    “女公爵过的是隐居生活。她带着儿子住在鄂木斯克郊外一幢单独住宅里，深居简出，不知道靠着从哪儿来的钱维持生活。有人给我看过那幢住宅的照片。那是一所有五扇窗的漂亮房子，窗子是落地式的，窗檐上的圆框里有浮雕。最近我总有一种感觉，好像那幢房子越过把俄罗斯的欧洲部分和西伯利亚隔开的几千俄里的距离，用它那五扇窗不怀好意地看着我，迟早要让我倒霉似的。所以，我又何必理睬这笔臆造的财产、人为的竞争对手以及他们的敌意和嫉妒呢！何况还有那些律师。”

    “可你仍然不该拒绝。”安娜·伊万诺夫娜反驳道，“你们知道我为什么叫你们来吗？”她把这话又重复了一遍，立刻接下去说，“我想起了他的名字。记得吧，昨天我谈到的那个看林子的？他叫瓦克赫。这个名字真少见，是木是？他是树林子里的可怕的黑怪物，胡子从下巴长到眉毛，却叫瓦克赫！他的脸上全是疤痕，熊咬过他，可他挣脱了。那地方的人都这样。他们的名字也怪得很，都是一个音节的，为的是喊起来响亮，好记。比如，瓦克赫，鲁普，或者法弗斯特。听着，你们听着。有时候通报说来了人啦，比方说叫阿弗克特的，或者叫福洛尔的，一听名字就像是祖父的双筒猎枪齐发。我们这帮孩子就从儿童室一下子钻进厨房。你们简直无法想象，那儿不是林子里烧炭的送来一头活的小熊，就是巡道工从很远的巡哨点带来了矿苗。爷爷就分别登记下来，然后让他们到账房去，有的付钱，有的给粮食，也有的发弹药。窗子外面就是大森林，雪下得真大，齐房檐那么深！”安娜·伊万诺夫娜咳了起来。

    “别说了，妈妈，说话对您身体不好。”东尼妞警告说，尤拉也附和她。

    “没什么，算不了一回事儿。我顺便问问，叶戈罗夫娜说你们的坏话，好像你们后天去不去参加圣诞晚会还没拿定主意。我不许你们再说这种傻话！你们自己也不嫌难为情。尤拉，你以后还怎么当医生？就这么说定了，你们一定要去。我再回过头来给你们讲这个瓦克赫。他年轻的时候当过铁匠，有一次打架把内脏打出来了，他就给自己另打了一副铁的。你真是个怪人，尤拉。难道我连这个也不懂？当然不是真打了一副铁内脏。不过老百姓都这么说罢了。”

    安娜·伊万诺夫娜又咳了起来，而且比刚才咳的时间长得多。这阵咳嗽没过去，她还是喘不过气来。

    尤拉和东尼娜同时跑到她跟前，并肩站在她的床边。安娜·伊万诺夫娜不停地咳嗽，把他们挨在一起的手抓在自己手里，好一会儿不松开。后来，她喘过气来，能说话了，说道：

    “如果我死了，你们可不要分开呀。你们是天生的一对，结婚吧。我给你们订婚了。”说到最后，她哭了。

    一九O六年春天，拉拉即将升入寄宿学校最后那个年级的时候，她同科马罗夫斯基持续了六个月的关系超过了她能忍耐的限度。他非常巧妙地利用她的沮丧情绪，每当他需要的时候，便委婉地在不知不觉之间提醒她所受到的凌辱。这种暗示恰恰使拉拉陷入一个好色之徒所要求的女人心慌意乱的状态。这种心慌意乱使拉拉在情欲的恶梦中越陷越深，但每当她清醒过来的时候吓得头发都竖立起来。但夜里的癫狂又像是巫术那样无法解释的矛盾。这时一切都颠倒了，一切都违背逻辑；银铃般的娇笑表现的却是刺心的痛楚，挣扎和抗拒意味着顺从，落在那折磨者手上的是无数感激的亲吻。

    这一切仿佛永远木会完结似的，但春天，这个学年最后几天的一堂课上，她一想到夏天学校不上课了，这种纠缠会更加频繁，而躲避同科马罗夫斯基经常接触的避难所没有了，拉拉便迅速地作出了一个在很长时期里改变她生活道路的决定。

    一清早就很闷热，看样子会有一场雷雨。上课时教室的窗是敞开的。城市远方传来单调的喧闹声，像一群蜜蜂在蜂场上嗡嗡叫。有时还能听到院子里孩子们嫁戏的喊叫声。泥土和嫩叶气息让人头疼，就像过谢肉节喝醉了酒或被煎饼的糊味熏了似的。

    历史老师正在讲拿破仑远征埃及。当他讲到在弗雷瑞斯登陆的时候，天色昏暗，一道闪电划过，响起雷声；一股尘土带着清新的气息从窗口涌了进来。两个爱拍马屈的女学生讨好地跑进走廊喊校役关窗，她们刚一开门，从门缝刮进来的一阵穿堂风把课桌上笔记本里的吸墨纸吹得在教室里乱飞。

    窗户关好了，外面已经下起城市里才有的那种夹杂着尘土的脏雨。拉拉从笔记本上撕下一页纸，给同桌的娜佳·科洛格里沃娃写了几句话：

    娜佳，我需要和母亲分开住。帮我找个报酬好一点的家

    馆糊口吧。你认识不少有钱的人家。

    娜佳用同样的方式回答了她：

    我们正在替莉帕找家庭教师呢。到我家来吧，那可就

    太妙了！你知道，我爸爸妈妈多么喜欢你

    拉拉在科洛格里沃夫家里住了三年多。仿佛被一堵石墙挡住了，没人干扰和侵犯她，就连她极其疏远的母亲和弟弟也没来打扰她。

    拉夫连季·米哈伊洛维奇·科洛格里沃夫是一位合乎潮流的大实业家，聪明而又有才能。作为一个财产可以同国库匹敌的大富翁，同时又是一个从平民中神话般地爬上来的人，他对这个衰朽的制度怀着十分的憎恨。他把秘密工作者藏在自己家里，替因政治问题而受审讯的人雇辩护律师；而且真像人们开玩笑所说的那样，他出钱资助革命，自己推翻作为私有者的自己，并在自己的工厂里组织罢工。拉夫连季·米哈伊洛维奇是出色的射手，一个酷爱狩猎的人，一九O五年冬季每逢礼拜天都到谢列伯良内森林和洛西内岛教工人纠察队射击。

    这是个出类拔萃的人，他的妻子谢拉菲玛·菲力波夫娜是与他相称的配偶。拉拉对他们两人无比钦佩和敬重。他们全家人也喜欢她，把她当成亲人。

    三年多来，拉拉一直过着这种无忧无虑的生活，直到她弟弟罗佳有事找她为止。罗佳学着纨绔子弟的派头摇晃着两条长腿，而且为了更显得傲慢，说话还带鼻音，故意拖长声调。他告诉她，他们这期毕业的土官生凑了钱准备给军校长官买纪念品，把钱交给了他，请他采购。但前天他把这笔钱输了个精光。话刚说完，罗佳就把他那瘦长身子往椅子上咕步一倒，哭了起来。

    拉拉听到出了这种事，浑身发凉。罗佳哽咽着说下去：

    “昨天我上维克托·伊波利托维奇那儿去了。他拒绝同我谈这件事，但他说如果你有这种愿望的话……他说，尽管你已经不再喜爱我们大家了，可是你对他仍有极大的权利……拉罗奇卡……

    你只要说一句话就行了……你明白，多么丢人，这有损土官生的荣誉呀！……上他那儿去一趟，对你又算得了什么，请求他……

    你总不至于让我用鲜血去洗刷输掉的那笔款子吧。”

    “用鲜血洗刷……士官生的荣誉。”拉拉气愤地重复着他的话，一面在屋里激动地走来走去。“我不是土官生，我没有荣誉，怎么摆布我都行。你知道不知道你让我干的是什么事？你仔细想过没有，他向你建议的是什么？我一年一年，没完没了地干活，努力向上，连觉都睡不足，可他来了，毁掉一切不当一回事。见你的鬼去吧。开枪自杀吧，随你的便。这和我有什么相干？你需要多少钱？”

    “六百九十多卢布，说个整数就是七百。”罗佳有点犹豫地说。

    “罗佳！办不到，你简直疯了！明白你说的是什么吗？你真的输了七百卢布？罗佳！罗佳！你知道不知道，一个像我这样的普通人要多长时间才能靠自己诚实的劳动积攒下这个数目？”

    停了一会儿，她向对待陌生人那样冷冰冰地补充了一句：

    “好吧，我试试看。你明天再来。把你准备自杀用的手枪也带来。你把手枪转让给我，别忘了多带几颗子弹来。”

    她从科洛格里沃夫那里弄到了这笔钱。

    拉拉在科洛格里沃夫家里做事并没有妨碍她的学业，从女子中学毕业后，又进了师范专修班，学习很出色，再过一年，即一九一二年，便要毕业了。

    一九—一年春天，拉拉所教的女学生莉帕奇卡也中学毕业了。她已经有了未婚夫，～个出身于富裕而有教养人家的年轻工程师弗里津丹柯。父母都赞成莉帕奇卡的婚事，但反对她过早结婚，劝她再等几年。为此发生了争吵。莉帕奇卡是全家的掌上明珠，被娇惯得十分任性。她同父母大吵大闹，跺着脚哭喊。

    这个家庭把拉拉当成亲人一样看待，已经忘了她替罗佳借的债，从未有人提起过。

    如果没有经常的开销，拉拉早就把钱还清了。她向别人隐瞒了这项开销的用途。

    她瞒着帕沙给他被流放的父亲安季波夫寄钱，还资助他时常害病的呼呼叨叨的母亲。另外，她还更加秘密地设法减轻帕沙的个人开销，背地里替他向房东贴补食宿费。

    年纪比拉拉稍小一点的帕沙，狂热地爱着她，样样事都对她百依百顺。按照她的坚决主张，帕沙读完职业中学后就专心一意地补习拉丁文和希腊文，准备进大学语文系。拉拉希望明年他们俩通过国家考试后就结婚，然后到乌拉尔的一座省城去教书，当男子中学和女子中学的教师。

    帕沙住的房间是拉拉亲自在艺术剧院附近卡梅尔格尔斯基街上一幢新改建的房子里替他租下的，房东夫妇都是性情温和的人。

    一九—一年的夏天，拉拉最后一次跟科洛格里沃夫一家到杜普梁卡去度假。她喜爱这个地方胜过主人，达到忘我的地步。大家都清楚地知道这一点，因此每年夏天到那里旅游的时候，对拉拉有一种默契。当那列把他们载来的被煤烟熏得乌黑的闷热的火车开走后，在一片香气四溢、令人如醉如痴的静滋中，拉拉就会激动得话都说不出来。在从小火车站把行李装上大车的时候，大家总让她一个人步行到庄园去。从杜普梁卡来的车夫穿着一件坎肩，肩膀下面露出红衬衣的两只袖子，一路向坐在车上的老爷和太太讲述上个季度当地的新闻。

    拉拉沿着铁路路基在一条由朝圣的香客踩出来的路上走着，然后拐进一条通到树林子里去的小径。她不时停下脚步，眯起眼睛，呼吸着旷野中弥漫着花香的空气。这里的空气比父母更可亲，比情人更可爱，比书本更有智慧。霎时间，生存的意义又展现在拉拉面前。这时她领悟到，她活在世上为的是解开大地非凡的美妙之谜，并叫出所有的事物的名称来，如果她力不胜任，那就凭借着对生活的热爱养育后代，让他们替她完成这项事业。

    这～年的夏天，由于拉拉担当的工作过重，来的时候已累得筋疲力尽了。她心绪不大好，变得神经过敏，这是先前所没有的。这个特点使她变得心胸狭窄，而她的性格一向是开朗而不拘小节的。

    科洛格里沃夫夫妇不放她走。她在他们这里仍然受到先前那样的关怀。但自从莉帕自立以后，拉拉便认为自己在这个家庭里是多余的人了。她谢绝了薪水，他们却硬要她收下。她很需要钱用，但寄居在人家又领一份干薪是难为情的，实际上也是办不到的。

    拉拉感到自己的处境虚伪而难堪。她觉得别人把她当成累赘，只不过木表露出来而已。她很想随便跑到什么地方去，能摆脱自己目前的处境和科洛格里沃夫一家就行，但依照她的处世原则，离开之前必须还清借债，不过目前又没有地方能筹到那笔款项。她觉得自己成了罗佳愚蠢的过失——输掉大家的钱的人质了，并由于无能为力的愤慨而坐立不安。

    她总感到受轻视的征兆。如果科洛格里沃夫家里的熟人对她过分关切的话，那就意味着他们把她当成唯命是从的“女学生”和容易弄到手的女人。要是人家不去打扰她，那又证明把她当成微不足道的人，无人理睬。

    一阵阵的忧郁情绪并没有妨碍拉拉同许多到社普梁卡做客的人一起娱乐。她游泳，荡舟，参加夜晚在河对岸的野餐，同大家一起放烟火和跳舞。她参加戏剧爱好者的演出，特别热衷于短统毛瑟枪的射击比赛，并认为最好用的还是罗佳的那把轻巧的左轮手枪。她用这支枪射击几乎弹无虚发，以致开玩笑地惋惜因为自己是个女人所以不能挑起决斗。然而拉拉越是玩得开心，心里越是感到难过。她自己也不知道究竟需要什么。

    回到城里以后，这种感觉变得更加强烈。在拉拉的郁闷不乐当中又掺杂了同帕沙的小小争执（拉拉避免和他发生剧烈争吵，因为把他看成是自己最后的倚靠）。最近帕沙有点自以为是，言谈话语之间所表现出的那种教训人的口吻，让拉拉觉得又可笑又可气。

    帕沙、莉帕、科洛格里沃夫夫妇和那笔钱——所有这一切都在她脑海里翻腾。生活使她厌倦。她几乎要发疯了。她渴望抛开一切熟悉的和体验过的，另外建立一种新的东西。在这种心请下，她终于在一九—一年的圣诞节作出了一项致命的决定。她决心立刻离开科洛格里沃夫家，自己去过独立而孤单的生活，所需要的钱向科马罗夫斯基去要。拉拉认为经过了已经发生的事以及随后她所争得的几年的自由，他应该拿出骑士的风度来帮助她，而且无需任何解释，不附带任何肮脏的条件。

    十二月二十七日晚上，她抱着这个目的，到彼得罗夫大街去。出门时她把罗佳的左轮手枪上好子弹，打开保险，放进手笼里，准备一旦遭到拒绝、曲解或受到侮辱，就向维克托·伊波利托维奇开枪。

    她异常惊慌地在充满节日气氛的街道上走着，对周围的一切都没注意。在她心里已然响起谋算好的那一枪，至于瞄准的究竟是谁倒完全无所谓。她能意识到的唯有这一声枪声，一路上都能听到它。这是射向科马罗夫斯基、射向她自己、射向自己命运的一枪，同时也是射向杜普梁卡林间草地上那棵树干上刻着靶标的柞树的一枪。

    “别碰手笼。”她对惊讶得哎呀一声、伸手帮她脱衣服的埃玛·埃内斯托夫娜说。维克托·伊波利托维奇不在家，但埃玛·埃内斯托夫娜仍然劝拉拉脱掉皮大衣，到屋里去。

    “不行，我还有急事呢。他在哪儿？”

    埃玛·埃内斯托夫娜告诉拉拉，他参加圣诞节晚会去了。拉拉手里拿着记下地址的纸条，从那道阴森森的、让她清楚地想起一切的、窗上刻着彩色家徽的楼梯跑下来，立刻奔向位于面粉镇的斯文季茨基家。

    直到现在，她第二次来到户外，才仔细朝四外看了看。现在是冬天。这里是城市。已经到了晚上。

    天气冷得要命，路面覆盖着一层厚厚的黑色的冰，仿佛碎碑酒瓶的瓶底。天冷得连呼吸都很困难。弥漫着灰霜的空气，就像拉拉围着的那条结了冰的毛围巾那样扎人，往嘴里钻，用浓密的鬃毛刺人的脸。拉拉走在空荡荡的街上，心剧烈地跳动。沿路的茶室和酒馆从门里往外冒着蒸气。从雾里不断显出过路人的冻得像香肠一样通红的面孔，还有身上挂着冰凌的马匹和毛茸茸的狗的嘴脸。房屋的窗子被厚厚的雪蒙住，仿佛刷了一道白灰；从不透明的窗玻璃后面闪现出圣诞树色彩缤纷的反光和欢乐的人的影子，就像从屋里映到幻灯前白幕布上、给街上人看的不清晰的图像。

    拉拉走到卡梅尔格尔斯基大街站住了。“不能再瞒住他了，我受不了啦。”她几乎说出声来，“上楼去把一切都告诉他。”她镇静下来之后，想了想，推开很有气派的沉重的门。

    帕沙用舌头顶起腮帮，对着镜子刮脸，然后戴上硬领，使劲把弯曲的领钩扣进浆硬的胸在扣环里去，由于过分用劲儿，脸涨得通红。他正准备出去做客。他是一个心地单纯、缺乏社会经验的人，因此拉拉没敲门便进来，并且撞见他衣冠不整的样子，弄得他不知所措。但他立刻觉察到拉拉非常激动。她两腿发软，进门的时候腿在裙子里迈不开步，仿佛膛水似的。

    “你怎么啦？出了什么事？”他惊慌地问道，迎着她跑过去。

    “坐到我旁边来。就这样坐下，不用穿上衣了。我还有事，马上就得走。别碰我的手笼。等一等。你先转过身去呆一会儿。”

    他照办了。拉拉穿的是一套英国式的服装。她脱掉上衣，把它挂到钉子上，再把罗佳的左轮手枪从手笼里拿出来放进上衣口袋，然后重新坐在沙发上，说道：

    “现在可以看了。点上蜡烛，把电灯关掉。”

    拉拉喜欢在烛光下面谈话。帕沙总为她准备着整包没拆封的蜡烛。他把蜡台上的蜡烛头换上一支新的，放在窗台上点着。沾着蜡油的火苗噼啪响了几声，向周围迸出火星，然后像箭头似的直立起来。房间里洒满了柔和的烛光。在窗玻璃上靠近蜡头的地方，窗花慢慢融化出一个圆圈。

    “帕图利亚，你听我说，”拉拉说，“我有件很为难的事，你得帮我摆脱出来。你别害怕，也别问我，但要放弃咱们跟别人一样的想法。今后不能再无忧无虑了。我永远处于危险之中。如果你爱我，不愿看到我毁灭的话，那咱们就赶快结婚吧，不要再拖延了。”

    “这是我一向盼望的，”他打断了她的话，“你赶快走个日子，无论哪天我都乐意。可你得跟我说清楚，你究竟出了什么事，别用猜谜折磨我了。”

    但是拉拉岔开话题，巧妙地避开了正面回答。他们又谈了很久，但都是同拉拉的忧愁无关的话。

    那年冬天，尤拉写了一篇探讨视网膜首要组成部分的学位论文，准备参加大学的金奖章竞赛。尽管尤拉攻读的是普通内科学，但他对眼睛了解的详尽程度并不亚于未来的眼科医生。

    在这种对视觉生理学的爱好当中，可以看出尤拉天性的另外几个侧面：富有创造性的天资，对艺术形象的本质和逻辑思想的结构都有一定的见解。

    东尼娜和尤拉坐了一辆出租雪橇到斯文季茨基家去参加圣诞晚会。他们俩在一幢住宅里一起生活了六年，共同告别了童年，迎来了少年。他们彼此无所不知。两个人有着共同的习惯，用同样的方式互相说些简短的俏皮话，用同样的方式短促地嗤嗤一笑作为回答。现在他们就是这样坐在雪橇上，冻得紧闭着嘴，偶尔交换一两句简单的话。两个人都在想自己的心事。

    尤拉想的是竞赛日期临近，得赶快把论文写好，但被街上年末的喧闹气氛分了心，思想又跳到别处去了。

    戈尔东的系里出版了一份大学生办的胶印版刊物，他是这份刊物的编辑。尤拉早就答应替他们写一篇评论布洛克的文章。当时彼得堡和莫斯科两个城市的青年人都对布洛克入了迷，到处谈论他，而尤拉和米沙尤甚。

    但是就连这些念头也没在尤拉脑子里停留多久。他们两个坐在雪橇上，下巴缩进大衣领子里，衣领摩擦冻僵了的耳朵，心里各自想着各式各样的事。不过，在一件事情上两个人想到一起了。

    不久前在安娜·伊万诺夫娜床前的那一幕使两个人完全变了样。他和她仿佛一下子成熟了，彼此用新的眼光来看对方了。

    东尼娜，这个相处多年的伙伴，竟是个女人；这个明白无误、无须作任何解释的明显事实，竟是尤拉无法想象的全部问题中最难捉摸、最为复杂的问题。只要调动调动幻想力，尤拉就可能把自己想象成攀登亚拉腊山的英雄、先知、胜利者或任何男子，却决不可能想象成女人。

    然而东尼娜却把这项最艰难的至高无上的任务担在自己瘦弱的肩上（从这时起，尤拉突然觉得她变得又瘦又弱，尽管她是个非常健康的姑娘）。他对她充满了炽热的同情和羞怯的惊奇，这种惊奇就是情欲的萌发。

    东尼娜对待尤拉的态度也有了相应的变化。

    这时，尤拉想到他们还是不应该去参加晚会。说不定他们不在的时候会出什么事。他想起他们俩穿戴齐整准备出门的时候，听说安娜·伊万诺夫娜的病情又恶化了，他们又回到她那里去，想要留在家里。她仍然像先前那样坚持不同意，要求他们照样去参加圣诞晚会。尤拉和东尼妞一起走到窗帘后面的落地窗前，看看外面的天气怎么样。当他们从窗前走回来的时候，两幅窗帘裹在他们的新衣服上。紧贴在衣服上的质地轻柔的窗纱，在东尼娜身后拖出好几步远，真像是新娘头上披的婚纱。卧室里的人都露出了笑容，因为这种相似无疑太显眼了。

    尤拉朝四周张望，所看到的也就是片刻之前映入拉拉眼帘的一切。他们的雪橇行驶起来声音很响，不自然的噪音引起街心花园和林明路上被积雪覆盖着的树木发出同样不自然的施长的回响。住宅的窗玻璃外面蒙了一层霜，里面亮着灯光，像是一个个用烟水晶做成的贵重的首饰匣子。那里边隐藏着的是圣诞节期间莫斯科的生活：枫树上点着蜡烛，宾客云集，化了装的引人发笑的人们玩着捉迷藏的游戏。

    尤拉突然意识到，在俄罗斯生活的各个方面，在北方的都市生活和最新的文学界，在星空之下的现代的通行大道上和本世纪的大客厅里点燃的枫树周围，布洛克便是圣诞节的显灵。他又想，关于布洛克无需作任何文章，只要写出俄国人对星相家的崇拜，就像荷兰人所写的那样，再加上严寒、狼群和黑黝黝的枫树林，就够了。

    他们穿过卡梅尔格尔斯基大街。尤拉注意到一扇玻璃窗上的窗花被烛火融化出一个圆圈。烛光从那里倾泻出来，几乎是一道有意识地凝视着街道的目光，火苗仿佛在窥探往来的行人，似乎正在等待着谁。

    “桌上点着一根蜡烛。点着一根蜡烛……”尤拉低声念着含混的、尚未构成的一个句子开头的几个词，期待着下面的词会自然而然地涌出。然而后面的词没有出现。

    记不得从什么时候开始，斯文季茨基家里的圣诞晚会便是按照这种方式安排的。到晚上十点钟孩子们回家以后，再给年轻人和成年人点上第二棵枫树，他们一直玩到清晨。上了年纪的客人通宵在一间三面是墙的华丽的小客厅里打牌。这客厅是大厅的延续，中间被一道用大铜环串挂起来的沉重厚实的帘子隔开。快天亮的时候，大家聚在一起进晚餐。

    “你们怎么这么晚才来？”斯文季茨基夫妇的侄子若尔士穿过前厅往里边跑去找叔叔和婶母，边跑边问他们。尤拉和东尼娜也决定先到那边去向主人问个好，走过大厅的时候，一边脱外衣，一边朝里边张望。

    在散发着热气、拦腰映射出几道光环的枫树前面，那些没有跳舞而闲走着的人，站着谈话的人，长裙发出级拳声，擦肩摩腹地像一堵黑色墙壁似的移动着。

    圈子里面，跳舞的人飞快地旋转。副检察官的儿子、皇村中学的学生科卡·科尔纳科夫指挥大家转圈，结成两人一对，然后又组成一个圆环。他指挥各式各样的舞蹈，用最大的嗓门从大厅的这一边向另一边喊着：“快步轮舞！连成一排！”大家都依照他的号令跳舞。“请注意，先奏华尔兹！”他朝钢琴师喊了一声，便走进第一圈的排头领着自己的舞伴三拍、两拍地跳起来，同时减慢了速度，缩小舞步，直到仅仅能觉察出在原地踏小步为止，这时已经完全不是华尔兹，只是即将终止的余波了。大家纷纷鼓掌，接着便向人们中间分送冰激凌和各式冷饮。这些人走来走去，靴后跟碰得砰砰响，喧声笑语不断。浑身燥热的青年男女们一时之间停止了喧嚷和捷笑，急忙贪馋地喝起冰凉的果汁和汽水来，等到把杯子放回托盘，就又立刻以十倍的力气重新开始喧闹嘻笑，仿佛取了兴奋剂似的。

    东尼娜和尤拉没有进入大厅，两个人到内室见主人去了。

    斯文季茨基夫妇的几间内室挤满用不着的家具，这些家具都是为了腾地方，从客厅和大厅里搬过来的。这里是主人神奇的备用品库房和放置圣诞物品的小仓库。房子里散发着油漆和浆糊的气味，放着成卷的彩纸、装饰用的五颜六色的小星。备用的枫树蜡烛盒子探了几爆。

    斯文李茨基家里长辈中的几位老人正在写礼品的号码、晚餐的八席卡和抽彩用的签。若尔士在一旁给他们帮忙，可是常常把号码弄乱，老人们就生气地唠叨他。斯文季茨基夫妇对尤拉和东尼娜的到来异常高兴。他们记得这两人小时候的模样，便免了客套，让他们一起来做这些事。

    “费利察塔·谢苗诺夫娜不懂得这类事必须事先都考虑好，不能挨到节骨眼儿上客人都来了再办。瞧你这个糊涂虫，吉尔士，怎么弄的，又把号码弄乱了！已经说好把装满糖果的点心企都放到桌子上，空盒放到沙发椅上，你又弄颠倒了。”

    “阿汉塔身体见好了，我真高兴。我和皮埃尔都很为她担心。”“那不假，亲爱的，木过她的情况并不好。沙导举手技面扯。”

    尤拉和东尼娜同若尔士和两位老人为圣诞晚会忙碌了半个晚上。

    在他们俩和斯文季莱基两位老人呆在一起的时候，拉拉始终没离开过大厅。虽然她没穿参加舞会的服装，而且谁也不认识，却像睡梦中一样瘫软，一会儿听凭科卡·科尔纳科夫带着她旋转，一会儿又沮丧地绕着大厅漫无目的地踱来踱去。

    有一两次拉拉迟疑地在小客厅门前停住脚步，希望面对大厅坐着的科马罗夫斯基能发现她。但他眼睛盯着左手举在脸前像一扇屏风似的挡住他的纸牌，也许当真没看见她，也许装作没看见。拉拉觉得受了屈辱，气得喘不过气来。这时，拉拉不认识的一位姑娘从大厅走进小客厅。科马罗夫斯基朝她看了一眼，那种眼神是拉拉非常熟悉的。这个受宠若惊的姑娘向科马罗夫斯基嫣然一笑，脸上泛起一片红晕，显得更加娇媚。拉拉看到这一幕，几乎失声叫了出来。她满面羞愤，连前额和脖颈都涨红了。“一个新的牺牲品。”她这样想。拉拉仿佛从镜子里看到自己整个的过去和现在。不过，她还没有放弃同科马罗夫斯基谈一谈的念头，但决定先等一下，等待更为恰当的时机，于是强迫自己镇静下来，重新回到大厅。

    同科马罗夫斯基同桌打牌的还有另外三个人。他旁边坐着的一个牌友是请拉拉跳过华尔兹、衣着考究的皇村中学学生的父亲。这是拉拉同这位舞伴在大厅里跳舞时随意交谈中知悉的。那个身材修长、黑衣乌发、脖子像蛇一样绷紧、让人看了不舒服的女人，便是科卡·科尔纳科夫的母亲。她一会儿从小客厅走到大厅看儿子跳舞，一会儿又回到小客厅里看丈夫打牌。最后，拉拉偶然知道那位勾起她复杂的心情的姑娘是科卡的妹妹，而她那种猜测是毫无根据的。

    “科尔纳科夫。”一开始科卡就这样向拉拉作了自我介绍，但当时设引起拉拉的注意。“科尔纳科夫。”他像滑翔似的跳完了最后一圈，把她送回到座位上，又重复了一遍，便走开了。这次拉拉才听清楚。“科尔纳科夫，科尔纳科夫，”她寻思着，“好像很耳熟，又很讨厌。”她终于想起来了，科尔纳科夫就是莫斯科高等法院的副检察官。对铁路职工小组提出公诉的就是他，季韦尔辛也在那批受审的人当中。拉夫连秀·米哈伊洛维奇曾经受拉拉之托到他那里去说情，希望他在这件案子上不要太苛刻，但是没有奏效。“原来如此！不错，不错。真有意思。科尔纳科夫，科尔纳科夫。”

    已经是深夜十二点或凌晨一点钟了。尤拉的耳朵嗡嗡鸣响。休息的时候，大家都在餐室里喝茶，吃点心，然后又开始跳舞。枫树上的蜡烛燃尽，已经没有人再去换新的了。

    尤拉失神地站在大厅当中，看着正同一个陌生人跳舞的东尼哑。东尼哑轻飘飘地擦过尤拉身边的时候，用脚把略显过长的缎子裙襟一踢，啪的一响，便像条鱼一样又隐没到跳舞的人群里去了。

    她非常兴奋。大家在餐室里休息的时候，东尼娜没有喝茶，只是一个劲儿地用很容易剥皮的香甜的桔子解渴。她不时地从腰带或袖口的折缝里抽出像果树上一朵花那么小的手帕，拭着前额两边的汗水和粘腻的指缝，一边笑一边继续着活跃的谈话，然后又飞快地把手帕换回腰带或前胸紧身衣里。

    现在她正和一个陌生的舞伴跳舞，转弯的时候擦过皱着眉站在一边观看的尤拉，调皮地握了一下他的手，接着意味深长地嫣然一笑。就在握手之间，她的手帕便留在尤拉的掌心里了。他把它紧贴在嘴唇上，闭起了眼睛。手帕散发出桔皮味和东尼娜发热的掌心的气味，两种气味混合在一起令人心醉。一种尤拉有生以来从本体验过的新鲜感觉从头顶一直贯到脚心。这股孩子般天真的芳香，有如黑暗中亲切的耳语。尤拉闭着眼站在那里，嘴唇贴在手中的手帕上。突然，屋子里响起了一声枪响。

    大家都把头转向那道把小客厅和大厅隔开的帷幔。有一分钟的工夫鸦雀无声，然后就开始了混乱。人们奔走，喊叫，有人朝响枪的地方跑去，找科卡·科尔纳科夫。这时，从那边已经有些人迎面走了过来，有的嚷着吓人的话，有的在哭泣，也有的互相大声争吵，彼此都要打断对方的话。

    “她干的好事，她干的好事！”科马罗夫斯基绝望地连声说。

    “鲍里亚，你没事吗？鲍里亚，你还活着。”科尔纳科夫太太歇斯底里地叫喊着。“都说德罗科夫医生也在这儿，可是他在哪儿，他在哪儿呀？哎呀，都请留下别走。对你们来说，这不过是块擦伤，可对我就得洗刷一辈子。我那可怜的受难的人，所有罪犯的揭发者啊！就是她，就是这个贱货，真该挖掉她的眼睛，臭婊子！等着瞧吧，你这回可跑不了啦！您说什么来着，科马罗夫斯基先生？是朝您开的？她是朝您开的枪？不对，我可不这么看。是我遭了难，科马罗夫斯基先生，您清醒清醒吧，现在我可没有心思开玩笑。科卡，科克奇卡，你说是怎么回事！朝你父亲……对……可是天网难逃啊……科卡！科卡！”

    人们从小客厅拥向大厅。科尔纳科夫走在当中，一面勉强敷衍着说着，尽力让大家相信他没怎么受伤，一面用一块干净的餐巾捂着左手被子弹擦伤的地方。在他身后侧面不远的另一群人中间，有人拖住拉拉的双手往前走。

    尤拉一见是她，便惊呆了！同她又在一个不同寻常的场合里见面了！又有那个头发花白的人，不过尤拉现在已经知道他是谁了。这人便是著名的律师科马罗夫斯基，并且是同父亲的遗产有关的一个人。用不着互相致意，尤拉和他彼此都装出不认识的样子。那么她呢……是她开的枪吗？朝着检察官？可能是女政治犯。倒霉的人，这下她可要吃大亏了。她美得多么骄傲啊。拖曳她的那些混蛋仿佛抓住小偷似的反拧着她的双手。

    但他立刻就明白自己是想错了，拉拉已经两腿无力。他们是扶着她的手臂，免得她倒下去，而且费了很大的力气才把她抱到最近的一把椅子那里，她一下就瘫倒在上面。

    尤拉跑到她跟前，想帮她恢复知觉，但为了更得体，应该先对那位设想中的被谋害的人表示一下关心。于是他走到科尔纳科夫面前，说道：

    “刚才有人要求医生的帮助，我可以帮忙。请您把手给我看看。啊，上帝真保佑了您。这算不了什么，连包扎都不需要。不过涂点碘酒总投坏处。我们可以跟费利察塔·谢苗诺夫娜要点儿。”

    斯文季茨基太太和东尼姐快步走到尤拉跟前，脸上一点血色也没有。她们让他丢开这件事，快去穿外衣，家里派人来接他们回去，家里出了不顺遂的事。尤拉吓了一跳，作了最坏的准备，把什么都忘了，便跑去穿外衣。

    他们回到西夫采夫大街，从大门口没命地跑进房子里，但还是没有赶上见安娜·伊万诺夫娜最后一面。他们回来之前的十分钟，死神已经降！临了。死因是未能及时发现的急性肺气肿所引起的长时间的窒息。

    最初的几个钟头里，东尼哑不停地大哭大叫，浑身抽搐，连周围的人都认不出来了。第二天她才平静下来，耐心地听完父亲和尤拉对她说的话，只能点头作为回答，因为一开口悲痛仍会像先前那样猛烈地震撼着她，她又会像着了魔似的哭喊起来。

    在祭奠的间歇她一连几个小时跪在死者身边，用那双美丽的大手抱住棺材的一角，棺材安放在台子上，盖满了鲜花。她的目光一接触到亲人的眼睛，便急忙站起身来，忍着眼泪，快步离开大厅，顺着楼梯飞跑回自己的房间，扑到床上，把头埋在枕头里，倾泻出满腔的悲痛和绝望。

    由于痛苦、长时间的站立和睡眠不足，以及低沉的挽歌和昼夜耀眼的烛光的刺激，再加上这几天所患的感冒，尤拉心里有一种甜蜜的紊乱，信然而荒诞，悲痛而兴奋。

    十年前妈妈下葬的时候尤拉还完全是个孩子呢。直到现在他还记得当时他被恐惧和痛苦所压倒，他怎样悲痛欲绝地哭泣。那时主要的事还不在他身上。尤拉当时几乎不能想象他尤拉单独存在算什么，有无意义和价值。那时候最主要的事却在他身外，在他周围。上层社会从四面八方把尤拉包围起来，这个社会像一座森林，可以感觉到，但无法通过，不容争辩。因此妈妈的去世才使他受到极大的震动，仿佛他和她一起在森林里迷了路，而突然间就只剩下他孤身一人。世界上所有的东西都是森林的一部分——天上的浮云，城市里的广告，消防降望塔上悬挂的信号球，还有骑在马上护送载有圣母神像的马车的教堂执事，因为在圣像面前不能戴帽子，只好光头戴着耳套。商场里店铺的橱窗，还有那布满星辰的高不可及的夜晚的天穹和圣像，便构成了这座森林。

    正当保姆同他讲宗教故事的时候，那高不可攀的上天低低地垂下来，天顶一直弯到儿童室里保姆的裙边，仿佛人们在沟谷里采棱果的时候，把树枝往下一拉，树梢就出现在眼前，举手便可采摘一样。一刹那间，天空似乎又沉落到儿童室的那只镀金的面盆里，于是在火和金之中盥洗沐浴之后，就变成了保姆时常带他去的街巷小教堂里的晨祷或者午祷。这时，天上的星辰化作无数的神灯，圣母化为父亲，其余的也都按照或大或小的能力处于各种职位上。然而，最主要的还是成年人的现实世界和像森林一样四周黑黝黝的城市。那时，尤拉便以自己全部的半开化的信仰崇奉这森林的上帝，像崇奉管理林区的人一样。

    如今已经大不相同了。在中学、大学度过的整整十二年里，尤拉钻研的是古代史和神学，传说和诗歌，历史和探讨自然界的学科，都像钻研自己的家史和族谱一样亲切。现在他已全然无所畏惧，无论是生还是死，世上的一切，所有事物，都是他词典中的词汇。他觉得自己是条顶天立地的汉子，完全不用像先前祭奠妈妈那样来祭奠安娜·伊万诺夫娜了。那个时候他完全顾不上悲痛，只知道胆怯地祈祷。如今他倾听着安魂祈祷，仿佛倾听对他说的、与他有直接关系的话。他倾听着这些话，像对待其他任何事情一样，求其明白无误的含意，而对大地和上天的崇高的力量，他是当作伟大的先驱者崇拜的，但这种继承下来的情感则与笃信上帝毫无共同之处。

    “圣明的主啊，坚强、永恒的上帝，请赐福于我们。”这是怎么回事？他在哪儿？起灵了，要出殡了。该醒一醒了。这时已是清晨五点钟，他和衣跟缩在沙发椅上。他可能有点发烧。人们正在房子里到处找他，谁也想不到他会睡在图书室里，而且在远远的一个角落，在几架高得几乎顶到天花板的书橱后面熟睡。

    “尤拉，尤拉！”看门人马克尔就在附近喊他。已经开始起灵了，马克尔必须把花圈从楼上搬到外面去，但是找不到尤拉，他一个人被堵在寝室里，那儿的花圈堆得像座小山，可是房门被敞开的衣橱的门把手勾住，他走不出来。

    “马克尔！马克尔！尤拉！’市人在楼下喊他们。马克尔用力一推，排除了这个障碍，搬着几个花圈顺楼梯跑了下去。

    “神圣的主啊，坚强、永恒的上帝……”轻轻的祝祷声在街上回荡，经久不息，仿佛有谁用轻软的鸵鸟毛在空中拂过，所有的东西都在摇摆，包括那些花圈和迎面走来的人，佩戴着缨饰的马头，教士手中用小链子提着的香炉，还有脚下白雪皑皑的大地。

    “尤拉！我的老天爷，到底找着了。快醒醒吧。”舒拉·施莱辛格终于找到他，摇着他的肩膀喊道。“你怎么啦？起灵了。你和我们一起去吗？”

    “那还用说。”

    安魂祈祷结束了。乞丐们冷得直跺脚，紧紧地挤在两边。灵车、运花圈的车和克吕格尔家的轻便马车都缓缓地向前移动。哭得泪人儿似的舒拉·施莱辛格走出教堂，用手撩开被泪水沾湿的面纱，用目光向那一排马车夫搜寻。一看到殡仪馆的那几个抬灵柩的，她便点头示意让他们过来，接着就和他们一起走进教堂。从教堂里拥出越来越多的人。

    “这回可轮到安娜·伊万诺夫娜了。命运面前不能不低头，这个可怜人，终究走上了没有回头的路。”

    “可不是，总算蹦跳到头了，这个可传人。如今算是去安歇了，这个不安生的女人。”

    “您坐马车还是步行？”

    “脚都站麻木了，稍微走一走再坐车。”

    “看见了没有，富夫科夫那副难过的样子？两眼～直盯着死者，鼻涕眼泪流成了河。旁边可就是她丈夫。”

    “他一直盯了她一辈子。”

    往城市另一端的墓地走去的路上，不时可以听到这类的对话。这是严寒过后气温略有回升的一天。这一天充满了凝滞的沉重气氛，又像是严寒稍减、生机消逝的一天，也仿佛大自然专为丧葬安排的日子。已经弄脏的积雪仿佛透过排在地上的黑纱露出的一点白色。

    这儿就是玛丽亚·尼古拉耶夫娜安息着的那片令人难忘的墓地。这些年，尤拉一直还没给母亲上过坟。“妈妈。”他从远处望着那个地方，几乎用当年的嘴唇轻声喊了出来。

    人们庄重地、甚至是做作地沿着几条扫得干干净净的小路分散开，但是转弯抹角的地方很不适合他们那种送葬的匀整脚步。亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇挽着东尼姬的手臂走着。克吕格尔一家跟在后面。东尼娜穿着丧服，丧服非常合身。

    在兄长列隆起的十字架的顶部和修道院的紫红色院墙的墙头，像霉迹一样蓬松散乱地挂着霜须。修道院最深处的院落的一角，墙和墙之间挂了绳子，上面晾着洗好的衣服：袖口绣了一道道花边的衬衣，杏黄色的桑布和歪七扭八没有扯平的床单。尤拉注意朝那边看，终于明白这个修道院就是当年暴风雪肆虐的地点，不过被新盖的房屋改变了模样。

    尤拉单独走着，步子一快就超过了别人，有时要停下来等一等。死亡使慢慢跟在后面的这一群人感到空虚，作为对此的回答，他不可遏止地、像形成漩涡的激流一定要越转越深一样，渴望着幻想和思考的机会，要在众多的方面付出辛劳，要创造出美好的事物。如今他比任何时候都更清楚地看到，艺术总是被两种东西占据着：一方面坚持不懈地探索死亡，另一方面始终如一地以此创造生命。真正伟大的艺术是约翰启示录，能作为它的续貂之笔的，也是真正伟大的艺术。

    尤拉满怀热望预先体会到一种乐趣，那就是在一两天之内完全从家庭和大学里消失，把此时此刻生活赋予他的无意间的感受写成追忆安娜·伊万诺夫娜的诗句，其中应该包括：死者的两三处最好、最有特色的性格，身穿丧服的东尼妞的形象，从墓地回来路上的几点见闻，从前风雪怒号和他小时候哭泣的地方现在已经成为晒衣服的地方了。

    第二章

    拉拉半清醒半昏迷地躺在费利察塔·谢苗诺夫娜卧室里的床上。斯文季茨基夫妇、德罗科夫医生和仆人在她周围低声谈话。

    斯文季茨基家这幢空荡荡的房子沉浸在一片寂静、昏暗之中，只有在门对门的两排房间当中的一个小客室里，墙上挂着的一盏昏黄的灯照亮了过道的前前后后。

    在这个地方，维克托·伊波利托维奇不像在别人家里做客，倒像在自己家里一样，迈着沉重的步子走来走去。有时他朝卧室里看一眼，想知道那边的情况究竟怎么样，然后又走到房间的另一头，经过那棵缀满了串珠的枫树，径直来到餐室。餐桌上摆满了没有动过的菜肴，每当窗外街上有马车经过或是～只小老鼠从盘盏当中溜过去，那些绿色的酒杯就轻轻发出一阵叮当的碰撞声。

    科马罗夫斯基处于盛怒之下，各种相互抵触的情绪在心里翻腾。多么丢脸，多么荒唐！他怒不可遏。他的处境发发可危。这件事毁了他的名声。不过还来得及弥补，要不惜任何代价防止事态进一步发展，必须快刀斩乱麻，如果风声已经传开，就得压住，得趁着种种流言刚一冒头就绪回去。另一方面，他再次感到，这个绝望、发疯的姑娘有一种无法抗拒的吸引力。一眼就可以看出，她与众不同。在她身上永远有一种异乎寻常的东西。然而，无论多么让人伤感和无法挽回，看来正是他毁了她的一生！她拼命挣扎，无时无刻不在反抗，一心要按自己的意志改变命运，开始全新的生活。

    需要从各方面帮助她，也许应该给她租间房子，但千万不能再把惹她，恰恰相反，要避开她，躲在一边，不露任何痕迹，否则，她那样一种性格，还会干出可怕的事来！

    往后麻烦事还多得很呢！眼前这事木可能不了了之，因为法律是不宽容的。天还没亮，事情才发生了两个小时，警察已经来过两次了。科马罗夫斯基在厨房里和警察分局长作了解释，才把事情平息下来。

    不过越往后越复杂。需要证明拉拉开枪打的是他，而不是科尔纳科夫。但是只凭这点，事情还不能了结。拉拉可以减轻一部分责任，其余方面还要受到法庭的审讯。

    不用说，他正千方百计设法防止这种情况的发生，不过要是立了案，那就必须弄到一份可以说明拉拉行凶时已经丧失了自制力的精神病鉴定，争取把此案撤销。

    经过这一番盘算，科马罗夫斯基才平静下来。黑夜过去了，白昼的光线从屋子的这一间照到那一间，就像一个小偷或者像当铺的估价人朝桌子和沙发椅下面察看似的。

    科马罗夫斯基走进卧室，看到拉拉的情况并没有好转，便离开斯文季茨基家，坐车去找他熟识的律师——一位在俄国居住的政治侨民的妻子鲁芬娜·奥尼西莫夫娜·沃伊特一沃伊特科夫斯卡哑。她那套有八个房间的住宅已经超出需要，经济上也无力维持，就租出去两间。不久以前有一间空出来了，科马罗夫斯基就替拉拉租了下来。几小时以后，仍然半昏迷的、浑身发热的拉拉便被送到那里。她由于神经受刺激而患了热病。

    鲁芬娜·奥尼西莫夫娜是个思想先进的妇女，反对一切偏见。照她所想和所说的来看，她对世界上～切“正当的和有生命力的”事物都同情。

    她在五斗橱里保存了一份有制定者签名的《爱尔福特纲领昨。挂在墙上的许多照片当中有一张是她丈夫的，她称他为“我的善良的沃伊特”。这照片是在瑞士的一次群众游乐会上和普列汉诺夫一起拍摄的。两个人都穿着有光泽的毛料上衣，戴着巴拿马草帽。

    鲁芬娜·奥尼西莫夫娜一见拉拉便不喜欢这位生病的房客。她觉得拉拉是个装病的泼辣女人。她高烧时说的胡话，在鲁芬娜·奥尼西莫夫娜看来完全是假装出来的。鲁芬娜·奥尼西莫夫娜随时可以发誓，断定拉拉扮演的就是“狱中的格蕾欣”的角色。

    鲁芬娜·奥尼西莫夫娜有意作出种种过分活跃的举动，以此表示对拉拉的鄙视。她把门弄得砰砰响，大声唱歌，像一阵风似的在自己住的房子里走动不停，而且整天开着窗户透气。

    她的住宅位于阿尔巴特街一所大房子的最上层。这一层的窗户，从冬天太阳偏转过来的季节开始，一直对着澄澈明朗的蓝天，宽阔的蓝天有如汛期的一条大河。整个住宅半个冬天都洋溢着未来春天的气息。

    南方吹来的暖风透进气窗，在车站那一边拼命响着火车的汽笛。病中的拉拉躺在床上，用遥远的回忆消磨自己的闲暇。

    她常常想起七八年前从乌拉尔来到莫斯科的第一个夜晚。那是难以忘怀的童年。

    当时，他们坐了一辆出租马车沿着无数条昏暗的街巷穿过莫斯科全城往旅馆去。迎面越来越近的和抛在后面渐渐远去的街灯，把佝倭着上身的车夫的影子投到房屋的墙壁上。影子越来越大，越来越大，大到很不自然的程度，遮住了路面和房顶以后便消失了，接着又重新开始。

    昏暗中，天空响起莫斯科各处教堂的钟声，地上雪橇的滑轨响亮地驶向四方，就连那些吸引人的橱窗和灯火也同样让拉拉觉得震耳，它们似乎也和大钟、车轮一样发出声音。

    房间里桌子上摆着科马罗夫斯基向他们祝贺乔迁之喜的大得出奇的西瓜，还有面包和盐，使拉拉眼花绦乱。她觉得这西瓜就是科马罗夫斯基权势和财富的象征。当维克托·伊波利托维奇一声脆响把这带着冰渣和大量糖分的深绿色圆圆的怪物用刀切开的时候，拉拉伯得气都不敢出，但也不敢拒绝不吃。她费劲地咽着一块块紫红色、香喷喷的瓜瓤，因为激动有时就卡在喉咙里。

    这是一种在着移的饮食和首都的夜景面前表现出的惶恐，不久后她面对科马罗夫斯基的时候又常产生这种惶恐，这使是以后发生的那种事的主要谜底。不过现在他已经完全变了，没有任何要求，丝毫不让拉拉想到他，甚至根本就不出面，而且总同她保持一定的距离，用极高尚的方式尽力帮助她。

    科洛格里沃夫的来访，就完全是另一回事了。他让拉拉觉得非常愉快。这并不在于他那高大而匀称的身材，而是因为他身上带有一股活力和才华。这位客人用他身上的一切，包括炯炯的眼神和聪颖的微笑，占去了大半个房间，屋子都显得狭小了。

    他坐在拉拉的床前，搓弄着两只手。他在彼得堡参加有一些大臣出席的会议的时候，和那些身居高位的老头子们谈起话来，就像面对一群调皮的预科学生一样。但是，现在他面前躺着的却是不久前他家庭中的一个成员、一个如同自己女儿一样的人，对她也和对家里其他人一样，经常是忙得边走边交换一下眼色或者说几句话（这种简单而又很有表现力的交往方式，是特别令人神往的，双方都能体会）。对待拉拉，他不能像对成年人那样严肃和漠不关心。他不知道应该怎样同她谈话才能不惹她生气，只好像对待一个小孩子那样微笑着对她说：

    “天哪，您这是搞的什么名堂啊？有谁要看这出传奇剧？”他停住了，开始端详天花板和糊墙纸上的斑驳水迹。过了一会儿，他略带责备意味地摇了摇头，继续说道：“杜塞尔多夫有个国际博览会开幕了，是绘画、雕塑和园艺方面的博览会。我准备去看看。这屋里可是有点儿潮湿。您在天地之间还要闲逛多久？这里可不是舒服的地方。我只想告诉您，这位沃伊特太太是个十足下贱的人，我知道她。换个地方吧，您也躺够了。您病了一场也就算了，现在该起来了，另外换个住处，复习一下功课，把师范专修班读完。我有个朋友是画家。他要到土耳其斯坦去两年。他的画室用板壁隔成了几部分，依我看简直就是一套住宅。他似乎想连家具一起转让给一位合适的人。我可以替您办，您愿意吗？还有一件事，您得依照我的意思办。我早就想，这是我的神圣职责……自从莉帕……这是一点小意思，作为她结束学业的酬金……别这样，木行，请让我……您别拒绝……不行，请您原谅。”

    不论她怎么谢绝，流泪，甚至像打架一样推推擦澡，他走的时候硬是让她收下了一张一万卢布的银行支票。

    拉拉恢复健康以后，搬到科洛格里沃夫极力称赞的新住处。地点就在斯摩棱斯克商场附近。这套住房在一幢古老的两层石砌房子的楼上。楼下是商店的栈房。这里住着运货马车的车夫。院子是小鹅卵石铺的地，上边总有一层散落的燕麦和乱扔的稻草。许多鸽子在院子里到处走，发出咕咕的叫声。它们成群地扑响着翅膀从地上飞起来，高度不超过拉拉的窗户，有时还会看到一群大老鼠沿着院子里石砌的水沟跑过去。

    帕沙非常痛苦。拉拉病重的时候，人家不让他到她跟前去。他该怎么想呢？照帕沙的理解，拉拉要杀的那个人对她是无所谓的，可是后来又处在她谋杀未遂的那个人的庇护之下。而且这一切就发生在圣诞之夜他和她在烛光下那次具有纪念意义的谈话之后！如果不是那个人，拉拉准会被逮捕并受到审判。他使她摆脱了危在旦夕的惩罚。因为他，拉拉才能留在师范专修班里，丝毫没有受到伤害。帕沙既苦恼又困惑不解。

    拉拉病情好转后，把帕沙叫来，对他说：
    “我不是好女人。你还不了解我，以后有机会再跟你细说。我难于开口，你看，眼泪让我端不过气来。你把我丢开，忘掉我吧，我配不上你。”

    然后便是一幕比一幕更令人心碎的场面。那时拉拉还住在阿尔巴特街，所以沃伊特科夫斯卡妞一看到满面泪痕的帕沙，就急忙从走廊回到自己住的房间，倒在沙发上哈哈大笑，笑得肚子发疼，同时嘴里不住地说：“哎哟，受不了，我可受不了！这可真是…哈、哈、哈！真是个勇士！哈、哈、哈！”

    为了让帕沙从斩不断的柔情当中解脱出来，彻底结束痛苦的折磨，拉拉斩钉截铁地拒绝了帕沙的爱情，说是并不爱他，但是说的时候又哭得那样伤心，让人无法相信。帕沙怀疑她所有不可饶恕的罪行，不相信她的每一句话，打算诅咒并憎恨她，但依然发狂地爱看她，对她的每～个念头、对她喝水用的林子和她睡觉的枕头都感到嫉妒。为了不致发疯，必须迅速地采取果断行动。他们决定不再拖延，考试结束以前就结婚。本来准备在复活节后的第一周举行婚礼，但由于拉拉的要求又延期了。

    三一节后的第一天，也就是圣灵降临节，他们举行了婚礼，那时他们已经确切地知道他们可以顺利结业了。婚事是柳德米拉·卡皮托诺夫娜·切普尔柯替他们办的。她是和拉拉同班毕业的同学杜霞·切普尔柯的母亲。柳德米拉·卡皮托诺夫娜是个颇有姿色的女人，胸脯高高地耸起，嗓音很低，会唱歌，对什么事都喜欢添枝加叶。真实的事和迷信的传说，只要她一听到，便要添油加醋，把自己想象的东西添加进去。

    城里热得怕人。当把拉拉送上“婚礼的圣坛”的时候，柳德米拉·卡皮托诺夫娜～面给她做临行前的打扮，一面用茨冈歌手潘宁娜那样的低音哼着曲子。教堂的级金圆顶和游艺场各处新铺的沙土，显出耀眼的金黄颜色。三～节前夕砍过的白禅树，枝叶上蒙了一层尘土，无精打采地垂挂在教堂的墙头，像被烧焦了似的卷成圆筒。炎热使人感到呼吸困难，阳光刺激得眼睛发花。四周仿佛有成干对的人举行婚礼，因为所有的姑娘都卷了头发，穿上鲜艳的衣服，年轻的后生们为了过节也都往头发上擦了油，穿着笔挺的黑西服。人们的情绪是激动的，大家都觉得很热。

    拉拉另一个女友的母亲拉果金娜，在拉拉踏上通往圣坛的红地毡的时候，朝她脚下撤了一把银币，祝她日后生活富足；为了同一个目的，柳德米拉·卡皮托诺夫娜告诉拉拉，当她戴上婚礼冠的时候，千万不要伸出裸露的手臂画十字，而要用一角技纱或者袖口的花边把手遮住一半，跟着又告诉拉拉应该把蜡烛举得高高的，日后可以当家做主。但为了帕沙的幸福，拉拉宁愿牺牲自己的前程，于是她尽量把蜡烛放得很低，不过还是没有用，因为不管她怎么想办法，她的蜡烛总比帕沙的高。

    从教堂里直接回到由安季波夫一家人重新布置好的那间画室举行酒宴。客人们不断地喊：“苦啊，喝不下去。”另一边的人就大声应和着：“给点儿甜的。”于是这一对年轻人便含羞带笑地接吻。柳德米拉·卡皮托诺夫娜为他们唱了喜歌《葡萄》，把当中的叠句“上帝赐给你们爱情和忠告”重复了两次，又唱了一首《松开你的发辫，散开你那淡褐色的秀发》。

    人们散去之后，只剩下了他们两个，帕沙在这突然来临的寂静中感到不知所措。院子里正对着拉拉的窗户的柱子上亮着一盏灯。不管她怎么拉窗帘，仿佛一块劈得很薄的板子似的一线亮光还是从两扇窗帘的夹缝当中照了进来，宛如一个人在偷看他们。帕沙奇怪地发现，他的心思都在这盏灯上，甚至比想自己、想拉拉、想对拉拉的爱还多。

    在这永恒之夜，被同学们叫作“斯捷潘妮达”和“红颜女郎”的不久前的大学生安季波夫，既登上了幸福的顶峰，也沉入了绝望的深渊。他那疑团丛生的猜忌和拉拉的坦率承认相互交替。他提出了一个又一个的问题，而随着拉拉一次又一次的回答，他的心一次比一次更往下沉，仿佛跌入万丈深渊。他那遍体鳞伤的想像力已经跟不上她所吐露的新情况了．

    他们一直谈到天明。在安季波夫的一生当中，没有比这一夜的变化更惊人、更突然的了。清早起来，他已经全然变了一个人，自己几乎都奇怪为什么人们还像过去那样称呼他。

    十天以后，朋友们还是在这间屋子里为他们送行。帕沙和拉拉都以优异的成绩毕了业，接到了到乌拉尔同～个械市工作的聘书。明天一早他们即将起程。

    大家照例喝酒，唱歌，高声谈笑，不过这次清一色的都是年轻人，没有上年纪的。

    在那道把作为寝室的一角并把客人同整个画室隔开的间壁后面，放着拉拉装东西的一大一小两个网篮、一只皮箱和一个盛食具的木箱。屋角的地上还放着几只口袋，行李不少，有一部分第二天早晨作为慢件托运。所有东西差不多都收拾妥当，但还没有完全装完。皮箱和木箱的盖子敞开着，里面还没有装满。隔一会儿，拉拉就又想起一件什么东西，于是把它拿到间壁后面放到篮子里，再把上边摆平整。

    拉拉到专修班去取出生证和其他证件的时候，帕沙在家招待客人。院子的守门人陪她一起回来，带了一张包装用的银皮席和一大卷第二天捆东西用的结实的粗绳。拉拉打发走了守门人，在客人面前转了一圈，同这个握手寒暄，同那个互相亲吻，然后便到间壁的那边去换衣服。她换好服装出来的时候，大家拍手叫好，随后都入了座，像几天前在婚礼上那样的喧闹开始了。活跃的人忙着给邻座斟伏特加酒，无数只举着叉子的手伸到桌子当中去拿面包和盛冷热菜肴的盘子。大家纷纷祝酒，发出满意的嚷嚷声，争先恐后地说俏皮话。有的人很快就醉了。

    “可真把我累死了。”和丈夫挨着坐在一起的拉拉说，“你要办的事都办完了吗？”
    “办完了。”
    “不管怎么累，我觉得精神很好。我感到幸福。你呢？”
    “我也一样。我也觉得很好。说起来，一两句话说不完。”

    科马罗夫斯基例外地被允许参加这群年轻人的晚会。快结束的时候，他想说这对年轻朋友走后自己会感到孤苦伶什，在他眼中莫斯科就会变成撒哈拉沙漠，可是心里一阵发酸，便咽起来，不得木重新开始被激动所打断的话。他请求安季波夫夫妇允许他给他fi］写信，允许他到他们尤里亚金的新居去拜访他们，如果他忍受木了分离的痛苦的话。

    “那倒大可不必。”拉拉若无其事地高声回答，“什么通信啊，撒哈拉沙漠啦，这些话都用不着说。至于到那个地方去，您干脆连想也别想。没有我们，上帝也会保佑您日子过得一样好，况且我们也不是什么了不起的人物，帕沙，你说是不是？您运气好，一定能找到代替我们的新朋友。”

    拉拉仿佛完全忘了正在和谁谈话和谈的什么话，似乎又想起了一件事，急忙站起身来到间壁那边的厨房里去了。她在那儿拆开绞肉机，把零件放进食具箱的几个空着的角里，再用稻草塞好。拆绞肉机的时候，她差一点让箱子迈上的一根大刺扎破了手。

    她忙着装东西，又忘记自己还有客人了，对他们的声音也是充耳不闻，直到后来间壁那边爆发了一阵特别响亮的喧闹声，才提醒了她。拉拉这时想到，喝醉酒的人总是喜欢竭力模仿醉汉，显出那种既俗气又有意夸张的更厉害的酸态。

    这时，从敞开的窗子传来院子里一个特别的声音，引起她的注意。拉拉撩开窗帘探出身子去。

    一匹拴着绊腿绳的马正在院子里一瓶一颠地跳着。这匹不知是谁家的马可能走错了路，走到这个院子里来了。天色已近黎明，不过离日出还早。仿佛沉睡的阅无人迹的城市笼罩在清晨淡紫色的寒气中。拉拉闭上了眼睛。这阵异乎寻常的马蹄声，把她带到遥远的迷人的乡村里去。

    楼下响起了门铃声。拉拉侧耳细听。有人从餐桌边走去开门。来的是娜佳！拉拉忙不迭地向她跑过去。娜佳是直接从车站来的，她是那么鲜嫩迷人，浑身似乎散发着杜普梁卡的铃兰花的芳香。这一对朋友站在那里说不出话来，只是放声大哭，紧紧拥抱，几乎都让对方喘不过气来。

    娜佳结拉拉带来了全家的祝贺、送别的话和父母赠送的贵重礼品。她从手提包里拿出一个用纸包着的首饰匣，打开裹着的纸，掀起盖子，递给拉拉一串精美出奇的项链。

    响起了一片惊叹声。一个已经有些清醒的醉汉说：
    “这是玫瑰红的风信子石。没错儿，紫色的，你们说是不是？这可是不亚于钻石呀。”

    可是娜佳分辩说，这是带黄色的宝石。

    拉拉让她坐在自己身边的座位上，把项链放在自己的餐具旁边，目不转睛地看着。放在紫色衬垫上的宝石光华夺目，烟娼生辉，有时像流动的水珠，有时又像一串纤巧的葡萄。

    桌边有的人醉意已经慢慢消失了。因为娜佳人席，酒醒过来的人又喝了起来。大家很快也把娜佳灌醉了。

    没过多久，整个屋子里的人都沉入了梦乡。多数人第二天还要到车站送行，所以留下来过夜。一半人随便往一个角落里一倒便打起鼾来。拉拉自己也不记得怎么和衣躺在已经在沙发上睡着了的伊拉·拉果金娜的身边。

    耳边一阵很响的说话声把拉拉惊醒了。这是从街上到院子里来找那匹走失的马的陌生人的声音。拉拉睁开眼睛一看，觉得很奇怪——帕沙可真是闲不住，那么大的个子站在屋子当中没完没了地翻腾什么呢？这时，被当成是帕沙的那个人朝拉拉转过身来，她才看清不是帕沙，而是满脸麻子、从鬓角到下巴有一道伤疤的人。她明白了，这是贼溜进屋里来了，于是想喊叫，可是一点声音也发不出来。突然她想起了项链，悄悄地用手肘支起身子往餐桌上看了看。

    项链就放在一堆面包屑和吃剩下的夹心糖中间，这个迟钝的坏家伙在杯盘狼藉的桌面上没有发现它，光是拿那些已经叠好的被单和衣服，把收拾整齐的行装弄得一塌糊涂。拉拉的酸意还没有完全消失，看不清当时的情况，只是特别可惜整理东西费的功夫。她气得想喊叫，可还是张不开口。她就用膝盖使劲顶了一下睡在身边的伊拉·拉果金娜的心口。随着伊拉·拉果金娜疼得变了嗓音的一声喊叫，拉拉也嚷了出来。小偷扔下裹着衣物的包袱，慌慌张张地从屋里跑出去。跳起来的几个男人好不容易弄清出了什么事之后，跑出去追赶，可是贼早已无影无踪了。

    这场慌乱和事后的议论，成了大家都得起床的信号。拉拉剩下的～点点酒意已经完全消失了。不管大家怎么要求让他们再睡一会儿，躺一躺，拉拉坚决让他们都起来，然后很快给他们煮了咖啡喝，请大家都回家去，等到开车前在车站见面。

    客人散去以后，拉拉就忙了起来。她麻利地收拾好一个个行李袋，把枕头塞进去，扎紧带子，央求帕沙和女看门人千万别帮忙，免得碍她的事。

    一切都及时准备停当了。安季波夫夫妇一点也没有耽误。仿佛同送行的人手中摇动帽子的动作相配合，火车徐徐开动了。当人们不再挥手并从远处第三次向他们喊叫的时候（可能喊的是“乌拉！”），火车加快了速度。

    一连三天都是坏天气。这是战争开始后的第二个秋天。第一年取得战绩过后，情况开始不利。集结在喀尔巴吁山一线的布鲁西洛夫的第八军，本来准备翻过山口突入匈牙利，结果却是随全线后退而后撤。我军让出了战事开头几个月占领的加里奇亚。

    他过去叫尤拉，如今大家越来越多地用本名和父名称呼他为日瓦戈医生，此时正站在妇产医院产科病房门外的走廊里。刚由他送来的他的妻子安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜，就住在这间病室里。他同她告别后，正在等着助产士，想告诉她必要的时候怎么通知他，以及他如何从她那儿了解东尼妞的健康情况。

    他很忙，急等着回自己的医院去，在这以前还要到两个病人家里出诊，可现在却在这里白白浪费宝贵的时间，眼看着窗外被一阵阵秋风搅乱的左右歪斜的雨丝，仿佛是风雨中田野里东倒西歪的麦穗。

    天还不很黑。尤里·安德烈耶维奇眼前看到的是医院的后院、洁维奇田庄几所住宅的有玻璃棚顶的凉台和一条通向医院楼房后门口的电车线。

    尽管风很大，仿佛被落到地上的从容流淌的雨水激怒了似的，这愁人的秋雨却只管不紧不慢地下着。阵风不时地撕扯着凉台上爬满了的野葡萄藤上的嫩枝，似乎要把它连根拔起，在空中抖一抖，再像奶一件恶心的破衣服那样扔到地上。

    从凉台旁边朝医院驶来一辆挂着两节拖车的铁路压道车。一些人开始从车上往医院里抬伤员。

    莫斯科的所有医院都已人满为患，特别是卢兹克战役之后，伤员都安置在楼梯拐角的平台和走廊上。城里各家医院已经超员的情况也开始影响到妇产科病房了。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇转过身来背向着窗户，疲倦地打了一个呵欠。他已经不能集中思考，但突然间想起一件事。在他工作的那所红十字医院的外科，几天前死了一个女病人。尤里·安德烈耶维奇断定她得的是肝胞虫病。可大家都不同意他的看法。今天就要进行尸体解剖，查明病因。不过，医院解剖室主任是个狂饮无度的酒徒。天晓得他会怎么办。

    夜幕很快降临了。窗外已经分不清任何东西。接着好像魔杖一挥，家家窗内亮起了灯光。

    产科主任医生、妇产科专家从隔开走廊和东尼姬病房的小风门里走了出来。他每逢回答别人问题的时候，总是眼望天花板，耸着肩膀。这些动作再加上说话时的表情，仿佛在说，我的老兄，不管知识多么渊博，总有些连科学也解不开的谜。

    他从尤里·安德烈耶维奇身边走过的时候，微笑着点点头，用掌心很厚的胀鼓鼓的两只手摆动几下，意思是说，一切都得听其自然，耐心等待，然后就到候诊室吸烟去了。

    这时，这位沉默寡言的妇科专家的一个女助手从里面出来找尤里·安德烈耶维奇。她跟这位专家完全相反，很喜欢讲话。

    “我要是您的话，就回家去了。明天我给您往红十字会打电话。在这以前恐怕不会出什么事。我相信是顺产，不需要采取什么措施。不过，她的骨盆稍微狭小，胎位仰面向上，产妇没有痛感，子宫收缩也不明显，这倒值得注意。不过现在还不能下断语。一切都看临产时她的肌肉紧张程度如何了。过一段时间会看出来的。”

    第二天，医院里接电话的传达人员让尤里·安德烈耶维奇不要挂上，然后就跑去查问，足足让他等了十分钟，最后只说了一点笼统的、没头没脑的情况：“让我转告您，您把太太送来得太早了，应该接回家去。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇听了他的话气得不得了，要求我个了解情况的人来听电话。“还没有临产的迹象，”护士对他说，“请您这位医生别着急，恐怕还得等一天。”

    第三天他才知道，临产是夜间开始的，天亮的时候出现了羊水，剧烈的阵痛从早晨起一直没停止过。

    他急忙赶到医院，穿过走廊的时候从一扇没完全关好的门里听到了东尼娜令人心碎的叫声，仿佛是从车轮下边往外抬的一个压断了肢体的人喊出来的。

    他无法到她身边去，把弯起来的一根手指咬得快出血了。他走到窗前，外面下着雨，像前两天一样。

    助理护士从产房里走出来，门里传出初生婴儿尖细的哭声。

    “她没事儿了，没事儿了。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇高兴得自言自语地说。

    “是个儿子。顺顺当当地生下来了，给您道喜。”助理护士拖长声音说，“现在不能看。到时候才能让您看呢。您可要舍得为产妇花钱。她真受了不少罪。这是头胎，头一股总免不了吃苦。”

    “得救了，终归得救了。”高兴的尤里·安德烈耶维奇并没有明白助理护士说的话，也没有理解到她说这些话是把他当成刚刚发生过的这件事的一个当事人。可是这跟他有什么相干呢？父亲，儿子——他看不出在这轻而易举取得的父亲身份当中有什么值得骄傲的，也丝毫感受不到这天生的亲子之情。这些都是他所意识不到的。最重要的是东尼妞，这一度受到死亡的威胁而又幸运地避开了它的东尼妞。

    他有个病人就住在产院附近。他到这个人家里去了一会儿，半小时后又返回来。从走廊穿过风门和从风门通向病房的两扇门都半开着。尤里·安德烈耶维奇自己也不知道想干什么，便溜进了风门。

    那位穿白大褂的妇科专家像从地底下冒出来似的，迎着他叉开双手。

    “到哪儿去？”为了不让产妇听到他们的谈话，他低声说，拦住了他。“您发疯了？她有伤口，出了血，还要防止感染，更不用说精神上的刺激。您可倒不错！亏得还是个医生呢。”
    “我并不是……我只看一眼。就从这儿，从门缝看一眼。”
    “哦，那倒是另一回事啦。就算是这样吧。您可瞒不过我！……看看吧！要是让里边发现了，我可轻饶不了您，准叫您身上没好地方。”

    产房里背朝门站着两个穿白大褂的女人：助产士和卫生员。卫生员手里有个发出尖细声音的娇柔的小生灵，像一块深红色的橡皮在蠕动。助产土正在往脐带上缚线，好使胎盘脱落。东尼妞躺在屋子中间一张用托板支起来的手术台上。她躺的位置相当高。尤里·安德烈耶维奇因为过度兴奋把什么都看得过大，所以觉得她躺的高度同人站在前面写字的那种高腿斜面写字台一样。

    有时候把死去的人头部垫高，而东尼妞现在躺着的姿势比这还要高，头朝上脚朝下地斜躺着，像是跑得疲惫不堪的人那样浑身冒热气，正在享受经过痛苦折磨以后的休息。她高高地躺在产房中间，仿佛港湾里刚刚下旋就已卸去了重载的一艘帆船；它跨过死亡的海洋来到了生命的大陆，上面有一些不知来自何方的新的灵魂；它刚刚把这样一个灵魂送到了岸上，如今抛锚停泊，非常轻松地歇息下来；和它一同安急的还有那折损殆尽的桅墙索具，以及渐渐消逝的记忆，完全忘却了不久前在什么地方停泊过，怎样航行过来又如何停泊抛锚的。

    谁也不了解它悬挂的旗帜所代表的是哪个国家，因此，也不知道对它应该使用哪一种语言。

    他回到自己的医院，大家抢着向他祝贺。“他们知道得好快！”尤里·安德烈耶维奇感到惊讶。

    他来到主任医生办公室，大家都把这儿叫小酒馆和脏水坑，因为医院拥挤，已经超员，现在都在这间屋子里换衣服，穿着套靴来来去去，有的人把从别的房间带来的不相干的东西忘在这儿，而且到处都是烟蒂和废纸。

    窗前站着脸上皮肤松弛的解剖室主任，他举起两只手对着亮光从眼镜上面观看瓶里的混浊液体。

    “恭喜你。”他说了一句，眼睛始终朝着原来的方向，对尤里·安德烈耶维奇连看都不看一眼。
    “谢谢。我非常感动。”
    “不必谢我。这和我没关系。是波楚什金解剖的。但大家都大吃一惊，原来是水胞虫。大家都说，这才算是诊断医师呢！大家都在谈论这件事。”

    这时候医院的主任医生走了进来。他同他们两人寒暄后说：
    “真见鬼。这儿简直不是主任医师办公室，是个过道，真不像话！不错，日瓦戈，您知道了吧，是水胞虫！我们都诊断错了。祝贺您。可是，还有一件木太愉快的消息。对您的专业类别又重新审查过了。这次可留不住您了。军医人员奇缺。您不得不闻闻火药味儿了。”

    安季波夫夫妇在尤里亚金安顿下来，竟出乎意料的顺利。这可得记住吉沙罗夫的好处，他使拉拉减少了在一个新地方安家立业必然会遇到的困难。

    拉拉完全被辛劳和操心的事占据了。她要照管一个家和三岁的小女儿卡坚卡。不论在安季波夫夫妇这里帮忙的长着火红色头发的玛尔富特卡怎么尽力，靠她帮助还是不够。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜得参预帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇的所有事务。她自己还在女子中学教课。拉拉毫不懈怠地工作着，感到很幸福。这正是她渴望的那种生活。

    尤里亚金这地方很得她的喜爱。这是她感到亲切的城市。它坐落在中、下游都通航的雷尼瓦河边，同时又在乌拉尔的一条铁路线上。

    在尤里亚金，冬天临近的标志就是有船的人家都用大车把船从河里拖上来运到城里去，放在各家各户的院子里过冬，直到第二年春天。在尤里亚金许多院落深处反扣在地上的白色的船只还意味着另一件事，那就是此时在别的地方已经可以看到南飞的鹤群，或是降了初雪。

    安季波夫夫妇租住的这家院子里，也有这样漆成白色的一只船，底朝天扣在那里，卡坚卡在它下面玩耍，就像在花房的圆顶底下一样。

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜从心里喜欢偏远的地方，包括当地那些穿着毡靴和暖和的灰法兰绒上衣、操着浓重的北方口音的知识分子，以及他们那种对人的纯朴的信任。拉拉总是眷恋着土地和普通的老百姓。

    奇怪的倒是帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇，他作为莫斯科一个铁路工人的儿子，却是一个很难改变的、习惯于首都生活的城里人。他对待当地的尤里亚金人要比妻子挑剔得多。他们的蛮性和没有礼貌使他感到恼火。

    如今回过头来看已经很清楚，他在博览群书过程中具有非凡的汲取和积累知识的本领。过去常常是在拉拉帮助之下他才读了许多书。在外地深居简出的这几年，他的求知欲更加旺盛，以至于拉拉在他眼中都是学识不足的人了。他在自己那些教育界的同事中间已经出人头地，而且抱怨与这些人为伍感到郁闷。他们那些在战争时期时髦的爱国主义的言谈举止，总是带着官样文章和一些酸溜溜的味道，和安季波夫的爱国思想的复杂形式不相适应。

    帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇是古典语文学校毕业的。他现在教的课是拉丁文和古代史。可是在他这个过去的职业学校学生的身上，突然恢复了已经荒疏的对数学、物理和其他精密学科的极大兴趣。经过自学，他在这些课程方面已达到了大学的程度。他期待着一有可能就参加州一级的考试，重新确定一个数学方面的专业，然后把家搬到彼得堡去。夜间紧张的学习影响了帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇的健康，他开始失眠。

    他和妻子的关系很好，不过也十分不寻常。她以自己的善良和关心体贴他，而他也决不许自己对她有半点伤害。他谨小慎微，唯恐在他毫无恶意的言辞之间让她凭空觉得隐含着什么责备——比如说她门第高贵，而他出身微践，或者在他之前她曾经属于别人。唯恐她怀疑他持有这种不公正的荒唐想法使她伤心，以致这种担心给他们的生活带来某种做作的成分。他们相敬如宾，结果倒使情况复杂了。

    安季波夫夫妇的客人当中，有几个和帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇同事的教师，拉拉工作的那所学校的女校长，还有帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇曾经担任过一次调解人的仲裁法庭的一位成员和另外一些人。所有这些男男女女在帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇眼中都是蠢才。他奇怪拉拉能如此热情地和他们周旋，而且不相信她当真喜欢其中的任何人。

    客人告辞以后，拉拉要用很长时间开窗换空气，打扫房间，和玛尔富特卡在厨房里洗餐具。她做完这些事以后，确信卡坚卡盖好了被子，帕维尔也睡了，自己才赶快脱了衣服，关上灯，像是让母亲抱到床上去的孩子那样自然地躺到丈夫身边。

    安季波夫装作睡着了的样子，其实并没有入睡。近来常犯的失眠症又发作了。他知道，这样辗转反倒还要持续三四个小时。为了引起睡意和躲避客人们留下来的烟草气味，他悄悄起身，在内衣外面穿上皮大衣，戴了帽子，然后来到院中。

    这是个寒冷清澈的秋夜。松脆的薄薄的冰面在安季波夫的脚下发出碎裂的声响。群星点点的夜空仿佛是燃烧的酒精火焰，用蓝色的反光照出冻结了许多脏土块的地面。

    安季波夫夫妇的住房坐落在和码头的方向相反的城市的另一部分，在一条街的末端。再往前去就是一片田野，有条铁路穿过，铁路边是个值班房，横跨铁轨有过路的通道。

    安季波夫坐在翻过来的船底上，望着星光。这几年他已习以为常的一些想法，令人不安地充满他的心中。他觉得迟早要把这些想法彻底弄清楚，而且最好就在今天。

    “不能再这样下去了，”他这么想，“早就应该预见到的，如今发现得迟了。为什么拉拉能把他当成孩子，并能随心所欲地左右着他？为什么当初在冬天他们结婚以前她也曾坚持这一点的时候，没想到拒绝她？难道不知道她对他并不是爱，而是对他承担一种高尚的责任，是她自己所体现的一种英雄行为？这种感人至深而又值得赞誉的责任感，又和真正的家庭生活有什么共同之处呢？最糟的是直至今天他仍然一往情深地爱着她。她依然那样不可思议的美好。也许，他心中怀有的也并非爱情，而是拜倒在她的美和宽容面前的怅然的感念之情吧？唉，你呀，把这弄清楚吧！连魔鬼也无能为力。

    “那么现在应该怎么办？把拉拉和卡坚卡从这种虚假当中解脱出来？这恐怕比他自己解脱更重要。可是用什么方式呢？离婚？拔河？——呸，这太丑了。”他生自己的气了。“我可永远不能走这条路。不过，为什么心里又产生出这个卑鄙念头呢！”

    他看了一眼天上的群星，似乎向它们要求答案。那些疏密相间、大小木一、蓝色的和闪耀着虹彩的繁星，无言地眨着眼。突然，闪起了一道晃动着的耀眼的亮光，扫过星空、房屋和院落、那只小船和上面坐着的安季波夫，像是有人从那片田野朝大门跑来，手里举着燃亮的火把。原来这是一列向西行驶的军车经过岔道口，穿过火红的烟雾向天空投去的一道黄色光柱。从去年开始，不计其数的军车日夜不停地从这里经过。

    帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇微微一笑，从小船上站起来，回去睡觉了。理想的出路找到了。

    听到帕沙的决定后，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜呆住了，起先还以为是听错了。“鬼念头。又是照例的古怪想法。”她这么认为，“不去管它，到时候他自己就全忘了。”

    可是事情越来越清楚，丈夫已经准备了两个星期，报告已经送到兵役局，学校里也安排了接替的副职，而且从鄂木斯克已经送来通知，那里的军校同意录取他。出发的日期迫近了。

    拉拉如同农村妇女一样嚎陶大哭，扯着他两只手，躺在他脚下。“帕沙，帕申卡，”她不住地喊道，“你把我和卡坚卡丢给谁呀？你别这么办，可别这么办！现在还不晚。我能给你想办法。你都没好好让医生检查一下你的心脏。什么，害羞？你把家庭当作发疯的牺牲品，难道不害羞吗？志愿兵！原先总是嘲笑罗佳太庸俗，可忽然又羡慕起他来了！帕沙，你是怎么回事，我都认不出你了！你换了一个人，还是发疯了？可怜可怜我，告诉我实话，看在基督的份上，别打官腔，难道俄国真需要你这样的人入伍吗？”

    她一下子明白过来了，根本不是这么一回事。不善于揣摩细节的她，这次却抓住了要害。她猜到帕图利亚大概误解了她对他的态度。他不了解她对他永生永世倾注的脉脉温情中掺杂着的母性的感情，他也想象不到这样的爱情是超出一般女人所能给予的。

    像挨了打的人一样，她咬紧嘴唇，把一切都深藏在心中，一言不发，默默地咽下泪水，开始为丈夫准备上路的行装。

    他走了以后，拉拉仿佛觉得全城都变得静悄悄的，连天上飞的乌鸦都稀少了。“太太，太太。”玛尔富特卡得不到回答他呼唤她。“妈妈，妈妈。”卡坚卡没完没了地叫着，扯她的衣袖。这是她生活当中最沉重的打击，她那最美好、最光明的希望破灭了。

    从西伯利亚来的信件中，拉拉可以知道丈夫的一切情况。他很快就清醒了，十分想念妻子和女儿。几个月以后，帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇获得准尉军衔，提前毕了业，而且出乎意料地被派往一个作战的军里服役。在紧急奉调的途中，他从很远的地方绕过尤里亚金，在莫斯科也没有来得及和任何人见面。

    他开始从前线寄信来，已经不像在鄂木斯克军校时那样伤感，而是写得颇有生气了。安季波夫很希望能有所表现，为的是作为对一次军功的奖励或者是因为受点轻伤，就可以获得一次回家探亲的假期。确是出现了这种机会。就在后来被叫作布鲁西洛夫战役而出了名的那次突破之后，这个军转入了进攻。安季波夫的信收不到了。开始，这并没有使拉拉感到不安。她觉得帕沙一时没有消息是因为军事行动正在展开，行军途中不可能写信。

    到了秋天，这个军的行动暂时停止。部队开始构筑阵地。可是安季波夫依然沓无音信。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜开始担心，就设法打听，先是在尤里亚金当地，之后就通过莫斯科的邮局，并且按帕沙所在部队先前的作战地址往前线写信。到处都不知道消息，得木到答复。

    正像县里许多善心的太太们一样，从战争一开始，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜就在尤里亚金县医院扩建成的陆军医院里尽自己的力量服务。

    如今她十分认真地学习医务方面的基本知识，而且已经通过了医院里取得护士资格的考试。

    她以护土的身份向学校请了半年的假，把尤里亚金的房子托付给玛尔富特卡照管，就带着卡坚卡到莫斯科去了。在那儿她把女儿安置在莉帕奇卡家里，她丈夫弗里津丹柯是德国籍，已经和其他平民俘虏一起被拘禁在乌发。

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜已经确信这种远距离的寻找是不会有结果的，就决定直接到帕沙参战的地方去。她抱着这个目的，在经过里斯基市驶向匈牙利边境梅佐一拉勃尔的一列救护火车上当了一名护士。帕沙发出最后一封信的地方，就叫这个名字。

    一列救护火车向师司令部前线驻地开来。这是由塔季扬娜伤员救援会赞助者出资装备起来的。在这一长列由许多短小而难看的加温车组成的列车上，有一节头等车厢，里面坐着从莫斯科来的客人——社会活动家，他们带着赠给士兵和军官们的礼物。戈尔东也在他们当中。他听说，他童年时代的朋友日瓦戈所在的师部医院就设在不远的一个村子里。

    戈尔东取得了在前线附近活动的许可，拿到了通行证，于是搭了一辆朝那个方向去的军用四轮大车，就出发去看望朋友了。

    马车夫木是白俄罗斯人就是立陶宛人，俄语讲不好。由于担心敌人的好细摘的侦察活动，所以谈的话不外乎是事先可以猜得出的那些规定的内容。这种十分做作的谈话激发不起谈兴。一路上，大部分时间坐车的和驾车的都默木作声。

    在那习惯于调动整个军的行动、动辄以几百俄里的距离来计算行程的司令部里，大家都肯定地说，这个村子就在附近二十或二十五俄里的地方。

    整个路途中，从前进方向左侧的地平线上传来不怀善意的沉闷的轰响。戈尔东有生以来不曾经历过地震，可是他能够断定，远处这种依稀可辨的敌人大炮凛然的闷响完全可以和火山造成的地下震动和轰鸣媲美。暮色苍茫的时候，那个方向的天际出现了不断闪动的火光，直到黎明。

    马车夫载着戈尔东经过了许多被毁的村庄，其中一部分已经圆无人迹，另一些地方的村民都躲在很深的地窖里。这样的村落看上去只见一堆堆的垃圾和碎土丘，但却整齐地排成一行，好像当初的房屋一样。在这些被战火夷平的村庄里，有如置身于寸草木生的沙漠中，从这一头可以一直望到那一头。那些劫后余生的老年妇女，每人都在自己的废墟中间搜挖着，翻拨着灰烬，不停地把一些东西收藏起来，似乎周围还是墙壁，所以外人看不见她们。她们迎送戈尔东的目光似乎是在探询：这世界什么时候才能清醒过来，什么时候才能过上安定而有秩序的生活？

    深夜，这两个驾车赶路的人迎面碰上了一个侦察班。于是命令他们从这条大路上退回，再从乡间的小道绕过这里。马车夫不认识那条新路。他们毫无头绪地乱走了两个小时，天亮前来到了一个村子，它的名字正是戈尔东想要找的那个。可是村子里根本没听说过这个师部医院。后来很快就弄清楚了，这个区有两个同名的村子，那个村子才是他们要找的。大清早他们到达了目的地。当戈尔东经过散发出一股药用除虫菊粉和碘酒气味的村口的时候，他心里想的是不在日瓦戈这里过夜，只停留一个白天，晚上赶回火车站去找留在那里的同伴们。但是，情况使他滞留了一个多星期。

    这些日子，战线有所移动，发生了一些突然的变化。在戈尔东抵达这个村子以前，我方一个兵团的部分兵力进攻得手，突破了敌人固守的阵地。突击队一面扩大战果，一面向对方纵深挺进。跟着它扩大突破口的辅助部队，渐渐落在先头部队的后面。结果出现了人员被俘的事。就是在这样的形势之下，安季波夫准尉在损失了半个连的士兵以后也被俘了。

    关于他，有各种各样矛盾的说法。大家都认为他是被土埋在一个弹坑里，已经死了。按照他同一个团的熟人加利乌林少尉的话来说，好像是在观察所从望远镜里亲眼看到了安季波夫率领自己的士兵进攻时阵亡了。

    加利乌林眼前出现的是突击部队已经习以为常的场面。他们的任务是以接近跑步的速度通过两军之间的一片田野，那里漫生着迎风摇曳的干艾蒿和纹丝不动的挺拔的刺蓟草。突击队应该以勇猛的动作迫使对方短兵相接，或者使用集束手榴弹把固守战壕的奥地利人就地消灭。这片田野似乎也在奔跑，一眼望不到头。脚下踏过的像是松软的沼泽一样的地面。准尉开始在前面，随后忽前忽后地和士兵跑在一起。他挥动举在头上的手枪，嘴张得不能再大地喊着“乌拉”，可是他这喊声无论是自己还是周围跑着的士兵都听不见。按照准确的间隔，跑动的人一会）L卧倒，一会儿又猛然站起来重新喊叫着继续向前冲去。每一次和他们一起前进，总有几个中弹的人，就像被砍伐的高高的树木一样，整个身子异样地倒下去，再也站立不起来。

    “超越了目标。给炮队打电话，”不安的加利乌林向站在身旁的炮兵军官说，“嗅，不。他们干得木错，是在延伸火力。”

    这时，突击队已经接近了敌人。炮火停止了。在突然到来的一片寂静中，站在观察所里的人，心跳明显加快了，仿佛同安季波夫一起身临其境，领着大家冲到奥地利人的避弹壕跟前，接着就该让机智和勇敢大显身手了。就在这一瞬间，前面接连炸开了两颗十六时的德国炮弹。两股黑色的烟柱遮住了一切。“真主保佑！完了！全完了！”加利乌林颤动着发白的嘴唇喃喃自语，认为准尉和他的士兵都已阵亡。第三发炮弹就落在观察所旁边。大家都把身子弯向地面，急忙从里边撤到远一些的地方去。

    加利乌林和安季波夫曾住在一个掩蔽所里。团里觉得他被打死，不会回来了，于是就委托了解安季波夫的加利乌林保存他的遗物，以便日后转交给死者的妻子。在安季波夫留下来的东西当中，有许多张妻子的照片。

    志愿入伍的加利乌林不久前提升为准尉，原先是个机械师，是季韦尔辛那个院子的守门人吉马泽特金的儿子。早先他是个钳工学徒，常常受工长胡多列耶夫毒打，他能有出头之日，还得算是过去这位虐待徒弟的人的功劳。

    当上准尉以后，加利乌林并非出于本人的志愿，不知为什么被派到一个后方卫戍部队所在的气候温和、偏远幽静的地方。他在那地指挥一队半残废的士兵，每天早上由那些差不多同样衰弱的老教官对他们进行那已经忘记的队列操练。除此而外，加利乌林还要检查他们是不是准确地在兵站仓库布置了哨位。生活是无忧无虑的，因为上级对他再没有更多的要求。突然之间，他非常熟悉的彼得·胡多列耶夫，随着一批从年限很长的后备役军人和莫斯科入伍的士兵当中补充来的人员一起，也来到了。

    “啊，咱们是老熟人了！”加利乌林脸色阴沉地冷笑着说了一句。“是，准尉大人。”胡多列耶夫回答，立正敬了个礼。

    事情并没有如此简单地了结。就在第一次出现队列疏忽的时候，准尉对他大声斥责，而当他觉得士兵行礼时不直接望着他，却望着旁处时，就举手打了他几个嘴巴，并命令送到禁闭室关押四十八小时。

    如今，加利乌林的一举一动都带着要算老账的味道。在棍棒体现的隶属关系之下，这种报复的方式简直就是一场只赢不输的游戏，未免不够高尚。究竟该怎么办？两个人已经不可能继续留在一个地方。可是除了送到惩罚营以外，一个军官又能用什么借口把一个士兵从规定的服役部队改派到别的地方去呢？从另一方面来说，加利乌林自己能提出什么理由要求调动呢？于是，以后方卫戍勤务过于单调和无所作为为理由，他被批准调往前线。这就使他赢得了一个良好的表现，而且不久以后在另一桩事情上他又显露了自己另一方面的才能，说明他是个出色的军官，因此很快就被提升为少尉。

    早在季韦尔辛家里的时候，加利乌林就认识了安季波夫。一九O五年，帕沙·安季波夫有半年的时间住在季韦尔辛家里。那时候尤苏普卡就常去找他，过节的时候在一起玩耍，当时也有一两次在他那里见到过拉拉。从那以后就没有再听说过他们两人的情况。当帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇从尤里亚金来到他们团以后，这位老朋友身上发生的变化很使加利乌林吃惊。过去像姑娘似的腼腆、爱整洁达到了可笑程度而又很调皮的一个人，如今成了一个神经质的、知测良广博而又鄙视一切的忧郁的人。他聪明，勇敢，沉默寡言，好嘲笑人。有时，加利乌林望他一眼就乐意发誓说，在安季波夫深沉的目光里，仿佛在一扇窗的深处还有他的另～个化身，似乎可以看到藏在他心中的思想，他对女儿的思念，他妻子的面庞。安季波夫几乎是神话当中着魔的人物。可是突然之间这个人消失了，加利乌林手中剩下的只是安季波夫的一些证件和照片，以及他身上发生的变化的秘密。

    拉拉的查询或迟或早都会追寻到加利乌林这里。他已经准备好了对她的回答。然而正是事情刚刚发生不久时，他没有勇气把实情原原本本地说出。他希望先让她对即将承受的打击有所准备。因此，他准备写给她的一封经过仔细考虑的信就拖了下来，可是现在，他却不知道该把给她的信往什么地方投递了。

    “怎么样？今天有马吗？”当日瓦戈医生中午回到他们住的这间小屋子吃饭的时候，戈尔东问道。

    “哪儿来的马呀！现在是前进不能，后退无路，你还要到哪儿去？周围的情况完全弄不清楚。任何人都说不出所以然来。在南边的几个地方，我军迂回过去，或许突破了德军防线。不过听说我们也有几支分散的队伍也落到了敌人口袋里。在北边，德国人已经渡过了一向认为在这一段不能越过的斯文塔河。这是一支骑兵部队，人数相当一个军团。他们正在破坏铁路，摧毁仓库，而且据我看还正在对我军形成包围圈。你看，就是这个形势。可你还在说什么马。好吧，卡尔片柯，快点开饭，动作麻利点儿。咱们今天吃什么？啊，牛蹄，太妙啦。”

    卫生队、医院和其余的师属单位都分散在这个奇迹般保存下来的村子里。村里那些仿照西方样式在墙上装有许多双扇窗户的房屋，一所也没有毁坏。

    正是暗和的秋季。金色的秋天最后几个温暖晴朗的日子就快过去了。中午，医生和军官们都开了窗子，扑打着那些在窗台上和低矮的屋顶婊糊纸上成群爬着的苍蝇，解开制服和军便服的扣子，满头大汗地喝着热汤或者茶；晚上，他们还要蹲在炉门前把点不着的湿柴下面快要熄灭的炭火吹旺，一面被烟熏得眼睛流泪，一面骂着不会生炉子的勤务兵。

    这是个安静的夜晚。戈尔东和日瓦戈面对面躺在相对的两侧墙边的长木凳上。他们中间是一张吃饭用的桌子，另一面是一扇从这头直通到那一头的长条形的窗子。屋里炉子烧得挺热，抽烟抽得雾气腾腾。[手机TXT小说下载网]他们把长廖两头的气窗打开，呼吸着在玻璃上蒙了一层哈气的秋夜里清新的空气。

    他们仍是按着这些日子白天和晚上的习惯谈话。像往常一样，前线那边的地平线上闪耀着淡紫色的火光。每当这种一分钟也不停的均匀的射击声中落进几响低沉的、每一次都听得清清楚楚的、有分量的打击声的时候，地面似乎都被移动了，又像是远处有人在地板上略微向一旁移动沉重的铁皮箱似的。这时，为了表示对这种声音的尊重，日瓦戈暂时把谈话停止一会儿，然后说：“这是德国人的十六时的大炮，六十普特重的大家伙。”接着想继续无前的谈话，可是又忘了刚才说的是什么。

    “村子里好像总有一股什么气味？”戈尔东问了一句。“头一天我就发现了。有点儿甜腻腻的讨厌的气味。好像老鼠的气味。”

    “我知道你说的是什么。那是大麻。这儿有不少大麻田。大麻本身就散发出一种使人很难受的烂果子的气味。另外，在作战地区还把敌人的死尸扔到大麻田里，日子长了没人发现就腐烂了。这一带到处都有尸体气味是很自然的。又是大炮，你听到了吗？”

    这些日子，他们几乎把世界上的事都谈遍了。戈尔东完全了解自己这位朋友对战争、对当代形势的看法。尤里·安德烈耶维奇向他讲了自己是多么难于习惯这种一定要相互消灭的血腥的逻辑，而且不忍心去看那些受伤的人，特别是可怕的现代的战场的创伤，也更难于习惯那些被最新的战争技术变成一堆丑陋不堪的肉块的残存下来的畸形人。

    戈尔东每天都陪着日瓦戈出去，所以也亲眼看见了一些情况。当然，他也意识到，无所事事地从旁看着别人表现的英勇行为，看着人家如何以非人的力量战胜可怕的死亡，并为此付出多么大的牺牲，冒多么大的风险，是很不道德的。可是，对这些只能发出几声无能为力、毫不起作用的叹息，他觉得也没有丝毫高尚的意味。他认为，待人接物要适合现实生活为你安排的环境，要诚实而自然。

    有一次到西边离火线很近的战地包扎所的红十字支队去，这时候他就亲身体验到有些伤员的模样确实可以使人晕倒。

    他们来到一半已经被炮火轰倒了的大森林中间的空地上。在被毁坏和践踏过的灌木丛里，头朝下躺着几辆被打坏的炮车。有一棵树上挂着一匹战马。远处可以看到有一幢林务所的木头房子，房顶被掀去了半边。包扎所就设在林务所办公室和林子中间的两座灰色大帐篷里。两座帐篷搭在经过林务所的那条路的两边。

    “把你带来可真没有必要，”日瓦戈说道，“差不多紧挨着战壕，离这儿只有一里半或者两里，可是咱们的炮队就在那边，在林子后头。你听听，这是什么声音？别硬充英雄好汉了，我不相信你是好汉。你现在准保吓得要死，这很自然。情况每分钟都可能变化。这里会落炮弹的。”

    在林中道路两旁，一些满身尘土、疲惫不堪的年轻士兵叉开穿着沉重的皮靴的两腿躺在地上，有的面朝下，有的面朝上，军服上衣的前胸和肩肿骨部分都被汗湿透了。这是严重减员的一个班剩下来的人。他们从接连三天三夜的战斗中撤下来，到后方稍微休息一下。士兵们躺在地上一动不动，像石头一样，连笑一笑和说几句下流话的力气都没有了。当树林深处的路上响起了急速跑来的马车声音的时候，他们连头都没有回。这是几辆没有弹簧的双轮轻便马车，向上颠动着急驶过来，给包扎所送来了伤员，把这些木走运的人的骨头架子差不多都颠散了，五脏六腑都要翻个个儿。包扎所只能作些简单处理，很快打上绷带，有些特别紧急的也只能作些简单的手术。这些伤员都是半小时以前炮火稍停的时候，从堑壕前面的开阔地上运下来的，数量多得吓人，其中半数以上昏迷不醒。

    把他们运到办公室门廊前的时候，卫生员带着担架从屋子里出来开始卸车。一个护士用一只手从下边撩开帐篷的底边儿，向外观望。现在不是她值班，闲着没事。帐篷后面的树林里有两个人在大声争吵。苍翠高大的树木用很响的回声把争吵的余音传播开来，不过具体的话却听不清。伤员运到的时候，争吵的两个人从树林里来到路上，朝办公室走去。那个怒冲冲的年轻军官朝医疗分遣队的医生不住地叫嚷，一定要从他那里打听到原先驻扎在树林里的炮兵辎重队转移到哪里去了。医生什么也不知道，因为这和他毫无关系。医生请那位军官等一等，不要喊叫，伤员已经运到了，他有事情要做。可是军官仍旧不肯罢休，把红十字会、炮兵机关和世界上的一切都大骂一通。日瓦龙来到医生跟前，两个人寒暄过后，就沿台阶进入林务所。那个军官带点动靶人的口音继续在骂，一边解下拴在树上的马，跳上马背往树林深处跑去了。那个护士一直在看着。

    突然，她的脸吓得变了样子。

    “你们要干什么？是不是发疯了？”她朝两个不用人扶、自己走在担架中间往包扎所去的轻伤员喊着，一面从帐篷里跑出来，直奔路上追了过去。

    担架上抬着一个伤势特别吓人、血肉模糊的不幸者。一块炸开的炮弹壳碎片把他的脸炸得不成样子，嘴唇、舌头成了一团血酱，可是人还没死，那块弹片牢牢地卡在削掉了面颊的那个部位的颌骨缝里。这个重伤员发出轻微的、断续的呻吟，完全不像是人的声音，听到的人都会觉得这是在请求尽快了结他，解除这不可想象的拖长的痛苦。

    护土仿佛看出，旁边走着的两个轻伤员在这种呻吟声的影响下，正准备徒手从这人的面颊上把那块可怕的铁片拔下来。

    “你们要干什么，难道能这样？这得外科医生来做，要用专门器械。但不知道还有没有这个必要。”

    戈尔东在心里说：“上帝啊，上帝，请把他召去吧，可别让我怀疑你的存在！”

    眨眼之间，就在上台阶的时候，这个血肉模糊的人喊叫了一声，全身一抖，就断了气。

    死去的这个五官残缺木全的人是预备役的士兵吉马泽特金，在树林里吵嚷的那位军官是他的儿子加利乌林少尉，护土就是拉拉，戈尔东和日瓦戈亲眼目睹了这一切，他们都同在一个地方，彼此就在近旁，可是互相都没有认出来，其他人更是永远也不会知道，他们当中有些事永远无法确定，有些事只有等下一次机会，等另一次萍水相逢，才会知道。

    这一带奇迹般地还保存下来几个村庄。在这一片毁灭的海洋之中，它们成了一个不可思议的劫后余生的小岛。傍晚，戈尔东和日瓦戈回到住的地方去。太阳已经落山了。在他们路过的一个村子里，一个年轻的哥萨克在周围人的哄笑声中，把一枚五戈比的铜币抛起来，强迫一位穿长袍的白胡子犹太老人用手去接。老人总是落空，铜币每次都擦着他那双可怜地叉开的手掉到泥地上。他一弯腰去捡铜币，哥萨克就打他的屁股，围着的人从两边扶着他，笑得哼哼哟哟地直喘气。这是最让大家开心的地方。虽然暂时还看不出有什么恶意，可是谁也不能担保这样下去不会变得更严重。这人的老伴儿从对面的小屋子里跑到路上，叫喊着向他伸出双手，可是因为害怕，又躲了起来。两个小女孩哭着从屋子里看着窗外的祖父。

    赶车的士兵觉得这很好笑，就让马一步步慢慢地步，好让车上的老爷们开开心。可是日瓦戈把那个哥萨克叫到跟前来，骂了几句，让他停止这个恶作剧。“是的，老爷。”那人很顺从地回答说，“我们不懂事，只是为了开开玩笑。”

    后来，一路上戈尔东和日瓦戈都沉默着没有讲话。

    “这真可怕。”看到了他们住的那个村子的时候，尤里·安德烈耶维奇开了口。“你大概想象不到，在这次战争里犹太居民遭到什么样的苦难。打仗的地方正好是在指定的犹太人居住区。除了受罪、交纳种种苛捐杂税和倾家荡产以外，还得应付许多不合理的摊派，忍受侮辱和责难，说他们缺乏足够的爱国心。要是在敌人那边可以享受一切权利，在我们这边受迫害，他们的爱国心又能从哪儿产生呢？归根结底，就是对他们怀着强烈的憎恨心理。他们贫困、吝啬、软弱和不会抵抗，这本来是应该同情和体谅的，反而让人生气。真弄不明白，这里边似乎有点儿宿命的味道。”

    对他的这番议论，戈尔东什么也没说。

    他们又是各自躺在那扇狭长的窗子的两头。已经是夜里了，两个人还在谈话。

    日瓦戈向戈尔东讲他如何在前线看到了沙皇。他说得有声有色。

    那是他在前线度过的第一个春天。他被派去的那个部队的司令部设在喀尔巴吁山的一个盆地里。部队的任务是封锁从匈牙利方面通往盆地的人口。

    盆地底部是个火车站。日瓦戈给戈尔东描述当地的地形，那些长满了粗壮的枫树、松树的高山顶端镶着朵朵白云，森林中隐现的灰色板岩和石墨岩峭壁像是浓密的毛皮当中磨出的秃疤。那是天还没有亮的四月里的一个清晨，潮湿而又灰蒙蒙的，就像那岩石一样；四周让高山围着，所以一切都显得是凝滞不动的，非常闷热。地上蒸发的水汽笼罩了盆地，不断形成一股股气流向上升腾，中间还夹杂着从车站来的火车头的烟气，湿淋淋的草地是灰色的，山也是灰色的，衬托着苍黑的森林和片片乌云。

    这些天，沙皇正在巡视加利奇亚地区。突然有通知说，他要到由他担任名誉长官的驻守在这里的部队来。

    他随时都可能抵达。站台上布置了欢迎的仪仗队。人们疲乏地等候了一两个小时。然后，接连通过了两列豪华的火车。又过了一会儿，沙皇的专车开到了。

    在尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇大公爵的陪同下，陛下检阅了这支由近卫军组成的精锐部队。他那嗓音不高的每一句问候的话，仿佛是摇荡着一桶桶的水一样，激起了一阵阵雷鸣般的欢呼。

    带着腼腆笑容的沙皇，给人的印象似乎要比纸币和勋章上的肖像显得苍老和没有精神。他面容倦怠，略有点浮肿。他不时像带点儿歉意似的侧过头来看一看尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇，不知道在这种场合要求他作出什么表示。尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇毕恭毕敬地弯身凑到他的耳旁，用不着说话，只是通过眉头或肩部的动作就让他摆脱了窘迫。

    在这个灰蒙蒙的湿热的山区的清晨，让人感到沙皇也很可怜，而且一想到那种怯生生的矜持和拘谨可能就是这位统治者的本来面目，决定生杀予夺的就是这种软弱性格，简直使人不寒而栗。

    “他本应当讲些这类的话，比如说：‘我，我的剑和我的人民……

    ’就像威廉皇帝那样，总之是这方面的话。不过一定要提一提人民，这是必不可少的。可是你要知道，他天生是俄罗斯化的，可悲的是还要更加鄙俗。问题在于这种矫揉造作在俄国是不可思议的。因为这本来就是装腔作势，难道不是吗？如果说是凯撒治下的那些民族，像高卢人，或斯维夫人，或伊利里亚人，我还可以理解。可是从那个时期往后，这个名称只不过是个虚构，为的就是让那些皇帝、政客和王公在演说时可以这样讲：人民，我的人民。

    “这么一来，前线上的采访人员和新闻记者可就多得成灾了。写出了各式各样的‘见闻’，记录了种种的名言警句，探视了伤员并且提出了有关民意的新理论。这简直就像达利先生再世，同样是精于杜撰的、有文字痹的、追求文章辞藻的写作狂。这是一类。还有另一类，最喜欢用不连贯的词句，精雕粗刻，又带有怀疑和厌世的味道。比方说，我曾读过的，有一位就写了这么一段有深寓意的文字：‘天色阴沉，宛如昨日。一清早就开始落雨，遍地泥泞。临窗眺望大路，那是鱼贯行进着看不到头的俘虏。车上运的是伤员。大炮正在射击。今天又在射击，和昨天一样，明日仍如今朝，每日每时，周而复始……’你看，这够多深刻，多俏皮！不过他为什么要迁怒于大炮？要求大炮打出花样来，太自命不凡了！为什么对大炮感到奇怪，而不对他自己每天发射大量的用远号隔开的流水账似的词句觉得奇怪呢？为什么不停止这种像跳蚤蹦跳一样匆忙发射出来的字面上的仁慈呢？他应该明白，不是大炮而恰好是他才应该有新面貌，不要旧调重弹；靠笔记本记下大量言之无物的东西永远也不会有什么内容；如果没有自己的见地，如果缺乏那么一点奔放的天才或是某种传奇的色彩，事实也就失去了意义。”

    “非常正确，”戈尔东打断了他的话，“现在我要说说今天我们看到的那个场面。这个拿一位长者嘲笑取乐的哥萨克，完全同无数类似的情况一样，是最普通的一种卑劣下贱的举动。很清楚，对这种举动用不着讲大道理，抽他的嘴巴就行了。要是说到整个犹太人的问题，就需要哲学，而且它会出乎意料地翻个个儿。不过，我也提不出任何新的见解。你我的这些思想，都是从你舅舅那儿来的。

    “人民是什么？——这是你刚才问到的。对他们是不是需要过分迁就照顾？凡不是存心打算取悦于人民，而是用自己的丰功

    伟绩使万民趋之若骛并受到颂扬而留芳百世的人，这不就是他应有的本分吗？哦，这是当然的。话说回来，在基督教的时代还需要谈什么民族呢？因为这已经不是一般的民族了，而是被说服和教化过的，所以关键在于转变，而不在于恪守；目的基础。我们不妨回想一下《新约》。它对这个问题是怎么说的呢？首先，《新约》并不曾规定：要这样，要那样。它只提出一些朴素的、稳重的主张。它提出：你愿不愿按照以前从未有过的新的方式生活，愿不愿得到精神上的幸福？结果，上下几千年所有的人都采纳了这个建议。

    “当它谈到天国里既没有古希腊人也没有犹太人的时候，难道仅仅说的是在上帝面前人人平等吗？不是的，只为这个也不需要《新约》，在这以前，希腊的哲人、罗马的圣贤和价日约》的先知早就了解这个道理。不过它说的是这个意思：在深思熟虑的心灵里，在新的生活方式当中，在被称作天国的新的交往范围里，没有民族，有的只是个人。

    “你刚才说过，如果不加进某种思想的话，事实也是毫无意义的。基督教和个人奉行的宗教仪式，正应该加进事实中去，从而才使它对人具有意义。

    “我们已经谈到了那些对生活和世界总体上说无所贡献的庸才，那些眼光狭小的二流货色，他们感兴趣的就是总要有那么一种关于人民的话题，人民最好还是弱小的，所以就要受苦受难，因此也就听任对他们的摆布，同时在他们身上还可以满足大发善心的欲望。这种灾难的独一无二的、百分之百的牺牲者就是犹太人。民族的意识已然规定他们必须麻木不仁地永远充当百姓，世世代代都不可改变，可是在这期间他们当中产生的一股力量却把整个世界从这种卑微的任格之下解救出来。多么奇怪！这又怎么发生的呢？这个欢欣鼓舞的节日，这种从平庸混沌状态之中的解脱，这种克服了终日碌碌无为的飞跃，所有这一切就诞生在他们的土地上，使用的是他们的语言，和他们属于同一个种族。他们难道对此视而不见、听而不闻地白白放过了？他们不可能让自己的精神失去如此引人入胜的美德和力量，他们木可能同意在这股力量取得胜利和左右一切的地位的时候，心安理得地继续充当已经被他们抛掉的这种怪事的徒有其表的外壳。这样自讨苦吃究竟对谁有利，究竟是谁需要世世代代忍辱负重，让那些绝对无辜的、对善与爱能够如此体贴入微的老人、妇女和儿童流淌鲜血！为什么这个民族的精神主宰不远远地甩开这种过分廉价的举世闻名的受苦的方式和有讥讽味道的智慧？为什么不肯冒险放弃自己的这项不可更改的职责，而像锅炉在巨大压力之下爆炸一样，把这支不知道为了什么而正在挣扎和受到残害的队伍释放出来？为什么不说：‘你们清醒清醒吧，够了。别再这样了。不要像过去那样自命不凡了。别再抱成一团，散开来吧。你们应该和所有的人一样。你们是世界上最早、最好的基督徒。你们当中那些最低级的、最软弱的，才是你们的对立面。’”

    第二天，日瓦戈回来吃午饭的时候说：

    “你不是总说急着要走么，这话可应验了。我决不能说‘你真走运’，咱们又被包围了，这还算什么运气？往东去的路还通，可是又从西边朝我们压过来了。已经命令所有的医疗单位收缩集中。我们明天或者后天就要开拔。到哪儿去可不知道。卡尔片柯，米哈伊尔·格里戈里耶维奇的内衣还没洗好吧。真是说不清道不明。光说是干亲家、干亲家，你要正经问他是怎么个干亲家，他自己也莫名其妙，糊涂虫。”

    他根本没去听勤务兵如何东拉西扯地为自己辩解，也没有注意因为临走不得木穿上日瓦戈的内衣而不大痛快的戈尔东，继续说：

    “唉，咱们这个行军当中的家，算得上是个吉卜赛人的窝，刚来的时候我觉得什么都不顺眼，炉子放的不是地方，天花板太低，而且又脏又闷。可是现在，你打死我也想不起来在这以前还住过什么更好的地方。看着炉子角上的磁砖反射的阳光和路边那棵树的影子在它的上面晃来晃去，似乎就在这儿住一辈子也可以。”

    他们开始不慌不忙地收拾东西。

    夜里，喧嚷、喊叫、射击和奔跑的声音把他们惊醒了。村子被不祥地照得很亮。窗外人影憧憧。一墙之隔的房主人也醒了，翻着身。“卡尔片柯，快到外边去问问，怎么这么乱糟糟的，”尤里·安德烈耶维奇说道。

    很快就都清楚了。急忙穿好衣服的日瓦戈，亲自跑到师部医院想去证实这是谣传，结果却是实情。德军在这一地段突破了俄军的抵抗。整个防线向村子这边推进，越逼越近。这个村子已在炮火射程之内。师部医院和机关不等撤退命令到来就匆忙开始撤离。估计天亮以前撤退完毕。

    “你随第一梯队走，有一辆敞篷马车立刻就走，我已经告诉他们等你一下。那就再见吧。我送你去上车。”

    他们朝医疗队正在装车的村子另一头跑去。跑过一幢幢房屋的时候，他们弯着腰，凭借墙角的掩护。子弹在街上懂懂叫着飞过。在田野里几条路交叉的道口上，可以看得见榴霸弹爆炸的火光，像撑开的伞一样。

    “你怎么办？”戈尔东边跑边问。

    “我随后走。还得回去取东西。我和第二梯队一起走。”

    他们在村口告别了。几辆大车和一辆敞篷车组成的车队出发了，一辆挨着一辆，然后逐渐排成一列。尤里·安德烈耶维奇向远去的朋友挥着手。一座烧着的木板棚的火光照出了他们的身影。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇尽力靠着房檐屋角的遮避，赶忙往回跑。就在离他的住处还差两幢房屋的地方，一股爆炸的气浪把他掀倒在地，一颗开花弹使他受了伤。尤里·安德烈耶维奇跌倒在路中间，流着血，失去了知觉。

    撤下来的陆军医院孤单地设在西部边区铁路线上的一座城市里，和大本营相邻。正是二月底的温煦的日子。在身体快要复原的军官病房里，依照正在那里治疗的尤里·安德烈耶维奇的要求，靠近他病床的一扇窗是开着的。

    快要吃午饭了。病员各以其力所能及的方式在消磨饭前的这段时间。他们被告知说，医院里新到的一个护士今天第一次要到这儿来查房。尤里·安德烈耶维奇对面躺着的加利乌林正在翻看刚刚收到的《言语》和《俄罗斯之声》，对新闻检查官给开的天窗十分愤慨。尤里·安德烈耶维奇在读野战邮局送来的东尼娜的信，一下子就积压了一擦。微风掀动信笺和报纸。这时传来了轻轻的脚步声。尤里·安德烈耶维奇从信纸上抬起眼睛。拉拉走进了病房。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇和少尉都认出了她，可是彼此并不知道这一点。她对他们俩都不认识。她说：

    “你们好。为什么开着窗？你们不冷吗？”她说着，走到加利乌林跟前。

    “什么地方不舒服？”她一边问，一边拉住他的一只手，准备量脉搏，可是立刻又把手放开了，自己也坐到床边的椅子上，显出很窘迫的样子。

    “可真没想到，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜，”加利乌林回答说，“我和您的丈夫在一个团里，我认识帕维尔·帕夫洛维奇。我还为您保存着他的东西。”

    “不可能，不可能，”她重复地说，“这真是巧得出奇。这么说您认识他？请快告诉我，全部经过是怎样的？说是他牺牲了，让土给埋住了？什么都不用隐瞒，您不用担心，因为我都知道。”

    加利乌林没有足够的勇气去证实她从种种传言当中得到的这种情况。他决定哄骗她，让她安下心来。

    “安季波夫被俘了。”他说，“发起攻击的时候，他带领自己那部分人在前面跑得太远，结果就剩下一个人。他被包围了，不得不投降。”

    可是拉拉并不相信加利乌林的话。由于这番话让人吃惊地感到突然，她非常激动，控制不住就要涌出来的热泪，也不愿意在不相干的人面前哭泣。她急忙站起身，走出病房，想在走廊里镇静下来。

    过了一会儿她又回来，外表已经平静了。她有意不往加利乌林那边看，为的是不要再忍不住哭出来。她径直走到尤里·安德烈耶维奇床前，心不在焉地、例行公事地说：

    “您好，哪儿不舒服？”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇看到她的激动和眼泪，想问问她发生了什么事，也很想说出曾经有两次和她相遇，一次是他还在中学的时候，另一次是已经上了大学，但又觉得这样有点儿失礼，会让她认为举动有失检点。接着他突然想起当初在西夫采夫的时候，故世的安娜·伊万诺夫娜睡在棺材里的模样和东尼哑的哭喊，于是就忍住了，反而说了一句：

    “谢谢您。我自己就是医生，自己会给自己看病。我什么也不需要。”

    “他为什么生我的气？”拉拉心里想，奇怪地看着这位翘鼻子的、其貌不扬的陌生人。

    接连几天都是多变的、不稳定的天气，一到充满了湿润的泥土气味的夜晚，就刮起飒飒作响的温暖的风。

    这些天不断从大本营传来一些奇怪的消息，从家里、从内地也传来了令人不安的谣传。和彼得堡的电讯联系已经中断。各个角落都在谈论政治性的话题。

    每一次值班，护士安季波娃早晨和晚上都要查一次房，这时就和病房的其他伤员，也和加利乌林以及尤里·安德烈耶维奇交谈三言两语的闲话。“真是个奇怪的耐人寻味的人，”她是这么想的，“年轻轻的就对人把不怎么客气。长了个翘鼻子，根本说不上漂亮。是个正经的聪明人，头脑灵活机敏，让人有好感。不过问题不在这上面。要紧的是尽快完成自己在这里的责任，然后调到莫斯科去，和卡坚卡离得近一些。到了莫斯科就要求解除护士的工作，然后回尤里亚金，到学校去工作。因为关于可怜的帕图利亚的情况都弄清楚了，一切希望也都落空了，所以没有必要再继续充当什么战地女英雄，而她正是为了找他才让人家给宣传了这么一阵子。”

    不知道卡坚卡现在怎么样？可怜的失去了父亲的孤儿（想到这里她又哭了）。近来的变化太大了。不久前还～心想的是对祖国的神圣责任，是军人的英勇和崇高的公德。可是仗打败了，这才是最主要的灾难，因此其余的一切也就失去了光彩，丝毫神圣的意味都没有了。

    突然间一切都变了样儿，言论变了，空气也变了，既不会思考，又觉得无所适从。仿佛有生以来就像个孩子似的让人牵着手走，如今骤然把手放开，要自己学着迈步了。而且周围既没有亲人，也没有权威人士。于是便想信赖最主要的东西，即生活的力量、美和真理，让它们而不是让被打破了的人类各种法规来支配你，使你过一种比已往那种平静、熟悉、逸乐的生活更加充实的、毫无遗憾的生活。不过在她这种情况下——拉拉及时地醒悟到这一点——无可置疑的唯一目的就是抚养卡坚卡。帕图利奇卡已经不在人世，如今拉拉只是作为一个母亲而活着，要把一切力量都倾注在卡坚卡这个可怜的孤儿身上。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇接到信说，戈尔东和杜多罗夫未经他同意就把他的书出版了，很受欢迎，预示他在文学上大有前途。还说到目前莫斯科的形势既使人感兴趣，也令人不安，下层干民中隐伏着的激愤情绪日益增强，大家似乎处在某一重要事件的前夕，严重的政治事件迫近了。

    夜已经深了，尤里·安德烈耶维奇不断地克制着难耐的困倦。他一阵阵地打着脑儿，心想在这样紧张的一天过后，他不可能睡熟，而且现在真没睡着。在窗外，睡意惺松般的微风似乎轻轻打着呵欠。如泣如诉的风声仿佛在说：“东尼娘，舒罗奇卡，多么想念你们哪，我是多么渴望回家去工作啊。”在这微风的喃喃低语声中，尤里·安德烈耶维奇时睡时醒，短暂而又令人不安地交迭着苦乐不同的心境，恰似这多变的天时和今晚这个捉摸木定的黑夜。

    拉拉想的是：“他表现出这么大的关心，怀念并且保存着可怜的帕图利奇卡的遗物，可我简直蠢得像猪，连人家是谁、是哪儿来的人都没问。”

    第二天早上查房的时候，为了弥补前几次的疏忽并遮掩一下自己的失礼，她仔仔细细地询问了这位加利乌林的情况，其间不住地发出惊叹声。

    “上帝，您真是太圣明了！布列斯特街二十八号，季韦尔辛一家，一九0五年革命的那个冬天，尤苏普卡？不认识。对不起，木知道尤苏普卡，也许是不记得了。可是就在那一年，那一年和那个院子！啊，不错，是有这座院子，也正是在那一年！”嗅，她一下子就把这一切都回忆起来了！还有当时的那些枪声，还有（是什么来着，一下子又想不起来了），还有《基督的意愿》！啊，小时候初次感受的力量真大，印象真深哪！“对不起，请原谅，少尉，您怎么称呼？嗅，对，对，您已经告诉过我了。谢谢，太感谢您了，奥西普·吉马泽特金诺维奇，您唤醒了我的多么美好的回忆和思念啊！”

    一整天她心中就装着“那座院子”到处走动，不断地叹息，而且几乎要说出口来似的盘算着。

    “想想看吧，布列斯特街二十八号！又是枪声，木过这回更可怕得多了！这可不是那些‘男孩子们在放枪’。那些男孩子已经长大成人，而且都在这儿——都在军队里，全部是来自同样院落、同样村庄的普普通通的人。太惊人了！太不可思议了！”

    拉着手杖和架着拐的人走进房来，邻近病房那些伤残而不需要人扶的人跑了进来，大家争先恐后地喊着：

    “最重要的事件发生了。彼得堡街上已经开始骚动。彼得堡卫戍部队站到了起义者一边。革命了。”

    这个小城叫作梅留泽耶沃，它坐落在一片黑土地带。漫天飞的蝗虫像整块的乌云悬在城市房屋的上空，部队和辎重车队潮水般地穿城而过，扬起黑色的烟尘。从战场撤下来的和开往前线的，这两个方面的人流和车辆从早到晚不曾中断。谁也说不准仗是在继续打，还是已经结束了。

    像雨后春笋一样，每天都会冒出～批新的职务。这些都得选一些人去担任，其中包括他、加利乌林中尉和护士安季波娃，还有他们那一伙儿的另外几个，算是寥寥可数的来自大都市的见过世面的人物。

    他们占据了市自治机关的几个职位，同时还兼任分驻在几处小地方的部队和医疗队的政委。对待这些需要不断轮流处理的公务，他们都抱着像在户外玩捉人游戏似的娱乐消遣的态度。然而他们始终索索于怀的，就是尽快摆脱这种把戏，赶回家园从事各自长远的事业。

    由于工作上的关系，日瓦戈和安季波娃时常见面。

    乌黑的烟尘被雨水搅拌成咖啡似的茶色泥浆，覆盖在城里的街道上。

    这座城市很小。在任何地方只需稍微顺着街角向外一走，放眼望去就是一片忧郁的田野和阴暗的天空，那里就是正在进行战争和革命的空间。尤里·安德烈耶维奇给妻子的信是这样写的：

    部队里仍然存在溃散和混乱现象。正在想办法加强士兵的纪律，提高他们的战斗力。我曾经巡视过驻地附近的几支部队。

    最后，想说的是，也许我早已告诉过你了——在这里直接和我一起工作的就是那个从莫斯科来的护士、乌拉尔人安季波娃。

    还记不记得，就在你妈妈去世的那个可怕的晚上，在圣诞晚会上朝检察官开枪的那个姑娘？后来好像还审判过她。记得当时我对你说过，这个女子高等师范的学生当初还在中学的时候，我和米沙就曾经在一个蹩脚的小旅店里见过她。现在已经记不清楚是为了什么事和你爸爸一起到那儿去的了。那个晚上冷极了，现在回想起来仿佛就是在普列斯纳发生武装起义的时候。她就是安季波娃。

    好几次想尽一切办法回家。不过，这事可不简单。主要还不是被工作耽搁了，要办的事可以移交给旁人，丝毫不会有什么影响。困难在于交通。要不就是火车根本不来，要不就是人多得挤不上去。

    不过，看来也不会永远这样下去，所以，有几个已经伤愈的、退役的和辞去职务的人，其中就包括我、加利乌林和安季波娃，下决心无论如何在下星期一定出发，而且为了坐车方便，一个一个地分别在不同的日子起程。

    说不定哪一天我就会到家，就像一片雪花飘落到头上一样。不过，我还是力争事先能发个电报。然而，就在动身之前，尤里·安德烈耶维奇却赶上了收到安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜的一封回信。

    在这封由于痛哭而顾不上推敲字眼、纸上的泪痕代替标点的信里，安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜极力劝说丈夫索性不回莫斯科，不如直奔乌拉尔去追踪那个不同寻常的女护土，因为她经历当中那些传奇性的遭遇，决不是东尼娜那种平庸的生活道路能比得上的。

    “不要担心萨申卡和他的未来，”她写道，“你也不必为了他而觉得羞愧。我保证一定按照你从小在我们家看到的那些规矩来养育他。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇忙不迭地提笔回信：

    你简直是发疯了，东尼证，这是多大的疑心病啊！难道你还不知道，或者还没有足够理解，正是因为有了你，有了对你的思念，有了对你和家庭的忠诚，才把我从死亡和这两年战争期间所有那些可怕的、毁灭性的遭遇当中挽救出来？其实，说这些也是多余的。我们很快就要见面了，重新开始过去的生活，那时一切都会清楚的。不过，你能给我写这样的回信，倒引起了我另一方面的担心。如果我当真给了你这封回信以某种口实，可能我的举止确实有轻率的地方，那么，在这个女人面前我是惭愧的，因为这会让人家感到迷惑不解，应该向她表示歉意。等她从附近几个村子巡视回来，我一定这么办。过去只是省、县才有的地方自治会，如今在更低一级的机构，在乡里，也都在建立。安季波娃是去帮助她的一个女朋友，那人的职务就是指导这些新设的法定机关的视导员。

    虽然和安季波娃住在同一幢房子里，可是到现在我还不知道她住在哪个房间，而且也从来也没想到这一点，这可真是妙极了。从梅留泽耶沃往东和往西，有两条大路。一条是土路，穿过森林直通济布申诺。那是一个买卖粮食的小镇，行政区隶属梅留泽耶沃，可是其他方面都超过了后者。另一条是碎石路，它穿过一片到夏季就干涸的沼泽草地通往比留奇。那是离梅留泽耶沃不很远的两条铁路交汇的一个枢纽站。

    六月间，在济布申诺曾经出现了一个独立的济布申带共和国，只存在了两个星期。这是由当地的一个磨坊工人布拉热依柯宣告成立的。

    共和国依靠的是二百一十二步兵团的部分逃兵。他们携枪离开了阵地，经过比留奇来到济布申诺的时候，正赶上革命。

    共和国不承认临时政府，而且也脱离整个俄罗斯。年轻时曾经和托尔斯泰有过通信关系的教派分子布拉热依柯，宣告在济布申诺建立永世不变的统治，实行集体劳动和财产共有制，把原来乡的行政机关改叫作使徒会。

    济布申诺从来就是种种奇谈怪论的发祥地，它坐落在一片难于通行的密林当中，混乱时代的文献里边就有关于该地的记载，后来又因为周围不断出没的强人而出了名。人们茶余酒后常常提到的，是此地有不少殷实可靠的商家，再有就是它那神话般肥沃的土质。这临近前线的西边地带，有些风俗信仰和方言特色正是从济市申话传来的。

    如今风言风语的一些谣传，都是关于布拉热依柯的那位主要助手的。人们都一口咬定说，那个天生的聋哑人借着一股灵气就能开口说话，灵气一过就又成了哑巴。

    六月间，济布申诺共和国垮了台。效忠临时政府的军队开到了这个地方。那股逃兵从济布申诺被赶了出去，朝比留奇的方向追去。

    离比留奇有见俄里远的铁路线以外，周围是一片砍伐过的森林残址，现在那里剩下来的树桩上已经长满了革莓，一半的地面上是没有运完的拆散了的柴垛，还有些当初的季节性伐木工住过的已经坍塌的地窖。那些逃兵就在这里扎了营。

    日瓦戈医生先前在那里养伤、后来就留下来工作、如今又要离开的那所陆军医院，就设在扎布林斯卡哑伯爵夫人的别墅里。主人从战争一开始就把它献给了伤兵。这座两层楼的别墅修建在梅留泽耶沃最好的地点，坐落在城里那条主要街道和中心广场的交叉点上。人们把这片广场叫作操场，因为从前士兵们在这里出操，现在晚上用来开群众大会。

    由于这里处于路口的位置，在几个不同的方向上从别墅向外望去，视野都很开阔。除了那条主要的街道和广场以外，还可以看到紧相邻的一所院落。那份寒酸的外乡人的家当，简直和一家农村住户毫无二致。别墅后墙之外就是伯爵夫人的旧花园，那里有一道门也可以通到邻家的院子。扎布林斯卡姬从来没把这幢房子当作一份了不起的产业。在县里她还有一片叫作“逍遥津”的领地，这房子只作为进城办事时的一个落脚点，同时也是夏天从四面八方往领地去的客人聚集的地方。爵夫人已经出嫁的两个女儿的老家庭教师弗列里小姐，另一位是皮肤白皙的女厨师乌斯季尼姬。‘弗列里小姐是个头发花白、面色红润的老太婆，脚上拖一双便鞋，身上穿一件肥大的道邀遍遇的长衫，就这样衣冠不整、蓬头散发地在整个医院里走来走去地照料着。她对医院已经有了好感，就像当初对待扎布林斯基一家那样，逢人就用那半通不通的俄国话说点什么，把每个词的尾音都按照法语的习惯咽掉了。谈话时她总爱摆姿势，不停地摇动着两只手，咕叨到最后就会爆发一阵嘶哑的笑声，结果则是忍不住的一次长时间的咳嗽。弗列里小姐对护士安季波娃的底细了如指掌。她觉得医生和护士本来就应该相互倾心。出于深深扎根于浪漫天性的撮合男女私情的病好，这位老小姐总要高高兴兴地促使这两个人呆在一起。凡是这种时候，她就意味深长地用手指比划着恫吓人的样子，一边像调笑似的朝他们眨眼睛。安季波娃觉得莫名其妙，医生则很恼怒，可是老小姐也同所有脾气古怪的人一样，总是把自己的误解放在首位，无论如何也不肯丢掉它。

    乌斯季尼娜古怪的天性更有过之。这个女人生就一副不匀称的上窄下宽的身材，活像一只正在抱窝的母鸡。她为人枯燥乏味但又精明到狡诈的程度，不过，在这个清醒的头脑里却掺杂着极强的幻想力，特别是有一种控制不住的迷信的倾向。

    乌斯季尼妞通晓许多民间的咒语，每逢离家外出的时候，如果不对着钥匙孔念几句咒语，说几句祈求炉火安全和自身避邪的话，她是一步也不肯迈的。乌斯季尼姐是济布申话本地人，据说是个乡村巫师的女儿。

    只要那股莫名的激情不曾压倒她，乌斯季尼姐就可以整年一言不发，而一旦爆发就无法遏止，一心想的只是要为真理而战。

    济市申诺共和国失败以后，梅留泽耶沃的执委会就开展了反对各地流行的无政府主义思潮的运动。每天晚间，操场上都自然地形成平静的集会，人数并不多，无事可做的梅留泽耶沃的居民就信步到这里来，像往年夏天到消防队门前露天闲坐一阵一样。梅留泽耶沃的文教干事很赞赏这种集会，经常从自己那里或是过往的人员当中派些人来进行指导。他们认为最荒唐无稽的就是关于济布申诺的那个会说话的聋哑人的传说，于是都在发言中不断地加以揭露。可是梅留泽耶沃当地的小手工业者、士兵和过去老爷家里的使女，却另有看法。他们觉得一个聋哑人会说话并不是不可思议的事，所以纷纷为之辩护。

    在人群中为聋哑人进行的乱糟糟的辩解当中，常常会听到乌斯季尼姐的声音。起初她还下不了决心抛头露面，女人的羞涩心理起了牵制作用。但是她逐渐有了勇气，用一些在梅留泽耶沃并不受欢迎的想法来挑剔讲话的人。她就这样不知不觉地成了讲台上的一个饶舌妇。

    通过敞开的窗子，在别墅里可以听得到操场上混成一片的说话声，要是在十分寂静的夜晚，甚至可以零零星星地听出个别人讲话的内容。逢到乌斯季尼娜发言，弗列里小姐就经常会跑到房子里来劝说大家仔细去听，一边颠三倒四地、高高兴兴地学着说：

    “说不过了！说不过啦！像连珠炮似的！喊了一声！哑巴！变了，又变了！”

    这位老小姐心里却暗暗地把这个伶牙俐齿的泼辣女人引为骄傲。女人家总是体贴入微地表现得彼此息息相关，但是也会永无止境地互相呼叨和埋怨。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇按部就班地做着起程的准备，应该告别的人家和单位都去了一遍，必要的证明文件也领到了。

    这时，前线这支部队的一位新政委到军里去的途中，在城里停留下来。关于此人，已经有些传闻说他还是个毛孩子。

    那时正是准备一次新的大规模进攻的日子，尽力想办法提高部队的士气。部队已经集结，成立了革命军事法庭，恢复了不久前取消的死刑。

    起程之前，医生需要到城防司令那里办理注销手续。担任这城防司令职务的是军事长官，大家都随便地叫他“县长”。

    他那里经常拥挤不堪，令人望而生畏。无论是走廊里还是院子当中，甚至办公室几扇窗外的半条街上，都是乱哄哄的。要想挤到他的桌子跟前根本不可能，而由于几百个人同时都在讲话，结果谁也听不清说的是什么。

    这一天不是接待日。在那间空荡荡、静悄悄的大办公室里，对越来越复杂的公文程序感到不满的几名文书，默默地写着，不时互相交换几个带有嘲讽意味的眼色。从首长办公室传出欢快的笑语声，那里的人肯定是敞开制服领子，正在舒舒服服地享用清凉饮料。

    加利乌林正好到外间屋来，一看到日瓦戈，他做了个准备跑开的动作来招呼医生也到里面去分享那里的欢乐。

    医生反正是要到办公室去找首长签字。到那里，他才看到一个最不成体统的场面。

    伊然成了这个小城镇当前第一号风头人物的新政委，并不急于去上任，反而逗留在这间同司令部当前急务毫不相干的办公室里，站在这几个部队文读人员的面前口若悬河地讲个不停。

    “这是我们的又一位明星，”“县长”这样说着把医生介绍给政委，可是政委完全陷于自我陶醉的境地，对他一眼也不看。为了给医生递过来的文件签字，“县长”改变了一下坐的姿势，随后又恢复了原样，接着就用一个亲切的手势给日瓦戈指了指屋子当中一个低矮的软坐凳。

    在场的只有医生一人端正地坐着，其余人的姿态一个比一个放荡不羁。“县长”用一只手托着头，仿效皮却林的模样半躺在写字台旁边；他那位身躯肥硕的助手坐在对面沙发的扶手上，曲起两腿，胯下仿佛是一具女用鞍具；加利乌林反身骑在一把椅子上，两手拢着符背，头靠在上边；年轻的政委一会儿用手撑着窗台，一会儿又跳下来，像是一头刚出洞的狼意，一刻也不停歇，踏着细碎的脚步在屋子里走来走去。他一口气地说着，讲的是比留奇逃兵的事情。

    关于这位政委的传闻得到证实。这是个身材瘦削、匀称而尚未发育成熟的少年，却表现得像是一支燃放出最崇高的理想之光的小蜡烛。据说他出身于富有的门第，父亲似乎做过枢密官。二月间，他是第一批率领自己的连队转向国家杜马方面的军官之一。他大概是姓金茨或者金采，因为给他们两个人作介绍的时候医生没有听清。政委讲的是一口纯正的彼得堡话，吐字非常清晰，稍稍带一点波罗的海东部沿岸的口音。

    他穿着一件紧身的直领上装。由于这么年轻，大概自己也觉得不大自在，而为了显得年长一些，就硬板起面孔作出长篇大论讲话的模样，同时有意地摆出拱肩驼背的姿势。为此他把两手深深地插到马裤的裤兜里，缀着挺括的新肩章的肩头向上耸起，完全是一副标准的骑兵架式，从两肩到双脚可以由上到下划出两条在地面相交的直线。

    “离这里只有几站远的铁路上有一个哥萨克团。是个可靠的红军团。如果把他们调过来，对暴乱分子实行包围，事情就解决了。军团司令坚持要尽快解除他们的武装。”“县长”向政委介绍情况说。

    “哥萨克？无论如何不行！”政委勃然变色。“现在早就不是一九O五年了，说的都是老掉了牙的话！在这个问题上，我们的看法截然相反，您的那些将军们过于自作聪明了。”

    “还没有采取任何行动，目前只不过有这种打算。”

    “同军事指挥员达成协议，我们不干预作战部署和命令。我不能取消对哥萨克团的调动。就让他们这么办好了。不过，在我这方面要按照明智的启示采取措施。他们已经在那边宿营了？”

    “这要看怎么说，不过设防还是相当牢靠的。”

    “那好。我到他们那里去一次。请把这个危险的地点，这伙绿林好汉呆的地方指给我。尽管他们是暴乱分子，甚至是逃兵，然而仍旧是老百姓。诸位，别把这一点忘记了。对待老百姓就像对待婴儿一样，应该了解他们，掌握他们的心理，这就要用特殊的方法。要善于触动他们最美好的、最敏感的心弦，才能发出音响。

    “我一定要到那个砍伐过的林场去，同他们推心置腹地谈一谈。您等着看吧，他们会老老实实地返回放弃了的阵地的。想不想打个赌？您不相信？”

    “不见得。木过，但愿上帝保佑！”

    “我要对他们说：佛兄们，请看看我吧。我是个独生子，是全家的希望，可是我一切都在所不惜，牺牲了家庭门第，牺牲了父母的爱，为的是给你们争取任何一个国家的人民都享受不到的自由。无数这样的青年和我一样，就是这么做的，当然更不用说那些老一辈的光荣的先驱者们了。也无需再说那些备受苦难的民粹主义者和民意派了。这样奋斗莫非是为了自己？难道我们需要这样？现在你们已经不再是过去的那种士兵，而是世界上第～支革命队伍里的军人。你们不妨扪心自问，是不是配得上这个崇高的称号？正当祖国的身上流淌鲜血，使出最后的力气摆脱缠在身边的毒蛇一般的敌人的时候，你们居然甘心受那伙来路不明的过路人的蒙蔽，把自己变成了毫无觉悟的败类，成了一群放纵的、贪得无厌的恶棍。’这简直就像把猪养在桌子底下，猪爪子当然要扒到桌面上来——哼，我可把这帮人看透了，要让他们知道什么是羞耻！”

    “不，不行，这太冒险。”“县长”试着提出不同意见，一面偷偷地和助手交换了一个意味深长的眼色。

    加利乌林一再劝说政委放弃他那种极不合理的新奇想法。加利乌林很了解第二百一十二步兵团的那伙胆大包天的人，因为他曾经在该团隶属的师里服过役。但是政委根本不听他的话。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇一直想起身走开。政委那番天真幼稚的表演使他感到难为情。不过，“县长”和他的助手尽管善于冷嘲热讽，满腹诡计，可是卖弄的聪明把戏也并不比他高明多少。这种愚蠢和这种狡诈恰好相互抵消。所有这些都是靠着连篇累牍的废话表现出来的，既无任何存在的价值，又缺乏明确的含义，生活本身正是迫切需要摆脱这一切。

    啊，有时候真是多么希望能远远地离开这些平庸的高调和言之无物的陈词滥调，在貌似无声的大自然的沉寂中返朴归真，或者是默默地长久投身于顽强劳作，或者索性沉捆在酣睡、音乐和充满心灵交融之乐的无言之中！

    医生这时才又想起了将要向安季波娃作的绝非愉快的表白。为了必须和她见面，他感到高兴，尽管要付出很大的代价。不过，她是不是已经回来了，还很难说。抓住头一个方便的机会，医生站起身来，不让人注意地走出了这间办公室。

    原来她已经回来了。这个消息是家庭教师小姐告诉医生的，她还补充说，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜到家的时候显得很疲乏，匆忙用过晚饭就到自己房里去了，嘱咐不要惊动她。“不过，您可以去敲敲门。”老小姐建议道，“她大概还没睡。”“她的房间在哪儿？”医生这一问，使老小姐大感意外。原来安季波娃就住在楼上走廊的尽头，左右几个锁着的房间存放着扎布林斯卡娜在此地的全部家具，医生从来不曾朝那里看过一眼。

    天色很快暗了，街上的人开始多了起来。房屋和篱墙在傍晚的暮色中融为一体。庭院深处的树木在灯光下仿佛缩短了和窗口的距离。这一晚十分闷热，稍动一动就会出汗。落到院子里的煤油灯的光带，像是几条脏水顺着树干流下去。

    走到楼梯的最后一级，医生停住了脚，心里在想，在旅途劳顿的人的房门上哪怕只是轻叩一下，也是不合时宜而又把人讨厌的。最好把谈话推迟到明天。怀着由于改变初衷而带来的怅们，他顺着走廊踱到另外的一头。那边的墙上有～扇面对邻家庭院的窗子。医生从窗口探出身去。

    沉寂的夜有着众多诡秘的音响。走廊附近可以听到水池的滴水声，间隔许久才均匀地滴答一声。什么地方的窗内有人唱唱交谈。菜园里有人在浇黄瓜畦，从一只桶往另一只桶里倒水，伴随着从井中提水的铰链发出的声音。

    空气中散发着各种花草的芳香，仿佛大地白天只是无知无觉地沉睡，如今由于这些气味才恢复了神智。公爵夫人的古老的花园到处都是倒了的树的枝挪，难于通行，一株年深日久的柞树繁花初放，它那浓雾般的香气从园中升起并且浮动着，像一堵高墙。

    从右面篱墙外的街上传来喧嚷的人声。那是些度假的人在磅笑玩闹，其中有人不断地用力开门关门，还可以听到几句零星的歌声。

    在公爵夫人花园里一株树上的乌鸦巢的后方，露出来一轮大得出奇的暗红色的圆月，初时很像是济布申诺的那座砖砌磨坊的蒸汽磨粉机，之后颜色变黄，又仿佛是比留奇火车站上的那个供水塔。

    窗下的院子里，仿佛睡美人呼出的气息中还混合着有如花茶一般的新鲜麦草的幽香。在那儿有一头不久前从很远的村子里买来的母牛，路上它被牵着整整走了一天。这头牛也疲倦了，它怀着离群的忧伤，不肯吃还不熟识的新的女主人手里的饲料。

    “晴，晴——别使性子，鬼东西，不许顶人。”女主人轻声说着，可是母牛却生气地一会儿把头摆来摆去，一会儿伸长了脖颈，闷声闷气而又哀怜地眸叫。在梅留泽耶沃那一排黝黑的仓房后面闪烁着一片星光，好似从那里引来无数看不见的同情之线，传送着另一个世界的牲畜家族对它的怜悯。

    周围的一切有如一块神奇的酵母在不停地发酵，胀大，升起。对生活的深切感受犹如一阵轻风，掀起广阔的浪潮向前滚去。它漫无目的，沿着田野和城镇，穿越墙垣和篱栅，透过树木和人体，让路上的一切都感受到它的颤抖。为了胜过这股洪流的影响，医生走向广场，想听听集会上的谈论。

    月亮高高地悬在中天，万物之上都洒满了它那仿佛是用白色颜料灌注的浓重的光辉。

    在广场四周几幢带廊柱的公家的石砌房屋的阶前，宽大的阴影仿佛给地面铺了一条黑毯。

    集会是在广场的另一侧。如果愿意细心倾听的话，隔着广场也可以分辨出那边所说的一切。不过，医生却被眼前壮观的景物吸引住了。他坐在消防队大门附近的一条长凳上，没有去注意街对面传来的人声，开始环顾四周。有几条荒僻的小巷通向广场的一侧，巷子的尽头隐约可见几幢歪斜破！日的小屋。小巷泥泞不堪，难于行走，仿佛农村的土路。泥泞的地面上立着柳条编的长长栅栏，像是翻到池塘里的篓子，又像是沉到水里捉螃蟹用的篮筐。

    几幢低矮的房屋敞着窗，污暗的玻璃映射出一些亮光。小圃里栽种的玉米朝窗内探出了儒湿的长着淡褐色毛须的头，晶莹的花序和花穗仿佛涂了油似的。一排苍白消瘦的锦葵从歪斜的篱栅后面凝视着远方，像是被炎热从小屋子里赶出来的庄户人，只穿了件汗衫到外面吸几口凉气。

    沐浴在月光中的夜色是奇妙的，仿佛洋溢出某种预感的温馨和慈祥的爱抚。就在这神话般清明澄澈的宁静中，突然传来非常耳熟的、像是刚刚听到的一个人均匀而又断续的讲话声。这个悦耳的嗓音带着满腔的热望和自信。医生仔细倾听，立刻就分辨出是谁来了。那便是政委金茨正在广场上讲话。

    一定是地方当局要借助他的权威取得支持。他激动地指摘梅留泽耶沃的人缺少组织性，责备他们轻易地受了布尔什维克的影响，并一再让大家相信后者才是造成济布申诺事件的真正罪人。本着这个精神，他用了同军人讲话的口气谈到残酷而又强大的敌人以及祖国面临的考验。讲到中途，大家开始打断他的话。

    在要求不要打断发言的呼喊声中，照样有不同意的喊叫。反对的声浪～阵紧似一阵，声音也越来越大。陪金茨一起来的人这时担当起大会主持者的角色，喊叫着不许随意发言，让大家遵守秩序。有些人要求让人群里的一位女公民讲几句，另～些人就发出嘘声，希望不要干扰金茨讲话。

    一个女人挤过人群朝那个底朝天倒放着权充讲台的大木箱走来。她并不想到台上去，只是紧靠着它站在一旁。大家都知道这个女人，立刻静了下来。她成了人群注视的焦点。她就是乌斯季尼姬。

    “您提到济布申诺，政委同志，接着又提到了眼睛。您说，大家应该把眼睛睁大，不要受骗上当。我可是用心听您讲话的，您只知道翻来覆去地数说布尔什维克和孟什维克，除了这些，别的什么也没提到。不过，最要紧的还是不要再打仗了，彼此应该以兄弟相待，这是本着上帝的慈悲，可不是孟什维克；大大小小的工厂应该交给穷人，这也算不上是布尔什维克，不过是凭着人的怜悯之心。至于说那个聋哑人，我们用不着您也挨够了骂，已经听厌烦了。他简直成了你们的一块心病！不过他究竟在什么地方让您觉着不合心意？难道就因为一直是个哑巴，没征得您同意就突然开口讲话了？好像这是从来没见过的怪事。怪事还多得很呢！比方说，瓦拉穆的驴就口吐人言，这是人人都知道的。它说：‘瓦拉穆呀，瓦拉穆，真心实意地求您别往那儿去，到那儿要倒霉。’对吧，大家都知道，他听不进去，结果还是去了。您说的聋哑人，和这个也差不多。他心里想的是：为什么要听它的，一头驴，是个畜生。可别看木起畜生。到头来可要后悔的。您大概也知道结果是怎么回事。”

    “结果怎么样？”人群里头有人好奇地问。

    “算了吧，”乌斯季尼姐反唇相讥地说，“操心太多老得快。”

    “不行，这不行。你说，结果怎么样？”那人并不罢休。

    “结果，结果，你这解不开的榆木疙瘩！碰个钉子吧。”

    “别运啦，亲爱的。那是洛特的故事，‘洛特的老婆’。”远处有人这么喊道。大家都笑了。主席让大家守秩序。医生回去睡觉了。

    第二天晚上他见到了安季波娃，是在储藏室找到她的。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜面前摆了一堆已经熨好的衣服。她还在继续熨着。

    储藏室是楼上最后一排房子里的一间，面向花园。屋子里放着几个茶炊，从厨房用手摇升降机送上来的食物分盛在许多盘子里，用过的脏餐具从这里放下去送到洗碗池。医院的物品账也存放在这间储藏室。人们在这里对照账册清点食具和卧具，空闲的时候到这儿来休息和聚会。

    朝向花园的窗户是敞开的。屋子里闻得到柞树花香，还有那种古老的花园里才有的混合着兰芹干枝的苦味。两只熨斗发出淡淡的炭火气，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜轮换用它们熨衣服，一会儿把这一只、一会儿把那一只放到蒸气管子上去加热。

    “昨天您为什么不来敲门？老小姐都跟我说了。不过您做得对。我已经睡下了，无法请您进来。怎么样，您好吧。小心别弄脏了衣服，那儿撒了点煤。”

    “看得出，您是给整个医院熨衣服。”

    “不是，这里也有不少是我的。您总笑我永远也别想从这里脱身。这次可当真要走了。您看，我这木是正在打点行装嘛，收拾好了就动身。我上乌拉尔，您去莫斯科。今后要是有人问：‘尤里·安德烈耶维奇，您听说过梅留泽耶沃这个小镇吗？’‘我想不起来了。’‘安季波娃是谁？’‘一点也不知道。’”

    “唉，就算是如此吧。您到各乡走了一趟，有什么感触？乡下的情况好吗？”

    “这可说来话长。——熨斗凉得真快！如果木费事的话，请递给我一只热的。就是管子上放着的那只。这只拿回去，放在管子上。对啦，谢谢。——各个村子的情形不一样。全看村子里住的是什么人了。有的地方老百姓勤快、能干，情况还过得去。有些村子简直清一色是醉鬼，地都荒了，看着都可怕。”

    “傻话，哪儿来的醉鬼？您其实是了解许多情况的。问题是根本找不到任何人，男子汉都被征去当兵了。好，不谈这些了。新的革命的地方自治会怎么样？”

    “关于醉鬼的问题您说得不对，我还要跟您辩论。地方自治会？自治会的事要长期伤脑筋。许多规定不能落实，乡里找不到可以共事的人。当前农民只关心土地。我顺路到拉兹多利诺耶去了一趟。真是个漂亮地方！您真应该去一次。春天的时候被烧掉了一部分，抢走了些东西。仓房烧了，果树光秃秃的，大门有一部分让烟熏坏了。济布申诺没有去成。可是到处都断定那个聋哑人的事并非杜撰，还形容了他的外貌。据说是个年轻人，还受过教育。”

    “昨天，乌斯季尼娜在广场上还替他说过好话呢。”

    “我刚一回来，从拉兹多利诺耶就运来一大车破烂的废物。已经请求过多少次，让他们别动这些家具。我们自己还不够用呢！今天早晨，卫戍司令部又派人送来‘县长’的一张条子。他急着要用那套银茶具和装酒的水晶瓶。说是只用一个晚上，用后归还。可是谁都知道所说的归还是什么意思。半数的东西都无影无踪了。所有拿走的都说过是要归还的。听说是要举行晚会，好像是来了什么人。”

    “啊，我猜到了。来了一位前线部队的新政委。我是由于一个偶然的机会见过他。打算处置那些逃兵，实行包围和缴械。政委还是个毛孩子，办事的新手。这里的人建议调动哥萨克，可是他想要靠眼泪解决问题。他说老百姓就如同是婴儿，还有其他等等类似的意思，认为这一切不过是哄小孩子的把戏。加利乌林苦口婆心地劝他不要这样干，说这是养虎为患，不过这种人一旦打定了主意，是不可能说服的。您听着，把熨斗暂时放一放，请听我说。这儿很快就会出难以想象的乱子，我们无力去制止。我希望您无论如何要在出乱子之前离开！”

    “什么事也不会发生，您过分夸大了事态。何况我正准备离开。不过，总不能匆匆忙忙地甩手一走了事。应该对照账册把物品做个交代，不然的话好像是我偷了什么东西。可是向谁交代呢？这就是问题。为了管理这些物品，我操够了心，换来的却是无数的怨言。我把扎布林斯卡妞交给医院的财产全部登了记，因为这是法令规定的精神，现在却落得仿佛我假装这样做，用这种办法替伯爵夫人保护财产。这够多么卑鄙！”

    “唉，您就让这些地毯和瓷器见鬼去吧，这些该死的东西。居然为这件事影响情绪！嗅，对了，昨天没能见到您才是最大的遗憾呢，我简直是受了最大的打击。本来可以全都向您说清楚，使所有恼人的问题都有答案！这是当真的，不开玩笑，我恨不得把满腔的话都说出来。谈谈我的妻子、儿子，说说我的生活。真见鬼，莫非一个成年男人就不能和一个成年女人谈一谈，否则就会被怀疑有什么‘勾当’？呸！让魔鬼把这些破布呀、衬里呀统统扯碎吧！

    “您继续熨阳，只管熨您的衣服吧，别管我！不过我还是要说，要说很长时间。

    “您也许在想，如今是什么时候！可是我和您正是生活在这种时候！这是史无前例的机遇。请想想看：整个俄国仿佛被撤掉了屋顶，我们和所有的老百姓都一下子暴露在光天化日之下。没有人再需要偷着看我们。真是天大的自由！这绝非口头上的和书面要求中的自由，而是真正的、从天而降的意外之物。不过，这也是偶然之间和无意之中的自由。

    “一切的一切都变得如此出奇的巨大！您没发现？仿佛每个人都被他本身、被他自己显露出来的威力制服了。

    “我说我的，您只管熨吧，不用开口。您不感到乏味吧！我给您换熨斗。

    “昨天我看到了晚间的集会，真是大开眼界。我们的俄罗斯母亲行动起来了，到处行走，坐立不安，而且有说不尽的话。讲话的不单单是人。满天的繁星和树木也在娓娓交谈，夜间的花草探讨着哲理，一幢幢的石砌房屋同样参加了集会。完全像是福音书上说的那样，难道不对吗？仿佛又回到了使徒们的时代。还记得保罗的话吗？‘要开口讲话，发出神启。要为布道的才能祈祷。”’

    “您说地上的树木和满天的星星也参加了集会，这我理解。我知道您想说的是什么，我也有过这种体验。”

    “战争只做了一半的事，剩下的由革命完成了。战争是人为地使生命得到暂时的休息，完全像是可以把生存推迟一个短时间一样（真是废话！）。革命违反着意志奔腾而出，仿佛是一股被阻滞得过长的空气。每个人和每件事物都苏醒了，获得了再生，一切都发生了转化、转变。也许可以说，每一个人都经历了两种革命，一种是自身的，另一种是共同的。我觉得，社会主义宛如一片海洋，所有个人的、单独的革命应该像无数溪流一样汇聚其中，这就是生活的海洋，自存自在的海洋。我所说的生活的海洋，指的是那种值得用绘画表现的生活，是经过创造而丰富起来的充满智慧的生活。可是，现在人们决心不在书本上去体验它，而是通过自身的行动，不诉诸于抽象，而是仰仗实践。”

    出乎意料的声音的颤抖，暴露出医生的意志开始发生动摇。拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜一时之间停止了熨衣服，严肃而又好奇地望着他。他显得很窘，忘记了自己正在说什么。短暂的停顿之后，他又开始讲起来，不假思索地信口说了下去。他说道：

    “这一个时期始终渴望能够生活得忠诚而有成效！我非常希望能成为这种昂扬振奋精神的一部分！就在这席卷一切的欢乐之中，我发现您那教人猜不透的侵郁寡欢的目光，那仿佛是不知失落在何方的一种神色。我宁愿付出一切，但求没有它，希望在您的神态上能看到对自己的命运是多么心满意足，而且在任何方面对任何人都无所需求。我甚至希望有一位您所亲近的人，朋友也好，丈夫也好（最好是军人），能握住我的手，要我不要为您的遭遇担心，也不必用自己的关心给您增添烦恼。不过，我肯定会把手挣脱，而且摆着手表示不同意……唉，我真有点忘乎所以啦！请原谅。”

    医生的嗓音又一次失去了控制。他摆了摆手，怀着无可挽回的窘迫的心情站起来，走到窗子跟前。他背朝房间，两只手掌托着脸颊，两肘支在窗台上，～双失神的、寻求内心平静的眼睛凝视着沉浸在暗夜中的花园深处。

    拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜绕过一头搭在椅子上、另一头靠在另一个窗台上的熨衣服用的木板，在离医生背后几步远的房间中央站住了。“天哪，我多么害怕这种事！”她像自言自语似的轻轻说。“这是多么致命的迷误！尤里·安德烈耶维奇，请别说了，别这样。哎呀，您瞧，我因为您干出了什么事！”她大声喊着朝工作台跑过去，忘记拿开的熨斗下面，一件被烤焦的女上衣冒起了一股刺鼻的轻烟。

    “尤里·安德烈耶维奇，”她气恼地把熨斗砰的一声放到炉盖上，继续说下去，“尤里·安德烈耶维奇，您应该清醒一下，到老小姐那儿去呆一会儿，喝点水，亲爱的，回来的时候应该是我希望看到的平常那种样子。听见了吗，尤里·安德烈耶维奇？我知道您是能做到的。一定要这样，我请求您。”

    这样的表白心迹，在他们两人之间就再也木曾发生过。一个星期之后，拉里莎·费奥多罗夫娜离开了。

    又过了一段时间，日瓦戈也开始收拾行装准备上路了。临出发的前一天夜里，在梅留泽耶沃下了一场可怕的暴风雨。

    狂风的咆哮和暴雨的轰鸣交织在一起，雨水一时倾泻在屋顶上，一时随着改变了的风向沿街洒去，似乎是用它那汹涌的水流一步步地夺路前进。

    隆隆的雷声不间断地汇成一片均匀的轰鸣。在紧密的闪电照耀下，不时地显现出一条条向远处躲去的街道和弯着腰朝同一个方向奔跑着的树木。

    深夜，弗列里小姐被大门外可怕的敲门声惊醒。她害怕地从床上坐起来，仔细倾听。敲门声仍然不停。

    她想，难道整个医院就没有一个活人出去开门，莫非就该她这个可怜的老太婆吃苦受累，只因为她天生的正直和肯负责任？

    好吧，就算扎布林斯基一家是有钱人，是贵族。不过这医院已经成了他们自己的，是人民的。那么现在又把它扔给谁了呢？比如说，我真想知道。那些卫生员都跑到哪儿去啦？无论是负责人、护土，还是大夫，都逃命了。可是医院里还有伤员，两个没有腿的在楼上的外科手术室里，就是原先用作客厅的那个房间，楼下的储藏室里还有一屋子伤号，就在洗衣房旁边。乌斯季尼妞这个妖婆又外出串门子去了。这个傻瓜眼看要有大雷雨，可还是鬼迷心窍地走了。这回算是有了过硬的借口，可以在外边过夜了。

    “啊，感谢上帝，雨总算停了，风也不刮了。人家准是看到不开门，摆摆手就走了。这种天气还来敲门也真是见鬼。不过，会不会是乌斯季尼娜？不会，她自己有钥匙。哎哟，我的老天爷，真可怕，又在敲了！

    “不过总还是太作贱人啦！对日瓦戈倒是没什么可责怪的。他明天就要走了，心早飞到莫斯科或是路上去了。不过，加利乌林可真不像话！他怎么能这么贪睡，或者居然心安理得地躺在床上听人敲门，指望着到我这个弱不禁风的孤老太婆爬起来，在这可怕的夜里和吓人的地方给不知道是什么样的人去开门？”

    “加利乌林！”她突然想起来了。“哪儿来的加利乌林？”就因为还没有完全睡醒，才会有这个荒唐念头！怎么还会有加利乌林，他已经走得无影无踪了。难道不就是她自己和日瓦戈把他藏起来，给他换了便装，讲清了周围的道路和村庄，让他知道往哪儿逃的吗？当时是在火车站上执行了私刑，打死了金茨政委，并从比留奇到梅留泽耶沃一路开枪追赶加利乌林，搜遍了全城。哪儿还会有加利乌林！

    如果不是那批装甲兵，城市就彻底被摧毁了。当时正好有一个装甲师路过这里，保护了老百姓，遏制住了那伙恶棍。

    暴风雨的势头已经减弱，逐渐远去。远方还隐隐地听得见稀疏的雷声。雨还继续在下，雨水顺着树叶和屋檐轻轻地流淌着。无声的闪电不时照到老小姐的房间和她身上，稍稍停留一会儿，似乎在搜寻什么。

    停了许久的敲门声又响了起来。仿佛是有人求救似的拼命敲打。风又刮了起来，接着又是倾盆大雨。

    一来啦！”老小姐不知冲谁喊了一声，这一声连她自己也感到害怕。

    一个意外的念头提醒了她。她把两脚从床上伸下来，穿上便鞋，披了一件长睡衣就跑去招呼日瓦戈，免得一个人更加害怕。他同样听到了敲门声，于是拿了一支蜡烛从楼上下来，正好和她相遇、两个人的猜测是相同的。

    “日瓦戈，日瓦戈！外面有人敲大门，我一个人不敢去开。”她用法语大声说，接着又讲起了俄语，“您得出去，大概是拉里莎或者加利乌林。”

    这阵敲门声也惊醒了尤里·安德烈耶维奇。他想，这一定是自己人，也许是中途受阻的加利乌林又回到这个藏身之地，或者是路上碰到了什么困难而折回的安季波娃。

    在过道里，医生让老小姐拿着蜡烛，自己走过去扭动门扣，拉开了门栓。强劲的阵风把门从他手中吹开，烛火熄灭了，冰冷的雨点溅落到两个人身上。

    “是谁？是谁呀？有人吗？”老小姐和医生在黑暗中争先恐后地喊，但是没有回音。突然，他们又听到在另一个地方响起了先前那样的敲门声，似乎是在后门那边，可是一下子又觉得像是从花园里敲窗子。

    “大概是风。”医生说，“不过为了安全，还是到后门去看看，弄清楚到底是风还是人，我在这儿等一等，免得真有什么人，或者还是别的原因。”

    老小姐回到屋里去，医生来到大门外的遮檐下。他那已经适应了黑暗的眼睛，立刻分辨出天将破晓的征兆。

    大团的乌云仿佛逃避追赶一般发疯地掠过城市上空。低飞的云絮几乎擦到朝一个方向倾斜的树梢，恰如无数把弯曲的条帚在给天空清扫。打在房屋木板墙上的雨水由灰白变成了黑色。

    “怎么样？”医生间转回来的老小姐。

    “您猜对了。什么人也没有。”她告诉他在屋子里查看的结果。储藏室的一扇窗玻璃被一节柞树枝打碎了，地板上积了一滩水；拉拉原先住的房间也如此，地上简直是一片汪洋。

    “那里的一扇百叶窗脱掉了，拍打窗框。您看，就是这么回事。”

    他和她又谈了一会儿，然后锁上大门，各自回去重新睡下，但心中都为这场虚惊感到遗憾。

    原先以为只要把门一开，进来的一定就是那个已经十分熟悉的女人，浑身湿透，冻得发僵，在她拭擦身上雨水的时候，他们就会向她发出一连串的问题。然后，她换过衣服来到厨房，借着炉子里昨天剩下来的余火烤烤身子，会一边用手拢着头发一边笑着，向他们叙说自己遭到的那些磨难。

    他们对此确信不疑，所以关上门以后，这种确信不疑的痕迹仍留在外面的墙角屋边，从这个女人身上滴落的水迹或者她的影像继续在他们脑海里回旋。

    比留奇的报务员科利亚·弗罗连科被认为是这次车站兵变的间接肇事人。

    科利亚是梅留泽耶沃一个有名的钟表匠的儿子，当地人眼看着他长大。小时候他曾经寄养在伯爵夫人“逍遥津”女仆那里，和伯爵夫人的两个女儿一起在家庭教师的照管下玩耍。弗列里小姐对科利亚很了解。他就在那个时候开始学了一点法语。

    在梅留泽耶沃，人们惯常看到的科利亚无论春夏秋冬总是穿得很单薄，不戴帽子，脚上是一双夏季穿的帆布鞋，骑一辆自行车。他不扶车把，挺直上身，双手交叉在胸前，就这样骑车跑在公路上和城里，不断地朝电线杆和电线看几眼，检查线路的情况。

    城里有几幢房子是通过铁路电话的一条支线和车站连接的。这条线路由科利亚在车站的服务机房负责。

    他在站上的工作忙得不可开交：铁路电报、电话，如果站长波瓦利欣短时间木在，信号和扳道的事也归他管，因为这部分设备也在报务机房里。

    由于必须同时兼顾好几件设备，科利亚养成了一种独特的言语方式，所说的话隐晦而且句子不完整，令人费解，尤其是他不愿意回答或者没有谈话兴致的时候，更是如此。人们都说，在出事的那天他滥用了自己的职权。

    由于他避而不接电话，的确让从城里打电话来的加利乌林的一片好心落了空，而且无意中对后来的事态发展起了不祥的作用。

    加利乌林要求把正在车站或者在车站附近的政委找来听电话，要告诉他自己立刻出发到伐木场！日址去和他见面，请务必等一等，在这以前不要采取任何行动。科利亚拒绝了加利乌林请他去找金茨的要求，借口说当时线路正在给驶往比留奇的列车传送信号，同时又以种种真假参半的理由让这一列车滞留在附近的会让站上，但车上运载的正是调往比留奇的哥萨克。

    等到列车终于开来的时候，科利亚并不掩饰自己的不满。

    机车爬行般地缓缓驶进月台乌黑的遮檐下面，恰好停在报务机房那扇大窗前面。科利亚一下子拉开了那幅织着两个代表铁路的缩写字的深蓝色呢窗帘。石砌的窗台上放着一个很大的托盘，上面是一只盛着水的大凉瓶和一只普通的厚玻璃杯。科利亚往杯子里倒了点水，喝了几口，一面朝窗外看了看。

    司机看到科利亚，从司机室里友好地向他点了点头。“哼，败类，臭虫！”科利亚心里满怀仇恨地这么想，一面朝司机吐舌头，同时用拳头做出威吓的样子。司机不但明白科利亚做出这种表情的意思，而且自己也耸了耸肩，把头朝车厢那边一扭，意思是说：“有什么办法？你自己试试看。人家有力量。”科利亚的表情作了这样的回答：“不论怎么说，反正是下贱，坏蛋！”

    开始从车厢里往外牵弓吗匹。它们蹭着碗子，不肯走。马蹄踏在木跳板上发出的空闷音响不断换成踩在站台石头地上的镀铝声。不断扬起前腿的马匹让人牵着走过几道铁轨。

    线路的末端已经生锈并且长满了青草的轨道上停放着两列报废的车厢。由于雨水冲蚀而油漆剥落以及虫蛀和湿气的损害，这些破旧的车厢又恢复了和列车另一侧的原始林木原先的亲族关系，那些白棋树树干上长满了多孔菌子，森林上空聚集了团团乌云。

    在一片林间空地上，哥萨克们按照命令上了马，驰向伐木场的残址。

    第二百一十二步兵团的那些拒不服从命令的人，被包围起来了。骑马走在林子里要比在空旷的田野上显得更加高大、威严。他们让躲在土窖子里的那些士兵吃了一惊，虽然后者的手中也都有枪。哥萨克们投出了马刀。

    在骑兵的包围圈里，金茨跳到一堆码放得坚实平整的木垛上，向周围的人讲起话来。

    他仍旧照自己的习惯谈起了军人的天职、祖国的意义和另一些冠冕堂皇的话。这些概念在此时此地却得不到同情的反响。聚拢来的人为数很不少，他们备受战争的折磨，已经变得粗野而又疲惫。金茨说的这些话，早已磨破了他们的耳鼓。四个月以来，右的和左的甜言蜜语已经把这些人引入了歧途。他们都是普通老百姓。讲话的人的非俄罗斯的姓和波罗的海东岸一带的口音，也让他们听得扫兴。

    金汉也觉察到自己的话说得太长，感到懊丧，但转念一想又认为这可以让听众更容易接受，不过后者对他并不感谢，反倒显得无动于衷和含有敌意的厌烦。人群越来越被激怒，他于是决定采用更为强硬的口气，说出了准备好的威胁性的言词。这时他已经听不到逐渐增大的怨声，只是提醒这些士兵不要忘记已经成立的军事法庭正在执行任务，并且以死亡威吓他们放下武器，交出为首的人。金茨还提出，如果不这样做，他们就证明自己是叛徒、麻木不仁的蠢货和不知天高地厚的下流坯。但是这些人已经听惯了这种口气。

    响起了几百人愤怒的喊声。“你该说完了吧，够了！”人们异口同声地喊叫着，但还没什么恶意。可是，接着又响起了一阵歇斯底里的叫喊，声音非常之高，带着满腔的恼恨。大家都注意地听。他们叫喊的是：

    “听到了吧，同志们，他骂得多么粗野？全是过去的那一套！旧军官的习气丝毫也没改！说我们是叛徒？尉官大人，你自己又是什么人？和他用不着客气。难道还看不出，他是个德国佬，是派进来的？喂，把证件交出来，你这个老爷！你们这些来弹压的为什么站在这儿发呆？来，让你们捆吧，把我们都吃了吧！”

    金茨这番不得体的话，就是哥萨克们也越听越不顺耳。“都是些下流坯和蠢货，这帮老爷！”他们互相耳语着。开始是个别人，然后大多数都把马刀入了鞘，一个接一个地下了马。当这些下了马的哥萨克达到了相当数量的时候，就乱糟糟地向空地当中的二百一十二步兵团的人移动过去。大家混到了一起，开始了友好的交往。

    “您应该想法不让人发觉地走掉。”惊慌不安的哥萨克军官们这样告诉金茨。“您的车就停在铁道过路口。我们派人去通知，把它开到近处来。请快走吧。”

    金茨就照这个意见采取了行动，但他觉得悄悄地离开有失体面，因此放松了应有的戒备，几乎是毫不掩饰地朝车站走去。他在精神极度惊恐紧张的情况下走着，但是高傲的心理迫使他迈着安详的不慌不忙的步子。

    离车站已经不远了，再过去就是紧邻的一片森林。在一处林间空地上铁路已然在望，这时他才第一次转回头去看了一眼。许多持枪的士兵尾随在后面。“他们要干什么？”金茨这样想着，同时加快了脚步。

    追上来的人也如法炮制，同他之间的距离保持不变。前方出现了两堵墙似的破损的火车车厢。绕过它们以后，金茨跑了起来。载运哥萨克来的列车已经编发到调车场，线路是空着的。金茨奔跑着越过去。

    在跑动中他跳上高高的站台。这时，追赶他的士兵从几辆破损的车厢后面跑了出来。波瓦利欣和科利亚朝金茨喊了些什么，打着手势让他到车站里面去，在那里可能使他得救。

    然而，仍旧是那种在城市里经过几代人培养出来的、但在此时此地行不通的带有献身精神的荣誉感，挡住了他的求生之路。他以超人的意志力设法控制住快要炸裂的心的颤抖。应该大声告诉他们：“弟兄们，你们会明白过来的，我算是什么好细？”他这样想着，“应该说几句有清醒作用、打动人心的话，才能把他们控制住。”

    近几个月以来，一种功勋感和发自内心的要高声呼喊的欲望在他身上已经不自觉地与木板搭成的讲台或者椅子联系在一起，只要一站到它们上面，就能向聚拢来的人群发出某种号召，煽动性的言语就会脱口而出。

    站房门前那座车站用的钟下面有一只很高的消防水桶，严严地盖着。金茨跳上桶盖，面对走近前来的人们断续地讲了几句感人的、超人的话。在咫尺之内几步就可以跑进去的门旁，他做出了一个愚蠢而勇敢的举动，使追上来的人目瞪口呆地站住了。士兵们把举在手中的枪枝放了下来。

    这时，金茨走到木桶的边缘，踏翻了盖子。他一只脚踩到水里，另一只是到桶边上，整个人跨在桶边上。

    他这副狼狈相引起士兵们一阵大笑，站在最前面的一个朝他颈部开了一枪，把这个可传人送了命，其余的赶上来向死者捅了一阵刺刀。

    弗列里小姐给科利亚挂了电话，让他尽可能妥善地把医生安置到车上，否则就要揭穿会使科利亚木愉快的事。

    科利亚一面回答老小姐的话，一面像往常那样接着另外一个电话，从他口中夹杂着带小数点的数字来判断，是在向另一个地方传送电报密码。

    “普斯科夫，接线员，听得见吗？什么暴乱分子？一只手？您这是怎么回事，小姐？什么手相术，一派胡言。行啦，把电话挂上吧，您妨碍我的事。普斯科夫，接线员。三、六、小数点、O、O、心。唉，真该让狗把您叼了，我的电报机上的带子都搞断了。什么？什么？听不清。又是您，小姐？我已经对您清清楚楚说过了木行，我办不到。您应该找波瓦利欣。看什么手相，胡说八道。三O、六……啊，见鬼……算了吧，别妨碍我了，小姐。”

    可是老小姐却说：

    “什么普斯科夫、普斯科夫，你瞒不过我的手相术，我已经把你看透了。明天你得把医生给我送上车去，我也就不再同任何杀人犯讲话了，你这个出卖上帝的小犹大。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇起程的时候，天气闷热。像前天一样，又要有一场雷暴雨。

    在乌黑的酝酿着雷雨的天空的凝视下，吐得满地是葵花籽壳的车站旁边的小镇上，低矮的土坯房屋和受惊的鹅群现出一片白色。

    和车站紧相连接的是一片向两侧展开的宽广的草地。地上的青草坡践踏得凌乱不堪，数不清的人群一连几个星期在这里等待开往不同方向去的火车。

    人群里那些身穿原色粗呢外衣的老年男子，从这一堆挤到那一堆去探听各种谣传和消息。一些年龄大约十四五岁的半大孩子，侧身用手臂支着头躺在地上，手里拿着去掉了叶子的树枝，仿佛还是在放牧牲口。年纪更小一些的弟妹们撩起衬衣在他们脚边走来走去，露出啡红色的脊背。那些当妈妈的伸出并拢的两腿坐在地上，怀里抱着用褐色粗呢外衣斜裹起来的吃奶的婴儿。

    “只要枪炮声一响，就像羊群一样四散奔逃。他们不习惯！”站长波瓦利欣不怎么友好地说着，一面和医生一起在车站内外地上一排排躺着的人们中间曲折地穿过来。

    “这儿露出空地来啦！算是又看到了土地是什么样子，真叫人高兴！整整四个月没有见到，让这一大群人给遮住了——简直都快忘记了——他当时就躺在那儿。说来也真怪，战争中看够了各种各样可怕的事，早就应该习以为常了，可这一回真教我觉得可怜！主要就是因为——毫无道理。究竟为了什么？他对他们做了什么不好的事？难道这些家伙还算得上是人？现在清往右拐，对，对，往这边来，请到我的办公室。这～趟车您就不必指望啦，能把人挤死。我安排您上另一次车，是区间的。这是我们自己编组的，现在就开始挂车。不过，直到上车之前您别吱声，对谁也别说！要是露了风声，车来不及挂就会给拆开。夜里您在苏希尼奇换车。”

    当这次保密的列车编组完毕，倒退着从机务段朝站上开来的时候，草地上的人全部挤成一团，从斜刺里向慢慢退过来的列车跑去。人们飞快地从土丘上滑下来，冲上路基。他们互相推搡，有的在跑动中跳到车厢之间的缓冲器或者踏板上，也有的爬进了车窗，上了车顶。眨眼间这列还在开动的火车就挤满了人，等到停靠在月台旁边的时候，已经水泄不通，从上到下都是要赶路的人。

    医生奇迹般地被挤进车厢门口那一小块可以站立的地方，接着又莫名其妙地被拥到里边的过道上。

    一路上他始终被挤在过道里，直到苏希尼奇都是坐在自己的行李上。

    墨黑的雷雨云早已消散。洒满了炙热的阳光的田野上，到处都不停地响着压倒列车行进声的震耳的蝈蝈的叫声。

    站在窗前的人遮住了光线。地板上、椅子上和两排座位之间的隔板上，落下他们长长的身影，两三个人的重叠在一起。这些影子在车厢里也找不到容身之处，从对面的窗口被挤了出去，于是和前进中的整列车的影子在一起，在路基另一侧的斜坡上跳跃式地奔跑着。

    周围是一片嘈杂喧闹声，有的唱着歌，也有的一边笑骂，一边打着牌。停车的时候，站上候车的人群的喧嚷又和车内的嘈杂汇合在一起。这么多人的言谈笑语声达到了海上风暴那种震耳欲聋的地步。也正像航行在海上一样，中途游泊的时候会突然出现不可思议的片刻的宁静。这时，可以听到人们在站台上沿着列车匆匆走过的脚步声，有人赶到行李车附近并且发生了争吵，不时还从远处传来送行的人几句断续的话，鸡的轻声啼叫，其中掺杂着车站小花园里树木的籁籁响动声。

    这时，就像是一封在途中拍发的电报，或者又像是从梅留泽耶沃给尤里·安德烈耶维奇带来的问候，一缕熟悉的香气从窗外飘来。它有时悄悄地在你身边的什么地方变得十分浓郁，有时又似乎是从田野和花圃里的鲜花达不到的高处降落下来。

    因为拥挤，医生无法走近窗前。但他无须用眼去看，在想象中就见到了这些树木。它们大概就生长在附近，安详地向车顶伸出落满风尘的枝条，浓密的叶子宛如一幅天幕，点缀着许多晶亮的眨眼的小星。

    这景象一路上不断重现。到处是喧嚷的人群，到处是开着花的搬树。

    这股无所不在的香气似乎赶过向北方行驶的列车，又像是乘车的人所到之处都会听到的那种有根有据的传闻，不胫而走地散布到各个大小车站和道口的守望点。

    夜里到了苏希尼奇，一个老式打扮的殷勤的搬运工带着医生走过一条没有灯火的路，从后倒把他送上了一列刚刚到达而行车表上找不到车次的列车的二等车厢。

    搬运工用乘务员的钥匙勉强打开了后侧的车门，把医生的东西放到门里那一小块可以站人的地方，正准备和立刻要把行李推下去的列车员抵挡一番的时候，后者似乎对尤里·安德烈耶维奇发了善心，一下子消失得无影无踪了。

    这列有特殊任务而不为人知的客车，行驶的速度相当快，短暂停车时还设置了警戒。车厢里几乎是空荡荡的。

    日瓦戈进去的那间包房，被小桌上一支滴着油的蜡烛光照得很亮，从稍稍放下一点的窗口吹来的风，使烛焰不住地晃动。

    蜡烛的主人是包房里唯一的一位乘客。他是个淡黄头发的年轻人，从修长的双臂和两腿来看，身材肯定很高。他那四肢的关节似乎相当松散、灵活，仿佛是一件折叠物品的没有连结牢靠的部件。这位青年靠窗坐在沙发长椅上，随便地向后仰靠着，一看到日瓦戈走了进来，客气地欠了欠身，由半躺的姿势改成较为雅观的端坐。

    在他所坐的长椅下面有一堆毛茸茸的碎布之类的东西。这堆东西的一头突然动了起来，从长椅下面急匆匆地爬出来一条耷拉耳朵的猎狗。它围着尤里·安德烈耶维奇的脚下又闻又看，然后就在包房里从这一头到那一头跑来跑去，几只爪子灵活地伸来伸去，正像它那位两腿交换着叠起又放下的高个子的主人一样。不久，它就听从主人的吩咐急忙钻到椅子底下，又变成了先前那种像一团拖布的模样。

    这时，尤里·安德烈耶维奇才看到包房里的衣钩上挂着一杆装在套子里的双筒猎枪，一条皮革的子弹带和紧紧地塞满了禽鸟的狩猎网袋。

    这青年原来是个猎人。

    他非常健谈，脸上带着亲切的微笑，急不可待地同医生攀谈起来，说话时，两只眼睛始终紧紧地盯着医生的嘴。

    这个青年人有一副不中听的高嗓子，每当说话的声音达到最高点后，便又降下来变成带点金属味道的假嗓音。还有另一种怪现象：他虽然完全是个俄国人，可是唯独把“y”这个元音说得很古怪，发出的音软化得像是法语的“11”，又像是德语里的变元音“u”。除此之外，这个发不准的“y”对他来说也比较困难，要费很大的力气，尖声尖气地才能说出来，比其他的音都要高。他开口说的第一句话几乎就使尤里·安德烈耶维奇吃了～惊：

    “昨天弯（晚）上我就打到了一些亚（鸭）子。”

    “这是怎么回事？”日瓦戈心里在想，“好像在什么书里看到过，有这个印象。作为一个医生，我应该知道，只不过，一时想不起来。大概是大脑方面的某种原因，造成语音上的缺陷。不过，这种啤叫似的声音太可笑了，让人无法严肃地对待。简直不可能和他谈下去，最好还是爬到铺上去躺躺吧。”

    医生果然就这样做了。他在上铺安顿好以后，年轻人就问是不是把蜡烛吹灭，木然也许会影响他休息。医生感谢地表示同意。这位同车的旅伴把蜡烛熄掉，周围变得一片漆黑。

    车窗开了一半。

    “要不要给您关立窗子？”尤里·安德烈耶维奇问道，“您不怕小偷吗？”

    同伴没有回答。尤里·安德烈耶维奇又大声问了一次，那人还是毫无反应。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇于是划着了一根火柴，想看看这位同伴是怎么回事，也许从包房里出去了，或者更有可能是已经睡着了。

    然而都不是，那人睁大眼睛依旧坐在原地，微笑地看着从上面俯下身来的医生。

    火柴熄灭了，尤里·安德烈耶维奇又点燃了一支，就着它的光亮第三次重复了一遍所要问的话。

    “随您的便吧，”猎手毫不迟疑地回答说，“我没有什么东西值得人偷。不过最好还是不必关窗。有点闷。”

    “真没料到！”日瓦戈心里思忖着。“看来是个怪人，只能在有亮光的时候讲话。你看他现在的发音多清楚，一点错误也没有了！莫名其妙！”

    由于过去这一个星期发生的种种事件、临行前心情的波动以及收拾行装和凌晨就上了车，医生觉得全身好像散了架一样。他以为立刻就会沉入梦乡，于是让身体躺得更舒适一些。然而事与愿违。过度的疲劳驱走了睡意，等到他睡着的时候，已经天将破晓。

    在这之前的漫长时间里，无论在他脑际一幕幕涌现的种种思绪多么纷繁杂乱，实际上只是构成两个时分时合、纠缠不开的圆周。

    一个圆周的内容是对东尼娜、家庭和过去的生活的思念，想的是那充满诗情、虔诚而圣洁的日子。医生对这种生活感到惊喜，切盼它能完整无缺地保存下来，如今在这夜间飞驰的列车上，急不可耐地想要重新投入阔别两年的它的怀抱。

    对革命的忠诚信念和赞赏也在这个圆周之内。这里所说的革命，指的是中产阶级所接受的革命，同时也是一九O五年那些对布洛克无限崇拜的青年学生所赋予的含义。

    这个亲切而又熟悉的圈子当中，也包括战前一九一二年至一九一四年间在俄罗斯的思想界、艺术界以及整个俄国和日瓦戈本人命运中出现的那些新的征象和预兆。

    战后情不由己地想要重新捕捉这股潮流，为了求得它的再现和延续，思乡的心情竟是如此的强烈。

    第二个圆周也有着某种新的思念，然而却是异样的，同时又是那样美妙！但这并非自己所熟悉的推陈而出的新意，却是一种本能的、由现实所决定而又像大地震动那样来得突然。

    战争、流血、恐惧以及它带来的家园沦丧和斯文扫地，这就是新的因素。战争的考验以及从中获得的精明的生活本领，也是这种新的成分。战争把他带到的这些边远小城镇和接触的那些人，同样是新鲜的。革命也是新的因素，当然不是一九O五年前不久大学里谈论的那种理想化的革命，而是现在这种诞生于战争之中并且带着血腥气的士兵们的革命。它在善于驾御这种自发力量的布尔什维克的指引之下，把一切都不放在眼里。

    护士安季波娃同样也是这个圈子里的新内容，天知道战争会把她和她那具有神秘色彩的生活抛向何方，但她与人与事无争，几乎对自己的痛苦从不表露，她那沉默尽管令人不解，然而却又如此强劲有力。尤里·安德烈耶维奇竭力不去爱她，正像他竭力去爱所有的人，更不用说去爱自己的家庭和亲人了。

    火车正在全速前进。从放下的车窗迎面吹来的风掀乱了尤里·安德烈耶维奇的鬓发。夜间停车的各个小站，重复着日间同样的景象，嘈杂的人群伴随着籁籁作响的柞树。

    偶尔从黑夜的深处向车站传来磷饼的马车声。这时，人们的话语、车轮的响动和树木的沙沙声便交织在一起了。

    在这样的时刻，究竟是什么迫使夜间的树影婆婆舞动和相互点头致意，究竟它们彼此之间通过梦中沉甸甸的叶子低声倾诉些什么，都变得可以理解了。这原来就是在上面的卧铺辗转反侧的尤里·安德烈耶维奇所思考的，是关于越来越广泛地席卷整个俄国的信息，是关于革命及其面临的不祥而艰难的时刻，关于这场革命可能取得的伟大结局。

    第二天，医生醒得很晚。已经是十二点钟了。“侯爵，侯爵！”同车的旅伴压低了声音在招呼他那条不住翻身的狗。使尤里·安德烈耶维奇感到奇怪的是，包房里依旧是他和那个猎手两个人，路上没有第三者上车。途经的车站名称，都是从小时候起就熟悉的。列车已经穿过了卡卢加省，正在向莫斯科省驶去。

    在带有战前的那种设备的洗脸间里完成了旅途中的激洗以后，医生回到包房接受了这位颇使人感兴趣的旅伴提供的早餐。现在，尤里·安德烈耶维奇才能更好地对他端详一番。

    此人最大的特点就是出奇地喜欢讲话而且好动。他之喜好讲话主要还不是为了交谈和沟通思想，而是在舌头动作和吐字发声本身。他边说边像坐在弹簧上一样全身上下颠动着，无理由地哈哈大笑，同时由于感到满足而飞快地搓动双手，如果觉得这还不足以表达自己的心情，就用两个手掌敲打膝头，笑得流出眼泪。

    谈话的内容是从昨天见到的那些怪事开始的。这位邂逅相逢的伙伴讲话之颠三倒四，实在令人吃惊。他一会儿滔滔不绝地做着谁也不曾要求的自我介绍，一会儿又毫不在意地提出一连串无需回答的没有任何意义的问题。

    他所讲的关于自己的一大堆情况，都是难以置信的，而且内容毫不连贯。看来他的一大弱点就是喜欢撒点小谎。观点的极端和对一切公认事理的否定，在他看来无疑是最能说服人的。

    所有这些都令人想起那种重弹的旧调。发表这类激进主义言论的，原本是上个世纪的虚无主义者，稍后则是陀思妥耶夫斯基作品里的人物，一直延续到不久前他们的那些追随者，也就是俄国整个受过教育的外省知识界。他们常常要走在首都的前面，这是因为偏远省份古板正经的作风，更能保存在京城已经陈旧过时的流行观点。

    这个年轻人谈到他是一个知名的革命家的侄子，而父母却是坚决的顽固分子，用他的话说就是死硬派。他们在离前线木远的某地有一片相当可观的领地。年轻人就是在那里长大的。父母和叔父一向针锋相对，但叔父不念旧恶，如今正是靠他的影响才使他们免去了许多麻烦。

    这位喋喋不休的旅伴自称在信仰方面是追随叔父的，无论对生活、政治以及艺术，都是极端主义者。从这番表白当中又让人嗅到彼坚卡·韦尔霍文斯基的味道，不过并非指那些左的观点，而只是表现为思想的堕落和大言不惭的浮夸。“他现在一定会标榜自己是未来主义者了。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇这样想，果然话题就转到这上面。“现在大概要谈体育运动。”医生继续提前一步进行猜测。“可能要说起赛马，或者是滑旱冰，或者是法国式摔跤。”木出所料，话题果然转到了狩猎上。

    年轻人讲到他在家乡的时候就开始行猎，自吹是个相当了不起的射手，只不过因为生理缺陷没有能够成为～名士兵，否则在战争中一定会弹无虚发而出人头地。

    看到日瓦戈那种疑问的眼色，他惊讶地大声说道：

    “怎么？莫非您没注意到？我以为您已经看出了我的缺陷。”

    他于是从衣袋里拿出两张纸片给尤里·安德烈耶维奇看。一张是他的名片。他原来是复姓，全称是马克西姆·阿里斯塔尔霍维奇·克林佐夫一波戈列夫席赫，但他要求简称为波戈列夫席赫，表示对同样如此自称的他的叔父的尊重。

    另一张纸片是个分成许多栏目的表格，画着手指按不同方法交叠起来的各种各样的手势。这是聋哑人的手语符号。一切立刻就明白了。

    波戈列夫席赫原来是加尔特曼或者奥斯特罗格拉茨基学派的一个罕见的有才能的学生，他以不可思议的完美程度不靠听觉而仅凭视觉来根据教师喉部肌肉的动作学会了说话，并且同样能理解对方的话。

    把他从什么地方来并且在哪一带打过猎的情况在心里盘算过以后，医生就问：

    “恕我直言，不过您也可以不回答——您同济布申诺共和国以及它的建立有没有关系？”

    “您是从什么地方…··精允许我……这么说您知道布拉热依柯？……有，有关系！当然有。”波戈列夫席赫高兴得像放连珠炮似的说，一边哈哈大笑，整个身子左右摆动起来，两手用力拍打着膝头。接下去又是一派胡言乱语。

    波戈列夫席赫谈到，布拉热依柯使他有了一个借口。济市申诺不过是表现他个人想法的一个无所谓的地点。尤里·安德烈耶维奇难于自始至终地注意听他的叙述。波戈列夫席赫的空论一半是无政府主义的设想，另一半完全是一个狩猎者的信口开河。

    波戈列夫席赫以一个先知者的心安理得的语调，断定不久就会发生一场毁灭性的社会震荡。尤里·安德烈耶维奇内心也同意这可能是难以避免的，但是这个不招人喜欢的小青年不紧不慢地做出这种预言时表现的目空～切的镇定自若，破坏了他的想法。

    “您听我说，请等一下，”他不无胆怯地反驳说，“所有这些也许是可能发生的。不过我觉得在我们这一片混乱和破坏的情况下，在步步紧逼的敌人面前，进行这种冒险性的试验不合时宜。应该让国家有一段清醒的时间，从一个转折走向另一个转变之前要有喘息的机会。需要等待出现某种平静和秩序，哪怕只是相对的也好。”

    “这太天真啦。”波戈列夫席赫说道，“您所说的破坏，正像您赞不绝口和喜爱的秩序一样，也是正常现象。这些破坏却是更广阔的创造性计划合乎规律的先行部分。社会发展得还很不够。应该让它彻底垮掉，那时候真正的革命政权就会在完全另外的基础上把它一部分一部分地重新组装起来。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇心里觉得很不是滋味，于是就走到过道里。

    列车全速驶近莫斯科。迎着车窗一刻也不停地飞快闪过一片片的白摊林和一幢紧接一幢的别墅。狭长的露天站台连同那些到别墅度假的男男女女一闪而过，在列车掀起来的尘雾中仿佛被旋转木马带到另一边。火车一声接～声地拉响汽笛，空旷飘渺的林间回音携带着汽笛声传向远方。

    这些天来尤里·安德烈耶维奇突然第一次完全明白了是在什么地方，在做什么以及一两个小时以后迎接他的是什么。

    三年间的各种变化，失去音讯和各处转移，战争，革命，脑震荡，枪击，种种死亡和毁灭的场面，被炸毁的桥梁，破坏后的瓦砾和大火——所有这一切霎时都化为毫无内容的巨大空虚。长期的隔绝之后头一件真实的事就是在这列车上令人心荡神驰地一步步接近自己的家，那是地上的每一块小石子都无限珍贵的、至今还完好无缺地留在世上的自己的家。来到亲人面前，返回家园和重新生存，这就是以往的生活和遭遇，就是探险者的追求，也就是艺术的真谛。

    树林已经被甩在后面，列车从拥挤的林木当中得到了解脱。一片缓斜的草地从谷底向上延伸到远方成为宽广的丘陵地带。它上面纵向排列着一条条墨绿色的马铃薯田城。在草地丘陵顶部马铃薯田的尽头看到的是地窖温室的玻璃窗。草地的另一侧，在奔驰的列车尾部方向，一团紫黑色的云悬在半空。阳光从乌云后面向四方辐射开来，落在温室的玻璃窗上，燃起耀眼的光芒。

    突然，从云层里斜飘着洒下一阵晴日阵雨，阳光下可以看到闪烁的雨滴。急骤的阵雨的节拍正好和前进的列车轮声、车身的震颤相吻合，似乎是要竭尽全力地赶上，唯恐落后。

    医生还没有来得及注意这一切，前方的山后已经出现了救世主基督大教堂的轮廓，接着就是它那穹窿形的屋顶、市区的房屋和林立的烟囱。

    “莫斯科。”他一边说着，就走回了包房。“该收拾东西啦。”

    波戈列夫席赫一下子跳起来，在狩猎袋里翻了翻，拿出一只最大的鸭子。

    “拿去吧，”他说。“留个纪念。和您相处这一整天，我非常快活。”

    无论医生如何谢绝，还是无济于事。“好吧，”他不得木表示同意，“我把它收下，算是送我妻子的一件礼物。”

    “妻子！妻子！给妻子的礼物。”波戈列夫席赫兴高采烈地重复着，似乎是生平第一次听到这个字眼，同时扭动全身哈哈地大笑，让从座位下面跳出来的“侯爵”也分享他的快乐。

    列车驶向月台。车厢里像到了夜间一样变暗了。这位聋哑人把那只野鸭递给医生，外面包了半张不知是什么内容的铅印传单。

    莫斯科宿营地

    一路都静静地坐在狭小的包房里，所以觉得只有火车在行驶，而时间是停滞的，现在最多也不过刚到中午。

    当马车载着医生和行李吃力地一步步从斯摩棱斯克车站拥挤的人群中挤出来的时候，却已是日近黄昏了。

    也许当初就是这样，或者是医生往日的印象又加上一层后来岁月的经验，不过事后回想起来，他觉得当时人们一群群地拥挤在市场上并没有什么必要，而只不过是出于一种习惯。因为空空如也的货摊都放下了遮阳的檐板，甚至还上了锁，况且在这片久已不打扫的肮脏的广场上，也没有可以买卖的东西。

    他仿佛觉得当时还看到衣帽整齐、上了年纪的男男女女蜷缩着瘦削的身体站在人行道上，用隐含责备的目光迎送着身边往来的行人，向他们兜售无人问津的、谁也不需要的东西：人造的假花、带玻璃盖和汽哨的煮咖啡用的圆形酒精炉、黑色细纱的晚装和已经撤销的政府机关的制服。

    人们买卖的净是些简单实用的东西：定量配给的、很快就变硬的面包头，用嘴咬过的德湿、肮脏的糖块，从一整包切成一半又一半的只有几两重的马合烟草。

    市场上流通的就是这类来路不明的、没多大用处的东西，价钱却随着在人们手上周转而上升。

    车夫把车拐到和广场相通的一条巷子里。～轮落日从后面直射到他们的背上。前面有一辆隆隆行驶的空空的大车，掀起的一股股灰尘被夕阳染成青铜色。

    最后，他们终于超过了挡在前面的大车，于是加快了速度。让医生觉得奇怪的是，大路和人行道上处处都可以看到一堆堆从房屋和围墙上扯下来的旧报纸和广告。风把它们吹到一边，马蹄、车轮和来往的行人又把它们踩到另一边。

    过了几条横巷不久，在两条街的拐角上出现了自家的那幢房子。车夫停了车。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从四轮轻便马车上下来的时候，感到呼吸急促，心口怦怦跳，急忙向大门走去，按响了门铃。铃声没有得到任何反应，尤里·安德烈耶维奇于是又按了一次。当这次又毫无结果的时候，他越来越感到不安，就用很短的间隔一次又一次地接着门铃，直到随着向一侧打开的大门，看见把手伸开支在门上的安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜为止。由于出乎意料，刹那间两个人都呆住了，谁也没有听到对方的惊叫。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜手扶着敞开的门，张开双手让他拥抱，这才使他们摆脱了木呆呆的状态。两个人像发疯似的一下子扑到一起。过了一会儿，他们同时开了口，彼此打断对方的话头。

    “先告诉我，全家身体都好吗？”

    “好，好，你只管放心，一切都好。我在信里写了些蠢话，对不起。这事以后再说吧。你为什么不拍个电报来呢？过一会儿马克尔就来给你提东西。啊，我明白了，叶戈罗夫娜没来开门，你就不放心了，是不是？叶戈罗夫娜到乡下去了。”

    “你瘦了，但显得多么年轻苗条啊！我马上把车夫打发走。”

    “叶戈罗夫娜搞面粉去了。别的佣人都辞退了。现在只用了一个新女仆，她叫纽莎，你不认识，是个姑娘，让她照看萨申卡，另外就没人了。所有的熟人我都打了招呼，说是你该到了，大家都焦急地盼着。戈尔东，还有杜多罗夫，所有的人。”

    “萨申卡怎么样？”

    “上帝保佑，挺好。他刚刚睡醒。你要不是才从外边回来，现在就可以去看他。”

    “爸爸在家吗？”

    “信上不是写了嘛。一天到晚都在区杜马，当了主席。这你就可以明白啦。付了车钱没有？马克尔！马克尔！”

    他们提着网篮和皮箱站在人行道中间，挡住了路，行人从他们身边绕过，从头到脚地上下打量这两个人，然后又久久地望着渐渐走远了的马车和敞开的大门，等着看下一步会发生什么事。

    这时候，马克尔从大门口朝这对年轻的主人跑过来。他身穿印花布衬衣，外面套了一件背心，手里拿着一项园丁帽，一边跑一边喊：

    “感谢上帝神力无边，一定是尤罗奇卡吧？那还用说，就是他，这只小雄鹰！尤里·安德烈耶维奇，可爱的人，总算没忘了我们这些为你祷告的人，飞回老案来啦。你们还要怎么样？啊，还想看什么？”他讥讽地朝那几个好奇的过路人说，“走开吧，可敬的先生们。别把眼珠子看得掉出来！”

    “你好，马克尔，让咱们拥抱一下。你这个古怪人，干吗穿背心。怎么样，有什么新鲜事儿和好消息？妻子和女儿们都好吗？”

    “没什么可说的，都长得挺好，谢谢您的关心。至于说新鲜事嘛，你在外边干大事，可我们也没闲着打瞌睡。如今到处都弄得又脏又乱，叫人恶心，简直弄不明白是怎么回事！街道不打扫，房顶不修缮，从没油饰粉刷过，真像吃斋茹素的一样，一干二净，一丝一毫分外的东西也没有。”

    “马克尔，我可要在尤里·安德烈耶维奇面前告你的状。尤罗奇卡，他总是这样，净说傻里傻气的话，简直让我受不了。大概是冲着你才这么卖力气，想让你满意。不过，他自己也有心里的打算。住口吧，马克尔，不用辩白了。马克尔，你真是个不开窍的人，该变得聪明点儿啦。你大概还没同那些小摊贩混在一起吧。”

    马克尔把东西拿到屋里，砰的一声把前门关上，接着就放低声音十分肯定地说：

    “安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜在发脾气，这你也听见了。她总是这样。她常说，马克尔，你从里到外都一片漆黑，简直像是烟囱里的油烟子。她还说，你现在也不是小孩子了，就算是一条小狮子狗或者哈巴狗，也该通人性了。当然，这么说也木一定对，尤罗奇卡，信不信由你，可是只有知情人才见过那本书，一个了不起的共济会会员写的，整整压了一百四十年不得见天日。可是我觉得目前我们是被出卖了，尤罗奇卡，你难道还木明白，一个小钱、一撮鼻烟都不值地就把我们卖了。你看，安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜又不让我说话，在那儿摆手哪。”

    “当然要摆手。好了，好了，把东西放在地板上，谢谢，马克尔，开步走吧。需要的话，尤里·安德烈耶维奇会喊你的。”

    “总算把他摆脱了。你要信他的话就只管信好了。纯粹是演戏，在别人面前总装出痴呆的样子，可是自己偷偷地磨刀以备万一。只不过还没决定要对着谁，这个假装可怜的人！”

    “唉，你也是太过分了！依我看，他只不过是喝多了，所以才这么扭怩做作，没什么了不起的。”

    “那么你说说看，什么时候他清醒过？算啦，让他见鬼去吧。我担心萨申卡恐怕又没睡着。要不是铁路上流行这种伤寒病……

    你身上没有虱子吧？”

    “我想没有。路上坐的车很舒服，跟战前一样。不过还是要洗一洗，稍微洗～下，用不了多长时间，以后再好好洗。你要上哪儿去？怎么不从客厅穿过去？你们现在走另一道楼梯？”

    “啊，对啦，你还不知道呢。我和爸爸想了又想，还是把楼下的一部分让给了农学院。不然冬天自己连暖气都烧不过来。楼上也太空，还提出来再让给他们一部分，暂时还没接受。他们在这儿安置的是研究室、植物标本和选出来的种子。就是别养老鼠，种子倒无所谓。不过他们把房间保持得不整洁。现在都把房间叫居住面积。往这边来，这边来。看你多笨！从后边的小楼梯绕过去。明白了吗？跟我来，我带路。”

    “你们把房子让出去，做得太好了。我工作的那个医院也是设在一幢贵族家的住宅里。楼上楼下一排排望不到头的门对门的房间，还保留了一部分镶木地板。养在木桶里的棕桐，支支楞楞的枝叶晚上从病床上看去就像一个个幽灵。那些从火线下来的见过世面的伤员都觉得害怕，做梦还会喊起来。当然，他们的神志也不太正常，受过震伤。结果，不得不把这些树搬出去。我想说的是，有钱人家的生活当中的确有些不健全的东西，多余的东西简直数也数不清。比如家里那些多余的家具和房间，多余的细腻的情感，多余的表达方式。住得挤一点儿，这太好了。木过还不行，应该再挤一点儿。”

    “你那纸卷里露出来的是什么？嘴像鸟，脑袋像鸭子。真好看！野鸭子！从哪儿来的？简直不可思议！这在当前就算是一笔财产！”

    “在火车上人家送的。说起来话长，以后再谈。你看怎么样，把它拿出来放到厨房去？”

    “那当然。马上就让纽莎腿毛、开膛。听说到了冬天会有各种可怕的事，要挨饿、受冻。”

    “不错，到处都这么说。方才在车上我看着窗外还在想，有什么能比家庭的和睦和工作更可贵？除此以外，一切我们都无法掌握。说真的，看起来不少人面临着不幸。有些人想往南方逃，到高加索去，希望远走高飞。这可不合我们的习惯。～个男子汉应该能咬紧牙关，和自己的乡土共命运。我觉得这个道理很明显。至于你们，另当别论。我多么希望保护你们躲过这场灾难，送你们到更安全的地方，也许到芬兰去会好～些。不过，我们要是在楼梯上站半个小时，恐怕永远也到不了楼上。”

    “等一下，你听我说，还有一件事。是什么来着？一下子我都给忘了。啊，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇来了。”

    “哪一个尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇？”

    “科利亚舅舅。”

    “东尼娜！这不可能！怎么来的？”

    “你看，就这么回事，从瑞士绕道去伦敦，然后经过芬兰。”

    “东尼娜！你不是开玩笑吧？你们见到他了？他在哪儿？能不能尽快找到他，现在就去？”

    “真是急性子！他住在城外一个熟人的别墅里。他答应后天就回来。他变得很厉害，你会失望的。中途他在彼得堡逗留了一阵子，受了布尔什维克的影响。爸爸和他争得面红耳赤。真的，咱们为什么走一走停一停？走吧。看来你也听说今后的情形不妙，净是困难、危险和本知数暧？”

    “我自己也这么认为。算了吧，我们是会斗争的。绝不会所有的人统统完蛋。看看别的人怎么办吧。”

    “听说劈柴、水、照明都会没有。货币要取消，供应也要停止。我们又站住了，走吧。你听我说，人家都夸阿尔巴特街的一个作坊制作的方铁炉子好。用报纸烧火就能做一顿饭。我已经知道了地址，趁着还没抢购完，想买一个。”

    “对，一定买。东尼娜，你真聪明！可是科利亚舅舅……科利亚舅舅怎么办！你想想看！我简直安不下心来！”

    “我有个打算。把楼上的一边再腾出一角来，我们和爸爸、萨申卡，还有纽莎，搬到尽头的两个或者三个房间去，不过必须是连通的，整幢房子的其余部分都不要了。这样刚好和临街的一面隔开，当中的一间装上这种铁炉子，烟筒从气窗伸出去，洗衣、用餐、烧饭和起居会客都在那里，别白烧这个炉子。也许上帝保佑能让我们度过冬天。”

    “那还用说！肯定能过冬，毫无疑问。你想得真周到，好样儿的。你想到没有，为了表示采纳你这个方案，把那只鸭子烧好，请科利亚舅舅一起来庆贺我们乔迁。”

    “好主意。我还可以让戈尔东拿点酒精来。他能从一个实验室里弄到。现在你看，这就是我说的那个房间。我挑选的，你觉得怎么样？把皮箱放到地板上，下楼去把网篮拿上来。除了舅舅和戈尔东之外，还可以把因诺肯季和舒拉·施莱辛格也请来。不反对吧？咱们的洗脸间在哪儿，还没忘记吧？到那儿去用消毒水洗一洗。我到萨申卡那儿去看看，让纽莎到楼下去。什么时候能看他，我再喊你。”

    对他来说，在莫斯科最主要的新鲜事儿就是这个男孩。萨申卡刚一落地，尤里·安德烈耶维奇就被征召入伍了。关于儿子他能知道些什么？

    已经接到动员令并且在快出发之前，有一次尤里·安德烈耶维奇到医院去看望东尼娜。正好碰上给婴儿哺乳的时间，没让他进去。

    他就坐在走廊里等。在这一段时间里，和产房以及产妇的那一排病房尽头成直角拐过去的婴儿室的那条走廊上，传来十几个新生儿连成一片的啼哭声；为了不让襁褓里的孩子受凉，保育员匆忙地走着，两边的臂肘下面各挟着一个婴儿，仿佛刚买来的一小捆物品似的，把孩子送到母亲那里去喂奶。

    “哇，哇！”小家伙们的哭声都是一个调子，几乎不带任何情感成分，似乎是在完成应尽的责任。不过，在这齐唱当中有一个嗓音比较突出。他同样是“哇、哇”地哭喊，同样让人听不出有什么痛苦，不过好像并非出于本能，而是带着某种蓄意把声音降低的成分，颇有点阴郁和木大友善。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇已经决定给儿子取名为亚历山大，以纪念自己的岳父。不知为什么，他当时就认定自己的儿子一定是这么个哭法，而且脸上还伴随着预示一个人未来性格和命运的表情。在尤里·安德烈耶维奇的想象中，哭声本身就包含着亚历山大这个名字的声音成分。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇并没有猜错。后来知道当时正是萨申卡在哭。这是他对儿子所了解的头一桩事。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇对他的进一步了解，是根据寄到前线的信里附的照片。在那上边看到的是个活泼可爱的胖小子，头很大，撅着小嘴，叉开两腿站在铺开的毯子上，两只小手向上举着，仿佛是在做蹲跳动作。那时他刚一周岁，刚学走路，如今已经满了两岁，开始学说话了。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从地板上拿起皮箱，松开皮带，把里面的东西摆放到窗前的一张呢子铺面的桌上。从前这个房间是做什么用的？医生已经记不起来了。看来东尼哑把里面的家具搬走了，或者重新粉刷过了。

    医生打开箱子，想从里边找出刮脸用具。窗口对面的教堂钟楼的柱子当中，高悬起一轮明亮的圆月。月光洒在放在箱子里面的衣服、书和漱洗用具上，房间仿佛被照成另一种样子，医生这时却认出了它。

    这是空出来的去世的安娜·伊万诺夫娜的储藏室。过去她把坏桌椅和没用的过时的杂物都放在这儿。这里还存放着她家族的文件，有几只大木箱是夏天盛放冬季用品的。死者在世的时候，屋里四处的东西堆得几乎碰到天花板，而且一般是不让人随便进来的。不过在几个大的节日，孩子们来做客的时候，允许他们在楼上到处玩耍，也把这个房间的门打开。孩子们就在这儿玩捉强盗游戏，躲在桌子下面，用烧焦的软木塞把脸涂黑，仿照假面舞会的样子化装。

    医生在这儿站了一会儿，想起了这些，然后才到楼下的前室去取网篮。

    在下面的厨房里，腼腆的、怯生生的纽莎姑娘蹲在灶前，在摊开的一张报纸上收拾那只野鸭。一看到尤里·安德烈耶维奇手里提着很重的东西，她的脸一下子涨红了，麻利地站起身，一面拂掉沾在围裙上的鸭毛，招呼了一声就要去帮忙。但是医生谢绝了她的好意，说他自己可以把篮子拿上去。

    他刚刚走进安娜·伊万诺夫娜过去的那间储藏室，就听到妻子在第二个或者第三个房间里面喊他：

    “可以来啦，尤拉！”

    他于是朝萨申卡的房间走去。

    现在的儿童室就是早先他和东尼哑学习的地方。睡在小床上的男孩子，原来并不像照片上那样漂亮，不过他活脱脱就是尤里·安德烈耶维奇已去世的母亲玛丽亚·尼古拉耶夫娜，比她身后留下来的所有肖像更酷似。

    “这是爸爸，你的爸爸，把小手伸给爸爸。”安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜说，一边放下床旁的栏杆，让做父亲的更便于把孩子抱起来。

    萨申卡让这个陌生的、没有刮脸的大人走到跟前，也许是由于后者惊吓和触碰了他，所以当后者刚朝他弯下身的时候，这孩子猛地从床上站起来，抓住妈妈的短上衣，恶狠狠地照他脸上打了一巴掌。萨申卡对自己的勇敢也害了怕，立刻扑到母亲怀里，把脸用衣服挡住，大声哭起来，孩子气的辛酸痛苦的眼泪夺眶而出。

    “哦，哦，”安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜轻声地责怪他，“不许这样，萨申卡。爸爸会想，萨沙不好，是个坏孩子。来，让人看看你会不会亲，亲亲爸爸。别哭啦，有什么可哭的，傻孩子。”

    “东尼娜，让他安安静静呆着吧。”医生用请求的口气说，“不要难为他啦，你自己也别不高兴。我知道你又会胡思乱想，觉得这不是好兆头，一定是个不好的兆头。这都是无稽之谈。本来很自然嘛，孩子从来没见过我。明天和我一熟，用水都泼不开。”

    但是他自己也很沮丧，从屋子里出去的时候，怀着某种不祥的预感。

    在此后的几天里，他才领悟自己是多么孤独。他并不责怪任何人。显然，这是他自己希望并且争取得到的。

    朋友们都变得出奇的消沉了。每个人似乎都失去了自己的天地、自己的见解。在记忆中，他们的形象原本是更加鲜明的。看来从前他对他们的评价过高了。

    只要清理上还允许有钱人靠剥削穷人而任性胡为，那么，就很容易把这种怪事以及多数人受苦而少数人享乐的权力当成事物的本来面貌和天经地义的道理！

    不过，一旦底层的人抬头，上层的特权被取消，这一切就会黯然失色，大家也毫不可惜地彻底同任何人显然都不曾有过的独立思考分手了！

    如今尤里·安德烈耶维奇感到最亲近的只是那些可以无言相对和缺少激情的人，此外还有妻子、岳父，再加上两三个一起共事的医生和几位谦虚谨慎的普通职员。

    按照事先的打算，准备了野鸭和酒精的晚餐聚会在他回来后的第二天或者第三天如期举行了。在这之前，他已经同所有被邀请的人都见了面，所以，这天晚上不能说是他们的初次会见。

    在闹饥荒的日子里，这只肥鸭变成了难得一见的奢侈品，可是搞不到能够佐餐的面包，这又使出色的菜肴失去了意义，甚至令人感到愤意。

    戈尔东拿来的酒精是盛在一个药房用的带磨口瓶塞的玻璃瓶里。当时，酒精是投机小贩最喜欢使用的一种交换手段。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜牢牢地把瓶子掌握在手里，根据需要渗上水，分成几小份，随着情绪的变化有时调制得酒性过烈，有时又过淡。原来，通过酒液的变化而使人产生不均匀的醉意，效果要比烈性酒和度数稳定的酒的作用更大。这同样也令人懊丧。

    最引人伤感的莫过于他们的聚会和现时的条件完全不和谐。不能设想街巷对面那一幢幢房子里此时此刻人们也会有吃有喝。窗外就是黝黑沉寂的、饥饿的莫斯科。城里的小吃店空空如也，像野味和伏特加这类东西，已从人们的记忆中消失了。

    看来，只有和周围的生活相似并能不留痕迹地融合其中，才是真正的生活；单独的幸福并不成其为幸福，因为鸭子和酒精在全市已经是独一无二的东西，所以也就失去了鸭子和酒精的滋味。这是最最令人烦恼的。

    客人们同样有了种种不愉快的思绪。戈尔东的情绪还不错。他吃力地动着脑筋，忧郁而又不连贯地阐述自己的思想。他是尤里·安德烈耶维奇最好的朋友。在中学的时候，大家都很喜欢他。

    但是现在，他对自己也感到厌烦，于是就想对自己的精神面貌做些未见得成功的修正。他强打起精神，硬着头皮装出无忧无虑的样子，不停地讲俏皮话，常常使用些“有意思”和“很有趣”这类并非他惯用的字眼，因为戈尔东从来不善于从消遣的意义上去理解生活。

    在社多罗夫到来以前，他给大家讲的就是自认为可笑的杜多罗夫的婚事。这在朋友们当中已经有所传闻，不过尤里·安德烈耶维奇还不知道。

    原因就是杜多罗夫婚后将近一年又和妻子分了手。这件意外的事令人难以相信的症结是这样的：

    由于差错，社多罗夫被征去当兵。在服役和等待把问题搞清楚这段时间，又因为粗心大意和在街上不向上级敬礼，他大部分时间干的是惩罚性的勤务。解除兵役以后的很长时期，只要一看到军官，他的手便不由自主地还要举起来，两眼发花，仿佛到处都是闪亮的肩章。

    那段时间，他无论做什么都不顺当，出了种种差错和纸漏。正是处于这种情况，他大概是在伏尔加河的一个码头上遇见了两个姑娘。她们是两姐妹，和他等的是同一条船。也许是因为周围有数不清的军人走来走去而引起精神恍惚，同时又勾起了当兵的时候和敬礼有关的感受，他看都没有看仔细就爱上了那位年轻的妹妹，匆匆忙忙地向她求了婚。“有意思吧，是木是？”戈尔东不止一次地问大家。说到这里，他不得不草草结束这段描述，因为门外传来了故事主人公的声音。杜多罗夫走进房间。

    在他身上发生的是相反的变化。先前一个不稳重的、任性的轻浮人，变成了一个神情专注的学者。

    少年时期由于参与一次政治犯的逃亡被中学开除以后，有一段时间他在几个艺术学校之间转来转去，最后终于被严肃的专业吸引住了。杜多罗夫在战争年代才从大学毕业，比同伴们都晚多了，然后就留在俄国史和世界史两个教研室里。他在俄国史方面写过有关伊凡雷帝的土地政策的著作，在世界史方面从事圣茹斯特的研究。

    如今他对一切问题都很有兴致，说话时声音不高，略带伤风似的喀哑，有所期待的目光凝视在一点上，眼睛既不低垂也不抬起，仿佛是在讲课。

    这次晚间聚会快结束的时候，舒拉·施莱辛格终于忍不住开始了抨击性的谈话，而大家的情绪正好也处于昂奋状态，于是争先恐后地大声喊叫起来。从中学时期尤里·安德烈耶维奇就以“您”相称的因诺肯季，这时一连几次地问他：

    “您读过《战争与和平》和《脊柱横笛碑没有？”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇早就对他说过正在考虑这个问题，但是因为大家争论得厉害，社多罗夫并没有听清，所以过了一会儿，他又问：

    “您是不是读过《脊柱横笛》和《人》？”

    “我可是已经回答您了，因诺肯季。没听清楚是您的过错。好吧，就依着你，我再说一遍。我一向喜欢马雅可夫斯基的作品。这好像是阳思妥耶夫斯基的某种继续。更确切一点说，整个作品仿佛是由他创造的某一个年轻有为的人物所写成的一部抒情诗，比如说伊波利特·拉斯科利尼科夫，或者《少年》里的主人公。天才的力量简直所向披靡！这真是一语道破，说得多么斩钉截铁和直截了当！不过，最主要的还是他把这一切都那么勇敢地一下子甩到社会的脸上，抛到更遥远的宇宙空间！”

    当然，聚会的中心人物还是舅舅。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜说错了，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇并没有到别墅去。外甥到家的那天他就回到城里。尤里·安德烈耶维奇已经见过他两三次，两个人说也说够了，笑也笑够了。

    他们第一次见面是在灰蒙蒙的一个阴天的晚上，空中飘着细微的雨丝，尤里·安德烈耶维奇径直来到尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇的房间。当时的饭店已经只能根据市政当局的指示接待客人。不过，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇到处都有熟人，他还保持着不少老关系。

    饭店给人留下的印象只木过是一幢逃走的经理人员所抛弃的黄颜色的房屋。里面空空如也，杂乱无章，楼梯和走廊偶尔才有人收拾一下。

    没有整理过的这个房间的一扇大窗，俯瞰着一片在当时那个发疯似的年代变得国无一人的广场。它空旷得有些吓人，似乎只有在梦中才会见到，并非当真就展现在眼前饭店的窗下。

    这次见面是激动人心、令人难忘而又值得纪念的！他童年时代无限崇拜的人，少年时期左右他思想的人，现在又活生生地站在他面前。

    斑白的头发给尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇增添了风采，一套国外缝制的衣服非常合身。在他那个年龄来说，他看上去还很年轻，还是个美男子。

    当然，与周围发生的巨大变化相比，他显得黯然失色。一系列事件都把他甩到了一边。不过，尤里·安德烈耶维奇丝毫不想用这种尺度去衡量他。

    尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇的安详、冷漠，谈到政治话题时用的那种玩世不恭的口气，都使他感到吃惊。他那自我克制的本领已经超过了俄国现实的可能。在这点上，恰好表现出他这个外来人的特征。这个特点太引人注目，显得不合时宜而且令人感到不自在。

    啊，不过他们见面之后最初一段时间想的并不是这个，也不是出于这个原因才哭着紧紧拥抱在一起，激动得上气不接下气，急切、热烈的谈话常常陷于停顿。这是由家族的亲缘关系连接着的两个具有创造力的个性的相逢，尽管往事的云烟再度升起而又获得了活力，种种回忆纷至沓来，分别期间发生的一桩桩的事也浮现在眼前，但是只要话题一转到主要方面，接触到具有创业精神的人都熟悉的事情上，两人之间除了唯一的亲缘关系以外的一切联系都消失了，舅舅和外甥的身份隐退了，年龄的差距不见了，剩下来的只有彼此几乎相当的气质、能力和基本信念。

    近十年来，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇始终还没有机会，这样与自己的思想合拍地评论一个作家的扭力和创作使命的实质，自己也从来不曾像现在这样感到适得其所。另一方面，尤里·安德烈耶维奇也一向没有听到过如此透彻、精辟的意见，这一番如雷贯耳的分析的确使他折服。

    因为双方的想法是那样不谋而合，两个人不时发出大声的感叹，两手抱头在房间里快步走来走去，或者跑到窗前，一言不发地用手指轻轻敲着玻璃，为相互这样理解而感到惊讶。

    这就是他们第一次见面的情形，不过，后来医生又在社交场合见过尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇几次，和其他人在一起，他的表现却变得让人认不出来了。

    他已经觉察到自己在莫斯科只是个过客，也不想抛弃这种感觉。他会不会认为彼得堡或者另外什么地方才是自己的家，始终是个不解之谜。他安于扮演一个政治上能言善辩、社会上有迷人勉力的角色。也许，在他的想象中，莫斯科也会开放一些政治沙龙，就像在巴黎的国民议会开始之前罗兰夫人家里举行的那种沙龙。

    他不时到莫斯科僻静的小巷走走，看看自己那些慷慨好客的、相好的女人，亲密无间地同她们以及她们的男人开开玩笑，嘲弄她们那种半新不旧的思想、落后的生活和坐井观天地判断事物的习惯。现在，他可以尽情炫耀大量的报纸上的新闻，简直就像从前的俄耳甫斯派教徒在宣讲伪经一样。

    据说，他在瑞士还有一位新的年轻女伴以及未了的事务和尚未脱稿的著作，这次只不过暂时投入祖国沸腾的漩涡，以后如果能完好无损地脱身出来，他还是要返回阿尔卑斯山脚下。

    他拥护布尔什维克，常常提起两个左派社会革命党人的名字，引为知己。其中一位是新闻记者，笔名米罗什卡·波莫尔；另一位是政治评论专栏作家，笔名西尔维亚·科捷利。

    亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇用不满的口气责备他说：

    “简直是可怕，您都走到什么地步了，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇！您的那个米罗什卡，简直是坑人！再加上那位利季亚·波克利。”

    “科捷利，”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇纠正道，“科捷利，西尔维亚。”

    “反正都一样，不论是波克利还是波普利，名字不说明问题。”

    “对不起，木过总还得是科捷利。”尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇很有耐心地坚持着。他和亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇进行着这样的交谈：

    “咱们有什么可争论的？这些道理根本值不得论证。这是起码的常识。多少世纪以来，基本的人民群众的生存简直不可思议。可以拿任何一本历史教科书来看一看，不管叫作封建主义还是农奴制，叫作资本主义还是工场化的工业，这种制度本身的不合理和不公正老早就被发现了，早就在准备着可以把人民引向光明、使一切都各得其所的变革。

    “您也知道，对旧的只做部分修补是行不通的，需要根本破除。也许这会招来整个建筑的垮台。那又怎么样？难道因为这很可怕，就该做的都不做，该发生的都不让它发生？这只是个时间问题。这个道理能推翻吗？”

    “唉，我们谈的不是一码事儿。难道我是这个意思？我说的是什么？”亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇生气了，争论更加激烈。

    “您的波普利和米罗什卡之流，都是昧良心的人。他们说的是～个样，做的又是一个样。这难道合乎逻辑？言行毫无一致可言。对了，请等一下，我现在就证明给您看。”

    他开始翻找一本登载了自相矛盾的文章的刊物，推推拉拉地把写字台的抽屉弄得很响，似乎要用这种声音激发辞藻。

    亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇喜欢在谈话时从旁能有些闲事干扰，以此来证明他慢条斯理的停顿和哼啊、哈呀的口气是有道理的。每当他在找一件什么东西的时候，比如说在光线不足的前厅过道里找另一只套鞋，就会诱发浓厚的谈话的兴致，或者肩膀上搭着毛巾跨在浴室的门槛上，要不就是在餐桌上传送丰盛的菜肴，或者给客人们往杯子里斟酒的时候，也会如此。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇非常爱听岳父讲话。他喜爱这种十分熟悉的老式莫斯科腔，尾声拖得比较长，带点轻轻的鼻音，同时也和格罗梅科家族的人一样，卷百音和木卷舌音分不大清。

    亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇留着经过修剪的小胡须，上唇稍稍超出下唇。他胸前系的蝴蝶式领结也这样稍稍向前凸起。嘴唇和领结之间有某种共同之处，使亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇增添了几分更加动人的、可亲的稚气。

    深夜，就在客人们将要离开的时候，舒拉·施莱辛格来了。她是直接从一个集会上来的，只穿了件短上衣，戴一顶工人的便帽，大步走进房间，挨个儿和所有的人握手寒暄，一边不住地责备和埋怨。

    “你好，东尼娜。你好，萨汉奇卡。不管怎么说也是不像话，你们说是不是？到处都听人说他回来了，全莫斯科都谈论这事，可是从你们这儿我最后才知道。见你们的鬼去吧。显然我不配知道。他在哪儿，这个让大家左盼右盼的人？请让我过去。围得像堵墙似的。啊，你好！好样儿的，真是好样儿的。我读过了。虽然一点也不懂，可是也感觉到真有才气。这是明摆着的。您好，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇。我马上就回到你这儿来，尤罗奇卡。我有话要专门找你好好谈一谈。你们好，年轻的小伙子们。啊，你也在这儿，戈戈奇卡？鹅呀，鹅呀，嘎、嘎、嘎，你想吃，是吧？”

    最后这个惊叹句是针对格罗梅科家那位勉强算得上的远亲戈戈奇卡说的，此人最看重的是新露头的势力，由于他愚蠢可笑，大家都叫他阿库利卡，又因为他身材瘦长，又被人叫作“绦虫”。

    “你们不是在这儿又吃又喝吗？我也决不落后。喂，先生们，先生们。你们简直一无所知，什么都不了解！世界上在发生什么情况！在发生什么事！你们应该到任何一个真正的基层集会上去看看，撇开书本去会会那些实实在在的工人和士兵。可以在那里把你们反对把战争打到最后胜利的主张提出来试试看。那儿的人一定会给你们点厉害看！我刚刚听过一个水兵的发言。尤罗奇卡，要是你就一定会发疯！那感情多么热烈！逻辑多么严整！”

    舒拉·施莱辛格的话好几次被打断。所有的人都自管自地大声喧嚷。她坐到尤里·安德烈耶维奇身边，握住他的一只手，凑到他脸前，为的是压倒其他人的声音，像是对着话筒一样用不高不低的嗓音喊道：

    “还是跟我去吧，尤罗奇卡。我给你介绍一些人。要知道，你十二万分需要像安泰那样去和大地接触。你干吗瞪眼睛？难道我的话让你吃惊？莫非你不知道我是匹识途的老战马，当年贝斯上热夫女子高等学院的学生，尤罗奇卡？我坐过班房，参加过街垒战，那还用说！可你想的是什么？哦，我们不了解人民！我就是刚刚从那里来，从他们当中来。我正在帮助他们整顿一个图书馆。”

    她已经喝了不少，显然有了醉意。不过，尤里·安德烈耶维奇的头也在嗡嗡作响。他已经搞不清舒拉·施莱辛格怎么会跑到房间的另一头，他自己却在这一头的桌子边上。他站在桌旁，从一切迹象来看，出乎自己意料地讲起话来。

    “先生们……我想……米沙！戈戈奇卡！……这怎么办，东尼娜，他们都不听？先生们，让我谈几句。闻所未闻的、史无前例的事件正在逼近。在它还没有降临到我们头上以前，对你们各位提一点希望。当它到来的时候，愿上帝保佑我们大家彼此不要失掉联系，也不要灰心丧气。戈戈奇卡，你先别忙着喊万岁。我还没说完哪。角落里的请别讲话，用心听听吧。

    “战争进行到第三年，老百姓逐渐相信前方和后方的界限迟早要消失，血的海洋会逼近到每个人的脚下，溅在所有企图逃避、苟且偷安的人身上。这场血的洪流就是革命。

    “在这个过程中，就像我们在战场上一样，你们也会觉得生命大概已经停止，属于个人的一切都将结束，除了残杀和死亡以外，世界上再没有别的东西；如果我们还能活到可以把当时的情况记录下来并且看到这些回忆录的时候，我们肯定会认识到，在这五年或十年当中的感受，远远胜过整整一个世纪。

    “我还说不清楚，究竟是人民自己以排山倒海之势挺身而起，还是这一切仅仅是打着他们的招牌。这样大规模的事件不需要那种装腔作势的论证。用不着这个我也相信。在巨大的事件中寻找起因未免失于浅薄，而且也不会找到。家务事的争吵倒有它的根源，不过发展到两个人互相揪起头发、摔盘子砸碗的地步，也就难断定哪一个先动了手。总之，真正宏伟的事物是没有起点的，这也像宇宙一样。它一下子就出现在你面前，仿佛一向就有或者从天而降。

    “我也认为，俄罗斯注定会是争取社会主义统治的第一个国家。当这件事成为现实的时候，它会使我们在很长时期内怅然若失，一旦清醒之后，也就永远不能追回已经丧失的那一半的记忆。我们将会忘记许多事件的发生孰先孰后，也不再为这空前的变化寻求解释。已经确立的制度就像大地上的森林或者天空的云絮那样把我们团团围住，无所不在地受它的包围。没有任何其他的结局。”

    他接下去又说了些什么，不过酒意逐渐消退了，但是仍旧像先前那样听不清周围人讲的话，回答得也文不对题。他看到了大家普遍对他表露的爱戴，可是无法驱除让自己感到无所适从的那种忧伤。于是他说：

    “谢谢，谢谢。我理解你们的感情，可是我担当不起。不要因为担心今后不会再有更强烈的爱的机会，就这样匆忙而毫无保留地放任这种感情。”

    全体都放声大笑并且鼓起掌来，觉得这是故意说出来的尖刻话，不过他却觉得不知所措，因为已经有了很强的不幸的预感，已经意识到将来的无能为力，尽管他一心渴求善良并且能够争取幸福。

    客人开始散去。由于困乏，每个人的面孔都拉得很长，加上不住地打呵欠又使他们的颌骨时开时闭，所以显得更像是一张张马脸。

    告别的时候，拉开了窗帷，敞开了窗。晨爆带了一点淡黄色，湿涌浪的天空飘浮着污浊的土褐色的云团。“方才我们高谈阔论的时候，肯定是下了一场雷阵雨。”有人这么说。“我到这儿来的路上就赶上了雨，好不容易才走到。”舒拉·施莱辛格证实道。

    在空荡荡而且仍然昏暗的巷子里，树上残存的雨水滴落声夹杂着被雨淋湿的麻雀坚韧不拔的调脉。

    一阵雷声响过，仿佛是一架犁钟从天空犁了过去，接着一切又都归于沉寂。在这以后才传来四声沉闷的雷鸣，像是秋天收获的松散堆起的大块马铃薯用铁锹翻动时散落的声音。

    雷雨使整个充满烟草雾气的房间有了清新的气息。突然，生活的所有组成部分，水和空气、欢乐的愿望、大地和天空，都像电的激发一样让人可以感觉到了。

    小巷里响起一片散去的人们的话语声。他们还都像方才在屋子里一样继续高谈阔论地议论着什么。人声逐渐远去，一点一点地消失沉寂下来。

    “时间真不早啦，”尤里·安德烈耶维奇说道，“我们去睡吧。世界上所有的人当中，我爱的只有你和爸爸。”

    八月过去了，九月也到了末尾。流逝的时光已经一去不复返。冬天的脚步逐渐临近，而人世间到处关心和谈论的，就是类乎动物界冬眠之前一定要解决的问题。

    需要作御寒的准备，也要储存食物和劈柴。但是在这唯物主义欢庆胜利的日子里，物质变成了概念，粮食和燃料问题代替了食物和劈柴。

    城市里的人是无助的，仿佛一群孩子面对日益迫近的毫无所知的未来，后者在自己前进的路上推翻了所有既定的习惯，身后留下来的是一片空虚，尽管它本身也是城市的产儿，是由市民所创造的。

    周围全是些不可靠的指望和不着边际的高谈阔论。平庸乏味的日常生活还在一瘸一拐地挣扎着，勉强按照老习惯朝着什么方向走下去。不过，医生看到的生活是未经渲染的。生活的判决逃不过他的眼睛。他看到自己和自己的环境是注定要完蛋的。面临的考验甚至可能就是毁灭。他剩下的屈指可数的日子就在眼前一天天地消融下去。

    要不是还有日常的生活琐事、劳动和操心忙碌，他可能会神智失常。妻子、孩子和必须挣钱，就是他的救星——迫切的、恭顺的事，日常生活，职务，给病人看病。

    他十分清楚，在未来这个怪异的庞然大物面前，自己是个侏儒，心怀恐惧，然而又喜爱这个未来，暗暗地为它自豪，同时又像告别那样，最后一次用深受鼓舞的热切的眼光凝视着天上的浮云和成排的树木，看着街上的行人，以及这座在不幸中的俄国城市。他做好了牺牲自己的准备，为的是让一切都好起来，但是无论什么都无能为力。

    每逢从旧马厩街拐角上的俄国医师协会的药房附近穿过阿尔巴特街的时候，他最经常看到的就是这一片天空和过往的行人。

    他重新回到自己先前的医院上班。尽管圣十字会已经解散，但医院仍旧照老习惯叫圣十字医院。因为目前还没有找到一个恰当的名称。

    医院里已经开始分化。对那些迟钝得让医生感到愤怒的四平八稳的人来说，他显得是个危险分子；在那些政治上走得很远的人看来，他的色彩还不够红。他就是落到这样一种不上不下的处境，他对这部分人显得落后，对另一部分人又难以接近。

    在医院里除了直接的职责以外，院长还让他管理一般的统计报表。他看过各式各样的调查表、意见书和表格，填写着应有尽有的要求严格的申报材料。死亡率，患者的增加数字，职工的财产状况，公民意识和参加选举的程度，燃料、食品、药物短缺的情况，所有这些都是中央统计局关心的，都要求作出回答。

    医生就在主治医师办公室窗边自己的那张旧桌子上做这些事。他面前的一侧放着成堆的格式和大小不一的各种带格的纸张。除了自己的定期的医疗工作记录以外，他还抽空在这里写自己的那本《人间游戏》，也就是当时岁月的日记或者札记，里面有散文和诗，还有各式各样的随笔杂感，都是在意识到半数的人已经失去了本来面目，而且不知道如何把戏演下去的启示下写出来的。

    这间阳光充足的明亮的主治医师办公室，四壁粉刷得雪白，洒满了金色秋天圣母升天节以后这段时间才有的那种奶油色的阳光。在这个季节，清晨已经让人感到微冻的初寒。准备过冬的山雀和喜鹊，纷纷飞向色彩缤纷、清新明快的已渐稀疏的小树林。这时的天空已经高悬到了极限，透过天地之间清澈的大气，一片暗蓝色冰冷的晴朗天色从北方延伸过来。世界上的一切都提高了能见度和听闻度。两地之间声音的传播十分响亮、清晰，而且是断续的。整个空间是如此清明透澈，似乎为你打开了洞穿一生的眼界。这种稀薄空寂的感觉，如果木是如此短暂，而且只是在秋季短短的一天的末尾、接近提早到来的傍晚时刻出现的话，那真是难以忍受的。

    映照在主治医师办公室的，正是早早衔山的秋田阳光。它是那样鲜明，有着琉璃般的光洁和润泽，仿佛是成熟的白浆苹果。

    医生坐在桌前，用笔尖蘸着墨水，边想边写。几只飞鸟悄悄地在近处从办公室的几扇大窗外面掠过，把无声的阴影投在室内，刹那间遮住了医生执笔的手、堆放着表格的书桌、地板和墙壁，接着又无声无息地飞走了。

    “柞树开始掉叶子啦。”走进来的解剖室主任说。这个先前身体肥胖的男人，如今由于消瘦，松弛的皮肤像口袋一样垂了下来。“风吹雨打都没摧垮，可是一个早晨就成了这个样子！”

    医生抬起头。果然不错，先前在窗外飞来飞去的不知名的鸟，原来是酒红色的柞树的落叶。它们一旦飞离开来，先是平缓地在空中飘荡，然后就落到树旁医院的草坪上，撒上点点橙色的星星。

    “窗缝腻好了吗？”解剖室主任问。

    “没有。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇边说边写。

    “怎么回事？已经到时候了。”

    专心在写的尤里·安德烈耶维奇没有回答。

    “唉，塔拉修克不在。”解剖室主任接着又说。“那真是个难得的人。能够修鞋，还会修钟表。什么都能干，世上没有办不到的事。是该腻窗户啦，该自己动手了。”

    “没有油灰。”

    “您可以自己配。这是配方。”解剖室主任接着就讲起了怎样用油灰和白努粉调制腻子。“看来，我打扰您了。”

    他于是走到另一扇窗前去摆弄自己的那些瓶瓶罐罐和药剂。天色逐渐暗下去。过了一会儿他又说：

    “您会把眼睛看坏的。光线太暗，可是还不给电。回家吧。”

    “再干一会儿，二十分钟。”

    “他的妻子就在医院里当卫生员。”

    “谁的？”

    “塔拉修克的。”

    “我知道。”

    “可是不知道他本人现在在什么地方。这人到处找营生。夏天曾经见到过两次，也到医院里来过。如今可能是在哪个乡下安排新的生活。他就是您经常在城里的林阴路和火车上看到的布尔什维克派士兵当中的那种人。您不想听个究竟吗？比如说这个塔拉修克？那就听听吧。这人是个多面手，干什么都不会出纸漏。只要他一着手，事情就顺当。战争时期他也是这样。对于打仗，他也像对待一种手艺那样用心。结果成了一名出色的射手。无论是在堑壕里还是在哨位上，眼光的锐利和手上的功夫都叭叭叫。他得的所有的奖章都不是因为勇猛，而是由于战斗中准确无误地执行任务。您看，就是这么个人物。任何事情都能激起他的满腔热情，对打仗也有感情。他看出武器的力量对他很有吸引力。自己也想成为一股力量。人一旦武装起来，就不同凡响。要是在过去，弓箭手往往就会变成绿林好汉。现在要想从他手里夺掉武器，您试试看。要是突然喊上一声‘掉转枪口’之类的口令，他就会把刺刀转过来。整个故事给您讲完了，这也是全部的马克思主义。”

    “而且千真万确，完全来自生活本身。您想的是什么？”

    解剖室主任又回到自己的窗前，翻检他的那些试管，过后又问道：

    “炉子怎么样？”

    “谢谢您的介绍。这人真是有意思。将近一个小时谈的都是黑格尔和克罗奇。”

    “那还用说！人家是海德堡大学的哲学博士。炉子怎么样？”

    “别提啦。”

    “是不是倒烟？”

    “就是这个毛病。”

    “烟筒装得不对。插到炉子上的地方应该糊住，那才正好把烟从气眼拔出去。”

    “是把它装到炉口上了。可是总冒烟。”

    “那就是没找准烟道，排到风道里了。也许是进了通风口。唉，塔拉修克不在！您只好忍耐一阵吧。这也非一日之功。生炉子这事可比不得您弹钢琴。劈柴准备了吗？”

    “到哪儿去弄啊？”

    “我把教堂的更夫给您派来。他搞木柴有门路，能把篱笆墙拆了当柴烧。不过事先提醒您注意，应该跟他讲价钱。他漫天要价。或者我把治虫子的老太婆找来。”

    他们下楼来到门房，穿上外衣，然后走到街上。

    “找治虫子的干什么？”医生说。“我们那儿没有臭虫。”

    “这和臭虫有什么关系？我说东，您就说西。不是臭虫，是劈柴。这个老太婆很会做生意。整幢的房子和屋架她都能当烧的东西买下来，能提供相当可观的数量。当心，别绊倒，太黑了。在这一带，过去蒙上眼睛我也能走。每块石头我都清楚。我是地地道道的本地人。自从把篱笆墙都拆掉了以后，我睁着眼也认不出来，仿佛是到了陌生的地方。露出来的这一片成了什么样子！风格古朴的几幢小房子周围长满了灌木丛，花园里用的圆桌，已经朽了一半的长椅，就躺在那儿。前几天我在三条巷子的交叉路口就路过这么一处荒废的地方。看到一位年近古稀的老太太用手杖在地上挖掘，我就说：‘上帝给您帮忙，老奶奶。您是不是挖蚯蚓，想钓鱼吧？’当然，我这是开玩笑。可她却一本正经地说：‘不是挖蚯蚓，老爷，是找野蘑菇。’说得真不错，在城里就跟在森林里一个样，到处闻得到发霉的树叶和蘑菇气味。”

    “我知道这个地方。就在谢列布良内和莫尔昌诺夫斯卡之间，对不对？我从那儿路过，总有些意外的发现。要么是碰上一二十年没见过面的熟人，要么是找到点什么东西，据说在拐角的地方还有抢劫的事。这也不奇怪，那里四通八达。到斯摩棱斯克那些残留下来的黑窝去的路，到处都是。抢了东西再扒衣服，然后逃之夭夭，你连个影子也找不到。”

    “灯光也太暗啦。难怪都把路灯叫作紫斑。真是恰到好处。”

    的确，无奇不有的意外的事，都在前边提到的那个地方让医生遇到了。深秋，就在十月战斗发生前不久一个寒冷漆黑的晚上，他在这个拐角的地方碰上一个人，横躺在人行道上，神智不清。这人伸开两臂躺着，头靠在石柱上，两腿搭在路边。他不时断断续续地发出轻微的呻吟。对医生试着让他恢复知觉而大声提出的问话，这人只低声含糊地吐出几个不连贯的字，又一次昏迷过去。他的头被打破了，染满鲜血，经过匆忙的检查，看来颅骨还是完好的。这个躺倒的人毫无疑问是一次武力抢劫的牺牲品。“皮包，皮包。”他轻声说了两三次。

    医生用附近阿尔巴特街药房的电话叫来了派到圣十字医院赶马车的老头，把这不知名的人送到医院。

    这位遇到不幸的人原来是个知名的政治活动家。医生治好了他的伤，而此后多年他就成为医生的一个庇护人，在那充满怀疑和不信任的年代，让医生免受了许多麻烦。

    那是个礼拜天。医生空闲无事，因为他不需要去上班。他们已经按安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜设想的那样，在西夫采夫街家里的那三个房间住下来准备过冬。

    天气寒冷而多风，预兆要降雪的低垂的乌云，颜色是墨黑的。

    从早起就开始生火，不住地冒烟。对如何生火一无所知的安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜，不断给纽莎出些自己也说不清楚的、帮倒忙的主意，而后者已经让这些潮湿得点不着的劈柴弄得狼狈不堪。医生看到这些，而且知道应该怎么办，就试着要插手，可是妻子一声不响地扶住他的肩膀，边送他走出房间边说：

    “回你自己房里去吧。本来就够头疼的啦，还来碍事。你就是有个说话打搅我的习惯。难道还不明白，你的主意只能是火上加油？”

    叫奥，油，东汉奇卡，这可太好啦！炉子一下子就能着起来。糟糕的是，我既看不到油，也看不到火。”

    “现在不是说俏皮话的时候。你要明白，有的时候根本顾不上这些。”

    生火的失败破坏了礼拜天的计划。大家原希望在天黑前把必需的事做完，到晚间就空闲了，但现在都落了空。午饭推迟了，想用热水洗洗头和做点其他事的打算也都办不到。‘烟很快就冒得让人没法呼吸，大风把烟倒灌到屋子里。房间里弥漫着烟熏的黑雾，如同神话中的死沉沉的林妖。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇把所有的人赶到隔壁房间里去，打开了气窗。他从炉子里掏出一半木柴，在剩下的一半当中用细柴和禅树皮铺了一条引火道。

    新鲜空气从气窗夺路而入，摆动着的窗帘向上飘了起来。从写字台上飞走了几张纸。风把远处的一扇门砰的一声关上，在各个角落里回旋，像猫捉老鼠似的追赶残存的烟雾。

    燃着了的木柴迸出火焰，僻僻啪啪地响着。小炉子像是被旺盛的火呛得不住喘息。铁皮炉膛上出现了一圈圈炽热的斑点，仿佛是肺结核病人脸上的红潮。屋子里的烟变得稀薄了，最后终于消失得干干净净。

    房间也变得更加明亮。尤里·安德烈耶维奇前不久照解剖室主任的指导腻好的几扇窗，这时都蒙了一层水汽，暖烘烘的油灰气味一阵阵袭来。炉旁烤着的劈碎的木柴也散发出气味：苦辣辣而呛喉咙的是云杉皮，清香得像化妆水味道的是白杨。

    这时，仿佛从气窗吹来的一股风，尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇飞快地跑进来对大家说：

    “街上开了火。支持临时政府的主官生和站在布尔什维克一

    边的卫戍部队的士兵采取了军事行动。到处都有冲突，起义的据

    点不计其数。到你们这儿来的路上我两三次遇到了麻烦，一次是在德米特罗夫卡大教堂的拐角上，另一次是在尼基塔城门附近。已经没有直通的路了，我是绕道过来的。赶快，尤拉！穿上外衣，咱们走吧。应该去看看，这是历史性的事件，一辈子只能碰上一回。”

    可是，他自己却滔滔不绝地讲了两个小时，然后就坐下来吃午饭，等到要回家的时候，准备技上医生一同出去，但是戈尔东来了以后把他们劝止了。戈尔东同样是飞快跑来的，带来的消息”也一样。

    在这段时间里，事情又向前发展了。又有了一些新的细节。戈尔东讲的是射击越来越猛烈，行人被流弹意外地击毙。据他说，城里的交通已经中断，能够走到他们这个巷子里来简直是奇迹，不过回去的路已经断了。

    尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇不听劝告，试着到外面去探探情况，但很快就返了回来。他说，巷子根本出不去，子弹呼呼地飞，不少角落打下一块块砖头和墙皮。街上一个人影也没有，人行道也断了交通。

    萨申卡这些日子着了凉。

    “我说过无数次了，不要把孩子抱到生了火的炉子跟前。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇生了气。“受热要比着凉更有害。”

    萨申卡的嗓子出了毛病，开始发高烧。这孩子的脾性很特殊，特别害怕恶心和呕吐，仿佛时时刻刻要出现这种反应。

    他推探开尤里·安德烈耶维奇拿着喉镜的手，闭上嘴不让把它放到嗓子里去，喊叫、挣扎。无论怎么劝说、恐吓，都不起作目。突然，萨申卡不小心张大了嘴舒舒服服地打了个呵欠，医生借这个机会动作飞快地把小汤匙伸到儿子口里，压住舌头，赶忙查看了一下萨申卡紫红色的喉腔和化了脓的肿大的扁桃体。看到的情形很让尤里·安德烈耶维奇吃惊。

    过了不多一会儿，医生用同样的手法从萨申卡嘴里取了一个涂片。尤里·安德烈耶维奇自己有一台显微镜。他拿了徐片，自己勉勉强强地作了检视。幸好不是白喉。

    但在第三天夜里，萨申卡突然出现了假性格鲁布喉炎的症状。他发着高热，端木过气来。尤里·安德烈耶维奇不能眼睁睁地看着可怜的孩子，但自己又无法解除他的痛苦。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜觉得孩子就要死了，把他抱在手上在屋子里来回地走，而萨申卡却开始感到好了一些。

    应该搞到牛奶、矿泉水或者苏打水进行灌救。不过，这时正是巷战的高峰。挑射的枪声和炮击一分钟也没有停止过。即便尤里·安得烈耶维奇敢于冒着生命危险穿过交火地带，在火线的那一边也不会见到一个活人，因为在情况彻底明朗以前，城里的生活已经完全停顿了。

    不过局势很快就清楚了。到处传来的消息说，工人已经占了上风。被分割开来而且和自己的指挥部失去联系的一群群士官生，还在个别地抵抗。

    西夫采夫这个区处在从多罗戈米罗夫方向朝市中心进逼的士兵的行动范围以内。对德战争的士兵和少年工人坐在街巷里挖成的堑壕当中，他们已经熟悉了附近房子里的居民，不时和那些从大门向外探望或者走出来的人像邻居似的开开玩笑。市区这一部分的交通已经恢复。

    作了三天俘虏的戈尔东和在日瓦戈这里被困了三昼夜的尼古拉·尼古拉耶维奇这时候都走了。在萨申卡生病的艰难日子里有他们在场，尤里·安德烈耶维奇感到很高兴，安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜也原谅了他们忙中添乱而额外增加的麻烦。为了表示对招待的感谢，他们两个都觉得有义务不断地和主人谈话，而尤里·安德烈耶维奇却被这三整天的无聊空话搞得如此疲倦，以至于和他们分手时感到很庆幸。

    得到的消息说他们都平安地回了家，不过，根据这一次的实际检验而作出敌对行动已经全面停止的判断还是为时过早。不同的地点仍有军事行动，某些区还不能通行，医生暂时还不能到自己已在想念的医院里去，那儿的桌子抽屉里还放着他的《游戏人间》和业务札记。

    只是在个别市区内部，人们才在清早外出到离家不远的地方买面包，路上遇到拿着瓶装牛奶的人，就有成堆人围上去打听人家是从什么地方搞到牛奶的。

    有时全市又恢复了射击，再一次吓跑了群众。大家都猜测双方之间在进行某种谈判，进展得顺利或者不顺利就反映在枪炮射击的时强时弱上。

    有一次是在旧历十月末的一天晚上九点钟，尤里·安德烈耶维奇快步走在街上，想要到住在附近的一个同事那里去，不过也并没有什么特殊要办的事。这一带往日是比较热闹的，但现在人烟稀少，几乎见不到行人。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇走得挺快。天上飘起初降的稀疏雪花，风却越刮越猛，眼看着变成了一场大风雪。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇从一条小巷拐到另一条小巷，自己也记不清转了多少次弯，雪也下得更加稠密，开始变成了雪暴。这样的暴风雪在空旷的田野会打着呼啸遍地弥漫开来，在城市狭窄的死巷子里却像迷了路似的反复盘旋。

    无论是精神世界还是物质的人间，在近处或远方，或大地或天空，发生的事似乎都是类似的。一些地方不断传来已经减弱的最后抵抗的枪炮声。一处地平线上忽明忽暗地闪现着一簇簇火灾现场反映的淡淡余光，在尤里·安德烈耶维奇的脚下，在潮湿的路面和人行道上，风雪卷起雾腾腾的一圈圈漩涡。

    在一个十字路口上，一个报童日里喊着“最新消息！”从他身边跑过，腋下挟了一大卷刚印出来的单张报纸。

    “不用找钱啦。”医生说道。这男孩子吃力地从纸卷上分出潮忽忽的一张塞到医生手里，接着就和方才突然冒出来一样眨眼就在风雪中消失了。

    医生走到两步之外的一盏亮着的路灯跟前，想就地立刻扫一眼主要的内容。

    这份只印了一面的号外版，内容是来自彼得堡的关于成立人民委员会、在俄国建立苏维埃政权和实行无产阶级专政的政府公告。接下去就是新政权的第一批法令和电报、电话传来的种种消息。

    风雪吹打着医生的眼睛，沙沙响的灰色雪粒不时地盖住报纸上的行行字迹。然而，妨碍他读下去的并不是这些。这一伟大和永恒的时刻震撼了他，使他无法清醒过来。

    无论如何也要把这些消息看完，医生于是四下里张望着，想找个亮一些的避雪的地方。原来他又回到了自己也搞不清的那个十字路口，站在谢列布良内和莫尔昌诺夫斯卡的街角上，旁边就是一幢正门镶了玻璃的五层高楼的人口，楼里宽敞的前厅亮着电灯。

    医生进了楼房，在尽里边的灯下全神贯注地读起了电讯消息。

    在他头上响起了脚步声。不知什么人从楼梯走下来，中间似乎犹犹豫豫地常常停住。果然，往下走的这个人猛然改了生意，转身又向上跑去。什么地方的一扇门开了，传出两个人说话的声浪，不过回声太强，听不清讲话的是男是女。接着又是砰的一声关了门，先前下楼的那个人脚步十分坚决地跑了下来。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇的两只眼睛和整个心思都贯注在报纸上。他不打算抬起眼来看这个不相干的人。但是那人跑到楼下就站住了。尤里·安德烈耶维奇抬头看了一眼这个从楼上下来的人。

    站在他面前的是个十八岁左右的少年，身上是一件在西伯利亚常穿的那种里外翻毛的鹿皮袄，头上戴了顶同样的皮帽。这男孩脸色黝黑，长着两只窄细的吉尔吉斯人的眼睛。他脸上有某种出身高贵的气质，聪明灵活的神态一闪而过，还隐藏着一种似乎是从遥远的异国他乡带来的、在混血人脸上常见的那种纤细的表情。

    这男孩子把尤里·安德烈耶维奇认成了另外的什么人，明显地感到茫然不知所措。他腼腆而又慌张地看着医生，仿佛知道这是谁，但又迟疑着没有开口。为了解除这个误会，尤里·安德烈耶维奇上下打量了他一眼，用冷淡的表情打消了他想走近的念头。

    男孩子发了窘，一句话也没说就朝大门走去，在那儿又回头看了一眼，然后打开那扇沉重的、已经有些松动的门，接着哗啦一声把它关上，走到了街上。

    过了十分钟，尤里·安德烈耶维奇也随着出去了。他已经忘记那个男孩和本来要找的那位同事，满脑子装着刚刚读到的东西朝回家的方向走去。路上遇到的另一个情况，一件在当时来说意义非同小可的生活琐事，吸引了他的全部注意力。

    在离家不远的地方，他碰到了一大堆靠着马路边沿横放在人行道上的木板和圆木。那儿的巷子里有个什么机关，大概是把郊区的一栋圆木房子拆掉运来作公家的燃料。圆木在院子里放不下，所以挡住了一部分街道。一个在院子里走动的持枪的哨兵看守着这一大堆东西，不时走到巷子里来。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇不假思索地抓住了哨兵返回院子、刮来的一股风在空中卷起浓密的雪花的短暂时机。他从灯光照不到的有阴影的一边走到这难木料跟前，慢慢摇动着从最底下松动了一根很重的短粗木桩。他吃力地把它从这一堆下面抽了出来放到肩上，并不感到有多么重（自己愿担的担子就不觉得重），然后就悄悄地顺着阴影下的墙扛回西夫采夫街自己的家。

    刚好家里的木柴已经用完了。把这一大段木拉锯开，劈成了很不小的一堆碎柴。尤里·安德烈耶维奇就蹲下来生炉子。他一声不响地蹲在不断颤动而发出声音的炉门前面。亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇把扶手椅推到炉子跟前，坐下来烤火。尤里·安德烈耶维奇从上衣一边的口袋里掏出报纸递给岳父，一边说：

    “看过吗？欣赏一下吧，您看～看。”

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇并没有站起来，一边用小火铲拨弄炉子里的木柴，一边大声自言自语地说：

    “多么高超的外科手术啊！一下子就巧妙地割掉了发臭多年的溃疡！直截了当地对习惯于让人们顶礼膜拜的几百年来的非正义作了判决。

    “关键是毫不使人恐惧地把这一切做完，这里边有一种很久以来就熟悉的民族的亲切感，是一种来自普希金的无可挑剔的磊落光辉，来自托尔斯泰的不模棱两可的忠于事实。”

    “普希金的？你说的是什么？等一等。我马上看完。一下子又看又听我可办不到。”亚历山大·亚历山德罗维奇打断了女婿的话，错把尤里·安德烈耶维奇的自言自语当成是对他说的。

    “主要的是应该看到这绝妙的英明表现在什么地方。假如说让谁去创造一个新世界，开创新纪元，他一定需要首先清理出相应的地盘。他肯定要等着旧时代先行告终，而为了着手建设新的世纪，他需要的是一个整数，要另起一段，要的是没有涂写过的一张白纸。

    “但现在却一航而就。这是空前的壮举，是历史上的奇迹，是不顾熙熙攘攘的平庸生活的进程而突然降临的新启示。它不是从头开始而是半路杀出，不是在预先选定的时刻，而是在奔腾不息的生活的车轮偶然碰到的日子里。这才是最绝妙的。只有最伟大的事情才会如此不妥当和不合时宜。”

    正如事先估计的那样的冬天来到了。它还不像后来接连的两个冬天那样叫人害怕，然而是类似的，同样缺少照明和饥寒交迫，一切都处于所有习惯的生活基础正在破坏与改造之中，都拼命要抓住即将逝去的生活。

    如此可怕的三个冬天接踵而来，一个跟着一个，而且这一切也并不是像从一九一七年跨入一九一八年的人那样觉得都发生在当时，有些或许是稍后才发生的事。因为这三个接连的冬天已经融为一体，很难把它相互区别开。

    旧的生活和新秩序还不合拍。两者之间还没有产生像一年以后内战时期那种强烈的敌意，不过已经缺少联系。这已是分开来的对立的两方，但谁也还不能压倒谁。

    在房产方面，在各个组织当中，在公务上，在为居民服务的各个单位里，到处都在进行管理机构的改组。它们的成员改变了。所有的地方都在开始任命权力大得无边的委员。他们都是。些具有钢铁意志的人，身穿黑色短皮外衣，以种种恐吓手段和手枪为武器，很少刮脸而且更很少睡觉。

    他们很了解小市民的脾气和中等的拥有小面额国家证券的那种卑躬屈膝的俗人，毫不怜惜地面带挖苦的微笑和这种人讲话，就像对待捉到的小偷一样。

    这些人就像纲领规定的那样掌管一切，一次又一次的发动，一次又一次的联合，就渐渐形成了布尔什维克的队伍。

    圣十字医院现在改叫第二改良医院，内部也发生了变化。一部分人员被解雇了，更多的是自愿离开的，认为继续供职并不划算。这都是些挣了大钱的掌握最新临床技术的医生，是能言善辩的天之骄子。他们决忘不了把自己为了个人私利而离职装作是抗议的行动，有着文明的理由，而且开始看不起留下来的人，几乎要和后者断绝来往，日瓦戈也在这后者之列。

    晚上，这对夫妇常常进行这样的对话：

    “星期三别忘了到医师协会的地窖去取冻土豆。那儿有两口袋。我一定问清楚几点钟能下班，好来帮忙。用小雪橇也要两个人拖。”

    “好吧。还来得及，尤罗奇卡。你还是快点睡下吧。已经很晚啦。反正你也不能一下把所有的事都做完。你需要休息。”

    “传染病流行起来了。普遍的体质衰弱影响了抵抗力。简直都不敢看你和爸爸。应该想点办法。不过有什么办法呢？我们自己注意得也不够。要多加小心。你听我说。睡着了吗？”

    “没有。”

    “我并不担心自己，我身体壮。要是万一我垮了，你千万别糊涂，不要把我留在家里。应该立刻送医院。”

    “你这是怎么啦，尤罗奇卡！上帝保佑你。干吗老早就说不吉利的话？”

    “你要记住，已经没有什么正直的人和朋友啦。更谈不上医术高明的。要是一旦发生什么事，可以信托的只有皮丘日金一个人。当然，要是他还平安无事的话。你睡了吗？”

    “没有。”

    “这帮鬼家伙，自己占尽了便宜，如今反倒像是表现了凛然正气和原则性。见面的时候勉勉强强地伸出一只手来。‘您还在给他们服务？’接着就把眉毛一场。‘是还在服务，’我说，请您别见怪：对我们的困境我感到自豪，并敬重那些让我们变得光荣、向我们奉献了贫穷的人。’”

    很长一个时期，大多数人的日常食品就是黄米粥和青鱼头煮的汤。青鱼的中段用油煎一煎就当作第二道菜。营养靠的就是没有磨过的黑麦和带壳的小麦，用它们煮粥。

    一位熟识的女教授教给安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜在屋子里的荷兰式壁炉炉底上烤制烫面面包。其中的一部分像从前一样拿出去卖，吃水以后面包就增加了分量，再加上卖来的钱就可以抵消使用这种瓷砖壁炉的开支。这样就可以木再用那个只冒烟、火不旺、不保暖又折磨人的小铁炉子。

    安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜的面包烤得很好，只不过靠它做的生意却毫无所得。于是，不得不放弃原先那个实现不了的打算，重新启用退了役的小铁炉。日瓦戈夫妇又开始受罪了。

    一天早晨，尤里·安德烈耶维奇照往常那样出去上班。家里只剩了两块劈柴。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜穿上那件就是在暖和天气也因为身体虚弱而冷得发抖的皮大衣，上街去“采购”。

    她在附近的几条街巷里徘徊了半个来小时，因为市郊农村的农民有时带蔬菜和土豆到那里来卖。这些人需要去捕捉。带货物的农民是受人拦截的。

    很快她就捕捉到了自己搜寻的一个目标。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜陪着一个身穿一件粗呢上衣的壮实的青年人，旁边带了一辆像玩具似的小雪橇，绕过街角朝格罗梅科家的院子走来。

    韧皮编的雪橇车里的一张蒲席下面有一堆禅树原木，粗细不超过过去照片上那种老式庄园围墙的栏杆。安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜很了解它的价值——禅木徒有其表，当劈柴不经烧，何况是新砍下来的，没法用来生炉子。但是没有另外的选择，不可能仔细盘算。

    这个青年农民来回搬了五六次，替她把木柴送到住人的楼上；作为交换，他连拉带背地从楼上弄下来的是安东安娜·亚历山德罗夫娜的一个带镜子的小橱柜，放到雪橇上带回去给自己的女当家，出来的时候边走边说定了下一回捎些土豆的事，他的衣角还被立在门旁的钢琴挂了一下。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇回来以后并没有品评妻子买的东西。其实把送给人家的那个小柜子劈成细柴更合算，不过他们都不忍心下手。

    “你看到桌子上的字条了吗？”妻子问了一句。

    “医院院长写的吧？跟我说过，我知道。是请我去出诊。一定去。休息一会儿就去。不过，路相当远。好像是在凯旋门附近。我记下了地址。”

    “要给的报酬可是真奇怪。你看到了吗？你还是看看吧。出诊费是一瓶德国白兰地酒或者一双女人的长袜子。真有点儿诱惑力。会是个什么人呢？财大气粗的口气，而且似乎全然不了解我们现在过的是什么日子。大概是个什么暴发户。”

    “对，很像是个采办员。”

    那些私人小业主的头衔就是这种采办员、合同承包人、代办人的称呼。政府取消了私人商业以后，在经济紧张时期稍稍给点松动，就和他们签定各式各样的供销合同和契约。

    这些人当中已经没有那些被整垮的老字号的大老板。后者由于受到打击已经无法东山再起。如今的这些都是借着战争和革命从底层浮上来的投机一时的生意人，没根没底的外来户。

    喝了些带点儿牛奶的乳白色的糖精开水，医生就出门去看病人。

    从街道这一面的整排房屋到另一面的建筑物之间，人行道和桥面都埋在深雪里。有些地方积雪达到第一层楼的高度。在这片宽阔的空间里默默地移动着半死不活的身影，自己拖着或是用雪橇拉着一点可怜的食物。几乎见不到乘车的人。

    间或有几处的房子上面还残留着原先的招牌，下面已是换了内容的消费品门市部和合作社，但都锁了门，窗户加了栅栏或者用木板钉死，里面空空如也。

    这些空着销起来的店铺不完全是因为没有商品，而是由于包括商业在内的生活的全面改组还只是最普遍性的一般化阶段，还触及不到这类关了门的私人小店。

    请医生出诊的这一家，原来是在布列斯特街的尽头，靠近特维尔城门。

    那是一栋式样早已过时的砖砌的营房式建筑，院子在里面，有三层木走廊连通沿后院墙排列的房屋。

    这儿正在召开全体居民会议，有区苏维埃来的一位女代表参加。突然间来了一支军事巡察队，要检查经过允许保存的武器，未经允许的要没收。指挥检查的队长请那位女代表不要离开，保证说检查用不了多长时间，完了事的居民们陆续回来以后，中断了的会议很快就能继续。

    医生来到大门口的时候，检查已近尾声，下一个该轮到的住户就是请他看病的那一家。在一条走廊的楼梯口放哨的士兵，背着用绳子挽住的步枪，无论如何也不让尤里·安德烈耶维奇进去，可是巡察队长介入了双方的争执。他没有给医生制造困难，同意在他诊治病人的时候检查暂停一会儿。

    接待医生的这家年轻的主人温文有礼，他那没有什么光泽的微黑的脸上，衬着两只乌黑忧郁的眼睛。妻子的病，即将开始的搜查，以及对医学和医务人员超乎寻常的尊重——这些都让他非常激动。

    为了减轻医生的负担和节省时间，主人想尽可能把话说得简短，但正是由于这么着急反而讲得又冗长又杂乱。

    住宅里的陈设是奢侈品与便宜货的混杂物，显然是为了让迅速贬值的钱有个牢靠的去处才匆忙购置的。配不成套的家具也是用凑不成双的单件充数的。

    这家的主人认为他妻子是由于惊吓得了神经系统的病。他抓不住正题，绕来绕去讲的是有人很便宜地卖给了他们一座坏得早就不能走的老式八音钟。他们是当作一件稀罕的钟表工艺品买下的（男主人还把医生领到隔壁的屋子里去指给他看）。夫妇两个甚至不相信还能不能修好。可是这座多年没上发条的钟突然自己走了起来，里面的那些小钟奏了一段法国的小步舞曲，然后又停住了。做妻子的吓坏了，说是敲响了她生命的最后时刻，现在就这么躺着说胡话，不吃也不喝，连他这个做丈夫的也认不出来。

    “您认为这就是神经受了震动？”尤里·安德烈耶维奇问话的口气是带着怀疑的。“带我去看看病人吧。”

    他们走进隔壁的房间，屋顶上挂着技形吊灯，一张宽大的双人床的两边摆了两只红木矮脚凳。床的一侧躺着一个身材娇小的女人，毯子盖过下巴，露出两只黑色的大眼睛。一看到进来的人，她摇着从毯子下面抽出来的两只手要赶开他们，宽大的睡衣袖子一直滑落到胶窝。她认不出自己的丈夫，似乎也不觉得屋子里还有人，接着就开始轻轻地唱起～支不知是什么名字的忧伤的歌。歌声是那样让她顾影自怜，接着就哭了起来，像个孩子似的抽抽搭搭，请求允许她回到什么地方的家里去。医生不论从床的哪一边想走到她身边，她都不让检查，每次都把后背掉过来。

    “应该给她检查一下，”尤里·安德烈耶维奇说，“不过就这样我也清楚了。是斑疹伤寒，而且症状相当重。她受的痛苦可不算小，够可怜的。我建议送她到医院去。这倒不是为了给她提供什么方便，只是在发病后的几个星期必须有经常的医疗照顾。您能不能保证搞到交通工具，找个出租马车车夫或者至少请个院子里的搬运工，好把病人送去？当然，事先得把她好好裹起来。我马上就给您开个就诊证明。”

    “可以。我尽力去办。不过请等一等。莫非真是伤寒病？这太可怕啦！”

    “很遗憾，就是。”

    “要是把她送走，我害怕失去她。您能不能尽可能地增加出诊次数，在家里治疗？我可以给您任何一种报酬。”

    “我已经跟您说清楚了。重要的是不间断地对她进行观察。请您听着，我有个好主意。哪怕是从地底下您也要找个马车夫来，我给她开个就医证明。这事最好通过您这里的住宅委员会去办。证明需要盖章，还有其他一些手续。”

    经过询问和检查的居民披着暖和的披肩，穿着皮大农，一个接一个地回到居委会所在的这间没生火的房子里来。这里原先是存放鸡蛋的库房。

    房间的一头放了一张办公桌和几把椅子，这当然不够那么多的人坐。于是，另外在四周底朝上摆了些长条的空鸡蛋箱子代替长凳。这种箱子在屋子的另一头一直堆到了天花板。那儿的角落里，碎鸡蛋的蛋黄粘成一论培地冻结在墙下。一群老鼠在那里叫着乱窜，有时候跑到空着的砖地上来，然后又藏到那堆碎鸡蛋渣子里去。

    每逢这个时候，一个全身长了一层肥油的大嗓门儿的女人就尖叫着跳到一只箱子上。她卖弄地翘起小手指头掀开衣服下摆的一角，穿着时髦的高腰皮鞋的两只脚跺着碎步，存心装出喝醉酒的哑嗓子喊着说：

    “奥莉卡，奥莉卡，你这几净是大耗子跑来跑去。瞧，跑过去一只，这脏东西！哎、哎、哎，还懂话呢，小畜生！哟，哪牙啦。哎呀，往箱子上爬哪！可别钻到裙子底下。真吓人，我害怕！先生们，请扭头看看。对不起，我忘记了，现在已经不兴叫先生，应该称呼公民同志。”

    这个吵吵嚷嚷的婆娘穿的是一件肥大的卡拉库尔绵羊皮大衣，敞着扣子。她那像果子冻似的肥厚的叠了三折的下巴颤动着，滚圆的前胸和肚子紧裹在一件绸连衣裙下面。看得出，当初在那些三流的买卖人和账房伙计们中间，她一定是个出名的交际花。眼皮微肿的两只猪眼只睁开了一条缝。记不清从前是什么时候，一个情敌朝她甩了一瓶硫酸，但是没打准，只在左脸上溅了两三滴，在左嘴角留下两道不怎么明显却有点儿迷人的浅浅的疤痕。

    “别嚷啦，赫拉普金娜。都没法儿工作了。”坐在桌子后边的区苏维埃来的女代表说话了，她是这次开会选出来的主席。

    这里的老住户很早就认识她，她对他们也很了解。开会之前，她非正式地小声和管院子的女工法吉玛说了一会儿话。法吉玛从前和丈夫一起带着孩子凑凑合合地住在肮脏的地下室里，如今和女儿两个人搬到二楼的两间敞亮的屋子里。

    “怎么样啊，法吉玛？”女主席问她。

    法吉玛抱怨说她一个人照顾不了住这么多人的大院子，又找不到帮手，分给各户的打扫院子和街道的任务没有人认真对待。

    “别发愁，法吉玛，会给他们点颜色看的，你放心吧。这算个什么居委会？怎么让人理解？这儿窝藏有刑事犯，还有缺少证件的品质可疑的人。要把他们都赶出去，重新选举。我自己来当住宅管理员，你别灰心。”

    管院子的女工恳求女主席别这么办，不过后者根本听不过去。她看了看室内的情况，发现人已经到得差不多了，就要求大家安静，接着用几句开场白宣布开会。批评了原来的居委会无所作为以后，她提议确定选举新居委会的候选人，接着又谈了另外几个问题，讲过了这些，她就说：

    “情况就是这样，同志们。咱们说话应该直截了当。你们的房子容量很不小，适合做宿舍。有时候各地来开会的代表就没有地方安置。已经作了决定，把这房子收归区苏维埃支配，给外地来的人住并且用季韦尔辛同志的名字命名，因为他在流放前就住在这里。这是大家都知道的。有反对的吗？下面就说说腾房子的事。这还不是马上就要办的事，你们还有一年的时间。劳动人民成分的住户我们提供搬迁后的居住面积，对于不是劳动人民的，现在就预先告诫你们，得自己找住处，给你们十二个月的期限。”

    “我们当中谁是不劳动的？我们这儿没有不劳动的！大家都是劳动人民。”各个角落都喊了起来。其中有一个人的嗓音盖过所有的人：“这是大国沙文主义！现在是各民族平等。我知道您暗指的是什么！”

    “不要一齐说！我简直不知道该回答谁才好。什么民族？这和民族有什么关系，瓦尔德尔金公民？比方说，赫拉普金娜根本谈不上什么民族不民族，可是也得搬出去。”

    “搬出去！倒要看看你怎么让我搬出去。你这个烂床垫子！占了十个茅不拉屎！”赫拉普金娜在争吵的高峰喊叫着给女代表送了一个莫名其妙的外号。

    “真是条毒蛇！是个恶魔！你一点也不知道羞耻！”管院子的女工气愤地说。

    “你不用插嘴，法吉玛。我自己能对付。你住口，赫拉普金娜。抓住点机会，你就想骑到人家脖子上！闭嘴吧，我说，要不然马上就把你送到一个机关去，用不着再等着人家抓你私设烧锅和窝藏赃物。”

    吵闹的声音已经达到了顶点，谁也没法子讲话。在这个时候医生走进了这间库房。他请在门边碰到的第一个人给指点一下谁是居委会的、哪一位都行。那人就把两只手放在嘴边拢成个喇叭筒的样子，压住大家的吵嚷声一字一板地喊了起来：

    “加——利——乌——林——娜！到这儿来，有人找。”

    听了这个姓名，医生简直不敢相信自己的耳朵。走过来的是个瘦瘦的、背有点驼的妇女，就是那位管院子的女工。母亲和儿子的面貌如此相似，让医生感到吃惊。不过，他并没有让这种感觉流露出来。他说：“你们这儿有位居民得了伤寒病（同时说了她的姓名）。需要注意，免得传染。另外，应该把病人送到医院去。我可以给她开个诊断单子，由居委会证明一下。这事要到哪J［去办？”

    管院子的女工把这话理解为只是送病人去医院，而不是办证明手续，于是就说：“一会儿区苏维埃有辆马车来接杰明哪同志。杰明哪同志是个和善人，我跟她一说，会把车让出来的。别发愁，医生同志，一定把你的病人送走。”

    “哦，我说的不是这个！我只是问什么地方办入院就诊的证明。不过如果还有马车的话…··精原谅，您是不是加利乌林·奥西普·吉马泽特金诺维奇中尉的母亲？我和他一起在前线服过役。”

    女工全身一抖，脸色变得煞白。她抓住医生的一只手，说道：

    “刚］到外面去，到院子里谈。”

    刚刚迈出门槛，她就开了口：

    “小声点，上帝保佑别让人听见。别坑害我。尤苏普卡不走正道。你自己说说，尤苏普卡是什么人？他原本是学徒出身，有手艺。尤苏普卡应该明白，普通老百姓现在的日子好多了，这是瞎子都能看清的事，用不着多说。我不知道你是怎么想的，也许你还没什么，可是尤苏普卡是有罪的，上帝也饶不了他。尤苏普卡的父亲当了兵，给打死了，连个完整尸首都没留下。”

    她已经讲不下去了，摆着手等待心情平静下来，然后又接着说：

    “走吧，现在就去找马车。我知道你是谁了。他在这儿呆过两天，都说了。他说，你认识拉拉·吉沙洛娃。那是个好姑娘。记得过去常到我们这儿来。谁知道现在怎么样了。难道说先生们也能你反对我、我反对你？尤苏普卡真作孽。走吧，咱们要车去。杰明哪同志一定会给的。你知道杰明娜同志是谁吗？就是奥莉妞·杰明娜．在拉拉·吉沙洛娃妈妈的作坊里打过工的，也是从这儿出去的，就是这个院子。走吧。”

    天已经全黑了，夜色笼罩着周围的一切。只有杰明娜手电筒的那一小圈光亮在五步开外的一个个小雪堆上跳跃移动，不仅不能给走路的人照亮，反而更让人摸不准方向。四周是漆黑的夜色，那座房屋已经落在身后。当她还是个小女孩子的时候，住在那里的许多人就知道她。听人家说，她后来的丈夫安季波夫也是在那儿从一个小孩子长大成人的。

    杰明娜用一种宽容、戏弄的口气对他说：

    “再往下走您当真不用手电能走到家吗？啊？要不我把电筒给您，医生同志。是的，那时我们都还是小女孩呢，我真的迷恋过她，爱得忘乎所以。她们家有个缝纫作坊，我是她们那儿的徒工。今年我还见到过她。她到我这里来过，是中途路过莫斯科的。我跟她说，你真傻，还要到哪儿去呀？留下来吧，我们住在一起，再给你找个工作。都白说！她不乐意。这是她自己的事。她嫁给帕什卡是凭着理智，可不是顺从自己的心意，从那以后就变得喜怒无常。她到底还是走啦。”

    “您对她是怎么想的？”

    “小心，这里很滑。说过多少次了，不要在门前倒脏水，可是丝毫不起作用。我对她是怎么想的？我能想什么？有什么可想的。没有时间。我就是这么活着。我没敢告诉她，她那当军人的弟弟，好像是给处决了。至于她母亲，也就是我先前的老板娘，我还是要帮助的，给她帮点忙。好啦，我到了，再见。”

    他们于是分了手。杰明娜的电筒的亮光扫到一条窄小的石砌楼梯，接着往前照亮了逐级向上的肮脏剥蚀的墙壁，把黑暗留给了医生。右边是凯旋花园路，左边是篷车花园路。在远处漆黑的雪地上，这两条夹在石砌楼房当中的街道已经不像是通常意义的路面，倒仿佛是乌拉尔或西伯利亚人迹罕至的密林里的两条林间小道。

    家里是又明亮、又温暖。

    “怎么这么晚？”安东宁娜·亚历山德罗夫娜问了一句，不等他回答就接着说：

    “你不在的时候发生了一件怪事，出奇得无法解释。我忘了跟你说。昨天爸爸把闹钟弄坏了，懊丧到了极点。家里就剩这一个了。他翻来覆去地修，怎么也修不好。街角上的修表匠开口就要三磅面包，真是从来没听说过的价钱。该怎么办呢？爸爸简直绝望了。可是突然之间，你想想看，就在一小时以前，清脆震耳的铃声响了！拿过来一看，它又走起来了！”

    “这是敲响了我要得伤寒病的钟声。”尤里·安德烈耶维奇开玩笑地说，接着就给家里人讲了那位女病人和座钟的事。

    不过，他是在这以后又过了很久才得伤寒病的。在这中间，日瓦戈一家的困窘达到了顶点。他们缺吃少穿，身体也快垮了。尤里·安德烈耶维奇找到了那位曾被他救过的遭了抢劫的党员。那人尽其所能为医生做了一切。但是，内战开始了。他的这位庇护人经常出差在外。而且，这个人根据自己的信念认为当时的种种困难是很自然的，但绝不对人说他也在挨饿。

    尤里·安德烈耶维奇也试着去找过住在特维尔城门附近的那位来办员。但是，近几个月来此人踪迹沓然，关于他那位病愈的妻子也得不到一点消息。那栋房子里的住户也完全变了。杰明娜上了前线，想找管房子的加利乌林娜也没有找到。

    有一次他得到了按官价配给的劈柴，要从温达夫斯基车站拉回来。沿着一眼望不到头的梅山斯卡亚大街，他一路走着伴送车夫和那匹拖运这笔意外财富的劣马。医生突然间觉得梅山斯卡亚大街变得不是原来的样子，自己的身体也跌跌撞撞，两腿支持不住。他知道这下子完了，事情糟了——伤寒病发作。车夫把这个倒下去的人救了起来。医生已经不记得是怎么勉勉强强把他放到劈柴堆上拉回家去的。

    整整两个星期他断断续续地处在塘妄状态中。在幻觉中，他看到东尼哑把两条大街摆到书桌上，左边是篷车花园路，右边是凯旋花园路，然后把他那盏温热的桔黄色台灯朝它们跟前推了推。于是街上就变得明亮了，可以工作了，他就写作起来。

    他写得兴味正浓，而且十分顺手，内容都是一向想写并且早该写成的东西，只不过从来没有能做到，但现在却一航而就。只是偶尔有个男孩子来打扰他，那孩子长着两只窄小的吉尔吉斯人似的眼睛，穿了一件在西伯利亚或者乌拉尔常见的那种两面带毛的鹿皮袄。

    完全没错地，这个男孩子就是他的死神，或者简单说就是他的死亡。不过，这孩子还帮助他写诗，怎么能是死神呢？莫非从死亡当中还能得到好处，死亡还能有助于人？

    他的诗写的不是复活，也不是收殓入棺，而是在这两者之间流过的时光。他写的诗题为《失措》。

    他一直想写出，在那三天当中，一阵掌生了蛆虫的黑色泥土的风暴如何从天而降，冲击着不朽的爱的化身，一块块、一团团地甩过去，就像是飞涌跳跃着的潮水把海岸埋葬在自己身下。整整三天，这黑色泥土的风暴咆哮着，冲击着，又怎样退去。

    随之而来的是两行有韵脚的诗句：
    接触是欢悦的，
    醒来也是必须。
    乐于接触的是地狱，是衰变，是解体，是死亡，但和它们一起乐于接触的还有春天，还有悔恨失足的女人，也还有生命。而且，醒来也是必须的。应该苏醒并且站立起来。应该复活。

    他开始逐渐好起来。最初好像还有些痴呆，他还找不到事物之间的联系，一切都随意放过，什么都不记得，对什么也不感到奇怪。妻子给他吃的是抹了黄油的白面包，喝的是加糖的茶，还有咖啡。他忘记了这些东西现在是不可能得到的，像对待一首诗歌和一篇童话那样欣赏可口的美食，似乎在康复期是理所当然的享受。但是刚刚开始恢复意识，他就问妻子：
    “你从哪儿弄来的这些？”
    “都是你的格兰尼亚。”
    “哪个格兰尼亚？”
    “格兰尼亚·日瓦戈。”
    “格兰尼亚·日瓦戈？”
    “不错，就是在鄂木斯克的你的弟弟叶夫格拉夫。你的异母兄弟。你昏迷不醒的时候，他总是来看我们。”
    “穿了一件鹿皮袄？”
    “对，对。这么说，你在昏迷当中看到了？我听说，他在什么地方的一幢房子里的楼梯上遇见过你，他说过。他也认出了是你，本想自我介绍一下，可是你让他觉得非常可怕！他很崇拜你，到了迷恋的程度。是他不知从什么地方搞来的这些东西！大米、葡萄干、白糖。他已经回自己家去了，还让我们也去。真是个让人猜不透的怪人。我觉得他似乎和当权的人有些瓜葛。他说，应该离开大城市到别的随便什么地方去，销声匿迹地呆上一两年。我和他商量过克吕格尔家那地方怎么样。他极力推荐。因为那里可以种菜园子，附近就是森林。决不能就这么像绵羊一样窝窝囊囊地坐以待毙。”
    就在这一年的四月，日瓦戈全家出发去遥远的西伯利亚，到尤里亚金市附近原先的领地瓦雷金带去了。

  • 威廉·伯恩斯坦《群体的疯狂》8-15

    8 天启之牛

    时代论如何兴起

    你要对以色列人说，让他们给你牵来一只没有残疾、未曾负轭的红色母牛。 ——《民数记》19:2

    20世纪，一个曾经不为人所知的新教神学分支，突然出现在美国宗教和政治舞台上，发展了一场不仅在美国而且在全球都有影响力的社会运动。毫不夸张地说，这一神学可被称为宗教性群体疯狂——它已经引发了几起小悲剧，并种下了哈米吉多顿的种子。以色列畜牧业中的一个小事件揭示出了它的末日影响力。

    20世纪90年代中期，以色列北部耶斯列山谷的奶牛场主朱比·吉拉德从瑞士进口了一些公牛精液，从而让他的一头荷斯坦母牛怀孕。1996年8月，这头黑白相间的母牛产下了一只纯红色的小母牛梅洛迪。对世界上的少数犹太人和基督教徒来说，小牛的颜色只意味着一件事：末日即将来临。简言之，梅洛迪就是天启之牛。[1]

    与牛有关的灾难就像一条深红色的羊毛线，蜿蜒穿过人类将近3000年的历史。古以色列人认为，凡与死尸接触过的人或是与死尸在同一屋檐下的人，都是不洁净的，因此不能进入耶路撒冷的圣殿。在那个年代，这意味着除了非常小的孩子，几乎所有人都是不洁净的。这种不洁只有通过一种仪式才能消除，正如上文《民数记》中所提到的那样，要通过一个宗教仪式；祭司们祭献一只纯红色皮毛的母牛（一只从未生育过、从未劳作过、没有瑕疵的小母牛），把它与红毛线、香柏木和牛膝草一起烧在火堆上，在能够俯瞰圣殿的橄榄山上举行仪式。在那里，他们把小母牛的骨灰和从西罗亚池中汲取的泉水混合在一起。只有在人死后的第三天和第七天，把灰水洒在不洁的信徒身上，不洁才得以消除。[2]

    但70年，罗马人摧毁了耶路撒冷第二圣殿，使这一复杂的洁净过程不再可行。1000年后，中世纪伟大的犹太智者迈蒙尼德试图理解这一现在看起来毫无意义的净化仪式。

    迈蒙尼德于1135年左右出生于伊斯兰教占主导的西班牙，他在学业上表现出色，从事医师工作，后来在十字军入侵的动荡时期成为埃及开罗犹太社区的首席拉比。他影响最久远的成就是《律法再述》，一部关于道德和犹太律法的汇编作品。但是，这位伟大学者也对净化仪式的逻辑依据感到困惑，他将其归类为一个谜，“不是由一个人的理解所能决定的事情”[3]。但他愿意提供这一仪式的发展历史：

    第一只（神圣的红母牛）是我们的老师摩西带来的，第二只是以斯拉带来的，第二圣殿被毁之前，还出现了另外的（第三至九只）。第十只将会由君王弥赛亚带来；愿他早日出现。阿门，这是神的旨意。[4]

    对某些犹太人和基督徒来说，梅洛迪的意义如此清晰：她是第十只红色小母牛，预示着弥赛亚的到来。有一小部分人相信，一只完美的红色小母牛的诞生，预示着下列事件将依次发生：信徒们即将“被提”至天堂极乐之处；一场可怕的大灾难，包括与反基督者之间的巨大战争、全球混乱和地狱之火；耶稣复临和他千年的统治；上帝的最后审判；世界末日。

    小红牛梅洛迪的故事之所以引起共鸣，是因为它触及了最著名、最危险的群体幻想的核心——末日叙事，这种叙事像一条红线一样贯穿人类历史。进入现代时期，类似这样的末日叙事已经产生了大量悲剧，从灾难性的再洗礼派的疯狂，到更多相对小范围内的悲剧，例如太阳圣殿教的悲剧。

    在过去的半个世纪里，一种新的、极具特色的末日叙事出现，现在已经被大多数福音派新教徒信奉，即“时代论”。它产生了一种遍布美国的信仰体系，并把美国社会分成世界观截然不同的两个阵营。最令人恐慌的是，在某个将来，一个类似于梅洛迪的故事将成为一个灾难性的自我实现的预言，只不过和犹太人、基督徒以及穆斯林想象的方式不同。

    在梅洛迪出生后不久，一位名叫伊斯拉尔·阿里尔的原教旨主义拉比发现了它。在他宣布小母牛符合要求后，它的故事进入主流媒体的视线；然后随着美国和欧洲主要电视网络的播放，这个有趣的故事传遍全球。

    以色列人不高兴：当地一位记者将梅洛迪称为“四足炸弹……其会让整个地区陷入灾难，威力可与伊朗阿亚图拉手中的非常规性武器相比”[5]。幸运的是，梅洛迪的饲养员在它出生后不久就发现它的乳房上有白毛；在它1岁的时候，尾巴上出现了更多白毛，因此拉比们宣布它不符合要求。（它原本应该长到3岁，成为一只成熟小母牛后才有资格参加献祭仪式。）

    梅洛迪的犹太故事背景，与闵采尔起义、疯狂的再洗礼者、第五君主国派以及米勒主义等基督教末日神学之间有非常明显的相似性。从神学角度，这四个基督教插曲中有三个是“前千禧年主义”——耶稣的回归发生在千禧年之前，而千禧年还没有发生。（第四、第五君主国派既有前千禧年信徒，也有后千禧年信徒。）耶稣复临触发了千禧年，这必然是一个戏剧性的、通常是暴力性的事件。

    相反，现代天主教和大多数主流新教教派则主要继承了早期、更传统的圣奥古斯丁的末日神学，淡化了千禧年的概念：耶稣不会戏剧化地复临并统治千年。因此，这种更传统的“非千禧年主义”是一个更为平静的过程，而且“坏消息比好消息强大”这一心理学准则，让这一过程不那么引人注目。

    19世纪后半叶，末日叙事演变为一个更加充满戏剧性、暴力、扣人心弦的版本。这一信条越来越影响普通美国人的生活：世界腐败不堪，仅靠人类自身的努力无法拯救或改进；只有依靠上帝，以极乐、苦难、决战和最终审判的方式进行干预才足够。

    这种末日序列不符合公认的天主教或传统的新教教义。一个多世纪前，大西洋两岸的大部分主流基督教派都抛弃了《圣经》字面真理的概念，它们逐渐离间了相当一部分信徒；但即使在今天，根据美国两大著名调查机构盖洛普和皮尤的民意调查，约25%的美国人仍然相信圣经是上帝的真言。同样有约25%的人相信耶稣会在他们的有生之年回到地球，61%的美国人认为撒旦存在。这些比例在20世纪早期更高。[6]这些美国信徒不愿意放弃《圣经》字面真理的舒适感，不愿意接受现代科学知识，不愿意接受主流教会在是否承认犹太教、天主教或无神派正统性方面的含糊态度。

    其结果就是时代论的出现，它恢复了《圣经》字面真理的舒适感，同时也恢复了大量的老式摩尼教式思想，将世界在善与恶之间进行了明确的黑白分离，信徒们被安稳地放置在原来的阵营中。[7]

    时代论信仰体系已经深植于美国的政治体系之中。至少有一位美国总统，即罗纳德·里根赞同这一体系，像迈克·彭斯、迪克·阿梅、米歇尔·巴赫曼和迈克·哈克比等政治家也赞同这一体系。事实上，它的信条几乎渗透到国家话语的每一个方面，特别是一些社会争议问题，如堕胎和同性恋权利问题，以及外交政策问题，尤其是与充满冲突的中东有关的问题。

    19世纪中期，大概是威廉·米勒的末日论在美国盛行的时期；在英国，一位名叫约翰·纳尔逊·达比的爱尔兰圣公会教徒点燃了一条神学导火索，其经过缓慢燃烧，最终爆发于一个世纪之后。

    与谦逊而不起眼的米勒不同，达比在才智和社交上都很有天赋。1800年，达比出生在一个富商家庭，他的叔叔因在尼罗河河口海战中跟随英国海军少将霍雷肖·纳尔逊而被封为爵士，他也由此获得了纳尔逊这个中间名。他在都柏林圣三一大学获得文学、拉丁语和希腊语的金奖章，并加入了爱尔兰律师公会。1826年，他发现法律不能令他满意，便加入英国国教爱尔兰圣公会。父亲对于他放弃律师职业非常失望，因此剥夺了他的继承权。

    头脑活跃的达比很快就对僵化和等级森严的英国圣公会不再抱有幻想；受命仅仅一年后，他参加了一个关于《圣经》预言的会议，并得出一个像马丁·路德那样的结论：真正的教派可以是任何一组真正相信基督的人组成的，他们是上帝任命的，将人类从耶稣受难带到耶稣的第二次降临。

    在达比的信仰体系中，关键内容是一系列的五个“时代”或者说历史时期，因此神学家给这一体系起了一个正式的名字：时代论前千禧年主义。在这些时期里，上帝考验人类；但达比的上帝显然是按照一条非常严格的曲线[8]来评分的，因此，人类在通往现代的前四个时代中都不及格。和《启示录》的作者一样，达比很聪明，他的著述甚多但晦涩难懂，留待他人去澄清他的每个时代的确切性质。达比后来的追随者将时代数量扩大到今天所使用的7个：[9]

    1.无罪时代，从亚当和夏娃被创造到被逐出伊甸园。

    2.良知时代，从伊甸园到被驱逐到挪亚方舟。

    3.人治时代，从挪亚方舟到亚伯拉罕。

    4.应许时代，从亚伯拉罕到摩西。

    5.律法时代，从摩西到耶稣。

    6.恩典时代，达比真教会的当前时期，从耶稣受难到耶稣第二次降临。

    7.千禧年时代，最后的耶稣统治时代。

    《圣经》里有很多充满矛盾的章节，而达比的时代体系的绝妙之处就在于，它通过将《圣经》内容分成各个独立的时代，消除了许多混乱，从而减少了章节之间的内部冲突。从解经的晦涩和内部章节矛盾的方面来看，许多神学家认为，达比的这种重新排列把《圣经》组织成一个更加连贯的整体，创造了一个绝妙之作。

    所有有组织的教派，除了其神学或信仰体系之外，还有一个“教会学”，即组织结构。达比的教会学被称为福音集会，即一位有魅力的领袖人物组织的小团体，这位领袖主宰着团体的福音真理。达比有意不给聚会命名，但人们非正式地称之为“上帝的教会”，或者更简单的“兄弟会”，其中最著名的是普利茅斯兄弟会。

    与现代美国基督教原教旨主义热烈的教堂仪式形成鲜明对比的是，兄弟会的集会主要专注于一些知识性活动，其方法论与米勒的方法论相似。米勒的方法论会在《圣经》中追踪某个单词，例如“创造”。由于《圣经》中蕴含强大的智慧，但在表述上有大量的含糊其词，因此这场运动很快就变得非常激烈。但是，所有兄弟会成员都同意该运动的基本宗旨，即把世界分为犹太人、基督徒和其他所有人（异教徒）。他们进一步同意保罗写给帖撒罗尼迦人的第一封信[10]的中心地位。这封书信中有两段关键经文：

    因为主必亲自从天降临，有呼叫的声音和天使长的声音，又有神的号吹响，那在基督里死了的人必先复活。

    以后我们这活着还存留的人必和他们一同被提到云里，在空中与主相遇。这样，我们就要和主永远同在。[11]

    对那些接受《圣经》字面真理的人来说，这两段经文的意思很清楚。最后，耶稣半途降下，让所有真基督徒聚集到云中；去往天堂的半途，首先是复活的死者，然后是活人：这就是“被提”。

    达比的普利茅斯兄弟会随后跳转到《启示录》的幻象叙事，大致的顺序：7年不可言喻的恐怖大灾难；耶稣战胜撒旦和他的军队；1000年的和平以及与撒旦的另一场短暂战斗；生者和死者的最终审判。那些在大灾难期间留在地上的人，凭借他们在混乱中的悔改，也有资格获得救赎。（这种叙事被一个多世纪之后的很多原教旨主义小说利用，例如蒂姆·莱希和杰里·詹金斯的《末世迷踪》系列。）[12]

    在就读圣三一大学期间，达比受到皇家神学教授理查德·格雷夫斯的影响。格雷夫斯当时广受欢迎，他讲授的经典著作和神学启发了一代又一代的学生。根据格雷夫斯的说法，犹太人将回到圣地并接受耶稣，然后带着刚刚皈依的热情，引导其他人找到救世主。犹太人的返乡和皈依会加速末日的到来，所以真正的基督徒有责任帮助犹太人返回圣地。和过去以及之后的千禧年派一样，格雷夫斯寻找能够证实圣经预言的当前事件，而土耳其对巴勒斯坦统治的削弱和英国海军力量的崛起就证实了《圣经》预言。[13]格雷夫斯的这种犹太人和基督徒的“联盟”被称为“基督教犹太复国主义”，并将与“犹太复国主义”配合，在接下来的一个半世纪里获得越来越强大的力量。

    与疯狂的再洗礼派以及第五君主国派起事一样，到了20世纪末，千禧年派成为一个潜在毁灭性的自我实现的预言，原因有二：第一，与格雷夫斯、达比和兄弟会一样，千禧年派的叙事以圣地为中心，而这一地区是现代世界的火药桶；第二，在过去的几十年里，时代论者开始影响美国的外交政策，并控制了军事武器，这些武器可以一举焚毁大部分人类，根本不需要《但以理书》和《启示录》里“猛兽”的帮助。

    时代论在美国获得了最热烈的追随和拥护；但它在发源地——不列颠群岛，或者说所有其他发达国家的影响力要小得多。

    19世纪早期至中期，是西方科学发展的重大转折时期。查尔斯·达尔文的《物种起源》在1859年出版；科学家们逐渐意识到，地球的年龄比《圣经》中所述的6000年要多得多。1779年，法国科学家布丰用加热的球体模拟了地球的冷却过程，估计地球的年龄为75000年；1862年，物理学家威廉·汤姆森——受勋后的名字为开尔文男爵——认为地球的年龄是2000万到4亿年。随着实验室技术的不断进步，估计值不断增加，到20世纪中期，对地球年龄的共识为46亿年；而对宇宙年龄的估计值是过去的3倍。这些事实使许多基督教徒感到不安，例如，兄弟会拒绝接受达尔文的观点，并努力将地质时间概念融入对《创世记》的解释中。[14]

    在这些科学发现之前，著名政治家和科学家经常涉足末日论。最值得注意的是，艾萨克·牛顿刊登了一整套研究成果，在他死后，其被整理成一套文集，以阐述《但以理书》和《启示录》的意义。[15]

    约瑟夫·普里斯特利在18世纪中期所接受的教育，和那时几乎所有的高等教育一样，是神学的；他以牧师的身份开始了他的职业生涯，但很快就对自然科学产生了兴趣。在自然科学中，他在电、气体的性质等方面进行了早期的开创性工作，尤其著名的是他发现了氧气。与牛顿一样，普里斯特利也广泛参与了《圣经》预言，其中包括犹太人返回巴勒斯坦的猜测：

    犹太人目前的分散状态是从摩西开始的一系列预言的主题，如果像预言那样，这个杰出的民族能够重回自己的地区并建造一个繁荣的国家，那么，我想，就很少有人会怀疑预言之灵的真实性。[16]

    普里斯特利于1804年去世，是最后一位将预言与科学相结合的备受关注的自然哲学家；在达尔文进化论和地质学繁荣之后，任何一位把《圣经》作为他们对物理或生物科学信仰的基础的主流科学家都将招致同行的嘲笑。同样，这些新的科学知识还摧毁了许多基督教信徒和神职人员对《圣经》字面真理的信念。

    首先在《圣经》真理无误方面改变立场的是德国神学家，他们把《圣经》的叙事看作寓言而不是事实。这一思想流派被称为“高等批判主义”。19世纪，这一运动蔓延到英格兰，逐渐被等级森严、受过高等教育的圣公会神职人员接受；到19世纪末，字面解经的兄弟会发现自己在本国被边缘化了。此外，像达比这样的时代论智者们，当他们投身于模棱两可的《圣经》文本时，会产生一种固有的离心力，这种离心力使英格兰兄弟会分裂成几十个没有影响力的教派，甚至在某些情况下，这些教派成为人们嘲笑的对象。[17]

    在美国基督教的神学自由中，时代论找到了更肥沃的土壤。美国不仅缺乏英国式的等级制国家教会，而且美国人的性格也截然不同。19世纪，是真正的英国人的世纪，是一个极度乐观的时期，在这一时期，英国人对技术进步有几近绝对的信心，他们能够主导全球趋势。这种心态与时代论对人性的灰暗评价不同。尽管美国最初也认为自己是新耶路撒冷，是全人类的灯塔，但内战粉碎了这一信念，这个伤痕累累的国家更容易接受悲观主义的达比和兄弟会。战后，达比和兄弟会在美国巡演了15年。达比本人每次都要花上几个月的时间访问美国主要城市，并在那里和他的同事们传播时代论信条。

    时代论在美国招募的最重要的新成员是德怀特·穆迪、司可福、加尔布莱恩。其中，穆迪是一位狂热的福音派传教士，他在英国旅游时与兄弟会接触过，后来在美国与达比相遇。起初，出身卑微的穆迪和贵族知识分子达比相处得并不好，但随着时间的推移，穆迪的坚毅赢得了达比的赞赏。[18]此外，穆迪还有达比所缺乏的优势：他在大西洋两岸的教堂、体育场和公园聚集了成千上万的信徒。达比死后4年，也就是1886年，穆迪创立了芝加哥福音社（在他死后更名为穆迪圣经学院）。在接下来的几十年里，其培养了几十名美国著名的时代论者。

    之后，超过50所福音社在美国建立，其主要目标是推动基于《圣经》字面真理的预言，并打击主流新教教派中以科学为中心的“高等批判主义”。1924年，一位名叫刘易斯·斯佩里·蔡弗的奥伯林毕业生，创办了著名的福音神学院。12年后，他将学院更名为达拉斯神学院。[19][20]达拉斯神学院是大多数无宗教信仰的美国人未曾听说过但最重要的教育机构。它培养了许多时代论运动的最高领导人，其在福音圈被称为“达拉斯人”，对其他的时代论者影响很大。

    第二个早期美国时代论的关键人物是司可福。他是美国内战时期南方军队的一名退伍军人，在内战结束后从事法律工作，曾担任过堪萨斯州的立法委员和律师。1879年，受到一位名叫詹姆斯·布鲁克斯的时代论领袖的影响，司可福突然皈依了福音教。詹姆斯·布鲁克斯是尼亚加拉圣经会议的组织者，1876—1897年，尼亚加拉圣经会议每年在安大略省的尼亚加拉湖滨小镇举行。司可福还接触了穆迪和早期美国第三位重要的时代论者加尔布莱恩。

    尼亚加拉圣经会议强调了时代论在美国比英国更为盛行的另一个原因，即美国宪法对宗教的不干涉态度鼓励了各色新教教派的发展。布鲁克斯欢迎他们所有人到尼亚加拉湖滨小镇。这避免了英国运动那样的激烈内讧。至今，合一运动精神广泛存在于美国教会中，他们愿意接纳时代论的末日叙事。

    加尔布莱恩比达比更加具有非凡的才智，1879年，18岁的他从德国移民到美国，之后学习了拉丁语、希腊语，尤其是意第绪语[21]，试图改变纽约犹太人的信仰，甚至创办了一家意第绪语报社。他还创办了一家英语报社，其报纸提供给包括蔡弗和司可福在内的美国原教旨主义者阅读。加尔布莱恩的才华打动了蔡弗和司可福，司可福开始编写钦定版《圣经》的注释版本，于1909年首次出版了《司可福串注圣经》，这本书又进一步鼓舞了蔡弗创建后来的达拉斯神学院。

    《司可福串注圣经》非常重要。宗教史学家认为它是最有影响力的、独一无二的时代论出版物，至今仍对现代基督教原教旨主义存在影响。1909年版本的销量为300万册，而1967年版本的销量超过1000万册；在过去的一个世纪里，这两个版本指导了大批美国人了解时代论体系。[22]

    加尔布莱恩、司可福和穆迪，这三个人与布鲁克斯的尼亚加拉圣经会议之间的联系，标志着时代论学说开始与地缘政治纠缠。1878年，布鲁克斯创立了“十四点信条”，其在1890年尼亚加拉圣经会议上被正式采纳。十四点中的最后一点：

    我们相信，在当前的宽免下，世界不会皈依，但将很快成熟并等待审判，同时基督教内部会有可怕的变节；因此，主耶稣将亲自主持千禧年时代，届时以色列人将重新回到自己的土地……主耶稣和千禧年前的降临，是福音中摆在我们面前的蒙福，我们要不断寻祈。[23]

    至此，达比及其追随者对犹太人的重返一直保持严格的不干涉立场。基督教徒认为，他们应该最多是对“被提”和“千禧年”进程感兴趣的观察员，但在“被提”和“千禧年”这两个时代之间的“大灾难”时代，他们应该将行为限制在拯救灵魂上。在任何情况下，他们都不会试图通过鼓励或帮助犹太人返回巴勒斯坦来触发这一进程。但是，这一被动的做法随着罗伯特·安德森、威廉·布莱克斯通、亚瑟·贝尔福、奥德·温盖特等基督教犹太复国主义者的出现而改变了。为了使犹太人重返圣地，他们使用了强大的修辞和政治力量，尤其是温盖特，他以英国军官的身份使用武力，以最暴力的方式违反了达比的不干涉政策。

    和达比一样，安德森出身于爱尔兰贵族阶层，曾在都柏林圣三一大学学习法律，在英国内政部拥有卓越的职业生涯。他后来去往苏格兰场[24]，指导“开膛手杰克”案件[25]的调查。在那个时代，他能够置身于两个完全不同的群体（一个是时代论阵营，一个是统治贵族阶层），这是非比寻常的。因此，在当时以及后来土耳其统治巴勒斯坦时期，他在英国对巴勒斯坦的外交政策方面有一定的影响。尽管在英国，兄弟会已经是社会和神学上的弃儿，但安德森还是非常钦佩达比，他还认识司可福和穆迪。此外，他在任职于英国内政部的几十年里，还经常与各届首相接触，其中包括格莱斯顿、阿斯奎斯、索尔兹伯里，以及宿命般的贝尔福。[26]

    安德森被普利茅斯兄弟会一位名叫本杰明·威尔斯·牛顿的人写的书迷住了。这本书名为《十大王国的前景》，出版于1863年，并不出名。书中，牛顿把关注点集中在《但以理书》中的10个脚趾上：当时的基督徒将泥足解释为罗马帝国，牛顿进一步认为泥足的10个脚趾代表了罗马帝国的10个民族或王国。牛顿设想，除了犹太人重返巴勒斯坦的古老预言以外，末日的第二个迹象，就是这10个古老的王国重新组成一个新的罗马帝国：

    最后划分为10个王国，用10个脚趾表示，这是末日之前的事件，并且可能与以色列在自己的土地上建立国家同时发生。[27]

    牛顿认为，拿破仑战争和1815年维也纳会议之后，欧洲各地建立的各个现代民族国家，构成了这个新罗马帝国。这些事件无疑预示着末日即将来临，因为：

    英国、比利时、法国、阿尔及利亚、葡萄牙、西班牙、意大利、奥地利和希腊建立的政府，事实上或实际上是民主君主制的政府。君士坦丁堡[28]、埃及和突尼斯的人们对西欧国家的支持表明了这一时期的到来，即泥与铁的混合将恰如其分地代表整个罗马帝国的政府权力特征。[29]

    由反基督者领导的十国组成了复兴的罗马帝国。这一概念是一个极好的确认偏见的例子。这一预言在时代论者中越来越流行，以至于几乎所有包含数字10的《圣经》经文都被视为古罗马重新组合的预言。例如，达比也对《启示录》中的十角兽[30]印象深刻：

    路易·拿破仑是不是反基督者，这个问题引起了人们极大的兴奋，所以我补充一下。我毫不怀疑目前他是拉丁人[31]或十角兽的伟大代理人，他的行动清楚地标志着最后一幕的临近。上帝保佑！[32]

    1881年，安德森在牛顿的启发下出版了《将临的君王》，它是一部大胆而富有挑衅性的预言著作，流传至今（所有时期的时代论者都是激进的；在这一点上，牛顿是一个独立的浸信会教徒，他强烈批评时代论）[33]。安德森的社会地位，使他能够自主地发展一个预言体系，并且这一体系成为20世纪晚期杰瑞·法威尔和哈尔·林赛的可怕预言的基础，而同样以此预言体系为基础的蒂姆·莱希和杰里·詹金斯的小说则更为惊悚，且销量惊人。

    19世纪晚期，安德森对时代论的解释，直接源于《但以理书》9:24-27，对于理解今天美国新教原教旨主义的根源至关重要。《但以理书》中的这四节，描述了犹太人从巴比伦流亡归来到弥赛亚降临这两个事件之间的“七十周”（或译作“七十个七”）。令人困惑的是，书中将这段时间细分为三个阶段，分别是7周、62周和最后一周，最后一周又细分为两个半周。（安德森的书名参考的是《但以理书》9:26中的“将要来的君王”，他是领导10国的反基督者。）

    这让人想起千禧年主义对《但以理书》前一章，也就是第八章的关注。第八章提到了圣经中的2300天，也就是从犹太人自巴比伦的归来到末日之间的时间跨度为2300年，因此可以推算出末日时间是1843年或1844年。[34]与此不同，安德森却把注意力集中在70个“周”，也就是以《但以理书》第九章中的490天或年，作为从巴比伦返回到复临之间的时间跨度。从巴比伦结束对犹太人的囚禁到耶稣复临，安德森和千禧年主义对这一时间跨度的估计相差了1810年，这体现出《圣经》预言所固有的棘手性，具体到这里，就是解经者应该如何处理这将近2000年的认知失调。

    处理安德森估计的1810年的缺失需要一个巨大的谎言——把时间暂停。安德森，在耶稣受难的第六十九周按下了末日进程的时间暂停键，此时弥赛亚被“切断”，当反基督者出现时，弥赛亚重新开始。第七十周末日的重新开始时间：

    将会以另一位君主（反基督者）的到来作为预示，他将与犹太人签订7年契约（或条约）；在周中（也就是3年半之后），他将违反条约并打压对方的圣殿朝拜和宗教教义。这一切都是那么简单明了，任何聪明的子民都能理解。（原文在括号里。）[35]

    安德森毫不怀疑，目前已经处于这个序列的早期阶段，这一阶段将涉及：

    未来某些欧洲大危机的后果，就是国家联盟得到发展，因此为可怕存在（指末日）的出现预备好了舞台，人类的伟大领袖即将结束外邦人至上的多事之秋时代。[36]

    时代论者已经确定，有两个事件将标志着时间中断的结束（即时间的重启），以及上帝对犹太人的重新关注，并因此带来末日。这两个事件就是犹太人返回圣地、罗马帝国重新组合成反基督者领导的欧洲十国联盟。虽然达比留下了几十卷书，但由于他的散文晦涩难懂，因此读者群体限制在一小部分有文化且信仰坚定的核心真信徒中。而安德森的散文虽然不像红葡萄酒一样流传下来，但是他在《将临的君王》中准确预言了犹太人将返回巴勒斯坦[37]，这令此后20世纪的读者们兴奋不已。

    1881年，《将临的君王》出版，这增强了其预言的真诚性。其出版时间比西奥多·赫茨尔出版《犹太国》进而推动第一届世界犹太复国主义大会召开并开创现代犹太复国主义运动早了10多年；比埃德蒙·艾伦比将军从奥斯曼土耳其人手中夺取耶路撒冷早了1/3个世纪。而在这些事件发生之前，在巴勒斯坦建立一个新的犹太国家这一前景看上去很渺茫，甚至安德森写道：

    在许多人看来，以色列复国的预言就像一个世纪前我们的祖先对现在的电力和蒸汽的胜利所做的预言一样令人难以置信。[38]

    即使到今天，安德森关于在巴勒斯坦地区恢复犹太国家这一预言的实现仍然令人震惊。但是，他的新罗马帝国的预言就没有实现，这使得基督教原教旨主义的预言从此陷入困境。例如，理查德·格雷夫斯将1815年后兴起的欧洲君主立宪制国家认定为新罗马帝国；之后的一个半世纪之后，时代论者同样认定欧盟是那个新罗马帝国，但欧盟至今没有产生那个反基督领导者，也没有和以色列结成战略联盟，更不用说入侵以色列了。[39]

    米勒末日预言的失败使人们“大失望”，原教旨主义基督徒吸取其教训，不再进行预言的日期设定。从达比开始，时代论者就被吸引，试图从时事中进行预言，特别是他们把国家集团列为新罗马，把个人列为反基督者。尽管在当时看来，圣经和时事之间的相似性似乎是合理和令人震惊的，但几十年后就能显示出预言家的预言是愚蠢的。

    似乎是觉得这一切还不够复杂。达比具有丰富的时代论想象力，在返回圣地的犹太民族和新罗马帝国之间的最后一场战斗中，他又增添了一个主要角色：北方之王。《但以理书》中反复提到，北方之王是以色列的侵略者。达比认为北方之王是当时的俄国。（达比的计划还包括身份不明的“东方之王”和“南方之王”，后者很可能是埃及。）[40]

    对像达比这样有才智的人来说，找到支持俄国入侵圣地的《圣经》文本很简单。《创世记》10:2中列出了雅弗六个儿子中的两个，也就是米设（Moscow）和土巴（Tobol’sk）；在达比狂热的想象中，他们分别代表莫斯科和托博尔斯克，后者位于乌拉尔山脉以东。[41]

    19世纪中后期，强大的沙皇俄国对衰落的奥斯曼土耳其产生威胁，达比断言俄国将从土耳其窃取歌革的土地，然后入侵重建的犹太地区。在20世纪中后期，达比的追随者们继续渲染这个预言：犹太人会与反基督者领导的新罗马帝国结盟，以应对俄国的威胁，反基督者将在三年半后背叛犹太人，结束这个联盟。[42]

    无论这个19世纪的神学推测在今天看来多么复杂、怪异和荒谬，它在近两个世纪中的演变对于理解美国最近的国内政治和外交政策至关重要。从达比、安德森、穆迪、司可福和加尔布莱恩到梅洛迪那只奶牛，再到最近美国时代论信仰的猛增，这条道路漫长而曲折。而接下来会出现一位关键人物，即一位名叫威廉·布莱克斯通的美国商人。

    布莱克斯通可以被看作美国的罗伯特·安德森，他有很广的人脉，是一个热衷于犹太人返回巴勒斯坦地区的时代论者。尽管布莱克斯通出身卑微，但他从岳父那里继承了一大笔遗产，并通过保险业务、节俭、明智的投资以及图书销售，变得更加富有。[43]和安德森一样，他与政府最高层有联系。

    1841年，布莱克斯通出生于纽约州北部，11岁时皈依宗教，后来成为穆迪的亲密伙伴。1886年，他出版了《耶稣来了》，宣扬的核心内容是犹太人回归巴勒斯坦并皈依基督教；这本书最终卖出了100多万册，并被翻译成43种语言。[44]他非常相信时代论者的末日叙事，以至于在1888年左右的某个时候，他把几千本自己的书连同其他希伯来语、意第绪语和亚拉姆语的预言作品，藏在了今天约旦南部佩特拉的周围，这样，“总有一天，在反基督大屠杀中受到惊吓的幸存者们会乐于接受机会，阅读这些上帝的作品”[45]。[46]

    布莱克斯通致力于数秘主义和历史事件的结合，例如，7年乘以一年360天等于2520天，这个数字与巴比伦占领的时间即公元前606年相加，得出耶稣复临的时间是1914年；而第一次世界大战正是从1914年开始的。但是，正如他在佩特拉周围藏书所表明的那样，他并不反对亲自推动末日时代的到来。

    《耶稣来了》出版若干年后，西奥多·赫茨尔在瑞士巴塞尔组织了犹太复国主义者大会。随后的几十年中，布莱克斯通通过他的芝加哥希伯来人使团谨慎地与犹太复国主义者合作，甚至在他写完《埋葬在约旦》一书后，召集了一次基督教前千禧年主义者和犹太复国主义者的联合会议。在犹太教和基督教所达成的会议协定的基础上，他起草了一封写给美国总统本杰明·哈里森的信，这封信被历史称为《布莱克斯通请愿书》（以下简称《请愿书》）。信中，他简略提及了以西结和以赛亚，然后重点讲述了大屠杀下俄国犹太人的苦难。解决犹太人的苦难有一个显而易见的办法：“为什么不把巴勒斯坦还给他们？”

    带着天真的乐观，《请愿书》建议奥斯曼人自愿放弃那块有价值的土地，条件是西方国家对他们的债务支持。更令人印象深刻的是《请愿书》的413名签名者，其中包括最高法院首席大法官、众议院议长、众议院外交事务委员会主席、众多其他国会议员、著名神学家、记者和行业领袖（如约翰·洛克菲勒、约翰·摩根）。

    哈里森总统向布莱克斯通承诺，他将调查此事，并将信转给国务卿詹姆斯·布莱恩，后者向美国驻君士坦丁堡大使馆进行了问询。正如美国外交官们在那个时代惯常做的那样，他们忽略了犹太人的问题，《请愿书》随后从公众视野中消失；1903年，布莱克斯通把它重新提交给西奥多·罗斯福总统之后，它再次消失。

    1916年，路易斯·布兰代斯被伍德罗·威尔逊任命，成为美国最高法院的第一位犹太人大法官。被任命后不久，布兰代斯偶然发现了这封信。但那时，已经很少有人知道这封信，以至于当布兰代斯在国务院问询时，其官员否认对此有任何了解。用历史学家保罗·查尔斯·默克利的话说：

    （国务院的官员们声称对《请愿书》一无所知）似乎极不应该。很可能，他们只是不愿意让美国总统甚至美国国会花时间来处理“末日论”者提交的小册子。[47]

    在接下来的几十年里，美国国务院提供了大量的证据，证明在大屠杀之前和期间，根深蒂固的反犹太主义阻碍了犹太难民从德国及其占领的欧洲地区逃离，并夺走了无数的生命。但上面的引文指出了美国国务院故意驳回由该国精英们签署的《请愿书》的另一个原因：

    受过良好教育的人（指决策者）对神学单纯的人（指原教旨主义者）的蔑视。决策者们都是在圣公会、公理会、一位论派，偶尔还有长老会等这些圈子里长大的，在他们眼里，没有什么比末日论者的小册子更令人鄙视的了。只要“犹太命运”的唯一坚定拥护者是原教旨主义者，就没有必要在犹太复国主义上浪费时间。与简单、传统的乡村俱乐部式的反犹太主义者相比，受过良好教育的新教徒更加恐惧和厌恶原教旨主义者。[48]

    美国国务院对《请愿书》的忽视令布兰代斯很震惊，他与布莱克斯通建立起友好的联系。1917年，两人重新向一位虔诚的新教教徒威尔逊总统提交了修改过的《请愿书》。但这时，中东的军事和外交形势已经超出了他们的掌控能力。

    布莱克斯通在临死前已经是一个富翁，他送给布兰代斯（他也很富裕）一大笔钱，其中大部分是石油商米尔顿·斯图尔特捐赠、用以支持犹太复国主义工作的。1935年，94岁的布莱克斯通去世。去世前，他告诉布兰代斯，他把钱藏了起来，就像他在佩特拉藏的书一样，这样在他死后“如果被提真的来了，而你不在其中”，那么这些钱将用来支持未被提的犹太人，随后他们会皈依基督，并改变其他异教徒的信仰。（他还进一步劝告美国最伟大的法学家之一布兰代斯，“显然人类法律并没有为这些事件做准备”。）[49]

    比布兰代斯的犹太复国主义和布莱克斯通的基督教时代论复国主义更令人关注的事件发生在亚瑟·贝尔福身上。从小，贝尔福就继承了父母的虔诚，并痴迷于《旧约》。幸亏如此，否则，他将只是一个典型的慵懒、超然的英国贵族，正如他的传记作者所言，他属于“一种容易辨认的类型，英国和法国的一些政治家将他们的名声归功于他们的才智所创造的印象，而不是任何具体的表现”[50]。

    贝尔福的父亲是国会议员，父母都是福音派新教教徒，尤其是母亲。贝尔福也受到了一位兄弟会成员的强烈影响，这位成员名叫威廉·凯利，和达比一样，凯利也毕业于圣三一大学，更重要的是，他编辑了全套的《达比文集》，并且像安德森一样，在保守党圈子里人脉很广。

    贝尔福的舅舅索尔兹伯里勋爵曾三次担任英国首相，几乎是理所当然的，贝尔福在1902年接任了舅舅的职务。通常情况下，在英国，卓越的才智和机敏的辩论技巧有助于升职，却并不意味着拥有从政能力。贝尔福3年后辞职，主要原因是贸易问题。[51]

    在他辞职的同时，他遇到了赫茨尔的一位助手，即年轻的犹太复国主义者查姆·魏兹曼，一位刚刚移居英国的化学教授。魏兹曼后来成为以色列第一任总统。据报道，这位年轻的化学家对犹太家园的憧憬让虔诚的贝尔福“感动到落泪”[52]。

    在随后的10年里，贝尔福与犹太复国主义者的关系不断加深，1917年11月2日，时任外交大臣的他给英国犹太社区最重要的人物罗斯柴尔德勋爵写了一封信，信的内容在一周后公开发布：

    英王陛下的政府赞成犹太人在巴勒斯坦地区建立一个民族之家，并会尽力促成此目标的实现，但要清楚明白的是，不得有任何可能会伤害已经存在于巴勒斯坦地区的非犹太社群的宗教权利以及犹太人在其他国家享有的各项权利和政治地位的行为。[53]

    《贝尔福宣言》使全世界的犹太复国主义者兴奋不已，并为30年后以色列国的诞生发挥了不小的作用。尽管贝尔福的宗教信仰明显推动了《贝尔福宣言》和随后的英国外交政策，但他与凯利等时代论者的接触是否直接影响了他对巴勒斯坦地区的政策，这一点是值得怀疑的。从那时开始，圣地的命运将不再由满足于站在一旁观察历史的神学家驱动，而将由那些希望自己塑造历史的人驱动。

    9 圣殿山的争夺

    末日叙事如何影响犹太人建国

    犹太人确实回到了圣地，首先是19世纪末的缓慢迁移，然后在东欧大屠杀[1]后随着犹太复国主义影响力的增强而快速迁移，最后是在纳粹大屠杀之后，汹涌回归。

    1948年，以色列建国。其后的几十年里，只有一小部分以色列公民赞同犹太版的末日叙事。犹太版与时代论版本一样，也是以犹太人回归和重建圣殿为特征。由于圣殿山异常的地区敏感性，这一小部分人不断制造内乱，其随时有可能引发地区冲突，甚至全球冲突。

    充满时代论热情的基督教犹太复国主义者在20世纪后半叶如雨后春笋般出现，他们已经证明并将继续证明，无论是在圣地还是在其他地方，冲突危险都同样存在。

    约翰·纳尔逊·达比和他当时的追随者，满足于从旁观者的角度观察事态发展。但20世纪30年代，在一位杰出的英国军官奥德·温盖特身上，时代论理论和现实政治发生了冲突。英国著名的军事历史学家巴兹尔·利德尔·哈特把温盖特描述为“犹太人的劳伦斯[2]”[3]。

    1920年，国际联盟授予英国对圣地的“委任统治权”。[4]1936—1939年，温盖特在英属巴勒斯坦托管地任职。在那里，他的时代论信仰与他的军事技能以及英国资源相结合，推动了千禧年时代的进程；但是他这样做，严重违反了授权中所规定的阿拉伯人和犹太人的平等待遇问题。

    温盖特的外祖父曾经是一名苏格兰上尉，辞去英国军队的职务后，在当地建立了兄弟会分会。温盖特的父母也是兄弟会成员。温盖特从小听着父亲的时代论教会布道而长大，而母亲则更加教条主义。1921年，温盖特参军，1936年，他被宿命般地任命到巴勒斯坦，《旧约》是他的战地指南。著名以色列将军摩西·达扬描述了他们的第一次会面：

    温盖特身材瘦长，中等个子，有一张坚毅而苍白的脸。他带着一把重型左轮手枪走进来，手里拿着一本小小的《圣经》。他的态度真诚而又令人舒适，目光犀利而又热烈。他说话时会直视你的眼睛，像是要把他的信仰和力量灌输给你。我记得，他是在日落前到达的，渐暗的光线给他的到来增添了一种神秘和激动人心的气氛。[5]

    温盖特抵达巴勒斯坦的时候，正值阿拉伯人对犹太人定居点和英国授权部队发动了一系列暴力袭击。其中英国授权部队的主要任务是阻止阿拉伯人和犹太人相互残杀，但温盖特对犹太人的绝对偏袒很快就扰乱了这项任务所需要的本就脆弱的外交。这激怒了他的指挥官们，他们在感情上更倾向于阿拉伯人。

    温盖特认为犹太定居点在防御阿拉伯人的袭击中过于被动，并力劝犹太人开始进攻。他一生都喜欢在敌后进行突击队式的袭击；尽管最初被指派为情报官员，但他很快组建了夜间特种行动队，队伍大约有200人，其中3/4是犹太人，由英国军官指挥；队伍的任务是保护具有战略意义的从伊拉克通往地中海的石油管道。1938年夏，行动队对阿拉伯军队发动了一系列袭击，大部分都是成功的。

    正如摩西·达扬所暗示的，把温盖特称为怪人未免太轻描淡写了。他习惯于赤身裸体或只戴着浴帽向他的部队讲话，讲话时还偶尔擦洗自己。他还生吃大量洋葱，并反复让自己和部队食用受污染的食物和水，因为他相信这会增强抗病能力。

    温盖特家族的时代论神学推动了他在巴勒斯坦的行动。他曾经告诉他的岳母：“犹太人应该在巴勒斯坦有自己的家园，这样，《圣经》预言就会实现。”[6]温盖特也不反对将他的圣经愿望与世俗愿望结合在一起，他认为军事上强大的犹太民族将成为大英帝国的堡垒。

    他对犹太复国主义的偏袒很快就招致阿拉伯人对他的报复和他的上级的不满。军队上级认为他的“打完就跑”策略以及“把犹太人打扮成英国士兵”是不道德的。最后，军方将他限制在耶路撒冷从事办公室工作，然后在1939年5月将他重新分配到英国的防空部队任职。[7]他在英国待了一小段时间，随后第二次世界大战爆发，他被派往苏丹，然后是埃塞俄比亚，领导“基甸军”游击队袭击当地的意大利占领者。太平洋战争爆发后，他被调往缅甸（日占区），在那里他组建了最著名的敌后作战部队——“钦迪特”部队（也称为“温盖特的突袭队”），这支英国军队（由英国空军提供补给）不断突袭日军，以保护次大陆[8]免遭入侵。1944年3月24日，他在印度的一次飞机失事中丧生。[9]

    温盖特不仅扰乱了英国在巴勒斯坦托管地的中立性，而且他通过建立夜间特种行动队，积极主动地推动末日的到来，这严重违反了时代论禁令。在这个过程中，他的战术才华令他的犹太下属们敬畏。他指导过即将到来的1948年独立战争[10]和1967年六日战争中的几乎所有的以色列高级指挥官，包括摩西·达扬、伊加尔·阿隆、伊盖尔·亚丁和伊扎克·拉宾。他还创造了今天中东政治中的“既成事实”——占领土地并建立定居点。[11]用摩西·达扬的话说：“温盖特是我伟大的老师。他教的知识成为我的一部分，并已融入我的血液。”[12]在以色列，到处都是以温盖特名字命名的街道和公共场所，包括国家运动队的训练中心。

    温盖特曾计划在战争结束时辞去英国陆军委员会的职务并回巴勒斯坦；以色列创始人之一、首任总理戴维·本-古里安认为他是指挥以色列军队的“自然选择”。[13]“如果他还活着”无疑是中东历史上最伟大的假设之一：如果温盖特还活着，那么他领导的以色列军队会在1948年独立战争中坚守耶路撒冷旧城吗？他的领袖魅力是否会让军队在那场战争中取得更彻底的胜利并占领约旦河西岸？还是他臭名昭著又反复无常的个人行为会导致新生犹太国家的失败？

    温盖特的影响一直萦绕中东。2000年9月，在近千名武装防暴警察的保护下，在野党利库德集团[14]领导人阿里尔·沙龙坚持访问耶路撒冷圣殿山，由此破坏了《奥斯陆协议》[15]，并引发了第二次巴勒斯坦大起义。沙龙在青少年时代便视温盖特为英雄；此外，温盖特曾经训练并指导过的一名年轻士兵阿夫拉哈姆·约菲，后来成为沙龙的导师。

    沙龙的这次重要访问，突出了圣殿山作为世界上最具争议地区的地位。圣殿山是耶路撒冷错综复杂的220英亩旧城区中一块35英亩的土地，它本身就与末日叙事紧密相连，因此也与基督教、犹太教和伊斯兰教的宗教狂热紧密相连。圣殿山可以说是第三次世界大战最有可能爆发的地方，基督教、犹太教和穆斯林的千禧年主义，正是末日剧中的主角。

    耶路撒冷旧城可以粗略地看作一个正方形，圣殿山在正方形的东南角（见图9-1）。从圣殿山顺时针方向沿着旧城周边绕行，你会依次经过犹太区、亚美尼亚区、基督徒区和穆斯林区，最后回到圣殿山。圣殿山是基督教和犹太教的极端分子都想建造第三圣殿的地方，他们有各自的末日版本。

    图9-1 今天的圣殿山

    第一圣殿由所罗门建造并被巴比伦人摧毁，没有人知道它的确切位置。但最常提到的地点是圣殿山上的岩石圆顶清真寺（甚至在犹太人占领迦南之前，岩石圆顶清真寺很可能已经是耶布斯人的礼拜场所，所罗门的父亲大卫曾征服过耶布斯人）。第二圣殿是在公元前6世纪末犹太人从巴比伦流亡归来后，在马加比家族的领导下重建并扩建的，大希律王将其大规模扩建到现在的圣殿山上。70年，第二圣殿被罗马人摧毁。

    阿拉伯人在637年占领了耶路撒冷，并在692年建成了岩石圆顶清真寺。圣殿山的第二大建筑是阿克萨清真寺，其最初只是一个简陋的棚屋，在地震后重建了几次，直到1035年左右才最终定型。这座山对穆斯林的神圣性源自621年先知穆罕默德的一个梦，在梦中，他在一个夜晚骑着他的长翼坐骑布拉克到访了这座山，并登上了云霄。（第二天，穆罕默德“返回”麦加后，向将信将疑的居民讲述了他这段所谓的旅程。）

    根据对当前圣殿山所持的不同观点，犹太教的学者分为三类。第一类是最大的群体，他们认为犹太人可以访问圣殿山，但不能在那里祈祷。第二类的人数少一些，他们认为应该禁止参观，由于献祭的红母牛还没有找到，约柜（至圣所）的确切位置也不确定，因此访问者是不纯洁的，可能会意外地污染这块方舟，无论它实际位于山内的什么地方。第三类是极右翼的一小部分人，他们想立即建造第三圣殿。[16][17]

    抛开神学因素不谈，绝大多数犹太人不想重建圣殿，原因很实际：这将需要拆除岩石圆顶清真寺，可能还需要拆除阿克萨清真寺，犹太人对这些建筑的蓄意破坏将引发灾难性的地区冲突，甚至可能是全球冲突。理解这一点并不需要多么伟大的地缘政治智慧。

    在这个容易引起争议的话题上，兄弟会和早期的时代论者几乎没有发表什么言论，他们有很好的理由：《圣经》各章节之间经常互相矛盾，《旧约》和《新约》对未来的圣殿，更准确地说，对在圣殿进行祭祀的必要性，有一些相互矛盾的建议。一方面，《以西结书》第40~48章描述了未来的圣殿，以及将在其中进行的祭祀；另一方面，《希伯来书》10:1-18认为弥赛亚的祭品已经足够，动物祭品是没有必要的，因此重建圣殿也是没有必要的。[18]

    漫长而纠缠的历史，使现代耶路撒冷这座城市具有爆炸性的地位。70年，罗马人摧毁圣殿并驱逐了大部分桀骜不驯的犹太人，而其余大部分犹太人在135年西蒙·巴尔·科赫巴领导的第二次起义失败后也被驱逐。随后，罗马帝国、拜占庭帝国、萨珊王朝、穆斯林倭马亚王朝、阿拔斯王朝、法蒂玛王朝相继占领这座城市。1099年，十字军驱逐了法蒂玛人，屠杀了该城的犹太人和穆斯林居民；1187年，十字军向萨拉丁投降。随后的几十年里，基督教和穆斯林交替控制这座城市。13世纪后半叶，穆斯林马穆鲁克为争夺城市的控制权而和蒙古帝国开战，大约1300年后，马穆鲁克获胜，耶路撒冷迎来了长达6个多世纪的穆斯林统治。[19]1516年，奥斯曼帝国从马穆鲁克王朝手中接管耶路撒冷，并一直保持控制权，直到1917年12月，埃德蒙·艾伦比将军率领的英国军队进入圣地（见图9-2）。

    图9-2 今天的耶路撒冷旧城

    1929年左右，即国际联盟授予英国在巴勒斯坦的“委任统治权”生效6年后，犹太人和阿拉伯人开始互相残杀，包括对个人的袭击、大规模暴动和恐怖行动。整个20世纪30年代，从德国纳粹屠杀和迫害中逃离的大批犹太新移民受到阿拉伯人的强烈抵制，因此互相残杀不断。1947年，联合国提出巴勒斯坦地区的分治决议（见图9-3），但当犹太人在1948年5月14日午夜宣布建立以色列国时，周围的阿拉伯邻国与这个新国家之间爆发了全面战争。

    图9-3 1947年联合国提出的巴勒斯坦分治决议

    分治决议不仅将巴勒斯坦地区大致一分为二，还设置了一个“独立主体”——耶路撒冷市，其由联合国管理，约占100平方千米，包括旧城、更现代化的西部商业区以及其他周边地区。

    巴勒斯坦人和邻近的阿拉伯国家拒绝分治，他们想彻底摧毁这个新生的犹太国家。1948年5月14日，以色列宣布独立的那一天，阿拉伯人和犹太人分别从多个方向对耶路撒冷发动了袭击。

    在旧城南部入口锡安门的一场关键战役中，22岁的军官大卫·埃拉扎尔[20]指挥犹太部队深入耶路撒冷犹太区，将犹太平民和受伤的军人救出。但这次行动也耗尽了埃拉扎尔的精锐部队，剩余部队被迫放弃并离开这个祖辈已经连续生活了大约3000年的地方，旧城被约旦人占领。[21]即使在穆斯林的统治下，犹太人也可以进入圣殿山，而西墙（哭墙）更是犹太教最神圣的地方。约旦军队开始夷平犹太区。尽管失去了旧城，但这个新生国家幸存了下来，这令国际社会和许多犹太人深感意外。

    美国基督教徒对以色列建国最初的反应充其量是温和的。例如，美国天主教徒追随梵蒂冈[22]的态度，拒绝犹太人对圣地提出的任何要求。1943年，梵蒂冈国务卿宣布不承认《贝尔福宣言》；而在1948年以色列宣布独立的同一天，梵蒂冈报纸《罗马观察报》声称：“现代以色列不是圣经中以色列的继承者。圣地和那些神圣的地点只属于基督教：真正的以色列。”[23]

    主流新教徒的反应也不热情；他们大致同意梵蒂冈的观点，即代表新以色列的是基督教徒，而不是犹太人。此外，圣公会和长老会教徒支持阿拉伯人而不是犹太人，他们有一些其他理由，他们担心美国对新犹太国家的支持会妨碍他们在阿拉伯世界的传教活动以及教育机构的发展，特别是贝鲁特美国大学和开罗美国大学，那时，这些大学已经成为阿拉伯民族主义的温床。[24]最后一点也同样重要，圣公会和长老会教徒已经进入阿拉伯石油公司的管理层，这些石油业务越来越有利可图，对他们来说，具有重要的战略潜力。[25]

    20世纪初，美国新教刊物《基督教世纪》不断发表反对犹太复国主义的社论意见。例如，1929年，它质疑：

    犹太人在很多地区都受到尊崇，因为在那些地区的工业、商业、政治、艺术和文学等领域，犹太人都展现出他们的能力。他们真的想移民到巴勒斯坦这样一个资源贫乏的地方吗？[26]

    最令人震惊的是，希特勒在1933年掌权时，大多数主流新教徒都无视事实。当彻底的种族灭绝代替纳粹种族立法时，《基督教世纪》一再建议不要急于做出判决；编辑们认为需要更多的数据。10年后，该出版物认为，犹太人不信仰耶稣已经有2000多年了，犹太人必须将耶稣带回他们的犹太教堂，从而表明他们对美国的忠诚，“一个简单的举动就是自愿庆祝耶诞节[27]”[28]。

    1942年，关于放逐、集中营和大规模屠杀的一系列故事首次出现在美国报纸上。当美国犹太复国主义拉比斯蒂芬·怀斯开始全面宣传这些故事时，《基督教世纪》质疑他的指控是否有“任何好的目的”。该出版物尤其对怀斯的“犹太人的尸体偶尔被加工成肥皂”[29]这一断言感到愤怒，但是很悲惨的是这一断言后来被证明是真实的。

    并不是所有主流新教徒都如此无视事实。其中最著名的是伟大的美国神学家雷茵霍尔德·尼布尔，和他的许多政治分析一样，他对犹太国家的早期评论经得住考验，对当前的中东局势很有意义。作为一名自由派新教徒，尼布尔拒绝接受《圣经》字面上的真理，并对犹太复国主义问题持有一种更加明智和务实的态度。早在第二次世界大战时期，他就撰文指出，犹太人应该建国，不是为了实现千禧年，而是为了更现实的原因。首先，“每一个民族都有权最终拥有一个家园，这个民族在这个家园里不是‘有差异’的。在家园里，这个民族既不需要受到所谓善良人的庇护，也不会受到坏人的诽谤”。其次，很明显，没有一个国家能够吸纳纳粹压迫下的所有难民，巴勒斯坦应该对这些溢出的难民进行必要的疏导。[30]

    关键在于，与温盖特以及基督教犹太复国主义者不同，尼布尔认识到忽视阿拉伯人民是愚蠢的：

    （美国和英国是第二次世界大战的最终胜利者，它们）能够确保将巴勒斯坦地区留给犹太人，确保取消目前对移民的限制，并确保对阿拉伯人另有补偿。但犹太复国主义的领导者坚持认为犹太移民给巴勒斯坦带来了新的力量，而不会给阿拉伯人民带来“不公正”，这种想法是不切实际的。期望任何人将对其传统财产的主权限制视为“公正”都是荒谬的，不管这种限制会给他们带来多少好处。[31]

    像大多数时代论者一样，说意第绪语的阿尔诺·盖布兰才华横溢。他将犹太人分为两类，他所崇敬的正统犹太人和他对之持有怀疑态度的更世俗的犹太人[32]。作为一名坚定的反纳粹分子，他深入研究反犹太主义欺诈中最臭名昭著的《锡安长老会纪要》。该书传播了很多犹太人控制全球经济、接管国家政府和杀害基督徒的巨大阴谋（最近，阴谋论在当前全球范围内的极右民族主义者中又卷土重来）[33]。

    与此同时，在大多数主流新教徒和天主教徒都避犹不及的时候，盖布兰做出了一些关于大屠杀的评论，其具有很强的预见性。早在1932年，他就谴责希特勒反犹太主义的疯狂，并预言“显然他将走向末日，与《以斯帖记》中的哈曼命运相同”[34]。到1942年，他是最早传达欧洲纳粹大屠杀和希特勒灭绝犹太人新闻的人之一；到了第二年，他正确地估计出，那时德国人已经杀死了200万人。[35]

    1948年以色列建国时，哈里·杜鲁门和他的国务卿乔治·马歇尔之间体现出非常明显的宗教界限。前者是浸信会原教旨主义者，后者是主流新教徒。杜鲁门在12岁时已经读了两遍《圣经》，而马歇尔则是一个圣公会教徒。[36]在英国对巴勒斯坦的托管权结束的前两天，杜鲁门会见了马歇尔，以及副国务卿罗伯特·洛维特和年轻的白宫法律顾问克拉克·克利福德。

    那时，杜鲁门已经向时任犹太复国主义组织主席——魏兹曼做出了美国承认以色列的承诺，他让克利福德将他这样做的理由陈述给马歇尔和洛维特。但杜鲁门还没开始，马歇尔就打断了总统的话：“我甚至不知道克利福德为什么会在这里。他是国内顾问，而（我们讨论的）这是一项政策问题。”杜鲁门回应道：“将军，他在这里，是因为我邀请他来。”洛维特是耶鲁大学骷髅会[37]的成员，他的父亲是美国联合太平洋铁路公司的主席，他补充说，承认以色列“显然是为了赢得犹太人的选票”。杜鲁门和马歇尔互相攻击了一会儿后，马歇尔最后宣布：“如果你听从克利福德的建议，那么我会在选举中投你反对票。”[38]

    最终，马歇尔让步了，并承诺对自己的反对承认以色列的立场保密。杜鲁门的父母都是虔诚的浸信会教徒，杜鲁门小时候经常上主日学校，成年后进行了再浸礼；无论他在哪里，他总会参加周日礼拜。在他的个人文章中，他记录道：“我是一名浸信会教徒，我认为这个教派给了普通人最近、最直接的接近上帝的途径。”[39]

    离开白宫后不久，杜鲁门参观了美国犹太神学院，在那里，一位朋友将他介绍为“帮助建立以色列国家的人”。作为回应，杜鲁门提到了从巴比伦囚禁中将犹太人释放的波斯国王：“你说的‘帮助建立’是什么意思？我是居鲁士，我是居鲁士。”[40]

    1949年的停战协定将旧城和约旦河西岸交给了约旦人；在以色列国土最窄的“腰部”地区，约旦军与海相隔的距离仅为9英里。耶路撒冷较新的西部地区仍在以色列的控制之下，但约旦人控制着拉特伦，其距离新城和以色列其他地区的关键连接处的主要道路仅一箭之遥。独立战争期间，以色列人曾在拉特伦进行了一场激烈的战斗，但以失败告终。随后以色列人在南部几英里处修建了一条新公路，使得连接处的脆弱性略有降低。

    美国的时代论者与主流基督教徒算是表亲，但与后者不同，他们对于以色列的建立欣喜若狂。其中最典型的是司可福，他曾就读于菲利普斯学院和普林斯顿大学，会说希伯来语和亚拉姆语，任费城圣经大学校长，后来花了10多年时间编写1967年版的《司可福串注圣经》。1949年，他宣称“弥赛亚时代即将开始”。此外，他认为以色列和英国之间的“迫在眉睫的联盟”，可以看作犹太人和复兴的罗马帝国之间的时代论契约的开始。司可福似乎忘了，此前犹太人一直在攻击英国士兵，英国人可能并不想与犹太复国主义者结盟。还有其他一些时代论者更进一步，他们认为，上帝有意缩短富兰克林·罗斯福的寿命（他与阿拉伯人建立了密切的关系），这样可以使亲以色列的哈里·杜鲁门成为总统。[41]

    虽然以色列的建国确实触动了学究型时代论者的灵魂，但在他们的核心圈子（司可福就是这个核心圈子里的典型代表）之外，引起的共鸣并不多。此外，尽管以色列的建国使犹太人回到了圣地，但犹太人并没有控制圣殿山，事实上，他们甚至都无法进入圣殿山，这是数千年来没有发生过的。因此，他们没有实现时代论的基本要求：在重建的第三圣殿中恢复礼拜和祭祀。

    19年后，这种情况将会改变。1967年5月，阿拉伯暴徒涌上街头，要求摧毁以色列，埃及总统贾迈勒·阿卜杜勒·纳赛尔封锁了以色列进入红海的通道，并将联合国维和部队赶出西奈半岛。（1956年，通过与法国和英国的短期军事同盟，以色列占领了西奈半岛。根据随后达成的协议，西奈半岛又归入了埃及。并且根据该协议，纳赛尔的两次行动均构成战争行为。）关键是，纳赛尔还向拉特伦派遣了两个突击营，直接针对以色列的西耶路撒冷；5月底，他公开宣称要摧毁这个犹太国家。

    纳赛尔估计，这一挑衅将引发以色列的进攻，最终导致这个小国被更强大的阿拉伯军队清洗。但他只估计对了一半。6月5—10日的六天里，以色列武装部队将尚未起飞的埃及空军摧毁在地面上，并占领了西奈半岛、西岸、戈兰高地以及旧城和圣殿山。

    起初，以色列人并不打算攻占旧城。他们认为自己的国家处于毁灭的边缘，埃及对他们的生存威胁已经牵涉他们所有的精力和资源。因此，以色列国家领导人绝不想让约旦人加入战争，因为约旦人可能会在以色列脆弱的“腰部”将以色列一分为二。以色列在耶路撒冷地区的战略利益，主要集中于斯科普斯山飞地[42]内，该地区有一些小型驻军以及废弃的大学和医院，完全被约旦的领土包围。

    以色列向约旦国王侯赛因传话：如果约旦不采取敌对行动，以色列就不会攻击约旦河两岸的军队。侯赛因却说他的答案将通过“空降”到达，很快，约旦通过战斗机和炮弹袭击了以色列。虽然侯赛因的空袭基本无效，但当约旦人炮击耶路撒冷和特拉维夫郊外的国家国际机场时，以色列人别无选择，只能做出回应。即使在那时，国防部长摩西·达扬为应对危机而刚刚上任三周，依然希望谨慎行事；但内阁鹰派，特别是梅纳赫姆·贝京[43]，要求军队占领耶路撒冷；在战争的前两天，达扬的克制政策占据了上风。[44]

    能比摩西·达扬更好地应对旧城不断变化的动态的人几乎没有。这位独眼国防部长在一个农场长大，每天都与阿拉伯人打交道，会说阿拉伯语，与阿拉伯的童年伙伴们建立了友谊，并钦佩于伙伴们的父母安静的性格。独立战争期间，年轻的达扬曾作为一名中校，指挥耶路撒冷地区的犹太军队。在那场最终结束1948年冲突的微妙而漫长的停战谈判中，他与约旦谈判方阿卜杜拉·塔勒进行了广泛而越来越热情的接触。达扬非常信任他，在塔勒的陪同下，达扬穿着阿拉伯服装前往安曼[45]，并与侯赛因的父亲阿卜杜拉国王进行了谈判；几年后，当塔勒要求以色列的《巴勒斯坦邮报》（《耶路撒冷邮报》的前身）严厉地批评他，从而提高他在安曼的信誉时，达扬回报了他。[46]

    随着埃及和约旦的外部威胁消除，战争即将停火，以色列内阁最终授权占领耶路撒冷旧城；当地的指挥官乌兹·纳尔基斯曾在1948年的旧城战役中失败，他命令伞兵军官莫迪凯·古尔执行最后一次袭击。

    古尔的预备役部队，最初是计划部署到西奈半岛的，但随后其与约旦军队展开了一系列的血腥战斗，从而确保了旧城北部和东部郊区的安全。这些战争的另一个好处，是建立了一条通往斯科普斯山的通道。旧城的约旦驻军紧急请求了支援，但以色列的飞机驱散了这支西行救援纵队，这使古尔的伞兵在6月7日相对容易地由通道进入了耶路撒冷。达扬铭记世界人民的信仰，没有授权对旧城的空中袭击，炮兵部队从圣殿山绕行，并仅向阿克萨宣礼塔内的狙击手进行零散的小型武器袭击。[47]这是幸运的，因为约旦人在圣殿山附近储存了大量弹药，近距离战斗很可能会点燃这些弹药，带来灾难性的地缘政治后果。[48]

    古尔占领了世界上最神圣的地方，用无线电向纳尔基斯发出：“圣殿山在我们手中！”这也许是现代希伯来语中最著名的一句话。纳尔基斯和什洛莫·戈伦跟着古尔登上了山，其中戈伦是独立之后的以色列的军队首席拉比，他欣喜若狂地登上山顶，高呼《圣经》经文，反复吹响他的羊号角（即朔法尔[49]）。

    戈伦是想要重建第三圣殿的少数犹太人之一。他把纳尔基斯拉到一边商量。几十年后，就在戈伦去世之前，纳尔基斯向《国土报》提供了这次谈话内容：

    戈伦：纳尔基斯，现在是向岩石圆顶清真寺投放100公斤炸药的时候了，就这样吧。

    纳尔基斯：拉比，住手。

    戈伦：纳尔基斯，这样做将翻开新的历史篇章。你没有领会这样做的重要意义。现在正是机会。明天，可能就什么都做不了了。

    纳尔基斯：拉比，如果你不停下，我就立刻把你送去监狱。[50]

    戈伦默默地离开了。达扬一听说占领旧城的消息，就立即前往耶路撒冷处理圣殿山事务。当时的圣殿山和现在一样，是中东政治炸弹的导火线。

    正如达扬在他的回忆录中所描述的：

    多年来，阿拉伯人一直禁止犹太人进入他们最神圣的场所，包括耶路撒冷清真寺院内的西墙和希伯伦的列祖之墓[51]。现在我们掌握了控制权，我们应该理解其他那些和曾经的我们一样有相同需求的人，允许各种信仰的人在圣地自由参观和朝拜。[52]

    达扬到达圣殿山后，立即命令将岩石圆顶清真寺上的以色列国旗移走。第二天，他咨询了一位希伯来大学的伊斯兰历史学教授，探讨如何更好地接触管理此地的神职官员，也就是瓦克夫[53]。此后不久，他和工作人员登上圣殿山，前往阿克萨清真寺，进行了一次具有决定性意义的会面：

    当我们继续登上圣殿山到达清真寺大院时，我们似乎……进入一处阴沉的寂静之地。清真寺外接待我们的阿拉伯官员庄严地向我们致意，他们的表情反映出对战败感到悲伤，并恐惧于我可能会做的事情。[54]

    达扬命令士兵们把鞋子和武器放在门口。经过瓦克夫的初步介绍后，达扬让官员们谈论未来，但他们沉默了。于是达扬和随从们盘腿坐在地板上，以阿拉伯的风俗和他们聊天。最终，官员们敞开了心扉：他们最关心的是战争期间的水电中断。达扬承诺将在48小时内恢复水电。

    这时，达扬将他来这里的原因告诉了瓦克夫：他要让他的士兵离开圣殿山，圣殿山还将留在瓦克夫的手中。达扬要求他们恢复相关服务，并告诉他们，以色列人不会像约旦人那样审查传统的星期五礼拜；以色列的部队将从外部保卫这座山，但推土机已经将西墙附近的阿拉伯住宅清除；犹太教最神圣的地方——西墙，将继续掌握在以色列人手中。

    达扬后来记录道：“瓦克夫和官员们并不喜欢我说的最后一句话，但他们知道无法改变我的决定。”[55]达扬是一个惊人的好色之徒和考古窃贼，他不是天使。记者格肖姆·戈伦伯格观察到，“如果上帝真的干预了人类历史，那么他在选择圣徒时很有幽默感”[56]。达扬自己做出了这一安排，几乎没有采纳内阁的建议；因为即使是谨慎和持久的妥协，也通常无法达到各方都满意。

    但这种匆忙的安排依然产生了一系列问题，每个问题都可能带来灾难性的后果。几乎从一开始，拉比戈伦就很能制造麻烦。他首先带领一小群追随者到圣殿山祈祷。起初，瓦克夫并没有反对，但在埃波月[57]九日（这一天是犹太人纪念第一和第二圣殿被摧毁的日子），他做出了超越限度的行为。那天是1967年8月15日，这位惹事的拉比带着50个人和一个便携式方舟来到圣殿山，吹响了他的羊号角并祈祷。

    城内的穆斯林开始焦躁愤怒，瓦克夫封锁了圣殿山的主要入口，并开始向犹太人收取进山费用；而戈伦的回应则是宣布下一个安息日会带来1000名追随者。至此，以色列内阁已经厌烦了戈伦的这些危险行为，并做出决定：犹太人可以参观圣殿山，但不能在山上祈祷。而几乎同时，以色列最高宗教委员会的首席拉比直接禁止了犹太人参观圣殿山。虽然并非所有犹太人都承认拉比的权威，但大部分正统犹太人都承认，而且由于他们往往在意识形态上最为极端，因此这项禁令至少在一段时间内遏制了与圣殿山有关的紧张局势。[58]

    少数犹太人想把穆斯林从圣殿山上赶出去，炸毁岩石圆顶清真寺和阿克萨清真寺，重建第三圣殿。他们感到愤怒，并将达扬称为叛徒（甚至还有更恶劣的称谓）。尽管历史证明达扬是正确的，但重建圣殿的狂热者或瓦克夫都不这样认为。

    几乎从一开始，达扬的妥协就在很大程度上否定了古尔那个著名的感叹句[59]；圣殿山事实上在穆斯林社区手中，这种控制正是在自1967年战争以来的半个世纪里才得以巩固的，围绕上帝那一小块35英亩土地的政治动荡也随之加剧。

    下一个圣殿山上的重大事件，由一名精神分裂的澳大利亚基督徒丹尼斯·迈克尔·罗恩引发。他充满了由精神病引发的宗教热情，于1967年8月21日进入阿克萨清真寺，将煤油倒在讲坛的楼梯上，并投掷了火柴。大火烧毁了清真寺的大部分室内装饰，还削弱了柱子的支撑力。

    罗恩是赫伯特·阿姆斯特朗的信徒。阿姆斯特朗是美国原教旨主义上帝广播教会的创始人，也是20世纪30年代初最早利用广播新媒介的传教士之一。阿姆斯特朗并不是时代论者，但他相信英国人和美国人是“10个消失的犹太部落”的后裔。尽管如此，时代论的普通信仰，即只有在重建的圣殿中恢复朝拜和祭祀才能使耶稣复临，激发了具有活跃错觉的罗恩，他采取了合乎逻辑的下一步：阿克萨清真寺是第一圣殿的所在地，它必须被摧毁，以便为新圣殿的重建让路（尽管大多数权威人士认为第一圣殿的遗址在岩石圆顶清真寺，而不是附近的阿克萨清真寺）。

    两天后，当以色列警察终于在东耶路撒冷的小旅馆抓住罗恩时，他高兴地承认：既然上帝想让他建造这座圣殿，他就必须先摧毁阿克萨清真寺。最后，罗恩被审判、定罪，并被关押在精神病院，于1974年被驱逐回澳大利亚，一直在医院里住了20年才去世。

    尽管罗恩和犹太人没有什么关系，但阿拉伯世界还是爆发了；纳赛尔和沙特国王费萨尔都向以色列宣布圣战。在这一特殊情况下，以色列人是幸运的，因为纳赛尔和费萨尔都锁定了最有可能接受号召的激进伊斯兰主义者。[60]

    阿克萨清真寺的大火表明，圣殿山政治有最具爆炸性的两大特点。首先，它无处不在，总是充满偏执；尽管罗恩很明显只是个精神病人，并与犹太复国主义无关，但阿拉伯世界的许多人仍然指责犹太人纵火，并认为事实是以色列的消防队员向其泼汽油。而与此相反，以色列内阁部长则指责穆斯林为了挑衅而放火。其次，如果圣殿山的火药桶会点燃世界，那么它很可能伴随着宗教幻想的火焰，这种幻想可能来自犹太复国主义极端分子、激进的伊斯兰主义者、时代论基督徒或者普通的精神分裂症患者。

    将这一原则应用于世界上所有的伟大信仰，并不算过分笼统。主流的犹太教、基督教和伊斯兰教，在落入受骗的真信徒或明显的精神错乱者手中之前，都是和平的宗教。关于精神错乱者，他们的主要症状是幻听，常常听到来自上帝的声音。[61]

    并不是只有基督教徒才有末日错觉。犹太人在这方面领先了500年。伊斯兰教几乎是从穆罕默德本人开始，就有自己的末日错觉版本，这一版本最近在书店和战场上迅速发展。

    绝望是末日叙事生长的沃土。公元前6世纪，被流放到幼发拉底河沿岸为奴后，古犹太人正需要休整。《以西结书》和《但以理书》记载了压迫犹太人的人被毁灭，但神学家们通常认为首次明确提到犹太弥赛亚的是《以赛亚书》。与《但以理书》相似，《以赛亚书》的写作时间是以赛亚生活的公元前8世纪之后的几个世纪，它可能是由一系列作家在巴比伦流亡期间以及回到犹大之后创作的。书中预言了一位救世主的出现，他将结束世界，在耶路撒冷建立一个上帝的普世王国。

    弥赛亚主义是犹太历史上一个持续的主题，它有时像一条细红丝带，有时则像一块展开的能够蒙蔽理性的深红色布。它可能会带来一场全国性的运动，例如罗马时期，70年，奋锐党[62]策划的起义。起义中分裂出西卡里党，其暗杀了拒绝反叛的犹太人；其中一些西卡里人后来在死海之上的梅察达集体自杀。它还可能是某些虽有才能但被骗、偶尔有精神病的个人的作品，比如沙巴蒂·萨维，一位患有躁狂抑郁双相型障碍的塞法迪[63]拉比，他在1648年的狂躁间歇宣称自己是弥赛亚，并成为小亚细亚士麦那地区大型犹太社区的宗教领袖，然后在东地中海四处穿梭，聚集皈依者和会众。17世纪中期的大屠杀使欧洲大陆的犹太人口大量减少，沙巴蒂·萨维的弥赛亚救世承诺吸引了大批追随者，但当他被奥斯曼帝国监禁而面临死亡威胁时，他选择了皈依伊斯兰教，这一承诺也宣告结束。[64]

    大屠杀后，难以控制的以色列独立运动中再次上演了奋锐党和西卡里党之间的戏剧版本。在独立前的冲突中，两个恐怖组织“伊尔贡”和“莱希”（前者一般不会谋杀犹太人同胞，但后者会），都参与了对阿拉伯人和英国官员的暗杀性袭击，最著名的是1944年在开罗暗杀英国副国务大臣莫恩勋爵，以及1946年炸毁耶路撒冷的大卫王酒店，造成91人死亡。

    第二次世界大战爆发时，伊尔贡要求暂时停止对英国人的袭击，这激怒了更激进的成员，他们在亚伯拉罕·斯特恩的领导下联合成立了莱希（就是在英语世界中更为人所知的“斯特恩帮”）。像伊尔贡一样，莱希的目标也是阿拉伯人和英国公民，它们不仅对莫恩遇刺事件负责，而且对1948年的联合国代表福克·伯纳多特伯爵遇刺事件负责，因为当时它们担心伯纳多特会与阿拉伯人达成对它们不利的停战协议。（战争期间，伯纳多特曾帮助数万人从德国集中营获释，其中约有1600名犹太人。）

    除了第二次世界大战期间与英国的临时停火争议之外，还有两个方面的争论使伊尔贡和莱希分裂。与奋锐党和它的分支西卡里党的区别一样，伊尔贡人一般不会杀害他们的犹太人同胞，而莱希人则会这样做。过去的西卡里人和后来的莱希人都谋杀过犹太人的通敌者，偶尔还谋杀与他们仅仅有意识形态分歧的人。更重要的是，和西卡里人一样，莱希人也是热情的弥赛亚主义者，而伊尔贡人则更世俗化。

    莱希的宣言，即《民族复兴原则》，列出了18条，其中最臭名昭著的是向犹太人承诺《出埃及记》中的土地“从埃及河到大幼发拉底河”，以及第三圣殿的重建。[65]在被纳入以色列武装部队和情报机构之前，伊尔贡和莱希的最后领导人分别是梅纳赫姆·贝京和伊扎克·沙米尔。两人后来都成为以色列总理。

    以色列人对弥赛亚主义团体的支持相对较少。那里的民众消息灵通，他们认为在晚间新闻时间给别人打电话是一件非常粗鲁的事情；他们同样非常清楚，重建圣殿类似于一种自杀行为。尽管这个国家仍然是恐怖袭击的目标，最近尤其是伊朗部队打击的目标，但弥赛亚主义的原推动力——一种与巴比伦人、塞琉西王朝、罗马人、国社党或纳赛尔统治下的埃及人等规模相当的威胁——已不复存在；毕竟，以色列已经与埃及和约旦签署了和平协议，而剩下的威胁来源国叙利亚则陷入内乱。

    即便如此，1967年对旧城的占领确实激励了以色列千禧年主义者中的一小部分人，特别是信仰者同盟（即坚信派），他们将《出埃及记》中的最大领土视为信仰：上帝将加沙、西岸、戈兰高地，甚至荒芜的西奈半岛永远留给了犹太人。1967年独立战争刚刚结束，坚信派就开始在约旦河西岸修建定居点，1974年，他们与新总理伊扎克·拉宾因为那里的修建工程发生了冲突；最终，坚信派通过拉宾的对手、建立定居点的支持者——国防部长西蒙·佩雷斯，迂回挫败了拉宾。3年后，梅纳赫姆·贝京成为以色列的领导人，他打开了西岸扩张的闸门。（1978年的《戴维营协议》[66]规定，将西奈半岛归还埃及。坚信派没能阻止该协议的实施。）

    其他的犹太弥赛亚主义者则专注于圣殿的重建。伊斯拉尔·阿里尔就是这样一位圣殿狂热者，他是一位关注梅洛迪小母牛的拉比。1967年，年轻的阿里尔曾在攻占西墙的伞兵旅服役。对他和一小群极端正统的犹太人来说，弥赛亚（第一个也是迄今为止还没有到临过的）在圣殿建成并使用之前是不可能出现的。1988年，阿里尔协助建立了“圣殿研究所”，该研究所不仅致力于重建第三圣殿，而且致力于完成圣殿最精致的细节，包括亚麻长袍、乐器、古犹太教朝拜所用的仪式。

    完成这些细节只不过是时间、技能和金钱问题，阿里尔和他的同事们根本不缺。更难的是要找到祭司主持弥赛亚回归所需的祭祀仪式，而这代表了神学上的一个两难问题，因为祭祀通常只能由用红色小母牛的骨灰洁净后的祭司主持，这本身就需要屠宰这种稀有的牛。

    约瑟夫·埃尔博伊姆是另一个弥赛亚团体“重建圣殿运动”的拉比，他试图通过创造“从未与死尸在同一屋檐下”的洁净祭司，来克服无法找到合格红色小母牛的困难。他从古代祭司种姓科哈尼姆的后裔中挑选出自愿的孕妇，她们将在一个特殊的院子里分娩，那里高于地面，以避免另一个祭司的禁忌，即“不能错误地踩在一块没有标记的坟墓上”。该项目允许家长探访，但男孩们永远不能走出大院；他们可以在一个升高的庭院玩耍。男孩们将接受包括祭祀技术在内的祭司培训，在成年礼后的某一天，他们将成为转基因红母牛的屠宰者。[67]

    1975年，像8年前戈伦和他的追随者做的那样，一小群犹太弥赛亚主义者进入圣殿山，在一扇禁止他们进入的大门内祈祷。[68]阿以联合警察部队将正在祈祷的这群民族主义者赶走，但以色列法庭做出了有利于这群人的裁决。这引发了骚乱，数名阿拉伯人死亡，几十人受伤。阿拉伯国家在联合国发出了抗议，瓦克夫规定，包括西墙在内的整座圣殿山都属于清真寺。以色列高等法院最终废除了允许犹太人在圣殿山祈祷的决定，但随后利库德集团的3位总理梅纳赫姆·贝京、阿里尔·沙龙和本雅明·内塔尼亚胡发誓要改变这一裁定。但最终没有人兑现这一煽动性的承诺。

    1982年，两个犹太极端主义团体分别试图在圣殿山放置炸药；第一个是由拉比梅厄·卡赫纳领导的反阿拉伯种族主义团体，叫作“卡赫运动”，其试图在岩石圆顶清真寺的墙壁附近引爆炸弹。第二个是名为“利夫塔帮”的神秘团体，其试图炸毁岩石圆顶清真寺和阿克萨清真寺。[69]为此，哈佛大学国际事务中心进行了一次地缘政治模拟，并得出“如果岩石圆顶清真寺真的被摧毁，那么这将触发第三次世界大战”的结论。

    更危险的是另一个团体“犹太地下组织”。到20世纪80年代初，其成员已经杀害了希伯伦的5名阿拉伯学生，并企图暗杀约旦河西岸的市长们，炸毁清真寺和阿拉伯公交车。这些行为非常危险。1984年，他们对岩石圆顶清真寺进行了广泛的侦察，并获得了先进的炸药，但后来计划取消。正如后来的一个极端组织的成员所说，30个成员的行动，可以被称为一个地下组织的行动；300个成员的行动，就是一场运动；3000个成员的行动，那就是一场革命。[70]第二年，一家以色列法院判处了27名地下组织成员监禁，监禁时间从几年至终身不等，罪名是对圣殿山有企图并进行了其他恐怖袭击。然而，到1990年，在以色列右翼团体的压力下，他们全部获释。[71]

    直到1994年去世之前，拉比戈伦一直在制造麻烦。从第一次造访圣殿山，他就开始勘测。在他去世前几年，他公布了那些测量数据，并发表了一篇圣经评论，宣称山的南部有一大块土地不受圣殿的洁净限制，因此其适合修建犹太教堂。该评论文章忽略了一个事实，即该地目前被阿克萨清真寺占据。

    与地上的祈祷一样，在圣殿山土层下进行的考古活动也会激起阿拉伯人的愤怒。尽管当时有大量的历史和考古学证据，但穆斯林通常否认第一和第二圣殿曾经存在过，并将任何挖掘圣殿山土层的行为视为犹太人试图为建立第三圣殿找证据。

    几个世纪以来，人类的居住地积累了连续的沉积层，因此考古学家挖掘得越深，能够追溯到的时间就越早。罗马和耶路撒冷等具有悠久历史的古城中，偶尔会有这方面的生动体现。在这些现代城市的街道下方，12~24英尺的地方发现了可追溯到基督时代的挖掘物。

    这意味着，耶路撒冷的考古学家们在挖掘时首先会遇到奥斯曼帝国时期的文物，然后是更早的穆斯林王国的文物，然后是罗马、希腊、犹太人的文物，如果幸运的话，就还有迦南统治者的文物。1967年以色列占领耶路撒冷后，希伯来大学的考古学家本杰明·马扎尔领导的犹太研究人员首次进入了圣殿山周围的地区。

    马扎尔最重要的发现是希律王第二圣殿晚期的一个大型公共区域，那里有大量的房屋、宽阔的街道和毗邻圣殿山的复杂水利系统，以及通往圣殿山的巨大台阶。这可能是考古学家们发现的证明第二圣殿存在过的决定性证据。

    瓦克夫向联合国教科文组织投诉，认为挖掘破坏了圣殿山的稳定性。联合国教科文组织任命了一系列独立调查人员，但没有发现山结构被破坏的证据，还赞扬了考古结果。只有其中一位与会者批评了挖掘工作没有得到阿拉伯土地所有者的许可。[72]

    更严重的问题来自西墙隧道。以色列从1969年开始，沿着圣殿山的西面从地下挖掘，这毁坏了马穆鲁克时期的多个建筑，令瓦克夫很心烦；联合国大会对挖掘进行了谴责，随后对以色列进行了制裁。但美国及其盟国为了抗议联合国的制裁，不再向联合国教科文组织缴纳会费，这差点儿使该组织破产。

    19世纪，英国考古学家查尔斯·沃伦在圣殿山地上和土层下进行了大量挖掘，众多发现之一是西墙地下的一扇古老大门，它通往地下的隧道，然后是一段台阶，其通往岩石圆顶清真寺附近的地面。后来，沃伦写了一本小册子《应许之地》，建议成立一个“类似于过去东印度公司”的欧洲财团，它可以和犹太人一起殖民巴勒斯坦地区。[73]

    1981年，在拉比耶胡达·盖茨的指导下，西墙隧道的工人再次遇到了“沃伦之门”，并发现了其外的东行隧道，盖茨认为这条隧道将通向至圣所，甚至可能通向丢失的约柜。他的团队开始向东、圣殿山下岩石圆顶清真寺的方向挖掘，这显然是在以色列宗教事务部的合作下进行的。盖茨发现东行隧道几个星期后，瓦克夫的卫兵听到地下挖掘传来的声音，便下到蓄水池查看，他们在那里与犹太人发生了冲突。[74]

    果不其然，戈伦宣称，新隧道比西墙还要神圣。而另一方面，阿拉伯人看到了犹太人想要控制圣殿山的赤裸裸的企图。面对阿拉伯人的强烈敌意，以色列人用一堵厚厚的混凝土墙封锁了隧道，永久性地阻止了进一步的调查。

    20世纪80年代中期，西墙隧道完工后不久，以色列人就将其向游客开放。通道很狭窄，游客们必须从靠近哭墙的南部入口进入，参观完后从同一门口走出，这种往返造成的拥挤严重影响了游客的参观。为了解决这个问题，以色列人在隧道北部终点修建了一个出口，这再次激怒了阿拉伯民众，他们认为新出口企图破坏和摧毁圣殿山；愤怒的人群聚集，工程被迫暂停。

    1996年9月23日午夜，以色列人打通了隧道北部的出口，使隧道与地上街道相通，并迅速在那里安置了一扇铁门。两天后，整个巴勒斯坦地区爆发了骚乱，以色列军队和根据《奥斯陆协议》新组建的巴勒斯坦国家安全部队之间爆发了激烈冲突；双方都有几十人丧生，数百人受伤。[75]局势十分紧张。克林顿总统不得不召开了一次国际首脑会议，但会议没有最终结果。随后，骚乱平息，出口仍然敞开；今天，游客走出隧道出口后会惊奇地发现，以色列警卫在那里迎接他们，并将他们护送回哭墙。

    1967年以色列对旧城和约旦河西岸的占领，不仅改变了中东和阿以关系的政治局面，而且给美国和以色列的政治、宗教和文化带来了越来越大的冲击。其影响力是当年事件中的直接参与者无法预测到的。最令人震惊的是，美国的时代论主角将被一个如此幻想的、脱离现实世界事实的信仰体系驱使，让约翰·纳尔逊·达比都自愧不如。

    10 《启示录》的开创者
    畅销书与美国核武政策

    为了深入了解美国当前的文化两极分化，我们可以观看一部美国B级电影《末世迷踪》，尼古拉斯·凯奇在里面饰演航空公司飞行员雷福德·斯蒂尔。在从纽约飞往伦敦的途中，斯蒂尔飞机上的数十名乘客莫名其妙地失踪，且飞机与一架显然无人驾驶的客机相撞，随后在斯蒂尔女儿的引导下，不可思议地在一段废弃公路上紧急迫降。

    影片在飞机上和地面上的混乱场面之间不断转换镜头，观众们可以分成两组：那些认为情节离奇并后悔观看的人，以及那些认为影片讲述了一个有趣的故事的人，其中的故事就像《十一罗汉》或《卡萨布兰卡》中的故事一样。

    没有什么比时代论更明显地分裂了美国的文化：对其中一方来说，它提供了一种能够从末日苦难和永恒诅咒中被拯救的可能性；而对另一方来说，这似乎只是一个信仰体系，就他们所理解的程度而言，就像《末世迷踪》那样杂乱无章。

    2001年10月7日，美国总统乔治·布什向全国发表讲话，宣布在阿富汗采取军事行动。这次讲话可以很好地说明这一文化分歧。在世俗人看来，这次讲话的风格宽容而温和，几乎不包含任何宗教内容，只是在美国真诚认可并给予其近20亿教徒美好祝愿的时候提到了伊斯兰教。

    而另一方面，福音派听众却从一些话语中听出了相当不同的信息，如“孤独之路”（出自《以赛亚书》）、“杀害无辜者”（出自《马太福音》）和“没有和平”（出自《耶利米书》《以西结书》《历代志》《以赛亚书》），它们暗示了犹太-基督教上帝的愤怒。宗教学者布鲁斯·林肯观察到，“留意到这些话语的人很清楚地听到了，但是缺乏《圣经》知识的人可能听不到”[1]。布什的讲话像是一声响亮刺耳的狗哨；正如布鲁斯·林肯发表那些言论之后《今日基督教》所评论的：“可悲的是，我们再也不能在布什讲话时，偷偷地相互点头和眨眼了。”[2][3]（布什本人显然对他的时代论信仰保持沉默；官方显示他是卫理公会教徒，大多数观察家将他归类为主流新教徒。）[4]

    时代论幻想的盛行，是美国与其他发达国家的一个很大不同，并埋下了潜在的不幸。

    以色列只有一小部分人是犹太弥赛亚主义者，其他绝大多数人害怕重建第三圣殿，因为他们非常清楚，重建圣殿必须首先摧毁穆斯林的清真寺，而这么做的后果是灾难性的。但是，对美国福音派教徒来说，情况并非如此。由于达比和他的继承者的影响，美国怀有弥赛亚式梦想的基督教徒比犹太人还多，他们希望在重建的圣殿里恢复祭祀。

    这样做的神学理由并不充分。不知道什么原因，时代论者通常会引用繁杂冗余和模棱两可的《帖撒罗尼迦后书》2:4的内容：

    他抵挡神，抬举自己，高过一切被称为神和受人敬拜的，甚至坐在神的殿中，自称为神。

    《穆迪月刊》是穆迪圣经学院的内刊，1967年六日战争后，该刊物的大部分文章都与占领旧城以及重新获取圣殿山的预言意义有关。在确认偏见的一个典型例子中，该刊物上发表了一篇圆桌式文章，其中一位作者将冲突的意义总结如下：

    《圣经》几乎是中东各种事件的百科全书，现在的中东无疑是人们关注的焦点。对我来说，这些事件证实了《旧约》和《新约》预言的字面解释。[5]

    在同一篇文章中，达拉斯神学院院长约翰·瓦沃德讨论了恢复圣殿的动物祭祀问题，指出“许多人由此预测胜利的以色列国家将尽早恢复圣殿活动”，并且“这肯定是神力所致，表明时代的终结”[6]。

    瓦沃德并不是一个家喻户晓的名字，与安德森、司可福和盖布兰一样，尽管他的作品非常有名，但他过着简朴、平静的生活。宿命般地，瓦沃德文章的下一页是哈尔·林赛的文章。林赛是一位更不为人所知的达拉斯神学院的毕业生，1958—1962年曾是瓦沃德的门生。[7]

    短短几个段落的引言之后，林赛开始罗列当时的各种“灾难”：越南战争、美国国内种族暴动、第一次洲际弹道导弹发射失败的核悲剧、共产主义中国的崛起、全球人口过多导致的数十亿人挨饿。

    根据林赛的说法，自由新教对《圣经》字面真理的否定和对上帝已死的传播，同样是灾难性的。在他狂热的想象中，地缘政治中的明星国家与《但以理书》和《启示录》完美契合：复兴的罗马帝国/欧盟，“北方之王”苏联，“南方之王”埃及，最后是“东方之王”中国。根据林赛的说法以及《启示录》9:13-21的预言，一个庞大的东方部落（用林赛粗野的措辞，就是“黄祸”[8]）将出现：“最近在红色中国境内拍摄的一部电视纪录片说，目前有2亿中国人处于战备状态。这是一个有趣的巧合吗？”[9]

    实际上，《启示录》的章节并没有提到“东方之王”；它的9:16提到了20万来源不明的骑士，而不是2亿。20世纪70年代，处于鼎盛时期的中国人民解放军大约拥有400万士兵。尽管这些与事实不符的点不断出现，但对林赛而言一切都很清晰，据他所说，那个时代一连串无法抗拒的全球恐怖事件：

    是由一块块巨大的拼图碎片组成的，经过许多模糊之后，拼图终于拼好了。我们正生活在一个神圣拼图中的碎片突然回到它们所属位置的时代。当然，最重要的发展是，在经历了近2000年的全球离散之后，以色列在原来的土地上重建了国家，以及自此之后中东发生的事件。[10]

    林赛的这篇文章，暗示了时代论者从被动观察到积极参与末日序列的过程，这一过程是由大规模虚构的、荒谬的地缘政治主张所推动的。林赛提到了一位“以色列历史学家”，当这位历史学家被问及“如果圣殿重建，那么岩石圆顶清真寺怎么办”时，他含糊其词地回答：“谁知道？也许会发生地震。”[11]听到这句话的以色列人可能会大笑：这位被提问的“以色列历史学家”就是伊斯雷尔·埃勒达德，一位莱希党右翼理论家，他起草了该组织的《民族复兴原则》，该原则宣称犹太人有权拥有尼罗河和幼发拉底河之间的所有土地，并主张立即修建第三圣殿。

    《穆迪月刊》在时代论圈子里很有名，但在美国公众中没有多少读者。尽管如此，但林赛对末日审判情景引人入胜的断奏方式展示出他的散文天赋，他将在未来半个世纪里向数千万美国人传递时代论信息。在此过程中，他将获得财富和世界知名度，并改变美国的宗教格局。更令人难以置信的是，他独特的地缘政治幻想会影响到美国的政治团体。

    林赛于1929年出生在休斯敦，从小接受传统的南方原教旨主义教育，但他似乎并不怎么投入；受洗3次之后，他发现宗教无关紧要并令人失望，“所以我就离开了”[12]。他稀里糊涂地完成了得克萨斯大学的商科学习，然后被安排到海岸警卫队做了一段时间的密西西比河拖船船长，还结束了一段失败的婚姻；这些经历让他对世界感到悲观。当他几乎处于自杀边缘的时候，他读了一本基甸版《圣经》，并受到启发：如果他接受了上帝的真理，他就将获得精神上的重生。

    他被吸引了，但仍不确信，于是他自学了希腊语，并沉浸在《圣经》中，而他曾经以为《圣经》充满了历史错误。不久，他遇到了一位名叫杰克·布莱克韦尔的年轻传教士。这位年轻传教士向他介绍了《圣经》预言：“我心中点燃了一团火，从未熄灭。”[13]

    他的新信仰引领他进入了达拉斯神学院，在那里，他获得了神学硕士学位，并再婚。一毕业，这对新婚夫妇就开始了校园传教士的工作，在动荡的20世纪60年代，他们在美国加利福尼亚大学伯克利分校和旧金山分校等学校传播时代论叙事。向持怀疑态度的左翼校园听众布道的经历，将他的修辞技巧磨砺得像一把神学手术刀；一位观察家记录了他让观众席上挤满符合征兵年龄的年轻人的方法：对这群年轻人来说，哈米吉多顿末日并不是一个抽象概念，英俊、有魅力、表达清晰的林赛用黑板上的绘制的地图快速地呈现时事，这让他们非常着迷。[14]

    后来，他和妻子厌倦了大学城的喧嚣，选择在洛杉矶定居，集中精力在加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校工作。受《穆迪月刊》成功的鼓励，他决定写一本书。在著名宗教作家卡罗尔·卡尔森（与比利·葛培理共事过）的指导下，他开始了这项工作：

    写书的时候，我会想象自己坐在一个年轻人（一个愤世嫉俗、不信教的人）的对面——我会试图说服他《圣经》预言是真的。如果你能让一个年轻人理解，那么其他人也会理解。年轻人会为了某件事情毫不犹豫地给你打电话，这会迫使你与那些不属于宗教“俱乐部”的人打交道。[15]

    结果，他的《消失的伟大地球》与任何福音派文学作品都不一样：它延续了1967年《穆迪月刊》中的那篇文章的风格，轻松融合了当前的地缘政治学、令人惊叹的未来主义技术和当前的流行文化，并巧妙地覆盖于时代论框架之上。书店没有把它放在发霉的宗教书的架子上，而是把它放在畅销的新纪元板块的架子上，它与《易经》《超觉冥想》《反射疗法》等作品相邻。

    林赛和卡尔森掌握了文学传播的艺术，他们的作品吸引了读者。不到一年，这本书就卖出了1000万册，到现在至少已经卖出了3500万册。罗纳德·里根总统和他的几位内阁秘书手中都有这本书。随后他们又出版了类似的书，销量也达到了数百万。

    这本书的影响力非常大。美国最受尊敬的神学观察家之一，已故的保罗·博耶说：

    我认为，哈尔·林赛实现了一种突破，他使对《圣经》预言感兴趣的人群超出了真信徒的范围，使《圣经》预言成为一种更广泛的文化现象。而那些从来没有关注过预言的人也听说了这本书，于是他们拿起了平装本。当他们看到林赛将时事编织在一起，而《圣经》文本似乎预示着这些事件时，他们说：“哇，这太神奇了。这里面一定有什么道理。”……（林赛）似乎不仅对公众产生了相当大的影响，对政府的一些最高级别官员也产生了相当大的影响。[16]

    该书于1970年首次出版。在这本书中，林赛将达比、安德森、司可福和加尔布莱恩的作品综合成了轻松、流畅的叙事阐述，而且他更擅长推销《圣经》的无误性。他一次又一次地讲述那些几十年甚至几百年后以不可思议的准确性实现了的耶稣和先知的预言。

    确认偏见不仅包括积极寻找有利的证据（无论这些证据多么模糊），而且包括故意对相悖的数据（存在大量没有实现的《圣经》预言）视而不见。仅举几个例子：《圣经》预言埃及将成为永久的荒地、尼罗河将蒸发（《以西结书》29:8-15和30:12）；埃及人将使用迦南语（《以赛亚书》19:18）；最著名的是，一个犹太王国将出现，从尼罗河向东延伸几百英里到幼发拉底河（《出埃及记》23:25-31）。

    林赛的影响力，从最谦卑的信徒延伸到美国政治的制高点。罗纳德·里根从小就从虔诚的母亲内莉那里传承了虔诚的宗教信仰；虽然大多数美国人都知道里根毕业于尤里卡学院，但很少有人知道他与基督徒教会的关联，那是里根家族的教会。虽然基督徒教会是一个主流新教教派，但该教会深受社会和经济保守主义的影响。

    到成年时，里根已经成为一名福音派新教教徒。在政治生涯的早期，他热情地宣布自己对基督的忠诚；在担任加利福尼亚州长期间，他成为《消失的伟大地球》的书迷。[17]他还定期会见当时最著名的时代论者和福音派人士，包括杰瑞·法威尔、金·贝克、帕特·罗伯逊和比利·葛培理。这些人都记得曾与这位崭露头角的政治家在末日论方面进行过热烈的讨论。在葛培理和里根之间的末日论对话中，一位目击者对这位州长如何“坚持自己的观点”感到惊讶。[18]

    里根不只和福音传道者探讨末日论。1971年，他对加利福尼亚州参议院民主党临时主席詹姆斯·米尔斯说：“有史以来第一次，哈米吉多顿末日之战和基督复临的一切条件都已经准备就绪。”他提高音调，继续说道：
    很快了。以西结说，上帝子民的敌人将遭受烈火和硫黄。那一定是指他们将被核武器摧毁。以前没有核武器，现在有了。[19]
    里根甚至强行和犹太人讨论这个问题。1981年，这位新当选总统与美国以色列公共事务委员会的托马斯·戴恩探讨了末日论：“我看了你们《旧约》中的古老预言[20]，以及预言世界末日的迹象，我想知道，我们这一代人是不是将要看到末日到来的那一代人。”此后不久，他向亚拉巴马州参议员豪厄尔·赫福林重申了这一想法，并补充道：“苏联将卷入其中。”[21]

    里根尤其被林赛的时代论叙事中的苏联角色吸引；并非巧合的是，在1983年他向全国福音派协会发表的著名演讲中，他称苏联为“邪恶的帝国”，“圣经和主耶稣要求我们抵制这种邪恶”，使这些邪恶之物不再挡道，他接着说：

    苏联庞大而空前的军事建设将会被施行核武器冻结。然而，让我们祈祷救赎那些生活在极权主义黑暗中的人，祷告他们能发现认识上帝的欢愉。但是，在他们这样做之前，我们要意识到，尽管他们宣扬国家至高无上，宣扬国家利益高于个人利益，并做出最终将统治地球上的所有民族的预测，但他们是现代世界邪恶的焦点。[22]

    人们不禁要问，对于里根这样一个沉迷于“千禧年”时代辉煌、接待厅里谈论的都是核灾难的人，苏联领导人会有何感想。情报报告也会让苏联领导人知道，里根的任职多年的国防部长兼搭档卡斯帕·温伯格也是虔诚的末日信仰者，是哈尔·林赛的狂热支持者，是一名虔诚的圣公会教徒。温伯格对《圣经》的最后一本书印象深刻：“我读过《启示录》，是的，我相信世界将结束——这是上帝之力，我期待，而且每一天我都觉得时间到了。”[23]（除了里根和温伯格，当时的内政部长詹姆斯·瓦特和司法部长埃德温·米斯也是林赛的粉丝。）[24]

    里根的时代论影响是双向的。福音派领袖支持里根的末日信仰，里根也反过来为他的福音派盟友提供信息。1983年，他让国家安全委员会为法威尔准备了一份核武器简报，而法威尔则将这些信息进一步简化到道德多数派[25]赞助的报纸广告中：“我们不能在国防上排名第二！但遗憾的是，这就是我们今天的位置，而且这一排名还有继续下降的趋势！”[26][27]

    1983年之后，里根的末日论和鹰派思想都消失了，这对地球来说是一件幸事。总的来说，这位前总统并不是消息灵通的人；他的传记作者之一卢·坎农说：

    1982年初，比尔·克拉克成为里根的第二任国家安全顾问，他发现总统对世界许多角落发生的事情几乎一无所知。他知道总统会对视觉辅助的展示方式做出反应，并推断最容易让总统接受的形式是电影。于是他带里根去看电影。[28]

    美国广播公司制作了一部电视电影[29]《浩劫后》，电影讲述了堪萨斯州劳伦斯市在一次核战争中汽化，这尤其触动了里根。之后他在日记里写道：

    电影效果很好，让我非常失落。到目前为止，该剧还没有做任何广告，我知道这是为什么。我本人的感触是，我们必须尽己所能去阻止，确保永远不会发生核战争。[30]

    里根没有在日记中提及该电影未做广告的原因：杰瑞·法威尔认为该电影是反核活动家的宣传行为，展开了一种抵制核武器潜在赞助商的威胁活动。里根随后在日记里详细记录了与参谋长联席会议主席小约翰·威廉·维西上将的谈话，维西将核战争规划称为“一次最节制的经历”。[31]

    很明显，里根看的电影和军事简报都低估了热核战争[32]的后果。那时，武器专家们已经知道，热核爆炸所产生的火风暴将比最初的冲击波和随后的放射性沉降物产生更大的杀伤力；《浩劫后》播出几个月内，《科学》杂志上发表了一篇具有里程碑意义的文章，文章指出，火风暴产生的平流层烟尘将持续数年，并导致全球气温急剧下降，这可能导致更多的人死亡，甚至比最初爆炸产生的冲击波、火风暴和放射性沉降物造成的死亡人数还要多。[33]

    1984年，在里根的总统连任竞选中，面对对手沃尔特·蒙代尔，里根的末日信仰成为一个颇具争议的话题。10月21日，在总统辩论中，记者乔吉·安妮·盖耶和马文·卡尔布就这一问题向他施压，里根的回复是建议“一些神学家”信仰世界末日，但他不认为任何国家都能够在核战争中获胜，以此低调处理了自己的末日信仰问题。（据说南希·里根[34]听到卡尔布的问题时咕哝了一声“哦，不”。）[35]

    到了第二任期，里根非常惧怕核战争的后果。他的苏联事务顾问、外交官小杰克·马特洛克怀疑里根是否会对核袭击进行报复：“我认为，在他内心深处，即使美国遭到核袭击，他也不会（用核武器）进行报复。他从没有这样暗示过，但我似乎感觉到了。”[36]里根的摩尼教式反苏立场已经消退，甚至在1986年雷克雅未克峰会上，他向米哈伊尔·戈尔巴乔夫提议全面禁止核武器。尽管两位领导人未能实现这一突破，但美苏紧张局势有所缓和，并且一年后他们签署了影响深远的《中导条约》[37]。

    神学家们和出版行业都惊叹于林赛的巨大成功，但对林赛书中不断出现的事实性错误并不关注。[38]在某处显眼的段落中，林赛描述了1942年一支庞大的日本侵略军开足马力向西穿越印度洋、向北非挺进，“没有什么能阻止他们”。但幸运的是，山本五十六大将在最后一刻决定改变舰队的方向，转而入侵美国西海岸。美国海军在珊瑚海拦截了这支特遣舰队，并在那里打败了日本人，从根本上扭转了战争局势。[39]

    在真实的第二次世界大战中，日本人没有试图入侵北非，甚至没有入侵美国西海岸的计划。珊瑚海之战是一场规模相对较小也没有决定性的海军行动，如果按细节评估，那么日本应该是战胜方，更何况从印度洋开往美国西海岸的日本联合舰队根本不会到达该片水域。在另一段落中，林赛描述了希特勒在一场“政变”中夺取政权。他将“政变”这个单词大写，其指的是1923年希特勒在奥佩拉·布菲啤酒馆里那场失败的暴动；事实上，在接下来的近10年时间里，希特勒的民族社会主义者[40]并没能通过合法的议会选举而获得权力。这本书还预测，地热资源将给以色列带来巨大的财富，这进一步说明了林赛经常幻想式地理解日常事件：

    我正在和一位著名的洛杉矶工程师谈话……我们讨论了对廉价能源的需求……他确信，在以色列周围的土地上，有足够多的蒸汽被困在众多的断层之下，可以为运行涡轮机提供动力，从而更经济地发电。他将这一新工艺称为地热能。在不久的将来，以色列将发明一种生产廉价能源的方法，以充分利用这座丰富的金矿。[41]

    “一位著名的洛杉矶工程师”这种模糊的引用，是林赛许多断言的典型来源。（他还常爱引用：“一部电视纪录片”、“科学家告诉我们”、“新闻类杂志上的图表”、“一家大型电视台”，或者，只是简单地说，“它告诉我”。）地热发电已经不是一项新技术；几个世纪以来，人类一直在用地面蒸汽为房屋和建筑物供暖，1904年左右出现了地热发电。另外，以色列并没有多少地热喷口，它的财富的真正来源是它的智力资本，而不是林赛反复错误引用的自然资源。以色列奥玛特科技公司确实是世界上最大的地热设备生产商之一，但该国没有足够的地热潜力来支持该公司的任何工厂。[42]

    更为严重的是，从解读《圣经》的角度，林赛反复提到了《但以理书》中公元前550年左右所谓的成功的预言，即该书正确预言了4个世纪之后马卡比人成功地反抗了塞琉西帝国。然而，如本书第一章所述，圣经学者认为，《但以理书》的成书时间比书中所说的要晚，也就是说，成书时间是在马卡比人成功反抗塞琉西帝国之后，而书中虚构说成书时间是流亡初期，是为了增强其预言的真实性。[43]正如达比所做的那样，林赛将《圣经》中米设的位置确定为莫斯科，但现代历史学家认为莫斯科建立于1174年，比《圣经》编写的时间要晚得多。[44]

    林赛在事实依据和分析方法上缺乏严谨性，因此他的预言经不住考验，这并不令人惊讶。在书的一开始，他就强调，由1948年以色列建国所引发的末日迫在眉睫。他引用了耶稣在《马太福音》24:34中的话：“我实在告诉你们，这世代还没有过去，这些事[45]都要成就。”他尽可能地按字面意思解释这段经文：

    哪个世代？显然，根据《圣经》，这个世代将有预兆——最主要的预兆就是以色列的重生。《圣经》中的一代的时间大约是40年。如果这一推论正确，那么在1948年往后的40年左右，所有这些事情都可能发生。许多一生都在研究《圣经》预言的学者相信事实就是这样。[46]

    达比和他的追随者们对米勒的“大失望”记忆犹新，因此他们永远不会做出时间如此精确的预测。一个多世纪后，随着米勒那场混乱远离时代论者的意识，林赛又将时事和《圣经》解读结合起来，预言末日将不晚于1988年到来。

    在这本书中，林赛还预言了一种世界范围内单一宗教的崛起，这种宗教合成了主流新教和天主教的普世主义以及新纪元运动的“占星术、唯灵论甚至还有毒品”。[47]在地球的第七十个“周”（在时代论日历中是七年）开始时，以色列与具有无上权力的欧洲联盟的强大独裁者（反基督者）结盟，并且犹太人在重建的第三圣殿里恢复了祭祀。由于拥有丰富的自然资源，以色列成为地球上最强大、最繁荣的国家之一，但三年半之后，这位欧洲独裁者/反基督者背叛了以色列人，开始屠杀基督教徒。这时，苏联人与因圣殿山被亵渎而愤怒的阿拉伯联盟一起，分两路入侵以色列，一路穿越伊斯坦布尔海峡和地中海进行攻击，另一路穿越高加索地区和土耳其进行陆路远征攻击。林赛用详细的入侵路线图对叙述进行了有益的修饰。

    然后苏联人背叛了他们的阿拉伯盟友，入侵埃及。欧洲独裁者/反基督者对事件的这一转变感到震惊，呼吁“红色中国人”提供帮助，中国人带领上文中提到的2亿人的强大部落行军穿过亚洲，袭击以色列。（林赛通过一份“印度报告”预言了这次袭击，该报告讲述了1.2万名中国军人修建了一条穿越西藏和巴基斯坦的道路，以便于军队的大规模调动。）苏联军队在入侵埃及的战争中分散了精力，于是返回以色列，但在那里被摧毁（不清楚是被上帝还是被欧洲人）。随后，欧洲人和中国人在美吉多（《圣经》中的哈米吉多顿，位于今天的以色列）展开了最后的激战。世界各地的战争回应了这场激战，地球处于毁灭性的大灾难之中；然后耶稣回归，结束世界。这场大屠杀有一个令人兴奋的亮点，即1/3的犹太人皈依了基督教，因此拯救了自我。唉，剩下的2/3被烧死。[48]

    林赛引人入胜的散文风格以及20世纪60年代末时世界末日般的社会和地缘政治氛围，打开了致富的文学之窗。《消失的伟大地球》如此畅销，以至于纽约的互助保险公司开始售卖某类保单，该保单可以让“被提”者的受益人得到补偿。[49]

    很快，其他人也开始争相参与大灾难这一主题。其中一位是林赛曾经的老师、达拉斯神学院院长约翰·瓦沃德。到林赛的书出版时，他已经担任院长近20年，但在大众市场领域的著作相对较少。受林赛的启发，瓦沃德出版了大量畅销书，其中最著名的是《哈米吉多顿、石油和中东危机》。该书于1980年首次出版，在1991年第一次海湾战争后进行了必要的修改，最终售出200多万册，目前仍在印刷中。[50]

    这本书追溯了与《消失的伟大地球》同样的现代时代论叙事：犹太人重返以色列，反基督者领导的新罗马帝国崛起，苏联人和中国人的接连入侵，随后是被提、大灾难、耶稣复临和最终审判。和林赛一样，瓦沃德热情地将一条时事的粗红线编织进他的叙事。在林赛和瓦沃德这两本书出版间隔的4年间，1973年的赎罪日战争[51]引发了阿拉伯国家的石油禁运，进而使世界财富和权力向欧佩克卡特尔组织，特别是阿拉伯国家和伊朗大规模转移。正如时代论作家们惯常做的那样，瓦沃德抓住了“石油禁运”这一引人注目的时事，以作为即将到来的末日故事的导火索。

    透过时代论的有色眼镜，瓦沃德清楚地看到，由于全球经济实力的转变，美国在世界舞台上的地位不可挽回地下降，取而代之的是拥有至高权力的穆斯林联盟，该联盟由逊尼派沙特阿拉伯和什叶派伊朗联合领导，尽管这两个教派在过去14个世纪里一直互相残杀。反基督者将领导欧洲，而欧洲将受到比美国更大的石油禁运威胁，然后穆斯林和欧洲联盟将促成一项包容各方的中东和平计划，该计划也会得到以色列人和阿拉伯人这两个变得和谐的群体的热烈拥护。

    三年半之后，反基督者见利忘义地废除该计划，并引发了完整的时代论场景：苏联人和2亿“红色中国人”入侵、大灾难、耶稣复临和最终末日。和林赛一样，瓦沃德预言了“世界教会”的崛起，这将是撒旦的工具，是一个更荒谬的泛基督教徒、占星家、其他新纪元运动者甚至穆斯林的融合。

    凭借学术研究方向，瓦沃德比林赛更能把握历史事实。例如，他清楚地认识到，哈米吉多顿的小山谷容纳不了2亿中国战士，因此他将战场扩大了数百英里，这是林赛没有做到的。[52]然而，他对历史和地理的更好的理解并没有提高他的预测准确性，也没有限制他的幻想。

    正如多萝西·马丁和她的飞碟一样，当林赛和瓦沃德的预言与未来不符时，他们加倍努力，修改了自己的叙事。林赛利用《消失的伟大地球》的巨大成功，又出版了几本类似的书。[53]他的《20世纪80年代：世界末日倒计时》首次出版于1980年，包含了世界末日级灾难的常见元素：大范围的革命、战争和饥荒。在林赛夸大其词的某个典型例子中，“以色列最杰出、最具侵略性的将军之一”告诉他，赎罪日战争中最可怕的时刻之一，是摩西·达扬向果尔达·梅厄总理建议：“第三圣殿正在倒塌。请准备发射世界末日武器。”[54]以色列人在1967年和1973年的战争中确实考虑过使用核武器，而达扬可能说出了上文中的第一句话，但没有证据证明他还说出了B级电影般的第二句话，尤其是他的回忆录中没有记载。

    《20世纪80年代：世界末日倒计时》的类似的错误出现的频率甚至比《消失的伟大地球》还要多。林赛告诉读者：“自1950年以来，每10年发生的地震数量比上个10年大约翻一番。”[55]如果这是真的，那么到现在地震发生的频率将是1950年的约100倍。毫无意外，权威的全球地震频率研究显示，在过去的一个世纪里，地震频率没有增加。[56]

    正如那句众所周知的谚语：就算一只表停了，它一天都能准确表示两次时间。林赛偶尔也能打中靶心，例如，在《20世纪80年代：世界末日倒计时》中，他正确预言了埃及领导人安瓦尔·萨达特被暗杀的风险。[57]（实际上，中东国家的领导人一直处于高风险的位置。）而接下来几年的事件则全部否定了林赛耸人听闻的预言；虽然全球性灾难事件越来越多，这一基本旋律没有变化，但歌词需要修改。1991年苏联解体，意味着苏联东欧社会主义体系消失，这迫使林赛寻找新的妖怪。《地球——公元2000》适时确认了新的世界末日威胁：上文所提到的什叶派和逊尼派的泛伊斯兰联盟，以及可怕的自然灾难，尤其是艾滋病的蔓延。（其中一章的副标题是《没有人能够安全》。）就连电视节目《星际迷航》也成为林赛的操练对象，他猛烈抨击了“进取号”船长詹姆斯·柯克对世俗哲学概念和诸如“轮回”等东方宗教信仰的喜爱。[58]

    如今，建立泛穆斯林联盟似乎像猫王复出一样不可能实现；自“9·11”事件以来，右翼恐怖分子杀害的美国人的数量是伊斯兰恐怖分子杀害数量的两倍，比雷击和窒息致死的数量少了一个数量级。[59]预防和治疗措施的进步基本可以预防和控制艾滋病。（数据统计显示，艾滋病的死亡率和感染率在1996年该书出版时达到顶峰，此后一直在缓慢下降。）[60]到我写这本书时，90多岁的林赛依旧在互联网视频和几乎无人知晓的有线电视频道上宣扬末日论和时代论。[61]

    林赛支持哪个政治阵营，这很少有争议，但他通常避免直接支持；也许他选择了更多地关注未来世界，而不是当下这个世界。不管原因是什么，将时代论信仰注入日常政治的责任落到了其他人身上。其中，最成功的是时代论传教士杰瑞·法威尔。

    法威尔的家族起源于1669年的弗吉尼亚州。他的父亲是一位成功的、不信教的商人，经营着许多家企业，其中一家是公共汽车公司，汽车上非常有特色地安装着电池动力的电影放映机。不过，他的父亲在55岁时因酗酒而死。法威尔追随着他虔诚的母亲，母亲每个周日一大早就开始播放查尔斯·富勒的《昔日广播》节目，声音响彻全屋。

    法威尔在父母身上看到了善恶之争的缩影，在20岁出头的时候，被任命为牧师。他从富勒的广播剧本中借鉴了一页，创作了自己的《昔日福音》电视节目。该节目于1956年首次亮相后，吸引了大量的追随者。尽管他个人反对民权立法，但他坚守那个时代的福音派信条——拯救灵魂，但远离政治。[62]

    1973年1月22日，在美国联邦最高法院宣布罗诉韦德案[63]的判决后，他改变了：

    我永远不会忘记1973年1月23日的早晨……我不敢相信，法庭上的7位法官竟然对人类生命的尊严如此冷漠。他们得到了错误的信息吗？他们被误导了吗？难道他们把这个国家带入了一个黑暗和羞耻的时代，却连自己在做什么都不知道吗？我知道还有很多事情要做，我越来越相信我必须成为做这件事的人之一。[64]

    几年后，法威尔的政治盟友之一保罗·韦里奇对他说：“法威尔，在美国，道德上的大多数人在这些基本问题上的意见是一致的，但他们没有被组织起来。”于是法威尔和韦里奇建立了“道德多数派”，其以反对堕胎和同性恋权利的姿态出现在全美舞台上，他们决心“整肃”电视和电影市场，并热情支持以色列。

    在1980年的选举中，道德多数派为罗纳德·里根和几十位共和党国会候选人的顺利当选做出了重要的贡献。在1984年共和党大会上，法威尔本人做了开篇祝祷，他称赞里根是“自林肯以来最伟大的总统”。[65]

    不到10年，运动失败，“道德多数派”解散。首先，里根总统在任期内似乎没有改善国家的道德问题，相反，电影和电视节目的内容越来越淫秽，而福音布道者吉米·斯瓦加特和金·贝克则以他们肮脏的性丑闻和财务丑闻羞辱了福音派。该运动失败几年后，参议院对比尔·克林顿的无罪判决促使韦里奇写信给他的支持者：也许根本没有“道德上的大多数人”。[66]

    法威尔和他的时代论同僚们带来的这场政治运动，其最持久、最具危险性的影响，可能就是美国对以色列空前狂热的支持。其中，以美国以色列公共事务委员会为代表的强大的亲以色列团体的游说发挥了很大作用，但基督教福音派对美国中东政策的影响很容易超越美国以色列公共事务委员会。正如加利福尼亚大学洛杉矶分校政治学家史蒂文·施皮格尔在2002年《国会季刊》中简洁指出的那样：“在美国对以色列政策的力量方面，如果你只关注（国会的）犹太成员和犹太团体，你就错了。”[67]

    《国会季刊》的这篇文章还引用了美国众议院原教旨主义基督教成员的话。印第安纳州新当选的代表迈克·彭斯说：

    我对以色列的支持很大程度上源于我个人的信仰。在《圣经》中，上帝向亚伯拉罕承诺：“我会祝福那些祝福你的人，我会诅咒那些诅咒你的人。”所以在某种程度上，我并不完全理解（美国的政策）。我相信，我们自己的安全，与我们愿意和以色列人民站在一起的意愿息息相关。[68]

    代表詹姆斯·英霍夫的话则更简洁。当被问及以色列为什么有权占领加沙和约旦河西岸时，他回答：“上帝是这么说的。”[69]文章最后以法威尔的话结束：

    美国大约有200000名福音派牧师，我们通过电子邮件、传真、信件、电话，要求他们走进讲坛，利用他们的影响力支持以色列和它的总理。[70]

    然而，没有人能像帕特·罗伯逊那样成为典型，他将原教旨主义带入具有潜在灾难性的地缘政治舞台。他被外交官兼记者迈克尔·林德称为“美国政治史上最重要的阴谋论传播者”[71]。

    罗伯逊出生于一个保守的南方特权家庭，他的父亲是阿布萨隆·威利斯·罗伯逊。为了推动1965年《民权法案》的顺利通过，伯德夫人到弗吉尼亚州访问，但老罗伯逊冷落了她，这惹怒了总统林登·约翰逊，老罗伯逊20年的参议院职业生涯也宣告结束。他又重新参与1966年的参议院初选，并成功击败了对手。[72]

    从耶鲁法学院毕业后，年轻的罗伯逊未能通过纽约律师资格考试，于是进入商业领域。对曼哈顿灯红酒绿的生活大失所望之后，他回到弗吉尼亚州，借了37000美元，并于1960年创办了后来的基督教广播网。这家媒体公司的成功出乎他的意料，在鼎盛时期，是美国的第三大有线电视集团。[73]

    罗伯逊从事各种职业，从滑稽的信仰治疗表演，到控制年收入1.5亿美元的全球媒体和商业帝国，后者使他拥有数亿美元的净资产。[74]他坚持时代论的基督教犹太复国主义基本叙事，但其中重要的两点除外：他不相信被提；他实行“蒙受神恩的福音传道”（这是一种花哨的说法，表示他拥有治愈疾病的能力，能说外语[75]，能与上帝交谈，或者至少能听到上帝的声音）。

    20世纪80年代中期，他决定寻求1988年的共和党总统候选人提名。最初，共和党的当权派视他为边缘候选人并将他排除在外，但很快就发现他的电视传教可以产生数千名“帕特兄弟”的志愿者，并能聚集20个州的领薪职员。1987年，当他控制了当年的密歇根州共和党大会、击败了两位领先者——副总统乔治·布什和魅力四射的自由论者、足球明星杰克·坎普时，他令政治观察家们感到震惊。那年晚些时候，他在艾奥瓦州、南卡罗来纳州和佛罗里达州的党团会议和代表会议上表现出色，并将继续赢得夏威夷州、阿拉斯加州、华盛顿州和内华达州的初选。

    然而，最终，罗伯逊的竞选由于三个政治暗礁而搁浅。作为一个不完全赞同时代论时间表的魅力派，他未能统一原教旨主义右翼。尽管他确实获得了法威尔和吉米·斯瓦加特的支持，但金·贝克对他的支持并不热烈，而另一位坚定的时代论作家蒂姆·莱希则坚决抵制他，而支持杰克·坎普。[76]

    他的福音派同僚们没有做到真正团结，而且世俗政治团体的反应也正在减弱。克里斯托弗·希钦斯在1986年罗伯逊的群众集会上报道说：

    愚蠢有点儿可怕；尤其是有组织的群体愚蠢。把罗伯逊介绍给人群的人是哈拉尔德·布里德森。布里德森将自己定义为“福音派-蒙受神恩的基督徒”，具有五旬节派[77]的能力，能说外语。[78]

    此外，他确实从斯瓦加特和金·贝克那里获得了部分福音派的支持，但后来，当这两个人各自的性丑闻和财务丑闻曝光时，他们的支持反而适得其反。斯瓦加特的丑闻的曝光时间非常糟糕，正好在1988年“超级星期二”初选[79]前夕。（两年前，斯瓦加特曝光了一位牧师同事通奸，这正给他自己惹祸上身，这位牧师同事随后就报复性地用长焦镜头监视了斯瓦加特最喜欢的巴吞鲁日市某旅馆。）

    罗伯逊在“超级星期二”两个月后正式暂停竞选活动。但他的总统竞选至少在短期内增强了他在州和地方层面的影响力。他帮助参议员杰西·赫尔姆斯赢得了1990年的连任竞选。在1993年的阿肯色州副州长选举中，他帮助福音派迈克·哈克比开创了政治事业；这对罗伯逊来说是一次特别甜蜜的胜利，因为他鄙视比尔·克林顿，而比尔·克林顿支持哈克比的对手纳特·库尔特。[80]

    在罗伯逊长寿的一生中，最突出的方面就是他在中东政治中的影响力。20世纪60年代，当他的电视网，特别是广受欢迎的《700俱乐部》新闻节目走进美国人的客厅时，福音派已经对中东事务产生了一定的影响力。1977年，以色列议会选举梅纳赫姆·贝京为总理，受此鼓舞的福音派于1980年成立了耶路撒冷国际基督教徒大使馆，历届利库德集团政府都迎合该大使馆。例如，1982年，勤勉的圣经学者贝京接受了美国达拉斯福音教堂的邀请，打算在这个亲以色列集会上发言，但由于妻子去世，集会在最后一刻取消。

    耶路撒冷国际基督教徒大使馆甚至批评1978年《埃及-以色列和平条约》将西奈半岛归还埃及，认为这违反了《圣经》的承诺：根据《圣经》，迦南的所有土地都属于犹太人；耶路撒冷国际基督教徒大使馆还大力支持1982年以色列对黎巴嫩南部的入侵。[81][82]

    每年从圣诞节到新年，罗伯逊都会沉浸在《圣经》中学习，并祈祷：

    在这期间，我恳求主将任何关于下一年的洞察和趋势赐予我。有时，他对我说的话非常准确，随后将令人惊讶地全部实现。另一些时候，要么是我的灵性感知缺失，要么是其他人随后的祈祷或行动，导致了与我预期不同的结果产生。[83]

    如果中东发生了一场灾难性的战争，很可能就是上帝想把不同的事情告诉不同的人。从这一角度看，罗伯逊一直是十分危险的，因为他经常听错上帝的话。例如，上帝告诉他，世界将在1982年结束，海啸将在2006年袭击太平洋西北部，2007年将发生全球范围内的大规模恐怖主义屠杀，米特·罗姆尼将赢得2012年总统选举。[84]（他也从除上帝以外的其他地方听到一些奇怪的信息：1984年，在《700俱乐部》节目上，他提到了一些神秘的消息来源，说美国军队刚刚入侵了黎巴嫩。当主流消息来源反驳他这一说法时，罗伯逊险恶地回应说，显然国务院或中央情报局在隐瞒这件事情；1988年，在他的幻想中，苏联在古巴部署了SS-5和SS-24导弹中队。）[85]

    20世纪八九十年代，是罗伯逊影响力最大的时候。那时他在以色列的影响力与在美国的影响力相当；他还与以色列圣殿活跃分子保持密切联系，特别是“圣殿山忠诚者”组织的领导人格申·萨洛蒙，这一组织主张驱逐穆斯林、拆毁清真寺，并在圣殿山重建第三圣殿。罗伯逊会见过八位以色列前总理中的六位，他与强硬派本雅明·内塔尼亚胡的关系尤其密切。[86]

    罗伯逊的由神学驱动的外交政策产生了地缘政治危险，其影响远远超出了中东地区。例如，当一位极具魅力的基督教徒何塞·埃弗拉因·里奥斯·蒙特通过军事政变成为危地马拉总统时，罗伯逊欣喜若狂。即使在里奥斯·蒙特很明显地开始了一场针对该国原住民的血腥种族清洗运动、杀死了几千人并使数十万人流离失所之后，罗伯逊还是视若无睹：“我了解里奥斯·蒙特，他不会允许他的军队官兵杀害、强奸和折磨4000多名男子、妇女和儿童……有些人希望看到（蒙特）被共产党人取代。但我更偏向基督教徒。”[87]

    时代论在美国具有独特而广泛的影响，一个传统的解释是，美国的宗教性比其他国家更强。2012年，当全国民意研究中心调查世界各地公民的宗教信仰时，81%的美国人完全同意“我现在相信上帝，我永远相信上帝”这一强烈而明确的陈述，而英国人的这一比例只有37%，日本人只有25%，法国人只有29%。[88]

    过去几十年里，即使在美国，宗教信仰也在减少，虽然其不如世界其他地方那么明显；例如，1967年，对于盖洛普调查中的“你相信上帝吗？”这一更简单、稍欠明确性的问题，98%的美国人的答案为“是”；到2017年，这一数字已降至87%。[89]

    新教福音派的热情也是如此；2004—2018年，皮尤调查显示，自我认同的福音派教徒（其中大多数是时代论者）的人口比重从23%下降到15%（见图10-1）。但是，尽管他们的人数有所减少，但他们的选举人数比重已从23%增加到26%，实际上影响力更大了。一个必然的结论是，在人数减少和选举参与率增加的情况下，福音派教徒已经不仅仅是维持政治权力这么简单了。

    图10-1 美国的福音派人口

    尽管发达国家的宗教信仰和参与度有所减少，但发展中国家的情况并非如此。社会学家早就知道，随着社会更加富裕以及人们受教育程度的提高，人们的宗教信仰也会减少，这就是所谓的世俗化假说。由于较贫穷的发展中国家的人口出生率高于富裕的发达国家，因此世界上有强烈宗教信仰的人口的比例正在增加，而不是减少。[90]

    宗教信仰随着社会的富有而减少，其原因有很多，包括生存安全的提升，以及国家对社会福利职能的承担（以前是由宗教组织承担的），但就美国而言，发达国家日益世俗化的最重要的驱动力是科学知识的扩展，这取代了对自然现象进行宗教解释的需求。[91]

    人类对自然界有着永不满足的好奇心，特别是对自然界中最可怕的现象，如暴风骤雨、洪水、干旱、瘟疫和地震，对自然界中最神秘的现象，以及对地球生命的起源。今天，受过良好教育的人几乎不再需要神学来解释这些问题。当然，我们对物质世界的认识还存在不足，而且很可能永远存在不足，但是，随着科学不断缩小认知差距，在解释自然世界方面，宗教越来越落后于科学。

    受教育程度较高的人，宗教信仰较少。乍一看这种影响并没有那么大：根据皮尤论坛2014年的另一项调查，66%的没有受过大学教育的美国人绝对相信上帝；在大学毕业生中，这一比例仅略降至55%。[92]

    然而，在顶层人才中，科学教育的影响要大得多，他们对上帝的信仰已经萎缩到少得可怜的程度。1914—1916年，心理学家詹姆斯·路巴调查了500名美国科学家；他的研究结果提供了一个缩影，展示了当普通民众对上帝的信仰近乎普遍时，美国领先的生物学家、化学家和物理学家的宗教信仰会如何。

    路巴根据科学家们的地位和成就，将他们分为“较低”和“较高”两个级别，并分别研究了物理学家和生物科家（见表10-1）。

    表10-1 1914—1916年美国科学家对上帝的信仰

    数据结果令人印象深刻：最有成就的科学家对上帝的信仰最低，特别是精英生物学家，他们对生命起源和生物多样性的宗教解释需求，可能比化学家和物理学家要少。在任何情况下，所有科学家对上帝的平均信仰肯定远远低于同时代的普通人群。

    1998年，两位美国历史学家在著名的国家科学院的员工中重复了这项研究。这些员工相当于路巴实验中的“较高”科学家。在路巴的研究过去了80年之后，此时生物学家中信仰上帝的仅占5.5%，物理学家中占7.5%，最有趣的是，数学家中占14.3%，可能是因为他们对进化和分子生物学的掌握不如生物学家。[93]2013年，一项针对英国皇家学会研究员的研究的结果几乎与此相同，也出现了生物学家和物理学家之间的这种区别：76%的生物学家强烈认为上帝不存在，只有3%的人强烈认为上帝存在；而物理学家的这一比例分别为51%和7%。[94]

    因此，许多美国人能够包容像林赛和罗伯逊这样的人以及时代论的一般信条，是不是因为比起其他发达国家的公民，他们对事实了解得更少？

    美国人对时代论叙事的敏感性，以及与其他发达国家的人相比的高度宗教性，有其复杂的原因。显然，除了缺乏事实性知识之外，其他因素也推动了他们的虔诚，其中最主要的是他们的社会和家庭环境；社会学家早就注意到，信仰体系尤其可以通过与其他信徒之间紧密的社会关系得到很好的传播。[95]但当考虑到社会因素时，一个人储备的一般性知识越多，这个人越不可能接受充斥着林赛或罗伯逊般赤裸裸事实错误的时代论叙事。

    在经合组织的国际教育评估中，美国的排名一直处于发达国家的末尾；与其他发达国家的公民相比，美国人对自己国家和世界其他地区的了解少得可怜。2015年完成的最新国际教育评估显示，美国学生排名第40位，远远落后于斯洛文尼亚、波兰、越南、俄罗斯、葡萄牙和意大利等国家，更落后于新加坡、中国香港、日本和韩国这些排名靠前的国家或地区。[96]

    一项开始于1994年的研究有助于解释这个问题：对于5个有代表性的世界基本事实，37%的美国人错误地理解了所有5个问题，而德国人的这一比重只有3%。（在西班牙人中，32%的人5个问题都错了；墨西哥人，28%；加拿大人，27%；法国人，23%；英国人，22%；意大利人，18%。）没有上过大学的意大利人和德国人的分数超过了上过大学的美国人。[97][98]

    受访人的分数与接触电视新闻的多少呈负相关。正如这项研究的作者所说：“美国电视因其跳动剪辑、广告和断奏风格而导致显著的认知繁忙[99]，而认知繁忙使一些人更难吸收信息。”作者指出，美国研究人员“通常不愿意问太多的事实性问题，因为害怕让受访者尴尬，进而导致他们终止采访或由于过于慌乱而无法回答其他问题”。这或许可以解释为什么德国人的表现如此出色：比起其他6个被研究国，德国人更常阅读报纸。[100]

    2009年，另一项研究广泛调查了美国人、英国人、丹麦人和芬兰人。调查显示，美国人对国内和国际时事，甚至国际流行文化知之甚少。最明显的例子是，只有37%的美国人知道《京都议定书》与气候变化有关，相比之下，英国人、丹麦人和芬兰人的这一比重分别是60%、81%和84%。只有在国内流行文化这一领域，美国人的得分与英国人、丹麦人和芬兰人几乎持平，略低于平均水平。[101]

    这项研究的作者还将这种差异归因于媒体结构的国际差异：在美国，媒体的使命更多地集中于娱乐而不是教育，而斯堪的纳维亚[102]政府则大力支持高质量的新闻和信息节目。英国拥有一个享有盛誉并资源渠道充足的公共新闻机构，即英国广播公司，还拥有繁荣的私人媒体部门，其排名处于美国之前，仅次于斯堪的纳维亚国家。

    这项研究的另一个重要发现，是受教育程度高和受教育程度低的美国人之间的知识差距远远大于其他三个受调查国家：受教育程度低的英国人、丹麦人和芬兰人，比受教育程度低的美国人更了解他们周围的世界（见图10-2）。[103]得出的结论：与其他国家相比，那些受教育程度低的美国人，特别容易受到时代论叙事的影响，而在其他发达国家中，即使是受教育程度最低的人也会抵制这种叙事，因为他们对于日常客观事实有更好的理解。

    图10-2 硬新闻知识了解程度和受教育程度

    记者格肖姆·戈伦伯格提出了一个与此相关的观点。20世纪90年代末，时代论者越来越痴迷于电脑的“千年虫”问题（Y2K）；许多人认为，当日历指到2000年时，可能会触发世界末日；与往常一样，哈尔·林赛出版了一本如何在2000年末日时生存的书，书名为《面对千禧年子夜》。[104]戈伦伯格评论道：

    我猜想，未来的历史学家将研究那令人讨厌的一天（2000年1月1日）、电脑没有崩溃时的高潮，那是美国文化史而不是技术史的一部分。问题不在于这一小故障，而在于，与西方其他宗教信仰较少的国家相比，在这个充斥着千禧年信仰的国家里，其言论是多么刺耳。[105]

    具有深刻说教性的时代论末日叙事强加了社会成本。自历史学家理查德·霍夫施塔特[106]出版《美国政治中的偏执风格》（The Paranoid Style of American Politics）一书以来，人们就广泛地意识到，美国明显地倾向于阴谋论。两位政治学家J.埃里克·奥利弗和托马斯·伍德最近的研究表明，两个互为相关的因素最能有效地说明美国对阴谋论的敏感性。第一个是末日叙事信仰。第二个是将人类存在视为一种摩尼教式的善恶斗争的倾向，这是福音派，尤其是时代论者典型的神学特征：他们相信，自己和认同自己的人是善良与光明的典范，而那些不认同自己的人则与魔鬼结盟。奥利弗和伍德指出，右翼倾向于支持关于撒旦和上帝的时代论叙事，但是，左翼则更支持关于看不见的世俗力量的叙事，如“9·11”阴谋论。[107]

    人类不仅是一种盲目模仿、偏爱故事而不是事实和数据的猿类。而且，最黑暗的是，人类还是一种会在道德上谴责他人的猿类。有时人类就像一种摩尼教怪兽，构建一种荒唐的复杂神学，以奉承自己、妖魔化他人。这种摩尼教式思想渗透至极右翼和极左翼的政治派系中，并且一端的真信徒会转向另一端，这并不为奇——“串联真信仰”。阿道夫·希特勒指出，尽管他永远无法将工会会员或社会民主党转变为国社党，但他总是可以将一名德国共产党员转变为国社党员：“我已经……下达命令，要求德国共产党员立即加入国社党。”[108]最近，许多著名的新保守主义者，如欧文·克里斯托尔、内森·格雷泽、阿尔伯特·沃尔斯泰特和西德尼·胡克开始信奉马克思主义。

    进化心理学家认为，摩尼教式的思维方式很可能是从早期狩猎社会对部落凝聚力的需求演变而来的。如果部落成员之间彼此无私，与此同时，却以残忍的方式杀害其他部落的成员，那么本部落就会受益。心理学家将这种群体内/群体外的二分法称为“结群性”，它是由这样一种观念促成的，即自己所在的部落体现了各种美德并受到神灵的青睐，而其他部落则体现了邪恶并与邪恶势力（或在一神教社会中是魔鬼）结盟。[109]

    有一个经典的心理学实验，根据高中生的衬衫或头发颜色将他们分为地位高和地位低两组；很快前者就会对后者进行贬损。[110]1954年，社会学家穆扎弗·谢里夫和他的同事以一种更优雅的方式展示了这一现象：著名的（至少在社会学家中是如此）“罗伯斯山洞”实验。

    这个复杂实验的地点设在俄克拉何马州偏远、树木繁茂的罗伯斯山洞州立公园的一个野外训练营地，集聚了22个11岁左右的男孩。谢里夫已经筛除有心理问题的候选人，而且所有被选中的都来自双亲白人新教家庭。这些精选的男孩的平均智商远高于人类平均水平（112）；关键是，在他们聚集在公园营地之前，彼此都不相识。

    实验分三个阶段进行。第一阶段，谢里夫将22人配对，使他们在运动、烹饪和音乐等各个领域的技能能够旗鼓相当。为了使每组都能平等地掌握全套技能，他将每对男孩分开，将其随机分到两组中，每组11人。

    在为期一周的时间里，每组分别参加了夏令营活动——游泳、徒步和其他体育活动，也参加了需要广泛讨论、制定战略并合作的问题解决练习，如烹饪，搭建帐篷和绳桥。每一组都不知道另一组的存在，在这一阶段结束时，这两组人分别为自己的队选择了名字：响尾蛇队和老鹰队。谢里夫随后制作了带有这些图案的衬衫和旗帜。

    在第二阶段，响尾蛇队和老鹰队一起参加了为期几天的多项目比赛（就是许多夏令营老兵所熟悉的“色彩争战”）。与普通色彩争战不同的是，实验中获胜的队伍获得了奖牌、奖杯和精美的小刀，所有这些奖励都将在用餐时间展示在非常突出的位置。败队则一无所获。

    几乎立刻，两队人开始互相嘲弄；最早，老鹰队烧毁了响尾蛇队的队旗，又撕碎了其换上的新队旗，接着是响尾蛇队晚上的报复性暴力袭击。当响尾蛇队威胁要用石头攻击对方时，实验人员进行了干预。这两支队伍都用“禁止进入”的标识牌对自己的领地进行了标注，而且几乎每天晚上都会互相偷袭。

    两支队伍几乎立即形成了典型的“外群体歧视”，将对方称为“臭虫”“吹牛者”“娘娘腔”，并反对在同一个食堂用餐。[111]老鹰队在比赛中获胜后，这两个群体仍互不往来，并明确避免混合。当两队人一起吃饭时，老鹰队通常会让位给响尾蛇队，说“女士优先”。谢里夫广泛地调查了男孩们对彼此的看法，毫不奇怪地发现，他们对队内同伴的评价远远高于队外人员。

    第二阶段的比赛结束后，马上进入第三阶段，谢里夫探索了如何减少第二阶段产生的群内/群外行为。虽然两队人聚在一起吃饭，或参加看电影等被动性娱乐活动，但敌对情绪依然存在。然后，他让两支队伍一起完成关键任务，比如恢复营地的供水。营地的供水被故意切断，营员们口渴时发现食堂没有水。完成一系列这样的任务之后，结群性显著减弱，尽管并没有完全消失。例如，在第二阶段结束时，响尾蛇队的朋友选择中只有6%是鹰队成员；到第三阶段结束时，这一比例上升到36%。[112]

    按照衬衫颜色分组以及罗伯斯山洞实验中的这种分组，都是一种随机和无意义的区分，但它们展现出戏剧性的“外群体歧视”。而时代论神学与其他主流宗教有很大的不同，因此，摩尼教式思维渗透到时代论者的意识中也就不足为奇了。

    虽然最初几代的时代论者有意回避参与政治，但到《贝尔福宣言》时，这一约束已经基本消失。到了20世纪70年代，林赛、法威尔和许多时代论作家将那些左倾的偏离他们的人都视为邪恶，在某些情况下视为反基督；他们进一步把耶稣转变成一个摩尼教式、具有鹰派右翼政治思维以及社会保守主义的完美典范。

    1991年苏联解体后不久，林赛猜出俄罗斯和德国已经签订了一项秘密协议，分割了位于两国之间的欧洲土地。林赛一直在寻找撒旦文化的象征，在他的《地球——公元2000》一书中，他将此认定为海底探险家雅克·库斯托，他认为库斯托温暖而舒心的海洋环境保护主义的背后是“世界一体的社会主义”的中坚核心。（时代论的这种散布恐惧的做法并不新鲜；早在20世纪初，原教旨主义基督徒就将世界语[113]视为撒旦全球主义的工具。）[114]

    《地球——公元2000》甚至还猛烈抨击美国社会安全网和环境保护中最无争议的方面。林赛显然没有意识到信鸽、渡渡鸟和世界鱼类种群的命运，他断言：“私人手中的资源总是可以受到最好的保护。”他将地球臭氧层变薄列为预示末日的众多灾难之一。虽然他承认人造氟氯化碳导致了臭氧层的消耗，但他认为限制全球氟氯化碳生产的《蒙特利尔议定书》是政府对个人自由的一种不必要的侵犯。此外，罪魁祸首是火山活动，而不是氟氯化碳，“可怕的是，我们无法采取任何措施修复受损的臭氧层”[115]。

    火山爆发确实会减少臭氧层，但只是暂时的。它们已喷发了数亿年，却没有永久性地使臭氧层变薄。臭氧层变薄是一种更现代的现象；最近的数据表明，《蒙特利尔议定书》确实在缓慢地修复臭氧损害。[116]

    多年来，林赛越来越多地鼓吹自己的影响。在他于1980年写的《20世纪80年代：世界末日倒计时》一书中，他未经证实地宣称，自己曾被一名以色列飞行员邀请到美国空战学院讲授预言，并在那里受到了“热情的欢迎”。一年后，他被邀请回国演讲，他继续写道：“我惊讶地发现房间里竟挤满数百人，外面的人也试图挤进来。所有人都想听听先知们关于人类的命运说了些什么。我讲完后，反响非常热烈。”[117]之后，他又为“一个肩负着可怕责任的精英团体”做了一次演讲，但他无权透露那些成员的身份。再一次，这些高层听众明显地被他的预言“感动了”。“在我们见面的前几天，他们用电脑预测出的事件和结果竟然与《但以理书》相同。不用说，他们对此非常惊讶，但我对此并不惊讶。”[118]

    言归正传，在过去的几十年中，福音派越来越多地渗透到美国各级军队中。虽然军队中自称是福音派或五旬节派的总体比例似乎与普通民众中的比例大致相同——约为22%，但其实际影响力远大于该数字所显示的，尤其是在军队牧师和空军高级指挥部里的影响。[119]

    从20世纪50年代开始，福音派的反共言论得到军方高层的青睐。20世纪六七十年代，福音派对越南战争的支持与主流新教教会的反对形成鲜明对比，军队-福音的契合进一步加强。正如历史学家安妮·洛夫兰所说：“军队曾经对福音派持怀疑态度，但后来，福音派因支持兵役、战争和参战的人而在军队中赢得了尊重和影响力。”[120]

    军队牧师本来应该满足遭遇恐怖战争的青年男女的精神需求，但福音派更多地将其视为帮助他们找到耶稣的人。《美国福音派联盟》杂志上的一篇文章指出，一半的应征士兵没有明显的宗教背景，其余的大部分是主流新教徒、天主教徒或犹太人：“军队牧师工作的地方，是收获的禾场。”[121]

    为了避免出现美国宪法所禁止的国教，军方依靠“支持代理”从宗教派别中选取牧师候选人。1987年以前，军队按教派分配牧师；如果5%的应征者是圣公会教徒，那么5%的牧师也是。1987年，调整后的规则不仅将所有新教徒归为一个类别，还允许福音派和五旬节派的支持代理指定牧师。到2009年，大约80%的现役牧师是福音派或五旬节派教徒。[122]

    另外，在过去的几十年中，美国军方文化的核心一直位于梅森-迪克逊线[123]以下。由于南方白人军官和应征士兵强调的种族优越性越来越不被接受，福音派取代了肤色，成为一种主张优越性的方式。[124]美国所有4个武装部队分支都经历过传教丑闻。首先发生在空军学院，位于政治和宗教保守的科罗拉多州的斯普林斯市。早在21世纪初，该学院就已经爆出过性侵犯丑闻；几年后，福音派教官对于公开的反犹太主义视而不见，并告诫学员们自己是为“耶稣队”效力，并公开授权观看梅尔·吉布森的煽动性电影《耶稣受难记》。它是一部暴力、道德说教式电影，因暗含反犹太主义而受到福音派基督徒的盛赞和世俗观众的批评。[125][126]

    令人欣慰的是，20世纪80年代的美国总统放弃了世界末日的信仰体系，但危险仍然存在于其他领导人中；若某位美国、苏联、以色列或巴基斯坦高级军官像圣殿山纵火犯丹尼斯·迈克尔·罗恩那样精神错乱，挥舞的不是煤油而是核武器，那该怎么办？

    11 时代论的灾难

    大卫教派的悲剧

    1964年，核战争策划者丹尼尔·埃尔斯伯格（不久后，他将因未经授权就发布五角大楼文件而出名）与他的兰德智库老板哈里·罗恩“出于职业原因”，一起观看了电影《奇爱博士》。这部电影是导演斯坦利·库布里克的代表作，讲述了苏联的“末日机器”（装在掩埋的“钴钍G”容器中的几枚热核炸弹，将在遭遇敌方第一枚原子弹攻击时自动引爆）；以及一位疯狂的美国空军基地指挥官杰克·里珀，他向苏联启动了战略轰炸机。所有启动的轰炸机都被成功召回，除了其中的一架；电影的结尾是，那架轰炸机的飞行员（由斯利姆·皮肯斯扮演）骑着一枚氢弹，像骑着一匹野马一样，从轰炸机的弹舱里飞下。[1]

    与此同时，彼得·塞勒斯饰演的奇爱博士向美国总统和苏联大使解释了他的后末日时代深矿井生存计划。伴随着核爆炸蘑菇云的腾起，“我们会再见面的”的声音响起。埃尔斯伯格写道：“看完电影后，我们走出放映室，站在下午的阳光下，被光线和电影弄得头晕目眩，我们都认为刚才看到的基本上是一部纪录片。”这部电影真实地描绘出了美国当时的绝密核指挥程序，埃尔斯伯格和罗恩对此印象特别深刻；事实上，这部电影是根据一部小说《红色警戒》改编的，该小说由皇家空军军官彼得·乔治撰写，他后来担任了这部电影的编剧之一。

    那时，埃尔斯伯格早已清楚美国核权力分散的危险性；因为早在几年前，他就参观了美国的军事基地。他清楚地知道，核战争可能意味着人类灭绝，然而他很羞愧地发现，一名上将，甚至在有些情况下只要一名少校，就足以自行发动核袭击。[2]

    埃尔斯伯格和罗恩并不是第一批对《奇爱博士》和《红色警戒》印象深刻的核策划者；在这部电影制作的5年前，他们的同事约翰·鲁贝尔向五角大楼远程导弹科学咨询委员会的每一位成员都发送了一份这部小说的副本。

    即使没有这种宗教狂热式的、精神错乱的指挥官，世界上的核武器指挥系统也极不稳定，容易发生事故。几乎从最初的核时代开始，世界上的核武器，也就是现实世界中的“末日机器”，几次将世界带到玉石俱焚的边缘。艾里克·施洛瑟的名著《指挥与控制》，记录了数十起恐怖的核事故，从携带热核武器的飞机和导弹的丢失，到大规模敌方攻击的错误警报。

    1961年，一架载有两枚400万吨级热核炸弹的B-52轰炸机由于机翼油箱漏油而失去平衡，飞机无法控制地剧烈旋转。飞行员扔掉了两个他以为没有安装炸弹的武器；其中一枚氢弹上的降落伞未能打开，坠入美国北卡罗来纳州法罗附近的潮湿地面下70英尺深。引爆装置和“初级”钚核心被回收，但“次级”铀——核威力的来源——从未找到。另一枚氢弹上的降落伞的确打开了，但当撞击到地面时，氢弹机头传感器发送了一个引爆信号，爆炸前需要通过的几个安全装置中，除了其中一个，其他均已打开。

    如果第二枚氢弹被引爆，那么这将形成“触地爆炸”，产生的放射性沉降物将远远超过广岛和长崎原子弹的“空中爆炸”，后者的威力不到B-52所携带氢弹的1%。如果爆炸时正在刮南风，那么致命的沉降物将覆盖东北部的大部分地区，并使北卡罗来纳州大部分地区不再适合居住。[3]

    更令人震惊的是，1962年古巴导弹危机期间，一名过于心急的美国驱逐舰船长向苏联潜艇B-59投下了深水训练炸弹[4]，但他不知道这艘潜艇上装备了核鱼雷。作为反击，苏联潜艇的艇长和政委都想向驱逐舰发射一枚核鱼雷，幸运的是，苏联舰队总指挥官瓦西里·阿尔希波夫也在船上，不同意发射。几十年后，当这段插曲公之于众时，阿尔希波夫被大家称为“拯救世界的人”。[5]总体来说，苏联领导层将其核权力链控制得比美国要短得多。普林斯顿大学的布鲁斯·布莱尔是当今核控制领域的权威，“俄罗斯的核控制和安保体系结构比美国的更令人赞赏”[6]。

    好消息是，1981年罗纳德·里根就任美国总统后，他的国家安全机构充斥着防守鹰派，他们有意识地、热情地用几乎连续不断的挑衅来扰乱苏联。美国战略空军司令部每周会派出轰炸机飞越北极，或者派出短程轰炸机威胁华约[7]领空或苏联的亚洲边境。当时负责军事援助的副国务卿小威廉·施耐德回忆道：“苏联人不知道这是什么意思。一个美国空军中队直飞苏联领空，苏联的雷达被点亮，部队进入警戒状态。但是最后一分钟，中队撤离并返回美国。”[8]

    在有些情况下，雷达系统会错误地发出大规模导弹袭击的警报。1980年6月3日凌晨2点30分，正值苏联入侵阿富汗、美国抵制莫斯科奥运会的紧张冷战局势，美国国家安全顾问兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基被他的军事助手比尔·奥多姆叫醒，奥多姆向他报告说有220枚导弹来袭。布热津斯基让奥多姆去确认，战略空军司令部警戒小组是否正在冲向他们的B-52并启动引擎，然后给他回电话；他决定不叫醒他的妻子，这样她将会在睡梦中毫无意识地被核武器汽化。几分钟后，奥多姆打电话给布热津斯基，说现在有2200枚导弹来袭。只剩下几分钟的时间激活国家核武器库，布热津斯基当时正要给卡特总统打电话，奥多姆第三次打电话，报告说其他系统未能确认攻击。事实证明，只差一分钟世界就会被焚毁，因为有人错误地将一盒训练磁带插入了计算机指挥系统。[9]

    随着国家核武器规模的扩大，意外事故风险也在增加。政界领导人面临着与军事指挥官之间的艰苦斗争，因为后者更关心的是确保核武器能够发射，而不是防止意外发射；而确保核武器能够发射，会更有可能导致意外发射。例如，许可操作链接（PAL）的引入，使用8位代码和有限进入功能，从理论上防止了未经授权的核武器启动。然而，为了避免错误代码阻碍核武器发射，战略空军司令部的高级指挥部将所有代码都设置为易于记忆的8位数“00000000”，这就消除了这种保护。[10][11]

    与汽车防抱死制动器一样，系统中引入的安全功能通常会增加用户信心，却降低了系统安全性。正如研究复杂系统中“正常事故”的著名理论家查尔斯·佩罗所指出的那样，这些看似有益的变化“往往只会让操控者更快地启动系统，或者在恶劣天气下启动系统，或者以更大的威力启动系统”[12]。

    任何指挥官或领导人都会面临一种情况，即那些最重要的决定都必须在几分钟内根据不完整的数据做出。幸运的是，他们不会因为相信自己的选民会在核爆炸前“被提”而使自己的决定受到影响。《奇爱博士》中的精神病将军里珀，出于对氟化供水的担忧，启动了轰炸机袭击苏联，并发表了电影界最著名的独白之一：“我不能再坐视共产主义的渗透、共产主义的灌输、共产主义的颠覆，以及国际共产主义的阴谋逐渐侵蚀和玷污我们珍贵的体液。”如今，氟化水仍然是时代论右翼的一个禁忌，尤其是金·贝克，他的网站重复了一个可笑的说法：“美国人死于氟化水的数量超过了整个国家的军事死亡人数。”[13]

    除了这种由精神错乱的或宗教狂热式的军事指挥官所带来的非常明显的危险之外，时代论叙事也带来一种更微妙、也许更严重的末日危险。林赛和法威尔等时代论者强烈反对任何军备控制，他们支持膨胀的核武器库，这些武器库的增长纯粹是数量扩张，会增加意外毁灭的可能性。

    这非常强烈地体现在林赛的《20世纪80年代：世界末日倒计时》一书中。在林赛看来，《限制战略武器条约》并没有降低核灾难的风险；相反，它摧毁了美国的军事优势，将美国置于致命危险之中，并将允许苏联“横扫欧洲”。美国政府只不过是阴谋论者大恶魔——三边委员会[14]（一个高调的非政府组织，以洛克菲勒家族和兹比格涅夫·布热津斯基为主角）的傀儡。更糟糕的是，美国愚蠢地抛弃了它忠实的盟友，如蒋委员长、伊朗末代国王巴列维和实行种族隔离政策的南非政府。[15]林赛想象出以下场景：

    苏联总理可能很快就会给美国总统打电话。总理会说：“我们可以摧毁你们的导弹发射井，我们可以用激光束拦截和摧毁所有来袭的潜射弹道导弹，我们可以用我们的米格-25战斗机和SS-5地空导弹摧毁你们那些过时的轰炸机。所以，总统先生，你会投降吗？还是让我们摧毁你的国家？你有20秒的时间做出决定。”[16]

    林赛在《地球——公元2000》一书中也敲响了主战之鼓，他将已被遗忘很久、位于旧金山普雷西迪奥[17]的戈尔巴乔夫基金会，看作撒旦世界新秩序摧毁美国影响力的证据。不明飞行物不是外星飞船，而是撒旦的恶魔。[18]

    此外，“常态化”的末日风险可能成为一个自我实现的预言。正如末日神学权威观察家保罗·博耶所说：

    我个人的感觉是，如果平民的预言信仰与核武器政策之间有联系的话，那么这也是隐蔽的和间接的联系。1945年后的预言信徒们，很少有意识地主动推动世界末日。相反，他们相信《圣经》已经预言了末日，并确信信徒们将幸免于难，因此倾向于消极地接受核军备竞赛和冷战对抗。[19]

    20世纪80年代初，小说家格雷丝·穆杰塔巴伊前往得克萨斯州的阿马里洛镇，调查这座宗教信仰浓厚的小镇与附近的潘特克斯核武器工厂之间的关系。潘特克斯工厂负责装配和维护美国所有的核武器。最终，穆杰塔巴伊将她的杂志文章改编为一本书《有福的确据》。她是犹太人，最后定居在了阿马里洛镇。

    她发现，时代论信仰如此彻底地渗透到了这座城镇，即使是镇上报纸的出版商，一位受过良好教育的自由民主党人，也认同其信条。20世纪80年代，该工厂的任务广为人知，阿马里洛人立即明白，整个地区已经成为核攻击的主要目标，将在核战争的最初便从地球上消失。该镇的最大教派第一浸信会，本身并不认同时代论；然而其成员都平静地接受了这种风险，甚至感到有些安慰，因为他们认为被瞬间汽化比其他更痛苦的死亡方式更可取。

    该镇较小的教派禧年礼拜堂的领导者罗伊斯·埃尔姆斯牧师的观点则不同。根据穆杰塔巴伊的记录，埃尔姆斯告诉他的教区居民根本不需要害怕核战争，因为教区居民会在其他人被上帝烧死之前“被提”：

    你们知道，他们在太空计划上花了一大笔钱。一大笔钱！看吧，我的朋友们，他们还不如把这个计划全部关闭，然后等待号角之声，那么他们将进入另一个太空计划中！我甚至从来没有想过让我的名字出现在他们正在做的这个小计划的宇航员名单里。但是我的名字，在上帝的恩典和帮助下，已经出现在另一个宇航员计划中……当火箭起飞时……我们将留下一道圣灵之火的痕迹！

    “再见！再见！”这位牧师向即将被氢弹汽化的阿马里洛、休斯敦、达拉斯和洛杉矶喊道。埃尔姆斯所在教区的一位居民相信自己会乘坐同一艘火箭逃离核末日，她为此而感到欣慰，但也为可能会抛下自己的孩子和孙子而感到痛苦。[20]（穆杰塔巴伊所著书的书名《有福的确据》指的是信众们将免于面对恐怖的核灾难。）

    和博耶一样，穆杰塔巴伊只是简单地想到了具有宗教狂热的潘特克斯工人可能会通过获得核武器来推动千禧年进程。而且，和博耶一样，她也担心普通居民会和她已经非常了解的阿马里洛人一样，已经接受了摩尼教式的时代论世界观，并且在核战争的风险中麻痹自己。

    如果世界可以区分绝对的善与恶，可以区分上帝的追随者与撒旦的追随者，那么与敌人之间的妥协或谈判就不可能存在。在一个绝对两极分化的世界里，人类和平是无法实现的，战争不可避免。[21]

    在1982年美国宗教学会上，神学家戈登·考夫曼在主席演讲中进一步指出了时代论对人类的威胁。他指出，人类有史以来第一次拥有灭绝整个物种的能力，因此时代论的末日世界观“最终逃避了我们作为人类的责任，恶魔般地援引神的意志作为逃避的理由”。考夫曼进一步将“被提”描述为“切断人类责任的神经”[22]。也就是说，拯救自己免于被灭绝的能力掌握在上帝手中（即使在很小的程度上），这种信仰削弱了我们阻止它的意愿，从而增加了它发生的风险。

    幸运的是，核武器和时代论的交集所固有的危险，迄今为止仍然停留在推想阶段。但是，有一位具有米勒精神的继承人，他的末日信仰将推动他和大量无辜追随者走向悲惨的结局。自有记载的历史出现以来，弗洛伊德的“微小差异的自恋”已经产生了源源不断的宗教变异[23]，基督复临安息日会也会在新教繁茂之树上产生一株有毒的分枝。

    20世纪20年代，一个名叫维克多·豪迪夫的基督复临安息日会教徒开始宣扬他对《圣经》的独特解读。他是一个学历只有三年级的推销员，被《启示录》耸人听闻的叙事吸引，特别是，他和之前的许多人一样，关注《启示录》中第七章的144000名信徒，12个各有12000名信徒的希伯来部落，“在我们上帝的仆人们额上盖上了印”。

    基督复临安息日会教徒认为自己就是那144000名信徒；豪迪夫认为，随着该教派的人数远远超过了这个数字，它已经失去了热情和献身精神，这就是问题所在。作为时代论者的典型，他抨击沉迷于“海滩派对和电影放映”等现代罪恶文化活动的基督复临安息日会的兄弟们。[24]正如异端人士惯常做的那样，他编撰了一份教会“可憎之事”清单；在他看来，自己的使命是将基督复临安息日会的信徒减少至144000名，使之达到必要的纯度。

    豪迪夫并不是要建立自己的教派，而是要改革原来的教会。但随着极具魅力的他开始吸引追随者，他那些过去的“兄弟们”感到惊恐，并在1934年将他逐出了教会（就像1845年罗汉普顿的浸信会将米勒逐出教会那样）。

    最初，他的教派被称为“牧羊人之杖”（豪迪夫宣言的题目），或者简称为“杖”。为了表明对古代圣地大卫王国中心地位的信仰，教派更名为大卫基督复临安息日会（简称大卫教）。1935年，随着成员人数的增加，大卫教徒在美国得克萨斯州韦科的迦密山中心建立了总部。尽管该中心只有37名追随者，但豪迪夫预计，世界末日将在一年内到来，届时他将带领144000名追随者前往巴勒斯坦。

    由于他追求虔诚而纯粹的复临主义，因此他和继任者们的传教活动只针对基督复临安息日会的信徒，而不包括那些无法救赎的普通民众。[25]1955年，豪迪夫去世，此时他已经吸引了数千名信徒，但大卫教并没有前往巴勒斯坦（那时该地区已经在以色列的统治之下）。此时，大卫教已经壮大，它向东迁移了9英里到达得克萨斯州的埃尔克，即“新”迦密山。

    《圣经》是历史上被分析和讨论最多的书，数百年来共有几十亿读者。根据概率论，其中一定有几百万读者具有极高的智商，也一定有几十万读者接受过《圣经》解读方面的学术培训。豪迪夫的学历只有三年级，但是，他认为自己发现了一个以前所有读者都没有发现的《圣经》意思，并将自己选为“东方升起的天使”，以在末日带领144000名信徒前往圣地。从豪迪夫开始，大卫教产生了类似的一系列极端自我主义的领袖，他们将在美国联邦执法机构的推动下，带领该教派走向灾难。

    1955年11月5日，豪迪夫死后不久，他的遗孀弗洛伦丝宣布，她进一步解码了《启示录》的末日时间序列：1260天之后，也就是1959年4月22日，耶稣就要来了。[26]她的预言吸引了900名追随者来到迦密山迎接末日，在那里，怀着期待的信徒们再次上演了米勒“大失望”的小规模版本。和1844年的“大失望”一样，该教派随后分裂为各个相互竞争的团体，其中最大的团体由豪迪夫的助手、一位名叫本·罗登的人领导，他接管了迦密山。[27]

    罗登继承了豪迪夫的自我中心主义，并宣称，按照上帝给他的启示，他就是“分支”（《撒迦利亚书》和《约翰福音》用“分支”这个词来描述上帝的仆人），他将带领这个团体迎接耶稣复临，因此这个团体的新名字就是大卫支教。他规劝真信徒们“离开那根枯树枝，到活分支上来”[28]。

    1978年罗登去世后，他的妻子洛伊丝（根据上帝的透露，她就是圣灵）和他们精神反复无常的儿子乔治之间发生了一场权力斗争。最终，洛伊丝在一个名叫弗农·豪厄尔的年轻人的帮助下获胜。在此之前，豪厄尔一直过着混乱的生活；他的妈妈14岁时便未婚生下了他，当他还是个孩子的时候，曾转换于不同的家庭，饱受阅读障碍[29]和孤独之苦，最后在读九年级时辍学。

    豪厄尔笨拙但英俊，他只对三件事物有兴趣：他的吉他、他的《圣经》和性。1981年，他让一位15岁的女孩怀孕了，但是他向基督复临安息日会的兄弟们宣布，上帝打算让他娶另一位年轻女子，她是一位牧师的女儿。他总是有“见证”的癖好，有一次打断了一场仪式，登上讲坛布道，这些活动很快将他驱逐。他曾在迦密山做过木工活儿，1983年，他在那里定居。[30]

    在那里，豪厄尔被洛伊丝·罗登的领导职位和半神地位吸引，他找到了自己的家。他是在基督复临安息日会长大的，被迫阅读《圣经》；而洛伊丝被豪厄尔对《圣经》的敏锐理解和外貌吸引。很快，豪厄尔就和这位当时已经67岁的寡妇共享了大卫支教的领导权，以及她的床。

    在大卫支教内，号称拥有神权的女性不会像主流新教教派中的女性那样引起人们的注意；但豪厄尔崇拜基督复临安息日会的创始人之一艾伦·怀特，后者被认为是一位女先知。《圣经》几乎指导了豪厄尔生活的方方面面；他说，他与洛伊丝结合，希望实现《以赛亚书》8:3中的预言，即他去见女先知，然后女先知怀孕了，并生了一个儿子。后来他半开玩笑地说，如果他“让一个70岁的女人怀孕了，那么他一定是上帝”[31]。

    如前文所述，历史学家查尔斯将《启示录》描述为“整套《圣经》中最难读的一卷”，并警告说“不仅略读，即使认真研读，读者也依然会觉得困惑”[32]。直到1983年左右，豪厄尔可能也同意这一评估。1983年，这位高中就辍学的24岁的年轻人认为，他和豪迪夫一样，不同于大众识字时代以来几个世纪里的几十亿《圣经》读者，他能够解开7个封印，从而揭开《启示录》的真正含义。豪厄尔认为，《启示录》是掌控《圣经》其余部分的关键。

    1984年1月，豪厄尔与一个大卫支教成员的14岁女儿结婚，也因此与洛伊丝决裂；那年晚些时候，乔治·罗登已经与母亲和好，用枪口指着豪厄尔和他的支持者们，并将他们赶出了大院，将教名改为罗登维尔。豪厄尔和几名追随者在东边100英里处的得克萨斯州帕勒斯坦市的一个条件恶劣的小屋里定居下来。出于空闲和对更好环境的渴望，他去了以色列。

    在以色列期间，他似乎得了“耶路撒冷综合征”。这是一种在以色列游客中很常见的精神错乱，由于终于能够直接接触到一生都在读和听的圣地和圣殿，因此他们过度兴奋，充满宗教热情，常常把自己想象成《圣经》中的人物。[33]其中一个“耶路撒冷综合征”患者是患有精神分裂症的健身游客，他相信西墙位于错误的位置，并试图移动其中一块巨石，这是“参孙综合征[34]”。阿克萨清真寺的纵火犯丹尼斯·迈克尔·罗恩可能当时也处于类似的状态。

    离圣殿山只有几英里的卡法尔·沙乌勒精神病医院，专门研究这种精神错乱。1980—1993年，那里的精神病医生治疗了470名患者，其中的绝大多数患者之前就存在精神机能障碍，例如那个“参孙综合征”患者和罗恩，但另外42名患者（约占研究样本的9%）没有精神病史。有精神病史的人（占91%）广泛分布于犹太人和主流基督教派中，但42名没有精神病史的人中有多达40名是福音派新教徒。不超过10年，悲剧将展现在韦科镇。[35]

    从以色列回来后，弗农·豪厄尔有了明显的变化。在以色列，上帝已经告诉他，他是上帝的仆人；随后，他的布道变得有活力，他开始更善于将《圣经》的各段落联系并融合在一起。如今，每当他阅读《圣经》经文时，立刻会有上帝的声音告诉他这些经文的真正含义。去以色列之前，他曾告诉别人，他希望能尽快收到上帝的“完整信息”，但这一愿望没有实现。从以色列回来后，很可能是受到耶路撒冷综合征的影响，他终于从上帝那里收到了信息。[36]

    从19世纪40年代末的诞生开始，预言便是基督复临安息日会固有的一部分。在豪迪夫和罗登领导下的大卫教，以及在豪厄尔领导下的大卫教，也是这样。大卫教的人努力使本教派或多或少地持续“处于信息中”——接收来自全能者的一连串预言。他们认为，现代的基督复临安息日会已经放弃了预言，因此已经成为叛徒。

    《启示录》14:6-9中描述了3位预言天使，这尤其吸引了豪厄尔的注意，不管出于什么原因，总之豪厄尔认为实际上有7个预言。前两个是威廉·米勒关于末日和巴比伦已经沦陷的开创性信息。第三个是艾伦·怀特关于以星期六为安息日的信息；第四个是维克多·豪迪夫的预言；第五个是本·罗登的；第六个是洛伊丝·罗登的。上帝告诉豪厄尔，他现在是第七个预言的传递者，是即将到来的末日之前的最后一位天使。

    1987年豪厄尔从以色列返回后，发生了古怪的一幕。当时仍控制着迦密山的乔治·罗登挖了一名追随者的坟墓，这名追随者叫安娜·休斯，25年前被埋葬，享年85岁。乔治向豪厄尔发起挑战，要求他参加让休斯复活的比赛；而豪厄尔和7名追随者则突袭了迦密山大院并给休斯的尸体拍了照，想以此指控乔治虐待尸体。双方发生了45分钟的枪战，但没有造成死亡或重伤。1988年，豪厄尔和他的7名同伙因谋杀未遂而受审，陪审团宣布7名共犯无罪，对豪厄尔的控诉也因证据不足而流审。

    这一判决结果使乔治的精神开始错乱，法庭档案中记录了他对豪厄尔发出的各种怪诞的诅咒和威胁，他因犯藐视法庭罪而入狱。乔治被监禁后，豪厄尔支付了大卫教总部的房产欠税并搬回总部。乔治在1989年获释后又用斧头谋杀了室友，因为他怀疑室友是豪厄尔派来杀他的；他被关进精神病院，并多次逃离；1995年再次逃离后不久便死于医院，死因是心脏病发作。

    在接下来的几年里，豪厄尔根据《以西结书》《但以理书》《马太福音》《启示录》提炼出他的末日路线图。随着世界末日（他尚未确定日期）的临近，他将带领追随者们前往以色列，在那里，他的大卫教徒将使犹太人皈依基督教，从而引发一支从北方而来的美国领导的联合国部队，大卫教徒将支持现在已经皈依的以色列人并与之共战共亡。虽然没有记录表明豪厄尔读过哈尔·林赛的书，但考虑到这一时期林赛的书的普遍性，因此这些牵强的叙事可能并不是豪厄尔自己从《圣经》中提取出来的。后来，豪厄尔将末日大灾难的地点从以色列转移到美国迦密山。

    豪厄尔的“耶路撒冷综合征”所激发的《圣经》光辉让听众深受震撼。在美国和其他国家的传教之旅中，他让大约100名信徒加入了迦密山。尽管收获了来自澳大利亚和英国的皈依者，但以色列人对此更持怀疑态度，并对《圣经》感到厌倦，因此他没能让以色列人皈依。

    这是一个兼收并蓄的多种族团体，其中包括24名英格兰皈依者。1990年，豪厄尔在加利福尼亚州提交了法庭文件，合法地将自己的名字改为大卫·考雷什。其中“大卫”源自他想象的由自己领导的圣经王国，而“考雷什”是“居鲁士”的希伯来语，像500年前的扬·博克尔松那样，他通过让其他男性成员单身、自己享受一夫多妻制，来满足自己日益增长的性欲。他另外“娶”了5位年龄从12岁到20岁不等的女性，为了避免被起诉重婚，他的男性追随者们在名义上娶了这些女性。他在澳大利亚旅行期间，一对夫妇如此敬仰他的神性，在双方都愿意的情况下，妻子和19岁的女儿都与他发生了性关系，这样她们就可以“为上帝生孩子”[37]。

    为了迎接末日，他要求大院的已婚成员通过性节制来实现净化，并“取消”新迦密山上所有夫妻的婚姻关系，其中可能包括他的5位侧妻和她们的“丈夫们”。另一方面，与考雷什发生性关系成为一项神圣的仪式，在“前夫们”完全同意的情况下，他和许多“前妻们”发生了关系。

    他预言他所生的孩子（至少有12个）将在耶路撒冷的新王国享有优待地位，这使这些追随者很高兴。其中一位“前夫”解释道：“你根本不明白。作为大卫支教的人，我们对性不感兴趣。性如此具有攻击性，如此具有侵略性。考雷什为我们消除了这一负担。”就考雷什而言，他认为，与追随者们生育是他的一项严肃而神圣的责任。不过有时，他的确向他的性伴侣们坦白了自己的性欲，并羞怯地说是上帝使他这样的。

    他解释说，这种恰当的肉体安排源自《启示录》4:4中的一项特别命令，该节描述了24位戴着金王冠的长老，他们向上帝高呼，“让我们成为国民，做祭司，归于神。让我们在地上执掌王权”（5:10）。考雷什在《圣经》解读方面取得了革命性进展：他认为，“让我们成为国民”这几个字意味着《启示录》预言他要成为24位长老的父亲，这24位长老将在千禧年时代统治世界。因此，被选中怀上这24个孩子的妇女是神圣的容器，这就要求考雷什控制她们生活的方方面面，包括她们的饮食。不用说，从来没有哪位著名的圣经学者能够以如此“宜人而时尚的方式”解释《启示录》的第4章。[38]

    考雷什的魅力在于他的“圣经教学”可以持续几个小时，他能准确地回忆和清晰地解释《圣经》。尽管他九年级就辍学了，但他对《圣经》的精彩解释甚至能够吸引那些受过良好教育的人，包括一位哈佛法学院的毕业生和其他几位硕士期间接受过神学培训的人。

    考雷什认为，《启示录》5:1中所提到的7个封印掌握着末日事件和大卫支教通往救赎之路的钥匙：“我看见坐宝座的人的右手中有书卷，其里外都有字，用7个印封严了。”

    考雷什将这本“书”命名为“上帝之意”，它是上帝迄今为止委托给“羔羊”人类的秘密计划。考雷什此时已经将自己认定为“羔羊”，并根据其他《新约》和《旧约》推断出了打开7个印的线索，因此具有向其追随者们揭示“上帝之意”的独特能力。[39]（大卫教认为“基督”是上帝在某项任务中指派的，其有多种动态表现形式：有时是耶稣；有时是羔羊；而根据考雷什的说法，有时是他自己。）[40]

    早在1987年，大卫教就引起了瑞克·罗斯的注意。罗斯是一位高调而又备受争议的“邪教破坏者”，几十年来帮助数百人摆脱了邪教的侵害，并在多个关于邪教的案件中出庭作证。在相关亲属的要求下，罗斯在纽约帮助两名考雷什信徒消除了所受的毒化思想，随后他又接到了其他家庭的求助电话。罗斯列举了“危险性邪教”的6个认定标准：绝对而又不负责任的权威人物、对领导人意愿的满足、对外部信息的过滤、“我们反对他们”的心态、对组织之外的人的诋毁，以及以《圣经》或哲学借口为领导人的财富和性贪婪做辩护。[41]虽然考雷什没有过滤外部信息，但他确实符合其他5个标准。

    从20世纪80年代末开始，考雷什和几位追随者囤积了大量武器，并在一些不需要背景审查的枪支展上交易武器，由此筹集资金。到1991年，一位名叫马克·布劳尔特的澳大利亚追随者，其对考雷什囤积武器、浮夸的神学和对年轻女孩的性剥削的不满，引起了媒体的广泛关注，首先是澳大利亚的媒体，然后是在一个监护权程序中，一名儿童被从迦密山带走引起了美国媒体的关注。布劳尔特和罗斯都向BATF（美国烟酒枪炮及爆炸物管理局）转达了他们的担忧，BATF计划于1993年2月底对该大院进行一次突袭。到那时，BATF至少已获得300件武器，包括60支M16、60支AK-47和30支AR-15突击步枪。[42]

    酷爱枪支的考雷什在这次突袭前曾说过：“如果有人来我家，在我的孩子们面前挥舞枪支，那么他一定会被打爆头。”得克萨斯州的法律允许公民向使用“不正当武力”的警官开枪。[43]

    罗斯还联系了《韦科论坛先驱报》，该报于1993年2月27日发表了《罪恶的弥赛亚》系列的第一篇文章，引发了轰动效应，全国媒体很快对此进行了报道。这些文章控诉考雷什虐待儿童、与未成年女孩发生性关系、对其他男人的妻子拥有神授的权利——他至少有十几个这样的侧妻。[44]

    事实上，得克萨斯州的儿童福利机构在上一年已经调查过该大院，发现孩子们都很快乐，且他们得到了很好的照顾，几乎没有受虐迹象，除了偶尔被用勺子打打屁股，而这在得克萨斯州是可以接受的。但《韦科论坛先驱报》对考雷什性行为的指控基本属实。[45]

    第二天，即2月28日上午9点45分，BATF执行了搜查令，其依据不是《罪恶的弥赛亚》中耸人听闻的指控，而是非法持有枪支。当时，在得克萨斯州拥有和使用自动武器是合法的，但这些武器需要在联邦当局进行合法登记；而考雷什没有登记。[46]

    这时，BATF的无能就体现出来了。它将搜查计划透露给了电视记者，电视记者随后向一名邮递员问路，而这名邮递员正是考雷什的姐夫。BATF通过大院内的一名线人知道，计划已经暴露，因此武装冲突不可避免。但BATF仍决定继续突袭。事先得到风声的考雷什首先下令举行祈祷仪式，然后在各个入口处部署了武装人员。后来，不知道是谁先开的枪，但考雷什在前往其中一个入口时曾经告诉追随者，他要出去和特工谈谈。根据随后的财政部调查，考雷什打开门，问特工们“发生了什么事？”他们回答：“别动！”考雷什砰的一声关上了门，子弹穿透门和窗户从里面射出。另一名从大院外观察的特工报告说，他看到考雷什开了两次枪，这意味着考雷什一定打开了门，但他可能并不是第一个开枪的人，也不是BATF后来声称的对他们进行伏击的人。[47]

    持续的枪战席卷了整个大院，4名特工和6名大卫教徒被杀，其中两名分别是考雷什16个月大的孩子以及另一名教徒的婴孩；几十人受伤。BATF的特工们没有为突袭做充分的准备，以至于大卫教徒的火力和武器补给都超过了他们；弹药不足时，他们便撤退了。[48]

    大多数记录者都认为，如果大卫教徒愿意，那么他们可以杀死更多的BATF特工。后来的政府调查特别指出，大卫教对袭击的反应是一种典型的“防御性暴力”，其特征符合“希望从主流文化中退出的群体”[49]。事实上，那天最引人注目的交流是韦恩·马丁——那位毕业于哈佛法学院的教徒给韦科警局办公室打的一个慌乱的电话。他说：“告诉他们，这里有妇女和儿童，让他们停下来！”——这不像是有人执意于末日暴力。[50]更令人痛心的是，BATF在此之前就经常因一些小型武器违规而进行挑衅性的破门袭击，其知道考雷什经常在附近独自慢跑，想趁这个时候发出逮捕令，以轻易地逮捕他。[51]

    惨败之后，FBI（联邦调查局）解除了BATF的职务。在接下来的51天里，FBI与手腕中弹的考雷什进行了谈判。从一开始，FBI就将围攻原因描述为解救人质，但在BATF突袭后不久，20名儿童在几名成年人的陪同下离开了大院，随后有大量证据表明，剩余的大卫教徒都不想要或不需要联邦政府的解救，而联邦政府则以经典的时代论方式，将这里称为“巴比伦”。

    全国都在关注这次行动；遭到BATF袭击后，考雷什立即通过当地广播电台和CNN（美国有线电视新闻网）与公众直接沟通，沟通中他引用了英王钦定版《圣经》中的长篇大论。虽然他的追随者和基督教神学家对这本《圣经》很熟悉，但对世俗观众来说，他仿佛在讲斯瓦希里语[52]。有一次，他对一位深感困惑的电台采访者说：“我们现在在第五个封印中。”

    神学家詹姆斯·泰伯也听到了这次采访，他在1993年之前并不知道考雷什。2月28日晚，他与几百万美国人一起收听CNN，当时CNN中断了常规广播，报道BATF袭击后的情况。这位年轻的大卫教领袖喋喋不休，泰伯的注意力突然被他提到的7个封印吸引。泰伯不仅知道这是《启示录》里的重要内容，而且还知道“考雷什”是希伯来语中“居鲁士”的意思；泰伯快速地查阅了《以赛亚书》第45章，发现居鲁士已经被上帝认定为弥赛亚，弥赛亚的希伯来语“Mashiach”翻译成希腊语就是“Christos”，也就是“基督”。考雷什称自己为“羔羊”，是基督复临主义的表现——泰伯更加确定，考雷什的信仰基础正是《启示录》。

    随着对峙事态的发展，泰伯很清楚地意识到，FBI对考雷什的末日叙事一无所知。泰伯打电话给另一位神学家菲利普·阿诺德，后者联系了FBI特工，特工们承认，他们已经被考雷什的《圣经》独白弄糊涂了。

    一些特工甚至开始阅读他们酒店房间里的基甸版《圣经》中的末日启示类内容，这是一项甚至让专业神学家都无法承受的任务。正如泰伯所说，特工们疯狂翻阅《圣经》的景象“几乎滑稽可笑，但同时也令人恐惧”。泰伯和阿诺德立即意识到，大卫教徒们认为自己在有7个封印的世界中航行；他们还意识到，第5个封印，即考雷什认为大卫教目前居住其中的封印，是7个封印中最暴力、最危险的一个。

    泰伯和阿诺德认为，要想和平解决对峙事件，就必须在考雷什的信仰基础《启示录》上与他交手。政府允许泰伯和阿诺德接触了一位被监禁的大卫教徒，他叫利文斯通·费根，是考雷什派往迦密山代表其公众形象的。费根证实了泰伯和阿诺德的分析：大卫教徒生活在混乱的第5个封印中，但上帝让他们等待。在4月1日的一个电台脱口秀节目中，这两位神学家出现了，他们详细讨论了《启示录》的末日论，并暗示了和平的结局。他们知道考雷什经常收听这个节目，为了确保考雷什能听到，他们还让考雷什的律师发给考雷什一份录音带。

    4月14日，不管是否由于受到电台节目的影响，上帝终于再次向大卫·考雷什发出了指示，考雷什现在明白了一切。那天，他写了一封信给他的律师们，宣布他正在写一封宗教长信，要向全世界通报“7个封印的解码信息”。写完后，他将公布一份副本。“我会出来，然后轮到你们处置这只野兽。”阿诺德和泰伯很高兴；也许终究可以避免这场即将发生的灾难。然而，这将是全世界从考雷什那里听到的最后一次交流。[53]

    不是只有泰伯和阿诺德理解考雷什的虔诚并希望能够和平解决对峙事件；更多的福音派人士也是如此。在围攻初期，美国全国基督教协进会和浸信会联合委员会的要员们给克林顿总统写了一封信，他们在信的开头衷心地恳求：“请让得克萨斯州韦科的冲突非军事化。”这封信指出“复仇的威胁以及军队和坦克的集结，只会向这群‘忠实的信徒’证明世界的力量都在与他们作对”，并有先见之明地指出“如果政府在这场失败的局面中投入了如此多的资金和信誉，却没能彻底铲除犯罪教派，那就更是一场悲剧”[54]。

    然而，在7周多的对峙之后，在司法部长珍妮特·雷诺的支持下，FBI中的强硬派获胜。雷诺批准直接出击。

    虽然泰伯和阿诺德能否让考雷什走上正途还未确定，但是FBI内的强硬派认定考雷什是一个骗子，以“对《圣经》的胡扯”作为拖延战术；对没有经过神学训练、已经听考雷什讲了几个小时的《圣经》的特工们来说，似乎情况确实如此。[55]FBI的人嘲笑考雷什4月14日的那封信，尤其嘲笑这名九年级辍学者要写一封“宗教长信”的狂妄，认为这又是一种拖延战术。考雷什的律师们说他们正在拟一项投降协议，但是FBI的人根本不理睬。[56]FBI没有针对“预言”问题与考雷什沟通——这对考雷什来说很重要——而是直接切断了大院的电源，摧毁了信徒们停放的汽车，还开始放震耳的音乐，用强光探照灯照射院子。

    4月19日，FBI结束对峙，开始行动。从那天早上6点左右开始，特工们用装甲车反复撞击大楼，并使用CS催泪瓦斯（一种类似于麦加大清真寺的围攻者们使用的化学武器）。中午过后不久，大院起火了；大火迅速蔓延，吞没了大院，烧塌了屋顶。76名大卫教徒，其中包括两名孕妇，在大火中丧生，只有9人逃脱。大多数人从大火中逃到地下室，被发现时已经被烧死。至少有20名成员死于枪杀，其中包括考雷什，显然是为了避免被直接烧死。

    尽管随后的多项政府调查都得出结论，认定大卫教徒在FBI突袭之前就纵火企图自杀，但幸存的大卫教徒坚决否认任何自杀的说法，因为他们认为自杀是一种罪行。他们还说，当FBI切断电源时，他们使用油灯照明，但装甲车将油灯撞倒。此外，4月19日，风速高达每小时30英里，大风很快就通过打开的窗户和被FBI车辆撞出的洞，使火势从一个房间蔓延到另一个房间。火灾发生后两周，FBI将现场夷为平地，但这也没能提高FBI的可信度。[57]

    其中一名幸存者随身携带了一张数据盘，上面有考雷什4月14日的信中所提到的未完成的手稿，而FBI曾经认为所谓的手稿只是一个拖延时间的诡计。打印出来的信一共包括13页纸，其中包括对第一个封印的介绍和讨论；这封长信可能还需要几个星期才能写完。[58]

    用詹姆斯·泰伯的话说：

    考雷什是一个具有个人色彩的《圣经》解经大师。从大卫支教的神学角度来理解，他的信息具备系统性、一致性和内在的逻辑性。然而，对一个不了解《圣经》预言细节的人来说，他的信息以一种典型的、没有停顿的方式传递，并引用了钦定版《圣经》的长篇大论，似乎毫无意义。[59]

    我们永远无法知道，考雷什是否会如4月14日信中所承诺的那样和平投降，但很明显，FBI从未试图认真处理他所关心的神学问题。灾难发生后6个月，司法部成员向副司法部长提交了一份长篇报告，该报告的修订版长达489页。其对神学知识缺乏关注在目录中就能体现出来。目录中列出了宗教学者们的咨询内容，仅有4页，除了学者们的身份介绍之外，几乎没有传达任何有用的信息。这4页之后是心理咨询师的分析内容（共28页），几乎所有的咨询师都认为考雷什是个骗子。其中一位是FBI国家学院的行为学专家兼讲师皮特·斯梅里克，他甚至反对神学家参与这次事件。[60]

    随着对峙事件的推进，大部分公众与FBI一样，认为大卫·考雷什是一个自私自利的骗子。然而，真相可能更加微妙。与乔治·哈德森、塞缪尔·英萨尔、威廉·米勒以及几乎所有群体错觉的传播者一样，考雷什真诚地相信自己的叙事，这种自欺欺人使他对追随者进行灾难性误导的能力更加强大。

    在过去500年中，人类的模仿倾向和寻找引人入胜故事的倾向都落脚在末日错觉上——这是所有叙事中最让人着迷的一种。由此产生的神学叙事通常将其信徒限定在和平、繁荣的社区中，但这种叙事也会时不时跳出正常行为的护栏，由此产生诸如闵采尔领导的农民战争、博克尔松的疯狂的再洗礼派的暴动、文纳的第五君主国派的暴动和考雷什的大卫支教引发的大屠杀等灾难性后果。

    与一个半世纪前的威廉·米勒及其追随者一样，考雷什怪诞的神学、强烈的性欲和与未成年人发生的性关系，使他被媒体和公众妖魔化——这一妖魔化反过来导致了过度执法的悲剧。如果BATF最初的反应能够更加灵活，如果FBI能更加熟悉末日叙事的细微差别，那么韦科对峙事件可能不会以悲剧告终。

    正如结局所体现的，相当一部分公众都将责任归咎于联邦政府，大卫支教的悲剧并没有就此结束。电视直播了这场大屠杀，但大火最重要的目击者——一位名叫蒂莫西·麦克维的年轻退伍军人——近距离目睹了这场大屠杀。麦克维早已经愤怒于上一年的政府围困鲁比山事件。与韦科围攻事件类似，鲁比山事件起源于美国特种部队老兵、福音派教徒兰迪·韦弗受到的武器指控；这场对峙导致韦弗的儿子萨米和持有强烈末日信仰的妻子维姬的死亡。韦科对峙期间，麦克维正在那里分发枪支权利小册子。当韦科的火焰升起时，他发誓要为无辜死亡的男人、女人以及孩子们报仇。在韦科袭击两周年之际，他和同伙特里·尼科尔斯使用卡车炸弹对俄克拉何马市的联邦大楼进行了袭击，这导致168名无辜者丧生。麦克维之所以选择这个目标，是因为大楼里既有FBI办公室，也有BATF办公室，此外，还有大量其他部门的联邦雇员。[61]

    12 “被提”类小说

    末日文学为何畅销

    到了新千年初，大卫支教的灾难和林赛不靠谱的预言再次让人们意识到，过于精确的预言和日期设定是有风险的，时代论者也越来越倾向于一种不受质疑的类型：末日类小说。

    早在20世纪初，基督教作家就开始创作正义者“被提”、反基督者崛起、大灾难、世界末日和最终审判等主题的小说。1905年，俄亥俄州一位名叫约瑟夫·伯勒斯的医生出版了已知最早的被提类小说《泰坦，土星之子》。书名中的泰坦是一个现在大家很熟悉的反基督者的人物形象，“一个年轻的希腊人，他将联合激进的社会党人，在世界范围内致力于摧毁基督教会”。伯勒斯在序言中说，这部小说不仅仅是他想象力的产物，而且打开了“一盏探照灯，照耀出教会未来即将发生的一连串事件”[1]。

    尽管被提之景象和泰坦/反基督者崛起的故事吸引了读者，但整本书的各个章节都在讲述令人腻烦的《圣经》解读。其销量还不错，一共印刷了10次，10年内的销量超过1万本——也很体面，但不能算是一本畅销书。[2]

    但是，这本书展现出了被提类小说和美国福音主义的一般性特征：仇外心理、仇视伊斯兰教以及意识形态和道德上的恐慌。伯勒斯小说中的民族英雄名叫英格兰，孤身一人对抗由反基督者领导的十国联盟。可悲的是，美国因为“2500万在欧洲出生的美国公民”而无法援助母国。美国的“萨克森人”急于帮助英格兰，但被黑暗联盟的势力压倒，现在又被穆斯林“安拉！安拉！安拉！”的高呼声援助。欧洲的穆斯林势力入侵美国，将“萨克森人”文化溶解于外来的社会主义中。[3]

    随后的几十年里，被提类小说家们从时事中提炼出引人注目的叙事，并将其加入小说中，以此改进他们的作品。[4]到20世纪80年代，最重要的时代论小说家是弗兰克·佩雷蒂，他是一位文学巧匠，最有名的著作《当前的黑暗》销量超过200万册。

    这本书首次出版时，正值苏联解体、东欧剧变，时代论者需要找一个新的敌人。他们被迫选定了另一个末日祸根：新纪元运动，尤其是那些散发出一丝撒旦主义气息的运动。

    故事发生在和平美丽的虚构大学城阿什顿，其中出现了两位英雄，虔诚的牧师汉克·布舍和老练的新闻记者马歇尔·霍根，他们与一位极其富有的城市骗子亚历山大·卡瑟夫对抗，后者出于莫名的原因想要控制这座小城镇。

    卡瑟夫的盟友包括一群红眼睛的、鳞片皮肤的长着翅膀并呼吸硫黄的恶魔，他们吸食普通人的意志，但幸运的是，他们特别容易受到虔诚信徒的攻击，尤其是布舍。但这些生物与当地大学的女权主义教授朱琳·兰斯特拉特的撒旦潜力相比，根本不值一提。兰斯特拉特试图通过“神和女神意识入门”等课程破坏霍根女儿的宗教信仰。卡瑟夫密谋陷害布舍和霍根，把他们关进同一间牢房里，但他们联手打败了卡瑟夫及其下属，不管是人类的还是非人类的。[5]

    佩雷蒂所体现的道德恐慌并不是什么新鲜事物。例如，林赛把达尔文、康德、马克思和弗洛伊德的著作看作毁灭现代社会的“思想炸弹”，并引导了一场文化圣战。在撰写《消失的伟大地球》的前一年，他出版了《撒旦好端端地活在地球上》一书，其中有对洛杉矶一位“警察指挥官”的采访，这位指挥官描述了在圣莫尼卡海滩上的一次“接吻行动”，让林赛想起了“非洲野蛮人的宗教仪式”：

    大约有400人紧紧地挤在一起，像一团人，随着鼓声和诡异的音乐晃动……他们中的一些人开始脱衣服。有些人开始沉浸在公开的性行为中，对周围的人视而不见。我们注意到，他们中的大多数人的脖子上戴着饰物。他们信仰精神世界，会欣然承认魔鬼对他们来说是真实存在的。[6]

    历史上，越是在最糟糕的时期，末日运动就越蓬勃发展：巴比伦流亡时期犹太人的被奴役和流亡；两次犹太人反抗罗马的大屠杀和大规模实体破坏；中世纪欧洲宗教战争和俄国大屠杀的恐怖。生活在繁荣、安全、和平的现代国家中的末日信徒，不得不将他们的义愤发泄在不太明显的社会祸患上：占星术、对进化论和地质科学的认知失调、普世主义、性、毒品、摇滚乐和永远存在的撒旦。

    这种末日恐惧的散播远非无害。20世纪七八十年代，时代论者对新纪元的唯灵论和占星术的厌恶，演变成了经典的“道德恐慌”——这是一种群体错觉——对本不存在的撒旦式儿童性侵和大规模谋杀的群体错觉。大量自称撒旦教专家的人，包括重要的执法官员，在全国出名，他们谈到有数万名儿童成为宗教仪式的受害者。据说，撒旦教徒绑架年轻女性，强迫她们成为“生育者”，以此供应婴儿祭品；新生儿在填写出生证明之前就被从医院抱走，这样“他们就不会被怀念”[7]。

    泰德·冈德森就是这样一位“专家”，他曾是FBI的官员，参与玛丽莲·梦露自杀案和约翰·肯尼迪总统暗杀案，并领导FBI的洛杉矶、孟菲斯和达拉斯办事处。冈德森认为，美国每年有4000名儿童死于宗教仪式：

    有人告诉我，这些团体从医院、孤儿院、购物中心和远离街道的地方绑架受害者（通常是婴幼儿），这是很常见的事。据我所知，撒旦主义者已经成功地影响了夏令营的孩子们，近年来，他们通过渗透教练团队以及在美国各地建立幼儿园，集中精力招募少年棒球联盟队员……一位博伊西[8]的警察认为，每年有五六万的美国人失踪，他们成为撒旦团体的人类祭品。大多数受害者被焚烧，因此尸体和证据都没有。我知道加利福尼亚州洛杉矶有一家神秘用品店，其出售便携式火葬设备。我已经向FBI、美国司法部和国会议员报告了这些事实，并建议联邦政府对此进行调查，但我的要求没有得到回应。[9]

    1988年，在全国多家电视台播出的《杰拉尔多·瑞弗拉秀》的节目，推出了一个名为《恶魔崇拜：曝光撒旦的地下活动》的纪录片，其讲述了所谓的大规模谋杀；对这一现象的“调查”甚至出现在主流媒体节目中，如《20/20》和美国国家公共电台的《早间节目》。[10]

    1985年的麦克马丁审判案，是现代社会中最臭名昭著的事件。当时，一位年轻的、患有精神病的母亲（这让人联想到患有精神分裂症的丹尼斯·迈克尔·罗恩）向警方报告，她刚学会走路的孩子在幼儿园被鸡奸。她的故事听上去不像真的：孩子们被引诱到飞机上和隧道里，在那里，马被屠杀，教师装扮成女巫在空中飞行；孩子们在仪式中受到性虐待，其被录制成儿童色情作品。

    幼儿园的经营者是一位很不幸运的女士，名叫佩姬·麦克马丁·巴克利。所谓的撒旦虐待“专家”和社会工作者们聚集到学校，他们很快从孩子们那里提取了关于虐待的描述，但这些孩子年龄太小，根本不能准确表述所发生的事情。这场对巴克利和其他6名幼儿园工作人员的审判耗时7年，耗资1500万美元，并毁掉了被告们的生活：在等待审判的过程中，巴克利在监狱里待了两年，她的儿子待了五年。最终，调查人员没有发现任何隧道或儿童色情制品，孩子们的父母也没有看到过所谓的死马，成为证据的一件黑色长袍最后被证明是巴克利女士的毕业礼服。[11]

    这起审判只是20世纪80年代席卷全美的十几起大规模撒旦主义/托儿道德恐慌事件中的一起，最后判定被告无罪。还有许多其他案例，被告被判重刑，但随后的上诉和调查审判表明了这些控诉的虚假性，也突出了道德恐慌的错觉特征。此后福音派偏执狂又转向了其他领域，各种起诉便消失了。《纽约时报》记者玛格丽特·塔尔博特警告说，“犹豫是一种很难维持的心理状态；人们总是急于用更摩尼教式的愿景取代它”，尤其是当反基督者和末日隐约出现时。[12]

    《当前的黑暗》和佩雷蒂的一系列后续书籍只是一个开始，更大的出版业奇迹还在后面，也就是前文提到的蒂姆·莱希和杰里·詹金斯的《末世迷踪》系列。莱希出生于1926年，就读于南卡罗来纳州格林维尔市的鲍勃·琼斯大学，那里的氛围与他的宗教信仰相符。该校的建校与原教旨主义者强烈反对主流新教教会接受现代科学特别是进化论有很大的关联。在1924年的一次圣经会议上，威廉·詹宁斯·布赖恩俯首向福音传道者鲍勃·琼斯说：“如果学校不停止讲授进化论，那么我们的国家将成为无神论者的国家。”[13]布赖恩非常关注世俗邪恶对美国高等教育机构的影响，而琼斯清晰地听出了布赖恩的担忧，并于1927年创立这所大学。而这一年的布赖恩，作为前国务卿、两届总统候选人、著名演讲家，则继续在臭名昭著的“猿猴诉讼案”[14]中起诉斯科普斯。

    20世纪50年代初，刚刚拿到鲍勃·琼斯大学毕业证的莱希，在全国各地奔波，为各种教堂会众服务，最后在加利福尼亚定居。在加利福尼亚，他为耶稣和养家而奋斗，这种热情可能与他9岁时失去父亲有关。他和妻子一起，参加了电视节目《莱希的家庭生活》，他抨击同性恋、世俗主义和女权主义，成为一名老练的文化战士。多年来，他出版了一系列小说和非虚构类书籍，书中明确警告国家妇女组织、联合国和美国公民自由联盟的危险性。[15]

    20世纪80年代中期，在飞往某个预言研讨会的航班上，莱希注意到航班机长正在和空姐调情。机长戴着结婚戒指，而空姐没有。莱希自言自语道：“如果‘被提’发生了，航班上的上百人就会突然消失；这时飞行员意识到，当他回到家时，他的基督教妻子和儿子也会失踪。那不是很有趣吗？”[16]

    事实上，在莱希的作品之前，已经至少有两个被提类叙事中出现过失踪的乘客和机组人员：塞勒姆·柯班的小说《666》和威廉·詹姆斯的文章《当数百万人消失时》。[17]撇开独创性不谈，历史上最成功的宗教性多类媒体尝试——末世迷踪现象已经诞生。

    莱希最初设想了一部“被提三部曲”，但他知道自己缺乏必要的小说叙事技巧，因此文学经纪人为他联系了一位经验丰富的作家、代笔人——时代论者杰里·詹金斯。后者在其漫长的职业生涯中写了190本书。风度翩翩的莱希在年龄上与詹金斯的母亲相仿，两人立即建立了联系。莱希提供该系列的神学框架，詹金斯撰写书的文本。[18]1995年，两人出版了他们的第一本书，名为《末世迷踪》。

    詹金斯以前的作品，从儿童小说到体育新闻报道，无所不包，他对营利性文学艺术的精通体现于该系列作品的每一页，例如书的开头：

    雷福德·斯蒂尔的心里一直想着那个他从未碰过的女人。当满载747名乘客的飞机在大西洋上空自动驾驶，按照预定路线将于第二天早上6点在伦敦希思罗国际机场降落时，斯蒂尔已经从脑海里抹去了自己还有家庭的事实。春假期间，他将会和妻子以及12岁的儿子在一起，他们的女儿也会从大学回来。但现在，他的副机长正在昏昏欲睡。他正想象着哈蒂·德拉姆的微笑，并期待着快点儿见到她。德拉姆是斯蒂尔航班上的资深空姐。他已经一个多小时没见到她了。[19]

    迄今为止，斯蒂尔一直忠实于他的妻子艾琳。艾琳是一名狂热的宗教信徒，她随时都期待着被提。但现在的斯蒂尔已经鼓起了勇气，将飞行控制装置留给昏昏欲睡的副机长，然后漫步走到飞机上的厨房里与德拉姆幽会。令他失望的是，他发现她正在抽泣且情绪异常激动，她告诉他，数十名乘客失踪，他们的座位空着，只留下了衣服。一个接一个地，醒来的乘客尖叫着，因为他们注意到了消失的同伴和仅剩的衣服。德拉姆请求斯蒂尔做出解释，斯蒂尔假装不知道，但“可怕的是他知道一切。艾琳是对的。他和大多数乘客都在末日前被留在了地球上”[20]。

    全世界陷入了混乱，无人驾驶的飞机像被击中的野鸡一样垂直落下，无人驾驶的车辆冲出公路路肩；几百万人失踪，更多的人死亡。虔诚的地铁司机突然失踪，造成了撞车事故。纽约市作为世界无信仰者的中心陷入交通瘫痪。欧洲关闭了空中交通，因此斯蒂尔将他的飞机开回美国芝加哥的一个运转正常的机场（不同于电影版中不太真实的高速公路着陆）。

    电视新闻镜头捕捉到了被提的怪异景象。例如，一位临产妇女的肚子突然瘪了，婴儿直接升入天堂，与此同时，护士的衣服掉到了地板上，护士也与婴儿一起升入了天堂。回到家后，斯蒂尔发现他的妻子和年幼的儿子都离开了，而他的持有不可知论的大学生女儿克洛伊被留下了。当然，艾琳所在教堂的所有会众也都离开了；牧师意味深长地为剩下的人留下了一张“我告诉过你”的DVD，DVD制作得非常用心，它影响了雷福德·斯蒂尔，使他立即皈依并获得重生。

    巧合的是，斯蒂尔航班上的一位乘客名叫巴克·威廉姆斯，是一位著名记者，正在调查被提事件。大约一年前，他去以色列采访了一位生物学家，这位生物学家不仅发现了一种能将沙地变成肥沃农田的化学肥料，还掌握着另一个神秘而极具价值的科学秘密，正是这个秘密使以色列成为地球上最富有的地区。威廉姆斯在以色列期间，俄罗斯人试图对该国进行大规模核袭击，但他们所有的导弹和轰炸机都奇迹般地在半空中爆炸。

    小说中的第三位主角是反基督者，即一位名叫尼古拉·卡帕西亚的罗马尼亚人，他精通九种语言，外表英俊，能力出众，极富魅力。在他还是一名政界新星时，威廉姆斯采访过他。他迅速升迁，很快成为联合国首脑，并将联合国安理会改组为时代论者所熟悉的十国联盟。卡帕西亚现在是世界上最强大的人，他建立了全球货币体系和经济联盟，实现了核军备的全球性裁减，与以色列签订了七年和平协议，并将现在拥有至高权力的联合国迁移到了古巴比伦所在地区。通常情况下决策缓慢的世界组织，却在几个小时内同意了卡帕西亚提出的所有要求。卡帕西亚随后宣布成立一个统一的世界性宗教。

    威廉姆斯发现了卡帕西亚的真实身份，并开始与克洛伊联手。克洛伊母亲所在教堂的会众几乎都被提了，与之形成鲜明对比的是，克洛伊所有斯坦福大学的左翼朋友们都被留下承受灾难；克洛伊和威廉姆斯重获新生后结婚，并与她的父亲联合组建了“灾难之光”，该力量利用技术魔力与卡帕西亚作战。[21]

    书中到处都是国际主义者的阴谋。几十年前，一位全能型生物技术金融家乔纳森·斯托纳加尔对卡帕西亚的母亲人工授精，于是能够迷惑人类的卡帕西亚诞生，斯托纳加尔的邪恶野心得到推进。军方故意无视专业飞行员的不明飞行物报告。斯托纳加尔重新安排了世界的领导者，几乎每天都制造高层“自杀”事件，但他自己最后也为卡帕西亚所杀。卡帕西亚洗脑了所有目击者，使他们相信斯托纳加尔是自杀的，除了受到上帝保护的威廉姆斯。

    这本书充斥着莱希的摩尼教式文化战士风格：那些反对堕胎并投票支持共和党的人会被提，而仅仅过着舒适生活或阅读新纪元书籍的人将被烧死。

    威廉姆斯引人入胜的探索过程，将原本难以理解的时代主义末日论分成了容易理解的小部分。这本书保持了一种高度传神的叙述流，通过交替的段落既描述了威廉姆斯对卡帕西亚真实身份的不懈追查，又阐述了如今重获新生的斯蒂尔对时代论末日计划的探索。

    1995年版的《末世迷踪》出版后，在接下来的12年里，莱希和詹金斯又写了15部续集和前传，它们共同涵盖了整个时代论序列，从邪恶的卡帕西亚在基因工程中出生，到（最终的）王国降临。

    前几部书的每一部都售出了几十万册，到了第四部，由于口口相传，该系列已经在《纽约时报》畅销书排行榜上名列前茅。[22]到了第八部，首印总量已经达到250万册。2001年“9·11”事件之后，第十部销量飙升，取代约翰·格里森姆的《油漆的房子》成为全年最畅销小说，这是格里森姆自1995年以来首次失去此殊荣。更值得注意的是，畅销书排行榜一般都不会将宗教性书店的销量计算在内，而这本书在宗教性书店的销量占总销量的1/3。大约1/10的美国人读过该系列的书，1/4的美国人知道这些书。[23]

    《末世迷踪》系列的总销量超过6500万册。2002年，莱希和詹金斯登上了《时代》杂志（以及2004年《新闻周刊》）的封面；随后，两位作者分别推出了各自的系列，莱希也从宗教导向的廷代尔出版社转到主流的兰登书屋，后者支付了4500万美元向他预约了另一个系列的书。[24]

    如此巨大的成功引起了时代论者对它的批判性审查。尼古拉斯·克里斯托夫在《纽约时报》中写道：

    美国最畅销的小说系列《末世迷踪》，热情地描绘了耶稣复临并杀死所有非基督徒的情景。世界上的印度教徒、穆斯林、犹太人和不可知论者，以及许多天主教徒和一神论者，都被扔进了永恒的火焰中……天哪，多么令人振奋的一幕啊！

    克里斯托夫随后将注意力转移到林赛的各种有缺陷的预言上，并得出结论，“明明是错的，却罕见性地获得了如此巨大的成功”[25]。另一位世俗评论家则轻蔑地认为詹金斯融合了“杰瑞·法威尔和汤姆·克兰西[26]”的风格。[27]其他一些评论家认为，被提类小说普遍缺乏同情心，它们以极大的快乐描述被烧死的数亿人。

    杰里·詹金斯展现出一个随和、不带意识形态的平民作家形象。在接受《新闻周刊》采访时，他提道：

    平庸的文字，单薄的人物形象——我接受批评。我就是给平庸的人写的。我也是一个平庸的人。我尽己所能写作。我知道我永远不会被尊为经典作家。我不会自称C.S.刘易斯[28]。对于那些文学类型的作家，我很佩服他们。你们知道吗？我也希望自己能足够聪明，能写出一本难读懂的书。[29]

    詹金斯对C.S.刘易斯的提及并不是随意的；根据神学家马克·沃德的说法，“基督教出版细则要求，每一本基督教书中至少有其中一章的开头要引述C.S.刘易斯的话”。詹金斯也没有吹嘘他的读者群，他提到，有一次他在沃尔玛山姆会员店遇到一位购物者，她买了一本他写的书还有一瓶威士忌，詹金斯得出结论：不管以哪种方式，那天晚上她一定睡得很好。[30]

    相比之下，在《新闻周刊》的同一篇文章中，莱希则表达了强硬的神学确定性和对国家文化精英们和宗教精英们的强烈不满：“我试图接触的数百万人都从字面上理解《圣经》。但神学家们把我们的想法搞得一团糟，他们认为我们必须找到背后的神学原因。知识分子瞧不起我们这些普通人，这让我很烦。”[31]

    莱希所说的“普通人”主要居住在美国南部和中西部，占《末世迷踪》系列读者的71%，而在东北部的占比仅为6%。[32]莱希的核心读者区域正是反堕胎、反同性恋的社会保守主义大本营，这些保守主义为美国时代论者和福音派人士注入了能量。杰瑞·法威尔和帕特·罗伯逊都来自弗吉尼亚州，哈尔·林赛来自得克萨斯州，吉米·斯瓦加特来自路易斯安那州，金·贝克来自密苏里州。

    越来越多的时代论教区居民，其中有很多是林赛、莱希和詹金斯的书迷，涌向以色列，特别是耶路撒冷，沉湎于他们的千年信仰；2017年，以色列的360万游客中，大概有1/8是福音派教徒。许多以宗教为导向的旅行者预订了时代论旅行路线，其中最精彩的是参观耶路撒冷圣殿研究院的游客中心，那里展示了为重建圣殿而建造的器皿和工具。用学者约西·梅克尔伯格的话说，大多数游客“完全无视故事中的巴勒斯坦一方。这可是涉及宗教的；有友如此，何需敌人？[33]”[34]

    重建第三圣殿的核心环节是出现一只没有杂色、没有瑕疵且没有负轭的红色小母牛。乳房部位长出的白毛，使梅洛迪小牛失去了作为天启之牛的资格，但它的出生启发了一位更认真的时代论者来到以色列。他名叫克莱德·洛特，是美国密西西比州的一名牧场主，1989年，他读到了《民数记》19章中的相关段落，并思考如何才能繁殖出这样一只完全合格的动物祭品。他认为，这并不难，尽管这种小母牛在欧洲和亚洲很少见，但美国的红色的安格斯牛几乎接近这一要求。

    第二年，他访问了密西西比州农业和商业国际贸易办公室，该办公室向一位国务院贸易专员发送了以下备忘录：

    克莱德·洛特打算提供一种红色的安格斯牛作为《圣经·旧约》中的祭品，它不会有任何瑕疵或浅色毛发，遗传性红色使其有红色的眼睛，黑色的鼻子，一只一岁的小母牛的体重约为700磅。这些牛将很快适应中东气候，而且牛肉质量也很好。[35]

    最终，这份备忘录传到了圣殿研究院的拉比们那里，该研究院院长哈伊姆·里奇曼高兴地注意到，有着《圣经》中著名地点——索多玛[36]之称的地方也饲养了牛。[37]在随后的几年里，洛特和里奇曼在以色列互访。1996年，梅洛迪的出生引起了轰动，这鼓励他们制订一项重大计划：他们要在1997年12月，将500只怀孕的母牛运往危险一触即发的约旦河西岸。该计划可能产生一整群真正的天启之牛，但由于陷入繁文缛节和财政困难而未能启动。洛特哀叹道：

    我内心深处认为，上帝希望我成为以色列的福音，但这很复杂。我们只是还没准备好把红母牛送到那里。如果有一位至高无上的神亲自掌管人类事务，那么这将会发生，而且这将是一个关键性的事件。[38]

    在时代论的计划中，一条细细的红线将“关键性事件”和“灾难性事件”分开。梅洛迪、索多玛和里奇曼，这些关键词概括了一种奇怪的神学戏剧，不同的参与者在同一舞台上表演，并阅读几乎完全相同的剧本。在结束之前，参与者们愉快地支持着彼此的演出，但到结束时，他们的命运完全不同。在犹太教的剧本中，弥赛亚第一次出现，并在耶路撒冷建立了永恒的犹太国家和圣殿；而基督教的剧本中增加了几个场景，上帝再临复仇，使1/3的犹太人放弃旧信仰而改信新信仰，并烧死了另外2/3的犹太人。

    不用说，这出戏涉及大量见利忘义的互相利用。以色列极端分子想获取犹大人和撒马利亚人[39]的《圣经》权利并重建圣殿，但无法获得多数选民对他们的支持，于是他们很乐于接受福音派基督教徒在财政和政治上的帮助，而这些基督教徒则相信，这出戏结束时，一定可以通过犹太人的转皈依或被焚烧而实现对他们的新犹太盟友的清洗。用记者格肖姆·戈伦伯格的话说：

    也许这本无所谓，但有些善意的人认为犹太人重建圣殿将导致世界杀戮，他们有时会插手这些极端分子的事务，因为这些极端分子的行动不是出现在神话领域，而是出现在一个真实的国家，真实的冲突是会夺走真实生命的。[40]

    13 资本主义的慈善家

    从环球电讯、安然公司到互联网泡沫

    在克莱德·洛特和哈伊姆·里奇曼沉溺于各自的基督教和犹太教末日幻想时，美国的投资者们在一场金融投机狂欢中丧失了集体智慧。

    2000年初的一个晚上，在曼哈顿市中心的《财富》杂志办公室工作了一天之后，记者杰森·茨威格乘出租车回家。当出租车驶入车流时，被四位身穿昂贵西装的年轻人拦住，其中一人砰砰地敲着司机的车窗，要求搭车前往只有几个街区远的目的地。当出租车司机告知他已经有乘客时，这位年轻人把一张100美元的钞票扔到司机的脸上，说：“把他赶出去，我们给你100美元。”

    出租车司机关上车窗，正如茨威格先生记录的那样：“我们两个像少女逃离匈人阿提拉[1]的帐篷一样快速逃离了现场。”令茨威格这位老纽约人目瞪口呆的不是那些年轻人用100美元撵他下车，而是他们步行完全可以更快地到达目的地。[2]

    像布朗特、哈德森和英萨尔一样，这些盛气凌人的年轻人也沉醉在暴富所带来的狂妄中，或许也有更世俗的心境。他们很富有，根据物质社会的逻辑，他们聪明而且重要，尽管他们的财富很可能来自狗屎运或者欺诈伎俩，或者两者兼而有之。

    这场让这四位年轻人如此陶醉的金融狂热，大致从20世纪90年代中期持续到2005年，然后在随后的两年半时间里缓慢崩溃，所带来的通货紧缩的时间长度基本上与1929年黑色星期四之后的通货紧缩相同。它带来了广泛的破坏力：总计1亿投资者共损失了5万亿美元（约占股市财富的1/3）。其中最激进的股民是数百万美国人，他们被蒙蔽，认为自己在互联网股票和共同基金中找到了年轻人的财富源泉，就像1929年的埃德加·布朗一样，他们在风暴中失去了大部分积蓄。[3]

    与之前的狂热一样，泡沫的病理生理学基础是海曼·明斯基提出的4个因素——技术替代、信贷宽松、对上一次泡沫的健忘以及放弃旧的估值方法，也适用于本次狂热。

    泡沫的原因是互联网。作为那个时代巨大的技术替代，互联网真的改变了一切。[4]1969年，美国国防部高级研究计划局把加州大学的洛杉矶分校和圣巴巴拉分校，以及犹他大学和斯坦福研究院的4个“节点”联系起来，互联网诞生。这种新的“信息高速公路”刺激了投资者。但由于它不仅速度缓慢而且操作困难，再加上第一代个人电脑的昂贵和笨重，因此在最开始的20年中，互联网对日常生活几乎没有什么影响。最初的常用网络，如美国在线和美联网，一开始甚至没有连接到更广域的互联网，即使后来连接上了，它们的功能也只是像围墙内的花园，不允许直接导航到域外网页。

    这种情况在1990年得以改变。当时，位于瑞士和法国边界、研究高能粒子的欧洲核子研究组织[5]的计算机科学家蒂姆·伯纳斯·李，发明了第一款原始浏览器，他预知性地称之为万维网。那时，他只是试图将该设施中无数台不同的计算机连接起来；但是偶然地，他连接了世界。这轰动了金融市场，也改变了我们的生活方式。[6]

    伯纳斯·李的第一款浏览器在满足普通用途时仍需要很多专业技术，但这个问题很快就被其他程序员改善。1993年，美国伊利诺伊大学的NCSA（国家超级计算应用中心）发布了马赛克浏览器，它是一种基于微软操作系统的、相对容易安装和使用的浏览器。马克·安德森领导了NCSA团队，他当时还只是伊利诺伊大学的学生；毕业后，他搬到了加利福尼亚州，并在那里与持有计算机科学博士学位的吉姆·克拉克一起合作。

    那时的克拉克已经于10年前创立了视算公司，其主要制造高性能计算机。在技术术语上，这种设备是一种“计算机工作站”，是为特定任务设计的一种设备，通常需要运行专有的操作系统和软件。20世纪80年代，工作站制造商赚了几十亿美元。但对大多数公司来说，这种盈利能力只是一个黄金陷阱，因为它们的产品很快就会被功能更强大的个人电脑取代。克拉克预见到了这种结果，但他无法说服公司管理层相信这一点，于是他沮丧地离开了视算公司，因为他不仅对自己一手创建的公司偏离方向而感到愤怒，而且不满于自己的股份仅值2000万美元，用他自己的话说：“在一个创造了巨大个人财富的行业里工作了十几年，相对于付出的创造力、领导力和辛勤工作，以及承担的风险，这一股值较少。”[7]他发誓，下次一定要有更多的控制权，得到更好的回报。

    1994年，克拉克和安德森成立了马赛克通信公司。伊利诺伊大学不满于他们使用马赛克这个名字，要求他们换个新的公司名称；于是他们改名为网景通信公司。和马赛克通信公司一样，网景通信公司的浏览器也是免费提供的，并很快传播开来。到1995年中，数以百万计的用户为电脑屏幕右上角带有字母N的地球图标而兴奋不已，这意味着他们在线且可以从全球任何地方访问网页。

    明斯基的第二个病理生理学因素——信贷宽松，为泡沫提供了原始燃料。在现代社会的部分准备金体系中，一国的中央银行——就美国而言是美联储——扮演着货币供应的看门狗角色。美联储的任务是提供充足的货币供应，进而保持经济繁荣，但美联储还有一个任务，用前任主席威廉·麦克切斯尼·马丁那句著名的话说，就是要“在聚会开始时把大酒杯拿走[8]”[9]。

    大多数情况下，美联储委员会关心两个问题：以GDP增长和失业率衡量的整体经济状况，以及控制通货膨胀。股票价格不太受到关注，而且经常成为前两个问题的“无辜旁观者”。

    到了20世纪中期，美联储的主要工具是联邦基金利率，即成员银行之间的隔夜拆借利率，这一利率事实上成为政府证券的短期利率。当作为安全性证券的政府证券的利率比较高时，这会吸引投资者买入，进而导致资金从股票等风险资产中转移出来，并使股票的价格降低；相反，当美联储降低利率时，寻求更高回报的投资者会购买股票，从而提高股票价格。[10]

    20世纪90年代初，一场相对严重的经济衰退导致了两个事件。首先，它使乔治·布什没能连任；正如胜利者比尔·克林顿的竞选口号所言：“笨蛋，关键是经济！”其次，经济衰退引发了美联储大幅放松信贷，这助长了股市泡沫。

    在艾伦·格林斯潘担任主席期间，美联储通过买进美国国债来应对20世纪90年代初的经济衰退，这使联邦基金利率从1990年1月的8.3%降至1992年底的3%左右，并持续了整整两年。降低的利率助长了初始阶段的股市繁荣，投资者们开始谈论“格林斯潘看跌期权”，即美联储主席积极维持一种高股价状态。[11]

    按理说，美联储应该在1997年左右“把大酒杯拿走”，那时经济运转顺利，通货膨胀率下降到3%左右。似乎格林斯潘正打算这么做，但被一系列事件打断。随后发生的事情与20世纪20年代本杰明·斯特朗通过降低利率来保护英镑、不经意间引发了美国股市狂热非常相似。

    1997年和1998年，一系列全球性事件使美国的大酒杯保持满溢。货币危机和债务危机席卷了全球金融市场，从泰国货币——泰铢的崩溃开始，像多米诺骨牌一样蔓延到马来西亚、印度尼西亚和中国香港。最初，不断演变的传染并没有引起格林斯潘的警戒，因为这些亚洲经济体的规模相对较小。但到1997年底，韩国，一个驻有数万美国军队的富裕国家，也陷入金融危机，格林斯潘被迫做出反应。美联储和财政部强有力地支持美国银行以尽可能低的利率保持向韩国贷款，而且不仅对韩国，对其他亚洲国家也是如此。国外较低的利率降低了这些外币的汇率，使美元升值。早在1997年初的经济繁荣时期，美联储已经开始提高利率，但为了防止美元升值，还是维持了相对稳定的低利率；与20世纪20年代一样，持续相对较低的利率助长了当时本已存在的股市狂热。

    国际金融的多米诺骨牌继续倒下；1998年底，俄罗斯经济状况恶化，导致债务违约和卢布贬值。这直接影响到了美国，因为有一家大型知名美国对冲基金公司——长期资本管理公司[12]在俄罗斯国债上下了很大的赌注。该基金公司持有的大量债券价值蒸发，这威胁到了美国金融体系的其他部分，并重创了世界各地的股价（见图13-1）。

    图13-1 1997—2000年的联邦基金利率

    那时，格林斯潘已经获得近乎神话般的“大师”地位，市场把20世纪90年代的经济繁荣归功于他，正如鲍勃·伍德沃德后来将他的畅销书以这位主席的名字命名一样。格林斯潘认为，长期资本管理公司的倒闭可能带来灾难性的后果，威胁他的良好声誉。他组织私人银行对该公司进行救助，还通过大幅降低联邦基金利率放松信贷，并将其维持在低水平整整一年。这又把股票价格推到了最高点。[13]

    到20世纪末，泡沫的第三个病理生理学因素——金融健忘症——已经发展了几十年。1929—1932年的熊市如此猛烈地侵蚀了家庭和机构的财富、灼伤了国民的心理，以至于在此后的几十年里，股票都被看作不稳健的投资；比如，直到1945年，根据可靠的统计数据，个人投资在股票上的平均金额（主要统计富人的储蓄）仅在30美分左右，而且持有大量股票的主要是少数几家企业养老基金。

    1929—1932年股票熊市发生时，虽然只有约10%的美国人持有股票，但是随后的大萧条影响了所有人。[14]几乎所有特定年龄的美国人身上都有大萧条时期留下的阴影（就本文作者而言，即使他母亲在餐馆里用餐后剩下一点儿芦笋，也要仔细包装并拿回家）。对几百万美国人来说，1929—1932年的残酷记忆仍然历历在目，这在一代人的时间甚至更长的时间里削弱了股票的吸引力。

    不过20世纪50年代末至60年代初，确实发生了一场类似的股票泡沫。围绕几十年前物理学家威廉·肖克利领导的贝尔实验室团队发明的半导体晶体管，越来越微型化、功能越来越强大的电子设备开始爆炸式发展。到1959年，在公司名字后加上“tronics”（英文单词“电子”的后七个字母）有助于激发公众的兴趣，并使股价上涨，就像几十年后在公司名字后加上“.com”的做法一样。美国音乐协会是一家专注于留声机和黑胶唱片的制造商，它只需将名字改为“Space-Tone”，就以7倍的价格上市了。还有一些类似的公司名称，包括“Astron”“Vulcatron”，还有几个以“sonics”结尾的名称，最令人印象深刻的是“Powertron Ultrasonics”。[15]投资银行大量配股给内部人士，同时限制广大公众可购买的数量，这更激发了公众的热情。1962年，像所有以前的泡沫那样，狂热的买主都已耗尽，公众热情崩溃。[16]

    电子狂热只涉及股票市场的一小部分，而且由于那个时代持有股票的美国人相对较少，因此它在公众记忆中几乎没有留下什么持久的印象。[17]到20世纪90年代，对普通美国人来说，1929—1932年的全社会股票泡沫已经过去了两代人的时间。当泡沫再一次来临时，只有三类小群体有能力识别：拥有完整记忆的90多岁的老年投资者；经济史学家；那些阅读了《非同寻常的大众幻想》、吸取并保留了前三章教训的人。

    20世纪90年代，泡沫的第四个病理生理学因素，是放弃传统的股票估值标准。20世纪20年代末，不仅最优秀的股票产生了稳定的利润流，而且除了少数几家“高科技”公司（最著名的是美国无线电公司和雷明顿兰德公司）外，其他所有公司都提供了健康的股息。[18]相反，到20世纪90年代，只有少数几家新技术公司的收入足以承担其人员和设备的巨额支出。至于股息，科技类股票投资者认为，那是遥远的马鞭和马车时代的遗留物。微软于1986年首次向公众发行股票，但直到2003年才宣布派息；截至本书撰写之时，互联网的两大赢家亚马逊和谷歌从来没有派过息。20世纪90年代，不知何故，投资者们认为，收益和股息根本不重要；他们认为，公司股票的真正价值在于一种更模糊的衡量标准，即能否博得数百万眼球的关注，或是否有数十亿次点击量。

    正如20世纪那位伟大的投资者约翰·邓普顿所说：“英语中最昂贵的一句话是‘这次不一样’。”20世纪90年代，新兴的数字世界看起来确实不一样，许多曾经听起来最疯狂的承诺都在那时兑现了：几乎覆盖全球的宽带，无处不在、几乎免费的语音和视频电话，以及吞噬了许多传统实体店的高效的在线购物环境。

    遗憾的是，这些技术的普通投资者却并未获利。在20世纪90年代末上市的数百家公司中，只有少数幸存下来。幸存下来的，只有亚马逊一家成为主导性经济力量，但即使是亚马逊，也尚未显示出投资者对其零售业主导地位所期望的收益。[19]

    和英国铁路泡沫以及20世纪20年代的泡沫一样，20世纪90年代的科技繁荣尽管打击了金融投资者，但也给社会留下了宝贵的基础设施。如上文所述，我们根据盈利能力和社会效益构建了一个三级金字塔式结构，以理解这些泡沫公司（见图13-2）。

    图13-2 不同等级的泡沫公司

    金字塔最顶端的公司不仅造福于社会，也让投资者们更富裕了，比如东印度公司或英格兰银行，到目前为止，还有亚马逊和谷歌。金字塔第二层，或许是最重要的一层，是那些让社会受益却让投资者赔钱的公司，比如乔治·哈德森的铁路帝国和塞缪尔·英萨尔的公用事业投资公司。

    美国环球电讯公司是科技泡沫时代的这种公司的典型代表。当今全球50万英里的海底光缆，大部分铺设于1998—2002年的互联网投资热潮时期，其中的近1/3是由加里·温尼克贡献的。

    温尼克曾是一名债券销售员，是“垃圾债券之王”、被判重罪的迈克尔·米尔肯的门徒。他与商业祖先布朗特、哈德森和英萨尔有着同样的天赋：能通过股票和债券从轻信的投资者那里筹集几十亿美元。

    不幸的是，他没有哈德森和英萨尔那样的商业头脑；在1997年成立环球电讯公司之前，正如一位记者所说，他掌握的电信知识并不比“打推销电话的能力”多很多，此外他也从未经营过大型企业。[20]环球电讯公司的失败是由于他的无能和渎职，还是由于运气不好，这仍然没有定论。虽然温尼克倾向于不参与公司的日常事务，但他和其他高级管理人员确实在公司倒闭前有意识地抛售了数亿美元的股票。民事诉讼和监管行动剥夺了他的大部分非法所得，但最终检察官并没有起诉他。

    温尼克的罪责并不是我们讨论的重点。尽管环球电讯公司严重冲击了投资者的财富，但它为当今互联世界的形成做出了不小的贡献。在围绕环球电讯和其他互联网股票的市场狂热达到顶峰时，环球电讯公司的市值超过400亿美元，其中温尼克拥有60亿美元。（1999年的《福布斯》封面大肆宣扬他的“光速致富”。）[21]

    他的项目既没有欺诈也不缺乏远见，因为他对全球网络带宽重要性的评估是正确的。但是，和商业史上许多有远见的人一样，他低估了两个会导致利润降低的问题，而这两个问题会时刻存在。首先，利润会带来竞争，使供应增加，进而压低价格和随后的利润，这和死亡以及税收一样，是必然存在的。例如，温尼克在1997年完成了两条大容量、跨大西洋的光缆的铺设，但随后6年内又出现了10条竞争性电缆。其次，技术进步也增加了商品的供应，进一步压低了价格。就海底电缆而言，在随后的几十年中，“干设备”（即电缆两端的光发射机和光接收机）的改进使原来铺设的电缆的承载能力增加了7~10倍。尽管2003—2014年没有铺设新的跨大西洋电缆，但现在的全球数据流量大约比2002年大1000倍；平均而言，目前世界海底电缆容量的利用率只有不到1/4。[22]

    像泡沫时期总是会发生的那样，投资热情导致环球电讯公司的投资者为自己的行为付出了巨大的代价。2002年1月28日，该公司申请破产，随后两家亚洲公司用2.5亿美元收购了温尼克公司的控股权，这个价格相当于1便士兑1美元。虽然重组后的该公司最终仍然运营着互联网主干网的一大部分，但最初的股东们只获得了法律和解中的一些碎屑，其他什么也没有得到。

    这场巨大损失的波及范围很广：除了个人投资者，养老金和共同基金池损失了几十亿美元。小学教师琳达·洛奇在股票交易中损失了12万美元，在评论温尼克先生适时卖掉他自己的股票时，她说：“我不知道这家公司的管理层为什么能做得这么好，而小股东们却做得这么差。”[23]环球电讯公司的许多员工在他们的401（k）计划[24]中持有本公司的股票，他们比洛奇更悲惨，不仅失去了储蓄，还失去了工作。[25]

    除了环球电讯公司的高管，还有一些人通过适时出售股票而获利。1999年3月，美国前总统乔治·布什向该公司高管发表了演讲；代替8万美元的演讲费，他持有了该公司的股票，并于几个月后以大约450万美元的价格出售了这些股票，据《华尔街日报》推测，这些股票可能用于支付他在肯纳邦克波特镇[26]上公寓的维护费用。[27]

    虽然环球电讯公司严重损害了像洛奇和公司普通员工这类人的金融利益，但它通过提供超量带宽使世界受益。金字塔的最底层就不是这样了，几百家互联网公司消失得无影无踪，不仅践踏了投资者，也没有留下任何社会价值或经济价值。在这些公司徒劳地追求关注度的过程中，可能最精彩的故事就是韦伯万事件了，它是一种1995年之前所无法想象到的大惨败。

    路易斯·博德斯是一个有着古怪想法的20多岁的技术人员。他先是创立了一家同名连锁书店。1997年，从书店领域退出5年后，他成立了一家投资公司。当时，他从网上订购的稀有香料邮包到达他的家门口（当时网购还是很新奇的事物），他脑中闪过一个想法：能不能说服美国人通过这样的方式购买食品？

    博德斯的理想很大。为了向几百万消费者提供生鲜商品，他需要建立一个新颖而庞大的物流系统。他在奥克兰建立了第一个配送设施，其面积是一个标准超市的20倍，铺设了4.5英里长的传送带，可以运送各种各样的生鲜食品，包括700多种肉类和鱼类。[28]然后他聘请了全国最大的建筑公司柏克德工程，以超过10亿美元的总成本，计划打造一个由26个类似建筑群组成的全国性网络，这对一家在上一年还不存在的公司来说，是一个了不起的成就。

    博德斯曾在麻省理工学院学习数学，他预计，每个配送设施每天能完成825份订单，每年收入将达到10亿美元的1/3；人工“挑拣者”们将被策略性地安置在一组装有食品的旋转传送带中间，他们将把顾客购买的东西放在一起，然后通过几英里长的传送带将食品送到空转的冷藏卡车上，这些食品可以在订购后一小时内送到家。由于规模大，预计韦伯万公司只需要将收入的不到1%用于实体仓库，而即将过时的传统超市的这一比例则为6%。博德斯计划在征服零售食品行业之后，转向视频、消费电子产品和干洗行业。[29]

    韦伯万公司吸引了高盛、甲骨文、惠普、奈特·里德等一系列公司的金融支持，同时也引发了一场公众投资狂热。为了继续煽动这场狂热，其在首次股票发行时，只出售了公司的一小部分股票；如果出售的是全部股票的话，那么总市场估值将达到84亿美元，是西夫韦[30]公司的一半，这对最终建成时将以26个超大型超市为中心的运营来说并不差。[31]

    两个问题注定了这是一次冒险。第一，韦伯万并不是第一个互联网食品销售商；它有几个竞争对手，其中包括规模更大、更成熟的家用杂货公司HOMG，HOMG背后的支持者包括亚马逊的杰夫·贝佐斯。第二，系统不好用；这项未经测试的技术被证明不听使唤，而且即使系统运行顺利，消费者也不相信该公司能为他们挑拣出易腐产品并做到按时交付。韦伯万和HOMG都公布了多月的亏损。[32]

    HOMG管理得更好，但韦伯万激发了更多的热情，因此也吸引了更多的资金，这意味着HOMG首先出现资金枯竭。实力较差但资金较多的韦伯万并购了HOMG，但这更加速了新合并的公司的现金消耗；2001年7月，该公司宣布破产，几十亿财富蒸发，3500名员工失业。[33]

    20世纪90年代的三级泡沫金字塔，坐落在渎职和欺诈的泥潭中，就像安然公司那样。作为美国历史上欺诈金额最大的企业之一，安然导致的投资者损失高达700多亿美元。这一事件充分体现出那个时代一夜暴富的氛围。与讨人喜欢、乐善好施又有远见的温尼克不同，安然的管理层有意识地实施了大量制造金融泡沫的犯罪行为，其主角们扮演了典型的恶棍角色，如道貌岸然、有社会野心的肯尼斯·莱，运动机能亢奋的杰弗里·斯基林，还有阴暗、犯盗窃罪的安德鲁·法斯托。

    与环球电讯和互联网公司不同，安然最初从事的是经济中最不起眼的商品之一——天然气的经营[34]。20世纪中期之前，天然气经常被当作废物烧掉。相比之下，该公司的负责人则很耀眼，用记者彼得·埃尔金德和贝萨尼·麦克莱恩精辟而又令人难忘的话来说，他们是“房间里最聪明的人”[35]。

    1942年，肯尼斯·莱出生于阿肯色州极度贫困的农村地区，他在11岁之前都没有住过有卫生间的房子。然而，从11岁起，他的好运来了，他跟随父亲搬到密苏里州哥伦比亚市，在那里，家里的3个孩子都以很低的学费进入公立密苏里大学。莱在那里遇到了经济学家平克尼·沃克，后者给他带来了巨大的好运。

    毕业后，莱开始在埃克森公司的前身——亨伯尔石油公司工作，并通过在夜校学习获得了经济学博士学位。接着，他加入海军服兵役，服兵役期间的1969年，沃克帮他在五角大楼获得了一份武器采购工作。此后不久，尼克松总统任命沃克为联邦能源委员会成员，莱作为沃克的助手一同前往。这位年轻的助手给尼克松留下了如此深刻的印象，尼克松任命他担任内政部主管能源事务的副秘书长。

    公用事业贯穿公共通行权。自19世纪末其诞生以来，各州和联邦政府就对该领域进行严格监管。但到了20世纪70年代初，管制开始放松了。依靠在华盛顿的人脉，莱在得克萨斯州和佛罗里达州的能源公司找到了自己的定位，最终，1984年，作为休斯敦天然气公司的CEO，他策划了与内布拉斯加州奥马哈市的著名管道公司北方内陆公司的合并。莱聘请的咨询公司给合并后的公司命名为恩朗（Enteron）；令人尴尬的是，《华尔街日报》指出，这个新名字是“胃肠道”的同义词。于是这个名字被缩短为安然（Enron）。[36]

    莱从管制放松中看到了巨大的利润。可悲的是，他身上的某些特征将会使“安然”这个名字变成公司渎职行为的同义词：他热爱奢华和威望，这一弱点使他无法控制他雇用的那些才华横溢而又傲慢自大的年轻人；他具有一种道德上的盲目性，将自己的私利等同于公司和整个社会的利益。由于需要花费更多的时间与华盛顿特区和曼哈顿的高层们交往，他在公司总部休斯敦的时间越来越少，于是他逐渐退出了公司的日常运营。尽管莱获得了丰厚的薪酬（2001年超过1亿美元，包括股票期权和“贷款”），但他的社会和物质野心推动他陷入债务深渊，到安然破产时他的债务超过1亿美元。[37]

    我们从安然公司的喷气式飞机上可以窥见公司的行为。购买公务机本身并不意味着公司管理不善，更不意味着渎职或过度使用。[38]但安然公司中有六辆车被莱的妻子和孩子视为他们的私有财产，即“家庭出租车”，这支车队在公司内部广为人知。在超级富豪中，飞机的大小、航程和速度代表着飞机所有者的权势等级；在20世纪和21世纪之交，私人航空领域的典范是配有三个引擎的猎鹰900。安然公司有两架猎鹰900，莱的家庭优先使用。例如，1999年的某一次，莱的女儿罗宾打算从法国返回时，公司派了一架猎鹰900专门过去接她。2001年，公司即将崩溃，莱热情地拉住即将成为CEO的杰弗里·斯基林，询问他对另一架新订购飞机的内饰的意见。[39]

    莱的家庭车队影响了其他高管的消费行为。高管中的许多人拥有豪华车队、多套豪华度假住宅和位于曼哈顿的公寓。公司也有一个过度消费文化的例外：冷静而能干的高管理查德·金德，其地位仅次于公司CEO。但莱迫使他以个人原因为由辞职。随着1996年金德离开安然，阻止公司崩溃的最后一道防线也随之而去。（金德随后帮助成立了另一家能源公司金德-摩根。该公司没有私人飞机，当金德需要私人飞机时，作为一个亿万富翁，他就自己掏钱租一架。）[40]

    莱的公司愿景远远超出了国内的管道领域；他希望通过雄心勃勃的海外基础设施项目和进军诱人的能源期货交易新领域，扩大公司的业务空间和范围，一旦成功，他就要从头开始创建一个互联网带宽的期货市场。一旦公司征服了这些行业，他就将继续进军钢铁和造纸等大规模工业，以及货物运输等服务业领域。[41]为了实现这一愿景，公司需要借入大量资金，而这又需要证明其早期盈利的能力；由于公司的新项目实际上都遭受了巨大的损失，因此只要制造表面上的利润就足够了。

    接下来杰弗里·斯基林出场了。他在新泽西州和芝加哥郊区长大，在20世纪70年代初就读于南卫理公会大学，学习电气工程。他很快发现，金钱能使他感到兴奋，而电路却不能。在某节课上，他偶然发现了一篇博士学位论文，该论文描述了如何将期货合约“证券化”并使其成为可以销售的金融产品，这种方式类似于后来的次贷危机中抵押贷款被打包出售给轻信的投资者。斯基林发现了一种从数学抽象中赚钱的方法，而他非常擅长数学抽象。此后不久，他进入哈佛商学院，并于1979年以优异的成绩毕业。

    作为哈佛商学院的顶尖毕业生，斯基林顺利进入了麦肯锡公司。在最近的丑闻之前，麦肯锡公司是全球最负盛名的咨询公司，在那里，冷静的抽象推理比其他所有技能都更受重视。不到10年的时间，斯基林就升职为休斯敦办事处的负责人，经常为安然公司提供咨询服务。1990年，安然公司将他从麦肯锡挖了过来。

    和其他大多数公司一样，安然在天然气销售收入入账时才将其计入财务报表。对斯基林这样的高级咨询行业从业者来说，这种似乎过时的、仅仅从销售一种商品中获利的观念是有问题的。例如，他设想，管道公司与其客户之间的长期合同，可以像其他证券一样在金融市场上买卖。更为关键的是，在收入入账时才计入财务报表，这不符合斯基林的智慧。如果客户签订了未来十年购买天然气的合同，他就认为可以将收入提前计入。

    这种被称为“按市值计价”的会计技术，正处于合法性的边缘，因此在使用之前，他请求美国证券交易委员会许可。令人难以置信的是，1992年，委员会竟然给出了许可。斯基林获得了一种最接近印钞许可证的东西：签署长期合同，一次登记所有收入，从而立即报告可观的收入，根据这些虚假的收入，再去借入资金建设天然气输气管道，凭此管道，就可以签订更多的合同，然后立即计入更多的未来收益，并为进一步扩张借入更多的资金。[42]这就好比洛克希德·马丁公司计划在未来10年内以超过1万亿美元的价格向美国武装部队出售2500架F-35战斗机，签署协议后立即登记收入，根据这些预计收入借入资金生产汽车，然后登记汽车未来销售的预计收入，再建立一个全国范围内的连锁医院。

    安然公司已经借入了大量资金拓展公司业务，其经营范围远远超出了普通的天然气输送。在接下来的10年中，其投资项目还包括：在孟买南部的达博尔建造了一座大型燃气发电厂；成立了阿祖里克斯，即一家遍布全球的水务公司，远至罗马尼亚、秘鲁和摩洛哥；建立了天然气交易平台和电力交易平台，其中最诱人的，是为科技投资者建立互联网容量交易平台（最后一个平台意味着，其与温尼克的环球电讯公司有业务联系）。

    和温尼克一样，安然的员工擅长会计骗术，迷惑了那些粗心的股票分析师和小投资者。也和温尼克一样，安然的员工中很少有人懂得如何经营实体企业。安然的每一个项目几乎都损失了大量资金，其中最引人注目的是达博尔发电厂，其发电成本如此之高，以至于当地供电局拒绝使用，随后该发电厂被搁置了5年。安然水务公司的国际业务拓展，由一位名叫丽贝卡·马克的极具魅力的高管负责，但她对于水务事业几乎没有任何经验，该公司最终以更快的速度走向崩溃。最令人难以置信的是，安然公司签订了向全世界2.8万个地点供应电力的合同，这被休斯敦总部的理智者嘲笑为“见鬼的业务”，由于其在电力方面缺乏经验，因此必须雇用技术和管理专家来完成这项工作。尽管斯基林设想了一个高科技的全球宽带交易平台，但据说他对此一窍不通，甚至必须依赖于秘书为他打印电子邮件并为他打开电脑终端。[43]

    斯基林没有向股东坦白公司的损失和债务负担，而是命令28岁的新员工安德鲁·法斯托隐瞒这些损失和债务。为了借入资金，公司不仅需要证明有能力盈利，还需要证明没有背负已经存在的债务。斯基林此前已经通过“按市值计价”的会计技术“解决”了盈利问题；法斯托将通过隐藏公司的大量已存在债务来解决借款难题。

    法斯托的前雇主是大陆银行，他在那里学到了贷款证券化方面的专业知识。证券化涉及贷款和其他债务的组合，这些组合可以出售给买家和交易员。这些高度复杂和模糊的安排，即所谓的SPE（特殊目的实体[44]），承担了安然迅速增加的债务，因此这些债务在理论上已经从安然的账目中消失了；分析师、机构投资者、小投资者，甚至安然自己的董事会，在公司资产负债表上已经看不到债务，这一骗局让人觉得该公司似乎没有负债累累。

    法斯托建立了3500多个这样的SPE公司，名字诸如马林、皮鞭、勇敢的心、猛禽、绝地武士、楚巴卡（以星球大战中长着毛发的角色楚巴卡命名）以及LJM1、LJM2和LJM3（LJM分别是法斯托的妻子以及两个孩子名字的首字母）。还有许多SPE公司专门将资金从股东、贷款人，甚至公司内的较低级别员工那里，转移到法斯托和其他高管的个人账户。[45]

    斯基林和法斯托的会计骗局，将安然的债务垃圾一脚踢开。这些垃圾形成了一个巨大的垃圾堆，最终无法再隐藏。值得注意的是，为什么股东和分析师花了这么长时间才意识到这件本来应该很快就显现的事情？

    最终第一个意识到并采取措施的人是詹姆斯·查诺斯，他运营着一个对冲基金，专门从事所谓的“卖空”交易。在正常情况下，股票购买者希望他们可以低价买入，然后高价卖出，从而获利。与直觉相反，“卖空”交易者可以做相反的事情：先以高价卖出，然后以较低的价格回购股票以获利。为了做到这一点，其必须首先向其他人借股票；股票出借者收取一定的费用，而借入者独自享有卖空操作的回报以及风险。[46]

    查诺斯并不是第一个意识到安然财务报告有问题的分析师；但他的优势在于更好地处理了社会公认的安然叙事与相反的财务数据之间的认知失调，并采取了行动，即做空安然的股票。[47]安然所取得的贷款取决于其信用评级，这又取决于法斯托能否利用各个SPE公司隐藏安然的债务。这些贷款还取决于安然的股票价值，因为股票是贷款的抵押品；当欺诈的消息最终传出时，公司股价下跌，银行收回贷款，纸牌屋倒塌。2001年10月16日，安然终于坦白了自己的损失；而在6周后公司宣布破产之前，肯尼斯·莱一直对公司的前景保持乐观。当他和助手们根据《美国破产法》第十一章的规定，前往纽约提交申请破产保护的文件时，他们乘坐公司的喷气式飞机飞过去，并入住了奢华的四季酒店。[48]

    和查理·米切尔的纽约城市银行的倒闭一样，安然的倒闭打击了内部普通员工，这些员工被鼓励用401（k）计划账户里的资金购买公司的股票；例如，2005年，2万名前安然员工获得了8500万美元的集体诉讼赔偿金，这相当于1美元的实际损失只能收回几分钱。（这笔钱是保险公司和银行出的，而不是从倒闭的安然公司那里收回的。）[49]

    雪上加霜的是，在股价跌幅最大时，员工们在一个月内都无法出售用退休账户购买的股票，名义上是因为账户在不断发生变化。但另一边，安然的高层在股价崩溃前集体抛售了股票，例如，斯基林卖出了高达7100万美元的安然股票。当另一家公用事业公司德能提出并购安然时，安然的高管们要求它承担总额超过1亿美元的奖金和支出，其中大部分是要支付给莱的，于是德能拒绝了并购。[50]

    与布朗特、哈德森和米切尔不同，这一次，正义得到了伸张：包括斯基林和法斯托在内的多名高管都被判入狱（他俩的刑期分别为11年和6年），而莱在宣判前死于心脏病发作。

    安然事件和那个时代的其他类似丑闻，如丹尼斯·科兹洛夫斯基的泰科国际公司和伯纳德·埃伯斯的世界通信公司的丑闻事件，都处于会计操纵监管调整的转折时期。

    1993年，为了控制过高的高管薪酬，美国国税局将CEO薪酬的公司税扣减额限制在100万美元[51]；这推动了CEO的报酬形式转向股票期权，随着股价的上涨，股票期权将更有价值。这项政策的出发点是好的，从理论上讲，期权支付使CEO和股东的利益一致；但这是“意外后果定律”[52]的一个经典案例，期权支付也让CEO为使公司显示出持续而可靠的收益增长而伪造季度收益数字。

    在其他情况相同并给定平均收益水平的条件下，将两个季度的收益进行微小调整，就会使股票更有价值。由于现实中的公司收益波动很大，这种对收益报告进行的别有用心的“管理”，对很多CEO来说太有吸引力了。

    这种做法合法但不正派。通用电气就是一个典型，作为一个正常运营而又经营广泛的企业帝国，会不可避免地产生一些损失，通过将损失从一个季度重新安排到另一个季度，就可以产生平稳、可靠的收益增长流。[53]这种伎俩的发明者是杰克·韦尔奇，他没有做什么不同寻常的事情，更不用说欺诈了；相反，金融界和大众媒体都赞颂他，认为他是第二个托马斯·爱迪生。

    尽管如此，但有一点无论怎么强调都不为过，即19世纪的铁路、20世纪初的无线电和汽车等革命技术所产生的股票泡沫，为推动经济发展和提高社会福祉提供了自由流动的资本。

    20世纪90年代的互联网泡沫也是如此。尽管金字塔底部留下的是没什么价值的公司，如韦伯万，以及欺诈性公司，如安然，但将这些都考虑进去，当今不可估量的在线知识、娱乐、购物和网银交易，依然受益于这场泡沫中对技术进行的投资——其中大部分来自遭受损失的投资者。因此，泡沫投资者为了更大的公共利益而无意识地、悲惨地牺牲了自己的财富，把他们称为资本主义不知情的慈善家，这也不算太牵强。

    到了20世纪末，大型投资银行——为新公司和已存在的公司制造股票和债券的机构——已经成为泡沫的主要发起者。早在美国内战期间，金融家杰伊·古尔德就通过出售政府债券为联邦军队融资，成为行业的开创者。1929年大崩盘后，佩科拉委员会揭发了查理·米切尔的纽约城市银行肮脏的投资银行业务，并制定了1933年的《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》，禁止商业银行发行股票和债券，禁止投资银行从事普通公民的存贷款业务，由此将商业银行和投资银行的业务分离。

    随后的几十年里，投资银行的游说逐渐削弱了《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》的执行力。在菲尔·格拉姆（自由市场空想家）等共和党议员的推动下，在实行“三角策略”[54]的民主党总统比尔·克林顿的默许下，该法案最终在1999年泡沫最严重时被废除。

    在这场科技泡沫中，投资银行加快了对新公司股票发行的速度；而通过网景浏览器，公众第一次欣喜若狂地连接到互联网（虽然比今天的宽带连接速度慢一万倍），不需要被劝说就会主动购买这些股票。当网景创始人马克·安德森和吉姆·克拉克意识到巨人微软也在开发浏览器时，他们迅速采取行动，通过IPO融资。

    20世纪20年代，摩根公司一直没有涉事其中，之后的《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》迫使摩根公司将其投资部门剥离出来，使其成为一家投资银行，即摩根士丹利。到20世纪90年代，摩根士丹利成为美国最大的新股发行商，它发行了网络泡沫中最引人注目的网景的IPO。

    到这时，摩根士丹利已经发生了变化；该公司的一位高管弗兰克·夸特罗内，来自意大利移民家庭，说话仍然带有浓重的口音，在此之前已经为互联网核心硬件的主要生产商思科公司进行了公开募股。随着网景公司在1995年8月9日首次募股，夸特罗内也使自己成为阳光查理（与查理·米切尔一样，夸特罗内在一系列审判中险些入狱，其中有一次因妨碍司法和阻拦证人被定罪，但在后来的上诉中，罪名被推翻）。

    困扰着夸特罗内、克拉克、安德森和刚刚被聘为网景公司CEO的吉姆·巴克斯代尔的一个主要问题：投资者应该为公司的股票支付多少？合理定价IPO是一门艺术。在理想情况下，为了保持热情，一只股票在交易首日应该经历发行价格的大幅“弹”起；如果发行价格过高，股价可能就会在首个交易日下跌，从而打击散户投资者的信心；如果发行价格设置得太低，公司及其创始人就会受损。最后他们4个人决定，每股为28美元（在此价格上，公司估值将约为10亿美元）。当天早上市场开盘时，他们都屏住了呼吸。

    对该股票的需求如此之大，导致当纽约证券交易所上午9:30的开盘钟声响起后，摩根士丹利的交易员无法得出合理的价格；某家经纪公司很快增加了一个新的电话提示音：“如果您的电话内容是关于网景公司的，那么请按1。”太平洋时间上午9点（按东部时间的话，证券交易此时已经开始两个半小时），不知所措的克拉克没有意识到这种疯狂，他看了看他的显示器，发现股价持平在28美元。他打电话给摩根士丹利的一位经纪人，经纪人告诉他存在“交易失衡”。克拉克不能完全理解这意味着什么，他想知道IPO是否失败了。

    “交易失衡”根本无法描述出摩根士丹利的纽约IPO服务桌上震耳欲聋的情景。其中心大约有200个工作站，每个工作站上都有一个交易员，每个交易员都拼命地努力接起几个同时响着的分机，而每个分机的通话内容都是关于如何购买网景股票。

    克拉克打电话后不久，经纪人回电告知他，该股票开盘价为71美元，这意味着他的净资产猛然突破了5亿美元，而公司筹集到的资金则更多，正如《克拉克回忆录》中某一章的标题——《10亿美元是最好的报复》。[55]

    “感恩而死”乐队的杰里·加西亚在当天晚些时候死于严重的心脏病发作。他的最后一句话据说是，“网景是什么时候开盘的？”[56]

    14 数字时代暴富梦的推手

    投资分析师、大众、媒体与政治家

    不是每天早上起床时，我们都认为生意不好。 ——罗杰·艾尔斯[1]

    许多人忽略了泡沫的明显迹象，特别是忽略了安然的财务垃圾堆，主要是因为受到“投资银行家”的影响。过去几十年里，这一职位已成为“赚了一大笔钱的人”的代名词。投资银行发行IPO时，它的佣金是进款的5%~7%。网景IPO的佣金是1.3亿美元，韦伯万IPO的佣金是3.75亿美元；之后其他公司的IPO又为投资银行赚了几十亿美元。投资银行的雇员从这块馅饼上分了一大部分。1998年，弗兰克·夸特罗内从摩根士丹利转到瑞士信贷银行，第二年，他分到的个人份额上涨至约1亿美元。[2]

    20世纪90年代之前，股票分析师在投资公司内部属于默默无闻、辛苦劳作的人，所获报酬一般。而互联网时代的一个很奇怪的特征是，曾经地位低下的股票分析师上升为名流阶层，互联网泡沫将其中一些人推向了超级明星运动员和电影演员那样的知名度，因为，热切的公众关注着他们关于这个或那个网络公司前景的每一个公告。其中最著名的两位，是摩根士丹利的玛丽·米克尔和美林证券公司的亨利·布罗吉特。问题在于，这些“分析”股票和债券的家伙，是由发行股票和债券的公司雇用的。

    金融业是美国经济中的一股强大的力量，占全国GDP和股票市值的近1/5。由于投资银行的业务是这一比重的最大来源，因此，正如美林证券公司的安然股票分析师约翰·奥尔森理解的那样，那些没有给出一系列“买入”建议的分析师，可能会承受压力。

    安然的高管们紧盯着公司股价，尤其是法斯托本人，因为他的项目依赖于公司股价。安然的主要投资银行的兴趣则在于债券发行，而债券发行又推动了安然疯狂的全球扩张。这些发行为投资银行带来了巨额收入，安然不断用此事实提醒其投资银行。一位分析师说，该公司曾向他表示：“我们每年的投资银行业务超过1亿美元。如果你（推荐客户）买了很多，那么你也会得到一些收入。”[3]

    但奥尔森没有遵循那个剧本。与詹姆斯·查诺斯不同（查诺斯在卖空安然股票的事件中被怀疑有欺诈行为），奥尔森并没有过分否定安然，他只是报告说，自己不了解安然的会计核算，并在一次媒体采访中指出：“他们对于如何赚钱不太坦率……我没听说过有哪位称职的分析师能认真分析一下安然。”[4]安然的董事长莱鄙视奥尔森，并给奥尔森的上级唐纳德·桑德斯写了一张便条：“唐，约翰·奥尔森对安然的看法10年来一直是错误的，现在仍然是错误的，但他始终坚持己见。”（桑德斯向奥尔森出示这张便条时，奥尔森注意到，莱可能已经老了，不中用了，但他至少知道如何拼写“坚持己见”这个单词。）[5]最终，两位美林的投资银行家向公司总裁赫伯特·艾利森抱怨，后者向莱道歉。美林开除了奥尔森，并继续跟随安然赚大钱。[6]

    20世纪90年代，几千名演员在几百个舞台上上演了不同版本的美林/安然/奥尔森大戏，尽管每个剧本都不一样，但情节始终如一，股票分析师放弃了自己的职责，成为投行同僚的啦啦队长。1997年，一位研究人员仅用一年时间就汇编了15000多份股票报告；只有不足0.5%的报告建议卖出股票。[7]

    除了发起者，投资大众处于金融狂热的第二个解剖学位置。在互联网泡沫爆发前的几年里，越来越多的美国人成为自己的投资经理，一方面，收入和财富的增加推动了这一现象，但另一方面，他们不得不这样做。

    1929年金融危机后的几十年里，美国的经济和社会结构发生了深刻的变化，其中最主要的是预期寿命逐渐延长，随之而来的是退休时期的延长。1889年，当奥托·冯·俾斯麦在德国建立养老金制度时，欧洲成年人的平均预期寿命只有45岁，比70岁的合格年龄少几十年，而且那时，家庭成员通常都会照顾他们的年老成员。到20世纪末，美国人的预计退休时期已经长达30多年，而且随着日益增加的人员地域流动，家庭护理往往很难实现。这些因素都增加了个人为其日益昂贵的退休时期准备资金的压力。

    有一些最幸运的美国人，他们工作的大公司里提供“养老金固定收益计划”，该计划向雇员提供养老金，直到雇员或他们的配偶去世（假设公司没有在他们有资格领取养老金之前解雇他们，这种做法非常普遍）。汽车制造商斯蒂庞克公司就是这么仁慈的雇主，但1963年，当它关闭了在美国的最后一家工厂时，这引发了国会的一系列调查，最终促使1974年的《雇员退休收入保障法案》产生，该法案至今仍在管理养老金的运营。该法案中有一个较为晦涩的部分，其提出建立个人退休账户，这是第一次允许雇员可以以不缴纳所得税的方式积累储蓄，直至退休时取出；1981年，政府放宽了对个人退休账户使用的最初限制，使其对雇主更具吸引力，并可适应于更多的雇员。

    大约在同一时间，一位名叫特德·本纳的养老金福利顾问，对自己的工作越来越不满意，因为他的雇主总会让他回答以下问题：“我怎样才能在法律上获得最大的税收减免？怎样才能给我的员工最少的工资？”[8]这让虔诚而慷慨的本纳很苦恼，他想寻求一种方法，让公司对员工更加慷慨。

    本纳注意到，1978年的《国内税收法》新增了一条模糊的分项——401（k）条款，允许雇主将工人的工资直接递延到退休储蓄中。本纳认为，如果雇主能够提供与工人贡献相匹配的缴费，那么这可以促使更多的工人建立401（k）个人账户。本纳在国税局有关系，国税局批准了这项计划。401（k）个人账户如雨后春笋般涌现；如今，401（k）资产已有数万亿美元，与个人退休账户资产大致相当。[9]

    这些个人账户允许公司放弃传统的固定收益计划[10]；随着地域流动增加所带来的代际联系的减少，工人和小商人突然成为自己的养老金经理。但这项工作需要一定的数字量化技巧、历史常识和情绪自律，连金融专业人士都很少能具备，更不用说普通人了。

    很显然，普通投资者无法胜任这项投资工作，这一点可以从共同基金的经营数据上看出。目前最常见的退休账户投资工具是共同基金，其基本上是固定缴款计划［如公司401（k）计划］中唯一可用的选择。如果投资者能胜任，那么他们在这些投资工具上的“内部收益率”（IRR，即所有基金份额的买卖）应该与基金自身的回报率完全相等。但是，研究人员发现，平均而言，员工购买和销售基金的时间安排非常糟糕，以至于他们的内部收益率几乎总是低于基金自身的回报率。[11]换句话说，小投资者往往高买低卖，没能获得某只基金的全部利润。

    互联网泡沫的第三大解剖学视角——媒体，其典型是CNBC（美国全国广播公司财经频道），CNBC在电视商业和投资信息领域的前身是FNN（财经新闻网）。FNN从1981年开始运营，当时正值漫长而残酷的熊市尾声，是一个错误的时间，是公众投资兴趣的低谷；10年后，FNN破产。1989年，急于提高萎靡收视率的NBC（美国全国广播公司）感受到公众对投资的新兴趣，成立了财经频道。

    这一时机再好不过了，因为市场开始转好，数千万人开始关注股市，既是出于需要，也是出于兴趣。最初，该频道的节目令人昏昏欲睡：主播们在牌桌后面对着摄像机，播放一些如何准备晚餐和如何处理孩子们发脾气的节目。[12]1991年，NBC接管了破产的FNN及其大部分人才，命运略有改善，并将频道名称用首字母缩写表示为CNBC。

    1993年，罗杰·艾尔斯接管了CNBC，媒体之神更加眷顾新生的CNBC，而艾尔斯对电视原生情感力量的传奇掌握和利用也达到了顶峰。艾尔斯出生时患有血友病，还有一个喜欢体罚他的父亲——这是一个特别不幸的组合——频繁受伤使他不得不长时间地被监禁在家，他真正的教室是20世纪50年代的电视机，他花了很多时间分析电视节目。不出所料，他在大学里主修媒体研究，毕业后在当地东海岸电视台从事制作工作。[13]随后，他在《迈克·道格拉斯秀》这一在全国播出的节目里担任道具助理；不到3年，他就成为制作人。晋升后不久，1968年，他在节目演播室里遇到了正值第二次总统竞选的理查德·尼克松，尼克松表达了对“一个人必须使用噱头（比如电视）才能当选”的反感，艾尔斯回应说，“电视不是噱头”。那次会面后不久，尼克松的助手伦纳德·加门特雇用了艾尔斯。[14]由此，艾尔斯开启了他20多年的共和党总统媒体顾问生涯。他使1968的尼克松更受欢迎，并在1988年帮助乔治·布什击败了迈克尔·杜卡基斯。

    成为CNBC的总裁后，艾尔斯保留了原FNN的节目格式做法，特别是屏幕底部实时滚动的股票行情信息，这将成为金融泡沫肥皂剧的隐喻背景。除此之外，他从各个方面彻底改造了CNBC的外观和体验感，后来又将同样的技术应用到为国家政客和商业巨头提供的新服务上。他不再简单地用主题音乐宣告新的节目片段，而是通过增加带有主持人小头像的话外音。关于食谱和孩子们发脾气的节目都没有了；取而代之的是杰拉尔多·瑞弗拉[15]和迷人的政治评论员玛丽·马塔林。艾尔斯亲自指导摄像师恰当地塑造企业高管的形象，并让其看起来更具活力，敦促编剧们想出更吸引观众的“不切换频道”模式，并派主持人在证券交易大厅快速报道价格走势。演播室的嘉宾越美艳越好。正如《纽约客》的约翰·卡西迪所说：

    他们理想的演播室嘉宾曾是一位选美比赛冠军，她报道科技股，用简短的陈述句讲述，并与唐纳德·特朗普约会。由于能找到的这种女性的数量不多，制片人通常只能安排那些尊敬艾伦·格林斯潘并尽力说英语的秃顶中年男性。[16]

    艾尔斯教导他的主播和制作人员：要将金融视为一项群众爱看的体育运动。在股票市场经历了一周的异常残酷之后，他用一段广告剪辑将CNBC与竞争对手相比较：“道琼斯指数在大量交易中暴跌。但请先看今天的天气。CNN告诉你，你的衬衫是否会被淋湿；CNBC告诉你，你是否还能买到一件衬衫。”他还将从CNN挖过来的玛丽亚·巴蒂罗姆提升为主播，她同时满足了他对性和金融的需求；凭借酷似索菲亚·罗兰的长相、浓重的布鲁克林口音和露骨的性感，她很快成为大家熟知的“金钱宝贝”。[17]

    1996年，由于艾尔斯对其他员工的欺凌行为，CNBC迫使他离开，这一事件也将困扰他后来的职业生涯。但那时他对CNBC的改造已经证明是有利可图的。到20世纪90年代中期，CNBC已经在欧洲和亚洲开设了电视网，世界资本市场中真实或虚构的大戏从未落幕。

    艾尔斯凭直觉认为，他的观众更喜欢像棉花糖一样的娱乐性新闻，而不是像菠菜一样的信息和分析性新闻；而最棒的是味道像糖果又能带来无限财富的新闻。在艾尔斯的领导下，CNBC掌握了这种体裁，将乏味的主流金融世界转变为极其成功的娱乐世界，掌握了现代文化炼金术的技艺。互联网成为新的聚集场所，利用互联网，小投资者可以通过电子交易和达泰科等在线经纪公司，根据刚刚在CNBC看到的内容，即时买进或卖出。这种方式受到短线投机者的青睐。

    调查性报道被抛弃；它不仅会耗费大量资金，还会得罪极其重要的投资银行，而投资银行是广告份额的最大购买者。最好是在电视节目时段插入那些热情谈论自己公司的企业高管，以及那些谈论股票走向的权威性“市场策略分析师”的采访。最重要的是，这些高管和分析师都是免费出场的，他们乘坐租用的汽车，穿过哈得孙河，到达新泽西州利堡镇的CNBC工作室。

    在节目中，这些公司高管和大多数分析师的谈论内容都体现出一致的乐观，因此，CNBC的节目缺乏批判性审查。2000年和2001年，CNBC主持人马克·海恩斯分别采访了肯尼斯·莱和杰弗里·斯基林。海恩斯毕业于宾夕法尼亚大学法学院，自称是一个敏锐的审问者，但面对历史上最严重的安然欺诈案的肇事者，他只问了一大堆与赞扬和吹嘘有关的问题。[18]

    当IBM（国际商业机器公司）、Sears（西尔斯）和AT&T（美国电话电报公司）等大公司解雇数万名员工时，CNBC为这些公司上浮的利润欢呼，而忽略了大规模解雇的人力成本。当公司犯下明显重罪时，只要由此产生的丑闻没有出现在报纸头版，CNBC就装作没看见。例如，2012年5月，CNBC对摩根大通向股东隐瞒20亿美元交易损失的报道视而不见。[19]

    CNBC对观众的利益也没产生多大好处。两项代表性学术研究密切关注了按照节目嘉宾名单和推荐目录买入股票的结果；它们的结论并不令人鼓舞。第一项研究是关于股票价格对公司CEO出现在CNBC节目上的反应，第二项研究是关于CNBC目前最受欢迎的节目之一《我为钱狂》的选股表现，其节目主持人是狂热而有活力的詹姆斯·克拉默。如图14-1所示，两项研究的结果几乎相同：相对于整个股票市场，被推荐的股票在节目当天或次日的价格上涨达到峰值，然后下跌。尽管之后的价格下跌令人担忧，但之前的上涨意味着，事先知道节目日程安排的参与者与CNBC的观众就像在玩跷跷板。克拉默虽然外表滑稽，但他并不傻，他很了解这种动态。至少有一次，他卖掉了一家在《巴蒂罗姆秀》中被大肆吹捧的公司的股票，几天后又在价格回落时买回。[20]

    图14-1 CNBC与股票价格

    更能说明问题的是那些选择不来凑热闹的CEO。杰夫·贝佐斯是这一时期最成功的IPO公司亚马逊的董事长兼创始人，他喜欢与见多识广的记者们往来，甚至经常接受小型出版物的采访。不过，他认为在CNBC上露面没什么意义，因为他知道CNBC只关注短期的公司股价，他觉得这毫无价值。他认为，只要能照顾好消费者，无论股价如何波动，公司从长远来看都会兴旺繁荣。[21]

    互联网泡沫的第四大解剖学视角，是政治领导人。在密西西比公司、南海公司和英国铁路泡沫事件期间，包括法国和英国君主在内的最高级别领导人都置身其中。从19世纪末开始，由于公众监督和反腐败立法的增加，很少有政客成为杰出的投机者：20世纪20年代，他们对泡沫传播的直接政治参与程度不超过民主党全国委员会主席约翰·J.拉斯科布[22]。

    20世纪90年代，数以千万计的401（k）计划和个人退休账户的参与者，每个人都是自己的小资本家，这一前景吸引了保守派[23]；受安·兰德、米尔顿·弗里德曼和弗里德里希·冯·哈耶克理论的影响，保守派在新的“所有权社会”中大放异彩。这场科技泡沫没有产生任何重大的政治性法案——一种彻底的贪污和腐败——政治不作为占据了中心舞台，20世纪30年代佩科拉审判之后的各项监管保障措施，没能很好地得到落实；到20世纪80年代，《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》将商业银行和投资银行业务严格分开的做法，也基本处于失效状态，到1999年，该法案被最终废除。

    CNBC从内容和基调上大肆赞美牛市的意识形态基础。主播劳伦斯·库德洛在《库德洛报道》栏目的开场白中说道：“记住，伙计们，自由市场资本主义是通往繁荣的最佳道路！”[24]保守派记者詹姆斯·格拉斯曼或许比其他任何人都更坚信科技泡沫与自由市场意识形态之间的联系。作为一个著有很多投资类书籍的著名作者，他一直都偏爱保守主义阵营，尤其是《华尔街日报》。20世纪90年代，他热情地提到，市场的迅速崛起仅仅是自由市场资本主义丰饶的序幕。因此，当2000年4月股市开始崩盘时，他指责美国政府扼杀了市场。针对一项支持政府对微软提起反垄断诉讼的裁决，他评论道：

    没有人知道为什么一只股票会在某一天下跌，但我对纳斯达克指数暴跌的解释是，投资者们被关于微软的裁决激怒，他们意识到了政府干预的威胁。如果政府没有干预，他们就会更好。（副总统兼总统候选人）艾伯特·戈尔也是如此。克林顿政府喜欢把过去10年里股市翻了两番归功于自己，但其对纳斯达克指数的崩溃也负有责任。[25]

    乔治·吉尔德曾是理查德·尼克松和纳尔逊·洛克菲勒的演讲稿撰写人，他坚定地相信，20世纪90年代大牛市和自由市场优越性之间的关联，是20世纪90年代持有科技热情的最极端例子。2000年1月1日，他在《华尔街日报》上发表了一篇著名社论，认为互联网不仅改变了一切，而且改变了“全球经济的时空网格”。他运用夸张的比喻，提及了原子内部的广袤空间，“对物质内部结构的操纵”，甚至还在杂志编辑们面前悄悄使用了量子力学和“离心力”的内容。他得出结论：只有广泛运用信念、爱和宗教信仰，人类才能在崭新的新数字时代取得胜利。[26]《铁路时报》的编辑们一定会在天堂为他鼓掌。

    吉尔德、库德洛和格拉斯曼，他们都拥有强大的智力，又有常春藤盟校[27]的教育经历，为什么他们却在20世纪90年代末大错特错？从20世纪起，心理学家开始意识到，人们利用分析能力不是为了分析，而是为了合理化——使观察到的事实符合他们先入为主的偏见。（经济学家早就注意到，“如果你折磨数据足够长的时间，那么它们最终会招供”[28]。）人类的这一倾向有两个主要原因，这两个原因正是理解个人和群体幻想的核心。

    我们所有人——不管是聪明的人、愚笨的人还是普通人——都有这种非理性倾向，原因之一是，真正的理性是很难做到的，很少有人能做到。另外，理性能力和IQ（智商）之间没有什么关联。21世纪初，在相对较新的决策科学领域获得博士学位的谢恩·弗雷德里克，提出了一种著名的范式，证明了绝对的严密分析是多么困难。

    获得博士学位后不久，弗雷德里克写了一篇经典论文，描述了一份简单的问卷调查，心理学家称之为“认知反应测试”，它测量的是理性能力的商，即RQ，而不是IQ。问卷调查只有3个问题，其中最著名的（至少在经济学界）是，假设一个棒球和一根球棒的价格加起来是1.1美元，而球棒的价格比棒球贵1美元，那么这个棒球多少钱？大多数人，即使是非常聪明的人，也会很快回答0.1美元。但这不可能，因为这意味着球棒的价格为1.1美元，因此总价格为1.2美元。正确答案是，棒球的价格必须为0.05美元，球棒的价格为1.05美元，两者的总成本为1.1美元。[29]

    如果你认为棒球/球棒问题以及脚注中的另外两个问题很简单，那么你可以试一下另一个更具挑战性的问题，它已经存在了半个世纪，即沃森的四卡片问题测试。测试中有四张一面是字母、另一面是数字的卡片。第一条规则：“如果卡片的字母面是一个元音，那么它的数字面是一个偶数。”四张卡片现在显示：K、A、8和5。你会翻开哪两张卡片来证明或反驳这条规则？

    绝大多数受试者会凭直觉选择A和8，但正确答案是A和5。沃森是“确认偏见”概念的先驱，他用典型的学术性语言低调地陈述道：“这项任务被证明是非常困难的。”要想得出正确答案，首先必须认识到，这一规则并不排斥偶数卡片的另一面可以有元音或辅音，所以，把8这张卡片翻过来是没有用的。要驳斥这条规则，我们必须翻开5这张卡片，如果它的背面是一个元音，我们就能推断出这个规则是错误的；同样地，很简单，翻开A并找到一个奇数，这也将证明原规则是错误的。[30]

    人们需要付出相当多的努力才能拥有理性思维。几乎所有人都是精神上的懒惰者或“认知吝啬鬼”，用心理学语言来说，即他们凭直觉寻找分析捷径，例如使用卡尼曼和特沃斯基所描述的启发式方法。要做到彻底理性，需要强烈的认知努力，这一点儿都不令人愉快，因此大多数人都不这样做。正如一位学者所说，我们“只有在其他一切方法都失败的时候才开动大脑——甚至通常那时都没有开动”[31]。

    因此，IQ和RQ分别测量不同的方面。IQ衡量处理抽象语言和定量技术的能力，特别是算法，而RQ则集中在应用这些算法之前的一些问题：在分析事实之前，有没有仔细列出问题的逻辑，并考虑到了其他的替代性分析方法？在得出答案之后，是否考虑到了该答案可能是错误的，并估计出错误的概率，进而预测出这个错误将会导致的后果？事实证明，高智商并不能防止人们掉入这些陷阱。基思·斯坦诺维奇是RQ测试扩展问卷——CART（理性思维综合评估）的提出者，在他的评估中，“理性和智力经常分离”[32]。

    我们倾向于非理性行为的第二个主要原因是，我们常常将智力用于合理化，而不是合理性。一般来说，我们合理化的是我们的道德和情感框架，我们的认知过程包括一个快速移动的系统1——位于大脑深处的边缘系统，即我们的“爬虫脑”，以及一个缓慢的系统2——这一系统主宰着CRT（认知反应测试）和CART所需要的理性分析。

    在人类历史的大部分时间里，这两个大脑系统为我们提供了良好的服务。用心理学家罗伯特·查容克的话来说：“一位明智的设计师为我们的每一个过程分别提供一个系统，而不是为我们提供一个多用途系统，就像既能烤肉又能烤面包的机器一样，最后任何一项功能都执行不好。”[33]

    在后工业世界，尤其是在规划周期延伸到未来几十年的金融事务中，我们所面临的选择和我们的祖先在非洲大草原上所面临的生存性问题（需要使用系统1来解决）越来越不同，反而CRT和CART的扭曲思维问题（需要使用系统2来解决）越来越相同。这个问题由于以下事实而更加复杂：我们经常利用系统2对系统1已经得出的情绪化的结论进行合理化。换句话说，或者用丹尼尔·卡尼曼的话来说，被大肆吹嘘的系统2的主要功能是作为系统1的“新闻秘书”。[34]

    这意味着我们需要付出更多的认知努力。但即使是最优秀和最聪明的人，也无法胜任我们所面临的预测性和决策性社会任务。20世纪70年代，卡尼曼、特沃斯基和其他人已经意识到人类在预测方面做得很差，但直到最近，研究人员才开始衡量我们做得到底有多差。

    从20世纪80年代末开始，心理学家菲利普·泰洛克考察了284名专家（来自政治、经济、国内策略研究等领域）所做的2.8万个预测，并对这些所谓“专家”的预测能力进行量化。首先，也是最重要的，他发现专家们的预测能力非常差——竟然落后于“基准概率”这一简单的统计规则。所谓基准概率就是事件过去的发生频率。

    例如，当投资“专家”被问及来年市场崩溃的可能性（比如将崩溃定义为价格下跌超过20%）时，他可能会讲述美联储政策、工业产出、债务水平等如何影响这种崩溃的可能性。泰洛克认为，最好忽略他的这种叙事性推理，只是简单地查找市场崩溃的历史频率。例如，自1926年以来，每年发生股市月平均价格下跌超过20%的概率是3%，这个简单的方法在预测崩溃概率方面比基于叙事的“专家”分析更准确。

    泰洛克还发现，某些专家的表现尤其糟糕。根据社会和政治理论家以赛亚·伯林在著名论文《刺猬与狐狸》中所描述的内容，[35]泰洛克也将专家大致分为刺猬型和狐狸型两类，刺猬型专家是思想家，他们根据统一的世界理论来解释所看到的一切，而狐狸型专家则会有许多相互冲突的解释。狐狸型专家比刺猬型专家更能容忍模棱两可的情况，也较少被迫得出确定的结论。刺猬型专家对自己的预测更有信心，并且会做出更极端的预测；关键是，当面对相悖的数据时，他们改变观点的频率要比狐狸型专家低，这种低频率会腐蚀预测的准确性。

    刺猬型专家的分析也同样适应于政治右翼和左翼：例如，时至今日，激进的环保主义者依然支持保罗·埃利希在20世纪70年代关于迫在眉睫的全球饥饿和自然资源短缺的著名预测，自由主义者也依然支持著名经济学家马丁·费尔德斯坦对比尔·克林顿的预算和社会政策将破坏经济的高调警告。

    自远古祖先开始信仰萨满以来，人们就试图通过咨询专家，在一个不确定的世界中寻求确定性。泰洛克测试了三类群体的预测能力：大学本科生、预测领域的权威人士，以及在某一领域很有见解但在该领域之外进行预测的“业余爱好者”。毫不奇怪，本科生表现最差。更值得注意的是，专家的表现并不比业余爱好者好；此外，当泰洛克把专家分为狐狸型和刺猬型时，发现拥有某领域的专业知识似乎更有利于狐狸型专家的预测，但使刺猬型专家的预测结果更差。

    也就是说，狐狸型的环境科学专家也许能比刺猬型的军事专家更好地预测军事结果，反之亦然。这个结果的原因似乎是，虽然专家和业余爱好者都倾向于高估极端结果的概率，但专家这样做的次数更多，并使他们的总体预测准确率降低。业余爱好者看起来更像狐狸，至少在他们的专业领域之外。因此，用泰洛克的话来说，知识的最佳点似乎位于“《经济学人》《华尔街日报》《纽约时报》等高质量新闻出版物的读者附近，因为很多业余爱好者都报告说，这些出版物是他们获取专业以外话题有用信息的来源”[36]。

    泰洛克有一个惊人的发现，即专家们一般会利用自己的知识来合理化数据，使之符合他们先前持有的世界观。刺猬型专家更严格地坚持他们先前的观点，因此他们更坚决地为自己的错误辩护。例如，泰洛克发现“话唠”，即列举大量支持性论据的能力，是预测不佳的标志。泰洛克提出了一个识别专家类型的简单经验法则：刺猬型专家使用“此外”一词多于“然而”一词，而狐狸型专家则相反。[37]

    大多数人都持有强烈的自我肯定倾向，渴望对自我的赞赏，因此会错误地认为自己的预测比实际更准确；相反，我们错误地认为对手的预测不太准确。不过，刺猬型专家有一种特别明显的倾向，泰洛克列举了一些他们所用的最著名的借口：“一个突如其来的晴天霹雳破坏了我的预测”，“我几乎是对的”，“我没有错，我只是太早了”，最后，当其他一切都失败时，“我的正确性还没有被证明”。泰洛克简明扼要地总结了这一倾向：“当他们认为自己对的时候，我们很难问，他们为什么做错了。”[38]

    最后，泰洛克发现了特别有效的预测死亡之吻：媒体名气。就媒体而言，其寻找的是“繁荣派和末日派”；也就是其喜欢极端预测的刺猬型专家，这类专家比模棱两可的狐狸型专家更能吸引观众。进一步地，媒体的关注会使他们过度自信，而过度自信本身会腐蚀预测的准确性。其结果是出现一个媒体-预测的死亡螺旋，即媒体寻找极端的、糟糕的预测者，媒体曝光又会使该预测者的预测更加不准确。泰洛克说道：“三大主角——听上去像权威的专家、关注收视率的媒体和专注的公众——可能因此被锁定在一个共生的三角关系中。”[39]回顾过去，科技泡沫的意识形态啦啦队员库德洛、吉尔德和格拉斯曼，已经击打出泰洛克的三重奏：喜欢极端预测的媒体的宠儿刺猬型专家。

    互联网时代展现出金融泡沫的所有经典迹象和症状：股票投资话题在日常对话中占据主导地位，放弃有保障的工作转而全职从事投机性工作，真信徒对怀疑论者的蔑视和嘲笑，以及极端预测的盛行。

    在电视屏幕以及越来越多的网站上，人们如此密切地观察并实时记录极端的市场繁荣及随后的灾难。市场繁荣感染了高科技产业的神经中枢——硅谷、华尔街，以及位于利堡镇的CNBC工作室，但日常闲聊中感受到的市场热情在主街、社交聚会和投资俱乐部中最为强烈。

    在马萨诸塞州科德角的丹尼斯镇，有一家理发店是男性工人阶层聚集的堡垒。那里上演了一段由狂热所引发的底层故事，令人心酸。在正常情况下，理发店的聊天内容主要涉及体育和政治，如果店里有电视机，电视就一定会转到播放棒球、足球或篮球比赛的频道。但20世纪末并非正常时期，比尔·弗林拥有的这家理发店——弗林理发店，也并不是一家普通的理发店。

    到2000年，弗林已经当了30多年的理发师，对股票市场并不陌生。他的曾祖父也是一名理发师，给了他极好的建议：把收入的10%存起来，然后投资于股票。事实证明，弗林这方面的智慧运用得并不好，因为他和很多人一样，偏爱彩票式的结果。20世纪80年代中期，椰菜娃娃风靡一时，大量儿童和成人“投资”了它们，不顾及它们可以被随意制造的事实。在狂热的顶峰时期，弗林以保证金形式购买股票，也就是说，用借来的钱购买了制造椰菜娃娃的科尔克公司的股票。

    1988年，科尔克公司破产，弗林的积蓄大大减少，但他继续将剩余收入投入股票市场。10年里，他猛砸了10万美元，将其投资于他认为最具魅力的高科技公司：美国在线、雅虎、亚马逊等。到2000年，他的积蓄已增至60万美元。弗林告诉自己，当投资组合达到百万时，他将退休；考虑到自己做得很好，他认为这个目标很快就会实现。[40]

    如果说狂热是一种流行病，那么“互联网改变了一切，它将使我们所有人变得富有”这句话就是病毒，比尔·弗林是科德角的零号病人。到2000年，理发椅上讨论的话题已经从红袜队、凯尔特人队和爱国者队转向了弗林最喜欢的两只股票——EMC（易安信）和安根尼克斯。电视转到了CNBC频道。

    24小时不间断的金融娱乐和即时在线交易，正是弗林理发店上演的毒性组合。弗林编造了引人入胜的故事，并诱导顾客们购买他推荐的公司的股票。[41]2000年冬天，《华尔街日报》记者苏珊·普利亚姆第一次来到这家理发店，当时正值市场触顶之际，大家谈论的话题一直都围绕科技股。弗林向一位顾客推荐了生物技术公司安根尼克斯的股票，店里其他人则主动说起自己购买了Coyote科技公司的股票和NTAP（企业级网络存储解决方案提供商）的股票，或者更低风险的话，杰纳斯资本集团提供的共同基金也可选择。杰纳斯是一家专注于科技投资组合的投资公司。

    弗林最喜欢的是数据存储公司EMC的股票：“我想我已经介绍了100个客户购买EMC。”弗林并没有通过严格的证券分析，而只是通过另一位理发师的推荐，决定购买这家公司的股票，但顾客们似乎都不在乎。到2000年中，股票遭遇了几次严重下跌，但弗林和他的顾客们仍充满信心。正如一位画家/壁纸设计师所说：“即使股票真的下跌30%，也会马上恢复。”弱者受到嘲笑。弗林指着停车场的一个顾客说：“看到那个家伙了吗？他两年前留了5000美元，我让他买EMC。如果他听了，那些股票现在就值18000美元了。”[42]

    3个月后，当普利亚姆女士再次来到理发店时，科技股刚刚从严重下跌中恢复，但仍比峰值低40%左右。弗林说：“我不是只买生物技术或高科技类股票。”但他仍然坚持他的候补选项EMC。他还购买了更多的安根尼克斯，其股价已经强劲反弹，他的投资组合价值也达到了新高。[43]

    2001年2月，他所钟爱的、以保证金购买的EMC股票，跌到了经纪人不得不给他平仓的地步。该只股票在普利亚姆女士第一次来访后不久达到了145美元的峰值，最终在2002年底跌至4美元以下。弗林的理发店曾经是镇上的社交中心，现在一片寂静，空无一人。一个顾客说：“每个人都知道弗林损失了很多钱。他不想谈论太多。”[44]

    并不是所有顾客都被剪羊毛；例如，有一个顾客用卖掉EMC股票所得的现金购买了一套新房子。但总体而言，损失已经造成；2000—2002年的熊市让弗林意志消沉，直到2007年，在一位股票经纪人的建议下，他才开始再次购买股票，当时他购买了伊士曼柯达公司的股票。5年后，伊士曼柯达公司破产了；2013年，73岁的弗林仍在给别人理发。即使在股票崩盘后，EMC的高管们也会在暑假期间顺便来理发。他们越来越喜欢弗林先生了。[45]

    在大多数情况下，弗林和他的顾客们交易的都是单个公司的股票，这是一种历史悠久的做法，经常采用保证金的形式。但20世纪90年代，越来越多的美国人通过另一种途径持有股票，即共同基金。共同基金是20世纪20年代信托投资基金的直系后裔，不仅可以通过拥有大量不同公司的股票轻松实现风险分散，而且还提供了所谓的资深经理人选择股票的机会。1990—2000年，美国的股票共同基金资产增加了近20倍，从2000亿美元左右增加到3.5万亿美元，也就是说，股票共同基金占股票总市值的比重从7%左右增加到23%左右。[46]

    和弗林理发店的常客们一样，共同基金的投资者也越来越倾向于那些排名靠前的基金。雅各布互联网基金是最受欢迎的基金之一，在1998年暴涨了196%。范·瓦格纳新兴增长基金在1999年暴涨了291%。杰纳斯资本集团运营着一系列以科技股为主的国内和国际基金，其中许多基金在那一年也实现了三位数的回报。

    这些基金的强劲表现吸引了更多的资产，特别是迅速增长的401（k）账户中的资产，其发起人意味深长地向参与者提供了基金业绩统计数据，以便后者能从近期回报率最高的基金中做出选择。

    几股交织的逻辑共同推动了人们对科技类基金的狂热。最明显的逻辑是，表现最好的基金吸引了最大的资产流，这进一步推高了股票的价格，也进而提高了基金的表现。这些共同基金公司对其管理的资产按比例支付报酬，并大量发行新的科技基金。最后，投资者的投资期限越来越短，这推动了基金经理们更加狂热地进行交易。1997年，美国公共电视网著名的《前线》节目拍摄了范·瓦格纳新兴增长基金的经理——加勒特·范·瓦格纳向手机发送的近乎连续的交易流。[47]该节目正好说明了媒体是如何附和的，其中包括著名金融记者约瑟夫·诺切拉对范·瓦格纳的热情洋溢的描述：

    竞争非常激烈，顶级共同基金经理就像现代炼金术士，创造了神奇的市场收益。现在，没有人比这个人——加勒特·范·瓦格纳——更能点石成金了，他在旧金山单独运营着一只基金。[48]

    如果你在1997年1月1日买入了10000美元的范·瓦格纳新兴增长基金，那么到2000年3月，该基金将增长到45000美元（回报率为350%），然后，将在2002年9月跌至接近市场底部的3300美元，即从10000美元下降了67%，从45000美元下降了93%（可参考同时期纳斯达克综合指数的表现，见图14-2）。这些令人沮丧的数字也依然低估了损失。尽管属于“前线”类，但1997年时，该基金刚刚起步，了解该基金的投资者相对较少。仅在1999年，基金规模就从1.89亿美元增至15亿美元。因此，更多的投资者承受了93%的损失，而不是令人兴奋的350%的上涨。最后，诺切拉是对的：范·瓦格纳确实是一位炼金术士，但他是将黄金转化为铅的术士；2008年，他最终辞去了以他名字命名的投资组合的经理职务。在所有积极管理的共同基金中，该投资组合的10年业绩表现是最差的，价值损失了66%，而整个股市的收益率为72%。[49]

    图14-2 1995—2003年纳斯达克综合指数的表现

    英国铁路泡沫、20世纪20年代的泡沫以及之后的互联网泡沫中，有一条引人注目的主线：它们背后的核心技术发挥了作用。依赖于新铺设的铁路，哈德森能够迅捷地从办公室、建筑工地、股东大会到达议会；在20世纪20年代的泡沫期间，即使是远洋班轮上的投机者，也可以通过阅读由无线电信号提供的股票价格收报机及外部信号在船上交易台进行交易。互联网聊天室和在线交易扩大了对互联网公司股票的狂热，这些互联网公司的股票就是通过互联网交易的。

    第二个标志性的泡沫症状——放弃舒适体面的职业转而全职从事投机——也在互联网泡沫期间显现出来。20世纪90年代的交易大部分是日内交易，因此，数以百万计的人（绝大多数是男性）请假，甚至完全辞职，坐在电脑显示器前，每天进行数十次甚至数百次的交易。

    日内交易涉及股票的一连串买卖，目的是获取大量微利。在理想的日内交易中，典型的例子是，以的价格购买1000股股票，并在当天（有时在几分钟内）以的价格卖出，由此产生的毛利润为125美元。事实上，大多数日内交易者的平均回报率接近于零，每笔交易都会被扣佣金，在成百上千笔交易中，即使是稳健成功或幸运的参与者，也会被佣金毁掉。

    在上瘾方面，没有什么能与在线交易相媲美。参与者一直盯着自己的终端。正如一位观察家所说：

    我不知道你们中是否有很多人在拉斯维加斯（或任何其他地方）玩过视频扑克。我玩儿过，这让人上瘾。尽管你输了，例如，在一段合理的时间内（玩儿上一个或两个小时，十次中有九次你都输了），但它仍然让你上瘾。现在，想象一场对你有利的视频扑克。也就是说，所有的小铃铛、按钮和蜂鸣器仍然在那里提供即时反馈和乐趣，但你不会赔钱，而是变得更富有。如果拉斯维加斯是这样的话，你就得用救生钳才能把人们从座位上撬下来。人们会随身携带便盆，这样就不用离开座位了。在这种视频扑克面前，强效可卡因都要让位。在我看来，这正是在线交易的现状。[50]

    1997年以前，只有大型机构从事这种日内快速交易，因为小投资者无法从证券交易所获得必要和准确的定价；1997年出现了“二级报价”，电脑屏幕上可以显示限价挂单[51]，以供散户投资者参与和使用。

    与弗林理发店的顾客不同，大多数日内交易者都精通技术，有数字天赋，受过高等教育。问题是，当有人购买股票时，意味着有其他人卖出，反之亦然。换言之，证券交易类似于与隐形伙伴打网球；大多数日内交易者没有意识到的是，网络另一端的几乎都是投资界的威廉姆斯姐妹[52]，即精明的机构参与者，对他们来说，公司不仅仅是一个可以压倒人类交易者的符号或计算机算法。

    到20世纪90年代末，大约有100个公司开设了“培训项目”。花几千美元，“受训者”就可以参加三天的入职培训和“新兵训练”，然后是一周的“模拟交易”。“培训师”很乐观：只要遵守这些规则，任何人都可以成功。正如一位培训师所言：“这就像打高尔夫一样。如果你对如何放置双脚、如何举起球杆以及如何持球都很小心，那么你将有更好的机会打直线球而不是曲线球。同样的原则也适用于日内交易。”[53]

    到20世纪90年代末，大约有500万美国人在网上交易，尽管全职交易的人数估计要少得多。[54]只要市场行情上涨，日内交易者就有一半的机会，但就像20世纪20年代和铁路泡沫期间的暴跌一样，当海浪汹涌时，大多数人的财富都会被卷走。

    与弗林理发店的顾客或办公桌上痴狂的日内交易者相比，比尔兹敦镇“女士投资俱乐部”的女士们没有很大的不同，但她们的发展轨迹更为壮观，代表一种典型的淘金热氛围，这种氛围让那些缺乏金融专业知识的人相信，她们在这一领域有着光明的前景。

    在任何其他时代，都不会有人注意到这个传统的投资俱乐部。它由伊利诺伊州比尔兹敦镇的中老年家庭主妇组成，遵循相对保守的传统，已经保持了几十年：聚在一起吃饼干、喝咖啡，研究已存在的、收益可靠的公司，并长期持有这些公司的股票。

    她们甚至并不接受重金：会员首先支付100美元，之后每月支付25美元。当她们开始向全国性组织——全国投资者协会——报告回报率时，问题来了。该协会连续6年向她们颁发了“全明星投资俱乐部”奖。1984—1993年的10年间，她们报告了惊人的23.4%的年化回报率，其比股市的年化回报率还高出4%。

    她们击败华尔街的故事，与20世纪90年代那种随意投资便过上舒适生活的故事不谋而合。该俱乐部的成员摆脱了小镇家庭主妇的身份，成为全职金融大师。她们乘坐喷气式飞机环游世界，经常向比她们家乡人数（5766）还多的观众发表演讲，这些观众有时在雨中等票，而她们可以从投资公司赚取丰厚的顾问费，还卖出了80万册《比尔兹敦镇女士投资俱乐部常识性投资指南》，这是一本她们的“秘诀”概要。其中一个成员感慨道：“我在休斯敦下了飞机，豪华轿车司机向我道歉，因为他必须使用一辆特大型轿车。以前，当豪华轿车经过我身边时，我会说‘我想知道里面坐了谁’。好吧，现在是我坐在里面了。”[55]

    她们突然成了名人。但是有一个问题：23.4%的回报率，已经将她们每月的会费计算在内了。如果一个人一开始只有100美元，那么一分钱也赚不到，但半路上又增加了25美元，这时不能说她获得了25%的回报。大约1998年，也就是该书出版两年多后，出版商注意到了这一错误，然后插入了一条免责声明，即“该回报率可能与共同基金或银行计算的回报率有所不同”。

    在牛市期间，新闻从业技巧退化；直到该书的1998年版上架，《芝加哥》杂志的记者沙恩·特里奇注意到并报道了出版商的免责声明。但该杂志并不是投资类报道的前沿阵地。女士们起初很愤怒，她们的出版商亥伯龙公司的一位高管称特里奇先生是“恶意的”，一心想抹黑“人们遇到的最诚实的群体”[56]。

    不管是不是无心之过，在这10年里，这些女士的年化回报率并没有达到23.4%，9%更接近事实。最终，亥伯龙公司召回了这本书，并同意用出版社的任何一本书换回它，从而解决了一场官司，而这些女士则消失在人们的视线中。

    尽管存在以上问题，但实际上这些女士的表现并不算糟糕：审计人员经过正确计算后发现，1983—1997年的整整15年间，她们的账户每年有15.3%的收益，仅比指数基金的收益低2%；她们已经很值得尊敬了，当然也比弗林理发店的人和日内交易者做得好。尽管如此，也只有20世纪90年代才会发生类似的事情，即一个数学错误把一群赚取平庸股市回报的普通女性变成文化偶像。

    到了20世纪90年代末，和比尔兹敦镇的女士们、日内交易者以及弗林理发店的顾客一样，数百万美国人认为自己是股市天才。摩根士丹利有学问又有见解的巴顿·比格斯最能捕捉到这种情绪：

    社会迹象非常糟糕。每个人的儿子都想为摩根士丹利工作。没用的姐夫们打算创立对冲基金。我认识一个50岁的人，他什么都没做过。他打算创立对冲基金。他正在向人们散发宣传册。我在某处找到了一个。[57]

    泡沫的第三个症状，是对怀疑者持有激烈的愤怒情绪，这在20世纪90年代中期变得明显。在罗杰·艾尔斯将CNBC打造成媒体巨头的几十年前，多达3000万观众会在每周五晚上观看《与鲁凯瑟讨论华尔街的一周》，这是美国公共电视网在全国播出的一个小组秀节目，主持人是路易斯·鲁凯瑟，他温文尔雅、机智幽默，是一位受人尊敬的金融记者的儿子。

    鲁凯瑟严格编排节目。节目中最令人向往的角色，是由股票经纪人、分析师和时事通信作者轮换组成的小组成员，他们在节目开始时与鲁凯瑟逗乐，然后询问本周的特邀嘉宾是谁。逊色一点儿的角色是荧幕外的“精灵”小组成员，他们声称可以预测未来的市场方向。鲁凯瑟清楚两点：首先，行情看涨不仅让他的品牌受益，其中包括两个时事通信和路易斯·鲁凯瑟海上巡游投资，而且对他的节目有益；其次，对经纪人和分析师来说，有幸获得一个小组中的固定席位，便是一个无价广告。因此，他严格限制专家组成员，特别是在科技泡沫时期。

    20世纪90年代末，瑞银华宝的投资分析师、鲁凯瑟两个节目小组的常客吉尔·杜达克开始觉得不安。她读过查尔斯·金德尔伯格的书，并意识到他的泡沫标准，特别是“技术替代”和信贷宽松，正符合当前的市场情况。她警告她的客户，但其中一人指责她不爱国，就像她的公司创始人保罗·沃伯格在70年前被诽谤那样。因此，她知道了泡沫期间怀疑者是如何被对待的：“你会被鄙视，被恐吓，当泡沫开始破裂时，公众会非常愤怒。这需要一个替罪羊。”1999年11月，即泡沫破裂前5个月，鲁凯瑟以最具敌意的方式解雇了她——在一个她不再出现的节目的夜晚，她的照片上多了一顶高纸帽。鲁凯瑟用一位迷人的达特茅斯前篮球运动员艾伦·邦德代替了她。4年后，邦德因偷窃养老金而被判入狱12年。[58]

    互联网泡沫对“价值型投资者[59]”的打击最严重，他们购买成熟实体公司和制造业工厂的股票，这些股票定价合理，在股票狂热时期落后于大盘。著名的价值导向型对冲基金经理朱利安·罗伯逊被迫关闭了他的老虎基金，该公司在20世纪90年代中期之前创造了令人羡慕的业绩。罗伯逊先生说：“这种方法行不通，我不明白为什么。我已经67岁了，谁还需要这个公司？”罗伯逊先生宣布公司将于2000年3月30日关闭；以科技股为主的纳斯达克在3周前达到了5060点的峰值，但当时罗伯逊并不知道，这是未来15年内都不会达到的水平。[60]

    最后一个泡沫的识别性特征，是一些极端性预测的产生。正常情况下，专家预测的某一年的市场涨跌幅度很少超过20%。超过这个幅度的预测可能会使预测者被认为是疯子，而且大多数预测都是以个位数的幅度上下波动。但泡沫期间并非如此。1999年，詹姆斯·格拉斯曼和凯文·哈塞特合著了一本书，预测道琼斯工业平均指数在几年内将上涨超过2倍，从目前的约11000点上涨到36000点。其他人也不甘示弱，将估计数值提高到100000点。[61]

    格拉斯曼和哈塞特得出的这个上涨超过2倍的预测，说明将泡沫时期的高价进行合理化的努力已经做了很久。他们通过操纵股票和债券所使用的投资折现率来实现这一点。不严格地说，折现率是投资者在承担持有证券的风险之前所要求的回报率；证券的风险越高，购买证券所要求的回报率（折现率）就越高。例如，2019年中，非常安全的长期国债收益率为2.5%，而持有更高风险的股票所需的回报率约是其3倍，而1990年前约为10%。

    长期资产（如30年期国债或股票）的价格与折现率近似成反比：将折现率减半（例如从6%减至3%），价格就会翻番。（因为股票没有到期日，至少在理论上，它甚至比30年期的国债更“长期”。）相反，当经济或全球地缘政治地位恶化时，投资者要求更高的回报率，即持有股票的折现率，因此其价格暴跌。

    格拉斯曼和哈塞特对道琼斯工业平均指数36000点的预测表明，投资者已经演变成一种新型的理性经济人，他们认为股票从长期来看风险不大，因为其总会从价格下跌中恢复过来。因此，这种新型的理性经济人决定对股票采用类似国债的3%的折现率，而不是历史上大约10%的折现率；这在理论上使股票的价格上升了2倍多（10%/3%）。[62]

    格拉斯曼和哈塞特已经忘记了邓普顿所警告的“这次不一样”这句话的高昂代价。几乎在他们的书出版的同时，2000年，互联网泡沫在突然回归的风险中破灭，标志着有史以来最大的金融狂热结束。在不到两年的时间里，美国股市市值损失了6万亿美元，就好像整个国家7个月的经济产出都消失了一样。1929年，只有10%的家庭持有股票，但到2000年，个人经纪业务和共同基金账户、个人退休账户和基于雇佣关系的401（k）计划的扩张，使持有股票的家庭的比例上升到60%。数千万人原本认为自己在经济上很宽裕，但他们现在发现情况并非如此；另有数百万人认为自己的储蓄足以退休，但他们现在被迫延迟退休。

    一个从金融市场诞生之日起便存在的故事重现，2000—2002年，投资者们再次意识到，自己已经陷入遭受突然经济损失时的难以形容的痛苦之中。用幽默作家弗雷德·施韦德的话说：

    有些事情是无法用文字或图片向没有经历过的人充分解释的。我在这里所能提供的任何描述，都无法接近那种失去曾经拥有的一大笔钱的感觉。[63]

    15 伊斯兰国的兴衰

    马赫迪与哈里发

    互联网泡沫拉开了20世纪流行性狂热剧的舞台帷幕。随着21世纪的到来，世界上最年轻的亚伯拉罕宗教，用现已被熟知的末日叙事，吸引了世界各地的信徒，其能力和暴力程度震惊了世界。

    2014年11月16日，伊斯兰国组织斩首了一个名叫彼得·卡西格的美国人以及18名叙利亚俘虏。卡西格是美国陆军前突击队员，一直从事人道主义工作。肇事者公布的录像中，没有显示卡西格被杀的过程；更确切地说，卡西格的断头就放在“圣战者约翰”的脚下。“圣战者约翰”是一个名叫穆罕默德·埃姆瓦兹的英国公民，他带着英国口音缓慢而庄重地说：“我们正在达比克埋葬第一支美国十字军，并焦急地等待其他部队的来临。”[1]

    在过去的一年里，伊斯兰国用巧妙而有效的社交媒体活动，吸引了数千名战士和其他志愿者，很多人甚至是从繁荣和平的西方来到了世界上最糟糕的地方之一。“圣战者约翰”提到的城市达比克，以及同名的伊斯兰国宣传杂志《达比克》，对理解其招募新兵所取得的巨大成功有很大帮助。[2]

    达比克是叙利亚西北部的一座城镇。1516年，奥斯曼土耳其人在那里打败了埃及马穆鲁克人，进而控制了黎凡特。对现代圣战者来说，这标志着哈里发政权的重生——一个由穆罕默德的继任者领导的国家，统治所有的穆斯林，这将持续4个世纪。尽管该镇看上去并不引人注目，战略地位也不重要，但是，与奥斯曼哈里发帝国之间的联系，使该镇处于伊斯兰教末日叙事的前沿和中心。

    犹太教、基督教和伊斯兰教的末日叙事彼此相似。鉴于它们的起源相同，这并不奇怪。中世纪早期，拜占庭人和穆斯林都根据《但以理书》的同一节内容，预测到了对方的作战计划。[3]达比克由于其军事历史，成为伊斯兰教的末日发生地点，在那里，反基督力量（在伊斯兰教中经常被称为“达加尔”）将与代表正义的军队作战。

    这些末日叙事也是有区别的。基督教的末日叙事主要来源于几个很容易界定的《圣经》文本，特别是《以西结书》《但以理书》《启示录》中的文本，而伊斯兰教的末日叙事却来源于更为分散的、不容易界定的圣训，即先知穆罕默德的言行录（对应阿拉伯语中的“传述”或“报道”）。与基督教末日论不同，穆斯林的根本经典——《古兰经》几乎没有什么预言，并且和圣奥古斯丁以及后来的天主教神学传统一样，特别警告不要计算末日时间。

    但是，和基督教徒一样，穆斯林不可抗拒地被末日时间诱惑，他们的末日叙事就像沙漠野花一样从圣训中蹦出来。[4]由于数量众多，伊斯兰教的末日论甚至比基督教的末日论更混乱。例如，逊尼派的传统与大约1万条圣训有关，而不同的观察家对每一条圣训的报道方式往往不同。仅某位中世纪学者，就列出了3万多条圣训。先知[5]于632年去世，之后的几个世纪里，学者们根据真实性对其言论进行了分级和分类，从“真实的圣训”一直到“捏造的圣训”。

    先知没有留下遗嘱，这使事情复杂化了。他的前四位继任者，也就是哈里发——阿布·巴克尔、奥马尔、奥斯曼和阿里，见证了穆斯林的领土迅速扩张，其远远超出了阿拉伯的西部边界，进入拜占庭和波斯。接下来的几个世纪里，阿拉伯帝国与这两个相邻的异教大国之间展开了战斗。此外，第四任哈里发阿里（先知的堂弟，也是女婿）遇刺，随后阿里的小儿子侯赛因及其追随者在现代伊拉克的卡尔巴拉被杀，从而引发了一场血腥的宗派分裂，一直持续到现在。这场伟大的伊斯兰教冲突，一方是侯赛因的追随者——什叶派，他们将先知的继承权限制在血统上；另一方是卡尔巴拉之战的胜利者，他们演变成逊尼派，不承认领导权的血统限制。

    政治学家塞缪尔·亨廷顿在其极具争议的著作《文明的冲突与世界秩序的重建》中，将伊斯兰国家之间大量的武装冲突以及它们与邻国非伊斯兰之间的冲突列成表格，并得出结论：“伊斯兰的边界是血腥的，其内部也是如此。”[6]批评者指责他“东方主义”[7]，并指出伊斯兰世界的现代战争源于西方的统治。虽然西方殖民主义在现代中东问题上确实扮演了重要角色，但亨廷顿这句骇人听闻的名言同样适用于中世纪的伊斯兰世界。中世纪时，伊斯兰是世界上最有智力、最富裕、最强大的文明之一的拥有者，那时的西方依然落后无能，基本不会给它造成什么困扰。

    下面开始讨论伊斯兰教末日论的魅力。美国和欧洲的基督教徒生活在相对繁荣、安全和地缘政治稳定的社会中；此外，他们的宗教在文化上占主导地位。因此，西方基督教末日论者只能被迫在一团乱的道德恐慌中挑选其中一些作为危情时刻（末日）的迹象：普遍的性行为、社会主义，以及撒旦主义（或者至少是占星术）。

    相比之下，自1497年瓦斯科·达伽马首次绕过好望角、击败穆斯林主导的极度繁荣的印度洋贸易，之后的伊斯兰在政治和经济上一直相对衰落。因此，对虔诚的穆斯林来说，末日迹象非常明显并令人痛苦，漫长的屈辱和失败需要末日时刻的正义，仅在20世纪的屈辱就包括：1916年，法国和英国之间的《赛克斯-皮科协定》秘密瓜分了穆斯林核心地带；1948年，以色列成立；1967年，以色列占领约旦河西岸和耶路撒冷旧城及其神圣的圣殿山；1979年，以色列和埃及之间达成了和平协议；1990年，第一次海湾战争尴尬地暴露出西方军队在中东地区的存在，尤其是在沙特阿拉伯（该宗教最神圣的圣地守护者）。与基督教徒和犹太人相比，穆斯林更加渴望一场能够颠覆现有世界秩序的末日大灾难。我们不能忽略穆斯林的末日论者及其追随者所感受到的痛苦和愤怒。其中一人写道：

    因此，犹太人在基督教徒脸上的掌掴仍在继续，但后者显然享受并允许这种羞辱。西方国家的十字军继续像一个被施虐的妓女，直到被殴打和羞辱，尤其是被她的皮条客——基督教欧洲的犹太人——殴打和羞辱，她才能从中获得快乐。他们很快就会因为犹太阴谋而被埋在砖瓦之下。[8]

    和所有的末日追寻者一样，穆斯林的末日论者渴望回到赫西俄德的“黄金种族”时代，也就是他们的萨拉菲时代，即穆斯林的前三代，包括先知的伙伴及其后代，他们是伊斯兰教的开国元勋。因此，今天的穆斯林末日论学者和领导人钻研圣训，想从中寻找灵感，使伊斯兰教恢复作为世界主流神学的合理地位，这就不足为奇了。大量的圣训提到了与拜占庭人之间的战争，特别是其中的君士坦丁堡战争，这些战争发生在先知死后的几个世纪，当时他的言行录被首次记录。这就解释了为什么伊斯兰国对叙利亚北部尘土飞扬的达比克小镇如此痴迷，因为最著名、最受尊敬的末日圣训中提到了达比克：“在拜占庭人袭击阿马克或达比克之前，最后的末日不会到来。”[9]

    圣训学者的主要任务是确定传述的出处，使真实的圣训可以追溯到先知时期。这是一个依靠世代口传的游戏。两位波斯学者，艾布·侯赛因·穆斯林和伊斯玛仪·布哈里，在先知死后200年，出版了最受人尊敬的汇编。据报道，布哈里梦见自己拍打先知周围成群的苍蝇，醒来后决定将自己的一生奉献给对不真实圣训的驱逐。在他严格的筛选标准下，只有1%的传述被认为是真实的圣训。[10]穆斯林和布哈里的圣训集录是公认最权威的，任何伊斯兰教神职人员、政治领袖、军事领袖或评论员的权威在很大程度上取决于其对圣训的掌握，特别是这两位学者编写的圣训。

    不用说，即使是最真实的圣训也要经过几代人的口头传播，用阿拉伯学者威廉·麦坎茨的话说：

    末日预言对杜撰者来说，是一个特别诱人的目标。早期，在那些分裂穆斯林团体并自相残杀的战争中，双方都试图通过预言自己的必然胜利和对方的注定失败，来为自己的政治辩护。借先知的嘴把预言说出来，这是最好的办法……几个世纪以来，新政治将赋予剩余部分新的含义，这一现象是基督教《启示录》的读者所熟悉的。[11]

    伊斯兰教的许多末日叙事，都是由那些对卡尔巴拉之战的胜利者——倭马亚族感到不满的人发展的。倭马亚族建立了第一个强盛的穆斯林王朝，并定都大马士革。因此，能将虔诚的教徒从大马士革日益腐败和专制的统治者手中解救出来的核心人物，就是穆斯林的弥赛亚，在阿拉伯语中就是“马赫迪”，其意思是“正确引导的人”。

    反对倭马亚王朝的阿拉伯人和波斯人散布预言：从呼罗珊（大致位于现代的伊朗东部和阿富汗所在地区）升起黑旗的士兵，将从那个方向横扫过来，打败倭马亚人，“如果你看到呼罗珊地区升起了黑色旗帜，那么即使需要爬过冰面，你也要立即前往，因为其中有哈里发马赫迪”[12]。750年，悬挂黑旗的叛军推翻了倭马亚王朝。叛军领袖是先知的叔父阿拔斯的后裔，他建立了以巴格达为首都的帝国——阿拔斯王朝，其统治将持续500年。

    每一则圣训都和上述胜利的阿拔斯叛军所引用的那一句类似，往往残缺而简短，通常是一句话或一段话的长度，很少出现一两页。正如美国最著名的穆斯林末日文学学者戴维·库克所说：

    由于穆斯林的传统没有明显的文本依据，只有后人提供的冗长背景（基本上由学者们将材料按照可利用的时间顺序排列），因此，末日出现之前的各个事件的发生顺序存在相当大的分歧，这并不奇怪。[13]

    换言之，数量众多且内容简短的圣训，使无限多的末日叙事成为可能；将一天的头条新闻倒入面糊中，并添加大量的确认偏见，聪明的伊斯兰学者比他的基督教时代论表亲更容易写出理想的世界末日叙事。

    然而，源自圣训的穆斯林的末日论，确实与基督教的末日论有共同特征：世界将在某个时刻终结。耶稣是一位先知，而不是上帝之子，他返回地球，通常手扶两位白人天使的肩膀，降落于大马士革倭马亚清真寺的东尖塔。他与达加尔作战。达加尔一般都是犹太人，而且常常是犹太人的弥赛亚。与基督教末日论中迷人的反基督者不同，达加尔具有令人厌恶的个性，长相丑陋，有一个巨大的钩状鼻子，一只畸形、鼓起的眼睛和大小不一的双手——这是解剖学上证明对称美感的最好机会。[14]

    反犹太主义是穆斯林末日论的既定组成部分，它甚至包括最具欺骗性的种族主义谣言。已故沙特国王费萨尔经常向外国政要大谈共产主义-犹太世界的阴谋，会面结束时，他总会问礼宾官：“他们拿到书了吗？”他指的是《锡安长老会纪要》。有一次，美国大使向他指出，假定犹太人密谋统治世界的《锡安长老会纪要》这本书，是沙皇的秘密警察伪造的。费萨尔回答：“胡说。”沙特王国用多种语言印刷了这本书，并扩大其发行量。从过去到现在，费萨尔一直不是唯一的反犹太主义者；事实上，对所有的穆斯林末日论者来说，《锡安长老会纪要》就是犹太人背信弃义的头号展品。[15]

    穆斯林的末日论者也和基督教的时代论者一样，从当前事件中寻找预示末日时刻的迹象。这些迹象主要有两种类型。第一种被称为“较小的迹象”，如性开放等，这正符合林赛和莱希的观点。甚至连歌舞、钱财和男性的丝绸服装也被看作一种末日迹象，汽车也是，因为女性可以驾驶。其他较小的迹象包括地震、洪水、干旱和财务不当行为，特别是收取利息和女性雇用男性（最后一个迹象忽略了一个事实，即年轻时候的先知正是被寡居女商人赫蒂彻雇用的，后来赫蒂彻成为先知的妻子和首位追随者）。

    一则特别著名的圣训说，“最后时刻”将会出现“两个人物打起来”，尽管这两个人物宣讲的是同一件事；当30个假弥赛亚出现时；当所有的宗教知识消失时；当杀戮变得频繁时；当每个人都很富有、没有人会接受施舍时；当坟墓如此壮丽，以至于活着的人都希望自己在里面时。

    穆斯林的末日论者也在寻找“更大的迹象”，即更具体的预言事件。在穆斯林早期阶段，位居榜首的预言是穆斯林征服了信奉基督教的君士坦丁堡（但尚未实现）。历任穆斯林统治者利用圣训为屡次的攻城失败做辩护；1453年，奥斯曼帝国最终取得了胜利，但末日并未随之来临，神学家们于是将预言中的末日之战的地点转移到其他地方，最近的预言是在达比克。

    与基督教犹太复国主义者一样，另一个“更大的迹象”是犹太人重返圣地。从犹太人的角度，基督教版本已经令人不快——要么皈依和改变信仰，要么被摧毁。而穆斯林版本则更残酷：安拉将把犹太人送回巴勒斯坦。用一位穆斯林末日论者的话来说，“通过把他们聚集（到巴勒斯坦），来宣布将临上帝的复仇”：这是穆斯林末日版本的最终审判。[16]

    其他“更大的迹象”包括达加尔的出现和太阳从西方升起。圣训中也出现了歌革和玛各，还有一个被称为苏菲亚尼的伊斯兰教特有的人物（在叙利亚横冲直撞的强大的逊尼派暴君）。作为逊尼派，他受到什叶派穆斯林的斥责；但并不是所有人都斥责逊尼派，例如，在巴格达阿拔斯王朝（倭马亚王朝的对手）的哈里发辖地，他受到崇拜。[17]

    苏菲亚尼的最终目标是杀死世界末日的主角马赫迪，但通常他很快就会被地球吞噬。在大多数圣训下，直到耶稣处理了达加尔，马赫迪才带领伊斯兰军队取得胜利，并建立对世界的正义统治。什叶派相信，10世纪时失踪或“隐藏”的第十二任伊玛目[18]穆罕默德·马赫迪，将如他的名字所示，在世界末日时再次出现。[19]

    1978年，安瓦尔·萨达特和梅纳赫姆·贝京签署了《戴维营协议》，这直接导致了1979年的《埃及-以色列和平条约》的签订。伊斯兰教徒憎恶《埃及-以色列和平条约》，尤其是1987年，一位不出名的埃及记者赛义德·阿尤布写了一本书，名为《反基督者》[20]，书中传达了一个简单的信息：犹太人背信弃义，毒害了整个人类历史，他们将在一场末日之战中被伊斯兰教势力击败。

    20世纪80年代之前，穆斯林的末日文学是一种沉睡的文学体裁，侧重写马赫迪和千禧年，较少写歌革和玛各，也较少写耶稣与达加尔之间的战争。《反基督者》在伊斯兰世界的影响与哈尔·林赛的书在基督教世界的影响相同。类似于《消失的伟大地球》带来的基督教末日类文学的转变，阿尤布的书强调恐怖、血腥及最终战胜犹太人，并淡化随后的善良和光明，这种做法为该类型的文学体裁注入了活力。[21]

    根据阿尤布的说法，达加尔在地球上的犹太代理人首先是门徒保罗，其次是君士坦丁一世[22]，然后是共济会成员、在美国的犹太人阿塔图尔克[23]，再次是美国、北约，最后是以色列。阿尤布写道：“地震、火山爆发和干旱将先于反基督者出现，（而且）气温将明显升高。”接下来是一场最后的大战，其中的幻觉性细节让《启示录》和林赛都甘拜下风。末日时刻，以色列被摧毁，占世界主导地位的伊斯兰教将首都从大马士革迁往耶路撒冷。书中，阿尤布还谴责罗马教皇访问犹太教堂，并否认纳粹大屠杀。

    与基督教时代论小说一样，圣殿山在该书中占据主导地位。根据从丹尼斯·迈克尔·罗恩和拉比戈伦那里得到的提示，阿尤布写道：“达加尔的住所在耶路撒冷的圣殿里。由于这个原因，他们有时试图焚烧阿克萨清真寺，试图进行考古发掘，甚至试图通过美国共济会购买土地。”[24]三大亚伯拉罕宗教的末日叙事有着惊人的相似之处，正如以色列记者格肖姆·戈伦伯格所写：

    末日剧场涉及三方，在所有三方的末日论信徒眼中，一场伟大的戏剧已经上演。声音系统是希望和恐惧；每次其中一个演员讲话，都会引起强烈反响。正在上演的有三个剧本。在基督教剧本中，犹太弥赛亚扮演主角；在穆斯林剧本中，犹太人和基督教徒也有自己的角色。一方认为的繁荣修辞可能正是对另一方的战争提示。[25]

    和林赛的书一样，《反基督者》在阿拉伯世界非常畅销，之后阿尤布又写了一系列类似的书，这催生了一大批模仿者。其中的一些书，把几乎每个人（包括马丁·路德）都看作犹太人；模仿者之一法赫德·萨利姆在书中慷慨地承认萨达姆·侯赛因[26]不是犹太人，但侯赛因的一位亲密伙伴的父亲是犹太人，因此他的政权被玷污了。最著名的模仿者是另一位埃及记者穆罕默德·伊萨·达乌德，他为沙特媒体撰稿。

    达乌德显然认为阿尤布的书对犹太人过于冷静和宽容，1991年，他出版了《当心：反基督者从百慕大三角入侵世界》，其中百慕大三角既是达加尔旅居北美的一个中间地点，也是复仇的伊斯兰空军的飞碟基地。[27]

    流行的末日类文学书籍遍布开罗、利雅得、贝鲁特、巴格达[28]和东耶路撒冷的阿拉伯露天市场，摆满了从摩洛哥到印度尼西亚的书店书架。更重要的是，随着社交媒体的出现，这些书籍更加容易获得，影响力也越来越大，为21世纪的圣战主义提供了有效的背景音乐。[29]伊斯兰教学者让-皮埃尔·菲利于描述了该体裁日益反犹和反西方的基调：

    这种愈演愈烈的谵妄并不是无害的，因为它充满了深深的怨恨和报复……第三个千年的救世主们提炼出了具有末日信仰的人的仇恨胆汁。美国对伊斯兰教持有一成不变的敌意以及马基雅维利主义[30]，因此注定要惨死；伊斯兰教是真理、不可抗拒的力量和永恒的胜利。[31]

    几个世纪以来，穆斯林将摆脱羞辱和压迫的希望寄托在救世主马赫迪身上。这种叙事和基督教千禧年主义者一样，都关注整数日期。马赫迪主义总会在穆斯林的新世纪之初爆发。

    穆斯林历法始于先知从麦加迁移到麦地那的622年，即“希吉来”元年，而希吉来历的14世纪始于1882年11月12日。[32]希吉来历13世纪末，相当于公历19世纪70年代末，一位名叫穆罕默德·艾哈迈德的苏丹苏非派[33]神职人员被埃及统治者的宗教异端激怒。这些宗教异端虽然向奥斯曼土耳其上交象征性贡金，但事实上更受惠于英国人。艾哈迈德认为，1882年11月12日是末日的预兆，为了给自己足够的时间在喀土穆[34]建立统治，迎接新世纪的到来，他在1881年宣布自己为马赫迪。[35]

    艾哈迈德的起义最初成功了，如果不是后来英国的查尔斯上将——“中国的戈登”[36]——在艾哈迈德围困喀土穆的时候被杀，那么艾哈迈德的政权可能会幸存下来。戈登在英国国内已经是受欢迎的英雄，他试图保卫整个喀土穆城市，这超越了他帮助埃及军队和政府撤离的这一职权，从而惹恼了英国王室和最高指挥部。

    1898年，民众对戈登之死的愤怒，迫使英国不计成本地派遣了一支由霍雷肖·赫伯特·基奇纳领导的远征队，以收复喀土穆。与此同时，艾哈迈德死于斑疹伤寒；基奇纳在恩图曼战役中击败了艾哈迈德的继任者阿卜杜拉·塔希。在恩图曼战役中，英军动用先进武器，屠杀了1.2万名穆斯林士兵，而自己仅有轻微损失。[37]（温斯顿·丘吉尔也参加了这场战斗，当时他还只是一名年轻中尉；这场战争以及19世纪晚期的其他殖民地战争的压倒性胜利，激发了诗人希拉尔·贝洛克的创作灵感：“无论发生什么，我们都有马克沁机枪，而他们还没有。”）[38]

    喀土穆是伊斯兰教历14世纪之初的起义地点，在穆斯林地理上是一个边缘地带。伊斯兰教历15世纪初的骚乱事件则发生在伊斯兰的震中——麦加大清真寺。这座清真寺的历史可以追溯到610年伊斯兰教诞生之前，据说，大天使加布里埃尔在其家乡麦加城外的希拉山上，向先知口述了第一段《古兰经》经文，当时这位激动到颤抖的先知还只是一位成功的商人。

    麦加的财富来源于“克尔白”。后者是一座花岗岩建筑，据说是亚伯拉罕建造的，其中嵌的黑石可能是陨石。早在穆罕默德之前，朝圣者就开始朝觐并绕行克尔白和黑石，此地很可能是伊斯兰教创立之前、阿拉伯人的多神信仰中的主要神——安拉的神殿。[39]

    当时，穆罕默德作为一个出身卑微的小商人，是在未来妻子赫蒂彻的护助下才获得成功的。但实际上，他的血统也来自麦加的统治部落古莱西，只不过他出身于该部落的一个小分支而已。他的宗教热情，特别是他致力于清除克尔白360个异教神灵的偶像崇拜图腾，威胁到了麦加的朝圣交易，因此激怒了古莱西的精英们，他们迫使他于622年逃到了耶斯里卜（就是后来的麦地那），这一年就是伊斯兰教历元年，众所周知的“迁移”。630年，当他最终作为胜利的伊斯兰教势力之首返回麦加后，拒绝非信徒进入这两座城市这一禁令一直持续到今天。[40]

    从那时起，阿拉伯半岛就受到富裕和奢侈的商人精英与虔诚和禁欲的信徒之间紧张关系的间歇搅动。18世纪初，一位名叫穆罕默德·伊本·阿卜杜勒·瓦哈比的法学家开始宣扬一种激进的伊斯兰教，其核心围绕着两条原则：回归先知的原始教义，坚决反对巴格达、大马士革、伊斯坦布尔和开罗的贵族们享受奢侈和财富。舞蹈、珠宝甚至烟草都是“哈拉目”（伊斯兰教禁止的）；什叶派也是“哈拉目”，什叶派信徒必须在皈依和死亡之间做出选择。

    伊本·阿卜杜勒·瓦哈比与一位可怕的勇士穆罕默德·本·沙特结盟后，法学家的神学才能和勇士的军事力量实现协同增强，他们将“瓦哈比思想”从其诞生地——地处内陆沙漠深处、受太阳炙烤的阿拉伯空旷地带——向外传播，直到几乎控制整个阿拉伯半岛甚至更远的地区。

    随着奥斯曼帝国在19世纪的衰落，穆罕默德·本·沙特的后裔阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹（在西方被称为伊本·沙特）于1902年占领了位于利雅得的奥斯曼要塞，并建立了至今仍存在的沙特王朝。新政权的突击部队，是极端虔诚的“伊赫万”，其字面意思是“兄弟”，由历经几百年沙漠劫掠和战争流血的贝都因人组成。1924年，围攻麦加的伊赫万军队屠杀了邻近城镇塔伊夫的400名居民，包括孕妇，吓得麦加人不战而降（见图15-1）。

    图15-1 伊赫万和麦加起义

    对伊赫万人来说，很不幸的是，第一次世界大战改变了中东政治格局。英国是一战的胜利者，现在英国基督徒隐隐出现在阿齐兹的北部边境，阿齐兹需要安抚他们。此外，要想成为伊斯兰圣地的合法守护者，他需要得到更广泛的伊斯兰世界的认可，不仅包括叛乱的什叶派，还包括苏非派和不太拥护他的逊尼派。因此，阿齐兹开始远离具有“瓦哈比思想”的伊赫万盟友。

    国王阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹热情地接受现代社会产品，特别是汽车和电话，这伤害了他与瓦哈比信徒之间的关系。瓦哈比信徒打算清除东部的什叶派，结果却被阿齐兹镇压。由于被阿齐兹的异端行为激怒，瓦哈比信徒中最保守的伊赫万人叛变；1927年，他们对科威特发动了一次袭击，却被另一个现代社会产品——英国军用飞机——羞辱。两年后，当时已经受够了伊赫万人的阿齐兹，开着装有机枪的汽车，从利雅得出发，向北驶向内陆绿洲斯巴拉。在那里，他要求伊赫万人投降，但骑着马和骆驼的伊赫万人拒绝投降，招致了阿齐兹的屠杀。[41]

    伊赫万叛乱的火焰被抑制，但并未完全熄灭。穆罕默德·本·赛义夫·乌特比是一位在斯巴拉大屠杀中幸存下来的伊赫万人；屠杀发生多年之后，1936年，他有了一个儿子，这个婴儿长着一张似乎总在愤怒的脸。沙特人喜欢粗俗易懂的名字，于是乌特比给他的儿子起名为朱海曼，其意思是“愤怒的脸”，后来的朱海曼也没有辜负这个名字。[42]

    朱海曼出生两年后，美国石油工人就在宰赫兰地区钻出了第一口喷油井，还参观了这个当时贫穷而虔诚的国家。这是一次伟大的自然经济实验，为阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹的后嗣和追随者带来了难以想象的财富。阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹有6个儿子，他们由其不同的妻子所生，自阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹1953年去世后，这些同父异母的兄弟一个接一个地统治着这个王国。

    这些儿子中第二个担任国王的是费萨尔。1962年，他废除奴隶制；1963年，他允许女孩接受教育；1965年，他将电视引入王国。这些都进一步激怒了瓦哈比信徒。10年后，费萨尔被一名王室成员暗杀，暗杀者的理由是他的亲属在引入电视所带来的暴乱中丧生。

    在沙特王国，精英们的儿子都可以加入陆军和空军，但是，更虔诚的伊赫万人被调往声望较低的国民警卫队。朱海曼成年后，在警卫队服了18年兵役，直到1973年才作为下士被调离。虽然平庸的国民警卫队的服役经历并没有提升他的社会或物质地位，但强烈的宗教倾向驱使他研究更卓越的事物，特别是伊斯兰教的末日论。

    从警卫队退役后，他在麦地那定居，并加入了一个瓦哈比组织：“指挥正确、禁止错误”的萨拉菲组织。该组织尤其受到阿卜杜勒阿齐兹·本·巴兹的影响。本·巴兹是一位才华横溢、魅力四射、有野心的伊斯兰教学者，自8岁起就双目失明，他反对沙特王国一头扎进现代社会。

    当时，王室尤其喜爱法国和西班牙的地中海式奢侈生活，这激怒了本·巴兹；本·巴兹还猛烈地抨击烟草、理发店和公共活动中的鼓掌行为。[43]在本·巴兹和其他伊斯兰教徒的精神指引下，萨拉菲组织直接在弗洛伊德的“微小差异的自恋”中建立了一套神学：信徒们开斋[44]不是因为日落，而是因为所有光明的消失。（不过，其允许通过拉上房间窗帘来加快开斋时间。）其祈祷时可以穿凉鞋，这一差别让其他穆斯林感到恼火。另外，他们的清真寺朝向麦加方向的墙上也未设有传统“圣龛”（即阿拉伯语中的“米哈拉布”）[45]。萨拉菲组织在沙特阿拉伯的大部分主要城市建立了分会，在许多地方有自己的专用建筑，并迅速建立了国际声誉，吸引了来自伊斯兰世界，特别是来自埃及和巴基斯坦的信徒。令萨拉菲组织懊恼的是，沙特君主制逐渐选择了本·巴兹，而本·巴兹不断演变的现实主义政治在他和伊赫万之间制造了一个楔子；尽管失明的本·巴兹严厉批评王室的现代化和自由放荡倾向，但他并没有质疑该政权的合法性。最终，政府任命本·巴兹担任著名而又有影响力的机构“高级学者委员会”的主席，其职责是每周都以该委员会主席的身份与国王一起出现在电视上（尽管电视曾使国王同父异母的兄弟遇刺）。从1993年起，本·巴兹还担任沙特大穆夫提[46]，直到1999年去世。

    本·巴兹已经去过沙特君主国的首都利雅得，而此时萨拉菲组织的神学怪癖，尤其是它对王室的敌意，使它与本·巴兹曾经友好的关系恶化。1977年夏天，本·巴兹的副手在麦地那某个屋顶上召集萨拉菲组织开会，要求其放弃异端学说。萨拉菲的大多数成员都是20多岁的人，他们拒绝了这个要求，并在年长一点儿而又有魅力的朱海曼的领导下进行重组，他们以瓦哈比祖先的名字命名，成立了伊赫万组织。[47]

    1977年12月，也许是屋顶会议几个月后，政府逮捕了朱海曼的24名追随者；他们逃跑后，向本·巴兹求助。这位盲人教士接见了他们，并要求政府释放他们。[48]

    朱海曼则选择继续逃亡。几千年来，他的祖先一直靠进入沙漠来躲避拜占庭、奥斯曼、波斯和阿比西尼亚[49]的君主，他们依靠的是一种驯养的动物——骆驼，这种动物能够在险恶、几乎无水的环境中生存。自1977年逃脱后的两年里，朱海曼依靠贝都因人的遗传技能，成功地避免了在空旷的半岛内陆被抓。在这一过程中，他成为一个传奇人物，通常与3~5名追随者一起旅行，并安排与其他人的秘密会议；更多的时候，他只是从精神上参加这些秘密会议。有一次，他要去看望妈妈，最后一刻他收到警示，被告知警察正在监视他的家；另一次，他牙痛了很久，最后才找到一位不会向当局泄密的牙医。[50]

    朱海曼对本·巴兹的妥协很不满，并断绝了与他的联系。游历期间，朱海曼将自己沉浸在圣训中，特别是那些涉及马赫迪和末日的圣训。他从先知最著名的末日类圣训中获得灵感：

    末日不会到来，直到拜占庭人攻击阿马克或达比克。一支由地球上最优秀的人组成的穆斯林军队，将从麦地那前来阻止他们……然后战斗就会开始。1/3的（穆斯林）军队将认输；安拉之神永远不会原谅他们。1/3会战死；在安拉眼中，他们将是优秀的殉道者。还有1/3将战胜：他们将永远不会受到考验，他们将（继续）战胜君士坦丁堡。[51]

    达比克是叙利亚的一个城镇，阿马克是土耳其的一个山谷；伊斯兰国组织以前者命名其杂志，以后者命名其通讯社。在朱海曼的末日论中，麦加和麦地那取代了达比克和阿马克。

    为了触发末日，朱海曼需要一个马赫迪。令他高兴的是，他的沙特追随者之一被证明是马赫迪，这位追随者是一位浅肤色的超凡脱俗的诗人，有一双浅棕色的眼睛，名叫穆罕默德·阿卜杜拉·卡赫塔尼。诗人与朱海曼联手后，诗人的妹妹梦见自己的哥哥在大清真寺的院子里通过克尔白接受了拜伊尔（baya，即效忠的誓言）。在标准的伊斯兰教末日叙事中，这个梦是有意义的：和先知一样，卡赫塔尼是浅肤色的古莱西人，这是成为马赫迪所必须具备的条件。卡赫塔尼的左脸颊上也有一个胎记，这是一个意外收获，因为根据一条广为引用的圣训，马赫迪也有。这群人中的其他人，包括朱海曼本人，很快就做了同样的梦。

    梦在伊斯兰教中有特殊的意义，尤其是当集体经历时，因为安拉通过梦向先知传达了他的许多启示。（正如朱海曼的一位追随者所说：“我们做梦，证明我们更虔诚。”[52]）卡赫塔尼与朱海曼越来越亲近，朱海曼甚至与自己的妻子离婚，然后娶了卡赫塔尼那位做梦的妹妹。[53]

    正如哈尔·林赛后来所说，这个巨大的拼图终于拼好了。现在，朱海曼不仅拥有了他的马赫迪，而且他对圣训的解读也确认了马赫迪接受拜伊尔（效忠）的精确地点，即在夏甲和以实玛利（分别是亚伯拉罕的妻子和儿子）的坟墓旁，在大清真寺院内的克尔白外面，这正是卡赫塔尼的妹妹所梦到的那样。朱海曼还揭示了接受拜伊尔的日期：根据逊尼派的传统，他预测，一位被称为“世纪更新者”的学者将出现在每个希吉来世纪的第一天：希吉来历1400年开始于1979年11月20日。因此，朱海曼及其追随者必须占领大清真寺，以便马赫迪在确定的日子、在上述克尔白旁边的地点接受拜伊尔。

    在沙漠流亡期间，朱海曼录制了录音带，并创作了《朱海曼的信》。在这些信中，他阐述了自己的神学思想和末日论。（他只接受过四年级教育；虽然不是文盲，但写作能力很差，因此“信”很可能是口述的。[54]）沙特没有出版商会碰这些信，但最终一家科威特左翼出版社印制了两本单独的简编，分别是《七封信》和《四封信》，它们在半岛上广为流传。

    本·巴兹建议释放朱海曼的同伙，这是一个严重的错误；希吉来历1400年的第一天，朱海曼和大约300名追随者在大清真寺壮观地重新出现在公众视线中。[55]在过去的几天里，他们已经用由裹尸布（用来承载对死者最后祝福的一种传统）覆盖的担架私运了武器和供给。占领行动几乎没有带来流血事件，只在最初有两名没有武器的警察和一名助理伊玛目被杀。当朱海曼的手下鸣枪庆祝时，朱海曼从伊玛目手中抓起麦克风并大声喊道：“看，马赫迪！看，是正确的引导者！”[56]

    随后，朱海曼在楼上和宣礼塔上部署了狙击手，并让卡赫塔尼的哥哥赛义德出场。赛义德会说流利的古典阿拉伯语，他向人群宣布了马赫迪的存在。赛义德的演技令人印象深刻，特别是他向卡赫塔尼献上了拜伊尔，使一些战俘也加入他的行列，并使至少一名清真寺保安指挥官相信，那位面色苍白的年轻诗人确实是马赫迪。

    朱海曼释放了许多外国人，特别是那些不会说阿拉伯语的人。但是，由于叛军禁止数万名沙特及其他阿拉伯国家的朝圣者人质离开大清真寺，并指示他们拿起武器协助攻击，因此致命的混乱发生了。政府军和警察接近清真寺时，在距离不到半公里的地方，遭到火力攻击。

    叛军占领初期，有两个原因造成了政府的反应迟钝：首先，尽管全副武装的叛军向所有身穿制服的人开枪，但军队不愿还击，因为先知禁止携带武器进入麦加。其次，大量人质和政府军本身也担心卡赫塔尼可能真的是马赫迪。

    只有一个管理机构能够解决这一僵局，即由本·巴兹领导的乌莱玛（意思是宗教学者）或高级学者委员会。由于对王室的不虔诚、道德败坏和挥霍行为感到愤怒，这一威严的机构故意讨价还价：直到叛军占领的第五天，它才宣布卡赫塔尼为骗子，并为反击战祈福。作为交换，沙特国王哈立德同意重塑社会风气，尤其是禁止酒精和女性出现在电视上，这也是朱海曼呼吁的核心内容。

    在获得神学许可后，可怕的攻击开始了。政府军很快用反坦克导弹击退了尖塔狙击手，但主楼的叛军火力依然在，步兵无法进入清真寺。受伊赫万影响的国民警卫队，拒绝向自己的部落和神学兄弟开火，甚至在某些情况下还向对方提供武器，这使情况更糟。

    正规军取代了国民警卫队，但其在城市游击战方面的训练很少。直到军队将轰鸣的装甲运兵车开进清真寺，事情才有了进展。除了双方的损失之外，数百名甚至数千名朝圣者人质在交火中丧生。由于多次被告知是马赫迪，卡赫塔尼认为自己是无坚不摧的，不知怎的竟然真的在暴露的炮火中幸存了下来；他由此更加确定自己是永生的，开始向军队回掷手榴弹，直到运气最终耗尽——对方的一枚手榴弹几乎把他炸成碎片。叛军慢慢撤退到清真寺地下室，装甲车也进入了地下室，但在狭窄的通道里动弹不得。

    围攻陷入僵局。虽然确切数字从未公布，但袭击发生一周后，政府伤亡人数占全国三万军队和两万国民警卫队人员的很大一部分。哈立德国王需要寻求外国援助。约旦是唯一一个既与沙特关系友好又拥有可靠突击部队的阿拉伯国家，它主动提出援助。

    从沙特的角度看，其不能接受约旦的援助。在1924—1925年的战役中，包括1924年对塔伊夫城的残忍袭击，当时仍与哈立德的父亲阿卜杜勒·阿齐兹结盟的伊赫万军队，将现任约旦君主侯赛因的曾祖父哈希姆驱逐出了汉志王国，该王国包含麦加和麦地那；接受他们曾经鄙视的哈希姆人的援助意味着丢脸，因此他们无法接受。[57]

    因此，沙特王国被迫接受了一个不可思议的援助：在伊斯兰最神圣的地方，接受了来自基督教势力的援助。这将是圣训中提到的异教徒“北方军队”；它最终来了，但只是以微小而短暂的形式出现。德黑兰大使馆人质事件[58]发生后，哈立德认为美国卡特总统和中央情报局无能，因此决定向法国情报局寻求帮助。允许非信徒（更不用说基督教军队）进入麦加，这是极其敏感的，因此法国只派出了3名精英特工，他们携带大量的先进武器，其中包括数百磅先进的麻醉气体。

    20世纪60年代，大清真寺进行了大规模翻修和扩建，其建筑平面图在这次袭击计划中发挥了至关重要的作用。该平面图由负责这一庞大工程的建筑大亨穆罕默德·本·拉登绘制。1967年他去世后，他的儿子塞勒姆接管了公司。塞勒姆带着平面图赶往清真寺，和员工一起在清真寺地板上钻了几个洞，通过这些洞把法国毒气罐扔到了叛军所在的地下室里。但这一战术只是暂时有效，因此沙特人最终被迫对叛军所在的地下室发动了一场由法国人设计并协同的直接进攻，其残忍程度难以想象。[59]

    14天后，也就是12月4日，围攻结束。几千名参战人员和人质死亡。至少有100名军人被俘，包括垂头丧气的朱海曼。医生们检查了这些囚犯；如果肩部疼痛或有瘀伤，这就表明其曾经主动开枪。医生们通过这种方式找出了69名囚犯，他们被公开斩首，名列榜首的是朱海曼。其他一部分人被沙特秘密处决，剩余的被判长期监禁。官方公布的叛军、军队和人质的死亡人数是270，但没人相信这一数字。[60]

    朱海曼的行为，主要是由他的末日幻想驱动的。但是，随后对幸存追随者的采访清楚地表明，许多人并不相信他的末日神学，而只是出于对他的尊重、在口头上表示相信；还有一部分人是因为参加该行动可以推动他们的政治目标。无论如何，在围攻的第三天，当他们认为的无坚不摧的卡赫塔尼被手榴弹炸死时，即使是那些相信朱海曼的末日预言的人也丧失了信心。[61]事实仍然是，如果末日信念不存在，大清真寺围攻事件就不会发生。

    和1927—1930年的伊赫万叛乱被镇压一样，沙特人成功镇压了1979年的这场伊赫万叛乱。但事情并没有结束。在未来几十年中，全球冲突之风将把大清真寺围攻事件的余烬带到王国边界之外。这一次，新技术将使朱海曼的继承人有能力将火焰扇得比1979年更强烈、更明亮。甚至在清除清真寺的血迹和碎片之前，这些余烬就开始燃烧得更亮。在沙特军队处理了朱海曼的最后一批叛军3周后，苏联军队入侵了阿富汗。这不是巧合；从美国对1979年德黑兰大使馆人质事件的反应，以及沙特大清真寺围攻事件和半岛东部的一场什叶派叛乱中，苏联人感觉到了美国和沙特君主国的衰落。

    苏联入侵阿富汗被证明是一个灾难性的错误；阿富汗成为吸引新一代圣战者的磁石。其中许多人是朱海曼的支持者和拥护者，朱海曼在阿富汗圣战者营地中具有传奇性地位。美国放弃了对中东的不干预政策，积极支持伊斯兰世界的武装分子涌入阿富汗。其中一名战士是翻修和扩建大清真寺的建筑大亨的儿子，他就是年轻的奥萨马·本·拉登。他的哥哥提供的建筑图，在夺回大清真寺的过程中发挥了重要作用。

    大清真寺围攻事件后，一名居住在科威特的巴勒斯坦人伊萨姆·巴卡维（后来改名为穆罕默德·迈格迪西）发现了朱海曼的信，并找到了该国的萨拉菲组织分支，该分支为该教派的逃犯提供了避难所。随后，迈格迪西去麦地那进行宗教研究，并在随后的几年里周游了沙特阿拉伯和约旦，然后抵达了巴基斯坦的白沙瓦——这里是进入阿富汗（当时已被苏联占领）的主要门户。在每一站，他都寻找朱海曼的追随者。迈格迪西对朱海曼的传说如此着迷，他模仿朱海曼的外貌，留起了长发和乱胡子，并宣称与这位伊赫万英雄没有血缘关系。[62]

    最终，迈格迪西在约旦定居，并在1995—2014年频繁进出监狱。他为今天的圣战奠定了思想基础。在这方面，任何其他的穆斯林思想家都比不上他。圣战学者们最近的一项研究表明，穆斯林末日文学中引用最多的激进伊斯兰主义者就是迈格迪西，他自成年后就将自己沉浸在《古兰经》和圣训中。[63]

    在1995—1999年第一次进入约旦监狱服刑期间，迈格迪西指导了一个名叫阿布·穆萨布·扎卡维的约旦小罪犯。两人都在1999年被释放，之后在空间和神学上都分开了。迈格迪西留在了约旦，虽然他有时批评极端的同伴，但他确信一件事：虔诚的穆斯林有义务前往叙利亚参加即将来临的与达加尔之间的末日之战，如果不去叙利亚，就去也门。他的学生扎卡维则逃往了阿富汗，并发展出一种偏执而凶残的思想意识，尽管后来扎卡维死了，但这种意识形态一直持续到今天。

    扎卡维有一种诡异的本领，他总是能在美国的军事行动发生之前到达该地区，首先是阿富汗，在他从阿富汗逃出后又是伊拉克。在伊拉克，他几乎独自写下了暴力圣战剧本，包括自杀式袭击、绑架和斩首西方人，他还擅长通过网络招募新兵。

    2004年，扎卡维参加了位于法鲁贾[64]的两次战役，并宣布效忠于奥萨马·本·拉登。到此时，迈格迪西已经拒绝了朱海曼的末日论，但扎卡维没有，而且随着萨达姆·侯赛因军队的迅速战败，扎卡维的宣传越来越采用末日论的基调。在早些时候，他已经认识到末日式的宣传能够吸引新兵。这一经验后来被伊斯兰国采用，从而引发了一个恶性循环：战场形势越糟糕，基调就越末日式，就会吸引更多的新兵，从而产生更多的战场伤亡。

    扎卡维从未忘记他的首要目标，即推翻约旦君主国。约旦君主国于1994年与以色列签订了和平条约。扎卡维将约旦人描述为“犹太复国主义者的奴隶”，经常用预言性术语“腐败的统治者”来形容约旦国王阿卜杜拉二世。扎卡维还鄙视什叶派及其伊朗[65]权力中心，他经常引用一些诋毁什叶派的古老预言，特别是与636年阿拉伯军队在卡迪西亚击败波斯萨珊帝国有关的预言，以及将后来的波斯伊斯兰[66]与可恨的蒙古人联系在一起的预言。很明显，扎卡维并没有把犹太人看作达加尔，对他来说，什叶派是达加尔，美国侵略者也是达加尔；谋杀什叶派和美国侵略者，不仅在神学上是必要的，而且还有额外的收获，即可以引发一场教派战争，加速末日的到来。

    末日类文学中有很多关于早期穆斯林与拜占庭人斗争的内容，扎卡维充分利用了这些文学。扎卡维提到美国军队时，使用了古代表示拜占庭人和西罗马人的一个缩写：rum。（相比之下，基地组织对以美国为首的部队使用了同样指责性的标签：“十字军”。）只要有可能，扎卡维就会把先知的战斗比作自己的战斗。他特别喜欢著名的《苏瓦班圣训》，在这部圣训中，先知告诉他的追随者，“各国将从各个方向蜂拥而至，就像饥饿的人们涌向水壶一样”。他认为伊拉克2005年的民主宪法是一场灾难，为了安慰自己，他引用了布哈里圣训，即使正义被击败，“通过这种方式，信使们也受到了考验，然后他们最终会胜利”[67]。

    扎卡维的自杀式爆炸、斩首和对无辜生命的漠视，最终甚至使他的组织成员也疏远了他。组织成员可能泄露了扎卡维的“精神导师”谢赫·阿卜杜勒-拉赫曼的所在地，这使满载炸弹的美国F-16战机在2006年6月7日找到了扎卡维。[68]

    扎卡维还谈到了重建哈里发政权的问题。最后一个哈里发政权已经在1924年被土耳其废除。但扎卡维最终放弃了重建哈里发政权这一目标，因为一个合法的哈里发政权需要领土，以及人民的支持。重建哈里发必须要等待；因此扎卡维和奥萨马分别在伊拉克和阿富汗宣布了一个地位稍逊的实体——“酋长国”。

    酋长国和哈里发之间有很重要的差异；酋长国统治有限的领土，而哈里发不仅统治所有穆斯林，还意味着末日的来临。扎卡维认为世界末日即将到来，但他认为世界末日还没有到来。尽管如此，末日的确切日期和哈里发问题，还是使奥萨马在阿富汗的“基地组织中心”的行动与扎卡维在伊拉克的行动分道扬镳。2006年，扎卡维在空袭中丧生之前，命令追随者宣布成立伊拉克伊斯兰国。他的组织在4个月后的2006年10月15日这样做了，这令基地组织目瞪口呆，基地组织认为没有控制领土而宣布成立一个新国家是愚蠢的。

    基地组织和伊拉克伊斯兰国之间的分裂，在某种程度上类似于主流基督教徒和福音派新教徒之间的分裂。高雅而受过良好教育的圣公会教徒和长老会教徒，看不起他们的同宗——时代论教徒，他们认为时代论的末日猜测是未经洗礼的人的胡言乱语；同样，享有特权的奥萨马也蔑视扎卡维愚昧的末日论，认为他是一个几乎不识字的小流氓。尽管奥萨马是个恐怖分子，但他是个贵族。他的父亲穆罕默德·本·拉登是那个地区特有的族长，来自也门，成年后最初在麦加的港口城市吉达做搬运工，最终成为沙特王室的建筑总承揽商；今天，沙特本拉登集团是世界上最大的建筑承包公司之一。老拉登娶了不少于22个女人，有54个孩子，其中第17个是奥萨马，奥萨马的母亲15岁时生下了他。

    奥萨马出生后不久，他的父母就离婚了。老拉登让奥萨马的母亲嫁给了一位公司高管，这位高管成为奥萨马的继父。尽管奥萨马已不在父亲的屋檐下，但他和父亲保持着松散的联系；更重要的是，这个年轻人享受着父亲的庇护，包括在多个私立机构接受精英式教育，最重要的是吉达著名的塔格学校，该学校当时是阿拉伯民族主义和伊斯兰教意识形态的温床，其中的伊斯兰教意识形态正是年轻的奥萨马所接受的。1967年，奥萨马10岁时，他的父亲死于飞机失事；1979年，他从阿卜杜勒阿齐兹国王大学毕业，之后开始参与家族的建筑生意。同年，苏联入侵阿富汗，去阿富汗从事人道主义工作或与圣战者一起作战，成为沙特年轻人中的一种时尚。最初，奥萨马是被公司派往那里的，后来，他把事业从建筑转到圣战。[69]

    对出身高贵、有工程头脑的奥萨马·本·拉登来说，圣战是一件有条不紊、需要冷静头脑的事情，而不是一件救世主式的事情。仅举一个例子，他后来向持有末日思想的索马里青年党发出警告：气候变化对伊斯兰教干旱家园的威胁不亚于外国军队，并建议他们种植耐热树。阿拉伯学者威廉·麦坎茨说：“如果你不知道他管理着世界上最臭名昭著的恐怖组织，那么你会认为他是美国国际开发署的一名官员。”[70]

    奥萨马还有另一个不相信扎卡维的末日论的理由。1979年他毕业那年，他哥哥塞勒姆凭借大清真寺修缮平面图，参与了夺回大清真寺的行动。[71]奥萨马一家目睹了当考虑不周的末日计划与现实世界的地缘政治力量相碰撞时会发生什么，尤其是当末日计划者对地域既没有政治控制也没有军事控制时。

    基地组织的首要任务是打击“远敌”美国，并将其军队赶出沙特阿拉伯和中东。“9·11”袭击导致了恰恰相反的结果。奥萨马·本·拉登对中东“近敌”的战略是推翻其腐朽的领导，这需要一种“心灵与智慧”的方法，需要避免自杀式炸弹袭击、斩首，以及避免对什叶派的大规模屠杀。而他的更狂热的伊拉克追随者们正在犯这些错误。

    近敌和远敌的概念是由埃及伊斯兰教徒穆罕默德·阿卜杜勒·萨拉姆·法拉杰创造的，他认为“近敌”是埃及政府，“远敌”是以色列。埃及外科医生艾曼·扎瓦希里又引用了这两个术语，他后来成为本·拉登的副手。1982年，法拉杰因参与暗杀萨达特被埃及人处决，而2011年奥萨马·本·拉登被杀后，脾气暴躁、缺乏激情的扎瓦希里继承了基地组织的领导权，并和奥萨马·本·拉登一样，蔑视世界末日论。

    伊拉克伊斯兰国没有建立哈里发政权，但在2006年，其名义上的执政机构“圣战者协商委员会”任命了一位没有名气的人担任“忠诚信徒的指挥官”，他就是阿布·奥马尔·巴格达迪。巴格达迪自称是先知的后裔，因此在技术上有资格成为哈里发，但他所谓的先知血统很可能是假的。他的真名是哈米德·扎维，曾是一名警察、电子修理工，是一个没有什么学识或声望的伊玛目。事实上，扎卡维的埃及弟子阿布·阿尤布·马斯里负责运营伊拉克伊斯兰国的机构。

    同年早些时候，伊拉克伊斯兰国选择了黑色旗帜作为其象征，上面有先知的印章和“除了造物主之外，世上没有别的神灵，穆罕默德是造物主的使者”的铭文。由于末日圣训预言中提到了“来自呼罗珊的黑色旗帜”，伊拉克伊斯兰国旗帜的末日征兆再清楚不过了。[72]

    在因冲突和贫困而四分五裂的伊斯兰世界，伊拉克伊斯兰国出现了一条丰富的矿脉。调查数据显示，世界上期望末日来临的穆斯林甚至比基督教徒还要多。皮尤中心的一项研究发现，51%的中东穆斯林相信马赫迪即将回归，这一比例在被入侵后的伊拉克可能更大。[73]（与其他宗教信仰的社会学数据一样，国家越贫困，信仰越强烈；南亚穆斯林的这一比例为60%，而巴尔干穆斯林的这一比例仅为18%。）[74]不管是有意还是无意，伊拉克伊斯兰国采用的末日叙事远比奥萨马·本·拉登陈旧的萨拉菲神学以及奥萨马·本·拉登的继承人、缺乏激情的扎瓦希里的神学更有说服力。

    如果还有人相信马赫迪即将到来，这个人就是伊拉克伊斯兰国的实际领导人马斯里。为了加快马赫迪到来的进程，他让部队修建讲坛，供马赫迪在麦地那、耶路撒冷和大马士革的3座著名清真寺之间穿梭。马斯里还需要征服并控制领土，以加速马赫迪的到来。对于怀疑者，他给出了这样一个简单的回答：“马赫迪随时都会来。”[75]

    马斯里用热情和坚定的宗教信仰，为一系列比扎卡维犯下的暴行更严重的暴行辩解。伊拉克伊斯兰国不仅屠杀什叶派教徒，还屠杀任何拒绝效忠的逊尼派教徒；用妇女和儿童做人盾；炸毁房屋和医院。它广泛实行“哈杜德”[76]：用石头砸死通奸者，给偷窃者截肢，对饮酒者施行鞭刑。有一次，伊拉克伊斯兰国斩首了一名8岁的女孩。

    随着伊拉克伊斯兰国杀戮升级的报道传到阿富汗的基地组织，奥萨马·本·拉登和扎瓦希里试图收回他们在伊拉克的控制权，但对方一直拖延。[77]美国官员惊奇地发现了马斯里严重的战略战术错误，并将取他性命的奖金从500万美元降至10万美元；一些分析人士猜测，他只是一名戏剧演员。或许，他的妻子对丈夫的固执、笨拙的暴行所做出的描述最为简洁：“你说的伊拉克伊斯兰国在哪里？我们生活在沙漠中！”2010年4月18日，伊拉克和美国联军在提克里特（萨达姆·侯赛因的家乡）附近联合袭击了马斯里和巴格达迪，将他们逼到了绝境，最后他们引爆了自己。[78]

    尽管失败了很多次，伊拉克伊斯兰国还是再次发现了一个林赛、莱希和詹金斯所熟知的真理：末日叙事很叫座，而且越血腥越好。到了21世纪，通过网站和社交媒体，伊拉克伊斯兰国可以向全世界宣传世界末日。其中最常见的宣传品是简单的新闻稿：

    一个勇敢无畏的兄弟，伊拉克伊斯兰国的英雄之一，殉难者旅的成员……在迪亚拉省马弗里克区的耶路撒冷十字路口，驾驶一辆装满炸药的汽车冲进了美国十字军的指挥场所。我们这个英勇的兄弟高呼“最伟大的真主”并引爆了汽车……杀死11名士兵，摧毁两辆布拉德利装甲战车。[79]

    互联网不仅可以广泛传播文字材料，还可以传播更引人注目的视频。“十字军”部队遭受袭击的视频片段，在中东和西方的伊拉克伊斯兰国的支持者中受到欢迎，这些视频通常从多个角度拍摄；其中的一段美国卡车被简易爆炸装置炸毁的视频，其标题是“他们的最后时刻”。网上还有一些较长的视频，包括“精选”的袭击汇编、殉道者传略、计划-执行纪录片和充满煽动性的剪辑组合。美国和伊拉克军队也不是唯一的对象，事实表明，以处决什叶派囚犯为主题的视频尤其受到欢迎。[80]

    早在2008年，经奥萨马·本·拉登授权的基地组织也门分支——阿拉伯半岛基地组织就已经通过两个杂志《战争的回声》和《激励》推进伊斯兰教的末日宣传。其中《激励》是一本英语杂志，其经营者是萨米尔·汗，是一个在美国北卡罗来纳州长大的巴基斯坦人，他擅长使用一些吸引人的文章标题，如《在你妈妈的厨房里制作炸弹》；2010年左右，他开始为《激励》写一些末日类的文章。

    汗是一位伊玛目的门徒。这位伊玛目极具魅力和影响力，是一位在美国长大的也门裔美国公民，名叫安瓦尔·奥拉基，他在一篇文章中庄重地写道：

    穆贾姆·卡比尔和其他人从伊本·阿拔斯[81]的传述中得知先知的话：“一支12000人的军队将从亚丁-阿比杨（也门）出现。他们将给安拉和他的使者带来胜利。他们是我们中最好的！”

    关于上面那条圣训，可敬的谢赫·苏莱曼·伊本·纳西尔·乌尔万——愿安拉保佑他早日被释放——说，圣训传述链条很好，传述者是可以被认同的。[82]

    奥拉基没有对上述第一段话进行分析，而是在第二段中引用了一位更权威的学者的观点。他是一位享有盛名的、被监禁的沙特伊斯兰神学家，名叫苏莱曼·伊本·纳西尔·乌尔万，他为圣训传述链条的可信度提供了担保。[83]

    奥拉基充满启示性的末日文章、讲座和视频激励了一系列恐怖袭击。其中一些袭击是由与他有过私人接触的门徒，甚至可能是他亲自指导的门徒发动的，比如“内裤炸弹手”奥马尔·法鲁克·阿卜杜勒穆塔拉布。而其他袭击则是远方的人受到他的鼓舞，比如胡德堡枪击案的罪犯纳达尔·马利克·哈桑，哈桑曾是一位与他发过电子邮件的美国陆军精神科医生；还有时代广场的炸弹手费萨尔·沙赫扎德，其自称只是奥拉基的“粉丝和追随者”[84]。

    最终，阿拉伯半岛基地组织走上了一条与伊拉克伊斯兰国相同的、毫无意义的暴力之路；这是阿富汗上级基地组织所反对的。此时奥萨马·本·拉登已经被杀，基地组织的指挥权已经移交给扎瓦希里。最终，阿拉伯半岛基地组织未能保护好辖域内的人民。2011年9月30日，美国在也门发动了一次引发争议的无人机袭击，杀害了萨米尔·汗和奥拉基——两个都是美国公民。可悲的是，另一次无人机袭击造成了奥拉基16岁的儿子阿卜杜拉赫曼的死亡，这可能是个意外；2017年1月29日，一次灾难性的海豹突击队袭击又导致一名突击队员和奥拉基8岁的女儿死亡。[85]

    到2010年，伊拉克伊斯兰国似乎已经岌岌可危。但是，当奥巴马政府初期美国从伊拉克撤军、只留下了小部分骨干训练师和顾问时，情况又有所改变。美国支持的伊拉克总理努里·马利基，是一位高度党派化的什叶派政治家，其镇压性策略甚至将温和的逊尼派也推向了伊拉克伊斯兰国的阵营。

    2010年5月，即马斯里和阿布·奥马尔·巴格达迪死后一个月，一位名叫阿布·巴克尔·巴格达迪的机会主义者和伊斯兰学者，担任了伊拉克伊斯兰国的领导人。[86]关于他，几乎没有什么确切的信息，据说他的直系亲属是先知的后裔，但都已经失踪。他似乎是一个富有书卷气的年轻人，由于视力差而无法加入萨达姆的军队，很早就有“信徒”的绰号。他全身心投入《古兰经》和圣训中，目前尚不确定他有没有在巴格达获得萨达姆大学伊斯兰研究专业的博士学位。该大学由独裁者建立，用于拉拢宗教权势。

    除了伊斯兰教经文，“新巴格达迪”还有另外两个爱好：他擅长的足球和公共道德准则的执行。据说他脾气暴躁，可能是因为射门失败或看到不同信仰的夫妻在婚礼上跳舞。

    2003年美国入侵后不久，巴格达迪由于组织了一个不知名的抵抗性组织，于2004年2月在费卢杰被捕，被关进“布卡营”监狱。那里关押着2.4万名囚犯，被一位观察者称为“事实上的恐怖分子大学”，巴格达迪在狱友中很受欢迎。圣战分子们在布卡营交换思想，建立关系，并在拳击短裤的松紧带上写下彼此的联系方式。被释放后，他们会立即脱掉衣服，从短裤上剪下关键信息，并用其来重整和建立组织。

    巴格达迪迷惑了美国人，使自己提前获释，之后他几乎立即与扎卡维的部队取得了联系。作为一名宗教学者，他对伊拉克伊斯兰国来说很有价值。对于伊拉克伊斯兰国的石头砸死通奸者，窃贼截肢，屠杀什叶派和其他叛徒等残暴运动，他可以为其提供神学掩护。2007年，他不再做这些，前往巴格达参加博士论文答辩。

    2010年4月马斯里和阿布·奥马尔·巴格达迪的死亡，为布卡营的校友们空出了领导人的位置，而阿布·巴克尔·巴格达迪凭借其个人魅力、学术声誉、在布卡营的人脉以及所谓的古莱西血统位居榜首。[87]

    在接下来的几年里，美国在伊拉克的影响力不断减弱，巴格达迪得以在全国扩大影响力，其影响力甚至进入了叙利亚。2013年4月，他宣称拥有基地组织在叙利亚的统治权，这让此时由扎瓦希里控制的基地组织中心大吃一惊，扎瓦希里将伊拉克伊斯兰国踢出了组织。在叙利亚内战如火如荼之际，总统巴沙尔·阿萨德实际上站在伊拉克伊斯兰国一边，有选择地轰炸其对手，让伊拉克伊斯兰国几乎不受影响。

    到6月中旬，伊拉克伊斯兰国已经占领了伊拉克第三大城市摩苏尔。巴格达迪发现，自己现在掌控了一个辖域，这一辖域覆盖了叙利亚和伊拉克之间的边界，这一边界是由臭名昭著的1916年《赛克斯-皮科协定》划分的。[88]伊拉克伊斯兰国命运的转变震惊了西方联盟；就在6个月前，奥巴马总统告诉记者戴维·雷姆尼克，“如果业余队的队员穿上湖人队的队服，那么这并不意味着他们就是科比·布莱恩特”。尽管奥巴马特别提到了基地组织袭击美国领土的能力，但他的时机再糟糕不过了。[89]

    正如哈尔·林赛和朱海曼一样，对伊拉克伊斯兰国来说，“大拼图”几乎已经就位：世界处于道德和政治混乱之中，一个由先知后裔统治的无国界王国——哈里发政权，无疑就在眼前。唯一需要的是哈里发的神学基础。

    一位名叫图尔基·比纳利的圣战学者完成了这项任务。这位来自巴林的神学家如此令人敬畏，足以被看作迈格迪西的继承人。和他的老师一样，他频繁进出监狱。2014年初，当伊拉克伊斯兰国在叙利亚集结力量时，他到达叙利亚，见证了哈里发政权的诞生：“已经到达了一个有着史诗般战役和战争的地点——叙利亚，难道我们还会回去吗？……这里是伊斯兰，这里就是我的家；这里是我的住所，我属于这里。”[90]

    但他的导师迈格迪西肯定不相信哈里发政权即将到来。令迈格迪西懊恼的是，比纳利很快就写了一篇题为《伸出你的手，把拜伊尔交给巴格达迪》的文章。[91]

    2014年6月29日，斋月的第一天，巴格达迪宣布重建哈里发政权，他本人就是哈里发易卜拉欣。5天后，这位从未在公众集会上出现过的哈里发，登上了新占领的摩苏尔努里大清真寺的讲坛，戴黑色头巾，身穿黑色长袍，谦卑地接受了领导权，然后要求全世界穆斯林服从他的领导。除了经典的神职装束外，他还戴着一块高级圣战分子钟爱的、显眼而昂贵的手表，该手表除其他功能外，还每天5次提醒祈祷。[92]

    此后，伊拉克伊斯兰国领导层决定将组织简称为伊斯兰国。几周后，伊斯兰国宣传人员出版了第一期《达比克》，文章标题为《哈里发制度的回归》：哈里发重生。《达比克》最初只在暗网[93]上发布，2014—2016年，一共发布了15期，这些内容现在可以从互联网上免费获得。[94]

    到2015年底，约有3万名来自至少86个国家的外国战士前往伊拉克，加入了伊斯兰国，其中约1/6来自西方国家。[95]与奥萨马·本·拉登冗长、晦涩难懂的阿拉伯语公报形成鲜明对比的是，《达比克》初期的英语、法语和德语版本（目标为潜在的西方新兵，特别是那些对伊斯兰教末日论缺乏深刻理解的新兵）。

    其中充满了与西方之间的即将来临的末日大决战预言性典故，从最著名的末日圣训开始（见图15-2）。其中提到，“直到罗马人在阿马克或达比克登陆，末日才会确定”，并且耶稣将回归，在他面前，敌人“会像盐一样在水中融化”。对于那些仍然不理解预言含义的人，杂志提供了一个缩略版本：

    图15-2 伊斯兰末日地标

    根据圣训，在征服君士坦丁堡和罗马之前的战斗中，达比克及其周围地区会扮演重要角色。目前，达比克由十字军支持的萨赫瓦（逊尼派傀儡）控制，靠近其与哈里发之间的战争前线。[96]

    很快，伊斯兰国将通过占领象征性意义重大、战略上次要的达比克城来实现这一预言。按照伊斯兰国的说法，由来自全球各地的战士组成的伊斯兰国军队将重建哈里发政权，并恢复伊斯兰教在世界上的正确地位：“很快，在真主的允许下，穆斯林将以主人的身份自由行走，享有荣誉，受到尊敬，昂首挺胸，保有尊严。”[97]

    虽然英雄和反派的身份不同，但该杂志的摩尼教式世界观与林赛和莱希几乎相同：

    事实上，今天的世界被分为两大阵营和两条战壕：伊斯兰和信仰者的阵营，库夫尔（不信仰者）和伪善者的阵营。目前没有第三阵营。或者说，穆斯林和圣战者的阵营，犹太人、十字军及其盟友，以及库夫尔的其他国家和宗教阵营。其中第二个阵营由美国和俄罗斯领导，并被犹太人鼓动。[98]

    这个预言之后是逊尼派遭受到暴行和处决什叶派肇事者的残忍画面，前一种画面是为了引起支持者的同情，后一种画面是为了在反对者中制造恐惧。随后是人们对哈里发易卜拉欣的热情洋溢的描述。奇怪的是，杂志中还出现了美国国家安全委员会相貌出众的官员道格拉斯·奥利万特的照片，照片中他站在卡托研究所[99]的讲台后面，旁边还有他对伊斯兰国可怕能力的描述性文字。[100]该杂志随后列出了伊斯兰国通往胜利的五步路线图，从“迁移”（即移民到伊斯兰国领土）到“哈里发政权”。

    奇怪的是，马赫迪在大清真寺围攻事件中扮演了如此重要的角色，现在却基本上不被提及。原因并不确定；也许马赫迪的出现需要一个日期，因此很容易让人失望；也许他在1979年围攻中的灾难性结局使他贬值了。因此，伊斯兰国叙事更多地聚焦于先知耶稣[101]战胜达加尔。[102]

    “迁移”到伊斯兰国领土的西方人，通常不会说阿拉伯语，也没有受过军事训练，因此几乎没有什么用处。但有一种例外：那些有媒体经验的人。伊斯兰国制作的一段13分钟的视频中，有多名来自欧洲和澳大利亚的圣战分子赞美哈里发的辖地：“我们没有边界，我们参加了在叙利亚的战争，一段时间后我们将前往伊拉克，在那里战斗，然后回来。我们甚至将前往约旦和黎巴嫩，这都没问题。”另一段视频显示了一名伊斯兰国战士吹嘘攻击以色列，痛惜“我们在费卢杰的姐妹们”所生的畸形婴儿。还有一段视频则传达了一句妙语——放弃你在西方的“肥差事”，“问问自己，是什么阻止了你？是什么让你落后？是你的财富”[103]。

    圣战主义媒体专家巧妙地使用了通往大脑边缘系统的捷径——音乐，就像莱尼·里芬斯塔尔的《意志的胜利》或者美国总统竞选广告中那样。由于虔诚的穆斯林回避乐器，因此伊斯兰曲调以催眠般的无伴奏合唱歌曲《纳希德》，来赞颂即将到来的哈里发政权，并规劝信徒殉道。

    《纳希德》在多起伊斯兰恐怖袭击中扮演了重要角色。例如，2013年，察尔纳耶夫兄弟制造了致命的波士顿马拉松爆炸案后，由于他们的苹果手机无法连接所劫持车辆的立体音箱，无法收听激进纳希德的声音，于是他们冒着风险开车返回丢弃的汽车里，取回他们的CD。安瓦尔·奥拉基对于圣战音乐的魅力印象特别深刻：“一个好的纳希德可以传播得如此之广，可以吸引那些你无法通过演讲或书籍接触到的听众。”[104]

    许多年轻人在西方过着与周围格格不入的、没有目标、似乎毫无意义的生活，他们被这场建立在有着1400年历史的末日叙事基础上的大冒险吸引。最近的圣战新兵中有高比例的欧洲新皈依者，这就是明证。[105]正如一名叙利亚逊尼派叛军对路透社记者所说的那样，“如果你认为所有这些圣战者都是从世界各地来攻打阿萨德的，那你就错了。他们都是按照先知的承诺来到这里的。这是先知承诺的战争，一场伟大的战争[106]”[107]。

    正如心理学家蒂莫西·布罗克和梅拉妮·格林指出的那样，叙事越有力，就越能腐蚀人类的批判性思维。对已经厌倦了西方主导的世界、与西方生活格格不入的新兵来说，伊斯兰国的叙事足够强大，足以在种族大屠杀、强奸和奴役等方面为他们提供神学掩护。

    2014年8月，伊斯兰国占领伊拉克北部后，辛贾尔省的很多伊斯兰教雅兹迪派成员发现自己处于伊斯兰国的统治之下。2014年10月11日出版的第四期《达比克》不仅使迫害该教派合理化，还将此迫害美化为鼓励信徒参与种族驱动的大规模奴役、强奸和谋杀的手段。

    雅兹迪人相信安拉把世界托付给了7位天使，其中最重要的是他们特别尊敬的孔雀王。《达比克》中提到，这样的异端邪说使雅兹迪人成为多神教徒或异教徒：“他们的信条如此离经叛道，连基督教徒都认为他们是魔鬼的崇拜者和撒旦教徒。”《达比克》中提到，关于多神论者，《古兰经》中讲得很清楚：

    那么当禁月过去，无论你们在哪里发现多神教徒，都要杀掉他们，俘获他们，包围他们并在各处埋伏等待着他们。但是如果他们悔悟并立行礼拜和完纳天课（穆斯林缴纳的税款），你们就任他们自由。的确，安拉是宽恕的、仁慈的。

    与基督教徒和犹太人不同，伊斯兰教义认为“有经者”[108]可以通过上缴“人头税”（非穆斯林缴纳的税款）而受到保护。伊斯兰国将雅兹迪人视为异教徒。但伊斯兰国的神学家们争论雅兹迪人究竟一直是异教徒，还是最初是穆斯林，后来成为叛徒。这一区别至关重要，因为叛教的妇女必须得到与叛教男子相同的选择——皈依或死亡，而一直是异教徒的妇女可以被奴役。

    《达比克》中提到，伊斯兰国认定雅兹迪人一直是异教徒，因此他们的妇女应该做奴隶。但安拉是仁慈的，不允许他们的性奴与其孩子分离。更妙的是，根据一条圣训，当“奴隶女孩生下她的主人”，这就是末日的标志。对这句话的解释模棱两可，也许是指主人的孩子成了主人，或者奴隶数量的增加本身就是末日的标志，或者是指末日时男人会放弃婚姻、与妾相处。但无论如何，根据《达比克》的说法，带走非信徒的女性“是由伊斯兰教法所确立的，如果有人拒绝或嘲笑，那么他就相当于否认或嘲笑《古兰经》的经文和先知的叙述，背离伊斯兰教”[109]。

    因此，伊斯兰国让雅兹迪人皈依；伊斯兰国的士兵经常在拒绝皈依者的家人面前割断他们的喉咙或砍掉他们的头。4/5的妇女和儿童被分配给伊斯兰国的士兵，其余1/5被送到基地，被关押的妇女经常遭受轮奸。许多雅兹迪人设法逃走了，但结果是被饿死。截至2017年，根据联合国估计，伊斯兰国组织已经杀害了3000名雅兹迪人，劫持了7000人。[110]

    从2014年中开始，伊斯兰国在全世界范围内直接或煽动制造了多场袭击。最引人注目的是，2015年11月13日，巴黎巴塔克兰音乐厅和其他地点的屠杀造成130人死亡，530人受伤；2016年7月14日，法国尼斯地区的国庆日卡车袭击事件造成84人死亡，458人受伤。据估计，截至2019年8月，伊斯兰国在叙利亚和伊拉克境外直接或煽动制造的袭击夺走了3800多人的生命。[111]

    2014年中，巴格达迪升级为哈里发易卜拉欣时，基本是伊斯兰国的巅峰时刻。当时的伊斯兰国有约800万人口、大量武器储备以及油田和炼油厂的收入。之后，它在伊拉克和叙利亚的胜利以及在世界范围内开展恐怖活动的能力，引起了西方的军事反应，再加上伊斯兰国的极端残暴以及伊拉克总理马利基被更具调和倾向的海德尔·阿巴迪[112]取代，伊斯兰国对逊尼派的影响有所减弱。从2016年10月起，越来越强大的伊拉克政府军队，在美国领导的空袭和库尔德武装的协助下，逐渐收复了摩苏尔地区，并在2017年1月下旬以灾难性的方式夺回了摩苏尔城市东段。可能有超过10000名平民和大约1000名联军部队成员在袭击中丧生；仅这一次行动中就有多达16000名伊斯兰国战士被杀，至此，伊斯兰国已经大不如从前了；2019年10月26日，美国特种部队在叙利亚西北部突袭，巴格达迪被逼入绝境，他引爆了一件爆炸背心，将自己和他的两个孩子炸死。[113]

    在与伊拉克伊斯兰国/伊斯兰国的整场冲突中，伊拉克政府军和以美国为首的外国军队可能杀害了多达6万名伊斯兰国战士。伊斯兰国在战场上的形势逆转，削弱了它在欧美地区策划和煽动恐怖袭击的能力，尽管它仍然能够在中东和亚洲地区发起一些骇人行动。《达比克》于2016年停止出版，到2018年初，它的宣传流量已经下降了约2/3。

    正如许多伊斯兰末日论的观察家预测的那样，早在2014年中，伊斯兰国就停止了继续扩张；它已经控制了伊拉克和叙利亚的逊尼派腹地，基本不打算进一步征服土耳其、库尔德人控制的领土以及什叶派地区。由于没有任何持续的征服，哈里发政权失去了正统性和征兵能力。[114]

    此外，伊斯兰国最初的胜利引起了伊拉克什叶派民兵组织的强烈抵制，特别是伊玛目穆克塔达·萨德尔领导的部队。2014年底，通常支持和平的伊拉克什叶派最高神职人员大阿亚图拉·阿里·西斯塔尼呼吁战斗人员“保卫国家和人民，保卫公民荣誉和圣地”，这引发了热情的新兵征募潮。这些什叶派民兵组织得到了由传奇指挥官卡西姆·索莱马尼领导的伊朗精英“圣城部队”的资金、人员和物资的大力支持（索莱马尼于2020年死于美国的无人机袭击）。在残酷的后续报复行动中，数千名无辜的逊尼派教徒被杀害。[115]

    由于不再获取更多的领土以及军事形势的迅速逆转，伊斯兰国的末日叙事前景及物质回报和异教徒性奴都在减少；到2016年中，那些没有被炸成废墟的训练营因缺少新兵而关闭。2017年10月17日，伊斯兰国设在叙利亚拉卡市的“首都”，落入由美国特种部队支持的叙利亚反政府军手中。2019年3月下旬，联军占领了最后一块被伊斯兰国占领的土地。[116]

    目前，伊斯兰国在中东地区仍然是一个重要角色，它在欧美地区的追随者仍然能够发动“孤狼袭击”[117]，但那个曾经引导了胜利的、不断扩大的哈里发政权的末日叙事已经消失，伊斯兰国也不像以前那样能够吸引来自发达国家的数万名天真的年轻追随者。

    但是，只要整个社会中存在屈辱和失望，启示性末日论就能也必然将蓬勃发展。今天的伊斯兰世界就是这样，尤其是在它从西方那里收到了真实或想象中的失败的情况下。

    此外，基督教末日论在20世纪末的兴起表明，即使在成功、繁荣的社会中，末日类叙事也可以蓬勃发展，而所有三种亚伯拉罕信仰都可以为末日叙事提供肥沃的土壤。人类对引人入胜的故事的渴望（其中末日类故事最具诱惑力）加剧了另一种不幸的倾向，即我们的“群体内/群体外行为”倾向。相当一部分人总会持有一种极具诱惑性的观点，认为自己是被选中的少数人中的一员，将参与建立一个良性新秩序，而这一新秩序要求焚烧非信徒。这种幻想已经驱动了几个世纪的宗教性群体狂热，从明斯特的扬·博克尔松和他的追随者，到美国的威廉·米勒和杰瑞·法威尔，再到被吸引至伊斯兰国地狱的数万人。

    后记

    我们都是生存机器——作为运载工具的机器人，其程序是盲目编制的，为的是永久保存所谓基因这种禀性自私的分子。 ——理查德·道金斯[1]

    如果查尔斯·麦基能够穿越时空来到今天，那么1844年的大失望、20世纪20年代和20世纪90年代的股市泡沫，以及最近兴起的三种亚伯拉罕宗教的末日幻想都丝毫不会让他惊讶。同时，他会被达尔文关于人类进化的论述吸引（这一论述描述了1841年出版《非同寻常的大众幻想》之后的一代人），并思考如何将进化论用于所写的情节。同样，他也会被20世纪的心理学和社会心理学研究吸引。

    首先，也是最重要的一点，麦基会知道我们石器时代的祖先受本能的驱使，依靠相互合作、交流以及最重要的模仿，在缺乏食物，面对各种有毒浆果、毒蛇以及跑得更快、牙齿更大的食肉动物的环境中生存。

    从石器时代末期到现在，我们只是大概第300代人，仍然被这些古老的生存本能驱使。这300代人不仅没有足够长的时间进化出更多的分析性认知，而且在相对更人性化的工业或后工业世界中，这种心智能力的提高会给人类带来生存性优势是值得怀疑的。换句话说，人类可能注定要带着石器时代的思维，在太空时代的星球上蹒跚而行。

    事实上，我们的许多行为都有更古老的根源。我们的许多和蚯蚓相同的基因已经存在了数亿年之久，例如调节食欲的基因。[2]我们对富含能量的甜食和高脂肪食物的偏好可能起源于我们的脊椎动物祖先，这远在人类物种进化之前。但在一个充斥着廉价糖和脂类的现代世界，这一基因已经变得极度不适应。

    从《非同寻常的大众幻想》角度看，模仿可能是我们最重要的进化特征。除了我们先进的认知和语言能力外，模仿制造新工具的能力——北极的皮艇、北美大平原上猎杀野牛的工具和亚马孙盆地的喷枪——让我们能够在地球上的大多数地方生存。但可悲的是，我们也将模仿倾向运用于一些适应性不良、有时令人憎恶的行为。

    证明适应性不良现象的最著名的实验，可能是斯坦利·米尔格拉姆的“服从”实验和菲利普·津巴多的“斯坦福监狱”实验。在米尔格拉姆的实验中，“实验者”经常说服受试者（“教师”）对回答错误的“学生”进行“致命”电击。[3]同样，斯坦福监狱实验将受试者分为“囚犯”和“看守”。几天之内，两组人都模仿并内化了自己的角色，以至于两组人之间爆发了暴力冲突。[4]

    这两项实验都受到了严肃的批评，但道德和知识腐败的传染性问题基本上不是一个理论或实验问题，因为现实世界中的很多更好的例子能够说明异常性行为如何在显然正常、适应良好的人中传播。[5]例如，20世纪90年代的安然丑闻就表明了非理性和道德腐败的传染性。主人公肯尼斯·莱、杰弗里·斯基林和安德鲁·法斯托都不认为自己不道德；毕竟，周围的每个人都认为他们是很好的、非常聪明的人，且他们正给美国经济带来革命性的变化。此外，与心理学家所罗门·阿希的线条长度实验中实验对象受到同桌的误导一样，安然员工接受了周围同事和记者们几乎一致的意见，但这些意见是不正确的。

    也许最极端的道德失范传染的例子表现在强权社会中，比如波尔布特统治下的红色高棉，“文革”时期的中国，当然还有纳粹时期的德国。历史学家劳伦斯·里斯采访了那些在纳粹集中营里担任过警卫和管理人员的人，他发现，当他们的寿命已经所剩无几的时候，他们已经不像几十年前那样对自己曾经的工作闭口不言。里斯惊讶地发现，这些德国人的男女比例大概是1:1，并不是盲目服从命令的邪恶机器，而是外表正常、聪明的个体，他们都认为自己参与了一项有价值而又合乎道德的事业，即消灭世界上的犹太害虫。就像一家精英公司的初级管理人员一样，他们通过竞争和创新，以最高的效率完成可怕的任务。[6]

    即便如此，这些德国人的这种同行驱动的不人道行为还是有局限性的，尤其在机枪一次性射杀数千名犹太人时，即使在强硬的党卫军中，这种行为也会带来心理困扰。因此，索比堡、贝乌热茨、特雷布林卡和比克瑙（奥斯维辛集中营）等最“高效”的纳粹集中营，都依靠非德国俘虏来完成最肮脏的工作，且只需要相对较少的德国人员，例如，贝乌热茨集中营大约只有20个德国人员，却屠杀了60万人。[7]

    由此得出这样一个黑暗结论：如果我们的同行中有足够多的人认为种族灭绝是可取的，那么我们中的许多人（如果不是大多数的话）都会有这样的想法。如果你仍然认为德国例外主义是大屠杀的主要因素，那么你应该考虑英国官员在德占海峡群岛泽西岛和根西岛[8]上的行为，他们愿意配合德国人，将犹太人居民送到纳粹营地。用一位前纳粹官员的话说：“当今世界的问题是，从未受过考验的人总是对受过考验的人做出评价。”[9]或者，更简洁地说，我们永远不要低估人类模仿的倾向，尤其是平常那些有益的、帮助经济和整个社会顺利运转的群体幻想，可能会迅速变异为欺诈性或种族灭绝性的群体幻想。

    麦基也同意这样的观点，即人类是会讲故事的猿猴——麦基本人就是个叙事能手。当我们的远古祖先需要彼此交流才能生存时，他们并没有使用三段论、数字数据或数学公式来交流。他们交流的主要方式过去是、现在仍然是——叙述：“你从右边，我从左边，我们从两边刺杀这头乳齿象。”人类是叙事性动物，无论叙事多么具有误导性，如果它足够令人信服，那么至少在这些事实造成巨大痛苦或伤害之前，它几乎总是会战胜事实。就像中东的伊斯兰国军队和明斯特的再洗礼派一样，这些事实会毁灭信徒们自己。

    此外，我们听故事不仅因为我们喜欢故事本身，而且因为我们想知道故事的结局；任何故事都不如关于世界最终命运的故事更吸引我们，并让我们身临其境。越能让人们感到身临其境的叙事，越能腐蚀人们的分析能力；一个设计巧妙的末日叙事，可以说服男人们放弃所有的世俗财产，或者愉快地把他们的妻子和女儿都送到故事讲述者的床上。

    我们将塑造事实，使之符合我们先前存在的观点，而不是让后者符合前者；对于这一点，麦基是认同的。无论何时何地，我们都会成为确认偏见的牺牲品，坚持那些与我们的信仰最一致的事实，故意忽略那些与我们的信仰不一致的事实。

    从技术角度讲，如果我们真的理性，就应该按照“贝叶斯推理”这种分析方法来阐述我们对世界的看法。“贝叶斯推理”是由18世纪的英国哲学家托马斯·贝叶斯发明的，是一种面对新数据时会改变预测的数学规则。如果一个人不喜欢某个政客，他认为该政客有50%的概率发生犯罪行为，那么根据贝叶斯推理，当一个新的、强有力的开脱罪责的证据出现时，他应该把对该政客犯罪概率的估计下调到50%以下。

    但人们并不是这样做的；当我们对某个话题持有强烈观点时，我们会有意避开与观点相悖的数据；当这些数据和信息不能再被忽略时，这会引发幻想性信仰的改变，就像多萝西·马丁的飞碟教派那样。人类远非理性的“贝叶斯人”，实际上常常是“反贝叶斯人”，这一事实推动了幻想性信仰的传播。

    毫无疑问，麦基知道，一个引人入胜的叙事可以像传染性病原体那样，在一个特定的群体内以指数级增长的方式迅速传播，其速度和一个新冠肺炎病毒超级传播者传染大批接触者的速度一样。此外，正如阿希博士的实验所表明的那样，如果一个错误的信念足够普遍，它就会获得一个临界质量[10]。

    当我们周围越来越多的人持有相同的幻想时，我们就更有可能相信这个幻想，所以我们周围的人也更有可能相信它，这是一个缺乏刹车系统的恶性循环。在存在幻想传染、又没有有效防御措施的情况下，失控的狂热越来越有动力，直到最终撞上现实的砖墙。

    最后，麦基一次又一次地描述了人类倾向于以摩尼教式思想看待生活——一场善与恶之间的赤裸裸的泾渭分明之战。如果达尔文的《物种起源》早一代出版的话，麦基就会理解，这是人类石器时代进化的又一个包袱。麦基会进一步意识到，人类近乎普遍的过度自信倾向既有利于我们的生存，也会让我们认为自己站在道德制高点上：这本书和麦基的书都会被宗教群体排斥，因为他们认为那些不认同他们世界观的人来自地狱（在极端的情况下，应该死）。

    伊斯兰国只是这场摩尼教式幻想展览会上的一辆最新花车；在一段时间里，伊斯兰国掌握着一种叙事，这种叙事使那些遭受贫困、战争和压迫的人信服和满足：受苦难者作为正义之士参与了这场正义和邪恶之战，安拉迟早会让他们战胜邪恶的压迫者，从而获得最终和永久的胜利。因此，这种21世纪伊斯兰教末日叙事与16世纪扬·博克尔松的叙事或20世纪哈尔·林赛的叙事几乎没有什么不同。（尽管林赛的后期对手——社会主义者、撒旦主义者和占星家，与哈布斯堡帝国或以色列和西方军队的实力相比确实是弱者。）

    这本书和麦基的书对幻想性金融狂热的描述，与末日描述只是在类别上不同而已。两种叙事都非常令人愉快：当选者都将免去生命的苦难，在末日描述中，是通过神奇的精神手段，而在金融描述中，是通过神奇的经济手段。在这两种情况下，确认偏见和人类模仿都扮演主角。

    金融幻想和宗教幻想的主要区别在于，前者在很大程度上缺乏摩尼教式元素，而后者的前沿和中心就是摩尼教式思想。此外还有其他区别。回想一下，泡沫的诊断性特征之一是对怀疑论者的强烈反应。在我写这段话的时候，围绕着加密货币（比特币就是其中的一个例子）的兴奋，似乎展现出了早期金融狂热的所有迹象和症状。也许最著名的比特币代言人是“杀毒软件之父”约翰·麦卡菲，他认为比特币的价格在3年内能达到50万美元，任何怀疑比特币价值的人，如果不是恶魔，那么至少是个白痴。[11]（比特币在2017年底达到20000美元的价格后，到2020年中，其交易价格为11800美元。）

    麦基除了会被现代心理学和进化论关于群体幻想行为的见解吸引之外，也会从海曼·明斯基和查尔斯·金德尔伯格等经济学家针对金融狂热的最新研究中学到很多东西。这些研究清楚地表明，金融狂热事件总是与激动人心的新技术、放松的信贷、健忘症和放弃久经考验的金融分析方法等有关。同样，比特币等加密货币也很有启发性；虽然似乎很少有人通过直接投资这些工具而致富，但它们背后的所谓区块链技术很可能通过彻底改革银行业和政府金融而使整个社会受益。

    麦基是一个完美的故事讲述者，但由于他的时代缺乏关于人类行为、遗传学和自然选择学说的科学知识，他受到一定的阻碍。他对集体幻想的精彩描述虽然极具启发性，但也仅限于此。尽管麦基不知道这些科学知识（现在我们知道了），但他一定想过，人类注定要反复经历金融和宗教领域的这种摧残。

  • 威廉·伯恩斯坦《群体的疯狂》1-7

    前言
    1 末日论的起源 约阿希姆的子民们
    2 滥用末日叙事的悲剧 信徒与无赖
    3 短暂的致富 密西西比泡沫与南海泡沫
    4 资本主义的英雄 英国铁路泡沫
    5 米勒运动的“大失望” 数秘主义与确认偏见
    6 弹性货币政策的灾难 泡沫与崩溃的四个前提
    7 致富空想的破灭 1929年大萧条
    8 天启之牛 时代论如何兴起
    9 圣殿山的争夺 末日叙事如何影响犹太人建国
    10 《启示录》的开创者 畅销书与美国核武政策
    11 时代论的灾难 大卫教派的悲剧
    12 “被提”类小说 末日文学为何畅销
    13 资本主义的慈善家 从环球电讯、安然公司到互联网泡沫
    14 数字时代暴富梦的推手 投资分析师、大众、媒体与政治家
    15 伊斯兰国的兴衰 马赫迪与哈里发
    后记

    前言

    近两个世纪之前，一位年轻的名叫查尔斯·麦基的苏格兰人，以令人难忘的方式同时攻击上帝和玛门[1]。他出生于1814年，是一名颇受欢迎的诗人、民谣作家，还担任过美国内战记者和英国报纸的编辑，在文学生涯中享有杰出的声誉。但后人对他最深刻的印象，是他在1841年撰写了《异常流行幻象与群众疯狂》（Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions）一书，当时他才27岁。该书讲述了多个历史性群体狂热事件，其中一些与宗教和货币有关。[2]从那以后，这本书为读者不断加印。

    麦基记录了公元1000年前笼罩在欧洲的末日幻想，以及十字军东征时期惊人的宗教疯狂。不过，这本书最著名的内容是17世纪30年代荷兰郁金香投机，以及1719—1720年巴黎和伦敦双股市泡沫中的群体性金融狂热。这些情节使这本书一直享有盛誉[3]。在它出版之后，接连发生的金融狂热的频繁性、规律性及其造成的全球性影响，使得即使在写成近两个世纪之后，这本书依然是金融专业人士的必读经典。[4]

    麦基并不是第一个认识到人类的非理性具有传染性的人。例如，希罗多德写过这样一段话：
    （大流士）担任波斯国王的时候，他召见了统治下的一些希腊人，问付给他们多少钱他们才愿意吃掉自己父亲的遗体。他们回答说，无论给多少钱都不可能做这种事情。然后，当着希腊人的面，大流士又把印度卡拉提亚人（他们愿意吃掉自己双亲的遗体）召来，借助翻译问，付给他们多少钱他们才愿意焚烧自己父母的遗体。这些印度人惊恐地大叫起来，不允许大流士提这么可怕的事情。这个故事显示出习俗的意义。在我看来，诗人品达说得对：习俗乃是“万事之主”。[5]

    希腊人毕竟是古代的智者，大流士一定忍不住想要教育他们。他想传递给希腊人未言明的信息：你们也许是人类中最博学的人，但你们和我们一样具有非理性；你们只是更善于进行合理化解释而已，善于解释尽管有各种反面证据，但你们依然是对的。

    虽然古人和麦基非常熟悉人类的非理性和流行性狂热，但无法得知其中精确的生物学、进化论和社会心理原因。例如，麦基一定问过自己，为什么一群人会时不时地去追逐某种价格高得离谱的投资？

    今天，我们对此有了更好的理解。首先，金融经济学家发现，人类会本能地追求回报非常高但是发生概率非常小的结果。比如彩票，平均来说是赔钱的，但用巨额财富幻觉吸引了买家。此外，在过去几十年里，神经系统科学家已经揭示了贪婪和恐惧背后基本的解剖学和心理学机制——“大脑边缘系统”，其位于大脑左右半球中间的垂直面附近，具有对称分布的结构，包括一对伏隔核（大约位于每只眼睛的后面）和一对杏仁核（位于太阳穴下方）。

    研究人员使用功能性磁共振成像技术后发现，伏隔核不仅会因奖励而被激发，而且会因为对奖励的预期而被激发得更加强烈，无论这种预期是关于烹饪、性、社交还是金融；相反，杏仁核会因厌恶、恐惧和退缩而被激发。例如，如果你喜欢芙洛阿姨的烤宽面条，那么在你去往她家的路上，你的一对伏隔核及两核之间的连接会更快地被激发，并且很可能在你闻到菜肴香味时达到激发率的顶峰。但是，一旦你品尝到第一口，伏隔核的激发率就会下降，如果芙洛阿姨在你到达时告诉你她刚刚烤煳了这道菜，你的伏隔核就不再被激发。[6]

    这种活跃的预期传导有很明显的好处：大自然偏爱那些怀有预期并为之努力奋斗的人，而预期一旦被满足，就几乎没什么进化优势了。周围的人毫不费力地变得富有，这会大大刺激我们的伏隔核，正如经济历史学家查尔斯·金德尔伯格观察到的那样，“没有什么比看到朋友发财更干扰一个人的幸福感和判断力的了”[7]。

    几个世纪以来，小说家和历史学家都知道，人类并没有运用强大的智力冷静分析世界，而是对事实进行合理化，使其符合情感上的预期。记者戴维·哈伯斯塔姆的权威著作《出类拔萃之辈》[8]，使用反讽方式说明了美国“最杰出”的决策者如何在军事介入越南事件中自欺欺人，对事实进行合理化的倾向明显；而我们最近在国外的军事行动也表明我们还没有吸取教训。[9]

    在过去几十年里，心理学家积累了很多实验数据，分析人类对“合理化”胜于“合理性”的偏好。当面对的事实和数据与我们根深蒂固的信仰相矛盾的时候，我们通常不会重新考虑并适当改变这些信仰，而往往会回避这些事实和数据。而当无法回避时，我们有时会更加强硬地继续进行错误评估。令人惊讶的是，我们甚至可能会教化、改变、使其归附或说服对方。简言之，人类的“理性”构成了一个脆弱的盖子，在麦基所说明的自欺欺人的沸腾的大锅上危险地保持平衡。

    麦基本人的行为表明，即使是最理性、信息最灵通的人也容易受到金融狂热的影响。1841年，他出版《非同寻常的大众幻想》一书后不久，英国经历了一场金融狂热，其围绕当时伟大的高科技产业——铁路，甚至比1719—1720年席卷巴黎和伦敦的双股市泡沫还要严重。投资者们贪婪地购买铁路股票，为英格兰的铁路里程从1843年的2000英里[10]增加到1848年的5000英里提供了资金支持；股市最终崩盘时，还有数千英里的铁路已在计划中但从未建成。如果说应该有人预见到这次崩盘，这个人就是麦基。

    但狂热事件发生时，麦基正担任《格拉斯哥的阿格斯》报纸的编辑，他报道了正在进行的铁路建设，却明显缺乏怀疑态度。1852年，他出版了《非同寻常的大众幻想》第二版，对此只做了一个简短的脚注。

    金融狂热可以被看作一场像《哈姆雷特》或《麦克白》一样的悲剧，有着界定清晰的人物、熟悉的叙事和精心排练的台词。四个戏剧人物控制了故事的叙述：有才华但不择手段的项目发起人，轻信并购买股票的公众，大肆渲染的媒体，以及把手伸进钱柜并无视腐败之火的政客。

    发起人走上了一条经典的莎士比亚悲剧式道路，成为最引人入胜的演员。他们大多数一开始都是才华横溢、努力工作而又有远见卓识的人，凭直觉比别人更早地知道某项新技术将给社会带来财富。在实现愿景的过程中，他们变得富有和强大，在一个以财富判断人的资本社会中，他们成为国家的雄狮。当投机活动走到尽头、泡沫破裂时，他们最终落得不光彩和破产的下场，但通常（并不总是）能够侥幸逃脱牢狱之灾。

    事实证明，公众很容易被那些英雄般的、魅力四射的发起人用花言巧语说服。要想胜任投资工作，必须具备一系列能力，包括数学能力、技术专长以及最关键的经济历史类应用知识。唉，比起数据和事实，人们更喜欢故事；当面对复杂的投资任务时，人类默认进入叙事模式，也许最令人愉快的就是那些通过购买新技术不费吹灰之力获得财富的故事。

    媒体和公众一样成为发起人的受害人。写杰出商人的改革性经营事迹，能非常轻易地损害新闻界的名誉。这些发起人以惊人的频率出现在各大杂志封面上，先是被称作英雄，后来又成为被控重罪者。

    最后，金融狂热席卷了相关政客，他们的声誉和人气曾经因过度投机带来的经济短暂繁荣而得到提升，但最后经常因为把手伸进钱柜而被抓。

    各种金融狂热故事的情节变化不大。大多数投机性事件包含两个因素：预示共同富裕的激动人心的新技术，以及宽松的信贷。在今天的美国，只有大约10%的货币供应由实际流通的纸币和硬币组成；其余部分以信贷形式存在。银行系统可以在一定程度内随意创造信贷，信贷的规模取决于银行、抵押贷款公司和其他贷款人对得到偿还的乐观程度。这个过程是如此违反常理和令人震惊，因此值得我们重复这个概念：银行印钞。事实上，银行与其所服务的公众一样容易狂躁或抑郁，当沉浸在泡沫里极度兴奋时，它们放纵的“赚钱”行为通常更能煽动起投机之火，这在2007—2009年金融危机爆发前最为显著。

    泡沫伴随着四个特征。首先，最重要的是，金融投机开始主导除了最普通的社会互动之外的一切；无论何时何地，人们见面时谈论的不是天气、家庭或运动，而是股票或房地产。其次，原本在其他领域很理智的专业人士，却放弃了可靠、高薪的工作，去参与上述资产的投机。再次，对投机持怀疑态度的人往往会遭到激烈的反对；虽然总有一些年纪够大、记忆够长、以前看过这出戏的人知道它的结局，但他们的警告遭到了鄙视和嘲笑，并在过去几十年里通常被冠以五个字：“你就是不懂”。最后，平时稳重的观察家们也开始做出荒诞的金融预测，他们预计资产价格一年内的上涨幅度，不仅仅是10%、20%或30%，而是一倍、两倍或末尾增加一个零。

    除了关于金融狂热的前三章之外，《非同寻常的大众幻想》还包含三章篇幅较长的关于宗教狂热的内容：分别讲述《圣经》预言、十字军东征和猎杀女巫。虽然宗教狂热和金融狂热看上去没有什么共同点，但它们发生的潜在力量是相同的：希望改善自己今生或来世的福祉。而放大金融和宗教群体幻想传染性的因素也很相似：人类固有的模仿、编造和接受引人入胜的叙事以及追求地位的倾向。

    宗教狂热似乎是人类历史不变的特征，最近的一个例子就是太阳圣殿悲剧。1994年10月4日晚，瑞士切伊里村的居民被镇上一座农舍冒出的火焰吓了一跳，消防队员在那里看到了一幅奇异、可怕的景象：22具尸体，其多数身穿红色、黑色或白色斗篷，还有几个妇女穿着金色斗篷。除了其中3名受害者以外，其他人都是被枪杀的。此外，还有10名受害者头上蒙着塑料袋。被发现时，大多数人躺成一个圈，头朝外；弹壳和空香槟酒瓶散落在地板上。

    这仅仅是开始；接下来的两年半时间里，瑞士和加拿大又发现了74名被谋杀或自杀的受害者，其全部为教派成员或者他们的孩子；所有的死亡事件都发生在春分或秋分、夏至或冬至的前后几天内。

    该教派由两个男子领导：一个叫吕克·茹雷，他是神秘、英俊、有吸引力的46岁比利时医生，1993年受到共谋和武器指控，但从加拿大逃脱；还有一个叫约瑟夫·迪·马布罗，是70岁的法裔加拿大人。最终的受害者里包括法国滑雪名将让·维亚尔内的妻子和儿子。维亚尔内是1960年奥运会滑雪金牌获得者，后来他将自己的名字授权给一家国际太阳镜制造商，此后他的名字成为一个著名的商标。在维亚尔内去世之前，小维亚尔内曾经告诉记者：“从生到死这段路程的主题一次又一次地被提到。茹雷解释说没什么可怕的——但恰恰相反，我开始觉得自己快要殉道了。”[11]

    1997年3月24日，最后一批圣殿教受害者被发现；两天后，在美国圣迭戈附近的兰乔圣菲小镇，警察发现了另一个末日组织——天堂之门的39名成员的尸体，他们也死在那个春分前后。他们相信自己死后将被隐藏在海尔-波普彗星尾部的宇宙飞船里运出地球。[12]

    太阳圣殿和天堂之门只是一系列著名末日组织中的两个例子：1978年，吉姆·琼斯领导的人民圣殿教在圭亚那的集体自杀及谋杀事件夺走了918条人命；1993年，大卫支教在得克萨斯州韦科镇与愚蠢的联邦当局对峙，导致86名教徒被杀；残忍的日本奥姆真理教制造了1995年东京地铁神经麻痹毒气袭击。令人震惊的是，这些组织中的许多成员，如茹雷和维亚尔内，都是受过高等教育、有一定成就的人。

    末日论的群体幻想不是现代世界特有的；中世纪的欧洲就有大量精彩故事——如果我们对它们印象不深刻的话，就可以称之为插曲。现代神经心理学研究揭示了为什么一群神志正常、聪明、能很好适应社会的人，会自欺欺人地认为世界将以一种特定的方式终结，而且往往在某个特定的日期终结。人类是通过叙事来理解世界的：无论我们如何吹捧自己的个人理性，一个好的故事，即使分析起来很有欠缺，也会萦绕在我们的脑海中，使我们在情感上产生共鸣，并且比最具决定权的事实或数据更有说服力。

    最近，心理学家开始意识到，这些引人入胜的叙事是多么有效地腐蚀了我们的分析能力。也许所有故事中最引人入胜的就是末日论的叙事；如果认识到自己存在于叙事中，那么我们都想知道叙事的结局。末日论故事深嵌于世界上的许多宗教中，尤其是亚伯拉罕诸教[13]，它如此普遍以至于几乎不被看见，但它潜伏在每天的头条新闻和推特背后，它如此古老以至于至少可以追溯到人类文明的起源。

    想要了解“故事的剩余部分”的渴望深深地侵蚀着我们的意识。此外，末日论故事还有另一种不可抗拒的吸引力：它承诺将使人类摆脱一个被托马斯·霍布斯称为“孤独、贫穷、肮脏、野蛮、短见”，充斥着以牺牲正义为代价而偏袒富人和权贵的腐败的人类存在。很少有故事能像承诺救世主的回归那样让人感到欣慰。救世主会扭转局面，拨乱反正。这种对人类新开端的渴望深深地内嵌在《圣经》中，尤其是《以西结书》、《但以理书》和《启示录》。这些书为几次血腥的末日运动提供了蓝图。

    演化心理学的新兴领域为解释群体狂热的传播提供了令人信服的机制。冰河时期末期，第一批部落从西伯利亚进入北美，之后的大约一万年时间里，人类的足迹从亚北极地区到北美大平原，再到热带亚马孙河流域。人类在如此多变的环境中需要掌握生存所需的各项专门技能，生物本来不可能进化得这么快：比如，要进化出一种会在亚北极海岸制造皮艇的基因天赋，还要进化出在北美大平原上猎杀水牛的天赋，然后是进化出在亚马孙地区制造毒气喷枪的天赋，这些进化需要很长时间。（据估计，北欧成年人的乳糖耐受性和吐蕃人的高海拔耐受性的进化用了3000~10000年，这是已知人类适应性进化最快的时间。）[14]

    但人类做到了。在进化过程中，人类并没有将制造皮艇、猎杀水牛或制造毒气喷枪的独特能力硬连接到基因中，而是编码了一项通用技能——模仿能力。例如，当有足够多的人和足够多的试错时，最终会有人想出如何建造一艘可使用的皮艇，而其他人可以准确地模仿这一过程。[15]

    人类比其他物种更喜欢模仿；一旦有人有所创新，其他人很快就会采纳。然而，我们的模仿倾向也增强了适应不良性行为，其中最主要是幻想性信仰。诚然，在现代后工业社会中，模仿能力确实促进了经济发展，但它对人类生存的促进作用远不及前现代时期在亚北极、大平原或亚马孙流域所起的作用。因此，在现代世界，适应性行为和适应不良性行为之间的权衡使得模仿能力对于人类已不如过去那么有利，我们现在陷入晚更新世时期的模仿倾向中，这一倾向在现代时期的成本越来越高，其中最昂贵和最危险的代价就是对世界末日即将到来这一信仰的传播。

    人类不仅对叙事的反应比对事实和数据的反应更加强烈，而且初步研究表明，越引人入胜的故事越能侵蚀人们的批判性思维能力。[16]此外，研究还表明，叙事的提供者和消费者之间是存在内在利益冲突的：前者希望使消费者信服，并设计出最引人入胜的叙事，而后者如果是理性的，就应有意避开这些叙事，并仅仅依赖数据、事实以及分析的方法。

    人类偏好于引人入胜的叙事，与之密切相关的是，人类还具有自欺欺人的倾向。人类本来很善于发现他人撒谎的真相，但是人类用欺骗自己的能力消除了这些真相，这使人类成为更好的骗子。[17]纵观历史，在各种宗教性群体幻想的主角中，作为局外人的骗子相对较少，更多的是一些被自己的幻想欺骗的受害者。

    大约从150年前开始，基督教新教发展出一种信仰，其专业名称为“时代论前千禧年论”（简称“时代论”），其现代倡导者将其打磨成世界上最引人入胜的末日叙事。尽管其确切的内容因不同的神学风格而异，但基本叙事都是预测犹太人将返回以色列、重建耶路撒冷圣殿，并在那里恢复祭祀。然后，罗马帝国以十国联盟的形式重新组合起来，由一个有魅力、才华横溢、英俊潇洒的人领导，这个人是反基督者，是魔鬼在人间的化身，他与犹太人结成了一个七年联盟，但三年半后，这个反基督者背叛了犹太人，从而促成了外国军人对以色列的入侵。入侵者不仅包括俄国人，还包括穿越喜马拉雅山到达那里的2亿中国人。

    一场灾难性的核战争接踵而至：大决战和其他恐怖事件，统称为大灾难。七年大灾难的最后，耶稣复临，击败反基督者，建立千禧年国家。在这个过程中，数十亿人死亡。信仰耶稣的基督教徒被顺利地从大决战和大灾难中提到天堂——这就是“被提”。犹太人的结局差一些：1/3的犹太人改信了基督教，并规劝其他人也改信，从而在大灾难中幸存下来。另外2/3的犹太人就倒霉了。

    不了解上述时代论叙事，就无法充分理解当前美国社会的两极分化现状。大多数受过良好教育、非宗教取向的公民都认为这是极其怪诞的，但是，对相当一部分美国人来说，这一系列的预言事件就像《罗密欧与朱丽叶》或《教父》一样耳熟能详，像杰瑞·法威尔、金·贝克和吉米·斯瓦加特这样的电视福音布道者，他们对公众的吸引力也完全依赖于他们的时代论资质。

    几个原因决定了对时代论叙事的普遍关注。以色列，尤其是重建圣殿在这一信仰体系中的中心地位，深刻地影响了美国的中东政策。美国对以色列扩大在约旦河西岸定居点的不加批判的支持和对巴以“两国方案”的明显放弃[18]，可以直接追溯到福音派，也就是所谓的基督教犹太复国主义者的鼓吹，他们现在的影响力远远超过犹太复国主义[19]者。事实上，2018年5月美国驻耶路撒冷新大使馆落成典礼的开幕式和闭幕式是由两位时代论牧师主持的。其中一位是罗伯特·杰夫里斯，曾经声称希特勒帮助过犹太人返回以色列；另一位是约翰·哈吉，他认为卡特里娜飓风是上帝对新奥尔良罪恶[20]的惩罚。[21]

    在核时代，即使是轻微的“世界末日不可避免”的宿命论也是危险的。2010年美国皮尤基金会的一项民意调查发现，超过1/3的美国人相信耶稣会在他们的有生之年回来，而且大多数人相信“被提”。[22]其中一个有此信仰的美国人就是罗纳德·里根[23]。他可以和杰瑞·法威尔这样的人畅所欲言地谈论时代论神学。福音派占据美国军队的近1/4，其中大部分是时代论者；他们的影响在空军学院尤为突出，所服务的部门控制了美国的大部分核武器。[24]1964年，丹尼尔·埃尔斯伯格和他的兰德公司老板审查完美国的核指挥系统后，放映了电影《奇爱博士》，并评论说这部电影很可能成为一部纪实节目。影片中，一位患精神病的美国空军基地指挥官奇爱博士关注于饮用水的氟化[25]——即使到今天仍然有部分时代论者被饮用水氟化问题困扰——影片中这位指挥官触发了第三次世界大战。[26]

    历史上，基督教徒一直给犹太人贴上反基督的标签，这一概念本身就容易引起暴动。即使在今天，对一些极端福音派教徒来说，把这个标签贴在某人或任何团体身上，都可以为他们的谋杀辩护。

    最后，单是时代论这一信仰就能够而且确实已经引发大规模死亡。1993年，在得克萨斯州的韦科镇，痴迷于《启示录》的大卫·考雷什[27]领导的大卫支教与不理解其信仰体系的联邦官员发生了冲突。

    启示性末日论的起源在《新约》和《旧约》中都有，并且可能更早地起源于肥沃新月地带的多神教，因此，以色列犹太人中的极端主义者和伊斯兰教国家的末日剧本，都与基督教时代论者的末日剧本有很多的相似之处，这不足为奇。它们的不同之处在于谁扮演英雄，谁扮演反派人物。今天的穆斯林末日论者几乎一致认为犹太人是反基督者，而“伊斯兰国”之所以能够从世界各地招募新兵到叙利亚和伊拉克这片杀戮之地，很大程度上依赖于从圣训中直接引用的末日论叙事。

    要想理解金融泡沫和暴力性的末日疯狂等社会潮流是如何产生和传播的，可以先理解它们在什么情况下不会发生，这同样具有指导意义。我们对群体决策智慧的现代理解开始于1906年秋天，当时的先驱博学家弗朗西斯·高尔顿（他是查尔斯·达尔文的表弟）参加了在普利茅斯举行的一年一度的英格兰西部肥畜和家禽展览。在那里，他进行了一次群体理性实验。大约800名参赛者以每个人6便士[28]的价格购买一张“公牛体重竞猜”的票，对公牛净重（即屠宰后去掉头和内脏）猜得最准的人将获得奖品。令人惊讶的是，所有猜测值的中位数为1207磅[29]，与实际体重1198磅相差不到1%。所有猜测值的平均数为1197磅，几乎准确，尽管高尔顿在他发表在《自然》（Nature）上的第一篇文章中没有提到平均值这个数字，因为他认为中位数，也就是（按顺序排列后）所有数据中居于中间位置的数，在理论上比平均数更具有吸引力。[30]

    高尔顿关于集体决策准确性的结论已经被反复证实。[31]最近，《纽约客》专栏作家詹姆斯·索罗维基在他的畅销书《群体的智慧》中总结了这一概念，他在书中提出，有效的群体智慧有三个要求：个体分析的独立性，个体经验和技能的多样性，以及收集个体意见的有效方式。[32]

    那么，就我们的目的而言，什么才是“群体”——是弗朗西斯·高尔顿和詹姆斯·索罗维基提到的那些理性的人，还是吕克·茹雷、约瑟夫·迪·马布罗和大卫·考雷什这些不理性的人？

    妄想性群体与智者群体之间的区别在于其成员之间的互动程度。高尔顿的约800名参赛者中的所有人，甚至大部分人，是否真的聚集成一个集体，这是值得怀疑的。他的实验有一个关键的、通常被忽略的细节，那就是它涉及牛的净重。在牛被屠宰前，没有人知道结果，参赛者必须在参赛卡上填写自己的地址，这样获胜者才能接到通知，且参赛者为了让自己的预测结果不对外泄露，在填写卡片之前并没有聚集在一起。

    几年前，金融专家乔尔·格林布拉特对高尔顿实验进行了巧妙的改变，他向哈勒姆地区的一个小学生班级展示了一个装有1776颗果冻糖豆的罐子。和之前的实验一样，学生们独立提交的索引卡上所显示的平均估计值非常准确：1771颗果冻糖豆。然后格林布拉特让每个学生当众说出他们的估计值[33]，这破坏了他们总体判断的准确性——新的“开放式”估计结果平均只有850颗果冻糖豆。[34]

    因此，一组人的互动越多，其行为就越像一个真正的群体的行为，评估结果就越不准确。有时候，群体互动变得如此紧密、频繁，就产生了疯狂。用弗里德里希·尼采最简洁的话说，“在个体中，疯狂是罕见的；但在群体、政党、民族以及时代中，疯狂是司空见惯的”[35]。麦基也意识到了这一点；也许他的《非同寻常的大众幻想》中最有名的那一句话就是，“据说，人以群体为单位思考；我们可以看到，他们成群结队地发疯，但非常缓慢地逐个恢复意识”[36]。

    因此，实现一组人整体判断的准确性，要求参与者不能像群体那样行动。此外，正如索罗维基所指出的，这还要求这组人中个体的多样性：一组人对于某项估计的观点越多，该估计就越准确。

    观点的多样性也有利于个体；正如弗朗西斯·斯科特·菲茨杰拉德所言：“检验一流智力的标准，就是在头脑中同时存在两种相反的想法但仍保持行动能力。”[37]在过去30年中，心理学家菲利普·泰洛克检验了数百位著名专家预测的准确性；他发现，那些综合考虑各种往往相互矛盾的观点的人比那些从单一理论视角看待世界的人表现得更好。[38]简单一句话：无论是在政治、宗教还是金融领域，都要提防空想家和真信徒。

    索罗维基的书描述了群体决策是如何成功的，而我的书将描述群体决策是如何失败的，以及群体决策失败时会发生什么。在最极端的情况下，不仅群体会疯狂，而且正如20世纪发生的几次事件那样，整个国家都会疯狂。

    麦基做得并不完美，他的很多编写内容甚至都不是原创的；他可能从当时四年前出版的一本理查德·达文波特的书《了解假冒、欺骗和轻信》（Sketches of Imposture,Deception,and Credulity）中获得了灵感甚至摘录了部分内容。达文波特的书涵盖了许多相同领域的内容，但没有那么多细节。[39]另外，麦基对郁金香事件进行了耸人听闻的描述，并将“郁金香狂热”这个术语引入现代词典，也为现代评论家们所不屑，他们认为麦基描述的并不是一个全社会范围的现象。[40]

    此外，麦基的章节、主题和时间顺序是混乱的；关于群体行为的章节（如金融泡沫、十字军东征）中穿插着关于时尚（头发长度、胡须和决斗）、健康和科学困境（磁化、炼金术）的章节。[41]

    也就是说，麦基意识到了，我们的社会特性会如此频繁地干扰我们的理性。在这一事实面前，麦基（以及那个时代的任何其他观察者）的错误、混乱和可能缺乏独创性的问题，都可以忽略。

    我第一次阅读《非同寻常的大众幻想》是在25年前，尽管前三章所描述的金融狂热吸引了我，但我当时认为这种狂热与20世纪90年代初期表现相对良好的资本市场是没有关联的。我错了。让我惊讶的是，在接下来的几年里，随着互联网泡沫的发展，麦基描述的金融狂热景象在现实生活中出现。

    20年后，伊斯兰国及其前身格外擅长向世界各地的信徒传教，其吸引了数千人从安全、繁荣的西方国家到伊拉克和叙利亚的杀戮战场。在很大程度上，其这样做相当于兜售了一种末日叙事，这种叙事与大量基督教徒所信仰的末日叙事非常相似。麦基对这一主题也进行了一些详细的论述。

    对深受《非同寻常的大众幻想》这本书影响的人来说，伊斯兰国的崛起敲响了响亮而清晰的警钟。如果说宗教狂热的现代表现是存在的，那么这就是随着神经科学最近取得的快速发展，审视从中世纪至今的群体幻想的时机已经成熟。

    在本书中，我忽略了几个麦基详细阐述的事件，例如时尚和健康狂热；而且，我并不直接报道政治事件。可能一些读者有疑问，在当今紧张的、两极分化的政治氛围中，我为什么选择这么做。我将这本书局限在金融和宗教群体狂热这两个领域，是为了使本书的主要内容保持在可控篇幅之内，也是因为我个人对金融和宗教群体狂热的共鸣。但是，读者会发现，这本书接下来所描述的事件及其心理学基础，可以与所有种类的狂热相联系，尤其是与20世纪的极权主义和21世纪的病毒阴谋论相联系，这不会有太大困难。

    很显然，21世纪最重要的地缘政治事件是2001年9月11日世贸双子塔和五角大楼的遇袭，这场灾难增强了一种已经确立的现代伊斯兰教末日主义，后者被西方政治和文化的主导地位以及1979年苏联入侵阿富汗重新唤醒。可以说，20世纪美国文化和政治生活中最重要的转变是基督新教福音主义的兴起，这给美国的中东政策以及战略武器的指挥和控制带来了巨大的风险。伊斯兰原教旨主义和基督新教福音主义的兴起，都可以很容易地通过以往的宗教狂热来理解。

    更笼统地说，本书将提供一个心理学框架，用来解释为什么人类有时候会出现各种类型的群体性疯狂。显然，人类是一种会模仿、会讲故事、会寻求地位、会道德性谴责他人、会怀念过去美好时光的猿类，所有这些都意味着，人类的未来必将充满宗教和金融群体狂热。

    任何一个写群体幻想的作者都很快会遇到一个非常不方便的社会学事实。就像大流士故事中的希腊人和印度卡拉提亚人一样，我们每个人都是社会规范的产物，有时，一个社会的圣礼是另一个社会的亵渎。例如，世界上有许多神学（如果不是大多数的话）倾向于将他人的信仰体系视为异端，这甚至会发生在密切相关的教派中，也就是弗洛伊德著名的“微小差异的自恋”[42]。正如那个古老的笑话，几百人共有的幻想被称为“邪教”，而数百万人共有的幻想被称为“宗教”。

    相当一部分美国人相信《启示录》的字面真理：世界将很快遭受一场末日大灾难。非原教旨主义基督徒和非基督徒可能会认为，末日叙事只是一种幻想，这种群体性幻想对信徒或世界上的其他人极少产生强烈危害。但是事实恰恰相反，所有成功的群体都在一定程度上依赖于共有的幻想。无论美国社会存在什么缺陷，我们最大的力量在于我们信仰法治和法律面前的平等；同样，我们的经济运行良好，是因为几乎所有人都相信，纸币和更为缥缈的电子交易货币代表着真实的资产和债务。但归根结底，这些有益的共同信仰只不过是全社会的骗局：只有在大多数人都相信的情况下，它们才是正确的——这就是所谓的“仙子效应”[43]。因此，我选择将注意力集中在那些变坏的群体幻想上，如果你愿意的话，那么也可以将其理解为“极其有害的大众幻想和群体疯狂”。

    本书的讲述基本按照年代顺序，从麦基没有提到过的中世纪末日狂热事件开始，到近期末日狂热最壮观的例子——中东伊斯兰国的崛起。在这两者之间，我按照发生顺序向读者介绍过去这段时间里所发生的各种金融和宗教狂热事件，以及相关的神经科学发展历程。

    我们首先从人类群体幻想的黑暗中心——中世纪的欧洲开始。在那里，一位名不见经传的西多会[44]修道士受《圣经》启示类书卷的启发，发展了一种神学，引发了一系列可怕的新教末日叛乱。

    1 末日论的起源

    约阿希姆的子民们

    老虎去打猎了，
    鸟儿开始飞翔；
    男人坐下来想，“为什么，为什么，为什么？”
    老虎睡着了，
    鸟儿降落了；
    男人不得不告诉自己他明白。
    ——库尔特·冯内古特[1]

    12世纪末，欧洲的国王和王后们踏上了艰苦的旅程，来到遥远的卡拉布里亚山上的一座修道院，沐浴在一位几乎被遗忘的西多会修道院院长——菲奥雷的约阿希姆[2]的传奇智慧中。在1190—1191年第三次十字军东征途中，狮心王理查[3]也经过这里，寻找自己的未来景象。[4]

    这位沉默寡言而又有智慧的修道院院长喜欢数字和历史类比，他将人类历史分为三个时代，并预言一个即将到来的黄金时代。这正是欧洲统治者被吸引到修道院的原因。不幸的是，约阿希姆无意中点燃了预言的导火索。他的未来景象对饱受蹂躏的穷人来说是一种雄辩的诉说，在他们心中激起了革命。在接下来的几个世纪里，他最初的和平模式演变成一种血腥的末日神学，席卷欧洲大片土地。

    要想理解这是如何发生的，需要援引《圣经》的三大末日叙事：《旧约》中的《以西结书》和《但以理书》，以及《新约》的最后一本书《启示录》。虽然这三本书对现代非宗教读者来说可能显得晦涩难懂，但它们有助于解释基督教福音派教徒与其他美国人之间的文化分化，这种分化在过去几个选举周期中变得非常明显。基督教福音派教徒对这三本书的内容像对美国独立战争故事和内战故事一样熟悉，但其他美国人并不太了解这些书。此外，即使是福音派教徒也常常不知道这三本书中故事背后的古代近东[5]历史，特别是埃及人、非利士人、亚述人、巴比伦人、波斯人，以及以色列王国和犹大王国这两个犹太王国之间的复杂关系。

    《以西结书》、《但以理书》和《启示录》为一系列宗教群体的末日幻想提供了背景，这些幻想在许多方面与瑞士切伊里村的悲剧相似。幻想是亚伯拉罕宗教[6]自诞生以来一直具有的特征，最突出的体现包括16世纪的德国明斯特镇，19世纪中期的美国米勒运动，以及随着现代以色列国家的建立、对即将到来的末日进行的各种反复和广泛的预测。

    宗教狂热往往发生在最糟糕的年代。在这样的年代，人类希望摆脱困境，回到美好的旧时代，回到一个神话般和平、和谐和繁荣的时代。现存最早的希腊诗歌之一，约公元前700年赫西俄德[7]的《工作与时日》很好地表达了这一点。当时的希腊极度贫困，作者在雅典西北部维奥蒂亚的一个农场艰难度日，他把这个农场描述为“冬天不好，夏天闷热，任何时候都不好”[8]。赫西俄德想象着，这些事情在过去的年代里肯定会好一些。在他所讲述的神话中，首先出现的是奥林匹斯山上的众神，他们创造了一个“人类的黄金种族”，这个种族：

    像诸神一样生活，没有内心的悲痛，没有劳累和忧愁。他们不会悲惨地衰老，四肢永远有力；除了远离所有的不幸，他们还享受筵宴的快乐。他们的死亡就像熟睡一样安详，他们拥有一切美好的东西。肥沃的土地自动慷慨地产出丰盛又足量的果实。他们和平轻松地生活在富有的土地上，羊群随处可见，诸神眷爱着他们。[9]

    然后是第二代种族，“用白银打造的，到目前为止还不那么高贵”。他们仍然受到祝福，但他们犯了罪而且没有向神献祭。随后是第三代种族，他们的盔甲、房屋和工具都是由青铜打造的。出于某种原因，诸神给了第四代种族比第三代种族更好的平局：一半死于战斗，另一半以半神的身份生活。赫西俄德的第五代种族是“一个铁族，人们白天不停地感到劳累和悲伤，夜晚接二连三地死去，诸神给他们设置了很多麻烦”。赫西俄德预言，他们的孩子会更差——唯利是图，口出恶言，最糟糕的是，他们不愿意赡养年迈的父母。[10]生活确实是孤独、贫穷、肮脏、野蛮和短暂的——赫西俄德的描述比托马斯·霍布斯在《利维坦》中的描述早了2000多年。

    赫西俄德时代的苦难生活尽管凄凉，但至少是当地土地和文化的固有特征——土地的贫瘠、人的贪婪和邻近城邦的侵略。但毕竟，敌对邻邦的人和他们有着相同的宗教和文化，尽管战胜方经常奴役战败的邻居，但在伯罗奔尼撒战争[11]之前，通常不会取战败方的性命。

    犹太人是怎样来到圣地定居的，这仍然是一个谜，因为历史学家质疑摩西和《出埃及记》的真实性。毋庸置疑的是，后来以色列人征服了迦南人，比征服随后凶猛的“海上民族”更容易。迦南人是巴勒斯坦地区文化上更先进但侵略性更弱的原住民，而“海上民族”是一个神秘的种族，不仅侵犯了埃及，可能还消灭了包括迈锡尼在内的几个地中海西岸文明。在所谓的“犹太人逃离埃及”后不久，当地的“海上民族”——非利士人在现代加沙地带和特拉维夫之间建立了一个滩头阵地，并开始向内陆推进。

    非利士人的威胁促进了以色列各个部落的联合。扫罗最终被选为以色列的领袖，并开启了希伯来人联盟的时期。扫罗曾经是非利士人的雇佣兵，他击败了以前的雇主。公元前1000年之后，扫罗的副官大卫在扫罗死后接替了他的职位。大卫也曾是非利士人的雇佣兵，是一位更具军事天赋和魅力的领袖，在他的领导下，他们不仅占领了北部的以色列地区和南部的犹大地区，还占领了一座由迦南人控制的、设有重防的城镇耶路撒冷，其作为大卫的私人领地。

    大卫领导下的犹太人地理版图达到最大，向北延伸到大马士革。但我们今天所说的“大卫王国”并不是一个统一的国家，而是由三个独立的部分组成的：犹大王国、以色列王国和耶路撒冷。其中犹大王国和以色列王国具有独立的王权（见图1-1），由大卫分别占有，而耶路撒冷是大卫的私人财产。

    图1-1 大卫王国的犹大王国和以色列王国

    注：书中地图系原文插附地图。

    他的儿子所罗门统一了这个联盟。所罗门像一名雄心勃勃的建筑师，他修建了一系列宫殿、堡垒和朝圣场所，其中最著名的是耶路撒冷第一圣殿。他还积极开展婚姻外交：娶了一位法老的女儿为妻，根据《列王纪上》[12]，他至少拥有700个妻子和300个妃嫔。他在美吉多[13]建立的一个堡垒后来因其希腊名称而更为人所知：哈米吉多顿[14]。

    所罗门的建筑计划不仅耗费巨资，而且需要众多的劳役，使民生怨愤。公元前931年，所罗门去世，他的儿子罗波安拒绝北上到以色列首都示剑城参加加冕典礼，至此以色列王国退出联邦[15]。[16]

    当亚述人成为强大的“军事机器”时，南北分裂对犹太人的独立是致命的。公元前9世纪，北方的以色列王国开始向亚述人进贡。公元前745年，提格拉·帕拉萨三世夺取了亚述王位，他挥师西进开始分割以色列王国。公元前721年，他的继任者撒缦以色五世和萨尔贡二世（又译撒珥根二世）征服了以色列王国，萨尔贡二世的史册记录：“我带走了住在这里的27290人，并挑选了50辆战车给我的皇家军队……我修复了那座城市，使它比以前更加伟大；把被我手征服的土地上的人，迁到这里住。”[17]

    萨尔贡将以色列王国中的精英们（包括贵族、富豪、能工巧匠等）驱逐到底格里斯河和幼发拉底河沿岸；他们逐渐消失在历史的迷雾中，很可能是同化融合到当地的美索不达米亚人中了，从而出现了10个“消失的部落”。亚述人随后将目光转向了南部的犹大王国，并在公元前701年发动了一次进攻，但失败了。此后一个世纪，不知何故，亚述人没有再进犯犹大国，也许是想把该地区作为他们和埃及人之间的缓冲区。这拯救了犹大国和犹太人民，使他们免遭北部以色列王国那样湮灭消失的厄运。

    公元前605年左右，亚述被巴比伦人攻陷，犹太人面临着一股更可怕的征服力量。公元前597年，尼布甲尼撒二世带领巴比伦人攻占了耶路撒冷。据《列王纪下》记载：

    ……犹大王约雅斤和他母亲、臣仆、首领、太监一同出城，投降巴比伦王，巴比伦王便拿住他。那时，是巴比伦王第八年。

    巴比伦王将耶和华殿和王宫里的宝物都拿去了，将以色列王所罗门所造耶和华殿里的金器都毁坏了，正如耶和华所说的。

    又将耶路撒冷的众民和众首领，并所有大能的勇士共一万人，连一切木匠、铁匠都掳了去。除了国中极贫穷的人以外，没有剩下的。[18]

    更可怕的事情还在后面。大约公元前587年，巴比伦人在犹大国扶持的傀儡西底家反叛，作为回应，巴比伦人攻破耶路撒冷的城墙，蜂拥而入。国王逃跑，但在杰里科附近被捉，巴比伦人“在西底家眼前杀了他的众子，然后剜了他的眼睛，用铜镣铐把他绑起来，将他掳到巴比伦去”[19]。

    鉴于北方邻国“消失”的经历，犹地亚人[20]非常清楚，尼布甲尼撒二世正以灭绝的方式威胁着他们的文化甚至是生存，因此他们寻找一种极端的解决方式：一场奇迹般的大灾难，将他们从即将被湮灭中解救出来。——这是同时期的希腊诗人赫西俄德所不需要的，因为他的文化并没有受到这种被灭亡的威胁。

    公元前597年，与约雅斤一起被虏到幼发拉底河沿岸的流亡者中，有一位受过圣殿教育的祭司，名叫以西结。《以西结书》是他本人或他人以他的名义写的，书中记录的内容开始于五年后，也就是公元前592年。随着天堂的幻象向他打开，一辆载着上帝的战车出现了，这辆战车有四个幻影般的有翅膀的活物，每个活物都有四张脸：人脸、狮脸、牛脸和鹰脸。

    《以西结书》是《圣经》中第一本重要的末日启示类书籍，不管它的作者是谁[21]，写作时间一定是在圣地环境恶化的那几十年里。正如《列王纪下》中所描述的，巴比伦人放逐了犹大王国的王室成员、祭司和富人，留下了大量的下层阶级。起初，被虏往巴比伦的这些贵族乐观地认为他们很快就会回到耶路撒冷，但公元前587年，耶路撒冷和第一圣殿被摧毁，这使他们的叙事文学朝着启示末日的方向演变。

    《以西结书》的作者讲述的故事从被征服的原因（即犹大的不敬），转向上帝的回归和犹太国家的重建。他转向了一个在接下来的几千年中越来越引起共鸣的叙事：人类的堕落，上帝的愤怒，他的回归，以及后来他儿子重建王国，并将不虔诚的人罚入地狱。

    《以西结书》依次包括三个部分：第一，以西结被任命为先知（传达上帝讯息的人）；第二，重建大卫王国，并摧毁现实中的敌人，以及摧毁神话中的敌人——可怕的玛各和统治者歌革；第三，新圣殿的辉煌，以及一个复兴并扩大的犹太国家的辉煌。（《圣经》后来的书卷混淆了歌革和玛各，因为两者都可以解释为人或地区。）

    以西结还描述了大卫王国重建之后，以色列人将如何遭受这个神话中的掠夺者的入侵，然后击败他。这是《圣经》中首次实际性地提到歌革这个人物，他最终将演变成《新约》中的反基督者，是现代新教徒启示性末日预言中的主要人物之一。[22]以上三个部分的预言应验过程中包括许多奇妙而可怕的幻象，战胜邪恶力量，以及新世界的荣耀，这些成为随后许多末日叙事的基础。

    《圣经》中的第二本重要的末日启示类书籍是《但以理书》，据说写作时代与《以西结书》相同。它的开篇是征服耶路撒冷，流放巴比伦，以及尼布甲尼撒二世提挈四个聪明的希伯来人沙得拉、米煞、亚伯尼歌和但以理，“国王向他们咨询所有智慧和领悟方面的问题，发现他们比王国里所有术士和占卜师好10倍”[23]。

    尼布甲尼撒做了一个几乎记不清楚的梦。他只知道这是一个重大预兆，但不知道其他方面的细节。当宫廷占卜师说他们没有能力把梦的细节和梦的讲解告诉他时，尼布甲尼撒下令，不仅要杀死这些占卜师，还要杀死王国里的所有智者，包括四个希伯来人。

    幸运的是，上帝向但以理展示了国王梦的内容：一个可怕的幽灵，有着金色的头、银色的胸膛和手臂、青铜的腰腹和臀股、铁的腿，以及半铁半泥的脚（因此出现了现代短语“泥足”）。一块石头打碎这个野兽的脚；然后石头变得越来越大，先是变成一座山，然后充满整个天下。[24]

    但以理所描述的野兽的金、银、铜、铁恰好与赫西俄德所讲述的时代相匹配；这可能不是巧合，因为同一时期的波斯文本中也描述过根据这四种金属命名的四个历史时代。[25]

    上帝给但以理讲解了这个梦，但以理将解梦转述给尼布甲尼撒二世：野兽的头是尼布甲尼撒本人，银和铜部分代表未来较小的王国，铁和泥足是一个伟大的联合帝国，但由于铁和泥两种元素不相合，联合帝国很容易破裂。最后，上帝接管了统治权：“当那列王在位的时候，天上的神必另立一国，永不败坏，也不归别国的人，却要打碎灭绝那一切国，这国必存到永远。”[26]

    很多学者根据书中的内容推测，《但以理书》的写作时间并不是巴比伦流亡时期，而是在公元前2世纪。如果这个推测正确的话，那么从尼布甲尼撒二世到这本书的实际写作之间的3个多世纪里，发生了很多事情：居鲁士国王征服了巴比伦人，允许犹太人返回巴勒斯坦地区并建造第二圣殿；但是，公元前332年，巴勒斯坦又被亚历山大占领。在被希腊统治期间，任何一个有文化的犹地亚人[27]都知道叙事中的预言是什么：尼布甲尼撒二世梦中野兽的半铁半泥脚代表了希腊托勒密帝国和塞琉西帝国[28]——亚历山大大帝征服地区的继承国——的衰弱及其最终的毁灭。《但以理书》的作者很可能想让书看起来比实际写得早3个世纪，以增强其预言的可信度。

    希腊人给犹太人带来了另一个生存威胁。公元前167年，位于黎凡特地区的希腊塞琉西帝国统治者安条克四世任命墨涅拉俄斯为犹太大祭司。后者主张对宗教习俗进行彻底改革，其计划包括废除祭祀和摩西律法等。安条克四世还将第二圣殿改造成世俗空间，并用宙斯雕像[29]亵渎它。

    改革派祭司、传统犹太人和安条克之间的冲突逐渐失控；公元前167—前164年，安条克的军队抢劫了圣殿，摧毁了神圣的卷轴，并将任何遵守安息日、割礼和献祭仪式的人处以死刑。他还洗劫了耶路撒冷；杀害、奴役和驱逐成千上万的居民；拆毁了耶路撒冷城墙；在城里驻扎希腊军队。

    这还不是全部：犹太人被要求在圣殿敬拜宙斯雕像，并献祭猪。最终在公元前164年，传统主义者马卡比兄弟领导的起义爆发，他们首先消除了这些可憎的行为，之后建立了一个独立的犹太国家，该国家一直持续到公元前63年被罗马征服。

    《但以理书》的上半部分结束时，男主角（指但以理）被送到狮穴敬拜上帝，并在上帝的保护下奇迹般地幸存下来。在书的后半部分，但以理本人梦见了异象，他自称不理解这些异象，但实际上这些异象只是尼布甲尼撒的梦的一个变体。四头幻影般的野兽依次从海里出来，每一头都比上一头更令人敬畏：一头被拔出翅膀的狮子；一头牙齿间咬着肋骨的熊；一头有四头和四翅的豹子；最后一头挑战动物学分类，“可怕又狰狞”，有着铁牙和铁角，在但以理的注视下，铁牙和铁角的数量不断增加，其中一个角长着眼睛和嘴巴，能说“夸大的话”[30]。上帝出现了，宝座上发出火焰，他征服了第四只野兽。就像尼布甲尼撒的梦一样，这只野兽代表塞琉西帝国。在接下来的居鲁士及其接替者大流士和伯沙撒统治期间[31]，但以理又看到了异象，异象以寓言的形式讲述了波斯帝国被亚历山大征服以及波斯帝国的最终解体。这本书的最后一章描述了一个神圣的审判，在这个审判中，死者被复活，一些人享受“永生”，而另一些人在上帝的永久统治下被判“耻辱和永远的蔑视”。[32]

    《圣经》中的第三本末日启示类书籍是《启示录》，95年左右由书中被称为“约翰”的人写作，他是上帝讯息的一个谦卑的接收者。作者很有可能不是当时大约90岁的使徒约翰，而是生活在小亚细亚的帕特莫斯岛上的一名囚犯，是一位更为平庸的先知。这部作品最终被大多数基督教教派编纂成《圣经》的最后一本书。

    大多数现代读者，即使有深厚的宗教背景，也会发现《启示录》是一卷难以理解的、晦涩难懂的书。历史学家R.H.查尔斯说：

    从最早的教会时代开始，人们就普遍承认《启示录》是整套《圣经》中最难读的一卷。不仅略读，即使认真研读，读者也依然会觉得困惑。这从《启示录》的解读史中也可以体现出来。[33]

    《启示录》读起来像是一堆杂乱无章的图像，甚至比《但以理书》中的异象更梦幻。它与《但以理书》的异象有很多相似之处，这可能并非巧合。

    因此，对这本书的解读，需要具备东罗马帝国以及马卡比时期的专业历史知识。查尔斯对这本书进行了细致的文学分析，他认为帕特莫斯岛上的约翰很可能在完成这本书之前就去世了，后人对他未完成的原稿进行了不适当的编辑，造成了这本书的难懂。学识渊博的学者们几乎完全缺乏对该书叙事结构的共识。在过去几个世纪，这种解读困难造成了无穷无尽的伤害和混乱。[34]

    《启示录》由22章组成；前三章是约翰写给罗马帝国东部七教堂的信。接下来两章描述了主的宝座，被24位长老和4只可敬的野兽围绕着；出现了用7个封印封严的书卷，只有犹太大卫国王的后裔才能打开；一只被杀过的七角七眼的羔羊（圣经学者认为羔羊代表耶稣）正符合要求，这只羔羊一个接一个地揭开了封印。

    第六章到第八章描述了接下来会发生什么：前四印打开后出现了四匹颜色分别为白色、红色、黑色和灰色的马，分别象征着战争、国际冲突、饥荒和瘟疫。第五印打开后出现了祭坛下的殉道者，象征着迫害；第六印是地震。接下来是一段插曲，144000名犹太人被“封印”（额上有上帝的印记；12个部落各12000人）。第七印，也是最后一个封印，是由8位天使带来的；前面7位吹号，第8位摧毁世界。

    接下来的三章出现了同样令人困惑的画面：天使们吹响了七个号角，带来类似于七印那样的灾难。中间有个插曲，约翰被一位天使命令吃一本小书，然后天使指示他设计新的耶路撒冷和圣殿。

    书的后半部分描述了一条巨大的红龙，有7个头、7顶王冠和10个角。这条龙被认定为撒旦，他试图吞食一个新生儿，但没有成功。那个新生儿是上帝的儿子，因为寓言中的玛丽即将生下他。[35]

    接着是更多的幻象：第二只7头、10角、戴着10顶王冠的野兽，制造出寻常的混乱；第三只有两个角的复合兽，也在制造混乱；“羔羊”（耶稣）归来，指挥144000名原住犹太人；7个碗（或小瓶，取决于解释版本）倾倒在地上，带来类似于封印和号角的灾难；最后，一个可怕的女性形象，巴比伦的大淫妇出现了，被学者解释为罗马帝国或是耶路撒冷的背叛者。

    在第十九章和第二十章中，一位天使将龙/撒旦抛入火湖1000年，殉道者复活。1000年后，撒旦归来，征募了一支庞大的军队，“人数之多犹如大海之沙”，包括来自玛各的歌革，进行最后的战斗，最后撒旦被永远地扔回火湖。最后的审判将正义者与邪恶者分开，后者将和撒旦一起被封进火湖，连同“死亡与地狱”。最后两章描述了规模宏大的新耶路撒冷城的荣耀，“……12000弗隆[36]。长度、宽度和高度都相等”，并且基督应许说他很快就会回来。[37]

    《启示录》的基本叙事是耶稣回到地球与邪恶做斗争，并最终将邪恶抛入火热的永恒，将正义之人提入天堂，宣判其他人，并毁灭世界。至于确切的细节如何，就只是一个解释方面的问题了。此外，几乎可以肯定的是，它与《旧约》的末日叙事有着共同的起源，特别是与它非常相似的《但以理书》。事实上，《但以理书》和《启示录》的结构和内容并非基督教和犹太教所独有；哲学家、神学历史学家米尔恰·伊利亚德的研究显示，世界各地、不同时期的宗教有许多共同的主题；其中最持久的主题是赦免正义的世界末日之火，他推测这起源于波斯教/琐罗亚斯德教[38]。[39]

    《启示录》中那些极端的模棱两可的内容，可以有无限的解释。最突出的是，如果人类历史上存在千禧年，那么应该如何理解“1000年”，以及为什么末日发生的时间如此精确。在神学术语中，对这些问题的研究被称为“末日论”：末日时代人类的最终结局。

    模棱两可和难解性更扩大了《启示录》的影响力，因为这为世界何时结束以及与之相关的各种解释性寓言开辟了道路。用宗教历史学家罗伯特·赖特的话说：

    模棱两可、选择性保留和误导性的释义结合在一起，使信徒可以对宗教教义产生重大影响。因为他们只需要巧妙地运用隐喻和寓言，便可抹去文本的字面意思，并用完全不同的东西取代它。而如果原始文本的语义非常清晰，那么无论用什么工具都无法达到这种效果。[40]

    根据2010年的一项国际调查，有35%的现代美国人相信《圣经》代表了上帝的字面意思，同样有35%的人认为耶稣会在他们的有生之年回到地球。[41]我们似乎有理由认为，信仰的回溯时间越久，这种信仰就越普遍。

    从基督教早期开始，神学家们就假定了耶稣回归的三种不同的年表。第一种是教会已经建立了千禧年，耶稣将在千禧年结束时回归。这种时间序列在神学术语上被称为“后千禧年主义”，包括现在或未来的1000年时期，然后是最后审判和耶稣回归。第二种是前千禧年主义，意思是耶稣在千禧年之前回来，然后是最后的审判；换句话说，耶稣回归、最后的审判，以及千禧年本身都在未来。最后一种是所谓的“非千禧年主义”，即千禧年只是一个寓言性的概念，在现实中并不存在。[42]在这三种解释中，前千禧年主义的叙事最引人注目。几乎从《启示录》写完那一刻开始，书中模棱两可的语言以及人类对故事结局的渴望就催生了各种源源不断的前千禧年主义末日故事。

    罗马帝国晚期最著名的基督教神学家，希波的奥古斯丁，抵制住了这种诱惑，发誓不去尝试计算末日时间，“真理之口告诉我们，这件事不是我们应该知道的，因此，我们试图预计并设定这个世界的剩余时间是徒劳的”，更通俗地说，“放松你的手指，让它们休息一下”。[43]之后一段时间里，在教会的末日论立场中，奥古斯丁的这种不干预态度一直占据主导地位，直到约阿希姆的神学继承人登上历史舞台。他们迫不及待地期望末日时代的到来。

    人类在很大程度上是通过叙事来理解世界的，虽然末日预言可能是有史以来最引人注目的，但它的预测屡屡失败。预测研究表明，人类在预测未来方面的能力很差。实际上，只要观察历史上预测事件的正确概率，就会比基于叙事的推理更好地预测未来，而显然，到目前为止，对末日时间预测正确的概率一直是零。

    既然末日预测的准确性为零，为什么我们会被这些叙事影响？更一般地说，为什么基于叙事的推理如此站不住脚？心理学家已经证明，人们是“认知吝啬鬼”[44]，他们不愿意进行严格的分析，而是倾向于启发法——一种简单的心理捷径。而一个令人信服的叙事就是最有力的启发法。[45]

    20世纪，神经科学家发现人类有两种不同类型的认知过程：第一种是快速的情绪反应，位于我们大脑深处进化古老的边缘系统，即所谓的“爬虫脑”，第二种是一种缓慢得多的有意识推理，产生于进化上比较新的大脑皮质，位于大脑边缘系统的上方。2000年，心理学家基思·斯坦诺维奇和理查德·韦斯特将这两种大脑系统分别标注为系统1和系统2，自此我们就一直沿用这种最普通的分类方法。[46]

    从进化的角度来看，系统1比系统2更占支配地位是有道理的；数亿年来，早在人类进化出系统2之前，快速反应的系统1就驱动着动物们对危险信号做出行为反应，例如蛇的嘶嘶声或捕食性动物的脚步声。而反应速度较慢的系统2，可能进化时间还不到十万年，因此只能在更古老的系统1的束缚下运作。更简单地说，我们更快的情感机器引领着我们，而我们较慢的“理性”跟随着我们。在自然界中，系统1的优势是显而易见的，它使我们甚至能够在危险的感官信息进入意识之前就做出反应；但在一个相对安全、危险持续时间更长的后工业世界，系统1的优势往往会带来巨大的成本。

    因此，我们越多地依赖叙事，越少地依赖硬数据，就越远离现实世界。你是否曾在一本小说中深深迷失自己，以至于忘记了周围的世界？你有没有听过一个令人着迷的电台广播，以至于你停在车道上10分钟，这样就不会错过结尾？在心理学界，这被称为“运送”。心理学家理查德·格里格将叙事定义为一种装置，其可以暂时在精神上将听众或读者从他们周围的环境中“运送”出去；当“运送”结束时，他们会回到原来的环境中，但此时环境在“运送时有所改变”。[47]

    换句话说，一部小说或非小说、电影、舞台表演或绘画作品能够暂时将读者、观众或听众从现实世界中“运送”出去，当他们回来时，现实世界已经有了一点儿改变。正如艾米莉·狄金森[48]所说：

    没有一艘战舰能像一本书一样，

    带着我们在天地之外翱翔，

    也没有任何一匹骏马能像一页诗篇欢腾奔跳。

    最贫穷的人也能从这里通过，

    没有强迫缴费，

    这是多么廉价的马车，

    它承载着人类的全部灵魂。[49]

    在过去几十年里，研究人员已经证明，人们所掌握的事实很容易受到虚构数据的侵蚀，即使这些数据被清楚地标记为虚构。保罗·罗津和他的同事在宾夕法尼亚大学进行了一项经典实验，他们向受试者展示了两个新买的、相同的玻璃瓶，里面装有蔗糖，并且告诉受试者，这两个瓶子都是首次使用；然后向受试者展示了这两个瓶子上贴的新标签，一个写着“蔗糖”，另一个写着“氰化物”；他们坚定地告诉受试者：“记住，两个瓶子里装的都是糖。”

    然后，他们将两个瓶子里的糖分别搅拌到一些盛水的杯子里；要求受试者说出想从每种杯子中喝多少水，然后受试者从两种杯子里分别喝一小口水。最终50名受试者中的41人选择的是那些蔗糖来自标有“蔗糖”的玻璃瓶的杯子。即使让受试者自己贴上标签，实验效果仍然存在。[50]

    这项研究以及其他类似的研究表明，人类无法将虚构世界和真实世界分开，换句话说，他们无法在文学世界和现实世界之间进行清晰的“切换”。1975年，电影《大白鲨》上映。《时代》杂志报道了那个夏天：

    从前那些勇敢的游泳者，现在只敢挤在离岸几码[51]处游泳，被太阳几乎晒晕的他们紧张地踌躇在水边，出现一点点背鳍靠近海滩的迹象就会让他们很紧张。在加利福尼亚州圣莫尼卡市的冲浪场上，一个孩子对另一个孩子喊道：“你想被吃掉吗？”即使是一条卑微的被称为“海洋猎犬”的狗鲨，由于它是鲨鱼，也被怀疑有杀人意图。“杀了它，杀了它，”一位纽约长岛垂钓者对他的同伴说，“在它长大杀死我们所有人之前，”而他同伴的钓竿上挂着一条仅仅两英尺[52]长、几乎没有牙齿的鱼。[53]

    这种效果是故意的：电影制片人故意将影片上映时间推迟到夏季。正如其中一个制片人所说：“一个游泳者，如果他看过或听说过这部电影，那么当他把脚趾伸进海里时，一定会联想到一条大白鲨。”[54]

    20世纪70年代，心理学家克莱顿·刘易斯和约翰·安德森研究了可识别的错误描述对核对确凿事实的影响。在一个简单的例子中，受试者被告知了一些历史上关于乔治·华盛顿的真实描述，他是美国第一任总统，他横渡了特拉华河，他戴着假发。再把一些虚假描述提供给受试者，诸如华盛顿是《汤姆·索亚历险记》的作者，他至今仍活着，等等。这时，受试者核对真实描述所需要的时间更长，而且每增加一个虚假描述，受试者核对时所犯的错误就越多。[55]

    格里格也进行了一些细致而又专业的实验，他的实验表明，小说内容越遵循历史事实，读者接下来就越难将虚构叙事和真实事件区分开。他举的其中一个例子是《夏洛克·福尔摩斯之谜》，这本书中的历史和地理背景通常是真实的。虽然作者阿瑟·柯南·道尔的读者一开始能清晰区分虚构的19世纪伦敦与真实历史上的伦敦，但格里格发现，道尔对19世纪伦敦的描绘是如此逼真，以至于其虚构部分也侵入读者对于这个现实城市的心理图像中。[56]

    换句话说，文学作品、电影和艺术可以使人们难以区分事实和虚构。正如格里格所说：“沉浸在叙事文学中，会导致与事实和现实世界的隔离。”[57]

    其他研究人员进一步发现，引人入胜的虚构叙事能够侵蚀人类的分析过程。俄亥俄州立大学的两位心理学家，梅拉妮·格林和蒂莫西·布罗克，扩展了格里格的研究。他们通过观察首次发现，叙事很明显比辞藻华丽的争辩更能引起公众关注：

    小说、电影、肥皂剧、音乐歌词，以及报纸、杂志、电视和广播中的故事远比广告、布道、社论、广告牌等更能引起人们的注意。叙事改变信仰的力量从来没有被怀疑过，也一直令人恐惧。[58]

    格林和布罗克根据以下几个指标对“运送”进行了量化：读者构思叙事场景并将自身置于其中的能力、心理和情感的参与程度、对相关叙事的感知、想要知道结局的渴望，以及“叙事中的事件改变了我的生活”的感觉，这些能提高“运送分数”。反之，意识到正在发生的事情，注意力的分散，以及叙事随后被遗忘的容易程度，将降低“运送分数”。

    他们让受试者阅读了一个令人伤心的真实故事，故事里一个名叫凯蒂的小女孩被精神病患者刺死。他们将这个“商场刺杀案”故事以两种形式分别呈现给受试者。第一种是两栏的“非虚构”版本，小字体，看起来像报纸上的报道；第二种是类似于文学杂志的“虚构”版本，以粗体警示文字为标题，“商场刺杀事件是一个短篇故事，发表在1993年12月俄亥俄州小说杂志《阿克伦最佳小说》的专题上，其中与真实人物和地点的相似性当然只是巧合。”

    然后，根据上面讨论的“运送分数”，格林和布罗克将受试者分成两组，低分组和高分组，并询问他们对故事的看法。实验结果是，高分组受试者比低分组受试者更有可能同情故事中的小女孩凯蒂，并认为世界是不公正的，那种商场袭击是常见的，以及精神病患者的自由应该受到限制。值得注意的是，明确地将这个故事标记为虚构并没有减少故事对受试者态度的影响：对于非虚构和虚构两种形式，“运送”影响是相同的。

    接下来，他们要求受试者对一些文本内容进行初步分析，例如，识别有关“匹诺曹”以及有关“四年级练习题”的文本。在测试中，他们要求受试者圈出那些不符合“匹诺曹”内容的文本，或圈出那些四年级学生不理解的单词和短语。结果同样引人注目：两种情况下，高分组识别的内容比低分组的一半还要少。这些实验结果与假设一致，用作者的话来说，“被‘运送’的个体更少地倾向于怀疑、质疑或不信任。‘运送’使人更加倾向于将信息识别为真实。”[59]换句话说，高度的叙事性运送损害了一个人的关键能力。

    格林和布罗克注意到，将叙事明确标注为真实或虚构，对它们“运送”读者的程度没有影响，他们评论道：

    一旦读者开始阅读一篇引人入胜的叙事，那么叙事来源（真实或者虚构）的影响力就会减弱。这样一来，不管故事是不是真实的，读者都可能会采纳故事所体现的信仰。因此，当信息的来源可信度较低或者演讲者缺乏有力论据的时候，叙事的这种优势都可以被利用。[60]

    因此，读者或听众越深入了解一个故事，他们就越会停止怀疑，也就越不关注故事的真实性或虚构性。虽然反向因果关系可能是分析能力较低的人更容易被“运送”，但“运送”会减弱分析能力这个逻辑更有意义，而且叙事越有说服力，其读者就越忘乎所以。

    换句话说，一个好故事通常能胜过最铁的事实。2015年9月16日的共和党初选辩论就是一个很好的例子。当被问及疫苗的安全性时，参选者之一、著名神经外科医生本·卡森简要总结了大量存在的数据，证明疫苗接种与孤独症之间缺乏相关性。而唐纳德·特朗普却回应说“孤独症已经成为一种流行病”，然后讲述了一个被他称为“漂亮的孩子”的雇员接种疫苗后患上孤独症的故事。大多数旁听者在这次辩论中支持特朗普；一位记者写道：“特朗普知道他在做什么，因为他讲的故事比仅仅陈述事实更具感染力和说服力。”[61]如果你想说服某人，就用叙事的方式以其大脑系统1为攻击目标，而不是用事实和数据以大脑系统2为攻击目标。

    音乐比叙事更能刺激系统1。听觉信息通过内耳的毛细胞传递到听神经，然后从下脑干传递到上脑干，再从上脑干传递到丘脑，丘脑将有关声音的信息发送给系统1和系统2（见图1-2）。

    图1-2 听觉信息至系统1和系统2的传递示意图

    一对丘脑位于脑干顶部；它们被认为是大脑接收来自下面的感官信息的主要中继站。丘脑直接与系统1相连，特别是伏隔核和杏仁核，它们分别介导愉悦和厌恶。[62]丘脑还向系统2的听觉部分发送声音信息，这些听觉部分包括一部分被称为赫氏回（也称颞横回）的大脑颞叶，及其以外的大脑皮质联合区，它们负责解释声音并使我们有意识地感受到声音。关键在于，听觉与系统2的连接更为间接，因此与系统1相比连接更慢。

    从丘脑到系统1的传导更直接，这意味着，一首令人兴奋的曲调通过系统2到达我们的意识之前，它可以先通过激活伏隔核使我们产生快感；相反，当我们听到电影中的反派或英雄即将到来的厄运所伴随的黑暗小调时，我们的杏仁核几乎立刻燃烧起来。

    因此，音乐可以看作通往人类情绪的一条进化久远的高速公路。由于音乐可以如此有效地绕过我们的系统2而直接作用于系统1，它的说服力自古以来就得到了充分的体现：旋律很可能在句法上早于复杂的人类语言，母亲们会自发地为婴儿唱歌，世界各地几乎所有的宗教仪式和爱国事件都涉及音乐。

    乔治·奥威尔描述了当猪少校用一首《英格兰牲畜之歌》劝诫其追随者反抗农场主琼斯时，音乐对动物农场中的非理性动物的吸引力：

    唱这首歌使动物们激动不已。少校还没唱完，它们就开始自己唱了。即使是最愚笨的动物也已经学会了曲调和一些单词，至于聪明的动物，比如猪和狗，它们在几分钟内就把整首歌记下来了。几次试唱之后，整个农场惊人地爆发出《英格兰牲畜之歌》。牛哞哞地唱，狗哀叫着唱，羊咩咩地唱，马呜呜地唱，鸭子嘎嘎地唱。它们非常喜欢这首歌，连续唱了5遍，如果没有被打断，那么它们可能整晚都在唱。[63][64]

    现实世界中，也许最著名的具有音乐说服力的例子就是莱尼·里芬斯塔尔执导的纪录片《意志的胜利》，影片记录了1934年的纽伦堡国社党代表大会。这部电影巧妙地将理查德·瓦格纳和纳粹作曲家赫伯特·温特的音乐编排到电影中，除了希特勒和其他纳粹领导人的演讲片段外，没有任何其他口头叙述。《意志的胜利》给好莱坞电影制作人留下了深刻的印象。后来，当美国加入二战时，弗兰克·卡普拉在拍摄《我们为何而战》系列电影时进行了模仿。

    到20世纪80年代中期，音乐开始成为一种政治工具。当时美国的政治竞选广告中开始频繁采用旋律：广告中出现候选人时就在主调上采用欢快振奋的曲调，而出现竞争对手时就采用不祥的黑暗小调（或偶尔采用马戏团小丑即兴表演所用的小调）。

    这类题材的经典之作是2004年乔治·W.布什命名为《狼》的总统竞选广告，伴随着黑暗和沉思的音乐，视频中一群狼蜷缩在草地上，一段旁白开始指责国会民主党人在一个危险的世界里反恐行动不力。音乐学家和传播学学者保罗·克里斯蒂安森评论道：

    虽然图像和旁白增添了广告意义，但它们只是音乐的侍女，音乐传达了大部分情感。这不是普通的音乐，是一种人们在恐怖电影里可以找到的音乐：低沉的嗡嗡声、原始鼓声、刺耳的不和谐和弦声、奇怪的音色，以及别的。[65]

    末日叙事引人入胜的另一个原因是，人类热衷于悲剧。路肩上多辆救护车聚集在一辆被撞得变形的汽车周围，这会引起围观并影响交通；而同样位置上一辆完好的废弃汽车则不会。“数十名矿工在爆炸中丧生”这样的标题会使报纸畅销，而“情况逐渐好转”这样的标题则不会。正如托尔斯泰在《安娜·卡列尼娜》的开头所说，“所有幸福的家庭都是相似的，而每个不幸的家庭则各有各的不幸”[66]，很少有小说是通过描写幸福的婚姻和和睦的兄弟姐妹而成功的。

    人类更多地关注坏消息，而不是好消息。这似乎是人性的一个明显特征，因此心理学家们进行了很多实验，以验证我们对悲剧和厄运的关注。在一项研究中，受试者对一场足球比赛下注，一周后返回，结清赌注并与研究人员一起回顾比赛。那些输了赌注的人比赢了赌注的人讨论比赛时所花费的时间要长得多。[67]人类对坏消息的关注如此普遍，以至于“坏消息比好消息强大”已成为实验心理学的基本准则之一；从进化的角度，关注负面结果会使人类更加关注环境风险，从而带来遗传优势。[68]

    和许多生物进化所驱动的心理现象一样，坏消息更加受到关注，这证明了数字时代的功能失调。例如，一项研究发现，那些恐怖、耸人听闻的假新闻报道被转发的可能性比真实新闻高70%。研究人员指出，Bots（自动运行木马病毒）并没有加速虚假新闻的传播，而操作键盘和手机的人类却做到了。YouTube（视频共享网站）上的“三度亚历克斯·琼斯”现象已经成为媒体学者们之间的一个冷笑话：只需点击三下，就可以将一个更换割草机火花塞的视频，切换成琼斯先生愤怒地诉说桑迪·胡克学校大屠杀是一场“恶作剧”的视频。[69]

    鉴于负面新闻对人类的吸引力，《启示录》能够具有持久的影响力也就不足为奇了。

    菲奥雷的约阿希姆是最早构建末日之路的基督教神学家之一。他于1135年出生在意大利的脚趾地区卡拉布里亚[70]，和他的父亲一样，接受过教育并担任公证人。之后，他在快30岁的时候去圣地朝圣，在那里经历了神灵启示。从圣地回到西西里岛后，他作为隐士在埃特纳火山上生活了一阵子，然后重新穿越墨西拿海峡，在卡拉布里亚地区做了一名漫游布道士。有段时间，他静下心来研究《圣经》，并在科拉佐的一所本笃会[71]修道院担任职位。他一定是个政治老手，因为他得到了教皇路爵三世[72]的鼓励和支持，成为修道院的院长，并成功地将修道院转为西多会。[73]随后，他与另外两位教皇进行了商谈，并获得了他们在思想体系上的认可。

    他被数字迷住了，尤其是7和12：圣奥古斯丁的七国时期，创世的7天，以及《启示录》里的7个封印和7个碗；以色列的十二使徒和十二部落。更妙的是，12可以分为7和5，代表小亚细亚的7个教会和5种感官。他认为，如此强大的数字命理学无疑可以应用于《圣经》解读，不仅可以用来揭示历史或伦理，还可以用来预测未来。

    他也喜欢数字3。他认为，圣三位一体[74]是关键：它将历史分为三个时代：圣父时代，从亚伯拉罕到基督诞生；圣子时代，从基督诞生到约阿希姆时代；最后一个是包括了现在和未来的圣灵时代，这个时代将由一位手持宝剑的天使引领。

    偏好数学的约阿希姆还将经文组织成几何图式，他在图式中将历史排列成各种形状，其中包括与历史“侧枝”相连的圆圈和树木。他在《图像书》（Book of Figures）中对此进行了描述。[75]

    现代读者可能会嘲笑这种不科学的数字命理——也就是数学家埃里克·坦普尔·贝尔所称的“数秘主义”——但中世纪的神学家有一个借口：希腊数学家毕达哥拉斯就是从纯数学中推导出自然界的规律的，其卓越成就在几千年的历史中熠熠生辉，他应该说过“万物皆数字”这样一句话。在弗朗西斯·培根提出以观察为基础的科学方法之前，数字在自然哲学中占据着重要地位，不仅在科学中是这样，在神学中也是。[76]

    用心理学术语来说，我们都是寻求“模式”的灵长类动物。这并不是一个新概念：1620年左右，培根观察到人类“具有自己的本性，倾向于假设世界上存在更多的秩序和规律”[77]。也就是说，我们天生就想寻找各种往往不存在的关联。这种倾向被科学作家迈克尔·舍默称为“模式化”。约阿希姆富有幻想的数字图式就符合人类的这一倾向。[78]

    人类为什么倾向于幻觉模式呢？进化论中的物竞天择提供了现成的解释。在遥远的人类历史中，如果人类错过了危险来临的线索，例如模糊的嘶嘶声或周边视线中黄黑色相间的条纹动物，付出的代价就会非常高昂，而如果出现幻觉，到处都听到蛇或看到老虎，那么人类也需要付出一定的代价，但这种代价与被蛇咬死或被老虎吃掉的代价相比并不高。因此，不仅在人类身上，而且在任何具有正常神经系统的生物体上，进化论都支持过度解释数据。[79]

    《圣经》的内容很多，大概有783000个单词，标准印刷版有2000多页，描述了无数的参与者及其活动事件，为那些寻求模式和关联的人提供了一个宝库，特别是偏爱数学的约阿希姆，他的历史图式结束在欢乐、自由和丰富的第三时代（即圣灵时代），在这个时代，所有信徒都可以直接获得上帝的真理，而不需要以教会为媒介，这种幸福状态将一直持续到最后的审判。[80]

    约阿希姆不会用上帝的信息煽动群众，因此他并不是一个革命性的或号召性的先知，而是一个令人困惑的圣经解释者。他认为第三时代（圣灵时代）中具有完善的人性和原始共产主义，能够战胜人类的一切恶习，特别是拥有物质财富的欲望，但他不愿意提供有关第三时代的细节信息。他的预言显得有些笼统：“每个人都将以这样一种方式被给予：别人所得会比自己所得更令他高兴；比起自己所拥有的，他更在意自己能够给予别人什么”[81]。约阿希姆描述的景象会在地球上逐渐显现，中间不需要插入《启示录》中可怕的异象，因此三任教皇都支持他。约阿希姆认为未来的第三时代最终将修正当前第二时代的缺陷，但是，受第二时代封建社会压迫的群众没有约阿希姆那样的耐心。他们想要采取更积极主动的方式推动第三时代的早日到来。

    约阿希姆的数学既具有公众吸引力，又能够运用于各种圣经派别和数秘主义，因此能够以这样或那样的形式一直持续到今天。例如，在他的继承者中，新近崛起了一个方济各会的属灵派，其被日益成功的教会物质主义排斥。对他们来说，数学很简单：《马太福音》1:17[82]清楚地指出，亚伯拉罕和大卫之间隔了14代人，大卫和巴比伦囚禁之间隔了14代人，巴比伦囚禁与基督诞生之间隔了14代人。因此，第一时代持续了42代，每代持续30年，总共1260年。当前的第二时代同样持续1260年，因此将在公元1260年结束，那时将开始出现持续1000多年的第三时代。

    随着中世纪的发展，衰落的封建主义、逐渐兴起的贸易和货币经济带来了经济的增长，但经济增长又导致了极端的收入不平等。这时产生了大量恶毒的反犹主义末日叙事，其中一个就是与马丁·路德[83]的宗教异端几乎同时出现的德语版本《百章全书》（The Book of a Hundred Chapters）。

    这本书的开始是天使长米迦勒向匿名作者转达来自上帝的讯息：人类激怒了全能者[84]，他即将带来可怕的毁灭，但他决定暂缓；上帝希望作者聚集信徒，等待“黑森林皇帝”的到来；“黑森林皇帝”将带来血腥的启示录式的末日时代，以及丰富的食物和酒。信徒大部分来自受苦受难的穷人，他们参与了一系列广泛的谋杀，尤其对贵族和神职人员。这本书的弥赛亚并没有容忍，而是规定在4年半的时间里每天要谋杀2300名神职人员。[85]

    教会的腐败早就引起了人们的厌恶：早在马丁·路德和约阿希姆之前，神职人员，尤其是教皇的肆意挥霍和肉欲之罪早已震惊了基督教世界。路德只是在正确的时间、正确的地点成了正确的人。谷登堡大约在70年前发明的印刷机，将复印小册子或书籍的成本降低至原来的约1/30，而维滕贝格[86]的印刷机处于新技术的前沿，不仅可以打印拉丁字母，还可以打印希腊和希伯来字母。

    路德需要贵族支持他的宗教改革，因此他将宗教分歧严格限制在神学上而避开政治。这位伟大的改革者从《罗马书》和《彼得前书》中得到忠告，恺撒的法律仍然必须遵守：“看在主的分儿上，你们要服从人类的每一条法律。”[87]

    虽然路德反对那些寻求社会改革的人，但那些人确实运用了路德的方法。路德不仅摧毁了教会对《圣经》解释权的强大垄断，而且还向所有人展示了印刷机的强大力量。当被质疑布道很少的时候，他回答：“我们用我们的（印刷）书来做（布道）。”[88]

    16世纪初，歉收的庄稼、贪婪的贵族和狂热的路德教徒共同点燃了血腥的民众起义。据说，1523年6月23日，在路德将他的《九十五条论纲》钉在维滕贝格城堡教堂的门上6年后，在德国施瓦本地区，位于现代瑞士中部的北方，女伯爵卢芬斯特林根命令1200名农民为她收集蜗牛壳，她可能有大量的线需要蜗牛壳做线轴。而这时农民正忙于农收，女伯爵为了蜗牛壳而进行的逼迫激怒了他们，引发了一场席卷欧洲大部分德语区、持续两年的农民起义。[89]

    1524—1525年，农民军队与当地贵族的雇佣兵展开了一系列战争，其统称为德意志农民战争（俗称蜗牛战争），这些缺乏训练和武器的农民叛军遭到大规模屠杀，最终大约有10万农民被杀戮。

    在整个起义过程中，德意志农民叛军主要关注的是社会问题而非宗教问题，而这场起义的血腥结局却与宗教有关，主要发起者是一位名叫托马斯·闵采尔的千禧年传教士以及被他迷惑的疯狂的追随者。

    1525年3月，叛军在施瓦本的梅明根镇上集会，提出了12条要求，也就是《十二条款》，并印刷了至少2.5万份副本。只有第一条要求是明显关于神学的：每个城市都可以选出自己的传教士，他们将“简单地宣讲福音”，这大概是为了排除拉丁天主教的弥撒仪式。接下来的十条要求更是关于经济而非宗教的：包括如何支付传教士的报酬，废除农奴制，降低地租，狩猎和捕鱼的权利，以及归还最近私有化的公共土地等。最后一条要求谦恭地指出，如果上述十一条要求中的任何一条后来被证明与圣经背道而驰，那么它们都是无效的。[90]

    但是，起义后期，闵采尔成了农民军领导人。闵采尔至少阅读并解释过约阿希姆的一篇著作，但人们对他的出身知之甚少。最可接受的猜测是，他生于德意志亚琛城外的施托尔贝格镇，其位于现代比利时、德国和荷兰的交会地带；他是工匠家庭出身，教育背景也很模糊，几乎没有留下学业记录，有人说他父亲就死在一个腐败贵族的绞刑架上，因此他具有反独裁的末日倾向。唯一可以确认的信息是他大约于1514年被任命为农民军领导人，虽然这种任命不需要大学教育背景，但他的文笔表明他接受过先进的学业教育。

    三年后，路德的宗教改革运动在维滕贝格爆发，闵采尔前往那里，在革命的激情中畅饮。他可能见过路德，甚至在他的讲坛上讲过道；他当然遇到过路德的杰出同事菲利普·梅兰希顿。起初，闵采尔与路德派并肩作战，对抗教皇的支持者；1520年，路德推荐他接替约翰内斯·西尔维于斯·伊格拉努斯做茨维考的传教士。当时伊格拉努斯要去进修，和鹿特丹的伊拉斯谟等人文主义学者一起学习。

    在茨维考，闵采尔充分表现出他在神学上偏执的冲动和对建立“千年王国”的狂热。和路德一样，他将天主教神父和修道士称为“庞大的怪物”和“撕裂肉体的女妖”，并开始鼓吹，通过与上帝直接沟通也可以实现救赎，而与圣经无关。[91]这种说法对路德和伊格拉努斯来说都太过分了。伊格拉努斯当时已返回茨维考，并将闵采尔降职到该镇一个较小的教堂。在那里，闵采尔可能受到了茨维考“先知”的影响，这些先知分享给他一些神秘的信仰，包括理想的重要性，以及救赎与圣经的无关性。

    闵采尔进行了煽动性的布道并分发小册子，这导致他被驱逐，先是从茨维考被驱逐，然后是从布拉格和其他多个城市；最后，他落脚在萨克森人居住的阿尔施泰特镇上。在被驱逐的路上，他发展了自己的天启末日主题。1524年，他对萨克森州的约翰公爵进行了一次著名的布道，其主要围绕《但以理书》中的尼布甲尼撒之梦；公爵不可能不理解这个典故，但是他回应说，罗马教堂和那些支持它的贵族已经取代了但以理的希腊塞琉西帝国；闵采尔更加清楚地向公爵指出，有理想的先知们，通常是那些没有受过正规宗教教育的平教徒[92]，但是他们在解释《圣经》方面起到了主要作用，他们现在都生活在末日前最后的日子中。最令人震惊的是，闵采尔宣称自己是新的但以理，他的追随者是“被选者”，他们理解末日的紧迫性，他们的出现不仅是为了观察，而且是为了积极实现它。

    闵采尔布道后，公爵愤而不发地离去。闵采尔继续出版了更多的反教权主义小册子，这进一步恶化了他和公爵之间脆弱的关系。最终，公爵受够了，他强制关闭了闵采尔的印刷机，并将闵采尔传唤到他在魏玛的城堡里，使其接受审讯。由于担心自己会被杀，闵采尔离开了阿尔施泰特镇，又在几个动荡的地方逗留后，他成为农民战争的高潮——弗兰肯豪森战役——的叛军领导人之一。

    至此，闵采尔已经说服了自己以及许多追随者，他们相信上帝让闵采尔开启末日。他不仅用自己的“千年王国”理想来说服民众，还引用了多段圣经经文来支持自己。他似乎对《马太福音》第24章印象深刻，这一章讲述了耶稣预言圣殿将被摧毁，随后发生饥荒、瘟疫、战争、地震等全球性灾难。上帝还用基甸之剑武装闵采尔，让他和他的军队战胜处于优势地位的贵族军队，据一位观察者说，他“用他的外套袖子抓住了敌人的所有子弹”[93]。

    受此鼓励，1525年5月14日，农民叛军冲向贵族雇佣军（见图1-3）。但雇佣军仅以6人的伤亡为代价，屠杀了90%的叛军部队，约6000人被杀。[94]闵采尔仓皇逃离战场，但很快被抓获并被带到贵族面前，经过长时间的审讯后，他被斩首。[95]

    图1-3 1525年农民战争的地标

    闵采尔及其追随者的悲惨死亡，只是拉开了这场血腥的世界末日论的序幕而已。在繁荣的波罗的海海上贸易航线上，末日论将在接下来的10年里席卷欧洲西北部。

    2 滥用末日叙事的悲剧

    信徒与无赖

    1534年2月，威斯特法伦州的明斯特城的气氛狂热，居民们报告说，看见天空中出现了三个太阳，这在那个时代很容易被认为与尤利乌斯·恺撒死后出现的预兆相同，预示着将出现像屋大维、马克·安东尼和雷必达那样的后三头同盟[1]。

    这一愿景尤其激励了一个被称为再洗礼派的新教教派，该教派反对天主教传统的婴儿洗礼做法，而是对新皈依者施行成年再洗礼。有一位名叫赫尔曼·冯·克森布罗克的天主教徒，他小时候目睹了1534年事件，后来他记录到：“天空似乎张开了嘴，出现长长的裂缝，可怕的火焰从裂缝中闪烁……（农民们）看到这座城市似乎着火了，但当他们赶来调查时，发现火焰不仅没有伤害城市，而且完全消失了。”[2]

    年轻的冯·克森布罗克对街头的疯狂事件感到惊讶，并将再洗礼派描述为：

    ……如此错乱，如此失常，如此被疯狂驱使，他们超越了诗歌中描述的愤怒。他们没廉耻地在市场上跑来跑去，有的头发蓬乱，有的衣服松散，有的头巾在风中飞舞。有些人跳起疯狂的舞蹈，仿佛要在狂躁中飞翔。有些人脸朝下趴在地上，伸出手臂，身体摆成十字架的形状……有些人躺在松软的泥浆里，一遍又一遍地翻滚。有些人跪下来大声喊叫。有些人睁着闪光的眼睛号叫。有些人口吐白沫。有些人摇头咬牙地做出威胁的表情，有些人捶胸顿足、招摇过市。有人哭，有人笑。从另一个角度看，与其说我们嘲笑他们的疯狂，不如说是为他们而悲伤。[3]

    托马斯·闵采尔短暂、血腥、笨拙的起义后不到10年，约阿希姆的另一批能力更强的子民在明斯特城企图实现他们狂热的末日愿景，这被称为再洗礼派的疯狂。1533—1535年，他们一度控制了市政当局，后来又在后者的最后攻击下失败。

    德意志农民战争惨败之后，群体疯狂的中心逐渐向北移动，到了今天的德国西部和荷兰所在地（见图2-1）。几十年来，这个地区在汉萨同盟[4]的推动下出现日益繁荣的局面。汉萨同盟是一个松散的贸易联盟，沿波罗的海和北海延伸，大致从今天的爱沙尼亚共和国到比利时的佛兰德。上一章所提到的德意志农民战争主要源于对社会的不满，但这一场德国和荷兰的民间叛乱是由一种新的宗教教义——再洗礼主义——所驱动的。

    图2-1 再洗礼派疯狂事件的地标

    8世纪末，查理曼[5]已经占领了明斯特城，该地区位于今荷兰东部、德国埃姆登城南部。他派了一位名叫卢德格尔的传教士去改变该地区的宗教信仰，并强迫当地居民皈依基督教。卢德格尔在当地某处河岸上建造了一座修道院，该城由此得名[6]。随着明斯特在汉萨同盟经济中日益繁荣，该地区富丽堂皇的主教堂和众多的礼拜教堂使城市景象更加繁荣。

    明斯特城基督教会的繁荣是有代价的：用于支持教会的沉重的什一税落在教徒身上，而神职人员却不需要纳税；修道士们耕种土地，修女们在织布机上工作，他们与当地农民和布料生产商产生了竞争。如此贪婪的教会并不是明斯特城所独有的：在整个欧洲，教会行为点燃了宗教冲突和公众愤怒的火焰。[7]

    再洗礼派本身起源于10年前在瑞士苏黎世开展的一系列晦涩难懂的神学讨论。1519年，一位名叫乌尔里希·茨温利[8]的天主教牧师建立了一座改革宗教堂。茨温利参加了一系列由市议会发起的正式教义辩论，被宣布为获胜者。他们在市议会面前辩论的议题之一就是洗礼时间。从逻辑上讲，只有成年人才能按照自己的自由意志行事，才能有意义地服从于基督，《新约》中的福音书也是这样描述的。但是，婴儿洗礼是从3世纪就已经确立了的，到马丁·路德和茨温利时期，几乎已经是一种普遍的、毫无疑问的教会做法。

    茨温利在这次辩论中的反对者之一，一位名叫康拉德·格列伯的商人，反对婴儿洗礼——“洗孩子”，因为这些神学后裔长大后可能会轻视它。辩论之后，格列伯为他的一个朋友乔治·布劳罗克施行了再洗礼，然后他们两人开始为其他成年人施行再洗礼。

    当时，这并没有引起什么。茨温利本人也评论说，他和格列伯之间只有很少的神学时间，只讨论了一些“不重要的周围事件，比如应该对婴儿还是成人进行洗礼，基督徒是否可以担任地方法官”[9]。

    但再洗礼派的导火索已经点燃，或者更准确地说，是两条导火索：一条穿过波罗的海和低地国家（今荷兰、比利时，以及莱茵河、埃姆斯河、斯海尔德河和默兹河的河口），另一条穿过明斯特。这两条导火索分别燃烧，直到1534年，在明斯特合并，点燃了历史上最混乱的群体幻想之一。

    梅尔基奥·霍夫曼是一位德国毛皮贸易商，经常来往于汉萨同盟的城市间（可以带来丰厚利润），他点燃了波罗的海和低地国家的导火索。他比路德小10岁，在1523年左右获得维滕贝格大学的教授职称，并在来往行程中传播主张改革的异端教义。几年后，他对《启示录》念念不忘，开始背离路德的教义，宣扬一场即将来临的末日式善恶大战。

    和之前以及之后的启示性末日论者一样，他热衷于应用自造的末日数学。霍夫曼计算出，基督死于33年，使徒时期[10]持续了100年，直到133年。他认为，由于犹太人的罪行，人类受到了三年半的惩罚；由于巴比伦时期的邪恶，惩罚时间增加了20倍；由于教会对耶稣的疏离堕落，惩罚时间又增加了20倍，总共增加了1400年。因此，世界末日将发生在1533年，这一预言在波罗的海的多个贸易城市引发了暴动和混乱，包括吕贝克、斯德哥尔摩和一些丹麦港口。由于制造了这一系列混乱，霍夫曼被逐出这些城市。[11]

    就其性质而言，再洗礼主义是一种有吸引力但组织分散的神学，其信徒仅仅因为相信成人洗礼而被统一。最终，再洗礼派在整个西欧，尤其是汉萨同盟贸易路线上蓬勃兴起。霍夫曼的启示性再洗礼在低地国家取得了最大的成功，尤其是在东弗里西亚最大的城市埃姆登，其位于德国沿海地区，今荷兰边境以东。

    15世纪末，哈布斯堡人接替勃艮第人开始统治低地国家。此时，这些城市已成为欧洲大陆最繁荣的城市。在路德摧毁教会对《圣经》解释的垄断权以及谷登堡发明的印刷机的支持下，当地居民在一种被称为“秘密集会”的小型非官方组织下聚集。这种“秘密集会”是各种宗教派别的温床。

    1530年左右，霍夫曼经过当时宗教改革活动的密集之地——斯特拉斯堡，这座城市是再洗礼派中比较温和的瑞士版本的发源地，他将其嫁接到他的末日信条中。1531年，与《启示录》相呼应，他将斯特拉斯堡定为《启示录》提到的144000名神圣信使聚集的地方，并将在该城战胜邪恶势力的大规模围困。他向斯特拉斯堡市议会请愿建立自己的教堂，但这再一次导致他被驱逐，于是他回到了低地国家，对大量成年人进行再洗礼，仅在埃姆登主教堂的一次就有300人。[12]

    1531年12月，神圣罗马帝国当局——低地国家实际上的统治者，抓获了扬·沃克茨，他是霍夫曼的一个门徒，曾在阿姆斯特丹对50名皈依者施行了再洗礼。他们邀请他逃跑，但他选择了殉道，并与9名追随者一起被斩首。为了保护教徒，霍夫曼把宗派的教义改为禁止成人洗礼。[13]1533年，霍夫曼返回斯特拉斯堡，这很不明智。在那里，教会判定他犯有异端罪，罪行相对次要，并将他囚禁在一些条件恶劣的牢房中。他平静地接受了阴冷的新环境，因为他认为世界末日即将来临，自己不会在那里待太久。但是，这个很乐观的推测被证明是错误的。他在狱中度过了10年，其间，下面街道的市民偶尔会听到他轻轻地吟唱圣歌，并不断重复：“你们斯特拉斯堡的不敬上帝的经书家们有祸了！”[14]

    霍夫曼入狱后，他的追随者，一位名叫扬·马提斯的面包师来到阿姆斯特丹，宣称自己是先知以诺。令信徒们高兴的是，他又开始了成人洗礼。以诺是《旧约》中在生前就被上帝带到天堂的仅有的两个人物之一，另一个是以利亚，而霍夫曼在此之前已经盗用了以利亚的身份。此外，一些再洗礼派成员以《启示录》11:3~11:12的内容作为证据，证明以诺和以利亚是两个未言明的“被提”见证人。随着时间从1533年进入1534年，世界末日并没有到来，低地国家的信徒被迫将末日时间推迟到1535年，并将地点从斯特拉斯堡北移到宗教上更具宽容性的明斯特。

    1534年3月，至少3000名阿姆斯特丹的再洗礼派教徒试图穿越须得海[15]去往明斯特。哈布斯堡军队阻止了他们，并处决了大约100名异教徒，其余的被当作无辜受骗者放走。在那个时代，哈布斯堡军队的这种做法被认为是温和的。第二天，几个“使徒”激动地挥舞着刀，在阿姆斯特丹的街道上游行，警告说最后的审判将会在复活节前到来；他们被抓住并被杀死。那一年，（荷兰）海牙的哈布斯堡当局已经部署了“飞行纵队”，围捕这些低地国家的再洗礼者，对抓捕到的信徒施行酷刑，让他们在认罪和被处决之间做出选择。[16]

    1535年2月的一个寒冷夜晚，一群再洗礼者赤身裸体地跑过阿姆斯特丹高呼：“对神不敬者有祸了！”公开裸体象征着在上帝面前忠贞不渝，在明斯特也很常见。最后，拒绝穿衣服的男人被处死，拒绝穿衣服的女人被淹死。（刀和裸行者在荷兰语中留下了两个新词：zwaardlopers和naaklopers。）

    荷兰的许多其他城市也出现了再洗礼派暴动，这导致了更多的处决。到1535年中，多达20%的阿姆斯特丹人可能经历过成人洗礼，许多受洗礼者（如果不是大部分）都是无辜的局外人，他们是不断升级的镇压和抵抗（包括几场大规模的激战）下的难民。5月11日，携带武器的再洗礼者占据了该市的一个主要集市，在失败被捕之前，他们大声喊道：“爱上帝的人，加入我们吧！”3天后，当局挖掉了11名头目的心脏。当年夏天，当局割断了一位再洗礼派领袖的舌头，因为他用舌头来布道；然后，当局砍掉了他的右手，因为他用右手洗礼；最后，当局砍了他的头。[17]

    即使对于那个时代，这场对再洗礼者的镇压也显得很残酷，肯定比路德和茨温利的追随者遭受的镇压要残酷。路德和茨温利废除了教会对《圣经》解释权的垄断，这已经够糟糕的了，但至少他们尊重私有财产，尊重世俗化的政府权威。而在大多数情况下，再洗礼派却主张没收集中的财富，特别是集中在教会手中的财富，并否认现有政府的合法性。再洗礼者还在煽动性的言论中掺入了即将来临的末日这种信念；很多时候，行动会加速灭亡。

    尽管荷兰的再洗礼者众多，但由于哈布斯堡家族对荷兰控制得过于严格，他们无法成功；他们需要更温和的政治土壤，这意味着，一个事实上不受哈布斯堡家族控制的城市。他们发现了明斯特，并在那里点燃了再洗礼派疯狂的第二条导火索。

    许多汉萨同盟的城镇，如但泽和吕贝克，都是所谓的“自由城市”，基本上独立于遥远而日益衰落的神圣罗马帝国皇帝，只在名义上效忠。这些几乎独立的城镇大多由当地贵族统治，例如明斯特由一位“亲王主教”统治。被选为“亲王主教”的代价通常非常昂贵，其需要由当地大教堂挑选并必须经过教皇确认，他们更多的是以封建主的身份进行统治，而不是政教合一的身份。

    1525年，明斯特的亲王主教弗雷德里克·冯·维德由于害怕农民战争，将权力下放给一个由24名成员组成的委员会，其中包括两名共同市长。与低地国家政府不同，该委员会基本不受哈布斯堡的影响。近10年后，该委员会将成为再洗礼派实施疯狂暴力破坏的楔子。[18]

    再洗礼派将滩头阵地定在明斯特，大多数历史学家将这归因于贝尔纳德·罗特曼。他于1495年左右出生在一个铁匠家里，与他的祖先一起被指控犯有巫术罪。小罗特曼被描述为具有“变化无常的、小丑的气质”。由于太穷，他没有上学。他叔叔在明斯特圣莫里斯教堂担任教区牧师，在叔叔的指导下，他成为唱诗班男童，后来以唱歌谋生。到青春期结束声乐生涯时，他已经赚得了在美因茨市学习所需要的钱，并在那里获得了硕士学位。1529年，他回到了圣莫里斯教堂。[19]

    1530年左右，罗特曼已经成为一名有说服力的传教士，得到了富有布商贝尔纳德·克尼佩尔多林的资助。克尼佩尔多林还担任协会会长、市议会议员，首先皈依了路德教，后来在罗特曼的影响下成为一名秘密的再洗礼派教徒。克尼佩尔多林印刷了罗特曼的小册子。不仅在明斯特，而且在低地国家，这些作品都点燃了再洗礼的火焰。

    现代社会对疯狂的再洗礼派的了解在很大程度上归功于两位观察者，一位是前面提到的赫尔曼·冯·克森布罗克，另一位是海因里希·格雷斯贝克。后者是一位皈依再洗礼派的木匠，参与了整个过程，并在最后扮演了一个小而关键的角色。冯·克森布罗克和格雷斯贝克都留下了详细的书面记录，他们在记录中所体现出的个人偏见表明，这些记录看上去是可信的。[20]

    根据冯·克森布罗克的描述，最初罗特曼忠实地传授天主教教义，但后来：

    渐渐地，他开始将那些看上去与天主教教条背道而驰的教义融入他的布道中。他开始煽动平民对神职人员的愤怒，这吸引了一些渴望新奇事物的市民。[21]

    他在圣莫里斯教堂的上级决定保护他们的信众不受日益激进的观点的影响，因此借给他20个金弗罗林[22]供他去科隆深造学习。他既没有去也没偿还借款；相反，他直接前往了维滕贝格。路德和梅兰希顿的家就在那里。

    1531年，这位年轻的牧师回到了圣莫里斯教堂。他作为一位坚定的路德宗教徒，陶醉于作为煽动者的快乐之中，非常善于吸引人群到城墙外的小教堂里。根据冯·克森布罗克的记录：

    许多人，特别是那些被债务压得喘不过气来的人，像尊敬上帝一样尊敬他，听信他说的每一句话，并深信他的行为都是奉上帝之灵。即使官方明令禁止，他们还是成群结队地从城里跟着他，因为他们渴望听到他讲话，他们的渴望如此强烈，以至于他们认为除了他之外没有其他传教士了，他们蔑视、谴责和诅咒其他人以及所有的神职人员。[23]

    作为一名忠诚的天主教徒，冯·克森布罗克对罗特曼的布道不屑一顾，“与其说是有确凿的论据，不如说是拙劣的诽谤”。然而，无知的平民们无法区分什么是雄辩，什么是夸夸其谈，他们认为他说得很好。[24]

    此时，罗特曼已被圣莫里斯教堂免去牧师职务，他带领一伙暴徒来到教堂，砸碎了神像，推倒了祭坛，砸碎了一个银杯，焚烧了圣母玛利亚的画像。当局再次驱逐了他，他又一次到了维滕贝格，在那里，他给路德和梅兰希顿留下了深刻的印象，据说他们俩很有先见之明地评论道：“罗特曼要么非常好，要么非常坏。”[25]

    1532年，罗特曼再次回到明斯特，他开始公开支持再洗礼派的观点。这是一把双刃剑。成人洗礼不仅获得了听众的认可，也得到了教会的许可。到那时，对于曾经把再洗礼者绑在木桩上焚烧，以及曾经将石头绑在再洗礼者的脖子上并将他们抛入水中，教会已经表现出一丝内疚。用再洗礼主义学者克里斯托弗·麦基的话说，“有点儿像一个神学笑话”[26]。

    此时，亲王主教冯·维德仍然控制着这座城市，并强迫罗特曼停止亵渎神明的行为。罗特曼遵从了几个星期，但随后又不顾一切地给冯·维德写信说：“我问心无愧，因此我毫不怀疑我可以依靠上帝的怜悯。他会保护我，把我从危险中解救出来。”[27]

    1532年2月，罗特曼在该市的一个主要教堂——圣兰伯特教堂的院子里布道，公众被他动摇了，自发地选择以他作为自己的牧师。更重要的是，他在市议会中赢得了足够的支持，他不会再被驱逐。明斯特的宗教热情不仅限于再洗礼；全城的教堂中都有激进的路德派传教士，除罗特曼以外，他们都来自其他城市。

    在使城市皈依方面，罗特曼的成功与低地国家的霍夫曼和马提斯不相上下。罗特曼在圣兰伯特教堂的布道结束后不久，冯·维德在失意中辞职，他的继任者在被祝圣[28]之前就去世了；6月，没有多少基督教会背景的一位伯爵的儿子，弗朗西斯·冯·瓦尔德克，升任亲王主教。下半年，他封锁了这座城市，而作为回应，再洗礼派成功地突袭了城墙外冯·瓦尔德克的总部，这样明斯特就完全处于叛逆的再洗礼者的控制之下了。1533年2月，他们达成了一项妥协：教区教堂可以实行路德教，而大教堂将保持天主教。[29]

    尽管达成了妥协，但明斯特的天主教徒和路德教徒的时间已经不多了。罗特曼的小册子，由富有的布商克尼佩尔多林承销，已经渗透到了低地国家。这些小册子将私有财产列为邪恶的根源：“上帝所造的万物都是共有的，就像今天仍然可以共同享受空气、火、雨和太阳一样，任何东西都不能让某些偷窃者抓在他们自己手里。”罗特曼将明斯特描绘成一座富足的城市，它张开双臂欢迎信徒，数百名来自低地国家的可怜人南行至明斯特——再洗礼者口中所谓的新耶路撒冷城——去朝圣。

    1533年初，天主教徒、传统的路德派教徒和再洗礼派教徒不稳定地混杂在这座城市，其中的再洗礼派不想遵守与亲王主教之间的协议。与此同时，从低地国家涌入很多再洗礼者，引发了3月份的特别委员会选举，选举结果是激进的路德派占多数，相当多的再洗礼者占少数，没有天主教徒。[30]市议会对那些在基督大教堂给婴儿洗礼的家庭处以罚款，标志着新的统治开始。

    与此同时，在低地国家，扬·马提斯为一个来自莱顿市的名叫扬·博克尔松[31]的人施行再洗礼。和霍夫曼一样，马提斯是一个冲动、暴躁的传教士，而扬·博克尔松则利用自己的戏剧表演技巧和精于算计的能力塑造出一股强大的政治力量。

    作为一名镇长和一名农奴妇女的私生子，博克尔松一出生就面临着痛苦和失望，父母安排他接受了初级教育，并让他在裁缝店做学徒，但他并不擅长于此。他的一些其他天赋，很快就在明斯特显现出来：金发碧眼的英俊外表，优雅、狡黠、富有演讲造诣和表演天赋。用千禧年学者诺曼·科恩的话说，他利用这些天赋“将现实生活塑造成一部戏剧，以自己为主角，以整个欧洲为观众”[32]。

    1533年末，马提斯派了几名使者前往明斯特，他们于次年1月抵达。其中包括博克尔松，他在前一年夏天来过这座城市。一到那里，他们就发现罗特曼及其追随者已经为城里的大概1/5的成年人施行了再洗礼，该城有多达1/3的人相信世界末日即将来临。马提斯本人于1534年2月9日来到这里。[33]马提斯和博克尔松的到来标志着两位再洗礼者融合在一起：罗特曼具有说服力的土生土长的明斯特再洗礼主义，以及梅尔基奥·霍夫曼从低地地区衍生的催眠般的末日幻觉。对双方来说，他们抵达明斯特的意义非常明确。用学者拉尔夫·克勒策尔的话说：

    先知派遣使者施洗被解读为上帝正在准备世界末日。在此背景下，战争、瘟疫和通货膨胀，以及帝国的改革，突然成为末日的预兆。[34]

    事情从这里开始发展迅速。再洗礼派让使者到邻近的城市传达信息：到1534年复活节，上帝会回来惩罚恶人，很少有人能活下来；只有在新耶路撒冷城明斯特才能获得平安和救赎。世界末日即将来临。

    1534年2月6日，罗特曼为河对岸女修道院的修女们表演了一场滑稽戏剧：

    他发表了一场赞美婚姻的布道，并用他演讲中神奇的击槌声打开了修女们童贞的营房。他似乎在敦促修女们去繁殖人类，而修女们对此并不十分反感。接下来，为了让修女们进一步从愚蠢过渡到彻底疯狂，他告诉她们修道院的塔楼及房屋结构将在第二天午夜倒塌，连同所有住在里面的人。他的神谕带给修女们的与其说是痛苦，不如说是欢乐，因为她们的灵魂充满了欲望，憎恨修女的生活。[35]

    这些年轻的修女无处可去，她们认为罗特曼是上帝派来的人，于是带着自己的财产跑去了他的家。整个城市的市民都无眠，迎接末日的到来。

    但是末日没有到来，为了挽回面子，罗特曼利用了一个正符合时机的圣经例子——约拿的故事，约拿错误地预言了亚述首都尼尼微的沦陷，全能者出于怜悯而没有责罚他。两个早晨后，再洗礼派的其他成员担心罗特曼的预测能力会使教派受损，于是滑稽地冲过街道，用“可怕的喊叫和疯狂的怒吼”大声宣讲，让不信教的人忏悔，试图以此来维护他们的信誉。那天下午，扬·博克尔松和克尼佩尔多林也加入了进来，一次又一次地大喊：“忏悔！忏悔！忏悔！”他们的疯狂感染了其他人，所有人一起以各种各样的姿态跳上跳下，摇着头，还有的扑通一声倒在泥里。一位再洗礼者骑马疾驰而过，宣布结束，并告诉所有人，他看见了成千上万的天使，所有人都将听到天使们的声音。[36]

    这种疯狂激励了再洗礼者，当天晚些时候，500名再洗礼教徒占领了城市市场，后来被主流路德派教徒阻止。但路德教的阻止是短暂的；在2月23日的选举中，再洗礼派最终完全控制了市议会。2月底，武装的再洗礼派向非教徒发出最后通牒：选择接受再洗礼或被驱逐，“从这里滚开，你们这些不虔诚的人！上帝会惩罚你们！”[37]

    再洗礼派摧毁了教堂的祭坛，并花费数天时间掠夺教堂里的金银，还焚烧雕像。他们还收取刻有“DWWF”的铜币，以允许行人通过戒备森严的城门。到了月底，亲王主教的军队开始围攻明斯特城，博克尔松告诉信徒，圣经要求，当末日来临时，上帝准许基督徒不再容忍，并准许他们全副武装去防御。

    第一批被驱逐的天主教徒被允许带走他们的财产，但短缺的食物除外；最后一批离开的人只能带衣服，但衣服上的纽扣和金钩都被没收了。[38]再洗礼派教徒对政变中路德教对他们的反击记忆犹新，他们把愤怒集中在男人身上。而路德教徒和天主教男子预测亲王主教能够夺回这座城市，因此留下他们的女人来守卫他们的房屋和财产。这造成城墙内女人数量过多，很快将产生可怕的后果。[39]

    1月，再洗礼者自愿捐出所有的物质财产——因为世界将会在复活节终结，但是到了3月，市议会开始禁止私人持有财产；罗特曼和博克尔松要求所有的金银和纸币都要上交到市政厅。为了鼓励捐赠，博克尔松宣扬，信徒有三种分类：完全放弃自我的好基督徒；保留部分财产的人，他们需要向上帝祈祷，但是上帝会心存报复；只为了方便而受洗的人，他们什么也指望不上，在末日将会被烧死。

    马提斯和博克尔松把镇上所有人都聚集在大教堂广场上，向他们大声喊道，仁慈之门已经关上，上帝很生气。那些已经受洗的人被聚拢在一边，剩余的人，总共大约300人，被解除武器，被迫俯伏在地，祈求怜悯一个小时，这期间随时都可能被杀死。然后，他们被带进大教堂，被迫跪祈上帝3个多小时。最后，教堂门外的博克尔松戏剧性地打开门宣布：“亲爱的兄弟们，看在上帝的分儿上，我要告诉你们，你们得到了上帝的怜悯，你们将与我们同在，成为圣人。”第二天，他对镇上2000名未受洗礼的妇女重复了这个过程。[40]

    到3月底，这座城市已经经历完一次宗教清洗；大约有2000名天主教徒和未受洗礼的路德教徒被驱逐，人数与从荷兰和东弗里西亚迁移来的再洗礼者人数大致相等，因此人口基本保持不变，约为9000。但是，该镇的宗教结构以及心理结构已经发生变化。不易受到他人影响的天主教徒被更易受到影响的再洗礼者取代，这加剧了已经变得明显的群体幻想行为。此外，对不敬虔者的驱逐和信徒的迁移只会加强“新先知”罗特曼、马提斯和博克尔松所说的“大灾难”的确定性，即末日真的要来了。

    再洗礼者不仅要拥抱未来，还要毁灭过去，因此他们下令销毁所有市政记录，特别是债务分类账簿。狂热者们焚烧路德和阿奎那[41]的书籍；一些家庭和教堂里只剩下《圣经》。最终，博克尔松还对城市的门和街道进行一般性重命名，例如，圣路德门被简称为南门，他还按照字母顺序指派姓名给新生儿。[42]

    这些“新先知”开始残酷地惩罚持不同政见者。一位名叫胡贝特·吕舍的铁匠，在2月份的选举中失去了议会席位，还对市政记录被毁感到不满。于是他被带到博克尔松面前，先是戏剧性地被赦免，然后戏剧性地被释放，他哭着求饶，但是被一把戟刺中背部。这位身体强壮、肌肉结实的铁匠还没有死，于是博克尔松朝他的背部开了一枪；吕舍被痛苦折磨了8天才死去。[43]

    复活节前不久，马提斯参加了一些朋友的婚礼；他预言了自己的死亡，格雷斯贝克对此做了记录：

    他在那里坐了一个小时，拍打着双手，上下点着头，沉重地叹着气，就好像快要死了。最后，他又醒了过来，叹了口气说：“哦，亲爱的父亲，不要照我的意思，只要照你的意思。”他站起来，把一只手伸向每一个人，并亲吻他们的嘴唇。他说：“上帝的平安与你们同在。”然后他和妻子一起走了。（那时，再洗礼者还没有很多妻子。）[44]

    1534年，复活节在4月5日到来，但耶稣没有出现，世界也没有结束。那天，马提斯和十几名追随者离开城门，骑着马走向亲王主教的雇佣兵，后者开始屠杀他们。格雷斯贝克记录说，围城者将马提斯的尸体切成100块，玩耍似的用血淋淋的碎片相互撞击，并用一根长矛挑着他的头，然后向城内喊话：居民们应该找回他们的市长。[45]马提斯可能是想吸引耶稣回来，或者，为了完成《启示录》11章中的一段话，即以诺（他自己）和以利亚（霍夫曼，仍被扔在斯特拉斯堡监狱中）的死亡将标志着耶稣的回归。

    博克尔松在乡村传教多年，还在上一年夏天到过明斯特，传教经历磨炼了他戏剧般的间谍技巧。在附近的舍平根镇，据说他通过洗礼治愈了一个生病的女孩，到1534年初他再回到明斯特时，已经很有名气了。他很可能一直在为这一时刻做准备。在此之前，他在明斯特一直保持着相对低调的姿态，马提斯去世后，他站在教堂的上层窗户处俯瞰人群，身穿白色长袍，沐浴在烛光中，右边是克尼佩尔多林，左边是迪沃——马提斯美丽而神秘的妻子，历史只记载了她的教名。

    博克尔松告诉群众，马提斯应该被处死，因为他虚荣并贪婪，这让群众大为震惊。博克尔松指了指克尼佩尔多林，并告诉人们，当他住在克尼佩尔多林家时，看到了马提斯血淋淋地剖开了一名雇佣兵的肠子。这名雇佣兵告诉博克尔松不要害怕：马提斯将受到上帝的审判，而他，博克尔松，必须迎娶他的遗孀迪沃。之后，博克尔松再次指向克尼佩尔多林，让他证明雇佣兵说这话的时候他也在场。人群对这一神圣景象感到兴奋，不少人脱下衣服跳舞，所有人都知道了，博克尔松继承了马提斯的职位。[46]

    马提斯和罗特曼还遗留了一个问题，那就是为什么耶稣又一次没有出现，博克尔松必须向信徒解释这个问题。他预言，耶稣现在不会回来，直到新耶路撒冷城清除所有不洁的元素。

    博克尔松不仅是一位杰出的煽动家，而且还是一位有能力的军事指挥官。他加强了该市本就很强大的防御警戒线，包括双墙、护城河和石制圆形大门。9000名公民面对的是数量大致相等的雇佣兵，因此不允许有累赘：妇女不仅在火药厂协助男子，而且还将亚麻花环浸入沸腾的沥青和生石灰锅中，从城墙上扔到突袭的雇佣兵身上。晚上，博克尔松的人溜进雇佣兵帐篷，割断他们的喉咙，并给幸存者留下纸条，鼓励他们皈依再洗礼派。

    5月25日，博克尔松的部队轻松击退了亲王主教军队的进攻，其中许多人投奔进城（尽管其中6人不久就因酗酒闹事而被处死）。[47]这场胜利极大地鼓舞了再洗礼者；当然，上帝是站在他们这一边的，亲王主教军队的失败巩固了再洗礼者对城市的控制。

    7月，博克尔松宣布所有以前的婚姻无效，并命令所有成年人再婚。此时，路德教和天主教留下的女性加剧了男女比例失调，女性的数量几乎是男性的三倍。因此再洗礼派鼓励一夫多妻制。起初，再洗礼派中那些富有攻击性的男性疯狂地在城市里四处寻找年轻女性和童女，他们基于一个理论，用格雷斯贝克的话说，“拥有的妻子越多，这样的基督徒就越好。”很快，领导层意识到，由此产生的自由放任的雄性激素已经破坏了城市的稳定。为了遏制这些疯狂男性的行为，他们规定，新娶必须经过主妻的同意，并允许各方当事人都可以提出离婚。但即便如此，第一任妻子也对他们新扩大的家庭感到不满，这是可以理解的，她们经常虐待这些新添的妻子。为了鼓励人们遵守一夫多妻制，领导层将最顽固的妻子监禁起来，并斩首了不少人。[48]

    婚姻法引发了一场暴动。大约120名男人抓获了博克尔松和克尼佩尔多林，并指认他们为刽子手，但是一场反击战将这二人又营救了出来。大多数叛乱者都祈求到了宽恕，但博克尔松枪杀、斩首了47名叛乱者，还有少数叛乱者被砍死。除此之外，博克尔松还处决了更多抵制一夫多妻婚姻的妇女。

    8月，亲王主教又进行了一次袭击，他们几乎冲破了内墙，但最终被击退。袭击者遭受了可怕的损失，因为当他们爬向城墙抬起头的时候，发现迎接他们的死亡形式是煮沸的大锅、木柱和树木，一旦木桩和树木掉落，会立即将他们其中的几个人从爬梯上带下。他们中的幸运儿从破裂的外墙逃了回来。之后，亲王主教的军队几乎解散。[49]

    这场胜利鼓舞了博克尔松的精神和气势；他认为自己是大卫王转世，也是这个星球唯一合法的统治者。他还英明地推断，这样一个惊人的说法最好是出自他人之口。那年夏初，一位名叫扬·杜森舒尔的跛行金匠从附近一个小镇来到明斯特，他自称拥有预言能力。果然不出所料，在亲王主教第二次袭击失败后，他宣布上帝已为博克尔松施了涂油礼，任命他为国王。[50]

    作为君主，博克尔松宣布明斯特的旧宪法不适合新的神圣秩序，废除了市议会和两个市长职位，并以皇家法庭取而代之。“新耶路撒冷”被重新命名为“上帝的子民”。

    在击退亲王主教的第二次进攻后，邻近的亲王加强了封锁，并任命了一名新指挥官。因此，食物和供应品很难偷运到市里；这位新国王的臣民们衣衫褴褛，慢慢被饿死。博克尔松却一点儿也不担心，他对戏剧和戏服的热情开始高涨。格雷斯贝克这样描述博克尔松：

    他为自己做了一件天鹅绒外套，用华丽的丝织布制作成华丽的紧身裤和紧身短上衣，还有华丽的金帽子、一顶带天鹅绒细绳的皇冠、一把配有金鞘的刀、一把配有金鞘的匕首、戴在脖子上的许多金项链……他把世界挂在链子上，就像在他的盾形纹章上挂着的那个金色圆球一样。这像他的盾形纹章一样闪烁着蓝色斑点。[51]

    博克尔松的奢华感还延伸到为他的骑兵装备华丽的衣服，用华丽的丝绸，“制作成半身服装，一只手臂没有袖子，胸部镂空，因此他们在马背上能给人留下深刻印象”，并为他的家仆穿上红色外套，配上灰色或金色戒指，以戒指大小显示仆人等级。[52]

    10月，杜森舒尔将预言中博克尔松的统治权扩展到整个地球，并宣布上帝将吹响三次号角，这标志着该城通往上帝应许之地的旅程开始。1534年10月31日日出前，瘸腿金匠杜森舒尔爬上圣兰伯特教堂的塔楼，吹响了牛角。然后他下楼，继续在街上吹喇叭，其他人则吹奏其他乐器。成千上万的居民费力地走向大教堂广场，男人们扛着武器，女人们抱着小孩和她们最珍贵的财产。更多的号角吹响了，博克尔松骑着一匹白色的种马，全身行头，在20个护卫的簇拥下来到这里；后面跟着的是坐在马车里的迪沃王后，她由仆人侍奉着，还有他的另外15位妻子。

    此时，博克尔松已经把没有到来的末日提升到了高级剧场。他命令一位受尊敬的贵族，格拉赫·冯·武伦，带领自杀式冲锋队冲向围攻部队。然后，这位国王让冯·武伦宣布，这只是一次旨在测试他们意志的演练，他很高兴地通知他们，他们已经通过了。博克尔松脱下他的猩红色长袍，摘下王冠，放下君主权杖，和他的“长老们”一起为饥饿的群众提供了一场盛宴。除了给他们供应食物，博克尔松和长老们还与男人们开了一个轻松的玩笑——谈论他们妻子的数量。格雷斯贝克写道：

    只有一位妻子的市民羞愧地坐着。这样的人还不算信徒，不算一个真正的基督徒……他们坐着吃喝，兴高采烈。在大教堂广场上，这些人看上去并不像马上要死的人，每个兄弟都坐在妻子们旁边，到晚上可以选一位他渴求的人和他一起上床睡觉。[53]

    市民们饱足后，博克尔松站起身来，声泪俱下地宣称，他辜负了人民的期望，将退位。博克尔松刚说完，杜森舒尔就转达了上帝那里传来的消息：上帝命令他和其他26个人一起前往附近的4个城镇传播消息，以加速末日的到来。

    此外，杜森舒尔透露，博克尔松应该恢复其国王的职责，其中最主要的职责就是惩罚明斯特城中的不虔诚行为。然后，这位金匠把王冠重新戴在国王的头上，并把他的猩红色长袍和君主权杖还给了他。

    这戏剧性的一幕也许就是博克尔松本人的杰作；他在27名信使及其134位妻子面前，一举提升了自己的权威，摆脱了潜在的竞争对手。然后，国王和他的妻子以及宫廷人员，吃了一顿丰盛的晚餐；每上一道菜前，他的仆人都会大吹大擂。晚餐结束时，博克尔松沉默地坐了一会儿，然后告诉在场的人，他从上帝那里得到了启示，上帝命令他把刀和一个被俘的雇佣兵带来。他命令俘虏坐下，被拒绝后，他威胁俘虏说要把其腰斩，而不仅仅是斩首，俘虏未反抗。完成了上帝的旨意后，博克尔松结束了这顿饭。[54]

    27名信使离开了；然后26名信使被抓获并被雇佣兵处决了，除了一个名叫海因里希·格拉斯的人，他因会说拉丁语而没有被杀。这也引起了亲王主教的注意，使格拉斯有机会叛变。[55]

    格拉斯回到明斯特，讲述了他戏剧性地从亵渎上帝的人手中逃脱的故事，然后离开了这座城市，将无价的情报送给了亲王主教：食物和武器已经短缺，这座城市已经分裂，一边是曾经忠诚但现在饥肠辘辘、士气低落的民众，另一边是再洗礼派的精英们，他们的特权使他们能够保持精气和幻想。

    格拉斯离开这座城市之前给镇上的人留下一封谴责信：“现在明斯特正在进行的行为都是一场骗局，因此，我谦卑地祈祷你们最终睁开眼睛——是时候了！注意你们的行为，你们显然违背了上帝和他神圣的话语。”[56]尽管信使们已经被杀，但博克尔松安慰信徒们，信使死亡是上帝的意愿，他派遣了更多的信使到更远的低地国家去招募新的再洗礼者来守卫城镇。为了迎接增援部队的到来，他下令制造装甲车，以穿越封锁线回到城镇。

    但增援没有到来，第二批信使也杳无音信。这些持续出现的不幸事件，再加上邻近亲王向亲王主教支援了更多的雇佣兵，使他们没有机会再取得军事胜利。罗特曼告诉市民，虽然他们不能依靠外部世界，但上帝会拯救他们。随着食物和资源的日益匮乏，博克尔松削减了军队，转而专注于神学研究。

    1535年1月1日，博克尔松发表了一份宣言，其中规定，“只有那些以上帝的话语为导向的政府才能得到保护”，“做出法律决定是国王、他的摄政者以及法官的特权”，“一个不受非基督胁迫的政府不应该受到干涉，即使它还没有接受信徒的洗礼”[57]。

    一群年仅10岁的儿童因偷窃食物或涉嫌叛国而被处决。一位名叫图尔班·比尔的丹麦贵族离城后不久被发现是间谍，三个知情妇女在大教堂广场被斩首。其中一个是克尼佩尔多林的情妇，她没有被纳为妻子，因为她是妓女。被带到断头台上时，她公然谴责克尼佩尔多林的背叛行为；愤怒的克尼佩尔多林抓起一把刀砍了她的头。[58]

    到了复活节，低地国家的救援部队还没有出现，博克尔松宣称，他一直以来都是从精神意义而不是军事意义上定义“胜利”的。当镇上的流浪猫狗都已经被吃掉的时候，饥饿的市民们才被允许离城。

    博克尔松给予民众三四天的离城期限。离城民众的衣服被交换为破布；那些在期限之外离开明斯特的人被抓获并被处以绞刑。还有少数按照期限离城的民众被城外的雇佣兵屠杀，他们的头被挂在木桩上。格雷斯贝克将此解释为“霍布森选择”[59]：“他们仍然选择从城市叛逃，因为他们在城市里遭受了如此巨大的饥饿。他们宁愿被杀，也不愿在巨大的饥饿中受苦。”[60]

    几周后，为了节省食物，博克尔松允许男人与他们的某些次要妻子以及孩子断绝关系，这样他们就可以离开；博克尔松也和他的妻子以及孩子断绝了关系。格雷斯贝克观察到，“如果有人出一块面包，那么肯定有一些再洗礼者愿意用一位妻子换回一块面包。当没有面包的时候，法庭就没什么存在意义”[61]。

    这时，雇佣军每天都要将50名男性逃犯斩首，让逃犯中的妇女和儿童挤在围墙外的一块几百码宽、周长4英里的地狱般的土地上，其在一个多月的时间里都没有食物和住所。后来雇佣军允许其中的外国妇女和儿童回家，明斯特当地人被拘留，一直到城市沦陷。[62]

    大约5月23日，格雷斯贝克和其他几个人也逃离了这座城市。和以前大多数逃离者一样，他们被抓获了，但幸运的是没有被杀；就格雷斯贝克而言，由于他年轻、个性讨人喜欢以及抓获他的雇佣兵心地善良，他只是被判入狱。[63]他的成功逃离鼓励了数百人逃离明斯特，但最后几乎所有人都被杀了。

    格雷斯贝克在牢房的泥土地上为雇佣兵画了一张地图，勾画出军队应该如何进入城市。6月22日晚，一位名叫“朗斯特里特的小汉斯”的人（曾是围攻者，后来叛变到明斯特，然后又和格雷斯贝克一起逃离明斯特）和格雷斯贝克通过一个小型浮动桥游到一个能够穿过护城河的地方，35名雇佣兵从那里迅速穿过护城河，杀死了熟睡的哨兵，用小汉斯的钥匙打开了大门。在防御者最终关闭城门之前，至少还有300多名雇佣兵沿着又短又细的堤道进入（比起格雷斯贝克，围攻者们更信任小汉斯，也许是因为小汉斯最初是他们中的一员，所以小汉斯带领他们进攻，格雷斯贝克则留在桥上）。重新关闭城门后，困在城墙内的入侵者本来几乎就要被博克尔松的部队消灭了，但他们狡猾的指挥官威廉·施特丁用假谈判拖延了一段时间，直到后来亲王主教的主力兵团涌入该城，并在残酷的肉搏战中扫荡剩余的再洗礼者。[64]

    雇佣兵屠杀了600名居民，当他们发现每个人分到的战利品份额为50荷兰盾（相当于今天的1600美元）时，可能存在的任何罪恶感都消失了。再洗礼派护城河首领克里斯蒂安·克尔克林克很快被处决，一起被处决的可能还有迪沃王后。但博克尔松、克尼佩尔多林和另一名副手布伦德·克雷切丁克因各种神学犯罪、盗窃和谋杀的罪名而被慢慢审讯。博克尔松被捕几天后，亲王主教悲伤地问道：“你是国王吗？”博克尔松傲慢地回答：“你是主教吗？”[65]上层领导中可能只有罗特曼逃脱了，而且人们再也没有听说过他的消息。

    1536年1月22日是对博克尔松行刑的日子。按照帝国新刑法规定的程序，两名刽子手用一根木桩附着一个铁圈，圈住博克尔松的脖子使他不能动弹，并用灼热的钳子把他的肉撕下来。根据冯·克森布罗克的记录，“当被灼热的钳子触碰时，肌肉会发出明显的火焰，并因此散发出强烈的恶臭，使旁边的人感到恶心”[66]。

    看到这一幕，克尼佩尔多林试图用脖子上的项圈让自己窒息，但刽子手们用绳子把他张大的嘴牢牢地固定住，并把他捆在木桩上，然后又回到博克尔松身边继续钳肉，博克尔松默默地经受着这种折磨。之后克尼佩尔多林和布伦德·克雷切丁克也经历了这种折磨。然后刽子手用刀划开三个人的喉咙，最后刺中心脏。刽子手把他们直立的尸体塞进铁笼里，然后把铁笼挂在圣兰伯特教堂的塔楼上，让所有人都能看到。[67]他们的骨头在那里保存了50年，街上仍然有这三个笼子[68]。

    明斯特再洗礼派的继承者从他们的经历中吸取了教训；今天，成人洗礼的教义主要存在于阿米什和门诺派中，它们既安静又和平。

    第三个大规模的中世纪末日事件发生在17世纪中期的英格兰，当时整个英格兰都处于混乱之中。17世纪早期，议会与斯图亚特国王之间存在冲突，后者继续宣称国王的神圣权利；而议会不满于查理一世对安立甘宗[69]的支持，其更亲近天主教。

    不过，他们的冲突主要围绕财政问题。查理一世由于无法筹集到必要的资金支持他的军事行动，试图用一些非法手段结束议会的财政权力，尤其是筹集“船款”的权利。这是一项古老的皇家税，只在战时适用，而且只适用于沿海城镇。查理一世在和平时期收取议会外税收，并将其推广到内陆社区，引发了三场独立的冲突，其统称为英国内战，最终国王于1649年被斩首。奥利弗·克伦威尔建立了短暂的联邦和保护国制。克伦威尔的统治，以及他能力较弱、参与政治较少的儿子理查德的继任，被证明是灾难性的，使查理二世的君主制统治又在1660年得以恢复。

    动荡催生了两大派别：一个是平等派，主张法治、民主改革和宗教宽容；另一个是第五君主国派，是一个千禧年主义团体，其末日论支持“圣徒”统治，自认为是正义的骨干，但是和明斯特的再洗礼派一样，一点儿也不民主、不宽容甚至不谦逊。第五君主国派统治英国后，正义者将无法得到休息，因为它颁布了一项神圣法令，授权随后征服欧洲大陆。尽管这两个派别都没有完整地幸存下来，但第五君主国派在1653年短暂存在的“贝尔朋议会”（以一名成员的名字命名）中几乎掌握了政府大权。“贝尔朋议会”是克伦威尔令人眼花缭乱的一系列议会之一。[70]

    自约阿希姆以来，困难时期就会产生大量的数秘主义和末日论算术。英国外交官约翰·佩尔在1655年写道：

    有些人认为，395年是异教终结的时代，因为当时罗马帝国中不存在任何一座异教徒圣殿。在此年上加上著名的数字1260，也就是1655年，是末日的新纪元。另一些人则认为是1656年，因为他们将《创世记》第五章中先辈们的生活时间进行加总，发现从创世到洪水一共经历了1656年，并由此推断，耶稣一定和挪亚一样，在第二年到来。还有一些人认为应该再等三四年，认为1260这个数字必须从狄奥多西死后、他的儿子们分裂罗马帝国时开始算起。甚至还有一些人认为需要再等11年，我们不必惊讶，这是由数字666推算出来的。（也就是说，末日时间将在1666年。）[71]

    第五君主国派中一个叫阿里塞·埃文斯的人轻易地做出了最愚蠢的估计。《但以理书》中的“小号角”在书中代表希腊塞琉西帝国统治者安条克四世，那么它在当前时期又代表了谁，这是第五君主国派末日论中的关键要素之一。大多数信徒认为当前的小号角是国王查理一世，这让埃文斯很生气，因为他是已故国王及其大主教威廉·劳德的坚定支持者。对埃文斯来说，大主教的名字正标注着世界末日的时间：VVILLIaM LaVD中的罗马数字加起来是1667年[72]。

    在另一领域，物理学家艾萨克·牛顿写了大量文章解释《启示录》经文（在他死后，其结集成一本《对但以理预言和圣约翰启示录的考察》），但是他很明智，并没有预测耶稣复临的日期。[73]

    也许最有影响力的末日推算，当属一位名叫亨利·阿彻的传教士了。他在1642年出版了《基督亲临统治全地》，一部仅58页的著作，将但以理梦中被石头打碎的野兽重新解释为四个君主国：亚述/巴比伦、地中海/波斯、希腊和罗马。他认为即将到来的第五个君主国将由耶稣亲临统治，第五君主国派的名称由此而来。阿彻的计算表明，耶稣将会在1666年或1700年复临。这种模式完全属于新教神学范畴。路德认为第四君主国和野兽都是教皇制的隐喻。[74]

    许多第五君主国派成员都是英国内战以及克伦威尔议会和护国政体的主要参与者，他们认为自己是即将到来的基督复临和最后审判事件的被动观察者。在英国内战期间，该派别中最杰出的人物是托马斯·哈里森，他官至少将，表现出极大的勇气和极强的能力。他还担任议会议员，主张进行改革。

    大多数第五君主国教徒都主张通过法律手段寻求变革，例如哈里森。但是也有少数人并不认同，特别是一位名叫克里斯托弗·费克的煽动性传教士，他敦促公众进行一场暴力革命，去迎接一个由“圣徒”——也就是他们这些虔诚的精英——组成的千禧年神权政体。[75]

    第五君主国教徒一开始很顺利，他们（包括哈里森）都参加了战争并在新模范军中担任高级职位，也是1648年克伦威尔清除“长期议会”事件的参与者。但随着时间的推移，克伦威尔要么不愿意，要么无法接受第五君主国教徒的政治和神学要求，他们之间的联盟开始破裂。1653年，第五君主国派在贝尔朋议会中达到了权力的顶峰，但维持时间不长，随着议会的解散和随后独裁护国政体的建立，克伦威尔和第五君主国派之间的关系恶化。克伦威尔断断续续地拘留了包括哈里森在内的许多第五君主国派成员，但他通常会谨慎对待这些老盟友，没有因为他们的千禧年信仰而处决他们。例如，1654年，那时的哈里森可能已被多达8个不同选区选中进入新议会，他提交了一份请愿书，敦促恢复“一个完全自由的国家”。克伦威尔发表了反对意见，拘留了哈里森，然后“温和”警告了他；几天后，又释放了他。[76]

    用历史学家罗杰斯的话说，克伦威尔对待第五君主国派成员“就像对待自己顽皮的、被误导的孩子一样，虽然他们违背了他的意愿，但他不希望他们被监禁的天数太多，哪怕多一天也不行”。[77]

    随着1660年4月查理二世复辟，第五君主国派的幸运终于耗尽。新国王对这群人怀有偏见和仇视。哈里森不仅曾经是查理一世被监禁时的看守，而且在判处查理一世死刑的司法程序中也扮演了重要角色，因此他尤其受到查理二世的仇视。6个月后，国王审判哈里森和他的同僚们（弑君者），其中有一些是第五君主国派的成员。大多数人都被判有罪，而哈里森发现自己是第一个被判有罪的人，并被告知：

    在囚车上被拖到行刑地点；在那里，你将被吊起来，活人剖腹，你的内脏将在活着的你面前燃烧，然后你的头将被砍掉，身体将被肢解为4块，由国王陛下随意处置。[78]

    曾经目睹过查理一世被斩首的日记作者塞缪尔·佩皮斯，记载了10月13日对哈里森的行刑：

    我到查令十字街，去看哈里森少将被拖行、绞死并被肢解为4块；就在那里，观看的人都很高兴。他很快就被砍成块，头和心被展示给人群，这时人群发出巨大的欢呼声。[79]

    在这次事件中，哈里森的头和4块身体在城里被四处展示，这令国王很高兴。两天后，佩皮斯又目睹了另一位著名的第五君主国派弑君者约翰·卡鲁的死刑执行仪式，他“在查令十字街被绞死并被肢解为4块，但是，幸运的是，他的身体各块没有被吊起来展示”[80]。[81]

    第五君主国派中的一个小派系，其领导者是一位名叫托马斯·文纳的制桶工匠。他们一直幻想自己的民众支持率很高，足以通过武装暴动实现耶稣复临。尽管第五君主国派的其他一些更清醒的成员，如哈里森等人认为他们是鲁莽的，但文纳还是在1657年4月策划了一场暴动，不过暴动还没开始，就被揭发了，这证明他确实鲁莽。

    奥利弗·克伦威尔对文纳及其同伙非常宽容，只是将他们囚禁在伦敦塔；克伦威尔死后，他的儿子理查德释放了这些无能的策划者，他们只被监禁了不到两年。随着查理二世的复辟以及哈里森和其他参与弑君的第五君主国派成员的死亡，刚刚获释的文纳团队感到绝望，决定采取行动。1660年12月，文纳的一个喝醉的同伙向一个名叫霍尔的人吹嘘他即将参加一个“光荣的事业”。霍尔问是什么，他回答：“我们会把查理从王位上拉下来。因为国家应该由圣徒来统治。”霍尔迅速向当局报告了谈话内容，然后被带到国王面前，国王下令逮捕第五君主国派中的其他不满者。

    文纳和他的大约50个同伙没有被逮捕，因此他们继续执行他们的计划。1661年1月6日晚上（选择这个日期是因为他们认为第十二夜狂欢结束时城市的看守人都会喝醉），他们闯入圣保罗大教堂，并在教堂外面派了一个守卫，结果这个卫兵很快开枪打死了一位路人，因为当被问及忠于谁的时候，这位路人宣称自己忠于国王。密谋就这样暴露了，文纳那支可怜的小部队在伦敦的街道上被不断壮大的“火车队”追赶，这些“火车队”由城市民兵构成，后来国王的军队也来增援。在接下来的三天里，文纳的士兵从人数上远逊于对方，他们进行了一系列越来越绝望的殊死反抗。

    塞缪尔·佩皮斯在1月10日的日记中，简洁地描述了这群人：

    这些狂热分子击溃了他们遇到的所有火车队，把国王的近卫兵赶跑，杀死了大约20人，两次闯入城门；而这一切发生在白天，当全城武装起来的时候，他们总共不超过31人。然而我们却认为他们至少有500人（因为他们几乎在全城的每个地方都出现过，而且他们在海格特地区还待了两三天，还在其他几个地方待过）。闻所未闻，如此少的人竟敢做如此多的坏事。他们的口号是“耶稣国王和城门上的头颅”。最终，他们中很少有人会被分尸，因为他们在暴力中很难活下来：期待耶稣降临这里，并在此刻统治世界吧。[82]

    最后，文纳的追随者中大约有一半死在追杀中，其余大部分后来被绞死，但国王对文纳和他的副手执行了全套的半活剖腹刑，就像对之前的哈里森和卡鲁那样。[83]

    16世纪和17世纪，北欧人通过引人入胜的末日叙事，寻求逃离这个世界的苦难，去往一个美好的舒适世界。在施瓦本农民战争中，托马斯·闵采尔只是把末日神学附加在世俗平民起义的基础上，造成了灾难性的后果；而在疯狂的再洗礼派和第五君主国派的暴动中，从一开始到悲惨结束，都是一场末日事件。

    从18世纪开始，随着一系列金融群体幻觉席卷欧洲，整个国家不再寻求上帝的援助，而是开始寻求玛门的援助。从表面上看，宗教和金融事件似乎属于不同现象，但它们是由相同的社会和心理机制驱动的：叙事的诱人力量；人类倾向于幻想本不存在的“模式”；领袖和追随者的过于自负和过度自信；而且最重要的是，人类有一种压倒性的倾向，即模仿周围人的行为，尽管这种行为毫无根据或是一种自我毁灭。

    3 短暂的致富

    密西西比泡沫与南海泡沫

    在这片广阔的土地上，人们的思想都集中于同一个主题。这一主题吞并了政党政治：辉格党和托利党停止了争吵，雅各布斯派也停止了阴谋。在全国各地的每一家旅店、每一条道路上，谈论的内容都是一样的。在阿伯里斯特维斯，在特威德河畔贝里克，在布里斯托尔和圣戴维斯，在哈里奇和朴次茅斯，在切斯特和约克，在埃克塞特和特鲁罗，几乎在陆地的尽头，人们谈论的只是南海公司的股票——只谈论南海公司的股票！

    ——威廉·哈里森·安斯沃思，1868[1]

    18世纪初，聪明的苏格兰金融家约翰·劳留下了一条可怕的金融混乱足迹，这对20世纪90年代那些在互联网泡沫破裂中幸存的人来说非常熟悉。互联网股票只会伤害数百万投资者；但劳损害了整个法国对银行业的信心，这是更严重的打击。

    劳是苏格兰人，出生于一个有着数百年历史的著名的爱丁堡金匠世家，他的父亲、叔叔和三个兄弟都是金匠。到他1671年出生时，古老的“金匠”职业已经演变并伪装成了一个完全不同的东西：银行业。

    劳的直系祖先生活在苏格兰岛，但当时的苏格兰与未来那个雄伟、贸易自由的不列颠岛完全不同（当时，苏格兰仍然独立于英格兰）。17世纪初，英国人口仅为法国的1/3，比1348—1349年黑死病暴发前的人口还要少。劳时代的英格兰弱小、不发达，当时还卷入了一场弑君性国内战争。当时英格兰在公海上的业务不仅涉及商业，还涉及海盗和走私。随着1600年左右大型贸易组织的建立，大规模国际贸易开始缓慢出现，其中最著名的是东印度公司的贸易。

    当东印度公司的船只拉着从新兴香料贸易中赚得的金银驶入伦敦时，商人们遇到了一个后勤问题：英国没有银行系统，因此没有可靠的地方存放财富。金匠们的职业就是对客户的贵重物品进行安全储存，他们提供了最合理的替代物，即证书。商人们将贵重物品交给金匠后，会收到金匠的证书。关键是这张纸质证书可以用来交换商品和服务，换句话说，它起着货币的作用。此外，金匠们意识到，他们可以创造出超过他们所持有金银（铸币）数量的纸币。

    也就是说，金匠可以印钞。

    只有最虚伪、目光最短浅的金匠才会只制作和颁发证书给储户；大部分金匠都制作纸质证书并以高利率借出。即使是借给信用最好的人，借款年利率也常常会超过10%（尤其当英国处于战争状态时），在那10年里，借出证书比发放证书给储户更赚钱，而且只要金匠仍有偿付能力，这种情况就会一直存在。

    只有在证书持有者没有一次性全部赎回的情况下，这条菊花链才能正常运转。假设金匠的保险箱里有10000英镑的金币，他发行了价值30000英镑的证书，1/3的证书颁发给金币的主人，2/3的证书颁发给借款人。如果持有证书的人要求取出价值10001英镑的黄金或白银，那么不管他们是借款人还是最初的储户，金匠都可能被毁掉。更糟糕的是，如果证书持有者怀疑会发生这种情况，那么金匠办公室不断壮大的队伍将足以引发挤兑，从而推翻整个纸牌屋。在本例中，证书与铸币的比率为3:1；该比率越高，运行崩溃的可能性就越大。即使是最谨慎的金匠/银行家也可能陷入崩溃；1674—1688年，发生了四次有记录的“金匠挤兑”；1677—1694年英格兰银行成立期间，伦敦金匠/银行家的数量从44人下降到12人左右。

    实践当中，金匠/银行家们发现2:1的比率——每接收1英镑存款，向借款人发放1英镑贷款——是相当安全的。这一体系的重要性不容低估，因为它预示着弹性货币供应的诞生，而弹性货币供应量可以根据借款人对贷款的渴望和债权人的放贷意愿进行调整。当借贷双方情绪高涨时，货币供应量就会扩大；当他们感到恐惧时，货币供应量就会收缩。这种纸币数量扩张的现代金融术语是“杠杆”，即纸质资产总额与硬资产的比率。[2]

    银行的杠杆推动了现代金融狂热。在欧洲，它产生于17世纪，导致各种过山车般的泡沫和泡沫的破灭。在接下来的4个世纪里，金融创新产生了各种令人眼花缭乱的投资工具，每一种都只是在稍微不同的伪装下进行杠杆操作，并成为接连出现的各种过度投机的导火线。

    作为英国金匠的继承者，约翰·劳从小生活在一种英国式的银行体系中，纸张可以像稀有铸币一样发挥货币的作用。但即使在今天，许多人仍然抵制纸币的概念；在17世纪之交，纸币让很多普通人觉得可笑。

    到了1694年，年轻的劳厌倦了肮脏、贫穷、处于中世纪晚期的爱丁堡，来到伦敦。他改名为博·劳，在城市里尤其是经常在赌桌上游荡。他与一位名叫博·威尔逊的人为了一个他们都感兴趣的年轻女人而展开决斗，最终他杀死了博·威尔逊。经过审判，劳被判绞刑，然后获得缓刑，然后再次被判绞刑后，逃跑了。1695年初的《伦敦公报》写道：

    约翰·劳上尉，苏格兰人，王座法庭囚犯，最近犯有谋杀罪，26岁，瘦高个，皮肤黝黑，身材匀称，身高6英尺以上，脸上长着麻子，大鼻子，声若洪钟，从上述监狱逃跑。无论是谁能够控制并将他送回上述监狱，都将立即获得由王座法庭支付的50英镑。[3]

    17世纪末，囚犯们比今天更容易“逃跑”，而劳的朋友，可能是得到了国王威廉三世的默许，安排了他的逃跑。[4]上述身体特征描述属于故意误导，因为劳的鼻子并不大，肤色白皙。

    最初，他去了法国，在那里，他的数学能力震惊了周围的人，在赌桌上受到欢迎。但是，把劳称为赌徒，对他的能力来说并不公正。即使在今天，定量能力和专注能力在二十一点的牌桌上也很有用。300年前的赌场的效率较低，冷静计算的回报更为丰厚。这吸引了一些欧洲最聪明的数学家参加这种机会主义游戏，其中最著名的是亚伯拉罕·棣莫弗，他的机会学说构成了现代统计学的重要基础。[5]一位熟悉劳的人写道：

    如果你问我劳的消息，那么我只能说他从早到晚只和玩纸牌的人在一起。他赌博时总是很开心，每天都会提议不同的游戏。他向所有能连续投6个6的人出价10000块亮片，但如果他们投不到，那么他们每次都要给他一块亮片。[6]

    由于连续投6个6的概率是1/46656（1/66），劳的出价一定会获胜（在第10000轮6次投球之前，他输球或付款的概率为19%）。此外，只要有机会，劳都会充当纸牌的“银行家”，他可以扮演赌场而不是客户的角色，无论什么样的特定游戏规则，他都能利用一点儿统计方面的优势。[7]

    据经济历史学家安托因·墨菲估计，当劳离开法国时，他从赌场赢来的钱总计几十万英镑，这在当时是一笔巨大的财富。[8]然后他去往荷兰，在那里，他研究了阿姆斯特丹银行和该城市新证券交易所的尖端业务。他还访问了热那亚和威尼斯，熟悉了那里具有数百年历史的银行体系。

    那个时代的法国人不信任国家管理机构，因此法国几乎不存在银行体系。攒下来的里弗尔（法国古代货币）放在床垫下或袜子里，而不是放在银行里，经济急缺资金。[9]劳赞叹于意大利和荷兰的先进金融体系，并努力使之为法国带来好处；在大约10年的欧洲大陆游历中，劳将自己从职业赌徒转变为经济学家。尽管当时经济学家这一术语还没有出现。

    劳直观地认识到以稀缺金银为基础的货币供应不足是如何扼杀欧洲经济的，而充足的货币供应又是如何刺激欧洲经济的。他早已熟悉私人发行纸币的概念，但以他在荷兰银行业的经验，他认为由中央国家银行发行纸币才能解决货币基础不足的问题。

    劳的这种充足的纸币供应能够刺激经济的直觉，可以通过3个世纪后华盛顿特区出现的婴儿合作社的著名故事（至少在经济学家中非常著名）来理解。这种合作社涉及婴儿保育服务的交易。最流行的方案之一是使用“代金券”：一种票证，每张代表半小时的婴儿照顾时间；因此，一对想要看三个小时电影的夫妇需要使用六张票证。

    此类代金券/票证方案的成功在很大程度上依赖于流通中票证的精确数量。20世纪70年代早期，华盛顿特区有一家这样的合作社，由于它印制的票证数量不多，因此家长们就把它们收藏起来。许多人愿意照看孩子以赚取票证，但愿意花票证请人照顾自己孩子的人很少，因此每个人晚上出去的时间都比自己原本想要的少。

    在华盛顿特区，许多父母都是律师，正如律师们惯常做的那样，为了解决问题，他们通过立法强制要求个人花这些票证。但在经济领域，通过立法解决问题往往会失败，本案也是这样。于是一对经济学家夫妇说服合作社印刷并分发更多的票证。家长们有了充足的票证，所以晚上会出去玩儿更长时间。[10]

    同样，劳的金匠/银行业背景和经验告诉他，欧洲经济停滞的原因是铸币短缺，除了其他措施，印刷纸币可以弥补铸币的短缺。劳并不是第一个意识到这一点的人；几乎从17世纪初金匠/银行家发明弹性信贷开始，他们中的一些人就认识到，扩张纸币可以刺激经济。1650年，也就是在约翰·梅纳德·凯恩斯将以黄金为基础的货币体系称为“野蛮遗迹”的3个世纪之前，王室官员威廉·波特就指出，流通中有限的铸币数量意味着：

    尽管世界上的仓库从来没有像现在这样装满商品，但是你将会看到，由于支付能力不足，商人们进货的速度慢于他们为商品找到销路的速度，而接下来，如果人们由于极度贫困而无法从商人手中买走商品，那么贸易的大门将会关上，其结果就是财富的大门会关上……反之，如果所有人手中的货币（或者类似货币的东西）增加，那么（商人们就不需要囤积货币，只要一有货币，他们就会买进商品，并将其摆在货架上），随着货币供应量的增加，人们手中的钱越多，商品贸易就越多；而这种贸易的增加将增加财富……因此，财富的关键在于增加货币，或者类似货币的东西，而不是囤积货币。[11]

    法国以及劳的祖国苏格兰的银行体系远比荷兰和意大利更为原始，因此，法国和苏格兰的经济运行不佳。罗讷河谷纺织业的恶劣状况给劳留下了特别深刻的印象，他制订了一项通过发行纸币为工厂、托儿所、面包房和作坊融资的计划。1703年底，他认识的一位法国驻都灵大使，将他的建议转述给法国财政大臣沙米亚尔侯爵，但后者婉拒了他。

    新年前后的某个时间，劳回到了苏格兰，那里的情况更加变化无常。早些时候，在1695年，苏格兰议会将该国的远洋贸易垄断权授予苏格兰非洲和东西印度群岛贸易公司（更广为人知的名字是“达里恩公司”）。公司计划在巴拿马地峡的达里恩建立一个贸易前哨站，以缩短从欧洲到亚洲的贸易路线。该公司向达里恩派出了两支探险队，第一支探险队由于计划和供应不善而遭遇失败，而第二支探险队的成员则被西班牙人屠杀。

    1699年，该哨站落入西班牙人手中，苏格兰银行不得不暂停营业。银行的经营困难使劳感到悲痛，他进一步完善了他的经济思想，写成了两本作品：《土地银行》和《论货币和贸易》。前者提出发行以土地为担保的纸币；后者是一本详细而精辟的书，为亚当·斯密的《国富论》一书中的许多概念埋下了70年的伏笔。

    劳开始以一种非常现代的方式深入思考货币的本质。他认为，真正的货币应该有7个基本特征：价值的稳定性、同质性（也就是说，它可以以固定单位交易）、易于运输性、各地统一性、易储存而不损失价值性、可分割成更小或组合成更大的货币量，以及拥有一个关于其价值的印章或标识。[12]

    劳认为土地正符合这些标准，与土地挂钩的纸币将优于锚定白银的传统货币。在今天看来，这种以土地为单位的货币概念似乎很奇怪，但在18世纪早期，它是有道理的。大约从1550年开始，白银从秘鲁和墨西哥的巨大矿场涌入欧洲，这导致其价值贬值。相反，表示一块土地的证书可以根据其未来粮食、水果或动物产量的总和进行估价。此外，白银只有少数几个限定用途：货币、珠宝和器皿或工业用途。相比之下，土地在支持纸币的同时，还有各种广泛的农业用途。[13]正如劳所写，“土地产生了一切，但白银只是产品。土地的数量不会增加或减少，白银或其他任何产品的数量可以增加或减少。因此，土地的价值比白银或其他任何产品更为确定”[14]。

    劳逐渐将他的货币概念扩展到了土地之外，包括了那个时代最伟大公司的股票，特别是英国和荷兰东印度公司以及英格兰银行，他认为，这些公司的利润应该比白银更稳定。这是一个合理的假设；但劳没有预见到的是，他的体系本身会给那些价格带来致命的不稳定性。

    作为卡尔·马克思的先驱，劳提出了社会发展的三个阶段。在第一个阶段，货币是不存在的，易货是交换的主要形式，这时，大规模的生产制造几乎是不可能的，因为那需要前期大量的货币开支。用劳的话说，“这种易货状态下几乎没有贸易，也很少有手工生产者”。［劳的“贸易”一词具有现代GDP（国内生产总值）的意义：指消费的商品和服务总量。我们现在认为，劳认为货币时代之前是易货阶段，这种说法是不正确的，因为在原始社会，交换是通过互相赠送和积攒记号来完成的，这些做法的经济效率比易货更低。］[15]

    在第二个阶段，经济在金属货币的基础上运行，但金属货币太少。虽然从理论上讲，如果货币短缺，人们就可以在较低的工资下工作，但这会妨碍制造业发展：

    人们会问，如果各国的管理良好，那么为什么它们不自己加工羊毛和其他原材料？是因为在货币短缺的地方，工人的工资很低吗？答案是，没有货币就没有人愿意工作；而且，在货币很少的地方，其几乎不能满足国家的其他需要，因为人们不能同时在不同的地方使用同一枚铸币。[16]

    在第三个阶段，当货币和信贷充裕时，国家繁荣。英国就是一个典型的例子，它在10年前刚刚成立了英格兰银行，以发行钞票。[17]银行周期性地增加和减少钞票供应；劳观察到，“随着英国货币的增加，（国民收入的）年均值也增加了；随着货币的减少，年均值也随之减少”[18]。

    劳首次描述了一个被称为“循环流动”模型的经济概念（他的理论核心），这在他的《论货币和贸易》中有数页解释。该模型可以想象为两个同心圆，货币从一个所有者向另一个所有者以顺时针方向流动，而商品和服务则逆时针流动。

    劳设想了一个孤岛，它由一位领主拥有，该领主将自己的土地出租给1000名农民，这些农民种植农作物并饲养动物，其产出占岛上产出的100%。但制成品不能在当地生产，而是通过出口多余的谷物以换取制造品进口。

    此外，岛上还有300名没有工作的贫民，他们靠上帝和农民的施舍生存。为解决这种悲哀状况，劳让领主印刷足够多的货币，用于建立工厂并雇用300名贫民，工人的工资将用于购买农民的粮食。这将增加农民交给领主的租金，领主可以继续用租金支付工人工资。

    正如现代任何一个凯恩斯主义者都会做的那样，劳将他的例子做了概括：

    贸易（也就是现代术语中的GDP）和货币相互依赖：当贸易衰退时，货币减少；而当货币减少时，贸易就会衰退。权力和财富依赖于人的数量以及国内外商品的储存数量；而这些又依赖于贸易，贸易又依赖于货币。因此，贸易和货币两者之间会产生直接和必然的影响；损害其中任何一方都将损害双方，权力和财富都将是不稳定的。[19]

    劳提出一个由苏格兰银行发行纸币的方案，但这个方案被苏格兰议会于1705年投票否决了。两年后，苏格兰通过了《联合法案》，根据该法案，苏格兰与英格兰合并，这样劳在苏格兰就面临着生命危险，因为他本应在伦敦被监禁和处决。劳请求安妮女王的赦免，但被拒绝，于是他逃回了欧洲大陆，在荷兰、意大利和法国之间辗转10年，然后于1715年在巴黎定居。[20]

    那时，他又一次被法国财政大臣沙米亚尔拒绝，他的另一个在都灵开设银行的计划也被萨伏依公爵否决。接下来，他大胆地寻求路易十四的支持。到1715年夏天，路易十四已经统治法国72年，这是欧洲君主至今的最高纪录（伊丽莎白女王必须活到98岁，也就是2024年，才能超过路易十四的在位时间）。路易十四正打算批准劳的建议时却患上了坏疽，他明确地告诉摄政王奥尔良公爵：“我的侄子，我让你成为王国的摄政王。你将目睹一个国王在坟墓里，而另一个在摇篮中；你要永远记住前者的记忆和后者的利益。”[21]英俊、迷人和富有的劳获得了摄政王的支持，并最终说服摄政王进行了一次大规模的金融尝试。

    1715年9月路易十四去世时，法国已经因参与西班牙王位继承战争而濒临破产。劳曾试图组建一家大型国有银行，但受到摄政王的限制。1716年，他成立了“私人通用银行”，正如其名所示，这是一家私人企业，总部设在劳的家里，劳成为一位新加入的法国公民。

    当时，只有5个国家——瑞典、热那亚、威尼斯、荷兰和英格兰——发行了纸币，但其不能用于日常小规模交易，因此法国人对私人通用银行的纸币持怀疑态度。[22]新银行成立之初，劳就立即规定，新纸币可以与流通中的黄金和/或白银一对一兑换。由于当时的法国长期资不抵债，经常发行不足值的金属铸币，因此新纸币的价值比当时流通中的金属铸币要高。为了吸引富有的客户并增强信心，他将存款准备金率保持在较低水平，并开展了一些“亏损业务”，包括免费兑换外币和按银行纸币面值兑换铸币业务，而不是按低得多的（高折扣的）普通的政府纸币价格进行兑换。[23]

    由于票面价值得到了保证，劳的银行纸币和服务所具有的优势引起了人们的注意。正如劳预测的那样，纸币供应的增加提振了王国经济。

    劳的下一个目标是密西西比公司。该公司最初于1684年获得特许经营权，后来通过与其他公司合并而获得法属美洲的贸易垄断权，但由于未能成功利用这些垄断权，其经营者安托万·克罗扎于1717年将特许经营权交还给了国王。现在，由于私人通用银行的成功，劳声名鹊起，他承诺通过让密西西比公司买断王室的巨额债务来拯救国家财政。在这个过程中，劳通过投机买卖公司股票，本已惊人的赌博财富更是成倍增加。

    为了使密西西比公司承担起王室的债务，他让王室扩大他的垄断权，垄断与中国、东印度群岛和“南海”（赤道以南的所有海域）的贸易。但几乎所有的相关贸易路线都已在英国、西班牙、葡萄牙的控制之下。[24]因此，密西西比公司对于这些新大陆贸易的“垄断”毫无价值。但是，这一点儿也没有减少劳的新金融体系的魅力。

    密西西比公司承担了王室的巨额债务，主要是以公民国库券的形式，国库券当时的利率为4%。由于王国的财政状况很脆弱，国库券的交易价格大大低于其面值；劳承诺，他的计划将使国库券的交易价格达到面值，这对王室来说是一个不可抗拒的诱惑。1718年12月，劳成功地使他的私人通用银行升级为国家银行，即“皇家银行”，该银行完成了货币流转链条：新银行将发行纸币，以支付密西西比公司的股票；纸币将用于购买国库券，从而减轻国王的战争债务。难以理解的是，国库券也可以直接用于购买公司股票；由于国库券是债务，公民用国库券购买股票意味着国库券的消失，这进一步改善了王室的财政状况。[25]

    劳的权力使他沉溺于与银币的斗争，他将银币视为国家的经济锁链。硬币被抛弃，纸币被引进。早在私人通用银行存续期内，政府就已经允许公众用私人银行发行的纸币支付税款。1719年初，皇家银行在法国各大城市设立分行，在这些城市，高于600里弗尔的白银交易必须用银行纸币或黄金进行；禁止使用银币支付。到1719年底，皇家银行已经买进了大部分的国库券，国家债务的消失进一步鼓舞了这个国家的动物精神。

    随着密西西比公司股价的上涨，银行印制了更多的纸币以满足对股票的需求，这进一步推高了股票价格，从而导致更多的纸币发行。很快，第一个记载翔实的全国性股市泡沫正在形成。冒失的货币扩张并不完全是劳一个人的作品，也受到了摄政王的影响。劳理解螺旋型通货膨胀的特点，但摄政王并不理解这一风险，他只是被该计划的成功鼓舞。

    以所谓的“永久资本”运营的现代公司，这只是一种花哨的说法，实际上就是，如果某个项目需要10亿美元，那么将通过销售股票来筹集大部分资金；如果费用预测准确，那么该项目将随后完成。

    密西西比公司的股票并非如此。该公司的股票不需要以全价直接购买，而是以认购的方式，以现金支付10%的股价。也就是说，为了获得股份，购买者只需支付10%的股价和20个月的分期付款（或“催缴股款”，每笔5%）中的第一笔，即只需要支付股价的15%。催缴机制是金融杠杆的一种早期形式，如果价格上涨15%，投资者的首期付款价值就翻了一番，它会放大收益和损失；如果价格下跌15%，那么投资者将被清出市场。因此，催缴机制可以被认为是保证金债务的祖先，而保证金债务是随后出现许多金融崩溃的原因，最明显的一次是在1929年。[26]

    为了满足对公司股票的需求，劳的银行发行了更多的股票；查尔斯·麦基描述了接下来发生的事情：

    至少有30万人申购这5万份新股，劳在坎康普瓦大街的住宅从早到晚都挤满了热切的申购者。由于不可能满足所有的申请人，新股东名单只能在几周后才公布，在此期间，公众的焦急情绪达到了疯狂的程度。公爵、侯爵、伯爵以及他们的夫人每天都要在劳家门前的街道上等待数小时，以了解结果。最后，成千上万的人挤满了整条大街。为了避免平民人群的推挤，贵族们在邻近的房子里租了公寓，这样他们就可以一直住在这位新财神爷散播财富的神庙附近（见图3-1）。[27]

    图3-1 约翰·劳的巴黎

    人们很少谈论其他事情，几乎所有有幸拥有股票的贵族都忙于买卖股票。坎康普瓦大街的租金上涨了15倍。

    劳对拥挤的人群感到厌倦，于是逃到他在旺多姆更宽敞的住所，但那里也很快挤满了人。这引起了议长的愤怒，因为议长的法庭就在旺多姆广场上。最后，劳搬到了苏瓦松酒店，那里有一个足够大的花园，花园可以容纳几百个帐篷；拥有该房产的幸运贵族以每月500里弗尔的价格出租每一个帐篷。

    麦基回忆说：“如果在某次会面中，摄政王让贵族们等了半个小时，那么他们会被激怒，但他们愿意等6个小时得到一次与劳见面的机会。”[28]一位女士巧妙地利用了劳对女士的殷勤，她故意让马车在劳面前翻车，劳不出所料地过来救助：她很快就承认了这是她的小伎俩，劳被她逗笑，于是给她签发了股票。拘谨的麦基提到了另外一个会让读者“微笑或脸红”的情节，但没有描述它，只是害羞地提到了一封奥尔良公爵夫人写的信：

    劳太忙了，日夜不得休息。一位公爵夫人在众人面前吻了他的手；如果公爵夫人吻了他的手，那么其他女士会如何？[29]

    其他观察者也证实了麦基的描述。1719年9月，英国大使馆的一名办事员向伦敦报告说：

    坎康普瓦大街是他们的交易场所，从清晨到深夜，这里挤满了亲王和王妃，公爵、贵族和他们的夫人等，总之，这里在法国非常有名。他们出售房地产、典当珠宝，以购买密西西比公司的股票。

    一周后，这名办事员又写道：“这个镇上的所有新闻都是关于股票买卖的。目前，法国人的脑子不会转向任何其他事情。”[30]巴黎成为一个繁荣的城市。泡沫期间，人口膨胀，城市不可避免地受到食品、服务和房地产价格飙升的负面影响。这种气氛高涨的环境下产生了“百万富翁”一词，其被普遍用来形容幸运的股东。[31]另一份大使馆报告写道：“昨天有人告诉我，一家商店在不到3周的时间里出售了80万里弗尔的蕾丝和亚麻布，主要是卖给一些以前从未穿过蕾丝的人；诸如此类的报道每天都如此令人意想不到，其他国家的人根本就难以相信。”[32]

    泡沫通常结束于看似很小的扰动，然后迅速崩塌。震动发生在1720年初，当时孔蒂亲王因没有买到足够多的公司股票而被激怒，为此，他派出了三辆马车，去皇家银行（卖出纸币）换取铸币，这些铸币本应是银行发行新纸币的基础。劳当时担任法国财政部长，不能在公众面前拒绝这一糟糕的请求，因此他做了次好选择：他向摄政王抱怨，摄政王强迫孔蒂撤销这一要求。敏锐的投资者意识到亲王所提要求和摄政王默许拒绝背后的含义：银行发行的纸币数量大大超过了其黄金和白银储备。随后发生了对该银行的全面挤兑。

    劳现在面临着一个危急的选择。他可以通过减少印刷纸币来保护货币币值，但这将损害股价；或者他可以通过印制更多的纸币来保护股价，而这将加剧本已猖獗的通胀。前一种做法将保护法国；后一种做法将保护贵族投资者。

    起初，劳选择保护货币，从而保护国家，或者他认为是这样。1720年2月底，陷入绝望的劳和摄政王开始禁止使用铸币进行交易，并将私人拥有的铸币限制在500里弗尔以内；此外，还禁止囤积银制器皿和珠宝，并招募告密者和经纪人来强制执行这些可恶的新规定。随着仆人背叛主人，父亲背叛儿子，国家的社会关系网开始瓦解。

    由于社会如此混乱，两周后，劳转而保护股价，从而保护富人，他提出每股出价9000里弗尔，这意味着需要印刷更多的银行纸币。到那时，里弗尔贬值带来的通货膨胀已经非常明显，到5月份，他通过两个步骤让里弗尔贬值了50%。1720年后期，为了控制通货膨胀，他宣布大面额纸币价值为零，抹去了国家的大部分财富；经济历史学家安托因·墨菲估计，包括密西西比公司股票和纸币在内的整个系统经通胀调整后的价值下降了约87%。对纸币和密西西比公司股票的最后一击是在那年秋天，瘟疫肆虐马赛，并威胁到巴黎，这进一步动摇了金融信心（见图3-2）。[33]

    图3-2 1719—1720年密西西比公司的股票价格

    至此，劳不仅耗尽了银行资本，也耗尽了他的政治资本。为了避免进一步的尴尬，摄政王允许他体面地离开巴黎，即先去巴黎郊区，然后出国。此时，他谋杀博·威尔逊的罪名已经获得王室的赦免。生命的最后几年里，劳在英格兰和欧洲大陆四处奔波，逃避债权人，其中最著名的债权人是伦敦德里勋爵。1719年9月，劳与伦敦德里勋爵下注，他认为密西西比公司将损害英格兰东印度公司股票的价值，因此承诺未来将向伦敦德里交付大量EIC（东印度公司）股票，这有效地“做空”了EIC的股票（“做空”就是押注股价下跌）。但是，南海泡沫（密西西比泡沫的伦敦孪生兄弟）期间，EIC的股价飙升，同时劳的体系又使法国货币相对于英国货币大幅贬值，这个赌注对劳来说成为一个灾难性的赌注。[34]

    尽管劳已经成为奥尔良公爵的政治负担，但这位摄政王仍然珍视他的才华，如果摄政王没有在1723年去世的话，那么可能会将劳重新召回巴黎。最终，劳于1729年在他深爱的威尼斯病逝，遗留下的主要财产是大量艺术收藏品，几乎没有其他东西。但总的来说，他是幸运的；而未来的泡沫主角往往会有更悲惨的结局。[35]

    密西西比公司确实拥有过一片美洲土地，就是后来的路易斯安那州。但在18世纪早期，该地区人口不足，而且流行疟疾病。为了给这片领土招募定居者，为公司的新大陆经营做准备，劳制作了欺骗性的小册子，将该地区描述为人间天堂。广告宣传失败后，劳又开始征募数千名男女白人囚犯以及非洲奴隶。

    违反纪律的士兵、名门中的害群之马、乞丐、妓女以及任何毫无戒心误入巴黎的农民都被强行运到了墨西哥湾沿岸。那些自愿去的人可以得到免费的土地、饮食和前往新领土的免费交通。[36]

    路易斯安那州所谓的“首府”，在现代的比洛克西和莫比尔[37]之间交替，不过是一处仅有几百名定居者的恶臭营地，他们中的大多数人在1721年公司倒闭后逃往新首府新奥尔良。[38]

    两个世纪以来，劳一直被描绘成一个无赖。最典型的是丹尼尔·笛福[39]（以“迷雾先生”的笔名写作）写给那些希望获得巨大财富的人的建议：

    迷雾先生说，如果你已经下定决心了，除了这样做，没有什么别的办法，那么你必须做什么？很简单，你必须佩剑，杀一两个花花公子，被关进纽盖特监狱，被判绞刑，然后越狱，假如你能做到的话，记住，顺便去一个陌生的国家，转做股票经纪人，发行一支密西西比公司的股票，搅动一个国家的泡沫，那么你可能很快就会成为一个伟人；如果你有好运气，那么根据一句古老的英国格言——一旦你敢做一个记录在案的流氓，你可能很快就有希望成为一个贵族。[40]

    经济史学家们对他更为宽容。在劳的时代，经济运行中的货币不以黄金和白银为基础，这种想法在当时似乎是革命性的，甚至是可笑的。但今天的绝大多数经济学家认为，将货币供应量建立在矿山或珠宝盒中的金属量的基础上更加愚蠢。例如，金本位制的权威经济历史学家巴里·埃森格林发现，各国从大萧条中复苏的顺序与它们放弃硬通货（指金属硬币）的顺序恰好一致。[41]从本质上说，我们生活在一个叮当仙子[42]的经济中，因为每个人都相信纸币幻觉，所以它运转良好。就像穿越海格力斯之柱[43]航行、死于地中海之外的远古水手一样，劳的体系——一种群体幻想——由于缺乏经验而走向了失败，但也照亮了未来的路。

    密西西比泡沫传染了整个欧洲大陆。狂热时期，顽固的威尼斯人不再反对合股公司[44]；有一些合股公司开始热情地发行股票，但后来随着巴黎灾难的消息南下而消失。荷兰也不愿落后于法国，紧随其后，进行了44次股票发行，其中有30次的价格几乎立即翻了一番。在稍欠发达的欧洲地区，贸易公司像野花一样遍地开花，然后迅速消失；18世纪欧洲股票发行中有整整40%的比重发行于1720年。[45]

    法国泡沫在伦敦最响亮的共鸣来自约翰·布朗特爵士，他出生在正确的时代。1689年，他25岁，英国在这一年继1688年光荣革命之后确立了君主立宪制。这一年，荷兰政权持有者威廉三世应英格兰新教势力的邀请进入英格兰，并以国王的身份登上王位，结束了英格兰斯图亚特君主制时代。

    在此之前，英格兰没有“国家债务”，只有国王及其家人的私人债务。1685年查理二世去世时，他和他的兄弟以及侄子欠了伦敦银行家约100万英镑，没有偿还一分钱的利息或本金。[46]由于王室不偿还贷款的风险一直存在，银行家们就理所当然地收取高利率，这压制了英国经济的发展。光荣革命之后，君主立宪制建立，国王放弃了原有的神圣权利，权利不受限制的问题得以解决，这立即使政府债务对银行家来说更具有吸引力。这反过来又更普遍地降低了利率；由于相对安全的债券不能获得高回报，投资者寻找风险更大的投资机会。这引发了未来10年合股公司的繁荣。

    布朗特是一位浸信会鞋匠的儿子，曾当过撰稿人（也就是从事法律和金融文件的写作，是一个传授房地产和金融活动内幕知识的职业）。借着这个职业，他进入一家小型商业企业集团，该集团包括一家亚麻布企业和一家伦敦供水公司。随后，他又受雇于一家最具野心的新合股公司——剑锋公司。

    起初，该公司生产先进的法式剑杆，但很快就将业务扩展到土地投机和政府债务交易。（商业模式的彻底改变，是与泡沫有关的金融诈骗的一个特征；近3个世纪后，安然公司也从一家枯燥沉闷的管道公司和发电厂蜕变为一家期货交易巨头，直至风险暴露。）

    1710年，布朗特的商业头脑引起了英国财政部长罗伯特·哈雷的注意，他请布朗特帮助解决国家巨额债务问题。与法国一样，英国的巨额债务也是从西班牙王位继承战争中遗留下来的。布朗特确实有那么一两个办法。他对债务的解决方案就是利用人们的投机心理，这也将成为他的招牌方法：政府将发行利率为6%的传统债券，债券中含有彩票，奖金从20英镑到高达12000英镑不等。债券的发行非常成功，这推动了一项更具吸引力的计划——“200万人的冒险”：一种复杂的分层彩票，起价100英镑，连续五次抽奖，最高奖金不断增加，分别为1000英镑、3000英镑、4000英镑、5000英镑，最后是20000英镑；每次抽奖，都有可能实现更大的回报，以此让输家留在游戏中。

    这些投机项目的成功使哈雷更加大胆，他于1711年成立了南海公司，目的是接管英格兰的所有巨额债务，他本人担任董事，董事会中有很多剑锋公司的人，包括布朗特。[47]作为承担政府债务的交换条件，南海公司与密西西比公司一样，获得了南美洲贸易的垄断权，但事实上当时西班牙和葡萄牙已经控制了南美洲，而且该公司董事会中没有一个人有与西属美洲贸易的经验。作为获得这项“垄断”权的部分交换条件，该公司承担了1000万英镑的政府债务。

    具有讽刺意味的是，英国南海泡沫正是在对法国体系的恐惧和嫉妒中产生的，它与巴黎泡沫几乎同时发生。但1717年密西西比公司承担法国国债，这种做法实际上是学习了此前南海公司对英国国债的承担。自1711年南海公司获得经营权的8年里，用承担政府债务换取新大陆贸易的“垄断”权，这种交换规模一直很小；但到了1720年，飞速发展的法国密西西比公司以及数千人涌入的坎康普瓦大街，让英国人羡慕不已。当年法国泡沫吹得最大时，丹尼尔·笛福在巴黎街头写道：

    你们，英格兰的迷雾先生们，在伦敦的你们是一群迟钝、冷漠的家伙；而在巴黎的我们喝着勃艮第酒和冒泡的香槟。你们连巴黎人民的一半聪明都没有。我们这里有清新的空气与柔和的火焰。100可以积累到2000，现在的股息为40%。[48]

    由于担心英格兰会被法国波旁家族所设计的金融永动机压倒，南海公司和议会设计了一个类似的体系，由南海公司承担更多的国家债务（约3100万英镑），这些债务的主要形式是年金。有人提议，这些债务的持有人，即年金受益人，应该自愿将这些政府债券转换为公司股票。

    当然，年金主要持有人是英国公民，他们从中获得收入。年金持有人必须得到一个有吸引力的报价才肯卖出，而最简单的方法就是刺激他们的大脑边缘系统，让他们相信公司的股票价格会上涨。

    南海公司出售了各种形式的股票。最典型的一种，是卖出一份票面价值（签发时的价格）为100英镑的股票，从年金持有者那里换取100英镑的年金。股票价格越高，公司越受益，因为这使公司能够为自己保留更多的股票。例如，如果股票价格上涨至200英镑，公司就只需卖出比100英镑价格时少一半的股票，并保留剩余的一半股票；如果价格上涨到1000英镑，公司就将保留90%的股票。随着股价的上涨，股票更受欢迎，这是一个正反馈循环，是所有泡沫的核心特征。

    现在，差不多3个世纪后，布朗特和哈雷对心理学的掌控的本质变得更加清晰。他们偶然发现了一种强大的方法，利用了非常古老的人类现象：人类偏好于“正偏态结果”——概率很低但是回报丰厚，即使所有回报的均值为负。例如，任何一个理性的人都不会买一张价值2美元的彩票，这张彩票的结果是50%的概率获得3美元，50%的概率什么都得不到，即它会产生1.5美元（0美元和3美元的平均数）的回报，平均损失率为25%。然而，许多人会买另一张价值2美元的彩票，它有1/2000000的机会获得3000000美元，这意味着平均赔付额也是1.5美元（3000000/2000000），平均损失率也是25%。[49]

    换句话说，哈雷和布朗特找到了一条通往人类贪婪之地的道路：大脑边缘系统强大的奖励预期电路。这是一种本能，这种本能曾经让远古狩猎者获利，但在金融领域是有害的。

    正如我们所知，在南海的垄断权几乎没有价值，但这并不妨碍该公司散布最捕风捉影的谣言。麦基写道：

    他们提到了英国和西班牙之间的条约，根据这些条约，所有西属殖民地可以自由贸易；从波托西-拉巴斯[50]矿中开采的丰富的白银将被运到英国，英国的白银将几乎与铁一样充足……与南海进行贸易的商业公司将成为有史以来最富有的公司，每投资100英镑，将为股东带来每年数百英镑的收入。[51]

    为了确保议会同意该计划，南海公司向议员们贿赂股票，该计划通过后，这些股票大幅升值。1720年4月14日，首次允许以现金形式出售股票；两周后，首次允许公众用年金换取股票；此时股价已从年初的120英镑上涨至约300英镑；到了6月，达到1000英镑以上的峰值。布朗特设计了极其复杂的细节，将这场200万人参加的冒险活动提升到了一个新的水平：公司部署了不同级别的股票连续认购，旨在吸引公众的注意力。最后，如前所述，股价越高，公司买进政府债务时向持有人提供的股票数量就越少，从而更多股票掌握在布朗特及其同僚们手中。[52]

    与法国泡沫相比，英国泡沫有四个特征。首先，法国泡沫几乎完全围绕一家公司的股票，但英国泡沫中，受当时普遍的乐观情绪所鼓励，还存在很多其他企业的上市股票。麦基列出了不少于86家被称为“泡沫公司”的英国企业，而随后的历史学家们确定的数量更是翻了一番。虽然大多数企业筹资都是为了实体经济，例如修建公路、房屋以及建立进口商品贸易，但也有很多计划是不切实际的：“头发贸易”、“永远转动的车轮”、“热风烘干麦芽”以及“将水银转化为可锻性精炼金属”。当代现存的一些资料列出了各种各样的筹资项目，其中有许多可能是虚构的，比如一个“大脑的空气泵”，或者“抽干红海的水，找到犹太人离开后遗弃在埃及的宝藏”，或者，最著名的是“为了一项大有裨益的事业；但没人知道这项事业是什么”。[53]

    南海泡沫的第二个显著特征是英国泡沫公司的杠杆程度极高。与密西西比公司股票需要15%的首付类似，南海公司股票的首期付款仅为10%~20%，其余部分将在后续催缴中缴纳。而泡沫公司的杠杆率则高于南海公司，也就是说，它们的初始认购价格较低；有时，一先令[54]可以认购一股价值1000英镑的股票（占规定购买价格的0.005%）。因此，泡沫公司的资金非常匮乏，经常会快速破产。但是，仍有少数公司资本充足，管理良好，得以生存，其中包括两家保险公司：伦敦保险公司和皇家交易所。

    股东们的财富疯狂增加，对公众产生了诱惑。麦基写道：“公众的思想处于一种不健康的发酵状态。人们不再满足于谨慎而具有可靠利润的行业，因为这些行业赚钱缓慢。明天将拥有无限财富的希望，使人们今天的行为无所顾忌，挥霍无度。”[55]

    18世纪早期的伦敦可以看作两个独立的部分：西面是威斯敏斯特区，是政府所在地，有议会大厦、圣詹姆斯宫和为白金汉公爵新建的白金汉宫；东部是商业中心，即“伦敦金融城”，其就是皇家交易所，首都的商业精英们也在这里从事各种形式的国内外商业活动：交易羊毛、木材、谷物和无数其他商品（见图3-3）。

    图3-3 南海泡沫时期的伦敦地标

    股票经纪人受到商业人士的鄙视，在皇家交易所大厅里不受欢迎，被赶到一条聚集了很多咖啡馆的狭窄小巷，这条小巷夹在伦巴第街和康希尔街形成的锐角中，被称为“交易巷”。

    通常情况下，“金融家”们在咖啡馆兜售股票，投机者在那里排队。股票的认购价格通常非常低，然后，买到股票的投机者匆忙来到附近的“交易巷”，通过股票经纪人的斡旋，他们把股票卖给更大的傻瓜。1720年春夏之交，这里的景象和巴黎坎康普瓦大街一样疯狂：哈克尼出租车供不应求，人们即使打到了车，也可能被堵在狭窄的街道上。卖咖啡的商人挤在像乔纳森、加洛韦和山姆这样的咖啡馆，小偷们也很猖獗；在巷子里比在王宫里更容易找到国王和他的宫廷人员。一位律师将此过程描述为“更像是所有疯子同时从疯人院逃了出来”[56]。

    和巴黎一样，投机助长了普遍的价格膨胀。乔治一世国王举办了全国有史以来最奢华的生日聚会，公司的董事们拆除了豪宅以建造更大的豪宅。在现代金融史的大部分时间里，房地产价格都是年租金的5~20倍；而1720年，伦敦房地产的出售价格是年租金的45倍，这一比例和21世纪初的房地产泡沫期间的比例接近。[57]南海的热情也见证了泡沫的另一个特征的诞生：证券投机成为一种时尚。在投机活动达到高潮时，伦敦的社交场合从圣詹姆斯宫和威斯敏斯特宫（即议会大厦）向东转移到伦敦金融城；在那里，一群贵族女士在“交易巷”附近租了一家商店，“闲暇时间里，当经纪人外出时，她们追捧中国瓷器”[58]。这种兴奋也不仅仅限于贵族：
    还有德鲁里巷的年轻妓女，
    她们通过在豪华马车里的交易，
    通过放荡，
    骗走他们赚得的金子。[59]

    这种氛围不利于理性决策。投机在贵族中最为热烈；6月，接近顶峰时，忧心忡忡的财政大臣约翰·艾斯拉比建议乔治国王将价值8.8万英镑的公司股票兑现为现金，这位粗鲁的国王将艾斯拉比称为懦夫，但艾斯拉比坚持己见，最终国王将其持有的约40%的股票转换为安全资产。[60]

    南海泡沫的第三个显著特征是肇事者越来越狂妄；密西西比事件中的肇事者约翰·劳一直保持了他与生俱来的礼节，但他的英国同行不是这样。虽然我们可以将布朗特或艾斯拉比形容为轻信的或虚伪的人，但这只是一个起点。从一开始，商业社会便将财富等同于智慧和正直；拥有财富的人喜欢听到别人说他们具有卓越的智力和道德品质。伴随着在金融领域内的成功，他们获得的财富和奉承不可避免地让他们产生一种侵蚀自我意识的自负。更糟糕的是，巨额财富往往更多地来源于欺诈，而不是智慧和实体经济。在这种情况下，奉承会腐蚀灵魂，正如布朗特身上所发生的那样，他这时已经演变为现代狂妄自大CEO（首席执行官）的原型。有一本作者不详的小册子，可能是作者在布朗特倒台后不久写的，描述了南海公司崩溃前不久，布朗特去往时尚度假胜地坦布里奇韦尔斯：布朗特去往坦布里奇韦尔斯的装备多么华丽，那里对他有多么尊重，他在那里表现得有多么傲慢，他和他的家人在谈到这个项目时怎样称之为“我们的项目”[61]。小册子的作者描绘了一幅经典画面：

    （布朗特）在他任期的前几个月里，除了他自己，从未允许任何人就（公司交易）做出提议；法庭记录中也没有任何与此有关的会议记录，而只有他口述的内容。他明显地塑造了一个先知的形象，用一种强调和异常激烈的语气说话；他习惯于摆出威严的姿态，斥责那些对他所说的任何话有一点点反对的人，并竭力教导人们。他所说的好像都是出于心血来潮，说的话类似于：“先生们，不要惊慌，你们必须坚定、果断、勇敢地行动。我告诉你们，在你们面前的不是一件普通的事情。世界上最伟大的事情和你们有关。欧洲所有的钱都将集中在你们这里。世界上所有的国家都要向你们缴纳贡金。”[62]

    正如历史学家爱德华·钱塞勒所指出的，从南海泡沫到互联网泡沫，都常常会唤醒其主要人物的狂妄自大：

    伟大金融家所做的计划可能会成为投机狂热的催化剂，金融家自己也会受到影响。其野心变得无限大。一方面，其获得大众面前的成功和普遍的奉承；另一方面，私人事务管理越来越混乱甚至出现欺诈；这两者之间出现鸿沟。[63]

    布朗特策划了对南海公司股票的操纵，包括从认购金中借出部分资金以购买股票。他不仅通过在价格上涨到接近最高值时卖出股票而获利，而且还秘密地向自己、朋友和许多议员增发股票，其中一些是欺诈性的。

    正如通常发生的那样，一个意想不到的事件引发了结局。1720年6月，密西西比公司股价暴跌，布朗特害怕英国其他泡沫公司会抢占南海公司的资金，于是在南海股价达到峰值时推动议会通过了《泡沫法案》。该法案要求新企业必须经过议会批准才能成立，并将新企业的股东数量限制为5名；布朗特还让法院起诉了3家现存的泡沫公司，因为它们违反了公司章程。

    就像在巴黎一样，布朗特的狂妄也蔓延至其他人。如麦基所写的，一位导演，“十分骄傲的无知富人，曾说过要用金子喂他的马”[64]。普通民众也是这样：“通过成功的赌博而暴富的无知的人，他们傲慢专横，让真正有教养和思想的人尴尬，黄金竟然有能力在社会中提拔不值得被提拔的人。”[65]布朗特对其他竞争性泡沫公司采取的行动，使自己反受其害，不仅刺破了泡沫公司，还刺破了南海公司；截至10月底，其股价已从峰值1000英镑跌至210英镑，到1721年底，跌至150英镑以下（见图3-4）。[66]

    图3-4 1719—1721年南海公司股票价格

    第四个特征，也是最后一个特征，就是南海和密西西比泡沫的区别在于它们的格局和范围。约翰·劳不是禁欲主义者，但他并没有只关注自己的私利；他真正希望通过革命性的信贷扩张刺激和推动法国经济的发展。但是，布朗特的计划很狭隘，他想通过南海公司把信贷塞进自己的口袋；当信贷扩张从南海公司扩展到其他企业时，他开始努力限制信贷，目标达到了，但这不仅摧毁了其他企业，也摧毁了南海。但从国家的角度看，布朗特计划的狭隘性使金融部门受到的损害相对短暂，这也成为南海泡沫仅有的优势，区别于法国那样灾难性的银行业崩溃、全国性的通货膨胀以及随后长期持续的对银行的恐惧。[67]

    此外，与密西西比公司不同，南海公司并没有给出一个完全空洞的承诺。即使在18世纪早期，其内在价值也可以做出合理估计。首先，它持有年金受益人（现在是公司股东）提供给它的年金，这些资产的价值大约为每股100英镑，也大约是泡沫破裂后的结算值。

    南海公司的另一个特点是，它继承了1707年西班牙授予安妮女王的西属殖民地（《阿西恩托[68]条约》）奴隶贸易垄断权，这在其假定的业务量中占据了最大份额，而根据与西班牙的条约，授权仅限于一艘装有500吨货物的“年度船舶”，这实际上排除了新大陆产品贸易。然而，新大陆产品贸易几乎对南海公司没有意义，因为公司专门从事于金融，而不是国际商业；可恶的是，其中一名董事为了自己的利益，私自使用公司500吨年限额中的60吨，被当场抓获。到了1714年，也就是泡沫破灭的6年前，由于实际贸易业务没有利润，因此公司退出贸易业务；40年后，该公司以仅仅100000英镑的价格出售了其《阿西恩托条约》的权利。[69]最后，公司的新大陆投资价值已经无关紧要，因为投机者关心的不是奴隶贸易或糖贸易中的利润，而是那些股票买卖的利润，这些股票的价格似乎涨到了天价。

    一位名叫阿奇博尔德·哈奇森的律师兼议员进行了当时最复杂的股价计算，他发表了一系列关于该公司股票的报告。幸运的是，其中一个报告写于1720年6月，正好在繁荣达到顶峰之前；报告建议，股票市值应该是该公司年金资产价值的两倍，也就是200英镑。而当时，股价已经是740英镑；他预言“现在就应该停止当前的这种疯狂”。结果，疯狂又持续了几个月；7月，股价已经达到每股1000英镑，哈奇森以这个价格估算出该公司的总价值几乎已经是英格兰所有土地价值的两倍。[70]（20世纪80年代的东京房地产泡沫也是如此，当时东京皇宫的泡沫价格能买下整个美国加州的土地。）[71]

    第二年，在受害选民以及被骗议员的推动下，议会开始调查股价崩溃以及布朗特、他的同僚和政府内部人员积累的巨额财富。财政大臣艾斯拉比成为替罪羊，他被迫辞职，被关进伦敦塔，还有另外6名议员被驱逐。南海公司一直运作到1853年，不是作为贸易公司，只是作为政府债务的持有人。国王成为人们嘲笑的对象，但是没有被制裁。[72]

    一些人提出要监禁甚至绞死南海公司的董事，但董事们在被短暂监禁后勉强避免了这种命运。议会没收了他们的财产，用以补偿项目受害者；布朗特保留了他18.7万英镑资产中的5000英镑，悄悄地退休并到了巴斯[73]，在那里建立起一个杰出的后代宗系，其产生了包括主教和维多利亚女王的牧师在内的很多虔诚的后裔。[74]

    《泡沫法案》是在狂热达到顶峰时通过的，该法案不仅阻止了其他公司的进一步投机，而且也无意中导致了南海公司的沉没。该法案存在了一个多世纪。但未来，对狂热及其崩溃的记忆将不可避免地逐渐消失，在激动人心的新技术和宽松信贷的鼓舞下，在发起人、公众、媒体和政客的推动下，市场的动物精神将再次崛起，从而再次产生一波狂热，使这场18世纪初的狂热也相形见绌。

    4 资本主义的英雄

    英国铁路泡沫

    20世纪50年代初，斯沃斯莫尔学院的一位社会心理学家所罗门·阿希进行了一系列开创性的实验，对中世纪群体末日幻想和18世纪金融狂热的传染性进行了研究。

    阿希让大约6个男性参与者围坐在一张长方形的桌子旁，他们正在接受视觉感知测试。他给所有人看了一张卡片，上面有一条固定长度的直线，比如说英寸[1]。然后他给他们看了第二张卡片，上面有三条线，其中一条线的长度也是英寸，另外两条线的长度稍有不同，比如3英寸和英寸（见图4-1）。参与者被要求在第二张卡片上选出与第一张卡片上长度相同的线条。这项任务需要一定的专注力，但也很容易，正常情况下受试者选错的概率是1%，连续参加12组配对实验全部正确的概率是95%。

    图4-1 阿希实验中所用的卡片

    许多（如果不是大多数的话）心理学实验都需要对受试者撒个小谎。这项测试根本不是关于视觉感知的，每组只包含一个真实的受试者。其他参与者实际上是阿希博士的助手；真正的受试者坐在桌子中间附近，这样尽量缩短他与陪试者们的平均距离。

    测试中这个真正的受试者要么最后一个回答，要么倒数第二个回答，因此在回答问题之前，他已经听到来自陪试者们的多个答案。当陪试者们答案正确时，受试者的表现与单独参加测试时相似，所有12组卡片的正确率为95%。但是，当陪试者们故意回答错误时，受试者的表现结果会急剧变差。他们中只有25%的人在12组配对中选择正确，令人难以置信的是，5%的人在12组卡片配对中全部错误。[2]此外，受试者在各组实验中表现一致：如果一个受试者在前6组实验中深受陪试者错误的影响，那么他在后6组实验中也将受到类似的影响。也就是说，其中一些受试者确实比其他人更容易受到影响。

    实验结束后，阿希博士采访了这些受试者，他们的回答发人深省。容易被影响的人担心他们的视力或心理处理能力正在衰退；其中一个受试者说：“我知道这群人不会错。”[3]即使是那些不易被影响的人也对自己与大多数人的分歧感到不安，并感觉到可能别人是对的，其中很少有人能对自己的答案完全确定。

    引人瞩目的社会科学实验往往会成为街谈巷议的话题，阿希博士的例子就是如此。在他的实验之后的几十年里，其结论越来越多地出现在大众媒体、教科书甚至学术文献中，这也恰恰表明了大多数人的随波逐流。[4]

    实际上，这些数据也呈现出一些细微差别。在存在误导性陪试者的情况下，超过一半的受试者的答案是正确的，即非一致性。此外，即使只存在一个答案正确的陪试者，也能显著降低受试者的错误率。对阿希实验的更精准的总结是，一些人比其他人更容易被影响，但25%的受试者没有受到任何影响。那么，很容易想到的是，阿希已经找出了那些最容易受到金融泡沫或世界末日信条影响的人。

    阿希博士的结果尤其显著，因为估计线长这种实验几乎不会受到情感因素的影响。打哈欠也是这样，人们对这种话题往往没有什么情感驱动的想法。当然，正如我们大多数人知道的，并且已经被实验证明，打哈欠是有传染性的。在正常、完全清醒的受试者中，传染性打哈欠不仅可以通过其他人的哈欠诱发，还可以通过打哈欠的视频诱发，即使打哈欠的人的嘴巴已经被遮住。奇怪的是，只显示嘴巴的视频并不能引起打哈欠。[5]

    在情绪饱满的时候，人们的从众性会提高。查尔斯·金德尔伯格发出了一个警告，即目睹别人的变富会产生有害影响，这一警告也适用于阿希博士的实验：在实验室里成功地抵抗了社会压力的人，在现实中却可能无法抵抗充满情绪的群体幻想。

    模仿不仅仅是一种最真诚的恭维，它对我们的生存也至关重要。在人类进化过程中，我们的物种必须要适应各种各样的环境。这种适应有两种形式。第一种是身体上的，一个明显的例子是非洲人的皮肤比北欧人更黑，因为深色皮肤可以保护底层组织免受热带阳光的伤害；相反，浅色皮肤可以在阳光较少的北纬度地区更有效地生成维生素D。

    第二种适应是文化和心理上的，正如进化心理学的先驱罗伯特·博伊德和彼得·理查森指出的那样，在亚马孙河雨林生存所需的技能与在北极生活的人所需的技能大不相同，他们：

    必须知道如何制作几十种基本的工具——皮艇、保暖衣、倒钩鱼叉、油灯、用皮毛和雪搭建的住所、防止雪盲症的护目镜、狗拉雪橇以及制作这些工具的工具……虽然我们是相当聪明的动物，但我们做不到这一点，因为我们还不够聪明。皮艇是一种由各种不同部分组成的高度复杂的物体，设计一艘好的皮艇，意味着需要找到一种极为罕见的各部分组合。[6]

    换句话说，如果你以前从未见过北极人用当地存在的原材料制作皮艇，那么你几乎不可能会制作皮艇。亚马孙本地人所需要的各种其他技能也都是如此。人类从白令海峡迁移到亚马孙河只用了不到1万年的时间，这意味着我们在此之前一定进化出了准确模仿的能力。用博伊德和理查森的话说，能够在如此不同的环境中生存，意味着人类不得不：

    进化（文化上）对当地环境的适应能力——北极的皮艇和亚马孙河流域的喷枪——这是一种适应更新世时期的混乱、快速变化世界的高超能力。然而，创造这种好处的心理机制必然伴随着内在成本。为了获得社会学习的好处，人类必须是轻信的……我们以低廉的价格获得了橡皮艇和喷枪这样奇妙的改编作品。问题在于，对这种容易适应的传统的贪婪，很容易导致不适应的情况以某种方式出现。[7]

    在过去的大概5万年里，人类物种已经从非洲诞生地传播到地球的几乎每一个角落，从北极海岸到热带，再到广阔太平洋中的各个孤岛。晚更新世时期，人类物种从北极之地向麦哲伦海峡迁徙，在这期间能够适应如此多样的环境，这依赖于人类精确模仿的能力。但是，人类在石器时代的许多适应性已经不适合于现代世界，一个经典的例子就是富含能量的脂肪和糖对我们的吸引力，在我们的进化史上，脂肪和糖曾经是稀缺的，可以帮我们维持生命，但现在作为廉价垃圾食品存在，并威胁人类健康。同样地，我们某些古老的模仿倾向也常常不适合于现代，用麦基的名言来说，会给现代社会带来“非同寻常的大众幻想与群众性癫狂”。

    群体幻想的传播还助长了另一种古老的心理冲动，即人类具有压制与日常信仰相矛盾的事实和数据的倾向。1946年，心理学家弗里茨·海德提出了所谓的“平衡状态”范式，以解释人们在日常生活中如何处理大量复杂且往往相互矛盾的数据。想象一下，你认识一个叫鲍勃的人，你和他都对某种能带来一定情感分量的物品有自己的看法，比如说安卓手机与苹果手机相比，哪一款更加高级。

    如果你很欣赏鲍勃，并且你俩都认为苹果手机更好，那么你就会感到很舒服；你现在就处于海德所说的“平衡状态”。类似地，如果你认为苹果手机更好，但是鲍勃喜欢他的安卓手机，并且你认为鲍勃是个无知的浑蛋，那么你也处于“平衡状态”，因为你对鲍勃的负面评价能够使你驳斥他的相反观点。[8]但是，如果你欣赏鲍勃但在手机问题上不同意他的观点，那么你就处于一种让自己不舒服的“不平衡状态”。

    如果你对鲍勃的欣赏只有一点点，或者如果你对手机不太在乎，那么你可以忽略自己的不适。但如果鲍勃是你最亲密的朋友，而你在一些更具情感分量的事情上（比如特朗普的总统任期问题）与他存在强烈分歧，那么你就必须采取行动解决欣赏鲍勃和政治分歧之间的不平衡。神经科学家最近发现，这种不平衡状态会增加背内侧前额叶的活跃性。背内侧前额叶是位于额头中部上方两个脑半球的大脑区域。此外，这种活跃性预示着人们对鲍勃或唐纳德·特朗普的看法将发生变化。换句话说，如果你想让你的背内侧前额叶停止烦扰你，你就必须改变对其中一个人的看法。[9]与此相反，当受试者得知专家同意他的观点，即达到平衡状态时，大脑的另一个部分，腹侧纹状体，位于两个脑半球深处的成对结构，就会被激活。[10]这一区域能接收多巴胺神经元的密集性输入，而多巴胺是一种让我们感到快乐的神经递质。

    在《非同寻常的大众幻想》1841年的初始版本中，麦基写到了南海泡沫：

    企业，像伊卡洛斯一样，飞得太高，融化了翅膀上的蜡；和伊卡洛斯一样，她也掉进了海里，当她在海浪中挣扎时，她认识到她最适合的地方是坚实的地面。从那以后，她没再尝试过这么高的飞行。[11]

    但写下这些话后的几年内，金融市场证明麦基是错的，因为投机的伊卡洛斯将再次飙升，这一次将围绕第一条蒸汽铁路的兴奋和混乱，相应的金融狂热将使1719—1720年的南海泡沫也相形见绌。很少有作家能比历史学家斯蒂芬·安布罗斯更好地描述蒸汽机爆发前的人类状况：

    1801年，一个关键事实是，世界上没有什么能比马的速度更快。没有任何人、制造品、蒲式耳小麦、大块牛肉，信件、信息，以及任何形式的想法、订单或指示能够移动得更快。没有什么能够比马更快了，就杰斐逊[12]的同时代人所知，没有什么将会比马更快。[13]

    1851年，英国历史学家约翰·弗朗西斯的经典记录见证了英国的铁路网建设。他将近代交通状况描述如下：

    用来运送农产品的机器，结构粗陋，既沉重又笨拙。即使道路状况还可以，移动（这些机器）也很困难。如果道路状况不好，那么它们要么被沼泽吞没，要么掉进堤坝中：有时，它们陷入泥泞的道路中太深了，根本无法逃脱，必须要等到温暖的天气和炙热的太阳到来才可以。几个月以来，产品都无法进入市场，水果在产地腐烂，而在几英里之外的市场上却远远供不应求……人们发现，出口到国外要比把农产品从英格兰北部运到南部的成本更低。将商品从伦敦运送到葡萄牙比从诺里奇[14]运送到伦敦更容易。[15]

    用蒸汽动力代替人力、牲畜和水车的想法，可以追溯到2000年前的托勒密希腊人，据说他们用蒸汽动力来打开和关闭一座亚历山大神庙的门。1712年左右，英国发明家托马斯·纽科门制造了第一台蒸汽机，该机体积庞大，效率低下，只能用于煤矿的排水，因为煤矿的燃料非常丰富。因此，詹姆斯·瓦特并没有像人们通常认为的那样在1776年发明蒸汽机，而是完成了一件更巧妙、更有效的事情：通过在纽科门的设计中增加一个外部冷凝器，制造出一种燃料效率高的装置，其可以在远离煤矿的地方使用。这一创新让瓦特的合伙人马修·博尔顿说出了那句名言：“先生，我这里卖的是全世界都渴望拥有的——动力。”[16]

    在接下来的25年里，瓦特首先使用笨重的发动机驱动船桨，然后不断缩小发动机体积，到1801年，发动机已经缩小到足以让理查德·特雷维西克将之安装到陆地马车上；到1808年，他已经在伦敦尤斯顿广场附近提供了价格为5先令的乘车服务。早期的装置由软铁制成，非常脆弱，那时一位技师的妻子不仅必须在凌晨4点醒来给发动机加燃料，还必须用她强壮的肩膀使发动机运转。[17]

    18世纪之交，乔治·斯蒂芬森，诺森伯兰（位于英格兰北部）一个不识字的蒸汽机看管人的儿子，继承了父亲的职业，但与父亲不同，他在夜校学会了阅读、写作和数学技能，而且将自己的天赋用于逐渐提高早期蒸汽装置的效率。拿破仑战争让英国付出了高昂的代价，干草价格的高昂暂时推动了蒸汽动力对马力拉动矿车的代替，但直到1818年，斯蒂芬森才说服纽卡斯尔地区附近达灵顿的矿主，修建了一条通往25英里外的蒂斯河畔斯托克顿的蒸汽轨道线，于1825年9月开始使用。尽管轨道线非常短，但是后来在经济上非常成功。[18]

    新铁路技术震惊了世界：1825—1845年，英格兰经历了至少三次铁路泡沫。第一次泡沫紧随斯托克顿—达灵顿铁路线的建成。斯蒂芬森早期的发动机并不可靠，运营的最初几年，煤炭车和客车经常需要马来牵引。但随着发动机的改进，多达59条铁路线列入修建计划。[19]

    第一批项目在议会中遭到了不小的反对，因为《泡沫法案》（南海事件的遗留法案，此时已经有百年历史）规定，所有的公司组建都必须由议会批准。最积极的反对者是运河和收费公路的经营者，他们认识到铁路运输会对自身利润造成损害。他们及其爪牙告诉公众，发动机的烟雾会杀死鸟类；发动机的重量会使其无法移动；发动机的火花会把货物烧成灰烬；老人们会被碾死；受惊的马会伤害骑马的人；马会灭绝，燕麦和干草种植户将会破产；狐狸会消失；而且，被噪声干扰的奶牛将停止产奶。[20]

    1825年，议会废除了《泡沫法案》，但普遍存在的金融恐慌以及落后的发动机技术，阻碍了更多项目的开展，经过1825—1826年的一番议会波折，斯蒂芬森的利物浦—曼彻斯特铁路花了4年时间才建成，于1830年9月15日正式通车。它长35英里，是当时的工程奇迹，需要建造64座桥梁并挖掘300万立方码[21]的土壤。

    这项非凡的新技术有望改变人们的日常生活，这激起了那些想要先下手为强的人的贪婪。这种刺激在1836—1837年达到顶峰。一位记者写道：“我们的语言开始受到（铁路）影响。人们用‘加蒸汽’表示‘打起精神’，用‘铁路速度’表示‘很快的速度’，并以小时和分钟估计距离。”[22]新闻报道提到，一位商人在早晨坐上从曼彻斯特到利物浦的火车，当天就能运回150吨棉花，并以巨大的利润出售，然后重复这种做法。“不是支持者，而是铁路的反对者被认为是疯子。如果这是一种狂热，那么这种狂热就像我们呼吸的空气一样。”[23]约翰·弗朗西斯写道：“1836—1837年的这几个月将长久地被商业人士铭记。数千人关注并将资本投入计划中的公司。”[24]

    和其他泡沫事件一样，利率下降进一步增强了新技术的吸引力，因为利率下降能使投资资本更加充裕。25年前，拿破仑战争引起的借贷需求提高了利率；1815年利率达到顶峰时，一个富有的英国人通过购买政府债券使其索维林金币[25]的收益率接近6%。在接下来的30年里，利率下降到3.25%。[26]当投资者不满于安全资产的超低利率时，他们就会抬高那些潜在收益更高的风险资产的价格。著名记者（也是《经济学人》的编辑）沃尔特·白芝浩在描绘英国铁路泡沫破裂后的一代人时写道：“约翰·布尔可以忍受很多事情，但他忍受不了2%的利率。”[27]换句话说，低利率是泡沫萌芽的沃土。

    低利率，加上这一时期斯蒂芬森的利物浦—曼彻斯特铁路的成功，重新点燃了铁路投机：“媒体支持这种狂热，政府也做出了许可，而人民为此付出了代价。铁路立刻成为一种时尚和狂热。英格兰规划了各条铁路。”[28]

    每一种泡沫里都有自我毁灭的种子。就这个事件而言，廉价资本催生的重复铁路线过度竞争就是种子。利物浦和曼彻斯特的股东们吃到了牛排，而那些跟随频繁的人则比不频繁的人吃到了更多酸臭的食物。1836年的《爱丁堡评论》指出：“事实上，两个比较大的地方之间（无论距离多么遥远），几乎都会有一条被某个公司占据的可行性铁轨线，通常会同时启动两条、三条或四条竞争性路线。”约翰·弗朗西斯写道：“一个大都会区的某个教区，有16项铁路计划，计划拆除的房屋超过1200栋。”[29]

    这些只是最可信的计划。在达勒姆，某位企业家同时工作于三条平行的铁路线上。第一条是成功的，另外两条，很自然地，失败了。而其他发起人的设想包括：由帆或火箭驱动的火车头，能以每小时数百英里的速度运行；高架木轨线；另外一个，根据弗朗西斯的记录，广告说法是“把残疾人抬到床上去”。[30]

    无论何时何地，免费获得的信贷和轻信的投资者都是无赖发起人的垫脚石。当时一位评论家指出，通常：

    一个穷困潦倒的冒险家突然想到，从A镇到B镇的一条铁路线是一项巨大的公共事业，他从中可以获取巨大的利益。因此，他购买了一份军用地图，布鲁克县的或者是哪个地方的地名词典，以及一份名录。首先，他在两个城镇之间画了一条线，在阴暗的山丘之间的这里或那里画了一些漂亮的曲线，目的是使它有一种真实的感觉，他称此为调查报告，尽管他和他的人根本没有去过这个地方。地名词典、名录以及支付给一个无赖或马车夫的一罐啤酒，构成了他收入来源的所有原材料。幸运的是，年收入从未低于15%、20%或30%。收入经常如此之多，他都不好意思去欺骗更多的人了。[31]

    据说埃德蒙·德·罗斯柴尔德说过，“有三种赔钱的主要方式：葡萄酒、女人和发动机。前两种更令人愉悦，而第三种迄今为止（在赔钱问题上）更为确定。”[32]随着越来越多的铁路轨道进入施工阶段，可聘用的合格工程师和劳动力数量不足，导致工期延误、成本大量超支、无法解决发动机难题等，这最终导致不可避免的破产潮。

    和南海泡沫期间的状况一样，英国的合股公司最初只筹集到所需资本的一小部分。投资者最初只需要支付股票面值的一小部分，对接下来铁路建设所需要筹集的资本承担分期缴纳的义务——这是一种干柴式“杠杆”结构，不可避免地会遇到烈火。

    回应马上就来了。钱变得稀缺；人们已经看清楚了这些人的愚蠢；各种类型的股票都下跌了。然后是可怕的不安，毁灭降临到社区，悲伤使家庭不再温暖。那些曾经因为假想的财富而趾高气扬的男人为他们的鲁莽而悲伤，而女人们则因为无法阻止而哭泣。[33]

    至19世纪30年代的泡沫破灭时，议会已经批准了2285英里的铁路修建计划，但是截至1838年，实际动工还不足1/4。其余的里程通常是不盈利的，还需要几年时间才能完成；正在进行中的则需要投资者追缴大量资金。1836—1837年暴跌之后，股票价格确实又有所回升，因此那些坚持持有股票的人也没有很差；在此之前一直稳定的股票价格，在1836年上涨了约80%，然后又迅速回落到实际上略高于泡沫前的水平。[34]到1841年，从伦敦到纽卡斯尔近300英里的旅程在17个小时内就可以实现：“一个理性的人，还能要求什么呢？”《铁路时报》为此报道。[35]

    事实上，截至1844年，普通股东对前10年的投资回报非常满意。这推动了19世纪40年代后期更大的泡沫，相关代表人物是乔治·哈德森。哈德森出生于1800年，是约克郡一个小农场主的儿子，由于被假定为会继续耕种土地，因此接受了很少的正规教育。在他9岁时，父亲去世，他被送到约克的一家亚麻布店当学徒，他也由此因祸得福。哈德森的精力、魅力和才智很快在布店里显现出来，而这些是在耕犁中无法体现的。他最终通过婚姻关系加入雇主家庭，并接管了布店。1827年，好运继续光顾这个年轻的店主，他从一个叔父那里继承了30000英镑的遗产，叔父临终时，他正好在现场（叔父遗嘱的受益人可能在最后一刻被更改为他）。[36]

    新获得的财富使他得以进入政治和银行业，1833年，他被任命为约克铁路委员会的司库，负责一条通过发行股票筹集建设资金的地方性铁路。哈德森聘请约翰·雷尼爵士勘测路线，但这位著名工程师建议采用马拉系统，这令委员会很失望。幸运的是，在某次参观叔父留给他的不动产时，哈德森遇到了乔治·斯蒂芬森，后者当时已经是一位非常著名的工程师。哈德森充分展示了自己的魅力和远见，斯蒂芬森同意建造约克—北米德兰铁路。该铁路由一家合股公司出资，第一段仅14.5英里长，于1839年开通。

    在接下来的10年里，哈德森成为公众所熟知的“铁路之王”，创建了一个由十几家铁路公司组成的帝国，其中四家是全国最大的铁路公司。他领导几家公司的董事会，经常一会儿出现在这里勘测一条新路线，一会儿又出现在那里指责一家失败公司的股东大会，并四处筹集新资本。他的生活围绕着两个权力中心展开：一个是约克，他在那里担任过几届市长，慷慨而又受人爱戴；另一个是威斯敏斯特，国家的政治中心。

    哈德森能把沙子卖给贝都因人[37]。即使是最坚定的对手，他也能扭转局面。他的标志性胜利是说服了威廉·尤尔特·格莱斯顿。格莱斯顿也许是19世纪最令人敬畏的政治家，他在1832年22岁时进入议会，在1843年成为贸易委员会主席，该委员会是议会的铁路立法部门。他先后担任了四届英国财政大臣，又于1868—1894年四次出任英国首相。

    这两个人简直有天壤之别：哈德森充满活力而未受教育，是约克郡农民的儿子，而格莱斯顿毕业于伊顿公学和牛津大学，是奴隶主的儿子。两人在当时最关键的问题上存在分歧；哈德森是正统的保守党，是一个反对废除《谷物法》的贸易保护主义者；格莱斯顿虽然名义上是保守党，但实际上是一位热诚的自由贸易者。

    不过，假如在今天，哈德森将被称为自由主义者，因为他反对政府干预商业，尤其是他所珍爱的铁路，而格莱斯顿很早就认为技术日益发达的经济领域需要政府监管。比约翰·洛克菲勒降低油价还要早几十年，格莱斯顿就预见到，实力最强的铁路公司可以通过大幅减价将竞争对手赶出市场，垄断市场后，公众将越来越受其摆布——格莱斯顿认为，哈德森的某个公司就是这样。

    1844年3月，哈德森在贸易委员会作证时，老练地强调了他与格莱斯顿的一致意见：为了公众的利益，应该限制对竞争性路线的许可（但没有提到自己的公司）。委员会推迟了这个话题，追问哈德森是如何确定票价的。委员会想知道，议会定期调整票价有什么错？哈德森一如既往地做好了充分准备，他回答说，他不反对由政府规定票价，但要求议会限制竞争性路线的许可证发放。

    委员会对哈德森的回答感到些许宽慰，提出了相对比较温和的铁路立法，规定“议会级”票价为每英里1便士。[38]但该法案使议会能够修改铁路公司的票价，这些铁路公司曾经利润如此丰厚，可以发放超过10%的股息分红；该法案通过后，对于任何已经获得许可并运营超过20年的铁路公司，政府都将有权购买。

    这令哈德森很焦虑，他给格莱斯顿写了一封公开信，信中用最悦耳、最恭维的语气对该法案中降低票价以及政府的购买选择权表示反对。他组织了一个由铁路公司所有权人组成的代表团，他们一起前往唐宁街10号的首相官邸。首相罗伯特·皮尔对此印象深刻，于是在下议院发表了一些对铁路公司有利的意见。

    格莱斯顿接受了公开信的暗示，私下会见了哈德森，会面中，哈德森把坦白直率的魅力发挥到了极致，把这位委员会主席感动了。格莱斯顿评论道：“将哈德森看作一个投机者是一个巨大的误会，他是一个非常有辨别力的人，拥有很大的勇气和很强的进取心——一个非常大胆但非常明智的设计师。”格莱斯顿基本废除了法案：只在法案中保留了低级三等车票的票价限制。[39]

    哈德森意识到，他差点儿忽略了议会的潜在监督职能，他需要更积极地参与政治。假如在今天，强大的实业家可能会为自己雇用一大群说客；但19世纪的英国具有更宽松的道德环境，有一个更直接的办法：哈德森只需要给自己买一个下议院的席位。1845年中，机会出现了。在冷清的沿海小镇森德兰，他接管了当地一条失败的铁路以及码头，作为交换条件，那里的官员们提名他为保守党的席位候选人。他于8月14日正式当选，比较类似于现代社会中同时在美国参议院任职的高盛公司董事长。

    那天晚上，一辆专列将他当选的消息从森德兰送到伦敦，第二天，另一辆专列将伦敦《晨报》对这一事件的报道带回森德兰。在胜利庆典的狂欢中，哈德森将报纸扔进人群，欢呼道：“看，看智慧的进军！”[40]两个月后，在森德兰的一次宴会上，他鼓吹自己码头公司的股票，再次激发了当地人的热情：“我不明白，为什么你们不能让圣彼得斯堡的棉花、中国和世界其他地区的产品运到森德兰港，只要你们提供设施……让我们想象一下，我们将成为世界的利物浦和曼彻斯特。”[41]

    他似乎很少睡觉；例如，1846年5月2日至3日的晚上，他在下议院工作到凌晨2:30，打了个盹儿，然后坐上开往德比（英格兰中部城市）的早班火车，其大约在伦敦、约克以及他的其中一个公司——米德兰铁路公司总部三者中间的位置（见图4-2、图4-3）。在那里，他向股东们解释他的26项提案的精髓，这些提案通过修建一些新的、扩展一些已经存在的铁路和运河，将铁路和运河系统相融合。该计划需要300万英镑的投资资本；他向心存疑惑的人坦率地承认，的确许多新线路将失败，但总的来说，它们将打造一个坚不可摧的地区铁路系统。他已经拥有大量支持者，很轻易地排除掉了那些分散的持反对意见的股东，然后通过了所有26项公司提案。[42]一位当时的评论家写道：

    资料来源：The Railway King,by Richard S.Lambert,London,George Allen & Unwin Ltd,©1964,p.57.Copyright ©1934 HarperCollins Publishers.All rights reserved.

    图4-2 1840年的英国铁路系统（粗体部分是哈德森公司建的铁路）

    资料来源：The Railway King,by Richard S.Lambert,London,George Allen & Unwin Ltd,©1964,p.238.Copyright ©1934 HarperCollins Publishers.All rights reserved.

    图4-3 1849年的英国铁路系统（粗体部分是哈德森公司建的铁路）

    似乎从来没有什么事情能让他烦乱，也没有什么事情会让他疲劳。他在议会委员会中斗争，一天又一天；他以一种认真的态度争辩和恳求，从目的上看几乎没有失败过。他今天在镇上哄骗一个委员会，明天说服一位大主教；早上，在一个不起眼的办公室里说服一些持对立主张的人，下午，以某种大胆的突袭政策震惊了证券交易所。[43]

    他的专注力和计算能力令人敬佩。人们经常看到他把头往后一仰，遮住眼睛，然后准确地预测出尚未建成的铁路线的红利，他还能同时参与两场激烈的对话。商业伙伴们发现，如果他们的分析没有抓住要点，马上就会被他打断，但很容易又会被他原谅，他对员工和陌生人非常宽宏大量。但是，他处理数字和疯狂交易的能力也伴随着一个缺点：他过分依赖口头指令，没有保存交易的账簿或记录，只是简单地认为他的愿望会实现。[44]

    1843年的英格兰铁路线还不到2000英里，但是到1848年底已经超过5000英里；哈德森控制了其中大约1450英里的路线，并对英格兰东北部拥有实际的垄断权。[45]更多的铁路线正在计划中：议会在1844年批准了800英里，在1845年批准了2700英里，在1846年批准了4500英里。以少量首期付款认购股票，然后在很久之后完成全部购买，是哈德森和大多数其他发起人的经营手段。在工程尚未开工、连运营和收入都没有的时候，新股通常就会公布每年接近10%的股息；大多数投资者被高收益吸引，却没有注意到收入的缺失意味着最初投资者的股息必须来自新投资者的资本，这在现在被称为“庞氏骗局”。在庞氏骗局下，后来股东的股息是无法获得支付的。哈德森故意泄露他的铁路项目即将被议会批准的消息，以此推动这种狂热。就像蛋糕上的糖霜，直到泡沫的最后阶段，哈德森稠密的东北部铁路网还在阻碍竞争性路线的股票发行。

    19世纪40年代，除了布朗特和哈德森这样的发起者、公众和政客外，泡沫剧场的第四个主角——媒体出现了。概括来说，那个时代有两类媒体：以《泰晤士报》为代表的“旧媒体”和以《铁路时报》为代表的铁路专报“新媒体”；前者坚持高度正统的怀疑主义，而后者则煽动投机的火焰。在泡沫最严重的时候，市面上至少有20种铁路出版物，铁路公司每周都要慷慨地花费1.2万~1.4万英镑发布广告，这些资金成为媒体的主要收入来源，而这些钱本可以更明智地用于建设。关于新提案的吹嘘文章比比皆是。一位评论家讽刺道：“委员会为绅士和男爵们高兴，下议院通过新提案的前景是肯定的。它的工程师是斯蒂芬森（此时已经是乔治的儿子罗伯特·斯蒂芬森）；它的当权者是哈德森；它的银行家是格林。广告还谦虚地补充说，利润不会超过15%。”[46]一篇文章夸张地说，铁路是环绕全球的新世界奇迹：

    不满足于让利物浦成为他们的铁路中心……他们的目标是全球。遥远的印度跨越河海对铁路表示期盼，中国正在倾听这神奇的声音。古希腊被毁坏的山丘和破碎的祭坛将很快与火车头的汽笛声相呼应，或者被转变为商业圣地。通过这些宏伟的工程，河流得以跨越，领土得以穿越，商业得以特许，联邦得以巩固；通过它们，金刚石可以被分割，人类在时间和空间上拥有主宰权。[47]

    直到1843年，英国经济依旧在消化1836—1837年的泡沫，但在1844年秋天，银行的贷款利率已经降为2.5%；更为不祥的是，银行普遍认为铁路证券“像房子一样安全”，并乐于将其作为抵押品。股票认购名单会让21世纪初房地产泡沫中的美国抵押贷款经纪人都脸红：一个年收入54英镑的半薪军官在多个名单上的总收入为41500英镑；两个住在阁楼里的清洁工的儿子，其中一个认购了12500英镑的股票，另一个25000英镑，所包含的追缴金是他们无法承担的；更多的追缴金来自虚构联系方式的股东。[48]

    一位不知姓名的观察者这样描述，英国公众：

    看到整个世界都在为铁路疯狂。铁路在公众集会上受到赞扬；它是公众崇拜的对象；人们在交易所里谈论它；在参议院为它立法；在舞台上暗喻它。它渗透到每一个阶层；渗透到每一个家庭；所有人都被它诱惑。那些说话与契约一样可靠的人，现在也加入追逐铁路的行列，被旋涡带走了。[49]

    商人兼议员詹姆斯·莫里森观察到：

    不易觉察的贪婪之毒在每个阶层蔓延，不仅影响了高贵的大殿主人，也影响了简陋农舍里的合居者。公爵夫人们甚至会在众人面前用凭证弄脏手指，老女仆们会发抖地急切询问股票的价格。年轻的女士们抛弃了婚礼清单而专注于股票行情表，询问她们的爱人有关牛市、熊市操作的问题，这吓到了她们的爱人。时尚人士频繁地出现在经纪人那里，而不是出现在俱乐部。商人不再关注生意而去打理他的股票，但最终，他的股票和生意都将离开他。[50]

    按照贸易委员会的规定，每年11月30日是提交新路线计划的截止日期。1845年11月30日傍晚，当800个铁路计划发起人聚集在白厅（指英国政府）办公室时，一股狂潮席卷了首都：铁路公司允许通过的快递列车以每小时80英里的速度驶向伦敦，但那些运载竞争性路线计划书的列车被铁路公司阻止通过；一位设计师将路线计划书装进一个装饰齐全的灵柩内，然后将其运到列车上，才绕过了铁路公司的障碍。[51]

    如约翰·弗朗西斯所写的，就像南海泡沫期间一样，交易巷里挤满了人，交通堵塞，“几乎无法通行”，周围的街区“像集市一样”。他继续写道：

    谨慎的商人和敏锐的制造商都没有抵制住投机的诱惑。它像麻风病一样在他们中间传播。它不仅毁灭了无辜者，也毁灭了有罪者。它不仅毁坏了很多简陋的农舍，也扰乱了许多亲王的住所。人们急于致富，却被毁灭。他们大量购买；他们踊跃认购；他们抛弃了自己公司的存账室；如果成功了，他们就会继续买入；如果失败了，那么他们往往会自毁，使本已凄凉的家园更加悲惨。[52]

    斯蒂芬森在威斯敏斯特乔治大街的办公室比首相在唐宁街的办公室更受欢迎；铁的价格翻了一番；勘测员的工资很高，特别是那些在军械局工作的人，经常未经许可非法进入私人土地。一份议会报告表明，157名议员的股票认购额超过2000英镑；到1845年夏天，“全国出现了前所未有的对所有生意的忽视；几个月里，柜台上找不到卖货的商人，办公室里也找不到批发商，全国各地都是这样。如果你去拜访商家，那么你肯定会得到‘去城里了’这样的答复”。就连勃朗特[53]一家也参与了：艾米莉和安妮拥有约克和北米德兰的股票，而更脚踏实地的夏洛蒂则持怀疑态度。[54]

    虽然哈德森的许多商业行为，特别是他对公司治理的保密和高压手段，放在今天可能会让他坐牢，但在那时还不是非法的。再过80年，查尔斯·庞兹[55]在初始资本支付股息的操作中不会使用自己的名字；在19世纪40年代早期，这些做法不会引起法律审查（但这种情况很快就会改变）。哈德森的终结不是来自欺诈或欺骗，而只是来自过度建设和监管改革。

    与18世纪的双泡沫不同，这次事件中铁路公司的倒闭过程比较缓慢。到19世纪40年代末，哈德森的铁路网（大致从伦敦延伸到爱丁堡）越来越被东西部的竞争性路线包围。为了进一步延长铁路线来突破包围圈，他冒险性地从个人投资者那里筹集了大量资金；但与此同时，议会于1847年建立了新的监管制度，在此制度下，用新收购的资本支付旧股东的股息，这种类似庞氏骗局的做法被认定为非法。[56]

    1847年初，英格兰银行将贴现率从3.5%提高到5%，这阻碍了股票认购之后所需追缴金的资本流动。1846年的马铃薯歉收和1848年欧洲大陆的革命动乱加剧了英国的经济困境，迫使哈德森和其他铁路经营者降低股息：惊慌失措的投资者开始抛售股票，到1848年10月，股票价格从1845年的峰值下跌了60%（见图4-4）。[57]

    图4-4 英格兰铁路公司的股票价格（1830—1850年）

    虽然股价下跌的绝对数小于南海泡沫时期，甚至小于20世纪的大熊市时期，但认购机制固有的极端杠杆带来了大面积的破坏：

    很多家庭完全被毁。一个不太起眼的英格兰镇上，发生了一些悲惨的自杀事件。原本被精心培育的女儿们现在需要出去寻找面包，儿子们被迫停止学业，很多家庭被分离：房子被法院强制执行。每一个社会纽带都被破坏。那些以前过着舒适独立生活的人突然发现自己欠了大量无力支付的钱。有的放弃了一切，重新开始；有的离开英国去往欧洲大陆的其他国家，蔑视并逃避债权人的追赶。一位绅士收到了400张法院令状。还有一位贵族承受了15000英镑的债务压力，于是他坐上游艇去往美丽的地中海，在那里，他忘却了与自己有关的所有难题。[58]

    此时，即使是哈德森所犯的小过失也会引致仔细审查，而这样的小过失在过去是很容易被原谅的。证券交易所的两个对手仔细检查了买卖记录，发现哈德森的某家公司以高于市场的价格购买了另一家公司的股票，而这另一家公司恰好也归哈德森个人所有；也就是说，他诈骗股东的行为被发现了。很快，他更严重的违规行为也被发现，尽管还没有上升到需要承担刑事责任的高度，但也让他面临严重的民事判决。

    哈德森还有最后一张王牌：森德兰地区的选民依然非常感激他，这使他在议会又待了10年，只要下议院还在开会，他就不会因债务问题而被捕。随后他会以一种滑稽歌剧式的状态往返于英国和欧洲大陆之间：议会开会时，他可以安全地待在英国，并拼命挽回他的财产；休会后，他逃往巴黎。1859年，他在选举中落败，游戏结束了；朋友们离他而去，只有债权人关注他，他剩下的大量财产被没收。最后，他靠仰慕者给他购买的年金维生。[59]

    1863年的一天，查尔斯·狄更斯[60]即将乘坐“福克斯通”号船返回英格兰，遇到了他的朋友查尔斯·曼比。狄更斯写道：

    曼比向一位衣衫褴褛的人告别，我对这个人有印象，但想不起来他是谁。当我们驶离港口时，那人正站在码头边上，凄凉地挥舞着他的帽子。我对曼比说：“我肯定认识那个人。”“我想你认识，”他说，“哈德森！”哈德森住在巴黎，是曼比带过去的。临别时哈德森对曼比说：“在你回来之前，我再也吃不到一顿丰盛的晚餐了。”[61]

    后两轮铁路泡沫毁掉了英国投资者，但为英国提供了必要的基础设施。1838—1848年，铁路里程增加了10倍，直到今天，英国的铁路地图还和1848年非常相似。1848年之后的将近一个世纪里，这个数字才又翻了一番。

    事实上，不幸的铁路投资者们为英格兰提供了宝贵的公共物品——首个高容量、高速度的运输网络。19世纪初之前的英格兰，人均GDP几乎没有增长；而在此之后，它以每年约2%的速度增长——每一代人大约能翻一番，不仅在英格兰，在其他西方发达国家也是如此。这一转变在很大程度上是由蒸汽驱动的陆海运输效率带来的。[62]这种损害了技术投资者但为国家经济增长提供了必要基础设施的例子，还将继续出现。

    1841年，查尔斯·麦基出版了《非同寻常的大众幻想》第一版，正是在铁路狂热达到高潮之前，因此麦基应该会比其他任何人都更清楚地意识到这种狂热。作为一名记者和受欢迎的作家，他完全应该对此提出警告。

    但是他没有，在1852年出版的该书第二版中，他只在一个两句话的脚注中提到了这一事件。[63]19世纪30年代，青年时期的麦基曾为两份伦敦报纸《太阳报》和《晨报》撰稿并编辑；1844年，就在铁路泡沫破裂之前，他开始担任《格拉斯哥的阿格斯》报纸的编辑，并在这个职位上干了3年，这3年正是铁路从繁荣走向萧条的3年。该报纸，特别是“头条”专栏，经常转载其他报纸的文章。这些文章表明，麦基对铁路发展的总体态度是适度热情，这很可能只是对当时经济基调的一种反应。自由放任是当时的经济基调，其核心是废除《谷物法》，因为《谷物法》使地主、贵族受益，导致粮食价格过高，城市贫民挨饿。而铁路只是麦基及其圈子的次要关注点。[64]

    在麦基担任编辑期间，该报的头条确实转载了《泰晤士报》关于泡沫的可怕警告，但该报也转载了其他报纸中对铁路公司有利的文章。尽管在今天，麦基的名字几乎是“狂热”的同义词，但在当时，他似乎完全错过了他正在经历的那场浩劫。在1845年10月的一篇头条文章中，他直言不讳地说，铁路股的热情与南海泡沫没有什么共同点，南海泡沫“没有什么坚实的基础，完全是虚构的”，而铁路热情的基础：

    宽阔而安全。铁路是这个时代的必需品。其本身就是一种不动产和有形资产……沉默的哲学家和活跃的商界人士都能看出，没有什么能比英国资本用于这些项目更高尚、更有利的了。[65]

    虽然没有什么证据表明麦基也在铁路狂热中赔过钱，但作为那个时代最敏锐的观察者，他没有看到人类的金融非理性，这更证明了金融泡沫的诱惑力。到了19世纪，有这样一条旧新闻：一个世纪前，艾萨克·牛顿的例子说明，即使是具有非凡知识和智慧的人，也无法免受投资泡沫的影响。牛顿不是金融新手，南海泡沫时期，他已经担任英国皇家造币厂厂长20多年了。他在1712年购买的南海股票获得了丰厚的回报，1720年初，他以可观的利润卖出了这些股票，但那年晚些时候，他失去了理智，以更高的价格回购了这些股票。他损失了大约20000英镑，并认识到：“我能计算天体的运动，但不能计算人类的疯狂。”[66]

    英国铁路泡沫可以看作一场许诺改变人们日常生活的技术动乱。几乎与此同时，远离欧洲大陆的美国，产生了一种与之截然不同的极端末日狂热。

    5 米勒运动的“大失望”

    数秘主义与确认偏见

    20世纪50年代中期，一位名叫利昂·费斯汀格的心理学家走运了。

    费斯汀格的父亲是一位政治激进的无神论者，也是自苏联移民至美国的刺绣师。在长期杰出的学术生涯中，费斯汀格将自己的才智运用到社会心理学的新兴领域。他幸运地潜伏到美国中西部的一场飞碟狂热事件中，其正好属于他的研究领域。他的研究对象，即“情感”群体，由一位名叫多萝西·马丁的女性领导，她声称已经向人类传达了神灵们有关大地震和洪水的警报：神灵们告诉她，这两个大灾难将于1954年12月21日吞噬北美。[1]

    社会心理学家们都理解所罗门·阿希的线条长度实验，他们早就知道，社会压力通常会磨灭个体之间的观点差异，因此各个小群体和整个社会都会演化出各自的文化、道德和宗教价值观。此外，他们还知道，这些价值观的转变往往是爆炸性的，其快速扩散类似于传染病。

    20世纪20年代以来，流行病学家对疾病传播进行了数学建模，认为疾病传播主要取决于两个关键参数：病原体的传播率或传染性，以及治愈率或死亡率。社会学家发现，他们可以用同样的方法理解思想和信仰的传播。费斯汀格意识到，马丁及其信徒为他提供了一个实验室，让他能够实时观察这一传播过程。更重要的是，马丁团队提供了一个难得的机会，让他可以观察到末日预言不可避免地失败之后会发生什么。

    假如在今天，任何一个机构审查委员会都不会批准费斯汀格的这项研究。在研究中，他的助手“在没有经过马丁团队知情或同意的情况下”潜伏进了马丁的圈子。[2]费斯汀格的项目也违反了实验和伦理规定，即现场研究人员不应干预受试者的决策。当不知情的马丁及其追随者要求费斯汀格的潜伏者们就意见和建议畅所欲言时，他们被迫屡次违反了这项不干预的规定。

    作为早期的山达基[3]信徒，马丁对于“来世”并不陌生，她经历了该组织对她的“审计”过程，能够回忆起自己的受孕、出生和之前的各次转世。她的主要合作者查尔斯·劳赫德博士，则是一位更传统的末日信仰者。他是密歇根州立大学学生健康服务处的一名医生，为一个主流新教团体做国外医药的宣传工作；后来他的妻子患上失能性的神经症，他开始努力为她求医，无意中遇到了一些飞碟狂热者，他们把他介绍给了马丁女士。

    在预言大灾难的大约前一年，马丁成为一名女先知。她醒来时感到右臂一阵刺痛：“我感觉有人在试图引起我的注意。”[4]她拿起一支铅笔，很快发现自己的手非常陌生，不由自主地写字。与《圣经》中的先知们不同，她最初传达的并不是来自上帝的信息，而是来自更亲近的人的信息：当她向肢体的指挥者询问时，对方透露说自己是她去世的父亲。

    她的通灵技巧很快得到了提高；她疼痛的右臂和铅笔开始传递来自地位更高者的信息：一个叫“兄长”的人，向她提供了一些关于她死去父亲的精神需求方面的建议；其次是来自“塞勒斯”号行星和“号角”号行星的生物，其中最重要的是萨南达，他说自己是耶稣本时代的肉体化身。

    萨南达是一位完全现代化的弥赛亚，当时正在美国境内进行高级侦察，并已与马丁女士以及其他人取得了联系。萨南达及其被称为“卫士”的同伴被这个国家的某些东西（后来被德怀特·艾森豪威尔称为军事-工业综合体）激怒；作为报复，他们将把陆地撕成碎片，并在年底前用一场大洪水淹没它。1954年8月1日晚上，卫士们指示马丁及其11名追随者（其中没有费斯汀格的潜伏者）去见他们的飞碟，但马丁一行人什么也没看到，只看到一个相貌平平的男人。马丁给了那个男人果汁和三明治，但他礼貌地拒绝了，然后走开了。

    飞碟没有出现，这给马丁的团队带来了第一次动摇，有7名成员立即离开了她。马丁和其余4名坚持信仰的人没有等很久：两天后，萨南达就通知马丁，那天是他拒绝了茶点，并表示对她和其他同伴的道德品质感到满意；还告诉她，大灾难发生之前，飞碟将拯救少数人，而他们是部分被选中的人。[5]

    像几乎所有的千禧年主义者和启示性末日论者一样，马丁是一个真诚的傻瓜，而不是一个无赖。她将自己的时间和财富奉献给了她的追随者，为信仰付出了沉重的代价。当芝加哥郊区橡树公园的孩子们从父母那里听到即将到来的大灾难后开始做噩梦时，警方指控她“煽动暴乱”，并对她进行精神治疗，随后她逃离了芝加哥的家。劳赫德也因为与这一事件有关而失业。[6]

    1954年底，当救命飞碟和随后的大灾难几乎确定不会出现时，信徒们的信仰体系被证明与事实不一致，即所谓的信仰“失验”，这是费斯汀格研究的主要目标：他想精准地确定，当事实和数据与根深蒂固的观点不一致时人们会如何行动。其研究成果《当预言失败时》成为心理学家、社会学家、经济学家和政治学家公认的经典之作。[7]费斯汀格后来创造了现在人们很熟悉的术语“认知失调”，用来描述信仰和事实之间，或者更微妙地说，叙事和数据之间的情感冲突。当令人信服的叙事和客观事实发生冲突时，叙事往往会幸存下来，这种结果自远古以来就存在于人类社会。

    多萝西·马丁后来的行为体现出很多人处理认知失调的方式。她并没有根据那些与自己信仰不一致的证据修改自己的信仰体系，她和她的团队在此之前对自己的信仰相对保密，但后来他们反而加倍努力，开始就飞碟的到来进行传教。离开芝加哥地区后，她的余生一直从事于通灵研究，先是在南美、北加利福尼亚，最后在亚利桑那州的塞多纳。在1954年的信仰失验事件过去将近半个世纪后，她以德拉修女的化名在塞多纳去世。[8]

    虽然我们很容易将多萝西·马丁的预言讽刺为一种21世纪的胡编乱造，但在某种程度上，我们都是费斯汀格所说的恶魔的奴隶。马丁及其追随者们所表现出的“加倍努力”似乎是人类行为的一个近乎恒定的现象。当明斯特的再洗礼主义者反复看到博克尔松的末日预言被事实推翻时，他们的信仰，至少在一段时间内，变得更加坚定，他们也加倍努力改变周围城镇居民的信仰。同样的情况也将发生在19世纪中期众多福音派新教徒的末日预言事件中。

    这种反常行为具有某种执拗的意义。信仰失验会带来严重的精神痛苦，而缓解这种痛苦的最好方式，就是和新赢得的信徒在一起。正如费斯汀格所说：“如果越来越多的人相信信仰体系是正确的，那么显然，它终究是正确的。”[9]

    从1620年开始，与第五君主国派关系密切的英国清教徒将第一批殖民者送往北美马萨诸塞州。10年后，马萨诸塞海湾殖民地的新领导人约翰·温斯罗普向他的追随者们宣扬，他们即将看到“一个山巅之城”，该城的成功和上帝的宠爱将受到全世界的热切关注。[10]从马萨诸塞殖民地演变而来的美国，没有国教，宗教和意识形态的自由程度前所未有，这为神启性运动的扩散和发展提供了肥沃的土壤。

    18世纪初和19世纪初，分别出现了第一次和第二次“大觉醒”，即席卷美国和英国的宗教复兴；两者都催生了各种各样的非正统神学，就像之前的宗教改革一样，重视个人神灵主义，贬低有组织的宗教等级制度。

    美联储所发行的20美元纸币上那个轮廓分明、眼神锐利的面孔，总统安德鲁·杰克逊，直接促成了第二次大觉醒，这不失为一种历史讽刺。杰克逊反对建立中央银行，并于1837年美国第二合众国银行许可证到期时拒绝了它的延期申请。他这样做的时机非常糟糕：几乎同时，美国经历了一场壮观的泡沫，泡沫事件非常复杂，其特点是大量政府土地被出售、房地产投机以及棉花价格从繁荣到萧条。后来，泡沫破裂，由于没有一家中央银行能够充当救市的最后贷款人，由此造成的货币短缺使美国陷入持续近10年的萧条，并带来约25%的失业率。那个时代并没有留下什么详细的经济数据，但杰克逊的鲁莽行为给美国造成的损失可能与一个世纪后的大萧条一样严重。英国小说家弗雷德里克·马里亚特在1837年恐慌之后访问了纽约，他写道：

    猜疑、恐惧和不幸弥漫了这座城市。如果我不知道原因的话，我就会以为瘟疫正在肆虐。但笛福已经告诉我原因了。来往的人群中，人们脸上没有一丝笑容；匆忙的脚步，疲惫的脸庞，快速打招呼，或者匆忙地交流着在太阳落山之前会发生的预期损失……被解雇的机械师们像饥饿的狼群一样踱来踱去。这种剧烈的震荡像电一样传播开来，传播到数百英里以外的地方。运河、铁路和所有公共工程都已中断，一位爱尔兰移民靠着他的棚屋，手里拿着闲置的铁锹，饥饿着，他想念他的绿宝石岛[11]。[12]

    第二次大觉醒运动当时已经开始，于1837年恐慌之后加速进行。觉醒运动中的“助产师”们产生了宗教分裂，例如摩门教和各种公然的欺骗性通灵运动。所谓福克斯姐妹与死者沟通的欺骗性，不亚于伟大作家和政治家霍勒斯·格里利[13]的欺骗性。[14]

    最为壮观的是，多达10万的美国人开始相信世界将在1844年10月22日结束，这个集体幻想起源于威廉·米勒，他是一个谦逊、不爱出风头、深思熟虑的人，本来最不可能成为米勒派领导人。

    米勒出生于1782年，是父母的16个孩子中的长子。他们家位于纽约州最东北部的罗汉普顿镇（见图5-1），是一个虔诚的浸信会农业家庭，家中极度贫困，子女几乎无法接受正规教育。像那个时代的许多农家子弟一样，从9岁到14岁，他只在除了收获期和种植期之外的其他3个月里上学。在家里，这个热爱书籍的男孩只能阅读他父亲的《圣经》、《赞美诗》和《诗篇》；慷慨的邻居借给他《鲁滨孙漂流记》等通俗作品的复印本。他的文学兴趣惹恼了父亲，因为父亲注意到，这些兴趣分散了他的注意力，使他无法做农活，所以小米勒会在深夜偷偷溜到壁炉旁，在燃烧着的松树结的昏暗光线下看书。[15]

    图5-1 美国东北部的米勒主义地标

    21岁时，他结婚了，向东进入佛蒙特州几英里，搬到妻子位于波尔特尼附近的家中耕种。波尔特尼镇正是自然神论的温床。自然神论假定一个超然的至高无上的存在，即一个“神圣的钟表匠”只在远处观察他的创造物，自然神论将《圣经》视为一本纯粹的书，而不是神灵的启示——最多只不过是一本关于古代历史的有用手册。

    镇上的大量图书馆藏书反映出这种自由：伏尔泰的，休谟的，潘恩的，以及其他许多人的书，米勒津津有味地读着，并逐渐成为一名自然神论者。在波尔特尼，米勒还受到最著名的市民马修·里昂的影响。马修·里昂是国会议员、美国独立战争的退伍军人、伊桑·艾伦[16]的煽动性伙伴，还是一个臭名昭著的不可知论者。[17]

    米勒读的启蒙哲学的书越多，就越反感《圣经》：为什么上帝创造了一本完全不可理解的书，然后让那些无法正确解读这本书的不幸灵魂遭受死亡、折磨、流放和饥饿？在米勒看来，人类也有错：

    我读得越多，就越发现人类性格中的严重缺陷。我找不到人类过去历史上有什么亮点，那些世界征服者和历史英雄显然都只是人类形态的恶魔。世界上所有的悲伤、痛楚和苦难，似乎都随着他们对同伴的控制权的增强而增加。我开始对所有人都感到不信任。[18]

    波尔特尼镇上打破旧俗的氛围非常适合这位年轻的农民；他终于从家里的令人窒息的宗教氛围中解脱了，他反叛了，当着大家的面，毫不留情地模仿他祖父的华丽布道，滑稽地模仿他们的假虔诚。[19]

    米勒也确实找到了他的家庭值得称赞的地方：他的父亲曾参加过独立战争，因此作为儿子，他在爱国主义和兵役方面得到了庇护。1810年，当与英国之间的战争临近时，佛蒙特州的民兵组织授予他中尉职位；1812年美国对英宣战后，民兵组织将他提升为上尉，第二年他又调任美国正规军中尉。虽然军衔更低了，但这次调任被视为升职。不管怎样，到1814年初，他已经重新获得了上尉军衔。夏末，他来到尚普兰湖畔的普拉茨堡，在那里，人数和武器装备都处于劣势的美国军队，在一场海陆一体战中决定性地击败了英国侵略者。

    这场战争令米勒感到震惊又害怕，9月11日，他写信告诉妻子，一艘美国船只上的300名士兵和水手中，只有25人幸存。“船上的一些官员说，血是及膝深的。”第二天，他再次写信给妻子：

    天哪！到处都是屠杀。我无法向你描述这种普遍的兴奋……日落时分，在一首扬基小调[20]中，我们军营鸣放了礼炮。在一两英里范围内，1.5万~2万人同时参与海陆交战，这超过了以前我见过的任何一场战争。多么宏伟，多么高尚，但又多么可怕！[21]

    这场战争不仅摧毁了英国入侵部队，还摧毁了米勒的自然神论：一支在拿破仑战争中身经百战的15000人的精锐英军，却被一支合并了1500人的正规军和4000人的志愿军的杂乱无章的美军打败，除非有一个主动支持美国的上帝，否则还有什么能够解释美军胜利的原因？“在如此困难的情况下，出现如此令人惊讶的结果，在我看来确实像是一个比人类更强大的力量所做的事情。”[22]

    战争结束后不久，他回到了罗汉普顿的农场。在那里，作为一名受人尊敬的退伍军人和小镇官员，他即将在家族的浸信会中扮演更重要的角色。

    战时的经历和回到童年时保守的宗教环境引发了他的信仰冲突，也就是他先前对上帝的不信仰和战争中看到的超自然之力之间的冲突。基于对阅读的热爱，他使用经文来分析解决这种冲突。大约在1816年的某个时候，他开始对《圣经》进行艰难的逐字逐句分析。例如，如果他遇到“野兽”这个词，且这个词在《但以理书》或《启示录》中象征着异教徒帝国，他就会强迫性地在《圣经》的其余书卷中寻找其他的“野兽”。

    经过几年的努力，通过查阅《圣经》，他找到了之前的不信仰和战争经历之间矛盾的解决办法。在《但以理书》中的四个王国中，只有以天主教会为代表的罗马仍然存在。他被《但以理书》8:14打动：“他对我说，到二千三百日，圣所就必洁净。”

    对米勒来说，一切都很清晰了：《以斯拉记》第7章中，波斯皇帝阿尔塔薛西斯在其当政的第七年发布了返回犹大并建造礼拜场所的命令，当时的历史学家估计这一年是公元前457年。根据米勒的末日论，末日时钟从这一年开始倒计时。鉴于圣经学者所假定的圣经日和时间年的等价性，世界将在2300年后，也就是1843年结束。

    米勒继承了悠久的“数字神秘主义”传统。数秘主义曾经为约阿希姆所迷恋，直至今天人们对它的迷恋还有增无减。最引人注目的现代例子是约翰·泰勒和查尔斯·皮亚齐·史密斯在19世纪末的研究成果。他们注意到金字塔结构中的一些数学巧合，例如，金字塔底部周长的两倍与高度之比接近π值，底部周长与框架石长度之比是365，以及从地球到太阳的距离几乎正好是金字塔高度的10亿倍。接着，史密斯写了一本畅销书《伟大金字塔的遗产》（Our Inheritance in the Great Pyramid），详细描述了这些惊人的发现。[23]

    一个世纪后，一位名叫埃里希·冯·丹尼肯的瑞士人在另一本畅销书《众神的战车》中，利用类似的观察结果证明，外星人曾来过地球。[24]近千年来，神学怪人利用类似的数学巧合和圣经年表来预测世界末日。就在2011年，一位名叫哈罗德·坎普的基督教广播名人，预测世界将在10月21日结束。2012年，他承认了自己的错误，谦卑地接受了《马太福音》24:36的告诫：“那日子、那时辰，没有人知道。”[25]

    杰出的数学作家、趣味数学之王、社交网站策划人马丁·加德纳这样评价史密斯的《伟大金字塔的遗产》：“这一类的经典作品就是我们的遗产。很少有一本书，能如此优美地展现出一个对某种理论深信不疑的聪明人（指作者）轻而易举地掌控着整本书的主题，使其精确地契合他的观点。”[26]（具有讽刺意味的是，加德纳正是在米勒神学的直系后裔——基督复临安息日会中长大的。）[27]已故“文学坏小子”克里斯托弗·希钦斯针对那些幻想的圣经日期设定，创造了一个更一针见血的术语：“白痴的里程表”[28]。

    圣经的数秘主义源于“模式”现象。《圣经》是一部包含大量数字、叙事和各种往往阐述不清的历法的汇编，勤奋的千禧年主义者几乎可以将未来的任何一个日期视为世界末日。米勒并不是第一个运用圣经数秘主义将1843年定为世界末日的人；1946年，一位名叫勒罗伊·埃德温·弗鲁姆的基督复临安息日会牧师出版了《我们祖先的预言信仰》（The Prophetic Faith of our Fathers），它是一本关于末日计算的历史书，包括四卷。其中记录的几十种末日计算时间集中在1843年。但没有任何一个人能像威廉·米勒那样使数秘主义发挥出如此毁灭性的影响。[29]

    数秘主义的影响不可避免地被另一个著名心理现象“确认偏见”放大。在“确认偏见”现象中，人类一旦确定了一个假说或信仰体系，就会只关注支持其信仰的数据，而避免使用与之相悖的数据。

    “确认偏见”这个词与心理学家彼得·沃森有关。在20世纪50年代后期的一个经典实验中，他向受试者展示了一个由三个数字组成的序列，如2-4-6，并要求他们推导出产生该序列的规则，然后让他们用另一个序列对该规则进行测试。[30]

    受试者根据上述序列推出的最明显的规则是“连续偶数”，因此他们最有可能再提出诸如8-10-12这样的序列进行测试，然后他们被告知这一序列与答案规则一致。然后，受试者可能会提出24-26-28这样的序列，然后也被告知这一序列符合规则。

    在多次连续“确认”他们的“连续偶数”规则后，受试者可能会合理地得出结论，认为这就是正确的规则。

    问题是，这三个序列还符合其他多种规则，例如“数字不断增加”或“只有正增长的数字序列”。换句话说，受试者只是试图确认自己的假设，而事实上更有效的策略是测试一些推翻假设的三数字序列，例如5-7-9，如果考官回答说这个序列也符合规则，那么他们就会知道“连续偶数”规则是不正确的，但“数字不断增加”或“每次增加二的数字序列”规则可能仍然成立。

    大多数受试者通常只测试符合其假设规则的三数字，而不是不符合其规则的三数字。这种只寻找支持假设的证据的做法，使得很少人能够推导出正确的规则。

    作为一名科学家，沃森知道，科学方法的核心是试图推翻假设，但作为一名心理学家，他怀疑人类的自然倾向是要确认这些假设。[31]心理学家很快拓展了沃森的研究，并进行了大量的实验，证明人类物种更倾向于寻找和接受确认的证据，而忽视相反的证据。正如那句老话：“一个违背自己意愿被‘说服’的人还会持有不变的看法。”[32][33]

    在20世纪70年代末的一项经典研究中，斯坦福大学的一组研究人员调查了151名大学生对死刑等争议话题的看法，并从中选出48人，其中24人强烈赞成死刑，24人强烈反对死刑（分别被称为支持者/反对者）。然后，他们向两组人展示了两组不同的研究成果，他们说这些研究成果是真实的，但实际上是虚构的。其中一组“研究”表明，死刑州的谋杀率较低，而另一组“研究”则表明，死刑州的谋杀率较高（赞成威慑/反对威慑）。

    支持者们认为，赞成威慑的研究在方法论上比反对威慑的研究更可靠，他们更加相信赞成威慑的研究；而反对者们则认为反对威慑的研究更为合理和令人信服。最具启发性的是，在实验的最后，在参与者阅读并评估了两组相互矛盾的研究结果后，每组都强化了其原来的支持及反对观点。[34]

    威廉·米勒，以及他后来的追随者们，正患上了长期的“确认偏见”病症。计算出1843年这个时间后，米勒专注于寻找确认性的证据，因此他能够说服自己，认为自己的预测是准确的。米勒得出了1843年世界末日的惊人结论：基督将出现在云端，火焰将吞噬大地。正义之人——那些信仰上帝的人——将会被提升天并获得永生，而邪恶之人不仅会被上帝毁灭，而且他们的灵魂将永远被上帝囚禁。[35]

    在近10年的时间里，米勒没有公开这个令人不安的预言，只和周围认识的人讨论。[36]但他的羞怯和内向更加提高了可信度，特别是在卫理公会、浸信会和长老会神职人员中，他们对米勒的这种同时具有学术性和非教派歧视性的方法印象深刻：任何新教派别的成员都有资格获得救赎。米勒的朋友们被他的末日论征服，但不理解他为什么不愿意布道。这其实是因为米勒害怕成为笑柄，这种恐惧可能源于他的社交拘谨和卑微的教育经历。[37]

    1831年夏，他的浸信会妹妹和妹夫邀请他从罗汉普顿去往佛蒙特州的德累斯顿演讲，那里离尚普兰湖只有16英里。虽然他以前读过传教士写的布道，但他从未发表过自己的布道。此时，他已经快50岁了，身体不好。就在普拉茨堡战争之前，他差点儿死于斑点热，此后，他经常受到各种皮肤感染的折磨。

    历史上并没有他那次演讲内容的记录，但他说的话可能与后来的书面布道没有什么太大不同：基督将出现在天空并复活死去的圣徒，正义之人将“在空中遇见主，在那里他们将把自己完全地交给主”。然后基督会把注意力转向有罪之人：

    看哪，天空布满了乌云，太阳蒙上了面纱；月亮苍白而被遗弃，挂在半空中；冰雹降下，七个号角高声吹响；闪电将硫黄火焰的鲜活光芒洒向远方；这个国家的伟大城市将永远不再崛起。[38]

    他的表现让德累斯顿的浸信会教徒们如此着迷，他们一直留他到星期日。在接下来的8年里，他应邀在新英格兰、纽约和加拿大的农村地区演讲。当无法满足远方教徒的演讲邀请时，他给他们提供了书面传单，后来产生了一系列小册子和书籍，而这又引发了更多的演讲邀请。

    有一位目击者似乎对“确认偏见”有直观理解，他对米勒既钦佩又怀疑，他描述了讲坛上的米勒：

    他本人高大魁梧，宽大的脑袋，高高的额头，一双温柔而富有表现力的眼睛，他声音里所有的抑扬顿挫都表明了他最真诚的敬拜。他的想象力相当丰富，从一个有缺陷的前提中得出的结论对他来说就是一个真正的事实。在这种精神状态下，他开始讲课，用大图表说明但以理和约翰的异象。无数的人前来听他演讲，许多心胸开阔的牧师和非宗教人士也乐于接受他的观点，全国东北部的所有地区都弥漫着极大的兴奋。[39]

    米勒所用的圣经数秘主义早已经有数百年历史，同样，他充满活力的布道风格也缺乏独创性。从约1825年开始，一位长老会牧师、第二次大觉醒的主角查尔斯·格兰迪森·芬尼在听众的参与下完善了后来大家都熟悉的“地狱之火和硫黄”的福音讲演。他的布道带来了大量皈依；一位观察家指出，芬尼经过一座城镇后，“宗教情感深深地渗透其中，人们再也无法组织舞会，而马戏团也无利可图”[40]。米勒本人并不赞成这种新的复兴主义布道方式，但是，毫无疑问他已经掌握了芬尼的技巧，而且邀请米勒演讲的许多人都认为他是芬尼技巧的有效实践者。[41]

    和许多早期福音派教徒一样，芬尼是一位坚定的废奴主义者和社会活动家。早期，米勒也有这些信念：罗汉普顿是“地下铁路”运动[42]的一个停靠站，米勒至少庇护过一名奴隶。但1840年，当他参加完一个废奴协会会议时，他确信腐败在人类社会中如此普遍，必须寻求神灵的干预来解决许多弊病，特别是奴隶制：“如果人类是罪魁祸首的话，那么可怜的奴隶的大赦之年还很遥远。但是上帝能够并将释放被俘之人。我们必须也只能向上帝寻求帮助。”[43]

    米勒华丽的演讲风格让普通听众着迷，而且，他对其他新教派别的宽容和对《圣经》文本的熟悉，也让教会的圣职人员着迷。一位持怀疑态度的教会长老想让他难堪：

    我在他房间里见到了他，提出了一大堆为难他的反对意见。令我惊讶的是，他对这些问题几乎都不陌生，而且他回答这些问题的速度和我提出问题的速度一样快。然后他提出了他的异议和问题，这难倒了我，并推翻了我所依赖的那些解释。我回家时已经筋疲力尽，感觉自己有罪，感到卑微，并下定决心要回答这些问题。[44]

    米勒的受欢迎源于他振奋人心的布道，但这是有代价的：让教徒们所感动的远不是米勒的复临主义神学，而是他演讲内容中的地狱之火和硫黄。米勒是为了从地狱之火中救赎灵魂，而邀请他演讲的人则是为了让教堂的长椅上坐满人。当然，到19世纪30年代末，他已经吸引了一大批传播他信息的支持者。例如，1838年，波士顿《每日时报》的编辑发表了一系列米勒的布道；几乎同一时间，一位名叫约西亚·利奇的牧师写了一本名为《午夜呼声！》（The Midnight Cry!）的支持米勒的小册子，其在新英格兰广泛传播；一位名叫查尔斯·菲奇的波士顿牧师，是废奴主义者威廉·劳埃德·加里森的助手之一，连续几次重读了利奇的作品。利奇、菲奇和其他几位米勒的助手将在未来几年内支持米勒运动，并最终鼓励他做出那个最失败的世界末日预测。[45]

    起初，这些支持并没有使米勒受到鼓舞；到1839年，由于年龄增长和健康状况不佳，他已经步履蹒跚；没有几个人相信4年之后的末日，他因此而沮丧并认为自己是个失败者。他不断收到演讲邀请，但他知道，分散在农村的布道只能拯救少数灵魂免遭即将到来的末日大灾难。[46]

    虽然追随者们认为他是先知，但从技术上说，他不是，因为他坚决否认与全能者（上帝）有任何交流。他只是声称自己有能力从《圣经》中领悟未来。不管他如何看待自己，他显然低估了自己富有说服力的安息日神学对美国东北部神职人员的影响力。例如，1838年，他拒绝了波士顿牧师约书亚·海姆斯和加里森的助手菲奇的演讲邀请。

    与米勒的谦虚和不谙世故不同，海姆斯儒雅而圆滑，在波士顿的改革派圈子里人脉很广。第一基督教会对他来说过于保守，因此他建立了自己的教会，并很自然地命名为第二基督教会。在海姆斯的领导下，第二基督教会发展迅速，不得不在波士顿沙登大街另建了一个有500个座位的小教堂。坚强、外向、有号召力的海姆斯丝毫没有因为米勒的羞怯而退缩。1839年秋天的某个时候，他说服米勒向会众布道，而米勒的表现也给他留下了深刻的印象，于是他将自己相当多的精力、组织能力和当时他所掌握的印刷媒介都投入米勒运动中，并有效地接管了这一事业。

    海姆斯不仅将米勒送往冷清的乡村教堂，还送往拥挤的纽约市和奥尔巴尼市大教堂。他重新出版了米勒的小册子和书籍，创办了一份非常成功的报纸《时兆》，它最初是双周报，很快就成了周报。海姆斯还与其他受米勒末日论影响的人建立了广泛的联系，那些人也出版了他们自己的米勒系报纸。其中最著名的是纳撒尼尔·索瑟德，他后来编辑了最著名的复临主义出版物《午夜呼声！》（容易混淆的是，它与利奇的小册子同名）。

    从各种最小的集会到最大的讲座，海姆斯凭直觉领悟到出版物和布道之间的协同增效作用。以引人入胜的复临主义末日叙事为特色的小册子、报纸和书籍引发了对布道的需求，而布道又引发了更多的出版物销量。信徒们到处传播米勒的话语，他们在港口付款，将一捆捆的小册子留在远洋海船和运河驳船上，或者在火车车厢里悬挂海报。[47]

    从1840年开始，海姆斯组织了几次全体大会，汇集并协调米勒的复临运动，不仅包括传统的教堂集会，还涉及大规模的“野营集会”。

    野营集会并不是海姆斯发明的；第一批野营集会在美国建国后不久就产生了，到1840年，已成为一个组织。其成员一部分是奋兴派[48]教徒，一部分是社交俱乐部成员，他们吸引了很多南卡罗来纳州、田纳西州和肯塔基州边境地区原本孤立的农民。这些农民迫切需要社交活动。通常，他们的浸信会和卫理公会组织者会清理出一片森林土地，将砍伐的树木做成粗糙的长凳和小讲坛，作为流动教堂。（另一方面，圣公会教徒和公理会教徒对野营集会及其传教活动嗤之以鼻。[49]）

    米勒的追随者于1842年6月下旬举行了前两次野营集会：一次在新罕布什尔州的东金斯顿，另一次在魁北克的哈特利。新罕布什尔州的集会取得了惊人的成功：多达1万名浸信会教徒和卫理公会教徒前来参加，还有少量自然神论者和不信仰耶稣的“异教徒”，其大概是被无宗教派别歧视的伙伴关系吸引而来的。这次集会证明，海姆斯是一位后勤高手：这些聚会地点都很容易通过铁路到达，根据一位历史学家的说法，还有“大量纯净的凉水，高大的铁杉树和凉爽的树荫，以及僻静的小树林来做祈祷和敬拜”[50]。大、中型城市赞助了帐篷用来住宿，铁路建立了临时车站，为信徒们降低了票价，并让传教士免费乘车。最后，每个帐篷的“主人”都提供了一张记录表，记录着从永恒之火中救赎的灵魂。

    新罕布什尔州的集会非常成功，因此海姆斯和他的同事决定购买一个“大帐篷”，它高55英尺，直径为120英尺，可容纳4000人，过道中还可容纳数千人。在天气恶劣时，它可以在室内提供服务，并可以配备炉灶，以便在寒冷天气举行集会；这个帐篷吸引了纽约州罗切斯特市以及西至俄亥俄州的数千人。在随后的两年中，海姆斯和他的同事组织了125次野营集会，约50万人参加。[51]

    每次野营集会结束时，牧师们都会安排一场祈祷或一首告别的歌曲，其中最受欢迎的是歌曲《永不分离》。

    我们正穿过以马内利[52]的地盘，

    我们很快就将听到号角声，

    很快我们将与耶稣一起统治，

    永不，永不分离。

    什么？永不分离？

    是的，永不分离。

    因为我们很快就会和耶稣一起统治，

    永不，永不分离。[53]

    牧师随后带领会众排成一队走出帐篷，队伍螺旋排列，每个人都能与其他人握手。由于世界末日即将来临，信徒们期待着他们在“天堂野营”的下一次会面。[54]

    米勒为自己的成功付出了高昂的个人代价。起初他的身体就不太好，据他估计仅在1841年就做了627次90分钟的激情演讲。[55]在这期间，由于米勒的皮肤疾病和劳累状况，不止一次，健康问题迫使他早早回到罗汉普顿。他的助手们非常热情地接替了他，因此他对运动的影响力有所减弱。[56]

    若得不到精心管理，情绪满满的群众事件很可能会失控，后来的野营集会就发生了这样的事情。由于海姆斯忙于传播米勒的信息，他让副手查尔斯·斯塔克韦瑟负责管理沙登大街小教堂，但事实证明，斯塔克韦瑟特别善于煽动会众进入疯狂状态。由于害怕他的这种影响，海姆斯最终解雇了斯塔克韦瑟，但无法阻止他参加野营集会。在野营集会上，斯塔克韦瑟的布道使信徒相信他是圣灵的宿主，并拥有“天赋”，包括能够停止蒸汽机或在水上行走。此外，在另一次集会上，一位与会者声称读懂了一位信徒的性格和内心，然后号召追随者们联合起来反对他的怀疑者，以消除永恒诅咒的痛苦。当怀疑者们反抗时，他讲着不为人知的语言并连续击打他们，周围的人试图干预，但也被他谴责下地狱。[57]

    更重要的是，米勒和海姆斯开始失去对日益强大的复临主义传播媒介的控制。信徒们开始出版自己的报纸，名称诸如《真理之声》《将临王国的喜讯》《降临纪事》《帐篷通信》《朱比利号角》《西部午夜呼声》等。其中最后一份报纸是由卫理公会牧师乔治·斯托尔斯创办的，他曾经因为废奴活动而被关押在新罕布什尔州，又以同样的热情追求复临事业，最终落得惨痛的结局。

    1842年12月31日，新年前夕，全国各地的复临主义者聚集在沙登大街迎接1843年的到来，这将是世界的最后一年。海姆斯和斯塔克韦瑟（后者那时还没有被解雇）在拥挤的小教堂里布道。日渐虚弱的米勒向信徒们发出了一封信：

    根据我们的信仰，今年是撒旦统治我们地球的最后一年。耶稣基督会来，并打破他的头……地球上的王国将被粉碎。那有权做王的，必夺取国，得为业，直到永远。[58]

    到了2月，米勒已经从疾病中恢复到可以前往费城，在那里，巨大的中国式博物馆大厅被租来进行他的布道。兴奋之情是如此明显，等待在外面的人群也是如此不守规矩，以至于市政府因为担心市民混乱而取消了2月9日的第一次布道。第二天，米勒的布道效果很好，意外事件也没有发生。随后不久，应市长的邀请，他在特伦顿市进行了布道。在回家的路上，米勒生病了，直到那年秋天一直留在罗汉普顿。海姆斯和几位同僚将国家划分为几个区域，并在各地的教堂布道，租用大厅，还将宣传资料分发，西至威斯康星州和密苏里州，南至北卡罗来纳州和南卡罗来纳州。

    这场运动的中心在波士顿的沙登大街，想听海姆斯布道的人的数量大大超过了教堂的座位数，因此他们计划在霍华德街修建一个更大的、能容纳3000人的场地。根据城市法令的要求，这样规模的建筑需要用砖把四面都围起来，而世界末日已近，因此霍华德街地段非常理想——已经有三面墙，只需要在第四面修建一堵12英尺高的墙。

    这场运动早已引起广大公众的怀疑和奚落，此时，收到了公开的敌意。报纸上充满了警告和蔑视，认为这个信仰体系不仅危险而且极度鲁莽：如果世界末日即将来临，那么不仅在波士顿，而且在辛辛那提和克利夫兰建造会堂都毫无用处。尽管公众的反对声越来越大，但信徒们还是在1843年5月4日为霍华德街的会堂举行了落成仪式。

    正如大多数闭关自守的信仰体系那样，米勒利用确认偏见来支持他们的神学；与往常一样，《圣经》再次成为支持性数据的来源宝库：

    第一要紧的，该知道在末世必有好讥诮的人，随从自己的私欲出来讥诮说：主要降临的应许在哪里呢？因为从列祖睡了以来，万物与起初创造的时候仍是一样。（《彼得后书》，第3章，第3—4节）

    为了鼓舞因日益受到公众蔑视而灰心丧气的队伍，《午夜呼声！》开设“骗徒”和“嘲笑者角落”两个固定专栏。[59]

    米勒一直没有指明末日的确切日期。他将《但以理书》8:14中的2300年加在了波斯皇帝阿尔塔薛西斯允许犹太人返回耶路撒冷重建圣殿的那一年（公元前457年）上，这个简单的算术确定了耶稣复临的时间是1843年。随着这一年平淡无奇地过去，米勒开始敷衍：由于《圣经》中的事件是按照犹太拉比的历法计算的，3月或4月才是一年的开始，根据这一计算调整，犹太人的“1843年”直到1844年3月21日才结束，因此时间仍然充足。[60]

    1844年初，米勒重返战场，在波士顿和纽约市向广大听众布道。随着那个重大日期的临近，他与约西亚·利奇和海姆斯一起，在华盛顿特区举行了一次压轴布道。但是，被米勒称为“恺撒之家”的首都似乎更关注当年的总统选举，而不是即将到来的天启末日，这让他烦恼不已：

    我们的统治者和政治家还没有准备好放弃他们的权力，他们正在为下一任总统而进行政治斗争，就好像他们小小的“短暂权力”将永存一样。但是在上帝的话语、圣灵和历史的帮助下，我将向他们展示，一场重要的革命即将发生，这将取代选择总统的必要性。[61]

    到了3月3日，米勒已经在首都发表了19次布道，然后在返回罗汉普顿的路上又发表了几次。回到罗汉普顿的他精疲力竭，等待3月21日的末日。

    这一天，又平安无事地过去。米勒通过私人邮件写给海姆斯一些充满希望的话语，又通过复临主义的报纸将一些信息发给信徒们：他的计算从来都不精确，所以如果计算偏离了一周或一个月或两个月会怎么样？上帝仍会降临。至于海姆斯，他警告读者：“因此，我们只在心中把事件推迟一个小时是不安全的，应该要生活在不断的期待中，随时准备与我们的大法官（指耶稣）见面。有了这样的想法，我们无法为未来做出确定的安排。”[62]

    实际上还有很多回旋余地。例如，海姆斯旗下的一份报纸《时兆》在上一年发表过一篇未署名的文章，其指出了米勒的计算错误：因为基督教历法中没有0年，所以公元前457年和1843年之间仅相隔2999年，而不是3000年。因此，末日应该发生在“犹太年”的1844年，而不是1843年。

    这篇文章进一步对米勒使用的犹太教历法提出了异议。罗马人将犹太人驱逐到各地后，犹太的大麦收割（赎罪节的日期以大麦收割为基础）再也无法观测到，因此几乎所有犹太人都采用了拉比历法，这是一种精确的数学测年系统，以19年为一个周期。然而，这种较新的历法直到4世纪才开始使用。这篇文章的作者认为，更好的做法是观察圣经时代所使用的“卡拉”历法体系，该历法以最接近犹太大麦收割时间的新月出现时间为一年的开始。通过这种方法计算，天启末日将发生在1844年4月29日。[63]

    但是，那一天也安然无恙地过去了。公众的嘲笑声越来越大，米勒很容易从他的邻居那里听到一些类似的话：“什么？！还没升天？我们以为你已经升天了！不是被你妻子丢下等待被烧吧？”[64]

    《圣经》再次被挖掘出来，以解释为什么末日没有到来。《旧约》中最晦涩难懂的《哈巴谷书》2:3中有这样一段话：“因为这默示有一定的日期，快要应验，并不虚谎。虽然迟延，还要等候。因为必然临到，不再迟延。”《圣经》其他地方也出现过“迟延”一词，最重要的是《马太福音》25章中的一个寓言，10个童女等待“新郎”，新郎代表耶稣。第5节和第6节解释说，“新郎迟延的时候，他们都打盹儿睡着了。半夜有人喊着说，新郎来了，你们出来迎接他”（利奇的小册子和最著名的复临报纸《午夜呼声！》即由此得名）。这种解释使失望的信徒安心了：耶稣的工作基本上完成了，他只是在迟延。

    米勒派遵循了多萝西·马丁的追随者在飞碟首次未能出现时的剧本。一些追随者离开了，但那些留下来的人则加倍努力向周围的人传教。野营集会仍在继续，春季失望之后所产生的不信任，在降低信徒人数的同时，也为更热情的信徒带来了机会。狂热的斯塔克韦瑟被逐出沙登大街后，带走了许多追随者。另一个狂热分子卡尔文·弗伦奇宣称，信徒们不仅可以避免地狱之火，还可以实现“圆满”（一种他们所做的任何事情都可以被宽恕和被祝福的状态），包括可以在婚姻界限之外拥有很多“精神妻子”，这是所有时代的末日论领导人经常享有的特权。斯塔克韦瑟也热情地宣扬这一点。

    1844年8月，在新罕布什尔州埃克塞特市举行的野营集会上，失望与狂热交织。在一次枯燥无味的演讲中，演讲者约瑟夫·贝茨中途被米勒的一位助手打断，助手说一位以前不知名的人物塞缪尔·斯诺有紧急消息。

    斯诺告诉人们，他对《旧约》和《新约》进行了详尽的调查，并取得惊人的发现：4个犹太教圣日和4个基督教圣日之间有一对一的一致性。那一年已经庆祝了3个基督教圣日，而第4个对应着犹太赎罪日的基督教圣日还没有庆祝。赎罪日是犹太教中最神圣的节日，发生在犹太历法的第7个月（提市黎月）的第10天。

    对于1844年的赎罪日在9月23日，斯诺不同意这个日期，他觉得使用古代的卡拉历法更准确，这种历法比犹太教历法晚一个月；因此，末日时间将在10月22日。（即使如此“精确”也有一些不确定性。因为在那个时代，耶路撒冷的新月出现在数千英里之外，新大陆无法观测到，有一些信徒认为实际日期可能会延长至10月24日。）[65]

    斯诺的消息震惊了整个营地，甚至连被打断演讲的贝茨也吓了一跳，贝茨写道：

    这个消息开始发酵，传遍了整个营地。集会结束时，新罕布什尔州的花岗岩山上回响着呼喊声：“看，新郎来了，你们出去迎接他。”当满载的马车、舞台和火车驶过新英格兰地区的各个州、城市和村庄时，呼喊声仍然响亮，“看，新郎来了！”基督，我们可称颂的主，将在第7个月的第10天降临！准备好！准备好！[66]

    引用的“新郎”一词再次指向《马太福音》25章。模仿海姆斯的做法，斯诺创办了名为《真正的午夜呼声》的新报纸。斯诺的计算并不是原创：早些时候，米勒本人曾有过“第7个月的第10天”的提法。1844年夏天，饱受批评的米勒派因认知失调和确认偏见而变得狂热，正好可以利用斯诺的构想。充满激情的乔治·斯托尔斯也支持这一构想。

    斯诺和斯托尔斯都是适应能力强的人：斯诺一开始自称为“异教徒”，为一家公开的无神论报纸《波士顿调查》撰稿；和那个时期的许多非信徒一样，他在阅读了米勒的著作后皈依了基督复临主义。而斯托尔斯一开始是卫理公会教徒，有一次他应邀在教堂进行废奴主义的布道；为了阻止他，逮捕他的人将他从教堂拖了出来。

    复临主义的高层们，就像所罗门·阿希的线条测试实验中更易受别人影响的受试者一样，一个接一个地，接受了“第7个月的第10天”，也就是当时日历的10月22日这个末日日期。9月下旬，该运动的旗舰报纸《午夜呼声！》的编辑内森·索瑟德在该报上刊登并支持10月22日这个末日日期。海姆斯一直是一个讲究实效的组织者，他察觉到队伍里的日期改变并提醒米勒，因为米勒以前也提过第10天/第7个月的说法；于是两人都于10月6日确认末日日期是10月22日。现在离末日大概只有两周了。[67]

    米勒在《午夜呼声！》中写道：

    我在第7个月看到了我从未见过的荣耀。虽然主在一年半前向我展示了第7个月的特殊担当，但我没有意识到这类担当的力量（《新约》和《旧约》在圣日问题上的一致性）。现在，称颂主的名字，我在《圣经》中看到了美丽、和谐和一致，我一直在为此祈祷，但直到今天才看到。——我的灵魂啊，感谢主。斯诺兄弟、斯托尔斯兄弟和其他人打开了我的眼睛，他们应该受到祝福。我快回家了。荣耀！荣耀！！荣耀！！！[68]

    信徒们大致接受了斯诺的计算；10月12日，守旧者中最持怀疑态度的约西亚·利奇也开始与末日步调一致：

    我的困难全都消失了，我现在在《旧约》中上帝话语所闪耀的光芒里感到愉悦……我感到自卑，服在神大能的手下，现在我抬起头，满怀喜悦地期待10天内见到万王之王。[69]

    霍华德街的会堂里挤满了人，《午夜呼声！》和《复临通报》最先进的蒸汽印刷机24小时不停地疯狂运转，试图在耶稣关上救赎之窗前从地狱之火中拯救出尽可能多的灵魂。

    这时，信徒们已经强烈地意识到，世界上的其他人都认为他们疯了，因此他们面临着一个可怕的选择：要么继续他们的日常活动和生意，被贴上伪君子的标签；要么停止所有这些活动，被指责为狂热分子。领导层一直注意运动的公众形象，建议采取前一种做法：信徒们要过正常的生活，直到末日。

    《午夜呼声！》的最后一期报纸，在预期末日之前的10月19日出版。这期报纸包含了很多由衷的信念表达。也许最令人印象深刻的是威廉·尼古拉斯，他刚刚拜访了他的复临派邻居巴克斯特夫人：

    这是她能够吃点儿东西的第29天。但显然她身体很好，看起来很健康，邻居们说她的体力最近有所增强。她说她没有生病，身体很好。昨天和今天早上，她都出了趟门。[70]

    米勒非常谦虚，他估计有5万人相信耶稣将会在1844年复临，而其他人则认为这个数字是美国总人口2000万中的100万；受人尊敬的美国古文物学会将这场运动的信徒人数定为15万~20万。[71]10月22日，他们中的大多数人沉着自信地迎接末日，与家人在家中或教堂静静地聚集，并告别那些他们认为无法避免地狱之火的人。海姆斯从波士顿前往罗汉普顿，与米勒一起迎接救世主。

    米勒和海姆斯劝诫他们的追随者，要按照圣经的指令“你们去做生意，直等我回来”（《路加福音》19:13）进行日常活动。尽管有这样的建议，但1844年春天，许多人并没有播种庄稼，或者有的播种了但没去收割，以此表达他们的信仰。有些人结束了自己的生意，敲响了公共警报，并不再让孩子们去学校。有些人更进一步，把自己商店和面包店的东西都送给了别人。还有一些人把自己的大部分钱和世俗财产都送给了别人。[72]复临主义的报纸报道说，有几十个人在野营集会上供认了自己的罪行；当信徒们试图把钱送人时却没有成功，钞票散落在讲坛上。信徒们放弃了自己数千美元的债权；纽约立法机构宽恕了一名议员，以便他能为世界末日做准备；在罗切斯特，一名妇女供认了几年前在英国犯下的谋杀罪，并要求被送回那里受审。[73]根据一部19世纪的费城综合历史：

    米勒教堂位于伍德和卡洛希尔之间的朱利安娜街上，在那里，米勒的追随者们日夜相聚，望着星星和太阳，祈祷并警告执迷不悟者“审判日就在眼前”。他们中的许多人开始以很低的价格出售土地和房屋。其他人则捐出个人物品，结束生意或腾空房屋。在第五街的一家商店里，栗子树的上方有一块标语牌，上面写着：“这家商店为了致敬王中之王而关闭，他将在10月20日左右出现。准备好，朋友们，给他加冕万王之王！”[74]

    主流米勒派非常平静地等待10月22日的到来，他们对末日神学所产生的狂热感到忧虑：

    随着日期的临近，受骗的人们放弃了所有事情，只给自己安排各种集会，在附近的私人住宅里日日夜夜地集会。他们几乎完全忽略了自己的世俗事务，有些人甚至让幼儿自己照顾自己，或者由那些不那么痴迷于集会的人来照顾。[75]

    预期的复临日对整个社会的影响大大超过了对信徒的影响，因为每一个坚定的米勒派肯定会面对几个不信仰的人，随着10月22日的临近，每当起风或天色变暗时，这些不信仰者就会想，他们是不是不应该下这个赌注。在纽约的伊萨卡，一名男子被“着火”的喊声惊醒，他经过调查发现，起火的源头是一个基督复临派的会议厅，他对于“米勒派圣殿着火了，而不是全世界着火了”表示宽慰。[76]

    这次事件之后，20世纪20年代初，一位名叫克拉拉·恩迪科特·西尔斯的接受私人家庭教育的美国北方贵族，对米勒运动感兴趣，并通过在报纸上发布广告来征求这一事件的第一手资料。她收集了大约160个故事，将其编入一本名为《幻想的日子》（Days of Delusion）的书中，这本书极大地加深了现代人对米勒运动的疯狂的印象，尽管历史学家已经得出结论，其中的许多故事（如果不是大多数的话）通过父母、祖父母、阿姨和叔叔80年的滤化，可能已经被渲染，或者显然是不真实的。

    尽管如此，西尔斯收集的故事中仍有几个主题始终如一：许多米勒信徒在山顶上等待，还有少数信徒在墓地等待。许多故事也确实像是真实的：西尔斯的一位上了年纪的联系人，在1844年时还是一个小女孩，她记得曾向一位邻居女孩求助，这位女孩的父母都是米勒信徒，她想请这位女孩帮忙做饭。这位女孩的父母告诉她，女孩正在为被提做准备，她问：“若这没有发生，她能在一周后过来吗？”她后来回忆说：“尽管我很小，但我永远不会忘记她脸上的恐惧表情，以及她那双蓝色大眼睛里充满的泪水。”

    西尔斯的另一个故事来自一个热心的米勒信徒，他讲述了唯一神教派的牧师西奥多·帕克和诗人拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生的对话。爱默生说：“世界末日不会影响我；没有它，我可以继续生活。”帕克回应说：“这与我无关，因为我住在波士顿。”[77]

    西尔斯的书中最令人难忘的一个故事，描述了米勒信徒们穿着白色“升天长袍”等待升天的情景，以及他们从树上跳起后掉下来摔断脖子和四肢，有时还使用了自制翅膀的情景。这些情节虽然看似可信，但很可能是复临派反对者宣传的结果。

    批评家们还指责米勒主义导致精神病院住满了精神病患者，但这也可能是虚构的：宗教思想经常会带一点儿精神分裂症特征，它是一种常见的紊乱症，但新英格兰地区的精神病院记录本上，只在少数情况下提到了米勒主义。[78]此外，一位米勒信徒将自己所有的世俗财产都送给了别人，他的亲人很合理地试图把他关起来。1843年，一个叫普尔的信徒，为了支付从波士顿到西部说服别人皈依和传播圣经的旅费而花掉了自己的财产，他的一个兄弟把他骗到家中并试图将他送进精神病院，但他被他的复临派旅伴救了出来。[79]

    10月22日是个硬目标，10月的失望比春天的失望更强烈地打击了信仰者。他们的集体绝望压倒了一切。据米勒所说：“似乎所有的恶魔都从无底深渊中释放在我们身上。”[80]据该运动的一位长老路易斯·鲍特尔观察：

    10月22日过去了，那些忠实和渴望的信徒感到难以言表的悲伤；那些不信仰的人和恶人却在欢喜。一切都依旧。复临前兆没有了；以前的集会没有了。每个人都感到孤独，几乎不想和任何人说话。大家像是在寒冷的世界里！上帝不会来的！任何语言都无法表达出一个真正的复临派信徒的失望之情。只有那些经历过的人才能加入这个话题。这是一件丢脸的事，我们都有同感。除了询问“我们在哪里”和“下一步怎么办”以外，大家都在沉默。[81]

    救赎失败受到了广泛的鄙视。许多复临派教徒都是废奴主义者威廉·劳埃德·加里森的追随者，而加里森却说他们患有“一种可悲的大脑幻想，现在已经清楚地证明是这样的”，这格外令人感到刺痛。（加里森另有企图，他认为米勒运动抢走了废奴运动的人员和资源。）[82]

    信徒们受到了大大小小的侮辱，从小男孩们嘲讽“你还没有上升吗？”到对海姆斯的严重欺诈指控（波士顿的一家报纸建议他避免在街上露面）。

    在这些指控中，海姆斯是无辜的。他主动提出，如果有人有任何关于他欺诈的证据，那么他将提供4倍的还款（但没有找到任何证据）；他找到了一些证人，这些人撤回了之前对他渎职的错误陈述；他还让银行证明他的私人财产很少。[83]随后，海姆斯积极组织对那些在复临中疏忽个人和经济事务的人进行经济救济。“大失望”[84]的直接后果是，暴徒洗劫并烧毁了会堂，闯入集会并挥舞枪支挑衅。1845年1月29日，米勒被罗汉普顿浸信会逐出了教会，这对米勒本人是一种极大的侮辱。

    与多萝西·马丁的追随者一样，复临派教徒对这种强烈的认知失调做出了各种各样的反应。斯诺与马丁女士以及她最忠实的追随者们一样，加倍努力，坚持认为末日即将到来。斯诺的顾问乔治·斯托尔斯则恰恰相反，他否认了自己之前的信仰。

    其他人有两种应对方式。第一种，最终成为最重要的一种，是“灵化”论，由来自纽约州北部的一位名叫海勒姆·埃德森的米勒派人士提出。埃德森声称基督在10月22日采取了行动，不过是以簿记模式，而不是以末日模式。他没有回到地球，而是进入了“至圣所”，正辛苦地将人类分为粗俗和善良两类。最终，他将完成名单设定，然后才回到地球做最后的判决。

    10月22日“大失望”的第二种应对认知失调的方式是“闭门”论。持这种观点的人认为耶稣还没有复临，但已经在10月22日那天，对那些没有看到光明的人关闭了极乐城之门，耶稣只会拯救选民，也就是他们。而且，作为选民，他们的“圆满”赋予他们各种性特权，从“淫乱的洗脚礼”到“圣洁的亲吻”，再到精神婚姻的最终肉体回报。[85]

    米勒，就像他经常做的那样，采取了一种微妙的、界限不清的方式，躲躲闪闪、支支吾吾，最后将责任归咎于现有历史数据不精确；末日肯定会到来，但由于计算的不精确性，它可能发生在长达数年之后。

    此时，他已经精疲力竭、病入膏肓。他徘徊了5年后最终死去。精力充沛、精明强干的约书亚·海姆斯试图将这场运动凝聚起来。10月22日的承诺对他来说只是一个务实事件，而不是神学信仰，因此他很快就改变了立场。他拒绝进一步做任何日期设定，并试图压制他所鄙视的“灵化”论和“闭门”论。这激怒了诸如斯诺那样的“闭门”人，斯诺谴责米勒和海姆斯将会因叛教而下地狱。[86]

    海姆斯不可避免地失败了；米勒派会众萎缩，报纸订阅量急剧下降，运动分裂得无法修复。斯诺的正统派很快就消失了；以海姆斯和米勒为代表的主流群体承认了他们的预测错误，但仍然相信即将发生的耶稣复临。海姆斯本人逐渐远离了这场运动，最终回归到童年时代的信仰——主教制度主义。

    和16世纪的再洗礼派一样，一小部分的“灵化”者幸存下来，并发展出一个和平的现代教派——基督复临安息日会。今天的基督复临安息日会是一个温和的现代主流团体，交际保守，鼓励素食主义，遵守严格的安息日禁令。该教派依然宣扬耶稣复临，但并不确定复临日期，这是可以理解的。[87]

    但幻想的复临派末日论余烬从未熄灭。“大失望”一个半世纪后，一个脱离复临安息日会的小教派，大卫·考雷什的大卫支教，引发了美国宗教史上最悲惨的事件。

    正如心理学家利昂·费斯汀格描述的那样，日期设定会产生一种内在的不稳定动态。预言越精确，就越有说服力；前几次的预言没有实现，由此产生的认知失调鼓励信徒们以更大的活力和精准度宣讲自己的信仰，从而吸引了更多的信徒；最后，一个大胆而精确的预言出现了，这个预言肯定会失败，然后动摇大多数追随者，只留下一小部分顽固的信徒。费斯汀格的研究解释了米勒事件，但他的描述不仅适用于宗教信仰，还适用于政治和文化信仰：

    尽管有一个限度，超过这个限度，信仰的失验将很难被承受，但很明显，引入相反的证据有助于增加信仰者的信念和热情。[88]

    主流基督教派再也不会犯错去进行日期设定了。正如宗教历史学家欧内斯特·桑登所说：

    米勒事件几乎摧毁了整整一代的美国前千禧年主义者……但把注意力集中于1843年时，米勒也引入了一个可能会摧毁这场运动的因素……米勒在1844年之前越成功，就意味着1844年之后的千禧年主义者传道越困难。美国人花了很长时间才忘记威廉·米勒。[89]

    但是，仍有一些人无法抗拒将《圣经》的模糊语言转化为精确预言的冲动。20世纪，米勒的神学继承人学会了对末日发生日期含糊其词，但事实证明他们依然过分地热衷于末日的发生；正如米勒及其追随者忍不住要从《圣经》中推出一个确定日期一样，他的现代追随者们总是尝试做一件事，即将当天的报纸头条事件外推到看似合理的末日叙事中，但不可避免地都失败了。正如多萝西·马丁的飞碟一样，每一次的认知失验都会产生更多的信仰归附和更离奇的叙事。

    令人担忧的是，这些叙事将对那些控制世界末日机器的人[90]产生巨大的影响。

    6 弹性货币政策的灾难

    泡沫与崩溃的四个前提

    人们在最快乐的时候，都是最轻信的；当人们刚刚赚了很多钱，当一些人真的在赚钱，当大多数人认为他们在赚钱，此时就是人们最快乐的时候，也是捏造谎言的最巧妙时机。人们在这样一小段时间里几乎会相信任何事情。 ——沃尔特·白芝浩[1]

    1929年初秋，温斯顿·丘吉尔在加拿大进行了一次悠闲的私人火车旅行。10月24日，黑色星期四，他抵达纽约，正值那个秋天第一次股市大暴跌，他在那里看到，“就在我房间的窗户下，一位绅士从15层纵身跳下，摔得粉身碎骨，引起一场严重混乱，消防队也赶来了”。第二天，丘吉尔被邀请进入纽约证券交易所的访客大厅，他在那里注意到：

    我以为我会看到混乱；但眼前的平静和有序出人意料。（证券经纪人）被最严格的规则约束，不能奔跑或提高说话的音量。于是，他们就在那里，来回走动，就像一段被扰乱的蚂蚁群的慢镜头影像一样，以旧价格的1/3和现值的1/2互相提供大量的证券。凑在一起较长时间后，他们发现没有人能买得起他们被迫卖出的股票。[2]

    此后不久，他乘船回家，没有意识到4年前他在财政上的一窍不通[3]与眼前发生的重大事件之间的联系。不过，这次股票崩盘事件确实影响了丘吉尔，摧毁了他的投机性投资组合，使他负债累累。他个人的不幸却给后世带来了一线希望：为了偿还债主，他开始依赖自己最可靠的饭票——他的笔。在接下来的10年里，他创作了一些优秀的书籍、许多文章，甚至还有一部剧本。

    将丘吉尔1929年之前的政治生涯形容为“起起落落”未免有些轻描淡写。作为第一次世界大战期间的海军大臣，他曾大力支持加利波利之战，之后的惨败导致数千人死亡，他也被降级。10年后，首相斯坦利·鲍德温没有意识到丘吉尔对财政一窍不通，任命他为财政大臣（相当于英国的财政部长）。（丘吉尔是这样描述他与财政部专家的互动的：“如果他们是士兵或将军，我就会理解他们在说什么了。但好像他们说的都是波斯语。”）[4]

    经济学家在讨论金融泡沫时，最常提到的名字是海曼·明斯基。20世纪50—80年代，明斯基在经济学界扮演了一个奇怪的角色——一个长头发的反传统主义者，他认为资本主义从根本上是不稳定的，他是一个现代的、更理智的卡尔·马克思。他比任何一个20世纪的观察家都更好地理解和描述了泡沫及其破灭的病理生理学，认为泡沫及其破灭需要具备两个必要条件：利率下降带来的信贷宽松，以及激动人心的新技术的出现。

    首先是利率。第一次世界大战前，英镑纸币可以以每盎司4.86美元的价格自由兑换成黄金主权硬币，纸币持有人相信有足够数量的黄金满足任何需求。由于英镑似乎坚挺，因此将英镑兑换为黄金的人相对较少；毕竟，持有一大块黄色金属有什么用呢？但是，当英国开动印刷机、用印钞的方式来支付战争费用时，不断增加的纸币数量侵蚀了人们对纸币的信心，持有者越来越希望将纸币兑换成黄金。

    战争结束后，由于英国的黄金数量几乎不足以支付纸币，英国不得不暂停兑换，以免贬值纸币的持有者耗尽国家的黄金储备。但是，1925年，丘吉尔按照旧价格恢复金本位制，这一举措是灾难性的。被高估的英镑使英国国内商品更加昂贵，从而减少了出口；此外，人为的高汇率也使外国商品更便宜，从而鼓励了进口；到1926年，英国的黄金储备下降了惊人的8000万英镑（占其总量的10%）。[5]

    自美国诞生以来，美国和英国的政府官员就建立了密切的私人友谊，而在这个关头，这种关系——世界上两位最重要的央行行长美联储主席本杰明·斯特朗和英格兰银行行长蒙塔古·诺曼之间的友谊，却被证明是特别不幸的。

    提高英镑价值和阻止黄金外流的最可靠方法是降低美国利率，这可以使以英镑计价的资产相对更具吸引力。1927年，斯特朗这样做了，从而帮助诺曼摆脱了困境，但这只是暂时的。当时的美国已经处于经济繁荣时期，在丘吉尔即将结束其北美之行、到达纽约之际，低利率引发了一股投机热。

    到了1929年，发达国家已经习惯了周期性的金融动荡。漫不经心的观察家和历史学家经常将这些繁荣和萧条称为疾病，而医学模式确实有助于了解该类事件中的患者和疾病，不管是个人事件还是社会事件。

    医生从三个基本视角来理解疾病：病理生理学视角，即疾病过程的生物化学和生理学基础；解剖学视角，即受影响的身体部位；症状和体征视角，即病人的感觉和医生看到的情况。

    我们可以用同样的方式理解泡沫和崩溃。例如，它们的病理生理学，涉及人类心理的反复无常和现代银行系统信贷供应的不稳定性。它们的解剖结构由“4P”组成，即发起人（promoters）、公众（public）、政客（politicians）和媒体（press）。最后，它们的症状和体征包括对几乎不劳而获的财富的迷恋——一种具有社会传染性的迷恋，发起人的傲慢，以及公众对他们的崇拜。[6]

    根据海曼·明斯基的理论，泡沫膨胀不仅需要1927年本杰明·斯特朗降低利率所产生的那种信贷宽松，还需要激动人心的新技术的出现。这样的技术进步出现在科学或工程领域，比如19世纪的铁路；或者出现在金融领域，比如17世纪和18世纪的合股公司。[7]新技术或金融产品可以是股票、房地产或者其他工具，投资者为它们的出现而激动，开始向它们投入资金。由于这些资产也可以成为贷款的抵押品，因此资产价格的上涨意味着投机者可以以资产作为抵押品，借更多的钱继续购买这些资产，这进一步抬高了价格，然后他们又能够借更多的钱——这是一个自我强化的“良性循环”，但只限于上升时期。因此，狂热、恐慌和崩溃从1600年左右开始成为西方生活中长期反复出现的一部分，这绝非偶然，因为那个时候首次出现“技术替代”和弹性纸币信贷。

    今天，技术替代可以采取多种形式。令人目眩的科技进步速度似乎是现代生活的一个永恒特征：仅仅在20年前，如果人们被告知世界范围内的个人视频通信将无处不在且几乎免费，那么人们会难以置信。就在20世纪40年代，即使是年富力强的人也经常受到霍乱、伤寒、细菌性肺炎和脑膜炎等常见细菌性疾病肆无忌惮的折磨，这与他们财富的多少和社会阶层的高低无关。但在发达国家，在青霉素等抗生素出现后，这些灾难极其罕见。

    相比之下，在1600年之前，缺乏技术是一个被接受的事实。在印刷机出现之前，许多技术进步都轻易地丢失了，因为手工抄写文档如此费力和昂贵，没有足够的副本流传下来。此外，低识字率意味着工匠们往往无法记录他们的技术，这些技术也随着工匠的消失而消失。例如，罗马人发明了混凝土，但混凝土的使用实际上随着帝国的灭亡而消失；直到1756年，约翰·斯梅顿才重新揭示了波特兰水泥的秘密。

    1450年左右，谷登堡发明了批量生产的可移动式印刷机，消除了技术进步的这一特殊障碍，但其他障碍仍然存在；1600年以前，西方的人均GDP几乎没有增长，东方也是直到很久之后才有增长。

    1620年，哲学家弗朗西斯·培根出版了他的《新工具》[8]一书。在培根之前，科学家被称为“自然哲学家”，他们通过亚里士多德的“演绎”法，从公理出发发展自己的模型，所有进一步的推理是以不可置疑的公理为基础的。在这一体系中，可观察到的事实几乎是事后补充上的。

    《新工具》本身就是一种技术替代，它有双重作用。首先，它认识到旧的亚里士多德式的演绎推理体系压制了人类进步；其次，它提出一个可行的替代方案——一个“归纳”过程，即仔细收集经验性数据，然后将数据与理论相匹配——这才是现代科学方法的本质。接下来几代人的时间里，培根那些有才智的继承者，如胡克、博伊尔和牛顿（仅举几个例子）成立了伦敦皇家自然知识促进学会（现在简称为英国皇家学会）。这催生了整个欧洲的类似群体，科学发现开始惊人地加速。[9]

    17世纪不仅诞生了科学方法，还有第二次社会革命，即弹性货币的出现。大多数美国人误解了一个概念，以为货币就是由政府颁发的绿色纸张，一种“可以支付所有债务，包括公共债务和私人债务的法定货币”，或者，在过去是一种印有字样的金银小圆片。但是，在古代，几乎任何东西都可以是货币：一定标准的小麦、油，或者随着时间的推移，白银出现。一直到公元前7世纪中期，小亚细亚的吕底亚人才铸成第一枚琥珀金币，那是一种金银的混合币。

    今天，我们生活在一个完全不同的世界。在美国，只有1/10的货币是流通纸币和硬币；政府和银行计算机的按键输入创造了其余部分的货币。例如，银行发放抵押贷款时，不会采用运动包里装满印有亚历山大·汉密尔顿、本杰明·富兰克林和各种已故总统照片的绿色亚麻布[10]的形式；相反，它会向贷款公司发送一个电子包。这些支票或电子包肯定没有相应数量的纸币和硬币作为支持，更不用说金、银或牛作为支持了。

    这种信用体系在今天被称为“部分准备金银行体系”，由17世纪的金匠们创立，在之后的几个世纪里变得越来越有弹性。早期银行如果发行远高于2:1的存款准备金率的凭证，就有可能遭到储户挤兑，被要求归还资金。随着银行联盟和政府运营的中央银行的发展，商业银行的这一比率增长到约10:1，投资银行的这一比率可能会更高。存款准备金率上升的幅度取决于消费者和投资者想借多少钱，银行愿意贷多少钱，以及越来越多地取决于政府监管机构允许多少杠杆。[11]扩大准备金率的一个恰当的比喻就是橡皮筋：1913年美国国会立法规定，建立联邦储备银行就是要完成“提供弹性货币”的任务。[12]

    21世纪初的房地产市场是一个完美的海曼·明斯基范式案例。2000年之前，房地产市场相当平静、稳定和沉闷，银行只向最安全的借款人提供抵押贷款，即那些信用记录良好、收入稳定、几乎没有其他债务、所需贷款额远低于房屋市值的借款人。因此，这样的借款人几乎总是能按时还清抵押贷款，违约率很低，银行也获得了适中的利润。

    然而，银行经理们开始注意到，一些竞争性银行机构的贷款要求比较宽松，其可以为更多的借款人提供服务，从而赚更多的钱；最终，几乎所有银行都效仿了这一做法。大约在同一时间，另一种现象开始流行：银行向华尔街公司出售抵押物，这些公司将抵押物打造成越来越冒险的组合，如债务抵押债券。这就是所谓的贷款证券化，它将房主抵押贷款违约的风险从最初比较了解初始借款人情况的银行，转移到容易上当受骗的机构和世界各国政府，而这些机构和政府并不了解最初的借款人情况。

    贷款标准的降低蔓延到整个银行系统，违约率开始上升。起初，抵押品标的房屋的价值上升，银行和抵押贷款证券的持有人基本没有遭受过损失，因为他们可以将违约人的抵押物没收并转售获利。但从约2007年开始，不断增加的被迫出售的房源压低了房价，银行和证券持有人开始亏损；最终，有的破产，有的得到了联邦政府救助。最后，所有银行都收紧了贷款标准。银行贷款的收缩进一步降低了房价，迫使房主抵押贷款违约。

    这一过程不仅发生在美国，而且发生在全球。在房地产泡沫的前五年，大约在2002—2007年，似乎一个人只要活着，就有资格抵押贷款；而泡沫破灭后，银行恨不得数一下贷款申请人有几颗金牙，以确定贷款资格。类似地，消费者、投资者和潜在房主对偿还债务的兴趣比对获得贷款的兴趣大得多，因此信贷供应和货币供应量都下降了。

    明斯基于1996年去世。他告诉我们，上述周期是弹性货币体系的必然结果。在弹性货币体系中，不管是政府的中央银行（例如美联储）还是私人银行，都可以扩张和收缩货币供应。此外，他认为，这种货币扩张和收缩几乎发生在市场经济的所有领域，不仅发生在住房领域，也发生在企业管理以及股票和债券市场。

    明斯基著名的“金融不稳定假说”指出，当金融环境比较安全稳定时，资金必然将逐渐从安全的借款人处转移到风险越来越高的借款人处。最终事情将失去控制，导致上述那样的风险爆发，这使得放款人和投资者更加谨慎，循环重新开始，这一过程大概每十年发生一次。简言之，稳定带来不稳定，不稳定带来稳定，放款人的周期性恐惧和贪婪循环着经济系统。[13]当然，这还要有间歇性贪婪的借款人，否则贪婪的放款人将缺乏客户。

    虽然明斯基没有明确指出，但他的直觉告诉他，除了“技术替代”和信贷宽松之外，另外两个因素也必须满足：对以往繁荣和萧条的遗忘，以及对传统和审慎的投资方法的放弃。

    记忆缺失是金融不稳定假说的隐性因素。金融危机过后，损失惨痛的记忆依然历历在目，银行家和投资者都回避风险；前者只提供最安全的贷款，而后者不愿购买股票。随着市场慢慢复苏，不愉快的记忆逐渐消失，参与者又愿意面对风险，不稳定周期重新开始。

    引发金融狂热的最后一个因素，是放弃头脑冷静的金融计算，转而采用引人入胜的叙事。当人类面临困难或不可能完成的分析任务时——比如评估一家从未产生过利润更不用说股息的公司——他们默认回到更简单的分析方法，也就是心理学家用“启发式”一词所表示的心理捷径。

    当人类面对具有挑战性的或不可能解决的难题时，就会采取“启发式”方法。过去几十年中，心理学家把对这种方法的理解扩展到金融领域，尤其是金融狂热。20世纪40年代，密歇根大学的匈牙利心理学家乔治·卡托纳开始研究经济学和人类心理的交叉领域，开创了与经济（行为）相关的心理学测度。他不仅创立了现在正广泛使用的消费者情绪指数，还取得很多其他方面的成就，密歇根大学也成为心理学研究的温床。

    密歇根大学的另一个开拓性研究领域是决策理论。这引起了以色列研究员阿莫斯·特沃斯基的注意[14]，特沃斯基特别聪明，认识他的人喜欢拿他的智力开玩笑：“你越快地意识到特沃斯基比你聪明，你就越聪明。”[15]密歇根大学的研究人员认为，人类是熟练的直觉统计专家——直至今天也有很多经济学家这样认为；就像我们毫不费力就可以掌握语法和句法规则一样，人类也很好地掌握了统计和概率。

    起初，特沃斯基也认为上述说法是合理的，但当他与来自耶路撒冷希伯来大学的院士丹尼尔·卡尼曼辩论时，他被对方说服。1970年前后，两人进行了一系列著名的实验，彻底改变了经济学家和心理学家看待决策的方式。他们证明，不仅普通人具有糟糕的统计直觉，甚至心理学家也是这样。[16]在一项经典研究中，他们这样介绍了他们的目标主体：

    史蒂夫非常害羞和内向，乐于助人，但对人或现实世界不感兴趣。他有一个温顺整洁的灵魂，要求秩序和结构，对细节感兴趣。

    然后，卡尼曼和特沃斯基询问受试者，史蒂夫最有可能是农民、推销员、飞行员、图书管理员还是医生？大多数人选择图书管理员，因为上面的描述最符合人们对图书管理员的刻板印象。然而，现实中农民的人数比图书管理员多20倍，而且有很多害羞的农民，因此史蒂夫更可能成为他们中的一员，而不是图书管理员。[17]

    他们还发现，人类存在广泛的系统性分析错误，有些甚至是由最聪明的人犯的，仅举几个例子：无视基础频率（例如，没有意识到农民比图书管理员多得多）；没有意识到大样本比小样本更可靠；对人类从随机数据中感知不存在模式的倾向估计不足；没有理解在连续多次尝试时、任务结果通常都会趋向于一般水平。[18]实验结束时，他们对人类可悲的理性状态深感失望：

    也许令人惊讶的是，人们未能从一生的经验中推断出基本的统计规则，如趋向平均值的回归，或样本大小对抽样变异性的影响。尽管在普通生活里，每个人都会接触到许多可以归纳出这些规则的例子，但很少有人能自己发现抽样和回归的原理。[19]

    他们的实验揭示出人类天生的认知懒惰性。与其停下来严格分析史蒂夫最有可能从事五种职业中的哪一种，不如回到以下捷径：史蒂夫符合图书管理员的刻板形象——这就是故事的结尾。[20]

    很显然，卡尼曼和特沃斯基的发现与金融泡沫相关。1720年的南海公司、1928年的美国无线电公司、1999年的Pets.com[21]或今天的特斯拉，这些公司的投资者没有尝试对高预期未来收益的股票价值进行估计，因为这几乎无法估计，而是默认回到了简单的启发式方法：“南海/美国无线电/Pets.com/特斯拉是一家伟大的公司，它将改变世界，因此人们几乎值得为此支付任何价格。”

    卡尼曼、特沃斯基和其他研究人员还发现，最有力的启发法之一是人类对显著性事件的敏感性，即过分强调引人注目的事件。“9·11”袭击是一个极端例子，它是过去半个世纪中具有决定性意义的美国事件，造成近3000人死亡。“9·11”后，即使是只导致一人死亡的恐怖袭击也会成为头条新闻，但媒体基本上没有注意到普通枪支暴力、类鸦片或车祸导致的个人死亡事件，尽管在美国，这三类事件每年都导致3万多人丧生。[22]美国人死于恐怖袭击的概率远远小于死于雷击的概率，然而，美国在反恐问题上投入的资源远远多于防止因枪支、车祸和毒品造成的十几万人的死亡而投入的资源。（类似地，任何打算去以色列旅游的游客都可能会被朋友或家人问到是否担心恐怖主义，尽管自2005年以来，以色列人死于交通事故的平均概率是死于恐怖袭击的20倍。）[23]

    卡尼曼和特沃斯基将上述的显著性谬误称为“可用性启发式”；人们更有可能在地震或洪水发生后立即购买保险。很自然地，他们将之称为“近因启发式”。

    简言之，人类是显著性事件的俘虏，这以各种不同的形式适用于金融狂热。一项新技术能给人们带来激动人心的新鲜感，比如能够以每小时数百英里的速度环绕地球飞行，或者能够瞬间将娱乐活动或时事带入家庭，这种新鲜感非常显著——直到这种新鲜感消失。

    近因启发式扭曲了投资者对长期事实的看法：如果股票价格在过去几年一直上涨，他们就会认为它会永远上涨；随着股价攀升，股票变得更具吸引力，从而推动股价进一步上涨。这将成为一个自我持续的“良性循环”，可以将股价推向高位。当然，在长期熊市期间，情况正好相反。

    和大多数经济学家一样，明斯基对心理学不太感兴趣，但他清楚地认识到人类对叙事的偏好超过对定量推理的偏好。人们都喜欢好故事；当被泡沫控制时，当面临不愉快或难解的计算时，一个引人入胜的叙事可以轻松地绕过严格缜密的分析。把这些叙事看作导致泡沫疾病扩散至整个社会的病原体，并不算过度简单化。

    我们只需要稍微扩展一下上文中弹性货币的比喻，便很容易理解泡沫是如何破灭的。想象一根直径一英寸、长几百英尺的橡皮筋。橡皮筋周围聚集着数百名观察家，他们中的大多数人只是在闲逛。不过，他们中有几十人正在努力把橡皮筋拽长。继续想象，橡皮筋长度的不断增加给拽动的人带来了财富；随着时间的推移，这吸引了更多闲散的人群。他们中更天真的成员相信橡皮筋可以一直被拽长；但很多人知道它迟早会剧烈收缩，计划在第一次出现收缩迹象时就放手，并相信自己知道什么时候该放手；也就是说，他们已经准备好松开它。

    最终，一些人松手了，这增加了剩下的人的压力。然后，那些准备好放手的人也匆忙放手，很快，橡皮筋不仅恢复到它的自然长度，而且卷曲成一个紧密的线圈。最后，一些聪明的观察家发现，皱巴巴的线圈很容易被再次拉长，于是循环又开始了。

    到20世纪20年代，海曼·明斯基的4个条件都已经确立。

    第一次世界大战后，五项技术进步震撼了人类生活。19世纪末的内燃机是其中第一项发明，并促进了另外两项发明：莱特兄弟发明的飞机和汽车的普及。汽车的普及使人们可以随意长途旅行，到1925年，超过1/3的美国家庭拥有汽车。[24]

    第四项发明是无线电。1895年，古列尔莫·马可尼在意大利农村地区成功将莫尔斯电码字母“s”传输至几公里外。随后20年里，这项昂贵的新技术被私人保留，用于传输私人敏感信息和有价值的信息；在美国，无线电甚至主要用于一个领域——海上通信，因为事实证明，海上通信比在陆地上以及通过海底电缆在大陆之间通信更可靠、更便宜。

    1915年，马可尼电报公司的一名雇员戴维·萨诺夫写了著名的《广播音乐盒备忘录》，建议公司向公众开放广播媒介，“通过无线方式将音乐带入家庭”。萨诺夫做了一些努力才让马可尼将他颇有利润的私人媒介向公众开放。1919年，马可尼电报公司和通用电气公司合并成立美国无线电公司，到1920年，匹兹堡的KDKA和底特律的WWJ这两个最早的无线电台开始运营。音乐会、体育赛事和突发新闻有史以来第一次实现现场直播；毫无疑问，在改变日常生活方式上，无线电所起到的作用与电报和互联网的发明和传播并驾齐驱。

    将乔治·伯恩斯和格雷西·艾伦[25]的表演，或1921年杰克·邓普西和乔治·卡彭蒂耶之间的重量级拳王争霸赛的消息带进美国各个家庭的客厅，这比20世纪90年代初互联网的出现更让人震惊。美国无线电公司开始成为投资者的宠儿，到20世纪20年代末，当有人提到“无线电”这个词时，它最可能指的是股票的昵称，而不是媒介或硬件。

    第五项技术进步涉及电力公司的快速扩张，这些公司越来越多地为美国家庭提供照明，为工厂提供动力。尽管约翰·摩根和他的同事们在一代人之前就已经合并了通用电气公司[26]，但通用及其竞争对手们用了几十年的时间才使国家完全通电。

    所有这五项“技术替代”——内燃机、飞机、汽车、无线电和广泛可用的电力——刺激了20世纪20年代经济的蓬勃发展。此外，亨利·福特的批量生产技术和弗雷德里克·温斯洛·泰勒的影响也是如此。泰勒是一位机械工程师，从19世纪末开始，领导了“效率运动”，将秒表转变为工人生产力和企业收益的驱动力[27]。1922—1927年，美国的工人产出以每年3.5%的速度增长，公司股东很高兴；但公司员工的反应不那么热情。[28]由于泰勒带来了很大的影响，“泰勒主义”进入了英语词汇；具有讽刺意味的是，它得到了列宁和斯大林的支持，但在美国并不总是得到称赞，特别是在迅速发展的工会运动中。

    20世纪20年代，美国出现了第二个明斯基因素——信贷宽松。明斯基知道，技术替代不仅可以是技术方面的，也可以是金融方面的。20世纪20年代产生了大量金融杠杆方面的“进步”，如经纪人贷款、投资信托和控股公司，它们都提供了新的、强大的资金来源。这些资金可以被借入，然后被配置到股市。在越来越多的美国人看来，这些资金更像是能喷出财富的源泉。正如经济学家约翰·肯尼斯·加尔布雷思所说：“金融界一遍又一遍地欢呼这一类似于车轮发明的伟大创新，但其版本往往不太经受得起考验。”[29]

    20世纪以前，股票市场杠杆的主要形式是以较少的初始认购金购买股票，之后以追缴金的方式完成剩余资金额的追加。贪婪的投机者认为，他们可以通过出售这些部分持有、正在升值的股票去支付之后的追缴金；少数幸运者做到了，但大多数没有做到，而且许多人破产了。

    相比之下，20世纪20年代的投机者则是全款购买股票，不过是用借入资金购买的，有时借入资金高达股票价值的90%。举个例子，投资于价值为1000美元的股票，需要用100美元的自有资金和900美元的“经纪人贷款”支付。如果这些股票的价值增加10%，现在值1100美元，那么偿还贷款后留给投机者的是200美元，从而使他原来的100美元投资翻了一番。但是，如果股票的价值下降10%至900美元，债权人就会向借款人发出“追加保证金通知”，要求借款人提交更多的资金来保护其900美元的贷款。如果资金不到位，那么贷款合同允许债权人出售头寸，以保护其900美元的贷款。经纪人贷款并不便宜；随着股票价格的上涨，对贷款的需求也随之增加，到1929年，贷款年利率已提高到15%，从而逐渐增加了股票购买者的负担。

    除了最乐观的投机者，其他人都至少隐约意识到了股票投机的风险。但对银行来说，经纪人贷款本身似乎是100%安全的，银行以5%的利率从美联储获得资金，并以该利率的两倍或三倍向投机者发放贷款，这是一种简单且利润丰厚的操作。金融资本的主要功能是将资金有效地从资金过剩的人手中转移到需要资金的人手中，泡沫会扭曲这种流动，从而腐蚀一个国家的经济；20世纪20年代，不少大公司将维持和发展业务所需的资金转移到保证金贷款市场，这正是一种扭曲。[30]

    我们从经纪人贷款的高利率，可以清楚地看出美联储要安全刺破已形成的泡沫有多难。即使在今天也很难。1929年，在理论上，美联储是可以阻止经纪人贷款流动的，只要把再贷款利率提高就可以；但由于银行和企业的贷款利率已经达到两位数，如果美联储将再贷款利率提高到几乎和贷款利率一样高，那么这在经济上将会是灾难性的。即使政府要求经纪人贷款提高利率，这也不会对热情的投机者产生太大影响，因为他们的净资产（至少在账面上）正在以更高的速度增长，在一个自我维持的循环里，昨天的价格上涨推动了明天继续上涨。美联储发现，自己就像从山上飞驰而下无法自控的滑板手，只有两种选择：故意撞到树上，或者继续深蹲向前，然后以更高的速度撞树。美联储选择了后者。（1929年10月的最初崩盘确实抑制了对经纪人贷款的需求，使经纪人贷款利率降至7%。）

    20世纪20年代，金融狂热也感染了当时已经稳定运行的投资信托机构。18世纪末，荷兰商人亚伯拉罕·范·凯特维奇创建了大概是世界上的首个共同基金——“团结创造力量”[31]，它是一个可对公众发行的投资集合，汇集了欧洲各地和新大陆种植园的企业股份。[32]在接下来的一个世纪里，投资信托的概念传遍了整个欧洲，特别是苏格兰。到了1893年，随着波士顿个人财产信托的成立，投资信托的概念又传到了美国。这些保守运作的基金通常可以像股票那样交易，按需买进和卖出。在20世纪20年代创立的信托投资公司中，有几个至今仍存在：美国通用投资公司、三角洲公司、亚当斯快递公司和中央证券公司。

    另一个信托公司——高盛交易公司却没能幸存。高盛公司是直到泡沫后期才涉足投资信托业务的，1928年12月，它出资成立了高盛交易公司。最初，交易公司比较谨慎；它直接持有所有的股票和债券，也就是说，没有杠杆；此外，母公司高盛保留了该交易公司90%的股票所有权，只向公众出售了其中的10%。用今天的术语来说，高盛交易公司可以被认为是由先锋或富达[33]建立并持有几乎所有股票的简单的共同基金。

    高盛交易公司很快就不再保守。几个月后，它与高盛旗下的另一个公司——金融实业公司合并。市场如此泡沫化，1929年2月，就在合并后几天，新组建的高盛交易公司的价值就达到其持有证券价值的两倍；相当于将一美元的钞票以两美元的价格向公众出售。

    大多数公司都会对这样的结果感到高兴，但高盛公司还不满足，随后它回购了自己的股票，这进一步提升了其股票价值。此时，高盛公司开始以极度膨胀的价格向公众出售其持有的交易公司股票。接着，交易公司迅速投资成立了一个新的信托公司——谢南多厄公司；而谢南多厄公司在荒谬层上又堆起了一层荒谬，它发起成立了第三级信托公司——蓝山公司。正如加尔布雷思所说：

    该信托公司的优点在于，它使公司发行在外的证券数量与现有公司资产数量几乎完全分离。前者可以是后者的两倍、三倍或任意倍数。[34]

    在著名的高盛大厦内，谢南多厄和蓝山各自发行了普通股和“可转换优先股”，后者本质上与债券相同，每年需要向其持有者支付6%的利息。这两个信托公司事实上利用其可转换优先股为自己提供经纪人贷款，根据加尔布雷思的描述，这种“乘数”放大了普通股的价格波动。

    按照普通标准，杠杆作用并没有那么大：谢南多厄的股票中只有约1/3是债券式可转换优先股，这一比重在蓝山的股票中不到1/2。但这两个公司杠杆的乘数，以及高盛交易公司处于上层所有权结构的乘数，破坏了局势的稳定。谢南多厄控股蓝山，但只有在蓝山的可转换优先股持有人获得6%的利息支付后，谢南多厄才获得支付；同样，交易公司控股谢南多厄，但只有在谢南多厄的可转换优先股持有人获得利息支付后，交易公司才能获得支付。因此，当沿着金字塔向上方的交易公司移动时，价格波动幅度成倍增加。而同时，交易公司也承担着自己的股息债务。例如，谢南多厄只向其普通股股东支付了一小笔股息，到1929年12月便永久停止了支付。

    高盛公司的信托船队是为风平浪静的海洋设计的，只要价格上涨，航行就会顺利。但几乎就在这三个信托公司成立后不久，天就变了，这些公司按照与创建相反的顺序陆续倒闭：首先是蓝山，然后是谢南多厄，最后是交易公司。

    杠杆结构产生了毁灭性的影响。1929年底，道琼斯工业指数已经从10月的崩盘中有所回升，比9月的峰值“仅”下跌了35%。但相比之下，这三个信托公司的股票下跌了75%左右。到1932年中期的市场低点，道琼斯工业指数下跌了89%，信托指数下跌了99%，仅在高盛的这三个信托公司中，公众承担的总损失就约为3亿美元。就在1929年8月和9月，美国各大公司发行了价值超过10亿美元的类似的投资信托基金，这在那个时代是一个惊人的数字，其中大部分基金到1932年已经蒸发。[35]此时大萧条已经开始，并将持续，直到第二次世界大战。第二次世界大战作为一个巨大的公共工程项目，推动了经济活力的恢复。[36]

    到1929年，第三个因素——对上一次泡沫的健忘——也已牢固确立。上一代人确实经历了两次市场下跌。第一次是1907年的恐慌，是一次相当奇怪的事件。它的触发事件其实是一次失败的股票投机，但其规模非常小。两兄弟、铜矿巨头奥托·海因策和奥古斯塔斯·海因策，试图操作一桩复杂的计谋，即尝试对他们的联合铜业公司的股票进行轧空操作，但彻底失败了。[37]

    奥古斯塔斯·海因策还拥有蒙大拿州的一家小银行——比尤特储蓄银行，该银行也随着失败的轧空操作而破产。1837年，安德鲁·杰克逊总统对第二合众国银行实施了“安乐死”[38]，使得美国在私人贷款枯竭时没有“最后贷款人”来提供急需的资本。由于各大银行之间相互借贷，其中一个银行的失败会像多米诺骨牌一样蔓延；如果没有央行出面救助，那么温和的衰退可能会演变成全面的恐慌和萧条。19世纪30年代末就发生了这样的金融危机，那是美国历史上最严重的金融危机之一。

    1907年，海因策的银行的倒闭拖垮了规模更大的银行，并最终将股价压低了约40%，直到约翰·摩根“画出一条线”——在这条线之上的银行是他认为有偿付能力的银行，因此值得支持，在这条线之下的是允许倒闭的银行，此时，恐慌才停止。出于历史巧合，摩根生于1837年，也就是美国最后一个中央银行关闭的那一年；1913年，随着重建中央银行的《联邦储备法》通过，摩根去世。在世76年的大部分时间里，他都扮演了美国央行行长的角色。1893年经济萧条耗尽美国财政部黄金储备时，正是他策划挽救了美国的金本位制。

    1929年之前的第二次市场衰退发生在第一次世界大战结束时。这场战争提振了美国股市，但随着农产品价格的下跌，股市投机很快被绝望替代：1919年夏天，股票市场达到顶峰，之后的一年里，股票价格逐渐下降了约1/3，当然这一时期产生的丰厚股息可以抵销一部分的价格下跌损失。[39]因此市场的下跌相对温和。

    在第一次世界大战之前的美国，只有富人才拥有股票，因此1907年恐慌和1919年股价下跌都没有给公众留下太多持久的印象。到1929年，新的投资者被内燃机、飞机、汽车、无线电和电力带来的奇迹吸引，忘记了之前的泡沫。

    产生泡沫的第四个因素是对保守的传统股票估值方法的放弃。美国在第一次世界大战中所需要的资金，部分来源于数十亿美元的自由债券发行，收益率为3.5%~4.5%。在这一过程中，普通的美国人被引入证券市场。自由债券充当了公众投资的“训练轮”，并提供了安全而适度的回报率。

    政府债券可以被视为安全资产的基准，或者说，政府债券的收益率是金融经济学家所谓的“无风险利率”。几个世纪以来，投资者购买股票完全是为了股息，而由于股票有风险，为了吸引买家，股息收益率必须高于相对安全的政府证券的收益率。例如，乔治·哈德森必须向其铁路股票的买家承诺，股息收益率远远高于英国政府债券3%~4%的收益率。与英国同行一样，理性的美国投资者不要求也不期望从股价上涨中获益，但他们希望获得比安全的政府债券更高的平淡但稳定的股息流；第一次世界大战前，美国的平均股票收益率在5%左右。[40]到了20世纪20年代，人们普遍认为，股票应该以年收益的10倍左右卖出，以便轻松地收回成本。

    今天，不管是不是明智的投资者，都认为公司利润和股价的长期上涨是理所当然的，因此可以容忍低得多的股息支付。但在20世纪之前，很少有持续的股价上涨，除非是最成功的公司。即使在最顺利的情况下，股价涨幅也很小。例如，英格兰银行和东印度公司是英国早期最成功的两家合股公司，即使是这两家精心挑选的公司，1709—1823年，其股价平均每年也仅上涨0.7%和0.6%。[41]

    那么，那些最有成就的投资者是如何评价美国无线电公司的？到1929年金融危机时，美国无线电公司还没有产生任何股息，而且，它在1937年之前都没有产生股息。[42]到20世纪20年代末，投资者显然认为该公司前景光明，但他们没有工具为它估计一个合适的价格，以支付该公司未来的预期利润。再过10年，欧文·费雪、约翰·伯尔·威廉姆斯和本杰明·格雷厄姆等金融经济学家就会推导出计算股票或债券内在价值的复杂数学方法，特别是那些具有高度投机前景的股票或债券的内在价值的计算方法。这种估计未来所有股息价值并将其“贴现”到即期的技术，就是所谓的“股利贴现模型”。这种模型即使到今天也很难被普通投资者理解，此外，其准确性也非常有限，甚至连专业人士也经常抵制它。[43]

    20世纪20年代，随着无线电、汽车和飞机的发展，技术环境的不断完善，公众很容易相信旧的证券评估规则不再适用。正如20世纪伟大的投资者约翰·邓普顿所说：“英语中最昂贵的一句话是‘这次不一样’。”[44]

    本杰明·格雷厄姆在记述那段时间时说：
    按照股市繁荣前的标准，股票的销售价格是其平均年收益的10倍；而现在，如果公用事业公司的一只股票的销售价格达到其最高年纪录收益的35倍，那么大家不会认为该价格太高，而会认为仅仅是估值标准提高了……因此，所有的价格上限都消失了，股票的价格不是取决于它能够卖出的价格，而是取决于它值得卖出的价格……这个原则将得出一个诱人的推论：在股票市场中赚钱是现在世界上最容易的事情。[45]

    到了1929年，卡尼曼和特沃斯基的各种启发式，特别是那个时代新技术的显著性、证券价格的飙升以及信贷的宽松，已经压倒了对证券价格的理性分析。

    经济学家马克斯·温克勒说得最简单。股市崩盘后，在提到最新的股利贴现模型时，他敏锐地观察到，20世纪20年代的股市不仅贴现了远期，也贴现了未来。[46]

    7 致富空想的破灭

    1929年大萧条

    和密西西比公司、南海公司和英国铁路泡沫等事件一样，对1929年美国股票崩盘事件的剖析也涉及“4P”：发起人、公众、政客和媒体。

    20世纪早期，塞缪尔·英萨尔继承了约翰·劳和乔治·哈德森的衣钵，创建了一个工业巨人企业，为美国的大型工厂提供动力，为数百万家庭提供照明。

    他出生于1859年的伦敦，父亲是一名中产阶级平教徒传教士和禁酒旅馆店主。英萨尔十几岁时主要忙于文员和速记员的工作，和那个时代许多雄心勃勃的年轻人一样，他崇拜托马斯·爱迪生。在失去一家伦敦拍卖行的工作后，他看到爱迪生旗下的一家英国电话公司的招聘广告，非常高兴，并成功地应聘到那里。

    他的上司很快就发现，英萨尔的办公技能远远超过了速记和簿记。几年后，公司选中英萨尔去美国总部工作，他回应说：“如果能成为爱迪生本人的秘书，我就去。”为了看起来比实际的21岁成熟，他开始留鬓角。1881年初，他横渡大西洋到了爱迪生身边，在那里工作了11年，并在公司的各个职位上一路晋升。

    越来越多地，英萨尔的命运不仅与爱迪生捆绑，还与支持爱迪生的约翰·摩根捆绑。那时，正值摩根在社会影响力和对技术的敏锐性方面达到了个人顶峰，作为一名早期电力爱好者，他在麦迪逊大道219号的家里安装了爱迪生的第一个白炽灯泡。在当时没有电网的情况下，这是一项不小的成就。后来摩根资助建设了曼哈顿第一座大型发电厂和输电线路，弥补了没有电网这一缺陷。

    对爱迪生来说很不幸的是，由于低压直流系统不适合长途传输，爱迪生通用电气公司的市场份额逐渐被汤姆森-休斯敦电气公司占据（其建造了交流高压电网）。汤姆森-休斯敦电气公司由电气工程师伊莱休·汤姆森和埃德温·休斯敦于1882年创建，是爱迪生通用电气公司的竞争对手。从1883年开始，爱迪生通用电气公司逐渐走向终结，因为当时英国发布了一项变压器专利，该变压器能够“降低”住宅用长距离交流输电线路中的高压电流。美国西屋电气公司很快采用了这项专利，并在公司里部署了汤姆森-休斯敦公司的交流电系统。

    1892年，在摩根投资公司的推动下，爱迪生通用电气公司与汤姆森-休斯敦电气公司合并，这巧妙地避免了爱迪生的公司的倒闭。但爱迪生本人从未承认过交流电的优越性；他一气之下卖掉了他在通用电气的股票，后来，当有人提醒他这些股票会值很多钱时，他说：“好吧，都卖没了，但我们花钱时很开心。”[1]

    英萨尔是经营电力设施的天才。在公司被合并前的10年里，他逐渐帮助爱迪生吞并了竞争对手，并取得芝加哥地区的垄断地位。[2]但1892年公司合并之后，他不再经营芝加哥公司，也开始无所事事。第二年，他自己接管了爱迪生在芝加哥孤立的各项业务，在那里，他熟练地收购、管理小型公用事业公司，并将其合并为大型公司。到了1905年，他将业务扩展到芝加哥以外的中西部地区；他游刃有余地经营自己的公司，而且那时是为了公众的利益。不断扩大的规模经济使他能够逐步降低行业价格，并引入非高峰低定价策略。由于电力服务对社会日益重要，他支持政府的法定监管，甚至有一次他还建议，如果他的公司无法为客户提供适当的服务，那么这个工作应该由政府来做。[3]

    如果他将自己的目标仅专注于为工业和城市照明提供电力，那么他仍将被人们铭记。遗憾的是，他对用电客户审慎而正直的关心并没有延伸到公司股东身上。英萨尔早期金融阴谋的典型例子是1912年中西部公用事业公司的上市，其主要目的不是发电，而是为其他业务筹集资金。英萨尔复杂金融阴谋的核心是他以个人身份以360万美元的价格购买了中西部公用事业公司所有的优先股和普通股，然后，转身以360万美元的价格向公众出售了所有优先股和1/6的普通股，这样实际上他自己免费获得了公司5/6的普通股。

    和哈德森一样，英萨尔也热心于公益，工作起来像特洛伊人。也和哈德森一样，他慷慨地资助市政项目和艺术项目，包括芝加哥的市民歌剧院，其被当地人称为“英萨尔的王座”。他在芝加哥北部的利伯蒂维尔建造了一个占地4445英亩[4]的庄园，居民们“在英萨尔的庄园里建房子，将出生在英萨尔医院的孩子们送到英萨尔学校上学，使用英萨尔灯，用英萨尔煤气烹饪，在英萨尔公路上行驶，在英萨尔银行存钱，在英萨尔高尔夫球场上打高尔夫”[5]。该镇代表了他庞大帝国的缩影。在鼎盛时期，该帝国由很多公司组成，这些公司的发电厂雇用了72000名工人，为1000万个客户服务。他是65家公司的董事会主席或成员，并担任11家公司的董事长。[6]

    早在1898年，英萨尔就凭直觉认为，在公用事业领域，国家机构的监管比城市运营的竞争更为可取。到第一次世界大战时，公用事业公司完全在政府监管之下，主要归功于英萨尔本人对该行业的引领。[7]政府监管限制了公司的利润，但就像之前的哈德森一样，英萨尔明白，最大的财富不在于提供商品和服务，而在于为商品和服务提供资金。

    英萨尔控股公司的复杂性超出了大多数观察者的理解能力，甚至可能超过了英萨尔本人的理解能力。他将数百家公司层层叠加，底层公司有时又部分地控股顶层公司。历史学家兼记者弗雷德里克·刘易斯·艾伦的一小段描述可以展现英萨尔的鲁布·戈德堡机械[8]般的复杂结构：

    缅因州的小安德罗斯科金电力公司由安德罗斯科金公司控制；而安德罗斯科金公司由缅因州中部电力公司控制；缅因州中部电力公司由新英格兰公共服务公司控制；新英格兰公共服务公司又由国家电力公司控制，国家电力公司又由中西部公用事业公司控制。[9]

    当时，代表公司所有权和控制权的中西部公用事业公司普通股，由英萨尔的私人公司公用事业投资公司持有，因此共7个层级的公司。于是，杠杆作用呈多倍增加，不仅仅是撇奶油[10]，用艾伦的话来说，还有来自多个组织层级的“超级富豪奶油”和“超超级富豪奶油”。[11]到1928年，英萨尔的这种拜占庭式的公司结构几乎已经不是个例，而是规则。当年，在纽约证券交易所上市的573家公司中，92家为纯控股公司，395家为控股和经营性公司，只有86家为纯经营性公司。[12]

    为了以虚高的价格向公众出售公司股票，必须创造盈利的幻觉。英萨尔有一套与布朗特和哈德森相当的金融骗术，其中最著名的就是让他的公司以不断上涨的价格相互购买资产，然后将每笔购买业务的利润都入账。就好像丈夫以1500美元的价格将之前1000美元入手的雪佛兰汽车卖给妻子，而妻子则以同样的方式将她的福特汽车卖给丈夫，这样每人都获得了500美元的收益。

    与之前的布朗特和哈德森，以及之后的互联网巨头一样，英萨尔受到公众和媒体的崇拜。20世纪20年代，他威严的照片两次登上《时代》杂志封面；与他在大陆银行前见一面据说价值100万美元。[13]英萨尔的销售员们推动了这场杠杆式闹剧最后一幕的出现。1929年初，经过专门训练的销售队伍开始首次向公众出售其顶层公司英萨尔的公用事业投资公司的股票，最初的售价是英萨尔为其资产支付的价格的10倍，后来随着人们对该公司的热情高涨，其售价超过了30倍。英萨尔的公司结构就像高盛信托一样，是为繁荣时期设计的。任何经济波动都会削弱电力公司支付债券利息和优先股（对公司收入享有优先权）分红的能力，而这又将严重影响其普通股的股息和价格。普通股股东通常以保证金形式认购股票，他们的净资产也将受到影响。这一过程随着英萨尔控股公司的金字塔结构逐层加速。

    这正是1929年以后发生在英萨尔和他的60万股东中的大部分人身上的故事。与哈德森一样，英萨尔始终对自己的计划坚信不疑，公司股价在漫长而艰难的1929—1932年熊市中缓慢跌落直至崩溃。他借了数百万美元，试图用他的多层公司结构来抬高公司股价，但徒劳无功。1932年4月，就在股市最终触底前的3个月，他的银行家们把他召集到纽约的一家办事处并告诉他，他们将不再支持他。“这意味着公司要进入破产管理吗？”他问道。“是的，英萨尔先生，恐怕是这样。”[14]这对投资大众产生了巨大的损害；一份会计报告估计，到1946年，一场围绕中西部证券公司破产的持久法律争论终于结束时，公众损失数额会达到6.38亿美元。[15]而到那一年，股票市场已基本恢复；因此1932年股市崩盘时，在接近市场最低点的时候，公众遭受的损失肯定达到了数十亿美元。

    英萨尔最后的经历和他的控股公司一样错综复杂，与哈德森的垮台过程遥相呼应。在破产数月后，他因与出售公用事业公司股票有关的邮件欺诈而被起诉，逃往法国，当政府试图将他带回受审时，他又逃往希腊，因为希腊与美国的引渡条约已经商定但尚未签字生效。但雅典当局忽略了这一瑕疵，无论如何还是把他经由土耳其送回了美国。[16]回到美国，他再次出现在《时代》杂志封面上，这一次帽子遮住了他的脸。他被剥夺了大部分财富，但仍然可以组织起强有力的法律辩护团队，对他的多项指控最终被击败了。回到法国时，已是78岁高龄的他痛苦而虚弱，瘦得不成样子。1938年7月16日，在巴黎的一个地铁站，当他把手伸向售票员时，突然心脏病发作而死去，口袋里只有几个法郎。由于他心脏不好，他的妻子曾一再警告他不要乘坐地铁。[17]

    在巨大的债务规模中，英萨尔的控股公司的债务只占相对较小的一块。正如密西西比、南海和铁路事件那样，20世纪20年代末的美国股票狂热以一种极端的乐观情绪感染了民众和商界，导致其过度借贷。[18]1922—1929年，美国的全国总债务增长了68%，但全国总资产仅增长20%，收入仅增长29%。[19]在崩盘之前，债务的增长速度可能一直快于经济的其他方面。私人债务增长尤其迅速；与政府不同的是，个人和公司不能通过征税或印钞来消除债务，而且由于个人和公司是20世纪20年代债务的主要引擎，因此，当事件爆发时，其债务承担带来的负面影响也尤其大。

    20世纪20年代泡沫事件的另一个主要发起人是股票池，它通常是一个由经纪人和金融家组成的特设小组，他们按照精心设计的顺序相互买卖股票，操纵特定公司的股价，旨在引起小投资者的注意。他们聚集在券商大厅的股票报价器和黑板前，得出某只股票已“被控制”的结论，也跟随买入，进一步推高价格。

    股票池的关键人物是股票交易所的场内“专家”：他是在交易所场内为公众买卖股票的经纪人，保存着一本珍贵的客户买卖“订单簿”，这能够预测未来的股票走向。当订单簿上的公开购买订单列表足够庞大时，股票池的参与者就会将自己的股票出售给那些由股价暴涨引来的投资者，并获得数百万美元的利润。

    最臭名昭著的股票池集中在无线电领域，例如众所周知的美国无线电公司，其参与者似乎是美国政界和商界的名人：杜邦和通用汽车公司的财务主管约翰·J.拉斯科布，美国钢铁公司的最高领导者查尔斯·施瓦布，沃尔特·克莱斯勒，佩尔西梅·洛克菲勒，伍德罗·威尔逊总统的前助手约瑟夫·塔马尔蒂。内线交易在20世纪20年代并不违法。对现代读者来说，另一个名字很突出：戴维·萨诺夫夫人，美国无线电公司总裁的妻子。

    然而，有史以来最伟大的股票池经理应该是约瑟夫·P.肯尼迪[20]。经常有一些传说，将肯尼迪家族的财富与私酒交易联系在一起。不过，没有可靠证据支持这一点，而且无论如何，非法制造烈酒对一个哈佛经济学毕业生来说并不是一个理性的职业选择。他的血统更适合华尔街。在那里，他通过传奇般的股票池操作积累了一笔财富，后来又将这笔财富扩展到好莱坞和房地产等领域。

    正如19世纪40年代乔治·哈德森在铁路领域的庞氏骗局式融资——用新股东的资本支付旧股东的股息——在那时是可以接受的，也是合法的，20世纪20年代的股票池行为也是如此，在1933年和1934年的相关证券法[21]通过之前，这种公然操纵股价的行为没有被禁止。

    金融狂热的第三个和第四个解剖位置是政客和媒体，这两个部分巧妙地集中在约翰·J.拉斯科布身上。拉斯科布的父亲是一个雪茄制造商（经营规模中等），于1898年去世。之后的拉斯科布与英萨尔一样好运，成为工业巨头皮埃尔·S.杜邦的私人秘书，并最终成为这家大型化工公司的财务主管。1920年，杜邦拯救陷入困境的通用汽车，拉斯科布接管了通用汽车的财务。20世纪20年代后期，拉斯科布成为股票爱好者，参与了一些最成功的股票池。[22]1928年，民主党任命他为全国委员会主席。

    然而，拉斯科布最让人印象深刻的是一次臭名昭著的采访，采访文章名为《人人都应该富有》，并发表在《女性家庭杂志》1929年8月刊，当时该杂志的订户已超过200万。其中最臭名昭著的一段话正解释了文章标题的主旨：

    假设一个男人23岁结婚，并开始每月定期储蓄15美元——几乎任何一个有工作的人都可以做到，只要他足够努力。如果他投资于优质普通股，并将股息和股权进行再投资，那么20年后他将至少有8万美元，以及每月约400美元的投资收入，这样他会很富有。任何人都能做到这一点，所以我坚信任何人不仅可以富有，而且应该富有。[23]

    拉斯科布的这段话，是泡沫时代媒体对不费吹灰之力的财富的经典赞歌，巧妙地说明了即使是两大著名公司的首席财务官也会采取启发式捷径。如今，我们只要借助资产负债表或财务计算器，并且具备一定的能力就能计算出，20年里将每月15美元的储蓄转化为8万美元需要25%的年平均回报率；但1929年，这一计算更加困难。虽然拉斯科布可能拿出了他的铅笔、纸和复利表，但事实上他没有提到25%这一隐含的长期投资回报率（这一数字即使在1929年也高得离谱），很可能他只是凭空说出了这些数字。

    像拉斯科布这样的政客，在泡沫及其破灭中扮演着双重角色。首先，和其他人一样，他们也陶醉于追求不费吹灰之力的财富，就像1719—1720年的乔治一世国王和奥尔良公爵以及铁路泡沫时期的大部分议会成员一样。之后的几十年，现代政治廉洁和立法遏制了这种腐败，至少在发达的西方国家是如此，这让政治领导人有了更为神圣的责任，即要保证经济基本健康发展：在经济扩张时期，没有过度投机，而在经济收缩时期，国家领导人能够平稳地避免任何担忧或恐慌。

    20世纪20年代时也是如此。在1928年共和党大会上，赫伯特·胡佛在提名演讲中庄严地吟诵道：“今天，我们美国比以往任何时候都更接近于最终战胜贫困。贫困家庭正在从我们中间消失。”[24]经济崩溃后，胡佛和他的财政部长安德鲁·梅隆一再向公众保证经济“基本上是健康的”。胡佛还开创了一种在面临经济危机时的反应，其将成为现代世界各国领导人的标准反应，被约翰·肯尼斯·加尔布雷思称为“无事由会议”：在这种会议上，国家的政治、金融、经济领袖都被召入白宫，“不是因为有事要做，而是因为有必要给人留下正在做事的印象”[25]。

    有可能实时发现泡沫吗？

    现代金融的伟大进步之一，是芝加哥大学的尤金·法玛提出的有效市场假说。20世纪60年代，尤金·法玛认识到，金融市场能够快速将新信息——市场变故——转化为价格。但市场变故是无法被预测到的，因为我们也不可能预测到未来的价格方向。

    而且，有效市场假说认为，当前市场价格能够准确反映现有信息，因此狂热不应该出现。正如法玛尖锐地指出：“坦率地说，‘泡沫’这个词让我发疯。”[26]

    有效市场假说的支持者对泡沫的厌恶是可以理解的；现代金融学的核心是构建和测试市场行为模型。艾萨克·牛顿所谓的“我能计算天体的运动，但不能计算人类的疯狂”很容易被理解，但它揭示了一个更深层次的事实：牛顿是有史以来世界上最伟大的数学建模者之一，如果连他都不能用数学术语来描述泡沫，那么也许没有人能做到。

    耶鲁大学的罗伯特·席勒与法玛共同获得了2013年诺贝尔经济学奖。席勒认为，当上涨的价格能够实现自我维持时，泡沫就会出现，用他的话说就是，“当价格也被狂热传染的时候”[27]。尽管所有泡沫都是如此，但仅凭这一现象无法识别泡沫，因为投资者一直在到处追逐当前高回报的资产。然而，像1719—1720年、19世纪40年代和20世纪20年代那样的大规模泡沫是罕见的，因此仅仅靠每天自我维持的价格上涨这一判断标准，会产生很高的误报率。

    最高法院大法官波特·斯图尔特在审理雅各贝利斯诉俄亥俄州案[28]时遇到了同样的难题。虽然它所涉及的领域不是金融业，但他的方法提供了考虑泡沫的另外一种方式：

    根据宪法第一和第十四修正案，这一领域的刑法犯罪仅限于“硬核色情物品”。今天，我将不再试图用寥寥几笔就对我所理解的这类物品做进一步的界定，也许我永远无法成功地做到这一点。但是，当我看到它的时候，我就知道是它。[29]

    正如牛顿无法模拟人类的疯狂一样，也如法玛教授讨厌“泡沫”这个词一样，斯图尔特大法官这段著名的话表明，尽管他无法从语言学角度描述什么是硬核色情物品，但他知道它是什么样子的。这同样适用于金融业：即使我们不能对泡沫进行建模，但现在我们肯定已经知道它们是什么样子了。

    到目前为止，密西西比公司、南海公司、英国铁路和20世纪20年代的美国股票市场都呈现出4个极具特色的特征。第一个特征是，金融投机成为日常对话和社会互动的主要话题，从坎康普瓦大街和交易巷的人群，到20世纪20年代美国券商大厅的人群。据弗雷德里克·刘易斯·艾伦回忆，在20世纪20年代：

    一夜之间发财的故事挂在每个人嘴边。一位金融评论员报告说，他的医生发现病人在谈论股票市场时不关心其他任何事情，他的理发师不止一次地用热毛巾打断客户对蒙哥马利·沃德股票前景的描述。妻子们问她们的丈夫为什么这么慢，为什么他们不参与这一切，结果她们的丈夫在当天早上已经买了100股美国亚麻籽公司的股票。[30]

    泡沫的第二个特征是，相当一部分通常情况下能力强、头脑清醒的人，现在却放弃了安全、高薪的职业，全职从事金融投机。例如，如果没有当时的金融刺激，那么布朗特和哈德森都会继续成为相对成功的亚麻布经销商。艾伦描述过一位女演员，她把自己在公园大道的住所装修成一家小型经纪公司，“周围摆满了表格、图表和财务报告，越来越多地通过电话进行市场操作，而且越来越沉迷于此”，而另一位艺术家“曾经口若悬河地说，只有高更[31]才会一边画画，一边宣扬国家贝拉斯·赫斯（一家现已不复存在的邮购商行）的股票价值”[32]。

    泡沫的第三个也是最持久的特征是，信徒对怀疑论者的猛烈抨击。20世纪20年代末，如果说有人能够以血统和历史感来表达怀疑并警告公众的话，这个人就是保罗·莫里茨·沃伯格。沃伯格于1868年出生于一个德国犹太家庭，其家族具有中世纪威尼斯的银行背景。在1911年入籍美国之前，他在欧洲金融机构中迅速崛起；1914年，他作为创始成员宣誓就职美国联邦储备委员会。

    沃伯格在移民之前曾经见过类似的欧洲泡沫，他知道泡沫的结局。1929年3月，在担任国际承兑银行行长期间，他注意到，股票价格已经完全脱离了合理范围内的估值，并惊恐地指出，贷款数量的激增已经导致“无限制的投机狂欢”，这最终不仅会损害投机者，而且“还会导致整个国家的经济萧条”。[33]

    这一惊人准确的预测却遭到了公众的强烈谴责。最温和的方式是批评他“过时”；还有愤怒的观察家指责他“粗暴抨击美国的繁荣”，这些语句几乎与两代人之后抨击互联网泡沫怀疑论者的语句一模一样。[34]

    著名投资顾问罗杰·巴布森也有同样的遭遇。他在10年前创办了巴布森学院，1929年9月5日，在该学院举办的一次人数众多的商业会议上，他发表演讲：“迟早会有一场崩盘，而且它可能会很可怕。”与沃伯格一样，他预测会有一场严重的萧条。正是在那天，市场急剧下跌，即所谓的“巴布森崩盘”。沃伯格很容易受到本土主义和反犹太主义的攻击，而巴布森则更容易成为被攻击的目标，因为他之前已经证明了自己是个怪人：他的作品中有一份名为《重力——我们的头号敌人》的宣言，他还成立了重力研究所，其主要目的是发明一种保护盾来抵御重力的致命力量。

    如果是在正常时期，那么巴布森的预言顶多会受到温和的质疑。但当时并不是正常时期。报纸讽刺地称他为“韦尔斯利[35]的圣人”，并指出他先前预言的不准确之处。一家投资公司警告其客户，“我们不能因为某位著名统计学家对市场的不利预测而仓促抛售股票”[36]。

    明斯基的健忘症因素通常揭示了泡沫时期的代沟现象；只有年龄足以回忆起上一次繁荣和萧条的参与者才可能持怀疑态度。而他们更年轻、更热情的伙伴会嘲笑他们是守旧派，与经济和金融市场的新现实脱节。简言之，泡沫主要集中在记忆短暂的年轻人领域。

    无论是由于何种机制，这些激烈反应都可以理解为弗里茨·海德理论中的平衡和不平衡状态。正如末日信徒的期望那样，没有什么信仰能比不劳而获和无限财富的承诺更令人愉快，信徒也不会轻易放弃这样一个令人安慰的概念。对忠实的信徒来说，阻力最小的方法就是给怀疑论者贴上“不理解”的标签，从而达到平衡状态。

    泡沫的第四个也是最后一个特征是极端预测内容的出现，比如南海事件中预测西班牙奇迹般地将其新大陆贸易的垄断权转让给英国、投资100英镑可以获得数百英镑的年度分红，英国铁路事件中预测即将“主宰时空”，美国股票泡沫中拉斯科布隐含预测的25%的市场年回报率。

    1929年，耶鲁大学的欧文·费雪做出了结束所有预言的预言。也许费雪是那个时代最伟大的金融经济学家，他发展了许多现代数理金融学的理论基础，至今仍受到尊敬。但是，人们更记得他于1929年10月15日在曼哈顿采购代理协会说的话，那是在黑色星期四的9天前：“股票价格已经达到了一个看似永久的高峰状态。”[37][38]

    没有“阳光查理”米切尔的故事，1929年的崩盘历史就不完整。英萨尔和哈德森至少为子孙后代提供了重要的基础设施，这些遗产减轻了他们的罪恶。但是，查理·米切尔，这个时代的伟大的金融发起人——和掠夺者——无法得到任何救赎。

    和英萨尔一样，米切尔出身卑微。1907年，他成为总部位于纽约的美国信托公司的总裁奥克利·索恩的助手。米切尔就职时正赶上当年的大恐慌，美国信托公司正处于这场风暴的中心，索恩领导这家公司化解了银行挤兑危机。30岁的米切尔作为助手，在整个危机期间投入了大量的时间，经常晚上不回家，睡在老板办公室的地板上。1911—1916年，他开始经营自己的证券经纪公司，随后被纽约城市银行（花旗银行的前身）聘请，为其管理小型股票和债券销售部门——纽约城市公司。

    商业银行家履行3项近乎神圣的职能，其对任何资本主义社会都至关重要：保护他人的货币；向企业提供营运资本，否则经济将无法运转；创造货币。相比之下，投资银行家却向公众出售股票和债券，这是一种风险更大、在道德层面更模棱两可的行为。

    银行监管机构早就明白它们之间的区别。事实上，监管机构禁止商业银行拥有投资银行。但不能拥有也并不意味着无法控制。通过控制的方式，米切尔和他的银行的律师们设法构建了与纽约城市公司的关系。[39]简言之，查理·米切尔是一名伪装成女王的军官的海盗，在纽约城市银行旗下航行。纽约城市公司收取了大量费用，成为一家投资银行，其主要职能是向公众出售新发行的股票和债券，进而为公司创造资本。不幸的是，该公司出售的许多股票和债券都是不可靠的，这些证券出售给了那些毫无戒心的纽约城市银行的客户，这加剧了银行的渎职行为。之后，纽约城市公司和银行承销了外国政府发行的更加不可靠的债券。

    米切尔在1916年接管纽约城市公司时，该公司在银行总部只占用了一间办公室，只有4名员工。发起人不仅需要公众和客户，还需要媒体。繁荣时期的媒体能带来一大群轻信的新兵。20世纪20年代，杂志专栏作家布鲁斯·巴顿是典型的媒体骗子，他的父亲是一位传教士，曾将耶稣描述为“A-1推销员”。1923年，他写了一篇关于米切尔的吹捧文章，题为《这里有什么其他人做不到的吗？》。在一次采访中，米切尔向巴顿讲述，当他的年轻推销员遇到萧条期时，他会带推销员到银行家俱乐部的顶层去看看下面的人群。“下面有600万人，他们的收入有成千上万美元。他们正在等待有人告诉他们如何使用自己的储蓄。你应该好好看看，吃一顿丰盛的午餐，然后去那里告诉他们。”[40]

    米切尔的魅力和干劲、媒体的热情以及20世纪20年代股市的狂热，这些因素都推动了纽约城市公司不断扩大其经营规模；到1929年，该公司雇用了1400名销售和支持人员，他们分散在58个分支机构中，所有这些人员都通过11000英里的私人电话线与纽约总部相连（因此现代社会将提供全方位服务的证券经纪公司蔑称为“电线屋”）。面对指责，米切尔发出了几乎不间断的规劝：“我们希望能够完全做到，除了童工之外，我们所有的销售人员都是正式员工。”该公司实现了这一抱负，并且实现了更多目标，在20世纪20年代每年承销了超过15亿美元的股票和债券，比任何其他投资银行都多。[41]

    该银行向轻信的客户大力推销纽约城市公司的投资银行“专长”。这些客户得到的建议是，购买具有诱人优惠券的债券，以及价格不断上涨的更诱人的股票，以取代传统的低收益但安全的储蓄。

    米切尔可能不是证券经纪行业销售大赛的最早发起人，但他将此细化为一门艺术，向获胜的“员工”提供高达25000美元的奖金（“员工”这个术语并不讨人喜欢，但仍然很自然地用在金融业中）。米切尔的公司非常成功，其卖光了所有的债券。通常情况下，公司和外国政府会争取由投资银行发行其债券，但纽约城市公司通过主动鼓励公司发行更多债券，扭转了这种局面。更为离奇的是，米切尔将销售人员分散到不稳定的巴尔干和南美洲国家，为那些贫困的政府提供廉价资本。

    尽管销售人员汇报了秘鲁和巴西的米纳斯吉拉斯州等外国政府的无能和数据造假，而且其几乎肯定会违约，但米切尔和纽约城市公司仍继续向银行的轻信客户出售这些外国债券。

    1921年，他从纽约城市公司总裁升任银行总裁，这为他的销售大业扫清了最后一道障碍。文学评论家埃德蒙·威尔逊最好地捕捉到了米切尔的精神，他描述了米切尔派出的推销员，他们“敲开农村各户房屋的门，像那些推销吸尘器或刷子的人一样”；20世纪20年代早期和中期，纽约城市公司主要销售债券；慢慢地，随着市场牛市势头增强，该公司将销售重点从债券转向股票，不仅销售负债的亚纳康达铜业等公司的高风险股票，甚至销售银行自己发行的股票，而如果没有该公司与银行合法分离的遮羞布，那么这样的股票本来就是非法的。[42]

    1958年，威尔逊描述了米切尔：

    在10年的时间里，他向美国公众出售了价值超过150亿美元的证券。他向公众出售汽车公司的股票，这些股票现在打了水漂；他向公众出售濒临破产的南美洲共和国的债券；他向公众出售自己银行的股票。1929年10月后，这些股票的价格在3周内从572美元下跌到220美元，最近它们只值20美元。[43]

    在这次股票崩盘事件中，米切尔让他的客户财富归零。公众对这一事件的印象集中在10月戏剧性的“黑色日子”上。24日，黑色星期四，摩根大通领导的财团上演了戏剧性的救援，到这天中午，恐慌基本消除。但到了黑色星期一和黑色星期二，即28日和29日，曾在24日拯救了股市的财阀们——米切尔、摩根大通的托马斯·拉蒙特和大通国民银行的阿尔伯特·威金——已经耗尽了勇气和资金。连续两天，股市分别下跌13.5%和11.7%。[44]

    到10月29日收盘时，股票价格已从9月的峰值下跌了39.6%：可以肯定的是，价格下跌幅度比1973—1974年、2000—2002年和2007—2009年的价格下跌幅度还要大。此外，到1930年4月中旬，股票市场又挽回了2/5以上的损失。[45]

    在1907年的金融危机期间，只有少数美国人拥有股票，即使到了1929年，也只有10%的美国人拥有股票，因此，1929年的最初下跌对普通民众的直接经济影响相对较小。[46]但在接下来的几年中，腐败蔓延到了商业活动的心脏——银行系统，经济陷入混乱。到1932年中，股票价格从1929年的峰值水平暴跌了近90%。1931年12月11日，距离1932年中最终触底还有6个月（见图7-1）。一位小投资者本杰明·罗思在日记中写到了投资者的贫困：

    图7-1 1925—1935年的道琼斯工业股票平均价格指数

    一位非常保守的年轻已婚男子告诉我，在过去的10年里，他成功偿还了房子的抵押贷款。几周前，他又将房子进行了抵押，获得的5000美元贷款用于投资优质股票，且他打算长期投资。我认为两三年后，他将获得可观的利润。人们普遍认为，现在可以以非常有吸引力的价格购买优质股票和债券。困难在于人们手头没有资金。[47]

    没有资金的公众是愤怒的公众，就像在1720年和1848年那样，公众想要证明自己的成功。金融幽默作家弗雷德·施韦德用最简洁的语言描述：“赔光钱的客户当然更愿意相信自己是被抢了，而不愿意承认自己是在傻瓜的建议下做了傻瓜。”[48]截至1929年，银行拥有23万名客户；目前尚不清楚具体有多少客户开立了纽约城市公司的证券经纪账户，但估计至少有数万人，而且可能会更多。[49]与其他证券经纪人的客户（自愿走进门购买证券）不同，米切尔的客户原本打算找一家安全的商业银行存钱，结果却像是跌跌撞撞地走进了一家妓院。

    一个最不可能的人物命中注定地成为查理·米切尔的复仇天使：一位直言不讳的意大利裔美国律师，名叫费迪南·佩科拉，他的父亲是一名制鞋厂工人，因工伤致残，他的受教育时间也因此被缩短。19世纪90年代末，十几岁的佩科拉从大学辍学，以供养父母和兄弟姐妹，但他设法攻读了法律学位。随后的很长一段时间里，他担任纽约市的地方检察官助理，并成功起诉了许多起金融案件。

    崩盘和随后的熊市促使美国参议院的银行货币委员会展开了对证券业的调查。委员会从1932年开始举行听证会，审问了米切尔和其他许多人。前两名律师的审问毫无效果，于是委员会解雇了他们。

    佩科拉在审问工作中的出色表现引起了班布里奇·科尔比的注意。班布里奇·科尔比是一位杰出的律师，曾在伍德罗·威尔逊时期担任国务卿，他向即将离任的共和党委员会主席彼得·诺贝克推荐了年轻的佩科拉。那时，诺贝克正在拼命寻找人来替代他之前解雇的律师。[50]

    佩科拉从1933年1月24日开始担任首席律师；他必须全力以赴，因为一开始就远远落后于形势。就在他被聘用3周后，他第一次与英萨尔信托公司的人打交道，没占到优势。因此，1933年2月21日，当身材高大、颇有气场、皮肤黝黑、极度自信的米切尔大步走进委员会会议室时，这位新任首席律师看上去不可能是他的对手。

    但佩科拉很快就找到了自信，主导了听证会并彻底摧毁了起诉目标，历史上将这场诉讼称为“佩科拉听证会”。正如我们见过的，巨额财富的拥有者将受到极大的奉承，这反过来腐蚀了他们的自我意识，当涉及犯罪行为时，这是一个致命缺陷。此外，犯罪企业通常会给其员工洗脑，使员工们认为自己的行为是正常的，甚至是值得赞扬的。

    同样的事情也经常发生在金融公司的欺诈行为上。在这些公司里，员工们学着用“符合客户最佳利益”这一借口来合理化自己的行为。有魅力和成功的企业领导者尤其会这样培训员工；正如老话所说，鱼从头开始向下腐烂。打击犯罪的行家佩科拉很快就认识到，米切尔正是这种典型的企业精英，纽约城市公司的作案手法在法律上或道德上没有任何问题，因此，起诉他的最有效方法，是让他解释他是如何领导他的销售人员的。在8天的证词中，佩科拉以礼貌、低调的方式，有条不紊地引导着傲慢的米切尔穿过了纽约城市公司销售机构的道德沼泽，并彻底摧毁了米切尔。

    米切尔需要支付多少钱才能说服他的销售人员将股票和债券出售给客户？米切尔回答说，不多，每年只有大约25000美元——此时一个美国工人的年均收入只有800美元。纽约城市公司如何支付其高管薪酬？根据出售证券的利润，而不是根据这些证券给客户带来的收益。这一体系支付给米切尔多少钱？每年超过100万美元——即使是对于那个时代的最高级的管理者，这也是一个闻所未闻的工资水平。

    更糟糕的是，1929年，米切尔以低于成本的价格将纽约城市公司的股票卖给了自己的妻子，然后立即又从她那里买回，没有缴纳个人所得税；他还对纽约城市银行的股票进行了典型的股票池操纵；向高级管理人员发放奢侈的可免除“贷款”，但粗暴地对待普通员工，强制性地要求普通员工购买银行的股票，以远高于市场的价格抵销员工的未来工资。当他的普通员工最终付清高价购买的股票时，他便解雇了他们。[51]

    当骇人听闻的工资和贷款、逃税把戏和员工受虐充斥着头条新闻时，最初自信的米切尔慢慢意识到自己已经陷入很大的麻烦中。然而，佩科拉的目标更高：他想揭露鼓动客户用借来的钱购买大量风险证券的销售人员（不仅仅是纽约城市公司的销售人员）扭曲的动机，这是让成千上万辛勤工作的美国人破产的原因。他在听证会的第4天开始做这项任务，并展示了该公司如何在有充分的机会接触普通银行存款人名单的情况下，按照销售指导书的措辞，“无情地”向公众出售股票和债券。[52]

    听证会的第六天，即2月28日，佩科拉再次转换关注点，关注对个人投资者造成的损害。在听证会之前，委员会已经收到数百封纽约城市公司的破产客户的来信。他们的共同点是谨慎和节俭，购买了政府债券，生活终于可以较为舒适，然后被纽约城市公司的销售人员说服，反复购买高风险股票和债券，最后陷入贫困。

    佩科拉挑选了其中最让人同情的一位，即来自宾夕法尼亚州波茨维尔的埃德加·布朗。布朗最近卖掉了一家连锁剧院，出于健康原因想搬到加利福尼亚州，他想寻找一家全国性的金融机构，以获得财务和后勤方面的建议和支持。在一家全国性的杂志上，他看到了这则广告：

    您在考虑一次长途旅行吗？如果答案是肯定的，那么我们将支付您与我们机构联系的费用，因为您将不再需要当地银行家的建议，而是将与我们密切联系，我们将指导您的投资。[53]

    关键是，该广告是由纽约城市银行发布的，但是纽约城市公司的弗雷德·拉梅尔联系了布朗，要帮助他投资10万美元。布朗积蓄中的大部分是卖剧院所得，其中的1/4已经购买了债券，主要是美国政府债券。布朗对拉梅尔只提出了一个要求：避开股票。

    在布朗的准许下，拉梅尔为他购买了各种国内外债券，远远超过了布朗10万美元的储蓄，因此布朗又从包括纽约城市银行在内的多家银行贷款，总计18万美元。当他的债券投资组合甚至在市场崩盘之前就暴跌了的时候，布朗抱怨道：

    布朗：然后（拉梅尔）说“好吧，那是你坚持只买债券的错。你为什么不让我卖给你一些股票？”。嗯，股票市场一直在上涨。于是我完全相信了，说“好，那买股票”。

    佩科拉：你告诉他买什么股票了吗？

    布朗：从来没有。

    佩科拉：那他为你买股票了吗？

    布朗：我可以开玩笑地回答一下吗——他买股票了吗？

    听证会的书记员尽职地记录了一句话：“长时间的大笑”。[54]

    布朗随后向听证会出示了一份大量购入股票的记录，佩科拉为了减轻书记员的负担，并没有让其记录。布朗讲述了他如何前往纽约城市公司总部，抱怨拉梅尔的账户交易过于激进，以至于尽管股市不断上涨，但他的投资组合的价值一直在下降。他被告知，公司将调查此事，他将得到答复。

    布朗确实收到了拉梅尔的回信，但他建议布朗购买更多的股票，包括纽约城市银行的股票；到1929年10月4日，他的投资组合的价值进一步下降。布朗前往纽约城市公司的洛杉矶办事处，要求出售自己的所有仓位[55]，但接下来，“他们好似把我看作一个想把自己的母亲赶出家门的人，我立刻被那里所有的销售员包围，他们让我知道出售仓位是非常非常愚蠢的”。

    该公司终于在10月29日黑色星期二卖出了布朗的股票，当时布朗的保证金已经用完，他一无所有。此外，该公司以最虚假的方式——远低于市场的价格购买了布朗的证券。

    布朗，两年前的身价为10万美元（约可折合为今天的150万美元），现在成了贫民。令人惊讶的是，布朗此时想再贷款25000美元以进一步投机亚纳康达铜业公司的股票，而银行拒绝了，理由是布朗失业又破产。[56]

    1929年以前，那些成功的商界人士几乎具有被膜拜的地位，成为国家利益的最终仲裁者；但1933年后的一段时间里，佩科拉听证会将华尔街列为头号公敌，还将“银匪”[57]一词引入了美语词汇中。这个词在两代人之后的2007—2009年全球金融危机中又死灰复燃。

    听证会于3月2日结束，也就是富兰克林·罗斯福就职典礼的前两天。现代经济史学家认为罗斯福的竞选口号是银行大规模倒闭的重要原因，特别是他威胁要让美元相对黄金贬值的言论，而他最终也实施了这一政策。[58]公众渴望报复，听证会后的两个月内，米切尔因涉嫌欺诈而受审。与布朗特和哈德森一样，米切尔可能没有做任何违犯证券法的事情，那时的法律比较宽松，因此所有的指控都不成立，他被无罪释放。当然他必须与政府解决补税问题。在接下来的20年里，他甚至重新获得了一些财富以及体面的社会地位；他最后的住所在第五大道，现已成为法国领事馆。

    正如两个世纪前南海股票崩溃后发生的那样，相关法律的修改姗姗来迟。在听证会之后的15个月内，罗斯福签署了一整套受佩科拉委员会启发的证券立法的文件，包括严格区分投资银行和商业银行的《格拉斯-斯蒂格尔法案》；1933年和1934年的相关证券法，分别规范证券的发行和交易；1940年的《投资公司法》，主要监管金融顾问和投资信托（当今共同基金的前身）。

    美国证券交易委员会是根据1934年的《证券交易法》设立其规定的机构。金融界最大的讽刺之一是，美国证券交易委员会的第一任专员正是曾经股票池的完美操纵者约瑟夫·P.肯尼迪。当有人向罗斯福指出肯尼迪不适合担任此职位时，罗斯福调侃道：“只有小偷才能抓住小偷。”[59]

    弗雷德·施韦德以其特有的幽默，从当代视角对此次崩盘事件进行了解释：

    1929年，有一列火车的奢华车厢，每周早上都会到达宾夕法尼亚车站。当火车停下来时，一直在打桥牌、读报纸、攀比财富的百万富翁们从车厢前端走了出来。靠近车厢门的地方放着一个银碗，里面有很多硬币。那些需要5美分换乘市区地铁的人会拿走一枚。他们不需要用任何东西来交换硬币；这根本不算钱，就像羽毛牙签一样免费提供。只是5美分而已。

    1929年10月的突然崩盘有很多解释。我更喜欢的解释是耶和华之眼，愤怒的上帝正好在10月碰到了那个碗，在可以理解的突然恼怒中，耶和华踢翻了美国的金融结构，结果就是碗里的硬币永远消失了。[60]

    阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦有一句名言，复利是宇宙中最强大的力量（实际上这句话并不是爱因斯坦说的）。事实并非如此。健忘才是宇宙中最强大的力量。佩科拉听证会后短短两年，弗雷德里克·刘易斯·艾伦就预见性地观察到了这一点：

    圣乔治攻击巨龙，受到热烈的赞扬[61]；但总有一天，圣乔治死了，观众散去，圣乔治的继任者发现龙是一个非常有说服力的家伙，开始怀疑为什么会有屠龙这样的事情发生，时代是否改变了，以及是否有必要让龙受到最温和的约束。[62]

    随着佩科拉委员会逐渐淡出人们的记忆，圣乔治不仅失去了警惕，还躺在路边流血不止，无法保护一群几乎忘记了拉斯科布、英萨尔和米切尔的公众，新的发起者又将诞生。

  • 斯蒂芬·平克《人性中的善良天使》8-10

    第8章 心魔

    但是人哪，骄傲的人，
    掌握到暂时的小小权力，
    立刻忘记了自己玻璃般易碎的本来面目，
    像一只盛怒中的猴子，
    在天神前扮出种种丑恶的怪相，
    让天使为之哭泣。
    ——威廉·莎士比亚，《一报还一报》

    暴力减少中有两个方面对我们理解人性有决定性的意义：（1）暴力；（2）减少。前6章告诉我们，人类历史就是一连串的血腥事件。我们见到部落民在抢劫和寻仇中几乎杀光对方的男性，见到对新生儿的处置中杀死大量女婴，还见到人们为了复仇和娱乐实施酷刑，而杀戮的受害者多到可以分门别类、合辙押韵地填满整整一页字典：凶杀（homicide）、政府屠杀（democide）、种族灭绝（genocide）、种族文化灭绝（ethnocide）、政治屠杀（politicide）、弑君（regicide）、杀婴（infanticide）、杀害新生儿（neonaticide）、弑子女（filicide）、手足相残（sibli-cide）、性别灭绝（gynecide）、杀妻（uxoricide）、杀夫（mariticide）和自杀性恐怖主义（terrorism by suicide）。暴力遍及我们这个物种的历史和史前史的各个角落，绝非源自特定时间、特定地点的特别产出。

    同时，这几章给出了几十张图表，描绘了人类历史上的暴力走向，展示出这根线条从左上角蜿蜒走向右下角。人类历史上没有任何一种暴力的趋势能够保证水平不变。不论引发暴力的原因是什么，它反正不是饥饿、性欲或者瞌睡之类的生理欲求。

    因此，暴力的减少使得我们可以放弃二分法，它阻碍了我们理解几千年来暴力的根源。在二分法中，人类或者是天性良善或者是天性邪恶，或者是猩猩或者是天使，或者是鹰或者是鸽子，或者是霍布斯式的残忍暴虐，或者是卢梭式的高尚。如果任其自由发展，人类不会走向和平协作，但也不会变成嗜血动物，非要定期杀个你死我活。关于人类思维有多重功能已经形成很多概念，例如官能心理学理论（faculty psychology）、多重智能理论（multiple intelligences）、心智器官（mental organs）、心理模块说（modularity）、心理领域特殊性（domain-specificity）以及将大脑比作多功能瑞士军刀的思维暗喻。这么多的概念中总该有几颗真理的种子。人性中的某些成分，例如捕食、支配和复仇，都是制造暴力的动机；但是在另一些情况下，则有另外一些成分，例如慈悲、公平、自制和理性，推动我们趋向和平。本章和下一章将探究这些动机和产生这些动机的条件。

    黑暗面

    在研究我们的心魔之前，我必须先要证明它们存在，因为在现代知识分子中，人性驱使我们倾向暴力的观点极其不得人心。[1]虽然关于我们是从嬉皮士猩猩（倭黑猩猩）演化而来，以及原始人对暴力毫无概念的说法，早已经遭到人类学事实的否定，我们还是会读到一些文章说，暴力都是少数坏分子的所作所为，绝大多数人都是忠诚的和平战士。

    可以肯定，在大多数社会中，大多数人的生命都不是以暴力结束。前面各章图表中竖轴上的数字显示，每年每10万人中只有几个、几十个，最多几百个人死于非命。只有在很少数情况下，比如部落战争或者发生种族灭绝的时候，死亡率达到每10万人中有几千人死亡。即使在敌意最深的对抗中，不论是人类还是动物，对峙双方通常也会退后一步。甚至在战争中，很多战士都不曾扣动过扳机，那些打死过敌人的战士往往还会患上创伤后压力心理障碍。有些作家断言，绝大多数人类天生厌恶暴力，暴力造成大量死亡只不过说明少数疯狂的暴徒可以造成何等破坏。

    所以，我要让你相信，我们中的绝大多数人，包括你自己，亲爱的读者，本质上都是趋向暴力的，尽管我们很可能永远也没有机会使用暴力。让我们从我们年轻的时候开始。心理学家理查德·特伦布莱（Richard Tremblay）衡量了一个人生命进程各个阶段的暴力水平。他证明，最暴力的阶段不是青少年，甚至不是青年，而是两岁，所谓“可怕的两岁”（terrible twos）的确所言不虚。[2]一个刚刚学步的典型幼儿至少会踢踢打打，张嘴咬人，寻衅打架，身体攻击的频率随着年龄增长稳定地下降。特伦布莱说：“幼儿不会相互杀害，那是因为我们没有让他们拿到刀枪。我们过去30年一直想回答的问题是，孩子是怎样学习攻击的。但这是一个错误的问题，真正的问题是，他们是怎样学习不去攻击的。”[3]

    现在，让我们看看我们的内心。你是否曾经想过杀掉一个你不喜欢的人？在几项独立的研究中，心理学家道格拉斯·肯里克（Douglas Kenrick）和戴维·巴斯向大学生提出这一问题。按一般的认知，他们应该是人口统计学中暴力水平最低的部分，但得到的结果却令人震惊。[4]70%~90%的男生和50%~80%的女生承认，在过去的一年，他们至少曾经有过一次要杀死一个人的幻想。当我在一次讲座上描述这项研究时，一位学生大声喊道：“是的，剩下的那些人都在撒谎！”至少，他们会对大律师克拉伦斯·达罗（Clarence Darrow）的名言产生共鸣：“我从来没有杀过人，但是我读过的讣告有不少确实让我满心欢喜。”

    让人们幻想凶杀的动机和警察局犯罪档案中记录的动机大致吻合，主要是情人吵架、受到威胁、对羞辱或背叛的报复、家庭纠纷——与养父母的纠纷多过与生父母的纠纷。这些可怕的遐想在人们的脑海里展开，就像雷克斯·哈里森出演的充满嫉妒和复仇的影片，有交响乐团演奏的《红杏出墙》做背景音乐。在巴斯的调查中，有个男生估算自己在杀死一个前友人的路上已经走了80%。这个前友人向该男生的未婚妻造谣，说男生不忠实于她，然后自己取而代之：

    首先，我要敲断他全身的每一根骨头，从手指头和脚趾开始，慢慢地从小骨头到大骨头。然后，我要戳开他的肺，可能还有其他脏器。总之，要在杀死他之前让他尽可能地尝尝痛苦。[5]

    一名女子说，她在杀死前男朋友的路上走了有60%。她的前男友想恢复关系，威胁说要将以前两人做爱的视频发送给她的新男友和其他同学。她说：

    我真的这样做了。我请他来吃晚饭。他在厨房的时候，傻傻地削着胡萝卜皮，准备做沙拉。我笑着走向他，很温柔，他没有任何疑心。我想着快快地抓起一把刀，在他胸口捅上几下，直到他断气。我真的干了第一件事（抓起了一把刀）。他看出了我的意图，跑掉了。

    现实中的许多凶杀在发生前都被这般反复推敲过。真正实施了的谋杀数量之少，仿佛是压抑的海洋里漂浮着一座渴望凶杀的巨大冰山，水面上仅仅浮出了一个尖角而已。法医心理学家罗伯特·西蒙（Robert Simon）将这个意思作为他著作的书名（算是对弗洛伊德解释柏拉图的再解释）:“好人所思，坏人所为”（Bad men do what good men dream）。

    甚至那些不曾想象过杀人的人，也会从杀人或者观望杀人的替代性经验中得到极大的快感。人们为了品味各种血腥的虚拟现实，毫不吝啬时间和金钱：《圣经》故事、《荷马史诗》、英烈传、地狱图景、英雄神话、《吉尔伽美什史诗》、希腊悲剧、《贝奥武夫》、贝叶挂毯、莎翁戏剧、格林童话、《潘趣和朱迪》、歌剧、侦探系列、廉价惊险小说、流行小说、纸皮小说、恐怖剧、谋杀歌谣、黑色悲剧影片、西部大片、恐怖漫画、超人漫画、《活宝三人组》、《猫和老鼠》、动画片《奔跑者》、电子游戏，还有前加州州长主演的各部影片。在《野蛮的消遣：暴力娱乐文化史》（Savage Pastime: A Cultural History of Violent Entertainment）一书中，研究文学的专家哈罗德·谢克特说，与以往的娱乐相比，今天的暴力影片可谓温良恭让。在过去多少个世纪中，人们一直以模拟酷刑和肢解来赢得观众的喝彩。早在电脑制作图像之前，剧院经理绞尽脑汁，制作出各种可怕的特殊效果，比如“假人头，可以从人体模型上被斩下，再扎到长矛上；假人皮，可以从演员的身体上扒下来；盛满动物鲜血的囊袋，可以制造被刺穿后鲜血飞溅的效果”。[6]

    人们头脑里会闪过很多暴力想象。与之相比，真正实施的暴力行动只是很小一部分，现实和想象的巨大差距给我们指出了人类思维设计中的某些特征。暴力统计往往低估了暴力在人类生存中的重要性。人类的大脑里不断回荡着拉丁谚语：“如果你希望和平，那就准备好战争。”即使在和平社会，人们也总是对虚张声势和威胁策略，对结盟和背叛心理，对人类身体的脆弱以及如何利用和遮盖其脆弱性充满好奇。人们对暴力娱乐表现出的普世快感，一直是作品审查和道德谴责的目标，这恰恰说明人类内心对有关暴力行为的信息充满渴望。[7]一种可能的解释是，在人类的进化历史中，暴力不容忽视，是否理解暴力的运作关系到人是否能够生存。[8]

    人类学家唐纳德·西蒙斯注意到，性也是奇思异想和娱乐的一大内容，其想象和现实之间也存在巨大的差距。[9]人们对性的遐想，将不正当的性行为变为各种艺术，所做的努力远远超过他们对性事本身的投入。和通奸一样，暴力也许不常见，但一旦发生，其潜在的后果难以估量，绝对会证明达尔文的适者生存原则。西蒙斯认为，高级意识本身就是专为频率低但影响大的事件设计的。我们对每天必需的动作，例如伸手抓住一个物件，例如走路和说话，早已司空见惯、熟视无睹，更不要说花钱去看这些动作的表演。能够吸引我们注意力的是不正当的性关系，是暴力死亡和《梦里天和地》中沃尔特·米蒂式的飞跃。

    说到大脑，人类的大脑就是其他哺乳动物大脑的肿胀版和皱褶版。所有的主要部件都可以在我们毛茸茸的表亲那里找到，它们的功能也是一样的，比如处理来自感官的信息，控制肌肉和腺体，储存和提取记忆。在这些部件中，有一个区域网络，取名愤怒回路（rage circuit）。神经科学家贾克·潘克赛普（Jaak Panksepp）描述了向一只猫的愤怒回路部位发送电流时所见到的景象：

    对大脑进行电刺激几秒钟之内，这只温和的动物彻底变了情绪。它张牙舞爪，粗暴地扑向我，嘶嘶尖叫，流着口水。它似乎准备四面出击，但它正好对着我脑袋所在的方向。万幸，有树脂玻璃墙挡在我和这只愤怒的野兽之间。但在终止电刺激之后不到1分钟，这只猫就放松下来，恢复了平静，又可以让人毫无顾忌地抚摸了。[10]

    人脑中也有和猫脑中愤怒回路相当的组成，同样可以被电流刺激——当然，不是在实验室，而是在神经外科手术中。外科医生做过如下描述：

    最有意义（和最戏剧性的）的刺激效应是它引发一系列攻击性反应。相应地，这些反应包括从恰当的语言反应（向医生说“我觉得我要起来咬你”）到失控的诅咒和身体攻击性破坏行为……我有过一次，在电刺激终止30秒钟后，问病人是否感到愤怒。他说他曾经感到愤怒，但已经不再愤怒，听起来他对此变化感到非常惊讶。[11]

    猫会嘶嘶尖叫，人会恶语诅咒。愤怒回路可以激起语言反应的事实说明，它不是惰性器官，与大脑的其他部分有积极的联系。[12]非人类哺乳动物的进攻性受大脑中几个回路的控制，愤怒回路是其中之一。我们将会看到，这些回路对理解人类的进攻性行为会很有帮助。

    * * *

    如果暴力印刻在我们的童年、我们的幻想世界、我们的艺术和我们的大脑里，为什么士兵在战场上开枪杀人时还会犹豫呢？难道他们不就是去干这个的吗？一项著名的“二战”老兵研究称，战斗中有能力使用武器开火的士兵不足15%~25%；另外有研究说，绝大部分子弹都没有击中目标。[13]现在，我们知道，得出第一个结论的研究非常可疑；得出第二个结论的研究有混淆事实之嫌——战斗中所发射的大部分枪弹都不是针对单兵，而是要阻止敌军的进犯。[14]士兵在战场上未能击中目标，没有什么可大惊小怪的，瞄准中靶本来并非易事。但是，我们仍然得承认，战场上弥漫着对瞄准杀人的焦虑，很多士兵在扣动扳机的瞬间手指都会发僵。

    在街头打斗和酒吧争吵中也可以看到因使用致命武力造成的紧张感。莽汉之间的大多数冲突，与好莱坞西部片中令人眼花缭乱的场景毫不相干，绝不是纳博科夫笔下（《洛丽塔》）亨伯特眼中的“一拳击中面颊，一脚踢中腹部，再从空中悬索飞下”。社会学家兰德尔·柯林斯（Ran-dall Collins）严格地检视了真实斗殴事件的图片、录像和目击者报告。他发现，大部分斗殴不像《咆哮山谷》中设计紧凑的动作场面，而更像是一场无聊曲棍球比赛上仅有的两分钟争吵。[15]两个男人怒目相视，互喷脏话，挥拳，没有击中，再挥拳，然后就倒在地上。偶尔，纠缠的双方中一人略具优势，连续击中几拳。但更经常的情况是，两人被拉开，嘴里继续喊叫着愤怒的诅咒和挽救面子的大话，离去时，自尊心上的伤痕远远多过皮肉上的瘀青。

    情况真是如此。在面对面的冲突中，男人通常会保持克制。但是，这种谨慎不是说明人类的温柔和善良。相反，这恰恰说明了霍布斯和达尔文对暴力的分析。我们在本书第2章已经看到，任何暴力倾向性的演化，都是在每个个体都具有同样倾向性的世界里完成的。（如理查德·道金斯所说，一个活着的生命不同于岩石和河流，因为他会做出反击。）也就是说，人一旦采取伤害另一个人的举动，立刻会引发两件事情：

    1.增加受袭者进行攻击的可能性。

    2.受袭者将确立在你进攻之前就对你采取行动的策略目标。

    即使你能在攻击中一举将对方击毙，你也会成为对方亲族的复仇目标。这就是为什么达尔文的进化生物对在势均力敌的对抗中挑起争端特别深思熟虑——谨慎到表现出焦虑和瘫痪。谨慎周全是真正的大勇，与慈悲毫不相关。

    一旦有可能消灭敌人，又没有遭受报复的危险，达尔文的进化生物就不会放过这个机会。在大猩猩的劫掠行动中，我们已经见过此类案例。当一队雄性大猩猩巡视领地时，遇到来自其他群体的单只雄性大猩猩，大猩猩会利用数量优势，将落单的大猩猩撕成碎片。在出现国家社会之前，人通常也是在偷袭中而不是高调的战场上消灭敌人。人类的大部分暴力都是胆小鬼式的：打冷拳、欺负弱小、先发制人、凌晨偷袭、黑手党暗杀和打了就跑的驾车枪击。

    柯林斯还记录了一种反复出现的综合征，他称之为“前行性恐慌”（forward panic），虽然更常用的字眼儿应该是“暴怒”（rampage）。当一个进攻性联盟受到阻击，并陷入对手可能长期抵抗的忧患和恐惧时，它会接着又乘虚而入压倒对手，此时恐惧转化为愤怒，人们将会野性大发作。这种似乎无法克制的暴怒驱使人们殴打敌人，直到敌人不省人事，对男子实施酷刑和肢解、强奸妇女、破坏敌人的财产。“前行性恐慌”是最丑恶的暴力。正是这种心态导致种族灭绝、大屠杀、惨烈的种族骚乱和战争中的格杀勿论，不留俘虏。警察滥用暴力也大多出于此种心态，比如1991年罗德尼·金（Rodney King）在警车高速追逐和暴力拒捕之后，受到警察的野蛮殴打。随着屠杀的进行，愤怒会让位于狂喜，狂躁的屠夫在血腥的暴行中欣喜若狂。[16]

    没有人被训练成暴躁的怒汉，每当军队和警察中爆发类似的暴行，总是让上级感到意外，上级也只能采取行动平息暴行，因为滥杀和残忍完全不符合军队和警察队伍的宗旨。暴怒也许是人类为了捕捉稍纵即逝的机会，将敌人在重组和反击报复之前彻底消灭掉而产生的原始适应性。这与大猩猩之间的杀戮相似程度之高，令人毛骨悚然。这种相似性还包括一个共同的触发机制：三四个同伙，面对一个孤立的敌方成员。[17]暴怒背后的直觉显示，暴力如同人类行为剧本中的一句台词，静静地等候在那里，等待出场的时机。饥渴则与其不同，饥渴感是随着时间逐渐培养起来的直觉。

    道德标尺的偏差和关于纯粹邪恶的神话

    在《白板》一书中，我提出，当代人否认人性的黑暗面，例如“高贵的野蛮人”说，是对19世纪末20世纪初一度甚嚣尘上的浪漫军国主义、攻击释压说和斗争神圣化的反动。对当代人否认人性黑暗面的理论提出质疑的科学家和学者，均被指责是为暴力辩护，并成为诽谤、血诬和人身伤害的对象。[18]“高贵的野蛮人”神话显然已经成为一个样板，昭示了反暴力运动在社会礼仪和禁忌方面留下的文化遗产。

    不过，我现在相信，否认人类作恶的能力有着更深刻的原因，也许这种否认本身就是人性的一个特点。这要归功于社会心理学家罗伊·鲍迈斯特（Roy Baumeister）在著作《邪恶》（Evil）一书中所做的精彩分析。[19]鲍迈斯特注意到，那些从事破坏性活动的人，从小偷小摸的惯犯到系列杀人犯再到大屠杀的参与者，从来不觉得自己做错了什么。他对这一现象感到困惑：难道世界上如此之多的恶行，竟然都不是恶人所为？

    每当心理学家遇到一个难解之谜，他们就会动手进行实验。虽然鲍迈斯特与他的合作者阿琳·史迪威（Arlene Stillwell）和萨拉·沃特曼（Sara Wotman）不能在实验室里让人们犯下暴行，但是他们认为，日常生活中有很多小伤害，足以供他们进行细微的观察。[20]史迪威和沃特曼让实验者描述一件使他们感到愤怒的事件，再描述一件他们让别人感到愤怒的事件。研究人员随机地在实验者之间不断调换这两个话题的顺序，在两个话题之间还塞上其他一些琐碎的问题，因此实验者不会连续回答与这两个话题有关的问题。大多数人每星期至少会感到一次愤怒，几乎所有人每个月至少会感到一次愤怒，研究人员绝不缺少研究的题材。[21]作恶者和受害者两个角色历数了各种原因，包括撒谎、失信、违约、犯规、泄密、不公和财务纠纷。

    但是，这是作恶方和受害方都唯一同意的事情。心理学家仔细研究了实验对象的叙述和编码特征，例如事件的时间长度、双方的过失、作恶者的动机和造成伤害的后果。如果我们将他们的叙述排列起来，结果如下：

    作恶者的叙述：故事开始于伤害行为。当时我有我的道理。我也许是回应对方的挑衅，或者我的反应是一个正常人都会有的反应。我完全有权利这样做，为此指责我是很不公平的。伤害并不严重，很容易修复，我也道歉了。现在，应该让这件事情过去了。忘掉算了。过去的就是过去了。

    受害者的叙述：故事开始的时间远早于伤害行为发生的时间，伤害行为不过是漫长错误历史中最后的事件。作恶者的行为无理、无情、难以理解。作恶者很可能就是一个施虐狂，唯一的动机就是想看到我痛苦，虽然我是完全无辜的。他造成的伤害是可怕的、难以修补的，而且是永久性的。双方都不应该忘却。

    两个描述不可能都是对的——或者应该说，既然实验参加者既讲述了作为受害者的故事，也讲述了作为作恶者的故事，两个描述不可能都完全正确。人类心理中存在某种东西，它扭曲了我们对伤害性事件的解读和记忆。这就提出了一个难以回避的问题：为了解脱自己，我们内心的作恶者是不是在掩饰我们的罪过？或者，为了获得世人的同情，我们内心的受害者是否在培育冤屈？因为这几位心理学家无法翻越时间的高墙，回到事件发生的旧时光，所以完全无法确定谁的描述是真实可信的。

    史迪威和鲍迈斯特设计了一个极具独创性的后续方案。他们使用控制事件进行实验，做法是创作了一个情节暧昧的故事：一名大学生提出要帮助一个同学做作业，但出于多种原因，提出帮助的一方违约了，导致本应受助的同学该门功课成绩不好，被迫改换专业，最后转到另一所大学。[22]参加实验的人（都是学生）只需要阅读整篇故事，然后一半学生从作恶者的角度，另一半学生从受害者的角度，以第一人称尽可能准确地复述故事。还有第三个实验组，这个组的人被要求以第三者的角度复述故事，他们提到的和忽略的细节，作为人类记忆的基准，属于不受私利影响的正常扭曲。作恶者和受害者为了让自己看起来更体面，丢失或粉饰了某些细节。心理学家对他们的叙述进行了分析。

    结果，“我们应该相信”的答案是：谁也不能信。与故事本身的基准，也就是第三者的复述相比，受害者和作恶者故事扭曲的程度是一样的，只是方向相反；每一次忽略和修饰，都是为了让自己扮演的角色显得更有道理，让对方显得更无理。最有意思的是，参加实验的人在实验中没有任何个人利益。不仅实验者和实验中的角色无关，而且也没有人要求他们同情自己复述的角色，或者为自己复述的角色辩护，对他们的要求仅仅是从第一人称的角度阅读故事，然后加以复述而已。但就是这一点要求，居然让实验参与者调动起认知过程，并做出自利的陈述。

    伤害性事件在进攻者、受害者和中立方眼中出现发散型描述，就是图2-1暴力三角中出现的心理叠加。我们姑且称之为“道德标尺的偏差”（Moralization Gap）。

    “道德标尺的偏差”属于自利偏差（self-serving biases）这种大现象中的一种。人们总是想看起来是个好人。“好”可以是高效率、有力量、受人喜爱和能干，也可以是善良、诚实、慷慨和无私。人具有展示自我积极面的动力，这是20世纪社会心理学的重大发现之一。最早提到这一现象的著作是社会学家欧文·戈夫曼（Erving Goffman）的《日常生活中的自我呈现》（The Presentation of Self in Everyday Life），最近的相关文章有卡罗尔·塔夫里斯（Carol Tavris）和艾略特·阿伦森（Elliot Aronson）的《错不在我》[ Mistakes Were Made（but Not by Me）]，罗伯特·特里弗斯的《欺骗和自我欺骗》（Deceit and Self-Deception），罗伯特·库尔茨班（Robert Kurzban）的《人人都是伪君子》[Why Everyone（Else）Is a Hypo-crite]。[23]认识失调或认知失谐（cognitive dissonance）是一种很典型的现象，指人们突然改变了原来的自我评价，人本来为了保持这个自我评价下的形象，一直控制着自己行为。“乌比冈湖效应”（Lake Wobegon Effect）一词来自加里森·凯勒（Garrison Keillor）的小说。在小说中的乌比冈小镇上，所有孩子都比一般孩子更优秀，镇上绝大多数人都认为自己在才华和性格上高于平均水平。[24]

    自利偏差是我们在进化中作为社会动物而付出的一种代价。人们结成群体，不是因为他们像机器人一样彼此之间有磁力互相吸引，而是因为他们有社会感和道德感。他们能感受温暖和同情、感激和信任、孤独和负疚、嫉妒和愤怒。感情是内在的调节器，保障人们在社交生活——互利的交换和合作性行为——中获益，而不必付出某些代价，例如避免骗子和社会寄生虫的剥削。[25]我们对那些愿意与我们合作的人怀有同情、信任和感激，以自己的合作作为回报。而对那些欺骗我们的人，我们感到气愤和排斥，退出合作，或者予以惩罚。一个人的善行水平，是在做一个具有良好信誉的合作者和做一个骗取不义之财的坏蛋之间权衡的结果。一个社会组织就是一个市场，充满各色合作者，在慷慨和信任上水平不一；人们总是能够把自己说得比实际上更慷慨一点，更值得信任一些，一般也不会出太大的差错。

    “道德标尺的偏差”包含受害人和作恶者之间协商补偿时的互补性谈判战术。就像侵权诉讼案中双方的律师，起诉人强调被告行为的蓄意性，至少是无情与冷漠，以及原告为之承受的痛苦和损失。被告方的律师则强调被告行为的合理性和不可避免性，并极力缩小原告方的痛苦和损失。原告和被告双方之间的较量不仅最后形成补偿方案，也展示了双方围绕是否值得同情和是否勇于承担责任等声誉的竞争。[26]

    特里弗斯最早提出道德感是为了适应合作，他还观察到一个非常重要的扭曲状态。夸张地表现善意和技能所造成的问题是，其他人能够发展出一套看穿这些夸张的能力，就像在撒谎者和测谎仪之间发动一场心理学军备竞赛。谎言特有的自相矛盾让人能够识破它——意第绪谚语说“撒谎的人要有好记性”，或者人说话时的犹疑、抽搐、脸红和出汗也会暴露撒谎。特里弗斯猜测，自然选择可能偏向某种程度的自欺，从源头上抑制说真话。我们欺骗自己，于是我们欺骗别人的时候听起来就会更加可信。[27]同时，我们头脑中的无意识思维维持着真相，告诉我们不能过分违背事实。特里弗斯表示，乔治·奥威尔最早提出这一构想：“统治的秘密就是将相信自己一贯正确和从过去的错误中学习的能力结合起来。”[28]

    自欺是一种奇特的理论，因为它本身就是一种矛盾，一种叫作“自我”的东西，同时是欺骗者和被欺骗者。我们很容易就可以证明人们很容易陷入自利偏差，比如肉铺的秤，总是有误差，而且总是对肉铺有利。但是，要证明人们的自欺倾向并非易事。在心理学上，这相当于作弊的企业做两本账，一本公开的账簿为了应付检查，一本私密的账簿记载准确信息，供公司管理之用。[29]

    两位社会心理学家——皮尔卡洛·瓦德索洛（Piercarlo Valdesolo）和大卫·德斯迪诺（David DeSteno）发明的实验极有创意，能够在真正的两本账骗局中抓到现行犯。[30]他们向实验参加者表示，需要他们合作，共同计划和评估一个研究项目：一半参与者将得到轻松愉快的工作，即看10分钟照片；另外一半人则要从事冗长而艰巨的工作，即解答45分钟的数学题。研究者告诉实验参与者，他们要两人一组地进行工作，但是研究人员还没有找到决定两人中谁承担何种工作的最佳方式。因此，他们让每一个实验参与者从两种方式中选择一种，来决定谁应该得到轻松的工作，谁应该得到困难的工作。参与者可以简单地为自己挑选轻松的工作，或者用一个随机数字发生器决定谁得到什么工作。人类的自私在这里得到充分表现，几乎每一个人都为自己选择了轻松的工作。稍后，研究人员给实验参与者一份评估此次实验的匿名问卷，问卷中有一道突兀的问题，问参与者是否认为他们的决定是公平的。在这里，人类的虚伪又得到充分地表现，大部分参与者认为他们的决定是公平的。接着，研究人员向另外一组实验参与者描述了这些人的选择，然后问这种自私的行为有多少公平可言。当然，另一组实验参与者认为这些自私的选择毫无公平可言。在人们评判他人行为和评判自己行为的标准之间，存在一个差距，这就是典型的自利性偏差。

    现在，我们要回答一个关键的问题。自利者真的真心实意地认为他们的行为是公平的吗？或者，只是他们大脑中的一个有意识的“政治公关”告诉他们要这样说，还有一个下意识的“自我”明白什么才是真实的？为了找到答案，心理学家设计抑制有意识思维，他们要求一组实验参与者在评估实验，包括裁决他们（或其他人）的行为是否公平的同时，牢记一个七位数的数字。在有意识思维被分神的情况下，可怕的实情显露了出来：参与者对自己的评判与对他人的一样严厉。这印证了特里弗斯的理论：在人们的头脑里，真相是一直存在的。

    我很高兴发现这个结果，不仅是因为自欺理论如此精妙，为此它应该成立，而且因为它给人性保留了一丝希望之光。虽然认识人类自身不完美的真相属于我们最痛苦的经验——弗洛伊德有一整套防卫机制来推迟这可怕的时刻，这些手段包括否认、压抑、揣测和反向形成——但是，至少在原则上，认识我们自身的真相还是有可能的。它也许需要嘲讽，需要争论，需要时间，需要被分神，但是，人有能力认识到自己不是永远正确的。说到底，我们还是不能在自欺这个问题上自我欺骗。如果没有对自欺的认识，人类的总体倾向是错误判断伤害性行为，无论是作为作恶者还是作为受害人。

    * * *

    一旦人认识到我们心理上这种宿命的怪癖，我们的社会生活，以及我们的历史和现实看起来都变了个样子。不仅是每一个争端都有来自两个方面不同的故事，而且双方都坚信自己的版本，也就是说，双方都坚信自己是无辜的、长期受到侵犯的受害者，而另一方是邪恶和危险的虐待狂。各方都有自己对事实的历史描述和数据，并对之坚信不疑。[31]比如：

    .十字军是宗教理想主义的浪潮，虽然有一些过分行为，但它给世界留下了文化交流的硕果。十字军是一系列针对犹太社区的暴行，是欧洲漫长反犹历史的组成部分。十字军是对穆斯林家园的野蛮入侵，是基督教侮辱穆斯林的漫长历史的发端。

    .美国内战是废除邪恶奴隶制的必经之路，它保护了一个以自由和平等立国的国家。美国内战是中央集权的权力争夺战，目的是要摧毁南方的传统生活方式。

    .华沙集团是一个防御性联盟，是苏联为了保护自己和盟国避免再次遭受战乱。历史上它曾经两次遭受德国的入侵，损失惨重。

    .“六日战争”（第三次中东战争）是一个民族争取生存的斗争。它开始于埃及驱逐联合国维和人员和封锁蒂朗海峡，埃及计划的第一步是将犹太人赶进大海，战争结束于以色列统一耶路撒冷旧城，并确立了边境防线。“六日战争”是一场侵略和征服行动。它开始于以色列入侵其邻国，结束于以色列占领邻国的领土，并建立了一个种族隔离的政权。

    敌对双方的分歧不仅在于他们各自相互竞争的说辞，还在于他们量度历史的历法，以及在他们的记忆中事件重要性的顺序。冲突的受害者是一丝不苟的历史学家和记忆的耕耘人，而施暴者则是实用主义者，坚定地立足于当下。本来，我们一贯认为历史的记忆是好事情，但是每到历史事件被牢记为一块无法愈合的伤口而呼唤平反的时候，它很可能就是在召唤暴力。“牢记阿拉莫！”“牢记 ‘缅因号 ’!”“牢记 ‘卢西塔尼亚号 ’!”“牢记珍珠港！”以及“牢记 ‘9·11’恐怖袭击事件！”这些口号不是在建议人们重温历史，而是战斗的号角，带领美国人介入战争。俗语说，巴尔干地区受到的诅咒是让每平方英里的土地上堆积了太多的历史陈迹。塞尔维亚人在20世纪90年代对克罗地亚人、波斯尼亚人和科索沃人进行了残暴的种族清洗，但他们自己也属于世界上冤屈最深重的人民。[32]在他们的记忆中，第二次世界大战中纳粹傀儡国家克罗地亚，第一次世界大战中的奥匈帝国，一直追溯到1389年奥斯曼土耳其人的科索沃战役，都让塞尔维亚人饱受欺凌。在科索沃战役600周年纪念日时，总统米洛舍维奇发表了一篇气势汹汹的演讲，预示了20世纪90年代的巴尔干战事。

    20世纪70年代末，魁北克新当选的分离主义政府重新发现了19世纪的民族主义。在魁北克爱国主义的各种表现中，有一种是将车牌上的格言“La belle province”（法语“美丽的魁省”）改为“Je me souviens”（法语“我牢记”）。从来没有人明确说过要牢记什么，但大部人认为这是新法兰西的思乡曲，而新法兰西早在1763年的“七年战争”中就被英国人消灭了。这种牢固的记忆让说英语的魁北克人感到有些紧张，我这一代人中很多人因此移民多伦多。万幸，20世纪末的欧洲和平主义战胜了19世纪的高卢民族主义，魁北克现在是世界上最和平也最国际化的地区。

    与受害者过多的记忆相反，施暴者的记忆往往太少。我在1992年访问日本的时候，买了一本旅游手册，里面有一份日本历史纪年表。时间线上标注出1912—1926年的大正民主，接着就是1970年的大阪世界博览会。我猜想，在这两个年代之间，日本就没有发生过什么有意思的事情了。

    一次冲突事件，无论是室友为学年论文吵架，还是国家发动世界大战，事件的各方都相信自己是正义的一方，并且还有历史记录支持自己的观点。但是，这些历史记录中的一些内容很可能是一些弥天大谎，也很可能只是由于偏见省略了一些我们认为有意义的事实，同时神化了另一些陈年旧账。现实令人不安，因为我们认识到，就分歧而言，对方很可能是对的。我们很可能过于自以为是，将会彼此攻击对方坚信不疑的立场，没有人会尊重对方，因为每个人都能看得见对方自欺欺人的弱点。

    比如，今天几乎没有美国人会非议“最伟大的一代”参加正义之战——第二次世界大战。但是，当重读1941年日本偷袭珍珠港之后富兰克林·罗斯福发表的历史性演讲，我们仍然会感到某种不安。这篇演讲是受害者控诉的典范。演讲中可以找到全部鲍迈斯特实验的元素对记忆的痴迷（“它将永远成为国耻日”），受害者的无辜（“美国与那个国家一向和平相处”），入侵行动的疯狂和残暴（“这种卑鄙和怯懦的进攻”），伤亡的惨重程度（“昨天对夏威夷岛的进攻给美国海陆军部队造成了严重的损失……很多美国人失去了生命”）和报复的正当性（“美国人民一定要以自己的正义力量赢得……”）。对今天的历史学家来说，这些响亮的言辞，从最好的角度看，也是似真非真。美国已经对日本实行严厉的石油和机械禁运，并预计到日本可能发动袭击，保证了尽量小的军队伤亡，最后则是因为在珍珠港丧失的2500人而牺牲了10万美国人的生命，将无辜的日裔美国人关进集中营，最后的胜利还是通过燃烧弹和原子弹才取得的。扔在日本平民头上的原子弹可以说是人类历史上最严重的战争罪行。[33]

    在没有合适的第三方出面质疑孰是孰非的那些问题上，我们必须做好准备，戴上心理学家的眼镜，看看恶魔是如何觉得自己是有德之士的。不过，戴上这副眼镜，让人感到非常不舒服。[34]当你看到“试试从希特勒的角度看待这个问题”时，千万留心你的血压——此外也可以从本·拉登的角度。然而，即使是希特勒，也像所有有感知的生命一样，有自己的观点。历史学家告诉我们，他的观点甚至可以说是道德高尚的。他经历了第一次世界大战德国未曾料想的突然战败，并得出结论：战败原因是内部敌人的背叛。他对战后协约国谋杀式的食品封锁和报复性的战争赔款义愤填膺，他还见识过20世纪20年代的经济混乱和街头暴乱。而且希特勒是一个理想主义者：他有自己的道德观，相信英雄式的献身能够带来千年盛世。[35]

    世界大战之外，在小规模的人际暴力上，大部分系列杀人狂也极力弱化自己的罪恶，甚至为自己的罪恶辩护。如果他们的行为不是如此恐怖，他们的这番努力简直可以说是喜剧性的。1994年，警方引述一个杀人狂的话说：“除了两个人是我们杀死的，另有两个被我们打伤了，还用枪柄打伤了一个妇女，我们就是把电灯泡塞进人的嘴里，此外我们可真没有伤害过任何人。”[36]社会学家黛安娜·斯库利（Diana Scully）采访过的一个系列强奸杀人狂称，对用枪劫持来的妇女，他一向“温柔和蔼”，这些妇女很享受被强奸的体验。为了证明自己的和善，这位杀人狂特别提到，当他用刀扎死受害人的时候，行凶“总是突然的，她们不会知道自己要死了”。[37]约翰·韦恩·加西绑架、鸡奸并杀害了33名男孩，他说：“我看我自己更多还是个受害者，而不是施暴者。”毫无嘲讽的意思，还接着说：“我的童年是被骗走的。”他从童年受到的所谓迫害一直延续到成年，媒体莫名其妙地非要将他塑造为“一个混蛋和一个替罪羊”。[38]

    小偷小摸一类的轻罪更是容易被合理化。所有在监狱和犯人打过交道的人都知道，今天的监狱关的都是无辜的受害者——不仅有因警察草率制造的冤案，还有自助正义型的暴力案。本书第3章中提到了唐纳德·布莱克有关“社会控制”制造犯罪的理论。这个理论试图解释为什么在大部分暴力犯罪中，施暴者并没有实际获益。[39]罪犯的确受到挑衅或背叛，然后进行了我们所认为的过度的反击——在争吵中殴打了伶牙俐齿的老婆，在抢夺停车位时捅死了一个陌生人。在布莱克眼中，这些都是对挑衅的自然反应，也是寻求某种正义。

    * * *

    看到这些将犯罪理性化的分析，我们感到很不舒服。这恰恰说明了用心理学分析的必要性。鲍迈斯特注意到，为了理解伤害行为，科学家或学者的观点总是和施暴者的观点相重合。[40]他们都采取离间的、无关道德的立场看待伤害行为。他们也都将犯罪情景化，总是留意事件的复杂性，以及这些复杂性与伤害行为的因果关系。而且，他们都相信伤害行为是可以解释的。相反，道德家采纳受害者的观点，认为伤害必须被认真对待。暴行造成的忧伤和愤怒将持续很久。凡人之所以要对暴行进行胡乱推理，虽然仍然是宇宙奥秘，但恰好说明世界上存在着无法被消灭和不可解释的邪恶。许多集中营的记录者甚至认为，试图解释集中营的成因本身就是不道德的。[41]

    鲍迈斯特仍然以心理学的角度，将这种迷思叫作“纯粹邪恶”。当我们从道德的角度思考，我们的思维方式就是受害者的思维方式。作恶是蓄意伤害，而且不需要理由，作恶的目的就是邪恶本身。作恶的恶棍恶毒透骨，一心要给无辜和善良的受害人制造痛苦。从心理学角度来看，之所以称其为迷思，是因为事实上作恶者大多都是普通人，他们在特定的情况下做出了他们认为合理和正义的反应，其中包括受害人的挑衅。

    纯粹邪恶提出一个在宗教、恐怖影片、儿童故事、民族主义神话和动情的电视新闻报道中十分常见的原型。在许多宗教中，邪恶被人格化为恶魔——冥王哈迪斯、撒旦、魔王别西卜、金星路西法、魔鬼梅菲斯托费勒斯，或者摩尼教式的黑暗与光明之争中仁慈上帝的对手。在流行小说中，邪恶的相貌属于狂砍滥杀的凶手，属于系列杀人犯，属于妖魔，属于奇丑无比的怪物，属于《蝙蝠侠》里的小丑，属于《007》里的杀手；或者根据电影的年代，也可能属于纳粹军官、苏联间谍、意大利黑手党、阿拉伯恐怖分子、都市强盗、墨西哥毒枭、银河系皇帝或者公司高管。作恶者也许拥有大量的钱财和权力，但是作恶的目的总是模糊和变态的；恶魔真正想做的只是制造混乱和让无辜的受害者受难。作恶者是敌人，是善之天敌，所以作恶者通常是外国人。好莱坞的恶棍，尽管都是些无国籍人士，口音却是一模一样的外国腔。

    纯粹邪恶妨碍我们理解真正的邪恶。科学家的立场是施暴者的立场，而道德家的立场是受害者的立场，科学家被认为是“为作恶寻找借口”或“诿过受害人”，或者是在追求“理解一切、原谅一切”的道德虚无说。（前面提到过刘易斯·理查森的回答：谴责越多，理解越少。）确实，研究人员有时将作恶者的动机归咎为一些小过失，例如嫉妒，或者当时具体的情形，或者复仇，而不是更大的罪过，例如制造无穷尽的苦难，或永远维持种族、阶级和性别压迫；研究人员有时还认为这些作恶的动机是每一个普通人都可能有的，而不是少数心理变态者特有，甚或是一个邪恶政治制度的产物（因此，“高贵野蛮人说”才会如此流行）。但每到这些时候，这些研究分析就会被指责为将邪恶相对化。学者汉娜·阿伦特有专文论述阿道夫·艾希曼在组织集中营屠杀中所承担的角色问题，她杜撰了新的表述方式“平庸的恶”来阐释她在此人身上看到的平庸和此人作恶动机的平庸。[42]已经有历史学家证明，艾希曼是一个意识形态化的反犹分子，比阿伦特的描述走得更远，但不论她对艾希曼的解读是否正确，她都算得上是解构纯粹邪恶的先驱。[43]我们将会看到，近40年来的社会心理学研究——其中有些确实是受到阿伦特的启发，特别强调大部分伤害动机的平庸性。[44]

    在本章接下来的部分，我要描述让我们趋向暴力的大脑系统和动机，同时寻找激励或抑制暴力的信息，并据此来解释暴力减少的历史趋势。大张旗鼓地采取作恶者的观点肯定不利于我要做的工作，而假定我们的大脑天然地具备道德力量，比如有些大脑指向恶，另外一些指向善，也是非常危险的。我们将会看到，在本章所谈论的心魔和下一章将谈论的天使之间有一些明确的分界线。它们不仅取决于神经生物学的现实，同时也取决于我们如何论说，因为我们的某些脑神经系统既能引起最善良的人类行为，也能导致最邪恶的行为。

    暴力的器官

    纯粹邪恶的症状之一是将暴力视为一种兽性的冲动，比如以下词语所示“野兽般的”、“畜生一样的”、“禽兽不如”、“非人性的”和“野性的”，而描写魔鬼的时候总让它们带着犄角和尾巴。但是，虽然在动物王国，暴力是家常便饭，但只有从受害者的视角看世界，才能将兽性看作暴力的唯一原因。想想我们人类对蚂蚁所做的种种毁灭性破坏：我们吃它们，毒死它们，不小心地踩死它们，蓄意地捏死它们。每一种杀蚁的行为动机截然不同，但如果你是蚂蚁，你不会关心这些微妙的差别。我们是人类，所以我们倾向于认为人类对同类的恶行完全是出于单一的、兽性的动机。但是，生物学家早已注意到，哺乳动物的大脑里有不同的回路来处理各种不同的攻击行为。

    在动物王国，最常见的攻击性行为是捕食。捕食者，例如鹰、隼、狼、狮、虎和熊的图案，装饰着运动员和军人的外套；许多作家，例如威廉·詹姆斯，都谴责人类暴力来自“食肉动物的本性”。但从生物学角度看，捕猎食物与对抗对手、抵御威胁的攻击性行为完全不同。养猫的人都知道这种区别。当猫咪在地板上看见一只甲壳虫时，它安静地蹲着，全神贯注。但是当一只流浪猫遭遇另一只流浪猫时，它会挺起身子，毛发竖立，发出低吼和尖叫。我们已经见过神经科学家可以将电极植入猫脑中的愤怒回路，通上电流，即可触发猫的攻击模式。而将电极植入不同的回路，研究人员可以触发捕猎模式，观察一只猫无声无息地袭击幻想中的老鼠。[45]

    像大脑中的许多系统一样，控制攻击行为的回路也有不同层级。控制肌肉基本行动的子程式位于后脑，正靠在脊椎的顶部。但是触发其工作的情绪，例如愤怒回路，则分布在较上位的中脑和前脑。拿猫来说，刺激后脑能够激活神经科学家所说的假怒。猫开始尖叫，毛发竖立，露出尖齿，但是人还可以放心地抚摸它。但是，如果刺激大脑较高部位的愤怒回路，猫所产生的情绪不再有任何虚假，它会愤怒地扑到实验者的脸上。[46]进化正好利用了大脑的这种模块组合。不同的哺乳动物利用身体的不同部位作为进犯武器，可以是嘴、獠牙、角；灵长类动物则是手。控制末梢神经的后脑回路在新谱系的演化中可以重组或者被置换，但控制情绪的中央程序却相当顽固。[47]神经科学家在人的大脑中也找到了愤怒回路，这说明人类的大脑有类似的构造。

    图8-1是电脑制作的老鼠的大脑模型，老鼠面向左。老鼠是一种依赖灵敏的嗅觉生存的小型哺乳动物，因此有非常发达的嗅球（olfactory bulbs）；为了显示大脑的其他部位，图中嗅球左侧的大部分被切掉了。和所有四足动物一样，老鼠是水平造物，所以我们所说的神经系统的“高位”和“低位”就是指前和后；在老鼠的脑部，高级思考位于脑模型的前端（左），身体控制位于模型的后端（右），与脊柱直接相连，如果要画出这一部分，它会从图右边溢出来。

    图8-1 老鼠的大脑，与攻击行为有关的主要脑组织解构

    资料来源：《阿兰鼠脑全图》（Allen Mouse Brain Atlas）,http://mouse.brain-map.org。

    愤怒回路是联结三个大脑低位器官主要部位的通道。[48]在中脑，有一个半环状的组织，称为“中脑导水管周围灰质”——“灰质”，即它由灰色物质组成 [一群神经元，而没有保护输出纤维的白质髓鞘（white sheaths）]；所谓“中脑导水管周围”是指它包围着一个导水管，一个充满液体的沟渠，从脊髓到大脑的脑腔，整个穿过中枢神经。中脑导水管周围灰质中具有这些回路是控制愤怒的感觉运动组件。大脑记录疼痛、平衡、饥饿、血压、心跳、体温和听到的声音（特别是另一只老鼠同伴的尖叫）的部位发出的信号，信号进入回路，让动物感到紧张不安、沮丧或者愤怒。回路输出的信号进入运动程序后，老鼠就开始跳、踢和咬。[49]有关暴力的生物特性最早的一项发现是疼痛或沮丧与攻击之间的联系。当动物受到电击或者取得食物的通道被截断，它会攻击最靠近它的同伙；如果周围没有活着的攻击对象，它会开始咬一个玩具或者其他类似的替代品。[50]

    中脑导水管周围灰质部分受下视丘（hypothalamus）控制。下视丘是一簇神经核，约束动物的感情、动机和心理，包括饥渴和情欲。下视丘也监控体温、血压、血液中的化学成分，它位于脑下垂体的正上方，脑下垂体向血液中泵入激素，其功能之一是调节肾上腺分泌的肾上腺素和生殖腺分泌的睾丸素或雌性激素。这类神经核中的两种——内侧核和腹外侧核，正是愤怒回路的组成部分。“腹”（ventral）是指动物的腹部，相对于“背”（dorsal）或者背部。这些人类大脑的术语沿用已久，因为在传统上将大脑看作垂直地位于一个直立的躯干之上，所以，人类大脑的“腹”朝向我们脚面，而“背”则是我们的脑顶壳。

    下视丘受控于杏仁核。“Amygdala”在拉丁文中就是“杏仁”，用来形容人脑的形状。杏仁核是小型、复合器官，连接着大脑的记忆和动机系统。它给我们的思想和记忆涂上情绪的色彩，最擅长的就是恐怖色彩。如果训练一只动物预期在听到某种声音后将受到一下电击，杏仁核就会指挥建立记忆，将这种声音与焦虑和恐惧联系在一起。杏仁核还会在出现危险的捕食者或者发现同类威胁时发出警告。比如，人类的杏仁核对愤怒的表情会做出反应。

    愤怒回路的上方就是大脑皮层，这是在两个大脑半球外部的一层薄薄的灰色物质，承担着对感觉、思考、计划和决策的各种计算。每一个大脑半球分成各种叶，一个在脑前部，称为额叶，计算与行为有关的决策。最主要的一片额叶正位于头骨眼眶的上方，称为眼窝前额皮质；因为在眼眶上，因此也叫作“眶额前脑皮层”（orbitofrontal cortex），简称“眶额皮层”。[51]眶额皮层与杏仁核和其他感情回路紧密地连在一起，它的作用是将情感和记忆整合，做出下一步如何行动的决策。当动物因应某种情势，包括它的情绪和经验教训，准备开始进攻的时候，就是眼眶后面大脑的这个部位负责指挥。虽然我已经说过，对愤怒的控制是自上而下的指挥系统，从眶额皮层到杏仁核，到下视丘，再到中脑导水管周围灰质，到运动程序——但是，全部的联系均为双向：这些器官之间以及与大脑的其他部分之间进行着大量的反馈和相互应答。

    我已经提到过，捕食和愤怒在食肉哺乳动物的行为列表节目上属于完全不同的曲目，触发这两种行为需要电击不同的大脑部位。捕食涉及的回路是潘克赛普所说的“寻求系统”（seeking system）。[52]寻求系统的主干通过大脑中部的一束纤维——内侧前脑纤维束（medial forebrain bundle）穿过整个中脑（图8-1中未做显示）直达外侧下丘脑，再从那里向上到达腹侧纹状体（ventral striatum），所谓爬虫类脑（reptilian brain）的主体部分。纹状体的构成是许多平行的神经束，这让它看起来有很多条纹。纹状体深藏在大脑半球的内部，与额叶紧密相连。

    心理学家詹姆斯·奥尔兹（James Olds）和彼得·米尔纳（Peter Milner）将电极植入老鼠大脑的中部，连接上斯金纳箱上的控制杆后，他们发现老鼠会不停地按动控制杆刺激自己的大脑，直到筋疲力尽地倒在地上。由此，他们发现了寻求系统。[53]最初，他们认为他们找到了大脑的愉悦中心，但今天的神经科学家相信，此系统发出的是欲求或渴望，而不是愉悦本身。（成年人要面对的一大现实是，你要小心自己的愿望，因为所求若非所欲，一旦到手，你很可能并不会真正享受它，而这一现象自有脑解剖学的生理依据。）连接寻求系统的不仅是一套连线，而且还有化学物质。系统内神经信号通过一种叫作多巴胺的神经传递介质进行传递。能够制造多巴胺的药物很多，例如可卡因和安非他命，都能让动物活跃起来，而减少药量，就像施用了抗精神病药物，让动物表现出消极冷漠。（腹侧纹状体中还有另外一组传输介质——内啡肽和体内内生性鸦片发生反应的回路。这些回路更接近对到手奖励的享受，而不是在期盼中渴望。）

    寻求系统确立动物追求的目标，例如接近取得食物的控制杆。在比较自然的环境中，寻求系统会调动食肉动物开始捕猎。我们可以想象，动物开始追踪猎物的状态，是一种愉快的预期。一旦成功，它安安静静地撕咬猎物，完全没有了攻击时愤怒的号叫。

    动物的攻击既可以是进犯，也可以是防守。[54]进犯性攻击最简单的触发器是突然的疼痛或者从寻求系统发出的挫败信号。从人类的某些原始反应中能看到这样的本能反射。幼儿在愤怒时双臂突然紧贴在身体两侧，成年人在榔头敲到自己手指时，或者突然发觉自己的要求得不到满足时，会脱口诅咒或砸碎东西 [在计算机维修中，有一种技术叫作“撞击维护”（percussive maintenance）]。老鼠进行防守型攻击时是扑向对手的头部，而不是在对手的身侧又踢又咬。防守型攻击由另一套大脑系统控制，此系统关乎恐惧。“恐惧系统”就像“愤怒系统”，是由中脑导水管周围灰质经过下视丘到达杏仁核的一个回路。恐惧回路（fear circuit）和愤怒回路是两个不同的回路，连接着这几个器官上不同的神经核，但是两者相近的位置，反映出它们之间频繁的互动。[55]轻度恐惧可以触发惊呆或者逃跑，但是极度恐惧加上其他的刺激，可以触发愤怒的防御性攻击。人类的“前行性恐慌”或暴怒可能就是从恐惧系统向愤怒系统发生的类似切换。

    潘克赛普确定了哺乳动物大脑中的第四个动机系统。这个系统可以触发暴力，他称其为“雄性间攻击系统”（intermale aggression system）或“统治系统”（dominance system）。[56]和恐惧回路与愤怒回路一样，统治系统也是从中脑导水管周围灰质起，穿过下视丘到达杏仁核，一路上将与三束神经核联系在一起。每一束神经核都有受体接受睾丸素。潘克赛普注意到，“所有的哺乳动物几乎完全一样，雄性的性欲要求某种自我肯定，因此，雄性的性欲总是和侵犯联系在一起。的确，这些倾向相互交织在整个脑脊髓中。就我们有限的知识来看，与侵犯有关的系统位于靠近愤怒回路和寻求回路（seeking circuit）的地方，而且很可能和上述两种回路有密切互动”。[57]如果对这一解剖做心理分析的话，可以这样说，寻求系统引导雄性自愿地甚至是渴望地寻找进犯其他雄性的机会，但是一旦开始战斗，两位雄性之一面临失败甚至死亡的危险，对打斗的关注会让位于盲目的愤怒。潘克赛普注意到在神经生物学上有两类侵犯行为，虽然两类行为存在互动。当内侧下视丘和脑纹状体的特定部位受损，动物就会向猎物或者实验者发起进攻，而不是向另外一位雄性同伴进攻。我们会看到，向动物（或者男人）提供睾丸素，并不会让他寻衅滋事。相反，他会感觉自己很伟大，信心满满地面对其他雄性的挑战。[58]

    * * *

    只要看一眼人类的大脑，你就知道这是一种特殊的哺乳动物。在图8-2中，皮层部分完全透明，让我们清楚地看到，老鼠大脑的几个部分被全部带进人脑，包括愤怒、恐惧和统治回路的处所：杏仁核、下视丘、中脑导水管周围灰质（在中脑的内部，脑脊髓沟从中穿过）。以多巴胺为能量的纹状体，其腹侧部位的作用是为整个大脑确立寻求的目标，在人脑中也是特别突出。

    这些组织构成鼠脑的绝大部分，但在人脑中，这些组织被封在厚厚的大脑中间。如图8-3所示，肥大的大脑皮层为了塞进头骨，被团成一团揉皱的报纸。大脑的主要部分是额叶，从这个角度向后看，额叶占据了大脑的3/4。神经解剖表明，对人类而言，愤怒、恐惧和欲求的原始冲动与受大脑约束的审慎、道德和自制力相对抗——尽管这一切都在力图驯化野性，但人们还是不能肯定谁会占上风。

    在额叶内部，人们一眼就可以看出“眶额皮层”之名的来历：这是一个肥大的圆凹，正好覆盖在眼眶的骨架上。1848年，一位名叫菲尼亚斯·盖奇（Phineas Gage）的铁路工地工头在向岩石里充填炸药时，炸药意外爆炸，将一枚钢钎插入盖奇的颧骨，再从头盖骨穿出。自那时起，科学家就知道眶额皮层的活动与情绪控制有关。[59]根据盖奇的头骨，20世纪的计算机复制了他受到的损伤，显示钢钎穿过左眶额皮层，连同端脑（cerebrum）内壁的腹内侧前额叶皮层（ventromedial cortex）。（请见图8-4的内侧视图）眶额皮层和腹内侧前额叶皮层紧紧连在一起，包裹着额叶的底部，神经科学家通常使用两个词中的一个词合指两者。

    图8-2 人脑，与攻击行为有关的主要皮层下结构

    资料来源：埃克斯（AXS）生物医学动画工作室为多兰（Dolan）DNA学习中心制作的三维图像。

    图8-3 人脑，约束侵犯行为的主要大脑皮层区

    资料来源：埃克斯生物医学动画工作室为多兰DNA学习中心制作的三维图像。

    图8-4 人脑，内视图

    资料来源：埃克斯生物医学动画工作室为多兰DNA学习中心制作的三维图像。

    虽然盖奇的感觉、记忆和行动都没有受到影响，但不久人们就认识到，他的大脑受到的损伤有着严重的后果。以下是他的医生对变化的描述：

    可以说，他的智能和动物性之间的平衡或均衡，似乎被完全摧毁了。他冲动无礼，不时污言秽语（他本来没有这样的恶习），完全不理会同伴的感受，对与他的本意不一致的约束和建议极不耐烦，有时固执己见，有时又犹豫不决和摇摆不定，不断制订未来的计划，但未经执行就改变主意，不论是否可行。他的智能和行为像一个孩子，但却有着强壮男人的野性。尽管他没有受过多少教育，但在受伤之前，他的思维稳健，认识他的人都尊重他的精明强干，认为他在工作上既有热情又有恒心。从这一点看，他的头脑发生了巨变，他的朋友和熟人都说他“不再是盖奇了”。[60]

    虽然盖奇最后逐渐恢复了大部分均衡，但他的故事已经被扭曲，而且作为心理学教学的导言，经过一代又一代人的篡改。不过，当年医生的描述，与我们今天对眶额皮层功能的理解大致相符。

    眶额皮层与杏仁核、下丘脑以及与情绪有关的其他部位有密切的联系。[61]眶额皮层的主要成分是神经元，多巴胺是其神经传递介质；眶额皮层与纹状体内的寻求系统连接在一起。与它相连的还有一个叫作“脑岛”的皮层小岛。在图8-3中，脑岛的前端刚好从大脑外侧裂（sylvian fissure）下方露出一点儿头，其他部分完全埋在裂沟后面，被上方的额叶和颞叶覆盖着。脑岛记录我们的身体直觉，包括胃胀的感觉和其他感觉，例如恶心、温暖、膀胱憋尿、心跳加速。有些隐喻，例如“这事让我热血沸腾”和“他的行为让我呕吐”，对大脑来说，每个字都是实情。认知神经学家乔纳森·科恩（Jonathan Cohen）和他领导的研究小组发现，当一个人发觉同伙分赃不均的时候，脑岛就会活跃起来。但如果知道不公平的分配结果是计算机随机产生的，没有人可抱怨，那么脑岛部位就呈暗色。[62]

    位于眼球上方的眶额皮层（图8-3）和面向内部的腹内侧前额叶皮层（图8-4）紧靠在一起，区分它们的功能并非易事，这也是为什么神经科学家经常将它们算作一个组织。眶额皮层似乎更多地参与决定一种经验是否愉快（恰好它紧挨着脑岛，脑岛接受来自脏器的信号），而腹内侧前额叶皮层更多地参与决定你是否得到想要得到的，避免得到不想得到的（腹内侧前额叶皮层位于脑中线两侧，正好是寻求回路展开的位置所在）。[63]眶额皮层做出的是对伤害的情绪化反应，腹内侧前额叶皮层实现的则是对上述反应的判断和反思，也许正是这两者之间的区别造成了道德范畴上的差距。但是，分界线非常模糊，我继续使用“眶额”来称呼这两个脑组织。

    眶额皮层根据接受的输入信号——直觉、欲望的目标、情绪冲动，同时还有来自大脑皮层其他部位的感觉和记忆，输出制约情绪的信号。它将人的愤怒、温暖、恐惧和厌恶等生理感觉与人的目标结合在一起，计算各种信号，再将调制信号送回最初产生情绪感觉的器官。输出的信号也被向上送往大脑皮层中进行冷静审议和执行控制的部位。

    这个流程图说明，神经解剖结果与心理学家在诊所和实验室里的观察基本一致。19世纪医疗报告中的华丽辞藻和21世纪的临床术语当然有所不同，但是只消略加调整，今天对眶额皮层受损病人的描述，完全可以用于菲尼亚斯·盖奇：“脱抑制性，行为举止不当，易曲解他人的情感，冲动，不考虑行动的后果，对生活不负责任，对自己病情的严重性缺乏认识，主动性弱。”[64]

    心理学家安杰拉·斯卡尔帕（Angela Scarpa）和阿德里安·雷恩（Adrian Raine）给出了一个类似的目录，但包括了更多的症状。最后一个症状正是我们所要讨论的问题：“喜欢争论，不关心行为的后果，无视社交礼节，冲动，注意力不集中，浅薄，情绪多变，暴力。”[65]“暴力”，雷恩医生在自己的研究中观察到这个症状，他不是先挑选有眶额皮层脑损伤的病人，再观察他们的性格，而是选择有暴力倾向的人，再观察他们的大脑。他的研究重点是有反社会型人格障碍的人。美国神经病学会对反社会型人格障碍的定义是：这种心理状态完全“无视他人的权利，并对之进行侵犯”，包括犯法、欺骗、攻击、粗野和不知悔恨。暴力罪犯中的极大一部分都有反社会型人格障碍，而在这些人中，有一部分人还有夸夸其谈、自恋、自大和外表迷人的特征，这伙人被称为精神变态狂（有时也称为反社会变态狂）。雷恩对有暴力倾向并有反社会型人格障碍的人进行了脑扫描，他发现，这些人的眶额皮层区域萎缩，代谢活动迟缓，其他与情绪有关联的大脑部位，包括杏仁核也有同样的症状。[66]在一次实验中，雷恩对比了冲动杀人犯和预谋杀人犯的大脑。在两者中，只有冲动杀人犯有眶额皮层功能障碍，这说明这部分大脑主控的自制力承担着抑制暴力的主要功能。

    此外，眶额皮层还有另外一个功能。眶额皮层发生病变的猴子，很难在等级序列中找到自己的地位，经常卷入打斗。[67]无独有偶，眶额皮层受损伤的人对社交失礼很不敏感。当他们听到一位妇女漫不经心地贬损朋友送给她的礼物，或者不小心泄露这位朋友被排挤在聚会名单之外时，病人意识不到这位妇女有什么不对的地方，也想不到这位朋友很可能受到伤害。[68]雷恩还发现，当要求有反社会型人格障碍的人就自己的错误写一篇文字并进行演讲的时候，他们的神经系统几乎没有反应，而对于正常人，这会是一桩充满羞耻和悔恨的重负。[69]

    * * *

    我们可以说，眶额皮层（以及紧邻它的腹内侧前额叶皮层）参与了人脑几项安定机能的工作，包括自制，对他人的同情，对规则和约定的敏感。即使如此，眶额皮层在端脑中还属于相当原始的部分。我们甚至在老鼠的脑子里也能看到它，它接收的信息，无论如何解释——文学的还是科学的，都是来自脏器的直感。大脑中还有其他装置，对暴力行为进行更精细和智能的调节。

    在决定是否要对制造伤害的人进行惩罚这个思考程序中，我们的正义感告诉我们，施暴者的罪过不仅在于其造成的伤害，而且在于他或她的精神状态——是不是故意（mens rea）犯罪，绝大部分司法系统都认为这是犯罪行为的一个要件。假定一名妇女在茶水中下鼠药毒死了她的丈夫。我们在决定是否将她送上电椅时，关键要看她舀出那一勺粉末的小罐子上没有贴错“多米诺砂糖”的标签，而确实是“多康杀鼠灵”——也就是说，她清楚地知道她在下毒，她是刻意要取他的性命，否则，这可能只是一场不幸的意外事故。面对犯罪行为，人们会产生粗暴的情绪反应，如此丑恶的行径（“她杀死了她的丈夫！真可耻！”）可能触发报复的动机，而完全不考虑她的主观意图。我们如何处罚犯罪，必须考虑罪犯的精神状态，这也就有可能产生“道德标尺的偏差”。受害者坚持认为罪犯是有意地要伤害受害者，而施暴者坚持说原本无意制造伤害。

    心理学家利亚纳·扬（Liane Young）和丽贝卡·萨克斯（Rebecca Saxe）将实验者放在功能性核磁共振成像仪器下，让他们阅读涉及有意伤害和意外伤害的故事。[70]她们发现，根据施害者的精神状态判断其是否无罪的能力，与颞叶和顶叶之间的大脑部位有关，请见图8-3（尽管事实上，右半脑中与其对应的这一部位才是本书的着眼点）。

    颞顶交界区（temporoparietal junction）处于多种信息通道的交接口上，包括对自己身体位置的感受，以及对其他人的身体位置和动作的感受。萨克斯已经在前面证明，这个区域是心智机能的关键部位，这种机能被称为心智化（mentalizing）、直觉心理能力和心智论。顾名思义，就是理解其他人信念和愿望的能力。[71]

    此外还有一种超越直觉的道德考量：衡量不同行为过程的后果。让我们来看一个与道德哲学有关的老故事：为了逃避纳粹躲在地窖里的一家人，他们是否应该闷死婴儿，以免婴儿啼哭，暴露他们的藏身处？一旦暴露，全家人包括婴儿都难逃一死。是否应该将一个胖子扔到脱轨车厢的轨道上，胖子的体积足以挡住车厢，拯救在轨道上工作的五名工人？功利主义者会认为，这两例杀人都是被允许的，因为这是牺牲一人，挽救五条生命。但是，很多人在闷死婴儿和抛出胖子的时候畏缩了，因为他们有一种直觉，无法亲手伤害无辜的人。还有一个类似的逻辑悖论，一个站在轨道边上的旁观者有机会挽救五个工人，他可以扳开道岔，将脱轨的车厢转到支线上，只有一个人会在支线上被撞死。对这个版本，几乎每个人都同意扳开道岔，牺牲一个人挽救五条性命，一般认为这是因为人们没有意识到这样做是在杀死一个人，只是没有阻止脱轨的列车，是脱轨的列车杀死了这个人。[72]

    哲学家乔舒亚·格林（Joshua Greene）与科恩和其他人一起证明过，反对闷死婴儿和抛出胖子的直觉反应来自杏仁核和眶额皮层，而期望尽可能多地拯救生命的功利想法来自前额叶中的背外侧前额叶皮层（dorsolateral prefrontal cortex），亦见图8-3。[73]背外侧前额叶皮层在大脑中主要处理智力和抽象问题，比如，当人们进行智力测试的时候，这个部位就特别活跃。[74]在人们考虑地窖里啼哭的婴儿时，他们的眶额皮层（这个部位对闷死婴儿的恐惧发生反应）和背外侧前额叶皮层（这个部位在计算生命的得与失）都开始活跃起来，同时活跃的还有第三个大脑部位——大脑内侧壁处的前扣带皮层（见图8-4），它的功能是处理相互冲突的冲动。那些认为可以为救全家而闷死婴儿的人的背外侧前额叶皮层特别活跃。

    颞顶交界区和背外侧前额叶皮层在人类进化过程中迅猛生长，给了我们进行冷静思考的必要手段，而正是这种思考让某些暴力有了存在的理由。我们在思考后做决定时感到矛盾——闷死婴儿是否应该被视为暴力行动，或者应该被视为防范暴力的行动，这说明端脑上这部分最典型的大脑既不是内心的魔鬼，也不是善良的天使。它们只是认知的工具，既可以孕育暴力也可以约束暴力，这两种功能对人类的暴力活动都极具影响。

    * * *

    我对暴力神经生物学所做的概述，完全不足以充分展示我们对暴力的科学理解，而我们对暴力现象的科学理解也还非常不充分。但是，我希望，这次回顾能够让读者相信，暴力的根源不是单一的，它不仅有多重的心理根源，而且受不同的原则支配。为了理解暴力现象，我们不仅需要了解大脑的硬件，还要了解它的软件，即人们从事暴力的理由。这些理由就像大脑组织微电路板上错综复杂的纹路，我们无法直接从神经元身上读到这些理由，就像我们将DVD光盘放在显微镜下，无论怎样观察，也不可能理解光盘中储存的电影。所以，本章接下来的部分将变换角度，我要对心理学做一次综述，将心理学现象与神经解剖学联系在一起。

    对暴力有多种分类方法，但区分大致类似。我在此引用鲍迈斯特的四类分法，但将其中一类一分为二。[75]

    第一类暴力可以称为实用性、工具性、利用性暴力，或者就称为捕食。这是最简单的暴力形式：使用武力达到目的。暴力被用来追求某种目标，例如贪婪、肉欲或野心，大脑内的寻求系统决定人追求的目标，而暴力行动受人的全副智力的引导，智力的最佳象征就是背外侧前额叶皮层。

    暴力的第二个根源是支配——追求对对手的绝对控制权，亦称追求优势（鲍迈斯特称之为“自我中心”）。这种动力可能与受睾丸素驱动的统治系统或雄性间攻击系统有关联，虽然这绝不仅限于男性，甚至也不仅限于个人。我们将会看见，群体也争夺支配权。

    暴力的第三个根源是复仇——追求以同样的方式回击伤害。其直接的动力是愤怒系统，但寻求系统也有可能是此类暴力的成因。

    暴力的第四个根源是施虐，即享受伤害他人。这一动机不仅令人困惑，也让人感到恐怖，它可能是我们的心理怪癖——主要是寻求系统某些怪癖的副产品。

    第五个，也是后果最严重的暴力根源是意识形态。在这种暴力中，虔诚的信徒将一组动机编织成信条，召唤其他人一起奉行，以达到毁灭性的目标。一种意识形态无法归结于大脑的任何部位，甚至也不能用整个大脑来解释，因为它不是具体某个人的问题，而是分布在许多人的大脑中。

    捕食

    第一类暴力不是一个真正的暴力分类，因为施暴者完全没有仇恨和愤怒这类破坏性的动机。他们不过是为了需要而走了捷径，而恰好一个有生命的物体挡在了路上。它充其量是一个被排除在外的范畴：此类施暴者缺乏类似同情心或道德关怀这样的抑制因子。伊曼努尔·康德的绝对命令的第二个公式这样表述——行为是否道德，在于这项行为是否将人看作人本身，而不是一种手段。康德对道德的定义，实际上就是要阻止此类暴力。

    捕食也被叫作实用性、工具性或者利用性暴力。[76]它与霍布斯的争斗根源论不谋而合：为得利而攻击。它也符合达尔文的生存机器说，一个生存机器将其他生存机器视为环境的一部分，和一块岩石、一条河流或一口食物没有两样。它同样是克劳塞维茨战争名言的人际翻版：战争无非是政治通过另一种手段的继续。它也是威利·萨顿（Willie Sutton）对为何要抢劫银行的回答：“因为钱在那里。”农民会告诉你，用两块砖头阉割马，可以大大提高马的工作效率，这一建议背后的原因也是捕食暴力。如果你问：“这样不痛吗？”农民会告诉你：“如果你不夹住自己的手指头，就不会痛的。”[77]

    因为捕食暴力只是为了实现目标的手段，因此人类有多少种目标，就会有多少种暴力的形式。其最典型的形式恰如其名：捕食，为获得食物捕杀或狩猎，它对受害者不带有任何敌意。不仅对猎物没有任何仇恨，从旧石器时代的洞穴岩画和绅士俱乐部壁炉上的奖杯，我们可以看到猎人将他们的猎物英雄化和图腾化。猎人甚至对猎物有同情心——这也证明仅有同情心不足以制止暴力。生态学家路易斯·里本伯格（Louis Liebenberg）研究过非洲南部布须曼人惊人的捕猎技能，他们横穿卡拉哈里大沙漠追逐猎物，只消一点点踪迹，就能推断出猎物所在和其身体状况。[78]他们以共情的方式追逐猎物——他们让自己踏进动物蹄爪，想象它们的感觉，计算它们会到哪里藏身，其中甚至会有爱的成分。一天夜晚，看完第九局棒球赛转播之后，我已经昏昏欲睡，懒得离开沙发，也不想再改换电视频道，只是麻木地看着有线体育台播放的画面。这是一个关于垂钓的节目，整部片子就是在一片水面上，一个中年男子坐在铝制轻艇上，一条接一条地钓着鲈鱼。每次起钩，他都将鲈鱼捧在眼前，抚摸着，嘴里发出亲嘴的声音，然后赞美说：“呜哇，你是个美人儿！你可真是太漂亮了！是的，绝对的！”

    捕食施暴者的处境纯粹是非道德化的、实用的，甚至是轻飘飘的，它与捕食受害者的处境天悬地隔。完全可以说，即便鲈鱼有机会，也决不会报答温情脉脉的垂钓男子，而大部分人也不想知道肉鸡和活生生的龙虾如何看待我们在食用它们时获得的快感。这些快感就是我们不是用一盘茄子饱腹，而是要让鸡和龙虾做出牺牲的原因。同样的无动于衷能够让冷酷的捕食暴力转向人类自己。

    下面是几个人类捕食暴力的例子：古罗马人镇压行省的起义；蒙古人毁灭抵抗征服的城市；毫无约束的散兵游勇打劫和强奸；殖民定居者驱赶和屠杀原住民；黑帮殴打一个对手、一个奸细或者不合作的警察；统治者刺杀政敌，或者相反；政府监禁或处决异见人士；交战国轰炸敌方的城市；流氓在抢劫或劫车过程中伤害不服从的受害者；罪犯杀害目击他犯罪的证人；母亲闷死她们觉得不能养大的新生儿。防御性和先发制人型暴力——在敌人动手之前先向敌人动手——也是一种工具性暴力。

    正是因为捕食暴力如此平凡又简单，在人类的道德画面中，它又是最不寻常、最难解读的现象。我们读到的一则暴行报道中说，乌干达的叛军士兵驻扎在屋顶上，以劫持妇女为消遣。他们将抢来的妇女捆绑在一起，强奸后扔下屋顶摔死。我们会摇头，然后问：“人怎么会做这样的事情？”[79]我们拒绝接受最显而易见的答案，比如因为无聊、肉欲，或者就是一场体育运动；因为受害人所遭受的苦难远远超过了施暴者的收益，令人完全无法接受。我们站在受害者的立场，提出纯粹邪恶的概念。但是为了理解这些暴行，我们最好不是追问为什么会发生这些暴行，而要问为什么这样的暴行并不常见。

    可能除了耆那教的牧师之外，我们所有人都犯有捕食暴力，至少犯有捕食昆虫的暴力。在大多数情况下，针对人类的捕食暴力受到情感和认知制约的抑制。精神变态狂占男性人口的1%~3%，高低之差取决于是采用宽泛的反社会型人格障碍定义，将很多种冷酷的坏蛋都囊括其中；还是采用比较狭义的定义，只涉及最狡诈的操纵者。[80]精神变态狂从儿时就撒谎成性，惯于欺压他人，没有同情心，也不懂得悔恨。20%~30%的暴力罪犯是精神变态者，一半以上的重罪出自这些人之手。[81]他们同时还从事非暴力的犯罪活动，例如诈骗老人的退休储蓄，或者以完全无视员工或利益相关人福祉的方式经营企业。我们前面已经看到，精神变态狂大脑中处理社会情感的区域，特别是杏仁核和眶额皮层出现萎缩或者不活跃，即使这些部位没有其他病变迹象。[82]有些人在这些部位发生病变或遭受外伤后出现精神变态现象，但精神变态的条件也具有可遗传性。精神变态可以演变为一种利用大众信任合作而谋利的少数派博弈战略。[83]虽然没有一个社会会让自己的民兵和军队全部由精神变态者组成，但军事组织中精神变态者总是不合比例的多。这些人出于对劫掠和强奸的向往，特别受军事冒险的吸引。我们在第6章中说过，大屠杀和内战中总是出现一种分工现象，意识形态狂或军阀策划和发布屠杀命令，有不少精神变态狂参加的突击队则兴高采烈地将屠杀计划付诸实施。[84]

    * * *

    捕食暴力的心理表现在人类对手段-目的进行推理的能力上，也表现在当我们面对其他生命，道德制约不会自动启动这个事实上。但在捕食暴力发生的过程中，会有两种心理变化。虽然捕食暴力纯粹是实用性的，但人类的头脑不会长久地盯在抽象推理上。它很快就会回到进化中形成的、充满情绪冲动的暴力类别。[85]一旦捕食的对象做出防护性回应，捕猎者的情绪就开始激动。被捕食的人可能隐藏自己，也可能重新集结，还可能反击，甚至威胁到捕食者的生存。他们也有自己的工具性暴力，因而产生了安全困境或霍布斯陷阱。在这些情况下，捕食者的心理状态可能从冷静的目的分析转变为厌恶、仇恨和愤怒。[86]我们已经说过，施暴者通常将自己的受害者看作害虫，对他们怀有道德厌恶。或者，他们认为这些受害者是现实的威胁，对他们充满刻骨仇恨，这种情绪正如亚里士多德所说，包含了一种不是要处罚敌人，而是要彻底铲除敌人的愿望。当无法彻底消灭敌人时，施暴者不得不直接或者通过第三方继续面对受害者，这时他们就开始感到愤怒。一旦猎物做出防守性报复行动，捕猎者的反应是自己受到了攻击，于是顿时有了合情合理的愤慨，也有了复仇的动机。这又把我们带回到“道德标尺的偏差”，他们尽力弱化自己率先攻击他人的严重性，将其作为必要的措施，同时极力指责对方的报复行动无理且蛮横。双方对错误的认知完全不一样——捕食者记住了发生在双号日的袭击，而受害者记住的是单号日的打击，两者认知上的差距足以触发螺旋上升的复仇行动。我们将在后面探究这个动态过程。

    还有第二种情况，自利偏差能够将捕食暴力的小火苗煽动成熊熊烈焰。人们不仅夸大自己的道德操守，还夸大自己的实力和前途，这种自利偏差的子类，被称为“积极幻觉”。[87]数百项相关研究已经证明，人们总是过高地评价自己的健康状况、领导能力、智商、专业能力、体能和管理技巧。同时，人们对自己的好运气自信到荒唐的程度。大部分人都认为，他们一出校门就能找到最好的工作，能生出天资过人的孩子，能够长命百岁；在这些方面，他们有高于常人的机会。而大部分人也认为，他们不会成为人为事故、犯罪、疾病、抑郁、意外受孕或者地震的受害者；在这些方面，他们遭遇厄运的机会低于平均水平。

    人们为什么这么容易蒙骗自己？“积极幻觉”让人们更幸福、更自信，精神更健康，但这不能解释为什么会存在这种幻觉，因为我们只能问“为什么”我们的大脑被设计成这个样子，只有虚幻的评价才能让我们幸福和自信，而不是按照真实情况来校准我们的满足感。对此最好的解释是，积极幻觉是一种讨价还价的战术，一种有根据的虚张声势。为了招徕尽可能多的同盟军加入冒险，为了拿下最好的价格，或者为了吓退敌人，合理地夸大自己的力量，肯定会对自己有所助益。而相信自己的夸张好过不知羞耻地撒谎，因为在撒谎和测谎之间存在竞赛，大多数观众有足够的知识辨识赤裸裸的谎言。[88]只要你的夸张不过分到成为笑料，你的观众就不能无视你的自我评估，因为说到底，你是最了解自己情况的人，你有内在的动机不去过分扭曲自我评价，否则你将不断地遭遇挫折。对一个物种而言，如果大家都不夸张，结果当然是最好的，但我们的大脑不是根据物种的利益筛选出来的。在一个人人自夸的团体内，没有任何个体能够作为唯一诚实的人生存下来。[89]

    过度自信会给捕食行动带来更可怕的悲剧。如果人完全理性，他们只会在对胜利有把握，而且是战利品将超过战争消耗时才发动捕食攻击。出于同样的理性，弱势方在预见到败局时，应该立刻认输。在一个完全由理性人组成的世界上，会存在大量的剥夺，但不会有太多的打斗和战争，只有在双方势均力敌时才会发生暴力，因为在这种情形下，只有暴力才能区别谁更强势一些。

    但是，在一个充满积极幻觉的世界上，进攻者可能会鼓足勇气发起进攻，而防守者可能会咬紧牙关进行防守，谁都不知道自己胜算几何。温斯顿·丘吉尔说过：“无论你多么肯定你能轻易获胜，永远记着，如果另外一方不认为他也有获胜的机会，那就不会有战争了。”[90]结果将是（博弈论的和军事意义上的）消耗战，正如我们在第5章谈到的情况。这些消耗战是人类历史上最具破坏性的事件，在致命冲突的幂律分布中，它以大规模而拔得头筹。

    军事历史学家早就注意到，领袖们做出的战争决定不计后果到了妄想的程度。[91]拿破仑入侵俄国，一个多世纪后，希特勒再次步其后尘。在过去5个世纪中，发动战争的国家中有1/4到一半最后输掉了战争，而当它们获得胜利的时候，也都是付出了巨大的代价，得不偿失。[92]巴巴拉·塔奇曼的著作《愚政进行曲：从特洛伊到越南战争》（The March of Folly: From Troy to Vietnam）和罗伯特·特里弗斯关于自欺的理论，给了理查德·兰厄姆某种启发。他提出，造成军事失利的问题通常不是情报不足或者战略错误，而是过分自信。[93]领袖高估了他们取胜的前景。他们的狂妄也许能够鼓舞士气，恐吓软弱的对手，但是这也让他们在战场上和对手迎头相撞，因为敌人也许并不是他们认为的那样软弱，或者敌人也有狂妄的过度自信。

    和兰厄姆等人一起从事研究工作的政治学家多米尼克·约翰逊（Dominic Johnson）做过一项实验，验证双方的过度自信是否会导致战争。[94]他们设计了一个不算太复杂的战争游戏。在游戏中，一对参加者分别充当两个国家的领袖，争夺两国边境有争议地带的钻石资源。他们有几种机会，比如进行协商、相互威胁或者发动代价高昂的攻击。几个回合下来，如果还有哪个国家幸存的话，胜者只能是财源雄厚的一方。两个游戏玩家通过电脑互动，彼此见不到对方，所以他们不知道自己的对手是男性还是女性。在游戏开始之前，研究人员要实验参加者预测一下自己的游戏水平。研究人员得到了极具“乌比冈湖效应”的结果：绝大多数人都认为自己的水平高于平均水平。在乌比冈湖效应中，很可能人们确实没有自欺。假定70%的人说他们自己高于平均水平，而事实上总是会有一半的人高于平均水平，所以，只有20%的人高估了自己。但战争游戏不是简单的乌比冈。在这里，玩家（不分男女）越自信，结果越糟糕。玩家越自信，发动无端攻击的次数就越多，尤其是当两个都自信满满的玩家交手时，就会不断触发毁灭性打击。女性不会感到奇怪，这些过度自信、相互毁灭的对手，都是男性。在现实世界中评估过度自信理论，仅仅事后证明某些军事领袖决策错误是不够的。它必须能够证明，领袖根据特定的信息做出致命的战争决策，而没有利害关系的人根据同样的信息，会得出截然相反的结论，认为冒险很可能失败。

    在《过度自信与战争：积极幻觉的浩劫与光荣》（Overconfidence and War: The Havoc and Glory of Positive Illusions）一书中，约翰逊证明了兰厄姆的假说。他梳理了战争前夕领袖做出的战争预测，这些预测显示这些领袖均表现出不切实际的乐观，完全不顾他们当时得到的情报。比如，在第一次世界大战爆发前的几个星期内，英国、法国和俄国为一方，德国、奥匈帝国和奥斯曼帝国为另一方，双方都预期战争将一举歼灭敌人，在圣诞节前就可以胜利班师。各国都有成群的年轻人狂热地冲出家门，应征入伍，不是因为他们无私地渴望为国献身，而是他们从来没有想过他们会死。不可能双方都是对的，而事实上，他们双方都错了。在越南战争中，三届美国政府不断将战争升级，尽管有大量情报告诉他们，在能够承受的代价下，胜利的希望非常渺茫。

    约翰逊指出，毁灭性的消耗战不需要双方都确信或有信心取得胜利。它所需要的只是对手的主观概率总和大于1。他注意到，在现代冲突中，战争的迷雾格外浓重，领袖远离战争的现场。与当初演化形成人类“积极幻觉”的小型战争相比，现在的过度自信可以维持更长时间。另外一个当今世界特有的危险是，国家领袖大多是一些格外自信的人，这些人一般都受到重视，很容易变得过度自信。

    约翰逊曾经期望，在民主国家，过度自信煽动的战争会少一些，因为信息的自由流动很可能将领袖的幻觉暴露在冰冷的现实之下。但是，他发现，真正发挥作用的不是民主制度，而是信息流本身。约翰逊的书在2004年出版，封面图案极为贴切：2003年小布什总统的著名照片。小布什总统身着飞行服，站在航空母舰的甲板上，身后的横幅上写着“任务达成”（Mission Accomplished）。说过度自信，并不是要指责伊拉克战争本身的表现（当然，就不用提萨达姆·侯赛因了），而是说它对战后重建民主伊拉克造成的严重影响；布什政府完全没有做好规划，其后果是灾难性的。政治学家凯伦·奥尔特（Karen Alter）在战争爆发前所做的分析显示，布什政府的决策过程表现出不寻常的封闭。[95]他对团体迷思现象做了教科书式的经典描述：战前政策小组坚信自己一贯正确和完美，排斥任何不同意见，强行达成共识，对个人的怀疑进行自我审查。[96]

    就在伊拉克战争开战前夕，美国国防部长拉姆斯菲尔德注意到：

    有些已知的事情已经知道了，有些事情我们明白自己知道。我们也知道有些未知是我们知道的；也就是说，我们明白有些事情我们并不知道。但是，还有一些我们不曾知道的未知——我们甚至没有意识到自己还不知道。

    在哲学家斯拉沃热·齐泽克（Slavoj .i.ek）的评语之后，约翰逊又提出，拉姆斯菲尔德忽略了最关键的第四个类别，不知道的已知——那些已经知道，或者至少能够知道，但是却被忽视和压制了的信息。正是这些不被意识的已知，让某种有限的工具暴力（寥寥数星期的“震慑行动”）演变成一场各种暴力无休无止的混战。

    支配

    “拍胸脯”——说大话，“肩膀上沾着木屑”——惹是生非，“沙上画线”——表明立场，“扔下手套”——发出挑战，还有“撒尿竞赛”——毫无意义的竞赛，这些五花八门的谚语说的都是同一件事情，就是向居于强势地位者发起毫无意义的挑战。这个暴力类别与捕食性、实用性和工具性的暴力有显著的区别。尽管在有些争夺支配权的竞赛中，没有任何实质性的战利品，但它却是人类历史上造成死亡人数最多的暴力形式。我们已经看到，在暴力死亡的最高数量级上，封建王朝时代、“主权国家时代”和“民族主义时代”的很多伤亡惨重的战争，包括第一次世界大战，都是为了争夺说不清道不明的国家和民族的优势。而在另外一端，大量凶杀案的唯一动机是“摆平一些鸡零狗碎的小冲突，例如辱骂、诅咒和碰撞”。

    马丁·戴利和马戈·威尔逊在他们关于凶杀的书中提出忠告：“从参与这些 ‘琐碎争执 ’的闹事者的行为看，争执之重要似乎远不止是几分钱的找头，或者谁先占到台球桌，他们真正介意的那些东西值得我们认真思考。”[97]支配权竞争绝非表面上看起来那样可笑。在任何无政府世界，一个能动实体为了保护自己，必须建立起有意愿并且有能力对抗进犯者的声誉。虽然可以在进犯发生后的回击中展现勇气，但最好还是在造成损失之前就主动出击。为了证明自己含蓄的威胁不是空话，可能需要一个能够展示决心和报复能力的舞台——一个明确表示“别惹我！”的渠道。出于私利，每个人都想了解人群中其他人的战斗能力，因为当预知双方都将付出惨重代价时，各方都会期望先发制人。[98]当一个社区的成员中比较英勇的人群相对稳定并为人所熟知时，我们称其为支配等级差序（dominance hierarchy）。支配等级的基础是蛮横的实力。而即使最凶狠的灵长类动物也无法在一对三的打斗中获胜，统治有赖于结成同盟的能力——同盟者也不是随便选择队友，而是要选择比较强壮精明的同伴。[99]

    在支配权竞争中，最重要的商品是信息，这也是统治之争在几个方面不同于捕食暴力的原因。当支配权竞争升级到生死冲突，特别是当参赛者实力相当，同时都充满积极幻觉的时候，在大多数情况下（无论人类还是类人的动物），他们会以表演结束竞赛。对抗的双方展示实力，挥舞武器，玩弄边缘政策的把戏；当一方终于退后一步时，竞赛也就结束了。[100]而在捕食行动中，只有抓住猎物才是终点。

    支配权竞争中信息具有关键作用的另一重含义是，暴力和情报交换相互交织在一起。声誉是一种社会建构，它的基础是逻辑学所说的公共知识。为避免恶斗，交战的双方不仅要明白谁更强大，还必须知道对方也明白这一点，并且肯定对方也知道自己有同样的认识，如此等等。[101]公共知识也会受到不同意见的挑战，所以支配权竞争的赛场就是公共信息的角斗场。一次羞辱就可能点燃支配权竞争的导火索，在荣誉文化和崇尚决斗传统的社会尤其如此。羞辱被认为是和武力伤害或偷窃同等的冒犯，会立即引来暴力复仇（在此，支配心理和下一节将讨论的复仇心理混合在一起了）。对美国街头暴力的研究发现，认同荣誉守则的年轻人最有可能在次年卷入严重暴力事件。[102]研究还发现，在有旁观者的时候，两个男子的争吵升级为暴力的机会要高出一倍。[103]

    在一个封闭的团体内决定支配权，是一场零和博弈：如果某人的地位上升，就有一个人的地位下降。在很多小团体内，例如帮会和孤立的工作单位，支配权竞争往往演变成暴力，因为在这些地方，一个人在小圈子里的地位决定了他的全部社会价值。如果人们属于多个不同的团体，可以在其中切换角色，很可能在某个团体中得到承认，因此羞辱和轻蔑的后果就没有那么严重。[104]既然支配权竞争较量的仅仅是信息，那么，一旦双方知道了谁是老大，暴力即告终结，不会有后续的连环仇杀。灵长类动物学家弗朗斯·德瓦尔发现，在大部分灵长类动物中，在较量结束后，两只动物会修好。[105]它们可能会摸手、接吻、拥抱，倭黑猩猩还会进行性交。人们不禁会问，既然它们打算修好，为什么开始要费神对抗呢？如果它们有理由进行对抗，为什么事后又要修好呢？答案是，这样的修好只存在于长远利益一致并相关的灵长类动物中。将它们联结在一起的也许是遗传相关性，共同抵御其他捕食者，结伙对抗第三者，或者，正如在一项实验中显示的，只有合作才能得到食物。[106]它们各自的利益并不完全重合，因此仍然有理由在团体内争抢支配地位或者进行报复，但是，双方并非毫无共同利益，他们犯不上彼此纠缠不休，更不要说互相杀害了。在某些灵长类群体内，彼此没有这些共同利益时，对手之间的较量是无情的，暴力很可能会升级。比如，一个群体内的黑猩猩会在打斗后修好，但是它们永远不会与其他群体的黑猩猩在交战或袭击后修复关系。[107]在下一章中，我们会看到，人类之间的修好同样是受共同利益认知的主导。

    * * *

    “看谁尿得更远”这个隐喻说明，性别是一个决定性因素，有条件进行此种竞赛的性别也是最有可能参加支配权竞争的性别。虽然在包括人类在内的许多灵长类动物中，雌雄两性都会谋求支配，通常是在同性之间竞争，但支配权竞争——将莫名其妙的地位作为值得牺牲一切的无价之宝，则更多是男性头脑中的问题。对男女分组所做的个人价值调查显示，男性认为职业地位远比生活中的其他快乐更重要。[108]他们为之甘冒更大的风险，更有自信，也更加容易过度自信。[109]大多数劳动经济学家认为，男女在个人价值评价上的差异部分地解释了收入和职位上的性别差距。[110]

    当然，到目前为止，男性也是更暴力的性别。虽然每个社会的暴力水平有所不同，但在任何地方，男性都比女性更喜欢武力游戏，欺负人，实施暴力，携带武器，享受暴力娱乐，幻想杀戮，进行杀戮，强奸，发动战争和参加战斗。[111]不仅这种性别差距的指向放之四海而皆准，而且肯定有其生物学起源。在其他灵长类动物进入童年之后就可以看到这一差别，甚至在（因生殖器异常而）被秘密地当作女孩子养大的男孩子中，也可以观察到这样的差异。[112]

    我们已经知道性别差异演化的原因：哺乳动物中的雄性比雌性更快地完成再生产，所以他们要竞争交配的机会，而雌性总是要特别考虑自己和子女的生存。因为失父幼子的生存机会大于失母幼子，因此男性在暴力竞争中可以得到更大的收益。这不是说雌性完全不参与暴力——查克·贝里（Chuck Berry）曾经猜测说，米洛岛的维纳斯是为了争抢一名棕色眼睛的英俊男子，在搏斗中失去了双臂，只是女性觉得暴力不是那么有意思。妇女之间的竞争战术较少涉及危险的武力进攻，大多是流言蜚语和排挤。[113]

    在理论上，为交配进行的暴力竞争和为支配进行的暴力竞争不一定是一回事。一个人无须引入支配概念就能解释为什么成吉思汗让如此多的妇女受孕，以至于今天在中亚随处都能找到他的Y染色体，只要看看他杀死了多少父亲和丈夫就够了。但是，社会性灵长类动物通过对统治者的服从来制约暴力，在人类的大部分历史上，支配权和交配权在实践中合二为一了。在前国家社会中，居于优势地位的男子拥有更多的妻子和女友，还可以与其他男子的妻子发生关系。[114]在人类历史上最早的6个王国中，地位和交配机会之间的相关性可以通过数据准确地表现出来。劳拉·贝齐格发现，皇帝通常有几千个妻妾，皇子有几百个，贵族有几十个，上流社会的男子有十几个，中等人家的男子一般有三四个。[115]（与数学推论相符，下层社会的男性很多没有妻子，因此，他们有强烈的动机脱离自己的阶级。）最近，随着可靠的避孕手段的出现和人口再生产模式的转变，这一相关性已经被弱化了。但财产、权力和成功仍然是让一个男人更有吸引力的因素，而最表象化的身体优势——身高——仍然可以提升男人在经济、政治和浪漫情爱上的竞争力。[116]

    与工具性暴力调动大脑中进行寻求和思考的部位不同，支配权竞争调动的是潘克赛普所说的“雄性间攻击”。这真的应该被称作“性内竞争”（intrasexual competition），因为女性也参与这种竞争。人类的“雄性亲职资本”，意味着女性和男性一样，具有竞争交配的进化冲动。不过，在人脑中，至少有一个回路，男性下丘脑视前区的一个神经核要比女性的大一倍。[117]整个系统布满接收睾丸素的受体，男性血液中的睾丸素含量是女性的5~10倍。下丘脑控制的脑下垂体可以分泌一种激素，它告诉睾丸或肾上腺分泌更多睾丸素。

    虽然在大家的印象中，通常认为睾丸素是男性好斗的原因——记者纳塔莉·安吉耶（Natalie Angier）这样说：这是“那种让男人的行为举止像个真正的汉子的物质，让他们摆谱、推撞、叫喊、咒骂、挥动拳头、扭出弹吉他的姿势”。但是，生物学家不敢将男性的侵犯性完全归咎于睾丸素。[118]提高睾丸素，显然能够让大多数鸟类和哺乳动物更喧闹，而降低睾丸素则让它们减少喧闹，做过绝育手术的猫狗的主人都见过同样的效果。但是，睾丸素在人类身上的效果没有这样容易判定，其生物学原因说起来很无聊，而且睾丸素的水平与攻击性没有直接的关系，这其中的心理学道理却非常有意思。

    根据科学家的最佳猜测，睾丸素不会让所有的雄性都变得更具侵犯性，但是会让他们为应对支配权竞争做好准备。[119]在大猩猩身上，当有雌性大猩猩在场的时候，睾丸素水平上升，上升的水平与雄性的支配地位相关，因而与它的侵犯性相关。在男人身上，当有迷人的女性在场时，以及在与其他男性进行（例如体育运动）竞赛的时候，睾丸素水平也会上升。一旦竞赛开始，睾丸素水平还会进一步提高，而决出胜负之后，得胜方的睾丸素继续升高，失利一方则不会。睾丸素水平比较高的男子在运动中更具进攻性，在竞赛中表情更严厉，更少露出笑容，握手的时候更用力。实验显示，这些男子更愿意盯住其他人愤怒的表情，也更倾向于将面无表情的脸视为愤怒。并不是只有好玩和游戏能够提高激素的水平，前面讲过的理查德·尼斯比特就荣誉心理所做的实验，来自美国南方的男子被骚扰后，睾丸素上升，他们的表情更愤怒，握手更用力，离开实验室的时候格外昂首阔步。更极端的例子还有，监狱犯人中睾丸素较高者中暴力罪犯的比例也较高。

    青少年和年轻人的睾丸素水平不断上升，中年之后开始下降。男人婚后、有子女后以及与子女相处一些时间后，睾丸素也会下降。所以说，这种激素是平衡养育行为和交配行为之间取舍的内在调节器；交配行为包括讨好异性和驱赶同性中的对手。[120]睾丸素可能是将男人变成爸爸或者变成无赖的旋钮。

    男人一生睾丸素的上升和下降，或多或少与雄性的好斗性相关。顺便说一句，暴力第一定律——“这是年轻人的把戏”，容易观察但不容易解释。虽然人们知道为什么在进化中男人变得比女人更暴力，但却不知道为什么年轻的男性比年长的男性更加暴力。说到底，年轻人还能活很多年，所以当他们迎接暴力挑战时，是用自己未来的寿命做赌注。在数学意义上，一个人也许会得出相反的结论。就是说，当一个人的日子所剩无几，他可以变得越来越冒失，一个垂暮老者正好应该最后出击一次，大肆强奸和谋杀，直到特警小分队将他制服。[121]这样的情况没有发生的原因之一是，人们很有可能在子女、孙子女、外甥（女）和侄子（女）身上投资。所以说，老人的体力弱了，但在社会关系和精神上却更强大了，相比继续繁衍更多的后代来说，他们能通过供养和保护家庭得到更大的收益。[122]另外一个原因是，人类的支配地位在很大程度上要依靠声望，需要长期积累，并能够自我维持。每个人都喜欢胜者，没有什么能够比成功更成功。所以，在竞争的最初几个回合，声望的成本收益率最高。

    睾丸素让男人（在较小程度上也让女人）为支配权竞争做好准备。它不会直接导致暴力，因为很多种暴力都与支配权无关，而且许多支配权竞争都未经暴力，而是通过表演和边缘政策决定了胜负。但是，当未婚和无法无天的年轻人竞争支配权时，无论他们是直接竞逐支配权还是以其他领袖的名义竞逐支配权，暴力的确会成为严重的问题。

    * * *

    支配权的社会构造性有助于解释哪类人会冒险保卫支配权地位。也许，过去25年来，最蛊惑人的一个说法就是说暴力的原因是自卑。很多一流专家都支持这个理论，根据这个理论，有些学校甚至引进一些项目，培养孩子们良好的自我感觉；20世纪80年代末期，加利福尼亚州议会设立了“促进自尊工作小组”。但是，鲍迈斯特已经证明，这个理论实在是不能更荒唐、更错误了。暴力的问题在于太多的自尊，而不是太少的自尊，尤其是当这些自尊不是当事人的努力所得。[123]自尊是可以被量度的。研究表明，精神变态者、街头混混、恶霸、打老婆的丈夫、系列强奸犯和仇恨罪的罪犯都是自我感觉出奇良好的人。黛安娜·斯库利在监狱的牢房里对很多强奸犯进行过访谈，这些人都向她吹嘘说自己是“多才多艺的超级成功者”。[124]心理变态者和暴力分子都特别自恋：他们自我感觉良好，不是因为他们有什么成就，而是出于一种天生的权力意识。但是，不可避免地，现实满足不了他们的理想，他们将所有的不如意都看作对个人的挑衅，而传递坏消息的人威胁到了他们脆弱的名誉，被他们视为十恶不赦的诽谤者。

    当统治者具有暴力倾向时，后果更加严重。他们的病态会影响成千上万人的命运，而不仅仅是几个生活在一起或者不幸偶遇的人跟着倒霉。那些对自己水深火热中的人民实行冷酷统治的暴君和那些发动毁灭性征服战争的狂人给世界带来了无法想象的痛苦。在第5章和第6章中，我们已经看到，20世纪伤亡惨重的战争和大规模屠杀在某种程度上可以归咎为仅仅三个男人的个性。平庸的暴君，例如萨达姆·侯赛因、蒙博托·塞塞·塞科、穆阿迈尔·卡扎菲、罗伯特·穆加贝、伊迪·阿明、让-贝德尔·博卡萨，给自己人民带来的灾难虽然规模有限，但仍然极具悲剧性。

    对政治领袖心理所做的研究，一向为人诟病。研究者不可能对调查对象进行直接测试，人们也很难克制自己不将这些道德败坏之辈病态化。在什么让希特勒成为希特勒的问题上，心理史学以进行各种别出心裁的精神分析而著称：他有一个犹太人的祖父，他只有一个睾丸，他是一个受压抑的同性恋者，他没有生殖能力，他是性欲倒错的恋物癖。在《解释希特勒》（Explaning Hitler）一书中，记者罗恩·罗森鲍姆（Ron Rosenbaum）写道：“寻找希特勒的工作得到的不是一个清晰的、大家都认识的希特勒的形象，而是很多个不同的希特勒，他们之间相互竞争，且相互冲突。如果这些希特勒在地狱里碰面，彼此大概都认不得对方，也不会敬礼高呼‘Heil’。”[125]

    出于上述种种原因，比较平淡的研究领域，比如对个性分类的研究——将人分类放进鸽子笼，而不是试图解释他们，反而更有助于我们了解当代暴君的心理。美国精神病学会出版的《精神疾病诊断与统计手册》（The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM）将自恋型人格障碍定义为“自以为是、寻求仰慕和缺乏共情能力的持续心理状态”。[126]与所有精神病诊断一样，自恋是一个模糊的分类，与精神变态（无视，并且会冒犯他人权利的持续心理状态）和边缘型人格障碍（情绪不稳定；非黑即白的思维；人际关系、自我形象、身份、行为混乱且不稳定）均有重合的部分。但是，自恋人格的三大核心症状——自以为是、寻求仰慕和缺乏共情能力，确实是对暴君最合适的诊断。[127]狂妄自大的纪念碑、颂歌式的宣传画和万众欢呼的大型集会，典型地反映出他们的病态。当自恋的统治者手中掌握着军队和警察，他们给世界留下的瘢痕就不仅仅是雕像了，因为他们可以下令发动大规模的暴力活动。与普通的流氓和恶霸一样，暴君毫无根据的自尊非常脆弱，很容易被戳破，所以在他们眼中，反对他们的统治绝对不是批评，而是令人发指的罪行。同时，缺乏共情能力让他们对对手的惩罚毫无节制可言，无论是真实的对手还是他们想象的对手。他们精神障碍的另外一个症状，即他们对“无限的成功、权力、光辉、美或者理想的爱情”的幻想，让他们完全不考虑追逐幻想的人命代价。他们要在贪得无厌的征服中，在雄伟的建筑项目上，或在乌托邦式的宏大计划里实现他们的幻想。我们已经知道过度自信可以导致战争。

    当然，所有能成为领袖的人身上都有足够的自信。在盛行心理分析的年代，评论家经常给他们不喜欢的领导人下诊断，说他们患有自恋型人格障碍。但是，千万不要混淆自信的政治家和那些把自己的国家和大半个世界一起带向毁灭的精神变态狂人。多党制的和平特性之一就是遴选领导人的程序会使完全缺乏共情的人处于劣势，制衡机制可以制约一个狂妄的领袖可能制造的损害。即使在一党制内，领导人的个性，比如斯大林和与他相反的戈尔巴乔夫，也能够对暴力水平产生巨大的影响。

    * * *

    支配欲所带来的灾难可能用第二种方式成倍地放大。决定程度大小的因素是社会心理。对此我要告诉大家一桩很可爱的逸事。每年的12月，我都会被本地的一个传统感动：加拿大新斯科舍省要向波士顿赠送一棵高大的云杉，作为城市的圣诞树。1917年，哈利法克斯港发生了可怕的军火船爆炸事故，当时波士顿市民为哈利法克斯提供了大量的人道援助。圣诞树就是新斯科舍向波士顿表达感激之礼。作为新英格兰的加拿大流放者，我可以感到双份的温暖：一份是对我的加拿大同胞得到慷慨援助的感激，另一份是对波士顿弟兄得到的美好回馈的赞赏。而你要是仔细想一想，整个仪式其实相当古怪。我和这一慷慨事件的任何一方都没有关系，既没有丝毫贡献，也无须表达谢意。今天无论是选树、伐树和送树的人，还是收树和装点树的人，都从来没有见过当年的受害人和救援者。就我所知，与当年那场悲剧有关的人都已经过世了。但是，我们还是感到在两个人之间互换同情和感激是件美事。每个人心中都有一个“新斯科舍”，一个“波士顿”。对他们来说，这两个名字充满了道德情感，代表一整套价值观，而他们每个人的社会行为都受到这一道德和价值系统的约束。

    个体的个人定位中有一部分是与他（或她）所从属的团体的身份交融在一起的。[128]在人们心目中，一个团体就像一个个体一样，具有自己的信仰和愿望，以及值得称赞的或者应被谴责的品质。这种社会认同表明人们接受了这样的事实：团体有助于个人的福祉。我们的适应性不仅取决于我们自己的境遇，还取决于我们所在的团体、村庄和部落的境遇。这种团体归属，可以是来自真实的或者传说的血缘，也可以是互利的关系网，或者对某些公共品——共同防御的承诺。在团体内部，有些人通过惩罚不做任何贡献的寄生虫，来帮助监管公共品的供给，这些人因此得到团体的尊重。在心理上，对群体福利的贡献，只有通过削弱群己之间的边界才能实现。以我们团体的名义，我们感受到对其他某个团体的同情、感激、愤怒、负疚、信任或者不信任。我们将这些情感连接到那个团体的成员，无论那些成员作为个人具体干过些什么。

    在竞争中对团体的忠诚，比如对一支球队或一个政党的忠诚，激励我们竭尽全力争取胜利。杰瑞·塞恩菲尔德（Jerry Seinfeld）曾经说过，今天的运动员在各个运动队的花名册上高速周转，球迷不再能够拥戴一伙运动员。球迷能盯住的只有球队的徽章和球衣：“你站在那里，为了你的球衣打败了来自另一个城市的球衣而欢呼和呐喊。”但是，我们还是要站起来欢呼：球迷的心情随着他的球队的命运而涨落。[129]群己边界的消失的确可以在生化实验室里得到验证。男人在心爱的球队打败对手的时候，睾丸素上升，如同他们自己在摔跤对抗或网球单人赛上战胜了对手。[130]当他们支持的政治家在选举中获胜或失利，他们的睾丸素也随之上升或下降。[131]

    我们的公共情感有它的阴暗面，我们都期望自己的团体压倒其他团体，完全无视对方团体成员的具体感觉。在一组很著名的实验中，心理学家亨利·泰弗尔（Henri Tajfel）告诉参与实验者，他们分属于按照两个不同意见划分的团队，比如，一个团队更喜欢保罗·克利的画，另一个团队更喜欢瓦西里·康定斯基。[132]接着，他让他们在分别属于不同团队的两个人之间分钱；两个人的身份都只有数字标识，而分配者的选择不会给自己带来任何收益或损失。结果是，不仅分钱的人给自己的临时队友多分钱，他们甚至宁愿放弃让实验室破费，而两队队员都能得到更多钱的机会（比如给自己的队友克利团队的粉丝19美分，让康定斯基团队的粉丝得到25美分），也要惩罚另一个团队的队员，不能让他得到比自己队友更多的钱（比如，队友克利团队的粉丝得到7美分，康定斯基团队的粉丝得到1美分）。人在很小的时候就表现出对自己团体的偏爱，这似乎不是一种习得的品性，而是需要人们校正的特性。研究发展心理学的学者已经发现，学龄前儿童能够做出非常种族主义的举动，让自由主义的父母感到震惊。甚至婴儿也更愿意与本种族的和说话口音相同的人交流。[133]

    心理学家吉姆·斯达纽斯（Jim Sidanius）和费利西娅·普拉图（Felicia Pratto）提出，尽管程度不同，但是人们都有一种被他们称为“社会支配”（social dominance）的动机。不过，更直白的术语表述应该是“部落主义”，即人们认为社会群体具有等级结构，自己所在的群体高于其他群体。[134]他们认为，社会支配取向决定了人们的一系列思想意识和价值，包括爱国主义、种族主义、命运、宿命、种姓、国运、军国主义、严厉打击犯罪，以及为社会权力结构和不平等的现状辩护。逆向的社会支配则将人们导向人道主义、社群主义、女性主义、普世权利、进步主义和基督教《圣经》中的平等与和平。

    社会支配理论意味着，尽管种族已经成为讨论偏见的主要着眼点，但它在人的心理上其实并不重要。泰弗尔的实验显示，人们能够根据任何一种相似性，甚至仅仅是根据对两位表现主义画家的不同品位，将世界分成内群体和外群体。心理学家罗伯特·库尔茨班、约翰·图比（John Tooby）、勒达·考斯米德斯（Leda Cosmides）指出，在人类的进化历史上，不同种族的人被海洋、沙漠和崇山峻岭隔离，几乎没有机会进行面对面的接触，这也是种族特征得以演化的原因。人们的对手主要是同种族的村庄、家族和部落。人们心目中最紧要的问题不是种族，而是“盟友”，只不过今天的许多盟友碰巧与种族相吻合。[135]心理学家G.理查德·塔克（G. Richard Tucker）和华莱士·兰伯特（Wallace Lambert），以及后来的凯瑟琳·金茨勒（Katherine Kinzler）都证明过，对人类偏见最生动的刻画是说话：人们对讲话口音不熟悉的人总是怀有戒心。[136]古老的《圣经·士师记》中对示播列（shibboleth）一词的来源做了生动的记载：

    基列人把守约旦河的渡口，不容以法莲人过去。以法莲逃走的人若说：“容我过去。”基列人就问他说：“你是以法莲人不是？”他若说：“不是。”就对他说：“你说示播列。”以法莲人因为咬不真字音，便说西播列。基列人就将他拿住，杀在约旦河的渡口。那时以法莲人被杀的，有四万二千人。

    * * *

    民族主义现象可以说是人类心理和历史的一种互动，它整合了三种东西：部落主义的感情冲动，同文同域同祖“群体”的认知概念，政府的政治结构。爱因斯坦说过，民族主义是“人类的麻疹”。这话不总是对的，有些时候，它只是一次伤风感冒。但是有些外强中干的小集团充满自负，这种集团的自恋癖和民族主义合并发作的时候，民族主义可能是灾难性的。前面讲过，一旦自恋狂感觉受到现实的怠慢，他会暴怒，自恋癖因此可能触发暴力。自恋癖和民族主义的结合，会产生政治学家所说的“怨恨”：坚信自己的民族或文明天生拥有历史给予它的辉煌地位，尽管它目前处境卑微，它的衰败完全是因为内部和外部敌人的阴险破坏。[137]

    怨恨激起挫败感，也就是自恋狂常常会感受到的屈辱、嫉妒和愤怒。有些历史学家，例如里亚·格林菲尔德（Liah Greenfield）和丹尼尔·希罗（Daniel Chirot）认为20世纪初的大战和大屠杀起因都是德国和俄国的怨恨。两个国家都认为它们只是在争取它们应有的支配，但是敌人背信弃义，拒绝了它们的权利。[138]人们注意到，在当今世界上，俄罗斯和伊斯兰国家都对自己未能得到相称的地位感到怨怼，他们的情绪不容忽视。[139]

    回望某些欧洲国家，例如荷兰、瑞典、丹麦，它们在18世纪就不再参与竞争支配权的把戏，转而将自己的自尊放在不那么激动人心但是更实惠的目标上，例如发家致富，让自己的公民享有愉快的生活。[140]还有一些国家从来就不曾在意过是否有显赫的形象，例如加拿大、新加坡和新西兰。它们的民族自豪感尽管也不小，但与其成就相称，在国际关系方面，它们从来没有找过麻烦。

    集团的野心关系其他相邻民族的命运。民族事务专家不接受“历史宿怨让相邻民族征战不休”的传统观点。[141]说到底，这个地球上有6000种语言，其中至少600种有相当数量的人在使用。[142]与可能发生的冲突相比，真正爆发的民族冲突的数量只是一个很小的零头。1996年，詹姆斯·费伦和戴维·莱廷对两个多民族混居的地区进行了研究：一个是20世纪90年代初解体的苏联45个前加盟共和国；另一个是在1960—1979年完成去殖民化的非洲，至少有160个民族。费伦和莱廷统计了这两个地区爆发的内战和社区间冲突（包括严重骚乱）占相邻民族数量的比重。他们发现，在苏联地区，爆发战乱的概率是约4.4%，而在非洲，这个数字不到1%。发达国家也有民族混居的情况，比如新西兰、马来西亚、加拿大、比利时以及美国，它们有更好的民族非暴力记录。[143]不同民族集团之间存在矛盾，但它们不一定非要相互仇杀。民族集团也和个人一样，难免争强好胜，但大多数时间里，人们并不需要大打出手。

    有几个因素决定了不同民族是否能够和平共处。费伦和莱廷认为，重要因素之一是，一旦有人对其他集团成员发动袭击，这个集团如何处理挑事者。[144]如果犯事者受到自己社区的惩罚，受害的集团就会将事件视为一件孤立的犯罪行为，而不是集团间开战的信号。（我们在前面说过，国际维和部队的作用之一，就是他们可以惩罚挑事的一方，安抚另一方。）政治学家斯蒂芬·范埃弗拉（Stephen van Evera）认为，意识形态是更大的影响因素。有几种情况会让局势变得极为严峻：当混居的民族期望建立自己的国家，或者与分布在其他国家的同族人合并的时候；当人们对自己人的暴行无动于衷而牢牢记着邻国的祖先造成的伤害的时候；以及当被下流政府统治，一方面神话自己族群的光荣历史，另一方面将其他族群排挤在社会合约之外的时候。

    许多和平的国家都在经历消除部落主义心理、重新定义民族国家的过程。政府不再将自己看作特定民族的灵魂领袖，而是生活在同一片土地上的各个族群和人民共同结成的契约实体。政府机器通常就像鲁布戈德堡的机械装置——有着繁杂迂回的机构，各种特殊身份、权力分享和平权机制，这个构架复杂精巧的装置由几个类似橄榄球球队这样的民族象征组合在一起。[145]人们的根扎在球衣上，而不再是在鲜血和土地上。这种看起来乱糟糟的局面恰如人们乱糟糟的自我分群，个人可以有多重认同，并同时作为不同集团的成员。[146]

    * * *

    社会支配是男人的事情——不用大惊小怪，男性是痴迷支配权的性别，男人比女人有更强烈的部落情怀，包括种族主义、军国主义，以及对不平等泰然处之的能力。[147]但是，男人也更容易发觉自己是被歧视的对象。人们通常认为，种族主义和性别歧视是白人大男子制度下一对孪生的偏见，美国非裔女性受到双重的压迫，但斯达纽斯和普拉图的发现与此设想相反。事实是，与少数族裔的男性相比，女性较少成为种族主义歧视的对象。男性对女性的态度可以是家长式的或者剥夺式的，但不是同性间常见的对抗式。斯达纽斯和普拉图从歧视的演化过程解释了这种差异现象。性别歧视主要源于男性要控制女性行为，特别是性行为的遗传激励。部落主义的起因是一个团体的男子和其他团体男性竞争资源和配偶。

    鉴于男女两性在过度自信、个人暴力和集团敌视上的水平差异，人们不由得经常要问：女性主导的世界是否会更加和平？如果我们改换一下时态和语调，问题可能更有意思。世界变得和平了，是不是因为很多女性承担起责任？如果有更多的女性承担更大的责任，世界是否会变得更加和平？

    我认为，对这三个问题的回答都是非常肯定的。之所以非常肯定，是因为性别和暴力之间的联系相当复杂，绝不是简单的“男人来自火星（战神之星）”。政治学家乔舒亚·戈尔茨坦在《战争与性别》（War and Gender）一书中回顾了战争与性别之间的交集，他发现，贯穿人类历史和遍布人类社会，男子都是军队的主体和主宰。[148][之所以有亚马孙人和其他女武士的形象，多半也是因为男人喜欢看看身着军装的健壮女子罢了，比如劳拉·克劳馥（Lara Croft）和西娜（Xena），而不是因为历史确有其实。]即使在女权至上的21世纪，世界军人的97%，世界作战士兵的99.9%，都是男性。（以色列以男女平等征兵著称，但女战士主要在诊所和办公室工作。）男人大可吹嘘，历史上最著名的战争狂人、嗜血暴君和杀人不眨眼的屠夫均为男性。

    但是，面对这些血腥的暴力，妇女也不是良知反战者。在许多时候，她们也曾亲率大军，也曾在战地服务。当然，在更多的时候，她们鼓动自己的男人上战场或者提供后勤支援——在古代，她们自带营帐追随大军；在今天，她们是军工厂的主力。还有很多女王和女皇，包括西班牙的伊莎贝拉、英格兰的玛丽和伊丽莎白一世、俄国的叶卡捷琳娜大帝，在对内镇压和对外征服上都毫不手软。20世纪的一些国家领导人，例如玛格丽特·撒切尔、果尔达·梅厄、英迪拉·甘地和钱德里卡·库马拉通加，都曾在战时领导自己的国家。[149]

    在妇女有能力从事战争和她们一贯的作为之间，存在巨大的差距。在传统社会，妇女不得不为自己和子女的安全考虑，所以，毫不奇怪，她们希望她们的男人打赢战争。因为两性差异（包括上肢的力量、掠夺和杀戮的意愿、怀孕和养育子女的能力），加上军队中男女混合产生的麻烦（比如两性浪漫引发同性间竞争），有常备军的社会一直按照性别进行分工，参战送死是男人的专责。不论在任何时代，握有权力的女性都能尽忠职守，包括发动战争。一位身处王朝或帝国征战时代的女王，即使她本人爱好和平，也很难在保住自己的权力和性命的同时成为列国中唯一的和平主义者。尽管两性之间有些特性在平均水平上有巨大的差别，但这些特性仍然是两性所共有的，所以，在军事领导和战斗技能方面，许多女性甚至比大多数男性更有能力。

    但是，在漫长的历史长河中，妇女一直是也仍将是和平的力量。传统战争是男人的游戏：部落的妇女从来不曾结伙袭击邻里，抢劫新郎。[150]古希腊剧作家阿里斯托芬的《利西翠妲》（Lysistrata）在舞台上展示这种性别差异，剧中的古希腊妇女举行性罢工，要求男人结束伯罗奔尼撒战争。19世纪的女权运动经常与和平主义运动和其他反暴力运动，例如废奴和动物权利运动联手。[151]在20世纪的反核、反越战、反对阿根廷暴力冲突、反对北爱尔兰暴力中，以及在苏联和前南斯拉夫，妇女组织都是最积极、最有效的力量。对美国20世纪30年代至80年代的近300个民意调查的回顾显示，在87%的问题上，男人倾向支持“更暴力和强制性的手段”，而在另外13%的问题上，男女倾向持平。[152]比如，男性倾向在1939年支持以武力与德国对抗，在1940年支持与日本对抗，在1960年支持与苏联对抗，在1968年支持与越南对抗。在美国1980年以来的历届总统选举中，支持民主党候选人的妇女选票都多于男子的选票；在2000年和2004年，与大多数男性选民相反，大多数女性选民反对小布什当选。[153]

    虽然女性比男性更热爱和平，但在一个社会中，男女的意见之间存在相关性。[154]1961年，一项美国民调询问国家是否应该“不惜打一场全面核战争也决不在共产主义制度下生存”。87%的男子的回答是肯定的，但“仅仅”有75%的女性持相同立场。这证明，在同一个社会的同一个时间，妇女相比男子只是更和平一些。当国家在某个问题上（比如越战）产生分裂的时候，性别鸿沟会拉大，而在整个国家的意见比较一致的时候（比如第二次世界大战），性别差距会缩小，而在某些让整个社会都感到感情纠结的问题上（比如向以色列人和阿拉伯人询问阿以冲突的解决途径），则完全不存在性别差异。

    但是，妇女的社会地位会影响到社会对战争的态度，即使妇女本身不反对战争。承认妇女的权利和反对战争总是正相关的。在中东国家，民意调查显示，赞成男女平等的人，也倾向赞成以非暴力方式解决阿以冲突。[155]对传统文化社会所做的几次民族志调查发现，一个社会越是善待妇女，就越少卷入战争。[156]现代国家也有同样的情况，从西欧到美国自由派的蓝色州，再到美国保守的红色州，最后是阿富汗和巴基斯坦等伊斯兰国家，和平和妇女的地位高度相关。[157]我们将在第10章中看到，在妇女得到充分赋权的社会，很少出现无所寄托的年轻男子拉帮结伙、无事生非的现象。[158]当然，长期和平时代和新和平时代，也正是女权革命时代。我们不知道何为因果，但是生物学和历史告诉我们，当其他条件已定，妇女拥有更大影响力的世界将是一个更和平的世界。

    * * *

    在经历过文明进程的社会或者在受协约和规则约束的国际关系中，无政府状态下历练的支配毫无用途。社会支配感的淡薄可以减少个人之间的暴力和群体之间的战争。这当然不是说支配感背后的情感会彻底消失，这些情感已经是我们身体的组成部分，对某个性别尤其如此，但是，我们可以将这种情感边缘化。在20世纪中后期，支配概念和与之相关的美德，例如男子气概、荣誉、名望和光荣开始被解构，解构的过程一部分是非正式的调侃，比如马克斯兄弟在滑稽剧《鸭羹》中嘲弄沙文主义。一部分是因为妇女逐渐进入专业领域。女性对竞争支配权始终保持某种心理距离，认为它不过是男孩子的吵闹，随着妇女影响力的上升，支配权竞争失去了它的魅力。（任何在男女同工环境中工作的人都知道，妇女将男性同事的装腔作势视为“典型的大男子主义”。）还有部分原因是世界主义，我们看到了其他国家的荣誉文化可以何等夸张，因此也不由得检点一下自己。新近流行的源于西班牙语的“男子汉”（macho）一词，非但没有夸耀男性英雄气概的意思，反而带着几分蔑视，被用来奚落男人的狂妄自大。“村里人”乐队（Village People）搔首弄姿的歌曲《铁血男子汉》（Macho Man）和其他同性恋造型中的男子形象也让更多的人对阳刚男性减少了兴趣。

    我认为，生物科学的进步和它在文字文化上的影响也是一种制约支配权竞争的力量。人们越来越明白，追求支配是人类进化进程中的残余。支配权竞争背后有一连串生物学术语，谷歌图书项目对这些术语的流行程度进行了数量分析：20世纪40年代开始出现“睾丸素”, 60年代开始流行“啄序”（pecking order）和“支配等级”, 90年代则是“阿尔法雄性”（alpha male）。[159]中间在80年代还出现了一个令人啼笑皆非的伪医学术语“睾丸素中毒”（testosterone poisoning）。每一个术语的流行都将支配权竞争的地位贬黜一级。它们都暗含着一种意思：男子追求荣耀，无非是他们原始想象力的一点儿残迹——他们血液中一点儿化学物质产生的症状，其表现为动物的本能。我们在公鸡和狒狒身上看到这些化学物质工作时，是忍不住要发笑的。与历史久远的老概念，诸如“光荣”和“荣耀”相比，生物学术语具有离间效果，而光荣和荣耀作为支配权竞争的战利品，预设了哪些算得上是男子的成就，能够带来光荣和荣耀。150年来，英语书籍中这两个词语的使用频率一直在稳步下降。[160]不是不假思索地接受本能对意识的既有影响，而是有能力对本能进行审视，这是我们在本能带来破坏时克制本能的第一步。

    复仇

    人类在无数典籍中淋漓尽致地表达了他们要对一个伤害过自己的人报以伤害的坚定决心。希伯来《圣经》对复仇喋喋不休，给我们留下了数种精练的表述，例如“血债血偿”、“以眼还眼”、“伸冤在我”。荷马的阿喀琉斯描绘说，男人的胸膛里涌动着火气，复仇比流淌的蜜糖更甜美。而在夏洛克看来，复仇是人类共性的最高点。当问到他要那一磅人肉能干什么的时候，他回答说：“拿来钓鱼也是好的呀！即使他的肉不中吃，也至少可以出出我这口恶气。”

    其他文化中的人也同样诗意地讴歌报仇雪恨。米洛万·吉拉斯（Milovan Djilas）出生在黑山一个世仇不断的家族，后来曾任南斯拉夫联邦人民共和国副总统，他称复仇是“我们眼睛里的光，面颊上的火焰，太阳穴处血脉的跳动；我们过去流淌过多少鲜血，听到这个字眼，我们的嗓子就开始发紧”。[161]一个新几内亚男子的叔叔受箭伤致瘫，他听说放箭射伤叔叔的人被杀死的消息后说：“我觉得我仿佛生出了翅膀，我觉得我就要飞上天空，我非常幸福。”[162]阿帕切（Apache）首领杰罗尼莫（Geronimo），在细细地品味了对墨西哥四支连队的大屠杀后写道：

    身上还沾着敌人的鲜血，手里还握着武器，心里还洋溢着战斗、胜利和复仇的欢乐，我身边围绕着阿帕切勇士，我被授命为所有阿帕切部落的战争首领。接着，我下令剥下被杀敌人的头皮。

    我不能让我所爱的人死而复生，我不能让死去的阿帕切人重返人间，但是我可以欢庆胜利的复仇。

    达利和威尔逊评论说：“欢庆？杰罗尼莫在牢房里写下这些话时，他的阿帕切民族已经支离破碎，几近灭亡。对复仇的渴望似乎如此徒劳无益：一切都晚了，再哭也于事无补。”[163]

    尽管完全徒劳无益，但对复仇的渴望却是人类暴力的一个主要原因。血债血偿几乎是世界上95%的文化都明确赞许的准则，而不论何处，引发部落战争的主要原因之一就是复仇。[164]在世界范围内，10%~20%凶杀案的动机是复仇，绝大部分校园枪杀案和个人爆炸案的动机也是复仇。[165]复仇行动有时指向一个集团而不是个人，城市暴乱、恐怖袭击、反恐怖袭击和战争的主要动机也是复仇。[166]历史学家研究过为了报复一次袭击而导致战争的案例，这些决定通常都是被愤怒冲昏头脑的产物。[167]比如，珍珠港事件之后，美国人民的反应是，“仿佛遭到当头一棒，掺杂着震惊、恐惧、困惑、悲伤、羞辱，当然最最重要的是极端的愤怒”。[168]除了战争，不可能考虑其他任何选择（例如遏制和骚扰），即使动一下这种念头都意味着叛国。对“9·11”恐怖袭击事件的反应也是如此，美国在袭击发生一个月之后入侵阿富汗，其动机既是长期战略决策，认为入侵是有效的反恐措施；也是一种情绪，认为一定要干点儿什么以示报复。[169]9月11日3000人被屠杀的恐怖袭击本身也是受复仇驱动，拉登在他的《告美国人民书》（Letter to America）中解释说：

    安拉，万能的真主，准予并选择了复仇。因此，如果我们受到攻击，我们就有权回击。谁摧毁我们的村庄和城镇，我们就有权摧毁他们的村庄和城镇；谁偷盗了我们的财富，我们就有权摧毁他们的经济；谁杀死了我们的平民，我们就有权杀死他们的人。[170]

    复仇的念头不局限于政客和部落首领发热的头脑。在每个人的大脑里，复仇都是一个容易触发的键钮。大部分大学生忏悔的凶杀幻想几乎全都是复仇幻想。[171]在实验研究中，实验人员可以轻而易举地将学生带入要对羞辱进行报复的状态。研究人员要求学生写一篇作文，然后给他们看一篇其他同学对其作文所做的侮辱性评价（这个“同学”或者是匿名的实验者，或者完全是虚构）。每到这种时候，安拉就开始微笑了：在实验中写作文的学生刚好有机会处罚作文的批评家，处罚手段有电击，对着耳朵吹喇叭，或者（经人类实验反暴力委员会审查通过，在最新的实验中）强迫批评者喝下一个正在接受假想味道实验的辣椒调料。结果屡试不爽。[172]

    人类对复仇的需求确实是如饥似渴。在这些实验中，就在参加实验者要实施报复性电击的那一瞬间，仪器突然失灵了（当然是研究人员做了些手脚），所以他或者她不能如愿进行电击复仇。接着，所有参加实验者被带去进行另一项品尝葡萄酒的实验。那些未能对羞辱他们的人进行报复的学生，总是要喝下更多的葡萄酒样品，仿佛要用酒来淹没他们的懊恼。[173]复仇的神经生物机理开始于中脑—下丘脑—杏仁核联结的愤怒回路，一只被刺痛或受到挫折的动物总是更倾向攻击离它最近的动物。[174]人类的愤怒回路接收来自大脑各个部位的信息，包括颞顶交界区，它区分伤害是有意还是无意的。接着，愤怒回路激活产生痛感、厌恶感和愤怒感的脑岛。（前面提到过，当人们感到自己被其他人欺骗了的时候，脑岛部位开始发亮。）[175]这些感觉的滋味都令人不快，我们已经知道，动物会努力关闭对愤怒回路的电刺激开关。

    但是，大脑接下来可以进入完全不同的信息处理模式。谚语如“复仇如蜜”,“与其生气，不如讨还欠账”,“复仇是一道凉菜——越冷酷越好”，都是情感神经科学的研究假设。它们给出了大脑活动的模型，从憎恶的愤怒转向冷静甚至寻求愉快的方式，很像是引导人搜索美味的食物。事实证明，很多民间神经科学的说法都很有道理。多米尼克·德·奎尔万（Dominique de Quervain）和他的合作者进行了一项实验，他们给一组男子一次机会，将一笔钱交给另一个参加实验者操作，投资盈利，然后，或者将股份全部交给投资者，或者全部留给操作者自己。[176][这种情况也称“信任博弈”（trust game）。]接下来，投资款被骗的实验参加者得到机会向无良信托代理处以惩罚性罚款，有时，他们需要花钱购买进行处罚的特权。在告知实验参加者有机会进行惩罚时，研究人员对他们的大脑进行扫描；他们发现，纹状体的一部分（寻求系统的核心部分）开始发亮——当一个人渴望尼古丁、可卡因和巧克力的时候，大脑的同一部位也开始发亮。复仇真的是甜蜜的。一个人纹状体的亮度越高，他愿意为得到处罚权付出的金额越大，这显示纹状体的活跃程度反映了人的真实愿望，一种他愿意付钱实现的愿望。在实验参加者选择付钱得到处罚权之后，他的眶额皮层和腹内侧前额叶皮层开始发亮——这些脑部位权衡不同行动的过程带来了愉悦和痛苦。在这个案例中，可以说是付出了复仇的代价和开销后的满足。

    复仇需要丧失共情，我们可以观察到大脑的这个活动过程。塔尼亚·辛格（Tania Singer）和她的合作者做过一个类似的实验，实验参加者的诚实得到同伴的回报，或者遭到背弃。[177]接着，他们自己在手指上接受一下轻微的电击，然后看着诚实的伙伴接受电击，或者看着背信弃义的伙伴接受电击。当诚实的伙伴遭到电击的时候，参加实验者对伙伴的痛苦感同身受：自己被电击时感觉痛苦的脑岛部位发亮；在看到诚实的同伴受电击时，同一部位也会发亮。当骗子受电击的时候，女性无法阻断她们的共情，脑岛部位因同情而发亮；但是男人硬得起心肠：他们的脑岛保持黑暗，纹状体和眶额皮层却开始发光，显示达到了目标的满足。这些回路的亮度与男性实验者陈述的复仇愿望的强烈程度相符。卡罗尔·吉利根（Carol Gilligan）等女权活动家认为男性更倾向报复性正义，而女性则宽宏慈悲，此实验结果与他们的观点一致。[178]塔尼亚·辛格非常谨慎地表示，女性也许是对处罚造成的肉体伤害感到畏惧；如果处罚的方式是罚款、批评甚至排挤，女性也许和男性一样富于报复心。[179]

    复仇带来的冷酷而甜蜜的快感是无可否认的。恶棍得到应有的报应，是人们编写故事时不断重现的主题；当暴力的处罚终于落到一个坏蛋头上的时候，感到开心的绝不只是警官“肮脏的哈里·卡拉汉”。作为电影院的常客，彼得·威尔（Peter Weir）的获奖影片《证人》（Witness）属于我最享受的片子。哈里森·福特扮演一名便衣警官，与宾州乡下的一户阿米什家庭住在一起。一天，他全身阿米什打扮，陪着这家人坐着马车进城。在路上，他们遭到一帮乡下流氓的拦截和骚扰。这家阿米什人真诚地信奉和平主义，即使一个流氓开始戏弄和欺辱他们举止庄重的父亲，他们也不做任何反抗。头戴草帽的福特渐渐按捺不住心头的怒火，出手反击，他一拳将那个小流氓打倒在地。这一手让那伙流氓大吃一惊，也让电影院里的观众欢欣不已。

    * * *

    这种叫作复仇的疯狂到底是什么？在我们的文化中，心理治疗将复仇视为一种疾患，宽恕则是良药，但复仇冲动有一个完全可以理解的功能：威慑。[180]达利和威尔逊解释说：“有效的威慑是要让敌人明白，任何伤害我方的谋利企图都将受到严厉的惩罚；损人利己的策略最终是得不偿失，不如不做。”[181]复仇性惩罚作为一种威慑的必要性，不仅是人们传诵的故事，而且在合作进化的数学模型和计算机模型中一再得到证明。[182]

    有些合作形式解释起来很容易：两个人有亲属关系，或者夫妻关系，或者是队友，或者是有共同利益的知己；因此，对一个人有利的，即对另外一个人亦有利。这种共生合作是天然形成的。当人们的利益开始有一部分不一致，一方有可能利用对方的合作意愿为自己谋利的时候，他们之间的合作就不太容易解释了。正和博弈的囚徒困境是描述此类难题最简单的模型。想象《法律与秩序》连续剧中的一个场景，两个犯罪同伙（“左撇子”和“布鲁特斯”）分别被关在两个牢房内，指控他们有罪的证据不够充分，于是区助理检察官分别向两个人提出谈判条件。如果两人中的左撇子做证指控同伙布鲁特斯（“背叛”），而布鲁特斯仍忠实于左撇子（即继续与同伴保持“合作”），左撇子将获释，而布鲁特斯将被监禁10年；反之亦然。而如果两人互相背叛，做证指认对方犯罪，两人都将进监狱，但两人的刑期将被减到6年。如果两人都保持忠诚，检察官只能指控他们较轻的罪名，两人至多在牢狱里蹲上6个月。图8-5是这一困境的偿付矩阵，黑色字是第一个囚犯左撇子的选择和回报，灰色字是左撇子的同伙布鲁特斯的选择和回报。

    图8-5 囚徒困境

    他们的悲剧是，两人本应合作，代价是仅仅6个月的刑期，博弈得到最大正数解，但两人都会选择背叛，因为他们都想到对自己最有利的两个结果：如果同伴忠诚，自己能获得自由；如果同伴背叛，自己也只是得到6年刑期，而选择忠诚自己却有可能得到10年刑期。所以，他选择背叛。而他的同伙出于同样推理，也选择背叛。如果他们都能依据利他原则做选择，本来可以只坐6个月的牢，但两人的自私自利让他们最后各得6年刑期。

    囚徒困境被人们称为20世纪最伟大的思想之一，它将社会生活的悲剧提炼成一个极为简洁的公式。[183]当同伙忠诚于合作，当事人却背叛同伙时能得到最大收益；当同伙背叛，当事人仍忠诚于合作时会得到最严厉的惩罚；两个人都坚持合作，总收益最大；两人都背叛对方，总收益最小——每当面对这些选择，人类立刻就会陷入困境。生活中的许多困境都有同样的结构，其中最典型的是捕食暴力。在捕食暴力中，与和平爱好者对抗的好战者能够稳赚，但是与其他好战者对抗的好战者，则很可能两败俱伤，所以最好两个人都是和平爱好者；但当你觉得自己是和平爱好者的时候，你就开始害怕对方可能是一个好战者。这样的悲剧在我们的生活中到处可见，诸如消耗战、公共品博弈和信任博弈等都是如此，个体的自私自利充满了诱惑，但共同的自私自利则是毁灭性的。

    一次性的囚徒困境结果当然很悲惨，但生活中更常见的是重复囚徒困境，参与者连续互动，经过数轮博弈得到最后结果。如果假定重复囚徒博弈的收益不是监狱和钞票，而是后裔的数量，或许可以更好地说明合作的演化。重复囚徒困境中虚拟生物之间就互助机会或者不愿意帮助其他人——例如相互梳理毛发，进行博弈，收益是身体的健康，成本是花费的时间，长期而言都可以转化为后代的数量。重复博弈就像自然选择下的生物代际演化，我们可以观察哪些竞争策略在数代人之后逐渐成为大多数人的选择。各种组合可能性的数量很大，很难进行数学证明，但是这些策略可以编程，一个简单的计算机应用程序即可让各种组合进行循环竞赛。这些原本仅仅是理论家的假设，有了计算机之后，他们可以清楚地观察各方和各种策略在虚拟进化中的斗争过程。

    第一轮竞争由政治学家罗伯特·阿克塞尔罗德（Robert Axelrod）主持，获胜的策略是简单的“针锋相对”或“一报还一报”（Tit for Tat）：第一步是合作，接着，如果同伴也合作，就继续合作；但如果同伴背叛，就开始背叛。[184]因为合作得到奖赏，背叛受到惩罚，因此背叛者会改换行为，转为合作，长此以往，每个人都是赢家。这个思路和罗伯特·特里弗斯的互惠利他主义的进化理论相一致，特里弗斯早几年在没有使用数学工具的情况下提出了这一理论。[185]正和奖励来自互换收益（每一方都能在自己付出很小代价的条件下为对方带来很大收益），诱惑则是完全利用对方，不付代价而得到收益。特里弗斯的理论认为，道德情感是对合作的适应，这一理论可以直接翻译成“一报还一报”的算法。同情是合作的第一步，感激是对合作者的合作，愤怒是对背叛者的背叛——或者说，是报复性的惩罚。惩罚可以是拒绝提供帮助，也可以是制造伤害。复仇不是坏事：它防止坏人利用好人，是合作的必要条件。

    至今人们已经研究过几百种重复囚徒困境竞赛，并得出几项新的教训。[186]一是“一报还一报”策略尽管极其简单，但其成功仍可被分解成不同的特点，并与其他策略相结合。这些特性被按照人类的个性命名，标签的意义远不止方便记忆；合作的动态过程也许解释了为什么我们会在进化中形成了这些个性。“一报还一报”成功背后的第一个特性是友善：第一步一定是合作，尽力抓住共同获益的合作机会，决不在对方背叛之前出卖对方。第二个特性是清晰，如果战略中交往规则非常复杂，让其他参与方不能确定其行动的后果，他们的行动实际上就会成为为所欲为，而一旦出现为所欲为，最佳回应就是“永远背叛”策略。其他策略很容易与“一报还一报”策略结合，根据可能的选择进行调整。“一报还一报”的第三个特性是报复：对于背叛必以背叛回报，这是最简单的复仇形式。第四个特性是宽恕：它为悔改敞开大门，如果对手在玩弄背叛之后又转回合作，根据“一报还一报”策略就应该立即报之以合作。[187]

    最后一个特性——宽恕，实际上远比人们最初设想的更加重要。“一报还一报”策略的弱点是它很容易犯错误和出现误解。假定一个参与者本意是合作，但因为行动中出错变成了背叛，或者假定将其他参与者的合作意图误判为背叛，因此施以报复性背叛。于是对手也施以报复性背叛，接着就是新一轮的报复，冤冤相报，将参与者带进无休止的背叛循环——整个程序等同于一场世仇大战。我们身处一个充满噪声的世界，难免会发生误解和错误，所以具有更大宽恕度的“慷慨版一报还一报”（Generous Tit for Tat）的策略，比一般的“一报还一报”有更大的胜算。“慷慨版一报还一报”每隔一段时间会随机地宽恕叛徒，重启合作机制。无条件的宽恕行动可以将一对陷于相互背叛不能自拔的仇人拉回合作之路。

    过度宽恕的战略也有自己的问题，如果在人群中有几个精神变态狂玩弄“永远背叛”，还有几个憨头只会“永远合作”，这个战略就无法被执行下去。精神变态狂通过掠夺憨头自肥，最后壮大到足以剥夺所有人。在这样的世界上，更有竞争力的策略是“悔改版一报还一报”（Contrite Tit for Tat），这个版本在宽恕上要更挑剔一些。它会记住自己的行为，如果一轮背叛的起因是自己的一个随机错误或误解，它会允许对手背叛一次而不予追究，然后转回合作轨道。但是，如果背叛是对手发动的，它绝不心慈手软，坚决施以报复。如果对手也奉行“悔改版一报还一报”，那么它也会原谅有理由的报复，双方仍会重返合作。所以说，不仅是复仇，还有宽恕和悔过，都是社会动物获取合作收益的必要条件。

    合作的进化能否实现首先取决于重复交锋的可能性。一次性囚徒困境无法完成演化，即使是在重复囚徒博弈中，如果参与者知道博弈交手的回合有限，也难以形成合作，因为在博弈接近结束的时候，各方都因不再惧怕报复而接受背叛的诱惑。出于同样的道理，在不同分组之间，一组参与者是不能迁移的邻里，成员彼此被捆绑在一起，除了相互博弈，别无选择。与成员能够搬迁和自己选择伙伴的小组相比，不能迁移的参与者之间有更强的宽恕意愿，因为相互背叛的结局是共同毁灭。

    人类的合作还有另外一个变数。我们有语言，因此不需要与他人直接交往就可以知道他们是合作者还是背叛者。我们可以四处打探询问，了解人们以往的行为记录。博弈论专家将此称为“间接互惠”，它让名誉和闲言碎语有了现实的价值。[188]

    潜在的合作者必须不仅能够在两人博弈中，而且还能够在团体的合作行动中平衡自私和互利。博弈论专家也探讨过多人参与的囚徒困境，称为“公共品博弈”。[189]每个参与者向公库交纳一笔钱，这笔钱后来增长了一倍，在每个成员之间平均分配。（你可以想象，一群渔民共同筹款改造港口设施，例如灯塔；或者同一街区的商家合资聘用保安。）对团体来说，最好是每个人尽力出资，越多越好。但对个人来说，最好是省下自己这一份，成为搭便车者，占其他出资人的便宜。悲剧的结果是，每个人都不肯出资，公款为零，每个人的境遇都会变得更糟糕。[生物学家加勒特·哈丁（Garrett Hardin）提出过一个相同的现象——“公地悲剧”。每个农民都毫无节制地在村镇的公地上放牧，直到草场枯竭，公地成为无人能用的废地。污染、过度捕捞和碳排放都是真实的“公地悲剧”案例。][190]但是，如果博弈的参与者有机会惩罚搭便车者，对他们在团体中剥夺其他成员的行为进行报复，让参与者有做出贡献的动力，其结果就是人人获益。

    我们可以模拟的世界花样如此之多，对合作进化的建模已经变得极为复杂。但在所有复杂模型中，我们都能看见利用、复仇、宽恕、悔改、名誉、闲言碎语、小集团和睦邻友好这些人类特有行为的演化。

    * * *

    在真实世界中，复仇真的管用吗？有些人具有利用他人的潜能，切实可信的惩罚威胁真的能在这些人心里造成恐惧和威慑，让他们停止剥夺他人吗？来自实验室的回答是肯定的。[191]人们在实验囚徒困境博弈时的行为显示，他们倾向于“一报还一报”式的战略，结果总是能收获合作的果实。他们在进行“信任博弈”时（另外一种“囚徒困境”，也就是前面谈过的，在测试复仇时使用神经成像技术的实验），投资者有能力处罚不守信的信托托管人，这足以使托管人心生恐惧，退还投资人应得的收益。在公共品博弈中，如果人们有机会惩罚搭便车的人，搭便车的人就会消失。还记得那些研究吗？在研究中，参与者的论文被痛批，而他们有机会用电击来报复批评者，但如果知道批评者也有机会以电击进行回击的话，他们就会减弱电击的强度。[192]

    只有在复仇者具有喜欢复仇的声望并有不惜成本实施复仇的意愿时，复仇才有威慑的作用。这也解释了为什么对复仇的渴望可以如此强烈，以至于有时成为自我伤害（比如寻求自助正义的人杀死不忠的配偶或者挑衅的陌生人）。[193]此外，最有效的威慑是惩罚的目标知道谁是复仇者，所以可以修正自己对复仇者的行为。[194]这一现象解释了为什么复仇者只有在对方知道自己被惩罚时才感到复仇的满足。[195]司法理论上的特别威慑正是基于这些冲动：惩罚罪犯的目的是防止罪犯再次犯罪。

    司法理论中的一般威慑也是基于复仇心理：明文公示的处罚就是要第三者心生畏惧，克制犯罪的诱惑。有些人为自己树立不容欺侮的强悍声望，其心理相当于一般威慑。（俗话说：“不要在太岁头上动土”、“不要从老虎嘴里拔牙”、“不要用鸡蛋碰石头”。）实验已经显示，当有观众在场时，人们施加的惩罚会更加严厉，严厉的程度甚至会超过他们所遭受的损失。[196]正如在有旁观者的时候，男人争吵升级的概率会增加一倍。[197]

    有些复仇行为只能用追求威慑效果来解释。在经济学和政治学中非常流行的理性人理论，早就在“最后通牒博弈”中被人类自己的行为证明是不成立的。[198]在博弈中，一方为提案人，手持一笔资源在他和另一位参与者之间进行分配；另一方作为响应人，可以选择接受或拒绝提议人的分配方案。如果响应方拒绝提议，双方什么都得不到。一个理性的提案人会为自己留下尽量大的份额，而一个理性的响应人会立即接受提案人留给他的那一份，无论份额多么微小，因为有一点儿小碎渣也强过什么都没有。但实验中的提案人几乎总是愿意分给对方一半的资源，而响应者对少于一半的分配方案都不愿意接受，即使拒绝较小的份额实际上对双方都是惩罚。为什么这一实验中的人行为如此缺乏理性？因为理性人假设忽视了人类的复仇心理。当提议的分配方案过于吝啬，响应人会感到愤怒——确实，我前面提到的大脑神经成像研究所观察的正是“最后通牒博弈”中人脑的反应，脑岛部分因愤怒而发亮。[199]愤怒驱使响应者对提案人进行报复性惩罚。绝大部分提案人预见到对方的愤怒，所以他们会提议一个比较大方的分配方案，慷慨到足以让对方能够接受。一旦因为博弈的规则发生变化，响应人不得不接受任一分配方案，而提案人又不需要担忧报复的时候（即所谓的“独裁博弈”），提案人的分配方案就会变得更加吝啬。

    * * *

    我们还有一个未解之谜。如果复仇的目的是威慑，那么为什么在现实世界中它如此常见？为什么复仇没有像冷战中的核武器，建立恐怖均衡，让每个人都不敢越雷池一步？为什么会有冤冤相报、没完没了的复仇？

    主要原因是“道德标尺的偏差”。人们总是认为他们自己造成的伤害都是事出有因、可以被原谅的，而他们遭受的伤害都是蛮横无理、刻骨铭心的。双方在计算打击的先后次数和造成的伤害程度上差距越拉越大。[200]心理学家丹尼尔·吉尔伯特（Daniel Gilbert）这样形容，在一场旷日持久的战争中，交战双方很像坐在汽车后座上向父母告状的兄弟俩：“他先打了我！”“他出手比我重！”[201]

    在苏克维恩德·谢吉尔（Sukhwinder Shergill）、保罗·贝斯（Paul Bays）、克里斯·弗里思（Chris Frith）和丹尼尔·沃尔珀特（Daniel Wolpert）所做的实验中，我们可以看到错觉导致升级的类似案例。他们的实验是让参加者将手指放在一根棍子下，然后加力下压，棍子下压的力度可以被精确量度。[202]实验的指示是，实验人甲向实验人乙的手指加力3秒钟，力度以他刚刚从研究人员那里感觉到的强度为准。然后，乙得到同样的指示。甲和乙轮换角色，每个人都向对方施加刚刚感受过的压力。8个回合之后，乙向甲施压的力度是第一轮的18倍。之所以会出现这样的螺旋上升，因为与他们所感受的压力相比，人们总是低估他们所施加的压力；每一个回合，他们的用力大约增加40%。在现实世界的纠纷中，错觉不是来自触感的误差，而是来自道德感的幻觉，只是两种错误都是螺旋形攀升的。

    在本书的许多章节中，我都提到要感谢利维坦——垄断了合法使用暴力的政府是促成暴力减少的主要原因。仇杀和无政府是孪生兄弟。我们现在知道了利维坦有效性背后的心理学。法律也许是个混账东西，但却是个不偏不倚的混账，它可以超越施暴者或受害者的本位偏差，中立地衡量伤害。虽然肯定有一方对任何裁决都不会满意，但是政府对暴力的垄断一方面制止失败者再做抗争；另一方面，失败者也缺少与中立方进行抗争的意愿，因为他并不是在向对手认输，所以也就没有那么大的热情要重振自己的声望。古罗马正义女神朱斯提提亚（Justitia）有一套自己的行头，它简明扼要地表达了正义背后的逻辑：（1）天平；（2）蒙眼布；（3）剑。

    利维坦使用剑锋实现正义，说到底依靠的还是暴力。我们已经看到，政府的复仇本身可以走多远，比如人道主义革命之前的残酷刑罚和滥用死刑，还有像美国今天的过度监禁。刑事惩罚经常出现不必要的严厉，完全失去了作为一种讲求精确的措施，力求社会伤害总量最小化的目的。问题一部分出在制度设计上。刑事惩罚的基本原理不仅仅是个别威慑、一般威慑和隔离，它也意味着罪有应得，即公民复仇的愿望。[203]即使我们可以肯定一件残暴罪案的作案人永远不会再次犯案，案件也不会成为其他人的榜样，大部分人仍然会觉得“正义必须得到伸张”，此人必须为他造成的痛苦付出代价，也尝尝痛苦的滋味。罪有应得背后的心理动机完全可以一目了然，正如达利和威尔逊观察到的：

    从进化心理学的角度看，这种几乎是神秘和不可简化的道德律令，是一个具有自适应功能的心理机制的运作结果：通过计算罪与罚确保违规者不能从罪行中获利来实现正义和惩罚。与赎罪、忏悔、神圣正义等有关的宗教秘咒数不胜数，无非都是要将一个俗世的、现实的问题交给高高在上的超然权威：请求上天将恶行的收益降为零，以此阻止自私自利的竞争行为。[204]

    但是，既然这是一条不可简约的律令，我们身在其中挣扎，看不到它的演化机理，人们在生活中量度的正义，很有可能只是大致符合此律令的激励原则。

    心理学家凯文·卡尔史密斯（Kevin Carlsmith）、约翰·达利、保罗·罗宾逊（Paul Robinson）设计了一些假想案例，尝试将威慑从“罪有应得”中区分出来。[205]“罪有应得”必须考虑伤害动机的道德价值。比如同是诈骗所得，一个诈骗犯将所得转化为公司在穷国受剥削的低薪工人，另一个将所得用在自己的奢侈开销上，后者将会得到更严厉的惩罚。相比之下，威慑主要考虑的是惩罚制度的激励结构。假定罪犯预计的犯罪的代价是被抓住的可能性乘以抓住后受到的处罚，那么，越难被发现的犯罪受到的处罚应该越重。出于类似的道理，得到公众关注的罪行，与没有得到关注的罪行相比，受到的处罚也应该越重，因为对公众关注罪行的惩罚具有更高的威慑价值。但让人们置于这些情景，对虚构的犯人量刑时，他们的决定却只考虑“罪有应得”，完全不考虑威慑。邪恶的动机总是得到更严厉的惩罚，而罪行是否难以发现，或者是否受到公众的高度关注，却没有在量刑时产生加重惩罚的效果。

    人道主义革命开始了废除残酷惩罚的过程，当时的功利主义经济学家切萨雷·贝卡里亚提倡司法改革。在他的新制度设计中，刑事司法从让坏人受罪的原始冲动转向更实用的威慑目的。但是卡尔史密斯的实验说明，直到今天，人们仍然没有从完全功利的意义来理解司法制度。不过，我在《白板》一书中说过，即使今天司法实践的动力还是“罪有应得”，但它最大限度地发挥了威慑的作用，因为如果一个制度过于功利化，犯罪分子就会学习与之博弈。“罪有应得”消除了这种可能性。[206]

    * * *

    最精密的司法制度也不可能对公民进行全天候、全方位的监控，能够依赖的只有他们内心的公正和对复仇心的克制。在本书的第3章，我们谈到过加州沙查县的牧场主和农场主如何不惊动警方自己解决纠纷，在这中间，互惠、公议（闲言碎语）、偶发的破坏行动和对微小损失的“忍气吞声”等各项原则都有自己的作用。[207]为什么在有些社会，人们能够不做计较，而在另一些社会，人们却会眼中冒火，脸上发烧，太阳穴上青筋乱跳？诺贝特·埃利亚斯有关文明进程的理论认为，政府司法在引导公民内化自制，约束报复冲动上具有撞击效应。在第2章和第3章中，我们看到政府的平靖措施在减少暴力方面产生巨大效果的很多实例；在下一章中，我们会看到一些实验，说明在一种条件下产生的自制，如何在其他环境中扩展开来。

    第3章还介绍过有一项研究发现，政府的简单存在本身只能将暴力水平从每年十万分之几百的凶杀率降低到十万分之几十。暴力水平进一步降低有赖于其他一些不易辨识的因素，比如人民对政府的合法性和社会契约的认可程度。最新的一项实验也许在实验室捕捉到了这个现象。经济学家贝内迪克特·赫尔曼（Benedikt Herrmann）、克里斯蒂安·尚尼（Christian Th.ni）和西蒙·盖西特（Simon G.chter）让分处在16个国家的大学生参加公共品博弈（参加者向公库交纳一笔资本，资本翻番后再在参与者中分配），一种情况是相互间可以处罚，另一种是相互间不能处罚。[208]研究人员惊恐地发现，在有些国家，很多参加博弈的人惩罚那些慷慨贡献公共品的人，而不惩罚那些小气鬼。这样的行为当然会对团体利益产生极其不利的影响，因为它只能鼓励每个参加者都成为搭便车的人，对公共品的贡献很快枯竭，每个人都是输家。这些参加者之所以做出反社会的惩罚，原因似乎都是过度报复。当一些人因贡献过低而受到惩罚后，他们不是纠正过错，在下一轮博弈时增加贡献（这是这项实验开始在欧美进行时出现的结果），而是惩罚那些在上一轮惩罚他们的人，而这些人多半是利他主义者。

    在一些国家，例如美国、澳大利亚、中国和西欧诸国，受罚的对象能够悔改，而在另一些国家，例如俄国、乌克兰、希腊、沙特阿拉伯和阿曼，受罚的人愤然报复，两类国家之间的区别何在？研究人员就各国的特点进行了一系列多元回归分析，这些特点取自经济统计和国际调研。预测过度报复的主要指标是社会规范：该国人民在多大程度上认为逃避所得税、骗取政府福利、在公交车上逃票不是问题。（社会科学家相信，社会规范是为一个国家带来繁荣的社会资本的主要构成，其重要性超过物质资源。）社会规范又是从哪里来的呢？世界银行给每个国家一个法治（Rule of Law）分数，它能反映法庭在多大程度上能够保障私人之间的合约，司法系统是否公正，黑市和有组织犯罪的地位，警察的素质，以及发生犯罪和暴力的可能性。在公共品博弈实验中，一个国家的法治基本上预示了该国公民选择反社会复仇的程度：在法治不昌的国家，国民特别容易陷入毁灭性复仇。因为多重变量纠缠在一起，不可能确定哪一个变量是原因，但是结果总是显示，一个体面的利维坦所主持的不偏不倚的司法制度能够促使国民克制冲动，避免卷入共同毁灭的复仇循环。

    * * *

    充满升级冲动的复仇一定会有一个克制开关。如果没有这样的开关，道德标尺的偏差会让每一个冲突都变成不断升级的血仇，就像我们在手指压力实验中看到的，每个人都在新一轮行动中向对方施加更大的压力。但是，不仅复仇并不是一定要升级，尤其是在法治的文明社会，我们也不应该期望它会升级。合作进化的模型显示，最成功的博弈者在一报还一报的游戏中主动退让，特别是在与其他博弈者同舟共济的时候，他们愿意选择悔改和宽容。

    《超越复仇：宽容本能的演化》（Beyond Revenge: The Evolution of the Forgiveness Instinct）一书的作者，心理学家迈克尔·麦卡洛（Michael McCullough）认为，我们的确有克制复仇的开关。[209]我们见到过，几种灵长类动物可以在打斗后亲吻和修好，至少在有血缘关系、有共同利益或者有共同敌人的群体中会有这样的行为。[210]麦卡洛的研究显示，人类也具有在同样条件下启动宽恕的本能。

    当侵犯者与我们共属一个天然共情圈时，复仇的欲望最容易被调整。我们会原谅亲人和朋友所犯的错误，但其他人犯下同样的错误，我们会认为是不可饶恕的。我们的共情圈可以扩展（这将是下一章的内容），我们的宽恕圈也跟着扩展。

    压制复仇的第二种情况是我们与侵犯者的关系有特殊价值。我们也许不喜欢他们，但是我们已经和他们捆绑在一起，只能设法学会和他们相处。在总统初选阶段，为了赢得党内提名，对手在几个月的时间里互相攻击，甚至互相污蔑；他们在电视辩论上的身体语言，毫不掩饰地告诉大家他们彼此憎恶。但是，一旦决出胜负，他们立刻咬住嘴唇，咽下自己的骄傲，团结一致对抗党外的对手。在很多情况下，胜利者会邀请失败者做自己的竞选搭档或者阁员。共同的目标有力量让宿敌和解，20世纪50年代一个著名的实验以极为戏剧性的方式证实了这种力量。在一个名为“罗伯茨山洞”的夏令营，男孩子被分成几个小组，自己发动战争，交战历时数周，包括进攻和反击，使用的武器有一定的危险性，例如装在袜子里的石头。[211]接着，心理学家安排了一些“意外”，迫使男孩子放弃争斗，共同工作，例如修复营地的供水管道和将校车拖出烂泥坑。男孩子达成停火，克制了敌意，有些男孩子甚至和敌对阵营的人成了朋友。

    第三种让我们克制复仇心的情况是原来的侵犯者不再构成威胁。无论你的宽容心多么强烈或者有几多温情，在一个曾经伤害过你的人还能继续制造伤害的时候，没有人能够放下武器。如果伤人者想消除你的愤怒，再次赢得你的善意，他必须向你证明他不再有伤害你的念头了。他也许开始会说，原来的伤害是特定环境中的不幸产物，现在那种环境已然不复存在。也就是说，当时的行动不是有意的，或者是无法避免的，或者伤害是意料之外的。决非偶然，这些借口恰恰是对别人造成伤害的人真正相信的，此乃道德标尺的偏差的一端。如果这个借口说服力不够，他会接受你的解释，即承认自己犯了错误，对你的痛苦表示同情，赔偿所造成的损失，发誓赌咒不会再犯同样的错误。研究证明，这些战术确实可以平息受害人的怒气。

    道歉的问题在于它可以是一文不值的假话。一个虚情假意的道歉，目的只是想避免报复，反而可能勾起受害人的怒火，不如什么都不说。受害的一方需要窥测施害一方的灵魂，看看是否还有任何再次施害的企图。真正能让人重新做人的是羞耻、愧疚和尴尬这些自我意识情感。[212]施害者的问题是如何表达这些情感。所有信号系统都要面对这样的问题，让一个信号可信的方式是让它具有相当的成本。当一个处于从属地位的灵长类动物要安抚一个首领的时候，它会让自己缩头缩脑，避免和首领对视，并且暴露出身体的脆弱部位。对人类而言，与之相当的姿态是奉承、卑躬屈膝、点头哈腰。我们的自主神经系统作为一个下意识的回路，控制着我们的血流、肌张力和腺体的活动，因此它也控制着我们身体上最易被观察的部分。带着脸红、结巴和眼泪的道歉总是比平淡、冷静和有节制的道歉显得更真诚。道歉时的痛哭流涕和涨红的脸特别有感染力，它让人觉得悔过不仅是一种表达，而且是发自内心的表达，这已经成为人们的共识。情感表达人知道旁观者了解他的情感状态，旁观者也知道情感表达人对其情感状态有所了解，以此类推。共同认知消除了自我欺骗：有罪的一方不再否认令人不快的事实。[213]

    * * *

    麦卡洛认为，我们克制复仇的因子可以补充司法制度的不足，成为减少社会冲突的一条路径；因为法院系统不仅开支巨大，效率低下，不能满足受害人的需要，而且其本身就是暴力的工具，所以克制复仇具有巨大的潜在收益。许多社区都开始实施修复性正义（restorative justice）项目，有时作为对司法的补充，有时甚至完全替代司法。通常的做法是，施害者和受害人在各自的朋友或家人的陪同下，与辅导顾问一起座谈，辅导让受害者有机会陈述他们的痛苦和愤怒，也让施害者有机会真诚忏悔，并提出对受害者的补偿。听起来这好像是针对家庭主妇的日间电视节目，但它至少让一部分心生悔悟的施害者走上正途，同时还补偿了受害者，并且避免了将案件卷进庞大迟缓的司法机器。

    在国际舞台上，过去二十多年来，我们不断见到有政治家为本国政府的罪行公开道歉。政治学家格雷厄姆·多兹（Graham Dodds）整理了囊括数百年的“一个相当全面的重要政治道歉编年目录”。他的目录开始于1077年的“神圣罗马帝国皇帝亨利四世向教皇格列高利七世就政教纠纷道歉，皇帝本人赤脚在雪地里站立三天”。[214]此后，历史等待了六百多年才见到另一次政治道歉。1711年，马萨诸塞向萨勒姆驱巫审判的受害者家庭道歉。20世纪的第一个道歉来自德国，德国在1919年的《凡尔赛合约》中承认发动了第一次世界大战，只是这个道歉也许不能作为鼓吹道歉的合适案例。但最近20年的一连串道歉的确标志着各国自我展示的新时代。有史以来，各国领导人第一次将历史事实与国际和解置于国家一贯正确的面子之上。1984年，日本裕仁天皇对到访的韩国总统说：“本世纪有过一个不幸的时期，实在令人遗憾。”这算是日本对侵略韩国所做的道歉。此后其他日本领导人不断做出更加坦白的道歉。在这一时期，德国为纳粹集中营道歉，美国为拘押美国日裔道歉，苏联为“二战”期间杀害波兰俘虏道歉，英国向爱尔兰人、印度人和毛利人道歉，以及梵蒂冈为它在宗教战争、迫害犹太人、奴隶贸易和压迫妇女方面扮演的不光彩角色道歉。图8-6显示政治道歉是我们这个时代的一个标志。

    人类社交节目单上的道歉和其他和解姿态真的能够打破复仇的循环吗？政治学家威廉·朗（William Long）和彼得·布莱克在他们2003年的著作《战争与和解：冲突解决的理性和情感》（War and Reconciliation: Reason and Emotion in Conflict Resolution）中回答了这个问题。布莱克就是主持整理《冲突目录》的学者，本书第5章的内容大量仰赖这部目录提供的资料。他和朗这次也是用数字回答问题。他们研究了114对在1888—1991年有过国家间战争的国家，外加430场内战。然后，他们研究了和解活动——将交战双方领导人带到一起的庆典或仪式，再比较和解活动前后几十年中军事争议（包括武力威胁和战斗）的数量，观察庆典和仪式是否产生任何影响。他们提出假说，同时使用理性人理论和进化心理学解释他们的发现。

    图8-6 1900—2004年政治家和宗教领袖的道歉

    资料来源：多兹，2003年b，以及多兹，2005年。

    对国际纠纷而言，情感姿态没有任何作用。朗和布莱克找出21个国际和解活动，比较了那些明显让敌对双方冷静下来的案例和那些敌对双方一如既往继续对抗的案例。显然，成功不取决于象征性的姿态，而是取决于发出代价更高昂的信号。一方或者双方的国家领导人做出出人意料的、自愿的、冒险的、易受攻击的且不可撤销的和平举动，向对方明确表示他不准备继续对抗。安瓦尔·萨达特（Anwar Sadat）1977年在以色列议会发表的演讲是一个典型的案例。他的姿态让人们震惊，毫无疑问，其代价极其高昂，萨达特为此付出了自己的生命。但是，他的演讲促使了一项和平条约的签署，该条约至今仍然有效。当时几乎没有什么亲热的仪式，现在两国关系并不好，但是它们保持了和平。朗和布莱克说，有些时候，那些厮杀了几个世纪的宿敌可以成为好朋友——英国和法国，英国和美国，德国和波兰，德国和法国——但是，这样的和好是几十年和平共存的结果，而不是某个和解姿态的直接产物。

    前面说过，宽恕心理在施害者和受害人有亲缘关系、朋友关系、同盟关系或者相互依赖的时候最能发挥作用。所以，不必奇怪，在国际冲突中没有意义的和解姿态，在结束内战方面却有自己的作用。毕竟，内战的双方同处一道国境之内，国旗和足球队给了他们某种想象上的联盟。事实上，两者之间的联结可能还要深厚。他们很可能有共同的语言或者宗教信仰，是同事，甚至是姻亲。在很多叛乱和军阀混战中，挑战者实际上就是子侄和邻里的孩子；有些社区如果还想继续存在，就不得不欢迎那些对自己犯过暴行的人回头。将人们联结在一起的各种关系网可以为道歉或和解姿态铺平道路。与促使两国之间和平的机制，例如代价高昂的善意信号相比，这些和解姿态之所以更有效，是因为内战中的双方是无法彻底切割的实体，他们之间没有一种居高临下的权威声音，不可能在不惊动他人的情况下单纯地交换信息，而一方在提案被拒绝后也很难若无其事地坚持己见。

    朗和布莱克研究了自1957年以来发生的11个象征结束内战的和解活动，其中有7个（64%）没有再次出现暴力。下面的数字给人的印象更加深刻：在没有经历任何和解活动的冲突事件中，只有9%达到了暴力的终结。他们发现，成功的共同条件既不是完美的公正，也不是完全没有公正，而是在一套和解仪式之下实现象征性的和不完全的公正。就像一个大嗓门附近有一个麦克风，它能放大自己的输出，制造刺耳的号叫，报复性的正义将人们带回施害者制造的新创伤，这很可能激起双方螺旋上升的复仇欲望。相反，就像控制增益可以消除麦克风本身产生的反馈一样，如果控制报复性正义的严厉程度，就可以打破派系暴力的循环。在发生内战冲突之后，抑制寻求正义的渴望是关键所在，不仅警察和监狱系统这样的司法机构本身非常脆弱，而且它们本身也是施害者的主要组成部分。

    南非的和解过程是内部冲突和解的典范。援用科萨人的兄弟（ubuntu）概念，尼尔森·曼德拉和德斯蒙德·图图（Desmond Tutu）确立了修复性司法，而不是报复性司法，用以愈合种族隔离统治下数十年的暴力压迫和反抗给南非造成的创伤。正如权利革命的各种策略，曼德拉和图图的修复性正义既得自非暴力解决冲突的思想库，又是对此思想库的新贡献。朗和布莱克发现，莫桑比克、阿根廷、智利、乌拉圭和萨尔瓦多的国内和平都得益于类似的项目。他们认为，这剂验方有四种主要成分。

    第一，开始是一轮彻底的揭露和承认伤害的事实。这也许是以组织真相与和解委员会的形式，施害者公开坦白他们的罪行；也可以是组织全国真相调查委员会，公开发布官方的正式报告。这些机制的作用直接针对人们产生道德标尺的偏差的自利心理。虽然揭露真相不会流血，但它要求忏悔方做出痛苦的感情牺牲，他们要感到羞耻和愧疚的煎熬，无条件地放弃他们的道德武器——自认清白。有些犯罪虽然大家心里知道，但是很少有人公开谈论；有些犯罪却是“众所周知”的话题，两者在人们心理上有着巨大的差距。如同脸红和眼泪让道歉容易被接受一样，公开认错可以改变对立团体之间的关系。

    成功和解的第二个内容是重新明确人们的社会身份。人们根据认同重新定义社会集团。社会中曾长期受到欺辱的人也许成为领导者。叛军成为政客、官僚或者生意人。军人向国家交出权力，并成为国家的守护者。

    第三个内容最为重要：不彻底的正义。一个社会必须在清算过去的违规时给出界限，在起诉凶残的首犯和某些卑鄙的打手的同时实行大规模的特赦。即使是对这些首犯和打手，惩罚也是采取针对其名誉和特权的形式，而不是血债血偿。至于可能的赔偿，则以精神安慰为主，经济意义为辅。朗和布莱克对此评论说：

    除了莫桑比克之外，在每一个成功的和解中，正义必得伸张，但从来都不是完全彻底的伸张。这一事实也许是悲哀的，从某种法律或道德的角度看，它甚至是悲剧性的，但是，它符合重建社会秩序的要求，因为新的社会秩序以宽恕为前提。在所有成功的和解案例中，修复性正义都不可能回避，但又不可能充分实现……无论这种情况多么令人不满，人们还是能够接受以社会和平为名实行的大赦，尽管大赦可能保护了相当程度的非正义。[215]

    换句话说，我们要撕掉“如果你想要和平，请追求正义”的车贴，换上乔舒亚·戈尔茨坦的名言：“如果你想要和平，请追求和平。”[216]

    最后，敌对双方必须通过言辞的和非言辞的表达，表示自己对新关系的承诺。朗和布莱克观察到，“立法机构郑重通过决议，交战双方的首脑签署合约并互相拥抱，人们矗立起与悲剧有关的雕像和纪念碑，重写教科书，诸如此类大大小小的各种举动，都是要强调一个观念，就是过去已经过去，未来充满希望”。[217]

    在很多人看来，以色列和巴勒斯坦之间的冲突是最可怕的冤冤相报。即使最最天真乐观的人也不敢说知道如何解决巴以问题。但是，以色列小说家阿摩司·奥兹（Amos Oz）对解决纷争的想象得到了“和解应用心理学”的支持：

    悲剧只有两种终结方式：一是莎士比亚式，一是契诃夫式。莎士比亚式的悲剧结束时，尽管天空上也许盘旋着某种正义，舞台上却已经横七竖八地躺满了尸体。与之相反的是契诃夫式的悲剧，结尾时每一个人都感到幻灭、苦涩、心碎、失望、精疲力竭，但是都还活着。对于巴以悲剧，我想要一个契诃夫式的结局，而不是莎士比亚式的。[218]

    施虐狂

    很难说人类的暴行中哪一种是最残暴的——可以选择的种类实在太多了，但是，如果说种族大屠杀是以数量取胜，施虐狂可能就是“质量”取胜。毫无缘由地蓄意制造痛苦，目的只是享受他人遭受苦难，这不仅在道德上是荒谬的，而且是理智难以理解的，因为从受害人的痛楚中，无论是对个人还是对种群的繁衍，施虐者得不到任何好处。与很多其他罪孽不同，人们喜欢幻想某些有罪的愉悦，但纯粹的施虐却不是大多数人能够享受的东西——很少有人会想去观赏一只猫被活活烧死。但是，无论在人类过去的历史上还是当今世界里，施虐的恶行屡见不鲜，至少在下面五种情况中，我们能够看见它们的记录。

    工具暴力能转变为虐待。酷刑可以威胁政敌，但为了威胁的有效性，至少偶尔要真正施用一番。酷刑还可以用来从嫌疑犯或政敌嘴里获取情报。许多警察和国家安全机构都使用某种程度的酷刑，它们被委婉地称为“第三级待遇”、“中度肉体压力”和“强化审讯”，这些手段有时确有收效。[219]自边沁以来的道德哲学家已经表示，在理论上，酷刑甚至是符合正义的，比如定时炸弹即将在一个未知的地点爆炸，导致众多无辜百姓死伤，刑讯可以迫使罪犯供出炸弹的放置地点。[220]

    但是，反对酷刑的观点很多，其中之一是它不会仅仅满足作为一件工具。实施酷刑的人很快就会忘乎所以。他们在受害人身上施加的酷刑之惨重，受害人或者为了让他们停止行刑，说出任何他们想要听的话；或者被折磨得失去知觉，不能做任何回应。[221]受刑人经常死亡，让获取口供的意图化为泡影。而美军士兵在阿布格莱布（Abu Ghraib）监狱虐待伊拉克战俘之类的案例，完全没有任何实际目的；对容许发生这种事件的国家来说，这是战略性的灾难；它制造敌人，疏远朋友。

    施虐的第二种常见的情况是刑事和宗教惩罚。这里又要提到酷刑的工具性动机，即以刑罚的痛苦抵消罪犯的犯罪所得，以此阻止新的犯罪。贝卡里亚和其他启蒙时代的司法改革家已经指出，处罚不一定严厉，而应该可靠，可靠的处罚一样具有威慑的效果。死刑足以惩罚死罪，但是在过去，处死罪犯之前还有漫长的酷刑折磨。事实上，极刑和执行极刑的手段已经变成为了残忍而残忍。

    自娱也可能成为施虐的动机，比如古罗马的斗兽场，还有斗熊和烧猫比赛。塔奇曼提到过，中世纪的法国城镇有时候会向其他城镇购买被判刑的犯人，然后在自己的城镇里公开行刑，以此娱乐本地居民。[222]

    士兵、暴乱分子、民兵，尤其是那些刚刚经历过恐惧和恶战的军人的烧杀劫掠，一般都伴随有残暴的施虐和肢体残害，兰德尔·柯林斯称之为“前行性恐慌”。此类暴行见于大屠杀、种族清洗、警察暴力和战争中溃败的士兵，包括部族战争中溃散的战士。

    最后是系列杀人犯，这些人为了性满足而跟踪、绑架、虐待、肢解和杀死受害人的变态狂。像泰德·邦迪（Ted Bundy）、约翰·韦恩·盖西（John Wayne Gacy）和杰弗里·达默（Jeffrey Dahmer）这样的系列杀人犯与一般的大屠杀凶手不同。[223]杀人狂中有一些是滥杀，比如愤怒的邮局职员为了报复羞辱和证明自己的能力，在自杀之前尽可能多地杀人。杀人狂中还有一种是连环杀人，比如美国首都华盛顿的狙击杀手约翰·穆罕默德，他的复仇活动长达数周。但是，系列杀人犯的动机是施虐，让他们兴奋的是受害人感受痛苦和慢慢死亡的画面，他们要亲手折磨、肢解受害人的身体，还要分尸，挖出脏器。看到哈罗德·谢克特的权威资料《系列杀人犯档案》（The Serial Killers Files）中的一些描述，那些最熟知人类暴行的人也不免要心惊肉跳。

    摇滚歌曲、电视剧和好莱坞大片都不乏臭名昭著的系列杀人犯故事，但是，真实的系列杀人犯是很罕见的。犯罪学家詹姆斯·艾伦·福克斯和杰克·莱文（Jack Levin）说过：“研究系列杀人犯的学者人数很可能多于系列杀人犯。”[224]同我们在本书中研究的所有其他暴力种类一样，这样很小数量的犯罪也在减少。20世纪80年代，系列杀人犯成为公众瞩目的话题，总共有大约200名已知的系列杀人魔头，每年受害人约为70名。而到90年代，系列杀人犯有141人，进入21世纪后的10年内，只有61人。[225]这些数字很可能不是全部（因为很多系列杀人犯谋杀离家出走的孩子、妓女、流浪汉和其他失踪后无人报告的人），但是无论以何种方式统计，美国至多有二三十名系列杀人犯同时在活动。在美国每年1.7万起凶杀案中，能够算在他们头上的只是很小的一部分。[226]

    系列杀人犯不是什么新事物。大多数人认为系列杀人犯是我们病态社会的产物，但谢克特证明，与这一观点相反，系列杀人狂散布在数千年人类历史的各个时期。卡利古拉、尼禄、蓝胡子（其原型应该是15世纪的骑士吉尔斯·德·莱斯）、穿刺王伏勒德、开膛手杰克是其中最著名的典型。有学者认为，传说中的狼人、强盗新郎和魔鬼理发师背后也许都有一个系列杀人犯的真实故事。在虐待杀戮中唯一新颖的是对这一行为动机的命名“施虐狂”（Sadism），它正是来自有史以来最臭名昭著的系列虐待狂萨德侯爵（Marquis de Sade）。几个世纪之前，系列杀人狂被叫作“杀人恶魔”“嗜血魔头”“人型妖怪”或者“道德败坏的疯子”。

    虽然历史上手段花哨的系列杀人狂数量有限，但是宗教审判中的裁判官、战争中烧杀劫掠的军人、公开行刑和血腥竞赛的围观者，还有古罗马斗兽场内的观众，他们展现的虐待狂热却绝非罕见。我们看不到任何证据证明系列杀人狂的这种嗜好是因为某种遗传基因、脑瘤压迫或者童年性侵和虐待。[227]（其中相当一部分虐待狂确实是儿童性骚扰和暴力虐待的受害者，但这样的受害者有成百上千万，他们都没有成为系列杀人犯。）所以，完全可以说，理解了导致系列杀人狂的原因，也就能理解导致普通人产生虐待快感的原因。但是，我们应该怎样理解这种最难以理解的暴力形式呢？

    * * *

    虐待狂的发展需要两个前提：一是享受其他人痛苦的愿望，二是无视一切原本限制人们施虐的制约。

    虽然承认这一点很痛苦，但是人性中至少具备四种动机，让人从他人的痛苦中得到满足。一是对生命脆弱性的病态好奇，说明这个现象的最好词语应该是“死亡”（macabre）。男孩子就是怀着这样的心理揪下蚂蚱的大腿，用放大镜烧死蚂蚁。成年人也是怀着这样的心理伸长脖子张望车祸现场——这个毛病可以制造数英里长的交通阻塞，以及不惜花费有限的收入，付费阅读和观看残忍的娱乐书籍与节目。最终的动机可能是获得一种对生命世界，包括对我们自己的安全有所把握的感觉。窥视死亡隐含的教训是“那个方向盘和那个没有上锁的前门！这种事情完全可能发生在我自己身上”。[228]

    希望看到他人痛苦的另一个原因是优势感。看见有权势的人垮台可以是一件很享受的事情，尤其是这些人曾经是给你制造痛苦的人。而当人们向下鄙视他人，而不是向上仰望的时候，知道自己具有统治他人的力量总是令人感到宽慰。对他人具有统治力的终极形式就是能够随意令他们感到痛苦。[229]

    今天，神经科学家会把人放在核磁波下观察人类的各种体验。据我所知，至今还没有人用核磁扫描研究过虐待狂。最近的一项研究涉及施虐的淡化版——幸灾乐祸。[230]实验对象是核磁共振成像仪下的日本男生。研究人员告诉这些男生想象自己是这样一个人：他期望得到一份跨国信息技术公司的工作，但学习成绩一般，工作面试一塌糊涂，在网球俱乐部当替补队员坐冷板凳，最后只能在零售店找一份低薪工作，住在一个狭窄的出租公寓里，连个女朋友也找不到。在校友重聚时，他遇到了一个过去的同学。这个同学在跨国公司里工作，拥有自己的豪华公寓，还有一辆拉风的时髦跑车，上法国餐馆用餐，收藏名表，周末乘飞机度假，“下班后有大把的机会找女孩子”。研究人员还要求参加实验的学生想象见到另外两个同学，一个是成功人士，另外一个不算成功——和日本研究人员设想的一样，这两个同学没有引起男生的任何嫉妒心，因为这两人是女生。参加实验的男生仍然想象自己是个失败者，接着，他读了一连串他所嫉妒的成功男同学的倒霉事：这个同学被诬陷考试作弊，成为被恶意造谣的对象，他的女朋友另有所爱，他的公司陷入财务危机，他的奖金数额很小，他的车出了故障，他的名表被偷，他的公寓大楼被人涂鸦，他在法国餐馆食物中毒，他的度假计划因台风被取消。研究人员可以清清楚楚地读出男生脑子里涌动的欢喜。当男生（虽然没有威胁性的女生不在此列）读到虚构的幸运儿遭遇不幸事件时，他们的纹状体——决定需求和偏好的寻求回路的构成部分开始发亮，亮得就像夜晚东京的繁华大道。而女生在看到一位令人嫉恨的女性对手倒霉的时候，大脑也出现同样的状况。

    施虐的第三个动机是复仇，或者是复仇的第三方无害版，即所谓的公道。道德性惩罚的全部要点在于要让罪犯为所犯之罪受苦，我们也知道复仇的滋味甘甜如蜜。报复可以实实在在地关闭大脑（至少是男性大脑）的共情功能，而只有当复仇者知道被报复的人明白自己所遭受到痛苦是作恶的报应时，复仇才是最完美的。[231]对复仇者来说，还有什么比亲手施虐更能让对方知道是何人在报仇呢？

    最后一种施虐的情况是性虐狂。施虐行为本身不是常规的性虐待，在沉溺于S&M（施虐-受虐）的人当中，倾向受虐的人数远远多于施虐的人数；但是，在色情活动中经常能见到一定程度的男性的性支配和下流因素，原因也许是因为男性的欲火通常是盲目燃烧，而女性在性事上则比较挑剔。[232]大脑中控制性行为和侵犯行为的回路在大脑的边缘系统（limbic system）内交织在一起，并且都对睾丸素产生反应。[233]

    男子的侵略性中包含着性因素。在对士兵所做的访谈中，很多人都使用典型的色情字眼描述战事。一位越战的老兵说：“对有些人来说，握着一杆枪就像是永久的勃起。每一次扣动扳机，都是完成一次性活动。”[234]另一位老兵对此表示同意，说：“这就是……一种能够夺走5条生命的不可思议的力量感……我想到能用来形容它的词就是射精。你得到一种不可思议的解脱感，你知道，就是 ‘我干成了这件事’。”[235]有组织的酷刑经常同样有发泄性欲的成分。记载中的很多基督教女烈士被割掉性器官，而在中世纪的基督教王国内，酷刑的刑具总是指向女性身体的性敏感部位。[236]正如早先的殉教史，后来的恐怖娱乐，例如在巴黎大木偶剧场里的通俗剧场景里，或者刊载“真实犯罪”的小报上，经常描写女主人公被性虐和肢解的情节。[237]而在警察国家，政府执行的酷刑经常是满足施刑人性欲的工具。劳埃德·德莫斯记录过一个纳粹集中营幸存者的证言：

    在实施鞭刑时，集中营党卫军军官就站在鞭刑架旁边……他的脸因淫荡的兴奋而涨得通红。他的双手深深地插进裤兜内，很显然，他一直在进行手淫……曾经有过三十多次类似的场景，我亲眼见证了集中营党卫军军官在实施鞭刑的时候手淫。[238]

    系列杀人狂有男有女，如果系列杀人狂代表了一种对粗暴性行为的极端偏好，其中的性别差异应该能够给我们某些启发。谢克特对那些自封的“罪犯性格分析师”和“心灵猎手”深怀戒心，例如《沉默的羔羊》中的人物杰克·克劳福德，但是谢克特承认，从系列杀人狂的作案方式可以推出一个特点：“当警察发现一具尸体，喉咙被割断，胸腔被打开，内脏被掏出，生殖器被切除，他们立刻会判断说：罪犯是男性。”[239]不是说女孩子不会成为系列杀手，谢克特的记录中就有几例黑寡妇和死亡天使的故事，但是女性杀手的游戏方式非常不同。谢克特的解释是：

    在男性系列杀人狂的暴力行为——阴茎式的进犯性、插入性、贪婪性和（通常都是在陌生人身体上得到满足的）无歧视性，与男性的典型性行为之间，存在着不容忽视的相似之处。为此，不妨将施虐狂式的残害—谋杀看作男性正常性行为的古怪变体……

    女性精神变态在邪恶上与男同胞相比毫不逊色。但是，粗暴的插入不会让她们感到激动。她们的兴奋点不在用阴茎状物体侵入陌生人的身体，而是来自对亲昵和温情的变态模仿和残忍扭曲。比如，向信任她的病人或者向睡眠中的孩子嘴里喂毒药。简而言之，让她们兴奋的是温柔地将朋友、家人和依赖她们的人变成尸体——以养育的手法将他们送向死亡。[240]

    * * *

    可供施虐的资源如此之多，为什么施虐狂又是如此之少呢？显然，人类的头脑里有一些安全栓防止伤害他人，只有在这些安全栓失灵的时候，施虐狂才会冒出头来。

    第一道安全栓是共情。如果人们能够感觉他人的痛苦，伤害他人的感觉就会像是伤害自己。发生施虐的时候，往往也是受害者被妖魔化或非人化——被排斥在共情圈之外的时候。但是，正如我在前面提到过（而且我将在下一章继续展开），要共情成为克制侵犯的离合器，仅仅养成站在他人立场思考的习惯是不够的。比如，在如何更好地折磨受害人方面，施虐狂经常有着独创性的变态直觉。共情反应必须意味着将自己的幸福与他人的幸福看齐，而这种能力更多的是“同情”或“悲悯”。鲍迈斯特指出，还有一种情感能够触动同情达到自制，那就是“负疚”。他说，负疚的对象不一定是既成事实。我们的很多愧疚是一种期待性的情感——我们约束自己不去从事某些在将来会感到难过的行动。[241]

    下一道防范施虐的安全栓是文化禁忌：不论一个人是否能够因同情而克制自己的行为，在当今世界，人们都相信故意伤害他人不是一个选择。《世界人权公约》和1949年的《日内瓦公约》都明确禁止使用酷刑。[242]与将酷刑视作大众娱乐的古代、中世纪和近代社会不同，今天的政府只能偷偷摸摸地使用酷刑，毫无例外，这说明此禁忌已经被广泛接受——尽管和其他各种禁忌一样，有些时候它只是一块虚伪的遮羞布。针对禁忌的伪善问题，法学家艾伦·德肖维茨（Alan Dershowitz）在2001年提出了一套旨在消除民主国家暗地里使用酷刑的法律制度设计。[243]他建议，当出现定时炸弹的时候，警方要想撬开嫌疑犯的嘴巴，获取拯救民众生命的宝贵信息，必须先从一位公正的法官手里拿到许可；除此之外，严禁一切刑讯逼供。但是，德肖维茨的设计却激起公众愤怒的抗议。对禁忌进行审查本身就是违反了禁忌，德肖维茨被人误解为是在提倡酷刑，而不是在试图限制它。[244]有些批评认为，禁忌自有其功能。他们说，如果遇到定时炸弹，最好的权宜之计是秘密刑讯逼供，无论如何不应将酷刑作为一种常规选项，因为它很可能被滥用到其他场合，不仅会被用来对付现实的威胁，甚至会被用来对付想象中的威胁。[245]

    反对酷刑的最强有力的原因可能还是我们对伤害他人的生理反感。大多数灵长类动物都对同伴痛苦的尖叫感到痛苦。将猴子放在不断听见同伴遭受电击发出尖叫声的环境中，它们会停止进食。[246]紧张和压抑所说明的不是猴子有多高的道德标准，而是说明它对同伴的处境感到恐惧。（这可能也是对同伙发出的外部威胁警告的一种反应。）[247]在著名的斯坦利·米尔格拉姆（Stanley Milgram）实验中，参加者遵照指示，对行骗的同伴进行电击。他们在听到电击引起的叫喊声时，都显出不安的表情。[248]甚至在回答道德哲学的经典假说“失控车厢选择”时，当人们想到要将一个胖子扔下铁轨挡住滑轨的车厢，便纷纷退缩了，尽管他们知道这样做会挽救5条人命。[249]

    现实中亲手实施暴行的人的证言与实验研究的结果相一致。我们已经知道，人类不是生来就乐于享受对他人肉体的攻击。战场上的士兵很可能手指发僵，不敢扣动扳机。[250]历史学家克里斯托弗·布朗宁（Christopher Browning）对纳粹预备役军人做过访谈，这些军人都曾经接受命令近距离射杀犹太人。访谈显示，这些军人对自己的暴行的最初反应都是生理上的反感。[251]与我们的想象不同，这些人对他们第一次杀人的记忆没有多少道德色彩——既没有对自己的行为感到负疚，也没有寻找理由减轻自己的罪责。相反，他们却都记得受害人的尖叫、飞溅的血肉和近距离射杀的心理直感如何让他们翻肠倒胃。鲍迈斯特对这些证言的总结是：“发生大规模谋杀的第一天，刽子手不会想到反省自己的良知，他们所想的就是呕吐。”[252]

    * * *

    人性对施虐狂有所防范，但也一定有所疏漏，否则就不会有施虐狂存在了。我们见到的最残忍的疏漏发生在人暴怒的时候，击溃敌人的宝贵机会转瞬即逝，必须毫不犹豫地抓住它，这时对亲手制造伤害的任何反感都不存在了。而最复杂的疏漏则发生在我们的意念世界，人们会暂时悬置任何疑惑，让自己沉浸在施虐的想象中。我们大脑的一部分让我们放松自己，进入虚拟的施虐情节，而另一部分提醒我们，这些都是假想的，因此我们的克制不会毁了我们的快感。[253]

    精神变态者的问题是他们终生关闭了对施虐心态的克制。他们大脑中杏仁核和眶额皮层对压抑的信号反应迟钝，此外，他们对他人的利益完全没有同情心。[254]所有的系列杀人狂都是精神变态。经历过政府残酷刑讯和惩罚的幸存者经常回忆说，看守中有些人格外残忍，可以肯定这些人是精神变态者。[255]但是，大多数精神变态者不是系列杀人狂，甚至也不是施虐狂，而在某些环境中，比如中世纪的欧洲，公众观赏残忍的酷刑，几乎每个人都热衷于变态的施虐。也就是说，我们需要找出导致人们以制造他人的痛苦为快乐的路径，而且有些人比另外一些人更容易走上这条邪路。

    施虐变态是一种后天获得性的品质。[256]政府雇用的施刑者，例如警察审讯员和监狱守卫的职业轨迹与人们的直觉完全相反。人们一般认为，新手为了得到更多口供而过度用刑，老手则因手法娴熟无须制造太多的痛苦。但事实却是老手会毫无必要地折磨犯人。他们知道怎么从中获得享受。其他类型的施虐狂也是后天培育而成的。大部分性虐狂在最初使用鞭子和锁链的时候，是为了满足数量更多的受虐狂，只是逐渐地，他们自己开始从中得到施虐的享受。系列杀人狂在第一次杀人的时候，也是充满惊恐、厌恶和失望；他们会发现，整个体验并没有带来想象中的兴奋感。但是，随着时间的推移，他们的胃口越来越大；他们发现下一次杀人总是更轻松、更愉快，于是不断加大残忍的程度来满足自己，直到成瘾。不难想象，像中世纪欧洲那样公开和经常的酷刑与死刑处决，培养了整个社会对施虐的承受力。

    经常能听到一种说法，人们对暴力会变得越来越麻木，但是当人们获得虐待快感的时候，却没有变得更麻木。久居鲍肆之人，最后确实会变得不闻其臭，但对别人的痛苦，他们却不会因为见得多而变得没有感受。施虐狂从他人的痛苦中获得快感，杀人对系列杀人狂来说绝对是一种嗜好。[257]

    鲍迈斯特对施虐变态的获得性做过解释，他使用了心理学家理查德·所罗门（Richard Solomon）基于色觉比喻的动机理论。[258]所罗门认为，情感是成对发生的，正如颜色是成对的互补色。戴上玫瑰色的眼镜看世界，玫瑰的色彩会渐渐消失，世界从粉红色回到中性，但当摘掉眼镜之后，在短时间内，世界看起来是绿绿的。这是因为当时我们的色觉系统内红色（或者准确地说较长光波）和绿色（中光波）之间处于相互较量的状态，我们对中性的白色和灰色的视觉受到这种较量的影响。如果感应红色的神经细胞长时间过于活跃，它们逐渐习惯并开始放松，视觉中的玫瑰色就会慢慢褪去。如果我们这时摘掉色镜，感应红色和感应绿色的神经细胞同时受到刺激，但感应红色的神经细胞已经麻木了，而感应绿色的神经细胞工作正常。所以，绿色在较量中获胜，我们看到的整个世界都是绿莹莹的。

    所罗门认为，就像我们对色彩的感受，两个对抗的感觉之间的平衡保证了我们情感状态的稳定。恐惧与安慰，愉悦与压抑，饥饿与餍足都是相互平衡的感觉。相反的两种情感和互补的两个颜色之间的主要区别在于它们如何随着体验而变化。就对抗的情感而言，一个人最初的反应随着时间而弱化，平衡冲动的能力越来越强。随着体验的不断重复，对情绪反弹的感受比对情绪本身的感受更敏感。蹦极的第一跳总令人感到恐惧，猛然减速又令人激动不已，接着是一个短暂的间歇，让人感到宁静的愉悦。但随着不断重复的碰跳，对结果的确信感越来越强烈，恐惧的时间越来越短，快乐到来的时间越来越早。如果说，快感的高峰是在从恐慌突然转换到宽慰的那一刻，那么，逐渐减弱的恐慌感也减弱了因解脱恐慌而产生的快乐感。要想得到同样的快感，蹦极者只能不断增加危险程度。很多第一次积极体验都有类似作用—反作用的动态过程。第一次使用海洛因让人感到愉快，而戒断反应不会很强烈。但对已经是瘾君子的人来说，愉快的程度越来越低，戒断反应不仅来得快，而且也更难受，直到避免戒断反应的愿望压倒追求愉快的冲动。

    鲍迈斯特认为，施虐狂具有同样的发展过程。[259]侵犯者对自己制造的痛苦先是感到厌恶，但这种不适应为时不久，一种逐渐明确的、越来越强有力的反向情感将他带回淡然处之的状态。随着残暴行为不断重复，再来一次的动机越来越强，最后彻底消除了早先的厌恶感。逐渐地，整个施虐的过程从头到尾都充满了享受和愉快，最后成为迫不及待的渴望。按照鲍迈斯特的说法，快感还在后面。

    情绪相对过程理论（opponent-process theory）本身非常粗糙。比如，据此理论，人们会敲打自己的脑壳，因为一旦住手会得到一种快感。显然，不是所有的体验都受作用和反作用之间张力的支配，也不是所有的体验都具有先逐渐弱化再逐渐强化的过程。一定存在某种厌恶性体验，让人们特别愿意享受克服它的快感。心理学家保罗·罗金定义了一种获得性品位综合征，被称为“良性自虐”（benign masochism）。[260]这些自相矛盾的快感包括人们喜爱食用辣椒、重味刺鼻的干酪、干葡萄酒，以及从事一些极端形式的体验，例如桑拿、跳伞、赛车和攀岩。所有这些都是成年人的品位，新手必须先克服最初的痛苦、厌恶或者恐惧，最后成为鉴赏家。而培养这些品位都需要将自己刻意暴露在剂量不断增加的刺激源下。它们之间的共同点是附带有潜在高风险（中毒、暴露和事故）的潜在高收益（营养、医疗、速度、对新环境的认识）。获得这些品位的快感就是公开挑战极限的快感：一步一步地试探一个人到底能在避免发生灾难的同时达到什么样的高度，承受什么样的温度、强度和速度。个人体验的空间受到内在恐惧和谨慎的限制，而良性自虐的最大成就是拓展了这个空间。良性自虐往往会超出它最初的征服动机。所罗门和鲍迈斯特指出，克服反感的过程可能反应过度，其结果是产生欲求和上瘾。就施虐而言，潜在的收益是控制、复仇和满足性欲，潜在的危险是受到受害人或受害人盟友的报复。施虐狂确实能成为鉴赏家——中世纪欧洲的刑具，警察局的审讯中心，还有系列杀人犯的巢穴都具备某种残忍的精致。在有些情况下，他们也都对施虐成瘾。

    施虐变态是后天获得性品格这一事实，既让人恐惧，也给人希望。作为大脑中动机系统铺垫的一条通道，在某些个人、保安和某些特殊人群中，施虐是永久的危险，这些人有能力主动出击，而且可以秘密行事。但是，因为它只能是获得性的，如果这条通道上的头几步被阻断，通道的其余部分被暴露在阳光下，通向施虐狂的道路也就被关闭了。

    意识形态

    人类中的个体从来不缺少动用暴力的自私动机。但是，历史上那些尸横遍野杀人如麻的暴力记录都发生在这样一种情形下——大量的人追捧一种意识形态。像捕食或工具暴力一样，意识形态暴力也是达致目标的手段。但是，意识形态的终极目标是理想化的，即实现更大的善。[261]

    但是，在所有的理想主义名义之下，正是意识形态驱使人们实施了最无情的相互残杀。比如十字军东征、欧洲的宗教战争、法国大革命和拿破仑战争、俄国内战、越战、纳粹集中营以及斯大林、波尔布特的大屠杀。意识形态之所以危险，出于以下几个原因：它所许诺的终极完美不允许真正的信仰者接受任何折中；为了实现最后的乌托邦不惜任何代价；敌方的意识形态是彻底的邪恶，因此必须被彻底摧毁。

    我们已经见到过凶残的意识形态所具备的心理特质。人类认识的前提是我们有能力进行长链条的手段—目的推理，我们因此能够为了达到预期目的而选择不愉快的手段。在某些领域，目的确实证明了手段的合理，比如良药苦口和痛苦的外科手术。当为了实现宏大的目标而不惜使用伤害人类自身的手段时，目的论就变得危险了。因为我们的支配欲和复仇欲，我们本质化其他团体，特别是将他人妖魔化和害虫化的习性，我们因势而变的同情心，以及我们夸大自己的智慧和美德的自利偏向，都会鼓励手段—目的论沿着危险的思路展开。对于乱世和集体悲剧，一种意识形态总是可以找到自圆其说的解释；一面吹捧意识形态信奉者的德行和能力，一面以含糊其词或狡辩回击其他人的质疑。[262]所有这些材料，如果再加上缺乏共情能力，同时还渴望他人的仰慕，幻想无限的成功、权力、辉煌和美德，一起在一个自恋者的脑子里发酵，结果很可能是产生一种让千百万人送命的信仰。

    但是，理解意识形态暴力的困惑不在于心理学，而在于流行病学：一种毒化的意识形态是如何从少数自恋狂人扩散到整个大众，让一个国家的人民心甘情愿地执行他们的设计。许多意识形态信仰不仅邪恶，而且荒唐，任何有理智的人都不会容忍自己有这样的念头。举例说，烧死女巫，因为她们做妖法沉没船只，将男人变成猫；彻底清洗欧洲的犹太人，因为他们玷污了雅利安人的血统；处决所有戴眼镜的高棉人，因为眼镜代表他们是知识分子，所以是阶级敌人。我们应该怎样解释这些非同寻常的大众幻想和群众性癫狂呢？

    群体能够让思想发生各种病态的变化。其中之一是分化。将一群意见基本一致的人放在一起，让他们的讨论形成结论；一段时间之后，他们的意见会变得相互更接近，也更极端。[263]自由派变得更自由，保守派变得更保守。迟钝是另外一种群体病态，心理学家欧文·贾尼斯（Irving Janis）将这种动态过程叫作“团体迷思”。[264]群体倾向于说些领袖喜欢听的话，压制异议，审查个人的独立见解，过滤那些与群体中正在形成的、与共识相冲突的事实。第三种病态是群体之间的敌意。[265]想象一下，你和一个持不同观点的人被关在一起几个小时——假定你是自由派，对方是保守派，或者你同情以色列，对方同情巴勒斯坦，或者假定相反。你们两人之间的对话很有可能是文明礼貌的，甚至是热情友好的。但是想象一下如果这个房间里双方各有6个人。情况很可能是双方争吵得口沫横飞、面红耳赤，甚至大打出手。根本问题是，人们习惯以团体立场作为自己的立场，而个人在团体内被接受的渴望，以及在竞争中扩张本群体的渴望，往往会压倒他们的良知和理智。

    甚至当人们不曾加入组织严密的团体，他们同样受到周围同伴的影响。斯坦利·米尔格拉姆就服从权威所做的实验受到很多心理学家的赞赏，该实验最大的成果之一是向我们展示了人们的行为在多大程度上取决于他们身处的社会环境。[266]在实验开始之前，米尔格拉姆对自己的同事、学生和一些精神病学家进行了调查，他在问卷中提问，当实验者指示各位对参加实验的同伴进行电击的时候，他们认为实验参加者会如何选择。所有的回答都说只会有很少的人使用超过150伏的电压（在这个水平上，受电击人会要求终止电击），大约会有4%的人使用300伏电压（在这一档上有标签注明“危险：强电击”），只有极个别的精神变态者会使用仪器允许的最高电压（标签注明“450伏-XXX”）。事实上，65%的实验参加者使用了最高电压的电击，这远远超过被电击人能够承受的水平。他们任凭受害者发出的痛苦抗议变成可怕的寂静。而如果研究人员不终止实验的话，他们还会对已经不省人事的对象（或者是尸体）继续施加电击。实验参加者的年龄、性别或职业对行为几乎没有任何影响，个性的影响也非常有限。真正产生区别的是是否有其他人在场，以及这些人的行为方式。当实验组织者不在现场，通过电话或者录音机传达操作规则的时候，施加电击的人减少；当受害人与实验参加者同处一室，两人之间没有隔板的时候，施加电击的人减少；而当实验参加者必须与另外一个“同伴”（未暴露身份的实验研究人员）协同工作的时候，那么，如果“同伴”拒绝执行电击，实验参加者也会拒绝。但是如果这位“同伴”同意执行电击，实验参加者在超过90%的情况下也会同意执行电击。

    人们从其他人那里寻找应该如何行动的信号。这是社会心理学黄金时代的重要结论。当时，心理实验如街头戏剧，目的是要提高人们对盲目从众的危险的认识。1964年的一条新闻报道说，在十几名纽约人无动于衷的旁观下，一位名叫姬蒂·吉诺维斯的女子在公寓小区的空地上被强奸和捅死——事实上，这个报道几乎完全是虚构的。随后，心理学家约翰·达利和比布·拉塔内（Bibb Latané）以“旁观者冷漠”为题进行了一系列具有独创性的研究。[267]心理学家开始怀疑，单个人会对紧急情况做出即时反应，但一群人却可能不做任何反应，原因是在群体中，每个人都假定如果其他人什么都不做，说明情况还不是太糟糕。在一次实验中，当参加实验者填写问卷的时候，他或者她突然听到挡板后面传来一声巨响，然后是一个声音说：“哎哟……我的脚……我动不了了……嗷，我的脚脖子哎……这是什么，怎么搬不动啊？”令人难以置信的是，如果实验参加人旁边坐着同伴，而同伴继续填写问卷，仿佛什么都没有发生，那么在80%的情况下，实验参加者也不会采取任何行动。而当实验参加者单独一人听到求助信号时，不做回应的情况只有30%。

    人们甚至不需要目睹其他人的冷漠，也能够做出同样冷漠的行为。将人们放置在一个虚构的团体内，假定这个团体是另外一个团体的统治者，就足以激起人们的冷漠无情。在另一次经典的“心理实验道德剧”中（实验在1971年进行，当时还没有道德委员会限制用人进行实验），菲利普·津巴多（Philip Zimbardo）在斯坦福大学心理系的地下室设置了一个假监狱，他将参加实验者随机分成“犯人”和“看守”两组，他甚至请来帕洛阿尔托市（Palo Alto）的警察“逮捕”这些“犯人”，将他们扭送进他在大学校园开办的牢房。[268]津巴多亲自扮作典狱长，他告诉他的看守，可以在犯人面前耀武扬威，让犯人感到惧怕；为了制造权威感，他给看守配备了制服、警棍和反光墨镜，而让犯人穿上羞辱性的衣帽。两天之内，有些看守已经深深地进入角色，开始欺压犯人，强迫犯人脱光衣服，用手擦洗马桶，甚至强制犯人做俯卧撑，而看守就站在犯人背上，甚至做出鸡奸的姿态。6天之后，津巴多为了“犯人”的安全，不得不叫停实验。几十年后，津巴多在他的新著中将他的“校园监狱”内出人意料的虐待和伊拉克阿布格莱布监狱的情况进行了类别分析。他说，当一群人得到对另一群人的统治权，很可能让优势群体中的个体做出野蛮行径，而这些人在其他情况下可能永远也不会做出这样的行为。

    很多研究大屠杀的历史学家，例如克里斯托弗·布朗宁和本杰明·瓦伦蒂诺都引用过米尔格拉姆、达利、津巴多和其他社会心理学家的实验，以此解释普通人为何会参与，或者至少默认那些极端残暴的恶行。旁观者经常被周围的疯狂吸引，成为抢劫、轮奸和大屠杀的参与者。在纳粹集中营，士兵和警察驱赶手无寸铁的平民，强迫他们在土坑前排列成行，然后开枪扫射。他们这样做不是出于对受害者的敌意，也不是出于对纳粹意识形态的信仰，而是他们认为这是他们的工作，他们不能让并肩作战的兄弟失望。他们中的很多人甚至不会因不服从而受到处罚。（我个人违背良知坚持执行电击老鼠的经历告诉我，这个令人不安的判断绝对可信。）历史学家几乎没有发现任何关于德国警察、士兵或守卫因拒绝执行纳粹命令而遭受惩罚的案例。[269]在下一章中，我们会看到，人们甚至将从众和服从作为美德。许多文化特别从道德意识方面强调集体整合和服从，将其作为大肆宣扬的美德。

    米尔格拉姆是在20世纪60年代和70年代初进行他的心理实验的，我们应该已经看到，自那时以来，人们的观念发生了很大变化。很自然地，我们会问，今天的西方人是不是还会服从权威人物发出的迫害他人的指示。33年前的斯坦福监狱实验过于怪诞，今天已经很难复制同样的实验，但是社会心理学家杰瑞·伯格（Jerry Burger）找到了新的方法就人类的服从心理进行实验，实验设计通过2008年道德委员会的审查。[270]伯格注意到在米尔格拉姆的研究中，150伏电压是被电击人第一次叫喊出声提出抗议的水平，但在原来的实验设计中，在这个电压水平上只能进不能退。如果实验参加者不拒绝执行研究人员的指示，80%的时候他们继续实验，就意味着要使用更高的电压，直到能够承受的最高电压。所以，伯格重复米尔格拉姆的实验时，他在150伏电压中止实验，立即向实验参加者进行解释，防止出现太多毫不犹豫地折磨陌生人的情况。问题是，经过40年的叛逆，各种车贴都在号召质疑权威，人们应该具有越来越强烈的历史意识，知道“仅仅是执行命令”这样的借口是多么可笑，那么，人们还会执行来自权威的命令去伤害一个陌生人吗？答案是：他们还是会的。70%的实验参加者对受害人进行电击，一直加压到150伏；我们有理由相信，如果研究人员允许使用更高的电压，他们真的会一直用到最高一档。光明的一面是，在21世纪第一个10年所做的实验中，不执行电击指示的人比20世纪60年代增加了近1倍（30%比17.5%）；新实验的参加者有更多元的种族和文化背景，如果仍然限于原来实验所使用的同质的美国白人中产阶级，这个数字也许还能够更高一些。[271]但是，绝大部分人仍然会不顾自己的判断，执行他们认为被社会认可的伤害性命令。

    * * *

    人们为什么以羊自喻？我不是说合群从众本质上是非理性的。[272]人多力量大，相信自己千百万同胞来之不易的共同智慧，比认为一个人是天才，可以一切从零开始要聪明得多。而且，合群从众在博弈论的“协调博弈”中可以是一项优点；在协调博弈中，如果其他人没有选择某个选项，一个个体就没有合乎理性的理由特别选择这个选项。靠左行车还是靠右行车是一个典型的案例：没有人愿意在此逆流而动。纸币、互联网协议和我们的语言也是典型案例。

    但是，有些时候，个人合群从众的优点却可以将整个群体引向病态。一个典型的案例是一项新技术标准在一定量的大群用户中确立立足点的途径，一般用户选用这一标准，大多是因为还有许多人也使用它，因而将其他优秀的竞争者排除在外。根据某些理论，这些“网络外部性”（network externalities）解释了英文拼写、标准键盘、家用录像系统的磁带制式、微软的软件为何能够成功（虽然每个例子都会有人提出质疑）。另外一个例子是畅销书、时装、流行歌曲和好莱坞票房大片等无法预测的命运。数学家邓肯·沃茨（Duncan Watts）为一个网站设置了A和B两个不同版本，网站向用户提供下载各种车库乐队制作的摇滚乐。[273]在A版网站上，用户看不到一首歌已经被下载过的次数；歌曲的流行程度大致接近，每一次测试中它们被下载的次数相差不远；但在B版网站上，用户能够看见一首歌曲被下载的次数；他们倾向于下载已经流行的歌曲，从而让流行的歌曲更加流行，形成加速的正反馈环路。放大歌曲下载之间最初的小差异，可以造成截然不同的两种命运，少数歌曲成为大家追捧的热曲，其余大量歌曲则湮没无闻。但在每一次测试中，热曲和冷板凳经常交换位置。

    无论你是叫它“羊群行为”“文化回音室”“富者恒富”，还是“马太效应”，我们的从众倾向确实能导致集体性不良后果。但是，文化现象中的一些案例——漏洞百出的软件、平庸的小说、20世纪70年代的时装其实都不会给我们造成什么伤害。通过社会网络宣传集体整合是否会引导大众支持他们并不认同的意识形态，并参与他们明知完全错误的行动呢？自从有了希特勒的崛起，在这一问题上一直有两种观点针锋相对，但它们似乎都令人难以接受：一个观点是希特勒单枪匹马蒙蔽了一个天真无邪的国家；另一个观点是即使没有希特勒，德国人同样会制造集中营。社会动力学分析显示，两种观点都不完全对，但一种狂热的意识形态总是比常识更容易抓住大众。

    这是社会动力学中一种让人发狂的现象，可以叫作“人众无知”（pluralistic ignorance）、“沉默的螺旋”（spiral of silence），或者叫作“阿比林悖论”（Abilene paradox）——此名词出自一个得克萨斯的逸闻，一家人在一个酷热的下午全家出动前往阿比林市，仅仅是因为家里每个人都认为其他人想去阿比林。[274]人们很可能误认为其他人赞成某种做法或者某种意见，所以他们也表示支持，尽管他们的内心很反感这种做法或意见。典型的事例是大学生中狂欢式饮酒的风气。许多调查显示，每一个学生在私下都认为狂饮到呕吐是很愚蠢的，但是每个人又都相信其他同学认为这种活动很酷。有调查证实，年轻帮派成员袭击同性恋，美国南方的种族隔离，伊斯兰世界对不遵闺训的女性实行荣誉谋杀，以及法国和西班牙的巴斯克人对恐怖组织“埃塔”（ETA）的容忍，其背后都有沉默的螺旋作祟。[275]所有这些团体暴力的支持者原本都不认为暴力是可取的，但是却都认为其他人认可暴力。

    极端意识形态为什么可以占领那些本应有更好判断力的人的头脑？“人众无知”能够回答这个问题吗？社会心理学家很早就知道，事实已经证明这是很可能发生的情况。在另外一个被载入史册的实验中，所罗门·阿施（Solomon Asch）让他的实验参加者经历了一场如电影《煤气灯下》（Gaslight）一般的迷惑。[276]这些人与另外7名实验者（按照惯例，伪装的研究人员）围桌而坐，向他们展示一张画有一条线的卡片，接着是一张有三条线的卡片，然后要求他们指出后一张卡片上的三条线中哪一条和第一张卡片上的线一样长。问题很简单！6名伪装的实验者先回答问题，给出的答案都是明显错误的。当轮到真正的实验参加者回答问题的时候，3/4的实验对象都不顾自己眼睛看到的事实，选择跟随大多数人的答案。

    但是，一个人的谎言得到公众的认可还不足以煽动大众的疯狂。“人众无知”很容易被戳穿。童话《皇帝的新衣》讲得很清楚，只要有一个小男孩打破“沉默的螺旋”，虚假的共识立刻崩坍。一旦皇帝裸体成为公众的共识，人众无知就不复存在了。社会学家迈克尔·梅西（Mi-chael Macy）认为，人众无知会顽强地抵制小男孩和其他说真话的人，这其中还有另外一种力量：强制他人。[277]人们不仅公开效忠一种他们认为其他人也同样效忠的荒谬信仰，还要惩罚那些拒绝效忠的人，主要也是出于相信——当然也是违背真实的——其他所有人都希望进行强制惩罚。梅西和他的同事推测，对谎言的从众和对谎言的强制推行彼此互相强化，形成恶性循环，最后将大众带进他们作为个人无法接受的荒谬的意识形态。

    为什么有些人要惩罚拒绝效忠一种信仰的异端，尤其是惩罚者本人也未必接受这个信仰？梅西和他的同事认为，这是为了证明自己的诚意——向其他强制执法者证明，他们拥护这一信仰不是权宜之计，而是赤胆忠心地相信这一信仰。这样做可以保护自己不受同伴的惩罚，而他们的同伴则怀有同样的念头，惩罚异端是出于恐惧，他们担心如果不这样做，自己会受到其他同伴的惩罚。

    惩罚拒绝伤害他人的人，这样的恶性循环可以将一个令人厌恶的意识形态煽惑得如日中天，这在历史上确有先例。在驱巫和大清洗中，人们都曾经被卷入抢先谴责他人的恶性循环。每个人都力图在自己被其他人揭发之前揭发某人。发自内心的虔诚成为人人竞逐的品质。索尔仁尼琴回忆了莫斯科的一次党内会议，在会议结束时，与会者向斯大林致敬。每一个人都站起身，疯狂地鼓掌，3分钟，4分钟，5分钟……没有一个人敢率先停下来。11分钟之后，大家的手掌已经刺痛，主席台上的一位工厂经理终于坐了下来，其他与会者接着也满怀感激地跟着坐了下来。这位工厂经理当晚被逮捕并被押送至古拉格，他在那里待了10年。[278]生活在极权国家的人不得不养成掩饰自己的能力，避免让内心的真实思想背叛自己。

    为了证明违心强制他人的螺旋可以支撑不受欢迎的信仰，梅西与同事达蒙·森托拉（Damon Centola）和罗布·韦勒（Robb Willer）不仅要证明这个理论合乎逻辑，而且具有数学根据。证明人众无知很简单，人众无知一旦形成，它就是一个稳定平衡，因为没有人愿意成为强权社会唯一的离经叛道者。难题是证明一个社会是怎样从这个点走到那个点的。安徒生让他的读者搁置疑惑，描绘了一个异想天开的场景、一个皇帝可以被糊弄到赤身裸体上街巡游；阿施雇用了研究助手替他撒谎。但是在真实世界，谎言是怎样运作并成为人们的共识的呢？

    这三位社会学家用计算机设计了一个只有两类人（agents）的小社会。[279]一种是真正的信徒，这些人总是循规蹈矩，如果不守规矩的邻居数量增加太多，他们就会出面予以谴责。另一种人在私下里对规则满心疑惑，但又没有勇气公开表达，他们在只有少数邻居强制执行规则时才会遵守规则，而当多数邻居开始强制执行规则时，他们自己也出面强制他人执行规则。如果怀疑派没有被吓破胆，成为从众的一部分，他们也可以走向另外的方向，在从众的邻居中强制推行怀疑主义。梅西等人发现，令人反感的规则可以在某些社会关系网内扎下根，但不是所有的社会关系网都能被突破。如果真正的信徒均匀地散布在整个人口中，每个人都和其他人有互动，令人厌恶的信仰就无法占领大众。但是，如果信徒在一个社区聚集成群，他们在自己的社区内压制那些持怀疑态度的邻居，而这些怀疑派邻居高估了周围的服从程度，因恐惧被惩罚，自己开始渴望表达忠诚，于是也出头向其他人，包括自己的邻居强制执行规则。由此产生虚假服从和虚假强制的雪崩效应，最后让令人厌恶的规则充斥整个社会。

    这个模拟社会距离现实世界并不遥远。詹姆斯·佩恩记录了20世纪法西斯主义占领德国、意大利和日本的共同步骤。在每种情况下，都是一小撮信仰“幼稚和激烈的意识形态”的狂热分子，他们为了信仰“可以使用任何极端手段，包括暴力”。他们收编愿意从事暴力的地痞流氓，不断恐吓其他人，最终迫使大众保持沉默。[280]

    梅西和同事就米尔格拉姆最先发现的一个现象进行了分析：大众中的每一个成员都通过熟人彼此有关系，即文化基因弥姆理论中的六度分隔（six degrees of separation）。[281]他们在虚拟社会中设置了几段随机的远程链接，通过这些远程链接，成员可以与其他低度分隔链上的成员进行联系。成员之间因此可以探测其他社区成员的服从程度，消除虚假的共识，并拒绝屈服于顺服和强制的压力。远程链接打开了社区之间的通道，分散了狂热分子强制执法的力量，阻止他们吓倒太多合群从众者，避免狂热形成潮流，吞没整个社会。人们一般相信，言论自由、迁移自由、信息渠道通畅的开放社会不可能被疯狂的意识形态控制。

    梅西、韦勒和桑原（Ko Kuwabara）接着想在人群中实证虚假共识效应，即看一看人们是否会因受到恐吓，从而担心表达自己的真实见解会被人看不起，去抨击那些他们内心认同的人。[282]这三位社会学家非常调皮地挑选了两个领域进行实验——品酒和学术奖。他们认为在这些领域，人们的意见形成主要取决于对自己可能显得不够档次的恐惧，而不是取决于客观标准。

    在品酒实验中，梅西等人先是让实验参加者产生一种自我意识；他们告诉参加者，之所以挑选他们进行实验，是因为他们鉴赏艺术品的品位高雅。然后，这组人开始了“有几百年传统”（实际上是研究人员自己炮制）的名为“荷兰圆环”的品酒活动。这一群葡萄酒爱好者先是评比一套红酒，然后再互相评比彼此评酒的水平。每个参加实验的人先拿到三杯葡萄酒，然后要求他们就香气、味道、回味、口感和总体品质进行评级。事实上，三杯酒来自同一名瓶子，其中一杯掺了少许果醋。同阿施的实验一样，在向实验参加者询问意见之前，先让他们看着四位伪装的实验参加者做评价，这四人对掺了醋的葡萄酒的评价都高于一杯没有调兑过的葡萄酒，然后给最后一杯最高的评价。不出意料，大约半数的实验参加者不顾自己味蕾的感受，做出了从众的评判。

    接着，第6个实验参加者，也是一个伪装的研究人员，对酒做了准确的评价。最后，到了评酒员互相评比的时候了，有些人进行匿名评比，有些人进行公开评比。匿名评比的人都对第6个伪装的研究人员的准确评价表示了敬意，给了他最高分，尽管他们自己被吓得追随了大多数人的意见。但那些被要求公开进行评价的人，则坚持自己的虚伪，给了这位诚实的评酒员低分。

    有关学术文章的实验过程与此类似，但是在结尾增加了一个实验内容。参加实验的人都是大学本科生，他们被告知当选一个学者精英小组，参加极受尊重、历史悠久的“布鲁姆斯伯里文学圆桌会议”；会议的目的是由读者公开评价一段文字，然后再互相评价彼此的文字评价能力。他们拿到一段来自罗伯特·尼尔森（Robert Nelson）博士的文章的一个段落，据说尼尔森是麦克阿瑟“天才奖金”得主和哈佛大学哲学系艾伯特·W.纽科姆讲座教授。（当然，哈佛没有这样的教授和教授职位。）这段被命名为“微分拓扑和透射”的文字实际上是摘自艾伦·索卡尔（Alan Sokal）的论文《超越边界：对量子引力的变革性诠释》（Trans-gressing the Boundaries: Towards a Transformative Hermeneutics of Quantum Gravity）。这篇论文实际上是“索卡尔恶作剧”的主要组成部分，这位物理学家在文章中堆砌了大量深奥难懂的字眼。为了证明他对后现代人文科学所谓学术标准的深刻怀疑，他将这篇文字发表在著名的《社会文本》杂志（Social Text）上。[283]

    参加实验的人表现相当不俗，在私下评级的时候，都没有被这段文字打动。但在公开评级时，当他们看到4名伪装的实验参加者给了这段文字极高的评价之后，他们也给出了好评。接着，第6个伪装的实验参加者给论文做出了极低的评级。当他们开始互相评价的时候，他们私下里给第6个最诚实的评价者好评，但在公开评价时却给了他差评。社会学实验再次证明，对于一个自己并不同意但是却误以为其他每个人都赞同的意见，人们不仅会表示赞同，而且会虚伪地惩罚那些不愿意表示赞同的人。这项实验的附加内容是，梅西等人另外又找来一组实验参加者，让他们评价第一组实验参加者是否真诚地相信那篇胡言乱语的论文是优秀成果。新来的实验参加者认为，与那些没有惩罚诚实评价者的人相比，选择惩罚诚实评价者的人，更真诚地相信他们自己的错误评价。这个结果证实了梅西的猜测，强制他人遵守规则或信仰被看作真诚的表现。也就是说，人们为了证明自己的真诚，会去强制推行一种他们自己并不真心相信的信念。这也证明了梅西的人众无知模型，即一个社会可以被一种大多数人作为个体都不认同的信仰系统占领。

    * * *

    说一种兑了醋的葡萄酒芬芳醇香，或者说一篇学术垃圾逻辑严谨，后果可能无关紧要，但如果是从饥饿的乌克兰农民家里没收走最后一袋面粉，或者是向排在土坑前的犹太人开枪扫射，那就完全是另外一回事了。普通的正常人即使会对一种他们以为是公认的意识形态保持缄默，又是怎样克服自己的良知，犯下如此残忍的暴行呢？

    答案还要回到“道德标尺的偏差”。作恶者总是有一套自我开脱的说辞，他们惯于将自己的恶行解释为受到挑衅，有理由非自愿或者未产生严重后果。我在介绍“道德标尺的偏差”这个概念时提到了一些案例，作恶者会为自己出于自利动机犯下的恶行（背信弃义、抢劫和强奸）寻找理由。但是，人们也会为他们在压力下，为了其他人的目的犯下的恶行进行辩解。他们可以自欺欺人，先是加工自己的信仰，让自己相信自己的行为是正当的，然后理直气壮地告诉别人自己的行为是正当的。这个过程被称为“认知失谐消减”（cognitive dissonance reduction），它是自欺的主要战术。[284]社会心理学家，例如米尔格拉姆、津巴多、鲍迈斯特、利昂·费斯廷格（Leon Festinger）、艾伯特·班杜拉（Albert Bandura）和赫伯特·克尔曼（Herbert Kelman）的研究说明，人们有很多方式消减认知失谐，尤其是消减那些在他们犯下的错误和他们自许的道德形象之间的失谐。[285]

    消减方法之一是“委婉陈辞”——用辞藻重新描述伤害，让人们觉得伤害行为没有那么邪恶。乔治·奥威尔在他的散文《政治学与英语语言》中，以他特有的犀利方式，揭露了政府怎样用官样文章掩盖暴行：

    在我们这个时代，政治讲话和文章都是在为不可饶恕的错误进行辩护。诸如英国延续对印度的统治，俄国人的大清洗和流放，美国向日本投掷原子弹，你确实可以为它们辩护，但你能使用的论据不仅过于残忍，大多数人都无法接受，而且也不符合政治团体自己的宗旨。所以，政治语言只得大量使用委婉语、乞词和含混暧昧的字眼。毫不设防的村庄受到空袭，居民被驱赶到野外，牛羊遭到机枪扫射，棚屋被燃烧弹击中后成为灰烬：这叫“绥靖”。上百万农民的土地房屋被没收，屋主被赶出家园，只能拿走能够随身携带的财物：这叫“人口转移”或者“边疆整改”。人们未经审判即被经年累月地关在监狱中，被行刑队处决，或者被送往北极的伐木场，在那里死于坏血病：这叫“消灭不可靠分子”。之所以需要这样措辞，是因为人们既要陈述事实，又不希望唤起这些事实在人们头脑中的景象。[286]

    奥威尔说，政治委婉语是他那个时代的现象。这句话是不对的。早于奥威尔150年，埃德蒙·伯克就抱怨过来自法国大革命的各种委婉语：

    这套措辞的全部意图就是为屠杀和谋杀找到几个同义词和遁词。这些事情从来不能被叫作它们本来的名字。屠杀有时被叫作“骚动”，有时被叫作“沸腾”，有时是“放纵”，有时则是“革命权力使用过头”。[287]

    再举几个近几十年的例子。20世纪70年代开始使用“附带伤害”, 90年代开始了“种族清洗”, 21世纪开始有“非正常引渡”。

    委婉语能够有效是出于几个原因。相同含义的词很可能具有相反的情感色彩，例如“纤细”和“皮包骨头”,“肥胖”和“鲁本斯式的丰满”，或者一个猥亵的字眼和它的文雅的同义词。我在《思想本质》一书中力图证明，绝大部分委婉语都具有欺骗性：不是这些词语本身的问题，而是这些词语对世界的概念化解释是不同的。[288]比如，一个委婉语可以对一个彻头彻尾的谎言装糊涂，进行合理推诿。当对历史事实不熟悉的人第一次听到“人口转移”时，他想到的是搬家的车辆和火车票。对词语的不同选择包含不同的动机，因此代表了不同的价值取向。附带伤害，意思是指伤害是无意的副产品，不是主观意愿的产物，两者之间的道德差距有天壤之别。一个人几乎可以无动于衷地使用“附带伤害”来描述在辅道上工作的倒霉工人，他是为了挽救另外5个人被从主道上转过来的失控车厢撞死的。所有这些因素——情感联系、合理推诿、动机论都可以用来扭曲对行为的解释。

    道德脱离的第二个机制是渐变主义。人们不是一下子就成为残暴的恶魔，但是会每次一小步地逐渐泯灭人性，因为他们不会感觉到他们做了与现有规则不相符的事情。[289]历史上一个臭名昭著的实例是纳粹对有残疾和智障的人实行安乐死，剥夺犹太人的公民权，羞辱他们，将他们关进贫民窟，最后驱逐他们。不断升级的事件有一个极为委婉的名字——“最终解决方案”。另外一个案例是战争的阶段性决定。对盟友的物资支援可以升级为提供军事顾问，然后是不断增加的士兵数量，在消耗战中尤其如此。对工厂的轰炸逐渐变为对居民区附近的工厂的轰炸，再逐渐变为对居民区的轰炸。在米尔格拉姆的实验中，人们不是第一轮就对实验伙伴进行450伏的电击，参加试验者都是从弱电击开始，逐渐升级到450伏。米尔格拉姆的实验在博弈论中叫作升级博弈（escalation game），它和消耗战类似。[290]如果参加实验者因为电击太强而退出实验，他会丧失完成任务和推进科学研究而带来的满足感，而他已经为此付出的焦虑和他给实验伙伴制造的痛苦也就白白地浪费了。每次增加电压，仿佛总是在做最后一次测试，他巴望着实验员立刻宣布研究圆满结束。

    第三个道德脱离机制是推卸或扩散责任。在米尔格拉姆的实验中，伪装的实验参加者总是先向真正的实验参加者表示，无论发生什么，他对一切负有全责。当情况发生变化，真正的实验参加者被告知他们要承担责任的时候，顺应的愿望立刻开始下降。我们已经看到，第二个志愿实验参加者比第一个更大胆；班杜拉的实验显示扩散责任是一个很关键的因素。[291]在米尔格拉姆式的实验中，当实验参加者认为他们选择的电压相当于其他两个参加者使用的平均水平时，他们选择的电压通常更强。历史事实展示了同样的现象。“服从命令”已经是战争罪犯为自己辩护的陈词滥调。那些残暴的领袖有意识地以特殊的方式组织军队、行刑队和官僚机构，让每一个人都觉得自己个人的行动不会亦不足以完成任何杀戮。[292]

    第四个关闭常人道德判断功能的途径是疏离。我们提到过，除非人们被暴乱裹挟，或者已经陷入施虐变态不能自拔，否则不会愿意亲手伤害无辜者。[293]在米尔格拉姆的研究中，将受害者带进实验参加者的房间，会让参加者将对受害人的最强电击强度减弱1/3。当要求参加者亲手将受害者的手按在电极板上时，他们会将电击强度减弱超过1/2。我们可以肯定地说，在广岛投下原子弹的“埃诺拉·盖号”（Enola Gay）轰炸机的飞行员不会同意用火焰喷射器在瞬间烧死几十万人。我们在第5章中看到，保罗·斯洛维奇证实了一种现象，即“一个人的死亡是个悲剧，但百万人的死亡只是一个统计数字”。[294]人们的头脑对数量巨大的人（有时甚至对为数不多的人）陷入困境总是反应迟钝，但可以随时调动起来挽救一个知道姓名和面孔的人的性命。

    抑制道德意识的第五个手段是贬低受害者。我们都见过从妖魔化和非人化一个团体走向伤害该团体成员的事实。班杜拉的实验证明了这一点。他特意让一些实验参加者认为还有一组其他族裔的人参加实验，然后让他们“无意中听到”主持实验的研究人员对这一组人的蔑视和诋毁。[295]听到过这些谩骂的人对这一组人进行电击的时候，他们会提高所使用的电压。一旦人们受到操纵，开始伤害某些人，他们会相应地降低对这些人的评价。班杜拉发现，一半以上的实验参加者会赤裸裸地为自己电击他人进行辩护。很多人为自己开脱的理由是归罪受害者（米尔格拉姆也观察到同样的现象），例如“表现不佳说明懒惰和成心冒犯上级”。

    社会心理学家还总结过其他各种屏蔽道德的手段，班杜拉的实验参加者只不过是重新发现了它们，其中包括尽量低估造成的伤害（“他们不会感到太痛的”），将伤害相对化（“每个人都会遇到些倒霉事”），推诿责任，说自己不过是为了完成工作（“如果说为了服从领导，我只得做个狗崽子，那也只好如此了”）。他们唯一漏掉的免除道德约束的策略是“有利对比”（advantageous comparison）:“其他人干了更可怕的事情”。[296]

    * * *

    意识形态是不治之症，因为它源于多种让我们变得聪明伶俐的认知能力。我们能够展望复杂抽象的因果关联。我们从其他人那里获取知识。我们为配合其他人而调整自己的行为，有些时候，这就是要求我们循规蹈矩。我们在团队中工作，实现那些单个人无法实现的丰功伟业。我们把玩抽象，不需要仔细考量每一个具体的事实。我们可以用几种不同的方式诠释某个行为，使用的方法和得到的结果，以及追求的目的与其衍生品各不相同。

    这些认知能力可以形成非常有害的混合体，这就是危险的意识形态。有些人提出理论说，清除一个邪恶的或者无人性的集团就能够实现至善。一小撮臭味相投的信徒以惩罚非信徒的方式推行这一理论。社会中一些群体被影响，或在恐吓下表示支持这一理论。持怀疑立场的人被迫保持沉默或者被孤立。自利的理性让人们不顾自己的理智而追随甚至制造骗局。

    虽然不能确保一个国家永远不受有害意识形态的感染，但开放社会算是一种防疫针。在开放社会中，人民和思想自由流动，没有人会因转播不同的观点而受到惩罚，即使这些观点是异端，不符合大多数人的共识。现代的普世民主社会对种族灭绝和意识形态化的内战相对具有免疫力。相反，那些实行顽固的信息审查和对外封闭的政权往往陷入大规模的暴力。

    纯粹邪恶、心魔和暴力的下降

    在本章开始，我介绍了鲍迈斯特关于纯粹邪恶的理论。当人们采取受害者的立场看待暴行时，很容易道德化地假定所有的施暴者都是施虐狂和精神变态。而在道德家眼中，暴力的历史性减少是正义战胜邪恶的成果。“最伟大的一代人”打败了法西斯，民权运动打败了种族主义，罗纳德·里根20世纪80年代的军备竞赛引发了东欧剧变。在当今世界，当然也有恶魔——施虐成性的精神变态狂和自恋的暴君肯定属于恶魔之列，因此，世界上肯定也有英雄。但是，暴力的减少似乎主要来自时间的变化。老的暴君死去，没有新的暴君继位；专制政权垮台，没有人愿意为之殊死顽抗。

    与纯粹邪恶不同的观点是，人们相互伤害的主要动机是每一个普通人都有可能具有的。因此可以推论，暴力的减少主要是因为人们受此类动机驱使的情况越来越少，越来越轻，越来越有控制。征服了这些魔鬼的天使是下一章的主题。完成对我们内心魔鬼的辨认是控制它们的第一步。

    20世纪下半叶是“心理学时代”。学术研究成果日益成为大众智慧的一部分，包括支配等级、米尔格拉姆和阿施的实验，以及认知失谐理论。但不仅仅是心理学科学知识渗透进公众意识，人们也已经非常习惯于使用心理学分析人类的行为和问题。这半个世纪中，由于识字率的提高、人口流动性的增加和科技的发展，全人类的自我意识空前增强——摄像头无时无刻不跟踪着我们，将我们的动作放慢分解，我们今天就是这样在观测自己。我们越来越多地从两个制高点观察我们自己：一个是在我们脑颅的内部，观察我们有何种体验；另一个是从科学家的视角，观察我们的体验在大脑进化中的活动规律，包括所有幻象和错觉。

    无论是理论心理学还是公众的智慧，至今都还远远不能让我们完全理解自己。但是，一点点心理学也可以起很大的作用。在我看来，我们认知上的和情感上的几个小缺陷曾给人类带来巨大的灾难，而这些灾难本来是能够避免的。[297]我还认为，对这些缺陷的共同警惕，已经有效地控制了暴力伤亡，而人类在此还有很大的潜力。我们的五个心魔中的每一种都具有一种结构特性，我们已经开始注意到它，而且最好对它有进一步的认识。

    人们，尤其是男人，对成功的前景过度自信；当他们相互对抗时，结果总是比他们最初所想的更加血腥。人们，尤其是男人，特别在意自己及所属团体的支配权；当他们加入支配权竞争时，他们几乎不可能让支配者取胜，而结果很可能是人人都是输家。人们追求复仇，而论及冤仇的方式总是夸大自己的无辜和对方的残忍；当双方寻求完全正义的时候，他们把自己和后代带入无休止的冲突。人们不仅能够压制自己对亲手施害的厌恶，甚至会养成嗜好；如果他们私下里或者与同伴合谋沉湎于此，他们可能成为施虐狂。人们能够效忠一种他们自己并不相信的信仰，仅仅因为他们认为其他人都效忠这个信仰；这样的信仰可以席卷一个封闭的社会，并将整个社会带进一种集体错觉。

    第9章 善良天使

    这应该是无可争辩的，即有某种仁爱，无论它多么微小，已经注入我们的胸腔；某种人类友情的火花；还有一点点鸽子的气质，与狼和蛇的元素一起已经糅进我们的骨架。让我们假定这些慷慨的情操从来就是如此淡薄，假定它们如此微小，甚至无法移动我们身体上的一只手或者一根手指头；但它们仍然决定了我们的意志，在其他条件相同的情况下，它们让我们在有益于人类和危害人类之间冷静地选择前者。 ——大卫·休谟，《道德原理研究》

    每一个时代，人们养育孩子的方式都是观察他们人性观的窗口。如果父母相信人之初性本恶，那么孩子一打喷嚏，父母就揍孩子一顿；如果父母相信人天性纯真，他们则要禁止孩子玩闪避球游戏。有一天，我在路上骑车，看到路边有一位母亲带着两个学龄前的孩子散步，那幅景象向我展示了对人性的最时髦的解释。两个孩子中的一个又哭又闹，另一个则正在接受妈妈的劝诫。我看着他们的三重奏，听到妈妈用坚定的声音说出一个词：共情！

    我们生活在一个共情的时代。在21世纪第一个10年结束的时候，谈论人类共情能力的书籍不胜枚举，其中之一是知名灵长类动物学家弗朗斯·德瓦尔宣言式的大作。[1]仅在过去两年，就有冠以下列书名或副标题的书籍出版：《共情时代》（The Age of Empathy）、《共情的不可或缺》（Why Empathy Matters）、《共情的社会神经科学》（The Social Neuroscience of Empathy）、《共情学》（The Science of Empathy）、《共情落差》（The Empathy Gap）、《共情为何重要（以及为何濒临灭绝）》 [Why Empathy Is Essential（and Endangered）]、《全球化中的共情》（Empathy in the Global World）、《谁说商业直觉是天生的》（How Companies Prosper When They Create Widespread Empathy）。在另一本书《共情的文明》（The Empathic Civilization）中，社会活动家杰里米·里夫金（Jeremy Rifkin）这样解释了他的见解：

    生物学和认知神经科学都发现了镜像神经元（mirror-neurons）——所谓的共情神经元，它让人类和其他一些物种能够设身处地地感觉和体验他人的境遇。我们人类似乎是最具社会性的动物，不断在同胞中寻求亲密参与和伙伴关系。

    社会科学家因此开始通过共情的视角重新审视人类的历史，并在这一过程中发现了以往忽略了的关键线索。这些线索告诉我们，衡量人类进化的不仅是人类征服自然的力量，还有人类跨越时间和空间的边界，对其他人共情的强度和广度。越来越多的科学证据表明，我们本质上是一种共情的物种；共情能力对人类社会有着深刻和深远的影响，而且很有可能决定了我们这个物种的命运。

    如果我们想在不到一代人的时间里振兴全球经济，并让我们的生物圈恢复生机，那么今天迫切需要的就是全球性共情意识。我们要回答的问题是：历史上让共情感受力（empathic sensitivity）生长成熟和让共情意识扩展的机制是什么？[2]

    也许，全球性共情意识正在扩展之中，远不止于让一个小调皮停止欺负自己的妹妹——我在路上看见的妈妈就是使用共情概念来教训自己的小男孩。也许，这位妈妈是受到诸如《共情教育》（Teaching Empathy）、《教育孩子共情》（Teaching Children Empathy）和《共情之根：改变孩子改变世界》（The Roots of Empathy: Changing the World Child by Child）之类书籍的影响。儿科医生T.贝里·布雷泽尔顿（T.Berry Brazelton）在评价这些书籍时说，作者“努力展开的是关乎世界和平和保护我们星球未来的大问题，他的起点是从所有的学校和教室开始，每一次教育一名学生、一个家长、一位老师”。[3]

    我绝不反对共情。相反，我认为——一般而言，虽然不是永远如此——共情是个好东西，我在本书中不止一次地提倡过共情。更大范围的共情可以解释今天人们为什么摈弃残酷处罚并更多地思考战争的人命代价。但是，今天的共情就像是20世纪60年代的爱情——成为一种感性的理想，被人们冠以各种警句和口号（告诉人们它就是世界存在的动力，是世界最基本的需要，是人类所需要的一切），它还被鼓吹为降低暴力的因子。对于美苏停止军备竞赛和代理人战争，我不认为这和爱情有多大关系，同样，它也谈不上有多少共情。虽然我会认为，我和身边的其他人有同样的共情能力，但我不认为，是因为有了共情，所以我没有反击批评我的人，没有为了抢车位大打出手，没有在妻子指责我愚蠢时抱以老拳，没有为了防止中国在经济实力上超过美国而游说发动战争。我从不先让自己停止思考，再换位到暴力受害者的立场，感受他们的痛苦，然后缩回我打算行使暴力的手。我的头脑里从未有过要暴力待人的可怕念头。这些念头实在荒唐、可笑、不可思议。当然，对上一代人来说，这些暴力选项显然有一定道理。暴力的减少也许确实与共情有关，但在更大程度上要归功于其他更坚实的力量，例如谨慎、理性、公平、自制、规范和禁忌以及人权理念。

    本章的主题是“善良天使”：那些让我们放弃暴力的心理感官功能，而我们可以将暴力的减少归功于这些感官功能越来越重要的影响作用。共情是这些感官功能之一，但绝不是唯一一个。正如休谟所说，这些感官功能的存在已是毋庸置疑。虽然人们还会不时看到有人说，在自然选择理论中，仁慈的演化仍然是一个谜。实际上，这个谜早在几十年前就被破解了。尽管人们对细节还有很多争议，但是，今天已经没有任何生物学家还会怀疑，进化的动力，例如互助共生、亲缘以及其他形式的互惠，可以选择心理感官功能，而在外界条件具备时，这些感官功能促使人们和平共处。[4]休谟在1751年所写下的这段话，时至今日仍然是正确的：

    而那些真诚地坚持人类绝对自私论的人，在听到还有一些微弱的德行已经成为人类天性的一部分时，也不会有任何惊讶。相反，我们会看到，他们就像支持另一种信条一样支持这个观点；他们身上的这种（看起来的）讽刺性（而不是腐败性）自然而然地让上述两种见解都得到强化；而且，这两种见解确实是紧密地、几乎牢不可分地联系在一起。[5]

    如果我在这种讽刺精神的引导下坚持说共情被过度炒作了，这并不是说我否认这一美德，也不是说我否认这一美德是人性中牢不可分的一部分。

    在阅读了整整8章可怕的人类恶行和促发这些恶行的人性阴暗面之后，读者有权利期待在讲述天使的章节中看到一些光明向上的东西。但是，我不会用“太”幸福的结局来取悦大众，我拒绝这一诱惑。我们大脑中约束阴暗冲动的器官，在我们那些蓄奴、烧巫、暴打儿童的祖先身上也都是标准部件，显然，它们并一定让人们成为好人。如果我说人性中有些坏因子让我们干坏事，有些好因子让我们干好事，以此来解释暴力的减少，这恐怕不是一个能够令人满意的解释。（战争，我赢；和平，你输——反正我是赢定了！）对人性中的善良天使的探究必须不仅说明它们是怎样引导我们远离暴力，还要能够说明为什么它们屡屡遭遇失败；不仅要说明它们近来不断增强的效力，还要能够解释为什么历史等待了如此之久才让天使有了今天的力量。

    共情

    “共情”（empathy）一词只有一个世纪的历史。人们通常认为是美国心理学家爱德华·铁钦纳（Edward Titchener）在1909年的教学中最先使用了此词，尽管《牛津英语大词典》说英国作家弗农·李（Vernon Lee）在1904年就用过此词。[6]两个人都是引自德文“Einfühlung”（带着感情），并用这个词来表明一种审美体验：“用心灵的肌肉来感觉或行为”，就像我们看见一座摩天大楼后想象我们自己挺起腰板站得笔直。到20世纪40年代，这个词在英文书籍中的流行程度迅速上升，很快它就取代了维多利亚时代代表美德的用语，例如“意志”（1961年）和“自制”（20世纪80年代中期）。[7]

    “共情”一词在迅速流行的同时开始具有了新的含义，一种很接近于“同情”（sympathy）或“悲悯”（compassion）的意思。各种含义的混合很符合民间的心理学说：对他人的仁慈在于能够为他人设身处地，感其所感；穿上他人的鞋子，站在他人的立场上，用他人的眼睛看世界。[8]这个理论不是不证自明的理论。威廉·詹姆斯在他的论文《论人类的特定盲点》（On a Certain Blindness in Human Beings）中讲到人和人类最好的朋友之间的联系：

    就说狗和我们的关系吧。我们被世界上最亲密的纽带联结在一起；我们双方都是另一方生命意义之所在，但是，在这友好的喜爱之外，我们对对方毫无感受——就像我们无法体会树丛下的撒欢，或者何以贪恋树根和电灯柱子的味道，而它们也不能享受文学和艺术。当你坐在那里阅读最感人的浪漫小说，你的狐梗犬能怎样判定你的行为？尽管它对你满心忠诚，但你的行为的性质却绝对不是它能理解的。它坐在那里，像个没有生命的雕像，而你本来可以带它出去遛弯，扔根棍子让它狂奔着去叼住！你染上的该是多么古怪的疾病，手里拿着这些东西，每天要一动不动地盯上几个小时，完全没有生命的意识？[9]

    所以说，今天的“共情”被赋予某种忘我的含义——一种对他人的无私关怀，共情不完全等同于想人之所想和感人之所感的能力。让我们来区分一下这个字眼被用来描述各种不同心态时的不同含义。[10]

    最本源和最机械的共情感是投射（projection）——一种能够将自己置身于其他人、动物或事物的位置，想象身处其中的感觉。摩天大楼的例子说明，一个人共情的对象甚至不一定具有情感，更不要说会介意共情者感受的到底是些什么。

    与投射相接近的技能是换位（perspective-taking），顾名思义，就是从另外一个人的视角来观察世界。让·皮亚杰最著名的观察是，在桌子上放上三座玩具山，6岁以下的孩子没有能力从坐在桌子对面的人的角度设想这三座山是如何摆置的，皮亚杰称这种不成熟性为“自我中心主义”（egocentrism）。公平说，不仅是孩子如此，这种换位能力对成年人也不是轻而易举的事情。查看地图搞明白“你在这里”的方位指示，以及在想象中扭转一个三维物体，对我们来说都是很大的考验，但这不等于说应该对我们的悲悯心产生怀疑。从更宽泛的意义上说，换位意味着揣摩他人的所见、所思和所感，这也就让共情有了另一重含义。

    读心（mind-reading）、心智理论（theory of mind）、心智化（mental-izing）或者共情精度（empathic accuracy）都是指从某人的表情、行为和处境推断他的想法和感情的能力。比如，这种能力让我们猜想，一个刚刚误了火车的人可能非常沮丧，正在思考如何才能准时赶到他的目的地。[11]读心不要求我们自己体验共情对象的经历，甚至不一定要我们关切他们的境遇，只是要求我们能够推断他们的感受。读心也许包含了两种能力，一是读懂思想（这是自闭症病人不具备的），另一种是读懂感情（这是精神变态者所缺失的）。[12]有些很聪明的精神变态狂尽管无法理解人类情感的真正本质，但为了能够更好地操纵他人，他们也学习读懂他人的情感。举例说，一个强奸犯这样谈论他的受害人：“她们吓坏了，是不是？但是，你看，我真的不能理解她们怕什么。我自己也害怕过，害怕确实令人很不愉快。”[13]不管他们是否真正能够理解他人的情感，对于他人的情感本身，他们完全不在乎。施虐、幸灾乐祸和对动物的痛苦无动于衷说明一个人即使能够对其他生命的感觉有所认知，但仍然可以不产生任何同情心。

    人们在目睹其他人遭受痛苦的时候经常会感觉到紧张不安。[14]正是这种反应让人们克制自己在争斗中伤害他人，也是这种反应让米尔格拉姆实验的参加者在动手实施电击时感到焦虑，让纳粹预备役军人在第一次近距离射杀犹太人时感到恶心。这些事例清楚地说明，对他人的痛苦感到紧张不安与同情的关切不同。相反，人们可能因厌恶这种紧张不安而压制带来不安的受害者，或者因不快而逃避这些受害者。我们中的很多人都曾经在机舱里遇到尖叫不止的孩子，当被吵得头昏脑涨坐立不安的时候，如果说还有同情，我们对父母或许还有一些，但对孩子则没有多少了，而我们最强烈的愿望就是能够换一个远些的座位。名为“拯救儿童”的慈善组织连续多年在杂志上刊登广告，一张赤贫儿童的照片，配上文字说明“每天只要拿出5分钱，你就可以拯救胡安·拉莫斯。或者，你可以翻过此页”。大部分人都选择赶快翻过这一页。

    情感具有感染力。当你欢笑的时候，全世界都和你一起欢笑；这就是为什么喜剧中要加上笑声的录音，也是为什么拙劣的喜剧演员总是在关键台词后面加上一连串叽叽嘎嘎的模拟笑声。[15]其他有关情感传染的实例是婚礼或葬礼上的眼泪，在热闹的晚会上想要跳舞的冲动，人们在炸弹案中的恐慌，还有颠簸的轮船上总是有越来越多的乘客出现呕吐。情感传染还有一种不太强烈的形式，它包括各种替代性反应，比如我们看到运动员受伤的时候会皱起眉头，看到007系列影片中詹姆斯·邦德被捆在椅子上遭暴打的时候会闭上眼睛。另一种传染是运动神经模仿，比如我们给婴儿喂苹果泥的时候，自己也会张开嘴巴。

    许多人认为共情是人类福祉至关重要的情感能力，而在这些共情倡导者的文章中，情感传染似乎是“共情”感的基础。虽然，“共情”感中我们评价最高的心理反应叫作同情反应，或者简称同情。同情包括在认知他人的快乐和痛苦的前提下，将他人的利益视为自己的利益。人们很容易将同情等同于情感传染，但也很容易看出两者的不同。[16]如果一个孩子被乱叫的狗吓坏了，开始号啕大哭，我对她的同情不应该是和她一起恐惧地号啕大哭，而是安慰她和保护她。相反，我能够对其他人所经历的而我不可能体验的痛苦怀有深刻的同情，比如妇女生产时的痛苦，妇女被强奸的痛苦，或者癌症病人的疼痛。我们的情感反应不是自动复制他人的情感，而是取决于我们判断他们是盟友还是竞争者，然后做出可能截然相反的情感选择。当球迷观看主场比赛时，观众高兴他也高兴，观众沮丧他也沮丧，但他观看客场比赛时，观众高兴他就沮丧，而观众沮丧则轮到他得意。最常见的情况是，同情决定了情感传染，而不是相反。

    人们为共情一词的各种不同含义争执不休，让共情成为今天的热议话题。用镜像神经元作为悲悯意义上同情的同义词，让对共情理解的混乱固化进入我们的文化基因。里夫金这样写道：“所谓的共情神经元，让人类和其他一些物种能够设身处地地感觉和体验其他实体的境遇。”他得出结论说：“我们从根本上是共情的物种，寻求与我们同胞的亲密参与和伙伴关系。”镜像神经元理论假定，同情（这里的“同情”和“传染”模糊难分）是我们大脑里天生的情感，是我们灵长类动物的传承，我们只需要运用它，或者说，至少不要压抑它，就能为世界迎来一个新时代。里夫金承诺“在不到10年的时间内普及全球共情意识”。很不幸，他的承诺所依据的却是他对神经科学非常有问题的诠释。

    1992年，神经科学家贾科莫·里佐拉蒂（Giacomo Rizzolatti）和他的同事在猴子的大脑里发现了某些神经元；猴子捡到葡萄干或者猴子看见人捡到葡萄干的时候，这些神经元都会变得活跃。[17]其他神经元对其他类型的行为有同样的反应，包括自己做出的和看见的行为，比如触摸和流泪。虽然神经科学家不能在人脑里插进几根电极棒，但我们可以相信，人类的大脑有一样的神经元：脑神经成像实验已经在顶叶和内额叶找到几个这样的区域，在人们自己做出某些特定动作，或看见其他人做同样动作的时候就会发亮。[18]镜像神经元的发现虽然并非完全出乎人们的意料，但是仍然意义重大：如果我们的大脑不能对同样的动作做同样的理解，不论这个动作是谁做出的，我们都不会在第一人称和第三人称时使用同样的动词。但是，这个发现立刻被炒作成一个巨大的泡沫。[19]一位神经学家声称，镜像神经元之于神经科学意义之重大就像DNA之于生物学的意义。[20]加上报道科研新闻的记者推波助澜，有科学家将镜像神经元吹成是语言、模仿、文化学习、潮流和时尚、球迷、代祷，当然还有共情的生物基础。

    镜像神经元理论有一个小问题，在恒河猴（rhesus macaques）身上也发现了镜像神经元，但这是一种非常暴躁的小生物，从它们身上，你找不到一丝一毫的共情（或者模仿，更不要说语言了）。[21]另一个我们将要进行探究的问题，即镜像神经元主要集中在大脑的特定部位，而根据神经成像研究，这些部位与同情关怀意义上的共情没有多大联系。[22]许多认知神经科学家猜测，镜像神经元具有让人对某种行为概念进行想象的功能；当然，这一说法也存在争议。绝大多数神经科学家都不接受对镜像神经元的夸张，例如认为它能独到地解释人类的能力；而到今天，已经没有人会将镜像神经元的活动等同于同情心了。[23]

    当我们体验到痛苦以及对他人的痛苦经历产生反应的时候，我们大脑中的某些部位，特别是脑岛会特别活跃。[24]但是，这种对自身痛苦的感受和对他人痛苦感受的重合反应，是我们同情他人境遇的结果，而不是原因。还记得我们在前面一章说过的一项实验，实验参加者受到电击后，脑岛部位发亮；当这些实验参加者看见其他清白无辜的人受到电击时，脑岛的同一部位也会发亮。但是同一实验还显示，如果看到诈骗自己钱财的人受到电击，男性实验参加者的脑岛没有任何反应，他们的纹状体和眶额皮层还会因为甜蜜的复仇而发亮。[25]

    共情，作为道德意义上的同情心，不是我们大脑中镜像神经元的机械动作。共情像装有开关一样，可以被开启，也可以被关闭，甚至可以转变成反向共情，即看到某人受难而感到高兴，或看到某人高兴而感到难过。复仇是开启反向共情的键钮，球迷时而狂喜时而沮丧的反应告诉我们，竞争可以触发反向共情。心理学家约翰·兰泽塔（John Lanzetta）和巴兹尔·英格里斯（Basil Englis）将电极棒粘在实验参加者的脸上和手指上，然后让他们和另外一个（伪装的）实验参加者玩投资游戏。[26]参加者被告知，他们或者两人一组进行投资，或者两人互相竞争（但每人的收益与对方的行为没有关系）。投资获益时，在计分簿上打个钩，而赔钱的时候，就给一下轻微的电击。当参加者认为两人是合作关系的时候，每当同伴有收益时，电极棒探测到的是内心的平静和微笑，而同伴受到电击的时候，电极棒探测到冒出的汗水和皱眉头。而当参加者认为和同伴是竞争关系时，电极棒探测到的情况完全相反：同伴遭受电击的时候，他们放松并且微笑，而当同伴有成就的时候则感到紧张并皱起眉头。

    通过共情——在感染、模仿、感情换位或者镜像神经元意义上的共情——建设美好世界的问题是，它触发的共情未必是我们想要的共情。也就是说，它所开启的不一定是对他人同情关切的情感。同情是内生的，是人们如何相处，即人际关系的结果，而不是原因。关系主体如何认识这种关系，决定了他对他人的痛苦是共情，还是无动于衷，或者是反向共情。

    * * *

    在前一章，我们讲到大脑中与暴力倾向有关的回路；现在让我们来看看那些与天使有关的部位。在人类的大脑中搜索共情的结果证实，替代感是弱化还是强化取决于共情者的其他信念。克劳斯·拉姆（Claus Lamm）、丹尼尔·巴特森（Daniel Batson）和让·德赛特（Jean Decety）让实验参加者观看一位（乔装的）耳鸣病人接受新式治疗，治疗方式是从耳机里播放噪声，这位“病人”听到噪声后身体做出了畏缩的动作。[27]当实验参加者对病人产生共情的时候，大脑里的活动模式与他们自己听到噪声时是一样的。这些活跃的大脑部位包括脑岛的一部分——我们在前面已经说过，无论是从字面本义还是从喻义上说，这部分大脑皮层处理的是人体脏器的感觉（见图8-3）。另外一个是大脑中的杏仁核，这个杏仁状的器官负责对恐惧和紧张做出反应（见图8-2）。第三个部位是前扣带皮层（见图8-4），这是一条在大脑半球内壁上的皮层，参与疼痛感引发的情绪动机——不是引发刺痛感本身，而是产生要消除痛感的强烈愿望。（在对换位性痛苦进行实验时，通常都看不到对身体真实痛感做反应的大脑部位有任何活动；如果真的出现这样的痛感，那更可能是幻觉，而不是共情。）研究人员没有给实验参加者任何可以激起反向共情的示意，例如竞争或者复仇，但是他们的共情反应仍然随着他们对情况的判断发生变化而变化。一旦他们得知这个治疗方法很有效，因此“病人”吃点儿苦头也是值得的，他们大脑中的换位性紧张反应就开始减弱。

    在对充满悲悯心的大脑所做的研究中，我们完全看不到共情神经元组成的共情中心，看到的是各种激活共情和调节共情的复杂模式。决定这些模式的是认知者如何诠释他人的困境，以及如何看待两人之间的关系。共情的路径大致如下：[28]大脑上颞叶的颞顶交界区和附近的回间沟（沟槽）对他人的身体和精神状态做出评估。背外侧前额叶皮层和附近的额极（frontal pole），即大脑额叶的前端点评估情况的特殊性和本人的整体目标。眶额皮层和腹内侧额叶皮层整合这些评估的结果，并与大脑中更古老和更情绪化的部位产生的反应进行协调。杏仁核加上附近额极传递过来的信息，对恐惧和紧张性刺激做出反应。脑岛则记录了厌恶、愤怒和替代性疼痛。扣带皮层协助控制对紧急信号做出反应的大脑神经系统，比如某些回路发出召唤不相容反应（incompatible responses）的信号，有些则发出感受到肉体痛苦和精神痛苦的信号。对镜像神经元理论来说，最不幸的是，大脑中镜像神经元最丰富的区域，比如指示运动神经运作的大脑额叶的某些部分（位于大脑外侧裂的最后方）和记录身体感受的大脑顶叶的某些部分，却大多不介入这些活动，唯一的例外是只有跟踪身体各个部位所处位置的顶叶部分参加了共情活动。

    事实上，大脑组织中最接近悲悯性共情的既不是皮层质也不是皮层下器官，而是传输激素的系统。催产素是下丘脑制造的一种小分子物质，它对大脑的情感系统，包括杏仁核和纹状体发生影响，它由脑下垂体释放后进入血液，进而影响全身。[29]催产素原初的进化功能在于启动母性，包括生育、哺育和关照幼子。但因为这种激素能够减少与其他生物亲密接触的恐惧，因此它在进化过程中还具有支持母子之外其他亲和形式的作用，包括性高潮、异性一夫一妻制中的依恋、婚姻和伴侣之爱，以及非亲缘之间的同情和信任。为此，催产素也被称为“拥抱激素”。催产素在多种人际亲昵关系中的作用证实了巴特森的一个观点。他认为，母性关怀是其他各种人类同情形式的进化先驱。[30]

    在行为经济学领域，人们做了些颇为稀奇古怪的实验，其中之一是厄恩斯特·费尔（Ernst Fehr）和合作者进行的信任博弈实验；在实验中，他们要求参加者将资金交给一位委托人进行投资，本金可能会翻几番，但委托人只需要按照自己的心愿向出资人返还资金。[31]实验参加人接受鼻腔喷雾剂，一半人吸入含有催产素的喷雾，催产素可以通过鼻腔进入大脑；另一半人则吸入空白的对照剂。那些吸入催产素的实验对象明显愿意将更多的钱交给陌生的委托人。媒体还曾经大肆报道说，某车行通过通风系统在展车厅释放含有催产素的雾剂，迷惑不明就里的消费者。（迄今为止，还没有人提议用飞机喷撒催产素的方式加速提高全球性共情意识。）另外有实验显示，吸入催产素让“最后通牒博弈”中掌握资源的提议方更加慷慨（在这种博弈中，接受方有否决权，提议方根据对接受方反应的预期分配资源），但催产素对“独裁者博弈”没有影响（在独裁者博弈中，接受方要么接受要么放弃，提议方无须考虑接受方的反应）。催产素似乎很可能是对他人的信念和愿望产生同情反应的关键触发器。

    * * *

    在第4章中，我曾提及彼得·辛格有关扩大共情圈（其实是同情圈的）假说。共情圈最内层的核心是我们对儿女的养育，而触发这种温柔情感的最可靠装置是幼儿脸蛋的几何形状——我们称这种感觉为“招人怜爱”（cuteness）。1950年，动物行为学家康拉德·洛伦茨（Konrad Lorenz）注意到，具有典型的未成熟动物体量的物体，让拿着它们的人产生温柔的情感。这些轮廓特征包括大脑袋、大脑勺、大额头和大眼睛，还有小鼻子、小下巴，以及细小的躯干和四肢。[32]“招人怜爱”最初是形容母亲关爱自己子女的映射，但是触发反射的特征在子女自己身上被大大地夸张了（以至于这些特征被当作子女健康的标识），以此诱发母亲的关爱反应，阻止杀婴倾向。[33]那些幸运地拥有幼崽脸型和体型的动物总能使抱着它们的人做出温情的反应，它们也因人类的同情心而得到更多的关照。我们觉得小白鼠和兔子要比老鼠和负鼠可爱，鸽子比牛更容易获得同情，海豹幼崽比貂或其他狡诈的毛皮动物更值得人类的保护。漫画家、泰迪熊和动漫动物的设计师都是利用这种映射让他们创作的形象更讨人喜爱。在一篇著名的有关米老鼠创作历史的文章中，斯蒂芬·杰伊·古尔德历数了在几十年的时间里，这只老鼠的眼睛和脑门如何被不断地加大，终于从一个招人讨厌的小顽皮成为一名清纯可爱的公司代言人。[34]古尔德没能活到2009年，否则他会看到迪士尼公司对米老鼠的新装扮。考虑到今天的孩子对“前卫”和“冒险”个性的追求，在新发行的电子游戏中，迪士尼让米老鼠退化了，新的米老鼠在解剖学上无疑具备了更多的老鼠特征。[35]

    我们在第8章中已经看到，“招人怜爱”对保育生物学家来说不是什么好事情，因为它将大量资源引向少数几个有迷人魅力的哺乳动物。甚至有组织认为，他们可以积极地利用这种反应，于是将有着两只楚楚动人的大眼圈的熊猫作为该组织的徽章。人道救援组织使用同样的手法宣传自己，他们常常用孩子的照片做自己的招贴。心理学家莱斯利·泽布罗维茨（Leslie Zebrowitz）已经证明，陪审团对长着孩子脸的被告怀有更多的同情，而这种对正义的嘲弄只能归功于我们克制不住的同情心。[36]美貌同样会因同情引致不公。容貌不佳的孩子常常受到父母和老师更严厉的处罚，也更经常成为儿童虐待的受害者。[37]容貌不佳的成年人则在诚实、善良、可信、敏感甚至智力方面被低估。[38]

    当然，我们对我们的成人亲友也怀有同情心，包括那些容貌丑陋的亲友。但是，即使在边界确定的圈子内，我们尊奉同一套道德感，但却不是毫无差别地释放同情心。在同情之外，一定还有其他与之相呼应的情感，我们的社交生活不可能是彻头彻尾、一成不变的温暖和柔情。社交生活中少不了摩擦和碰撞：谁踩了谁的脚指头，谁扫了谁的面子，谁又得罪了谁。如果心怀同情，我们或者感到负疚，或者愿意原谅，只是这些情感大多被局限在同一个小圈子内：我们同情的人，是那些被我们伤害后让我们感到愧疚，而伤害了我们后却容易得到我们宽恕的人。[39]罗伊·鲍迈斯特、阿琳·史迪威和托德·希瑟尔顿（Todd Heatherton）研究了关于负疚感的社会心理学文献，他们发现，负疚和共情密不可分。共情感强烈的人也具有较强的负疚感（女性的这两种情感都更丰富），而得到同情的人往往是那些让我们感到愧疚的人。这个效果非常明显，当要求人们回忆让他们感到愧疚的事件时，93%的事件与家人、朋友和情人有关，只有7%涉及一般的熟人和陌生人。

    当回忆让别人感到负疚的事件时，我们得到了相同的比例：我们主要是让我们的亲友感到负疚，而不是让一般的熟人和陌生人感到负疚。我们将在有关道德的章节再来看鲍迈斯特等人对这一现象的解释。他们注意到，同情和负疚只发生在“共生关系”的圈子内。[40]在“交换关系”或“公平对等关系”中，即在我们与熟人、邻居、同事、合伙人、客户和商家的关系中，人们很少产生同情和负疚感。交换关系遵循公平原则，伴随的情感与其说是发自内心的同情，不如说是诚恳。如果我们伤害这些人，他们会回报以伤害，我们可以精准地协议罚金、退款和其他形式的赔偿来弥补此类伤害。如果这些赔偿行不通，为了减少自己的痛苦，我们可以疏远他们或者损害他们。我们会看到，交易式的议价赔偿能够修复交换性关系，但在共生关系d中则成为人们的避讳，修复共生关系的代价要大得多。[41]它要求更复杂也更长效的情感黏合剂，例如同情、愧疚和宽恕。

    * * *

    那么，我们将同情心从婴儿、毛茸茸的小动物以及与我们有共生关系的人群向外扩张，将更多陌生人拉进同情圈会如何呢？互惠利他主义提供了一套预期，它采取“一报还一报”等在技术意义上“友善”的策略，即首先付出合作的善意，在对方没有背叛之前决不背叛对方。如果人们具有这样的善意，他们应该也具有给予陌生人同情的意愿，其最终的（即在进化中形成的）目标是试探结成互利关系的可能性。[42]尤其是当我们遇到一位急需帮助的人，自己只要付出小小的代价，就能够让他人摆脱极大的困境，我们的同情心通常会油然而生。此外，在有共同利益作为润滑剂的互利关系中，即在具有同样价值取向和属于同一个阵营的人之间，同情心也很容易被调动起来。

    像“招人怜爱”一样，“需要”是同情最常见的诱因。甚至几岁的孩子也会出手帮助遇到困难的人，或者安慰一个伤心的人。[43]巴特森在研究共情的时候发现，当学生面对一个需要帮助的人时，比如一个刚刚做过腿部手术的病人，即使病人不属于他们通常的社交圈，甚至不论病人是同学，还是陌生的老人或孩子，甚至是只小狗，他们都会产生同情的反应。[44]有一天，我看见一只马蹄蟹（鲎）仰天躺在沙滩上，十几只小腿无可奈何地在空中蹬扯着。于是我把它翻转过来，看着它溜回大海，心里竟然涌起一丝幸福感。

    当某人需要的帮助不能轻易被满足的时候，相同的价值观和其他共性开始发挥决定性的作用。[45]在一个颇具创意的实验中，心理学家丹尼斯·克雷布斯（Dennis Krebs）让参加实验的学生观看（研究人员假扮的）实验者玩一种特殊的轮盘赌，规则是当球落在双数栏，他赢钱；球落单数栏，他得到一下电击。[46]赌者或者被介绍为这些学生同系的同学，并具有相同的个性；或者是一个既非学生又个性不同的陌生人。当参加实验的学生认为赌者是和自己相似的人时，他们看到他被电击，就会手心出汗，心跳加速。他们说，等待他被电击时的感觉最为难过，他们甚至愿意替他接受电击，或者付钱免除他的痛苦。

    克雷布斯提出一种“共情-利他假说”来解释参加试验的学生愿意为同伴做出的牺牲：共情带动利他。[47]我们已经看到，“共情”一词含义模糊，所以此处我们看到的是两个假说。第一个是基于“同情”感的共情，在人的情感状态中，包括对他人境遇的关切——为他人幸福而感到欢乐，为他人悲哀而伤感——这种心态促使我们毫不利己地帮助他人。我们将这个假说称为“同情-利他假说”。如果这个假说成立，它将推翻心理享乐主义和心理利己主义这两个老学说。心理享乐主义指人们只会做给自己带来快乐的事情，而心理利己主义则是指人们只会做给自己带来好处的事情。当然，有人会提出循环论证说，帮助他人可以满足利他情感的需要，这恰好证明了人的行为必定是为了自己的快乐或者对自己有益。但是，要证明这些玩世不恭的理论，必须指出帮助他人还有某种“独立的”利己动机，比如缓解自己的痛苦，避免遭到谴责或者得到公众的赞许。

    “利他”一词的含义非常模糊。“共情-利他假说”中的“利他”是指一种特定的动机意识，它以为其他人谋利为目的本身，而不是有其他目的的一种手段。[48]进化生物学所说的利他与此不同，它从行为而不是动机来界定“利他”：生物利他性包括以牺牲自己的利益为代价谋求他人利益的行为。[49]（生物学家需要识别两种一个生物有益于另一个生物的利他方式。另外一种利他方式称为“互助主义”，指一个生物在自己得益的同时亦有益于另一个生物，比如昆虫采食植物的花粉，鸟类捕捉哺乳动物身上的跳蚤，还有趣味相投的同屋互相分享音乐。）

    在实践中，生物学上的利他和心理学上的利他经常相重合，原因是如果我们有动机做某件事情，我们通常也准备为此付出代价。尽管有误解，对生物学利他主义的进化解释（比如说，生物帮助自己的亲属或与亲属相互帮助，长远看都有益于基因遗传）与利他心理毫不矛盾。如果自然选择因长期收益而倾向以巨大代价帮助亲人或有潜在互惠可能的伙伴，那么自然选择会赋予人脑向这些人提供帮助的直接动机，没有必要再拐弯抹角地思考自己有何利益。事实上，利他者的基因可能获得长期收益，这一点既不说明利他者的虚伪，也不否认其利他的动机，因为基因的遗传收益在利他者的大脑中从来都不是一个明确的目标。[50]

    因此，“共情-利他假说”的第一个版本是，利他心理是存在的，动机是同情心。第二个版本的“共情-利他假说”的基础是“投射”和“换位”共情。[51]根据这个假说，不论是想象自己遇到同样的境况，还是干脆将自己想象成他人，只要为他人设身处地，即可产生对他人的同情——如果“同情-利他假说”成立的话，这种同情会促成对共情对象的利他性行为。人们也可以称此为“换位-同情假说”（perspective-sympathy hypothesis）。这个假说关系到我在本书第4章和第5章提出的问题，即媒体报道、回忆录、小说、历史书籍和其他各种替代性体验的手段扩大了我们的集体同情意识，推动了人道主义革命、长期和平、新和平和权利革命。

    虽然巴特森本人并没有严格将共情利他假说分为两个版本，但他历时二十多年的研究给两种版本都提供了支持。[52]

    让我们从“同情-利他假说”开始。有人坚持认为帮助他人无非是为了让自己感觉好一点儿，让我们拿这种玩世不恭的观点和“同情-利他假说”做个比较。在一项研究中，实验参加者眼睁睁地看着由研究人员假扮的另一名实验参加者伊莱恩在学习实验中反复遭受电击。[53]（实验分男女进行，男性看到的是一名叫作查理的男子。）随着实验的进行，伊莱恩表现出明显沮丧的情绪，这时，参加实验的人被告知有机会替代伊莱恩继续实验；同时被告知，除伊莱恩之外，其他人都已经完成了自己的实验任务，可以选择立刻离开。所以，在这个时候接替伊莱恩的工作，将是一个纯粹的利他行为。在另外一组实验中，参加实验的人还要继续观看伊莱恩遭受另外8次电击。巴特森的理由是，如果人们仅仅是为了避免自己的痛苦，不想再看见伊莱恩受罪，才自愿替代伊莱恩进行实验，那么，如果他们有机会离开，可以不再看到伊莱恩接受电击，他们就没有必要出手替换伊莱恩。只有在他们不得不继续目击伊莱恩的痛苦，继续听到她的呻吟的时候，他们才会愿意付出自己遭受电击的代价。与克雷布斯的实验一样，实验参加者的同情心受到测试，她们被告知伊莱恩具有与她们相同或者相反的价值取向和兴趣（比如，如果实验对象喜欢读《新闻周刊》，那么伊莱恩被说成是喜欢读《时尚》或者《十七岁》）。无疑，当实验参加人感到自己和伊莱恩相像的时候，不论她们是否还要继续观看她被电击，她们都愿意替换她，让她不再遭受痛苦。如果她们觉得与伊莱恩是不同的人，那么只有在还要继续观看她受苦的情况下，她们才会愿意替代伊莱恩接受电击。此项实验和其他的研究共同证明，人们自私自利地帮助他人，帮助他人的目的是解除自己看到他人受罪而感到的痛苦。但是，当他们同情一个受害者的时候，他们的动机可以转变为单纯为了解救受害人，无论这样做是否能够减轻自己的痛苦。

    另外还有一组实验测试助人的第二种隐蔽动机，即以前所说的渴望自己的行为得到社会的赞许。[54]在这个实验中，巴特森等人没有再操纵情感，但是，即使人们对同一事件都抱有同情感，每个人同情感的程度也有所不同。巴特森这次利用了人们同情感的差距。他们让实验参加者听到伊莱恩焦虑地大声抱怨即将到来的电击，然后要求他们指出他们所感受的同情、感动、怜悯、柔情、温情和心软的程度。有些人在所有这些形容词后面都给了高分，另一些人则都给了低分。

    实验正式开始后，伊莱恩已经精疲力竭，失误越来越多，明显地感到沮丧。这时候，研究人员用一种很隐秘的方式来评估实验参加者是否出于纯属善意的意愿帮助伊莱恩摆脱困境，或者只是为了想要表现自己的善意。研究人员通过问卷来评估实验对象的情绪之后，或者告诉他们，如果他们能够圆满完成自己的任务，就有机会让伊莱恩解脱；或者告诉他们，他们不需要做任何事情就可以让伊莱恩结束实验，只是这样也就没有任何功劳可以夸耀。对同情伊莱恩的人来说，这两种情况让他们得到同样的解脱感；而对伊莱恩没有同情感的人来说，只有靠他们自己的努力让伊莱恩解脱时，他们才感到满足。另外还有一组实验，实验参加者必须在猜字游戏中得到高分才有资格替换伊莱恩，他们或者被告知游戏很容易（因此绝对没有机会造假得低分而逃避），或者被告知游戏很难（因而有机会名正言顺地逃避牺牲）。对伊莱恩没有同情心的人借机逃避，在所谓的难题面前束手无策；而对伊莱恩怀有同情心的人在解“难题”上的得分甚至更优异，因为他们知道必须付出加倍的努力才有机会替代伊莱恩受苦。所以说，同情感可以产生真正的康德意义上的道德感，即视人为目的，而不是达到目的的工具——在这个实验中，甚至不是为了实现自己享受助人为乐的快感这种高尚目的的工具。

    在这些实验中，人们从其他人——实验人制造的痛苦中解救受害者。那么，同情触发的利他行为能否抑制自己利用他人，或者抑制自己报复他人挑衅的欲望呢？答案是肯定的。在另外的实验中，巴特森让妇女进行一次性囚徒博弈，她们和一位研究人员假扮的匿名对手斗牌，斗牌的结果是以交易形式产生一些抽奖券号码。[55]在大部分情况下，她们采取了博弈论专家所说的最优策略，即背叛对方。她们根据保护自己不受欺骗并能够借机利用对方的原则选择出牌，与根据合作原则出牌相比，这样出牌会让双方都失去更多机会。不过，当实验参加者读过她那位匿名伙伴的一个私人便条之后，激起了对伙伴的同情心，她以合作原则出牌的比率从20%跳升到70%。在后面的实验中，另一组妇女进行“重复囚徒博弈”，这让博弈者有机会以自己的背叛来惩罚背叛的伙伴。对先行背叛的伙伴仍然报之以合作的次数只有5%。但是，如果预先让实验参加者对伙伴抱有同情心，她们就会更愿意宽恕，以德报怨的次数上升到45%。[56]所以说，同情可以减少自相残杀式的对抗和得不偿失的报复。

    在这些实验中，在一种情况下，同情是一个间接变量，由参加人与给定对象（比如伊莱恩）之间价值取向的相似性所决定；在另一种情况下，同情完全是内生的：研究人员在现场观察到实验参与者的共情反应有差异，有些人多一些，有些人少一些，无论原因何在。而理解暴力下降过程的关键是，同情是否可以由外生因素来左右。

    前面说过，同情以及相伴随的负疚和宽恕主要发生在共生关系圈子中。因此，任何能够产生共生关系的东西，也应该能够产生同情。建立共生性的主要手段是引导人们合作实现一个共同的目标。（罗伯茨岩洞营交战的男孩子，最后协作将校车拉出泥潭。）很多解决冲突训练班也是遵循这一原则：先是将冲突各方带进一种友善的氛围中，让他们有机会进行个人交流，然后交给他们一项共同任务，协商如何能够解决冲突。这些做法都能够激发相互同情，训练班通常要求学员进行变换视角为对方着想的训练。[57]不过，在所有这些案例中，合作被强加在参与者身上，显然我们不可能让数十亿人加入有人指导的化解冲突训练班。

    最有力量的同情外生触发器，所费有限且俯拾皆是，它就是人们在阅读小说、回忆录、自传和报告文学时产生的角色换位。那么，接下来的共情学问题是，读者对媒介的消费产生了换位思考，但是它是否真的带来了对作家、评论家和他们所描绘的群体的同情呢？巴特森的研究团队对此进行了实验，研究人员让实验参加者相信他们正在为大学广播站做市场调研。[58]他们要对一个叫作“个人视角新闻报道”的新节目进行评估。这个新节目的宗旨是“超越当地新闻事件本身，报道事件对个人生活所产生的影响”。实验要求一组参加者“专注于广播的技术层面”,“客观地看待节目所讲述的事实”，不要被受访对象的感情影响；要求另一组参加者“想象受访人对事件的感受和事件对他们的生活产生的影响”——人为地操纵换位思考以制造某种同情感。必须承认，这样的操纵很不高明：因为人们在读书和看新闻时，不需要别人告诉他们应该如何思考如何感受。但是作家都知道，如果能够引诱观众进入故事主人公的立场，他们就会满怀同情地追随他进入故事情节。所以，对想要成功的剧作家的最好劝告就是“整出个英雄，再给他找些麻烦”。应该说，真正的作品不需要向观众下指令，所谓感人的主角，就是说他能抓住观众的同情心。

    第一组实验显示，换位思考产生的同情和伊莱恩实验中发现的同情一样真诚。[59]实验参加者先是观看了对凯蒂的采访，凯蒂的父母在一起车祸中双双丧生，她只好承担起抚养年幼弟妹的责任。接着，实验参加者被告知，他们有机会做些小事情帮助凯蒂，比如照顾孩子，或者开车送她去一些地方。研究人员在志愿计划表上做了些手脚，或者让名单看起来已经有很多学生签名准备帮助凯蒂，以此制造同伴压力；或者让名单上只有两个名字，让实验参加者可以毫不羞愧地忽视凯蒂的困难。那些专注于报道技术层面的人只在有很多同学报名帮助凯蒂的时候才志愿提供帮助，而那些仔细听过凯蒂采访的人，不论是否有其他同学报名，都在志愿者名单上签上了自己的名字。

    对一个处于困境的人抱有同情是一回事，对一个人所代表的群体产生同情则是另一回事。读者是仅仅对汤姆大叔抱有同情，还是对所有的美国黑人奴隶都抱有同情？是仅仅同情奥利弗·特威斯特（Oliver Twist），还是同情所有的孤儿？是仅仅同情安妮·弗兰克（Anne Frank），还是同情所有的集中营受害者？在一项有关同情泛化的实验中，学生听到一位年轻女子朱丽讲述她车祸后因输血感染艾滋病的遭遇（在进行此项实验的时候，人们还没有找到艾滋病的有效治疗方法）。

    是啊，你们可以想象，这真是挺可怕的。我是说，我每次咳嗽或者感到虚弱时，都会想，是不是到时候了？你知道，就是生命是不是开始衰竭了。有时候我感觉挺好的，但在我脑子的深处，有种恐惧一直在那里。任何一天都可能是走向死亡的（停顿）转折点。我知道——至少是现在——我没有生路。我知道他们在寻找治疗办法——我也知道，人都是要死的。但是这一切真是太不公平了，太恐惧了，像一场噩梦。（停顿）我的意思是，我本来觉得自己刚刚才开始生活，突然，我马上就要死了。（停顿）这真叫人受不了。[60]

    稍后，当学生在问卷上填写对艾滋病人的态度时，换位思考的学生比仅做技术评估的学生有更强烈的同情心，这说明对一个人的同情确实可以扩展到对这个人所代表的群体的同情。但是，此处很容易产生一种误解。换位思考所产生的同情效果受道德教化的规范，我们从实际生活中可以认识到，同情感不是天然的生理反射。朱丽承认，她因为整整一个夏天没有防护的滥交，才感染上了艾滋病。尽管那些换位思考者仍然对艾滋病患者这个群体怀有更大的同情心，但是对感染艾滋病的年轻妇女这个群体却没有太多同情了。以流浪汉为对象的实验也得出类似的结果，实验参加者有男生也有女生，他们的同情心对因疾病而陷于窘困的流浪者和因厌倦工作而流浪的人是不同的。

    接着，心理学家研究团队继续拓展他们的实验，这次他们要看看人们对被定罪的谋杀犯能有多少同情心。[61]没有人一定想要人们对杀人犯抱有温情，但是，对不值得同情的人怀有某种程度的同情，也许是反对残忍处罚和滥用死刑所需要的。我们可以想象，正是因为有这样一点儿同情心，才产生了人道主义革命时期的刑罚改革。巴特森并没有到拿精神变态杀人狂来博取同情的地步，他很巧妙地编造了一个典型的常见凶杀案，杀人犯受到同样不讨人喜欢的受害人的挑衅。下面是“詹姆斯杀死邻居的故事”：

    没过多长时间，情况就变得越来越糟糕。他把垃圾倒在我家后院的篱笆旁边。我在他家房子的侧墙上喷上了红漆。然后，他在我的车库放火，我的车还停在车库里呢。他知道那辆车是我的骄傲和欢乐。那真是我的宝贝，我把它收拾得好好的。我睡醒的时候，他们已经把火扑灭了，可我的车毁了——彻底毁了！而他还在笑！我被气昏了——我没有喊叫；我一声都没有吭，但我浑身哆嗦，站都站不稳了。我当时就下了决心，他死定了。那天晚上，他回到家的时候，我拿着猎枪，在他家的前廊上等着他。他又笑了起来，说我是个懦夫，说我没有胆子做任何事。但是，我做了。我向他开了4枪。他当时就在门廊上咽了气。警察来的时候，我还拿着枪站在那里。

    （审讯员：你对做过的事情后悔吗？）

    现在？当然了。我知道杀人不对，没有人——包括他在内，应该这样被杀死。但是当时我全部的想法就是不能饶了他——他必受报应，我不想再看见他。（停顿）我向他开抢的时候，心里感到很痛快、很轻松。我觉得自己自由了。不再愤怒，不再害怕，也不再仇恨，但是这种感觉也就有一两分钟吧。他才是得到自由的人，而我要在监狱度过余生了。（停顿）看看我现在的样子。

    对杀人犯詹姆斯本人，采取换位思考的学生比做技术评估的学生还是要多一点点同情，但对杀人犯这个群体，无论是换位思考还是技术观察，两组学生的态度几乎没有发生变化。

    但是，意料之中还有意外。一两周后，参加实验的学生突然接到一个有关监狱改造的民调电话。（打电话的人是乔装改扮的巴特森实验研究人员，不过没有学生想到这一点。）民调中有一个问题涉及对谋杀犯的态度，它与学生实验问卷上的问题极为相似。研究人员希望在这个时间间隔上，显出换位思考的效果。那些在一两周之前尝试站在詹姆斯的角度看问题的学生对谋杀犯明显抱有更大的同情。研究人员称所追踪的这种延迟影响为“睡眠者效应”。当人们突然接触到原来不为他们所接受但却能够改变他们态度的信息时，比如本案中对杀人犯怀有某种温情，他们意识到这种令人不快的影响，因此有意识地加以排斥。随着时间的推移，他们的心理防线松懈了，内心的变化开始浮现。此项研究的要点在于，听到一个陌生人的故事，设身处地地进入他的角色，即使这个人属于被人们极端厌恶的群体，人们还是会真诚地对他和他所属的群体抱有更多同情——即使不能在听到他的故事后立刻就能做到这一点。

    在一个人际交往密切的世界上，人们有很多渠道接触陌生人的故事，包括面对面的交流、媒体的采访，还有各种回忆录和自传。那么，虚构世界的那部分信息流——让观众心甘情愿遭受折磨的小说、电影和电视剧的影响又如何呢？听故事的愉悦来自听者进入角色，然后对比各种不同角色的立场，比如故事中其他人物的立场、讲故事的人的立场和读者自己的立场。小说是不是一条扩张共情的隐秘途径？乔治·艾略特在1856年的散文中为这一心理假说进行过辩护：

    只有已经具备同情心和道德情操的人才能感悟理论和数字的感召力，但是，一个伟大的艺术家所展现的人类生活画面，可以让最平凡和最自私的人心动，让他们关切他们身外的世界，这或许可以叫作道德情操的原料。当司各特将我们带入走运佬马克雷白克特的小村舍，或者给我们讲述《两只鸽子》的故事；当华兹华斯向我们吟诵《苏珊的幻想》；当金斯利向我们展示奥尔顿·洛克如何可怜巴巴地凝望着大门，门外的大路通向他平生第一次见到的树林；当霍农描画出一群清扫烟囱的人，就沟通上层社会和下层社会，打破粗暴的排他性而言；他们的作品，超过了成百上千次布道和成百上千篇哲学论文。艺术最贴近生活，它让我们得以超越自身的局限，不断丰富我们人生的体验，不断扩展我们与同胞的交往。[62]

    当代历史学家林恩·亨特、哲学家玛莎·努斯鲍姆（Martha Nuss-baum）、心理学家雷蒙德·马尔（Raymond Mar）和基思·奥特利（Keith Oatley）等人强烈主张阅读小说是共情扩展的主要途径，也是推动人道主义进步的力量。[63]人们也许会认为，文学理论家会加入他们的阵营，全力证明文学理论研究的对象是推动时代进步的力量；而在这个时代，学生和资金居然纷纷弃文学而去。但是，许多文学理论家，比如《共情与小说》（Empathy and the Novel）的作者苏珊·基恩，对于阅读小说能够提升道德的建议甚至感到恼怒。在他们眼中，这种观点太庸俗、太功利、太低级趣味、太煽情、太奥普拉——太哗众取宠了！他们指出，阅读小说，迫不及待地看着书中反面人物倒霉遭殃，同样可以培养幸灾乐祸的情感。它可以强化对“另外那些人”居高临下的优越感。它甚至可能分流对现实中活生生的人的关注，将同情转向不存在的虚构受害者。他们还表示，我们完全没有必要闹出一大堆实验室数据来显示杜撰的作品可以共情。马尔、奥特利和他们的合作者都证明阅读小说的人在共情和社交机敏度测试中得分较高，但是这种相关性不能说明到底是阅读小说让他们更富有同情心，还是共情能力强的人更喜欢阅读小说。[64]

    如果虚构的体验不能产生真实体验一样的效果，那倒是让人觉得奇怪了，因为人们经常在自己的记忆中混淆两者。[65]有几项实验说明小说确实可以扩展同情。巴特森所做的一项广播节目实验中有一个对瘾君子的采访，参加实验的学生分为两组，一组被告知这位瘾君子真有其人，另一组被告知是演员在表演。[66]凡是被要求换位思考的听众都对瘾君子抱有更大的同情，不论他是真人现身还是演员表演（虽然在被告知是真实人物时，同情增多了些）。而在一个绘声绘色的说书人手中，虚构的人物甚至能够比真人有更强烈的感染力。文学理论家杰梅扬·哈克穆尔德（Jèmeljan Hakemulder）在他的著作《道德实验室》（The Moral Laboratory）一书中说，在实验中，实验参加者阅读了事实相同但题材不同的作品。作品都是关于阿尔及利亚妇女的悲惨处境，他们或者是通过马里克·默克戴姆（Malike Mokkeddem）的小说《流离失所》（The Displaced）的主人公的眼睛接触事实，或者是通过冉·古德温（Jan Goodwin）的纪实报告《荣誉的代价》（Price of Honor）来了解情况。[67]阅读小说的人比阅读纪实报告的人变得更加同情阿尔及利亚的妇女，因为他们更少将妇女的困境归咎于文化和宗教传统。这些实验让我们有理由相信，人道主义革命的编年表恰好排在通俗小说流行之后，不完全是一种巧合：换位思考确实有助于扩展同情圈。

    * * *

    共情研究已经证明，同情可以推动真正的利他主义，对个体的遭遇换位思考所产生的同情可以扩展至个体所在的群体，这个个体甚至可以只是小说中的虚构人物。人们一直在揣测，是对人类苦难的感受，以及减轻其苦难的真挚愿望推动了人道主义改革，实验研究证明了这一猜测。正因为如此，对历史上多种暴力下降的解释必须考虑到换位思考的认知过程和同情感所发挥的作用。我们这里所谈的暴力涉及有组织的暴力，例如残酷刑罚、奴隶制、滥用死刑；涉及日常弱势群体，例如妇女、儿童、同性恋、少数族裔和动物的虐待；还涉及杀人如麻的战争、征服和种族清洗。

    同时，研究还提醒我们，为什么我们不能拿“共情时代”或者“共情文明”作为解决我们问题的手段。共情也有它的阴暗面。[68]

    首先，当共情与社会的基本原则——公平相抵触的时候，它会危害人类的福祉。巴特森发现，当人们对身患重症的10岁小姑娘谢里产生共情后，他们选择让谢里跳过其他排队等候的孩子先得到治疗，尽管其他孩子的病情更重，已经等候了更长时间。共情在这里等于将其他孩子交给死亡和痛苦，仅仅因为共情者不知道他们的名字和故事。那些知道谢里的遭遇但没有对她产生共情的人，做出的决定反而更公正。[69]其他实验也得出了同样的结论。巴特森还发现，在公共品博弈中（成员向公库上交资源，公库获利后向成员进行再分配），博弈者可能对其他成员产生共情，比如读到报道说这位女子刚刚和男友分手了，于是将本应交给公库的资源转给这位女子；对公库贡献的减少，损害了所有成员的利益。[70]

    共情和公平之间的冲突不仅仅是实验室的兴趣所在，在真实世界，它可能产生沉重的后果。如果一个社会的领导人和政府雇员对自己的亲族和密友产生共情，关切地向他们发放特殊津贴，而不是铁面无私地分配给陌生人，社会将因此陷于灾难。裙带关系不仅侵蚀警察、政府和企业的生命力，而且在家族和种族之间开启对生活必需品的零和竞争，这样的竞争必定走向暴力。现代组织的核心是承担抽象的委托义务，而这些义务超越所有的共情关系。

    还有另外一个问题，作为谋求普世人类福祉的力量，共情过于狭隘。虽然有镜像神经元，但共情不是生理的自然反射，并不是每个人都能泛起同情心。共情像开关一样，可以打开，也可以关上，甚至走向反面，它取决于人们如何解释他们之间的关系。可怜可爱、容貌俊秀、亲族、朋友、相似的人或者具有共同利益的群体都可以激发共情。虽然共情可以通过换位思考向小圈子外扩展，但巴特森警告过，其扩展的余地非常有限，而且为时可能非常短暂。[71]期望人类的共情梯度可以平展扩张、无限伸延，人们待所有的陌生人都如同家人和友人，这曾是20世纪的乌托邦梦想，它实际上要求对人性进行不切实际的压制，而压制的结果还未必如愿。[72]

    压制人性也是完全没必要的。扩展共情圈不等于说我们必须对地球上每一个人的痛苦都感同身受。没有任何人有这样多的时间和精力，即使我们的共情可以勉强铺张开来，伸展向更远的人群，但这样肯定会导致情感不堪重负，怜悯心产生疲劳。[73]《旧约》指示我们要爱我们的邻居，《新约》教导我们要爱我们的敌人。但道德理性似乎应该是：爱你的邻居和敌人，因此不要去杀害他们。坦率地说，我不爱我的邻居，更不要说敌人了。所以，更准确的表述应该是：不要杀害你的邻居和敌人，即使你完全不爱他们。

    真正得到扩展的与其说是共情圈，不如说是权利圈——对其他生命做出承诺，不论这些生命与我们多么不同、多么疏远，都应该免于被伤害和被剥夺。在激发人们的良知，关切受歧视集团方面，共情发挥了历史性的重要作用。但光有这些良知的感悟是不够的。共情之所以能够发挥作用，在于它推动改变了决定社会如何对待这些团体成员的政策和规则。在历史上有些关键时刻，对生命价值的新感受很可能扭转精英的决策和大众的传统观点。但是，我们将在本书讨论理性的部分看到，要克服共情固有的狭隘性，非常需要抽象的道德讨论。我们的最终目标应该是让政策和规则成为我们的第二天性，共情则成为非必需品。事实上，共情就像爱，并不是我们所需要的一切。

    自制

    自从亚当和夏娃偷吃了禁果，奥德修斯将自己捆缚在桅杆上，蚂蚁储存食物时蚱蜢尽展歌喉，圣奥古斯丁祈祷“求主让我贞洁——不过现在还不是时候”以来，人类就一直在为自制而挣扎。在当今世界，自制成为越来越紧要的美德，因为我们已经驯服了自然的灾难，我们的痛苦绝大部分都是我们自作自受的结果。我们暴饮暴食、抽烟、聚赌、透支信用卡、轻薄滥情，沉溺于海洛因、可卡因和电子邮件不能自拔。

    暴力也是一个自制力的问题。研究人员罗列了长长的暴力风险因素，包括自私、羞辱、嫉妒、部落偏见、挫折感、拥挤、热天气以及雄性。当然，世界上大致有一半的生命是雄性，我们都被羞辱过，都有嫉妒心，都遭遇过挫折，或者都在还没出拳时就已经被吓出一身冷汗。无处不在的凶杀幻想也说明，我们不能消灭暴力的诱惑，只不过是学会了抵制这种诱惑而已。

    现代欧洲的凶杀率下降到中世纪欧洲的1/30，自制力被认为是导致这一历史性趋势的最主要因素。我们讲到过诺贝特·埃利亚斯有关文明进程的理论，国家权力的巩固和商业的发展不仅扭转了激励机制，让人们放弃了强盗生意；它也向人们不断地灌输自制伦理，终于让克制和得体成为人们的第二天性。人们控制住自己不再在衣橱里小便，不再在公共场合性交，不再在餐桌旁放屁，不再抱着骨头大啃，啃到一半又把骨头放回到菜盘子里的同时，也控制住自己不再在餐桌上互相动刀子和互相割掉鼻子。在荣誉文化中，受到羞辱立刻施以报复的人受到尊敬，而在尊严文化中，能够克制自己的冲动的人才值得尊重。在20世纪60年代发达国家和去殖民化后的发展中国家出现暴力增加的同时，人们也不再珍视自制力，长者不再遵纪守法，年轻人更可以肆意妄为。

    缺乏自制也会带来大规模的暴力冲突。很多愚蠢的战争和动乱的起因都是领袖或社群对某人某事大肆鞭挞，其实第二天早上，他们就已经对自己的出言不逊而感到后悔。这里列举两个典型的实例：1968年，马丁·路德·金遇刺后，美国非裔在自己的社区放火抢劫；2006年，真主党发动一次袭击之后，以色列彻底摧毁了黎巴嫩的基础设施。[74]

    在本节中，我将以在前一节探究共情是否支持扩展同情圈的方式，从科学的角度探讨自制力，论证它是否支持“文明进程论”。文明进程论，就像弗洛伊德的本我和自我理论，对人类的神经系统做出了若干非常明确的说明，我们将逐一进行检视。大脑里是否确实存在一个冲动和自制的竞争系统？对于人类的种种恶习，从暴饮暴食到滥交再到拖延症，从小偷小摸到严重侵犯，自制力是不是驯服它们的唯一力量？如果答案是肯定的，那么个人是否有办法增强自己的自制力？自制力的调整是否能够遍布全社会，从而改造社会的特性，形成新的自我约束？

    * * *

    让我们先来理解自制力这个概念，以及它在什么情况下是理性的，在什么情况下是非理性的。[75]首先，让我们撇开纯粹的自私自利，即损人利己，我们要观察的是自我放纵，即为了自己眼前的愉快而给自己带来长期的伤害。事例不胜枚举。今天的美食，明天的脂肪；今天的尼古丁，明天的癌症；今天歌舞狂欢，明天要付乐师的账单；今天性交，明天怀孕、得性病或者嫉妒；今天大打出手，明天就生活在瓦砾之中。

    及时行乐并不一定是非理性。说到底，星期二的你和星期三的你相比，不会因为在星期二吃了一块巧克力就缺点儿什么。相反，星期二的你可能因此更有价值。如果那块巧克力足够大，帮你填饱肚子，星期二吃了它让你不再饥肠辘辘，而把它留到星期三，则意味着你星期二可能要挨饿。再说，你克制自己在星期二享用这块巧克力的欲望，但你可能当晚长眠不醒，无论是星期二的你，还是星期三的你，都永远没有机会享用这块巧克力了。最后，你将巧克力藏起来，它还有可能变质，也可能失窃，反正让现在的你和将来的你都尝不到一点儿甜头。

    所有的东西都有自己的价值，及时行乐也是有代价的。这就是为什么我们借出钱，一定要收取利息。明天的1美元比今天的1美元价值要低（即使我们假定没有通货膨胀），利息就是我们给两者之差决定的价格。人们按照单位时间内固定利率计算利息，也就是说，它是利上加利，或者叫作呈指数增加。利息补偿了人们在收回本金之前，随着时间的流逝本金所失去的价值，这种贬值也呈指数形态。为什么会呈指数变化呢？每过去一天，你都有可能死亡，借款人也可能逃匿或者破产，你可能再也见不到自己的这笔钱财了。而每过去一天，发生这些不幸事件的概率就增加一点儿，你要求的补偿也因此相应地翻番。至于享乐，对理性人来说，如果必须在纵情今朝还是快乐明天之间做决定，那么，只有在明天的快乐呈指数放大的情况下才会选择快乐明天。换句话说，是理性人，就应该对未来打折扣，以放弃某些第二天打了折扣的快乐为代价，享受一下今天的快乐。为了能够在90岁的生日晚会上挥霍一把，而让一个人节衣缩食一辈子，这可太没有意思了！

    只有在我们过分忽视未来的时候，也就是我们将未来的自己过分贬值，以至于在未来的自己还可能活着享受储蓄的时候，已经将储蓄挥霍一空时，这时的自我放纵才成为一种非理性。在数学意义上，有一个最佳未来折现率，亦即最佳利率——它计算了人的预期寿命，保有储蓄的可能性，你的资源最多能够维持多少时间，以及在生命的不同阶段（比如年富力强的时候和年老体衰的时候），你能享用的资源。“吃喝玩乐吧，反正我们明天都是要死的”这个观点是完全合理的，如果我们真的能够肯定我们明天就会死掉。但是，如果我们还有明天，而我们却像没有明天一样暴饮暴食，那就是非理性的。过度的自我放纵，缺乏自制，是让我们自己的未来过度贬值，等于是为我们放弃的某些快乐索取过高的利息。没有任何合理的利息率，能够让我们20岁时抽烟的快乐与50岁时癌症的痛苦等价。

    当今社会人类缺乏自制力的行为，大多来自折现未来的意识，而这个意识很可能是在史前时代就已经被植入了我们的神经系统；当时我们祖先面对的是一个充满不确定性的世界，人们的寿命很短，也没有多少储备手段能够应付数年之后的需要。[76]经济学家已经注意到，当人们只能听天由命的情况下，他们为退休所存的积蓄非常之少，仿佛总是觉得自己活不了几年了。[77]行为经济学家理查德·塞勒（Richard Thaler）和卡斯·桑斯坦（Cass Sunstein）等人提出了“自由意志家长制”（libertarian paternalism）理论，其依据正在于此。他们提出政府应该——在人民的同意之下——在人民的现在和人民的未来之间实行倾斜性政策。[78]实例之一是将加入退休金计划作为工资单上的一项自动预置，让人们选择退出计划，而不是让人们选择加入计划。另外一个实例就是将销售税转嫁到最不健康的食品上。

    但是，意志软弱的表现还不仅是过分地无视未来。如果我们只是将未来的自己过度贬值，我们也许是做了不利的选择，但是这些选择不会随时间的推移和其他可能性的流逝而变化。如果我们内心有一个声音不断地大声喊叫说“立刻上甜品”，这个声音完全淹没了小声嘟囔的“脂肪脂肪”，那么，不论是在5分钟内拿到甜品，还是在5个小时内拿到甜品，结果都是一样的。但在现实中，人们的偏好可以随着对象是否立等可取而变换，这种现象也称为“近视贴现”（myopic discounting）。[79]我们在酒店的房间里填写次日早餐的订单，可以毫不犹豫地选择无脂酸奶加水果，但如果是站在自助早餐的食台前，我们却会挑选煎五花咸肉和牛角酥。许多实验显示，很多生物都有同样的倾向，即在两个遥远的收益之间进行选择的时候，宁愿选择较大的收益，即使要等待更长的时间。比如，如果你有两个选择，第一个是在一个7天内得到10美元，第二个是在8天内得到11美元，你会选择第二个。但是，如果两个选择近在眼前，人们就会失去自制力，偏好发生变化，我们会选择立刻到手的好处，哪怕分量小一些，而放弃还要等待更长时间的那个好处，哪怕它的数量会大一些：就是今天，10美元！宁愿今天立刻到手10美元，也不想等到明天拿11美元。对单纯的贴现未来而言，只要贴现率合理，选择贴现就是合理的，但近视贴现与此不同，近视带来的偏好逆转，绝对没有理性可言。而所有的生物都是近视的。

    喜欢数学思维的经济学家和心理学家用数学解释近视偏好反转，他们认为，生物进行的是“双曲线贴现”（hyperbolic discounting），而不是更理性的指数贴现。[80]当我们为自己的未来计算折旧的时候，并不是在必须等待的每个单位时间内，将回报的主观价值重复乘上一个固定的折旧率，即第一步是为折扣原值的一半，然后折旧1/4、1/8、1/16等等，而是用递减折旧率计算每个时间单位的主观原值，即表现为首先是原值折扣一半，然后是1/3、1/4、1/5，以此类推。在定量表述之外，我们还可以更直观和定性地表述这个观点。双曲线是一条有一个突凸的曲线，如同一条陡直下降的曲线和另一条几乎平缓的曲线焊接在一起。而指数曲线则像是一条斜率不变的平滑下降的滑雪道。这一数学解释和心理学对近视贴现的解释相一致，有心理学理论认为近视贴现来自大脑的两个系统，一个系统处理当下的享受，另一个处理遥远的或者完全假想的享受。[81]托马斯·谢林这样说：“有些时候，人们的行为仿佛他们有两个自我；一个自我想要一个干净的肺，长命百岁，另一个自我则酷爱烟草；或者一个自我想要身材苗条，另一个则喜爱甜食；或者一个自我想要阅读亚当·斯密来提高自己……另一个只想看个电视上的老电影。”[82]弗洛伊德关于本我和自我的理论，以及俗话说的人类的过失是身体内有小魔鬼在捣乱的结果（“我真是中了邪了”），都是对自制力如同脑子里有小人在打架一样的直觉描述。心理学家沃尔特·米歇尔（Walter Mischel）和珍妮特·梅特卡夫（Janet Metcalfe）以孩子为对象进行了近视贴现的实验研究，他让孩子们在立刻得到一颗棉花糖和15分钟后得到两颗棉花糖之间做出痛苦的选择；他们认为，即刻享用的渴望来自大脑的“热系统”，而等待的耐心来自“冷系统”。[83]

    在本书前面的章节中，我们已经看到了大脑的冷热两个系统的轮廓：大脑的边缘系统（图8-2显示了这一系统的主要部分）和脑额叶部分（见图8-3）。边缘系统包括愤怒回路、恐惧回路和优势回路，它们从中脑穿过下丘脑直到杏仁核；属于边缘系统的还有受多巴胺驱动的寻求回路，它从中脑穿过下丘脑到达大脑纹状体。两条路径均与眶额皮层和脑额叶有双向的联系，而眶额皮层和脑额叶调控着这些情感回路的活动，从而控制人们的行为。我们能否说，自制是大脑的边缘系统和脑额叶之间的一场拔河赛？

    2004年，经济学家戴维·莱布森（David Laibson）和乔治·罗文斯坦（George Loewenstein）、心理学家萨缪尔·麦克卢尔（Samuel Mc-Clure）和神经成像专家乔纳森·科恩组成的课题小组试图通过两个大脑系统之间的较量解释近视贴现之谜。他们将两个系统命名为“边缘蚱蜢”（limbic grasshoper）和“脑额叶蚂蚁”（frontal lobeant）。[84]参加实验的人躺在扫描仪下对两笔奖赏进行选择，比如说，或者很快可以得到5美元，或者等几个星期得到40美元。研究人员想知道，大脑对于“在立刻拿到5美元2两周后拿到40美元之间选择”与“2周内拿到5美元和6周内拿到40美元之间选择”的处理是否不同。答案是，确实不同。在唾手可得的满足感面前，立刻满足的可能性让实验对象的大脑纹状体和内侧眶额皮层部分闪闪发亮。而两种选择都会让背外侧前额叶皮层发亮，脑额叶的这个部分负担较冷静的更有意识的信息。更妙的是，神经成像专家可以清晰地读出实验对象的想法。当他们的侧前额叶皮层比边缘系统更活跃的时候，他们抗住诱惑，选择延迟但更大的收获；当边缘体和侧前额叶同样活跃甚至更活跃的时候，他们屈服于眼前的诱惑，选择尽管数量较小却可以最快到手的收获。

    如图8-3中前部发达的大脑显示，前额叶包括许多部件，构造复杂，它们涉及多重自制功能。[85]前额叶的最后端，即连接顶叶的部位，就是所谓的运动神经，它控制全身的肌肉。紧挨在运动神经前面的是运动前区，承担组织运动指令，形成更复杂的运动形式；人们最早就是在这个区域发现了镜像神经元。在这个区域之前的部位被称为“前额叶皮层”，它包括我们已经反复提及的背外侧、眶额/腹内侧皮层区域，以及左右两个大脑顶端的额极。额极有时候也被称为“前额叶之前额叶”，当人们选择放弃即刻但较小的收获，追求延迟但更大的收获时，额极连同背外侧皮层特别活跃。[86]

    与那些把自己的学生塞进扫描仪的科学家相比，对前额叶与自制力之间关系的新发现，丝毫没有让传统的神经病学，即那些治疗脑伤的神经科医生感到惊讶。很多脑外伤病人的病因都是过度折扣了自己的未来，开车不系安全带，或者骑摩托车不戴头盔。为了早一秒钟上路，或者为了风撩头皮的快感，他们放弃了未来的更大收益——免于事故，保住自己的前额叶完整无损。这笔交易实在太不划算了。据说，前额叶受伤的病人都变得刺激驱动。他们看见梳子，会立刻拿起来梳理自己的头发；只要眼前有食物，就忍不住要向嘴里送；让他们冲澡，不去叫他们出来，他们就会一直站在淋浴喷头下面。完好的前额叶是人们摆脱刺激性控制的前提，它负担着让人们的行动服务于自己的目的和计划的功能。

    当头部受到硬物撞击，前额叶与颅骨发生冲击后会受到严重损伤。在美国铁路工头菲尼亚斯·盖奇遭受的意外中，一根钢钎扎穿了他的眶额皮层和腹内侧皮层，但没有伤及外侧和最前端的部位。他的故事告诉我们，前额叶的不同部位涉及不同的自制力。盖奇的记录显示，他丧失了“智能和动物本能之间”的平衡。今天的神经学家也认为，眶额皮层负担着协调情感和行为的主要功能。眶额皮层受损的病人变得冲动，不负责任，不能集中注意力，社交失态，有时候甚至变得暴力。神经科学家安东尼奥·达马西奥（Antonio Damasio）认为，这种病状的症结是病人对情感信号缺乏敏感。他证明，这些病人在牌桌上出牌的时候，无论输赢概率，他们都不会冒冷汗，而正常人在输钱风险特大的时候，都会有紧张冒汗的体验。[87]这种情感驱动的自制——我们将之称为忧患（apprehension）——有着古老的进化历史，哺乳动物如老鼠都有非常发达的眶额皮层（见图8-1）。

    但是，还存在着更冷静的、规则驱动的自制力，前额叶的外层和最前端部位承担这类自制力的调控，这部分大脑主要是在人类进化过程中才出现的。[88]我们已经看到，当涉及在两个延后的享受之间进行选择时，以及是在扳动脱轨车厢的行车道岔撞死1名工人，或者任车厢留在原轨道上撞死5名工人之间进行选择时，背外侧额叶皮层负责对成本收益进行理性计算。[89]额极在指令链上居于更高的地位，人类的生活充满各种欲求之间的竞争，神经科学家认为额极让这些竞争顺利地展开。[90]每当我们同时面临多重任务，探索新的问题，恢复中断的话题，或者每当我们在梦想和专注现实世界之间进行切换的时候，额极开始活跃介入。额极让我们能够分神关注一个杂念，然后又跳回原来正在进行的工作，就像我们有时候因为缺少一味原料中断烹饪，跑到商店买回作料后再接着烹炸煎炒。神经科学家艾蒂安·克什兰（Etienne Koechlin）对前额叶的功能做了这样的总结：它最后端的部位负责对刺激做出反应；侧额叶负责处理故事的背景环境，额极则专注于故事的主要情节本身。具体说，当电话铃声响起，我们拿起电话，这是我们对刺激做出反应。如果我们是在朋友家中做客，我们会任凭电话铃声一直响下去，直到主人自己拿起电话，这是我们对场景进行回应。如果我们的朋友正在洗澡，告诉我们替他接一下电话，这是我们对具体的情节做出反应。

    这几个层次的自制力发生故障时，就会导致冲动型暴力。拿对儿童进行粗暴体罚来说，反对暴力已经是现代西方的父母固有的准则，他们对打孩子这样的想法几乎会产生生理反感，这可以说是眶额皮层做出的反应。其他时代和其他文化下的父母（比如那些会对孩子说“等你爸爸回家再说”的母亲）也许会根据孩子捣蛋的程度来调整自己对打孩子的态度，比如孩子是在家中闯祸还是在外面闯祸；如果是在家里调皮，当时家中是否有客人在场。自制力比较弱的父母，或者认为孩子的行为让他们无法容忍的父母，有可能大发雷霆，就是说他们大脑内的愤怒回路挣脱了前额叶的控制，将孩子痛揍一顿，下手之重，这些父母自己事后也会后悔莫及。

    艾德里安·雷尼以前曾经发现，精神变态者和冲动型杀人犯或者眶额皮层部位很小，或者反应迟钝。他最近又进行了一项神经成像实验。实验证明，来自边缘系统的冲动和来自前额叶的自制力出现失衡会导致暴力。[91]他对一群殴打妻子的丈夫进行了脑扫描，让他们看一些带有负面情感色彩的单词印刷图片，例如愤怒、仇恨、恐怖和惧怕等，告诉他们尽量忽略单词的含义，只要指出单词的印刷颜色 [此类测试注意力的方式被称为“叫色测试”（Stroop task）]。家暴男子在指出颜色的时候反应迟缓，心理学家认为这是因为他们内心充满激愤，对负面情感词汇超级敏感。正常人可以毫不延迟地指出印刷字体的颜色，完全不受词汇含义的影响；与这些正常人的大脑相比，家暴男子的边缘系统（包括脑岛和纹状体）更加活跃，而背外侧额叶皮层则比较迟钝。我们可以猜测在冲动型攻击者的大脑中，来自边缘系统的进攻性冲动较强烈，前额叶操控的自制力却较弱。

    * * *

    当然，大多数人都不是极端缺乏自制力，所以大多数人都不曾卷入暴力行为。但即使在非暴力的大多数人中，也有些人的自制力强过另外一些人。除了智商之外，没有其他特质比自制力更能预示一个人的健康和成功了。[92]沃尔特·米歇尔在20世纪60年代后期对推迟享受进行了实验。在实验中，他给孩子们两个选择：立刻得到一颗棉花糖，或者等一会儿得到两颗棉花糖。他一直追踪着这些参加实验的孩子，直到他们长大成人。[93]10年之后，对这些长大了的孩子再次进行实验的结果证明，在棉花糖实验中显示出较强意志力的孩子，青春期调整顺利，SAT（学业能力倾向测验）分数更高，在校就读的时间更长。十几二十年后，这些孩子已经进入成年，那些有耐心的孩子，成年后很少服用可卡因，有更强的自尊心，人际关系更好，懂得如何应对压力，很少有边缘型人格障碍问题，有更高的学位，挣钱也更多。

    其他对样本更大的青少年和成年人的研究得出了类似的结论。成年人都能做到为两颗棉花糖多忍耐一会儿，但是我们也看到，面对“是今天拿到5美元还是等两周之后拿40美元”时，他们同样遇到了挑战。莱布森、克里斯托弗·查布里斯（Christopher Chabris）、克里斯·柯比（Kris Kirby）、安杰拉·达克沃思（Angela Duckworth）、马丁·塞利格曼（Martin Seligman）和其他人进行的研究也发现，那些选择延后但是更大回报的人，也是学习成绩更好、体重更轻、抽烟少、锻炼多、每个月都付清信用卡账单的人。[94]

    鲍迈斯特和他的合作者用另外一种方式测度自制力。[95]他们让大学生对下述这些句子进行评级来暴露自己的自制力：

    我有抵御诱惑的能力。

    我心里想什么都忍不住要说出来。

    我从来不会失去自制。

    我总是随心所欲。

    我太容易发脾气。

    我守不住秘密。

    如果我行动前能停下来想一想就好了。

    我太贪玩了，经常因此不能完成工作。

    我总是很准时。

    研究人员对评级中迎合社会偏好的倾向进行校正，将各种反应综合为一个测度习惯性自制力的单一指标。他们发现，得分高的学生往往学习成绩好，很少有饮食失调问题，较少饮酒，较少有身心病痛，很少精神紧张、抑郁、恐惧和偏执，有较强的自尊和良知，与家人保持良好的关系，有稳定的朋友，较少发生事后后悔的性关系，不太能够想象自己婚姻出轨欺骗配偶，较少有“发泄”或者“出气”的需要，更多感到愧疚，但很少感到羞耻。[96]有自制力的人更能够替他人着想，虽然他们具有同样的同情心，但他们对他人困境的反应不会太紧张。通常认为，那些自制力太强的人紧张、压抑、神经质、不善交往，强迫症人格，性心理停留在性心理发育阶段。但事实与此相反，研究人员发现，人们的自制力越强，他们生活得越好。自制力评级最高的人心理也最健康。

    自制力弱的人是否容易行使暴力？至少有间接的证据显示答案是肯定的。第3章中我们谈过的迈克尔·戈特弗里德森（Michael Gottfredson）、特拉维斯·赫希（Travis Hirschi）、詹姆斯·Q.威尔逊和理查德·赫恩斯坦（Richard Herrnstein）所推崇的犯罪理论，即犯罪的人也是自制力最弱的人。[97]他们总是经受不住眼前来路不正的小诱惑，不肯等待需要长期诚实耕耘的果实，比如远离监狱。暴力型的青少年和年轻人往往有违反校规的历史，他们很容易卷入证明他们缺乏自制力的各种麻烦，比如酒驾、吸毒酗酒、事故、考试不及格、滥交、失业，以及一些非暴力的犯罪，比如盗窃、破坏他人财产和偷车。许多暴力犯罪都属于典型的冲动型。一个人本来只是要到店里买包香烟，结果却头脑发热掏出枪抢劫了收银机，或者受到某人的谩骂或侮辱，拔出刀捅死了挑衅者。

    为了说明这一理论的普遍意义，我们必须能够表示心理学上的自制力与犯罪学上的自制力两个概念相符合；前一个概念以选择即时的小报偿或选择未来的大报偿来衡量，或者以自我冲动评级来衡量，而后一个概念以实际发生的暴力为量度。米歇尔检测了城市初中里的孩子，他发现那些能够为得到更多巧克力糖豆而等候更长时间的孩子，更少卷入打架或与同伴发生冲突。[98]很多对老师给学生评语所做的研究证实，在老师眼中，冲动的孩子往往具有较强的进攻性。[99]心理学家阿夫沙洛姆·卡斯皮（Avshalom Caspi）和泰里·莫菲特（Terri Moffitt）做过一项特别富有信息量的研究，他们对新西兰但尼丁市1972年和1973年出生的全部儿童进行追踪。[100]在3岁时被鉴定为“低度控制”（undercontrolled），即冲动、焦躁、抗拒性、不能集中注意力和情绪波动的儿童进入21岁后成为罪犯的可能性要高很多。（这项研究没有区分犯罪是不是暴力犯罪，但对同一样本进行的后续研究显示，暴力犯罪与非暴力犯罪高度相关。）[101]导致这些人高犯罪倾向的原因之一很可能在于他们对行为后果的预期非常不同。根据他们对问卷的回答，控制力低的人倾向于认为自己连续犯罪后被抓获的可能性不大，他们还认为违法行为被发现后失去亲友尊重的可能性也很小。

    青少年时期是自制力不断增长的时期，他们选择放弃眼前的小甜头，得到未来更大报偿的意愿越来越强烈，这种变化影响到青少年的犯罪轨迹。产生这一变化的部分原因是大脑的发育成熟。20岁之前，前额叶皮层的各种连接尚未完成，外侧和额极区是大脑中最后发育成熟的部位。[102]但是自制力不是故事的全部。如果自制力是导致行为不端的唯一原因，随着年龄的增长，青少年的麻烦应该越来越少，而事实并非如此。暴力不仅和自制力有关，而且和行使自制力的欲望有关。[103]青春期也是被称为“寻求刺激”（sensation-seeking）冲动发生涨落的年纪，这一冲动的动力来自大脑中寻求回路的活动。其活跃程度在18岁时达到峰值。[104]受睾丸素支配的雄性间竞争在青春期也处于上升状态。[105]虽然20岁左右的年轻人的大脑前额叶开始成熟，但对感官刺激和竞争的追求很可能压倒自制力的增长，让年轻人表现得更加暴力。长期而言，随着人生阅历的增加，年轻人终于明白追求刺激和竞争要付出代价，而自制则带来收获，此时自制力才会占上风。青少年犯罪的弧线是这几种动能合力的结果。[106]

    所以，自制力从幼年起就是表现人和人之间差异的一种稳定的特质。至今还没有人对双胞胎和领养儿童进行过自制力行为研究，例如孩子面对棉花糖的诱惑以及其他对成人的类似标准实验，而探讨自制力的遗传性非常需要有这样的研究。不过，我们基本上可以肯定地说，自制力和遗传有关，因为差不多每一种心理特质都具有部分遗传性。[107]自制和智力具有某种相关性（在-1和1的区间内，相关系数为0.23左右），两个特质都依赖于大脑的同一部位，虽然依赖的方式不完全相同。[108]智力本身与犯罪高度相关——比较迟钝的人既更多地行使暴力，也更多地成为暴力的受害者，虽然我们无法证明高自制力到底是高智力的结果，还是高智力的原因，这两个特质对非暴力各有其作用。[109]说明自制力具有遗传性的另一个线索是，以缺乏自制、注意缺陷多动障碍（此病症也与违法乱纪和犯罪有关联）为代表的症候属于遗传性非常强的人格特质。[110]

    就我们目前所知，缺乏自制力走向暴力的证据所证明的是相关性。因为人们发现，有些人比另外一些人缺少自制力，而这些人也更容易行为不端、发怒和犯罪。但是，相关性不能证明因果。自制力弱的人更倾向犯罪也许是因为他们智力不高，或者是因为他们生长的环境太糟糕，或许他们还有其他一些宏观上的缺陷。更重要的是，某一个因人而异的特质无法解释我们试图回答的问题：为什么历史上暴力水平发生了变化。为了证明这一点，我们需要证明个人放松自制会产生什么样的暴力结果。我们还必须能够证明，人民和社会能够不断地培养自制力，以此制约暴力。下面，让我们看看我们是否能够找到这些此前没有留意到的关系。

    * * *

    一个人和一种欲望做斗争，需要付出艰苦的努力。许多有关自制的成语和词语都表现出自制是一种力量，比如意志力、毅力、意志坚强和自我抵制。语言学家勒·塔尔梅（Len Talmy）已经说过，有关自制的词语均来自与力量有关的语言，仿佛自制力是我们脑子里的一个小人，正在与顽强的对手进行肉搏。[111]我们在语言中使用同样的句型说萨莉强行推开了门和萨莉强迫自己继续工作，比菲控制住自己的狗和比菲控制住自己没有发脾气。还有很多概念隐喻，比如“自制就是力量”。人们发现这一隐喻实际上有着神经生物学的真实依据。

    鲍迈斯特和他的合作者在一系列出色的实验中证明，自制就像是人体的肌肉，会变得疲劳。让我引用他们的一篇论文中方法论部分的片段，这些文字翔实地说明了他们的实验过程：

    实验参加者报名参加一项有关味觉的实验。研究人员为每一名参加者安排一次个人测试时间，要求参加者在测试之前少吃一顿饭，保证三个小时之内不能吃任何东西。

    研究人员在实验参加者到达之前精心布置了实验场地。一个小烤箱里烘烤着巧克力饼干。整个房间弥漫着新烘焙糕点的诱人香味。实验参加者落座的桌子上摆着另外两种食物，一盘是巧克力饼干配着巧克力糖，还有一碗红白小萝卜。[112]

    主题故事是，这是关于感觉记忆的实验，参加者对两种截然不同的味道中的一种进行体验，一小段时间后，回忆味道的品质。研究人员告诉一半的实验参加者吃两三块饼干，告诉另一半实验参加者吃两三颗小萝卜。做完说明后，她离开房间，从单向视窗后观察实验对象，确认他们没有违规。论文中有如下记载：“他们中有些人明确地表现出对巧克力的兴趣，不过只是眼馋地看着盘子中的巧克力，有几位甚至拿起巧克力饼干闻了闻。”然后研究人员告诉他们，为了测试味觉记忆，他们要坐在那里等候15分钟。在这段时间，他们做用铅笔描画几何图形的解谜游戏，游戏要求是描线不得重复，铅笔不能离开纸面。为了增加心理压力，研究人员给实验对象的都是些无解的游戏题，旨在测试他们在放弃之前能够坚持多长时间。品尝饼干的人在游戏上投入18.9分钟，进行了34.3次尝试，而吃小萝卜的人在游戏上花了8.4分钟，进行了19.4次尝试。可以说，吃小萝卜的人在抗拒饼干诱惑上消耗了太多精力，以至于没有更多的耐心尝试解谜了。鲍迈斯特将这一现象称为自我消耗（ego depletion），这里的自我是弗洛伊德意义上的自我，即控制激情的自我意识。

    这项研究受到很多争议：也许吃萝卜的人只是感到沮丧，或者气愤，或者情绪不佳，或者就是饿了。但是鲍迈斯特的研究团队逐一回应了这些批评，随后10年不断积累的大量实验证明，从事任何需要一定毅力的工作，都会妨碍同时完成另外一项也需要毅力的工作。下面是几项消耗自我的工作：

    .说出一个颜色词的印刷颜色（比如蓝色印刷的“红”字），不要受颜色词本身的影响（即“叫色测试”）。

    .两个相邻的屏幕，一个上面播放一出喜剧录像，实验参加者被要求不要注意喜剧，集中注意力跟踪另一个屏幕上移动的方格，就像玩猜豆子游戏。

    .就“为什么应该涨学费”写一篇具有说服力的演讲稿。

    .写一篇散文，描述一个胖子生命中普通的一天，但要不落俗套。

    .看电影《母女情深》（Terms of Endearment）中德博拉·温格在死前和孩子道别的场景，但不能表现出任何感情。

    .让一个有种族偏见的人长时间地与一位美国非裔谈话。

    .写下脑子里所有的念头，同时不能想起北极熊。[113]

    下面是人们丧失意志力的结果：

    .在用手挤压一杆把柄的同时做拼字游戏，或者看着一部绝对无聊的电影——片子的全部内容就是桌子上放着一只盒子，人们会在较短时间里提出放弃。

    .在味觉实验中品尝了一勺冰激凌之后，违背自己的节食规则，吃了更多的冰激凌。

    .在品酒实验中多喝啤酒，尽管马上就要参加模拟驾驶考试。

    .在拼字游戏中无法克制性意识，比如将“NISEP”这5个字母拼成“penis”（阴茎），而不是“spine”（脊椎）。

    .无法在教别人打高尔夫球推杆入洞的同时和另外一个人谈话。

    .在看到让自己心动的手表、汽车和游艇的时候，出价超过原来的预算。

    .在参加有关口香糖、糖果、玉米薄脆片或者和纸牌游戏有关的研究中，每当有研究人员调皮地减价推销这些东西，实验参加者往往将刚刚挣到的小钱花个精光。

    通过设定不同的控制条件，心理学家可以排除其他可能性，比如疲劳、难度、情绪和缺乏自信。测度的唯一共性是需要多大的自制力。

    这项研究提出一个重要的观点，自制力可以掩盖个体之间的差异。[114]所以，20世纪60年代的流行文化诋毁节制和自制力，同时抨击社会的一致性，大家推崇的口号是“做你自己的事情”。每个人都有自己的事情，但是社会所坚持的只有一件事情，所以我们必须通过自制完成这件事情。如果自制让个性扁平化，我们也可以预测，一旦自我消耗殆尽，个性会反弹回来。而这正是鲍迈斯特的研究团队所发现的一个现象。在“品尝冰激凌实验”中，在事先没有提醒实验参加者注意克制自己的情况下，节食的人和饮食正常的人吃下相同分量的冰激凌。但在意志力被消耗的情况下，节食的人会吃下更多冰激凌。“自我消耗”凸显出的个体差异还包括偏见水平不同的人固守成见的程度不同，酒鬼和饮酒适度的人在实验中喝下的啤酒数量不同，以及羞涩的人和开朗的人持续聊天闲扯的时间长短不同。

    鲍迈斯特的小组还证实了一个维多利亚时代的观点，人——特别是男人，在控制性欲方面需要调动意志力。[115]在一项研究中，心理学家评估了两个人在发生一夜情式的随意性交之前，一个人对另外一个人的情感接近程度。不仅个体之间有差别，男女之间也有明显的差别，伍迪·艾伦影片中的一段对话可以作为对这一差别的写照：黛安娜·基顿说，“我相信，没有爱的性体验毫无意义”，伍迪·艾伦回答，“是的，但是没有意义的体验也是体验，而且是最好的体验之一”。在此项研究的实验参加者中，研究人员先让一半的人经受了自我消耗——根据不断变换的规则玩串字游戏，然后告诉所有人，让他们想象自己本来正与某人发展着浪漫关系，但是突然发现自己和另一位极具魅力的异性在酒店房间里相会。接着，研究人员询问他们是否想象自己屈服于性的诱惑。不论是否经受过自我消耗，凡是认为没有爱的性关系毫无意义的人（不分性别）都想象自己会抵制诱惑。但是，对那些接受一夜情式性关系的人来说，瞬间的意志软弱则带来非常不同的结果：如果他们刚刚经过自我消耗，他们中很多人会想象自己屈服于诱惑。

    两性之间在此问题上有巨大的差别。当人们意志力旺盛的时候，男女之间没有区别，两性都抗拒想象的不忠；当人们的意志力被消磨之后，女性仍然继续拒绝欺骗，而很多男子开始想象自己出轨。有些人认为自己意志力强，有些人则认为自己没有多少自制力——这里不考虑短暂的自我消耗，对这两类人进行的简单分析，也说明风流需要自制。在自制力强的人中，不论男女都不能想象自己欺骗伴侣，但在自制力弱的人当中，男性则想象自己会出轨。失去了自制力的羁绊，男子的行为更符合演化心理学对他们的估测。

    鲍迈斯特和盖略特（Gailliot）继续推进实验，目的是探究自制力对真实的——不是想象的——性行为有什么样的影响。他们邀请成双成对的伴侣进行实验，这些人或者是已经有相当长的性关系，或者是刚刚开始他们的性关系；研究人员将他们分开，然后分别进行自我消耗（要求他们在嘈杂的环境中集中注意力观看一部非常无聊的电影）；再让他们相聚，研究人员似乎有事要离开实验室几分钟，给伴侣一点儿能够互相亲昵的时间。出于礼貌，研究人员既没有对这些伴侣进行录像，也没有从单视镜背后进行观察，他们只是要求每个人自己在一个简短的报告里描述两人之间发生了什么。经验丰富的伴侣即使经历了自我消耗，仍然能够避免身体接触，仿佛性已经从激情变为家常便饭。但是自我消耗后的新情侣则克制不住进行身体亲热。根据他们写下的报告：“他们长时间地湿吻，互相抚摸（比如臀部和女性的胸部），甚至掀开衣服暴露自己。”

    * * *

    根据文明进程理论，在中世纪欧洲，自制匮乏之下是各种形式的放纵，包括邋遢、暴躁、放荡、粗鲁、无视未来，以及最糟糕的一项放纵——暴力。对自制力的研究证明，自制作为一种意志力可以克制大部分放纵行为，但我们还需要证明，暴力也是可以被克制的放纵。我们已经知道，自制力弱的人更经常卷入吵架斗殴和寻衅滋事。那么，我们是否能够在实验中通过操纵自制力释放出人性中的这头野兽呢？

    谁也不想把实验室闹得天翻地覆，于是鲍迈斯特想到了辣味调料。他征求饥肠辘辘的实验参加者进行品尝食品和书面表述之间关系的研究。[116]他们要指出他们最喜欢的味道和最不喜欢的味道，写一篇短文表达他们对堕胎的看法，评判一位伪装的实验参加者的短文，再评判一种食品的滋味，最后阅读一篇同伴对自己短文的反馈。在品尝测试中，一半人必须品尝甜面包圈的滋味、口感和香气，另一半人品尝小萝卜的滋味、口感和气味。就在实验参加者将食品塞进嘴里那一刻，研究人员喊叫起来：“等等！对不起，我可能搞错了。这可能不是你的样品，请不要再吃了。我要去问问下面应该怎么办。”说罢他离开房间，让实验对象一个人和面包圈、小萝卜一起待上5分钟。毫无疑问，这是一场关于自制力的有效实验，请看下面几段摘自书面报告的文字：

    实验参加者：40名本科生参加了此项研究。作为交换，他们得到了一定的学分。其中7个人的数据完全无效，不能做分析之用，原因是有4个人对同伴的反馈表示怀疑，另外有3个人则是因为不顾指示吃掉了整个面包圈。

    参加者接着读到实验同伴对自己短文的反馈，当然都是些尖酸刻薄的评论。同时他们也了解到评论者的味觉偏好，即是否喜欢辛辣食品。接下来，研究人员要求参加实验的学生为同伴准备一份点心，原料是一包薯条和一罐辣酱，辣酱瓶子上明显标注着“辣”。研究人员在学生离开之后，通过瓶子里剩余的辣酱来测量这位学生使用了多少辣酱。参加实验的学生同时被要求为自己的情绪，包括愤怒的程度评级。那些失去了就要到嘴的面包圈的学生，丧失了自制力，尽管还没有疯狂，但的确进行了反击。在为尖刻的实验同伴准备的薯条里，他们倒上的辣酱比一般人要多62%，他们实在是无法克制报复的冲动。如果你有机会折磨一个嘲笑过你的人，比如每当他在电脑游戏中出错，你可以按键让他听到一声高音喇叭的尖叫。实验的结果显示，意志力被损耗的人总是更乐意揿下按钮。

    还有一项测试人进攻性的实验，研究人员让实验参加者想象自己带着挚爱的女友站在酒吧里，一个情敌出现了，开始和女友调情，而且让她感到很开心。（如实验对象是女性，那就想象自己和男友在一起，情敌是另外一位女子。）想象自己开始和情敌发生顶撞，被情敌一把推到吧台上。而吧台上正有一个啤酒瓶子。实验参加者要回答的问题是：“你有多大的可能性会将啤酒瓶子砸到对手的脑袋上？请分级回答，评级从-100（完全不可能）到100（极为可能）。”对自制力薄弱的人，如果他们的自制力完全没有受到损耗，他们回答说“不会武力报复”；但是如果他们的意志力刚好被消磨了一番，他们的回答就变成“很可能会将酒瓶子敲到情敌的头上”。

    如果我们综合（1）鲍迈斯特的实验——实验室内消减自制力能够增加性冲动和暴力倾向，（2）个体中自制力薄弱和童年行为不端、成年放纵和犯罪之间的相关关系，（3）神经成像研究所证明的前额叶活动和自制力之间的相关关系，以及（4）神经成像研究显示的冲动型暴力和前额叶功能损伤之间的相关关系，我们所得到的实证图景完全支持埃利亚斯的猜想，即自制神经机制的软弱很可能导致暴力。

    * * *

    这个结论仍然不完整。个人身上的特质一般具有几十年的稳定性，但在几分钟之内就能被耗尽，因此无法用特质的存在来解释一个社会在几个世纪中的变迁。我们必须揭示无论一个人与生俱来的自制水平如何，他或她都能够提升自制力。自制力既有个体遗传的可能性，也有持续提升的可能性，这是不争的事实。它就像人们的身高：基因让我们中的有些人比其他人更高，但是在几个世纪中，人们的平均身高也在增长。[117]

    人们在思考自制的同时，也在思考增强自制力的方法。奥德修斯告诉船员将他捆缚在桅杆上之后，船员用蜡紧紧堵住自己的耳朵，只有奥德修斯一个人能够听见海妖曼妙的歌声，但又不会在诱惑下驾船撞向岩礁。这种为了自己的未来而约束现在的自己的行为被冠名为“奥德修斯模式”或“尤利西斯模式”。我们可以为此行为模式找到成百上千的实例。[118]我们尽量不在空腹的时候购物。我们在能够控制自己的时候尽力控制自己，在馋涎流淌之前扔掉巧克力松糕、香烟和酒精。我们将闹钟放到卧室里离床最远的地方，以免闹钟响后我们伸手就能关上闹铃再次入睡。我们授权雇主从每一张工资单上扣除一笔钱放进养老金账户。我们克制自己在完成手头的工作之前不去买让人分神的书刊杂志。我们把钱交给Stickk. com这样的公司，设置好程序，每一次我们达到一个目标，就能拿回一部分钱；如果我们到期达不到目标，这笔钱就会捐给我们最讨厌的政客。我们总是当众发誓洗心革面，如果食言就会名誉受损。

    如我们在第3章中所见，在近代欧洲初期，人们奉行奥德修斯式自制的实践之一就是不再在餐桌上使用锋利的刀子。出于同样的目的，美国西部开发时酒馆门口总有一个大家熟识的提示——“在门口交出枪支”。这和今天控制枪支的法律和裁军协议异曲同工。自制的另一种策略是远离麻烦，比如避免与仇人碰面。打架的人接受旁人劝架，也是一种自制战术，而且还有避免承认自己软弱和胆怯的好处。

    自制力还有各种心理战略。沃尔特·米歇尔告诉我们，如果把自己面前诱人的棉花糖遮盖起来，或者扭头不看它们，或者唱歌分散自己的注意力，或者在自己脑子里将棉花糖重构为一朵小小的白云，而不是好吃的糖果，甚至4岁的孩子也可以为了拿到双份的棉花糖而长时间等候。[119]暴力案中可以见到同样的情况，即重构对羞辱性行为的认知，对方的挑衅可以被看作对一个人荣誉的沉重打击，也可以是一个不妨忽略不计的摆谱，或者不过是肇事人的幼稚无知。人们时常提出忠告说“别介意，这不是针对你个人的”，或者劝你不要在意肇事者，说“他不过是吹牛皮”、“他还是个孩子”、“无聊人的无聊话，不值得理会”，还有谚语如“棍棒石头能断骨，言语随风不过心”，这些见识的背后都是人们的认知重构。

    马丁·戴利和马戈·威尔逊表示，根据经济学的“最优利率模式”和生物学的“最佳觅食模式”，还有操纵自制力的第三种方式。他们提出，生物具备一个内变量，就像浮动利率，其可调整的幅度受控于对未来的预期。[120]该变量的设定取决于社会环境是否稳定，以及人们的预期寿命。如果明天永远不会来临，就不会有人愿意为明天进行储蓄；如果人们身处乱世，也就没有信心能够收回自己的储蓄。达利和威尔逊对主要大城市中的不同居民区进行了量化比较研究，他们发现，预期寿命越短（只考虑暴力之外的影响因素），暴力水平越高。两者的相关关系支持下述假说：以年龄为常数，人们未来的生活岁月越短，暴力倾向越严重。因应环境的不确定性而对未来的折现率进行调整可能会产生恶性循环，因为一个人不计后果的鲁莽将影响所有其他人的折现率。马太效应，即所谓在一些社会中诸事正确，而在另一些社会中每一件事都是错误的，很可能是环境的不确定性和每个个体不顾未来的行为叠加影响的结果。

    在一个社会中，人们提升自制的第四个方式是改善人们的营养、健康和有节制地生活。大脑的前额叶是一大块代谢旺盛的组织，对葡萄糖和其他营养胃口极大。用身体的体力来比喻自制力不仅仅是一种语言形容。鲍迈斯特已经发现，当人们因为注意力高度集中或者从事需要意志力的工作而导致“自我消耗”时，血糖水平急剧下降。[121]这个时候，如果给人们喝一杯加糖（不能是代糖品）的柠檬水，补充身体内的葡萄糖，他们在接下来的工作中就能够避免通常会出现的挫折。我们可以想象，在现实世界中，低血糖、酗酒、滥用毒品、寄生虫负载，以及维生素和微量矿物质缺乏造成前额叶损伤，确实会降低贫困人群的自控能力，让他们具有更强的冲动型暴力倾向。几项安慰剂对照研究均证明，向囚犯提供膳食补养品能够减少他们的冲动性暴力。[122]

    鲍迈斯特进一步证实了人们使用的隐喻词有着极为真实的基础。如果意志力就像肌肉，在使用中因消耗能量而疲劳，而一杯提神的甜品就能让人恢复精力，那么，锻炼是否也能够增强人的意志力呢？人们是否能够通过坚持展示自己的决心和毅力来提升意志力？我们还是不能完全按照字面的意思来理解隐喻词——前额叶毕竟不是二头肌，不可能因锻炼而鼓胀起来。但是，在使用中我们有可能强化大脑皮层和边缘系统之间的神经联络。同时，人们可以学习自制的策略，享受把握冲动的快感，尝试新掌握的行为自律的诀窍。鲍迈斯特和其他心理学家在实验中测试了锻炼对意志力的作用，他们要求参加者在自我消耗研究开始数周或数月之前开始执行自制锻炼计划。[123]这些锻炼计划包括要求参加实验的学生持续记录他们吞下的每一口食物；参加体育锻炼、财务管理或者学习技能之类的项目；用平时不习惯使用的手刷牙或控制鼠标；对学生真正构成自制力挑战的任务是：说话时不用脏字，使用完整的句子，不用“我”作为句子的开始。经过几个星期的交叉训练，学生在自我消耗实验中确实变得更有耐受力了，他们在现实生活中也表现得更自律。他们抽烟少了，喝酒少了，吃的垃圾食品也少了，花钱少了，看电视的时间也少了，学习的时间多了，更经常地清洗脏碗脏盘子，而不是一直把它们留在厨房的水池里。实验再次证明了埃利亚斯的推测，即生活小节上的自制力可以成为人的第二本能，并可以影响到一个人的举止风度。

    在接受“尤利西斯式约束”、认知重构、内在浮动贴现率、改善营养和类似体能锻炼的机能训练这些调整之外，自制力还有可能是社会推崇的时尚。[124]在某些时代，自制力是一个体面人的优点：说明这个人成熟，有尊严，是位淑女或绅士，一位品行高雅的人。在另外一些时代，自制力成为嘲弄的对象，被指为拘谨、装正经、古板和道学。犯罪高发的20世纪60年代是距离我们最近的一个宣扬放松自制的时代：“为所欲为”“张扬自我”“感觉好，就去做”“让我们尽情狂放”。那10年的音乐会影片充分展示了自我放纵的主题，每一个摇滚歌星都试图表现得比其他人更狂躁，以至于他们的冲动看起来都经过周密的计划，费了很大的心血。

    * * *

    这6条通向自制的途径是否能够增进社会成员的自制，从而让自制成为一个社会的特征？这将是文明进程理论诠释链上的最后一张多米诺骨牌。第一张外生的骨牌是执法的变化和经济合作的机会，它们产生倾斜性回报，让延迟满足，特别是回避冲动型暴力从长期看有利可图。接下来的连锁反应是强化人们的自制机能，让人有能力克制自己的暴力冲动，不仅仅是担心被发现后的处罚。这个过程甚至可以是一个自我强化的积极反馈环，而且是工程和人本双重意义上的“积极”。在一个社会中，当大家都开始克制侵犯性行为，个人时刻准备回击侵犯的必要性也就下降了，因此每个人身上的压力都减轻了，形成积极的良性循环。

    心理学和历史学之间有一道鸿沟，跨越鸿沟的桥梁是寻找一个衡量自制力的社会性指标。我们已经看到，利率就是这样一个指标，它展示了人们对延迟消费所要求的补偿。当然，利率在一定程度上取决于通货膨胀、预期收入增长和投资失败的风险等客观因素。但是，它也反映了人们不愿意延迟满足的心理。一位经济学家这样说，一个6岁儿童情愿立刻吃下一颗棉花糖，而不愿意等几分钟拿到两颗棉花糖，其效果等于是要求每天3%的利率，即每个月的月息为150%。[125]

    格里高利·克拉克——我们在第4章中已经见过这位经济史教授，估算了英国人在1170—2000年以地租和房租形式索取的利率，这八百多年正是文明进程展开的时期。克拉克认为，1800年之前不存在通货膨胀的问题，收入水平没有变化，业主失去财产的风险低而且没有太大的变化。如果确实如此，实际利率所体现的就是人们对自己的当下和未来的偏好程度。

    图9-1显示，在英国凶杀率急剧减少的几百年间，实际利率也出现急剧下降，从超过10%降至2%以下。其他欧洲社会也呈现出同样的变迁趋势。相关不能说明因果，但是这种关系符合埃利亚斯的观点，在中世纪欧洲进入现代欧洲的过程中，暴力下降是自制和面向未来这一大趋势的组成部分。

    什么能够更直接地测度一个社会的综合自制力？年利率只是人们延迟消费的货币运作，从这里推向克制日常生活中的暴力冲动还有相当长的一段距离。虽然用个体的特质来代表一个社会的本质（比如说，“残暴的人民”）有很大的风险，但是，有些文化中的人确实在生活中表现出更强的自制，人们之所以有这样的印象也不是毫无道理可言。尼采将文化分为阿波罗式（Apollonian）和狄俄尼索斯式（Dionysian）两种，取名来自希腊的两个神祇：太阳神和酒神。人类学家鲁思·本尼迪克特（Ruth Benedict）在她1934年出版的经典之作、民族志文集《文化模式》（Patterns of Culture）中使用了尼采的区分手法。阿波罗文化被认为是思考、自制、理性、逻辑和有秩序的，而狄俄尼索斯文化则是感性、激情、本能、非理性和混乱的。今天已经不会再有人类学家使用此种两分法的分析方式，不过，社会学家海尔特·霍夫斯泰德（Geert Hofstede）对世界上各种文化进行了量化分析，他通过对一百多个国家中产阶级市民对问卷的回答，重新发现了文化模式的差异。

    图9-1 1170—2000年英国的隐性利率

    资料来源：克拉克绘制，2007年a，第33页

    根据霍夫斯塔特的数据，不同的国家可以在6个维度上呈现差异。[126]差异之一，是追求长远收益还是追求短期利益：“长期收益导向的社会培育追求未来回报的美德，特别是储蓄、坚韧和应变能力；短期利益导向的社会则推崇与过去和当下相关的美德，例如民族骄傲，尊重传统，维持 ‘面子 ’，承担社会责任。”差异之二是追求“放纵”还是“克制”:“‘放纵 ’表示一个社会容许人们比较自由地追求人欲的满足，享受生活，寻找快乐；‘克制 ’代表着一个社会用严厉的社会规范压抑人欲。”当然，上述两个维度都与人的自制能力有关，而且两个维度存在相关性（110个国家数据的相关系数为0.45）。如果埃利亚斯知道有这样的数据，他会预测这些民族特质与该国的凶杀率相关。事实确实如此。长期利益导向的国家强调控制人欲，它们的国民确实在凶杀犯罪上有所节制。[127]

    所以说，像扩张共情圈理论一样，文明进程理论也从远离自身领域的地方得到了实验和数据支持。心理学、神经科学和经济学都已经确认了埃利亚斯的估测，即人具有克制暴力和非暴力性冲动的自制力。人在自己的一生中可以强化和扩大自制的能力，而在不同的社会和不同的历史时期，人们的自制力有强弱之分。

    迄今为止，我还没有提到对自制能力长期增长的另一个解释：它是一个生物学意义上的进化过程。在转向我们的最后两位天使——道德和理性——之前，我需要就这个众说纷纭的问题花上几页篇幅。

    最新的生物进化？

    很多人在使用“进化”一词时相当随意，既用它代指文化变迁（即历史），也将它用作生物变化（即跨越数代生命的基因频率的转变）。文化和生物进化当然有互动关系。比如，当欧洲和非洲的部落人开始驯养奶畜时，他们也开始进化出让人在成年后仍能消化乳糖的基因。[128]但这是完全不同的两个过程，在理论上，我们总是可以通过实验区分两者。比如，一个社会从另一个社会领养的孩子，如果这两个社会已经分别出现适应不同文化的生物演化，那么，在平均水平上，领养的孩子与本地生养的孩子应该有所差别。

    人们经常就暴力下降提出一个问题，即它是否和人类最新的生物进化有关。在一个已经经历了“平靖进程”和“文明的进程”的社会中，人们的基因构成是否已经有了相应的改变，因而在推进历史进程的同时，让人类具有永久背离暴力的倾向？当然，这样的转变不会是文化潮流被吸收进入基因的拉马克式（Lamarckian）进化，而只能是适应生存并繁衍的达尔文式进化。那些恰好天生适合新文化的个人比其他人具有更强的生存和繁衍能力，因此让下一代人携带了更多适者基因，进而改变整个群体的基因组成。

    比如，不妨想象一下，在霍布斯的无政府社会，冲动性暴力具有自我保护的功能，但在经历了平靖进程或文明进程的社会中，动辄复仇的暴力不仅于事无补，而且伤害自身。利维坦势必极力剿杀精神变态狂和狂热分子，将他们送进地牢或送上绞刑架，让头脑冷静的人在安定的社会中生儿育女。有利于共情和自制的基因得以繁衍，而放任捕食暴力、争夺优势和复仇的基因则日渐衰落。

    即使一夫多妻向一夫一妻转变这样简单的文化变迁，在理论上也改变了人类的选择。根据拿破仑·沙尼翁对雅诺马马人的记录，杀过男人的男子，比没有杀过人的男子有更多妻子和子女；厄瓜多尔的黑瓦洛人（舒阿尔人）中也有同样的情况。[129]如果这个简单的数据模式持续数代人或数十代人，遗传倾向肯定是趋于选择具备杀戮的意愿和能力。相反，当一个社会转向一夫一妻制，杀戮不再带来繁衍后代的优势，为此行凶杀人的动力自然会减少。

    贯穿本书，我始终假设在认知和情感意义上，人性在过去的一万年间未曾发生改变，不同社会之间的行为差异都有其严格的环境诱因，而在这期间，暴力的减少有目共睹。这是一个标准的进化心理学假设，它所依据的事实是，就我们这个物种已经存在的漫长历史而言，人类社会发生分化和变迁的几百年甚至几千年都只算是短暂的一瞬。[130]因为大部分适应性进化是渐进的，而人类在几万年的生存历史中，绝大部分时间都以觅食为生，因此人类的生物演化主要是为了适应觅食生活方式。觅食社会之后的其他社会形态和社会的分化都属于很晚近的事件。这个假定得到人类心理同一性事实的支持——无论生活在哪种社会形态，人类都具有基本相同的能力，诸如语言、推理、心理直觉、性嫉妒、恐惧、愤怒、爱，还有厌恶；人类历史上最近发生的人口融合，没有显示任何与这些基本能力不同的内在差异。[131]

    但是，有关远古人类的生物适应性和心理同一性的假说仅仅是假说而已。生物演化的速度还取决于其他很多因素，包括选择压力的强度——当一个基因发生两种变异，两种变异载体的后代在生存数量上的平均差距、种群构成，实现变迁所需要的基因数量，以及基因之间互动的方式。[132]虽然由一套相互关联的基因构造而成的复杂器官可能经过亿万年的演化，但一个或者为数不多的一组独立变异的基因也可以实现一定量化的调整，只要调整对生存适应产生足够大的效果，在几个世代内就可以完成进化变迁的过程。[133]我们没有任何理由排除人类在久已完成人种、族群和民族分化之后的最近几千年甚至几百年间，继续经历某种程度的生物进化的可能性。

    虽然人们有时表示，除非有人能够发明时间机器让我们回到从前，否则，有关自然选择的假说永远都是无法被证实的猜想。事实上，自然选择是一种特征鲜明的机械过程，它在生命机体的性状及其基因组合的形态上都留下了自己的制作痕迹。自2000年完成第一阶段“人类基因组计划”（Human Genome Project）以来，对自然选择的指纹图谱所做的研究一直是人类基因学研究中最激动人心的工作。[134]一种研究手法是，将人类的基因与其他物种的相应基因进行并列对照，对比两套基因内对机体性状没有影响的同义变异（silent changes）的数量，以及对机体性状产生影响的变异的数量。因为同义变异不改变生物机体，所以它只可能是由随机漂变（random drift）积累而成，而有影响的突变则可能是自然选择的结果。另外一种研究技术是观察某个基因在不同个体之间的变异性。作为自然选择结果的某种人类基因，与人类作为整体和其他哺乳动物之间的差异相比，它在人类群体内的个体之间不应该有太大的变异。此外，在突变发生杂交或者经过性交配生成新的碎片之前，还有其他方法能够检测在人类共有的大条染色体中间是否藏有某个有用的基因。这种共有的染色体标志着最新发生的“选择性清除”（selective sweep）。人们至少已经有十几种技术方法研究基因变异，这些方法还在不断改进之中。它们不仅可以针对特定的基因，而且可以被应用于整个基因组研究，估测人类基因中哪些部分是最新的自然选择的目标。

    这些分析已经得出令人惊异的成果。基因学家乔舒亚·阿基（Joshua Akey）在对2009年的回顾中总结说：“可以被视为今天人类基因组中强选择事件的数量，比我们10年前所能想象的要多很多……（大约）8%的基因组受到正向选择的影响，还有更大部分的基因处于较温和的选择压力的影响之下。”[135]许多经过选择的基因都涉及人类神经系统的运作。在理论上，它们对人类的认知和情感产生影响。而选择的规律则因种群而异。

    有些记者还没有弄明白这些研究成果的含义就开始大唱赞歌，他们认为这些研究是对进化心理学的抨击；在他们眼中，说人性是对漫长的狩猎-采集生活方式的适应有非常危险的政治含义。事实上，如果新近发生的进化选择涉及与人类的认知和情感有关的基因，这些进化事实将支持一种更激进的进化心理学，即在远古形成的人性基础之上，人类心智的生物形态还受到新环境的塑造。据此可能推出非常煽动性的论点，比如说，与在有文字的国家社会生活了几千年的人种相比，某些原住民和新移民群体在生物形态上无法适应现代生活的需要。一个在政治上令人不快的假说不一定就不成立，但它确实要求我们在做出这一假说成立的结论之前格外小心谨慎。我们是否真的有理由相信，某些特定社会中暴力的减少是因为其社会成员的基因发生了变异？

    * * *

    研究暴力的神经生物学是一个在研究自然选择方面研究对象丰富的领域。对小老鼠进行四至五代的选育，就可以培养出与现有老鼠相比暴力水平有明显差异的新世系。[136]当然，人类的暴力远比老鼠的暴力要复杂，但是，如果人类之间在暴力倾向性上的差异具有遗传性，变异是更加倾向暴力还是离弃暴力，选择的结果肯定有利于能够带来更多健康后代的变异，人群中煽动暴力或平靖暴力的基因浓度将因此随着时间推移而发生变化。所以，不论攻击性是否可以遗传，我们首先要确定人群中个体之间攻击性的差异是由人们的基因差异造成的。

    至少有三种方式可以衡量基因的遗传性。[137]一是观察在出生后被分开养育的同卵双生子之间特质的相关程度；他们具有同样的基因，不同的家庭环境（在样本环境范围许可的范围之内）。二是与异卵双生子（他们有一半相同的基因和基本相同的家庭环境）相比，观察同卵双生（他们有共同的基因和基本相同的家庭环境）之间是否存在更高的特质相关性。三是观察亲生兄弟姐妹（他们有一半共同的基因和基本相同的家庭环境）之间是否比领养兄弟姐妹（他们之间没有共同基因，但有基本相同的家庭环境）有更强的特质相关性。比如，同卵双生很可能比异卵双生更易成为犯罪伙伴。每一种方法各有其优缺点。但三种方式的优劣各不相同，所以，如果这三种方法得出的结果趋同，我们就有足够的根据相信某些特质具有遗传性。

    这些观察已经证明，反社会人格和违法乱纪的秉性具有极强的遗传性，尽管其影响有时取决于环境因素。在1984年对丹麦领养儿童进行的一项大规模研究发现，在父母有犯罪记录的领养家庭中长大的青少年中，罪犯父母的亲生后代中约25%有犯罪行为，而无犯罪记录的父母的亲生后代中只有15%有犯罪行为。[138]但在这项研究中，只有在非暴力型犯罪，例如窃车犯罪中能明显看到血缘之间的相关效果。因此，20世纪80年代的许多教科书说，只有非暴力犯罪特质具有遗传性。这个结论过于草率。暴力犯罪的数量远比非暴力犯罪的数量少，因为暴力罪犯的样本非常少，因此显示遗传的可能性也就非常弱。另外，刑事司法系统本身的变化对定罪率产生的影响之巨大，完全盖过了犯案人的暴力倾向。

    我们今天使用更敏感的测度手法研究暴力，包括保密的自我报告，对侵犯行为和反社会行为进行分级，以及来自老师、朋友和父母的鉴定。比如，一个人可以被定级为“可以为了自己的利益伤害他人”或者“刻意恐吓和引起他人的不适”。所有这些测度都与一个人暴力犯罪的可能性相关，同时可以提供丰富的数据。[139]使用行为遗传学工具对这些数据进行分析，所有三种方式都证实人的侵犯倾向具有明显的遗传性。[140]

    对在出生时即被分离养育的双生子进行分析是最不常用的行为遗传学研究手法，原因是今天很少能够找到这样的案例。但明尼苏达大学进行了一项大规模研究，对分开养育的同卵双生子的攻击性进行了观察。观察发现，遗传系数为0.38，也就是说，样本中攻击性差异的38%可以用基因差异进行解释。[141]比较常见的是对领养儿童的研究。据其中一项最出色的研究估测，样本中攻击性行为的遗传力高达0.70。[142]对比同卵双生子和异卵双生子的攻击性倾向，例如争吵、争斗、威胁、破坏以及违抗父母和老师，各个研究得出的遗传力在0.4 ~0.6，在儿童期和成人期特别明显。（在青春期，同伴之间的影响通常会盖过基因的作用。）[143]

    行为遗传学家李秀贤（Soo Hyun Rhee）和欧文·瓦尔德曼（Irwin Waldman）最近审查了攻击性遗传学的全部研究文献，其中包括一百多项对双生子和领养子女的研究。[144]他们按照严格的研究标准遴选了19个单项观察进攻性行为（例如打架、残害动物和欺负弱小）的案例。此外，他们还审查了所有已经发表的对被逮捕和被定罪的罪犯双生子与领养子女的研究。他们估测进攻性行为的遗传力约为0.44，犯罪性行为的遗传力约为0.75，其中0.33为加成性遗传力（additive heritability），即纯种繁育的方差，0.42为非加成性遗传力，即基因间互动产生的方差。虽然他们使用的犯罪行为的数据资料没有区分暴力和非暴力犯罪，但他们引用了丹麦双生子研究的结论，估算暴力犯罪的遗传力为0.50。[145]行为遗传学的大部分研究都显示，抚养家庭的环境影响力之小，完全可以忽略不计。而其他环境因素，例如邻里、亚文化或特殊的个人经历等肯定具有影响力的因素，却非我们所使用的研究手法能够轻易加以测度。对于这些遗传力的具体数字，我们没有必要过于认真，真正的问题在于这些数字都远远大于0。行为遗传学证实攻击性行为具有遗传性，因而让自然选择有了改变一个群体的平均暴力倾向的空间。

    * * *

    遗传力是进化变异的必要条件，但它所度量的是各种影响因素的混合产出。一旦对这些因素条分缕析，我们就会发现若干自然选择扭转人类暴力倾向性的特定路径。以下是其中的几种：

    自我驯化和幼态化。理查德·兰厄姆指出，动物的驯化通常是要放缓它们身体某些部位的发育节奏，将幼兽的某些特征一直保持到成年，这个过程被称为幼态化或幼态持续。[146]经过驯化的品种或物种往往有更接近幼崽的头颅和脸型，性别差异较少，更喜欢玩耍，更少攻击性。在那些刻意驯化的家畜，例如马、牛、羊和狐狸身上，我们通常都能见到这些变化。数千年前，一些狼开始盘桓在人类营地周围搜寻吃剩的食物，这开启了狼向狗的自驯化过程。在本书第2章中，我提到过，当倭黑猩猩的觅食生态不再鼓励雄性的进攻性后，倭黑猩猩出现幼态化，脱离类似黑猩猩的祖先，逐渐演化为今日的样子。兰厄姆认为，根据旧石器时代人类化石显示的幼形变化，在过去3万年至5万年，人类也经历了幼态化过程，而这个过程至今也许仍在持续。

    大脑的结构。神经科学家保罗·汤普森（Paul Thompson）已经证明，大脑皮层包括背外侧额叶前区灰质的分布具有高度的遗传性：它在同卵双生子之间几乎完全一致，而在异卵双生子之间相似性要差很多。[147]连接额叶皮层和大脑其他部位脑白质的分布也具有高度遗传性。[148]所以，每个人进行自制的额叶回路很有可能先天不同，因此它很可能成为晚近自然选择的对象。

    催产素即所谓的激励同情和信任的拥抱激素，在大脑的数个部位承担受体的功能，这些受体的数量和分布对人类的行为有巨大的影响作用。抗利尿激素（vasopressin）是一种在雄性大脑中工作的类催产素激素，而草甸田鼠是一种缺少此种激素、具有攻击性并且性滥交的动物。在一项非常有名的实验中，生物学家将一个抗利尿激素的受体基因植入草甸田鼠。结果，这些接受了新基因的、原本“一夫多妻”的草甸田鼠成为恩爱的一夫一妻，变得就像它们在进化中携带此种受体的表亲草原田鼠。[149]实验说明，催产素—抗利尿激素系统中一个简单的基因变化，就能够在同情心、亲密感和由此而来的抑制攻击性上产生深刻的影响。

    睾丸素。一个人对优势挑战的反应在一定程度上取决于进入血液的睾丸素的数量，以及在人们的大脑中此种激素受体的分布情况。[150]个体的睾丸素受体基因因人而异，因此，一定浓度的睾丸素对某些人的大脑可以产生强烈的影响作用。男子所携带的编码基因中睾丸素受体越敏感，他在与吸引他的女子交谈时，睾丸素上振的幅度也就越大，这可能带来减少恐惧和鼓励冒险的效果。在一项以强奸犯和谋杀犯为对象的研究中，样本里相当多数量的人带有这样的基因。[151]决定睾丸素水平的遗传通道相当复杂，但自然选择正是通过筛选这些路径，改变了人们接受攻击性挑战的意愿。

    神经递质（Neurotransmitters）是神经元释放出的特殊分子，渗透穿过微小的突触间隙，与另外一个神经元表层上的受体锁定后改变这个神经元的活动，从而让神经的放电形态在大脑中得以扩散。儿茶酚胺（catecholamines）是最主要的一种神经递质，它包括多巴胺、血清素和去甲肾上腺素（或名降肾上腺素，它与触发“或战或退”反应的肾上腺素有关联）。大脑的几个动机系统和情感系统都有儿茶酚胺的活动，其浓度受降解和回收儿茶酚胺的蛋白质的调控。这些蛋白质之一是单胺氧化酶A，简称MAO-A，它具有分解神经递质的作用，防止递质在大脑中积聚。而一旦出现递质的积聚过多，人对威胁就会做出过度反应，也就更容易采取攻击行动。

    人们最早是从一个荷兰家庭的案例中发现了单胺氧化酶A对人类的暴力行为有影响。这个荷兰家庭发生了罕有的基因突变，一半以上的男性成员身上都没有有效的单胺氧化酶A基因。[152]（单胺氧化酶A是X染色体携带的基因，而男性只有一个X染色体，因此如果男子的单胺氧化酶A基因出现缺陷，没有备份作为弥补。）在这个家庭以往的至少5代人中，有基因缺陷的男子不断卷入暴力冲突。比如，一位男成员用刀子威胁自己的妹妹脱光衣服，另一位企图开车撞死自己的老板。

    还有一种更常见的变异刚好发生在决定单胺氧化酶A生成数量的基因身上。携带低活性型基因的人大脑中多巴胺、血清素和去甲肾上腺素的数量增加。很多出现此种基因变异的人有反社会型人格障碍的症状，以及暴力行为和暴力犯罪的记录。在看到他人愤怒和恐惧的表情时，他们大脑中的杏仁核反应强烈，而眶额皮层反应则不太强烈；在心理实验中，他们一旦认为实验伙伴有欺诈行为，就会强迫这个伙伴喝下辣椒酱。[153]与其他影响人类行为的基因有所不同，低活性型单胺氧化酶A基因对人类的攻击性行为有特殊的作用，而和人类的其他人格特质则没有明显的相关性。[154]

    对那些在压力型生活环境中长大的人来说，例如受过父母的虐待或忽视，或者在学校成绩落后于人，低活性型单胺氧化酶A基因让他们更容易具有攻击性。[155]我们很难指明具体哪一种压力具有这样的效果，压力型的生活往往在各个方面都充满压力。事实上，调控因素中很可能包含虐待型父母与子女共有的某些其他基因，让父母和子女都具有攻击倾向，并引起周围人的反感。[156]不管调节因素是什么，它都不会彻底扭转低活性型单胺氧化酶A基因的作用。所有研究都表明，此种基因在人口中有集合效应或主效应，这就有可能让它成为自然选择的目标。莫菲特和卡斯皮首先发现了低活性型单胺氧化酶A基因的作用与压力型生活环境有关，但他们也表示，与其将此种低活性型基因视为引发暴力的因子，不如将高活性型基因视为抑制暴力的因子：它防止人们对生活压力进行过度反应。遗传学家已经发现了对人类单胺氧化酶A基因自然选择的统计证据，尽管他们还无法从中区分低活性型和高活性型变异的不同影响，也无法证明此种基因在进化中胜出是因为它的攻击效应。[157]

    其他影响多巴胺的基因也与犯罪行为有关联，其中包括一种影响多巴胺受体密度（DRD2）的基因类型和一种影响多巴胺转运蛋白（DAT1）的基因类型，多巴胺转运蛋白具有清除突触间隙内过量多巴胺的功能，并将多巴胺送回释放它的神经元。[158]这些基因都可以快速成为自然选择的对象。

    * * *

    在我们审视过的人类历史变迁中，可能已经发生过对暴力或者非暴力遗传倾向的自然选择。问题是，选择的结果是什么？存在进化的通道并不等于证明进化确实经过了这些通道。进化不仅取决于遗传的素材，而且也取决于其他因素，诸如人口结构（同时包括人口的绝对数量和从其他族群吸纳移民的水平）、遗传和环境的随机造化，以及对文化环境的适应性调整所具有的弱化遗传效果的作用。

    我们要问，真的有证据证明历史上的平靖进程和文明进程确实让被平靖和被文明化的人在体质上不再对暴力感到激动了吗？一般的印象非常容易造成误导。历史上有很多案例显示，一个民族认为另外一个民族是“野蛮人”或者“食人生番”，但这种印象更多出于种族主义偏见以及在观察中使用了不同的社会标准，而不是对人性中先天和后天特质的认真分析。1788—1868年，16.8万名英国罪犯被流放到澳大利亚殖民地。有人会认为，今天的澳大利亚人很可能继承了其先人不安分的特质。但是，当今澳大利亚的凶杀率低于它原来的母国，事实上，它是世界上凶杀率最低的国家之一。1945年以前，德国人是地球上最好战的民族；今天，他们可能是最爱好和平的人民。

    进化基因组学（evolutionary genomics）的革命性进展是否为我们提供了确凿的证据？在他们的宣言《一万年的爆发：文明如何加速人类进化》（The 10000 Years Explosion: How Civilization Accelerated Human Evolu-tion）中，物理学家格雷戈里·柯克伦（Gregory Cochran）和人类学家亨利·哈本丁（Henry Harpending）审视了人类最新的进化选择的证据。他们推测，进化中包含了人类气质和行为的改变。但是，所有他们提到的进化所选择的基因都不涉及人类的行为，它们仅限于消化、抗病和皮肤色素。[159]

    就我所知，有两项声称暴力行为与人类进化有关的研究，找到了某些科学证据的支持。其中之一是对约1000年前定居新西兰的波利尼西亚人中的毛利人的研究。和其他很多半狩猎半种植型非国家社会一样，毛利人生活中战事频繁，他们曾经对附近查塔姆群岛上的莫里奥里人（Moriohi people）进行过灭绝性的大屠杀。他们今天的文化中仍然保存着许多往昔尚武的痕迹，比如新西兰英式橄榄球大赛前的毛利人哈卡战舞，能让国家队“全黑队”队员热血沸腾；此外，还有各式各样美丽的绿岩制武器。（我的办公室里有一把绿岩战斧，是我在奥克兰大学讲学时学校赠送的礼物。）1994年颇受好评的影片《战士奇兵》（Once Were Warriors）生动地展现了毛利人的犯罪和家庭暴力，新西兰的一些毛利人社区至今仍深受其害。

    2005年的一份研究报告说，有70%的毛利人携带低活性型单胺氧化酶A基因，高于欧洲裔新西兰人（只有40%的人携带此种基因）；在这样的文化背景下，新西兰媒体立刻对此进行了报道。[160]领导此项研究的遗传学家罗德·利亚（Rod Lea）表示，这是毛利人基因自然选择的结果；迁徙新西兰的毛利人必须愿意接受风险极大的独木舟航海，而在定居后又必须能够在不断自相残杀的部落战争中生存下来。媒体将此基因贴上了“勇士基因”的标签，并推测说这种基因解释了当今新西兰毛利人遭遇的严重社会问题。

    不过，对勇士基因理论持怀疑态度的科学家大有人在。[161]问题之一是，基因瓶颈也有可能是造成基因选择特征的原因，一个族群只有为数有限的祖先，这寥寥几个人碰巧携带的随机分配的基因被他们枝繁叶茂的子孙成倍地放大了。问题之二是，低活性型单胺氧化酶A基因在中国男性身上更加普遍（77%的中国男子携带此种基因），但是中国人早已不是勇士的后代，在现代社会中也没有暴力的病态倾向。第三，也是关系最密切的问题是，在非欧洲人口之外，我们并没有确立此种基因和攻击性之间的关系。也许，其他人种演化出其他方式控制儿茶酚胺的分泌水平。[162]（基因不是孤立的，而是在与其他基因相互关联反馈的网络中运作。所以，在一个族群中，某个基因不活跃，可能会有其他基因特别活跃以对其进行补偿。）到目前为止，勇士基因理论受到不少严厉的指责，有些抨击可以说是致命性的。

    另一项提出人类新近进化影响到人类行为的研究涉及文明进程，反而与平靖进程没有太大关系。在《应该读点经济史：一部世界经济简史》（A Farewell to Alms: A Brief Economic History of the World）一书中，作者克拉克试图对工业革命发生的时间表和地点做出解释。工业革命是人类历史上第一次物质财富增长的速度超过了人口的增长（本书第4章中图4-7即援引自这本书）。克拉克问，为什么是英国出现了逃离马尔萨斯陷阱的一次性跳跃？

    克拉克的回答是，英国人的天性发生了变化。自1250年左右开始，英国开始从骑士社会转向（被拿破仑嗤之以鼻的）“小店主国家”，大概是因为比较富裕的平民能够在年轻力壮时结婚，食物比较充足，生活环境比较卫生，他们比穷人生养了更多的孩子。克拉克将此称为“最富者生存”：富有的人越来越富有，而且拥有后代。英国中上层阶级的生育率也超过了贵族，当时的贵族正忙着在比武和私家战争中劈脑壳和大卸八块，参见第3章的图3-7，资料来源也是克拉克的数据。要到19世纪之后，英国的经济才出现了全面的发展，而在此之前，富裕商人家庭中生存下来的多余子女在社会上没有向上爬的经济机会，只能屈居底层。他们不断地取代比较贫困的贫民的位置，但同时保持了他们小资产阶级的节俭、勤劳、自制、珍惜未来和远离暴力的特质。英国人口的进化选择了中产阶级价值。当工业革命的技术创新带来各种机会时，中产阶级价值观让英国人处于最有利的位势，充分把握了这些机会。虽然克拉克为了将就政治正确，时不时要说明非暴力和自制也可以是父母传授给子女的文化习性，在为应该读点经济史一书所写的标题为“资本主义的基因？”的摘要中，他毫不含糊地阐释了他的论点：

    到19世纪，英国社会的性质已经完全资本主义化——个人主义盛行，时间偏好率低，延长工作时间，人力资本上升，所有这一切也许源于达尔文式优胜劣汰的规则，由人类社会从长期稳定的农业社会向工业革命变化中的生存压力所决定。当今世界上资本主义的胜利不仅取决于我们的意识形态和理性，也取决于我们的基因。[163]

    这本书对工业革命的历史沿革给出了翔实的统计资料和生动的文字阐述。但是，在各种增长经济学理论的生存竞争中，生物基因资本主义理论的竞争力至今未显优势。[164]问题之一是，直到最近，几乎在任何一个社会，富人的繁育数量都压倒了穷人，这不是工业革命后社会所独有的特性。问题之二是，虽然贵族和王室在合法婚生子嗣的数量上无法和资产阶级家庭抗衡，但在制造私生子方面却让其他人望尘莫及，因此在下一代基因库中，贵族和王家拥有的份额高于上一代的比例。问题之三是，当社会制度发生变化，一个民族可以在未经历中产阶级价值发展阶段的条件下进入高速经济增长，比如战后的日本和社会主义的中国。最重要的是，克拉克没有给出任何数据显示与未经历工业革命的国家相比，英国公民天生拥有更强的自制力和更低的暴力倾向。

    * * *

    所以，最新的生物进化在理论上也许能够改变我们对暴力和非暴力的倾向性，但我们提不出任何过硬的证据证明实际发生了什么。相反，我们有足够的证据证明已经发生的变化不可能是遗传进化的结果，虽然我们已经知道进化过程从未停止，但某些社会变化的时间之短暂，超出了自然选择能够解释的范围。人道主义革命时期废除了奴隶制和酷刑，权利革命时期针对少数族裔、妇女、儿童、同性恋以及动物的暴力减少，长期和平与新和平时期战争及种族灭绝的数量大幅下降，所有这些进步都发生在数十年甚至数年之间，有些甚至是发生在同一代人的身上。最戏剧性的变化是，美国的凶杀率在犯罪率大下降的20世纪90年代整整下降了一半。美国犯罪率下降的速率为每年约7%，在仅仅两代人之内，美国的凶杀率就下降到只有原来水平的1%，而这一期间人类的基因频率并没有发生任何改变。无可争辩的是，文化和社会环境可以调整我们内心善良天使（例如自制和共情）的设置，从而控制我们的暴力倾向。因此，我们不需要基因变化的假说，也有办法解释暴力减少的全部原因。至少到现在为止，基因假说不是我们的必要条件。

    道德和禁忌

    世界上的道德规范实在是过多了。如果我们将在追求自助正义中发生的凶杀、宗教冲突和革命战争带来的死难、因无受害人犯罪和过失被处决的人，以及意识形态大屠杀的对象加总在一起，这个数字肯定要超过不道德的掠夺和征服造成的死亡。人类总是用道德感作为原谅自己残忍行为的借口，认为自己动机纯正，且暴力也不曾给自己带来任何实际利益。对异教徒和改宗的犹太人实施酷刑，对女巫处以火刑，监禁同性恋，将不遵闺训的姐妹和女儿处死——受道德驱使的人给世界带来了无数苦难。难怪人们会对喜剧演员乔治·卡林（George Carlin）的粗话抱有同情。他说：“我认为人们太看重动机了。你要是敢说哪些人懒惰，整天窝在家里看电视上的抢答竞赛和自撸，我就敢告诉你哪些人真是他妈的一点儿麻烦都没找过！”

    虽然人类的道德感对人类福祉的总贡献很可能是一个巨大的负数，但在某些关键时刻，如果运用得当，道德感也可以是推进人类进步的强大动力，比如启蒙运动中的人道主义改革和最近几十年发生的权利革命。对于毒化人们心灵的意识形态，道德既可以是疾病，也可以是解药。人们的禁忌心理和道德心态一样，都是双刃剑。它可以让不同的宗教见解或者性取向的偏差成为必须严厉惩处的罪恶，但同时它也能够抑制人们的某些危险的邪念，例如武力征服、使用化学武器和核武器、对其他族裔怀有歧视性偏见、强奸，以及杀死已经成形的胎儿。

    这部分天性似乎是我们身上最美好的资源，但在实践中，它却可以比我们心中最恶毒的魔鬼更残忍。我们怎样才能理解这个癫狂的天使呢？

    为了理解在暴力减少历史进程中道德感的作用，我们必须先解开几个心理学之谜。第一，在不同的时代和不同的文化中，人们是怎样从各自的经验出发确立符合某些“道德”的追求，而以我们现在的道德准则，已经完全无法接受那些“道德”。第二，为什么一般来说道德感非但不能减少苦难，反而经常增加痛苦？第三，道德感何以如此割裂：一个正直的市民怎么会殴打自己的妻子和孩子？一个崇尚民主和自由的人怎么会蓄奴和进行殖民征伐，为什么德国纳粹对动物格外仁慈？第四，无论是好是坏，为什么道德感会进入人们的思想和行动，制造出禁忌悖论？而最大的迷惑当然是：是什么发生了变化？在历史进程中，人类的道德感得到多大程度的解放，最终驱动暴力水平不断下降？

    * * *

    出发点是区分本质上作为哲学议题的道德（尤其是“规范伦理学”），或是作为心理学议题的人类的道德感。除了持极端道德相对论立场的人，一般人们都相信，在某种意义上，人们的道德信念可以是错误的，即认为大屠杀、强奸、荣誉杀戮和残害异端具有合理性是错误的，不仅仅是因为我们在感情上无法接受这些恶行。[165]一个人不论是道德现实主义者，相信道德真理是像数学公理一样的客观存在，还是仅仅简单地认为，如果道德陈述能够成立，也只是因为它与公共信念相一致，或者说，它是我们集体理性思考得出的最佳认识，他都能够看到道德问题和道德心理问题之间的区别。道德心理问题追问的是人们体验道德的心理过程，就像我们对其他认知能力和情感能力的研究一样，我们也可以通过实验室和田野调查研究道德心理。

    理解道德感的第二步是承认在人们思索自己的行动——不只是规避某种行动——时，道德感是一种独特的思考方式。人们会因为一种行为被指为不道德（“杀人是错误的”）而规避这种行为，也可能仅仅因为有不同品位（“我讨厌菜花”）、不时兴（“喇叭裤过时了”）或者不审慎（“不要抓破蚊子叮咬的包”）而规避这些行为，两者之间有着至关重要的心理差异。[166]差异之一是对不道德行为的反对是普世的或普遍化的。如果你觉得菜花的味道令人厌恶，其他人是否要吃菜花不是你应该顾虑的问题。但是，如果你认为谋杀、酷刑、强奸违反道德，你绝不可能仅仅是自己不去参与这些不道德的活动，而对其他人是否烧杀奸淫全然无动于衷。你必定反对任何人从事此类活动。

    其次，道德化的信念可以付诸行动。人们也许无法不懈地实践苏格拉底的格言“知善者行善”，但是他们对此却充满渴望。在人们眼中，德行本身就是具有实质价值的目标，不需要计较它们是否还有其他动机。如果人们相信谋杀是不道德的，无须收买，甚至无须赞美，他们就会约束自己的行为，不去谋杀他人。一旦人们触犯了某项道德戒律，他们会设法为自己的行为寻找理由，如果不是极力寻找相反的戒律和借口为自己辩护，就是承认自己的失败有个人性格缺陷的原因。除了那些魔鬼和小说里的恶棍，没有人会说：“我认为杀人是可怕的暴行，但为了达到个人的目的，我随时可以杀人。”[167]

    最后，违背道德可以受到惩罚。如果一个人认为杀人是错误的，他不仅有权看到杀人凶手受到惩罚，还有义务实现惩罚。用我们的话说，就是不能让凶手逍遥法外。如果将“谋杀”换为“偶像崇拜”，或者“同性恋”“亵渎神明”“颠覆”“下流”“叛逆”，我们就能看到人类的道德感可能成为多么强大的邪恶力量。

    道德感还有一个特征，即很多道德信念成为社会的规范和禁忌，而不是信仰者能够进行表述和捍卫的原则。心理学家劳伦斯·科尔伯格（Lawrence Kohlberg）提出了著名的道德发展六阶段说。这六个阶段始于孩子规避惩罚，终于哲学家阐述普世原则，（而很多人从未能超越的）中间两个阶段，即制定“好男孩”“好女孩”的标准，以及维护社会稳定的惯例。科尔伯格提出了一个著名的道德悖论，这个悖论是说，海因茨为了挽救病危的妻子，闯入药店盗窃一种定价过高的药品。在对海因茨的道德困境进行推理的时候，处于这两个道德阶段的人能够做出的回答不外乎：其一，他不应该偷药，因为偷窃不好，而且触犯法律，但他不是罪犯；其二，他应该偷药，因为作为好丈夫，他只能如此。[168]很少有人能够对道德判断的原则进行阐述，比如说人的生命具有的基本价值高于任何社会规范、社会稳定或者遵纪守法。

    心理学家乔纳森·海特（Jonathan Haidt）特别强调了道德规范的难以言说性，他将这一现象称为道德失声（moral dumbfounding）。人们时常有一种瞬时直觉，感到一种行为是不道德的，但对其之所以不道德的理由却感到困惑和挣扎，而且往往给不出解答。[169]比如，海特询问他的病人的下列行为是否正当：兄妹之间发生有保护措施的性交；某人用美国国旗擦马桶；某家人吃掉他们被车撞死的狗；某个男子买了一只死鸡，然后对死鸡进行了性行为；某人违背对母亲临终时的誓言，没有去祭扫母亲的坟墓。回答是，上述每一项行为都不正当。但当被问及这些行为不正当的理由是什么时，他们惶惑起来，经过一番无效的努力，他们都表示：“我不知道，我无法解释，我就是知道这是错误的。”

    即使道德规范难以言说，有些时候它们仍然可以有效地制止暴力行为。在当代西方，人们不再对被遗弃的孩子实施安乐死，对羞辱进行报复，以及向另一个发达国家发动战争。规避这些暴力不是出于对道德问题的权衡，对他人的共情，或者对冲动的克制，而是出于在人们心中这些暴力已经完全不是现实的选择。这些暴行不是被深思熟虑后再被放弃的，而根本是不可思议，甚至非常可笑的。

    * * *

    决定行为规范的文化差异，加上我们自己文化中的道德失声，会给人某种印象，似乎道德规范和禁忌完全是主观性的——也许在某个地方有某种文化，如果组成句子的字数是偶数，说话人就是不道德的，或者，如果否认海水是滚烫的也是不道德的。但是，人类学家理查德·施韦德（Richard Shweder）和他的学生以及合作者发现，全世界的各种道德规范均集中在为数寥寥的一小部分主题上。[170]人类的道德关注可能早已成为德化，即确立道德规范的认知和情感工具，而那些被现代西方人视为道德核心的直觉——公平、正义，保护个人的权利和预防伤害——仅是这几个关注领域中的一个而已。我们只需粗略地浏览一下古老的宗教，例如犹太教、伊斯兰教和印度教，就会知道它们就其他一系列关注点确立了道德规范，比如忠、敬、顺从、禁欲，以及对饮食、性事和经期等与生理机能有关的某些规定。

    施韦德将世界范围的道德关注划分为三类。[171]“自主”（autonomy），这是当代西方人承认的伦理，它假定社会由个体组成，道德的宗旨在于让个体进行选择并使自己不受伤害。与之相对比的是“社群”（community）伦理，它将社会视为由部落、家族、家庭、组织机构、行会和其他联合体的总集，道德就等于责任、尊敬、忠诚和相互依赖。“神性”（divinity）伦理认为世界的本质是神性，而部分神性的实质寄居在人的身上，道德的宗旨是保护神圣的精神不受侵蚀和玷污。如果人的身体不过是承载灵魂的容器，其最终归属权在神，或者是神的一部分，那么人就没有权利随意处置自己的身体。他们有责任避免身体被不洁净的男女饮食和其他肉体快感玷污。神性伦理为厌恶感的道德化以及纯洁和禁欲的清规戒律提供了依据。

    海特接过了施韦德道德三分说，并将其中两个伦理再一分为二，形成他所谓的五项道德基准。[172]“社群”被切分为“内群体忠诚”（in-group loyalty）和“权威/尊敬”（authority respect）,“自主”则被分成“公平/互惠”（fairness/reciprocity）即支撑互惠利他主义的道德）和“伤害/关爱”（harm/care，培养人们的善良和爱心，约束残忍和攻击性）。海特为“神性伦理”贴上了更世俗化的标签——“贞洁/神圣”（purity/sanctity）。除了这些调整，为了强调道德五基准的普世性，海特特别说明，在世俗西方人的道德直觉中能够找到这五个领域的所有内容。他在论及发生道德失声的情况时认为，“贞洁/神圣”让信守此道德的人对乱伦、人兽交和吃家庭宠物产生厌恶感，“权威/尊敬”要求人们为母亲扫墓，“内群体忠诚”禁止人们侮辱美国国旗。

    我本人认为最有意义的是人类学家艾伦·菲斯克（Alan Fiske）发展的理论体系。在这个理论中，德化来自四个互动模型，每一个模型都反映了人们看待人际关系的一种独特视角。[173]他的理论试图解释在既定的社会中人们如何分配资源，在进化历史的哪个阶段产生了人们的道德执着，为什么不同的社会有不同的道德，以及人们是如何区隔化道德，并通过禁忌来保护道德的。下面的表格大致展示出菲斯克的四种互动模型与施韦德和海特的道德分类之间的关联。

    菲斯克的第一个模型，社群共享（简称“共享”），结合了“内群体忠诚”和“贞洁/神圣”。在人们进入“共享”心态的时候，他们在群体内无偿地分享资源，不介意谁付出多少，谁又得到多少。他们将群体视为血肉相连的“一体”，这个共同的实体必须被小心保护，不容任何玷污。人们用各种显示连接和亲和的仪式强化这种团体直觉，比如身体接触、聚餐、团体操练、同声唱诗或祈祷、分享情感、同样的身体修饰和纹彩，在哺育、性交和歃血盟誓类的鲜血仪式中交融体液；此外还有祖先的神话、家族传承、祖辈扎根的领土，或者共同的图腾。“共享”是从母性关怀、亲缘选择和互利主义演化而来，它至少有一部分已经通过催产素系统植入人类的大脑。

    菲斯克的第二个互动模型——“权威序列”（autherity ranking），是一个由权威、地位、年龄、性别、身材、体力、财产或优先权所定义的线性等级结构。“权威序列”让上级有权对下级予求予取，接受供奉，要求下级顺服和尽忠，同时也要求上级承担家长式、牧师式或贵族式保护下级的义务。这个模式可以说是从灵长类动物的等级差序进化而成，很可能在某种程度上通过睾丸素反应回路嵌入人类的大脑。

    “平等互惠”（equality matching）包含投桃报李式的互惠以及其他公平分配资源的模式，比如轮候、抽签、多予多取、等额分配、儿歌式的口头规则。虽然黑猩猩有非常粗糙的公平感，但动物一般都没有能力完成明确的互惠活动，在出现自己要吃亏的情况时尤为如此。“平等互惠”的神经基础是我们的大脑能够记载人们的意图、欺骗、冲突、变换观察角度和计算，它涉及的大脑部位有脑岛、眶额皮层、扣带皮层、背外侧前额叶皮层、顶叶皮层和颞顶交界区。“平等互惠”是人类公平意识和直观经济意识的基础，在知己和战友之外，它让人们以邻居、同事、熟人、贸易伙伴的形式联结在一起。很多部落都保留着交换毫无用途的礼品的仪式，比如我们在圣诞节都要尝一口甜腻的果仁糕，目的不过是为了巩固“平等互惠”的互动关系。[174]

    （读者对照三种分类后可能会问，为什么海特的“伤害/关爱”会和“公平”相接，并和菲斯克的“平等互惠”排列在一个对照组，难道它不是更应该接近更加感情化的关系，例如“社群”或者“神圣”。这样划分的理由在于，海特“伤害/关爱”的对象不是关怀的标准受益人——亲朋好友，而是泛指的“某个人”。人们对海特“关爱”问题的回答，与对他所提出的“公平”问题的回答完全吻合，这当然绝非偶然。[175]我们前面曾经提到，公平意识背后的互惠利他主义逻辑是率先给予合作，表示“善意”；在对方背叛之前决不背叛对方；当自己所费不高但能让他人受益匪浅——或云拔一毛能利天下时，一定出手帮助他人。一旦关爱和伤害伸延到亲友的小圈子之外，它们只能是公平逻辑的组成部分。）[176]

    菲斯克的最后一个互动模型是“市场定价”（market pricing）：货币体系、价格、租金、工薪、收益、利息、信用、其他衍生品都是推动现代经济的力量。“市场定价”依赖数字、数学公式、会计、电子数字传递和规范的合约语言。与其他三个模型不同，“市场定价”依赖文字、数字和其他新近发明的技术，因此它不具备普适性。人们也不是天然地就接受“市场定价”的逻辑。正如我们所知，直到当代，人类社会一直普遍抵制利息和利润。菲斯克表示，四个模型可以按照一定的顺序排列，排序的标准或多或少反映出它们在进化、儿童发育和历史进程中出现的时间：社群共享>权威序列>对等互惠>市场定价。

    在我看来，“市场定价”模型的特点既不在市场，也不在定价，它应该和其他正式社会组织的样板具有同样的性质。这些组织已然经历了几个世纪的磨砺，即使在今天技术高度发达的社会中，仍然是千百万人管理自己事务的有效方式，只不过未受调教的大脑很难自发地获得这些知识。[177]民主政治制度也是这些组织之一，所谓“民主”，意味着权力不在强人（“权威”）手里，而是在经过正式投票程序产生的代表的掌握之中。代表所拥有的特权受法律制度的制约。其他的组织形式有公司、大学或非营利组织。在这些组织工作的人既不能任意雇用自己的朋友和亲属（“共享资源”），也不应该私相授受（“对等互惠”），而必须恪守信托责任和规则。我对菲斯克理论的修订绝非无中生有。菲斯克说过，他的“市场定价”模型深受马克斯·韦伯“法理型社会”概念的启发；在韦伯的理论中，社会权力来源有三种模式：传统型、非凡人格型和法理型。其中，法理型权力的正当性来自一套合乎理性并严格按照规则实施的法律制度。[178]因此，我有时候会用更通用的术语“法理型”来称呼“市场定价”互动模式。

    施韦德、海特和菲斯克三人的理论有重合也有分歧，但他们在道德感如何发挥作用的问题上的想法是一致的。没有任何社会是通过“黄金法则”或“绝对律令”来规范日常行为中的品德和是非。相反，道德与否就看是遵从还是违背了这些互动模型（或互动伦理、互动准则）：背叛、欺骗或者推翻一个联盟，玷污自己或者玷污自己的社区，蔑视或侮辱一个合法的权威，无故伤害他人，白占他人的便宜，贪污或滥用特权。

    * * *

    这些分类的着眼点不是要将整个社会塞进笼子，而是为阐述社会规范提供一套语言法则。[179]这套语言法则应该能够揭示在文化差异和历史差异背后的共同规律（包括暴力的减少），应该能够预测人们对违反惯例的行为可能做出的反应，包括人在道德区隔化（moral compartmentalization）上表现出的天生的局限性。

    某些社会规范不过是协调博弈的手段，比如行车靠右、流通纸币和使用地方性语言，[180]但是大部分规范都具有道德含义。每一个道德化的规范都是一个被分隔的区间，其中含有一个互动模型，一个或几个社会角色（父母、子女、老师、学生、丈夫、妻子、上级、雇员、客户、邻居、陌生人），一个场景（家、街道、学校、工作场所）和一种资源（食物、金钱、土地、房屋、时间、建议、性、劳动力）。要适应某一种文化的社会成员，意味着严守一大套社会规范。

    以友谊为例。两个亲近的朋友之间的互动方式主要是“社群共享”。他们在饭局上随意地分享食物，互相帮助，用不着斤斤计较。但是在某些场合，他们必须遵守其他互动规范。如果他们共同从事一项工作，两人中的一人是专家，此人可向另一人发号施令（“权威序列”）；他们也可能各付某次旅行中一半的油钱（“对等互惠”）；或者一个人按照蓝皮书上的市价买下另一个人的旧车（“市场定价”）。

    违背互动规范绝对是不道德的。在规范友谊关系的“社群分享”模型中，一个人决不应该在分享时小气吝啬。就“对等互利”模型中油费分账的特例而言，拒不支付自己的一份是不道德的。但是在持续的互利关系中，“对等互利”允许放宽衡量的尺度，比如在美国加州沙查县，牧场主用大致对等的互惠补偿对方的损失，而对某些小损失则采取不予追究的态度。[181]“市场定价”和其他“法理型”模式则没有这样宽容。在昂贵的餐馆里用餐后不付饭钱的人，恐怕不能指望店主会让他赊账，甚至免单。店主很可能会立刻报警。

    当一个人违反了公认的互动规范，违规者会被视为害虫或者骗子，成为道德谴责的目标。但是，当一个人将一个互动模型的规范用于原本受另外一个互动模型制约的行为时，则会产生一种新的心理现象。这个人“不懂规矩”，所以他的犯规行为不算太严重。人们对“不懂规矩”的反应程度可以从困惑、受窘和难堪，一直到震惊、反感和愤怒。[182]比如说，我们可以想象，一个人用餐后心满意足地向餐馆的主人表示感激，然后提出在将来的某个时候请他到家里吃顿饭（在“市场定价”的场合使用“社群共享”规则）；反之，我们也可以想象，应邀在朋友家吃饭时（“社群共享”的时光），某人突然掏出钱包说要付给主人饭钱（“市场定价”），或者主人家要求正在电视机前放松自己的客人起来刷锅洗碗（“对等互惠”）。同样，还可以想象一位客人提出向主人兜售自己的旧车，然后狮子大开口，拼命提高价格；或者主人突然建议每对夫妻在回家之前玩半小时交换性伴侣的游戏。

    人们对规范错位的情绪反应取决于违规行为是意外还是有心为之，是哪一种规范发生错位，以及所涉及的资源的性质。心理学家菲利普·泰特罗克（Philip Tetlock）表示，当一种资源被人们视为神圣的时候，规范错位会引发禁忌心理——某些想法一旦被公之于众，即会引起人们愤怒的反应。[183]神圣的价值不是可以买卖的交易品。神圣的资源通常受“共享”和“权威”基础模型的规范。当有人将“对等互利”和“市场定价”这两种高级模型用于神圣资源的时候，就会触发禁忌反应。比如，有人向你提出要买你的孩子（突然将“社群共享”关系扔进“市场定价”模型），你不会问对方出价几何，而是会被他的提议本身激怒。如果有人出价要买你珍藏的私人纪念品或传家宝，或者出价要你出卖朋友、配偶或者国家，也会引起你同样的反应。泰特罗克发现，当要求学生就神圣资源开放市场问题，比如允许交易选票、兵役、陪审员义务、身体器官、供人领养的儿童分析利弊的时候，大多数学生不是就自己的反对立场提出强有力的论证（比如困境中的穷人将会出卖自己的器官），而是对问题本身表示愤慨。最经典的“论证”是：“这实在是太可耻、太不人道了，令人无法容忍！”“我们会变成什么样的人啊？!”

    禁忌心理不是完全非理性的。[184]为了维系珍贵的人际关系，仅仅是说正确的话和做正确的事还不够。我们还必须展示我们心地纯正，不会为了好处就出卖信任我们的人。对于卑鄙的提议，只有愤然拒绝，否则就说明你不懂得父母、夫妻和公民的真正含义。而这种理解包含了赋予基础互动模型以神圣价值的文化规范。

    有个老笑话说，一个男人问一个女人为了100万美元是否愿意和他睡觉，她回答说她愿意考虑。接着他问，那么为了100美元，她是否愿意和他睡觉。她回答说：“你以为我是什么样的女人？”他回答说：“我们已经解决了这个问题，现在只是在讨论价钱而已。”这个笑话告诉我们，大部分神圣价值事实上是伪神圣。如果对这些神圣价值的出卖是模糊不清的，被花言巧语掩饰的，或者可以重新包装的，人们完全可以在诱惑下做出妥协。[185]（这个笑话使用了标志性的数字“100万美元”，这将一个简单的金钱交易解释成改变生活的机会，具体说，就是成为一个百万富翁。）当最早出现人寿保险的时候，人们对给人的生命标价，并让妻子拿丈夫的死亡押注非常反感，而人们对人寿保险的认识在技术上是非常准确的。[186]人寿保险业发起大规模广告宣传，将寿险产品重新包装成有责任心的丈夫必须考虑的安排，寿险让他可以在自己万一不在世的时候继续承担关照家人的责任。

    泰特罗克区分了三种不同的交换。“常规”交换是在单一互动模型中权衡后做出的选择，比如与张三而不是李四做朋友，或者买这辆车而不是那一辆车。“禁忌”交换是以某个模型中的神圣价值对抗另外一个模型中的普通价值，比如为了金钱出卖朋友、爱人、器官或者自己的良知。“悲剧”交换则是两个神圣价值的交锋，比如决定两个急需器官移植的病人谁应该排在前面，或者最悲惨的终极选择，苏菲必须在自己的两个孩子之间选择孰生孰死。泰特罗克指出，政治的艺术主要就是将禁忌选择包装成悲剧的抉择（或者说，政治上的反对派则反其道而行之，将悲剧的选择说成是禁忌权衡）。想要改造社保体制的政治家必须躲开改革“失信于老年公民”的指责（这是其对手的诠释），强调改革是“减轻辛苦谋生的工薪阶层的重负”或者“停止侵蚀下一代的教育资源”。在阿富汗保留军队可以从“将我们战士的生命置于险境”转换成“确保我们国家对自由的承诺”或“最终赢得反恐战争”。我们将会看到，对神圣价值进行重新包装成一种维和心理的策略，没有得到人们足够的重视。

    * * *

    这些有关道德感的新理论帮助人们理解道德情感、道德区隔和道德禁忌。我们现在将用这些理论分析一下不同文化之间，特别是不同历史进程中的德化标准的差异。

    某些互动模型对社会角色的配置得到所有文化的认同，这样的模型很可能具有生物学的基础。比如，家庭成员之间的“共同分享”，家庭内部尊重长者的“权威序列”，以及根据“对等互利”交换商品和互相帮助。但是，有些模型对资源和社会角色的配置却因不同文化和不同时代而有巨大的差异。[187]

    比如在西方的传统婚姻中，丈夫可以对妻子摆出“权威”。这个模型在20世纪70年代基本被推翻，有些夫妇受到女权主义的影响，转向“对等互利”，两人严格平分家务和照顾孩子的工作，甚至到了要按小时计算的地步。“对等互利”产生的算计感与大多数夫妇追求的亲昵感不能兼容，所以现代婚姻的主流采取了“社群共享”模型——结果，很多妻子认为，夫妻双方对家庭的贡献账目不清，自己总是做得过多，而得不到应有的评价。夫妻关系偶尔也进入“法理型”互动，比如“婚前协议”，或者在遗嘱中分别规定以前的婚姻所生子女的继承权。

    互动模型与资源之间或者和社会角色之间的不同联系，说明了一种文化和另一种文化的差异。一个社会中的成员可以鬻田卖地，另一个社会允许买卖或交换新娘，双方都可能对对方的实践感到不可思议。在有些文化中，女性的性生活完全受家庭中男性权威的主宰，但在另一些文化中，妇女可以自由地以“社群共享”的方式结交情人，或者她们可以毫无羞耻地按照“对等互利”原则用性来交换其他资源。在有些社会，只有受害者的亲族可以为复仇进行杀戮（“对等互利”）；而在另一些社会，人命可以用金钱赔偿（“市场定价”）；或者，杀人必受国家机器（“权威序列”）的惩罚。

    承认某人属于不同的文化，在某种程度上能够缓解对其违反互动规范的愤怒。不同文化的人的犯规行为甚至可以成为幽默的原料，比如在早年的喜剧中，懵懂的移民和乡巴佬总是在买火车票时讨价还价，在公园的草坪上牧羊，或者提议让自己的女儿和债权人结婚来抵偿债务。在影片《波拉特》（Borat）中，这个公式倒转了过来，喜剧演员萨沙·拜伦·科恩尽情地调侃美国人如何为了刻意地容忍不同的文化，任凭一个拆烂污的移民在他们中间胡作非为。不过，一旦违规涉及神圣价值，比如西方国家中的移民要实行女性阴部割礼、荣誉谋杀、买卖儿童新娘，又比如西方人在小说和报刊漫画中描绘与讥讽伊斯兰教的先知穆罕默德，或者让小学生用先知的名字命名小熊玩具，容忍就达到了极限。

    互动模型中社会角色和资源的配置也可以说明一个社会的政治意识形态。[188]法西斯主义、封建主义、神权和其他原始性的意识形态的基础都是“社群共享”和“权威序列”互动模型。个人利益完全被淹没在社群中 [法西斯一词源于意大利文的“捆绑”（bundle）]，而社群受军队、贵族或神职集团的统治。共产主义主张的是资源的“社群共享”（“各尽所能，按需分配”），生产工具的“公平互惠”和政治权力的“权威序列”[理论上是无产阶级专政，实际上是强人统治下的官员特权制（nomenklatura）]。民粹社会主义追求生活必需品，例如土地、医疗、教育和托儿等资源的“对等互利”。而相反的极端情况是，自由意志主义则允许人们在“市场定价”的原则下对几乎所有资源协商议价，包括人体器官、婴儿、医疗、性和教育。

    介于这两个极端之间的是人们已经熟知的自由保守主义（liberalconservative）。海特进行的数次调查显示，自由主义者相信道德的意义在于防止伤害和保证公平（与施韦德的“自主”和菲斯克的“公平互惠”等价）。保守主义者则给予五种道德基础同样的权重，包括“内群体忠诚”（例如稳定、传统和爱国主义的价值观）,“贞洁/神圣”（例如礼貌、体面和宗教仪式），以及“权威/尊重”（例如尊重权威、顺从上帝、承认男女不同的社会角色、军人服从命令）。[189]美国文化战争的战场遍及税收、医保、福利、同性恋婚姻、堕胎、军队的规模、进化论课程、媒体上的污言秽语、政教分离各个领域。在很大程度上，争夺的目标是要决定什么是这个国家正当的道德观。海特说，两个极端的意识形态狂热分子都认为对方是不道德的，但事实上，尽管双方大脑中的道德回路都在熊熊燃烧，但点燃它们的道德概念却完全不同。

    * * *

    在论及道德心理和暴力之间的关系之前，让我用互动模型理论解决本书前面提出的一个心理困惑。许多带来观念变化的道德进步并不是让人们觉得某种行为罪过，而是感到这种行为荒唐可笑，比如决斗、斗牛和侵略战争。许多影响深远的社会批评家，例如斯威夫特、约翰逊、伏尔泰、马克·吐温、奥斯卡·王尔德、罗素、汤姆·莱勒、乔治·卡林，他们更像伶牙俐齿的喜剧演员，而不是满口箴言警句的先知。那么，我们心里有什么东西，让笑话比利剑更有力量？

    幽默利用不和谐让听众感到冲突，但转换参照系可以化解不和谐。在新的参照系中，调侃的对象可以失去原有的光环，变成微不足道或有损尊严的东西。[190]当伍迪·艾伦说“我很为我的金表感到自豪，这可是我爷爷咽气之前卖给我的”时，听众先是觉得惊讶，这样情深义重的传家宝的传承为何是买卖而不是赠予，再说卖者已经完全不能享受买卖的收益。接着，他们认识到伍迪·艾伦扮演的人物是家庭中不受待见的家伙，而这个家庭充满了钩心斗角和唯利是图。带来不和谐感的第一个参照系通常包含某种居主流地位的互动模型。要理解笑话的可笑之处，必须摆脱原有的互动模型，比如，将伍迪·艾伦的金表继承从“社群共享”切换到“市场定价”。

    拿政治议题或者道德议题开心的笑话，不动声色地向原已成为第二天性的互动模式发出挑战，迫使听众睁开眼睛，看着他们的世界观被彻底颠覆。当人们心目中的战争形象已从惊心动魄和光彩辉煌变成浪费生命并愚蠢时，人们就特别能欣赏喜剧经典《鸭羹》。鲁弗斯·T.法亚弗为了一个完全是假想的羞辱，可以斗志昂扬地发动战争，这让民族自豪和“权威序列”都成为十足的笑料。讽刺是推动社会进步的加速器。20世纪60年代，种族主义者和大男子主义者被塑造成头脑迟钝的尼安德特人，越战鹰派被刻画成嗜血的心理变态狂。

    18世纪的作家玛丽·沃特利·蒙塔古（Mary Wortley Montagu）说：“讽刺，应如利刃般锋锐，轻触处刀入肌肤，似无痛楚，不见血痕。”不过，很少有讽刺能够磨砺到这般锋锐，刀过无痕，而被取笑的人也太明白其背后的颠覆力量。他们感到神圣的价值在遭受有意的羞辱，尊严被折辱，而且认识到，人们的笑声说明大家都知道他们受到了羞辱，为此他们很可能做出剧烈反应。2005年丹麦报纸《日德兰邮报》（Jyllands-Posten）刊登的漫画引发多起流血骚乱，证明当某些人的神圣互动模型受到刻意贬低的时候，幽默就不是好笑的事情了。（在《日德兰邮报》的一幅漫画上，一批人体炸弹袭击者刚刚抵达天堂，迎接他们的穆罕默德惊呼：“停一停吧！处女已经用完啦！”）

    * * *

    构成道德感的互动模型是怎样让人们感到暴力具有道德正当性的？社会有多大的自由度能够控制道德暴力，甚至能够实现道德反暴力？所有的互动模型都要求对违反规范的人进行道德惩罚，但每一种模型所允许的暴力各有其特性。[191]

    菲斯克说，人类之间的互动不是必须使用任何模型，他称不服从互动模型的状态为无效人际关系或反社会人际关系。不从属任何互动模型的人会被非人化：他们被视为缺乏人性的某些基本属性，被当作没有生命的物体，可以任意被忽视、被剥削或者被捕食。[192]因此，反社会关系可以为征服、强奸、刺杀、杀婴、战略轰炸、殖民掠夺和其他犯罪铺垫基础。

    将他人置于互动模型之中，至少表明承担顾及其利益的义务。“社群共享”本身包含着对内群体成员的同情和温情——当然，也仅仅是对自己的成员而言。菲斯克的合作者尼克·哈斯拉姆（Nick Haslam）表示过，“社群共享”可以产生第二种非人性化：不是机械地将反社会关系非人化，而是将对象兽性地非人化，拒绝承认社群之外的人同样具有人类的共同特质，例如理性、个性、自制、德行、文化。[193]对待团体之外的人，人们并非只是冷淡和麻木，而是厌弃和轻蔑。“社群共享”会鼓励这种非人化，因为受排挤的人被认为缺少本群体成员特有的纯洁性和神圣性，这些人的存在就是肮脏的污染源。所以，尽管“社群共享”四个字中的每个字都很美好，但部落屠杀、种族和民族灭绝、宗教清洗此类意识形态都可以在“社群共享”那里找到思想支持。

    “权威序列”同样也有两面性。家长式的权威有责任保护和支持自己的羽翼，这也许就是“平靖进程”中领主制止属下自相残杀的心理依据。奴隶主、殖民统治者和仁慈的独裁者因此找到了自己的道德合理性。但是“权威序列”也承认可以对不尊上、不顺从、违背命令、叛国、亵渎、异端、冒犯君主的人进行暴力惩罚。当“权威序列”和“社群共享”结合在一起的时候，它为一个集团针对另一个集团的暴力，包括帝国侵略和武力征服，以及对下层阶级、殖民地人民和奴隶的镇压提供了理由。

    双方交换互惠的义务让“对等互利”成为一种比较仁义的互动模型。在这个模型中，各方都以对方的存在和福祉为自己的存在和福祉的前提。对等互利鼓励某种程度的换位思考，而换位思考能产生真正的同情。个人之间和国家之间的商贸具有平靖效应，其背后的思维是交易伙伴之间就算没有诚挚的爱，至少还懂得彼此珍惜。另一方面，对等互利符合“一报还一报”的复仇理念——以眼还眼、以牙还牙、杀人抵命、血债血偿。我们在本书第8章看到，即使在现代社会，人们仍然倾向于认为刑事处罚是罪有应得，而不是普遍威慑或特殊威慑。[194]

    法理型理性是在文字和数字社会才出现的新型互动模型，它既非直觉亦非感情，本身对暴力既不鼓励也不抑制。如果不是人人都明确拥有选举权，并拥有对自己人身和财产的所有权作为前提，由于市场经济原则下无道德约束的利润追逐，人们就会发现自己陷入奴隶交易和人口走私，甚至以炮舰外交开辟新的外国市场。量化工具可以在高科技战争中用于产生最大化的杀伤力。当然，我们应该看到，法理型理性也可以服务于功利主义道德观，即衡量最大多数人的最大幸福，精确测度警察和军队的最低需要量，以最大限度地减少暴力的总量。[195]

    * * *

    那么，道德心理到底发生了什么变化，产生了人道主义革命、长期和平和权利革命，促成了暴力的全面减少？

    常规互动模型的变化方向相当清晰。菲斯克和泰特罗克观察到：“在世界范围内，最近3个世纪以来，社会制度在整体上沿着从 ‘社群共享 ’向 ‘权威序列 ’，再向 ‘对等互利 ’和 ‘市场定价 ’的方向加速移动。”[196]如果我们使用第7章提到的民调数据作为指标，社会自由主义引领风气变化之先河，社会保守主义最终追随其后。海特关于自由主义和保守主义道德关怀的数据也给出了同样的结论。我在前文提到过，在判断道德关怀的重要性时，社会自由主义者对“内群体忠诚”和“纯洁/神圣”（菲斯克将此涵盖在“社群共享”）以及“权威/尊敬”不屑一顾，而几乎将全部关注放在“伤害/关怀”和“公平/互利”上。社会保守主义者则对所有五类道德规范一视同仁。[197]社会自由主义导向的历史趋势，与社群和权威渐行渐远，其价值观越来越多地以平等、公正、自治和合法权利为基础。虽然自由派和保守派可能都不愿意承认正在发生这样或那样的历史趋势，但今天，没有任何主流保守政治家还会像几十年前那样，打出传统、权威、凝聚力或者宗教的旗号，为种族隔离，妇女不能离家工作、指控同性恋为犯罪等行为进行辩护。[198]

    道德资源撤离社群、圣洁和权威何以具有反对暴力的效果？一个原因是集体性或公社性（communality）是部落制和沙文主义的道德核心，权威则给政府镇压的正当性提供了理由。然而，更主要的原因是，当道德被约束在一定的边界之内。这个范围越小，人们能够合法惩处的违规行为就越少。无论是传统还是现代，是自由主义还是保守主义，每个人都同意道德的基石之一是自主和公平。没有人反对政府行使暴力将刺客、强奸犯和谋杀犯关进监狱。但是，在这个共识之外，传统道德的卫道士希望再加上一个非暴力型犯罪名单，比如同性恋、放荡、亵渎、异端、淫秽和玷污圣符。为了让卫道士的道德谴责具有威力，必须由利维坦来惩处越轨行为。从法律条文中删除这些罪名，也就减少了权威挥舞棍棒、手铐、板子，以及实施监禁和处决的机会。

    社会规范向“市场定价”方向推移让很多人感到恐慌，但是它同时也表明这是一个走向非暴力的趋势。酷爱“市场定价”模型的激进自由意志主义者，甚至主张将卖淫、吸毒和赌博一概非罪化，清空当今世上关押了千百万人的监狱（老鸨和毒枭应该可以被送进对付流氓团伙的感化营）。越来越多的个人自由自然地提出一个问题，以社会认可的暴力对付很多人不认可的行为，例如亵渎神明、同性恋、吸毒、卖淫，是否符合我们的道德理想。但是，无论对错，问题的关键在于随着道德退出社区、权威、神明这些传统领域，暴力确实在减少。而道德退出也恰是古典自由主义追求的目标：个人摆脱部落和权威的束缚获得更大的自由，宽容个人选择，只要这些选择不伤害其他人的自主和福祉。

    现代社会中道德发展的历史方向不仅仅是离开集体和权威，而且是走向法理型组织，这本身也是趋向和平的发展。菲斯克说，以谋求最大多数人的最大幸福为目标的功利主义道德，可谓“市场定价”模型的典范。“市场定价”是法理型思维的一个特例。[199]功利主义大家切萨雷·贝卡里亚开创了刑法改革，将赤裸裸的复仇饥渴变为以威慑预防为目标的政策。边沁的功利推理指出了处罚同性恋和虐待动物的非理性，约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒据此提出了最早的女权议题。在20世纪90年代南非民族解放运动中，曼德拉、图图和其他和解派人士公开谴责复仇型正义，而主张实行揭露真相—大赦—适当惩罚元凶的配合政策，这也是通过达到功利的均衡以减少暴力的成功案例。国际社会对种族隔离的南非实行经济制裁而不是武力打击，同样符合这一原则。

    * * *

    如果道德心理学最新理论的方向是正确的，那么，不管我们如何努力限制社群、权威、神圣和禁忌的影响，这些直觉都是且很可能永远是人性的组成部分。但我们没有必要为此惊慌。不同的互动模型可以相互结合，相互嵌入，追求暴力最小化的法理型思维模型可以约束其他思维模式的暴力性。[200]

    如果某个版本的“社群分享”对人的生命进行资源配置，社区的范围涵盖全人类，远非一个家庭、一个族群或者一个国家，这个模型完全可以成为抽象人权原则的情感依据。我们是一个人类大家庭，在这个家庭内，没有人能够剥夺其他人的生命和自由。在“权威序列”模型中，为了防止更大的暴力伤害，国家被赋予使用暴力的垄断权。国家对其公民的权威，以民主制衡的形式嵌入“权威序列”，比如总统可以否决国会通过的法案，同时国会可以弹劾和罢免总统。神圣的价值观和捍卫神圣价值的各种禁忌，也可以反映出我们认为必须珍视的价值和事物，比如已经成形的胎儿，国家的边界和禁止使用化学武器与核武器。

    斯科特·阿特兰与两位心理学家杰里米·金吉斯（Jeremy Ginges）和道格拉斯·梅丁（Douglas Medin），以及政治学家哈利勒·史卡基（Khalil Shikaki）合作，探讨了如何以和平为目的重造心理禁忌的问题。[201]在理论上，和平谈判应该遵守“市场定价”模型的规范。当敌对双方放下武器，自然产生一笔红利——所谓的“和平红利”，双方同意分享红利达成和平。为了得到一份和平红利，各方都必须放弃自己的最高要求，所得到的红利将大于他们拒绝谈判的收益，而继续交战还将付出更大的代价。

    不幸的是，神圣价值和禁忌心理会拒绝理性交易的最佳方案。如果对手中的一方固执于价值的神圣性，那么他所捍卫的是无价之宝，就像我们不会出卖自己的孩子，他也决不肯就自己的神圣价值进行交易。被民族主义和宗教狂热煽动起来的人总是认为自己所坚持的是神圣不可侵犯的价值，比如对某片圣地的主权和对历史暴行的某种承认。即使是为了和平的目的妥协也是触犯禁忌，甚至动一动这样的念头都证明此人是叛徒、内奸、唯利是图的小人、荡妇。

    流行的心理学实验的方式，都是研究人员找几十名大学生，每人给一杯啤酒的钱，然后让他们回答问卷。但在一项非常大胆的实验中，研究人员找到了真正生活在以巴冲突地带的居民进行调查：西岸的600多名以色列定居者、500多名巴勒斯坦难民、700多名巴勒斯坦学生，其中半数承认追随哈马斯或“巴勒斯坦伊斯兰圣战组织”。研究人员在每一个小组中都能找到视自己的要求为神圣价值的狂热分子。几乎一半的以色列定居者表示，不论有多大的好处，犹太人民永远不能同意放弃任何以色列领土，包括（构成西岸的）朱迪亚和撒马利亚。在巴勒斯坦人中，超过半数的学生表示，不论有多大的好处，在耶路撒冷的主权问题上决不能有任何妥协。80%的难民认为，巴勒斯坦人返回以色列的权利不容让步。

    研究人员将以巴两族人各分三份，组成三组，再向每一组人出示一个要求各方就自己的神圣价值进行妥协的假想和平方案。其中一组得到“两国方案”，要求以色列从99%的西岸和加沙地带撤走，但不需要接纳巴勒斯坦难民。毫不奇怪，这一方案没有得到什么支持。双方的极端分子对方案本身表示愤慨和厌恶，并声称如果有必要，将以暴力抗拒这样的方案。

    第二组受访者拿到一个在两国方案之外，附加美国和欧盟在100年内每年补贴10亿美元，或确保人民生活和平繁荣的方案。面对这些甜头，非极端分子的反对立场有所软化，但因为方案带有明显的收买意味，极端分子变得更加狂躁和愤怒，也更加暴力。一旦涉及政治和宗教冲突，人类行为分析中的理性人假设实在没有太大的意义。

    这一切听起来非常令人沮丧，但是我们不应该忘记，根据泰特罗克的观察，很多表面上无比神圣的价值实际上都是伪神圣，如果能够对禁忌的权衡折中巧妙地重新包装，妥协的空间仍然存在。在假设和平方案的第三个版本中，两国解决方案之外被加上一个纯粹象征性的宣言，明示其敌人就某一神圣价值做出让步。展示给以色列定居者的方案说，巴勒斯坦人“将放弃任何返回以色列的要求，这本是他们的神圣权利”，或者“需要承认犹太人民对以色列土地的历史的和合法的权利”。而在交给巴勒斯坦人的方案中，以色列将“承认巴勒斯坦人对自己国家的历史的和合法的权利，并将为对巴勒斯坦人犯下的所有错误道歉”，或者将“放弃他们所坚信的、对西岸的神圣权利”，或者将“象征性地承认（巴勒斯坦人）返回以色列的历史正当性”（但并不真正给予这一权利）。这些辞藻真的产生了不同的结果。与公然地拿和平和金钱进行贿赂不同，敌人在神圣价值上的象征性让步，尤其是特别强调这是一方的神圣价值时，确实弱化了极端分子的怒火、厌恶和支持暴力的意愿。虽然这样的方案并没能将双方的极端分子减少到绝对少数，但是减少的数量足以改变各方新近举行的大选结果。

    这一操控人类道德心理的实验具有深远的含义。找到软化以巴双方狂热分子的对抗立场，其他各国也公认的唯一可行的解决方案几乎可看作人间奇迹。古板的外交家将争执双方视为理性人，强调和平方案的成本收益，这种标准做法将会招致反感。如果他们的和平方案有任何成功希望的话，他们必须将对抗双方视为道德人，认真操作方案的象征性框架。当人们放纵自己捍卫神圣和禁忌的心态时，道德感很可能成为和平的障碍。只有当此种心态愿意根据理性目标接受调整，才会产生真正符合道德的结果。

    * * *

    什么样的外生原因让道德直觉离开社群、权威和圣洁，而趋向公平、自治和理性？

    一个显而易见的外力是人口的迁徙和社会流动性。人们不再被局限在家庭、村庄和部落。在这样的小世界里，整合和团结是生活的基础，一个人被排斥和遭放逐意味着他的社会生命的死亡。现在，人们可以在其他地方寻找自己的机会；在这个过程中，他们接触到新的世界观，接受更普世的道德规范，即以个人权利为中心，而不是崇拜某个集团的强权。

    出于同样的原因，开放社会让人们尽显才华、雄心和运气，不受出生身份的制约。在人们眼中，“权威序列”不再被认为是不可逾越的自然法则，而更多地被视为历史文物，甚至是某种不公正的遗产。

    来自多元背景的人相聚在一起，互通商贸，按照职业或者社会偏好合作谋求共同的远大目标，他们头脑中原本圣洁的意识会逐渐褪色。我们在第7章中提到，当某人认识某位同性恋朋友的时候，他对同性恋的宽容程度会大大提高。海特认为，当人们近距离观察美国的大选版图时，从粗分的红州和蓝州，到细分的红县和蓝县，都显示支持自由派候选人的地区主要分布在沿海和主要水路沿岸。在喷气式飞机和州际高速公路出现之前，这些地区是人口和思想交流汇聚频率最高的地带。这些地区早年的优势，让它们成为交通、商业、传媒、研究和教育的集散中心，至今仍然是多元和自由派的大本营。虽然美国政治中的自由派和古典自由主义已经没有多少共同之处，但二者在道德领域的侧重点仍然一致。自由派的微观空间分布说明，背离社区、权威和圣洁的道德发展趋势的确是流动性和都市化的结果。[202]

    另一种颠覆社区、权威和圣洁观念的力量是对历史的客观研究。菲斯克说，社群思维将团体视为一种永恒的存在：一种不朽的本质将人们联结为集团，传统之悠久可以一直追溯到太初。[203]“权威序列”也天然具有永久的生命力。他们受命于天，遵从宇宙的规则而世代沿袭。这两个模型都在炫耀自己天生而永恒的高贵和圣洁。

    在这种为统治寻找合理性的罗网之下，一个真正的历史学家就像游园会上冒出来的一只臭鼬。唐纳德·布朗在开始人类共性的研究之前，曾经试图解释为什么印度的印度教几乎没有产生什么伟大的历史学家，而邻邦的中华文明却正好相反。[204]布朗推测，在等级森严的种姓社会中，声称自己是英雄和神祇的后裔的统治精英明白，让学者不断地在故纸堆中搜寻窥视不会有什么好结果，他们很可能会找到一些证据，戳穿权贵的谎言。布朗研究了亚洲和欧洲的25个文明的历史，他发现，等级化的社会青睐神话、传说和英雄故事，排斥历史、社会科学、自然科学、传记、写实肖像和正规教育。19世纪和20世纪出现的民族主义运动索性招募写手，炮制自己国家永恒的、光彩夺目的历史。[205]从20世纪60年代开始，一些民主国家开始挖掘自己国家浅薄的根基和曾经犯下的卑鄙罪行，修正的新历史让很多人的心理受到重创。在新史学中，爱国主义、部落主义和对上层的盲从不再具有原来的地位。自由派和保守派在学生教科书和博物馆展品内容上的争执直到今天仍在继续。

    虽然，对于各种自私自利的传奇故事，历史事实是最好的解毒剂，而虚构的作品也一样能够转变读者和观众的道德意识。忠诚、服从、爱国主义、责任、法律或者习俗所规范的道德，与道德原则要求的行动之间发生冲突，让很多作品中的主人公面临艰难的抉择。在1967年出品的电影《铁窗喋血》（Cool Hand Luke）中，一名狱警在处罚保罗·纽曼扮演的角色卢克，将他关进闷罐监牢时解释说：“抱歉，卢克，我不过是行使职责。你要理解我。”卢克回答说：“甭来这一套——管这叫执行职责，不等于说这是对的，头儿。”

    偶尔，作者能够唤醒读者，让他们意识到良知本身是个靠不住的向导。哈克贝利·费恩带着黑奴杰姆逃往自由州，两人漂荡在密西西比河上。哈克突然对自己帮助杰姆感到莫名的愧疚，因为他突然想到，杰姆的主人是他合法的拥有者呀！

    在我自言自语的时候，杰姆不停地大声念叨着。他说，到了自由州，他要干的第一件事，就是拼命挣钱，一个子儿也不花，等到攒够数了，就把老婆赎出来。杰姆的妻子如今在一家农场为奴，就在华生小姐家的附近。然后他们两个人要拼命干活，好把两个孩子赎出来。要是孩子们的那个主人不肯卖孩子的话，他们就去找废奴活动家，把孩子们偷出来。

    听到他这样说，我几乎全身冰凉……我心想，这都是因为我没有转转脑子。在我面前的，就是这么一个黑鬼，我差不多一直是在帮着他逃跑，如今竟然这么大大咧咧地说什么要偷走他的孩子——这些孩子可是属于一个我不认识的人，而且此人从来也没有害过我啊……

    我的良知在心里煽起的火越烧越旺。到后来，我对我自己的良心说：“饶了我吧——还来得及呢，待会儿一看见灯光，我就划过去，上岸，告发他。”……我所有的烦恼也都烟消云散了。我继续张望着，看有没有灯光。这时我高兴得简直要在心里为自己唱上一曲哩。没有多久，出现了一处灯光……

    （他）跳将起来，弄好了小舟，把他的旧外套铺在船底板上，好让我坐在上面。他把桨递给了我。在我划桨的时候，他说：“麻（马）上，我就要欢呼啦。我要说，这一切，都亏了哈克。嗯呐，我（是）个自由人啦。嗯呐，可要是哈克，我哪里得自由呢。全亏哈克才成功的。杰姆一辈子也忘不下你，哈克。你是杰姆贼（最）好的盆（朋）友，嗯呐，你也是老杰姆现在唯一的盆友。”

    而我刚刚才把小船划开，急着想去告发他。他的这番话，让我像被掏空了一样瘪了下来。

    在这段让人心惊肉跳的心理发展中，原则、服从、互惠和对陌生人的同情指导着良知，把哈克拖向错误的方向。同时，对一位朋友的同情和直接牵挂将他拉向正确的方向（读者脑海里可能还会闪出人权观念）。这段文学叙事也许称得上是对人性的脆弱，对人们在道德和不被道德承认的信念之间困惑挣扎的绝妙刻画。

    理性

    眼下理性的日子很不好过。大众文化在“赛愚昧”的深渊中继续沉沦，美国的政治话语则已经陷入“逐底竞赛”。[206]我们生活在一个科学神创论、胡言乱语的新纪元运动、“9·11”恐怖袭击事件阴谋论、心灵热线和宗教极端主义复兴的年代。

    似乎四处弥漫的非理性还不够糟糕，很多评论家绞尽他们的推理脑汁，要说明理性的重要性被过分地高估了。在2001年乔治·W.布什总统就职典礼之后的媒体蜜月期间，编辑甚至放言说，一个伟大的总统不一定要很聪明。一个心地善良、具有坚实明确的道德观念的人赛过那些精于计算、花言巧语、受了过多教育的政客。他们表示，说到底，还不是哈佛训练出来的最优秀、最聪明的人把美国拖进了越战的泥淖。左翼的“批判思想家”和后现代主义者，在一个问题上与右翼的宗教卫道士意见一致，即两次世界大战和纳粹集中营是启蒙运动以来的西方科学和理性培育出的毒果。[207]

    甚至科学家也追随其后。许多心理学家说，人类受激情的引导，只有在事后为给自己的直觉寻找理由时才会调动那点儿可怜的理性能力。行为经济学家欣喜若狂地向世界展示，人类的行为如何远离理性人假设；报道行为经济学进展的记者，不放过任何抨击理性人理论的机会。这其中的含义是，既然非理性是不可避免的，我们干吗不接受它，享用它呢？

    在本章——本书结论部分之前的最后一章，我要试图说服你，无论是对世界理性现状的悲观评估，还是认为即使如此也不是什么坏事情的轻佻，都是错误的。尽管人们干了不少蠢事，但是当今社会还是变得越来越聪明了，假定其他条件不变，一个世界越聪明也就越少暴力。

    在展示证据之前，我要先扫清那些反对理性的偏见。现在，乔治·W.布什总统已经卸任，所谓“我们最好有个不太聪明的领袖”的理论只能让人脸红，而我们甚至可以量化害臊的理由。我们都知道，人们在衡量公共人物的心理特质方面没有什么良好的记录，但是，心理学家迪恩·西蒙顿（Dean Simonton）发展了几种（从心理计量学家的技术角度看）可靠和有效，而在政治上无党派立场的历史计量手法。[208]他分析了从华盛顿到小布什42位总统的数据资料。他发现，根据非党派历史学家的评估，对总统的绩效而言，天生的智力和对新思想、新价值的开放心态都有关键的作用。[209]虽然布什在智力上远远超过一般人的平均水平，但他在总统绩效排名上却是倒数第三。而在经验开放性这个项目上，他是倒数第一名，评分从最低0分到最高100分，他的得分是不折不扣的0分。西蒙顿在2006年发表了他的研究，当时布什仍在总统任上；自那时之后，又有三位历史学家进行了类似的研究，他们得出的结果很接近：布什在42位总统中排名为第37、第36和第39。[210]

    至于越南战争，认为只要肯尼迪和约翰逊的顾问没有那么聪明，美国就会避免卷入战争的观点，不符合历史的事实；在这些人退出舞台之后，战争在理查德·尼克松手里继续残酷地推进。而尼克松既算不上最优秀也算不上最精明。[211]总统的智力和战争之间的关系可以做量化处理。1946年（奥斯陆国际和平研究所数据库起始的年份）到2008年，总统的智商和其任期内美国卷入战争的战争死亡人数负相关，相关系数为-0.45。[212]我们可以这样说，总统智商增加一个IQ点，战争死亡减少13440人。虽然更准确的说法应该是，战后最聪明的三位总统——肯尼迪、卡特和克林顿，没有将国家带进毁灭性的战争。

    认为集中营是启蒙运动的产品的观点，如果不是下作，至少是荒唐。我们在本书第6章已经看到，20世纪真正发生改变的并不是大屠杀发生的次数，而是人们在观念上终于认为大屠杀是一种邪恶。在集中营毁灭的人类生命前面，它的技巧和组织形式是无足轻重的陪衬，而卢旺达发生种族灭绝手段极为原始，它也提醒我们，技术和组织并不是实施大屠杀的必要条件。纳粹的意识形态，就像同时代的民族主义、浪漫军国主义和共产主义运动一样，是19世纪反启蒙思潮的果实，绝非伊拉斯谟、培根、霍布斯、斯宾诺莎、洛克、休谟、康德、边沁、杰斐逊、麦迪逊、穆勒的传承。在真正的科学面前，纳粹主义自命的科学是非常滑稽的伪科学。哲学家亚基·曼申弗劳德（Yaki Menschenfreund）最近在他的一篇精彩文章中评价了认为启蒙运动的理性要为纳粹集中营负责的理论：

    纳粹意识形态不仅是非理性，而且在很大程度上是反理性的，不承认这一点就不可能理解其政策的破坏性。它美化多神的、基督教之前的日耳曼民族的历史，拥抱回归自然和“原生态”的浪漫情思，培育终结旧时代的天启式期待，幻想届时将彻底解决种族之间无休止的斗争……对理性主义及其有关理论的轻蔑，以及对启蒙运动的彻底排斥是纳粹思想的核心；纳粹运动的意识形态狂热分子一贯强调“weltan-schauung”（世界观）——对世界的自然和直接的体验，与“welt-an-denken”（对世界的思考）之间的冲突。在他们看来，对世界的思考，就是通过概念化、计算和理论化分解现实的“破坏性”智力活动。与“堕落的”自由主义布尔乔亚崇尚理性相对抗，纳粹宣扬的是一种生气勃勃的、自然的生活观，不受妥协或者困惑的阻碍和烦恼。[213]

    最后，我们来看看所谓理性无力对抗情感的意见——这完全是本末倒置。心理学家戴维·皮萨罗（David Pizarro）和保罗·布鲁姆（Paul Bloom）曾经表示，持此观点的人，是对实验室中的道德失声现象和其他道德困境引起的生理反应解读过度。[214]即使是直觉主导的决定，直觉本身已经是以往道德推理的产物。这个过程也许是个人的反思，也许是餐桌上的争论，也许是人们在争论中产生的规范被社会同化吸收。案例研究表明，在个人生活的一些关键时刻（比如一名妇女决定堕胎），或者在社会面临转折的历史关头（比如内战、女权、同性恋权利、宣布国家参战的重大问题），人们都会纠结于痛苦的思考和忧虑。我们已经知道很多历史性的道德转变，其发端都是一些经过人们艰苦思索的观点，这些观点在提出之初遭遇猛烈的抨击。当辩论平息的时候，胜方的主张已经自然而然地融入人们的情感。比如，如果你今天问人们为什么不烧死宗教异端，为什么不蓄奴，为什么不鞭笞儿童，或者为什么不对犯人处以轮刑，人们也许会“道德失声”，说不出什么像样的理由，但在几个世纪之前，这些问题都曾是人们争议的焦点。在乔舒亚·格林就失控车厢道德困境进行脑扫描研究时，我们甚至可以目睹人们的直觉和推理交互妥协的神经解剖学基础：每一种道德感都有其神经生物的基地。[215]

    * * *

    当休谟写下他的名言“理性是，并且也应该是情感的奴隶”的时候，他的本意并不是要人们鲁莽、纵情，或者即使遇人不淑，也任凭自己神魂颠倒。[216]他是在就自己的观点进行逻辑论证，说明理性本身仅仅是从一个真命题到达另一个真命题的工具，与这些命题的价值取向完全无关。然而，有很多理由决定了为什么理性，配合以“一点点鸽子的气质，揉进我们的骨架”，必然地“决定了我们的意志，在其他条件相同的情况下，它们让我们在有益于人类和危害人类之间冷静地选择前者”。让我们来看看某些理性的运作为什么可以带来暴力水平的下降。

    科学革命和“理性时代”发生在人道主义革命之前的时间顺序告诉我们，理性抗拒暴力的一个最大的原因就是如伏尔泰所说的“荒谬导致暴行”。戳穿某些谎言，比如众神要求牺牲献祭，巫师咒语灵验，异教徒终将下地狱，犹太人在水井内投毒，动物没有感觉，孩子是父母的所属品，非洲人非常残忍，君权神授等等，即可以破除很多暴力的思想基础。

    运用理性的另一个和平效果是，理性是自制的伙伴。我提到过，在人身上有两种特质之间存在统计相关性，它们在大脑中的生理基底相互重合。[217]这就是理性——推演一种行为的长期后果，让人们认识到有必要自制。

    当然，自制还不止于避免做出损害自己未来利益的仓促决定，它也意味着为了我们所认为的正当动机而克制自己的某些本能。有些精心设计的实验技巧，比如测度人们用多长时间将类似“好”和“坏”这样的字与白人的面孔和黑人的面孔联系在一起，通过神经成像实验监测大脑中杏仁核的活动，可以辨识出很多白人对美国非裔有轻微的生理反感。[218]但是，第7章的图7-6、图7-7和图7-8显示，人们对非裔美国人的态度已经发生了巨大的变化，今天白人和黑人在一起共同工作和生活，彼此以礼相待的现实，证明人们可以通过自己的理性判断克服这些偏见。

    推理与道德观也可以相互作用。四种互动模型是人们道德冲动的源泉，每一个模型都具有自己特殊的推理模式；每一种推理模式各有其相应的计量尺度，并通过特有的认知方式展开推演。[219]“社群共享”模型的思维标准是“全或无”，或者说“非此即彼”（即所谓的“名目尺度”）：一个人或者属于神圣家族，或者不属于。与此相应的认知方式是生物学直觉思维，着眼于生物性的纯洁本质和潜在的污染源。“权威序列”使用顺序尺度：对统治与被统治阶层进行线性排序。它的认知手段是对空间、力和时间的物理学直觉：人的排序越高，他的形象就越大，力量越强，地位越高，越具有优先权。“对等互惠”采用等距尺度，两个量之间可以比较大小，但是不存在比例关系。具体的量度方法如排序、记数，或者以相同的单位进行比较。只有“市场定价”（以及“市场定价”所属的法理型思维）能够用“比例性”（proportionality）尺度进行量度和运算。法理性模型要求以非直觉性的符号数学做推理工具，比如分数、百分比、幂。我已经说过，法理型模型在人类历史上远非常见的道德规范，它要求人们具有高级的认知能力——熟练把握文字和数字的能力。

    “Proportionality”一词在数学意义上是“比例性”，在道德意义上是“均衡性”、“相称性”和“合理性”。它具有这样的含义不是偶然的。只有布道家和流行歌曲的歌手会宣称总有一天暴力要从地球上彻底消失。哪怕仅仅是作为一种防备，为了威慑捕食者和在威慑无效时解除侵犯者的武装，以警察和军队形式存在的暴力手段总是必要的。但是，以尽可能小的必要暴力制止更大的暴力，与人在头脑发昏时为寻求惩罚性正义制造的暴行之间有着天壤之别。一报还一报的粗糙复仇感，在处罚的程度上特别带有自利的偏向，因此产生了数量巨大的过度暴力，包括酷刑和非常处罚，殴打有过失的孩子，战争中毁灭性的报复行动，私人之间因小恩怨而伤人性命。但道德进步并不在于全面打击暴力，而是有理有度地对症下药。我们看到的例子有遵循贝卡里亚功利主义观的刑法制度改革，接受启蒙思想的父母有节制地惩罚孩子，拒绝暴力手段的公民不服从和消极抵抗，现代民主国家对挑衅的适度反应（军事演习、鸣枪示警、对军事设施进行外科手术式的精确打击），以及在冲突之后实行有限大赦与和解。这些弱化暴力的措施都要求对比例、均衡和相称有某种感觉，而这种思维习惯不是与生俱来的，需要理性的教养和培育。

    当理性将暴力本身抽象为一种心理范式，并将它构建为一个需要解决的问题，而不是一场需要取胜的竞赛时，理性就是在抗拒暴力。荷马时代的古希腊人将古希腊的毁灭性战争形容为天上变态傀儡一手操办的孽作。[220]我们完全可以说，这是抽象思维的杰作：他们超脱了那种将战争归咎于阴险宿敌的立场。当然，将战争归罪于天神不能给凡尘众生带来减少战争的机会。对战争的道德谴责也具有抗拒暴力的力量，不过它没有告诉人们，当强敌临门时应该做些什么。格劳秀斯、霍布斯、康德和其他当代思想家的著述展示了真正的道德进步：将战争作为博弈论的题目进行理智分析，而积极的制度安排可以成为解决问题的答案。几个世纪之后，这些制度安排，比如康德的民主—商贸—国际共同体的三位一体论，在长期和平与新和平时期发挥了它的作用。在古巴导弹危机中，肯尼迪和赫鲁晓夫有意识地将危机包装成对方为自己设下的陷阱，让两个人都能不失脸面地后撤一步。

    * * *

    所有这些为理性辩护的理由都没有提到休谟的观点：理性只是实现某种目的的手段，而目的取决于思考者的情感。如果思考者想要得到和平与和谐的话，理性可以勾画出通向和平与和谐的路线图。但是，如果思考者愿意看到战争和冲突，理性也可以产生走向战争和冲突的路线图。我们是否有理由期待理性让推理者期望更少的暴力呢？

    根据严密的逻辑，答案是“没有理由”。但是，略做加工，就可以将答案变为“有理由”。我们所需要的仅仅是两个前提条件。第一个条件，思考者关心自己的福祉：他们想活下去，而不是去死；他们想自己肢体健全，而不是残缺；他们想生活舒适，而不是生活在痛苦中。仅是逻辑本身不足以让人们拥有这些成见。但是，任何自然选择的结果——的确，任何有意识的主体，只要能在足够长的时间内承受住熵的摧残，都会产生这些愿望。

    第二个条件是，思考者是其他意识主体共同组成的社区中的一员，这些主体可以影响自己的福祉。他们之间可以交换意见，并且能够理解对方的理性。这一假设同样没有逻辑上的必然性。我们可以想象，鲁滨孙在孤独中思考，银河霸主的属下不能挑战他的权威。但是，自然选择至今还不曾制造出一个孤独的思考者，因为进化以生命群体为对象。说到人类，他不仅是理性的动物，而且是社会的动物，还是使用语言的动物。即使是银河霸主，王冠在头难安枕席，霸业至此，他还是要担心失去权力的可能性，不得不对付他昔日的属下。

    我们在第4章的结尾提到，如果人类的自利性和社会性假设结合以理性，就会推出以非暴力为目标的道德观。暴力是囚徒博弈，博弈双方以侵蚀对方获取私利，但是两个人在相互侵害中都会遍体鳞伤，且不说还可能丧命；如果双方都不去伤害对方的话，两人反而得到更大的收益。在博弈论对囚徒困境进行定义的时候，说明不允许双方交谈；而即使他们能够交谈，他们也没有互相信任的基础。但在现实生活中，人们可以协商，并可以通过情感、社会和法律担保约束彼此的承诺。当一方试图说服另一方不要实施伤害时，他首先必须自己承诺不去伤害对方。一旦他提出“你伤害我是不对的”，也等于是说“我伤害你也是不对的”，因为在逻辑推理上，“你”和“我”是没有区别的两个实体。（说到底，这两个代词的意义随着对话的进行不断调换位置。）哲学家威廉·戈德温（William Godwin）这样说过：“代词 ‘我的 ’到底有一种怎样的神奇力量，它竟然能够让我们有理由推翻至公至正的真理？”[221]理性既不能区别张三和李四，或者王五和赵六，也不能区别任何个体的集合，因为就逻辑所关心的问题而言，他们不过是一些x和y而已。所以，你一开口试图劝说某人不要伤害你，提出各种他不应该伤害你的理由，就等于是接受了以避免伤害为最终目标的承诺。只要你还为自己高品质的理性感到自豪，愿意广泛地运用自己的理性，并以此劝服他人，你就会调动这一理性追求公众的利益，包括避免暴力。[222]

    当然，人类并非生来就具有理性。我们由猿演化而来，在小群体状态下生活了几十万年，认知过程的演化都是以狩猎、采集和社交为目的。仅仅是在文字、城市、远程交往和通信出现之后，我们的祖先才逐渐培养起理性判断的能力，并不断扩展理性施用的范围，这个进程还在继续发展之中。我们也许有理由期待，集体理性经过时间的砥砺，将一点一点地打磨掉我们身上导致暴力的短视和冲动；面对数量越来越多的理性主体，我们希望对方以何种方式对待我们，就必须以同样的方式对待他们——己之所欲，亦施于人。

    我们的认知能力不是必然向这个方向演化。但是，一旦人们秉持一种开放的推理体系，即便这个体系是从平凡的琐事，比如从准备晚餐和保护盟友发端演化而来，你总是忍不住要用这个体系考虑一下那些作为其他命题结果的命题。当你用母语学会并理解了“这是那只杀死了老鼠的猫”这句话，你自然就能明白“这是那只吃了麦芽的老鼠”是什么意思；如果你能学会运算37+24，那么34+27之和对你也不会是太大的难题。研究认知的科学家将这一奇妙现象称为系统性（systematicity），并认为这一特性来自人类神经系统所具有的支撑语言和理性的组合能力。[223]如果一个物种的成员有彼此理性互动的能力，并有足够的机会运用这种能力，他们迟早会发现非暴力和其他互利安排所能带来的共同利益，并且将在越来越多的领域发挥这种能力。

    这正是彼得·辛格最早提出的“扩大的圈子”理论。[224]我借用了他的修辞手法，用“扩大的圈子”来形容一种历史进程——人们有了更多换位思考的机会，因此对更多样的人群产生了同情心。不过，辛格本人极其理智，对这些情绪化的表达没有多少兴趣。他是哲学家的哲学家，他认为，经过漫长的演化，人确确实实已经有思考的能力，能够想明白他们应该尊重其他人的利益。而且，这种尊重不局限于我们社会小圈子里的亲友熟人。就像你不可能一边坚守做人的原则，一边干着损人利己的勾当，你也不可能去损害其他团体成员为自己的团体成员谋利。对辛格而言，人们的伦理圈子之所以在向外扩大，不是因为软心肠的共情，而完全是冷静思考的理性结果：

    开启理性思考，就像在黑暗中踏上上行的滚梯。一旦我们迈出了第一步，能够走多远已经不由我们的意愿所决定，我们也无法事先知道哪里是我们的终点……

    如果我们不知道滚梯是什么东西，那么我们登上滚梯后，打算跟着它移动几米，弄明白我们所处的位置，但是这个时候，已经很难避免一直前行，直到终点。同样，一旦开始理性思考，人们也无法知道它会在哪里停止。人们之所以会有为自己的行为进行客观公正的辩解的想法，是因为人的社会属性以及群体生活的需要，但是，一旦理性思考开始运作，它有自身的运行逻辑，不受社会集团边界的制约。[225]

    根据辛格引证的历史发展顺序，早期古希腊人的道德圈子限于城邦，如公元前5世纪的这篇原本无意搞笑但却颇为滑稽的墓志铭所展示的：

    这是在一位大好人尸身上建立的纪念碑。来自迈加拉的庇锡扬，杀死了7个人，在他们身体上折断了7把标枪的枪尖……这个男子，挽救了3个雅典兵团……从未让活在世上的任何人有过丝毫的悲伤，在众人景仰之下，他进入了冥界。[226]

    柏拉图将他的道德圈子外推了一点点。他认为，希腊人应该避免毁灭和奴役其他希腊人，被毁灭和受奴役的噩运只属于非希腊人。在近代，欧洲人对所有的欧洲人实行不得奴役的准则，但非洲人却是可以奴役的对象。当然，在今天，对所有人而言，奴隶制都是非法的。

    辛格的比喻只有一个问题，道德关怀的历史似乎不大像一部滚梯，而更像一个被卡在某层楼上的电梯，似乎永远也不打算再工作了，但突然间它又晃晃荡荡地上升一层，然后又滞留在那里不动了，接着再上升一层……辛格叙述的历史显示，在2500年间，人类的道德圈子只向外推延了4圈，每625年向外推出1圈。作为一部滚梯，这样的速度给人的感觉确实有些不牢靠。辛格承认道德进步是一个跌跌撞撞的过程，而原因是伟大的思想家太稀缺了：

    仅就一种质疑精神的出现时机和成功而言，历史只是记录了一连串意外事件而已。但是，如果理性思维能够在习惯道德的制约下茁壮发展，长期来看，进步就不是偶然的意外。不时会有杰出的思想家出现，他们被习俗施加在理性思考上的边界困扰，因为理性思考的性质不喜欢“小心禁区不得入内”的警示。理性思考是天生的扩张主义者，它追求普适性。除非它被对抗的力量粉碎，否则，理性思考的每一次应用，都是在为后人理性思考的新领域添加基石。[227]

    但是，世界历史舞台上卓越的思想家如此罕见，理性的扩展如此艰难，人们会问，为什么人类的理性要历时数千年才能得出奴隶制不太对头的结论？同样的问题还有殴打儿童、强奸妇女、灭绝原住民、监禁同性恋，或者为了抚慰国王受伤的虚荣心而发动战争，这些难道不是显而易见的错误吗？这不应该是非得有爱因斯坦的头脑才能想清楚的问题。也许，问题在于理性滚梯论不符合历史事实，因为引导人性道德进步的力量在于心灵，而不在于头脑。也许，即使辛格是对的，或者至少有一部分是对的，但是，滚梯的移动不仅有赖于寥若晨星的大思想家，还有赖于我们每一个普通人的思考水平的提升。

    * * *

    不论你们相信与否，人确实是越来越聪明了。20世纪80年代初，哲学家詹姆斯·弗林（James Flynn）注意到出售智商测试结果的公司定期调整试题时，他欣喜若狂，仿佛得到一个重大的发现。[228]人们设定100为智商的平均值，但是答对的问题所占的百分比却是一个取决于问题难度的任意值。考试公司必须用一个公式将正确答案所占的百分比转换为智商的IQ值。他们发现，这个公式总是出问题。几十年中，智商测试的平均分数越来越高，为了维持100的平均值，每过几年就要调整换算公式。也就是说，为了得到同样的IQ值，后来的测试者必须比以前的人答对更多问题。如果不做这样的调整，IQ就会出现膨胀。

    智商膨胀不是通货膨胀那种需要人们去抑制的问题。弗林认识到，它展示了某种有关人类智力的重大历史现象。新一代人在拿到和老一代人一样的试题时，能正确回答更多问题，得到更好的成绩。进入20世纪后，智力测验大行其道，遍及世界各地。在某些国家，每一个学龄儿童和应征的军人都要接受智力测试，数据的积累已经足以显示变化的趋势。弗林进行了两类比较，他一方面仔细收集同一套智力测试题的历年数据，另一方面又搜寻各种设法调试测试结果的标准。两类比较得出相同的结果： IQ值一直在提高。[229]1994年，理查德·赫恩斯坦和政治学家查尔斯·默里（Charles Murray）将此现象命名为“弗林效应”。自此，弗林的名字就和智商上升联系在一起了。[230]

    自第一次世界大战前后人们开始进行大规模智商测试以来，30个国家，其中包括发展中国家，都出现了稳定的“弗林效应”。[231]更早的英国数据显示，弗林效应甚至可以追溯到1877年出生的一群英国佬（尽管他们是成年后接受的智商测试）。[232]变化可真是不小：平均每10年提升3个IQ点（为标准偏差的1/5）。

    变化是惊人的。如果时间机器将今天十几岁的少年送回1950年，他们的平均IQ将是118；如果回到1910年，他们的平均IQ将是130，高于当时98%的人。不错，按照弗林效应的字面含义，今天的一个普通人，比1910年“太平盛世”里98%的人都更加聪明。更不客气地说，如果时间机器将1910年的一个普通人送到今天，他的平均智商将会是70，差不多是在智障的边缘。如果使用专门测试一般智力的“瑞文氏推理测试”, 1910年的普通人的智商放在今天只有50，已经完全属于智障的范围，在“中度”和“轻度”智障之间。[233]

    显然，我们不能这样简单地理解弗林效应。1910年时的世界并不是一个住满了傻瓜的世界。评论家一直在设法否认存在“弗林效应”，但是始终没有找到有力的论据。无论是主张平均主义的左翼作家，还是信奉自我实现的右翼作家，都不愿意接受“智商”这个概念和衡量智商的工具。但是研究人类个体差异的科学家却无一例外地认为，智商是可以被测度的，一个人的智商终其一生相当稳定，并且可以根据一个人的智商水平预测他的学术和专业成就。[234]你也许会认为，过去几十年来，学校已经变成考场，孩子也都成了某种考试专家。但是，正如弗林指出的，考试的变化很不均匀，时紧时松，而智商的增长则非常稳定。[235]那么，这是否和试题的内容有关系？比如“谁是《罗密欧与朱丽叶》的作者”这样的问题已经成为常识，或者词汇部分的很多单词已经进入人们的日常生活，或者学校早就教过这些算数。不过，智商测试分数增长最多的部分恰恰不是常识、词汇和数学。[236]智商测试分数增长最多的部分是与抽象推理有关的试题，比如“相似”（“一磅和一寸有什么共同点？”）、“类比”（“树和什么具有相当于鸟和蛋的关系？”）以及“直观推理”（给出一个由行和列组成的几何图形，要求测试者推出如何填补右下角的空缺：比如，每一行的从左到右，每个图案比前一个增加一个边框，减少一条竖线，一个空白点被填黑）。词汇和数学是智商测试分数变化最小的部分，其他类型的考试也显示了同样的结果，比如SAT在有些年份甚至出现某些年龄组平均考分下降的现象。[237]图9-2显示的是20世纪40年代以来美国智商测试和分项测试分数上升的情况。

    图9-2 弗林效应：1947—2002年智商测试分数不断上升

    资料来源：弗林，2007年，第8页

    弗林效应是一颗科学重磅炸弹，因为我们只需要看看“图形推理”和“相似”两类测试分数的提高，就会知道几十年来人们的“一般智力”得到了多大改善。人们认为，这几项智商测试试题所测的正是一般智力，它们的高低与测试者在总测试中其他部分的得分高度相关。我们将一般智力称为g（或G因素）, g的存在通常被认为是心理测试科学上最重大的发现。[238]如果你任意提出一项常规智力测验——数学、词汇、几何、逻辑、文本理解、事实知识，那些在某一项测试上得高分的人，一般在其他项目的测试上也有好成绩。人们原来并没有认识到这一点。这并不是一个预料之中的结论。我们都听说，不善言辞的数学天才和滔滔不绝的诗人不会理财；人们会认为，一种类型的智力发达了，肯定在大脑中挤占了其他类型智力的资源，所以说，用于数学的脑细胞多了，用于语言的就会少一些。但事实并非如此。有些人的确比其他人更有数学才能，另一些人更有语言才华，但是就整体人口而言，在同一个人身上，总是同时具备这两种才能——以及其他所有与智力有关的才能。

    此外，一般智力具有极强的遗传性，几乎不受家庭环境的影响（虽然可能会受文化环境的影响）。[239]我们这样说的根据是，出生时就分开的同卵双胞胎在成人后，两人的一般智力因素高度相关，而在同一个家庭的领养同胞之间却没有任何的智力相关性。一般智力因素与某些神经结构和功能的指标存在相关性，这些指标包括处理信息的速度、大脑的容量、大脑皮层灰质的厚度，以及连接不同皮层区的白质的完整性。[240]最有可能的是，人的一般智力因素是很多基因影响累积的总和，每一种基因都对大脑的功能有微小的影响。

    弗林效应的震撼力在于，这一效应肯定与环境有关。自然选择的进化过程有自己的时速限制，它只能以代际来衡量，但是弗林效应却可以以数年甚至数十年为尺度来衡量的。弗林明确地排除了营养、整体健康水平、远系生育（与外地人结婚生育）对此效应的影响作用。[241]产生弗林效应的因素与人们的基因、饮食、疫苗或婚姻都没有关系，那么，我们只能在人们的认知环境中寻找它了。

    破解弗林效应之谜的关键是，人们认识到弗林效应所指的智商提高不是所谓的一般智力的提高。[242]如果是指一般智力，那么所有分项测试的分数都应该提高，包括词汇、数学和原始记忆力，提升的幅度应该相当于这些项目与一般智力因素的关联程度。但是，智商测试值的提高集中在“相似”和“图形推理”这样的项目上。不管这个神秘的环境因素是什么，它高度选择性地作用于某些智力构件——它选择的不是人脑先天的智力，而是把握抽象推理所需要的能力。

    对“弗林效应”最好的解释是，它有数种原因，每一种原因在不同的时期产生了不同的影响力。高科技日新月异的发展和充满象征符号的环境，要求人们分析各种视觉图像，并赋予这些图形某种约定的规则，这当然推动了人们直观推理能力的提高。[243]但是，要理解智力提升和道德推理之间有何种关联，指望视觉能力显然是不行的。与所谓的“前科学思维”相比，弗林将新提高的能力定义为“后科学思维”。[244]如果一个智力测验的“相似性”部分有这样一道题：“狗和兔子有何共性？”对我们来说，答案显然是“它们都是哺乳动物”。但1900年的美国人很可能告诉你：“你用狗捕猎兔子。”弗林认为，区别在于我们今天很自然地使用科学范畴对世界进行分类，而在不久之前，这个“正确”的答案却过于深奥，而且与生活毫不相关。弗林想象说，1900年的智力测试者会问“‘谁会在意它们是否都是哺乳动物 ’”,“从他的观点看，没有比这更不重要的事情了。重要的是空间和时间的位置，是那些有用的东西，那些自己能够控制的事物”。[245]

    这几句话是弗林硬塞进前人的嘴巴里的，但是心理学家在对前现代社会进行研究时，对人们的推理方式做过一些记录，比如迈克尔·科尔（Michael Cole）和亚历山大·卢里亚（Alexander Luria）的研究。卢里亚向苏联偏远地区的农民提出了类似智力测验中“相似性”的问题，记录如下：

    问：一条鱼和一只乌鸦有什么共同的地方？

    答：一条鱼——鱼生活在水里，乌鸦会飞。如果鱼只会躺在水面上，乌鸦就会啄它。乌鸦能吃鱼，但鱼不能吃乌鸦。

    问：你能用一个词（比如“动物”）来指它们吗？

    答：如果你叫它们“动物”，那可不成。一条鱼不是一只动物，一只乌鸦也不是……一个人能吃鱼，但是不能吃乌鸦。

    卢里亚的受访者还拒绝接受完全假想型思维——在皮亚杰的认知阶段论中被称为“形式操作”（与之相对的是“具体操作”）。

    问：在终年冰雪的地方，所有的熊都是白色的。新地岛终年冰雪。那里的熊是什么颜色的？

    答：我只见过黑色的熊，我不谈论我没有见过的东西。

    问：那我说的话是什么意思？

    答：如果一个人没有去过那里，他不能只凭别人的话就说什么。如果一个60岁或者80岁的人见过白熊，告诉我白熊的事情，他应该是信得过的。[246]

    弗林评论说：“这些农民的回答是完全正确的。他们理解分析命题和综合命题之间的区别：纯逻辑不能告诉我们任何事实，只有经验才能告诉我们事实，但是这对他们的智力测验毫无帮助。”因为现行的智力测验专注于抽象、形式推理——这种能力能够让一个人跳出局限于周围事物的狭隘知识，探索纯粹假想世界的各种假说。

    弗林认为，产生弗林效应的原因是人们越来越多地戴上“科学眼镜”观察世界；如果他是对的，那么是什么样的外生原因让人们能够得到这样的“眼镜”呢？最明显的一个原因是学校教育。我们知道，学校教育引导青少年从皮亚杰的认知的具体运动阶段进入认知的形式运动阶段，不过，即便有学校，也不是每一个孩子都能完成这个转变。[247]贯穿整个20世纪，遍布世界各地，孩子在学校里度过的时间越来越长。1900年，美国成年人平均上学的时间为7年，其中有1/4的人上学时间不到4年。[248]直到30年代，高中才成为义务教育。

    在这个转变时期，学校教育的性质也发生了变化。20世纪初期，阅读就是站着大声朗读书本。根据教育专家理查德·罗思坦（Richard Rothstein）的观察，“许多第一次世界大战的新兵都不能通过书面智力测验，部分原因是，即使他们上过几年学，知道怎样朗读，但军队的测验是问他们如何理解和解释他们所读到的东西，而他们中间很多人从来没有学过这种技能”。[249]另一位研究人员杰里米·吉诺维斯（Jeremy Genovese）通过分析1902—1913年的高中入学考试的内容，并对比90年代高中同龄学生的能力测验，记录了20世纪教育目标的转变过程。[250]就事实性知识而言，今天的年轻人并没有比前人做得更好。比如，今天关键考试的地理部分居然要求学生在世界地图上指出美国！他们的曾祖父母却是要“给出从（俄亥俄州的）哥伦布市出发旅行到墨西哥湾一路途经各州的名字，并给出这些州的首府的位置和名字”。但在另一方面，今天的考试通常会要求学生掌握比率、数量、多重选择和基本经济学知识：

    某社区所在地区饮用水稀缺。为了妥善管理水资源，下面哪些事情是该社区不应该做的？

    A.提高用水量。

    B.从另一个社区买水。

    C.各家安装节水装置。

    D.提高水费。

    任何理解供求规律的人都知道，D不是这道题的正确答案。但是，如果你的脑子里只有一个简单的画面——一池子水，一群喝水的人，那么，在收取多少水费和池水能维持多长时间之间，你很难立刻就能建立起联系。

    弗林认为，在整个20世纪，通过学校等机构，科学推理渗入人们的日常思维。越来越多的人在办公室工作，有自己的专业，他们每天都在和符号而不是庄稼、动物、机器打交道。人们也有了更多闲暇，可以用来阅读，玩组合游戏，更新知识，与时俱进。而且，弗林还认为，缩写抽象符号（shorthand abstractions）随处可见，这说明科学思维已经深入我们的日常用语。每一个缩写抽象概念都是一件经过磨炼的分析利器，人们一旦掌握它，就可以轻而易举地玩弄各种抽象的关系。任何一位有能力阅读本书的读者，即使没有受过科学或者哲学训练，也极有可能在平时的阅读、谈话和媒体报道中接触过成百上千个抽象概念，包括比例、百分数、相关、因果、控制组、安慰剂（空白对照组）、代表样本、假阳性、实证分析、事后分析、统计分析、中位数、可变性、循环论证、权衡取舍和成本收益分析。随着20世纪印刷业的兴盛，这些抽象概念一个接一个地从阳春白雪的学术界渗入大众，越来越普及，甚至像“百分比”概念一样渐渐成为人们的第二本能。[251]

    不只是惯于大发议论的有识之士掌握了专业性的抽象概念。布鲁斯·斯普林斯汀（Bruce Springsteen）的歌曲《河流》（The River）中有这样的歌词：“我本在庄斯顿公司干着建筑工/但近来经济不好活计越来越少。”语言学家杰弗里·农贝格（Geoffrey Nunberg）就此评论说，只是在最近40年来，普通人才开始像谈论天气一样谈论“经济”，仿佛经济也是一种具有因果关系的自然力量。[252]而在以前，他也许会说“因为世道艰难”。或者，他还会加上一句说，因为犹太人、黑鬼或者富农在捣乱。

    * * *

    现在，我们可以将本节提出的两个重要概念结合在一起：理性的和平效应和弗林效应。我们有几个理由认为强化的理性力量——尤其是搁置直接经验的能力，让人摆脱狭隘的个人观点，用抽象、通用的术语组织自己的思想，能够产生更高的道德承诺，包括避免暴力。而我们刚刚已经看到，贯穿整个20世纪，人们理性思考的能力——尤其是搁置直接经验，摆脱狭隘的个人观点，用抽象概念组织思想的能力——不断地得到强化。将这两个概念结合在一起，是否有助于我们解释20世纪下半叶记录所显示的暴力减少呢？这个下行趋势的时间跨度从长期和平到新和平再到权利革命。是否还存在一个道德方面的弗林效应，就是说，将我们带离暴力冲动的理性滚梯也出现了加速提升的现象？

    这个想法不是痴人说梦。弗林效应中增长最大的认知能力，是对直接经验的具象进行抽象的能力，这也正是共情换位和扩大道德关怀圈所需要的能力。弗林本人从与他父亲的对话中看到了这两者之间的联系。弗林的父亲是1884年出生的爱尔兰人，非常聪明，但没有受过多少学校教育。

    我父亲心中装满了对英国人的深仇大恨，以至于已经没有余力再去歧视其他集团。但是，他对黑人还留着几分种族偏见。我和弟弟一直想打消他的偏见。“如果哪天早上你一觉醒来发现自己的皮肤变黑了，难道你就低人一等了？”他立刻反驳说：“这可是你们说过的最愚蠢的话了。有谁听说过人的皮肤一夜之间会变黑的？”[253]

    像俄国农民看待熊皮的颜色一样，弗林的父亲被局限在具象、前科学型的思维中。他拒绝进入假想的世界，拒绝探索各种推理的结果，而这却是人们反思自己的道德承诺，包括反思他们的部落主义和种族主义意识形态的途径之一。

    至于高中考试中某个特殊城市的用水量的问题，除了要求其他知识之外，还要求学生使用比例的概念。弗林注意到，有关比例的问题对很多青少年特别困难，而把握比例关系的能力也是弗林效应的组成部分。[254]在刑事处罚和军事行动中如何公正使用暴力的问题上，我们已经看到比例思维的关键作用。我们只需要在考试题中将“管理水资源”换成“管理犯罪率”，就可以看到智力的提高如何转换成更人性化的社会政策。在心理学家迈克尔·萨金特（Michael Sargent）最近做的一项研究中，即使在考虑到人们的年龄、性别、种族、受教育的程度，以及收入和政治倾向之后，数据仍然显示，人的“认知需求”即具有能够享受智力挑战的特质越高，对刑法惩罚性的要求就越低。[255]

    弗林效应是否让理性滚梯加速上升，让人们具有更宽广的道德关怀，更少的暴力？在我们进行检测之前，有必要对弗林效应本身是否成立做一次检查。今天的人真的比昨天的人更聪明吗？弗林自己在一篇早年发表的论文中忧心忡忡地说，在某些国家，按照过去的老标准，现在1/4的孩子都可以被认为是“天资聪颖”，真正可以称为“天才”的人的数量增长了6倍。“这个结果简直标志着一场文化复兴运动，如果它真的发生了，人们决不会看不到它。”[256]不过，近几十年来的确已经发生了一场知识复兴运动，也许不涉及文化，但肯定涉及科学和技术。宇宙学、粒子物理学、地质学、遗传学、分子生物学、进化生物学和神经科学让人们对世界的理解有了令人眩晕的飞跃，同时，技术进步又给我们带来了各种人间奇迹，比如：人体器官移植；常规性的基因组扫描；精彩纷呈的外行星和遥远星系的图像；一件小小的玩具就能够和几十亿人交谈，能够摄像，能够全球定位，能够存取巨大的音乐收藏，能够从无数的图书馆取书阅读，还能够进入美妙的互联网天地。这些奇迹接踵而至的速度之快，反而让我们对那些使这一切成为可能的思想感到麻木了。但是，以百年为尺度观察人类历史演变的历史学家对所发生的事实不可能熟视无睹。他们知道，我们生活在一个脑力非凡活跃的时期。

    人们也很容易对道德进步感觉麻木，但从长远观点观察世界的历史学家们明确地表示对过去60年间的道德进步感到惊异。我们知道，军事历史学家对长期和平感到困惑不解。权利革命带给我们很多观念，今天受过良好教育的人对这些观念已经习以为常，认为这是理所当然的。但事实上，这些观念在人类历史上都是前所未见的，比如人不分种族不分信仰都具有平等的权利，妇女不应受任何形式的压迫，在任何情况下都不得体罚儿童，学生应该受到保护，不受其他孩子的欺负，同性恋没有任何过错。我认为完全可以说，在某种程度上，这些新观念是理性得到广泛应用的成果。

    检测弗林效应是否成立的另一半工作是要问，我们的近代祖先是否可以被认为都是道德白痴。回答是“是的”。我做好了为此进行论辩的准备。虽然他们肯定都是一些脑筋灵活的体面人，但是，以当代人的道德标准来看，在他们所生活的文化中，集体道德的发育程度非常原始，就像用今天的医学标准看古人的泥浴疗法和草药一样。他们的很多信念不仅是荒谬的，而且完全可以说是愚蠢的。这些信念彼此之间互相冲突，经不起理性的检验，它们之所以顽固地存在，完全是因为那个时代的理性之光过于微弱，往往照不到它们的头上。

    你大可不必认为这个判断污辱了先人，想想在抽象理性开始生长并发挥影响之前，人们所追求的那些共同信念吧。在一个世纪之前，多少伟大的作家和艺术家在颂扬战争的壮美和高贵，对第一次世界大战充满了向往。西奥多·罗斯福被认为是一位立场“激进”的总统。他说过，为了防止新大陆变成“留给肮脏野蛮人的狩猎场”，必须消灭美洲印第安人；他还说十之八九，“只有死了的印第安人才是好印第安人”。[257]另外一位“激进派”总统伍德罗·威尔逊是白人至上种族主义者。在担任普林斯顿大学校长期间，他坚决拒收黑人学生，夸赞三K党，清除联邦政府机构中的黑人雇员；而对于少数族裔移民，他是这样说的：“任何一个不纯正的美国人身上都挂着一把匕首，只要有机会，他就会向我们合众国的肌体上扎上一刀。”[258]第三位“激进”总统富兰克林·罗斯福，把几十万美国公民关进集中营，仅仅是因为他们和日本敌军是同一个族裔。

    在大西洋的另一边，年轻的温斯顿·丘吉尔开始著书立说，他提到在大英帝国的疆土上参加了“很多次对付野蛮人的快乐的小型战争”。对这样快乐的小战争，他的描写是：“作为惩罚性行动，我们对村庄系统地逐一围剿，我们拆毁房屋，填埋水井，炸掉塔楼，砍倒大树，焚烧庄稼，破坏水库。”丘吉尔为这些暴行辩护的理由是“雅利安血统必胜”。他还说，他“强烈赞同对未开化的部落施用毒气”。对于英国人治理不善而产生的大饥荒，他归因于印度人民不断地“像兔子一样繁殖”，意犹不足，他还要加上一句：“我恨印度人。他们是些信蛮教的野人。”[259]

    对他们自己种族的人民而言，当时这几位领袖在很多方面都是非常开明和人道的。他们的道德观如此之割裂，或者说道德区隔之狭隘，让今天的人目瞪口呆。他们从来没有完成走向对各族人民一视同仁的思维飞跃。我还记得，20世纪60年代初，当姐姐和我还是孩子的时候，妈妈对我们的教导。这几十年来，千百万孩子所接受的正是这样的教导：“有坏的黑人，有好的黑人，就像有坏的白人和好的白人。光是看人的肤色，你是没法看出他是好人还是坏人的。”“不错，这些人在我们看来是很可笑，但问题是，我们在他们看来也是很可笑的。”这些教导不是灌输，而是引导孩子进行思考，让他们推理，得出自己的结论。当然，100年前的大政治家的脑神经硬件已经具备这样的推理能力，区别在于，今天的孩子受到鼓励完成这个认知飞跃，继而，认知飞跃的结论成为他们的第二天性。缩写抽象符号，例如言论自由、宽容、人权、民权、民主、和平共处以及非暴力（它们的对立面，例如种族主义、大屠杀、极权主义和战争罪），起始于简练的政治语言，随着不断扩散，最终成为每个人大脑中的思维工具。我们完全可以将这种进步称为智力提升，因为它和智力测验中抽象推理题得分的增长没有太大的不同。

    道德愚昧不限于领袖制定的政策，它们还被写入法律。本书的很多读者都有这样的经历：国家强制实行种族隔离；妇女不能在强奸案审理中担任陪审员，因为证词会让她们受窘；同性恋是犯罪；男人可以强奸妻子，将妻子关在家中，甚至可以杀死通奸的妻子和她的情人。如果你觉得今天国会的议事过程充满蠢话，那你真该看看1876年旧金山市华人移民权听证会上一位律师的证词：

    至于（华人的）宗教，不是我们的宗教。完全可以说：如果我们的宗教正确，他们的必然错误。（提问：我们的宗教是指什么？）我们的宗教相信存在神圣旨意，它决定了国家的命运。上帝——神圣智慧已经说过，神划分了国家和世界，由5个大家族继承，他将非洲给予黑种人，欧洲给予白种人，美洲给予红种人，亚洲则给予黄种人。上帝不仅激励我们保护自己的遗产，还激励我们从红种人的手中偷取美洲；现在的情况是，撒克逊人，或者说来自欧洲家族的美国人，白种人，拥有欧洲和美洲的继承权，中国的黄种人应该留在全能上帝原来交给他们的土地上；既然他们不是上帝的选民，因此不能允许他们从我们手中偷取土地，那是我们从美洲野人手里抢夺来的东西。[260]

    不仅没有议员以道德理性对此提出挑战，我在第6章提到过，在19世纪末20世纪初，很多大文豪（包括叶芝、萧伯纳、福楼拜、威尔斯、劳伦斯、沃尔夫、贝尔、艾略特）都对大众表示出极度的轻蔑，几乎走到灭绝其生命存在的地步。[261]还有很多知识分子成为法西斯主义、纳粹主义的支持者，也拥护斯大林主义。[262]约翰·凯里引用过艾略特散文中的一句话，诗人是在对大艺术家的精神优越感进行评价：“说来不免悖谬，但是，作恶也比无所作为要好：至少，它证明我们存在。”一个世纪之后，凯里评论这句话说：“我们发现，这句耸人听闻的名言忘记提到，恶行是有受害者的。”[263]

    * * *

    产生弗林效应的变迁因素同时也是扩展人们道德关怀的力量，这个观点即使通过检验证明成立，也并不意味着存在这样的事实。要证明更多的理性思考导致了暴力的减少，我们至少必须在这两者之间建立起直接联系：一般而言，其他各种因素不变，一个人的理性思考能力（以智商测试或其他测试为量度标准）越强，那么他的合作能力也越强，道德关怀的圈子越大，对暴力的同情越少。或者可以更简练地说，我们至少要证明，由理性思考能力强的个体组成的社会倾向采取有利于减少暴力的社会政策。如果人越聪明、社会越聪明，他们越排斥暴力，那么，智力的提高也许就可以解释暴力的减少。

    在我们检视此假说之前，我要先明确它不是什么。与道德进步相关的理性不是大脑天赋能力意义上的一般智力，而是后天培养的抽象推理能力，也正是弗林效应所说的被大大提升了的智力。道德进步和推理能力高度相关，因此，对智商的测度将可以显示抽象推理能力的水平，但只有抽象推理才是滚梯假说中的动力。出于同一原因，尽管一般智力具有极强的遗传性，人们在抽象推理能力上的差异却不是得自遗传；我的假设是，各个群体之间抽象推理能力的差距起因是环境的影响。

    同样重要的是，我们必须记住，滚梯假说谈论的是推理 [或合理性（rationality）]——是一个社会的抽象推理水平的影响作用，而不是知识分子的影响作用。用作家埃里克·霍弗（Eric Hoffer）的话说，知识分子“在常温下没有行动能力”。[264]他们总是被大胆的见解、花哨的理论、包罗万象的意识形态，以及在20世纪制造了无数麻烦的乌托邦思想激发。强化道德情感的那种理性不是来自宏大的知识“体系”，而是来自逻辑性、清晰性、客观性和比例性的运用。这些思维习性在任何时候都不是均匀分布在人口之中，但弗林效应显示水涨船高，所有的小艇都漂荡在更高的水位上，所以，我们期望看到在精英和大众之中各种微观的和宏观的启蒙浪潮。

    下面，我要给出理性思考能力与和平价值观的七种关联，至于它们之间关系的直接性，在程度上各有不同。

    智力和暴力犯罪。第一个关联最为直接：社会经济地位和其他变量为常数，人越聪明就越少犯罪，也越少成为暴力犯罪的受害者。[265]我们无法指出因果箭头的方向——我们不知道到底是聪明人认识到暴力是错误的或者是没有意义的，还是他们有更强的自制力，或者是他们躲开了产生暴力的环境。但是，假定所有这一切不变（比如，不考虑20世纪60年代至80年代犯罪率的起伏），人变得越来越聪明，暴力也就越来越少。

    智力和合作。与纯粹的抽象相比较，我们可以用一个最纯粹的模型——囚徒博弈，来想象一下抽象推理如何抵御暴力的诱惑。计算机科学家道格拉斯·霍夫斯塔特（Douglas Hofstadter）在《科学美国人》上有一个受人欢迎的专栏。有一次，他在专栏中提到他对一次性囚徒博弈的困惑，为什么看上去理性的选择却是错误的。[266]你不能相信另外一个玩家能够和你合作，因为他也没有任何根据可以信任你，而在他背叛的时候，你的合作只会给你带来最坏的结果。霍夫斯塔特之所以困惑，是因为他看到，如果双方能够走出各自狭隘的立场，站在奥林匹亚山尖上，从同一个视角向山下观望他们的困境，他们两人可以推断出同样的结论，最好的结果是双方合作。如果他们每个人都相信对方有此认识，而且对方也认识到他或她有此认识，以此类推，双方就应该合作并享受合作的收益。霍夫斯塔特设想了一种“超级理性”（superrationality）状态，在这个状态中，双方确信对方的理性，并确知对方也确信自己的理性，如此等，虽然他最后心有不甘地承认，很难知道怎样才能让人们进入超级理性状态。

    智力程度的提高是否至少能够将人们向超级理性状态的方向推进一把呢？是不是可以说，更理性的人，更愿意琢磨相互合作带来最大共同收益这个事实，也更愿意假定另外那个家伙转着同样的脑筋，因此也更有机会从同步发生的信任飞跃中获益？还没有人针对智力程度不同的人做过一次性囚徒博弈测试。不过，最近有一项研究使用了序贯（sequential）一次性囚徒博弈；在实验中，第二个玩家在看见第一个玩家做出动作之后才采取行动。经济学家斯蒂芬·伯克斯（Stephen Burks）和他的合作者一起对1000名实习卡车司机进行了推理智力测试和囚徒博弈实验。在博弈中，他们用钱作为奖励。[267]排除年龄、种族、性别、学校教育的长短和收入水平的影响，结果是越聪明的司机越可能在第一步就选择合作。研究人员还特别观察了第二个玩家对第一个玩家行动的反应。他们的反应与超级理性没有任何关系，但确实反映出一个人在看出对方合作的意图后有合作的意愿。如果这是重复性博弈，双方的合作就能够让他们从中获益。实验的结果显示，聪明的卡车司机更有可能对合作回报以合作，对背叛回报以背叛。

    经济学家加勒特·琼斯（Garrett Jones）以另外一种途径将智力和囚徒博弈联系在一起。他搜索了1959—2003年大专院校进行的所有重复性囚徒博弈实验的文献。[268]从涉及数千名参加者的36次实验中，他发现，一个学校的SAT的中值越高（这个指标与智商测试中值高度相关），这个学校的学生就有更强的合作意愿。两个完全不同的研究都显示，在合作收益可预见的情况下，智力可以强化合作行为。所以，一个社会变得越聪明，这个社会也就越具有合作性。

    智力和自由主义。现在我们来看看这样的说法，一个人越是聪明就越倾向自由主义。这句话事实上并不是像它听起来那么偏颇。这句陈述肯定会让保守派非常不满，不仅因为它污辱了他们的智商，而且他们完全有理由抱怨说，许多社会科学家（绝大部分是自由派或者是左派）利用他们的研究随意地攻击右派。在他们的研究中，保守主义仿佛成了一种智障。（泰特罗克和海特两人都提出要警惕这种学术政治化的倾向。）[269]所以，在寻找智力和自由主义的联系的证据之前，我先要解释一下这个联系。

    首先，既然说智力和社会阶级相关，那么，说智力与自由主义的相关性，如果没有统计学的意义，都可能是中产阶级上层的政治偏见。不过，重要的是，理性滚梯论中所指的智商仅仅与古典自由主义有关。相对于部落、权威、传统的种种限制，古典自由主义更珍重个人的自主和福祉。而古典自由主义本身就是理性换位思考的结果。某些意识形态与当今中间偏左的政治同盟，例如民粹主义、政治正确、身份政治和绿色运动纠缠在一起，智商并不必然和这些意识形态相关。在有些情况下，古典自由主义反而与自由意志主义和反政治正确派意气相投。不过，从总体来看，海特的调查发现，认为自己的政治立场是“自由派”的人，更倾向于将古典自由主义的核心价值——公平和自主置于社会、权威和纯洁性之上。[270]我们在第7章已经看到，自认为是自由派的人，在个人自主方面引领着时代的潮流。自由派在几十年前作为开拓者所持的观点，已经越来越多地被今天的保守派接受。

    心理学家金泽哲（Satoshi Kanazawa）对两个大型美国数据库进行了分析。两组数据都显示，在年龄、性别、种族、教育、收入和宗教为不变量时，人的智力和其政治自由主义立场正相关。[271]在参加“全国青少年健康纵向研究”的2000多名年轻成年人中，平均智商从自认为是“非常保守派”的94.8，稳定地上升到自认为是“非常自由派”的106.4。“综合社会调查”的数据显示了同样的相关性，同时还显示，智商与古典自由主义的关联比与左翼自由派的关联更为密切。在这项调查中，对于“政府有责任在贫富之间进行再分配”的问题（左派的立场，而不是古典自由主义的观点），越聪明的人，越倾向于表示不赞同；同时，对于“政府应该帮助美国黑人，以补偿他们在历史上遭受的歧视”（自由派的这一立场完全受其公平价值观的驱动），越聪明的人，越倾向于表示赞同。

    心理学家伊恩·迪瑞（Ian Deary）和他的同事对1970年某个星期内英国出生的所有儿童的数据进行了分析，他们的研究成果更好地展示了智力与古典自由主义之间存在因果关系，而不仅仅是相关关系。他们的论文题目说明了一切：“儿时聪颖，成人开明。”[272]他们所说的“开明”（enlightened），是指经过“启蒙运动”（Enlightenment）开启的思维。根据《简明牛津辞典》的定义，启蒙运动是“一种哲学，它强调理性和个人主义，而不是传统”。他们的研究发现，将教育、社会地位（阶级）、父母的社会地位设为不变量，孩子在10岁时的智商（包括抽象推理测试）可以预测他们30岁时的反种族主义、社会自由派和支持妇女工作权的立场。排除社会经济因素的影响，加上测度智商和测度政治态度之间20年的时差，证据确凿地显示，因果箭头从智商指向古典自由主义。而他们进行的第二次分析发现，10岁时聪明的孩子长大后更愿意投票，而且倾向于投票给自由民主党（中间偏左派与自由意志主义者的同盟）或者绿党，而不太会投票给民族主义和反移民的政党。同样，数据分析再次显示，智力指向古典自由主义，而不是左翼自由主义：当将社会阶级地位设为不变量时，智商和绿党之间的相关性消失，但智商和自由民主党的相关性仍然存在。

    智力和经济知识。就像说智力与自由主义相关惹恼了右派一样，讨论智力和经济知识的关联，会惹恼左派。经济学家布莱恩·卡普兰（Bryan Caplan）也研究了“综合社会调查”的资料，他发现（甚至在将教育、收入、性别、政党和政治倾向都设为常量之后），人越聪明，越倾向于像经济学家一样思考问题。[273]他们更同情移民，赞同自由市场和自由贸易，更不赞同保护主义、就业政策和政府干预经济。当然，所有这些立场都与暴力没有直接的关系。但是，如果我们拉开距离，广角地观察这些立场下面的基础，我们有理由说，这个基础不仅与智力相关，历史证明，它也倾向于和平。所谓像经济学家一样思考，就是接受源于古典自由主义的文明商业理论；它宣扬交换产生正和收益，而扩展合作关系可以带来多赢的连锁效益。[274]因此，它站在民粹主义、民族主义的对立面；在持这些意识形态的人眼中，世界上的财富是零和博弈；一个集团得到了，只能是另一个集团失去了。在历史上，对经济学无知的结果就是民族暴力和阶级暴力，因为人们以为，穷者改变自己处境的唯一方式就是强制剥夺富者，并惩罚他们的贪婪。[275]我们在第7章中看到，自第二次世界大战以来，特别是在西方国家，族群骚乱和大屠杀都在减少，人们的经济学常识的积累也许发挥了一定的作用（“近来经济不好，活计越来越少”）。在国际关系层面，过去50年来，贸易已经取代了以邻为壑的保护主义；贸易，加上民主和国际共同体，共同为世界带来了康德的民主和平时代。[276]

    教育、民智和民主。说到康德式和平，作为其三角支架中一支的民主，也因人们理性思考能力的提升而变得更坚实了。政治学的一大困惑是，为什么民主在有些国家生根开花，而在另外一些国家却没有。比如，为什么苏联卫星国和在欧洲部分的苏联加盟国完成了民主变迁，而在中亚部分的前加盟国却没有。强加在伊拉克和阿富汗身上的民主制度，动荡不堪，让这些地方的老问题变得更加尖锐。

    理论上，人们一直猜测，能够阅读和具有一定知识的民众是民主得以运行的前提条件。从我现在坐着的地方向南走，就是波士顿公共图书馆，其门楣上刻着一行激情洋溢的大字：“麻省需要人民接受教育，唯此秩序与自由方有保障。”可以假定，刻字人所想的“教育”不是指有本事说出从俄亥俄州的哥伦布市到墨西哥湾一路上各州州府的名字，而是阅读和算术，是理解民主政府和公民社会赖以存在的原则，是评估领导人和他们的政策的能力，是对他人的存在和多元文化的自觉意识，是对这个共同体内受过教育的成员都具有如此共识的期盼。[277]这些能力只要求有限的抽象推理，并与弗林效应中提升的理性能力相重合。重合的原因很可能是弗林效应本身就是教育推动的结果。

    但是，直到最近，波士顿公共图书馆门楣上的民主—阅读论从未被检验过。人们早就知道，一个成熟的民主社会的人民总是受过更好的教育，也更聪明；但是，一个成熟的民主社会在生活的方方面面都更丰富，我们无法说何为因何为果。也许，一个更民主的国家因为更富有，更有能力提供更多的学校和图书馆，因此让它们的人民受到更好的教育，变得更聪明，而不是相反。

    心理学家海纳·林德曼（Heiner Rindermann）试图用社会科学研究中被称为交叉-滞后相关分析的方法，解开纠结不清的相互关联（我们前面提到，此乃英国所做的“儿时聪颖，长大开明”研究所使用的方法）。[278]有些数据库对一些国家的民主和法治给出了量化的指标。不少国家都有儿童上学年数的统计。林德曼还取得了一些样本国家中通用的智商测验数据，再加上国际认可的学业测试的结果，他将两套数据结合，用来量度智力。林德曼测试了一个时期（1960—1972年）中一个国家的教育水平和智力水平，是否能够预测后面一个时期（1991—2003年）这个国家的繁荣、民主和法治的水平。如果波士顿公共图书馆的理论成立，在控制其他变量后，如前一时期的国民财富不变的情况下，这些因素之间应该存在强相关。最关键的是，其相关性应该要远比前一个时期的民主和法治，与后一个时期的教育和智力之间的相关性更高，因为过去影响现在，而非现在影响过去。

    让我们向波士顿公共图书馆的刻字人致敬。其他所有因素不变，过去的教育和智力确实能够预测日后的民主和法治（还有繁荣）。相反，过去的财富，不能预测今天的民主（虽然可以在某种程度上预测法治）。与学校教育的年数相比，智力水平是预测民主的更强有力的指标；林德曼证明，学校教育只有在和智力相关的时候，才对民主有作用力。现在，我们应该可以得出结论说，在教育辅助下不断提升的理性能力，通过推进民主，让一部分世界变得更安全了。民主本身的定义关系制约政府的暴力，我们还知道，统计证明民主抑制国家之间的战争、民族之间的流血冲突、大屠杀，并且减轻内战的残酷性。[279]

    教育和内战。虽然发展中国家智力测验的平均分数开始的时候比较低，但在有测试记录的国家中，例如肯尼亚和多米尼加，智力分数一直在迅速提升。[280]我们是否能够将一部分“新和平”的成就归功于这些国家理性水平的提高呢？虽然我们对此还找不到直接的证据，但是可以看到一些很有启示性的现象。在本书前面我们说过，新和平的部分动因是民主和开放经济。这两项，都是聪明人倾向支持的。我们可以这样推理，更多的教育产生更聪明的公民（当然是我们所说的“聪明”），以此为民主和开放社会铺垫道路，以此促进和平。

    很难对链条中的每一环进行证明，但新近发表的一篇论文证明了第一环和最后一环之间的相关性。论文的题目是“字母、数字和黄金法则：内战中教育的和平作用，1980—1999年”。[281]我们在本书第6章提及詹姆斯·费伦和戴维·莱廷对内战所做的分析，政治学家克莱顿·泰恩（Clayton Thyne）使用他们的数据分析了160个国家和49场内战。泰恩发现：一个国家度量教育水平的4个指标——国内生产总值中用于小学教育的投资所占的比重，适龄儿童中小学生所占的比重，青少年人口中中学生（特别是男生）的比重，（影响比较小）成人识字率。每一个指标都可以降低一个国家一年后卷入内战的可能性。这4个因素的影响力非常可观：将以往的战争史、人均收入、人口、山区、石油出口、民主与专制的水平、族群和宗教因素设为常数，与一个小学生入学率的标准偏差低于平均水平的国家相比，如果一个国家的小学生入学率的标准偏差高于平均水平，那么，这个国家在来年爆发内战的可能性下降73%。

    仅从这些相关性，我们不能得出结论说，学校教育让人们更聪明，他们因此更加厌恶内战。学校教育确实有其他的和平效应。它能提高人们对自己政府的信心，因为政府投资学校至少证明它们总算还能做件好事。它给了人们技能，因此人们可以寻找工作，而不是只能投靠军团或军阀。它也让年轻人离开街道，躲开民兵武装。但是，这些相关性如此诱人，泰恩忍不住争辩说，教育的和平效应至少有一部分是“给了人们和平解决争端的工具”。[282]

    政治话语的复杂程度。最后，我们来看看政治话语。大多数人都认为，政客们的语言非常愚蠢，而且越来越蠢。世界上没有一种东西叫作演讲智商，但是泰特罗克和其他政治心理学家分离出一种称为“综合复杂度”（integrative complexity）的变量，用它测度语言中的平衡感、微妙度和深度。[283]一段综合复杂度低的语言表述，平铺直叙一种意见，没完没了地重复说过的字眼，毫无转圜和深度。通过计算某些字眼，例如“绝对”“总是”“肯定”“决定性地”“完全地”“永远”“无可争议”“难以辩驳”“毫无疑问”和“不可置疑地”的使用次数，给出话语的最低复杂度。一段表述中如果使用了“通常”“几乎”“但是”“然而”和“也许”，让话语带有几分婉转，会提高综合复杂度。如果在表述中承认两种观点，复杂度更高；如果能够讨论关系、权衡取舍或者妥协，复杂度继续提高；最高的复杂度是引用原则和体系来解释各种关系。一段话语的综合复杂度和其作者的智力不完全是一回事，但是两者相关。根据西蒙顿的观点，尤其是对美国总统而言，两者高度相关。[284]

    话语的综合复杂度与暴力有关联。一般而言，一个人的语言综合复杂度越低，这个人以暴力解决问题的倾向越强，在战争游戏中越有可能进入战争。[285]泰特罗克和心理学家彼得·聚德费尔德（Peter Suedfeld）合作，对20世纪的几位国家领导人在数次政治危机中的讲话进行了复杂度分析。这几次危机有些最终以和平方式解决（比如1948年的柏林封锁和古巴导弹危机），有些则演变为战争（比如第一次世界大战和朝鲜战争）。分析发现，如果领导人演讲的语言复杂度下降，战争就会随后而至。[286]最特别的是，他们发现，在阿拉伯和以色列之间，在冷战时期的美国和苏联之间，领导人演讲中简单愚笨的修辞和军事冲突相关。[287]我们并不确切知道这种相关关系意味着什么：到底是蠢驴脑袋的双方实在想不出达成协议的途径，还是好战的双方简化了自己的修辞，以彰显自己不容讨价还价的谈判立场。在研究了实验室案例和现实案例之后，泰特劳罗表示，两种意图同时存在。[288]

    政治话语的综合复杂度是否出现了弗林效应式的提升了？政治学家詹姆斯·罗西瑙（James Rosenau）和迈克尔·法根（Michael Fagen）的研究结果显示，可能确有其事。[289]研究人员将前后两个时期（1916—1932年和1970—1993年）的美国国会证词和有关新闻报道的综合复杂度进行了编码。他们研究了这两个时期中围绕若干内容相近的争议所使用的修辞。比如，就压制自由贸易的《斯穆特-霍利关税法案》（Smoot-Hawley Act）和开放市场的《北美自由贸易协定》（NAFTA），以及就给予妇女投票权和后来的《平等权利修正案》进行对比。几乎在每一项对比中，与今天政治观察家的噩梦相反，从20世纪初到20世纪末，政治话语的复杂度提高了。唯一的例外是男性国会议员在女权问题上的陈述。下面是1917年支持妇女投票权的一段精彩发言：

    在伟大的孤星州，合众国最大之州，我有幸代表其中58县。在那里，每一个年满21岁者均可投票，除非你是犯人、疯子和妇女。在孤星州，妇女竟被置于囚犯和疯子的同类，此实非我之所愿。[290]

    这里还有1972年反对《平等权利修正案》的一段辩论，来自生于1896年的参议员山姆·欧文（Sam Ervin）：

    （《平等权利修正案》）说，男人和女人是一模一样、在法律上平等的人。这让人想起很多愚蠢的傻事。将一个母亲从孩子身边带走，她因此能够与敌人作战，把父亲留在家中照顾孩子，这绝对是荒谬的。来自印第安纳州的参议员也许认为这样做是明智的，但是我不这样认为。我认为这是愚蠢的。[291]

    这位参议员关于女权的陈词滥调只是一个特例，另外28个比较案例告诉我们，20世纪的政治话语的复杂度是在上升的。顺便说一句，欧文并非冥顽不化之人，他是一个受人尊敬的参议员，在他说了上述那番话不久，即被推举主持水门调查委员会，将理查德·尼克松赶下了总统宝座。人们对参议院演讲的要求一向不高，即使如此，他的话今天听起来也格外昏庸愚昧。这个事实提醒我们，对几十年前的政治话语大可不必抱有怀旧之情。

    不过，在一个特殊的竞技场上——美国的总统大选辩论，政客真的是在逆弗林效应的潮流而动。凡是关注2008年总统大选辩论的人都知道，5个字就可以说明问题：管道工老乔（Joe the Plumber）。心理学家威廉·戈顿（William Gorton）和珍妮·迪尔斯（Janie Diels）搜集了1960—2008年总统候选人的辩论，对语言的复杂度评分，量化了话语变化的趋势。[292]他们发现，1992—2008年，总的复杂度呈现下降趋势，而从1984年开始，与经济学有关的言论的质量就开始直线下滑。具有讽刺意味的是，总统辩论话语复杂度的下降，很可能是政治策略复杂度上升的结果。在竞选最后几周内电视转播的总统辩论，针对的观众是一群特定的、尚未做出投票决定的选民，他们是选民中最不了解情况也最不关心选举的一群人。他们往往是根据他们听到的一句话、读到的一行字决定自己的选票投给哪位候选人，所以竞选专家总是劝告候选人将目标尽量放低一些，再放低一些。2000年和2004年的竞选语言复杂度落到最低点，布什的民主党对手用大白话对付布什的大白话。美国政治制度的这个弱点，也许能够帮助我们解释为什么在一个连续和平的时代，美国会卷入两场旷日持久的战争。

    * * *

    我将理性排在人类天性中四位善良天使的最后一位是有道理的。当一个社会达到一定的文明程度之后，理性是人类得以进一步抑制暴力的最大希望。从我们成为人的那一天起，其他三位天使就和我们形影相随，但是在人类漫长的历史中，她们既未能防止战争，也未能阻止奴隶制、专制、制度化的施虐和压迫妇女。共情、自制和道德感的重要性毋庸赘言，但是就推动近几十年和近几百年来的人类进步而言，她们自己也没有多大的自由度，行动的范围非常有限。

    共情的圈子可以扩大，但是其弹性受限于亲族、朋友、同类和讨人喜爱的特性。理性告诉我们，我们的道德关怀应该延及整个群体，但共情圈子的极限距离理性指出的边界还非常遥远。此外，共情很容易变成纯粹的情感。只有理性能够教会我们扩张共情的窍门，也只有理性能够告诉我们，如何以及何时我们可以将对可怜的陌生人的同情心转换为有行动意义的政策。

    自制是一块能够锻炼增强的肌肉，但是，它仅仅能够防范那些源于我们内心诱惑的伤害。而且，20世纪60年代的口号至少在一个问题上说对了：人在一生中总有一些时刻，应该摆脱束缚，做自己想做的事情。理性则告诉我们，不论这些时刻在哪里：当人们做自己事情的时候，不能侵犯其他人做自己事情的自由。

    道德感针对人的社会角色和社会资源提出三项伦理规范。但是道德感的运用却没有多少道德可言，它们大多是与部落、权威或清规戒律联系在一起的。只有理性能够告诉我们，在道德感的运用模式中有哪些应该被奉为规范。法理型思维，是真正可以为最大多数的人带来最大幸福的伦理规范，而它却与自发的道德感毫不相干。

    理性能够满足这些需要，因为它是一个开放性的组合系统，是一个能够产生无数新思想的引擎。它只需要以基本的自利原则和与他人沟通的能力进行编程，假以时日，其内在的逻辑就会要求它尊重他人的利益，而这个“他人”的数量可以是不断增长的。也只有理性可以认识以前推理过程中所犯的错误，对自己进行更新和改善。如果你发现我这里所做的论证有缺陷，是理性允许你指出疏漏所在，并给出你自己的论证。

    亚当·斯密是休谟的朋友，也是苏格兰启蒙运动的大思想家；他在《道德情操论》（The Theory of Moral Sentiments）中第一次提出了这个观点，他在文中的生动举例，直至今天仍然让人感到震撼。他让我们想象一下，当读到为数众多的陌生人遭遇可怕的灾变，比如1亿中国人在地震中丧生的消息时，我们会有何反应。如果我们是诚实的，我们会承认，我们的反应或多或少会是下面这个样子。有一会儿，我们感到很难过，怜悯受难者，或者还会想到生命的脆弱性。也许，我们今天会开张支票或在某个网站点击一下捐款键，援助幸存者。接着，我们回到自己的工作，享用晚餐，上床睡觉，仿佛一切都不曾发生过。但是，如果我们自己遭遇意外，即使与千万人的性命相比微不足道，比如失去了小手指头，我们感到的痛苦却将如此巨大，无法忘怀。

    这一切听起来非常玩世不恭，但是斯密在这个基础上继续论证他的观点。想象另外一种场景。这一次，你可以进行选择：你可能失去你的小手指头，或者1亿人失去生命。你会为了保住自己的小手指头牺牲1亿人的性命吗？斯密预测，而我也同意，几乎没有人会做这样可怕的选择。但是，斯密问，既然我们对陌生人的同情远远不能和我们对自己私利的关切相比，为什么人们不做这样的选择呢？他通过比较我们的善良天使，回答了这个问题：

    这不是人性温柔的力量，不是上帝用来照亮人心的微弱的仁慈之光，它们仅仅能够抑制私欲最强烈的冲动。这是一种更强大的力量，一种更有力的动机；每当这样的时刻，它就会发挥作用。这是理性、道义、良心，是胸中的居士，那个内在的人，是审判我们行为的大法官兼仲裁者。每当我们的行为将要威胁到他人幸福时，是他向我们大声疾呼，他的声音足以震慑我们心中最剧烈的冲动：我们不过是无数生命中的一员，绝不高人一等；如果我们如此妄自尊大，必将受到人们的仇视、憎恨和诅咒。只有他才能让我们明白自己以及一己之私的微不足道，而且只有用不偏不倚的旁观者的标准才能纠正自私心理自然产生的偏差。是他向我们指出：慷慨是合宜的，违反正义则是丑恶的；为了更大的他人利益而放弃自己最大的利益是合宜的，为了自己得到最大的好处而使他人受到哪怕是最小的伤害，也是丑恶的。[293]

    第10章 在天使的翅膀上

    随着人类文明的发展，小部落联合成大社群，只需要最简单的推理，每个人都能明白，应该让自己的社会性本能和同情心扩大，延及本民族的每一个成员，无论他个人是否认识他们。人一旦做到这一点，即阻止他将同情心延及人类之所有民族和所有种族的障碍，就只剩下最后一个了。 ——达尔文，《人类的由来》

    本书原本是想回答一个问题：“你现在有什么可以乐观的？”我希望，我所罗列的数字，能够让你摆脱一些悲哀黯淡的成见，对世界现状的评估分数有所提升。但是，尽管我记录到若干暴力减少的趋势、若干恶法的废止和若干种恶行被清除为零，我的心情与其说是乐观，不如说是感激。乐观需要些许傲慢，因为它毕竟是要从过去推演未知的将来。虽然我坚信，短期内我们不会再见到活人祭祀、奴隶制、轮刑折磨和民主国家之间的战争；我也可以预期，目前的犯罪率、内战、恐怖主义虽然仍将存在，但将龟缩在某些最阴暗的角落里，世界上总会有些地方连天使也不敢涉足。可以确定无误的是，许多种类的暴力已经减少到目前的水平，我们可以尝试理解为什么会发生这样的减少。作为科学家，我必须对任何带着我们升华的神秘力量和红运天道保持怀疑。暴力减少是社会、文化和物质进步的成果。如果这些条件继续存在，暴力就将保持在一个低水平，甚至会继续减少；如果这些条件不存在了，那么暴力的水平则会上升。

    在本书的最后一章，我不打算做任何预言，也不准备向政客、警察局长或和谈代表提供建议；在我来说，这些都不是我的本职工作。我将尝试的是，辨认推动暴力减少的各种力量。我所使用的材料就是本书有关历史的章节（第2章至第7章）中反复出现的历史进展，以及在有关心理学的章节（第8章和第9章）探索的人类心智功能。所以，我要在平靖进程、文明进程、人道主义革命、长期和平、新和平和权利革命中寻找它们之间的共性。每一种共性指出一种途径，人们循此途径以自制、共情、道德和理性战胜了掠夺欲、支配欲、复仇欲、施虐欲或者意识形态的偏见。

    我们不应期望会发现一个有关这些力量的宏大理论。我们寻求解释的暴力减少跨越规模迥异的不同时期和各种灾难：驯服周期性的抢劫和争夺；克制个人之间的恶性暴力，例如割掉对手的鼻子；停止残酷的习俗，例如活人献祭、酷刑处决和鞭刑，废除奴隶制和债务监狱一类的社会体制；不再崇尚血腥的游戏和决斗，政治谋杀和专制独裁逐渐消失；以及最近战争、集体迫害、大屠杀与针对妇女的暴力行为及对同性恋的歧视都在减少，而对儿童和动物的保护则在增强。上述暴力活动只有一个共性，就是它们在肉体上伤害受害人，所以，只有站在一种泛受害人的立场，我们前面说过，这也正是道德主义者的立场——我们才会梦想找到一种终极的理论。从科学家的角度看，施害人的动机五花八门，对反抗这些动机的力量的阐述也只能是各色各异的。

    同时，所有这些发展都明确地指向同一个方向。在人类历史上，对一个潜在受害人来说，现在是赶上好时光了。我们不妨想象一下，如果上述暴力活动有不同的发展趋势，历史叙事会是什么样的：比如，奴隶制被废除了，但是父母决定恢复痛打孩子的做法；或者，国家对自己的公民越来越人道，但国家之间却战事连绵。当然，事实是，绝大部分暴力活动都在向弱化的方向发展，步调之一致，很难说是巧合。

    当然，也有背道而驰的逆流：“二战”中欧洲战场上的毁灭性较量（其残酷性压倒了战争频率的下降，直到后来两个指标同时下行）；20世纪中叶屠杀自己人民的独裁者大行其道；60年代的高犯罪率；去殖民化后发展中国家的内战。但是，所有这些倒行逆施都已经被扭转。从目前来看，所有的暴力趋势都指向更和平的方向。我们不是在每个问题上都必然能找到一种理论，但是，当如此多的发展都指向同一个方向的时候，我们确实需要一种理论来解释它的原因。

    重要，但不能持续稳定地发挥作用

    让我先说明几种力量，它们在本书第2章至第7章所讨论的进程、和平和革命中似乎有着至关重要的作用。但事实上，就我的理解，它们并没有那么重要。不是说这些力量无足轻重，而是说，它们在抑制暴力上无法持续稳定地发挥作用。

    武器和裁军。专注于暴力的作家和抵制暴力的作家有一个共性，他们的双眼都紧盯着武器。军事史的作者和读者都是些汉子，满篇都是长弓、马镫、大炮和坦克。许多非暴力运动则是诋毁武器的运动，比如用“战争贩子”这个词对军火商的妖魔化，各种反核示威以及控制枪支的宣传。而热衷武器的一方虽然立场截然不同，但也只是专注于对战争武器的描述，并认为正是因为破坏性之大令人难以想象的武器（炸药、毒气、原子弹）的发明，让战争变得越来越不可能了。

    显然，武器技术通过决定胜负、确立威慑和制造毁灭性的破坏，多次改变了历史的进程。比如，没有人会否认，在发展中国家限制使用自动武器会有利于和平。几千年间，武器，像其他技术一样，越来越精良，但是暴力的水平却不是一成不变地向上爬升，而是起伏地下滑，形成一条锯齿状的下行线。前国家时代的长矛和弓箭制造的伤亡率，一直是最高的历史纪录，以后的任何武器都未曾打破这个纪录（本书第2章）；“三十年战争”中的长枪手和骑兵手下的人命数量，超过第一次世界大战的炮火和毒气（第5章）。虽然16世纪和17世纪出现了军事革命，但它主要是军队的竞赛，各国政府纷纷加强手中军队的规模和效率，武器竞赛反而是次要的。大屠杀的历史则显示，人们在杀人的时候，手持原始器械可以和手持工业化技术一样有效率（第5章和第6章）。

    在“长期和平”“新和平”“美国犯罪率大下降”这些时期中，暴力大幅度减少都不是以敌对双方化剑为犁为起点。历史的顺序往往与此相反，就像在冷战结束之后，裁减军备是和平红利的一部分。而在核武器和平问题上，我们已经看到，因为核武器的无用性，以及目前常规武器所具有的巨大的破坏力，核武器对世界事务已经没有什么影响力了（第5章）。有一种流行（并且荒唐）的观点认为，核大国为了证明自己研发核武器所付出的代价是正确的，因此不可避免地会使用核武器，这个说法至今被证明是错误的。

    看到技术决定论作为一种暴力历史理论的失败，我们应该不会感到惊讶。人类的行为是目标导向，而不是刺激驱动，与暴力相关的关键问题是，一个人是否真的想要另一个人死。反对枪械控制的一句老生常谈在字面上还真的没有错：枪不杀人，人才杀人（这句话既不支持禁枪主张，也不反对禁枪主张）。任何人，只要有工具能够打猎、收割庄稼、劈木柴，或者准备凉菜，就有办法制造严重的人身伤害。需求是发明之母，只要大敌当前，人们就将不断地更新技术以对抗来自敌人的压力。换句话说，在暴力呈减少趋势的历史进程中，武器在很大程度上是内生因素。当人们受到贪婪的驱使，或者处于恐惧时，他们就会为自己开发武器，而当头脑比较冷静的时候，又让那些武器躺在和平中锈蚀。

    资源和权力。20世纪70年代，当我还是个学生时，有一位教授，只要有学生愿意听，他就要传播一个有关越战的内幕：整个战争是为了钨。他发现，在南海有世界上最大的钨矿矿藏，钨这种金属是制造灯泡里的灯丝和冶炼合金钢的原料。所谓民族主义和牵制战略的说法全是烟幕，不过是为了掩盖超级大国为控制重大战略资源所进行的对抗。

    越战钨矿论是资源决定论的一个典型，它认为人类不可避免地要相互争夺有限的资源，例如土地、水、矿藏和战略地带。有一种见解认为，冲突的原因是资源分布不均；如果能够公平地分配资源，人类就能实现和平。另外一个听起来像是“现实主义”理论的说法是，争夺土地和资源的冲突是国际关系的永恒属性，和平是力量均衡的结果，即各方都感到对方的威慑，不敢涉足对方的势力范围。

    在历史上，对资源的争夺确实是一种强大的动力，但对资源的争夺却无法解释暴力的大趋势。在过去500年内，所有最具破坏力的冲突都不是资源驱动，而是意识形态驱动的，例如宗教、革命、民族主义、法西斯主义和共产主义（第5章）。虽然没有人能证明这些人类的灾难真的和钨或者其他什么资源没有关系，但是，所有要证明这些灾难起因于争夺资源的努力，都像是偏执的阴谋论。至于说力量均衡，苏联解体和德国统一，这样翻天覆地的变化也没有让世界进入疯狂的混战。相反，它对发达国家之间的“长期和平”趋势毫无影响，还预示了发展中国家中“新和平”时期的到来。所有这些令人欣喜的发展都不是源于资源的发现和再分配。事实上，在发展中国家，资源常常变成诅咒，而不是祝福。拥有丰富石油和矿藏的国家，虽然理论上是有了更大的馅饼可以在自己的国民之间进行分配，但这些国家总是居于最暴力的国家之列（第6章）。

    看到资源控制未必涉及暴力，我们也不应该感到奇怪。进化心理学家们告诉我们，无论男人多么富有或多么贫穷，他们总是要争夺女人、地位和优势。经济学家告诉我们，创造财富的不是土里埋藏的东西，而是调动起来的人的聪明才智、干劲和合作，是人将土里的东西变成有用的果实。当人们进行分工和交换各自的收获的时候，财富就会增长，每个人都是赢家。也就是说，资源竞争并非必然，它是包括暴力在内的各种社会力量系统内生的现象。不同时代和不同地区的人，因为不同的社会构造和思维方式，可以选择对最终产品进行交换的正和博弈，也可以选择争夺原材料的零和竞争，甚至是负和竞争，因为战争的代价会超过抢来的原料的价值。美国可以入侵加拿大，控制进入大湖区的航道，或者占领珍贵的镍矿，但是，既然美国人已经通过贸易享受到所有这些资源，有什么必要这样做呢？

    富裕。在过去1000年以来，世界越来越繁荣，暴力也越来越少。人类社会是不是越富有，也就越和平呢？也许，每天面对贫困的痛苦和挫折感让人们更加暴躁，也更有理由去打斗，而丰裕社会的享受则让人们觉得生命值得珍惜，继而也珍惜他人的性命。

    不过，很难在富裕和非暴力之间找到密切的相关性，有些相关性甚至是反向的。在前国家社会，经常是在水草丰美的温带定居的部落，比如在西北太平洋沿岸的美洲人，实行奴隶制、种姓制和武士文化；而物质贫瘠的非洲桑族人和马来半岛塞迈人的生活要和平得多，内部分配也公平得多（第2章）。正是在那些辉煌的古老帝国，我们看到了无数奴隶、十字架酷刑、角斗士、无情征服战争和活人献祭（第1章）。

    民主和人道主义革命背后的思想在18世纪蓬勃发展，但物质财富的大繁荣却是相当后期的事情（第4章）。西方的财富是19世纪工业革命之后才出现的，而直到19世纪末公共卫生革命，才开始改善人类的健康和延长人的寿命。较小尺度上的繁荣波动，似乎也与人权状况没有同步关系。虽然有人提出过，在美国南方，棉花价格下降的时候，鞭刑的数量上升，但历史的大趋势是，鞭刑在20世纪上半叶呈指数级减少，无论是经济繁荣的“咆哮的20年代”还是经济衰退的大萧条，都不曾让这种趋势出现任何偏离（第7章）。就我们所知，发祥于20世纪50年代后期的权利革命，既没有借过经济周期的东风，也没有受它的牵累。而且，权利革命也不是现代丰裕社会的自动产物，亚洲的一些富国，仍然相对容忍家庭暴力和体罚儿童（第7章）。

    暴力犯罪的水平亦与经济指标不相吻合。20世纪美国犯罪率的曲线与繁荣的曲线大多没有时间相关性：大萧条期间谋杀率大幅度下降，在经济繁荣的60年代直线上升，但到2007年开始的经济衰退期间，又跌至新低（第3章）。警察的案情记录早已指出两者之间的弱关联，警方记录的凶杀动机往往与社会道德有关，例如复仇和不忠，很少是为了金钱和食物等物质利益。

    在一种情况下，财富和暴力之间显示出强大的关联：在经济发展程度最低的国家中，可以看见这些差异（第6章）。人均GDP在1000美元的国家，爆发内战的可能性迅速上升。但是，很难说清楚这一关联背后的原因。钱确实能买到很多东西，但要说就是因为穷国买不起东西而要对暴力负责，却没有足够的证据。问题可能在于贫困对个人的影响，例如营养和医疗，也可能在于对国家的影响，例如学校、警察和政府能力的不足（第6章）。因为战争和发展势不两立，我们甚至无法知道在何种程度上是贫困带来了战争，还是战争造成了贫困。

    虽然赤贫与内战有关联，但与大屠杀没有关联。不要忘记，穷国总是有更多政治危机，政治危机可以导致大屠杀，但是一旦一个国家发生危机，贫困并不是产生大屠杀的原因（第6章）。在丰裕坐标的另一端，30年代末期的德国已经摆脱了经济萧条，成为发达的工业国家，但就是在这样的时刻，它开始酝酿成为大屠杀象征的暴行。

    财富和暴力之间纠结的关系提醒我们，人类的生活不仅仅是吃饱饭。我们相信，作为道德动物，我们中间的很多暴力来自破坏性的意识形态，而不是不够富裕。无论结果是更好还是更坏——通常是更坏，人们总是愿意为了所谓的精神纯洁、集体光荣或者绝对公正而放弃物质享受。

    宗教。说到意识形态，我们已经看到，古代的部落教条实在没有留下什么好东西。走遍全世界，各种对超自然力的信仰，赋予人们权力为了取悦嗜血的神灵牺牲活人的性命，杀害巫师，因为他们具有邪恶的力量（第4章）。经书中描述的那位神，对大屠杀、强奸、奴隶制和处决异教徒感到欢欣；一千多年以来，这些文字成为杀害共情别恋的妻子、占有妇女、殴打儿童、虐待动物、迫害异端和同性恋的依据（第1章、第4章和第7章）。人道主义革命，例如停止残酷刑罚、激发共情的小说的传播以及废奴，在当时都遭遇教会和卫道士们的激烈反对（第4章）。将狭隘的价值观拔高成为神圣信仰，目的无非是要给自己开一张践踏他人利益的许可证，并拒绝任何妥协的可能性（第9章）。欧洲的宗教战争，是近代西方历史上第二个最血腥的时期，参战者正是受到宗教的煽动，而在今天的中东和伊斯兰世界的某些地区，它仍在煽动狂热分子。宗教右派分子及其盟友通常会说宗教是主张和平的力量，只是这个理论与历史事实不相符合。

    为宗教辩护的人认为，法西斯是无神论。但事实是，法西斯不是无神论（第4章）。在西班牙、意大利、葡萄牙、克罗地亚，法西斯和天主教幸福地生活在一起，虽然希特勒不需要基督教，他却不是一个无神论者，而且他始终认为他是在执行神意。[1]历史学家的记录证明，许多纳粹精英将纳粹主义和德国基督教拼凑为一种合成信仰，既取基督教千禧年之说，亦接续了其悠久的反犹历史。[2]大批教会神职人员和信众积极投向纳粹，他们对魏玛共和国时期宽容、世俗和世界主义文化的厌恶，终于在纳粹那里找到了共鸣。[3]

    但是，否定一种偏执狭隘的意识形态，并不意味着肯定其他的意识形态。同时，在特定的历史时刻，特定的宗教运动也曾经反抗暴力。在无政府时期，宗教组织有时发挥着文明力量的作用，因为宗教组织在社会上以道德准则自诩，它们也确实成为人们内省和善行的场所。贵格会信徒将启蒙运动反对奴隶制和反对战争的主张落实到自己的废奴与和平行动中；19世纪，其他自由主义的新教教派开始加入贵格派的努力（第4章）。新教教会在驯服野蛮的美国南方和西部新边疆上颇有贡献（第3章）。（虽然，马丁·路德·金拒绝了主流基督教教义，而接受了甘地、世俗西方哲学和反叛的人本主义神学家的启发。）美国非裔教会不仅为民权运动提供了组织基础，还提供了话语权。而在20世纪90年代，非裔教会与警方和社区组织合力，控制美国城市中非裔聚居的老城区的犯罪率（第3章）。在发展中国家，图图主教和其他教会领袖与政治家及非政府组织联手，在一些结束了种族隔离制度和内战的国家推动和解与重建（第8章）。

    所以说，克里斯托弗·希钦斯（Christopher Hitchens）的无神论畅销书的副标题“宗教如何毒害一切”，是夸大其词。宗教在暴力的历史上扮演了不止一种角色，因为宗教在人类历史的方方面面都不是一种单一的力量。我们统称为“宗教”的，实际上是无数纷繁复杂的运动，彼此之间大相径庭；它们只有在一点上是共同的，即与古老的宗教组织相比，在人类活动的舞台上，非宗教的社会组织都算是新鲜事物。虽然宗教都自称源于神，但其信仰和实践都来自人类活动，反映了人类的智能和社会潮流。当潮流顺着启蒙主义的方向涌动，宗教也顺应大势，小心谨慎地避开《旧约》中最血腥的说教。当然，很多调整不是那么显而易见，但摩门教的某些变化却是赤裸裸的。1890年，摩门教的领袖自称从耶稣基督那里得到指示，教会将停止实行多妻制（当时，一夫多妻制成为犹他州加入美国联邦的障碍）；1978年，摩门教的领袖再次得到聆训，允许黑人担任圣职，而在此之前，黑人被认为身上刻有该隐的邪恶印记。教会的分裂派、改革运动、大公会议和其他自由派力量发动了更多更细致的变革，让宗教更顺应人本主义的浪潮。只有在宗教激进主义势力试图逆潮流而动，推行坚持部落和独裁的刻板戒条时，宗教才成为一种暴力力量。

    和平主义者困境

    让我放下这些并不坚定抵制暴力的因素，来看看那些坚定的抵抗者。我不打算给这些抵抗力量开列名单，只想找到一个分析框架，看看这些力量之间是否存在某些共性。我们想解答的是，为什么暴力如此具有诱惑力，为什么人们永远在渴望减少暴力，为什么暴力如此之顽固，如此之难以制服，为什么某些特定的变化最终让暴力减少了。要做到真正地解答我们的问题，这些导致暴力减少的变化必须是外生的：它们不应是我们试图解释的暴力减少本身的一部分，而是在暴力减少之前即存在并最终导致暴力减少的独立的历史进程。

    为了更好地理解暴力多变的动态过程，让我们回想一下合作（或者说是克制攻击性）收益的经典模型，即所谓“囚徒困境”（第8章）。我们可以给它换一个名字，姑且称它为“和平主义者困境”。一个人或者一个联盟受到在掠夺性攻击中取胜的诱惑（相当于背叛它的合作者），当然它同时也想避免受骗，避免被有同样贪念的敌人击败。但是如果双方都选择攻击，他们将陷入报复性战争（相互背叛），结果只能是双方付出比他们选择和平（相互合作）更大的代价。图10-1描述了和平主义者困境；胜负的数字是假定数据，但是它们反映了此困境的悲剧性构造。

    图10-1 和平主义者困境

    无论如何，和平主义者困境都不是一个数学模型；我不断强调这一点，只是想说明为什么我要用文字来解释说明其中的含义。模型中的数字反映了暴力的双重悲剧性。在这样的结果下，第一个悲剧是，做一个和平主义者是非理性的选择。如果你的对手是和平主义者，你会受到诱惑去利用他的这个弱点（如果你选择进攻获胜，你得到10分，高于选择和平能得到的5分）；而如果对手是一个侵略者，你选择战争，承受战争的惩罚（损失50分），也强过做一个马屁精，让对方利用你的软弱（损失惨重，-100分）。因此，无论如何，攻击都是理性的选择。

    第二个悲剧是受害者的代价（在此为-100分）与胜利者的收益（10分）极其不合比例。除非交战双方在对抗中互置对方于死地，在这个模型中，进攻不是零和博弈，而是负和博弈；对双方而言，尽管有胜利的奖赏，但是他们还是以共同选择不进攻对方更合算。征服者为了多抢到一小片土地，要以杀害整整一个家庭为代价；强奸者片刻的“驱力降低”体验，绝对无法与他给受害者造成的巨大伤害相比。熵定律的结果之一就是不对称性：宇宙中只有极微小的部分有可能处于有序状态，能够支持生命和幸福，所以，破坏和制造痛苦远比培育和创造幸福要容易。就是说，即使是以最精准的功利主义观念来看，由一位最公正的中立观察家来加总社会的总幸福和总不幸，他会得出结论说，暴力是不可取的，因为它给受害者制造的不幸大于给施害者带来的幸福，导致世界幸福总量的减少。

    但是，当我们从高高在上的、中立的、毫无倾向的观察家立场回到地面，站在博弈一方的角度进行观察，就能看到为什么暴力如此难以消除。任何让自己一方成为唯一选择和平的人，都是在发疯，因为对手会因此受到进攻的诱惑，和平者要付出可怕的代价。常言“那是对方的问题”，解释了为什么和平主义左脸挨打后送上右脸，“铸剑为犁”等其他高尚的道德情操不能始终如一地制约暴力：因为只有在对方也同时具有同样情感的时候，和平主义才有积极的结果。我还认为，这也有助于我们理解为什么在不同的历史时期，暴力水平会发生出人意料的螺旋式上升，或者螺旋式下降。每一方都必须显示出足够强的攻击性，以免让对方以为自己是容易捕获的目标，通常的情况是以攻为守，而且有力的攻击就是最好的防卫。双方均怀有被对方攻击的恐惧，这也就是所谓的“霍布斯陷阱”，也称为“安全困境”，它会导致双方的暴力升级（第2章）。即使博弈是重复性的，而且报复的威胁（在理论上）对双方都有威慑力，对战略优势的过度自信和其他自利性偏差仍然会导致暴力循环。根据同样的逻辑，在人们意想不到的时候，如果一个善意的姿态偶然得到了善意的回报，也可能破解循环，让暴力螺旋式下降。

    要寻找促使暴力减少的历史性因素所具有的共性，着眼点就在于这些因素应该能够改变和平博弈的回报结构——调整棋盘上的数字，吸引双方进入左上角的格子——双赢的和平收益。

    根据我们已经讨论过的历史和心理学，我相信我们可以确认有五种发展，具有将世界推向和平方向的力量。尽管程度有所不同，但我们可以在各种历史事件、数据库和实验研究中看到这五种发展。每一种发展都以自己的方式改变了和平者博弈的回报结构，将人们带进珍贵的和平。让我们按照它们在本书中出现的顺序，对这五种发展做一番总结。

    利维坦

    国家，为了使自己的国民免受相互伤害而垄断了使用暴力的权力，是始终如一的暴力减速器。图2-1中的侵犯者-受害者-旁观者暴力三角，描绘了国家与暴力的简单逻辑，而用和平主义者困境的术语对这一逻辑的描述可以是：如果政府处罚侵犯者，让侵犯行为的成本大到足以抵消其收益，比如，罚金是侵犯获利的3倍。这将改变两种选择对潜在侵犯者的回报，让和平比战争更有吸引力（图10-2）。

    图10-2 利维坦如何解决和平主义者困境

    除了改变理性人的行为，一个利维坦——或者相当于利维坦的女性对等角色正义女神朱斯提提亚，就是公正的第三方。他的处罚不受参与者自利偏差的影响，他也不是某一方复仇行动所针对的目标。有裁判监督的博弈，博弈者进行先发制人型或自卫型攻击的动机会减弱，而一方软化进犯性立场的愿望，会让对手感到放松；良性的相互影响，最终让双方走出暴力的循环。谢天谢地，心理实验显示，人类的自制力具有泛化效果，克制进攻性可以成为一种习性；即使在利维坦眼光有限关照不到的时候，经过文明教化的各方仍将会继续约束自己的行为。

    本书第2章所述“平靖进程”和第3章所述“文明进程”背后的动因就是利维坦效应。当第一个国家出现，控制了史前人类的小团伙、部落、酋邦的时候，对劫掠和争斗的压制，让暴力死亡率下降至之前的1/5（第2章）。而当欧洲的采邑合并为王国和主权国家之后，执法力量的统一，最终将凶杀率又压低至之前的1/30（第3章）。在政府鞭长莫及的地带，比如欧洲的边远山区，美国南方和西部的新边疆都曾经长期处于无政府状态，这些地区保留了暴力的荣誉文化（第3章）。在社会经济层面上，也有一部分无政府的荒漠，例如得不到稳定的法律保护的下层人民，还有不敢暴露自己的走私和犯罪团伙，这些阶层同样也保留了暴力的荣誉文化（第3章）。而当政府执法发生倒退，比如速成的非殖民化时期、失败的国家、权贵倾轧的伪民主国家、警察罢工期间、20世纪60年代的美国，暴力可以疯狂地杀回头来（第3章和第6章）。我们发现，政府治理无能是导致内战的最危险因素之一。是否拥有这笔资产，也许是受暴力蹂躏的发展中国家和享有更多和平的发达国家之间真正的分野（第6章）。某些国家的国民法制意识淡薄，在实验室里，他们沉溺于毫无必要的恶意惩罚，让博弈中所有人的处境都变得更糟（第8章）。

    霍布斯笔下的利维坦和法院的象征雕塑朱斯提提亚，都武装着佩剑。但有些时候，他们只要有蒙眼布和天平也就足够了。人们像爱惜自己的身体和财产一样爱惜自己的名誉，所以，第三方的威信和软实力，或者丧失名誉和被社会排挤的压力，会和拥有暴力威胁手段的警察与军队一样有效力。在国际舞台上，软实力至关重要，因为世界政府至今还只是人们的幻想，但第三方仲裁，间或辅之以制裁或象征性武力威胁，仍然大有可为。在参加国际组织或允许国际维和部队工作的国家，内战的风险下降，这说明非武装的或者只有很少武装的第三方所具有的和平作用（第5章和第6章）。

    一旦利维坦挥舞利剑，其收益取决于它使用武力是否合乎法理，在属民的决策矩阵中是否仅仅惩处“侵犯”行为。如果利维坦不分青红皂白地对矩阵中所有四个单元施加惩罚，为了保住自己的权力迫害人民，那么，它能防止多少伤害，它也就能制造多少伤害（第2章和第4章）。民主优越于专制和伪民主之处在于一个政府能够对症下药，将适度的武力置于决策矩阵中的适当单元，将和平主义者的选择从一种难以维系的理想变成诱惑之大以至于无法拒绝的现实选项。

    文明商业

    启蒙运动的重要思想成果之一，就是交易可以将零和的战争博弈换作正和的互利博弈，而现代生物学对非亲缘之间合作演化的解释，为启蒙主义的利益交换说提供了新的依据。在和平主义者博弈中，它提高了共同选择和平、共享交换所得的收益水平（图10-3）。

    虽然文明商业不能消除一方在攻击中被击败的灾难，但它能够消除敌人发动进攻的动机（如果敌方能够从和平的交易中获益）。相互合作能够产生收益，这至少具有部分的外生性，因为它不完全取决于主体的交易意愿；它还取决于交易双方擅长提供对方需要的产品，并取决于交易得以顺利进行的基础设施，例如交通、金融、簿记、履约保证。一旦人们受到吸引，开始自愿交换，他们就会受到激励，互相站在对方的角度思考，以求达成最合算的交易（比如“消费者永远是正确的”），继而，他们之间即使没有温情，也会对对方的利益抱有某种程度的尊重。

    图10-3 商业如何解决和平主义者困境

    在诺贝特·埃利亚斯的理论中，利维坦和文明商贸是欧洲文明进程的两大驱动力（第3章）。自中世纪开始，不断扩张的各个王国不仅严惩劫匪，国家化司法，而且发展商贸的基础设施，包括货币和强制执行合约。这些制度性基础设施，加上道路和钟表等的技术进步，以及人们在观念上消除了在利息、发明和竞争等方面的禁忌，让商贸更加有利可图。商人、工匠和官僚最终取代了勇武的骑士。历史数据支持埃利亚斯的理论，欧洲的商贸的确在中世纪晚期开始发展，而犯罪学数据表明，欧洲的暴力死亡率自那时起迅速下降（第9章和第3章）。

    随着远洋航船、新型金融机构的出现和重商主义政策的衰落，人类社会的大型实体之间，例如城市和国家之间的商贸日趋发达。这些发展在某种程度上受益于18世纪一批好战的帝国，例如瑞典、丹麦、荷兰和西班牙，它们纷纷接受教化，变为商业国家（第5章）。在世界其他地方，国家荣耀至上的价值观也在发生改变，赚钱致富的念头压倒了收复失地之类的复仇心（第5章）。之所以发生这样的变化，是因为经济全球化带来的丰厚赢利，给人们带来了巨大诱惑。

    上述所有叙述都有量化研究的支持。战后出现长期和平及新和平的年代，也正是国际贸易高速发展的时期，而事实证明，如果其他条件不变，有贸易关系的国家之间兵戎相见的机会大大减少（第5章）。读者应该记得，一个国家经济的开放程度越大，发生大屠杀和内战的可能性就越小（第6章）。但是，如果一个国家的政府运作完全依赖开采自然资源，例如石油、铁矿和钻石，而不是依赖通过商业和贸易的附加价值，这个国家陷入内战的机会则会增加（第6章）。

    文明商业理论不仅有国际数据的验证，也符合人类学家早已知道的一个现象：许多文化都维持着成员之间相互交换的网络，因为他们知道，交换关系维护着他们之间的和平，即使很多时候彼此交换的都是些无用的礼品。[4]艾伦·菲斯克和他的同事正是从这些民族志记载的现象想到，处于平等交换或“市场定价”两种关系中的人，认为自己被相互承诺的义务联系在一起，所以当彼此关系冷漠或者某些人难以融入社会的时候，人们也很少将对方非人化（第9章）。

    文明商业背后的心态，与我在本章回顾的其他和平力量不同，并没有在心理实验中做过直接验证。我们确实知道，当人们（甚至猴子）进入正和博弈，需要合作实现一个共同受益的目标，人际间的紧张关系能够缓解（第8章）。我们还知道，在真实世界中，交换可以是有利可图的正和博弈。但是，我们还不知道，是不是交换本身减弱了交换双方之间敌对的紧张。就我所知，在有关共情、合作和攻击的海量文献中，还没有人测试过在有过互利交换往来的人之间，互相电击或者在对方的食物上倒满特辣级辣酱的行为是否会有所减少。我疑心，对做研究的学者来说，文明商业（也可称为温柔商业）还算不上是个性感刺激的概念。文化界和知识界的精英总觉得自己比做生意的人优越，在他们的大脑里，绝对想不到要将和平这样高贵的东西归功于锱铢必较的商人。[5]

    女性化

    山口勉之到底是世界上最走运的男人，还是世界上最不走运的男人，就看你怎么想了。山口在广岛遭遇第一颗原子弹爆炸时侥幸逃生，但是很不幸，他选择逃到长崎避难。不过，他同样侥幸逃生，又活了65年，直到2010年在93岁高龄时离世。一个男人，经历了历史上仅有的2次原子弹袭击并能够生还，这本身就值得我们敬重。而他在去世之前，给我们留下了一张核武器时代的和平处方：“唯一能被允许管理拥有核武器的国家的人，只能是母亲，而且是那些还在亲自给孩子哺乳的母亲。”[6]

    山口所说的，正是对暴力的经验性概括，即暴力的执行者主要都是男人。从孩童时期起，与女孩相比，男孩的游戏更加暴力，幻想也更加暴力，消费更多的暴力娱乐产品，是暴力罪犯的主力，更乐于惩罚和复仇，更愿意在攻击性行为中承担愚蠢的风险，更多地将选票投给好战的领袖和政策，并筹划和执行了几乎所有战争和大屠杀（第2、3章和第7、8章）。尽管有时做出同样选择的有男有女，男女平均水平的差距不大，但在选票接近的大选中，如此有限的差距也可以决定选举的结果，或者，在双方较量谁更加好勇斗狠的博弈中，这点儿差距也足以触发螺旋上升的暴力冲突。在历史上，妇女领导了和平主义和人道主义运动，尽管当时她们在其他政治机构中几乎没有什么影响力。最近几十年，妇女在社会生活的各个层面都具有了前所未有的巨大影响，也正是在这几十年，发达国家之间的战争已经变得完全不可思议了（第5章和第7章）。詹姆斯·希恩认为，战后欧洲国家的使命发生了变化，其特点是，从军事力量转向对国民生老病死的全程关照。这几乎就是一幅传统性别分工的漫画。

    山口药方的细节当然是可以讨论的。乔治·舒尔茨回忆，1986年，他告诉玛格丽特·撒切尔，他本人目睹了罗纳德·里根向米哈伊尔·戈尔巴乔夫建议两国禁止核武器，撒切尔听到后将手提包砸到了他的身上。[7]但是，山口可能会说，撒切尔的孩子已经长大了，她的世界观已经适应了一个男性治理的世界。既然近期我们不会看到单独由女性——更不要说单独由哺乳的母亲，来掌管所有的核武器国家，所以我们很难知道山口的药方是否灵验。但是，有一点他是对的，他预见到当世界变得更女性化的时候，会变得更加和平。

    人们之所以认为女性倾向的价值观可以压制暴力，原因是性别之间生物差异造成的心理遗产，即为了争夺得到女性的机会，男性有更强烈的竞争冲动，而为了不让自己的孩子成为失去父母的孤儿，女性则有更强烈的躲避危险的动机。无论是部落里男性为争夺女性展开的竞争，还是骑士时代为荣誉、地位、统治优势展开的竞争，或者现代社会里为名望而展开的竞争，都是零和博弈，而且主要是男人的喜好。假定在和平主义者博弈中，战争胜利的收益与不战而败的成本之比，暂且为80%——相当于男性自我受伤后的瘀肿和青紫。假定现在做出选择决策的是女性，男性心理的影响还要相应下降（见图10-4；为了清晰起见，我删除了所有“对方的选择”）。这样一来，和平变得比战胜更有吸引力了，而战争的成本比不战而败还要高昂。和平主义者的选项表现出绝对优势。如果我们对战争选项下女性承受的战争成本再做调整，战争与和平之间的成本收益之比的变化将会更加戏剧性。

    图10-4 女性化如何解决和平主义者困境

    无疑，决策中从男性主导转向女性主导未见得是一个外生因素。在有些社会，贪婪的敌人随时都有可能大举进犯，必须具备最勇武的价值观念，否则就是自杀。一个女性化的价值体系是奢侈品，只有那些已经可以免于捕食者侵犯的社会才有资格享受。但是，向女性利益相对倾斜的决策，也可以来自与暴力无关的外生因素。在传统社会，生活安排就是一种这样的外生力量：如果妇女和娘家一起生活，得到父兄的保护，丈夫只是来访者，妇女的境遇要好过嫁到婆家，受丈夫和夫家男性的统治（第7章）。在现代社会，这些外生力量包括各种技术进步和经济进步，比如成品食物、家用电器、避孕、更长的寿命，还有信息经济时代的到来，都让妇女摆脱了长时间养育儿童的重负和各种家务。

    不论是在传统社会还是在现代社会，妇女的地位越高，社会中有组织的暴力也就越少（第8章）。最典型的例子就是那些为了抢劫妇女，或者为了报复敌人抢劫自己的妇女而发动战争的部落和酋邦，例如雅诺马马人和荷马时代的古希腊人（第1章和第2章）。在现代社会，我们则可以比较某些欧洲国家和伊斯兰国家；在西欧的“过度女性化的民主国家”，政治暴力和司法暴力的水平已经非常低；而在亚非实行伊斯兰教法律的伊斯兰国家，还在对女性实施阴蒂切割，以石刑处死通奸的妇女，女性还必须套上蒙头盖脸的罩袍，那里的政治暴力和司法暴力的发生率就非常之高（第6章）。

    女性化不一定需要妇女拥有更大的战争决策权。它可以是一个社会逐渐放弃男性的荣誉文化，比如武力复仇，以体罚培养男孩子的男子气，宣扬军事胜利的光荣（第8章）。欧洲和发达民主国家以及美国自由派倾向的蓝色各州已经处于这一潮流之中（第3章和第7章）。一些保守派学者曾经伤感地向我表示，现代西方正在被削弱，因为它丧失了勇武和英雄的美德，变得越来越物质主义、轻佻、颓废和娇气。我的假设始终是，暴力除了在防止暴力加剧的时候，它都是一种恶；但是这些学者没有错，这是一种价值判断，选择和平还是选择荣誉和光荣，在逻辑上没有什么可讨论的余地。我只是觉得，这些男子气概的潜在受害者在这场讨论中应该有发言的权利；他们也许不会同意，要用他们的生命和身体来为荣耀男子气概的美德付出代价。

    还有另外一个理由说女性化是一种指向和平的发展。有利于女性的社会制度和性生活安排可以减少男性间竞争产生的暴力。婚姻就是此类制度安排之一，在婚姻中，男子承担向自己的子女投资的义务，放弃为争夺其他性交机会而与其他男子的竞争。结婚能够减少男性的睾丸素和降低犯罪的可能性，我们从统计数据中看到，在美国20世纪40年代和50年代，当人们幸福地成家结婚时，凶杀率直线下降，而到60年代和70年代，结婚年龄后移，凶杀率上升，在结婚率特别低的美国非裔社区，凶杀率一直保持在相当高的水平（第3章）。

    另一个消除暴力沼泽的因素是男女数量的均衡。毫无约束的纯男性社会环境，例如美国边疆开发时代的牛仔和矿工营地，总是充满了暴力（第3章）。西部之所以野蛮，是因为年轻男子蜂拥而去的时候，女子留在了东部。

    20世纪80年代开始出现的选择性堕胎产业，让阿富汗、孟加拉、中国、巴基斯坦和印度的部分地区的人口性比例严重失调，男性比重畸高（第7章）。[8]如此多的剩余男性，预示着这些地区和平和民主的近景相当黯淡。而从较长的时间来看，性别比例将随着女权主义和人道主义的发展恢复平衡；一方面停止杀害女婴，另一方面，政治领袖总要学会人口统计，鼓励人们养大自己的女儿。对女婴利益的保障可以说是社会暴力减少的保证。但是，在性比例实现均衡之前，这些社会恐怕还不得不忍受颠簸和动荡。

    一个社会尊重妇女的利益与暴力水平还有一重联系。暴力不仅是男性过多，而且是年轻男性过多的问题。至少有两个大型研究项目证明，年轻男性比重高的国家，卷入国家间战争和内战的可能性更高（第6章）。[9]人口金字塔中年轻人组成的基座过大是危险的，这不仅因为年轻人容易骚动，还因为他们在数量上大大超过了他们谨慎的长辈。同时，这样的结构还说明这些年轻人在追寻地位和配偶上受到压制，缺少机会。这些发展中国家僵化的经济制度，无法灵活地吸纳数量巨大的年轻人，很多人失业或者就业不足。如果这些社会在某种程度上还实行合法的或事实上的多妻制，大量年轻女性被年长或富有的人占有，那么，过多的边缘化的年轻人，就意味着过多的边缘化的年轻男子。这些年轻男子没有什么东西可以留恋，他们很可能在民兵、军阀和恐怖分子那里找到工作和生活的意义（第6章）。

    《性与战争》（Sex and War）有一个听起来极为吸引男性的书名，但这本新书事实上是一篇女性赋权的宣言。[10]繁殖生物学家马尔科姆·波茨（Malcolm Potts）、政治学家马莎·坎贝尔（Martha Campbell）和记者托马斯·海登（Thomas Hayden）合著此书，书中给出大量的证据，指出与妇女被当作生育机器的男性社会相比，当一个国家的妇女能够掌握避孕手段，并有自由按照自己的意愿婚嫁时，她们生育的数量减少。也就是说，这个国家的人口增长速度会放缓，其结构中年轻人组成的基座不至于过分庞大。（与人们以往的理解不同，一个国家不是在丰裕之后才能出现人口出生率的下降。）波茨和他的合作者们认为，让妇女掌握自己的生育能力（在生物战场上，这一直是两性争夺的领域），是当今世界那些最危险的地区减少暴力的不二法门。但是，这样的赋权必须克服强大的反对力量，传统男性总是想掌握对妇女生育权的控制，而宗教组织总是排斥避孕和堕胎。

    直接的政治赋权，男子气概的贬值，女性婚姻自主，女婴生存权，妇女对自己生育权的控制，这几类女性主义化的发展都是推动暴力减少的力量。在世界上，任何在这些方面发展滞后的地区，也是暴力减少滞后的地区。但是，世界范围内民调资料显示，即使在那些最顽固的国家，对妇女赋权的呼吁也在变强，许多国际组织承诺要努力加速这一进程（第6章和第7章）。如果短期内还很难看到世界上暴力的进一步减少，但就长期而言，这些都是充满希望的标志。

    扩大的圈子

    我最后要论及的两种和平力量改变了暴力的心理回报。第一种力量是同情圈的扩大。假定生活在都市化程度较高的社会，我们可以接触到形形色色的人；他们代表了多样的群体，我们有机会接受他们的视角观察世界，从而改变了我们对其处境的情感反应。想象一下这个过程的逻辑结果：我们的福祉和他们的福祉密不可分，我们真的是可以爱上我们的敌人，感受到他们的痛苦。我们的潜在敌人所得到的回报，也会加总到我们自己的账单上（反之亦然），因此，和平主义将成为绝对有利的选择（图10-5）。

    图10-5 共情和理性怎样解决和平主义者困境

    当然，让所有活生生的人的利益完美地融合在一起，那是一个不可能达到的极乐世界。但是，在考量他人利益的时候，稍微地多为他人想想，比如，在想到他人被奴役、遭受酷刑或肢解时，会感到一种油然而生的愧疚之情——能够改变人们攻击他人的可能性。

    我们已经看到了这个因果链上两个环节的证据：带来更多换位思考的外生事件，以及换位思考变为同情心的心理反应过程（第4章和第9章）。从17世纪开始，出版业和运输业的技术进步创造了文字共和国和阅读革命，由此播下了人道主义革命的种子（第4章）。读书的人越来越多，读物中的小说让人们进入他人的生活和头脑，讽刺和笑话让人们开始怀疑自己习以为常的社会准则。对奴隶制、施虐式刑罚、战争、虐待儿童和虐待动物的生动描述，让读者感受到其他生命的苦难，为最终废除这些制度或减少这些实践创造了条件。虽然编年史不是因果证明，但是实验室研究证明，人们听到或者读到第一人称的故事，可以强化他们对诉说者的同情心，至少让他们感到故事更加可信（第9章）。

    识字率、城市化、流动性、大众传媒在19世纪和20世纪持续发展，而到20世纪下半叶开始出现地球村。人们越来越意识到，世界上还有很多和自己不一样的人（第5章和第7章）。也许，就像文字共和国和阅读革命点燃了18世纪的人道主义革命一样，地球村和电子革命促进了20世纪的长期和平、新和平和权利运动。尽管我们无法证明人们常说的大众媒体加速了民权运动、反战运动和共产主义的衰落，但是，对换位共情的研究证明了这种可能性，我们也看到在大都市人群多样性和人文价值认受性之间存在的数种统计关系（第7章和第9章）。[11]

    理性的滚梯

    扩大的圈子和理性的滚梯都是受同样的外生因素的推动，例如识字率、都市化和教育。[12]因为它们有同样的利益结构，所以两者的和平效应可以用同一个和平主义者博弈模型进行描述。但是在概念上，扩大的圈子和理性的滚梯是有区别的（第9章）。前一个要求我们换到他人的视角，设身处地，想象他人的情感。后一个要求我们上升到一定的高度，站在奥林匹亚的山顶，从超理性的角度，永恒的角度，没有立场不偏不倚的角度，在思考中将自己利益和他人的利益视为等价。

    理性滚梯还有一个外源的动力：现实性。现实的逻辑关系和经验事实独立于试图把握现实的思考者的心理变化。当人类磨砺他们的知识和理性体系，并从信仰系统中剔除迷信和矛盾，必定得出某些特定的结论，就像一个人擅长算数，他的运算必然会得出某个特定的和，或者某个特定的乘积（第4章和第9章）。在很多情况下，人们得出的结论都让人们越来越少地诉诸暴力。

    本书通篇所讲的都是将理性应用于人类事务所能得到的成果。在历史的不同时期，当越来越有知识的公众开始质疑迷信杀戮，比如活人献祭、驱巫、血祭诽谤、宗教审判所，以及让某个民族做替罪羊，迷信依据的事实性假设被戳穿后，杀戮也就逐渐停止了（第4章）。人们就反对奴隶制、专制、酷刑、宗教迫害、虐待动物、暴力对待儿童和妇女、轻率地发动战争、迫害同性恋进行了审慎的理性论证，这些论证绝不是夸夸其谈，而是通过参加辩论并推动改革的人和社会组织，进入决策过程（第4章和第7章）。

    当然，区分共情和理性并不容易，就像有时很难区分心和头脑。但是，共情能够达到的边界是有限的，它的亲和力止于与我们类似或者与我们接近的人，这说明共情只有插上理性的、普世化的翅膀，才能给全世界带来抑制暴力的政策和规范变化（第9章）。这些变化不仅包括立法禁止暴力行为，还包括设计降低暴力诱惑性的社会制度。这些制度设计包括民主政府、康德式的反战保障、发展中国家的和解运动、非暴力的抵抗运动、国际维和行动、90年代的预防犯罪改革和文明攻势，此外，还有牵制、制裁和谨慎接触等外交策略，给予一国领袖更多的选择，避免只能在导致第一次世界大战的“小鸡博弈”和导致第二次世界大战的绥靖政策之间做选择（第3章和第8章）。

    尽管理性滚梯走走停停，经常停滞不前，甚至倒退，它却是一场影响深远的运动，它离弃道德体系里的部落主义、权威和纯洁，走向人道主义、古典自由主义、自主和人权（第9章）。将人类福祉奉为至善的人本主义价值体系是理性思考的产物，因为它的合理性是可以被证明的：任何思想者的群体，只要他们关心自己的价值，进行理性的对话，都会接受这个目标，而社群和权威价值体系则狭隘地局限于本部落或者本阶层（第4章和第9章）。

    证据显示，都市化的浪潮将形形色色的人卷入讨论，言论自由允许人们在讨论中畅所欲言，人们能够揭露和总结历史的教训，人本主义的价值体系正沿着自由人文主义的方向演化（第4章至第9章）。我们已经见到的证据之一是，极权主义意识形态正在衰亡，连带它所煽动的大屠杀和战争也在销声匿迹，而权利革命的思想正在蔓延，已经不再有人能够为种族歧视进行辩护，反对种族压迫发展到反对一切对妇女、儿童、同性恋和动物的压迫（第7章）。我们还见到，这些变革逐渐地改变了保守分子的立场，尽管他们在最初总是抵制变革。例外则从反面提供了证据，在那些与世界隔离的社会中，人们无法获得外来的思想，政府和神权压制出版自由，正是这些社会顽固地抗拒人文主义，死抱着部落、权威和宗教的意识形态（第6章）。然而，随着电子文字共和国的兴起，即使是这些社会，恐怕也无法继续置身于浩浩荡荡的自由主义潮流之外。

    “滚梯”的比喻，暗示着随机游走的思想潮流相互叠加，产生的合力决定了运动的方向，这似乎很有些辉格派和现代主义的味道，外带些颇为天真的历史观。但是，这种辉格史观得到了事实的支持。我们看到，发源于西欧和美国沿海地带的自由主义变革，在一定的滞后之后，纷纷被世界上较保守的其他地区效仿（第4章和第6、7章）。我们还看到，在充分发展的理性能力以及对合作、民主、古典自由主义和非暴力的接受能力之间，不仅存在相关关系，甚至还存在某种因果关系（第9章）。

    反思

    在我们人类这个物种的历史上，暴力的减少也许算得上是最有意义但最不被赏识的发展状况了。暴力减少的含义触及我们信仰和价值的核心——随着历史的进程，人类的生存条件是越来越改善还是越来越恶化，或者没有任何变化？还有什么比理解这个问题更重要的呢？有些观念，比如失去纯真的堕落，宗教典籍和森严等级的道德权威，性本恶还是性本善，历史的推动力，以及对自然、社区、传统、情感、理性和科学的道德评价，都悬而未决。我一直在长篇累牍地试图记录和解释暴力的减少，这里我不想为探讨它们的含义再泼洒笔墨了。但是，在结束本书的时候，我要再对两个问题进行反思，因为它们也许会让暴力的下降趋势发生逆转。

    第一个反思关系我们如何看待现代性——科学、技术和理性让人类生活发生了变化，伴随着习俗、信仰、社区、传统权威、返璞归真的自然观的消亡。

    仇恨现代性是当代社会批判的永恒主题之一。不论人们怀旧的目标是小镇温情还是生态系统的可持续性，是社群凝聚力还是家庭价值，是宗教信仰还是某种主义，或者是与自然韵律之和谐，每个人都巴望着倒转时光。他们说，除了异化、掠夺、社会病态、失去意义，以及为了豪宅、越野车和电视真人秀不惜毁灭地球的消费文化之外，技术给我们带来了什么？

    正如历史学家阿瑟·赫尔曼（Arthur Herman）的《西方历史中的衰落观》（The Idea of Decline in Western History）一书向我们所展示的，在人类思想史上，失落伊甸园是一曲悠久的哀歌。[13]但自20世纪70年代起，当浪漫乡愁成为大众的流行观念，统计学家和历史学家就一直想厘清事实，反驳人们的成见。他们著述的书名就足以说明问题：《好消息就是坏消息是错的》（The Good News Is the Bad News Is Wrong）、《越来越好》（It’ s Getting Better All the Time）、《过去的好时光——其实它们糟透了》（The Good Old Days — They Were Terrible!）、《为理性乐观主义辩护》（The Case for Rational Optimism）、《改善中的世界》（The Improving State of the World）、《美国人何以如此郁闷：进步的悖论》（The Progress Paradox），以及最近出版的马特·里德利（Matt Ridley）的《理性乐观派》（The Rational Optimist）和查尔斯·肯尼（Charles Kenny）的《渐入佳境》（Getting Better）。[14]

    这些为现代性辩护的作者，历数了人类进入丰裕和科技时代之前日常生活的细节。他们提醒我们，先人的身上长满了跳蚤和寄生虫，和自己的粪便一起蜗居在地洞中。食物不仅寡淡、单调，而且时有时无，没有保证。医疗要仰仗医生的锯子和牙医的钳子。不论男女，从日出一直劳作到日落，然后遁入黑暗。冬天意味着在大雪覆盖下的农舍里，忍受连续数月的饥饿、寂寞和孤独。

    还不止于此，我们的先辈们匮乏的不仅是世俗的物质享受，他们的生活中更缺少那些高级层面的精神享受，比如知识、美、人与人的交往。即使到目前为止，世界上大部分人的行走出入，也从来没有超出自己出生地方圆几公里的范围。所有人都不了解宇宙的广袤，不知道史前人类的历史、生命的基因谱系、遗传密码、微生物的世界，更不知道物质和生命的构成。音乐录音、随手可得的书籍、即时的世界新闻、艺术杰作的大量复制、影视戏剧，都是我们的先人想也想不到的，更不要说还有能够放进衬衣口袋的小小的电子工具。过去，当子女移民海外，他们的父母可能永远也见不到他们和自己的孙子孙女，永远也听不到他们的声音了。这里还有现代性给生命本身的馈赠：延长了几十年的寿命，能够看见自己的新生儿的母亲；能够活过一岁生日的幼儿。每当我在新英格兰的老墓地徜徉，总是被大量的小墓地和哀伤的墓志铭感动：“埃尔维娜·玛利亚，死于1845年7月12日，年仅4岁零9个月。原谅我们的泪水，这是父母的悲泣。一朵凋零的小花在此长眠。”

    所有这些理由都说明，没有哪个浪漫分子真的愿意乘上时间机器回到过去，但是，怀旧分子总是要亮出他们的道德底牌：恐怖的现代暴力。他们说，至少我们的祖先不用担心抢劫、学校枪击、恐怖袭击、集中营、世界大战、杀戮场、凝固汽油弹、劳改营和核毁灭。当然，波音747飞机、抗生素、iPod（一种数字音乐播放器）都抵不上现代社会及其技术给人类带来的灾难。

    在这里，只有没有感情色彩的历史和统计知识能够改变我们对现代性的态度。它们显示，怀旧所追念的和平安定纯粹是一种幻觉。我们已经看到，尽管儿童读物对原住民的生活大肆浪漫化，但是他们的战争死亡率高过我们的世界大战。对中世纪欧洲风情的浪漫遐想，忽略了工艺精湛的酷刑刑具，看不见在那个时代遭到谋杀的风险是我们今天的30倍。在人们怀念的那些旧时光里，有外遇的妻子会被割掉鼻子，7岁的孩子会因偷了一件小衣服而被送上绞架，囚犯的家庭要付钱才能让犯人免戴镣铐，女巫会被锯成两半，水手会被鞭打成肉酱。我们今天的道德共识，比如奴隶制、战争和酷刑是错误的，在过去可以被当作矫揉造作，而我们的普世人权观念简直就是痴人说梦。过去的史书中找不到关于大屠杀和战争罪行的记录，仅仅是因为当时没有人认为这些零碎儿值得记录。20世纪上半叶的世界大战和种族灭绝几乎过去70年了，从今天的角度看，这些灾难既不是人类噩运的先兆，也不是世界常态的新标准，而是一个局部的暴力高点。自此，暴力趋势开始蹒跚下行。支撑世界大战和种族灭绝的意识形态，没有被纳入现代性思维，而是被倒进了历史的垃圾堆。

    现代性的力量——理性、科学、人本主义、个人权利，当然不曾是一鼓作气地向着一个方向推进，而且它们永远也不可能带来乌托邦，或者终结人类之间的摩擦和作为人的痛苦。但是，在现代性给我们带来的各种收益——健康、体验和知识之上，我们还可以再加上一个收益：它具有减少暴力之效。

    * * *

    对那些已经注意到暴力减少的作家来说，暴力减少的规模之大，而且发生在几乎各种时间尺度和水平量级上，实在有些神秘的意味。詹姆斯·佩恩暗示，有“一种更高的力量在做功”，整个过程“几乎像着了魔法”。[15]罗伯特·赖特几乎屈从于这一诱惑，他怀疑零和竞争的减少是不是“神示证据”，是一种“天授神意”的标志，或者是一个“宇宙主宰者”的故事。[16]

    我可以毫不费力地抵制此类诱惑，但是我也同意，说明暴力逐渐减少的数据所具有的相重性（multiplicity）确实是一个值得推敲的谜。是什么让我们感到人类历史的进程有某种方向性？我们自然也有权问，指示方向的箭头在哪里，又是谁将这个箭头贴在那里的？如此之多的历史力量都整齐地指向一个有益人类的方向，如果这还不意味着是神的作品，那么，它是不是证明了某种道德实在论（moral realism）观念的真实性——存在一种道德真理，它等待着我们去发现，就像我们发现科学真理和数学真理一样？[17]

    我个人的观点是，“和平主义者困境”至少澄清了个中奥秘，并且证明，历史进程的非随机性方向源于某种人性的现实，而我们对道德和目的的认识也深受这些现实的影响。我们这个物种生来就是要面对困境，因为我们每个人的最终利益都是不同的，因为我们脆弱的躯体让我们成为易于剥夺的对象，同时想成为剥夺者而不是被剥夺者的愿望，还会将所有人卷入惩罚性冲突。单边的和平主义是一种输家的策略，共同的和平则是可望而不可即。和平主义者困境回报的数学结构向我们展示了各种令人沮丧的可能性，在这种意义上，这些数字所反应的恰恰是人类世界现实的本质。毫不奇怪，古希腊人将战争归罪于众神的任性，希伯来人和基督徒则祈求他们神圣的道德主宰调整一下来世的回报，期望以此来改变人们感知的激励结构。

    演化生成的人性，天生无力应付和平主义者困境的挑战，不会选择进入矩阵左上角幸福的和平单元。贪婪、恐惧、优势和肉欲这些动机总是在吸引我们发起攻击。虽然存在一种应对措施——一报还一报的复仇威胁，有可能在重复性博弈中开启合作，但在实践中，自利的偏差总是让博弈者打错算盘，结果往往不是威慑产生稳定，而是无休止的循环冲突。

    但是，人性中也包含着进入和平单元的动机，比如同情心和自制。它还包括像语言这样的沟通渠道。人类还具有一个开放性的组合推理体系。当这个体系经过辩论的提炼，它的成果通过文字和其他文化记忆逐渐积累，它就会找到改变回报结构的途径，让和平选项越来越有吸引力。在这些途径中，相当重要的一条是超级理性诉求，它所要求的是对现实的另一重抽象：视角的可互换性，亦即承认我们个人狭隘视野的非特殊性。它将两个对手的回报混合在一起，由此破解了博弈的困境。

    只有当我们的自我意识膨胀，觉得人类自身之重要实乃宇宙之核心时，人类才会将逃出和平主义者困境的愿望变成一种天赋宏愿。但是，这个愿望确乎属于非物质世界中的偶然现象，所以它不同于其他能激起物质发明的愿望，比如对精制糖或者中央供暖的渴望。和平主义者困境中令人沮丧的回报结构，是对现实的一种抽象认识。而走出困境的最全面的解决方法——视角的可互换性，也是对现实的一种抽象认识，它是“黄金法则”背后的基本原则，很多传统道德都有类似的黄金法则。在人类的历史中，我们的认知过程就是与这些人性现实进行斗争的过程，就像我们的认知一直在与逻辑定律和几何定律进行斗争一样。

    虽然，人类摆脱毁灭性竞争算不上是一个天赋的宇宙目标，但它的确是一个人类的目标。宗教捍卫者很久以来一直声称，没有神的法令，道德就永远失去了外在的根据。人只会追求一己之私，尽管这种追求可以按照品味或时尚有所调整，并成为相对主义或虚无主义的信徒。我们现在可以来领会一下为什么这种观点是错误的。在人间找到一些让人类得以兴旺繁荣的途径，包括找到一些策略，帮助人类解脱天性中具有攻击冲动的悲剧，应该足以成为所有人的目标。这个目标，比加入天堂合唱团、融入宇宙精神或者转世为更高级的生命都要更高贵，因为这个目标是可以向任何一个进行思考的同胞证明，而不需要由强人、传统或武力任意灌输给某一部分人群。我们在本书中见到的数据显示，有了这样的目标，人类就会进步，尽管这一进步是步履蹒跚的、不完美的，但却是确凿无疑的。

    * * *

    最后一个反思。在写作本书的过程中，我采取了一种分析性的，有些时候是不敬的腔调，因为我相信，这个主题激发太多的虔诚，太少的理解。但是，在任何时候，我从来都不曾忘记数字背后的现实。回顾暴力的历史，就是一次又一次地被暴力的残忍和毁灭震撼。有时，则是被愤怒、厌恶和无限的悲哀淹没。我知道，在图表的背后，是一名年轻男子在忍受刀伤的剧痛，眼睁睁地看着自己的生命渐渐消失，知道自己几十年的生命就这样被夺走了。这里还有一名酷刑的受害者，他的全部意识已经被难以承受的痛苦取代，只剩下唯一的愿望，那就是意识本身的终结。这里还有一名女子，她刚刚得知丈夫、父亲和兄弟们已经横尸壕坑，而她自己很快就要“落入野蛮粗暴的奸淫者之手”。[18]这样的惨剧落在一个人的身上、十个人的身上或者一百个人的身上，已经够可怕了。但是，这里的数字不是成百上千，也不是数以万计，甚至不是数以百万计，而是一百个百万——以亿为单位。这是一个让人精神崩溃的数字，这些不长毛的猿猴到底给自己的同类制造了多少苦难啊！一旦想到这一点，内心就充满无法言说的痛苦。[19]

    但是，当我们的行星按照引力的既定法则继续运行的时候，人类也在想方设法减少暴力的死伤数量，让越来越多的同胞能够在和平中生活，在和平中寿终。[20]面对我们生活中的无数忧患，面对这个世界上继续存在的重重灾难，暴力的减少是一个我们可以仔细品味的成就；它让我们更加珍惜文明和启蒙的力量，因为是它们，让暴力的减少成为可能。

  • 斯蒂芬·平克《人性中的善良天使》1-7

    目录
    上册
    序言
    第1章 陌生的国度
    第2章 平靖进程
    第3章 文明的进程
    第4章 人道主义革命
    第5章 长期和平
    第6章 新和平
    第7章 权利革命
    下册
    第8章 心魔
    第9章 善良天使
    第10章 在天使的翅膀上
    参考文献

    人是一种怎样的混合生物呀！他新奇、古怪、混乱，自相矛盾，不可思议！他裁断世上万物，他是微末的蚯蚓、真理的宝库，是充满谬误和不确定性的阴沟，宇宙的光荣和糟粕。 ——布莱兹·帕斯卡

    序言

    本书所谈论的可谓人类历史最重大之事。无论你是否相信（我知道大部分人不信），纵观历史长河，暴力呈现下降趋势；而今天，我们也许正处于人类有史以来最和平的时代。暴力减少的过程肯定不是一帆风顺的，暴力并未全然消失，这一趋势也不能确保会持续下去。但无论我们观察的是人类数千年的历史，还是短期事态，大至发动战争，小到体罚儿童，暴力下降的趋势有目共睹，无可置疑。

    暴力的退却对人类生活的影响无所不在。一个人如果时刻忧虑自己会被劫持、强暴或杀害，如果他赖以生存和发展的设施可能在落成之际即被洗劫和焚毁，他就很难发展出复杂精致的艺术、学术和商业。

    暴力的历史轨迹不仅影响人们如何生活，也影响人们对生命本身的认识。人类久经厮杀，处境到底是改善了，还是恶化了？还有什么比解答这个问题更能让我们认识生命的意义和目的呢？家庭、部落、传统和宗教，饱受个人主义、世界主义、理性和科学等种种力量的侵蚀。对于这种现代性，我们又该做何理解？我们眼中的世界到底是一场充斥着犯罪、恐怖主义、屠杀和战争的噩梦，还是以历史的标准衡量，是一个前所未有的和平共处时期，答案取决于我们如何理解历史的变迁。

    对暴力变化趋势是在上升还是下降的判断也离不开我们对人性的理解。虽然基于生物学的人性理论通常将暴力视为宿命，心智白板论认为暴力是后天生成的，但我的观点恰恰与此相反。我们应该如何理解人类之初的自然状态和人类历史进程的开端？觉得暴力在增加的人认为，我们创造的世界已经毒化了人类自身，而且很可能已经无法逆转；而觉得暴力在减少的人认为，我们的起点确实很低，但文明将我们引向崇高，我们可以期望这一向上的进程将会持续下去。

    本书篇幅巨大，但我别无选择。首先，我必须要说服你，在人类历史上，暴力确实在减少。我知道，此论必定遭到质疑、责备，甚至激起愤怒。我们的认知将我们预设为相信自己生活在暴力时代，特别是在这个时代，有媒体推波助澜，其信条是“见血的消息上头版”。人类的大脑在估算事件概率时，总是避难就易地从回想案例和图像开始。与老人安然辞世的画面相比，残暴杀戮的场景更易令人产生身临其境般的感觉，让我们刻骨铭心。[1]不论暴力死亡的比例有多小，它的绝对数都足以填满媒体的晚间新闻，让人们对暴力的印象与其实际比例完全脱节。

    放大危险感也符合道德心理学。从来没有人会为了宣扬世界已经变得更美好而去招募志愿者，传播好消息的人总是被告诫闭上嘴巴，以免诱发人民的自满情绪。而知识界的大部分人都极不愿意承认，在文明、现代性和西方社会里还有些积极的东西。也许，正是某种最初推动暴力减少的力量，制造了暴力永存的幻象。在暴力行为减少的同时，容忍或美化暴力的态度也在减少，而且人们的态度通常起主导作用。按照人类历史上大规模暴行的标准，得克萨斯州的注射死刑，偶发的流氓挑衅少数族裔的种族仇恨罪，都只能算是些小打小闹。但是，站在当代的道德制高点上俯视，我们把它们看作我们的行为可以堕落到什么程度的标志，而不是我们的标准已经提高到什么程度的标志。

    面对这些先入为主的观念，我只能用数字来说服你们。我将从数据库中收集这些数字，并将其制成图表。我会解释数据的来源，并尽力说明数据是如何被采集的。我提出的问题是，如何理解在家庭、社区、部落和其他武装派别之间，以及在主要民族和国家之间，暴力在许多方面都在减少。如果每一个层面上暴力历史的轨迹各有其特质，那么它们就应该各有专著论述。但让我一再惊讶的是，回顾过去，世界上各个层面的暴力几乎呈现一致的下降趋势。这就有必要在一本书中结集文献，寻找这些发展在何时、如何且为何出现了这些共性。

    我希望能让读者相信，当很多不同形式的暴力都呈现下降的趋势，就很难说这是一种偶然，因此需要我们给出解释。暴力的历史可以很自然地演绎成一个道德的传奇——一场正义反抗邪恶的英勇奋战，但这不是我的出发点。我的方法是对历史的因缘进行广义的科学解释。我们可能会发现，道德领袖（主流道德的制定者和捍卫者）以及他们的活动对和平有着特殊的贡献。但我们也可能发现一些更直白的原因，比如技术、管理、商业或知识等方面的变化对和平的作用。暴力减少不能被看作一个不可阻挡的、能将人类带往完美和平这一最终目标的进步力量，它只是一组基于不同历史阶段、不同人类群体行为的统计趋势，因此需要从心理学和历史学的角度来解释：人类的大脑如何应对情势的变化。

    这本书的大部分篇幅是在探讨暴力和非暴力心理学。我大量援引的心智理论是对认知科学、情感和认知神经科学、社会和进化心理学，以及其他有关人性的科学研究的综合。在我的著作《心智探奇》（How the Mind Works）、《白板》（The Blank Slate）、《思想本质》（The Stuff of Thought）中，我探讨过这些理论。我从中认识到，心智是一个具有认知和情感功能的复杂系统，这些功能由大脑实现，而大脑的基本构造又源自进化过程。这些功能的某些部分让我们产生各种暴力倾向，而另一些功能，比如林肯所说的“人性中的善良天使”，则把我们引向合作与和平。解释暴力减少的方法是查明我们的文化和物质环境中有哪些变化让我们天性中爱好和平的动机占了上风。

    最后，我要证明，人类的历史已经融入人类的心理层面。人类的一切事务都彼此关联，暴力事件更是如此。跨越时间和空间来看，越和平的社会往往越富裕、健康，受教育程度和管理水平越高，对妇女的尊重程度越高，从事贸易的可能性也越大。在这些优良的特质中，哪些开启了良性循环，哪些只是伴生品？回答这个问题并不容易。人们很容易屈服于不能令人满意的循环论证，比如暴力减少是因为文化中的暴力因素减弱了。

    社会科学家将社会变量分为“内生”和“外生”两种，前者处于系统内部，可能受到它们所试图说明的现象的影响，而后者则受外力的驱动。外生力量可以来源于实践领域，例如技术、人口统计、商业和治理机制的变化，也可以来源于知识领域，因为新思想被构思和传播，并拥有自己的生命。对历史变迁最令人满意的解释是确定一个外生的触发力。在数据允许的限度内，我将试图找出在不同时间以不同方式曾经作用于我们心智的外生力量，而这些力量就是导致暴力减少的原因。

    对这些问题的讨论，汇聚成此部长篇巨著——这本书分量太重，我不妨将主要结论做一个预告。《人性中的善良天使》是一个关于六大趋势、五个心魔、四位善良天使、五种历史力量的故事。

    六大趋势（第2章至第7章）。人类这个物种从暴力中后撤经历了种种发展。条分缕析，我将其归纳为六大趋势。

    第一个趋势是以千年为尺度的过程：我们这个物种的大部分进化史是在狩猎、采集和栽种社会（园艺社会）中完成的。大约5000年前，人类从这种无政府状态开始向第一个具有城市和政府的农耕文明过渡。伴随这一转变，人类在无政府自然状态下的常规劫掠和打杀减少了，暴力死亡率下降到原来的1/5左右。我将这个和平阶段称作“平靖进程”（pacification process）。

    第二个过渡期历时500多年，欧洲史对这一阶段有详尽的记载。从中世纪晚期到20世纪，欧洲国家的凶杀率下降了90%~98%。在社会学家诺贝特·埃利亚斯（Norbert Elias, 1897—1990年）的经典著作《文明的进程》（The Civilizing Process）一书中，他将这一令人讶异的暴力减少归因于分散的封建领地整合为具有中央集权和商业基础设施的大王国。与埃利亚斯所见一致，我将这一趋势称为“文明的进程”（civilizing process）。

    第三个变迁跨越几个世纪，起始点大致是17和18世纪的“理性时代”和“欧洲启蒙运动”（尽管这一变迁是对古希腊文明和文艺复兴的传承，在世界其他地区也同时存在平行的古代文明）。在这一阶段，第一次出现了有组织的社会运动，推动废除那些已被社会接受的暴力形式，比如专制、奴隶制、决斗、严刑逼供、迷信杀戮、残酷处罚和虐待动物，系统地形成了和平主义的第一个高潮。历史学家有时称这种转变为“人道主义革命”（humanitarian revolution）。

    第四个重大变迁始于“二战”结束。战后的几十年间，人类见证了史无前例的发展：超级大国和发达国家停止了彼此之间的战争。历史学家将这一天赐佳景称为“长期和平”（long peace）。[2]

    第五个趋势也与武装冲突有关，但它变得越来越有节制。虽然从新闻报道中，人们还很难相信这一结论，但自1989年冷战结束，各种武力冲突——内战、种族清洗、专制政府的对内镇压，以及恐怖袭击，在世界范围内一直在减少。鉴于这一令人欢欣的发展并不稳定，我将之称为“新和平”（new peace）。

    最后，1948年《世界人权宣言》标志着战后时代的到来，人们对较小规模的侵犯行为越来越反感，这些行为包括对少数族裔、妇女、儿童、同性恋的暴力侵犯和对动物的虐待。从20世纪50年代后期至今，随着接连不断的社会运动，由人权概念衍生的民权、女权、儿童权利、同性恋者权利和动物权利逐一登场，我将此阶段称为“权利革命”（rights revolu-tions）。

    五个心魔（第8章）。许多人坚信“暴力压力释放理论”：人类具有一种内在的侵犯性——死亡本能或嗜血的冲动，这种聚积在我们内心的压力必须阶段性地得到释放。这种理论完全背离现代科学对暴力心理的理解。侵犯性（aggression）不是单一的动机，更不是一种日渐迫切的冲动。它是几种不同心理系统的输出，它们的环境诱因、内在逻辑、神经生物基础以及社会分布各不相同。第8章对五种心理系统进行了阐释。“捕食或工具性暴力”（predatory or instrumental violence）仅仅是作为实现某种目的的实用手段。“支配欲”（dominance）则表现为对权威、声望、荣誉和权力的追求，它的表现形式可以是个人之间的叫阵，也可以是种族、民族、宗教或民族团体之间的权力之争。“复仇心”（revenge）激起了人类的道德冲动，施行报复、惩罚，伸张正义。“虐待狂”（sadism）以他人的痛苦为快乐。“意识形态”（ideology）则是一个共同的信仰体系，它通常具有一种乌托邦式的幻想，为了追求无限的善可以不择手段地使用暴力。

    四位善良天使（第9章）。人之初并非性本善，亦非性本恶，但是他们生来就具备某些动机，这引导他们远离暴力，趋向合作和利他。“共情”（empathy），特别是同情意义上的共情，让我们对他人的痛苦感同身受，并对他人的利益产生认同。“自制”（self-control），让我们能够预测冲动行事的后果，并相应地抑制冲动。“道德感”（moral sense）将一套规则和戒律神圣化，用以约束和管治认同同一文化的群内相互关系。有些时候，这些规则和戒律使暴力减少，但部落的、威权的和道学的规则却经常会增加暴力。“理性”（reason）让我们得以超脱有限的视角，思索我们的生活方式，追寻改善的途径，并引导我们天性中的其他几种美德。在本书的一小节中，我将从生物学家的技术角度，探讨是否有可能从基因变化上看出最晚近的人类进化史也确实是趋向暴力减少的。不过，本书的着眼点是变迁的环境条件：不变的人性在不同历史环境变化中的不同表现。

    五种历史力量（第10章）。在最后一章中，我试图结合心理学和历史学，找出那些有利于人类的和平动机和驱使暴力大幅减少的外生力量。“利维坦”（leviathan），即国家和司法垄断了武力的使用，可以化解掠夺性的攻击，抑制复仇的冲动，避免各方自以为是的自利式偏见。“商业”（commerce）是一个各方都可以是赢家的正和博弈，因为技术进步使商品和思想可以跨越的距离越来越远，参与的人群越来越庞大，他人的生命也因此更有价值。他们也就更不会成为被妖魔化和非人化的目标。“女性化”（feminization）社会文化越来越尊重女性的利益和价值的过程。既然暴力主要是男性的消遣，提高妇女赋权的文化总是更少鼓吹暴力，也更不会在无所寄托的年轻男性中滋生危险的亚文化。“世界主义”（cosmopolitanism）的力量，例如识字率、流动性和大众媒体，都有助于人们从与自己不同的人的角度出发，扩大共情的范围，接纳他人。最后，知识和理性在处理人类事务中具有越来越重要的作用——“理性的滚梯”（escalator of reason）使得人们认识到暴力循环有害无益，克制将一己之私置于他人利益之上的特权，并且重新审视暴力，将其看作一个需要解决的问题，而不是一场争夺胜负的竞赛。

    一旦人们意识到暴力在减少，他们眼中的世界将与以前有所不同。往昔不再纯洁无瑕，今天亦未必礼崩乐坏。人们开始意识到，公园里嬉戏的异族通婚的家庭，拿元首当笑料尽情调侃的喜剧演员，还有那些在危机来临时悄悄地偃旗息鼓，而不是使战争升级的国家，我们身边这些习以为常的细节，对于我们的祖先而言都是无法实现的乌托邦。我们对此无须自鸣得意，今天我们得以享有和平，是因为过去几代人痛恨暴力的蹂躏，为减少暴力而付出了他们的努力，我们今天也应该为减少尚存的暴力而努力。确实，对暴力在减少这一事实的认识，最有效地证明了人类的努力是值得的。人性中的残暴，长久以来就是道德教化的对象。认识到某种力量能减弱人的残暴性，我们就能找出其中的因果关系。与其追问“为什么会有战争”，不如多问问“为什么会有和平”。我们不仅可以追究我们到底做错了什么，也可以探讨我们做对了什么。因为有些事情我们确实做对了，那么最好能搞清楚这些做对的事情究竟是什么。

    * * *

    很多人问我是怎样开始进行暴力分析的。这不是一个难回答的问题：研究人性必然要关注暴力。我是从马丁·戴利和马戈·威尔逊有关进化心理学的经典之作《杀人》（Homicide）中第一次了解到暴力是在减少的。他们在这本书中调查了非国家形态社会中的高暴力死亡率，以及从中世纪至今凶杀案的减少。在以前的几部著作中，我均提到过这些暴力下行的趋势，结合西方历史上的废奴、结束专制、停止酷刑处罚等人道主义的发展，以此支持一个观点，即道德进步与人类心智的生物学解释和对人性中阴暗面的认知是一致的。[3]在回答网络论坛www. edge. org 2007年的年度问题“你对什么比较乐观”时，我重申了这些观点。我的这个观点引发了历史犯罪学和国际关系研究学者的大量来信。他们告诉我，暴力减少的历史证据要比我知道的更丰富。[4]他们的数据让我相信，这是一个被低估的、有待讲述的故事。

    所以，我首先要向这些学者致以最深切的感谢，他们是Azar Gat, Joshua Goldstein, Manuel Eisner, Andrew Mack, John Mueller和John Carter Wood。我在写作本书时，也受益于与Peter Brecke, Tara Cooper, Jack Levy,James Payne和Randolph Roth之间的通信。他们慷慨地与我分享他们的思想、文章和数据，亲切地指导我进行远非我专长的领域的研究。

    David Buss, Martin Daly, Rebecca Newberger Goldstein, David Haig,James Payne, Roslyn Pinker, Jennifer Sheehy-Skeffington和Polly Wiessner阅读了本书的初稿，并提出了极为有益的建议和批评。Peter Brecke, Daniel Chirot, Alan Fiske, Jonathan Gottschall, A. C. Grayling, Niall Ferguson, Graeme Garrard, Joshua Goldstein, Capt. Jack Hoban, Stephen Leblanc, Jack Levy, Andrew Mack, John Mueller, Charles Seife, Jim Sidanius, Michael Spa-gat, Richard Wrangham和John Carter Wood对部分章节所做的评论，让我获益匪浅。

    许多人及时地回复了我就本书提出的询问，甚至提出了建议，他们是John Archer, Scott Atran, Daniel Batson, Donald Brown, Lars-Erik Ceder-man, Christopher Chabris, Gregory Cochran, Leda Cosmides, Tove Dahl,Lloyd deMause, Jane Esberg, Alan Fiske, Dan Gardner, Pinchas Gold-schmidt, Cmdr. Keith Gordon, Reid Hastie, Brian Hayes, Judith Rich Harris,Harold Herzog, Fabio Idrobo, Tom Jones, Maria Konnikova, Robert Kurzban,Gary Lafree, Tom Lehrer, Michael Macy, Steven Malby, Megan Marshall, Mi-chael McCullough, Nathan Myhrvold, Mark Newman, Barbara Oakley, Robert Pinker, Susan Pinker, Ziad Obermeyer, David Pizarro, Tage Rai, David Ro-peik, Bruce Russett, Scott Sagan, Ned Sahin, Aubrey Sheiham, Francis X.Shen, Lt. Col. Joseph Shusko, Richard Shweder, Thomas Sowell, H.vardStrand, Ilavenil Subbiah, Rebecca Sutherland, Philip Tetlock, Andreas For.Tollefsen, James Tucker, Staffan Ulfstrand, Jeffrey Watumull, Robert Whiston, Matthew White, Maj. Michael Wiesenfeld和David Wolpe。

    哈佛大学的许多同事和学生慷慨地向我提供了他们的专业知识，他们是： Mahzarin Banaji, Robert Darnton, Alan Dershowitz, James Engell, Nan-cy Etcoff, Drew Faust, Benjamin Friedman, Daniel Gilbert, Edward Glaeser,Omar Sultan Haque, Marc Hauser, James Lee, Bay McCulloch, Richard McNally, Michael Mitzenmacher, Orlando Patterson, Leah Price, David Rand,Robert Sampson, Steve Shavell, Lawrence Summers, Kyle Thomas, Justin Vin-cent, Felix Warneken和Daniel Wegner。

    特别感谢那些和我一起为本书制作数据报告的研究者。Brian Atwood进行了无数精确的统计分析和数据库搜索工作，他的工作不仅完整，而且富有洞察力。William Kowalsky从民意调查领域发现了很多相关的研究成果。Jean-Baptiste Michel帮助开发了书虫项目、谷歌全球书籍词频统计器和谷歌书籍语料库，并构建了一个具有独创性的战争规模分布模型。Bennett Haselton所做的一项有关人对暴力历史的观感的研究信息十分丰富。Esther Snyder协助完成了绘图和文献搜索的工作。Ilavenil Subbiah为本书设计了精美的图表和地图，并多年来一直为我提供关于亚洲文化和历史的宝贵见解。

    我的文学代理人John Brockman提出的问题，促使我写作此书，他对初稿提出了很多有益的意见。Wendy Wolf是我在企鹅出版社的编辑，本书的定稿很大程度上是在她对初稿所做的详细分析基础上成型的。对于John和Wendy，还有企鹅出版社的Will Goodlad对本书写作的每一个阶段所给予的支持，我深怀感激。

    我由衷地感谢我的家人Harry, Roslyn, Susan, Martin, Robert和Kris给予我的爱和鼓励。我必须向Rebecca Newberger Goldstein表达我最深切的感激，她不仅丰富了本书的内容和风格，她对本书价值所抱有的信念也给了我极大的激励。在塑造我的世界观方面，她比谁做得都多。本书题献给我的外甥女、外甥和我的继女们：愿他们享有一个暴力不断减少的世界。

    [1] Slovic, 1987; Tversky & Kahneman, 1973.

    [2] Coined by Gaddis, 1986.

    [3] 我在以前出版的书中讨论过暴力下降的问题： Pinker, 1997, pp. 518-519; Pinker, 2002, pp. 166-169, 320, 330-336。

    [4] 其他讨论暴力下降的著作有：Elias, 1939/ 2000; Human Security Report Project, 2011; Keeley, 1996; Muchembled, 2009; Mueller, 1989; Nazaretyan, 2010; Payne, 2004; Singer, 1981/2011; Wright, 2000; Wood, 2004。

    第1章 陌生的国度

    往昔是一个陌生的国度：那里人们的行为与我们全然不同。 ——L. P.哈特利

    如果往昔是一个陌生的国度，那它就是一个极端残暴的国度。人是健忘的，常常不记得生活曾经何等危险，每时每刻、方方面面都表现出残忍的野蛮。文化记忆抚平了往日的块垒，原来的血腥已经褪色，留下的只有轻描淡写的纪念。佩戴十字架的妇女很少会想到这曾经是古代常用的刑具。一个人说到替罪羊时，也不会想到一种旧俗：为处罚王子的胡作非为，要鞭打一个无辜的孩子。我们周围到处都是祖先生活方式的丑恶印记，但我们几乎没有意识到它们。正如旅行可以开阔视野，对我们的文化遗产进行一次思想之旅，也许能够提醒我们，往昔的生活有多么不同。

    21世纪的开端以“9·11”恐怖袭击事件、伊拉克战争和达尔富尔危机为标志。如果有人说我们生活在一个非同寻常的和平时期，你很可能认为此人不是梦呓就是别有用心。我从与人们的谈话和调查中得知，大部分人拒绝相信这一判断。[1]在这一章，我将用日期和数据来说明这个问题。但是，首先，为了软化你的立场，我想提醒你，大家熟知的历史里充满了罪恶的史实。我这样说，不是为了争论而争论。科学家经常要对他们的结论进行合理性检验，对真实世界做抽样，以确保他们的方法没有缺陷，不至于得出荒谬的结论。本章的各个小节就是对我后面使用的数据进行的合理性检验。

    下面，让我们走马观花，游历一个叫作“往昔”（公元前8000年至20世纪70年代）的陌生国度。我们不是要再次回望那些已经被赫然载入史册的战争和暴行，相反，我们要在那些貌似熟识的地标背后进行搜索，寻找那些被掩盖着的罪恶。当然，“往昔”不是一个单一的国家，它跨越了多种多样的文化和习俗。它们所具有的共性在于令人震惊：这个旧世界暴力横行，人们逆来顺受，甚至经常认可暴力；而且暴力的方式之残忍，足以震撼21世纪西方人敏感的心灵。

    史前人类

    1991年，两名徒步旅行者在蒂罗尔州阿尔卑斯山脉发现了一具从融化的冰川中探出的尸体。救援人员以为这是一起滑雪事故的遇难者，他们用风钻将尸体从冰川中挖掘出来，这损坏了尸体的大腿和背包。而当某位考古学家发现一把新石器时代的铜斧时，人们才意识到这具尸体已有5000年的历史了。[2]

    现在，这具尸体被称作“冰人奥茨”，成了家喻户晓的明星。他上过《时代周刊》的封面，成为多部著述、纪录片和文章的主题。自梅尔·布鲁克斯（Mel Brooks）的《两千岁老人》（“我有4.2万个儿孙，但没有一个来看望我”）以来，还没有哪一位千岁老者能告诉我们这么多过去的事情。奥茨生活在人类从狩猎-采集社会向农耕社会过渡的关键历史时期，那时，替代石器的金属工具刚刚出现。除了铜斧和背包，他还带着一筒羽箭、木柄匕首，还有一块裹着树皮的琥珀——一套精心制作的打火装置。他戴着有皮帽带的熊皮帽子、用兽皮缝制的绑腿，防水的雪鞋的材料是皮革和麻线，里面还衬着草。他患有关节炎的关节上有文身，这很可能是针灸留下的痕迹。他随身携带着有药用价值的蘑菇。

    在冰人被发现10年后，放射专家宣布了一个惊人的发现，奥茨的肩膀上嵌着一个箭头。他并不是像原来科学家推测的那样，失足落崖后被冻死，而是被谋杀的。新石器犯罪现场调查组对奥茨进行了尸检，勾勒出当时的犯罪场景。奥茨的手上、头部和胸部都有尚未愈合的创伤。DNA（脱氧核糖核酸）分析在奥茨的羽箭头上发现了另外两人的血迹，从他的匕首上发现了第三个人的血迹，而在他的斗篷上还有第四个人的血迹。据场景复原，奥茨参与了一次抢劫，与比邻的部落发生了冲突。他用箭射杀一人，然后取回了箭，射杀了另外一人，再次取回了箭。他背着一个受伤的同伴，在受袭后进行抵抗，最后自己中箭倒地。

    到20世纪末，奥茨不再是唯一一个成为科学明星的千年老人。1996年，在华盛顿州的肯纳威克，一场水上飞机竞赛的观众注意到哥伦比亚河岸边有暴露的骨头。考古学家很快找到了一具生活在9400年前的男性骨架。[3]“肯纳威克人”很快成为法律和科学争议的目标，受到媒体的高度关注。几个美洲印第安人部落互相抢夺对这具骸骨的监护权，并力争要按照传统掩埋骸骨。但是，联邦法院驳回了他们的要求，指出没有一种人类文化能够连续存在9000年。当科学研究重新开始，人类学家对自己的新发现颇为激动——在人体解剖学上，肯纳威克人和今天的美洲原住民非常不同。一项报告称此人有欧洲人的特征，另一项报告称他和“阿伊努人”，即日本的原住民相吻合。两种可能性都意味着美洲曾经有几次独立的移民迁入，这与DNA证据相矛盾。DNA证据表明，美洲原住民是西伯利亚移民的后裔。

    肯纳威克人之所以成为一个令人着迷的科研对象，有多个原因。原因之一是，在肯纳威克人的骨盆上留有一枚石弹。尽管他的盆骨已经部分愈合，这表明他并非死于此伤，但法医证据明确无误地指出，肯纳威克人被击中过。

    我们只有两具史前人类的遗骨，而他们生命的结束方式，都是非常可怕的。大英博物馆的很多参观者都被“林多人”吸引了。那是一具保存完好、有2000年历史的古尸，于1984年在英国的泥炭沼泽地被发现。[4]我们不知道他有多少孩子来探望过他，但我们知道他是怎样死的。他的头盖骨被钝器击裂，他的脖子被扭断了，不仅如此，他的喉咙也被割了。林多人可能是一个德鲁伊教的人，被以三种方式牺牲，以献祭给三位神。北欧泥炭沼泽地保留下来的男女尸体都带有被勒死、被棍棒打死、被刀扎或者遭受酷刑的痕迹。

    在为此书做研究的一个月时间里，我检索到两个保存完好的人类尸体的新故事。一个是在英格兰北部的泥沼中挖出的一个2000年前的头骨。当考古学家清理头骨的时候，感觉到里面有东西在动，于是从底部的敞口处向里看，看到里面有一种黄色的东西，它竟然是被保存下来的大脑。和以往一样，尸身保留完好的程度并非值得我们关注的唯一要点。这具头骨是被故意从尸体上切割下来的，这告诉考古学家，这是一位活人献祭的受害者。[5]另一个故事是德国的一处有4600年历史的坟墓，里面埋葬着一位男子、一位女子和两个男孩的尸体。DNA分析显示，他们是一个核心家庭的成员，这应当是科学界已知的最古老的核心家庭。这四位死者是同时下葬的。考古学家认为，这表明他们是在一场袭击中被同时杀害的。[6]

    难道说，古人不进行谋杀，就不能给后人留下一具有趣的尸骨了吗？根据丧葬学理，有些案例可以有合理的解释，因为只有经过处理的尸体才能够长久地保存。也许，在人类的第一个千禧年开始的时候，只有那些作为献祭品牺牲者的尸体才会被扔进泥沼，因此得以为后代保存下来。但是，我们还是没有理由认为，古人保存这些人的尸体，只是因为他们是被谋杀的。下面，我们要从法医的鉴定结果来看看古代尸体的死亡原因，以及它是怎样落到我们的手里的。目前，史前的遗骨给我们留下的明确印象是，在“往昔”这个地方，人的身体极有可能受到伤害。

    荷马的希腊

    我们对史前人类暴力的理解主要依赖于偶然受到防腐处理或者石化而保留下来的尸体，所以它必定是很不完整的。但是，一旦文字开始传播，古人就给我们留下了他们如何处理日常事务的更完整的记录。

    《荷马史诗》被视为第一部西方文学名著，在许多文学阅读指南中占据首位。尽管荷马的故事以公元前1200年左右的特洛伊战争为背景，但他写作的时间要晚得多，应该是在公元前800至公元前650年。人们认为他的作品反映了那个时代东地中海的部落和酋邦内的生活现实。[7]

    今天，人们经常听到这样的说法，以整个社会为攻击目标，而不仅仅是限于攻击对方武装力量的全面战争，是现代的发明。人们一般将全面战争归咎于民族国家的出现、普救论的意识形态和远距离杀伤技术。但如果荷马的描述是准确的（它们与考古学、民族志和历史相吻合），那么古希腊的战争在全面性上绝不亚于现代战争。阿伽门农向国王墨涅拉俄斯解释他的作战计划时这样说：

    怎么，心软了，我的兄弟？为何如此关照我们的敌人？或许，你也曾得过特洛伊人的厚爱，在你的家里？不，不能让一个人躲过暴烈的死亡，逃出我们的手心——哪怕是娘胎里的胎儿，也绝不放过！让特洛伊人死个精光，无人哀悼，不留痕迹！[8]

    文艺理论家乔纳森·戈特沙尔（Jonathan Gottschall）在他的著作《强暴特洛伊》（The Rape of Troy）中讨论了古希腊战争的作战方式：

    士兵划着吃水浅的快船登岸，海边的居民未及抵抗就遭到扫荡。男人通常被杀死，牲畜和其他可携带的财物被劫掠一空，妇女被带走，成为胜利者的性奴或家奴。荷马时代的男子经常要面对突发的暴力死亡，女子则生活在持续的恐惧中，时刻为她们的男人和孩子的生命担忧。海面上的每一片帆影都可能预示着被强暴、被奴役的厄运。[9]

    我们还经常读到，20世纪的战争具有空前的破坏力，因为战争使用的武器是机关枪、大炮、轰炸机和其他远程武器，士兵无须进行面对面的肉搏，就可以毫无怜悯地杀死大量从未谋面的敌人。根据这一推理，手持武器远远没有现在高科技战争手段这样的杀伤力。但是，荷马生动地描绘了当时的战士可能造成的大规模破坏。戈特沙尔给出了形象的范例：

    冰冷的青铜轻而易举地刺入肉体，带着黏稠液体的血肉四处横飞：颤抖的矛尖上挂着一块人脑，年轻人绝望地用手捂住内脏，眼球被挑出眼眶，或从头骨上被割下来，在尘土中茫然地闪着微光。尖利的兵器在年轻的躯体上砍进杀出：在额头的正中，在太阳穴，在两眼之间，在脖颈处，从嘴巴或脸颊的一侧穿透到另一侧，刺穿肋骨、胯部、臀部、手、肚脐、后背、腹部、乳头、胸部、鼻子、耳朵和下巴……长矛、长枪、箭、剑、匕首和石块，贪婪地吞噬着肉体和鲜血。喷洒的鲜血，在空气中散成血雾。骨片横飞，骨髓从鲜红的创口涌出……

    激战之后，上千名阵亡者，加上伤者的残肢断臂血淌成溪，和土为泥，灌沃了平原上粗壮的野草。男人驾驭着沉重的战车和钉着马刺的战马，在泥泞中跋涉，士兵脚上的系带鞋裹满泥巴。盔甲和武器散落在四周。尸横遍野，慢慢在腐化、分解，成为野狗、蠕虫、苍蝇和鸟雀的盛宴。[10]

    在21世纪的战争中，当然还能见到强暴妇女，但长久以来，这一直被视为一种野蛮的战争罪行，大多数军队试图阻止这样的暴行，而其余军队则予以否认和隐瞒。但是，对《伊利亚特》的英雄们来说，女性的身体是正当的战利品：妇女是他们可以随心所欲地享受、垄断和处置的。墨涅拉俄斯在妻子海伦被诱拐后，发动了特洛伊战争。阿伽门农拒绝将一名性奴交还给她的父亲，遂将希腊拖入灾难。他忽然心动，占有了一位本来属于阿喀琉斯的姑娘，后来他送给阿喀琉斯28个女子作为赔偿。而阿喀琉斯是这样描述自己的职业的：“我熬过了一个个不眠之夜，挨过了一天天喋血苦战，为了抢夺敌方壮勇们的妻女，而和他们拼死相争。”[11]奥德赛在离家20年后回到妻子身边，他杀死了那些追求妻子的男人，尽管人们都认为他已经战死；当他发现这些男人与家中的侍妾们通奸时，他下令儿子将她们一并处死。

    即便按照今天战争纪录片的标准，这些屠杀和强奸的故事也是令人震惊的。荷马和他笔下的人物肯定在哀叹战争的无益，但是他们认为这是命中注定，只能接受，就像天气，人人都在谈论，但无人能做任何改变。正如奥德赛所说：“我们人类，按着宙斯的意志，必要历经残酷的战争，从年轻直至死亡，谁也不能幸免。”人们在制造武器和运用战术上倾注了大量的心血智慧，但说到战争的原因，他们立刻变得束手无策。人们不是将战争的苦难作为一个需要人类自己解决的问题，而是编造出暴躁的天神，将人类自己的悲剧归咎于神的嫉妒和愚蠢。

    希伯来《圣经》

    和荷马的作品一样，希伯来《圣经》讲述的场景约在公元前2世纪后期，但写作的时间是在500年后。[12]与荷马的作品不同的是，《圣经》在今天受到数十亿人的尊崇，被他们奉为道德价值的源泉。《圣经》是世界上最畅销的出版物，已被翻译成3000种语言，世界各地酒店的床头柜上都有它的身影。戴着祈祷头巾的正统犹太人亲吻《圣经》，美国法庭上的证人将手放在《圣经》上发誓，甚至总统在宣誓就职时也要手触《圣经》。尽管地位崇高，《圣经》却是一出漫长的暴力庆典。

    起初，神创造天地。耶和华用地上的尘土造人，将生命的气息吹进他的鼻孔里，让他成了有灵魂的人亚当。耶和华从亚当的身上取下一根肋骨，造成一个女人。亚当叫自己的妻子夏娃，因为她是众生之母。亚当知道夏娃是自己的妻子，她怀孕，生了该隐。她再次怀孕，生了该隐的兄弟亚伯。该隐与他的兄弟亚伯说话，二人正在田间，该隐起来攻击他的兄弟亚伯，把他杀了。在一个人口为4人的世界上，这一行径造成25%的凶杀率，比当今西方国家的凶杀率高出大约1000倍。

    男人和女人一开始繁衍生息，上帝就认定他们有罪，而种族灭绝是人类应得的惩罚。（在比尔·考斯比的喜剧小品中，挪亚的一个邻居问他为何要建造方舟，挪亚回答说：“你能踩水多长时间？”）当洪水退去时，神给挪亚上了一堂道德课，即“仇杀律”:“凡流人血的，他的血也必被人所流。”

    《圣经》中的另一个重要人物是亚伯拉罕，他是犹太人、基督徒和穆斯林的精神祖先。亚伯拉罕有一个侄儿罗得，住在所多玛。因为那里的居民犯下了肛交和其他罪行，神要用神圣的凝固汽油弹毁灭那里的每一个男女和孩子。罗得的妻子犯下回头眺望焚城烈焰的罪行，因此被夺去性命。

    神为了考验亚伯拉罕的道德观，命令他将儿子以撒带到山顶，捆绑起来，再割断喉咙，作为给神的燔祭。以撒能够生还，是因为天使拉住了亚伯拉罕的手。1000多年来，读者始终在困惑，神为什么进行这样可怕的试探。一种解释是，神之所以阻止他，不是因为亚伯拉罕通过了考验，而是因为他没有通过。但这样的解释不符合当时的标准：服从神的权威，而不是敬畏人的生命，才是至高的美德。

    以撒的儿子雅各有个女儿叫底拿。底拿被绑架后受到奸污——这在当时显然是一种求爱的风俗，强奸者的家庭接着会向受害女子的父母出价买下她，为强奸者娶作妻子。底拿的兄弟们表示，一个重要的道德原则不允许他们做这样的交易——强奸者未行割礼。于是他们提出了一个条件：如果强奸者家乡的所有男子都割掉包皮，底拿就是他们的人了。当那里的男子挂着血淋淋的阴茎而行动不便的时候，底拿的兄弟们攻入城市，大肆掠夺和破坏，屠杀了男人，抢走了妇女和儿童。当雅各担心四邻的部落会进行报复性的袭击时，他的儿子们解释说，冒这个险是值得的：“他岂可待我们的妹妹如同妓女？”[13]此后不久，他们重申了他们对家庭价值的承诺，这一次是将弟弟约瑟卖为奴隶。

    雅各的后裔以色列人找到了去埃及的路。渐渐地，他们生养众多，这让法老心生不快，于是法老开始奴役他们，并下令杀死所有以色列人的新生男婴。摩西侥幸逃过了大规模的杀婴行为，长大成人后挑战法老，要求释放他的子民。无所不能的神本可以软化法老的心肠，但相反，神让法老变得更冷酷，这让神有理由用痛苦的疥疮和其他苦难折磨埃及人，接着又让他们的长子全部丧命。（“逾越节”这个词暗指神派来的行刑天使越过以色列人家的房门，屠杀埃及人的长子，饶过以色列人的孩子。）在这场屠杀之后，神又降下另一场屠杀，让追杀以色列人的埃及军队在跨越红海时全军淹没。

    以色列人会聚西奈山，聆听《十诫》。它是一种伟大的道德准则，禁止雕刻偶像和觊觎牲畜，但允许奴役、强奸、虐待、肢解和对邻近部落的种族灭绝。摩西从神那里带回了一套完整的法律，规定亵渎神明、同性恋、通奸、顶撞父母和在安息日工作都为死罪。以色列人在等待摩西返回的那一段时间里心烦意乱。为了打发时间，他们膜拜金牛雕像，而你可以猜想一下，为此他们应受什么惩罚——死亡。摩西和他的兄弟亚伦遵从神的旨意，杀死了3000名以色列同胞。

    在《利未记》中，神用7个章节指示以色列人如何源源不断地屠宰神要求的牲祭。亚伦和他的两个儿子为第一次献祭准备了神堂，但是两个儿子疏忽了，用错了香料。神便将他们烧死了。

    当以色列人往“应许之地”去的时候，他们遇到了米甸人。以色列人遵从神的命令，残杀男子，焚烧城市，劫掠牲畜，俘虏妇女和儿童。当他们返回向摩西报告时，摩西大怒，因为他们饶过了妇女的性命，而这些妇人中竟然有人引导以色列人敬拜敌人的神。于是，他向士兵下令，杀死所有人，只留下未婚的性奴作为对士兵的奖励，他们可以任意奸淫。“所以，你们要把一切的男孩和所有已嫁的女子都杀了。但女孩子中，凡没有出嫁的，你们都可以存留她们的活命。”[14]

    在《申命记》第20和21节，对于那些不肯臣服的城池，神授予以色列人一项笼而统之的政策：用利剑杀光所有的男子，掠尽牲畜、妇女和儿童。当然，面对一张新近到手的美丽面孔，男子可能会有些麻烦：因为这个男子刚刚残杀了她的父母兄弟，她也许没有心情谈情说爱。神预见到了这个小小的不便，并提出下述解决方法：俘获人应该剃光她的头发，削短她的指甲，将她囚禁在他的房间里一个月，任她哀哭，使她的眼泪流干。然后，他就可以进屋，强奸她。

    对于上了名单的其他敌人（赫人、亚摩利人、迦南人、比利洗人、希未人、耶布斯人），种族灭绝必须是彻底的：“其中凡有气息的，一个不可存留。只要照耶和华你神所吩咐的……”[15]

    当约书亚入侵迦南并洗劫耶利哥城时，他将这一指示付诸行动。在城墙塌陷之后，他的兵士“将城中所有的，不拘男女老少、牛羊和驴，都用刀杀尽”。[16]更多的家园沦为焦土。约书亚“击杀全地的人，就是山地、南地、高原、山坡的人，以及那些地的诸王，没有留下一个。将凡有气息的尽行杀灭，正如耶和华以色列的神所吩咐的”。[17]

    接着，以色列人的历史进入士师或部落酋长时代。他们中间最有名的参孙，因在自己的婚宴上屠杀了30个男子而为世所熟知，杀人的原因只是他需要他们的衣裳偿还赌债。为报杀妻杀父之仇，他又杀死了1000名非利士人，并放火焚烧尸体。而在他挣脱束缚后，他又用驴腮骨击杀了1000人。当他最后被俘，双眼被灼伤时，神再次赋予他力量，进行了一次“9·11”恐怖袭击事件式的自杀式袭击——他推倒一座大型建筑，压死了3000名在里面做礼拜的男女。

    以色列的第一个王扫罗建立了一个小王国，这让他有机会报仇雪恨。几个世纪前，在以色列人出埃及的时候，亚玛力人曾经骚扰过他们，神下令“消灭所有的亚玛力人”。所以，当士师撒母耳膏立扫罗为王时，他提醒扫罗谨记神谕：“现在你要去击打亚玛力人，灭尽他们所有的，不可怜惜他们，将男女、孩童、吃奶的，并牛、羊、骆驼和驴，尽行杀死。”[18]扫罗执行了命令，但他饶恕了亚玛力王亚甲的性命。撒母耳得知后震怒，并“在吉甲耶和华面前将亚甲杀死”。

    扫罗最终被他的女婿大卫推翻，大卫吞并了南部的犹太部落，征服了耶路撒冷，立它为一个王国的首都。这个王国将持续4个世纪之久。后人用传说、诗歌和雕塑颂扬大卫。3000年来，他的六角星一直是他的人民的象征。基督徒也尊崇大卫为耶稣的先驱。

    但是，在希伯来《圣经》中，大卫并不仅仅是“以色列的美歌者”，一个弹奏竖琴吟诵《诗篇》的英俊挺拔的诗人。杀死歌利亚让他名声大振，随后他招募游击队，用刀剑顶着自己的同胞勒索钱财，并为非利士人充当雇佣兵作战。他的这些成就让扫罗心生嫉恨：在扫罗的宫殿内，女人们吟唱的是“扫罗杀死千千，大卫杀死万万”，所以扫罗要设计刺杀大卫。[19]大卫在发动一场成功的政变前侥幸逃脱。

    大卫称王后，继续杀戮上万，保持着那个千辛万苦赢得的声誉。他的将军约押“毁坏亚扪人的地”，大卫“将城里的人拉出来，放在锯下，或铁耙下，或铁斧下”。[20]最后，大卫干了一件被神认为是不道德的事情，他下令进行一次人口统计调查。为了惩罚大卫的这一过错，神杀死了7万名以色列人。

    在王室内部，性和暴力是无法分开的。一天，大卫在王宫的屋顶上散步，偷窥到一名叫拔示巴的裸体女子。他为所见心感愉悦，于是将她的丈夫派往战场送死，将拔示巴充为后宫。后来，大卫的一个孩子强奸了自己的妹妹，又丧命于另外一个孩子的复仇之手。复仇者押沙龙召集军队，并与大卫的10个嫔妃通奸，企图篡夺大卫的王位。（按照惯例，我们不知道这些嫔妃对此有何感想。）押沙龙被大卫的士兵追赶时，树枝挂住了他的头发，大卫的将军将三柄长枪刺入他的心脏。家庭纷争并未到此结束。拔示巴玩弄手段，让大卫膏封他们的儿子所罗门为继承人。大卫的合法继承人、长子亚多尼雅刚提出抗议，所罗门就把他杀了。

    所罗门王的杀戮要少于他的前任们，让他名垂青史的是他在耶路撒冷建造的第一圣殿，以及他编写的《箴言书》、《传道书》和《雅歌》（他在后宫有700个王妃和300个嫔妃，显然他不可能将所有的时间都花在写作上）。让他久负盛名的还是他最出色的品质——“所罗门的智慧”。两个住在一个房间里的妓女先后在几天内产子，其中一个婴儿夭折，两个母亲都声称那个活着的男孩儿是自己的。聪慧的所罗门王的判决是，抽出利剑，将孩子劈为两半，每个妇女各得一半血淋淋的尸体。一个女子立即撤回了自己的要求，而所罗门王就将男婴判给了她。“以色列众人听见王这样判断，就都敬畏他，因为见他心里有神的智慧，能以断案。”[21]

    美好传说的间离效果能让我们忘记故事发生的那个残酷的世界。不妨想象一下，在今天的法庭上，一位裁决母子归属案的法官拿出一把电锯，威胁说要在争执各方的眼皮底下将婴儿劈作两半。所罗门确信，那个更仁慈的妇人（尽管我们永远也不知道她是否真是生母）会自己站出来，而另外那个卑鄙的妇人会看着孩子在她面前被屠杀——他是对的！然而，他也必须准备万一他错了，他要么劈死孩子，要么失去信誉。对两个妇人来说，她们肯定是相信这位智慧之王有能力实施这一令人毛骨悚然的谋杀。

    在现代人眼中，《圣经》所描绘的世界，其野蛮程度令人惊心动魄。家庭直系亲属之间相互奴役、奸污和谋杀。军人毫无区别地屠杀平民，包括儿童。妇女被买卖，像性玩具一样被争来抢去。仅仅因为轻微的不服从，甚至不为任何原因，耶和华虐待和屠杀的人就有成千上万。这些暴行既不是孤立的个案，也不是鲜为人知的，所有那些在主日学校被孩子们用蜡笔涂色的、《旧约》中主要人物的故事里都能见到这些暴行。它们好像一条不断展开的情节线，绵延千年，从亚当、夏娃开始至挪亚，到三圣父（亚伯拉罕、以撒和雅各），到摩西、约书亚、士师们、扫罗、大卫、所罗门和后来的各位。据《圣经》学者雷蒙德·施瓦格尔（Raymund Schwager）说：“希伯来《圣经》中有600多个段落是专门谈论族群之间、国王之间或个人之间的攻击、毁灭和相互残杀的……除了约有1000个句子提到耶和华现身亲手执行暴力惩罚，有更多的经文描写耶和华将犯罪者送到行刑人的刀口下，还有100多处提到耶和华亲口下令杀人。”[22]马修·怀特（Matthew White），一位自封的暴力学家，建立了一个数据库，里面有人类历史上主要战争、屠杀和种族灭绝造成的估计死亡人数，他认为《圣经》中有特别记载的大规模杀戮约为120万人。（他排除了《历代志下》第13节中描述的犹大人和以色列人之战的50万人的伤亡，因为他认为从历史上看，死亡人数是不可信的。）如果加上挪亚洪水的受害者，受害人数约为2000万人上下。[23]

    当然，令人欣慰的是，这些事件大部分是从未发生过的。不仅没有证据显示耶和华水漫大地、火焚城市，就连三圣父、出埃及记和征伐建立犹太王国，也几乎可以肯定都是虚构的。在埃及的文字记载里，历史学家找不到任何有关百万奴隶离去的只言片语（而这样的事件不可能逃过埃及人的眼睛）。在耶利哥城及其附近城市的废墟上，考古学家也没有发现任何在公元前1200年左右毁于战祸的痕迹。公元前1000年前后，如果真有一个从幼发拉底河延伸到红海的大卫王国，当时竟然完全没有人留意到它。[24]

    现代《圣经》学者已经确认，《圣经》就是一部维基百科。它融合了500多年间许多作者的著述，它们风格各异、方言混杂，同一人物有不同名字，对神的理解也各不相同。它的编辑过程很随意，留下了大量自相矛盾、重复和前后不一致的内容。

    希伯来《圣经》最古老的部分可能起源于公元前10世纪。它们涉及当地部落的神话和消亡，以及从邻近的近东其他文明中汲取的法律准则。对于迦南东南部山区处于铁器时代的游牧和农耕部族，这些经文很可能就是他们据以裁决边界纠纷的法典。这些部落开始蚕食山谷和城市，间或也会发生劫掠，甚至摧毁一两个城市。最终迦南人接受了他们的神话，他们拥有共同的家谱，光荣的历史，防止他们叛逃到外国的一系列禁忌，并有一位防范自相残杀的隐形执法者。经文的初稿完成于公元前7世纪晚期至公元前6世纪中叶，那时巴比伦人征服了犹大王国，原居民被迫流亡，经文对这一时期给出了连续的历史叙述。经文定稿完成于公元前5世纪，犹大国居民已经返回自己的家园。

    虽然《旧约》中的历史事件是虚构的（或者像莎士比亚的历史悲剧一样，经过巧妙的艺术加工），它仍然为我们观察公元前第一个1000年中期近东文明的生活和价值观提供了一扇窗户。不论以色列人是否卷入过种族清洗，他们显然认为这是个好主意。任何人都不曾想过，不被强暴，不被当作一件性具，可能是一位妇女的正当权益。在《圣经》作者的眼中，奴隶制，还有剜眼、石刑、分尸等酷刑都无可非议。与对习俗和权威不假思索的服从相比，人的生命毫无价值。

    如果你认为，我回顾希伯来《圣经》的文字内容，是试图非难今天的数十亿信众，那你根本就没有明白我在说什么。毋庸置疑，犹太教徒和基督徒中的绝大部分人都是绝对正派的人，他们不会赞成种族灭绝、强奸、奴隶制，以及用乱石砸死犯轻罪的人。他们纯粹是将《圣经》作为神迹而敬畏的。在过去的几千年间，《圣经》一直在不断地被修改，被寓言化，或被谨慎地忽略，暴力内容较少的经文（犹太教的《犹太法典》和基督徒的《新约》）的地位越来越重要。而这一点正是问题的关键。人们对暴力的感受已经发生了巨变，今天的信徒对《圣经》是有取舍的。他们只是口头上承认《圣经》是道德典范，而实际的道德观念却来自现代原则。

    古罗马帝国和早期基督徒

    基督徒淡化了《旧约》中愤怒的上帝，更多地尊奉一个新观念的神，即《新约》中上帝的儿子耶稣，一位“和平之君”。爱你的敌人，当人打你左脸时送上右脸，当然比剿杀一切生灵更具优势。可以肯定的是，为确保追随者的忠诚，耶稣也还是不能完全不使用暴力的意象。在《马太福音》第10章第34~37节，他说：

    你们不要想，我是来叫地上太平；我来并不是叫地上太平，乃是叫地上动刀兵。因为我是来叫人与父亲生疏，女儿与母亲生疏，媳妇与婆婆生疏。人的仇敌就是自己家里的人。爱父母过于爱我的，不配作我的门徒；爱儿女过于爱我的，不配作我的门徒。

    不清楚耶稣为什么要说这样的话，也没有证据显示他为此惩处了什么人。

    当然，关于耶稣曾说过什么，做过什么，我们其实都没有任何直接的证据。[25]这些所谓耶稣的言辞，是在他死后几十年写的。基督教《圣经》和希伯来《圣经》一样，充满了自相矛盾、未经证实的史实和明显的虚构。但正如希伯来《圣经》让我们看到了公元前第一个1000年中期的社会价值，基督教《圣经》给我们讲述了公元1世纪、2世纪的社会状态。事实上，在那个时代，耶稣的故事绝非特例。很多异教神话都讲到神派来一位救世主，在冬至那天出生，母亲是处女，出生时有十二位相应十二星宫的门徒环绕身旁。救世主在春分日像替罪羊一样，陷身地狱，在欢乐中复活，象征性地被门徒分食，最终得到救赎和永生。[26]

    耶稣故事的背景是古罗马帝国，它刚刚成为犹太人的又一个征服者。尽管基督教的第一个世纪处于“古罗马和平”时期，但所谓的太平安宁只是一个相对的状态。当时正是古罗马帝国野蛮扩张的年代，包括征服不列颠，烧毁耶路撒冷的第二神殿，并将以色列人驱逐出犹太家园。

    这一时期古罗马帝国的杰出标志是斗兽场。今天，它吸引了上百万名游客，世界的每一个角落都有印着斗兽场图案的比萨饼包装盒。在这个运动场里，能够和美国“超级杯”规模相媲美的观众云集一堂，观赏血腥残忍的巨作。女子赤裸着被捆缚在柱子上，被强奸，或被野兽撕成碎片。成群的战俘模拟战争场面，相互残杀。奴隶被用来上演神话中肢解和处死的故事。例如，将扮演普罗米修斯的男奴用锁链拴在岩石上，由受过训练的鹰叼出他的肝脏；角斗士互搏直至死亡。我们今天拇指向上和拇指向下的手势，就来自当年的斗兽场，观众以此向取胜的角斗士发信号，告诉他是否应该给对手致命一击。为了给古罗马市民提供吃喝玩乐，大约50万人以这种极度残忍的方式丧命。在古罗马人的恢宏巨制面前，我们今天的暴力娱乐项目只能自惭形秽。[27]

    古罗马最著名的死刑方式当属钉十字架（crucifixion），这个词的词源是“极度的痛苦或折磨”（excruciating）。任何人，只要曾经抬头仰望教堂的前方，一定会在某一瞬间有过这样的念头，被钉在十字架上必定有无法形容的痛苦。那些神经强大的人可以通过阅读耶稣基督的尸检报告来丰富他们的想象。这份报告的依据是考古学和史学资料，文章发表在1986年的《美国医学会杂志》上。[28]

    古罗马人行刑以鞭笞赤身裸体的囚犯为开始。短鞭子用几股皮绳编结而成，鞭绳上系着尖利的石块，古罗马士兵用鞭子抽打囚犯的后背、臀部和双腿。据《美国医学会杂志》文章作者的描述，“创口一直撕裂到下层骨骼肌，皮肉被成条地拉出来，鲜血淋漓地颤动着”。囚犯的双臂被捆在一具100磅（约45公斤）重的十字架上，他必须将它扛到行刑地，然后矗立在地上。他那皮开肉绽的后背会被按在十字架上，他的手腕会被钉在木头上。（与大家熟悉的画面不同，手掌上的皮肉是经不住一个男子的体重的。）当囚犯被悬挂起来后，再将他的双脚钉住，脚下通常没有撑板。因为囚犯的体重完全悬在双臂上，胸腔受压，无法呼吸，他只得收紧双臂，或者双腿撑在被钉进脚背的钉子上。窒息和失血直至最后死亡，整个过程可能要三四个小时，也可能要三四天。行刑者可以将囚犯的身体撑在一个座板上，以此延长酷刑的时间，也可以用木棒打断囚犯的双腿，加速其死亡。

    虽然我总想说，没有哪一个人是我不能理解的，但我还是发现，我完全无法理解那些发明和滥施这些酷刑的古人。即使我抓到了希特勒，可以任意惩罚他，我也绝对不会想到对他施加这样的酷刑。我无法不因同情而退缩，不愿意成为那种能够享受残忍的人，我也看不出在没有相应收益的情况下，给这个苦难深重的世界再增加一点儿痛苦有什么意义。（即便这样做的目的是防止未来出现暴君，我还是认为，更有效的做法是最大化独裁者必受制裁的预期，而不是最大化处罚的残忍程度。）但是，在这个被我们称为“往昔”的异国他乡，钉十字架只是一种普通刑法。它是波斯人的发明，被亚历山大大帝带回欧洲，在地中海各国广为流行。耶稣被判犯有“轻微煽动蛊惑罪”，与两名普通的盗窃犯一起被执行十字架死刑。最令人悲愤的是，在当时，这个故事的煽情之处在于，当局竟然将耶稣与小毛贼同等对待。对于因一个如此轻微的过失，犯人就要遭受钉十字架的惩罚，人们反而习以为常。

    当然，耶稣上十字架，从来都被认为是大事件。十字架成为象征，引领了一场横扫古代世界的运动，基督教最终被古罗马帝国接受。2000年之后，十字架至今仍然是世界上最易被辨识的标志。在人们的脑海中留下印象如此深刻的可怕死亡，它必定成为一种极有力的模因（meme）。但是，让我们暂且退后一步，从我们所熟识的基督教之外，思索一下是什么样的心态，才会试图赋予“基督受难”以某种意义。一场伟大的道德运动选用的标志，其图像来源竟然是一件恐怖的酷刑兼死刑器具，以今天人们的情感来看，这实在令人不寒而栗。（请设想一下，集中营纪念馆用淋浴喷头做标志，或者卢旺达种族灭绝的幸存者围绕着一柄大砍刀的图形举行某种宗教仪式。）进一步说，第一代基督徒从基督上十字架受难中看到了什么教训？在今天，这种野蛮行为可能会激起民变，或者推翻暴政，或者要求不再对任何人使用此种酷刑。但显然，早期基督徒得到的教训并非如此。相反，耶稣受难是福音，是最美妙的历史插曲中最必要的一节。耶稣受难得以发生，是神给世人的绝大恩惠。神以无边的法力、怜悯和智慧，除了让一个无辜的男子（还是神的儿子）四肢被钉穿，在痛苦中慢慢窒息而死，神想不到还有其他的办法，能让人类从他们的罪与罚中得到解脱（尤其是人类的原罪之一：他们居然是那对冒犯天规的夫妇的后裔）。只要承认这一残忍的谋杀是神仁慈的礼物，人便能得到永生。而如果人们看不出其中的逻辑，他们的肉体将永堕炼狱。

    从这种思路来看，酷刑杀人并非是一种不可思议的恐怖，它也有光明的一面。它是救赎之路，是神意的组成部分。和耶稣一样，早期基督教圣徒也是被花样翻新的酷刑折磨至死，并因此在上帝身边得到了自己的位置。1000多年间，基督教殉教史以低俗的笔调描述了这些刑讯折磨。[29]

    下面是几位众所周知的圣徒的名字，虽然人们对他们的死因所知甚少。圣彼得，耶稣的门徒之一，也是第一位教皇，他被倒钉在十字架上。圣安德烈，苏格兰的守护神，他在“X”形的十字架上结束生命，此即英国国旗上两根对角线的起源。圣劳伦斯被架在火上活生生地烧烤。大多数加拿大人都不了解这些酷刑的细节，尽管他们知道加拿大的一条大河、一片海湾，还有蒙特利尔市两条主要大道中的一条都是以他的名字命名的。另一位为人所怀念的圣徒是圣凯瑟琳，她被施以轮刑。在轮刑中，行刑者将受害者捆缚在大车轮上，用大锤击打他或她的四肢，再将被砸烂但仍有生息的肢体编结在轮辐上，轮子被置于木桩的顶端，供鸦雀啄食；受害者迁延时日，最终因失血和休克而死亡。（圣凯瑟琳之轮，轮外沿嵌有尖刺，是牛津大学圣凯瑟琳学院校徽上的装饰。）圣巴巴拉（美丽的加州城市圣巴巴拉就是以她的名字命名的）被拴住脚踝倒挂起来，士兵用铁爪撕裂她的身体，割掉她的乳房，并用烧红的铁块烧灼她的伤口，再用带有尖刺的木棒击打她的头部。圣乔治是英格兰、巴勒斯坦、格鲁吉亚共和国、十字军和童子军的守护神，因为神一再使他复活，他得以数次死于酷刑。他被两腿分开放在尖利的刀刃上，双腿绑上重物，放在火上炙烤，刺穿双脚，被有刺的车轮碾压，将60枚钉子钉入他的头颅。蜡烛将他的后背烤到流出油脂，最后他被锯成两半。

    殉教史上窥阴癖式的描述不是为了唤起对酷刑的反抗，而是为了激发对英勇先烈们的崇敬。在耶稣的故事中，酷刑成了一件绝好的事情。圣徒们欣然接受自己遭受的折磨，因为此生受难将换得来世的祝福。基督教诗人普鲁登修斯（Prudentius）这样描写一位圣徒：“母亲就在现场，凝视着为她心爱的人的死所做的一切准备。她的眼中没有一丝悲伤，相反，每当橄榄木燃起的火上的铁锅吱吱作响，她的孩子被烤焦时，她都欣喜无比。”[30]圣劳伦斯应该被喜剧演员尊为保护神，他躺在烤架上对施刑者说：“这边已经熟了，转个身，来尝一口吧。”施刑者都是普通人，有点儿像是演员。他们被我们唾弃，仅仅是因为他们折磨了我们的英雄，而不是因为他们使用了酷刑。

    早期的基督徒颂扬酷刑，认为这是对罪孽的公正处罚。公元590年教皇格列高利一世（Pope Gregory I）颁行的“七宗罪”，大多数人都听说过。但几乎没有人知道，犯有这些罪的人在地狱要接受何种惩罚：
    骄傲：轮刑
    妒忌：浸冰水
    饕餮：强迫吞食老鼠、蛤蟆和蛇
    好色：在火和硫黄中焖熏
    愤怒：活体肢解
    贪婪：下油锅
    懒惰：扔进蛇坑[31]
    当然，这些判决都是无期徒刑。

    因其将残忍神圣化，早期基督教成为基督教欧洲1000多年制度化酷刑的始作俑者。“火刑柱、烧脚刑、轮刑、撕筋裂肌的绞床、被劈开卸作四块、被开膛破肚、被剥皮、被重物压死、拇指夹、铁环绞喉、文火慢烤、铁处女（一个空心的人行木雕，内部布满尖利的铁钉；后来，一个重金属摇滚乐队也取名 ‘铁处女 ’）”，如果你了解以上这些表述，也就知道中世纪和近代的异端分子所经受过的残酷迫害的一小部分。

    在西班牙宗教审判时期，教会官员得出结论，数千名前犹太教徒的皈依不真诚。为了迫使皈依者承认他们秘密叛教，裁判官将他们的双臂捆在背后，再将他们吊在手腕上，反复地猛烈提起再抛下，受刑人肌腱撕裂，双臂脱臼。[32]还有许多人被活活烧死。遭受这一刑罚的还有迈克尔·塞尔维特（Michael Servetus），因为他质疑三位一体；焦尔达诺·布鲁诺（Giordano Bruno），因为他相信地球围绕太阳旋转（以及其他异端）；威廉·廷代尔（William Tyndale），因为他将《圣经》译成英文。伽利略——可能是宗教审判最著名的受害者，他逃过了这一厄运。他只是被带到了刑具面前（具体说，就是绞床面前），然后赏给他一个忏悔的机会，要求他公开宣布放弃日心说，即否认“太阳是世界的中心，而且是不动的，地球不是中心，而且是移动的”。今天动漫中出现“绞床”一词时，意思是指训练四肢的弹性（“伸展运动”）或者一些双关语（“你想给我上发条——和我较劲吗？”“无痛苦——不付出，无收获”），但在当时，这可不是闹着玩的。与伽利略同时代的苏格兰旅行家和作家威廉·利思戈（William Lithgow）描述了宗教审判中使用绞床的情景：

    当摇杆向前扳动，我的双膝受到两块木板拉开的张力撕扯，大腿肌腱被抻断，膝盖骨破裂。我双眼惊恐地睁大，口吐白沫，上齿磕打下齿，急如鼓槌密击。双唇颤抖不已，喉咙发出呻吟，鲜血从两臂，从被撕裂的肌腱，从手掌和膝盖处喷流而出。惨痛的折磨刚刚停止，我被放到地上，旋即传来连声叫喊：“忏悔！忏悔吧！”[33]

    虽然很多新教徒都是这类酷刑的受害者，但是，一旦得势，他们也狂热地将酷刑加诸他人，甚至包括妇女；15世纪至18世纪，在驱巫的名义下，有10万多名妇女被施以火刑。[34]暴力历史上常见的一个现象是，几百年后，这些令人恐怖的事件都变成了令人轻松的谈资。在当下的流行文化中，女巫已不再是被刑讯折磨和极刑的受害者，而是动漫影视中的俏皮角色或冒失鬼，比如女巫希尔达、金缕梅、葛琳达、萨曼莎，还有《圣女魔咒》里的哈利维姐妹。

    在基督教国家，制度化的酷刑不只是一种盲目的习俗，还有其道德理性。如果你真的相信那些不认耶稣是救世主的人将落入炼狱，对不信基督的人施以酷刑，令其醒悟真理，岂不是对他最大的恩惠：几个时辰的痛苦总好过永世的折磨。在一个人教唆带坏他人之前令其沉默，或者杀鸡儆猴，正是一种尽责的公益举措。圣奥古斯丁用两个类比说明了这一点：慈父不会让其子捡拾毒蛇，园丁要剪除腐枝以保住树木。[35]耶稣自己也确认过对这种手段的选择：“人若不常在我里面，就像枝子丢在外面枯干，人拾起来扔在火里烧了。”[36]

    我要再次强调，我这里讨论的目的不是要指责基督徒赞成酷刑和迫害。今天，大部分虔诚的基督徒都是宽容和人道的。即使那些在电视转播布道坛上激情咆哮的人，也不会号召活烧异教徒或者吊死犹太人。那么，既然他们的信仰意味着实施酷刑是为了更崇高的目标，他们为什么不去这样做呢？答案是，在今天的西方社会，人们的宗教意识形态与他们的实际生活是脱离的。当他们在教堂持守信仰的时候，他们宣扬的是两千年来未曾改变的信念；但他们在实际行动中所遵从的则是非暴力和宽容这样的现代规范。对这种仁慈的言行不一，我们大家都应该心存感激。

    中世纪骑士

    如果“圣洁”（saintly）这个词值得人们多看一眼，那么“有骑士风度”（chivalrous）这个词也一样。亚瑟王时代骑士和贵妇的传说，是西方文学史上最浪漫的篇章。兰斯洛特和吉尼维尔是浪漫爱情的原型。加拉哈爵士是风流骑士的化身。卡米洛特（Camelot）是亚瑟王宫廷的所在地，这个地名曾被用作百老汇音乐剧的名字。肯尼迪总统遇刺后，人们得知他喜爱剧中的音乐，“卡米洛特”又成为对肯尼迪政府的带有怀念意味的代称。据说，肯尼迪最欣赏的歌词是“永勿忘却，那曾经的佳境，瞬间辉煌，光荣的卡米洛特”。

    事实上，骑士的生活方式早已被忘得精光，而这对保持某种幻象还真不是坏事。中世纪骑士传说的背景是6世纪，创作年代是11世纪到13世纪，其真实的生活绝不会是百老汇喜欢的题材。中世纪史学家理查德·卡尤珀（Richard Kaeuper）统计了这些浪漫小说中最著名的13世纪的《兰斯洛特》中极端暴力行为的数量，发现平均每4页就有一起。

    让我们仅仅观察可以被量化的部分，至少有8个人头被劈开（有的被劈到眼睛，有的被劈到牙齿，有的被劈到面颊）, 8个摔下战马的人被胜利者战马的铁蹄故意地践踏（让他们一次又一次地在剧痛中昏死过去）, 5次斩首，2次整个肩膀被砍断，3次砍手，3次手臂被斩断，长度不一，一名骑士被扔进烈火，两名骑士被放到投石机上投出，当场死亡。一名妇女痛苦地被骑士用铁条禁锢住；另一名妇女受神惩罚，被经年累月地放在滚水缸里；还有一名妇女几乎被长矛刺中。妇女经常被劫持，我们就听说有40名妇女被奸污……

    除了这些容易列举的行为，还有3场私人战争（其中一次是100人死亡，另一次是500人中毒身亡）……在一场比武中，为了活跃气氛，兰斯洛特用长矛杀死了与他交手的第一个人，接着拔出剑，“左右挥舞，战马和骑士纷纷倒地，利剑划过脚、手、头、手臂、肩膀和大腿。他见到一个，砍倒一个，未曾绝命的伤者在他的身后苟延残喘，所经之地，血流成河”。[37]

    骑士是怎样得到翩翩绅士的美誉的？据《兰斯洛特》讲，“除非对方先动手，或者是无法避免的非常情况，兰斯洛特从来不会杀死任何求饶的骑士”。[38]

    再看看他们最自鸣得意的所谓骑士风度——对妇女彬彬有礼。一位骑士为了讨好某位公主，竟然发誓要以她的名义去强奸他见过的最漂亮的女人。而他的竞争者则承诺，在比武大会上打败对手，取下头颅献给公主。骑士保护妇女，但仅限于防止她们被对手拐骗。在《兰斯洛特》中，“罗格雷斯王国的习俗是，如果一位贵妇或一位小姐独自出行，她不用担心任何人。但如果她由一位骑士陪伴出行，她则可能成为其他骑士的战利品。胜者可以随意带走妇女，绝不会感到愧疚，也不会受到谴责”。[39]这大概不是今天大部分人所说的骑士精神。

    早期现代欧洲

    在第3章中，我们将会看到，骑士型的军阀逐渐被中央集权的君主控制，中世纪的欧洲终于平静了一些。但是，国王和王后本身也并非高贵的典范。英联邦国家的学生用下面的记忆方法来学习英国历史上的重要事件之一：

    亨利八世，六任妻子，

    一死一活，两人离婚，两人砍头！

    1536年，亨利将他的妻子安妮·博林斩首，因为安妮所生的儿子未能存活，而亨利看上了她的一个宫女，便捏造了安妮·博林通奸和叛国的罪名。又有了两任妻子之后，亨利怀疑凯瑟琳·霍华德通奸，将她也送上了断头台。（今天的游客在伦敦塔还能看到斩首台。）亨利显然是那种爱吃醋的人，他将凯瑟琳的一个前男友开膛破肚，剁成几块。具体做法是：脖子套上绳索吊起，未等断气就放下来，开膛取出内脏，阉割，斩首，最后分尸四块。

    亨利的王位先后传给了儿子爱德华、女儿玛丽和另一个女儿伊丽莎白。“血腥玛丽”这个绰号，不是说玛丽曾将番茄汁混进伏特加，而是指她将300名宗教异端送上了火刑架。在如何解决家庭纠纷上，姐妹两人恪守祖先的传统：玛丽将伊丽莎白关进监狱，并在表妹简·格雷被处决时亲自监刑；伊丽莎白则处死了她们的另外一个表妹（苏格兰女王玛丽），将123名神父开膛碎尸，并让其他政敌受到断骨铐的折磨——这一刑具也是伦敦塔另一个吸引旅游者眼球的地方。今天的英国王室为了小到言行粗鄙大到婚外情等缺点备受指责，但他们既没有砍下任何一个亲戚的脑袋，也没有将任何一个敌人开膛剖腹，难道人民不应该为此夸赞他们几句吗？

    尽管伊丽莎白一世签署了所有这些酷刑，她仍是英国最受尊敬的君主之一。她统治的时期被称为黄金时代，文艺（特别是戏剧）得到蓬勃发展。莎士比亚的悲剧中充满了暴力，这已经不是什么新闻了。虽说今天的观众已经对大众娱乐习以为常，但莎翁虚构世界里充斥的暴行之野蛮，还是让人感到震惊。亨利五世——莎翁笔下的英雄之一——在百年战争中，向法国的一个村庄发出最后通牒：

    只要一眨眼，

    那无法无天的士兵不管满手血污，

    不管耳边的一阵阵尖叫，一把拖住你女儿的秀发往外跑。

    你们的父亲多么可敬，

    却给一把揪住了银白的胡须

    ——高贵的额头，也得对准墙脚撞下去！

    你们那些赤裸裸的婴儿，

    在枪尖上吐着唾沫。[40]

    在《李尔王》中，康沃尔公爵挖出了格洛斯特伯爵的眼珠（他喊着：“出来，可恶的浆块儿！”）。公爵的妻子里甘下令把眼眶流淌着鲜血的伯爵赶走，她说：“把他推出去，让他一路摸索到多佛！”在《威尼斯商人》中，夏洛克获得了从贷款担保人胸口割下一磅肉的权利。在《泰特斯·安德洛尼克斯》中，两名男子杀死一个人，强奸了他的新娘，割下女子的舌头，砍掉了她的双手。女孩子的父亲杀死了两个强奸犯，将他们做成烤馅饼，给他们的母亲吃，再将她杀死；最后，他又杀死自己的女儿，因为她曾经被人玷污。他自己又被别人杀死，而接着，杀他者又被杀死。

    给孩子创作的娱乐节目也一样可怕。雅各布·格林和威廉·格林兄弟1815年出版了一部民间故事大全，后来被改编为儿童读物。众所周知的《格林童话集》，和《圣经》、莎翁戏剧并列为畅销书，是西方经典中最受推崇的作品。虽然在删减过的迪士尼动画片中，暴力痕迹不再显著，格林童话本身却充满谋杀、杀婴、吃人、肢残和性虐待。拿三个和继母有关的故事来说吧：

    .在一个荒年，汉塞尔和格蕾特尔的父亲和继母将他们丢弃在森林里，任凭他们被饿死。孩子们见到一座由食物搭成的小屋，里面住着女巫。女巫囚禁了汉塞尔，准备把他养肥后吃掉。幸而格蕾特尔将女巫推进炽热的烤炉，于是“邪恶的女巫被恐怖的烈火烧死了”。[41]

    .按照母亲的指点，灰姑娘的两个同父异母的姐姐为了将脚塞进水晶鞋，不是削脚指头就是削脚后跟。鸽子留意到鲜血，在灰姑娘和王子结婚后，鸽子啄去两个姐姐的眼睛，“为了她们犯下的罪孽和恶行，惩罚她们终身失明”。

    .白雪公主激起继母——王后的嫉妒心，王后命令猎人将她带进森林杀死，并要猎人带回公主的肺和肝作为证据。当王后发现白雪公主还活着时，她三次设计要取公主的性命，两次下毒，一次让她窒息。王子救活公主后，王后又闯进他们的婚礼，但是“炭火上放着一双铁拖鞋……她只得穿上炽热的铁拖鞋，一直跳到倒地死去”。[42]

    正如我们将要看到的，今天的儿童娱乐节目制作人对暴力越来越反感，甚至认为木偶剧《芝麻街》早年的情节也过于危险。说到木偶戏，《潘趣和朱迪》曾经是欧洲风行一时的儿童剧娱乐形式之一。进入20世纪后，英国海滨小镇里装饰得花花绿绿的戏台上，滑稽戏的保留节目还是这两个打斗玩偶。研究文学的学者哈罗德·谢克特（Harold Schechter）总结说，这出戏的典型场景是：

    开始总是潘趣要去摸摸邻居的狗，狗呢，总是一口咬住木偶那怪异的特大号鼻子。潘趣掰开狗嘴，叫来狗的主人斯凯拉莫休，一番稍嫌粗鲁的戏谑之后，开始猛敲他的脑袋，直到那家伙的脑袋脱离肩膀。然后，潘趣呼唤他的妻子朱迪，要求她给他一个亲吻。朱迪的反应是在他的脸上抽一巴掌。潘趣于是找到另一个方式释放他的热情，他要来自己的婴儿，放在怀里轻轻地摇晃。不巧，婴儿选择在这个时候又拉又尿。潘趣可真是个热爱家庭的男子汉啊，他将婴儿的头在舞台上一通乱砸，接着，把孩子的尸体扔给观众。朱迪再次出现在舞台上，她发现了刚刚发生的事情，当然，她非常生气。她从潘趣的手上抢走棍子，开始戳他。但潘趣夺回棍子，狠狠地揍朱迪，直到将她打死。接着，他开始哼一支胜利的小曲儿：

    请问谁人能像我，恶妻缠身，

    最终要想得自由，

    拿起绳子，拿起刀，

    或是拿起文明棍？[43]

    甚至主要创作于17世纪和18世纪的《鹅妈妈童谣》，按照今天的标准，也是少儿不宜。公鸡罗宾被残忍地杀害。单身母亲住在破房子里，有许多私生子，她虐待他们，鞭打他们，让他们挨饿。让两个无人看管的孩子执行一项危险的任务；杰克的头部受伤，这很可能导致大脑损伤，而吉尔的情况未明。一个流浪汉承认他把一个老人推下了楼梯。乔治·普尔基对未成年的女孩子进行性骚扰，使她们出现创伤后应激障碍（PTSD）的症状。矮胖子汉普蒂·邓普蒂从墙上摔下来后，伤情危重，无法复原。一个粗心大意的母亲把婴儿独自留在树梢上，结果当然是场灾难。一只乌鸦冲下来袭击正在晾衣服的女仆，凶狠地啄伤她的鼻子。还有三个弱视的小老鼠被肢解。此外，不是蜡烛烧着了你的床，就是刽子手砍下了你的头！《童年疾病文档》（Archives of Diseases of Childhood）最近刊登了一篇文章，统计了不同类型的儿童娱乐节目中的暴力发生率。电视节目中每小时有4.8个暴力场面，而在童谣中，每小时有52.2个暴力场面。[44]

    欧洲和早期美国的荣誉观

    如果你手边有一张面值10美元的钞票，看看钞票上的人，想一想此人的生死经历。亚历山大·汉密尔顿是美国历史上最光彩照人的人物之一。作为《联邦党人文集》（Federalist Paper）的合著者，他协助阐明了民主的哲学基础。作为美国第一任财政部部长，他设计了支撑现代市场经济的财政制度。在他的一生中，他曾率领三个营队在独立战争中作战，并参与发起制宪会议，担任国家军队的总司令，还创办了纽约银行，任纽约州议员，并创办了《纽约邮报》。[45]

    但是，在1804年，这位才华横溢的男子却干了一件在今天的人看来无以复加的蠢事。汉密尔顿和当时的副总统阿龙·伯尔长期不合，互有恶语。由于汉密尔顿拒绝否认他对伯尔的某项批评，伯尔提出决斗挑战。有太多的理由可以让汉密尔顿避免与死亡约会，常识只是其中之一。[46]决斗的风俗已经远去。在汉密尔顿居住的纽约州，决斗已属非法，汉密尔顿还有一个儿子死于决斗。在一封解释为何接受伯尔挑战的通信中，汉密尔顿列举了五项反对决斗的意见。但是，他还是同意参加决斗，因为“身为男人的荣誉”让他别无选择。就在写下此信的次日清晨，他划船渡过哈得孙河，在新泽西州帕里萨德与伯尔对决。伯尔不是最后一个朝人开枪的副总统，但与迪克·切尼相比，他的枪法更准，汉密尔顿在决斗的第二天离世。

    汉密尔顿不是唯一一位卷入决斗的美国政治家。亨利·克莱有过一次决斗，詹姆斯·门罗想过要在约翰·亚当斯担任美国总统期间向他提出决斗挑战。在美元上露脸的其他人也都不同凡响。20美元钞票上永垂不朽的安德鲁·杰克逊的身体里留有多次决斗的子弹，他自称走起路来身体“叮当作响，像是一个装铅弹的袋子”。甚至5美元钞票上的“伟大的解放者”林肯也接受了决斗的挑战，尽管他设定了条件以确保决斗无法执行。

    正式的决斗当然不是美国人的发明。它产生于文艺复兴时期，本来是一种对贵族及其眷戚内部暗杀、仇杀和街头斗殴的抑制手段。一旦某人感到他的荣誉受到非难，就可以向对手提出决斗挑战，这将暴力限制在单一死亡的范围内，而且失败方的家族或亲随不必感到难堪。但是，正如散文家阿瑟·克里斯托（Arthur Krystal）所说：“绅士……将荣誉看得如此之重，这使得任何冒犯都成为对名誉的挑战。两个英国人可以因为各自的狗咬架而决斗。两个意大利人翻脸，仅仅是为了争辩塔索和阿里奥斯托两位大诗人孰优一筹，直到其中一方在决斗中重伤，在奄奄一息之际才承认，他从未读过他拼死力推的诗人的作品。拜伦的伯祖父威廉——第五代拜伦男爵，为谁家地盘上有更多猎物这一问题争吵不休，最后在决斗中杀死了对手。”[47]

    尽管教会和许多国家的政府都宣布禁止决斗，但决斗在18世纪和19世纪一直存在。塞缪尔·约翰逊为这一习俗辩护说：“既然一个男人能够向侵入他的家园的男子开枪，他也应该能够向冒犯他名誉的男子开枪。”伏尔泰、拿破仑、威灵顿公爵、罗伯特·皮尔、托尔斯泰、普希金和数学家埃瓦里斯特·伽罗瓦，都曾为决斗增光添彩，最后两位甚至在决斗中送命。一场决斗的缘起、高潮和结局，是小说家追求的好题材，沃尔特·司各特、大仲马、莫泊桑、康拉德、托尔斯泰、普希金、契诃夫和托马斯·曼都重笔渲染过决斗的戏剧效果。

    决斗的盛衰展示了一种令人困惑但却常见的现象：一种暴力可以在一个文明中存在几个世纪，然后消失得无影无踪。当一位绅士同意决斗，他们不是为了争夺金钱、土地甚至妇女，而是为了荣誉。而荣誉这种古怪的商品之所以存在，完全是因为人们相信其他人都相信它存在。人性中的一些成分能够吹大荣誉的泡沫，比如追求名望和受制于成规旧俗；另外的一些成分则能扑灭这些泡沫，比如幽默感。[48]正式决斗的习俗于19世纪中叶在英语国家逐渐消失，并在随后的几十年内在欧洲其他国家消失。历史学家注意到，这一习俗被埋葬，很大程度上不是因为法律禁令和道德谴责，而是因为它成了人们的笑料。当“庄重的绅士赶赴荣誉的决斗场，却只能引起年青一代的讥笑时，不论它曾经是何等神圣的传统，没有任何一种习俗能经得住这样的考验”。[49]今天，如果有谁再说起“向前十步，转身，开火”，人们想起的是兔八哥和疯狂山姆，而不是“男人的荣誉”。

    20世纪

    “被忘却的暴力”之旅开始进入当代历史，四周的地标开始有些眼熟了。但是，即使是来自20世纪的文化记忆，其中许多文物藏品也仿佛来自遥远的异国他乡。

    比如，尚武文化的衰落。[50]在那些稍有历史的欧美城市，都点缀着一些炫耀武力的公共设施。行人可以看见各种雕塑——骑在马背上的指挥官、肌肉发达体形健美的裸体希腊武士、马拉战车为顶饰的凯旋门，还有长矛和剑形的铸铁栅栏。以大获全胜的战役命名的地铁站：巴黎有奥斯特利茨，伦敦有滑铁卢。在一个世纪以前拍摄的照片中，总有男子穿着花里胡哨的军礼服，不是在国家庆典上游行，就是在豪华晚宴上与贵族寒暄。美国那些历史悠久的州的州徽都是富有攻击性的图像，比如投射器、锋利的武器、鹰隼或者猛禽。就连以和平主义著称的马萨诸塞州也是如此，其州徽的上方是一节断臂挥舞着长剑，中间是一个美国原住民手持弓箭，下方是本州的座右铭：“我们用刀剑寻求和平，但和平只存于自由之下。”无独有偶，邻州新罕布什尔州装饰本州车牌的箴言是“不自由，毋宁死”。

    但西方现在已经不再用军事胜利来命名公共场所了。我们的战争纪念碑，不是彰显马背上骄傲的将领，而是哭泣的母亲、筋疲力尽的士兵或详尽的阵亡者名单。军人身着简单的军服，与民众相比没有什么特权，在公共生活中极为低调。在伦敦特拉法尔加广场上的巨狮和纳尔逊纪念柱的对面，新立的雕像与军功战绩毫不相干，基座上是一位赤裸身体的、怀有身孕的艺术家，而她生下来就没有双臂和双腿。比利时伊普尔第一次世界大战战场，是诗歌《在佛兰德原野上》（In Flanders Fields）灵感的来源，也是英联邦国家在11月11日佩戴罂粟花的缘由；那里刚刚建起一座纪念碑，纪念在那次战争中因逃跑而被枪决的上千名士兵，这些士兵在当时被看作可鄙的怕死鬼。美国最新的两个州的座右铭分别是阿拉斯加的“北方通向未来”和夏威夷的“正义永存”。（虽然威斯康星州在为原来的昵称“美国的奶牛场”征集更新的时候，应征中有一条是“不吃奶酪，毋宁死”。）

    德国的和平主义尤其坚定和突出，这个民族曾经如此尚武，以至于条顿和普鲁士这两个词就是“铁血军国主义”的同义词。直到1964年，讽刺作家汤姆·莱勒（Tom Lehrer）还表露了他对联邦德国加入多边核联盟的恐惧。在一首讽刺摇篮曲中，歌手安慰孩子说：
    日耳曼曾经好战又野蛮，
    如今危险已去恐惧不再；
    1918年给他一个大教训，
    从此他一直都是好乖乖。

    1989年，柏林墙倒塌，民主德国和联邦德国协商统一，对德国复仇主义的恐惧也再次苏醒，但德国今天的文化仍然是全心全意地反省它在“二战”中的角色，竭力反对任何有军力扩张之嫌的举动。即使在电子游戏中，暴力也成了禁忌。帕克兄弟公司曾试图在德国发行德语版的《大战役》（Risk）。在这个棋盘游戏中，玩家在地图上竞争占领世界。德国政府要求审查游戏的内容。（最后，游戏被改编为玩家竞争“解放”而不是征服对家的领土。）[51]德国的和平主义绝不仅仅是象征性的。2003年，50万名德国人参加了反对美国入侵伊拉克的游行。众所周知，美国国防部长唐纳德·拉姆斯菲尔德轻蔑地将德国称为“老欧洲”。鉴于欧洲大陆漫长的战争历史，除了曾有学生抱怨莎翁戏剧无非老生常谈，拉姆斯菲尔德的此番言论可以说是最典型的历史健忘症了。

    西方对武力象征的感觉也在发生变化，我们很多人都有切身经历。当终极武器新式核弹在20世纪40年代和50年代露面的时候，虽然它让25万人命丧核弹的记忆犹新，上亿人的身家性命正受到威胁，但是人们并没有排斥它。人们不仅没有排斥它，甚至觉得它是迷人的！核试验熔化了密克罗尼西亚的环礁比基尼，而性感泳衣却以比基尼命名，因为设计者认为，比基尼泳衣与核爆炸一样具有震撼效果。居民后院的防空洞、学校里抱头藏到课桌下面的防空演习，以及各种可笑的“民防”设施，事实上都让人们觉得核袭击没有那么可怕。直到今天，在美国许多公寓和学校的地下室入口处，还能见到三个三角形组成的防空掩体标志。美国20世纪50年代的许多商标上都有蘑菇云的图形，包括“原子火团硬糖球”、“原子商场”（麻省理工学院附近的一家夫妻杂货店），还有“原子咖啡厅”。在核战的危险真正开始减弱的1982年，纪录片《原子咖啡厅》（The Atomic Café），就借用了这家咖啡馆的名字，片中记录了世界在20世纪60年代初对核武器令人费解的淡漠。

    我们的生活中还有一个重要的变化，那就是人们越来越不能容忍在日常生活中展示武力。几十年前，一个男人对挑衅者报以老拳是非常令人尊敬的事情；[52]在今天则成了鲁莽粗野，成了冲动控制障碍症的病状，成了去接受愤怒管理治疗的挂号证。

    1950年的一个事件可以说明这一变化。哈里·杜鲁门总统的女儿玛格丽特是位很有抱负的歌手，《华盛顿邮报》的一篇乐评不留情面地批评了玛格丽特的表演。总统看到后，用白宫的信笺给批评家写信说：“我希望有一天能与你见面。到那时，你将需要一个新鼻子，需要很多鲜牛排来盖住你的青眼圈，没准儿你还需要一根新拐杖。”虽然大家都对杜鲁门的冲动怀有同情，但在今天，如果一个当权的人公开威胁要用暴力伤害一位批评家，那简直是滑天下之大稽，甚至是阴险的。但在当时，杜鲁门却因父亲般的骑士精神而广受赞赏。

    如果你知道什么是“97磅懦夫”和“沙迷眼窝囊废”，那你大概熟知“查尔斯·阿特拉斯健身计划”的标志性广告。从20世纪40年代开始，这个广告在杂志和漫画书中经常出现。广告中的故事情节是，在海滩上，一个瘦弱的男子当着女朋友的面受到欺辱。他躲回家中砸桌子，踢椅子，拿出10美分的邮票下赌注，收到了一份健身计划的说明书。最后他返回海滩，向欺负过他的人报仇雪恨，这赢得了年轻女子的笑脸（图1-1）。

    图1-1 20世纪40年代健身广告中常见的暴力

    当时，阿特拉斯健身计划这个产品是超越性的，因为健身运动到20世纪80年代才开始真正风行。但说到他的市场营销，那还是旧时代的过气产物。今天的健身房和运动用品广告绝不会借用斗殴张扬男子气概，代言的形象一般是孤傲的，甚至还要带些同性恋的气质。在特写镜头下，坚实的胸肌和肌块累累的小腹，能让男女都心生羡慕。他们要展示的是美，而不是威力。

    相比对男性之间暴力的厌恶，人们更加蔑视男性针对女性的暴力。婴儿潮那一代人大多对20世纪50年代的代表作《蜜月期》（The Honeymooners）有种怀旧心理。在剧中，杰基·格黎森扮演一个粗壮的公交车司机拉尔夫，老是筹划着要发横财，而明智的妻子艾丽斯则对他百般嘲弄。一个不断抖出的搞笑场景是，拉尔夫愤怒地向妻子挥拳咆哮：“总有一天，艾丽斯，总有一天……你要尝尝我的老拳！”（有时候，他也说：“乓，瞄准，直接奔月！”）艾丽斯对此总是一笑置之，不是因为她蔑视家庭暴力，而是她知道，拉尔夫其实还不够男子汉，不会这样做。针对妇女的暴力在今天已变得非常敏感，主流电视台根本不可能播放《蜜月期》这样的喜剧节目。1952年《生活周刊》中的这则广告（图1-2），也是不可能出街的。

    图1-2 1952年一则咖啡广告中的家庭暴力

    这则广告以戏谑和挑逗的手法表现家庭暴力，在今天完全不能接受。但在当初，这样的手法并不鲜见。在20世纪50年代梵豪森牌衬衫的广告中，一个妻子被打了屁股。在1953年必能宝邮资机的广告中，一个怒气冲天的老板对着他固执的女秘书大喊大叫，其标题是：“杀死一个女人总是违法的吗？”[53]

    此外还有一出创下长期上演纪录的音乐剧《异想天开》（The Fanta-sticks），里面有一首吉尔伯特和沙利文式的小调“取决于你掏出多少钞票”[歌词来自1905年翻译的爱德蒙·罗斯坦德（Edmond Rostand）的话剧《罗马风格》（Les Romanesques）]。该剧说的是两个父亲密谋一次绑架，然后，一个父亲的儿子救出另一个父亲的女儿：
    你能看见公开的强暴，
    你能看见彬彬有礼的强暴，
    你能看见印第安人的强暴：
    那场面真是迷人。
    你还能看见马背上的强暴，
    他们都说这既新鲜又快乐。
    你能看见各种强暴，五花八门，
    一切取决于你掏出多少钞票。

    虽然这里的强暴（rape）实际上指的是劫持，而不是性侵犯，但从1960年该剧开播到2002年停播，人们对强暴的认知发生了变化。歌词作者汤姆·琼斯（与威尔士歌唱家没有亲属关系）向我解释说：
    随着时间的推移，这个字眼儿让我越来越紧张。尽管过程很缓慢，但是渐渐地，对于报纸上的那些标题，对于凶残轮奸的描述，还有对于“约会强奸”的报道，我开始有了新的理解。我开始想：“这事儿一点儿也不可笑啊。”的确，我们不是在说“真正的强奸”，但是在那些笑声里，无疑包含了对我们喜剧化这个字眼儿所感到的震惊。

    20世纪70年代初，琼斯请求重新填词，制作人拒绝了他，但允许他在那首小曲前加引言，说明那个字眼儿的含义，同时允许他减少那个字眼儿的重复次数。2002年，这出喜剧结束演出。2006年该剧重新登台时，琼斯填写了全新的歌词，他还采取了法律行动，从确保在世界任何地方上演的《异想天开》都必须使用新版剧本。[54]

    直到最近，对儿童行使暴力都还是合乎情理的。父母不仅揍孩子，通常还会使用梳子、板子这样的武器，或者扒光衣服露出臀部，以提高痛感和羞耻感。整个20世纪50年代，儿童作品中总是可以看到母亲警告调皮的男孩子说：“等你老爸回家再说。”于是，家长中更强壮的那个会解开皮带，抡到孩子身上。其他常见的惩罚手段是不让孩子吃晚饭就去睡觉，还有用肥皂刷洗孩子的口腔。那些被交给没有血缘关系的成人照管的孩子处境更加糟糕。许多人还记得在学校受过的惩罚。按照今天的标准，那些处罚手法都属于“酷刑”，足以将老师送进监狱。[55]

    * * *

    今天的人们认为世界到处充满危险。只要看新闻，就无法不注意到那些越来越可怕的恐怖袭击、文明之间的冲突和大规模杀伤性武器的效果。但是我们往往会忘记，几十年前的新闻中也充斥着危险。幸运的是，这些恐惧现在均已烟消云散。在后面的章节中，我会给出数据，说明20世纪60年代和70年代是比我们生活的今天更为残忍和险恶的时代。为了保持本章文风的一致性，我继续用比较形象的方式陈述我的观点。

    我于1976年大学毕业，和大多数毕业生一样，已经完全不记得毕业典礼上那个将我送进成人世界的演讲了。这给了我一张许可证，让我可以再创造一个毕业演讲。请你想象一下，在20世纪70年代中期，一位世界形势分析专家会做出什么样的预言：

    校长先生、老师、父母、亲友、1976级的同学们：

    这是一个面临巨大挑战的时代，也是一个充满各种机会的时代。今天，你们学业已成，整装待发。我谨呼唤你们，回馈社会，让未来更光明，让世界更美好。

    如此等等，无须赘言。下面，我想说几句更有趣的话。我想和你们分享我的预言，看看35年后你们重聚时，世界将是何种模样。彼时，斗转星移，时间已进入新千年，世界变化之剧烈，绝非你所能想象。我指的不是技术进步，尽管它的影响让你难以把握。我指的是和平和人类安全。你会发现，这一进步更是让人难以设想。

    诚然，2011年的世界仍将危机四伏。今后35年间，就像今天一样，会有战争；也像今天一样，会有种族灭绝，有些甚至会发生在人们完全无法预见的地方。核武器仍将是世界的威胁。某些地区的冲突仍会继续。但是，在这些常量之上会叠加一些高深莫测的变量。

    首先，也是最重要的，自童年蜷缩在防空洞里起，你们的记忆中就刻上了对核武器和第三次世界大战的恐惧。这个纠缠经年的噩梦，即将烟消云散。在10年之内，苏联将宣布与西方和平共处，冷战将不发一枪而偃旗息鼓。中国不再是一个军事威胁，它甚至将是我们主要的贸易伙伴。在今后35年内，无人使用核武器。事实上，大国之间不会发生任何战争。西欧将继续保持和平，而在5年之内，战祸连绵的东亚亦将进入和平。

    喜讯不止于此。民主德国将开放边境，欢乐的学生将把柏林墙砸成粉末。铁幕将消失，中欧和东欧诸国将摆脱苏联的控制。苏联不仅将放弃共产主义，甚至将自动解体。苏联的加盟共和国将成为独立国家。而大部分国家的变革完全不需要流血。

    法西斯主义将在欧洲以至整个世界消失，葡萄牙、西班牙和希腊，以及韩国和大部分中南美洲的国家将转向自由民主。元帅、上校、军政府、“香蕉共和国”和每年一度的军事政变，将在大部分发达国家的政治舞台上绝迹。

    中东也有令人诧异的发展。你们刚刚经历了25年以来以色列和阿拉伯国家的第五次战争。这些战争使5万人丧生，最近还威胁将超级大国卷入核冲突。但在3年之内，埃及总统将和以色列总理在以色列议会大厦拥抱，签署永久期限的和平条约。约旦也将和以色列维持长期和平。而叙利亚将不定期地和以色列进行和谈，两国不再交战。

    南非即将结束种族隔离政权，白人少数族裔将把权力交给黑人多数族裔。整个过程中不会发生内战，不会有大规模的流血冲突和针对前统治者的暴力行动。

    这些进展，大部分是人们长期卓绝奋斗的成果，但其中也有一些是突发事件，似乎从天而降。你们中间也许会有人去尝试解答这一切到底是怎样发生的。在此，我谨向你们已经取得的成就表示祝贺，并希望你们在未来的岁月里获得成功和满足。

    对这样一篇充满乐观主义的大话，听众会做何感想？与会者已经发出阵阵冷笑，暗自揣测演讲者是否去过伍德斯托克音乐节，在那里灌下了太多的迷幻药。然而，这个乐天派的几乎每一个预言在事后都被证明是正确的。

    * * *

    没有哪个观光者会靠“某城一日游”就了解一个国家，我也不指望对几千年历史的一番走马观花，就能让你相信往昔的暴力甚于今天。现在，旅游归来，你仍然满心疑问：难道我们今天没有使用酷刑？难道20世纪不是人类历史上最血腥的世纪？难道不是新的战争方式取代了旧的？我们不是正生活在“恐怖时代”吗？他们在1910年时不是也说过不会再有战争了吗？那些工厂式养殖场里不断被宰杀的鸡算是怎么回事？难道核恐怖分子不会在明天发动一场大战？

    这些都是很好的问题，我将在本书的其余部分，借助历史研究和量化数据来做出回答。但我希望，本章内容作为合理性检验，为我的工作打下了基础。它们提醒我们，尽管今天仍有各种危险，但昨天的危险更为严重。本书的读者（以及世界上其他大多数地区的人民）都不再需要担心被绑架卖为性奴；不再担心宗教性种族清洗、致命的角斗和比赛；不再需要担心会为了非主流的信仰而被钉十字架，受石刑、轮刑、炙刑或者吊颈；不再担心因未能生儿子而被斩首，因曾经与王室成员约会而被开膛破肚；不再需要担心要用手枪决斗来捍卫自己的荣誉，或在海滩上挥拳斗殴来博取女友的欢心；也不再需要为世界大战中核武器毁灭人类文明的前景而忧心忡忡。

    第2章 平靖进程

    看吧，生命实在是肮脏、野蛮且短促，但只有成为穴居人，你才明白这是什么意思。 ——《纽约时报》漫画[1]

    托马斯·霍布斯和查尔斯·达尔文都是善良之人，但他们的名字却成了令人讨厌的形容词。无论是霍布斯式还是达尔文式（更不用提马尔萨斯式、马基雅维利式或奥威尔式）的世界，都是令人恐惧的地方。霍布斯和达尔文两人被载入词典，概因冠以两人之名的“主义”，各自成为对自然状态下生命的悲观概述，达尔文是“适者生存”（这个短语其实并非他的创造），霍布斯是“人的一生，孤独、贫困、肮脏、野蛮又短暂”。然而，两人给我们留下了他们对暴力的深刻见解，其洞见比与其同名的形容词更深刻、更精微，也绝对更人道。我们今天对人类暴力的任何理解都必须以他们的分析为起点。

    本章的主题是暴力在逻辑和时间意义上的起源。我们将依据达尔文和霍布斯的分析，探究暴力的自适应逻辑，并据此推演哪些暴力冲动已经在进化中成为人性的组成部分。我们将回到史前暴力，探究人类演化进程中暴力出现的时间，在有文字记载之前的1000年间暴力的常发程度，以及什么样的历史发展推动了第一次暴力减少。

    暴力的逻辑

    达尔文的理论告诉我们，生命为什么具有现在的特质——不仅是机体的特质，还有决定其行为的基本思维模式和动机。《物种起源》出版150年之后，自然选择论在实验室和野外得到大量证实，并被来自数学和科学新领域的思想充实，从而形成了对生命世界的一套系统的新理解。这些领域包括遗传学，它解释了使自然选择成为可能的复制因子；还包括博弈论，它勾画出在一个存在其他智能主体的世界里，各有追求的单个主体的命运。[2]

    为什么进化竟然允许一个生命寻求伤害其他生命？答案并非如“适者生存”所说的那样简单。《自私的基因》（The Selfish Gene）的作者理查德·道金斯（Richard Dawkins）显然认为，人们对司空见惯的生命世界往往缺乏反思，他力图通过结合了遗传学和博弈论的现代进化生物学，帮助他的读者增加对生命世界的理解。他要读者将动物想象成按照他们的基因设计的“生存机器”（基因是在演化进程中唯一不断地复制自己的主体），然后推想这些生存机器会如何演化。

    对于某个生存机器来说，另一个生存机器（不是前者的子女，也不是其他近亲）是它环境的一部分，就像一块岩石、一条河流或一块面包也属于它的环境一样。这个充当环境的生存机器可以制造麻烦，但也能够被加以利用。它同一块岩石或一条河流的一个重要区别在于：它往往会还击。因为它也是机器，拥有寄托着其未来的不朽基因，而且为了保存这些基因，它也不惜赴汤蹈火。自然选择有利于那些能够控制其生存机器并充分利用环境的基因，包括充分利用相同和不同物种的其他生存机器。[3]

    任何人，只要见过鹰撕碎欧椋鸟，成群的蚊虫叮在一匹马身上，或者艾滋病毒渐渐地吞噬一个男子的性命，就会对生存机器冷酷地利用其他生存机器的方式有第一手的观察。在大部分生命世界里，暴力是默认选项，是某种不需要解释的存在。当受害者属于其他物种时，我们将进攻的一方称为捕食者或者寄生虫，但受害者也可以是同一物种。很多不同种类的动物都有杀婴、手足相残、同类相食、强奸、致命伤害这样的记录。[4]

    道金斯还措辞谨慎地解释了为什么自然界中不存在大规模的血腥杀戮。首先，动物不倾向于伤害自己的近亲，因为任何促使动物伤害亲族的基因，都极有可能伤害亲族体内所携带的自己的基因副本，所以自然选择过程淘汰了有自伤害倾向的基因。更重要的是，道金斯指出，与岩石和河流不同，生物倾向于反击。任何一个进化出暴力倾向的生物体，其所属物种中的其他成员也必然（在平均水平上）进化出同等的暴力能力。如果你攻击你的同类，你的对手可以和你一样强壮、一样好斗，而且装备同样的武器和防卫手段。攻击同类会伤及自身，是一种极有力的选择压力，它排斥了不加选择的进攻和消耗，也排除了暴力的“压力”释放说和大多数民间暴力理论，比如嗜血、死亡愿望、杀手本能，以及对毁灭的渴望、索求和冲动。进化中的暴力选择永远是策略性的。物竞天择的结果是，生物只有在预期收益大于预期成本的情况下才会动用暴力。智能物种特别具有辨识力，他们巨大的脑容量不仅让他们能够计算进化全过程的平均胜算，而且能够精确计算特定情况下的成本收益。

    当同一智能物种的成员间关系进入暴力逻辑的时候，我们看到的就是霍布斯的自然世界。《利维坦》中有一段名言，霍布斯用简短的篇幅分析了暴力的动机。他的分析至今无人能超越：

    因此，在人类的天性中，我们发现存在三个造成争吵的主要原因。第一是竞争，第二是猜疑，第三是荣誉。人们攻击他人的第一个原因是求利，第二个原因是求安全，第三个原因是求名誉。在第一种情形下，人们使用暴力奴役他人、他人的妻子儿女和牲畜。在第二种情形下，则是为了保护自己。在第三种情形下，则是由于一些琐事，比如一言一笑、一点意见上的分歧，以及任何轻视他们的迹象，无论是直接指向他们本人，或是针对他们的亲友、民族、职业或名字。[5]

    霍布斯认为，竞争是能动主体追求自身利益不可避免的结果。我们今天认为竞争是进化过程固有的组成。谁能够将竞争者逐离有限的资源，如食物、水和理想领地，谁就能够得到更大的机会繁衍，在数量上超过竞争者；谁能够适应这一竞争，谁就能够在这个世界生存。

    我们也知道，为什么“妻子”也是男人应该竞争的一种资源。在大多数动物中，雌性动物在后代身上的投资都大于雄性。对哺乳动物而言，这一点更加显著，母亲在体内孕育后代，并在孩子出生后照顾他们。一个雄性可以和数个雌性交配，以增加繁衍后代的数量——同时可能让其他雄性没有后代。而雌性即使和多个雄性交配，也无法增加生育的数量。因此，在许多物种中，包括人类，雌性的生育能力就是稀缺资源，成为雄性竞争的对象。[6]但所有这些并不等于说，人是由基因控制的机器，强奸和攻击在道德上是可以被原谅的，妇女只是被动的性感战利品，人都是试图尽可能多地生养孩子；也不等于说，人不受文化的制约。这些观点都是对性选择论的误解。[7]

    争斗的第二个原因是缺乏自信。在霍布斯的时代，缺乏自信意味着“恐惧”，而不是“羞怯”。第二个原因是前一个原因的结果：竞争产生恐惧。如果你有理由怀疑你的邻居，感觉他蓄意将你从竞争中铲除，就是说，要杀死你，那你自然会想到要先发制人，抢先干掉邻居，从而保护自己。即使你是一个连苍蝇都不愿意伤害的人，只要你不想放弃，不想被杀，你就会感到要去杀人的诱惑。悲剧在于，你的竞争者也完全可能因同样的计算而忧心如焚，尽管他也是一个连苍蝇都不愿意伤害的善良之辈。事实上，就算他知道你本来无意冒犯，他还是有正当的理由忧虑，他会认为你满心疑窦，担心他将要伤害你，因此准备消灭他；而你也有同样先下手为强的动机。以此类推，无限循环。政治学家托马斯·谢林（Thomas Schelling）做过一个类比，持枪的屋主和持枪的窃贼，为避免自己被射杀，都有先开火的动机。这一悖论有时被称为“霍布斯陷阱”，在国际关系领域，则被称作“安全困境”。[8]

    智能主体怎样才能让自己摆脱霍布斯陷阱？最显而易见的方法就是威慑政策：人不犯我，我不犯人；准备充分，挺住初次打击；人若犯我，我必犯人。一项可靠的威慑政策会打消竞争对手出于谋利而进行侵犯的动机，因为回击产生的成本可以抵消进攻的全部预期收益。同样，因为你承诺不会率先动手，对手失去了出于恐惧而进行侵犯的动机。更重要的是，因为威慑消除了进行第一次打击的动机，也就减少了对先发制人的需要。威慑政策的关键在于威胁报复的可信度。如果你的对手认为第一次打击就足以消灭你，他当然没有理由担忧报复。如果对手认为，一旦发生攻击，你有可能理性地克制报复行动，那他就会利用你的理性攻击你且不受惩罚。你只有持守承诺，不暴露软肋，以眼还眼，以牙还牙，而且锱铢必较，唯此威慑政策才会有效。因此，我们也就明白为什么些许小事——一个字眼儿、一声冷笑或任何一点点轻蔑的迹象，都能够引发争端。霍布斯称之为“光荣”，常用的说法是“荣誉”，而最准确的用词应该是“信誉”（credibility）。

    威慑政策也被称为“恐怖平衡”，在冷战时期，也叫作“相互确保毁灭”。威慑只能用暴力威胁来遏制暴力，因此这一政策能够确保的和平是非常脆弱的。各方必须对任何失敬的信号，哪怕是非暴力的轻蔑，做出宣示实力的暴力反应，因此，一种暴力行为可能导致另一种暴力行为，进入无休无止的复仇循环。我们将在第8章中看到，自利偏差是人性的一项主要特征，这一特征让各方相信自己的暴力是正当的报复行为，而对方的暴力是无端挑衅。

    霍布斯的分析适用于无政府状态的生活。他的著作的标题指出了摆脱困境的途径：利维坦，即君主制或者其他体现民意并垄断武力使用权的政府权威。利维坦通过处罚侵犯行为，抑制了侵犯的动力，从而化解了先发制人的焦虑，也打消了每个人为证明自己的决心而时刻准备出手的紧张感。因为利维坦是一个公正无私的第三方，它不受沙文主义的影响而产生偏见；沙文主义让各方都认为对手阴险恶毒，而自己则如冰雪般清澈纯洁。

    利维坦的逻辑，可以用下面这个三角形来概括（图2-1）。在每一个暴力行为中，都有三个利害关系人：侵犯者、受害者和旁观者。三方都有暴力动机：侵犯者要捕获受害者，受害者要进行报复，而旁观者要尽量减少另外两方争斗产生的连带伤害。两个参战者之间的暴力可以称为战争，旁观者压制参战者的暴力可以称为法律。简而言之，利维坦理论就是法律好过战争。我们可以检测一下根据霍布斯理论对暴力历史所做的预期。利维坦第一次出现是在人类盛会的尾声。考古学家告诉我们，人类一直生活在无政府状态，大约5000年前才开始进入文明。定居的农民第一次聚居为城和邦，建立了第一个政府。如果霍布斯的理论是正确的，那么，这一变迁应该带来第一次暴力减少。在文明出现之前，世界上没有“一种让所有人敬畏的共同权威”，人们的生活应该比文明之后更混乱、更残暴、更短命，直到某一天一个武装权威实现了和平，情况才开始改善。我将这个发展称为“平靖过程”。霍布斯坚信，美洲很多地方仍有未开化的人生活在无政府的暴力状态，但他没有说明他指的具体是哪些人。

    图2-1 暴力三角

    因为没有资料，人们可以随意揣测原始人的生活状态，当然很快也会有人提出相反的理论。霍布斯的对手是出生于瑞士的哲学家让-雅克·卢梭，他的观点是：“没有什么（人）能够比处于原始状态更温和……野蛮人的例子……似乎确证人类本来应永远停留在这一状态，以后的种种改进……都是指向物种的衰败。”[9]

    虽然霍布斯和卢梭的哲学远比“混乱残暴短命”对“高贵的野蛮人”这一简单概括更深奥精妙，但他们对自然状态下的生命抱有的成见引发了长久的争议，一直延续到今天。在《白板》一书中，我讨论了这个问题如何通过日积月累，成为人类情感、道德和政治的沉重包袱。20世纪下半叶，卢梭的浪漫理论成为政治正确的人性论，这既是对早期关于“原始”人类的种族主义学说的回应，也是出于一种信念，即相信卢梭对人类生存状态的描述更加积极乐观。许多人类学家认为，如果霍布斯是正确的，那么战争不仅不可避免，甚至是必要的，因此，任何支持和平的人都必须坚持霍布斯是错误的。事实上，这批“和平派人类学家”在学术界相当富有进攻性，动物行为学家约翰·范·德尔·登嫩（Johan van der Dennen）将他们称为“和平与和谐黑手党”。他们一直坚称，人类和动物是绝对排斥同类相残的，战争是后天的产物。原住民在与欧洲殖民者遭遇之前，他们之间的打斗是仪式性的、无害的。[10]

    正如我在序言中所说，以生物理论解释暴力导致宿命论，而浪漫人性论则对人类充满乐观，这两种观点都是本末倒置。但这不是本章要论述的问题。论及史前人类的暴力，霍布斯和卢梭都是在说空话：他们对文明之前的人类生活一无所知。今天我们能够做得更好一些。本章回顾了人类最原初阶段的暴力行径。故事要从我们成为人类之前开始，通过观察我们那些灵长类近亲的攻击性，我们可以看到在进化谱系中，暴力是如何出现的。当说到我们人类自己的时候，首先，我将生活在无政府状态下的觅食族群和部落，与生活在有某种政府形式的定居者进行对比；其次，我们要了解觅食者的争斗和他们争斗的对象。需要回答的关键问题是：无政府部落之间的战争是否比生活在稳定国家的人的争斗更具破坏性？我们要求答案既有描述，又有数据，并尽可能地估算出在利维坦和在无政府两种状态下的人均暴力死亡率。最后，我们再来审视文明生活的优势和劣势。

    人类祖先的暴力

    我们对暴力史的追溯能走多远？人类进化谱系上的灵长类祖先早已绝迹，但它们至少给我们留下了一种证据，证明它们可能是什么样子，那就是它们的其他后代——黑猩猩。当然，我们人类不是从黑猩猩进化而来的。而且，黑猩猩是否保留了我们共同祖先的特质，或者早已是一个独特的黑猩猩偏支，这是一个有争议的问题。但无论答案如何，与我们有共同特质的黑猩猩都是我们的教材，它展示了在灵长类身上暴力行为的演化过程。我们可以以此来测试一个演化预设，即暴力倾向不是水压释放式的，而是策略性的，只有在潜在收益高、风险低的情况下才会出现。[11]

    黑猩猩的群体一般最多为150只，有自己的领地。黑猩猩的食物包括水果和干果，这些果实不均匀地散布在森林之中。觅食时，黑猩猩时分时合结成小组，从单独1只到15只不等。如果在领地的边界地带，一个群体的黑猩猩遭遇来自另一个群体的黑猩猩，双方的互动永远是对抗性的。如果两个群体的黑猩猩势均力敌，这场边界纠纷将是一场喧嚣的噪音战，双方尖叫、低吼、摇动树枝、向对方扔东西，相互攻击约半小时左右，直到一方，通常是数量较少的一方逃遁。

    这种典型的炫耀实力的战斗，在动物中非常常见。人们一度认为这只是为了物种自身利益不流血而解决争端的仪式，现在人们对此的理解是，这是武力和决心的宣示。既然战斗的输赢结果显而易见，而战斗的过程会给双方都造成伤害，一番吵闹之后，弱势的一方就应该让步了。如果双方势均力敌，炫耀武力就有可能让冲突升级，引发恶斗，其中一方，甚至双方，都有可能受伤或丧命。[12]在黑猩猩群体之间的冲突不会升级为血腥恶斗，因此人类学家一度认为它们是本性和平的物种。

    珍·古道尔（Jane Goodall）是第一个在野外对黑猩猩从事长期观察的灵长类动物学家，她得出了一个惊人的发现。[13]当一群雄性黑猩猩遭遇只数很少的，或者单只的来自其他群体的黑猩猩时，它们既不发出叫声也不吹毛瞪眼，而是立即利用数量优势采取行动。如果这个陌生者是处于发情期的青春期雌性，它们可能会为她梳理毛发，并尝试与之交配。如果她带着自己的幼崽，它们就会攻击她，杀死并吃掉幼崽。而如果它们遭遇单只的雄性黑猩猩，或者能够从一小群中孤立出一只黑猩猩，它们会对其施以野性的残杀。进攻方的两只黑猩猩按住受害者，其他黑猩猩则开始打它，咬掉它的脚趾和生殖器，撕碎它的身体，扭断它的四肢，喝它的血，或者掐断它的气管。在一个群落里，黑猩猩一个接一个地杀害了邻近群落中所有的雄性黑猩猩。在人类看来，这样的行为就是种族灭绝。黑猩猩之间的这种攻击大多不是偶发的遭遇战，而是边界巡逻的结果。在巡逻中，一群的雄性黑猩猩会悄无声息地寻找并锁定单只雄性黑猩猩。社群内部也会发生残杀。一群雄性黑猩猩可能会杀死一个竞争对手，而一只强壮的雌性黑猩猩也会在一只雄性或一只雌性同伙的协助下，杀死另一只处于弱势的雌性黑猩猩的后代。

    当珍·古道尔第一次对这些杀戮做出描述时，其他科学家怀疑，这些被观察的黑猩猩是否受到了惊吓，或是患病，或者因为灵长类动物学家为了方便观察，给黑猩猩喂食了人类自己的加工食品。30年之后，已经没有人再怀疑，这些致命性侵犯属于黑猩猩的常规行为。灵长类动物学家已经观察到或推断出近50起社群之间的杀戮，还有至少25起社群内部的杀戮。这些报告涵盖至少9个社群，其中一个从未被人投食喂养过。在某些社群，超过1/3的雄性死于暴力。[14]

    达尔文主义的基本原理是否适用于黑猩猩？灵长类动物学家，曾经是古道尔的学生的理查德·兰厄姆（Richard Wrangham），收集了有关黑猩猩的种群学和生态学的大量数据，对几种假说进行了测试。[15]他记录了一大一小两个达尔文自然选择优势。一旦黑猩猩消灭雄性对手及其后代，它们或者立即迁入对手的家园，扩张自己的领地，或者依仗自己越来越强的数量优势继续进攻，连战连胜。这样，它们为自己、自己的后代和与自己交配的雌性，垄断了领地内的食物资源，其结果就是雌性黑猩猩的生育率上升。强势社群有时也吸纳消亡社群的雌性黑猩猩，给雄性带来第二次繁殖优势。黑猩猩并不是直接为获取食物和雌性配偶而打斗。它们关心的仅仅是统治自己的领地和在对自身风险最小的前提下消灭对手。进化的收益是间接的，而且非常漫长。

    至于风险，黑猩猩降低风险的方法就是欺负弱小，它们只在数量占据优势时开战，通常至少要有3比1的优势。因为果树是散布在森林中的，黑猩猩的觅食方式经常将倒霉的猎物送到它们的手中。有些黑猩猩迫于饥饿，不得不成群结队或独自觅食，有时还会冒险到没有黑猩猩的地方寻找食物。

    这些和人类的暴力到底有什么关系呢？它提出了这样一种可能性，即人类和黑猩猩的共同祖先可以追溯到约600万年前，从那时起，人类的祖先很可能进行过与今天黑猩猩同样的杀戮。当然，还有另外一种可能性。人类和黑猩猩的共同祖先还给世界留下了第三个物种——倭黑猩猩（又名矮黑猩猩或侏儒黑猩猩），它们在200万年前与表兄弟分手，演化为独立的物种。人类与倭黑猩猩和黑猩猩同属近亲，而倭黑猩猩从来不进行致命性攻击。倭黑猩猩和黑猩猩之间的这一差异确实是灵长类动物学中最为人津津乐道的现象之一。倭黑猩猩以温顺、母权制、充满情欲和食草的“嬉皮猩猩”而闻名。它们成为纽约素菜馆的店名，给性学家苏西（Suzy）博士以哲学灵感——“倭黑猩猩之路：通过快乐获得和平”。而《纽约时报》专栏作家莫琳·多德（Maureen Dowd）干脆表示，它们是当今男人的楷模。[16]

    灵长类动物学家弗朗斯·德瓦尔（Frans de Waal）表示，在理论上，人类、黑猩猩和倭黑猩猩的共同祖先很可能更接近倭黑猩猩，而不是黑猩猩。[17]据此，男性群体间的暴力在人类演化史上并非根深蒂固。黑猩猩和人类各自发展出致命的攻击行为，而人类的攻击性很可能是特定文化的历史产物，而不是物种演化的结果。那么，如果人类不是天性倾向群体暴力，也就不需要一个利维坦，或者任何其他组织机构来控制人类的暴力。

    这种认为人类是从爱好和平的、倭黑猩猩式的始祖演化而来的观点有两个问题。第一个问题是，人们很容易被“嬉皮猩猩”的故事冲昏头脑。倭黑猩猩是濒临灭绝的稀有物种，数量极少，而且生活在刚果危机四伏、孤立隔绝的原始森林中。我们对倭黑猩猩的大部分知识，都来自对一小群圈养的、食物充足的幼年或青年倭黑猩猩的观察。许多科学家怀疑，如果能够对更年长的、饥肠辘辘的、数量更多也更密集的、活动更自由的倭黑猩猩进行系统的研究，勾勒出的画面也许会相当阴暗。[18]事实证明，在野外的倭黑猩猩从事狩猎活动，彼此交战，甚至互相伤害，有时也可以是致命的。所以，尽管倭黑猩猩的攻击性不如黑猩猩——它们从不互相袭击，社群之间可以和平相处，但它们也不是绝对和平的。

    第二个，也是更重要的问题是，两种猩猩和人类的共同祖先事实上更接近黑猩猩，而不是倭黑猩猩。[19]倭黑猩猩是一种非常古怪的灵长类动物，它们不仅行为古怪，其解剖学特征也非常奇特。它们有小巧的、孩子般的头颅，体型轻巧，性别差异较小，这些都是幼态化特性。这让它们与黑猩猩和其他类人猿（大猩猩和猩猩），以及人类的始祖南方古猿的化石都非常不同。倭黑猩猩这种与众不同的解剖学特征，说明它们出现幼态持续，即动物调整其成长过程，将幼态保留在成熟体中（比如倭黑猩猩的头颅和大脑）。因此在类人猿家族的族谱上，倭黑猩猩越来越偏离猿猴的属性。幼态持续一般发生在被驯化的物种身上，比如狗是从狼分离而来的，它的筛选过程就是减少动物的攻击性。兰厄姆认为，倭黑猩猩的进化筛选降低了雄性的攻击性，这也许是因为倭黑猩猩成群觅食，不存在易受攻击的独行者，所以群体暴力没有获益的机会。也就是说，倭黑猩猩是猿猴家族的异类，而我们人类则是更接近黑猩猩的动物。

    即使黑猩猩和人类各自独立地发展出群体暴力习性，这种巧合本身也含有丰富的信息。这也许说明，致命攻击对智能物种而言是一种进化上的优势，这一物种会分裂成不同大小的群体，有亲缘关系的雄性会结成联盟，而且能够判断彼此的相对实力。本书后面的章节会谈及人类的暴力行为，我们会看到人类和黑猩猩这两条平行线，有时实在是过于接近。

    当然，我们希望能够发现化石，以填补共同祖先和现代人类之间的空白。但是，黑猩猩的祖先没有留下任何化石，原始人类的化石和手工艺品也十分罕见，不足以提供任何攻击性行为的直接证据，比如保留完好的武器或创伤。因为在侵犯性的物种身上发现了剑状的犬齿，一些古人类学家通过测量雄性化石的犬齿，以及雄性犬齿与雌性犬齿之间的差异（因为在实行一夫多妻制的物种中，雄性体型较大，与其他雄性的冲突也更频繁），以寻找其暴力倾向的迹象。[20]很不幸，与其他灵长类动物的口鼻不同，不论古人类是爱好和平还是富于侵犯性，他们的口腔太小，张合度不够，不允许大型犬齿发挥作用。除非一个物种留下大量完整的骸骨，否则很难可靠地确定它们的性别，也就无法比较雄性和雌性的体型。（出于这些原因，对于认为新近发现的拉密达猿人，这个440万年前的古老物种有可能是人类的始祖，许多人类学家是心存疑问的。拉密达猿人雌雄同体，而且是小犬齿，因此是一夫一妻制，且性情温和。）[21]最新发现的更丰富的人属（Homo）化石显示，至少从200万年前开始，雄性人属的体型就大于雌性，它们的性别差异程度至少和现代人是一样的。这印证了我们的猜测，即男子之间的暴力竞争在进化谱系上有着漫长的历史。[22]

    人类社会的种类

    我们所属的物种——晚期智人或“解剖学意义上的现代人”，据说已经有20万年的历史。但是，拥有艺术、仪式、服装和复杂的工具，并有能力在不同的自然生态环境中生活的“行为意义上的现代”人类，大约是7.5万年前在非洲开始出现，随后散布到世界其他地方。当这一物种出现的时候，他们是内部平等的小规模血缘群体，以游牧为生，辅以狩猎和采集，没有书写文字，也没有政府。今天绝大部分的人类生活在阶层化的、人口规模以百万计的社会中，食物来自耕作农业，并在国家统治之下。这一变迁大约开始于1万年前，我们有时称其为“新石器时代革命”。当时在新月沃地（即幼发拉底河流域）、中国、印度、西非、美索不达米亚和安第斯山脉开始出现农耕。[23]

    我确实想过，以1万年为界，将人类的生存史划分为两个阶段：一个是“狩猎-采集时代”；在这个时代，我们完成了人类主要的生物演化。在现存的狩猎-采集群体中，我们仍然能找到这一进化的蛛丝马迹。另一个是后来的“文明时代”。这一分界线符合生态区位论，人类具有生物适应性，进化心理学家称之为“进化适应的环境”。但是，它和利维坦假说却不相吻合。

    首先，1万年的界限仅仅适用于第一个农耕社会。在世界其他地方，农业是从那些摇篮地区逐渐传播出来的。比如，近东的农耕浪潮一直到6000年前才波及爱尔兰。[24]直到几百年前，美洲、大洋洲、亚洲和非洲的许多地区还是狩猎-采集者的家园，当然，有少数地方至今仍然如此。

    而且，狩猎-采集群体和农业文明是两种格格不入的社会形态。[25]我们最熟知的非国家形态的狩猎-采集群体是喀拉哈里沙漠里的布须曼人（!Kung San），也称昆申人或桑人，以及北极圈内的因纽特人。但是，他们之所以能够以狩猎-采集的方式生存，完全是因为他们居住在没有其他人愿意涉足的地球极地地区。所以，他们不能代表我们的无政府主义的祖先。我们的先人很可能享受着更丰饶的环境。直到不久之前，还有一些觅食者徜徉在山谷中、河流畔，那里丰富的鱼类和禽兽，让他们能够维持富足和复杂的定居生活方式。西北太平洋沿岸的美洲印第安人就是一个常见的例子，他们的图腾柱和冬季赠礼节都非常出名。此外，还有一些人生活在亚马孙和新几内亚这些国家鞭长莫及的地带。他们是猎人兼栽种者，在狩猎和采集之外，他们刀耕火种，在森林中的小片空地上开辟菜园，种植香蕉或红薯。他们的生活虽然不像单纯的狩猎-采集者那样严峻艰苦，但也远远没有完全定居的农民那样舒适。

    农民一旦开始固定居所，种植谷物和豆类，饲养家畜，他们的数量就开始暴增。接着是开始分工，一部分人完全依靠其他人提供的食物为生。人们最初形成的不是国家和政府，而是靠亲缘和文化凝聚的部落，一些部落又联合为酋邦。酋长是大权在握的领袖，有固定的扈从。此外还有一些游牧部落，他们带着自己的牲畜四处游荡，向定居的农民出售畜禽产品。希伯来《圣经》中的以色列人，开始是游牧部落，在《圣经》中提到的士师时代，发展为酋邦。

    在农耕文明历时约5000年之后，才出现了第一个真正意义上的国家。[26]开始是实力比较雄厚的酋长率领武装扈从，征服了其他酋邦和部落，进一步集中权力，并开始供养专业化的艺术家和士兵集团。新兴的国家开始修建堡垒、城市和其他防御设施。他们也开始发明书写文字，记录并明确规定属民上缴的税收和贡品，并编纂法典约束人民。有些国家垂涎邻邦的产业，被觊觎的国家不得不奋起自卫，结局往往是大国吞并小国。

    人类学家认为，这一时期的社会有许多亚态和过渡形态。他们还认为，不存在任何文化滚梯，能够保证社会由简单形态一直向上运行，发展成为复杂形态。部落和酋邦可以无限期地保留自己的制度，比如欧洲的门的内哥罗部落，它一直延续到20世纪。而当一个国家陷落时，接手占领它的也可以是部落。《荷马史诗》中的迈锡尼文明覆灭后，开始的是希腊黑暗时代，而随古罗马帝国衰亡而来的则是欧洲黑暗时代。即使到了今天，在许多国家，比如索马里、苏丹、阿富汗和刚果民主共和国，本质上仍然是酋长制。他们的酋长，就是我们所说的军阀。[27]

    我们可以在日历上绘制一条死亡数量时间线，但对于检测暴力的历史演变，这条线毫无意义。如果我们发现某个人群中的暴力开始减少，那是因为他们的社会组织形态发生了变化，而不是历史时钟的指针走到了某个钟点。如果这个变化要发生，它可能发生在不同的时间。我们也不应该期待暴力是沿着从简单的狩猎-采集游牧社会，到复杂的狩猎-采集定居社会，到农耕部落和酋长制，到小国家，再到大国家这样一条直线平稳地减少的。我们可以期待的主要变迁，是第一个带来内部暴力减少的社会组织形式的出现，即中央集权的国家——利维坦。

    早期的国家并不都是（比如霍布斯理论总结的）公民的共同体，其所拥有的权力来自公民协议产生的社会契约。早期的国家更像是勒索保护费的黑帮组织，蛮横的头领从本地人手里收取钱物，然后保护他们免受外人的欺侮，同时防止他们彼此之间争斗。[28]首领和受他保护的人一样，受益于暴力的减少。就像一个农民要防止他饲养的动物彼此伤害一样，一个统治者也会尽力阻止他的属民卷入无休止的掠夺和对抗。对百姓来说，这些冲突不过是欠债还钱、报仇雪恨，但是对统治者而言，这是纯粹的净亏损。

    * * *

    关于非国家形态社会的暴力，这是一个早已高度政治化的话题。几百年间，人们普遍认为原住民是凶猛的野蛮人。比如，《独立宣言》控诉说，英王“竭力挑唆残酷无情的印第安蛮族来对付我们边疆的居民，而众所周知，印第安人作战的准则是不分男女老幼、是非曲直，格杀勿论”。

    在今天来看，这段话的措辞太落后，也太冒犯了。字典已经开始警告说，不应使用“蛮族”（savage，源于sylvan，意思是“森林中的”）来指代原住民。我们已经认识到欧洲殖民者对美洲原住民施行的种族灭绝，因此，《独立宣言》的签署者看起来就像一口黑锅，自己满身污渍，却偏偏要跳起来数落别人不干净。尊重他人的尊严和权利这种现代观念，让我们无法对史前人类的暴力程度进行坦率的讨论，此外，“和平派人类学家”还要为古人涂抹上一层卢梭主义彩妆。比如，玛格丽特·米德（Margaret Mead）将新几内亚的坎布里人（Chambri of New Guinea）描绘成为一种逆性别文化，她只看到那里的男性涂脂抹粉，弄卷毛发，而完全无视这些男子是在杀死敌对部落的成员之后，才有资格给自己装扮上这些我们认为女性化的装饰。[29]那些不愿随波逐流的人类学家发现自己被同行排挤，被专业团体的宣言谴责，被以诽谤罪起诉，甚至被指控犯有种族灭绝罪。[30]

    确实，与现代战争相比，人们很容易产生部落战斗杀伤力有限的印象。一伙对邻村怀有怨愤的家伙，只能在遭遇仇家的那个特定时间和特定地点动手。而双方隔空叫阵，距离之远，使他们的“导弹”一般很难落到对方的阵地。双方恶语相向，诅咒，叫骂，侮辱，吹牛皮，外加张弓搭箭，或者投出几只梭镖，同时自己也不会忘记避闪对方发射过来的利器。每当有一两个武士负伤或是阵亡，就到了他们叫停的时候了。这种喧闹的场面，让观察者认为原始人的战争是一种仪式和象征，同后来场面宏大的战争屠杀完全不同。[31]历史学家威廉·埃克哈特（William Eckhardt）写过：“狩猎-采集群体通常25人到50人一伙，很难发动像样的战争。他们既缺乏战斗人员和像样的武器，也没有多少理由开战，更没有多余的钱支付战斗费用。”[32]他认为暴力在历史的进程中大大增加的观点，经常被人引用。

    仅在过去的15年，那些没有预设政治立场的学者，比如劳伦斯·基利（Lawrence Keeley）、史蒂文·勒布朗（Steven LeBlanc）、阿扎尔·加特（Azar Gat）和约翰·范·德尔·登嫩开始系统地整理有关非国家形态社会中大规模战斗的频率和规模的资料。[33]原始社会战争的实际死亡数字显示，那种看上去无害的某一场战斗是欺骗性的。首先，小冲突可能升级为尸横遍野的恶战。其次，几十人规模的帮伙之间经常发生摩擦，即使每一次只有一两个人丧命，日积月累的死亡率也会非常高。

    最主要的扭曲还是在于没有区别两种不同的暴力：战斗和偷袭。对黑猩猩的研究说明，这种区分是十分重要的。偷偷摸摸的袭击所造成的伤亡数量远远大于喧嚣的战斗。[34]一群人在凌晨潜入敌人的村庄，射杀第一个从茅屋中出来解手的男人，接着向冲出茅屋的其他村民放箭。他们可以用梭镖刺穿茅屋的草墙，也可以从门口或烟囱口向屋内放箭，并放火烧屋。在村民能够组织自卫之前，很多睡眼惺忪的人已经被撂倒，而偷袭者迅即溜回森林。

    某些时候，进犯者有足够的实力屠杀全村，或者杀死所有的男人，劫走妇女。另外一种卑鄙但有效的灭敌方式是伏击：袭击者可以预先埋伏在森林中的狩猎路线上，在敌人经过时发动突袭。还有一个战术是“背信弃义”：一方佯装要和敌人和解，请对方参加宴会，然后举暗号刺杀毫无防备的宾客。而发现任何一个孤身误入他们的领地的男子，人类的政策和黑猩猩毫无两样，那就是格杀勿论。

    在非国家形态社会中，男人（而且差不多总是男人）对于战争是非常非常严肃认真的，这不仅反映在他们的战术上，也反映在他们的装备上，包括化学武器、生物武器和其他杀伤性武器。[35]箭头上可能涂有从有毒动物身上提取的毒素，或者沾上腐烂物，以便造成伤口溃烂。箭头的设计可能是为了易于与箭杆脱离，因此让伤者很难拔出箭头。武士最喜欢的奖品是人头、整张的头皮和男性生殖器官。他们基本上不留战俘，只是偶尔带回几个活口，以便回村后施以酷刑虐杀。“五月花号”上的清教徒威廉·布莱福特对马萨诸塞州原住民的观察是：“他们并不满足于杀人取命，而是乐于用最血腥的方式折磨人。他们用贝壳剥活人的皮，切下四肢和关节，在炭火上烧煮，在活人眼前吞食从他们身上割下的肉片。”[36]

    虽然当我们读到欧洲殖民者称原住民为野蛮人时会感到如芒在背，深感这些殖民者的虚伪和种族主义，但我们也知道他们并没有编造原住民的暴行。许多目击者都讲述过部落战争的残忍。20世纪30年代，海伦娜·瓦莱罗（Helena Valero）在委内瑞拉热带雨林被雅诺马马人绑架。她讲述了他们的一次突袭行动：

    带着儿童的妇女从四面八方不断涌入，他们都是被喀拉维塔里人（Karawetari）抓来的……接着，男人开始屠杀孩子，小孩子或大孩子，他们杀死了很多。孩子想逃跑，但他们抓住孩子，摔在地上，用手里的弓扎穿孩子的身体，将他们钉在地上。他们提着幼儿的脚，将他们甩向树干和岩石……所有妇女都在哭泣。[37]

    19世纪初，一个名叫威廉·巴克利（Willian Buckley）的罪犯为了逃脱澳大利亚殖民当局的处罚，与瓦扫让（Wathaurung）原住民一起快活地生活了30年。他拥有第一手的资料，告诉了我们原住民的生活方式，包括战争的方式。

    为了进攻敌人的据点，他们先是埋伏在附近，等到周围一切悄无声息，大部分敌人进入熟睡，成群地躺在一起时，我方开始扑向敌人，当场杀死三人，打伤数人。敌人匆忙逃离，丢下的武器成为进攻者的战利品，丢下的伤员被用飞旋镖打死。最后胜利者长吼三声，结束战斗。他们以极其残忍的方式，用燧石、贝壳和战斧割下死者的四肢。

    妇女看见返回的男人时，开始高声号叫，并狂野地跳起舞蹈。他们用棍子抽打着扔在地上的死尸和肢体。看上去，所有人都兴奋得完全疯狂了。[38]

    不只是见过原住民的欧洲人描述过这样的场景，原住民自己也有记录。因纽特人罗伯特·纳斯卢克·克利夫兰（Robert Nasruk Cleveland）在1965年回忆道：

    第二天早上，入侵者攻进了营地，杀死了留在那里的所有妇女和儿童……他们向被杀死的妇女的阴道里塞上白鲑鱼，然后诺阿塔克人（Noatakers）就带着克提提伽娃和她的婴儿离开营地，撤回诺阿塔克河的上游……最后，在快要到家时，这些诺阿塔克人轮奸了克提提伽娃，留下她和她的婴儿，任凭他们在荒野等死。

    几个星期之后，返回家园的科伯克（Kobuk）猎鹿人见到的是他们的妻子和儿女腐烂的尸身。他们发誓复仇。一两年之后的一天，他们北上诺阿塔克河上游，很快发现了大队的努阿塔格米特人，于是悄悄地跟踪他们。一天早上，努阿塔格米特人发现了大群的驯鹿，营地里的男人出外追猎。男人一离开，科伯克人就进入营地杀死了所有的妇女。他们割下妇女的阴户，用绳子穿成一串，随即迅速撤回家乡。[39]

    人们一直认为吃人是原始野人习俗的精髓，但许多人类学家对有关人类相食的报道嗤之以鼻，认为那是部落间的血腥诽谤。但最新的法医考古发现显示，食人在史前人类中广泛存在。这些证据包括有人类牙印的人骨，还有像其他动物骨头一样被敲碎、烹煮后丢弃在厨房垃圾桶的人骨。[40]有些带有屠宰痕迹的骨骼可以追溯到80万年前，那时海德堡人——现代人和尼安德特人的共同祖先刚刚在进化舞台上现身。在烹调的器皿上和人的粪便里也发现了人血蛋白的痕迹。食人在史前也许是一个常态，因此它已经对人类的进化产生了影响：我们的染色体组中包含了某些抗朊病毒疾病的基因，而这些疾病恰恰是通过同类相食传播的。[41]这些发现与目击者的描述相符，比如，在一位传教士的手稿中，这样描述毛利武士对一具经防腐处理的敌方酋长首级的嘲弄：

    想逃跑，是不是？但是逃不出我的大棒。你被煮熟了，成了我口中的食。你的父亲呢？他也被烧熟了。你的兄弟呢？他被吃掉了。你的老婆？她就坐在这儿呢，她是我的老婆啦。你的孩子们呢？他们在那儿，扛粮食包呢，都成了我的奴隶啦。[42]

    许多学者都倾向于认为觅食族群没有侵犯性，因为他们无法想象什么样的手段和动机能够驱使原始人发动战争。比如，埃克哈特就曾断言狩猎-采集群体“没有多少理由开战”。但是，生物进化的自然选择决定它总是要去争夺点儿什么（当然，这并不是说，他们会一直处于争夺状态）。霍布斯注意到，人类的冲突有三个特别的理由：利益、安全和可靠的威慑。在非国家形态社会中的人，也一样为这三个理由彼此开战。[43]

    觅食的原始人可以通过入侵争夺地盘，比如狩猎场、水源、河口的两岸，以及珍贵的矿石资源，比如燧石、黑曜石、盐和赭石。他们也可能劫掠别人饲养的牲畜或储存的食物。而且，妇女经常是争夺的目标。男人袭击邻近的村庄，可以毫不掩饰自己劫持妇女的目的，他们先是轮奸，然后将其分配为妻。他们也有为其他目的洗劫邻村的时候，那么，妇女就是额外的奖赏。有时候，他们会说，某个女子已经许婚，但到了成亲的日子却没有被送过来，这也是劫掠的理由。青年男子会为了奖品、成绩和其他炫耀力量的彩头而争斗。在有些社会，这样的行动是成年的标志。

    非国家形态社会中的人也以安全为由进行侵略。他们的脑子中只有“安全悖论”或霍布斯陷阱。如果他们担心自己太弱小，就会和近邻联手，或者在敌人变得更强大之前抢先下手。一个亚马孙的雅诺马马人告诉人类学家：“我们对战争已经厌倦了，不想再杀人了，但是有些人实在太奸诈，不可信。”[44]

    在大部分调查中，最经常提到的战争动机是复仇，其本质是要增加敌人对进犯的预期成本，向潜在的对手显示凶狠的威慑力。在《伊利亚特》中，阿喀琉斯对人类这一心理特性进行了描述。世界上没有一种文化会对他的话感到陌生，他说，复仇“远比流淌的蜂蜜还要甜美，从男子的胸中奔涌而出”。觅食族群和部落民对盗窃、通奸、破坏、偷猎、抢劫妇女、背信弃义、疑似巫术以及以往的暴行等进行报复。一项跨文化的研究发现，95%的人类社会都接受一命偿一命的观念。[45]部落民不仅感到复仇在自己的胸中奔涌，而且知道复仇也奔涌在敌人的心中。这也就是为什么他们要一个不留地杀光所有的敌人，因为幸存者一定会为被杀的族人复仇。

    国家形态社会和非国家形态社会的暴力水平

    对非国家形态社会中暴力的描述，固然消除了认为觅食族群的人天生和平这样的成见，但我们仍不知道，与所谓的文明社会相比，他们的暴力水平是更高一些，还是更低一些。现代国家的史册上写满了血腥的屠杀和战争暴行，除了在各个大陆都有针对原住民的暴力，他们自己之间的战争死亡人数也已经以千万计。只有通过数字，我们才能了解文明是增加了暴力还是减少了暴力。

    当然，从绝对数上看，文明社会所造成的破坏力是无与伦比的。但我们是应该看绝对数还是看占人口比重的相对数呢？这个选择把我们带进了一个道德不可计量的困境，杀死100个人的50%和杀死10亿人的1%，到底哪个更糟糕。一种观点认为，一个被酷刑折磨或被杀死的人所承受的苦难程度，与有多少其他人遭受同样的命运无关，所以我们的同情和分析的重点应该放在这些苦难的总量上。但另一种观点认为，因为活着就意味着有夭折或惨死的可能性，可能死于暴力、意外或者疾病，所以，在给定的时间和地点，享有完整生命的人数，可以作为道德良好的量度；相反，暴力死亡的人数可以衡量道德如何败坏。这一观点也可以用一个问句来表述：“如果我是生活在某个特定时代的人，我成为暴力受害者的可能性有多大？”根据这种观点推论，无论是用暴力死亡在人口中所占的比重，还是计算个人的风险，结论都是，要比较横贯各个社会的暴力危害，应该关注暴力行为的发生率，而不是数量。

    那么，如果将国家的出现作为分界线，将狩猎-采集、狩猎-栽种以及其他部落民（不分时代）放在分界线的一边，国家形态社会中的定居民（同样不分年代）放在分界线的另一边，我们会看到什么？最近有几位学者从人类学和历史学文献中搜罗了他们能找到的每一份来自非国家形态社会的尸体统计资料，结果估摸出两个数字。一个数字得自对特定人群进行长期研究的民族志学者的人口统计数据，包括死亡统计。[46]另一个数字来自法医考古学家，他们用挖掘罪证的眼光对墓地和博物馆的藏品进行了检查。[47]

    我们有可能确定一个在几百年前甚至几千年前丧命的受害者的死亡原因吗？一些史前人类的遗骨上带着暴力伤害的铁证——骨头上嵌着石器时代的镖头或箭头，比如前面提到过的肯纳威克人和冰人奥茨。其他间接的证据也是确凿无疑的。今天的考古学家可以通过检查史前人类的骨骸，以确定他们曾经受到来自他人的武力损伤。伤痕可以包括受击破裂的头盖骨、石器在头骨和肢体骨骼上留下的切口，以及尺骨的招架骨折（当一个人面对攻击抬起手臂防卫时会遭受的骨折）。有几种方式可以从骨伤痕上鉴定是受害者活着的时候遭受的创伤，还是受害者遗骨暴露后所受的损伤。活人的骨骼受创破碎时像玻璃破碎，断茬锋利，而死人的骨头破碎时像粉笔，边缘呈平滑的直角。如果在一根骨头上，破碎面的风化模式与完好面不同，那就说明它可能是在周围的皮肉烂掉之后才破碎的。周围遗留物也可作为鉴定犯罪的证据，包括战壕、盾牌、攻击性武器（比如在捕猎中毫无用途的战斧），还有洞穴墙壁上描绘的人类战争的场景（有些洞穴画有超过6000年前的古老历史）。即使汇总所有这些证据，考古学的死亡统计仍然是低估数，因为有些死亡原因，比如毒箭、伤口腐烂、内脏和动脉破裂，在受害者的遗骨上不会留下任何痕迹。

    研究人员将暴力死亡的原始数据汇总之后，可以用两种方式计算死亡率。第一，计算所有暴力死亡的百分比。这一比率可以回答的问题是：“与寿终正寝相比，一个人有多大的机会死于另一个人之手？”图2-2中有三个非国家形态社会的统计数据，即来自史前考古遗址、狩猎-采集群体、狩猎-栽种和其他部落的遗骸，还有就是国家形态社会的统计数据。让我们看看这些数据。

    最上面的一组数字是在史前考古遗址内挖掘出的人类遗骸所显示的暴力死亡。[48]这些遗骸来自亚洲、非洲、欧洲和美洲的狩猎-采集和狩猎-栽种部落，年代从公元前14000年到公元1770年。这些个案或者发生在国家出现之前，或者发生在那些未与任何国家有过持续接触的非国家形态社会。这些遗址发现的暴力死亡率的范围是0~60%，平均暴力死亡率是15%。

    接下来的一组数据是8个当代或近代以原始方式生活的狩猎-采集群体的暴力死亡。[49]这些数据来自美洲、菲律宾和澳大利亚。这一样本组的平均战争死亡率与上面的样本组相差无几：14%，区间是4%~30%。

    图2-2 非国家形态社会和国家形态社会中战争死亡的百分比

    资料来源：史前考古遗址：鲍尔斯（Bowles）, 2009年；基利，1996年。狩猎-采集群体：鲍尔斯，2009年。狩猎-栽种和其他部落：加特，2006年；基利，1996年。古代墨西哥：基利，1996年。全世界20世纪的战争和大屠杀（包括人为因素导致的大饥荒）：怀特，2011年。欧洲1900—1960年：基利，1996年，来自怀特，1942年，1942/1964年，1942/1965年；见注释52。17世纪的欧洲：基利，1996年。20世纪的欧洲和美国：基利，1996年，以及哈里斯（Harris）, 1975年。20世纪全世界战争死亡：拉齐纳和格莱迪奇（Lacina & Gleditsch）, 2005年；萨基斯（Sarkees）, 2000年；见注释54。美国2005年战争死亡：见正文和注释57。全世界2005年战争死亡：见正文和注释58。

    在第三组数据中，我将前国家形态社会中的狩猎、采集和栽种的混合状态归总。这些数据主要来自新几内亚或者亚马孙热带雨林，平均暴力死亡率为24.5%，其中还有欧洲最后的一个部落民社会门的内哥罗人，它的暴力死亡率正好接近这一组的平均数。[50]

    最后一组是国家形态社会的暴力死亡数据。[51]最早的数据是哥伦布发现美洲前的墨西哥帝国和城市的暴力死亡率，5%的人被其他人杀死。那里无疑充满危险，但其暴力死亡也只是前国家形态社会的1/3至1/5。当进入现代国家形态社会，我们面对的是成百上千的政治单元、几千年的历史和许多亚种的暴力形式——战争、凶杀、屠杀等等，所以很难给出单一的“准确估算”。为了尽量公允地进行比较，我们可以选择那些最暴戾的国家和时代的数据，再加上对当今世界暴力情况的估算。我们在第5章中会看到，在过去500年欧洲史中，最暴力的时期莫过于17世纪，即血腥的“宗教战争”时期，以及进行了两次世界大战的20世纪。历史学家昆西·赖特（Quincy Wright）估计17世纪的战争死亡率是2%, 20世纪前50年的战争死亡率是3%。[52]如果将20世纪最后40年也计算在内，战争死亡率将会更低。有人估算，包括美国（其他）战争的死亡，整个20世纪的战争死亡率低于1%。[53]

    最近，通过发布两个定量数据集，战争研究变得更加精确，我将在第5章对此进行解释。这些研究有保留地给出了20世纪的战争死亡人数——约4000万。[54]如果考虑到20世纪有60亿的死亡总数，忽略某些人口统计上的细节，我们可以估算20世纪的战争死亡率约为世界总人口的0.7%。[55]即使我们将战争的间接死亡，比如战争导致的饥荒和疾病的死亡估算为直接死亡的3至4倍，也无法弥合国家形态社会和非国家形态社会在暴力死亡率上的差距。如果再加上种族灭绝、政治清洗和其他人为的灾难，结果会如何呢？我们在第1章中提到的暴力学家马修·怀特估计，所有可归咎于这些人为因素的死亡总数是1.8亿人左右，但这也仅仅将20世纪的暴力死亡提升了3%。[56]

    现在，让我们回到当今世界。根据最新的《美国统计摘要》（Statistical Abstract of the United States）, 2005年美国人口死亡数为2 448 017。2005年也是美国卷入伊拉克和阿富汗两场武装冲突后最糟心的一年，阵亡人数创下近10年新高。两场战争共造成945名美国人死亡，占当年美国总死亡人数的0.04%（万分之四）。[57]即使我们算上18 124个国内凶杀死亡，暴力死亡率也只有0.8%，也就是8‰。其他西方国家的暴力死亡率比美国更低。至于全世界的暴力死亡率，《人类安全报告》（Human Security Report Project）计算的数字是政治动荡（战争、恐怖袭击、种族灭绝，以及军阀和地方武装制造的杀戮）直接导致的暴力死亡为17 400例，死亡率为0.03%（万分之三）。[58]这是一个非常保守的估计，仅仅计算了那些有直接证据的战争死亡，但如果我们从宽计算没有文献记录的战争死亡和饥荒疾病导致的间接死亡，将其按照有记录的战争死亡的20倍来计算，暴力死亡率还是低于1%。

    图2-2上最大的断裂，是无政府群体和部落与有政府的国家之间的差别。不过，我们比较的根据都是来自考古挖掘、民族志内的数字和当代的估算，有一些甚至就是废纸便笺上潦草的记录。是否有一种方法能够对狩猎-采集群体和定居文明社会的两组数据集进行并列比较，人民、年代和方法都更有可比性？经济学家理查德·斯特克尔（Richard Steckel）和约翰·瓦利斯（John Wallis）对900具美洲原住民遗骸的数据进行了研究，这些遗骸的来源地覆盖了从加拿大南方直到南美洲的广袤地区，死亡日期均在哥伦布抵达美洲大陆之前。[59]他们将遗骸按照狩猎-采集群体和城市居民两类分组，后者属于安第斯文明和中美洲文明，比如印加人、阿兹特克人和玛雅人。在狩猎-采集群体的遗骸中，带有暴力伤害印记的占13.4%，这个数字接近图2-2中的狩猎-采集群体。城市居民的遗骸上有同样印记的只有2.7%，这个数字接近图2-2中20世纪之前的国家形态社会。所以，假定其他因素不变，我们发现，生活在文明社会的人成为暴力受害者的可能性会下降至原来的1/5。

    现在再看看对暴力进行量化的第二种方式。在这种方式中，谋杀率是用活人的比例来计算，而不是用死人的比例来计算的。这一统计方式对于以坟场荒冢为依据的数据比较困难，但对于大部分其他数据来源却比较容易，因为它只需要知道死亡人数和人口规模，而不需要其他来源的死亡累计。每年每10万人中的凶杀数是一个衡量谋杀率的标准，本书将一直使用这一尺度来衡量暴力。要了解这些数字的意义，我们以人类历史上最安全的地方——刚刚进入21世纪的西欧为例。在那里，居民区每年的凶杀率是10万分之1。[60]即使在最温文尔雅的社会，偶尔也会有年轻人在酒吧斗殴中失去控制，也会有老太太在亲夫的茶水里搅上些砒霜，所以这个暴力死亡数字可以说是低得不能再低了。在现代西方社会，美国属于最危险的国家。在情况最糟糕的20世纪70年代和80年代，美国的凶杀率是10万分之10。在暴力严重的城市，比如底特律，凶杀率高达10万分之45。[61]当一个社会的凶杀率高到这个水平时，人们在日常生活中就会感觉到危险的存在，而当凶杀率达到10万分之100，个人生活都会受到这一危险环境的影响：假定你有100个亲戚、朋友和熟人，那么在10年的时间内，其中会有一人遇害。如果凶杀率飙升至10万分之1000，即1%，那么每年你都会失去一个认识的人，而你自己也随时有可能被谋杀。

    图2-3是27个非国家形态社会（包括狩猎-采集和狩猎-栽种）和9个国家形态社会的战争死亡率。非国家形态社会年均战争死亡率是10万分之524，大约0.5%。在国家形态社会中，墨西哥中部的阿兹特克帝国经常处于战争状态，战争死亡率大约是0.25%。[62]在阿兹特克帝国之下，是在不同世纪经历过严酷战争的国家。19世纪的法国经历了大革命、拿破仑战争和普法战争，平均每年的人员损失是10万分之70。20世纪的两场世界大战让无数生灵涂炭，德国、日本、俄国/苏联的军队遭到重创，此外还有各种内战和其他军事冲突。德国、日本、俄国/苏联的年均战争死亡率分别是10万分之144、10万分之27和10万分之135。[63]20世纪，美国成了臭名昭著的战争贩子，参加了两场世界大战，还有菲律宾战争、朝鲜战争、越南战争和伊拉克战争。但美国每年为此丧失的生命甚至比20世纪的其他军事大国还要少，仅为约10万分之3.7。[64]即使我们算上20世纪世界其他各地所有的组织型暴力——战争、种族灭绝、大清洗和人为的饥荒，年均死亡率也只有10万分之60。[65]2005年，图表上代表美国和全世界的暴力死亡率的横线极短，短到完全看不见了。[66]

    图2-3 非国家形态社会和国家形态社会年均战争死亡率

    资料来源：非国家形态社会：新几内亚的黑瓦人和伊拉拉人，来自加特，2006年；其他来自基利，1996年。墨西哥中部、德国、俄国/苏联、法国和日本的数据来自基利，1996年；见注释62和注释63。20世纪的美国：利兰和奥博罗恰努（Leland & Oboroceanu），2010年；见注释64。20世纪的世界：《 2008年人类安全报告》（Human Security Report Project，2008）；见注释57和58。

    所以，根据这一计算方式，国家形态社会的暴力程度比传统的群体和部落形态的社会要低得多。即使在战祸最深重的年代，现代西方国家的死亡率也不到非国家形态社会平均死亡率的约1/4，而与最暴戾的非国家形态社会相比，不足其1/10。

    * * *

    虽然觅食族群之间常有战争，但这并不普遍。我们不能认为，如果人性中的暴戾倾向发生弱化，是对外部条件的战略性反应，而不是对人内在诉求的释放性反应。据两项民族志学的调查，65%~70%的狩猎-采集群体至少每两年会经历一场战争，一代人中至少经历过一次战争的达90%，而所有人都有对过去战争的文化记忆。[67]这说明，狩猎-采集群体经常发生冲突，但却能够长期避免战争。图2-3展示的两个部落——安达曼人和舍迈人均有很低的战争死亡率，但是这两个部落都有着饶有意味的故事。

    印度洋上的安达曼人年均暴力死亡率的记录是10万分之20，大大低于非国家形态社会的平均水平（10万分之500），但他们是世界上现存的最勇猛的狩猎-采集群体。2004年，印度洋发生大地震和海啸，人道救援团体的直升机飞过他们的岛屿时，遭遇雨点般的箭与镖的攻击。救援人员当即松了一口气，他们知道，这说明安达曼人没有被灭绝。两年后，两个印度渔民醉入酣梦，他们的渔船漂流到安达曼人的一个小岛岸边。两人当即被杀，直升机被派去打捞尸体，也遭遇了一阵箭雨。[68]

    当然，在狩猎-采集和狩猎-栽种群体中，也有像舍迈人那样从来没有卷入任何旷日持久的、集团性的、算得上战争的杀戮行为。“和平派人类学家”对他们进行了大量研究，认为他们可能是人类进化史上的常态，只有那些更晚近、更富有的栽种社会和游牧社会才会卷入有组织的暴力行动。这一假说与本章没有直接关系，本章的目的是要对那些生活在非国家形态社会的人民和生活在国家形态社会的人民进行比较，而不是对狩猎-采集者与其他人进行比较。但是，我还是有理由怀疑这种认为狩猎-采集群体纯洁无瑕的假设。图2-3显示，在这些社会中，战争死亡率虽然低于栽种社会和部落社会，但暴力水平基本上相差不大。如前所述，我们今天观察到的狩猎-采集群体，可能并没有历史代表性。我们能够看到的这些群体，都散落在荒漠或冰原这些不毛之地。他们之所以生活在那里，也许正是因为他们能够保持低调，并在面临冲突时情愿用脚投票。正如范·德尔·登嫩的评论所说，“当代 ‘和平的 ’觅食者……是这样彻底解决问题，过上和平生活的，他们或者与世隔绝，断绝了和其他人的联络，或者四处逃匿，或者受到暴虐不得不臣服，在惨败中不得不接受驯化，被武力威胁不得不成为顺民”。[69]比如，生活在卡拉哈里沙漠里的布须曼人，在20世纪60年代被誉为狩猎-采集和谐社会的典范，而事实上，他们在20世纪初与欧洲殖民者、他们的邻居班图人开战，自己内部也彼此开战，包括几次倾巢出动的大屠杀。[70]

    对这几个小社会的低战争死亡率，人们很可能会产生误解。虽然这些人能够避免战争，但是还会有谋杀，他们的凶杀率和现代国家形态社会是可以一比高低的。在图2-4中，我以比图2-3大15倍的比例进行了绘制。左侧是一组非国家形态社会的数据，让我们先看最靠右的灰柱。舍迈人是从事狩猎和栽种的部落，有一本书是《舍迈人：马来亚的非暴力人民》（The Semail: A Norvident People of Malaya），据说他们会尽一切可能避免使用暴力。不过，舍迈人的凶杀案不算多，但舍迈人的人口也不多。人类学家布鲁斯·瑙佛特（Bruce Knauft）做过计算，他发现舍迈人的凶杀率是每年10万分之30，这与美国最臭名昭著的犯罪城市的凶杀率接近，而且是美国全国凶杀率（取最糟糕的那10年的平均数字）的3倍。[71]同样的长除法也摧毁了所谓布须曼人爱好和平的声誉，有一本关于布须曼人的书是《毫无恶意的人民》（The Harmless People），而北极圈中部的因纽特人则是另一本书《从不发怒》（Never in Anger）的灵感之源。[72]不仅这些毫无恶意的、非暴力的、不会发怒的人民互相谋杀，谋杀率甚至远远高于美国和欧洲国家，而且，当布须曼人被博茨瓦纳政府接管之后，他们的谋杀率下降到原来的1/3，这正好应验了利维坦理论的预言。[73]

    图2-4 最少暴力的非国家形态社会与国家形态社会的凶杀率比较

    资料来源：布须曼人和中北极圈因纽特人：加特，2006年；李（Lee），1982年。舍迈人：瑙佛特，1987年。美国十大城市：兹姆林（Zimring），2007年，第140页。美国：《联邦调查局统一犯罪报告》（FBI Uniform Crime Reports）；见注释73。西欧（估算）：世界卫生组织；见注释66，第3章，第701页。

    政府管制下凶杀减少的事实过于明确无误，以至于人类学家对此所做的记录很少辅以数据。史书中记载了各式各样的“和平时代”——“古罗马治下的和平”，还有“伊斯兰治下的和平”“西班牙治下的和平”“奥斯曼治下的和平”“中国治下的和平”“不列颠治下的和平”，新几内亚的“澳大利亚治下的和平”，太平洋西北部的“加拿大治下的和平”和南非的“比勒脱尼亚治下的和平”。它们都是指在一个有效政府的管制下，疆域内的抢劫、武斗和战争出现减少。[74]虽然帝国统治本身可以是非常残酷的，但确实在所征服的地盘上控制住了地方性的暴力。“平靖进程”是一个如此普遍、无所不在的现象，人类学家通常对它视而不见，将其当作方法论上的一个干扰噪音。毫无疑问，那些原住民受到政府管辖后，相互之间的争斗减少了，因此被排除在暴力研究之外。原住民自己也感受到了平靖的效果。生活在新几内亚的一个奥亚那人这样解释“澳大利亚治下的和平”:“政府来了以后，生活好过多了，因为一个人可以安心踏实地吃饭了，无须时刻警惕别人的袭击，早上可以放心地出门撒尿了，不用担心中箭丧命。”[75]

    人类学家卡伦·埃里克森（Karen Ericksen）和希瑟·霍顿（Heather Horton）对政府出现后流血复仇减少的情况进行了定量研究。在一项对192个传统研究所做的调查中，他们发现，在殖民者或国家政府管治之前的觅食族群中，经常发生一对一的复仇，而在部落社会，家族对家族流血仇杀也是常事，在那些强调男人荣誉的文化中尤为严重。[76]相反，在中央政府管治的社会或者因有其他传统资源而对社会稳定要求较高的社会中，人们经常接受法庭和法院的裁决。

    当发展中国家摆脱了欧洲人的殖民统治之后，随之而来的通常是战乱。而现代武器、有组织的军事力量和反抗部落长老追求自由的年青一代，给战乱火上浇油。[77]这是20世纪下半叶最有讽刺意味的悲剧现象之一。我们在下一章中会看到，这一发展是历史性暴力减少的一股逆流，但它表明利维坦在推进暴力减少过程中所起的作用。

    文明及其缺陷

    那么，霍布斯是正确的了？至少他有一部分是正确的。我们发现人性中有三种导致暴力的主要因素：收益——掠夺性攻击，安全——先发制人的攻击，荣誉——报复性攻击。数字证明，相对而言，“在没有一个共同敬畏的权威的时代，人们所处的状态就叫作战争”。而在这种状态下，人们生活在“对暴力死亡的持续恐惧和危险之中”。

    但霍布斯坐在17世纪英国的扶手椅里，不可避免地犯下了许多错误。生活在非国家形态社会的人，在家族和盟友之间有着广泛的合作关系，他们的生活远远不是“孤独的”，他们中间的纠纷和残暴仅仅是间歇性的。尽管他们过几年就要打杀一番，但是他们还是有很多时间觅食，宴饮，歌唱，讲故事，生儿育女，照顾病人，以及从事其他生活必需的工作，寻找生活的快乐。我在上一本书的初稿里，很随意地将雅诺马马人称为“凶悍的人”，影射的是人类学家拿破仑·沙尼翁（Napoleon Chagnon）名著的书名。一位研究人类学的同事在我的初稿边页上写道：“是幼儿凶悍、老妇凶悍，还是他们的吃相凶悍？”

    对于他们的生活是不是“贫穷的”，有不同的说法。但可以肯定，那些没有国家组织的社会没有宽敞的房屋，没有传送和运输重物的工具，没有对地球的地理知识，不知道计算时间，也没有系统的文字，如果邻村的武士时刻都有可能向你射来几支毒箭，抢走妇女并烧掉你的茅棚，你也就很难有机会去发展这些技术和知识。但是，对于第一批放弃狩猎和采集，开始从事定居农业的人，他们的选择绝非易事。终日在田野里耕耘，以含淀粉的谷物维生，与牲畜和成千上万的人拥挤地生活在一起，污秽遍地，疾病丛生。斯特克尔和他的同事对古人遗骸所做的研究表明，与狩猎-采集者相比，最初的城市居民患有贫血、炎症、龋齿，而且身高大约矮6~7厘米。[78]有些研究《圣经》的学者相信，被逐出伊甸园的故事就是从觅食社会向农业社会变迁的文化记忆：“你必汗流满面才得糊口。”[79]

    那么，为什么我们的祖先要离开伊甸园？对许多人来说，这从来就不是一个明确的抉择：他们加倍地繁殖，掉进了马尔萨斯陷阱，自然的野味无法支撑他们的索取，他们不得不种植食物。随后才出现了国家。生活在边界的觅食者，或者被吸入城市，或者坚守自己原有的生活方式。对那些能够进行选择的人，伊甸园的唯一问题就是太缺乏安全了。几颗蛀牙、两块脓疮、几英寸的身高，相对于得到5倍的安全保障来说，只是小小不然的代价。[80]

    对一种死亡的逃避，又带来另外一种死亡。古罗马历史学家塔西陀这样说：“原来我们受犯罪之苦，现在我们受法律之害。”在第1章我们谈到的《圣经》故事中，最初的国王用专制的意识形态和残酷的刑罚管制他们的臣民。只要设想一下，暴戾的国王监视着人民的一举一动，人民日常生活的方方面面都受到律条的规范，亵渎神明和不尊奉国教者要被乱石砸死，国王有权力将妇女征入后宫，或者把婴儿劈为两半，把小偷和迷信小集团的领袖送上十字架。在这些方面，《圣经》是精确写实的。研究国家起源的社会科学家早已注意到，最初的国家是等级森严的神权制，精英为保证自己的经济特权，实施严刑苛法，维持属民的服从。[81]

    有三位学者对大量的文化样本进行了分析，在早期国家形态社会的政治制度的复杂性与对绝对权威和残忍手段的依赖性之间找到了量化的相关关系。[82]考古学家基思·奥特拜因（Keith Otterbein）的研究显示，一个社会中央集权的程度越高，越倾向于在战斗中杀死妇女（而不是劫走妇女）、蓄奴和从事人口贩卖。社会学家史蒂文·施皮策（Steven Spit-zer）表示，结构复杂的社会更倾向于将不侵害他人的活动有罪化，比如渎圣、性错位、不忠和巫法，并对罪犯施以酷刑、肢解、奴役和死刑。历史学家和人类学家劳拉·贝齐格（Laura Betzig）证明，社会制度越复杂，社会越容易落入暴君的掌控。而所谓暴君，就是那些永远正确永远伟大、草菅人命而不受惩罚，并在后宫禁锢大量女子的领袖。她还发现，在巴比伦、以色列、古罗马、萨摩亚、斐济、缅甸、阿兹特克、印加、（密西西比下游的）那切兹、非洲的阿善堤和其他王国，都出现过这个意义上的专制政治。

    当涉及暴力时，这个世界上的第一个利维坦——国家，决了一个问题，但又制造了另一个问题。人民固然不再经常地死于凶杀和战争，但他们又被暴君、神职和贪官污吏攥在手心里。这让我们更加觉得“平靖”这个字眼儿带有太多的血腥气，它绝不仅仅带来了和平，而且带来了强权政府的绝对控制。要解决第二个问题，人类还要再等上几千年，而在世界的很多地方，这个问题至今也没有得到解决。

    第3章 文明的进程

    文明在多大程度上是通过排斥本能才得以确立的，这是一个不容忽视的问题。 ——西格蒙德·弗洛伊德

    自从我开始用餐具吃饭，就一直为餐桌礼仪挣扎烦恼；礼仪规定，不能用餐刀将食物送到叉子上。当食物的体积足够大时，我把叉子插到食物下面，肯定能盛住一块什么，这点儿机灵劲儿我还是有的。但是我的小脑确实不够发达，对付不了那些精切细斩的小碎块，还有那些滚圆溜滑的小豆粒，它们总是在叉子的尖齿前躲闪翻滚。我只好在盘子里追逐它们，绝望地寻找一个小沟或者一个小坎，让我的叉子能够借上一点儿力，并祈望它们不要突然飞蹦起来，最后趴在桌布上大喘气。偶尔，我会趁用餐同伴不注意，在她看见我的鲁莽举动之前，赶紧用餐刀堵住这些小颗粒、小豆粒的逃路。餐刀是用来切割食物的，除此之外做任何用途都是没有教养，让人无法容忍，我必须竭尽全力，避免这种羞耻和失态。阿基米德宣称：“给我一个支点和一根足够长的杠杆，我就能撬动地球。”但是，如果他知道什么是进餐礼仪，他甚至不可以用餐刀将青豆推到叉子上！

    当我还是个孩子的时候，我曾追问过为什么会有这种毫无意义的禁忌。我问：“以一种有效而且完全卫生的方式使用刀子和叉子，有那么可怕吗？我又不是要用手指头抓土豆泥吃。”“我说不行，就是不行。”所有的孩子都会得到这样的答案，这就无法再争论下去了。对这些莫名其妙的礼仪规则，我暗自恼火了几十年。突然，就在我为此书进行课题研究的某一天，我豁然开朗，谜团解开了，从此不再为刀叉礼仪而纠结。我的顿悟受惠于一位你也许尚未听说过的大思想家诺贝特·埃利亚斯。

    埃利亚斯生于德国的布雷斯劳市（现在波兰的弗罗茨瓦夫市），从事社会学和科学史的研究。[1]1933年，因为是犹太人，他逃离了德国；1940年，因为是德国人，他被关进英国的一个集中营；他的父母均在纳粹集中营遇害。在这些灾难之上，纳粹还要在他的生命里留下一笔重彩，他的巨著《文明的进程》于1939年在德国出版。在当时的环境中，这简直是个天大的笑话。埃利亚斯从一所大学流浪到另一所大学，大多数时间是在夜校授课。为了谋生，他还取得了心理治疗师的资格。最后他终于在兰开斯特大学安顿下来，从事教学工作，直至1962年退休。1969年，《文明的进程》英文版出版。他不再默默无闻，但是要到他生命的最后10年，当人们终于恍悟到他书中的重大发现时，他的地位才得到真正的承认。他的发现不是关于餐桌礼仪背后的理性，而是关于凶杀的历史。

    1981年，政治学家泰德·罗伯特·格尔（Ted Robert Gurr）利用法庭和郡政府的记录，估算了英国历史上不同时代的凶杀率，得出30个估计数，与伦敦现在的记录一起，绘制成图表。[2]我在图3-1中复制了这组数据，计算死亡率的方法和第2章中所使用的方法一样，即每年每10万人中的凶杀数。我必须使用对数尺度，因为凶杀率的下降几乎是一条陡峭的直线。图表显示，从13世纪到20世纪，英国各地的凶杀率降至原来的1/10、1/50，在有些地区甚至是1%。比如，14世纪牛津的凶杀率是每年10万分之110，而20世纪中叶伦敦的凶杀率是每年不到10万分之1。

    几乎每一个见到此图的人都深感惊讶（包括我自己——我在序言中已经提到，这张图就是一粒种子，生根发芽，本书是它结出的果实）。这一发现颠覆了人们的一个成见，即过去的世界是一派田园牧歌，今天的世界则满目腐败堕落。当我通过网络问卷调查人们对暴力的看法时，人们猜测20世纪英国的暴力水平比14世纪英国的暴力水平高14%。而事实是，20世纪英国的暴力水平比14世纪英国的暴力水平低95%。[3]

    本章要讨论的是欧洲从中世纪到现在凶杀率的下降，以及它在其他时间和世界其他地方的正例与反例。本章的题目借用了埃利亚斯的书名，因为他是唯一一位用理论解释这一现象的大思想家。

    图3-1 1200—2000年英国的凶杀率，格尔1981年估算

    资料来源：格尔的数据，1981年，第303～304页，第313页。

    欧洲凶杀率的下降

    凶杀率在下降——在我们对这一非凡的发展进行解释之前，首先要确保它是真实的。格尔的图表发表后，几位犯罪历史学家对凶杀进行了更深入的研究。[4]犯罪学家曼纽尔·艾斯纳（Manuel Eisner）对英国几个世纪以来的的凶杀案进行了更大规模的估计，他使用的材料包括尸检官的验尸报告、法庭案例和地方档案。[5]在图3-2中，每一个灰点是对某个城镇或管辖区的凶杀统计，同上，图表使用对数尺度。从19世纪起，英国政府就保有完整的年度凶杀案记录，它们在图中用灰线表示。另外一位历史学家J. S.科伯恩（J. S. Cockburn）整理了1560—1985年肯特郡的连续数据。艾斯纳将这些数据与他自己的数据重叠在一起，即图中的黑线。[6]

    图3-2 1200—2000年英国的凶杀率

    资料来源：艾斯纳绘图，2003年。

    我们再次清楚地看到凶杀率的下降，而且不是一星半点：凶杀率从中世纪的10万分之4~100，下降到20世纪50年代的10万分之0.8。从数据的时间上看，中世纪的高凶杀率不能归咎于1350年左右随黑死病而来的社会动荡，因为我们还有黑死病时期之前的大量数据。

    艾斯纳对数据的可信性进行了全盘考量。之所以使用凶杀这种选择性的犯罪来量度暴力，是因为不论文化差异多么大，不论人们如何定义犯罪，一具尸体都是无法被掩盖的罪行，而且总是能吊起人们探究根底的好奇心。与抢劫、强奸和攻击相比，凶杀案的记录是更可靠的暴力指标，虽然其他犯罪通常（虽非永远）与凶杀存在相关性。[7]

    我们当然想知道不同时代的人对这些杀戮有怎样的反应。他们是否和我们今天一样，对故意杀人和过失杀人区别裁断，他们是起诉还是听之任之？过去的凶杀率和强奸率、抢劫率和攻击率之间是什么关系？他们是否抢救暴力的受害者，以防止他们由受伤变为被杀？

    幸好，这些问题都是可以讨论的。艾斯纳引用的研究表明，将几个世纪之前的凶杀案交给今天的人来判断是不是故意伤害，今天的结论通常和当时的结论一样。他的研究还显示，在大部分时期，凶杀率和其他暴力犯罪率相关。他指出，法医学或刑事司法体系的任何历史性进步都必然会低估凶杀案的减少，因为与几个世纪前相比，今天被抓获、起诉和定罪的杀人犯比例更高。在救生医疗方面，20世纪之前，江湖郎中治死的病人和救活的病人一样多；1300—1900年，医疗救生的成功率越来越高。[8]在任何情况下，如果社会科学研究的仅仅是1/4或者1/2的变化，而不是10倍和50倍的变化，采样噪音就会带来很大的干扰。

    英国人之间的凶杀逐渐减少，这在欧洲人中是否属于特立独行呢？艾斯纳研究了其他西欧国家的情况，犯罪学家为这些国家收集了杀人数据。图3-3显示，西欧各国的情况相当接近。虽然斯堪的纳维亚人拖延了几个世纪才想明白犯不上互相残杀，而意大利人直到19世纪还不曾认真地思考过这个问题，但到20世纪，所有西欧国家的凶杀率都降至每年10万分之1左右，各国相差无几。

    图3-3 1300—2000年西欧5个地区的凶杀率

    资料来源：艾斯纳的数据，2003年，图表1。

    为了更好地看清欧洲暴力的减少，我们来比较一下第2章中提到的非国家形态社会的凶杀率。在图3-4中，为了将非国家形态社会的数据纳入表格，我延长了纵轴线，将对数尺度上的量级增加到1000。与未被平靖的非国家形态社会和因纽特人相比，中世纪后期西欧的暴力要和缓得多，与定居的觅食部落，比如舍迈人和布须曼人在一个水平上。而从14世纪起，欧洲的凶杀率稳步下降，直到20世纪最后30年才出现了一个小反弹。

    虽然欧洲总体上凶杀数量越来越少，但某些凶杀模式一直维持不变。[9]约92%的非杀婴类凶杀案的凶手是男性，年龄集中在20多岁。直到20世纪60年代凶杀率有所回升之前，城市总体上比乡村更安全。凶杀的其他模式则发生了变化，以前上层社会和下层社会的凶杀率基本接近，但凶杀率开始下降后，上层社会凶杀数量的下降幅度要比下层社会大得多。我们后面再回头探究这个现象。[10]

    图3-4 1300—2000年西欧和非国家形态社会的凶杀率

    资料来源：非国家形态社会（不包括舍迈人、因纽特人和布须曼人的26个非国家形态社会几何平均数），见图2-3。欧洲：艾斯纳，2003年，图表1；5个地区的几何平均数，缺少数据的部分用内推值代入。

    另一个历史性的变化是，与杀害孩子、父母、配偶和手足的案件相比，无亲缘关系的男子之间的凶杀案减少了。这在凶杀统计学中是一个很常见的模式，有时也被称为“维寇法则”（Verkko..s Law）：与涉及女性和亲族的家庭暴力相比，男人之间的凶杀率在不同的时间和地点会有很大的波动。[11]马丁·戴利（Martin Daly）和马戈·威尔逊（Margo Wilson）的解释是，家庭成员之间的紧张和冲突在任何时代、任何地方都基本相同，因为这种根深蒂固的利益冲突源自亲缘成员之间基因重叠的模式——遗传的相似性。相反，非亲缘男性之间的暴力是获得性的，它受争夺支配权或优势的刺激，对当时当地的具体环境非常敏感。在一个特定的环境中，一个男人需要多少暴力才能在等级排序中保持自己的地位，要看他如何评估其他人的暴力程度，这可能导致暴力急速螺旋上升的恶性循环，也可能导致暴力螺旋下降的良性循环。我将在第7章中讨论亲缘心理的细节，并在第8章中讨论支配权问题。

    对欧洲凶杀率下降的解释

    欧洲凶杀率连续几个世纪下降，这到底意味着什么呢？城市生活中来自五湖四海的居民素不相识，却要拥挤地生活在一起，文化背景和阶级背景各不相同，这难道不是暴力的温床吗？资本主义和工业革命带来哪些痛苦的社会变迁？你是否相信，以教堂、传统和对神的畏惧为中心的小城镇生活，是我们抵挡谋杀和混乱的最佳防卫手段。再好好想一想！随着欧洲进入城市化、商业化、工业化和世俗化，它变得越来越安全了。这就让我们回到了埃利亚斯的理论，它是唯一经得住验证的理论。

    在《文明的进程》一书中，埃利亚斯没有使用多少数据来支持他的理论，因为当时没有这样的数据，他的做法是检视中世纪欧洲人日常生活的内容。比如，他查看了15世纪德国《中世纪家庭画册》（The Medieval Housebook）中的插图，这些插图画的是一位骑士眼中的世情百态。[12]

    从图3-5中可以看到很多细节，农民正在给一匹马开膛破肚，而一头猪在农人身后嗅着他裸露出来的臀部。在附近的一个山洞里，一男一女坐在木枷上。再往上，一个男子被押向绞刑架，而绞架上已经悬挂着一具尸体。

    在绞刑架旁边，受轮刑的男子尸身残破，乌鸦正在啄食他。轮刑架和绞刑架都不是画面的焦点，而只是背景的组成部分，如同树木和磨坊。

    图3-5 《土星》细部，《中世纪家庭画册》，第1475～1480页

    资料来源：埃利亚斯复制，1939/2000年，附录2，见Graf zu Waldburg Wolfegg，1988年。

    图3-6是第二幅插图的细部，图中的骑士正在攻击一个村庄。在左下角，一个农夫被士兵刺伤，在他的上方，另一个农夫的衣角被士兵揪住，边上的一个哭号着的妇女双手伸向天空。在右下角的小教堂内，士兵正将匕首刺向一个农民，他的财物被洗劫一空。在教堂左侧，骑士铐住了一个农民。上方，几个骑兵放火点燃农舍，士兵一面赶走农人的牛羊牲畜，一面向农妇挥舞着大棒。

    图3-6 《火星》细部，《中世纪家庭画册》，第1475～1480页

    资料来源：埃利亚斯复制，1939/2000年，附录2，见Graf zu Waldburg Wolfegg，1988年。

    封建欧洲的骑士，就是我们今天所说的军阀。国家毫无行动的能力，国王只是贵族中最显赫的一个，没有常备军队，对国家几乎没有控制。所谓的治理，就是国王分封了男爵、骑士和其他贵族，由他们掌管大大小小的采邑，向领地内的农民征收粮食和徭役。骑士经常以征战、偷袭和复仇这些霍布斯式的暴力方式进犯其他骑士的领地。如《中世纪家庭画册》插图中所示，他们在进行杀戮时毫不手软。在《远方之镜：多灾多难的14世纪》（A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century）一书中，历史学家巴巴拉·塔奇曼（Barbara Tuchman）这样形容他们的谋生之道：

    骑士兴致勃勃地参与这些私斗，攻敌的唯一战略就是在对方领地上杀戮和残害尽可能多的农民，毁坏尽可能多的庄稼、葡萄园、工具、仓库和其他财物，因为这样就能减少敌人的岁入。结果，双方交战的主要受害者是各自领地内的农民。[13]

    正如我们在第1章中所见，为了维护威慑的可信度，骑士举行血淋淋的竞赛和其他彰显男子气概的运动，并饰以荣誉、勇气、骑士精神、光荣和侠义之类的辞藻，以至于后人忘记了他们不过是些残暴的盗贼。

    在私斗和比武的背景之下，生活中还充满其他暴力。我们已经看到，宗教价值观已经和滴着鲜血的十字架、永生永世的炼狱、对圣徒受肢解酷刑的刺激性描述融为一体。工匠以独出心裁的创造力来制造各色虐待狂式的刑具。旅行成了玩命，匪徒劫持人质勒索赎金成了一门大买卖。埃利亚斯注意到：“小人物，比如制帽工、裁缝和牧人，也都动辄拔刀相向。”[14]甚至神职人员也不例外。历史学家巴巴拉·哈纳沃特（Barbara Hanawalt）引用14世纪英国的记载说：

    事件发生在耶佛陀夫特（Ylvertoft），国王爱德华在位第五年的圣马丁节前的那个星期六。耶佛陀夫特教区牧师——来自威灵顿的威廉派他的职员约翰去约翰·考布勒家买一支一便士的蜡烛。约翰要先拿到钱才肯交出蜡烛，这就惹恼了威廉。威廉猛然推门进屋，击打约翰的前额，令他脑浆飞溅，当即丧命。[15]

    人们的娱乐也沾满暴力的色彩。塔奇曼描述了当时两项流行的运动项目：“参赛者的双手被捆在身后，用他们的脑袋去撞击一只被钉在柱子上的猫，看谁能先杀死这只猫。参赛的风险是发狂的猫可能会撕破他们的面颊，抓出他们的眼珠……或者人们拿着大棒追打关在围栏中的猪，观众在笑声中看着这头猪尖叫着狂奔乱躲，直到在大棒下咽下最后一口气。”[16]

    我在几十年的学术生涯里阅读了数千篇学术论文，内容从不规则动词的语法到多重宇宙物理学，其中最古怪的一篇莫过于《丢面子和要面子：中世纪后期城镇的鼻子和荣誉》。[17]在这篇论文中，史学家瓦伦丁·格勒布纳（Valentin Groebner）整理了几十宗中世纪欧洲砍掉别人鼻子的事件。有时，这是官方对异端、叛国、卖淫或鸡奸的惩罚，但更常见的还是私人之间的复仇行为。在1520年纽伦堡的一个案件中，汉斯·里格尔与汉斯·冯·艾布的妻子发生了关系。妒火中烧的冯·艾布割掉了无辜的里格尔妻子的鼻子。一位最高法官综合考量了案情，判处里格尔通奸罪成立，坐监四个星期，冯·艾布免于处罚。这种人身伤害经常发生，以至于格勒布纳这样写道：

    中世纪晚期的一位外科教科书的作者也特别关注鼻部损伤，讨论被割下来的鼻子是否能够再长回去。对于这个大家争论不休的问题，法国御医亨利·德·蒙德维尔在他的名著《整形外科》一书中给了一个结论性的回答：“不能。”15世纪的其他医学权威则要乐观得多，海因里希·冯·福尔思庞特1460年的《医药大典》夸下不少海口，其中之一就是一张专为失去鼻子的人“制作新鼻子”的处方。[18]

    “割掉你的鼻子，让你难堪”（to cut off your nose to spite your face）这样古怪的谚语其实都来源于生活。中世纪后期，割下某人的鼻子，是让某人丢脸的典型方式。

    和其他研究中世纪生活的学者一样，埃利亚斯对中世纪古人暴躁的脾气感到震惊。按照我们今天的眼光，那时候的人真是浮躁、粗野到了极点，而且极其幼稚：

    并不是说他们总是面露凶色、横眉怒目，时时刻刻挥刀弄剑……相反，他们本来是在乐呵呵地互相调侃，甩出一连串嘲弄的字眼儿，但就在笑语喧哗声中，他们可以突然拔刀相向，开始玩命地厮杀。我们看到的中世纪的人充满了矛盾：他们有虔诚的宗教信仰，对地狱怀有极度的恐惧，心怀沉重的罪恶感和忏悔，同时疯狂地追求狂欢和享乐。他们的性情暴躁易变，毫无克制地仇恨和好勇斗狠。所有这一切，都可以出现在同一个人身上，而且阴晴不定、瞬息可变，这就是当时人们完全同构的情感生活。比起后来的人，中世纪的人更冲动，感情的表达更自由、更直接，也更开放。只是到了我们这里，一切才变得微妙、温和和精于算计。社会禁忌作为各式各样的自我克制，深深地渗透到追究功利的社会机体中，所以我们才会觉得不加隐藏的宗教虔诚、桀骜不驯的派头和凶残的行为是相互矛盾的。[19]

    塔奇曼也这样写道：“中世纪人的行为带有显而易见的幼稚，他们无法克制自己的任何冲动。”[20]多萝西·塞耶斯（Dorotry Sayers）翻译了《罗兰之歌》（The Song of Roland）。她在序言中提到，“在个人和民族的大灾大难临头时，轻轻地抿住嘴唇，静静地将烟头扔进壁炉，这种硬汉形象，是非常晚近的事情”。[21]

    虽然中世纪人的孩子气肯定有被夸大的成分，在不同的时代，人们表达情感的习俗确实有所不同。在《文明的进程》一书中，埃利亚斯用很大篇幅记录了一组不同寻常的数据资料——礼仪手册。今天，我们认为《艾米·范德比尔特家族礼仪》（Amy Vanderbilt..s Everyday Etiquette）和《曼纳斯小姐行为矫正指南》（Miss Manners.. Guide to Excruciatingly Cornect Behavior）这类书，只是提供了一些免于失态受窘的小常识。但它们曾一度是道德行为的严肃指南，由那个时代的思想大家撰写。1530年，人文运动的创始人之一、大学者德西德里乌斯·伊拉斯谟（Desiderius Erasmus）撰写了《论男孩的礼貌教育》（On Civility in Boys）这一行为手册，该书在欧洲畅销了整整200年。这些手册明确规定了哪些行为是不可接受的失礼，也让我们从中知道哪些是当时人必须遵守的规则。

    总而言之，中世纪的人是粗野的。礼仪手册中大量的劝诫是关于如何消除身体的异味：

    不要在楼梯、走廊、衣柜和墙帏上撒尿和涂抹其他污秽。/不要在女士面前，或者在宫廷的门口和窗户前大小便。/不要在椅子上前后滑动，做出要排出气体的样子。/不要用裸手在衣服下面触摸私处。/不要在别人大小便时打招呼。/不要在排出气体时发出噪声。/不要在其他人面前做大小便前解衣松带的准备，也不要在人前做大小便后系扣穿衣的动作。/当你在小旅馆里和别人同睡一张床的时候，不要紧挨着别人，不要把自己的腿放到别人的两腿中间。/如果你在床单上看见什么令人恶心的东西，不要告诉你的伙伴，不要指给他看，也不要举着发臭的东西让别人闻，然后说“我很想知道这东西到底有多臭”。

    针对擦鼻涕的规矩有：

    不要用桌布、手指头、袖子或者帽子擦鼻涕。/不要将自己用过的手绢拿给别人用。/不要将手绢叼在嘴里。/“在用手绢擦过鼻子后，千万不要打开手绢，向内张望，仿佛你头上有珍珠或宝石掉了进去。”[22]

    接着是对吐痰的详细规定：

    在盆里洗手的时候，不要向盆里吐痰。/吐痰的时候不要吐得太远，以至于你要伸长腿，才能踩到那团东西上去。/吐痰的时候，要侧过脸，不要让痰涎溅到别人身上。/“任何脓痰落在地上后，都应该踩上一脚，以免让人恶心。”[23]/如果在别人的衣服上看见痰和鼻涕，礼貌的做法是不动声色。

    还有关于餐桌礼仪的很多建议：

    不要第一个从大盘子中取食物。/不要像猪那样在饭桌上打瞌睡、打鼾和出声地舔嘴唇。/不要为了将大块肉靠近自己而转动大盘子。/“不要狼吞虎咽，仿佛你明天就要进监狱；也不要向嘴里塞太多食物，两颊鼓胀如风箱；更不要张嘴咀嚼，发出猪一样的响动。”/不要将手指头伸进大盘子去蘸汤汁。/不要将进过自己嘴巴的勺子伸进公盘取菜。/不要将自己啃过的骨头放回公盘。/不要用桌布擦抹刀叉餐具。/不要将嘴里的食物放回自己的盘子。/不要请别人吃自己已经咬过的食物。/不要用舌头舔油渍的手指头，不要在面包上和衣服上擦拭油渍的手指头。/不要将头低到汤碗上喝汤。/不要将骨头、菜渣子、蛋壳、果皮吐到手里，或者扔到地上。/吃饭时不要抠鼻子。/不要直接用汤盘喝汤，要用汤匙喝汤。/用汤匙喝汤时不要发出声音。/不要在饭桌上松裤腰带。/不要用手指头打扫脏盘子。/不要用手指头搅拌调味汁。/不要将肉食举到鼻子前闻味儿。/不要用托碟喝咖啡。

    看到这些戒律，当代读者的脑海里会产生一连串反应：那时候的人该是多么草率、鲁莽、野性和不成熟啊！这些不都是父母对三岁孩子的教导吗，怎么会是一个大哲学家向有文化的人发表的文字呢？但是，正如埃利亚斯所指出的，优雅的举止、自我克制和深思熟虑这些看似第二天性一样的品质，对我们来说其实是习得性的，这也是为什么称其为“第二天性”。这些品质是随着欧洲的现代化而逐渐被人们接受的。

    五花八门的劝诫说的都是一个道理。几十个形形色色的规矩彼此相连，强调的就是那几个主题。并不是我们每个人都要逐项地接受训导，哪位粗心大意的母亲疏漏了一条半条，她已经成年的儿子也不见得就会揪着桌布擤鼻涕。这个单子上的规则，以及那些没有开列在这里的更多规则，可以浓缩为几条简单的原则：控制食欲，延迟享乐，顾及别人的情感，不要像农民那样粗俗，远离动物的本能。

    人们认为，对于违反这些规则的人的处罚是内在的羞耻感。埃利亚斯注意到，礼仪手册很少论及健康和卫生。今天，我们已经认识到，人的厌恶情绪早已演化为一种下意识的抵御生物污染的手段。[24]但在19世纪之前，人们对微生物和感染还毫无认识。礼仪书中唯一明确的原则是避免乡巴佬的举止、动物般的粗野和对他人的冒犯。

    在中世纪的欧洲，性行为也没有后来那样慎重。人们经常在公众场合赤身裸体，夫妇或情侣在保持交媾的私密性方面也是非常敷衍潦草的。妓女在光天化日之下拉客，英国的许多城镇中都有一个叫作“摸巷”的红灯区。男人堂而皇之地向孩子吹嘘自己的性史，他们的私生子和婚生子女混居在一起。在向现代社会过渡的过程中，这种赤裸裸的张扬渐渐地让人们感到困窘，被视为粗野，最后才是不可接受。

    语言中留下了这一变化的印记。“农民”（peasantry）一词的另一个意思是道德沦丧；“莽汉”（boor）的原意就是“农人”，在德语和荷兰语里也一样；“恶棍”（villain）源自法语的vilein，指农奴或村民；“土头土脑的”（churlish）词源是英文的churl，意思是平民；“下流”（vulgar），俗称底层人；“卑鄙微贱”（ignoble）一词，就是由“非—贵族”两个词组合而成的。许多描述这些令人难堪的行为和事务的字眼已经成为禁忌。英国人现在习惯于叫喊着神明发誓赌咒，比如“我的上帝啊！”“耶稣基督啊！”但在刚刚进入现代社会的时候，他们是叫喊着性行为和排泄物发誓的，即我们今天所说的“盎格鲁-撒克逊的四字经”，现在这些都不能再用于文明场合了。[25]历史学家杰弗里·休斯（Geoffrey Hughes）注意到：“将一朵蒲公英叫作pissabed（尿床），将苍鹭叫作shitecrow（大便-乌鸦），将红隼叫作windfucker（操风者）的时代，已经和用硕大的阳具为男子紧身兜裆袋做的广告一样，一去不复返了。”[26]私生子、淫妇、笨蛋和娼妇也从常用的俚语变为禁忌语。

    随着新礼仪的确立，军人的武器装饰，特别是刀剑，也发生了变化。在中世纪，大部人随身携带短刀。他们会在餐桌上用它对付整只烧烤的禽兽，先是切下一大块，用刀尖挑着，再送到嘴里。但是，在一个公共聚会上，每个人身前身后刀光闪闪、杀气腾腾，刀尖对着自己的面孔指来指去，这种恐怖景象越来越让人反感。埃利亚斯引述了一系列以如何使用刀具为中心的礼仪：

    不要用刀剔牙缝。/不要在吃饭时一直握着刀，只在需要切割食品的时候才拿起刀。/不要用刀尖挑起食物送入口中。/不要用刀切面包，要用手来掰面包。/如果你将刀给别人，要手握刀尖，将刀柄递给对方。/不要将刀柄紧攥在手心里，而是用手指拿着刀柄。/不要用刀尖对着别人指指点点。

    在这个过渡时期，叉子成为通用的餐具，人们不再需要用刀将食物送进嘴里。餐桌上出现了各种专用的餐刀，人们不再需要在进餐时动用自己的佩刀了，餐刀被设计成圆头，而不是尖头。有些食物是永远也不需要使用餐刀的，比如鱼类、球形的食物和面包——所以，“一起掰面包”的意思就是“共同进餐”。

    中世纪的一些刀具禁忌一直保留到今天。许多人不愿意将刀具作为送人的礼品，如果实在要送，一定要配上一枚硬币，收礼的人将硬币还回送礼者，表示这是一次买卖，而不是一次赠送。表面的理由是刀具有“切割友谊”的象征，但更有可能是避免将凶器送给朋友。还有一种迷信认为将刀递给他人会带来厄运，所以，应该是将刀放在桌子上，让对方自己来取。餐具中的餐刀是圆头，而且也不是非常锋利，能够切割食物即可，牛排餐刀仅在有硬肉食时才摆上桌，吃鱼则有专用的钝口餐刀。不是绝对需要使用餐刀时，就尽量不要动用它。用餐刀来吃糕点，用餐刀将食物送进嘴巴，用餐刀搅拌食物（俗话说“刀子搅拌，煽动捣乱”），以及用餐刀将食物放在叉子上——对，放在叉子上——都是粗野的行为。

    啊哈！

    * * *

    埃利亚斯的理论将欧洲暴力的减少归因于大众的心理变化。他的著作的副标题是“社会遗传学和心理遗传学的调查”。他认为，这个转变从11世纪或12世纪开始，到17世纪和18世纪完成。在这几个世纪的时间内，欧洲人越来越克制自己的冲动，关注自己行为的长期后果，顾及其他人的想法和感情。随时准备进行复仇的荣誉文化让位给时刻讲究自我克制的尊严文化。皇亲贵族在文化仲裁的压力下，严格遵守种种清规戒律，以此将他们自己与乡巴佬和庄稼汉拉开距离。接着，这些规诫被社会吸收，灌输给一代又一代的稚龄儿童，直到成为他们的第二天性。中产阶级总是迫不及待地效仿贵族，他们渐渐地接过这些贵族自律的标准；这些标准又从中产阶级向下层社会传递，最终成为整个社会文化的组成部分。

    埃利亚斯发现了弗洛伊德的心理结构模型，即使年幼的孩子完全不能理解规则的意义，但他们自幼从父母那里接受了这些规则，随后内化为自己的意识（即超我）。某一天，孩子的自我开始能够践行这些规则，约束自己的生理冲动（即本我）。埃利亚斯没有涉足弗洛伊德那些更奇异的理论（比如“原始弑父”、“死亡本能”和“俄狄浦斯情结”），他的心理学是完全现代的。在第9章，我们会探究人的意志力，即心理学家所说的自制、延迟满足和较低的时间折现，俗语中则有所谓的“默数到十”（少安毋躁）、“勒住马缰”（三思而行）、“咬紧牙关”、“有备无患”和“枪打出头鸟”。[27]我们还要探究心理学家所说的共情能力、直觉心理学、换位思考、心智理论和俗称“钻进别人的脑子里”、“站在他人的角度看世界”、“穿上别人的鞋子走几里路”，以及对他人之痛“感同身受”。埃利亚斯预见到人们将对自制和共情这两种人性中的善良天使进行科学的研究和分析。

    埃利亚斯的批评者指出，任何一个社会都有关于性和排泄的规范，这些规范可能是来自与洁净、厌恶和羞耻有关的内在情感。[28]我们将看到，各个社会将这些情感道德化的程度是衡量文化差异的重要尺度。虽然中世纪的欧洲并不缺少规范得体行为的标准，但是这些标准的水平都是非常低下的。

    值得称道的是，埃利亚斯没有陷入学术时髦的窠臼，称早期现代欧洲人“发明”或者“建构”了自制。他仅仅表示，他们增加了一些大脑认知的能力，这一能力是人生来俱有的，只是中世纪的人未能充分利用它而已。埃利亚斯一再明确表示，（人的认知能力）“没有零点”。[29]我们在第9章中将会看到，人们如何管理自己的自制力，是心理学中一个有趣的话题。第一种可能的解释是，自制力如同肌肉，如果你用餐桌礼仪这样约束训练自己，当别人侮辱你时，你会有更强和更有效的自制力，控制自己不去杀人。第二种可能的解释是，自制的特定设置是一种社会规范，比如你站在别人身边时应该保持多远的距离，或者在公共场所，身体的哪些部位应该被遮挡严实。第三种可能的解释是，自制可以根据一时一地的成本和收益进行相应的调整。毕竟，自制不是一种纯粹的美德。过多的自制会让侵犯者认为你已经失去报复的良机，因无法再采取行动，而对你进行攻击。但如果给他一个理由，让他相信你会不计后果地进行反击，他从一开始就会对你更加尊重。在这样的情况下，人们就要根据所处的危险调整自制的水平。

    * * *

    到此为止，文明进程的理论仍是不完整的，因为它试图用现象内生的过程来解释现象本身。该理论指出，暴力行为的减少，与冲动、炫耀、放荡、野蛮和餐桌上粗俗举止的减少相吻合。这样的解释无疑将我们绕进一张心理过程的罗网。因为人们学会了克制自己的暴力冲动，所以人们的暴力行为减少了，这差不多等于什么也没有说。我们也无法肯定到底是人们的心理冲动变化在先，暴力的减少在后，还是相反。

    但是埃利亚斯确实提出，存在外源触发器，准确地说，是两个外源触发器激发了暴力减少的整个过程。第一个外源触发器是，欧洲在经历几个世纪的封建领主和采邑林立的无政府状态后，出现了真正的利维坦。中央集权的君主获得了强大的力量，把战乱不休的骑士置于他们的控制之下，并将自己的触角伸延到王国的疆域之外。根据军事历史学家昆西·赖特的研究，在15世纪，欧洲有5000个独立的政治单元（主要是领主封地和公国），在17世纪早期“三十年战争”时期有500个政治单元，在19世纪初期的拿破仑时代有200个政治单元，而在1953年，欧洲只剩下不到30个独立的政治单元了。[30]

    政治单元的整合本来是相对强大的军阀吞并相邻军阀的自然聚合过程，但是军事进步加速了这一进程，这场史称“军事革命”的技术进步包括火药武器、常备军和其他只有大政府和大财政才能支撑的昂贵的战争工具。[31]一个在战马上一手扬鞭一手挥剑的汉子，带着一伙破衣烂衫的农民，在战场上肯定不是由国家在战场上部署的步兵和炮兵大部队的对手。社会学家查尔斯·蒂利（Charles Tilly）说：“国家制造了战争，战争又制造了国家。”[32]

    骑士之间争夺势力范围的战事，让日益强势的国王们感到不快，因为不论哪一方获胜，都有农民丧生，生产力被破坏。从国王的立场看，这都是在消耗自己的军力和财力。一旦他们进入和平——所谓的“国王的和平”，他们的利益动机会要求他们继续维持和平。一个骑士放下武器，将自己的安全交给国家。这是一个冒险的举动，因为他的敌人也许会视此为软弱的表现。所以国家必须信守承诺，不能让任何人怀疑其维持和平的能力，回到相互侵夺和仇杀的过去。[33]

    骑士之间和农民之间的争斗不仅令人讨厌，而且失去了机会。在诺曼统治时期的英国，一些天才认识到将司法系统国有化的益处和可能性。几个世纪以来，英国的法律制度一直将凶杀视为一种侵权行为。在英国的法制下，受害人的家人会要求凶手的家人支付血债，而不是复仇。英王亨利一世将凶杀案定义为“对国家”的犯罪，换句话说，是“对王权”的侵犯。一宗张三被李四谋杀的案子，不再是张三起诉李四，而是国王起诉李四，或者，比如在美国是人民起诉李四，或者密歇根州起诉李四。这一安排的精彩之处在于，赎金（通常是凶手的全部财产，加上来自凶手家庭的财产）是判给国王，而不是受害人的家庭。司法职责由巡回法庭承担，它们定期走访各地，听审累积的案件。为了保证所有凶杀案都能得到庭审，每一宗死亡案件都由一名王室代理人——“验尸官”进行调查。[34]

    一旦利维坦掌握权力，游戏的规则也就发生了变化。一个男人获得财富的途径不再是当一个地区最坏的骑士，而是去朝廷朝拜，讨国王和他的随从的欢心。法庭基本上是政府的官僚机器，莽汉和大炮筒子在这里是无法施展的，法庭需要的是有责任心的监管人。贵族不得不改变他们的自我兜售方式。他们只好陶冶自己的风度，以免冒犯国王的宠臣，还要学习换位思考，揣度国王和权臣的心意。所以，在宫廷（court），得体的举止被赞为“庄重有礼”（courtly）的，“礼貌”（courtesy）的词根也是“court”。各种“礼仪指南”最早就是要告诉贵族在宫廷如何举手投足，当然也包括怎么处置他们的鼻涕。埃利亚斯追踪了几个世纪的记录，勾画出礼貌从贵族模仿宫廷，逐渐到资产阶级精英模仿贵族，再到中产阶级模仿精英的演变。他用一句口号总结了自己的理论，即“从战士到朝臣”，将集权化的国家权力与民众心理变化联系了起来。

    * * *

    中世纪晚期的第二个外部变化是经济革命。封建制度的经济基础是土地和土地上劳作的农民。用地产经纪人的话来说，土地是一种无法被增加的东西。在以土地为基础的经济中，任何人想提高生活水平，或者在马尔萨斯人口扩张期维持生活水平，他的首选就是征服附近的土地。用博弈论的语言来说，对土地的竞争是零和博弈：一方的得，就是另一方的失。

    基督教的意识形态排斥一切商业活动和技术创新，堵塞了从现有自然资源之外增加财富的道路，进一步强化了中世纪经济零和博弈的性质。塔奇曼解释说：

    基督徒对商业的态度……是金钱就是罪恶。用圣奥古斯丁的话来说，“经营本身就是恶行”，在超出生存最低需要之外谋求盈利就叫作贪婪；用钱来生钱，放贷收息就是万恶的高利贷；批发商品，转手抬价零售，是不道德的，会受到教会法规的谴责。简而言之，正如圣哲罗姆的格言所说：“一个人，不可能既做商人，又取悦上帝。”[35]

    我的祖父会这样说：“非犹太人的想法！”犹太人从小就熟悉钱商和中间人业务，但也因此不时受到迫害和驱逐。当时的法律规定商品的价格只能固定在“公平价”上，即原材料的成本加上附加的劳动价值。塔奇曼解释说：“为了确保没有人能占他人的便宜，商业法禁止发明新的工具或技术，禁止固定价格之下的低价销售，禁止加班，禁止雇用额外的学徒、妻子和儿童，禁止对商品进行广告宣传或对其进行赞扬，以损害他人利益。”[36]这种零和博弈的规则，使得攫取成为增加财富的唯一手段。

    在正和博弈中，各方都有同时改善处境的选择。日常生活中最典型的正和博弈是交换互利，即各方均以较小的成本向对方提供较大的受益。比如，灵长类相互剔除背上的跳蚤，猎人彼此分享大型猎获，几家父母轮流看护孩子。我们在第8章会看到，进化心理学的一个关键见解是，人类的合作以及支持这种合作的社会情感，比如同情、信任、感恩、内疚和愤怒，之所以在演化中留存并胜出，是因为它们使人类能够在正和博弈中繁衍兴旺。[37]

    剩余互换是经济生活中典型的正和博弈。如果农民有多余的谷物，牧民有多余的牛奶，双方互换谷物和牛奶，各方都有进益，即所谓的“双赢”。当然，有分工，单个时点上的交换才有收益。两个农民用一桶麦子再换回一桶麦子，毫无交换的意义。现代经济学的一个基本观念是，分工是创造财富的关键，分工让生产专业化，生产者各有所长，精修研习，提高生产的成本效益；分工也让交换手段专业化。有效交换的基础之一是交通，通过交通，不同产地的生产者才能实现剩余交换。交换的另一个基础是货币、利息和中间商，有了这些手段，一个生产者才能与其他生产者随时交换多种剩余。

    正和博弈也改变了对暴力的激励。不论你是交换恩惠还是交换剩余，交换伙伴只有活着才对你更有价值。如果你能揣摩到别人的心愿和喜好，便能更好地提供服务和产品，从而更好地在交换中得到自己的所需。虽然很多知识精英都追随圣奥古斯丁和圣哲罗姆，轻蔑商人，认为他们自私且贪婪，但事实上，自由市场很重视共情。[38]一个好商人必须要满足客户，否则竞争者就会把他们挖走。客户越多，商人就会越富有，此即所谓“文明商业”（doux commerce）。经济学家萨缪尔·里卡德（Samuel Ricard）在1704年说：

    商业将人们通过互利联结起来……通过商业，人要学习深思熟虑，要学会诚实，要学习举止得体，还要学会在言谈和行动中谨慎和有所保留。一旦意识到精明和诚实是成功的必要条件，商人就会远离罪恶，或者，至少他要在言谈举止中表示庄重和严肃，以免在他所交往的和未来有可能交往的人中留下任何不良的印象。[39]

    这就引出了第二个外部变化。埃利亚斯注意到，在中世纪晚期，人们终于开始走出技术和经济发展长期停滞的泥淖。货币逐渐取代了实物交换，而较大规模国家的出现，保证了货币在国家疆域内得到承认。古罗马帝国之后就一直被忽视的公路工程又开始动工，以往限于沿海和水路的商品开始直达内地。马掌的使用，使马蹄不受硬路面的磨损，车轭使马能够加大拉车的负重，这极大地改善了马车运输的效率。轮车、指南针、钟表、轮纺车、踏板织机、风力磨坊和水力磨坊等技术在中世纪后期日臻完美。这些行业内出现的能工巧匠形成了整个手工匠阶层。分工越来越细，剩余越来越高，交换机制越来越顺畅。生活中正和博弈的机会越来越多，零和博弈的吸引力迅速下降。为了抓住机会，人们必须计划未来，控制冲动，换位思考，还要开发社交和认知的技巧，拓展人际网络。

    “文明的进程”的两个触发器——利维坦和文明商业是相互关联的。正和博弈的商业合作在利维坦监管下的骡马大市上最有前途。国家不仅适合提供公共品，比如货币和道路之类经济协作需要的基础设施，当买卖双方权衡是抢劫还是交易的时候，国家可以在天平上加上自己的砝码。假定一个骑士可以从邻居家抢劫10蒲式耳（约270千克）麦子，他也可以用同样的时间和精力，筹措钱款，从邻居手里购买5蒲式耳麦子。盗贼方案看起来很不错。但是，如果骑士知道国家会对抢劫判处6蒲式耳麦子的处罚，他有可能只剩下4蒲式耳麦子，那他还不如诚实地劳动。国家的存在让商业更有诱惑力，而商业的存在则让国家更容易管理和运作。如果没有购买谷物这个诚实的选择，国家就只能威胁要从骑士手中拿走10蒲式耳麦子，才能让骑士觉得抢劫无利可图；但处罚10蒲式耳和处罚5蒲式耳的执行难度大不一样。当然，在现实世界，国家的制裁手段更有可能是体罚的威胁，而不是罚款，但它们的原则是一样的：合法的选择越有吸引力，人们就越不愿意犯罪。

    这两种文明的力量互相强化，在埃利亚斯看来，它们就是同一个过程的一部分。国家控制的集中化和对暴力的垄断，工匠行会和官僚的成长，货币交易取代实物交换，技术的发展，贸易的繁荣，本来各不相关的个体日渐形成相互依赖的社会网络，所有这一切是一个有机的整体。在这个有机体中寻求生存和发展，人们培养共情和自制力，直到它们——用埃利亚斯的话说，成为人的第二天性。

    在这里使用“有机”一词并非妄言。生物学家约翰·梅纳德·史密斯（John Maynard Smith）和厄尔什·绍特马里（Eörs Szathmáry）曾经说过，生命史上进化变迁的动态过程与“文明的进程”相似。这几个大变迁就是基因、染色体、微生物、有核细胞、有机生物、有性生殖生物和动物各个群落的相继出现。[40]在每一次变迁中，具有自利和合作两种能力的个体，在它们能够生成一个更大单元的时候，都趋向合作。它们有分工，有利益互换，并发展出保护机制以防止某个成员剥夺其他成员而伤及整体。记者罗伯特·赖特（Robert Wright）在《非零》（Nonzero）一书中勾勒出了一条类似的弧线，即人类社会的历史就是一场正和博弈。[41]在本书的最后一章，我会详细地回顾与暴力减少有关的各种理论。

    * * *

    “文明的进程”理论作为一个科学假说经受住了最严格的检验：它给出的惊人预测被证实了。1939年，埃利亚斯没有任何凶杀统计数据，他从历史叙事和古老的礼仪手册中学习。格尔、艾斯纳、科伯恩及其他人用图表展示了凶杀率的下降，这让犯罪学家大吃一惊，而埃利亚斯是唯一一个用理论预测了这一趋势的人。那么，根据近几十年我们对暴力的了解，埃利亚斯的理论在多大程度上是成立的呢？

    埃利亚斯的祖国德国在“二战”中的非文明行径，使他本人备受困扰，他颇费周折地在自己的理论框架内解释“非文明进程”。[42]他讨论了德国历史上反复无常的统一和分裂，以及由此导致的对中央权威的合法性缺乏信任。根据他的记录，德国精英顽固地以军国主义文化为荣，共产主义和法西斯主义的兴起打破了国家对暴力机器的垄断，其结果是对外来群体特别是犹太人的同情心萎缩。如果说他的这些分析挽救了他的理论，实在有些勉强，他也许根本不应该做这些尝试。纳粹时期的恐怖不同于领主之间的烽火狼烟，更不同于市民在餐桌旁互捅几刀，其规模、性质和起因都完全不同。事实上，在纳粹时期，德国一对一的凶杀率一直在下降（见图3-19）[43]。在第8章，我们会看到，即使在文明社会，道德感的区隔化（或小团体化）、信仰和法制在人口不同组成部分之间的分布，也会将人们引向意识形态驱动的战争和种族灭绝。

    艾斯纳指出了“文明的进程”理论的另一个问题：暴力的减少和集权国家的兴起并不总是同步的。[44]比利时和荷兰是暴力减少的先锋，但是它们从来没有强有力的集权政府。而当瑞典开始进入暴力减少过程时，它的国家权力也没有强化的迹象。相反，意大利诸国一直在暴力减少进程中殿后，但它们却拥有庞大的官僚机构和警察力量。早期的现代君主实行严刑峻法，但在那些最无顾忌地实行酷刑的地区，暴力并没有减少。

    许多犯罪学家相信，国家安抚人心的力量不仅来自蛮横的强权，而且来自人民对它的信任。没有哪个国家能够在每一个酒吧、每一间农舍都安插暗探，监视违法行为，那些试图以恐惧为统治工具的是集权独裁，而不是人民以自制和共情共存的文明社会。一个利维坦只有在它的公民感到法律、执法和其他社会规则都具有正当性的时候，才是一个文明社会，公民才不会在国家权力看不见时，就放纵自己最坏的冲动。[45]这个观点并没有反驳埃利亚斯的理论，但它增加了一个转折。法治的确立结束了封建领主之间的血腥残杀，但要将暴力进一步减少到欧洲各国现有的水平，还需要一个更加复杂的过程。在这个过程中，相当数量的人接受了加诸他们头上的法治。自由意志主义者、无政府主义者和其他对利维坦持怀疑态度的人认为，当社区自主其事的时候，他们通常能发展出一套合作规范，在没有法律、警察、法庭和其他政府冗员的情况下，自己非暴力地解决内部的争端。在《白鲸》一书中，伊什梅尔解释了美国捕鲸者在远离法治几千英里之外，是如何处理鲸鱼猎获纠纷的。一艘捕鲸船的人打伤或打死了一头鲸鱼，而另一艘捕鲸船的人却认为那是他们的猎获：

    因此，如果没有一些成文的或者不成文的、普遍的、没有争议的法律来处理所有这些案件，渔民之间经常发生最令人烦恼和最暴力的纠纷。

    ……虽然没有其他国家（荷兰除外）有过成文的捕鲸法，美国渔民在这件事情上成了自己的立法者和律师……它们也许被刻在具有安妮女王头像的硬币上，也许被刻在鱼叉的倒钩上，或者是在一条项链上，寥寥几字，言简意赅：

    1.系住之鲸归系者。

    2.未系之鲸，人皆可争之，先系者得。

    世界上许多地方的渔民、农民和牧民中都有这一类非正式的规则。[46]在《无须法律的秩序：邻人如何解决纠纷》（Order Without Law: How Neighbors Settle Disputes）一书中，法学家罗伯特·埃里克森（Robert Ellickson）研究了现代美国版本的古代牧民和农民之间的冲突（经常是暴力冲突）。在加利福尼亚州北部的沙斯塔县（Shasta County），传统的牧场主是牛仔，在开阔的草场上放养牛群，而现代牧场主则在有灌溉、有围栏的牧场中养牛。两种牧场主和种植干草、苜蓿和其他谷物的农场主共处。离群的牛会不时拱翻围栏，吃掉庄稼，弄脏溪流，在公路上游荡，被汽车撞倒。该县将牧场分为两类，一类是“开放牧场”。在开放牧场中，牛主人无须对这一类意外损害承担法律责任；另一类是“封闭牧场”。在封闭牧场中，牛的主人对牛造成的一切损失负有全责，无论他是疏忽大意还是有其他原因。埃里克森发现，财产受到牛只伤害的人都不愿意求助司法系统裁决损失和赔偿。事实上，大部分居民——牧场主、农场主、保险公司的调停人，甚至律师和法官，都坚信为此等纠纷动用法律是绝对错误的。居民通过寥寥数项隐性规范即可和睦相处。牛的主人对牛造成的损失始终负有全责，无论牧场是开放的还是封闭的，但是，如果损失微小，或者是偶发的，受损财产的主人应该“不予计较”。人们心里大致都有一本账，记着人欠我欠，而偿还往往不是货币形式的。（比如，一个牧场主的牛损坏了另一个牧场主的栅栏，他之后可以给后者免费看护走失了的牛。）对于赖账和违约的惩罚主要是闲言碎语，间或会有私下的威胁，或者轻微的破坏行动。我会在第9章分析这些规范背后的道德心理，它属于公平对等概念的范畴。[47]

    隐性规范非常重要，但它不能取代政府。沙斯塔县的牧场主不会因为牛撞倒了栅栏而求助政府，但他们知道，他们生活在公权的庇荫之下，一旦他们的非正式制裁失效，或者发生更严重的纠纷，比如打架、杀人或者争抢妇女，公权会立即介入。我们将会看到，他们目前能够如此和平共处本身，就是一个地方性“文明的进程”的传奇。19世纪50年代，加利福尼亚州北部牧场主的年均凶杀率是10万分之45，这相当于中世纪欧洲的水平。[48]

    我认为，“文明的进程”理论能够对当代暴力减少给出大部分解释，不仅仅是因为它预测了欧洲凶杀率的大幅度下降，也是因为它准确地预测了当代那些未能实现欧洲所享有的低凶杀率（年均10万分之1）的地区和时间。在这些例外中，有两个地带是文明的进程从未完全渗透的：社会经济规模较低的阶层以及地球上人迹罕至或不适宜居住的地区。其中两个地区的文明进程发生了逆转，即发展中国家和20世纪60年代。下面我们依次展开分析。

    暴力和阶级

    在凶杀数量减少之外，欧洲暴力减少还有一个显著的特征，就是凶杀案的社会经济特征发生了变化。几个世纪之前，富人至少是和穷人一样暴力的。[49]绅士随身佩剑，绝不会放过拔剑寻仇的机会。他们出门通常有仆从跟随，而仆从也是保镖，一点点冒犯，每一次对冒犯的回击，都有可能酿成贵族帮派之间的血腥斗殴（比如《罗密欧与朱丽叶》的开场）。经济学家格里高利·克拉克（Gregory Clark）研究了从中世纪晚期到工业革命期间英国贵族的死亡记录。我在图3-7中使用了他的数据。数据显示，14世纪和15世纪，有惊人的26%的男性贵族死于暴力——在图2-2中，我们可以看到这也是未受过教育的部落的平均暴力死亡率。到了18世纪初，这一比率下降到了个位数，今天则基本上是零。

    图3-7 英国男性贵族死于暴力的百分比，1330—1829年

    资料来源：克拉克的数据，2007年a，122页；数字为每一年数据的中值。

    以百分比衡量的凶杀率还是相当高。进入18世纪和19世纪之后，暴力仍然是上流社会生活的组成部分，比如亚历山大·汉密尔顿和阿龙·伯尔。塞缪尔·约翰逊（Samuel Johnson）在为自己辩护的时候一向不吝啬言辞，鲍斯威尔（Boswell）引用他的话说：“我曾经痛揍过很多家伙，不过其余的总算够聪明，闭住了他们的嘴巴。”[50]上流社会成员之间逐渐不再彼此动用武力，但即使有法律制约，他们还是保留了对属下行使武力的权力。早在1859年，英国《良好社会之习俗》（The Habits of a Good Society）一书的作者就劝导说：

    有些男人，只有体罚才能使其理性，这是我们在生活中不得不面对的问题。一位女士受到鲁莽粗汉或者不良马车夫的骚扰和胡搅蛮缠，一记狠狠的勾拳就能解决整个麻烦……因此，一个男子，不论他是否愿意成为一名绅士，都应该学习拳击……对此没有成文的法规，只有诉诸常识。该出手时就出手，出手要准要快；一只手保持防护姿势，另一只手向敌人出击。绅士之间不会互相攻击。拳击术应当用于惩罚地位比你低下，但比你更强壮和更莽撞的人。[51]

    精英阶层是欧洲暴力减少的急先锋。今天欧洲各国的统计数据都显示，绝大部分凶杀和其他暴力犯罪的罪犯来自社会经济地位最低的人。这一变化显然是因为在中世纪，人们可以通过武力实现晋升。记者史蒂文·赛勒（Steven Sailer）这样回顾20世纪初英国发生的变化：“英国上议院的一位世袭议员抱怨说，英国首相劳合·乔治之所以设立一些新爵位，完全是因为他们是白手起家的百万富翁，最近才获得大片土地。当问这位议员 ‘您祖上是怎样得到爵位的 ’时，他厉声回答说：‘全靠战斧，先生，全靠战斧！’”[52]

    上流社会终于放下战斧，遣散了卫队，不再挥拳暴打仆从和车夫，中产阶级则追随其后。这一次不是依靠宫廷，而是有其他的文明力量完成了这一驯化。在工厂和商业机构就业的人必须要学习恪守礼仪。日渐发展的民主政治让人民开始认同政府和社会机构，并使法院制度成为他们申诉的一种途径。接着，1828年，罗伯特·皮尔（Robert Peel）爵士在伦敦创立了市警察局，并以他自己的小名命名了这一机构——“鲍比”。[53]

    今天社会下层与暴力相关的主要原因是，精英和中产阶级通过法制寻求公正，而下层仍然诉诸学者所说的暴力“自助”。这里的“自助”与《爱得过多的女人》（Women Who Love Too Much）或《心灵鸡汤》（Chicken Soup for the Soul）毫无关系，而是指“自卫报复”“边疆正义”“把法律抓在自己手里”，以及在国家干预缺失的情况下，人们为了寻求公正而采取的其他暴力复仇方式。

    《作为社会控制的犯罪》（Crime as Social Control）是一篇颇具影响的论文。法学家唐纳德·布莱克（Donald Black）在文章中说，我们所说的犯罪，从犯罪者的角度看，则是寻求公正。[54]犯罪学家对布莱克使用的统计数据早有所知，即凶杀中，只有很小的比例（大约10%）有明确的犯罪目的，比如，在盗窃时杀害屋主，在逮捕行动中杀害警察，或在抢劫和强奸之后灭口。[55]大部分凶杀案最常见的动机都与道德有关，比如受到侮辱后的报复，家庭争吵的升级，惩罚情侣的出轨或背弃，以及其他嫉妒、报复和自卫的行动。布莱克列举了休斯敦资料库中的一些案例：

    一个年轻男子在争吵中杀死了自己的兄弟，争吵的原因是这个兄弟占妹妹的便宜。另一个案例是男人杀妻，因为在两人争论应该先付哪些账单时，妻子嘲笑丈夫说“谅”他不敢杀她。另一个案例是女子在争斗中杀死了丈夫，因为丈夫揍了妻子的女儿（丈夫的继女）。还有一个案例，一名妇女杀死了自己21岁的儿子，因为他“和同性恋鬼混并吸毒”。还有两个凶杀案，起因都是争抢停车位，死者均因伤口发炎丧命。

    布莱克注意到，大部分凶杀都是死刑案，法官、陪审员和刽子手都是普通公民。这提醒我们，我们怎样看待暴力，取决于在暴力三角（见图2-1）中我们怎样占据制高点。设想一下，一个男子因为伤害他妻子的情人而被捕受审。从法律的立场看，丈夫是侵犯者，社会是受害者，社会因此要寻求公正（法庭为案件命名的方式，恰恰体现了这一性质，比如人民控告约翰·某某）。从情人的立场来看，侵犯者是丈夫，他自己是受害者。如果这个丈夫被判无罪或流审，或者达成认罪减刑，对于寻求复仇的情人来说，都是不公正的。从丈夫的立场看，他是（通奸的）受害者，情人是侵犯者，正义已经得到伸张——但是现在，他却成了二次侵犯的受害者，国家成了侵犯者，情人是从犯。布莱克注意到：

    犯谋杀罪的人经常顺从地将自己的命运交给当局，许多人耐心地等待警察的到来，一些人致电警方报告自己的罪行……在这一类案件中，犯案人确实带有某种烈士的味道。正如明知违规也要罢工的工人，明白自己要为此蹲大牢，或者其他为了坚持原则而以身试法的人，他们认为自己坚持了真理，愿意为此承担后果。[56]

    这些观察颠覆了许多有关暴力的教条。其中之一是暴力是由道德和公正的缺失造成的。相反，过度的道德和正义经常引发暴力，至少犯罪人认为自己是站在道德和正义一方的。另一个备受心理学家和公共卫生研究者珍视的教条是，暴力是一种疾病。[57]但是，公共卫生学对暴力的解释完全无视疾病的基本定义，即某种引起个人不适的障碍。[58]最凶残的罪犯也坚持认为自己绝无疾患，反而是受害人和旁观者认为暴力是一种疾病。第三个似是而非的信条是，下层人民被卷入暴力是因为经济窘困。比如，为喂养孩子而偷窃食物，或者他们要表达对社会的愤怒。下层的暴力也许真有表达愤怒的意思，但对象不是社会，而是剐蹭了他的汽车、在大庭广众之下羞辱了他的那个浑蛋。

    犯罪学家马克·库尼（Mark Cooney）的《精英凶杀的减少》（The Decline of Elite Homicide）一文深受布莱克的启发。库尼在文章中说，许多下层人——贫穷的、未受过教育的、未婚的，以及少数民族——事实上是无国籍的。他们中很多人靠违法活动为生，比如贩毒、聚赌、出售赃物和卖淫，所以一旦发生业务纠纷，为了保护自己的利益，他们既不可能提起诉讼，也不可能报告警察。为此，他们要向大佬——那些贩卖禁品的大户，比如黑手党、毒枭和禁酒时代的私酒商人乞求所需的暴力资源。

    他们没有国籍的另一个理由是，下层人民和法律系统互相敌视。布莱克和库尼都表示，在处理与低收入的美国黑人有关的案件时，警方“似乎不是无动于衷就是充满敌意……开始是犹犹豫豫不肯介入，一旦介入后就重拳狠击”。[59]法官和检察官也是“对下层人民十分冷漠，通常处置草率，涉案各方都对裁决不满”。[60]记者希瑟·麦克唐纳（Heather MacDonald）引述纽约哈莱姆区一位警长的话说：

    上周末，一个街坊都熟识的傻小子打伤了一个孩子。孩子的全家人到打人者的公寓进行报复。受害人的姐姐们乱踢公寓的房门。但是那个傻小子的妈妈却狠揍了这几个姐姐，她们躺在地上，口角流血。受害人的家人是来寻衅的，我可以指控他们非法侵入。傻小子的妈妈打伤对方的家人，足够被控三项伤害罪。但是，他们都是街头混混、渣滓，他们将以他们自己的方式得到正义。我告诉他们：“你们或者统统进监狱，或者自行了断。”否则，他们就会因为蠢行而被关进监狱。到时候区检察官会非常恼火，而这些家伙都不会在法庭上露面。[61]

    毫不奇怪，下层社会的人不愿意依靠法律，甚至对法律有所抵触，反而寻求古老的法外正义自助和“荣誉守则”。与纽约警长对管区内居民的评价相对应，年轻的美国黑人告诉犯罪学家迪纳·威尔金森（Deanna Wilkinson）：

    雷吉：我所住小区的警长不该在我们这里工作，你怎么能派一个白人警察来保护和服务黑人小区？这是不可能的，因为在他们眼里，黑人的面孔就代表犯罪，而且黑人的面孔长得都是一样的。没有犯罪的黑人长得和犯罪的黑人一模一样，所有人都被警察骚扰。

    德克斯特：事情被他们搞得越来越糟，黑鬼（警察）他妈的鼓捣黑鬼（青年）。他们自己欺骗自己，你知道我在说什么吗？这些黑鬼（警察）袭击藏毒窝点，拿走我的毒品，然后自己拿着这些臭大粪到街上出售，套住其他人，接着再来一圈。

    昆廷（谈到开枪打中他父亲的凶手）：他很有可能被无罪释放。我能怎么办？……如果我失去父亲，而他们不能给凶手定罪，我会杀了凶手全家。这就是我们的办法。如果你抓不到他，抓不住他们……每个人从小就知道这一套，谁都想受尊重，谁都想当个男子汉。[62]

    也可以说，历史性的文明进程并没有铲除暴力，只是将暴力推挤到社会经济的边缘人群中了。

    世界各地的暴力

    “文明的进程”不仅沿着社会经济维度向下层推进，也以西欧为中心，沿着地理维度全方位向外围推进。在图3-3中，我们可以看到英国第一个完成了自身的平靖，接着是德国和低地国家。图3-8给出了19世纪末和21世纪初欧洲地图上和平进程向外蔓延的对比。

    19世纪末，欧洲工业化国家（英国、法国、德国、丹麦和低地国家）是和平的中心，周围有野性尚存的爱尔兰、奥匈帝国、芬兰，再外围有西班牙、意大利、希腊和斯拉夫各国。今天，和平中心已经覆盖了整个西欧和中欧，但是，东欧和巴尔干山地的暴戾之气仍然有迹可循。

    在这些国家中，每一个国家内部亦有自己的变化梯度：在城市和人口密集的农业中心进入和平很久之后，内陆地区和山区一直暴力横行。流行病一般的家族战事在苏格兰高地延续到18世纪，但撒丁区、西西里、门的内哥罗（黑山）和巴尔干其他地区的暴力一直持续到20世纪。[63]我在本书开篇提到的两部浸染了鲜血的古典名著——《圣经》和《荷马史诗》，都来自居住在荒山野岭的人民，这并非巧合。

    世界其他地方的情况如何呢？欧洲国家对凶杀进行统计已经有一个多世纪的历史，但其他大陆的国家并非如此。即使在今天，警察局向国际刑警组织报告的警察记录薄上的数字也常常不可靠，有时甚至令人难以置信。许多政府认为，防范自己的公民相互谋杀用不着他人操心。在某些发展中国家，军阀用政治解放运动的辞藻来粉饰他们的土匪行径，让人们难以区分哪些是内战的伤亡，哪些是有组织犯罪的谋杀。[64]

    图3-8 19世纪末和21世纪初欧洲凶杀统计地理分布

    资料来源：19世纪末（1880-1900年）：艾斯纳，2003年。艾斯纳的“>10万分之5”直到“万分之5~10”，与艾斯纳的“万分之10~30”相匹配。门的内哥罗的数据来自塞尔维亚的统计资料。21世纪初（主要是2004年）的数据：联合国毒品和犯罪问题办公室，2009年；数据选择见注释66。

    在种种局限之下，今天世界的凶杀水平和分布到底如何？世界卫生组织的数据是最可靠的，它尽量利用各国公共卫生系统的记录和其他资料来源推算死亡人口的死因。[65]联合国毒品和犯罪问题办公室对每一个国家的人口死亡数据做了高估值和低估值，这可以作为对世界卫生组织数据的补充。图3-9是根据2004年的数据绘制的世界地图（2004年数据见联合国毒品和犯罪问题办公室的最新报告）。[66]好消息是，这套数据显示，各国凶杀率的中值是每年10万分之6。世界卫生组织在2000年估计，不分国别，全世界的凶杀率是年均10万分之8.8。[67]相比前国家时期三位数和欧洲中世纪两位数的凶杀率，这两个数字都说明了暴力的减少。

    图3-9显示，西欧和中欧是当今世界暴力最少的地区。在其他地区，有可靠低凶杀率数据的国家是原来的英联邦，比如澳大利亚、新西兰、斐济、加拿大、马尔代夫和百慕大。只有一个英国殖民地不服从英国文明的教化，我们将在下一节探讨这个现象。

    几个亚洲国家和地区的凶杀率也很低，尤其是那些接受了西方模式的国家和地区，比如日本、新加坡和中国香港地区。现有的一些专制政府（包括很多伊斯兰国家）严密监控国民的生活，一旦发现越线就施以严刑峻法，我们称其为“警察国家”。不用说，它们的暴力犯罪率都很低。不过，我还是忍不住要提到一件逸事，说明中国也像欧洲一样，经历过漫长的文明进程。埃利亚斯特别关注对刀具的禁忌，因为它与欧洲暴力的减少形影相随，而这一禁忌在中国得以进一步演化，刀具被限于在厨房使用，食物被厨师切成适合入口的小块后才能上桌，在餐桌上彻底禁绝了刀具。埃利亚斯引用中国人的话说：“番鬼粗野，刀剑佐食。”[68]

    其他国家的情况如何呢？犯罪学家加里·拉福里（Gary LaFree）和社会学家奥兰多·帕特森（Orlando Patterson）都发现，犯罪和民主化的关系是一个反转的U字。民主国家和专制国家一样，都相对安全，但是正在民主化的国家和半民主国家（也称伪民主政体）通常深受暴力犯罪的困扰，而且易于陷入内战，有时甚至二者纠缠在一起。[69]今日世界上犯罪最为猖獗的地区是俄罗斯、撒哈拉以南的非洲和拉美的部分地区。许多国家的警察队伍和司法系统贪污腐败，向罪犯和受害者两边敲诈勒索，向出价更高的一方施舍保护。牙买加（33.7）、墨西哥（11.1）和哥伦比亚（52.7）饱受毒枭荼毒，法律对贩毒收入供养的军事组织束手无策，鞭长莫及。在过去的40年里，随着贩毒日益泛滥，凶杀率也随之上升。其他国家，例如俄罗斯（29.7）和南非（69），在前政府垮台之际都经历了文明退化的过程。

    图3-9 2004年世界凶杀统计地理分布

    资料来源：联合国毒品和犯罪问题办公室，2004年国际凶杀统计；见注释66。

    许多地区从部落制度转入殖民地统治，接着又突然变为独立国家，比如撒哈拉以南的非洲和巴布亚新几内亚（15.2），都深受文明退化之苦。人类学家波莉·威斯纳（Polly Wiessner）在她的文章《从梭镖到机关枪》中回顾了巴布亚新几内亚恩加省部落民的暴力历史。在文章的开始，她引用了1939年在当地工作的一位人类学家的描述：

    我们到达拉伊山谷的心脏地带，如果这不是世界上最美的山谷的话，那么它一定是新几内亚最美丽的山谷。到处都是精心耕作的园地，生长着枝繁叶茂的红薯和木麻黄。修缮齐整的阶梯道路蜿蜒乡间，小花园星罗棋布……整个山谷仿佛一个巨大的热带园林。

    与此相比的是威斯纳本人在2004年的一篇日记：

    拉伊山谷已是荒凉的弃地，用恩加人的话说，成了“鸟雀蛇鼠的家园”。房屋被烈火烧成灰烬，红薯地杂草茂盛，残垣断壁间枝干横生。在大森林中，战事频仍，“兰博”们用猎枪和高能步枪相互厮杀，死伤难以记数。路旁，数年前人声熙攘的闹市一片空寂，犹如鬼市。[70]

    恩加人从来都不是人们所说的和平使者。他们中的“马伊恩加”部落，在上一章的图2-3中占有一席之地。他们在战争中互相残杀，年均死亡率是10万分之300，让我们在本章中谈及的其他所有国家相形见绌。在那里，霍布斯状态的所有要素都有充分的表现：强奸和通奸，偷窃家畜和土地，骚扰，当然还有复仇、复仇和更多的复仇。不过，恩加人早已意识到战争的破坏力，某些部落采取措施限制战火，不时也有所成就。比如，他们制定了与《日内瓦公约》类似的准则，规定肢解人体或杀害来使是战争罪行。虽然他们有时仍与其他村庄和部落进行毁灭性的战争，但会在自己的社区内控制暴力行为。任何一个人类社会都要面对年轻人和老年人之间的利益冲突。年轻人为自己追求统治权力（和交配机会），老人则力图减少大家庭和家族中的争斗，以免出现两败俱伤、自相残杀的局面。恩加的长者迫使桀骜不驯的年轻人参加“单身团”，鼓励年轻人控制自己的复仇冲动。他们的谚语是“血债难逃”和“杀猪者寿，杀人者夭”。[71]他们的文化中还有其他的文明元素，他们规范了何为合理得体以及清洁卫生。威斯纳在一封给我的电子邮件中做了这样的描述：

    恩加人在大小便的时候，用雨披遮盖自己，避免冒犯他人，也避免对太阳不敬。一个男人站在路边背对公路小便，是极其粗野的举止。他们在做饭之前一丝不苟地洗手。他们在遮挡生殖器问题上非常谨慎，但在对付鼻涕方面不甚讲究。

    最重要的是，恩加人在20世纪30年代末开始接受澳大利亚式和平。在20年的时间内，战事迅速减少，许多恩加人不再依靠暴力解决纠纷，而是用“法庭斗争”取代战场杀戮。

    当巴布亚新几内亚在1975年赢得独立后，恩加人中的暴力直线上升。政府官员给自己的同族发放土地和补贴，被政府冷落的家族心怀愤恨并图谋报复。年轻人离开“单身团”进入学校，但毕业后找不到任何工作，只有加入流氓犯罪团伙，彻底抛弃了部落长者的约束和自幼遵守的规则。他们受到酒精、毒品、夜总会、赌博和武器（包括M-16和AK-47）的蛊惑，不断卷入强奸、抢劫、放火等活动，行为方式和欧洲中世纪的骑士没有太大分别。警察未经训练而且装备不足，腐败的官僚无力维持秩序，国家虚弱不堪。简言之，速成的非殖民化带来政府真空，巴布亚人的文明进程发生逆转，他们既失去了传统的制约，又没有现代社会的“第三方执行机制”。发展中国家的其他前殖民地也都经历了类似的文明倒退，这可以算是世界凶杀率下降大潮流中泛起的些许旋涡。

    西方人很容易认为，在那些没有法制的地方，暴力是顽固和永久的。事实上，在历史上有很多时期，人们实在受够了血腥的暴力，于是开始组织犯罪学家所说的“文明攻势”。[72]凶杀率的下降原是国家权力的确立和商业发展的副产品。与这种非规划性的发展相比，“文明攻势”是社区中一部分人的主动努力，通常是妇女、老人和神职人员教化“兰博”和“拉斯克”（Rasckol）——黑帮和流氓，帮助他们重建文明生活。威斯纳的文章中报道了恩加省进入21世纪后数年间开始的文明攻势。[73]教会领袖力图用体育运动、音乐和祈祷吸引年轻人离开黑帮，并以宽恕之道取代复仇。2007年，恩加人开始使用手机，部落的长老建立了快速反应机制，用手机报告冲突，并在打斗失控前及时赶到现场。他们从各自的家族内部约束闹事者，有时甚至以野蛮的公开行刑作为震慑。社区政府同时禁止赌博、饮酒和卖淫。新一代的年轻人见到“恶棍短命，一无所得”，也愿意接受长老的努力。威斯纳对结果做了量化描述：在暴力上升了数十年之后，凶杀数量在进入21世纪后的几年内迅速减少。我们将会看到，恩加不是唯一一个文明攻势取得成效的地区。

    美国各州的暴力

    就像樱桃馅烘饼一样，暴力也是美国的特色。 ——H.拉布·布朗

    布朗这位黑豹党发言人也许搞错了水果，但他对美国的评价却是有统计依据的。在西方民主国家中，美国的凶杀率居高不下。它不与近亲英国人、荷兰人和德国人结伴，反而与强悍的阿尔巴尼亚人和乌拉圭人为伍，凶杀率一直停留在世界的平均水平之上。美国的凶杀率不仅始终不能与欧洲和英联邦民主国家相比，而且在整个20世纪都没有明显的下降，见图3-10。（在20世纪示意图中，我使用的是线性标度而不是对数标度。）

    美国的凶杀率一路攀升到1933年，在20世纪30年代和40年代迅速下降，整个50年代都保持在相当低的水平，但在1962年开始飙升，70年代和80年代在高点上浮动，直到1992年才出现真正的下降。与美国的情况相同，西方民主各国在60年代均出现暴力反弹。但为什么美国的凶杀率一直远远高于英国，两国的差距从来未曾弥合过？一般说来，政府有效、经济发达，享有“文明的进程”的国家暴力水平普遍下降，美国是不是此一般性规律的一个反例？如果是的话，美国有何特性？报纸的评论经常给出一些似是而非的解释，比如“为何美国暴力猖獗？因为我们的文化素质中具有暴力倾向”。[74]我们怎样才能走出这个循环逻辑？美国人不仅仅是喜欢扣动扳机，即使从总凶杀案中减去因枪支导致的死亡，只计算使用绳索、刀子、铅管、扳手、烛台等器械的凶杀案，美国人的谋杀率仍然高于欧洲国家。[75]

    图3-10 1900—2000年美国和英国的凶杀率

    资料来源：图表来自门克宁（Monkkonen），2001年，第171页，第185～188页；同时见察恩和麦考尔，1999年，第12页。门克宁的美国资料与本章图3-18中联邦调查局的犯罪总报告的数据略有差距。

    欧洲人一向认为美国人不够文明，但这种看法只有一半是对的。美利坚合众国——The United States，原本就是一个复数名词，与其说“这个美国”，不如说这些美国。记住这一点，是我们理解美国暴力问题的关键。说到暴力，美国不是一个国家，而是三个国家。图3-11显示的是2007年美国50个州的凶杀率，它与表示世界凶杀率的图3-9使用同样的分色方式。

    图3-11显示，美国某些州的情况和欧洲没有区别。这些地区有新英格兰各州，从东岸直至太平洋西岸的北方地带（明尼苏达州、艾奥瓦州、南北达科他州、蒙大拿州和西北太平洋沿岸数州），加上犹他州。北方地带不是指有共同的气候带，俄勒冈州的气候和蒙大拿州毫无相似之处，而是指历史上从东向西的移民路线。这条丝带上的各州安定和平，凶杀率低于每年10万分之3，越往南，凶杀率越高。美国南方亚利桑那州（7.4）和亚拉巴马州（8.9），甚至比乌拉圭（5.3）、约旦（6.9）和格林纳达（4.9）都要糟糕。我们还可以看到路易斯安那州（14.2），它的数字已经接近巴布亚新几内亚州（15.2）。[76]

    地图上的第二组对照不是很明显。路易斯安那州的凶杀率比南方其他各州都高。首都哥伦比亚特区（地图东北上方一个很小的黑点）的凶杀率远远超出一般水平，为每年10万分之30.8，在最危险的中美洲和非洲南部的国家之列。这两个行政辖区是美国非裔人口比重最高的地方。今天美国白人和黑人之间凶杀率的差距之大令人触目惊心。1976—2005年，白人的年均凶杀率是4.8，而黑人的年均凶杀率是36.9。[77]不仅仅是黑人更容易被逮捕和判刑，这也意味着种族差距可能是种族歧视的产物。无论是对受害者辨认施暴者种族的匿名调查，还是对人们（无论白人还是黑人）叙述自己的暴力侵犯史的调查，都显示了美国白人和黑人之间凶杀率的巨大差距。[78]虽然南方各州非裔美国人的比例比北方各州要高，但南北之间的暴力差异不是种族构成的副产品。南方的白人比北方的白人更加暴力，南方的黑人也比北方的黑人更加暴力。[79]

    图3-11 2007年美国凶杀率地理分布

    资料来源：美国联邦调查局资料，2007年，表4。美国各地按地区、地理区域和州统计的犯罪，2006-2007年。

    虽然美国北方人和美国白人比西欧人更暴力（西欧的凶杀率只有10万分之1.4），但是两者之间的差距远远小于国家之间的差距。略加回顾，即可发现美国也曾经历国家主导的文明进程，尽管不同地区文明化的时间和程度都有所不同。真相需要被挖掘，因为在凶杀记录和统计方面，美国长期落于人后。联邦政府一直不对凶杀进行统计，而是由各州自己记录。直到20世纪30年代之前，美国都没有可靠的全国统计数据。在很长时间内，美国一直是一个活动靶标，“下48州”在1912年才成型，许多州周期性地受到移民大潮的冲击，大熔炉中人口的种族构成不断变化。基于这些原因，研究美国犯罪的历史学家只好将就着使用一些较小行政区的短期数据。在《美国凶杀》（American Homicide）一书中，兰道夫·罗斯（Randolph Roth）整理了大量小范围历史数据，给出了全国统计数据出现之前300年的凶杀历史。大部分数据的走势如同过山车，上下起伏，但仍然可以看出随着无政府边疆的消失和国家的介入，美国各个地区文明化的过程。

    图3-12将艾斯纳整理计算的英国凶杀率与罗斯收集的新英格兰数据进行了叠加。根据埃利亚斯的方式，罗斯对殖民时代新英兰高凶杀率进行了观察，“在边疆暴力年代，凶杀率高居不下，成年人中年均为10万分之100。直到1637年，英国殖民者和美洲原住民在新英格兰确立了他们的统治地位后才出现转机”。在国家政权确立之后，旧英格兰和新英格兰的两条凶杀曲线的走势惊人的一致。

    美国东北各州的凶杀率从三位数或接近三位数的两位数迅速下降到个位数。位于康涅狄格州和特拉华州的荷兰殖民地新尼德兰，凶杀率在最初几十年直线下降，从10万分之68降至10万分之15（图3-13）。但到19世纪，当我们有了新数据的时候，看见的却是美国与它的两个母国背道而驰。虽然新英格兰的大部分农村和种族单一地区——佛蒙特州和新罕布什尔州继续漫步在和平的谷地，凶杀率只有10万分之1，波士顿却在19世纪中叶变得更加暴力，凶杀率与新尼德兰地区的纽约和费城不相上下。

    图3-12 1300—1925年英国的凶杀率，1630—1914年新英格兰的凶杀率

    资料来源：英国的数据：艾斯纳，2003年。新英格兰的数据：1630—1637年，罗斯，2001年，第55页；1650—1800年，罗斯，2001年，第56页；1914年，罗斯，2009年，第388页。罗斯的估算是以0.65为乘数，将以成年人口为基数的统计转换为以平均人口为基数，见罗斯，2009，第495页。在图中，每一年所使用的数据为当年统计的中间值。

    图3-13 1636—1900年美国东北部各州的凶杀率

    资料来源：数据来自罗斯，2009年，仅有白人统计。新英格兰：第38页，第62页。新尼德兰：第38页，第50页。纽约：第185页。新罕布什尔州和佛蒙特州：第184页。费城：第185页。在图中，每一年所使用的数据为当年统计的中间值。数据被乘以0.65，将以成年人口为基数的统计转换为以平均人口为基数，见罗斯，2009年，第495页。将“无亲缘关系的成年人”的数据乘以1.1之后，使之与“所有成年人”的估计值大致相当。

    美国东北部城市凶杀率的几次起伏，显示美国版的文明进程发生了两次曲折。这几条线在凶杀水平的中段上徘徊，虽然远离了高峰，但也迟迟不肯进入低谷，说明在新的疆土内，政府管制将凶杀压低了一个数量级，从10万分之100降到10万分之10。在欧洲，这一势头将凶杀率一直带到10万分之1，但美国的情况则不同，凶杀率保持在10万分之5~15之间，一直到今天仍然如此。罗斯认为，一个有效的政府可以安定民众，将凶杀率从10万分之100降至10万分之10，但进一步的工作则取决于人民在多大程度上接受其政府、司法和社会秩序的正当性。在欧洲文明进程中，艾斯纳也观察到相似的情况。

    美国版文明进程的另一个转折是，罗斯的许多小范围数据均显示在19世纪中期，暴力有所增加。[80]在美国的许多地区，内战和战后的冲突打乱了原有的社会平衡，东北各州受到爱尔兰移民浪潮的冲击。我们会看到，这使美国凶杀率的减少幅度大大落后于英国。19世纪的爱尔兰裔美国人恰如20世纪的非裔美国人，总是比别人更好勇斗狠，主要原因是他们和警方彼此毫无尊重。[81]但在19世纪下半叶，美国城市警力扩张，专业素质提升，警察被纳入刑事司法系统，不再手提警棒在大街上自行主持正义。进入20世纪后，北方大城市中白人的凶杀率终于开始下降。[82]

    但是，19世纪下半叶的暴力变化有其宿命的特点。我在前面展示的图表只是给出了美国白人的凶杀率。图3-14给出了两个城市中黑人杀黑人和白人杀白人的凶杀率，两者之间差距显著。图3-14也告诉我们，美国黑人凶杀率和白人凶杀率之间的差距并非从来如此。19世纪上半叶，美国东北部城市、新英格兰、中西部和弗吉尼亚州的黑人和白人的凶杀率非常接近，但随后出现了差距。进入20世纪后，差距越拉越大，非裔美国人的凶杀率猛增。在纽约，非裔美国人的凶杀率从19世纪50年代的3倍于白人，蹿升到20世纪中叶的13倍于白人。[83]如果要追根究源，特别是要谈到与此相关的经济隔离和居民隔离，可以另外再写一本书了。但正如我们所看到的，原因之一是低收入非裔美国人的社区基本上处于无国家状态，依赖的是荣誉文化（有时称为“街头帮规”）保护自己，而不是国家的法律。[84]

    图3-14 1797—1952年纽约和费城黑人和白人的凶杀率

    资料来源：纽约1797—1845年，罗斯，2009年，第195页。纽约1856—1885年，罗斯的平均数，2009年，第195页，格尔，1989年a，第39页。纽约1905—1953年，格尔，1989年a，第39页。费城1842—1894年，罗斯，2009年，第195页。费城1907—1928年；雷因（Lane），1989年，第72页（15年平均数）。费城，20世纪50年代，格尔，1989年a，第38～39页。罗斯的估计数被乘以0.65，将按成年人人口计算的数据转换为按总人口计算；见罗斯，2009年，第495页。此外，他对费城所做的估算被乘以1.1，将无亲缘关系的凶杀转换为全部凶杀，并乘以1.5，将受到起诉的凶杀转换为全部凶杀（罗斯，2009年，第492页）。每一年所使用的数据均为当年统计的中间值。

    * * *

    英国人最早在新英格兰和弗吉尼亚实现定居，图3-13和图3-15的对比，也许让人们认为两个殖民地在它们的第一个百年间完成了文明的进程。不过，必须留意到竖轴上的数字，你才能明白其中的含义。在图中，东北各州的数据以0.1~100为单位，而东南方弗吉尼亚州的数据则是1~1000，高出10倍。与黑人和白人之间的鸿沟不同，美国北方和南方的差距自有其历史渊源。从一开始，马里兰州和弗吉尼亚州的切萨皮克殖民地的暴力水平就高出新英格兰，然后，凶杀率逐渐下降到一个比较温和的水平（在年均10万分之1至10万分之10之间），整个19世纪都维持在这一水平。南方其他殖民地的凶杀率则在10万分之10至万分之100之间浮动，如图中佐治亚州种植园区的数据所示。在山区和偏远的内地，例如佐治亚州的穷乡僻壤和田纳西州—肯塔基州边界地带，凶杀率一直徘徊在非常不文明的10万分之100的水平上，有些地区一直到19世纪还是如此。

    为什么美国南方会有悠久的暴力历史？最笼统的答复是，政府的文明使命从来不曾深入美国南方。历史学家彼得·斯皮伦堡（Pieter Spierenburg）曾经很挑衅性地说，美国是“民主来得太早了”[85]。在欧洲，首先是国家解除人民的武装，并声称垄断暴力，然后人民接管了国家的机构。在美国，人民在国家缴除他们的枪支之前就掌握了国家政权，比如宪法第二修正案确立人民有权持有和携带枪支。换言之，美国人，特别是南部和西部的美国人，从来没有像世界其他地方的人民那样，和政府签署过完整的社会契约，容许政府垄断合法使用武力的权力。在美国历史上，地方民团、治安员、私刑暴民、公司警察、私人侦探和侦探公司都是合法的武装力量，美国公民更是将武装视为个人的权利。

    历史学家已经注意到，这种权力分享在美国南方一向是神圣不可侵犯的。埃里克·门克宁这样说，在19世纪，“南方各州有意保持弱政权，在地方和个人暴力问题上，有意避免判处监禁”。[86]杀人如果“事出有因”，就会被从轻发落，而“在南方乡村，大部分凶杀都事出有因，这些原因包括：受害人未能尽全力逃避凶手，私人争执引发杀人，或者凶手和受害人的本意是互相杀害”。[87]

    在南方的传说中，对自助正义的信赖由来已久。孩子在襁褓中时，母亲就给他们吟诵这样的故事。年轻的安德鲁·杰克逊从母亲那里得到这样的训诫：“无论是受到侮辱还是伤害，永远不要上法庭，你要自己来摆平。”[88]这位参与过决斗的总统自我吹嘘说，他走起路来，留在身体里的铅弹哗啦哗啦响作一片。南方山地的勇武标志——丹尼尔·布恩（Daniel Boone）和《荒野大王》的大卫·克罗（Davy Crockett）给这一传统添加了浓重的传奇风采。肯塔基州和西弗吉尼亚州乡村中哈特菲尔德和麦考伊两家的家族世仇，在这一习俗下更是战火难熄。只要这些凶杀被计入统计，南方的暴力死亡必然居高不下，而且至今仍是南方人心中的梦魇。[89]

    图3-15 1620—1900年美国东南部各州的凶杀率

    资料来源：数据来自罗斯，2009年，仅有白人的数据。弗吉尼亚州（切萨皮克殖民地），第39页、第84页。弗吉尼亚州（切萨皮克和谢南多厄），第201页。佐治亚州，第162页。田纳西州-肯塔基州，第336～337页。弗吉尼亚州1838年的数字为0，因为0无法定义，图表上标注为1。罗斯的估计值均被乘以0.65，将成年人中的凶杀率数据转换为总人口的凶杀率；见罗斯，2009年，第495页。

    自助正义依靠的是对一个人的能力和决心的信任。直到今天，美国南方仍然崇尚有效威慑，或曰“荣誉文化”。荣誉文化的本质是，它不认可攻击和工具性暴力，但是允许在受到侮辱和冒犯后进行报复。心理学家理查德·尼斯比特（Richard Nisbett）和多夫·科恩（Dov Cohen）认为，这一思维范式已经渗入南方各州的法律、政治和人民的观念之中。[90]在与抢劫有关的凶杀方面，南方人没有比北方人更糟糕，但他们在打架斗殴中却更多地发生命案。调查显示，南方人理论上并不认可使用暴力，他们使用暴力仅仅是为了保护家园和家人。而南方各州的法律也认可这一道德伦理。南方的法律给予个人在自卫和保护私产时致人死命的广泛自由，对购买枪支甚少约束，允许学校进行体罚（“打板子”），明确谋杀为死刑罪，司法系统也乐于执行死刑。南方人更愿意参军，入军校学习，在对外政策上持鹰派观点。

    尼斯比特和科恩设计了一套巧妙的测验，证明荣誉规则主导了南方人的个人行为。在一项研究中，他们向美国各地的公司发出虚构求职信。一半的求职信上写着这样的忏悔：

    有一件事我必须做出解释，因为我觉得我必须诚实，不想被误解。我曾经被判有罪，是人们所说的“一般杀人罪”。在您给我发出申请表格前，您也许愿意先听听我的解释。情况如下：我打了一个家伙，他和我的未婚妻有奸情。我家在一个小镇，一天晚上，这个人在酒吧里拦住了我。他向大家说他和我的未婚妻睡觉，他当面嘲笑我，说如果我是个男人，就出去和他干一架。我还年轻，不想在众人面前退缩。我们到了小巷里，他开始攻击我，把我打倒在地，并在地上捡起一个酒瓶。我可以逃走，法官也说我当时应该逃走，但是我的骄傲不允许我这样做。小巷的地上有根铁管子，我把它抓到手里，向他抡了过去。我没想打死他，但是几个小时后，他死在了医院里。我认识到我犯了错误。

    另一半求职信都有一段相同的话，即求职者承认被判偷车罪，他说他犯下愚蠢的盗窃罪全是为了养活妻子和年幼的孩子。对于犯有杀人罪的男子的求职信，更多的南方公司会送出附有信函的申请表，他们的回复所用的语气也比较温暖。比如，一家南方商店的店主回信说，很抱歉店里暂时没有位置空缺，然后接着说：

    你过去的遭遇，是任何人都可能遇到的麻烦。它只是一个不幸的事件，不能以此就否定你。你的坦白证明了你是诚实的……我祝愿你时来运转。你具有积极的人生态度和工作愿望，这些都是一个企业期望员工具备的品质。如果你安顿下来后，发现离我们不算太远的话，请你顺道时过来看看我们。[91]

    没有任何北方公司给予他这样温暖的回复。而不论南方还是北方，都没有公司对偷车贼表示温暖。不过，北方公司更倾向于原谅偷车人，而不是情仇杀人犯。南方公司则相反。

    尼斯比特和科恩在他们的试验中也观察到南方的荣誉文化。他们的研究对象不是南方荒蛮之地的白佬，而是密歇根大学的富家子弟，条件是这些学生曾经在南方生活过至少6年。被选中的学生接受测试，“对特定人类判断的切面进行有时间约束的反应”（装腔作势的文章标题正好掩盖了研究的真正目的）。在进入实验室的走廊上，学生一定要经过一个正在整理文件柜的工作人员。当学生走过他身边的时候，他放下工作，猛地关上文件柜，接着嘟囔一句粗话：“臭东西。”此时，测试主持人出来迎接学生，他并不知道哪些学生受到了冒犯。他将学生带进实验室，让学生填写问卷，采集血样。他们发现，北方来的学生对“粗话”一笑置之，行为和那些没有听见粗话的对照组没有区别，但是受到冒犯的南方学生在进入实验室时怒气冲冲。他们回答的问卷表现出他们的自尊心受到了伤害，血样中的睾酮素和应激激素——皮层醇的水平升高。他们对测试主持人表现出强势的姿态，握手时更坚定用力。而离开时，在走廊迎面遇见另外一位工作人员，南方学生拒绝给他让路。[92]

    为什么是南方人而不是北方人培养了这种荣誉文化，是否存在某种外因？当然，维持奴隶制经济所需要的残忍也许是一个原因，但是暴力频仍的南方腹地的经济支柱并不是奴隶种植园（见图3-15）。尼斯比特和科恩受到大卫·哈克特·费希尔（David Hackett Fisher）的著作《阿尔比恩的种子》（Albion..s Seed）的影响。这部讲述英国在美洲殖民地历史的书，追溯了来自欧洲不同地区的第一批移民的根源。北方各州的移民是清教徒、贵格会教徒、荷兰人和德国的农民；南方内地的移民则主要来自苏格兰-爱尔兰，他们中有许多是边远山区的牧羊人，原本就是不列颠王国政府的化外之民。尼斯比特和科恩认为，放牧可能是荣誉文化的外因。牧民的财富都是易于被盗窃的实物，而且不像农民的土地，这些财富自己有脚，转眼之间就能被带走。全世界的牧民都具有迫不及待报仇雪恨的习性。尼斯比特和科恩认为，苏格兰-爱尔兰人将他们的荣誉文化带到美国，并在南方边疆山区的放牧生活中保留了这一文化。虽然现在的南方人不再是牧民，但习俗的生命力远比造就它们的生态环境更持久。直到今日，南方人的行为举止仍然强硬，像是他们随时都要对付盗马贼一般。

    牧民假说的前提是，在某种职业性策略失去用途后，人们仍然会在数百年内坚守这一策略，但对荣誉文化的一般性解释不需要依靠这一假说。人们选择在山区放牧，是因为山区不适于耕作，而山区处于无政府状态，是因为政府难以完成它的征服、平靖和管理。自助正义的直接诱因是无政府，而不是放牧本身。前面说过，沙斯塔县的牧场主牧牛已经有一个世纪之久，但当他们中间任何人遭受财物或牛只的微小损失时，他们会认为此人应该“忍气吞声”，而不是贸然动武捍卫自己的荣誉。最近的研究也发现，比较南方各县的暴力水平和他们的放牧规模，一旦有其他变量出现，两者之间会立刻丧失相关性。[93]

    我们因此可以充分地假定，来自不列颠穷乡僻壤的移民定居到美国南方的穷乡僻壤，两处长期以来都是无法无天的蛮荒之地，因此养育出荣誉文化。我们还需要解释为什么这种文化具有如此顽强的自生能力。毕竟，美国南方早已有了功能齐备的司法系统。也许，荣誉文化之所以能够一路高扬，是因为没有人胆敢出头抛弃它。抛弃它等于自取其辱，承认自己是不值一钱的胆小鬼、软骨头。

    * * *

    美国西部的情况比南部更严重，直至20世纪初，西部还是无政府的三不管地界。好莱坞电影里的套话“离得最近的警官在145公里之外”，是对数百万平方公里的疆域内的真实描述，结果也像是好莱坞电影的俗套——永远的暴力。纳博科夫的长篇小说《洛丽塔》中的男主人公亨伯特·亨伯特在带着洛丽塔跨州大逃亡的日子里，饱餐美国大众文化，尽情地享受牛仔电影中令人眼花缭乱的打斗场面：

    红褐色的西部风光，古铜面色、双眼碧蓝的骑手，一位刚刚抵达咆哮山谷的端庄秀丽的女教师；嘶鸣的骏马，受惊后飞奔的马群，颤动的窗框后露出一把短枪的枪口；触目惊心的徒手打斗场面，桌椅横飞，满是尘土的老式家具东倒西歪，一片狼藉；矫健的身影四处翻滚，被死死按住的手还在竭力摸索掉在地上的短刀，粗重的呻吟声，击中脸颊的重拳，踢向小腹部的皮靴，横空飞蹿的绳索。最后，英雄身受重创，即使是阿喀琉斯也只能躺着进医院了。但这里的结局则不然，古铜色的脸上伤痕累累的英雄斗志正高，开始热情地拥抱他那光彩熠熠的边疆新娘。[94]

    在《暴力之地》（Violent Land）一书中，历史学家戴维·考特莱特（David Courtwright）说，好莱坞西部片中牛仔的浪漫形象未必准确，但是他们展示的暴力却是非常写实的。牛仔的生活只有两部分，一是危险而艰辛的劳作，一是发薪日的饮酒、赌博、嫖妓和斗殴。“为了让牛仔成为美国经历的象征，道德美容是必需的。牛仔骑在骏马上，作为保护者和冒险家的形象被记住了，而下马后酗酒、在酒吧后门粪堆上夜宿的形象被忘记了。”[95]

    在美国西部，年均凶杀率比东部城市和中西部农区高出50倍甚至几百倍：堪萨斯州的阿比林市，10万分之50；得克萨斯州的道奇市，10万分之100；格里芬堡，10万分之229；威奇托市，10万分之1500。[96]究其原因，解释不外乎霍布斯理论。司法系统缺乏资金、无能，通常还有贪污腐败。考特莱特说：“1877年，得州约有5000人在通缉犯名单上，如以此来说明司法系统的效率，实在令人沮丧。”[97]自助正义成为对付盗马贼、窃牛贼、公路响马贼和其他强盗的唯一选择。此种威慑力量的担保是不计一切代价的“言必信，行必果”。科罗拉多的一块墓碑上镌刻着一句简短的碑文可作为概括：“他说比尔·史密斯是骗子。”[98]目击者这样描述一场发生在运牛货车押车员车厢里恶斗的起因：

    当时人们正在玩纸牌，一个人说了一句“我可不喜欢和脏手（意指作弊）玩牌”。对家的一个牛仔将“脏手”听作“脏汉”，立刻火冒三丈。一通枪响之后，现场一人死亡，三人受伤。[99]

    还不仅仅是牛仔之乡处于霍布斯式的无政府状态，在西部的其他地方，矿工、铁路工人、伐木人和其他季节性短工的居住地都处于这一状态。在1849年加州淘金热中，有这样一张宣示产权的告示，节选如下：

    敬告各位，我声明，经清溪区法律核准，并以短枪宪法修正案为依据，峡谷内50英尺地带归本人所有，不得穿越，违者依法格杀勿论。此非猴子虚言，如有必要，本人将依法以枪维权。因此各位留神，特此警告。[100]

    考特莱特引用了当时10万分之83的凶杀率数据，并指出，“大量的其他证据也证明，淘金潮中的加州野蛮残暴、不可饶恕。淘金的营地取名如人类行为的仿生：剜眼村、谋杀酒吧、割喉谷、坟场塬。还有一个绞刑镇，一个威士忌镇，一个‘蛾摩拉 ’镇，但有意思的是，没有 ‘所多玛’”。[101]新兴的矿工聚居地的凶杀率也很高：内华达州的奥罗拉，10万分之87；科罗拉多州的莱德维尔，10万分之105；加州的伯帝镇，10万分之116；怀俄明州的本顿，10万分之24000（几乎是4人中就有1人因暴力死亡）。

    在图3-16中，我用罗斯对特定地区所做的数据，画出了西部暴力的曲线。加州的曲线说明，在1849年淘金潮前后，暴力是上升的，但之后和其他西部各州一起加入了文明的进程：凶杀率下降至原来的1/10，从10万分之100~200下降到10万分之5~15（尽管在美国南方，凶杀率未能继续下降到欧洲和美国新英格兰地区的10万分之1~2的水平）。图中也显示了加州牧场区各县凶杀率的下降。埃里克森的研究表明，在加州接受法制之前，曾经历过无法无天的长期暴力。

    可以说，至少有五个美国主要地区——东北部、中部大西洋沿岸、南方沿海、加州和西南部——在不同的时间以不同的进度经历了文明进程。而美国西部的暴力减少比东部整整晚了两个世纪，直到1890年美国宣布关闭美国新边疆，这一著名的宣言才标志着无政府状态在美国的终结。

    图3-16 1830—1914年美国西南部各州和加州的凶杀率

    资料来源：数据来自罗斯，2009年，仅有白人的数据。加利福尼亚州（估算），第183、360、404页。加利福尼亚州牧场区各县，第355页。西南部各州，1850年（估算），第354页。西南部各州，1914年（亚利桑那州、内华达州和新墨西哥州），第404页。按成年人人口估算的数据乘以0.65，转换为按总人口估算，见罗斯，2009年，第495页。

    * * *

    无政府不仅是美国西部暴力混乱的唯一根源，在迅速扩张的美国疆土上，还有其他暴力地带，比如劳工营地、流浪汉村庄和中国城。考特莱特认为，人口构成和心理演化进一步加剧了西部的野性。西部的人口主要是年轻的单身男子，刚刚逃脱贫瘠的农场或城市贫民窟，力图在荒蛮的新边疆发财致富。在对暴力的研究中，一个普遍的现象是，暴力罪犯大多是年龄在15岁到30岁的男性。[102]在大部分哺乳类动物中，雄性都是更具竞争性的性别；而作为智人，男性在社会群体中的地位还取决于他的声誉，即他在年轻时开始的名望投资，这将影响他的一生。

    但是，男性的暴力是可以调节的。从为接近女性与其他男性对抗竞争，到直接讨好女性。关怀她们的子女，男人如何分配他们的能量，有一系列连续选择空间。生物学家将此选择空间称为“暴徒对抗爸爸”（cads versus dads）。[103]在以男性人口为主的社会生态系统中，单个男性能量的优化配置倾向做“暴徒”，因为成为群雄首领，必须打垮其他男性竞争者，而只有首领才能在势力范围内接触稀缺的女性资源。在女性数量众多但少数男性得以垄断这些女性的环境中，男性的选择也是“暴徒”。在这些限制下，男性会选择用生命做赌注，正如戴利和威尔逊所说：“任何一个意识到即将彻底丧失繁殖机会的生物，都会格外努力，甚至不惜以死亡为代价，尝试改变其生命的轨迹。”[104]在男女数量相等、一夫一妻制的生态系统中，男性中胜出的是“爸爸”。在这种环境中，暴力竞争不仅不能给男性带来繁殖优势，反而是一个可能产生劣势结果的严重威胁：如果一个男子死了，那他肯定不能再供养他的子女了。

    关于边疆暴力，还有一个生物学的解释，但不是社会生物学的，而是神经生物学的解释，即无处不在的烈酒。酒精干扰了整个大脑，尤其是扰乱了负责自制力的前额叶皮层的突触传递（见图8-3）。一个陶醉在酒精中的大脑，在性、话语和身体各方面都是缺少自制的，有各种谚语为证，比如：“啤酒眼”——醉眼看花，美丑不分；“发酒疯”——酒后撒疯，胡言乱语；“酒后之勇”——酒后威风，逞一时之勇。很多研究都表明，人们在酒精的影响下，行为有更大的暴力倾向。[105]

    美国西部最终归化文明，不仅仅是因为有了铁面的警长、动辄宣判绞刑的法官，也是因为女性人口的大量流入。[106]好莱坞西部片中“刚刚抵达咆哮山谷的端庄秀丽的女教师（们）”，的确是历史的真实写照。自然界不接受性别比例失调，东部城市和农场中的妇女纷纷涌入西部，填补了失衡的空缺。孤独的单身汉以及他们的市政官和商人，受够了西部堕落和悲惨的生活，到处鼓动寡妇、老姑娘和年轻的单身女子到西部婚姻市场上寻找自己的财富。女性到来后立即利用自己的优势地位讨价还价，按照自己的心愿改造西部。她们要求男人为了婚姻和家庭放弃豪饮和打架斗殴，修建学校和教堂，关闭酒吧、妓院、赌场和其他诱惑她们的男人的设施。教会给予男女同样的成员资格，并有严格的周日清晨礼拜，颂扬和鼓励自律和节制，因此教会成为妇女文明攻势的强有力的组织力量。今天，看到救世军和“基督教妇女禁酒联盟”，尤其是卡丽·内申（Carrie Nation）举着斧头冲击乡下酒店的恐怖分子形象，我们就忍不住要发笑；讽刺救世军的人，改编了救世军军歌的歌词，它被说成是“我们绝不吃饼干，因为里面有酵母/只要咬一小口，男人就会变禽兽”。但是，早年参加禁酒运动的女权主义者面对的是实实在在的酒精灾难。在那些男人统治的地盘上，酒精助燃暴力的结果就是血流成河。

    妇女和婚姻教化了青年男性，尽管这种说法听起来像陈词滥调、土得掉渣，但它已是现代犯罪学的一个共识。有一项非常著名的研究，它对波士顿1000名低收入家庭的青少年连续跟踪了45年。研究发现，有两个因素可以预测一个有不良记录的人是否能避免成为终身罪犯：（1）有一个稳定的工作；（2）和一个他关心的女性结婚，养活她和她的孩子。婚姻的影响是实质性的：他们之中3/4的单身男子和1/3的丈夫，继续有犯罪行为。单从这个差别看，我们无法知道是婚姻阻止男人继续犯罪，还是职业罪犯本来就很少结婚。但是，社会学家罗伯特·桑普森（Robert Sampson）、约翰·劳布（John Laub）和克里斯托夫·怀默（Christopher Wimer）认为，婚姻确实是促进和平的动因。他们发现，如果所有推动男子结婚的因素保持不变，打算结婚本身，可立刻减弱一个男子的犯罪倾向。[107]约翰尼·卡什简明扼要地概括了其中的因果关系：只因我有了你，我定当洁身自爱。

    了解了美国西部和美国南部乡村的文明进程，也就明白了今日美国的政治版图。许多北方和沿海的知识分子，对于他们生活在保守红色州的同胞很不以为然，特别是对他们热爱枪支、支持死刑、主张小政府、信仰福音派基督教、崇尚“家庭价值”和性别得体（sexual propriety）的文化感到困惑。而蓝色州的对头们也有同样的不满和困惑，他们认为蓝色各州的居民对罪犯和外敌姑息懦弱，对政府深信不疑，给世俗主义涂上知识化的色彩，而且容忍淫秽放荡。我怀疑，这种所谓的文化战，其实是历史上美国白人选择了两条不同的文明进程的结果。北方是欧洲文明的延伸，延续了自中世纪就已开始的法庭推动和商业推动的文明进程。美国南方和西部则保留了无政府新兴国家特有的荣誉文化，同时受到当地的教会、家庭和禁酒等文明力量的制衡。

    20世纪60年代的文明倒退

    可是你要谈破坏，要记住把我算在（外）……内。 ——约翰·列侬《革命1》

    尽管比较欧美的历史变迁，两者之间有很多延滞和不合拍，但两地在一个方面是完全同步的：凶杀率在20世纪60年代回升了。[108]图3-1至图3-4显示，欧洲国家的凶杀率回升到整整一个世纪前的水平。图3-10显示，60年代，美国凶杀率飙升。美国的凶杀率曾经在30多年间直线下降，其间历经了大萧条、“二战”和冷战，但此后，凶杀率突升，从1957年的10万分之4.0升到1980年的10万分之10.2，增长了2.5倍多。[109]除了凶杀之外，其他各项犯罪都出现回潮，包括强奸、伤害、抢劫和盗窃；回潮时高时低，持续了30年。城市是重灾区，纽约简直成了罪孽的象征。暴力回潮覆盖了所有的种族和男女两性，但最具戏剧性的是黑人男性，他们的凶杀率在20世纪80年代中期高达10万分之72。[110]

    20世纪60年代至80年代，暴力的大洪水重新塑造了美国的文化、政治舞台和人们的日常生活。关于抢劫的笑话成为喜剧节目的当家菜，“中央公园”就是“死亡陷阱”的代名词。纽约人将自己囚禁在公寓里，里面有电池闩锁和辅助锁，还有流行一时的“警察锁”——一根钢管，一端固定在地板上，另一端顶住门。我现在的家距离波士顿市中心不远，当年，那里被称为“作战区”，因为抢劫和捅人的事件层出不穷。城里人纷纷驾车逃离，搬往近郊、远郊或者有围墙警卫的封闭社区，被他们抛在身后的下城如一片烧毁的废墟。书籍、电影、电视剧将恐怖的城市暴力作为创作背景，比如《小型谋杀案》（Little Murders）、《出租车司机》（Taxi Driver）、《战士帮》（The Warriors）、《纽约大逃亡》（Escape from New York）、《布朗克斯-阿帕奇要塞》（Fort Apache the Bronx）、《希尔街的布鲁斯》（Hill Street Blues）和《虚荣的篝火》（Bonfire of the Vanities）。妇女纷纷上课学习防身术。身穿层层防护衣，如同米其林轮胎先生一般的志愿者裹上气垫圈扮演暴徒，让妇女练习如何目不斜视地走路，如何将钥匙、铅笔和高跟鞋的鞋跟变作自卫的武器，如何使用空手道的劈和柔道的摔制胜敌人。头戴红色贝雷帽的“守护天使”在公园和车站巡逻。1984年，伯恩哈德·格茨——一位举止温和的工程师，在纽约地铁车厢里开枪击中四名年轻的劫匪，顿时成为民间英雄。对犯罪的恐惧，在几十年间让保守派政客不断当选。尼克松1968年提出“法律与秩序”的施政纲领，在竞选关注上竟然压倒了越战；老布什1988年在电视辩论中对杜卡基斯冷嘲热讽，皆因杜卡基斯这位麻省州长批准了一项监狱休假计划，让一名强奸犯得以获释；众多参议员和众议员都承诺对犯罪“绝不姑息手软”。虽然公众的反应有些过度，但事实上，每年死于车祸的人比死于凶杀案的人多得多，尤其是那些不在酒吧里与年轻人争吵的人。但是，暴力犯罪倍增，这样的感觉也绝非人们的臆想。

    20世纪60年代的暴力回潮出乎所有人的意料。当时经济高速增长，接近充分就业，收入差距之小，简直就是今日人们的梦想；历史性的种族平等正在起步，政府的各种公共项目遍地开花，而医学的进步，让挨了刀枪的受害者有更大的机会获救。社会理论家在1962年很可能兴高采烈地打赌说，因为这些有利的条件，我们将迎来一个低犯罪率的时代。但他们赌输了，还输得精光。

    为什么西方世界会遭遇历时30年的犯罪狂潮，至今未能完全恢复？在暴力下降的大趋势中出现过若干次局部性的逆流，60年代即为其中之一。在本书中，我已经提出了解释暴力减少的历史变迁，如果我分析的大方向正确的话，这些变迁恰好应在此刻发生逆转。

    最明显的莫过于人口结构的变化。20世纪40年代和50年代是婚姻盛行的年代，犯罪率跌到谷底。美国人结婚的人数之高，迄今为止无出其右。婚姻使男人从街头回到郊外的家中。[111]婚姻高峰的结果一是严重打击了犯罪，二是带来了婴儿潮。1946年出生的第一批婴儿在1961年进入犯罪高发期。在婴儿潮高峰期1954年出生的婴儿，在1969年进入犯罪高发期。结论似乎很自然，犯罪激增是婴儿潮的回声。不过，这两组数字讲不通。如果仅仅是因为有了更多十几二十几岁的青年人，其中一部分人犯了这个年纪易犯的罪行，那么1960—1970年犯罪增长应该是13%，而不是135%。[112]而且，这些青年人不仅在犯罪人数上，在暴力的程度上也超过了他们的前辈。

    许多犯罪学家认为，20世纪60年代的犯罪率激增不能用通常的社会经济变量来解释，其缘由主要在于文化准则的变化。当然，为了摆脱所谓暴力者是因为他们生活在暴力文化中这种循环逻辑，我们必须辨识文化变迁的外生原因。政治学家詹姆斯·Q.威尔逊（James Q. Wilson）坚持说，无论如何，人口结构是一个关键的触发因素，不是因为年轻人的绝对人数，而是因为他们的相对份额。他借评论人口学家诺曼·赖德（Norman Ryder）的一段话表明了自己的观点：

    “这是一种常年入侵的野蛮人，他们必须经过驯化，掌握融入社会所需要的各种功能，变成建设者。”这种“入侵”就是新生代达到成人的年龄。每一个社会都要应对这一宏大的社会化过程，但偶尔，这一过程会因参与者的数量发生非连续性巨变而被吞没……1950年和1960年，“入侵部队”（14岁至24岁），以3∶1的数量优势压倒了“防守部队”（25岁至64岁）。到1970年，因为前一梯队年龄的成长，这一比例迅速降到2∶1，这是自1910年以来不曾有过的状态。[113]

    后续的分析表明，这种解释，如果作为单一的因素，是不能令人满意的。一般来说，比他们的前辈更大的年龄群体不会犯下更多的罪行。[114]但我认为，威尔逊在将60年代的犯罪激增和代际文明退化过程联系起来时，确实说到了点子上。从许多方面看，新一代人是在反抗一场埃利亚斯描述的已经持续了8个世纪的文明运动。

    在坚定的团结意识方面，婴儿潮一代是非同寻常的（我明白，我们这些婴儿潮一代总是说我们与众不同）。这一代人仿佛是一个民族，或者是一个国家。（10年之后，这一代人不无自负地称自己是“伍德斯托克人”。）他们不仅在人数上压倒老一代，拜新电子媒体所赐，他们充分感受到了他们在数量上的力量。婴儿潮是伴随着电视长大的第一代人。电视，尤其是在三大电视网时代，让年轻人知道其他同代人正在分享他们的经历，并且知道其他人也知道同样的事情。这种经济学家和逻辑学家所说的共同认知，催生了一张横向的团体网络，割断了与父母和权威的纵向联系。在纵向关联中，年轻人相互隔绝，被迫臣服于各自的长者。[115]正如不满的民众在集会上最能感受到自己的力量，婴儿潮一代人在《艾伦秀》上，看见其他和自己一样的年轻人为了摇滚乐如醉如痴，还知道全美每一个年轻人都在同一时刻以同样的方式如醉如痴，而且知道其他年轻人也知道他是知道的。

    婴儿潮一代还被另外一种新科技捆绑在一起，那就是晶体管收音机。它最先是被日本索尼公司推销上市的。现在的父母抱怨iPod（苹果公司音乐播放器）和手机像是被焊到了孩子的耳朵上，他们忘记了他们的父母也是这样抱怨他们和收音机的。我仍然记得，小时候，在蒙特利尔的家中调试收音机，纽约电台的信号经过深夜的电离层反射，回荡在我的卧室。我听到了摩城唱片和迪伦的歌声，还有琼斯的《英国入侵》和《英国迷幻》，心里感觉到正在发生什么，但琼斯先生并没有说清楚到底发生了什么——那种感觉真是既让人毛骨悚然，又让人荡气回肠。

    对于一个文明社会，即使在最好的年代，15岁至30岁的人群中的团结意识也是一种威胁。这次文明衰退的过程被一种贯穿20世纪的不断强化的趋势放大了。埃利亚斯的译者、学术继承人和社会学家卡斯·武泰（Cas Wouters）说过，当“欧洲的文明进程”走到尽头之后，它被一个“去正式化进程”取代。文明进程一直是从上层社会向下层社会传导规范和礼仪。但随着西方国家的民主化，越来越没有人将上层社会视为道德典范，品位和风度的等级也被铲平了。去正式化影响到衣饰着装，人们抛弃了帽子、手套、领带和长裙，换上了运动便装。它也影响到了语言，人们开始用小名称呼朋友，不再冠以先生、夫人和小姐。此外，无数的变化显示，人们的言谈举止变得不那么拘谨，而是更随意、更自然了。[116]在马克斯兄弟出演的电影里，古板的上流社会贵妇人，如玛格丽特·杜蒙之流，已然成为被嘲弄的角色，而非竞相效仿的对象。

    在经历了一系列去正式化的打击之后，精英们又遭受到第二波冲击。民权运动揭露了美国上层的道德污点，而随着批判的深入，更多的上流劣迹为人所知。这些劣行恶迹包括：普遍的贫困、欺凌美洲原住民、粗暴的军事干涉，特别是越南战争，还有稍后提出的环境掠夺问题，以及对妇女和同性恋的歧视。随着马克思主义——西方正统的公敌——被第三世界的“解放”运动接受而声名大噪，西方也有越来越多放纵不羁的文化人和追逐时髦的知识分子成为马克思的拥趸。20世纪60年代至90年代的民意调查显示，人们对公共机构的信任程度日渐降低。[117]

    公众中荡平官僚政府、严厉追究统治集团的意愿不仅不可阻挡，而且在很多方面也是可取的。但这一运动有副作用，上流社会和资产阶级的生活方式风光不再，而几个世纪以来，这个阶层的暴力程度都低于劳动阶级和下层社会。价值观原来从宫廷向下渗透，现在则变成从市井街巷向上涌动，这一过程被称为“无产阶级化”和“价值标准堕落”。[118]

    这些逆文明浪潮而动的湍流，受到大众文化的欢迎和喝彩。显然，埃利亚斯文明进程的两个原动力不是这种倒退的原因。政府管制既没有蜕化到美国西部和第三世界新独立国家那样的无政府状态，以商业和专业分工为基础的经济也没有退回到封建制度和实物交易。然而，埃利亚斯文明序列中的第二步——与更大的自制和相互依赖相应的心理变化，却在20世纪60年代反主流的年轻人中受到重挫。

    文明行为的内在主导——自制，成为年轻人的主要攻击目标。随心所愿、自我表达和反抗压抑成为至高无上的美德。“如果你觉得好，那就干吧”成为流行的警句，被印在徽章上。“那就干吧”（Do It）是政治煽动家杰里·鲁宾（Jerry Rubin）的一本著述的书名。“干到你满意为止（甭管是干什么）”是乐队BT Express的流行歌曲中副歌的歌词。基斯·理查兹（Keith Richards）大言不惭地说：“肉体重于思想，摇滚乐是属于脖子以下身体的音乐。”鼓动家阿比·霍夫曼（Abbie Hoffman）告诫说：“青春期重于成年期，不要相信30岁以上的人。”歌曲《谁是我这一代》中说：“希望在老去之前就死掉。”清醒受到诋毁，精神错乱被浪漫化，这一类电影有《脂粉金刚》、《飞越疯人院》、《红桃K》和《狂暴者》。最后，当然还有毒品。

    个体应该融入相互依存的社会网络，在稳定的经济和社会组织中，彼此都对他人负有责任。这一观念受到反文化一代的痛击。如果你能想象出一个画面，赤裸裸地与上述理念背道而驰，那可能就是滚石音乐了。“滚石”一词起源于马迪·沃特斯（Muddy Waters）的一首歌，它与时代产生的共鸣如此强烈，以至于它成就了三大文化标志：摇滚乐队、《滚石》杂志和鲍勃·迪伦的另一首名歌。在歌中，他嘲笑一个沦落街头、无家可归的上流贵妇。蒂莫西·利里曾在哈佛大学当心理学教师，他的名言“追求自我，顺其自然”（Tune in, turn on, drop out）成了“迷幻运动”的响亮口号。工作中为各自的利益而相互协作，在他们眼里和出卖没有两样。迪伦在歌中这样唱道：

    哦，我已尽力，

    就是要做我自己，

    但所有人都要你

    和他们一样，

    你当牛做马，他们在唱歌，我已经厌倦。

    我再也不想给玛姬的农场干活了。

    埃利亚斯曾经写道，历史上计时装置和时间意识的发展，反映出人们自制和将自我融入相互依存的社会网络的要求。他说：“这就是为什么个人在张扬他或她的超我时，总是表现为对社交时间的反抗，也是为什么那么多人想要准时准点的时候，就和自己发生冲突。”[119]1969年的电影《逍遥骑士》是这样开场的，丹尼斯·霍珀和彼得·方达在启程骑摩托巡游美国之前，不谋而合地将他们的手表扔到地上。同一年，乐队“芝加哥”（当时他们的队名是“芝加哥运输当局”）的第一张唱片中有这样的歌词：“真有人知道时间是什么？真有人在意？若真是如此，我无法想象这又是为什么。”当我16岁的时候，所有这一切都是有意义的，所以我也将我自己的天美时牌手表扔掉了。祖母看见我光秃的手腕大吃一惊，说：“没有手表，你还算个正派人吗？”她从柜子里掏出一块精工手表，那是她参观1970大阪世界博览会时买回来的。我一直到今天还用着它。

    同自制和社会交往一起受到攻击的还有第三个理想，即婚姻和家庭生活。此前几十年，正是因为婚姻和家庭，男人的暴力被大大地驯化了。一男一女倾心相许，结成一夫一妻的家庭，在安全的环境中养育子女，这一观念也成了大肆嘲弄的对象。这样的生活被说成是没有灵魂，墨守成规，消费主义，物质主义，千篇一律、塑料般的不自然、平庸乏味，像“奥兹和哈里特”一样的郊区荒漠。

    我不记得在60年代看见任何人用桌布擤鼻涕，但流行文化确确实实是藐视清洁卫生、行为得体和节制性欲这些准则的。在人们眼里，嬉皮士永远是一副脏兮兮、臭烘烘的样子。以我个人的体验，这是诽谤。但是，如果说他们拒绝依照传统的标准梳洗打扮，应该是没有争议的。在那幅有关伍德斯托克音乐节的图片中，一群赤身裸体的观众在泥浆中嬉戏，那真是令人难以忘怀。仅仅是从唱片封套上（图3-17），我们也可以看到对传统观念的颠覆。在唱片《销售一空》的封套上，罗杰·达尔特瑞身上酱汁沥沥，浸泡在装满番茄汁焗豆的浴缸里；在披头士乐队的唱片《昨天和今天》上，四名留着可爱拖把头发式的歌手身上挂着大片的生肉和残躯断肢的娃娃（这张封套很快被召回了）；滚石乐队的《乞丐的盛宴》的封套上是一个恶臭的公共厕所（原稿未能通过审查）；在《谁是下一个》的封面上，四位音乐家正在拉裤链，背景是一面尿渍斑驳的墙。对得体举止的蔑视也伸延到著名的现场音乐会中。在蒙特利流行音乐节上，吉米·亨德里克斯做出与他的扬声器交配的样子。

    图3-17 20世纪60年代藐视传统的清洁卫生和得体举止

    扔掉手表或者在茄汁焗豆里洗澡，完全算不上是暴力犯罪。60年代原本应该是和平和爱情的时代，在某些方面也确实如此。不过，对放纵声色的歌颂渐渐地变为对暴力的纵容，接着，就变为暴力本身了。在每一场音乐会的结尾，“谁人乐队”都要摔碎他们的乐器，为此大出风头。这原本只是无害的喜剧效果，但乐队鼓手凯斯·穆恩却实实在在地砸毁了十几间酒店房间；另一位乐师皮特·汤曾德在舞台上点爆他的套鼓，震聋了自己的一只耳朵，他在舞台下殴打妻子、女友和女儿，因为“表面乐队”的键盘乐师和他的前妻约会，他威胁要剁下键盘乐师的双手；最后，1978年，在死于过量服用毒品之前，他驾车发生意外，碾死了自己的保镖。

    流行歌曲中有时会颂扬个人暴力，仿佛暴力不过是一种反正统的示威形式。1964年，玛莎·里夫斯和范德拉斯乐队唱道：“夏日姗姗，良辰当时，街头舞翩跹。”四年之后，滚石乐队的回应是，“岁月正当时，街头起烽烟”。在他们的《魔鬼陛下》和《致魔鬼的交响曲》两张唱片中，有一首长达10分钟、极富舞台效果的歌曲《午夜漫游人》，唱的是波士顿杀人魔王奸杀的真事，歌词是这样的：“我要砸烂你的玻璃窗/一拳！一拳穿透你的钢门/我……要……尖……刀……直……插……你的……喉咙！”摇滚音乐家满腔热忱，将每一个流氓、每一个系列杀人犯都看作意气风发的“造反派”或者“亡命徒”。电影《摇滚万万岁》（This Is Spinal Tap）调侃了这种疯狂的热情。剧中的乐队谈论他们的计划，要以伦敦东区杀人犯开膛手杰克的生平为蓝本，写一部摇滚音乐剧。（合唱部分的歌词是：“你真是个调皮鬼呀，俏皮杰克！”）

    伍德斯托克音乐会之后不到四个月，滚石乐队在加州的阿尔塔蒙特高速公路举办了一场免费音乐节，组织者特地雇用“地域天使党”——当时和“反文化亡命兄弟”一样被浪漫化了的黑帮团伙负责保安事务。对于音乐会的气氛（恐怕也是整个60年代的气氛），维基百科在此条目下这样记录：

    一位体重超过350磅的大块头杂技演员沉浸在迷幻药的幻象中，脱光了衣服，疯狂地穿过人群，冲向舞台，听众被他推挤得东倒西歪。“地狱天使党”成员看到此景，从舞台上跳将下来，举起大棒，将此人打昏在地。

    后面的故事就不需要给出处了，纪录片《给我庇护》（Gimme Shelter）做了详尽的记载。一名“地域天使党”成员在舞台上殴打“杰斐逊飞机”乐队的吉他手；米克·贾格尔试图安抚越来越暴躁的黑帮，但是劝阻无效；另一个“地狱天使党”成员用刀捅死一名年轻的观众，据说这名观众掏出了一支枪。

    * * *

    20世纪50年代，摇滚乐突然出现在舞台上时，政治家和神职人员诬蔑它，说它败坏道德，腐蚀精神，教唆犯罪，鼓动违法。在克利夫兰的摇滚名人堂和纪念馆里，人们可以看到一个奇妙的录像，全是这些老顽固喋喋不休地辱骂摇滚乐。不过，我们今天是不是——呃——要承认，他们当年是正确的呢？我们真的能够在60年代流行文化的价值观和与之相伴而来的暴力犯罪上升之间找到联系吗？当然，两者之间没有直接的关联。而且，即使相关也不一定就成因果，应该说，是第三个因素，即反对文明价值观的力量，同时造就了流行文化和暴力行为的上升。无论如何，婴儿潮一代的绝大多数人从来没有犯过罪。人们的观念和流行文化当然是相互促进的，在边缘地带，总有一些敏感脆弱的个人和亚文化可能受到这样或那样的冲击，反文明思维也总要放出一些似是而非、花里胡哨的乱箭，煽动真正的暴力。

    其中之一是国家的司法机构自我设限。虽然摇滚音乐家几乎不会直接影响公共政策，但是作家和知识分子却能够。他们迫不及待地要赶上“时代精神”，着手为新时代的堕落和放纵寻找理由。在马克思主义看来，阶级间的暴力冲突是通向美好世界的道路。颇具影响力的思想家如赫伯特·马尔库塞（Herbert Marcuse）和保罗·古德曼（Paul Goodman）都曾试图将马克思主义或无政府主义与弗洛德的新诠释结合起来。弗洛伊德将在性压抑和精神压抑与政治压迫之间建立联系，鼓吹革命斗争就是从压制中寻求解脱。闹事者往往被视为造反和不服从，或者是种族主义、贫困和不称职的父母的受害者。无视公德的街头涂鸦者被看作“艺术家”，窃贼是“阶级战士”，街道流氓成了“社区领袖”。许多非常聪明的人也受到激进思潮的诱惑，犯下无比愚蠢的错误。一流大学的毕业生制造炸弹，引爆军队和政府设施，或者在武装抢劫中，驾车接应射杀警卫的凶手逃跑。几个满口华丽辞藻的心理变态犯人，将纽约的知识界糊弄得神魂颠倒，竟然组织游说，请求释放这些变态的罪犯。[120]

    从60年代初的性革命开始，到70年代女权主义兴起，对女性性欲的掌控，被视为成熟男子的一个特征。流行小说和电影，甚至披头士乐队的摇滚乐《狂奔逃命》（Run for Your Life）、尼尔·扬的《沿河而下》（Down by the River）、吉米·亨德里克斯的《乔，你好》（Hey Joe）、龙尼·霍金斯的《你爱谁？》（Who Do You Love）的歌词中，都充满性强暴和粗暴的性嫉妒。[121]“革命”政论文章甚至为一切找到了合理性，比如在埃尔德里奇·克里弗（Eldridge Cleaver）1968年的回忆录、畅销书《冰上灵魂》（Soul on Ice）中，这位黑豹党领袖写道：

    强奸只是起义的一个片段。违反和践踏白人的法律和价值体系，这让我感到愉悦，而蹂躏白人的女人——我相信，这一点让我得到最大的满足，因为历史上白人就是这样使用黑人女子的，我对此是恨透了。我感到我就是在复仇。[122]

    莫名其妙的是，在这场起义中遭到欺凌的妇女的权益，从来不是他的政治原则考虑的对象，媒体对他的回忆录的评价也完全忽略了这一点。（《纽约时报》说：“精彩和有揭示性的。”《国家》周刊说：“一本非凡的书……文笔优美。”《大西洋月刊》说：“这是一位睿智、骚动、热情和优雅的男子。”）[123]

    法官和议员也受到将犯罪合理性化风气的影响，他们在将恶棍关进监牢这个问题上越来越畏首畏尾。尽管当代的公民自由运动没有造成系列影片《警探哈里》中所说的情况，众多重罪犯“因技术问题而逍遥法外”，但执法力量疲软、犯罪率飙升却是事实。在美国，1962—1979年，犯罪嫌疑人被捕率从0.32下降到0.18，捕后判刑监禁率从0.32下降到0.14，犯罪嫌疑人被监禁率从0.10下降到0.02，下降至原来的1/5。[124]

    比把暴徒放归街头更具灾难性的是执法部门和社区完全脱节，导致某些居民区的秩序不断恶化。破坏社会秩序的流浪、闲荡和乞讨被非罪化；轻罪——损坏财物、喷绘涂鸦、地铁和公车逃票，以及在公共场所便溺，则不再被警方关注。[125]感谢陆续出现的抗精神病药物，以及人们对异常行为的理解和态度上的变化，精神病院的病房总算是空了，但街上无家可归的流浪汉的数量翻了两番。店主和居民本来还互相关照，监督本地的捣蛋鬼，但是最后，他们还是向地痞、乞丐和劫匪投降了，举家撤往郊区。

    60年代的文明退化过程不仅影响了个人的选择，也影响了决策者的选择。许多年轻人决定不再为“玛姬的农场”打工，他们不再追求受人尊重的家庭生活，而是和全是男性的群体在一起。在这样的群体内部，为争夺统治地位，侮辱或小规模的打斗以及流血报复都是家常便饭。由于性解放运动，男人有了更大的自由，他们可以在不承担婚姻责任的情况下得到大量的性生活机会。有些男人想从毒品走私中分杯残羹，在这个行当里，“自助正义”是保护产权的唯一手段。（在80年代后期，强效可卡因市场竞争激烈，但进入的门槛特别低，原因是这种毒品可以被分成极小的分量出售。结果，在1985—1991年的凶杀增长中，25%是大量涌现的青少年可卡因毒贩。）在毒品走私本身特有的暴力成分之外，毒品本身和老牌的酒精一起，让人失去自持，变得焦躁易怒。

    美国非裔社区受到的文明退化影响最严重。他们从二等公民的历史弊端入手，这种弊端让许多年轻人在体面和下层阶级两种生活方式之间徘徊。与此同时，新一波反正统的潮流正在向错误的方向推进。由于警察队伍中种族歧视的老情绪，加上司法系统姑息犯罪的新态度，与美国白人相比，黑人青年能够从执法部门得到的保护越来越少，而犯罪活动的受害者绝大部分是黑人。[126]对执法部门的不信任，发展成玩世不恭，有时甚至是病态的偏执，这就让自助正义成为唯一的选择。[127]

    社会学家丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉（Daniel Patrick Moynihan）在1965年发表的著名报告《黑人家庭：要求国家采取行动》中首次指出：“在所有这些打击之外，受到重创的还有美国非裔的家庭生活。”一开始，他受到严厉的诋毁，但最终人们承认他是正确的。[128]很大一部分（今天已经是绝大部分）黑人儿童是非婚生子女，很多人是在没有父亲的情况下长大的。这一趋势在60年代初期就已经显现，而后，性解放为这一趋势推波助澜，而扭曲的福利激励，更是鼓励年轻妇女“与国家结婚”，而不是与孩子的父亲结婚。[129]父母影响论认为，没有父亲的男孩长大后有暴力倾向，因为家庭中缺少父亲的榜样和管教。虽然我对父母影响论持怀疑态度（比如，莫伊尼汉本人就是在没有父亲的家庭中长大的），但大量的无父家庭确实还有其他原因能够导致暴力。[130]这些不养育自己子女的年轻男性厮混在一起，经常为争夺统治权而厮杀。市中心充满火药味，战斗一触即发，气氛恰如当年西部蛮荒地区的牛仔沙龙和矿工宿营地。不过，这一次不是因为周围没有女性，而是因为女性缺乏谈判能力，无法迫使男性接受文明的生活方式。

    20世纪90年代的文明回归

    我们不应该得出一个错误的印象，即把60年代的犯罪热潮看作西方暴力减少的终结，或者标志着暴力的历史趋势是循环往复的，从一个时代转入另一个时代，像溜溜球那样不断地上下起落。美国的年均凶杀率近年来最糟糕的记录是1980年的10万分之10.2，相当于西欧1450年凶杀率的1/4，因纽特人的1/10，非国家形态社会平均凶杀率的1/50（见图3-4）。

    这个数字被证明是最高值，而不是常态，亦不能预示未来的走向。1992年，发生了一件怪事。凶杀率比前一年下降了近10%，接着，它连续7年下降，在1999年达到5.7，是1966年以来的最低水平。[131]更令人吃惊的是，在随后的7年中，凶杀率继续维持在低水平，并进一步下降，从2006年的5.7跌至2010年的4.8。在图3-18中，上面的那条曲线是1950年以来美国凶杀率的走势，包括21世纪所达到的新低点。

    图3-18 1950—2010年美国凶杀率，1961—2009年加拿大凶杀率

    资料来源：美国的数据来自《联邦调查局1950—2010年犯罪统计一览表》，美国司法统计局，2009年；美国联邦调查局，2010年b，2011年；福克斯和扎维兹，2007年。加拿大的数据，1961—2007年，来自《加拿大统计》，2008年。加拿大2008年的数据，《加拿大统计》，2010年。加拿大2009年的数据，K.哈里斯，“加拿大犯罪率下降”，《多伦多太阳报》，2010年7月20日。

    图中还显示了加拿大自1961年以来的走势。加拿大人的凶杀率不到美国人的1/3，这部分是因为加拿大警方在19世纪移民定居之前先行进入西部边疆，未给暴力的荣誉守则留下滋生的土壤。除了这一点，加拿大凶杀率的起伏和其南方邻国的曲线相平行，1961—2009年的相关系数为0.85。加拿大的凶杀率在20世纪90年代几乎下降了35%，而美国则下降了42%。[132]

    90年代美加两国凶杀率下降的平行轨迹出乎人们的意料。这两个国家以及西欧各国，在经济发展的方向和执法部门的政策方面各不相同，但都出现了相似的暴力跌势。[133]图3-19给出了5个主要欧洲国家在20世纪的凶杀率。60年代之前，凶杀率呈长期下降趋势，60年代出现反弹，最近又回到较低的水平。每一个主要欧洲国家的暴力都在减少，英国和爱尔兰在某一段时间内似乎是例外，但在进入21世纪后，它们的暴力也开始减少了。

    图3-19 1900—2009年5个西欧国家的凶杀率

    资料来源：数据来自艾斯纳，2008年，不包括英国，2009年，沃克等人的数据，2009年；人口估计来自英国国家统计办公室，2009年。

    不仅凶杀减少了，其他类型的伤害案也减少了。在美国，各类主要犯罪都减少了一半，包括强奸、抢劫、重伤、入室盗窃、扒手，甚至偷车。[134]统计数据证明了这一趋势，人们在日常生活中也深有感受。游客和年轻的美国白领又占据了城市的中心地带，犯罪不再是美国总统竞选的中心议题。

    没有任何专家预测到这一进展，甚至在下降趋势开始之后，流行的观点仍然是，开始于60年代的犯罪增长趋势将会持续，情况会变得越来越糟。詹姆斯·Q.威尔逊在1995年的论文中说：

    地平线外，阴霾密布，风暴将至。人口再次变得更年轻了。到90年代末，14~17岁年轻人的人数将比现在多出100万。在这100万人中，有一半是男性，其中有6%将是高频率惯犯——在已有的罪犯之外，我们还将多出3万名抢劫犯、杀人犯和盗贼。做好准备吧。[135]

    在地平线上的阴霾之外，其他犯罪评论员又添上了更多耸人听闻的形容词。詹姆斯·艾伦·福克斯（James Alan Fox）在2005年还预测说一场“腥风血雨”即将来临，犯罪高潮“将非常之恐惧，相比之下，1995年反倒成了 ‘过去的好时光’”。[136]约翰·迪卢洛（John DiIulio）发出警告说：到2010年，将有超过25万个新“街头超级杀手”，他们将让“‘红血帮 ’和 ‘蓝瘸帮 ’看起来就像是驯养的宠物”。[137]《泰晤士报》的前编辑在1991年预测，“到2000年，纽约将是一座没有蝙蝠侠的 ‘哥谭市’”。[138]

    具有传奇色彩的纽约市市长菲奥雷洛·拉瓜尔迪亚也许会说：“我犯的错误，也是个美丽的错误。”（威尔逊说得最到位，他说：“社会科学家最好永远都不要去预测将来，让他们研究透彻过去就已经够困难了。”）谋杀专家所犯的错误是，在对人口结构变化趋势的认识上太过自信。80年代后期，毒品推动的暴力犯罪泛滥，大量青少年被卷入其中。而作为婴儿潮的回应，90年代，青少年人口势必会增长。但是，总体而言，二十几岁和十几岁的青少年犯罪倾向群体数量在20世纪90年代实际上是减少的。[139]即使这个修正后的统计数据也无法解释90年代的犯罪减少。人口年龄分布的变化是缓慢的，每一个年龄组的人口，是被总人口这条大蟒蛇逐个吞噬下去。但90年代的犯罪率连续7年急剧下降，以后的9年一直稳定在低水平。与60年代的犯罪率的上升一样，每个年龄段暴力发生率的变化抵消了这些群体规模所产生的影响。

    还有一个疑问就是用经济来解释犯罪趋势，其效果未见得比人口构成说更有说服力。虽然美国90年代的失业率一直在下降，在加拿大却是上升的，但加拿大的犯罪也减少了。[140]法国和德国的失业率也在上升，但暴力却在减少，而爱尔兰和英国的失业率在下降，暴力却在增加。[141]现在人们已经不再对此感觉惊讶了，因为犯罪学家早已知道失业率和暴力犯罪率之间的相关性并不高。[142]（与失业率具有某种相关性的是财产犯罪。）2008年发生的金融危机是自大萧条以来最大的经济衰退，此后的三年内，美国的凶杀率又下降了14%。犯罪学家戴维·肯尼迪（David Kennedy）对记者解释说：“人们有个根深蒂固的观念，认为一旦经济恶化，犯罪也会恶化——这个观念现在是错误的，而且从来就没正确过。”[143]

    在经济指标中，不平等通常比失业更能准确地预测暴力。[144]但是基尼系数，即测量收入不平等的指标，在1990—2000年是上升的，犯罪数量却是减少的，而基尼系数在1968年达到历史性的低点，犯罪数量却开始猛增。[145]用收入不平等来解释暴力的问题在于，即使在全州或者全国的范围内，两者呈现相关性，但在一个州或者一个国家的内部，两者之间仍然缺乏相关性。这一差距的真正原因是，促生暴力的不是不平等本身，而是国家治理和文化的特性，正是这种特性同时造成了不平等和暴力。[146]（比如，在一个不平等的社会，贫民区没有警力保护，很有可能成为暴力肆虐的三不管地带。）

    另一个错误的先入之见通常来自权威的评论家，他们总是把社会趋势和针对某些新闻时事的“国民情绪”联系在一起。2001年9月11日的恐怖袭击，引起了巨大的政治、经济和情绪骚动，但是凶杀率并没有受到影响。

    * * *

    受90年代暴力减少的启发，暴力研究中出现了一个非常古怪的假设。当我告诉别人我正在写一本书，主题是关于暴力减少的历史时，不断有人对我说，这个问题已经解决了。他们解释说，暴力事件的发生率之所以下降，是因为1973年美国最高法院对罗伊诉韦德案的裁决。堕胎合法化后，那些本来没有人愿意生养，成人后又大多成为罪犯的孩子，就不用出生了；那些不情不愿的或者不合格的母亲，从此可以选择堕胎了。我在2001年第一次听到这种理论，当时是经济学家约翰·多诺霍（John Donohue）和史蒂文·莱维特（Steven Levitt）提出的。我觉得这实在太好玩了，不可能是真的。[147]任何假说，只要它来自外行，想用一个单一的、被忽略了的事件解释重大的社会现象，几乎肯定是一个谬误，即使它当时能找到一些数据作为支持。不过，莱维特和记者斯蒂芬·迪布内（Stephen Dubner）合著了畅销书《魔鬼经济学》（Freakonomics），将这一理论普及到大众。现在，大部分公众都相信90年代犯罪率下降是因为70年代的妇女打掉了有犯罪宿命的胎儿。

    公平地说，莱维特强调，罗伊诉韦德案只是导致犯罪率下降的四个因素之一，他也给出了精巧的相关性统计学分析证明这一关联。比如，在1973年之前，有几个州堕胎已经合法化，而犯罪率最先出现下降的也是这几个州。[148]但是，这些统计数据是对一条漫长的、有假设前提的、牵强的因果链的两端进行比较——能够得到合法堕胎为第一环，20年后的犯罪率下降为最后一环——中间的所有环节都被忽略了。这些环节包括以下几个假设：合法堕胎使“不想要的孩子”减少，“不想要的孩子”更有可能成为罪犯，而第一代经过堕胎筛选的年轻人是90年代犯罪率下降的先锋。但是，对于两者之间的相关性还有其他的解释（比如，在最先通过堕胎合法化的自由派各州，毒品瘟疫的发生和结束也比较早），而中间的各个过渡环节，不是非常脆弱，就是根本不存在。[149]

    首先，魔鬼经济学理论假定，妇女刚好在1973年前后可能受孕怀上不想要的孩子，此后唯一的影响因素就是孩子是否被生出来。一旦堕胎合法化，男女双方有了堕胎做避孕的备份方案，也就很有可能进行更多不加防护的性生活。如果妇女会怀上更多“不想要的孩子”，堕胎这个选择，也不过是让“不想要的孩子”的比例保持不变而已。事实上，“不想要的孩子”的比例甚至可能会升高，妇女有了堕胎撑腰壮胆，在性解放运动的高潮中有了更多不加防护的性爱。但是，一旦发现怀孕，又开始拖延犹豫或者改变主意。这也许真能解释为什么1973年之后，美国妇女中最弱势的几个群体——贫困、单身、青少年和非裔——出生的孩子，在新生儿总人口中的比例没有减少。魔鬼经济学的理论预测没有实现。而且，这一比例增加了，增加的幅度还非常大。[150]

    在有犯罪倾向的人口内部，妇女个体之间有什么差异吗？魔鬼经济学理论似乎是全面倒退的。在意外怀孕并且不准备抚养孩子的妇女中，选择终止妊娠被看作向前看、有现实感、能够自律；而接受怀孕生下孩子，则属于听天由命、没有条理，或者很不成熟，只想到可爱的婴儿，而想不到他们不服管教的青春期。几项研究证明了这个观点。[151]在年轻孕妇中，与完成妊娠或者发生流产的人相比，选择堕胎的人学习成绩更好，更少申请福利，也更有可能完成学业。但如此来说，堕胎的可获得性，也可以导致出现犯罪倾向更强的一代人，因为通过基因选择或者环境选择，它淘汰了那些最有可能思考和有自制力的人。

    魔鬼经济学中关于犯罪的心理原因的理论来自《哎呀，克鲁普克警官》。黑帮分子谈到自己的父母时说：“他们本来不想要我，不知道怎么闹的，我还是来了。吼吼吼！大蜥蜴！这就是为什么我是个大浑蛋！”这就是合理性。虽然“不想要的孩子”长大后也许会犯下更多的罪行，但原因更可能是，生活在犯罪倾向环境中的妇女更有可能有更多“不想要的孩子”，是环境而不是“不想要”本身导致了更多的犯罪。对父母管教的效果和伙伴压力的效果所做的比较研究显示，假定基因为不变量的话，伙伴压力的效果总是压倒父母的影响。[152]

    最后，如果1973年后的堕胎合法化塑造了更加厌恶犯罪的新生代，那么犯罪率的下降就应该从最年轻的群体开始逐渐升高，年龄越大的群体，犯罪率越高。比如，1993年16岁的青少年（1977年出生，当时堕胎正如火如荼）应该比1983年的青少年（1967年出生，当时堕胎是非法的）所犯的罪行少。按照同样的逻辑，1993年时22岁的青年应该是富于暴力的，因为他们出生在堕胎合法化之前的1971年。直到20世纪90年代末，合法堕胎时代出生的第一批婴儿达到20多岁，20岁这个年龄段的犯罪率才应该开始下降。但事实完全相反。20世纪80年代末90年代初，合法堕胎年代出生的第一代人成年时，他们不仅没有压低凶杀案的统计数字，反而带来了前所未有的大混乱。而在罗伊案裁决之前出生的、年龄略长的这批人放下刀枪的时候，犯罪率开始下降，并从这个年龄组开始传递到后面的年龄组。[153]

    * * *

    我们怎样才能解释最新一轮的暴力减少呢？许多社会学家都尝试过，他们能想到的最好的结果是，暴力减少有多种原因，没有人能够知道是什么原因，因为太多的事情同时发生了。[154]尽管如此，我认为有两个宽泛的解释最有道理。第一个是，利维坦——国家的权力更大、更聪明，也更有效了；第二个是，20世纪60年代虽然发生了反主流逆潮，“文明的进程”又回到了轨道上，并且进入了新阶段。

    20世纪90年代初，美国人已经厌倦了抢劫、蓄意破坏和驾车行凶的行为，国家开始在几个方面强化刑事司法体系。最有效也最残酷的方法是让更多的人在监狱里待更长的时间。20年代至60年代初，美国的监禁率一直维持不变，在70年代初甚至有所下降，随后则连续增长了近5倍。今天，美国监狱关押了200多万人，监狱服刑率为世界之冠。[155]监狱人口占美国总人口的0.75%，在年轻男性，特别是非裔美国年轻男性中所占比例就更高了。[156]美国监禁率上升起始于20世纪80年代，原因有几个，包括有关强制量刑的法律（比如加利福尼亚州的“三振出局”法），大量新建监狱（以前农村社区会奋起抵制，叫喊“别在我的后院”，现在却为了刺激经济而表示欢迎），还有“缉毒战”（拥有少量可卡因和其他管制药物都是犯罪行为）。

    研究犯罪率下降的理论大多都华而不实，但大规模监禁肯定能够降低犯罪率，因为它运作的机制几乎没有可动的部分。监禁将最具犯罪倾向的人从街道上带走，使他们丧失（行为）能力，犯罪的统计数字当然就会下降。尤其是在少数人犯有大量罪行的情况下，监禁的效果特别显著。比如，有关费城的犯罪记录的经典研究发现，6%的青年男性犯了超过一半的罪行。[157]犯罪量大的罪犯被抓获的机会也大，也最有可能被检控和被判刑关押。而犯有暴力罪的人，也往往会卷入其他麻烦，因为他们的倾向就是只要能及时行乐，绝不惜牺牲长远利益。他们大多不能完成学业，不愿工作，总是遇到各种事故，寻衅滋事，小偷小摸，破坏财物，酗酒，吸毒。[158]一个搜捕吸毒者和小毛贼的监狱王国，不免要顺带捕获一些暴徒，这样留在街上的暴力犯更见稀少。

    监禁还具有间接威慑的作用。一个被判过刑的人出狱后，再次犯罪之前会有所犹豫，而熟识他的人，也会吸取他的教训。要证明监禁对人有不良影响（因为他们无法再进入社会），说起来容易，做起来则很困难，因为所有的统计数据都不支持这个观点。在犯罪率高的地区，被关进监狱的罪犯也多，这就造成一种假象，似乎是监禁带来了高犯罪率，而不是减少犯罪。但是，如果方法得当（比如，检视某一时间在押犯的增长和稍后一段时间的犯罪数量减少是否相关，或者，检视法庭下令减少在押犯人数之后，是否导致犯罪数量增多），监禁的威慑效力是可以被测试的。莱维特和其他犯罪统计学家的分析认为确实存在威慑效应。[159]有人总是更喜欢真实世界的经验，而不是精巧的统计模型，他们可以去看看1969年蒙特利尔警察罢工的故事。警察离开岗位后的几个小时之内，蒙特利尔这个以安全著称的城市发生了6起银行抢劫案、12起纵火案、100起商店洗劫案、2起谋杀案。当局紧急召回所有警察以恢复社会秩序。[160]

    但是，说监禁人数暴涨导致犯罪数量减少，也不是无懈可击的。[161]首先，监狱的膨胀始于20世纪80年代，而暴力的减少是10年之后才出现的；其次，加拿大并没有扩张监狱，但其犯罪率也下降了。这些事实尽管不能否认监禁效应，但它们迫使该理论做出额外的假设，比如监禁效果需要时间逐渐生效，并在达到某个临界点之后，向全国扩散。

    大规模的监禁即使能够降低暴力，其本身也会产生新的问题。一旦将暴力倾向最强的人锁进牢房，继续监禁更多的犯人，降低暴力犯罪率的效果会迅速递减并消失。因为新来的犯人危险性越来越小，将他们从社会上清除出去，对暴力犯罪率产生的影响微乎其微。[162]而且，随着年龄的增长，人的暴力倾向会减弱，对超过一定年龄的犯人继续监禁，对减少犯罪率也没有多少意义。因此，监禁水平存在一个最优度。但美国的刑事司法系统很难把握这个最优，因为在选举政治的压力下，监禁率只会不断上升；在民选法官，而不是任命法官的选区，情况更是如此。任何一个候选人，只要他胆敢表示监狱里关押的人已经太多而且时间也太长，竞选对手就会在电视广告上说此人“对犯罪心慈手软”，并将此人赶下政坛。其结果是，美国监禁的人数远远超过了应有的水平，尤其是对美国黑人不合比例的高监禁率，让非裔社区丧失了大量男性成员。

    20世纪90年代利维坦提高效率的第二个方式是扩张警察队伍。[163]克林顿总统不愧是一位政治天才。1994年，他支持立法，承诺为美国增加10万警力，并由此出奇制胜地压倒了他的保守派对手。新增的警力不仅可以制止更多的犯罪，而且这些警察在街头出现本身就让很多人放弃了犯罪的念头。美国英文中的“扁平足”原来在口语中是“警察”的意思，现在他们又赢回了这一绰号。很多警察重新开始在街区内步行巡逻，不再仅仅坐在警车内等待呼叫后再赶往犯罪现场。在有些城市，比如波士顿，警察和假释官一起巡逻。假释官对那些最糟糕的前科犯人的情况了如指掌，而且有权为任何过失再次逮捕他们。[164]在纽约，警察总局迫不及待地追踪各个街区的犯罪报告，一旦发现犯罪率有所上升，就立刻向分局的局长问责并施压。[165]警察的曝光率成倍提高，即使是对那些轻罪，比如涂鸦、乱扔垃圾、咄咄逼人的乞讨、在公共场所喝酒或小便，以及在红灯时强行擦拭挡风玻璃后向司机勒索现金，他们也不会坐视不理。詹姆斯·Q.威尔逊和乔治·克林（George Kelling）在他们著名的“破窗理论”中首先提到，一个整洁的环境告诉大家，此地的警方和居民决心协力维持治安，而一个乱涂乱画和又脏又乱的环境则意味着此地属于三不管地带。[166]

    是不是更强大和更聪明的警察力量抑制了犯罪？对这个问题的研究通常是社会科学中充满困惑变量的老鼠洞，但从整体来看，即使我们不能明确到底是哪一种手段发挥了作用，我们的回答仍然是：“是，有一部分是。”不仅有几项分析表明，确实是新的警务工作抑制了犯罪，而且在完善警察体制上付出最大努力的辖区——纽约市，其犯罪率的下降也最显著。纽约曾经是罪恶都市的象征，现在则是美国最安全的城市之一，犯罪率的降幅是全国平均水平的两倍。进入21世纪之后，美国其他地区的犯罪率下降势头减弱后，纽约仍然保持了犯罪率继续下跌的势头。[167]犯罪学家富兰克林·齐姆林（Franklin Zimring）在《美国犯罪大下降》（The Great American Crime Decline）一书中是这样说的：“如果犯罪下降中的35%（美国全国犯罪下降中的一半），是由更多警力、更积极的治安管理和管理制度的改革共同促成的，那么，这将是迄今为止城市警务史上在防止犯罪方面取得的最大成就。”[168]

    警方的“破窗”治安有什么特殊之处呢？学术界的绝大多数人都厌恶“破窗理论”，因为这个理论似乎证明社会保守派（包括纽约市前市长鲁迪·朱利亚尼）的观点是正确的，即暴力犯罪的水平取决于法律和秩序，而不是如贫困和种族主义之类的“根本原因”。很难用一般的相关性分析来证明“破窗理论”，因为执行这一政策的城市同时也增雇了大量警员。[169]不过，《科学》杂志最近报道了一项非常有创意的研究，它通过科学的黄金标准——一个实验操作和一个对照组，为这一理论提供了支持。

    三名荷兰研究人员选择了格罗宁根的一条小街，荷兰人在那里停放自行车，研究人员在每辆自行车的车把上贴上广告。车主必须撕去广告贴才能骑车，但研究人员搬走了所有垃圾筒。车主只有两个选择，或者将广告贴带回家，或者将其扔在地上。在停车点的上方是一个显眼的标牌，指示“禁止涂鸦”，此外还有一面墙。实验者或者在墙上涂鸦（此为实验组），或者让墙面保持光洁（此为对照组）。当墙面布满涂鸦的时候，将广告贴随手扔在地上的人是对照组的两倍——和“破窗理论”的预测完全一样。在其他研究中，如果人们看见到处都是不还回商店的购物车，或者听到远处非法燃放爆竹的响声时，随地弃置垃圾的行为就会增多。受到影响的远远不只随手乱扔垃圾这种危害不大的违规行为。在另一项实验中，一个信封半露在信箱外面，明显可以看到信封里装有一张5欧元的钞票。当信箱被乱涂乱画或被垃圾包围时，1/4的行人会偷走信封；而当信箱干净的时候，偷信的人减少了一半。研究人员说，整洁的环境培养责任意识，不是通过威慑——因为格罗宁根的警察几乎不会惩罚乱扔垃圾，而是通过给出一个社会规范的信号：在这里生活的人遵守规则。[170]

    * * *

    最后，我们必须要看到规范发生的变化，才能真正理解20世纪90年代的犯罪率下降，正如30多年前犯罪率上升时发生的情况一样。虽说警方的各项改革对美国暴力的迅速减少肯定有贡献，特别是在纽约，但是要记住，加拿大和西欧的暴力犯罪水平也下降了（尽管下降的程度有所不同），他们并没有像美国这样大力扩张监狱和警力。就连一些最冷静的犯罪统计学家也举手投降，并得出结论，即文化和心理的变化是难以被计量研究的，而它们肯定是在影响因素之列。[171]

    “90年代犯罪率大幅下降”是一个大趋势的组成部分，这个大趋势可以被称作“文明复兴进程”。首先，60年代的一些愚蠢的观念已经失去了吸引力。一些主义的崩溃，以及对其带来的经济灾难和人道灾难的认识，撕掉了革命暴力的浪漫面纱，让人们怀疑在枪口下重新分配财富是否睿智。对强奸和性虐待有了更深刻的认识，原来的信条“如果你觉得好，那就干吧”听起来让人反感，而不是感到自由和解放。下城黑人区的暴力、儿童被驱车枪击的流弹击中、教堂里青少年的葬礼被持刀黑帮骚扰，这些都是赤裸裸的罪恶，不再能用“对贫困和种族歧视的一种可以理解的反应”作为开脱。

    随之而来的是文明攻势的浪潮。我们将在第7章看到，60年代的一个积极的遗产是民权、女权、儿童权利和同性恋权利的革命。随着婴儿潮一代在90年代成为正统，这些权利运动开始整合力量。他们将强奸、殴打妻子、仇恨犯罪、欺凌同性恋和虐待儿童纳入法律与秩序的框架，从一种反叛型的运动变成一种进步型的事业；他们努力将家庭、工作场所、学校和街道变得对弱势群体更加安全（比如女权主义者举行反对强暴妇女的示威“还我安宁夜”），从而也是对所有人都更加安全。

    90年代一场令人印象最深刻的文明攻势来自美国非裔社区。他们肩负起重新教化自己的年轻人的重任。和100年前美国西部的平定一样，其主要的道德源泉是妇女和教会。[172]在波士顿，由雷·哈蒙德、尤金·里弗斯和杰弗里·布朗领导的神职人员小组与警方和社会服务机构合作，打击团伙暴力。[173]他们熟悉当地社区的情况，知道谁是最危险的帮派成员。他们向这些人发出通知，警告他们警方和社区正在监视他们。他们不是与这些帮派分子谈话，就是找他们的母亲或者祖母谈话。社区领袖的努力截断了冤冤相报的循环，他们与那些刚刚受到过欺压的帮会成员谈话，劝说加施压要求他们放弃报复。这样的干涉之所以有效，不仅是因为有了被逮捕的恐惧，而且，这样的外部压力给了帮会成员一个“退缩”的借口，让他们在让步的同时又不丢面子，很像是一个孱弱的求情人往往能劝解开两个打架的强壮男人。这些努力共同造就了90年代的“波士顿奇迹”——凶杀率下降至原来的1/5；自该时期至今，尽管有些波动，但它一直维持在相当低的水平。[174]

    警察和法庭也发挥了他们的作用。他们将工作的重心从严刑峻法及其威慑，转移到文明进程的第二个阶段，强化人们心目中政府权力的正当性。一旦执法和司法系统运作有效，有头脑的小兄弟就知道，“老大哥”——政府时时刻刻都在盯着他们，随时准备扑向他们，让他们的非法生意血本无归。没有哪个民主制度有这样的资源或者意愿，能够将社会变成某种“斯金纳箱”。犯罪行为中只有很少的一部分“样本”能够被发现，并受到惩罚，所以取样要足够公平，公民才会认为整个政府具有合法性。决定一个制度的正当性的关键因素是，必须让人们感觉到，在这个制度确立之后，每一个人，更重要的是还有每个人的敌人，都明白犯法必会受到惩罚，所以他们会产生内在的自我约束，不去从事掠夺、先发制人的进攻以及滥用私刑这些勾当。但是，过去在美国许多地区的法庭上，刑罚的裁处没有一定之规，非常随意，对于被告，判刑更像是一场飞来的横祸，而不是某种特定行为带来的可预见的后果。罪犯缺席假释听证会，或者被检验证明吸毒却不受惩罚，他们看见其他罪犯也是这样干的，而且也都没有受到惩罚。但是，某一天，他们突然被判监禁，刑期长达数年。他们当然想不明白，只能觉得这完全是自己厄运当头。

    但是现在，法官和警察以及社区领袖一起办案，他们对付犯罪的策略更加多样，对重罪犯处以严厉得出乎意料的重刑，对轻罪犯则采取轻惩但必罚的政策。比如，缺席一次假释听证的罪犯，一定会被带回监狱吃几天牢饭。[175]这一转变其实是利用了人们的两个心理特性（我们将在“善良天使”一章做详细解释）。一个特性是，人，特别是有违法犯罪倾向的人，总是不看重未来，对假定的和滞后的惩罚比较麻木，但对确定的和立即发生的惩罚则会有较强烈的反应。[176]另一个特性是，人都是在道德层面上构想自己与其他人以及与各种组织的相互关系，将这些关系分为两类，或者是原始的实力竞争，或者是互惠和公平原则下的合约。[177]史蒂文·阿尔姆法官设计了一套成功的“强制假释”制度，他这样总结说：“如果一套制度在执行中不能做到言必信，行必果，对违规的处罚漫无章法，人们就会认为，‘我的假释官不喜欢我 ’，或者 ‘某某对我有偏见 ’，而不是所有的违规者都受到同样的对待。”[178]

    为平息暴力出台的新措施，也强调培养“文明的进程”的内在动力——共情和自制。波士顿将新措施命名为“十点联盟”，宣言中阐述了十大目标，诸如“推广和宣传有助于降低黑人社区内行为暴力和语言暴力的新文化，我们作为一群人，什么样的观念和行为让我们个人和集体均落后于人，针对这一问题发起对话、内省和反思”。在这些新举措中，有一项叫作“停火行动”的配合方案，戴维·肯尼迪（David Kennedy）在设计方案时完全遵循了康德的信条——“仅仅是源于外部压力的道德永远是不充分的”。[179]记者约翰·西布鲁克（John Seabrook）对一次建立感情纽带的活动做了如下报道：

    我参加过这样一次活动，它充满那种可以感受到的、几乎是渴望福音般的愿望，要让那些帮伙成员得到洗心革面的体验。一位上了年纪的前犯罪团伙的成员阿瑟·费尔普斯——人们都叫他“老爹”，将一位坐在轮椅上的37岁的妇女推到房间的中央。她叫玛格丽特·朗，胸部以下高位截瘫。费尔普斯流着眼泪说：“17年前，我开枪打中了这位妇女，从此我生命中的每一天都在承受这个后果。”朗哭喊着说：“我只能在口袋里上厕所。”说着，她从轮椅的口袋里掏出结肠造口包，举起来，在场的年轻里人眼睛里满是恐惧。最后一位演讲的是名叫阿龙·普林斯三世的街头社工，他大声喊：“你的房子起火了！你的家正在燃烧！你们要救自己一命吗？站起来吧！”在场有3/4的年轻人跳了起来，仿佛他们身上有木偶的提线被拉紧了一样。[180]

    90年代的文明攻势还试图赞颂责任价值观，引导年轻人远离充斥暴力的生活。美国首都华盛顿曾经举行过两次令人瞩目的大游行，分别是由黑人路易斯·法拉汉组织的“百万人大游行”和由白人基督教保守派运动“守约者”组织的大游行。两者的宗旨都是宣示男子承担抚育孩子的责任。虽然两者都带有令人不安的种族中心主义、性别歧视和宗教极端主义的印迹，它们在其弘扬的文明回归进程中都具有历史性的意义。在《大分裂》（The Great Disruption）一书中，政治学家弗朗西斯·福山（Francis Fukuyama）说，随着90年代暴力犯罪率的下降，其他指示社会病态的指标，比如离婚率、福利依赖率、少女怀孕率、退学率、性病率以及青少年车祸案和枪伤案也都下降了。[181]

    * * *

    过去20年的文明回归进程不仅是回归自中世纪以来席卷西方的历史潮流。最初的“文明的进程”是国家统一和商业增长的副产品，但最近的犯罪下降，则是针对保障和提升人民福祉的主动设计。另一个具有新意的特点是，此次复兴将文明的表面修饰与我们最关切的共情和自制的培育分离开来。

    90年代的文明回归并没有在流行文化中完全推翻60年代的反文明成果。许多最近涌现的流行音乐风格，比如朋克、金属、哥特、垃圾摇滚、黑帮说唱和嘻哈，让原来的滚石乐队看起来古板得就像是基督教妇女禁酒联盟。好莱坞的电影越来越血腥；只要轻点鼠标，互联网上无限供给的色情随手可得；暴力娱乐的新平台——电子游戏，成了许多人的主要消遣。

    不过，在这些文化颓废品大行其道的同时，现实生活中的暴力减少了。无须将文化的时钟扳回《奥兹和哈里特》时代，文明回归进程还是扭转了社会功能失常的问题。某天晚上，我坐在波士顿的地铁车厢中，看见一个面相凶狠的青年。他身着黑色皮夹克，脚蹬长筒靴，文身，戴着戒指和饰钉。其他乘客都尽力和他保持着距离，可他突然大声喊了起来：“没人愿意给这位老太太让个座吗？她可能是你的祖母哎！”

    所谓“被遗忘的一代”在90年代成人并进入社会，人们常说他们精通媒体、诙谐讥讽，属于后现代派。他们可以摆出各种姿式，尝试各种风格，让自己沉浸在低俗的文化流派中，却不会对其中任何一种玩意儿真心投入。（在这一点上，他们比婴儿潮那一代年轻人精明老到得多，后者当年将摇滚音乐家的胡言乱语奉为严肃政治哲学般的金科玉律。）今天的西方社会已经不再缺少这样的洞察力。记者戴维·布鲁克斯（David Brooks）在2000年出版的《天堂里的波波族》（Bobos in Paradise）一书中指出，中产阶级中的许多人已经成为“布尔乔亚—波希米亚人”——反传统的中产阶级；这些人以社会边缘人的姿态，享受着完全正统的生活方式。

    卡斯·武泰与晚年的埃利亚斯进行过对话。武泰深受启发地表示，我们正生活在文明进程的一个崭新的阶段。这就是我前面提到过的信息时代的长期趋势，它正在导向埃利亚斯所说的“情感控制的可控放纵”，即武泰所说的第三天性。[182]如果我们的第一天性是主导自然状态下的生命的进化动机，第二天性是文明社会中教化而成的习性，那么，第三天性就是对这些习性的有意识的反思。我们从中评价文化规范中哪些方面值得坚守，哪些已经失去了生命力。几个世纪之前，我们的祖先为了让自己文明起来，必须将所有的自发性和个性都消灭在萌芽状态，而今天，非暴力原则已经生根开花，我们可以放弃某些已经变得陈腐的清规戒律了。从这个角度来看，女性在公共场合裸露大量皮肤，男性在公共场合爆几句粗口，都不能算是文化衰落的迹象。相反，这说明，他们生活在文明社会，无须担忧他们会因为这样的言行举止而受到骚扰和伤害。小说家罗伯特·霍华德（Robert Howard）是这样说的：“文明人比野蛮人更粗鲁无礼，因为他们知道，他们可以不讲究礼貌，还能保住脑瓜不被开瓢。”也许，在不久的将来，我也可以用餐刀把青豌豆推到我的餐叉上。

    第4章 人道主义革命

    那些能让你相信荒诞的人，也能让你犯下暴行。 ——伏尔泰

    世界各地有很多稀奇古怪的博物馆。在美国加利福尼亚州的伯灵格姆（Burlingame）有一个皮礼士纪念品博物馆（Museum of Pez Memo-rabilia），展品是500多个卡通人头像的小糖果筒。在巴黎，游客排着长队，为的是看一眼城市下水道博物馆。得克萨斯州麦克莱恩市的“魔鬼的绳索博物馆”展出铁丝网的各种细节和种类。在东京，目黑寄生虫学博物馆邀请参观者“试着不带恐惧感地看待寄生虫，花些时间了解奇妙的寄生虫世界”。而在雷克雅未克，那里的“阳具博物馆收藏了冰岛能够找到的几乎所有陆地和海洋哺乳动物的100多具阴茎与阴茎的组成部分”。

    但是，我最不愿意去消磨时光的博物馆当属意大利圣吉米尼亚诺（San Gimignano）的中世纪刑事和酷刑博物馆。[1]旅游网站www. tripadvisor. com上的一条有用的评论说道：“门票8欧元。对于十几间小展室，总数不超过100~150件的展品来说，门票的确是略贵了。但是如果您对恐怖死亡主题感兴趣，那您不应该过门而不入。在那些阴森的、石头墙的房间里，装满了执行酷刑和死刑的刑具的原件与复制品。每一件展品都配有意大利语、法语和英语的精彩说明。器械的每一个小孔小扳是用于肢解哪个部位的，谁是老客户，受害人是怎样受罪/死亡的，都有详尽解说。”

    在这些展示中世纪残暴的展品中，那些自认对暴行历史了如指掌的读者，还是能发现某些令人震惊的东西。那里有西班牙宗教审判所用过的“犹大的摇篮”：受刑人赤裸着身体，手脚被捆缚住，靠腰上围着的铁环吊起来，再被放到一个锋利的楔形桩上，锋尖对准肛门或者阴道；一旦受刑人放松肌肉，锋尖就会刺入并撕裂他们的身体。“纽伦堡的处女”是“铁姑娘”的一种，上面的铁刺经过精心排布，不会刺穿受刑人的要害部位，避免让其在受够折磨之前结束生命。一套雕版画展示：受刑人被拴住脚踝骨倒吊起来，身体从胯裆处向下被锯成两半。解说词说，欧洲各处使用这一刑法，惩罚包括叛乱、巫术和违抗军令等罪行。“梨刑”是一个可以分开的、布满尖刺的木球，将其塞入受刑人的口中、肛门或阴道后，再用螺栓装置打开木球，从身体内部将受刑人撕裂。这一刑罚被用于鸡奸、通奸、乱伦、异端、亵渎和“与撒旦性交”。“猫爪刑”或“西班牙挠子”是一种多齿的钩子，用来从受刑人身上扯下或刮碎皮肉。“耻辱面具”被做成猪头或者屁股的形状，除了公开羞辱外，为阻止他们叫喊，受刑人还要忍受鼻子和口中被塞进刀片或木球的痛楚。“异教徒之叉”有一对两端都是尖刺的叉子，一端顶在受刑人的下巴上，另一端架在他的脖子上，一旦受刑人的肌肉疲劳放松，铁叉的两端就会刺穿他的下巴和脖子。

    中世纪刑事和酷刑博物馆里的刑具并非都是罕见品。在圣马力诺、阿姆斯特丹、慕尼黑、布拉格、米兰和伦敦塔，都能看见中世纪酷刑器械的收藏。在许多咖啡桌书籍中，人们能看见成百上千幅酷刑图片，比如《艺术中的宗教裁判和刑罚》。图4-1复制了一些此类图片。[2]

    当然，酷刑不是过去才有的东西。当代“警察国家”一直在使用酷刑，在种族清洗和种族灭绝中，匪帮也在使用酷刑。而民主国家在侦讯与平暴行动中也会动用酷刑，最臭名昭著的例子就是小布什政府在“9·11”恐怖袭击事件之后的所作所为。但是，近来发生的零星的、秘密的并受到举世谴责的酷刑事件完全不能和中世纪欧洲历经数百年的制度化残暴相提并论。酷刑在中世纪不用隐藏，不受非议，亦无须婉语修饰。它不仅是野蛮政权以此恐吓政敌或温和政府从恐怖嫌疑分子那里榨取情报的一种策略。它不是被煽动起来的疯狂大众的心血来潮。酷刑已经融入人们的公共生活。它还是一种逐渐培育并得到祝福的惩戒方式，是艺术创造性和技术发明的一个宣泄口。许多酷刑的刑具做工精良，装饰华美。设计它们，不是仅仅造成肉体的痛苦，一顿暴打也能制造足够的痛苦，而酷刑还要激发人们内心的恐惧，诸如刺入身体的某些孔穴，在人体的皮囊里翻搅，将受刑人以屈辱的姿势昭示大众，或者将他们放在某种位置，当他们体力耗尽支撑不住的时候，痛楚剧增，不是被刑具断肢毁容，就是丧命。酷刑行刑人是他们所在时代顶级的解剖学和生理学专家，他们利用知识让痛苦最大化，避免造成让受刑人失去痛感的神经损害，尽量在受刑人死亡前延长意识清醒的时间。如果受刑人是女性，残暴还要被色情化：妇女在受刑前被剥光衣服，她们的乳房和阴部往往是施刑的目标。冷笑话对受害者的苦难毫无同情。在法国，“犹大的摇篮”被称为“守夜人”，因为受刑人不能入睡。受刑人可以被装在一只铁牛里活活烧烤，他的嘶喊声从牛嘴里传出来，仿佛是野兽在嚎叫。一个被指控扰乱治安的人可能会被迫戴上“喧嚣者的长笛”，即一种模仿长笛或小号形状的刑具，一头是一个铁项圈套在受刑人的脖子上，刑具上有夹碎手指骨和关节的钳子。许多酷刑装置被做成动物的形状，再加上一个怪诞的名字。

    图4-1 中世纪和近代欧洲的酷刑

    资料来源：“锯刑”，赫尔德，1986年，第47页。“猫爪刑”，赫尔德，1986年，第107页。“刺穿刑”，赫尔德，1986年，第141页。“火刑柱”，平克，2007年a。“犹大的摇篮”，赫尔德，1986年，第51页。“轮上受刑”，普皮，1990年，第39页。

    中世纪基督教王国的文化就是残忍。欧洲大陆各地的中央政府和地方政府都在执行酷刑，成文法中明确写有对轻罪的处罚，包括剜目、烙印、割手、割耳、割鼻、割舌和其他残害身体的刑罚。死刑则是残忍的极致，延长行刑折磨的方式有火刑、轮刑、五马分尸，穿透直肠的刺穿刑，开膛剖腹将肠子绕成一卷；甚至绞刑，也是慢慢吊起、慢慢窒息，而不是快速拉断颈项。[3]基督教会在宗教审判、驱巫和宗教战争期间，亦大施残忍的酷刑。最有讽刺意味的是，名为英诺森（Innocent，意思是“清白无辜”）四世的教皇在1251年批准实施酷刑，多明我会的修士兴致盎然地执行了这一敕令。装帧精美的大开本休闲书籍《宗教审判》（Inquisition）中提到，在教皇保罗四世（1555—1559年）治下，宗教审判“无休无止”。保罗，一个多明我会修士，一度做过宗教审判大审判长，其本人就是一个技术娴熟的酷刑行刑人、残暴的大屠杀的刽子手。他热衷此道并才华出众，1712年因此被封圣”。[4]

    酷刑不只是一种粗暴的正义，一种用更大的暴力阻止暴力的蛮横尝试。大部分被送上绞刑架和火刑架的罪犯都是非暴力犯罪。按照今天的标准，他们中的许多人甚至不应该受任何法律惩罚，比如异端、渎圣、叛教、批评政府、八卦、说脏话、通奸和非正统性行为。基督教和世俗的法律系统都受罗马法启发，为获取忏悔而动用酷刑，并根据这样的忏悔判处被告有罪。他们完全无视一个明显的事实，就是一个人为了停止剧烈的痛苦，可以承认任何罪行。比起用酷刑阻止、恐吓和获取可核查的信息，比如同谋的名字或武器的地点，酷刑用于确保忏悔，实在是更加荒唐。没有哪一种裁决比下面的情况更荒诞了。如果一个罪犯在火刑中被烧死了，没有奇迹发生挽救他的性命，那就证明他是有罪的。一个疑为女巫的女子在捆缚手脚后被沉塘，如果她浮在水面上，说明她是女巫，会被处以绞刑；如果她沉下去淹死了，就证明她是无辜的。[5]

    与人们现在的印象完全不同，刑讯逼供并不是藏在地牢里，而是一种流行的娱乐形式。它们吸引了大批的观众，在欢呼雀跃中围观受刑人挣扎和哀号。在轮刑中撕裂的四肢、绞架上的尸体、铁笼中饱受风吹日晒饥饿干渴的罪人，还有他们一点一点死去，再一点一点腐烂的躯体，这些都是当时人们熟悉的景象。（欧洲某些公共建筑上至今还悬挂着这样的铁笼，比如在德国的明斯特大教堂。）酷刑经常是一项参与性运动。被捆在柱子上的受刑人，可以被群众骚扰、殴打、切割、扔石头、糊上泥巴或者粪便——有时甚至因此窒息而死。

    在欧洲，制度性的残忍绝不是罕见的事情。在其他文明中，有记载的酷刑有几百种之多，受害人成百上千万。这些记载中有亚述人、波斯人、塞琉古人、古罗马人、中国人、印度人、波利尼西亚人、阿兹特克人，以及许多非洲王国和美洲原住民部落。以色列人、希腊人、阿拉伯人、奥斯曼土耳其人的历史中也记录了残杀和严刑峻法。正如本书第2章结尾所说，第一批古老的文明都是专制的神权政体，不惜使用酷刑和极刑惩罚没有受害人的罪行。[6]

    * * *

    本章的主题是关于历史上的重大转变，我们终于摆脱了那些令人毛骨悚然的历史。当代西方和世界上的大部分地区已经消除了极刑与肉体惩罚，政府行使暴力对付自己人民的权力受到严格的限制，奴隶制已经被废除，人民对残忍也失去了胃口。所有这一切都是在短暂的历史瞬间发生和完成的，其起点是17世纪的“理性时代”，在18世纪末的“启蒙运动”中达到光辉的顶点。

    在这场进步中——如果有人说这不是进步，那我不知道这能叫什么，一部分是受新思想的引导，它明确地表示必须最大限度地克制甚至废止制度化的暴力。还有一部分是受情感的变化推动，人们对自己的同类开始有了更多的同情心，对同胞的苦难不再无动于衷。新的意识形态由此产生，它将生命和幸福作为价值观的中心，并用理性和事实来推进新制度的设计。这个新的意识形态可以被称为人道主义或人权。18世纪下半叶，这一新思想对西方世界产生了巨大的冲击，我们称其为“人道主义革命”。

    今天，人们提到启蒙运动时经常带着嘲讽的口气。左派的“批判思想家”认为启蒙运动要对20世纪的灾难负责；梵蒂冈的基督教保守派和美国精英右派坚信中世纪的天主教才具有明晰的道德标准，他们迫不及待地要以此取代宽容的世俗主义。[7]甚至很多中间派的非宗教作家也将启蒙运动贬低为书呆子的复仇，笑话这些书呆子竟然天真地相信人类是一个具备理性的物种。人们之所以如此健忘、如此不懂感恩，原因可能是我们在第1章中所说，历史受到自然和时间的洗刷粉饰，往昔暴行的事实，已经被抛进记忆的黑洞，留下来的都是失去原味的谚语和徽章。如果本章开始展示的图片过于生动而令人不安，我只是想提醒大家，不要忘记被启蒙运动终结的是一个什么样的时代。

    当然，没有一个历史变迁能够功毕一役，人文主义潮流在启蒙运动前后绵延数百年，遍及西方之外的世界各个角落。[8]但是在《人权的发明》（Inventing Human Rights）一书中，历史学家林恩·亨特（Lynn Hunt）表示，历史上曾经有两个时刻，人类大张旗鼓地申明了人的权利。一个是在18世纪末，1776年美国的《独立宣言》和1789年法国的《人权宣言》；另一个是在20世纪中叶，1948年的《世界人权宣言》。在随后的几十年间，爆发了一系列权利革命（见第7章）。

    我们将看到，这些宣言绝不仅仅是言辞动人。人道主义革命后，人类才开始废止许多历史悠久、早已被人们熟视无睹的野蛮行径。本章前面的图片中展示的那些令人恐怖的、反人道主义的恶俗，远在人道主义革命之前就已经被抛弃了。这些习俗消失的时间，是我们理解制度性暴力减少的出发点。

    迷信杀戮：人祭、巫术和血诬

    最愚昧的制度性暴力是人祭——为满足嗜血的神灵而折磨和杀害无辜的人。[9]

    《圣经》中亚伯拉罕捆缚以撒献神的故事说明，在公元前1000年前，人祭绝非不可思议之事。以色列人夸耀说，他们的神在道德上优越于周围部落的神，因为他们的神只要求屠宰牛羊做牺牲，而不要儿童做牺牲。但诱惑一定就在周围游荡着，故而以色列要在《圣经·利未记》第18章第20节中明文规定其为非法：“不可使你的儿女经火归与摩洛，也不可亵渎你神的名。”他们的后裔在几百年间一直努力不让这一恶习复活。公元前7世纪，国王约书亚摧毁了竞技场托非特，从此“不许人在那里使儿女经火献给摩洛”。[10]犹太人从巴比伦返回耶路撒冷后，逐渐停止用人做祭祀，但从犹太教中分离出来的一个教派还保留了人祭的观念。他们相信神接受一个无辜者的受难和牺牲后，会豁免整个人类的厄运。这个教派叫作基督教。

    所有的主要文明都有神话提到人祭。除了希伯来《圣经》和基督教《圣经》，在希腊传说中，为了让上天给自己的舰队降下顺风，阿伽门农将女儿依菲琴尼亚作为献祭。在古罗马史上，为了抵挡汉尼拔的进攻，四名奴隶被活埋。在威尔士德鲁伊教的传奇中，因为建造城堡的建材不断丢失，祭司杀死了一个孩子。围绕着印度教女神、有四只手臂的迦梨，还有阿兹特克神羽蛇神，有很多人祭传说。

    活人祭祀不只是令人着迷的神话。两千年前的古罗马史学家塔西佗，记录了他目睹的日耳曼部落的人祭活动。古希腊史学家普鲁塔克描述了迦太基发生的人祭，今天的游客还能在那里看到儿童献祭烧成焦炭的遗骸。夏威夷人、斯堪的纳维亚人、印加人和凯尔特人都有人祭的传统——还记得前面提到的“沼泽人”吗？在墨西哥的阿兹特克人中，在印度东南部的冈德人中，在西非的阿散蒂王国、贝宁王国和达荷美王国，活人祭祀是地地道道的行业，受害者的数目成千上万。马修·怀特估算，公元1440—1524年，阿兹特克人每天要用大约40个人做活人祭祀，共有120万人成为牺牲品。[11]

    活人祭祀，往往以酷刑折磨受害者开场。比如，阿兹特克将做献祭的人吊起来缓缓放入火中，在他们绝命之前又将他们吊出来，剖开胸膛取出仍在跳动的心脏。（在电影《夺宝奇兵2：魔域奇兵》中，这种祭祀形式被阴差阳错地安放到20世纪30年代的印度，为迦梨上演了一台献祭大戏。）印尼婆罗洲的达雅克族人，用竹篾和竹签在被献祭的人身上捅上1000下，让受害者慢慢地失血而亡。为了得到足够多用作祭祀的活人，阿兹特克人发动战争活捉俘虏，而印度的冈德人则专门喂养用于献祭的儿童。

    杀害无辜通常与其他迷信风俗结合在一起。将活人埋葬在城堡、宫殿或寺庙的地基中，以减轻对神明崇高领域的冒犯，威尔士、德国、印度、日本、中国都有过这样的奠基祭献。还有一种非常著名的做法，许多古老的王国（包括苏美尔、埃及、中国和日本）都采用过，那就是殉葬：国王或皇帝驾崩后，他的侍从和嫔妃要和他一起下葬。在印度，殉葬变为殉夫，寡妇要在为去世的丈夫举行火葬时跳入火堆。1829年，印度才立法禁止殉夫，但从中世纪开始到1829年，大约20万妇女因此恶俗而丧命。[12]

    那时候的人在想些什么呢？许多制度化的杀戮尽管不可饶恕，但至少是可以理解的。握有权力的人杀人，目的是消灭敌人，恐吓犯上作乱者，或者是显示自己的威风。但是，牺牲手无缚鸡之力的儿童，为了捕获俘虏做献祭而发动战争，喂养低种姓儿童做活人祭品，很难说这些是维持权力的有效手段。

    政治学家詹姆斯·佩恩（James Payne）关于人类武力历史的著作对此提出了深刻的见解。他说，古时候，人们对他人生命的价值评价很低，因为他们自己的生命中有太多的痛苦和死亡，早已习以为常。任何能够给自己带来优势的机会都是珍贵的，取得机会的底线都可以被压低，再压低，甚至可以以他人的生命为代价。如果像我们现在的大多数人一样，古人也相信神灵，那么活人祭祀无非就是为了取悦神，得到神的护佑。“原始世界充满了危险、苦难和惊恐，诸如瘟疫、饥荒和战争。他们自然会问：‘什么样的神创造了这样的世界？’理所当然的回答是：‘一个残忍的神，一个喜欢看见人流血和受罪的神。’”[13]所以他们会认为，如果这些神灵至少每天都要求人血滋养，那人们为什么不积极主动一些呢？而且，牺牲的最好是别人，而不是自己。

    在世界的一些地方，基督教的布道人，比如爱尔兰的圣帕特里克，倡导禁止活人祭祀。在另外一些地方，比如在非洲和印度，则是欧洲殖民者废除了这一恶俗。英军驻印度总司令查尔斯·内皮尔（Charles Napier）听到当地有人不满废除殉夫，说这是他们的习俗时，回答说：“你说烧死寡妇是你们的风俗，很好。我们也有自己的风俗，当男人活活烧死一个女人的时候，我们就将绳索套在这些男人的脖子上，绞死他们。去架起你们火葬的柴堆吧，我的木匠会在旁边造一个绞架。你可以遵守你的风俗，我们也要遵守我们的风俗。”[14]

    在大部分地区，活人祭祀会自行消亡。大约公元前600年，以色列人放弃了人祭。在随后几百年间，古希腊、古罗马、中国和日本也放弃了这一风俗。在成熟的、开始出现文字的社会中，人们开始反思活人祭祀。一种可能性是，识字的精英阶层、最早出现的历史学者，以及与周边其他社会的接触，三者共同发生作用，使人们有了进行分析的手段，认识到神灵嗜血这个假设是错误的。他们推断，事实上，将处女扔进火山口不能治愈疾病，不能打败敌人，也不能带来好天气。另外一个可能性是，比较富裕和稳定的生活，逐渐改变了人们的宿命倾向，并提高了他们对他人生命的评价。佩恩是赞同这一可能性的。这两种分析都有道理，但也都很难求证，因为在开始废除活人祭祀的时代，我们看不到任何科学的进步和经济的发展。

    从活人祭祀的风俗中走出来总不免会带有道德的色彩。那些经历了这一转折的人知道他们已经取得了进步，对其他仍然固守陋习的未开化的外邦人，他们掩饰不住脸上的鄙夷。日本历史上有过这样一幕，展示了当时坚决主张废止人祭的人所怀有的同情心。公元前2世纪，天皇的弟弟去世了。根据殉葬的传统，他的侍从要和他一起被埋入坟墓。但是侍从在坟墓中还活了很多天，人们一直能听见他们“在夜晚的哭泣和哀号”，天皇和听者无不动容。5年后，皇后过世，天皇改变旧俗，用泥塑人像代替活人放入坟墓。佩恩说：“天皇在哄骗神灵，因为人的生命已经变得太珍贵了。”[15]

    * * *

    凶残的神不加区分地吞嚼无辜牺牲品的血肉，这是一种相当粗糙的灾难理论。即使当人摆脱这个梦魇之后，还是情不自禁地要寻找超自然的力量，来解释发生在自己身上的不幸。区别只是，他们的解释更见精细和具体了。他们仍然感到超自然的力量，但这些力量不再来自一个笼而统之的神，而是来自某个特殊的个体。这样的个体就叫作巫。

    在狩猎-采集群体和部落社会，最常见的报复手段就是巫术。在他们的因果观念中，没有任何一种死亡是自然的。任何人命损失，如果找不到一种看得见的原因，那就一定是有某种看不见的原因，也就是妖魔在作祟。[16]很多社会都曾经容许以一些奇奇怪怪的理由进行冷血杀戮。只有考虑到人类认知的特性以及具体的长期利益冲突，我们才能多少理解这一现象。大脑的进化让人类可以看到自然中隐藏的力量，包括那些肉眼看不见的力量。[17]一旦人开始在无法检验的世界里搜寻答案，创造力就会在那里遇到一个巨大的空间，而指控某人玩弄妖术魔法，往往带有指控者本身的自利动机。人类学家已经观察到，部落民经常会孤立某些被人轻贱的姻亲，指控他们妖魔附体，这是处死这些人最合适的借口。此类指控可用来削弱敌人（特别是那些夸口自己有神力的人）。在争夺声望的竞争中，这样的指控可以表示自己比其他人更神圣，占据神性的制高点。此外，总有一些偏执、怪癖、成为累赘的邻里，特别是其中有些人，舅舅不疼，姥姥不爱，不会有亲戚愿意为他们打抱不平，驱巫成了处置这些人的手段。[18]

    在发生意外的时候，人们也会通过巫术指控，设法让另一方承担责任，以弥补自己的一部分损失。这有点儿像美国的某些意外伤害案，受害人摔跤跌伤，或是将热咖啡倒在自己身上，然后为此起诉事故现场的每一个人。也许，最大的潜在动机是转移敌人的注意力，保护自己不受指控和掩盖证据：被指控的人也许能够推翻指控他参与阴谋的全部物证，但永远无法证明自己与阴谋没有意念上的关联。在马里奥·普佐的小说《教父》（The Goolfather）中，维托·柯里昂受人信任，因为他的原则是“如果你将意外当作个人攻击，意外就不会发生在你身上”。在电影中，他警告其他黑帮家族的首领：“我是一个迷信的人。如果不幸的意外发生在我儿子身上，如果我儿子被雷电击中，我要找你们中间的一些人算账。”

    道德指控有时会升级失控，成为对指控者的反指控，产生雪崩效应，造成异常的大众幻觉和群众性癫狂。[19]15世纪，两名修道士出版了一本揭露女巫的书《女巫之槌》（Malleus Maleficarum）。历史学家安东尼·格拉夫顿（Anthony Grafton）称此书是“《巨蟒》和《我的奋斗》的古怪结合”。[20]在该书的鼓噪下，同时也受到《圣经》的激励——《出埃及记》第22章第18节说：“行邪术的女人，不可容她存活。”在随后的200年间，法国和德国的驱巫运动杀死了6万至10万所谓的巫师（其中85%是女性）。[21]这些妇女先是被施以酷刑，她们受刑不过而承认犯有吃婴，沉船，破坏庄稼，在安息日骑着扫帚飞行，与魔鬼交配，将她们自己的鬼情人变形成猫狗，以及让普通男子相信他们已经失去男根并因此不举等罪名；然后，她们被处死，通常是被活活烧死。[22]

    控巫的心理能够演变成其他血腥诽谤。比如，在中世纪的欧洲，不断浮现有关犹太人的谣言，说他们在水井内下毒，或者在逾越节杀害基督徒的孩子，用孩子的鲜血做节日的薄饼。在中世纪，成千上万的犹太人在英国、法国、德国和低地国家被屠杀，这些地区的犹太人被清除一空。[23]

    驱巫总是违反常识的。客观地说，妇女骑在扫把上飞舞，或者将男人变成猫，都是不可能的事情。只要允许足够多的人互相交流意见并对流行的看法提出质疑，揭示这些事实并不难。在整个中世纪，只有少数几位神职人员和政治家说出了事实，女巫是不存在的，以巫术的罪名实行迫害是败坏道德。（很不幸，一些敢于提出怀疑的人，自己也被关进地牢遭受酷刑。）[24]到了“理性时代”，这样的声音才越来越强，这些声音中有著名的作家伊拉斯谟、蒙田和霍布斯。

    有些官员受到科学精神的感染，亲自动手检验控巫。一位米兰的法官杀了自己的驴子，然后指控一个仆人行巫，接着是严刑逼供。酷刑之下，仆人承认犯有一切被指控的罪行，而因为惧怕再次受刑，这个仆人甚至情愿上绞架也拒绝收回认罪。（今天，保护研究实验中人体受试者委员绝对不会批准这样的实验项目。）从此，这位法官禁止在自己的法庭上使用酷刑。作家丹尼尔·曼尼克斯（Daniel Mannix）讲述了另一个故事：

    德国不伦瑞克公爵被宗教审判所在他的领地里所用的手段震惊了，

    他请两位著名的耶稣会学者监督审判。

    经过一番认真研究之后，两位神父对公爵说：“审判所在履行自己的职责。被他们逮捕的人都是其他巫师忏悔时供出的罪人。”

    公爵说：“两位和我一起去刑讯室看看。”

    他们跟在公爵身后，去看望一名四肢被绑在刑架上的妇女。

    “让我来审问她。”公爵建议说，“听着，妇人，你承认你是一个女巫。我现在怀疑这两个人正在施巫术。你怎么说？行刑官，加一轮刑！”

    “不要！不要啊！”妇女尖叫起来，“您是对的。我在安息日经常看见他们。他们自己变成山羊、狼或其他什么动物。”

    “你还知道他们干过什么？”公爵继续问。

    “他们和几个女巫生过孩子。一个女巫有8个孩子，父亲就是他们俩。那些孩子头像青蛙，腿像蜘蛛。”

    公爵转身对两位目瞪口呆的神父说：“我的朋友，我要不要给你们两位上刑，直到你们忏悔？”[25]

    这两位耶稣会修士之一弗里德里克·施佩（Friedrich Spee）神父在震惊之余，于1631年写了一本书。人们认为此书终结了德国大部分地区的控巫运动。欧洲几个国家在17世纪明令禁止驱巫，这场迫害运动总算销声匿迹了。1716年，英国最后一次绞死女巫；1749年，欧洲最后一次有妇女被判行巫而被烧死。[26]

    在世界上大部分地区，制度性的迷信杀戮，不论是人祭、血诬还是驱巫，是在两种压力下消亡的。一种是理性的压力：人们认识到，某些事件，即使是那些对个人生活有重大影响的事件，是被非人力的自然力量和纯粹的偶然机会决定的，而不是其他人有意识的设计。有这样一个保险杠贴纸——“总会有倒霉的时候”（Shit happens），这句话是代表道德进步的一大原则，完全可以和“爱你的邻人”以及“人皆生而平等”相提并论。

    另一种压力比较难解释，但也是非常强大的，即对人类的生命和幸福的评价提高了。米兰的法官对自己的仆人刑讯逼供，以此证明酷刑是不道德的，伤害了一个人，帮助了更多人，但是为什么我们会对他的实验感到震惊呢？这是因为我们对其他人有同情心，我们不需要认识他们，只要他们是人；我们将这种同情心凝聚为明确的法律，规定对他人（任何有人类特征的人）施虐为非法行为。尽管无法消除要将自己的不幸归咎于他人这一人类天性，但我们一直在努力克制不让这种天性发展成暴力。我们会看到，提高对他人福祉的评价，是人道主义革命时期废除其他野蛮习俗的主要动力。

    迷信杀戮：对亵渎神圣、异端邪说和叛教者的暴行

    人类用想象力臆造出各种罪恶，这种追求的极致产生了对人类自己的伤害，活人献祭和火烧女巫只是其中的两个例子。另一个例子可能出现在为追求幻觉而杀人的精神病患者身上，比如杀人魔王查尔斯·曼森，为了加速世界末日的到来而计划发动种族战争；刺杀里根总统的约翰·辛克利行刺的目的是为了让演员朱迪·福斯特对他留下深刻印象。但是，最大的危害还是来自贬低血肉生命的宗教信仰，比如认为现世的苦难将在来世得到补偿，或者驾驶飞机撞击摩天大楼的人，将在天堂享有72个处女。我们在第1章中看到，基督教信仰认为，一个人只有接受基督是救世主，才能脱离地狱的无尽煎熬，这成了一种道义责任。它迫使人们接受这一信念，并让可能对此产生怀疑的人保持沉默。

    无凭无据的信仰所带来的最大危险是，这些信仰要靠暴力手段来维护。确立信仰本身反映出人们自己的能力，它给予的赞赏具有权威性，还可以让统治者的地位具有合法性。为此，人们对自己的信仰越来越执着。挑战一个人的信仰，就是挑战他的尊严、立场和权力。当这些信仰的依据仅仅是信念而没有其他支持的时候，不断被人挑战，成了信仰根深蒂固的弱点。相信石头向下坠落而不是飞上天，没有人会对此感到难以接受，因为所有清醒的人都能看见这个事实。但是要说婴儿生来带有原罪，或者上帝是三位一体，或者阿里是排在穆罕默德之后第二位最有神性的人，就不是所有人都愿意接受了。每当人们以信仰为中心组织自己的生活时，他们会发现其他人没有这些信仰也活得挺好——或者更糟糕的是，这些人还对他们的信仰提出了确凿的反证，他们反而成为众人眼中的傻瓜。信徒无法通过说服怀疑派来维护自己基于信心的信仰，只有采取激愤的手段对付他们。信仰是信徒生活的全部意义之所在，侮辱这一信仰的人，必彻底消灭之。

    中世纪和近代基督教世界对异教徒和无信仰者的迫害极其残忍，杀戮的人数之众，超出人们的想象。相比之下，那些认为20世纪是暴力巅峰的传统观念，实在是大错特错。没有人知道到底有多少人死于这些神圣屠杀，我们只能从考古学家的估计中看到大概。比如，政治学家鲁道夫·J.鲁梅尔在《政府造成的死亡》（Death by Government）和《政府屠杀的统计》（Statistics of Democide）中，历史学家马修·怀特在《恐怖事件大全》（The Great Big Book of Horrible Things）和网站“大规模争执造成的死亡”中，分别给出了他们的估算。[27]他们力图推算出战争大屠杀的死亡人数，包括没有常规统计资料的事件。他们梳理能够找到的资料，使用合理性检验手段评估数据的可信程度以及允许的误差，通常他们取可靠数据的最高值和最低值之间的几何平均数，即中间值。我在本书中出示的是鲁梅尔对该时期的估算，他的数字一般低于怀特的估算。[28]

    1095—1208年，十字军发动了一场战争，从土耳其穆斯林手中夺回耶路撒冷，战士由此可赎罪并赢得通往天堂的门票。他们先是在出征途中在犹太人社区大肆屠杀，在围困和攻陷尼西亚、安提阿、耶路撒冷和君士坦丁堡之后，他们杀光了那里的穆斯林和犹太人。据鲁梅尔估计，在屠杀中丧命的人数是100万。当时世界上大约有4亿人口，是20世纪中叶的1/6。按照这个比率，十字军屠杀造成的死亡人数相当于今天的约600万人，相当于纳粹杀害犹太人的数量。[29]

    13世纪，法国南部的清洁派开始接受阿尔比教派的异端说教。根据这一教义，他们有两个神，一个是善神，一个是恶神。怒不可遏的教皇联合法国国王，向这一地区派出大军，屠杀了约20万清洁派信徒。从1210年占领布拉姆城（Bram）后的所作所为，人们可以看见教皇讨伐异端的手法。占领军割取100名俘虏的鼻子、上唇，剜出所有人的眼睛，只留下一个人的一只眼睛，让他引领这些俘虏走到另一个城市卡巴莱，恐吓卡巴莱的市民投降[30]。从此，人们再也见不到清洁派教徒了，阿尔比十字军彻底铲除了他们。历史学家将这一事件定义为灭绝性屠杀的典型。[31]

    阿尔比异端镇压过去不久，宗教裁判所又登上历史舞台，开始清除欧洲的其他异端。从15世纪末到18世纪初，西班牙的宗教裁判以皈依的犹太人和穆斯林为目标，指责他们恢复旧习。16世纪托莱多的一份手稿描述了宗教裁判所审讯一名妇女的情景。这名妇女被指控在星期六穿着干净的内衣，这说明她是一个秘密的犹太教徒。她受到绞床和水刑的折磨（我就不向各位叙述细节了——这个肯定比水刑更糟糕）。每次酷刑后停止几天，让她恢复体力，然后再次开始施刑。而她一直在努力揣摩到底应该忏悔些什么。[32]梵蒂冈教廷今天宣称宗教裁判所只杀害了几千人，但它忽略了一个事实，即绝大部分受害者是送交世俗的行政当局处决和监禁的，那些监禁通常只是被拖长的死刑而已。此外，还有新大陆宗教裁判所分部的受害者。据鲁梅尔估计，仅西班牙宗教裁判就杀害了35万人。[33]

    宗教改革运动之后，天主教教会不得不面对北欧众多信众成为新教徒的问题，这些信徒通常是非自愿地追随本地的公爵或国王改宗新教的。[34]而新教徒必须处理分裂教派。这些分裂教派既不是基督教的任何流派，也不是犹太人。有人可能认为，新教因为自己是天主教教义的异端，受到严酷的迫害，所以会对迫害异端持怀疑的态度，但是，事实不是这样。马丁·路德创作了6.5万字的专著《论犹太人和他们的谎言》（On the Jews and Their Lies）。在基督徒如何对待这个“被排斥和被诅咒的民族”的问题上，他提出了下列忠告：

    第一……烧毁他们的教堂或学校和……将那些不能被烧掉的物件用土埋葬或掩盖起来，不让任何人再看见一块他们的砖石……第二，我建议，他们的房子也应该被夷平和毁掉……第三，我建议，他们所有的祈祷书和犹太教法典，里面充满了关于偶像崇拜、谎言、诅咒和亵渎的教唆，一律没收……第四，我建议，从今往后禁止他们的拉比传教，违者处死……第五，我建议，不得向犹太人发放通行证……第六，我建议不许他们发放高利贷，没收他们所有的现金和金银财宝，妥善保管……第七，我建议在每一个犹太年轻人手里放上一把连枷、一把斧头、镰刀、铁锹、纺纱轮，或者一只纺锤，让他们汗流满面地挣饭吃，就像亚当的孩子所受的处罚一样（《创世记》第3章第19节）。因为他们让我们这些受诅咒的外邦人流汗吃苦，辛勤劳作，而他们在家中游手好闲，大吃大喝，养尊处优。这还不算，还要夸夸其谈地亵渎神明，因为我们劳作，就说他们的神在基督徒的神之上，这是不合适的。让我们接受其他民族都有的常识……将这些犹太人永远地驱逐出这个国家。[35]

    至少，他要他们中的大部分人活着受罪。基督教的再洗礼派（今天阿米什教派和门诺教派的先驱）连这样的慈悲都得不到。他们相信，人不应该在出生时受洗，而是应该自己坚信信念后再决定洗礼，所以路德宣布他们应被处死。新教的另一位主要奠基人约翰·加尔文对亵渎神圣和异端持类似的观点：

    有些人说，这些罪只是一些言论，不应是被判处如此重刑的理由。但是我们给狗戴上口套，难道我们应该任人信口开河，想说什么就说什么吗？……上帝说得很清楚，假先知应该毫不留情地被石头砸死。当上帝的荣耀受到威胁，我们只能将所有自然的情感踩在脚下。父亲不能原谅儿子，丈夫也不能原谅妻子，即使是性命相交的朋友也不能原谅。[36]

    加尔文将自己的观点付诸实践，他下令将作家迈克尔·塞尔维特（他对三位一体提出了质疑）处以火刑，而这只是他下令处死的人之一。[37]亨利八世是第三个反叛天主教的主力。在他统治期间，每年平均有3.25个异教徒被烧死。[38]

    一边是十字军和宗教裁判所，另一边是要杀死拉比、再洗礼派教徒和神体一位派，所以，1520—1648年，欧洲宗教战争是混乱、残忍和漫长的。这些混战肯定不仅是为了宗教，也是为了疆土和王朝的权力，但宗教之争让人们的情绪白热化了。根据军事史学家昆西·赖特的分类，宗教战争包括：法国胡格诺战争（1562—1594）；荷兰独立战争，也称“八十年战争”（1568—1648）；“三十年战争”（1618—1648）；“英国内战”（1642—1648）；伊丽莎白一世对爱尔兰、苏格兰和西班牙的历次战争（1586—1603）；“神圣同盟战争”（1508—1516）；查理五世对墨西哥、秘鲁、法国和奥斯曼的历次战争（1521—1552）。[39]这些战争伤亡率极为惨重。在“三十年战争”中，士兵把今天的德国大部分地区夷为平地，使其人口减少了约1/3。鲁梅尔估计死亡总人数是575万，按照当时的世界人口数量，这个死亡率是欧洲第一次世界大战死亡率的两倍，与第二次世界大战的死亡率相当。[40]历史学家西蒙·沙玛（Simon Schama）估计，英国内战中有近50万人丧生。按比例计算，这个损失比第一次世界大战的损失还要大。[41]

    直到17世纪下半叶，欧洲人才终于开始厌倦杀戮，不再因为别人的信仰错误而大开杀戒了。1648年的《威斯特伐利亚和约》标志着“三十年战争”的结束，确立了各王公决定本国宗教信仰（新教或者天主教）的原则，让少数派也能在和平中生活。（教皇英诺森十世对和平很不适应，他“永久地”宣布和平条约“废止、无效、失效、不公、被诅咒、堕落、愚蠢、毫无意义和影响”。）[42]西班牙和葡萄牙的宗教裁判所在17世纪失去势头，在18世纪进一步减弱，最终分别在1834年和1821年彻底关门。[43]英国在1688年光荣革命之后就不再有宗教杀戮。虽然直到现在，基督教的各个宗派之间还是时有冲突（比如北爱尔兰的新教和天主教，巴尔干国家的天主教和东正教），但今天的矛盾更多是种族性和政治性的，而不是宗教性的。从18世纪90年代开始，犹太人在西方获得了法律上的平等，首先是在美国、法国和荷兰，接着是在19世纪扩展至欧洲的大部分国家。

    * * *

    到底是什么原因使欧洲人终于决定，即使让他们的异见同胞冒着永堕炼狱的风险，并且以身试法诱惑他人一同沉沦，也没有什么了不起的？也许，“宗教战争”实在让他们精疲力竭了。但是为什么要花30年才能让他们精疲力竭，而不是10年或20年？有人觉得，人们从那时开始给予生命更高的价值。这种新开发的鉴赏力，一部分源于情感的变化，即开始习惯认同他人的痛苦和快乐；另一部分源于认知和道德的变化，即从珍视灵魂变为珍视生命。灵魂神圣的教义听起来令人振奋，但事实上极其邪恶。它将现世的生命贬低为一个转瞬即逝的过渡状态，仅仅是生命存在的一个微不足道的小片段。死亡好比青春期和中年危机，无非是生命的一个必经阶段。

    欧洲怀疑论和理性主义日渐兴起，推动了以生命而不再是灵魂，作为道德和价值轴心的转换。没有人能够否认生命和死亡之间的差别以及苦难的存在，但是对不灭的灵魂离开躯体之后的事情，却是需要灌输来培养的信念。17世纪被称为“理性时代”，因为学者开始坚持认为信仰应该接受经验和逻辑的证明。这一立场打破了有关灵魂和救赎的教条，也打破了当权者的暴力政策，即用暴力（比如“犹大的摇篮”）胁迫人们相信无法相信的事情。

    伊拉斯谟和其他持怀疑态度的哲学家认为，人类的知识天生是脆弱的。如果我们的眼睛可以被视觉假象欺骗，比如船桨在水面上仿佛是折断的，圆桶从远处看是正方形，我们为什么应该相信我们对一个更加虚无缥缈的对象的信仰？[44]1553年，加尔文将迈克尔·塞尔维特处以火刑，激起了对宗教迫害这一观念的大讨论。[45]法国学者塞巴斯蒂安·卡斯泰利奥（Sebastian Castellio）领导了对加尔文的批判，他提请人们注意，尽管人们有着互不相容的信仰，但都坚信自己才握有真理，这实在很荒谬。他还指出，按照这些信念行事具有令人恐怖的道德后果。

    加尔文说自己肯定是正确的，而（其他教派）说他们也肯定是正确的；加尔文说他们是错的，并且希望审判他们，而他们也是这样说加尔文的。谁应该来主持审判？谁让加尔文来充当所有教派的仲裁者，可以一人独揽生杀大权？他说他有“上帝之道”，但其他人也说他们有“上帝之道”。如果说事实是清楚的，那么对谁是清楚的？对加尔文吗？那他又为什么写了那么多书来证明真理？……鉴于这种不确定性，我们必须将异端简单地定义为那些我们不同意其观点的人。如果继而就是要杀死异端，而每个人都认为他人是异端，逻辑的结果就是一场灭绝性的战争。加尔文只好入侵法国和其他国家，荡平城镇，不分男女，不分老幼，不分人畜，杀光所有的生灵。[46]

    17世纪的很多学者参与了这场争论，包括巴鲁克·斯宾诺莎、约翰·弥尔顿（他写道，“让真理和谎言掐架……真理是强大的”）、艾萨克·牛顿和约翰·洛克。现代科学的出现证明，人们深信不疑的信仰可能是彻头彻尾的谎言，世界的运作遵循自然法则，而不是神的奇思妙想。天主教会用酷刑威胁伽利略，并对他施以终身软禁，就因为他相信一个自然界的事实，而他后来被证明是正确的。教会的做法对自己非常不利。人们越来越多地用怀疑论的思维，加上幽默和常识，来挑战迷信。在《亨利四世》第一幕中，格伦道尔吹牛说：“我可以召唤地下的幽魂。”豪斯伯回答说：“啊，这我也会，什么人都会；可是您召唤它们的时候，它们果然会应召而来吗？”弗朗西斯·培根以提出信仰必须以观察为基础的原则而著称。他写道，一个男子被带到教堂看画，画上是一群向神明发愿祷告而逃过沉船灾难的水手。这个男子被问道：“这难道不是证明了神明的力量？”他回答说：“是。不过，那些发愿之后被淹死的人呢？他们被画在哪里？”[47]

    残忍和不寻常的惩罚

    对迷信和教条的批判，终于消灭了酷刑的一个借口，但酷刑仍然是惩罚世俗罪行和过失的一种手段。古代、中世纪和近代的人认为残忍惩罚有充分的合理性。惩罚某人的全部意义在于让他感受巨大的痛苦，以至于他和其他人不再会被诱惑去参与违禁活动。据此，惩罚越严酷，越能达到惩罚的目的。而且，一个没有有效执法和司法制度的国家必须让轻微的惩罚发挥作用。它必须让惩罚残忍到令人无法忘怀，以至于任何目击者都因恐惧而臣服，并向其他人描述，让更多的人感到恐惧。

    但是，残忍惩罚的实际作用只是其吸引力的一个方面。甚至在惩罚与法制毫不相关的时候，还有旁观者在欣赏残忍。比如，折磨动物曾经是人们无伤大雅的娱乐。在16世纪的巴黎，一大流行娱乐是烧猫。人们将猫用绳子吊在舞台上，然后慢慢放低，一直放入火中。历史学家诺曼·戴维斯（Norman Davies）说：“观众，包括国王和王后，一起尖声狂笑，看着动物在痛苦中号叫，烧着，烤熟，最后变成焦炭。”[48]其他流行娱乐还有斗狗、奔牛、斗鸡，公开处决“有罪”的动物，以及逗熊游戏。在逗熊游戏中，熊被用铁链拴在柱子上，狗或者将熊撕成碎片，或者在搏斗中被熊咬死。

    即使不去主动地欣赏虐待和折磨，人们也对这些暴力表现出冰冷的麻木和无动于衷。塞缪尔·佩皮斯（Samuel Pepys）应该是他那个时代相当有教养的人，他在1660年10月13日的日记中这样写道：

    去查令十字街，看见哈里森少将被处绞刑、水刑和分尸。在行刑中，他看起来还不错，和其他在同一情形下的人一样快活。他们将他当众大卸八块，把割下来的头颅和心脏拿给围观的群众看，这换来大家的一片叫好声……愿他自此魂归上帝。而我带着卡坦斯上尉和谢普利先生去了太阳饭店，给他们叫了一些生蚝。[49]

    佩皮斯关于哈里森“看起来还不错，和其他在同一情形下的人一样快活”的冷漠笑话，指的是他被绞得半死，然后被开膛剖腹，被阉割。最后在被斩首之前，他的器官被示众，被扔进火中烧掉。

    即使是那些没有这样“多彩多姿”的刑罚，实际上也是骇人听闻的酷刑，尽管它们被委婉地贴上“体罚”的标签。今天，许多历史景点为了吸引游客，都布置了木桩和木枷，孩子可以摆个受刑的姿势拍照留念。下面是18世纪英国两个上木枷的犯人的真实故事：

    其中一个个子太矮，够不到木板上放脑袋的圆洞。执吏不由分说地将他的头塞进木洞。可怜的家伙无法站立，完全是被吊在木枷上。很快，他的脸色开始发青，血从鼻孔、眼睛和耳朵中流出来。围观的群众愤怒地攻击他。执吏打开木枷，可怜的家伙从木枷上掉到地上，当场咽了气。在民众的痛击之下，另外那个家伙也受了重伤，躺在地上，绝无生还的希望。[50]

    另外一种“体罚”是鞭笞，这是一种在英国水兵和美国黑奴中常见的刑罚，用于惩罚傲慢或者行动迟缓。鞭子有数不清的型号和种类：有些剥去皮肤；有些将皮肉刮碎，打成肉酱；有些穿透肌肉抽到骨头。根据查尔斯·内皮尔的回忆，在18世纪后期的英军中，1000鞭的处罚绝非罕见：

    我经常看见受罚者被带出医院三四次，接受未被执行完的鞭刑。如果一次完成全部处罚，伤害过重，可能会有生命危险。看到刚刚愈合的、鲜嫩的新皮肤赤裸着接受鞭笞，那真是可怕。我见过成百上千的人被鞭打，我一贯的观察是，当皮肤被打绽开，或者被抽掉后，剧痛开始减弱。人们一般从受第一鞭开始颤抖和号叫，直到第300鞭，此后就是忍受，甚至到第800鞭或者第1000鞭，哼都不会哼一声了。他们通常像死人一样倒在那里，行刑人就像是在鞭打一堆生肉。[51]

    “爬进船底”（keelhaul）这个词有时候用来指一种口头训斥，而它字面上的意思来自英国海军的一种惩罚。将水兵用绳子拴住，拖在船身的底部。如果这个水手不被淹死，也会被吸附在船底的藤壶剐成碎片。

    到16世纪末，英国和荷兰开始用监禁取代酷刑和肉体残害，作为对轻罪的处罚，但情况并没有得到真正的改善。囚犯必须自己负担食物、衣服和干草。如果他们或他们的家庭负担不起，就得不到食物、衣服和干草。有些时候，他们不得不支付“松铁”费，就是花钱让狱卒打开戴在囚犯腿上的带刺的铁环，或者松开将他们的双腿固定在地板上的铁棍。害虫、酷暑、严寒、粪便、粗粝和腐坏的食物，不仅增加了痛苦，而且滋生疾病，使监狱成为事实上的死亡集中营。许多监狱都是工厂；在那里，食不果腹的囚徒被迫终日劳作，从事锯原木、砸石头或者踩踏轮车等重体力活。[52]

    * * *

    在西方，18世纪是制度性残忍的转折点。英国的改良派和各种委员会开始对国家监狱的“残忍、野蛮和敲诈勒索”进行抨击。[53]公众的良知被有关酷刑处决的图片报道刺痛了。根据对1726年凯瑟琳·海斯被行刑的描述，当时的情况是这样的：“火焰刚刚烧到她，她试着用手推开柴火，但只是把柴束推散开了。行刑者只好拉紧套在她脖子上的绳索，想把她勒死，但是火焰烧到行刑者的手，他被灼伤了，所以只好松开了绳子。人们将更多的木柴扔进火里。三四个小时之后，她终于变成了灰烬。”[54]

    “轮上粉碎”这句平淡无奇的话完全表达不出这种刑罚的恐怖。根据记载，受刑人被变成一个“巨大的尖叫的木偶，在血泊中痛苦地扭动，就像一只大海怪。这个木偶有四个触角，每一个触角都是生腥的、黏稠的、没有形状的肉和骨头碎片混合在一起”。[55]1762年，法国一位名叫让·卡拉斯的64岁的新教徒，被控为阻止自己的儿子改宗天主教而杀害了他。事实上，他只是想掩盖儿子自杀的真相。[56]在审讯中，他被施用了吊坠刑和水刑，目的是要他交代同谋，最后他受到轮刑。在经受两个小时的残忍折磨之后，出于仁慈，他被绞索勒死了。被敲碎骨头时，他还喊着为自己的清白辩护，这一可怕的图景让围观者深受刺激。铁棒的每一下敲打，“都响在他们的灵魂深处”，而“在场的每一个人都泪流满面，但为时已晚”。[57]伏尔泰站出来仗义执言。他说，外国人以优雅的文学和美丽的女演员来评判法国，却没有注意到法兰西是一个尊奉“残暴旧俗”的冷酷民族。[58]

    其他著名作家也开始痛斥虐待性的刑罚。有些人和伏尔泰一样，认为这是法国的耻辱，称这些刑罚是野蛮的、非文明的、残忍的、原始的、食人生番的和令人发指的。其他人，如孟德斯鸠指出，基督徒在为自己受到古罗马人、日本人和穆斯林的严酷镇压而悲恸的同时，却使用同样的手法迫害自己的同胞，这实在是很虚伪。[59]一位美国医生，也是美国《独立宣言》的签署人——本杰明·拉什（Benjamin Rush）呼吁说，在读者和那些受过严刑处罚的人之间存在着共同的人性。他在1787年的文章中这样写道：“那些男人，也许还有女人，虽然作为个人，让我们厌恶，但他们也有灵魂，也和我们的朋友和亲人一样，有用同样的物质构成的肉体和骨骼。”接着，他说，如果我们对他们的痛苦无动于衷，毫不同情，那么“同情的原则就会彻底失效，并从人类的心里彻底消失”。[60]司法制度的目标应该是改造罪犯，而不是伤害罪犯，“公开的刑罚从来都不是让罪犯洗心革面的有效手段”。[61]英国律师威廉·伊登（William Eden）也注意到了残酷刑罚的野蛮功效，他在1771年写道：“我们让自己的同胞像挂在篱笆上的稻草人一样腐烂，我们的绞架上吊满了人类的尸体。毫无疑问，一个人被迫见惯了这等景象，内心会有什么样的变化，他对人的情感能够不麻木吗，对不幸者的仁慈能够不消失殆尽吗？”[62]

    在这些作家中，最有影响的一位是米兰的经济学家和社会学家切萨雷·贝卡里亚，他在1764年出版的畅销书《论犯罪与刑罚》（On Crime and Punishments）在知识分子中产生了巨大的反响，很多大思想家都深受影响，包括伏尔泰、狄德罗、杰斐逊和约翰·亚当斯。[63]贝卡里亚从第一原则出发，即正义体系的目的是实现“最大多数人的最大幸福”（这句话后来被边沁引用，成为功利主义的座右铭）。因此，使用刑罚的唯一正当性在于威慑人们不去对其他人造成更大的伤害。推而论之，刑罚应该与犯罪造成的伤害相称，不是要平衡神秘的宇宙正义，而是建立正确的激励机制：“如果两个罪行对社会造成不同程度的伤害，而我们对它们施加同样的处罚，那么，人们就会毫无顾忌地尽可能为了占取更大的便宜而犯下更大的罪行。”贝卡里亚对刑事司法进行了冷静的分析。他明确表示，对威慑犯罪而言，刑事处罚的确定性和及时性远比其严厉性更重要；刑事审判应该公开，并以事实为依据；死刑不是威慑的必要手段，也不应属于应该授予国家的权力之例。

    不是所有人都赞赏贝卡里亚的观点。他的著述被列入教廷的《禁书目录》，法国法学家和宗教学者穆雅尔·德·沃格朗（Muyart de Vouglans）对贝卡里亚进行了激烈的反驳。穆雅尔嘲笑贝卡里亚柔软的心灵，指责贝卡里亚草率地挑战经过时间检验的现有体制，并认为只有严厉的刑罚才能抵抗人天性中的堕落，其根源是人类的原罪。[64]

    但是，时代接受了贝卡里亚的思想。在几十年之内，所有的主要西方国家都开始废止惩罚性酷刑，包括当时刚刚独立的美利坚合众国，它的宪法第八修正案明确禁止“残酷和不寻常的惩罚”。虽然很难准确地描绘出酷刑减少的曲线（因为许多国家是在不同时间废止不同的酷刑的），但是图4-2显示了15个欧洲主要国家和美国废除司法酷刑的时间。

    图4-2 废除司法酷刑的时间

    资料来源：亨特，2007年，第76、179页；曼尼克斯，1964年，第137～138页。

    我在图4-2和本章的其他图中特别注明了18世纪这个时间段，以强调，在这个小小的历史片段之内，发生了多少重要的人道主义改革。另外一项人道主义运动是防止虐待动物。1789年，边沁在文章中提到了动物权利的基本原理：“问题不是它们是否能够推理，也不是它们是否能够说话，而是它们是否痛苦。”这句话直到今天仍然是动物保护运动的口号。1800年，英国议会通过了第一个禁止逗熊的法案。1822年，通过了《虐待牲畜法案》，并于1835年将保护范围扩大到公牛、熊、狗和猫。[65]和很多起源于启蒙运动的人道主义运动一样，反对虐待动物运动在20世纪下半叶的权利革命中掀起第二次浪潮，其高峰是在2005年立法禁止英国最后一项合法的血腥运动——猎狐。

    死刑

    英国在1783年启用坠落式绞刑，法国在1792年启用断头台。当时，这些都是道德进步，因为这样的处决方式让受刑人立即丧失意识，比那些拉长行刑时间、延长受刑人痛苦的处决手段更人道。但是死刑处决仍然是暴力的一种极端形式，尤其是在人类历史上，大部分国家都毫无顾忌地使用极刑。无论是在《圣经》中，还是在中世纪以及近代，小偷小摸之类的过失和违规都可以被判处死刑，比如鸡奸、闲言碎语、偷菜、在安息日从地上捡起一根木棍、与父母顶嘴，甚至批评皇家的花园都是死刑罪。[66]在亨利八世统治的最后几年，伦敦每个星期有十几起死刑处决。1822年，英国有记录的死刑罪名达222项，包括偷猎、造假币、抢劫养兔场和伐树。每宗案件的庭审时间平均为8.5分钟，可以肯定有很多无辜的人被送上了绞架。[67]鲁梅尔估计，从耶稣时代起到20世纪，1.9亿人因轻罪被判处死刑。[68]

    但随着18世纪的结束，死刑本身已被判死刑。长期以来被当作大众狂欢的公开绞刑，于1783年在英国被废止。1834年，绞架悬尸示众被废止。1861年，英国原有的222项死罪被减少到4项。[69]在整个19世纪，许多欧洲国家都在减少死刑罪条款，只留下谋杀和叛国两项死罪。逐渐地，几乎所有的西方国家都彻底废除了死刑。在继续下面的故事之前，请先看图4-3，它显示，在现存的53个欧洲国家中，除了俄罗斯和白俄罗斯，所有国家都废除了对普通犯罪的死刑。（少数几个国家仅对叛国罪和严重军事罪行保留死刑罪的条文。）废除死刑的潮流在第二次世界大战后席卷西方世界，但是事实上，废除死刑的实际时间开始得更早。比如，荷兰在1982年宣布正式废除死刑，但实际上自1860年起就再没有执行过死刑。一般来说，一个国家最后一次执行死刑和正式宣布废除死刑之间平均有50年的时间间隔。

    今天，人们普遍认为死刑是对人权的侵犯。2007年，联合国大会以105票对54票（29票弃权）通过一项无约束力的暂停死刑决议，同样的决议提案在1994年和1999年都没有被通过。[70]美国是反对这一决议的国家之一。在西方民主世界，无论是在死刑问题上，还是在各种形式的暴力问题上，美国都是一个局外人。（或者我应该说“是一些局外人”，美国有17个州——大部分是北方州，已经在本州废除了死刑，其中有4个州在过去的两年废除了死刑，而有18个州已经有45年没有执行过死刑了。）[71]即使美国的死刑臭名昭著，也大多只是象征性的。图4-4显示，自殖民地时代以来，美国的死刑率在总人口中的比重大幅下降，在17世纪和18世纪下降得最快，而那也正是其他形式的制度性暴力在西方迅速减少的时期。

    图4-3 欧洲废除死刑的时间

    资料来源：法国外交部，2007年；《英国死刑》，2004年；大赦国际，2010年。

    在过去的20年里，这种几乎看不见的增长反映了严厉打击犯罪的政策，这些政策是对20世纪60年代、70年代和80年代杀人潮的反应。但是在今天的美国，“死刑判决”简直就是小说里的情节，因为强制性的司法复核几乎将死刑的执行无限期推迟，全国只有零点几个百分点的谋杀犯真被处死。[72]最近死刑执行数量呈下降趋势，上一个高峰年是1999年。从那以后，年均死刑执行数量几乎减少了一半。[73]

    图4-4 1640—2010年美国的死刑率

    资料来源：佩恩，2004年，第130页，数据来自埃斯皮和斯麦克拉，2002年。1990—2000年和2000—2010年的数字来自死刑信息中心，2010年b。

    在美国死刑判决数量减少的同时，死刑罪的种类也在减少。过去，人们为了小偷小摸、鸡奸、兽奸、人兽性交、通奸、巫术、放火、隐瞒出生、盗窃、奴隶反叛、造假币、盗马都可能被处死。图4-5给出了自殖民时代以来对非凶杀罪执行死刑的比重。近几十年来，除了谋杀罪，唯一可能被判处死刑的罪只有“阴谋策划谋杀罪”。2007年，美国最高法院裁定，任何针对个人的罪行，在“没有生命损失”的情况下，均不得被判处死刑。（虽然对一些危害国家的罪行，例如间谍、叛国和恐怖主义，仍然可使用死刑判决。）[74]

    死刑的行刑方式也在发生变化。美国不仅早已废除虐待性的死刑执行，比如火刑，而且尝试了一系列“人道”的死刑方法，但问题是，越是能有效地确保瞬间死亡（比如将几颗子弹射进大脑），在旁观者看来就越是恐怖，人们都不愿意在脑子里留下杀死一个活生生的人的记忆。因此有形的绳索和子弹让位给无形的毒气和电击，后来又被全身麻醉后注射致死的准医疗程序取代。即使是这种手段，还是被人批评说对垂死的囚犯来说压力太大。正如佩恩所说：

    图4-5 1650—2002年美国以非凶杀罪被处死刑的人数

    资料来源：埃斯皮和斯麦克拉，2002年；死刑信息中心，2010年a。

    经过一次又一次的改革，立法者一再地柔化死刑，以至于它现在只能说是一个完全退化了的器官。它不再令人恐惧；按照它目前的限制级别，它也不再有确定性，在200个谋杀案件中只会有一个凶手被处以死刑。说美国“有”死刑，这到底是什么意思呢？如果美国的死刑仍然是活跃的、传统式的，我们一年就可能处决大约10 000名犯人，包括一批完全无辜的人。犯人可以被执行酷刑式处决，这些处决可以通过全国各大电视网转播给所有公民，包括儿童收看；每天会有27起死刑处决，留给其他电视节目的空档肯定很有限。这样的场景让为死刑辩护的人也觉得难以容忍。这说明，他们也感受到了对人类生命越来越多的尊重。[75]

    我们可以想象，在18世纪提出废除死刑思想的人看起来有多么鲁莽草率。你可能认为，没有了对恐怖极刑的惧怕，有些人会毫不犹豫地为利益或者复仇行凶杀人。但是我们今天看见的事实是，废除死刑并没有打断数世纪以来凶杀暴力下降的趋势，而且当代西欧国家均已不再执行死刑，它们也是世界上凶杀率最低的国家。制度性暴力曾经被认为是维持社会运转不可或缺的手段之一，但一旦它被废除，社会照样运转良好。

    奴隶制

    在人类文明历史的大部分时间，奴隶制都是常态，而不是例外。希伯来《圣经》和基督教《圣经》都接受了奴隶制，柏拉图和亚里士多德证明奴隶制是一种合乎自然的制度，是文明社会的基础。在伯里克利时代，所谓的民主雅典有35%的人口是奴隶；古罗马共和国也是一样。奴隶一向是战争的主要战利品，而且不论种族，那些没有国家保护的人最容易被掳获为奴。[76]“奴隶”一词的词源是斯拉夫（Slav）。字典告诉我们，“在中世纪，斯拉夫人被大量俘虏并作为奴隶”。国家和军队，如果不是奴隶制的机器，就是反抗奴隶制的机器，就像我们听过的名歌：“统治吧！不列颠尼亚！统治这片汹涌的海洋！不列颠人永远永远不会被奴役！”早在非洲人成为欧洲人的奴隶之前，他们就成了其他非洲人、北非以及中东的伊斯兰国家的奴隶。有些国家直到最近才废除奴隶制：卡塔尔，1952年；沙特阿拉伯和也门，1962年；毛里塔尼亚，1980年。[77]

    在战争中被俘为奴，做奴隶的命运总要好过被屠杀。在很多社会，奴隶制渐渐转变为较温和的隶属形式，比如奴役、雇佣、服兵役和职业行会。但是，暴力是奴隶制核心的本义——如果一个人承担了一个奴隶的全部工作，但是能够不受暴力限制和惩罚地选择随时退出，我们就不能称他为奴隶——暴力往往是奴隶生活的一部分。《圣经·出埃及记》第21章第20~21节说：“人若用棍子打奴仆或婢女，立时死在他的手下，他必要受刑；若过一两天才死，就可以不受刑，因为是用钱买的。”奴隶没有身体所有权，即使那些境遇较好的奴隶也逃不出被残酷剥削的命运。妓院里的女奴被长期地、无休止地强奸，而看守她们的男人都是阉人。阉人的睾丸（某些黑人阉人的整个外生殖器）被割下后，敷上滚热的黄油止血，以免因失血过多而送命。

    非洲的奴隶贸易是人类历史上最残酷的篇章。16世纪到19世纪，至少有150万非洲人惨死在横穿大洋的运奴船上。他们被用锁链拴在拥挤不堪、布满污秽的船舱底部。一位观察者说：“那些活着抵岸的人，形状之悲惨，无以言表。”[78]此外，在到达海岸或者中东的奴隶市场之前，大批人被迫徒步穿过丛林或沙漠，有数百万人在途中殒命。奴隶贩子按照冰商的商业模式处理他们的货物，即在运输过程中，损失相当一部分的货物属于正常。至少有1700万甚至可能多达6500万非洲人在奴隶贸易中死亡。[79]奴隶贸易不仅在运输途中残害生命，因为有源源不断的新奴隶供给，奴隶主毫不吝惜奴隶的生命，把他们往死里使用，然后再买进新的奴隶。即使是那些尚能保持健康的奴隶，也是生活在鞭笞、强暴、肢体伤残、骨肉分离和就地正法的阴影之下。

    当奴隶和奴隶主发展起私人的情谊，奴隶主也经常——通常是在遗嘱中——释放自己的奴隶。在某些地方，比如中世纪的欧洲，如果向人民征税比奴役更简便易行，或者弱国无力行使奴隶主的财产权时，奴隶制就开始转变为农奴制和佃农制。群众性废除奴隶制度的运动最早出现在18世纪，并迅速将奴隶制推向终结。

    人们为什么会逐渐放弃这种最廉价的人力工具？历史学家一直在争论，废奴到底是受经济利益的驱动还是受人道关怀的驱动。经济利益驱动说曾经一度占了上风。1776年，亚当·斯密分析说，奴隶制肯定比有酬雇工缺乏效率，因为后者才是正和博弈：

    奴隶的劳作，成本看起来只是维持奴隶生存的费用，最终却是得不偿失的。一个不能取得和拥有财产的人，除了尽量多吃之外没有其他兴趣，工作则是尽量少做。在换取自己的生存所需之外，他的任何劳作都是要靠暴力来榨取，而不是出于自己的利益。[80]

    政治学家约翰·穆勒（John Mueller）说：“斯密的观点受到人们的推崇，但是，奴隶主们却不以为然。结论只能是，或者是斯密错了，或者奴隶主都是些算不清账的生意人。”[81]有些经济学家，如罗伯特·福格尔（Robert Fogel）和斯坦利·恩格尔曼（Stanley Engerman）总结说，斯密的分析至少对美国内战前的南方来说是错误的，当地的经济运作相当有效率。[82]南方的奴隶制不是逐渐被成本收益更高的生产技术取代，而是被战争和法律摧毁。

    在世界上的大部分地区，也是枪炮和法律终结了奴隶制。英国曾经是奴隶贸易最猖獗的国家，它在1807年宣布奴隶贸易非法。1833年，大英帝国全境废除奴隶制。到19世纪40年代，在经济制裁和近1/4英国皇家海军的支持下，英国人向其他国家发出了终止奴隶贸易活动的呼吁。[83]

    大部分历史学家的结论是，英国制定废奴政策的动机是人道主义。[84]洛克1689年的著作《政府论》动摇了奴隶制的道德依据，虽然他和他的思想继承人实际上都是这一制度的获益人。他们倡导的自由、平等和普世人权仿佛放出了关在瓶子中的精灵，一旦接受新的价值，任何人都感到越来越无法认同奴隶制度。启蒙时代出现了很多从人道主义立场抨击酷刑的作家，比如法国作家雅克-皮埃尔·布里松（Jacques-Pierre Brisson），他们也用同样的原则批判奴隶制。持相同立场的还有贵格会的教友，以及传教士、学者、自由黑人、获得了自由的黑奴，还有政治家。其中，贵格会在1787年创建了影响广泛的“废止奴隶贸易学社”。[85]

    同时，也有很多政客和传教士为奴隶制辩护，他们的论据包括《圣经》认可奴隶制，非洲人为劣等人种，保留南方生活方式，还有家长般的关切，即自由的黑人无法独立生存。但这些强词夺理在认知和道德的审判下退却了。在一个其成员利益由社会契约协商而定的社会中，一个人能拥有另一个自己的同类，并专横地将其排斥在社会成员之外，这对任何有理智的人来说都是难以辩解的。杰斐逊这样说：“大部分人类生来背上并没有戴着马鞍，那些少数被偏爱的人生来也没有穿着马靴和马刺，能让他们理所当然地骑在别人身上作威作福。”[86]最能激起道德反感的是以第一人称讲述的奴隶生活，比如1789年出版的埃奎亚诺的《一个非洲黑奴的自传》（The Interesting Narrative of the Life of Olaudah Equiano）和1845出版的《一个美国黑奴的自传》（Narrative of the Life of Frederick Douglass, an American Slave）。小说则更具感染力，例如斯托夫人的《汤姆叔叔的小屋》（或叫《卑贱者的生活》, 1852年）。小说刻画了最撕心裂肺的场景，母亲被迫离开她们的孩子，善良的汤姆因拒绝鞭打其他奴隶而被殴打致死。这本小说销量达30万册，成为废奴运动的催化剂。甚至有这样的传说，亚伯拉罕·林肯在1862年见到斯托夫人时说：“原来你就是那位引发这场伟大战争的小妇人啊！”

    1865年，在经历美国历史上最严酷的战争之后，美国宪法第十三修正案废除了奴隶制。很多国家此前已废除了奴隶制，法国在反复中先后两次宣布废除奴隶制，第一次是在1794年法国大革命初期，但拿破仑在1802年复辟，于是法国在1848年第二共和国时期再次宣布废除奴隶制。世界其他地区也相继废除了奴隶制。许多百科全书提供了废除奴隶制的时间线，这些时间线在区域划分和对“废止”的定义上有所不同，所以彼此略有出入，但是它们显示了同样的模式，即废奴呼声的高潮始于18世纪末。图4-6显示了自1575年以来正式废除奴隶制的国家和殖民地的数量。

    图4-6 废除奴隶制的时间

    资料来源：我见到过的最完整的废奴清单是维基百科上的“Abolition of slavery timeline”词条（2009年8月18日资料）。维基百科这一词条下“现代”栏目中包括我在前面提到过的所有政治实体的废奴事件。

    债役是奴隶制的近亲。在《圣经》时代和古代，还不起债务的人就有可能被奴役、被监禁或者被处死。[87]“严刑峻法的”（draconian）一词的词源是古希腊立法者德拉古（Draco）的名字，他在公元前621年制定法律，规定欠债者被罚没为奴。《威尼斯商人》中夏洛克要求从安东尼奥的身上割下一磅肉的权利，也从一个侧面反映了这种制度。到16世纪，不履行债务的人不再被奴役或处死，但是成千上万的债务人塞满了负债人监狱。有时，他们虽然完全破产，但还要自理饭费，只有靠从监狱的窗口向过路的行人乞讨来维持生命。在19世纪初的美国，数以千计的欠债人——其中包括很多妇女——被困在监狱中，半数以上人的债务还不到10美元。与反对奴隶制的运动一样，19世纪30年代兴起的一场改革运动既诉诸理性，又诉诸情感。国会的一个委员会在辩论时说：“如果所有这些被压迫的受害人聚集起来，和他们受到连累的妻子、儿女和朋友一起站在我们面前，那种场景会让人性战栗。”[88]1820—1840年，美国几乎所有的州都废除了债役，而大部分欧洲国家在19世纪60和70年代也废除了债役。

    佩恩注意到，我们对待欠债人的历史勾画出一个暴力在生活的各个领域全面退缩的神秘进程。西方社会已经从奴役和处决欠债不还的人，变为监禁，再变为没收他们的财产抵债。他指出，甚至没收财产也是一种暴力行为：“约翰用信用卡买了食品杂货，随后拒绝付账，他并没有行使暴力。如果店家去法院起诉，使警方出面没收约翰的汽车和银行账户，那么店家和警察就是首先使用了暴力”。[89]因为这是一种暴力——虽然人们一般都不这样想，这样的操作也已经减少了。破产法的趋势是，尽量减少惩罚和挤压欠债人的资产，给予他们机会重新开始。在许多国家，欠债人的房屋、汽车、退休金和配偶的资产都是受保护的，当一个人或者一个公司宣布破产之后，他们可以不受惩罚地勾销很多债务。在欠债人塞满监狱的年代，人们会预言，这样的宽宏大量会彻底葬送资本主义，因为资本依靠的就是借贷还钱。但是商业生态系统继续进化，为失去了的杠杆寻找新的适应手段。当贷方不能再合法地对借方进行强制性威胁后，信用检查、信用评级、贷款保险和信用卡等种种新手段应运而生，经济生活一直在继续。一整个种类的暴力就这样消失了，承担同样功能的新机制开始运作，但没有人意识到它和原来曾经发生过的事情有何种关联。

    当然，奴隶制和其他形式的奴役制度还没有在地球上完全消失。从最近对涉及劳工和卖淫的人口走私报道来看，有些人对统计数据视而不见，对道德进步麻木不仁。他们说，自18世纪以来，世界就没有发生变化。在他们眼里，好像世界上少数地区秘密的奴役行为和世界性的有政府支持的奴隶制度没有什么区别。此外，现代人类的人口贩卖令人发指，但它无论如何也不可能与当年非洲奴隶贸易的恐怖相提并论。正如在2003年发起联合国教科文组织人口贩卖统计项目（UNESCO Trafficking Statistics Project）的戴维·法因戈尔德（David Feingold）在谈到今天人口贩卖的温床时所说：

    人口贩卖较之于贩奴，尤其是跨越大西洋的奴隶贸易，充其量也是微不足道的。18和19世纪，非洲的奴隶是在战争中被劫持或者捕获的。他们被送往新大陆终生为奴，他们或他们的孩子几乎很少能逃离那里。相比之下，虽然今天的人口贩卖中还有一些受害者是被劫持的，但对大多数人来说……人口贩卖是移民过程中发生了严重的错误。尽管有时迫于环境的压力，但大多数人是为了寻找更富裕或者更刺激的生活而自愿离开家园的。他们在途中陷入了受威胁和受剥削的处境。无论如何，这种处境不会是终身性的，被贩卖的人也不会成为永久或者世袭的贱民阶层。[90]

    法因戈尔德还提到，人权团体报告的人口贩卖人数，被记者和非政府组织一再引用，通常都是无中生有，或者是为了支持他们倡导的价值观念而被夸大了。尽管如此，人权活动家也承认，情况已经有了显著改善。“解放奴隶”组织（Free the Slaves）的主席凯文·贝勒斯（Kevin Bales）发表过一个声明。尽管他以含糊的统计数据作为开场，但它客观地描述了这个问题：“虽然奴隶的真实数量是有史以来最多的，但按世界总人口计算，奴隶所占比重也许是最小的。今天，我们不必打赢这场法律战，每一个国家的法律都反对奴隶制。我们也不需要去做经济论证，因为没有哪个经济是依赖奴隶制的（与19世纪不同，没有奴隶，整个产业都会垮台）。我们也不需要做道德论证，因为没有人再试图为奴隶制辩护了。”[91]

    * * *

    “理性时代”和启蒙时代快速终结了很多暴力制度。但还有两种制度更顽固，在世界的大部分地区又延续了两个世纪，它们是暴政和国家之间的战争。尽管人类消除暴政和战争的第一波系统的努力几乎在摇篮中就夭折了，而且只在我们有生之年才开始成为主流，但是，奠定了人道主义革命的新思潮和新理念，也正是今天抗拒暴政和战争新努力的思想源泉。我将在下文中逐一说明。

    专制统治和政治暴力

    说到政府，社会学家马克斯·韦伯有一句名言，指政府就是一个垄断了使用暴力的合法组织。所以说，根据这一性质，政府就是执行暴力的工具。在理想的状态下，暴力仅仅被作为一种威慑犯罪分子和入侵者的备用工具，但是，几千年以来，大多数政府都不具备这样的克制力，而是沉湎于滥用暴力。

    如果说专制就是“社会的首领有权任意地，而且不受惩罚地杀害自己的臣民”，在这个意义上，最初出现的国家组织，全部是专制主义国家。[92]劳拉·贝齐格的研究已经表明，在巴比伦、希伯来、古罗马帝国、萨摩亚、斐济、高棉、纳齐兹、阿兹特克、印加和九个非洲王国都可以找到专制统治的证据。这些专制统治者生活奢侈、后宫糜烂，充分地享受权力，把达尔文主义的“适者生存”原则发挥到了极致。一份早期英国殖民者在印度的报告中提到，“苏拉特的莫卧儿总督举行了一次晚会……晚会受到干扰，因为主人突然大发雷霆，下令将所有的舞女就地斩首。英国来宾被吓得目瞪口呆”。[93]英国人之所以能够承受这种打击，是因为这个母国刚刚结束专制统治。当亨利八世陷入各种坏情绪时，他处死了两个妻子、几个被怀疑是她们情人的男子、多名他自己的顾问（包括托马斯·莫尔和托马斯·克伦威尔）、《圣经》翻译家威廉·廷代尔，还有数万名其他人。

    世界各地都有独裁暴君心血来潮滥杀无辜的故事。智慧国王所罗门提议通过劈开婴儿来解决谁是母亲的争执。《一千零一夜》（《天方夜谭》）的故事背景是波斯国王每天要杀死一位新娘。印度奥里萨邦富有传奇色彩的国王纳拉辛哈德瓦，要求不多不少1200名艺术家用不多不少12年建造一座庙宇，否则将全体被处死。在瑟斯博士的《巴塞洛缪·卡宾斯的500顶帽子》中，主人公差点儿因为无法在国王面前摘下帽子而被砍头。

    而独裁者自己也是成于刀剑毁于刀剑。在人类历史上的大部分时间里，政治谋杀——挑战者杀死首领，夺权篡位——是权力转移的主要机制。[94]政治谋杀不同于现代的暗杀，后者试图发表政治声明，执行人想要被载入史册，或者纯粹就是疯狂。从事政治谋杀的人本身就是政治精英集团的成员，弑君夺位，期望登基之后承继大统，被承认具备合法性。扫罗王、大卫王和所罗门王都曾经是谋杀阴谋的目标，或者是谋杀阴谋的参与者。在古罗马帝国分崩离析之前，共经历了49位皇帝，其中有34位是被卫兵、高官或者自己的家人杀死的，尤里乌斯·恺撒不过是其中之一。曼纽尔·艾斯纳做过计算，公元600—1800年，有1/8的欧洲君主是被谋杀的，其中1/3的谋杀者篡夺了王位。[95]

    政治领袖不仅相互残杀，而且通常对其公民实施大规模暴力。他们对人民滥施酷刑，大兴牢狱，随意处决，而且让人民食不果腹，为了宏大的建筑工程拼死劳作。鲁梅尔估计，在20世纪之前，这些专制政府共杀害了1.33亿人，而总数则可能高达6.25亿人。[96]所以，在一个社会中，一旦抢劫和仇杀得到控制，减少暴力的最大机会是减少政府的暴力。

    到17世纪和18世纪，许多国家的暴政和政治谋杀开始减少。[97]艾斯纳估算，自中世纪到1800年，欧洲弑君率下降至原来的1/5，特别是在西欧和北欧。这种改变的典型是斯图亚特王朝的两位国王的命运，他们均与英国议会长期纷争。1649年，查理一世被砍头；但在1688年，他的儿子詹姆士二世在光荣革命中被不流血地请下王位。甚至在他试图政变之后，也只是被强迫去国流亡。到1776年，美国革命将“专制制度”的定义降低到对茶叶征税和为士兵提供食宿的水平。

    同时，政府的专制性逐渐减弱，思想家在不断地探索新的原则和方式，以便将政府的暴力控制在最低限度。它始于一场观念的革命。政府不再被视为社会的有机组成部分，或者是上帝统治其王国的地方特权。人们开始认为，政府就是一个小工具——一个人类的技术发明，目的是增加全体人民共同的福祉。当然，政府从来都不是一个刻意的发明，它早在有文字的人类历史之前就已经存在了，所以这种新的思想方式确实需要超前的想象力。霍布斯、斯宾诺莎、洛克、卢梭，以及后来的杰斐逊、汉密尔顿、詹姆斯·麦迪逊和约翰·亚当斯，这些思想家都设想过在自然状态下人的生活会是什么样子，并在头脑中反复构思一群理性的人会怎样安排他们的生活。他们的结论是，新的制度与当时的神权政治和世袭君主制毫无相似之处。很难想象，一个在自然状态下的理性人，会选择君权神授这种制度安排——“朕，即国家”，或者让一位近亲生育的10岁儿童登上王位。相反，政府应该为自己的人民效劳。国家权力，也就是霍布斯所说的“让大家敬畏”的力量，并不意味着国家手持为谋求自己的私利而残害公民的许可证。这个力量不过是一项得自人民授权执行的协议，即“一个人，在其他人也愿意这样做的条件下，自愿放弃绝对的权利，并且同意，自己享有特定的自由，正如他容许其他人也只享有同样特定的自由一样”。[98]

    我们可以公平地说，霍布斯本人并没有将这个问题思考透彻。按照他的想象，在某个清晨时分，人民突然就给予一个主权国家或者一个委员会一次性的永久授权。在此之后，这个国家或委员会即充分地体现了他们的利益，以至于他们从此不再需要提出任何疑问。一个人只要设想一下美国的某位议员，或者英国王室的某位成员（且不说那些统帅或委员），就会明白这样的安排会导致什么样的灾难。现实中的国家——利维坦是有血有肉的人，具备我们能够期望智人物种所可能具有的所有贪婪和愚昧。洛克认为，当权者将会“使自己免受自己所制定的法律的约束，并在制定和执行法律的时候，让法律符合自己的意愿，从而有了置于社会其他成员的利益之上的私利，违反了组织社会和政府的初衷”。[99]他呼吁立法权和行政权分立，而且一旦政府不再执行人民的意愿，公民有推翻政府的权利。

    霍布斯和洛克理论的继承人将他们的思想推向新的高度。经过长期的研究和争论，他们拿出了美国宪政政府的设计蓝图。他们痴迷于这样一个问题：一个由易犯错误的人组成的统治集团如何能够具备足够的力量，阻止公民互相残杀，同时自己又不会变得自大到成为最大的侵害力量。[100]麦迪逊写道：“如果人都是天使，政府就是没有必要的。如果天使要统治人类，就没有必要对政府进行外部或内部控制。”[101]结果，洛克三权分立的思想被写进了新政府的设计中，因为“必须以野心来抵抗野心”。[102]于是，美国政府被分成行政、司法和立法三个权力部分。在联邦体系中，政府分为州和全国两级，定期的选举能够迫使政府关注大众的意愿，并以有序和平的方式移交权力。但最重要的也许是，政府存在的先决条件就是它要肩负的使命，即在公民的同意下，保障公民的生命、自由和追求幸福，并且以《权利法案》的形式，界定一系列对政府权力的限制，约束政府不得对自己的人民实施暴力。

    美国政治制度的另一个创新是明确承认正和博弈的安抚作用。文明商业的理念贯穿在《宪法》的通商、合约和征用条款中，这些条款防止了政府过多介入公民之间的互惠交换。[103]

    18世纪时人们尝试的民主政体，就如同今天一项高新科技产品的1.0版，你能期待的只有这么多了。英国的民主政治清汤寡水、淡而无味；法国民主实践演变成一场十足的灾难；至于美国民主中的一个缺陷，大家最好去看看演员“冰茶”（Ice-T）扮演的杰斐逊是如何检视宪法草案的：“让我们来看看：言论自由，宗教自由，出版自由，你可以拥有奴隶……我看着很好啊！”但是，民主制度的初期设计的价值在于它继续升级的潜力。尽管有其自身的限制，它不仅开辟了一些区域，绝不容忍宗教裁判、残忍处罚和专制权威，而且还具备让自己继续扩张的基础。明确宣示“我们认为下述真理是不言而喻的：人皆生而平等”，不论当时这一宣言多么虚伪，它都是一个内在的权利保护者。以它为支撑，87年后废除了奴隶制，再经过一个世纪，其他各种形式的种族压迫制度被终结。一旦民主观念开始传播，全世界越来越多的国家受到它的感染，我们将会看到，自从政府出现之后，民主实际上就是一种最伟大的暴力遏制技术。

    大战

    在人类历史上大部分时间里，为战争辩护的理由就是恺撒那句简洁扼要的名言：“我来过，我看见，我征服。”征服就是政府要做的工作。帝国兴起，帝国衰落，整个民族被征服，被奴役，没有人觉得这有什么不对的地方。那些被冠以“某某大帝”的历史人物，既不是伟大的艺术家、学者、医生，也不是伟大的发明家——这些人才是给人类增添了幸福和智慧的人。“大帝”都是些独裁者，他们的业绩是征服了广阔的疆土和疆土内的人民。如果希特勒的好运气能持续得再久一点儿，他可能会以“阿道夫大帝”的身份被载入史册。即使在今天，标准的战争史书籍告诉读者的主要是战马、盔甲和火药，而对于这些宏大场景下成千上万的人命伤亡却总是语焉不详。

    同时，战争中某些男男女女的个人命运，永远吸引着人们的眼球，一直是审视战争的道德视角。在公元前5世纪的中国，儒家和道家的对立派墨家的创始人、哲学家墨子就说过：

    杀一人，谓之不义，必有一死罪矣。若以此说往，杀十人，十重不义，必有十死罪矣；杀百人，百重不义，必有百死罪矣。当此，天下之君子皆知而非之，谓之不义。今至大为不义，攻国，则弗知非，从而誉之……

    今有人于此，少见黑曰黑，多见黑曰白，则必以此人为不知白黑之辨矣……今小为非，则知而非之；大为非攻国，则不知非，从而誉之，谓之义；此可谓知义与不义之辨乎？[104]

    偶尔也有西方先知高扬和平的理想。先知以赛亚祈愿说：“他们要将刀打成犁头，把枪打成镰刀；这国不举刀攻那国，他们也不再学习战事。”[105]基督教导说：“你们的仇敌，要爱他；恨你们的，要待他好；诅咒你们的，要为他祝福；凌辱你们的，要为他祷告；有人打你这边的脸，连那边的脸也转过来由他打。”[106]虽然基督教以一场和平运动为开端，但到公元312年时，情况急转直下。古罗马帝国统治者君士坦丁看到一个奇异的景象——天空中出现了一个燃烧的十字架，上面写着“以此必将征服”，随后他使古罗马帝国皈依了这个好战版的基督教信仰。

    几千年间，尽管有周期性出现的和平和厌战情绪，但战争状态几乎连绵不断。根据《不列颠百科全书》，中世纪的国际法的前提是：“（1）各方无法就和平和停火达成一致，因此即使在独立的基督教社区之间，战争也是国际关系的基本状态；（2）除非有单独的安全通行权和条约一类的特殊安排，统治者都认为自己有随意处置外国人的绝对酌情权；（3）公海不属于任何国家，谁都可以为所欲为。”[107]在15、16和17世纪，欧洲国家之间战争频繁，平均每年爆发约三场新战争。[108]

    反对战争的道德理由是无可辩驳的。音乐家埃德温·斯塔尔这样说：“战争。啊哈！它有什么好处？绝对什么也得不到。战争是千千万万个母亲眼中的泪水，她们的儿子走上战场，失去生命。”只是在大多数时候，人们都不在意这个观点，原因有两个。

    第一，此乃“别人的问题”。如果一个国家决定不再学习战争，但是它的邻国继续好战，和平的镰刀无法抵御好战的梭镖，它很可能成为入侵国的阶下囚。迦太基人败于古罗马人，印度人败于穆斯林入侵者，清洁派教徒败于法国人和天主教教会，还有很多国家历史上不止一次地被卡在德国和俄国之间，都是这种命运的实例。

    第二，和平主义在自己的国家内也经常是军国主义势力打击的对象。在一个已然陷入战争或者即将卷入战争的国家，国家的领袖无法分辨谁是和平主义者，谁是胆小鬼或者叛国者。在历史上，再洗礼派和其他许多主张和平的教派一样，一直受到迫害。[109]

    只有在某一时刻，大批选民受到反战情绪的感染，和平主义才能得到关注和支持。必须有经济制度和政治制度为基础，反战运动才不至于完全依赖人民的道德诉求。正是在“理性时代”和启蒙时代，和平主义摆脱了原来虔诚但毫无效果的状态，成为一场具有切实可行的议程的运动。

    将毁灭一切的战争魔鬼送回老家的方法之一是讽刺。道德说教会受到嘲弄，激情雄辩可以被送进监狱，但讽刺是一种难以压制的、圆滑的，并可以达到相同目的的反对力量。它诱惑听众变换角度，站在一个外人，比如一个傻瓜、一个外国人或一个游客的角度观察社会，让人们领悟到自己社会中的虚伪和人性中的缺陷。如果听众听懂了笑话，如果读者或观众喜欢这些小品，这说明他们默认了作者对原有规则的解构，而作者完全不需要做长篇大论的批判。比如，莎士比亚笔下的福斯塔夫对荣誉概念——人类历史上众多暴力的主要源泉——进行了迄今为止最精辟的分析。哈尔亲王催促福斯塔夫立即参战，说“哎，只有一死，你才好向上帝还账”。福斯塔夫沉思地说：

    这笔账现在还没有到期，我可不愿意在期限未满以前还给他。他既然没有叫到我，我何必那么着急？好，那没有关系，是荣誉鼓励我上前的。嗯，可是假如当我上前的时候，荣誉把我报销了呢？那便怎么样？荣誉能够替我重装一条腿吗？不。重装一条手臂吗？不。解除一个伤口的痛楚吗？不。那么荣誉一点不懂得外科的医术吗？不懂。什么是荣誉？两个字。那两个字荣誉又是什么？一阵空气。好聪明的算计！谁得到荣誉？星期三死去的人。他感觉到荣誉没有？没有。他听见荣誉没有？没有。那么荣誉是不能被感觉的吗？嗯，对于死人是不能被感觉的。可是它不会和活着的人生存在一起吗？不。为什么？讥笑和毁谤不会容许它的存在。这样说来，我不要什么荣誉；荣誉不过是一块铭旌；我的自问自答，也就这样结束了。[110]

    讥笑和毁谤不会容许它的存在！一个多世纪之后，即1759年，在“七年战争”期间，约翰逊设想了一个魁北克的印第安人首领会怎样向他的人民评价“欧洲人的战争艺术和规矩”：

    他们有成文的法律，他们吹嘘说这个法律是来自那个创造了大地和海洋的他。他们自称相信并遵循这个法律，在离开生命的时候，他就会让他们感到愉悦。为什么这个法律没有被传达给我们？它被藏起来了，因为它被违反了！他们怎么可能向一个印第安民族传布这样的福音。我被告知，他们的第一条戒律就是，己所不欲，勿施于人……

    贪婪之子拔剑互相残杀，将强取豪夺称为宣战书。让我们漠然看待这场屠杀，并记住，每一个欧洲人的死亡都是将这个国家从暴君和强盗手中拯救出来，因为他们向我们提出的要求，还算是国家对国家的要求吗？这难道不是秃鹫对小兔、老虎对小鹿的要求吗？[111]

    （上文中提到的小兔是指野兔的幼崽。）乔纳森·斯威夫特的小说《格列佛游记》（1726年）典型地刻画了优势地位转变的情况——从小人国转到巨人国。斯威夫特通过格列佛的嘴向巨人国的国王讲述了自己国家的近况：

    他对我叙述的我国近百年来的大事记感到十分惊讶。他断然宣称，那些事不过是一大堆阴谋、叛乱、暗杀、大屠杀、革命和流放，是贪婪、党争、虚伪、背信弃义、残暴、愤怒、疯狂、仇恨、嫉妒、淫欲、阴险和野心所能产生的最严重的恶果……

    “至于你呢，”国王接着说，“你生命的大半时间一直在旅行，我很希望你到现在为止还未沾染上你那个国家的许多罪恶。但是，根据你自己的叙述以及我费了好大劲儿才从你嘴里挤出的回答来看，我只能得出这样的结论：在你的同胞中，大部分人是大自然从古到今容忍在地面上爬行的小小害虫中最有毒害的一类。”[112]

    法国人也喜欢嘲讽。布莱兹·帕斯卡（1623—1662年）在《思想录》中这样想象：“为什么你要为了自己的利益杀死我？我手无寸铁。”“为什么，你不是生活在河对面吗？我的朋友，如果你生活在我这一边，杀了你，我就是个凶手，但是既然你生活在对岸，我就是英雄，不过如此。”[113]在伏尔泰的小说《老实人》（1759年）中，他也借虚构人物的口发表了反战言论，比如，“100万名身穿制服的暗杀者，咆哮着从欧洲的一端冲到另一端，为了挣他们每日的口粮，军纪严谨地从事着谋杀和掠夺”。

    在讽刺作品告诉大家战争的虚伪和卑鄙的同时，18世纪开始出现论证战争非理性和可避免的新理论。最早出现的是“文明商业”，即正和收益的交易必定比零和或者负和收益的战争更有吸引力。[114]虽然还要再等200年，人类才会使用博弈论的数学语言，但其关键的思想可以用文字简明地表述如下：如果你能够用更少的钱从别国那里购买财宝，然后把自己的东西卖给他们，为什么还要花钱再加上流血伤亡去侵略别国，抢劫这些财宝呢？圣皮埃尔神甫（Abbé de Saint Pierre, 1713年）、孟德斯鸠（1748年）、亚当·斯密（1776年）、乔治·华盛顿（1788年）和康德（1795年）都在文章和著作中赞扬自由贸易，因为它把各国的物质利益联结在一起，鼓励它们彼此珍重对方的存在。正如康德所说：“商业的精神迟早会抓住每一个人，它是不能和战争共存的……所以，尽管并非完全出于道德动机，各国将被迫促进和平的崇高事业。”[115]

    就像对待奴隶制那样，贵格会成立了反对战争制度的活动团体。这一教派对非暴力的信奉虽说是来自他们的宗教信仰——神通过人类的每一个个体生命向我们讲话，但这并不妨碍他们成为业绩卓著的生意人，而不是禁欲的路德派。他们创立了伦敦劳埃德保险公司（伦敦劳合社）、巴克莱银行，还有宾夕法尼亚殖民地。[116]

    那个时代最出色的反战文献当属康德1795年的论文《永久和平论》。[117]康德从来不是一个空想家，他在文章的开始就做了谦逊的忏悔，说这个标题是来自一家小旅店的招牌，招牌画面是墓地外加这样一行文字。接着他逐一陈述了实现永久和平的六个先决步骤，接着又给出了三大原则。这些先决步骤是：和平条约不应留下战争的可能性；一个国家不得吞并另外一个国家；解散常备军；政府不得借债资助战争；一个国家不得干涉其他国家的内政；在战时，国家应避免使用破坏对未来和平信心的战术，比如暗杀、投毒和煽动叛国。

    更有意思的是他的几项“正式条款”。康德坚信人性的限制，他在其他地方曾经这样写过：“人性是块弯曲的木材，做不成任何正直的东西。”因此，他从霍布斯的概念出发：

    人类肩并肩和平相处的状态不是自然状态，自然状态是战争状态的一种。这不是说人类一直处于交战状态，但至少一直受到战争的威胁。所以，和平状态是人们建设的结果。为了确保不发生战争，仅仅是简单地不采取敌对行动是远远不够的；而且，除非每一个邻国（只有文明国家才有可能）都接受安全条约的约束，各国都会视自己的邻国为敌国，而各国都恰恰要求自己的敌国接受条约。

    接着，他概述了他的永久和平的三大条件。第一个条件是，各国都是民主政体。康德使用的字眼是共和制，因为他将民主与暴民统治联结在一起，他脑子里所想的是一个致力于自由、平等和法治的政府。康德争辩说，民主政体之所以不会互相开战，有两个原因：第一，民主作为一种设计的政府形式，基础是非暴力的——这个设计“源自纯粹的法治概念”。民主政府只有在保护自己公民的权利时才会使用武力。康德这样推理，民主国家往往会在与其他国家交涉时将这一原则外部化，这些其他国家也只应该由自己的公民而不是其他势力统治。

    第二，更重要的是，民主政体倾向于避免战争，因为所有战争的收益都归国家领袖，而代价则由人民来支付。在专制政体下，“世界上最容易做出的决定就是宣战，因为对于一个专制的统治者来说，他是领主而不是国家的成员，战争不需要他牺牲任何快乐，诸如他的餐饮、狩猎、乡间别墅、宫廷仪式等等。因此，他很可能为一些最微不足道的理由而发动战争，就像他因为开心而举办一次晚会一样”。但是，如果权力在民，他们就会再三考虑是否要在愚蠢的海外冒险上浪费自己的钱财和生命。

    永久和平的第二个条件是“以自由国家的联盟为基础制定国际法”——一个“国联”，他这样称呼它。这个联盟是一个国际化的利维坦。鉴于每一个国家都认定自己永远正确，国联将超越单个国家，给争端提供客观的第三方仲裁。正如为了避免可怕的无政府状态，个人认同社会契约，向国家交出某些个人的自由，国家之于国联则是：“对于国家和其他国家的关系，只存在一种合理的方式让世界能够避免无法无天的必然引发战争的局面。如同个人，国家必须放弃它们蛮横（无法无天）的自由，将自己纳入公法的制约，从而建立一个包括不同国家的不断增长的实体，最后将世界上的所有国家纳入其中。”

    康德并没有设想一个拥有全球军队的世界政府。他认为，国际法可以自我执行。“各国对法律这个概念（至少在言辞上）的尊重证明，人身上还沉睡着更强大的道德意愿，要去克制自己身上的邪恶因素（他不能否认这一点），并且期望其他人也这样做。”说到底，《永久和平论》的作者也就是提出“绝对命令”的人，绝对命令（或“绝对律令”）是指人应该按照能够成为普遍行为准则的方式行动。这些乍听起来都是虚无缥缈的空想，但康德把这一思想与民主的传播联结在一起，让这一思想落在坚实的地面上。两个民主国家可以相互承认对方所遵从的原则的有效性。这使它们区别于神权政治，神权政治基于狭獈的信仰；这也使它们区别于专制政体，专制政治基于家族、王朝或者有魅力的领袖。换句话说，如果一个国家有理由相信它的邻国是按照与自己相同的方式组织政治事务，那么，因为两国政府解决问题的手段是一样的，所以两国均无须担心对方会发动进攻，也就均无须采取先发制人的防卫行动。以此类推，双方都不会掉进霍布斯陷阱。比如说，今天的瑞典人不会因为担忧他们的邻居正在酝酿什么“挪威高于一切”的计划而夜不能寐，挪威人对瑞典人也没有这样的顾虑。

    永久和平的第三个条件是“普世友好”或者“世界公民”。一个国家的人民只要不随身携带武器，就应该能够自由安全地生活在其他国家。跨越国界的对话、贸易和其他“和平关系”将全世界人民编织在同一个共同体中，“一个地方发生的侵权，全世界都会有所感受”。

    显然，无论是讽刺作家对战争的丑化，还是康德如何减少战争的实用主张，都没有立刻得到普遍认同，未能让西方文明逃脱150年后的一场浩劫。但我们将会看到，他们播下了一场运动的种子，这场运动后来开花结果，最终使世界远离了战争。即使在当时，对战争的新认识也立即产生了影响。历史学家注意到，对战争的态度在1700年左右开始发生变化。领袖们开始声称自己爱好和平，说战争都是被强加在他们身上的。[118]穆勒说过：“不可能再像恺撒那样简单而坦诚地宣布 ‘我来过，我看见，我征服 ’，这句话逐渐变成 ‘我来过，我看见，可当我站在这里观望的时候，他打了我，我赢了’。这也许应该被视为是一种进步吧。”[119]

    对许多国家来说，帝国权威不再具有吸引力了，这是一个更切实的进步。18世纪，世界上一些最好战的国家，比如荷兰、瑞典、西班牙、丹麦和葡萄牙，它们面对战事失利，不是扩张军备，计划反攻夺回胜利，而是退出征战的游戏，把战争和帝国甩给其他国家，自己埋头于商业贸易。[120]我们将在下一章看到这个变化带来的一个后果，即大国之间的战争时间变短了，频率降低了，参与的国家也减少了（虽然军事组织的进步意味着战争更具破坏性了）。[121]

    最伟大的进步尚未到来。过去60年来大规模战争数目的惊人减少，也许就是对康德象牙塔理论的迟到的辩护——如果现在还不是“永久和平”，也肯定是“长期和平”，而且是越来越长的长期和平。正如启蒙时代的伟大思想家预示的那样，我们能够得到这个和平，不仅是因为唾弃战争，而且是因为民主的传播、贸易和商业的扩张，以及国际组织的成长。

    人道主义革命源自何方？

    我们已经看到，曾经是数千年文明组成部分的不人道行为，突然在一个世纪的时间里消失了。驱巫、折磨囚犯、处决异端、奴役外国人，所有这些令人作呕的残忍行为，迅速地从家常便饭变成了匪夷所思。佩恩评论过要解释这些变化是多么困难：

    抛弃这些武力的路径经常是人们意想不到的，甚至是神秘的——如此之神秘，有时人们感到是上天的力量在起作用。一次又一次地，那些暴力的基础原本是如此根深蒂固、自我强化，似乎只有魔法才能扫除这些暴力。人们只能用“历史”来解释这个造福世代的政策——减少暴力的使用——是如何逐渐加诸人类的，人类自己既不曾有意识地追求过它，也从来没有赞同过它。[122]

    停止使用武力惩罚欠债不还的人，就是这种神秘性的案例之一。这种未经特意追求的进步是一个漫长的过程，大多数人从来没有意识到这是一个趋势。还有，远在民主原则被明确表述之前，英语国家中的政治谋杀就已经消失了。在这些实例中，一种模模糊糊的情感转变，也许成为一场精心设计的改革的先决条件。在争权夺利的集团放弃将谋杀作为分配权力的佳选之前，很难想象如何能实现一个稳定的民主政治。最近非洲国家和伊斯兰国家的民主未能站稳脚跟，这提醒我们，在改变有关暴力的规范之前，必须先改变治理的具体细节。[123]

    当然，在变化被落实为成文法律之前，情感的逐渐转变通常不足以改变实际的操作。比如，有良知的废奴鼓动家说服当权者通过法律，并以枪炮军舰为后盾，最后才终结了奴隶贸易。[124]至于血腥的运动、公开绞刑、残忍刑罚和欠债人监狱，也都是有良知的鼓动家和从他们开始的公众辩论影响到立法者，立法者通过法案，这些恶俗和暴行才被告废止。

    在解释人道主义革命时，我们不需要在默契的规则和明确的道德论证之间做取舍。两者是相互作用的。当情感发生变化，对现状提出质疑的思想家就有可能将理念付诸实施，他们就会有言说的机会，并被公众接受。他们的主张不仅说服了拥有权力的人，而且经过酒吧争吵、家庭辩论渗透进社会的文化情感，最后使人们的观念发生变化，形成新的共识。当一种常规被从上至下的改革宣布为非法之后，一方面，它从人们的日常生活中消亡，另一方面，它也不再是人们心目中的现实选项。比如在办公室和教室里抽烟，原本是人们的日常生活，但它后来被法律禁止，今天人们已经觉得原来的旧习简直不可思议。同样，奴隶制和公开绞刑这些恶行早已是过去，没有一个活着的人能记得它们。在今天的人们眼里，它们是难以想象的丑陋，甚至没有人会认真地对它们进行辩论。

    对其他生命及其痛苦的关注，也是深受人道主义革命影响的社会观念大转变。当然，人们的道德远远不是完美无瑕的，他们看见珍宝还是会产生占有欲，脑子里一样有见不得人的淫思绮念，甚至也会巴望杀死那些公开羞辱他们的人。[125]但是，一些其他的邪恶愿望已经不再吸引人，大多数人都失去了围观烧死一只猫的胃口，更不要说围观烧死一个男人或者女人。在这一方面，我们确实有别于我们几个世纪之前的祖先，对于其他生命遭受的无法言表的痛苦，他们不仅赞成，亲手实施，甚至还能够尽情地享受。那时候的人在想些什么呢？为什么我们今天没有他们的那些想法了？

    在了解第8章的施虐心理学和第9章的共情之前，我们还回答不了这个问题。但是，我们现在可以看看哪些历史性的变化，让人们不再滥用残忍。同以往一样，寻找先于情感和行为变化的外生变量是我们面临的最大挑战，但只有找到这样的外生变量，我们才能摆脱说人们停止残忍行为是因为他们变得不那么残忍了这样的循环逻辑。是什么改变了人们生活的环境，并最终引发了人道主义革命？

    * * *

    “文明的进程”是我们的一个备选答案。回想一下，埃利亚斯曾经表示，在向现代社会过渡的时期，人们不仅更加自制，而且培养起共情的意识。他们这样做，目的不是为了身体力行尊奉新的道德标准，而是因为要想获得成功，他们必须竭尽全力拉拢政界和商界的领袖。财富的获得越来越依赖社会关系网络，而不是农耕和抢掠。当然，嗜好残忍与协作社会的价值格格不入：如果你认为你的邻居会兴高采烈地看到你被开膛破肚，又怎么能和他们一起工作呢？文明的进程减少了个人暴力，自然也就削弱了对严刑峻法的需要，正如今天的“严厉打击犯罪政策”，也是随着犯罪率的升降而时紧时松。

    研究人权史的史学家林恩·亨特提出了“文明的进程”的另一个冲击效应：个人卫生和礼仪的改进。比如，使用餐具进食，性行为私密化，以及尽量不在人前进行排泄，并保持衣裳不沾染排泄物。她认为，烦琐的礼节增强了人们的“自主”意识——他们拥有自己的身体，这个身体具有内在的完整性，不是任何社会的附属品。身体的完整性越来越被认为是值得尊重的，不得以造福社会为理由、以个人牺牲为代价对其进行侵犯。

    我个人的情感倾向于更具体的东西。我怀疑，关于卫生对道德情感的影响，还有一个更简单的假说，即人们彼此之间的反感越来越少了。人类对污秽和身体的排泄物非常反感，就像今天人们会回避身上散发着屎尿气的流浪汉；古人对邻居更冷酷无情，也是因为这些邻人肮脏邋遢，令人厌恶。更糟糕的是，人们很容易从生理反感滑向道德反感，视所有不卫生的东西为下贱卑鄙。[126]研究20世纪暴行的学者一直在琢磨，为什么当一个集团压倒性地统治另一个集团之后，特别容易发生残暴行为。哲学家乔纳森·格洛弗（Jonathan Glover）已经分析过人性灭绝的恶性循环。人们迫使那些受歧视的少数族裔在悲惨恶劣的环境中生活，让他们看起来更像是动物或低等人种，这刺激统治集团加倍地虐待他们，使他们的处境和状态进一步恶化，最后扫除了压迫者残存的最后一点儿良知。[127]也许，如果文明的进程是一部影片，这种人性灭绝的螺旋线就如同倒放这部电影，是历史潮流的逆转。而历史的浪潮是人们的生活更清洁，更有尊严，历经几个世纪之后，也更尊重人民的福祉。

    很不幸，“文明的进程”和“人道主义革命”在时间上并没有以一种互相影响的方式同步发展。国家和商业的兴起，凶杀的急遽减少，文明进程的不断向前迈进，历时几个世纪之久，但人们仍然不介意残酷刑罚、国王的绝对权力和对异端的凶残迫害。确实，当国家握有的权力越大，它也就变得越残忍。比如，动用酷刑逼供（而不是判刑监禁），就是在中世纪许多国家恢复罗马法的时候重新引进的。[128]一定有其他因素在17、18世纪加速了人道主义情怀的发展。

    * * *

    一个可能的解释是人们在自己生活改善的同时变得更有同情心了。佩恩猜测说：“当人们的生活越来越富裕时，他们的食物更好了，身体更健康，生活更舒适，他们觉得自己以及别人的生命都更有价值了。”[129]原来廉价的生命变得越来越珍贵，这一假说大致符合历史的大潮流。几千年来，世界一步步摆脱了人祭和酷刑处决等野蛮行径，也是几千年来，人们的寿命越来越长，生活越来越舒适。那些率先废除严刑峻法的国家，比如17世纪的英国和荷兰，确实位居那个时代最富有的国家之列。而在今天世界上那些贫困的角落，我们还能看到奴隶制、迷信杀戮和其他野蛮习俗。

    但是，“生命曾经一钱不值”的假说也有一些问题。当时许多比较富裕的国家，比如古罗马帝国，都是虐待狂的温床。今天在富有的中东石油输出国中，可能会发现截肢和石刑等严厉惩罚。更大的问题还是时间的不吻合。图4-7描绘了当代西方致富的历史，经济史学家格里高利·克拉克使用1200—2000年英国人均实际收入（按照能够购买固定数量的食物货币额）做富裕程度的测度。

    富裕水平在19世纪工业革命到来之后飞速上升。在1800年以前，世界是马尔萨斯理论的天下，食物生产的任何进步都带来更多嗷嗷待哺的嘴巴，人们低下的生活水平一直得不到改善。不仅英国如此，全世界都是如此。1200—1800年，欧洲国家经济水平的测度指标，比如收入、人均卡路里的摄取、人均蛋白的摄取、每个妇女存活的子女数量都没有上升趋势。确实，他们与狩猎-采集社会的水平几乎没有什么差距。只有当工业革命引进了更有效的制造技术，并兴建运河和公路等基础设施之后，欧洲的经济才开始飞速发展，人民也开始变得富有了。我们试图解释的人道主义革命在17世纪开始，到18世纪已然成为社会的主流。

    图4-7 1200—2000年英国人均实际收入

    资料来源：克拉克绘图，2007年a，第195页。

    即便我们能够说富裕和人道主义情感是相关的，也很难说清相关的原因。货币并不只是填饱肚子和给人一个遮风挡雨的栖身之地，也能买来更好的政府、更高的识字率、更大的流动性和其他东西。而且，我们不能肯定地说，贫困和不幸就一定会让人们享受虐待他人的乐趣。人们完全可以说，如果你亲身感受过痛苦和赤贫，你应该更不希望别人也遭受这样的命运；反之，如果一个人生活安逸，反而不容易了解别人的苦难。我会在最后一章再回到“生命曾经一钱不值”的假说，这里我们还要继续寻找其他可能的外生变量，来解释为什么人们变得更富有同情心了。

    * * *

    在工业革命前，图书生产是一个生产率得到显著提高的新技术。在1452年古登堡发明印刷术之前，每一部书籍都由手工抄写。书籍的制作不仅费时费工——一本相当于今天250页的书，需要37个工作日才能完成，而且在原材料和能源的使用方面都缺乏效率。手写字比印刷字难辨认，所以手写书的版面更大，使用的纸张更多，装订、储存和运输的费用也更高。古登堡发明印刷术之后，出版成为当时的高端技术行业。在工业革命期间，印刷和造纸行业的生产力提高了20倍（见图4-8），高于英国经济的增长率。[130]

    图4-8 15世纪70年代至19世纪60年代英国图书生产率

    资料来源：克拉克的图表，2007年a，第253页。

    高效的印刷新技术引发了图书出版业的大爆炸。图4-9显示，17世纪每年的图书出版数量迅速增长，而在18世纪末出现直线上升。

    书籍也不再是贵族和知识分子的玩物。研究识字率的学者苏珊·基恩（Suzanne Keen）指出：“到18世纪末，伦敦和外郡的市镇到处都有可以借阅图书的图书馆，图书馆向外租借量最大的就是小说。”[131]书籍的种类越来越多，越来越便宜，人们阅读的意愿也就越来越强烈。在普及教育和标准考试出现之前，很难估计读写的水平，但是历史学家一直在使用一种巧妙的替代方式进行估测，比如能够在结婚证书和法庭声明上签署姓名的人的比重。图4-10给出了克拉克整理的两组时间数列，它们显示，在17世纪的英国，识字率提高了一倍，而到17世纪末的时候，大部分英国人已经学会了读和写。[132]

    图4-9 1475—1800年英国每10年出版的图书数量

    资料来源：西蒙斯（Simons），2001年；图片来自网页。

    图4-10 1625—1925年英国的识字率

    资料来源：克拉克的图表，2007年a，第179页。

    西欧其他国家同时期的识字率也在提高。到18世纪末，大部分法国公民可以读写，虽然其他国家直到后来才出现识字的估计数字，但一般都认为，到19世纪初，丹麦、芬兰、德国、冰岛、苏格兰、瑞典和瑞士的大多数男性都识字。[133]不仅有更多的人能够阅读，而且他们阅读的兴趣也扩展了。历史学家罗尔夫·恩格尔辛（Rolf Engelsing）将这一发展称为“阅读革命”。[134]人们开始阅读宗教之外的世俗书籍，开始在集体阅读之外进行个人阅读。除了一本正经的文献，例如年鉴、宗教作品和《圣经》之外，人们也开始阅读小册子、小传单和期刊。历史学家罗伯特·达恩顿（Robert Darnton）这样说：“18世纪末确实像是一个时代的转折点，不同阶层的人民开始接触到多种多样的读物，随着机器造纸、蒸汽动力印刷、活字铸排和几乎普遍识字，大众阅读的雏芽一路生长，在19世纪全面开花。”[135]

    当然，17、18世纪的人还有很多可以阅读的东西。“科学革命”已经让人们看到显微镜下的微观世界和天文望远镜中的宏观世界，意识到我们每天的生活不过是连续的浩瀚时空中一个小小的切片，我们居住的地方只是行星轨道上的一块岩石，并非创造世界的中心。欧洲人对美洲、大洋洲和非洲的探索，以及通往印度和亚洲的航线的发现，开辟了一个全新的世界，揭示了生活方式与读者迥然不同的异域民族的存在。

    我认为，写作和读写能力的提高是触发人道主义革命的外生变量的最佳候选因素。生活在由村庄和宗族组成的狭小世界中的人，只有通过五官感觉其狭隘的小世界，他们只有一个知识的来源——教会；而阅读给人们带来了关于其他人、其他地方和文化的迷人故事，以及五花八门的思想。出于几种原因，人们思想的扩展会给他们的情感和信仰增加一剂人道主义的良药。

    共情的兴起和对人类生命的尊重

    人类的同情心，并不是人看到另一个生命时就会自动产生的条件反射。我们会在第9章中看到，虽然不同文化的人都对亲人、朋友和婴儿表现出同情，但对于较远的邻居、陌生人、外国人和其他芸芸众生，人们就会有所保留。哲学家彼得·辛格（Peter Singer）在他的著作《扩大的圈子》（The Expanding Circle）中论证说：随着人类历史的发展，人们已经将利益认同的人拓宽进自己的圈子。[136]有意思的问题是，是什么拓宽了共情圈。最好的答案是人们学会了读写。

    阅读是一种转换视角的技巧。当别人的想法出现在你的脑海中时，你就是站在那个人的角度观察世界。你不仅去看见、去听见那些你并未亲身经历过的场景，你还走进那个人的心灵，暂时分享他或她对世界的态度和反应。我们将会看到，“接受别人的观点”意义上的“共情”不同于“对别人感到同情”意义上的“共情”，但第一个共情是导向第二个共情的自然通道。一旦站在另外一个人的角度，你就会想到这个人是第一人称的——“我”，是现在时态的，有和自己一样的思想意识活动，只是想法和你有所不同。不难想象阅读他人文字的习惯能够让一个人养成代入别人观点的习惯，从而感受别人的欢愉和痛苦。在某一个瞬间，我们突然觉得自己就是绞架上窒息得脸色发青的人，或者是那个绝望地推开燃烧着的柴束的女子，或者自己正颤抖地经受着200下鞭打。我们也许会问自己，是否应该在任何人的身上使用这样的酷刑。

    接受别人的观点可以改变一个人的成见。了解一个只有从外国人的、探险家的或者历史学家的眼睛才能看到的世界，能够将一个不可争议的规则（“这是常规”）变为一个准确的观察（“我们的部落正在这样做”）。有了对自我的意识，才有可能对自己的生活提问，质疑旧俗和常规是否能够改变。了解历史的进程，就会明白领先者可以变成落后者，落后者也可以变成领先者；沧桑人世，三十年河东，三十年河西。人们也许会形成一种新的思维习惯，经常能够自己提醒自己：“我，不过是走运罢了。”

    那些让读者超越本乡本土的小见识的阅读绝不仅限于纪实图书。我们已经说过讽刺小说如何将人们带入假想世界，他们在那里看到自己的愚蠢和可笑，无须长篇累牍的说教，人们的情感就能发生改变。

    现实主义小说让读者一步一步进入一个和自己完全不同的人的生活，思其所思，感其所感，读者的共情圈就这样被扩大了。研究文学的学生都学过，18世纪是小说史的转折点。小说自此成为一种大众娱乐，到18世纪末，英法每年出版近百部新小说。[137]与初期出版的作品不同，新小说不再拘泥于讲述英雄、贵族和圣徒的业绩，而是再现普通人的悲欢离合以及奋斗和失意。

    林恩·亨特指出，人道主义革命的鼎盛期18世纪，也正是书信体小说的全盛时期。在这种类型的小说中，故事情节是在主人公自己的言说中展开的。与保持距离的旁白不同，主人公自己展示的思想和感情都是“实时的”。18世纪中叶，三部情节小说出人意料地成为畅销书，三本书的书名都是书中女主人公的名字：塞缪尔·理查森的《帕梅拉》（Pamela, 1740年）和《克拉丽莎》（Clarissa, 1748年），还有卢梭的《新爱洛伊丝》（New Hél.ise, 1761年）。书中描述的被禁止的爱情、难以忍受的包办婚姻，还有那些平凡女子（包括女仆）不平凡的悲惨命运，让许多与她们在生活中毫无交集的成年人感动得热泪盈眶。一位退役军官在给卢梭的信中热情洋溢地说：

    你让我为她发疯。想象一下吧，她的死让我泪如泉涌……我从来没有这样尽情地哭过。阅读此书给了我如此强烈的体验，我相信，我会很高兴在完成阅读的最后一瞬间死去。[138]

    启蒙时代的思想家对小说让读者与他人认同并同情他人的作用赞赏不已。在为理查森所写的悼词中，狄德罗说：

    尽管你知道这是小说，但一旦你进入他的角色，你会不由自主地被卷入他们的对话，然后，你同意，你谴责，你爱慕，你开始烦躁了，你感到愤怒了。不知道有多少次——我已经不觉得奇怪了，我就像一位第一次被带进剧院的儿童，哭喊着对故事中的人说：“不要相信他，他是在骗你呀。”……他的人物都是来自生活中的普通人……他描写的激情，正是我自己内心的感受。[139]

    当然，教会的神职人员痛斥这些小说，还将几本小说列入《禁书目录》。一位天主教的神职人员这样写道：“翻开这些书，你就会看到，几乎所有作品都侵犯了神圣和人类正义的权利，父母对孩子的权威遭到蔑视，婚姻和友谊的神圣纽带被斩断。”[140]

    亨特认为存在这样一个因果链：阅读书信体小说，体会书中与自己经历完全不同的人物，就是一种设身处地为他人着想的训练，最后就是转变为反抗残忍刑罚和践踏人权。和其他解释一样，对于这一相关性，我们很难排除还有别的解释。也许是因为其他原因，人们变得更有同情心，这也让人们喜欢书信体小说，并关切其他人的不幸遭遇。

    但是，一个纯粹的因果关系假说要比一个英语老师的幻想更靠谱。这一连串事件的顺序是：印刷出版的技术进步，大规模出版图书，识字率提高，小说风行于世，这些依次发生在18世纪人道主义革命开始之前。在某些情况下，一群人在受苦受难，但久已被社会遗忘。畅销小说或者回忆录向广大读者展示了这些人的生活和苦难，最后导致了政策的改变。当《汤姆叔叔的小屋》在美国让废奴活动家奔走呼号的同时，查尔斯·狄更斯的小说《雾都孤儿》（1838年）和《尼古拉斯·尼克尔贝》（Nicholas Nickleby, 1839年）让人们看到了英国工厂和孤儿院中的孩子受到的虐待。理查德·亨利·达纳的《航海两年》（Two Years Before the Mast: A Personal Nar-rative of Life at Sea, 1840）和赫尔曼·梅尔维尔的《白鲸》帮助结束了对水手的鞭刑。在刚刚过去的20世纪，埃里希·玛丽亚·雷马克的《西线无战事》（All Quiet on the Western Front）、乔治·奥威尔的《1984》、阿瑟·库斯勒的《正午的黑暗》（Darkness at Noon）、亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴的《伊万·杰尼索维奇的一天》（One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich）、哈珀·李的《杀死一只知更鸟》（To Kill a Mockingbird）、埃利·威塞尔的《夜》（Night）、库尔特·冯内古特的《第五屠宰场》（Slaughterhouse-Five）、亚历克斯·哈里的《根》（Roots）、阿扎尔·纳菲西的《在德黑兰读〈洛丽塔〉》（Reading Lolita in Tehran）和艾丽斯·沃克的《拥有欢乐的秘密》（Possessing the Secret of Joy，一部讲述女性割礼的小说）都曾经唤起公众对某些受害人的关注。没有这些书籍，受害人和他们的苦难很有可能被社会遗忘。[141]电影和电视吸引了更多的观众，提供了更直观的体验。我们将在第9章介绍一些实验，它们证实虚构的故事确实能够激起人们的同情心，并促使他们采取行动。

    一般的小说也罢，书信体小说也罢，都是扩大共情的关键类型，让人们习惯于走出狭隘自私的角落。仅此一点，阅读的爆炸性增长就可能已经对人道革命做出了贡献。此外，它还可能有另外一个方面的贡献：为考量道德价值和社会秩序的新思想提供了一个温室。

    文字共和国和启蒙人文主义

    在戴维·洛奇（David Lodge）1988年的小说《小世界》（Small World）中，一位教授解释了他为什么认为精英大学正在衰亡：

    与过去相比，今天的信息变得越来越方便携带了。人也一样……过去20年以来，有三件事情让学术发生了革命性的变化……航空旅行、直拨电话和复印机……只要你能找到一部电话、一台复印机，加上会议经费，你就成了，你就和这世界上最重要的大学——全球校园接通了。[142]

    莫里斯·扎普（Morris Zapp）说的没错，但是他过分强调20世纪80年代的技术。在他的著作发表20年后，这些技术被电子邮件、电子文献、互联网、博客、电话会议、Skype（一种即时通信软件）和智能手机超越。而在他说此话的200年前，当年的技术——航海、印刷图书和邮政服务已经让信息和人具有了便携性。它们的结果是一样的，一个全球校园、一个公共空间，或者用17和18世纪的叫法：一个“文字共和国”。

    任何一位21世纪的读者如果深入了解思想史，都会不由自主地被18世纪的“博客圈”打动。每一本书刚出印厂，立即被销售一空，旋即再版印刷，接着就是被翻译成数种文字，评论的小册子和单张接踵而至，学者通信交流，最后是又一本新书火热出炉。洛克和牛顿这样的思想家通了上万封信。伏尔泰一个人就写了18 000多封信，足足编纂了15卷书。[143]当然，按照今天的标准，这种对话的进行速度过于缓慢，需要数周甚至数月才有一次交流，但它的速度足以引发讨论、批评、融会、提炼，并引起当权者的关注。最著名的事例是贝卡里亚的《论犯罪与刑罚》，此文一出，即在欧洲思想界引起轩然大波，推动了在全欧洲废除酷刑惩罚。

    只要有一定的时间和足够的供货人，思想的市场不仅会传播思想，而且会改变思想的创作。没有人能聪明到在一开始就知道什么观点最有价值。牛顿（很难说他是个谦虚的人）在1675年给科学家同行罗伯特·胡克（Robert Hooke）的一封信中承认：“如果说我能看得更远，那是因为我站在巨人的肩膀上。”人类的头脑擅长将一个复杂的想法打包，并将它与其他想法结合成更复杂的组合，再将这个组合打包，做成更大的装置，然后再结合更多其他思想，层出不穷。[144]为了做到这一点，需要稳定的源源不断的组件供给，而这必须依靠各种思想交流的网络。

    全球校园不仅增加了思想的复杂性，也提高了思想的质量。在蜗居的隔绝中，难免会滋生各式各样怪异和有害的思想。阳光是最好的消毒剂。一个有害的观点暴露后，其他思想家的批评至少让这个观点有了枯萎和死亡的机会。在“文字共和国”中，迷信、教条和野史的寿命都不长，那些就控制犯罪和管理国家冒出来的馊主意也得意不了几时。放火烧一个人，观察他是否会被烧死，以此来判断他是否有罪，这种方法是十分愚昧的。因为一个女子与魔鬼交配并将魔鬼变成猫而处死她，同样愚蠢至极。除非你自己就是世袭的专制君主，否则你不可能认同世袭专制君主是最佳政体这样的奇谈怪论。

    在洛奇1988年提到的技术名单上，只有喷气式飞机还没有被互联网取代。这也告诉我们，有时面对面的沟通是无法被替代的。飞机让人们团聚一堂，但生活在同一个城市的人不是已经“团聚一堂”了吗？所以，城市一直是思想的熔炉。国际化的大都市可以聚集大量不同思想的人，还提供了大量的角落和缝隙，足供特立独行的人寻找藏身避难之地。“理性时代”和启蒙时代也正是城市化的时代。伦敦、巴黎和阿姆斯特丹成为知识的骡马大市，思想家每天都在沙龙、咖啡馆和书店聚会，对时兴的观点评头论足。

    阿姆斯特丹是思想角斗的主战场。在17世纪“荷兰的黄金时代”，它是一个喧嚣的港口，向各种商品、思想、货币和人敞开大门。它包容了天主教、再洗礼派、各个新教教派，也包容了祖先被葡萄牙驱逐出境的犹太人。它拥有众多出版商，禁书出版生意做得风生水起。它不仅印刷有争议的书籍，还向那些禁止这些书籍的国家出口。斯宾诺莎就是阿姆斯特丹人，他将《圣经》作为文学分析的对象，还构造了一套包罗万象的理论。在这套理论中，他完全没有给上帝留下存身之地。1656年，犹太社区将斯宾诺莎逐出，当时欧洲宗教审判的恐怖经历记忆犹新，犹太社区非常担忧这是否会惹恼身边的基督徒。[145]悲剧并未落到斯宾诺莎头上，但如果他住在偏僻的乡村，情况可能就不一样了。他不过是收拾了自己的物品，搬到另外一个小区而已，接着，他又搬到更宽容的荷兰城市莱顿。两个城市的作家、思想家和艺术家圈子都对他张开了双臂。约翰·洛克在1683年被怀疑参与了反对英王查理二世的阴谋，阿姆斯特丹成了他的避风港。勒内·笛卡儿也不断地变换住址，风声一紧，他就在荷兰和瑞典两国之间来来往往。

    经济学家爱德华·格莱泽（Edward Glaeser）将自由民主的出现归功于城市的兴起。[146]暴虐的独裁者即使被他的人民鄙视，仍然能保住权力，这个谜被经济学家称为“社会两难困境”或者“搭便车问题”。在专制制度下，独裁者和他的打手们有强烈的动机把持权力，但单个的国民却缺乏动机去推翻他，因为虽然民主的收益惠及全民，但反抗者却要独自承担专制镇压的风险。城市像一个熔炉，将金融家、律师、作家、出版商和人脉广泛的商人聚集到一起，他们可以在酒吧或行会大厅共谋挑战现政权的大计，彼此分工合作，共担风险。古希腊的雅典、文艺复兴时期的威尼斯、美国革命时期的波士顿和费城、低地国家的各个城市都是孕育民主的城市典型，今天的城市化和民主化也总是并肩同行。

    政治暴君和宗教暴君从来都知道信息的流动和人的流动所具有的颠覆性力量，所以他们一向压制言论、写作和结社的自由，这就是为什么民主国家要通过权利法案保护这些渠道。在城市和文化兴起之前，自由的思想很难形成和聚合，所以可以说，人道主义革命出现的部分原因是17世纪和18世纪城市的兴起。

    * * *

    当然，将人和思想汇聚在一起，不能决定这些思想会怎样演化。“文字共和国”和大都市的兴盛也不能单独解释为什么在18世纪出现了人道主义伦理观，而不是为酷刑、奴隶制、专制主义和战争寻找更合理的解释。

    我个人的看法是，这两个发展是相互关联的。当一个具备一定规模的、由自由和理性的力量组成的社区协商一个社会应该如何管理自己的事务，在逻辑的一致性和世界各方反馈的制约下，他们的共识必然指向一定的方向。正如我们不需要解释为什么分子生物学家发现的DNA有四个组成单位——假定他们的实验操作正确，假定DNA确实是有四个组成单位，从长期来说，他们不可能再找到任何其他结果，我们也不需要解释为什么启蒙思想家会逐渐开始反对非洲奴隶制、酷刑、专制王朝，以及处死女巫和异端。在公正、理性、见多识广的思想家的大量观察下，这些做法最终被认为是不正当的。在思想的王国中，一个思想蕴含着其他思想，思想本身就是一种外生的力量。一旦一个思想家群体进入这个王国，无论他们所处的实际环境如何，他们的思想都将被迫向某些方向发展。我认为，道德发现的过程是人道主义革命最重要的动因。

    我打算继续就这个观点进行更深一层的阐述。在人类历史的相当短的时间内，许多暴力制度就走到了尽头，因为批判这些制度的理论早已经过长期的酝酿，是“理性时代”和“启蒙时代”涌现的哲学思想的延续。许多思想家，比如霍布斯、斯宾诺莎、笛卡儿、洛克、大卫·休谟、玛丽·阿斯特尔（Mary Astell）、康德、贝卡里亚、斯密、玛丽·沃斯通克拉夫特（Mary Wollstonecraft）、麦迪逊、杰斐逊、汉密尔顿和约翰·穆勒，共同构造了一种世界观，即我们所说的启蒙人文主义（有时也称为“古典自由主义”，尽管自20世纪60年代以来，自由主义这个词已经具有了其他含义）。下面是对启蒙人文主义哲学的简要概述，虽然粗略，但总算是对这些启蒙时代思想家的观点给出一个连贯的总结。

    启蒙人文主义的起点是怀疑主义。[147]人类历史上的愚昧，以及我们自己容易被错觉和谬误迷惑的现实告诉我们，人（不分男女）是会犯错误的。所以，人需要有理由才能去相信某件事情。信仰、启示、传统、教条、权威、主观确定性带来的陶醉——都会带来错误，不应该作为知识的来源。有什么东西是我们可以确信的吗？笛卡儿给了一个很好的回答：我们自己的意识。我正在思索什么是我能够知道的——这个事实让我知道我是有意识的，而且我能够知道我的意识是由几种不同的经验构成的。它们包括对外部世界和其他人的感知，各种欢愉和痛苦——有感官的（比如食物、舒适、性），还有精神的（比如爱、知识和对美的欣赏）。

    我们也相信理性。我们提出问题，评估可能的答案，并试图说服其他人承认这些答案的价值。这就是推理，而推理就是默认了理性的有效性。我们也相信谨慎使用理性得到的所有结论，比如数学原理和逻辑学。

    虽然我们不能对自然世界进行任何逻辑证明，但是我们有权相信某些有关自然世界的信念。我们所谓的科学，就是运用理性和观察对自然世界进行试探性的归纳。科学在解释和改变世界方面的成功毋庸赘言，科学的进步表明我们有可能去认识世界，虽然我们的认识永远是或然的，而且是随时准备被修正的。因此，科学是我们应该如何获取知识的一个范式——这里所说的科学，不是指科学的具体方法或者体系，而是指科学的价值观，即寻求对世界的解释，客观地衡量各种答案，承认我们对世界的理解在任何时候都具有试探性和不确定性。

    理性的不可或缺，并不意味着个人永远是有理性的，或者永远不被激情和幻象动摇。这仅仅是说，人有理性的能力。如果一群人愿意去完善理性的能力，公开和公平地运用这种能力，从长远看，他们就能够在合作中通过理性得到更坚实的结果。林肯曾经观察到，你可以在某些时间内愚弄所有人，也可以永远地愚弄某些人，但你不可能永远地愚弄所有人。

    在我们对世界的信念中，最有把握的一条是其他人是和我们一样有意识的。其他人也是由同样的材料构成的，也追求同样的目标，让我们自己感到痛苦和快乐的事情，也同样让其他人感到痛苦和快乐。

    根据同样的推理，我们可以推断，那些在表面上与我们有许多差异的人——性别、种族、文化，在最根本的层面和我们是一样的。莎士比亚笔下的夏洛克问：

    难道犹太人没有眼睛吗？难道犹太人没有五官四肢，没有知觉，没有感情，没有血气吗？他不是吃着同样的食物，同样的武器可以伤害他，患同样的疾病，用同样的方法治愈，冬天同样会冷，夏天同样会热，就像一个基督徒一样吗？你们要是用刀剑刺我们，我们不是也会出血的吗？你们要是搔我们的痒，我们不是也会笑起来的吗？你们要是用毒药谋害我们，我们不是也会死的吗？那么要是你们欺侮了我们，我们难道不会复仇吗？

    人类对特定事物的基本反应是一致的，这种超越一切文化的共性具有深刻的含义。第一重含义是，存在普世的人性。它包括我们共同的快乐和痛苦、共同的推理方式，以及我们对愚昧的共同弱点（尤其是对复仇的渴望）。就像世界上的其他事情一样，人性也是可以被研究的。我们在决定如何组织我们生活的时候，应该将人性的因素考虑在内——一旦科学对我们的本能提出疑问，我们就要对本能有所保留。

    人类心理共性还有另一重含义，即无论人和人之间有多大的差异，一般而言，他们是可以达成共识的。以我们共同认可的事实为起点，使用我们共同接受的逻辑和取证标准，我可以诉求于你的理性，并试图说服你。

    这种“理性的普世性”的具体化之一，就是界定什么是道德。如果我恳求你去做一件会影响到我的事情——请不要踩着我的脚，或者不要为了好玩而捅我一刀，或者下水去救我的孩子；如果我想要你认真对待我的恳求，就不能让我的利益凌驾于你的利益之上（比如，我要保留踩你的脚、捅你一刀，或者看着你的孩子被淹死的权利）。我必须申明我的立场，这个立场迫使我以同样的原则对待你。我不能表现出仅仅因为我是我，我的利益就是特殊的，而你的就不是；我也不能要求你承认，我现在所站的地方是宇宙中一个特别的地方，没有别的原因，就是因为我恰好站在这里。[148]

    你和我应该达成这种道德上的理解，不仅因为只有如此我们才能在逻辑上保持一致的对话，还因为只有相互无私，我们才能同时追求共同利益。比起你和我各自囤积剩余，任其腐烂，看着对方的孩子掉在水里却见死不救，两个人没完没了地寻衅斗殴，如果我们能够分享剩余，互相救对方的孩子，不再掐住对方的喉咙，我们的处境当然会更好。当然，如果我稍微自私一点点，多吃多占了一点点，你多少憨厚了一点点，我的处境也许会比你的处境稍微好一点点。但是，你也可以这样想，这样做。所以，如果我们两人都尝试占对方的一点儿便宜，我们两人的处境都会变得更糟。如果任何一个中立的观察者、你和我三方能够理性地进行讨论，我们得出的结论只能是，我们期望达到的状态是我们双方都做到无私。

    所以，道德并不是一套由充满复仇精神的神任意制定再写在纸上的规则，也不是某一种文化或某一个部落的习俗，它是人们视角的互换性和世界为正和博弈提供机遇共同产生的结果。世界各大宗教都发现了道德的这个基础，虽然对这一金科玉律各有自己的版本，而从斯宾诺莎的“永恒观”、康德的“绝对命令”、霍布斯和卢梭的“社会契约”、洛克和杰斐逊的“人皆生而平等乃不证自明的真理”中也可以看到道德的这一基础。

    存在普世人性，这已然是一个事实性知识。任何人都没有权力将自己的利益置于他人的利益之上，这已经是道德的原则。以此为出发点，我们可以推导出应该怎样处理我们的事务。政府是一个好东西，因为在无政府状态下，人们的自私、自欺和对他人的自私和自欺的恐惧将导致持续不断的冲突。如果每个人都同意放弃暴力，并授权一个没有利害关系的第三方进行管理，那么人们的生活会更好。但既然这个第三方也是由人而不是天使组成的，他们的权力必须受到其他人的监督，迫使他们按照被管治者的意愿进行管治。政府不得对其公民使用暴力，尤其是其手段不得超过防止更大暴力所需的最低限度。政府应该创造条件，允许人民在自愿合作和交换中繁荣昌盛。

    这一推理也可以被称作人文主义，因为它承认的价值是人的实现，这是唯一不可被否认的价值。我感受欢乐和痛苦，并追求能够实现欢乐或解除痛苦的目标，所以，我没有理由否认其他众生拥有同样的权利。

    如果这些话听起来是老生常谈、平淡无奇，那么你就是启蒙运动的孩子，已经受过人文主义哲学的浸润。但是，作为一个历史的事实，这绝不是一件平庸和乏味的事情。尽管不一定是无神论的（无神论和自然神论是兼容的，在自然神论中，上帝等同于宇宙的本质），启蒙人文主义完全不涉及经文、耶稣、仪式、宗教法、神圣意志、不朽灵魂、来世、福音时代，或者一个对个人直接回应的上帝。任何无助于人的实现的世俗价值，启蒙人文主义同样不予理会。这些无用的东西包括：国家的威望、民族或阶级的声誉；受崇拜的各种美德，比如男子汉气概、尊严、英雄主义、光荣和荣誉；以及其他一些神秘的力量——使命、命运、辩证法和斗争。

    我认为，启蒙人文主义，不论是直接地还是间接地，都为18世纪和19世纪形形色色的人道主义革命奠定了基础。第一批自由民主政体的设计，特别是美国《独立宣言》中“不证自明的真理”明确地体现了启蒙人文主义的哲学。之后，它被传播到世界的其他地方，并与各个文化中萌发的人道主义理念相融合。[149]我们会在第7章中看到，启蒙人文主义在当代的权利革命运动中再次得到发展。

    虽然如此，启蒙人文主义并没有在一开始就大获全胜。虽然它帮助消灭了很多野蛮的制度并建立了民主政治的桥头堡，但世界上的大部分国家坚决地排斥它的影响。反对力量之一，是我们在本章中所讲述的启蒙主义和我们在前一章中所讲述的文明进程之间的张力，虽然我们将看到，两者并不是不可调和的。这种反对力量根基更加深厚，后果也更加恐怖。

    文明和启蒙

    与启蒙运动接踵而至的是法国大革命：昙花一现的民主之后，是一连串的弑君、暴动、狂热、暴民、恐怖行动和先发制人的战争，最后以一位自大的皇帝和一场疯狂的侵略战争而告终结。超过25万人在法国大革命和后续的动荡中丧命，而在法国大革命和拿破仑战争中，另有200万到400万人被杀害。在反思这场大灾难的时候，人们会很自然地说：“从此之后，所以，就是因为它……”而左右两派的知识分子都为此谴责启蒙运动。他们这样说：“这就是你能得到的——你吃了智慧之树上的果子，你从神那里偷来了火种，你打开了潘多拉的盒子。”

    启蒙运动的理论要对恐怖行为和拿破仑承担责任。客气点儿说，这种指责是值得怀疑的。政治谋杀、屠杀和帝国扩张的战争，这些恶行和人类文明一样古老，对欧洲（包括法国）的君主而言早已是家常便饭。许多为大革命提供了精神支持的法国哲学家在思想界无足轻重，与霍布斯、笛卡儿、斯宾诺莎、洛克、休谟和康德理性流派也没有传承关系。美国独立战争更严格地遵守了启蒙运动的蓝本，它给世界带来了第一个持续了两个多世纪的自由民主政体。在本书的结尾部分，我将用暴力减少的历史数据证明启蒙人文主义的积极意义，并反驳来自左右两边的批评。但是，在这些批评家中，有一位特别值得我们注意，他是盎格鲁-爱尔兰作家埃德蒙·伯克（Edmund Burke），因为他的观点与暴力减少的另一个主要原因——文明的进程有密切的关系。对暴力减少原因的两个解释是互相重叠的，两个都诉诸共情的扩展和合作的安抚作用，但是它们所强调的是人性的不同侧面。

    伯克是知识界世俗保守主义之父，他的保守主义基于经济学家托马斯·索维尔（Thomas Sowell）所称的“对人性的悲剧性洞察”。[150]在伯克的眼中，人类的知识、智慧和美德永远是有限的。人是自私和短视的，如果放任他们自行其是，他们将立即陷入霍布斯式的自相残杀。人们在恪守文明社会的准则时，培养了自制和社会和谐的习性，只有如此才能阻止人类落入万劫不复的深渊。社会习俗、宗教传统、性道德、家庭结构和长期存在的政治制度，即使没有人能说明它们的合理性，它们也是克服人性固有弱点的久经考验的方法。正如它们曾经带领人类走出了野蛮时代，对于今天的社会，它们同样不可或缺。

    根据伯克的观点，凡人没有足够的智慧来根据基本原则设计社会。一个社会是一个有机的系统，它自发地发展，而控制社会的是无穷无尽的互动和调整，人类的头脑完全无法理解其中的奥妙。我们无法用口头语言来表述它如何运作，这并不意味着我们就应该按照时髦的理论抛弃它或者改造它。这种笨拙的胡修乱补只会导致意想不到的后果，最终导致暴乱。

    伯克显然走得太远了。因为酷刑、驱巫和奴隶制是长期存在的传统，突然废止它们将使社会回到野蛮状态，所以人们永远也不应该奋起反抗这些制度，这样的说法简直是太愚蠢了。这些传统本身就是野蛮，我们已经看到，社会能够找到新的补偿方式，替代被废止的暴力制度，尽管这些暴力制度都曾经被认为是不可替代的。人道主义可以说是发明之母。

    但是，伯克有他对的一面。在人们的日常生活和政府的行为中，都有不言而喻的文明规范，它们是成功推行特定改革的前提条件。这些规范的发展也许是依靠神秘的“历史动力”，正如佩恩注意到的，在民主原则确立之前，政治谋杀已经在自发地淡出历史，而某些旧制度已经开始了消亡的过程，群众运动恰好给了它们致命一击。[151]

    在解释暴力减少时，文明和启蒙不是非此即彼的关系。在有些时期，共情、自制和合作这些隐性规范领先，理性阐述的平等、非暴力和人权等原则随后。在另一些时期，则可能是相反。

    这种往复交替也许解释了为什么美国独立战争没有像法国大革命那样灾难深重。美国的建国之父们不仅是启蒙运动之子，也是英国文明进程的产物，自制和合作已经是他们的第二天性。“出于对人类舆论的尊重，必须把他们不得不独立的原因予以宣布。”《独立宣言》礼貌周全地解释说，“为了慎重起见，成立多年的政府不应因微不足道和短暂的原因而改变。”确实是为了慎重起见。

    但是，他们的庄重和审慎绝不仅仅是盲目的习惯。建国之父们有意识地审视了人性的局限性，正是这些局限性让伯克忧心忡忡。“政府本身又是什么，”麦迪逊问，“不正是人性的集大成者？”[152]在他们的远见中，民主，就是要设计成对人性弱点的制约，特别是对领导滥用权力的制约。对人性的认知，可能是美国革命家和他们的法国同志之间最大的不同，后者有着浪漫的情怀，坚信自己即将摆脱人性的局限。1794年，“恐怖统治”的总设计师马克西米利安·罗伯斯庇尔（Maximilien Robespierre）这样写道：“法国人民似乎已经超越世界上其他人类2000年；身居其间，你很想将他们看作另外一个物种。”[153]

    在《白板》一书中，我提出了对人性的两种极端看法：“悲剧观”（对人性的缺陷逆来顺受）和“乌托邦观”（拒绝承认人性存在弱点），这就是决定右翼和左翼政治思想的最大分野。[154]我认为，根据现代科学，对人性更深刻的理解表明，处理政治问题中的人性远比上述两种极端的观点更复杂和深奥。人的头脑不是白板，没有一种人道的政治制度应该允许蔑视领导人或者重塑公民。即使有这样或那样的局限性，人性中还有一个具有递归、开放性和组合能力的系统进行推理，因此人能认识到自身的局限性。启蒙人道主义的引擎——理性主义，永远不会被特定时代中人们推理中出现的缺陷和错误击败。理性总是能够退后一步，记录缺陷，修正规则，避免下一次再犯错误。

    血与土

    第二次反启蒙运动开始于18世纪末19世纪初，中心不是在英国，而是在德国。以赛亚·伯林（Isaiah Berlin）的论文和哲学家格雷姆·加勒德（Graeme Garrard）的著作对这场运动的各种思潮做过阐述。[155]卢梭是这场运动的始作俑者，后来卷入的人中有神学家、诗人和散文家，比如约翰·哈曼（Johann Hamann）、弗里德里希·雅各比（Friedrich Jacobi）、约翰·赫尔德（Johann Herder）和弗里德里希·谢林（Friedrich Sche-lling）。它的目标不是像伯克认为的那样，是启蒙运动对社会稳定的“意想不到的后果”，而是理性本身的基础。

    他们说，启蒙运动的第一个错误是它的起点是个人意识。一个脱离了文化和历史背景的空洞的个体理性，是启蒙运动思想家的凭空想象。一个人，不是一堆抽象的思考——一根棍子上的一个大脑，而是有感情的血肉之躯，是大自然不可或缺的组成部分。

    第二个错误是设定存在普遍人性和普遍有效的推理体系。人生来就有文化背景，从自己文化中的神话、符号和史诗中认知意义。真理并不是飘在天空中的命题，仿佛每个人抬头就能看见，它只能存在于具体的叙述和形象之中，而这种叙述和形象只能是一个地方的历史所独有，并赋予那里居民的生活以意义。

    按照这个思路，一个理性的分析家来评判传统的信仰或习俗就是迷失了方向。只有当一个人经历了奉守这些信仰的人的生活，他才有可能真正理解这些信仰。比如，只有重历约旦丘陵上古代牧人的生活，才有可能欣赏和领会《圣经》。每一种文化都有其独特的重心，一个万有引力的中心，除非我们努力占据它，否则不可能理解它的意义和价值。[156]世界主义非但算不上是什么美德，而且“抛弃了一切让人最能成为人，让人最能成为自己（具有个性）的因素”。[157]普遍性、客观性和合理性，请你们走开，浪漫主义、生命主义、直觉和非理性主义，请你们进来。赫尔德对“狂飙突进运动”总结说：“我不是在思考，而是在做我，在感觉，在生活！……感情！温暖！鲜血！人性！生活！”[158]

    所以，反启蒙运动的孩子追求一个目标，不在于它是否客观真实或高尚，而是因为它是一个人创造力的独特产物。创造力的源泉也许是一个人真正的自我，浪漫派画家和作家就是这样认为的，或者也可以是某种超然的存在——一种宇宙精神、一团圣火。伯林说：

    有些人将创造性自我等同于超个人的“有机体”。在这个有机体——国家、教会、文化、阶级或者历史自身当中，他们认为自己是组成要素或成员，或者将其等同于一种伟大的力量，而他们自己则是这种力量在尘世留下的散射物。激进的民族主义，与阶级、文化或者种族利益自我认同，或者进步力量是些政治和道德概念——在指向未来的历史浪潮中，这些东西一度被用来解释和正义化某些行为，而如果这些行为的发生是出于私利的算计和平凡的动机，原本是令人憎恶和鄙视的——这些概念都是一种自我实现论的不同表述，其本质是对启蒙运动的核心命题的轻蔑拒绝。这些命题认为何为真，何为是，何为善，何为美，通过正确使用客观的，而且是任何人都可以使用和验证的手法进行探索和阐述，得到的答案对所有人都是成立的。[159]

    反启蒙运动同时也否定了暴力问题是可以被解决的这一假定。斗争和流血是自然秩序与生俱来的组成部分，因此也是无法被消除的，除非完全湮灭世界的活力，彻底颠覆人类的命运。赫尔德的原话是这样说的：“人渴望和谐，但自然更了解什么是人类最需要的：它渴望斗争。”[160]美化弱肉强食的斗争——丁尼生所说的“自然乃尖齿利爪下的血肉”，是19世纪艺术和写作无所不在的创作主题。后来，它还被裹上了一层科学的外衣，改造为“社会达尔文主义”。不过，将达尔文牵扯进来，不仅时间上阴差阳错，而且也是不公正的，达尔文的《物种起源》在1859年才出版，此时浪漫主义斗争论早已成为流行的哲学思想，而达尔文自己则是一位彻头彻尾的自由人文主义者。[161]

    反启蒙运动是19世纪日益强盛的各种浪漫主义运动的源泉。其中一些对艺术产生了深远的影响，给我们带来超凡绝伦的音乐和诗歌。另外一些则成为政治意识形态，导致暴力减少进程发生了可怕的逆转。这些意识形态之一是军国主义，即人们知道的“血与土”——这个概念的含义是，一个民族群体和它的土地，加上独特的道德素质，即构成一个有机的整体。这个整体的伟大与光荣比它的个别成员的生命和幸福更加宝贵。此外还有浪漫军国主义，穆勒对这一思想的概括是：“战争是高尚的、上进的、善良的、光荣的、英雄的、兴奋的、美丽的、神圣的、令人激动的。”[162]第三种思潮是马克思的社会主义。在这个理论中，历史就是阶级之间的光荣斗争，其终结将是资产阶级被征服，无产阶级取得最后的胜利。第四种是国家社会主义。它认为历史是种族之间的光荣斗争，其终结将是劣等民族被征服，雅利安人取得最后的胜利。

    人道主义革命是历史性暴力减少的里程碑，这是人类最值得骄傲的成就。迷信杀戮、残酷刑罚、滥用死刑、蓄奴也许还没有从地球上被彻底清除，但可以肯定它们已经被赶到了犄角旮旯。自文明诞生之初，专制主义和大规模战争就是笼罩在人类头上的阴霾，至此也终于开始出现缝隙，露出几缕微光。启蒙人道主义的哲学以及它所代表的社会进步在西方站稳了脚跟，直到更多的暴力意识形态悲剧性地走上它们的道路。

    第5章 长期和平

    战争和人类一样古老，而和平还是当代的新发明。 ——亨利·梅因

    20世纪50年代初，两位著名的英国学者回顾了战争的历史，并大胆地预测了未来几年内世界的变化。其中一位是阿诺德·汤因比（Arnold Toynbee, 1889—1975年），他也许称得上是20世纪最著名的历史学家。汤因比曾在两次世界大战中为英国外交部工作，并曾在两次大战后代表英国政府参加和平会议。尤其是在12卷本巨著《历史研究》中，他按年代记录了26个文明的兴衰。他在20世纪50年代所看到的历史的规律，让他无法感到乐观：

    在最近的西方历史中，战争接踵而至，其破坏性也越来越大；从今天的情况看，1939—1945年的战争显然已经不是这一递增趋势的高峰。[1]

    汤因比写下这段话时，“二战”的阴影尚未消散，冷战和核武器时代已经降临，他做出如此黯淡的预言完全情有可原。当时许多著名评论家都和他一样悲观，关于世界末日即将来临的预言又持续了30年。[2]

    另外一位英国学者有着截然不同的资历。刘易斯·弗里·理查森（Lewis Fry Richardson, 1881—1953年）是物理学家、气象学家、心理学家和应用数学家。他的名望主要来自他在预测天气的数值技术方面的工作，他的设计比能够应用这一技术的计算机早了好几十年。[3]理查森对人类未来的预测不是来自对各大文明的渊博知识，而是得自他对一个多世纪以来几百起暴力冲突的数据进行的统计分析。理查森比汤因比更细致，也更乐观：

    20世纪相继出现的两场世界大战很容易让人们笼统地相信，世界变得更加好战了。但是，这样的判断需要逻辑的检验。在未来很长一段时间内，可能不会发生第三次世界大战。[4]

    理查森反驳流行的全球核战争不可避免论的方式，是统计而不是印象。半个多世纪之后，我们知道，著名历史学家错了，鲜为人知的物理学家却是对的。

    本章要讲的就是理查森预测背后的故事：大国战争的趋势及其结论——一个意想不到的好消息，即当时看起来将要不断恶化的战争威胁没有继续发展，形成一次新的暴力高峰。在过去20年中，世界的注意力已经转向其他形式的冲突，包括小国之间的战争、内战、种族清洗和恐怖主义；这些问题将是我们下一章讨论的内容。

    统计和叙事

    对于坚持随着历史发展，暴力正在减少这一观点的人来说，20世纪似乎实在太令人困窘了。它被公认为是历史上最暴力的世纪。20世纪上半叶，大战、内战和大屠杀连绵不断，马修·怀特将其称为“血腥的世纪”（Hemoclysm），即希腊语的“血流成河”（或“血潮”）。[5]血腥的世纪不仅是生命的无底深渊，还是人类如何理解自己历史的一个谜团。启蒙运动本来期望科学和理性带来人类的进步，结果得到的却是一系列严酷的指控：死亡本能的复发，现代性的实验，对西方文明的控诉，人类为科学和技术所做的浮士德式的交易。[6]

    但是，一个世纪有100年，而不是50年。20世纪下半叶，人类史无前例地避免了大国之间的战争，约翰·加迪斯（John Gaddis）称之为“长期和平”。接着，冷战又出人意料地结束了。[7]我们如何理解这个扭曲的世纪的多重性格？我们又如何预测这个世纪的战争与和平的前景？

    对于历史事件的历时性，历史学家汤因比和物理学家理查森之间的预测竞争，给出了两种互补的理解方法。传统的历史是对“过去”的叙述。但如果我们要想接受乔治·桑塔亚纳（George Santayana）的忠告——记住过去，才能不让过去重复，就必须识别历史的规律，如此才能知道到底是什么导致了目前的困境。在一组有限的观察数据中归纳规律，是科学家惯用的手法，某些科学研究中总结规律的经验可能也适用于历史数据。

    让我们假定，第二次世界大战是人类历史上破坏性最大的事件。（或者，如果你愿意，并认为整个“血腥世纪”更符合这个定义，我们也可以将两次世界大战及其连带的种族灭绝作为一个长期的历史事件，假定它是人类历史上破坏性最大的事件。）我们能够看出战争与和平有什么样的长期趋势吗？

    答案是：什么也看不出来。最具破坏力的事件总是要发生在某个世纪的某个时点上，我们在大量完全不同的长期趋势中都能看到它的存在。汤因比假定第二次世界大战是一个上升的滚梯中的一级，如图5-1中的左图所示。图5-1中的右图，代表战争是周期性的这一普遍认识。两个规律指出的前景都是黯淡的。像所有令人沮丧的预测一样，这两个模型也孵化出一些黑色幽默。我经常被问到是否听说过一个人从办公楼的楼顶摔下去的笑话，这个人在下坠的过程中，每经过一层，都向楼里的工人大喊：“到目前为止一切都很好！”我也听说过（好几次）这样的笑话：在感恩节前夜，火鸡发表评论说，农夫和火鸡之间已经364天相安无事。作为火鸡，它是何等走运，能够生活在一个拥有长久和平的非凡时代。[8]

    但是，历史的进程是否真的像万有引力定律或者行星的运行轨道那样具有确定性？数学家告诉我们，任何有限的点集都可以被数量无限的曲线穿过。图5-2显示了两条其他性状的曲线，对相同的情节进行了非常不同的叙述。

    图5-1 战争历史趋势预测中两种悲观的可能性

    图5-2中的左图描绘的是一种非常极端的可能性，即“二战”是统计上的一个意外，既不是上升序列中的一步，也不能预示任何未来的事件，甚至根本不属于任何趋势。乍看起来，这一说法非常荒谬。一个随机发生的事件，怎么能够在仅仅10年之内就产生如此巨大的灾难群——希特勒、墨索里尼、斯大林和日本的残暴侵略；大屠杀、斯大林的大清洗、古拉格、两颗原子弹？暂且不说第一次世界大战和之前20年内发生的战争和种族灭绝。史书中记载的常规战争的死亡率通常是以万计或者十万计，很少会有以百万计的。如果战争真的是随机发生的，发生一场造成5500万人死亡的大战的概率难道不应该几乎是不可能的吗？理查森证明，这两种直觉都是认知上的幻觉。一旦铁色子开始滚动（德国首相特奥巴尔德·冯·贝特曼-霍尔韦格在“一战”前夜这样形容当时的局势），不幸的结局可能比我们幼稚的想象力做出的预见糟糕千百倍。

    图5-2 战争历史趋势预测中两种不太悲观的可能性

    在图5-2中的右图中，“二战”所处的位置可以说是非常不悲观，甚至可以说是乐观的。“二战”是否可能是锯齿形下滑线上一个孤立的峰值，是大规模战争完成其历史生命之前的最后一口大喘气？我们会看到，这种可能性绝非没有根据。

    在现实中，长期的战争轨迹可能是几个趋势的叠加。我们都知道，在其他的复序列，比如天气序列中的规律，是数条不同曲线的组合：季节的循环节奏、每天变化的随机性、全球变暖的长期趋势。本章的目的是要辨识国家之间战争的长期趋势的构成因素。我将要努力说明的是：

    .没有周期。

    .极具随机性。

    .破坏性战争的升级趋势最近得到了逆转。

    .各种战争全面减少，包括国际战争。

    所以，20世纪并未陷入万劫不复之深渊。相反，发源于启蒙运动的反暴力人文主义，是20世纪不朽的道德趋势，虽然它被反启蒙运动的意识形态及其联手的战争机器蒙上了阴影，但终于在“二战”之后重整旗鼓。

    为推导这些结论，我将综合对战争发展轨迹的两种理解：一是理查森和他的追随者，一是传统历史学家和政治学家的叙述。我们必须运用统计分析，以避免出现汤因比的谬误，即在那些复杂统计现象中过于人性化地幻想其宏大的图景，并自信地根据这些幻想的图景推测未来。但是，没有统计的叙事是盲目的，没有叙事的统计是空洞的。历史不是一个屏幕保护程序，不是由方程式产生的一组美丽的线条，历史的曲线是对一系列真实事件的抽象，涉及人们的决策和武器的功效。所以，我们也必须解释图中的楼梯形、斜坡形和锯齿形等模型，与领导人和士兵的行为，与刺刀和炸弹有什么样的关系。本章的论述过程是，从对原材料的统计分析开始，再转向叙述。要理解战争的长期轨迹这种复杂现象，两者缺一不可。

    20世纪真的是最糟糕的世纪吗？

    “20世纪是历史上最血腥的世纪”这句老话被用来指控过各种各样的恶魔，包括无神论者、达尔文、政府、科学、资本主义、共产主义、进步的理想，还有男性。但真是这样吗？没有20世纪之外的数据能够支持这个判断，也不能仅仅因为有人提及几个世纪之前血流成河的“血潮”就说这个判断是成立的。真相是，我们永远无法知道哪个世纪是最糟糕的世纪，因为得到20世纪的死亡数据已经很困难，更不用说更早的数据了。但有两个理由怀疑，“最血腥的世纪”这个看似真实的陈述其实只是一个错觉。

    第一，20世纪的暴力死亡数量肯定超过以往，但它的总人口数量也更多。1950年的世界人口数量是25亿，差不多是1800年的2.5倍，是1600年的4.5倍，是1300年的7倍，是公元1世纪的15倍。所以说，1600年的战争死亡数要乘以4.5，才能够和20世纪的战争破坏做比较。[9]

    第二个错觉是历史近视眼：最靠近我们观测点的历史就是当代，对当代我们可以看到更多的细节。我们的常识和专业的历史学都会被历史近视眼折磨。认知心理学家阿莫斯·特沃斯基（Amos Tversky）和丹尼尔·卡尼曼（Daniel Kahneman）已经证实，人本能地使用“易得性启发”这个捷径来估算相对频率，即越是容易回想起来的事件，人们就认为它越可信。[10]比如，那些成为新闻头条的意外事件，比如空难、鲨鱼袭击和恐怖炸弹，往往被人们高估，而那些堆积如山的无人理会的意外，比如触电、摔伤和溺水，则被人们低估。[11]当我们判断不同世纪的杀戮事件的强度时，任何一个不了解数据的人都会高估最近发生的、被研究最多的或者被宣传最多的那些冲突。在一项对历史记忆的调查中，我让100名互联网用户在5分钟内尽量写出他们能记得的战争。人们的反应主要集中在两次世界大战、美国人参与的战争和近现代的战争。虽然古代的战争更加频繁，人们能记住的主要还是近几个世纪内的战争。

    如果我们搜索史料，根据当时的世界人口总量计算死亡率，即可校正易得性偏差和20世纪的人口爆炸。我们会发现，历史上许多战争和暴行都绝不逊色于20世纪的残暴。下面的表格是怀特列出的一份清单，被称为“人类相互之间（可能）做过的（大约）21件最残暴的事情”。[12]每一个死亡数字取的都是中值，或者是大量历史文献和百科全书中引用的数据的众数。无论是当代的事件还是古代的事件，这些数据不仅包括战场上的死亡，还包括饥荒和瘟疫造成的平民死亡，因此它们远高于战场上的死亡人数。我添加了两列数据，为的是将历史数据与20世纪进行比较，即如果当时的世界人口是20世纪中叶的水平，死亡的规模和排序应该是怎么样的。

    首先，你是否听说所有这些事件？（反正我原来没有。）其次，你是否知道在第一次世界大战之前，有5次战争和4场暴行，其杀害的人数均超过第一次世界大战？如果说，（就我们目前所知）在人类相互之间做过的21件最残暴的事情中，有14件发生在20世纪之前，我怀疑很多读者听到此话都会大吃一惊。这里使用的都是绝对数字。如果我们按照总人口规模来排列数据，20世纪的暴行中只有一件能够进入前10名。人类历史上最严重的暴行是“安史之乱”，这是一场发生在中国唐朝的历时8年的叛乱。根据人口统计，唐朝损失了2/3的人口，即当时世界1/6的人口。[13]

    当然，我们不能完全从字面的意义来理解这些数据。有些数据倾向于将饥荒和瘟疫造成的死亡全部归咎于战争、叛乱或者暴君，也有一些数据是来自没有数字概念的文化，它们完全没有计数和簿记的现代知识。同时，文字的历史证实，早期人类文明颇具杀戮能力。技术的落后不构成屠杀的障碍。卢旺达和柬埔寨的大规模屠杀说明，最没有技术含量的手段，例如砍刀和饥荒就可以谋杀大量的人口。而且在远古时期，杀戮的方式也不一定就是技术落后的，军事装备总是被吹嘘为各个时代的尖端科技。军事史专家约翰·基根（John Keegan）说过，公元前2000年中期，文明社会就已经饱受游牧部落军队两轮战车的蹂躏。“战车围住一群没有甲胄的步兵，在100码（约91米）或200码之外转圈，一部战车组——一人驾驶，一人射箭，每分钟可以撂倒6个人。10辆战车10分钟可以制造500人甚至更多人的伤亡。这对当时的小军队来说，不啻为 ‘索姆河战役 ’般的惨重伤亡。”[14]

    人类相互之间（可能）做过的（大约）21件最残暴的事情

    马背上的草原游牧民族，例如斯基泰人、匈奴人、蒙古人、突厥人、匈牙利人、鞑靼人、莫卧儿人和满族人，都对大规模屠杀技术进行过完善。2000年来，这些武士精心部署弓箭手，弓箭制作精良（使用的材料有层压的黏合木、兽筋和兽角）。在他们的洗劫和袭击行动中，受害者尸横遍野。这些部落人的暴行在“21件最残暴的事情”中占据了第3、第5、第11和第15，而在按总人口规模调整后的排列中，领头的6个事件，他们占据了4个。13世纪，蒙古人对伊斯兰领土进行入侵，仅在梅尔夫（Merv）一城的大屠杀就导致130万人丧命，另外在巴格达有80万居民被杀害。研究蒙古人历史的学者桑德斯（J. J. Saunders）这样评论说：

    蒙古人进行屠杀时表现出的冷酷野蛮令人难以形容地反感。陷落城镇的居民被强迫在城墙外列队，所有手持战斧的蒙古骑兵得到命令，要杀死一定数量的人，10个、20个或者50个。为证明命令得到执行，凶手有时要割下受害人的一只耳朵，收集的耳朵装在口袋里，交给长官点数。在屠杀发生数天之后，蒙古军队会返回被摧毁的城镇，搜索那些藏身于地窖和阁楼里的可怜的漏网者，将他们拽出来处死。[15]

    蒙古人的第一位领袖成吉思汗这样反思自己的生活乐趣：“人生最大的乐趣莫过于征服和追杀敌人，夺走他们的马匹，抢走他们的财物，看着他们的亲人哭泣，把他们的子女掳为己有。”[16]现代基因科学证明，这并非虚言。目前生活在前蒙古帝国疆域内的男子中，有8%的人带有同样的Y染色体，这可以追溯到成吉思汗的年代。最有可能的是，他们都是成吉思汗或者他的儿子们的后代，可见数目巨大的女子曾经被他们“掳为己有”。[17]应该说，成吉思汗的成就设定了很高的门槛，但帖木儿（亦名瘸子帖木儿），一个立誓复兴蒙古帝国的突厥人，竭力追赶成吉思汗。每当攻克一座西亚城池，他都要屠杀数以万计的俘虏，然后用死难者的头颅建造宣礼塔，以纪念自己的功业。一名叙利亚目击者称，共有28座宣礼塔，每座塔有1500个人头。[18]

    最残暴名单也戳穿了一个流行的谎言，即在20世纪，有组织暴力的水平与和平的19世纪相比发生了量子级飞跃。其一，要证实这个说法，除非对19世纪进行重新界定，比如砍掉19世纪初发生的极具毁灭性的拿破仑战争。其二，19世纪中后期没有发生战事的地区也仅限于欧洲。在世界很多其他地方都是“血潮”滚滚，包括中国的“太平天国”——一场宗教煽动的叛乱，演变成人类历史上最惨痛的内战。非洲的奴隶贸易，遍布亚洲、非洲和拉丁美洲的帝国战争，还有两场血腥的内战——美国独立战争（65万人死亡）和“沙卡统治”, 1816—1827年，这位祖鲁希特勒在征服南非的过程中杀死了100万至200万人。还有我没有提到的大陆吗？对了，还有南美洲。在南美洲发生的众多战争中，有巴拉圭“三国同盟战争”（1864—1870年），战争中有40万人丧命，其中包括超过60%的巴拉圭人口。如果按照人口比例排列，巴拉圭战争是当代历史上破坏性最大的战争。

    一个极端案例的名单当然不足以确立一个趋势。在20世纪之前有更多的大战和大屠杀，但20世纪之前也有很多个世纪。图5-3将怀特的“最残暴的事情”名单从21个扩展到100个，并按照当时的世界人口比例排列，再来看看它们在公元前500—公元2000年的分布。

    从这些飞溅的斑点中可以看出两个规律。第一，最严酷的战争和暴行——那些杀死了超过世界人口1/10的战争和暴行——在2500年的时间内分布很均匀。第二，数据点向右向下趋于密集，越靠近现在，暴力的程度越低。怎样解释这个漏斗图形？我们的祖先不可能不进行小规模屠杀，而只放任自己从事大规模杀戮。怀特提出了一个可能的解释：

    图5-3 人类历史上最残暴的100场战争和暴行

    资料来源：怀特的数据，按照麦克伊韦迪和琼斯（McEvedy & Jones）世界人口统计计算死亡比例，1978年，取中值。注意，比例的基数不是按照战争或暴行发生期间的人口数计算的。有圆圈的点，表明事件的死亡率高出20世纪的两次世界大战（按时间顺序）：中国新朝、三国、古罗马帝国衰亡、安史之乱、成吉思汗、中东奴隶贸易、帖木儿、大西洋奴隶贸易、明朝灭亡和征服美洲。

    过去200年来暴力事件如此之多，唯一的原因就是我们在这一时期有了更多的记录。我研究这个问题多年，关于20世纪的大规模杀戮，我已经很久没有看见新的、未发表过的资料了。但是，似乎每一次打开一本老书，我都能发现在遥远的过去，有几十万人被屠杀后又被遗忘了。也许在很久以前，一位编年史家记录了一个伤亡数字，但后来整个事件都被湮没在历史的灰烬之中。也许一些现代历史学家曾经重新审视这一历史事件，但是忽略了死亡人数，因为这不符合他们心目中的往昔的形象。他们认为没有毒气室和机关枪，人类不可能屠杀如此之多的同胞，所以他们认为这些不利证据都是不可靠的。[19]

    当然，一些屠杀被编年史家记录下来，却被其他人忽视或否认，同时肯定还有很多暴行从一开始就没有留下记录。

    如果不能够对历史近视眼有所校正，历史学家也一样会得出错误的结论。威廉·埃克哈特整理了早至公元前3000年的战争记录，并将它们的死亡人数按时间顺序进行了排列。[20]他的图表显示，在过去的5000年里，战争死亡率呈加速上升趋势，16世纪后升幅加大，20世纪飙升。[21]但是，这根曲棍球棒几乎可以肯定是一个错觉。詹姆斯·佩恩已经说过，任何一个声称得出战争上升的趋势，而不对历史近视进行校正的研究，都只能说明“关于世界各地的战情，美联社是比16世纪的修道士更可靠的消息来源”。[22]埃克哈特的资料来源之一是昆西·赖特的巨著《战争研究》（A Study of War），赖特在书中开列了1400—1940年的战争名单。对赖特名单的检视，可以证明佩恩的担忧，即历史的错觉是一个真实问题，绝非假说。对1875—1940年的战争，赖特能够找到其中99%的战争爆发和结束月份，但对1480—1650年的战争，他只能搜索到其中13%的战争爆发和结束月份。这显然是一个警示性标志，说明与近期历史相比，遥远历史的记录是非常不完整的。[23]

    历史学家赖恩·塔格佩拉（Rein Taagepera）用另一种方式量化了历史近视。他取一本历史年鉴，用尺子测量书中每个世纪所占用的篇幅。[24]差距之大，使他不得不对数据进行对数化处理（当数据呈指数级下降时，曲线呈直线形）。图5-4是对他的图示的复制。图示显示，当你回到过去，在大约两个半世纪的时间内，历史记录的覆盖率呈指数级下降。在接下来的3000年内，覆盖率的下降幅度减小，但仍然是呈指数级下降。

    如果古代编年史家忽略的只是几场小型战争的记录，那么人们还是可以确信死亡人数不会被低估，因为绝大多数死亡都是由无法忽视的大规模战争造成的。未计算的死亡人数不仅会模糊事实，而且会在进行估算时诱发偏差。基根称之为“军事水平线”。[25]在这条水平线之下，是袭击战、埋伏战、骚扰战、争夺地盘、宿仇和劫掠，历史学家对这些“原始”战争不屑一顾。而在这些水平线之上，是有组织的征服和占领行动，包括精心策划的战斗——穿着军服的彩排和玩具士兵的模型演戏。还记得塔奇曼描述的14世纪“私家战争”吗？骑士带着满腔激情出征，脑子里只有一个目标，就是尽量多地杀戮对方领地内的农民。这些屠杀从来没有被命名为“某某对某某之战”，也没有被写入永垂不朽的历史典籍。从理论上说，对“军事水平线”之下的冲突记录不全，让整个时期的战争死亡数据都变得很不可靠。如果与国家出现后的战争相比，无政府封建社会、边疆地带和早期部落中有更多的冲突发生在“军事水平线”之下，而不是发生在后来的列强之间的冲突中，那么，这些社会的暴力在今天看来就比实际上要少。

    图5-4 历史近视眼：一部历史年鉴中给予各个世纪的篇幅（按厘米测量）

    资料来源：塔格佩拉和科尔比，1979年，第911页。

    所以，一旦按照人口规模进行比较，并校正易得性偏差和历史近视眼，说20世纪是最血腥的世纪就没有那么理直气壮了。排除这个武断的判断是我们理解战争历史轨道的第一步。下一步就是聚焦观察战争的时间分布——结论将带给我们更多的惊讶。

    对致命冲突的统计Ⅰ：战争的时机

    刘易斯·理查森写道，他探索用数据分析和平，出于两个成见。作为贵格派教徒，他相信“战争中的恶行压倒了善行，尽管道德善是引人瞩目的”。[26]而作为科学家，他认为，对于战争，人们做了太多的道德判断，但缺乏足够的知识：“表达愤慨是如此简单，并令人如此满足，它已经开始妨碍人们听取与他们的情绪不合的事实。如果读者指责我为了一个虚假的教条——理解一切即宽恕一切——而抛弃了伦理道德，我的回答是，这只是暂时悬置道德判断，因为谴责越多，了解越少。”[27]

    在仔细翻阅世界不同地区的百科全书和史籍之后，理查森收集了1820—1952年315个“致命冲突”的数据。他遇到的困难是艰巨的。困难之一是，大部分史料在提到数字时都是敷衍潦草的。困难之二是，经常不清楚史籍是怎样计算战争的，有时候是分开的，有时是合并的，有时是分分合合的。第二次世界大战是一场单独的战争还是两场战争，一场在欧洲，一场在太平洋？如果是一场战争，我们是不是应该说它是1937年爆发的，因为日本在1937年对中国发动全面入侵，甚至应该说是从1931年日本占领中国东北开始的？而通常我们说“二战”是在1939年开始的。理查森注意到：“战争的概念是一个离谱的东西，找不到贴切对应的事实。此概念物化失败。”[28]

    物理学家对物化失败并不陌生，理查森使用了两种数学估算法解决这个问题。他没有去为战争寻找晦涩的“精确定义”，而是给予每一个独立的案例以“平均优先级”——一视同仁：当他依次审视每一个时间不明确的冲突时，他将它们先合为一次冲突，再分为两次冲突，并系统地反复测试。最后的结论是，长期来看，偏差是可以抵消的。（这就是常用的“数值修约”原则，将尾数为5的数字约入最近的偶数——一半的时间是向上，另一半的时间则是向下。）借用天文学的惯例，理查森给每一次冲突的战死人数一个量级，即十进制的对数（大致为零的个数）。在对数计算标度上，测量中一定程度的不准确不像在常规的线性标度上那样重要。比如，战争是造成10万人死亡还是20万人死亡的不确定性，可以转换为仅仅是数量级5与数量级5.3之间的不确定。所以，理查森将不同数量级的冲突放进对数化的格子里：2.5至3.5（死亡人数在316到3162之间）, 3.5至4.5（死亡人数在3163到31622之间），以此类推。对数标度的另外一个优点是，让我们在同一个尺度上直观各种不同规模的冲突，不论是部落圈地还是世界大战。

    理查森还要面对的一个问题是，统计中应该包括哪些冲突，哪些死亡应该计入，最小规模是什么。按照他的标准，他的数据库要纳入所有算得上是“善意暴行”的历史事件，所以他的数据囊括了各种形式、各种规模的战争，以及哗变、叛乱、暴动和种族清洗；这也是为什么他称自己的分析单位是“致命冲突”，而不是去争论什么才算是“战争”。他按照数量级排列的数据中有战场上死亡的士兵，有被故意杀害和误伤的平民，还有死于疾病和恶劣环境的士兵；他没有计算死于疾病和恶劣环境的平民，认为这些死亡更有可能是因为渎职，而不是蓄谋。

    理查森对历史记录上的一个重大缺陷惋惜不已：每次冲突死亡在4人至315人之间的世仇、劫掠和骚扰（数量级为0.5至2.5）。这些死亡规模对于犯罪学家来说太大，但对于历史学家来说又太小，因此缺乏记录。对于这些在“军事水平线”之下的冲突问题，他引用雷金纳德·库普兰（Reginald Coupland）论述东非贩奴史的内容，并且说：

    “主要供给来源是在选定的地区进行有组织的奴隶劫掠，在一片地区被 ‘洗劫一空 ’后，稳步杀向内陆的其他地区。有些阿拉伯人自己下手劫掠，但更多的是诱惑一个当地的酋长劫掳其他部落，并向酋长出借自己的武装奴隶和枪支以确保其胜利。结果当然是部落之间的战事日增，直至整个国家陷入战火。”

    这种非常的习俗应该如何归类？这只是阿拉伯人和黑人之间的一场开始于2000年以前，于1880年才告结束的宏大的战争吗？如果这样归类，这场战争带来的死亡超过了历史上任何一场其他战争。从库普兰的描述来看，似乎更有理由认为，这是阿拉伯商队和黑人部落或村庄之间的无数个小规模致命冲突的集合，伤亡的数量级为1、2或者3。无法得到详细的统计数字。[29]

    同样无法取得数据的还有拉美的80场革命、俄国的556次农民起义，这些都是理查森知道的史实，却被迫排除在他的统计之外。[30]

    但是，理查森收录了凶杀的数字，将标尺的原点定在数量级0，即冲突导致的死亡人数为1（因为100 =1）。他想象莎士比亚笔下的波西娅会反驳他说：“你不应该将谋杀和战争混为一谈；谋杀是令人厌恶的自私的罪行，而战争是英雄式和爱国主义的冒险。”他回答说：“但是它们都是致命的冲突。杀死一个人是罪恶的，而杀死一万个人却是光荣的，难道你不觉得奇怪？”[31]

    理查森接着分析了315次冲突（没有计算机辅助运算），对人类暴力进行了全景俯视，测试了历史学家建议的和他自己偏爱的几种假说。[32]大部分假说都没有经受住数据的检验。同文同种并没有减少让分裂的两派开战的机会（想想大部分内战，还有19世纪南美各国之间的战争吧），尽管很多人对世界语抱着这样的希望——“世界语”（Esperanto）的本意就是“希望”。经济指标也不能给出任何战争预测，比如，富国并不必然向穷国开战，反之亦然。一般地说，军备竞赛也不能预测战争。

    但是，有几个一般性规律被证明是存在的。一个长期稳定的政府可以抑制冲突：国境一侧的人民发生内战的可能性比起另一侧的人民发生国家间战争的可能性小。国家一般是和邻国发生冲突，而大国则会和所有人发生冲突，主要原因是幅员辽阔的帝国让几乎所有人都成了它们的邻国。特定的文化，特别是那些具有军国主义意识形态的文化，特别易于卷入战争。

    但是，理查森那些最具长远意义的发现是关于战争的统计规律。他的概括是坚实的、深远的，但是没有受到世人的重视。为了理解他的发现，我们必须先了解一下概率悖论。

    * * *

    假定你生活在一个地方，在一年到头任何时间里都有被雷电击中的机会。假定被雷电击中是随机的：每天被雷电击中的机会都是一样的，击中率是每个月一次。你的房子今天，星期一，被雷电击中了，那么下一个最有可能被雷电击中的日子是哪一天？

    答案是“明天”，星期二。肯定，这个概率并不大；粗略估计为0.03（即一个月一次）。现在来看看明天之后你的房子最有可能被雷电击中的那一天，星期三。让这件事发生，要满足两个条件。一是雷电必须在星期三击中你的房子，其概率为0.03。二是雷电没有在星期二击中你的房子，否则星期二就是发生第二次雷击的日子，而不是星期三。为了计算概率，你必须用雷电不会在星期二击中房子的概率（0.97或者1-0.03）乘以雷电在星期三击中房子的概率（0.03），得出的结果是0.0291，比星期二遭受雷击的概率略小。那么，星期四会怎么样？如果星期四是第二个遭受雷击的日子，其概率是，星期二不会遭到雷击（0.97）或者星期三不会遭到雷击（也是0.97），但是一定要在星期四遭到雷击，所以机会是0.97 ×0.97 ×0.03，结果是0.0282。星期五呢？星期五成为第二个被雷电击中的日子的概率是0.97 ×0.97 ×0.97 ×0.03，或者是0.0274。随着时间推移，概率呈现下降趋势（0.03……0.0291……0.0282……0.0274），因为假定某天为下一个被雷电击中的日子，所以在这天之前的每一天都不能被雷电击中，这样不能被雷电击中的日子越多，所以时间越推移，概率越小。确切地说，概率呈指数级下降，即以加速度下降。而从今天起30天后的概率是0.9729 ×0.03，略高于0.01或1%。

    几乎没有人知道正确的计算结果。我向100名互联网用户发出问卷，用斜体表明“下一个”以免读者疏漏。67位选择了“每一天的概率是一样的”。虽然直觉上这个答案很有说服力，但却是错误的。如果每一天成为下一个被雷电击中的日子的概率一样，今天起1000年后的那一天的概率和一个月后那一天的概率就会是一样的，也就是说，这所房子1000年不被雷电击中的概率和下个月被雷击中的概率是一样的。在其他回答问卷的人中，19人认为房子最有可能成为第二个被雷电击中的日子是一个月之后。100个人中只有5个人正确地猜出答案是“明天”。

    雷击这个统计概率典型被统计学家叫作“泊松过程”，以19世纪数学家和物理学家西蒙-丹尼斯·泊松（Siméon-Denis Poisson）的名字命名。在泊松过程中，事件发生是连续的、随机的和相互独立的。天神朱庇特每时每刻都在掷骰子，如果骰子的蛇眼向上，他就甩出一道雷电。在接下来的一刻，他又掷下了骰子，对刚才发生的事情完全没有记忆。根据我们看到的原因，在一个泊松过程中，两个事件之间的间隔呈指数分布：存在很多的小间隔，间隔越长，间隔的数目就越少。这也就是说，随机发生的事件，看起来呈现集簇的形态，因为将事件分离开需要的是一个非随机过程。

    人类的头脑在欣赏这样的概率论上是很有困难的。我读研究生时曾经在一个听觉感知实验室工作。在一项实验中，要求听众在听见信号“嘟嘟”时尽快按下一个按钮。“嘟嘟”声发出的时间是随机的，也就是说，是根据泊松过程设计的。听众——也都是研究生——完全清楚这个情况，但是，实验一开始，他们就跑出实验站报告说：“你们的随机发生器坏了。发出的 ‘嘟嘟 ’声都是突发的。听起来是 ‘嘟嘟嘟嘟嘟……嘟……嘟嘟……嘟叭嘟叭嘟嘟嘟’。”他们不理解这正是随机产生的声音。

    1968年，这个认知错觉才第一次被数学家威廉·费勒（William Fel-ler）写进他的概率论教科书：“在没有受过训练的人看来，随机看来就是规则或趋势，而不是集簇。”[33]这里有几个集簇错觉的例子。

    伦敦大轰炸。费勒回忆说，第二次世界大战中伦敦大轰炸期间，伦敦人注意到，市内有几个地区遭到德国V-2火箭的多次袭击，而其他地区则完全没有。他们相信这些火箭是有目标的，针对某些特定的社区。但当统计学家将伦敦的地图划分成小方块，然后点算遭到轰炸的次数时，他们发现轰炸符合泊松过程的分布——换句话说，炸弹的落点是随机的。托马斯·品钦（Thomas Pynchon）在1973年将这个情节写进了他的小说《万有引力之虹》（Gravity..s Rainbow），书中的统计学家罗杰·墨西哥准确地预测了轰炸的分布，虽然不是精确到点。墨西哥不得不一边澄清他不是特异通灵的人，另一边推掉那些想知道何处可以藏身的迫切请求。

    赌徒谬误。很多豪赌客闹到倾家荡产都是因为“赌徒谬误”。他们相信，在撞运气的游戏中（比如猜轮盘赌中的红字，或者骰子上的数字7），如果出现一连串相同的结果，下一次摇盘或掷骰子的结果就会不一样。特沃斯基和卡尼曼证实，人们认为掷硬币得出的真实序列（比如：反反正正反正反反反反）是人为的，因为硬币正面或反面连续出现的次数太多，超过了人们直觉允许的范围，人们反而认为一个人为操纵的序列（比如：正反正反反正反正正反）是真实的，因为其中没有出现太多连续的正面或反面。[34]

    生日佯谬。如果至少有23个人共处一室，那么其中两个人生日相同的概率大于50%。大部分人对这个结果都感到吃惊。而人数达到57人，两人生日相同的概率上升到99%。在这个案例中，错觉集簇是日历。因为生日可能性最多只有这么多（366），所以一年之中总有一些人的生日会在同一天，除非有什么神秘的力量将它们拉开。

    星座。我最喜欢的实例是生物学家古尔德（Stephen Jay Gould）在萤火虫洞旅游时得到的一项发现。这个著名的萤火虫岩洞在新西兰的怀托莫。[35]在岩洞黑暗的天顶上，布满了星星点点的萤火虫。岩洞仿佛一个天文馆，唯一的不同是，“星空”上没有星座。古尔德探究了其中的奥妙。萤火虫是真正的饕餮之辈，不会放过任何伸手可及的食物，所以落在天顶上的昆虫相互间保有一定的距离。这就让它们的分布比天空上的星星更均匀。从我们所站的位置看，星星是随机散落在天幕上的。但是，星星的排列似乎是有形状的，比如公羊、公牛、双子等等。数千年来，人类渴望规律的大脑一直将这些形象视为皇皇奇观。古尔德的同事、物理学家爱德华·珀塞尔（Ed Purcell）用计算机程序制作了两幅随机点状图，印证了古尔德的直觉。这些虚拟的星星溅落在纸上，没有任何约束条件。而虚拟的萤火虫则需要周围有一些小小的空间，这点儿空间是不可侵犯的。结果见图5-5，你们应该能够猜出哪张是星空，哪张是萤火虫。左图上面有团块、线状、空白和丝纹（也许，根据你们的嗜好，还有动物、裸体或者圣母马利亚），正如天空上的星星，这是随机产生的图形。右图似乎是漫无目的，但实际上每个点之间的距离是有意识的安排，比如岩洞天顶上的萤火虫。

    图5-5 随机图像和非随机图像

    资料来源：珀塞尔编制，根据古尔德1991年的文章，第266~267页。

    理查森的数据。我要给出的最后一个例子也是来自物理学家、我们的老朋友刘易斯·弗里·理查森。这些都是来自自然现象的真实数据。图5-6中线段的长度代表不同持续时间的事件，它们在时间上从左向右排列，在大小上从下至上排列。理查森表明，这些事件之间的关联是泊松过程：它们的开始和结束都是随机的。你也许觉得你看出了某种规律，比如，左上方出现大片的空白，右上方有两条漂浮物。但是，你应该已经学会不要轻信这些表象。而理查森也确实证明，自始至终，在强度分布上，不存在具有统计学意义的趋势。如果你用拇指盖住右上角的两条浮线，那就完全是一幅随机的图像了。

    你也许已经猜到了这是什么数据。每一个线段都是一场战争。横轴是时间，从1800年至1950年，以25年为单位。竖轴是战争强度的数量级，根据死亡人数的十进对数做标度，从最小的2开始（死亡100人）到最高的8（死亡100万人）。右上角的两条线是第一次世界大战和第二次世界大战。

    理查森最主要的发现是，战争爆发的时间是随机的。战神马尔斯不断地掷铁制的骰子，每一次蛇眼向上，他就派出两个国家开战。接着他继续掷骰子，但是对刚才发生过的事情毫无记忆。结果，两场战争开战之间的间隔呈指数分布，有大量的短间隔以及少量的长间隔。

    图5-6 理查森的数据

    资料来源：哈耶斯根据理查森1960年的数据制图，2002年。

    对战争的历史叙事认为星座是虚幻的星系团，但战争的泊松性质破坏了历史叙事，同时混淆了在人类历史上看到的宏大模式、周期和辩证法这些理论。一次恐怖的冲突不会让世界就此厌倦战争，哪怕是暂停片刻，在和平中缓缓气儿。地球也不会因为两个交战国一阵咳嗽，就被传染上战争瘟疫，发作起来不可收拾。和平中的世界不会积攒起越来越沉重的战争渴望，仿佛无法忽视的瘙痒，最终只能在冲动的爆发中得到释放。事实的确不是这样。战神一直在掷骰子。在理查森进行研究的同时和之后，由其他人整理出的数个战争数据库，全部支持同样的结论。[36]

    理查森发现，不仅战争的爆发是随机的，战争的结束也是随机的。和平女神帕克斯也在不断地掷骰子，只要双六向上，战争双方就放下武器，铸剑为犁。理查森看到，一场（数量级为3）小规模战争开战之后，每一年它都有略低于一半的机会（0.43）结束。这就意味着大部分战争会持续两年多一点儿的时间，对不对？如果你点头称是，那说明你没有集中注意力！因为战争在每一年结束的概率是一个常数，或称一个常概率，那么战争最有可能在第一年之后结束，在两年之内结束的可能性略小一点儿，战争延续进入第三年的可能性还要更小一点儿。以此类推，可能性是逐年下降的。同样的结论也适用于较大规模（数量级为4至7）的战争，这个规模的战争在开战第一年后结束的概率为0.235。战争的时间长度呈指数分布，最短的战争也是最常见的战争。[37]这就告诉我们，战争状态下的国家不是非要“排除体制中的好战因素”才会恢复理智，战争并没有什么“势头”，不是必须“自我发泄”。战争一开始，那些反战的综合力量——和平主义、恐惧和溃败——就开始推动战争的结束。[38]

    如果战争的开始和结束都是随机的，我们来寻找战争中的历史趋势，是否毫无意义呢？我们的工作绝不是毫无意义的。泊松过程中的“随机性”定义的是连续事件之间的关系，也就是说事件前后之间没有联系：事件的发动机，例如骰子，是没有记忆的。但是，这绝不是说这一概率将长时间保持为一个常数。战神可以变换开战的号令，比如，开战号令从蛇眼向上改为数字加总为3、6或者7。任何变换都会改变战争发生的概率，但其随机性仍然不变，即一场战争的爆发不会增加或减少另一场战争的可能性。具有漂移可能性的泊松过程被称为非平稳过程。战争的概率可能在某个历史时期出现下降沉寂，但接着又死灰复燃。它有可能是一个非稳定的泊松过程，并带有一个代表速度递减的参数。

    同理，战争的数学可能性既是一个泊松过程，也显示出周期性。理论上，战神可能出现摇摆，导致掷骰子的3%是战争，然后变成6%是战争，后来又回到3%是战争。实际上，非稳定泊松过程中的周期和稳定性泊松过程中的集簇错觉是很难区分的。几个集簇也许蒙蔽人们的眼睛，以为看到了整个系统的兴衰（比如商业周期，实际上是经济活动无法预知的波动排序，而不是一个真正有固定周期的循环）。有一些很好的统计方法可以测试时间序列数据中的周期性，但是这些方法在分析长期数据时才最有效，其时间要求之长远远超过我们所寻找的循环周期，因此它有足够的空间容纳许多假定的周期。为了保证结论的可信度，最好有第二套数据做平行分析，这样我们就能避免被“过度拟合”的周期假象蒙蔽，错将某一数据集合中的随机集簇看作有规律的周期。理查森研究了量级为3、4和5的战争的几种可能的周期（量级更高的战争数量不足以支撑这样的测试），而他没有找到任何周期。对其他更长时间数据的分析，可以辨认的周期有5年、15年、20年、24年、30年、50年、60年、120年和200年。面对如此之多面目不清的备选，最稳妥的结论是，战争完全没有明显的周期。大部分以计量方法研究战争的历史学家都同意这一结论。[39]社会学家皮蒂里姆·索罗金（Pitirim Sorokin）是另一位对战争进行计量研究的先驱，他总结说：“历史看起来既不单调和缺乏创意，仿佛是严格周期律、‘铁律 ’和 ‘普遍一致性 ’的忠实代言人，也不像一台引擎那样刻板和机械，在一个单位时间内只能制造一定量的革命。”[40]

    * * *

    那么，20世纪的“血流成河”是否有某种偶发性呢？似乎人们只是这样动一动念头，就是对战争受难者的巨大侮辱。但是，“致命冲突”的统计规律不是一定要推出这样的结论。只要时间足够长，事件的随机性完全可以和不断变化的概率共生。可以肯定，与其他时期相比，20世纪30年代的某些概率显然是有其特殊性的。纳粹认为入侵波兰名正言顺，因为这是为了给“优等种族”的雅利安人获取生存空间，这和灭绝“劣等种族”的犹太人是同一种意识形态。在当时的德意日三国，军国主义都是汹汹涌动的潮流。在纳粹和某些思潮背后，其共同的特性就是反启蒙运动的乌托邦主义。即使从长期看，战争的发生都是随机分布的，偶尔也会有例外。比如，“一战”的爆发就可以说是增加了欧洲爆发“二战”的可能性。

    但从统计学的角度看，特别是考虑到集簇错觉，我们往往会夸大历史的逻辑连贯——认为历史的力量是按照循环、渐强和冲突这些程式进行运动，因此所有已经发生的事情都是必然要发生的。即使所有的概率都指向同一方向，一场死亡量级为6或7的大战仍然需要某些突发事件进行引爆，而如果我们能够回放历史的话，这些导火索事件不一定会再次发生。

    1999年，怀特回答了一个在那一年被人们反复提到的问题：“谁是20世纪最重要的人物？”他说是加夫里洛·普林齐普（Gavrilo Princip）。这个家伙又是谁呢？他是19岁的塞尔维亚民族主义者，刺杀了在波斯尼亚进行国事访问的奥匈帝国王储弗朗茨·斐迪南大公。因为一系列的错误和意外，大公被送进了刺客的射击范围。怀特对自己的选择给出了解释：

    这个人独自挑起了一个巨大的链式反应，最终导致8000万人死亡。

    你行吗，阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦？！

    仅仅用了几颗小小的子弹，这个恐怖分子打响了第一次世界大战，摧毁了四个君主国，留下巨大的真空，让纳粹把持了德国，继而走向第二次世界大战……

    有些人想贬低普林齐普的重要性，说在当时的紧张局势下，一场“世界大战”迟早不可避免，但是，我要说，没有任何事情比北约集团和华沙集团之间的战争更不可避免了。如果没有塞尔维亚人打响的第一枪，世界大战是可能避免的，而没有这场大战，就不会有列宁，不会有希特勒，也不会有艾森豪威尔。[41]

    其他喜欢设想与现实相反情形的历史学家，比如理查德·内德·勒博（Richard Ned Lebow），持有类似的观点。[42]至于第二次世界大战，历史学家F. H.欣斯利（F. H. Hinsley）写道：“历史学家正确地几乎是一致地同意……第二次世界大战的起因是阿道夫·希特勒的个性和人生目标。”基根对此表示同意，他说：“只有一个欧洲人真正希望战争——阿道夫·希特勒。”[43]社会科学家约翰·穆勒总结说：

    这些意见表明，欧洲本来不存在卷入另一次世界大战的动力，历史没有要求决战，欧洲各国也没有进入必然引致战争的冲突轨道。也就是说，如果希特勒从事艺术，而不是政治；或者1918年战壕中英国人的毒气弹更有效一点；或者在1923年啤酒馆政变中，是希特勒，而不是走在他身边的其他人被机关枪击中；或者希特勒在1930年的车祸中一命归天；或者，德国人民拒绝他成为国家元首，或者在1939年9月之前（甚至在1940年5月之前）的任何时间将他赶下台，欧洲这场史无前例的大劫难都很可能不会发生。[44]

    所以，纳粹的种族灭绝也很可能不会发生。我们在下一章中会看到，大多数研究种族灭绝的历史学家都同意社会学家米尔顿·希默尔法布（Milton Himmelfarb）1984年论文的标题：“没有希特勒，就没有集中营。”[45]

    概率是人类观察事物的一个角度。从足够近的距离观察，个别事件有其特定的原因。甚至投掷硬币的结果也是可以根据初始条件和物理学定律进行预测的，一个魔术师可以利用这些定律，每一次都得到正面向上的结果。[46]但当我们拉远镜头，对大量的事件做广角观察的时候，我们看见无数的因素有时在互相抵消，有时又朝同一方向排列。物理学家和哲学家亨利·庞加莱（Henri Poincaré）对此解释说：在一个决定论的世界里，我们所谓的把握时机，或者是大量微小的因素汇聚为一个强大的效果，或者是我们疏忽了的某个小因素决定了一个我们无法忽视的大效果。[47]在有组织的暴力活动中，某人想启动战争，他伺机而动，也许有机会，但也许没有机会；他的对手则要决定是应战还是逃避；枪林弹雨，爆炸声震耳欲聋，人命贱如草芥。这些事件受神经科学、物理学和心理学定律的支配。但在总体上，众多因素拥进一个矩阵，有时在最后会导致一些极端的结果。不论是何种意识形态的、政治的和社会的潮流，它们共同将20世纪上半叶的世界带到危险之中。就在这几十年间，人类遭遇了一连串厄运。

    * * *

    现在，我们看看最关键的问题：随着时间的推移，爆发战争的概率是增加了、减少了，还是维持不变？理查森的数据是有偏差的，它指示发生战争的概率指向增加的方向。数据的起点在拿破仑战争之后，刚好切掉这场创纪录的恶战，终点截至人类历史上最具破坏性的大战——第二次世界大战。理查森没能在有生之年看见人类的“长期和平”——这已然持续了几十年。但是他作为数学家的机敏，让他知道在统计概率上存在长期和平的可能性。他设计了巧妙的方法测试时间序列上的战争趋势，排除了他的数据中前后两端的极端事件可能造成的误导。最简单的莫过于将战争按照量级分组，根据分组分别测度发展趋势。在5个分组（量级3到7）中，他都没有看到任何有意义的趋势。如果一定要说些什么，他看到了一点点下降的趋势。他写道：“虽然不能作为一个结论性的证明，但数据显示，自从1820年以来，人类变得不那么好战了。最清晰的观察结果是战争的数量随时间推移而有所减少……但是，在随机变量中差异不够大，所以结果很不明显。”[48]欧亚战火余烬犹在，理查森就写下这番话，这无疑证明一位伟大的科学家要以事实与理性克服印象和成见的愿望。

    我们将会看到，使用其他数据对战争频率所做的分析也得出了相似的结论。[49]但是战争发生的频率不是故事的全部，战争的量级也非常重要。如果有人说，理查森认为人类的好战心在减弱，他的推测所依据的是将两场世界大战归入一个子类，而这个子类只有两个数据，因此统计分析是毫无意义的，那么这个人的错误是可以理解的。理查森的其他分析将所有的战争一视同仁，即第二次世界大战与1952年导致1000人死亡的玻利维亚革命战争没有分别。理查森的儿子已经向他指出，如果将战争数据分为大小两类，那么这两类战争的趋势是相反的：小规模战争的发生频率明显在下降，但是大规模战争则不然，虽然战争的数目不大，但频率却是增加的。另外还有一种解释是，1820—1953年的战争频率下降了，但是战争更严酷了。理查森检测了这两个相反的规律，发现它在统计上是有意义的。[50]下一节我将告诉大家，这也是一个非常巧妙的结论：其他数据证明，直到1945年，欧洲的战争和其他大国之间的战争总体上是数量减少了，但破坏程度增大了。

    那么，人类是更加好战了还是不那么好战了？对此没有单一的回答，因为“好战”可以有两个意思。它可以指一个国家有多大的可能性卷入战争，也可以指当它卷入战争时有多少人会丧命。设想两个同等人口规模的农村乡镇，其中一个乡镇有100名喜欢在森林放火的青少年。森林都是独立的地块，所以每一次放火后，大火会自己熄灭，没有太大的损失。而另一个乡镇只有两个纵火犯，但是它的森林是连成片的，任何小火苗都有可能演变成铺天盖地的森林大火。哪个乡镇的森林火灾更严重呢？答案可以是此，也可以是彼。如果考虑的是无法无天的混账程度，那么第一个乡镇的问题更严重。但如果考虑的是受损的严重程度，那就是第二个乡镇的问题更严重。事实上，两个乡镇中哪一个的总损失更大，是遭受了很多起小火灾的乡镇，还是遭受了几起大火灾的乡镇，也是不能一概而论的。为了理解这些问题，我们必须将对时间序列数据的统计分析转向对量级数据的统计分析。

    对致命冲突的统计Ⅱ：战争的量级

    在计算每个量级上的战争数量时——有多少场导致千人死亡的战争，多少场导致万人死亡的战争，多少场导致10万人死亡的战争，等等，理查森有了他的第二个重大发现。计算的结果是有很多小规模战争和屈指可数的大规模战争，这并非完全出人意料。真正让人惊异的是每一个量级的战争之间的对比如此整洁清晰。理查森将致命冲突的数量记录和死亡人数记录（即量级本身）绘制在一起的时候，就得到了图5-7。

    研究自然科学，例如物理学的科学家，早已习惯看见他们的数据呈现完美的直线，比如气体的体积与温度之间的关系。但是他们无论如何也无法想象一团乱麻般的历史数据竟然也可以有这样完美的表现。我们从中看到的数据，从规模上看，既有人类历史上最血腥的恶战，也有丛林小国的军事政变；从时间上看，则涵盖了从工业革命的开端一直到计算机时代的降临。当看到根据这些数据画出的平滑的对角线时，有谁不目瞪口呆呢？

    图5-7 1820—1952年不同量级的致命冲突的数量

    资料来源：韦斯改编，1963年，第103页；理查森的数据，1960年，第149页。1820—1952年，按战争结束年计算。

    一个特定事件的发生频率和这一事件的规模呈比例关系，在双对数坐标图上，图形呈一条直线，即称为幂律分布。[51]之所以称为幂律分布，是因为当抛开对数标度，回到原始数据时，事件发生的概率与事件的规模两个变量之间呈比例关系，即后者乘以某次幂（即坐标图上斜线的斜率），加上一个常数等于前者。在我们的案例中，幂为-1.5，意思是战争死亡人数每上升10倍，战争发生的概率下降至前一期的1/3。理查森将谋杀（暴力的量级为0）也放进了这个战争图表，因为它在性质上完全符合同一规律：它的破坏程度比最小的战争还要小，发作的频率却比战争高很多。但是，你可以看见，它孤独地高悬在竖轴的上方，远远偏离战争趋势的外推线。在这样的情况下，理查森仍然坚持说所有的“致命冲突”都在一条连续线上，未免显得有些强词夺理。理查森不屈不挠地将谋杀“点”与战争“线”用一条陡峭的曲线连接起来，这样他的数据里就可以植入死亡以个位、十位和百位计的冲突统计，而这些数据在历史资料中是不存在的。（这些小冲突都在“军事水平线”之下，正好落入犯罪学和历史研究之间的空当。）不过，让我们放下这些谋杀和小冲突，集中观察战争部分。

    理查森的样本是否只是一个意外？50年之后，政治学家拉斯-埃里克·塞德曼（Lars-Erik Cederman）使用“战争相关项目”（Correlates of War Project）的主要战争死亡数据，绘制了1820—1997年97场国家之间战争的统计趋势图（图5-8）。[52]在双对数坐标中，这些数据也呈现出一条向下的斜线。（塞德曼绘图的方式略有不同，但不影响我们得到所需要的结论。）[53]

    图5-8 1820—1997年不同量级的战争概率

    资料来源：塞德曼图表，2003年，第136页

    科学家之所以对幂律分布感到着迷，有两个原因。[54]一是在衡量一些你认为毫无关联的事件时，不断地呈现出这一分布状态。最早的一个幂律分布是语言学家齐普夫（G. K. Zipf）在20世纪30年代发现的，当时他针对英语词汇的使用频率绘制了统计图表。[55]如果对一个大型的语料库进行统计分析，人们会发现大约有十几个词的使用极其频繁，即在全部词语中，它们的使用频率超过1%，包括the（7%）、be（4%）、of（4%）、and（3%）和a（2%）。[56]有大约3000个词为中度使用频率，即万分之一，这样的词有“信心”（confidence）、“少年”（junior）和“担心”（afraid）。还有数万个词的使用频率只有百万分之一，包括“使怨恨”（embitter）、“递交请愿书”（memorialize）和“有名衔的”（titu-lar）。最后还有数十万个使用频率远远低于百万分之一的词，比如“险境”（kankedort）、“能驱邪的”（apotropaic）和“液化”（deliquesce）。

    另外一个幂律分布的案例是经济学家维尔弗雷多·帕累托在1906年发现的。他在观察意大利的收入分配时发现，一小撮人巨富，大众则极端贫困。自这些发现问世之后，在其他领域也找到了各种幂律分布，比如城市人口、常用的姓名、网站受欢迎的程度、学术论文的引用数量、图书和音乐的销售量、生物种群中物种的数量，以及月球陨石坑的大小。[57]

    幂律分布的第二个显著特征是，在一个巨大的值域内，所有的幂律分布看起来都是一样的。要理解这一特征的重要性，让我们比较一下幂律分布和一个大家更熟悉的所谓“正态分布”——高斯分布，或“钟形曲线”。测量男性的身高，或者统计高速公路上的车行速度，大部分数据都围绕着一个均值，并向两侧逐渐下降，曲线的形状如同钟形。[58]图5-9显示的是美国男性的身高分布。大量男性的身高在5英尺10英寸（179厘米）左右，少数在5英尺6英寸（169厘米）或6英尺2英寸（189厘米），极少数男性的身高在5英尺（152.5厘米）或6英尺8英寸（203厘米）。没有人的身高低于1英尺11英寸（约58厘米），也没有人的身高高于8英尺11英寸（272厘米）（这是《吉尼斯世界纪录》中的两个特例）。世界上最高个男子的身高和最矮个男子的身高之比是4.8，而你可以打赌你永远也不会撞见20英尺（608厘米）高的男人。

    图5-9 男性身高（一个正态分布，或钟形曲线分布）

    资料来源：纽曼制图，2005年，第324页。

    但是，对于其余的事件，测量数据并不是围绕一个典型值形成高点，不是在两侧对称下滑，也并非都限制在一个适度的小区间内。城镇的规模就是一个例子。“美国典型的城市有多大规模”是一个很难回答的问题。纽约有800万人口，而根据《吉尼斯世界纪录》，美国最小的城市是一个小“镇”——弗吉尼亚州的达菲尔德（Duffield），人口仅有52人。最大城市的人口规模是最小城市的15万倍，与男子身高的5倍之差相去甚远。

    而且，城市人口规模的分布不是钟形曲线。如图5-10所示，这个分布是L形曲线，左侧立着陡直的脊背，右侧拖着平缓的尾巴。在图中，城市的人口按照黑色横轴上的常规线性标度排列：10万人口的城市、20万人口的城市等。所以，黑色竖轴上是不同人口规模的城市在总城市的比重，0.003%的美国城市有2万人口，0.002%的美国城市有3万人口，0.001%的美国城市有4万人口，等等。城市的人口规模越大，城市的数量就越少。[59]我们再来看灰色的坐标，灰色横轴和竖轴上的标度是用对数标度衡量同一组数据，即按照量级（数据中零的位数）排列。城市的人口标度按照1万、10万、100万和1000万排开。同样，不同人口规模的城市在总城市中的比重按照量级刻度排列：0.01%（1万分之一）、0.001%（10万分之一）、0.0001%（100万分之一）等。随着两个坐标轴的伸延，开始出现一个有趣的现象：L形曲线被拉成一条几乎平滑的斜线。这就是典型幂律分布的特征。

    图5-10 城市人口（一个幂律分布）、线性尺度和对数尺度

    资料来源：根据纽曼改编，2005年，第324页。

    这就将我们带回了战争。因为战争也呈幂律分布，幂律分布的某些数学性质可以帮助我们理解战争的性质和引发战争的机制。首先，从战争数据的幂指数分布看，它没有均值。也就是说，没有一场战争可以称为“典型的战争”。我们不能期待，一场战争将一直打到某个伤亡水平——或者某个平均伤亡水平，然后就会自然地减缓结束。

    其次，幂律分布与规模无关。当你将双对数坐标图的曲线上移或者下移，它看起来都是一样的，就是一条线。这一性质的数学含义是，无论放大或缩小观测的单位，观测对象的分布形态均不变。假定在常用性上，2KB（千字节）的计算机文件是1KB文件常用性的1/4，那么，2MB（兆字节）的文件就是1MB的1/4。在战争问题上，你也可以这样看。从一场1000人死亡的小规模战争发展为一场1万人死亡的中型战争的概率是多少？它和从一场中型战争变为一场10万人死亡的大规模战争的概率，甚至从10万人死亡的大规模战争演变为创历史纪录的百万人死亡的大战，或者变成一场世界大战的概率，是一样的。

    最后，幂律分布有“长尾”（亦称“厚尾”），即它们有相当数量的极端值。你永远都不会见到一个身高20英尺（超过5米）的巨人，也不可能在公路上看见一辆车车速达到每小时800公里。但是，你很有可能见过有1400万人口的大都市，或者见过一本在畅销书排行榜上盘踞10年之久的好书，或者用肉眼观察到月球上一个巨大的陨石坑——或者一场导致5500万人殒命的世界大战。

    当你飞速提高量级标度时，幂律分布的长尾缓慢地而不是急速地下降，这意味着极端值发生的概率极小，但并非小到完全不可能。这是一个非常重要的区别。你遇见一个身高5米的人的概率是小到完全不可能的，你完全可以用生命打赌，这是永远也不会发生的。但是，一个城市的人口增长超过2000万，或者一本书在畅销书排行榜上停留20年，仅仅是极端不可能发生——也就是说，可能不会发生，但你还是可以想象它会发生。我用不着解释长尾在战争分析上的意义了。世界发生死亡1亿人的战争的可能性是极端不可能的，发生死亡10亿人的战争的可能性就更小了。但是在核武器时代，我们可怕的想象力和幂律分布的数学含义都表示，这不是完全不可能的。

    到目前为止，我已经以柏拉图式的抽象方法讨论了战争的起因，好像军队是被数学方程式送上战场似的。我们确实需要理解战争本身为什么呈幂律分布，即什么样的心理学、政治学和技术的结合会产生这样的规律。此刻我们还不知道答案是什么。有太多的机制能够产生幂律分布，而战争数据又不够精确，无法告诉我们到底哪一种机制在起作用。

    但是，战争幂律分布与规模无关的性质，还是向我们透露了各种战争动力的内幕。[60]直觉地看，这是表示规模无关紧要。无论是街头混混、民兵或者是大国正规军等，这些争斗联盟在权衡是应该威胁还是后撤，或是虚张声势，是应战升级、坚持战斗还是投降时，决策背后的心理过程和博弈过程都是一样的。这大概是因为人类是社会动物，所以聚众结盟，再合并为大联盟和更大的联盟。但在任何一个规模上，这些联盟都是被一个小集团或者一个人送上战场的，他们可以是流氓头子、黑帮首领、军阀、国王或者皇帝。

    对于幂律分布的武力冲突模型中的规模无关这一直觉知识，我们应该如何理解呢？[61]最简单的办法就是假定这些联盟自己在规模上都呈幂律分布，它们相互之间的冲突与它们的数量成比例，它们遭受的损失与它们各自的规模成比例。我们知道一些人类的聚集，比如城市，呈幂律分布，也知道其中的道理。幂律分布最主要的起因之一是偏好依附（preferential attachment）：一个东西越大，它吸引的新成员就越多。偏好依附也被称为累积优势，“富人越富”和“马太效应”——对《新约·马太福音》第25章第29节，比利·霍利迪这样总结说：“得到了的还要再得到，没有得到的却要再失去。”热门网站吸引更多的访客，成为更热门的网站；畅销书上了销售排行榜，诱惑更多的人来买书；大城市人口众多，因此能提供更多的专业和文化机会，也就有更多的人涌入大城市。（你怎么能够让见识过巴黎的人留守乡下？）

    理查森考虑过这个简单的答案，但是发现答案与数据不符。[62]如果争斗代表城市规模，那么争斗的规模每缩小至原来的1/10，数量应该增长10倍，但实际情况是，数量增长了不到4倍。此外，在最近几百年来的战争中，战争的参与者是国家而不是城市，国家是呈对数正态分布（一个扭曲的钟形曲线），而不是呈幂律分布。

    复杂系统科学提出了另外一种机制，这门科学研究的是类似结构形态的控制规律，尽管这些结构由不同的物质组成。许多研究复杂性理论的专家最感兴趣的是显现出被称作“自组织临界条件”形态的系统。你可以将“临界条件”理解为压垮骆驼的最后一根稻草：一个小输入引发一个突发的大输出。“自组织”临界条件则是指一头骆驼背上的创伤刚刚愈合，体力稍有恢复，恢复的程度恰好能够让同一根稻草把它再次压倒。典型的例子是细流堆沙，当细细的沙流从上方落到沙堆的顶部，间歇地引起不同规模的沙堆滑坡；滑坡的分布符合幂律分布。随着滑坡，沙堆的坡度变缓，到一定程度时，流沙滑坡就会停止；但是随着新的沙流落下，沙堆的坡度再次逐渐变陡，直到触发一场新的沙崩。还有地震和森林火灾的案例。火灾烧毁森林后，新的树木随机生长，形成新的树丛，枝干互相交错攀附，为下一次火灾准备燃料。好几位政治学家都根据森林火灾原理，开发出计算机模拟的战争模型。[63]在这些模型中，一些国家征服周边国家，形成更大的国家，就像一片树丛繁衍生长侵入另一片树丛，形成更大的树丛。只消扔进一个烟头，就能引起灌木燃烧或者熊熊的森林大火；而在他们的模型中，一件打破各国之间均衡的事件，就可以触发一场冲突或者一场世界大战。

    在这些模拟过程中，战争的破坏性主要取决于参战方和它们盟友的疆土规模。但在现实世界，破坏性变量还取决于交战双方都希望对手先崩溃而坚持战斗的决心。当代历史上最血腥的冲突，比如美国内战、第一次世界大战、越南战争和两伊战争，都是消耗战，双方不断地向战争绞肉机中填入人力和物力，希望对方先被拖垮。

    约翰·梅纳德·史密斯是第一位将博弈论应用到进化论中的生物学家，用消耗战博弈为这种僵持状态建立了模型。[64]交战双方展开的是资源竞争，各方都期望自己能坚持到最后，在等待中成本越积越高。最初的状态是，它们就像大型甲壳动物争夺地盘，双方怒目而视，直到一方撤出；成本就是动物在僵持期间浪费的时间和能量，它们本来可以用这些时间去觅食和寻偶。消耗战博弈在数学上相当于这样一种拍卖，即两个出价人中出高价者赢得拍品，但双方都要支付失败者的低出价。当然，用这样的博弈来分析战争，叫价之后支付的是士兵的生命。

    “消耗战”是博弈论中最自相矛盾的情况之一（正如“囚徒博弈”、“公地悲剧”和“一美元钞票竞拍”）。在这些博弈中，理性人追求各自的利益，但其结果却远远不如他们合作达成一个有约束力的协议。你可能认为，消耗战博弈中的各方应该接受eBay（易贝网）对买家的忠告：确定竞拍品的价值，出价绝对不超过这个限度。问题是，其他投标人也是按照同样的战略进行博弈。只需要再加价一美元（或者再多等待一分钟，或者再多派出一批士兵进入战场），他就赢了。他拿到战利品，他所支付的代价与你心目中的估价相差无几，而你落得两手空空，还必须付出你报出的估价。你是绝对不会让这样的事情发生的，所以你就想到采用“永远比对手多出一美元”的战略。你会看到这样做的结局是什么。正是因为消耗战博弈中的逻辑悖论，即失败者一样要支付代价，所以投标人会在出价超过竞拍品价值之后仍然坚持叫价。尽管谁都已经不可能取胜了，但是各方都还希望损失不要太大。在博弈论中，这类结果的术语是“灾难现象”。这也被称为“皮洛士的胜利——得不偿失的胜利”，这个军事比喻的含义极为深远。

    消耗战博弈演化出这样一种战略，即交战各方都要等待一段时间，时间的长短是随机决定的，等候的平均时间长度也可以代表相应的资源。从长期来看，各方的付出都得到了理想的回报，但是因为等待的时间长短是随机的，没有人能够预计对方投降的时间，也就不知道何时才能耗过对方。换句话说，它们遵守这样的规则：每时每刻都在掷骰子，如果它们都是（比如说）4，让步；如果不是，接着再掷一次骰子。结果当然是一个泊松过程，所以你应该知道，等待的时间呈指数分布（因为掷骰子得到双4的机会越来越小，需要等待的时间也就越来越长）。既然战争要等到其中一方认输的那一刻才告终止，那么战争的长度也呈指数分布。让我们回到战争模型，它以士兵的性命而不是分钟、秒钟为代价，如果真正的消耗战就像是博弈论中的“消耗战”一样，假定其他条件不变，那么消耗战将呈现量级指数分布。

    当然，真实的战争不是呈指数分布，而是呈幂律分布，带有一条长长的尾巴（在此，就意味着更大数量的大战）。但是，如果数值被二次指数过程调整后向相反的方向推移，指数分布可以变化为幂律分布。消耗战博弈可以有这样的转折。如果消耗战博弈中的一方在某个时刻哆嗦了一下或者面色变得惨白，或者表现出其他神经紧张的迹象，由此透露出让步的意向，那么，对手会利用这一“示意”，再多等片刻，取得最后的胜利，而且屡战屡胜，百试不爽。正如理查德·道金斯所说，一个经常进行消耗战的物种，你只能期望它们都长着面无表情的扑克脸。

    现在，人们也许会猜测，生物也可以利用相反的信号，即继续战斗而不是准备投降的信号。如果交战的一方能够采取某种强硬的姿态，显示“我将坚守阵地，绝不后撤一步”，那么它的对手也许会理性地计算一下，然后放弃战斗，控制损失，以免战争升级，两败俱伤。但我们称其为“姿态”是有理由的。任何一个懦夫都会叉着膀子，瞪着眼睛，但对手可以一眼看穿他是在虚张声势。只有当这个信号是有代价的时候，比如示强方将手放在蜡烛的火苗上，或者用匕首在自己的胳臂上划几刀，才能证明他确实有此意志。（当然，只有在战利品有特殊意义时才值得支付这种自找的代价，或者，他有理由相信，即使出现战争升级，他也能战胜对手。）

    在消耗战的案例中，你可以想象一个领导人随着冲突的深化，承受战争代价的意愿越来越强，决心越来越坚定。他的口号将会是：“我们将继续战斗，绝不让孩子们的鲜血白流。”这种心态，即所谓损失憎恶——沉没成本谬论，也叫作“砸好钱救烂钱”——显然是非理性的，但是它在人类的决策活动中却十分常见。[65]人们忍受暴虐维持婚姻，是因为他们已经在一起生活了很多年；人们硬着头皮看完一场烂电影，是因为他们已经买了电影票；或者在赌博中加倍下注，试图捞回输掉的老本；或者向失败的大笔投资追加更多的资金。虽然心理学家不能完全理解为什么人们会沉湎于沉没成本谬论，通常的解释是这展示了一个公开的承诺。这是人们在宣示：“一旦我做出决定，绝不会软弱、愚蠢或者犹豫不决，绝不轻易改变主意。”在一场像减员比赛那样的决胜较量中，损失憎恶可能是一个代价高昂因而可信的信号，表明选手不打算向对手让步，坚定地奉行再战一轮直至胜利的战略。

    我已经提到过，理查森的数据提出的证据显示，战争越残酷，战斗时间就越长：与大规模战争相比，小规模战争在开战第二年结束的可能性更大。[66]在“战争相关计划数据库”中，从量级的数据也可以看出战争升级的迹象：战争持续的时间越长，不仅伤亡越大，而且还有时间之外的因素带来更高的、意想不到的战争成本。[67]如果从战争的统计数据回到实际战争，我们能够看到这一机制的工作原理。历史上很多残酷血腥的战争，都是因为一方甚至双方的领袖采取了极其非理性的损失憎恶战略，最终产生了巨大的破坏性。直到“二战”的最后几个月，尽管败局已定，但是希特勒仍然疯狂地坚持战斗，日本也是如此。林登·约翰逊总统数次将越南战争升级，一首针对他的抗议歌曲充分体现了民众对毁灭性战争的理解：“我们半身陷进泥潭，大傻瓜还在喊叫冲锋。”

    系统生物学家让-巴普蒂斯特·米歇尔（Jean-Baptiste Michel）为我讲解了消耗战中承诺升级为什么呈幂律分布。我们只需要假定领导人在前一个承诺上增加一个固定的比例，比如说，每一次新投入的兵力是现在正在参战的兵力的10%。那么，常数化的比例增长符合心理学上的一个著名发现——所谓“韦伯定律”：增量的强度要想被人感受，它必须是已经存在的强度的一个常比。（如果一个房间内已经有10只灯泡，如果增加1只，第11只灯泡亮起时，你就会注意到房间更亮了。但是如果房间里已经亮着100只灯泡，只有再亮起10只灯泡，你才会注意到房间比原来更亮了。）理查森观察到，人们对生命损失的感觉也是一样的：“举例说，在和平时期，英国潜艇西蒂斯沉没将会是报纸连续数天的报道热点，但在战争期间，同样的损失只会是报纸上的一条简报。这种对比符合韦伯-费希纳定律，即对增量的感觉，取决于这一增量占前一个存量的比重。”[68]心理学家保罗·斯洛维奇（Paul Slovic）最近重审了几项试验，均支持理查森的观察。[69]有一句被错误地栽给斯大林的名言说，“一人的死亡是悲剧，百万人的死亡是统计数据”，虽然数字不正确，但确实抓住了人类的心理。

    如果战争按照前一个承诺的比例升级（一个固定比例的士兵被派上战场并在战斗中阵亡），随着战争的继续，战争的损失呈指数增长，就像是银行的复利。如果战争是一场消耗战博弈，它们的时间长度呈指数分布。回想一下数学法则，如果这个变量是一个指数分布变量的指函数，那么它即呈现幂律分布。[70]我个人的猜测是，升级和消耗的结合是对战争量级呈幂律分布的最好解释。

    虽然我们可能不知道为什么战争呈幂律分布，幂律分布的性质——标度不变性和长尾性——表明，在一系列作用过程中，战争的规模不是一个影响因素。军事联盟总是可以更大一点儿，战争总是可以持续更长时间，损失总是可以更惨重一些，但是战争的发展形态都是相似的，与它们开始时的规模完全无关。

    * * *

    显然，下一个问题应该是与“致命冲突”的统计学有关：大量的小规模战争和少量的大规模战争，哪一种造成的伤亡更大呢？幂律分布本身不能回答这个问题。你可以想象在一个数据库中，将每一个规模上的战争死亡加总到同一个固定数：一场死亡1000万人的战争，10场死亡100万人的战争，100场死亡10万人的战争，一直到1000万个杀死1个人的谋杀案。事实上，指数都大于1（这是我们从战争中得到的）的分布将大量个体甩向尾部。在这一区间内的幂律分布有时服从“80∶20法则”，也称为“帕累托法则”，即人口中最富有的20%控制了80%的财富。这个比率也许不一定是分毫不差的80∶20，但许多幂律分布都具有这种不平衡性质，比如，20%的最热门网站得到2/3的总点击量。[71]

    理查森将每一个量级的战争死亡加总。计算机科学家布雷恩·哈耶斯（Brian Hayes）根据理查森的数据，制出图5-11。灰柱标示的是不引人注意的小冲突的死亡统计（死亡人数在3人至3162人之间），这些不是实际数字，因为这些死亡属于犯罪历史学的研究范畴，理查森的资料来源中没有这一部分数据。相反，理查森插入这些假设的数据，将谋杀和小规模战争平滑地连接起来。[72]不论有没有这些灰柱，图形都令人震动：峰值在两端，中间下垂。它告诉我们（至少在1820—1952年）最具破坏力的暴力是谋杀和世界大战。其他形式的冲突杀死的人数要少得多。这个结论在后来的60年中一样成立。在美国，朝鲜战争的军人死亡为3.7万人，越战为5.8万人，其他战争远远无法与之相比。同时，这个国家每年有1.7万起谋杀，从1950年至今，谋杀死亡数字加总可达百万之众。[73]同样，全世界的凶杀死亡人数也远远高于战争及其连带死亡，即使包括战争导致的饥荒和疾病死亡。[74]

    图5-11 不同量级冲突的死亡总数

    资料来源：哈耶斯绘图，2002年，根据理查森的数据，1960年。

    理查森也估算了从谋杀到世界大战各个量级的致命冲突占总死亡的比例，结论是1.6%。他解释说：“相比这些冲突引起的大量关注，这个数字比人们的想象要小很多。那些喜爱战争的人可以为他们自己的品位辩护说，说到底，战争死亡相比疾病死亡还是差得远了”。[75]而且，这个结论至今还是绝对正确的。[76]

    在最近130年的战争总死亡中，两次世界大战的死亡占77%，这个发现有非同寻常的意义。战争并不遵循幂律分布常见的“80∶20法则”。它们遵循的是“80∶2法则”：几乎80%的死亡来自2%的战争。[77]倾斜的比率告诉我们，全球防止战争的努力应该集中在防止那些最大规模的战争。

    我们一直期望有关暴力的统计能够与连贯的历史叙述相吻合，但“80∶2”之比凸显了这一愿望所面临的困境。在解释20世纪历史的时候，人们对故事情节的偏好被两个统计假象强化了。一个是想要在随机分布的历史事件中看到有意义的规律，另一个是钟形曲线思维模式，它使极端值看起来像天文数字，几乎不可能出现。所以一旦出现极端事件，我们会推断，它背后一定有非同寻常的设计。这种思维方式让人们不愿意接受这样一个事实，即当代历史上两件最糟糕的事，尽管发生的可能性很小，但不是可能性极端之小，小到几乎不可能发生。因此，它们的发生，并不是因为背后有什么必然性在起作用。即使当时的紧张局势增加了两场大灾难发生的机会，两场大战都不是必然会发生的。只是一旦发生，它们就有大把的机会不断升级，不管战争已经有多么残酷，总能继续变本加厉。如果我们对不同水平上的战争破坏力进行全面的统计，两次世界大战只是统计分布中两个极不走运的样本罢了。

    大国战争的轨迹

    理查森得出的两个有关战争统计学的结论都相当宽泛：第一，战争时间表是随机的；第二，战争量级为幂律分布。但是，对于两个关键的参数——战争的概率和战争的损失是怎样随时间而变化的，他却未能深究。他表示，战争发生的频率下降，但战争的破坏性增强这一规律仅适用于对1820—1950年战争的分析，结论应该严格局限于他所使用的不完整的战争数据。那么，对于今天战争的长期轨迹，我们又知道些什么？

    在有记录的历史中，找不到任何关于世界战争的完整可靠的数据，而且即使有这样的数据，我们也不知道如何理解它们。几百年来，不同的社会各自经历了剧烈的、不均衡的变迁，只用一个死亡数据对整个世界进行描述未免会抹杀太多的社会特性。但是，政治学家杰克·莱维（Jack Levy）汇编了一个数据集，为我们清晰地勾画出在特定时间和空间内的战争轨迹。

    莱维时间区间始于15世纪晚期，当时正是所谓火药、航海术和印刷术开创的“现代化时代”（“现代”一词有诸多的定义，这里取其中一种）。这也正是主权国家在中世纪的封爵和公国中出现的时代。

    莱维关注的国家，都属于大国体系——在那个特定的时代里，屈指可数的几个能够对世界指手画脚的国家。莱维发现，无论任何时候，都是极少数几个重达800磅（约363公斤）的大猩猩要对大部分骚乱承担主要责任。[78]在赖特整理的世界500年数据库中，大国参与了约70%的战争，其中有4个大国“有幸”至少参与了欧洲所有战争的“1/4”。[79]（直到今天，这个结论仍然成立。自“二战”以来，法国、英国、美国和苏联/俄国卷入的国际冲突比其他任何国家都要多。）[80]有些国家在大国结盟中时进时出，它们在参与结盟时卷入的战争远远多于它们在不结盟时的战争行动。集中分析大国系统的一个优势是资料翔实，因为以其显赫的印迹，即使是粗枝大叶的文人也不会忽略它们参加过的战争。

    从战争量级不平衡的幂律分布中，我们可以预测，在有记录的战争死亡中，大国之间的战争（特别是那些同时涉及几个大国的战争）的死亡人数占有绝对的比重。[81]有句非洲谚语说得好（像很多非洲谚语一样，许多部落都有同样的说法）:“大象打架，草地遭殃。”这些大象习惯于互相争斗，因为在它们之上，没有任何宗主国能控制它们。在霍布斯的无政府状态下，它们总是在神经质地打量彼此。

    莱维设计了一套定义大国的指标，并列出了1495—1975年的大国名单。它们中的大部分是欧洲国家：法兰西和英格兰/大不列颠/联合王国（整个时期）, 1918年前哈布斯堡王朝统治下的各个王国，1808年前的西班牙，17世纪和18世纪初期的荷兰和瑞典，1721年之后的俄国/苏联，1740年之后的普鲁士/德国，以及1861—1943年的意大利。这个大国体系中也包括几个欧洲之外的国家：1699年之前的奥斯曼帝国，1898年之后的美国，1905—1945年的日本，1949年之后的中国。莱维汇编的数据库中对战争的定义是：（1）每年至少有1000名战争死亡人数（这是很多数据库中对“战争”的最低要求，比如“战争相关资料项目”也是这样要求的）；（2）有一个大国卷入；（3）有一个敌对国家。他排除了殖民地战争和内战，除非是一个大国卷入另一个国家的内战，即意味着战争中一个大国与一个外国政权相对抗。在和莱维协商之后，我利用“战争相关资料项目”将莱维的数据库扩展了25年，直至2000年。[82]

    让我们从巨头们的冲突开始——战争双方各为一个大国。这样的冲突被莱维称为“全面战争”，它也可以被称为“世界大战”，至少在这个意义上，第一次世界大战对此称呼当之无愧——不仅战火蔓延至世界各地，而且将当时几乎所有的大国都卷入了战争。这类战争还包括“三十年战争”（1618—1648年；7个大国中有6个卷入这场战争）、路易十四的“法荷战争”（1672—1678年，同样是7个大国中有6个卷入战争）、“大同盟战争”（1688—1697年，7个大国中有5个卷入战争）、“西班牙王位继承战争”（1739—1748年，6个大国全部卷入战争）、“七年战争”（1755—1763年，6个大国全部卷入战争），以及法国大革命和拿破仑战争（1792—1815年，也是6个大国全部卷入战争），外加两场世界大战。还有另外50多场有两个或者更多大国参与对峙的战争。

    大国交战中人民遭受战乱的时间长度，是衡量战争影响力的指标之一——人民流离失所，骨肉分离，被迫牺牲，生活被彻底打乱。图5-12给出了每1/4个世纪中大国交战时间的百分比。在最早的两个25年（1550—1575年和1625—1650年）中，曲线两次达到顶峰：在这两个25年中，大国交战延续了整整25年。这一时期，欧洲战事频仍，欧洲宗教战争此起彼伏，包括第一次胡格诺战争和“三十年战争”。图表上的趋势毫无疑问是下降的。随着时间推移，大国交战的时间越来越短了，虽然有几次反弹，包括法国大革命和拿破仑战争以及两次世界大战。在图表的最右端，出现了“长期和平”的第一个迹象。在1950—1975年这25年中，只有一场大国战争（朝鲜战争，1950—1953年，美国和中国对抗），此后世界再没有发生过大国战争。

    图5-12 1500—2000年大国交战时间的百分比

    资料来源：根据莱维和汤普森的资料改编，2011年。数据为25年统计数的加总。

    现在让我们拉开距离，对战争做一次广角观察：我们有100多场至少有一个大国卷入的战争的数据，敌对方有可能是大国，也有可能不是。[83]有了这个更大的数据集，我们可以在图5-12“战争年数”测度上找到两个新的维度。第一个是频率。图5-13给出了每25年中战争发生的数量。我们再一次看见连续5个世纪的下降趋势：大国越来越少地卷入战争。在20世纪的最后25年，只有4场战争符合莱维的战争标准：两场中越战争（1979年和1987年），针对伊拉克入侵科威特发起的“海湾战争”（1991年），以及为了阻止科索沃驱赶阿尔巴尼亚族裔居民，北约对南斯拉夫的轰炸（1999年）。

    图5-13 1500—2000年大国战争的频率

    资料来源：莱维制图，1983年；最后一个单元的数据来自国家间战争相关资料数据库，1816—1997年，萨尔吉斯，2000年；1997—1999年的数据，奥斯陆国际和平研究所（Peace Research Instituet Os-lo，PRIO）战争死亡数据，1946—2008年，拉齐纳和格莱迪奇，2005年。数据为每25年统计数的加总。

    第二个维度是战争的时间长度。图5-14显示的是这些战争平均持续的时间。虽然在17世纪中叶出现了一个高峰，但总的趋势是下降的。这个峰值并不是将“三十年战争”简单地计算为持续了30年的一场战争的结果。和其他历史学家的做法一样，莱维将“三十年战争”分成四场局部战争。但是即使在切分之后，那个时代的宗教战争仍然是严酷而漫长的。自那时之后，大国开始寻求尽快结束战争。最新的结果是，在20世纪的最后25年，4场有大国参与的战争平均长度只有97天。[84]

    图5-14 1500—2000年大国参与的战争的时间长度

    资料来源：莱维制图，1983年；最后一个单元的数据来自国家间战争相关资料数据库，1816—1997年，萨尔吉斯，2000年；1997—1999年的数据，奥斯陆国际和平研究所战争死亡数据，1946—2008年，拉齐纳和格莱迪奇，2005年。数据为每25年统计数的加总。

    那么，战争的破坏性问题又该如何解决？图5-15给出的是至少有一个大国参战的战争死亡人数。生命的损失在19世纪初从1500人开始上升，而在19世纪中叶和后期一直减少，直至两次世界大战出现反弹，接着在20世纪下半叶急速回落。人们一般的印象是，在这500年的大部分时间内，战争的破坏性变得越来越大，原因可归结于军事技术和军队组织方式的进步。如果这个印象是成立的，相反的两个趋势——越来越少的战争和越来越大的破坏性——就完全符合理查森的推测，虽然时间尺度放大了5倍。

    因为图5-15将战争的频率和量级叠加在一起了，我们完全无法证明我们在图中所看到的事实，但是莱维认为，纯粹的破坏性可以按照他称为“密度”的量度指标来区分，即每个国家在战争期间每一年战死的人数。图5-16显示的是战争死亡的“密度”曲线。在图中，大国战争的死亡人数稳定上升，一直到第二次世界大战达到高峰，趋势非常明显，因为数据没有受到19世纪后期大国战争次数稀少的扭曲。令人震动的是，20世纪下半叶突然出现的转折，完全扭转了前450年中交错上升的走势。

    图5-15 1500—2000年大国战争的死亡人数

    资料来源：莱维制图，1983年；最后一个单元的数据来自国家间战争相关资料数据库，1816—1997年，萨尔吉斯，2000年；1997—1999年的数据，奥斯陆国际和平研究所战争死亡数据，1946—2008年，拉齐纳和格莱迪奇，2005年。数据为每25年统计数的加总。

    图5-16 1500—2000年大国战争的死亡集中度

    资料来源：莱维制图，1983年；最后一个单元的数据来自国家间战争相关资料数据库，1816—1997年，萨尔吉斯，2000年；1997—1999年的数据，奥斯陆国际和平研究所战争死亡数据，1946—2008年，拉齐纳和格莱迪奇，2005年。数据为每25年统计数的加总。

    20世纪后期的特殊性还在于不仅大国战争的次数减少了，每一场战争的杀伤力也明显下降了。这一对下行线捕捉到的就是长期和平的厌战情绪。为了更好地理解这些趋势，我们将从统计图表转向历史叙述。但在此之前，让我们确认在对战争轨迹的更广泛的观察中，同样能看到这些统计规律。

    欧洲战争的轨迹

    大国参与的战争就像一个舞台有限但戏码丰富的剧场，让我们尽可观察战争的历史趋势。还有一个剧场，那就是欧洲。这一片小小大陆不仅有最完整的战争伤亡记录，而且对全世界有着巨大的影响。在过去的500年间，世界的大部分地区都是欧洲帝国的组成部分，拒绝臣服者则一直在与这些帝国抗争。战争与和平的潮流，与其他人类社会的活动，比如科技、时尚和思想一样，大多是从欧洲发源，向世界其他地方扩散传播。

    欧洲完整的历史资料让我们有机会对一系列有组织的冲突形态进行观察，即从大国参与的国际战争到两个普通国家之间的冲突，死亡低于千人临界标准的冲突，内战和种族灭绝，以及饥荒和瘟疫造成的平民死亡。如果我们将其他形式的暴力加总，会得到一个什么样的图像？是不是小冲突的脊柱高挺，拖着一条大规模冲突的长尾巴？

    政治学家彼得·布莱克正在编制所有“致命冲突”的汇总，他称其为“冲突目录”（Conflict Catalog）。[85]他的目标是要找出自1400年以来全部有记载的历史中每一条有关武装冲突的信息并进行结集。布莱克从理查森、赖特、索罗金、埃克哈特、“战争资料相关项目”、历史学家埃文·卢亚德（Evan Luard）、政治学家卡列维·霍尔斯蒂（Kalevi Holsti）整理出的战争数据入手。这些资料中的大部分对冲突和国家的法律定义都有很严格的准入标准。布莱克放宽了这个标准，他将所有有记载的冲突都纳入他的数据汇编中，甚至连一年内只有32人死亡的冲突都包括在内（在理查森的战争量级中为1.5），以及任何能够在本地有效行使主权的政治单元。接着，他在图书馆梳理历史典籍和地图，包括其他国家出版的各种语言的历史书籍。我们期待见到一个幂律分布的战争趋势，而放宽标准带来的不是几个边际上的小案例，而是数量巨大的新案例：布莱克发现的冲突至少是以往各种数据库总和的3倍。至今为止，《冲突目录》包含发生在公元1400—2000年的4560起冲突（其中已经有3700场冲突被录入电子表格），最终的冲突记录将达到6000场。这些冲突中大约1/3有估计的死亡人数，布莱克将死亡分为军事死亡（在战斗中阵亡的士兵）和总死亡（包括战争引发的饥荒和疾病造成的平民死亡）。布莱克慷慨地向我提供了2010年最新的全套数据。

    让我们先来简单地数一下共有多少场冲突——不仅有大国参与的战争，还有各种大大小小的致命冲突。根据这些数据绘制的图5-17，给出了一个观察欧洲战争史的独到视角。

    图5-17 1400—2000年大欧洲每年发生的冲突

    资料来源：《冲突目录》，布莱克，1999；朗和布莱克，2003年。冲突数据为每25年数据的总和，包括国际冲突、内战、种族清洗、叛乱和骚乱。“西欧”的范围包括今天的下列国家：英国、爱尔兰、丹麦、瑞典、挪威、比利时、卢森堡、荷兰、德国、瑞士、奥地利、西班牙、葡萄牙和意大利。“大东欧”的范围包括今天的塞浦路斯、芬兰、波兰、捷克共和国、斯洛伐克、匈牙利、罗马尼亚、前南斯拉夫的各个共和国、阿尔巴尼亚、希腊、保加利亚、土耳其（欧亚两部分）、俄国（欧洲部分）、格鲁吉亚、亚美尼亚、阿塞拜疆和其他各高加索共和国。

    我们再次看到，以武装冲突爆发的频率来衡量，冲突呈现下降趋势。在这个故事开始的1400年，欧洲国家每年要挑起三场战争。这一比率蹒跚下行，到今天，西欧国家几乎没有冲突，东欧国家每年有不到一起冲突。甚至东欧国家出现的反弹实际上也多少是个误解，因为在这部分数据中，有半数被归为“欧洲”的参战国，这仅仅是因为它们曾经属于奥斯曼帝国或者苏联；今天，它们通常被划分为中东或者中南亚（比如，在土耳其、格鲁吉亚、阿塞拜疆、塔吉克斯坦和亚美尼亚发生的冲突）。[86]其他的东欧冲突发生在前南斯拉夫共和国或苏联。南斯拉夫与俄国/苏联和土耳其这些地区也要为20世纪前25年冲突激增负主要责任。

    这些冲突中人员死亡的情况如何？《冲突目录》在此充分显示了它兼容并收的优势。幂律分布告诉我们，在全部战争死亡中，或者说至少在千人死亡临界线之上的战争的总死亡中，大国战争中最大的那场冲突造成的死亡占有最大的份额（这与我至今绘制的图形相一致）。但是，理查森提醒我们，在理论上，被传统历史和统计数据疏忽的大量的小规模冲突，很可能构成一个巨大的死亡数目（见图5-11中的三条灰柱）。《冲突目录》提供了第一个涵盖灰色区域的长期数据，并尽量涵盖袭击、骚乱和屠杀这些不在传统军事水平线之上的事件（尽管我们可能永远无法找回早期此类事件的记录数据）。不巧的是，《冲突目录》仍在制作中，目前的记录中只有不到一半的冲突有死亡数字。在这项工作完成之前，我们只能通过代入某些1/4世纪战争死亡的中值，对欧洲冲突死亡的走势形成一个大概的印象。布赖恩·阿特伍德和我对这些数据进行了补充，对各种形式和不同规模的冲突的直接和间接的死亡加总，再除以各个时期欧洲的总人口，最后按照比例绘图。[87]图5-18展示的就是欧洲暴力冲突历史的最全面的图景（当然是指迄今为止）。

    根据人口规模测度的战争死亡显示，直至1950年，走势总体还是上升的，这说明欧洲杀人的能力超过了它繁衍人口的能力。但是，图形中最引人注意的是三次“血潮”。除了第二次世界大战所在的那1/4个世纪外，最血腥的时刻是17世纪初的宗教战争，以及第一次世界大战的20世纪第一个25年，再有就是法国大革命和拿破仑战争时期。

    图5-18 1400—2000年大欧洲冲突死亡率

    资料来源：《冲突目录》，布莱克，1999；朗和布莱克，2003年。数字取自“总死亡”栏，每25年数据的合计。剔除重复录入。缺失的数据按照该25年的中值填补。各历史阶段的人口总计来自麦克伊韦迪和琼斯的估算，1978年，为每25年末尾的数据。“大欧洲”的定义与图5-17相同。

    欧洲的有组织暴力看起来像是这样一个东西。1400—1600年，是一条低水平但稳定的基线，接着就是血流成河的宗教战争；然后是颠簸的下行，直到1775年发生的法国大动荡。19世纪中后期是一个明显的平静时期，随后是20世纪的“血潮”，最后是一个前所未有的长期和平。

    我们应该怎样认识过去500年来大国之间和欧洲发生的各种缓慢的动荡和突然的暴力？现在，我们必须将统计学手中的指挥棒交给叙事史了。在本章的下一节中，我要引用其他学者的研究，看看记录冲突数量的数字和图表背后的故事，这些学者有历史学家和政治学家，比如戴维·贝尔（David Bell）、尼尔·弗格森（Niall Ferguson）、阿扎尔·加特、迈克尔·霍华德（Michael Howard）、约翰·基根、埃文·卢亚德、约翰·穆勒、詹姆斯·佩恩，以及詹姆斯·希恩（James Sheehan）。

    这里我先做一个预告。将图5-18中波折的曲线视为一个四种潮流的合力。现代欧洲的起点是一个霍布斯式的世界，充满频繁但规模小的冲突。随着政治实体整合，出现大型国家之后，战争的数量越来越少。同时，战争变得更加残酷，因为军事革命促生了更大也更有效率的军队。最后，在几个不同时期，欧洲各国在要求个人利益服从乌托邦理想的集权主义意识形态，以及将推进个人利益作为终极价值的启蒙人文主义之间摇摆不定，艰难徘徊。

    霍布斯式的背景与王朝和宗教时代

    在过去1000年的大部分时间中，欧洲历史的背景就是战争，小到中世纪骑士的抢劫和仇杀，大到随后几个世纪中登上舞台的各种政治实体参与的战争，冲突无时不在。

    仅仅是欧洲战争的数量，就足以让人惊讶。在《冲突目录》中，布莱克先做了一个总结。公元900—1400年，欧洲榜上有名的冲突是1148场，而1400年至今，还有1166场——在1100年的时间内，平均每年两场冲突。[88]除了那些最勤勉的历史学家，其他人可能完全没有听说过这些冲突中的绝大部分，甚至很多大国参与的主要战争也同样不为人所知。举例说，“丹麦-瑞典战争”（1516—1525年）,“施马卡尔登联盟战争”（1546—1547年）,“法国-萨夫伊战争”（1600—1601年）,“波土战争”（1673—1676年）,“尤利希继承战争”（1609—1610年），还有“奥地利-撒丁尼亚战争”（1848—1849年）。哪怕是受过最良好教育的人，看到这些名字也会感到一片茫然。[89]

    当时，战争不仅在实践上是常见的，在理论上也是可以接受的。霍华德注意到，在统治阶层看来，“和平只是两场战争之间的间歇”，而且战争是“一种不请自来的活动，是世间万物自然秩序的组成部分”。[90]卢亚德解释说，虽然15世纪和16世纪的战争死亡率一般比较低，“但即使在死亡率很高的时候，也没有任何迹象显示，统治者或者指挥官会因此有所顾虑。在很大程度上，这些伤亡被看作战争不可避免的代价，同时其本身也代表着崇高的名誉和光荣”。[91]

    他们为何而战呢？战争的动机正是霍布斯认定的“争斗的三大主因”：掠夺（主要是土地），先发制人阻止其他掠夺者，言行一致的威慑或者荣誉。在欧洲，战争与其他形式的冲突，比如部落、骑士与军阀相互抢掠和仇杀之间的区别是，战争是通过有组织的政治实体，而不是以个人和家族为单元来执行的。在财富的主要形式不是商业和创新，而是土地和自然资源的时代，征服和掠夺在几个世纪之内一直是人们改善地位向上流动的主要手段。今天，对我们大多数人来说，掌管一片领土，已经不是一个非常有魅力的职业选择。但不要忘记，俗话所说的“过着帝王般的生活”，在几个世纪前意味着拥有对领土的控制，而土地是保证生活质量的主要途径。只有控制了土地的人，才会有充足的食物、舒适的房屋、漂亮的用品、随叫随到的娱乐，而他的孩子才能避免夭折。王室私生子这种经年不断的丑闻告诉我们，风流浪荡的性生活是欧洲王族的特权，就像苏丹拥有后宫，只不过欧洲人委婉地将嫔妃称为“侍女”罢了。[92]

    但是，领袖追求的不仅是物质的回报，还追求统治优势、荣耀和丰功伟绩——志得意满地凝视地图，狂喜地看着代表自己领土的色块比某人的大上几平方厘米。卢亚德解释说，即使是在统治者对自己名义上的疆域没有任何实际管辖权的情况下，他们还是要开战，仅仅是为了“理论上的统治权：某人得到某地封赐因此宣示效忠某王”。[93]许多战争就是男人比赛撒尿，没有任何实际利益，可以仅仅是一个领主突然起意，要为了称号、礼仪或者座次的安排向另一个领主表达敬意。一个象征性的轻蔑举止就会触发战争，比如拒绝降旗，拒绝向某人的旗帜行礼，拒绝摘除外套袖口上的某个徽章，或者拒绝遵守使节优先权的约定。[94]

    虽然在欧洲历史上，政治统治集团争夺领袖地位始终是争斗的动机，但关于集团的定义，以及集团间争斗的性质和范围却发生了变化。《国际社会与战争》在综合战争数据和历史叙述方面进行了最为系统的尝试。卢亚德在书中表示，欧洲武装冲突的历史可以分为5个“时代”，每一个时代均按照当时争夺统治权的政治集团的性质来定义。事实上，卢亚德的“时代”不像是列车的一节节车厢，反而更像是绳索上绞在一起的麻线。明白这一点，他的理论可以帮助我们理解战争历史中的几次重大转折。

    * * *

    卢亚德将他的第一个时代——1400—1559年，称为“王朝时代”。在这个时代，王“室”皇“家”，或者以血缘为基础的大家族联盟，彼此争夺欧洲跑马场的控制权。一点儿生物学入门知识就可以让我们知道，统治权世袭制度本身就是无休无止的继承人战争的根源。一方面是想永远执政的权力欲，另一方面是对有限生命的意识，如何调和两者是统治者始终面临的难题。最自然的解决方式是指定一位子孙，通常是长子，承继大统。人们不仅认为自己的骨肉子孙是自己生命的延续，而且认为后代对长辈的孝敬之情会抑制继承人的弑君躁动，因此晚辈绝不会因为急不可耐而抢夺王位。有些物种中的成年生命一旦完成繁衍，自己就会死去。对于这样的物种，世袭制度可以解决继承问题。但是人类的生物属性在许多方面都不适合这样的制度设计。

    第一，人类是晚成雏，新生儿完全未成熟，需要一个漫长的儿童期。也就是说，很有可能出现的情况是父亲死时，儿子还太年幼，无法进行统治。第二，人的性格特点是多基因的，因此服从统计学中的中值回归定理：无论父母具备何等卓越的勇气和智慧，他或她的儿女的平均水平都只能低于父母。（评论家丽贝卡·韦斯特说过，645年的哈布斯堡王朝“没有天才，只有两位统治者还算有能力……其余是无数的笨蛋，其中低智和疯子屡见不鲜”。）[95]第三，人类是有性繁殖，就是说，每一个人都是两个谱系的基因传承，而不是一个。两个谱系都会在传承人活着的时候要求他对自己尽忠，在死了的时候要分得他的遗产。第四，人类是雌雄二态，虽然人类这个物种的雌性在平均意义上不像雄性那样嗜好征战和暴政，但一旦机缘巧合，她们中的很多人都能够培养出这样的口味。第五，人类是某种程度的一夫多妻式生物，男性往往会有私生子，成为合法婚生继承人的竞争对手。第六，人类是多子的，在生育期可以生育数个子女。这就为亲子冲突铺垫了舞台，一个儿子很有可能在父亲寿终之前就想掌握家族传宗接代的大权，兄弟姐妹反目成仇，而父母对长子的厚待，很可能让弟弟生出觊觎之心。第七，人类是信任提携亲属的，他们会像关照自己的子女一样关照同胞的子女。这些生物属性中的每一种都会引起继承争端，而现实中经常是数种属性同时作用，欧洲人为了王朝更替的纠纷鏖战不已。[96]

    * * *

    卢亚德将1559年定为“宗教时代”的起始年，这个时代一直延续到1648年，当时《威斯特伐利亚和约》终于宣告了“三十年战争”的结束。对抗的宗教联盟，结盟的成员都是信奉“一个国王，一部法律，一种信仰”原则的统治者。为了争夺对城市和国家的控制，他们至少进行了25场国际战争和26场内战。通常是新教徒与天主教徒对抗，但在俄国“混乱年代”（自鲍里斯·戈杜诺夫统治期开始至罗曼诺夫王朝建立之前的空位期），则是天主教和东正教争夺权力。宗教狂热并不局限于基督教世界，除了基督教国家和伊斯兰国家土耳其的厮杀之外，穆斯林的土耳其逊尼派和波斯帝国什叶派在此时期先后四次开战。

    在本书所列的“人类相互之间（可能）做过的（大约）21件最残暴的事情”列表中，最后一列是根据人口规模调整的排名，“宗教时代”在排名中占了13、14和17；而在图5-15和图5-18中，这个时期都是明显的峰值期。打破杀戮纪录的原因之一是军事技术的进步，这个时期出现了火枪、长矛和火炮。但很难说军事技术是发生大规模残杀的决定因素，因为在接下来的几个世纪中，武器的杀伤力越来越大，但死亡人数却大幅度减少了。卢亚德认为宗教狂热是导致这一时期大屠杀的唯一原因：

    战火烧向平民——特别是那些因信奉异教而被视为应该被消灭的平民，战争因此更加残酷，伤亡水平大幅度上升。骇人听闻的血腥屠杀可以归结为神的愤怒。1572年，阿尔瓦公爵在占领纳尔登城之后，杀光了全城的男子，称此乃上帝对纳尔登人顽强抵抗所做的裁决。同样，1649年，克伦威尔放任他的部下血洗爱尔兰的德罗赫达，宣称这是“来自上帝的公正审判”。这是一个残酷的悖论，在战争中，那些为信仰而战的人对待对手往往比其他人更少怜悯和仁慈。在宗教冲突最激烈的地区，除战争伤亡，还有因饥荒和农作物歉收带来的惨重的人命损失。[97]

    “三十年战争”和“八十年战争”这样的名字，在图5-14中，表现为一个空前绝后的高峰。它告诉我们，宗教战争不仅是惨烈的，而且是漫长的。研究外交史的史学家加勒特·马丁利（Garrett Mattingly）注意到，在这个时期，终结战争的主要机制彻底失效：“一旦宗教因素压倒政治因素，与敌对国的任何协商看起来都无异于异端和叛教。导致新教与天主教决裂的问题是不容协商的。结果……外交接触完全断绝。”[98]而在人类历史上，这还不是最后一次由意识形态的狂热煽动起狂暴的战火。

    主权时代的三大潮流

    历史学家认为，1648年的《威斯特伐利亚和约》不仅结束了宗教战争，而且塑造了现代国际秩序的雏形。欧洲从此进入“主权国家时代”，不再是教皇和神圣罗马帝国治下犬牙交错、四分五裂的封建领地。在这个时代，刚刚崛起的主权国家虽然仍与君主和宗教密不可分，但是国家的影响力开始取决于政府、疆土和商业帝国的实力。主权国家的整合过程在1648年之前就已经开始，随着这一进程达到高峰。各种统计分析都告诉我们，欧洲出现了两个相反的趋势：战争的频率下降，战争的破坏程度加剧。

    战争数量减少的主要原因是参战的政治实体的数量减少了。回想一下第3章的内容，欧洲政治实体在“三十年战争”期间为500个左右，到20世纪50年代只有不到30个。你也许会认为，这种数量减少只是一个计算上的小把戏。[99]只要动动橡皮，外交家就能抹掉地图上两军对峙的分界线，将某些冲突从史书的“国际战争”章节中抽出来，塞进“内战”部分。但在现实世界中，这种减少是真实的。理查森向我们表明，即使我们保持欧洲内部的边界不变，国家内部的战争也远远少于国家之间的战争。（以英国为例，已经有350年未曾发生真正的内战，但它参与了众多的国际战争。）这是利维坦逻辑成立的又一个例证。小王公封侯联合组成较大的王国，中央权威防止王国内部各方互相开战，其理由和王公诸侯制止属民互相谋杀，以及农夫阻止他饲养的牲畜相互残杀的理由完全相同：对于主人来说，辖区内私人之间的争斗是净损失。因此，战争数量的减少也是埃利亚斯“文明的进程”的一个体现。

    战争残忍程度的提升是军事革命的结果。[100]国家对战争的投入越来越大，是因为武器的进步，特别是加农炮和火枪的出现，但更主要的是因为国家的组织能力，它能够征调更多的兵力去杀人和被杀。在中世纪和“王朝时代”的欧洲，统治者对集结大批的农民并对他们进行军事训练总是心存疑虑。不难理解，他们会问自己：“不会出什么差池吧？”所以，他们宁愿召集雇佣兵组织临时军队，或者将没有钱赎罪的流氓和闲汉拼凑起来打仗。查尔斯·蒂利在他的论文《作为有组织犯罪的开战和建国》中说：

    在战时……国家的管理者经常向私人发包战争，有时也雇用匪帮袭击敌国，鼓励自己的正规军劫掠战利品。虽然是为王家服役，但士兵和水兵通常是依靠搜刮百姓维持自己的开销，征用、强奸和抢劫都是家常便饭。一旦军队解散，他们会继续干自己的老行当，只是没有了王家的保护。退役的军舰转身就是海盗船只，退役的军人立刻变成土匪。

    反过来也是一样，国王最好的武装力量资源就是全世界的不法之徒。罗宾汉变成王家弓箭手的故事也许是个神话，但神话反映的是真实的世界。“合法”使用暴力和“非法”使用暴力的界限是一点一点逐渐清晰起来的。在这个过程中，国家的武装力量逐步统一化和常备化。[101]

    正规化和常备化的军队当然也更有效率。初期由土匪流氓组成的民兵能够对平民造成严重伤害，但这些人既缺乏勇气又没有纪律，他们在有组织的战斗中非常没有效率。穆勒解释说：

    说到底，罪犯的座右铭绝对不会是“永远忠诚”、“人人为我，我为人人”、“责任、荣誉、国家”、“（天皇）万岁”或者“铭记珍珠港”，而是“捞到钱赶紧逃”。确实，对一个罪犯来说，在战场上送命（或者在受雇去抢劫银行的行动中送命）是最最莫名其妙的事情；为了追求暴力的激动去死，或者为了获得战利品而死，实在太缺乏理性了，因为一旦人死亡，就什么也享受不到了。[102]

    但是在16世纪和17世纪的军事革命中，国家开始组织职业常备军。他们从社会的各个阶层进行大规模征募，不再仅仅收纳社会底层的渣滓。他们将演习、训导和严酷的惩罚相结合，训练士兵从事有组织的战斗。他们向士兵灌输纪律、毅力和勇气这样的职业守则。其结果是一旦两支这样的军队交火，瞬息之间就会造成惨重的伤亡。

    军事史学家阿扎尔·加特曾经说，“革命”一词在此可算是用词不当，因为军事进步是一个循序渐进的发展。[103]以高效为目的的技术进步和组织进步历时几个世纪，提高军队各个部分的效率的过程是这一变迁大潮的组成部分。也许，与其说是军事革命本身，不如说是拿破仑的作战方式让战场成为屠宰场。他改变了原来交战双方努力保存兵力的做法，代之以倾全力进攻的战术。在拿破仑之后，任何一个国家要想打败对手，都只能穷兵黩武，竭尽所有的人力、物力投入战场。[104]而另一场“进步”（19世纪开始的工业革命）的脚步声已经响起，它装备起更大规模的军队，更迅速地将士兵运往前线。可再生的炮灰供应加剧了消耗战博弈，将战争一步步推向幂律分布长尾的远端。

    * * *

    在这个军事大国急剧膨胀的时期，除了国家整合之外，还有一种力量也在促使战争的频率下降。许多历史学家都注意到，在漫长的欧洲战争史上，18世纪是一个间歇期。在前一章中我已经提到，一些帝国，比如荷兰、瑞典、丹麦、葡萄牙和西班牙停止了大国竞争博弈，转向占领商业领域。布莱克称之为“相对平静的18世纪”（至少从1713年至1789年是相对平静的）。在图5-17中，这一时期的曲线呈U形。在图5-18中，18世纪是宗教战争和法国动荡之间的低洼的W型。卢亚德表示，1648—1789年的“主权时代”,“目标通常相对有限，许多战争都是在不分胜负的情况下结束的，由此可以说没有哪个国家能实现其最终目标。战争是漫长的，但是作战的手法相当克制，伤亡比前一个时代和后一个时代都要小”。可以肯定，这个世纪也有非常血腥的战斗，比如被称为“七年战争”的世界大战。但是，戴维·贝尔认为，“历史学家必须有能力在恐怖的阴影下辨识事实，即使18世纪并没有真的将龇牙咧嘴的猎犬变为 ‘娱乐哈巴狗 ’……这期间的冲突在欧洲历史上也是属于恐怖程度最低的”。[105]

    正如我们在第4章中所见，这种宁静是理性时代、启蒙运动和古典自由主义黎明有关的人道主义革命的一部分。宗教狂热的平息让战争不再具有末世审判的意义，交战双方的首领可以谈判协商，而不是一定要战斗到最后一兵一卒。许多主权国家成为商贸大国，它们更愿意看见正和博弈的贸易，而不是零和博弈的征服。作家对战争荣誉进行解构，对暴力历史进行批判，并将士兵和被征服者的感受带给读者。哲学家重新定义政府，以前政府是实现君主奇思妙想的工具，现在政府是提高个人生活、自由和幸福的手段，并试图想办法约束政治领袖的权力，激励他们避免战争。当时的一些统治者逐渐受到这些思想的影响，或者至少受到感染。尽管这些“开明的专制”仍然是专制，但总是强过不开明的专制。而作为和平力量的自由民主制度，终于在美国和英国找到了最初的落脚点。

    反启蒙运动的思想和民族主义时代

    当然，接下来，世界出了可怕的差错。法国大革命和拿破仑战争导致400万人丧命，使自己名列“人类相乎之间（可能）做过的（大约）21件最残暴的事情”之一，在图5-18中出现了一个高峰。

    卢亚德将1789年定为“民族主义时代”的开始。在“主权国家时代”，参与各方是各式各样的王权帝国，它们不一定是“民族国家”，即在同一片国土内由相同语言和相同文化的人组成的国家。在这个新时代，国家由民族界定，并要与其他民族国家竞争领先地位。民族主义的理想在欧洲掀起30场独立战争，先后导致比利时、希腊、保加利亚、阿尔巴尼亚和塞尔维亚的自治。此外，意大利和德国的统一战争也是受到民族主义激励的结果。当时亚洲和非洲人民还没有资格表达自己的意愿，所以欧洲人加紧在亚非殖民，以此为自己的民族国家增加荣耀。

    我们可以说，第一次世界大战就是这种民族主义渴望的总爆发。其导火索是塞尔维亚民族主义者反抗哈布斯堡王朝，而站在日耳曼人一边反抗斯拉夫人的忠心耿耿的民族主义分子火上浇油，扩大事端。接着，反抗斯拉夫人迅速转为反抗英国和法国，“一战”的结局是多民族的哈布斯堡王朝和奥斯曼帝国解体，中欧和东欧形成新的民族国家。

    卢亚德将1917年作为“民族主义时代”的结尾。就在那一年，美国参战，并将战争塑造为民主对抗专制的斗争，同时，俄国革命创建了第一个社会主义国家。世界从此进入“意识形态时代”，先是民主国家和社会主义国家在第二次世界大战中联手反对纳粹，后来则是在冷战中相互对抗。当卢亚德在1986年写作的时候，他在“1917”后面留下的是破折号，今天我们可以写上“1989年”，作为这个时代的休止符。

    “民族主义时代”的概念有些牵强。这个时代始于拿破仑战争，因为这场战火就是被法兰西民族主义精神点燃的。但是点燃战争的是法国大革命残留的思想，因此它远远走在了所谓的“意识形态时代”之前。这个时代很像一个三明治，两端是两次大规模毁灭性战争，中间夹着两个破纪录的和平间歇期（1815—1854年和1871—1914年）。

    迈克尔·霍华德坚持认为，为了更好地理解过去200年的历史，可以将它看作四种力量——启蒙人文主义、保守主义、民族主义和乌托邦思想——争抢影响力的战役。某些时候，其中几种力量会结成临时同盟。[106]拿破仑时代的法兰西继承了法国大革命，因此它被看成是法国启蒙运动的一部分。事实上，它被更好地归类为法西斯主义的第一次实施。虽然拿破仑推行了几项合理的改革，比如公制度量和民法规则（在很多法语地区，拿破仑的民法至今有效），但在更多的方面，他都背叛了启蒙运动的人文进步。他通过政变夺取政权，推翻宪法确立的政府，恢复奴隶制，颂扬战争，由教皇加冕成为法兰西皇帝，重立天主教为国教，将三个弟弟和妹夫立为外国的国王，疯狂地发动战争机器抢夺地盘，无情地践踏人类生命的价值。

    贝尔说过，拿破仑时代的法国崇尚法兰西民族主义和乌托邦思想的混合物。[107]这种意识形态，就像它之前的基督教教义以及后来的法西斯主义等，都是弥撒亚式的，充满终极审判的狂热，坚定地追求领土扩张，并且坚信自己是正义的化身。它们都将自己的敌人视为不可救赎的恶魔：为了追求神圣的目标，必须彻底消灭这些恶魔的威胁。贝尔还说，激进好战的乌托邦主义是对启蒙主义人文理想的倒行逆施。对于革命而言，康德“追求永久和平这一目标的价值不仅在于它符合最基本的道德律，而且在于它符合人类文明的历史进步……因此，理所当然地，为了未来的和平，任何以及所有的手段都是正当的，甚至包括灭绝性的战争”。[108]康德本人对这种阐释深恶痛绝，他认为，这样的战争将“永久和平埋葬在全人类的坟场上”。美国的建国之父们同样意识到人性中扭曲的成分，因此对具有帝国倾向和弥撒亚救世情结的领袖人物充满恐惧，并予以坚决的抵制。

    法国大革命的思想先是被拿破仑挂在刺刀上传遍欧洲，接着又在血雨腥风中被赶了出去，此后，正如我们在第4章中看到的，欧洲出现了一系列“反启蒙运动”的新思潮。霍华德将它们的共同之处归结为“个人作为一个个体，其所具有的理性和观察能力，不足以创造一种成为社会和平和公正基石的法律制度。相反，个人是一个社会的成员，社会塑造了个人，其塑造方式甚至是个人无法完全理解的，而社会有权要求个人对其保持忠诚”。

    我在前面曾经提到两种反启蒙运动思想，从相反的两个方向抵制法国大革命的观念。第一种是埃德蒙·伯克的保守主义，他认为社会习俗是文明进程久经考验的成就，它驯服了人性中的阴暗面，因此值得我们像对待知识分子和改革家的措辞严谨的著述一样予以尊重。伯克式的保守主义，其本身就是理性的优美应用，它代表了对启蒙运动的小修正。但是，约翰·格特弗里德·冯·赫尔德的浪漫民族主义让反启蒙运动思想极度膨胀，他的观点是，一个民族集团——在赫尔德这里，就是日耳曼人民——有着非同寻常的品质，完全不可能被所谓人类的普遍性涵盖。这个民族的整合不是靠什么理性的社会契约，而是被鲜血和土地紧紧地联结在一起。

    霍华德说：“这种启蒙运动与反启蒙运动之间，个人和部落之间的辩证，在欧洲流行开来，并在很大程度上塑造了整个19世纪的欧洲历史，甚至20世纪的世界历史。”[109]在这两个世纪中，伯克的保守主义、启蒙的自由主义和浪漫民族主义上演了一出又一出时分时合、同床异梦的游戏。

    在1815年的维也纳会议上，大国的政治家构造了一种延续了一个世纪的国际关系体系，维也纳会议是伯克保守主义思想的胜利，即稳定压倒一切。尽管如此，霍华德还是观察到，“这个新体系的建筑师既是启蒙运动的继承人，也是法国大革命领袖的追随者。他们既不相信神圣王权，也不相信神圣神权，但如果教会和国王是在革命的狂风暴雨后重建和维护国家秩序的必要工具，那么也只好在各地重整他们的权威了”。[110]更重要的是，“他们不再认为大国之间的战争是国际关系中不可避免的组成部分。以往25年的一系列事件证明，战争实在是过于残酷了”。大国承担起维护和平和秩序的责任，他们组建的“欧洲同盟”（Concert of Europe）可以说是国联、联合国和欧盟的先驱。19世纪的欧洲得以有较长时间的和平间歇，“欧洲同盟”这个国际利维坦功不可没。

    但是，君主们一边要维持欧洲的稳定，另一边要对付内部的民族纠纷，各个民族开始强烈地要求管理自己的事务。霍华德说：“结果，民族主义与其说是来自普世的人权，不如说是民族首先为争取生存而战，继而为维护生存而战。”从短期看，对和平的渴望并不是特别强烈，因为很多人得出的结论是：“只有当所有的民族都得到自由的时候才会有和平。同时，很多民族宣称有权在必要的时候使用武力争取自由，而 ‘维也纳同盟 ’体系正是要力图防止这种民族解放战争。”[111]

    民族主义情感很快融入所有的政治运动。一旦民族国家得以确立，它立即成为新的、保守派竭力维护的权势集团。当王室成为民族国家的象征，保守主义和民族主义也就渐渐开始合流。[112]许多知识分子将浪漫民族主义与黑格尔的辩证历史观——历史不可阻挡地向前发展——交织在一起。卢亚德这样总结黑格尔的历史观：“全部的历史都是在执行一个神圣计划。战争是主权国家解决它们之间纠纷的途径，这正是神圣计划宣示自身的过程，主权国家中出现超级国家（比如普鲁士），代表着神圣意志得以实现。”[113]最终，黑格尔哲学孵化出了法西斯主义和纳粹主义。法西斯和纳粹运动具有弥撒亚式的、军国主义的和浪漫民族主义的特质。作为与此相似的另一个历史建构——暴力解放不可阻挡的辩证历史观，成为20世纪共产主义运动的基石。[114]

    人们也许会认为，英美和康德式启蒙运动的自由派继承者会反对日渐强硬的军国民族主义。但是，自由派却发觉自己身处困境：他们怎么能为王权和帝国辩护呢？于是，自由主义在“人民自决”的伪装下和民族主义站到一起，所谓“人民自决”总算还带着模模糊糊的民主意识。很不幸，“人民自决”一词所含有的那点儿人文主义意味完全取决于一个借代关系。“民族”或“人民”一词代表着组成民族的个体的男人、女人和孩子，然而政治领袖却成了民族的化身。一位统治者、一支军队、一片疆土、一种语言，在认知上被等同于数百万个血肉之躯。伍德罗·威尔逊在1916年的一次演讲中将自由主义的民族自决奉为至高原则，这一原则成为第一次世界大战后世界新秩序的基石。当时就有人看到了“民族自决”原则中内在的自相矛盾，威尔逊的国务卿罗伯特·兰辛在自己的日记中这样写道：

    这个词组简直是装满了炸药。它带来了永远也无法实现的希望。我担心，它会让成千上万人付出生命的代价。最后，它将受到鄙视，被叫作理想主义者的梦幻。这些人无视现实的风险，等到想起那些恪守原则的忠告时，一切都为时已晚。这个词组会造成多大的灾难，会带来多少悲剧！当始作俑者清点那些为了他喊出的这个字眼儿而送命的人的尸体时，他会做何感想啊！[115]

    兰辛在一个问题上犯了错误，付出生命代价的人不是成千上万，而是成百万甚至上千万。“民族自决”的危险之一是，如果民主是指一片地产上居住的同文同种的团体，在这个意义上，从来都不存在所谓的“民族国家”。与树木和山岭组成的风景不同，人是有脚的。为追逐机遇，人四处迁徙，定居后还会召唤来更多的亲友。这种人口分布上的混合，可以在地理上不断地细分，变成少数民族中还有少数民族。一个对一片疆土宣称主权的政府，自认构成一个“民族国家”，但在事实上，它可以完全无视生活在这片土地上的许许多多个体的利益，反而更关切其他领土上的某些人的利益。如果乌托邦是一个政治疆界和种族疆界刚好相吻合的世界，那么各国领导人将忍不住加速推进这一进程，开展种族清洗和民族统一主义运动。在没有自由民主、没有对人权的坚实承诺的情况下，一个政权等同于人民这种借代关系能够让任何一个国际联盟（比如联合国大会）成为一场闹剧。无能的独裁者总是能受到国际大家庭的欢迎，并拿到全权委托状，然后用饥荒、监狱和谋杀来对付自己的人民。

    * * *

    另一个破坏了19世纪欧洲和平间歇的新发展是浪漫军国主义。这种说教认为，撇开战争的战略目的，战争本身也是一种有益的活动。无论是自由派还是保守派，都接受这样的观点，即战争调动起英雄主义、自我牺牲精神和男子气概，布尔乔亚社会充斥着矫揉造作和物质享受，而战争是荡涤颓废、振奋人心的良药。今天，对一项专门用来杀人和从事破坏的事业怀有崇敬之情，绝对被认为是发疯。但在当时，作家纷纷表示：

    战争总是扩展人民的思想，提升他们的品格。

    ——亚历克西·德·托克维尔

    （战争就是）生活本身……我们必须吃和被吃，世界才能生存下去。只有好战的民族才能兴旺，一个民族一旦放弃武装，它的死期也就到了。

    ——埃米尔·左拉

    战争的崇高就在于它用伟大的国家精神彻底摧毁渺小的个人，让同胞相互牺牲的情操，让爱、友谊和强烈的同生共死的情怀得到最充分的张扬。

    ——海因里希·冯·特赖奇克

    当我告诉你战争是一切艺术的基础时，我的意思也是说，它是人类一切崇高美德和力量的基础。

    ——约翰·罗斯金

    战争是可怕的，但又是必要的，因为战争将国家从社会僵化和停滞中解救出来。

    ——格奥尔格·威廉·弗里德里希·黑格尔

    （战争是）一次净化和一次解放。

    ——托马斯·曼

    战争是人类进步所必需的。

    ——伊戈尔·斯特拉文斯基[116]

    相反，和平则成为“一种梦想，而且不是一个美妙的梦想”，德国军事战略家赫尔穆特·冯·毛奇（Helmuth von Moltke）说：“如果没有战争，世界就会在物质主义中沉沦。”[117]弗里德里希·尼采对此表示同意，他说：“如果人类忘记了如何制造战争，他们就只剩下些幻想和漂亮的情感，除此之外还能期待的所余无几（甚至是荡然无存了）。”依照英国历史学家J. A.克拉姆（J. A. Cramb）的解释，和平的意思是“世界在迟钝之中沉沦……一场噩梦成真，如同太阳变成冰块，留下行星在一片黑暗的空寂中默默地沿着轨道运行”。[118]

    甚至反对战争的思想家，例如康德、亚当·斯密、拉尔夫·沃尔多·爱默生、奥利弗·温德尔·霍姆斯、H. G.威尔斯、威廉·詹姆斯，也为战争说了不少好话。从詹姆斯1906年的文章《道义战争》的标题，就能看出他谈及的是战争的积极性，而不是战争中的恶。[119]当然，他在文章的开始对军事浪漫主义战争观做了一番挖苦：

    “可怕”的战争是拯救世界的唯一方案所要支付的小小代价，否则世界将成为小文员和教师、男女同校、热爱动物者、“消费者联盟”和“慈善联合会”、毫无节制的工业化信徒以及没羞没臊的女权主义者的天下。人类将不再有廉耻，不再有坚强，更不会有勇气！这个星球上将住满了懦夫。唾弃它吧！

    但是，他又表示：“我们必须有新的能量和奋斗来维持我们的刚强气概，这是军人所忠实信奉的品质。尚武美德是久经考验的黏合剂，英勇无畏，蔑视懦弱，放弃私利，服从命令，仍然是一个国家立国的基石。”所以，他提出了一项强制性国家服务建议，这个项目应该“招募我们那些娇生惯养的年轻人，为了戒除他们身上的幼稚，将他们送往煤矿、钢铁厂、渔轮和建筑工地”。

    浪漫民族主义和浪漫军国主义互为营养，在德国表现得尤为突出。德国是欧洲国家晚宴的迟到者，但自认为也配得上拥有一个帝国。在英国和法国，浪漫军国主义信誓旦旦地说，战争的景象绝不应该是它所显现的那样恐怖。相反，伊莱尔·贝洛克（Hillaire Belloc）这样写道：“我多么渴望一场大战！它将像扫帚一样横扫欧洲的污泥浊水！”[120]保罗·瓦莱里（Paul Valéry）也有同感：“我几乎在盼望一场毁灭性的战争。”[121]甚至夏洛克·福尔摩斯也忍不住发表了自己的意见。阿瑟·柯南道尔在1914年让福尔摩斯感叹说：“这会是冰冷和苦涩的，华生，在它大爆发之前，我们中间不少人可能就已经枯萎了。但是，说到底这是上帝的狂风，风暴过去后，阳光下会有一片更干净、更美好、更坚实的大地。”[122]各色隐喻不胜枚举：清扫灰尘的扫帚，振奋人心的清风，修枝裁叶的剪刀，荡涤污泥浊水的风暴，还有提纯精练的火焰。英国诗人鲁珀特·布鲁克（Rupert Brooke）写道：

    此刻，感谢上帝，让我们躬逢盛世，

    正值青春年少，将我们从梦中唤醒，

    坚定的手势，清明的目光，锋锐的力量，

    行动吧，就像游泳健将果敢地跃入水中。

    评论家亚当·高普尼克（Adam Gopnik）说：“当然，游泳健将不是跃入干净的水中，而是一脚踩进血水之中。”高普尼克在2004年为7本有关第一次世界大战的新书写书评。将近一个世纪过去了，这些著述仍然在试图琢磨当时到底发生了什么。[123]这场大屠杀令人难以置信——在短短4年时间中，850万人战死沙场，约有1500万人死于战争。[124]浪漫军国主义本身无法解释屠杀的狂热。至少从18世纪起，作家就开始赞美战争，但在拿破仑战争后的19世纪，曾经有两次史无前例的没有大国战争的时期。第一次世界大战是各种破坏性逆流聚攒起来的超级风暴，战神的铁骰子将它们汇集在一起：军国主义和民族主义的意识形态背景；突然出现的威胁到各个大国信誉的军备竞赛；感到恐惧的统治者认为先下手为强后下手遭殃的霍布斯陷阱；各方认为有能力速战速决并且胜算在握的过度自信；军事机器中大规模运输能力和杀伤能力的结合——大批士兵被迅速运抵战场，并在抵达后迅速阵亡；以及消耗战博弈，将交战双方锁定在战争成本呈指数级增长的游戏中，欲罢不能，直至毁灭。所有这些因素，在某一天被一个撞上大运的塞尔维亚民族主义分子突然点爆了。

    意识形态时代的人文主义和极权主义

    在始于1917年的“意识形态时代”中，19世纪反启蒙运动思想中必然论的信仰体系，决定了战争的整个过程。浪漫化和军国化的民族主义，在法西斯的意大利、大日本帝国和纳粹德国煽动起扩张的野心，而在德国，除民族主义外，还要加上一些伪科学的种族优越论。这三个国家的每一个统治者都诅咒颓废的个人主义和现代自由西方的普世主义，也都坚信天命让他们成为一方自然疆域的霸主：地中海、太平洋周边地区和欧洲大陆。[125]打响第二次世界大战的入侵行动，就是要实现这种天命式的目的。同时，苏联和中国要推动一个辩证的历史进程；在这个进程中，无产阶级和农民要消灭资产阶级。美国则决心将共产主义运动限制在“二战”结束时的边界之内，因此产生了冷战。[126]

    上述总结没有提及一个要点，而它恰恰可能是20世纪影响力最为持久的思潮。穆勒、霍华德、佩恩以及其他政治史学家告诉我们，19世纪还有一个继承了启蒙运动战争批判的思想运动。[127]与自由主义流派对民族主义怀有柔软的同情心不同，反战派坚定地以个人为本位，坚持个体的利益至高无上。它将康德的民主、商贸、世界公民和国际法诸原则发展为实现和平的具体途径。

    19世纪和20世纪初期反战运动的智囊有：贵格派，比如约翰·布赖特；废奴主义者，比如威廉·劳埃德·加里森；商贸和平论的提倡者，比如约翰·斯图亚特·穆勒和理查德·科布登（Richard Cobden）；和平主义者，比如列夫·托尔斯泰、维克多·雨果、马克·吐温和萧伯纳；哲学家，比如伯特兰·罗素；工业家，比如安德鲁·卡内基和阿尔弗雷德·诺贝尔（诺贝尔和平奖的由来）；还有许多女权运动家和一些左右摇摆的社会主义者。（警句：“刺刀的两边都是工人。”）一些道德开拓者创建了专用于预防和制约战争的新制度，比如海牙国际仲裁法庭以及有关战争守则的一系列《日内瓦公约》。

    两本畅销书的出版让和平成为流行的主题。1889年，奥地利小说家贝尔塔·冯·苏特纳（Bertha von Suttner）的小说《放下武器！》（Die Waffen Nieder!），以第一人称讲述了战争的残酷。1909年，英国记者诺曼·安吉尔（Norman Angell）先是出版了一个小册子《欧洲的幻觉》（Europe..s Optical Illusion），后来扩展成书《大幻影》（The Great Illusion）。他在书中论证说，战争是没有经济效益的。掠夺在原始经济中也许有利可图，因为财富的形态是有限的资源，比如黄金、土地或者自给自足的匠人的手工产品。但在一个财富来自交换、信用和分工的世界里，征服不可能让征服者更富有。矿产不会跳到地面上，庄稼不会走进粮仓，征服者还是要支付报酬，以使矿工采矿，使农民春种秋收。事实上，征服者要付出金钱和生命，而且他破坏了人人受益的信任和合作系统，他只会变得更穷。不妨想象一下，加拿大中部省份马尼托巴征服西部省份萨斯喀彻温，能有多大的收益？如果说两个加拿大省份之间的征服收益有限，那德国征服加拿大，能得到的好处也绝不会更大。

    尽管文学作品一时间颇受欢迎，但反战运动在当时被认为过分理想化，没有任何政治势力愿意给予严肃的考虑。苏特纳被叫作“荒谬的温情香水”，她的德国和平学社是“一个滑稽的缝纫俱乐部，会员都是些感情脆弱的女大妈和男大妈”。安吉尔的朋友告诉他说：“不要再碰那些问题，否则你会和那些怪人、赶时髦的新潮儿或者留着胡子穿着凉鞋追求高级思维、靠吃坚果维生的狂热分子划为一类。”[128]H. G.威尔斯这样写道，萧伯纳是“一个还在玩耍的上了年纪的顽童……在整个战争期间，我们一直听得见萧氏发出不和谐的伴奏，活像一个痴呆儿童在医院里大喊大叫”。[129]事实上，安吉尔从来没有说战争是无用的，他仅仅是说，战争无法实现它的经济目的，他只是担心醉心荣耀的领导人会以此为借口发动战争——人们提到安吉尔，却总是说他认为战争是没有用处的。[130]第一次世界大战结束后，安吉尔成为一个笑柄，因为他竟然认为能够终结战争。直到今天，他仍被看作天真乐观主义的象征。当我写作本书的时候，不止一位同事把我拉到一边，教育我诺曼·安吉尔是何许人也。

    * * *

    但是，穆勒认为，安吉尔是那个笑到最后的人。第一次世界大战不仅宣告了浪漫军国主义在西方主流思想界的终结，也否定了在任何情况下认为战争是一种需要，或者不可避免的观念。卢亚德说：“第一次世界大战改变了人们对于战争的传统态度。人类第一次有了一种几乎是普遍的认知，故意发动战争不再被认为是正当的。”[131]这不仅是因为欧洲被生命和财产的巨大损失震撼，正如穆勒所说，欧洲历史上也曾经有过破坏性相当的战争，但在许多情况下，大部分参战国舔舔伤口，拍拍灰土，仿佛没有得到任何教训，就立即跳进一场新的战争。还记得我在前面说过，致命冲突的统计显示不出有任何厌战情绪。穆勒坚持认为，这一次则出现了关键性的区别，锲而不舍、旗帜鲜明的反战运动现在终于可以说：“我早就告诉过你们！”

    无论是政治家还是文化领域，都能看到这种转变。当人们目睹第一次世界大战的破坏性后，“伟大的战争”被改名为“结束一切战争的战争”。一旦战争结束，各国首脑立即着手将希望付诸现实，宣布正式放弃战争，并筹组国联，防范新的战争。无论这些措施在事后来看多么差劲，在当时，它们却是对几千年传统的颠覆。在此之前，人类一直将战争奉为光荣、英雄、名誉的等价物，用军事理论家卡尔·冯·克劳塞维茨的名言来说，战争“仅是政治以另外一种方式的继续”。

    我也一直将第一次世界大战称为第一次“文学大战”。到20世纪20年代后期，对战争进行苦涩反思的创作，将战争的悲剧和徒劳无益变为大众的知识。在这个时代的伟大作品中，有西格里夫·萨松（Siegfried Sassoon）、罗伯特·格雷夫斯（Robert Graves）和威尔弗雷德·欧文（Wilfred Owen）的诗歌和回忆录，畅销小说和家喻户晓的电影《西线无战事》,T. S.艾略特（T. S. Eliot）的名诗《空心人》（The Hollow Men），海明威的小说《永别了，武器》（A Farewell to Arms）, R.C.谢里夫（R. C. Sherriff）的戏剧《旅途终点》（Journey..s End），金·维多（King Vidor）的电影《大游行》（The Big Parade），让·雷诺阿（Jean Renoir）的电影《大幻影》（Grand Illusion）——名字取自安吉尔的著作。

    像其他人文主义的艺术作品一样，这些故事用第一人称，力图让读者和观众体验到故事中人物的痛苦感受。在《西线无战事》一个著名的场景中，年轻的德国士兵审视一个刚刚被他杀死的法国人的尸体：

    毫无疑问，他的妻子还在思念他；她肯定不知道灾难已经降临。他看起来好像是经常给她写信的那种人——她还会再收到他的信。明天，也许一周之后，她或许又能收到他的信，甚至再过更长的时间，个把月后，还会收到一封被邮局拖延的书信。她能看到信里他正和她诉说深情呢……

    我跟他交谈起来，我说：“……原谅我，同志……为什么他们从来不告诉我们，你们和我们一样都是一群可怜虫，你们的母亲和我们的母亲一样在担惊受怕，我们都恐惧死亡，都会死亡，都有悲伤痛苦？”……

    “我一定要给你妻子写信，”我急切地对那个死人讲……“我要把我刚才对你讲的话都告诉她，她不会受罪的，我以后一定帮助她，还会照顾你的父母和孩子……”我心神不定将他的皮夹拿在手里。皮夹不小心从手里滑到地下，展开了……照片上是一名妇女和一个小女孩，她们站在一面长满青藤的墙前，是那种业余摄影师拍摄的小小的照片。和照片在一起的，是家信。[132]

    另一个士兵问为什么会爆发战争，有人回答说：“通常都是一个国家严重侵犯了另一个国家引起的。”这个士兵回答说：“一个国家？我听不明白。德国的山不会跑去侵占法国的山。或者河流，或者树林，或者一片麦田，这些怎么会去侵犯人家？”[133]穆勒认为，这部文学作品的最后结果是，战争不再被看作光荣、英雄、神圣、令人激动、男子气概或者清除污浊的，它变成不道德的、令人厌恶、野蛮、无用、愚蠢、浪费和残酷的。

    也许，还要加上一个，荒谬的。第一次世界大战的直接原因是荣誉受到损害，导致摊牌。奥匈帝国领袖向塞尔维亚发出羞辱性的最后通牒，要求为大公遇刺道歉并镇压塞国内部的民族主义运动，直到奥匈帝国满意为止。俄国人为斯拉夫同胞打抱不平，德国觉得俄国侵犯了说德语的同胞，英法随即加入混战，一场有关荣誉、侮辱、羞耻、声望、信用的竞赛一步步升级，最后失去控制。各国唯恐被甩在后面成为“二流国家”，这种恐惧让他们在“懦夫博弈”中拒绝刹车，结果只有迎头相撞。

    当然，纵观血腥的欧洲历史，荣誉竞赛所点燃的战火比比皆是。但是，正如福斯塔夫所说，荣誉只是一个字眼——我们今天也许会说，只是一个社会建构，“毁谤不能容忍它”。很快，毁谤就出现了。迄今为止最优秀的反战电影也许要算马克斯兄弟的《鸭羹》（Duck Soup, 1933年）。格劳乔扮演鲁弗斯·T.法尔弗莱，弗里多尼亚国（“自由之地”）一位刚刚得到任命的领袖。他被要求和邻国西尔瓦尼亚的大使达成和平协议：

    如果我不能倾尽全力让我们挚爱的弗里多尼亚与世界和平共处，我就是辜负了人们给予我的高度信任。我十万分热切地期待与特伦蒂诺大使会面，我将以国家的名义，向他伸出友谊之手。我深信他将怀着同样的心情接受这一善意的姿态。

    不过，假如他拒绝接受，那样也很好。我伸出我的手，他拒绝和我握手。这会给我的脸上增光，不是吗？我，一国元首，在一个外国大使那里碰钉子了。他以为他是什么人，竟敢跑到这里，当着我的人的面，把我当个傻瓜耍？让我再想一想。我伸出手，那个阴险的家伙拒绝和我握手。为什么？这只卑鄙、贼头贼脑的臭猪！我告诉你，他永远也不会忘记这一天！（大使进屋。）是啊，你拒绝和我握手，是吧？（他打了大使一个大耳光。）

    大使：蒂斯代尔太太，这是最后一根稻草！现在没有回旋余地了！开战吧！

    于是，一个古怪的制作编号突然闪出画面，马克斯兄弟在一队德国士兵的钢盔上弹奏木琴音乐，躬身躲闪着呼啸的子弹和炮弹。他们身上的军装一直在变换，从内战的士兵，换作童子军，再换作英国王宫卫兵，直到戴着浣熊皮帽子的边疆拓殖者。人们一直将战争比喻为决斗，决斗在逐渐成为人们的笑柄后销声匿迹了。战争的名声当时也经历了类似的过程，奥斯卡·王尔德的预言差点儿成为现实：“只要战争被视为邪恶，它就总有一种魅力。当它被视为粗鄙时，它就不会受到欢迎了。”

    查理·卓别林的《大独裁者》（The Great Dictator, 1940年）是另外一种经典的战争讽刺喜剧。它嘲笑的对象不再是理想王国中冲动的领袖，因为当时每个人都烦透了军队的尚武文化。相反，小丑一抹脸成了满脑子尚武理想的当代独裁者。一个令人难以忘怀的电影场景是：希特勒和墨索里尼这两个角色在一间理发店里交谈，两人相互较劲儿，力争盖过对方一头，不断升高他们所坐的理发椅，直到两人的脑袋撞到天花板。

    穆勒认为，到20世纪30年代，欧洲弥漫着浓重的厌战情绪，甚至德国平民和军官也不例外。[134]虽然德国人对《凡尔赛条约》的条款非常不满，但几乎没有人愿意通过发动战争来修正条约。穆勒历数了一连串有机会成为总理的德国领导人，他们之中只有希特勒一个人怀有征服欧洲的野心。历史学家亨利·特纳说，只需要一次军事政变，就可以避免第二次世界大战。[135]希特勒充分利用了世界的厌战情绪，一而再，再而三地宣称热爱和平，但他也深知，在还能够阻止他的野心的时候，是不会有人愿意出来阻拦他的。穆勒和许多历史学家都认为，希特勒一个人要对这场人类历史上最可怕的灾难负有主要责任。穆勒翻阅了希特勒的各种传记，为这一观点寻找证据：

    在1933年拿到对国家的世纪控制权之后，（希特勒）迅速并坚决地处置他的对手和潜在对手，手法包括劝服、恐吓、压制、欺诈、降级，以及在许多情况下甚至不惜进行谋杀。他的精力超人，具有非同一般的说服力、记忆力和全神贯注的能力；并且极度嗜好权力，狂热地坚信天降大任在肩；此外还具有几乎是无限的自信心，胆大妄为，以及得天独厚的撒谎能力、令人着迷的演讲风格；最后就是能够毫不留情地消灭任何妨碍他或者试图妨碍他实现自己意图的人……

    希特勒需要利用混乱和不满为自己寻找机会，尽管这些混乱和不满大多是他自己制造的。他还需要帮手——一些对他崇拜不已、俯首帖耳的奴才；需要一支能够听他使唤和调遣的军队；需要一个国家的国民能够为其所魅惑并被他带入屠宰场；还需要茫然、没有组织、愚蠢、短视、胆小如鼠的外国对手，以及情愿祈祷而不愿作战的邻国——可以说，他也是自己动手，制造了大部分他所需要的条件。希特勒将他得到的各种条件一一加以利用，根据自己的目的对世界进行操纵和重塑。[136]

    最后是5500万人的死亡（包括日本进犯东亚的行动所造成的至少1200万人的死亡）。世界再一次呼唤和平。

    长期和平：一些数字

    本章中，在战争统计方面，我用了很大的篇幅。但是，现在我们还要来看一看1945年以来最有意思的统计数字： 0。在经历了人类历史上最残酷的战争厮杀之后，将近70年过去了，在大批的战争分类统计栏目中，数字都是0。让我从最重要的统计开始：

    .冲突中使用核武器的数量为0。5个大国拥有核武器，所有这些国家都曾卷入战争。但是，没有任何核武器被投入使用。这还不仅是大国避免在全面核战争中同归于尽，它们也避免在战场和轰炸敌人设施的行动中使用小规模“战术型”核武器，它们中有很多相当于常规的爆炸装置。20世纪40年代后期，美国在使用核武器上是克制的，因为当时它拥有核垄断，不必担心“确保相互毁灭”。我在本书中一直使用各种比重以量化暴力。如果我们来计算一下一个国家实际从事的暴行和它具有的暴行能力之比，考虑到它们拥有的破坏能力，战后几十年的和平真是要高出人类历史其他时期好几个数量级。

    本来这一切都还不能算是最后的结论。直到冷战突然终结之前，许多专家，包括阿尔伯特·爱因斯坦、查尔斯·珀西·斯诺（C. P. Snow）、赫尔曼·卡恩（Herman Kahn）、卡尔·萨根（Carl Sagan）和乔纳森·谢尔（Jonathan Schell）都曾认为，热核战争导致世界末日即使不是不可避免，也是非常有可能的。[137]比如，杰出的国际问题学者汉斯·摩根索（Hans Morgenthau）在1979年这样说：“世界正在不可避免地走向第三次世界大战——一场战略性核战争。我不相信有任何办法能够阻止这场战争。”[138]根据《原子科学家公报》（The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists，后简称《公报》）网站上的信息，这份期刊的宗旨是“向公众提供有关核武器的深度分析、评论和报告并影响政策制定”。自1947年开始，《公报》发布“世界末日之钟”，量度“人类距离灾难性毁灭——以午夜为代表——还有多长时间”。时钟公布时的分针距离午夜还有7分钟，在后来的60年中，分针时进时退很多次，距离午夜最近的时候只有2分钟（1953年），最远的时候是17分钟（1991年）。到2007年，《公报》决定，60年内向前挪动了2分钟的末日之钟到了再次调整的时候了。但是，他们不是调试钟表的机械，而是重新定义了什么是“午夜”。今天的“末日”包括“生态系统的破坏、洪灾、大暴雨、旱情和极地融冰”。这也算是一种进步吧。

    .冷战两大敌对国战场交火记录为0。肯定，他们偶尔会和对方的小伙伴开战，在某个附庸国打一场代理人战争。但是，当美国或者苏联中的一方将部队派往对抗地区（柏林、匈牙利、越南、捷克斯洛伐克、阿富汗）时，另一方就采取回避姿态。[139]这是一个意义重大的特征。我们已经知道，一场大战的伤亡人数远远高于许多场小战争的总和。过去，当大国的敌人侵入一个中立国，大国往往会出现在战场上以表达自己的不快。1979年，当苏联入侵阿富汗时，美国为了表示本国的不满，从莫斯科奥林匹克运动会上撤回了自己的运动员。20世纪80年代后期，米哈伊尔·戈尔巴乔夫掌权之后，冷战在未发一枪的情况下戛然而止。接着是柏林墙在和平中被推倒，苏联基本上在和平中解体。

    . 1953年之后，大国交战次数为0（或者甚至可以说自1945年之后大国交战次数为0，因为许多政治学家认为，中国在朝鲜战争结束之后才被视为大国）。1953年之后，没有战争的和平间歇打破了19世纪一次历时38年和一次历时44年的2项和平纪录。事实上，到1984年5月15日为止，大国之间保持和平的时间之长打破了古罗马帝国以来的纪录。[140]自公元前2世纪条顿人的部落向古罗马人发起挑战开始，每一次破坏和平的战事都有军队跨越莱茵河。[141]

    .第二次世界大战之后，西欧国家之间的州际战争的数量为0。[142]而在1956年苏联短暂地入侵匈牙利之后，整个欧洲国家之间的州际战争的数量亦为0。[143]要记住，在此之前，欧洲自1400年起每年要开启两场全新的武装冲突。

    .自1945年以来，全世界主要发达国家（44个高收入国家）之间的战争为0（唯一的例外是1956年的匈牙利事件）。[144]今天，我们理所当然地认为战争发生在更小、更穷、更落后的国家。但是，两场世界大战以及几个世纪中许多两个国家名字相连的战争（普法战争、普奥战争、俄国瑞典北方大战、英西战争、英荷战争）都告诉我们，事情原先并不是今天这个样子的。

    .自20世纪40年代末以来，通过征服另一个国家而扩张领土的发达国家数量为0。波兰被吞并，英国将印度纳入大英帝国版图，或者奥地利将自己算作一个不伦不类的巴尔干国家，这样的情况不再出现。1975年之后，世界上一个国家征服或者部分征服另外一个国家的次数为0。而自1948年之后的这个数字也已经接近于0（我们下面将探究有关这方面的发展）。[145]事实上，各大国的扩张转变为收缩。这个过程可以称为“世界有史以来最大的权力转移”，欧洲国家将大片的帝国领土拱手交给独立了的殖民国家，移交过程有时是和平的，有时是因为他们在殖民战争中失利。[146]我们将在下一章中看到，整整两个战争类别——攫取殖民地的帝国主义战争和保持殖民地的殖民战争——已不复存在。[147]

    .第二次世界大战之后，被国际社会承认的因为被征服而亡国的国家数字为0。[148]（南越也许是唯一的例外，这要看南越与北越在1975年的统一是被视为一种征服还是一场国际战争的结束。）可以比较一下，在20世纪上半叶，有22个国家被占领或者被吞并，当时的国家数目要少得多。[149]虽然1945年之后，很多国家赢得独立，但几乎没有几个国家被分裂。1950年的世界地图上的国界线和2010年的地图相差无几。而在过去，世界上的统治者将领土扩张看作他们的天职。

    * * *

    本章的要点就是这些0, 0所代表的长期和平是各种心理不断调整的结果。无论在今天还是在过去的历史上，这种调整无时不在，并最终导致暴力的减少。在这种情况下，发达国家的主流思潮对战争的共识开始发生变化，新的思潮逐渐被世界其他国家接受。在人类历史的大部分时期，那些渴望权力、威望和复仇的大人物能够通过他们的政治网络实现野心，为了满足自己而对因此产生的受害者毫无怜悯之心。换句话说，他们相信战争有其正当性。尽管战争的心理构成——支配、报复、麻木不仁、部落意识、团体迷思和自我欺骗并没有消失，但自20世纪40年代末以来，欧洲和其他发达国家中这些心理构成开始解体，战争的频率因此下降。

    有些人不愿意承认这些惊人的发展，说战争在发展中国家仍然存在，所以战争只是换了个地方，并没有减少。我们会在下一章探究世界其他地方的武装冲突，在此我只想说这个意见没有意义。不存在什么“暴力守恒定律”，也没有什么泄压系统，让世界某个地方的暴力高压在另外一个地方爆发出来。部落战、内战、私斗、劫掠奴隶、帝国战争和殖民战争在发展中国家的地盘上已经存在了几千年。一个在某些贫困地区仍有战争的世界，总是强过一个在穷困和富裕地区都有战争的世界，尤其是要考虑到富国能够调动的难以估量的破坏力。

    当然，长期和平不等于永久和平。没有人会根据历史统计数据推出大国之间、发达国家之间或者欧洲国家之间永远不会再发生战争的结论。但是，可能性随着时间发生的变化对我们是有意义的——赌场上铁色子游戏的赔率会下降，幂律线会下沉或倾斜。在我们的真实生活中，这一切已经发生了。

    即便如此，同样的统计意识提醒我们还有其他的可能性。也许，赌博的赔率完全没有变化，我们只是对一个随机出现的和平时期进行了过度解读，就像我们前面对战争和暴力的集簇形态进行了过度解读一样。也许，战争的压力已经在集聚，随时都有可能爆发。

    但是，也存在并非如此的可能。关于致命冲突的统计显示，战争不是一个钟摆，不是压力蒸锅，也不是一群狂奔的野兽，而是一个没有记忆的骰子博彩，也许赔率还在不断变换。许多国家的历史证明，和平是绝对可以长期维持的。穆勒是这样说的：“如果战争狂热症是周期性发作的，我们大可期待瑞士人、丹麦人、瑞典人、荷兰人和西班牙人现在就该扑向战场了。”[150]美加两国有着世界上最长的不设防国境线，但加拿大人和美国人并没有为了过期已久的边境争端而夜不能寐，忧心如焚。

    好运气到头了的可能性有多大？这种可能性几乎不存在。战后几十年，是500年前开始成型的大国所经历的最长的和平期。[151]在战火密布的欧洲历史上，目前的和平也是它的历史纪录。所有的统计分析都会证明，考虑到前几个世纪的战争纪录，长期和平中的那些0以及近乎0是极端的不可能事件。如果以1495—1945年的大国战争为基准线，出现只发生1场大国战争的65年和平期的概率为0.001（朝鲜战争属于边缘案例）。[152]即使我们以1815年作为起点，让拿破仑战争后的19世纪和平期修正观测的基准线，我们得到的结果是，仅发生4场大国战争的可能性低于0.004，而欧洲国家之间只发生一场战争（1956年苏联入侵匈牙利）的概率为0.0008。[153]

    当然，概率的计算完全取决于计算者如何定义事件。当你在对已经发生的事件有充分知识的情况下估算发生率（一种事后的比较，即人们所说的“数据探测”），与你在事前给出预测（一种有计划的或者先验的比较），结果可能非常不同。回想一下，一个房间里有57个人，出现2个人在同一天过生日的概率是0.99。在这个案例中，我们只有在找到这一对人之后方能确定生日的具体日子。而如果我们事先确定生日的日期，比如“我的生日”，那么出现和我在同一天过生日的人的概率低于1/7。股市骗子就在利用这两种概率计算的差别，在他们向客户发送的简报上预测市场的每一种可能走向。几个月后，终于撞上运气的分散的简报收件人会认为这家伙是个天才。对“长期和平”持怀疑态度的人可以说，那些在每一次长期和平出现后对此大做文章的人只不过是玩了一个“数据探测”的鬼把戏。

    但事实上，有一群学者在20多年前的一篇论文中指出，没有战争的时代将会延续，并认为这是新思维的结果。今天，我们可以说他们的先验预测应验了。这些故事既有标题，也有日期：维尔纳·莱维的《战争即将结束》（The Coming End of War, 1981年）；约翰·加迪斯的《长期和平：战后国际体系的稳定因素》（The Long Peace: Elements of Stability in the Postwar International System, 1986年）；卡列维·霍尔斯蒂的《末日骑士：兵临城下，还是改变方向，或者全面撤退？》（The Horsemen of the Apocalypse: At the Gate, Detoured, or Retreating?, 1986年）；埃文·卢亚德的《锈蚀的剑：当代世界政治中军事权力的消融》（The Blunted Sword: the Erosion of Military Power in Modern World Politics, 1988年）；约翰·穆勒的《逃离末日：大规模战争已经过时了》（Retreat from Dooms-day: The Obsolescence of Major War, 1989年）；弗朗西斯·福山的《历史的终结》（1989年）；詹姆斯·李·雷（James Lee Ray）的《废奴和国际战争的终结》（The Abolition of Slavery and the End of International War, 1989年）；卡尔·凯森（Carl Kaysen）的《战争过时了吗？》（Is War Ob-solete? 1990年）。[154]1988年，政治学家罗伯特·杰维斯（Robert Jervis）捕捉到了一个大家都关注到的现象：

    战后最令人瞩目的特征是它是名副其实的“战后”，因为1945年之后，大国之间再没有发生过战争。大国之间如此之长的和平期是史无前例的。[155]

    这些学者相当肯定地认为这不是一时的好运。他们指出，这是一个根本性的转变，支持对未来的预期。20世纪90年代初，凯森在对穆勒1989年的著作进行评论时，最后加上了一段话：

    很清楚，欧洲的国际构架，以及整个世界的国际构架正在发生深刻的转型。这种转型在过去一般是通过战争完成的。本文的观点支持这样一种预测，即这次的变化可以在没有战争的情况下发生（尽管这不是说在各国内部也一定没有暴力冲突）。时至今日——1月中旬，万事安好。此后的每一天，作者和读者都可以热切而紧张地验证这一预见。[156]

    当军事历史学家提出国家间战争被消除的初步评估时，人们的感觉会特别深刻，因为这些学者毕生浸润在各种战争史料中，看够了“此次非同寻常”的各种可能性。约翰·基根一向被称为“卓越的”军事史学家，如果有人以为“卓越”是他名字的一部分，也不足为奇。在1993年出版的名著《战争史》中，他写道：

    在我以毕生精力阅读战争史料，与老兵厮混，探访昔日的战场，观察战争的影响之后，我似乎感到，战争即将偃旗息鼓了，且不论战争是否理性，至少它很可能不再是人类处理分歧所需要的和有效的手段了。[157]

    另一位卓越的学者迈克尔·霍华德在1991年曾经这样说：

    很有可能，高度发达社会之间大规模的、有组织的武装冲突——这个意义上的战争不会再发生了，国际秩序将被纳入一个稳定的框架。[158]

    而同样卓越的大师埃文·卢亚德——我们巡视600年战争史的向导——在更早的1986年就说过：

    欧洲刚刚发生了最令人惊异的变化，国际战争正在人们的面前被画上休止符……想到欧洲前几个世纪所经历的战争的规模和频率，这一变化的程度极为壮观，也许可以称之为人类战争史上最令人震惊的断裂。[159]

    20多年过去了，他们中没有任何一个人需要修正他们的判断。阿扎尔·加特的军事史巨著《战争文明史》，覆盖面比以往任何著作都要宽泛，并以演化心理学的方法分析了霍布斯的王国……加特在书中写道：

    在富裕的自由民主国家……真正的和平状态基于真诚的相互信任。他们已经达成共识，他们之间的战争可能性已经完全被消除了，甚至作为一个选项也是不可能的了。这在人类历史上是前所未有的。[160]

    长期和平：态度和事件

    加特的“真正的和平状态”中的“状态”二字不仅强调了发达国家之间的战争为0这个已知的事实，而且特别指出了这些国家中思维模式的变化。发达国家对战争的概念化及对战争的准备都发生了根本性的变化。

    1500年以来战争死亡率不断上升（见图5-16）的主要动因是强制征兵制度，它为各国军队提供了源源不断的新鲜血肉。到拿破仑战争时期，大部分欧洲国家都开始实行某种形式的征兵制。当时人们还没有“良心抗拒”的概念，20世纪60年代让美国年轻人惴惴不安的电报的第一个句子是“问候您”。与之相比，中世纪的征募方式完全没有礼貌可言。老话所谓的“抓差”原意是指政府出钱雇用黑帮和流氓在街上抓人，再将抓来的人押进军队或者送上军舰。（在美国革命战争时期，“美国海军”的水兵几乎都是被“抓差帮”抓来的人。）[161]强制兵役可以消耗一个人的大部分生命。在19世纪的俄国，一个农奴服兵役的年限可以长达25年。

    军队征兵制表明行使武力是正常的：人民被强制服役，服役本身将他们暴露在伤残和送命的高风险下。除了那些面临强敌威胁的时刻，征兵的强度可以衡量一个国家动用武力的愿望有多么强烈。在第二次世界大战后的数十年间，世界各国的军人服役时长稳定地下降。美国、加拿大和大部分欧洲国家都彻底废除了征兵制。在另外一些国家，征兵制也更像一个培养公民意识的集训班，而不是武士演练营地。[162]佩恩整理了1970—2000年48个有相当历史的国家的军人服役数据。根据他的数据，我绘制了图5-19。数据显示，自20世纪80年代后期，冷战尚未结束时，征兵制就已经开始消亡。1970年，这些国家中只有19%不实行征兵制，而在2000年，这个数字为35%，2010年达到50%。这个数字将很快超过半数，因为又有两个国家（波兰和塞尔维亚）已经计划在之后的10年内取消征兵制。[163]

    图5-19 1970—2010年48个历史悠久国家的征兵服役长度

    资料来源：1970—2000年图表来自佩恩，2004年，第74页，根据国际战略研究所（伦敦）《军事平衡》刊物（各期）的资料绘制。2010年的资料来自《军事平衡》（IISS，2010年），补充资料来自中央情报局《世界概况》，2010年。

    另一个衡量好战程度的指标是一个国家的军队人数占总人口的比重，不论这些军队人员是强制征兵而来，还是通过电视上做志愿兵广告——“人尽其才”——招募而来。佩恩表明，军人占总人口的比重是表明一个国家在观念上是否迎合好战情绪的最佳指标。[164]第二次世界大战后，美国刚开始遣散军队，就在冷战中遇到了新敌人，因此它的军队人数总量没能收缩到战前的水平。但图5-20显示，20世纪50年代中期之后，军队的人数迅速减少。欧洲更早地开始停止向军事部门进行人力投资。

    图5-20 1950—2000年美国和欧洲军事人员的数量

    资料来源：战争相关数据资料库国家物力数据（1816—2001年），萨吉斯，2000年。每5年的未加权平均数。“欧洲”包括比利时、丹麦、芬兰、法国、希腊、匈牙利、爱尔兰、意大利、卢森堡、荷兰、挪威、波兰、罗马尼亚、俄国／苏联、西班牙、瑞典、瑞士、土耳其、英国、南斯拉夫。

    其他一些大国，包括澳大利亚、巴西、加拿大和中国，也在近几十年中裁减军队的数量。冷战结束后，裁军成为世界性的大趋势。1988年，世界上每10万人中有9名以上军事人员，而到2001年，在历史悠久的国家中，每10万人中仅有不到5.5名军事人员。[165]军事人员减少的部分原因是非军事性服务外包，比如由私人承包商提供洗衣和伙食服务，以及在最富裕的国家，用机器人和无人机替代前线战斗人员。但是，机器人大战的时代还很遥远。最新的事态显示，地面部队的人数仍然是军队战斗力的主要限制条件。因此，军队机器人化的进展本身就表明了战斗人员减少的趋势。国家开发这些昂贵的技术，皆因自己公民的生命（甚至我们将要看到，还有外国公民的生命）变得越来越珍贵了。

    * * *

    既然战争始于人的思想，就让我们从人的思想出发构建和平。

    ——联合国教科文组织铭文

    长期和平的另一个指标是一套清醒理智的检查，它表明各国领导和大众的思维模式已经发生了变化。20世纪下半叶，民族主义、扩张领土的野心、国际上的荣誉文化、对战争的普遍认可、对战争造成的生命代价无动于衷——这些好战思维已经在发达国家失去市场。

    第一个标志性事件是1948年48个国家签署的《世界人权宣言》。《世界人权宣言》开篇即陈述了以下条款：

    第一条 人皆生而自由；在尊严及权利上均各平等。人各赋有理性良知，诚应和睦相处，情同手足。

    第二条 人人皆得享受本宣言所载之一切权利与自由，不分种族、肤色、性别、语言、宗教、政见或他种主张、国籍或门第、财产、出生或他种身份。且不得因一人所隶国家或地区之政治、行政或国际地位之不同而有所区别，无论该地区系独立、托管、非自治或受有其他主权上之限制。

    第三条 人人有权享有生命、自由与人身安全。

    你可以说这不过是一些表达了良好愿望的辞藻。但是，为了支持启蒙运动的理想，即承认政治领域的终极价值是个人的存在，签字国正在抛弃那些延续了上百年的学说，即终极价值是国家、民族、文化、人民、阶级或者其他集体（更不用说一个世纪之前的几百年间，终极价值是君主，人民不过是他或她的牛羊）。1945—1946年的纽伦堡审判让人们认识到了申明普世人权的必要性。在审判中，一些律师辩护说，只能为纳粹在被占领国，例如波兰实行的屠杀部分进行起诉。按照以往的观念，他们在自己国家境内的所作所为，其他任何人都无权置喙。

    另一个说明《世界人权宣言》并非一纸空文的证据是，大国对于签署这一宣言非常紧张。英国担心它的殖民地，美国担心它的黑人，苏联担心它的加盟共和国。[166]但是，在埃莉诺·罗斯福的督促下，宣言经过83个回合的讨论之后，全票获得通过（虽然苏东集团的8个国家缺席会议）。

    45年后，瓦茨拉夫·哈维尔对抛弃反启蒙运动意识形态的时代潮流做了精彩的总结。哈维尔是捷克斯洛伐克的剧作家，在非暴力的天鹅绒革命推翻当时的制度之后，他出任捷克的总统。哈维尔写道：“在民主基础上整合欧洲这一思想的伟大之处在于，它彻底战胜了认为民族国家是民族生命最高表现的赫尔德式老观念。”[167]

    * * *

    对于“长期和平”做出贡献的还有一个自相矛盾的因素：冻结国境线。联合国首先倡议现有国家及其边界神圣不可侵犯。这一准则将任何武力改变边境线的企图都视为“侵略”。在国际关系博弈中，领土扩张从此不再具有正当性。边界的划分也许毫无道理可言，边界内的政府也许根本不配执政，但武力修整边境在任何国家的政客心目中都不再是一个现实的选项。一般而言，接受继承的边境线是一个和平举措。正如政治学家约翰·瓦斯克斯（John Vasquez）所说：“在所有主张战争的逻辑根据中，最常见的就是边境问题。几乎所有国家之间的战争都涉及这样或者那样的边境纠纷。”[168]

    政治学家马克·察赫尔（Mark Zacher）对这一变化进行了量化研究。[169]自1951年以来，仅有10次入侵行动导致了国境线的大改动，这10次军事行动都发生在1975年之前。大部分行动都是在人烟稀少的偏僻之地或者荒岛插上一些国旗，还有一些行动形成了新的政治实体（比如孟加拉国），并非征服者扩充疆土。10次听起来也不少了，但是如图5-21所示，与之前的300年相比，它是一条陡峭的下滑线。

    以色列是一个特例。以色列和阿拉伯国家之间蜿蜒的军事分界线“绿线”是1949年战争的结果，当时各方（尤其是阿拉伯国家）都不同意接受这个安排。但在随后的几十年中，国际社会接受了这个谜一样的状态，将此作为以色列的实际边境线。以色列在国际压力下，已经交出了大部分它在1949年之后各次战争中得到的领土，而我们在有生之年，将会看到以色列交出其他领土。这个过程也许会伴有一些领土交换，也许还会包括有关耶路撒冷的复杂安排。在耶路撒冷问题上，边境不可变更的准则与城市不可分割的准则相抵触。其他大部分占领行动，比如印度尼西亚占领东帝汶，已经得到纠正。近年来最戏剧性的案例是1990年萨达姆·侯赛因入侵科威特（这是1945年后发生的唯一一次一个联合国成员完全吞并另一个联合国成员）。多国部队立即行动，速战速决，将萨达姆赶出了科威特。

    图5-21 1651—2000年导致疆域变化的领土战争的百分比

    资料来源：数据来自察赫尔，2001年，表1和表2；除了最后的20世纪下半叶的数据之外，每半个世纪的数据点上的数据均为中值。20世纪下半叶每25年为一个数据点。

    国家边界不可侵犯背后的心理学，与其说是共情和道德理性，不如说是准则和禁忌（我们将在第9章讨论这方面的问题）。在受到尊重的国家中，征服已经不是一个可以想象的选择。如果一位民主国家的政治家建议征服另一个国家，现在已经根本不会有人愿意与之争论，他面对的只会是困惑、尴尬或大笑。

    察赫尔指出，“领土完整”准则不仅排除了征服，也排除了其他形式的边界侵蚀。在非殖民化过程中，新独立的国家的边界是老殖民行政官几十年前在地图上画的线，经常将少数民族的家园一分为二，或者将势不两立的敌对部落拼凑在一起。总之，没有人想到号召这些新国家的领导人坐到谈判桌前，在空白的地图上重新划分边界。苏联和南斯拉夫解体时，原来共和国和省份之间的内部边界变成了主权实体之间的国境线，也没有出现重新划分边界的问题。

    将地图上任意画出的线条神圣化似乎很不合逻辑，但是即使是任意的和不公正的准则，尊重准则也是理性的选择。博弈论专家托马斯·谢林注意到，当两个谈判人认为达成一系列妥协的状态优于放弃谈判的状态时，那么，任何凸显的认知界标都将有助于他们达成一个符合双方利益的协约。[170]比如，人们在讨价还价时，可以将双方出价之差打个对折“成交”，或者四舍五入“成交”，而不是无休无止地争吵什么是最公平的价格。梅尔维尔《白鲸》中的猎鲸人接受了“已系之鲸归系者”这样的规则，因为他们知道，接受规则能避免“最烦人和最暴力的纠纷”。律师喜欢说：“现实占有，败一胜九——在谁手里就是谁的。”另外，每个人都知道“篱笆严紧才能邻里和睦”的道理。

    20世纪30年代，在欧洲领导人和希特勒谈判时，大家都认为德国吞并奥地利和大片捷克斯洛伐克领土，将所有日耳曼民族的居住地区纳入德国版图是完全合理的，而今天对领土完整原则的尊重则认为这是完全不可接受的。的确，这个原则一直在侵蚀民族国家及与其共生的民族自决理念，而这些理念曾经是19世纪后期和20世纪的民族领袖狂热追求的目标。对横穿民族居住地的人工边境线进行重新划分，仍然是无解的地理难题，与其说无休止地纠缠一个无解的难题，并挑起种族灭绝和以收复领土为借口的征战，接受现有边界被认为是更好的安排。

    领土完整原则带来了大量的不公正，例如一些族群被划入一个对其福祉毫不关心的政治实体。这一点，也正是《白鲸》中水手伊希梅尔耿耿于怀的问题，他念叨说：“对那个勇不可当的标枪手约翰·布尔来说，可怜的爱尔兰，不就是有主鲸吗？”某些被宁静的边界线分开的欧洲国家，在第二次世界大战乃至战后经历了大规模种族清洗，由此完成了同质化过程，当时有数百万德裔和斯拉夫人被迫背井离乡。现在，新的国际准则对发展中国家反而提出了更高的要求。社会学家安·广仲（Ann Hironaka）一直认为，因为坚持国家和边界不可变更，发展中国家的内战被拉长了。但权衡利弊，边界神圣不可侵犯原则对整个世界而言还是一个合算的交易。我们在下一章将会看到，与几场大规模国家之间的战争相比，大量小规模内战的死亡人数仍然更低，更不用说与世界大战相比较了。这一观察与致命冲突的幂律分布相符。而且，随着现代国家从一种民族精神的载体演变为人权原则指导下的多民族社会契约，各种内战的数量在减少，其破坏性也在减轻。

    * * *

    与民族主义和领土征服一样，国家荣誉观念在战后的数十年间也逐渐褪色。如卢亚德所说：“总而言之，与过去相比，今天人命的价值排序会更高一些，国家威望（或民族 ‘荣誉 ’）的排序会更低一些。”[171]尼基塔·赫鲁晓夫是冷战最严峻时期的苏联领导人，但他显然也捕捉到了这种新情感，他说过：“我可不是沙皇麾下的军官，因为在化装舞会上放了个屁就要自杀。让步总是好过开战。”[172]许多国家的领导人对此看法一致，对本来会导致战火的挑衅或让步，会冷静地不予理会。

    1979年，美国遭遇两场相继而至的挑衅——苏联人入侵阿富汗和伊朗人在政府操纵下占领美国大使馆。美国的反应不过是抵制莫斯科奥运会，以及每天晚上在电视上彻夜播放被扣押人质的消息。吉米·卡特后来说：“我可以动用手中的武力摧毁伊朗，但我担心在这个过程中，人质的性命不保，我也不想杀死2万名伊朗人。所以，我没有进攻。”[173]虽然美国鹰派对卡特的懦弱愤怒不已，不过，他们自己的英雄罗纳德·里根对1983年贝鲁特炸死241名美国军人事件的回应是，从黎巴嫩撤出全部美军；1987年伊拉克战斗机向美国军舰“斯塔克号”发射导弹，37名美国海军军人遇害，里根也是稳坐不动。2004年，伊斯兰恐怖组织对马德里列车进行爆炸袭击，事件未在西班牙煽起反伊斯兰情绪，反而，很多西班牙人认为政府卷入伊拉克战争才招致了恐怖袭击，在随后的大选中将其赶下了台。

    世界历史上影响最深远的放弃荣誉案例是1962年古巴导弹危机的解决。虽然追求国家威望是促成危机的起因，但一旦陷入危机，赫鲁晓夫和肯尼迪都意识到双方均需要保留面子，而问题只能由双方共同设法解决。[174]肯尼迪读过塔奇曼关于第一次世界大战历史的著作《八月炮火》（The Guns of August），知道国际关系中的“自卑和自大的个人情结”驱动的懦夫博弈可能导致灾难。在回忆导弹危机的回忆录中，罗伯特·肯尼迪说：

    我们一致同意双方都不想为古巴打仗，但是，其中一方很可能会出于“安全”、“骄傲”或“面子”的原因采取行动，另一方为了同样的安全、骄傲或面子的原因必须做出回应。回应引起对方的再回应，并逐渐升级为武装冲突。这正是我（肯尼迪）想回避的。[175]

    赫鲁晓夫有关沙皇军官的俏皮话表明，他对荣誉的心理学也有所警惕，对博弈论有同样的直觉。在危机最紧要的时刻，他向肯尼迪提供了这个分析：

    这是一根在战争身上打了结的绳子，你和我都不要在两端拉扯它，因为你我越使劲儿扯，绳结就会越紧。也许有一天，这个绳结拉得太紧了，系铃人再也无法解铃，到那时就只能割断绳结了。[176]

    解铃之途是互相让步——赫鲁晓夫从古巴撤走苏联的导弹，肯尼迪从土耳其撤走美国的导弹，并承诺不会入侵古巴。危机逐步降级不是单纯的撞大运。穆勒回顾了冷战期间大国对峙的历史。他总结说，历史的演变更像是一步一步地爬梯子，而不是登上一架自动滚梯。虽然领导人有几次开始进入危险的升级竞赛，但是每向上爬一级，他们的恐高症就越严重，最后总是小心翼翼地又爬了下来。[177]

    尽管冷战中苏联人敲鞋咆哮，但苏联领导人米哈伊尔·戈尔巴乔夫最后听凭苏东集团以及苏联本身解体，未让世界遭受一场新的大灾难。历史学家蒂莫西·嘉顿·艾什（Timothy Garton Ash）称此为“放弃使用武力的惊人之举”，并说这是一个“个人对历史产生重大影响的辉煌典范”。

    艾什最后这个评价提醒我们，历史的偶然性是双向的。在一个平行的世界里，斐迪南大公的司机在萨拉热窝没有走错路，或者啤酒馆政变时警察开枪瞄准的是另外那个某某人，人类历史就会少一场甚至两场世界大战。在另外一个平行的世界里，也有可能是美国总统听信了参谋长联席会议主席的建议，入侵古巴；作为回应，苏联的坦克穿过柏林墙，人类历史上又多了一两次世界大战。但是鉴于主流理念和准则决定了变化的可能性，所以塞族学生普林齐普和希特勒塑造了20世纪上半叶的世界，肯尼迪、赫鲁晓夫和戈尔巴乔夫塑造了20世纪下半叶的世界。

    * * *

    20世纪价值观的另一个历史性巨变是，民主国家中领导人的战争计划遭到人民的抵制。50年代后期和60年代初期出现了大规模的“反核武器”示威活动，它的传奇之一是与其他反战运动共同推出的和平标志——圆环中的三叉戟。60年代后期，反对越战的示威把美国搅得国无宁日。反战信念早已不局限于一群情感脆弱的女大妈男大妈，那些穿凉鞋留大胡子的理想主义者也不再被视为狂热分子。在60年代成年的那一辈人中，相当一部分人都怀有反战信念与和平理想。第一次世界大战结束10年之后，以战争为题材的艺术充满了悲情。与此不同，60年代的流行艺术谴责正在发生的核军备竞赛和越战。黄金时段的电视节目充满了反战宣传 [比如《史默瑟兄弟喜剧时间》（The Smothers Brothers Come-dy Hour）和《风流医生俏护士》（M. A. S. H）]，此外还有数不清的流行电影和歌曲：

    《二十二条军规》（Catch-22）、《奇幻核子战》（Fail-Safe）、《奇爱博士》（Dr.Strangelove）、《心灵与智慧》（Hearts and Minds）、《 FTA》（FTA）、《我如何赢得战争》（How I Won the War）、《无语问苍天》（Johnny Got His Gun）、《王者之心》（King of Hearts）、《风流医生俏护士》、《多可爱的战争》（Oh! What a Lovely War）、《第五屠宰场》。

    《艾丽斯餐厅》（Alice..s Restaurant）、《在风中飘扬》（Blowin.. inthe Wind）、《残酷的战争》（Cruel War）、《毁灭的前夜》（Eve of De-struction）、《我觉得我死定了》（Feel Like I..m Fixin..to Die Rag）、《给和平一个机会》（Give Peace a Chance）、《圣诞快乐（战争结束了）》[Happy Xmas（War Is Over）]、《不再做战争机器》（I Ain..t Marchin..Anymore）、《如果我有一把锤子》（If I Had a Hammer）、《想象》（I-magine）、《暴雨将至》（It..s a Hard Rain..s a Gonna Fall）、《昨夜梦境》（Last Night I Had the Strangest Dream）、《机关枪》（Machine Gun）、《战争的主人》（Masters of War）、《随军牧师》（Sky Pilot）、《3-5-0-0》、《和好有时！》（Turn! Turn! Turn!）、《再造战士》（Universal Sol-dier）、《出了什么事？》（What..s Goin..On?）、《上帝在我们这边》（With God on Our Side）、《战争到底为什么？》 [War（What Is It Good For?）]、《深陷泥淖》（Waist-Deep in the Big Muddy）、《花儿都到哪儿去了？》（Where Have All the Flowers Gone?）。

    与18世纪和20世纪30年代一样，艺术家不仅指责战争不道德，而且嘲弄战争，让战争显得荒唐可笑。在1969年伍德斯托克音乐会上，“乡巴佬乔和鱼”乐队唱着那首轻快的《我觉得我死定了》。合唱部分的歌词是：

    嘿，一、二、三，我们为何要开战？

    别问我，我不知道，下一站就是越南！

    嘿，五、六、七，快快打开天国之门。

    哪有时间搞明白，呜呼！大家都要去送死。

    1967年，在独角戏《艾丽斯餐厅》里，阿罗·古斯里收到入伍通知，要他到纽约一个征兵中心去见军队的精神病医生：

    我就到了那儿，我说：“精神病大夫，我想杀人。我是说，我就是想杀人，杀人。我就是想看看，看看血肉还有肝呀胆呀在我嘴里的样子。我要大吃烧焦了的尸体。我是说杀人，杀、杀、杀。”接着我开始蹦上蹦下，嘴里喊着“杀、杀”。他也跟着我一起蹦蹦跳跳，也喊着“杀、杀”。一位中士走过来，给我别上一枚奖章，把我带到大厅的另一边，说：“你是属于我们的孩子。”

    人们很可能将这场文化运动当作婴儿潮一代的怀旧情绪。如汤姆·莱勒所嘲讽的，胜仗都是他们的，好歌都是我们的。但是，在某种意义上，我们也打了胜仗。因为风起云涌的全国反战行动，林登·约翰逊令人惊讶地宣布不再寻求1968年总统连任的党内提名。虽然对抗议活动日益失控的反应帮助尼克松在1968年入主白宫，但尼克松也确实将美国的战争计划从军事胜利转变为挽回面子的撤军，尽管在战争结束之前已有2万名美国人和100万名越南人在战争中丧生。1973年停火之后，美军开始撤离越南，国会禁止任何新的军事干预行动，并削减对南越政府的资助，因此有效地结束了战争。

    有人说，美国从此患上“越战综合征”，极力回避任何军事介入，到20世纪80年代，才逐渐恢复信心，进行了几场小规模的战争，并在几场代理战争中向反共力量提供支援。但无论如何，美国的军事政策永远不可能回到从前了。美国最好战的总统也明白，在“伤亡恐惧”“厌战”“多佛信条”（即竭尽全力减少运回多佛空军基地的覆盖着国旗的棺材）这些强烈的社会情绪下，美国人已经不可能承受任何高伤亡率的军事行动。自20世纪90年代起，美国在政治上可接受的战争行动仅限于通过远程控制技术实施外科手术式打击。绞肉机般的消耗战和对外国（比如德累斯顿、广岛和北越）平民的大规模空袭的日子已经一去不复返了。

    美国军队内部已经发生了明显的变化。各级军官都清楚地意识到没有必要的滥杀在国内是公关噩梦，在国外则事与愿违，不仅得罪盟友，还会鼓噪敌人。[178]海军陆战队设置了新的军事教程，向队员灌输新的荣誉准则《海军陆战队战士操守》。[179]教程问答是：“有操守的战士是生命的保护者。谁的生命？自己的和他人的。哪些他人？所有的他人。”海军陆战队退役军官、以骁勇著称的罗伯特·汉弗莱曾经在第二次世界大战的硫黄岛战役中指挥一个步枪排，他所讲述的《狩猎故事》（The Hun-ting Story）作为形象的共情扩展，成为美军教化士兵的教材。[180]在这个故事中，一队驻扎在亚洲某个国家的美军，为了消遣而全体出动猎野猪：

    他们的卡车开出车库，驶向大森林，途中他们在一个小村子外停车，雇一些当地人为他们拍打树丛兼做向导。

    村子穷困不堪。房子都是土坯垒就的，没有电，没有自来水。道路泥泞，整个村庄散发着熏人的气味。无数的苍蝇扑面而来。男人面容阴沉，衣衫脏兮兮的。女人捂着脸，孩子流着鼻涕，衣衫褴褛。

    很快，车上的一个美国兵说：“这地方太臭了。”另一个说：“这些人活得像动物一样。”最后，一位年轻的空军军官说：“是呀，他们简直是一无所有；活着还不如死了好。”

    你能说什么？他们说的好像都没有错。

    但是，就在这时，卡车上的一位老中士开口了。他是那种寡言少语的人。事实上，除了他的军装，他看起来就像是当地村庄里的一个汉子。他看着年轻的空军军官，说：“你认为他们一无所有，是不是？行啊，如果你真那么肯定，你干吗不拿着我的刀，从车后面跳下去，去看看能不能杀死一个？”

    车上一片死寂……

    中士接着说：“我也不知道为什么他们要如此珍重自己的生命。也许是因为那些流着鼻涕的孩子，也许是森林里的女人。但是，不论是什么，他们珍视他们的生命和他们所爱的人的生命，和我们美国人一模一样。如果我们不停止说他们的坏话，他们会把我们一脚踢出这个国家！”

    （一名士兵）问中士：“我们美国人拥有那么多财富，能做些什么来证明不管这些村民有多穷，我们都在平等的人格上尊重他们？”中士淡淡地回答：“你要有足够的胆子跳下车，不要介意裤腿上溅满泥巴和羊粪。你要有勇气面带笑容地走进村庄。当你看见臭气熏天、面相恐怖的农民，你要能够看着他的脸，只用你的眼睛让他知道，你知道他是和你一样能感受痛苦的人，和你一样怀着希望的人，和我们所有人一样想满足孩子愿望的人。这是我们唯一的办法，舍此只有失败。”

    《海军陆战队战士操守》即使是作为一种愿望，也显示了美国武装力量的长足进步，原先它的士兵叫越南的农民“黄佬儿”“地溜儿”“斜眼儿”，军队在调查诸如美莱村大屠杀之类的暴行时迟疑不决，拖拖拉拉。前海军陆战队上尉杰克·霍本参与了制定和实行《海军陆战队战士操守》的工作，他在写给我的信中说：“20世纪70年代刚刚加入海军陆战队的时候，我听到的就是 ‘杀杀杀’。那时告诉受训的队员，荣誉守则是 ‘保护所有人的生命，包括敌人，如果可能的话 ’，是根本不可能的。”

    21世纪初以来美国主导的阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争肯定表明，美国还没有远离战争，但这些战争和从前完全不同了。在这两场冲突中，国家间战争的阶段进展迅速，（按照历史标准）战争死亡率相当低。[181]伊拉克战争的大部分死亡是战后无政府状态下的社区间暴力造成的。截至2008年，伊拉克战争中美国人的死亡总数是4000人（越战是5.8万人），这推动美国人选出一位新总统，并在两年内结束了军队的作战任务。在阿富汗，美国空军在2008年轰炸塔利班的行动中恪守人道主义原则，“人权观察”对此称赞说是“最低限度伤害平民的良好记录”。[182]政治学家乔舒亚·戈尔茨坦（Joshua Goldstein）在讨论智能定位政策如何在科索沃战争和伊拉克战争中大规模减少平民伤亡时，对2009年使用武装无人机打击阿富汗和巴基斯坦境内的塔利班和基地组织进行了如下评论：

    在过去，军队会对这些恐怖分子的藏身地狂轰滥炸，行动中会有成千上万的平民丧命并失去家园。为了击毙寥寥几个敌人，不精确的炮火和空袭让整个村庄和城镇沦为瓦砾；现在一架无人机飞进战区，指引一枚导弹打击激进分子聚集的一座房屋。这样的行动还是会误中目标，但是，同历史上任何标准相比，平民的死亡率都大大下降了。

    至今为止，我们都认为这一趋势是理所当然的。2010年2月，一枚导弹失误炸死10名阿富汗平民，这一消息成为头条新闻。事件本身是一桩可怕的悲剧，但它也是一个例外，平民死亡率相当之低，而当时正在进行的是这场为期8年的战争中最大的一次军事打击行动。驻阿富汗美军司令为10名平民的死亡向阿富汗总统沉痛致歉，全世界的媒体把这一事件渲染为在进攻上的重大发展。我不是说杀死10名平民没有问题，而是要说，在以往的战争中，甚至就在几年之前，这样的平民伤亡不会引起任何关注。平民死亡，即使数目巨大，一般都被认为是战争中必要的和不可避免的——或许也是不幸的——副产品。我们正在进入一个新的时代，这样的假设不再适用了。这的确是个好消息。[183]

    《科学》杂志在2011年报道了维基解密透露的文件和以美国为首的联军的平民伤亡数据，这些本来是秘密的数据证实了戈尔茨坦的判断。2004—2010年，阿富汗战争的平民死亡大约是5300人，其中约80%是被塔利班叛乱分子而不是联军杀害的。对于这样一场大规模军事行动而言，即使将这个平民伤亡数字翻番，仍然相当低——相比而言，越南战争中至少有80万平民死于战火。[184]

    在对战争的态度上，美国人发生了巨大的转变，而欧洲人的变化更是翻天覆地。外交政策分析家罗伯特·卡根（Robert Kagan）这样说：“美国人来自战神火星，欧洲人来自爱神金星。”[185]2003年2月，欧洲大城市爆发了声势浩大的示威，抗议美国领兵入侵伊拉克，伦敦、巴塞罗那和罗马各有百万人参加了游行，马德里和柏林各有50多万人上街示威。[186]伦敦示威者打出的标语是“不要鲜血换石油”、“制止疯狂派牛仔病”、“美国才是流氓国家”、“泡壶茶，不打仗”、“打倒战争”，还有一个简单的“不”字。德国和法国不约而同地拒绝参加美英联合行动，西班牙刚刚加入就撤出了。甚至在欧洲争议较小的阿富汗战争，主要战斗力也都是美国士兵。阿富汗战争名义上是44国组成的北约军事行动，但兵力半数以上是美军，而且，说到骁勇善战，美军已经赢得一定的声誉。2003年，一位身在喀布尔的加拿大武装部队上尉在写给我的信中这样说：

    今天早上，卡拉什尼科夫机枪协奏曲响起来之后，我一直等着哨兵先开火。我觉得他们都睡着了。这已经是家常便饭。我们的岗哨一向是由德国联防军负责的，他们干得可真不怎么样……如果他们真是在执勤的话。我之所以敢这样评价他们，是因为他们多次放弃岗哨。第一次是因为我们被火箭击中了，其他几次是因为他们觉得岗楼里太冷了。我向一位德军中尉指出他们缺乏荣誉和基本的军人素质，他回答说岗楼的供热是加拿大的责任。我反驳他说，给士兵提供保暖服装是德国人自己的责任。我真想说些什么提醒他喀布尔不是斯大林格勒，但我最后还是忍住了。

    德军已经今非昔比。或者，就像我多次听到人们说的，“他们不是（纳粹）国防军”。想到我们人民的历史，我本来应该说这实在是件大好事。但是，现在我的安全要仰赖这些优等主宰民族后裔的警觉性。我要说，在说这是件大好事之前，我还真有点儿犹豫了。[187]

    在《士兵都到哪儿去了？：现代欧洲的变迁》（Where Have All the Soldiers Gone? The Transformation of Modern Europe）[英国版是《垄断的暴力：为什么欧洲人厌恶打仗》（The Monopoly on Violence: Why Europe-ans Hate Going to War）]中，历史学家詹姆斯·希恩说，欧洲人的国家观念发生了彻底的改变。作为制度的国家（state），其作用不再是为了保证民族（nation）的面子和安全把持武力，而是要提供社会保障和物质福利。尽管在美国“疯狂派牛仔”和欧洲“投降派猴子”之间还有各种差异，但在过去60年间，欧美政治文化分别在两条平行线上的运动，都是背战争之道而驰，其共性的历史意义远远大于两者现存的差异。

    长期和平是核武和平吗？

    什么才是正确的？与专家的分析、末日钟、欧洲几个世纪的历史经验相悖，为什么第三次世界大战没有发生呢？到底是什么迫使大名鼎鼎的军事历史学家开始使用诸如“尺度壮观的变化”、“战争史上最令人惊异的断裂”，以及“史无前例的”这些形容词？

    对很多人来说，答案显而易见：原子弹。战争变得过于危险，领导人都被吓破了胆。战争一旦开启，将不断升级直到毁灭，即使不是终结人类本身，至少也会终结人类的文明，这种核武恐惧的均衡阻止了各国领袖发动战争。[188]丘吉尔在英国议院发表最后一个重要演讲时说：“世界很可能是这样的，经过一个极具讽刺意味的过程，我们进入故事的特定情节。在这里，安全是恐怖孕育的巨婴，生存是毁灭的孪生兄弟。”[189]外交政策分析家肯尼思·华尔兹（Kenneth Waltz）持同样的见解，他建议我们要“感激我们的核武祝福”。伊丽莎白·罗斯托提议为原子弹授予诺贝尔和平奖。[190]

    我们期望这不是真的。如果“长期和平”是核武和平，它只能是傻瓜的天堂，因为任何一次意外、一次误会，或者一位空军将军对自己珍贵的体液的痴迷，都有可能引发世界末日。谢天谢地，我们的观察告诉我们，核武器的毁灭性威胁对“长期和平”没有什么贡献。[191]

    首先，大规模杀伤性武器从来没有踩住过滚滚战车的刹车闸。诺贝尔和平奖的创立者在19世纪60年代说过，他发明的炸药“将会比上千份世界公约更快地导致和平，（因为）一旦人们发觉整个军队可以在瞬间被彻底摧毁，他们当然会守住宝贵的和平”。[192]当潜艇、炮兵、无烟火药和机关枪出现的时候，人们都提出过同样的预见。[193]20世纪30年代，人们对飞机空投毒气弹惊恐不已，认为这将最后毁灭文明和人类，但是恐惧也没能结束战争。[194]正如卢亚德所说：“历史上没有任何证据告诉我们，仅因存在极限破坏性武器就能够阻遏战争。如果生物武器、毒气、神经毒气和其他化学武器的发展在1939年不能阻止战争，那么很难说为何现在核武器就一定能够做到这一点。”[195]

    其次，核武和平理论无法解释为什么没有核武器的国家也抑制战争。比如说，欧洲国家之间的危机在过去经常演变成战争，但是为什么1995年加拿大和西班牙之间的渔业权纠纷，以及1997年匈牙利和斯洛伐克对多瑙河水坝的争执没有升级为战争？在“长期和平”时期，发达国家的领袖从来不需要计算盟国中哪一个会挨打不还手（比如说，“进攻德国和意大利不会受到抵抗，但是攻打英国和法国则不行”），因为这些领袖从来没有进犯其他国家的打算。他们也没有受到核大国的阻遏——美国不会威胁加拿大和西班牙说，“如果你们在比目鱼的争论上太过喧哗，就让你们尝尝核武器的味道”。

    而对超级大国自己为什么避免相互冲突，穆勒给出了一个更简单的解释：常规战争的前景就足以阻止他们开战。第二次世界大战显示，自动生产线可以大量制造坦克、火炮和炸弹，有能力屠杀数千万人，让城镇沦为瓦砾。苏联人最明白这一点，它自己在战争中遭受了最为惨痛的伤亡。核战争可以造成无法想象的破坏，常规战争造成的破坏可以想象，但仍然令人震惊，很难说两者之间的这点不同是大国避免交战的原因。

    最后，核武和平理论无法解释为什么总是在无核国家挑衅（或者拒绝服从）核武国家的情况下爆发战争——这本来是核武威胁最应该能够避免的。[196]朝鲜、北越、伊朗、伊拉克、巴拿马和南斯拉夫对抗美国，阿富汗和车臣叛军对抗苏联，埃及对抗英国和法国，埃及和叙利亚对抗以色列，越南对抗中国，阿根廷对抗英国。就在1945—1949年，美国还是唯一拥有核武器的国家，苏联完成了它对东欧的控制。冒犯核霸王的国家不是自寻死路。他们准确地预见了现实的危险，大国的核威胁不过是虚张声势。阿根廷的军人政权在下令进攻马尔维纳斯群岛的时候，坚信英国不会向布宜诺斯艾利斯实行核报复，让城市变为陨石坑。以色列在1967年或1973年没有对埃及大量集聚的军队进行现实的威胁，更不用提荡平开罗了。

    谢林和政治学家尼娜·坦嫩瓦尔德（Nina Tannenwald）分别对“核武禁忌”进行了论述。他们共同的观点是核武器本身属于一种非常态的恐怖范畴。[197]使用战术核武器，即使这件核武器在破坏性上和常规武器相当，也应被视为开启历史先河的、后果难以想象的划时代事件。所有形式的核爆都遭到人们的诅咒。中子弹可以减少对设施的破坏，但以瞬间产生的高能辐射大量杀伤士兵，它的研发遭到全世界的坚决反对。尽管如政治学家斯坦利·霍夫曼（Stanley Hoffman）所说，中子弹满足了哲学家对一场正义战争的所有道德要求，但中子弹的开发最终在军队的实验室里胎死腹中。[198]20世纪50、60年代半狂想式的“和平利用核能”的各种计划，比如使用核爆挖掘运河和港口、推动火箭进入太空等，现在都已经成为那个愚昧年代的可笑回忆。

    肯定地说，自长崎事件以来，不使用核武器还不是一个纯粹的禁忌。[199]核武器自己不能制造核武器，拥有核武器的国家对其设计、建造、运送以及使用的条款进行了大量的研究。不过，这种活动完全被限制在假想世界之中，与实际战争计划几乎没有交集。有明显的迹象显示，禁忌心理——彼此均认同某些念头过于邪恶，因此不能去想——在这里的表现是，每次提及核战争的前景，前面都要加上一个词：难以想象的。1964年，在巴里·戈德华特仔细思考如何在越南战争中使用战术核武器的问题之后，林登·约翰逊的竞选班子立即推出了著名的“雏菊”电视广告。在广告片中，一个小女孩数着雏菊上的花瓣，她的计数同时就是核爆的倒计时。人们认为约翰逊在那年的总统选举中获得压倒性的胜利，这支广告也小有功劳。[200]罗伯特·奥本海默在1945年目睹第一次核弹试验时，引用了《薄伽梵歌》中的诗句：“现在我成为死神，世界的毁灭者。”自那之后，宗教典故一直和核武形影相随。最常见的还是《圣经》中的词句：天启、末日、世界的终结、最后的审判。肯尼迪和约翰逊政府的国务卿迪安·腊斯克（Dean Rusk）这样写道：“如果美国动用核武器，我们将世世代代被打上该隐的印记。”[201]物理学家阿尔文·温伯格（Alvin Weinberg）曾参与核武器的研发工作，他在1985年发出疑问：

    我们是否正在见证广岛的神圣化，就是说，广岛正在升华为一个极为神秘的圣像，成为一种足以与《圣经》事件相比较的宗教力量？尽管我不能证明，但我相信，人们在广岛核爆40周年之际流露出的深刻的关切，表明广岛事件已经具有重大宗教节日般的象征意义……广岛的圣化是核武时代最具希望的进步。[202]

    核武禁忌的出现不是一朝一夕的事情。我们在第1章已经看到，在广岛核爆至少10年之后，很多美国人仍然对原子弹保持敬慕。艾森豪威尔政府的国务卿约翰·福斯特·杜勒斯在1953年哀叹人们围绕核武器有着各种“虚假的认识”和“禁忌”。[203]1955年，中国台湾地区和大陆之间爆发台海危机时，艾森豪威尔说：“在任何战斗中都可以严格地针对军事目标，严格地为了军事目的使用这些武器。在你能够使用子弹和其他什么东西的地方，我看不出来有什么理由不能够使用这些武器。”[204]

    然而在接下来的10年里，核武器成了一种耻辱，这一类言论变得令人完全无法接受了。人们先是认识到核武器的破坏力与历史上其他任何武力都不在一个序列上，它们彻底违背了发动战争合乎比例的观念，民防计划（比如后院的防空洞和藏在课桌下面的掩蔽演习）在核武面前荒唐可笑。接着，人们认识到，在核爆之后的几十年中，核辐射余波的持续辐射可能会造成染色体损伤和癌症。大气核试产生的辐射微尘已经使全世界的降雨受到锶90的污染。锶90这种放射性同位素和钙一样，存在于儿童的骨骼和牙齿中。马尔维娜·雷诺兹的反战歌曲《他们对雨做了什么？》（What Have They Done to the Rain?）就是对此有感而发。

    尽管美国和苏联急不可待地开发新的核武技术，但在同时，虽然听起来很虚伪，他们也开始致力于召开核裁军会谈，发布核裁军声明。但真正开始让核武臭名昭著的还是草根运动。莱纳斯·鲍林、伯特兰·罗素、艾伯特·史怀哲等公共人物和上百万公民一起举行示威，签署请愿书。与日俱增的压力迫使超级大国先是暂停大气核试验，接着完全禁止大气核试，随即签署了一系列军备控制协议。1962年的古巴导弹危机是一个临界点。林登·约翰逊利用公众的情绪，在“雏菊”竞选广告中丑化戈德华特。他在1964年的一份声明中呼吁公众关注核武定义的边界，说：“不要搞错。世界上根本不存在常规核武器这样的东西。在危机四伏的19年中，没有哪个国家向其他国家投放原子弹。不使用核武器现在是政治决策的头等大事。”[205]

    世界持续走好运，无核战20年成为无核战30年、40年、50年和60年；一种禁忌自我强化，直到发展成为公共常识。使用核武之所以是难以想象的，是因为每个人都认为它是难以想象的，而且每个人都知道这是人人皆知的常识。事实上，因为核威慑越来越无效，它不仅未能阻止大规模战争（越战），也未能遏止小规模战争（马岛战争），这算是人类为无限期推迟最后审判而付出的小小代价。

    * * *

    当然，一个仅仅建立在相互认同基础上的准则很有可能突然崩溃。人们也许会忧虑——也应该忧虑，比如印度、巴基斯坦、朝鲜，甚至很快还会有伊朗这些大国俱乐部之外的核武国家，可能不接受使用核武器后果不堪想象这一共识。更糟糕的是，国际恐怖组织的全部目的就是要以无法想象的极端恐怖震撼世界，那么，它们只要偷盗一件核武器就可以破除禁忌。一旦引爆一次核武器，所有的约束都会失效。悲观主义者会说，尽管“长期和平”至今为止不依赖核威慑，但这只是暂时的。结局肯定是核武扩散，一个疯子就能截断幸运线，无论大国还是小国都会打破核武禁忌。

    今天世界核安全的危险现状，让所有头脑清醒的人都感到不安。但即使如此，情况并不像有些人认为的那样糟糕。我会在下一章讨论核武恐怖主义问题。在此，我们来看一看核武现状。

    核武扩散的速度没有大家预期的那样疯狂，这让我们有了一线希望。在美国1960年的总统竞选辩论中，肯尼迪预测，到1964年，将会有“10个、15个、20个”国家拥有核武器。[206]中国在1964年进行第一次核试验，在不到20年的时间里，核俱乐部就有了5名成员。汤姆·莱勒的歌曲《谁是下一个？》正是抓住了人们对失控的核武扩散的恐惧。他在歌中依次唱出各个国家的名字，猜度它们是否会是下一个拥有核武器的国家（“下一个是卢森堡/谁知道？也许会是摩纳哥”）。

    但是，歌曲历数的国家中唯一成为核武国家的是以色列（“‘耶和华是我的牧者’,《诗篇》如此说/为了万无一失——最好还有颗炸弹！”）。专家预言，日本将在1980年之前“坚定地进入制造核武器的程序”，而一个统一的德国“会为没有核武器而缺乏安全感”，但是这两个国家都没有兴趣发展核武器。[207]信不信由你，自1964年之后，放弃核武的国家的数量和取得核武的国家的数量是一样的。什么意思呢？就是说，以色列、印度、巴基斯坦和今天的朝鲜拥有制造核武器的能力；同时，1989年，南非在种族隔离政权垮台前夕，拆除了它的核设施，哈萨克斯坦、乌克兰、白俄罗斯谢绝了从苏联继承的核武器。信不信由你，自20世纪80年代起，在非核国家中，寻求核武器的国家迅速减少。图5-22中的数字来自政治学家司各特·萨根，显示的是1945年后每一年有多少无核国家开始发展核武项目。

    图5-22 1945—2010年无核国家开始和终止开发核武器的记录

    国家前的减号“-”表示该国终止了核项目。灰色字体的国家是人们相信在2010年正在开发核武技术的国家。虽然以色列在2007年对叙利亚一处被怀疑是核设施的地点进行过轰炸，但直至2010年，叙利亚一直拒绝国际原子能机构的检查，所以叙利亚仍然被列在此名单上。

    资料来源：根据萨根的资料改编，2009年；萨根2010年的更新资料，2010年，司各特·萨根和简·艾斯伯格（Jane Esberg）提供。

    下行线表示在不同年份，阿尔及利亚、澳大利亚、巴西、埃及、伊拉克、利比亚、罗马尼亚、韩国、瑞士、南斯拉夫曾经发展核武器，但后来放弃了原来的计划，偶尔有些国家和地区是在以色列的空袭压力下放弃了核计划，但更多的国家和地区是出于自我选择。

    * * *

    核武禁忌是否已经岌岌可危？是否不可避免地会有一个流氓国家挑战禁忌，从而让整个世界失去约束？历史是否告诉我们每一种武器技术或迟或早要付诸应用，最后成为无可非议的现实？

    毒气的故事是第一次世界大战最恐怖的篇章，它也是我们寻找答案的地方。在《化学武器禁忌》（The Chemical Weapens Taboo）一书中，政治学家理查德·普莱斯（Richard Price）追溯了化学武器怎样在20世纪上半叶沦为过街老鼠。1899年的《海牙公约》是旨在规范战争行为的一系列国际协议，各项公约分别禁止签约国使用中空弹，空中投掷爆炸物（当时是使用气球投弹，4年之后才发明了飞机）以及散布毒气的发射装置。鉴于后来发生的种种事件，《海牙公约》看来无非是准备丢进历史垃圾箱的几张废纸，上面写满了自我感觉良好但毫无执行力的宏大宣言。

    但是普莱斯认为，第一次世界大战的参战军人还是应该感激《海牙公约》。当德军开始在战场使用致命毒气的时候，它宣称这仅仅是对法国人使用催泪手榴弹的回击，并没有违反《海牙公约》的条款，因为没有使用炮弹发送毒气，而只是打开毒气筒，任凭风将毒气带向敌人。即使德国人的理由完全站不住脚，但它还是指明一个事实，即德国人感到他们必须为自己的行为进行辩解。作为对德国违反公约的报复，英国、法国和美国随即宣布，因为有包括美国在内的非签约国参战，各方同意公约不再有效。

    第一次世界大战之后，反对化学武器成为世界性的诉求。《日内瓦议定书》（1925年）包含了一项更加严谨的条款：“鉴于在战争中使用窒息性的、有毒的或其他气体，以及一切类似的液体、物体或一切类似的方法，已经为文明世界的公正舆论所谴责；并鉴于……已经宣布禁止其使用……这项禁令成为公认的对国际良知和实践具有同样拘束力的国际法的一部分。”[208]最后133个国家先后签署了议定书，尽管其中不少签署国保留了储藏化学武器作为威慑的权力。丘吉尔对议定书的解释是：“我们单方面地做出决定，除非德国人率先使用，我们绝不使用这种令人憎恶的武器。但是，深知敌人的野蛮，我们也不能掉以轻心，必须充分做好准备。”[209]

    不论是否有效，这份协议确立了反对在国家间战争中使用毒气的禁忌。令人惊讶的是，在第二次世界大战中，交战双方都有大量毒气，但都没有在战场上使用。任何一方都不愿意承担率先在战争中使用毒气的恶名，尤其是纳粹当时仍然希望英国能够接受他们对欧洲大陆的控制权。各方都对对方的报复心怀戒惧。

    甚至在某些意外事件打破了稳定，很可能触发不可阻挡的升级行动的时候，双方也都保持了克制。欧洲战场上的盟军曾经两次意外地开启了毒气。盟军向德军司令部做出解释，德军司令部接受了解释，没有进行报复。[210]对文明的某种认知区隔化多少也有助于保持克制。30年代，意大利法西斯在阿比尼西亚，日本帝国主义在中国都使用过毒气。但是各国领导人对这些事件默不作声，因为他们认为这些行动发生在“未开化”地区，不属于国际大家庭的事务。因此，没有人认为这是可能导致禁忌崩溃的违约行为。

    自20世纪30年代以来，在战争中持续使用毒气的是1967年埃及在也门的行动，以及1980—1988年伊拉克在战争中针对伊朗军队（以及伊拉克境内的库尔德平民）。触犯禁忌也许就是导致萨达姆·侯赛因垮台的原因。美国主导的伊拉克战争在2003年推翻了萨达姆政权，这次战争行动遭到很多人的反对，但是对萨达姆使用毒气的厌恶，让不少反战者闭上了嘴巴。2006年，伊拉克法庭审判萨达姆并判处他死刑，7项指控中有2项是使用毒气。[211]世界各国在1993年正式宣布全面禁止化学武器，所有已知的化学武器库存都已经或者正在被销毁。

    为什么在如此之多的战争武器中，只有毒气格外被人们憎恶，并被视为不文明，甚至纳粹也没有在战场上使用它？（纳粹在其他地方使用毒气的时候，显然没有什么愧疚之感。）遭受毒气侵害是极为痛苦的，但是被金属的碎片打穿或者打烂也同样是极为痛苦的。如果说到死亡数字，毒气的致命程度远远不如子弹和炸弹。在第一次世界大战中，因毒气致伤的伤员的死亡率不到1%，毒气死亡数总计不到战争总死亡数的1%。[212]虽然化学战在军事行动中往往一团糟，没有哪个战地指挥官愿意把自己的命运交给风力和风向——德国人还是很可能在敦刻尔克使用毒气，将英军打得一败涂地。而在太平洋周边列岛清除日军藏身的山洞时，美军也还是会觉得毒气最得心应手。如果说化学武器难以使用，这也不是它们的特性，大部分新武器技术在刚刚被启用的时候都没有效率。例如，第一批火药武器装载速度慢，瞄准困难，容易在士兵的脸上爆炸。而且，化学武器也不是第一个被指责为“野蛮”的杀人工具。在弓箭时代，人们指责使用火枪不道德、反人性并且是懦夫行为。那么，反对化学武器的禁忌的着眼点何在？

    一个可能性是，人们在头脑中对毒有特殊的反感。无论如何，只要悬置正常的文明准则，任凭武士完成他们的工作，他们行事仍有约束，即只应该向有潜力使用同样武力的敌人采取快速和直接的打击。和平主义者也可以享受战争影片或者战争电子游戏，内中不乏枪杀、刀刺和爆炸，但几乎没有人会愉快地看着绿色的烟云在战地弥漫，慢慢地将活生生的人变为僵尸。投毒者一向受到痛斥，被视为特别邪恶的背信弃义的凶徒。毒是巫师的工具，而不是战士的武器，是（掌控了厨房和药箱的）婆娘的手段，而不是男子汉的本领。在《恶毒妇》（Venomous Woman）一书中，文学家玛格丽特·哈尔里斯（Margaret Hallissy）对其原型做了如下说明：

    在两个身份相当的对手进行公平较量时，毒药从来都不是一件光彩的武器，不像剑或枪，这些才是男人的武器。一个使用此类暗器的男人令人不齿。公开承认对抗形成一种约束，在这个约束下，对等的双方都给予对方机会以显示实力……决斗者是公开的、诚实的，也是强壮的；投毒者则是狡诈、玩弄阴谋，而且是虚弱的。一个带着枪或剑的男子具有威胁力，但是他昭示自己所具备的威胁，他打算攻击的受害者也可以武装自己……一个准备下毒的妇女和一个持枪的男子一样可以致人死命，但是因为她在暗中行事，受害者更加无法反抗。[213]

    不论我们对投毒多么深恶痛绝，不论这是来自人类演化的遗传，还是来自文化历史的继承，只有将这种历史的偶然性放大，才能使之生根发芽，成为战争规范中的一个禁忌。普莱斯分析说：在第一次世界大战中，从来没有有意地向平民施放毒气，没有发生这样的事本身就是一个关键性事件。至少，在应用上确立了不得触犯禁忌这个先例。20世纪30年代，人们对飞机空投毒气弹毁灭整个城市感到极为恐惧，大众被动员起来坚决反对使用毒气。

    化学武器禁忌和核武器禁忌给我们提供了清晰的类比。尽管核武器的破坏力是不可比拟的，但今天这两种武器合称为“大规模杀伤性武器”（WMD），因为这两种禁忌通过联系互相强化了。这两种武器都会导致疾病，造成慢性死亡，而且在施加伤害时无法分辨战斗人员和平民，因此格外令人恐惧。

    至少按照核时代日益恐怖的标准，我们在化学武器上的经验能够提供某种道德准则，给世界带来某种希望。不是每一件杀人的技术都要成为军备工具箱里的永久组件；有些妖魔鬼怪还能够被塞回原来的瓶子；有些时候，道德情感也会固化为国际规范，并影响战争规则。此外，这些国际规范可以足够坚挺，不至于因一次孤立的违规就失去效力，而这样违规也未必一定触发不可控的暴力升级。这实在是一个给人以希望的发现，虽然似乎是意识到这个发现的人越少，对世界越好。

    * * *

    如果说世界得以免于化学武器之害，那么，它是否也能免受核武之害呢？美国一些偶像级人物提出了一个理想主义的宣言，标题是“一个没有核武器的世界”。这些偶像人物不是彼得、保罗和玛丽，而是乔治·舒尔茨、威廉·佩里、亨利·基辛格和山姆·纳恩。[214]舒尔茨是里根政府的国务卿。佩里是克林顿政府的国防部长。基辛格是尼克松和福特两位总统的国家安全顾问与国务卿。纳恩曾经是参议院军事委员会的主席，一直被认为是国会中最了解国防问题的议员。他们中间没有一个人有空想和平主义者的嫌疑。

    支持他们的是一支“梦之队”，其成员都是身经百战的政治家，既有老牌的民主党人，也有老牌的共和党人，资格最老的是肯尼迪政府的阁员。他们中有5位前国务卿、5位前国家安全事务顾问、4位前国防部长。曾经在这些位置上服务的人中有3/4响应号召，参与推动一项分阶段、可核实、有约束力的彻底销毁核武器的计划，有时我们称其为“全球零核”（Global Zero）计划。[215]巴拉克·奥巴马和德米特里·梅德韦杰夫在各自的讲话中分别表示支持该项计划（这也是奥巴马在2009年被授予诺贝尔和平奖的原因之一），几家智库已经开始研究具体实施的问题。主要线路图分四个阶段——协商，减撤，核实，最后在2030年彻底销毁核弹头。[216]

    从这些支持者的简历来看，人们也许会说“全球零核”的背景是某种冷酷的实力政治。自从冷战结束以来，大国的核武库就成为一个荒唐的笑料。超级大国之间的生存性威胁不复存在，因此不再需要进行威慑。在核武禁忌有效的情况下，大国的核武库没有任何军事意义。核武报复无法威慑没有国家支持的恐怖分子，因为恐怖袭击的炸弹从来不会注明回信地址。如果他们是宗教狂热分子，那么这个世界上没有任何东西让他们觉得值得珍重，也就无从对他们进行威胁。世界上已有各式各样的核裁军协议，虽然都值得赞扬，但是只要数千颗核弹仍然存在，制造核弹的技术仍没有被遗忘，这些核裁协议对全球安全就没有实际作用。”

    全球零核”背后的心理是将使用核武的禁忌扩展为拥有核武的禁忌。禁忌的前提是各方相互理解，承认在有核和无核之间有很多分界线，最重要的是零核与非零核之间的分界线。如果所有的邻国都没有装备核武器，那么就没有任何国家可以借口保护自己免受邻国威胁而寻求拥有核武器。老资格的核大国不应该认为自己有权保留核武器。如果成熟的强国远离这种老式的丑陋的武器，发展中国家也就没有必要为了显示自己的强盛而寻求核武器。任何试图追求核武器的国家和恐怖组织都会被世人看作不可接触的异类——一个卑鄙的罪犯，而不是令人敬畏的挑战者。

    当然，问题在于如何才能从此岸到达彼岸。销毁核武器的过程可能打开一个危险的窗口，在这个时期，某个核大国可能落入一个疯狂的扩张主义分子的掌控。有些国家为了防范对手不老实，可能自己也私藏几颗核弹。而流氓国家一旦确定不会受到核报复，就可能向恐怖分子提供核武器。在一个没有核武器，但仍然具备核武器制造知识的世界上——这个妖魔恐怕是无法再装回瓶子了——一次危机就可能导致各国竞相重整核武器，而第一个掌握核武器的国家将难以克制在敌人取得优势前发动攻击的欲望。无核世界是否真能如愿，以及是否真如所愿，包括谢林、约翰·多伊奇（John Deutch）和哈罗德·布朗（Harold Brown）在内的一些核武器战略专家持怀疑态度，虽然其他人还在努力制订裁核时间表和保障机制。[217]

    因为存在这些不确定性，没有人敢说核武器很快就能像毒气弹一样得到控制。但是，我们至少可以在讨论中将彻底销毁核武器作为一种可预见的前景，这也算是显示了长期和平趋势的一个迹象吧。一旦实现无核化，这将代表暴力的根本性下降。一个无核的世界！什么样的现实主义者敢有如此梦想？

    长期和平是民主和平吗？

    如果“长期和平”既不是恐怖孕育的巨婴，也不是与毁灭伴生的孪生兄弟，那它会是谁的孩子呢？我们能否找到某种外生的变量——某种不在和平进程之内的发展元素，它不仅在战后历史中生机蓬勃，而且让我们有理由相信它是天然的反战力量？是否能够找到某种因果解释，而不是仅仅说“发达国家不再打仗是因为它们不那么好战了”？

    在第4章，我们提到了一个200年前的理论，它给出了某种预见。伊曼努尔·康德推断，弱化国家领导人发动战争的动机需要三个条件——除此之外，并不要求他们个人成为更善良、更温情的人。

    首先是民主。民主政府的设计旨在通过共同接受的法治解决公民之间的争端，所以民主制度应该在处理与其他国家的关系时外化这一伦理。其次，与个人崇拜、救世信仰和沙文主义使命不同，每个民主政体都建立在同样的理性基础之上，所以每个民主国家都知道其他民主政体如何运作。在霍布斯的世界，担心对方先下手的恐惧让双方都有率先发动进攻的意愿，而民主国家之间存在的推定信任，能够将这种恐惧消灭在萌芽状态。最后，既然民主国家领导人要对人民负责，他们不太可能为了换取自己的荣耀，牺牲人民的鲜血和财富，发动愚蠢的战争。

    现在被称为“民主和平”的理论给“长期和平”提供了两点解释。第一，所有的趋势线都指向正确的方向。在绝大部分欧洲国家，民主的根基相当浅。直到1989年，半壁东欧都在非民主的政府统治之下；西班牙、葡萄牙和希腊的法西斯独裁一直延续到20世纪70年代。德国在发动第一次世界大战时是军国主义君主制，与之联盟的是君主制的奥匈帝国；德国发动第二次世界大战时是纳粹独裁，有法西斯意大利与之结盟。甚至法国，也是经历了5次尝试才得到真正的民主，在此期间穿插着君主制、帝国，还有维希政府。不久之前，许多专家都认为民主制度已然日薄西山。1975年，丹尼尔·帕特里克·莫伊尼汉哀叹说：“美国模式的自由民主与19世纪君主制的处境越来越相像：一种过时的政府形式，在几个孤立或者独特的零星角落坚持着，即使在一些特殊环境中运作得还算良好，但绝对不是未来的方向。它是世界的过去状态，不是世界的未来状态。”[218]

    确实，社会科学家最好永远都不要去预测未来，让他们研究透彻过去就已经够困难了。图5-23显示的是“二战”之后民主国家、专制国家和伪民主国家（非完全民主亦非完全专制的国家）在全球的命运。莫伊尼汉宣布民主已死的那一年恰好是各个政体相对命运的转折点，民主制度终于成为世界的潮流，尤其是在发达国家。南欧国家在20世纪70年代完成了民主化，东欧则在20世纪90年初开始民主转型。到今天为止，在欧洲被归类为专制政体的国家只有白俄罗斯，除此就是俄罗斯，它仍然不能算是成熟的民主国家。美洲和太平洋地区的发达国家，例如韩国，也是以民主政体为主。[219]与对国际和平是否有贡献无关，民主是一种最少对自己的公民施加暴力的政体，民主政体扩展本身就是暴力历史性减少的里程碑。

    图5-23 1946—2008年，民主国家、专制国家和伪民主国家

    资料来源：图表改编自马歇尔和科尔，2009年。仅包括2008年人口超过50万的国家。

    “民主和平”的第二个卖点是一个人云亦云的描述，人们说得多了，仿佛也就成了事实，有时我们索性将它上升为历史的规律。这里有英国前首相托尼·布莱尔做出的一个解释，他在2008年接受了美国脱口秀主持人乔恩·斯图尔特《每日秀》的采访：

    斯图尔特：我们的总统——您见过他了吗？他可是个大大的自由派。他相信如果每个家伙都是民主的话，那么他们就不会再打架了。

    布莱尔：是啊。历史的事实是，从来没有两个民主国家卷入相互对抗的战争。

    斯图尔特：让我问您一个问题。阿根廷，民主吗？

    布莱尔：嗯，它是民主制度。他们选举自己的总统。

    斯图尔特：英国，民主吗？

    布莱尔：多少也算是吧。反正我上回离开那儿的时候，它还是民主的。

    斯图尔特：呃……你们打仗了吧？

    布莱尔：事实上，（打仗的）那个时候阿根廷还不是民主国家。

    斯图尔特：真见鬼！我还以为我套住他了！

    如果说发达国家在第二次世界大战后完成了民主化，而民主国家之间从来没有发生过战争，那么，我们可以认为这就是对“二战”之后发达国家停止参加战争的解释。实际上，斯图尔特提出这样的疑问，说明“民主和平”理论受到严厉的审视，尤其是这个理论为布什和布莱尔2003年入侵伊拉克的行动提供了某种合理性。历史爱好者总是喜欢找到一些例外，这里是怀特搜集的几个特例：

    .公元前5世纪的希腊战争：雅典对叙拉古

    .公元前2世纪和公元前3世纪布匿战争：古罗马对迦太基

    . 1775—1783年的美国独立战争：美国对英国

    . 1793—1799年的法国大革命战争：法国对英国、瑞士和荷兰

    . 1812—1815年的1812年战争：美国对英国

    . 1849年法兰西-罗马战争：法国对罗马共和国

    . 1861—1865年的美国内战：美利坚合众国对南方的美利坚联盟国（南方邦联）

    . 1898年的美西战争：美国对西班牙

    . 1899—1901年的第二次布尔战争：英国对德兰士瓦和奥兰治自由邦

    . 1947—1949年的第一次印巴战争

    . 1978年和1982年的黎巴嫩内战：以色列对黎巴嫩

    . 1991—1992年的克罗地亚独立战争：克罗地亚对南斯拉夫

    . 1999年的科索沃战争：北约对南斯拉夫

    . 1999年的卡吉尔边境战争：印度对巴基斯坦

    . 2006年的以色列-黎巴嫩冲突[220]

    每一个反例都涉及这些交战的国家是不是真正的民主制度的问题。古希腊、古罗马和美国的南方邦联都是蓄奴的；英国在1832年之前一直是君主制，只有少得可怜的直选机制。其他交战国，例如黎巴嫩、巴基斯坦、南斯拉夫，以及19世纪的法国和西班牙，至多只能算雏形民主或者边缘民主。直到20世纪初，妇女还没有选举权——我们将会看到，在投票的时候，妇女比男子更倾向于和平。大部分支持“民主和平论”的人都认为该理论不适用于20世纪之前的世界，因为那时的民主仍然是新生的和不稳定的，但是20世纪之后，在成熟的民主国家之间确实没有发生过任何战争。

    批评“民主和平论”的人表示，民主的圈子非常狭小，里面只有寥寥几个国家，因此根据统计概率的规律，看不到交战双方都是民主国家的战争也没有什么可大惊小怪的。除了大国之外，有共同边界的国家才有交战的可能，而很多理论上会发生对抗的国家没有这个地理便利。无论如何，我们不需要引进民主这个因素来解释为什么新西兰和乌拉圭之间没有发生过战争。如果我们将民主和平论的适用范围进一步缩小，排除某个时点之前的战争案例（比如将时间约束设置为第二次世界大战之后），那么就有人会对“长期和平”做出一种更嘲弄的描述：自冷战开始以来，与世界上头号大国美国结盟的国家之间没有发生过战争。“长期和平”的其他表现，比如大国之间从未发生战争，是永远无法用“民主和平论”来解释的。持这种批评立场的人认为，大国之间的和平来自相互威慑，包括核威慑和常规武器威慑。[221]

    至少在分析总体战争倾向上，民主和平论还有最后一个难题，即民主国家的表现远不是康德设想的那个样子。民主国家应该外化其受法律制约的权力分配和以和平手段解决争端这种观念，与英国、法国、荷兰、比利时争霸殖民帝国的战争格格不入。这几个国家在1838—1920年共攫取了至少33块殖民地，其中一些延续至20世纪50年代，甚至到60年代（比如法国在阿尔及利亚）。让“民主和平论”感到困窘的还有冷战期间美国的对外干涉，比如中央情报局帮助推翻多少有些民主色彩的伊朗政府（1953年）、危地马拉政府（1954年）和智利政府（1973年）, 智利政府因为过于左倾而让美国不能容忍。主张“民主和平论”的人的回答是，欧洲帝国主义虽然没有立刻烟消云散，但随着国内民主化的进展，欧洲国家在海外的殖民地迅速减少；而美国的对外干涉都是秘密行动，与公开的战争不同，公众完全不知情，因此是不能说明问题的例外。[222]

    每当争论落入可伸缩的定义、刻意寻找的样本和各种各样的借口时，我们就应该引入有关致命冲突的统计分析了。两位政治学家——布鲁斯·鲁塞特（Bruce Russett）和约翰·奥尼尔（John Oneal）的工作为“民主和平论”注入了新的生命，他们的工作包括严格定义、控制混杂变量，并对民主和平论的量化进行测试：不是民主国家永远不进行战争（在提到的这些特例中，战争都关乎国家的生死存亡），而是在其他条件相同的情况下，民主国家比非民主国家更少卷入战争。[223]

    鲁塞特和奥尼尔解开了纠缠在一起的乱麻团，他们使用统计学的多重逻辑回归，剥离出混杂变量的影响。比如，我们发现老烟鬼中有很多人有心脏病，但需要证明的是引起心脏病的原因是吸烟，而不是缺乏运动，尽管吸烟的人大多锻炼不足。为此，我们首先要尽可能地收集心脏病人的数据，以及尽量多的干扰因子——锻炼的数据。在查看大量男子的健康记录样本之后，你或许会发现，平均而言，每星期增加一小时运动量，男性心脏病发病的概率就会降低一定程度。但是，运动量和心脏病发病率之间的相关性并不大，有些电视迷的心脏很健康，有些运动员却在健身房发生心肌梗死。当运动量一定时，预测的心脏病发病率和收集到的实际发病率之差被称为残差。在得到一组残差的集合之后，我们可以做各种测试，以确定我们真正想知道的变量——抽烟对心脏病的影响。

    接下来，我们可以再找出一个变量集合。一般来说，老烟民的运动量较少，但是其中也有些人的运动量很大，同时，有些不吸烟的人完全不做任何锻炼。这就提供了第二组残差：男性中实际吸烟人数的比重和根据运动量推算的吸烟人数的比重之间的差。最后，我们可以看到吸烟和运动关联的残差（吸烟实际人数与从人们的运动量上推算的吸烟人数之间的差距）和运动和心脏病关联的残差（心脏病患者的实际人数与根据运动量推算的心脏病患者的人数之间的差距）之间是否相关。如果两个残差相关，我们就可以说，吸烟和心脏病相关，而且两者与运动联合相关。如果我们在男子生命较早的时点上测度是否吸烟，在稍后的时点上测度是否有心脏病（排除心脏病导致男人吸烟的可能性，而不是相反），就会一步一步得出吸烟导致心脏病的结论。多重回归不仅让我们能够处理两个互相纠缠的预测变项，而且让我们能够处理任意多的预测变量。

    多重回归的主要问题是，需要厘清的预测变量越多，需要的数据就越多，因为干扰变量有吸收和“耗尽”数据差异性的特性，干扰变量越多，数据差异性越小，我们也就只能依靠余下的差异性求证我们的假设。国与国之间的战争并不是经常发生的事件，这是人类的福气，却是社会科学家的“不幸”。“战争相关项目”的数据显示，1823—1997年，世界共发生了79次真正意义上（年死亡至少1000人）的国家战争；1900年之后，只有49次，这在统计学上完全没有意义。因此，鲁塞特和奥尼尔只能设法扩大他们的数据库，将与国家间武装争端有关的事件，包括军队进入戒备状态、开枪示警、战斗机升空示威、摩拳擦掌、放冷枪，以及其他耀武扬威的行动加入进去。[224]假定每发生一场真正的战争，相应地都有更多未发展成战争的小纠纷，而导致纠纷的起因和战争的原因都是一样的，因此，在统计上，这些大量的纠纷可以被视为战争的替代值。1816—2001年，被“战争相关数据库”承认的国家间武装争端有2300多起，这个数字足以让数据饥渴的社会科学家感到欢喜。[225]

    鲁塞特和奥尼尔先是排列出分析单元：1886—2001年每一年中每一对交战或者几乎交战的国家，它们或者是邻国，或者其中一方是大国，进入名单的唯一条件就是这一对国家确实在那一年发生过武装冲突。假定在一对交战国中，即使有一个是反战的民主国家，它仍然很可能被另一个更好战（而且可能也是不民主的）的对手拖进战争。所以，接下来要观察在每一组交战国中，比较不民主的那个国家在战争发生前一年的民主程度如何。显然，指责民主的荷兰在1940年卷入与德国入侵者的战争是非常不公平的：1940年的战争名单上有荷兰-德国组，而1939年德国民主的评级是0——最低分。

    在确定一个国家是不是民主国家时，为了避免数据挖掘中的种种诱惑，尤其是有些不时上演竞选闹剧的国家会坚称自己是民主政体，鲁塞特和奥尼尔使用了“政体项目”（Polity Project）的数据。“政体项目”将民主化的程度从0~10分为11级，根据各个国家政治过程的竞争性、领导人遴选方式的开放性，以及对领导人权力的约束程度来对每个国家进行评级。研究者还加入了一些变量，它们被认为将通过纯粹的现实政治影响军事争端：一对国家以前是不是盟国（因为盟国之间不轻易交恶），两国之中是否有一个大国（因为大国喜欢找麻烦）；如果两个都不是大国，是否有一方比另一方要强大得多（因为结局预知，所以力量悬殊的两个国家之间较少发生战争）。

    那么，民主国家是不是比不民主的国家更少介入军事争端，或者根本没有区别呢？答案是确定的——民主国家更少介入战争。当对抗的两国中不民主的一方是彻头彻尾的专制政权，发生战争的机会比平均水平高出一倍。当两个国家都是民主国家的时候，发生冲突的机会将减少一半。[226]

    事实上，“民主和平论”比其倡导者所希望的更加坚实牢靠。不仅民主国家避免彼此之间的冲突，而且有证据显示，它们在任何情况下都倾向于避免战争。[227]民主国家之间互不交战，不仅是因为意气相投，惺惺相惜。从来没有人提“专制和平论”，因为强盗之间并不尊奉互不抢劫的守则，专制国家也不会因为同为专制就避免相互冲突。[228]“民主和平论”不仅被整整115年的历史数据验证，同时也被1900—1939年和1989—2001年这两个区段的数据验证。这说明“民主和平”不是冷战时期“美利坚治下的和平”的副产品。[229]事实上，从来不存在什么“美利坚治下的和平”或者“不列颠治下的和平”，那些几个大国独霸世界的年代，并不比群雄并列的年代更和平。[230]没有任何迹象显示新兴民主化国家是“民主和平论”的例外，请想一想在苏联帝国崩溃后加入民主阵营的巴尔干国家和中欧各国，还有在20世纪70和80年代摆脱了军人政权的南美国家，它们中没有任何国家在民主化后发动过战争。[231]鲁塞特和奥尼尔发现“民主和平论”只有一个限制条件：它起始于1900年左右，只适用于此后的世界；用19世纪的历史来验证它，则会有太多的反例。[232]

    “民主和平论”经受住了严格的考验。但是，这不是说我们都应该是为自由而战的人，应该尝试向每一个我们能够攻占的专制国家安插民主政府。对一个社会而言，民主不是一个纯粹的外生变量；不存在一个民主政府运作程式说明书，能够让所有人照章办理。民主首先体现在一个社会的文明心态中，其最突出的表现就是反对政治暴力。前面讲到过，英国和美国当年为民主准备基础的时候，那里的政治领袖刚刚摆脱谋杀对手的恶习。没有这样文明的社会肌体，民主就无法保证国家内部的和平。在下一章我们会谈到，虽然新生的仍很脆弱的民主政体不再发动国家之间的战争，但是它们在内战方面的记录却仍然令人扼腕。

    对于为什么民主国家厌弃国家间的战争，我们甚至没有足够的理由将民主美化为原动力。“富有的人要给他更多，匮乏的人还要让他失去。”——在马太效应中，实行民主制度的国家是受惠的一方，是满足了的人又得到了更多。民主国家不仅摆脱了专制，而且更加富裕、健康，受教育程度更高，对国际贸易和国际组织也更开放。为了理解长期和平，我们必须将这些影响因素分开。

    长期和平是自由和平吗？

    “民主的和平”有时被看作一种“自由的和平”的特例。这里的“自由”是古典自由主义意义上的自由，强调的是政治自由和经济自由，而不是左派的自由主义。[233]“自由和平论”提倡“文明商业学说”，即商贸是某种形式的互惠利他主义，交易各方均有机会因正和博弈而受益，商贸中利他即为利己。罗伯特·赖特在讨论人类合作发展历史的著述《非零》中，给予互惠主义以极高的评价。他说：“我们有许多不应该轰炸日本人的理由，而我本人想到的是日本人制造了我的小面包车。”

    “全球化”这个时髦的字眼儿告诉我们，近几十年来，国际贸易蓬勃发展。各种外源的进步因素让贸易越来越容易，也越来越划算了。这些进步在交通技术方面有喷气式客机、集装箱货轮，在电子通信技术方面有电报、长途电话、传真、卫星和互联网。贸易协议降低了关税和政策限制，国际融资和换汇通道让货币能够在各国之间流动。现代经济越来越多地取决于创意和信息，而不是体力和物质。

    历史为我们提供了大量实例，告诉我们贸易与和平高度相关。18世纪，随着皇家特许和垄断逐渐让位于自由市场，加上贸易保护主义以邻为壑的思维模式逐步让位于国际贸易人人受益的观念，战争开始收敛，商贸开始兴盛。从大国武力游戏及其附属的战争中抽身的国家，比如18世纪的荷兰、20世纪下半叶的德国和日本，通常将国民精神从争当武力大国转变为争取成为经济实力大国。20世纪30年代的关税保护主义导致国际贸易萧条，这很可能是造成国际关系紧张的原因。在美国和中国之间，一个方向上是滚滚洪流般的制成品，另一个方向上是源源不断的美钞，除此之外，两国鲜有共同之处。但两国目前相互礼让，可以说是贸易促进和平的一个最新案例。在有关现代防止冲突的假说中，与“民主和平论”相媲美的还有“金色拱门理论”（麦当劳的黄色M商标），即在两个有麦当劳快餐店的国家之间从来没有发生过战争。唯一肯定的例外是1999年，北约短暂地轰炸了有汉堡“巨无霸”的南斯拉夫。[234]

    撇开这些说笑，历史学家对“贸易有利于和平”是不是一般性规律持怀疑态度。比如，1986年，约翰·加迪斯这样写道：“这都是人们愿意相信的事情，但是实在没有多少历史事实能给出验证。”[235]当然，在古代和中世纪，发展支撑贸易的基础设施不足以带来和平。促进贸易的技术，比如船只和道路，也促进了掠夺；有些时候，甚至在同一伙人中，商贸和劫掠同时并存，其原则是“敌众我寡则商，我众敌寡则抢”。[236]在中世纪之后的几百年间，商贸盈利如此丰厚，人们有时甚至对抵制贸易的殖民地和弱国动用炮舰强迫其开放贸易。最臭名昭著的实例是19世纪的“鸦片战争”，当时英国人以武力进犯中国，迫使中国允许英国在中国领土上贩卖毒品。大国之间的战争通常都发生在主要贸易伙伴之间。

    在诺曼·安格尔（Norman Angell）宣称自由贸易已经消灭了战争的5年之后，第一次世界大战爆发，“贸易和平论”的声誉一落千丈。对此观点持怀疑态度的人乘胜追击，特别用数据说明，大战前几年英国和德国之间的经济依存程度，包括两国的贸易水平，达到了前所未有的水平。[237]安格尔自己也不无痛苦地指出，只有当各国都以国家的繁荣为首要考虑的时候，才会因战争毫无经济收益而避免战争。很多国家的领导人情愿牺牲一点点——但经常远远不止一点点繁荣，来换取国家的面子，或者推行乌托邦式意识形态，或者纠正他们眼中的历史不公正。而他们的人民，民主制度下的人民，竟然也会支持他们的决定。

    鲁塞特和奥尼尔，两位善于做数据分析的“民主和平论”的辩护者，对怀疑论充满了怀疑，于是对“自由和平论”进行了测试。首先，他们注意到，尽管国际贸易在“一战”前夕达到一个小高峰，但与“二战”后的贸易发展相比，贸易量占GDP（国内生产总值）的比重仍然非常低（图5-24）。

    图5-24 1885—2000年各国GDP中国际贸易的比重

    资料来源：鲁塞特制图，2008年，根据格莱迪奇的数据，2002年。

    其次，国际贸易推动和平，只有在贸易受国际协议制约的情况下才成立，因为国际协议能够防范某些国家突然转向贸易保护主义，切断其贸易伙伴生命攸关的供应线。加特认为，进入20世纪前后，英国和法国都曾经吵吵嚷嚷要在帝国内实现自给自足的经济独立，不与殖民地之外的国家进行贸易。德国人对此感到惊恐，德国领导人深感自己也需要一个帝国。[238]

    双方各有正例和反例，也有许多统计数据，所以我们又到了要进行多重回归的时候了。在每一对有战争风险的国家中，鲁塞特和奥尼尔先找出对贸易依赖程度较高的那一个国家的贸易量（占GDP的比重）。他们发现，即使将民主、相对军力、大国地位和经济增长作为控制变量，在某个年份对贸易依赖较高的国家，在下一年则较少卷入军事争端。[239]其他研究表明，贸易的和平效应与该国的发展水平有关：那些已经具备降低贸易成本的金融和技术基础条件的国家，更倾向于在不使用武力的情况下解决它们之间的纠纷。[240]这个论断符合安格尔和赖特的观点，即在历史变迁的大背景下，金钱的激励指向贸易，背离战争。

    鲁塞特和奥尼尔发现，不仅两国间双边贸易水平的提高有利于和平，而且每个国家对外贸的总依存度也与和平相关，一个向全球经济开放的国家不倾向于介入军事冲突。[241]我们因此有必要进一步扩展文明商贸的定义。国际贸易仅仅是一个国家商业精神的一个侧面，其他还包括允许外国资本进入，公民能够自由签订可强制执行的合约，并依赖自愿的货币交换，而不是自给自足、以物易物或者坑蒙拐骗。这种广义商贸所具有的和平效应甚至比民主的和平效应更加显著。只有两个国家都是民主政体时，“民主和平论”才有明显的效力，但当两个国家中的任何一个是市场经济时，商业的影响就会显现。[242]

    根据这些发现，一些政治学家推演出一种叫作“资本主义和平论”的奇谈怪论。[243]“自由和平论”中的自由既是指民主的政治开放，也是指资本主义的经济开放。根据“资本主义和平论”，经济开放是促进和平的主要力量。持此观点的人坚信，康德对民主的论述同样可以用来论述资本主义。这样的论述当然会让左派哑口无言。所谓资本主义经济，其运行依赖的是公民之间的自愿契约，而不是政府的命令和管治，这一原则与康德的民主共和具有某些异曲同工之妙。一个国家内形成自愿协议所采用的伦理（正如在法治下过渡权力的伦理一样）会自然地外化到它与其他国家的关系之中。一个自由市场国家的透明度和可理解度能够让邻国确信它不会进入战时体制，这不仅可以化解掉进霍布斯陷阱的危险，而且可以严格制约领导人玩弄战争威胁和边缘政策的能力。不论国家领导人的权力是否受选票箱的约束，在市场经济中，政客的权力受到控制了生产手段的股票持有人的约束，他们很可能反对扰乱国际贸易。对于领导人追逐个人荣耀、宏图伟业和绝对正义的个人野心，以及他们面对任何挑衅都要无限升级的冲动，市场的制约就是一道紧箍咒。

    民主国家多为资本主义，反之亦然，但是两者之间并非完全相关，比如某些国家是资本主义，但同时是专制政权；印度是民主制度，但直到最近，其经济制度仍然以社会主义为主。有几位政治学家研究了这种错位滑移现象，他们在分析军事冲突或其他国际争端的数据时，将民主和资本主义作为相互独立的变量。与鲁塞特和奥尼尔一样，他们也发现国际贸易和经济开放这些资本主义变量具有明显的和平效果。但在统计分析中，一旦离开资本主义，民主是否还具有和平效应，有些学者的看法就与鲁塞特和奥尼尔产生了分歧。[244]不过，即使人们在统计回归上对政治自由和经济自由的相对和平效应争执不下，整体“自由和平论”仍然有坚实的基础。

    “资本主义和平论”这个观点让某些人感到特别震惊，因为他们总是记得资本主义曾经被视为“死亡机器”和“战争狂人”。研究和平的著名学者尼尔斯·彼得·格莱迪奇2008年作为学会主席在国际学会上发表演讲。在演讲结束之前，他不无调侃地使用了20世纪60年代的和平口号，但稍做了更新，他说：“要赚钱，不要战争。”[245]

    长期和平是“康德和平”吗？

    第二次世界大战甫一爆发，世界上的著名思想家都急切地想要弄明白灾难的起因，并提出防止灾难再次发生的各种方案。对于其中最出名的一项方案，穆勒这样解释说：

    一些西方科学家明显出于参与研发高效杀人武器的负罪感……放下实验室的工作，开始琢磨人文问题。他们很快得出结论，其表述还带有一种福音式的确定性，这是他们在讨论物理问题时从未使用过的。虽然爱因斯坦是作为瑞士这个主权国家的公民完成了他最伟大的物理学发现，但是他和其他所有人一样，对瑞士这个榜样完全视而不见。他宣称：“只要还存在拥有大规模武力的主权国家，战争就是不可避免的。”……幸运的是，他和其他科学家终于发现了一种能够解决问题的方法：“只有创立一个世界政府，才能够防止人类迫在眉睫的自我毁灭。”[246]

    世界政府似乎就是利维坦逻辑的直接展开。如果一个国家的政府垄断了暴力的使用权，能够解决个人间的凶杀以及不同集团间的战争问题，那么，一个世界政府合法垄断对军队的使用，不就可以解决国家间的战争问题了吗？伯特兰·罗素在1948年提议，应该向苏联发出最后通牒，要求它立刻向世界政府表示臣服，否则美国就应该施以核打击。[247]虽然大部分知识分子走得都没有罗素那么远，但是世界政府却得到很多人的赞同，包括爱因斯坦、温德尔·威尔基（Wendell Willkie）、休伯特·汉弗莱、诺曼·卡曾斯（Norman Cousins）、罗伯特·梅纳德·哈钦斯（Robert Maynard Hutchins）和威廉·道格拉斯。很多人相信联合国会逐渐演变为世界政府。

    今天还在鼓吹世界政府的人不是疯子就是科幻小说迷。世界政府的第一个问题是，一个政府的效力取决于它所管治的人民之间相互信任以及共享价值的程度，而这些都是不可能在全球尺度上实现的。第二个问题是，一个世界政府是唯一的，没有制衡机制来消除它的运转停滞和傲慢，因为只有在有替代、有选择的情况下，政府才能学习如何更好地进行管治，心怀不满的公民才有移民的空间。联合国不可能成为一个人们愿意接受其统治的政府。安理会在几个大国把持不放的否决权之下束手束脚，无所作为；联合国大会与其说是世界人民的议会，不如说是一个为暴君准备的演讲台。

    在“永久和平”中，康德展望未来，想象会出现一个“自由国家的联邦”。他所想的绝对不是国际利维坦。这个联邦逐渐地扩大为自由共和的俱乐部，而不是全球性的大政府，这个联邦依赖的是道德正当性的软实力，而不是对武力使用权的垄断。当前与康德的理念最接近的是政府间组织，简称IGO——参与国在某个领域具有共同的利益，IGO负担有协调各国政策的功能。在维持世界和平方面，国际组织中最有成效的不是联合国，而是欧洲煤钢共同体。它是一个由法国、联邦德国、比利时、荷兰和意大利在1950年发起的IGO，目的是监管共同市场，规范煤钢这两种最重要的战略物资的生产。欧洲煤钢共同体的设计特别注重将宿敌（特别是联邦德国）及其各自的抱负融入一个共享的商业企业。欧洲煤钢共同体为欧盟的前身欧洲共同体打下了基础。[248]

    很多历史学家相信，这些组织有助于西欧消除战争的集体意识。通过人、钱、商品和思想的相互渗透交流，这些组织弱化了各国成为军事对手的诱惑，正像美利坚合众国弱化了明尼苏达州和威斯康星州成为军事对手的诱惑。将各国带入一个俱乐部，各国领袖必须遵从某些合作规则，在一起社交和工作。这些组织可以作为不偏不倚的法官，调节成员国之间的纠纷。它手中的胡萝卜——大市场，可以诱使参与国或者放弃它们原先的帝国（比如葡萄牙），或者承诺成为一个自由民主的国家。[249]

    鲁塞特和奥尼尔表示，政府间组织是康德和平力量三角中的第三个角，另外两个分别是民主和商贸。（虽然康德没有在“永久和平”中将商贸作为独立的力量，但他在其他地方对商贸不吝赞赏，因此，鲁塞特和奥尼尔认为他们有足够的依据勾画“和平力量三角”。）政府间组织不需要任何乌托邦式的理想主义使命。它们可以协调防务、货币、邮政服务、关税、管道运输、渔权、污染、旅游、战争罪行、度量衡、道路标志等等——只要是各个政府自愿达成的协议，内容可以涵盖各个领域。图5-25表现了政府间组织成员在20世纪是如何稳步增加的，并在第二次世界大战后发展迅猛。

    图5-25 1885—2000年每一对战争相关国家共同参与的IGO数目

    资料来源：鲁塞特绘图，2008年。

    为了确认IGO成员组织是否对和平有独立的影响，或者它只是搭载在民主和商贸的便车上，鲁塞特和奥尼尔计算了每一对战争关联国家加入IGO的情况，连同民主和商贸因素以及实力政治变量，对这些数据进行回归分析。他们发现，康德的三个和平力量都是成立的：民主促进和平、商贸促进和平、政府间组织促进和平。在给定年份，三个变量都在最高第10级的一对国家。与平均水平相比，不会发生军事争端的概率为83%。也就是说，两国间发生战争的可能性为0。[250]

    * * *

    康德的理论在更宽泛的意义上还是正确的吗？鲁塞特和奥尼尔用精巧的统计相关性为康德进行辩护。但是，相关数据得出的因果关系总是经不住推敲。更大的可能性是，在分析中两个呈现相关性的“因”与“果”背后，有某个隐藏的实体才是影响“因”与“果”两个变量的真正原因。在康德和平三角中，每一个推定的能动主体可能都有更深刻甚至更“康德主义”的原因，即以各方均能接受的方式解决冲突的愿望，而不是强者将自己的意愿强加给弱者。民族国家只有在各种政治势力厌倦使用谋杀分配权力之后才成为稳定的民主国家；只有在更努力追求共同繁荣，而不是单边光荣之后才大开商贸之门；只有当他们愿意为了一点互利而放弃一点主权时，才会加入政府间组织。换句话说，通过接受康德价值，民族国家及其领导人越来越多地遵从某些行为准则，并因此让这些准则成为普世原则。那么，长期和平是否意味着康德“绝对律令”在国际舞台上占据了支配地位呢？[251]

    许多研究国际关系的学者会对这一看法嗤之以鼻。根据一种姑且可称为“现实主义”的流行理论，这个没有世界政府的世界将永远处于霍布斯无政府状态。也就是说，民族国家的领袖必须都是变态狂，仅仅为本国的利益着想，被煽情的（和自杀性的）道德思想蛊惑得斗志弥坚。[252]

    为“现实主义”辩护的人会说，人性必然导致某种结果，而人性论的基础则是人都是自私自利的理性动物。但是，我们在第8章和第9章将会看到，人也是道德动物：人类的行为道德与否，其行为的依据都不是对无私所做的伦理分析，人类的行为受道德本能的指引，辅之以情感、规范和禁忌。人类也是认知动物，他们编织信仰，并以信仰指导行动。所有这些禀赋并非天然地将我们这个物种推向和平。但是，如果我们说在某些特定的历史时刻，领导人们的道德感和认知力与他们的同盟军相结合，将人类推向和平共处，这种想象既不是过于感性，也不是反科学的臆想。也许，长期和平就是这样一个历史时刻。

    在三大康德式的原因之外，长期和平可能取决于一个最终极的康德原因。发达国家的选民所认同的各种准则已经演化为这样一种信念，即因战争造成人命伤亡，天然就是不道德的；只有在以战争制止更多的人命伤亡这一严格条件下，战争才具备合理性。如果确实如此，正如奴隶制、农奴制、轮刑、开膛破腹、斗杀狗熊、活烧猫、异端火刑、淹死女巫、绞死盗贼、公开行刑、在绞架上公示行刑犯的尸身直至腐烂、决斗、欠债人监狱、笞刑、船底拖曳等等，已在人道主义革命中从无可非议变为充满争议，再变为不道德、难以想象，直到闻所未闻，发达国家之间的战争也将像这些恶行陋俗一样销声匿迹。

    我们能够辨识发达国家中新兴的人道主义反战精神的外生原因吗？在第4章，我推断，出版、识字率、旅行、科学和城市化有关的各种因素的发展，拓宽了人们的知识视野和道德胸怀，加速了人道主义革命。20世纪下半叶与人道主义革命时代有着明显的相似之处，我们迎来了电视、电脑、卫星、电子通信和喷气式飞机的出现，以及科学和高等教育前所未有的普及。研究媒介的专家马歇尔·麦克卢汉（Marshall McLuhan）将战后的世界称为“地球村”。在一个村庄中，每个人都可以直接感受到其他村民的命运。如果这个村庄是我们共情圈的自然规模，那么，当村庄扩展到整个地球，村民所关切的同胞将远远超出原来的家族和部落。当你打开晨报，看到9000英里外一个小姑娘刚刚遭到凝固汽油弹袭击，她睁大的眼睛里满是惊恐，赤裸着身体，正向你跑来……在这样的世界上，没有哪个作家还会大言不惭地说战争是“男人至高美德和力量的基础”，或者还敢于鼓吹战争“提升人类的思想和品格”。

    冷战的终结和苏联的和平解体，与20世纪末人员流动和思想交流有着密切的关联。[253]到20世纪70年代和80年代，苏联试图以控制媒体和人口流动来维持统治的做法完全失效。一个没有复印机、传真机、个人电脑（且不说刚刚出现的互联网）的现代经济简直就是一出滑稽戏，而且，无论一个国家的统治者如何专制，也无法阻止科学家和政策专家向西方学习，更无法阻止战后出生的年轻人喜爱摇滚乐、牛仔裤以及其他表达个人自由的消费品。戈尔巴乔夫本人具有强烈的世界性偏好，他在政府中安插了许多访问过西方和在西方学习过的政策分析人员。在1975年签订的《赫尔辛基协定》中，苏联领导人在字面上许诺尊重人权，苏东境内大批人权活动家纷纷为此鼓动民众，要求当局兑现承诺。因为戈尔巴乔夫的“公开性”（glasnost）政策，亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴的《古拉格群岛》（The Gulag Archipelago）在1989年获得书号正式出版，电视台能够实况转播人民代表大会的辩论，这让成百上千万的苏联人看到了苏联前任领导人的残忍和现任领导人的无能。[254]电脑芯片、喷气客机、电磁频谱不断传递着各种思想，苏东的铁幕最终被瓦解了。

    反战思潮最终获胜的背后，也许还有另外一个原因。图5-18所展示的是大欧洲冲突死亡率。在颠簸的曲线上有三个峰值，分别是宗教战争、法国大革命和拿破仑战争、两次世界大战。每一个峰值之后都是一个凹值，三个凹值每一个都比前一个更低。每一次“血潮”之后，各国领袖都想尝试不让悲剧重演，他们的努力并非一败涂地。当然，他们达成的条约有效期实在有限，对于不懂得数字的人来说，历史典籍中的故事告诉他们，长期和平的好日子就要到头了，一场空前的大战正在等待着我们。但是，泊松雨点状的战争分布显示，战争没有周期性，没有聚积和释放的循环。没有什么东西能够阻止人们从过去的错误中学习，在每一次灾难后降低下一次犯错误的概率。

    拉斯-埃里克·塞德曼重温了康德的论文，从康德对长期和平的论述中发现了某种新意。对于各国领导人是否有足够的智慧从基本原理中推断出和平的前提条件，康德不抱幻想；他认识到他们只能从苦涩的历史经验中学习。在论文《世界公民观点之下的普遍历史观念》中，康德写道：

    战争、紧张且不懈的备战，以及由此产生的痛苦，每个国家迟早都必须在自己内部感受到，即使在和平时期也概莫能外。这些因素自然地驱使民族国家开始尝试寻找出路，虽然不尽如人意，但是，在最后，经过各种浩劫、动荡甚至彻底耗尽一国之国力，他们终于找到理由采取行动了，尽管其理由不需要如此之多的悲惨经验，他们也应该早已知道。这个行动就是放弃他们毫无法律约束的野蛮状态。[255]

    塞德曼认为，康德的通过学习实现和平的理论，应该和他的通过民主实现和平的理论结合在一起。虽然包括民主国家在内的所有国家原本都曾经是好战的（因为许多民主国家原本都是实力大国），所有国家对于突如其来的战争都不免盲目应对，但是，民主国家因为信息开放，国家领导人必须承担责任，所以更有从灾难中学习的能力。[256]

    塞德曼将1837—1992年军事冲突的历史走向进行了排列，交战双方均为民主国家的冲突为一组（黑线），其他国家的冲突为另一组（灰线），见图5-26。民主国家锯齿形的黑线显示，它以好战为起点，接着不断受到冲击，直到冲突水平直线上升。但是，在每一个峰值之后，冲突水平迅速跌至谷底。塞德曼还发现，与新兴民主国家相比，成熟民主国家的学习曲线的斜率更大。专制国家在大型战争的突然打击之后，也会恢复到比较和平的水平，但其过程缓慢，而且没有规律。人们常说，在20世纪的“血潮”之后，经历了民主化的世界“厌倦了战争”,“从错误中汲取了教训”。这些含糊其词的说法背后，也许确实有某种道理。[257]

    图5-26 1825—1992年，两个民主国家间发生冲突的可能性和其他国家间发生冲突的可能性

    资料来源：塞德曼绘图，2001年。曲线为两个交战国的20年移动平均值。

    在20世纪60年代的反战民谣中，一个流行的主题是，战争之愚蠢不证自明，人们只是冥顽不化地拒绝接受这一事实。“还需要多少死亡，他们才能明白，已经有太多太多人失去了生命？我的朋友，答案就在风中摇曳。”“士兵都到哪儿去了？每一个士兵都到墓地去了。他们什么时候才能明白啊？”在经历了500多年的王朝战争、宗教战争、主权战争、民族主义战争、意识形态战争之后——在分布图上，脊椎处许许多多的小规模战争和长尾处几场恐怖的大战，统计数据表明，我们终于在学习了。

    第6章 新和平

    麦克白的自证是无力的——所以他受到良心的谴责。是的，埃古也不过是一只小羊羔。莎士比亚笔下恶人的想象力和气魄最多不过是几十具尸体罢了。因为，他们没有思想意识。 ——亚历山大·索尔仁尼琴

    你也许会认为，人类历史上最险恶的威胁已经消除，这让国际问题评论家感到释然。与专家原来的预测相反，苏联坦克没有入侵西欧，古巴危机、柏林危机和中东危机都不曾升级到核灾难。[1]世界大都市没有在核打击下蒸发熔化，大气层没有受到核辐射的污染，也没有核爆炸产生的烟尘遮天蔽日，让人类步恐龙后尘而走向灭绝。不仅如此，统一后的德国没有成为第四帝国，民主制度没有变为君主政体，大国和发达国家没有陷入第三次世界大战。恰恰相反，它们一直处于和平之中，而且和平的时间越来越长。可以肯定，专家在几十年前就该认识到世界的命运开始变好了。

    可惜，事实并非如此。权威评论家比以往更悲观了！ 1989年，约翰·格雷（John Gray）预测，世界正在“重复历史的老路，大国对抗的老套路……民族统一主义的诉求和战争”。[2]2007年，《纽约时报》的一位编辑这样写道：“某种重复已经开始了：‘（在1989年之后）不需要太长时间，在意识形态暴力和极权主义的推波助澜下，世界摇摇晃晃地旋转回到了它熟识的鲜血浸泡的模式中。’”[3]政治学家斯坦利·霍夫曼说，在冷战结束后教授国际关系课已经让他感到非常沮丧，能听到的“无非是恐怖主义、人体炸弹、背井离乡的难民和种族灭绝”。[4]民主、共和两党都弥漫着悲观主义：2007年，保守派作家诺曼·波德霍雷茨（Norman Podhoretz）的著作《第四次世界大战：论抗击伊斯兰法西斯主义的长期斗争》出版。自由派专栏作家弗兰克·里奇（Frank Rich）说，世界是一个“比以往任何时候更加危险的地方”。[5]如果里奇所见为实，2007年的世界应该比两次世界大战中的世界更加危险，也比1949年和1961年的柏林危机、古巴导弹危机以及历次中东战争时期更加危险。那么，我们的世界还真成了一个相当危险的地方。

    前景为何如此暗淡？一部分原因是市场压力的结果。在权威评论家的市场中，卜凶的卡珊德拉（Cassandras）卖相总是好过乐天派宝莉阿娜（Pollyannas）。还有一部分原因是来自人类的秉性，大卫·休谟有过这样的观察：“谴责现状和思慕过去，这种幽默情感深深地根植于人性，即使那些具备极深刻的判断力和受过最全面教育的人也深受其影响。”但是，我认为，更主要的根源是我们的新闻界和知识界缺乏数学素养。记者迈克尔·金斯利（Michael Kinsley）最近写道：“当婴儿潮一代成人的时候，美国人正在半个地球之外杀戮送命；今天，这一代人进入退休年龄了，有些人甚至早已退休了，我们的国家还在干着同样该死的糗事，这实在是令人绝望。”[6]这等于是假定5000名美国人的死亡与5.8万名美国人的死亡是同样该死的糗事，10万名伊拉克人丧生和几百万名越南人的死亡是同样该死的糗事。如果我们不睁开一只眼睛盯着数字，已成定规的编辑方针“流血故事占据头版”将会盘踞人们的认知捷径；“越是令人难忘，就越是经常发生”，我们最终会产生一种所谓的虚假的不安全感。[7]

    本章要谈的是挑起新悲观主义的三种有组织的暴力。前一章的重点是大国和发达国家之间的战争，所以我只是简要地提及了本章的内容。“长期和平”没有带来这三种暴力的终结，难免给人留下世界“比以往任何时候都更危险”的印象。

    第一种有组织的暴力包含所有其他种类的战争，最引人瞩目的是内战，以及民兵、游击队和准军事组织之间的战争。这些战争在发展中国家如同瘟疫一般肆虐。这些战争被称为“新型战争”或者“低强度冲突”，但起因仍然是“宿怨”。[8]非洲少年手持苏制冲锋枪的图片已经尽人皆知，这更让人们觉得有理由相信地球上战争的重负并没有减轻，仅仅是从北半球搬到了南半球而已。

    “新型战争”被认为对平民特别具有杀伤力，因为战争一旦降临，就会立即带来饥荒和瘟疫，而战争死亡的大部分是由饥荒和瘟疫造成的。根据一份广泛传播的统计资料，20世纪初，90%的战争死亡是士兵，10%的战争死亡是平民，但是到20世纪末，这个比例正好颠倒过来。据报道，在刚果民主共和国等饱受战火蹂躏的国家，饥荒和瘟疫造成的死亡人数令人毛骨悚然，与纳粹大屠杀的死亡人数不相上下。

    我要追踪的第二种有组织的暴力是大规模的种族灭绝和政治清洗。我们刚刚逃脱出来的这100年被称为“种族灭绝时代”，或者“一个世纪的种族灭绝”。许多评论家都曾经说过，种族灭绝是现代社会才有的现象，它在超级大国争霸期间被压制，在冷战结束后迫不及待地重操屠刀，今天它已经成为一种最常见的暴力形式。

    第三种有组织的暴力是恐怖主义。自2001年9月11日美国受到恐怖袭击以来，对恐怖主义的恐惧已经制造了一个巨大的政府官僚机构、两场对外战争，以及政治论坛上的一个强制性议题。恐怖主义的威胁被认为是美国的“生存性威胁”，具有“彻底毁灭我们的生活方式”或者结束“人类文明”的能量。[9]

    当然，每一场祸患的代价都是人的生命。我在本章中提出的问题是，这些冲突造成的生命损失具体是多少，在过去几十年中是增势，还是减势？直到最近，政治学家才开始尝试度量这类冲突的破坏程度。他们得出了一个惊人的结论：所有类别的杀戮都呈下降的趋势。[10]这一下降的趋势是相当晚近才出现的，只有近20年的历史，因此我们还不能认为它是一个持续的趋势。认识到这种暂定性，我将这种发展称为“新和平”。无论如何，这些趋势属于暴力的真正减少，值得我们给予认真的关注。它们具有实质性的规模，表现出与传统观点相反的走向。研究这几个趋势，可以帮助我们辨识出哪些选择是我们做对的，以便我们能够继续努力。

    世界其他地区的战争走势

    当欧洲国家逐一经历它们的王朝、宗教、主权、民族主义和意识形态的各个时代，遭受两次世界大战的蹂躏，接着转身步入长期和平的时候，世界上其他地区在做什么呢？不幸的是，历史记录上的欧洲中心倾向使我们没有可靠的数据追溯欧洲之外的发展。在殖民主义到来之前，非洲、美洲和亚洲的大部分地区还处于捕食、氏族仇杀、劫掳奴隶的状态。这些丛林中的活动基本都在军事水平线之下，没有引起任何历史学家的关注。殖民主义列强自己进行了大量侵略战争，以征服殖民地，镇压反抗，抵御对手。这是一个充满战乱的年代。据《冲突目录》记载，在1400—1938年的500余年，美洲有276场暴力冲突，北非和中东有283场，撒哈拉以南的非洲有586场，中亚和南亚有313场，东亚和东南亚有657场。[11]历史近视让我们缺乏可信的数据，因此无法为这些战争的频率和破坏力绘制趋势图。但在前一章中，我们已经看到，其中许多战乱是毁灭性的。它们包括内战和国家间的战争，其破坏程度从人口比例上看，有些甚至在绝对水平上都超过欧洲发生的战争，比如美国内战、中国的太平天国运动、南美的三国同盟战争（或称“巴拉圭战争”），以及南非夏卡·祖鲁的数次征战。

    1946年，欧洲列强和发达国家终于把自己摆到了和平的起点线上，人们也是从这时起开始有了对世界历史的整体记录。奥斯陆国际和平研究所的白沙尼·拉齐纳、尼尔斯·彼得·格莱迪奇和其他同事开始建立奥斯陆国际和平研究所战争死亡数据库，这套严谨的数据库的起始年份是1946年。[12]该数据库收录了每一年发生的武装冲突，最小规模的冲突死亡人数为每年25人。冲突按照死亡人数分级，死亡达到1000人时被定义为“战争”，这与“战争相关项目”所使用的定义一致。除此之外，没有其他特殊的定义。（我将在讨论各种规模的武装冲突时继续使用“战争”一词，而不考虑它的技术含义。）

    奥斯陆国际和平研究所的研究人员力求分类标准尽可能可靠，让使用数据库的分析人员能够对世界各个不同地区的战争进行比较，并在固定的时间尺度上绘制趋势图。没有严格的分类标准，分析人员可能在比较某些战争的死亡人数时，使用包括死于瘟疫和饥荒的间接死亡数据，或者在计算某个地区军队对军队的战争死亡时，计入种族灭绝的数字。这样口径不一的对比毫无意义，而且极容易成为某种有企图的政治宣传。奥斯陆国际和平研究所的分析人员仔细地梳理历史记载、媒体报道、政府和人权组织的报告，尽可能客观地点算死亡数字。他们的计算比较保守；可以肯定他们倾向于低估数字，因为他们忽略了所有推测出来的和死因无法确定的死亡数字。其他暴力冲突数据库也使用了类似的标准和部分相同的数据，这些数据库包括“乌普萨拉冲突数据项目”（Uppsala Conflict Data Project, UCDP），数据库的起始年份是1989年；斯德哥尔摩国际和平研究所（Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, SIPRI）使用的是调整后的乌普萨拉数据；还有“人类安全报告项目”（Human Security Report Project, HSRP），同时使用奥斯陆和乌普萨拉两套数据。[13]

    和刘易斯·理查森面对的问题一样，新的冲突计数必须处理语义物化失败的问题，因此他们必须在将冲突分类时使用强制性标准。[14]第一个强制性标准是，根据冲突的原因及同样重要的可数性区分三种大规模暴力。“战争”（以及比较缓和的版本“武装冲突”）的概念适用于大部分有组织的并具有社会正当性的群体杀戮。能够定义为战争的冲突必须至少有一方涉及政府，交战双方一定是争夺某种可辨识的资源，通常是领土或者政府统治权。明确地说，该数据库将狭义上的战争称为“以国家为基础的武装冲突”，它们是唯一能追溯到1946年的冲突数据。

    第二个标准容纳了“非国家”或者“社团之间”的冲突，它包括军阀、民兵、准军事组织（通常属于某个种族集团或者宗教集团）之间的相互冲突。

    第三个标准有一个冷冰冰的名字“单边暴力”，它包括种族灭绝、政治杀戮和对非武装平民的屠杀，既可以是政府的行为，也可以是民兵的行为。奥斯陆国际和平研究所的数据库之所以没有包括单边暴力，部分是因为作为技术性选择，他们采取了根据原因划分暴力种类的做法；同时这也是历史学家长期以来只关注战争而忽视种族灭绝的遗留问题。人们只是在最近才认识到种族灭绝可以带来更惨重的生命损失。[15]鲁道夫·鲁梅尔、政治学家芭芭拉·哈尔夫（Barbara Harff）和乌普萨拉冲突数据项目已经收集了种族灭绝的数据，我们将在下一节探讨这些数字。[16]

    三种暴力中的第一种是国家操纵的冲突，可以根据政府针对何种敌人进一步划分子类。典型的战争形式是国与国之间的战争，比如1980—1988年的两伊战争。此外，还有跨国家或者跨体制的战争，即一个政府向在其边境之外、没有国家地位的实体开战。一般来说，属于此范畴的有帝国主义战争（一个国家与原住民对抗以攫取殖民地），还有殖民战争（一个国家为了维持殖民地的战争），比如法国1954—1962年的阿尔及利亚战争。

    最后一类是内战或一国境内的战争。在这一类战争中，政府与叛乱、起义和分裂运动对抗。这些战争还可以被进一步细分为完全的内部战争（比如斯里兰卡政府和泰米尔猛虎组织武装力量之间的战争），以及国际化的内部战争，即有外国军队介入，通常是帮助一个政府镇压叛乱者。阿富汗战争和伊拉克战争都是以国家间的冲突开始（美国及其盟国反对塔利班控制下的阿富汗和美国及其盟国反对复兴党控制下的伊拉克）。一旦原来的政府被推翻，外国军队留驻当地，并协助新政府防卫和打击叛乱者，冲突就应该被定义为国际化的内部冲突。

    现在我们要问的问题是，哪些死亡应该被算作战争死亡。奥斯陆国际和平研究所和乌普萨拉冲突数据项目的数据库计算了直接或战争相关的死亡——在施暴者必须承担自身受伤害的风险的对抗中，受害者死于枪击、刀刺、棒击、毒气、爆炸、水淹或者故意制造的饥荒。[17]受害者可以是士兵，也可以是陷入交火之中的平民，或者是“附带损伤”中的死亡者。战争死亡的统计排除了因疾病、饥饿、紧张和基础设施瘫痪导致的间接死亡。当间接死亡与直接死亡相加作为战争导致的死亡总数时，这个死亡总数应该被称为非正常死亡。

    为什么这两个数据库都不包括间接死亡呢？这不是要从史书中抹去人类的某些苦难，而是因为只有直接死亡才有确凿可信的记录。直接死亡也符合我们对主体责任的基本直觉。一个主体要对什么样的行为后果承担责任？我们认为，主体可以预见到结果，有意识地让这一结果发生，并通过一系列行动使其发生，而这一系列活动本身没有过多不可控的中间环节。[18]估算间接死亡的主要问题是，它要求我们进行哲学式的思考，在想象中模拟一个没有发生战争的可能世界，估算这个可能世界的死亡率，并以此为基准估算现实世界的战争间接死亡。这样的估算几乎需要一个人像上帝一样无所不知。即使没有发生战争，前政府的愚昧无能是否仍然会导致战后的饥荒？如果那一年发生了大旱，饥荒导致的死亡应该归咎于战争，还是归咎于天气？如果战争前一年的饥饿死亡率下降了，我们是否应该假定如果没有发生战争，这个死亡率应该进一步下降？或者我们应该将死亡率冻结在战前最后一年的水平上？如果萨达姆·侯赛因没有被废黜，他是否会继续杀害更多的政敌，死亡人数甚至超过他倒台后种族或教派战争所造成的死亡？我们是否应该将1918年大流感造成的4000万至5000万人的死亡加在第一次世界大战1500万人死亡的名单上，因为如果不是战争将如此密集的部队塞在战壕中，感冒病毒也许不会发生可怕的变异？[19]估算间接死亡需要我们就成千上万的冲突，以统一的口径回答所有这一类的问题，这是完全不可能的。

    一般而言，战争总是同时具备多重破坏性，那些战争死亡人数更多的战争，通常也会导致更大的与饥荒、瘟疫、服务瘫痪等相关的死亡。出于这种考虑，战争死亡的趋势可以作为整体破坏性趋势的代表指标。但是，这样的关联并不是在每一种情况下都成立。在本章中，我们要探究基础设施薄弱的发展中国家是否比发达国家遭受更严重的战争连带危害，直接死亡和间接死亡的比率是否已经随时间发生了变化，以及战争死亡是否已经是一个误导性指标，不能再说明暴力冲突中的生命损失。

    * * *

    现在，我们有了冲突数据库这件精密仪器，对于全世界的最新战争走势，它能告诉我们些什么呢？让我们先从图6-1鸟瞰20世纪的总况。图6-1由拉齐纳、格莱迪奇和鲁塞特整理，他们对“战争相关项目”1900—1945年的数据做了调整，使之与奥斯陆国际和平研究所数据库中1946—2005年的数据相匹配；再将数据除以世界总人口，得出20世纪个人死于战场的风险。

    图6-1 1900—2005年国家操纵的武装冲突中的战争死亡率

    资料来源：鲁塞特绘图，2008年，根据拉齐纳、格莱迪奇和鲁塞特的数据，2006年。

    图6-1再一次向我们展示了两场世界大战令人震撼的破坏力。它们不是逐级上升，或者像钟摆一样摇摆，而是在起伏的低地上冲天而起。20世纪40年代初之后，战争死亡率直线下降（高峰时为每年10万分之300），下降速度世所罕见。眼尖的读者在下滑线上还能看到一个下行线，曲线在战后10年内出现了若干小高峰，随后下行至今天低平的直线。让我们在图6-2中放大观察这条下行线，同时按照战争的不同成因对战争死亡进行分解。

    图6-2为区域图，每一层区域的厚度代表了一种国家操纵的冲突的战争死亡率，各层累计的高度是各种类型冲突加总的战争死亡率。首先，让我们留意一下图形的整体趋势。即使我们完全排除从第二次世界大战的峰值上跳水式的直线下降，图形还是明显地展示出过去60年间战争死亡率大幅度下降的趋势。进入21世纪之后的10年内，死亡率只相当于几张纸的厚度了。在这10年中，尽管在中期发生了31场冲突（包括伊拉克、阿富汗、乍得、斯里兰卡和苏丹），但战争死亡率只有年均10万分之0.5，甚至低于最和平的社会的凶杀率。[20]可以肯定，这些死亡数字低于真实死亡数字，因为它们仅仅包括有报告的战争死亡，但是在整个时间序列上，数字的口径是完全统一的。即使我们将现有数字乘以5，它仍然远远低于年均10万分之8.8的世界总凶杀率。[21]从绝对数看，年均战争死亡从20世纪40年代后期的约50万人，下降到21世纪初期的约3万人，下降幅度超过90%。所以我要说，不论人们相信与否，从全球的、历史的和量化的视角来看，60年代民谣吟诵的梦想已经成为现实：战争（几乎）从世界上消失了。

    图6-2 1946—2008年国家操纵的武装冲突中的战争死亡率

    资料来源：UCDP/PRIO武装冲突数据库；见“人类安全报告项目”，2007年，数据来自拉齐纳和格莱迪奇，2005年，数据来自塔拉·库柏（Tara Cooper）2010年进行的数据更新。估算尽量使用“最实”数据，除此，估算使用“高值”和“低值”的几何平均数。世界人口数字来自美国人口普查局，2010年c。1946—1949年的人口数据来自麦克伊韦迪和琼斯，1978年，数据乘以1.01，以便与其他数据匹配。

    让我们且收起惊讶，更认真地观察一下各种战争类别发生的变化。我们从左下侧颜色最浅的色块开始，它所标示的战争种类已经从地球上彻底消失了：跨国战争或殖民战争。一个大国试图保住殖民地的战争极具破坏性，比如法国在1946—1954年企图守住越南的战争（战争死亡总数为37.5万），以及1954—1962年的阿尔及利亚战争（战争死亡总数为18.25万）。[22]在经历了所谓“人类历史上最大规模的权力移交”之后，这一类战争不复存在。

    现在再看一看黑色的色块——国家之间的战争。图中有三个显著的黑色大色块，按照时间排列，色块的厚度逐一下降：第一块包括1950—1953年的朝鲜战争（4年之内共有100万战争死亡），第二块包括1962—1975年的越南战争（14年中共有160万战争死亡），第三块包括两伊战争（9年中有64.5万战争死亡）。[23]自冷战结束以来，只发生了两场具备规模的国家间战争：第一次海湾战争，2.3万战争死亡；1998—2000年厄立特里亚和埃塞俄比亚之间的战争，5万战争死亡。在21世纪头10年中，国家之间的战争数量稀少，为时短暂，战争死亡数量相对很少。（在每年1000人死亡这个技术意义上，无论印巴冲突还是厄立特里亚-吉布提冲突，均不能算作“战争”，此外还有快速推翻阿富汗和伊拉克政权的战争。）在2004年、2005年、2006年、2007年和2009年这些年份，完全没有发生任何国家间冲突。

    “长期和平”——在大国和发达国家之间没有战争——正在向世界其他区域蔓延。野心勃勃的大国不再认为有必要使用帝国征服或者欺压弱国来宣示自己的伟大：中国宣布自己的“和平崛起”，土耳其津津乐道于它的“邻国零问题”外交政策；巴西外长克制不住自己的喜悦，乐呵呵地说：“我不知道有多少国家能够夸耀自己有10个邻国，却在过去的140年没有打过一场仗。”[24]东亚似乎紧步欧洲的厌战后尘，虽然在“二战”后的10年中，东亚成为世界上最血腥的地区，中国、朝鲜和印度烽火连绵，但1980—1993年，这一地区的冲突和死亡数字急遽下降，自此东亚的冲突数字一直保持在前所未有的低水平上。[25]

    在国家间战争消亡的同时，内战突然猖獗起来。在图6-2中，20世纪80年代最上方那一大块浅灰色色块，包括苏联支持的阿富汗内战中的43.5万战争死亡。深灰层蜿蜒起伏走过80年代和90年代，其中是大量的小规模内战，比如安哥拉、波斯尼亚、车臣、克罗地亚、萨尔瓦多、埃塞俄比亚、危地马拉、伊拉克、利比亚、莫桑比克、索马里、苏丹、塔吉克斯坦以及乌干达内战。但即使是这一个色层，在进入21世纪后也迅速下滑，成为一条扁平的带子。

    为了更清晰地理解这些数字告诉我们的图景，不妨将死亡人数按照战争的两个主要测度进行分解：每一种战争的数量和每一种战争的杀伤力。图6-3显示了每一种武装冲突的数量，在此没有考虑战争的死亡人数。记住，一场冲突的最低死亡人数是25人。随着殖民战争销声匿迹和国家间战争日渐稀少，在冷战结束后，美苏两国不再支持自己的附庸国，国际化内战也经历了一个短促的冷却期。但是，接着在南斯拉夫、阿富汗和伊拉克等地出现了维持国际秩序的治安战争，国际化战争重新浮现。但是，最显著的现象是从1960年左右开始，纯属内部冲突的内战数量暴涨，在90年代初左右达到高峰，然后一路下降，直至2003年，随后又出现了一个小反弹。

    图6-3 1964—2009年国家操纵的武装冲突的数量

    资料来源：UCDP/PRIO武装冲突数据库；见“人类安全报告项目”，2007年，数据来自拉齐纳和格莱迪奇，2005年，塔拉·库柏2010年对数据进行了更新。

    为什么两张图的色块相比差距如此之大？原因是战争的幂律分布。在幂律分布中，分布在L形尾部的少数战争造成了大部分战争死亡。在1946—2008年的260场冲突中，共有超过940万战争死亡，其中半数死亡来自5场战争，3场是国家之间的战争（朝鲜战争、越南战争、两伊战争）, 2场是解放战争（中国解放战争和阿富汗内战）。死亡人数下降的趋势主要来自长尾的消减，破坏力巨大的战争越来越少见。

    不同规模的战争在死亡总量中占据的比重不同，除此之外，不同类型的战争在死亡总数中的份额也有明显的差别。图6-4显示了战争的第二个维度——平均每场战争造成的死亡人数。

    图6-4 1950—2005年国家间战争和内战的死亡人数

    资料来源：UCDP/PRIO武装冲突数据库，拉齐纳和格莱迪奇，2005年；“人类安全报告项目”改编；人类安全中心，2006年。

    直到最近，人类历史上最具杀伤力的战争种类是国家间战争。没有什么比两个利维坦之间相互倾轧更残酷的游戏了，一批又一批被送上前线的炮灰，一轮又一轮炮火轰炸，直打到对方的城市化为灰烬。在这样的厮杀之下，人命损伤当然极为惊人。远远排在第二名和第三名的是一个利维坦将自己的霸气施加到本国之外的某个地方，或者扶植一个摇摇晃晃的政府，或者紧紧把持住自己的殖民地。最后一名是内战。在那些大国不予关注的小国内，扛着机关枪的叛军骚扰当地政府，他们能制造的伤害非常有限。在过去的25年中，这一类冲突的死亡率也有所下降。[26]1950年，平均每一场武装冲突（不分种类）要杀死3.3万人；2007年，这个数字是不到1000人。[27]

    * * *

    对于“二战”结束之后武装冲突走势的起伏，及其逐渐平静的“新和平”阶段，我们应该做怎样的解读呢？冲突舞台上最主要的变化是战争大多发生在穷国，主要集中在一个半弧形地带，从中非和东非伸延到中东，跨过西南亚和印度北方，向下进入东南亚。图6-5中的黑点显示的是2008年正在进行中的冲突，深灰色的国家包括当今世界上收入最低的“底层10亿人”。大约半数的冲突发生在人口占世界1/6的最贫穷国家。在2000年以前的几十年，冲突也都分布在贫穷地区，比如中美洲和西非。在历史上，无论经济因素还是地理因素都与战争没有常数关系。不要忘记，富有的欧洲国家曾经在500年间不停地相互厮杀。

    在当今世界，贫困与战争的关系是平稳的，但是高度非线性。发达国家爆发内战的风险基本为0。对人均GDP为1500美元的国家来说（按2003年美元汇率计算）, 5年之内爆发新的国内武装冲突的可能性约为3%。但是，对于收入更低的穷国，内战风险大幅度增加：对于人均GDP为750美元的国家，5年内爆发内战的可能性是6%；对于人均GDP为500美元的国家，内战的可能性是8%；对于人均GDP为250美元的国家，内战的可能性上升到15%。[28]

    图6-5 2008年世界各地武装冲突的地理分布

    深灰色的国家为“底层10亿人”或者世界人均收入最低的国家。黑点表示2008年发生冲突的地点。

    资料末源：数据来自奥斯陆国际和平研究所的阿瓦尔·斯特兰德（Harvard Strand）和安德烈斯亚·弗若·托勒夫森（Andreas Fore Tollefsen）；根据哈尔瓦德·比海于格（Halvard Buhaug）和西里·鲁斯塔德（Siri Rustad）2008年为格菜迪奇制作的地图改编。

    对这种相关性的简单解释是，在资源贫瘠之地，穷人不得不为生存而进行争夺，此即贫困导致战争的原因。尽管某些冲突确实是为了争抢水源和可耕地，但两者之间的关系远不是这样简单。[29]首先，因果的指向关系可以完全相反。人们完全可以说，战争导致贫困，当辛苦修建的道路、工厂和粮仓不断被夷为平地，当技巧娴熟的工人和经理不断被赶走或被射杀，创造财富谈何容易。所以，战争也被称为“逆向发展”。据经济学家保罗·科利尔（Paul Collier）估算，一个国家为一场典型内战所付出的代价是500亿美元。[30]

    其次，自然资源这一类值钱的东西既不等于财富，也不等于和平。在非洲许多饱受战乱之苦的贫困国家里，到处都是金矿、石油、钻石和其他战略金属矿藏；而一些富裕并和平的国家和地区，比如比利时、新加坡，还有中国香港地区，完全没有任何可以称道的自然资源。肯定存在第三个变量，让我们假定这个既带来财富又带来和平的变量是文明商贸社会的规则和技能。而且，即使贫困确实导致冲突，也很可能不是因为要对稀缺资源进行竞争，而是因为政府没有足够的财力供养一支有效的治安力量和军队来维持稳定。经济发展的成果对政府的作用远大于对游击队的作用，这也是为什么发展中国家中的经济四小虎已享有相对的安定和平。[31]

    不论贫困能够产生什么样的效果，对其效果以及其他“结构变量”进行量度，比如度量一个国家人口构成中青年和男性的比重，这些变量的变化都过于缓慢，无法充分解释发展中国家近年来内战的涨落。[32]这些变量与一个国家的管治形式之间存在相互影响。在图表中，20世纪60年代内战部分的增厚有一个明显的触发因素：非殖民化。欧洲统治者在征服殖民地和镇压反叛时也许非常残忍，但一般来说他们有相当有效的治安警察、司法和公共服务系统。虽然他们经常豢养一部分族群，但是他们的目标始终是控制整个殖民地，所以，他们的执法具有良好的普遍性，通常不允许一个族群在迫害另一个族群之后完全不受法律的制裁。当殖民政府撤离时，他们将有效的管治一起带走了。20世纪90年代，当苏联解体、共产党政权在东欧下台后，中亚和巴尔干地区立刻陷入半无政府状态。对于南斯拉夫联邦解体后发生的混乱，波斯尼亚的一位克罗地亚人这样解释说：“我们过去生活在和平与和谐之中，那是因为每隔几百米就有一个警察盯着我们，确保我们彼此非常相爱。”[33]

    许多新近独立的殖民地国家的政府被控制在强人、贪官污吏，有时甚至是精神病人的手中。他们任凭大部分国土处于无政府状态，强盗和匪帮横行霸道，挑起战火，这正是我们在第3章中从波莉·威斯纳对巴布亚新几内亚文明退化进程的描述中所看到的景象。他们和他们的家族侵吞国家的税收，他们的专制让其他集团除发动政变和起义之外没有任何改变的希望。他们对小混乱的反应进退失据，在事情恶化之前无所作为，之后又派出敢死队毁灭所有村庄，这只会激起更大的反抗。[34]中非帝国的让-贝德尔·博卡萨算得上是这个时代的标志性人物，他给这个小国正式取名为中非共和国。博卡萨有17个妻子，亲自切割（甚至有传言说有时还食用）他的政敌的尸体。当学校的学生抗议强制高价购买按照博卡萨规定的样式制作的校服时，他下令将学生殴打致死。他自己举办仪式给自己加冕，还制作了一张黄金的王座和一顶嵌满钻石的皇冠。这场加冕仪式的开销是这个世界上最贫困国家年收入的1/3。

    在冷战期间，许多暴君得以把持权力，是因为得到超级大国的庇护，理由正如富兰克林·罗斯福对尼加拉瓜的阿纳斯塔西奥·索摩查（Anastasio Somoza）的评价：“他也许是个狗崽子，但他是我们的狗崽子。”[35]苏联支持许多政权，目的是向全世界输出共产主义革命；美国支持另外一些政权，目的是要它们不要加入苏联阵营。还有一些大国，比如法国，与任何向它提供石油和矿产品的政权保持友好。专制政府得到一个超级大国的军火供给和金钱资助，反抗这些专制政权的叛军就会得到另一个超级大国的供给和资助，主子的利益在于看见受保护人在冲突中取胜，而不是结束冲突。从图6-3可以清楚地看到1975年前后，当葡萄牙解散它的殖民帝国，而美国在越南被打败，全世界的反叛者欢欣鼓舞的时候，内战开始了第二次高潮期。1991年，内战的数量到达高峰，当年共爆发了51场内战。绝非巧合的是，那一年苏联解体，以冷战为动机的代理人战争也就此消失。

    不过，只有1/5的冲突减少可以归功于代理战争的消亡。[36]某些主义的终结排除了另一个煽动冲突的动力源，它是卢亚德“意识形态时代”的最后一个反人道主义和崇尚斗争光荣的信条（我们将在本章稍后谈到另一个新的斗争信条）。意识形态，无论是宗教的还是政治的，总是要将战争推向死亡分布的长尾部，因为意识形态让领袖头脑发热，力求在毁灭性的消耗战中坚持住，最后压倒对手，完全不介意生命的代价。战后几场伤亡率最惨重的冲突，都是在朝鲜和越南这类政权推动下发生的。这些政权为了击败敌人，都显示了狂热的牺牲精神。

    有关美国人在对越战争中打错算盘的著述已经有很多，这些作者大多是当时的决策者。最致命的错误就是他们低估了北越人和越共承受伤亡的能力。随着战事的进行，美国的战略家，比如迪安·腊斯克和罗伯特·麦克纳马拉（Robert McNamara），完全不能想象北越这样一个落后国家能够抵抗地球上最强大的军队。他们总是信心十足地认为，下一次攻势升级将迫使越共投降。约翰·穆勒这样说：

    如果我们对1816年以来上百个参加了国际战争和殖民战争的国家逐一按照占战前人口的百分比计算死亡率的话，显然有一个极端的个例……它能够接受的战争死亡率是最疯狂的，通常是自杀式的。比如说，是“二战”中的日本人能够接受的死亡率的两倍。而且，罕见的几个经历了如此之高的战争死亡率的国家，例如“二战”中的德国和苏联，都是为了民族的生存而战，而不是为了扩张而拼命。美国人在越南遭遇的对手似乎是一个运作极其有效的组织——耐心、纪律严明、坚韧不拔，基本上没有腐败，也没有令人涣散的自我放纵。虽然越共经常遭受大规模的军事挫败，压力和疲惫无时不在，但是他们总是能够重整士气，重新装备，以更大的斗志返回战场。事实也许正如一位美国将军所说：“他们是我们有史以来遇到的最优秀的敌人。”[37]

    一则预言应验了：“杀死我们的10个人，我们也会杀死你们的1个人。到最后，还是你们承受不起。”民主愿意牺牲的生命，只是独裁者愿意失去的一个零头，而且，没有人会去询问被杀死的那10个人怎样看待送命这件事情。尽管占有各种优势，但民主国家最后还是放弃了消耗战。而到20世纪80年代，这些国家从意识形态国家转变为商品经济国家，当权者放松了对国民的统治。自此，他们也不再愿意以原来那样的代价挑起不必要的战争了。

    现在的世界，很难再为声誉、荣耀和意识形态所鼓舞，而更多地享受着富足生活的愉悦。当然，被送上战场受死的人也越来越少了。2008年，为了阿布哈兹（Abkhazia）和南奥塞梯（South Dssetia）的一小片疆土的控制权，格鲁吉亚与俄罗斯发生了武装冲突。交战5天后，格鲁吉亚宣告失利，格鲁吉亚总统米哈伊尔·萨卡什维利（Mikheil Saakashvili）向《纽约时报》的作家解释了为什么他决定不组织抵抗占领军：

    我们可能做这样的选择。我们可以将这个国家变成另一个车臣——我们有足够的人力和物力做到这一点。或者，我们什么都不做，只做一个现代欧洲国家。也许，总有一天，我们会将他们赶出去，但是我们必须跑上山，蓄起大胡子。这个国家会为此背上极其可怕的精神和情感重负。[38]

    这个解释是夸张的，甚至是不老实的——俄罗斯没有要占领格鲁吉亚的意图，但是，总统的解释确实表达了在“新和平”背后发展中国家面临的一种选择：蓄起胡子上山打游击，或者不采取行动，继续做一个现代国家。

    * * *

    除了冷战的终结和意识形态的降温之外，还有哪些因素导致过去20年中内战数量减少，以及战争死亡人数锐减呢？而且，为什么在发达国家已经完全看不到的内战，在发展中国家中仍然持续出现（2008年共发生36场冲突，除一场之外全部是内战）？

    回答这些问题的最佳切入点是康德的和平三角理论：民主—开放经济—融入国际社会。我在前一章介绍了鲁塞特和奥尼尔的统计分析，他们的分析尺度是整个世界，但分析的对象仅是国家间的争端。康德和平三角理论在分析发展中国家的内战时是否适用？毕竟发展中国家才是当今世界冲突的聚集地。结果是，每一个变量都大有深意。

    人们可能认为，既然民主多多益善，是抑制战争的好东西，那么，有一点儿民主也比完全没有民主要好。但在内战的问题上，情况并非如此。在本章前面（以及在第3章我们检视世界的凶杀率时），我们都碰到了伪民主这个概念。这种统治制度既不是完全的民主，也不是完全的专制。[39]在政治学家眼中，伪民主被视为半民主政体、权贵政体，以及（我在一次会议上听人提到的）烂糟政府。我本人最喜欢最后一种说法。这是一些什么也搞不利索的行政当局。与专制政府不同的是，它们不再将自己的人民吓得不敢说话，但是也没有任何谈得上公平的执法系统，而法制是任何一个民主体制的必要条件。相反，它们经常对局部的犯罪活动进行全面打击。它们从专制政权演化而来，全盘继承了其贪腐的习性，将政府的税收和职位据为己有，在亲族之间进行瓜分，权贵的亲族再去行贿，寻求警察的保护、法庭的偏袒或各种许可证；而恰恰在这样的社会，要办成任何一件小事，都需要申请这样或那样没完没了的许可。政府的职位只是一张从事贪腐的门票，要获得政府的职位，唯一的途径就是在政府部门有亲族当权。而对政府的控制需要定期地经受“民主选举”的重新争夺，“选举”的利害关系之重大，不亚于抢夺任何珍贵且不容分享的战利品。家族、宗派、种族等集团围绕选票箱互相倾轧，接着就是试图推翻不符合自己愿望的选举结果。根据《冲突、管治和国家脆弱性全球报告》，爆发新的社会集团之间的战争，比如种族冲突型内战、革命战争和军事政变的可能性，伪民主制比民主制度高6倍多，比专制政权高2.5倍。[40]

    前一章中的图5-23展示了为什么半民主的伪民主制国家的暴力成为当今世界的一个问题。20世纪80年代末以来，随着专制制度的衰落，“伪民主”国家的数量开始上升。目前这些国家从中非到中东，再到西亚和南亚，呈大新月形分布，基本上和图6-5中的战区图相吻合。[41]

    当政府手中把持了大宗自然资源，例如石油、黄金、钻石和战略矿产的时候，一个赢家通吃的政治制度可以让国家的内战风险成倍增加。这些天赋的财富非但不是祝福，反而是所谓的资源诅咒，也就是众所周知的“富矿悖论”和“傻瓜的黄金”。拥有丰富的不可再生且易被垄断的自然资源的国家，通常经济发展速度更迟缓，政府更贪渎，暴力冲突也更频繁。委内瑞拉政治家胡安·佩雷斯·阿方索（Juan Pérez Alfonzo）说过：“石油乃魔鬼的粪便。”[42]一个国家之所以受到这些富饶资源的诅咒，是因为资源被集中把持在少数权贵和富豪手中，通常是政府的精英，有时是独霸一方的军阀。当权者念兹在兹的无非防止对家染指他们的财源，完全无心于建立交易网络，让社会共富，并在各个集团之间培养相互责任。科利尔和经济学家丹姆比萨·莫约（Dambisa Moyo），连同一批政策分析专家一起呼吁关注另外一个悖论——外援悖论。西方名流倾注了全部热情的外援，很可能也是一杯毒酒，因为它让转手分配外援的当权者有了更大的权力和财力，几乎没有多少外援真正用于建设可持续发展的经济基础设施。昂贵的违禁品，例如古柯、鸦片和钻石是第三种诅咒，其丰厚的收益，让政客和军阀为了保住非法的地盘和走私渠道而不惜凶残地杀戮。

    科利尔指出：“21世纪的 ‘底层10亿’国家，实际上处于14世纪的状态：内战、瘟疫和愚昧。”[43]14世纪是一个灾难性的世纪，当时西方正处于文明进程的边缘，尚未出现有效的政府整合各方利益。穆勒在《战争残余》（The Remnants of War）一书中说，当今世界上的大部分冲突不再是职业军队进行的领土争夺战。冲突是由抢劫、恐吓、复仇和强奸构成，施暴者是为军阀和地方政客效劳的无业青年的帮派，很像中世纪爵爷在私人战争中纠集的社会渣滓。穆勒说：

    这些战争中有很多被贴上“新战争”、“种族冲突”，或者最宏大的“文明的冲突”的标签。但是事实上，尽管不是全部，其中大部分都近乎小团伙（通常是非常小的团伙）的罪犯、匪帮和流氓的伺机劫掠。他们参与武装冲突，不是作为孤注一掷的政府的雇佣军，就是作为独立或半独立的军阀，或者根本就是不折不扣的匪帮。这些施暴者带来的伤害可能是巨大的，施暴的对象一般属于特定的种族、国籍、文化或者宗教派系。他们对主要对手方的人特别残忍，但其行为和一般犯罪无异。[44]

    穆勒引用了20世纪90年代各场臭名昭著的内战和种族灭绝的目击者报告，包括波斯尼亚、哥伦比亚、克罗地亚、东帝汶、科索沃、利比里亚、卢旺达、塞拉利昂、索马里、津巴布韦及亚非新月冲突地区内的其他国家。目击者说，这些暴行大多是吸毒后的流氓和醉醺醺的痞子所为。穆勒描述了1989—1996年利比里亚内战中的一些“士兵”：

    按照惯例，战士都是一副美国动作大片，比如《第一滴血》、《终结者》和《丛林杀手》里好汉的做派。许多人都有响亮的绰号，比如“霹雳上校”“无畏上尉”“谋杀首领”“青年杀手上校”“丛林大王将军”“魔鬼杀手上校”“战主三世将军”“耶稣将军”“大麻烦少校”“光腚将军”“兰博将军”。尤其是在初期，叛匪尽情地宣泄对奇装异服的钟爱，简直到了疯狂的程度：妇女的长裙和假发、连裤丝袜、人骨制作的饰品，指甲上涂满色彩斑斓的油彩，甚至还有一个万花图案马桶坐垫做成的头饰（这也许是一个特例）。[45]

    政治学家詹姆斯·费伦（James Fearon）和戴维·莱廷（David Laitin）的数据也证明，这些衣饰光怪陆离、武器装备轻便的内战匪帮都是一些小团伙。这些人熟悉当地的地理环境，据此与政府军周旋，而对同情政府和向政府通风报信的人进行恫吓。这一类乡村游击战和叛乱有各种渊源，但其本质并不是种族、宗教和意识形态上的冲突，而更像是流氓集团和黑帮之间的地盘争夺战。费伦和莱廷对1945—1999年的122场内战进行了回归分析，他们发现，在人均收入不变（他们将此作为政府资源的代理变量）的前提下，对少数民族的宗教及其语言实行歧视政策，或者收入高度不平等的多种族和宗教多元的国家发生内战的可能性并不见得更高。更容易爆发内战的是人口众多、多山地、新政府或者政局不稳定、大量出口石油、（或许还有）壮年男性人口比重偏高的国家。费伦和莱廷的结论是：“我们的理论解释是，利维坦压倒经济因素。在这些地区，国家相对较弱，而且变化无常，人们既是因为恐惧也是出于投机而寻求地方势力的保护。这些土霸王一面维持一种原始的公正，一面肆无忌惮地为自己或者其他个人之外的目的搜刮保护费。”[46]

    * * *

    非殖民化后出现无政府状态，逆文明进程中内战数量不断上升，而当文明复兴进程逐步展开，政府不再欺压自己的国民，而是开始提供保护和服务时，内战数量也开始呈现下降趋势。[47]最近，很多非洲国家开始抛弃博卡萨式的狂人，而选择能够承担责任的民主派，比如南非的曼德拉，他称得上是历史上最伟大的政治家之一。[48]

    变迁不仅要求发生内战的国家改变思想，甚至也要求国际社会改变某些固有的观念。历史学家杰拉德·普吕尼耶（Gérard Prunier）说过，在20世纪60年代的非洲，摆脱殖民统治争取独立成为终极理想。新独立的国家立即着手展开为主权国家挣面子的各项事业，比如航空公司、大会堂和国家级别的机构。许多国家深受“依附理论”的影响，这种理论提倡发展中国家不参与世界经济，而是发展自给自足的工业和农业。今天，大多数经济学家都认为这种政策必然导致贫困。经济民族主义通常与浪漫的军国主义结合在一起，军国主义颂扬暴力革命。20世纪60年代的一个标志性作品——切·格瓦拉棱角鲜明的肖像，正体现了这一点。一旦顶着革命光环的独裁者失去威望，民主选举就成了新的灵丹妙药。对于文明进程中孕育的各种面目阴沉刻板的机构，比如一个有效的政府和警察部门，一套可靠的商贸基础设施，人们觉得毫无浪漫可言。但是历史告诉我们，这些机构对于减少长期暴力是必要的，因而是所有其他社会良序的先决条件。

    在过去20年来，大国、捐赠国和国际组织（比如非洲联盟）一直在强调这一点，它们排挤、惩罚、谴责，甚至在某些情况下侵入一些由无能的暴君统治的国家。[49]追踪和打击政府腐败的措施，以及辨识出不利于发展中国家加入全球贸易的各种障碍，都已经成为普遍的实践。很可能就是这些质朴无华的工作，共同扭转了从20世纪60年代直至90年代初让发展中国家陷于内战的政府畸形和社会病态。

    理性的政府通常奉行民主和市场导向的政策，几项对内战数据进行的回归研究，期望找到类似“自由和平论”这样的解释发达国家间得以避免战争的根据。我们已经看见，和平的第一个支柱“民主”，不能减少内战的数目，尤其是在以权贵倾轧为特色的伪民主政体当道的时候。但是，即使是这样的民主，似乎也仍然可以减缓内战的严重程度。政治学家拉齐纳发现，如果其他变量不变，民主国家的内战与非民主国家的内战相比，死亡人数减少一半。格莱迪奇在2008年一项有关“自由和平”的调查中得出结论说：“民主国家很少发生大规模内战。”[50]“自由和平论”的第二个支柱要更强大一些，即向世界经济开放门户，包括开放贸易，开放外国投资，开放附带条件的外援，以及开放电子媒体。这一支柱既有助于减少内战发生的可能性，也有助于减轻内战的严重程度。[51]

    * * *

    康德和平论共有三个支柱。第三个支柱是国际组织，其中在消除内战方面成效最显著的莫过于国际维和部队。[52]在非殖民化的几十年间，内战层出不穷，问题不仅在于战争爆发数量剧增，更麻烦的是战争旷日持久，旧的战火未熄，新的硝烟又起，每年平均有2.2场新战争爆发，只有1.8场旧战争结束。[53]到1999年，平均的内战长度已经达到15年！ 20世纪90年代末及21世纪初，情形才开始变化，战争结束的数量终于开始超过新爆发的内战数量。更多的内战以没有明显胜负的谈判和解告终，而非血战到底。在过去，这些内战经常在停火数年后重新开战，但现在死灰复燃的情况已经非常罕见了。

    维和部队的出现与和平趋势高度吻合。图6-6显示，从20世纪80年代末开始，国际社会加强了维和行动，特别是大量增加维和人员的数量，使他们能够更好地履行职责。冷战结束是一个转折点，大国终于更愿意看见战火平息，而不是一定要看见自己的傀儡获胜。[54]维和行动的升级，也标志着人道主义时代的到来。在人们眼中，战争已经开始变成臭不可闻的脏东西，即使是只有黑人和棕色人送命的战争。

    图6-6 1948—2008年维和行动数量的增长

    资料来源：格莱迪奇绘图，2008年，数据来自西里·鲁斯塔德。

    联合国问题多多，但维和是它的长项之一，尽管它还做不到防患于未然。“维和行动有效吗？”这是政治学家弗吉尼亚·佩奇·福特纳（Virginia Page Fortna）一篇文章的标题，她在文章里回答说：“毫无疑问，有用！”[55]福特纳整理了1944—1997年各次内战115个停火案例的数据，观察维和部队的存在是否减少了战争重启的机会。数据包括联合国维和行动、北约和非洲联盟这些永久性组织的行动，以及一些国家临时联盟的行动。她发现，维和行动让内战复燃的机会减少了。这并非说维和行动无往不利，波斯尼亚和卢旺达的大屠杀就是两个有目共睹的失败案例。维和的作用主要在于一般来说它能够阻止战火重燃。维和部队不需要重兵。就像一个瘦小的裁判可以拉开两名厮打在一起的冰球悍将，轻装甚至没有武器的维和部队也可以分隔敌对的民兵，并引导他们放下武器。即使维和部队不能带来完全停火，它也可以起到预警大冲突的绊网作用。并不是所有维和部队都必须是戴蓝色贝雷帽的士兵。审核选举，改造警察，检查人权状况，监督无能政府的运作，都是非常重要的工作。

    为什么维和行动有效？第一个原因与利维坦有关：具备一定规模且武装优异的维和行动，可以直接对破坏和平协议的一方进行打击，提高侵犯行为的成本。成本和收益既有名誉上的，也有物质上的。对于莫桑比克反对派领袖阿丰索·德拉卡马（Afonso Dhlakama）和他的全国抵抗运动与政府签署和平协议一事，一位维和行动的参与者这样评论说：“对德拉卡马而言，被认真对待，能够参加鸡尾酒会，受到尊敬，就已经意义重大了。通过联合国的斡旋，政府不再称全国抵抗运动为 ‘武装匪帮’。被人争相拉拢的滋味真是挺不错的。”[56]

    甚至小规模行动也可以有效地维持和平。维和部队的出现，打消了冲突双方出于恐惧对方先下手而发动攻击的冲动。而接受维和部队这一行动本身就显示了各方确有停止冲突的意愿。一旦维和部队进入指定地点，他们就开始监督停火协议的执行情况，确保双方都相信对方没有暗中备战的企图。维和部队也可负责维持日常治安，以防范小规模暴力行为引发不断升级的循环复仇。他们也可以找出那些想要撕毁停火协议的刺头和捣乱分子。如果有个别人破坏协议，发动挑衅性攻击，这时也只有维和部队有能力向被攻击方证明这只是流氓行动，而不是重启内战的信号。

    维和行动的影响力不限于此。他们还可以试着封锁叛军和军阀的主要资金来源——违禁品交易，这些人往往是同一类人。维和人员还可以向遵守和平协议的一方提供资助，增强他们的实力，让他们在选举中赢得更多的支持。一位塞拉利昂人在谈到某位总统候选人的时候感叹说：“卡巴去哪里，白人就去那里，联合国也去那里，钱也跟着去了那里。”[57]第三世界国家的军人，就像中世纪欧洲的战士一样，报酬通常就是劫掠的机会。维和部队手中的钞票可以用于“裁军、解除武装、重返社会”项目，将“光腚将军”和他的同伙拉回公民社会。维和人员可以充当重要的中间人。对那些有更多意识形态追求的游击队来说，从一个中立方手中拿钱这个事实，说明他们还没有将自己卖给可憎的敌人。金钱也可以被用作迫使政府向政敌或特定的种族集团开放职位的杠杆。接受金钱的诱惑，向中立的第三方妥协，而不是直接面对自己的对手，是一种保全面子的安排。联合国在塞拉利昂的工作人员德斯蒙德·马洛伊（Desmond Malloy）指出：“维和人员创造了一种和谈的气氛。（妥协）成了一个面子问题——这是人类的特性。因此，需要一种能够达成妥协又不失尊严和面子的机制。”[58]

    * * *

    对于那些熟知刚果民主共和国、伊拉克、苏丹和其他死亡之地的读者来说，上面那些鼓舞人心的统计仍然没有足够的说服力。奥斯陆国际和平研究所和乌普萨拉冲突数据项目的数据在两方面受到了限制。它们只包含国家主导的冲突：战争中至少有一方是政府。死亡也只计算了战争相关死亡。如果我们开始寻找没有掉在这些灯柱下面的钥匙，战争和死亡的趋势会是什么样子呢？

    首先是非国家间冲突（也称社区间暴力冲突）。在这类冲突中，军阀、民兵、黑帮、叛乱团体，以及通常属于某个种族集团的准军事人员互相开战。这些冲突通常发生在国家失败的地方。当一场战争看不见政府的身影，说明政府已经丧失了对暴力的垄断权。直到最近，战争专家一直对这一类战争没有兴趣。没有人追踪，也就没有记录和数据，因此也就无从描绘趋势。联合国给自己的使命是防止“战祸”，但它拒绝对社区间暴力（或者其他类型的武装冲突）进行统计，因为联大的成员国不愿意让社会学家在它们的国境内到处探头探脑地做调查，或者暴露政府凶残的暴力，或者暴露因政府无能而未能防范的凶杀。[59]

    尽管如此，纵观历史，今天的非国家暴力冲突比过去几十年和几百年减少了很多。在那些年代中，地球上的大部分地区还不知道什么是国家。部落战争、打劫奴隶、游牧部落的抢劫、海盗袭击、贵族和军阀的私家战争，已经为害人类数千年。在1916—1928年中国军阀混战的12年间，有超过90万人死于战祸。[60]

    从2002年起，乌普萨拉开始建立“非国家冲突数据库”。这些数据给我们三点启示。第一，在某些年份，非国家冲突的数量和国家主导的冲突一样多，这种情况说明的是战争稀少，而不是社群间冲突频繁。毫不奇怪，大多数社群间冲突集中在撒哈拉以南的非洲，但最近一段时间以来，此类冲突在中东（主要是伊拉克）有增长的迹象。第二，非国家冲突杀戮的人数远远低于有政府参与的暴力行动，约为后者的1/4，当然这也无须惊讶，按照定义，政府本来就是暴力机器。第三，2002—2008年（该数据库中的最新数据）的冲突死亡人数明显呈下降趋势，尽管2007年是伊拉克社群间冲突伤亡最惨重的一年。[61]所以，可以肯定，非国家间冲突造成的伤亡，不足以改变全世界武装冲突死亡水平下降这个“新和平”时代的基本事实。

    * * *

    统计在战乱中平民因饥饿、疾病和混乱而死亡的数字是更艰巨的挑战。人们常说，在一个世纪之前，平民死亡仅占战争死亡的10%，而在今天，这个比重是90%。与这个说法相一致的是，流行病学家的最新调查显示，平民（直接和间接）“非正常死亡”的数量之多令人毛骨悚然。他们的调查方法不是从媒体报道和非政府组织报告中统计尸体数量，而是由调查人员选择样本对象，询问他们认识的人中是否有人遇难，再将得到的数字根据占总人口数的比例外推。一项2006年发表在医学期刊《柳叶刀》上的调查估计，2003—2006年，伊拉克战争中共有60万人丧生，这远远高于奥斯陆国际和平研究所和人权组织“伊拉克死亡统计”记录的8万至9万人的战争死亡。[62]刚果民主共和国的另一项调查显示，内战的死亡人数为540万人，是奥斯陆国际和平研究所估算的战争死亡数的35倍，而这个数字超过了奥斯陆统计库中1946年以来各种战争死亡总数的一半。[63]即使假定奥斯陆国际和平研究所的数字有意取死亡统计的下限（因为对死亡的原因有严格的限制），两个数字之间的差距也实在太大了。人们不得不怀疑，在总体上，战争死亡率的下降是否真的能说明和平时代的到来。

    伤亡数字总是伴随着道德指责，所以我们无须惊讶这三个数字被广泛传播。它们被用来谴责布什的伊拉克战争以及世界对非洲的忽视。但是，如果我们客观地看待数据的来源，应该发现这些修正主义的估测都是缺乏根据的。（在此，没有必要一再强调，这不等于说人们应该对战时的平民死亡无动于衷。）

    首先，通常所说的10%到90%的战争死亡为平民死亡之说，已经被证明完全是臆造。政治学家、“人类安全报告项目”的安德鲁·麦克（Andrew Mack）、乔舒亚·戈尔茨坦和亚当·罗伯茨（Adam Roberts）都知道这个“10%到90%”的标签没有数据的支持，都曾尝试寻找这个数据的来源。[64]他们也知道，这种数据经不起合理性检验。在人类的大部分历史中，依靠土地为生的农民，几乎不生产任何剩余。不事耕耘的兵痞动辄就可以颠覆农村人口和食物的脆弱平衡，让人们陷入饥荒。“三十年战争”的历史特别能显示战争的危害，不仅大量平民死于屠杀，而且家园、庄稼、牲畜、供水遭到蓄意破坏，又造成更大数量的平民死亡。美国内战期间，在封锁和焚烧庄稼粮仓等焦土政策的夹击下，成千上万名平民死于饥饿。（在小说《飘》中，女主人公郝思嘉发誓不再挨饿，这展现了当时的历史现实：“上帝为我做证，我再也不要挨饿了！”）[65]在第一次世界大战期间，前线穿过人口密集的地区，向城镇和村庄发射炮弹，双方都试图用封锁使对方的平民挨饿。我已经提到过，如果将1918年大流感的受害者算作战争的间接死亡，“一战”的平民死亡数量会增加几倍。同样发生在20世纪上半叶的第二次世界大战，屠杀平民的方式有集中营、空袭、《第五屠宰场》式的对德国和日本城市进行的狂轰滥炸，此外还扔了两颗原子弹。今天的战争，无论如何伤害平民，也不可能达到当年的规模了。

    戈尔茨坦、罗伯茨和麦克将这个模因追溯到一系列含混的重述中。在这些重述中，对不同类型的伤亡估算进行了混搭：将一个时期的战争死亡人数和另一个时期的战争死亡人数、间接死亡人数、受伤人数和难民人数进行了比较。麦克和戈尔茨坦估计，平民死亡的数量相当于战争死亡数量的一半，在各次战争中的比重有所不同，但随着时间的推移，这个比重并没有越来越大。的确，我们将要看到，这个比重在最近大幅度下降了。

    《柳叶刀》刊登的流行病学家对伊拉克战争死亡的估计引起了广泛关注。[66]8名卫生工作者组成的团队在18个地区挨家挨户地走访，询问各家最近的死亡情况。流行病学家将2003年入侵伊拉克前几年的死亡率从之后几年的死亡率中减去，认为两者之差是战争造成的死亡率，再用这个死亡率乘以伊拉克的总人口。这种算法的结果是如果没有发生美国入侵，会减少65.5万名伊拉克人的死亡。被调查的家庭显示，这相差的65.5万死亡人口中有92%都是非正常死亡，他们死于枪伤、空袭、汽车炸弹，而不是疾病或饥饿这样的间接死亡。如果这个数据是真实的，那么常规的死亡计算就是低估了约6/7。

    如果样本的选择不遵循严格的标准，那么，将小样本的结果外推到整个人口可以导致巨大的偏差。由迈克尔·斯巴盖特（Michael Spagat）和尼尔·约翰逊（Neil Johnson）率领的一个统计学家小组发现，这些估算完全没有可信度，因为在被调查的家庭中，居住在主要街道和道路交叉口旁的家庭数目多到不合比例，而这些地段往往是炸弹爆炸和枪战最密集的地带。[67]世界卫生组织进行的一项改进研究得出的战争死亡数字是《柳叶刀》中的文章估算的1/4。即使是这个数字，也对原始估计数按照35%的容差系数进行了上调，以弥补撒谎、迁移和记忆衰退造成的误差。他们未经上调的死亡数字是11万人左右，非常接近战争死亡的点算数字。[68]

    另一组流行病学家为了挑战20世纪中期之后战争死亡减少的一般性结论，对13个国家的战争死亡进行了新的推算。[69]斯巴盖特、约翰逊和他们的合作者对这些数据进行了研究。结果表明，他们的推算点散布在世界各处，对于追踪时间序列上的战争死亡毫无帮助。[70]

    刚果民主共和国内战中有540万人死亡（90%死于疾病和饥饿）的报告是否可信呢？[71]结果，这个数字也是被夸大了的。国际救援委员会（The International Rescue Committee, IRC）得出这个数字所依据的战前死亡率过低，因为它使用的是撒哈拉以南的非洲的总体死亡率，刚果民主共和国的情况要糟糕得多，而计算依据的内战战争死亡率的估算又过高，因为它的数字来自国际救援组织提供人道援助的地区，那恰恰是受战争影响最严重的地区。“人类安全报告项目”意识到刚果民主共和国内战的间接死亡人数很多——很可能超过100万，但是项目审慎地拒绝接受流行病学家回顾调查推算的非正常死亡，理由除了他们的样本偏差，还有他们的估算需要揣测如果战争没有发生，事情会是什么样的。[72]

    令人惊讶的是，“人类安全报告项目”搜集的证据说明，在过去30年的战争中，疾病和饥饿带来的死亡率呈现下降而不是上升的趋势。[73]这听起来似乎是说战争对孩子和其他生命是有益的，但这绝非他们统计分析的本意。相反，他们记录了过去这些年来发展中国家因营养不良和饥饿导致的死亡数量稳定减少，今天的内战大多是一个国家内一小撮叛乱分子在某个地点上的区域性战争，其破坏程度不足以扭转局面。事实上，当医药和食品能够在人道主义停火期间快速送达战区，营养不良和饥饿的死亡率可以加速下降。

    这怎么可能呢？很多人都没有意识到联合国儿童基金会呼吁的一场“儿童生存革命”（5岁以下的儿童是人口中最脆弱的人群，因此需要特别的援助，但这场革命也保护成人的生存）。现在的人道主义援助开始变得更聪明了。过去的援助组织经常是对着问题砸钱，现在它们已经掌握了公共卫生科学的新发现，了解哪些灾祸的杀伤力最大，也知道什么样的手段能够最有效地对应这些问题。发展中国家的儿童死亡主要有四个原因：疟疾；腹泻性疾病，比如霍乱和痢疾；呼吸道感染，比如肺炎、流感和肺结核；以及麻疹。每一种疾病都是可以预防和治愈的，而且费用相当低。蚊帐、抗疟疾药、抗生素、饮水净化器、（在干净的饮水中加入少许食盐和糖的）口服补液疗法、疫苗、母乳喂养（此举可减少婴儿感染泻腹和呼吸系统的疾病），仅仅这些简易可行的手段就可以挽救大量生命。在过去的30年中，仅疫苗一项就拯救了2000万人的性命（1974年时，全世界只有5%的儿童受到疫苗的保护，而今天，这个数字是75%）。[74]即时治疗性食品，比如用锡纸包装的花生酱软糖，据说很受孩子喜爱，它是对付营养不良和饥饿的利器。

    这些措施大大降低了战争的生命损失，也消除了对战争间接死亡大幅度上升抵消或者完全覆盖战争死亡减少的忧虑。“人类安全报告项目”估计，在朝鲜战争4年中，朝鲜总人口中平均每年有4.5%死于疾病和饥饿。而刚果民主共和国的内战，即使我们接受极其悲观的估计，即有500万人的间接死亡，平均每年的死亡率为全国人口的1%，也比朝鲜战争低80%以上。[75]

    站在发展中国家的角度很难看到光明的一面，因为战争的余孽仍在制造无数的悲惨事件。我们在剔除夸张不实的数字方面所做的种种努力，似乎在斤斤计较地量化他人的痛苦，显得很没心没肺，特别是这些数据经常被用来作为筹集资金和呼吁关注的宣传素材。但是，追求真相，不仅是保持信誉，也是一种道义责任。知道全世界死于战争的人越来越少，对那些在每日新闻的轰击下已经麻木不仁、无动于衷的人是一服清醒剂，否则，很多人会认为穷国早已落入万劫不复的深渊了。与其揽镜自赞利他主义的高风亮节，不如更好地理解到底是什么力量在驱动这些数字减少，让我们可以再接再厉，继续努力改善人类的福祉。这些统计数字展现了若干意外的启示，有些听起来激动人心的东西，比如独立、自然资源和民主选举（当它没有效力的时候），都是增加暴力死亡的力量；而有些听起来枯燥的工作，比如有效的执法、向世界开放经济、联合国维和部队和花生酱软糖，都可以减少死亡。

    大屠杀的走势

    我们这个可悲的物种有能力从事各种各样的暴力，其中最独特的是大屠杀，它不仅令人憎恶，而且让人无法理解。我们可以理解人类为什么一次又一次地为了金钱、荣誉、爱情而发生致命的冲突，为什么对有过失的同类重刑惩罚，甚至为什么在见到手持武器的人时也会拿起武器兵戎相见。但是，有些人想要杀死数百万无辜的人，包括妇女、儿童和老人。我们作为人类自称有人性，可这些行为却毫无人性可言。无论是叫作种族灭绝（因为人种、宗教信仰、族裔以及其他具有某种不可更改属性的成员身份而施加的杀戮），还是叫作政治清洗（因为政治立场而施加的杀戮），或者叫作政府屠杀（democide，政府或者民兵对平民进行的大规模杀戮），都是对人进行分类再施以杀戮，仅仅是因为他们是谁，而不是因为他们干了什么，他们就必须被杀死。这似乎与通常的谋财害命、恐惧和报复这些动机都没有关系。[76]

    种族灭绝的受害者人数之巨超出了人们的想象。鲁梅尔是最早开始尝试统计大屠杀受害者人数的历史学家之一。他最著名的估算是，20世纪被自己政府杀害的人的总数达到了1.69亿。[77]显然，这个数字是被高估了，但大部分研究暴力的学者都承认，20世纪死于自己政府之手的受害者人数多过战争死亡。[78]马修·怀特对各种出版物中的死亡数字进行了综述，他认为，有8100万人死于政府的暴行，有4000万人死于人为的饥荒，总计有1.21亿人死于政府之手。相比之下，战争造成3700万军人和2700万平民的战争死亡，另有1800万人死于战争连带的饥荒，共有8200万人死于战争。[79]（怀特补充说，大约半数的政府屠杀发生在战争期间，没有战争，这部分杀戮也许不会发生。）[80]

    在如此短的时间内杀害如此多的人，需要大规模杀伤的手段，这是大屠杀之所以恐怖的又一个层面。纳粹的毒气室和焚尸炉已经成为种族灭绝不可磨灭的象征。但是，大批量杀戮并非离不开现代的化学科技和铁路。1793年，在法国大革命时期，革命政府镇压旺代地区的叛乱时，有人竟然想出用驳船大量处决犯人的主意——将塞满犯人的驳船完全浸入水中一段时间，直到船舱内所有人都在水中溺毙，再将驳船浮出水面，换下一批死囚。[81]在纳粹集中营中，毒气室并不是最高效的杀人工具。纳粹的党卫军别动队，或者说是行刑队用机枪扫射杀死了更多受害人，正如历史上驾驶两轮战车的亚述士兵，或者骑在骏马上的蒙古人在奔驰中用标枪刺杀敌人。[82]1972年，布隆迪的图西族人大肆屠杀胡图族人（22年后，卢旺达胡图族人反过来大肆屠杀图西族人）。一个行凶者这样解释说：

    有好几种手段，好几种。一种是将2000人关在一栋房子，比如说监狱里。有几间大房间。锁上门窗。将这些人留在里面15天，没有吃没有喝。然后打开房门的时候，看到的都是尸体。不用殴打，什么都不用做。全都死掉了。[83]

    乏味的军事术语“围城”掩盖了这样一个事实：剥夺一座城市的食物，让受困者在饥饿中耗竭生命，这是一种久经检验、成本有效的灭绝手段。弗兰克·乔克（Frank Chalk）和库尔特·约纳松（Kurt Jonassohn）在《种族灭绝的历史和社会学》（The History and Sociology of Genoade）一书中指出：“历史教科书几乎从来不报道一座古代城池的倾覆对它的居民意味着什么。”[84]《旧约·申命记》中有一段文字记载了追忆的预言，其依据就是亚述人或者巴比伦人的征服：

    你在仇敌围困窘迫之中，必吃你本身所生的，就是耶和华你神所赐给你的儿女之肉。你们中间柔弱娇嫩的人必恶眼看他弟兄和他怀中的妻，并他余剩的儿女，甚至在你受仇敌围困窘迫的城中，他要吃儿女的肉，不肯分一点给他的亲人，因为他一无所剩。你们中间柔弱娇嫩的妇人，是因娇嫩柔弱不肯把脚踏地的，必恶眼看她怀中的丈夫和她的儿女。她两腿中间出来的婴孩与她所要生的儿女，她因缺乏一切，就要在你受仇敌围困窘迫的城中，将他们暗暗地吃了。[85]

    在种族灭绝的数字和方式之外，施暴者沉湎于毫无约束的施虐狂状态，种种恶行煎熬着人类的道德想象力。来自世界各地和各个时代的目击者描述了受害者在被处死之前还受到过什么样的嘲弄、折磨和残害。[86]在陀思妥耶夫斯基在小说《卡拉马佐夫兄弟》中，提到1877—1878年俄土战争期间，土耳其人在保加利亚的暴行：胎儿被从母亲的子宫中揪出来；在执行绞刑的前夜，用钉子将囚犯从两耳处钉在栅栏上。对此他评论说：“人们有时候说到人身上残忍的 ‘兽性 ’，这种说法对动物极其不公平而且粗暴。没有任何动物像人这样残忍，像人这样技艺高超、匠心独具地残忍。一只老虎只能咬和撕，这就是它能做的全部。即使它做得到，它也绝对想不到要从耳朵处把人钉在墙上过夜。”[87]我本人读过这些记录种族灭绝的历史资料后，脑中留下的那些印象让我终生难得安眠。让我在此复述一件我无法忘怀的事例，不是因为它们血腥（这样的血腥在史书中无处不见），而是因为它们的冷酷。该事例来自哲学家乔纳森·格洛弗的《人道论：20世纪的道德史》（Humanity: A Moral History of the Twentieth Century）。

    在波兰的纳粹集中营，克里斯蒂安·维尔特是一个奴工营的指挥官。在他的营地，犹太囚犯分拣从被德国人杀害的犹太同胞身上剥下来的衣服，这些囚犯一直劳作到死。囚犯的孩子被从父母身边带走，送到另一个死亡营。

    维尔特只破例留下了一个孩子……他给这个年约10岁的犹太男孩糖果，让男孩穿上小党卫军的军服。维尔特带着男孩骑马在营地巡视囚犯，维尔特骑着一匹白马，男孩骑着一匹小马驹，两个人抱着机关枪近距离向囚犯扫射（包括男孩的母亲）。[88]

    格洛弗忍不住评论说：“这是赤裸裸的轻蔑和戏弄，令人深恶痛绝。”

    * * *

    人为什么要做出这样的恶行？要想理解人类的“因类而诛”，我们必须从人类聚类分群的心理学开始。[89]

    人在自己的头脑中将其他人按照归属、习俗、相貌和信仰分门别类。虽然我们总是批评这种因陈袭旧是一种心智缺陷，但是，分门别类是处理情报信息不可或缺的手段。分类让我们得以根据一个对象的少数可观测的品质，而对其大量未经观测的品质进行推断。如果我注意到一种水果的颜色和形状，将之分类为一种覆盆子，我就能够推断它有甜味，可以充饥，没有毒。对于将人像水果分类一样根据某些共性分门别类，是政治正确感所不能接受的，但是如果没有这样的分类，也就没有各色各样的文化可供赞美，没有任何民族的品质让人骄傲。人以群分，除了统计学上的意义，还因为他们确实共享一些特性。所以说，人在头脑中对个体按所属群体做划分，事实上并不是心智缺陷。今天美国非裔确实比白人更依赖福利，犹太人的人均收入比盎格鲁-撒克逊新教徒要高，商学院的学生就是比学艺术的学生在政治上更保守——这一切都是平均意义上的。[90]

    分类产生的问题往往超出统计学的范畴。首先，当人们处于某种压力、混乱或者情绪化的状态时，他们立刻忘记对人的分门别类只是一个近似值，而认为这些僵硬的条条框框可以套在每一个男人、女人和孩子身上。[91]其次，人有将对人群的分类道德化的倾向，将自己赞赏的品质赋予盟友，而将自己唾弃的品质安在敌人身上。比如，在“二战”期间，美国人认为，苏联人比德国人有更多优点，而在冷战期间，他们的想法正好倒转过来。[92]最后，人有将对人群的分类本质化的倾向。在实验中，孩子们告诉实验者，出生即被调包的婴儿开口说话的时候将使用他们生父母的语言，而不是养父母的。而成人认为，一个特定的族裔和宗教集团的成员具有相同的类生物化的本质。也就是说，这个集团中的人是匀质的、不可变的、可预知的，而且是与其他集团的成员有区别的。[93]

    当人们处于冲突中时，这种将人划类而分的认知习惯变得非常危险。它将霍布斯的暴力动机——利益、恐惧和威慑，从宣泄个人纠纷的小调转变为一场族裔战争的宣战书。历史调查显示，种族灭绝是由这三种暴力动机造成的。我们将看到，在酝酿的过程中还加入了两种剧毒的催化剂。[94]

    一些种族灭绝的起因纯粹是为了自己的方便。原住民占据了一片沃土，或者垄断了水源、食物、矿藏，入侵者则想据为己有。扫除这些人如同清理灌木和消灭害虫，行为背后的心理学并不深奥，就是人类的同情心可以根据对他人的分类而开启和关闭。许多对原住民的大屠杀完全是为了抢夺土地或者奴隶，而将受害者划归劣等人种。此类种族灭绝包括美洲殖民者或政府对美洲原住民数不清的驱逐和屠杀，比利时国王利奥波德在刚果自由邦对非洲部落的残暴统治，德国殖民者在非洲西南部对赫雷罗人实施的灭绝，以及21世纪在苏丹政府支持下，贾贾威德武装组织对达尔富尔地区的侵袭。[95]

    当征服者发现，他们不妨留原住民一条命，让原住民纳贡缴税时，种族灭绝又有了第二种赤裸裸的用途。享有嗜血魔头威望的征服者，可以随时向一座城市下达最后通牒——投降或者屠城。为了提高威胁的可信程度，入侵者必须做好屠城的准备。这正是成吉思汗和他的骑兵荡平西亚城市背后的理由。

    一旦征服者将这些城市和领土纳入自己的帝国，他们就用雷霆手段镇压一切反叛，并以此来威胁被征服者保持顺从。公元68年，亚历山大总督招来古罗马军队镇压犹太人反抗古罗马统治的起义。根据历史学家弗拉菲乌斯·约瑟夫斯（Flavius Josephus）的记载，“一旦（犹太人）兵败，他们就被毫不留情地彻底消灭。有些人在野外被活捉，还有一些被赶进屋子里劫掠一空后，再付之一炬。古罗马人对婴儿毫无悲悯之心，不分老幼，格杀勿论，直到血流遍野，5万名犹太人被杀光”。[96]20世纪，苏联人在阿富汗，以及印度尼西亚和中美洲国家的右翼军人政府都在镇压叛乱时使用过类似的战术。

    一旦受到非人对待的一方奋起自卫，或者反败为胜，就很可能出现团体间相互恐惧的霍布斯陷阱。各方都视对方为生存威胁，必欲先去之而后快。20世纪90年代南斯拉夫分裂之后，塞尔维亚民族主义分子对波斯尼亚人和科索沃人进行种族灭绝，部分原因是他们深恐自己成为对方屠杀的受害者。[97]

    如果一个群体的成员看见自己的同志遇难，或者自己侥幸逃脱灾难，或者偏执地忧虑自己成为打击对象，这些人可能在心中激起道德义愤，向他们认为的袭击者寻求复仇。和所有形式的复仇一样，一旦报复性的屠杀箭在弦上不得不发，目的就无关紧要，重要的是已然广而告之、无路可退的冲动必须一条道走到黑，付出任何代价都在所不惜。这也许已经通过进化，通过文化范式，或者两者兼而有之，成为人类大脑中的固定程式，为了证明威慑的可靠性，必须进行杀戮。

    这些霍布斯式的动机无法充分解释为什么这些掠夺、先发制人或者报复性的杀戮必须针对整个群体，而不是仅仅针对那些挑起冲突或制造麻烦的个人。将人分门别类的认知习惯也许是一个理由，小说《教父》第二部里提供了另外一种解释：年幼的维托·柯里昂的妈妈乞求西西里黑手党大亨饶过孩子的性命：

    寡妇：尊敬的弗兰西斯科，你杀死了我的丈夫，因为他不肯屈服，杀死了他的大儿子，因为他发誓复仇。但是，维托才9岁，呆头呆脑的。他什么也不会说。

    弗兰西斯科：我不是怕他讲话。

    寡妇：他很弱小。

    弗兰西斯科：他会长成汉子的。

    寡妇：一个孩子不能伤到您。

    弗兰西斯科：他会是一条汉子，那时他就要来寻仇了。

    而他也确实回来复仇了。在电影中，成年的维托回到西西里，找这位黑手党大亨说话。他在这个老头的耳朵边小声报出自己的名字，接着把老弗兰西斯科像切鲟鱼一样开了膛。

    家庭、亲族和部落内成员间的团结——特别是他们寻求复仇的决心，让他们认为任何一个成员被挑衅，就是他们全体被挑衅。虽然经常接触而力量相当的两个群体一般会将复仇限制在以眼还眼、以牙还牙的对等水平，但一再发生的暴力可以将偶尔的愤怒变为长期的仇恨。亚里士多德说过：“愤怒的人希望自己愤怒的对象不断地受苦，充满仇恨的人则希望仇恨的对象永远消失。”[98]当一方发现自己在数量或者战术上占有优势，它就有可能抓住机会实施最后的解决方案。对抗的部落都明白种族灭绝的实践优势。人类学家拉斐尔·卡斯滕（Rafael Karsten）与亚马孙厄瓜多尔的黑瓦洛人一同叙述了他们的战争方式（在显示战争死亡率的图2-2中，这个部落是一条长线）：

    在分部落内部发生的小争斗具有私人间血债血偿的特点，其原则是公正的复仇，而两个不同部落之间的战争原则却是灭绝。在灭绝性战争中，没有以命偿命的问题，战争的目标是彻底消灭敌对部落……胜利方最大的顾虑就是留下一个敌人的性命，哪怕是一个小孩子的性命。他们担忧任何活口都有可能在将来向胜利者复仇。[99]

    人类学家玛格丽特·德拉姆（Margaret Durham）的研究为我们提供了发生在距离亚马孙半个地球之外的一个类似的细节。在阿尔巴尼亚部落，他们通常尊奉对等复仇的规范：

    1912年2月，我接到报告，说的是一起惊人的大规模司法案件……梵迪亚家族的一个家庭，长期以来有作恶的坏名声——抢劫，枪击，在部落里为非作歹。首领在一次聚会上判决这个家族的所有男子死刑。一些男子被指派在某一天伏击他们，将他们捉拿归案。那一天，这个家族有17个男子被枪杀，其中一个只有5岁，另一个只有12岁。我谴责他们杀害无辜的儿童，但是他们说：“这都是些孽种，不能让他们继续繁衍。”这种对遗传的信念，等于是说要杀死一个怀孕的不幸妇女，以免她生下一个男孩，从而再次作恶。[100]

    本质主义者的“孽种”概念是几个生物学隐喻之一，其灵感来自对摇篮复仇的恐惧。人们预计，即使只有寥寥几个被打败的敌人活了下来，其残余势力也会成倍增加，并在未来制造麻烦。人类的认知经常是类比的。当人们想到令人讨厌的生殖生物集合的概念时，脑子里开始不断想起害虫的概念。[101]全世界的种族灭绝罪人都在不断地重复同样的隐喻，直到成为陈词滥调。他们所厌恶的人都是鼠辈、毒蛇、蛆虫、虱子、苍蝇、寄生虫、蟑螂或者（在世界的某些地方）猴子、狒狒、狗。[102]1641年，一名英国驻爱尔兰指挥官为其下令杀害数千名爱尔兰天主教徒辩解说：“杀死幼虱，才能消灭虱子。”[103]1856年，加利福尼亚的定居者杀死了240名玉基族印第安人，仅仅是为了报复他们杀了定居者的一匹马。有人回忆，定居者的领袖说：“有一个幼虫，就会有一只虱子。”[104]1864年，在沙溪大屠杀前，约翰·齐文顿上校说：“幼卵会长成虱子。”大屠杀导致数百名夏延族人和阿拉帕霍人死亡。[105]每当有人要形象生动地鼓动大屠杀，那些令人厌恶的生物因子，比如溃疡、癌症、细菌和病毒就成了他的修辞的一部分。说到犹太人，希特勒有他自己的一套隐喻，也都是生物学的词汇：犹太人是病毒；犹太人是吸血的寄生虫；犹太人是混血的杂种；犹太人是有毒的血液。[106]

    人类的头脑在演化中形成了对生物因子毒害的抵御意识：厌恶感。[107]身体的分泌物、动物的器官、寄生虫和寄生蠕虫、传播疾病的带菌媒介最开始触发厌恶感，厌恶意味着人不仅排斥这些污秽物，而且排斥任何看起来和这些污秽物相像或者有过接触的物体。厌恶感很容易被道德化。如果将道德评判视为一个连续的集，在它的一端是精神、纯粹、贞操和洁净，另一端就是兽性、污染、淫荡和肮脏。[108]所以当我们看见讨厌的污秽时，不仅有生理排斥感，而且有道德鄙视感。英语中用来比喻一个奸诈小人的词，很多都是传播疾病的媒介——一只老鼠、一只虱子、一只蛆虫、一只蟑螂。20世纪90年代，用来形容被迫流离失所和种族灭绝的臭名昭著的术语是种族清洗。

    隐喻思维是双向的。我们不仅使用令人恶心的隐喻代表道德堕落的人，还倾向于认为外形恶心的人品德也堕落（我们在第4章提到过这个现象，林恩·亨特的理论认为，欧洲清洁卫生的改善是导致严刑峻法减少的一个原因）。在道德评判集合的一端，受过净化仪式的白人苦行僧被尊为圣人；在另一端，生活在堕落和贫困之中的人被视作劣等人。普里莫·莱维（Primo Levi）既是化学家也是作家，他描述了德国纳粹将犹太人运往死亡营途中出现的这种恶性循环：

    押运犹太人的党卫军好奇地看着男人和女人随处大小便——在站台上，在铁轨中间。德国乘客公开表达了他们的厌恶：这些人活该倒霉，看看他们的品行吧。天理昭昭，这不是人，算不上人类，而是动物。[109]

    通向种族灭绝的感情道路——愤怒、恐惧和厌恶——可以有若干种组合。在政治学家丹尼尔·戈尔德哈根（Daniel Goldhagen）研究20世纪种族灭绝历史的著述《比战争更槽》（Worse than War）中，他指出，不是所有的种族灭绝都有同样的原因。他对屠杀分类的依据是受害群体是否被非人性化（被视为道德反感的对象），是否被妖魔化（成为道义愤怒的对象），或者两者兼而有之，或者两者皆非。[110]剿灭一个被非人性化的群体，看起来就像杀死一群寄生虫，比如德国殖民者眼中的赫雷罗人，土耳其人眼中的亚美尼亚人，苏丹穆斯林眼中的达尔富尔黑人，以及欧洲殖民者眼中的各种原住民。相比之下，一个被妖魔化的群体，被视为有正常推理的能力。有推理能力但仍选择异端邪说而拒绝真正的信仰，因此更加十恶不赦。这些当代的异端包括专制的受害者，以及与他们相对应的智利、阿根廷、印度尼西亚和萨尔瓦多右翼独裁政府的受害者。此外，还有一些彻头彻尾的恶魔——这个群体不仅是令人憎恶的劣等人，而且卑鄙邪恶。纳粹就是这样看待犹太人的，胡图族和图西族也是这样看待彼此的。最后，可能还有一些既不是劣等人种也不是恶魔，但被认为是潜在的掠夺者，必须抢占先机予以清除，比如南斯拉夫解体后巴尔干无政府状态中发生的屠杀。

    * * *

    到此为止，我已经对种族灭绝进行了如下解释：本质主义的思维习惯将人按照某些特质聚类分群；而在道德感上，将人等同于他所类属的群体。个人或军队之间的霍布斯竞争的结合可以转化为种族之间的霍布斯竞争。但是，种族灭绝还有另外一个决定性的因素。正如索尔仁尼琴所指出的，杀害几百万人，你需要一个意识形态。[111]强势政权推崇乌托邦的信条，将个体完全淹没在道德化的范畴之中，利用这些信条煽动巨大的破坏力。因此可以说，正是意识形态造成了种族灭绝死亡人数分布上的异常值。制造分裂的意识形态包括十字军东征和宗教战争期间的基督教（以及一个分支——中国的太平天国运动）、法国大革命政治恐怖时期的革命浪漫主义、奥斯曼土耳其和巴尔干的种族灭绝行动中的民族主义，以及德国集中营背后的纳粹主义等。

    为什么乌托邦意识形态总是将人类引向种族灭绝？乍看之下，这似乎完全没有道理。即使有各种各样的理由说明乌托邦不可行，但追求完美世界的努力是否至少应将我们引向更美好的世界——60%完美度的世界，或者15%完美度的世界？毕竟，一个人必须有追求才会有成就。难道我们不应该树立更高的目标，编织不可能实现的梦想，想象前所未有的图景，并追问“为什么不能是这样”？

    乌托邦意识形态引发种族灭绝有两个原因。第一，它给出的是一个恶性功利计算。在乌托邦中，每个人都是永远幸福的，所以其道德价值无限外推。将一辆威胁到5个人性命的失控列车换轨到会撞死1个人的支道上，我们中大多数人都同意这在道德上是可以接受的。但是，如果你假定有1亿人的生命，甚至10亿人的生命可以得救，甚至可以外延到无限的将来，无数的生命为此得救，那么，我们能接受多少人的生命为了这无限的善而牺牲呢？死上几百万人似乎还是很合算的。

    不仅如此，想想某些人明知有这样一个美好的未来，却还要反对它，他们就是我们有可能实现这个无限善的唯一障碍。他们该有多么恶毒？大家心里都明白。

    第二，乌托邦都有一个明确的操作蓝图。在乌托邦世界，每一件事情都有它存在的理由。人呢？好吧，有各种各样不同的人群。有些生来倔强，也许在本质上就从属于某些价值，而这些价值在未来美好新世界中绝无立足之地。也许在社区共享的世界，他们太富于独创性；在劳工世界，他们就是书呆子；或者，在一个虔信的社会，他们鲁莽轻率、不拘小节；在一个强调团结的社会，他们有强烈的家族意识；或者，在一个返璞归真的世界，他们过于都市化和商业化。如果你在一张白纸上设计完美新世界，你为什么不在一开始就从规划中剔除这些人呢？

    在《血与土：从斯巴达到达尔富尔种族灭绝和灭绝的世界历史》（Blood and Soil: A World History of Genocide and Extermination from Sparta to Darfur）一书中，历史学家本·基尔南（Ben Kiernan）提到了乌托邦意识形态的另一个古怪特征。人类一次又一次回望早已消失的农耕天堂，梦想复兴健康的田园生活来取代日益扩张的腐败都市。在第4章，我们看到，启蒙运动在都市知识分子世界形成之后，德国反启蒙运动者大肆浪漫化人对土地的依附，他们赞美的正是基尔南此书的标题：血与土。浪漫派将世界看作一个和谐、纯净而有机的整体，而难于管治的都市人口，它的流动性，以及居民按照族群和职业聚居，都是对浪漫想象的公然冒犯。19世纪和20世纪初的民族主义者都追求乌托邦，脑子里装满本民族在祖国的土地上繁荣昌盛的图景，其实蓝本就是最初开始定居生活的部落祖先流传下来的神话故事。[112]农耕乌托邦主义成为希特勒双重偏执的依据：一重是他对犹太人的仇恨，犹太人是商业和城市的盟友；另一重是他狂妄的计划，他要将人口稀少的东欧变成让德国城市居民殖民的农庄。柬埔寨市民被赶到农村杀戮场就是一个例子。

    一般集中在城市的商业活动本身也容易触发道德仇恨。我们在第9章将会看到，人的经济学直觉根植于实实在在的产品或服务一对一的等价交换，比如，三只鸡换一把刀。真正理解当代经济的那套抽象数学道具，比如货币、利润、利息和租金，并不是一件容易的事情。[113]在直觉经济学中，农民和工匠生产的是可触摸到的有价值的物品。商人和其他中间商在转手商品时牟利，但没有产生新的商品，所以，通过使素不相识或相距遥远的生产者和消费者之间的交易成为可能，他们也创造了价值，但仍被视为寄生虫。更加卑鄙的是放债的钱商，他们借出一笔款项，收回时却要求一笔附加款，尽管他们的信贷服务让一些人在最需要钱的时候不至于两手空空。人们习惯于无视商人和放债人的无形贡献，将他们看作血吸虫（又是一个使用生物学词汇的隐喻）。对个别中间商的反感，很容易会变成对一个族群的反感。中间商这个职业所需要的必备资本主要是专业知识，而不是土地和工厂，知识更多地在家族亲友之间传递，而且具有很好的便携性。出于这些原因，一些特定的族群擅长经商理财，经常在有需求的社区之间迁徙，并且成为致富的少数族裔——同时也成了嫉恨和憎恶的对象。[114]很多歧视、驱逐、骚乱和种族灭绝的受害者都曾经是擅长经商的社会团体或族群。他们包括苏联和柬埔寨的资产阶级少数民族，东非和大洋洲的印度人，尼日利亚的伊博人，土耳其的亚美尼亚人，印度尼西亚、马来西亚和越南的华人，还有就是欧洲的犹太人。[115]

    政治屠杀往往是终结旧时代诗作中的高潮，是暴力的最后一次出击，它将把人类带进千秋万代的祝福之中。研究政治屠杀的历史学家已经注意到，19世纪和20世纪的乌托邦意识形态与传统宗教的末日观如同两条平行线。

    在历史学家乔基姆·费斯特（Joachim Fest）和乔治·莫斯（George Mosse）的著述中，他们对纳粹的末世主义做了如下评价：

    希特勒许诺一个“千年帝国”，一个永恒的完美世界，与《新约》启示录中恶魔重返世界之前的千年福地、善与恶的较量以及上帝战胜撒旦的最后胜利非常相似。他对纳粹党国的全部想象都极为神秘，弥漫着宗教——多为基督教的气息，充斥着仪式和符号。它的党国服从更高的律令——一个由先知希特勒受命完成的天赋重任。[116]

    最后，要胜任这些工作，有特殊的资格要求。你想承受管理一个完美世界的压力和责任吗？乌托邦社会的领导人需要极端自恋和无情。[117]这些领袖对其事业的正义性坚信不疑，对渐进改革和动态调整毫无耐心，完全不顾及他们的宏大实验对人类产生的实际后果。

    要想理解种族灭绝，必须理解领导人的动机，因为心理要素——本质主义的思维范式，霍布斯的贪婪、恐惧和复仇，厌恶情绪的道德化，乌托邦意识形态的号召力，这一切不可能在一瞬间征服一个国家的所有人民，煽动他们大开杀戒。各个不同的群体，可以互相回避、互不信任甚至互相蔑视，但仍然可以长期共存，完全不发生种族灭绝。[118]比如，美国南方种族隔离时期的非裔，以色列和被占领土地上的巴勒斯坦人，南非种族隔离时期的非洲人。甚至在纳粹德国，反犹情绪已经存在了几百年，但也只有希特勒及其几个狂热的党羽认为灭绝犹太人是个好主意。[119]而当进行大屠杀的时候，人口中只有很少一部分人，通常是警察、军队或者民兵真正下手谋杀。[120]

    公元1世纪，塔西陀说过：“那些滔天大罪都是这样发生的——少数寡廉鲜耻的人倡导，一些人附和赞成，其他所有人一声不吭，被动地默许。”据政治学家本杰明·瓦伦蒂诺（Benjamin Valentino）在《最终解决方案》（Final Solutions）一书中的描述，塔西陀的分工也适用于20世纪的种族灭绝。[121]一个领袖或者一小撮党棍决定何时开始种族灭绝，他向相对人数不多的武装分子下达行动命令。这些人都是真诚的信徒、坚定的追随者和流氓恶棍（就像在中世纪一样，通常是从罪犯、流浪汉和无业年轻人中招募而来）。他们指望大多数人不会出头阻挡他们，而事实上大多数人也确实会如此，我们在第8章中将论述这一现象背后的社会心理学。产生种族灭绝的心理要素，比如本质主义、道德化和乌托邦意识形态对不同人群有不同的影响。领袖及其追随者满脑子都是这些意识形态，但是大众不需要太多，就足以打破平衡，让领袖的计划付诸实施。20世纪种族灭绝的历史明白无误地证实了领袖的不可或缺。当他们被推翻或者死去之日，就是种族灭绝停止之时。[122]

    * * *

    如果这个分析的思路是对的，那么，人性（包括本质主义、道德化和直觉经济学）被毒化、霍布斯安全困境、末世意识形态和领导人手中的机会都是种族灭绝的土壤。问题是，在历史的进程中，这些因素是如何相互作用的？

    这个问题没有简单的答案，历史学家从来不认为种族灭绝是个有趣的课题。图书馆里关于战争的研究成果浩如烟海，但关于种族灭绝的研究几乎是零。乔克和约纳松指出，对于古代历史，“我们知道朝代更替，帝国消亡，城市灰飞烟灭。我们怀疑在这种时刻有些战争具有种族灭绝的性质，但是，我们不知道有多少人的生命牵涉其中。他们的命运实在无足轻重。如果有什么地方提到了他们，通常也是和牛羊牲畜的损失放在一起”。[123]

    种族灭绝绝不是20世纪特有的产物。我们已经看到，过去几个世纪中发生的许多战乱和杀戮就是我们今天所说的种族灭绝。熟悉上古史的人都知道，在公元前5世纪的伯罗奔尼撒战争中，雅典人毁灭了米洛斯。根据修昔底德的记录，“雅典人处死了所有从军年龄的男子，将全体妇女和儿童掳为奴隶”。另一个类似的例子是公元前3世纪古罗马人在第三次布匿战争中灭绝迦太基和它的全部人口。其行动之彻底，以至于古罗马人自己形容说已将敌人碾为齑粉，无形可循。其他历史性的大屠杀还包括《伊利亚特》、《奥德赛》和希伯来《圣经》中的记载，十字军的屠杀和洗劫，对阿尔比派异端的镇压，蒙古人对欧洲的入侵，欧洲的驱巫运动和欧洲宗教战争的暴行。

    《近代大屠杀历史》的作者们坚持认为，20世纪是前所未有的“种族灭绝世纪”，的确是有些莫名其妙。乔克和约纳松在他们著作的开篇写道：“种族灭绝遍及人类历史的各个时期和世界的各个角落。”他们强调，书中对20世纪之前的11次种族灭绝的案例研究“既不彻底，也没有代表性”。[124]基尔南对此表示认同，他说：“此书的一项主要结论是种族灭绝在20世纪之前确实是经常发生的。”只要看一看目录的第一页，就可以明白他的意思：

    第一部分：早期帝国扩张

    1.古代种族灭绝和早期现代社会

    2.西班牙征服新大陆，1492—1600年

    3.东亚的枪炮和种族灭绝，1400—1600年

    4.早期近代东南亚社会的种族灭绝

    第二部分：殖民时期的殖民者

    5.英国对爱尔兰的征服，1565—1603年

    6.北美殖民地，1600—1776年

    7.19世纪澳大利亚的种族灭绝暴行

    8.美国的种族灭绝

    9.殖民者在非洲的种族灭绝，1830—1910年[125]

    鲁梅尔有数据支持自己的结论：“皇帝、国王、苏丹、大汗、总统、总督、将军和其他统治者对自己的人民或那些受其保护或统治的人民进行的大规模屠杀，是人类历史的主要组成部分。”他统计了20世纪之前的16场大屠杀的133 147 000名受害者（包括印度、伊朗、奥斯曼帝国、日本和俄国的受害者），并推测政治清洗的死亡总数是625 716 000人。[126]

    这些学者不是不加鉴别地把每个历史时期的数据都列在清单上。对于数字，他们相当谨慎。比如，他们注意到尽管有种族灭绝式的事件，但美洲原住民人口的减少主要是因为疾病，而不是有计划的灭绝行动。早期的新英格兰清教徒在1638年剿灭了佩科特人（Pequot），事后，英克里斯·马瑟牧师要求他的会众感谢上帝，为了他们能“在一天之内将600个野蛮的灵魂送进地狱”。[127]庆祝种族灭绝并没有影响到他的职业生涯。他后来还当上了哈佛大学的校长，我现在居住的房子就是以他的名字命名的。（座右铭是：“发扬马瑟精神！”）

    马瑟不是第一个也不是最后一个为种族灭绝而感谢上帝的人。我们在第1章中已经看到过，耶和华命令希伯来人进行十几场大屠杀；而在公元前9世纪，摩押人以屠城回敬希伯来人，他们以他们的神阿斯塔-基摩的名义杀光了几座希伯来城市的居民。[128]在创作于约公元400年前后的《薄伽梵歌》中，有一小节描述了因为凡人阿诸那不愿意杀死他的祖父和老师所属的敌对派系，印度教的克利须那神训斥他说：“对你来说，没有比为宗教原则而战更好的事业了；没有必要犹疑……灵魂无畏刀砍火烧……（因此）你何必为一个不值得悲悼的东西而哀伤。”[129]受约书亚征战的激励，奥利弗·克伦威尔在打败爱尔兰人之后，将一座爱尔兰城镇的男女老幼屠杀殆尽，他随即向议会解释他的行动说：“这是为了感谢主保佑我们在德罗赫达（Drogheda）的努力。城里有三千多名敌人。我相信我们已经将他们全数消灭。”[130]英国议会全票通过一项动议，声明“既是作为他们有罪当罚的正义，也是出于警示后人的慈悲，议会特此批准该项在德罗赫达的处决”。[131]

    让人震惊的事实是，直到最近，只要此事没有发生在自己身上，人们一直不认为种族灭绝有什么特别的错误。只有一个例外，是16世纪西班牙神父安东尼奥·德·蒙特西诺斯（Antonio de Montesinos），他抗议西班牙人在加勒比地区对美洲原住民的残暴行径。用蒙特西诺斯自己的话说，他不过是“旷野里孤独的呼喊者”。[132]当然，有一些军人的戒律——有些甚至源自中世纪，徒劳地试图阻止战争中对平民的杀戮，也有具备早期现代性的思想家，例如伊拉斯谟和雨果·格劳秀斯（Hugo Grotius）偶尔发声抗议。但是，只有到了19世纪末，当公民开始抗议在美国西部和大英帝国发生的血腥杀戮时，反对种族灭绝才成为主流意识。[133]甚至直到那时，西奥多·罗斯福——未来的“进步”总统，在1886年曾经这样写过：“我不想走得太远，说只有死了的印第安人才是好的印第安人，但是，我相信10个人中有9个是这样的。而对第10个人，我认为也是不要仔细追究为好。”[134]根据文学评论家约翰·凯里（John Carey）的记录，直到20世纪，还有很多英国文人肆无忌惮地歧视大众，认为他们粗野、没有灵魂，仿佛他们的生命一文不值。种族灭绝式的狂想时时冒头。1908年，D. H.劳伦斯写道：

    如果我能为所欲为，我要建一个像水晶宫一样大小的行刑室，军乐队演奏着轻柔的音乐，电影放映机放着片子；然后我要到大街小巷里找到那些病病歪歪的、半死不活的人，还有那些残废；我会温柔地给他们带路，他们会懒洋洋地对我报以感激的微笑；乐队这时会轻轻地奏起《哈利路亚大合唱》。[135]

    在第二次世界大战期间，美国人在民调中被问及如果美国取胜，应该如何处理日本人，10%~15%的人回答说“彻底消灭”。[136]

    转折点出现在战后。当时英语中甚至没有专门指称种族灭绝的词，直到1944年，波兰律师拉斐尔·莱姆金（Raphael Lemkin）在一份关于纳粹在欧洲的统治的报告中创造了这个词。一年之后，这份报告被作为简报送交纽伦堡审判的检察官。[137]纳粹对欧洲犹太人的毁灭性迫害震惊了世界，不仅因死亡人数之巨，而且是集中营的恐怖景象：流水线式的毒气室和焚尸炉，堆积如山的鞋子和眼镜，像瓶塞子一样码放在一起的尸体。1948年，莱姆金推动联合国批准了《关于防止和惩治种族灭绝罪公约》，这是人类历史上第一次将种族灭绝——不论受害者是谁——视为犯罪。詹姆斯·佩恩注意到一种很另类的进步：今天否认集中营的人至少感到要否认集中营曾经存在，而在以前，种族灭绝的施暴者和同道却会炫耀自己的残忍。[138]

    正因为纳粹集中营的幸存者讲述自己经历的勇气，世人认识到了种族灭绝的恐怖。乔克和约纳松意识到这些幸存者回忆的历史性价值。[139]在过去，种族灭绝的幸存者认为自己是屈辱的失败者，回忆往事只能是在严酷的历史判决上向揭开的旧伤疤上撒盐。只有在新的人道主义观念被接受之后，种族灭绝才成为反人类罪，幸存者则成为审判庭上的证人。战后不久，安妮·弗兰克的父亲出版了女儿的日记，他们一家在纳粹占领的阿姆斯特丹为逃避进集中营而东躲西藏。被发现后，安妮被押解到贝尔根—贝尔森集中营，最后因伤寒死在那里。她在日记中详细记载了自己的逃亡生活。20世纪60年代，埃利·威塞尔和普里莫·莱维分别出版了有关犹太人在集中营被关押和处死的回忆录。今天，《安妮日记》（The Diary of a Young Girl）和威塞尔的《夜》是全世界读者最多的书。后来又有其他幸存者——亚美尼亚人、乌克兰人和吉卜赛人，以及波斯尼亚人、图西人和达尔富尔人也开始讲述他们的故事。我们一直不断地重新定位我们对历史的理解，这些回忆录就是这种努力的组成部分。乔克和约纳松说：“纵观大部分人类的历史，只有统治者才是主角，而在20世纪，被统治者第一次成为历史的主角。”[140]

    任何一个和集中营幸存者一起长大的人都知道，回忆和讲述那些可怕的往事并非易事。战后几十年中，他们还是觉得那些经历都是难以启齿的耻辱。他们想忘掉这一切，除了受害者的羞耻之外，还因为他们在绝望的深渊里挣扎，泯灭了最后一丝人性，那些遭遇之沉重，令人不堪回首。在20世纪90年代的一次家庭聚会上，我遇到一个家族姻亲，他是奥斯维辛的幸存者。就在我们见面的第一分钟，他抓住我的手腕，开始讲这样一件往事。一群人正在默默地吃饭，突然其中一个人倒在地上死了。其他人立刻扑到他因腹泻而沾满粪便的身体上，从他手里抠出一块面包。当他们分这一小块面包时，有几个人觉得自己所得比其他人少得多，于是开始愤怒地争吵。把这样丑陋的故事讲出来，不仅需要极大的勇气，还需要对听者有足够的信心，相信他们会理解故事的背景，不会武断评价当事人的品德。

    * * *

    尽管数千年来种族灭绝的数量之多掩盖了种族灭绝的百年历史，但人们对大屠杀在20世纪之前、之中和之后的走势仍然很茫然。鲁梅尔是第一个尝试对之进行数字分析的政治学家。在他的两部书——1994年出版的《政府造成的死亡》和1997年出版的《政府屠杀的统计》中，他分析了直到1987年的20世纪中141个主使过政府大屠杀的政权，以及对照组——73个未参与大屠杀的政权。他搜集了所有他能找到的对死亡人数的独立估算（包括亲政府的来源和反政府的来源，他假定两者都有倾向性，因此互相抵消），通过合理性检验，取比较可靠的中值。[141]他对“政府屠杀”的定义接近乌普萨拉的“单边暴力”和我们平常所使用的“谋杀”的概念，不过行凶者是政府而不是个人，受害人一定没有武装，杀戮是有意识的行为。政府大屠杀包括种族灭绝、政治大屠杀、清洗、恐怖、行刑队（包括政府姑息纵容的私人民兵组织）处决平民、围困和查抄食品制造的人为饥荒、集中营内的死亡，以及德累斯顿、汉堡、广岛和长崎这样以平民为目标的轰炸。[142]

    部分原因在于鲁梅尔在他的政府屠杀定义和书名中都使用了“政府造成的死亡”这一短语，他的结论是在20世纪有近1.7亿人死于他们自己的政府之手，这在无政府主义者和激进自由主义者那里成为一种流行的模因。但是，从鲁梅尔的数据中，我们得出的教训不应该是“政府是原本可预防死亡的主要成因”。我这样说有几个原因：一是鲁梅尔的“政府”概念不严谨，它包括民兵、准军事组织和军阀，而这些组织的出现恰恰表明政府过分无力而不是过分强大的迹象。怀特检查了鲁梅尔的原始数据并进行了计算，他认为，鲁梅尔名单上的24个伪政府造成的大屠杀死亡平均中值是约10万人，而被承认的主权国家政府所造成的屠杀死亡的平均中值是3.3万人。所以，我们更有理由说，政府造成的死亡比政府的替代品造成的死亡要少2/3。[143]而近年来，大多数政府都不曾沾手任何大屠杀，它们通过推行疫苗、卫生、交通安全和治安所防止的大量死亡，远远高于它们制造的屠杀死亡。[144]

    但是，无政府主义观点的主要问题是，并不是一般意义上的政府，而是只有少数特定形式的政府进行大规模的杀戮。准确地说，141个大屠杀政权制造的死亡中有3/4是4个政府所为，鲁梅尔将这类屠杀政权称为“巨型谋杀犯”。[145]其余死亡中的11%由11个巨型谋杀犯承担，包括造成600万人死亡的日本帝国、190万人死亡的奥斯曼土耳其帝国。剩下13%的死亡分属于126个政权。种族灭绝不完全遵守幂律分布，除非将许多原本不被算作种族灭绝的较小杀戮都放在尖峰部位。但是，种族灭绝的分布绝对是倾斜的，高度符合80∶4规则——4%的政权制造了80%的死亡。

    而且，政府屠杀的死亡绝大部分是对社会进行全面控制的极权政府制造的。[146]极权政府要对1.38亿人的死亡承担责任，占全部政府屠杀死亡的82%。排在第二位的是专制政权，死亡人数为2800万人。它是指能容忍企业和教堂等独立社会机构的独裁政权。被鲁梅尔定义为开放、竞争、选举和有限权力的民主政权杀害了200万人（主要是殖民帝国，以及世界大战期间的粮食封锁和对平民的轰炸）。政府屠杀死亡在不同政体之间的倾斜分布不仅说明极权政治巨兽的潜在受害者的绝对数量之惊人，鲁梅尔还发现，在百分比上，20世纪极权政府谋杀了它们治下4%的人口。独裁政府杀害了自己1%的人民，而民主政府杀死了自己0.4%的人民。[147]

    鲁梅尔是“民主和平论”的先驱之一，他认为这一理论不仅适用于战争，而且特别适用于种族灭绝。他说：“在权力的两个极端上，极权政府屠杀了自己数千万的人民，而在许多民主国家，处决系列杀人犯都是罕见之举。”[148]民主国家很少发生大屠杀是因为民主政体在理念上以包容和非暴力的方式解决纠纷。更重要的是，民主政府的权力受到一系列制度的制约，因此一个领导人无法凭自己的一时冲动在国内调动军队大量杀害人民。通过对20世纪的数据进行回归分析，鲁梅尔展示了即使在各国的民族多样性、富裕程度、发展水平、人口密度和文化（非洲、亚洲、拉丁美洲，穆斯林、盎格鲁人等）不变的情况下，政府屠杀与不民主之间高度相关。[149]他认为，各种教训明确无误：“问题的根源在于权力。解决问题的答案是民主。行动的进程则是推进自由。”[150]

    种族灭绝的历史趋势如何？鲁梅尔尽量按年度来分解政府屠杀的数据，图6-7中的灰色曲线是按照世界人口比例排列的鲁梅尔的数据。和战争中的死亡一样，政府屠杀的死亡也集中在20世纪中期狂暴的“血潮”中。[151]这滚滚血潮中有纳粹的集中营、斯大林的大清洗、日本在中国和朝鲜的暴行，也有大战期间对欧洲和日本城市的狂轰滥炸。图左侧上行线上有第一次世界大战期间对亚美尼亚人的屠杀，以及苏联的集体化运动杀害的几百万乌克兰人和富农。右侧的曲线上有波兰、捷克斯洛伐克和罗马尼亚杀害的德裔。对这样内容的图表说任何好话都是令人不快的，但考虑到问题的重要性，我们还是不能不说：20世纪40年代之后，世界再未闻到过那样的血腥味，40年中政府屠杀的死亡率（和绝对数量）尽管有波动，但整体呈现出急剧下降的趋势。（其中一个小高潮是1971年孟加拉独立战争中巴基斯坦军队进行的杀戮，另外一个高潮是70年代后期红色高棉在柬埔寨实施的屠杀。）鲁梅尔认为，第二次世界大战后政府屠杀的减少归功于极权政治的衰落和民主国家的兴起。[152]

    图6-7 1900—2008年种族灭绝死亡率

    资料来源：灰色线，1900—1987年数据来自鲁梅尔，1997年。黑色线，1955—2008年数据来自“政治动荡专责小组（PITF）国家失败问题数据库，1955—2008年”，马歇尔、格尔和哈尔夫（Marshall, Gurr & Harff），2009年；制度和平中心，2010年。后者的死亡数据是哈尔夫2005年发表的表格8.1中各项值域的几何平均，根据在Excel数据库中的比重按年度分列。世界总人口数字来自美国人口普查局，2010年c。1900—1949年的人口数据来自麦克伊韦迪和琼斯，为与其他数据可比，乘以1.01。

    鲁梅尔的数据库截至1987年，恰逢世事开始新一轮的转变。此后不久，民主大行其道——而波斯尼亚和卢旺达发生的大屠杀让全世界目瞪口呆。许多观察家得出的印象是，尽管我们本应吸取教训，但这些“新型战争”说明我们仍生活在大屠杀时代。

    政治学家芭芭拉·哈尔夫最近增补了种族灭绝统计的数据。在卢旺达大屠杀中，短短4个月内，1万名手持砍刀的男子杀害了70万图西族人，凶手中很多都是胡图族领头人匆忙中招募来的醉鬼、瘾君子、捡破烂的和黑帮成员。[153]许多观察家相信，大国的军事干预可以轻而易举地阻止这伙人手有限的大屠杀凶手。[154]比尔·克林顿为没有及时采取行动而愧疚不安，1998年，他授命哈尔夫分析种族灭绝的风险因素和预警信号。[155]她收集了（斯大林过世和非殖民化进程开始的）1955—2004年的41场种族灭绝和政治清洗的资料。她对种族灭绝的定义比鲁梅尔更严格，而接近莱姆金最早对种族灭绝的定义：国家或者武装当局有意识地使用暴力全部或部分地消灭一个可识别的群体。如果严格依照人们对“种族灭绝”一词的理解，即对种族文化的灭绝（ethnocide），一个群体因为其种族属性而被孤立及消灭，这些资料中只有5次种族灭绝。其余大部分是政治屠杀，或者政治屠杀和种族灭绝的混合——一个特定种族的成员被指属于受打击的政治派别。

    在图6-7中，我将哈尔夫政治动荡专责小组的数据和鲁梅尔的数据排列在同一个坐标轴上。她的数据远远低于鲁梅尔的数据，在20世纪50年代末的数据尤为明显，因为她使用的某个事件中被处决的受害者人数要保守很多。但是，两条曲线的走势非常接近，从1971年之后一路下降。20世纪下半叶大屠杀的破坏性远远无法与“血潮”时期相比，我在图6-8中聚焦放大了哈尔夫的曲线。图形使用的数据来自第三套数据——乌普萨拉单边暴力数据库，包括每一年中政府或武装当局杀害25人以上的暴力行为；也就是说，行凶者不是必须有灭绝整个群体的意图。[156]

    图6-8 1956—2008年种族灭绝死亡率

    资料来源：政治动荡专责小组数据估计，1955—2008年，与图6-7相同。乌普萨拉数据，1989—2007年：来自http：// www. pcr. uu. se/research/ucdp/datasets/的“高死亡率”估计除以来自美国人口普查局的世界人口数，2010年c。

    图形显示冷战后的20年中未曾发生过种族灭绝。相反，大规模杀戮的高峰出现在60年代中期至70年代末期。在这15年中，人类见证了印度尼西亚对共产党的政治屠杀（1965—1966年，约70万人遇害），布隆迪的图西族人杀害胡图族人（1965—1973年，约14万人遇害），巴基斯坦人在孟加拉实施的屠杀（1971年，约170万人遇害），苏丹的南北暴力冲突（1956—1972年，约50万人遇害），乌干达伊迪·阿明政权的暴行（1972—1979年，约15万人遇害），柬埔寨的疯狂（1975—1979年，250万人遇害），最终触发船民灾难的越南10年大屠杀（1965—1975年，约50万人遇害）。[157]在冷战结束后的20年内，发生了1992—1995年的波斯尼亚种族灭绝（22.5万人死亡）、卢旺达种族灭绝（70万人死亡）和达尔富尔种族灭绝（2003—2008年有37.3万人死亡）。这些数字触目惊心，但图形毫无疑问是下行线。（最新的研究表明，这些数字有夸大的成分，但我仍然使用了这个数据库的数据。）[158]21世纪头10年是过去50年中第一次没有发生种族灭绝的10年。乌普萨拉的数据的时段更有限，而他们的估算也一如既往更加保守，但即使如此，数据也呈现同样的趋势： 1994年卢旺达种族灭绝在单边暴力中最为突出，此后，世界再也没有出现过这样规模的血腥恐怖。

    哈尔夫的工作不仅是收集种族灭绝的资料，还需要找出风险因素。她注意到，这些大屠杀都发生在国家失败之后的混乱中，比如内战、革命或者政变。她设计了一个对照组，93个国家失败但没有发生种族灭绝的案例，对照组尽量接近那些发生了种族灭绝的国家；然后，她对数据进行逻辑回归分析，寻找事件发生前一年的特殊因素。

    分析的结果是，某些人们原来认为重要的因素其实无足轻重。比如，有人认为种族灭绝是多民族聚居历史积怨必然爆发的结果，但哈尔夫的分析表明，民族的多样性对屠杀没有影响作用，因此否定了上述成见。经济发展的水平也不是影响因素。穷国往往有更多的政治危机，虽然政治危机是发生种族灭绝的必要条件，但在发生政治危机的国家中，并不是越穷就越可能发生种族灭绝。

    哈尔夫的确从3/4的案例中找到了6个区别大屠杀型危机和非大屠杀型危机的风险因素。[159]一个因素是该国是否有种族灭绝的历史，不论引致屠杀的风险因素是什么，一旦曾经存在，就不会轻易消失。第二个预测因素是该国政治不稳定的近况，确切说，在过去15年内政权危机和种族战争或革命战争的次数。感觉权力受到威胁的政府会起意消灭或惩罚它们认为有颠覆意图或受到蛊惑的集团，而且也更愿意在反对派动员起来之前利用混乱实现自己的目的。[160]第三个因素是统治精英是否来自少数民族，这就是说，这些精英对自己统治地位的稳定性加倍地紧张不安。

    其余三个因素与“自由和平论”相似。哈尔夫证明了鲁梅尔坚持的观点，即民主是防止种族灭绝的关键。1955—2008年，在其他条件不变的情况下，专制国家发生种族灭绝的可能性是完全民主和部分民主国家的3.5倍。这就是民主国家的三连胜“戏法”：民主国家较少发动国家间战争，民主国家较少发生大规模内战，民主国家较少出现种族灭绝。部分民主国家（伪民主或权贵倾轧）比专制国家更容易发生暴力型政治危机，正如我们在费伦和莱廷对内战的分析中所看到的一样。但是，当危机发生之后，半民主国家发生大屠杀的可能还是低于专制国家。

    另一个具有三连胜特色的因素是开放贸易。哈尔夫发现，一个国家对国际贸易的依赖性越大，就越不可能发生种族灭绝，同时也越不会与其他国家交战和陷入内战。贸易抵抗种族灭绝的预防效应不可能来自贸易本身的正和收益，这与国际贸易和国家间战争的关系不同，因为我们在这里所说的贸易（进口和出口）并不包括与弱势的少数民族和弱势政治团体之间的贸易。那么，为什么贸易仍然是一个影响因素呢？一种可能性是，A国对生活在B国境内的某个集团有社群性或道义性的关切。如果B国想和A国进行贸易，它只能克制消灭这个集团的冲动。此外，参与贸易要求平和的心态，包括具有遵守国际准则和法制的意愿，以及承担增加本国人民的物质福祉的使命，而不是追求纯洁、光荣和完美正义这些虚妄的幻象。

    大屠杀的最后一个预测因素是排他性的意识形态。如果统治精英坚持认为某个特定的集团是他们实现理想社会的绊脚石，对他们“不承担任何普世性义务”，那么这个国家就更有可能进行种族灭绝。如果精英具备更务实和折中的治理理念，结果就会相反。排他性的意识形态包括伊斯兰主义（特别是执行伊斯兰教法）、反共军国主义以及将特定种族或宗教妖魔化的各种民族主义。

    哈尔夫总结了这些风险因素叠加最终爆发种族灭绝的路径：

    在过去的半个世纪中，几乎所有的种族灭绝和政治大屠杀要么是意识形态式的，最极端的例子是柬埔寨，要么是报复性的，比如伊拉克（萨达姆1988—1991年对伊拉克库尔德人的镇压）。通常通过内战或者革命新掌权的精英，充满要创造新世界的想象，于是要铲除破坏和危险分子，意识形态型的大屠杀往往以此为起点。报复性的种族—政治大屠杀一般发生在旷日持久的内战期间……通常是一方——多数是政府方试图在叛军军事上失利之后，消灭敌人的群众基础。[161]

    导致过去30多年种族灭绝减少的因素也许就是导致国家间战争和内战数量减少的原因：稳定的政府、民主、开放贸易，以及提升个体利益而不是群体斗争的人本主义执政理念。

    * * *

    逻辑回归的严谨之处在于，它基本上是一台绞肉机，输入一套变量，挤出的产出就是可能性。它背后被掩盖的是种族灭绝生命损失的极端非正态分布——极少数的人，受到若干意识形态的影响，在一个特定的历史时刻采取行动，就可以制造超大量的死亡。风险因素在不同水平上的运动决定了大屠杀受害人是几千人、几万人甚至几十万人。但是，对那些最恐怖的、受害者以千万人计的大屠杀来说，最能影响它们的往往不是渐变的政治力量，而是几种具有偶然性的思想和事件。

    马克思主义意识形态的出现不啻为一场历史海啸，它对人类产生了惊心动魄的影响。希特勒在1913年读到马克思的作品，尽管他憎恶马克思的社会主义，但在他的国家社会主义实现乌托邦的斗争哲学中，只不过用种族置换了阶级而已。[162]“还有一个问题就是屠宰场从来不出产煎蛋饼。”瓦伦蒂诺总结说，“现在欢呼 ‘历史的终结 ’也许还为时过早，但是，如果在当今世界，已经没有一种激进思想能够得到广泛的应用和接受，人类也许确实可以期待在新世纪大大减少杀戮的数量，不再重复上个世纪的恐怖。”

    在一个极具破坏力的意识形态之外，还有几位在20世纪几个特定时刻登上历史舞台的人做出了灾难性的决策。我已经提到许多历史学家都同意“没有希特勒就没有集中营”的观点。[163]不过，希特勒不是唯一一个以狂热杀害上千万生命的暴君。历史学家罗伯特·康奎斯特（Robert Conquest）是研究斯大林的专家，他总结说：“如何看待整个大清洗的性质，取决于对斯大林个人动机和政治动机的最终分析。”[164]

    恐怖主义的走势

    恐怖主义是一个特殊的暴力种类，它造成的恐惧远远高于它造成的伤害。与凶杀、战争和大屠杀相比，恐怖主义制造的死亡数字就是个背景噪声而已。自1968年以来，国际恐怖主义的年死亡人数不到400人，而自1998年以来，国内恐怖主义的年死亡人数大约为2500人。[165]我们在本章中讨论的数字至少比这个数字高出两个数量级。

    但是2001年9月11日之后，恐怖袭击和恐怖主义成为一种困扰。评论家和政治家对恐怖主义喋喋不休，到了无以复加的程度。“存在性”（existential）一词，作为对威胁和危机的一种修饰被频繁使用，这可是自萨特和加缪过了鼎盛期之后难得一见的现象。专家宣布，在恐怖主义面前，美国“脆弱”和“易碎”，美国作为“现代国家的优势地位”,“我们的生活方式”甚至“文明本身”均受到恐怖主义的威胁。[166]比如，在《大西洋月刊》 2005年的一篇文章中，一位负责反恐的前白宫官员十分肯定地预言：到“9·11”恐怖袭击事件10周年的时候，由于美国的赌城、地铁、购物中心连续发生爆炸，民航客机常规性地被肩式导弹击落，化工厂遭到破坏引发灾难性的后果，美国经济将陷入瘫痪。[167]国土安全部的庞大官僚机构几乎一夜之间拔地而起，戏剧性地向全国发布按颜色分级的恐怖活动警戒，劝告国民储备塑料布和胶带，紧张地到处检查身份证件（尽管假证件随处可见，布什总统自己不到饮酒年龄的女儿就因为用假证件点鸡尾酒而被警察逮捕），在机场没收所有指甲刀，在乡下的邮局外面修建水泥防护墩，还开列了8万个“恐怖袭击潜在目标”，其中还包括佛罗里达州一个糊弄游客的景点“威基-沃奇泉”，那里不过是有些漂亮女子扮作美人鱼在玻璃水缸里游来游去。

    所有这一切都是对杀害了些许美国人的反应。“9·11”恐怖袭击事件造成近3000人死亡，这在图表上完全无法显示，在幂律分布上，它落在尾巴的最后，而分布本身说明了恐怖主义袭击的水平在下降。[168]“恐怖主义及应对策略全国研究联盟”（National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism and Responses to Terrorism, START）建立了“全球恐怖主义数据库”（Global Terrorism Database，最重要的对公众开放的有关恐怖主义袭击的数据资料）。它的数据表明，1970—2007年，在全世界范围内，只有另一次恐怖袭击杀死了500人。[169]在美国国内，蒂莫西·麦克维（Timothy McVeigh）1995年在俄克拉何马城炸毁了一栋联邦政府办公楼，造成165人死亡。1999年，两名青少年学生在科伦拜恩中学开枪扫射，造成17人死亡，其他的恐怖袭击杀害的人数均不到12人。除“9·11”恐怖袭击事件之外，美国境内在38年间死于恐怖主义袭击的人数是340人，尽管“9·11”恐怖袭击事件这一天开启了所谓的恐怖时代，在“9·11”恐怖袭击事件之后，美国死于恐怖袭击的人数是11人。国土安全部挫败了另外一些袭击计划，但他们宣称的战绩中有很多最后都表明是“大象去除剂”，每一个没有见到大象的日子，都是去除剂有效性的证明。[170]

    让我们将美国恐怖袭击的死亡名单——不论是不是包括“9·11”恐怖袭击事件——和其他可预防的意外死亡做些对比。每一年，美国有4万人死于交通事故，2万人死于跌倒，1.8万人死于凶杀，3000人死于溺水（包括300人死于浴缸里发生的溺毙意外）, 3000人死于火灾，2.4万人死于意外中毒，2500人死于手术并发症，300人在卧床上窒息而死，300人死于胃内容物吸入气管，还有1.7万人死于“其他和未分类的非交通事故意外及其后遗症”。[171]事实上，除1995年和2001年之外的每一年，美国死于雷击、野鹿、蜂蛰、花生过敏及“睡衣被点燃和熔化”的人数都高于恐怖主义袭击造成的死亡人数。[172]恐怖袭击造成的死亡人数如此之少，以至于任何想避免袭击的小举措都能增加死亡的风险。认知心理学家格尔德·吉仁泽（Gerd Gigerenzer）做过一个估算，在“9·11”恐怖袭击事件发生后的第二年，美国有很多人因恐惧飞机遭劫持或破坏而避开飞行，选择驾车出行，这些人中有1500名死于交通事故。他们完全没有意识到，乘飞机从波士顿飞往洛杉矶的死亡风险，等于驾车在公路上行驶12英里。换句话说，为避免乘坐飞机而产生的死亡人数是“9·11”恐怖袭击事件中空难人数的6倍。[173]当然，“9·11”恐怖袭击事件将美国卷入两场战争，战争造成的英美两国国民的生命损失远远甚于劫机者，更不要说阿富汗人和伊拉克人的生命损失了。

    恐怖主义造成的恐慌和恐怖主义造成的死亡之间的差异并非偶然。恐慌是恐怖主义的全部着眼点，正如这个字眼的字面意义所表明的。虽然有各式各样的定义（比如老话说，“一些人眼中的恐怖分子是另外一些人眼中的自由战士”），恐怖主义一般被理解为一种有预谋的暴力，执行者是非国家的组织或个人，暴力的对象是非战斗人员（平民或者休假中的士兵）。他们所追求的目标可以是政治的、宗教的或社会性的，手段是胁迫某个政府或者恐吓大众并传达自己的信息。恐怖分子的具体目标可以是让一个政府屈从于他们的某个具体要求，可以是腐蚀大众对政府保护能力的信心，或者挑动大规模的镇压行动，由此煽动人民对抗政府，或者制造社会动荡，以期恐怖集团获胜夺权。恐怖分子的个人动机是为了某种事业而不是个人利益，因此可以说他们是利他主义的。他们采取突然袭击，行动诡秘，常被人斥责为“卑鄙”。他们精于传播，惯于通过制造恐惧追求名声和公众的注意力。

    恐怖主义是一种不对称战争——弱势对抗强势的战术。它调动恐惧心理带来的精神伤害之大，与它实际造成的人命和财产损失完全不相称。认知心理学家，比如特沃斯基、卡尼曼、吉仁泽和斯洛维奇都证明，人对一种风险的感知取决于心智上的两个小妖魔。[174]第一个是可测度性（fathomability）：与相识的魔鬼打交道好过与不相识的魔鬼打交道。人们对于新奇、不可捉摸、影响延迟、当今科学无法充分解释的风险感到特别紧张。第二个是畏惧（dread）。人们忧虑发生最糟糕的情况，即那些不可控的、灾难性的、无意识的、不公正的风险（这里指承受风险的人，不是从风险中获益的人）。心理学家认为，人类心理的错觉是古大脑反馈回路的遗留物。在人类进化的过程中，它保护我们免受捕食动物、毒、敌人和风暴的伤害。人类在20世纪才积累了各种统计数据库，形成数字化社会。在此之前的漫长岁月里，人类一直生活在非数字化管理的社会中，风险感知功能可能一直是人类配置警惕性资源的最佳指导。而且，过去对危险认知心理上的种种怪癖缺乏科学的解释，人们利用这种无知谋取第二重利益：人们倾向于夸大敌人的威胁以便勒索赔偿，或以此来召唤盟友共同抗敌，甚至为先发制人地消灭敌人找借口（第4章中我们讨论过的迷信杀戮）。[175]

    我们都知道风险认知上的谬误造成公共政策的扭曲。大量的财力与法律被用于防止在食品中使用添加剂和消除自来水中的化学残留物，这些物质对健康的危害微小到可以忽略不计，而另外一些可以挽救大量生命的措施却受到抵制，比如降低高速公路的限速。[176]有时，一件广为报道的事故可以成为一个先知的寓言，一个预示末世灾变的不祥征兆。1979年的三里岛核电站事故无人死亡，甚至对癌症发病率也没有任何影响，但是美国为此停止了核能的发展，转而大量使用化石燃料，加剧了全球变暖趋势。

    “9·11”恐怖袭击事件在国家意识上扮演了一种不祥的角色。大规模恐怖活动是新奇、不可捉摸、灾变性（与过去相比）和不公平的，从而将不可测知性和人类的畏惧感推到极限。恐怖主义者在制造伤害上的小投入足以赢得巨大的心理优势，国土安全部却不懂得这个道理。它推波助澜地煽动大众的恐惧，竟然在其使命陈述中警告说：“今天的恐怖分子可以在任何地点、任何时间，使用任何武器发动袭击。”乌萨马·本·拉登很清楚恐怖主义的这种优势，他得意扬扬地说“美国现在从北到南、从西到东充满了恐惧”，他花费50万美元制造的“9·11”恐怖袭击事件，给美国造成超过5000亿美元的直接经济损失。[177]

    有责任心的政治家偶尔也能看懂恐怖主义的这笔账。在2004年的总统竞选中，约翰·克里一时忘情，对《纽约时报》的采访记者说：“我们必须回到我们原来的世界，在那里，恐怖分子不是我们生活的焦点，他们只是些讨厌鬼。作为一个前执法人员，我知道我们永远不可能消灭卖淫，永远不可能消灭非法赌博，但是我们可以压低有组织的犯罪率，将它保持在一个不会泛滥的水平上。它不是每天都在威胁人民的生命，从根本上说，它就是那种你必须持之以恒地与其战斗，但对你的生活秩序并没有构成威胁的东西。”[178]在首都华盛顿，所谓“失态”就是“一位政客说了大实话”，乔治·布什和迪克·切尼对克里不依不饶，说他“不适合当领导”，克里则很快收回了自己的发言。

    恐怖主义的兴亡成为暴力历史上的一个关键章节，不是因为它带来的伤亡数字，而是因为它带来的恐惧心理对人类社会的影响。当然，在未来，如果恐怖分子进行核武袭击的假说成为现实，它确实能带来巨量的死亡。我会在下一节讨论核恐怖主义，但现在我还是只讨论现实中发生过的暴力形式。

    * * *

    恐怖主义不是什么新东西。2000年前，古罗马人征服犹太人之后，一群犹太抵抗战士暗杀古罗马官员和与古罗马人合作的犹太人，期望以此迫使古罗马人撤出。11世纪，什叶派穆斯林的一个教派完善了自杀式恐怖主义形式，他们设法在公众场合接近叛教的领袖，公开行刺。行刺者深知自己会被领袖的贴身保镖当场杀死。从17世纪到19世纪，印度的一个邪教组织勒死了数万名游客，作为对女神迦梨的祭祀。这些组织没有完成任何政治变革，但他们以自己的名义留下了遗产：奋锐党、阿萨辛派，还有印度暗杀团。[179]如果你听到无政府主义者这个词的时候，能想象到一个身着黑大氅投掷炸弹的人，那说明你知道19世纪末20世纪初的一段历史。当时无政府主义者发动“行动宣言”运动，引爆咖啡馆、议会、领馆和银行，刺杀了十几位欧洲国家政要，包括俄国沙皇亚历山大二世、法兰西第三共和国总统萨迪·卡诺（Sadi Carnot）、意大利国王翁贝托一世（King Umberto Ⅰ）和美国总统威廉·麦金利（William Mckinley）。以遇刺首脑的赫赫威名命名的街道和他们的纪念碑标志着我们的文化意识中恐怖主义的力量。

    任何认为恐怖主义是2000年之后新现象的人都没有什么记性。20世纪60年代和70年代曾经是浪漫政治暴力流行的年代，发生了不下几百起爆炸、劫持人质和枪击事件，参与者有各式各样的某某军、某联盟、某某旅、某集团或者某阵线。[180]比如美国的“黑人解放军”、“犹太防御联盟”、“地下气象员”（名字来自鲍勃·迪伦的歌词“没有气象员你也知道风向哪边吹”）,“民族解放武装力量”（争取波多黎各独立的武装组织），当然还有“共生解放军”（SLA）。70年代，共生解放军上演了一出超现实大戏。1974年，他们绑架了报业大亨的女继承人帕蒂·赫斯特，一番洗脑之后，让她入伙，而她立刻取“丹娘”为假名，协助同伴抢劫银行，并站在七头毒蛇军旗前留下头戴贝雷帽手持机关枪的玉照。她的这张照片成为我们时代的三大标志性图片之一（另外两张图片，一是尼克松最后一次乘坐总统直升机离开白宫前挥手致意的照片，另一张是头发蓬松的比吉斯兄弟身穿白色涤纶迪斯科套装的照片）。

    在同时期的欧洲，英国有“临时爱尔兰共和国军”和“阿尔斯特自由战士”，意大利有“红色旅”，德国有“红军旅”，西班牙有“埃塔”（巴斯克分离分子小组），而日本有“日本赤军”，加拿大有“魁北克解放阵线”。当时，恐怖主义已经是欧洲日常生活的组成部分，在路易斯·布努埃尔（Luis Bu.uel）1977年的爱情故事片《朦胧的欲望》（That Obscure Object of Desire）中，恐怖活动只是一个玩笑，到处都有汽车和商店被炸，影片中的主人公完全不把这些事放在心上。

    这些恐怖组织现在都去哪里了？在大多数发达国家，国内恐怖主义已经和涤纶迪斯科套装一样销声匿迹。人们很少注意的一个事实是，这些组织大部分都是失败的，而且它们全都消亡了。[181]此事似乎难以置信，但这正是你周围的世界。以色列继续存在，北爱尔兰仍然是联合王国的一部分，克什米尔还在印度手中。在库尔德斯坦、巴勒斯坦、魁北克、波多黎各、车臣、科西嘉、泰米尔—伊拉姆或者巴斯克地区，没有一个成为主权国家。菲律宾、阿尔及利亚、埃及和乌兹别克斯坦都没有成为伊斯兰神权国家，日本、美国、欧洲和拉丁美洲国家也没有被宗教、无政府主义或者新时代乌托邦主义统治。

    有数据可以证明这些印象。政治学家马克斯·亚伯拉罕（Max Abrahms）于2006年发表了文章《为什么恐怖主义行不通》（Why Terrorism Does Not Work）。他在文章中检视了美国国务院在2001年划定的28个外国恐怖组织，其中大部分已经活跃了几十年。如果不考虑那些纯粹的战术成功（比如媒体曝光、新的支持者、释放囚犯和赎金），他发现，只有3次恐怖组织的行动（占总数的7%）实现了自己的目标：真主党分别在1984年和2000年从黎巴嫩南部赶走了多国维和部队与以色列的军队；泰米尔猛虎组织在1990年赢得对斯里兰卡东北海岸线的控制。如果算上斯里兰卡在2009年反手打败了猛虎组织，恐怖组织的获胜率就剩下2∶42，不足5%。这个获胜率大大低于其他形式的政治压力，比如经济制裁在同期的胜算率为1/3。回顾最近的历史，亚伯拉罕表示，恐怖主义偶尔会有所成功，当然是在它们锁定一个区域性的目标时，比如将外国势力从人家自己已经厌倦了的占领区赶走，比如20世纪50年代和60年代欧洲国家大举撤离殖民地，不论有恐怖活动还是没有恐怖活动，这些撤离都是要发生的。[182]但是恐怖组织从来没有达到自己的最终目标，从来没有能够在一个国家实施一种意识形态或者彻底推翻一种意识形态。亚伯拉罕还发现，在仅有的几次成功中，恐怖组织针对的对象是军队，而不是平民，所以它们的角色更像游击队，而不是恐怖分子。以平民为首要目标的恐怖行动一向是以失败而告终。

    政治学家奥德丽·克罗宁（Audrey Cronin）在她的著作《恐怖主义如何走向终结》（How Terrorism Ends）中研究了一组更大的数据：自1968年以来活跃过的457次恐怖行动。和亚伯拉罕一样，她也发现恐怖主义事实上从来没有达到过目的。恐怖组织速生速灭，平均寿命在5~9年。克罗宁指出：“国家在国际社会中享有某种程度的永生，而组织则没有这样的地位。”[183]

    它们甚至得不到任何它们想要的东西。没有任何小型恐怖组织能夺取一个国家的政权，94%的恐怖组织从来没有实现过任何战略目标。[184]恐怖行动往往以头目被击毙或被抓获，或者组织被国家消灭，或者演变成游击队或政治派别而告终。它们中的很多组织被内斗拖垮，创建者后继无人，许多头脑一时发热的年轻人经不住和平享受与家庭生活的诱惑。

    恐怖分子还有另外一条自杀之路。他们为无所成就而懊恼，为观众露出厌倦的神色而着急，于是采取更暴戾的行动。他们开始根据媒体的关注程度选择受害者——或者是受尊重的名人，或者以数量取胜。这当然能得到人们的关注，但关注方式却不是恐怖分子所希望的。“毫无意义的杀戮”会引起原有支持者的反感，他们不仅停止提供资金和庇护，甚至开始与警方合作。比如，意大利“红色旅”的自我毁灭开始于1978年对深受爱戴的前总理阿尔多·莫罗（Aldo Moro）的绑架，他们将莫罗关押2个月之后枪杀了他。莫罗身上连中11发子弹，尸体被扔在一辆车子的后备厢中。在1970年的“十月危机”中，加拿大的魁北克解放阵线弄巧成拙，他们绑架了魁北克劳工部长皮埃尔·拉波特（Pierre Laporte），并用他自己的念珠绞死了他，尸体也是被扔在车子的后备厢中。1995年，蒂莫西·麦克维在俄克拉何马城的一次联邦政府办公楼爆炸事件中造成165人（其中包括19名儿童）死亡，这使美国右翼反政府民兵运动的势力消失。克罗宁这样说：“暴力是一种国际语言，但是正派也有同样的力量。”[185]

    攻击平民只能断送恐怖分子，滥杀无辜不仅吓跑了潜在的同情者，而且刺激公众支持全面镇压行动。亚伯拉罕追溯了以色列、俄罗斯、美国发生恐怖行动后民意的变化，他发现，在平民遭到严重袭击后，民意对恐怖组织的态度就开始波动下降，如果原来还有与恐怖组织达成某种妥协和承认他们的诉求具有正当性的愿望，此刻所有的理解都迅速消散。恐怖袭击之后，民众确信恐怖分子是生存威胁，支持消灭这些组织的政策。不对称的战争，顾名思义就是指一方比另一方更强大。捷足未必先登，强者也不一定就是胜者，但是人们总是忍不住要这样押宝。

    * * *

    虽然恐怖主义的性质决定它注定要失败，但恐怖活动总是一波未平一波又起。这个世界上有着无休无止的怨愤，只要有人拒绝接受恐怖主义无效这个现实，恐怖主义的模因就会在心怀不满的人群中继续流传。

    恐怖主义的历史走势令人难以捉摸。从1970年左右开始，才有很少几个机构开始收集有关的统计数据，而他们的数据标准和涵盖的内容差距甚大。即使在最好的情况下，恐怖行动和意外、凶杀、个人在压力下的疯狂行动之间的区别，以及战争中的恐怖行为和暴乱之间的区别，都是非常模糊的。这些统计也有明显的政治倾向性：有些国家夸张恐怖袭击的数量，制造恐慌，有些则要压低统计数字，显示自己反恐取得了胜利。此外，几乎所有国家都关注国际恐怖主义，而对国内恐怖主义不以为意。事实上，本土恐怖活动的受害者人数是国际恐怖活动的6倍到7倍。“全球恐怖主义数据库”是迄今为止对公众开放的最全面的恐怖活动数据资料，它综合了许多早期的数据。虽然我们不能根据表面现象来解释图表上的每一个曲折，因为其中有一些是因为各个数据库的标准不同，出现了断裂或重叠，但是我们还是可以看到在所谓的“恐怖时代”，恐怖主义是否真的增加了。[186]

    最可靠的记录是发生在美国本土的恐怖袭击，如果没有其他原因，那就是这些记录太少了，以至于可以对每一个记录仔细核查。图6-9显示的是自1970年以来美国发生的所有恐怖袭击，为了不让“9·11”恐怖袭击事件淹没其他记录，我使用了对数标度，否则的话，在巨塔般耸立的“9·11”恐怖袭击事件死亡记录之下，其他恐怖袭击的伤亡就像是地毯上的小皱褶。在对数标量的作用下，我们可以清楚地看到1995年俄克拉何马城爆炸案和1999年科伦拜恩高中枪击案的两个峰值（后者是否算是“恐怖主义”尚无定论，但是除了这个例外，我对整个数据库没有任何怀疑）。除了这个尖峰三重奏，20世纪70年代之后整个记录的趋势都是下降的。

    图6-9 1970—2007年美国恐怖主义造成的死亡率

    资料来源：“全球恐怖主义数据库”，START（http:// www. start. umd. edu/gtd/），2010年4月6日登录取数。1993年的数字来自START附录，2009年。因为log在此无法定义，没有发生死亡的年份被置于人为设定的0.0001的水平。

    西欧的恐怖主义走势（图6-10）特别能说明所有的恐怖组织都灭亡了，而其中绝大部分是失败的。尽管马德里的火车爆炸案在2004年带起一个高峰，但仍然不能遮盖恐怖主义运动从“红色旅”和“红军旅”的辉煌时代衰落的事实。

    图6-10 1970—2007年西欧恐怖主义造成的死亡率

    资料来源：“全球恐怖主义数据库”，START，2010年4月6日登录取数。1993年的数字为内推值。人口数据来自《联合国世界人口展望》（联合国，2008年），2010年4月23日登录取数；非以0和5结尾的年份的数据为内推值。

    整个世界的趋势是什么样的呢？布什政府2007年发布的统计数字支持他们自己发出的警告——全球恐怖主义活动水平上升了。但是，“人类安全报告项目”的研究团队表示，布什政府的数据包括伊拉克和阿富汗战争中平民的死亡数字，这样的死亡如果发生在世界其他地方，应被定义为内战死亡。如果保持分类定义一致，将这些死亡排除在外，我们看到的将会是另外一幅图景。图6-11显示了在没有这些死亡的情况下，全球每年死于恐怖主义的人数（按照惯例，以10万人为单位）。对全球死亡总数的解释必须非常谨慎，它们来自不同的统计渠道，根据每一个数据库使用了多少新闻来源，这些数字可以上下浮动。但如果只考虑一定规模的恐怖活动（死亡人数在25人以上的恐怖活动），各个数据库的曲线则相当一致，因为此类伤亡规模的事件有极大的新闻价值，所以每个数据库都会收集相关的资料。

    图6-11 世界范围恐怖主义造成的死亡率（不包括2001年以来的阿富汗和2003年以来的伊拉克）

    资料来源：“全球恐怖主义数据库”，START，2010年4月6日登录取数。1993年的数字为内推值。世界人口数据来自美国人口普查局，2010年c；2007年人口估计数是外推值。

    与我们在国家间战争、内战和大屠杀中看到的图形一样，结果令人大吃一惊。新纪元的第一个10年——“恐怖时代”的开端——没有显示出上升曲线，也没有出现新的高峰，而是从20世纪80年代和90年代初的高峰一路下降。全球恐怖活动在70年代末上升，自90年代起下降，其原因与这一阶段内战和种族灭绝兴衰的原因一样。民族主义运动在去殖民化的初期迅速扩展，在冷战时期得到超级大国支持，但随着苏联的瓦解而逐渐失去踪影。图形中70年代和80年代初的凸起部分，主要是拉美恐怖分子酿制的苦果（萨尔瓦多、尼加拉瓜、秘鲁、哥伦比亚）, 1977—1984年61%的恐怖活动死亡来自拉美。（其中很多恐怖活动的目标是军人和警察，“全球恐怖主义数据库”将所有旨在获取媒体关注而不是实质伤害的行动都包括在它的数据库中。）[187]1985—1992年的高峰中也有拉美的贡献（大约占死亡人数的1/3），此外还要加上斯里兰卡的泰米尔猛虎组织（15%）以及印度、菲律宾和莫桑比克的恐怖主义活动。虽然印度和菲律宾的某些恐怖分子的活动是穆斯林团体所为，但在伊斯兰国家，恐怖活动的死亡率非常低，总死亡人数中只有2%来自黎巴嫩，1%来自巴基斯坦。“9·11”恐怖袭击事件和巴基斯坦局势的恶化打断了自1997年之后恐怖主义衰落的走势。事实上，巴基斯坦境内的恐怖活动大多是阿富汗战争在边境地带的渗透。

    根据数字，我们生活的时代并不是一个恐怖主义新时代。如果不计算伊拉克和阿富汗的战事，我们仍然在享受延续了几十年的恐怖主义下降。在我们的集体意识中，恐怖主义的阴影已经开始淡化。直到不久之前，恐怖主义与穆斯林之间并没有特殊的关联。

    那么今天呢？我们今天是不是要对基地组织、哈马斯或者真主党的恐怖分子变本加厉，进行更多更大的袭击做好准备？阿富汗和伊拉克的遇难平民中很多都是死于人体炸弹，我们为什么要将这部分数字从恐怖袭击死亡总数中剔除呢？要回答这些问题，我们必须仔细观察伊斯兰世界的恐怖主义，特别是自杀性恐怖主义。

    * * *

    虽然“9·11”恐怖袭击事件并没有开创恐怖主义的新时代，但它预示着伊斯兰自杀性恐怖主义的时代。如果“9·11”恐怖袭击事件中的恐怖分子不准备送命，就不可能执行他们的行动计划。“9·11”恐怖袭击事件之后，自杀性袭击一时高涨，从20世纪80年代的每年5起和90年代的每年16起，上升到2001—2005年的每年180起。其中大部分袭击都是伊斯兰团体发动的，他们所要表达的动机至少有一部分与宗教有关。[188]根据美国国家反恐中心最近的数据，2008年恐怖组织造成的死亡中有近2/3可归咎于逊尼派伊斯兰极端分子。[189]

    作为一种杀害平民的手段，自杀性恐怖行动是一种既残忍又精密的战术。在自杀性袭击中，由人的眼睛和大脑控制的人手和人脚作为精确控制器与传输装置，执行者是一个看起来和上百万其他人一样的普通人，因此它是外科手术式的极端准确和极端隐蔽性的最佳结合。就技术的精密程度而言，没有任何机器人能够与其媲美。在恐怖袭击的次数上，自杀性袭击只占少数，但它是大多数人员伤亡的元凶。[190]对恐怖运动的领袖来说，自杀性袭击实在是一笔划算的买卖。正如一位巴勒斯坦官员所解释的，一次成功的行动仅需要“一个愿意赴死的青年……钉子、火药、一个电灯开关、一小段电线、水银（可从温度计中得到）、丙酮……最贵的一笔费用是去以色列某个城市的路费”。[191]唯一的技术障碍是年轻人的意愿。不想死是人的本能，是亿万年自然选择的演化结果。恐怖组织的领袖怎样克服这个障碍呢？

    自从有战争的那一天起，人类就暴露在死于战场的风险之下，这里的关键词是“风险”。自然选择的逻辑在一般情况下是成立的，所以，作为进取的一方，甘愿承受可能死亡的较小风险，以换取生存的更大机会——更大的土地、更多的女人，或者更安全，这很可能是在演化过程中胜出的人类意愿。[192]但自愿送死的基因在演化进程中则注定要被淘汰。所以，毫不奇怪，战争史上的自杀行动并非常规。觅食群体更愿意避免固定战场的危险，选择更为安全的偷袭和伏击；即使如此，武士还是经常会声称有梦兆或其他预兆指示凶吉，顺理成章地逃避同伙筹划的危险行动。[193]

    现代军队为了鼓励士兵承担更大的风险，有一套制度褒奖忠勇；为了减少他们逃避风险，另有一套羞辱和惩罚懦弱的制度，包括处决逃兵。有些时候，还有一类特殊军人叫作督战员，他们紧紧站在士兵的身后，有权向任何不敢冲锋的士兵开枪。战争领袖和普通大兵之间的利益冲突催生了军队里一套众所周知的伪善话语。比如，一名英国将军这样粉饰第一次世界大战的残酷：“在枪林弹雨中，没有一个战士退缩，他们迎着扑面而来的机关枪、来福枪的扫射前进，直到全部牺牲……我从来没有见过，确实，也从来无法想象一个如此英勇、自律、坚毅的雄壮场面。”而一名中士则有完全不同的描述：“我们知道这样做毫无意义，甚至在开始冲锋前就知道了——要穿过这样一片开阔地。但是，我们只能向前。我们被夹在两个魔鬼之间，进退两难。如果前进，你可能被子弹打死；如果后退，你会被带到军事法庭再被处决。你该怎么办？”[194]

    勇士在战场上甘冒死亡的风险可能另有原因。演化生物学家J. B. S.霍尔丹（J. B. S. Haldane）被问到是否会为了他的兄弟牺牲自己的生命时，他回答说：“不会，但如果是为了两个兄弟或者八个堂兄弟，那就另当别论了。”他提出的是后来被称为血亲选择、内向适应、亲缘裙带性利他主义的现象。只要这一生物亲族的收益大于牺牲造成的成本，自然选择会倾向于那些具有为血亲而牺牲倾向的生物基因。这样的牺牲倾向随亲缘的亲疏而增减。原因是这些基因帮助了亲族身上自己基因的副本，长期而言，它们比那些狭隘自私的基因更有生存优势。有些执迷不悟坚持反对这一理论的人认为，这样的理论要求生物有意识地计算自己的基因与亲族基因的吻合程度，并预测牺牲为自己的DNA能带来的好处。[195]当然，我们所说的生物物种具有舍身互救的倾向，救助的对象仅仅是统计意义上的基因亲缘。对于高级生物物种，比如人类来说，这种意向也可以表现为兄弟般的情谊。

    在进化的大部分时间里，人类的生存形态都是以亲缘凝聚在一起的小群组，人的近邻大多是亲戚。比如，在雅诺马马人中，一个村庄内任意选出两人，通常两人都认为彼此是亲眷，几乎都是亲表兄妹，甚至是更亲密的亲属。[196]遗传重叠的特性是，如果冒险行动能够让自己的战友获益，愿意在此时承受更大风险的基因则在进化过程中具有优势。与其他灵长类不同，黑猩猩从事合作式劫掠，原因之一是雌性黑猩猩在性成熟后分群，而不是雄性黑猩猩分群，因此一个黑猩猩群中的雄性一般都是有血缘的亲属。[197]

    尽管进化论帮助我们了解人类心理的方方面面，但真正有意义的不在于实际上基因起源的相关度（就像狩猎-采集群体从来不曾将剐蹭过口腔黏膜的棉花签送到实验室做基因检测，黑猩猩当然就更不用提了），而在于人们对基因相关度的感知，特别是这种感知与现实在足够长的时间段内是相吻合的。[198]促成血亲感知的因素有共同成长的经历，目睹自己的母亲关照他人，同餐共饮，同祖的神话，至亲骨肉的本质性直觉，共享的仪式和体验（经常通过发型、文身、划痕和变形来强调），相似的外形，以及语言中的各种比喻，比如兄弟会、手足情、父母之邦、祖国、鲜血。[199]在军队中，军官用尽各种手段和字眼，要让士兵养成相互之间具有基因相关的感觉，愿意为彼此承担丧失生命的风险。莎士比亚在《亨利五世》中，创作了战争文学史上最著名的战场动员演说。他假亨利五世之口，借圣克里斯宾节之机，向战士发表演说：

    克里斯宾节，

    从今天直到世界末日，永远不会被遗忘，

    因为我们在这个节日里的行动，也将永远被人铭记。

    我们，寥寥数人，幸运的数人，我们，就是一队兄弟

    ——因为，今天他的血和我的血洒在一起，

    他就是我的好兄弟。

    当代的军队一样费尽心思将士兵编成兄弟团队——从五六个人到二三十个人的火力小组、班、排，让士兵在小团体里培养相互为之而战的兄弟情谊。对军队心理的研究发现，士兵在战斗中最忠诚于自己团队的战友。[200]作家威廉·曼彻斯特（William Manchester）回忆过自己在“二战”中当海军陆战队队员时的经历，他说：

    那些在生死线上的人，是我的骨肉，我的家人。我们之间的亲密无法用语言表达，它超过所有的朋友，无论是过去曾经有的，还是未来将会有的。他们从来没有让我失望，我也不会让他们失望……如果我知道我能够帮助他们脱险，那我一定要和他们在一起，绝不贪生怕死。现在我总算明白，男子汉不是为了军旗或国家而战，不是为了海军陆战队、荣誉或其他任何抽象概念而战。他们为彼此而战。[201]

    20多年之后，另一位也曾经是海军陆战队队员的作家威廉·波洛莱斯（William Broyles）描绘了一幅相似的画面，这次是在越南：

    当岁月销蚀、记忆褪色，战争中最难忘的情感是战友之谊。战争中的一位战友就是一位你能够完全信赖的人，因为你要将你的生命交付于他……尽管这听起来是一派极右翼的腔调，但确实，对我们中间的大多数人来说，战争是唯一具有乌托邦色彩的经历。在战争中，个人的财产和地位一文不值：团体才是你的一切。你和你的战友有福同享，有难同当。这不是一个选择谁强谁弱的过程，而爱是不需要理由的，它超越种族、个性和教育——超越所有这些在和平时代将人分离的东西。[202]

    虽然在极端的情况下，一个人为了拯救一个排的情同手足的战友，可以牺牲自己的生命，但如果要他为了这些战友，平静地制订在若干时间后自杀的计划，则是极其罕见的。如果这是常见的行为，那么战争指引将被彻底改写。为了避免恐慌和溃败（或者说要在没有督战员的情况下避免溃败），作战计划通常都不会让士兵知道自己已经必死无疑。比如，在第二次世界大战期间，一个轰炸机基地的战略分析人员计算出，比较所有飞行员驾驶为飞双程而装满油箱的轰炸机冒险，如果抽签决定少数飞行员驾机执行必死的单程飞行任务，飞行员的生存概率会更高一些。但结果是，他们决定所有人承担更高的不可预知的风险，而不要死亡风险较低但在短期内确定发生的厄运。[203]自杀性恐怖行动的策划者是如何克服这个障碍的呢？

    死后升天的意识肯定会有帮助，比如“9·11”恐怖袭击事件中的劫机者被许诺死后能升上天堂。（日本神风特攻队的飞行员则没有这些活色生香的想象，而是被某种精神境界吸引。）但是，真正完美呈现当代自杀性袭击的还是泰米尔猛虎组织，虽然猛虎组织的成员生长在许愿轮回的印度教环境中，猛虎组织的意识形态却是世俗化的：原汁原味的民族主义、浪漫军国主义和20世纪第三世界解放运动的翻版反帝国主义。那些曾经准备执行自杀性袭击的恐怖分子自己说，促使他们投身此事的原因即使有对来生的期盼，分量也都不大。所以说，尽管对美好来世的期待有可能打破成本收益的均衡点（让人更难想象无神论者会成为人体炸弹），但这肯定不是唯一的心理动机。

    人类学家斯科特·阿特兰（Scott Atran）对失败的自杀性恐怖袭击者和准备进行自杀性袭击的恐怖分子进行了采访，批驳了很多对他们的误解。与一般人们认为的无知、贫困、空虚和精神疾病相反，自杀性袭击恐怖分子往往受过良好的教育，出身中产阶级，有道德感，没有明显的精神疾患。阿特兰总结说，他们的动机中很大一部分来自亲缘裙带性利他主义。[204]

    泰米尔猛虎组织的案例相对直观。他们使用相当于督战员式的恐怖分子，这些人挑选自杀攻击的方案，恐吓执行者如果逃跑就杀死家人。[205]哈马斯和其他巴勒斯坦恐怖组织的方式略有不同，他们用胡萝卜取代大棒，向自杀性袭击执行者的家庭按月送上丰厚的补贴，外加一次性的赠款以及社区内受人尊重的地位。[206]虽然一般来说人们不会认为极端行为有助于生物的适应性，但人类学家阿龙·布莱克韦尔（Aaron Blackwell）和劳伦斯·杉山（Lawrence Sugiyama）都认为，在巴勒斯坦，自杀性恐怖袭击确实与生物的适应性有关。在约旦河西岸和加沙地带，因为新娘的价格高昂，很多男人很难娶到妻子，他们被限于堂兄妹结婚。一夫多妻占据了许多婚龄女子，还有很多女孩子嫁给以色列的富有的阿拉伯人。布莱克韦尔和杉山发现，99%的巴勒斯坦自杀性恐怖分子是男性，86%未婚，81%至少有6个兄弟姐妹，其家庭规模大于巴勒斯坦的家庭平均规模。把这些数据和其他数据代入一个简单的人口模型后，他们发现，一个自杀性恐怖分子，能够得到足够的金钱给家庭里的其他兄弟娶妻，他个人的牺牲能换来家族繁衍的机会。

    阿特兰发现，有些自杀性恐怖分子不需要这样的直接激励。招募死士的最强有力的动机就是找到一伙亲密无间的兄弟。恐怖分子的小集团开始通常是一些没有固定职业的单身汉帮派，他们一起混迹于咖啡馆、宿舍、足球俱乐部、发廊或网上聊天室，能够盟誓彼此忠诚，让他们的生活突然有了新的意义。每一个社会的年轻人为了证明自己的勇敢和忠诚，都要干些愚蠢的事情，因为他们认为同伙会觉得这样做很酷。[207]（我将在第8章再回到这个议题。）宗教进一步强化了人们对团体的承诺，不仅是许诺进入天堂，还有将一己之身融入一次十字军东征、一种召唤、一个梦想或者一场圣战那种精神上的敬畏感。宗教还可以赋予一项事业以神圣价值，它至高无上，甚至高于生命。[208]这种效忠会在复仇的烈焰中白热化，这就是为什么伊斯兰激进武装分子发誓要对穆斯林在世界上任何时期任何地方受到的伤害和羞辱给以报复，甚至象征性的事件也不能放过，比如在神圣的穆斯林土地上出现异教徒的士兵。阿特兰在向美国参议院委员会做证的时候说：

    从2004年在马德里引爆列车，2005年在伦敦地铁从事杀戮，2006年和2009年试图在美国航线上炸毁客机，以及长途跋涉到伊拉克、阿富汗、巴基斯坦、也门或者索马里参战与异教军人对峙的年轻人来看，你能看到他们崇拜什么样的偶像，他们是怎样被组织起来的，什么把他们团结在一起，什么是他们的动力；你能明白，对这些当今世界最残忍的恐怖分子而言，《古兰经》或宗教教义并非他们为之献身的事业，召唤他们的是赢得同伴的赞赏和尊重，以及通过朋友赢得世界的永久敬意和纪念，这些都是他活着的时候永远不可能享有的……圣战组织是一个内部平等、机会均分的雇主……兄弟情深、速战速决、激动人心、充满荣耀，还非常酷。任何愿意动手用裁纸刀割下巨人歌利亚首级的人都受到欢迎。[209]

    在激进浪潮中，当地伊玛目的作用很小，因为这些要翻天覆地的年轻人不会听从社区领袖的指导。基地组织更像一个全球化品牌，引导出一个分散的社交网，而不是中央控制的招募机构。

    * * *

    第一次近距离观察这些恐怖分子，给人的感觉非常压抑，因为我们看到的是一条九头蛇，既不能斩一首而破全局，也无法攻入它的体内。但是，请记住，所有恐怖组织的规律都是一个向下的弧线，是注定要灭亡的。那么，是否有任何迹象显示伊斯兰恐怖分子已经开始走向灭亡？

    答案显然是肯定的。在以色列，对平民的不断袭击产生了在世界其他地方出现过的效果：彻底打消了人们对这些袭击组织的同情和做出让步的意愿。[210]在第二次巴勒斯坦人大起义开始之后，特别是在2000年亚西尔·阿拉法特拒绝了《戴维营和平协议》不久，巴勒斯坦的经济和政治前景越来越黯淡。克罗宁说，从长期看，自杀性恐怖主义是非常愚蠢的战术，因为这让受攻击的国家不再愿意宽容对待社会中的少数族裔，因为他们无法辨别谁是装着引信的炸弹。虽然国际社会谴责以色列修建安全防护墙，但是克罗宁注意到，其他受到自杀性袭击的国家采取了同样的防护措施。[211]约旦河西岸的巴勒斯坦领导人最近开始放弃暴力，将自己的精力用于改善政府管治，而巴勒斯坦的活跃团体也转向抵制、公民不服从、和平抗议和其他形式的非暴力抵抗活动。[212]他们甚至动员了拉吉莫汉·甘地（莫罕达斯·甘地的孙子）和马丁·路德·金三世做出支持他们的姿态。虽然现在还无法知道巴勒斯坦人的战术转折点在哪里，但放弃恐怖主义早已不是什么史无前例的新闻。

    人们最关注的还是基地组织的命运。前美国中央情报局官员马克·萨奇曼（Marc Sageman）长期关注基地组织的动向。根据他的记录，2004年基地组织对西方进行了10次较大的恐怖袭击，主要是对入侵伊拉克的反应，但到2008年，类似的袭击只有3次。[213]不仅基地组织在阿富汗的基地溃不成军，领导人被击毙（包括本·拉登本人在2011年被击毙），伊斯兰世界对基地组织的支持一路下沉，而对它的反感越来越大。[214]在过去6年中，越来越多的穆斯林对他们所看到的野蛮行径感到厌恶。正如克罗宁所说，除了暴力，正派也是一种有力的国际语言。基地运动的战略目标是要建立一个泛伊斯兰哈里发，实际上是要以一个更加专制、更加政教合一的政权取代现有的专制和政教合一的政权，闭关自守并要对非伊斯兰信徒进行种族灭绝。当人们认识到这个目标的真正含义时，就开始对目标失去了兴趣。而像所有恐怖组织一样，寻求曝光度是一个致命的诱惑；基地组织最后也未能免俗，他们为了吸引眼球不惜滥杀无辜，甚至是滥杀成千上万的穆斯林同胞。2000年之后发生的巴厘岛夜总会袭击、约旦婚礼惨案、埃及旅游胜地凶杀、伦敦地铁爆炸案、伊斯坦布尔和卡萨布兰卡的咖啡馆爆炸案，都表明基地组织毫无意义地屠杀无辜，不论是穆斯林还是非穆斯林。被称为“伊拉克基地组织”（AQI）的运动已经被证明是最下三烂的恐怖运动，他们炸毁清真寺、集市、医院、排球比赛，甚至连葬礼也不放过；对敢于反抗他们的人凶残地施予断肢和斩首。

    现在，各个层面都在向圣战战士发动圣战。沙特和印尼这些曾经纵容极端分子的伊斯兰国家，也终于感到受够了，开始镇压国内的极端分子。基地运动的权威人士也开始抨击这场运动。2007年，本·拉登的导师之一，沙特的神职人员萨勒曼·阿勒奥达（Salman al-Odah）在一封公开信中谴责本·拉登“推行血腥和残忍的自杀性炸弹文化，把整个穆斯林社会和家庭带进毁灭的深渊”。[215]他毫不畏惧地批评本·拉登个人，说：“我的兄弟乌萨马，多少鲜血在流淌？以基地组织的名义，多少无辜的人——孩子、老人和妇女被杀死了？背负这成千上万甚至上百万人的性命去见全能的真主，你会很幸福吗？”[216]他的控诉引起一片共鸣：在伊斯兰组织和各大电视网络的网页上，2/3的留言支持阿勒奥达，他还向热情的英国穆斯林青年发表了讲话。[217]沙特的大穆夫提阿卜杜拉兹·艾尔·阿什-谢赫（Abdulaziz Ash-Sheikh）在2007年正式发布裁决令，禁止沙特人参加外国的圣战，并谴责本·拉登和他的密友“为了他们自己的政治和军事目的，将我们的年轻人变成人体炸弹”。[218]同年，另一位基地组织的元老、埃及学者萨伊德·依曼姆·艾尔·沙里夫（即人们所说的法德尔医生）出版了一本名为“圣战的合理化”的书，他解释说：“近些年，违背伊斯兰法的做法玷污了圣战……这些人以圣战之名杀害成百上千的人，包括妇女和孩子、穆斯林和非穆斯林！”[219]

    阿拉伯世界同意这些宗教领袖的立场。2008年，圣战者网站组织了一场与主持基地组织日常行动的领袖阿伊曼·阿尔·扎瓦西里的在线问答。有人提问：“对不起，扎瓦西里先生，但是在阁下的祝福下，谁在杀害巴格达、摩洛哥和阿尔及利亚的无辜人民？”[220]伊斯兰世界各地的民意调查都说明民众感到愤怒。2005—2010年，在约旦、巴基斯坦、印度尼西亚、沙特阿拉伯和孟加拉这些国家中，民调中支持人体炸弹和其他针对平民的恐怖袭击的人数直线减少，大约只剩下10%。即使是10%这个数字也够惊人了，整理这些数据的政治学家法瓦兹·盖尔盖斯（Fawaz Gerges）提醒人们注意，在美国的民意调查中，不少于24%的人认为“有意针对平民的轰炸或其他形式的袭击经常或者有些时候是有道理的”。[221]

    更重要的是战争地区的民意，这些人民是恐怖分子的民意基础。[222]在巴基斯坦的西北边境省，仅在2007年下半年的5个月内，基地组织的支持率就从70%下降到只有4%。这在一定程度上是对前总理贝娜齐尔·布托（Benazir Bhutto）遭自杀式炸弹袭击的反应。在当年的选举中，伊斯兰极端分子得票仅占全国选票的2%，仅为2002年的1/5。2007年美国广播公司（ABC）和英国广播公司（BBC）联合在阿富汗进行的民调显示，对极端圣战派的支持一路狂跌到只有1%。[223]2006年，伊拉克逊尼派穆斯林的大多数，库尔德人和什叶派穆斯林的绝大多数都反对“伊拉克基地组织”。到2007年12月，他们100%地反对基地组织针对平民的恐怖袭击。[224]

    民意的变化能否转化为暴力的减少呢？恐怖分子依赖民众的支持，所以民意向背将会影响到暴力的水平。2007年，伊斯兰世界对恐怖主义的看法发生了转折性的变化，这一年也是伊拉克自杀性袭击的转折点。根据“伊拉克死亡调查”组织（Iraq Body Count）的记录，2007年，伊拉克每天发生21起汽车炸弹和自杀性袭击，而到2010年，为每天不到8起。虽然数量还是非常多，但局势在好转。[225]伊斯兰世界态度的变化并不是进步的唯一原因，2007年上半年的美军增兵和其他军事调整也起到了遏制暴力的作用。但是，一些军事行动的进展本身取决于人民态度的变化。萨德尔的“马赫迪军”——一支伊拉克什叶派军事武装在2007年宣布停火；在被称为“逊尼觉醒”的运动中，成千上万的年轻人弃暗投明，从反抗美国支持的伊拉克当局，变为参与清剿伊拉克基地组织。[226]

    恐怖主义是一种战术，不是意识形态，也不是一个政权，我们永远也不可能打赢一场“反恐战争”，更不可能实现G. W.布什总统更大的目标——“扫清世间恶魔”（这两条都是小布什总统在“9·11”恐怖袭击事件之后发表的演讲中提出的）。在媒体全球化的时代，总会有一个意识形态狂在某个角落里培植不满和怨怼，投资恐怖主义，以期以一笔成本有限的暴力，给世界制造巨大的恐惧，也总会有一伙结义兄弟愿意为了情谊和荣耀甘冒生命危险从事恐怖活动。在发生大规模叛乱时，如果叛乱分子采取恐怖主义战术，很可能给平民和社会造成深重的损失，而核武恐怖主义的假想威胁赋予“恐怖”一词以新的含义（我将在本章的最后一节讨论这个问题）。但是，历史的经验告诉我们，无一例外，恐怖主义运动自身都带有自我毁灭的种子。

    天使不敢涉足的地方

    “新和平”是指20多年前冷战结束之后，战争、屠杀和恐怖主义在数量上减少的过程。新和平没有“长期和平”那样长的历史，也不像“人道主义革命”那样具有革命性，更不曾以“文明的进程”的形式横扫文明世界。而最令人关切的问题是，它是否能够持续下去。虽然我有信心认为在我有生之年，法国和德国不会交战，烧猫取乐和轮刑虐待不会重返文明社会，人们在晚宴之际也不再会习惯性地拿着切牛排的餐刀互相捅来捅去，甚至割掉对方的鼻子，但对于世界是否不会再发生武装冲突，任何审慎的观察者都没有信心下此断言。

    有时候人们问我：“你怎么能够知道明天不会发生一场战争（或者大屠杀，或者恐怖袭击），从而彻底颠覆你的整个理论？”提出这样的问题说明提问者没有明白本书的观点。本书的观点不是说我们已经进入一个“宝瓶座时代”，即地球上的每一个人都永远和平、自由、博爱。本书强调的是，世界上的暴力呈现绝对的下降趋势以及理解这个趋势的重要性。暴力减少的原因是，在特定的时间和特定的文化背景下，政治、经济和意识形态条件发生了特定的变化。如果这些条件出现逆势变化，暴力就会重新回头。

    我们的世界生活着形形色色的人。幂律分布的统计结果和过去200年的历史事件都告诉我们，少数暴徒就可以给世界带来巨大的灾难。在当今世界的60亿人口中，如果哪一个狂人拿到了一颗流失的核弹，他一个人就能够制造天文数字的损失。但是，即使发生这样的事情，我们还是需要解释为什么凶杀率下降至原来的1%，为什么奴隶买卖和债务人监狱消失了，为什么苏联和美国没有为古巴开战，姑且不论加拿大和西班牙为何不曾为平鱼纠纷打得头破血流。

    本书的目的是要解释过去的历史和现实中的事实，而不是要预卜假想的未来。如果你坚持要问，科学的本质不就是给出可证伪的预测吗？理解过去的意义不就是为了推断未来吗？啊哈，好吧。我做出一个预测，在今后10年，爆发一年内死亡10万人的大型暴力冲突，或者事件总死亡超过百万人的可能性是9.7%。我是怎么得到这个数字的？是啊，这个数字很小，小到在直觉上就是“不太可能”，但是又没有小到如果真的发生这样的事件，就证明我的预测完全错误。当然，我的观点是，对于单个事件，例如在今后10年发生大规模暴力冲突而言，科学预测的概念毫无意义。如果我们可以有几个平行的世界进行观测，对哪个世界发生了什么和没有发生什么进行统计和分析，是否能进行科学预测才可以另当别论。

    但事实是，我们只有一个世界，而我不知道在未来几十年里世界会发生些什么。当然，不是所有人都像我一样谨慎。如果你在网络上查询“即将发生的战争”（the coming war）这个字符串，能得到200万条结果，与其联组的内容是“对伊斯兰”“对伊朗”“对中国”“对俄罗斯”“在巴基斯坦”“伊朗和以色列”“印巴之间”“对沙特阿拉伯”“对委内瑞拉”“在美国”“在西方国家之间”“为地球资源”“气候原因引发”“为水资源”“与日本”（最后这个预测的发布时间是1991年，你也许会觉得人们从此应该在这个问题上更谦逊一些）。像《文明的冲突》（The Clash of Civilizations）、《起火的世界》（World on Fire）、《第四次世界大战》（World War IV），还有我最喜欢的《命中注定》（We Are Doomed）这些著述，只看书名就能感到作者的自信。

    谁知道呢？也许他们是对的。在本章余下的部分中，我的目标是要指出他们的错误。我们不是第一次听到注定灭亡的警告了。专家发出过各种终结人类文明的警告：毒气弹、热核武器、苏联入侵西欧、世界有核国家达到两位数、复仇主义的德国、日本军国主义复活、城市内超级少年暴力犯罪泛滥成灾、石油短缺引发世界大战、印巴核战争、每周都会发生“9·11”恐怖袭击事件规模的恐怖袭击。[227]我将在本小节探讨“新和平”面对的四种威胁——与伊斯兰文明的冲突、核恐怖主义、伊朗的核武器和气候变迁；每一种威胁都有“可能是，也可能不是”两种可能性。

    * * *

    伊斯兰世界显然没有融入暴力减少的大潮流。20多年来各大新闻报道充斥着以伊斯兰的名义实施的野蛮杀戮，这让西方人闻之变色。这些事件有1989年宗教领袖向萨曼·拉什迪（Salman Rushdie）发出的追杀令，仅因为他在一部小说中描写了穆罕默德；2002年，尼日利亚判决一个未婚先孕的女子死刑，行刑方式是石刑；2004年，荷兰电影制片人提奥·凡高（Theo Van Gogh）被尖刀刺死，因为他制作了一部关于阿亚安·希尔西·阿里（Ayaan Hirsi Ali）的电影，讲的是伊斯兰国家妇女的处境；2005年，丹麦报纸刊登了时政漫画，对伊斯兰先知有所不敬，许多城市发生血腥的骚乱；一位在苏丹任教的英籍小学教师被监禁并面临被施鞭刑的威胁，因为她允许她的学生给一只玩具熊取名穆罕默德；当然还有“9·11”恐怖袭击事件，事件中19名穆斯林杀害了近3000名平民。

    西方人心目中的伊斯兰世界嗜好西方人早已唾弃的暴力，这不仅仅是伊斯兰恐惧症或者东方主义，而且有数字的支持。虽然世界人口的近1/5是穆斯林，大约1/4的国家以穆斯林为主，但2008年世界上所发生的武装纠纷和叛乱中一半以上是在伊斯兰国家。[228]在其他因素不变的情况下，与非伊斯兰国家相比，伊斯兰国家强迫更多的公民参军。[229]美国国务院恐怖主义组织名单的2/3是伊斯兰组织。2008年，在能够知道凶手的被恐怖分子杀害的人中，有近2/3死于逊尼派恐怖分子之手。[230]

    伊斯兰国家无视民主化的大潮，只有大约1/4的伊斯兰国家有民选的政府，而这些民选过程大多非常不规范。[231]他们的领袖通常都是高票当选，得票率之高往往令人发笑。他们一旦大权在握，就将对手关进监狱，宣布反对党非法，解散议会，取消选举。[232]人口众多、贫困、石油资源丰富这些导致专制的风险因素绝非伊斯兰国家所特有。即使在回归分析中设定这些因素不变，结果还是穆斯林人口比重越大的国家，人民的政治权利越少。[233]政治权利在很大程度上与暴力相关，因为这种权利意味着人们是否可以自由地演说、写作和集会，而不被关进监狱。

    许多伊斯兰国家的法律和惯例似乎还没有经历过人道主义革命。根据大赦国际的资料，有近3/4的伊斯兰国家执行死刑，相比之下，非伊斯兰国家中只有1/3还有死刑；许多伊斯兰国家仍然使用石刑、烙刑、剜目和砍手、挖舌，甚至还在使用上十字架等残酷刑罚。[234]每一年，伊斯兰国家都有1亿多女孩子被施以阴部割礼；当她们长大后，如果她们的父亲、兄弟或被强加给她们的丈夫不高兴，她们可能会被硫酸毁容，或者直接被杀死。[235]伊斯兰国家是最后废除奴隶制的国家（最后的两个例子是1962年的沙特阿拉伯和1980年的毛里塔尼亚）；而在伊斯兰国家，至今仍有人口买卖。[236]在许多伊斯兰国家，巫术不仅在字面上是犯罪，而且在现实中仍被起诉和判刑。比如，2009年，沙特阿拉伯判处一名男子有罪，因为在他随身携带的电话簿上有家乡厄立特里亚文字的字母，而在沙特警察眼中，这都是些诡异神秘的符号。他为此领受了300下鞭笞，外加3年多的监禁。[237]

    在伊斯兰世界，不仅宗教迷信鼓励暴力，畸形发达的荣誉文化更是推崇暴力。政治学家哈立德·法塔赫（Khaled Fattah）和K. M.菲尔克（K. M. Fierke）记录了伊斯兰极端组织中流行的“耻辱话语”。[238]在伊斯兰遭受屈辱的清单上有十字军、西方殖民主义、以色列的存在、美军踏足阿拉伯领土、不争气的伊斯兰国家——西方文明要对此承担一切责任，而所有这些都是对伊斯兰的侮辱，也都是向西方国家不由分说地报仇雪恨的许可证，当然复仇的对象还要算上那些思想不纯正的伊斯兰领袖。伊斯兰激进分子的意识形态中具有典型的种族灭绝倾向：历史是一场暴力斗争，最后光辉的顶点将是消灭一切人类中不可救赎的恶人。基地组织、哈马斯、真主党和伊朗政权的发言人都曾经妖魔化敌对势力——犹太复国主义、异教徒、十字军、多神教，他们都提到末日式大灾难和随之而来的乌托邦，并以此证明应该屠杀整个以色列民族，荡平整个美国，杀光一切侮辱过伊斯兰教的人。[239]

    历史学家伯纳德·刘易斯（Bernard Lewis）不是唯一一个提出疑问的人——“错在哪里？”2002年，联合国资助的一个阿拉伯知识分子组成的委员会发表了措辞坦率的《阿拉伯人权发展报告》，它被称为“阿拉伯人谈阿拉伯人”。[240]报告中记载了阿拉伯国家的政治迫害、经济落后、压迫妇女、遍地文盲、自我孤立于世界思想潮流之外。在报告发表时，整个阿拉伯世界出口的制成品少于菲律宾一个国家，互联网连线的水平低于撒哈拉以南的非洲，每年注册的专利数量相当于韩国的2%，翻译成阿拉伯文的图书相当于翻译成希腊文的图书的约1/5。[241]

    事情并非向来如此。在中世纪，伊斯兰文明毫无疑问比基督教文明更优雅、更精美。当欧洲人绞尽脑汁设计酷刑刑具的时候，穆斯林则在忙于保存古希腊文化，吸收来自印度和中国的知识，在天文、建筑、测绘、医药、化学、物理和数学上领先于世。这个辉煌时代的标志之一是“阿拉伯数字”（源自印度）和大量外来词，比如酒精、代数、炼金术、碱、方位、蒸馏器和运算法则。正像西方在科学上远远落后于伊斯兰世界，它在人权方面也是后知后觉。刘易斯认为：

    在宽容方面，无论是理论上还是实践上，伊斯兰都不如过去两三百年中发展起来的西方民主制度，但它远远优越于在此之前的基督教和前基督教的社会和政权。在伊斯兰历史上，从来没有过能够与西方相比的对其他信仰和非信徒的解放、容忍和融和，但是，也从来没有过能和西班牙驱逐犹太人和穆斯林、宗教裁判所、对异教徒的公开判处和公开火刑、宗教战争，以及最近对儿童性侵犯的默不作声相比的罪恶。

    为什么伊斯兰教丧失了领导地位，没能出现理性时代、启蒙运动和人道主义革命？一些历史学家指出《古兰经》中好战的段落，但与我们自己的种族灭绝经文相比，它们不足一提，即使使用一些巧妙的注释和深度发展中的准则，也不能误导公众视听。[242]

    刘易斯的观点是，伊斯兰世界一直没有经历政教分离。穆罕默德不仅是一位精神领袖，还是一位政治和军事首领，直到最近，也没有多少伊斯兰国家明白区分世俗和神圣之间差别的概念。当每一个潜在的新知识都要经过宗教的滤镜，社会就丧失了吸纳和融合新思想的机会。刘易斯回顾了伊斯兰的历史，当古希腊的哲学和数学典籍被翻译成阿拉伯文的时候，古希腊的诗歌、戏剧和历史却没有被介绍给阿拉伯世界。而当穆斯林自己发展了丰富多彩的文明史之后，他们不再对亚洲、非洲和欧洲邻国，以及他们自己敬拜自然神的祖先有任何好奇心了。古伊斯兰文明的继承人奥斯曼帝国拒绝接受机械钟表，拒绝统一度量衡，拒绝实验科学，拒绝现代哲学，拒绝翻译诗歌和小说，拒绝资本主义的金融工具，更重要的也许是，它拒绝印刷出版技术。阿拉伯语是《古兰经》的语言，因此印刷阿拉伯语被视为亵渎。[243]在本书的第4章，我猜测说识字市民组成的都市催生了欧洲的人道主义革命，因为它拓展了人们的共情圈，并为自由人文主义提供了滋生的思想土壤。也许，宗教的传统势力阻碍新思想进入伊斯兰文明的中心，将它束缚在相对缺少自由的发展阶段。好像是为了证明这一揣测的正确性，伊朗政府在2010年限制大学中学习人文科学的学生人数，理由是最高宗教领袖阿亚图拉·阿里·哈梅内伊（Ayatollah Ali Khameini）认为，学习人文科学“助长对宗教原则和信仰的怀疑和不解”。[244]

    无论有什么样的历史原因，西方世界和伊斯兰世界之间横亘着巨大的鸿沟。根据政治学家塞缪尔·亨廷顿的著名理论，这一鸿沟将我们带进世界历史的新时代：文明的冲突。他写道：“欧亚文明之间巨大的历史断裂线再次燃起熊熊烈焰。”“这一次冲突的分界明显是沿着从西非一直到中亚的新月形伊斯兰国家集团的边界。暴力的一方是穆斯林，另一方是巴尔干的塞尔维亚东正教徒、以色列的犹太人、印度的印度教徒、缅甸的佛教徒和菲律宾的天主教徒。伊斯兰教有着血腥的边界。”[245]

    虽然文明冲突论的惊人之语在时评家中很受欢迎，但很少有研究国际政治的学者接受这个概念。在世界的种种血腥冲突中，有相当大一部分发生在伊斯兰国家之间和伊斯兰国家内部（比如20世纪80年代的两伊战争和1990年伊拉克入侵科威特），还有相当大一部分发生在非伊斯兰国家之间或者非伊斯兰国家内部。作为对当今世界暴力现状的简单总结，这是否也能算是一种文明的断裂线？而且，尼尔斯·彼得·格莱迪奇和哈尔瓦德·比海于格已经指出，在过去20年中，尽管伊斯兰国家在全球武装冲突和叛乱中所占的比重不断增加，从20%上升到38%，但这并不意味着冲突的数量增加了。如图6-12所示，伊斯兰世界的冲突数量保持在一个不变的水平，而世界其他部分越来越和平了，也就是进入了我所说的“新和平”阶段。

    更重要的是，我们无法用一个伊斯兰文明的概念笼统地概括13亿自称穆斯林的男男女女，他们生活的国家差异如此之大，比如马里、尼日利亚、摩洛哥、土耳其、沙特阿拉伯、孟加拉和印度尼西亚。而按照大陆和国家来划分伊斯兰世界也非常不妥。西方人的头脑里有两个扭曲的范式，他们一直据此理解何为伊斯兰：一是总会占据新闻头条的发布追杀令和号召圣战的疯子，一是统治这些疯子的、被石油资源诅咒的专制政权。西方人的成见中几乎见不到迄今为止一向沉默或大部分时间保持沉默的穆斯林大多数。难道近几十年来席卷世界的自由主义浪潮真的完全没有波及13亿穆斯林吗？

    图6-12 1990—2006年伊斯兰国家和世界的冲突统计

    资料来源：数据来自格莱迪奇，2008年。“伊斯兰冲突”涉及伊斯兰国家或伊斯兰反对派运动，或者两者兼有。哈尔瓦德·比海于格从乌普萨拉战争数据库和奥斯陆国际和平研究所数据库收集的数据，并对伊斯兰冲突的数据进行了独到的处理。

    2001—2007年，盖洛普在拥有90%的世界穆斯林人口的35个国家进行了大规模民意调查，我们也许能够从中找到部分答案。[246]民调结果显示，大部分伊斯兰国家不会在近期成为世俗化的自由民主国家。埃及、巴基斯坦、约旦和孟加拉的大部分受访者告诉民调工作人员，伊斯兰教律法作为伊斯兰法背后的原则，应该是他们国家立法的唯一根据；这些国家中的大多数认为，伊斯兰律法至少应该是立法根据之一。另一方面，大多数美国人认为《圣经》应该是立法的依据之一，但可以假定他们并不是说在礼拜日工作的人应该被处以石刑。宗教有赖于含义模糊的寓言和其他形式的无恶意的伪善，以及对从不阅读的文本怀有的情绪化的忠诚。就像美国人信奉《圣经》，伊斯兰人信奉伊斯兰律法，更多是将其视为表明道德立场的象征；他们认为德行是自己文化中最优良的部分，他们并非真的想看见通奸犯被乱石砸死。在实践中，人们也可以从自由派的角度创造性地解读伊斯兰律法，寻找权宜之计，而且经常能够战胜严厉的原旨派。（在尼日利亚，从来没有妇女被执行死刑。）在大多数穆斯林眼中，伊斯兰律法和民主制度毫无抵触。的确，尽管人们对伊斯兰律法怀有崇敬，但绝大多数人都认为宗教领袖不应承担指导起草国家宪法的工作。

    虽然大部分穆斯林不信任美国，但并不是全然对西方怀有敌意，也不是绝不接受民主的原则。许多穆斯林感觉美国不是真想在伊斯兰世界传播民主，而他们有自己的理由：美国一直在支持埃及、约旦、科威特和沙特阿拉伯的专制政权，拒不接受哈马斯在巴勒斯坦领土内的选举结果；1953年，美国帮助推翻了伊朗经民主选举产生的摩萨台政府。穆斯林对法国和德国的态度要好得多。20%~40%的人说他们羡慕西方文化中“公平的政治制度、尊重人的价值、自由和平等”。超过90%的人愿意本国的宪法能够保障言论自由，相当多的人支持宗教信仰自由和集会自由。而且，在主要伊斯兰国家，两性中绝大部分人认为妇女应该有权独立自主地投票，自由择业，享有和男性一样的法律权利，并且可以在政府中担任高官。我们也已经看到，伊斯兰世界的绝大多数人拒绝接受“9·11”恐怖袭击事件。在盖洛普民调中，即使在2007年基地组织的声望发生逆转之前，也只有7%的回复赞同“9·11”恐怖袭击事件。

    政治暴力的动员情况如何？马里兰大学的一个小组研究了北非和中东102个穆斯林草根组织的目标，他们发现在1985—2004年，主张暴力的组织其比重从54%下降到14%。[247]而承诺进行非暴力抗议的组织是原来的3倍，参与选举政治的组织是原来的2倍。这些变化都是促成图6-11中恐怖主义活动死亡率曲线下行的原因。在我们日常阅读的新闻中，关于埃及和阿尔及利亚的恐怖暴力事件的报道要比几年前少很多。

    伊斯兰的孤立隔绝受到多重自由力量的冲击，比如半岛电视台这样的独立新闻机构，海湾国家中美国大学的校园，包括社交网站在内的互联网的渗透，经济全球化的诱惑，非政府组织；而在伊斯兰社会内部，要求给予妇女权利的压力由来已久，再加上西方盟国的推动。僵化的保守派也许会继续抵抗一切新思想，试图将伊斯兰社会永远封固在中世纪。但是，他们也许会有所改变。

    2011年年初，一场风起云涌的抗议运动推翻了突尼斯和埃及的当权者，并直接威胁到约旦、巴林、利比亚、叙利亚和也门的政权。结果难以预料，但是示威者几乎全部是非暴力和非伊斯兰主义的，他们所表达的愿望是民主、廉洁的政府和经济发展，而不是全球圣战、恢复哈里发和杀光异教徒。但即使人心思变，我们还是可以想象，任何一个伊斯兰主义的暴君或者激进的伊斯兰革命团体仍然能够将大众拖入灾难性的战争。但更大的可能性是“下一场与伊斯兰的战争”永远也不会发生，伊斯兰国家不可能联合一致对抗西方：它们之间存在着巨大的差异，作为一个文明，它们对我们的文明没有敌意。有些伊斯兰国家，比如土耳其、印度尼西亚和马来西亚，正在走向自由民主。有些国家将继续被“狗娘养的”统治，不过这些统治者都是我们自己的“狗崽子”。还有一些将继续在重重矛盾中尝试伊斯兰律法下的民主制。没有一个国家会被基地组织的意识形态占据。如此，对“新和平”的可预见的危险还剩下三个：核恐怖主义、伊朗政权和气候变迁。

    * * *

    虽然常规的恐怖主义正如约翰·克里不小心溜出口的话，是一种可控的小麻烦，对我们的生活不构成颠覆性的威胁，但拥有大规模杀伤性核武器的恐怖分子将完全是另外一个问题了。一次核恐怖袭击将造成数百万人死亡，这种前景不仅在理论上有可能，也符合恐怖主义的统计规律。计算机科学家阿龙·克劳塞蒂（Aaron Clauset）、马克斯韦尔·扬（Maxwell Young）和政治学家克里斯蒂安·格莱迪奇将11 000次恐怖袭击造成的死亡数字代入双对数坐标，结果显示它们呈一条平滑的直线。[248]恐怖袭击也遵循幂律分布，也就是说，其产生机理是，极端事件的可能性极小，但并非绝对不可能。

    他们三人提出了一个简单的模型，触发战争的因素不过是一套指数；这与让-巴普蒂斯特·米歇尔和我提出的战争模型有些相像。恐怖分子筹划恐怖袭击的时间越长，造成的死亡人数就越多，二者呈指数级数增加；如果准备的时间翻一番，制造的死亡翻两番。可以肯定，单个自杀性恐怖分子的行动制造的死亡通常以个位数计，计划所需要的时间只是几天或者几个星期。2004年马德里列车爆炸案的受害者大约为200人，筹划时间约6个月；“9·11”恐怖袭击事件的死难人数为3000人，基地组织为此筹谋了2年之久。[249]但恐怖分子的时间不是他们自己的，每拖长一天，计划被干扰、终止或者仓促出手的可能性就增大一分。如果可能性是一个常数，谋划的时间则呈指数分布。（前面提到过，克罗宁表示，恐怖组织的消亡之快就像秋后的苍蝇，完全符合指数曲线。）一方面是指数增长的危险，另一方面是指数下降的成功机会，我们又看见一个幂律分布，拖着一条令人不安的长尾。考虑到现实世界中大规模杀伤性武器的现状，宗教狂热分子为了虚妄的目标要制造空前伤亡的意志，我们应该能够想象到发生长期筹划的阴谋可能制造数目巨大的死亡。

    统计模型不是算命的水晶球。即使我们能够根据现有数据连成的曲线进行推断，在长尾部分的大规模恐怖袭击仍然是极小概率事件（尽管不是绝对不可能）。更重要的是，我们不能做这样的推断。在现实中，每当进入幂律分布的长尾，数据点就开始异动，或者散落在幂律线的两侧，或者将幂律线弯曲到概率极低的水平。恐怖主义危害的统计域值提醒我们，不能排除发生最坏的情况，但它没有告诉我们发生最坏情况的概率有多大。

    请问，在今后5年内，发生下述情况之一的可能性到底有多大呢？（1）一个主要发达国家的领导人遇刺身亡；（2）核弹在一场战争或一次恐怖袭击中被引爆；（3）委内瑞拉和古巴参与及支持一个或数个拉美国家的马克思主义起义运动；（4）伊朗向恐怖组织提供用于袭击以色列和美国的核武器；（5）法国放弃核武器。

    我在一个网页上向177个网民提供了15个这样的场景，请他们就发生这些场景的可能性进行评估。认为将会发生引爆核弹（场景2）的中值是0.20；认为可能发生恐怖组织从伊朗得到核弹，并在美国或以色列引爆核弹的中值是0.25。超过半数的答卷人认为发生后一种场景的可能性大于前一种。为此，他们在概率统计方面犯了一个非常低级的数学错误。多个事件结合同发（事件A和事件B同时发生）的概率不可能大于其中单个事件的发生概率。你抽到一张红桃牌的概率一定低于你抽到一张桃牌的概率，因为就抽中桃牌的概率来说，除了红桃之外，你还可能抽到黑桃。

    特沃斯基和卡尼曼表示，包括统计学家和医学研究人员在内的大多数人都会犯这样的错误。[250]举例说，34岁的比尔相当聪明，但缺乏想象力，有强迫症，并且很沉闷。上学时他的强项是数学，但在艺术和人文学科上成绩平平。如此，比尔吹爵士萨克斯管的可能性有多大？比尔成为一位会计师同时又吹萨克斯管的可能性又有多大？很多人认为后一个情况的可能性高于前一个，这简直是荒谬，因为吹萨克斯管的会计肯定少于吹萨克斯管的人。在判断可能性的时候，人们往往依赖自己生动的想象力而不是思考事物本身的规律。比尔的性格符合人们对会计师的印象，但他显然不具备萨克斯管演奏家的素质，而我们的直觉总是追随我们脑子中的印象。

    这种心理学家所说的“结合谬误”（conjunction fallacy）扰乱了很多推理过程。陪审团不会轻易相信一个做黑道生意的人杀死了他的雇员，但却更容易相信他为了封口而杀死知道底细的雇员。（法庭辩护律师靠这种谬误吃饭，他们在案情中添加各种相关的细节，给陪审团描画出一个个生动的画面，尽管从数学意义上讲，每一个附加的细节，都只能让他们所说的场景更不可能发生。）当人们不是简要陈述某种小概率事件（比如石油消费将要下降），而是将它们和一些响亮的理由拉扯在一起（比如说石油价格上升将导致石油的消费下降），在这种情况下，即使是专业的市场预测师也会高估此事件发生的可能性。[251]再比如，人们总是情愿花更多的钱购买恐怖袭击空难保险，而不愿意多花钱购买一揽子的空难保险。[252]

    你应该能够看出我的结论了。伊斯兰恐怖分子在黑市上或者从流氓国家手中拿到原子弹，然后在人口稠密的都市引爆核装置的情景，在我们脑海里栩栩如生，难免浮想联翩。假使我们没有这等想象力，影视娱乐业也会为我们制作出《真实的谎言》（True Lies）、《惊天核网》（The Sum of All Fears）、《24小时》（24）这样的惊悚大片。故事的展开简直天衣无缝，很容易让我们高估事件的可能性，尽管如果我们仔细思索一下导致灾难的每一个步骤，得出各种概率的乘积，很可能会有另一种判断。这就是为什么在我的问卷调查中，如此之多的人认为伊朗支持的核恐怖袭击的概率高于一般核袭击。问题不在于核恐怖袭击不可能或者是极其不可能发生。除了严谨的风险分析师外，其他人估测的此类概率总是趋于过高。

    我所说的“过高”是什么意思呢？在我看来，任何“确定的”和“更有可能的”都是过高的估计。物理学家西奥多·泰勒（Theodore Taylor）在1974年宣称，到1990年，我们将不再可能阻止恐怖分子发动一场核攻击。[253]1995年，当时全世界在核恐怖主义危险问题上最活跃的活动家格雷厄姆·阿利森（Graham Allison）写道，在当时的环境中，很可能在10年之内发生以美国为目标的核袭击。[254]1998年，反恐专家理查德·佛肯拉斯（Richard Falkenrath）在文章中说：“肯定，越来越多的非国家实体将有能力获得并使用核武器、生物武器和化学武器。”[255]2003年，美国联合国大使约翰·内格罗蓬特判断，“很有可能”在两年内发生大规模杀伤性武器袭击。而到2007年，物理学家理查德·加温（Richard Garwin）估计，每年发生核恐怖分子袭击的可能性是20%，或者说，到2010年之前发生核恐袭击的概率是50%, 10年之内发生核恐袭击的概率几乎是90%。[256]

    像电视台的天气预报员一样，评论家、政客、研究恐怖主义的专家有充分的动机强调最坏的情况。毫无疑问，夸大可能性，让政府感到紧张而进一步采取防范措施，严密管制核装置和核原料，监控和渗透有核恐意图的组织，这是很睿智的做法。高估风险总是比低估风险更安全，但这也有一个限度。为了搜查不存在的大规模杀伤性武器而发动成本高昂的伊拉克战争，显然超过了这个限度。事实证明，预告一场从来不会发生的灾难，丝毫无损于专家的信誉，因为没有人愿意冒险，让一枚装满放射物质的蛋在自己面前炸开花。[257]

    有少数几位勇敢的分析人员，比如穆勒、约翰·帕拉基尼（John Guinea Parachini）和迈克尔·莱维（Michael Levi），对各个灾难前景进行了彻底的分解。[258]首先，在四种所谓大规模杀伤性武器中，有三种的破坏力远远低于老式的优质炸药。[259]放射性炸弹或称“脏弹”实际上就是在常规炸药外裹上一层放射性物质（比如可以从医用废料中得到的物质），它只能产生轻微和短暂的辐射，辐射变化的水平和一个人搬到高海拔的城市一样。化学武器只在封闭的空间内有效，比如地铁，否则会很快地消散，被风吹走，被阳光分解。即使在地铁中使用化学武器，也不如常规炸药更具杀伤力。（在第一次世界大战中，毒气弹造成的伤亡仅是总伤亡数的很小一部分。）生物武器能够制造疫情，但是开发和施放的成本非常之高，而且对那些在非专业实验室中的制作人员一样具有威胁。这就是为什么尽管生化武器远比核武器容易获得，但是过去30年中只发生了三次生化武器恐怖袭击。[260]1984年，罗杰尼希教教徒在俄勒冈州一个小城的餐馆的沙拉里投放沙门氏菌，导致751人食物中毒，但无人死亡。1990年，泰米尔猛虎组织在攻打一个堡垒时弹药供给不足，他们在附近的造纸厂找到一些氯气钢瓶，并在阵地前打开了气阀，这导致60人受伤，无人死亡。风很快将氯气吹向猛虎组织自己的阵地，从此他们知道这个东西非常不好玩。日本邪教奥姆真理教（Aum Shinrikyo）曾经连续失败了10次，最后在东京地铁成功释放了沙林毒气，杀害了12人。第四个案例是2001年美国发生邮寄炭疽病毒袭击，在媒体和政府部门工作的5名美国人遇害，最后发现这是一次杀人狂的行动，并不是恐怖分子的计划。

    只有核武器才配得上WMD（大规模杀伤性武器）这几个字母。穆勒和帕拉基尼核对了各种声称恐怖分子几乎“就要”拿到原子弹的报告，发现所有的报告都是虚假的。在此类报告中，黑市上拉皮条购买核武的“兴趣”，演绎成正在实际发生的协商，一般性的描述发展成详尽的蓝图，东拉西扯的线索（比如伊拉克2001年购买铝管）被解释成发展核武项目的迹象。

    如果仔细检查核恐怖分子的每一条可能通道，我们会发现它们都通向死胡同。俄罗斯曾经对自己的核武贮备疏于保管，恐怖分子当时也许有过某种机会，但现在专家一致认为俄罗斯已经完善了制度，至今没有核武器流入中东的大巴扎。洛斯阿拉莫斯国家实验室（Los Alamos Na-tional Laboratory）前主任斯蒂芬·扬格（Stephen Younger）曾经说过：“不论新闻报道里说过些什么，所有国家对它们手中核武器的安全都非常谨慎小心。”[261]俄罗斯在避免核武流入车臣和其他民族分离组织方面有着重大的利害关系，巴基斯坦则对宿敌基地组织充满戒意。与流言相反，国际安全问题专家认为巴基斯坦政府和军队落入极端分子掌控的机会基本为零。[262]为了防止未经授权使用核武器，核装置都有复杂的连锁设计；如果没有适当的维护，大部分核武器会成为一堆带有放射性的废铁。[263]鉴于这些原因，奥巴马在2010年召集了47国核安全峰会，商讨如何防止恐怖分子提炼核裂变物质，例如钚和高浓缩铀，而不是紧盯核武器成品。

    偷窃核裂变物质是一个非常现实的威胁，峰会上提出的防范措施显然十分明智和负责，早就应该如此办理。但是，我们还是不应该被车库里制造核弹的图景吓得失魂落魄，认为这是无法避免，甚至是极有可能的。对核原料的保护已经存在，或者正在准备实施，盗窃和走私核原料将越来越困难，一旦发现丢失，将发动全球追踪行动。制作一件核武器需要精密的工程和制造技术，绝非业余工匠力所能及。向美国总统和国会就大规模杀伤力武器提供咨询的“吉尔摩委员会”（Gilmore Commission），将制作原子弹称为“极为艰巨的”挑战，阿利森将原子弹描述为“又大又笨重、不安全、不可靠、难以预测、很可能不工作”。[264]更有甚者，筹备原料、专家和设备的过程充满风险，有可能被发现，还有可能发生各种背叛、欺诈、疏忽，最后还有可能走背运。莱维在他的著作《论核恐怖主义》（On Nuclear Terrorism）中开列了一张清单，说明恐怖分子必须要在这一系列事情上万无一失，才有可能实施核打击。莱维表示，“墨菲定律也适用于核恐怖：可能出错的地方一定会出错”。[265]穆勒提出恐怖分子发动核武袭击的20个障碍，如果某个恐怖组织有50%的机会克服每一个障碍，它获得成功的总概率是百万分之一。莱维用另外一种方法估算了核恐怖袭击的可能性，假定核恐怖袭击的障碍只有10个，清除每一个障碍的可能性是80%，核恐怖组织成功发动核打击的概率为1/10。这些还不是我们成为受害者的概率。一个恐怖组织要权衡各种方案，即使对核袭击做最乐观的估计，结论也许还是不如将资源用于成功可能性更高的计划。我必须再次强调，这些可能性绝不意味着核恐怖袭击是不可能发生的，而是说核恐怖袭击不是像某些人所坚信的那样急迫，那样不可避免，或者可能性极高。

    * * *

    如果现在的权威人士是值得信任的，那么你在阅读“新和平”这几个字的时候正在经历一场世界大战——甚至是伊朗发动的核战争的蹂躏。在我写作的此时此刻，围绕伊朗核能项目的紧张气氛正在加剧。伊朗已经提炼的铀足够制造核武器，并继续拒绝国际社会根据《防止核扩散条约》对其核能项目进行检查。伊朗总统马哈茂德·艾哈迈迪-内贾德嘲笑西方领导人，支持恐怖组织，指责美国人导演了“9·11”恐怖袭击事件；他还否认纳粹的集中营，呼吁将以色列“从地图上抹掉”，并且祈求第十二伊玛目再次现身，这位伊斯兰救世主将带领世人进入和平和正义。有些伊斯兰什叶派解释说，这位救世主将在全世界陷入战争和混乱的时候降临。

    我们至少可以说，所有这一切实在令人不安；很多专家得出结论说，艾哈迈迪-内贾德是正在开发核武器的希特勒；一旦拥有核武器，或者他将直接对以色列进行核打击，或者他会将核武器送给真主党，让他们袭击以色列。即使情况没有这样可怕，他总可以借此恐吓中东国家，要他们俯首听命于伊朗的霸权。美国和以色列将不得不先下手轰炸伊朗的核设施，尽管这会引来经年累月的战争和恐怖活动。《华盛顿时报》 2009年的一篇社论这样说：“向伊朗开战已经不可避免。唯一的问题是，战争是否迫在眉睫？”[266]

    伊朗狂人很有可能发动核战争。但是，这种恐怖场景是否不可避免，或者是否有极高的可能性呢？一个人可以像艾哈迈迪-内贾德一样桀骜不驯，一样怀有玩世不恭的动机，但同时还可以想象世界仍有很多不那么糟糕的选择。约翰·穆勒、托马斯·谢林和其他外交事务分析家为我们设想了多重可能性，并得出结论说，伊朗的核武器不会导致世界的末日。[267]

    伊朗是《防止核扩散条约》的签约国，艾哈迈迪-内贾德一再表示伊朗的核项目仅用于能源和医学研究。伊朗最高领导人哈梅内伊（Khameini，他拥有比艾哈迈迪-内贾德更大的权力）在2005年发布裁决令，宣称伊斯兰禁止核武器。[268]如果伊朗政府继续发展核武器，也不会是历史上第一次有国家领导人红口白牙说瞎话。但是他们的大话说得太满，在全世界，包括他们所依赖的大国，如俄罗斯、中国、土耳其和巴西等的众目睽睽之下失信，他们也许会有所迟疑。

    艾哈迈迪-内贾德对第十二位伊玛目的冥想并不意味着他会用核灾难来加速世界末日的到来。曾有分析家满怀信心地预言艾哈迈迪-内贾德会在2007年和2009年引爆核弹，这两个日子来了又走了。[269]请看看艾哈迈迪-内贾德是怎样解释他的信念的，下面是他在2009年接受全国广播公司记者安·柯里的电视采访：

    柯里：您曾经说过，您相信他的到来，天启时刻将在您的有生之年降临。您相信您应该做什么加速他的到来？

    艾哈迈迪-内贾德：我从来没有说过这样的话……我谈的是和平……我当时说的是末日之战和——世界大战，类似这样的东西。这是犹太复国主义正在要求的。伊玛目……将带来逻辑、文化和科学。他的到来意味着不再有战争，不再有敌意和仇恨，不再有冲突。他会召唤所有的人都如兄弟般相亲相爱。当然，他会和耶稣基督一起降临。他们两位将一起回来。他们在一起，会让整个世界充满爱。世界上那些关于大规模战争、末日战争等等都是些谎言罢了。[270]

    作为一个无神论的犹太人，我不能说他的这些话完全可信。但很显然，除了那个伊玛目和基督这一点，其余的部分和虔诚的基督徒没有丝毫不同，而且他们更温和，反而是许多基督徒相信末日大战，并在各种畅销书中加以无限遐想。至于说他在讲话中那句被翻译成“将以色列从地图上抹掉”的话，《纽约时报》的作家伊桑·布朗纳（Ethan Bronner）咨询了波斯语翻译和伊朗政府言论分析家，询问这句话在文中的含义；他们一致认为艾哈迈迪-内贾德在做白日梦，巴望以色列总有一天改朝换代，而不是准备立即下手进行种族灭绝。[271]翻译外国人的惊人之语，常常带来惊人的危险；记得当年说赫鲁晓夫吹牛大喊“我们将埋葬你们”（We will bury you），他的意思其实是说他们的寿命比我们要长（outlive），而不是要动手将我们塞进坟墓（entomb）。

    伊朗的行为也可以解释为锱铢必较。乔治·W.布什总统在2002年将伊拉克、朝鲜和伊朗定义为“邪恶轴心”，接着就攻入伊拉克，推翻了萨达姆政权。朝鲜领导人看到这一活生生的事实，坚信自己正面临同样的威胁，于是加紧研发核武器，杜绝一切美国入侵的幻想。不久，伊朗也开始全力推进核开发计划，目的无非是制造混乱，让人们对伊朗是否拥有核武器以及是否能够迅速组装核武器产生疑虑，以此消除撒旦发动攻击的念头。

    如果伊朗最终真的成为或者被认为已成为核国家，核时代的历史也不会被改写。我们已经看到，核武器除了同归于尽的威慑之外鲜有其他用途，核大国一直受到无核国家的挑战。防止核扩散行动证明了这一点。人们在2004年推测朝鲜已经具备制造核武器的能力，到2010年前后，朝鲜会将核武器交给恐怖分子，并会刺激韩国和日本开发核武器。[272]事实上，朝鲜确实拥有核武器能力，2010年也已经过去了，什么都没有发生。任何国家都不太可能向一群没有准星的恐怖分子提供核弹药，这等于是要为完全不能控制的行为承担后果。[273]

    以伊朗为例，在它决定自己（或者怂恿真主党人）向以色列发动核打击时，总要掂量一下对自己有什么好处，伊朗领导人必须确定以色列会进行核报复，至少是以眼还眼，以牙还牙，你来一颗，我必送还一颗，同时还会有核大国以惩罚触犯核禁忌为名采取联合军事行动。虽然伊朗现政权令人厌恶，而且在许多方面缺乏理性，不过，是为了继续把持权力，还是在巴勒斯坦核辐射中寻求至上的公义，或者为了第十二伊玛目的降临——不管有没有耶稣基督相伴——而选择彻底毁灭自己，伊朗当局进行这样的抉择时大概不会太在意原则。托马斯·谢林在2005年诺贝尔奖领奖致辞中说：“除了毁灭自己的制度，伊朗靠那几颗核弹头还能得到什么？核武器应该十二万分的珍贵，不宜赠送或出售；与其说用它来杀人，不如保留核武器，用以威慑美国或俄罗斯，或者其他什么国家，让它们不敢贸然进行军事进犯。”[274]

    虽然设想最坏情况的替代方案经常是很危险的，但危险总是双向的。2002年秋，小布什总统警告伊朗说：“美国不能无视日益增长的敌对威胁。面对这些威胁的明确迹象，我们不会等待确凿的证据——那支刚刚发射过子弹的枪，因为那很可能就是一朵蘑菇云。”“明确迹象”将美国卷入战争，几十万人为此送命，耗资近1万亿美元，世界并未因此更加安全。65年来，所有声称核灾难不可避免的预测全部失算。无视这一历史，自以为是地确定伊朗将使用核武器，也许会将我们领向一场成本更加高昂的冒险。

    * * *

    近来，人们念兹在兹的另一个黯淡前景是全球变暖。地球的气温在持续升高，几十年之内将会造成海平面上升，沙漠化，某些地区干旱而另一些地区遭受洪涝和飓风灾害。经济将受干扰，加剧各国之间的资源竞争，而人口从灾害地区向外迁移，将会导致与迁入地区的摩擦。2007年《纽约时报》的一篇评论文章警告说：“气候压力正说明了国际安全所面临的挑战，而且是比冷战期间美苏军备竞赛或者防止核武器在流氓国家中扩散更棘手的挑战。”[275]同一年，阿尔·戈尔和联合国政府间气候变化专门委员会被授予诺贝尔和平奖，理由是他们呼吁针对全球变暖立即采取行动，他们的原话是说气候变迁威胁到国际安全。不断强化的恐惧感染到了所有人。一些军官在文章中将全球变暖称为“不稳定的力量倍增器”“气候变化带来的问题将延长反恐战争”。[276]

    在我看来，这又是一个“可能是也可能不是”的具备两可答案的问题。虽然气候变化能够产生巨大的痛苦，其本身就是一个值得认真对待的问题，但它不一定导致武装冲突。对战争与和平进行过追踪研究的政治学家，比如哈尔瓦德·比海于格、艾迪安·萨勒彦（Idean Salehyan）、奥勒·泰森（Ole Theisen）和尼尔斯·格莱迪奇，对于战争的目的是争夺资源这种流行说法一直持怀疑态度。[277]在撒哈拉以南的非洲国家，比如马拉维、赞比亚和坦桑尼亚，饥饿和资源匮乏是常态，但是他们并不曾卷入战争。飓风、洪水、干旱和海啸（比如2004年印度洋灾难性的大海啸）也没有引发武装冲突。再举一个例子，20世纪30年代的美国沙尘暴带来巨大的灾难，但是并没有引发内战。在过去15年间，非洲大陆的气温持续上升，内战和战争死亡则一直在减少。土地和水源的压力肯定会导致地方性纠纷，但是一场真正的战争需要组织和武装一支暴力队伍，这更多取决于坏政府、封闭的经济、军国主义意识形态的影响，而不是单纯对土地和水资源的需要。在反恐战士的想象中，任何事情都会与恐怖主义发生关联：恐怖分子往往是就业不充分的下中产阶级，而不是自给自足的小农。[278]说到气候和种族灭绝的关系，苏丹政府不过是将达尔富尔的暴力归咎为荒漠化，以掩盖自己默认和纵容种族灭绝的种种政策。

    在对1980—1992年的武装冲突所做的回归分析中，泰森发现，如果一个国家贫困、人口密集、政治不稳定、有丰富的石油资源，则很可能爆发战争，而是否干旱、缺水，是否有一般性的土地退化则与战争无关（严重的土地退化与战争存在弱关联）。泰森的研究使用了很多国家的数据（N），而不是仅仅挑选一两个国家进行研究，他的结论是，“那些根据资源短缺和暴力冲突的关系来预测黯淡未来的人，在大数据（N）研究中得不到任何支持”。萨勒彦补充说，在土地供给不变甚至减少的情况下，发展中国家低成本地改善水资源利用方式和农耕方式，就能大大提升生产率。正如发达国家政府已经做到的，一个有效的政府可以缓解环境破坏给国民造成的痛苦。因为在影响环境的因素中，政治和社会组织具有决定性的作用，所以即使是世界气候发生了变化，资源战争也远非不可避免。

    * * *

    我们无法预知“新和平”是不是长期和平，但肯定不会是永久和平。在未来几十年中，我们还会见到战争和恐怖袭击，甚至有可能颇具规模。在我们知道的未知数中有伊斯兰极端武装分子、核恐怖分子、环境退化，此外还有许多未知因素。也许，某国的新领导人会决定一举收复某地，或者俄罗斯将吞并一两个苏联的小共和国，这都会激起美国做出反应。也许，气势汹汹的查韦斯会走出委内瑞拉，在整个第三世界煽动革命和残酷镇压颠覆力量。也许，就在此时此刻，来自某个闻所未闻的解放运动的恐怖分子，正在筹划一场惊天大破坏，或者，某种救世主意识形态正在某个狂人的脑子里酝酿发酵，而此人即将成为一个大国的领袖，从而将世界带回战争。正如《周六夜现场》中的新闻分析家罗莎娜·罗莎娜达娜所观察到的：“总会有件什么事情。如果不是这一件，一定是那一件。”

    但是，如果我们任凭丰富的想象力决定我们对可能性的判断力，那可就太愚蠢了。也许，总要发生什么事情，但这些事情可以更少，而且不一定是坏事情。数字告诉我们，在过去20年中，战争、大屠杀、恐怖主义的数量虽然没有降至零，但减少了很多。认为世界充满了连续不断的暴力，每一次停火都有另外一场新战争燃起，每一次和平的间歇都不过是为了下一步爆发累积张力和寻求释放，这种思维模式是完全不顾事实。今天，有千百万人能够活着，完全是因为没有发生内战和种族灭绝，而如果世界仍然保持在20世纪60年代、70年代甚至80年代的状态，这些灾难很可能已经发生了。我们无法确保促成这一进步的条件，例如民主、繁荣、称职的政府、维和行动、开放经济，以及反人类意识形态的消亡能够永远持续下去，但这些进步似乎也不会在一夜之间无影无踪。

    当然，我们生活在一个危险的世界。我已经强调过，对历史所做的统计鉴定显示，暴力大灾变不太可能发生，但并不是非常不可能发生。我们也可以用一种更有所期望的表述方式来陈述这一结论，我们可以说，虽然暴力大灾变并非极其不可能，但是它们不太可能会发生。

    第7章 权利革命

    我梦想有一天，这个国家会站立起来，真正实现其信仰的真谛：“我们认为这些真理不证自明：人皆生而平等。” ——马丁·路德·金

    我小的时候，身体不是特别健壮，行动也谈不上灵活机敏，所有有组织的运动对我来说都是一种羞辱。打篮球永远是投篮不进。爬绳的时候，我的一只脚被悬空缠绕在绳索上，就像一团海藻挂在鱼线上。棒球呢，在暴晒的球场上，在那些漫长的间歇中，作为右翼外场球员，我总是暗自祈祷：千万不要有球朝我的方向飞过来。

    但是我有一项天赋，让我在同伴中免于永远低人一等的命运：我不怕疼。只要对手的攻击是公开和正面的，不带有特别的侮辱，我就很能“打架”。与体育馆里的老师和草场上的教练主持的运动相比，男孩子还有另外一个世界。在那个世界里，我有足够的机会证明自己。

    我报名参加皮卡冰球和（没有头盔和护垫的）拦挡橄榄球，经常被召唤上场，也能够一头扎进人堆奋力抢球。有一种运动叫“谋杀球”，一个男孩子抱住一只排球开始计秒，其他人则向他施以拳头，直到他忍受不住扔掉手里的排球，当然是抱球的时间越长越好。一种叫“骑马”的游戏——这是学校辅导员严格禁止的游戏，显然是得到了律师的指令。在“骑马”中，要有一个胖子（“枕头”）背靠树站着，另一个队友弯下身子，双手搂着胖子的腰，本队的其他孩子排队，一个接一个弯身搂住前面孩子的腰。对手方的孩子则助跑、跳跃，骑到弯着身子的“马”背上，做马的孩子或者支撑不住倒在地上，或者坚持三秒钟获胜。晚上回家之后，我们要玩“敲打指关节”（Knucks）游戏。在这种被学校禁止的游戏中，输了的人要忍受一摞扑克牌敲打指关节。是用扑克牌的正面还是扑克牌的侧面敲打，以及敲打的次数，由分数决定。此外还有一套复杂的规则，规定挨打的人不能躲避，打人的人不能划伤和过度用力。妈妈们会不时进来检查我们的指关节，看看有没有被划破和打伤。

    在成年人为孩子组织的活动中，没有一样能给我们带来发狂的欢乐。学校里最好玩的游戏要算闪避球，它有一种激动人心的喧闹，我们或者躲在勇猛的队友身后，逃避飞来的胶皮球；或者滚爬着扑向地面抢夺皮球，东奔西突，直到被胶皮球击中出局。在奥威尔式控制严格的“体育教程”中，这是唯一一项我期待的运动。

    但是，在这场由来已久的战斗中，面对辅导员、体育教师、律师和妈妈们，男孩子最后还是败下阵来。一个接一个的学区开始禁止闪避球游戏。全国运动与体育教育协会（NASPE）发布了一项声明，草拟声明的人肯定从来都不曾是个男孩子，甚至可能从来也没有见过男孩子。声明这样解释禁止此项运动的原因：

    全国运动与体育教育协会认为闪避球不是一项适合从幼儿园至高中十二年级体育教育课程的活动。有些孩子——那些技艺娴熟、最有信心的孩子——可能喜欢这项活动，但是很多孩子不喜欢！特别是那些胃部、头部、腹部被狠狠打中的孩子不喜欢这项活动。而且，教育我们的孩子靠伤害他人来取胜是不适当的。

    是的，闪避球的命运也算是暴力历史性减少的又一个标志吧。在我们的血脉中，暴力娱乐源远流长。雄性灵长类动物的幼崽经常在玩闹中打架，而在游戏中扭打和搏斗是区别人类男女性别最明显的差异之一。[1]在人类历史的任何阶段和任何文化中，都可以见到各种带有打斗冲动的极限运动。除了古罗马的角斗对抗和中世纪的长矛比武锦标赛，在体育运动的血腥历史中，还有文艺复兴时期威尼斯人娱乐性的尖头手杖较量（贵族和神父当然不会放过这个乐子）；北美原住民苏族印第安人的男孩子在玩耍中会揪住对手的头发，然后跪在他们的脸上；爱尔兰人用结实的橡木棍打斗；还有一种19世纪时风行美国南方的踢胫游戏，参赛者互相抓住对方的双臂，尽力踢踹对方的胫骨，直到一个人倒下为止。此外，还有各式各样的徒手拳击，从其战术也许可以推测出当今拳击的规则（不许用头撞、不许攻击腹部以下部位等）。[2]

    但是，在过去半个世纪，事情开始发生变化，各个年龄段的男孩子都受到了冲击。虽然人们对模拟暴力和自愿暴力的嗜好并没有改变，但是在社交生活中尽力排除所有真实的暴力。这就是为什么西方文化中暴力灾难的量级越来越低。战后，人们从反对屠杀上百万人的大规模战争以及杀害几千人的暴行，例如战争和种族灭绝，发展为反对伤害几百人、几十人甚至几个人的其他暴力形式，例如暴动、私刑和仇恨犯罪，再继续从杀戮延伸到其他形式的伤害，例如强奸、殴打、骚扰和恐吓。对受害者的保护也在升级，开始包括少数族裔、妇女、儿童、同性恋甚至动物。禁止闪避球游戏不过是大势变化的风向标。

    在持续不断的“权利”运动的努力下，暴力终于成为一种丑恶诱惑，在很多情况下甚至成为犯罪。这一连串权利运动包括民权、女权、儿童权利、同性恋权利和动物权利。这些运动在20世纪下半叶相继而至，我将它们统称为“权利革命”。从图7-1可以看到这个时代权利要求传播蔓延的情况。图中给出了1948—2000年英文图书中涉及权利内容的比重（相当于2000年同类图书的比重，其中包含民权、女权、儿童权利、同性恋权利和动物权利）。之所以选择1948年作为起点，是因为那一年联合国通过了《世界人权宣言》。

    “民权”和“女权”两个词出现在权利时代之前，这些理念在19世纪就已经成为国民认同的良知。1962—1969年是美国民权运动高峰时期，标志是几次极为戏剧性的法律胜利。当民权运动刚刚告一段落，女权运动开始升温，紧接着是儿童权利和20世纪70年代的同性恋权利，最后是动物权利。这些交错迭起的运动告诉我们，每一个后来者都汲取了先驱者的经验，接过某些成功的战术和口号，最重要的是，继续了前人的道德理性。

    图7-1 1948—2000年，使用民权、女权、儿童权利、同性恋权利、动物权利等术语的英文图书

    资料来源：“书虫项目”米奇等人对谷歌图书数字化的500万册图书进行的分析，2011年。“书虫”是比“谷歌全球书籍词频统计器”（Google Ngram Viewer）更有效的分析工具，它在书中搜索字符串，在分析字符串在语料库中的比重之外，还可以分析该字符串在书中所占的比重。以2000年的水平为100，图中的曲线是包含每一个权利词汇的图书比重的5年移动平均线，显示各年此类图书对应2000年的百分比。

    在两个世纪前的人道主义革命中，知识分子对陈规陋习的反思推动了一系列社会改革，每一个进步都是人文主义思想的升华。这些个体的思索超越自身肤色、阶级和国籍，有时硕果累累，有时也是非常痛苦的。和当时相比，个人权利的概念现在已经发生了飞跃。如果一个有感知力的个体所拥有的生存、自由和追求幸福的权利不受其肤色的影响，那为什么它要受其他特征，例如性别、年龄、性取向甚至物种的影响呢？在一些特定的时刻和地点，碍于陈规陋习和粗野的兽性，人们还是无法接受这一逻辑推理的结论，但在一个开放社会中，权利运动已经是不可阻挡的大趋势。

    权利革命重新审视了人道主义革命的某些议题，同时也回归了文明进程的某些主题。在向现代化的过渡中，尽管经历了旨在抑制暴力的种种变革，但人们当时未必认识到这些过程的真正意义。当欧洲人掌握了各种自制方式后的时候，他们感觉自己变得文明了、讲礼貌了，而没有意识到自己正置身于促使凶杀率下降的社会运动之中。今天，我们很少去思考习俗背后的理由，比如，厌倦了晚餐桌上食客随手杀来杀去的血腥场面，所以我们直到今天也不能用餐刀吃豌豆。同样，我们早已忘记美国保守州虔信宗教和崇尚“家庭价值”，最早是为了驯化牛仔镇上和矿工营地内天天打架斗殴的男人。

    围剿暴力的行动连连获胜，防止虐待和忽视儿童的努力已经持续了整整一个世纪，禁止闪避球只是这场决赛获胜之后的一个多余动作罢了。它提醒我们，文明攻势之下，我们的文化仍带有各种不可思议的习俗、缺陷和禁忌。权利革命造就了一套深入人心的礼仪规制，我们将其称为“政治正确”。

    权利革命还有另外一个古怪的遗产。我们将会看到，因为权利革命，各种类型的暴力都呈现大规模的稳定减少。但是，很多人拒绝承认这种胜利，部分原因是他们忽视了统计数据，还有一部分原因是，鉴于过去痛苦的经验，活动家为了继续维持压力而不愿意承认成功。第一代民权人士奋起反抗时，种族压迫的具体形式是私刑、夜袭、种族仇杀，以及在投票站对黑人进行赤裸裸的恐吓。今天最典型的种族歧视，也许是高速公路上美国非洲裔司机被警察叫停。[克拉伦斯·托马斯（Clarence Thomas）认为，虽然1991年他得到了最高法院大法官的任命，但那场众说纷纭的国会听证简直就是一场“高科技私刑”。整场戏充满了低级趣味，当然，这最终证明我们已经取得了极大的进步。]过去，对妇女的压迫体现在丈夫可以合法地强奸、殴打和禁锢妻子；而今天，如果某个一流大学工程系的教授不是男女各占一半的话，就是歧视女性。同性恋权利运动开始于废除法律中对同性恋男子进行处决、残害和监禁的规定，现在则要废除将婚姻限制为一男一女之间的合约的法律。这并不意味着我们应该就此满足现状，或者贬低为继续消除歧视和偏见所做的努力。我要说的是，权利运动的第一个目标是使人们免于暴力伤害和丧命。这些胜利即使并不全面，我们仍然应该承认、赞赏并且试图加以理解。

    私刑和种族迫害的减少与民权

    在提起美国民权运动的时候，大部分人想起来的是20年来的新闻大事记。自1948年起，杜鲁门结束了美国军队中的种族隔离政策；整个50年代，民权运动节节推进，最高法院禁止学校实行种族分校，罗莎·帕克斯因在公交车上拒绝向白人男子让座而被捕，马丁·路德·金为声援罗莎组织抵制公交车运动；60年代初期，民权运动达到高峰，20万人在华盛顿举行游行集会，聆听马丁·路德·金发表历史上最著名的演讲；接着就是1965年通过《投票权法案》，以及1964年和1968年通过的两项民权法案。

    在这几次辉煌的胜利之前，还有很多虽然没有这样响亮，但同样意义重大的成就。马丁·路德·金的著名演讲是这样开篇的：“100年前，一位伟大的美国人——今天我们就站在他象征性的身影下——签署了《奴隶解放宣言》……对于千百万黑奴，它犹如燃烧着希望之光的巨大灯塔。”然而，“100年后，黑人依然没有自由”。在整整一个世纪中，非裔美国人未能行使自己权利的原因是，他们受到暴力的威胁。不仅是政府运用武力推行种族隔离和其他歧视性法规，非裔美国人被“社群间冲突”（或“社区间冲突”）形式的暴力围困在原地难以脱身。所谓“社群间冲突”，即按种族、氏族、宗教或者语言划分的一个公民群体攻击另一个公民群体。在美国的很多地方，非裔家庭受到有组织的流氓团伙（例如“三K党”）的恐怖欺凌。私刑是指暴徒公然对其他人实施酷刑甚至极刑。种族迫害是指一伙暴徒对另一个社区大肆骚扰破坏甚至谋杀，也称致命种族骚乱。这样的案例数不胜数。

    政治学家唐纳德·霍洛维茨（Donald Horowitz）在其有关致命种族骚乱的权威著作中，研究了50个国家的150宗有关社群间暴力的报告，他总结出了这些冲突的共性。[3]种族骚乱除了本身的性质外，还具有种族灭绝和恐怖主义两种特征。但与这两种集体暴力不同，这样的骚乱虽然有赖于政府同情和姑息侵犯者，却没有预先计划，没有精心构建的意识形态，也不是某位领袖统一构思蓝图，然后由政府或武装力量尽力实施。种族骚乱与种族灭绝有一样的心理根源。一个集团用某种特征对另一个集团的成员定性，并视这些成员低人一等，或者认为他们天性邪恶，甚或两者兼而有之。暴民集结成团伙，可能出于霍布斯式的恐惧，担心会受到攻击而抢先下手，也可能出于报复，宣称为了对方某种卑鄙的罪行而进行复仇。用来挑动愤怒的所谓威胁和罪行通常是流言、谣传或者赤裸裸的编造。暴民满腔仇恨，下手如恶魔般残酷。他们常常烧毁或荡平对方的产业，而不是仅仅抢掠。他们并不在意追查被指控的罪犯，而是针对社群中的所有人，随意地实施杀戮、强奸、折磨和致残。通常，暴徒的武器并不是枪，而是刀棍。当然，行凶者大多是男青年，他们在狂欢中施暴，事后对所见所闻毫无愧疚，认为自己的行动不过是对不可容忍的挑衅的正义回击。遭受打击的族群不会因一次种族骚乱而毁灭，但是骚乱造成的死亡数量远远高于死于恐怖主义袭击的人数。种族骚乱的平均死亡人数约为12人，但也可以多到几百人、几千人甚至几万人（如果是全国性骚乱，比如1947年印巴分治后的情况）。致命的种族骚乱是种族灭绝的有效战术，它可以让数以百万计的人因恐惧而逃离家园，成为流离失所的难民。和恐怖主义一样，致命骚乱会带来巨大的财产损失和恐惧，往往会触发军管、被民主制度扼杀、军事政变和分裂战争。[4]

    暴力种族骚乱并非20世纪的新事物。欧洲有着上千年对犹太社区进行杀戮的历史，迫害（pogrom）一词来自俄文，原是用来描述19世纪俄国犹太聚居区内经常发生的反犹暴乱。在17世纪和18世纪的英格兰，发生过数百起针对天主教徒的暴力骚乱。议会通过了《骚乱法》（The Riot Act），凡遇骚乱，地方行政长官控制群众的办法就是高声宣读法令，威胁暴徒说如果不立即解散将会面临死刑。[5]

    美国历史上也充满社群间暴力。在17、18和19世纪的美国，几乎每一个宗教团体都曾经受到暴徒团伙的攻击，清教徒、贵格会、天主教徒、摩门教徒和犹太教徒，还有移民族群，例如德国移民、波兰移民、意大利人和爱尔兰人，毫无例外。[6]我们在第6章中已经看到，有些迫害美洲原住民的社群暴力如此之彻底，完全可以被归入种族灭绝。虽然美国联邦政府没有从事任何蓄意的种族灭绝行动，但是它确实执行了几次种族灭绝。“五大开化部落”被迫离开它们在东南部的故园，沿着“泪水之路”向西迁徙到今日的俄克拉何马，一路上有上万人死于疾病、饥饿和酷暑严寒。20世纪40年代，数十万日裔美国人被关进集中营，仅仅因为他们和与美国交战的国家同属一个民族。

    然而，受政府纵容的社群间暴力之害时间最长的还是非裔美国人。[7]我们也许以为私刑主要是美国南方的一种现象，事实上，两次最残酷的私刑事件均发生在纽约市：一次是1741年，当时流言四起，说黑人奴隶将发动起义，许多黑人被送上火刑堆活活烧死；还有一次是1863年的征兵暴动（2002年的电影《纽约黑帮》讲述的就是这个故事），暴动中至少50人被私刑处死。在美国南方内战后的几年之间，有数以千计的黑人被害，甚至在20世纪初期，至少有25个城市发生过杀戮10人以上的种族骚乱事件。[8]

    19世纪中叶，欧洲的暴乱开始减少。而美国一直要到19世纪末，暴力骚乱才开始慢慢消失，20世纪20年代才出现终结的迹象。[9]詹姆斯·佩恩使用美国人口普查局的数据将美国的私刑统计制成图表，数据的起始年份是1882年，从1890年起直到20世纪40年代，私刑暴力一路减少（图7-2）。在这几十年间，新闻中不时仍有私刑事件的报道，配上令人毛骨悚然的照片——吊着的尸体和被烧焦的尸体，“全国有色人种促进会”等人权团体和活动家也在散发有关私刑的资料和图片。一位中学教师阿贝尔·米若珀尔（Abel Meeropol）看到了一张1930年印第安纳州两个黑人男子被吊死的照片，他在激愤之下写出这样的诗句：

    南方之树结出奇异的果实，

    绿叶滴着鲜血，树根也浸泡在血里，

    黑黝黝的躯体在南方的晨风中摇荡，

    白杨树枝上吊着怪异的果实。

    图7-2 1882—1969年美国的私刑数量

    资料来源：佩恩制图，2004年，第182页。

    （在朱利叶斯和埃塞尔·卢森堡夫妇因向苏联传递核武情报而被处决后，米若珀尔和妻子安领养了卢森堡夫妇的两个儿子。）米若诺珀尔给诗句谱了曲子，此歌成为比利·霍利迪的当家歌曲，《时代周刊》在1999年将其称为“世纪之歌”。[10]我们总是能碰到一些神秘的时刻，暴力私刑处于高峰时，大多数人保持沉默，而当私刑情况已经没有早期那样严重的时候，却爆发了大规模的抗议示威。最后一个引起人们关注的私刑案例发生在1955年，密西西比14岁的埃米特·蒂尔被绑架、殴打、致残，最后被杀害，因为据说他冲一名白人妇女吹了声口哨。全部由白人组成的陪审团敷衍了事，宣判凶手无罪。

    20世纪90年代末，人们一度担忧私刑有卷土重来的势头，当时确实有几件谋杀案令举国震惊。1998年，得克萨斯的3个种族主义分子绑架了非裔人小詹姆斯·伯德。他们殴打他，直到他不省人事，再用铁链一头拴住他的脚脖子，另一头铐在皮卡后面，卡车拖着小伯德在硬路面上行驶了3英里，他的身体破碎，被摔进阴沟。鬼鬼祟祟的谋杀不同于一个世纪前的私刑，当年对黑人实行私刑可以是整个社区的狂欢节，而今天所有人都知道私刑就是犯罪。就在小伯德谋杀案发生的几年前，联邦调查局开始收集仇恨犯罪的数据。所谓仇恨犯罪是指暴力指向特定的种族、宗教和性取向。自1996年以来，联邦调查局每年发表有关统计报告，我们由此可以看出小伯德案是否代表一个令人忧虑的新趋势。[11]图7-3显示了1996—2008年因种族原因被谋杀的非裔美国人的人数。竖轴上的数字不是每10万人口的谋杀率，而是谋杀的实际数。1996年，即报告发布的第一年，5名非裔因种族原因被谋杀。自那时以来，谋杀人数减少到每年1个人。在一个每年发生1.7万起谋杀案的国家，这个仇恨谋杀的人数小到几乎可以忽略不计，仅仅是一个统计噪声罢了。

    图7-3 1996—2008年非裔美国人因仇恨被谋杀的人数

    资料来源：联邦调查局《仇恨犯罪统计》年度报告，见美国联邦调查局，2010年a。

    当然，更常见的是那些不太严重的暴力，例如恶性攻击（攻击者使用武器或造成伤残）、单纯人身攻击，以及恐吓（让受害者感到人身安全受到威胁）。尽管种族仇恨事件的绝对数量令人警惕，每年仍有数百起伤害案、恶性攻击案和上千起恐吓案，我们仍必须将它们放在同期美国犯罪数量的大背景下——美国每年的恶性攻击案高达100万起，以种族为动机的恶性攻击在其中（每年10万分之322）仅占0.5%，甚至低于任一谋杀案件的概率。正如图7-4所展示的，自1996年以来，3种仇恨犯罪的数量都在下降。

    图7-4 1996—2008年针对非裔美国人的非恶性仇恨犯罪

    资料来源：数据来自美国联邦调查局《仇恨犯罪统计》年度报告，见美国联邦调查局，2010年a。犯罪案的数量占非裔美国人口中的比重，非裔美国人口为总人口乘以0.129，这一非裔美国人口比重来自2000年美国人口普查。

    随着私刑消亡，对黑人的种族迫害也消失了。霍洛维茨发现，在20世纪下半叶的西方，他所关注的“致命种族骚乱”主题即将寿终正寝。[12]60年代中期在洛杉矶、纽瓦克、底特律和其他美国城市发生的种族暴动已经是全新的现象：非裔美国人不再是暴力的目标，而是暴力的参与者；骚乱的死亡人数很少（死者主要是被警察打死的暴乱参与者）；暴乱的袭击目标主要是财产，而不是人身。[13]1950年之后，美国再没有发生过针对单一种族或族群的骚乱；在美国之外的西方，例如加拿大、比利时、科西嘉、加泰罗尼亚或者巴斯克地区这些存在族群摩擦的地方，也再没有发生过这样的骚乱。[14]

    * * *

    20世纪50年代末和60年代初确实发生过迫害黑人的暴力事件，但形式有所不同。人们没有觉得这些攻击和“恐怖主义”有什么关系，但事实上，它们具备恐怖活动的全部特征：直接针对平民，伤亡数量有限，宣传效果显著，以恐吓为目的，有明确的政治企图——阻止南方的去种族隔离化。与其他恐怖主义的攻势一样，当种族隔离主义分子的恐怖活动越过一个界限，成为彻头彻尾的邪恶，公众将全部同情给予受害者的时候，种族主义也就走到了尽头。公众从报道中看到，为了阻止黑人孩子进入白人学校，丑陋的暴徒向黑人孩子投掷秽物，进行死亡威胁。有些事件给人的印象之深刻，已经成为时代的文化记忆，比如在新奥尔良开学的第一天，6岁的小女孩鲁比·尼尔·布里奇斯在联邦法警的护送下走向学校。当时，约翰·斯坦贝克（John Steinbeck）为了写作回忆录《横越美国》（Travels with Charley）驾车穿过美国大陆，他刚好抵达绰号为“快活之都”的新奥尔良市：

    两辆车子里各走出4名体格魁梧的联邦法院执行官，然后不知道从车子里的什么地方，他们拎出了一个小小的黑人女孩儿，那是大家见过的个子最小的黑人小女孩儿。她穿着浆过的白得晃眼的衬衫，脚上的白色新鞋好小，小得几乎呈圆形。在白色的衬托下，她的脸和两条小小的腿显得特别黑。

    魁梧的执行官让她站在路边，路障后面响起了一片刺耳的嘲弄声。小女孩儿并没有朝咆哮的群众望过去，但从她眼角的眼白所流露出的表情，让人觉得她像只受到惊吓的小鹿。执行官把她像个洋娃娃般扭过来，然后这列奇怪的队伍开始在宽广的人行道上朝学校的方向移动。陪同的人员实在太过魁梧，因此孩子显得格外瘦小。接着，小女孩儿不寻常地跳了一下，我想我知道她这么做的原因。我猜小女孩儿长到这么大，一定从来没有不蹦不跳地好好走过十步路，但这时的她，刚刚开始蹦跳，跳到一半的时候，就被压迫感压住了。她的两只小圆脚踩着慎重、不情愿的脚步，走在高大的护卫者之间。这一行人慢慢爬上阶梯，进入学校。[15]

    这一事件也因1964年《展望》（Look）杂志刊出的一幅画而永垂史册。诺曼·洛克威尔（Norman Rockwell）的这幅名画题为“我们共同的难题”。而诺曼·洛克威尔的名字几乎等同于理想化的美国的感性形象。1963年，伯明翰市的一间刚刚举办了民权会议的教堂发生爆炸，4名正在教堂主日学校上学的黑人女孩遇难。这件事触动了很多人的良知。同年，民权工作者梅德加·埃弗斯被三K党杀死；次年，詹姆斯·钱尼、安德鲁·古德曼和迈克尔·施韦纳被杀害。除了暴徒和恐怖分子的恶行之外，还有政府暴力。正直的罗莎·帕克斯和马丁·路德·金被投入监狱，和平的示威者遭到水枪、警犬、鞭子和棍棒的袭击，所有美国人都能够通过电视看到这些场面。

    1965年之后，对民权运动的抵抗日渐式微，反黑人暴乱成为遥远的记忆，没有任何社区和团体再愿意支持针对黑人的恐怖活动。90年代，有报道指美国南方发生了数起烧毁黑人教堂的事件，这引起了社会的关注，但结果发现事实有很大出入。[16]所以，尽管媒体特别不会放过仇恨犯罪的新闻，但是谢天谢地，在今天的美国，此类犯罪确实越来越罕见了。在其他国家，以少数族裔为目标的私刑和种族暴动也在减少。

    * * *

    如果“9·11”恐怖袭击事件、伦敦和马德里的爆炸案发生在几十年前，都会成为在西方世界触发反穆斯林骚动的导火索。但是，这些事件都没有引发暴乱，有人权组织回顾2008年的反穆斯林暴力，在西方国家找不出一例以仇恨穆斯林为动机的命案。[17]

    霍洛维茨认为，西方恶性种族骚乱的消亡出于以下几个原因：第一是政府管治。参加暴乱的人特别在意自己的安全，知道何时警方对他们睁一只眼闭一只眼，因此他们很清楚何时必须放弃攻击受害者。行动迅速的执法队伍可以平息暴乱，并将族群间复仇的骚动消灭在萌芽状态，但行动必须有预案。因为地方警察通常和施暴者属于同一族群，很可能对暴徒抱有同情，所以在镇压暴乱方面，使用专业化的国家武力比使用社区警力更有效。但是防暴警察可能造成更多死亡，他们必须经过使用最小武力驱散暴徒的严格训练。[18]

    导致恶性种族暴乱消亡的另一个原因比较难界定：人们对暴力越来越厌恶，甚至无法容忍最小的暴力动机。我们前面说过，种族灭绝和恶性种族暴乱的主要风险因素是本质主义心理学，即将一个群体的成员视为无意识的障碍物，令人恶心的寄生虫，或者贪婪、恶毒或异端的恶棍。这些态度一旦成为政府政策，即丹尼尔·戈德哈根（Daniel Goldhagen）所说的排除主义政策，或芭芭拉·哈尔夫的排他性政策，政府就很可能执行种族隔离，强制同化，甚至实施非常极端的驱逐和种族灭绝。泰德·罗伯特·格尔表示，即使是非极端性的歧视政策，也是引发内战等种族暴力冲突的危险因素。[19]

    让我们来设想一下如何设计与歧视性政策针锋相对的新政策。它们不仅要废止将某个少数民族置于不利地位的法规，还要矫枉过正，走到另一个极端，强制性地执行反排挤反歧视政策，例如黑白同校，更好更早的受教育机会，在政府职位、企业就业和教育机会上实行种族或民族配额。这些政策一般被称为补偿性歧视，在美国就是人们所说的平权行动。不论这些政策是否起到了防范种族灭绝和种族迫害的作用，它们彻底纠正了发达国家对过去造成或容忍暴力的排挤政策。而这些纠错政策正在成为世界性的大趋势。

    在一份名为“1950—2003年种族政治歧视的减少”的报告中，政治学家维克托·阿萨尔（Victor Asal）和埃米·佩特（Amy Pate）审视了1950年以来124个国家中337个少数族裔的状况。[20]（这一研究和我们在第6章看到的哈尔夫数据库的结论相同。）阿萨尔和佩特将对少数民族实行政治歧视政策和反歧视政策的国家绘制成图。如图7-5所示，在1950年，44%的国家有歧视性的政府政策；但到2003年，只有19%的国家还保留这样的政策，而有更多国家开始了补偿性反歧视政策。

    阿萨尔和佩特分地区检视数据时发现，美国和欧洲的少数族裔的处境最好，几乎已经没有任何官方的政策歧视。在亚洲、北非、撒哈拉以南的非洲，尤其是中东地区，虽然自冷战以来情况都有所改善，但少数族裔仍然受到合法的歧视。[21]作者总结说：“各国政府的正式歧视政策都在减少。这一趋势始自20世纪60年代末期的西方民主国家，到90年代，终于波及世界的各个角落。”[22]

    图7-5 1950—2003年实行种族歧视政策和平权政策的国家

    资料来源：阿萨尔和佩特绘图，2005年。

    * * *

    不仅政府官方的歧视政策逐渐减少，普通人将少数族裔非人化和妖魔化的意识也在逐渐改变。许多知识分子仍然不相信这个判断，他们始终认为美国的种族主义根深蒂固，难以被消灭。但贯穿本书，我们已经看到，人类历史上的每一次道德进步，都有社会评论家出来指责说世界从来没有像现在这样糟糕过。1968年，政治学家安德鲁·哈克（Andrew Hacker）预测，非裔美国人即将起义，开始“爆炸桥梁和供水管，焚烧大楼，刺杀政客和名流，当然间或还会举行大规模的暴动”。[23]虽然他既没有看见爆炸桥梁也没有看见暴动，但他仍然在1992年出版的《两个国家：黑与白，分裂，敌对，不平等》（Two Natiens: Black and White, Separate, Hostile, Unequal）一书中坚称：“种族之间横亘着一条巨大的鸿沟，没有任何迹象表明我们能够在百年之内弥合这条裂缝。”[24]在20世纪90年代那10年内，奥普拉·温弗瑞、迈克尔·乔丹、柯林·鲍威尔不断在民调中被提名最受尊重的美国人之列，但在出版物中，有关种族关系的描述仍然非常沉重。比如，法学家德里克·贝尔（Derrick Bell）1992年的著作《种族主义的持久性》（The Permanence of Racism）的副标题是“种族主义是我们社会中所必需的、永久的和难以摧毁的组成部分”。[25]

    社会学家劳伦斯·波波（Lawrence Bobo）和他的同事决定亲自检测美国白人对非裔美国人的态度。[26]他们发现，歧视并非坚不可摧，事实上，公开的种族主义已经完全土崩瓦解。图7-6显示，在20世纪40年代和50年代早期，大多数美国人承认他们反对黑人孩子进入白人学校；在60年代初，几乎有半数人表示如果有黑人家庭搬进隔壁，他们就会搬家；到80年代，持此类态度的人不足10%。

    图7-6 1942—1997年美国人对种族隔离的态度

    资料来源：“黑白分校”：数据来自舒曼（Schuman）、斯迪（Steeh）和波波，1997年，使用芝加哥大学国家意见研究中心（National Opinion Research Center）采集的原始数据。“将会搬家”：数据来自舒曼、斯迪和波波，1997年，使用盖洛普咨询公司采集的原始数据。

    图7-7告诉我们，在50年代，只有5%的白人认可异族通婚；90年代末，2/3的人接受异族婚姻；到2008年，这个数字达到近80%。对于“黑人是否能从事任何工作”这样的问题，70年代初期就很少有人还做出带有种族偏见的回答，以至于民调问卷中不再列出这些问题。[27]

    同时，种族非人性化和妖魔化的信念也在消失。在美国白人中，这些成见由来已久；他们一向认为非裔美国人懒惰，而且智商低于白人。但在过去20年中，持有这种偏见的美国人的比重一直在下降；今天，认为能力低下导致不平等的人，其人数之少，可以忽略不计（图7-8）。

    图7-7 1958—2008年美国白人对异族婚姻的态度

    资料来源：“不赞成”：数据来自舒曼、斯迪和波波，1997年，使用盖洛普咨询公司采集的原始数据。“反对”：数据来自“综合社会调查”（General Social Survey）。

    图7-8 1977—2006年不利于非裔美国人的态度

    资料来源：波波和道森（Dawson）的数据，2009年，原始数据来自“综合社会调查”。

    宗教不宽容的现象也在持续减少。1924年，在一所美国中产阶级学区的高中内，91%的学生同意这样的表述：“基督教是唯一真正的宗教，所有人都应该皈依基督教。”到1980年，只有38%的学生同意这样的说法。1996年，62%的清教徒和74%的天主教徒同意“所有的宗教一样好”——而他们的上一代人对这样的问题只会感到困惑，更不要说16世纪的教徒了。[28]

    对少数族裔的任何非人化和妖魔化的态度都会引起极大的反感，这是民调数字所无法反映的。这种态度已经改变了西方的文化、政府、体育运动和日常生活的方方面面。美国在过去50年一直在努力清除流行文化中积存的种族主义印记。首先是贬低非裔美国人形象的音乐剧，比如《阿莫斯与安迪》（Amos’n’ Andy）和《小淘气》（Little Rascals）；其次是电影，迪士尼的《南方之歌》（Song of the South）和许多“兔八哥”动画片。[29]在商标、广告、庭院装饰中，歧视性的漫画形象也逐渐消失了。民权运动的高峰是美国社会反种族歧视的转折点，反对歧视非裔的禁忌，开始扩展到反对歧视其他少数族裔。记得1964年我还是孩子的时候，刚刚推出一种系列混合冲泡饮品，各种果味分别命名是“笨葡萄”“大嘴青柠”“中国樱桃”“老印第安橙子”，几种水果被画成丑陋怪异的卡通人脸。出品的时间可是太不凑巧了。两年后，最后两种味道的饮品被改名为没有种族色彩的“乔乔樱桃”和“快乐奥利橙”。[30]我们现在经常还能看到球队更换队名，原来的很多队名都带有对美国原住民的成见。最近改名的球队是北达科他大学的美式橄榄球“善战苏人队”。在主流公共论坛上，贬损性的种族玩笑，对少数族裔不敬的词汇，没心没肺地调侃种族相貌差异，都已经是不能被接受的禁忌，好几位政客和媒体人因为失言丢掉了自己的饭碗。比如，2002年，美国参议院少数党领袖特伦特·洛特（Trent Lott）发表了赞扬参加1948年总统竞选的斯特罗姆·瑟蒙德（Strom Thurmond）的言论，而瑟蒙德当年公开宣称自己持种族隔离主义立场。洛特自己所属的共和党纷纷对其言论表示愤怒，他随即被迫辞职。

    对任何可能导致种族暴力的迹象保持高度警惕，防范暴力的行为也界定了可以思想和可以言说的界限。如果我们认同不以肤色而以品格作为判断人的标准，那我们就很难为种族优惠和种族配额政策辩护。

    但是没有一个负责人愿意取消这些政策，因为人们认识到，取消这些优惠政策，将削弱非裔美国人在专业领域的地位，可能再次导致社会两极化。所以，每当法庭裁决种族优惠政策非法，或在公决中被否决，它们总是改头换面以平权行动和“多样化”的委婉形式回到原来的地方。（比如，大学入学录取考虑的是每一所高中内最优秀的学生，而不是全国范围内最优秀的学生。）

    学生入学之后，对种族主义的警觉仍未放松。许多大学要求新生参加特殊的培训班，在培训班上，要求学生检讨下意识的种族主义，并规定言论准则，禁用任何引起少数族裔反感的言辞，尽管如果有人将这些言论准则告上法庭，法庭总是裁决这些准则违宪。[31]有些反“种族骚扰”的案件本身已经成了笑料。在印第安纳大学，一名学生因为阅读一本讲述打败三K党的读物而被判种族歧视，因为图书的封面上印有三K党党徒的形象；布兰迪斯大学的一名教授在讲课时提到“湿背人”（wetback，从墨西哥到美国的移民，尤指偷渡者）一词而被判有罪，但他授课的内容就是有关对美国西裔的歧视问题。[32]一些被视为对种族问题缺少敏感意识的小事，比如1993年宾夕法尼亚大学一名学生向通宵狂欢的人抗议，他叫喊了一句“闭嘴，你这只大水牛”。这原本不过是来自他老家希伯来语中对流氓无赖的一种俗称，但在大学引起轩然大波，因为人们以为这是一个种族性的新绰号。学校当即停摆，每个人都经历了从感到震撼、检讨到再一次刷洗自己灵魂的过程。[33]矫情到这种地步，我能给出的唯一辩护是，为了当今美国空前之种族和睦，付出如此代价也是值得的。（尽管正是由于这种虚伪的矫情，这些人决不承认美国已经处在种族和睦之中。）

    我在《白板》一书中表示过，对种族仇视的过度恐惧已经扭曲了社会科学研究；在先天和养育的天平上，重重地将砝码加在养育一边；无视人性中某些偏见并非与种族差异有关，而是所有物种均有的特性。有一种潜在的恐惧，似乎如果人性中某种东西是与生俱来的，那么它就可能是种族和族群之间的差异。反之，如果人出生时头脑是一块白板，那么所有人出生时的头脑都应该是一模一样的白板。有些讽刺意味的是，因政治原因拒绝承认人类的天性，这透露出对某种特别阴暗的人性理论（人类将永远在种族敌意的边缘上徘徊，因此必须动员所有的文化资源以抵抗这一天性）的默认。

    妇女权利与强奸、家暴的减少

    回顾暴力的历史，我们总是震撼于某些在今天不齿于人类的暴力，在往昔却另有一番风景。

    强奸的历史就是其中之一。在漫长的人类历史大戏中，强奸是最主要的暴力情节。它不仅带来痛苦，而且带来耻辱、恐怖和精神创伤，它粗暴地霸占女子延续生命的手段，甚至肆无忌惮地介入她繁衍的后代。强奸也是最常见的暴行。人类学家唐纳德·布朗（Donald Brown）总结了一系列人类的共性，强奸名列其中，有关强奸的记载遍布各个国家和地区的史册。希伯来《圣经》告诉我们，一名被强奸的女子可以被她的兄弟卖给强奸者，士兵有权强奸年轻的女俘虏，国王可以拥有多达数千个嫔妃。在亚马孙部落，在荷马时代的古希腊，在中世纪的欧洲，在百年战争期间的英格兰，强奸随处可见。在莎翁的戏剧中，亨利五世警告法国村民立即投降，否则他们的“闺女（将）落入奸淫者火热的手中”。无论在世界哪个角落，凡发生种族灭绝和种族迫害之时，都伴随着大规模的强奸，比如在波斯尼亚、卢旺达和刚果民主共和国所发生的惨案。武力入侵之后也经常发生强奸暴行，例如第一次世界大战中德国入侵比利时，第二次世界大战中日本入侵中国和苏联占领东欧国家，以及巴基斯坦在孟加拉独立战争期间。[34]

    布朗注意到，强奸是人类的共性，因此禁止强奸也是人类的共性。不过，我们必须承认，纵观世界历史，很少有人从受害者的角度认识强奸所造成的伤害。《十诫》中没有一条是“不准强奸”，虽然第十条提到了妇女在当时世界的地位：妻子列在夫家的财产清单上，名位在房产之后，在侍女和牲畜之前。《圣经》还告诉我们，已婚妇女遭到强暴，相当于她犯下通奸罪，可以被石刑处死，伊斯兰教法一直延续了这一传统。强奸不是被当作对女性的侵犯，而被认为是对男人——女子的父亲、丈夫或者主人（如果女子是奴隶的话）的冒犯。全世界的道德标准和法律制度对强奸的定义几乎一模一样。[35]强奸，是从一名父亲那里盗窃女儿的童贞，或者是从一名丈夫那里夺走妻子的贞洁。施暴者可以通过买下受害者做自己的妻子的方式来赎过。妇女要为被强奸而受惩罚。对丈夫、领主、奴隶主和妓院老板来说，强奸是他们的特权。在战争中，强奸则是合理合法的战利品。

    在中世纪的欧洲，当国家开始制定统一的刑法制度，强奸从对父亲或丈夫的侵权行为转变为对国家的犯罪；表面上看，政府代表妇女的利益，但实际上，法律的天平一直向被告倾斜。因为控告虚假强奸易、为强奸辩护难这一事实，让人们将艰巨的举证负担全部压到强奸受害者的身上，在许多法规中将强奸受害者称为“女起诉人”（或“女原告”）。有时，法官和律师声称，一名女子不可能被迫发生违反本人意愿的性交，因为“你不可能给一根晃动的针穿上线”。[36]警察经常将强奸案当作玩笑，不是向受害人追问色情的细节，就是调侃受害人说，“有谁会愿意强奸你呢？”或者，“被强奸无非就是妓女没有拿到嫖客的钱”。[37]在法庭上，妇女经常发现自己和被告一起受审，不得不证明自己没有挑逗、鼓励和同意强奸者。在许多国家，妇女不能担任性犯罪案件的陪审员，因为她们会为证词感到“难为情”。[38]

    从现代道德观念来看，人类历史上强奸之普遍和法制对强奸受害者之忽视是完全不可思议的。但在启蒙时代人文主义塑造新道德观念之前，从在人类进化中形成欲望和情感的遗传利益来看，强奸和对强奸的忽视又是那样顺理成章。强奸涉及三方，三方各有自己的利益：强奸者、与这个女子有特殊利害关系的男子和女子本人。[39]

    进化心理学家和许多激进女权主义者都认为，强奸受人类性行为的经济学主导。正如女权主义作家安德烈娅·德沃金（Andrea Dworkin）所说，“一个男人想得到女人拥有的东西——性。他可以偷（强奸），可以请求索取（诱惑），可以租借（嫖妓），可以长期租赁（美国的婚姻），也可以彻底拥有（大部分社会中的婚姻）”。[40]进化心理学家则对支撑这些交易的资源进行了分析。如果在一个物种的繁衍生育中，一个性别的生育速度快于另一个性别，生育较慢的性别就会成为较快一方竞争的稀缺资源。[41]在哺乳动物和许多鸟类中，雌性的生育过程更缓慢，除了妊娠期，哺乳动物还有哺乳期。当雌性成为更有权挑剔的性别，接近雌性所受的限制就被雄性视为必须克服的障碍。在许多物种中，包括大猩猩、猩猩和黑猩猩，都能看到雄性对雌性的骚扰、恐吓和强迫交配。[42]说到人类，当某些风险因素同时存在时，男性就有可能使用武力进行交配，这些因素是：他具有暴戾、残忍和冲动的性格；他作为失败者无法用其他方式吸引女性；他被排斥在集体之外，因此无须担忧在社群内的名誉；以及他意识到他不会为此受到惩罚的时候，比如在征服和迫害行动中。[43]大约5%的强奸会导致怀孕，这说明强奸给强奸者带来进化优势：无论强奸表现出何种倾向性，人类进化的历史显然未曾淘汰这一行为，反而特别筛选留下了它。[44]当然，所有这些都不是说男人“天性要进行强奸”，也不是说强奸犯对控制犯罪“无能为力”，或者说强奸因其不可避免或情有可原而属于“自然”现象。但是，这些能够帮助我们解释，为什么强奸是所有人类社会都能见到的一种瘟疫。

    强奸还涉及受害女子的家庭，特别是她的父亲、兄弟和丈夫。在哺乳动物中，人类男性的不同寻常之处在于他喂养、保护和关照他的子女和子女的母亲。但是，从基因的角度看，这项投资颇具风险。如果这名男子的妻子有个秘密的情人，他就有可能在投资另一个男人的孩子；从进化上看，这无异于自杀。随着进化时间的推移，任何倾向于对妻子通奸无所谓的基因都会彻底败给那些对此保持高度警惕的基因。基因并不直接指挥人类的行为，它们通过塑造人头脑中的情感组成而发挥影响，在这里，这种情感就是性嫉妒。[45]男人想到自己的性伴侣不忠就会怒火中烧，因此他要采取防范措施，尽可能地消除背叛的可能性。措施之一是威胁她和她潜在的情人，并在必要的时候将威胁付诸行动。措施之二是控制女子的行动，削弱她释放女性优势的能力。父亲在展示他们对女儿的所有权时，看起来很像是嫉妒女儿的性能力。在某些传统社会，可以出售女儿换取聘礼，而处女是没有身怀其他男子血胤的保证，贞洁遂成为卖点。父亲，甚至兄弟和母亲，都会将家中女孩子的贞操视为珍贵的资源而加以守护。而年长的女性出于自己的利益，也有动力约束年轻女子的女性竞争力。

    当然，女人像男人一样会嫉妒自己的性伴侣，像生物学家一样能够从事实观察到男人只会关照自己的后代。一个男子的不忠带来的风险是，他对后代的投资会被其他女人和孩子分流；为了避免这样的风险，女子必须尽力阻止自己的男人移情别恋。但是，性伴侣不忠的成本对男女是不同的，人们已经发现，男性的嫉妒更无情、暴烈，更倾向于性不忠（而不是情感不忠）。[46]没有哪个社会的女性和姻亲会特别介意新郎的童贞。

    遗传利益形成的动机不会直接进入社会实践，但是这些动机促使人制定法规和确立习俗来保护这些利益。结果，男人彼此承认各自有权控制妻女的性能力，这成为世界各地都通行的法律和文化准则。人类的思维特别依赖形象的比喻，在女性的性能力这个问题上，最形象的比喻就是“财产”。[47]财产是一个极有弹性的概念，各种不同的社会都有法律规范对无形资产的占有权，例如领空、图像、曲调、短语、电磁频幅，甚至基因。所以，毫不奇怪，人们能够将财产的概念推向极端，强加在不可占有物的身上，即感知有自身利益的人，例如孩子、奴隶和妇女。

    马戈·威尔逊和马丁·戴利在他们的文章《将妻子误为财产的男人》中，记载了世界各地将妇女作为父亲和丈夫财产的传统法规。财产法赋予所有人不受限制地出售、交换和销毁其财产的权利，如果财产被别人盗窃或损坏，财产所有人可以指望社区承认他们有索偿的权利。在这样的社会契约中，没有妇女本人的利益，强奸成为对拥有妇女的男人的侵犯。强奸被定义为一种造成物品损害或者盗窃珍贵物品的侵权行为，正如我们知道强奸（rape）一词本身与破坏（ravage）、贪婪（rapacious）和侵占（usurp）等词同源。由此可以推定，如果一名女子不受有门第有财产的男人保护，她也就不受法律的保护，而丈夫强奸妻子是一种不合逻辑的指控，如同指控一个人盗窃自己的财产。

    男人为了保护财产，严厉地要求妇女为自己性价值的失窃和破坏承担责任。这种谴责受害者的逻辑，排除了任何将两相情愿的性关系解释为强奸的可能性，也导致妇女为躲避风险并不惜一切代价包括牺牲生命来抗拒强奸者。

    虽然将妇女作为财产的最肆无忌惮的比喻和修辞在中世纪末期就已停止使用，但直到最近，我们仍能在法律、习俗和情感中找到传统留下的范式。[48]订婚后的女子（不是男子）戴订婚戒指，表示她们“被采纳”；许多新娘在婚礼上由父亲“交给”她们的丈夫，并改变姓氏。直到20世纪70年代，婚内强奸在任何地方都不算犯罪，司法系统很少关注强奸案中妇女的利益。研究陪审团判案程序的法学家发现，陪审团仍然认为妇女要为自己被强奸承担疏于防护的责任，如果不提醒陪审团现代美国法律不接受这种概念，陪审团经常会根据这一民间理论做出不利于女性受害人的裁决。[49]至于感情方面的伤害，丈夫和男友往往毫不怜惜自己遭到强奸的伴侣，他们喜欢说：“我感到有什么东西永远失去了。我觉得被欺骗了。以前，她整个都是我的，但现在不再是这样了。”妇女因为被强奸而婚姻破裂的事例屡见不鲜。[50]

    最后，我们要来看看强奸的第三方：受害者。出于同样的遗传演进，男人在有些情况下具有强迫女人交配的倾向；受害人的家族则认为强奸是对整个家族的挑衅，而妇女应该抗拒并憎恶被强奸。[51]有性繁殖的性质决定了女性在演化中成为掌握性控制权的一方。她选择交配的时间、条件和伴侣，以保障子女尽可能得到最合适、最慷慨和最有保护能力的父亲，并在最合适的时间生育子女。但是，女性对生育的规划，不论有意还是无意，都不是一张会计报表，也不是她头脑里的一块可以机械地控制她全部行为的芯片。这正是人类在进化中生成某些情感的基础，在这件事上，即女性控制自己性事的决心，以及在受到暴力性侵犯后的极度痛苦。[52]

    强奸的历史，也就是女性的权益被排斥在形成风俗、制定道德准则和法律的社会协商过程之外。我们今天认为强奸是一种侵犯妇女的重罪，这种人文主义理念主导的情感代表了对女性权益的重新确认，将有意识的个体的苦难和个体的实现，而不是权力、传统或者宗教习俗作为道德的基础。而且，这一理念已经融入自主权原则：人对自己的身体有充分的权利，不是可以被他人协商交换的公用资源。[53]我们现在所理解的道德，不是在不愿被强奸的妇女、希望实施强奸的男子和企图垄断女子性能力的父亲和丈夫之间寻找平衡，新的价值观完全推翻了旧的传统，妇女对自己身体的拥有完整的决定权，所有其他各方的利益都是可以不予考虑的。（我们今天承认的唯一的折中权衡是刑事司法程序中被告的权利，因为被告的自主权也摇摇欲坠。）

    自主权原则也是启蒙运动中废奴、结束暴政、取消债务监狱和酷刑的关键性原则。强奸是施加在强奸受害者身上的暴行，这个在今天看来无可置疑的观念，却滞后于启蒙运动的其他成果，很晚才进入人们的头脑。在中世纪末期的英国法律中，已经有些案例试图平衡受害者的利益，但直到18世纪，这些法律才形成文字。[54]并非偶然，当时正是启蒙运动时代，人类历史上第一次出现了女权的觉醒。1700年，玛丽·阿斯特尔在一篇短文中将反对暴政和奴隶制的原则扩展到反对压迫妇女，她说：

    如果一个国家不需要绝对的权威，那么一个家庭呢？或者说，如果一个家庭需要绝对权威，为什么一个国家可以不需要呢？其中的道理不可能只适用于一个，而不适用于另一个……

    如果人皆生而自由，为什么所有的女人却生而为奴呢？仿佛她们只能臣服于男人变化无常的、不确定的、不清不楚的、武断的意志，只能成为完美的奴隶？[55]

    直到150年之后，阿斯特尔的观点才真正成为一场运动。女性主义的第一个浪潮以美国1848年的“塞尼卡福尔斯会议”（Seneca Falls Convention）开始，到1920年宪法第十九修正案结束，妇女得到了投票权、参加陪审团的权利、拥有婚姻财产的权利，以及离婚和受教育的权利。而对于强奸的态度和处理，则是在20世纪70年代的第二次女性主义浪潮中才发生的革命性变化。

    这在很大程度上要归功于女学者苏珊·布朗米勒（Susan Brownmiller）1975年的畅销书《违背我们的意愿》（Against Our Will），她在书中揭露了有史以来人类在宗教、法律、战争、奴隶制、政府政策和流行文化中对强奸的纵容。她还给出了有关强奸的统计数据，以及强奸受害人本人讲述被强暴和寻求司法公正的遭遇。如布朗米勒所说，社会的主流制度能够营造一种氛围，让强奸显得并非什么了不起的大事，比如常言所说“当你无法避免强奸的时候，不如乖乖躺好享受一番”，妇女的感受可以完全不存在。她写到，在20世纪60年代的逆文明潮流中，暴力被美化成具有浪漫色彩的反叛，性革命让淫荡成为文化高雅的标志。与女性相比，男性显然更崇尚暴力和性革命，更追求反叛和精致文化的结合，于是强奸几乎被视为一种时髦。布朗米勒的记录重现了在肤浅做作的文化背景下，一些强奸犯令人精神错乱的形象，还有那些假定读者对这些“英雄”充满同情的煽情评论。比如，斯坦利·库布里克（Stanley Kubrick）1971年的电影《发条橙》（A Clockwork Orange）塑造了一个热爱贝多芬的恶棍，他残忍地殴打受害者，并以在丈夫面前强奸他的妻子为乐。《新闻周刊》（Newsweek）的一位评论家欢呼说：

    从更深刻的意义上看，《发条橙》是对人类个性的一次探索，向我们宣告了什么才是真正的人……作为一个梦幻般的人物，阿利斯的魅力就是我们所有人身上都存在的某些黑暗和原始的东西。他的行为恰恰表达了我们对即兴式性满足的渴望，对释放愤怒和释放被压制的复仇本能的渴望，以及我们内心对冒险和刺激的需要。[56]

    布朗米勒说，影评家似乎忘记了电影观众不只是男性，还有女性：“我肯定，没有女性相信那个戴着匹诺曹大鼻子，拿着一把剪刀的小流氓表达了任何女性对即兴式性满足、复仇或者冒险的渴望。”但是我们不能指责影评家曲解了制片人的意图。库布里克本人以第一人称复数的形式解释了影片的诉求：

    阿利斯象征一个自然状态下的男人，如果社会没有将“文明化”强加在他的身上，他就是这样自由自在。我们下意识的反应是，阿利斯对从事杀戮和强奸具有一种无辜的自由感，我们认为这是人性中天然的野性，而展示男人真实的天性，就是这部故事片的力量所在。[57]

    《违背我们的意愿》对将惩治强奸的法律和司法实践的改革提上议事日程起了推波助澜的作用。该书出版时，美国没有一个州认为婚内强奸是犯罪，今天，美国全部50个州以及大部分西欧国家都视婚内强奸为非法。[58]强奸危机处理中心缓解了报告强奸和从强奸中康复的艰难。确实，在今天校园的每个角落都能看到这些服务中心的广告。图7-9是一个招贴的复印件，哈佛大学很多厕所的马桶上方都贴着它，向学生提供了至少5家在遭到强奸后能够提供协助的机构。

    图7-9 强奸预防和反应招贴

    今天，每一级司法系统都必须严肃对待强奸案件。最近听到的一件案子反映了人们态度的变化。我的一个研究生在走过波士顿劳动阶层居住的街区时，三个在人行道上溜达的高中生上来和她搭话，其中一个抓住了她的胸部。当她表示抗议时，这个男生开玩笑似地威胁要揍她。当她向警察报案后，警方安排了一位便衣和她一起对该街区进行监视，他们在一辆不引人注意的老汽车（1978年款橙红色的凯迪拉克赛威，缉毒的战利品）中连续观察了三个下午，直到她发现对自己进行袭击的男子。区助理检察官与她见了几次面，在征得她的同意后，控告那个年轻男子犯有二级伤害罪，男子表示认罪。几十年前，即使是暴力强奸案的处置也常常是草率的，而现在一桩罪状较轻的相关案件也能让司法系统全力运转起来。

    流行文化中强奸的意识也发生了翻天覆地的变化。今天的影视业在刻画强奸场面时，着眼于对受害人的同情和对施暴者的厌恶。流行电视系列片《法律与秩序：特殊受害者》（Law & Order:Special Victims vnit）告诉大家，性暴力罪犯无论来自哪一个社会阶层，都是卑鄙的人渣，DNA检测必定能将罪犯绳之以法。变化最大的是电子游戏产业，其收入可以与音像业媲美，而且消费对象主要是年轻人。视频游戏是一个庞大的、没有严格规范的无政府世界，大部分是年轻人自己开发自己使用。虽然游戏中充斥着暴力和性象征，但仿佛大家商量过一样，强奸不属于这个世界。法学家弗朗西斯·X.沈（Francis X Shen）分析过从最早期到80年代的电子游戏的内容，发现这一禁忌几乎是绝对有效的：

    强奸是一件不能进入电子游戏的东西……在游戏中可以大量杀人，手段经常非常残忍，有时甚至毁灭整个城市，这些暴力在现实中显然比强奸要严重得多。但是在电子游戏中，绝不允许任何人按下X按钮强奸另一个人物。在强奸问题上，“游戏不过是游戏”这个理由不能成立……即使在角色扮演游戏的虚拟世界里，强奸也是禁忌。

    在这个国际研究项目中，他只发现了很少几个例外，而且每一个事例都立即引起强烈的抗议。[59]

    但是，这些变化是否减少了强奸案？强奸的真实情况很不明朗，因为强奸案永远是被低估的，而同时又经常被虚报（比如2006年成为新闻热点的杜克大学3名曲棍球队队员被控强奸，但最后证明指控不实）。[60]维权组织提供的统计毫无可信度，这已经是公认的事实，有些统计荒唐到说1/4的大学生被强奸过。（这个数字根据的是一个非常宽泛的强奸定义，甚至不需要受害人自己承认被强奸；包括所有妇女在醉后同意发生但过后又后悔了的性关系。）[61]美国司法部统计局的《全国犯罪受害人调查》（National Crime Victimization Survey）数据库虽然不完美，但是足供使用。统计局自1973年以来进行了大量分层人口抽样调查，据此估算的犯罪率不受向警察局报案人数的限制。[62]设计调查时特别考虑到了如何抵消犯罪报告不充分的问题。90%的受调查者是妇女。1993年调查方式改进之后，对过去的调查数据进行了统一调整，因此全部资料具有可比性。强奸的定义范围有所扩大，但又没有太离谱；除了身体的强制力之外，还包括了语言威胁强迫性性行为；既遂的和未遂的强奸；受害者的性别可以是女性也可以是男性，可以是同性恋也可以是异性恋。（事实上，大部分强奸是男性施于女性。）

    图7-10给出了调查的过去40年各年的强奸率。它显示，在35年中，这个比率惊人地下降了80%，从1973年每10万12岁以上人发生250起强奸案，下降到2008年的每10万人发生50起。事实上，强奸率下降的幅度比此数据所显示的还要大，因为现在被强奸的妇女几乎肯定会报警，而在过去，很多强奸案的受害人忍气吞声，或者被警方敷衍了事。

    图7-10 1973—2008年美国强奸和凶杀率

    资料来源：数据来自《联邦调查局犯罪报告》（FBI Uniform Crime Reports）和《全国犯罪受害人调查》；美国司法部统计局，2009年。

    我们在第3章已经看到，在20世纪90年代，从凶杀到偷车各种类型的犯罪率都全面下降。人们也许会想，强奸案数量的减少是整个大趋势的一个组成部分，与女权运动的努力没有太大的关系。在图7-10中，我同时还给出了《联邦调查局犯罪报告》中的凶杀率数据，读者可以对比1973年以来两条曲线的变化。图形显示了强奸率的变化与凶杀率变化之间的区别。凶杀率在1992年之前一直上下波动，90年代中期开始下降，进入21世纪后维持在一个基本不变的水平上。而强奸率在1979年前后开始下降，整个90年代呈现急速下降，21世纪之后继续起伏下行。2008年的凶杀率是1973年的57%，而强奸率仅为1973年的20%。

    如果调查数据显示的趋势属实，强奸的减少是暴力减少的另一个主要组成部分。只是人们对此抱着一种视而不见的态度。反强奸组织非但不曾强调自己的成功，反而制造出一种女性正处于前所未有之危险境遇的印象（比如大学洗手间里贴满警告）。虽然对强奸率连续30年下降的现象需要做出和凶杀率连续7年下降不同的解释，但政治家和犯罪学家都还没有完成这个任务。这里没有“破窗理论”，没有“魔鬼经济学”理论，我们曾经用此解释近30年暴力的减少。

    有些原因是相同的。20世纪90年代强奸率的下降显然符合当时的大趋势，导致各种犯罪率下降的原因必然有共同之处，比如更有效的治安管理，更多的犯罪分子被关进监狱。在犯罪率下降之前、期间和之后，女权运动将强奸作为运动的焦点，要求警方、法院和社会服务机构予以特别关注。1994年通过的《防止对妇女施暴法》提供了进一步防范强奸的措施，增加了联邦基金和监督机构，为强奸检测工具包和DNA测试提供资助。强奸检测工作将很多初犯强奸犯绳之以法，不让他们有再犯的机会。的确，可以说，90年代犯罪率下降是女权分子反强奸运动的成果，反之亦成立。当60年代和70年代犯罪高潮终于开始放缓，女权分子反对性侵害的运动让街头暴力褪去了浪漫的光环，让公共安全成为一种权利，引发了90年代的社会改造进程。

    当然，虽说女权运动推动了强奸犯罪率的下降，但是它也表明整个国家已经为迎接这个变化做好了准备。即使在过去，人们也不敢说女性在警察局和法庭只能受到羞辱，丈夫有权强奸他们的妻子，或者强奸犯就应该在公寓走廊和车库捕猎妇女。女权运动速战速决，未经街头抵制，也没有诞生烈士，没有与警察的狼狗和凶狠的流氓团伙对峙。她们赢得这场战斗，部分是因为很多女性已经颇具社会影响力，技术进步突破了劳动中古老的性别分工，使女性从家务和照顾孩子中解脱出来；同时，也是因为支持女权的人，不分男女，人数越来越多了。

    尽管有人力图用各种逸闻证明，由于反女权主义力量的存在，妇女地位未能取得任何改善，但资料显示美国人对女性的态度发生了不可逆转的进步。心理学家琼·特温格（Jean Twenge）将超过25年间对女性态度的标准问卷中的回应绘制成表格，其中包括“在婚礼上仍然保留 ‘顺从 ’条款是对女性的侮辱”“妇女应该少操心权利，多想想如何做一个好妻子和好母亲”，以及“女性不应该期望享有和男性一样的行动自由”。[63]图7-11显示了1970—1995年间，在大学学龄男性和女性中对妇女态度的71次调查的平均结果。一代又一代学生，不论男女，对妇女的态度在不断进步。事实上，20世纪90年代初期的大学男生对女性的态度比70年代的女性更倾向于女权。南方的学生比北方的学生略差一些，但趋势是一样的，而且与对美国其他人群调查的样本结果相一致。

    图7-11 1970—1995年美国人对女性的态度

    资料来源：特温格制图，1997年。

    每个人都成为女性主义者了。西方文化的主流视角已经越来越无性别化。在18世纪的人道主义革命中，道德进步的引擎是在理性和论证中对一般公民地位的普世化，而这一特点再次成为20世纪权利革命的动力。女权进步紧随少数族裔权利的进步接踵而至，这绝非偶然。如果一个国家的立国信条是人皆生而平等，有什么理由不包括所有妇女？在性别问题上，这一普世化趋势有一个非常浅薄的象征，就是作家努力地避免使用阳性的“他”来指称一般的人；同时还有一个深刻的象征，即重新制定那些以男性视角为标准的道德和法制。

    强奸犯是男子，他们的受害人通常是女子。反强奸运动得到社会的支持，不仅是因为妇女已经进入政府的关键位置，开始调动政府的政策工具为妇女利益服务，我认为，还因为妇女进入政府改变了那些大权在握的男人的观念。道德制高点决定了何人收益何人买单，也决定了何为收益何为成本。比起男女之间对性的不同认识，他们性价值观之间的差距更严重，一方的收益，很可能是另一方的成本。

    心理学家凯瑟琳·萨蒙（Catherine Salmon）和人类学家唐纳德·西蒙斯的《武士情人》（Warrior Lovers）一书，对女作家的色情小说进行了分析。他们写道：“看到为吸引异性读者而设计的色情场景，就像看见了两性之间的心理鸿沟……浪漫小说和成人电影之间的差别之大之深刻，简直可以认为男人和女人永远也不会和睦相处，更不要说缔结连理和养育儿女。”[64]既然色情小说的卖点是向消费者提供性经验，而且除了性之外，不必顾忌异性的其他需要，因此，这是观察男女纯粹性欲的一个窗口。男人的色情是直观的、生理性的、冲动的、滥情的，而且是不需要背景和个性的。针对女性的色情描写更多是语言的、心理的、反思的、专一的，有丰富的背景和个性。男性着迷的是肉体交配，女性喜欢的是与人做爱。

    强奸不是男性性欲的正常表现，但男性的欲望在选择性伙伴方面的任意性，以及对性伙伴内心生活的漠视，确实让强奸成为可能。所以，与其说是“伙伴”，不如说是性交“对象”。男女在性观念上的不同，可以转变为他们在看待性侵犯伤害方面的差异。心理学家戴维·巴斯（David Buss）所做的调查显示，男人倾向于低估性侵犯对女性受害人的伤害，而女人则高估了性侵害对男性受害人的伤害。[65]传统的法律系统和道德准则对强奸受害者异常严厉，性别鸿沟可以为这一现象提供某种解释。起因也许是男性统治者对女性拥有的粗暴权威，也可能是因为男性狭隘的智力，没有能力想象还有与自己不同的头脑，即在他们的异性看来，与陌生人发生突兀的、未经应允的性交非但没有吸引力，而且令人厌恶。在男性和女性并肩工作，必须为自身利害而顾虑对方利益的社会中，男人这种对异性心理的麻木不仁不可能不发生变化。

    性别鸿沟也有助于解释有关强奸认识上的政治正确观点。我们已经看到，所有反暴力运动的成功经常包括重新估量原有的礼仪、观念和禁忌。就强奸而言，政治正确的信念是，强奸的要点不是性而是暴力。布朗米勒是这样说的：“从史前时期开始到现在，我相信，强奸的关键作用就是恐吓，是全体男性有意识地要将全体女性置于恐怖之中。”[66]她还说，强奸犯，就像希腊神话中为阿喀琉斯打仗的雇佣军密尔弥冬，是一群蚂蚁变身的士兵，“在我们的社会中，警察记录中的强奸犯事实上是为全体男性服务的忠仆密尔弥冬”。[67]当然，“密尔弥冬理论”是荒谬的。它不仅将强奸犯拔高为一个利他的战士，还污辱全体男性从他们所爱的女子被强奸中受益，而且，这个理论还假定“性”是性，暴力是暴力，“性”是一件男性从来不会以暴力获取的东西，而这与有关强奸犯和受害人的统计分布的大量事实相违背。[68]但是，如果允许我提一个讨好女性的建议的话，说强奸与性无关的理论，在一个无法想象与不情不愿的陌生人发生性关系的性别来看，确实有更大的可信性。

    伴随着暴力的减少，强奸是无关性与欲的暴力成为一个信条。在神圣信条面前，常识从来都是无力的；今天的强奸救援中心一致认为“强奸和性骚扰不是出于性欲行为，而是以性为武器的侵犯、暴力和羞辱”。（对此，记者希瑟·麦克唐纳曾经回应说：“在聚会上硬要将自己挤到女人身边的男人，都是在找一件东西，而且肯定不是想要重建父权。”）[69]因为这种神圣信条，强奸受害人咨询顾问会向学生提供一些不负责任的劝告，没有任何父母会这样劝告自己的女儿。当麦克唐纳问一所大学性骚扰防范中心的助理主任，他们是否鼓励学生注意一些基本守则，例如“不要酗酒，不要和男人上床，不要脱光衣服，不要让别人来扒自己的衣服”时，她回答说：“这些说法让我很不舒服。这好像是说，女学生被强奸是她们自己的错误——可是这从来都不是她们的错——不论一个人如何穿衣服，都不是在邀请暴力和强奸……我永远也不会让我的属下或者我自己告诉受害者，遭到强奸是因为她们穿错了衣服，或者是因为她们缺乏自律。”

    幸好，麦克唐纳采访的学生没有让这种政治正确蒙蔽自己的常识。也许就研究信仰社会学来说，校园里防止强奸的官僚机构的党派立场算得上是个有意思的课题，但在历史大趋势中，他们都不是主流；近几十年来，女性的视角大量融入社会观念和执法系统，真正成为几大类犯罪减少的主要动力。

    * * *

    其他以妇女为目标的暴力种类还有“揍老婆”“殴打妻子”“虐待配偶”“同居暴力”和“家暴”。男子利用体力优势恐吓、骚扰甚至在极端情况下杀害妻子、前妻或者女友。此类暴力的起因通常是男性的嫉妒或恐惧女性会离开自己，虽然这些男子的行为实际上是用暴力确立自己在两性关系中的统治地位，因为女性挑战他们的权威，或者因为女性没有做好家务等任何一点不合意而大加惩戒。[70]

    在男子用以控制他们配偶的自由，特别是性自由的各种手腕中，家暴是其中的杀手锏。这也许与“守护伴侣”这种生物现象有关联。[71]在许多生物中，雄性对后代进行投资，雌性则有机会与其他雄性交配，雄性会到处追随刚刚与之交配过的雌性，不让她接触其他雄性，而一旦发现阻拦可能失败，雄性会试图当场与雌性交配。人类的一些实践，例如面纱、陪伴、贞洁带、幽禁、男女隔离以及女子阴部割礼，都是男性“守护伴侣”策略在不同文化中的表现。为了再增加一层防护，男人经常和其他男人（有时也和年长的妇女）签约，确认他在法律上享有对配偶的垄断权力。新月沃地、远东、美洲、非洲和北欧等世界各个文明的法典毫无例外地将妇女排在财产之列。[72]通奸是奸夫对丈夫的侵权行为，丈夫有权为此伤害配偶、离婚（女方家庭要退还新娘的聘礼）或者暴力复仇。通奸一向是单独由女方的婚姻状态来定义的，男性的婚姻状态和女子本人的偏好都无关紧要。直到20世纪第一个10年，各国法律仍容许作为一家之主的男性“严惩”自己的妻子。[73]

    20世纪70年代，西方国家开始废除那些将妻子视作丈夫所属品的法律。离婚法变得更为对称公平。男人杀死妻子和她的情人，不再是被激怒后的正当行为。丈夫不得强制禁锢妻子，不得不许妻子离开家门。女方的家人不再因收容逃离丈夫的妻子而被控“窝藏”罪。[74]美国的大部分地方都为妇女设立了逃避丈夫虐待的庇护中心，法律保护她们的人身安全，视家庭暴力为犯罪。警察原来拒绝干涉“夫妻争吵”，现在大部分州都有法律要求警方逮捕可能动手施暴的配偶。在许多地区，检察官有责任先为受到潜在暴力威胁的配偶拿到法庭保护令，让女方脱离男方和家庭，随后再起诉男方，而且无论受害人是否愿意追究，检控方都不得撤诉。[75]有些妇女陷入虐待—道歉—原谅—再虐待的循环，一些针对这种情况的政策变得非常具有干涉性，以至于有些法律学者，比如珍妮·苏克（Jeannie Suk）认为，妇女的自主权已因此受到侵犯，这些政策已经走到妇女利益的对立面了。

    人们的观念也发生了变化。几百年来，打老婆一直被认为是婚姻的常规组成部分。从文学作品中，我们可以看到很多这样的描述。17世纪的剧作家博蒙特（Beaumont）和弗莱彻（Fletcher）嘲弄说“慈善和殴打都是从家里发源的”, 20世纪的公交车司机拉尔夫·克拉姆顿（Ralph Kramden）则威胁说：“总有那么一天，爱丽丝……砰，正打在那臭小子脸上。”直到1972年，在一项对各种暴力的严重性进行排序的调查中，受访者将“殴打配偶”列在140项的第91位。（受访者认为“贩卖迷幻药”是比“在公园强奸陌生者”更严重的罪行。）[76]不相信调查数据的读者不妨去看看社会心理学家兰斯·肖特兰（Lance Shotland）和玛格丽特·斯特劳（Margaret Straw）在1974年做的一项实验。学生在回答一份问卷时，听到一男一女爆发争吵——实际上是安排的演员在演戏。我还是让作者自己来描述发生了什么：

    大约15秒钟的激烈争吵之后，男子开始向女子动武。他剧烈地摇动她，而她挣扎着，抗拒着，尖叫着。她的喊声凄厉刺耳，夹杂着几声“别碰我”的乞求。随着女子的叫喊，出现了两种情况中的一种，并且重复了几次：一种是“陌生人情况”，女子喊着说“我不认识你”；还有一种是“夫妻情况”，女子喊着说“不知道我为什么会嫁给你”。[77]

    大部分学生会涌出实验室查看动静。在演员表演“陌生者”的情况下，大约2/3的学生前去进行干涉。通常是慢慢靠近纠纷中的男女，希望他们能自己停止争斗。但在“夫妻情况”下，只有不到1/5的学生出面进行干涉。虽然学生面前就有电话，并且贴着校园警察局的急救电话，大部分学生都没有电话报警的意思。事后，当问及他们的想法时，他们说“此事与他们毫不相干”。1974年，夫妻之间的暴力显然是可以被接受的，陌生人之间的暴力则比较让人难以接受。

    今天，因为联邦政府对用人类做实验加以限制，我们已经不可能再进行这样的实验，这也算是我们这个厌恶暴力的时代的另一个标志吧。但是有其他研究显示，现在即使是男人攻击自己的妻子，其他人也很难认为此事和自己无关。1995年的一项调查说，超过80%的受调查者认为“家庭暴力是非常严重的社会和法律问题”（比儿童贫困和环境问题更严重）；87%的人相信干涉是必要的，即使挨了打的妻子并没有受伤；99%的人相信如果男人殴打妻子并致伤，司法就应介入。[78]不同的年代对同样问题的回答发生了巨变。1987年，只有一半的美国人认为男人用皮带和棍棒殴打妻子是绝对错误的；10年之后，86%的人认为这样做是绝对错误的。[79]图7-12给出了对4次调查调整过的统计结果，调查的问题是，是否同意丈夫打妻子。1968—1994年，认可丈夫打妻子的人数降至原来的一半，从20%落至10%。虽然男人比女人更宽容家庭暴力，但女权潮流带动男人跟着转变，1994年认同家庭暴力的男人数量已经少于1968年认同家暴的女人的数量。这一趋势遍及美国全国各个地区、各个族裔，包括白人、黑人和西班牙裔。

    图7-12 1968—1994年美国人中同意丈夫掌掴妻子的人数

    资料来源：斯特劳斯等人绘制，1997年。

    至于家庭暴力本身的记录，在考虑整个大趋势之前，我们要先看一看一个惊人的说法：男性所犯的家暴和女性所犯的家暴差不多。社会学家默里·斯特劳斯（Murray Straus）做过很多保密和匿名的调查，他询问受调查者是否曾对配偶行使暴力，结果他发现男女之间没有区别。[80]他在1978年时这样写道：“大部分人（特别是那些女权主义的同情者）都没有意识到，老动画片中妻子挥舞擀面杖追赶丈夫，或者将水壶铁锅扔到丈夫头上的场景是非常贴近现实的。”[81]一些社会活动家已经在呼吁关注男人作为家暴受害者的问题，并呼吁为男人建立逃脱妻子和女友暴力的庇护中心。如果妇女从来都不是按性别分类的“殴打老婆”暴力的受害者，而是男女两性一向在同样程度上均为“殴打配偶”的受害者，我们单单说“打老婆”的减少是结束针对妇女的暴力社会运动的组成部分，就会让人产生误解。

    要理解这样的调查结果，我们必须很谨慎地解释什么是家庭暴力。关键是夫妻纠纷和由此升级形成的暴力（如罗杰斯和哈特所说的“对话中伴随着飞过来的盘子”），同配偶的一方习惯性地威胁和恐吓另一方，两者之间的界限在哪里。[82]社会学家迈克尔·约翰逊（Michael Johnson）对有暴力问题的配偶之间的互动数据进行了分析，他发现，一套与控制欲有关的因素共同在起作用。在有些夫妻中，发出暴力威胁的一方，同时也控制家庭的财政，限制另一方的行动，借故泄愤，打孩子或者打宠物，有意识地不流露任何赞许和爱慕的感情。在一方为控制者的夫妻中，暴力型的控制者几乎全部是男性；而配偶中使用暴力的女性，几乎无一例外是自我防卫和保护孩子。当夫妻双方均不属于控制型时，只有在争吵失控的时候才会发生暴力；在这种情形下，男性暴力的水平略高于女性。控制者和吵闹者之间的区别解释了性别暴力统计上的谜案。暴力调查中的数字主要是非控制型配偶之间的纠纷，这样的家庭纠纷中男女行为相差不大。但根据庇护中心的登记资料、法庭记录、急救室和警察的统计，暴力主要来自夫妻中的控制型一方，通常是男人威胁妇女，有时候也有妇女进行自卫。在反目的伴侣中，男女暴力的不对称更加显著，一般总是男方对妇女实施追踪、威胁和伤害。其他研究已经证实，习惯性的恐吓和严重伤害主要是男性的行为。[83]

    那么，有什么东西发生了变化吗？在你一拳我一脚这些小事情上也许没有太大变化，[84]但在严重的暴力行为方面，例如发生攻击并上报进入《全国犯罪受害者调查》的数量发生了剧减。与对强奸的估计数字一样，来自受害者调查的家暴数字也很不可靠，但不妨以此作为衡量变动趋势的指标。而对家庭暴力的新关注，也许让受调查者更愿意报告受到虐待的情况。图7-13是美国司法部1993—2005年的家庭暴力数据，数据显示妇女被家庭伴侣暴力对待的案件减少了2/3，而男人受家暴的数字减少了近1/2。

    这一下行的趋势早就开始了。在斯特劳斯的调查中，1992年，妇女报告被丈夫殴打的数量是1985年的1/2。1992年，联邦政府开始建立暴力受害者数据库。[85]

    图7-13 1993—2005年美国亲密伴侣之间的暴力攻击数量

    资料来源：美国司法部司法统计局资料，2010年。

    最极端的家庭暴力是杀妻和杀夫。对社会学家来说，亲密伴侣中的一方杀死另一方时，总是一方有绝对的优势，因此无须斤斤计较定义和报告中出现的偏差，死亡就是死亡。图7-14显示了1976—2005年亲密伴侣之间的凶杀比重，数字表现为每10万同性别人口中的死亡人数。

    我们再一次看到稳定的下降曲线，虽然有一个饶有意味的插曲：女权主义对男性是非常有益的。自妇女运动兴起以来，一个男人被他的妻子、前妻或女友杀害的机会减少了5/6。尽管在这期间，没有任何针对男方暴力的运动结束，而妇女一般而言本来就不是喜好凶杀的性别，最有可能的解释是，妇女不得不杀死虐待她的丈夫或男友，大都因为受到丈夫或男友的生命威胁而无法出走。妇女庇护中心的发展以及法庭限制令的运用，使妇女有了出逃之路，也就没有必要再行使极端手段了。[86]

    * * *

    世界其他地方的情形如何呢？不幸的是，要想说清这个问题真的挺不容易。与凶杀不同，强奸和配偶虐待的定义因地而异，警察的报告非常不准确，对于妇女所遭遇的暴力的统计，很容易受到妇女向警察报案意愿的干扰。而女权组织总是有在统计上夸大妇女所遭受的暴力的倾向，不愿意承认正在发生的暴力减少趋势。英国内政部主持了一项英格兰和威尔士犯罪受害者的调查，但是没有给出强奸和家庭暴力的变化趋势的数据。[87]不过来自另一个年度报告的数据（见图7-15），显示了家庭暴力的减少，与美国的情况很相似。因为在如何定义家庭暴力和如何计算人口基数上的差异，图7-15的数据与图7-13的数据无法直接比较，但两图显示的趋势几乎完全吻合。我们可以说，在西方民主国家均出现了相似的家暴减少趋势，因为它们都非常重视家庭暴力问题。

    图7-14 1976—2005年美国亲密伴侣之间的凶杀数量

    资料来源：美国司法部司法统计局资料，2011年，根据在线犯罪司法统计原始资料（http:// www. al-bany. edu/sourcebook/csv/t31312005. csv）。人口数据来自美国人口普查局。

    虽然美国和其他西方国家通常被指控为仇视妇女的社会，但世界上其他国家的情况更糟。我前面说过，在美国的家暴调查中，家暴定义宽泛，不分男女，拳打脚踢这样的暴力都能包括在统计之内。加拿大、芬兰、德国、英国、爱尔兰、以色列和波兰都采用了此类标准。但对世界上的其他国家来说，首先不存在性别中立。心理学家约翰·阿彻（John Archer）研究了16个国家家庭暴力数据中的性别构成，他发现，在非西方国家，例如印度、约旦、日本、韩国、尼日利亚和巴布亚新几内亚，动手打人者主要是男人。[88]

    图7-15 1995—2008年英国和威尔士的家庭暴力

    资料来源：《不列颠犯罪调查》（British Crime Survey）数据，英国内政部，2010年。德瓦研究（Dewar Research）对历年的数据进行了综合，2009年。人口估算来自英国国家统计办公室（U. K. Office for National Statistics），2009年。

    世界卫生组织出版了一份资料，收录了48个国家的严重家庭暴力数据。[89]在世界范围，一般估计是20%~50%的妇女都曾经是家暴的受害者，问题比西欧和英语国家要严重得多。[90]在美国、加拿大和澳大利亚，前一年只有不到3%的妇女报告伴侣虐待。其他国家的情形则大不一样，报告家暴的妇女在尼加拉瓜样本组中有27%，在韩国样本组有38%，在巴勒斯坦样本组有52%。对婚内暴力的态度，不同国家之间也有很大差别。只有约1%的新西兰人和4%的新加坡人认为丈夫有权利殴打挨骂时回嘴和不服从的妻子，但78%的埃及人、50%的印度北方邦的人、57%的巴勒斯坦人都认为丈夫有这样的权利。

    在很多国家，针对妇女遭受暴力对待的立法还远远落后于西方国家。[91]84%的西欧国家已经将（或者正在准备将）家庭暴力列为违法，而婚内强奸已经被72%的西欧国家视为非法。但在世界其他地区，这两个相应的数字是：东欧，57%和39%；亚洲和太平洋地区，51%和19%；拉丁美洲，94%和18%；撒哈拉以南的非洲，35%和12.5%；阿拉伯国家，25%和0%。在这些不公正之外，撒哈拉以南的非洲、南亚和西亚仍然在对妇女实行制度化的残暴伤害，例如杀婴、阴部伤残、走私儿童和儿童卖淫、性奴、荣誉杀戮，使用硫酸和煤油处罚不顺从和陪嫁不足的妻子，此外还有战争中的大规模强奸、暴乱和种族灭绝。[92]这些罪行在21世纪的西方已经十分罕见或者绝迹了。

    那么，妇女遭受的暴力在西方和世界其他地方之间有什么不同？是不是众多因素，比如民主、繁荣、经济自由、教育、技术、良好的政府，共同向一个方向发生作用的马太效应？这个答案并不全对。韩国和日本是富裕的民主国家，但仍然存在大量家庭暴力；拉美的一些国家远非发达国家，但两性间更平等，暴力的绝对水平也更低。这就要求我们在富裕程度为常数的情况下，在统计数据允许的空间中寻找其他与妇女安全有关的社会文化原因。阿彻发现，那些妇女能够在政府和专业领域得到更好的职务，工资收入也能够在家庭工资收入中占大头的国家里，妇女较少遭受配偶虐待。此外，在个人主义文化中，人们认为自己是独立自主的个体，有权追求自己的人生目标，而在集体主义文化中，人们感觉自己是社会的组成部分，集体的利益高于个体，前者针对妇女的暴力要少于后者。[93]这些相关性不能证明任何因果关系，但是它们无一不昭示，人文主义观念一直是西方社会推动针对妇女暴力减少的主要动力；相对社区传统，它要强调的是个体的权利，包括妇女个体的权利。

    虽然我在预言未来方面一向谨小慎微，但我还是要说，在未来几十年内，针对妇女的暴力将在世界范围内减少。压力来自上下两个方向。国际社会已经形成共识，妇女遭受的暴力是当今世界最严重的人权问题。[94]人们已经将11月25日定为“国际消除对妇女暴力日”，联合国及其成员国政府也不断发表各种声明，虽然这些措施都是象征性的，但是以往废止奴隶制、捕鲸、海盗、私掠、化学武器、种族隔离、大气层核试验的经验表明，国际社会的谴责从长期看是有作用的。[95]联合国妇女发展基金的负责人曾经说过：“现在已经有更多的国家在制订计划、制定政策和法规，这一趋势也出现在政府间合作领域。”[96]

    全世界的观念都在发生变化，在未来几年，妇女势必将获得更大的经济权利和政治权利。皮尤研究中心“全球态度调查项目”2010年对22个国家的一项调查发现，在大部分受调查国家中，包括美国、中国、印度、日本、韩国、土耳其、黎巴嫩，以及欧洲国家和拉美国家，至少有90%的男女受访者认为妇女应该拥有与男子平等的权利。甚至在埃及、约旦、印度尼西亚、巴基斯坦和肯尼亚，赞成男女平权的人也超过60%，只有在尼日利亚，这个数字不到50%。[97]有更多的人支持妇女离家工作。盖洛普全球调查显示，甚至在伊斯兰国家，大多数妇女认为只要妇女愿意，她们就应该有投票权，有工作机会，甚至在政府中任职；而在大部分伊斯兰国家，大多数男人对此亦表示同意。[98]从妇女能够表达这点儿起码的要求开始，她们所在国家的政策和规则将会越来越多地顾及妇女的权益。男子不应以暴力伤害女子的生命，这一论点在今天已经不容争辩，正如雨果所说：“当一种观念成为时代的浪潮，其来势必不可阻挡。”

    儿童权利与杀婴、体罚、虐童和欺负弱小

    如果说在摩西、以实玛利、罗慕路斯和雷穆斯、俄狄浦斯、居鲁士大帝、萨尔贡、吉尔伽美什、后稷（周朝的始祖）之间有什么共同点，那就是他们都曾经是弃婴——被他们的父母抛弃荒野，任其自生自灭。[99]一个孤独的婴儿在寒冷、饥饿和野兽的围困下无助地等待死亡的图景，让每一个人都感到撕心裂肺；而一个弃婴成长为一个伟大王朝的奠基者，那真正是人间神话，无论是在犹太人、穆斯林、罗马人、希腊人、波斯人，还是美索不达米亚人、苏美尔人和中国人那里，我们都能看见这样的传说。但是，弃婴的普遍存在告诉我们的不仅是美好的故事片段，还有在人类历史上杀婴曾经多么常见。从我们早已无法记忆的年代开始，父母们就开始遗弃、窒息、勒死、殴打、淹死或者毒死自己新生的孩子。[100]

    人类学家莱拉·威廉姆森（Laila Williamson）所做的一项文化研究显示，世界各个大陆各个社会均有杀婴行为，从前国家时期的狩猎群体到聚居的村民一直到发达的高级文明无一例外。77%的村民接受杀婴的习俗。[101]直到最近，仍有10%~15%的新生儿在出生不久后被杀死；在有些社会，这个数字高达50%。[102]用历史学家劳埃德·德莫斯（Lloyd de-Mause）的话来说，“所有的家庭都有过杀婴的经历。所有的国家都能在源头找到使用儿童活祭的历史。所有的宗教都是以残害和谋杀儿童开始的”。[103]

    杀婴是最极端的虐童形式。此外，我们的文化遗产中还有很多其他的形式，比如儿童祭献，将儿童卖为奴工、新娘、宗教服役，让儿童清扫烟囱，在煤矿的坑道里爬行运煤，此外还有几乎是酷刑的各种体罚。[104]今天，我们能够用卓越的外科手术挽救一个只有1磅重的早产儿，我们不再期望我们的孩子在30岁之前养家糊口，我们对施加于儿童的暴力保持高度警觉，甚至到了闪避球都必须禁止的程度，为此我们的确已经走过了漫长的道路。

    我们怎样才能理解这种违背生命延续需要的杀婴呢？拉里·米尔纳（Larry Milner）医生对全世界的杀婴做了权威性的调查，他在《冷酷的心/冷酷的生活》（Hardness of Heart/Hardness of Life）一书的最后一章中这样写道：

    我开始写作本书时，心里只有一个目的——如我在导言中所说，就是要理解“为什么有些人会将自己亲生的孩子掐死”。多年前我第一次提出这个问题的时候，我以为这可能是一种大自然的独特病变。一个生物物种的生存已然处于微妙的平衡状态，而它却持续地表现出杀死自己后代的倾向。在进化的意义上，这似乎非常不合理。达尔文的基因物质自然选择意味着只有最适合生存的物种能够留存，而杀婴倾向肯定是不符这一原则的不适合生存的行为。但是，我的研究得出的答案却指出，在面对某些压力的情况下，人类自愿地杀死自己亲生的后代，是非常“自然而然”的事情。[105]

    要回答米尔纳的困惑，我们要进入进化生物学的一个分支：生活史理论。[106]认为母亲视每一个子女为无价之宝这种直觉，不仅不符合自然选择理论的含义，而且根本是不相容的。自然选择表现为让一个生物在其预期生命期间最大限度地繁衍后代，这需要在是为新生后代投入，还是为原有的和未来的后代保存实力之间进行权衡。在动物之中，哺乳动物在幼崽身上投入的时间、能量和食物极大，而人类又是哺乳动物极端中的极端。怀孕和生产只是母亲投资工程的开篇，哺乳类的母亲将婴儿抚育成熟所消耗的卡路里远远大于孕期的消耗。[107]大自然憎恶沉没成本谬误，因此我们认为母亲会评估后代和自己的处境，决定是增加投入，还是将能量保留给其他已出生和未出生的子女。[108]如果婴儿身患疾病，或者生存环境过于险恶，父母就不愿意浪费资源，为烂命烧好钱，而是会控制成本，将资源转向最健壮的孩子，或者等待更好的时机做新的尝试。

    对生物学家来说，人类杀婴是一种典型的筛选分诊。[109]直到最近，妇女一直是将自己的孩子抚育到2~4岁，再开始下一次孕育。许多孩子夭折，尤其是在生命的第一年。大多数母亲只能看见自己的2~4个孩子活到成年，很多母亲的孩子无一幸存。人类进化中的祖先为了在严酷的环境中成为祖母，必须进行痛苦的抉择。根据分诊理论，在一个婴儿活到成年的前景过于黯淡的时候，他的母亲可能会任其死亡。这种黯淡前景的原因可以是婴儿的原因，比如身体畸形，没有活力；也可以是母亲的问题，例如已经负有养育其他子女的重负，或遭遇战争和饥荒，无法得到家庭和孩子父亲的支持。当然，这也取决于母亲是否年轻，是否还有机会再次怀孕。

    马丁·戴利和马戈·威尔逊对分诊理论进行了测试，他们研究的样本涉及60个彼此无关联的社会，数据取自民族志数据库。[110]这些社会大部分都有杀婴记载，人类学家在112个杀婴案例中记录了原因。其中87%的原因符合分诊理论：或者婴儿的父亲不是母亲的丈夫，或者婴儿身体畸形或有疾患，或者婴儿生存的前景不妙，比如是双胞胎或有年龄相近的同胞，父亲外出，或者降生时正逢家庭经济发生危机。

    杀婴的普遍性和杀婴在进化中的可理解性看起来非常不人道，人们一般不将此视为肆无忌惮的谋杀，而是当作特殊类型的暴力。采访过这些妇女（或者她们的亲戚——因为这些经历对母亲而言过于痛苦，有时需要其他亲人出面讲述）的人类学家通常都记录说，母亲认为婴儿死亡是不可避免的悲剧，并为失去的孩子悲伤不已。比如，据拿破仑·沙尼翁记载，当他开始实地调查的时候，一位雅诺马马头领的妻子“巴哈米正好怀孕了，但孩子出生后，她弄死了婴儿，是一个男孩儿。她眼泪汪汪地解释说她没有别的办法。这个新生儿和她最小的仍在吃奶的儿子阿里瓦里冲突了。为了不让阿里瓦里承担提早断奶的危险和不确定性，她选择了结束新生儿的生命”。[111]尽管雅诺马马人被称为彪悍的民族，杀婴却不是表达彪悍的必要方式。非洲有一些好战的部落很少杀死他们的婴儿，而一些相对和平的部落反而常规性地杀婴。[112]米尔纳的巨著的标题来自19世纪人类学奠基人爱德华·泰勒（Edward Tylor）的一句格言：“杀婴的起因与其说是心灵的冷酷，不如说是生活的冷酷。”[113]

    是保留还是牺牲婴儿，命运的临界点由人的内心情感和文化规范共同决定。在我们这样的文化中，人们对生育怀有敬畏之意，要尽一切可能让幼儿长大成人；我们总是感到，母亲和婴儿之间那种愉悦的血肉关联几乎是本能的条件反射。但事实上，这种关联需要克服巨大的心理障碍。公元1世纪，古希腊历史学家普鲁塔克就已经清楚地指出了这一令人不快的事实：

    在一个男人眼中，没有什么比女人生产更不美好、更孤立无助、更赤裸裸、更不成样、更污秽的事情了；简直可以说，大自然甚至没有留下一丝光明，完全是一片血腥之气，把一个生命的降临搞得和杀戮一般，除了某些天性富于爱心的人，实在没有什么人愿意触摸、举起、亲吻或搂抱这个小东西。[114]

    而“天性富于爱心”却不是自然而然产生的。戴利和威尔逊，以及后来的人类学家爱德华·哈根（Edward Hagen）都指出，产后抑郁及其轻度表现“产后抑郁期”不是因为激素失调，而是做出保留婴儿决定后的情绪化表现。[115]患有产后抑郁症的母亲往往在情感上疏离婴儿，并可能怀有伤害婴儿的强迫性念头。心理学家已经发现，与我们通常享有的乐观态度相比，轻度抑郁通常让人们更准确地评估他们的生活前景。让一位抑郁的产后母亲感到最沉重也最真实的问题，就是如何承担养育孩子的重负。贯穿人类的历史，许多母亲的抉择无非是立刻发生的悲剧和将来可能发生的更惨的悲剧。一旦情况进入正轨，抑郁消失，大部分母亲会爱上自己的婴儿，觉得自己的孩子是天底下独一无二的美妙造物。

    哈根研究了有关产后抑郁的心理文献，测试了5种评估是否向婴儿继续投资的预测理论。预测说，如果产妇缺乏社会支持，例如她们单身、分居、对婚姻状况不满，或者远离娘家，或是产妇经历难产或者婴儿不健康，以及产妇处于失业状态或者产妇的丈夫失业，在这些情况下，产后抑郁都会更常见。他还发现，在非西方人群的产后抑郁症报告里也看到了同样的风险因素（虽然他没有能够找到对传统家族社会的充分研究）。最后，产后抑郁与激素失调只有非常弱的关联，说明它不是一种机能失调，而是一种结构功能。

    很多文化传统在婴儿确定能够活下来之前，故意拉开人对婴儿的情感。当婴儿度过危险期，人们才被允许触摸婴儿，为其取名，或者授予其法定身份，并用欢乐的仪式迎接这一转变；在西方传统中，我们有基督教的命名礼和犹太教的割礼。[116]有些传统有一系列里程碑式的仪式，比如在传统犹太教中，婴儿只有在出生30天之后才能被给予法律地位。

    如果说我一直在试图让读者多少能够理解杀婴这种行为，我能做到的也只是在古人接受杀婴和我们憎恶杀婴之间，缩小一点儿历史差距。但这两点之间的差距简直是天悬地隔。即使我们意识到杀婴不过是前现代化社会艰辛人生中冷酷的进化逻辑，依照我们的标准，还是无法理解和原谅这样的残忍。戴利和威尔逊名单上的实例包括杀死通奸受孕的婴儿，以及在妇女再婚（甚至是被抢劫被迫再婚）时杀死所有与前夫所生的孩子。戴利和威尔逊指出，名单上有14%的杀婴与我们前面提到的进化生物学家提出的各个杀婴分类无关。比如，儿童献祭，岳父针对女婿的恶意行为，为铲除王位继承人或者免除亲族责任进行的杀戮，而最常见的杀死婴儿的理由，仅仅因为她是女孩儿。

    * * *

    发展中国家的人口普查显示女性人口大规模失衡，这提醒人们，时至今日，杀死女婴仍然是世界性的问题。从统计数据上看，“1亿人消失了”，这主要是在印度。[117]很多亚洲家庭想要养儿子。在有些国家，孕妇会要求医院进行羊水穿刺或者超声波，一旦得知是女孩子，孕妇转身就去隔壁的诊所做人工流产。现代胎儿性别检查技术似乎是当今女孩儿短缺的原因，但事实上杀死女婴在中国和印度已经有长达两千多年的历史记载。[118]旧中国的接生婆会在产床旁放上一桶水，准备淹死新生的女婴。而在印度，杀婴的方式很多，“让婴儿吞下烟草或大麻片剂，把婴儿淹没在牛奶里，在母亲的乳头上涂上鸦片或者有毒的曼陀罗汁液，在婴儿呼吸之前用牛粪糊住嘴巴”。无论是过去还是现在，即使女孩子挣扎着活了下来，也活不长久。父母将食物优先给儿子，一位医生这样解释说：“如果是男孩子生病了，父母会立刻将孩子送到医院；如果是女孩子病了，父母也许会等等，看看情况到了明天会怎么样。”[119]

    杀死女婴，也称为“性别灭绝”（gendercide和gynocide），并非亚洲独有。[120]许多采集社会杀死女婴的数量远远多过男婴，雅诺马马人就是其中之一。在古希腊和古罗马，“婴儿被扔在河里、粪堆里，或者是臭水沟里，孩子被丢在盒子里饿死，或者交给大自然，留给野兽”。[121]在中世纪和文艺复兴时期的欧洲，杀婴也是家常便饭。[122]在所有这些地方，被害死的女孩子总是多于男孩子。有些家庭杀死每一个新生的女婴，直到他们得到一个男孩子为止，男孩子下面出生的女孩子才会被允许活下来。

    杀女婴可谓生物谜案。每个孩子都有母亲和父亲，如果每个人都关心自己的子孙后裔，希望自己的基因和家族的延续下去，剔除自己的女儿实在是一种疯狂的举动。进化生物学的一项基本原则是性成熟人口中两性比例应为50∶50，才有稳定的人口均衡。如果男性占多数，对女儿的需求就会上升，在吸引异性、生育下一代子女方面，女儿就会占据比儿子更有利的地位。同样，如果女性占人口多数，儿子的地位就会上升。无论是通过自然手段还是通过抚育，父母能够在某种程度上控制后代的性别比例，但是如果他们过分地偏向儿子而轻视女儿的话，子孙后代就会惩罚他们。[123]

    有一种很天真的假说，认为人口中女性的数量决定了人口的增长速度。部落或者国家的人口翻番达到了马尔萨斯极限的时候，就会出现杀死女儿以实现人口零增长。[124]人口零增长理论的一个问题是，许多杀婴的部落和文明并没有受到环境的压力。另一个更严肃的问题是，所有这些天真的团体利益至上理论都有一个致命的缺陷，就是他们内在的机制是自我毁灭。任何不服从这一政策而保留女儿生命的家庭将繁衍昌盛，他们的子孙将占据全部人口，而那些无私的邻居家里过多的儿子，只会单身到死也得不到婚配。因此，那些总是倾向于杀死自己女儿的家族的谱系应该早已灭绝了，在任何社会持续地残害女婴都是让人无法理解的。

    进化心理学能解释性别歧视吗？对此，批评的人认为这些解释只是创意训练，似乎任何人都能对一种现象提出一个漂亮的进化论解释。问题是人们以为，很多花里胡哨的进化论假说最后都得到了数据的验证，虽然成功不是百分之百有保证的。事实上，一个最出名的假说——将关于性别比例的特里弗斯-威拉德理论应用于人类杀害女婴，已经被证明是不成立的。[125]

    按照生物学家罗伯特·特里弗斯（Robert Trivers）和数学家丹·威拉德（Dan Willard）的推论，即使儿子和女儿平均会带来同样多的孙子孙女，但每个性别可能带来的最大数则不同。一个出色的儿子能够打败其他男性，让大量妇女受孕，因此生育大量子女；而一个出色的女儿能够生育的子女，最多是她在生育年龄能够受孕和抚养的数量。另一方面，女儿是更安全的赌注。一个软弱的儿子在与其他男性的竞争中失利后，可能完全没有自己的孩子，而女儿再不济事，也总能找到愿意交配的伴侣。不是说她本身的条件不重要，一个健康和招人喜爱的女儿总是比虚弱和不讨人喜欢的女儿养活更多的孩子，但与男子之间的竞争相比，女子之间的竞争不是极端的生死对决。父母在某种程度上能够预测子女的强弱（比如说，通过检测他们的健康、营养和活动范围），策略性地扭曲性别比例；当儿子具有竞争力的时候，他们就会偏向儿子，而在儿子不争气的时候，他们就会偏向女儿。

    特里弗斯-威拉德理论在人类以外的很多生物中得到证实，甚至在灵长类也可以找到一些证明。在传统社会，富裕的上层不仅寿命较长，还能够吸引更多和更好的配偶；根据这个理论，应该是上层家庭偏心儿子，下层家庭偏心女儿。在某些偏心行为（比如在遗嘱中的分配）中，这个理论真的成立。[126]但在更严重的问题上，比如是否让新生儿生存，这个理论却毫无用处。进化人类学家萨拉·赫尔迪（Sarah Hrdy）和克里斯滕·霍克斯（Kristen Hawkes）各自证明了特里弗斯-威拉德理论只说对了故事的一半。在印度，高级种姓的家庭确实倾向于杀死女儿，但是，低级种姓的家庭也没有更愿意杀死儿子。事实上，几乎找不到任何偏向杀死男婴的社会。[127]全世界的杀婴文化不是同样对待男婴和女婴，就是倾向杀死更多的女婴——由此，杀婴文化也杀死了特里弗斯-威拉德理论对人类杀害女婴文化的解释。

    对于杀女婴这种最极端的厌女主义，女权主义的分析是，一个社会的性别歧视触及生命的权利：身为女性，就是死罪。但是，这个假说也不成立。不论性别歧视如何严重，没有一个社会是想完全没有女性的。男人的世界并不是不容许女孩儿出现的男生树屋，他们在性生活、生养孩子、采集和烹煮食物上都依赖妇女。那些杀死女婴的家庭一样希望家中有女性忙碌的身影。他们只是想让别人来养育女孩儿。杀害女婴是一种社会寄生行为，是搭便车的老问题，是平民百姓传宗接代的悲剧。[128]

    当没有人拥有公共资源的时候，就会出现搭便车的问题，此处，这个公共资源就是潜在的新娘群体。在婚姻的自由市场上，父母拥有新娘的产权，儿子和女儿可以相互替代，不会过度偏向某个性别。如果家里实在需要一个凶猛的武士，或者一个干体力活的大块头，这个人是自己生养的儿子还是女儿带来的女婿，其实是没有分别的。儿子多的家庭会很愿意拿几个出来交换媳妇，反之亦然。女婿的父母肯定希望他和他们住在一起，但你总是可以利用女儿讨价还价让女婿倒插门，如果那个年轻人的确想讨老婆的话。市场出现偏向儿子的问题，一定是产权发生了扭曲。事实上，父母只拥有自己的儿子，而不拥有自己的女儿。

    霍克斯注意到，在采集人群中，有三种居住方式：男子入赘女方家的社会，即女儿留在父母家，她们的丈夫迁入她们的家庭；或者小夫妻可以随意安排自己的居处；还有就是在从父（或从夫）居社会，即女儿出嫁进入夫家或婆家，在最后一种社会中，杀女婴情况最普遍。在邻村之间经常处于战争状态的部落社会里，从夫居成为最常见的居住模式，因为战争需要有亲缘关系的男子抱团聚居，共同战斗。如果敌人来自其他部落，这种居住模式就不会这样常见，男人在自己的领地内可以更自由地行动。内战频繁的社会会陷入残暴的循环，他们杀死女婴，他们的妻子可以立刻开始尝试繁衍男丁，于是就可以更有力地袭击其他村落，更好地防卫自己的家园，更多地劫掠其他人的妇女——特别是他们已经通过杀女婴将自己的女性残害殆尽了。在荷马时代的希腊，战事连绵的部落人就掉进了类似的陷阱。[129]

    印度和中国这样的国家社会为什么曾出现严重的杀女婴问题呢？霍克斯认为，在国家社会中，父母同样只拥有儿子，不拥有女儿，原因是经济而不是军事。[130]在阶层化的社会中，社会精英占有不可切分的财富，通常是由儿子继承。在印度，种姓制度是对市场的一种额外扭曲：低级种姓的家庭要支付高昂嫁妆，才能将女儿嫁给高级种姓的新郎。在旧中国有句老话说，“嫁出去的闺女泼出去的水”。[131]中国1978年开始实行独生子女政策，这让地处农村，需要劳动力，也需要有人养老送终的父母格外紧张。今天，杀婴在这两个国家都属非法。尽管在中国，依然有人进行有选择性的堕胎，但这种活动也是非法的。在印度，尽管超声波检查和堕胎联营受到打击，但一般认为杀婴还是非常常见的行为。[132]要求减少这类杀婴活动的压力肯定会越来越大，政府只需要做一点儿简单的人口算术，就会明白，今天杀害女婴，意味着明天将面对大批难以驾驭的光棍汉（我们还会再回来讨论这个问题）。[133]

    * * *

    无论初为人母的女子何等绝望，无论名分上的父亲如何怀疑孩子是不是自己的骨肉，或者无论父母多么想要儿子而不是女儿，在西方，人们已经不再能杀死新生儿而不受制裁。[134]2007年，美国新生儿430万，其中有221名被谋杀。杀婴率为0.00005，或者说减少至历史平均水平的1/3000~ 1/2000。在这221名被杀害的婴儿中，有1/4是被母亲在他们出生的第一天杀死的，比如20世纪90年代头条新闻中的“垃圾筒妈妈”，她们掩盖自己怀孕的真相，秘密生产（一个女孩子在高中的毕业舞会上生产），然后闷死孩子，将孩子的尸体扔进垃圾箱。[135]这些女子发现自己陷入与史前时期人类杀婴的同样处境：她们太年轻，还是单身，独自生产，得不到家人的支持。其他一些婴儿被虐待致死，很多情况下继父是凶手。还有一些婴儿死于精神抑郁试图自杀的母亲，这些母亲自杀时带走了婴儿，因为她们无法想象孩子能够在没有母亲的世界上生存。在非常偶然的情况下，患有产后抑郁症的母亲会发展到产后精神病，并在幻觉驱动下杀死自己的孩子。比如2001年发生的臭名昭著的安德烈娅·耶茨案，这个母亲在洗澡盆里淹死了自己的5个孩子。

    是什么力量导致西方的杀婴减少了整整三个数量级？第一步，将杀婴视为犯罪。犹太教《圣经》禁止杀婴，尽管并不彻底：杀死一个不足月的婴儿不算谋杀，亚伯拉罕、所罗门王和耶和华自己降下的第十场瘟疫都是钻了这个漏洞。[136]在犹太教经文《塔木德》和基督教中，杀婴禁令变得明晰了，并被引入古罗马帝国。禁令的核心观念是，生命属于神，生杀取予一切听凭神的意志，因此孩子的生命不再属于他们的父母。结果，在西方道德准则和法律制度中，形成了一种禁忌，不得毁灭形体可辨识的人类生命：一个人不能决定另一个人的生命的价值。（当然，总是会有很多例外，比如异端、不忠、未开化的部落民、仇敌，以及违背几百项法规中任何一项的犯人。此外，每一次我们将士兵和警察送进危险之中，或者克扣健康和安全措施方面的开支的时候，都是在继续裁决统计意义上的生命的价值，尽管看起来与形体可辨识的生命有所不同。）

    说起来，将保护有形的生命称为“禁忌”似乎很古怪，因为这种保护本来是不证自明的。将神圣的生命放在手上衡量大小的行为，显然是非常荒谬的，但禁忌正是这样产生的。人们当然可以从知识甚至从道德基础上质疑什么是禁忌中的有形人类生命。1911年，英国医生查尔斯·默西埃（Charles Mercier）提出一个观点，即杀婴罪应该比谋杀儿童和成人的罪行要轻：

    受害人的头脑还没有充分发育到能感觉痛苦和死亡的折磨。它还不能感受惧怕和恐怖。它的意识也还没有充分发育，所以它不知道疼痛。它的离去，不会给任何家庭留下空白，这不曾从家长或者母亲怀里夺走任何孩子，它也还不是任何人的朋友、帮手或者伴侣。[137]

    今天我们知道，婴儿有痛感，但在其他方面，默西埃的推论已经被几位当代哲学家接受——尽管当他们的论文发表时，无一例外受到了人们的嘲笑。这些哲学家闯入了我们伦理直觉的隐秘地带，包括堕胎、动物权利、干细胞研究和安乐死。[138]几乎没有什么人愿意承认他们会像默西埃那样观察死亡，他们只是悄悄守着自己的直觉，觉得母亲杀死自己的新生儿与其他凶杀有所不同。很多欧洲的司法系统都区别对待这两种凶杀，将母亲杀婴和杀害新生儿作为两种不同的罪，或者准予母亲假定暂时精神失常。[139]即使在美国，虽然法律不做这样的区分，但母亲杀死新生儿时，检察官一般不予起诉；即使起诉，陪审团一般也不予定罪；即便是那些被判有罪的母亲通常也能避免坐监服刑。[140]有些时候，比如1997年的“垃圾筒妈妈”，因为媒体的疯狂报道，排除任何宽大处置的可能性；即便如此，这些年轻女子在3年监禁之后就获得了假释。

    就像核武禁忌，一般而言，人类生命的禁忌是一件非常好的事情。下文摘自一部回忆录，时值1846年，作者当时正随同几个家庭从加利福尼亚州向俄勒冈州迁移。在路上，他们遇见了一个被遗弃的8岁印第安原住民女孩儿，她饥肠辘辘、衣不蔽体、满身烂疮。

    男人组成委员会，商讨如何对待女孩儿。我父亲想带她一起走，其他人想杀死她，以此结束她的痛苦。父亲说，这是故意谋杀。大家投票表决，结果是什么也不做，任她留在原地。我的妈妈和姨妈不愿意抛下小姑娘。她们留下来，尽力关照她。当她们最后赶上我们的时候，眼里满含着泪水。妈妈说她跪在女孩儿身边，乞求上帝关照她。一名负责马匹的年轻男子不忍心就这样留下她，他赶了回去，向她的头上开了一枪，结束了她的痛苦。[141]

    今天，这样的故事让我们感到震惊。但是，在当时西部开发者的伦理观中，让女孩儿受尽折磨后死去还是主动结束她的生命，是非常现实的选择。虽然我们会为了结束老迈的宠物或者摔断腿的马的痛苦而杀死它们，但我们将人类的生命归于神圣之物。任何基于同情和怜悯的算计都不能超过人的生命：一个有形的人的生命权利是不容谈判的。

    一步一步推向极端的纳粹集中营大屠杀，从对痴呆、心理疾患病人和有残疾的孩子进行安乐死，扩展到杀害同性恋、不合时宜的斯拉夫人、吉卜赛人和犹太人。我们对纳粹大屠杀的反应就是固化的生命禁忌。在集中营大屠杀的设计者和那些胁从的头脑里，前面的每一个步骤，都让下一步变得可以给予考虑了。[142]我们现在推断，禁忌是在堕落的陡坡之上一条清晰的界限，防止人们滑入罪恶的深渊。对纳粹操纵人类生命生死存亡的厌恶，让我们无法接受对杀婴、优生学和积极安乐死的公开讨论。但是，和所有的禁忌一样，生命的禁忌与现实的某些特征是不相容的。今天在胚胎发生、深度昏迷和非瞬间死亡这些问题上如何界定人类生命，生物学提供的边界模糊不清。如何厘清这种模糊性，正是生物伦理学激烈争辩的内容。[143]

    任何违背人性主流倾向的禁忌，都是靠一层又一层委婉又虚伪的表述来支持的，因此，这些禁忌对我们前面提到的活动或许没有实质的约束作用。大部分欧洲国家历史上的杀婴就是如此。也许，对人性最没有争议的一个说法就是，人类愿意在很多情况下进行性行为，而不论是否有能力抚养由此产生的婴儿。在没有避孕、堕胎和精心构造的社会福利制度的情况下，很多孩子一出生就得不到合适的照料，很难长大成人不论是否有某种禁忌，这些新生儿注定要夭折。

    大约1500年来，犹太教和基督教都禁止杀婴，但杀婴现象一直大量存在。有历史学家说，中世纪的弃婴“不仅数量巨大，而且绝无惩罚，被作家一笔带过”。[144]米尔纳引用的出生记录显示，平均每个富裕家庭有5.1个孩子出生，中产阶级每个家庭有2.9个孩子出生，贫困家庭有1.8个孩子出生，此外，“没有任何迹象显示怀孕数量也是这个比例”。[145]1527年，一位法国神父这样说：“那些茅厕里回荡着弃婴的哭声。”[146]

    在中世纪晚期和现代早期的不同时期，司法系统几次想对杀婴采取一些行动。这些行动的效果却非常可疑。在某些国家，未婚女仆的乳房定期受到检查，看看是否有哺乳的痕迹，而如果有乳汁而没有婴儿，她会遭受严刑拷打，直到供出发生了什么。[147]如果妇女隐瞒婴儿出生，而婴儿又未能存活，便一律被推定犯有杀婴罪，处罚是死刑，经常是将她们和几只流浪猫一起缝进口袋，然后扔进河里。即使没有这么刺激的处罚方式，结果也一样让人们感到良心的重负；以处决年轻女子来遏制杀婴的做法（尤其是这些女孩子绝大多数是因为贵族雇主受孕的女佣）并不是保护人类生命的尊严，而是允许男人甩掉他们不再想要的情妇。

    人们开始采取一些修补性的遮盖措施。母亲在睡眠中身体“压到”孩子导致婴儿窒息的意外死亡流行一时，简直泛滥成瘟疫。妇女被告知可以将无力抚养的婴儿送到育婴堂，有些机构设计了转盘和活板门，以确保母亲的身份不为人知。这些养育机构的婴儿死亡率从50%到超过99%。[148]母亲将自己的婴儿交给奶妈或者“育婴专业户”，这些专业户的婴儿存活率与育婴堂差不多。鸦片、酒精和糖浆是母亲和专业奶妈对付哭闹婴儿的灵丹妙药，只要用量够，的确能够有效地让孩子安静下来。熬过婴儿期活下来的孩子，很多会被送到工厂，正如狄更斯在《雾都孤儿》中描写的，他们“既不要求太多食物，也不要求太多衣服”,“恰恰相反，十之八九，这些可怜的小东西不是在饥寒交迫之中病倒，就是在极度疲劳中掉进火炉，或者遭遇其他意外；无论怎样，他们被召唤到另一个世界，在那里见到他们尚未见过的父亲”。即便有了这些新创造的机构，在公园里，路旁桥下，沟渠中，还是经常能看见小小的尸体。据1862年一位英国验尸官回忆，“警察发现一具孩子的尸体，与发现死猫死狗没有分别，不会为此多动一点儿心思”。[149]

    今天西方国家的杀婴已经减少为旧时的几千分之一，这部分是因为生活水平的提高，让经济压得喘不过气的母亲越来越少，部分是因为技术的进步，避孕和堕胎越来越安全有效。但是，这也反映出孩子的价值发生了变化。社会终于在宗教说教之外，承认了婴儿的生命是神圣的——不论他们的父母是谁，不论孩子出生时多么不成模样、多么污秽，不论失去孩子给家庭留下何种空白，也不论喂养和照料孩子的费用多么昂贵。

    20世纪，即使在人工流产普及之前，怀孕的女孩子也很少会独自生产然后私自杀死婴儿。人们已经开始提供各种辅助，比如未婚母亲之家，还有死亡率已经大大下降的孤儿院和帮助寻找领养家庭的中介。为什么政府、慈善和宗教组织要建立这些救生机构呢？你会感觉到，孩子变得珍贵了，儿童的利益已经成为我们集体的共同关切，起点就是保护他们的生命。从如何对待孩子的其他方面看，可以肯定，变化是巨大的。

    * * *

    在对西方珍视儿童进行进一步讨论之前，我还要对杀婴历史演变的一种曲解再说几句话。有一种历史分析认为，西方人在杀婴方面的变化只是从婴儿出生之后再杀死他们，变为受孕后立即杀死他们。不错，与几个世纪前的杀婴率相比，现今世界上大约有相同比重的怀孕以人工流产终结。[150]在发达国家，12%~25%的受孕妇女人工终止妊娠，在某些国家，这一比重高达50%。仅在2003年，美国有100万名妇女堕胎，欧洲和其他西方国家则有500万名妇女堕胎，世界其他地方至少还有另外1100万名妇女堕胎。如果堕胎算暴力，那么西方在儿童暴力方面没有丝毫进步。因为有效的堕胎方式直到20世纪70年代才开始流行（尤其是美国最高法院在1973年才对罗伊诉韦德案做出有关堕胎权的裁决），自那时起，西方的道德状况毫无改善，甚至简直就是在崩溃。

    本书不是要讨论堕胎是否道德，但是暴力的长期趋势可以提供某种观察的角度，并告诉我们，人们是怎样看待堕胎的。许多反对堕胎合法化的人预测，接受堕胎，将让人命特别是儿童的生命贬值，让社会滑向杀婴、对残疾人实施安乐死，逐步走向大规模的谋杀和屠杀。今天，我们可以肯定地说，这样的惨剧还没有发生过。虽然堕胎在世界上大多数国家已经实行了几十年，但没有一个国家不设定堕胎的孕期期限，任凭堕胎成为合法的杀婴，也没有一个国家将堕胎作为处理残疾儿童的手段。从堕胎成为可广泛获得的手段以来，每种形式的暴力都在减少。我们已经看到，儿童生命的价值是在迅速提高。

    反对堕胎的人看见了各种暴力的减少，但对他们来说，杀死胎儿仍然是令人震惊的道德伪善。对此，我们还有另一种解释。在现代人的情感中，越来越从感知的意义上，特别是从感受痛苦和实现自我的能力上看待道德价值，并将感知定位为大脑的活动。这一转变意味着人们开始摆脱宗教和习俗，转向科学和世俗的哲学，寻求道德启示的源泉。就像现行法律认定生命的终结是大脑停止活动，而不是心脏停止跳动，因此，生命的起点是胎儿大脑开始感知的那一瞬间。目前人们对感觉的神经基础的认识，将感觉与丘脑和大脑皮层之间的神经投射活动联系在一起，而26周左右的胎儿才开始具备这样的神经活动能力。[151]简而言之，人们认为胎儿还没有完整的意识：心理学家希瑟·格雷（Heather Gray）、库尔特·格雷（Kurt Gray）和丹尼尔·韦格纳（Daniel Wegner）告诉我们，人们认为胎儿的体验能力比机器人和尸体强，但不如动物、婴儿、儿童和成人。[152]绝大部分堕胎都是发生在胎儿的大脑开始工作之前，从这一点来看，按照我们对人类生命价值的理解，可以肯定地说在堕胎和杀婴以及其他形式的暴力之间存在着原则性的差异。

    同时，我们也心存期待，对毁灭生灵的厌恶会让人们拒绝堕胎，即使他们不认为堕胎等同于谋杀。这一期待正在成为现实。这是一个几乎没有为人所注意的事实，即堕胎率在全世界普遍下降。图7-16显示的是几个有堕胎数据的大国（尽管数据的质量有很大区别）在20世纪80年代、1996年和2003年的堕胎率。

    前苏东国家的堕胎率的下降最为显著。虽然在中国、美国，在亚洲以及伊斯兰国家堕胎属于合法，但堕胎率也在下降。只有在印度和西欧，堕胎没有出现减少的迹象，但是有些地区的堕胎率本来就很低。

    图7-16 1980—2003年世界堕胎情况

    资料来源：20世纪80年代数据，亨肖（Henshaw），1990年；1996年和2003年数据，赛德格（Sedgh）等人，2007年。“东欧国家”综合了保加利亚、捷克斯洛伐克/捷克共和国和斯洛伐克、匈牙利、南斯拉夫、塞尔维亚和黑山以及罗马尼亚的数据。“西欧国家”综合了比利时、丹麦、英格兰和威尔士、芬兰、荷兰、挪威、苏格兰、瑞典的数据。“亚洲国家”有新加坡、日本、韩国（以1996年的数据替代2003年）。“伊斯兰国家”综合了突尼斯和土耳其的数据。

    堕胎率下降的主要原因肯定是很实际的。与堕胎相比，避孕的手段越来越廉价，也越来越方便，一旦能够得到避孕工具，这就成为那些有自制力和预见能力的人的首选。但是，即使在使用堕胎以及主张堕胎作为一种安全和合法手段的人当中，堕胎仍然是一个有伦理考量的问题。堕胎被认为应该是尽量少使用的工具，尽管这件工具不能被犯罪化。如果真是这样，在“生命优先”和“选择权优先”两派水火不容的争执之间，堕胎的走势也许能为双方提供些许一致之处。容许堕胎的国家并没有对生命漠然处之，任凭杀婴或其他形式的暴力随意施展。相反，这些国家日渐一日地将堕胎视为非情愿的手段，为了保护生灵，尽力减少使用这样的手段。

    * * *

    长期来看，针对儿童的暴力历史着实令人沮丧。对那些逃脱杀婴存活下来的孩子来说，等待他们的是经年累月的伤害和严厉的惩罚。虽然狩猎采集部落的人在使用体罚时还有所节制，但在其他所有社会中，育儿手段都是来自《爱丽丝漫游仙境》:“说说你的小男孩儿吧，他打喷嚏，就给他一巴掌。”[153]有关儿童成长的主流理论曾经认为，孩子有堕落的天然倾向，要靠强力使其纳入社会规范。公元前7世纪，亚述帝国国王的大臣就进言说“棍子闲坏了，孩子惯坏了”，这也许就是《旧约·箴言》第13章第24节的起源：“不忍用杖打儿子的，是恨恶他；疼爱儿子的，随时管教他。”[154]中世纪法国版的劝诫是：“让孩子在幼年挨揍，比让他成年上绞架要强。”清教牧师科顿·马瑟（英克里斯·马瑟的儿子）对儿童的未来充满焦虑，他说：“宁愿挨鞭子，切莫被上帝诅咒。”[155]

    至于各种惩罚手段，人类的创造力上升到挑战技术极限——怎样才能让人感到最不舒服。德莫斯这样描述中世纪的欧洲：

    心术不正的孩子必须受到责罚，这是不言而喻的。为此人们发明了一整套责罚工具，从“九尾鞭”到铁锹、木条、铁条、荆条束、细铁链鞭子、刺棒（形状如同修鞋匠的刀子，用来刺孩子的头部或手掌），还有学校专用的体罚工具，例如打手板，梨形板子上打出小圆孔，以便在孩子的手上打出小疱疱。有记载的体罚总是严厉的，要在身体上留下瘀伤和出血。体罚往往是从婴儿时期开始，先是刺激婴儿阴部附近的皮肉，此后，这就是儿童日常生活的一部分了。[156]

    严厉的体罚持续了几个世纪。有一项调查发现，在18世纪下半叶，百分之百的美国儿童受过棍子、鞭子或其他械具的体罚。[157]儿童也是司法制度惩处的对象：塞缪尔·约翰逊的回忆录里顺带提到18世纪英格兰一个年仅7岁的女孩子因为偷盗一件衬裙被绞刑处死。[158]甚至在20世纪初，德国的孩子还“经常因为倔强而被放到烧红的铁炉子上，连续几天被绑捆在床柱子上，被扔进冷水里或者雪地里 ‘锻炼意志 ’，或者每天被罚靠着墙边在木头上跪数小时，而他们的父母则在孩子受罚的时候吃饭或者阅读”。[159]在接受大小便训练的时候，许多孩子被灌肠折磨；而在学校，他们被殴打直到“皮肤冒烟”。

    对儿童严厉体罚不是欧洲所独有的。从古埃及、古苏美尔、古巴比伦、古波斯、古希腊、古罗马、古代中国到阿兹特克，殴打儿童的记录不绝于史书。各种处罚包括“针刺，绑住孩子的手后用带刺的荆棘抽打，把孩子放在烘烤干辣椒的炭火上，被迫呼吸辛辣的烟气”。[160]德莫斯注意到，直到20世纪，日本孩子所受的惩罚中仍然包括“香头灼烧皮肤，使用灌肠剂训练婴儿大小便……踢、倒吊、洗冷水澡、掐脖子、针刺、切断手指尖”。[161]（德莫斯本人既是历史学家，也是精神分析学家，他使用了很多资料解释“二战”中日本人的暴行。）儿童也是精神折磨的受害者。他们在娱乐中也不断被提醒他们有可能被父母抛弃，被继父继母虐待，或者被妖怪和野兽摧残。从格林童话中，我们就能观察到儿童文学中悲惨的童年或者调皮捣蛋者下场的典型。在英国，摇篮曲的主角是拿破仑：

    宝贝儿，宝贝儿，莫让他听见你，

    他就在窗外，马蹄声声急，

    他会扯下你的腿，揪下小胳臂，

    就像老猫撕开小耗子。

    他要揍你，揍你，再揍你，

    把你打成一团烂泥，

    他要吃了你，吃了你，吃了你，

    一口，一口，再一口，剩不下一粒儿小渣子。[162]

    在儿童文学中反复出现的创作典型是小有过失或者被冤枉的孩子，他被继母屠宰，做成晚餐，供他那个没心没肺的父亲享用。在意第绪语的版本中，一名受害者在死后向自己的姐姐哭诉：

    被妈妈杀掉了啊，

    被爸爸吃下肚。

    香黛拉，他们吞下我的肉，

    还要敲骨吸髓，

    最后把骨头扔到窗外头。[163]

    * * *

    父母为什么要虐待自己的孩子？为什么要让自己的孩子忍饥挨饿，得不到照料，感受恐惧？人们也许会很天真地想，既然拥有更多的后代是大自然的最终选择，父母已经在进化中形成了不计代价抚育子女的本能，而孩子的一切得之父母，他们因此会毫不犹豫地服从父母。从这种天真的观点来看，父母和子女之间只有一片和谐，双方的目的只有一个，就是让孩子健康成长，直到他们强大到能有自己的儿女。

    特里弗斯最先注意到自然选择理论并未给出这样的预期。[164]父母和后代之间的冲突根植于家庭的进化基因之中。父母必须将自己的投资（资源、时间和风险）在所有孩子之间进行分配，包括已经出生和未出生的孩子。一切都是平均的，每一个后代都同样珍贵，只是处于无力自助的婴幼期的孩子需要父母更多的投入。但在孩子眼中，事情却是不一样的。虽然每一个后代利益与他的同胞手足的福祉利害相关，但在他与全同胞之间只分享一半的基因，而只和自己分享全部基因，因此他当然更加关注自己的利益。父母的愿望是在子女之间平均分配资源，而子女的愿望是要求自己得到更多关照，两者之间的张力就是“父母-子女冲突”。虽然冲突的对象是父母在一个孩子和其他同胞手足之间的投入，这些同胞可以是尚未出生的孩子，父母必须为了未来的子女和孙子孙女保存能量。的确可以说，为人父母的第一个困境就是是否要留下新生儿，这不过是“父母-子女冲突”的极端案例罢了。

    “父母-子女冲突”理论完全没有告诉我们一个后代期望父母多少投入，或者父母应该投入多少。它只是告诉我们，不论父母愿意付出多少，孩子都会要求更多。当孩子要求帮助时，他们会哭，父母不能无视孩子的哭声。但是，人们认为孩子哭喊比他们的实际需要更响亮、更长久。父母为了孩子的安全约束孩子的行为，并帮助孩子与社区内的其他成员交往。但父母也为了自己的方便，要求孩子遵守纪律，要求孩子迁就自己的同胞手足和家族，这些要求很多已经超出了孩子自己的利益所需。“需要”（wants）、“利益”（interests）和“为了”（for）这些目的论的字眼所指的并不是人头脑中的真正愿望，而是对造成这些观念的进化压力的简称。

    “父母-子女冲突”解释了为什么抚养子女是一场意志的较量。它无法解释的是，为什么这场较量有时候要使用棍棒和鞭子，有时候却需要说教和单独处分。回望几千年的历史，我们不能不为孩子感到悲哀，他们毫无必要地从家长那里遭受了无数重手。与战争的悲剧不同，战场上敌对双方相互仇视厌恶，养育子女中的暴力却完全是单方的。过去那些遭鞭笞和火烧的孩子，并不比今天的孩子更调皮，他们长大了也未见得更有品行。相反，我们已经知道，往昔成年人的暴力冲动大大高于今天的成年人。到底是什么让今天的父母发现，在养育孩子的时候，他们其实不需要祖先所使用的那么多且残酷的暴力了？

    第一个变化是思想意识的改变。和许多人道主义改革一样，这个变化也是起源于“理性时代”和启蒙运动。孩子们对付“父母-子女冲突”的各种手腕，让每一个时代的父母都哀叹自己的孩子是“小恶魔”。在基督教兴起的年代，这种直觉被规范为天性中的堕落和原罪。比如，16世纪20年代，一位德国神学家在布道时说，孩子的天性中隐藏着“通奸、乱伦、肮脏的欲望、淫荡、偶像敬拜、相信魔法、对抗、争吵、激情、愤怒、反叛、拉帮结派、仇恨、谋杀、酗酒和暴食暴饮”，而这些指控只是他的开篇而已。[165]人们所说的“打得他灵魂出窍”其实不是一个简单的形容！对未来生活的宿命观，让孩子的培养成了命中注定的事情，免除了父母和教师的责任。

    约翰·洛克在1693年出版的《教育漫话》（Some Thoughts Concern-ing Education）开始提供了一种新的教育范式，并迅速得到传播。[166]洛克认为，一个孩子“仅仅是一张白纸，或者是一块柔软的蜡，可以任人塑造成型”——这个理论就是所谓的白板理论。洛克这样写道：儿童的教育“对人类意义重大”，他鼓励老师对自己的学生怀有同情心，并尝试站在学生的立场思考问题。家教应该仔细观察学生“情绪的变化”，帮助学生享受学习过程。教师不应该期望年幼的孩子表现出和大孩子一样的“端庄、严肃和专注”。相反，“他们必须获准……做出带有适龄的傻气和孩子气的行为”。[167]

    现在，大家都知道，孩子得到什么样的对待决定了他将长成什么样的人，但在过去，这是鲜为人知的智慧。洛克的几位同代人和继承人使用各种比喻来提醒人们幼儿是形成性格的时期。约翰·弥尔顿说：“儿童之于成人，就像清晨之于一日。”亚历山大·蒲柏将其上升到因果关联：“树枝弯了，树干也就跟着倾斜了。”威廉·华兹华斯将一个关于童年的比喻彻底颠倒了过来，他说：“儿童是成年男子的父亲。”这些新的理解促使人们反思原来对待儿童的粗暴方式的道德含义和实践效果。殴打儿童不再是从被恶魔势力控制的孩子身上驱邪，甚至不再是单纯减少调皮捣蛋频率的手段。对儿童的暴力塑造了他的成年，其可预见和不可预见的结果，将影响未来的人类文明。

    卢梭提出了另一种格式塔，他认为孩子天性纯真，并用这一浪漫的观念替代了基督教中的原罪。在1762年出版的专著《爱弥儿》（émile）中，卢梭写道：“在造物主手中时，一切都是美好的；一旦到了人的手中，所有的事情都开始变坏了。”作为20世纪心理学家让·皮亚杰（Jean Piaget）理论的前奏，卢梭将童年划分为几个阶段：直觉、感性和理念。他认为，在年幼的儿童尚未到达“理念的年纪”时，不应该指望他们按照成人的方式推理。与其用善恶规则训练孩子，不如允许孩子与自然互动，从他们自己的经验中学习。如果在探索世界时损坏了什么东西，这不过是天真的失误，而不是故意的破坏。他大声疾呼要“尊重童年”，在大人介入之前，要“让自然有充分的时间完成自己的工作”。[168]在卢梭的启发之下，19世纪的浪漫主义运动将童年看作智慧、纯洁和创造力的时期，是儿童应该无拘束地享受而不是要以纪律制约的发展阶段。今天人们都熟识这一认知，但在当时，它却是相当激进的。

    在启蒙运动年代，社会精英开始接受有利儿童的白板说和人天性纯真说。但有关历史学家认为，直到进入20世纪的前后几十年间，才真正出现了改变儿童待遇的转折点。[169]经济学家维维安娜·泽利泽（Viviana Zelizer）认为，在19世纪70年代至20世纪30年代，在西方中层和上层阶级的父母中出现了一种“神圣化”童年的现象。自那时起，我们赋予儿童新的价值，即“经济上一钱不值，感情上无价之宝”。[170]这个时代的发端是英国揭露一家“婴儿农场”的丑闻导致1870年成立了婴儿保护协会，接着在1872年和1897年制定了“婴儿生命保护法案”（Infant Life Protection）。大约在同一时期，奶制品的巴斯德氏消毒法和消毒奶瓶的出现，让婴儿摆脱了依赖不负责任的奶妈喂养的状态。虽然工业革命最早是将儿童从筋疲力尽的小农民变成筋疲力尽的工厂童工，但工业革命积累起来的财富，终于降低了婴儿死亡率，也降低了对童工的需要，并为保护儿童的社会服务提供了稳定的税收。大部分儿童开始进入学校，不久学校教育成为国家对国民的义务并完全免费。针对街上成帮结派的流浪儿、叫花子和技巧高超的小骗子，儿童福利机构开设幼儿园、孤儿院、感化院、教养营地，还有男童俱乐部和女童俱乐部。[171]为孩子创作的故事以带来愉悦为目的，而不再是制造恐惧或者推行教化。儿童研究试图以科学方法实现人力开发，不再迷信夸夸其谈的老太太和所谓的育儿专家。

    我们在人道主义改革时期已经看到，承认一个群体的权利会导致对其他群体权利的类推，比如对暴君的否认，类推为对夫权暴力的否定；两个世纪之后，民权运动又激发了女权运动。保护受虐待的儿童，也得益于一种类比，不论你是否相信，这个类比竟然是保护动物。

    1874年，曼哈顿住着一个10岁的女孩儿玛丽·埃伦·麦科马克（Mary Ellen McCormack），她是被养母及其第二任丈夫收留的孤儿，邻居注意到玛丽身上有可疑的伤痕和瘀青。[172]他们报告了主管纽约市监狱、济贫所、孤儿院和疯人院的“公共慈善和教养局”。因为当时没有专门保护儿童的法律，案件的调查员只好与美国动物保护协会联络。在会社的创建人眼中，玛丽的苦难和他营救的受主人虐待的马匹所遭受的苦难没有两样。他起用律师，向纽约州最高法院提出对人身保护法的创造性解释，要求将玛丽带离她的家庭。女孩在法庭平静地做出陈述：

    妈妈几乎每天都要用鞭子抽打我。她经常用一条两股生牛皮扭成的鞭子。现在我头上有两处黑紫色的疤痕，是妈妈的皮鞭子留下的，前额左边的这个伤疤，是妈妈用剪刀捅伤后留下的……我从来不敢告诉别人，如果我说了，我会挨更多的鞭子。

    《纽约时报》在一篇题为“小苦儿的非人遭遇”的文章中刊出了玛丽的法庭证词，她被带离那个家庭；最后，她的案件调查员领养了她。她的律师创立了“纽约防止虐待儿童协会”，这是世界上第一个以保护儿童为目的的中介组织。与其他同时兴起的社会组织一起，它们共同开设受虐儿童庇护所，游说制定法规惩戒施虐的父母。同样，在英国，第一个针对父母虐待保护儿童的司法案例也是由英国皇家防止虐待动物协会提出的，随后由此诞生了防止虐待儿童全国协会。

    虽然贯穿整个19世纪，儿童在西方社会的价值日渐上升，但进步从来都不是一蹴而就的，也没有什么神奇的巨变。在欧洲历史的每一个时期和每一种文化中，都能看到人们对孩子的挚爱，为失去孩子而感到的哀伤，在孩子调皮捣蛋时产生的不快。[173]甚至很多父母暴虐地对待自己的亲生骨肉，是因为他们坚信这样做符合孩子的最终利益。与任何暴力的减少一样，很难区分导致这一趋势的各种同时发生的变化——启蒙思想、持续的经济繁荣、司法改革和观念的变化。

    但是，不论这些原因是什么，它们在20世纪30年代继续发挥影响。1946年，本杰明·斯波克（Benjamin Spock）历久不衰的畅销书《斯波克育儿经》（Baby and Child Care）被认为立场相当激进，因为作者在书中劝告母亲不要打孩子，不要吝啬表达喜爱，也没有必要严厉地恪守规则。虽然战后一代父母放纵孩子在当时还是新鲜事物，人们认为婴儿潮一代的人就是这样被宠坏了。当婴儿潮一代自己成为父母之后，他们对孩子甚至更加体贴。洛克、卢梭和19世纪的改革家开了温和对待儿童的先河。近几十年来，这一趋势已经逐渐成为大潮流。

    * * *

    自20世纪50年代以来，人们更加不能容忍让孩子成为暴力的受害者。人们最容易控制的暴力就是他们自己实施的暴力，比如，他们施加在孩子身上的巴掌和拳脚，以及板子、鞭子、荆条、暴晒、殴打和其他形式的体罚。20世纪，精英对体罚的态度发生了天翻地覆的变化。除了基要派的基督教团体，人们已经很少再听得到“闲坏了棍子，惯坏了孩子”这样的说辞。父亲解开皮带，母亲挥舞梳子，孩子眼泪汪汪地用枕头护着他们屁股上的青紫瘀伤，这已经不再是常见的家庭娱乐场景了。

    至少自从斯波克医生出书以来，儿童养育大师大多是告诫父母不要打孩子。[174]今天，所有的儿科医生和心理协会都反对体罚，尽管使用的语言未见得像默里·斯特劳斯文章的标题那样直截了当：“无论如何，永远不应该打孩子！”[175]专家反对打孩子的意见出于三个理由。一是打孩子最终会带来副作用，让孩子缺少同情心，产生侵略性、犯法倾向以及抑郁。打孩子等于告诉孩子暴力是解决问题的手段之一，这种逻辑关系是否成立是有争议的。同样，我们可以这样解释打孩子和暴力之间的相关性，天生具有暴力倾向的父母也会有天生具有暴力倾向的孩子，而容忍暴力对付儿童的社区和文化，也容易容忍其他形式的暴力。[176]二是在减少孩子犯错误方面，打孩子的效果远不如讲道理，也不如使用非暴力的惩罚手段，例如训斥和禁闭。疼痛和羞辱让孩子分神，不再专心思考自己犯了什么错误，如果他们顺从的唯一目的就是避免处罚，那么一旦父母背过身去，他们立刻就会继续调皮捣蛋。而避免打孩子最重要的原因也许只是象征性的。斯特劳斯认为永远不应该打孩子的第三个理由是：“巴掌与一个家庭和一个社会的非暴力理念水火不容”。

    是父母听从了专家的意见，还是他们自己得出了相同的结论？民意调查有时会提出这样的问题：“狠狠地揍孩子一顿，有些时候是维持纪律所必需的”，或者“在某些情况下，打孩子是完全正确的”。民调的结果取决于问题的选词和用语，但对那些历年来反复提出的问题，受访者中的认同人数明显呈下降趋势。图7-17给出了1954年以来美国的三套数据，加上来自瑞典和新西兰的调查结果。在20世纪80年代初之前，英语国家中大约90%的受访者赞成揍孩子。不到一代人之后，这个比重降到大约50%。在不同的国家和地区，这个比重有所不同：瑞典同意打孩子的人比美国和新西兰少，美国内部地区之间也有差异，正如我们在审视荣誉杀人时看到的情况。[177]2005年的一项调查发现，在北方（倾向于投票支持民主党）蓝色州，例如麻省和佛蒙特，赞成打孩子的比重约为55%，而在南方（倾向于支持共和党）的红色州，例如亚拉巴马和阿肯色，这一比重超过85%。[178]美国50个州赞同打孩子的比重与凶杀率吻合（两个指标的相关系数在-1到1的相关区间内为0.52），这可以说遭到暴打的孩子长大后变成杀手，但更可能的是，鼓动揍孩子的亚文化也同样在成人中鼓动以凶杀保卫荣誉。[179]但是，即便如此，各地支持暴力对待孩子的人数都在下降；到2006年，南方各州不赞同揍孩子的比重达到了中北部和大西洋沿岸中部各州1986年的水平。[180]

    图7-17 1954—2008年美国、瑞典和新西兰同意打孩子的人口比重的变化

    资料来源：盖洛普/美国广播公司民调，盖洛普，1999年；美国广播公司新闻，2002年；斯特劳斯，2001年，206页。“一般社会调查”：http:// www. norc. org/GSS+ Website/，加权平均。新西兰：卡斯韦尔（Carswell），2001年。瑞典：斯特劳斯，2009年。

    家长的实际行为如何呢？如果孩子的行为超过一定界限，许多父母仍然会打孩子的手掌，但20世纪下半叶，对儿童的其他各种体罚都在减少。20世纪30年代，美国的父母每个月揍孩子3次以上，或者每年超过30次。到1975年，这个数字是每年10次；到1985年，每年只有约7次。[181]欧洲的变化更加显著。[182]在50年代，94%的瑞典人打孩子；对其中33%的人来说，打孩子是每日的例行公事。到1995年，这两个数字分别降到33%和4%。到1992年，德国的父母已经不会像他们的曾祖父母那样，把孩子按在滚烫的炉子上或绑在床柱子上，但是他们中仍有81%打自己孩子的耳光，41%用棍子揍孩子，31%能将孩子打出瘀青。但到2002年，这几个数字分别是14%、5%和3%。

    在其他国家，情况各不相同。在以色列、匈牙利、荷兰、比利时和瑞典，只有不到5%的大学生记得自己在少年时期挨过家长的揍。但在坦桑尼亚和南非，超过25%的大学生有这样的记忆。[183]一般而言，越富裕的国家越少暴力对待孩子，但在发达的亚洲国家或地区，例如中国台湾地区、新加坡和中国香港地区却有例外。在美国内部，不同族裔之间的差别让我们看到了一种国际对比，与白人相比，更多的非裔和亚裔赞同家长打孩子。[184]但在这三个族裔组中，赞同人数也都呈下降趋势。[185]

    1979年，瑞典政府立法禁止打孩子。[186]其他斯堪的纳维亚国家和西欧各国紧随其后。联合国和欧盟已经呼吁其全体成员国禁止打儿童。一些国家发起社会运动，呼唤公众觉悟；已有24个国家通过了相关法律。

    禁止打孩子，无疑颠覆了几千年来父母认为孩子属于自己，可以随意处置的观念。但是，这一变化符合国家对家庭在其他方面的介入，比如义务学校教育，强制性疫苗，将孩子带离虐待性的家庭，对父母因宗教原因拒绝施救的孩子进行强行医疗救护，以及欧洲国家严禁穆斯林移民社区实行女性阴部割礼。在有些人看来，这些政策都属于国家极权强行进入家庭的私域空间；在另一些人看来，这是承认个体自主的历史潮流。孩子也是人，和成年人一样，他们拥有对自己的生命、肢体（和私部）的权利，受到国家公器下社会契约的保护。其他个体（他们的父母），声称对孩子的所有权并不能否认孩子的基本权利。

    美国人一直有重家庭轻政府的倾向，目前美国没有任何州禁止父母对孩子进行体罚。但说到政府——美国人已经开始拒绝在学校里对孩子进行体罚这种暴力形式。即使是在保守的南方各州，3/4的人认为父母可以体罚孩子，但只有30%的人同意学校可以打孩子的手掌；而在自由派的蓝色州，只有不到15%的人还持有同样的立场。[187]自20世纪50年代起，同意学校对学生进行体罚的人数一直在下降（图7-18）。反对体罚的意见已经进入立法。图7-19显示了美国各州允许学校体罚的数量正在下降。

    国际社会上针对儿童的暴力甚至发生了更引人瞩目的变化，学校体罚学生被视为一种非法的政府暴力，违反人权。联合国儿童权利委员会、联合国人权委员会和联合国反酷刑委员会纷纷谴责体罚学生，世界上半数以上的国家（合计106个），明文禁止学校体罚。[188]

    图7-18 1954—2002年美国同意学校体罚的比重

    资料来源：1954—1994年的数据来自盖洛普，1999年；2002年的数据来自美国广播公司新闻，2002年。

    图7-19 1954—2010年美国各州允许学校体罚的情况

    资料来源：莱特（Leiter）的数据，2007年。

    * * *

    虽然大多数美国人仍然认可父母体罚孩子，但他们对纪律约束式的低度暴力，例如打手掌和打屁股，与拳脚、棍棒、鞭抽、殴打和恐吓之类的严重暴力之间的区分有很清楚的界限。比如，用刀枪威胁孩子，或者将孩子悬在屋顶边缘摇荡这类恐吓是不能接受的。在斯特劳斯的调查中，向受调查者发出的问卷上有一个包括各种虐待型处罚手段的清单。他发现，1975—1992年，接受这些处罚手段的父母减少了一半，从20%下降到略高于10%。[189]

    与受害者的报告相反，施暴者自动报告事实上就是要他们承认自己犯了错误。目前父母打孩子的数量明显下降，很可能是更多的父母不愿意承认自己打了孩子。过去，母亲在孩子身上留下几块瘀伤不过说明她在管教自己的孩子。但自20世纪80年代起，越来越多的意见领袖、社会名流和电视剧作家开始呼吁公众关注虐待儿童的问题，他们经常将暴虐的父母塑造成食人恶魔，而受过虐待的儿童长大后都带有永久的心理创伤。在这样的社会潮流之下，即使父母曾经因暴怒在孩子身上留下伤疤，他们也不会向调查者实话实说。我们可以肯定，虐待儿童已经成为一种耻辱。1976年，当调查问“虐待儿童是不是这个国家的一个大问题”的时候，只有10%的人回答“是”；而在1985年和1999年，90%的人回答“是”。[190]斯特劳斯认为，在他的调查中，针对儿童的暴力的下降，既反映了对暴力的接受程度在下降，也反映了实际暴力水平的下降；即使只有对暴力的接受程度的变化，也是值得大大欢呼的好事情。人们开始设立儿童保护热线电话，政府中有负责儿童保护的官员，警察、社工、学校的教育顾问和义工密切关注周围儿童的安全和健康状况，一旦发现异常，立即采取保护措施，惩罚或者劝诫施虐者，并将孩子带离施虐的家庭。

    人们的观念和社会组织的变化是否产生了良好的效果？建立“全国儿童受虐和忽视数据系统”的目的是从全国各地的儿童保护机构手里收集虐童案例。心理学家丽莎·琼斯（Lisa Jones）和社会学家戴维·芬克勒尔（David Finkelhor）将1990—2007年的数据编绘成图，发现儿童心理虐待案件减少了一半（见图7-20）。

    琼斯和芬克勒尔的研究还显示，在这一时期，性虐待案和针对儿童的暴力犯罪案件，例如袭击、抢劫和强奸的数量也下降了1/3到2/3。他们通过对受害者的调查，对这些数据进行理智检查，并将数据与凶杀数据、罪犯的坦白和性病发生率综合比较，发现所有数据都呈下降趋势。过去20年的事实证明，无论怎样衡量，儿童和青少年的生活都发生了巨大的改善。离家出走的、少年怀孕的、违法乱纪的以及自杀的人数都在减少。英国和威尔士的儿童暴力案件也大幅度减少，最新的报告说，自20世纪70年代以来，儿童暴力死亡案件下降了近40%。[191]

    20世纪90年代虐童案的减少与成人凶杀案件的减少不谋而合，而且同样很难找到单一的原因。芬克勒尔和琼斯审视了几种可能性。人口构成、严刑峻法、缉毒、枪支、堕胎以及监狱都无法解释犯罪减少的原因。90年代的经济繁荣也许算得上很次要的原因之一，但它既不能解释性虐案的减少，也不能解释进入21世纪经济发展开始停滞后虐童案的第二波减少。警察数量的增加和社工人员的积极干预也许很有效，但芬克勒尔和琼斯提出了一个外生因素。20世纪90年代初期正是电影《少女初体验》（Prozac Nation）和《兴奋剂利他林》（Running on Ritalin）上演的年代。抗抑郁药物和儿童注意力缺失症药物的大量使用，一方面让父母自己走出晦暗阴郁，另一方面帮助很多孩子控制住自己的冲动。芬克勒尔和琼斯还指出，文化范式发生了尽管模糊但却强有力的变化。正如我们在第3章中看到的，正是在90年代，文明攻势扭转了60年代的放荡，克制了各种形式的暴力活动。美国电视上听众参与的访谈节目暴露了各种家庭暴力，对现身说法的受害者充满同情甚至美化。

    图7-20 1990—2007年美国虐童案

    资料来源：琼斯和芬克勒尔的著作，2007年；同时见芬克勒尔和琼斯的著作，2006年。

    * * *

    让儿童深受其害的另一种暴力是孩子欺负孩子。孩子之间的恃强凌弱是孩子的天性使然，孩子和其他年幼的灵长类一样，都是通过显示自己的强势和力量在自己的小社会中追求统治地位。许多人的童年回忆都包括遭受其他孩子欺凌的悲惨故事，愚蠢低级的恃强凌弱是一种最主要的流行文化。我们在《小顽童》（Our Gang）里看到的巴齐和瓦伊姆，在《回到未来》（Back to the Future）三部曲里看到的比夫·丹男，在《辛普森一家》（The Simpsons）里看到的尼尔森·芒兹，以及在《凯文的幻虎世界》（Calvin and Hobbes）里看到的毛埃，都是这种流氓的样板（图7-21）。

    直到最近，成人还是将欺凌看作童年的一种理所当然的经历。他们说，“男孩子就是男孩子”，童年时学会应付欺压是为进入成人世界做准备。欺凌的受害者无处逃避，不能向老师或家长告状，因为这会让他们成为告密者和娘娘腔，使他们的处境更加糟糕。

    我们已经看到很多历史性格式塔的转变，暴力从不可避免变为不能容忍，而孩子中间的恃强凌弱正成为要被消灭的对象。这场运动开始于1999年科伦拜恩高中屠杀惨案。围绕这起枪击案的起因，有着各种混乱的解释。媒体放大了各种谣言，比如哥特派、运动员派、抗抑郁药物、电子游戏、互联网、暴力电影、摇滚歌星玛丽莲·曼森——以及两个杀人的孩子中有一个曾经被欺凌等。结果，真相与媒体喋喋不休渲染的故事完全不同，两个凶手都不是哥特派，不曾被运动员派的人欺凌。[192]但是公众都觉得屠杀惨案是一次复仇行动，儿童专家借机将一个现代城市传说发展成一场抵制欺凌的运动。幸运的是，“今天受欺负，明天扣动扳机”不是唯一的理论，还有一些更理性的解释，比如，受欺负的孩子可能陷入抑郁，在学校学业不佳，自杀率增高。[193]目前美国有44个州立法禁止在学校欺负同学，有些州规定在学校教材中明文谴责欺凌，鼓励培养同情心，指导孩子如何建设性地解决彼此之间的纠纷。[194]儿科医生和儿童心理学家的组织都曾经一再声明要求切实防止欺凌，杂志、电视节目、奥普拉·温弗瑞的电视访谈王国，甚至美国总统都对此发出了自己的声音。[195]再有10年时间，今天《凯文的幻虎世界》漫画中对欺凌的滑稽刻画，有可能就像我们今天看20世纪50年代咖啡广告中丈夫暴打妻子的场面一样，成为不可忍受的东西。

    图7-21 针对儿童的另外一种暴力——儿童之间的欺凌

    即使不考虑受欺凌孩子所承受的沉重的心理后果，欺负同学也是绝对不道德的。正如凯文认识到的，一旦人们长大，就不再能够无缘无故地痛打别人。成年人用法律、警察、工作场所规范和社会准则保护自己，没有理由认为孩子就不能享有这些保护，以前之所以做不到，唯一的解释就是成人在从自己的角度看待生活时懒惰且无情。因为儿童生命价值的提高以及普世的道德观，保护儿童免受同伴的欺凌，就像保护儿童免受其他伤害一样，已经是一场不可避免的社会运动。儿童和青少年长期以来一直是一些轻罪的受害者，诸如偷窃午餐钱、毁坏书本文具以及动手动脚之类的性骚扰，这些轻罪超过了学校校规的范围，又没有达到警方出警的程度。而年轻人的利益正在得到越来越多的重视。

    为了保护年轻人的利益，社会已经在进行必要的调整。2004年，美国司法部和教育部联合发布题为“校园犯罪和安全指标”的报告，报告使用受害者调查以及学校和警方的统计数据，给出了1992—2003年美国校园暴力的走势。[196]报告仅在最后三年调查了校园内欺负同学的问题，但全程追踪了其他形式的暴力活动。报告的结论是打架、威协、盗窃、性侵犯、抢劫和人身攻击等犯罪都呈下降趋势，如图7-22所示。

    视频网站YouTube上流传的一群女孩对一个同伴大打出手的暴力事件，媒体不失时机大肆炒作，但与媒体的渲染相反，美国的大多数女孩并没有野性发作。目前女孩中的谋杀和抢劫率是近40年来的最低点，武器持有率、打架、斗殴和女孩遭受和实施的暴力伤害案近10年来一直在不断减少。[197]但随着YouTube大行其道，近年内我们可以预期看到更多这类视频引发的道德恐慌（诸如虐待狂、嗜血儿童或者小杀手）。

    图7-22 1992—2003年美国针对年轻人的暴力

    资料来源：数据来自德沃等人，2004年。

    * * *

    现在说孩子一切正常还为时过早，但是显然他们的处境比以前好了很多。的确，有些反对暴力保护儿童的措施未免有些闹过火了，已经落入迷信和禁忌的窠臼。

    禁忌之一就是心理学家朱迪斯·哈里斯（Judith Harris）所批评的“教养说”。[198]洛克和卢梭开启了儿童养育理念的革命，改写了养育者的角色，将通过体罚纠正孩子的坏毛病，变为通过塑造为未来培养人才。到20世纪后期，父母虐待和忽视孩子会对孩子造成伤害的观念（这个观念是对的），逐渐让位于父母能够造就孩子的智力、个性、社交能力，甚至精神错乱（这个观点是错的）。为什么说它是错的呢？只要看看移民的孩子就知道，孩子们的口音、价值和行为标准最终是追随他们的同代人，而不是他们的父母。这个事实告诉我们，孩子是与同伴一起，而不是与家庭一起进入社会：养育孩子常常需要举全村之力。对领养儿童的研究发现，被收养孩子的个性和智商与他们的亲生同胞相关，而与领养家庭的兄弟姐妹无关。这一事实告诉我们，成人的个性和智商是由基因和机会决定的（因为这里的相关性并不完全，即使是同卵双胞胎也有差异），而不是由父母后天塑造而成，至少不是父母对孩子的管教塑造而成的。尽管有这样或那样的反证，“教养说”还是发展出一套非常顽固的专业见解，接受这些观点的母亲把自己变成每天24小时运转的育儿机器，激励、培养和开发她们怀中的小白板。

    另一个被神圣化了的禁忌是绝对不许孩子接触任何一点儿与暴力有关联的东西。2009年在芝加哥，25个11岁到15岁的学生参与了一场饭厅里扔食物的打斗。这原本是一项很老派的运动，但这些孩子被警察带走，还被铐上手铐，押进警车，拍摄了嫌疑犯照片，最后被控“行为鲁莽”。[199]校区内武器零容忍政策带来了一系列荒诞的故事，一个6岁的幼儿童子军的午饭盒里有一副套装的野营餐具，学校几乎为此重新制定校规；为了课堂作业，12岁的女孩子用一把工具刀从玩具房子上割下了一块玻璃，结果被学校开除；雄鹰童子军队员遵循“时刻准备着”的座右铭，在自己的车里准备了一个睡袋、饮用水、食品和2英寸长的折叠刀，他因此被学校停课。[200]很多学校雇用了脖子上挂着哨子的“课间教练”，监督孩子从事建设性的、有组织的课间游戏。学校担心如果让孩子自由选择，孩子也许另有所爱，比如为了一只足球争吵、跳绳，或者在操场上跳方块。[201]

    成年人不断努力剔除儿童文化中的暴力内容。1982年的电影《外星人》（E. T.）的高潮是小男孩爱略特将外星人放在自行车的小筐子里，闯过了警察的防线。2002年，在此电影出品20周年版时，史蒂文·斯皮尔伯格用数字处理解除了警官的武装，他通过计算机绘图用对讲机取代了原来警察佩带的枪支。[202]万圣节前后，父母总是得到提示，给孩子的装扮服饰要“积极向上”，比如要装扮成历史人物或南瓜胡萝卜，而不要把孩子整成僵尸、吸血鬼或者电影里的反派。[203]洛杉矶市的一所学校就万圣节化装指导，发出如下这份备忘录：

    不得扮成流氓团伙或恐怖人物，或者让人感到恐惧；

    只能在游行中使用面具；

    化装不得侮辱任何种族、宗教、国籍、残疾或性别；

    不得使用假指甲；

    不得出现武器，即使假的玩具武器也不得出现。

    在加利福尼亚州的另一个地方，一名妈妈认为自己的孩子也许会对邻居院子里的万圣节的墓碑装饰和怪物感到恐惧，于是打电话到警察局报告邻居犯有“仇恨罪”。[204]

    儿童价值的历史性提升已经进入其衰落期。孩子不再面对出生时被闷死的噩运，不再在冷酷的孤儿院忍饥挨饿，不再被乳母下药，被父亲痛殴，被继母屠宰后做成肉馅，不再在矿井或车间里累死累活，或者感染传染病，也不再被同伴殴打。现在的专家绞尽脑汁，要在下行的曲线甚至反弹曲线上寻找一点点新的增量。不准许孩子中午在户外活动——有患皮肤癌的风险，不能在草地上玩耍——有跳蚤，不能从其他孩子的小摊子上买柠檬水——没有洗干净的柠檬皮上有细菌，不能在妈妈做蛋糕的时候舔打奶油的勺子——没有做熟的鸡蛋有沙门氏菌。律师出马检查所有的操场，确保所有地方都铺满橡胶软垫，滑梯和攀登架的高度不能超过腰部，跷跷板要一律拆除，这样就不会有在下方的孩子跳离位子，看着还在上方的孩子掉到地上——这本来是跷跷板最好玩的噱头。儿童教育节目《芝麻街》的制片人发行了一套DVD，包括这套经典系列节目最初几年的合集（1969—1974年），他们竟然在包装外盒上警告说有些节目可能“儿童不宜”![205]节目中有孩子进行“危险活动”的内容，例如爬上攀登架，没有戴头盔骑自行车，在弯弯曲曲的筒子里爬进爬出，接受和善的陌生人送的牛奶和饼干。受到审查总清算的节目是，《魔怪大作剧院》（Monsterpiece Theater）在每一集节目的结尾，都有穿着大领结小夹克、口衔烟斗的主持人蓝色“曲奇饼小妖怪”吞云吐雾，这无疑美化了香烟产品，会带来让孩子窒息的风险。

    对童年影响最大的莫过于被陌生人绑架，这可谓造成恐惧心理的典型案例。[206]1979年，当时年仅6岁的伊丹·派兹在纽约曼哈顿下城去校车站的路上失踪，自那时起，儿童绑架案成为全国关注的重点，美国有3家利益团体全力以赴安抚恐慌的父母。我们可以理解，失去孩子的父母希望自己的悲剧还能产生一些积极的结果，其中一些父母用余生奋力呼吁社会对被拐骗儿童的关注。（其中之一是约翰·沃尔什，他推动在牛奶包装盒上印刷失踪儿童的照片，并成为美国极受欢迎的电视节目《美国通缉犯》的主持人，节目涉及很多绑架和谋杀案。）政客、警长、公关公司负责人当然知道他们绝对不能错过这些社会运动，有谁胆敢出头反对保护儿童免受伤害呢？他们纷纷在宣布保护儿童的新立法的仪式上露面，这些新法案往往以失踪儿童的名字命名，例如“亚当条款”、“安玻警戒”、“梅根法”，还有“全国失踪儿童日”。媒体也认识到这些案件都是收视率的发动机，他们不仅不分昼夜连轴转地报道儿童失踪案件，节目弥漫着恐惧，而且不失时机地推出纪录片（“这是每个父母的噩梦……”），电视连续剧《法律与秩序》还专门辟出一个系列，主题就是性犯罪。

    美国儿童的童年从此彻底改变了。父母绝对不会让孩子离开自己的视野。孩子有司机，有看护，装备了手机，不过，手机完全没有减轻父母的焦虑；如果孩子没有在铃响的第一时间接起电话，父母就会惊恐万分。原来，孩子在操场结识新朋友，现在必须依靠妈妈牵线，这在20世纪80年代之前还是很少见的。[207]40年前，2/3的孩子或者步行上学，或者骑自行车上学；今天只有10%的孩子还在这样做。在一代人之前，70%的孩子在户外玩耍，今天只剩下30%。[208]2008年，记者勒诺·斯科纳兹9岁的儿子乞求母亲让他放学后独自一人乘纽约的地铁回家。勒诺同意了，孩子平安地完成了旅程回到家中。当她在《纽约太阳报》的专栏上报道了这个小花絮时，她立即成为媒体攻击的全民公敌，被冠以“美国最糟糕母亲”的头衔。（典型的报道标题如：“妈妈让9岁的孩子自己乘坐地铁：专栏作家的儿童独立实验掀起风波”。）作为回应，她发起了一场“放养儿童”运动，并提议设立“全国儿童公园独立活动日”，即每年有一天将孩子带到公园，并将孩子自己留在公园，让孩子有机会学习怎样在没有大人监督的情况下自己游戏。[209]

    勒诺·斯科纳兹肯定不是美国最糟糕的妈妈。她仅仅做了一件政客、警察、父母或者制片人都没有做过的事情：对事实进行了调查。在牛奶包装盒上的失踪儿童中，绝大部分都不是被性罪犯、儿童贩子、索取赎金的绑架者拐带走的，而是十几岁的孩子自己离家出走，或者被离婚后父母中不满监护协议的一方带走。20世纪90年代，美国每年有200~300个孩子被陌生人拐骗失踪，现在这类案件每年大约有100起，其中半数案件中的孩子被谋杀。美国有5000万名儿童，拐骗谋杀率为100万分之1。这大约是溺毙风险的1/20，车祸死亡的1/40。作家沃里克·凯恩斯（Warwick Cairns）做了一些计算，结果是，如果一个人想要自己的孩子被绑架，需要把孩子留在无人看管的街上长达75万年。[210]

    有人会认为，孩子的安全如此紧要，即使出现这些过度紧张和过度开销，每年能挽救几条小性命也是值得的。但这种推理非常虚假。在生活中，人们不可避免要在安全和其他美好事物之间进行取舍，就像父母为孩子积攒学费而放弃安装室内自动喷水消防装置，或者开车带着孩子外出度假，而不是整个夏天把他们留在家中玩电子游戏——虽然这样显然更安全。避免绑架的安全措施造成的代价是，孩子童年的经历变得单调了，肥胖症的儿童人数增加，职业女性长时间持续焦虑，年轻人吓得不敢要孩子。

    即使将风险最小化是我们追求的唯一目标，盲目的安全建议也无济于事。许多措施，比如牛奶包装盒上的通缉犯图片，都属于犯罪学家所说的犯罪控制剧场，即属于广告宣传，不需要任何实际行动。[211]实际上，当3亿人为了50个人的安全改变了自己的生活方式，这造成的伤害可能远远超过了其带来的好处，这种规模巨大的调整的后果往往不可预见。仅举两个例子：第一个，被家长送孩子上学的车辆撞死的孩子比其他车祸死亡高2倍，所以，有更多的家长为了自己的孩子免遭绑架而开车送孩子上学，就有更多的孩子死于交通事故；[212]第二个，高速公路上电子显示牌上发布失踪孩子的信息，导致驾车人分神和减速，也是导致车祸的原因。[213]

    过去两个世纪以来，提升儿童生命价值的运动是人类历史上最伟大的道德进步之一，只是过去20年中的一些举措未免过火，已经有荒谬之嫌。

    同性恋权利，对同性恋仇视的减少，以及同性恋非罪化

    如果我说英国数学家艾伦·图灵（Alan Turing）对逻辑和数学理性做出了杰出的解释，发明了数字计算机，解决了精神与肉体的问题，拯救了西方文明，这显得非常夸张。但是，这些又绝对都是真实的。[214]

    在1936年一篇开创性的论文中，图灵给出了一套简单的操作。根据他的设计，这套操作足以对任何可计算的数学和逻辑公式进行运算。[215]这套设计可以很容易地转换为一种运算机器，也就是数字计算机。10年之后，图灵实用的设计成为我们今天所使用的计算机的蓝本。“二战”期间，图灵曾经为英国政府破译密码的部门工作，帮助破译了纳粹与潜艇之间通信使用的密码，此举对打败德国的海军封锁，扭转战争局势有决定性的作用。战争结束后，图灵发表了一篇（至今仍被广泛阅读的）论文。在论文中，他将运算等同于思考，由此对机械系统怎样具有智能给出了解释。[216]此外，他将当时最艰深的科学问题作为自己的研究课题（生物结构怎样在胚胎阶段从一组化学物质发生形态转变），并提出了巧妙的解决方法。

    西方文明又是怎样感谢这位旷世奇才的呢？1952年，英国政府逮捕了他，取消了他的安全许可，威胁要判他坐牢，接着对他进行化学阉割，将年仅42岁的图灵逼上自杀的绝路。

    图灵做了什么，要遭受如此的唾弃？因为他与男人发生了性关系。在当时的英国，同性性交为非法行为，他被控“行为猥亵”。英国的另一位天才奥斯卡·王尔德也是在同一罪名下被打垮的。对图灵的指控出于一种政治恐惧，当局认为同性恋可能是被苏联间谍利用的弱点。8年之后，英国国防大臣约翰·普罗富莫因为与一个苏联间谍的情妇有绯闻而被迫辞职，这让对同性恋间谍的恐惧成为人们的笑料。

    至少自《旧约·利未记》第20章第13节明文规定了男人与男人做与妇人一样的苟合之事就要被处死以来，很多政府一直利用对暴力的垄断对同性恋进行监禁、酷刑、阉割和处决。[217]一个同性恋者即使能逃脱政府和司法的迫害，躲过所有诸如猥亵、鸡奸、肛交、非自然行为、反自然罪等罪名，还是难逃自己同胞的同性恋仇视、同性恋迫害狂暴力和反同性恋仇恨犯罪。无论是政府主导还是草根民众自发的同性恋迫害狂暴力，在人类暴力种类中都是一种莫名其妙的分类，因为实在难以确定侵害者从中要得到什么。此种暴力并不涉及资源竞争，同性恋即使是犯罪也不存在受害者，消灭同性恋更不会带来任何和平。如果有任何利益纠结，异性恋男人应该很高兴地面对同性恋同胞，因为他会觉得：“太好了！我能拥有更多的女人了！”按照这个逻辑，女同性恋应该引起更大的愤怒，因为女同性恋者将双份的女性带离交配资源库。但是，历史上对男同性恋的仇恨远远高于对女同性恋的仇恨。[218]很多司法制度单单规定男同性恋为犯罪，但从来没有一个司法制度仅仅挑出女同性恋为非法。针对男同性恋的仇恨犯罪远远高于针对女同性恋的犯罪，比率几乎是5∶1。[219]

    和同性恋本身一样，对同性恋的憎恶也是一个进化之谜。[220]这不是说，同性恋的性行为有任何神秘之处。人类本身就是多元性向变态的物种，一直不断地从各种有生命的物体，甚至无生命的物体——因此对物种繁衍毫无意义——上寻求性满足感。在全男性的环境中，例如航船、监狱、寄宿学校中，男人寻找任何与女性身体近似的对象进行发泄。在这样的环境中，男色成为一个比较柔软、光滑、甜蜜的对象。在很多社会，包括古希腊的精英，男妓得到制度化的认可。当然，据我们所知，在同性恋行为被制度化的社会，不存在同性恋憎恶。妇女在性向方面有比较大的弹性，很多妇女都经历过不同的性向阶段，从愉快的单身，到滥交，到一夫一妻，或者同性恋；美国女子学院的一个传统现象就是“同性恋直到毕业”（lesbian until graduation）。[221]

    真正的谜是同性恋的性取向——为什么会有男人和女人坚持倾向同性性交而不是异性性交，或者有些人坚决回避与异性性交。至少，男同性恋性取向看来是天生的。男同一般都说他们在青春期初感性欲骚动的时候就开始被同性吸引。同卵双生的双胞胎同性恋比在异卵双生中更常见，这说明他们共享的基因对性取向有影响。此外，在先天与后天之争中，同性恋是少数几个政治正确指向“天生”的问题。如果按照通常的理解，同性恋是天生的，人们并不是选择成为同性恋，因此也就没有必要对他们的生活方式说三道四，而且，这也不是说，如果同性恋者愿意，他们就能在学校或者童子军中把其他孩子变成同性恋。

    进化之谜在于为什么这种避免异性交配的基因能够如此长久地存在，既然携带此类基因的人很少有或者根本没有后代。也许“同性恋基因”具有某种补偿性优势，比如当女性携带此种基因时生育力加强，特别是当这种基因是X染色体，而妇女具有两个X染色体——女性在传播基因方面只需要比男性稍稍多过一半就具备传播优势。[222]也许，假定的同性恋基因仅仅在特定环境中才导致同性恋，而这个环境在基因筛选时还不存在。一次民族志调研发现，在近60%的无文字社会中，同性恋或者很罕见或者根本不为人所知。[223]或许，基因是通过让胎儿特别易受激素和抗体的影响，影响发育中的大脑，进而间接产生作用。

    不论是何种解释，在不接受同性恋行为的社会中长大的同性恋者，总能感受到全社会的敌意。在意识到同性恋存在的传统社会中，不接受同性恋的社会的数量是容忍同性恋的社会的2倍。[224]无论是在传统社会还是在现代社会，对同性恋的不宽容都可能触发暴力。欺负弱小和粗暴常常被视为显示男子气概的最方便的手段。立法者将他们自己在同性恋问题上的道德信念转化为戒律和条例。这些信念也许是厌恶和道德感互相强化的结果，但人们最终却混淆了什么是生理的反感，什么是客观的罪恶。[225]在这种思想短路中，避免同性伙伴的本能冲动变为对同性行为的谴责冲动。在《圣经》成文的年代，对同性恋行为的厌恶感转化为法律，变成对同性恋者的迫害，特别是在基督教和伊斯兰教国家，同性恋者被判处死刑或阉割。[226]而20世纪令人毛骨悚然的迫害是纳粹在集中营对同性恋者实行灭绝。

    在启蒙时代，人们对建立在生理反感或宗教教义上的道德戒律提出质疑，由此开始了对同性恋的重新审视。[227]孟德斯鸠和伏尔泰都表示，同性恋应该被非罪化，虽然他们也没有达到在道德上接受同性恋的程度。1785年，杰里米·边沁向前迈了一大步。根据功利主义分析，道德无非是能够给最多的人带来最大的善，因此边沁认为同性恋没有任何不道德可言，因为它没有对其他人造成任何福利的损失。法国大革命后，同性恋在法国合法化；在其后几十年间，又有极少几个国家采取了同样的政策，见图7-23。直到20世纪中期，同性恋权利运动再次兴起，并随着人权观念的普及，在70年代至90年代达到高潮。

    图7-23 美国和全世界同性恋非罪化时间表

    资料来源：奥托松（Ottosson），2006年，2009年。另外7个国家（东帝汶、苏里南、乍得、白俄罗斯、斐济、尼泊尔和尼加拉瓜）的日期来自“国家和地区的LBGT权利”（http:// en. wikipedia. org/wiki/LGBt_rights），另36个同性恋合法的国家没有时间资料来源。

    今天，同性恋已经在几乎120个国家得到合法地位，尽管还有80个国家坚持在纸面上反对同性恋，这些国家大部分在非洲、加勒比海、大洋洲和伊斯兰世界。[228]在毛里求斯、沙特阿拉伯、苏丹、也门、尼日利亚部分地区、索马里部分地区和伊朗（尽管根据马哈茂德·艾哈迈迪-内贾德的说法，伊朗不存在同性恋），仍然对同性恋者处以极刑。国际社会仍在向这些国家施加压力。所有的人权组织都认为同性恋入罪是违反人权。在2008年联合国大会上，66个国家通过一项宣言，要求各国废止规定同性恋违法的法律。在有关此项宣言的声明中，联合国人权官员那瓦内森·皮拉伊（Navanethem Pillay）写道：“普世原则没有例外。人权是所有人与生俱来的权利。”[229]

    图7-23也显示美国的同性恋非罪化进程相当落后。直到1969年，同性恋在美国除伊利诺伊州之外的所有州都属违法，都市的警察经常在不太繁忙的夜晚袭击同性恋者聚会的场所，驱赶或逮捕聚会的组织者，有时甚至动用警棍。1969年，纽约警察袭击格林尼治村的一所同性恋夜总会“石墙酒吧”，引发了连续3天的抗议骚乱。全国各地的同性恋社区开始行动，要求废止规定同性恋违法的法律，立即对同性恋非罪化。在十几年之内，美国大约半数州实现了同性恋非罪化。2003年，在新一轮的非罪化运动之后，最高法院推翻了得克萨斯州的反鸡奸法，认定所有此类法规违宪。在最高法院多数法官的意见陈述中，最高法官安东尼·肯尼迪引用个人自主的原则，并批评使用公权维护某种宗教信仰和传统观念的荒唐：

    自由给予个体的自主包括思想自由、信仰自由、表达自由以及特定亲昵行为的自由……我们当然必须承认，多少个世纪以来一直有强大的声音谴责同性恋行为不道德。这种谴责由宗教信仰、权利概念、行为准则以及对传统家庭价值的尊重所决定……但所有这些考虑都不能回答我们所面对的问题。这个问题就是多数人是否可以使用国家公权，通过刑法运作，将他们的观点强加给整个社会。[230]

    20世纪70年代第一波同性恋非罪化运动之后，美国人对同性恋的态度发生了巨大的转变，十几年后，残留的同性恋法律终于被彻底清除。80年代因为艾滋病的流行，同性恋社团动员自救，并促使很多名流出柜，还有许多人在死后公布了自己的性向。这些人包括演员约翰·吉尔古德（John Gielgud）和罗克·哈德森（Rock Hudson），歌手埃尔顿·约翰（Elton John）和乔治·迈克尔（George Michael），时装设计师派瑞·艾力斯（Perry Ellis）、罗伊·侯斯顿（Roy Halston），还有伊夫·圣·洛朗（Yves Saint Laurent），运动员比利·简·金（Billie Jean King）、格雷格·洛加尼斯（Greg Louganis），以及喜剧演员艾伦·德詹尼丝（Ellen De Generes）和罗茜·欧唐内（Rosie O..Donnell）。当红的艺人凯蒂莲（k. d. lang）、弗莱迪·摩克瑞（Freddie Mercury）和乔治男孩（Boy George）大张旗鼓地炫耀他们的同性恋个性，剧作家哈维·费斯坦（Harvey Fierstein）和托尼·库什纳（Tony Kushner）创作有关艾滋病和其他同性恋题材的影视剧本。浪漫喜剧和连续剧《威尔和格蕾丝》（Will and Grace）和《艾伦》（Ellen）中开始出现可爱的同性恋形象，异性恋接受同性恋逐渐成为正常的准则。《宋飞正传》里宋飞和乔治坚持说：“我们不是同性恋！……不是因为同性恋有什么不好。”随着同性恋去污名化、家庭化甚至贵族化，很少还有同性恋者觉得需要掩盖自己的性向。1990年，我读研究生时的导师，一位1925年出生的优秀的语言心理学家和社会心理学家，在他的自传体散文的开篇这样说：“当罗杰·布朗（Roger Brown）出柜时，需要勇气的时代就一去不复返了。”[231]

    当美国人日复一日地认识到同性恋者是他们现实世界和虚拟世界的组成部分，他们从此无法继续将同性恋者排除在自己的情感圈子之外。民意调查充分展示了这一转变。从图7-24中，我们可以看到美国人对（两个民调组织询问的）同性恋是否不道德，同性恋是否合法，以及同性恋者是否有平等就业机会的意见。我将对最后两个问题的肯定回答在制图时颠倒过来，让所有四个问题的低值代表更大的容忍度。

    对同性恋最友善的意见，也是最早出现转折的指标是公平就业机会。在民权运动之后，追求平等已经成为社会的共识，美国人即使不赞同同性恋者的生活方式，但也不接受对他们的歧视。进入21世纪之后，反对给予同性恋者公平就业机会的人几乎消失了。从80年代后期开始，人们的道德判断终于赶上了他们的公平意识，越来越多的美国人表示“同性恋没有什么不对的地方”。盖洛普民调机构2008年新闻发布的标题将当时国家的情绪概括为：“美国人在同性恋道德问题上对半分，但大部分人支持同性恋合法化和接受同性恋关系。”[232]

    在同性恋问题上，自由派比保守派更积极，白人比黑人更开放，世俗社会比宗教界更宽容。但所有集团都趋向于给同性恋更大的空间。个人之间的交往特别重要，2009年的盖洛普调查发现，六成美国人的朋友、亲戚或者同事中有公开的同性恋者；与另外四成人相比，这六成的人更倾向于赞同同性恋和同性恋婚姻的合法化。但宽容已经相当普遍，即使在那些从来没有接触过同性恋的美国人中，62%的人表示他们对与同性恋者的交往毫无芥蒂。[233]

    图7-24 1973—2010年美国对同性恋的不宽容态度

    资料来源：道德缺失（GSS）来源于“一般社会调查”。其他问题来源于盖洛普，2001年，2008年，2010年。所有原始数据均为肯定回答；图中“平等就业”和“合法化”取原始数据与100之差。

    美国年轻人的态度是社会变化的关键所在。虽然很多人对我说，美国年轻人已经变得非常厌恶同性恋，人们不断听到年轻人以轻蔑的口吻说“这可是太基佬腔儿了”。但是数字给出的事实是，受访者越年轻，越能够接受同性恋。[234]他们认为接受同性恋更符合道德规范。在同性恋原因的争论上，年纪较大的受访者中的自然/先天派比后天派更宽容，因为他们感到一个人不能因自己无法选择的事情遭受谴责。但是十几岁和二十来岁的年轻人更同情后天派的解释，同时他们对同性恋也更宽容。这种组合说明年轻人压根儿就不认为同性恋有任何错误，所以无所谓同性恋者是否能够选择性取向。他们的态度是：“同性恋？怎么了，傻瓜。”年轻人当然比他们的父母更自由开放，不过很有可能随着年龄增长，当他们占据人口分布的中段时，他们也许不会像现在这样宽容大度。但是，我对此是有怀疑的。我坚信对同性恋的宽容存在一道真正的代沟。现在的年轻人会一直坚守他们的立场，而随着厌恶同性恋的老一代人离去，美国将会越来越宽容。

    * * *

    公众对同性恋的接受，不仅解除了警察和法庭骚扰同性恋者的权力，同时也赋予了警察和法庭阻止其他公民骚扰同性恋的权力。美国的大部分州，还有20多个国家都实施反仇恨法，对基于性取向、种族、宗教或者性别的暴力犯罪予以重罚。20世纪90年代之后，美国联邦一级也制定了一系列法律。最新的法律是“马休·谢泼德和小詹姆斯·伯德法案”（Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr.），即“2009年防止仇恨法案”（Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009）；法案以怀俄明的同性恋学生马休·谢泼德命名。1998年的一天，谢泼德在被殴打后，又被通宵绑在铁丝网上折磨至死。（该法案的另一命名来自一名美国非裔小詹姆斯·伯德，他在同一年被拖在一辆卡车后面夺去性命。）

    那么，对同性恋的宽容在增长，对迫害同性恋的容忍在下降，人们的新态度和新法律确实减少了对同性恋者的暴力吗？只要看看在城市、东西两岸沿海地区和大学校区内，同性恋已经变得越来越公开，这至少说明他们感到针对性的暴力威胁不是那样严重。因为缺乏统计数据，很难给出实际暴力犯罪率的变化。仅仅是在1996年之后，联邦调查局开始公布仇恨犯罪的数据，并对犯罪动机、受害者和犯罪性质进行分类，美国才算有了这方面的统计。[235]不过，这些数据未必靠谱，因为它们主要取决于受害人报告犯罪的意愿，地方警察机构的犯罪分类以及他们是否向联邦调查局报告仇恨犯罪。[236]在发生凶杀案时，统计不是什么大问题；幸运的是——同时对社会科学家来说，很不幸的是——没有多少人因为是同性恋而被杀。自1996年以来，联邦调查局记录表明，每年有不到3起针对同性恋的凶杀案，而同期其他类型的凶杀案有1.7万起。就我们所知，其他针对同性恋者的犯罪也很少见。2008年，在每10万名同性恋者中，有3人会因为性取向成为被严重骚扰的对象，而仅作为一个人，他成为骚扰受害者的机会要高100多倍。[237]

    我们不知道这些事件是否越来越少。自1996年以来，针对同性恋人群的三四种主要犯罪类别——严重伤害、一般伤害或凶杀的统计没有发生明显的变化，其中凶杀如此罕见，统计几乎是无意义的。[238]在图7-25中，与严重伤害的曲线相比，我给出了恐吓事件数据的曲线，其趋势呈下行。这里的恐吓是指一个人感到人身安全受到威胁。

    图7-25 1996—2008年美国针对同性恋人群的仇恨犯罪

    资料来源：联邦调查局关于仇恨犯罪的年度报告（http://www. fbi. gov/hq/cid/civilrights/hate. htm）。案件数除以报告机构涵盖的人口总数，再乘以0.03，这是通常估计成年人中同性恋所占的比重。

    我们不能说美国的同性恋者在受暴力伤害这方面已经变得更安全，但是我们知道他们在受恐吓方面比以往更安全，在歧视和道德指控方面也比以往更安全。也许，最重要的变化是他们完全不再受到来自自己政府的暴力迫害。有史以来第一次，在这个世界上半数以上的国家中，国民终于可以享有某种安全——尽管还不充分，但与以往相比总算是有了进步。我们曾经有这样的时候：一个人仅仅因为自己的性取向，在帮助自己的国家免遭战败的噩运之后，仍然不能躲过政府的黑手。

    动物权利和残忍对待动物行为的改善

    让我先讲一件我干过的最糟心的事情。1975年，我刚好20岁。作为大学二年级的学生，我得到一份在动物行为实验室做研究助理的暑期工作。一个晚上，教授派给我一项工作。实验室的老鼠中有一只发育不良的小东西，不能用于正在进行的实验，教授因此想用它做一项新的实验。第一步是要用回避条件反射程序训练这只小老鼠。在一只斯金纳箱的底部接上一个电击装置和一个计时器，每隔6秒钟电击一下小老鼠，除非它按下一个杆子，而它按动这根杆子后，电击的间隔就变成10秒钟。老鼠一般很快就能明白要领，每隔8到9秒按动一下杆子，可以彻底地避免任何电击。需要我做的全部事情就是将那只小老鼠扔进实验箱，开动计时器，然后回家睡一觉。第二天早上当我回到实验室时，我应该看到一只完成条件反射训练的老鼠。

    但是，当我在早上打开实验箱时，事情完全不是我所期望的样子。小老鼠紧紧地缩成一团，控制不住地打着哆嗦。几秒钟之后，它猛地跳起来，但它完全够不到控制杆。我意识到，这只小老鼠没有学会按动控制杆，因此它整个夜晚每隔6秒就遭到一下电击。我立刻抢救小老鼠，但发现它的身体已经发凉。我带着它冲到二层楼下的兽医室，但是已经太晚了。一个小时后，它死了。一只小动物死于我的虐待。

    我刚刚看到实验指引时，已经感到有些不对头。即使整个过程进展完全顺利，这只老鼠也要在整整12个小时内一直处于紧张状态。我的教授是一位激进的行为主义者，对他来说，“作为一只老鼠会如何感觉”这样的问题根本就是扯淡。但我却不这么认为，我从来没有怀疑过老鼠能够感觉痛苦。教授很想留用我，所以我知道如果我拒绝执行他的这个要求，对我也不会有任何不利的结果。但是我还是照本宣科地执行了他的指示，不仅在伦理上自我欺骗，而且在心理上假定这些都是标准程序。

    这次经历与20世纪的某些特定历史事件过于接近，实在令人无法安宁，我将在下一章展开我在那天得到的心理教训。我之所以告诉大家我良心上的纠结，是要说明当时对待动物的标准就是如此。为了刺激动物为得到食物而工作，我们让动物挨饿，直到它们的体重降至标准喂养时的80%；对小型动物来说，这意味着连续不断的饥饿。在隔壁的实验室里，鸽子的翅膀上拴着能够放出电击的钥匙链，我看见链子磨破翅膀的皮肤，露出下面粉红的嫩肉。在另一个实验室，发射电波的安全别针就别在老鼠胸部的皮肤上。在一项有关内啡肽（安多芬）的实验中，动物要遭受严重电击；实验文件写明电击“极其强烈，出现强直”，就是说，电击之后，动物的肌肉立即出现强直性痉挛。人们的麻木甚至超出实验的需要。一名研究员为了发泄情绪，将手边没有参加实验的老鼠狠狠扔到墙上。另外一名研究员和我分享了冷酷的玩笑：一份科学刊物上刊登的老鼠照片，它已经学会了规避电击，正四脚朝天地躺着，用前爪按动食物控制杆；照片的文字说明是“床上用早餐”。

    我可以很宽慰地说，我的小老鼠事故仅仅5年之后，科学家对动物福利的漠不关心就成为不可思议的非法行为。从20世纪80年代开始，使用动物进行实验和教学必须得到实验动物管理和使用委员会（IACUC）的批准；任何一位科学家都可以证明，这些委员会不是装样子的橡皮图章。笼子的尺寸、食物的数量和质量、兽医的护理、锻炼和社交的机会都得到严格的规定。研究人员和他们的助手必须接受使用实验动物的伦理培训，参加一系列训练班讨论并通过考试。任何可能将动物置于痛苦和紧张的实验都属于要被特殊监管的类别，必须提供充足的理由，说明实验是为了取得“更大的科学进步和人类福祉”。

    任何一位科学家也都能够证明，科学家自身的态度也发生了变化。最近的调查显示，进行动物实验的研究人员毫不例外地相信实验动物能感觉到痛苦。[239]今天，一个对实验室动物的命运无动于衷的科学家，会遭到同行的蔑视。

    实验室动物待遇的变化是权利运动的一个组成部分，人们日渐感到动物不应该遭受不必要的痛苦、伤害和死亡。动物权利的革命是暴力下降的独特象征，对这一革命的回顾正好适合作为我对暴力历史性减少的总结。因为驱动这场革命是一个纯粹的伦理原则，即任何人不应给其他有感知的生命制造痛苦。与其他权利革命不同，动物权利运动不是由受害人推动的，老鼠和鸽子完全无法提出申诉；也不是任何商业利益、互惠条款或者正和博弈的副产品，动物不会因为我们的慈悲对待就提供任何东西与我们做交换。与儿童权利革命不同，动物权利革命不能保证对动物以后的生活有积极的影响。人类纯粹是受到同情、理性和其他权利革命的启发，以动物的名义承认了动物的利益。当然，进步是不均衡的，而且如果我们能够征求动物的意见，它们绝不会同意我们现在就开始扬扬自得。但是进步的趋势相当明显，已经影响到我们和与动物伙伴之间关系的方方面面。

    * * *

    每当我们想到对动物的冷漠，眼前就会浮现出科学实验室和大型饲养厂。但是，对动物的冷酷绝对不是现代才有的新事物。人类的历史充满了对动物的暴行。[240]

    屠宰动物、寝皮食肉是人类得以生存的前提之一。我们的祖先狩猎、宰杀和烹饪肉食已经至少有200万年的历史，我们的嘴巴、牙齿和消化系统是专门为包括肉食在内的饮食而设计的。[241]因为肉食中富含的脂肪酸和完全蛋白质，人类才有可能演化发育出新陈代谢积极活跃的大脑，肉食对人类社会性的形成和演化也有着巨大的贡献。[242]猎物让我们的祖先找到了可以分享和交易的价值，从而进入互惠合作的社会阶段。走运的猎人在某个特定时刻能够得到超过自己消费所需的猎获，他愿意与其他人分享，因为他期待当别的猎人走运的时候，也会愿意与他分享。此外，男性狩猎和女子采集的分工带来了男女之间的协同效应。肉类猎获让男人更有效地供养后代，因此强化了家庭关系。

    进化过程中肉食的生态重要性，在人类生活上留下了深刻的心理印记。肉食鲜美，食肉让人感到幸福。许多传统文化都有专门的词语描写对肉食的渴望，猎人带回一具动物的尸体，可以让整个村庄充满欢乐。成功的猎人是自傲的，性生活都会更丰富——有时是因为他们的赫赫声望，有时则是名副其实的肉体交换。几乎在所有的文化中，宴飨必须有肉。[243]

    在人类生活中，肉食如此重要，那些用自己的身体为我们提供肉品的存在物的福祉当然不是人类要优先考虑的问题。人类内部缓和暴力的信号在与动物的关系中完全不存在，它们不属于人类家族，不能和我们做任何交易，它们中的很多物种根本没有能够激发我们同情心的面孔或表情。环保人士经常愤怒地指责人们只关心那些哺乳动物，因为只有它们有人类能够读懂的面部表情，比如笑容可掬的海豚、眼神伤感的熊猫和有着婴儿般胖脸蛋的小海豹。相貌丑陋的物种就只能随它自生自灭了。[244]

    儿童图书中描写的狩猎-采集部落的人对大自然满怀敬畏，但这种敬畏并未妨碍他们疯狂地猎杀大型动物，直到将它们彻底灭绝，也不妨碍他们残忍地对待圈养的动物。比如，美洲印第安人霍皮部落鼓励孩子捕捉鸟类，然后在玩耍中折断鸟腿或翅膀。[245]美洲原住民的美食网站上有这样的菜谱：

    烧烤乌龟

    材料：

    一只乌龟

    一堆炭火

    做法：

    乌龟背向下在火上烧烤。

    听到乌龟壳开裂的声音，就烤好了。[246]

    在传统烹饪中，活杀和活烹动物很常见。非洲的马萨伊人惯于活牛放血，将牛血与牛奶搅拌，做成美味饮料；亚洲的游牧民族从特别培养的绵羊尾巴上活割大块的脂肪。[247]作为家庭宠物的动物也常受到虐待。一项跨文化调查发现，半数的传统文化既养狗又杀狗食用，而且有超过半数的文化虐待狗。比如，在非洲的姆布蒂人中，“猎狗，尽管非常珍贵，却从生到死每一天都被主人无情地踢来踢去”。[248]我向一位研究人类学的朋友询问她曾经研究过的狩猎-采集部落如何对待动物，她回答说：

    这是作为人类学家最难接受的部分。他们觉察到我的软弱，然后试图向我出售各种小动物，告诉我，如果我不买下它们，它们会面临何种结局。我已经习惯把这些小动物带到很远的沙漠里放生。但部落人还是能追踪而去，抓回这些小东西，再次卖给我！

    依赖家养牲畜的早期文明对如何对待动物有详尽的道德准则，但即使在最善良的情况下，这些准则对动物也是好坏参半。最基本的原则是，动物是为了人类的利益而存在的。在希伯来人的《圣经·创世记》第1章第28节中，上帝对亚当和夏娃所说的第一句话是：“要生养众生，遍满地面，治理这地；也要管理海里的鱼、空中的鸟和地上各样行动的活物。”虽然亚当和夏娃还是食果灵长类，但大洪水之后，人类开始吃肉了。上帝在《创世记》第9章第2节和第3节中对挪亚说：“凡地上的走兽和空中的飞鸟，都必惊恐、惧怕你们；连地上一切的昆虫并海里一切的鱼，都交付你们的手。凡活着的动物，都可以作你们的食物，这一切我都赐给你们，如同菜蔬一样。”直到古罗马人在公元70年摧毁第二圣殿时，希伯来神父每天宰杀大量动物，不是为了供养人，而是因为他们迷信必须向上帝定期供奉烧熟的牛排。（据《圣经》记载，炭烧牛肉的气味，对上帝来说是“馨香之气”。）

    古希腊人和古罗马人对动物在世间的排序持相近的看法。亚里士多德写过：“植物为了动物而生，动物则为了人而生。”[249]希腊的科学家抱着这样的态度对哺乳动物进行活体解剖，有时候，他们甚至对人类做同样的事情。[据古罗马医学著作的作者塞尔苏斯（Celsus）记载，希腊亚历山大时期的“医生可以得到王室许可，从监狱购买罪犯，在罪犯活着的时候进行解剖，趁着犯人仍在呼吸，观察器官的工作，直到他生命结束”。][250]罗马解剖学家盖伦（Galen）这样写过，他更愿意解剖猪而不是猴子，因为当他下刀子的时候，猴子的面部表露出“不愉快的神情”。[251]当然，他的同胞正在斗兽场欢乐地虐待和杀戮动物，甚至不排除虐待和杀戮双足行走的灵长类。在基督教世界，圣奥古斯丁和托马斯·阿奎那综合了《圣经》和古希腊人的观点，确立了人类在对待动物时的道德超然立场。阿奎那写道：“据神圣的天意，动物存在的目的就是为人所用……因此，不论是杀死还是其他什么方式，人只要利用了动物，都不算是错误。”[252]

    在对待动物方面，当代哲学的起点也相当糟糕。笛卡儿在书中说，动物就是钟表，不会感觉痛苦或欢乐。我们听起来像是哭号的声音，无非是一些机械的噪声，就像是某种机器发出的警示音。笛卡儿知道动物的神经系统和人类非常相像，所以，在我们今天看来，他认为人类有感觉，却不承认动物也有感觉，这实在令人匪夷所思。但是，笛卡儿坚信灵魂的存在，上帝赋予人类以灵魂，灵魂是感觉活动的核心。他写道，当他对自己的感知进行沉思时，他不能够“将自己分切成任何部分，而只能将自己领会成一个明确无误的个体，而且是完整的单一实体……我的愿望、感觉、领会等功能不能够被单独地作为部分来进行陈述，因为它就是一个整体，而且就是这个精神的整体本身在期望、感觉和理解”。[253]语言也是这种被我们称为精神或灵魂的不可分实体所具有的功能。既然动物没有语言，所以它们也就没有灵魂；因此它们肯定也没有感觉。像动物一样，一个人有钟表一样的身体和大脑，但是此外还有灵魂，灵魂通过一个特殊的结构——松果腺——与大脑产生互动。

    从现代神经科学的观点来看，这种争辩其实是毫无道理的。我们今天已经清清楚楚地知道，感知是大脑的生理活动。我们也知道，语言和感知的其余部分是可以完全分离的，最显而易见的案例是中风病人可以失去语言功能，但并不因此就变成没有感觉的机器人。但是，1861年之前完全没有对失语症的记录 [笛卡儿的同胞保罗·布罗卡（Paul Broca）对失语症做了第一次记录 ]，所以笛卡儿的理论在当时听起来很有道理。数百年来，人类一直在实验室内对动物进行活体解剖，因为教会不赞成对人类的尸体进行解剖。科学家从活生生的动物身上切下手脚，观察肢体是否能再生，掏出五脏，剥下皮肤，移除器官，包括它们的眼睛。[254]

    农业也没有多少慈悲可言。除阉割和烙印之外，在牲畜的耳朵和尾巴上穿孔和打钉，都是历史上常见的农业活动。还有催肥动物或嫩化肉质的残忍喂养——今天遭到人们抗议的鹅肝业和牛奶喂养小牛，都不是新发明。英国的烹调历史描写过17世纪嫩化肉质的某些方法：

    为了在长途运输后不损失肉质，禽类的肠子在离开农场前被缝起来……火鸡在嘴边的血管上割开一个小口子，倒挂着慢慢控血；鹅被钉在地板上；为保证肉质坚实，三文鱼和鲤鱼活着被切成薄片；鳗鱼被活生生地剥皮，为了不让它们乱动，用叉子穿过眼睛，排成长串……人们认为，如果屠宰公牛前未经折磨，公牛的肉很难消化而且不健康……小牛和猪在屠宰前要用打结的鞭子抽死，以保证肉质鲜嫩，而今天的做法是用钉锤敲打肉片。“抓住一只还不是太老的大红公鸡，打死它。”有一份菜谱就是这样开头的……[255]

    工厂化饲养也不是20世纪才有的现象：

    伊丽莎白时代的“育肥”或催肥猪的办法是“将它们密集地关在一个小房间里，让它们没有转身的空间……它们只能趴在地上”。一篇评论说：“它们在痛苦中吃，在痛苦中躺着，在痛苦中睡眠。”禽类和猎禽通常被关在黑暗和狭小的笼子里催肥，有时甚至被弄瞎眼睛……鹅被从鹅掌处打钉子固定在地板上，据信这样可以增加重量。17世纪流传下来的习俗是，家庭主妇斩下活禽的双腿，这样饲养的家禽肉质会变得嫩滑。1686年，罗伯特·索思韦尔爵士宣布了一项牛舍新发明：“在牛舍里，牛一直待在同一个小牛栏里吃喝拉撒，不受打扰，直到养成屠宰。”在暗室里囚禁养成的多塞尔羊，是乡绅圣诞节大餐中难得的美味。[256]

    许多上千年的传统做法完全无视动物的痛苦。鱼钩和鱼叉是自石器时代就开始使用的工具，甚至渔网也会慢慢地将鱼闷死。嚼子、鞭子、马刺、轭和重负，让牲畜的生命悲惨不堪，尤其是那些在阴暗的磨坊和泵站终日拉动转轴的牲口。《白鲸》的读者都知道有千百年历史的捕鲸活动。此外还有我们在第3章和第4章看到的血腥动物竞赛，例如用头撞钉在墙上的猫、棒击猪、戏弄狗熊和烧死猫。

    * * *

    在漫长的剥削和虐待动物的历史上，一直有些力量努力要限制对动物的残害，但其动机都不是出于对生命的同情。素食主义、反对活体解剖主义和其他爱护动物的运动总是有着各种各样的理由。[257]让我们来看看他们的几种诉求。

    我已经几处提及在人的头脑里有将厌恶感-纯洁感道德化的倾向。在公式的两个极端中，一端是极端的厌恶，一端是极端的纯净；肮脏、放荡、纵情声色和暴饮暴食等同于不道德，而在另一端，我们将美善与纯净、贞洁、禁欲和有节制画上等号。[258]这种交互判断影响到我们对食物的感情。肉食总是乱糟糟，并令人感官愉悦，因此是不好的；素食是清洁和有节制的，因此是好的。

    另外，人们在意识中有本质论的倾向，我们太愿意在字面上接受“你吃什么，你就是什么”这样的描述。从一堆死肉想到什么东西的尸体，立刻让人感觉肮脏；吞下某种动物的精髓，很可能让吞食者带有这种动物的兽性。甚至常青藤大学的学生也不能免受此等幻想的诱惑。心理学家保罗·罗津（Paul Rozin）的实验显示，学生都相信一个猎取乌龟食肉、猎取野猪食其内脏的部落是游泳好手，而猎取野猪食肉、猎取乌龟取壳的部落很可能是勇猛的武士。[259]

    浪漫主义世界观也能让一些人改变对肉食的态度。人类堕落之前的时代、多神教和“血与土的信条”都将处理与加工动物精心描绘成颓废腐败，而素食主义者则完完全全依靠土地产出为生。[260]出于类似的原因，对使用动物进行科学研究的忧虑造成了对科学和知识的一般性反感，正如华兹华斯在《转折》中所写：

    大自然的音律甜蜜芬芳；

    我们偏要加上人类的智慧

    扭曲了万物美好的姿态——

    为了剖析，我们大肆谋杀。

    最后，不同的亚文化对动物的态度有所不同，因此，对其他人如何对待动物的道德判断，很可能产生自己“高人一等”的结论——而对我们自己的各种做法却经常视而不见，无动于衷。对血腥的动物竞赛的态度特别能显示出阶级意识的较量，中产阶级四处游说，要求将下层百姓喜爱的斗鸡游戏和上流社会享有的猎狐运动立法废止。[261]托马斯·麦考利（Thomas Macaulay）评论说，“清教徒仇恨逗熊游戏，不是因为它给狗熊造成痛苦，而是因为它让观众感到快乐”，也就是说，反暴力运动针对的是残忍的观念，而不仅仅是受害者感受的痛苦。但是，这也点明了一种忧虑，即爱护动物人士很可能变得愤世嫉俗。

    古人在肉食上有各种禁忌，其背后的动机令人困惑，最能说明这种困惑的是犹太人的饮食律法。《旧约》的《利未记》和《申命记》将这些律法作为绝对命令，而上帝没有向我们凡人解释圣意的义务。但根据拉比后来的解释，这些律法都顾虑了动物的福祉。[262]动物的宰杀只能由专业屠户操刀，他们总是用干净锋利的尖刀先割断动物的颈动脉、气管和食管。这在当时应该是最仁慈的做法了，肯定比将动物活生生地剁成几块，或者活生生地架在火上烧烤要好得多。但是这种死亡远非没有痛苦，今天一些保护动物的爱心人士一直在努力禁止此类屠宰方式。不许将幼崽用母乳煮食的诫令基本上是禁止将奶制品和肉类合煮，它也被认为与动物关怀有关。不过，如果我们仔细想想，此诫令表达的完全是观察者的感受。对于一个将成为盘中餐的幼崽，汤水中拌有什么佐料，实在不是它要焦虑的问题。

    素食文化背后有着五花八门的动机。[263]在公元前6世纪，毕达哥拉斯创立了一个团体，除了测量三角形两个边的边长之外，他和他的追随者拒绝吃肉，主要原因是他们相信灵魂会在不同的身体，包括动物的身体上迁徙。在19世纪40年代出现“素食者”（vegetarian）这个词之前，不食肉和鱼被称为“毕达哥拉斯饮食”。

    印度教徒素食的动机是生命的轮回，虽然玩世不恭的人类学家，如马文·哈里斯（Marvin Harris）之流，提出了比较庸俗的解释：在印度，牛是珍贵的农耕工具，此外还提供珍贵的牛奶和（做燃料和肥料的）牛粪，这些用途比做咖喱牛肉的用料更要紧。[264]印度教素食主义的精神影响了佛教和耆那教，这两种宗教对动物生命有着更深刻的非暴力哲学思考。耆那教和尚在行走时清扫脚前的道路以免踩到虫子，有些人甚至戴上面具，以免呼吸时吸入微生物而杀死生命。

    但是，在20世纪，纳粹对待动物的态度彻底粉碎了认为素食主义和人道主义可以合二为一的直觉。[265]希特勒和他的许多党羽都是素食主义者，主要不是出于对动物的喜爱，而是出于洁癖、多神教信徒亲近土地的渴望，以及对犹太教人类中心说和肉祭仪式的反感。纳粹在道德割裂方面表现出无与伦比的能力，他们拿人类进行着各种难以诉诸语言的实验，却制定了有史以来欧洲最严格的实验动物保护法。他们的法律甚至强行要求农场、电影摄制组和餐馆人道地对待动物，在烹饪之前，鱼类必须施以麻醉，龙虾要迅速处死。这是动物权利运动历史上最诡异的一个篇章。此后，素食倡导者只得回到他们最古老的立场：食肉让人变得粗暴，戒除肉食让人变得平和。

    * * *

    文艺复兴时期，人们对动物表达出某种真切的道德关怀。当时有报告说印度整个国家都不吃肉，欧洲人开始对素食主义越来越好奇。有些作家，例如伊拉斯谟和蒙田，抨击了在狩猎和屠宰中对动物的残害；达·芬奇也是批评者之一，他本人亦成为素食者。

    但是，直到18和19世纪，才真正形成有关动物权利的争论。一部分起因是科学的进步。笛卡儿的实体二元论认为人的意识是一个自由浮动的实体，可以在大脑之外独立运作，逐渐让位于（精神和肉体）一元论和属性二元论，即意识等同于或者至少密切关联于大脑的活动。这种早期神经生物学的思考对动物的福祉大有助益。伏尔泰这样写道：

    狗远远比人更加忠实于友情，而一些野蛮人抓住这条狗，将它按在桌子下面，活生生地开膛剖腹，向你展示了它的肠系膜静脉。你发现，它具有所有你感到自己也有的器官。回答我，机械师，大自然真的给了这只畜生感知的全部渠道，但最后它却什么感觉也没有吗？它的神经是不会感觉痛苦的吗？[266]

    我们在第4章中已经看到，杰里米·边沁对引导他提出善待动物的伦理道德做过犀利的分析：关键不在于它们是否有理性和语言，而在于它们是否感觉到痛苦。到19世纪早期，人道主义革命已经从人类扩展到其他有感知的生命，首先指向最令人关注的动物虐待方式——血腥的动物游戏，接着针对对役畜、农场上饲养的动物和实验室动物的虐待。1821年，英国议会第一次有人尝试立法禁止虐待马；当初次宣读提案时，议员发出一片狂笑，他们表示，接下来就会有人要求保护狗甚至猫了。在不过二十多年的时间内，英国议会确实接到了这样的要求。[267]贯穿19世纪的英国，从人道主义和浪漫主义的交融中产生了不止一个反活体解剖联盟、素食运动以及各种防止虐待动物的社团。[268]1859年《物种起源》出版之后，生物学家接受了进化理论，他们因此无法再坚持感知为人类所独有的立场；到19世纪末，英国通过法律禁止活体解剖。

    在20世纪中期的几十年间，保护动物运动失去了风头。两次世界大战期间严峻的生活条件，制造了大规模的肉食饥渴，大众对工厂化生产提供的廉价肉类心满意足，顾不上考虑这些肉是怎样被制造出来的。而且，从19世纪开始，心理学和哲学的主流是行为主义；根据他们的理论，动物经验这种念头是一种非学术的傻气，是十恶不赦的拟人论。当时，和19世纪的和平运动一样，爱护动物运动有自己的形象问题，它成为空想社会改良家和食品健康狂人的大本营。甚至20世纪最坚定的道德发声者乔治·奥威尔，对素食主义者也不免发出调侃：

    有些时候，一个人确实会有这样的印象，对英国的每一个靠啜果汁维生的人，裸体主义者，脚穿拖鞋的人，性欲旺盛的人，贵格会的人，主张“自然疗法”的人，以及和平主义者与女权主义者来说，某些词汇有着特殊的吸引力。根据定义，饮食怪癖者就是指那些为了让自己的躯壳延长5年寿命而从人类社会自我放逐出去的人，也就是说，一些与正常的人类不发生关系的人。[259]

    直到20世纪70年代，情况才发生了变化。[270]1964年，英国出版了露丝·哈里森（Ruth Harrison）的《动物机器》（Animal Machines），向公众揭露了工厂化饲养中的禽畜的悲惨处境。公众人物迅速响应，据信小说家布丽吉德·布罗菲（Brigid Brophy）首先提出了“动物权利”说，她刻意将两者进行类比，说她就是想“在非人类的动物世界引进平等和解放这样的观念，虽然这些理想只是偶尔能够美梦成真，但一旦成功，通常都带有令人难忘的实际政治成果，比如让奴隶、同性恋或妇女这些受压迫的阶级得到拯救”。[271]

    真正的转折点是哲学家彼得·辛格1975年的著作《动物解放》（Animal Liberation），人们称其为“动物权利运动的圣经”。[272]这里所谓“圣经”的叫法有双重的讥讽含义：辛格是一个世俗主义者和一个功利主义者。自边沁将自然权利称为“高跷上的胡言乱语”以来，功利主义者对这一观念就充满怀疑。但是，辛格追随边沁，对动物的利益给出了清晰的阐述，却没有赋予它们任何“权利”。他首先认识到，生命的感受，而不是智商或者物种的成员地位，决定其是否值得伦理考量。接着，他认为，我们不应该对动物制造任何可以避免的痛苦，这和我们不能对孩子和有精神障碍的人制造痛苦是一样的道理。他推论说，所有人都应该素食。人类完全可以依赖现代素食食谱而生存，权衡利害，动物作为生命免除痛苦和夭折的重要性，显然要高于人类从肉食中得到的微末快感。无论是在文化传统上还是在生物进化上，或者两者兼而有之，人类“天然”摄取肉食的事实都不能说明其在伦理上的天然正当性。

    辛格的书取名“动物解放”，与布罗菲一样，辛格极力要将动物权利运动与20世纪60、70年代的权利革命——殖民地解放、妇女解放、同性恋解放相类比，他创造的流行字眼“物种歧视”（speciesism），成为“种族歧视”和“性别歧视”的姊妹词。辛格引用18世纪女权作家玛丽·沃斯通克拉夫特的言论，说如果玛丽关于妇女权利的论述是正确的，那么我们也必须给予“野兽”权利。玛丽的论述是一种归谬法，但辛格认为它是一个完整的演绎。对辛格来说，这些类比绝非简单的修辞技巧。他在另外一本论著《扩大的圈子》中发展了道德进步理论。他说，人类在自然选择中被授予能够与血亲和同伴共情的内在能力，这种共情的生命圈逐渐扩张，从家庭、村庄扩展到整个族群、部落、国家和物种，甚至扩展到所有有感知的生命。[273]我能写作此书，也是得益于辛格的见解。

    人们同情动物的原因不仅仅是辛格提出的道德观。20世纪70年代，成为一个社会主义者，一个靠啜果汁维生的人，一个裸体主义者，一个脚穿拖鞋的人，一个性欲旺盛的人，一个贵格派，一个主张“自然疗法”的人，或者一个和平主义者，一个女权主义者，或者一个上述各色特点兼具之人，是一件挺得意的好事情。除了从爱心角度为素食主义辩解之外，很快又有了其他理由：肉都是催肥的，有毒，导致血管硬化；种植谷物再用来养育禽畜，而不是直接供人食用，是浪费土地和粮食；农场饲养的废料是主要的污染源，牛的食物和排泄物产生甲烷，乃温室效应的罪魁祸首。

    * * *

    不管是叫动物解放、动物权利、动物福利，还是动物运动，自1975年以来，西方文化越来越不能容忍针对动物的暴行。在以下几个方面，可以看到显著的变化。

    我已经提到过第一点：保护实验用动物。不仅活的动物受到保护，不得在科研中让动物感到疼痛和紧张，或杀死动物，而且在高中生物课实验中，传统的解剖死青蛙的内容已经被文字描述和幻灯片替代。（在有些高中，学生开始使用虚拟青蛙，用计算机程序进行虚拟解剖。[274]）商业实验室使用动物对化妆品和日用品进行实验，这引起人们的强烈抨击。20世纪40年代曾经有报告说，睫毛膏内的煤焦油会导致妇女失明，此后日用品都要经过臭名昭著的德蕾丝眼部刺激安全测试程序，就是将一定数量的产品直接施用在兔子的眼睛上，观察其所造成的损害。在20世纪80年代之前，很少有人听说过德蕾丝测试程序；在90年代之前，几乎没有人会注意到“无残酷测试”（指产品避免了虐待动物式的测试）的说明；今天，“无残酷测试”一词如徽章般装点着成千上万的日用品，人们早已习以为常，即使看见“无残酷测试避孕套”，也没有人会动动眉毛。消费品实验室仍在继续使用动物进行安全测试，但是数量日渐减少，规章日渐严格。

    第二个显著的变化是禁止血腥运动。我已经提及，自2005年起，英国贵族必须让他们的号角和猎犬永久退休了；2008年，路易斯安那州成为美国最后一个立法禁止斗鸡的州。斗鸡曾经是一项遍及世界各地、有上千年历史的运动项目。同许多被法律禁止的事项一样，有关活动实际上禁而不止，特别是在拉美和南亚移民中继续举行，但在美国，斗鸡的数量已经大大减少，世界上很多国家都已经宣布此项运动非法。[275]

    甚至令人骄傲的斗牛运动也感到了威胁。2004年巴塞罗那明令禁止斗牛士在竞赛中杀死斗牛；2010年，西班牙整个东北部的加泰罗尼亚地区也开始实施这一禁令。国有的西班牙电视台已经停止实况转播斗牛活动，因为人们认为此项活动对儿童来说太过暴力血腥。[276]欧洲议会正考虑在整个欧洲大陆禁止斗牛。就像被仪式和盛典神圣化了的决斗和其他暴力习俗一样，总有一天，斗牛运动也将偃旗息鼓，告别历史舞台，但不是因为爱心人士的谴责和政府的禁令，而是因为不再有观众能够忍受它的残忍。海明威在他1932年的作品《午后之死》（Daath in the After-noon）中解释了斗牛的原始吸引力：

    （斗牛士）必须对杀戮的瞬间感到精神享受。杀戮干净利索，其手法给人一种审美上的快感，而骄傲从来就是人类最大的享受之一。一旦你接受死亡的命运，“不可杀戮”就是可以轻易和自然遵守的戒律。但是当一个男子奋起反抗死亡时，他才会快乐地想到自己也拥有神一般的属性，也能够制造死亡。在能够享受杀戮的男人身上，这是最深奥的情感之一。他们行事时满怀骄傲，骄傲对基督徒当然是一种罪，而对异教徒则是一种德。但是，正是有了骄傲才有了斗牛，有了对杀戮的真正的享受才成就了伟大的斗牛士。

    30年后，汤姆·莱勒对斗牛经历的描述已经有些变味了。他宣称：“世界上肯定没有比一个孤独的男人独自面对一头一吨重的、愤怒的红焖肉更漂亮的场景了。”在抒情诗的高潮段落，他吟诵说：

    花镖手身段矫健，我为之欢呼雀跃，

    眼见他巧妙地刺中公牛，

    我已很久未曾如此快乐，自那日

    兄弟的小狗，罗弗

    被车撞死之后。

    “罗弗是被一辆庞蒂亚克撞死的。”莱勒补充说，“撞得如此优雅和艺术，目击证人将狗的两只耳朵和尾巴奖赏给了肇事的司机。”今天西班牙年轻人对斗牛的态度更接近莱勒，而不是海明威。他们的英雄不再是斗牛士，而是不需要依赖杀戮的精神骄傲和美学骄傲就能成名的歌手和足球运动员。西班牙的斗牛还有不少忠实的粉丝，不过观众都是中年人和老年人。

    狩猎也是一项过气的运动。不论是由于对小鹿斑比的热爱，还是由于猎手埃尔墨的关系，为娱乐打猎的美国人越来越少了。图7-26显示，在过去30年间，在“综合社会调查”中承认自己或配偶打猎的人的比重不断下降。其他统计显示，狩猎者的平均年龄迅速上升。[277]

    图7-26 1977—2006年美国进行狩猎运动的家庭的比重

    资料来源：综合社会调查。

    这并不是说美国人用来玩电子游戏的时间越来越多，户外活动的时间越来越少了。根据美国渔业和野生动物服务局的数据，在1996—2006年10年间，美国人狩猎的人数和天数，以及花在狩猎上的钱数下降了10%~15%，但野生动物观察者的人数、观察的天数和花费的钱数上升了10%~20%。[278]人们仍然愿意与动物交往和沟通，只是他们更情愿盯着它们看，而不是开抢射杀它们了。我们现在要观察的是，这一下降趋势是否会因为狂热的本地食物爱好者（“土食者”）而出现反弹，这些年轻的都市专业人士为了减少食物运输的公里数，又拿起了猎枪，收获自己放养的、食草的、可再生的、人道屠宰的肉类。[279]

    很难想象垂钓居然可以是一项人道的运动，但是垂钓者正在尽力而为。他们中的一些人将捕捉后立即放生的做法发挥到极致，捕到鱼后，不将鱼带出水面就放生，因为将鱼暴露在空气中会让鱼感到紧张。当然，最好的捕鱼方式是无鱼钩的假绳钓鱼：垂钓者看着鳟鱼咬饵，感觉钓绳的那一下抖动，仅此而已。一名无钩垂钓者这样描述自己的经验：“我现在以一种更加自然的方式进入鳟鱼世界并与它们相处。我不会打扰它们进食的节奏。它们不断咬饵，我仍然能够感觉到它们咬饵时鱼线抖动的快感。我不再想伤害和骚扰鳟鱼，同时我也有办法继续享受垂钓。”[280]

    你能看懂这些比喻修辞吗？

    发布本博客文章时没有伤害任何树木。

    制作本书预告时没有任何豚鼠受到伤害。

    本商品的制作没有伤害任何北极熊。

    本书评的写作没有伤害任何山羊。

    本产品的生产没有伤害任何健怡可乐罐。

    抗议全民医保法案中没有任何茶党成员受到伤害。

    这种句式来自美国人道主义协会（American Humane Association, AHA）的标志性证书，证明在制作电影时没有动物受到伤害；在每部影片的片尾，在灯光师和场务领班的名字之后，就会出现这种证词。[281]曾经有报告说，电影在拍摄马群冲下悬崖的镜头时，竟然真的让马掉下了悬崖；美国人道主义协会为此专门设立了电影电视部，为电影业制定对待动物的指引。协会解释说，今天的消费者越来越重视动物的福利，他们和美国人道主义协会站在一起，要求使用动物演员的娱乐界提高准则和承担责任。他们坚持使用“演员”一词，说：“动物不是道具。”共有131页的《影视业安全使用动物守则》在1988年推出第一版，开篇即将动物定义为：“任何有感知的生命，包括鸟、鱼、爬行动物和昆虫”，没有留下任何生命物种不受保护或任何遗漏。[282]我随手翻开一页：

    水效果（请参阅第5章中的“水安全”）

    第六款之二：不得有任何动物被用于极端的和强制的雨模拟。任何用来制造效果的水压和风速必须全程受到监控。

    第六款之三：在模拟雨的场景中，应该提供橡胶垫或其他防滑物或防滑材料层。如果需要泥泞效果，泥泞的厚度必须在摄制之前得到美国人道主义协会的批准。在必要的情况下，泥泞下必须安装防滑层。

    美国人道主义协会夸耀说：“自从实施守则以来，摄制过程中动物出现意外伤害、疾病和死亡大幅度下降。”他们有坚实的数据支持，而我又喜欢用图表讲故事，请各位看图7-27，它给出了每年因为虐待动物演员而发生“不可接受的”动物死亡事故的影片数量。

    图7-27 1972—2010年摄制中发生动物伤害的影片数量

    资料来源：美国人道主义协会，影视部，2010年。

    如果说以上种种还不足以让你相信动物权利已经被抬高到一个全新水准，那就请看看2009年6月16日发生的事件。《纽约时报》有专文记载，题目是：“什么是白色的，有132个房间，还有很多苍蝇？”谜语的答案是“白宫”，它刚刚受到这种昆虫的侵袭。在一次电视转播的采访节目中，一只苍蝇不停地围着奥巴马总统的脑袋打转转。特勤人员一时无法与之搏斗，并将其按倒在地上，总统本人只好亲力亲为，抬起一只手，将苍蝇拍死在另一只手上。最高终结者吹嘘说：“我击中了吸血鬼。”这一片段成为YouTube的热点，但是也引来“善待动物”组织的抱怨。他们在自己的博客上说，“不能说奥巴马总统不应该伤害一只苍蝇”，但为了“未来可能再次发生的昆虫事件”，他们给奥巴马送来一只他们的“人道捕虫器”。[283]

    * * *

    最后，我们来说说肉类。如果你要数一数50年来生活在这个世界上的每一只动物，将对动物的伤害做个总计，你会说，人类在对待动物方面毫无改进。因为动物权利革命的进步被肉用仔鸡革命的进展抵消了。[284]1928年总统竞选口号“每只锅里一只鸡”告诉我们，鸡曾经被视为奢侈品。市场的反应就是培育肉质更多的品种，进行更有效的饲养，尽管这可能更不人道：工厂化饲养的肉鸡双腿细小，鸡笼拥挤不堪，呼吸的是腥臭的空气，运输和屠宰的手法都非常粗暴。20世纪70年代，消费者开始相信白肉比红肉更健康（“国家猪肉委员会”不失时机地提出口号说猪肉是“另外一种白肉”）。因为禽类的大脑非常之小，与人属于不同的物种类别，人们模模糊糊地认为，禽类比哺乳类缺少感觉的能力。于是，对鸡肉的消费需求暴涨，到90年代初，鸡肉的消费超过了牛肉。[285]一个人们原来没有预料到的结果就是，为了满足消费者，数十亿的悲惨生灵先是被带到这个世界，然后又被杀死，因为要200只鸡才能顶得上1头牛所提供的肉量。[286]工厂化饲养家禽，以及虐待家禽和牲畜已有几百年的历史，趋势恶化并非因为道德滑坡，也不是人们的心肠变得更硬了。饲养的数量在人们未注意之际不断攀升，其动力是经济利益和人们口味的变化。人们之所以对饲养数量毫无察觉，是因为他们从来就不曾对鸡的生活有任何好奇心。此外，这些动物向我们提供的是如假包换的白肉。

    但是，潮流在90年代开始转向。标志之一是素食人群的扩大。我相信，许多人有和我一样的经历，请客吃饭时，一位刚刚坐上餐桌的客人宣布说：“哎呀，我忘记告诉你了。我不吃死的动物。”自那时起，事先征询客人，“可有什么忌口吗？”成了请客用餐的礼节；参加会议晚宴的人也可以在菜单上打钩，用一盘浓香酱汁茄子替代一盘没滋少味的鸡肉。这股潮流终于成了气候，《时代周刊》 2002年的一篇封面报道的标题是：“你应该成为素食者吗？数百万美国人不再吃肉了。”

    食品业对这股潮流的回应是推出丰盛的素食和纯素产品。我家附近自选商场的素肉部提供大豆汉堡、菜园汉堡、面筋汉堡、素菜汉堡、无肉馅饼、豆腐包、非热狗、假热狗、假培根、假肉干、豆腐干、大豆腊肠、大豆熏肠、素鸡馅饼、无肉烤鸡翅、素烧烤什锦、素腌肉、素炖肉、素菜蛋白薄片、素菜鲜贝、素金枪鱼。科技和人类的语言创造力在此宣告了当今素食主义的潮流，以及对自古以来人类馋涎肉食的抵制。那些贪食传统大型早餐的人，可以享受早餐素腌肉条，配上豆腐渣，也可以是大豆酪、大豆奶油和素油酪烹制的摊素蛋。饭后甜品有冰豆沙、大米冰激凌、豆腐甜酪，还可以点缀上素油奶花，顶上再加一颗红樱桃。最终替代肉类的将是人工培养动物的细胞组织，也叫作“无足肉”。极端乐观的动物权利组织“善待动物”悬赏100万美元，作为对第一个将人工细胞培养的鸡肉送上市场的科学家的奖金。[287]

    素食主义无处不在，但纯粹的全素者只占人口的很小一部分。完全践行绿色生活方式并非易事。素食者被死动物和嗜肉如命的食肉者层层包围着，他们本身也不是生来就对肉没有欲望。我们没有必要奇怪，世界上有很多半途而废的素食者：每见到一个素食者，就能见到三个曾经的素食者。[288]许多持续保持素食的人让自己相信鱼算是蔬菜，因为他们大啖鱼类和海鲜，有时甚至也吃鸡肉。[289]有些人像“现代派传统犹太人”一样遵守自己的饮食规则；现代派传统犹太教徒去中餐馆时，会让自己从选择很少的食谱中放纵片刻；有些素食者在外用餐时也不再受素食的约束。素食人口的主要组成是十来岁的少女，她们素食的主要动机不是对动物的爱心。少女中的素食主义者很多都患有厌食症。[290]

    但是，素食主义至少仍处于上升趋势。在英国，“素食者学会”搜集了各种民调中问及素食的信息，汇编成表格。我使用他们的数据绘制了图7-28。图中笔直的上行线说明，在过去20年中，英国的素食人数增加了3倍多，从占人口的约2%上升到约7%。在美国，“素食资源小组”出资，民调机构提出相当严格的问题，询问受调查者是否食用肉、鱼或者禽类，排除了半素食者和那些创意无限的林奈式分类素食。美国的素食者数量要少一些，但趋势是一样的：在大约15年的时间里，素食人数增加了3倍多。

    图7-28 1984—2009年美国和英国的素食人数占比

    资料来源：英国的数据，来源于素食者学会，http:// www. vegsoc. org/info/。不包括针对家庭、学生和“严格”素食者的民调数据。美国的数据，来源于素食资源小组，《素食者杂志》。
    2009年：http://www.vrg.org/press/2009poll.htm
    2005年和2003年：http://www.vrg.org/journal/vj2006issue4/vj2006issue4poll.htm
    2000年：http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/poll2000.htm
    1997年：http:// www. vrg. org/journal/vj97sep/979poll. htm
    1994年：http:www. vrg. org/nutshell/poll. htm

    对动物福利的关切日益增加，素食者的人数也在增加，但是数量仍然如此之少。不过，我们也没有必要惊讶，毕竟，成为素食者和关心动物的福祉不是一回事。不仅素食者的动机可以与关怀动物毫不相关，比如健康、口味、生态、宗教，或者干脆就是为了让妈妈不高兴，而且，关爱动物的人也在犹豫，素食主义的招牌是否真是减少动物痛苦的最佳方式。他们或许认为，素食者无私放弃的汉堡，在一个消费巨量肉类的国家中实在微不足道，他们微弱的声音根本无法影响任何肉牛的生命。即使素食者的努力解救了若干肉牛，但其余肉牛依然生活悲惨。改变食品业的标准是一种集体行动困境，在这种困境中，个体总是倾向于逃避为总体福利做自我牺牲。

    素食主义的趋势，可以作为人们更加关怀动物的象征性指标，尽管关怀的方式有所不同。那些在原则上仍然食肉的人，可以少吃一些。（自1980年起，美国人对哺乳动物肉类的消费量一直在下降。）[291]餐馆和商场越来越多地向消费者说明，主菜活蹦乱跳时喂养的饲料和活动的范围。美国的两大主要禽类加工厂在2010年宣布，他们开始实行更仁慈的屠宰方式：禽类在被倒挂着割喉之前，先用二氧化碳熏昏。肉类的市场营销必须小心翼翼。食客会很高兴知道他们的主菜直到生命最后一刻一直受到仁慈的对待，但是最好不要向他们描述最后的细节。即使最仁慈的屠宰技术仍然有形象的问题。一位公司主管说：“我可不想听到公众说，我们对鸡施放毒气。”[292]

    大多数人支持以法律措施解决集体行动的问题，通过法律迫使农场和屠宰场更人道地对待动物。在2000年的一次民调中，80%的英国人说“他们希望英国的农场为禽畜提供更好的福利条件”。[293]尽管美国人有更强烈的自由意志，但也希望政府就此问题采取行动。在2003年的一次盖洛普民调中，竟然有96%的美国人说，动物应该得到某种保护，免于被伤害和被剥削。只有3%的人认为没有保护的必要，“因为它们是动物”。[294]虽然美国人反对禁止狩猎，反对禁止在医学研究和产品测试中使用动物，但是62%的人支持“立法严格监管农场饲养动物的待遇”。一旦有机会，美国人会将他们的意见转化为选票。亚利桑那州、科罗拉多州、佛罗里达州、缅因州、密歇根州、俄亥俄州和俄勒冈州均已就牲畜权利立法。2008年，63%的加州选民投票通过了《防止虐待农场动物法案》，法案禁止小牛夹栏喂养，禁止鸡笼喂养，禁止母猪妊娠夹栏喂养，这些喂养方式都在限制动物的活动范围。[295]美国政界有句老话：“加州带头，余者跟从。”

    或者可以说，欧洲带头，加州跟从。欧盟已经制定了有关动物护理的详尽规则，首先承认动物是有感知的生命。大目标是确保动物不再遭受可以避免的痛苦，并要求主人和管理人保证动物的最低福利需要。[296]在这些国家中，瑞士走得最远，已经生效的长达150页的规则要求所有的狗主人接受4小时“理论”课的培训，并详细规定了家养宠物如何居住、喂养、散步、游戏以及埋葬的要求（不得将活金鱼从马桶中放水冲走）。苏黎世有一项独特的政策，即政府支付“动物权利人士”费用以将违反动物权利的人押往法庭。被送上法庭的包括一名钓鱼爱好者，因为他向当地报纸吹牛说，他只用了10分钟就钓到一条大梭子鱼。（这位垂钓者最后被宣布无罪，梭子鱼则被做成了佳肴。）不过，2010年，瑞士举行全民公决，决定是否在全国推行此项政策时，国民还是犹豫了。[297]这一切听起来太像是美国保守人士所恐惧的噩梦，不过即使这些保守派自己也愿意让政府出面规范保护动物福利。在2003年的民调中，大部分共和党人主张就农场饲养动物的待遇通过“严格立法”。[298]

    * * *

    我们会走多远？经常有人问我，我是否认为将我们从废奴和废除酷刑带到民权、女权和同性恋权利的道德力量，也会将我们带往废除肉食、禁止打猎和动物实验。到22世纪时，我们的后代是否会对我们曾经吃肉感到可怕，就像我们知道祖先蓄奴会感到可怕一样。

    我的回答是，也许会，也许不会。在被迫害的人和被迫害的动物之间进行类比在修辞学上很有力量。说到底，我们都是有感知的生命，都有相当的智商。但是，类比只是比较而已，两者到底不是一回事。美国非裔、妇女、儿童和同性恋者不是肉鸡，我认为动物权利的走势不会是上述任何人权运动的复制品。心理学家哈尔·赫佐格（Hal Herzog）在他的著作《为什么狗是宠物，猪是食物？》（Some We Love, Some We Hate, Some We Eat）一书中，列出了很多理由说明为什么在人类与动物的关系上，我们的道德哲学如此缺乏一致性。我在这里给出几个令我特别震惊的理由。

    道德障碍之一是对肉食的欲望和与大快朵颐形影相随的社交快乐。虽然古老的印度教、佛教和耆那教证明不食肉的社会是存在的，但是素食产品仅占美国食品市场份额的3%，这说明我们距离那个转折点还有十万八千里。在为写作本章收集资料时，皮尤研究所2004年的一次民调让我感到兴奋，民调中13%的人回应说自己是素食者。但细读报告，我才发现，这是对总统候选人、佛蒙特州左倾州长霍华德·迪恩的支持者进行的一次民调。这说明在“本和杰瑞冰激凌”故乡最酥脆的燕麦片堆里，仍然有87%的人要吃肉。[299]

    但是，道德矛盾有比对肉食的渴望更深层的原因。人类和动物的许多互动只能是零和博弈。动物吃掉我们的房子、庄稼，有时甚至是我们的孩子。它们能弄得我们刺痒和流血。它们携带对人类有害甚至致命的细菌和病毒。它们互相残杀，甚至那些我们期望保留的濒临灭绝的动物也不例外。没有动物参与实验，医药将停滞在目前的水平上，数十亿活着和未出生的人将为了老鼠而忍受病痛与死亡。伦理计算认为，每一个有感知的生命所承受的痛苦的分量都是一样的，物种沙文主义是不能接受的，因此，我们不能通过牺牲动物来为人类谋福。比如，我们不可以为了救一个小女孩而射杀野狗。但是，仅仅从动物学特征上的优势看，也应该给予人类的利益更大的权重。比如，我们的大脑让我们能够尽情享受生活，思索我们的过去和未来，对死亡怀有恐惧，并在社交网络中将自己的幸福与其他人关联在一起。但是，按照这个逻辑，人类对生命的禁忌就没有意义了。正是因为这种禁忌，智力残缺的人的生命才受到保护。辛格本人毫不妥协地接受超越物种的道德观。[300]但是，在最近的将来，这种道德观还无法取代目前西方的道德观。

    对动物权利的思考肯定会撞击人类思想领域某些最费解的谜，让道德直觉开始发生动摇。难题之一是意识，即感知是如何经过神经信息处理而产生的。[301]笛卡儿对哺乳动物的认识肯定是错误的，我基本上相信他对鱼的认识也是错误的。但是他对于牡蛎的理解呢，对蜓蛐呢，还有白蚁，还有蚯蚓，也都错了吗？如果我们需要在烹调、园艺、房屋修缮和娱乐中保持伦理的确定性，就必须回答这个哲学难题。我的另一个困惑是，人类是理性和道德的主体，但同时也是作为残忍大自然组成部分的生物体。我对猎人开枪射杀麋鹿的画面感到某种反感，但是，为什么我对凶狠的棕熊捕食麋鹿的画面却没有太多伤感？为什么我没有那种道德紧迫感，赶紧准备一些纯大豆制作的麋鹿风味馅饼，将棕熊从麋鹿身旁引诱走？我们是否应该让食肉物种逐渐灭绝，或者通过基因工程将它们改造成食草物种？[302]我们总是在这类思维实验中止步不前，因为无论对错，我们对我们感觉“自然”的东西总是给予更大的道德权重。但是，如果其他物种的自然肉食性可以接受，为什么人类的自然肉食性就不能接受呢？特别是我们人类还可以调动认知能力和道德能力尽量减少被食用动物的痛苦。

    我猜想，这些无解的问题使得动物权利运动不可能完全复制其他权利运动的发展趋势。但就目前的状况而言，终点线在哪里无关紧要。我们还有很多机会，只要人类付出很小的代价，就可以大大地降低动物的痛苦。考虑到最近公众敏感性的变化，可以肯定，动物的生活质量将继续得到改善。

    权利革命的根源何在？

    当我开始为写作本章进行研究的时候，我知道，出现“长期和平”和“新和平”的几十年时间，也正是少数民族、妇女、儿童、同性恋和动物权利取得进步的时期。但我当时并不知道，在每一个案例中，量化的暴力——仇恨犯罪和强奸、殴打妻子、虐待儿童，甚至在制作中发生动物演员受伤害的影片的数量，所有这些都呈下降趋势。我们怎样理解过去50年来各方各面的非暴力趋势呢？

    在这些趋势中，有几个共同点。在每一场运动中，人们都是逆人性的强大潮流而动。这些固有的人性包括：对外团体的非人性化和妖魔化；男性的性贪婪和他们对女性的占有意识；表现为杀婴和体罚的亲子冲突；对同性恋的性厌恶道德化；我们对肉食的嗜好，对猎获的快感，以及基于血亲、互惠和魅力的共情边界。

    如果生物的属性还不够糟糕，亚伯拉罕诸教还将我们这些最糟糕的天性以戒律和信仰的形式规范化了，并在上千年的时间里一直鼓动着暴力——妖魔化异教徒、确立对女性的占有权、认定儿童天生有罪、憎恶同性恋、支配动物并拒绝承认它们有灵性。亚洲的文化也有不少耻辱之处，最耻辱的当属大规模抛弃女儿，这导致对女婴的屠杀。此外，还有各种根深蒂固的习俗：殴打妻子，痛揍孩子，夹栏饲养，电击老鼠。这些准则被人们接受，是因为每个人都认为它们从来就是被接受的。

    就暴力的不道德性而言，权利革命显示，道德的生活方式经常需要坚定地否定直觉、文化、宗教和常规。在追求道德的人中，道德准则受共情和理性的引导，并以权利的语言加以陈述。我们迫使自己设身处地为其他有感知的生命着想，穿上他们的鞋子（或者它们的爪子），设想如何免受伤害或杀戮。我们不再关注那些表面的事物，比如眼睛所看到的种族、民族、性别、年龄、性取向，甚至在某种程度上，还有物种。

    我的结论是，启蒙运动的道德观及其所培育的人文主义和自由主义潮流是权利革命的源泉。权利革命也就是自由主义革命。每一场权利革命都和自由主义运动密切相连，每一场自由主义运动几乎都是从欧洲发源，经过美国蓝色自由州，传递到美国红色保守州，再传向拉美和亚洲的民主国家，接着进入威权国家，可能最后是非洲和大部分的伊斯兰世界。每一场权利革命都在西方文化中留下太多的新避讳和新禁忌，人们调侃地称其为“政治正确”。但是，数字显示，权利运动减少了许多死亡和苦难，同时让人们的新文化越来越不能容忍暴力，无论是何种形式的暴力。听媒体上美国自由派的评论，你会觉得，至少在过去40多年中，美国一直在被右派拖向保守，从尼克松到里根，到金里奇，再到布什父子，现在则是茶党运动中愤怒的白人。权利革命已经触及生活的每一个角落——异族通婚、妇女地位的提升、对同性恋的宽容、儿童处罚和动物的待遇。保守派的态度也在随着自由主义的趋势变化，事实上，今天的保守派比昔日的自由派更加自由。保守主义历史学家乔治·纳什（George Nash）已经说过：“如果不是在理论上，但至少在实践中，美国今天保守派的立场就是1980年左派的立场。”[303]（也许这才是为什么这些人如此愤怒的原因。）

    是什么引发了权利运动？就像很难为长期和平、新和平和90年代犯罪率下降找到原因一样，要为权利运动确定一个外生因素来解释它们的发生和发展，实在是非常困难。但是，我们可以看看那些标准答案。

    战后出现了长期的经济繁荣，不过繁荣对社会的影响是弥散式的，从中找不到任何触发革命的直接动因。钱可以买到教育、警察、社会科学、社会服务、媒体覆盖、有妇女参加的专业劳动大军，以及对儿童和动物更周到的关照，我们无法确定这中间到底哪个因素导致了变化，而且，即使能够确定某个因素，我们仍然无法回答为什么社会选择了这样的资源分配方式来保护弱势群体免受伤害。虽然我无法提供严谨的统计分析，我还是认为，从20世纪60年代直到21世纪的头10年，各种权利扩张的时间表与同时期的经济增长和衰退没有相关性。

    民主政府显然发挥了它的作用。权利革命都发生在民主国家，公民以社会契约约束他们之中的暴力。民主制度本身包含着一种内在的机制，让社会契约可以向原来被排斥的团体伸延。但是，时机仍然是说不清楚的谜，因为民主本身不是一个全然外生的变量。当美国黑人在民权运动中夺回被剥夺的公民权利时，美国民主制度本身就是争议的对象。其他权利革命也有同样的经历，新团体被接纳或者经过自己的努力争取成为社会契约中的正式成员，只有这时，政府才真正得到授权监管（或放弃）针对某些社会成员的暴力。

    在权利革命期间，互惠和贸易网络不断扩张，并实现了从实物经济向信息经济的转变。妇女的家务负担减轻了，社会需要更加多样和丰富的人力资本，而不仅仅是本地人工或者传统势力集团的成员。当妇女和少数族裔进入政府机构和商业领域，他们就会将自己的利益带入日常的工作。我们已经看到这一机制的实例：一个国家的政府和专业机构中任职的妇女人数越多，这个国家针对妇女的家庭暴力就越少；而与同性恋有私交的人较少反对同性恋。但是，正如民主一样，制度的包容性也不是完全的外生过程。信息经济隐藏的手可能是一种让机构更愿意接纳妇女、少数族裔和同性恋者的力量，当然，政府仍然要通过消除歧视的立法彻底完成转变。在儿童和动物福利的问题上，完全没有交换互利的市场：受益人完全是单方面的。

    如果我一定要对权利革命最重要的外生原因下赌注的话，我选择那些让思想和人员日益具有更大流动性的技术。发生权利革命的几十年，也正是发生电子革命的时代：电视、晶体管收音机、电缆、卫星、长途电话、复印机、传真机、互联网、手机、手机短信、网络视频；这几十年也是州级高速公路、高速铁路和喷气飞机的时代；同时，还是高等教育和科学研究飞速发展的时代。人们不太注意的是，这几十年也是图书出版大爆炸的时代：从1960年到2000年，美国每年出版的书籍几乎增加了5倍。[304]

    我在前面曾经提到过这样的关联。人道主义革命起源于文字王国，长期和平和新和平都是地球村的孩子。请记住伊斯兰世界做错了什么：很可能是他们抵制印刷出版，拒绝进口图书和图书所包含的思想。

    为什么思想和人员的传播会带来降低暴力的变革？有这样几条路径。最显而易见的是，思想和人员的传播暴露无知与迷信。交往密切且受过良好教育的大众，至少在整体上和长期趋势上，不会受到有害信仰的蛊惑，比如相信其他种族或民族的人天生贪婪和背信弃义，相信少数族裔的叛变造成了经济和军事的困境，相信妇女不介意被强奸，相信儿童只有在棍棒下才能学会规矩，相信有人选择腐败的生活方式因此成为同性恋者，还有就是相信动物是不会感到疼痛的。伏尔泰说过，那些能够让你相信谬误的人，也能让你犯下暴行。

    另外一个因果路径是，鼓励人们转换视角，从与自己不同的人的角度观察世界。人道主义革命有自己的《克拉丽莎》、《帕米拉》和《茱丽》，有它的《汤姆叔叔的小屋》和《雾都孤儿》，还有目击者对人们被殴打、火刑和鞭笞的报告。在电子时代，共情的技术更普及，也更能打动人心。美国非裔和美国同性恋者先是活跃在各种娱乐节目中，接着他们做访谈节目的嘉宾，然后是出演电视剧和电影中令人同情的角色。不仅纪录片，还有畅销小说和改编的电影《斯坦贝克携犬横越美国》、《阳光下的葡萄干》（A Raisin in the Sun）、《杀死一只知更鸟》都记载了他们在与警察的水龙和警犬对峙下的抗争。电视时代的女权主义者，不仅作为女主持人，还作为电视剧中的女主人公大声宣扬自己的理念。

    正如我们在第9章中所见，从另外一个人的视角看待世界会扩展我们的同情和关切，这不仅是体验虚拟现实，也是一种理智敏捷性——其实也是一种智力。具有这种智力的人能够摆脱出身和乡土的狭隘约束，思考假想的世界，反思决定一个人信仰和价值的习俗、本能冲动和社会制度。这种反省式的思维方式可能是良好教育的产物，也可能是电子媒介的产物。保罗·西蒙在歌中这样表达了他的惊讶：

    天天都有奇迹发生，

    刚刚接到来自远方的电话，

    摄像机缓缓地追随着，

    我们就这样看着自己。

    第三条路径是可以促进道德提升的信息流。有些学者研究过世界不同地区物质进步的趋势，比如三卷本《文化》（Culture）的作者，经济学家托马斯·索维尔和《枪炮、病菌和钢铁》（Guns, Germs, and Steel）的作者、生物学家贾里德·戴蒙德（Jared Diamond）。他们都得出结论说，物质进步的关键在于它需要大量的创新为依托。[305]还没有人聪明到能够在完全的孤独中发明一种让其他人都喜爱的东西。成功的创新不仅站在巨人的肩膀上，而且创新者还参与大规模的知识产权盗窃，从丰沛的思想水系中汲取各种养料。欧洲和西亚的文明能够征服世界，是因为移民和航海让商人和征服者把发明和创新从原产地带到欧亚大陆的各个角落。这些技术和创新有来自中东的谷物和拼音文字，来自中国的火药和造纸，来自乌克兰的良种马，还有葡萄牙的航海技术，等等等等。Cosmopolitan（世界性）的意思是“世界公民”，而insular（孤独）的意思就是“岛国小民”，这都是有原因的。困守孤岛或者交通不便的山区社会往往不仅技术落后，道德观念也落后。我们在前面已经看到，在低地的居民已经开始文明进程的时候，山民仍然保守着荣誉文化，也就是说将对部落的忠诚和家族复仇作为最高伦理。

    导致技术进步的关键也是促进道德进步的关键。身处于信息集散地的个体和文明可以得到大量新生的道德资源，这是哪怕最公正的先知也无法凭空提供的。让我重温一下权利革命的简史。

    马丁·路德·金在1963年的文章《非暴力的朝圣之旅》（Pilgrimage to Nonviolence）中，详述了形成其政治哲学的思想脉络。[306]作为一名20世纪40年代末50年代初的神学研究生，他当然通晓《圣经》和正统神学，但是他也阅读了其他叛逆神学家的著述，例如沃尔特·劳申布施（Walter Rauschenbusch）。劳申布施不仅质疑《圣经》的准确性，还抨击耶稣基督为世人罪过而死的教理。

    接着，马丁·路德·金列举了“对伟大先哲的社会和道德理论进行认真学习，从柏拉图和亚里士多德，直到卢梭、霍布斯、边沁、穆勒和洛克。一如既往，所有这些思想大师都启发我思考。在不断向他们提出质疑的同时，我从他们那里汲取丰富的思想”。他仔细地阅读（并排除了）尼采和马克思，从此免疫于共产主义意识形态，尽管这些思想对其他解放运动具有极大的吸引力。虽然他赞赏莱茵霍尔德·尼布尔（Reinhold Niebuhr）“对人性特别是对民族和社会集团行为的洞察力……尼布尔思想中的这些成分帮助我看清了肤浅乐观派对人性的幻想，以及虚幻理想主义的危险”，但他也拒绝了欧洲大陆神学家卡尔·巴特（Karl Bar-th）的反理性主义。

    金赶赴费城聆听了霍华德大学校长莫迪凯·约翰逊（Mordecai Johnson）的讲座，自此，他的思想发生了不可逆转的变化。约翰逊刚刚结束了一次印度之行，他谈起了领导印度独立运动的莫罕达斯·甘地。金写道：“他的道理如此深刻和令人振奋，我离开聚会后立即买了几本关于甘地生平的书。”

    金立刻认识到，与耶稣教义中一贯宣扬的非暴力不同，甘地的非暴力抵抗理论不是要对爱做道德肯定。相反，这是一套顽强的战略战术，是要通过更高的智慧战胜敌人，而不是要在肉体上消灭敌人。金得出结论，对暴力的禁忌可以防止运动被冒险家和暴徒侵蚀。在运动初期遭受挫折的时候，暴力禁忌可以维持成员的士气和关注点。反对暴力，让敌人失去攻击的合理性，让自己在第三方眼中保持积极的道德优势，同时让敌人处于劣势。出于同样的理由，非暴力抵抗分裂敌人，让一些敌人的支持者对单边暴力越来越反感。而运动本身可以通过静坐、罢工和示威等制造麻烦，以争取自己的目标。这种战术当然不能用来对付所有的敌人，但显然对其中某些是有效的。

    1963年，金在华盛顿大游行上所做的历史性演讲，是对他在朝圣之旅中积累的各种智慧的集大成者：有希伯来先知的想象和语汇，有基督教承担苦难的勇气，有欧洲启蒙运动个人权利的理想，有美国黑人教会的韵律和修辞，还有来自一个浸润了耆那教、印度教和英国文化的印度人的战略规划。

    毋庸赘言，过去已经成为历史。金组装的道德装置也成为人类思想库中的瑰宝，不断成为其他权利运动的工具。后来者自觉地高举非暴力的大旗和道德理性，并学习金的各种战略战术。以历史的标准来看，20世纪后期权利运动最显著的特征就是它所使用和所引起的暴力都非常之少。金自己成为民权运动的烈士，是种族隔离分子恐怖行动的少数受害人之一。我们谈到的20世纪60年代美国城市发生的暴动事件都与民权运动无关，它们是在民权运动已经取得历史性进展之后的事情。其他社会革命的暴力成分也非常有限：（同性恋夜总会的）“石墙骚乱”没有人员伤亡，动物权利运动中有些极端分子采用了恐怖手段，仅此而已。后期权利运动推动者的主要行动是出版书籍、发表演讲、组织游行、游说议员和为公投收集签名。公众早已接受以个人权利为基础的道德准则，而且越来越排斥任何形式的暴力，权利运动所需要的只剩下发动公众。相比之下，推翻专制政治、结束奴隶制和殖民统治的早期权利运动，无一不经过死伤几十万甚至上百万的血腥战斗。

    从历史到心理学

    到此我们已经用了6章来记载暴力减少的历史。从中我们看到图示，告诉我们21世纪最初10年的暴力水平是有史以来最低的。即使世界上仍然存在着暴力，我们还是生活在一个不寻常的时代。也许，我们经历的只是大进步中的短暂瞬间，此后将是一个更长久的和平。也许，现在的低水平暴力将是一个新常态，所有可以消除的暴力都已经解决了，继续减少暴力的任务将会非常艰难。也许，我们的好运气就要到头了。但是，不论如何推断未来，必须承认，我们能有今天，确实是非凡的成就。

    马丁·路德·金有过一句名言，它改编自废奴主义者、唯一神教派牧师西奥多·帕克（Theodore Parker）1852年的一篇短文：

    我不想假装理解道德世界。天际广阔，我极目眺望，视野仍然有限；仅目力所及，我无法计算世界的弧度和广度；遵循良知，我知道它是神圣的。就我所见所识，我肯定，它指向公正。[307]

    150年后，我们的眼睛可以看见天际的穹顶确实已经弯向公正，这一景象是帕克当年无法想象的。我也不想装作能够理解道德世界，或者能够凭借良知去领悟它。但是，在接下来的两章中，让我们来看看，从科学的角度，我们能够理解多少。

  • 威廉·谢里登·阿伦《纳粹掌权：一个德国小镇的经历》10-20

    第二部　引入独裁统治（1933年1月—1945年5月）

    十　最后一次选举（1933年2—3月）

    如果说德国人的这种癌症一开始并不明显的话，那只是因为有足够有效的健康力量在抵制着。但是随着它的逐渐发展，最后，它通过一个决定性的诡计而掌握了权力，这种癌症爆发并且摧毁了整个政治机构。之后，大多数对此表示反对的人都躲藏起来了。 ——1942年分发的德国的抵抗传单

    1933年1月——在希特勒成为德国总理之前的最后几周——对几乎所有的诺特海姆人来说都是艰难时期。天气阴冷潮湿，这是一种在德国北部平原才有的特别寒冷的特性。灰蓝色的天空使旧建筑和鹅卵石街道显得灰蒙蒙的，连空气本身也显得灰蒙蒙的。对于失业者来说，光秃秃的树枝和结霜的土地象征着他们自己的处境：无限延伸的绝望，深陷没有尽头和无意义的失业中。

    有些人已经失业三年多了，有些人只能间歇性地找到工作。然而，有些人也许是更加不幸的：他们刚刚到了正常能够找第一份工作的年龄，但是却没有工作，似乎不再可能有工作了。商店主站在闲置的收银机旁边，拥有令人骄傲的头衔“工艺大师”的工匠坐在自己的店里，等着订单的到来，这是个不幸的冬天。连孩子们也不高兴，因为流感疫情特别严重，以至于学校都关门了，男人们在闲散的一天结束之后，一看到发烧的孩子和疲倦的妻子，就会更加担忧。

    在这种情况下，诺特海姆人对大萧条的最后一个冬天会是什么情绪呢？甚至纳粹的回答——憎恶——也黯淡了，随着出席纳粹集会的人数减少，冲锋队队员穿着傲慢的制服，却只能孤独而痛苦地站在那里，在街角处摇晃着他们的筹钱罐。在诺特海姆，纳粹分子看起来已经度过他们的权力巅峰期了。他们获得了城镇中一半以上的支持率，但是如果没有事情发生，他们如何能保持住支持率？在最近的一次选举中（1932年11月），城镇中的纳粹分子做了所有能做的事情才保持住支持率。在全国范围内，纳粹浪潮有退却的迹象。在诺特海姆，纳粹只采取了一些固定的行动：在卡特莱拍卖大厅召开小型集会，计划再做一些重复的演讲或者“娱乐晚会”。保持坚定的决心而不是胜利的活力，似乎是1933年1月的典型调子。

    诺特海姆的社会民主党也没有兴高采烈的理由。他们在1932年损失惨重。有一些不祥的预兆显示城镇中的失业者越来越对共产党感兴趣了。许多人期待着纳粹能接管。他们计划着战斗，但是并不完全清楚他们是为什么而战斗。为了共和国的冯·施莱歇尔将军或者冯·帕彭？为了在总统紧急法令下统治的民主制度？在阴郁的1933年1月，诺特海姆的社会民主党没有举行集会，也没有进行任何演讲。他们还有什么要说的呢？

    然而，城镇中的政府还在继续试着处理大萧条。城市议会于1月13日召开会议，市长彼得斯宣布1933年将达到预算平衡。这可以通过提高35%的城镇税来完成。在另一项改善穷人命运的努力中，城市所拥有的花园土地税减少了25%。最后，诺特海姆分摊的中央政府的公共事业资金已经到了，总计超过6万马克，正在制订将这笔钱投入创造就业的工作中的计划。休会前，议员库埃尔富尔特花费了一些时间谴责纳粹报纸的诽谤。 [1]

    1月27日，城市政府已经完成了利用公共事业资金的计划，即应新建造一条街道，修缮几条街道。射击协会要求城镇建立一个新的射击打靶场，因为这是1933年在诺特海姆举行预定的北德射击协会大会的先决条件。社会民主党对请求城镇商人们把这笔资金投入城镇里表示冷漠，并且拒绝拨款，因而引起了一些更刻薄的话语。 [2]

    在1月的最后几天，《诺特海姆最新消息》讲了一个奇特的故事。一个叫作摩西的牛贩子去世了。他曾经很富有，但是他那些只能同甘不能共苦的朋友们挥霍了他的钱财，现在他只能躺在穷人的坟墓里了。在轻微的反犹主义和道德悲哀的氛围中，诺特海姆的1933年1月即将结束了。 [3]

    随后，在这个月的最后一天，阿道夫·希特勒被任命为德国总理的消息传遍了整个城镇。对于所有诺特海姆人而言，国家政治无意义的混乱状态结束了，终于发生了一些事情。

    诺特海姆的国社党对此毫无准备。纳粹分子在事情发生后甚至没有立即就组织起一场胜利游行。不过，这之后的周末（1933年2月4日，星期六）策划了一场“娱乐晚会”，包括演讲和一场军事音乐会。2月5日，星期天，诺特海姆举行了一场县内所有纳粹地方小组都参加的会议。现在，这些计划具有了新的意义；倦怠感一扫而光，诺特海姆人都成群结队地去买票。2月4日，星期六，匆忙准备了一场火炬游行。现在，城镇中和纳粹分子联合的钢盔团也同意加入了。胜利游行给人留下了极其深刻的印象。除了军乐队和钢盔团的旗帜外，还有冲锋队的旗帜、乐队和军乐队。整个诺特海姆县的纳粹分子和民族主义者都因这次事件而聚集到了一起。如果《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的数据是正确的，那么就有800多名纳粹分子和200多名钢盔团成员。整支队伍通过要花15分钟的时间。据《诺特海姆最新消息》所说，诺特海姆的街道上挤满了围观群众，市集广场上也有很大一群人，“比之前见过的人都多”。演讲的内容是关于纳粹分子和民族主义者之间的团结以及共产主义的背信弃义的。

    绝大多数来城镇参加游行的人之后就立即离开了，但还有一部分人留下来参加在“1910年代圆顶”举行的“娱乐晚会”，人太多了以至于有些人被拒之门外了。庆祝活动很热闹，县领袖施泰内克和其他纳粹分子发表了演讲，钢盔团领袖就成为支持纳粹分子的同志有多么好发表了欢欣鼓舞的祝酒词。前年夏天和秋天，纳粹分子谈及的“反动分子”和德国国家人民党指控的“独裁”和“典型的社会主义”就像啤酒上消失的泡沫一样被遗忘了。

    第二天早上，纳粹分子清醒地完成了和县会议相关的一系列繁重活动。上午，军乐队穿过城镇，而一大早，瓦尔特·施泰内克就把花环放在了战争纪念碑上。纳粹分子举行了一场游行，还在卡特莱拍卖大厅、两家旅馆和一家咖啡厅举行了会议。下午晚些时候，在“1910年代圆顶”举行了一系列演讲，尤其是反对共产主义的。纳粹分子给城镇留下的印象就是这里已经完全属于他们了。 [4]

    镇压与庆祝齐头并进。对于诺特海姆人而言，阻止暴力是正当的：2月的前10天，在旧军营发生了两场打斗。 [5] 不过，随着戈林管理内政部，除了官方的制裁和命令外，没有再发生暴力事件。2月2日，共产党发起的公众集会和示威游行都被禁止了。第二天，诺特海姆的警察接到柏林的命令，突袭了当地德国共产党成员的家，但没有什么收获，正如《诺特海姆最新消息》所报道的，没找到“任何违禁印刷品”。接连不断的命令是禁止共产主义者分发任何印刷品、筹款以及在家里或公共场所举行集会。 [6]

    对付社会民主党的方式更加零碎。2月18日，受到普鲁士内政部怂恿的诺特海姆警方查抄了每周发行的《诺特海姆人的回声》，它是“钢铁阵线”的机构。理由是该报在一篇文章中嘲笑希特勒，还在另一篇文章中称纳粹党徽是“破产的象征”。对于胆小者来说，这是个重大的消息，尤其是有消息称该报很快就会被彻底取缔。 [7]

    2月19日，社会民主党明白了新秩序的全部意义。那一天，“钢铁阵线”计划在诺特海姆的市集广场上举行示威游行。通常情况下，警察会事先得到通知。午后不久，诺特海姆的国旗队队员在就业办事处附近的旧军营营房聚集。朝向市集广场的游行开始时，大约有400名参加者，还有常见的旗帜和表演音乐的人。与此同时，大约有150名冲锋队队员在宽街上的旧城镇聚集，“他们处于警戒状态，要保护房屋和纳粹党旗免遭袭击”。当社会党人的游行队伍到了旧城墙的时候，他们被警方阻止了。社会民主党领袖被告知，冲锋队和国旗队队员已经在诺特海姆发生了冲突。警方声称公共安全和秩序受到了威胁，命令游行队伍退回去，到附近的啤酒花园举行集会，而不是试图进入市集广场。

    星期天下午，在啤酒花园内，他们举行了一场（渴望得到尊重的）“咖啡音乐会”。当警方包围了400名国旗队队员时，昏昏欲睡的中产阶级对打破了他们平静的这一事件相当震惊。被花园的高墙和警戒线孤立起来的诺特海姆社会民主党人举行了他们最后一次政治集会，而冲锋队队员们则自由地行进在城镇的街道上。 [8]

    这一事件对城镇中社会民主党普通成员的影响是巨大的。事件发生的当晚，赫尔曼·舒尔策将他的国旗队旗帜叠起来放进一个咖啡罐中，并将咖啡罐埋在了田地里。社会民主党的其他成员也知道博弈结束了。他们将希望放在了德国军队的身上。如果军队下令，他们就会战斗；如果没有，那么国旗队和其他工人组织不会进行有组织的武装抵抗，德国将会落入纳粹手中。国旗队队员仍旧愿意战斗，但很明显，除非尽快得到命令，否则他们将会被纳粹分子逐个除掉。 [9]

    纳粹分子现在开始公开袭击社会民主党人。2月24日，社会党人分发给失业者的小册子被警方没收，“……因为嘲笑国家总理”（也就是希特勒）。同一天，警方完全禁止了“钢铁阵线”计划的火炬游行，理由是游行会“危及安全和秩序”。当然，纳粹游行得到了允许。 [10]

    尽管没有了左翼的竞争，但是诺特海姆的纳粹分子也没有放松他们的煽动性努力。希特勒政府的第一项行动就是安排新的国会选举，他们知道这次的竞选运动可以根据自身的方式进行。党派的宣传组织随之发布指令，规定竞选运动针对的目标是社会民主党和德国共产党，而德国国家人民党和天主教中央党派不会被攻击（诺特海姆的纳粹分子几乎不需要指令）。 [11]

    在诺特海姆，2月25日星期日举行了第一场群众集会。一场演讲是针对战争老兵的，另一场的标题为“清算马克思主义罪犯”。演讲者号召所有德国人都要像“1914年的军人们”“至死都相信会获胜”那样信任希特勒。“1910年代圆顶”挤满了人。第二天，通过派遣200名身着制服的冲锋队队员去路德派教堂，纳粹分子唤起了中产阶级的宗教情感。活动过后，冲锋队乐队在市集广场召开了一场音乐会，吸引了很多诺特海姆人来参加他们的周日宪法活动。 [12]

    民族主义党派也加入了竞选运动，在“1910年代圆顶”举行过娱乐晚会之后，钢盔团进行了游行。演讲都在强调纳粹—民族主义联盟的亲密性，严厉谴责“党治国家”，也就是魏玛共和国。人民党派也举行了一场集会，不过具体的信息和往常一样模糊不清。演讲者坚称德国人民党将会在“黑白红的（帝国）旗帜下”继续发挥重要的作用。他正式提出反对“国家社会主义”，强调需要“从凡尔赛获得自由”，结束时提出了“加强黑白红阵线的左翼联盟”的诉求。有20个人出席了会议。

    3月2日，人民党派采取了更强硬的立场。在《诺特海姆最新消息》当天的宣传中，德国人民党提醒诺特海姆人，“暴力和武力既不能带来经济和平，也不能解决失业问题”。该报号召诺特海姆人帮助确保德国人民党在国会中有稳定的代表：

    这是维护自由公民和市民服务、维护中产阶级和工作行业、维护私营企业以及国家和自由道德的最佳保证。那些想要阻止专制主义、想要结束所有的国家力量等级秩序的人，把票投给德国人民党。 [13]

    他们及时地提及了“专制主义”。2月27日晚国会大厦被烧毁 [48] 给了纳粹一个镇压左翼的新借口，随后颁布的紧急法令终止了德国的公民自由，赋予了警方事实上的绝对权力。从这次事件开始，出现了恐怖系统的非正式社会强化。国会纵火案的第二天早上，在诺特海姆，有人听到一个社会党人的儿子对他的同学坚称纳粹分子应该对火灾负责。非纳粹分子的校长受到他自己对新环境认知的影响，立即给了这个男孩停学处分。他和市长办公室进行了很长时间的电话谈话，对于这个男孩是否可以参加几天后的期末考试，他们之间争论不休。 [14]

    国会纵火案之后，报纸也发挥了有助于创造恐怖氛围的作用。比如，3月13日的《诺特海姆最新消息》报道称：

    这些天来，一直有关于共产主义者的犯罪行为、破坏行为和纵火行为等最邪恶的谣言……这些谣言只能助长选举前就已经开始出现的紧张局势。我们询问了有关当局，他们说这些谣言没有一个字是真的。人们应该大力打击这些造谣者。当然已经采取了预防措施。地方警方和铁路警卫都加强了，他们保持着防备状态，保卫着大桥、建筑和我们的铁路车站以及轨道延伸线路。 [15]

    除了谣言以外，还有些具体事例。3月1日，诺特海姆的警方在突袭了私人住宅之后没收了“社会民主党和德国共产党的违禁报纸和小册子”。警方还宣称前一天逮捕一个工人是因为“他不顾禁令分发社会民主党的选举小册子”。镇压的手段也增多了。2月28日，恩斯特·吉尔曼（违反一直以来的国社党指令）授权镇上的冲锋队队员随身携带装有子弹的枪支，表面上是为了保护他们自己免受攻击。 [16] 3月1日，30名党卫军和冲锋队队员被指定为警察。他们的制服是常规的纳粹分子的褐衫，戴着一个白色的臂章，上面写着“辅警”。他们立即开始在城镇的街上巡逻。因为这些人前几年曾多次与国旗队队员打斗，所以可以想象到他们的执法理念是什么样的。冲锋队队员实现了他们的梦想：有机会在不受警察阻碍的情况下使用暴力了。纳粹分子不仅控制着警方——现在他们就是警方。

    新警察立即行动起来了。他们得到任命的当天下午，冲锋队队员搜捕了当地德国共产党领袖的家。虽然他们彻底而且暴力地搜查了房子，但是没有找到任何可以归罪的证据。不管怎样，他们还是发出了逮捕共产主义领袖的逮捕令，理由是怀疑“他分发违禁小册子”。他们还对其他共产主义者和社会主义者的家进行了搜捕。 [17]

    同时，这股力量还被用于镇压社会民主党，纳粹分子开始传播中伤他们的谣言。3月3日和4日，纳粹分子在《诺特海姆最新消息》上刊登了以下宣传内容：

    诺特海姆的居民们！

    你们想要继续生活在和平安宁中！你们已经看到了社会民主党和德国共产党的无耻行为！你们想要共产党的参议员、市议会议员以及国旗队的将军们带着武装追随者走向毁灭！记住这群家伙去年的无耻行为！红色的搅局者库埃尔富尔特、哈泽、德佩（等人）试图发动内战！健康保险办事处分发的医药包就是国际罪犯党派——社会民主党和德国共产党成员——嗜血意图的明显标志。作为前共产党的警察议员已经和他的武装队伍全副武装准备好了。军营里那些残暴的共产主义者配备着军用来复枪——库埃尔富尔特和其他共产党党员的同志联盟——正等待着在诺特海姆街道上发生一场血战。诺特海姆将被鲜血和恐惧淹没！希特勒才是你们的救世主！国社党、冲锋队、党卫军都会为你们而战，就在诺特海姆这里！明天是国家觉醒的日子！在投票箱那里，德国人民会感谢伟大的领袖在最后时刻拯救了他们！

    一场风暴将要扫过德国！德国人投票给候选人一号！希特勒万岁！

    国社党，诺特海姆地方小组

    德佩、库埃尔富尔特和哈泽立即对这一宣传内容进行了回应。然而，《诺特海姆最新消息》却拒绝刊登。因此，他们只能在附近城镇的一家报纸上刊登：

    诺特海姆的居民们！更正！

    在昨天的选举宣传中，国社党的诺特海姆地方小组指责我们一年前签名发动“内战”，以“粗鲁的”“可耻的”和“犯罪的”行为进行证明。还说我们期待在诺特海姆街道上发动血战。“诺特海姆将被鲜血和恐惧淹没。”

    对此，我们正式声明，宣传中所提及的人几乎都是“阵线战士”，他们在行动中因勇敢而获得了一级或二级铁十字勋章以及其他勋章。我们中的一些人忍受着严重的为祖国战斗而受的伤。

    战后的岁月里，正是我们一直守护着和平与秩序，甚至在危急时刻，我们仍旧约束着那些焦躁不安的同志们。

    我们和我们的朋友们都拒绝内战。我们在1918年以及任何其他情况下都证明了这一点。

    我们号召我们的朋友们不要管国社党的宣传内容，一定不要失去冷静的理性。

    我们很乐意将我们是否属于“国际犯罪党派”这一问题留给大众来决定。

    诺特海姆，1933年3月4日

    卡尔·库埃尔富尔特、卡尔·德佩、弗雷德里希·哈泽（等人） [18] 有些诺特海姆人读到了附近城镇的报纸，但是并不多。社会民主党自己的报纸《人民报》（以及在诺特海姆的副刊）都被“暂时”禁止了。这样一来，纳粹指责的所有意图和目的都没有回应了。既没有任何社会党人的宣传内容刊登在诺特海姆的报纸上，也没有公共集会和分发传单。社会民主党被噤声了。

    换句话说，在最后一次自由的国会选举之前的那周，纳粹分子有能力让城镇经历从未有过的最紧张的选举。从3月1日到4日（选举前夜），广播喇叭一直放在市集广场和宽街上，每天晚上，阿道夫·希特勒的声音都会响彻整个城镇。那些天，冲锋队队员分发印刷品。3月2日，“1910年代圆顶”挤满了人，听纳粹女性附属机构全国领袖伊丽莎白·赞德的演讲。在希特勒的广播演讲之后，赞德夫人在演讲中说现在全世界都知道希特勒对“消灭布尔什维主义”是认真的。因此，女性们的任务就是购物时只买德国的商品，对孩子们逐渐灌输“信仰、道德、纪律和对祖国的爱”。

    他们一直努力到3月4日星期六，也就是选举前夜。那天晚上，纳粹分子举行了火炬游行，有600多名穿着制服的冲锋队、党卫军、希特勒青年团和钢盔团成员参加。游行在城市公园周围的大篝火旁结束。在那里，一群人通过广播喇叭听到了希特勒的讲话，这段讲话也在市集广场、宽街以及教堂和市政厅前面——简言之，任何有人群聚集的地方播放了。

    在公园里，火堆的光芒照亮了很多纳粹党旗。还有很多的黑白红旗帜，这些旗帜都挂在旧城镇上的商店和房子前面。在“1910年代圆顶”也能听到希特勒的演讲，结束后，人们唱起了《德意志高于一切》和《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》。然后，恩斯特·吉尔曼发表了一个简短的演讲，之后还点燃了罗马烟火筒和五彩缤纷的火箭炮。最后，人们终于被允许在投票前回家睡觉了。 [19]

    在星期天选举当天，用《诺特海姆最新消息》的话说，“令人吃惊地安静”。纳粹党旗和国家旗帜仍旧挂在外面。纳粹和钢盔团的选举用车将人们带到选票箱那里，冲锋队队员和党卫军成员沿街游行。大约中午的时候，三架空军飞机低空飞过诺特海姆，为民族主义党派做宣传。除此之外再没有任何不同寻常的事件。 [20]

    这是诺特海姆最激烈的一次投票，有6 802人参与投票——比1932年夏天的记录多了72人。纳粹分子比他们之前的最高纪录（在同一个选举中）多了73票，而民族主义党派比1932年11月多了105张选票。其他党派差不多和1932年秋天的情况一样，除了社会民主党和德国共产党。共产主义者失去了110张选票，但仍旧是城镇中的第四大党派，总票数是228张。社会民主党相比1932年11月失去了157张选票。共产主义者和社会主义者的选票都流向了纳粹分子或者民族主义党派，不过，包含的数据太少了以至于难以分析。不管怎样，纳粹—民族主义党派都是明显的大多数。纳粹分子拥有63%的城镇选票，民族主义党派拥有6%。社会民主党仍旧有22%，而德国共产党位居第四，只有3.5%。

    尽管是一场充满威胁和激烈的竞选运动，但是其中的数据仍旧有指导意义，相比1932年7月的高峰，纳粹分子没能提高他们在城镇中的支持率。实际上，这些数据很可能表明这是纳粹分子得到的最高的支持率。即便如此，也足够了；这一数据代表着城镇中2/3的选民都支持他们，是能够达到大部分目的的充足大多数了，也完全可以达到纳粹的目的了。对于纳粹分子，他们知道自己的目标不是赢得选举，而是确保在没有严重的公众抗议的情况下让大众支持他们的意愿。在诺特海姆就是这样的情况，但是纳粹分子自己并不满意这种信心的表现。在接下来关键的几个月内，他们进行了各种各样的努力去保持并且增加公众支持。要诀就是继续使用武力和宣传。

    纳粹分子在放松实际的竞选活动前，还得进行最后一场竞选运动。就是在国会选举一周后，1933年3月12日的地方选举。市议会、县议会和省议会的代表权岌岌可危了。在某种程度上，纳粹分子可以期待利用他们在3月5日胜利时所产生的热情了。很难指望投票偏好会在一周内就发生改变。

    之前选举运动的恐怖机制和示威活动的热情仍旧得到了好结果。因此，《诺特海姆最新消息》报道称，在两次选举之间的那周，有七名诺特海姆共产主义者被逮捕了。在逮捕他们之前还搜查了他们的家，在这一过程中，“……尖锐的铁棒、钢管、橡皮警棍、随身武器、匕首、弹药等……都被没收了”。国会选举之后的那个星期二，纳粹分子在市政厅、县政府和其他官方机构升起了纳粹旗帜，以此庆祝他们的胜利。第二天，按照冯·帕彭的命令，为了庆祝“国家胜利”，整个普鲁士的学校放假一天。 [21]

    在地方选举之前为期一周的竞选运动中，诺特海姆的社会民主党不被允许举行任何的集会或者分发任何的竞选印刷品。他们确实成功地在《诺特海姆最新消息》上刊登了一则宣传，但能肯定的是，因为他们之前刊登宣传的要求被拒绝了，所以社会民主党发布了一个非常谨慎，几乎是敷衍的公告，与社会党人以前的宣传内容相比，这次公告中所使用的语言对社会民主党是弊大于利的：

    致诺特海姆的选民！3月12日，星期天，将会举行重要的选举，也就是省议会、县议会和城市议会的选举。社会民主党已经为所有的选举列出了自己的候选名单，序列号是“二”。我们号召所有人都去投票，尽早地投票，每一场选举中都要投票给“二号”的“库埃尔富尔特”。

    诺特海姆当地的社会民主党 [22]

    社会民主党是以自己的名义加入候选人名单的，而纳粹分子只在省议会和县议会选举中这样做了。在城市议会的选举中，纳粹分子是以“国家联盟名单”的名义参加的。因为公务员没有列出单独的候选人名单（正如他们在1924年做的那样），所以投票者的选择是在“国家联盟”候选人和社会民主党之间进行的。

    这对诺特海姆的纳粹分子来说是一个明显的优势，这是他们通过熟练的操作所获得的。1933年3月12日的地方选举是在2月6日公布的，是在选举之前的一个多月。各党派用了三个星期的时间去准备他们的候选人名单，最后的截止日期是2月25日。公民协会的纳粹执行委员会直到截止日期的八天前才举行成员会议。会上，纳粹主席就所有成员如何在即将到来的选举中投票支持中产阶级发表了简短的演讲，并且宣布执行委员会已经起草了被称为“国家联盟”的候选人名单，代表了“工人、公务员、手工工匠、工匠大师、商人、农民、白领和自由职业者”。他号召公民协会中的所有成员都团结在一起，这样一来，城镇中就拥有“中产阶级多数派”了。

    当他述说完后，协会的老成员们问道：“候选人都是哪些人？”纳粹主席宣称“因为竞选策略”，所以他不能泄露候选人的姓名。这引发了激烈的反对，恩斯特·吉尔曼随后沉默了，他说只要他愿意，谁都能获得提名。他提名了一些人，但是所有的被提名者都拒绝了，纳粹多数派后来以投票的方式完成了提名（也就是说把这个问题交给纳粹控制的委员会处理了）。公民协会中的保守派成员明显中计失败了。虽然他们强烈抗议，但是除了接受现状，他们别无选择。纳粹执行委员会的一名成员终结了这个问题，他高傲地评论道，这些名字不重要，重要的是明确地指向“德国团体精神”的普遍观点。在这个不幸的消息被宣布之后，德国北部射击协会在不来梅而不是诺特海姆举行了每年的会议，因为城市议会拒绝为建立新靶场拨款，伴随着国歌的歌声，会议休会了。 [23]

    距离公布候选人名单，保守派还有一周的时间，他们也许有机会至少让一些非纳粹分子位列名单之上。在最后期限前的四天，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》发表了一封由“几名公民协会成员”签名的《致编辑部的信》，要求立即公布候选人名单。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》也试图将这件事摆在公众眼前，该报指出德国人民党最近决定在即将到来的地方选举中支持“中产阶级联盟阵线”。 [24]

    公民协会中所有保守派成员的抗议都没有用。最后期限到了，诺特海姆的保守派现在除了投票支持纳粹分子精心挑选的候选人之外，别无选择了。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》并不是毫无抗议地就接受了。当“国家联盟”的名单最后印出来时，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》上标注的是“国社党（？）”。恩斯特·吉尔曼给该报写了一封恶毒的信件，威胁会采取法律行动，除非该报进行纠正，以正确的标题印刷。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》温和地解释道，它是从诺特海姆参议院得到这一标题的，标题中的问号表明该报自己并不相信，而在发现错误的时候，这一版本已经印刷和销售了。 [25]

    当时的参议院包括两名社会民主党人、一名公务员党派的成员和议员马纳，人们很容易就能看出这种嘲弄是如何安排好的。因此，整个城镇都了解到纳粹分子欺骗了保守派，“国家联盟”是“纳粹”的委婉说法。这被精明的纳粹策略消解了。候选人名单上主要是纳粹分子，但是也有几名非纳粹分子。不过，非纳粹分子的候选人是仔细挑选的：他们都被诱导着要加入国社党，这些人实际上都准备加入，只是还没加入。因此，城镇中的保守派会投票支持“国家联盟名单”，他们会认为上面也有非纳粹分子。但是，召开城市议会的时候，那些从“国家联盟”计划中选出来的人都穿着褐色衫。 [26]

    这是公民协会的末日，该协会的存在就是为了反对社会民主党。该协会通过激烈反对诺特海姆中唯一支持民主的组织，帮助纳粹分子掌握了权力。纳粹分子一度为了自己的目的而利用公民协会，但是他们现在抛弃了该协会。公民协会只在1933年10月举行了一次会议。会议的目的是解散该组织，因为“其目标已经实现了”。 [27]

    虽然诺特海姆的纳粹分子是以“国家联盟”的名义参加选举的，但他们是以自己的名义运行当地选举的竞选活动的。除了在当地媒体上进行广泛的宣传之外，诺特海姆的纳粹竞选活动只有一场集会，是在选举之前的晚上举行的。主讲人是恩斯特·吉尔曼，主题是“公共选举的重要性”和“诺特海姆的政治事务”。集会上承诺“你们将选出的候选人”会详细阐述他们“在市政府中的目标”。

    “1910年代圆顶”挤满了人，恩斯特·吉尔曼状态特别好。他希望这是很长一段时间内的最后一次投票，但是如果还有投票的话，他还是希望人们是在法律的驱使下进行投票的，这样就不会有中立的德国人了。在新秩序下，不再是议会制而是市政委员会了，就像中世纪一样。这是旧德国习俗，最适合德国。

    吉尔曼继续讲道，一周前，一种新的日耳曼精神席卷德国，那就是国家社会主义，国家社会主义和德国现在是连在一起的。如今需要做的就是在诺特海姆清除堕落的马克思主义。健康安全办事处的车不再用于私人目的了，车速里程表被调回原来的位置。对于城镇泳池而言，不再有来自阿姆斯特丹的跳台了，这一跳台的花费比原来的计划高出了90%。城市储蓄银行不再有虚假信贷和大量的贷款了。不会再有人对啤酒厂丑闻沉默了。人们会进行详细的讨论，所有的罪行都会被惩罚。伤害小商人的消费者合作社消失了。波兰犹太人将会被送回他们所属的地方，因为诺特海姆服装商店的竞争已经足够激烈了。向国旗队捐钱的犹太人，也就是对德国的灾难负有责任的人，将会被特别注意。 [28]

    在吉尔曼讲完后，候选人发表了讲话。一个人对学校里的拥挤表示哀痛。另一个人提倡更好的税收政策，因为诺特海姆人是在他们自己的城镇中买东西。还有一个人重新提起1929年时对社会民主党的一些指控。最后，警察部长（也位列“国家联盟”名单之一）承诺会确保警方尽忠职守。没有其他演讲者了，所以吉尔曼为希特勒和祖国高呼“万岁”，集会以高唱《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》结束。除此之外，没有任何积极的计划了。

    纳粹选举运动的最后一击是选举前一天在《诺特海姆最新消息》刊登的宣传广告。宣传广告明显试图让城镇中的非纳粹分子支持“国家联盟”候选人名单：

    诺特海姆的市民们！

    14年来，你们一直是红色的马克思主义体制的玩物！14年来，你们只能看着他们所管理的德国陷入泥潭！上周的选举为国家和普鲁士的复兴清除了障碍！明天，你们必须在我们的城镇——诺特海姆——履行你们的国家责任。这将是你们长久以来的最后一次机会，投出你的选票，终结卡尔·库埃尔富尔特在诺特海姆的马克思主义强权统治，让国家复兴事业能够进行。个人偏执必须让位于更伟大的目标。明天你们将见证国家社会主义的诺特海姆团结起来反对马克思主义的残余势力！库埃尔富尔特和他的红色派系都滚出去！让诺特海姆在自由的德国复兴！投票支持“国家联盟名单”——一号！

    公民协会、国社党、钢盔团、德国国家人民党、德国人民党、汉诺威党派、小商人联盟、县工匠联盟、农业协会、农民俱乐部、啤酒馆主协会、德国商人学徒协会、国家铁路工人、德国公务员联盟的地方组织、诺特海姆城镇和县失业委员会 [29]

    这之后就是投票了。结果见下表： [30]

    选举结果最突出的一点是，纳粹分子没能获得选票。这也许是因为在地方选举中的总票数比一周前的全国选举少了300到500张。但是，三场投票（城镇、县和省）是一起计算的，省投票数比城镇议会的多了210张。就是在省投票中，纳粹分子的票数减少了。

    这也许是因为只有在省投票中，选民才可以在所有党派的范围中进行选择。在城镇和县投票中，选择是受限的，因此有200人不想费心去投票。而在省选举中，这些人投票了，因为他们可以按照自己的选择进行投票。很明显的是，在有更广泛的选择时，比起国社党，形势对非纳粹分子更加有利（不过，在地方选举中，比起社会民主党或民族主义党派，形势对纳粹分子更加有利）。

    其次，我们会发现在恐怖威胁和不利的竞选条件下，社会民主党实际上获得了207张选票（不过，像纳粹分子一样，他们在比较重要的县选举和省选举中遭受了一点损失）。由此出现了两个事实：一个就是在城镇选举中，前一周投票支持共产主义的大部分人决定投票支持社会民主党。另一个就是坚定地支持社会民主党的核心选民并没有被日益增多的恐怖活动吓住，也没有被激烈的宣传活动或盛会所触动。

    在城镇选举中，“国家联盟”候选人收到了4 565张选票。这一结果只比一周前纳粹分子所获得的少了297张。但是也比一周前支持“国家联盟”候选人的党派少了456张。因此，在投票选举的时候，支持“国家联盟”候选人的党派中，有许多成员明显拒绝支持纳粹主导的候选人名单。一些人毁掉了他们的投票，还有些人的选票空白——总共有200多人。有些人甚至根本懒得去投票箱。但是还有些人甚至把选票投给了社会民主党（不过，社会民主党所获得的大部分选票都是来自中央党派和共产主义党派的）。

    如果对只间隔一周举行的两场选举进行概括的话，那就是纳粹分子明显没有增加他们受欢迎的程度，而社会民主党显然没有失去其坚定的支持者。城镇人也对他们的选举结果有一些疑惑，有些人对纳粹采用专横手段提出的“国家联盟”候选人名单颇有怨言。最后，有超过90%的人参与投票这一事实应该与仅仅一周后，在纳粹各种努力的情况下，投票参与率依旧下降了这一事实进行比较。这是反对生活政治化的开始，还是仅仅是德国人所说的“选举疲倦”？很难对此进行判别，因为这是诺特海姆接下来15年中的最后一次自由选举了。

    十一　选举成功的用处（1933年，春夏）

    我掌管着这里的一切——所有都是靠我自己，因为我是地方小组的领袖！ ——诺特海姆副市长、国社党诺特海姆地方小组领袖恩斯特·吉尔曼的陈述

    地方选举结束之后，诺特海姆纳粹分子的第一项任务就是将城镇的权力机制从民主、多元的转为专制的。这就包括了净化城市议会、政府机构和城市工人的队伍。前提条件就是绝对控制议会。

    3月12日选举的结果就是，在诺特海姆的城市议会中，纳粹分子获得了15个席位，而社会民主党获得了5个席位。这对国社党来说确实是有效的大多数，尤其是在“领导原则”的基础上，所有的纳粹代表都得按照地方小组领袖告诉他们的进行投票。不过，3：1的大多数对于纳粹分子来说还不足够，因为如果社会民主党还有5个席位，他们就能合法地要求在每一个常设委员会中至少包含一名社会民主党的市议员。这对纳粹分子来说是难以容忍的，因为他们的目标是绝对控制城镇事务。如果社会民主党仅有4个代表，那么准确地讲，他们就会被驱逐出所有的委员会。

    纳粹分子用一贯的彻底态度解决了这个问题。一方面，他们劝说其中的一名社会民主党代表宣称自己“保持中立”，也就是否认他按照党派的名义竞选职位。我们对纳粹分子是如何成功做到这一点的一直没弄清楚。尤其是社会民主党总是激烈地反对纳粹分子；因此，他的叛变被其他的社会民主党人视为等同于犹大的背叛。这对他们来说是一个沉重的打击，不过他们意识到纳粹分子有许多劝说方法。 [1]

    这导致社会民主党的代表减少到了四个。而为了以防万一，在第一场议会会议的那天下午，纳粹分子还安排逮捕了卡尔·德佩（他是四个仍旧是社会民主党议员的人之一）。因此，就算是那个被劝说“保持中立”的社会民主党人在实际的任期中转变自己的立场，社会民主党也只拥有四个议员，仍旧会被排除出委员会。 [2]

    新的城市议会的第一场会议是在3月28日召开的。与之前的惯例不同，这场会议并没有在专门为此目的而设的市政厅举行，而是在诺特海姆最大宾馆的舞厅举行的。会议开始不久前，大厅里挤满了纳粹分子，包括很多冲锋队队员。党卫军协助警方维持秩序。

    就在议会会议开始前不久，“国家联盟”候选人的15名代表一起来了，都穿着褐色衫。他们受到热烈的欢迎，高呼着：“希特勒万岁！”差不多就是在这之后，四名社会民主党议员到了。在他们从卡尔·库埃尔富尔特的家（他们在这里举行了会前核心会议）出发去开会的路上，警方逮捕了德佩。当其他人到达会场的时候，他们看到大厅里挤满了人，都穿着棕色和黑色的制服。大厅里挂满了月桂树的树枝，而舞台背后却挂着很多希特勒和兴登堡的照片，两旁装饰着纳粹党旗和国家旗帜。舞台上放着两张桌子：长的那张桌子是给纳粹议员的，另一边小的那张桌子是给社会民主党代表的。

    25年后，卡尔·库埃尔富尔特仍旧对这一事件印象深刻。他一坐到指定位置，就拿出一支大雪茄并且点着了。一个冲锋队队员立刻冲到社会民主党的桌子旁，说：“赶快熄灭！你不能在这里抽烟！”库埃尔富尔特缓慢地吐着烟气，审视着这个冲锋队队员。之后他探身过去，说道：“现在听清楚了。你是掌管城市议会的冲锋队队员还是我们的市议员？我喜欢，我就在这儿抽烟。”那个冲锋队队员转身离开了。

    市长彼得斯宣布会议开始。他是个有威严的人，以枯燥无味和遵纪守法的个性而闻名。在整顿完会议秩序后，他谈到希望新的爱国主义的崛起可以反映在为诺特海姆的利益而进行的坚实工作中。他列举了即将面临的困难，特别提及了预算问题。在分别祝贺了每一个新的议员之后，他请恩斯特·吉尔曼进行了第一次发言。

    这一刻，吉尔曼首先要求每个人都记住过去14年来，德国是被如何统治的。军事崩溃给德国带来了难以言说的痛苦。社会民主党应该为这场灾难负责。而且，该党甚至毫不犹豫地劫掠自己的工人们。现在是时候清算一切了：

    我们不会忘记任何一件事。我们将会毫不犹豫地报复一切。在清算中，我们要解决的不是被他们蒙蔽了的穷人，而是这些欺骗者本身，哪怕是这个党派中最小的杂务人员。只有被关在集中营里，他们才会知道如何再为德国服务！

    这类事情还有很多。民主结束了；从这时起，专制占据了统治地位，它会袭击每一个敌人，无论这个敌人的出身如何。针对犹太人的斗争再次开始了。他们将正面交锋。铭记着希特勒的竞选誓言，“共同利益先于个人利益”，知晓德国伟大历史的国家社会主义朝诺特海姆的市政厅前进，而这也是诺特海姆促成的。

    接下来，新的议会议长海因里希·沃格宣读了一系列委员会的任命名单以及由核心会议的大多数决定的议员名单。所有人都是纳粹分子。然后，发挥了叛徒作用的那个社会民主党成员上台了。他宣称他现在“保持中立”，并且已经离开了社会民主党，“随着新时代的到来，我不再属于任何党派了”。观众们为这一声明喝彩，大喊着：“太棒了！”这位前社会民主党成员走向了大桌子。

    在喝彩声结束后，卡尔·库埃尔富尔特站起来，要求上台。沃格回答道：“14年来，你们一直没听国社党的发言，现在我们也不会听你们的。我拒绝让你登台。”然而，库埃尔富尔特说道：“你们已经在议会中占据大多数席位了，而你们还不允许我们发言。那么，我认为根本没有表达我方利益的可能性了。如果你不让我们上台，那么我们就会离开会场。”在观众们的嘘声中，另两名社会民主党成员起身来到他身边，一起走出了大厅。当他们沿着侧廊走出去的时候，站在两旁的冲锋队队员朝他们吐唾沫。

    会议剩下的部分相当乏味。纳粹对参议员的任命被一致接受了，包括任命恩斯特·吉尔曼为副市长。旧城市议会准备的针对公共事业的贷款被批准了，完全按照新议会的方法进行分配。最后，新的议长沃格以下面的这段话结束了会议：“每个人都会发现从现在开始将刮起一场新的风暴。眼下的任务需要每个人都贡献出全部力量，而在伟大思想和阿道夫·希特勒精神的鼓舞下，我们将会完成所有任务。”人们唱起《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》并且高呼三次“万岁！”作为回应。新的诺特海姆城市议会的第一次会议就这样结束了。 [3]

    这次会议为接下来纳粹在诺特海姆前四个月的统治奠定了基础。其特征就是持续骚扰社会民主党人，以充足的精力应对经济形势，以及戏剧性地阐述纳粹核心干部会议预先决定的措施。

    诺特海姆的纳粹分子可以自由处置社会民主党议员。根据一份来自普鲁士内政部部长戈林的通知，由社会民主党的选票选出来的代表“在履行职责时，不会被阻碍”，不过这并不意味着阻止警方对他们采取行动。如果社会民主党的代表不“合作”，那么他们将被“立即解雇（如果还没有被解雇的话）”。之后，他们会被由合适的纳粹地区领袖选出的临时被任命者代替。 [4]

    4月7日，卡尔·德佩放弃了他的议员席位，因为他仍旧在监狱中。4月12日（城市议会第二次会议的前一天），卡尔·库埃尔富尔特辞职了。库埃尔富尔特和德佩被两名纳粹分子代替了。这样一来，社会民主党的代表从四人减少到两人了。 [5]

    第二次议会会议时，社会民主党的叛徒要求允许他在议会的经济计划委员会任职，因为他有九年的经验。议长沃格拒绝了，但还是要求他尝试和纳粹分子合作。接下来，国社党提议授予兴登堡、希特勒和戈林诺特海姆“荣誉市民”的称号，获得了一致通过。国社党的第二个提议是更换了几条街道的名字，也获得了一致通过。新名字是“阿道夫·希特勒街”“戈林街”“兴登堡街”“达雷街”（达雷是纳粹农业部长），最后是“伊丽莎白·赞德街”。会议结束前，两名留下来的社会民主党代表中的一人提出了两项议案。一项是为父母失业的学校儿童提供免费书籍。另一项是解决“居住”问题。两项议案都被搁置了。 [6]

    虽然遭受了这样的待遇，但是两个留下来的社会民主党议员仍旧坚守着他们的职位。因此，他们出席了4月28日举行的第三次城市议会会议。会议的大部分时间是听市长有关预算的报告。市长解释道，动用不同的城镇企业的储备金可以让诺特海姆保持预算平衡，只需要动用大约总额的2/3。通过这一权宜之计，很可能削减大约16%的营业税和大约35%的城镇所得税。议会没进行讨论就通过了这一计划。之后，他们开始对相关补贴进行投票。一直为诺特海姆工作的“志愿劳动服务”获得了1 100马克。议会允许射击协会建立新的射击场，而且向其免费提供原材料。青年海军协会获得了价值70马克的木材，用于制作他们想要的船；而希特勒青年团获得了300马克，这样一来，他们就能出席地方大会了。议会还提议以100马克支付5月1日庆祝活动的花费，同意支付使用“1910年代圆顶”的费用。最后，还就四位纳粹分子每人每月50马克的薪水进行了投票。整个会议只持续了45分钟。 [7]

    下一场会议于6月7日召开。在此期间，市长彼得斯去度假了，副市长恩斯特·吉尔曼主持会议。第一项议案是停止向城市工人支付津贴，“因为国家会接办相关费用”。两名留下来的社会民主党代表中的一个建议城镇等到国家开始支付钱款时再停止。在两名社会民主党代表反对的情况下，吉尔曼提议城市将会继续向某些工人支付津贴，由他自己决定哪些人能获得，于是最初的议案就这样实行了。会议的剩下时间都在处理日常事务，主要是授予或者取消不同组织的资金援助。 [8]

    这是社会党人参与的最后一次会议了。因为在此期间，社会民主党解散了，仍旧留任的议员在6月27日被迫辞职了，包括“那些当选但是后来离开社会民主党的人”——换句话说，就是那个社会民主党叛徒。纳粹分子取代了他们。自此以后，城市议会的会议只用于宣布由纳粹地方小组领袖和副市长恩斯特·吉尔曼已经决定好的措施。有一次，一位精心挑选出来的纳粹党议员自由地发表意见，令吉尔曼很难堪。这件事发生在1933年7月18日，当时会议的目的是解释新的公共事业计划。在分配完所有的资金之后，在诺特海姆外拥有一间农场的议员乌德提议拨款建立一条从城镇到他的农场的人行道。这一提议被否决了，吉尔曼立刻终止了会议。 [9] 从此，市议员和参议员在开会期间都保持绝对沉默了。

    在诺特海姆县议会发生了一系列类似的事件。纳粹分子没能创建“国家联盟”候选人名单，因此选举后他们并没有拥有压倒性的力量。实际上，纳粹分子甚至没能为这次选举建立起联合阵线。产生这种反常现象的原因是去年夏天普鲁士政府决定将诺特海姆县和附近更小的乌斯拉尔县合并。这一措施激发了地方上盲目的爱国心，尤其是附近县中失去身份地位的人。于是，在列出候选人名单的时候，被认为是完全统一的纳粹党提交了两份名单：“国社党候选人名单”（诺特海姆县的纳粹分子）和“希特勒运动候选人名单”（来自乌斯拉尔县的纳粹分子）。社会民主党和国家主义党派都分别成功地建立了联合阵线。 [10]

    尽管如此，纳粹分子还是获得了绝对多数，占据了25个议会席位中的15个（10个是来自诺特海姆的，5个是来自原乌斯拉尔县的）。社会民主党赢得了八个席位，而民族主义党派获得了两个。 [11] 甚至是第一次县议会召开前，纳粹分子就已经开始安排符合他们自己利益的事务了。诺特海姆县的16个社会民主党乡村议员被停职了。该县在《人民报》公开官方通知的合同被终止了。《人民报》的发行已经暂停了，而这只是遵守法律程序。这样一来，该县的合同也就授予了新的纳粹报纸——诺特海姆的《观察家报》。 [12] 最后，纳粹迫使县长奥托·冯·德·舒伦堡加入了国社党。

    县长对纳粹的态度复杂。他认为日益增加的失业正在使人们走向共产主义，因此纳粹主义可以拯救德国。但是他不想自愿加入国社党，因为“之前的经验让我相信纳粹的队伍里充满了无能者和破产者”。他并没有一直保持这种冷漠的态度。3月29日下午，就在县政府要关门的时候，瓦尔特·施泰内克来到了冯·德·舒伦堡的办公室。施泰内克取下自己的银制纳粹徽章，扔到冯·德·舒伦堡的桌子上，说道：“戴上它。如果你不戴的话，明天你就不是县长了。”于是，冯·德·舒伦堡加入了纳粹党。 [13]

    新的县议会的第一次会议就像诺特海姆的市议会那样，很大程度上是一桩有仪式性的事件，向公众们开放，县大厅内装饰着旗帜、图片和彩旗。这里并没有诺特海姆市议会第一场会议那样的紧张氛围，主要是因为这些纳粹领袖们的性格（纳粹的县领袖瓦尔特·施泰内克快乐而且平易近人；议会多数派领袖冯·施特拉伦海姆伯爵是冷漠的贵族）不同于恩斯特·吉尔曼。但是，会议开始前，卡尔·库埃尔富尔特把冯·施特拉伦海姆伯爵叫到一边，对他说道：“看吧，如果发生市议会会议那样的闹剧，那么社会民主党人立刻就会回家去。”冯·施特拉伦海姆伯爵向他保证会恪守礼仪。 [14]

    会议以冯·德·舒伦堡的演讲开场，在演讲中，他表达了自己会与各种各样的纳粹措施保持一致，结束时，他高呼了三声“祖国、兴登堡总统以及希特勒总理万岁！”。接下来，冯·施特拉伦海姆发表了演讲，他宣称可以容忍社会党人在这里，只要他们能够表现得极为客观，就能一直被容忍。（社会民主党的地位岌岌可危。他们的代表中有两个拒绝担任职务，另一个人，也就是德佩，在监狱里。）“马克思主义者”不被允许担任县中的任何职位，社会民主党的代表不被允许在任何委员会内任职。 [15] 然后，他按照一份准备好的候选名单宣读了委员会任命。纳粹分子获得了所有任命。

    卡尔·库埃尔富尔特对此的回应就是社会民主党现在除了服从多数意愿之外别无选择。这意味着什么很快就显示出来了，冯·施特拉伦海姆的第一项议案就是取消县里所有和犹太人签订的合同，犹太人还被从县里的养老院赶出去了，并且还被剥夺了其他的县福利服务。议案被“提交到委员会”，会议就结束了。 [16]

    这之后，县议会只是偶尔开会。绝大部分的纳粹抨击都指向县议会的民族主义党派成员，冯·施特拉伦海姆作出了如下陈述：“你们就像是香槟酒瓶上的软木塞。我们把你们拔出来，你们就‘砰’地一声飞到了天上，然后你们就完了。”社会民主党静默地退出了画面。6月初只有两名社会民主党人留下来了；其他人中除了一名加入民族主义党派的成员外，剩下的人都辞职了。这并没有什么重要的，因为像市议会一样，县议会已经主要变成了一种形式，所有的决定都取决于纳粹分子，所有的演讲也都是纳粹分子发表的，其他代表都不敢发表演讲。到7月为止，所有的非纳粹分子都被要求辞职了。 [17]

    在实际控制了诺特海姆政府和诺特海姆县之后，纳粹分子承担的第一个最明显的任务就是清洗市和县办公室中实际的或者潜在的反对者。这是预先安排的计划的一部分，早在1932年就众所周知的是纳粹教师海因里希·沃格有一份名单，列出了在国社党成员中分配的不同职位和工作。他们并没有试图掩盖正在进行清洗的事实，城镇中人也清楚地意识到了这一点。纳粹分子认为“大清洗行动”是他们最重要的成就之一。这件事情被刊登在了1936年诺特海姆的《观察家报》的特别纪念版上，在第三帝国的头两年，每当恩斯特·吉尔曼汇报他的活动时，首先就会提及此事。 [18]

    虽然纳粹分子通常宣称他们一共解雇了30名工人和职员，但是实际数据更高一些。当时的报纸描述中所列出的个人实例有43起，这还不包括以不同理由被解雇的人。后一种情况就是市长彼得斯、他的助手托马斯·加兰，可能还有其他人。实际上有45个人被开除了，绝大多数是工人，其中有些是终身雇员，少数是终身任职的专业公务员。这些人大约一共占诺特海姆市雇员的1/4。进行清洗的依据是希特勒的“重建职业公务员的命令”，这是1933年4月7日根据《授权法案》授予政府的权力而颁布的。 [19]

    第一波解雇浪潮是4月中旬开始的，涉及一些次要职位的社会党人：一个煤气厂员工、一个会计和城市游泳池经理。4月末，又出现了第二波解雇浪潮，涉及15名建设办事处的工人、7名啤酒厂工人，还有4名煤气厂工人。除此以外，还有7名工会商店管事被解雇了。一周后，纳粹的斧子落到了“红色的”健康保险办事处头上。理事会被罢免了，瓦尔特·施泰内克作为“委员”接管了所有事务。为了防止出现抵抗，党卫军占领了办公室。3名被雇佣的纳粹分子取代了被解雇的人，之后新成立的理事会任命瓦尔特·施泰内克为主席。 [20] 我们可以通过一名前《诺特海姆最新消息》记者的回忆判断出这次特别的“清洗行动”的影响：

    纳粹分子在清洗健康保险办事处的时候，轻而易举地就开除了社会主义党派的业务经理，而他是一个有能力的人。吉尔曼以一个叫作X的纳粹分子取代了他。X刚刚出狱，他因挪用公款而服刑！他之前是在国家疾病保险办事处挪用公款的！

    这自然是招人讨厌的。以至于（一个行会首脑）去见吉尔曼，强烈反对，猛敲桌子，直到吉尔曼解除了X的职务。但是后来，X又得到了秩序局主管的工作。

    1933年之前的纳粹分子都是破产者，而之后他们都得到了工作。1933年该党中全是穷人、盗贼、道德和财政上的破产者。X就是这类人的典型例子，纳粹将有着最糟糕名声的人放在了这些位置上。 [21]

    随着5月中旬开除了两个市雇员，一系列政治免职终于结束了：这两人一个是城市储蓄银行的送信人，另一个是守夜人。不过，还有些非政治原因的免职。4月，一个诺特海姆的警察无故被开除了。之后，出现了特别晋升和增援警力。6月，那个在5月被开除的守夜人被重新雇用了，官方的声明是：“因为他在申请这一职位时，给出了某些保证。”他的复职导致之前取代他的人被解雇了。同一月，一个警察获得了晋升，还有三个人获得了终身职位。这一系列行动不同寻常而且史无前例。 [22]

    有些免职与其说是驱逐政治上的不良分子，不如说是为失业的纳粹分子腾位置。4月末，吉尔曼将一份详细的纳粹分子名单提交给其他参议员，命令这些参议员尽快为他们找工作。 [23]

    县里发生了类似的情况。官方记录中唯一因政治立场而被免职的人是弗雷德里希·哈泽。不过，因为诺特海姆县和乌斯拉尔县合并，有些办事处（也就是有些工作职位）变得多余了。关于谁可以留任、谁会被调走、谁能获得退职津贴以及谁会被直接免职，都取决于县议会中的所有纳粹分子的执行委员会。不用说，政治在这些决定中发挥了作用。 [24]

    对恩斯特·吉尔曼而言，掌权之后最重要的一个职位就是诺特海姆市长。就政治控制而言，很难将市长彼得斯赶下职位。实际上，彼得斯甚至申请加入国社党了。 [25] 正如瓦尔特·施泰内克在和托马斯·加兰谈话时所说的：

    我理解不了恩斯特·吉尔曼。他和我都是商人，不是行政管理者。我认为我们都忙于党派事务。现在我能确定的是，如果我想的话，我就能立刻接手冯·德·舒伦堡的职位，成为县长。但是我并不想。现在的情况是，在政治事务方面，他按照我所告诉他的那样做，而政府机构运转得相当顺利。当然，吉尔曼也会对市长彼得斯做类似的一些安排，你不这样认为吗？ [26]

    事实上，就算吉尔曼不使用卑劣的手段，他还是不费什么力气就可以把市长彼得斯赶下台。1933年彼得斯61岁，自1903年以来一直担任诺特海姆市长。在和助手托马斯·加兰私下聊天的时候，他承认如果受到体面的对待，他会立即主动退休，但是在造谣中伤活动面前，他是不会屈服的。 [27]

    因为吉尔曼除了使用肮脏的方法之外，并没有尝试其他的方法，所以他做出的每一个新举动只是增强了市长彼得斯的决心。彼得斯不会只是因为“政治不可靠”而被开除。他是一个冷静、客观而且守法的人。他是保守派成员，实际上是民族主义党派成员，但是他完全压制住了自己的政治活动，以至于没有人会考虑到他除了专业管理者之外的身份。吉尔曼因为不能使用惯常手段，于是对彼得斯展开了复杂的攻击。吉尔曼采取的方法是试图激怒彼得斯，让彼得斯采取能够为他所利用的行动或者发布类似的声明。吉尔曼以攻击彼得斯下属的方式恐吓他；干扰上级官员，以行政命令开除他；诽谤他无能；以捏造的玩忽职守罪审判他；最后，以灵活的（且显然错误的）借口——“为了简化管理”——解雇了他和他的助手。 [28]

    在吉尔曼的行动计划中，市长彼得斯会被吉尔曼的好朋友之一奥古斯特·乌德激怒而发布轻率的声明或者采取鲁莽的行动。乌德虽然是诺特海姆的市民，但是在离城市不远的地方有一个小农场。他经常与诺特海姆镇发生法律纠纷，这让他和市长彼得斯的关系很差。他在诺特海姆非常有名，以至于流传开了一个笑话：“就算奥古斯特·乌德早上起来忘记穿靴子了，这双靴子也能自己找到去县法院的路。”他想做的事情之一是移动他农场上的界石，这样一来就可以侵占城市所有的土地了。他与纳粹之前的诺特海姆参议院之间的激烈往来最终导致参议员们采取了特别的措施，拒绝将城镇所有的任何土地租赁给他。 [29]

    这就是将会激怒市长的那个人。这一点在3月中旬纳粹分子为分配选举的职位而列出候选人名单时充分显示出来了。当时，恩斯特·吉尔曼坚持让奥古斯特·乌德成为参议员。城市议会中的另一名纳粹成员对此表示反对，因为乌德的名声很糟糕。恩斯特·吉尔曼拒绝了他们的反对：

    “我需要乌德作为一名战士。市长彼得斯的时代完全结束了。乌德会成为给市长重击的那个人。”当议员们仍旧拒绝按照他所希望的那样做时，这位地方小组领袖宣称：“作为地方小组领袖，我宣布乌德是参议员了！” [30]

    许多人立刻就明白了这就是议员乌德的作用。鉴于他能力低下，很难想象奥古斯特·乌德还能发挥其他的作用了。结果，指派他为参议员的“职权范围”还是个问题。他最终只获得了三项职权：城市花园、城市牧场土地和垃圾回收站。市长彼得斯对这一切很清楚，在面对最卑鄙的骚扰时，他对议员乌德保持着冷静而正确的态度。 [31]

    随着这些策略的失败，吉尔曼开始攻击彼得斯的下属，主要是他的后辈和得力助手——托马斯·加兰。作为市督查员，加兰是城镇的第二大管理者。在纳粹掌权之后不久，加兰就了解到参议院正在请愿让彼得斯离任。因为每一个参议员都拒绝解释原因，所以加兰直接去找了吉尔曼，但吉尔曼也拒绝解释原因。当加兰对此表示愤慨时，吉尔曼爆发了。他敲着桌子吼道：“我想告诉你一些事情！如果你认为能躲藏在市长的庇护下，你就错了！在这里，我掌握着一切，所有都是靠我，因为我是地方小组的领袖！” [32]

    这再一次坚定了市长彼得斯不离开原位并且不能让托马斯·加兰的职业生涯结束的决心。近6月初的时候，彼得斯去度假了，吉尔曼作为副市长坐在了市长的位子上，他决定让彼得斯的假期变成永久假期。6月28日，吉尔曼采取了直接行动。有关议会会议的部分记录如下：

    市议会如今全部由国家社会主义党派成员构成，该党派成员在今天的会议中决定：
    1.市长彼得斯不再拥有市议会的信任。因此，市议会拒绝再与他合作。
    2.城市议会一致同意参议院的决定，向行政专区主席请求禁止市长彼得斯再参与任何官方活动，并且（按照内政部部长戈林的命令）剥夺他的治安权，将这些权力转交给警察部长恩格尔曼。 [33]

    再加上吉尔曼集中地游说上层党派和政府，由此导致市长彼得斯的假期无限期延长了。其间，吉尔曼利用懒散的参议院正式指控彼得斯和加兰作为城市储蓄银行的董事，与银行经理雨果·施皮斯曼勾结，向不同的诺特海姆商人们提供不适当的贷款优惠。彼得斯知道施皮斯曼（于1933年3月成了国社党成员）会在纳粹分子施加的各种压力下作伪证，于是他自己承认被免职了。托马斯·加兰被停职了，之后以“精简政府机构”的名义被免职了。作为交换，针对两人的指控都被撤销了。（这一过程中充当工具的稀里糊涂的雨果·施皮斯曼被免除了银行经理的职务，但是在国社党获得了工作。）之后不久，恩斯特·吉尔曼成了诺特海姆市长。 [34]

    正式决议于1934年3月下达，但是在1933年6月时，吉尔曼就已经坐在市长办公室里了，所以诺特海姆人只是认为他仍旧留任而已。大部分诺特海姆人（正如我们看到的，除了一个重要的团体之外）甚至都不知道城市议会中发生了这样一场斗争。城镇中人所知道的就是1933年夏天地方政治形势已经完全不同于希特勒上台之前了。明显的是，无论是作为副市长还是诺特海姆地方小组领袖，恩斯特·吉尔曼都稳操胜券。纳粹分子不仅完全控制了诺特海姆的市议会、参议院和执行委员会，他们还对城市的管理机构进行了彻底的清洗。所有实际上或者潜在的反对纳粹目标和方法的人都被清理或者控制住了。在1933年6月底调查了他所在的政府机构之后，这个精明的诺特海姆人清楚地看到政府已经完全是纳粹的工具了。

    十二　恐怖系统（1933年，春夏）

    残酷令人印象深刻。残忍而直接的暴力。街上那些单纯的人只对粗暴和冷酷印象深刻。
    恐怖是最有效的政治手段。 ——阿道夫·希特勒

    控制市政府是一回事，完全掌握城镇中的权力是另外一回事。控制市政府便于酬谢朋友和惩罚敌人。其中也涉及对地方警力的控制。 [1] 但这还不够。在希特勒担任总理后最初的一个月里，纳粹分子明显更愿意以残忍而有效的方式利用权力工具。如果可能的话，要是诺特海姆人绝对相信他们无法期待新的纳粹统治者们给予他们任何宽容，那么就不需要之后的恐怖行动了。恐怖行动的初期投入会通过传播谣言和社会强化来增加其影响力，直到所有的反对都完全无效。

    这恰恰就是诺特海姆的纳粹分子所做的事情。大约到1933年7月为止，任何一个有头脑的诺特海姆人都发现自己再也没有个人自由了，如果他轻举妄动，极权国家的全部武力都会用于针对他。至少，他会预料到自己的家会遭到突袭和搜查；最糟糕的是人们不甚了解但特别可怕的集中营经历。

    对于纳粹分子而言，他们不需要给出任何理由就可以建立起恐怖主义体系，但这样做是有风险的。因此，首先要做的一件事情是为各种镇压措施提供借口。部分正当理由已经被发展出来了——暗示共产主义者和社会主义者计划以武力推翻国家。国会纵火案的发生支持了这一理由。然而，诺特海姆离柏林很远，它需要一个离家更近的正当理由。诺特海姆的纳粹分子所提供的正当理由是他们在诺特海姆内及周围发现了大量武器，并且他们还在地方报纸上发表了这些调查结果。

    这就更容易了，因为实际上诺特海姆有很多武器。当然，人们在任何城镇中都会发现普通的猎枪和来复枪。不过狩猎是富人的特权，所以通常不会在共产党或者社会民主党的支持者家里找到武器。 [2] 其次，诺特海姆的射击协会也有武器——一些非常精良、昂贵的武器。但是，这些武器主要属于中产阶级和上层阶级，人们很难将此与工人阶级推翻国家的尝试联系在一起。

    但是也有些武器属于工人。第一次世界大战的一些老兵将来复枪或者手枪带回了家，或者是在停战后的混乱时期得到了枪。还有些人是国旗队队员，他们重视纳粹政变的威胁，所以为了反击而收集枪支弹药。他们未经国旗队领袖同意就这么做了，不管怎样，他们都拥有这样的武器。有些拥有武器的工人对此特别不小心。有个工人常常随身带着一兜子的高质量来复枪子弹，还有个人公开声称家里有十几板手榴弹。 [3]

    因此，纳粹警察毫无疑问地能拿出正当理由为他们的镇压手段辩护。地方媒体上发表的所有关于武器的调查结果真实与否并不重要。报纸报道了警方告诉他们的一切，而人们所相信的内容比事实更加重要。

    3月选举之前的那一周，纳粹的辅警已经进行了一系列突袭，尤其是对已知的共产主义者住所的突袭。根据《诺特海姆最新消息》所说，这些突袭搜查出了一些武器，其中大部分是临时改造的武器，但也有些是“随身武器”。报道关于警方没收武器的实际类型和数量特别模糊。 [4] 更多的详细报道在3月末才发表出来。整个4月，报纸突出报道了一系列特定的发现。

    1933年3月30日，据报道，在啤酒花园附近玩耍的孩子们发现了60发军用来复枪子弹。有一种推测是共产主义者在警方开始突袭搜查之后埋在那里的。同一天，据报道，一名国旗队队员主动向警方交出了“一把手枪、一把锯子和一套指节铜环”。五天后，警方突袭了在旧军营里的“左翼分子”的公寓，发现了“一把卡宾枪、一把军刀、一把随身配枪和一把左轮手枪”。这显然促成了警方采取更大的行动，四天后，警方进行了一系列更大范围的搜查。但是发现的只是一些老旧的、很可能无法使用的武器。两天后，警方搜查了城市建设办事处，发现了两把手枪（其中一把是军用的），以及“一大包宣传材料、几面旗帜和海报等”。还有报道称，警方已经证实一名国旗队队员将一把来复枪和几枚手榴弹扔到了鲁默河里。一周后，新一轮的警方突袭只发现了一些来复枪子弹，但是鲁默河附近的流浪者发现了一把卡宾枪和10发子弹。四天后，警方宣布他们搜查某家的柴火堆时，发现了一把军用手枪，但是这家的主人声称不知道枪为什么会在那里。之后四天，警方付钱在鲁默河里用网进行打捞，但没能成功。然而，六天后，他们从河里打捞出了60发军用来复枪子弹。 [5] 因此，跨过了4月的整整六周的时间里，诺特海姆人的印象就是城镇成了名副其实的兵工厂。容易得出的两个结论是：首先，纳粹分子唯一的有力行动是阻止了内战的发生；其次，家里有任何种类的武器都是特别危险的。

    在4月进行了一系列轻率的报道之后，不太可能再提及发现非法武器了。7月，人们进一步排干了鲁默运河的水，“在有限的储藏地点……武器和弹药……被打捞上来了。他们将这些扔进水里很可能是出于被发现的恐惧”。最后，8月，一名工人因拥有一把手枪而被判三个月的监禁。“警方通过匿名指控发现了这件事……”虽然警方声称本月内在不同地点共发现3 015发子弹，但是声势浩大的武器搜查行动结束了。 [6]

    这是警方不断进行突袭和逮捕的最佳理由。而且，纳粹指出不会再发生政治性的打斗了；前纳粹时期的暴力已经结束了。从（复活节）发表于《诺特海姆最新消息》上的报道可以看出这是一个很好的宣传点：

    ……至于其他的，在诺特海姆的城墙内，在和平宁静的气氛中进行着复活节的庆祝活动，就像在国家的每一个地方所进行的那样。没有丝毫发生任何政治斗争或者其他骚乱的消息。一切重组所带来的国内政治的平静以一个既清楚又有益的例证得到了证明。 [7]

    随着牢固地树立起对警方行动的正当理由的宣传，诺特海姆的纳粹分子利用了熟悉的镇压和恐怖主义策略。他们不断搜查潜在的或者实际上的反对分子的家，逮捕了不同的人。这是在众目睽睽之下进行的，增加了其威慑效果。在希特勒成为总理之后的最初六个月内，诺特海姆的地方媒体有14次报道了搜查房子的事情。报道也至少列出了22名（绝大多数是名义上）因政治原因而被逮捕的人。 [8]

    媒体上并没有报道所有的逮捕事件和搜查房子的事情，但是公众已经知道的足够多了，以至于他们对所发生的事情有了一个良好的总体印象。而且，对警方行动足够多的报道让城镇中人了解到了这种行动普遍的专制性质。

    因此，3月14日，据报道，诺特海姆国旗队的领袖德佩被逮捕了，“但因调查需要，具体原因保密”。第二天，警方没有做出进一步的解释，他就被释放了。之后，在市议会第一次会议的那天下午，他再次被逮捕，这次给出的原因是“怀疑他传播所收到的萨尔州报纸上刊登的具有反政府性质的报道”。 [9]

    在纳粹执政的头几个月，绝大部分被逮捕的人都被送进了县监狱。诺特海姆人并不清楚具体发生了什么，但是他们清楚地知道这些事情不同寻常。3月中旬，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》报道称：

    正如我们所听说的，18名被关押在县监狱的共产主义者（都是来自诺特海姆）中有8人已经申请加入国社党。有没有可能是我们那位看管他们的狱卒X的努力工作成功地发挥了好的影响？无论怎样，他们看起来已经和“邪恶的布尔什维主义完全而彻底地决裂了”。 [10]

    无论县监狱里发生了什么，都比其他可能发生的事情更好。3月，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》已经发布了一张第一个集中营（位于达豪）的照片，随附的文字说明写道，这里能容纳5 000名政治犯。3月末，诺特海姆县监狱满了，有三名共产主义者被送到了“莫林根工厂”。这只是谣传，但是到7月中旬时，据报道有“九名囚犯……在早上被诺特海姆警察送到了莫林根，其中七人被送到了集中营，另外两人被送到了工厂”。 [11] 因此，诺特海姆人知道了在开车就能到的距离内存在一个集中营。

    实际上，媒体报道完全落后于事实情况。距离诺特海姆不远，在县另一端的莫林根集中营建立于1933年4月初，它接收来自汉诺威市和该区域内其他监狱的政治犯。3月的时候，被“保护性监禁”（这是“国会纵火案法令”的副产品，按照这一条款，市民们不经过起诉就会被逮捕，他们还不能诉诸人身保护权）的人数太多了，以至于远远超过了普通监狱所能容纳的人数。虽然莫林根工厂是国家机构，但是这个邻近的、新创立的集中营从一开始配备的工作人员就是党卫军成员。起初，集中营里只收纳共产主义者，包括11名来自诺特海姆县的，但是4月末的时候，集中营中已经有超过300名混合成分的犯人了。犯人们被要求修路、读纳粹报纸、去教堂、听纳粹演讲并且参加纳粹宣传游行。 [12]

    1933年春天，集中营中的人口随着囚犯们的增加、被释放或者被转移到其他地方而波动。但是，过度拥挤日益成了常见问题，以至于指挥官坚称集中营里只能容纳322名囚犯，一个人都不能再多了。而到6月的时候，人数增加到了356人（包括大约20名来自诺特海姆县的囚犯）。那时，共产主义者组织了一场绝食抗议活动，有252名囚犯参与其中。党卫军看守人员四天内就通过切断饮用水和强制给抗议领袖喂食破坏了这一活动。到8月为止，这里有381名囚犯。 [13]

    从那以后，虽然莫林根集中营的囚犯人数和构成依旧有变化（有段时间它只作为女性集中营），但是这里变成了第三帝国的永久性固定场所，到1944年时，这里已经有700多名囚犯了。 [14] 经常有来自诺特海姆县的犯人被送入这里或者被释放，而且至少有24名党卫军守卫来自诺特海姆县，所以诺特海姆人一定知道被送入集中营意味着什么。毫无疑问的是，这些消息并不准确，但是为了达到创造一种恐怖氛围的目的，模糊的消息很可能是最有效的。

    媒体报道也明确了一点，如果纳粹分子追捕某人，一定会以这样或者那样的理由抓住他。这是从一个被逮捕的工人事例得出的唯一结论，纳粹分子向他承诺，只要他透露枪支弹药所藏的地点，就会给他自由。他告诉了警方信息，于是被释放了。然而，警方没能在他所指出的地点找到枪支，因此他再次被逮捕了。不久后，他因“侮辱一名警官”的罪名被判入狱。 [15]

    逮捕的理由都非常细微，这给人留下的印象就是更糟糕的事情会产生更加严重的后果。比如，6月的时候，两名仍旧留任的社会民主党议员之一被逮捕了，因为他说钢盔团很快就会强大到“将冲锋队碎尸万段”。几周后，一名女性小贩被逮捕了，因为她“传播错误和具有煽动性的政治谣言”。有人认为她很可能是一名共产主义者，而她所做的是“让人民不安的”共产主义运动的一部分内容。6月末，一名工人被逮捕了，因为“亵渎国家社会主义的言论”。 [16]

    因此至1933年仲夏，诺特海姆的公众显然都知道了只要自己表现出对新制度的反对，就会招来迫害。实际上，不仅诺特海姆人知道了现在的形势，而且正是他们知道了这一点加强了实际上的恐怖系统机构。每当某个诺特海姆人提醒他的邻居或者朋友时，他都在强化普遍存在的恐惧气氛。

    这种事情经常发生。一名教师记得他的一个学生的母亲抱怨说书被烧毁了。他同意她所说的，但是也提醒她不要和其他人谈论这件事情，以免她惹上麻烦。一位高中校长记得他经常在某家商店买雪茄烟，买烟的时候常常收到要谨慎小心的建议。一般人的感觉就是盖世太保无处不在。至少有五个人被认为是“盖世太保的代理人”，不过事实上是很可能整个镇子只有一个人——赫尔曼·登茨勒，而这是很久之后的事情。 [17]

    其他人声称知道存在一份“名单”（虽然他们实际上从没看见过），上面记录着未来某个时候会被剥夺公权的人。“这是一份黑名单，上面一共有80人。” [18] “名单分成四组：A、B、C和D。A组会被射杀；B组会被送入集中营，等等……” [19] “我自己从未见过这份名单，但是每个人都知道名单的存在。” [20]

    造成这些谣言的部分原因是在纳粹掌权的最初几个月中，纳粹党中有些人试图充当秘密警察。纳粹党和冲锋队中的个别成员承担起监视潜在对手的任务，其他人声称他们这样做是他们自己扩大了权力。纳粹党的宣传部门决定建立自己的“情报部门”，在大区层面建立一个中心卡片索引，记录所有社会民主党和德国共产党成员的名字和地址。各县的宣传领袖被要求选出一名纳粹分子作为地方代理人，最好是前警官。 [21] 1933年6月，诺特海姆的党卫军也建立了一个“情报组”，开始向地方小组领袖吉尔曼汇报嫌疑人名单。 [22] 因此，诺特海姆人暂时被业余的“盖世太保”特工控制住了。

    在谣言和恐惧的作用下，盖世太保变得特别有效。纳粹分子没必要建议那些没有纳粹党徽的人去买。玛利亚·哈贝尼希茨和邻里关系友好，她以提醒那些没有标志的人的方式关照着其他人，“允许她告诉某个人应该做什么”。鉴于这种恐怖的氛围，即便是朋友的人们也发现，为了生存必须背叛彼此。因此1933年初，发生了一个库诺·鲁曼医生的事例，他去参加一个聚会，喝多了之后，他开始模仿希特勒的说话方式来逗乐人们。第二天早上，聚会的女主人向纳粹总部举报了他。这件事传播得很快，诺特海姆人不久就发现最好不要去参加聚会了。“社交生活大大减少了——你根本无法再相信任何人了。” [23] 或者正如其他人所说的那样：

    批评并没有那么危险，而是毫无意义。我再也不能自由地说我想说的话了，我再也没有个人自由了……众所周知，赫尔曼·登茨勒必须让自己知道诺特海姆人都在想些什么。 [24]

    即便某个人实际上不会被逮捕，但清楚的是，他很容易就会失业或者被排除在通常使社会机制顺利运转的正常因素和考虑之外：

    总之，所有独立思考或者坚持自己观点的人都被粗暴地对待或者在需要帮助的时候被搁置一旁。你会被联合抵制；你会被赶出这个行业。绝大多数人注意到了这些事情，他们是从别人的命运中了解到的。这纯粹是应用于政治领域的力量，这意味着纳粹分子可以得到任何想要的东西。 [25]

    自第三帝国建立起，恩斯特·吉尔曼就一直在利用他作为地方小组领袖的地位来伤害潜在的政权反对者。1933年3月3日，他写信给国家劳工部，让一名被雇用的诺特海姆社会民主党人被开除了。一周后，他写信给戈林（普鲁士的内政部长）以确保已经搬到另一座城市的诺特海姆前任县长基施鲍姆被开除公职，因为他是社会民主党人和“半个犹太人”。 [26] 接下来的几个月中，他会写多封相似的告发信给其他城镇的纳粹领袖，这些城镇里居住着为了脱离吉尔曼的报复而从诺特海姆逃走的人。因此非常明显的就是，纳粹分子记忆力持久，任何反对他们的人，无论逃到哪里都会被追赶。

    在这种情况下，纳粹分子几乎不需要做什么恐吓人们的事情了。他们在左翼和右翼中创造典型（随后会被展示出来），然后让自然的社会力量做剩下的事情。情况发展到了这样的地步：如果某个人忘记行纳粹礼，早早离开会议或者敢于冷淡地看着恩斯特·吉尔曼，都会被认为是愚蠢的鲁莽行为。“不能有任何的反对。最多就是有所保留，甚至这也是一种奢侈。” [27]

    然而，有人会问这样的问题，那些发誓要进行抵抗的人都怎么样了？在希特勒掌权之前的那些年里，国旗队队员一直坚称一旦发生纳粹政变，他们会保卫共和国，现在他们怎么样了？至少在诺特海姆，在共和国被摧毁的时候，没有出现任何一次来自他们的打击。国旗队队员连同他们所有的直接动员计划，一个个地被击破了，其领袖被监禁、被殴打、被迫离开他们的工作和家人，整个组织没有任何的抵抗。

    也许造成这种情况的最基本的原因是并没有发生纳粹政变。反之，至少过去六个月以来，出现了一系列合乎法律的行动，每一项行动本身并没有形成一场革命，但是所有的行动加起来将德国从共和国转变为独裁专政了。问题是界线在哪里。一旦界线被明确划定了，革命就是既成事实了，潜在的抵抗机构已经被单独粉碎了，不可能再组织起抵抗运动了。简言之，优秀的组织都没用了；在事件发生的实际过程中，每个人都只顾自己。

    诺特海姆的国旗队队员在1933年是准备战斗的。所需要的只是来自柏林的命令。一旦收到命令，诺特海姆的国旗队队员就会执行他们制订的经过长期测验的计划——获取并且分发武器，摧毁纳粹。但是诺特海姆的国旗队队员不会自己实行这一计划。领袖们认为单打独斗会失败，当最后机会到来时，他们也很可能会妥协，而且不管怎样，单独行动都是违背纪律的。他们认为唯一的希望就是共同行动，所有人一起在整个德国采取行动。汉诺威的前社会民主党省长古斯塔夫·诺斯克不是说过唯一应该做的就是反击吗？所以，他们等待着并且祈祷着命令的到来，但是从未有命令下达。在他们等待期间，纳粹分子开始逐个地追捕他们。最后，明确的是，永远不会有命令传来了，卡尔·德佩和弗雷德里希·哈泽传出消息，解散国旗队：

    我们告诉他们，现在每个人都应该遵循自己的良心。如果我们保留这个组织，那么我们就对成员们负有责任。但是当我们不再有保护他们的力量时，我们就不能再要求他们保持忠诚了。 [28]

    而绝大多数旧国旗队队员都对他们的理想保持忠诚。根据弗雷德里希·哈泽所说的，400名前成员中也许会有10个人去参加冲锋队。卡尔·库埃尔富尔特同意这一估计。他自己对那些向他寻求意见的国旗队队员也没什么鼓励。“加入党派，”他经常说，“想想你们的家人。英雄主义行为不会有任何收获。” [29]

    甚至英雄主义都被民主的左翼人士拒绝了，发生这种情况在很大程度上是因为社会民主党的失败让他们理解了纳粹主义的本质。就像在希特勒掌权之前的那些年里，他们的基本前提是一种错误的假设，即认为纳粹分子是叛乱主义者，不太可能吸引大众的追随，而在希特勒掌权之后，他们的基本前提也是同样错误的假设，即认为他的政府和魏玛共和国时期的其他政府是相似的。

    关于这一点最具有说服力的记录是1933年3月23日汉诺威的社会民主党地方组织发出的一系列指令。指令都是关于在公共事务中分发社会主义政策手册以及填写问卷调查的内容；简言之，像以往一样运行。唯一和纳粹主义有关的内容包含在第七段中：

    我们的乡村和城镇代表的选举是否能通过？这是一个一直被问的问题。这个问题是难以回答的，因为我们不知道政府会怎么做。然而，任何情况下，我们现在都必须像往常一样，在我们占据多数的地方选择值得信赖的同志作为乡村代表。如果他们之后不能宣誓就职，那么我们会对此采取立场。任何情况下，我们都决不应该低估自己所拥有的权利。 [30]

    这时正值纳粹分子为寻找武器而在半夜搜查社会民主党领袖的家！这时正值国旗队队员被冲锋队队员投入监狱，在整个德国的监狱中被殴打，被扔进集中营！德国唯一的民主制度保卫者社会民主党人本应该聚集起枪支并且号召大罢工，或者至少以密码、假名字的方式发展地下组织以及其他有效且荫蔽的抵抗方式，但是他们反而在保持党派文件整齐有序，避免记账错误，除此以外，还在乡村议会中购买最新的关于议会策略的小册子。

    就算中央的社会民主党官员不知道“政府将会做什么”，诺特海姆的地方社会主义领袖很快就发现了。五名诺特海姆社会民主党人的详细个人经验将会说明一般模式。

    约翰内斯·格罗特一直是社会民主党人、国旗队队员和工会官员。从1926年到1930年，他一直是诺特海姆市议会的社会民主党人代表。他在城市煤气厂工作，到1933年为止，他已经在这里工作18年了。 [31]

    1933年5月12日，约翰内斯·格罗特被解雇了，因为“参照你之前所参加的政治活动，你无法保证自己在任何情况下都会无条件地支持这个民族国家” [32] 。12天后，他被逮捕并被投入县监狱。他被关押了三天，每天都被警方审问三四个小时。在审问期间，有人把他的脸抵在墙上，从背后殴打他。那时距离他51岁的生日还有五个星期。

    在发生这次事件的前后，他家里遭到了七八名全副武装的冲锋队队员的反复搜查。最令格罗特愤怒的是他们从他的藏书室里抢走了一些由马克思和倍倍尔 [49] 所写的初版著作。他的妻子也被叫到了警察局，被审问了两个小时，但是他的孩子们没被骚扰。 [33]

    经历了这些事情之后，格罗特发现在诺特海姆的那些大部分旧相识根本不和他相认了。而且，没有人愿意雇用他。最后，他找到了一个做挨家挨户的推销员的工作，开始售卖肥皂。这让格罗特很满意，因为他可以利用这种方式去和其他社会民主党人保持联系。“如果我到了一个纳粹分子的家，我就只问他是否想要买香皂，然后就去下一家。但是如果我来到同志或者其他的工会成员家里，我们经常会谈论如何摆脱纳粹分子。许多人都支持公开的反叛行动，但是有更多的人不支持。”

    最终在1934年，格罗特的旅行证件被收回了，不能再从事售卖肥皂的工作了。 [34] 唯一的工作就是就业办事处给他的在采石场的工作，从诺特海姆走到采石场大约需要45分钟。这项工作很辛苦，格罗特收敛起他作为第一次世界大战退伍老兵的傲气，写信给纳粹战争受害者援助协会（NSKOV），请他们为他求情。他们确实向恩斯特·吉尔曼求情了，但是他拒绝允许格罗特回去做以前的工作，“因为我不想为了帮助社会民主党领导人而解雇老冲锋队队员和党卫军成员” [35] 。

    在采石场工作期间，格罗特再次被逮捕了，这次是因为他曾经说“冯·帕彭和资本家们很快就会推翻希特勒了”，但他只被盖世太保审问了一个小时。 [36] 然而，这足够让格罗特想离开诺特海姆了，他在当年年底离开了。自此以后，他就离开了诺特海姆，直到第二次世界大战结束。他保持着骄傲和乐观的精神状态，对纳粹主义的反感从未减弱，但是不管怎样，就有效的抵抗来看，他并没有什么战斗力。 [37]

    另一个被列为社会主义团体中的次要人物的诺特海姆工人是本诺·施密特。他不曾是社会民主党缴纳会费的成员，但他常将自己视为社会党人。作为一个缺乏技能的工人，在大萧条期间，他只能断断续续地获得工作，于是只能靠救济金生活，最终他和他的妻子都被登记为“流离失所者”，他们被安置在旧军营简陋而混乱的房间里。施密特经常参与针对冲锋队队员的街头斗殴，他因参与1932年7月的“长桥”战斗而被判入狱，不过他受到大赦的保护，因而从未服刑。

    1932年秋天，他在诺特海姆林业管理局找到工作。纳粹分子掌权后，本诺·施密特想的不是如何推翻他们，而是如何避免被迫加入冲锋队。他并没有被解雇，但是却被指派做最肮脏的工作。在进行了城市工人清洗之后，他的劳动群体由全部的社会党人变成了半纳粹分子的。施密特受到了工人中日益增长的不信任感的打击：

    不久，因为纳粹分子的存在，没有人愿意再多说话了。我仍旧记得在树林里的“第二顿早餐”——每个人都在大声咀嚼着食物，根本没人说话。这确实让工作变得更糟糕了。

    同时，他发现纳粹分子的权力日益扩大。某天，他因拒绝行纳粹礼（“我永远都不会说‘希特勒万岁’——我为什么要说这句话呢？这个男人并没有什么特别的。”）而被殴打。1933年夏季，警察突袭他的公寓，扣押他的财产和工人体育俱乐部的足球，他曾经是该俱乐部的财务主管，而且警察还没收了他的修剪刀和门上的弹簧，他们将这些视为武器，并让他付了8马克50芬尼的罚款。他也一直被要求加入冲锋队，结果他辞职并离开诺特海姆，找到了一份在高速公路上的工作。“自此以后，他们不能再骚扰我了。” [38]

    针对那些更有分量的人物，比如弗雷德里希·哈泽，纳粹分子更加有活力了。纳粹掌权之后，他的个人命运包括：被开除，在找工作时被阻碍，被阻止领取失业救济金——换句话说，他被剥夺了所有收入。而且，他被逮捕了，家里多次被搜查，还被审问等，终于，他一再被恐惧或固执的房东赶出公寓。

    盖世太保特别想要得到诺特海姆的国旗队旗帜和成员名单。他们不相信弗雷德里希·哈泽已经烧毁了这些，直到他真正带着他们去诺特海姆外的田野，看到那堆冷掉的灰烬。虽然弗雷德里希·哈泽在国旗队中占据领导地位，但是直到1933年4月他才被逮捕。他被关押了四天，没有被提告，虽然有不当的审讯，但并没有被粗暴地对待，然后就被释放了，不过一周后又被逮捕了。这一次，他被要求签署一份声明，承诺不会谈及在监狱中的经历并且不会索要伤害赔偿：

    我说我不会签署这种声明的，警察部长恩格尔曼说：“如果你不签署的话，你会再被关起来的。”于是，我对他说：“恩格尔曼！你和我一样都知道这是强取豪夺，你本该被罚款或者被监禁的！《民法典》中就是这么写的，而这本书正好就在你的桌子上。”恩格尔曼起身，走到窗边，向外看了好长时间。然后他说道：“我没有办法，你要么签字，要么再次被关起来。”所以，我说道：“把那该死的东西给我——我签。”

    在弗雷德里希·哈泽被关在县监狱期间，他收到通知说被县长办公室停职了，在被释放后，他因政治上的不可靠而被永久性地解雇了。 [39] 从4月中旬到5月中旬，他的房间一共被警方和冲锋队搜查了七次。4月27日，在第一次被逮捕前的两天，他被要求到地方上的国社党总部报到。在那里，瓦尔特·施泰内克给了他一支笔和一张纸，命令他写声明说哈泽辞去“所有左翼组织内的职务，并且申请加入国社党”。哈泽讽刺性地拒绝道，纳粹分子不会希望一个坚定的马克思主义者和明显的颠覆分子成为他们的“同志”的，而施泰内克只是回答道：“要么照着我告诉你的内容写，要么去集中营。” [40]

    弗雷德里希·哈泽认为这种强取豪夺的声明会让其他城镇的社会党人士气受挫。“诺特海姆周围的人很了解我，不会相信任何类似的事情，此外，他们能看到纳粹分子几乎每天都在骚扰我。”

    接下来的几个月，哈泽经常被带到警察局接受审问，他的家每个月都被搜查。而且，他收到了房东的一封信，声称他不能再将房子租给政权的敌人了。弗雷德里希·哈泽搬家了，几个月后，他又被赶出去了。在第三次被赶出去后，他离开了诺特海姆。其间，他不得不完全依赖父亲提供的资金生活。他试着找工作，但是每次机会都被他的记录给毁了。商人们只是觉得雇用弗雷德里希·哈泽是一个不必要的冒险。

    在此期间，哈泽一直和其他社会民主党人保持着联系。他们经常在河边见面，一边游泳一边交谈。“河岸平坦，没有人可以悄悄地接近我们。”冬天，为了能够交谈，他就和同志们一起散步，他们每次都会被跟踪，之后会被盖世太保查问。他和其他社会民主党成员保持联系主要是政治上的原因。但另一个原因是，他们是他唯一的朋友了。

    在我被逮捕之后，我少年时代和家里的朋友都和我断了联系。他们都无视我的存在，甚至连“你好”都不说。我失去了好朋友。只有政治上的朋友仍旧是忠实的。其他人都生活得很遥远。我的未婚妻也是忠实的。

    也许正是经常的审问和搜查、不断的被驱逐以及财务困境让他离开了诺特海姆。1935年，他离开城镇，去汉诺威的一家工厂工作。直到1949年，他才回到诺特海姆。 [41]

    非常令人惊奇的是，诺特海姆主要的社会民主党人卡尔·库埃尔富尔特没有上面提到的那种真正痛苦的经历。可能正是因为他太有名了，也可能是因为他是个足够狡猾的政客，知道社会民主党只是暂时结束了，并采取了相应的行动。

    卡尔·库埃尔富尔特以冷静和勇气直面纳粹主义问题，正如他在市和县议会中采取的行动所展现出来的那样。他的勇气并没有扩展为他所说的“徒劳的英雄行为”，因此，他一看到他当选的那些机构所发生的事情，就静悄悄地辞职了。4月初，他在省议会的会议中了解到了基本事实。在第一次会议上，他入选执行委员会，但是新省长宣布他“被停职”。因此，当选后不久，库埃尔富尔特要么是主动放弃，要么就是被赶下了职位。

    很明显，诺特海姆的纳粹分子一开始打算以惩罚库埃尔富尔特来告诫其他人。3月的地方选举后不久，几辆货车拉着来自附近城镇的冲锋队队员到诺特海姆参加游行示威。游行示威的形式是打碎“红色的”健康保险办事处的玻璃并且毁坏办公器具。卡尔·库埃尔富尔特的小烟草商店位于健康保险办事处所在的那条街对面，恩斯特·吉尔曼向冲锋队队员发表了攻击库埃尔富尔特的演讲。演讲中，最常见的手势就是用手指指着街对面。很明显，吉尔曼希望冲锋队队员搜查库埃尔富尔特的商店，并且把库埃尔富尔特拉出来，强迫他亲眼看着魏玛共和国的旗帜被烧毁，这会将示威游行引向高潮。但冲锋队队员或者是厌烦了，或者是觉得难为情，拒绝了他的暗示，因此库埃尔富尔特的商店才免于被毁。

    纳粹的第二个行动就是宣布抵制卡尔·库埃尔富尔特的商店。这在某种程度上损害了他的生意，尤其是冲锋队队员们还站在商店外，把人们都吓走了，但是库埃尔富尔特有很多朋友，而且在小城镇中的购物习惯是根深蒂固的，因此他的生意还是坚持下来了。最终，甚至连吉尔曼都忘记了抵制的事情。

    辅警自然反复地搜查库埃尔富尔特的家，但是他抢在他们行动前烧毁了自己的文件。而且，他开始反抗。在第一次搜查后，库埃尔富尔特订购了一堆木材。然后他去找吉尔曼，要求让警察详细地检查堆积起来的木材，这样他们之后就不会再在这堆木材中搜查武器了，也就不会弄乱整齐的木材堆了。他第一次在自己后院的小菜园锄地的时候也是这么做的。

    最后，他变得更加挑衅了。在他的商店遭到抵制期间，某天晚上，一个冲锋队队员在库埃尔富尔特的商店后门“站岗”，第二天早上，库埃尔富尔特一大早去见吉尔曼，对他说：

    看吧，我知道你为什么让你的冲锋队队员守着我的后门了！某天晚上，他可能会将武器扔进栅栏里，然后警察第二天就会“发现”这个武器。你知道我有一条獒犬吧？明天晚上8点，我会放它出去锻炼——从后门出去。我会在晚上9点再喂它吃食，如果那个时候它还饿的话。

    冲锋队的站岗被撤销了。

    这种个人斗争具有局限性，对于卡尔·库埃尔富尔特而言，他和吉尔曼以及其他纳粹分子之间关系的另一面就是他完全暂停了所有政治活动。他从未说过反对希特勒或者纳粹分子的话，而且就算是不高兴，他也基本上接受了已经建立起来的政权。他甚至愿意在小事情上让步。因此，纳粹分子最终决定让库埃尔富尔特加入他们的附属组织之一——人民福利协会。库埃尔富尔特最终同意了，但他也获得了一定程度的个人胜利，他坚持自己只付一半会费，“因为你们抵制我的商店，这让我变穷了” [42] 。

    在这个特殊的角色中，这个被驯服的老虎——库埃尔富尔特虽然生活在纳粹年代，但是除了偶尔遇到纳粹分子的小诡计之外，他并没有遭受其他的痛苦。他甚至还能够施加一些影响力，比如他通过冯·德·舒伦堡的介入使集中营里的两名诺特海姆县社会民主党人被释放了。库埃尔富尔特逃过一劫最有可能的主要因素是他的冷静以及他和吉尔曼之间的关系，因为他们两个人在同一个街区长大，并且理解彼此。 [43]

    关于社会民主党人个人经历的最后一个例子使有关这一情况的图景更加饱满起来。赫尔曼·舒尔策是社会民主党的普通成员，也是国旗队的普通成员。他在诺特海姆铁路调车场工作，在1932年的清洗运动中丢了工作，而且无法领取失业救济金。因此，他加入第三帝国时，一心一意地关注着如何挣得每天的面包这一问题。

    在此期间，舒尔策和他的家人靠着为诺特海姆周围的农民工作来维持生计。他和他的孩子们工作一整天，作为交换可以获得食物。他的妻子很幸运地在雪茄工厂找到了工作，但他们仅仅够糊口。他的家人经常挨饿，但是他父亲常帮助他们，和他们分享自己仅有的东西。最终，农民们拒绝再给舒尔策任何工作，因为他们害怕一旦被发现他们帮助社会党人会遇到的事情。

    与其同时，盖世太保多次非常仔细地搜查舒尔策的家。他们切开床垫，猛击墙壁，甚至砸开了碰巧是空的墙壁。他们没收了舒尔策的来复枪，但是舒尔策将国旗队的旗帜小心地藏了起来，以至于他们没能找到。盖世太保对此非常愤怒。他们至少20次就此事和相关问题质问他。

    1933年夏天，在已经失业了好几个月之后，由于瓦尔特·施泰内克的干预（他曾经追求过舒尔策的表妹），舒尔策在诺特海姆附近的采石场获得了一份工作，作为报答，他承诺放弃政治活动。他发现许多来自诺特海姆的社会民主党官员都在这里工作。每天早上，升纳粹军旗时，他们都必须向纳粹旗敬礼。工作内容是用大锤砸石头，每周的报酬是20马克，舒尔策说正如一句古老谚语所说的：“这点钱饿不死，但吃不饱。”实际上比失业救济金更少。

    对曾是铁道修理工的舒尔策而言，这份工作完全是能够忍受的，但是对一些人来说，这份工作是残酷的。在城市雇员清洗运动之前，曾经在诺特海姆的政府办事处工作的舒尔策的表亲就因为露天工作而死。最终，1935年，舒尔策在高速公路施工队找到了一份更好的工作。

    在此期间，房屋搜查依旧在继续。一个盖世太保代表至少七次搜查了舒尔策的房子，还有其他人的搜查。“最糟糕的就是听到敲门声，不知道这次会发生什么。”

    他还在其他方面被监视着。1933—1934年的那个冬天，一个陌生人敲响了舒尔策家的门，叫他的名字。舒尔策让他进门。天正在下雨，这个人全身都湿了。这个人给舒尔策看国旗队队员的名册，告诉舒尔策他是从盖世太保那里逃脱的。他告诉舒尔策国旗队在鲁尔起义了，正在和纳粹分子对战。舒尔策有武器吗？他能提供本地区忠诚的国旗队队员名单吗？舒尔策对每个问题都做出了否定的回答，并且补充说道：“这跟我无关，我已经吓得魂不附体了。我所能做的就是让你在这里过夜并且给你东西吃，在这样的夜晚，这是我能为任何人做的事情。”

    早上，在早餐之后，这个人走到门口，就在离开之前，他把衣领翻过来，给舒尔策看了自己的党卫军扣子。之后，他沉默无言地离开了。 [44]

    从这五个人的描述中——一个工会官员、一个工人、一个国旗队领袖、诺特海姆社会民主党负责人和一个社会民主党普通成员——可以看出诺特海姆的纳粹分子是如何对付公开承认反对政权者的。首先，他们在经济上遭受了尽可能多的打击。绝大多数丢掉工作的社会民主党人随后就被要求在完全没有工作和去采石场工作之间作出选择。后一项工作是为了磨灭他们的精神。除此以外，他们还被警察骚扰，被逮捕、审问，还被一遍遍地搜查住所。在这背后是持续的被投入集中营的威胁，正是这种不确定性的因素增加了恐惧。因为人们永远不知道最近一次的房屋搜查是否会出人意料地让他具有被送入半杜撰出来的纳粹集中营的资格。此外，他们还会遇到一些小麻烦：被要求加入冲锋队或者其他的纳粹组织；纳粹分子在演讲或者纳粹媒体上中伤某人的名誉；纳粹分子向房东或者（狡猾地）向某人的朋友施加压力；当某人来喝啤酒时，酒吧里一片安静。

    贫穷、恐惧、官僚主义的诡计、社交孤立形成了一个有影响力的方案。也许我们应该加上其中最为重要的因素：无力感。诺特海姆社会民主党人该怎么办呢？反叛？即使有人有武器，应该由谁来开枪呢？警察？每个纳粹分子（包括那些曾经和你一起上小学的人）？还有，应该什么时候动手？各种各样的小举动中，究竟是哪一个导致天平向独裁政体倾斜的呢？在不信任因素的影响下，谁会和你一起反叛呢？之后应该怎么做？诺特海姆宣布自己成为德国的独立实体吗？

    也许人们应该首先试图通过有效的宣传来让大众做好准备。但是在诺特海姆，有63%的多数投票支持国社党，如果社会民主党在可以利用自由演讲、自己的媒体和党派机器时都没能让民主政治受欢迎，那么没有了这些工具，他们又能怎么做呢？

    因此，只剩下逃跑、自顾自的信念、讽刺或者卡尔·库埃尔富尔特所获得的那种小成功。到纳粹政权的头六个月的统治结束时为止，这一期间的诺特海姆社会民主党人仍旧有选择的余地，一旦错过，形势就无可挽回了。

    在这种情况下，仅仅是出于整齐划一的缘故就足以导致社会民主党被正式取缔了。早在采取这一步骤之前，会员资格就被终止了，而且组织被摧毁了。认识到这些事实后，诺特海姆的地方执行委员会在4月29日召开了会议，自行解散了。国旗队的诺特海姆分部在同一天采取了相同的行动。在社会民主党结束所有事务前，警方在5月11日以夺取所有社会民主党财产（包括仍旧存在金库里的200马克）强调了其已经解散的事实。同时，社会民主党的前任领导们遭受了盖世太保广泛的拷问，盖世太保对民主的社会主义如此容易被摧毁明显感到很惊讶。工会解体了，他们的大楼在5月4日被侵占了。在复杂的社会民主党—工人系统中，其他组织都不复存在了。其他党派在诺特海姆并没有可以解散的地方组织，除了德国人民党，1933年7月14日，在将金库交由德国战争墓地协会管理后，该党投票终结了自己的存在。 [45]

    于是，诺特海姆所有在意识形态上反对希特勒独裁政权的正式党派组织都终结了。

    十三　煽动热情（1933年，春夏）

    “这是多么神圣的换位啊！” ——诺特海姆纳粹胜利庆祝仪式的主要演讲的标题，1933年3月19日

    充满活力和彻底性是1933年之前的那些年里诺特海姆国社党的主要特性。在希特勒被任命为总理后，这些特性发展成了狂热，通往第三帝国的道路似乎终于打开了。纳粹分子不仅抓住了权力的煽动性，并且利用这种煽动性来向他们之前的对手们灌输屈服的理念，而且还加强了他们的宣传力量。在希特勒掌权之前，群众支持一直是纳粹的优势。在诺特海姆3月的选举中，群众的极度兴奋让纳粹分子获得了绝对多数。通过纳粹技能中的每一个技巧，城镇人被说服了，他们认为投票给纳粹主义就意味着投票给新时代，也意味着投票给一场能够扫除过去所有困难并且开创世界新千年的革命。但是纳粹革命并不是在一夜间完成的。有很多的事情要做，以至于革命初期（建立独裁政权）就至少花费了半年时间。

    因此，必须找到一种方式来保持长时间的热情。这种热情不只是让人们感觉到正在进行一场革命；而且也是为构成革命的各种各样因素——其中许多都是丑陋的——作掩饰和辩护。最后，通过让每个人都参与进来，这种有组织的热情将那些反对，甚至只是质疑引入独裁政府的人孤立起来了。于是，这就成了第三帝国的重要增援。

    有效宣传的一个重要前提条件就是控制住媒体。通过创造一个恐怖系统，纳粹分子已经确定地方媒体并不会反对他们。表示反对的机构（《人民报》和《诺特海姆回声》）到3月为止都已经消失了；《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》一直对纳粹主义抱有好感，而《诺特海姆最新消息》起先是矛盾的，后来就默许了。但是诺特海姆纳粹分子想要的更多。他们想要现存的地方媒体变成完全顺从的工具，最终他们还拥有了纳粹自己掌控的报纸。

    纳粹报纸的创办可以追溯到1931年，当时他们的双周刊报纸《听！听！》首次发行了。1932年秋天，《听！听！》开始作为更大的纳粹报纸的每周增刊出现，在整个汉诺威地区发行，这主要是因为省党部领袖命令宣传地区报纸。按照这种形式，《听！听！》却并未拥有广泛的读者。诺特海姆县有54 000名居民，纳粹报纸只有1 000个订购者。 [1] 1933年4月6日，增刊的名字转变为《诺特海姆观察家报》，每周发行三次。到了6月，该报变为每天发行，但是仍旧作为母报的增刊。在这期间的几个月里，纳粹分子接管了《人民报》的印刷厂，7月，他们开始在这里印刷《诺特海姆观察家报》，该报作为独立的党报向诺特海姆提供纳粹的观点。 [2]

    纳粹分子在发展他们自己的地方媒体时，试图以各种方式进行宣传。8月初，《诺特海姆观察家报》成为诺特海姆城镇的官方报纸，以及警方事务的唯一官方报纸。几周后，该报成为诺特海姆县的唯一官方喉舌。所有党派成员自然都被要求订购《诺特海姆观察家报》，而且冲锋队队员被安排去推销订购，这明显获得了成功。5月，瓦尔特·施泰内克向诺特海姆县国社党的所有地方小组领袖下达命令，禁止他们向其他报纸提供任何消息，并且要求他们以各种可行的方式支持《诺特海姆观察家报》。 [3] 换句话说，支持《诺特海姆观察家报》的方法之一就是削弱其他地方报纸。

    在第三帝国的最初六个月，纳粹分子把他们最主要的枪口转向了《诺特海姆最新消息》，该报是诺特海姆发行量最大的报纸。虽然《诺特海姆最新消息》在地方新闻版块对纳粹主义要么是客观的，要么是模棱两可的，但是该报隶属于德国人民党，因此，在国家新闻版块，该报是反对纳粹的。在希特勒被任命为总理之前，这对诺特海姆人自然是无关紧要的。甚至纳粹分子也认为有必要在《诺特海姆最新消息》上刊登召开集会的宣传广告。在希特勒被任命为总理之后，许多诺特海姆人或者是因为恐惧或者是因为信念，突然判定《诺特海姆最新消息》不是他们想读的那种报纸。

    正如该报的一位前记者所言：
    在希特勒被任命为总理和3月选举之间，数以百计的人不再阅读《诺特海姆最新消息》了。他们并没有停止订阅——他们来到该报的办事处，强烈地要求从明天开始别再把报纸投递到他们家里。他们说他们并不想再听到该报的消息。广告收入也下降了。 [4]

    因此，到3月的时候，《诺特海姆最新消息》开始对要印刷的内容极为小心谨慎。该报甚至很仔细地筛选要刊登的广告。不过，纳粹分子在诺特海姆掌权之后，该报的前途是相当不确定的。1933年3月，《诺特海姆最新消息》的地方新闻记者埃哈特·克诺佩尔和他的邻居国社党县领袖瓦尔特·施泰内克就这个问题进行了讨论，“有一个简单的解决方式：你加入国社党，之后《诺特海姆最新消息》就不会再有麻烦了。《诺特海姆最新消息》将会得到担保。”因此，在与该报的编辑出版商协商之后，克诺佩尔加入了国社党。他对此并不热心，但这似乎是经济需求使然。 [5]

    不过，《诺特海姆最新消息》的问题似乎并没有解决。该报失去了作为城镇和县办事处官方喉舌的地位，《诺特海姆观察家报》毫无掩饰地表达了喜悦之情：

    《诺特海姆最新消息》失去其官方性质是预料之中的。不管怎样，这是活该，因为有记录显示该报反对我们的运动。过去几周，《诺特海姆最新消息》试图穿上纳粹斗篷，但是他们仍旧从犹太人和消费者合作社那里接受广告。《诺特海姆最新消息》的前景真的是不确定的。 [6]

    在这之后，《诺特海姆最新消息》变得加倍小心了，拒绝了来自犹太公司的广告。但是遵循纳粹路线并不是一件容易的任务，克诺佩尔回忆道：

    我记得我的第一个错误。我写了一篇关于一场集会的报道，其中我首先提及县长，然后才提及国社党的县领袖。这件事引起了很大的争议，施泰内克给我打电话，痛斥了我。那天晚上，出版商告诉我纳粹分子要关闭报社。第二天早上，我去上班的时候，他处于极度沮丧的状态。因此，我去见瓦尔特·施泰内克，连连道歉，并且承诺不会再发生这种事情。施泰内克说：“别忘了！首先是纳粹党，其次才是办公室中的公务员。” [7]

    除了这些直接的攻击外，《诺特海姆最新消息》还有其他要担心的事情，该报的发行量在持续下滑。主要是因为纳粹推销订阅他们自己的报纸《诺特海姆观察家报》的运动。绝大多数诺特海姆人不敢拒绝订阅《诺特海姆观察家报》，而且他们不能同时负担起《诺特海姆观察家报》和《诺特海姆最新消息》。于是，他们停止购买《诺特海姆最新消息》了。 [8]

    《诺特海姆最新消息》以能使用的唯一方式对此进行抗争。5月，该报发表了一篇关于地方媒体不可缺少的价值的长文。7月，该报发表了另一篇关于地方媒体价值的文章，是根据纳粹省长的原话写成的。同时，该报试图鼓舞读者的勇气。6月，《诺特海姆最新消息》突出地报道了德国报纸出版商协会通过的决议，即反对“使用威胁或抵制的方式来获得新的发行量”。第二个月，在一个大标题下（“禁止对中产阶级报纸采取抵制措施”），《诺特海姆最新消息》报道称国社党的全国指导处已经禁止利用经济制裁的方式来针对任何的中产阶级报纸。几周后，该报就纳粹媒体针对非该党报纸进行的不正当竞争发表了另一篇长文。该报批评了“增加报纸发行量的恐怖主义方式”，并且以主要的纳粹分子经常说的话来支持这一观点。 [9] 这种活动是否真的有效还是值得怀疑的。

    在增加《诺特海姆观察家报》发行量的过程中，纳粹分子也触及了《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的所有者兼编辑W.A.罗尔的底线。作为民族主义者的报纸，在希特勒掌权之前，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》就从未试图隐藏其对纳粹分子的崇敬之情。纳粹经常在《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》上刊登宣传广告（很可能享受了折扣价）；在纳粹分子没有其他方式可以印刷传单时，是罗尔印刷的；他总是极富热情地报道纳粹集会。虽然《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》对纳粹分子非常热情，但是这种感情并没有得到回报。对于诺特海姆的纳粹分子而言，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》是可以利用的，但并不能信任，因为该报的编辑是一个卑鄙的反动分子。在希特勒掌权之后不久，这种态度就明显地表现出来了。 [10]

    在1933年初形成纳粹—民族主义者联盟之后，纳粹对《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的攻击减弱了，但是在《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》像《诺特海姆最新消息》那样开始试图为了保护自己报纸的发行量而反对纳粹竞争时，这种攻击又增加了。5月，《诺特海姆观察家报》发表了如下文章：

    这只会发生一次

    印刷者和德国国家人民党党员罗尔攻击……《诺特海姆观察家报》，不仅是公开地，而且是清楚地。谈论“地方媒体”的价值！我们都认同地方媒体的价值，但并不是《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的价值。地方媒体并不是狭隘的“教会墓地政治”，而是与其读者的基本观点有重要的联系。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》太老旧了。该报很明显难以适应阿道夫·希特勒的国家共同体。 [11]

    这使罗尔进行了冗长的社论回复。他坚称他为在帮助击败“马克思主义”方面所发挥的作用感到骄傲，他终生都在和“马克思主义者”战斗。他从未接受社会民主党或者消费者合作社的广告，“虽然他们一直在提议”。至于“教会墓地政治”，罗尔说他无法理解这种指责。他报道了每一场在诺特海姆举行的国社党集会，甚至雇用了一个纳粹党人来写新闻报道。他宣称“《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》过去是，现在是，并且未来仍将是民族主义者的报纸”。至于《诺特海姆观察家报》的报道，很明显是一堆谎言。如果《诺特海姆观察家报》再次攻击他，罗尔总结道，他不会再屈尊回应他们。 [12]

    这是一场激烈的对话，纳粹分子明显不打算就此认输。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》已经很小的发行量开始下降。那些订阅了《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的人要求不再投递报纸给他们了，而是他们自己偷偷地去该报的办事处领取。 [13]

    罗尔对此的回应是就“报纸的非法竞争”问题发表了一大篇文章，文内充满了纳粹官方报纸《诺特海姆观察家报》的引文。之后，《诺特海姆观察家报》发表了一篇文章，反对以非法方式获得订阅。该文建议人们要求宣称为《诺特海姆观察家报》推销订阅的人出示身份文件。最后，该报还声称之所以发表这一篇文章“是因为《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》正在对我们进行许多肮脏的指控”。而且，县长办公室在阻止罗尔抱怨他失去获取官方通知的途径时发挥了作用。 [14] 简而言之，罗尔正在进行一场他无法获胜的战斗。在纳粹统治的头六个月结束时，明显的是《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》很可能和《诺特海姆最新消息》一起被摧毁。于是在这一领域内只剩下《诺特海姆观察家报》。但这种情况的发生并不是因为诺特海姆的非纳粹主义报纸公开挑战纳粹主义。实际上，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》和《诺特海姆最新消息》越是为自己的存在表示担忧，它们越是渴望证明自己对新政权的热烈拥护。因此，在纳粹掌权的最初的几个月，一直是诺特海姆人自己信任的报纸对他们进行宣传的。

    媒体宣传虽然有用，但并不真正是纳粹促进支持率的方法。为了确保大众支持，就必须有积极的参与，在纳粹掌权并且能够要求大众参与之后更是如此。3月竞选运动一结束，诺特海姆的国社党就开始为此做准备。

    第一波大众示威游行的浪潮和3月12日赢得选举胜利的庆祝活动相关。选举日当天就提供了一个预示，因为那一天也被指定为第一次世界大战结束纪念日。所有的公共建筑都被要求降半旗，并且有明确的规定，必须悬挂帝国国旗而不是魏玛国旗。早上，所有退伍老兵协会那些身着制服的人都加入了追思会上的冲锋队和钢盔团，这也是向希特勒德国的新人民 [50] 团体的致敬。接着在市集广场举行了一场群众集会，集会上，县退伍老兵协会的负责人说能看到旧旗帜再次升起，他非常地高兴。

    接下来几天，旗帜飘扬，因为纳粹分子要求为纪念选举胜利而挂旗三天，主要是帝国国旗和纳粹旗帜。这是从3月13日开始的，还在诺特海姆周围举行了一场全体游行，升起了两面新的旗帜，烧毁了魏玛共和国的旧旗帜。游行队伍由钢盔团、冲锋队和党卫军组成，由冲锋队的军乐队领头。正是在这一天，诺特海姆的警察被要求带上纳粹臂章。

    率先经历这一变化的是市政厅。升起了帝国国旗和纳粹旗帜，市长说了几句祝福德国“团结”的话，接着恩斯特·吉尔曼说了类似主题的话。讲话后，魏玛共和国的黑红金旗帜被投入准备好的小篝火堆，在它被火焰烧毁的时候，围观群众唱着《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》。警察局、县大楼和邮局举行了同样的仪式，每一次都会有一个新的演讲者。最后，游行队伍行进到健康保险办事处，这里也升起了旗帜，恩斯特·吉尔曼在谴责社会民主党人“就是将这座建筑视为他们的产业和宣传机构”方面比以往更甚。“这种时代过去了，”吉尔曼总结道，“当时这些社会民主党分子有机会活跃在这栋大楼里。”最后，被这种象征性的操控和演讲的狂欢搞得筋疲力尽之后，人群散开了。 [15]

    国社党直到这周末才举行下一场大活动。在此期间，针对那些想要更多活动的人，举办了诗人奥古斯特·温宁主讲的爱国主义演讲以及冲锋队乐队表演的爱国主义音乐会。之后在3月19日星期天，诺特海姆的国社党举行了庆祝胜利的活动，是在合适的卡特莱拍卖大厅举行的。大厅内装饰着纳粹旗帜，挤满了人，至少有1 000人。主讲人是纳粹传教士牧师明希迈耶，他演讲的主题是“这是多么神圣的换位啊！”。整个庆祝活动的基调是保守、严肃和虔诚的。 [16]

    就在诺特海姆的第三帝国典礼完成之后，为了配合希特勒和兴登堡在3月21日星期二于波茨坦的驻军教堂举行的国家庆典，城镇必须重复这一过程。在诺特海姆，所有的公共办事处在这天都关闭了。商店很早就关门了，并且从上午11点半到下午1点也休息，就是为了收听广播里的典礼仪式。收音机也被带到了学校里面，那里的孩子们听着在波茨坦发生的大事件，教师们告诉他们“德国历史上的新纪元即将开启”。之后，那天剩下的时间，他们都放假了。所有的房屋和公共大楼都装饰着纳粹旗帜。夜晚降临之后，举行了一场蜿蜒穿过整个诺特海姆的火把游行。参与者包括各种各样的纳粹和国家主义准军事组织、诺特海姆所有的体育俱乐部、各种各样的退伍军人和爱国主义协会、所有的学校，还有各种混杂的组织，如“工匠培训俱乐部”、邮局的办事员和邮递员以及志愿消防部门。领头的是城镇乐队、冲锋队乐队和冲锋队军乐队，游行队伍最终在城市公园停了下来，恩斯特·吉尔曼在这里发表了演讲，他赞扬了新的德国统一体：“个体不再存在了；人民就是一切！只要我们从内部团结起来，我们就能打败所有的外部敌人。之后，‘德国将会真正地成为世界上最重要的国家’。”在这种提示下，人们唱着《德意志高于一切》，然后解散了。大约3 000人参加了游行；至少同样多的人站在街道两旁围观。“因此，诺特海姆的市民，”《诺特海姆最新消息》评论道，“已经以压倒性的大多数证明了，他们准备毫无保留地投身于新生祖国的怀抱。” [17]

    这种忠诚和热情的群众游行是宣传运动的主要内容，目的是使诺特海姆人确信他们正在进入一个新时代。但是接下来的几个月，不可能举行这种只是为了庆祝第三帝国出现的盛大游行和群众集会了。需要有具体的事情才行。有三场盛大的节日活动，其中两场是新的，另一场是传统节日。这三场分别是庆祝希特勒的生日、“德国劳动节”（对五一劳动节的重新解释）以及5月26日阿尔伯特·利奥·施拉格特 [51] 逝世十周年的纪念活动。通过强调这些事件，在漫长的纳粹政变关键的头几个月里，每三周都有一场重要的庆祝活动成了可能。

    这三场盛大的节日活动的第一场是庆祝阿道夫·希特勒44岁的生日，于4月20日举行。这天的活动以早上7点钟穿越城镇的游行为开端，参与者是冲锋队及其军乐队。这之后举行了一场小规模的仪式，将一条新街道命名为“阿道夫·希特勒街”。然后，所有隶属于国社党的身着制服的人都参与了教堂仪式。路德派教堂装饰着帝国国旗和纳粹旗帜，在诺特海姆几乎每栋房子都是这样。那天早上的布道强调了落在希特勒身上的沉重责任，以祈求诺特海姆人为他们的元首祷告而结束。

    仪式结束后举行了游行，终点在市集广场，冲锋队乐队在这里举办了音乐会。诺特海姆火炮俱乐部为庆祝这一时刻，用他们的小型礼炮开火致敬，两名穿着普鲁士炮兵制服仿制品的小男孩负责开火。下午他们在诺特海姆各个酒吧里喝啤酒。晚上，庆祝活动在“1910年代圆顶”继续，举行了军事进行曲音乐会、戏剧和幽默短剧、舞会以及演讲。镇政府中的每个官员、县长、钢盔团成员和国社党成员都出席了。恩斯特·吉尔曼的演讲主题是“团结就是一切”，他承诺诺特海姆很快就会变成百分之百纳粹化的。大厅里挤满了人，实际上根本不能跳舞。

    在想象的余波中，报纸宣称阿道夫·希特勒已经向国社党的诺特海姆分部赠送了奶酪、巧克力和香肠。这些礼物本来是送给他的生日礼物，他之后又以自己的名义再次分发给地方分部。 [18]

    第二场盛大的庆祝活动于5月1日到来，这一天是以“国家社会主义德国工人党”为名的党派不能忽视的，但是他们决定转变一下性质。在诺特海姆，为了完成这些目标，他们采取的方法是以纳粹的名义领导五一劳动节庆祝活动，于是就给这场活动定下了纳粹基调，让这场庆祝活动有了不同的性质，由此冲淡了之前的阶级内涵。这也许被认为是一个特别敏感的问题，所以在纳粹党的高层官员决定介入当地的群众宣传组织时，关于五一劳动节的规划在纳粹掌权期间也成为第一要务。4月15日，国家宣传总部发送了关于这天所有项目的全面而详细的说明，并且和预先计划好的全国广播安排就此进行协调。六天后，戈培尔新创立的宣传和国民教育部的地区负责人以他自己的多框架特定指导来跟进这件事。于是，诺特海姆在5月1日的行动第一次成了一种明确模式的一部分，这种模式在整个南汉诺威—布伦瑞克都是一样的，而且除了细节之外，整个德国都是这样的。 [19]

    人们几乎是刚庆祝完希特勒的生日就开始准备“全国劳动节”的庆祝活动了。诺特海姆纳粹地方小组发布的宣传广告拉开了序幕：

    德国政府为5月1日“全国劳动节”所做的计划，将在本质上显现国家社会主义精神。这一天将会带领有创造力的人民认识民族国家，这与马克思主义的国际努力截然相反。同时，这标志着在德国总理阿道夫·希特勒的领导下，初期计划工作的开始。我们号召所有办事处、经济组织、俱乐部、商业等领域的代表出席计划会议…… [20]

    之后不久，纳粹的县领袖施泰内克宣布五一劳动节庆祝活动的主题是“所有的德国人都是工人”。因此，整个诺特海姆都必须参加庆祝活动。他们设计了一个简单的控制系统。诺特海姆的每个人都要在纳粹总部购买翻领纽扣。有了这个纽扣，才能参加5月1日的游行。不买纽扣的人会把纳粹的注意力吸引到自己身上。一个纽扣是10芬尼；出售纽扣所获得的收入将会为庆典活动提供经费。

    除此以外，诺特海姆平常的社会和经济协会都投入正常使用，以确保庆祝活动井然有序并保证良好的出席率。在五一游行中，城镇中的每个组织都有位置，从德国银行的地方办事处到教师协会。当然，所有的退伍老兵和爱国主义组织，所有的国家和地方政府雇员，所有的体育俱乐部，所有的工匠行会、合唱团、钓鱼俱乐部、象棋协会等都将参加游行。这些组织中的每一个也都被要求支付5到10马克的庆祝活动费用。他们需要在国社党县总部支付。

    这个假期是忙碌的。节目按照下面的时间表进行：
    上午6：30军乐队发出开始的信号。
    8：00在所有的办事处和商业场所升旗，所有的雇员都要参加。
    8：45教堂仪式。
    10：00所有俱乐部、企业等官员的会议，在城市公园举行（等待最后的游行指令）。
    10：30来自柏林的德国政府的广播。
    下午1：15开始游行（下午剩下的时间，在游行广场的途中会举行有货摊的嘉年华）。
    7：30阿道夫·希特勒演讲的无线电广播。
    之后直到午夜：音乐会、舞会，等等。

    在4月的最后几天，为这个精彩计划而做的准备变得疯狂起来。许多组织不得不借助报纸广告来发布要求其成员所做事情的详细内容。但是幸亏了这些努力，这个计划是按照普鲁士演习队的精确度完成的。最令纳粹计划者们满意的是在诺特海姆，几乎没有一所房子或者建筑物没有装饰纳粹旗帜。

    游行——出奇的井然有序——只晚了15分钟开始。这毕竟是可以原谅的，因为有5 000人参与了游行。一共有73辆机动车辆和游行彩车（大约一半的机动车是在诺特海姆的），游行队伍绵延了9公里。游行队伍花了3小时才通过。有些部分非常精彩，因为几乎每种职业都由一辆彩车代表。比如，面包师行会有一个巨型脆饼干，而移居俱乐部则有一个模型房子。游行的终点是游行广场，参与者们在这里高唱《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》和《德意志高于一切》，之后可以自由地完成这天计划表中的其他内容。媒体如实地报道称诺特海姆此前从没出现过这样的场面。 [21]

    在经历了令人筋疲力尽的五一庆祝活动之后，诺特海姆纳粹分子接下来三周多的时间里不太活跃。然后是纳粹庆祝活动三部曲的第三部——“施拉格特纪念日”。这是一个新节日，为了纪念十年前，也就是第一个纳粹的春天，一个前自由军团志愿者和纳粹党成员阿尔伯特·利奥·施拉格特，在鲁尔被占领期间，他因破坏罪被法国军事法庭下令处决。诺特海姆为纪念他而准备了一个刻有如下字迹的石碑：“永不忘记！阿尔伯特·利奥·施拉格特。1923年5月26日被法国人谋害了。”

    当天会举行两场仪式，因为在施拉格特的仪式之后，会在市集广场上焚烧“污秽的文学作品”。要被执行火刑的文学作品包括被没收的社会民主党的文章和小册子，再加上从公共图书馆拿到的其他著作，比如埃里希·玛丽亚·雷马克的《西线无战事》。认为可以捐赠可燃物的诺特海姆人被要求将书交给参议员赫尔曼·登茨勒。

    施拉格特纪念碑揭幕仪式的主要目标是年轻人。因此，希特勒青年团和德国女孩联盟扮演了领导性的角色，不过冲锋队、党卫军和冲锋队乐队也参与其中。很大一群人来围观了仪式，包括所有来自小学的学生。人们表演了各种各样爱国主义性质的诗歌和歌曲，之后由参议员赫尔曼·登茨勒（诺特海姆希特勒青年团的主管）发表了主要演讲。在对施拉格特的重要性做了一些一般性的评论并且要求希特勒青年团仿效施拉格特的勇气后，登茨勒进入了演讲的核心：

    除了以他的事例来增加你们的勇气之外，还要以“施拉格特”这个名字增加你们对凡尔赛和杀了他的法国人的恨意，因为——除了迫害和危险之外——他献身于祖国。（转而面对男孩子们和女孩子们。）你们要为他报仇！你们这些德国青年知道如何仇恨外国人！你们的道路指引你们每天经过这个石碑；握紧你们的拳头并且思考：“永不忘记，我们必复仇！”

    在登茨勒之后是路德派牧师的演讲，他决定在演讲中重点强调施拉格特的英雄主义和“尊敬他与我们的元首阿道夫·希特勒”的必要性。唱完一首赞美诗之后，仪式结束了。

    之后，人们去了市集广场，数英担 [52] 的书堆积起来，最上面是一面红色旗帜和奥托·布劳恩 [53] 的照片，他是普鲁士前社会主义总理。恩斯特·吉尔曼就“非德国精神”和“犹太精神”发表了几句话之后，他以承诺再也不会有人以“种族歧视的外国因素”来写德国的书或者报纸而结束了自己的讲话。燃烧着那堆书的火焰蔓延开来，人们高唱着《德意志高于一切》。两场仪式对诺特海姆人极具教育意义。 [22]

    在第三帝国的最初六个月，这三场盛大的庆祝活动并没有穷尽诺特海姆国社党承担的宣传活动项目。除了这些一般的活动外，还有各种各样的纳粹次级组织发起的小型活动。

    在最初的几个月，冲锋队和党卫军的参与很多。3月，他们在“1910年代圆顶”举行了一场晚间音乐会和现场演习。一个月后，他们再次举行了演习，充满了象征意义。（“红方”攻击“蓝方”，并在诺特海姆的西边树林里被反攻消灭了。）这些事件无疑满足了该镇对军国主义显然无可抑制的渴望。5月中旬的情况就是这样，当时有一名诺特海姆冲锋队队员结婚。为了明显地效仿得到正式认可的军事行为，诺特海姆的冲锋队队员站在通往教堂的道路两旁，高举手臂，行希特勒礼。同样是在5月中旬，来自附近城镇的党卫军乐队在诺特海姆举行了一场“军乐队进行曲”晚会，之后同一个月，冲锋队队员组成了一支骑兵队。随着夏季的到来，冲锋队开始强调“军事体育运动”。6月初，在附近城镇举行了一场这种类型的比赛，诺特海姆有26位奖牌获得者。7月，诺特海姆举行了自己的冲锋队“军事体育运动会”，主角是整个区域的摩托车冲锋队。还举行了一场穿越整个城镇的游行，之后是一场摩托车障碍赛，最后是模拟坦克对战。晚上举办了一场舞会。几千名诺特海姆人观看了表演。这个月底，冲锋队、党卫军和钢盔团举行了一场25公里的负重行军比赛。 [23]

    在掌权期间的一般宣传工作中，纳粹青年组织也作出了自己的贡献。德国女孩联盟举行了“父母晚会”，和4月下旬的那次一样，主要是为了展示联盟教女孩子们的健康有益的技能，如唱歌和民间舞。5月，德国女孩联盟进行了两次广为人知的旅行，一次是去地方的希特勒青年团大会（在这场大会上，该联盟的诺特海姆地方小组被宣布为本区域内最佳），另一次是行进至附近的城镇再返回。 [24]

    希特勒青年团对宣传事业的最大贡献就是于1933年6月6日在诺特海姆召开了分区会议。超过1 400名男孩聚集到了诺特海姆，在阅兵场上露营，白天举行游行和体育比赛。《诺特海姆最新消息》（可能还有很多城镇中人）看起来真的被“这些小褐衫士兵们”迷住了。 [25] 这些组织自然尽了最大的努力确保大游行和集会的成功。希特勒青年团和冲锋队在纳粹掌权期间一直很活跃，而冲锋队和党卫军作出了特别的贡献，他们是搜查房屋、殴打和逮捕的辅警。

    就像希特勒成为总理之前的那段时期一样，纳粹分子再次利用了戏剧表演和电影。他们特别推出的一部电影的名字是《流血的德国》。4月，诺特海姆国社党为那些想去附近城镇看戏剧的人提供专用客车。7月，一个纳粹的巡回组织在诺特海姆特别表演了“施拉格特”的戏剧。“1910年代圆顶”内挤满了人。最后，甚至连诺特海姆之外的事件都会被利用为宣传工具。比如，6月在汉诺威召开了一场普通的纳粹会议，而诺特海姆派了两辆专用火车，在离开和回来的时候，冲锋队都进行了庆祝游行。 [26]

    在一般的宣传工作中，德国国家人民党（希特勒的联盟伙伴）及其附属武装组织钢盔团也试图通过煽动热情的方式来减轻希特勒政府的负担。3月，钢盔团进行了一系列电影展映。4月末，年轻的钢盔团成员举行了现场演习，之后在市集广场举行了庆祝游行和音乐会。钢盔团还在7月的时候效仿希特勒青年团的运动会发起了一场小型活动。 [27]

    在第三帝国的最初阶段，许多诺特海姆人加入了钢盔团。通常，他们这么做是为了避免被迫加入冲锋队或者其他纳粹组织。4—6月间，城镇中的钢盔团差不多增加了150名成员。 [28] 随着这一活动在诺特海姆的进行，在柏林的德国国家人民党却正在被剥夺权力，戈培尔开始指责共产主义者正在渗入钢盔团。在诺特海姆，德国国家人民党地方组织鼓起勇气给希特勒写了一封信，表达了他们对希特勒的忠诚，而且坚称“任何与胡根贝格 [54] 作战的人都是在和希特勒政府作战”。6月末，有人将钢盔团放在施拉格特新纪念碑上的花环拿掉了。最后，诺特海姆地区的钢盔团宣称（1933年7月1日）他们不再接受新成员了，这样一来“就可以更加仔细地核查申请者了” [29] 。民族主义党派开始意识到成为国社党同路人的代价。

    虽然纳粹分子和民族主义党派都积极地支持新体制，但是在希特勒掌权之前的那些年里已经成为城镇生活中一部分的那种民族主义活动仍旧在继续着。近6月底，城镇中都降半旗以沉痛哀悼《凡尔赛条约》的签订。4月，国防军按照其惯例派遣了一队人到诺特海姆，举办了一场军事音乐会。他们进行了大量的宣传，还得到了国社党的支持，但是却没获得成功——诺特海姆人一直忙于纳粹的庆祝活动，以至于没时间享受他们传统的娱乐活动。 [30]

    虽然纳粹耗尽了有民族主义意识的诺特海姆人的精力，但是至少一些希特勒时代之前的民族主义党派团体仍旧在继续工作。5月，诺特海姆海军俱乐部举办了一场演讲，主讲者是一名前海军官员，题目是“世界大战中的U-21潜艇”。5月8日，城镇举行了每年一次的老守卫大会。和往年一样，他们举行了游行、一系列演讲，最后还在“1910年代圆顶”举行了舞会。但是现在传统仪式中充斥着纳粹象征和想法。因此第一次在守卫大会中出现了希特勒的照片，演唱《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》以及恩斯特·吉尔曼的演讲。至于其他的，庆祝仪式仍旧在继续赞美民族主义和军事主义的路径。 [31]

    在纳粹掌权的最初几个月，爱国主义团体到目前为止所发起的最大事件就是战士联盟成立六十周年和海军俱乐部成立十周年的联合庆祝活动。庆祝活动耗费了整个周末，星期六晚上举行了演讲、游行和升旗典礼，星期天举行了教堂仪式和一场盛大的游行。和守卫大会一样，纳粹分子确保希特勒和国社党在每个场合都得到了应得的待遇。因为诺特海姆纳粹分子的热情参与，庆祝活动特别井然有序，出席率特别高。因此，虽然这场庆祝活动带有纳粹的色彩，但和1933年之前这些团体的工作一样，其最主要的影响就是直接导致民族主义和军事主义的情绪高涨。同样地，“海外领土上的德意志王国联盟”的诺特海姆分会于6月25日举行了马拉松比赛和群众集会，还是有大量的纳粹之音。于8月初举行的诺特海姆军事协会成立25周年的庆祝活动也是这样。 [32]

    简而言之，虽然纳粹主要的宣传攻势仍旧在继续，但是惯常的民族主义煽动也在继续。仅仅通过宣传让纳粹主义看起来合理的这种背景，有助于纳粹革命进程。个别的活动都充满了纳粹观念和演讲。一切都有助于铺平道路。

    除了诺特海姆传统的民族主义团体之外，两个新的运动有助于纳粹主义事业。第一个运动出现在希特勒被提名为总理之前，但1933年2月才被城镇中人察觉到。这就是民事防御计划，主要是教诺特海姆人如何保护自己免遭空袭。1933年2月初，一队民事防御专家到达诺特海姆，领头的是前自由军团领袖罗斯巴赫。一所学校的集会大厅作为安置民事防御团队的地点被征用一周，他们就炸弹的种类和减少炸弹影响的措施举行讲座并进行示范。教学课程得到了诺特海姆爱国主义组织的支持，媒体进行了大量的宣传。民事防御团队为了有助于其教学课程，自己举行了一场带有低沉鼓声（一种进行战斗的传统号召）的游行。总体上的效果就是暗示城镇很快就会陷入空袭的危险中。通过这种方式，民众的军事情绪高涨起来。 [33]

    第二个新元素是滑翔机大楼和滑翔机飞行员训练。这也是希特勒掌权之前开始的，但是在希特勒掌权的最初几个月，国社党进行了大力宣传。诺特海姆的滑翔机主要是在游行中展示的，常被认为是新的德国空军的核心。最后，在6月末，纳粹分子接管了这项活动，为诺特海姆建立了党卫军飞行员组织。因此，滑翔机练习被大力推进。 [34]

    纳粹掌权的最初六个月，诺特海姆经受了特别密集的宣传攻势。由国社党领头，城镇中各种各样的民族主义和军事主义组织被要求参与其中，支持并推广纳粹魅力。在诺特海姆，除了大众参与的活动之外，还有源源不断的全国新闻报道、广播演讲以及杂志和图书中的宣传。总体效果就是创造出革命精神并且证明纳粹确保自己控制人民的措施是正当的。

    十四　社会分化（1933年，春夏）

    看哪，弟兄和睦同居，是何等的善，何等的美！ ——《圣经·诗篇》133：1

    纳粹年代的最早期阶段在诺特海姆发生了一个事件，有效地将宣传和恐怖融合在了一起。这就是1933年4月1日—4日的抵制犹太人。这一事件开启了难以避免的进程，而这一进程直到10年后才在党卫军灭绝集中营的毒气室中终结，除此以外，这项特别的行动也是纳粹分子对所有德国人所做之事的缩影。抵制犹太人最重要的影响就是将他们从社会上分裂出去了：切断了他们与德国社会中其他人的联系，这样一来，正常的人际联系就不会发挥限制独裁的作用了。

    和德国的其他地区一样，诺特海姆的犹太人非常少。1932年的人口普查显示1万名人口中有120名男性、女性和孩子宣称信奉犹太教。他们的人数没有明显地增长，一代人之前是102人。 [1] 诺特海姆绝大多数的犹太人都是小商人：牲畜代理人、食品杂货店或者服装店店主以及工匠。1932年，一个犹太商人庆祝自己的杂货店成立230周年——这家店一直开设在诺特海姆。城镇中没有犹太区；犹太人很好地融入了诺特海姆的社交圈。在纳粹主义出现之前，城镇中仅有很小一部分反犹主义者。他们只是用玩笑或者广泛的厌恶感来表达反犹——换句话说，这是普通的中世纪欧洲的传统。犹太人参加射击协会、爱国主义俱乐部和合唱团，如果他们被区别对待，那也只是因为阶级，而非宗教信仰。有些人在他们的组织中被选为官员，有些人非常受人尊敬，所有的人都被认同为城镇生活中的普通人。

    纳粹分子决定改变这种情况，因为反犹主义已经成为他们意识形态的基石。诺特海姆人基本上还没有意识到这点，尤其是犹太人，他们将纳粹的宣传视为一种选举工具或者知识分子破产的证明，几乎没人认为这是一项具体的计划。 [2]

    直到纳粹分子控制了整个城镇，绝大部分纳粹反犹主义行动的目标只是纳粹党内依旧和犹太人保持着经济联系的成员。吉尔曼威胁要驱逐这些成员，但是并没有公开。 [3]

    恩斯特·吉尔曼的演讲中偶尔会出现反犹主义言辞，但真正的反犹主义运动是于1933年3月29日开始的，当时《诺特海姆最新消息》上刊登了由国社党的诺特海姆地方小组发出的启事。启事中称“国际上的犹太人”正在传播反对德国的“残暴宣传”，“侵害我们身处国外的德国兄弟”。鉴于此，国社党发表声明，号召人们抵制所有的犹太生意：“德国将迫使犹太屈服！”三天后，又有一篇启事，明确列出了需要抵制的个人和公司的名称。标记“剪下保存”字样的这篇启事罗列了代表40个人（换句话说，几乎涵盖了诺特海姆所有的成年犹太男性）的35家商店。 [4]

    列出详细的抵制呼吁之后就是行动。4月1日开始，冲锋队队员被派到犹太人商店或者办公室的门前站岗。根据国社党发布的声明，这项“对犹太人仇恨宣传的反击”要继续到“对德国商品的仇恨运动和抵制结束时为止”。

    抵制运动也得到了县农业协会的支持，该协会希望农民们“通过打击犹太人来为民族主义而战”。为了向农民提供可以替代与犹太牲畜代理人做生意的其他选择，在县农业协会的赞助下，牲畜代理人协会成立了，这是诺特海姆唯一公开支持纳粹抵制运动的组织。 [5]

    三天后，抵制运动停止了，以一场带有反对犹太人的标语牌的游行结束。根据《诺特海姆观察家报》所说：

    在当地行动委员会的诱导下，以下的电报被送到了纽约、华沙、巴黎和伦敦的德国领事馆和大使馆：“犹太人在国外进行的有关德国的煽动和仇恨宣传都是不真实的。德国和平而安宁。立即停止仇恨和煽动宣传。诺特海姆犹太会堂社区。主席。” [6]

    这封电报是从犹太社区领袖那里敲诈来的，还是只是国社党伪造的，直至现在仍不清楚。清楚的是，诺特海姆120个犹太人和国际上诋毁新的第三帝国名声的阴谋之间的联系只是城镇中纳粹分子的妄想。但是这封电报的影响完美地解决了之前出现的宣传问题。在此期间，诺特海姆犹太人的地位发生了根本性的变化。

    抵制运动的效果各不相同。其中一家被列入启事中的公司是A.H.穆勒的银行，这是一家可靠而受人尊敬的企业。1933年4月1日并没有冲锋队队员在这家公司门前站岗，生意照常进行。在大多数情况下都有冲锋队队员在站岗，但是只站了几个小时。没有发生暴力行为。有些诺特海姆人实际上并没有发现这项行动。但是，所有的诺特海姆人最终都知道了犹太人现在被驱逐了，纳粹分子对他们计划中的这方面内容非常认真。 [7]

    抵制运动对诺特海姆犹太人的影响是灾难性的。格雷戈尔·巴林和他的妻子起初并不相信会发生这种事情。但当他们看到两名冲锋队队员守在他们的门口时，他们忽然明白了这件事的全部意义。那天，他们根本不敢离开家，巴林颓废地坐在椅子上好几个小时，一直重复着：“就是为了这个，我花费了四年的时间保卫我的祖国吗？” [8]

    抵制运动的经济影响超过了正常时期。银行家穆勒的生意根本就难以承受，格雷戈尔·巴林的医疗工作迅速缩减，他的收入从1932年的9 000马克降到了1933年的6 000马克。这可能是绝大多数犹太人生意的真实情况；随着人们越来越恐惧，和犹太人做生意变得越来越罕见。

    在诺特海姆，将犹太人变为贱民的问题并不只是纳粹分子将一种迫害制度施加给一群懒散群众的尝试之一。由于犹太人离群索居，形势更加恶化，而其他诺特海姆人虽然也许反对迫害犹太人，但是由于自我保护意识而成了这个制度的同谋。抵制运动开始之后的第二天，拥有多家分店的一家诺特海姆连锁商店在《诺特海姆最新消息》上发表了大广告，声称他们的商店是一家“纯粹的基督教家庭的事业”，没有“外国资本”能够毁坏他们的“经济独立——我们的公司的自豪之处”。抵制运动之后不久，越来越多带有宣告“德国商人”标志的商店兴旺起来。一旦接受了这一原则，离海报上所写的“犹太人不准进入”就不远了。5月初，诺特海姆雪茄厂宣布“国社党的彻底检查最后证明，本公司是一家纯粹的德国企业”。敏锐的诺特海姆人还注意到，自4月1日之后没有任何犹太人公司的广告出现在《诺特海姆最新消息》上。 [9]

    至于犹太人自己，他们的反应各不相同。银行家穆勒是属于诺特海姆社交圈的上层人士，他尽可能地无视了整个事件。在有庆祝活动的时候，他招摇地在银行前挂了一面帝国的旗帜。总之，他很乐意这么做，因为他是一个民族主义者、君主主义者，在第一次世界大战中担任指挥官。穆勒在街上遇到朋友时以脱帽致意的礼貌方式打招呼，这就逃避了“德国的问候方式”（即“希特勒万岁”再加上纳粹礼）。对于那些热切建议他离开诺特海姆的人，他回复道：“我应该去哪里呢？在这儿，我是银行家穆勒；在其他地方，我只是犹太人穆勒。”由于作为诺特海姆上层阶级成员的地位稳固，他相信麻烦很快就会过去。为了避免不愉快，他静悄悄地从射击协会和歌唱俱乐部退出了，给出的理由是“事务繁忙”。 [10]

    其他人并没有这种自信心。格雷戈尔·巴林远离所有的社交活动，连过马路时都避免遇见往昔的朋友。他自己的受迫害感加剧了诺特海姆人日益增长的一种感觉，即被人们看到和犹太人说话是不恰当的。不久，巴林收到了退伍军人俱乐部和射击协会的信，“因他不出席会议”（一种善意的委婉说法）而取消了他的成员资格。“1850年男子歌唱协会”的主席和部长亲自来见他；巴林是协会的娱乐主席，因此不能用一封简单的信就打发掉。他们希望他能出席集会，在困难时期帮助他们运作协会。巴林已经产生了新的敏感性，他认真地观察他们的表情，告诉他们不幸的是他事务繁忙，这样一来，他不仅得辞掉娱乐主席的职务，还无法再做会员了。他们表达了深深的遗憾，然后离开了。绝大多数诺特海姆犹太人很可能都是这种反应。 [11]

    一些城镇人，尤其是社会党人会故意去和犹太人讲话或者去犹太人的商店里买东西。但与之相抵消的是，冲锋队队员总是在犹太人经过街角时小声地辱骂他们，还有些冲锋队队员在犹太人商店里购买很多东西，一直累积从未付过的账单，有时可能是因为他们从未拿到过账单。 [12]

    因此诺特海姆的犹太人地位很快就变得明朗化了，在希特勒政权头半年结束之时确实是这样了。纳粹领袖每次发表与犹太人相关的演讲时都将他们视为马克思主义—资本主义针对德国人民的国际毒瘤，每份报纸都使用同样的措辞，每个新的笑话或者谣言都加强了这种状况。这种新形势已经成了生活中的事实，它被人们所接受了。 [13]

    诺特海姆的犹太人被完全排除在社区之外。同时，纳粹分子担负起他们最艰巨的任务：把整个社区割裂开。虽然采取的方法有所不同，但结果是相同的，到1933年夏天为止，每个诺特海姆人和其他人的有效交往都被切断了，就像是犹太人和其他城镇人的联系被切断了一样。社会的全部重组是纳粹革命最重要的结果。最终，不再存在任何独立的社会团体了。只要是两三个人聚集的地方，也就是元首会存在的场合。最终就正常的人际关系来说，所有的社交都不存在了，或者说是存在于一种新框架中，其中，每个个人不是与其同伴联系在一起，而是和国家以及纳粹领袖联系在一起，纳粹领袖则成了国家的个人体现。

    社会组织的全面改革对独裁统治的益处可想而知。首先，这意味着人们更容易被监视，因为所有的团体都控制在纳粹分子手中。其次，随着旧社会纽带的破裂，传播不满的集会将会越来越少。第三，所有的组织都有纳粹班底，于是其成员们都被卷入了一般的纳粹体制中。

    促成独裁体制并不是纳粹重组社会单位的唯一原因。也有种趋向是简化社会组织，使其更加“高效”并减少多样性。比如，一方面，有人认为将各种不同的运动俱乐部整合起来，就可以获得最佳的运动员组合。另一方面，试图整合的这些俱乐部都具有相同的功能但却是以阶级路线来划分形成的，而新的标准是德国公民和虔诚的纳粹主义，不再是旧传统或者阶级差别。

    以大众组织为例，比如运动俱乐部，对其整合并不是为了维持对各个团体的控制，因为这些俱乐部已经被很好地渗透了。但以小型的有阶级倾向的团体为例，对其整合就是要结束它们的排他性，从而让纳粹分子能够控制这些组织。所以，纳粹重组团体的一个要素就是一直试图将大体上有相同目标或主体利益的所有共同努力结合起来并使其服从。

    追求明确目标的团体（比如，象棋俱乐部）一直存在着，不过它们的形式和构成也许会被改变。正是它们的客观目标让它们能一直存在，或许在它们的名字前会有“N.S.”[比如，国家社会主义象棋俱乐部（National Socialist Chess Club）]，但不管怎样，它们仍旧存在着。那些只是因为社交来往或者偶然的客观目的而形成的俱乐部，或是遭到了削弱、终结，或是被合并。这在一定程度上是因为纳粹分子认为只是出于社交原因而聚在一起的人会进行讨论。这也是纳粹群众参与宣传的一个副作用，因为对人们的时间和精力的巨大需求使得单纯的社交功能变得日益困难。最后，这还是在恐怖和谣言的影响下，人与人之间信任破裂的结果。纳粹坚持让各种组织政治化，侵害了迄今为止活跃的俱乐部。正如一个诺特海姆人所说的：“不再有社交生活，甚至连保龄球俱乐部都没有了。” [14]

    这些大部分都是在纳粹时代的最初几个月完成的。有些俱乐部被解散了，有些被合并起来，还有些失去原来的目的，规模迅速减小。所有的组织都被控制在纳粹手中，因为这些组织都被要求在它们的执行委员会中安插大量的国社党成员。这个庞杂的进程被归结为一个通行的术语下——“一体化”。

    起初，“一体化”这个术语意味着在德意志联邦共和国内政治代表的重组，从而能够使其在国会中反映出政治代表性，即有纳粹—民族主义者大多数派。希特勒为了证明其关于一体化的法令是正当的而宣称每个政府机构都可以重建新的“国家统一体”。但是大部分诺特海姆人认为一体化法令也适用于社会组织。 [15] 甚至《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》和《诺特海姆最新消息》偶尔也会这样建议。恩斯特·吉尔曼通过向各个团体发送“官方”通知强化了这个谎话，他通知他们国家的一体化法律要求他们的执行委员会中至少有“51%的国社党或者钢盔团成员”。 [16] 于是，诺特海姆人将对社会组织的控制措施视为完全合乎法律的，至少在形式上是这样。如果国社党命令一个组织解散其现在的执行委员会并且选举新的委员会，那么该组织会认为必须要服从法律。如果他们质疑命令的合法性，也许就会有不同的发现了。但是在纳粹统治的最初几个月里，没有人这么做，而之后则太晚了。因此，大规模的社会重组没有遭遇任何公然的抵抗。

    诺特海姆俱乐部的种类和数量让这件事情变成了一项庞杂的任务。然而，纳粹分子毫不犹豫地接手了这项任务，并且以极大的活力和极快的速度将其进行到底。在某些案例中，这一进程早在1933年3月就开始了。一体化在4月和5月层出不穷，所有的组织几乎每天都在落入纳粹的控制之下。至1933年夏末，实际上已经没有留下独立的社会实体了，大变革差不多完成了。

    诺特海姆最基本的组织就是经济组织：工会、商业和职业协会以及行会。其中，工会显然是最重要的，不仅是因为涉及的人数，而且是因为工会的社会主义倾向。因为纳粹的基本观念之一就是工人应该远离“马克思主义”，所以，国社党决定排挤掉现存的自由工会。

    之前已经讲过了，在诺特海姆铁路调车场更高职位的纳粹分子于1932年解散了铁路工会。因此甚至是在希特勒掌权之前，大部分登记在册的诺特海姆劳动力至少在名义上都处于纳粹分子自己的工会——国家社会主义劳工组织（即NSBO，以下简称“国社劳工组织”）的控制下。在白领雇员中，与此同时有类似的推进在发生，主要是一个纳粹阵线组织：民族主义铁路官员工作协会。在纳粹时代的最初几个月，他们对这一组织进行了全面的控制，其领袖公开成为纳粹分子。 [17] 诺特海姆纳粹分子也迅速采取行动，组织起城市雇员。在纳粹接管市议会并且开始清洗的同时，国社党成立了一个专业的国社劳工组织雇员小组，登记了几十个成员。一个月后，现存的诺特海姆当地的城市公务员和雇员协会被“一体化”，在国社党的命令下选举了一个纳粹执行委员会。纳粹的工会运动在另外两个领域也取得了成功。一个是“高速公路维修工”的组织。该组织中主要是农村人，因此已经被纳粹化了。剩下的就是把他们组织成国社劳工组织的一个分支。这一点于1933年3月和4月完成。最终，纳粹分子在制糖厂赢得了38名男性常规劳动力的优势。大萧条期间，制糖厂的工人面临着大量的政治压力。因此，工人委员会选举于4月3日举行，投给国社劳工组织的选票有28张，而投票给“非政治候选人列表”，也就是自由工会的，只有10张。 [18]

    就算有这些小成功，很明显的是，纳粹分子在他们自己的工会方面并没有取得真正的进展。经济压力和观念各异给国社劳工组织带来多大的影响还很难说，因为国家大事很快就完全解决了这个问题。5月4日，按照五一庆祝活动次日在整个德国确立的典范，城镇中的冲锋队队员占领了诺特海姆自由工会的办公室，没收了名册和装备，宣称进行工会“一体化”。几周后，国社劳工组织搬到了旧工会的办公室。但是该组织缺乏影响力，所以它要求至少两名前工会部长服务于他们，以履行基本职责。国社劳工组织也发现为了声讨旧工会，有必要召开群众集会。自由的记忆比事实更加难以抹去。为了监督全部的劳动力，后来成立了一个超级虚假的工会——“德国工人阵线”。第三帝国的头几个月，在诺特海姆，这一组织基本上就是一个纸上组织。 [19]

    工会已经不复存在了，一个重要的社会组织被彻底摧毁了。还有些遗留下来的小问题需要处理。铁路官员团体被并入一个综合的“纳粹公务员和官员协会”，这明显是为了组织的整齐划一。具有一般社交功能的“铁路员工俱乐部”是按照经济成分来吸引成员的，7月，该团体被“一体化”，加入了一个新的全部由纳粹分子组成的执行委员会。 [20] 其他工人阶级组织都随着社会民主党而垮台了。

    在工会组织被摧毁以及取而代之地建立起新的纳粹体系的同时，国社党逐渐完全控制了诺特海姆的工匠协会。县工匠联盟已经友好地倾向于国社党了，因为有很多工匠大师都是纳粹分子。1933年2月，该联盟每年一度的官员选举产生了一个纳粹主席，他们在决议中还赞扬了新的希特勒政府。国社党对此并不完全满意，4月，县工匠联盟被要求“按照一体化法律”举行新选举，由此产生了完全由纳粹分子组成的执行委员会。 [21]

    国社党还一体化了构成工匠联盟的每个单独的行会。4月中举行了一场群众集会，恩斯特·吉尔曼在会上告知行会领导他们必须在5月2日前选举出新的执行委员会。这导致他们特别活跃，因为每个行会都必须提出草案，与国社党协商，达成新的妥协，并且最终选出新的由纳粹控制的执行董事会。个性问题变得和意识形态一样重要了。而且，许多行会认为一旦他们“一体化”，那么纳粹分子会为了自己的利益而抽调他们的金库资金。因此，有几个行会为其成员举行了几场盛大的晚会，他们吃吃喝喝，用光了金库资金。有些行会几乎是马上就完成了一体化进程。有些则一直等到截止日期才完成。到5月初为止，诺特海姆没有一家工匠组织不是纳粹控制的了。 [22]

    “一体化”零售商协会花费的时间稍微多了点儿，主要是因为现存的组织被完全摧毁了，建立了一个新的、纯粹的纳粹组织——某种程度上远远超过了通常的一体化。零售商人的新组织于5月2日建立，恩斯特·吉尔曼的兄弟成了领导者。卡尔·吉尔曼建议为诺特海姆县的每个商人注册，他在组织大会上宣布：

    加入新联盟是自愿的，但是我们认为诺特海姆镇和县中的每个商人，只要是认为他自己是德国人民的同伴，在面对新协会时都会毫无保留地加入。很明显，他有决心帮助重建德国经济。 [23]

    劝服的过程进展得很快，但并不足以令纳粹分子满意。6月，他们采取了更为直接的策略，一次性地 [24] 强迫旧的零售商人协会并入新协会，并且其成员都加入新协会。“一体化”完成了。

    其他经济协会迅速地经历了相同的命运。4月18日，国家社会主义医生联盟成立了，吸收了之前的联盟。一个月后，德国牙医协会变成了国家社会主义专业牙医组织。4月还成立了国家社会主义教师联盟，最终，所有诺特海姆的教师为了保住工作都加入了。 [25] 到1933年夏天为止，诺特海姆唯一没被“一体化”的经济组织就是合作社。这些合作社显然是社会民主党的企业，而且对城镇经济有很大的贡献。公共利益建筑俱乐部就是个很好的例证。其功能是建造廉租房。1932年，该俱乐部做成了超过60万马克的生意，减少了10%的租金，增加了其投入资本，宣布股息为5%，其成员从112人增加至128人。 [26]

    在这种情况下，没人抱怨公共利益建筑俱乐部的运营糟糕。但问题是该俱乐部的主席和业务经理是重要的社会党人。因此，当收到进行“一体化”的命令时，该俱乐部操纵了选举，以确保社会党人仍旧留在有权力的职位上，但除此之外还是表达了对新政权的忠诚。不过，俱乐部特别岌岌可危，因为纳粹分子将所有的合作社视为“布尔什维主义的”。因此，国社党要求得更多。8月7日，该俱乐部再次被“一体化”，恩斯特·吉尔曼自己就任主席，所有的社会民主党人都从俱乐部退出了。这是他毕生的事业，但他也敏感地认为一旦俱乐部彻底解散，其他成员很可能会减少投资。 [27]

    更重要的一个经济实体是诺特海姆消费者合作社，该社有1 200名成员。1933年之前，纳粹分子一直在斥责这个“红色的”组织，因为该组织和当地的商人竞争。但是他们掌权之后，国社党陷入两难之地。如果彻底解散合作社，一定会相当严重地破坏城镇经济，而且会惹怒很大一群人。但是“一体化”合作社本应该被解释为作为其未来存在的保证，而且本会激怒市民们。因此，纳粹分子试了很多方法。首先，他们传播了各种各样的关于消费者合作社的邪恶谣言，寄希望于这些能削弱合作社。其次，通过任命一名纳粹委员为“管理人”，他们控制住了该组织。最后，他们暗示私营企业家，“时机成熟的时候”，他们就会“照管”消费者合作社。 [28]

    与纳粹分子在处理城镇中的经济组织时的彻底和残酷相比，他们在对待那些爱国主义团体时非常谨慎小心。他们只创立了一个新组织——国家社会主义战争受害者协会（NSKOV）。之前的德国战争受害者联盟于5月解散了，与新的纳粹组织合并了，但“基弗霍伊泽战争受害者”保持了独立，不过其上级机构被“一体化”。只有两个爱国主义组织被强制解散，即“更伟大的德国联盟”和独立的男孩团体（包括童子军、志愿军和德国年轻骑士团青年部）。后者被并入希特勒青年团。其他的军事和爱国主义组织中，只有“基弗霍伊泽联盟”被正式“一体化”。其他组织中都有足够多的纳粹分子，已经能够控制这些组织了，大概国社党不想要引起不必要的麻烦。宣传似乎足以控制局面。随着时间的推移，出于恐惧和不信任而产生的更为缓慢但是相当有效的社交萎缩会摧毁作为独立实体的爱国主义团体。 [29]

    同样的普遍方法可以应用于各种不同的特殊利益组织——合唱团、射击协会等。大部分歌唱协会都自行解散了，而不是被“一体化”。正如一名前成员所说的：“我们俱乐部中再也没有人有时间或有兴趣来了。” [30] 在一体化之前，诺特海姆的合唱协会反映了城镇中的阶级结构。工人的歌唱俱乐部是诺特海姆的“人民合唱团”。该组织建立于1905年，当时是“工匠合唱团”，20世纪20年代由工人掌控。在希特勒掌权之前的三年，“人民合唱团”经常在社会民主党的集会上唱歌。1933年4月，该团体试图清理自己的意识形态内涵，切断了和“德国工人歌唱家联盟”的联系，并且承诺“彻底地重新定位”。对于国社党而言，这还远远不够，国社党要求合唱团主任和执行委员会辞职。俱乐部中的主要人物选择彻底解散，于是该俱乐部在1933年4月22日解散了。 [31]

    社交体系的另一端是城镇的上层阶级歌唱团体“歌唱五线谱”。通过迅速和悄悄地纳粹化，这一团体逃过了一劫。因此当其成员改变了其执行委员会的构成时，他们很谨慎地通知了恩斯特·吉尔曼，询问他对新领导是否有任何异议。这被认为是典型的“先发制人的一体化”。 [32]

    这之后不久，所有城镇中的其他歌唱俱乐部都被合并为一个叫作“1933年混合合唱团”的组织。该俱乐部将那些来自实际上专心于歌唱的所有不再起组织作用的人聚集到一起，获得了相当优秀的会员。新的俱乐部强调在这个新组织里社交地位是不重要的，只有歌唱能力是重要的。 [33]

    诺特海姆的射击协会经受不起这样的打击，不过它们的作用也被改变了。在1933年5月15日的联合年会上，各社团都致力于维护自身。到处都在表示对希特勒的忠诚并且高呼“万岁”。恩斯特·吉尔曼被选为荣誉会员并且立即被提名为首席队长。在接受演讲中，吉尔曼强调射击协会并不能只为娱乐而存在。他们必须鼓励军事精神。他们也必须遗弃自己的排外性。各俱乐部立即做出回应，投票支持在即将到来的射击节上向公众公开放映一个特殊的“阿道夫·希特勒射击的影片”。1933年的射击节到来时，它已经被重新命名为人民的节日，每个市民都被邀请来参加。冲锋队、党卫军和钢盔团之间进行了特别竞赛，不收取任何入场费。挂着的纳粹旗帜和旧社团旗帜一样多，最常听到的音乐就是《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》。 [34] 简言之，射击协会只是被重新装点了。

    诺特海姆另一个特殊利益社团（红十字会、博物馆社团等）在更正式的意义上被一体化了，每个社团都出现了新的纳粹执行委员会。在绝大多数情况下，这只发生在每年例会上，而且不需要什么提示就能进行。在某些情况下，刺激来自国家或者上层组织，而不是当地的国社党。唯一被特别对待的是“装饰俱乐部”，这是一个在诺特海姆森林里建造道路的社团，总体上是在试图推进城镇的园林系统。因为这个俱乐部有很多钱，所以吉尔曼对其很感兴趣。其成员们比吉尔曼的行动更快，他们把俱乐部的所有钱都投到了城区以外的一所狩猎房，然后自我解散了。 [35]

    最大的特殊利益俱乐部是体育俱乐部。纳粹对此的重点是融合。该进程开始于1933年5月，当时城镇中最大的两家体育协会融合成了一家体育俱乐部“VfB”。这创造了一个八百人的“旋转和运动协会”。同时，另一家足球俱乐部（“比赛和运动”）通过吸收“诺特海姆人的游泳俱乐部”来巩固了自己。第二步于7月到来，“比赛和运动”与“旋转和运动协会”合并成了一家庞大的“诺特海姆人体育俱乐部”，其领导者是赫尔曼·登茨勒。两家社团对此都怨声载道，它们都试图保持独立，互相指责对方过去的政治罪行。但这是徒劳。登茨勒主导了这次合并，还得到了吉尔曼的支持。 [36]

    因此到7月为止，所有独立的体育俱乐部都被整合成了一家。纳粹分子认为新的超级俱乐部是正当的，因为这样一来就终结了“无意义的竞争”，而且形成了本地区内最强大的体育俱乐部。同时该俱乐部也是以纳粹为导向的。俱乐部的组织结构参照国社党的“区块”系统，其重点就是军事体育运动。这种融合并不受所有组成单位的欢迎。就算有纳粹的努力，该俱乐部的成员还是减少了超过50%。第二次世界大战结束之后，这些旧俱乐部各自恢复原状，很高兴地继续他们的“无意义的竞争”。 [37]

    纳粹在社交上的霸权并没有止步于惯常的协会：经济的、爱国主义的、特殊利益的。国社党还期望在宗教信仰和单纯的文化事务中占据主导权。早在第三帝国出现之前，纳粹就对宗教信仰感兴趣了。在希特勒掌权之前的那些年，城镇中的纳粹分子就是通过路德派教会来发出最强烈的呼吁的，他们最喜欢的演讲者是路德派的牧师。在希特勒政权的最初六个月，诺特海姆的路德派教会在纳粹的庆祝活动中发挥了重要的作用，城镇中的牧师经常督促诺特海姆人为希特勒祷告。就其本身而言，国社党将宗教信仰作为对抗“没有信仰的11月国家”（也就是魏玛共和国）的斗争内容之一。与社会党人的立场相比（“宗教信仰是私人事务”），纳粹分子宣称：“宗教信仰是人民的事务！”诺特海姆的路德派牧师还没有发现这是把双刃剑，他们对一些不寻常的事情也没有任何的不安，比如应用《罗马书》11：36来定位希特勒在纳粹革命中的角色，或者在声明中说“上帝是太阳” [38] 。

    因此，当国社党开始从事“复兴教会”运动时，诺特海姆人并没有震惊。正如一份写给《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的信所说的：“我们现在所卷入的革命意味着在我们德国人民生活的各个方面都发生了彻底的变化。因此，即便教会生活被卷入这场有力的改革运动也并没有什么令人惊奇的。” [39] 这场运动采取的形式是试图让路德派加入“德国基督教运动”。这被描述为一场由宗教人士发起的非政治运动，这位宗教人士只是偶然间成了纳粹分子，他只是对统一和复兴新教感兴趣。诺特海姆的运动得到了很多活跃的路德派人士的支持，包括教会的两位牧师。

    但是这场代表“德国基督徒”的运动绝不是当地的自发性努力。来自全国纳粹总部的指令下达到了南汉诺威—布伦瑞克大区，接下来，大区命令其下的地方小组在教会选举中推荐并且投票支持纳粹分子。通过该党的国家宣传办公室，慕尼黑也为如何开展竞选运动，包括指导演讲者的演讲题目提供了完整的指南。简而言之，这是全国纳粹分子共同的努力。 [40]

    纳粹分子使用惯常的宣传方法来推进这项运动。6月，牧师雅各布斯哈根被带去参加“1910年代圆顶”的群众集会，他之前是一个受欢迎的纳粹演讲者。大约有500人出席，其中100人立即加入了这项运动。一个月后举行了第二次集会，吸引了很小一群观众。1933年7月，举行了长老会选举。在诺特海姆，德国基督教运动列出候选人名单，所有人都是纳粹分子，提名得到了“福音派男性俱乐部”和“福音派女性俱乐部”的支持。因为这是唯一的提名，所以无需选举这些候选人就自动当选了。整个区域的教会选举都是类似的结果。 [41]

    支持德国基督教运动的人对他们的信仰明显都很认真，这对新教是有帮助的。在后来的日子里，当国社党开始认真地反宗教信仰时，正是这些人站在了反抗纳粹主义斗争的最前线，并且形成了勇敢的抵抗组织。但是由于他们的盲目，在第三帝国的头几个月，他们极大地助长了纳粹主义。 [42]

    在纳粹控制的前半年，唯一忍受痛苦的路德派组织是“福音派自由之友”，该组织于5月中旬解散，很可能是在“一体化”的威胁下。 [43]

    在纳粹分子和诺特海姆的路德派教会关系进展顺利时，该党和城镇中天主教教会的关系却不是这样。有个牧师是中央党派的坚定拥护者，在这个问题上吸引了纳粹分子的炮火。1933年3月，因为他敦促教区选民投票支持中央党，所以有两篇针对他的社论。1933年7月，这种形势恶化了，当时“天主教青年人团体”被解散，其财产和旗帜被冲锋队没收了。其他的天主教团体并没有被打扰，但是国社党仍旧预料到天主教神父的敌意。只有6%的城镇中人是天主教教徒，这是个可以忽略不计的因素。 [44]

    在学校里，诺特海姆的教师被吸收进了纳粹教师协会。为了更加有保障，1933年4月，其他的教师协会都被“一体化”。 [45] 对教师的全面控制及时到来了。在纳粹眼里，比教师更重要的是控制孩子。为了达到这一目的，希特勒青年团是主要工具。希特勒青年团的主要武器是控制学校行政管理部门。这一点很早就表现出来了。在希特勒青年团和学校都想要举行庆祝活动时，学校会让步。当出现纪律问题时，希特勒青年团成员不会被惩罚。甚至是在学业问题上，希特勒青年团也占据着统治地位。在纳粹掌权前，恩斯特·吉尔曼就直接命令高级中学校长为那些学业上“有困难的”希特勒青年团学生提供帮助。吉尔曼详细列出每个应该在学业问题上给予优待的希特勒青年团学生，包括早前的课程应该给予更高的分数。没什么能比这更明显地取代教师的地位了。在所有的问题上，学校当权者都表示顺从了，因为他们害怕丢掉工作。在第三帝国统治的前六个月，谁在管理学校是值得质疑的——是教师们还是希特勒青年团。 [46]

    希特勒青年团也因相互竞争的青年团体解散而得到帮助。到1933年夏天为止，希特勒青年团是诺特海姆唯一现存的青年团体。

    城镇中的公共图书馆也被“一体化”。到5月为止，有超过500本书被焚毁（占总数量的1/4）。“非德国的、对人民来说是国外的，以及毫无价值的文学垃圾”被一系列以《我的奋斗》为首的精选图书取代。在5月初工会被迫解散的时候，自由工会的租赁图书馆关门了。 [47]

    最后一个被“一体化”的（在风潮之后）文化实体就是城市乐队。为了每月的津贴，城市乐队每周都在市集广场上开音乐会。因为津贴不足，每个乐队成员也会跳舞，并且在其他时候演奏。希特勒掌权之前的年份，乐队经常在游行和集会中租借给社会民主党成员。通过这些方式，乐队明显被“布尔什维主义”侵蚀了，因此不得不消失。而且，如果城市乐队消失了，冲锋队乐队就有更干净的场地了。1933年3月初，城市乐队试图让自己适应新秩序。取代通常的“每周音乐会”，他们开始举办“每周的爱国主义音乐会”。但是这并不够。新的城市议会几乎没进行投票就切断了乐队的津贴。这令保守主义者感到失望，他们已经习惯了每周的音乐会。而且，民族主义者明显感觉到有自己的乐队的话，他们可以更为成功地与纳粹分子竞争。所以，资金很快就到了，城市乐队成为钢盔团的乐队。但是自从钢盔团不太活跃之后，该乐队也没有什么可以做的了。因此，钢盔团乐队每周都会在市集广场上举办音乐会。一切都恢复了正常。至少在这一点上，纳粹革命是不成功的。 [48]

    这次有关纳粹对城镇文化和社交生活的侵袭的快速调查并没有包含那些与社会民主党相关的组织。有很多的社会民主党组织，全都被解散了。有些干脆就不复存在了，像是工人急救协会。其他更脆弱的组织，比如“保护母亲联盟”，在办公室被侵占及财产被没收时就解体了。 [49] 所有和社会民主党与自由工会相关的庞大而复杂的附属组织都被摧毁了。这终结了诺特海姆工人有组织的社交生活。

    因此，到1933年为止，纳粹分子将诺特海姆大部分的社团都解散、修改、融合，或者控制住了。城镇中复杂和多样化的社交组织几乎都完全被连根拔起了。在大多数情况下，纳粹分子都试图填补空白，但是人们常常不会再聚到一起。或者是因为不再有俱乐部了，或者是一体化破坏了俱乐部的吸引力，再或者是人们不再有空闲或愿望去继续参加俱乐部活动了。在大部分基本的小团体中仍在继续的社交生活就是固定聚餐、啤酒和打牌之夜或在家里的小型社交聚会。

    当人们开始不信任彼此的时候，这些活动也受到了威胁。如果你不得不小心翼翼于自己所说的话，那么和其他人聚在一起谈话的价值在哪里呢？因此个体在很大程度上被分化了。在一体化进程中，每个人都有一个选择：隐居或者通过纳粹组织保持民众间的关系。在第三帝国统治的前六个月，没有任何其他的纳粹措施比一体化的影响更大了。通过这种方式，严格的阶级结构的外部环境被破坏了，诺特海姆人被塑造成了独裁者最喜欢的那种无组织的群众。

    十五　积极的方面（1933年，春夏）

    每个人当然都会注意到从现在开始吹来了一股新风。 ——海因里希·沃格，城市议会的纳粹演讲者，1933年3月28日

    在纳粹主义于诺特海姆崛起的所有因素中，最为重要的一个就是大萧条。大萧条所引发的恐惧让诺特海姆人一开始就屈服于激进主义。正是因为纳粹声称他们已经诊断出经济困难的原因（《凡尔赛条约》和魏玛共和国的政治领导），并且能够提供治愈方法（纳粹领导），很多诺特海姆人才投票支持阿道夫·希特勒的党派。因此，纳粹分子知道如果想要赢得稳固的忠诚，他们就必须在经济领域获得成功。

    因为诺特海姆的大萧条问题从本质上而言与其说是经济方面的，倒不如说是心理上的，所以纳粹分子着手准备一个适当的解决方式。他们很快就提供了一个短期的解决方式——通过消除大规模的失业来消灭大萧条的外在体现。必须让诺特海姆人觉得进步的车轮又开始启动了，在有力的领导下，城镇开始前进了。这些事情是纳粹分子所做的。这是他们取得的唯一的扎扎实实的成就。

    大萧条最明显的标志就是失业。在希特勒掌权之前，城市议会中的社会民主党派已经发展出的处理失业问题的方法就是：公共工程项目。在大萧条最初几年，实施了一些有限的工程项目，1933年1月，中央政府向城镇拨出了额外的资金。纳粹分子对公共工程项目的想法就是利用这些工程来消除城镇中的所有失业。他们之所以能这样做，是因为纳粹掌权的时候，之前中央政府的拨款就能利用了，而且希特勒政府迅速地为公共项目筹集资金。

    1933年1月，城镇从中央政府收到了6万马克，计划将之花费在修复道路上。3月，政府批准向诺特海姆县贷款30万马克。4月，诺特海姆又从政府那里得到了用于公共项目的10万马克。这些钱在很多方面帮助了城镇。首先，城镇能让失业者得到工作。通过将失业者从福利名单上移除，诺特海姆能投入工程项目的钱增加了；城镇财政部几乎每周节省了4 000马克。最后，通过叠加效应，这增加了一般开支，诺特海姆的商人由此获益了。但最重要的是，这给了新的纳粹政府足够的资金，让他们可以推行紧急的公共工程项目。 [1]

    1933年1月末，诺特海姆登记在册的失业者有653人，其中几乎有400人在福利名单上。据估计，还有100个“隐形”失业者，由此失业者总数达到了750人。虽然纳粹分子期望所有人都能工作，但是1933年春天的进展却很少。到1933年6月30日为止，城镇中登记在册的失业者仍旧有506人。而人数减少几乎完全是因为季节性工作的增加。

    然而，7月，伟大的运动开始了。有450人被安排做了各种各样的工作。道路被修复了，城镇中的树木被修剪了，内城周围的旧护城河被抽干了并将其变成了天鹅池和公园。新的失业群体几乎每天都要工作。7月24日，恩斯特·吉尔曼召开了一场新闻发布会，向公众宣布之前所有福利名单上的失业者都有工作了。那时，诺特海姆唯一拿福利收入的就是孀妇、老年人和残疾人。同一时期，县长冯·德·舒伦堡宣布自1933年3月起，县福利失业者中有900人投入工作，诺特海姆县也没有福利失业者了。 [2]

    这是个令人震惊的消息，但是更多的还在后面。整个8月仍旧在继续同样的努力。当月结束时，城镇中每个登记在册的失业者都在工作了。8月的最后几天，130多人被吸引到了工程项目中。甚至是失业女性也被安排去种花和修剪灌木。诺特海姆人几乎不敢相信所发生的事情。城镇中没有任何一个登记在册的失业者了。 [3]

    纳粹分子为完成这一目的而使用的方法和他们在其他行动中使用的相类似。首先，工程项目会优先给纳粹党成员，尤其是那些会员编号小的成员——所谓的“老战士”。即便是私营企业家，如果他们是党派成员，恩斯特·吉尔曼就会强烈要求优先雇用纳粹分子，当然，不可以雇用任何“红色分子”。 [4] 其次，由于清洗社会主义者并逮捕共产主义者，出现了许多工作。那些受影响的人或者是因为被随意否认了“失业者”的身份而被迫去采石场工作，或者被投到了集中营。无论如何，他们都不再会被列为失业者了。再者，许多失业者实际上是被迫去工作。所有的失业者，无论其之前从事什么职业，最后都被投入艰苦的体力劳动中。有些人坚称他们应获得与其能力和经验相匹配的工作，但是纳粹的选择是要么在工程项目中工作，要么再也没有失业金。在许多的抗议声中，之前的失业者中有很多人每天早上都要爬到工人的卡车上去修路。 [5]

    不过，许多工人很高兴再次被雇用，诺特海姆的中产阶级对纳粹在这个层面上的成功留下了深刻的印象。在第三帝国最初的几个月中，工人们并不是唯一从经济上获益的。工匠也得到了援助，主要是通过家庭维修项目的补贴。1933年春天，国家为此目的而拨给诺特海姆21 000马克，特别是为缓解住房短缺问题而帮助翻新公寓。而且，国家又拨了20 000马克，补贴给那些想要将大公寓划分为更小单元的人。城市通过修复其所拥有的全部建筑物来引领了方向。同时，鼓励新建筑，1933年新建了七栋住宅。建筑和修复工作在大萧条期间基本停滞了，这些项目及其有力的管理对电工、木匠和油漆工来说非常受欢迎。如果纳粹报道值得信任，他们一直“忙于工作”。 [6]

    最后，纳粹尽其所能地通过宣传和政治压力来结束大萧条压力。吉尔曼孜孜不倦地敦促商人们扩大经营和消费。县大楼里建立了“荣誉册”，所有雇用以前的失业人员的雇主名字都被记录下来了。 [7] 简而言之，在经济领域所做的一切都是以决心和精力来做的。

    纳粹在对抗大萧条过程中所实施的一项措施之后变成了第三帝国的永久机制，这就是“劳动服务”。像工程项目和住宅修复津贴那样，它开始于希特勒掌权之前，在国社党掌权后以更大的力度被推进。起初，这是“志愿劳动服务”。1933年2月，国社党在诺特海姆建立了组织。其目标在本质上是非经济的，是为了让年轻人加入进来，以便“（1）把他们和人民团体联合起来，（2）重建他们与土壤的联系，（3）唤起健康的军事精神”。不过，“劳动服务”确实让年轻失业者远离了街角和劳动市场，该组织也实施了各种各样的保护项目。4月末，有65个年轻的诺特海姆人被招收，大多数人被安置在旧军营营房里。这就有必要驱逐原本住在那里的“流离失所者”。为了给流离失所者提供住所，城市提出保证支付租金，并且为新建公寓提供必要的改建补贴。最终，吉尔曼希望旧军营中能容纳250个“劳动服务”的人，他认为这就意味着城镇中有250个新的消费者。 [8]

    除了经济功能和在教育年轻人方面的功能外，“劳动服务”也协助了一般的宣传工作。它还组织了一场穿过诺特海姆的惯常游行，队伍的最前面举着一面纳粹旗帜，甚至在夏天的某个星期天在城市公园举办了一场古典音乐会。 [9] 所有人都说，大部分诺特海姆人都将“劳动服务”视为一个非常好的组织。

    尽管纳粹分子尽了最大努力去结束失业，但他们在执政的头几个月并没有忘记推进慈善事业。其中有些只是为了宣传目的，比如3月30日针对福利案例提供了特殊的额外费用，“就算在艰难时期，也要展示新政府的社会方向”。此外，在希特勒生日时，他们为失业者提供了一场有咖啡和蛋糕的特殊派对。纳粹“冬季捐助”的慈善募捐带来了相当多的收入，冲锋队的赈济处报告称，1932—1933年的那个冬天他们已经支出了32 000顿餐。 [10]

    第三帝国统治的前六个月，诺特海姆的纳粹分子以和他们应对其他问题时同样的精力和彻底性来着手解决城镇的经济问题。他们在这方面的效果和成功是不可否认的。虽然他们并没有提供新想法，但是他们充分利用了现存的资源。通过暂时消除失业并且增加诺特海姆的可用收入，纳粹分子并没有彻底结束大萧条；实际上，1934年他们必须再次与失业问题战斗。但毫无疑问的是，绝大部分诺特海姆人认为纳粹分子有决心控制住大萧条。对很多诺特海姆人而言，关于经济危机，表象比现实更加重要。简而言之，诺特海姆的国社党做了他们在经济上所承诺的事情；它驱除了大萧条这个幽灵。

    十六　反应和反抗（1933年，春夏）

    真正支持政府的是那些脆弱、无知并且不聪明的人。 ——威廉·戈德温：《探讨政治正义及其对道德和幸福的影响》

    在纳粹统治的前半年，诺特海姆经历了一场革命。其主要内容是恐怖行动、专制统治、不懈的宣传、重建社交生活和经济复兴。其全部影响是在令人惊异的短时间内改变了城镇的基本结构。虽然六个月看起来时间很长，但对诺特海姆人而言好像所有的事情都是立刻就发生了，因为就算将所有革命要素区分开，放在这里进行分析的话，实际上也是混杂在一片混乱之中的。某天会出现逮捕事件，第二天又会举行大型的欢呼游行。城市雇员遭到了清洗，“劳动服务”团队在肩上扛着铁锹去工作。首先是古老的歌唱俱乐部不复存在了，之后出现的是冲锋队军乐队。闪耀的黑白红旗，焚烧书籍，响亮的无线电演讲，佩戴纳粹标志的学生，穿着靴子的冲锋队队员将一个男人拖入监狱，伴随着嘶哑歌声的火炬游行，牧师为元首祈祷，关于盖世太保的流言，用锤子修缮房屋，有节奏地高呼“万岁！”——所有的一切都融合在一个旋转的万花筒里，到1933年夏天为止，城镇已经被牢牢地控制在了纳粹分子手中，完全不可能逆转这个进程了。

    诺特海姆的绝大多数成年人都为此投了赞成票。国社党掌权之前的那些年，这就是所有人的一切。因此大多数诺特海姆人几乎并不清楚纳粹分子真正做了些什么，除了他们以某种方式让事情变得更好了。可以确定的是，只有少数国社党成员和一些城镇中的社会民主党真正期待他们所得到的。因此，一个非常有趣的问题是：城镇中人对引入纳粹独裁的反应如何？

    当然有些人只是利用纳粹革命来获取自己的利益，正如几乎在任何社会中都会有这种期待的人。希特勒一掌权，城镇的一个酒吧就安装了一台无线电，之后宣传说能在这里听到所有阿道夫·希特勒的演讲，而且啤酒价格便宜。整个3月和4月，《诺特海姆最新消息》每天都有出售纳粹旗帜的广告。城市银行敦促诺特海姆人以将自己的钱存入储蓄账户的方式来帮助这场伟大的革命。甚至恩斯特·吉尔曼的兄弟都毫无掩饰地为五金店做广告，声称自己是“诺特海姆县资格最老的党派成员”。 [1]

    许多人也认为需要通过加入国社党来保护他们自己。在一些情况下，社团领导或者工匠大师会加入，这样一来他们就能待在执行委员会了。其他人想要工作保险。市长彼得斯试着加入国社党，《诺特海姆最新消息》的出版商保罗·哈恩瓦尔德也是这么做的——这两人都不支持纳粹分子，但是他们都有要保护的东西。 [2] 还有些人为应对日益增长的恐怖行动而加入。 [3] 导致成员突然涌入的一个官僚主义原因是3月初吉尔曼开始坚持要求每个冲锋队队员也必须是党派成员（他说，“根据保险条例的要求”）。 [4] 加入国社党的高峰开始于2月，就是宣布希特勒被任命为总理之后。那些摇摆不定或者唯恐损害自己的利益而退缩的人现在都递交了申请。1933年1月，诺特海姆大约只有100个纳粹分子在缴纳会费。3月，纳粹地方小组暴增至差不多400人。3月中旬出现了真正的成员洪流。这次1933年3月的潮流高峰是如此显著，以至于旧的纳粹分子将新来者视为“Maerzgefallene”，这是一个带有讽刺意味的双关语，即“3月受惠者”（March favors）和“3月受害者”（March casualties）。

    国社党收到了太多的申请，以至于他们宣布5月1日之后不再接受新的申请者，这样一来，就要清理现有的积压。这在4月引起了更大的骚动。冯·德·舒伦堡记得4月20日在纳粹的县总部看到大量装满申请表的篮子。到5月1日为止，接近1 200名诺特海姆人加入纳粹党。几乎有20%的城镇成年人登记了。 [5]

    并不是所有新成员都是因为信奉纳粹思想而加入的。纳粹控制各机构的方法之一就是要求他们的领导者成为国社党成员。县长冯·德·舒伦堡和《诺特海姆最新消息》的记者埃哈特·克诺佩尔就是这种情况。他们两人都非常质疑纳粹主义，都是因为被要求才加入国社党。还有些人加入是因为他们将成为国社党成员视作个人发展不可缺少的先决条件。有两个教师毫无疑问就是这种情况，他们自信地认为加入纳粹党的话，他们就能确保自己获得晋升。 [6] 还有些人加入国社党只是出于顺从的愿望，即随大流，正如下面的故事所说明的：

    雨果·施皮斯曼是一个不寻常的案例。直到3月国会选举，他都犹豫不决。我记得他经常问我的意见：他应不应该加入纳粹党？我常告诉他做他想做的事情，但是似乎没什么帮助。纳粹选举成功的第二天，我看到冲锋队举行了一场胜利游行。游行队伍的最后是满脸笑容的雨果·施皮斯曼。他一边走着一边冲我挥手并且大喊道：“我已经做了！” [7]

    许多人是因为来自家庭的压力而被迫加入国社党。正如某个人所描述的：“有些妻子常说的话就是：‘想想你的家人！’还有些妻子竟然会出门买褐色衬衫并且让她们的丈夫穿上。” [8] 其他人声称他们原本一直想要加入纳粹党，但在申请时，受到桑尼旅馆所有者写给恩斯特·吉尔曼的“我是自由的”这一矛盾信条的干扰而未能如愿。 [9] 许多这样申请加入国社党的人实际上被地方小组领袖拒绝了，还有些申请者被告知他太冷淡了，或者明显是个投机主义者，或者之前反对纳粹，或者仅仅是因为吉尔曼个人不认可他。 [10] 还有些人当时加入国社党并不是因为他们赞同该党，而是因为他们不赞成该党，他们认为纳粹主义需要一群正派人士，这些人将会从内部引导革命走上温和的道路。 [11]

    因此，至少在献身程度上，新成员之间有着相当大的差别。但是一旦加入国社党，这些人就被困住了。他们现在受党的纪律约束，必须在整个过程中提供帮助。党的组织（从单元组织和片区到最小的单位）一直监视着他们。他们的未来并没有得到保证，相反，他们变得更不安全了，因为如果他们被驱逐出国社党，他们就会被打上标签。那年春天，很多人被驱逐出党：因为拖欠会费，因为对该党的“片区管理人”无礼，或者因为完全难以解释的原因。 [12] 无论是什么原因，通常会在很长一段时间内给个人带来糟糕的麻烦。人们很快就会注意到，提到驱逐那些被认定为没价值的人时，吉尔曼记性很好。因此，“3月受害者”发现加入国社党增加了而不是消除了个人焦虑。他们不太可能抵制纳粹政府的要求。而且，他们的良知受到了彻底的损害，因为作为该党成员，他们在最直接的意义上承担了责任。

    如果说许多加入国社党的城镇中人仍旧是半信半疑的，那么也有很多没加入的诺特海姆人是新体制的热情支持者。基本上，市民们热衷于游行和庆典，对纳粹所采取的经济行动感到高兴。他们的感觉就是内部分裂结束了，真正的领袖现在即将来临。正如一个工艺大师所说的：

    我不同意他们所做的每件事情，但是我很高兴地看到他们在试着做些事情。主要是人们再次获得了工作，在某种程度上，他们学会了再次识别生活中的目标和内容。 [13]

    纳粹革命的很多概念和口号都吸引着诺特海姆人。在一个民族主义的时代，民族荣誉和复兴的观念非常有吸引力。充满活力、有目标并且明显有明确方向的城市政府对公民意识拥有吸引力。最后，人民—社区的概念令人着迷，虽然其神秘的内涵意味着阶级划分的终结。 [14] 中产阶级尤其被这种“阶级应该终结并且只有德国人”的观念所吸引。就市民对“马克思主义”的厌恶而言，这似乎很棒，而这是结束阶级战争的源头和原因，并且和概念本身一样重要。社会党人在社会平等方面的努力是自命不凡层面的例子。纳粹的吸引力是爱国主义和仁爱。当社会民主党发出威胁时，国社党则唤醒了“位高则任重”的品德，其关注的是外表而非现实。这完美地迎合了诺特海姆人的情感需要，他们因现存的阶级结构而沮丧不已；他们因希望创建一个人民—社区，且实际上不用牺牲他们自己的阶级地位而受到了极大的鼓舞。

    当然，诺特海姆人对革命的许多内容半信半疑。有些人，尤其是保守主义者，只是因为纳粹分子属于低阶级才接受他们。正如玛利亚·哈贝尼希茨的丈夫所说：“只是一个下士如何领导国家？” [15] 还有些人对逮捕、消灭反对者、破坏社交生活，尤其是新的反犹主义的暴力行为感到不安。但是有对这些内容进行合理解释的方法。

    社会民主党是因为暴力而被粉碎，工会是因为暴力而被解散的吗？他们是一群傲慢的制造麻烦者，完全是自讨苦吃。

    是否有逮捕和搜查住所？看看那些被发现的武器吧！根据之前的记录，马克思主义者很明显在密谋使用暴力。

    所有的反对派都被扼杀了，只有国社党是合法的党派吗？德国的主要问题一直是无意义的政治冲突和党派分裂。任何想要代表的人都可以加入国社党。

    俱乐部被“一体化”了吗？这促进了国家团结和经济复兴。德国必须终止内部分裂，团结一心。

    犹太人被抵制和驱逐了吗？这是一件不幸的事情，但是这只是暂时性的越轨行为，类似于伴随任何一种革命而发生的行为。此外，这种事情发生得很少。

    简而言之，每个问题都有两面：人们不能轻易下判断，要给它们机会来证明自己；有失才有得，好处中总会掺杂些坏处。毕竟，在短短六个月的时间内，城镇就被统一起来了，经济问题正在得到解决，没有什么比火把照亮的冲锋队队员闪亮的面孔和旗帜的剪影更具有说服力了。纳粹党正在发挥决定性的领导能力，他们统一、专注、无私而且有决心。

    而实际上，诺特海姆的纳粹组织内部腐化堕落。起初，第一次也是唯一一次对国社党的抵制就来自纳粹队伍本身。反抗的领导者是旧纳粹分子，尤其是那些聚集在威廉·施潘瑙斯身边的人。他们中绝大多数人是知识分子，其中包括诺特海姆第一个成为纳粹分子的教师海因里希·沃格，以及诺特海姆女子高中的负责人埃德蒙·芬茨拉夫博士。表面上，他们是反对恩斯特·吉尔曼的领导，但实际上，他们是反对暴力行为、破坏和专制方式，他们天真地认为这些有悖于真正的国家社会主义原则。

    施潘瑙斯—沃格—芬茨拉夫的“理想主义者的阴谋”一直在酝酿中。早在1932年，恩斯特·吉尔曼领导下的几个纳粹分子就已经变得难以驾驭了。针对他的主要抱怨是他对党派成员粗鲁，而且不体谅他人，他还保护了明显挪用党派金钱的诺特海姆纳粹女性组织领袖（其中有一次是给她自己买长筒袜）。在希特勒掌权之前的那一年，因为吉尔曼的粗鲁行为，许多诺特海姆人不想要加入国社党。 [16]

    整个1932年，理想主义团体变得越来越不满。同时，吉尔曼开始培养自己的追随者，主要包括一些性格粗鲁暴力的人，比如赫尔曼·登茨勒和奥古斯特·乌德。这两个独立的纳粹团体各自在诺特海姆发展，但是吉尔曼占据上风，因为恩斯特·吉尔曼是地方小组领袖，能够通过呼吁国社党的专制原则来维护自己的地位。

    1932年12月，第一场风暴来临。几名理想主义者团体的成员要求审计地方小组的财政。吉尔曼明显滥用了很多党派资金。他是把钱装进了自己的口袋里还是只是因为疏忽而丢失了，不得而知。但是筹款已经收到，并且没记入账簿；入党费被中饱私囊，并且申请表丢失了；积累了大量难以解释的债务。 [17] 起初，吉尔曼还在安抚。他需要理想主义者团体，因为他们是筹款的主要收入来源。1933年1月，理想主义者威胁，如果不对财政不当行为进行解释，他们就要中断捐款。吉尔曼被迫采取行动。他利用自己的地位，虚张声势，谎话连篇，开除了几个理想主义者团体成员，同时作为让步，他撤销了对纳粹女性组织领袖的保护并且开除了她。吉尔曼也对未来可能出现的挑战做好了应对措施：他清除了党派的纪律委员会——调查和仲裁委员会有主见的主席奥古斯特·席尔洛，以支持他的人填补了这个职位。通过这样的方式，他就拥有了一个可靠的武器，可以应对他决定的进一步的开除行动。 [18]

    然而，这些并没能修补好裂缝，诺特海姆的纳粹组织仍旧处于分裂的危险中，就在此时，阿道夫·希特勒被任命为国家总理的消息传来，所有的内部争吵都被抛诸脑后，纳粹分子为了2月和3月的重要任务而团结起来了。在此期间，吉尔曼实际上加强了自己的地位。出于热情的精神，理想主义者主动提出新的竞选捐款。诺特海姆人加入国社党的高峰让吉尔曼能够要求新成员支付更高的入党费用。 [19] 他的财政问题很快就解决了。同时，吉尔曼利用自己作为地方小组领袖的地位，在城市中以工作的形式大批地分配恩惠，取代那些在城市雇员大清洗中被开除的人。其他的恩惠还包括他要求司法部长让一个想要成为律师的人免试就当上律师（他给出的理由是这位申请者之前因为考试委员会对纳粹分子有偏见而被拒绝了），他还要求提高希特勒青年团中高中生的分数。 [20] 很多纳粹分子日益依赖恩斯特·吉尔曼，也变得越来越害怕他。他利用自己的地位将城市议会变成了一个无所作为的机构，还塞满了参议院。所有的抗议都被威胁制止了。

    2月和3月，吉尔曼也试着与异议分子修复关系。作为和好的表态，他撤销了对一些申请者的阻拦，并且开除了那些“在我背后煽动及试图解除我职务”的人。正如他对国社党全国登记办事处所说的，异议分子已经屈服了，他们“严重违反党的纪律”实际上都是受到一个特殊成员的妻子的煽动。还有些人，如教师海因里希·沃格曾经在纳粹主义被禁止的时候冒着失去工作的风险推广纳粹主义。此外，沃格在第一次世界大战期间与吉尔曼一同在军队中服役。是时候发挥仁慈之心了。 [21]

    但是不同意见只是蛰伏起来了。4月，财政问题再次浮现。为了清偿最后一笔债务，吉尔曼任意地提高成员会费，对所有成员征收特别评估税。 [22] 同时，理想主义者逐渐意识到其他问题。吉尔曼利用他作为副市长的地位将城市合同分配给他的亲戚朋友们。《诺特海姆观察家报》以威胁的方式强迫人们订购该报。“捐款”是向商人敲诈勒索来的。 [23] 市政府中的专制方式日益令人恼火。对理想主义者最糟糕的是，纳粹革命并没有创造出期望中的乌托邦式的人民—社区，而是创造出了腐败和野蛮的一人独裁。理想主义者的反抗再次兴起。

    4月末，因为一次事件，这种反抗爆发出来，当时恩斯特·吉尔曼被一位年长的党派成员奥古斯特·德林公开指责说谎。地方小组领袖的回应是殴打60岁的德林，于是德林骂吉尔曼是“一个脾气暴躁的臭小子”。之后，吉尔曼要求由他小心翼翼重建起来的地方调查和仲裁委员会以公开辱骂地方小组领袖并且伤害党派形象及破坏党派纪律的名义开除德林。 [24]

    整个事件激怒了党派内的反抗分子。5月，冲突变得普遍，6月，吉尔曼展开了大规模的清洗运动。调查和仲裁委员会的行动开始针对沃格、芬茨拉夫、施潘瑙斯和前任（不合作的）地方调查和仲裁委员会主席奥古斯特·席尔洛。所有人都被开除出党。 [25] 大区领袖被告知在诺特海姆发现了反对派阴谋。城市议会被迫通过决议：它申请地方学校当局将芬茨拉夫从诺特海姆调走；城镇参议院被要求开始抵制威廉·施潘瑙斯的书店；各级政府机构被告知沃格被解除市议会议长职位。 [26]

    威廉·施潘瑙斯对可能会发生的事情保持着警惕。几乎在吉尔曼开始采取镇压阴谋的行动的同时，施潘瑙斯就向大区领袖递交了一份由大区调查和仲裁委员会进行的全面调查报告。施潘瑙斯认为大区当局会仔细核查他的指控，因为他的党员编号是整个区域内最小的几个之一。他也确信一旦国社党高层官员发现了诺特海姆所发生的事情，他们会开除吉尔曼并且将“真正的国家社会主义归还”给城镇。

    然而，国社党的高层官员认识到了施潘瑙斯所不知道的事情——恩斯特·吉尔曼就是他们所需要的那种人。就像吉尔曼完全信任他在诺特海姆的处事方法一样，大区领袖信任吉尔曼。在整个第三帝国时期，纳粹德国所创立的地方管理制度正在变得稳固。唯一的“真正的”国家社会主义者就是像吉尔曼这样的统治者。其他想法只存在于像施潘瑙斯这样的理想主义者心中，永远都不会和纳粹主义创建自己的方法相容。

    按照施潘瑙斯和芬茨拉夫的要求，大区调查和仲裁委员会于1933年7月初在诺特海姆审理了针对他们的诉讼。被告都被判无罪，所有人都恢复了党员身份。换句话说，对吉尔曼的控诉都得到了证实。因为这些指控涉及违反公共和纳粹党法律，吉尔曼本应该被剥夺职位。但取而代之的是，他只是被口头警告，并且被允许按照旧方式行事。这让威廉·施潘瑙斯确信他想进行清除的愿望是痴心妄想。他仍旧是国社党成员，因为他坚持认为领袖自己某天将会采取行动。沃格最终被调离诺特海姆，不过并没有失去地位。施潘瑙斯继续网罗不满者，收集针对地方小组领袖的证据。但是他变得更加谨慎了，他的朋友们也吸取了教训。 [27]

    恩斯特·吉尔曼接下来的行动牢牢地强化了这一教训，他在接下来的几年对党派中的反叛分子进行了一场仇杀。他一直号召调查并且审判席尔洛和德林。他让芬茨拉夫在诺特海姆的生活变得举步维艰，这是很容易做到的，因为芬茨拉夫是一所城市学校的校长，而且住在城市所有的一所房子内。当芬茨拉夫最终在其他地方获得一个职位的时候，吉尔曼安排其他城市的纳粹官员抹黑他的名声，从而阻止他得到工作。因此，任何公然反抗地方小组领袖的人都明白了，无论他们的理由是否正当，之后很长一段时间内都会后悔。 [28]

    这些问题远离诺特海姆的一般民众。人们听到了谣言，但是争斗是关起门来进行的，是在一个相对有限的圈子内。因此，诺特海姆人依旧认为国社党是统一和专注的。对许多诺特海姆人而言，威廉·施潘瑙斯和他的朋友们的存在仍旧让他们相信纳粹主义有另外一面，一旦“最初的越轨行为”结束，该党就会专心致志于有建设性的、有成效的工作。再一次，和获得权力之前的时候一样，国社党就是所有人的一切。

    不管怎样，1933年夏末，诺特海姆人有多信任国社党已经没那么重要了。因为经过了最初六个月的掌权，纳粹分子已经完全控制住了城镇。市政府和警察都在纳粹分子的控制下。潜在的抵抗被粉碎了。社会交往的中心被分散或者破坏。公众被组织起来，进行定期的庆祝活动。有很多恐怖行为的例子，并且通过社会强化传播开来。城镇已经成为顺从新独裁主义者的工具。纳粹革命最重要的任务已经完成了。

    十七　从狂热到例行公事（1933年，夏—1935年年初，冬）

    你不得不一直参加教化课程，这些课程一直在灌输给你这些想法。你不得不学会，因为你不得不小心你所说的话。 ——一位诺特海姆的教师

    当然，1933年前半年，纳粹成功建立独裁统治的原因之一就是进行了一系列公开活动。很多不同的活动发生得如此迅速以至于诺特海姆人目瞪口呆。但是1933年夏天，春天以来极快的行动步伐放缓了。新的独裁统治开始寻找规律并且适应规律。大部分破坏和建设都已经完成了，是时候让新系统运转起来了。然而，尽管需要新的方式，但他们还是趋向于采用同样的方法。独裁主义增长了，群众游行活动全面展开，武力依旧被应用于经济方面。然而，城镇发生了一些改变，因为城镇有重申其集体品格的习惯。虽然这些改变是在新生的独裁政权内发生的，但是并没有反对该政权。

    1933年春季纳粹宣传攻势的势头一直顺利地延续到了夏季。虽然没有大型节庆了，但是仍旧有很多小规模的活动。有些活动是受新成立的纳粹附属组织或者现存组织的迅速强化的刺激，无论是哪种，看起来都需要展示某种活力。因此，1933年8月，纳粹战争受害者协会、德国女孩联盟和新成立的党卫军侦察部队接连发起了大规模的游行活动。前两次活动进行时，都有大型游行活动和“现场教会仪式”，而且大部分纳粹附属组织都参加了。党卫军的活动涉及由一个“演习队”完成的“演习”。 [1] 类似地，有些新的纳粹官员决定以发动大规模活动来证明他们的重要性。新的诺特海姆体育运动负责人赫尔曼·登茨勒就是这么做的，他于1933年秋天宣布在城镇中开启一个大型运动项目。从9月10日到10月1日（除了星期天），诺特海姆每天都有体育比赛。大部分活动包括射击、体操和“国防体育”，是为了促进大众运动意识，也有定期的游行活动、演讲和其他仪式。这些天所有的建筑自然都装饰着旗帜。没有人会抱怨新政权不重视身体锻炼。 [2]

    同时，国社党在诺特海姆的地方小组抢占9月某个空闲的星期天，举行了一场普通成员的集会。恩斯特·吉尔曼利用这个集会宣布革命结束了；国社党现在是国家政权的唯一拥有者了。然而，他继续说，现在将会展开教化新德国的任务。所有成员，尤其是新成员，都被提醒必须出席他们小组的集会，必须加入冲锋队、党卫军或者冲锋队预备队。他们必须参加党派的盛大集会。他们必须去德国剧院。女性必须加入纳粹女性组织。最重要的是，每个成员都必须阅读《诺特海姆观察家报》，而不是反对纳粹主义的那些报纸。最后，吉尔曼声称他个人保证地方小组的财政状况运转良好。 [3]

    诺特海姆的地方小组领袖并不是唯一担心1933年春天涌入党派中的新成员品质的纳粹分子。全国党派总部也规定自1月1日起加入党派的成员必须上一个特定的两周课程。这一课程本质上是要灌输基本的纳粹意识形态。出席是必需的，任何缺席课程的人都会被罚款。 [4]

    简而言之，国社党发现兴奋已经结束了，现在是时候加强纪律并且使收益系统化了。随着1933年春天国社党的大规模扩张，纳粹分子能否保持活力和凝聚力值得怀疑。即将发生的事件将证明他们能做到，但只是迫于压力。

    1933年10月，希特勒让德国退出国际联盟 [55] 。面对国外对此举动的反应，他认为有必要表现一下国内对他领导地位的支持。表现的方式就是采用全民公投的方式选出一个新的全部由纳粹分子组成的国会。第一反应为接下来的运动奠定了基调。在中央政府的要求下，县长冯·德·舒伦堡将如下电报发给柏林：“诺特海姆县全体人民一致支持国家政府的行动，并呼吁和平、面包和工作。”其他组织发送了类似的电报。 [5]

    全民公投运动本身就是纳粹方法的一个杰出案例。即使国社党有望获得一致通过，因为只有他们能计算选票，但是也需要努力让诺特海姆人确实地为希特勒的政策投票。纳粹分子在过去几年完善的整个竞选系统再次启动了，就像这次也会是自由选举一样。很快，县领袖施泰内克开始请求大区提供有影响力的演讲者，他甚至针对有问题的特定乡村——有两个是“共产主义者的巢穴”，还有两个是社会民主党的据点。选举开始前的最后三天，他要了七个演讲者，其中大部分人将会在多个地点发表演讲。 [6] 很少有纳粹分子考虑到一个明显的问题：既然现在人们被迫出席纳粹集会并且被迫表现出明显的热情，那么再也不会有任何关于纳粹宣传效果的反馈系统了。在独裁统治建立起来之前，地方上的纳粹领袖能非常精准地评估哪些演讲者是“优秀的”，哪些主题是吸引人的，哪些集会是成功的。但是现在他们只能依靠记忆、臆测或者他们自己的反应。独裁统治的建立打破了之前自我修正的机制，而这种机制曾经对纳粹分子赢得大众支持非常重要。

    诺特海姆的竞选运动于10月25日开始，当天希特勒在汉诺威发表演讲。从诺特海姆开往汉诺威的专属列车大幅降价。而且，诺特海姆人被告知只要向地方上的纳粹总部递交申请，就可以去参加汉诺威的活动。四天后，诺特海姆的冲锋队和党卫军，还有两支军乐队和他们的乐队举行了游行。 [7]

    然后，竞选活动认真地开始了。按照国社党的命令，除非是政治性质的集会，否则选举日后才允许召开集会。第一场活动是在选举之前10天，也就是在11月2日举行的。该活动由一场盛大的游行和一场集会组成。从3点开始，不管怎样，按照国社党的要求，整个城镇都被卷入其中。（“期待所有居民的积极参与！挥舞旗帜！”）游行是由各种团体组织起来的，从铁路工人到露易丝王后协会，包括超过3 000人，再加上两支乐队、三支军乐队和无数的旗帜。第二场大活动是11月9日举行的，而这一天对国社党而言是特殊的日子——1923年希特勒那场不成功的啤酒馆政变的纪念日。在诺特海姆，所有纳粹附属组织都参加了全部的庆祝活动，举行了群众游行活动，他们还参加了敬献花圈仪式。所有的公务人员都被要求参加。 [8]

    最后一波浪潮是在选举之前的最后两天到来的。11月10日，希特勒通过广播发表演讲，在诺特海姆，国社党决定让所有人都听演讲。演讲期间，所有的行业都被要求停业，所有的城镇公务人员都被要求在诺特海姆最大的大厅集合来听演讲。这场活动是同步性的杰作：
    1：00到1：01——警报信号。所有的工作结束；所有的交通停止。
    1：01到1：10——宣传领袖戈培尔博士的报告。
    1：10到1：55——元首的演讲。
    1：55到1：59——《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》。
    2：00到2：03——警报；恢复工作。
    聚集在骑术大厅的观众以紧密的纵列形式离开，走向市集广场，在那里解散。
    高举旗帜！
    诺特海姆国社党地方小组 [9]
    第二天，选举前夜，计划举行一次全面的游行：
    诺特海姆的和平游行！据此，要求诺特海姆全体人民都参加星期六6：30举行的游行，游行的目的地是“1910年代圆顶”，布伦瑞克的同志克拉格斯牧师将在这里发表演讲。各种俱乐部和组织的顺序和5月1日一样。每个人都必须无条件地出席。
    诺特海姆国社党地方小组 [10]

    恩斯特·吉尔曼给所有诺特海姆纳粹党成员的通函提醒他们必须出席选举前夜的集会，写着如下的话：“不接受任何借口。” [11]

    有了这种准备，参与选举的组织本身并没有被忽视。诺特海姆1200名纳粹党成员中每个人都被要求在星期天选举当天早上9点出现在投票站，还有其家庭成员以及朋友旧识。投票后，每个纳粹分子都必须向其小组领导报告，为支持进一步的工作全天待命。诺特海姆的每家店铺都用海报填满了橱窗，每所房子都挂着纳粹旗帜。政府官员和商人被要求在中午之前进行非公开的投票，各种俱乐部也被要求进行非公开的集会和投票，而且：

    国社党保持着严格的控制，从而确保了每个人都履行自己的投票责任。投票后，每个选民都会在投票站收到一个售价5芬尼的翻领纽扣。在城市的出口、铁路车站等，都有人站岗，这些人会提醒每个没有代表爱国责任的纽扣的人。 [12]

    为了保证诺特海姆人以正确的方式进行投票，报纸上还刊登了发出指令的大幅广告：“这就是你正确地进行投票的样子。不能在‘不’下面的圈中做标记。”并一再说：“注意！选民们！当你在投票站为了希特勒投票并且投下赞成票之后，才能收到一个纽扣。” [13]

    在做过这些准备之后，结果却是令人扫兴的。诺特海姆县报告称有98%的选民投票支持国社党的国会计划（选票上唯一的一个选项），公投中有98.5%的选民投了赞成票。如果我们看看位于诺特海姆县的莫林根集中营的数据，这一结果的意思就显而易见了。在这里，据汇报，有252名囚犯进行了投票：其中212人投了赞成，26人投了反对，14票无效（据称，在国会选举中，纳粹党获得了77%的居民的选票）。 [14]

    在诺特海姆城镇，结果是相似的。只有94.6%的人投了票，其中97.2%的人投了赞成票。公布的投票结果表明，6 942名选民中有193人投了反对票，68张选票作废。神奇的是，在举行国会选举的同时（其中只有纳粹分子提名的候选人可以当选），据称有321张选票作废。这些数据是如何得到的很难说明，因为国社党在没人质疑其制表的情况下点算了选票。但是无论他们怎么点算，这都被视为希特勒事业的胜利。当诺特海姆教堂的钟声响起时，结果被公布了。 [15]

    选举的意义并不在于结果，而在于使用的方法和技巧。选举运动和投票表明独裁政权已经完全建立起来了。实际上，在选举日之前差不多两周时，所有的诺特海姆人都被迫卷入了一场没有内在内容的仪式。选举机制并没有判定或者登记诺特海姆市民的意愿。令诺特海姆人印象深刻的是国社党的全能和决心。这已经完成了，但是在实现这个目标的过程中，国社党迅速地耗尽了他们开始时真挚热情的资本。竞选运动的最后几天，甚至不得不以威胁来鞭策国社党成员。普通的诺特海姆人禁不住越来越怀疑整个事件。仪式是令人深刻的，但却不再具有真实性。竞选运动后，诺特海姆的国社党发现只有通过新的威胁才能完成联合行动。

    尽管缺乏广泛的积极性，大众宣传方法仍旧在继续。诺特海姆人被命令挂出他们旗帜的场合增多了，其中包括一些次级活动，比如赫尔曼·戈林的生日、国社党的县代表大会。 [16] 最终，吉尔曼开始坚称在整个德国，诺特海姆都是装饰新颖独特的城镇。房主们被要求不再是只挂出纳粹旗帜，而要用一系列微型纳粹旗帜、彩旗和其他种类的装饰环绕阳台。

    简而言之，地方沙文主义被用来支持增强诺特海姆人对希特勒的各种各样的情感。这些影响对于纳粹分子而言是可喜的。当宽街上的一个屠夫设法用猪肉、欧芹和香肠蒂做成希特勒的雕像并陈放在他家商店的橱窗时，影响达到了顶峰。曾经为了射击节和其他古典庆祝仪式而装饰城镇的努力，现在再次应用于纳粹主义。而诺特海姆人融入了这种精神，满足了他们适应新形势的审美冲动。 [17]

    为了有助于宣传努力，其他的地方习惯也被融入了纳粹的方法中。在国社党登上舞台之前，诺特海姆人一直致力于向以前战争的死难者致敬。国社党通过经常举办庆典仪式来加以利用。为了向诺特海姆各种团体中去世的运动员致敬而建立起了特别纪念碑。甚至在平安夜和其他的非传统日期举行了一场纪念死难者的仪式。这些事件被叠加在现在惯常的纳粹庆祝活动（希特勒的生日、五一，等等）之上。甚至慈善基金的相关活动都被处理成了宣传运动那样。针对1933年秋季启动的冬季救济金活动，省党部领袖宣布会雇用200名大区演讲者并且举行近3 000场集会。 [18]

    但是1934年群众游行的热情已经下降了，在庆祝活动刚开始出现时，诺特海姆人还会踊跃地参与，而现在他们只会沿街蹲下，不想再听任何的演讲了。针对纳粹主导的活动的广告越来越多地利用如下这种祈使语句：“诺特海姆的全体人民必须出席！” [19]

    国社党队伍中也弥漫着这种冷淡情绪，成员们被要求带着需要打孔的“管理卡”参加集会。任何错过三场集会的人都有被开除出党的危险。国社党成员还被要求带其他人一同参加集会，以便使大厅内坐满人。在1935年夏天传阅的一份备忘录中，有种观念被重复了好几次：

    每个成员必须将出席以及带其他同志一起出席视为一种责任……每个党派成员都有责任为出席某次集会进行广泛的宣传，以便最后一个公民都会参加。……没有公民被允许待在家里…… [20]

    虽然这些措施和恐怖行为确实增强了服从性，但是在诺特海姆成熟的独裁体制结构中，群众宣传的历史确实是一段逐渐变得冷淡的历史。越来越多的诺特海姆人因纳粹的劲头而感到无聊和精疲力竭，他们抱怨接连不断的集会、游行和示威活动。对于狂热的纳粹分子而言，他们越来越确信诺特海姆的公民是无望地以自我为中心并且对政治毫不关心。 [21]

    如果热情不能自愿到来，那么还有其他唤醒的方式。当然，为原社会党人设立的就业黑名单一直持续到了1934年，但这是通过吉尔曼推动的幕后活动进行的。 [22] 不过，这些例子仍旧可以作为提醒。唤起外部顺从的最有效方式就是继续恐怖体制。即便是到了1933年夏天，仍旧有逮捕行为，主要是针对非常轻微的犯罪行为。因此，8月末，据报道一个工人大喊“莫斯科万岁！”之后，就被送到了莫林根集中营。类似的逮捕行为依旧接连不断。9月，一个工人因“发表反政府言论”而被逮捕。1933年11月，两名诺特海姆女性因“传播有关国社党的不实谣言”而被逮捕。 [23] 但是最终没再出现有关逮捕的报道或者警方的其他行动。和其他事情一样，恐怖体制正在稳定下来。9月，《诺特海姆最新消息》认为发表一篇反对匿名谴责的社论是明智之举。纳粹权力的最后一次公开展示很可能是在1933年9月，当时冲锋队和党卫军去围捕一群诺特海姆的乞丐。这是徒劳的，但之后不久警方就进行了一次类似的行动，并且成功抓住了一名不幸的受害者。 [24]

    从此以后，纳粹只通过命令或者微妙而更加有效的社会强化方法来实施恐怖行动。和先前的例子一样，纳粹发布了禁止听莫斯科广播电台、向希特勒致敬以及维护城镇公墓中的坟墓的命令。而且，纳粹还发布了指令，要求通过出席集会、向慈善运动捐款和追溯雅利安人血统来树立自己的好公民形象。 [25] 更重要的是，通过谣言和社会强化来维护恐怖行动体制。有时，公开行动是必要的。因此自从于1935年开始反对教会的行动之后，每周日都有警探被安置在教堂前，招摇地记下所有人的名字，并且在仪式开始后，记录布道的内容。 [26] 但这种措施是例外。基本上，诺特海姆人很快就了解到了施加于他们身上的期望并且扮演起了相应的角色。然而，恐惧传播开来，在成熟的独裁体制中实际上并没有因政治犯罪而被监禁的，至少在整个1935年都没有。

    这并不是因为该政体放松了对内部的恐怖主义行为，而是将这种行为系统化了。自1933年春天以来，盖世太保迅速地建立起来，1934年4月，盖世太保由海因里希·希姆莱 [56] 和党卫军管理。同时，1933年涌现的大部分“业余探子”网络被逐渐淘汰。1934年10月，纳粹党国家总部要求所有成员警惕任何可能具有颠覆性的可疑活动，但是不能试图自己去解决，而是要报告给盖世太保。 [27] 同时，为了找出潜在的反对者，纳粹党发展了自己的“情报部门”。1934年3月，一个叫恩斯特·赖茨的纳粹分子被任命为诺特海姆县情报部门的领袖，他很快就在诺特海姆县78个城镇和乡村中的70个建立起告密网络。接下来的几个月，赖茨报告称他认为在诺特海姆有一个共产主义者小组，社会民主党人加入了钢盔团，而且后者定期在桑尼旅馆举行集会。并没有可以支撑这些怀疑的细节，但是这些纳粹刺探者的存在和活动无疑有助于压制有异议的城镇中人的反抗思想。 [28]

    不过，也不完全是这样，就算是恐怖体制也多少适应了诺特海姆的特性。有个关于曾经汉诺威党派成员的老农民的例子。如果诺特海姆人还记得的话，他总是在晚上去酒吧里喝啤酒，一边指责现在的政府，一边赞美汉诺威王朝时代的好日子。纳粹分子掌权后，他理所当然地把他们列入他的咒骂中。但他是政事总体计划的一部分，以至于从没有人去骚扰过他。因此，他几乎在第三帝国的每一天都公开诋毁政府，完全不受干扰。 [29]

    还有些诺特海姆人直到1934年夏天才真正意识到恐怖体制。就是在“罗姆政变”之后，出现了“德国扫视”[57] 和普遍的信任崩溃。 [30]

    简而言之，威胁、暗示和谣言都用于维持控制，所以在纳粹统治第一年，诺特海姆实际上的恐怖主义行为并没有增加。存在着某种平衡，一方面诺特海姆人按照他们被期望的那样做，另一方面作为回报，他们不会遭受极权国家可能出现的严厉对待。这种基于恐怖行为可能性基础上的默许协议是纳粹统治在诺特海姆成熟起来的重要先决条件。在将城镇中各种机构转变为能够接受的纳粹主义工具的缓慢进程继续进行时，这一条件一直保留着。这一进程考虑得尽可能周密，最好的例子就是学校系统。

    诺特海姆城市政府对小学系统的运营具有广泛的控制权，从决定预算到聘任教师。它对高级中学和女子高中没有这样的控制权，因为这两者由省学校董事会监管。然而，纳粹掌权后，决定因素是地方小组领袖，他不仅控制着诺特海姆城市政府，而且通过国社党对省学校董事会有着很大的影响力。1933年之后，恩斯特·吉尔曼并没有行使这项权利的必要了，因为几乎所有的诺特海姆教师都完全配合他。只有三名教师被免职了：沃格和来自“理想主义者”反对派的芬茨拉夫，一人只是被调动了，另一人则被赶出了城镇；还有一个人是来自高级中学的教师，众所周知他拥护共和制，他也被调离了诺特海姆。 [31]

    不过，国社党不只对开除反对派感兴趣。国社党也关心着将教育争取为对新政权的一种积极支持。根据城镇的官方历史学家于1936年所写的：

    学校的任务不再只是传授知识；紧随其后的就是以国家社会主义愿望培养正在成长中的青年男女的需要，也就是让成年人感知到“社区”的意义并且想要加入社区。因此统一国家的斗争已经变成了教育的基本内容……为了培养人们的强健体魄和坚强意志，让他们能够在我们这个时代的民族斗争中对抗敌人：除了常规的提升智力之外，学校还承担了新的任务。 [32]

    将学校转变为新国家的意识形态堡垒的过程几乎是马上就开始了。1933年引入了新的教科书。现有的学校图书馆都被夺走了“堕落的”作品，入藏的书都是赞美民族主义和军事主义的。教师们都要听关于制订需要教授的历史和其他敏感课程的总路线的讲座。关于“种族理论”和日耳曼人史前史的新课程被引入了。针对教师的讲座和“学校课程”一直在继续。在一次接一次的会议中，通常会重申相同的主题。教师们小心翼翼地准确记录下总路线，因为消息很快就传开了，希特勒青年团会向国社党汇报教师们的所作所为。 [33]

    除了新课程和教授旧课程的新方法，学校还被要求重点强调体育运动和体育课，尤其是射击和“国防体育”。比如，在科学课上，学生们被要求制作滑翔机模型。纳粹的宣传电影得到了更加广泛的使用，教室里都安装着无线广播，这样一来就能听到宣传演讲了。 [34] 可以从天主教小学关于获得新知识的报告中评估出学校生活在多大程度上发生了改变：

    必须有旗帜……每个班级都要挂一张元首的照片……赔款表格和购买的手榴弹……学校图书馆被整改了，此外，还能找到格拉夫·勒克纳的《大海的恶魔》……学校墙上的照片增加了种族的内容，“在四个世纪内的纳粹标志”，基因法律……1914—1918年的世界大战地图就是我们的财产……购买空气步枪……旗杆……滑翔机模型…… [35]

    这一过程包含了所有学校。商业和专业学校都引入了“种族历史”和“政治教育”的课程。即便是为低能者创办的小规模学校也尽可能地灌输其责任。 [36]

    希特勒青年团在所有的转变中扮演了重要的角色。1934年，出现了一场让学校体制里的每个学生都加入希特勒青年团或者德国女孩联盟的运动。现存的学校社团都不存在了。但是随着希特勒青年团的地位提升，教师的权威却在很大程度上被削弱了。用前任校长的话说，“几乎不可能进行教学了” [37] 。

    尽管有这项运动，但是在纳粹掌权的最初两年，纳粹主义中的某一方面内容却没能进入学校。这就是反犹主义。一位校长回忆起在他学校里的三名犹太学生：“他们在任何方面从未陷入过困境。这些孩子们和其他孩子一起从学校毕业。据我所知，其他孩子从未以任何方式侮辱或者骚扰过他们。” [38] 后来，犹太孩子们开始按部就班地被学校拒之门外，但并不是在早期。实际上，甚至是支持纳粹主义的学生们也和有犹太信仰的其他学生足够团结，以至于他们从不当着后者的面唱《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》。 [39] 但是在其他方面，学校的孩子们都受到了严格的灌输教育。在诺特海姆，相比其他机构，学校成了更活跃的纳粹主义工具。

    如果说他们在学校取得的成功是鼓励诺特海姆纳粹分子的源泉，那么另一种教育工具——日报却不是这样了。报刊确实都处在严格的控制下；《诺特海姆最新消息》和《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》都充分地意识到了他们的自由受限。但是在纳粹分子眼里，只有当这些报刊完全归纳粹所有，才能不出问题。

    如上所述，1933年9月6日，恩斯特·吉尔曼在国社党诺特海姆地方小组的一场全体大会上宣布，每个成员都必须订购诺特海姆自己的纳粹报纸《诺特海姆观察家报》。该报很快就利用了这一命令。9月23日，每个纳粹成员都收到了一份来自《诺特海姆观察家报》的信，提醒他们吉尔曼的命令并且通知他们从1933年10月1日起就是该报的订阅者了。一名代理人很快就会正式去确认订单。 [40]

    这是增加纳粹报纸发行量的综合运动的一部分。1934年开始，《诺特海姆观察家报》不用再关心扩大其读者人数了，这项职责落到了纳粹地方组织中的一个专门官员新闻监察官的身上。新闻监察官的一般任务就是监视该区域内的所有报纸，而其特殊和主要任务就是打造纳粹自己的报刊。他被任命为当地纳粹报纸的一名普通记者，报道每一个有新闻价值的事件，“……以便他能够首先把所有的消息告诉我们的媒体……这样一来，那些胖乎乎的市民们就知道我们到处都有耳目，只有这样，这些人才能让自己适应新德国。”而且，这个新闻监察官尽其所能去支持纳粹报刊，削弱非纳粹报刊。他特别要保持非党派报刊的秩序。 [41]

    在诺特海姆，这些基本规则被解读成意味着《诺特海姆最新消息》和《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》都将会被取缔。然而，随着埃哈特·克诺佩尔为《诺特海姆最新消息》写新闻，国社党就很难对该报进行抱怨了。在早期与灾难擦肩而过后，诺佩尔变得特别谨慎小心了。实际上，《诺特海姆最新消息》遵循着纳粹路线，跟随着每次变动。然而，最后诺特海姆的纳粹新闻监察官发现了一些很明显的却没有被其他人注意到的事情。自从《诺特海姆最新消息》创刊以来，该报的报头上就有一句口号——“祖国高于党派”。在帝国时期和魏玛共和国时期，这大概是一种无可挑剔的情感表达。然而，在纳粹国家，这是一种叛逆，因为这提出了一种国家和党派是可以区分的异端观念。如果埃哈特·克诺佩尔考虑到这一点的话，他本应该立即舍弃这个会惹麻烦的口号。但报头是每个人都会看却很少有人会注意的内容，直到1933年12月初的某一天，诺特海姆的纳粹新闻监察官才发现。

    《诺特海姆最新消息》立即就被查封了。克诺佩尔和该报的出版商不得不进行最卑微的道歉，他们在幕后运作了很长时间才在10天后获得了重新发行的许可。不用说，报头必须被去掉。国社党认为这种暂时的停刊会成为致命的打击。

    事实上，这给了《诺特海姆最新消息》新生的机会。直到停刊为止，《诺特海姆最新消息》的发行量一直在稳定下降。在该报被查封的时候，订阅者却蜂拥而来。该报的记者认为这是大众对第三帝国不满的第一个迹象。很有可能，只是诺特海姆人的好奇心被激发起来了。在审查制度盛行的年代，只要是《诺特海姆最新消息》被禁止的内容，当然都会成为令人感兴趣的阅读内容。因此，《诺特海姆最新消息》赢回了读者，而且因为其内容写得好而精准，都是第一手新闻，一直保持着订阅量。也许那个记者是对的，诺特海姆人是出于抗议心理来读该报的（这是一个极大的讽刺，因为出版商最不感兴趣的就是成为抵抗的象征），但是不管怎样，此后《诺特海姆最新消息》在经济上是有保障的。纳粹分子厌恶地挥舞着他们的双手，而《诺特海姆最新消息》一直容忍，不过都是偶尔遭受骚扰。 [42]

    虽然诺特海姆的纳粹分子愿意忍受《诺特海姆最新消息》，但是他们决定完全根除《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》。这部分是因为他们厌恶“反动派”，比如该报的所有者和主编威廉·罗尔，还有部分是因为罗尔直接顶撞了纳粹分子。虽然《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》已经是在垂死挣扎的报纸了，罗尔还是认为这滞后的发行量是因为纳粹的压力（这当然也是真的）。他甚至直接写信给该区内的新闻监察官，寻求对抗“非法竞争”的帮助。这刺激了《诺特海姆观察家报》，该报在社论中不断攻击罗尔。他被指责丝毫不了解国家社会主义，一直接受犹太人的广告（他确实这样做了），发表关于诺特海姆国社党所作所为的错误报道。他还在一些小问题上受到烦扰。1934年夏天，《诺特海姆观察家报》拒绝和《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》进行通常礼貌的交换报纸。罗尔被次要的纳粹人物要求发表直接针对他自己的毁谤性诗歌。他一再被诺特海姆的新闻监察官指责犯有小的过失罪。 [43]

    最终，罗尔开始写信向其朋友求助。附近城镇的一个编辑告诉他《诺特海姆观察家报》的编辑过去曾经犯了盗用公款罪、伪证罪和逃脱债务罪，但是这对《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》什么帮助都没有。一位罗尔写信求助的诗人尽他的可能去和纳粹的省党部领袖交涉，但是却被告知《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》毫无希望了。 [44]

    因此无论罗尔向谁求助，他都陷入了困境。他自己家里的剩余财产能让他以个人损失来出版《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》，但是最终发行量骤减到了每次发行都是徒劳的行动。1937年初，他屈服了，以少得可怜的价格将报纸卖给了《诺特海姆最新消息》，签署了不再出版任何东西的协议，并且退休了。不久之后他就死了。他对纳粹掌权确实作出了巨大的贡献；他对他们的成功，以及他们以武力反对“马克思主义”感到高兴；他完全被他们伤害了。 [45]

    国社党发起的建立自己在报刊方面垄断地位的斗争还是发生了，虽然《诺特海姆最新消息》和《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》只发表国社党让他们发表的内容，而且是以纳粹分子想让他们发表的方式发表的。任何人哪怕只是温和地批评《诺特海姆观察家报》都会被吉尔曼报复性地威胁。 [46] 从第三帝国的最初期开始，诺特海姆的所有报纸都是宣传纳粹专制的积极和有效的工具。类似地，几乎所有在1933年春天被“一体化”的组织最终都成了纳粹的宣传工具。基本上，在第三帝国最初的几个月，逃脱了“一体化”的一群组织是退伍军人和爱国主义团体。这一疏忽接下来就得到了纠正。1933年11月，“基弗霍伊泽会”的所有前退伍军人和类似组织都被整合入冲锋队的“第二储备队”。因此，他们被置于纳粹纪律的直接约束下，需要参加游行示威，等等。 [47]

    其他服务于纳粹目的的民族主义团体都被有条不紊地推进了。“德国战争墓地保护人民联盟”就是这样。纳粹支持的影响在他们的年筹款中明显地体现出来了，1930年是31马克，1932年是37马克，而1933年当冲锋队帮助进行筹款时是187马克。同样地，“海外领土上的德意志王国联盟”也从一个小团体发展成了重要的团体。这一团体当然是在对外政策中提出纳粹诉求的完美工具。 [48]

    纳粹最主要的努力之一是在诺特海姆开始扩大滑翔机团体。1933年9月，城镇中建造了第二个滑翔机，在献词演讲中，吉尔曼重点强调了滑翔机训练的军事重要性。一个纳粹滑翔机团体建立起来了，还举行了一场特殊的模拟轰炸演示的飞行表演。这是在政府的明确命令下进行的，不过诺特海姆的纳粹分子表现出了一些主动性。诺特海姆参议院提供了近400马克的资金援助。 [49]

    同时，滑翔机和空军力量得到了加强，国社党没有忘记促进民防。1933年9月，诺特海姆创立了由纳粹领导的防空协会，城镇中的所有学校、俱乐部和报纸都被并入其中了。城镇被划分为四个区域，为民防目的而组织起来。到11月为止，第一批课程中有250人参加了讲座。必须出席。民防学校于1934年5月正式改组，有11名教师。认为即将出现战争是纳粹统治不变的内容。 [50]

    另一个用于宣传并最终被国社党吞并的机构是钢盔团。这个组织在第三帝国作为纳粹分子的伙伴而开启了其事业。不过，纳粹分子决定控制住这个组织，因为它代表着一种独立的大众组织，而这一组织可能是持异议者的潜在聚集地。整个1933年8月，诺特海姆钢盔团的大部分时间都在让国社党确认其忠诚和友善。为此，他们还举办了一场特殊的“友谊晚会”，喝了很多酒，跳了很多舞。9月，根据决定，钢盔团被冲锋队统一，也就是说被吸收了。实际的仪式变成了国社党的宣传资源，有旗帜、乐队和某种不自然的节日气氛。这一进程被拖进了10月，之后钢盔团就完全不存在了，在接下来的几个月，只是为了宣传目的才会被偶尔提及。通过将钢盔团并入冲锋队，该组织成为竞争团体的危险被排除了；而且，更多的诺特海姆人被直接置于纳粹纪律的管束下。但与此同时，存在这一组织中的公共精神和热情被破坏了。 [51]

    简而言之，在诺特海姆，成熟的独裁结构不仅是难以改变且专制的，而且失去了自发性。恐怖体系唤起了回应，但是这种回应缺乏内在热情。宣传逐渐变成一种程序。纳粹分子成功地在某些领域刺激了真正的热情，在这些领域内，诺特海姆人通常能够感受到热情，比如，市民自豪感方面。

    伤害人际关系的一个后果甚至很有可能是犯罪率的上升。从1933年至1935年之间的警方数据证明各种类型的犯罪都有所上升。如下表格给出的数据： [52]

    涉及盗窃和诈骗的犯罪的增长尤其明显： [53]

    虽然增长得相当多，但是整体数量仍旧很少。人们几乎不能说诺特海姆的犯罪浪潮是对独裁政体建立的回应。不管怎么说，这些数据是具有暗示性的，和恩斯特·吉尔曼在1934年春天给学校和青年人管理机构的那封有点儿疑惑的信一样，信上抗议孩子们最近在城镇公园中恶意破坏灌木（甚至烧毁常青树）。 [54] 毫无疑问，吉尔曼对涉及很多纳粹党成员的盗用公款罪案例也颇为疑惑，这些成员后来都被开除了。其他案例中，涉及一位诺特海姆纳粹时事通讯的前任编辑和城镇中的一位冲锋队领导，这两人都盗用了党派的资金。 [55] 因盗用公款罪而被开除的人中还有些是市政府获得新委任的纳粹分子，他们一上任就立即把手伸向了所控制的公共基金。 [56] 吉尔曼进一步发现只有使用威胁开除出党的手段才能让其他党派成员接受甚至是很小的成员责任。 [57] 腐败和缺乏责任感的证据并不确凿，但这却暗示纳粹分子逐渐发现了建立一个无法无天的政权和强迫人们过上一种被迫伪善的生活的后果。

    1933年以后，诺特海姆的所有现象都必须置于时代背景下。这一背景的主要特征是信任的普遍崩溃以及迄今为止团结一致的社会组织的破坏和颠覆。个人的反应通常是回避，有时也会挑衅。这两种反应对独裁统治都是有帮助的：回避会消除对新体系的威胁；挑衅可以被利用来对抗政权内部或者外部的敌人。但是国社党承诺的内部团结却没有出现。第三帝国并没有创造理想的人民—社区，而是开启了一个欺诈、不信任以及进步精神衰退的时代。

    十八　伟大的理由（1933年，夏—1935年年初，冬）

    你听见人们说：“现在，我们又获得了工作；现在，我们又能买东西了。” ——一个诺特海姆商人

    到1935年为止，诺特海姆已经解决了所有大萧条的表面现象。那年夏天来到城镇的游客会对其所见留下极为深刻的印象，尤其是如果他三年前来过的话，他一定会进行比较。城市建设蓬勃发展；没有失业者；工作和目的性主导了所有场合。而且，城市毫无疑问地看起来更好了。有了新的统一的园区体系，旧城镇中的房子都被重新粉刷和修整了，街道更加干净了。游客们来诺特海姆甚至可能是因为新成立的、充满活力的旅游办事处想方设法地将他们吸引到了这个山谷中的小而迷人的城镇。所有这些特色都要归功于纳粹分子，很大程度上还要归功于城镇中的纳粹领袖恩斯特·吉尔曼的想象力和活力。经济复兴是诺特海姆国社党最伟大而可靠的宣传要点。这也是独裁统治的主要理由，这样一来，吉尔曼就可以辩称通过全镇的团结一致，并且由于将市政府变成了个人独裁主义的工具，才实现了经济复兴。

    对于城市官僚体制来说，新体制影响的最大教训就是托马斯·加兰的个人命运。加兰是市政府第二高职位的管理人员，纳粹分子掌权时，他一直受到骚扰，这些骚扰只能证明恩斯特·吉尔曼在诺特海姆内真的有无限制的权力。这并不是加兰的政治主张的结果，而只是因为他代表着独立思考。

    加兰是一个民主党人，但是他在政治态度上是如此沉默寡言，以至于每个人都将他视为非政治派别的公务员。吉尔曼讨厌加兰的表面原因是加兰和市长彼得斯关系亲近，而彼得斯又是吉尔曼的竞争对手。因此，吉尔曼和加兰的宿怨只能解释为吉尔曼个人态度的表现，不过他偶尔会援引模糊的“政治担忧”。 [1]

    整个1933年夏天，加兰被有条不紊地剥夺了附属职位。1933年8月，他被彻底赶出城市政府，而他的位置被给予了他的对手。之后就开始长期不和。无论托马斯·加兰想找什么工作，他都会因为恩斯特·吉尔曼的个人干扰而被拒绝。吉尔曼让大家都知道加兰有两项选择：他离开诺特海姆并且亏本卖掉房子，或者在奥古斯特·乌德负责的工程项目中做挖沟工人。

    为了避免选其中的任何一项，这位前任市总督察被迫在附近城镇找了一份在铁路车站做报贩的工作。最终，诺特海姆军队的到来将他从这种不安定的状态中解救出来了。军队不受吉尔曼的控制，因此加兰在军队中找到了作为文职雇员的体面工作。虽然接下来五年，恩斯特·吉尔曼每年都努力想让托马斯·加兰因安全威胁而被解雇，但是军队坚定地反抗了他。 [2]

    尽管吉尔曼进行的彻底铲除托马斯·加兰的行动未能取得成功，但是也足以证明其有权力将城市政府中的其他成员完全变成他的工具。1935年，吉尔曼要求城市雇员不仅要按照他的命令来完成日常工作，而且他们要完全听命于国社党。 [3] 在最大程度上，诺特海姆的政府成了吉尔曼意志的表达。

    恩斯特·吉尔曼的专制地位只有两方面的制约：给予他权力的国社党和选举他的城市议会。只要吉尔曼能够依靠纳粹党高层的支持，他就能控制纳粹组织，当然还有城市议会。到1933年夏末，在国社党的诺特海姆地方小组中明显出现了反对他的力量，而吉尔曼确实得到了纳粹党高层的支持。当1933年12月，纳粹党全国总部拒绝了持异议者的最后诉求时，这一点再次得到了明证。 [4]

    9月，吉尔曼采取措施铲除了诺特海姆城市议会中反对他的人。1933年9月21日，在议会的公共会议上，头等大事就是对当时的议长沃格（纳粹教师，“理想主义反对派”的领袖之一）投“不信任票”。沃格徒劳地寻求原因，之后又试图和议会中的每个成员谈话。他们都拒绝和他谈话，除了离开会议室，他没有其他选择了。同一场会议中宣布了不会再举行城市议会的会议了，取而代之的是由城市议会中的四名成员组成的委员会会私下里和参议院召开会议。 [5] 这种“四人委员会”的临时安排一直持续到1935年1月30日，当时德国新的城市统一法规将这一形式合法化了。

    新的法规（其中的某些部分早在1925年就在讨论了）将所有的权力和责任都交给了市长。他可以得到顾问委员会的建议和帮助。这些机构完全隶属于他，并且绝不会限制他的权力。因此，恩斯特·吉尔曼成了诺特海姆唯一的专制统治者。 [6]

    吉尔曼对城市政府的绝对控制当然不是他用于积极解决城镇经济问题的唯一武器。通过其作为国社党地方小组领袖的地位，他能够控制诺特海姆各种各样的经济组织，在“一体化”过程中将这些组织纳入纳粹控制下。1933年，这些不同的组织基本上都被用于宣传目的。因此，用于取代自由工会而创建的德国工人阵线将其活动限制于举行群众集会和招募成员。工匠联盟举行展览、示威和游行。零售商一星期进行一次募捐，很多文章、广告和社论都赞扬其所发挥的作用。 [7] 而这些活动大概也就是在心理上让人高兴，对于结束大萧条的实际作用很小。

    经济团体“一体化”对纳粹分子来说真正有用的地方在于为它们提供了让诺特海姆的经济脱离大萧条的控制杆。国社党是如何提议这样做的，在1933年秋天变得明显了。夏天的时候，城镇通过种公共工程项目解决了失业问题。然而，对纳粹分子而言，这明显只是暂时的权宜之计。真正要做的是将这些失业者整合入常规经济中。纳粹分子似乎认为如果德国的每个人都尽职尽责，就可以实现了。如果消费者买东西，雇主招人，大萧条就会消失。因此，经济问题被视为可通过组织和宣传来解决，而这是国社党擅长的领域。

    这一进程开始于1933年10月5日。那一天，所有的雇主，无论公私，和所有团体的代表在城镇中的一家宾馆开会。市政府列出了诺特海姆能雇用工人的所有人员的总名单，经过三重核查以确保没有遗漏任何人。恩斯特·吉尔曼在这一场合的演讲中告诉聚集起来的商人们，现在是他们不得不尽职尽责的时候了。政府暂时雇用了失业者，而且手头上有贷款和津贴。现在私营经济部门必须开始雇人了。诺特海姆城市啤酒厂以雇用四名新人的方式竖立了榜样。制糖厂已经同意保持其正常运转，有四轮交替。几天后，每个雇主都会被拜访并且被要求在其状况允许的情况下雇用尽可能多的新人。这一演讲没有得到及时的回应。之后，只有少数人站起来发表评论。有个人建议政府应该采取行动，坚决抵制非法工匠。还有个人号召雇主们优先雇用资深的纳粹成员。但是没有任何一个商人起身保证会雇用一个新工人。 [8]

    接下来几天，人们几乎没公开做什么能实现吉尔曼演讲中所阐发目标的工作。有广告号召人们多买东西、多存钱并且只光顾有合法执照的工匠。但是10月末，公共工程项目仍旧雇用了340人。 [9] 这种情况一直相当稳定地持续到1933—1934年冬天。

    春天，国社党开始认真地行动起来。新的努力被称为“工作的战斗”。开始的日期是1934年3月21日，这是“国家复兴日”的第一次纪念日（当时希特勒和兴登堡在波茨坦的驻军教堂举行了庆祝仪式）。

    但是在诺特海姆，宣传努力是在这个日期的三周前就开始了。2月末，所有的公务员和社团、行会领导都收到了信，号召他们到“1910年代圆顶”参加群众集会。吉尔曼对他们所说的就是在整个大区所说的同一件事情，因为纳粹大区宣传部向诺特海姆递送了一份关于演讲材料、内容和展示方式的完整大纲。不管怎样，吉尔曼的演讲很精彩：强有力、令人信服并且鼓舞人心，带有一种有益的目的性的味道。信息很简单。每个诺特海姆人都必须消费、雇用、借贷、消遣，让经济之轮运转起来。雇主被告知要提高薪水并且雇用新人。如果他们不做，国家也会强迫他们。房屋主人被要求现在就进行房屋修整，当时的贷款利率低。简而言之，演讲混杂了威胁和甜言蜜语。给诺特海姆人留下的清晰印象就是：经济会复兴，人们会变得富裕和快乐——要不然还能怎样呢！ [10]

    群众集会之后一周紧接着另一场雇主、工匠大师和公务员们的小型集会。参与的人就是去年夏天听过吉尔曼演讲的同一批人。但是这次气氛完全不同。首先，吉尔曼不再在集会上谈论了；取而代之的是进行广泛的讨论。其次，房间里的每个人实际上都相信经济复兴正在进行中。最好的报告都来自建筑工程的那些人。油漆匠行会报告说一年前只有15名学徒，现在有40名。木匠行会报告说自1月以来有20名新学徒。对于那些令人沮丧的报告，吉尔曼也会说积极的内容。鞋匠行会对竞争表示不满；吉尔曼承诺纳粹福利组织会在诺特海姆订做500双鞋。食品杂货店抱怨来自消费者合作社的竞争；吉尔曼承诺这个组织“不会和我们永远在一起”。面包师们没看到这种情况有所改善；吉尔曼发誓改善会在几周后到来。但是出席的大多数人都知道整个冬天，新政府一直在试图提供帮助。裁缝行会报告说因为突然需要制服，他们雇用了18名新学徒。零售商的领头人报告说1933年的营业额比1932年增加了11%，而且现在仍旧在增长中。他承诺商人们会雇用新人：“你们听到人们说：‘现在，我们又获得了工作；现在，我们又能买东西了。’我想说就纳粹德国的人民福利而言，他们已经为零售商做了很多了。” [11]

    在最初的讨论之后，吉尔曼做了总结发言。他承诺会抨击合法竞争。他确认纳粹主义致力于可观利润的概念。但是他也发誓会打击任何想要削减薪水，攒钱而不投资，以及加班工作的人。他设定了合理的目标：本月内新增16名新学徒，为忘记职业技能的人提供再教育课程。之后就是整个会议最令人愉悦的时刻。吉尔曼宣布政府将会拿出很多资金。这些资金应该花费在哪些方面？令人钟爱的计划层出不穷。旧梦想再次被提及。会议在热情洋溢和一系列计划讨论中结束。毫无疑问，至少在心理上，大萧条结束了。 [12]

    这种情绪持续了下来。几天后，《诺特海姆最新消息》上刊登了一则简短但是华丽的广告：“谁还没有工作？立即报告……给市政厅。”3月15日，在“1910年代圆顶”召开了一次全县大会，其中的演讲概括了“为工作而战”，发表了鼓舞士气的讲话，等等。3月21日，官方宣布“战斗”开始。检阅、游行、乐队、旗帜、希特勒的广播演讲——所有的纳粹装饰都使之成了一次令人难忘的事件。 [13] 但是，对诺特海姆意义最重大的就是一系列新工程项目的奠基典礼。

    实际上，虽然进行了各种讨论和宣传，但是大萧条并不是因为每个诺特海姆人都尽职尽责而被击败。与此相反，打败大萧条的重要工具是公共工程项目和以政府注资为基础的建筑业的蓬勃发展。同一周，恩斯特·吉尔曼和诺特海姆的商人举行了令人印象深刻的讨论，他写信给城市工程师，详细概括了1934年的一系列新的工程项目。因为这些项目的大部分资金来自中央政府，城镇就没有资金再支付同等数量失业者的救济金了。 [14] 许多进行中的工程项目并没那么引人瞩目。其中包括城镇所拥有的森林、修复现存园林系统和修复道路的工作。但是有一项工程改变了整个城镇的面貌。这就是“公园环”。环绕着这座中世纪内城的是一系列可追溯到诺特海姆独立年代的防御工程。到1933年，墙体都剥落了，壕沟都被填满了，反投射的土堆都被小菜园覆盖了。现在，根据公共工程计划，这都要重建。旧城墙能修复的地方就修复，其他地方则夷为平地。壕沟变成了一些小的天鹅池。其余地方变成了令人愉快的公园，有草地、花园和操场。结果，诺特海姆的园林系统规模扩大了两倍，城镇给人一种愉悦和独特的感觉。11 000多个工作日创造了这个“绿化带”。 [15]

    诺特海姆在其他方面也变得更吸引人了。位于诺特海姆上方树林间的两个城镇所有的酒吧都被修复和改造了，还铺设了通向这里的新道路。城镇中破败的地方都被清理和翻新了。按照博物馆馆长的指导，诺特海姆旧城区的房屋都被重新粉刷了，这样一来，他们再次突出了中世纪的半木材架构成果。这项工程的大部分工作都是由城镇自己的失业者完成的，但还有很多工作是由“劳动服务”完成的。这一组织最初是自愿性组织，但是很快就变成了强制参加。它非常适合以将人们赶出劳动市场的方式来带动经济疲软。因此，当诺特海姆制糖厂在1933年结束其季节性精炼时，该厂的300名临时工人中大部分都被吸收入了“劳动服务”中。整个1933年，“劳动服务”承担了很多随机项目，从修建足球场和射击场到在城镇的森林中修路。然而，1934年开始，他们贡献出了全部精力用于创造城镇中的新资产。这就是一座露天剧场，建立在诺特海姆森林中的自然斜坡上。

    其最初被设想为纳粹典礼的会场，开始被称为“事务广场”（Thingplatz，这是来自古条顿语的词汇，用于指部落集会的地点），后来更意味深长的是，被称为“圣所”（Weihstaette）。其建造好之后，在旁观者看来确实差不多创造出了一种神圣的感觉，因为它戏剧性地融入了古老而宏伟的橡树自然环境中。在其于1936年6月7日举行落成典礼之前，差不多花费了23 000个工作日才建造成了这座“圣所”。当然，比起纳粹典礼，这里更常被用作剧院，仅仅1936年就吸引了6万名游客来诺特海姆。而且，吉尔曼还将其交由纳粹战争受害者协会管理，由此使得诺特海姆成了全国总部和召开大会的城镇。这为城镇带来了很多资金。诺特海姆人对“圣所”的建造非常高兴，尽管纳粹的行动一如既往地存在错误：纳粹以非常优惠的价格从恩斯特·吉尔曼最不受欢迎的密友——参议员奥古斯特·乌德那里购买了建造用地。 [16]

    “劳动服务”也涉及治疗大萧条的另一个主要因素中：建筑业的蓬勃发展。由于旧军营营房被征用，有75个原本住在那里的“流浪”家庭必须被重新安置。为这些流离失所者找住房的问题使诺特海姆的住房短缺成了人们关注的焦点。城镇在陷入大萧条时，已经有住房短缺问题了，而大萧条的进程又使这一情况恶化了。从1930年开始到1933年结束，诺特海姆的人口净增长差不多为400人。同时，建筑业严重滞后。因此，建筑业蓬勃发展的形势已经成熟，只要资金到位就可以。 [17]

    希特勒政府采取的首批措施之一就是确保有可用资金。到1933年11月为止，诺特海姆为建设所筹备的资金差不多有20万马克，而且还有更多的资金即将到位。这些资金是在特别有利的情况下通过援助和贷款获得的。比如，对于公寓的修理或分配，国家会支付20%的花费并且以六年4%的利率借贷剩下的部分。类似的条款也适用于新的建筑业。在这些吸引人的安排下，1934年3月为止针对728项工作分配了超过63 000马克。到1936年为止，有超过1 300份申请，共获批175 000马克。另有政府为支持新的建筑业而提供121 000马克。1934年春天，资金再次增加了，因为军队返回旧军营，政府必须为之前在那里办公的机构建立新的大楼，还得为“劳动服务”建立新的营房。简而言之，到1934年春天为止，所有为诺特海姆建筑业蓬勃发展的条件都具备了。 [18]

    这种情况因恩斯特·吉尔曼所采取的行动而更加有利了。对于他不能找到足够多的房子来安置军营营房的“流离失所者”，他感到相当得窘迫。这迫使他将他们安置在了旧有轨电车里，对城镇而言，这在很多方面都是不受欢迎的。而且，许多诺特海姆房东对他请求为这些人提供住房的答复是提高租金，这令他非常沮丧。综上所有原因，吉尔曼力图加速诺特海姆的房屋建设。通过“一体化”的方式，他已经控制住了“公共利益建筑俱乐部”，该组织现在被迫要加快建设速度。为了增补这一组织，吉尔曼建立了一个诺特海姆房屋建筑公司，以他自己为负责人。城市财政部被要求拿出10万马克作为启动资金，88名小商人被诱导着又买了价值53 500马克的股份（并且被诱导着选举了全由纳粹分子组成的董事会），其中主要是建筑业的小商人，城市储蓄银行为他们购买股份提供了贷款。 [19]

    因此，该组织也被要求立即推进建筑业的蓬勃发展。虽然是从1933年夏天开始的，但是直到1934年春天才获得足够的动力，建筑业的旋风席卷了诺特海姆。至1934年年末，建立了85间新房子，共126个房间；另在现存的建筑物中增加了100个新房间；修复了超过1 200间。在这种努力下，城镇的经济问题消失了。1934—1935年的那个冬天，公共工程依旧在继续，但只是完成了已经开始的项目。1936年，诺特海姆不得不引进建筑工人。 [20]

    上述列出的建筑数据不包括国社党视为其建筑计划的展示品——位于诺特海姆北部边缘的48栋新的“流离失所者”的房子。虽然纳粹分子对此负全责，计划、资金和所有其他的准备工作在第三帝国建立时已经准备好了。实际上，移居项目并不是开始于1932年的主要原因是纳粹分子曾经阻拦过。1933年8月16日，伴随着盛大的仪式，该项目的前24栋房子开始动工。因为造的是这些简单的房子，以及这个项目也成为公共工程项目的一部分，第一批房屋就在11月初完成了。在“为工作而战”开始的那天，第二批“移居”项目的24栋房子就破土动工了。到1934年秋天，这些房子也完成了。因此，这些房屋就被通称为“纳粹移居点”。 [21] 在某种意义上是这样的：只有能证明其是拥有雅利安血统的人，在纳粹组织中是成员以及地方小组的资助者，才能在新的移居点购买房子。 [22]

    既然诺特海姆大萧条的终结是靠着工程项目和建筑业的蓬勃发展，那么所有的宣传、讨论和“为工作而战”扮演的是什么样的角色呢？看起来明显的是，当时这被视为战胜城镇经济困难的重要部分。虽然其直接的经济贡献是最小的，其在精神上的贡献却是决定性的。这使城镇中人相信大萧条结束了，也使他们相信他们是在纳粹领导下结束了大萧条。无论是不是故意的，纳粹分子都利用了“人们相信发生了什么有时比实际发生了什么更加重要”这一事实。

    除了战胜大萧条之外，诺特海姆的纳粹分子还以“他们也解决了包括饥饿、必需品和其他贫困方面的经济危机的副作用”这一事实为资本。为了缓和痛苦，他们提出了两个概念，这两个概念结果都很受欢迎。第一个是每个人都应该提供帮助；第二个是作出贡献并不是慈善，而是对陷入并不是他们自己造成的局面的德国同胞的一种应尽的义务。这种在社会改良方面的努力是国社党所做的最接近推进他们所承诺的人民—社区的努力。

    纳粹福利工作的主要手段是纳粹人民福利协会（NSV）。和其他纳粹次级组织的情况一样，纳粹人民福利协会的主要人员都来自纳粹队伍本身：党派成员确实被要求加入。但是许多诺特海姆人，包括那些并没有加入国社党或者任何其他纳粹次级组织的人，发现自己愿意加入纳粹人民福利协会，因为该协会的工作看起来是与政治无关的并且是有益的。 [23] 纳粹人民福利协会也能利用各种各样的俱乐部、协会以及其他经由“一体化”而归入纳粹领导的组织。和在经济动力与宣传努力中的情况一样，纳粹分子因此能利用全部的社交机制来作为撬动全部群众的杠杆。

    纳粹人民福利协会于1933年9月开始了第一个项目，即“冬季救济”。这项特别的运动被称为“对抗饥饿和寒冷的斗争”，以一系列的群众集会作为开端。在新闻广告中，诺特海姆人被要求付出很多。“奉献”是关键词；那些最慷慨捐赠的人都被许诺会将他们的名字写入一本名为“诺特海姆奉献册”的特别荣誉册中。在非常短的时间内，这场运动再次证明纳粹倾向于彻底性。一份名单列出了城镇中所有商人，每个人都被期待进行捐赠。商人们也被告知“会仔细审查名单上的人，捐赠太少的人将会被抵制”。到10月中旬，为了进行密集的募捐，城镇被划分成了六块区域。在募捐过程中，所有俱乐部和其他社会组织都被给出了目标金额，并且要求其成员们负起相应的责任。慈善晚会也没有被忽视。一场惯例的“娱乐晚会”入场费是30芬尼，所有的收益都会转入“对抗饥饿和寒冷的斗争”。希特勒青年团都被安排进行特殊的街头募捐。最后，每个公共地方都被放置了募捐罐，尤其是收集小硬币。这些地方都张贴了标语“赢得了芬尼，斗争就会获胜”。

    但是最精彩的策略是“炖煮星期天”。其想法就是在选定的星期天（通常是一个月一次），德国的每个人都吃炖煮的菜而不是他们的常规餐，之后将成本上的差额捐赠给纳粹人民福利协会。炖煮菜提供给餐馆、家庭和德国的每个地方。这种方式就证明了“即便是我们中有人忍受着极少的痛苦，所有的德国人都准备着一起承受痛苦”。这些措施带来了大量的资金。“炖煮星期天”通常所获得的募捐总额超过1 200马克，到1934年1月为止，只是芬尼罐里的钱就达到了342马克。但是就纳粹而言，纳粹人民福利协会作为宣传措施的功能是更为重要的。通过这种方式，每个德国人都认为他们帮助缓解了大萧条引起的灾难。纳粹所推行的“团结”再次被证明是有益的。 [24]

    纳粹分子也努力在其他方面展现他们政府的社交方向。因此1933年圣诞节，在市集广场上放了一棵圣诞树，“这样一来，诺特海姆的每个人都能分享了”。很多文章再次指责使用“善良的夫人”这一措辞，也就是反对等级差别。 [25] 绝大多数诺特海姆人都支持这些想法。他们关注着在魏玛共和国时期让城镇严重分裂的阶级划分，他们认为纳粹分子正在通过抨击外在的阶级机构来对此采取行动。他们对“国家团结”的可能性非常激动，即便这是一种纳粹主义强加的如此肤浅的团结。 [26]

    纳粹对诺特海姆经济的贡献并不是以抗击大萧条的措施为终结的。恩斯特·吉尔曼认为应该以促进旅游业发展的方式来做更多能帮助城镇的事情。工程项目的影响之一就是使诺特海姆成了一个更愉快的观光地，在解释修理城镇森林小路和诺特海姆树林中两间城镇所有酒吧的原因时，经常这样提及。也正是出于这个原因，吉尔曼才安排在城镇中引人注意的建筑物和其他合适的地点挂上了60个“历史匾额”。 [27] 1934年初，一场吸引游客的积极运动开始了，当时吉尔曼将两个现存的俱乐部，即“游客俱乐部”和“改善协会”融合在了一起，形成了一个新的“促进旅游业俱乐部”。在接下来的集会中，按照通常的方式，该俱乐部的成员增加到了大约500人。在大城市报纸和小册子中赞扬诺特海姆优美景点的广告很快就开始给城镇带来游客了。在以后的几年里，这给城镇增加了很多收入。 [28]

    对诺特海姆经济更为重要的是军队对鲁默河以北旧军营的再次占用。这是一项深得恩斯特·吉尔曼之心的计划，主要由他积极推动。1934年初，吉尔曼决定开始和军队协商，并且准备从城市基金中拿出5万马克，用于为军队购买额外的土地。军队也愿意，于是在1934年4月签订了合同。合同的重点是军队同意以285 000马克从诺特海姆购买军营。这对诺特海姆来说是一个损失，尤其是因为军队还要求将城镇的泳池（位于军营附近的土地上）加到交易中。当市民们得知城镇即将失去他们的游泳池时，他们进行了激烈的抗议，吉尔曼不得不以威胁进行镇压。考虑到诺特海姆先前为军营和游泳池付的钱，城镇在这场交易中损失了近235万马克。

    但是，军队给出了更多的补偿。首先，到1937年为止，军队在新建大楼和修复方面的花费已经超过了200万马克，其中大部分的资金都给了诺特海姆的承包商和工人。其次，中央政府必须建造新大楼，用以容纳迄今为止在军营中办公的各种不同的办事处。迫使另外的100多人搬出“流离失所者”公寓也帮助刺激了建筑业发展，尤其是因为军队为新公寓提供资金。 [29] 最重要的是，诺特海姆的经济收益只是来自新增加的1 000名消费者，而这些消费者并不会成为劳动市场的负担。士兵们在城镇中花钱，他们的亲戚来看他们，更重要的是，军需部和当地商人签订了粮食和其他物资的合同。从各个角度来看，军队的移驻是纳粹分子主导的一流经济政变。 [30]

    军队的到来自然会对诺特海姆产生其他影响。士兵们必须小心谨慎，直到1935年为止（当时希特勒向全世界宣布他不服从《凡尔赛条约》中的军事条款）所有的行动都必须伪装，城镇中人很快就知道了旧军营中驻扎着一支部队。如前希特勒时代所表现出的一样，就诺特海姆人对军事的极大热爱来看，完全想象得到军队的到来受到了热烈的欢迎。而且，正如托马斯·加兰的个人经历所证实的，军队成了一些诺特海姆人的避难所。在那里，他们不会受到吉尔曼怒火的影响。因为军队中的许多军官都不认同纳粹主义，所以“理想主义反对派”和军队之间很快就发展出了很好的感情。因此，军队使得许多诺特海姆人更容易接受第三帝国了。 [31]

    总而言之，在城镇人的眼中，纳粹分子在经济领域的行动确实对改变人们有关纳粹主义的印象以及证明纳粹主义的正当性具有重大的作用。那些有时间并且愿意评定纳粹主义本质的人，在1935年时建立起了一个平衡表。一方面，纳粹主义明显终结了大萧条，开启了经济复兴，美化了城镇，提供了有活力、有效率的领导，并且增加了诺特海姆的经济资产。另一方面，纳粹主义损害并且管制社交生活，引入了恐怖行动体制和极权体制，攻击教会，强迫诺特海姆人加入沉闷而固定的宣传活动，并且将城镇的命运与恩斯特·吉尔曼的个人妄想、可疑性格绑定在一起。很明显，这种平衡并不能将其分解成一个简单的等式。

    到1935年，大部分诺特海姆人再次对纳粹主义缺乏信心。很难说自由选举的结果会是什么。在大部分诺特海姆人看来，坏的结果很可能超过好的。如果有机会的话，他们很可能会投票支持结束或者改变纳粹政体。但是1935年之前，这一决定已经固定下来了。

    既然纳粹主义创造了复兴的奇迹，诺特海姆人怎么能转而反对它呢？首先，人类的感激之情是短暂的，许多城镇人很快就将经济复兴视为正常的并且将他们的担忧转到了其他事务上。其次，经济复兴在利益上是不均衡的。建筑交易的获益不成比例，但是小零售商只从灾难的边缘退回了一点儿。从长远来看，他们的趋势还是消亡；纳粹政体并没有废除20世纪的经济学。除此以外，正如更早些时候的情况一样，大萧条并没有真正地伤害诺特海姆的中产阶级；经济问题并没有使他们不安，因为他们主要是担忧政治和社会。对于中产阶级而言，纳粹的伟大工作是破坏了左翼。一旦完成了这项工作，纳粹分子就不再像他们曾经表现的那样必要了。

    尽管直到1933年，诺特海姆周围的农业社区一直坚定地支持纳粹分子，但是他们很快就对政府的行动幻灭了。纳粹对农业的严格控制压迫着农民，纳粹建筑项目吸引走了雇工，这种人员流失给农民带来了负担。农民的不满很快传达到了诺特海姆人那里，因为城镇是农村商业的中心。因此，国社党在两个主要团体，即城市中产阶级和农民中的力量被削弱了，而这两个团体在其掌权前就一直支持着他们。

    但是，比起经济问题更重要的是，诺特海姆人已经逐渐发现了专制独裁所带来的影响：它破坏了社交生活，它无处不在的威胁，它变化无常，它贪求无厌。最重要的是，几乎令城镇中所有人都幻灭的是纳粹分子抨击有组织的宗教信仰（正如我们将要讲到的那样）。在第三帝国建立之前，诺特海姆的纳粹分子进行运动时都将自己伪装成虔诚的基督教教徒，以至于他们掌权之后突然发生转变时看起来就像是对庄严承诺的粗鲁背叛。当然，确实是这样。这是一种权力自大的举措，恩斯特·吉尔曼就认为他可以在不失去其下属忠心的情况下违背他们的基本价值观。

    而且，传统的政治态度渐渐消亡了。1935年春天，包括诺特海姆在内地区的纳粹副省长写了一份关于民众态度的特别报告。他总结说，绝大多数人仍旧支持我们，但是还有些问题点。比如，工人们依旧反对政府。1935年五一劳动节庆祝活动中，诺特海姆县的某些工人对元首的广播讲话作出了诋毁性的评论，以至于他们立刻被送入了集中营。当然，工人们一直都反对纳粹。在政治光谱的另一端，诺特海姆的前钢盔团成员不再说“希特勒万岁”，而是招摇地以“您好”来互相问候彼此。他们谨慎地讨论着改变内阁，甚至是建立“第四共和国”的必要性。知识分子也转向了反纳粹。至于新教教徒，他们对政府反教会运动感到失望，以至于他们公开号召反纳粹的军队独裁。“有些人公开说俄国的情况适用于德国。”当然天主教教徒也反纳粹，不过有所保留。这样事实上几乎涵盖了社会中所有的要素在内，他重申了自己最初的观点：民众仍旧是支持我们的。 [32]

    这位特别的纳粹官员是一位长期狂热的党派成员，他的失望很可能被归因于一开始就过高的不满足的期望。 [33] 但是在这种评估中，盖世太保可能更加冷淡。1935年年底，两份盖世太保针对诺特海姆地区的报告有相似的失望。前共产主义者，尤其是在诺特海姆的共产主义者虽然不断地被逮捕，但他们一直在积极地反对政府，甚至还和持异议的纳粹分子建立起联系。前社会民主党成员一直通过口耳相传的宣传破坏政权。纳粹党自己的成员，或者至少是“老战士”，对该党失去了其“真正的精神”感到非常不满。普通人希望进行清洗，以驱逐那些声名狼藉的成员。许多人都注意到了军队军官表现出的蔑视该党的态度。 [34]

    盖世太保下个月的报告甚至是更令人失望的。新教教徒正在秘密地流传反纳粹作品；天主教教会正在有组织地并且持续地试图让其追随者反纳粹。工人地下组织招募下层阶级的时机成熟了。前社会民主党人聚集到一起，共同加强对政权的反对。人们仍旧在犹太商店里购物。之前的保守派厌烦了纳粹党，一直寻求与军队军官进行联系。父母都变得反对希特勒青年团。旧纳粹分子都觉得他们被忽视了，而新成员一直抱怨该党对他们的所求太多了。 [35]

    因此，1935年时有很多对第三帝国不满的因素——各种各样不同的原因，几乎和可辨认的群体一样多，这也是不太可能将不满变成任何有组织反对或者团结一致针对国社党的主要原因之一。纳粹分子能够掌权首先是因为人们分裂了，他们仍然能够掌权至少部分是因为人们仍旧分裂。纳粹革命的结果，尤其是“一体化”，使得人们一直分裂，而盖世太保会迅速地处理任何公开表达的反对意见。正如一系列事件所表明的，第三帝国根基稳固，只有外国军队才能推翻希特勒的独裁统治。但是那并不意味着诺特海姆人喜欢纳粹分子。这只意味着到1935年为止，无论诺特海姆人对纳粹分子有什么看法，他们能够做的事情都非常少。

    十九　第三帝国的生活（1935—1945年）

    现在已经有一段时间了，许多党派成员，还有某些群众，对正式的党的措施和集会明显缺乏兴趣…… ——纳粹党的诺特海姆地方小组递交给小组I和小组II的所有片区管理人的备忘录（绝对机密），1936年9月28日 [1]

    诺特海姆从1935年到1945年之间的历史有一种奇怪的静态特征。到1935年为止，纳粹党已经无可争议地控制了整个城镇，但却失去了有活力的动力，其领导人也不再确定他们拥有民众，甚至是其成员的支持了。因此，他们开始谨慎行动，除了在那些独裁规则已经建立并且为人所接受的地方之外：俱乐部必须服从党派，党派成员和城市雇员必须听从党派安排，城镇中人必须在选定的场合里对政权展现出公开的热情，不允许表达敌意。但除此以外，纳粹领导人基本上成了管理者，城镇中人成了消极接受的对象。在成熟的第三帝国中所缺少的就是变革的热情、狂热、活力以及有雄心壮志的目标。就领导者和城镇人而言，明显的是和睦团结使得日常生活可忍受了。当战争于1939年到来时，城镇坚忍地渡过了难关，遭受了轰炸，经受了儿子和父亲的死亡，并且不英勇地投降了。

    导致纳粹分子动态减少的一个因素是地方领袖变得富有和放松了。曾经在1932年穷得身无分文的县领袖施泰内克在1933年3月开始领取薪水了（当时新成员大量涌入，使该党的金库令人难以置信地膨胀起来），并且薪水是很可观的：每月810马克。因此，他致力于庆祝活动、喝酒和监管旧大楼的修复活动。 [2] 他将诺特海姆县实际的行政管理权交给了像瓦尔特·巴尔德奥夫这样的下属以及其他冷静可观的专业人士，巴尔德奥夫是一个50多岁的温文尔雅的职员，在希特勒被任命为总理之后两个月加入了国社党。 [3]

    甚至是可怕的恩斯特·吉尔曼在第三帝国时期也变得放松了。1934年3月后，他担任了12年诺特海姆的市长，薪水是每月880马克。 [4] 当1935年1月新的市政法规实施时，市长吉尔曼在法律上不会对诺特海姆的任何人负责，他的权力不容置疑。吉尔曼感觉自己安全无虑，于是决定放弃作为地方小组领袖的职位，他也确实于1935年9月这样做了，不过他小心地选择了继任者，避免其成为自己潜在的竞争对手。事实上，他通过一分为二的方式削弱了地方小组领袖的职位。对于城镇中1 200名党派成员而言，“地方小组I”和“地方小组II”就这么产生了。为了领导他们，吉尔曼选择了两名会计，都是性格呆板的人。 [5] 一个41岁，另一个44岁；两人都是在希特勒掌权之前半年加入国社党的；在吉尔曼大方向的领导下，两人除了一丝不苟地管理地方小组之外，都没有任何的野心。 [6] 1938年，吉尔曼动用城市资金中的2万帝国马克，以重建和扩建城镇的骑术大厅，之后不久，他重新加入冲锋队，这样一来，他就成了“骑马冲锋队”的一员，可以在新跑道上骑马了。 [7] 这是他在1938年后的主要活动。

    诺特海姆纳粹分子在1935年后变得没那么有活力的另一个原因就是他们不再必须要得到民众的支持。如前所述，诺特海姆对国社党的热情甚至在希特勒掌权之前就衰弱了；在第三帝国建立之前的最后几个月，唯一能吸引全体出席的纳粹集会就是他们举行的没那么政治性的“娱乐晚会”。在建立起独裁统治之后，诺特海姆人去纳粹集会，但主要是被迫去的。接连不断的纳粹集会令他们无聊和疲乏，对于被逼去参加这些集会，他们愤恨不已。随着时间的流逝，城镇人日益表现出冷漠的迹象——这是唯一不危险的逃避方式。

    被迫参加纳粹宣传活动也破坏了该党在1933年之前成功进行宣传活动的关键因素：一种记录常规反应的反馈系统，再加上为了便于根据反馈来调整宣传策略而在地方上控制大部分的演讲者和主题。到1935年，纳粹党的高层宣传机构对地方领袖发布命令。例如，1935年11月，有一项指令发送到诺特海姆，内容是关于即将召开的集会，三页纸上写了如何举办的细节，包括每一步的计划，完整到包括在介绍演讲者时所使用的话语（以及在油印表格上留给其名字的空白）。 [8]

    国家对地方集会的指导都是精心设计的。他们也试着提供多种内容。比如，有多种可供选择的放映幻灯片，包括像“德国冬季运动会”这样的娱乐化标题。 [9] 但是无论内容如何，当人们是被迫参加的时候，这些集会就失去了吸引力。除此以外，集会实在太多了。比如，1938—1939年的整个冬天，党派成员被要求参加的集会数量平均为每三天一场。 [10] 日程表排得太满了，以至于他们已经预先准备了八个月的活动，并且城市中的其他俱乐部若是没有得到地方小组领袖的允许就不能举行集会。 [11]

    就算诺特海姆人漫不经心地明显表现出他们的冷漠，但是纳粹仍旧展示出了他们的尖牙。下属领导人被要求记录所有应该出席纳粹集会的人并且将没去集会者的名单送交地方小组领袖。 [12] 没有出席的人都会面临这个问题。 [13] 那些早退的人也被要求做出解释。 [14] 在集会上没有表现出适当热情的人会受到挨打的威胁，正如下面这封恩斯特·吉尔曼于1935年写给一个年轻女性的信所证明的：

    有人向我报告说，在元首生日庆祝仪式上，唱《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》和国歌时，你没有抬起胳膊。我提醒你注意，你这么做只会面临被打的危险。谁也不能保护你，因为这是你应得的。你们招摇地用这样的行动将自己排除在我们的种族社区之外，这是非常具有挑衅意味的。希特勒万岁！ [15]

    在这种情况下，诺特海姆人一般会注意除了通过语言和行为来表现支持的态度外，不会表现其他情绪。但是这明显意味着只有纳粹的威胁是可靠的。因此，诺特海姆的纳粹领袖越来越难以确定诺特海姆人的真实态度了，领袖们所持的这种不确定性让他们在压迫人民方面比他们必须要做的更加谨慎了。

    促使恩斯特·吉尔曼明白这一点的一系列事件（在第三帝国期间，就在诺特海姆取消纳粹主义合法地位而言，这是他犯的最大错误）是他对新教教会的抨击。在诺特海姆，纳粹分子没有任何反对教会的客观理由。教堂牧师祝福过希特勒建立起的独裁统治，在1933年之前，路德派牧师曾经是城镇中最受欢迎和最有效率的纳粹演讲者之一。实际上，诺特海姆在很大程度上支持纳粹党就是因为纳粹分子将其定位为拥有虔诚宗教信仰的党派。但是恩斯特·吉尔曼讨厌教堂，（正如他在1934年写给朋友的信中所说的）他私下里决定“通过我们对希特勒的信仰打败所有牧师的信仰”。 [16] 然而，对于如何完成，除了一般的威胁之外，他还没有明确的计划。因此，他一开始针对路德派教会的运动失败了。

    吉尔曼让大家都知道他的目标是让诺特海姆成为德国第一个完全没有教会成员的小镇。但是，他的谴责和威胁措施只是增加了来自路德派团体的强烈的无声抗议。他显然不敢逮捕牧师或者强制禁止去教堂，因为纳粹党的高层机构不会允许这么做。取而代之的是，他让希特勒青年团破坏基督教坚信礼课堂，朝城镇教堂里的十字架扔雪球，暗中监视牧师——希望借此记录下能够让盖世太保采取行动的有罪言论。

    这些都没奏效。去教堂的人增多了，团结在威廉·施潘瑙斯周围的党内反对派系通过在教堂唱诗班唱歌公然反抗吉尔曼。这完全是被动的抵抗，但却是有效的，因为吉尔曼对此什么都不能做。他的态度并没有改变，但是他徒劳的威胁行动逐渐消失了，尤其是在战争爆发后，第三帝国完全不能再冒任何疏远其自己人的风险了。 [17]

    得到了这个教训之后，吉尔曼变得更狡诈，因此也更有效率了，他着手废除诺特海姆的宗教学校。他没有使用威吓手段，而是使用官僚主义技巧和一种迂回攻击。他的谨慎证明了即便是这种冷酷无情的狂热分子也不得不遵守某些限制。

    1937年复活节之后不久，市长吉尔曼召集起学生们的父母，在一家小型天主教初级中学召开集会。他告诉这些父母，他们的孩子正在接受着不适当的教育，这家只有77名学生和两名教师的天主教学校不能充分提供多样化的课程。他强烈要求父母们让孩子转学到福音派路德教会的学校，那里有1 300名学生和丰富的教师团体。

    34名天主教教徒父母马上就顺从了。一名诺特海姆人（本诺·施密特，他是一名社会党人，名义上是天主教教徒，但因为反对神职人员而从未去过教堂）为了对抗吉尔曼，让他的妻子将他们的女儿转入天主教学校，但是大部分诺特海姆的小天主教社区并未作出明确的反应。接下来几个月，市长对这些父母施加了个人压力，一次一个人，这样一来，这些人就逐渐离开了天主教学校。

    当希尔德斯海姆的主教了解到正在发生的事情时，他进行了强烈的抗议，但是市长吉尔曼捍卫了自己的行为，他坚称他唯一的主张就是在新教学校能够获得优越的教育机会。吉尔曼声称他所做的是敦促父母考虑他们孩子的未来，主教无法证明他在市长办公室里对这些天主教教徒父母说了其他的内容。到1937年圣诞节为止，诺特海姆天主教学校里只有16名学生了，吉尔曼向省级学校机构申请（按照规定执行）关闭这个“侏儒学校”，他们确实这么做了。随即，1938年2月，市长再次向该机构申请宣布路德派学校是“与宗教宗派无关的”，因为这里现在有大量的天主教学生。这也是按照规定来的，于是他的请求得到了批准。到1938年4月为止，诺特海姆再也没有宗教学校了。 [18] 恩斯特·吉尔曼胜利了。

    但是请注意这一年的运动都是如何运作的。任何武力的使用甚至公开的威胁都将危及这一运动。熟练的操控而非独裁命令使市长吉尔曼达成了他基于意识形态的目标。无可否认的是，其中一个因素就是市长个人和天主教教徒父母面谈时大量使用的非正式威胁手段。无论吉尔曼在提出为了孩子们的福利这一恳求时是多么“正确”，父母们都十分了解他以这样或者那样的借口要对人们做什么。他并不是个可靠的人，只是穿着纳粹制服坐在阿道夫·希特勒的肖像画下面。但那都是不言而喻的暗示。重要的是，吉尔曼通过官僚政治和有计划的控制得逞了。他了解到了极限，就像其他诺特海姆人所了解到的那样。

    吉尔曼公然威吓的一群诺特海姆人是纳粹党及其附属机构的成员。大家还记得希特勒掌权之后不久，成百上千的城镇人因为各种各样的（大部分是投机主义的）理由而加入该党。因此，党派成员在城镇人口中占相当大一部分比例。实际上，直到1936年春天，国社党还在向1933年5月1日（当时的截止日期）之前递交入党申请的所有诺特海姆人发放成员卡。 [19] 每个申请者都被立即视为临时成员，不过和“党派同志”一样支付会费并履行其他义务。

    到1933年夏天为止，诺特海姆大约有1 200名党派成员，加上450名冲锋队队员、150名冲锋队后备人员、140名党卫军、150名希特勒青年团成员和300名少年团成员（这是希特勒青年团的预备儿童组织）。 [20] 这些人中大约有600人隶属于不止一个党派组织，因此会被统计两次，但即便是这样，地方小组至少直接控制着1 500名诺特海姆人——占整个城市成年人口的1/5。

    这些人是他要求的主要目标。这部分是因为他可以将他们开除出党，而这在希特勒的德国是非常严重的事情。但还因为这些人是在纳粹胜利之后随大流加入该党的，他对他们献身于纳粹事业的忠诚特别怀疑。当他仍旧是地方小组领袖时，他大部分的通信联系中都包括了试图保持该党和冲锋队的纯粹性。对那些错过了党派集会的人、那些未能向纳粹捐款的人、那些支付会费延迟的人或者那些发出不适当言论的人，吉尔曼会给他们写威胁信。对于那些表现得体的人（按照他的标准来看），也有奖励分配，比如推荐信。 [21] 但是监管1 500人的行为表现对一个人来说是一项重大的任务，尤其是吉尔曼发现受到训斥的人比受到奖励的人更多，大约是10：1的比率。

    早在恩斯特·吉尔曼发现一个地方小组领袖控制这么多的人有多么困难之前，纳粹党就发展了一项分割这项任务的系统。每个地方小组被分成“单元组织”，其中的每个包含若干的“片区”，每一片区负责监管几十户人家。在诺特海姆，有12个单元组织和80个片区。城镇中包含了3 500户人家，平均每个纳粹“片区管理人”负责44户人家。通过和这些有限的人进行密切而不断的交流，纳粹片区管理人担负的主要责任是向该党表述这些人的需求并向这些人转达该党的命令。片区管理人因而成了该党组织中的关键性人物，对许多人而言，他就代表着纳粹党。 [22]

    像大多数纳粹策略一样，片区管理人系统因其自身的矛盾性而被削弱了。一个尽职尽责的片区管理人或者会赢得分派给他的民众的信任，以代表他们的愿望，或者会将该党的要求施加给民众。但是他无法同时做到这两方面。因为他对该党负有责任，所以片区管理人难以避免地成了该党的眼睛、耳朵和嘴。同样不可避免的是，民众认识到不能信任他；欺骗也成了这种关系的核心内容。但本质上，片区管理人成了令人讨厌的人，因为他的主要任务是让民众加入党派组织、出席纳粹集会、读纳粹出版物并且为该党每周的募捐活动捐钱。 [23] 当诺特海姆人看见片区管理人靠近时，就扮起鬼脸，但是当管理人看见他们时，他们就不得不礼貌地笑起来。当然，片区管理人也知道这一点。

    而且，这一系统明显取决于每个片区管理人的性格，在诺特海姆，那些于1935年之后填补该职位的人主要是趋炎附势者而非狂热分子。当两名会计从恩斯特·吉尔曼手里接手，成为诺特海姆地方小组的管理者时，他们显然认为他们的授权是要将该党的事务变得井然有序。因此，他们首先着手的事情之一就是以有能力的商人取代了大部分之前委任的纳粹骨干领袖。几乎所有直到1935年一直担任单元组织领袖或者片区管理人的狂热的“老战士”现在都退休了，他们的职位被“3月受害者”——1933年3月随大流加入纳粹的投机分子——取代了，这时很明显的是希特勒已经接管了整个国家。他们被期待着成为有效率的人，而非狂热分子。这些新的片区管理人被任命到各个职位上（有时会明显违背他们的意愿，是威吓的结果），他们显然应该正确而准确地履行他们的职责。 [24]

    目标是有限的，结果很容易通过标准的簿记做法进行衡量，但是这些工作是无聊的。至少每周一次，片区管理人必须去拜访他所负责的40户人家中的每一户，以收集“冬季救济金”捐款，或是以其他方式纠缠民众。偶尔，纳粹党还会要求更多。例如，1939年，该党发现，诺特海姆对某份纳粹时事通讯的订阅数较低，于是片区管理人就被施压了，反过来管理人又向民众施压，这样一来，八个月内，订阅数就翻了番。 [25] 还有一次，该党决定让德国人喝更多的德国葡萄酒，于是片区管理人就必须挨门挨户地售卖样品酒。他们成功地使城镇中每两户人家就买了一瓶酒。 [26] 然后，还有该党的命令要传达——这是一项不可能完成的任务。到1939年为止，省党部有20个单独的办事处，每个办事处都会为每个人在生活的各个方面发布条例。没人能全部遵守。 [27] 最后，片区管理人被要求监视他的家人，还经常被要求递交关于他们的政治意识形态可靠性的书面报告。

    然而，正是1935年之后的那些年里，由诺特海姆的片区管理人所做的“个人政治评估”最为明显地展示了纳粹党从其狂热抱负中撤退到了多远。

    要求进行评估的原因很多。如果一个诺特海姆人要申请在新的“移居点”买房子，或者是想成为行会或俱乐部里的官员，或者是希望做任何政府的工作，或者是有资格领取任何的社会福利，或者甚至是要领结婚证，都必须有存档的“政治评估”。片区管理人填表格，单元组织领袖副署。表格上的查问非常具体，包括此人是否属于某个该党的组织，是否订阅该党的报刊，是否在之前参加过政治团体，是否出席纳粹集会，是否为“冬季救济金”捐款，以及他的妻子、孩子是否也属于某个团体、捐款、出席集会，等等。关键的问题是：“政治可靠性？” [28] 片区管理人对这个问题的回复会成就或者毁掉一个人。

    在1935—1944年间，完成了1 000多份这种表格，诺特海姆的片区管理人几乎没把任何人列为“政治不可靠”。前共产主义者、前君主主义者、持异议的纳粹分子、前国旗队激进分子，等等——所有人都从疲惫不堪的片区管理人那里得到了合格证明，只要他们确实做了其中的事情，在片区管理人每周进行募捐走访的时候，他们会定期并且愉快地捐几枚硬币，这样就可以让他们片区管理人的生活过得去。片区管理人在填大部分的回复时都是模糊不清的，只有当他们遇到与捐款问题迥然不同的问题空格时，无论是积极的还是消极的，他们的答案才会是具体和完整的。这一主题也在“进一步评论”部分占据着主要地位。

    当然，到1935年为止，实际上每个人都隶属于某个纳粹组织（通常是纳粹人民福利协会或者“德国女性工作”），事实上每个人都会出席集会，订阅某些纳粹出版物，尤其是，几乎每个诺特海姆人都意识到至少要为“冬季救济金”捐赠一笔象征性的钱。一旦“政治评估”中被放入了消极的评论，通常这个人的个性特征就会被描述为“自私的”或者“不友好的”，这表明他们让片区管理人一周一次本来就沉闷的工作更加繁重了。1935年后有段时间有些表格中包含消极评论是因为某人有强烈的宗教信仰（不过通常被打上标签的是天主教教徒而非路德派教徒，这反映了城镇中存在的宗教偏见），但是大部分诺特海姆人通常还是被列为“政治可靠”。 [29]

    因为有相当一部分特征鲜明的人会被明确地认定为不“可靠”（即在第三帝国建立之前或建立期间以及建立之后都强烈反对希特勒政权的人），政治评估表主要是表明片区管理人并不比其他人更感兴趣于制造麻烦。他们感兴趣的是尽可能例行公事并且表面地做好分配给他们的工作，他们明白如何远离复杂的事务，因为他们自己就是那些出于便利而非信仰而成为纳粹党成员的。 [30] 因此，即便是纳粹控制机制，也调整到适应日常生活的需要了。

    片区管理人所做报告中有一方面的内容是是否有任何社会民主党地下活动的迹象。如果前社会民主党活动者在某人家里会面，片区管理人会不得不注意（在像诺特海姆这样的小镇里，每个人都彼此相熟），他们立刻会通知纳粹党的上层人物。但是1935年之后这种会面越来越少了。 [31] 社会党人也常常讨厌使用规定的“希特勒万岁！”这样的问候语（弗雷德里希·哈泽注意到他的片区管理人从未说过），但是不久后这也被忽略了。即便恩斯特·吉尔曼限制了他的目标，但是，他发现其他人并没有这么做；从他针对一个在1934年申请恢复在国有铁路工作的社会民主党人的评论中可以看出：“我认为斯特罗迈耶先生永远不会成为国家社会主义政体的追随者，但是他也不会说什么反对的话。” [32] 他批准了此人的申请。

    在成熟的第三帝国时期，唯一对社会党人的逮捕是在1943年，当时有三名前社会民主党领袖被送入集中营。这并不是诺特海姆纳粹分子主动的，也不是因为社会党人做了什么特别的事情。这是德国军队在斯大林格勒惨败之后，盖世太保所发起的全国范围内先发制人的清剿行动的一部分。 [33] 除此以外，1935年后在诺特海姆没再发生过政治逮捕。

    片区管理人也只是间接地参与了诺特海姆的反犹行动。也就是说，他们偶尔会报告关于纳粹党成员和犹太人之间的结交，因为1934年9月之后发布的纳粹命令明确禁止党派成员在公共场合或者社交场合与犹太人在一起。 [34] 在诺特海姆这样小的地方也是不太可能隐瞒的。但明显的是，唯一的结果就是会有一封谴责这个可恶的纳粹分子的信，再加上在未来政府工作就业机会中丧失优先选择权。 [35]

    这与1933年之前在诺特海姆民众和纳粹党中普遍存在的温和的反犹主义是一致的。因为恩斯特·吉尔曼的意识形态关注点是教会，所以他在某种程度上放松了对其他方面的态度。他个人认为不应该对城镇中的犹太人采取激进的行动。正如他在1934年所写的一封信中解释的，如果人们确实避免和犹太人进行商业或者社交交流，这会“破坏犹太人的力量”。除了和国社党成员在一起之外，他从未强调过这一内容。最终，他期望“犹太商业能够从这儿消失”。 [36] 他甚至偶尔会愿意为诺特海姆个别的犹太人写担保信。 [37]

    因此，在第三帝国的最后十年中，诺特海姆的纳粹分子几乎没采取任何公开的反犹主义行动。1935年有两次，冲锋队队员朝一个犹太商人的商店橱窗扔石头，因为这个人之前鲁莽地“侮辱”他们。 [38] 1938年11月9日夜晚，冲锋队队员抢劫了几家宽街上的犹太人商店，这是全国范围内组织起来的“帝国水晶之夜”[58] 的一部分，但诺特海姆人对此的反应（全德国的情况都是这样）是公开地表示否定，以至于这成了城镇中最后一次公开反犹主义事件。 [39] 那时，希特勒决定杀掉他控制的所有犹太人，也就是他的“最终方案”，几乎所有的诺特海姆犹太人都离开了城镇，去了更大的城市并且隐姓埋名，或者为了安全考虑而去了另一个国家。诺特海姆人没有骚扰他们的犹太邻居，但是他们也尽最大努力不去“了解”他们的政府对犹太人所做的事情。 [40] 到那时为止，冷漠和心理上的否认已经成了一种生活之道。

    到第二次世界大战爆发为止，诺特海姆已经实现了一种平衡。该党只希望从民众那里得到顺从和例行公事的回应，而民众在相当大的程度上就是这么回应的。作为回报，纳粹领袖谨慎地不过分地逼迫民众。 [41] 另一方面，党派领袖对民众态度非常紧张，以至于1937年，他们开始训练单元组织领袖和片区管理人使用小型武器，并且发给他们手枪，让他们穿制服。 [42] 就片区管理人收集的记录来看，这是相当可笑的。他们对手枪的主要担忧是一旦第三帝国崩溃了，他们如何迅速地丢弃。

    随着战争的开始，诺特海姆纳粹党承接了新的任务，就是保证彻底占领，进一步减少对城镇人的要求。冲锋队队员成了空袭管理人，该党的官员变得有点儿像社会工作者了。这部分是因为根据决定，在全国范围内，该党承诺会维护响应号召的士兵们的妻子和家属的利益。因为诺特海姆是驻军城镇，所以这里有很多士兵的妻子；她们主要的需求是合适的住房。诺特海姆地方小组的大部分工作就是为这些女性找公寓，然后调节她们和女房东之前难以避免的口角。当德国其他被轰炸城市的难民家庭到达诺特海姆时，问题变得更多了。

    至于其他的，在诺特海姆，该党的工作主要包括回答某个城镇中人是否具有“政治可靠性”的询问；帮助民众寻找工作，获得资金援助或者是寻找住所；处理由配给这样的战时限制所引发的抱怨；代表党派成员出面以确保他们获益；澄清关于党派成员的官僚主义问题。 [43] 简而言之，这是普通的19世纪坦慕尼协会 [59] 的手下人所熟悉的工作，这些工作让纳粹领袖们十分繁忙，以至于几乎没什么时间去骚扰民众了。

    当伤亡数字开始增加的时候，城镇人开始意识到战争和宣誓效忠阿道夫·希特勒的后果。到1944年12月为止，成为第三帝国一部分的特权已经导致148名诺特海姆人丧生，57人在战斗中失踪，还有14人被俘，这些人是诺特海姆人的儿子、父亲和兄弟——占城镇男性人口的6%，其中还不包括伤者。1944年12月12日，同盟国的轰炸机摧毁了诺特海姆的铁路调车场。在这一过程中，他们还袭击了附近的几所房子。讽刺的是，这些房子都是工人阶级的家，毫无疑问，受害者中包括了那些1933年之前在大街上对抗纳粹分子的人。换句话说，同盟国的炸弹杀害了反纳粹分子的人。不管怎样，这种非常小的突袭导致6名男性、15名女性和7名儿童丧生。之后又有两人去世，总伤亡达到了30人。 [44]

    当美国的第三装甲师部队于1945年4月初进入诺特海姆县时，恩斯特·吉尔曼命令当地民兵组织誓死捍卫城镇。他自己脱掉他的纳粹制服，开车到诺特海姆东边的山上，车上还带着一箱杜松子酒。民兵组织步他的后尘，而没有执行他的命令，于是没有战斗，城镇就投降了。温克将军领导下的当地德国军队也关心撤退的问题，不过其后卫部队的行动导致美国损失了五辆谢尔曼坦克。于是，因为在这座位于莱纳河畔的小镇内于1933年之前所发生的那些事情，一些美国人的儿子、兄弟和父亲也丧生了。 [45]

    诺特海姆挺过了第三帝国。1945年4月12日，一切都结束了。

    二十　结论

    情况的重复是例外而不是通例，而且所谓的重复是在完全不同的情况下发生的。 ——弗里德里希·恩格斯

    尽管诺特海姆在第二次世界大战中在很大程度上避免了物理破坏，但城镇在战争中和战争后还是经历了彻底的变化。随着第三帝国的终结，纳粹分子当然消失了。恩斯特·吉尔曼被投入战俘营，待了三年，之后在诺特海姆附近的一个城镇定居。20世纪50年代末，他回到诺特海姆，过着完全与世隔绝的生活。其他人都经历了“去纳粹化”，这至少剥夺了他们投票或者任职的公民权利。在那之后，他们对第三帝国集体失忆了。1945年4月，城镇中人烧毁了他们的纳粹旗帜，之后不久，英国军队监督清除了所有可见的纳粹标志。占领当局还从公共图书馆中搬走了853本纳粹书籍，把这些书捣成纸浆回收了。这些是威廉·施潘瑙斯拣选的。 [1] 《诺特海姆观察家报》消失了，曾在1942年因为“战时经济措施”而关闭的《诺特海姆最新消息》（现在的副标题是“和《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》”）恢复出版了，很快就再次成为城镇中阅读量最大的报纸。

    占领当局委任卡尔·库埃尔富尔特担任诺特海姆县县长，他迅速而平稳地恢复了民主的当地政府。托马斯·加兰成了城镇的主要管理者。社会民主党几乎一夜之间再次出现，并且根据政治潮流的流动，在保守派还没有掌权的时候管理诺特海姆。到20世纪60年代中期，城市议会中的21个席位按照如下划分：10个社会民主党人、8个天主教中央党和3个自由民主党。这非常接近于希特勒掌权之前的情况，唯一的不同就是保守派和社会党人已经学会了认可彼此的合法身份；现在他们之间没有太大的差别。

    这在某种程度上是因为，尽管有明显的连续性，但现在并不是同一个城镇了。战争期间，来自德国更大城市的难民为了躲避空袭而涌入诺特海姆，他们中的大部分人在第三帝国崩溃后也一直待在这里。甚至有更多的难民从被俄罗斯人占领的地区来到这个小镇。到1960年为止，诺特海姆的人口翻了一番。到那时为止，每三个居民中只有一个是希特勒掌权时期的诺特海姆人。

    前纳粹时期的僵化、互相排斥团体的社会结构并没有再出现。战后不久，经济灾难均衡地传播开来，从1945年到1948年，盛行的是真正无阶级的社会。只依旧存在身份地位差别，鉴于这是普遍贫穷的社会，这种差别也没有太大意义了。之后，随着联邦德国接下来的经济奇迹，收入差别重新出现了，但是自从新经济创立了新的精英之后，就没有出现过去的静止和分裂，而持续充分就业的方法再加上强有力的累进所得税缩小了收入差距。也出现了一种新的下层阶级，就是流动的外国务工人员，和他们相比，之前德国的工人阶级（所挣工资接近于世界上最高时薪）提升了好几个社会等级。阶级界线也变得更不固定了，一方面是纳粹对正式社交生活粉碎的遗产，另一方面则是因为难民的大量涌入打破了曾经一丝不苟、僵化的阶级联盟和团体。结果就是无论如何描述第二次世界大战后诺特海姆的社会，它都不像极大地帮助希特勒掌权时那样有裂缝和有凝聚力了。旧城镇已经逝去了，永远不会回来了。

    诺特海姆现在不是，过去一直都不是“典型的”德国城镇。在魏玛共和国时期和纳粹时期，诺特海姆的结构都不同于其他德国城镇。这里有数量过多的公务员，城镇在经济上由铁路控制。在德国，几乎没有几个地方在第三帝国开始时就有2/3的人投票支持纳粹，全国平均水平约为2/5。另一方面，在第三帝国早期，德国的许多地方都有比诺特海姆更多的暴力事件。 [2]

    那么，从诺特海姆在纳粹年代的经历能学到什么呢？

    首先，很明显的是，在纳粹选举大潮和掌权中主要的舞台是地方层面，其中的关键性人物是当地纳粹领袖。诺特海姆纳粹分子通过积极、活力和宣传创造了他们自己的形象。1933年春天，他们确切地知道需要做些什么才能将权力转移到自己手里，他们所做的一切仅仅是以上所说的一般性的指令。究竟有多少是当地发起的，又有多少是在其他城镇的其他纳粹组织或者在其他区域和国家纳粹领袖的榜样推动下出现的，目前还无法确定。当然，没有来自上面的书面命令，也许都是通过口头传达的。但是主要的发动者明显是地方层面的领袖。确切地知道国社党使用什么样的方式将目的性和主动性灌输给地方小组一定会很有趣，这些方式之后又被应用于整个运动中了。详细地了解在专制机构中如何将调配和灵活性结合在一起是有用处的。可获得的关于诺特海姆的研究材料并没能完全充分地回答这些问题。然而，清楚的是，如果诺特海姆没有积极和有效的地方小组，那么这里就不会发生纳粹革命了，至少不会是现在所描述的全部革命。希特勒、戈培尔和其他纳粹领袖提供了政治决定、意识形态、国家宣传，之后，对政府的控制使革命成了可能。希特勒为其追随者定下了一个简单的目标，就是不和其他党派分享：一有机会就获得全部和排他的权力的想法。但正因为整个德国有成百上千像诺特海姆这样的地方，革命才实现了。它们构成了第三帝国的基础。

    就诺特海姆特殊经历背后的原因来说，纳粹主义获胜的主要因素是城镇中活跃的阶级派别。虽然诺特海姆在纳粹分子开始主导他们掌权的运动之前是有凝聚力的，但是这种凝聚力只存在于中产阶级或者工人阶级内部，并不是延伸至整个城镇的。纳粹主义的胜利在很大程度上可以被解释为诺特海姆中产阶级想要镇压下层阶级，尤其是其政治代表社会民主党的强烈愿望的一部分。纳粹主义是实现这一目的的第一有效工具。

    这就是诺特海姆人对纳粹分子的胜利感到高兴的原因，也是他们称赞独裁机制建立的原因。中产阶级的反感并不是针对某个社会民主党的成员，而是针对其组织本身；同样地，他们也不是针对工人阶级，而是针对其政治和社会抱负；最后，他们不是针对社会民主党的实际情况，而主要是针对他们对社会民主党所发展出的错误观念。因为多种原因，诺特海姆中产阶级非常想给社会民主党一个打击，以至于他们没看到所选择的工具有朝一日会翻过来对抗他们自己。

    关于诺特海姆人这么强烈地反对社会民主党人的确切理由不能只基于有关这个城镇的研究；答案存在于德国帝国和魏玛共和国时期的历史和社会结构中，很可能将由社会心理学家给出答案。无论怎样，社会民主党的本质和中产阶级的态度相关。诺特海姆社会民主党人一直使用的口号和方法与现实不怎么相关。他们表面上是革命党，但却并不再准备领导革命。他们没有认真地试图和中产阶级修复关系，还经常以他们的短见和肤浅的攻击性冒犯中产阶级的感情。

    但是，将所有的责任都推到诺特海姆社会民主党身上也是不正确的。中产阶级回应社会民主党的存在的方式几乎是偏执的。其成员坚持将社会民主党视为“马克思主义”政党，而当时已经不是这样了。他们决定将时钟拨回到有组织的工人阶级被强制禁止发挥影响的时期。他们认为这一组织的存在是具有威胁性的。关于社会民主党的这一观点与现实不符，因为无论以何种客观标准来衡量，诺特海姆社会民主党的目标都是按照诺特海姆中产阶级所想的那样维持这种城镇。

    在诺特海姆，阻止纳粹分子所需要的就是，任何党派的正派人士组成的政治联盟认识到——无论它承诺什么——纳粹主义是不道德的。这种联盟无法形成是纳粹分子掌权的主要原因。但正是中产阶级给了他们机会。

    当某人意识到他们在多大程度上致力于民族主义时，诺特海姆好市民的表现也许就更容易为人理解了。在希特勒掌权之前，城镇中无节制的爱国情感就是纳粹主义最好的道德切入点。就很多方面来看，在魏玛共和国末期，诺特海姆人的行动和信念就像第一次世界大战从未结束一样。正是在这种氛围中，社会民主党看起来是不忠的，而纳粹看起来是合情合理的。

    大萧条带来了类似的影响。而诺特海姆中产阶级并没有受到经济危机的决定性影响，中产阶级会变得绝望是因为恐惧，因为对大萧条影响的困扰，尤其是当他们看到失业现象时。至于大萧条对下层阶级的影响，那是相当大的。毫无疑问的是失业者随着失业时间越来越长而逐渐加深的绝望削弱了城镇中的民主力量。这也侵蚀了社会民主党想要抗争的意愿，导致该党以老套的方式回应纳粹主义。对于社会民主党人而言，当涉及捍卫会产生某种经济灾难的体制时，他们很难竭尽全力去对抗纳粹主义。如果社会民主党认真地引入民主社会主义来对付大萧条，他们很有可能会发现来自其追随者的全新的力量源泉，很有可能赢得大部分诺特海姆人的支持，这些人支持国社党只是因为纳粹分子承诺结束大萧条。简而言之，聪明而可信的激进主义是对付大萧条所需要的，但是社会党人并未提供。

    大萧条也以其他方式影响了诺特海姆的社会党人。制糖厂和铁路的经济压力作用使社会民主党丧失了很多威望和权力。危急时刻，它甚至不能保卫自己的民众，那么它如何能捍卫民主，它又如何能带来社会主义社会呢？在铁路调车场管理的成功无疑为纳粹分子提供了多种可能性。正是在这里，他们了解到工人们在经济上有多么脆弱；正是在这里，他们了解到从本质上而言，社会民主党不会反抗。

    但大萧条的主要影响是使城镇更加激进了。在面对加剧的经济危机时，诺特海姆人愿意忍受在其他情况下会使他们义愤或者冷漠的做法。因此在专制政权出现的那些年里，令人厌恶和削弱党派的唇枪舌剑与暴力行为迅速成长。诺特海姆暴力行为的程度是其极端局面的表现，而通过使暴力行为正常化和可接受也使这种极端局面更为严重。随着逐渐发展的民族主义和对大萧条越来越没有耐心，暴力行为和政治紧张局势成了城镇准备接受纳粹掌权的主要因素。

    所有这些因素都被纳粹宣传相当巧妙地利用起来了。面对几番毫无意义的政治争吵和低效运作，纳粹分子看起来是统一、有决心和有活力的另类。他们的宣传对城镇中的需求和恐惧产生了影响，其指向几乎是任何潜在的追随者群体。这在很大程度上是因为纳粹分子愿意让他们的宣传在程序上灵活起来，因为他们有一套简单的评估和调整宣传策略效果的反馈系统。通过他们自己的活力、适应性和努力，诺特海姆的纳粹分子捕获了城镇中困惑和陷入麻烦的中产阶级的忠诚。

    这为实际掌权奠定了基础，而革命本身也是以确保成功的方式进行的。用康拉德·海登的话说，事实就是一场“分期进行的政变”让国旗队在任何时候都无法作出果决的回应。当社会民主党分裂的时候，恐怖系统已经建立起来了，这在很大程度上是通过社会强化而产生的。

    在这一进程中，一个最大的因素就是对诺特海姆正式社交生活的摧毁。城镇中的社会凝聚力存在于俱乐部生活中，在纳粹统治早期，这就被破坏了。随着社会组织的逝去以及恐怖体系的现实，诺特海姆人在很大程度上彼此孤立了。中产阶级是这样，甚至工人也是这样，因为通过对社会民主党和工会的破坏，由大俱乐部所创建起来的全部复杂的社交联络都受到了影响。通过将诺特海姆民众分解为互不联系的社会分子，纳粹分子可以让由此而形成的大众去往任何他们希望的方向。在诺特海姆，这一进程很可能比大多数其他地方更加容易，因为该镇包含很多的政府雇员。由于他们对政府的依赖，这些公务员处于暴露的位置，如果他们重视自己的生活，那么除了和纳粹分子合作之外，他们别无选择。尤其是诺特海姆的教师——他们组成了该镇的社会和文化精英——几乎立刻就陷入了对国社党的支持中。随着1933年春季大批诺特海姆人涌入纳粹行列以及恐怖行为和骚扰行为变得明显，实际上已经没有抵制希特勒的可能了。

    除此以外，纳粹分子采取了相当多的行动来加强支持，尤其是在最初的几个月。他们经常举行游行和集会，给人一种充满无法抵挡的热情和受人认可的印象。经济领域的活力比其他任何事情更能证明独裁统治的正当性。除了纳粹自己的努力外，还有些有利于他们的因素。许多迹象表明到1933年为止，大萧条正在慢慢地自愈。而且有很多之前政权分派的公共事业资金，在纳粹分子掌权后才得以使用。人们可能还应该考虑到建立独裁统治的重要工作是在春天开始的——当时热情看起来是适当的，革命也并不是不自然的。

    因此，许多因素结合起来使纳粹主义对诺特海姆来说成为可能。同时，城镇本身影响着纳粹主义的性质，正如纳粹主义在当地的表现一样。比如，在第三帝国最初几个月，基本上缺乏暴力行为很可能是因为诺特海姆本质上是个小城镇。正如纳粹分子痛恨社会党人所代表的一切，双方都太了解彼此了，以至于没有发生冷酷而系统性的暴力行为。冲锋队队员会在街头打斗中打他们的邻居，但是他们却会避免在社会党人毫无防备的时候发动攻击。并不是说没有暴力行为发生，但这确实有助于解释为什么在纳粹政权前几年没人被杀，而且诺特海姆只有很少一部分人被送入集中营。有一次，恩斯特·吉尔曼似乎决定让冲锋队队员对卡尔·库埃尔富尔特及其小烟草店开火，但做脏活的并不是诺特海姆的冲锋队队员；用卡车载来的来自其他城镇的冲锋队队员被用于这一场合。库埃尔富尔特和吉尔曼后来的关系也再次证明了这点；即便是最极端的狂热分子，也很难对和他在同一个街区长大的人完全无情。

    诺特海姆的小，无疑改变了成熟的独裁体制的性质，实际上许多家庭都是世代相知。纳粹分子可以为所欲为，但是“捍卫旧诺特海姆特权俱乐部”——由政治光谱中每种颜色的旧城市居民组成——仍旧开会并一起努力确保他们收到每年配给的免费啤酒以及来源于城镇森林的价值18马克的木材。 [3] 在希特勒掌权之后，有些事情似乎仍旧是一样的。虽然纳粹分子声称他们的慈善事业是独一无二的，但是1933年之前可以看到诺特海姆人向各种各样不同的慈善组织捐赠同样多的资金。尽管纳粹分子认为通过将军队带到诺特海姆来，他们正在做些新的事情，但是应该记住早在恩斯特·吉尔曼考虑这样做之前，城镇就以热爱军队而闻名了。

    实际上，就许多方面而言，吉尔曼及其纳粹管理当局只是将诺特海姆在纳粹掌权前表现出的小城镇的盲目爱国心具体化了。当要在纳粹理想和将诺特海姆发展成旅游中心之间作出选择时，吉尔曼毫不犹豫。如果有重要的游客来诺特海姆，他会确保他们住在桑尼旅馆，因为那是城镇中最好的旅馆，即使其所有者是前民族主义政党领袖和被禁止讨论的共济会的负责人。 [4] 另一方面，有些诺特海姆人没在纳粹主义中看到什么新的内容，除了有可能有机会实施他们一直希望的政策之外。比如，对于诺特海姆射击协会的几名主要成员来说，引入希特勒政权只意味着他们现在可以拥有300米的靶场了。对于城镇中的几名商人而言，纳粹主义只意味着现在是时候发扬诺特海姆人应该在他们自己的商店里购物的观念了。无论他们的纳粹领袖如何告诉他们，诺特海姆人都不会不去教堂，因为这是他们在星期日一直做的事情。

    最后，有人可能会分析纳粹掌权后恩斯特·吉尔曼的行为，将其视为诺特海姆阶级分化的表现。并有什么比去发现关于个人动机的真相更难的事情了，但是吉尔曼及其亲近的朋友们所采取的许多行动暗示他们是对社会不满的产物。吉尔曼属于下层中产阶级，这毫无疑问给他留下了深深的烙印，在这样一个政府和社会由精英阶层控制的城镇中，这些精英可以自由地表达胜过小资产阶级和工人们的冷酷的优越感。当纳粹分子在诺特海姆掌权后，他们摧毁了社会民主党及其附属组织，并且追捕社会党人领袖，但这可以解释为纳粹主义和社会民主制度之间无法妥协的政治对立。吉尔曼想从社会党人这里得到的是他们变得不发挥作用，而不是退化（除非是产生一种政治徒劳感的情况）。因此，吉尔曼会同意在他看来永远也不会支持希特勒政权的社会党人的工作申请。 [5] 当一个普通工人公然反抗他时，他还能难得地笑起来；当他试图骚扰卡尔·库埃尔富尔特的兄弟时，库埃尔富尔特能以这样告诉吉尔曼来阻止他：“看吧，如果你想要选人欺负，那就试试我吧——但是，离我的家人远点儿。” [6] 这是吉尔曼所尊重的；他所讨厌的是城镇中的上层阶级。在这方面，他的团体是支持他的。正如赫尔曼·舒尔策有次说到威廉·施潘瑙斯：“一个诚实的共产主义者比一个毫无意义的大学教师更合我意。” [7]

    结果，吉尔曼对城镇精英阶层所做的事情是他从不会对完全对立的政治对手所做的。在驱逐市长彼得斯的漫长而卑鄙的过程中所使用的方法既是没有必要的，也是令人厌恶的。试图贬低托马斯·加兰也属于同一类别。吉尔曼对待射击协会和零售商人协会的做法超越了惯常的“一体化”，这在一定程度上是他的轻视。他对待和城镇中上流社会的关系的做法也具有相同的特征，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的威廉·罗尔是最显著的例子。这种态度最终表现在吉尔曼对抗路德教派的斗争中，这种对抗在诺特海姆比德国的大部分地方更加严酷。通过以这种极端的方式和卑劣的方法抨击城镇中有社会地位者的大本营，恩斯特·吉尔曼很可能在试图胜过他所成长的环境，并且谴责他之前纡尊降贵地对待的上流社会。

    而诺特海姆人，即便是在第三帝国的深渊中，也找到了让吉尔曼及其追随者接受城镇态度这一现实的方法。实际上，我们能看到在诺特海姆经历希特勒独裁统治中的一个有点儿令人鼓舞的内容就是，即便是狂热的纳粹分子，也不得不遵守某些限制。尽管他们傲慢地认为他们能挑战并且改变人类的本性，但是纳粹领袖被迫接受了城镇中人的表面顺从而不是要求内在承诺。至少从1935—1945年，无聊和淡漠是纳粹运动无法克服的因素。他们可以强迫诺特海姆人出席集会并且假装热情，但这在很大程度上是双方达成一致的做戏，最大的谜团是谁在欺骗谁：是那些假装他们的行为有意义的人，抑或是那些鼓励这种虚假的人？作为对外在顺从的回馈，诺特海姆的纳粹领袖在成熟的第三帝国时期并没有向城镇中人施加太多的暴力，但这可以证明纳粹领袖也知道这种顺从只是建立在不言而喻的暴力威胁和表面上的。就很多的日常经历而言，接受这些规则让人们的生活暂时变得可忍受了。

    这是种半信半疑的胜利，几乎不能视为诺特海姆人被免除他们国家的杀戮行为了。而且，当置于纳粹经历这一更广阔的背景下时，这就显示出作为人类生存策略的犬儒主义、欺诈、和解、漠不关心、背弃和坚决的冷漠是多么得无效。诺特海姆施加给他们的纳粹管理者的调整使得城镇人可以在第三帝国生存下去，但是大众的不抵抗也让纳粹分子能够对人类种族犯下罪行。就某些方面而言，纳粹最大的罪行就是鼓励道德麻木并且证明了其正当性，甚至是在那些不同意纳粹分子的人中也是这样。这是因为这种道德麻木是所有纳粹主义其他不道德罪行的先决条件。

    而且，纳粹独裁统治最终甚至还折磨着想要与之和平相处的诺特海姆人。基本上几乎每个诺特海姆人都逐渐明白了第三帝国正在带给他们什么。绝大部分诺特海姆人在经历了普遍的信任和社会交流崩溃时就了解到了独裁统治的含义。当希特勒的政策为他们带来战争的时候，所有人都对此有了清醒的认识——这是一场人们恐惧和憎恶的战争。 [8] 尽管在前纳粹时期这里就有着强烈的爱国主义精神，但是1939年当驻军走出城镇的时候，诺特海姆的街道上没有任何欢呼声。战争带来了饥饿，尤其是在1945年之后，而且在冰冷的俄罗斯大草原上，许多诺特海姆人的儿子学会了缓和他们对军国主义的热爱。他们的父母了解到纳粹主义意味着死亡。

    但是，当诺特海姆的中产阶级以压倒性的优势投票支持引入第三帝国时，没人预见到这些结果。这也许就是这个城镇从纳粹掌权期间和掌权之前的经历中所获得的最大的教训。那段时期，诺特海姆几乎没人理解正在发生的事情。没有人真正理解一旦希特勒掌权城镇会经历什么，没有人真正理解纳粹主义是什么。

    社会民主党未能理解纳粹诉求的本质；犹太人和路德教派也是，在纳粹的鞭笞下，两者都遭受了痛苦。即便是许多深信不疑的国社党成员，比如威廉·施潘瑙斯，对他们正在宣传的内容也是完全地理解错误。甚至没有任何一个来自诺特海姆著名学校的老师问一句为什么，如果德国人民就是希特勒一直告诉他们的是优等民族，那么，他们就不得不为了实现所谓的命运而变成恐怖的奴隶制国家。

    每个团体都看到了纳粹主义的一面或者另一面，但是没人看到它全部的可怕之处。只有到后来才会变得明显，甚至是那时每个人的理解程度也是不一样的。纳粹主义的问题主要是认知问题。就这一点来说，诺特海姆的困难和诺特海姆的命运在相似的情况下很可能被其他城镇中的其他人分担。并不容易找到补救方法，但是知识和理解会是针对这一问题的第一步。

    附录

    一　本书中采访人物列表

    带有引用符号的名字代表是假名。信息的序列如下：职业、政治倾向、宗教信仰、年龄、主要活动、其他。

    “汉斯·阿贝罗德”（“Hans Abbenrode”） 小学校长，投票支持中间路线。路德派教徒，1930年时38岁。
    格雷戈尔·巴林（Gregor Ballin） 职员，民主党派成员。犹太人，1930年时45岁。第一次世界大战的退伍军人，在战争中受过伤。

    鲁道夫·比克曼（Rudolf Bückmann） 高中校长，民族主义党派成员。路德派教徒，1930年时42岁。大学毕业生。

    赫尔曼·登茨勒（Hermann Denzler） 纺织品商店的老板，纳粹党和纳粹党卫军成员。名义上的路德派教徒，1930年时30岁。后来成了诺特海姆的参议员。第一次世界大战的退伍军人。

    托马斯·加兰（Thomas Galland）

    城市管理部门的公务员，民主党派成员。路德派教徒，1930年时30岁。

    约翰内斯·格罗特（Johannes Grote）

    城市煤气工程的半熟练工人，工会领袖，社会民主党的活跃成员。名义上的天主教教徒，1930年时48岁。曾经是诺特海姆市议会的议员。第一次世界大战的退伍军人，获得了一级铁十字勋章。

    弗里德里希·哈泽（Friedrich Hasse）

    受雇于诺特海姆县的小公务员，社会民主党成员。路德派教徒，1930年时27岁。当地国旗队的著名领袖。

    玛丽亚·哈贝尼希特（Maria Habenichts）

    高中教师的妻子，她的丈夫是人民党派成员。路德派教徒，1930年时35岁。她的丈夫是共济会成员、第一次世界大战的退伍军人。

    安娜·许格（Anna Hueg）

    城镇的首席历史学家和作家阿道夫·许格（Adolf Hueg）的妻子。政治信仰偏向于右翼。路德派教徒，1930年时33岁。

    “埃哈特·克诺佩尔”（“Erhardt Knorpel”）

    《诺特海姆最新消息》（温和派报纸）的记者，投票支持人民党派。路德派教徒，1930年时38岁。第一次世界大战的退伍军人。

    “海因里希·拉默”（“Heinrich Lamme”） 一家私营银行的副主管，投票支持民主党派。路德派教徒，1930年时27岁。

    卡尔·库埃尔富尔特（Carl Querfurt） 小商人（零售商），社会民主党的地方领袖之一。路德派教徒，1930年时43岁。市议会议员，县议会的参议员。第一次世界大战的退伍军人。

    伊娃·罗尔（Eva Röhrs） 右翼报纸《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》主编的妻子。投票支持民族主义党派，她的丈夫是民族主义党派的活跃成员。路德派教徒，1930年时48岁。
    “本诺·施密特”（Benno Schmidt） 无特殊技能的按日计酬的临时工，通常是作为城市劳动力储备。左翼，不过并不是真正的社会民主党成员。名义上的天主教教徒，1930年时28岁。

    奥托·冯·德·舒伦堡（Otto von der Schulenburg） 1932—1945年任县长，人民党派成员。路德派教徒，1930年时42岁。具有非凡才能的专业政府官员。

    赫尔曼·舒尔策（Hermann Schulze） 半熟练铁路工人，工会领袖，社会民主党的活跃成员。无神论者，1930年时31岁。国旗队位于诺特海姆附近的小郊区的领袖，诺特海姆铁路车站的工人委员会成员。

    威廉·斯潘瑙斯（Wilhelm Spannaus）

    书店业主，纳粹党成员（诺特海姆第一个加入纳粹党的人，但是1933年之后不再着迷于纳粹）。路德派教徒，1930年时43岁。之前在南美洲做教师。知识分子。

    “雨果·施皮斯曼”（Hugo Spiessmann）

    公务员，城市储蓄银行主管，右翼。路德派教徒，1930年时45岁。第一次世界大战的退伍军人。

    “库尔特·蔡瑟”（Kurt Zeisser）

    印刷学徒，希特勒青年团的成员。名义上的路德派教徒，1930年时13岁。

    二　表格

    注：*统计基础：《诺特海姆最新消息》的月度报告，以及Oberamtmann Nolte，“Ar-beit und Wirtschaft in Arbeitsamtbezirk Northeim, Bearbeitet in Arbeitsamt Northeim，1938/1939”（诺特海姆区就业办事处文件中的手抄本）。

    注：*资料来源与表1相同。

    注：*资料来源与表1相同。

    注：*整理自《诺特海姆最新消息》的报告。

    注：1933年7月14日除了纳粹党之外所有的党派都被宣布为不合法的。7月或8月的“民族主义党派”集会实际上都是钢盔团进行的。

    *整理自《诺特海姆最新消息》《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》《哥本哈根人民报》的报告。

    注：*资料来源与表6相同。

    注：数字所代表的主题（括号内的数字代表出现的频率。）：1—抚恤金（2）；2—基督教（2）；3—资本主义（3）；4—青年（4）；5—犹太人（4）；6—对外政策（4）；7—公务员和中产阶级（5）；8—军国主义（5）；9—共和国或“制度”（5）；10—一般经济学（6）；11—“马克思主义”—社会民主党（10）；12—纳粹主义的历史和理论（10）；13—不可归类的（12）；14—纯粹的盛会或娱乐（26）。

    *资料来源与表6相同。

    注：*本表格只列出了媒体上报道的那些活动，实际上逮捕的人和搜查的房子更多。资料来源与表6相同。

    三　诺特海姆的国社党

    递交给省党部领袖的正式声明，为“诺特海姆的纳粹地方小组正在发生糟糕的事情”这一断言辩护。

    由埃德蒙·芬茨拉夫（编号—）同志递交，1933年6月20日。

    1933年6月16日星期五，纳粹党的县领袖瓦尔特·施泰内克和地方小组领袖恩斯特·吉尔曼想要知道我使用“地方小组的糟糕事情”这一表述的原因。为了回应，我将以下声明递交省党部领袖。

    1.资金问题。关于党派资产，我指控地方小组领袖没有确保必要的廉洁和秩序。相反，在很多情况中，他试图进行妨碍。

    （1）就诺特海姆女性组织中的违法乱纪情况来说，迈耶同志作出如下声明：“关于这一事件，我不允许做出任何澄清。”（证人：施潘瑙斯同志。）

    （2）E同志和F同志去年12月检查选举活动支出、筹款的账簿时所要求看到的收据，还有成员申请表的收据等，都没有得到。（参见F同志递交给省调查和仲裁委员会的报告。）

    （3）去年12月，许多同志在C同志家中会面，讨论这个事情，当着地方小组领袖的面进行投诉。他声称这些批评是有益的，要求就这个方面进行更加深入的协作。几周后，1933年1月1日，他密谋着驱逐那些同志。（证人：C同志和沃格同志。）

    （4）1933年1月，地方小组领袖号召组成一个委员会，目的是检查债务清偿方式。出席者包括施潘瑙斯同志、B同志、C同志、H同志、I同志和J同志。地方小组领袖因病没有出席，由其兄弟代表参加。委员会一致宣布除非提交债务清单、关于债务如何产生的解释说明和如何清偿的计划，否则他们不会着手做任何事情。委员会因而再未召集起来。就流产的委员会成员而言，他们想要积极协作的意愿可以通过与1933年3月5日选举相关的筹款和准备的礼品体现出来。

    （5）关于1932年6月、7月和8月延迟登记以及不正确的捐赠接受，参见我在1933年6月11日递交省党部领袖的投诉。

    （6）为了清偿地方小组的债务，地方小组领袖将每月的会费提高了50芬尼，但是并没有经过地方小组的会议批准。鉴于资金乱用的情况，许多同志拒绝支付。

    （7）地方小组领袖要求地方小组中的每位同志特别捐赠至少10马克（见附函）。这种做法太专横了。

    （8）在同样的条件下，新的申请者需要另外交入会费，他们中的大多数人都支付了，因为他们担心如果不支付的话，无法加入国社党。

    （9）地方小组现在的财务主管K同志因在接管职位的时候拒绝证明手上有更多的现金而为人所知，他不想为前任的玩忽职守负责。我要求他为此事作证。

    2.肆无忌惮的方法选择。

    （1）1933年1月12日，地方小组领袖告诉地方小组调查和仲裁委员会主席E同志，他被省党部领袖与省调查和仲裁委员会解职了。这并不是真的。（证人：E同志。）

    （2）1933年1月19日和1月28日有两次，地方小组领袖要求地方小组调查和仲裁委员会主席E同志签字同意开除沃格同志、C同志、L女同志、M女同志和N女同志，尽管实际上调查和仲裁委员会从没有进行审讯，而且地方小组领袖已经在1月12日宣布E同志被解职了。

    （3）不久之后，地方小组领袖要求地方小组调查和仲裁委员会的一名成员（席尔洛同志）签署据说是地方小组调查和仲裁委员会的审讯记录，其内容是将L女同志和M女同志开除出党，不过实际上从未进行过审讯。席尔洛同志拒绝签署。

    （4）后来，地方小组领袖要求关于德林同志的案件文件必须递交给他。这遭到了拒绝。（证人：席尔洛同志。）（见下。）

    （5）地方小组领袖安排同志们监视其他没有顺从他意愿的同志们，这一点存在严重的疑问。我要求市巡查员Q同志回答他是否被要求监视R同志。能肯定的是他没有失业，而这些市雇员们一直忍受着地方小组领袖的专制方法所带来的恐惧，如果他们在某些方面反对地方小组领袖，他们就会失业。（见下。）

    （6）在参议员选举时，市议员们反对选择乌德同志，因为他从事欺骗性的和非法的活动（关于这些活动，我要求由S同志作证），因此名声很差。地方小组领袖声称：“我需要乌德作为一名战士。市长彼得斯的时代完全结束了。乌德会成为给市长重击的那个人。”议员们依旧拒绝按照地方小组领袖的意愿行事时，地方小组领袖声称：“作为地方小组领袖，我宣布乌德是参议员了。”（证人：G同志。）

    （7）不久之后，地方小组对上面的证人市议员G同志说：“你要是不服从的话，就必须辞职。你一定很惊讶！我很快就会在报纸上发表第一篇针对你的文章。你要是不服从的话，我会号召抵制你的酒吧，而沃格（议会议长）会被调到东普鲁士。”（沃格同志是教师。）（证人：G同志。）

    （8）同样的情况也发生在了工业和贸易商会。我参考了T同志递交给省党部领袖的投诉。

    3.地方小组领袖的虚伪。地方小组领袖在诺特海姆地区因虚伪而名声很糟糕。他自己曾经对沃格同志说：“什么是‘诺言’？我不承认任何诺言。”以下是例证：

    （1）见第1部分中的（1）、（2）和（3）。

    （2）见第2部分中的（1）、（2）和（3）。

    （3）1933年1月30日，他告诉M同志省党部领袖要求开除她。省党部领袖最了解这并不是真的。

    （4）几周前，德林同志声称地方小组领袖不止一次撒谎，而是很多次。他告诉了乌德同志，而乌德将此事告诉了地方小组领袖。于是，地方小组领袖找到德林同志，将这位年长他25岁的同志打倒在地。（见德林同志递交给省党部领袖的投诉。）至于我，地方小组领袖在6月16日说道：“我本不该只将德林打倒在地。我本该绕着市集广场用狗鞭抽打他。那些传播关于我的庸俗谣言的其他蠢猪应该得到更加严厉的对待。下一个就是施潘瑙斯。”

    （5）尽管迈耶同志一直保护着女性组织的领袖，但是他声称：“关于这一事件，我不允许做出任何澄清。”他私下里对U同志说：“你是对的，迈耶夫人是有罪的。”

    （6）内在的虚伪至少是存在的，地方小组领袖在焚烧市售的“堕落文学作品”时，愤怒地反对犹太人，而他自己的姐妹就嫁给了艾恩贝克的一个犹太律师，地方小组领袖并没有停止和她的友好往来。

    4.地方小组领袖允许腐败和贪污。诺特海姆的市政机构包含四名国家社会主义参议员，某人经常听到这样的判断：“纳粹党比红色分子更了解腐败和贪污。”

    （1）参议员们为自己投票通过了每月50马克的薪酬，而地方小组领袖之前宣称参议员和议员职位只是名誉上的。市议员们对此进行了抗议。（证人：C同志。）

    （2）地方小组领袖安排他在皮具店工作的岳父拿到了“劳动服务”团体的制作靴子的合同。（证人：施潘瑙斯同志。）

    （3）地方小组领袖安排他拥有一间铁具用品店的兄弟拿到了城市啤酒厂制作啤酒玻璃瓶的合同，而他的兄弟很久之前就终止了玻璃器皿的生意。地方小组领袖下属的部门之一就是啤酒厂。（证人：沃格同志。）

    （4）地方小组领袖安排他的兄弟拿到了啤酒厂的园椅的订单，而铁器商V同志为这个订单提供了更低廉的报价。（证人：沃格同志。）

    （5）地方小组领袖安排他的兄弟得到了城市的脚轮衣柜的订单，而他的兄弟并没有储存那些物料，城市里的其他同志却有储备。（证人：沃格同志。）

    （6）参议员乌德安排城市终止了和W同志签订的运送牛奶合同，虽然实际上和W同志的合同对城镇更有利。乌德的意图是自己拿到这一合同。

    5.地方小组领袖不是真正的国家社会主义者。

    （1）吉尔曼同志已经入党很长时间了，但是直到1931年3月1日才变得活跃起来，而他一出现在成员们的集会上，立即承担了地方小组领袖的副手这一职务。一般的判断是他只是受到了雄心抱负的激励。证据包括去年他做出的声明：“如果我当不上地方小组领袖，我就会转向其他党派并且反对纳粹党，之后我会向省党部领袖提供一点儿自己的想法。”（证人：沃格同志和Y同志。）有一种设想是，他的目标是成为市长。

    （2）吉尔曼同志只看到了领袖原则的权力，并没有看到责任。他想要进行独裁统治，将任何的批评都视为妨害或者阴谋。（证人：沃格同志和C同志。）他没有将能干的人视为同事，而仅仅视为工具。

    （3）由于啤酒厂参议员所拥有的权力，地方小组领袖开除了啤酒厂的25名市雇员，因为他们属于社会民主党，不过元首曾经说过社会民主党或者国旗队队员并不是开除这些人的充分理由。地方行政长官反对这一行动。（证人：沃格同志。）6月16日，我向地方小组领袖提出这一行动违背了国家社会主义的精神，国家社会主义想要提供一个所有德国人的人民—社区。他回复称：“‘人民—社区’只是个漂亮的词汇而已。”他说更重要的是为常年守卫在街头的冲锋队队员提供面包；用“人民—社区”这个词根本不能填饱他们的肚子。昨晚的一场特殊集会上，地方小组领袖提到这件事情，并且说有些群体想要将新采用的冲锋队队员重新安置到街道上。冲锋队领袖们应该向其队员们讲过这个事情，并且让他们自己决定是否应该被按照基督教方式进行管理。（证人：Z同志。）我发现这有点儿在煽动冲锋队来对抗他们的同志，而且将我的声明扭曲为反对国家社会主义的精神。
    我恭敬地请求省党部领袖调查这些指控，并且整顿诺特海姆。
    希特勒万岁！

    （签名）埃德蒙·芬茨拉夫
    编号、头衔等

  • 威廉·谢里登·阿伦《纳粹掌权：一个德国小镇的经历》1-9

    目录
    第一部 民主之死（1922年—1933年1月）
    一 背景
    二 城镇结构
    三 加入纳粹（1930年，春夏）
    四 开拓胜利（1930—1931年，秋冬）
    五 政权统一（1931年，春夏）
    六 大萧条的深渊（1931—1932年，秋冬）
    七 政治高潮（1932年，春）
    八 分崩离析（1932年，夏）
    九 最后的寒冬（1932—1933年，秋冬）
    第二部 引入独裁统治（1933年1月—1945年5月）
    十 最后一次选举（1933年2—3月）
    十一 选举成功的用处（1933年，春夏）
    十二 恐怖系统（1933年，春夏）
    十三 煽动热情（1933年，春夏）
    十四 社会分化（1933年，春夏）
    十五 积极的方面（1933年，春夏）
    十六 反应和反抗（1933年，春夏）
    十七 从狂热到例行公事（1933年，夏—1935年年初，冬）
    十八 伟大的理由（1933年，夏—1935年年初，冬）
    十九 第三帝国的生活（1935—1945年）
    二十 结论
    附录
    一 本书中采访人物列表
    二 表格
    三 诺特海姆的国社党
    注释
    译名对照表

    将每个问题尽可能地划分成很多个部分，对于每一个部分的思考越精确，整体就越明了。 ——笛卡尔《方法论》

    修订版序言

    当我的出版人第一次建议我及时对此书进行修订，以赶上希特勒在德国掌权五十周年的时候，我有些犹豫。对于我而言，这似乎代表这本书很耐看：评论家们对此书持肯定观点，书中的主要说明没有受到严重的质疑，本书的研究方法被认为是有效的，并且有很多学者在效仿这种研究方法。作为一名教师，最令我满足的是这本书对本科生的课程有所助益。实际上，过去17年以来，本书在美国成了德国历史课程中的最常用指定读物，我认为，这在很大程度上是因为理解一个城镇而不是全部国家的历史让学生们感觉没那么困难。将涉及6 000万人的这个难以想象的复杂问题放在一个小规模的社会中来看，似乎更容易理解了，不过复杂性的绝大多数相同因素依旧存在——很多美国学生也发现了这点。简言之，我遵从古老谚语的智慧：“别画蛇添足。”

    另外，我也怀疑是否能找到足够多的新信息来对本书进行修订。总体上来说，关于纳粹主义的崛起并没有什么新内容，而且进行微观研究的要点就是限定在某个特定的地方。虽然可以利用从其他研究中得到的见解，但借用这些信息又不太合适。自1965年以来，我已经从其他的地方研究中得出了相当多的参照数据，所以讨论不同德国城镇的各种调查成果是有意义的。而这样一来，我们似乎只能得到相同的主要结论。对纳粹主义的微观研究所产生的细微差别进行详尽的分析可以创作一篇适合于学术杂志的优秀综述文章，但对于普通读者来说可能就会很无聊了。

    1971年出版的对纳粹组织的地方研究具有重要指导意义的著作超越了我之前所做的分析 [1] ，我想要将其中的成果融合进我的研究中，但是要充分做到这一点，我就需要新的信息来匹配该著作中的数据。我确信在进行研究之初已经彻底探讨过所有能得到的文件记录了，其中并没有新的发现，我认为并不会有新的材料了。（因此，对历史研究者而言，接下来所发生的事情是一个警世故事。）

    尽管如此，1979年，我在德国进行研究之旅时，还是趁机调查了诺特海姆（这个城镇是我最初的研究主题）是否有关于纳粹主义崛起的新数据。我仔细检查了在科布伦茨的联邦档案馆、柏林—达勒姆的普鲁士非公开国家档案馆和柏林文档中心的政府与政党记录。在每个地方，我都发现了一些有趣的但是数量极少的信息。很久以前我已经说过了，我真正需要的有关诺特海姆纳粹党的实际文件已经在第三帝国崩溃时被烧毁了。

    然而，正如其他学者早就发现的，关于诺特海姆所属的南汉诺威—布伦瑞克大区的记录大部分都被完整地保留下来了。在纳粹党的组织结构中，德国被划分为35个区域，每个区域称为“大区”。每个大区领袖负责其所在大区的地方组织，因此我希望找到诺特海姆地方组织和南汉诺威—布伦瑞克的大区领袖之间的通信。如果有信件的话，一定是保存在汉诺威的下萨克森国家档案馆。

    在汉诺威，档案保管员迅速地梳理出我也许会从中发现诺特海姆和其大区领袖之间通信的文件，他说还有些关于诺特海姆的文件，我也许会感兴趣。这些文件没有被编入目录，还没有分配档案编号，也还没有被其他学者看过，足足有八大筐。结果，这些文件原来是1929—1938年诺特海姆地方组织的纳粹党之间通信的副本！还有几个条目一直涵盖到20世纪40年代初期，包括一千份来自诺特海姆的“个人的政治可靠性评估”，某位档案保管员还在封面上用笔写了“没什么意思”。这些都被归入了第二次世界大战期间的大区档案中，差不多都因为不重要而被埋没了，因而在战争结束时就逃脱了成为有关诺特海姆的纳粹档案原件的命运。很明显，这些材料不仅可以证明对本书进行修订是合理的，而且也要求对本书进行修订。

    对这些文件的分析证明了我最初的结论基本上是正确的，并没有出现矛盾之处。这些文件也提供了大量的补充数据：关于城镇上纳粹党的内部运作，关于筹资和宣传策略，关于第三帝国期间利用权力来控制城镇居民的方法，关于纳粹党的地方和国家办事处向当地纳粹分子提供援助和指导的程度。关于诺特海姆的纳粹主义早期历史（1922—1929年）以及1935—1945年的历史有足够多的材料，所以我可以为本书增添几个新的部分，也能够延伸参数范围，涵盖这个城镇全部的纳粹主义经历——从开始到结束。

    这些材料中的某些内容已经促成了我就有关希特勒政权属性的理论进行讨论。 [2] 其他数据主要是对具体细节有价值，提供了关于纳粹分子日常行为的内容。这些材料的暗示和指引应该能够帮助学生们理解纳粹的崛起和掌权并不是某种神秘的灾祸，如果不警惕的话，纳粹可能会再次崛起。详细分析之后，我们就会发现纳粹的成功可以解释为：在有利于他们成功的环境下（但这也是可以避免的），利用一系列聪明的（但可以理解的）技巧而获得的。知道纳粹掌权是如何发生的，可以让我们防止再次发生相似的事情——这也是我写这本书的最主要目的。

    熟悉第一版的读者们会发现本次修订中另一个主要的区别。在第一版中，我尽力保护城镇居民的隐私，以匿名的方式将他们的城镇称为“塔尔伯格”。美国和英国的评论家们（毫无疑问，他们可以很容易地辨别出城镇的真实身份，尤其是德国史领域的专家们）尊重了我的努力。但是联邦德国的杂志《明镜周刊》在本书的德文译本问世后不久就“暴露了这个秘密”[3] ，另外也辨认出了我书中提到的很多人物。因此就没有什么理由不再使用“诺特海姆”这个名字了，而且第一版中提到的很多人物都已经去世了，所以我也会使用他们的真实姓名。我曾经承诺不会暴露身份的那些人以及《明镜周刊》的文章中没有提及的人，我会继续使用假名（参见附录一）。此外，我整合了最初的研究资料，进行了充分的辨别，为了供未来的研究者们使用，我将它们放在了脚注中。

    修订版的研究工作受到了国家人文基金会的资助。我要再次感谢对本书的第一版提供重要意见的那些人，还要感谢两位学者，他们的想法这些年来一直激励着我：耶鲁大学的亨利·阿什比·特纳教授和哈佛大学的蒂莫西·W.梅森博士。我还要感谢凯伦，她梳理了我有时写得乱七八糟的文章，还有威尔·戴维森，他一直很耐心。

    威廉·谢里登·阿伦 1983年于纽约的水牛城

    第一版序言

    这是关于魏玛共和国末期第三帝国初期某个德国小镇的历史。我们试图理解20世纪核心的政治和道德议题之一：文明的民主政治如何沦陷为恐怖的独裁专政？我选择以研究某个小镇的方式来解决这个问题，这在某种程度上是因为现存的纳粹革命研究没有从地方角度进行。有本书是关于布伦瑞克省的纳粹党—保守党联盟的，还有本书是关于石勒苏益格—荷尔斯泰因地区各省纳粹化的 [4] （在实际掌权前，这两个地方的纳粹都是软弱无力的），但在我进行现在这项研究之前，并没有作品涵盖纳粹革命的整个时期或是关注某个特定的地方。

    纳粹在地方上的措施是德意志第三帝国建立的关键。掌权之前，希特勒在地方党派组织的高超技巧和适应能力让他获得了极大的支持。1933年春天的实际掌权主要是自下而上进行的，尽管希特勒身为德国总理的身份确实提供了便利和可能性。而元首登上权力顶峰是因为他的追随者们在最底层、在基层很成功。

    单一的组织远不能充分地反映整体。就很多方面而言，这本书的主题并不是一个普通的德国城镇。这里有大量的中产阶级；这里和乡村的关系更为密切，工业化程度没有其他德国城镇那么高；这里有更多的路德派教徒；这里更早地转向了纳粹主义，比德国的其他地方更加坚定地支持纳粹主义。而这里确实有代表性：在纳粹党的激进主义方面、在社会民主党的社会力量和弱势方面、在国家主义中产阶级的态度方面、在投票趋势方面、在政治活动和派系暴力的发展方面，也许还有其他内容，只有对其他城镇进行类似的详细研究时，这些内容才会变得明显。从这个意义上来说，这并不是真正的微观研究，不过这对更广泛的趋势是有益的。我认为这一研究至少明确证明了纳粹革命在某一特定区域具有各种不同的内容。

    如果说微观研究的缺点是不具有代表性，那么其优点就是可以进行深入而细致的研究。作用因素越少，历史学家越有可能全面地了解所有的内容。可变因素是有限的，于是，对背景要有全面和相对稳定的了解。即时性和真实性增强了。人们可以将行动置于日常生活模式中，从而判断出为什么个人采取这样的行动，为什么德国人做出让希特勒掌权这样的选择。正是这种可能性，而非其他内容，引导我去研究一个城镇的命运，要不然的话，这个城镇在一般有关纳粹主义兴起的研究中甚至都不值得做个脚注。

    革命、恐怖行动、战争和侵略的破坏性结果严重限制了有关这项研究的原始材料的数量和类型。幸亏有当地人的配合，保存下来的绝大部分公开和私人文件才可以随我使用。相当多的当地人同意接受采访，因此我能询问大部分主要人物，从而找到合意的普遍的代表性人物。可以将他们的回忆、感想与当时的文件、报纸的描述相对照与核查。结果收集到了相当多的细节，其中很多细节并没有被收入本书中，但可以在我的博士论文中找到。 [5]

    在我第一次有了进行研究的想法时，康涅狄格大学的哈里·马克斯博士给了我至关重要的鼓励，我很感谢他。德意志联邦共和国的准许让这项研究成为可能。海因里希·爱格林博士给了我宝贵的意见和实际的帮助，卡尔·罗斯坎普博士将他在错综复杂的德国税收统计方面的有益经验告诉了我。我的两位优秀的老师——明尼苏达大学的哈罗德·多伊奇教授和威廉·莱特教授，我的两位乐于助人的同事——密苏里大学的戴维·平克尼教授和罗德里克·麦克格里教授，还有施罗德·L.温伯格教授以及劳尔·希尔伯格教授，向我提供了各种各样的修改意见。我的妻子卢埃拉·S.阿伦认真地倾听并且给了我极大的精神支持。我怀着感激之情对每个人的善意表示感谢，我可以肯定这部作品包含的任何见解都具有一定的集体性质，但是实际的表述以及书中存在的任何缺陷都只是我一个人的责任。

    世界上的小城镇在两个方面有共同点：很少的隐私和大量的流言。在开始这项研究前，我就得出了结论：不仅应该为那些提供消息的人和主要人物的姓名保密，而且要隐瞒这个城镇的真实名字。因此，人们不可能在地图上或者百科全书中找到“塔尔伯格”。这一预防措施也是我对市政官员和受访者许下的承诺之一。想要进行研究的学者们可以在明尼苏达州大学历史系找到这个城镇的信息以及一系列资料的详细信息等文件。

    还有一个可供参考的关于受访人物的详细列表。而且，在每一个受访者的记录中都专门描述了他们第一次在书中出现的页码。在这项研究中，并没有提供塔尔伯格那些人的真实姓名。创造如此多的名字耗费了很多想象力，如果有读者在书中发现了自己的名字，我希望他相信这只是一个巧合。

    威廉·谢里登·阿伦 1965年于密苏里州哥伦比亚市

    第一部　民主之死（1922年—1933年1月）

    一　背景

    吃吃喝喝
    不要忘记上帝
    捍卫你的荣誉
    此外，没有人会要求你更多。
    ——刻在一所诺特海姆房子中的中世纪铭文

    如果你打开中欧地图册，将手指放在战前德国的中心位置，你就有机会发现诺特海姆，这是一个位于前汉诺威王国的城镇。在魏玛共和国时期，诺特海姆仍旧是个小城镇，有大约一万人。在德国差不多有一千个这种规模的城镇，大约每七个德国人中就有一个生活在这种城镇中。 [1]

    1930年的诺特海姆是英国游客乐于探索的那种城镇：偏僻的乡下地方，半中世纪的风格，周围的环境安静而令人愉悦。它坐落在构成莱纳河谷地的众多低矮的、丛林密布的山丘之一。谷地只有几英里 [6] 宽，非常平坦，所以站在诺特海姆坡地上的人可以看到另一面的丘陵；这让这个城镇有种舒适、与世隔绝的感觉，可以被保护着远离外面的世界。在诺特海姆，一条更小的河流鲁默河注入了平静的莱纳河，由此在城镇的北部形成了一个狭窄的河谷。在河流和河谷的汇流点，这个城镇诞生了，从汉萨同盟 [7] 那时起，这里成了东西向和南北向一个小小的交汇点。1930年，从城镇的丘陵向下看，你可以看到主要铁道线路沿着莱纳河伸展开，通向慕尼黑或者汉堡，主线就在诺特海姆的边缘；而绕着城墙的支线沿着鲁默河河谷伸展开，通向柏林。 [2]

    在城镇周围的某些地方实际上是有城墙的。这些城墙围绕着诺特海姆在中世纪时期的核心地带。在大约600码 [8] 的椭圆形地带范围内，坐落着整洁但粗糙的砖木结构的房屋，这些房屋有着红色砖瓦的屋顶，房屋周围铺着鹅卵石路。有一条通向城镇的街道有三条跑道那么宽（因此也称为“宽街”）：这是主要的商业大道，这里的每栋房子都是商店。城镇的中央是一个大广场，用于举行每周的商品集市以及露天的公众会议。城墙内仅有的几处空地是坐落着一座小战争纪念碑的宽街一侧、城镇政府前面的小片空间，还有一处在16世纪路德派教堂的前面。城镇内部的其他地方布满了狭窄的街道，房子都建到了边缘，一栋栋地紧挨着，每一栋房子前面都装饰着各种几何图样的木质横梁，上层是带有不规则的小窗格的窗户，所有的房子都是陡屋顶，边沿有棱角分明的山墙，上面还有烟囱。在诺特海姆的旧城区有500栋房子，几乎一半的城镇居民住在这里。 [3]

    在中世纪椭圆地带之外是各种各样的居住区，主要是1870—1914年之间建立的。最合意的区域是旧城镇之上的山坡。这里建立了很大的家庭住宅区、学校，还有宽阔的沥青街道、广阔的草坪、遮阴的树木以及灌木丛。从这些房子的位置，可以欣赏到城镇和河谷的美景，夏天的微风也让这里比诺特海姆的其他区域更为凉爽。在这里居住的是城镇的上层阶级。

    在中世纪地带的另一边，穿过铁路支线的是鲁默运河，这条运河是在中世纪挖掘的，供一个粮食磨坊使用。被鲁默河封闭起来的这片狭长的水域形成了一座岛。这里有公寓式住宅、小户型民居和一个大的圆形广场。圆形广场的一角有一个大的会议大厅，被称作“1910年代圆顶”，适用于舞会、节日庆典和群众集会。一座叫作“长桥”的桥横跨鲁默河。另一角是紧靠山丘的前军事管辖区。1930年，这里安置了很多政府机构，包括就业办事处、一个工厂、应急廉价住宅和一个青年招待所。 [4]

    在面朝莱纳河的城镇的另一边是没什么特色的住宅区、几座工业厂房和一家制糖精炼厂（工厂丑陋的烟囱有些煞风景），以及带有大量车间和养路工房的火车站。

    因此，环绕着旧的内城是城镇扩展开来的三片区域：沿着丘陵向上并面朝两条河，一片是富人区，另两片是下层阶级区。但是诺特海姆的中心和本质仍旧保留在断壁残垣围绕的中世纪旧城区。

    这个城镇的历史就像它的自然环境一样，展现了隔绝和参与的相互作用。诺特海姆是在查理曼 [9] 时期建立的，但是直到13世纪，它不过拥有一个城堡、一个修道院和一个附加的村庄。早些时候，诺特海姆拥有过一些国家层面辉煌的瞬间，它的重要性之一是有一位足可以对抗神圣罗马帝国皇帝的军事领袖，不过这为他自己的家庭带来了毁灭性的命运。

    城镇的未来取决于更多平凡领域的努力。12世纪开始，商人们在修道院的围墙前定居，在他们的带领下，诺特海姆于1252年被圭尔夫公爵授予城市特许状。接下来，城镇迅速发展起来。城镇建起了围墙，还有城垛、塔楼和壕沟；移民增多，人口膨胀；挖掘了鲁默运河；而且诺特海姆加入了汉萨同盟。15世纪，诺特海姆几乎完全脱离了圭尔夫公爵，甚至可以自己铸币。这是诺特海姆的繁荣时期。一个古时的版画显示出诺特海姆是当时最富有和最大的城市之一。

    诺特海姆中世纪时期的繁荣和独立在三十年战争 [10] 时结束了。诺特海姆在宗教改革期间皈依了路德派，当被要求向蒂利蒂利（1559—1632年），三十年战争中，他是负责指挥天主教联盟的大元帅。——译者注领导下的天主教军队敞开大门时，城市议会拒绝了。之后是艰苦的两年围城战。诺特海姆内部发生了紧张的派系斗争。上层阶级支持投降，而下层阶级选择抵抗天主教军队。1627年，和平派将城镇交给了蒂利将军，因之前的抵抗，他严厉地惩罚了诺特海姆。

    自三十年战争后，诺特海姆衰落了：“生存在往昔力量的阴影下。” [5] 它被对抗的双方入侵，被围攻、被掠夺、被烧毁。1648年，超过三百栋房子是空的，城镇中只留下了大约七百人。公爵取消了诺特海姆的权利，除去了所有独立的痕迹，在城镇里安排了永久驻军来威吓市民。

    恢复很缓慢。直到法国大革命时期，诺特海姆的居民数量才重新回到了14世纪时的水平——大约2 500人。虽然商人们仍旧占据主导地位，但是从经济上和政治上来看，诺特海姆只是一个地方集市中心，用于手工艺产品和农产品交换。 [6] 直到1817年，才在城墙外建立了第一所房子。1857年，建立了贯穿诺特海姆的铁道主线；十年后，建立了穿过山脉的东西线。由此，诺特海姆成了重要的交通中心。现在，政府机关逐渐发现诺特海姆是一个便捷的地点。前汉诺威王国并入了普鲁士，为驻军带来了新的制服，也奠定了迅速发展的基础。到19世纪70年代末为止，诺特海姆建立了一些技术学院和大学预备学院。1886年，诺特海姆被指定为县国会所在地。铁路维修车间和几个小工厂也建立起来了。诺特海姆出现了工人阶级，带来了新的卡尔·马克思的学说。由于教师、工匠、政府官员和铁路职员的涌入，诺特海姆建立了天主教教会。那些细长的铁轨将外面的世界带了进来。

    中世纪生活方式最后的残迹在1900年消失了，那时引入了污水处理系统。在那之前，诺特海姆以每周六打开上游护城河的方式清洁街道。水顺着小斜坡流淌，流经鹅卵石，流入鲁默运河，家庭主妇和女仆们会随之用拖布清理。新的污水处理系统价格昂贵，但却是德国皇帝威廉二世 [11] 富有且需要繁荣的象征物。诺特海姆的“市集广场”矗立着一座古时诺特海姆伯爵的铜制雕像，花费了9 000马克。而为了纪念在1866年普鲁士和汉诺威的短暂战争中丧生的诺特海姆人所建的战争纪念碑，现在被冠上了青铜色的“日耳曼尼亚”字样。

    现在的繁荣和过去的军事荣光的这些象征物很快就消失了，更多人的名字被添加到了战争纪念碑上。第一次世界大战爆发时，铜像都被熔化了，用于供应德国所需的金属。作为回报，中央政府为城镇建立了一所培养军官的军事学校，以及在长桥对面的常驻军事管辖区。253名诺特海姆人为保卫德意志帝国而献出了生命。

    尽管已经这么努力了，但是对许多诺特海姆人来说不可思议的是，战争失败了，这也波及了所有生活形态，随着战败而来的是工人阶级领导的推翻君主的革命，之后在德国建立了民主共和国。在诺特海姆，1918年革命和平地完成了，因为军队直接和官员们进行了谈判协商。第二年，当地的工兵苏维埃迫使驻军司令辞职。1920年11月，军队彻底从城镇撤离了。 [7]

    有些诺特海姆人拒绝接受新事态，诺特海姆很快就变成了极端右翼组织——“德国年轻骑士团”——相当强大的中心。1922年，在民族主义恐怖分子暗杀了魏玛共和国的外交部长瓦尔特·拉特瑙之后，德国年轻骑士团决定在诺特海姆上演一部民族主义戏剧（克莱斯特的《赫尔曼战役》 [12] 2）。来自诺特海姆和其邻近地区的社会主义者决定阻止戏剧的上演。作为响应，有民族主义情结的农民们涌入诺特海姆，一群附近大学的学生们也在诺特海姆游行示威。两支队伍相遇的时候，他们粗暴地打了起来，使用鹅卵石和啤酒瓶作为武器。在城镇恢复秩序之前，警方受到了粗暴的对待，宽街上几乎每家店铺的窗户都在混战中被打破了。 [8]

    正如三十年战争期间诺特海姆因冲突和内部分歧而分裂一样，即便是在稳定的魏玛共和国中期，诺特海姆的选举数据还是展现出了政治分裂的迹象。1925年总统选举期间，社会主义者—天主教教徒候选人获得了2 080张选票；兴登堡（作为右翼分子参加竞选）获得了3 375张选票；而唯一的另一个候选人，也就是共产主义者只得到了19票。 [9]

    尽管这里有格林兄弟的童话故事，并且很明显这里是偏远的地方，但是诺特海姆涵盖着魏玛德国的各种冲突分歧和紧张。接下来的十几年，在这种特殊的情况下，诺特海姆经历了德国民主的濒死痛苦。在这场旋风中，没有人能逃脱毁灭之灾。

    二　城镇结构

    “那么，”我说，“如果我们能想象到我们看到正在形成中的城邦；我们可能也会看到正在形成中的公平和不公？” ——苏格拉底，出自柏拉图的《理想国》

    即便诺特海姆是一个规模小并且明显统一的社会，它也包含着焦虑和分裂的因素。在正常时期，这些因素也许可以保持平衡；而在紧张时期，这些因素会让社会四分五裂。一个蛊惑人心的政治家也许会利用这些因素，推动现存的社会分裂。

    诺特海姆因其规模和某些社会、经济特征而形成了特别复杂的社会，这促进了大萧条之后的数年里纳粹主义的发展，也促成了最后轻而易举地出现了由纳粹引导的专制改革。

    这里有左翼和右翼之间的政治分歧，有工人和资本家之间的阶级差别，有稳定的和无保障之间的职业差别，有相对的新来者和旧家族之间的地域隔离，还有宗教和社会分歧。这里也有共同利益的领域，比如城市政府；以及有凝聚力的机构，比如学校、俱乐部和利益团体；这里还有基本的忠诚团体——从家庭到亲近的朋友圈子。

    除了古代遗迹外，诺特海姆主要是19世纪的产物。1871年，诺特海姆有4 700名居民；到了1930年，达到了10 000人。这一人口增长中有一半来自增高的出生率，另一半则来自移民。20世纪30年代后期，诺特海姆的人口组成大致如下，追溯至最近两代人： [1]

    出生在诺特海姆的：25%

    来自诺特海姆县乡村的：26%

    来自汉诺威其他地方的：34%

    来自德国其他地方的：15%

    乡村腹地有着强烈的传统偏见，城镇对此有相当深刻的印象。但是更重要的是新来者和那些世代居住在诺特海姆的人之间的自然划分。绝大多数“旧诺特海姆人”住在内城区。1932年编制的一份关于诺特海姆绝大多数家庭姓氏的名单展示出这些家庭有多么混杂。除了常用的“穆勒”“迈耶斯”和“施密特”，还有109个姓氏是5—10个家庭在使用。其中的25个姓氏是10个或者更多家庭在使用。3个特别本地化的姓氏分别是22个、19个和18个家庭在使用。 [2] “旧诺特海姆人”相当了解彼此，因为数个世纪以来，他们中绝大多数人都靠联姻而变成亲戚了。人们认为，他们之间既没有特殊的团体，也没有共同的政治愿景，不过他们在面对“外来者”的时候站在统一战线上。 [3]

    诺特海姆所在的区域给人的印象用德国人的话来说即“stur”，也就是顽固的和保守的，就像传说中的新英格兰人一样。1930年，第一次来诺特海姆的某个人会发现要花两年时间才能很好地了解其他人并且被当地的社交圈所接纳，即便这个人相当外向，而且有着令人敬仰的工作。 [4]

    如果诺特海姆人是因出身不同而分裂的，那么，他们就会因宗教信仰而团结起来。尽管19世纪出现了一些变化，但是仍旧有86%的居民是路德派教徒，只有6%是天主教教徒，剩下的是其他教派和无信仰者。实际上，在19世纪和20世纪之交，诺特海姆县的教徒所占比例依旧如此。1930年，诺特海姆只有120名犹太人，大约相当于城镇地区的全国平均水平。 [5]

    关于职业，诺特海姆将自己视为公务员城市：7 000名成年人中有大约1/3都在公共事业中就职，绝大多数就职于铁路事业。另有1/5的人是孀妇或领抚恤金者，所以整个城镇有接近一半的人有固定收入。每七个人中就有一个是高级公务员。稳定和对国家的高度依赖，对诺特海姆在第三帝国时期的经历有相当大的影响。 [6]

    公务员占较大比例决定了诺特海姆的经济结构。这里几乎没有工业，要么依靠乡村腹地，要么依靠铁路。政府机构将农民带到城镇里，诺特海姆的商人和工匠们向他们提供商品。只要农民富足，只要政府仍旧管理着诺特海姆，这里就能保持经济平衡。而且，在诺特海姆的生活成本很低：1931年，主要产品的人均支出比全国水平低25%。 [7] 许多诺特海姆人养猪或者其他动物，许多人还有小蔬菜园。只要没有大灾祸，诺特海姆的经济就是平稳的。

    1930年大萧条刚开始的时候，诺特海姆几乎没有受到大萧条的经济影响。1929年夏天到1930年夏天之间，诺特海姆的机动车数量增长了大约15%。1930年，在城市储蓄银行的存款差不多增加了50万马克，账户数目大约增加了500个。单单这家银行里就有接近3 600个存款账户，平均每个账户有537马克。诺特海姆的平均存款水平比整个普鲁士的高出了20%。 [8] 1930年，在建设新住宅方面，诺特海姆处于所有城市之首。杞人忧天者会注意到1930年开始的时候登记在册的失业者有329人，但是这一数据总体上低于诺特海姆政府管辖的区域的平均值。 [9]

    面对大萧条，诺特海姆似乎是安全的，因为这里几乎没什么工业。一家制糖厂、一家牛奶制品厂、一个粮食磨坊、一家啤酒厂、两家制材厂和一家罐头工厂构成了全部的工业，这些工业依赖于莱纳河河谷富足的土地。除此之外，这里还有一家建筑公司、两家砖厂和一家小规模的水泥厂。这些工业的规模都很小。这些工业都运作起来的话，可以雇用大约1 125人。但是有1/3到1/2的劳动人员是季节性就业，比如制糖厂会在每年的12月停工，有大约300人会没有工作。有300多人依赖于建筑业，相当于雪茄厂和罐头工厂的雇用人数，不过这两家工厂雇用的都是女人。工业是诺特海姆经济中最薄弱的因子，同时也是最小的因子。

    与乡村有关的工业、许多的政府管理部门以及良好的公路和铁路系统都吸引着农民到诺特海姆来，这使诺特海姆成了零售贸易中心。1930年，诺特海姆有大约100家商店，差不多500名雇员。最大的绸缎尼龙纺织品商店雇用了大约30人。绝大多数都是小规模的家庭商店，收入适中，代代相传。

    工匠商店也是家族生意。1930年，一个铁匠庆祝他家的铁匠铺开张300周年；他是服务于这个城镇的家族的第十代传人。 [10] 可以追溯到至少三代以上的店铺并不少见。诺特海姆的工匠由“行会”管理，行会只是它们中世纪祖先的投影，但却是重要的职业协会。1930年，有17个行会，代表着大约150家小商店。

    工匠和零售商控制着城镇的商业生活，不过也有信用机构：三家国家银行的分支机构、一家由名叫穆勒的犹太人拥有的地方银行、一家地方合股银行、一家县储蓄银行和一家城市储蓄银行。

    诺特海姆中产阶级中的绝大多数人是政府公务员。1930年，诺特海姆的政府机构名单很长，其中最重要的是县政府，这一机构为普鲁士政府管理着诺特海姆县的80个城镇和乡村。国家和州政府在诺特海姆还维持着9个其他的机构，比如邮政部门、地区法庭、就业办事处等，这些机构雇用了大约400人，同时为多个县服务。但是雇员数目最多的政府机构是铁路，包括调车场、维修车间、枕木防腐和接驳系统。铁路车站一共为1 000人提供了工作，是城镇中的主要经济支柱。

    城市供养着庞大的官僚机构。除了常规功能部门，如警察和消防部门、街道清扫和垃圾处理，城市还为城镇提供煤气、电力和水，还维持着一个建设办事处和一家医院。城镇上还有几家非政府企业，如屠宰场、冰库、公墓和啤酒厂。还有些赚钱的企业，它们往往会催生其他企业。在城镇上方的山丘上有大片林地，也是归城市所有，由城市进行管理，这里有一个采砾场，之后又建了一个水泥制造厂。福利办事处不仅为残疾人、穷人、失业者提供补贴，而且开办了两家小型养老院、一家赈济处，并且为那些无处栖身者提供应急廉价租房。归市政机关管理的地方医疗保险办事处被称为“红色的”医疗保险办事处，因为办事处主任正好是社会民主党。 [11]

    这样一来，城市增加了200多名公务员，其中并不包括季节性临时工。中央和地方政府的雇员非常多，因此，他们自己建立了针对地方选举的政治党派——“公务员党”，这样就可以在城市议会中拥有决定权了。虽然全俸的公务员收入高并且在德国社会有很高的社会地位，但并非所有的都是中产阶级。另一方面，被政府雇用的工人仍旧被视为无产阶级。在诺特海姆，铁路工人成了社会主义者选票的核心力量，城市中的相当一部分工人都是社会民主党。

    阶级结构虽然受到收入的强烈影响，但真正取决于思想观点。城市每年都会出版一本地址簿，从每个人给自己的称谓来看，可以做出如下估算： [12]

    下层阶级（不熟练的和半熟练的工人）：37%

    中下层阶级（熟练工人、白领工人、农民和领抚恤金者）：32%

    中上层阶级（工匠、公务员和商人）：27%

    上层阶级（商人、个体经营者和专业人士）：4%

    虽然以上只是粗略的估计，但是仍旧可以得出一个结论，即诺特海姆存在着强大的小资产阶级：这是希特勒推进其运动的“原料”。相对平均的分布并不意味着在收入方面不存在巨大差异。1932年，一个在城市煤气厂工作了50多年的老工人一年可以挣1 500马克。 [13] 就同一年来说，一个专业医生一年可以挣9 600马克。 [14] 如果一个工作表现出色的工人发现，一个工作表现一般的专业人员所挣的工资是他的六倍，那他一定会再度肯定社会民主党慢慢灌输给他的阶级斗争的概念。

    在诺特海姆，与在魏玛共和国的大部分地方一样，工人阶级形成了固定的团体，几乎形成了一种亚文化。工人们有自己的社交俱乐部、经济组织和党派：社会民主党。德国社会民主党的组织结构很复杂。它由数个不同的小组组成，名义上这些小组是互相独立的，但是工人阶级的各个部分以及各个小组都是共同运作的。列出各种组织的领袖名录，就会发现有很多重复的组织，因为各种实用目的，某人可以组织起由15人组成的委员会，其中包括了所有小组的关键人员。还包括工会部长（尤其是铁路工人工会），运动协会、工人急救协会、工人合唱团、工人射击协会的主席，等等。还有公共利益建筑俱乐部和家庭消费者合作社的人员，后者的成员包括1 275个家庭，年销售总额为33.3万马克。 [15] 前者建立了廉价房屋，包括128名成员，在经济大萧条的1932年，创造了超过60万马克的商业价值。 [16] 这里还有直接附属于德国社会民主党的组织：青年团体（“年轻的社会主义工人”）、儿童团体（“红色猎鹰”）、女性附属机构以及各种各样的扩散委员会。“国旗队”是保卫共和国的准军事化组织，理论上该组织对所有人开放，实际上却几乎完全由社会党控制。从婴儿救助社团到工人丧葬节约协会，德国社会民主党渗入了诺特海姆的工人阶级，并且将工人阶级团结在了一起。

    阶级意识并不是唯一的统一纽带，德国社会民主党也提供了共同的意识形态——本质上，致力于民主。此外，再加上多头领导，德国社会民主党微型太阳系得以顺利运行。每个组织都有自己的欲望和抱负，这样一来，合作的时候就需要妥协和调整。自19世纪建立以来，诺特海姆的社会民主党不仅为民主政治提供了优秀的实践训练，而且也成了城镇中工人阶级的生活之道。

    对于既不是工人也不是社会民主党的诺特海姆人而言，俱乐部提供了真正的社会内聚力。有一句谚语：“两个德国人，进行一场辩论；三个德国人，组成一个俱乐部。”这差不多就是诺特海姆的真实情况，1930年，这里有不少于161个不同的俱乐部，也就是在城镇中平均每60人有一个俱乐部。这里有21个运动俱乐部，47个具有经济或职业功能的，23个宗教或慈善相关的团体，25个退伍军人或者爱国主义的联盟，45个特别兴趣和爱好小组。毫无例外，这些组织都准守着城镇的阶级界线。两个足球俱乐部中，一个是中产阶级的，另一个主要是由工人组成的。 [17] 在体育俱乐部中，有两个是中产阶级的，一个是工人的。在经济或职业功能的组织中，阶级界线更加清晰，有时会具有政治性。有上千名成员的“铁路俱乐部”既具有社交性质，也具有职业性功能，是以德国社会民主党为主导的。另一方面，县农民联盟和县工匠联盟都资助右翼演讲者，最终也都公开支持纳粹党和民族主义党派。 [18] 然而绝大多数组织都不具有公开的政治性，一个起源于中世纪惯例的经济俱乐部甚至超越了阶级界线。

    传统上而言，在城墙以内拥有房子的诺特海姆人有某些特权，比如用免费树木来修理自己家里的木质横梁，或者用啤酒厂的少量免费啤酒来弥补私人酿造权的丧失。在20世纪初的改革氛围中，这些业主感觉特权受到了威胁，于是组成了“捍卫旧诺特海姆特权俱乐部”，试图采取法律行动来维持并延伸他们的权利。比如，1930年，在一桩要求一年免费清理一次烟囱的案件中，他们使用旧文件胜诉了。至少在面对外部世界时，通过通婚而合并在一起的“旧诺特海姆人”没有政治或者经济根源，只有这种形式的凝聚力实例。 [19]

    诺特海姆有一系列令人困惑的军事主义和民族主义组织。对于这个地区和这个时代而言，与周围的城镇相比较，可以发现这并不是不同寻常的。许多军事主义社团都附属于特定的武装部队分支，比如“以前的九十名先行者预备队团体”或“装甲部队协会”。其他的是一般的社团，比如“战士联盟”，还有些来源于特定的经历，比如“战争伤员联盟”。也有些民族主义社团，比如“海外领土上的德意志王国联盟”，或是青年组织，如“希尔独立带”。 [20] 如果某人试着整理附属于德国民族主义政党或者纳粹的组织名单，比如“钢铁头盔”和“露易丝王后协会”，或者“国家社会主义者女性俱乐部”和“希特勒青年团”，那么他一定会发现右翼组织对诺特海姆中产阶级的社交生活的控制程度。

    所有的组织都有相当多的成员。最小的（“前炮兵协会”）有30名成员。“战士联盟”在1930年有400多名成员，有23个社团介于两者的规模之间。 [21] 组织的活动包括演讲、游行和社交聚会，以民族主义狂欢为特征。有时，他们也会进行“非党派”政治的努力，比如，1930年，他们向普鲁士教育部长请愿，希望在学校图书馆禁止《西线无战事》 [13] 。 [22]

    盛大出行无疑是军事俱乐部众多活动的一部分。一个退伍军人组织一年中会有三四次被指望着举行带有乐队、身着制服并且有很多其他组织参与的游行活动。所有的游行都是因为民族主义原因，有部分游行甚至公开支持民族主义党和后来的纳粹党。总的说来，民族主义和退伍军人俱乐部成了城镇中的重要社交因素。他们组织的“雄性晚会”、舞会和戏剧表演让他们备受瞩目。他们主要是为了激发爱国主义狂热，并且让军国主义在诺特海姆变得受欢迎和有活力。

    诺特海姆最显眼的社交社团是特别兴趣和爱好小组。尽管他们组建的特定目的是社交聚会，但是后来他们遵循着阶级界线。合唱团是这方面的明证。诺特海姆有8个这样的社团：7个属于中产阶级，1个是工人的“诺特海姆人民合唱团”。上层阶级的社团明显是“歌唱五线谱”。用非会员的话说，这个社团“是由更好的一群人组成的真正的社交社团”。 [23] “歌唱五线谱”的前成员承认他是因为职业原因才加入社团的，而非热爱唱歌，他说这个社团的成员都是“导演、专业人士和大企业的名人”。 [24]

    这些歌唱社团的规模从25人到65人不等；1930年，差不多400名诺特海姆人参加了这类社团。他们经常聚在一起练习，之后就喝啤酒来给喉咙降温。一年有五六次，妻子们会被带去听音乐会，有时，社团会组织去地方音乐节旅行。只有“人民合唱团”有政治定位，通常是在共和国的节日和社会民主党的聚会上表演。

    另一个有利于交流和社交的工具是“射击协会”，这是诺特海姆中世纪以来的遗留物。当时，所有市民都被各个行会召集起来去保卫城市。每年的射击节让这些兼职士兵发挥了作用。旧行会解散之后，取而代之的是5个射击协会。1930年，他们进行定期练习，为期三天的射击节是一年中的社交大事件，其间会举办聚会、舞会，准备奖金并且进行巡游。一位成员这样描述阶级结构：“‘1910年枪支俱乐部’是面向广大群众的；‘猎人’主要是中产阶级；‘自由射手’是上层10%的阶级。” [25]

    虽然有很多俱乐部是无关政治的，但是许多无辜的俱乐部被灌输了民族主义思想。1930年，在“园丁俱乐部”进行的一场园艺作品展览中，某位演讲者抨击了国外竞争：“每个德国人都应接受这样的思想：吃德国的水果！吃德国的蔬菜！买德国的花！” [26]

    就算诺特海姆各种各样的正规俱乐部并没有形成社会凝聚力，两种社交聚会也发挥了凝聚作用。一个是固定聚餐，另一个是啤酒俱乐部。固定聚餐是一群人在每周的特定时间，在同样的餐厅，围绕同样的桌子一起吃午餐（因此而得名）。这群人关系亲密，而且成员固定，有些是终身成员，这种聚餐的特征是亲密的友谊和自由的讨论。啤酒俱乐部与之类似，成员们进行定期会面，在酒馆聊天、喝啤酒或者玩纸牌游戏。因为城镇政治分歧，结果这些啤酒俱乐部活动的酒馆也在政治上分离了：一个社会主义者在纳粹酒馆里是不受欢迎的，反之亦然。啤酒俱乐部的成员主要是下层阶级，而固定聚餐的成员基本上是中产阶级或者更上层的阶级。总体而言，这些组织是城镇中最普遍、最亲密的社交组织。共同信任是它们蓬勃发展的先决条件。

    许多俱乐部和协会将公民个体聚集到了一起。没有这些俱乐部和协会，诺特海姆将会变成一个无组织的社会。不过，它们中极少有能超越阶级界线的。

    城镇中各种各样的派别明确支持的机构是公共教育系统，这是诺特海姆最令人印象深刻的教育设施的一部分。这里有三所公共小学，共安排了1 200名学生，这样一来就确保了孩子们的宗教信仰。第一市立中学是路德派的，天主教的公立学校服务于天主教的孩子，第二市立中学不限宗教派别。每一所学校都有自己的顾问委员会，是由学生家长选出的。通过事先和社会民主党领导讨论，工人阶级的家长可以确保在这些委员会中有代表。

    中学系统涉及男子高中和女子高中，这两所学校都有大学预备课程并且要学费。两所学校一共招收500名学生，其中一半来自诺特海姆。这些学生中的绝大多数来自中产阶级，并且绝大多数是坚定的民族主义者。 [27] 想要接受职业训练的孩子可以去商业学校，这里有300多名学生，主要是工匠商店的学徒；由诺特海姆商人协会创办的商人职业学校有55名学生；一所由农民联盟控制的农业学校面向多个国家，还有一所由县政府所资助的家政学校，一年有25名女生从这里毕业。

    各种各样的学校减少了诺特海姆的某些乡下习气。根据一位来自城镇的前新闻记者所说，学校的教师“控制、塑造并且指引着诺特海姆的精神文化生活”。 [28] 但是教师们也要依靠政府提供的薪酬和职位，而城市议会和地方教育部划分了学校董事会的职能。

    诺特海姆还有其他的文化设施，不过很多都依赖于私人团体，如演讲协会或者博物馆协会的支持。城镇赞助了一个城市乐队，每周在市集广场表演，也参加公开的节日庆典。这里的公共图书馆有2 000多卷书，但是并没有被充分利用。工人们更喜欢他们自己在工会大厅的图书馆。诺特海姆有两家电影院，还存在过一家地方轻歌剧演出团。

    最重要的文化机构是三家日报。最古老的是《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》 [29] ，创办于1831年，是城镇的第一份报纸。根据该报的编辑出版商所说，这份报纸“完全是为民族主义的德国服务的” [30] 。实际上，它是德国民族主义政党的喉舌，其主编就是右翼政党成员。每篇文章中均有偏好，除此以外，新闻通常会晚一两天。在诺特海姆，这份报纸的读者群小而稳定，大约有600名订阅者，绝大多数是在县里。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》明确地试图吸引农业社区。

    政治光谱另一端的是《哥廷根人民报》（以下简称《人民报》）。尽管它是在临近城镇发行的，但其内容是足以和诺特海姆的其他报纸竞争的地方性新闻。《人民报》是社会民主党的喉舌，但是却假装中立。相比其他报纸（除了纳粹的报纸）而言，它是丑闻集合地，充斥着严厉的评论和红墨水。大约2 000名诺特海姆人是其读者。同样由《人民报》报刊印发的是国旗队每周发行的活跃的报纸——《诺特海姆回声》，在诺特海姆县的发行量是3 000份。 [31]

    地方上的纳粹出版物于1931年夏天出现，叫作《听！听！》。该报包括两个页面，信纸尺寸，双面印刷，使用牛皮纸（其颜色让人想起来自《人民报》的污秽猜测）。该报宣称，其目的是提供有关纳粹所作所为的消息，并且“与红色分子的谣言作斗争，这是中产阶级的媒体难以做到的” [32] 。该报造谣诽谤，通常有中伤性行为，并且有时会被镇压。

    另一个主要的报纸是《诺特海姆最新消息》，创办于1909年，主要是商业企业。该报的编辑是人民党成员，报上的国家消息经常取自人民党的通讯社；但是它试图尽可能地保持中立，以此保持高销量。该报的新闻都是第一手的，通常很精准，并且涉及范围最广。在诺特海姆，其销量接近4 000份。中产阶级的冷静和高效是《诺特海姆最新消息》的鲜明特征；其主编认为城市政府那种公事公办的运作是有必要的。 [33]

    诺特海姆承袭了自施泰因男爵改革以来德国城市政府的高效管理模式。这种体制代表了市政议员和城市管理者治理的联合。投票者选出由20名成员组成的议会，该议会选出4名参议员。所有的法律都由议会批准通过，由此对管理机构形成监督。

    参议员是各个委员会的主席，能够干预其职权范围内的管理（比如警察、啤酒厂、福利部门）。城市运转的正式工作由市长负责，他是专业的管理者。市长由参议员选举产生，任期为12年，期满后可以继续参选，任期固定可以使他远离议会的极端权力。作为专业人士，市长应该保持公正，并且薪水极高。1930年，诺特海姆的市长已经连任了27年。

    谨慎的平衡体制加上长久以来的自我管理传统，使得诺特海姆的城市政府运转顺利。1930年8月，《诺特海姆最新消息》以一种冷静的态度报道，在人口相当的56个德国城镇中，平均每人负公债7.74马克，而诺特海姆完全没有赤字。1930年的预算平衡点是1 385 000马克。 [34]

    实际上，如果有人调查诺特海姆的经济、文化和政府结构，就会发现诺特海姆是平衡、独立的个体。诺特海姆唯一没有形成和谐整体的就是社交方面，几乎在每一项活动中都存在不同的阶级派别。这个分裂因素在政治上很重要，在经济状况持续恶化的情况下，政治变得更为激进。在1930年后的许多年里，这一因素使诺特海姆的分裂越来越严重，导致了血腥暴动和民主氛围的退化，并且使纳粹掌权达到了顶峰。纳粹解决阶级分裂问题的方式就是以武力方式彻底取缔。

    三　加入纳粹（1930年，春夏）

    你所惧怕的邪恶必定会体现在你所做的事情上。 ——歌德：《艾格蒙特》

    大规模的极端主义、党同伐异、对激进改变的极度渴望——这些是使稳定的民主政体变得不可能的因素——是难以被唤起的。在社会稳定的情况下，政治煽动者发现自己只能在附近空旷的大厅内发表激昂的演说。是挥之不去的恐惧、突然意识到目前为止从未怀疑过的危险，吸引了某些将煽动者视为拯救者的观众来到这个大厅。

    普通的诺特海姆人将自己视为小市民：冷静、对重大问题视而不见、对生活满足、有充足的食物、适度的愿望和一种简单的秩序感。星期天下午，诺特海姆人常常和家人一起在城镇周围齐整而古朴的森林中散步，漫步于整洁的小路上，他们可以眺望莱纳河河谷及迷蒙的西部山丘。星期天消化完晚餐之后，他们会回到有中世纪房子的舒适城镇。这里的环境给人一种延续性生活的感觉；可以信赖旧的方式；稳定既是众人期望的，也是一直传承的。

    但是在1930年，新的恐惧萦绕着城镇，世界大萧条蔓延开来，纽约证券交易所一落千丈的行情甚至影响了德国中部这个遥远的谷地。正是大萧条，或者更加确切地说是对大萧条持续影响的恐惧，导致诺特海姆人更为激进，而不是因为城镇受到了大萧条的严重损害。唯一受到直接影响的团体是工人；工人们失业了，在街角无所事事，靠失业救济金生存。不过，与此矛盾的是，工人阶级仍旧支持现状，而受到经济收缩打击很小的中产阶级却致力于革命。 [1]

    诺特海姆的经济结构让中产阶级免于经济拮据。商人们只损失了小部分生意。除了建筑业之外，工匠们获得了充足的工作。公务员的薪水减少了，但是并没有失业，他们的支付能力下降了，而物价也相应地下降了，这样一来他们的相对位置并没有被削弱。在经济大萧条期间，诺特海姆的总储蓄额缓慢增长，储蓄账户的数量也增加了。到1933年为止，诺特海姆超过一半的成年人有储蓄账户，这些账户中差不多有一半是稳定的账户：从100到500马克不等。 [2]

    但是大萧条引发了恐慌。自己的生意经营得很好的商人们担心德国的总体情况。收集贷款毫无困难的银行开始减少所有的信贷配额。 [3] 只有工人受到了直接伤害，而城镇中的其他人面对着失业压力，开始自问：“我会是下一个吗？”“什么时候会结束？”因为并没有确定的答案，所以，绝望在蔓延。

    在这种情况下，人们开始听取纳粹的声音。诺特海姆之前忽视了国家社会主义德国工人党 [14] （正如在主要是外来者发起的德国年轻骑士团斗争之后，诺特海姆忽视了其他的极端主义组织一样）；1928年的国家选举中，纳粹党在诺特海姆总共获得了123张选票，相当于总选票数的2.33%。1929年的诺特海姆地方选举中，纳粹党收获了5 133张选票中的213张。 [4] 在大萧条之前，他们在诺特海姆处于无关紧要的边缘位置。

    实际上，1929年初，诺特海姆的纳粹党只有5名成员，人数太少了以至于难以建立“地方小组”，这是国社党最底层的正式单位。 [5] 这些都是第一次世界大战后骚乱事件的遗留物。

    诺特海姆和德国其他地方一样，在魏玛共和国初期，有很多人难以接受德国的战败、革命以及由此而来的民主。他们都反对新式的东西：自由主义、世界性文化、开放的社会、有竞争性的工业化经济、有影响力的工人运动。总体上，这些人构成了激进的右翼，但是并没有能发挥作用的组织来表达他们尚未形成的，甚至是自我矛盾的不相容理论。更准确地说，他们有太多的组织——其中没有一个是能发挥作用的——作为激进的右翼主义群体在整个国家蔓延开来。 [6] 在众多的组织中，纳粹党还处于初期，在德国南部迅速发展，但是在北部，包括诺特海姆地区几乎没有任何发展。

    在城镇北边，汉诺威的一个工业城市，一名驻扎在波兰的前警察在第一次世界大战期间变成了反犹太人的偏执狂，在发现希特勒的想法和自己类似之后，加入了国社党。一名失业的商人在第一次世界大战期间待在中立的西班牙，回到汉诺威之后成了狂热的民族主义者，1921年夏天，他加入了那位前警察建立的纳粹地方小组。 [7] 在诺特海姆的南边，哥廷根的大学城区，一个后来成了庸医的人带领一群学生在1922年2月成立了纳粹党的一个分支。 [8] 纳粹主义的另一方面内容吸引了哥廷根的征募活动：纳粹主义有关新社会的模糊的意识形态，在这种意识形态中，爱国的团结一致将会取代德国严格的阶级界线。所有的分支都由坚定的中产阶级组成，都弥漫着传教士般的热情。1921年和1922年，来自哥廷根和汉诺威的纳粹鼓吹者们沿着莱纳河边的铁路游走，寻找皈依者。有些人在诺特海姆停留，虽然他们并没有征召新成员，但是他们说服了一些城镇居民，让他们相信在德国各种各样的激进右翼组织中，纳粹党是最为坚定不移的（也就是说，纳粹党会极端地去实现他们的想法）。

    也许来自附近城镇的纳粹传教士们可以只靠说教就逐渐在诺特海姆收获一批永久的桥头堡。那些年正赶上德国的过度通货膨胀、国耻和不断的政治动乱。一系列的地方危机引发了大事件。

    1922年，德国政治光谱的两个极端触发了魏玛共和国的第一次大危机。激进右翼组织中的好战者受到了传统保守派的公开支持。哥廷根的纳粹党从之前沉默的右翼人士那里获得了资金和宣传支持；汉诺威的纳粹党得到了传统的“泛德意志联盟”的资金支持。 [9] 更为重要的是，原来的相当一部分的右翼也支持由“自由军团”的恐怖分子秘密执行的针对共和国领导人的一系列政治暗杀。

    同时，共产主义者领导的极端左翼进行了一系列失败的起义，而这些起义令中产阶级感到恐惧。原来中立的工人们发现他们1918年革命的成果消耗殆尽，而且共和国的领导人们被右翼恶鬼杀害了，也变得疯狂起来。早期的汉诺威纳粹党中许多人受到了工人们敌意的威胁，还有些纳粹党则变得更加疯狂了。 [10]

    这场对立的高潮出现于1922年6月，当时自由军团的枪手谋杀了共和国的外交部长瓦尔特·拉特瑙。整个诺特海姆地区的工人们都愤怒了。对于他们而言，在多样化的德国右翼组织中存在的良好的意识形态内容是无关紧要的；整个右翼看起来都像是暗杀的同盟。随着拉特瑙被杀害，莱纳河河谷陷入了反对右翼的私刑气氛中。在诺特海姆附近的城镇里，保守派领导人被打、被死亡威胁，不得不逃到警察局寻求保护。而在诺特海姆，正如第一章所提到的，来自艾恩贝克的工人们和来自哥廷根的学生们在街上发生了激战。 [11] 战斗之后，一些纳粹党人开始随身携带手枪。 [12] 一些诺特海姆人做出了最极端的选择，他们组织了城镇里的第一个纳粹党“地方小组”——成立于1922年秋天。

    这是一小群年轻的中产阶级男性。出现在诺特海姆的领袖恩斯特·吉尔曼是首批纳粹党中的典型代表。按照城镇中人的通常看法，他是一个“外来者”，因为他父亲（一个五金店老板）出生在黑尔姆斯泰特。吉尔曼于1896年在诺特海姆出生，接受的是男子高中的高水平教育，但是他并没有去大学，而是接受了商业培训。他接受的真正教育是战争。他从19岁到22岁（1915—1918年）在法国、加利西亚和俄罗斯为德国服兵役；他胸部中过枪，获得了二等铁十字勋章；战争结束后，他成了中尉。1919年，他加入了德国年轻骑士团和民族主义党派。他接受了路德派的洗礼，但后来将自己描述为“神的信徒”。当时的照片显示出他凹陷的下巴、薄唇、闪亮的灰色眼睛，有一张充满怨恨但年轻的脸庞（他在26岁时加入纳粹党，成了在诺特海姆的纳粹领袖）。他的暗金色头发梳成中分，整齐而光滑。他掌控着4 294名成员。 [13]

    恩斯特·吉尔曼的哥哥卡尔（比恩斯特大三岁）也和他一起加入了纳粹党；还有书商威廉·施潘瑙斯（35岁）、会计海因里希·伯梅（19岁）和小商人鲁道夫·恩斯特（33岁）。他们还征召了一两个其他成员，但是没有记录。 [14]

    诺特海姆的第一个纳粹组织刚刚建立起来，整个党派就于1922年11月17日被普鲁士取缔了。当然，纳粹党仍旧在秘密集会，但是不再收集会费或者公开宣传，于是，整个党派开始收缩。1923年11月，希特勒的啤酒馆政变 [15] 发生了，纳粹党在整个德国境内都成了非法组织。希特勒被关进监狱，党派四分五裂，各派别之间互相竞争，花费了很多时间来讨论无聊的学说分歧而不是采取实际行动，更糟糕的是，德国从诸多危机中恢复过来了。通货膨胀结束了，恢复了政治稳定，魏玛共和国开始进入稳定时期（1924—1929年）。来自汉诺威的纳粹领袖曾经于1924年6月在诺特海姆进行过两次演讲，第一次是“作为纳粹计划的根基的责任”，之后是“专家见证的德国的物物交换”，但是并没有引发任何反响。 [15] 其中一个派别的领袖（来自国家社会主义自由党）于1924年6月参观了诺特海姆，他报告说纳粹党在恩斯特·吉尔曼的严格控制下（原文如此）。 [16]

    1925年2月，希特勒出狱了，重建了纳粹党。不久之后，诺特海姆地方小组进行了重组，有12名成员。 [17] 但是地方小组已经没有了最初的热情，陷入了停滞状态——不仅是在诺特海姆，而是整个区域。1926年1月1日，汉诺威的大区有1 860名成员；一年后总数为2 441。整个1927年和1928年，大区成员数目实际上没有增长，徘徊在2 500人左右。平均一个月有100人加入，但是加入的人只有退出的人的一半：1927年11月，34人加入和65人退出。归根结底是没有增长，或者至少没有实现纳粹主义相信的称霸愿望。 [18]

    诺特海姆的情况是一样的。随着时间流逝，成员在减少。吉尔曼不再是地方小组的领袖；他被另一个小商人——鲁道夫·恩斯特取代了，恩斯特精神衰弱，濒临破产，并且从诺特海姆搬到了柏林（1930年）。当时的照片显示他肥胖、粗脖子、秃头、圆脑袋，留着希特勒式的胡子。 [19] 他没什么活力。对于绝大多数诺特海姆人而言，纳粹党几乎销声匿迹了；他们的偶尔出现只是过去骚乱的残余，这就是正处于魏玛共和国平和年代的国社党的真实模样。

    然而，在平静繁荣的背后，刺激这一区域内纳粹主义重生的条件正在发展中。即便是在大萧条之前，中产阶级尤其是小农们就感觉自己陷入了麻烦中；税赋增加、信贷紧缩、现代化经济的竞争以及政府掌控在左翼手中是这些情绪产生的原因。 [20] 而且，传统的中产阶级政治党派陷入了混乱。 [21] 在诺特海姆周边地区，从传统政党脱胎的最大一部分保守派选民是圭尔夫派，即德意志—汉诺威党。这是州内的右翼，可能是分裂主义分子，是自19世纪开始的运动的残余。圭尔夫派的支持者主要是“乡村的中产阶级——农民、店主和工匠，尤其是处于旧圭尔夫领地的人”（这一区域包括诺特海姆周边地区）。 [22] 令人惊异的是，他们获得了相当大的支持：1924年，汉诺威省的全部选民中有大约1/4的人支持他们，当时圭尔夫派发起了将汉诺威王国从普鲁士分离出去的公民投票，在1928年的德国国会选举中，圭尔夫派在诺特海姆县获得了20.4%的选票（1930年，他们获得了5.3%的选票，而1932年，获得了0.5%）。 [23] “圭尔夫”党派逐渐变得无关紧要了，但是其追随者的怨恨却一直存在着。他们的选民准备着战斗。因此，至少在诺特海姆周围的村镇，到1929年为止，潜在的纳粹党支持者出现了。

    而且，纳粹党在沉寂的这些年里，调整了他们的宣传机构，再次指向中产阶级，这些中产阶级现在为激进的政变做好了准备。 [24] 1925—1928年的绝大多数时候，纳粹宣传的主要目标是工人阶级，内容上主要是反犹主义。这有助于征召那些偏执的人，但是成员的数目表明并没有足够多的人可以发动真正的大规模运动。1928年的国家选举是自1924年以来对这些策略的第一次真正的考验。在下萨克森，国家社会主义党得到了4.5%的选票。在诺特海姆县，他们获得了4.2%的选票，而在城镇中，获得了2.3%的选票。 [25]

    征募成员和投票数据或许反映了各种各样的因素，而出席会议和响应演讲则是对会议和演讲主题所产生效果的相当明确的检验。纳粹有精确的出席人数记录，只有持门票者才能进入。演讲者引发的热情程度可以通过每次筹款的收益来评估。1928年选举运动之后，南部汉诺威—布伦瑞克大区发现会议的收益微薄。某位地方领袖在他所在的城镇进行了五场演讲。其中四场都亏损了，第五场盈利了，但只有2马克50芬尼 [16] （扣除广告宣传、场地租赁和支付给演讲者的费用）。写稿人要求113.22帝国马克 [17] 的津贴，令大区觉得可恶的是，他们本期望从地方小组收钱，而不是给钱。 [26]

    因此对于纳粹党而言，在1928年年底，他们有足够的理由去改变宣传的目标和内容，在希特勒的命令下，他们也确实是这么做的。尽管他们仍旧试图争取工人的支持，尽管反犹主义并没有被遗弃，新的重点已经转向了响应纳粹主义的群体和会产生影响的宣传主题。那就意味着主要是吸引小商人、商店店员和乡村人口，主要内容除了反马克思主义外，还要加上对魏玛共和国经济政策的抨击。 [27]

    至于使用的方法，是在重点上而非在基本技巧上发生了改变。在集会上，演讲依旧是主要的宣传工具；自1925年以来，在整个时期发展起来的方法就是让演讲者在观众面前发言。大区提供一群潜在的演讲者，每个人都有一系列特定的话题，安排他们在地方领袖要求的日期到达指定地点。地方领袖选择一位演讲者，并且根据他们的估计来选择会吸引很多观众的话题。地方领袖必须为演讲者的交通、食物和住宿付费，而演讲者的酬金是每场演讲10—20帝国马克，他们非常乐于进行一场成功的演讲。集会的收益损耗是衡量成功与否的要旨。

    这一体制为地方提供了机动性，保持了信息畅通，这样一来，教条主义的纳粹运动变得灵活性极强。几乎每一件事情都依赖于能干和精力充沛的地方领袖。纳粹党的省党部领袖管理“演讲者办事处”，但是除了偶尔召开地方组织领袖的会议之外，他们并不会提供其他的直接帮助。大区主要管理地方小组和地区内的内部机构，并且从他们那里筹款。 [28] 在集会上演讲的整个宣传策略运转顺利：这是自我调整。

    如此一来，从1929年开始，由于新加入的乐于倾听的选民，指向他们的宣传重点，以及在艰难中进行调整的宣传体系，纳粹党的汉诺威—布伦瑞克南部大区逐渐发展壮大。1929年的前六个月，大区仅仅失去了184名成员，却征召到了1 166名成员，净增加982名成员——在总人数上有了实质性的增加（从2 268人增加到3 250人）。 [29]

    在诺特海姆，纳粹党的复兴开始于1929年夏天。5月22日，有4名成员决定主动出击，而不是等着迟钝的鲁道夫·恩斯特做些什么。他们雇用了一个来自哥廷根的纳粹党人，每周一在诺特海姆的卡特莱拍卖大厅的半公开集会上发表演讲，这个大厅的业主同情这些人，于是免费将房间租借给他们。恩斯特领导着他们，但实质上是集体的努力。从5月27日开始，一直到7月29日，共举行了八次“夜晚讨论会”。起初只有15人参加，后来出席者增加到平均40人，其中有15人申请加入党派，而更多的人订阅了大区的报纸。这些集会的主题基本都是有关纳粹意识形态的：
    5月27日：“我们为什么称自己为国家社会主义德国工人党？”
    6月3日：“纳粹党的计划，第一部分。”
    6月10日：“纳粹党的计划，第二部分。”
    6月17日：“打破利益农奴制。”
    7月1日：“超国家力量。”
    7月8日：“锡安智者的规约。”
    7月22日：“纳粹主义、自由主义和马克思主义。”
    7月29日：“杨格计划。”

    最后一次集会之后的第二天，鲁道夫·恩斯特向大区领袖发送了一份令人欣喜的报告，索要宣传册子、申请表格以及恢复作为地方小组的身份（因为诺特海姆现在超过了最小值的15名成员）。 [30] 在华尔街股票市场崩溃的三个月前，依靠成员们的积极主动，纳粹主义在诺特海姆活跃起来。

    新成员中除了两个人（一个是火车司机，一个是汽车司机），其他人都是小商人或者工匠，绝大多数都是二十多岁。 [31] 他们为党派带来了自己的中产阶级技能和年轻活力。对演讲者的需求和对如何运转纳粹党地方小组的信息需求让省党部领袖焦头烂额。省党部领袖回复说演讲者马上会到位，他们解释说因为需求日益增加，所以日程排得很紧，他们承诺会给出建立地方小组所需要的包含指导说明和形式结构在内的文件。演讲者们来了，但是直到秋季末期文件才到，那时地方小组本身就很活跃了。 [32] 到10月为止，诺特海姆地方小组已经征召了超过24名新成员，只有一小部分人离开或停止交会费。 [33] 11月，又有了16名申请者，地方小组疯狂地索要宣传海报。（大区已经没有了，于是就让他们自己即兴创作。） [34] 11月11日举行了一场公开集会（“马克思主义对德国工人的背叛”），吸引了120人，他们每人付了22.9帝国马克。观众中有6人决定加入纳粹党。 [35] 但是这一次也是一样的，地方小组的文件混乱，其成员请求省党部领袖安排一些常驻人员来担任演讲者和组织者。 [36] 猪一样的鲁道夫·恩斯特很明显无法胜任，而其他人都有全职工作。

    因此，与前一年的12月只有5名纳粹分子并且没有集会相比，1929年，情况发生了相当大的变化。即便是这样，诺特海姆的纳粹运动仍旧达不到群众组织的规模；尽管一场集会有120人确实是值得注意，但是很明显这并不能将希特勒的想法带到其他诺特海姆人面前，当时的人仍旧在很大程度上轻视纳粹分子。

    这并不是因为纳粹不努力，因为新的地方小组一直在将纳粹意识推到公众面前。在1930年的头几个月，国社党基本上每隔一周就召开一次集会，宣传标题如“德国工人是大国际资本家的利益农奴”或者“拯救民族社会主义国家的中产阶级”。像绝大多数纳粹集会一样，外来的演讲者在每场集会中扮演了重要角色，他们承诺在每场演讲后进行讨论，并且索要大约30芬尼（相当于两条面包的价格）的入场费。集会在诺特海姆的卡特莱拍卖大厅举行，根据社会党人所说，这无非证明了纳粹的口号“各得其所”。但是这个大厅很好地满足了纳粹的需求；租赁费用低，强调了纳粹和乡村人的联系，足够小，这样一来，出席的人不会特别显眼。这很重要，因为在1930年的头几个月，出席集会的观众年龄仍旧相当小。 [37]

    但是，集会并不是没有用的，这些集会为纳粹分子树立了一种形象。对普通的诺特海姆人来说，纳粹党是精力旺盛的、有奉献精神的和年轻的。一位家庭主妇清楚地说道：

    国社党的队伍中都是年轻人。那些严肃认真的人都加入了进来，因为他们支持社会正义，反对赋闲。纳粹分子给人的感觉是有用不完的精力。你常常可以看到街道两边画着纳粹党党徽，或是发现他们散发的小册子。我被纳粹党的这种力量吸引住了，即使其中有很多值得质疑的地方。 [38]

    纳粹活动的功能之一是向诺特海姆人证明他们真的相信自己所宣扬的那些思想。但是哪些人是纳粹分子呢？1930年，绝大多数诺特海姆人发现这个问题还难以回答，因为纳粹分子个人很少出现在公众视野。绝大多数诺特海姆人至少能识别出一名希特勒党派的成员：威廉·斯潘瑙斯，宽街上一家书店的所有者。威廉·斯潘瑙斯来自古老的诺特海姆家庭；他的父亲拥有了镇上的第一家书店。他的一个兄弟上战场，并且在第一次世界大战中阵亡了，另一个兄弟成了大学教授。威廉成了南美的一家德国学校的高中教师，从1912年到1921年，他一直居住在那里，之后决定回家接手书店：

    正值“斯达巴克斯团”在莱茵兰起义后不久；实际上我乘坐的开往德国的火车，每个窗玻璃都被打破了，通货膨胀到了不可思议的地步。

    我离开德国的时候，魏玛共和国正值权力和荣耀的顶峰。我回来的时候却发现社会党人共和政体统治下的祖国处于混乱之中。 [39]

    在旅居海外的那些年，斯潘瑙斯很欣赏休斯顿·斯图尔特·张伯伦 [18] 的作品。他听说在慕尼黑政变 [19] 不久前，张伯伦在一次文学茶话会上提及希特勒，“他是一个我闭着眼睛都可以追随的人”，所以斯潘瑙斯成了诺特海姆第一个加入国社党的成员。

    威廉·斯潘瑙斯在诺特海姆非常讨人喜欢。他是一个宽容而有活力的人，温柔又亲切，对每个人都很友好，而且他体贴入微，值得拥有大家的尊敬。他的书店是城镇里的知识文化中心，他和镇上许多受人敬仰的作家、诗人都熟悉，他是诺特海姆演讲协会的主席。除此以外，他还是路德教会的杰出教徒。“威廉·斯潘瑙斯担负着重大的责任，他是引领更多人加入国社党的榜样，”诺特海姆人评论道，“人们说：‘他参与其中的一定是正确的事情。’” [40]

    当时，诺特海姆人对绝大多数其他的当地纳粹分子都不熟悉。到1930年1月为止，地方小组有58名成员，但其中大多数是诺特海姆附近乡村的居民。 [41] 这几个月中，乡村地区是纳粹发展起来的真正地点：1930年1月，诺特海姆县有超过230名的纳粹成员，但他们并不隶属于地方小组，而是演讲者们的支持者。 [42] 也就是说地方小组的成员是不固定的。每个月都会增加20名成员，但又会失去一半，因为许多人拒绝交会费，还有住所变动等。 [43] 记录一切超出了地方小组领袖鲁道夫·恩斯特和其志愿者助手们的能力。1930年2月，为了回应狂热的需求，大区最终派了一名纳粹“事务主任”到诺特海姆县（诺特海姆的纳粹分子必须每月向其支付100帝国马克），但是他能力不足，4月就被开除了。 [44] 最后，诺特海姆人自己选出了一个人——瓦尔特·施泰内克，大区领袖于5月委任他为县领袖和地方小组的代理领袖。恩斯特·吉尔曼作为施泰内克的助手介入诺特海姆的事务，让城镇组织有效地运转起来了，而施泰内克主要专注于获利更多的县。 [45]

    瓦尔特·施泰内克也是“外来者”（他在1889年出生于多特蒙德）。1929年6月，地方小组在诺特海姆复兴期间，他成了一名纳粹。他是农业用具经销商，因经常销售出差，对乡村腹地很熟悉。因此，他非常适合成为县领袖，他的商业经历让他成了有效率的集会组织者、纳粹宣传材料的批发商以及成员名单和会费记录的保管者。大区和地方小组对他的工作都很满意；除此以外，他自己的生意有足够的收入，这样一来他就不需要国社党支付报酬了。 [46] 另一方面，诺特海姆人却几乎不了解施泰内克。他们从吉尔曼父亲开五金店时起就认识吉尔曼，他们还认识在1930年加入的另一个地方商人——赫尔曼·登茨勒。登茨勒30岁，在宽街上拥有一家小型纺织品店。在第一次世界大战的最后几年，他在著名的警卫团服役，成为一名纳粹不久之后，他成了冲锋队队员，并且成了诺特海姆地区的纳粹领袖。之后，他成了纳粹党卫军领袖，最终加入了盖世太保。 [47] 他的举止行为像个暴徒，诺特海姆人将其和恩斯特·吉尔曼联系起来，吉尔曼的暴力性格也让城镇人很不舒服。诺特海姆人认为他们属于典型的纳粹运动的边缘人物。但是由于纳粹主义在城镇中迅速发展，绝大多数诺特海姆人最初并不知道哪些人是真正的纳粹分子。将这场运动与如威廉·斯潘瑙斯那样严肃认真的人等同起来是最容易的，因为每个人都知道他。

    是什么样的思想吸引了威廉·斯潘瑙斯那样的人加入纳粹运动呢？对绝大多数诺特海姆人而言，国社党首先是反对马克思主义的政党。 [48] 诺特海姆人想到马克思主义的时候，很可能不会想到共产主义者，1928年，这些共产主义者在城镇选举中仅仅获得了5 372张选票中的28张。诺特海姆的“马克思主义”党派就是社会民主主义党派、社会民主党或者社会党。社会党人是诺特海姆占统治地位的政治力量。1928年的选举中，他们几乎获得了45%的选票，多于排在其后的三个党派的总和。

    社会民主党是非革命政党（实际上，它支持维持现状），“马克思主义”只是理论上的，对于绝大多数城镇市民而言很可能根本没什么重要的。社会党人举着红色旗帜。他们高唱《国际歌》。在德国辉煌的时期，有专门针对他们的法律。他们和1918年的政治大变动相关。他们代表无产阶级、下层民众、躁动不安的失业者。他们宣扬马克思主义和阶级斗争。他们那些坐在城市议会中的领袖都从事着听上去荒唐的职业：“涂油工”“工会干事”“巡道工”。人们从未在社交场合见过他们，而坐在市政厅里的他们是易怒的、好斗的、苛刻的。在萧条的环境中，对抗这些宣扬公平的激进分子是至关重要的一件事情。

    中产阶级的思想中有一个因素是纳粹分子能够清楚理解的。就社会党人而言，他们很早就重视了纳粹的威胁。1930年3月，他们的国民卫队国旗队在诺特海姆县议会上通过了一项决议，号召“激烈地反对……国社党的暴行”，要求采取行动，“否则的话，同志们会用自己的方式解决”。 [49] 一个月后，国旗队和其他工会、社会民主党以及小型民主党派一起发起了反对纳粹分子的盛大集会。计划要求进行一系列游行，在市集广场举行示威，在开阔的射击馆“1910年代圆顶”发表演讲，主题是“独裁还是民主？”，并计划于4月27日星期天实行。这也是纳粹分子一直等着的，在社会党人发布声明的三天后，国社党的诺特海姆地方小组宣布他们会在同一天举行一场集会，由一支乐队领头进行游行，在市集广场发表演说，在卡特莱拍卖大厅举行由一个纳粹的国民议会代表主持的盛大会议。而且，纳粹的计划是直接准备好与社会民主党发生冲突；两场游行都是在下午1点开始的，两场在市集广场的示威都定在2点。 [50]

    对于警察来说，聚会的人实在太多了。因为之前爆发了暴力冲突，普鲁士已经有三个月禁止了所有的公开集会和政治人物的游行示威，禁令刚刚于1930年3月30日结束。 [51] 在发布了两个声明的这周，诺特海姆已经爆发了两次暴力冲突。其中一场冲突发生在宽街的啤酒馆前，10个纳粹分子和社会党人打架，其中一人受伤，被救护车送到了医院。另一场冲突发生在城镇上方的树林里，11人被卷入，其中一人被打伤了鼻子。 [52] 鉴于形势紧张，警方禁止了4月27日的两场集会。

    这给纳粹提供了另一个机会。在宣传中使用了这样的文字：“就算有禁令——并没有什么用！”他们宣称会按照计划示威游行，不过地点是在离诺特海姆大约两英里的乡村。纳粹带领了大约2 000人来参加集会，吸引了整个地区的人。800名冲锋队队员进行的游行被《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》称为“非常具有纳粹意识”。游行过后，三辆卡车的冲锋队队员在诺特海姆四处散发传单。 [53] 通过明显的组织灵活性，纳粹党不仅阻碍了社会党人的集会，而且控制了舆论，给诺特海姆人留下了他们的规模和决心“强有力的印象”。他们的情绪高昂好斗，第二天的县议会上，他们激烈地质问社会党发言人，几乎演变成了一场争吵。纳粹将自己的形象投射到诺特海姆。也许正是这个原因，他们全体出动庆祝1930年的国际劳动节。来自各个地区的工人，尤其是铁路工人，结成紧密的队伍参加了穿越城镇的游行示威。他们喝了很多酒，举行了很多演讲，当然还悲壮地唱着《国际歌》。 [54]

    诺特海姆人在初期就清楚地认识到纳粹主义的另一个观点是宣扬强烈的爱国主义和极端的军国主义。正如城镇中的民族主义社会组织的数量和种类所显示的，这是迈向体面之门的一步。诺特海姆人接受这些价值观的程度通过1930年5月的大事件——陆军元帅冯·马肯森访问诺特海姆——表现出来了。当时正值诺特海姆“民兵和预备役军人俱乐部”成立40周年之际。

    陆军元帅于5月17日早上乘坐专列抵达，在诺特海姆火车站有大约1 000人列队欢迎他。诺特海姆的城市乐队演奏着激昂的进行曲，一个小女孩将一束鲜花献给了他。在地方退伍军人俱乐部视察之后，陆军元帅在站台上整合队伍，骑上一匹白马，穿越宽街，他的身后跟着乐队和俱乐部成员，包括来自邻近城镇的队伍。人群列在道路两旁，许多房子都装饰着旧的帝国装饰，市集广场上洒满了玫瑰花瓣，人们热情地欢迎着他。他关于强大军队的重要性的直率演讲引发了民众高呼“德意志高于一切”。随后进行了三天的庆祝游行和欢庆活动。 [55]

    仍旧沉迷于4月27日战胜了社会党人的纳粹分子几乎不可能和这样的场面相匹敌。陆军元帅到达的前一天，纳粹分子在卡特莱拍卖厅举行了一场小型集会，主题是“诺特海姆怎么了？令人疑惑的新闻报道、故意的错误和4月27日禁止示威游行”。 [56] 在5月和6月接下来的几个星期里，纳粹分子一直就失业、“锡安智者的规约”和德国青年等主题举行集会。 [57] 但是这些集会没能引起争论，也没有给公众留下有关盛会的深刻印象。

    1930年，普鲁士内政部尝试了各种各样的权宜之计，试图限制侵蚀德国的暴力活动。街头暴力的主要参与者是希特勒的“褐衫队”，也就是冲锋队。 [20] 衬衫具有重要的象征意义，它鼓励着穿着的人，同时挑衅着其他人。因此，1930年，普鲁士禁止政治团体穿这样的统一服装。这为纳粹分子提供了新的宣传工具。6月的最后一个星期，诺特海姆的国社党再次鼓动周围地区发起针对普鲁士统一服装禁令的抗议游行。大约400名冲锋队队员参与了游行（所有人都穿着白色衬衫，而不是褐色的），来自距诺特海姆大约10英里的大城镇的军乐队跟着他们。市集广场上，一个纳粹分子进行了一场讽刺性的演讲，他引入了具有汉堡特色的口号：“人头将会落地。”下午的其他时间在卡特莱拍卖大厅举行了公开演讲。 [58]

    这鼓舞着社会党人的反对行动。6月26日，社会民主党在宽敞的“1910年代圆顶”发起了一场关于“国家社会主义者的罪行”的集会。超过1 000人听取了《诺特海姆最新消息》所称的关于纳粹主义的“客观和冷静的”分析。有一些不满之声，但并没有出现暴力行为，据《诺特海姆最新消息》所说，当一个纳粹分子试图反驳的时候，“提及他的个人记录，很容易就把他解决了”。这一经历一定伤害了纳粹分子，第二天，他们就分发了攻击社会民主党演讲者的单页传单。 [59]

    由纳粹反对统一服装禁令的示威游行引发的另一个事件证明了社会党人是多么认真地对待纳粹威胁的。诺特海姆的副警察局长是议员威廉·马纳，他是市议会中右翼组织的领袖。他出席了市集广场上纳粹演讲者希望“人头将会落地”的集会。诺特海姆的社会党人认为议员马纳本应该让警察逮捕煽动暴力行为的演讲者。马纳没有采取行动，这证明他偏爱纳粹主义。接着，国旗队召开了一场特别的公众集会，决定向普鲁士内政部和州长（幸运的是，这两人都是社会党人）递交诉状。马纳被州权力机构剥夺了警察权力，市议会中社会民主党派的领袖议员卡尔·库埃尔富尔特接任了副警察局长的职位。 [60]

    大约同时，《人民报》开始报道一些事件，暗示纳粹分子是暴力和恶毒的。例如，据报道，一个纳粹领袖对其冲锋队队员说，要暗杀那些嘲笑他们在诺特海姆的游行像“一群羊”的旁观者。后来，来自诺特海姆的一个纳粹分子搭便车去城镇时，向司机展示了自己的左轮手枪，朝空中开了两枪，在司机叫来警察之前他就逃跑了。 [61] 因此即便是在1930年议会选举之前，诺特海姆的政治氛围就很紧张，纳粹分子和社会民主党人划清了界线。

    社会党人早就逐步形成了一种竞选活动的方法；他们自从19世纪80年代开始就在诺特海姆从事竞选运动。方法就是通过大型的、引人瞩目的游行和集会来努力将工人阶级融合成一个牢固的团体，同时让外围选民相信社会民主党是可靠的、有效的和负责任的。1930年8月，针对9月议会选举的竞选运动开始了，对社会民主党有利的是竞选运动开始的时间正好是一年一度的宪法日假期——8月8日。这是魏玛共和国的主要节日，也是社会民主党极为认同的节日。

    早在1930年6月，国旗队就宣布为了支持这一节日会举行火炬游行，并且在“1910年代圆顶”举办舞会。除此以外，他们还强迫其他组织支持宪法日，对拒绝参与的组织进行公开批判，向那些参与庆祝的组织承诺会给予他们“荣誉证书”。为了保证有大批观众，学校的老师和学生被要求一定要出席。火炬游行有800多个火炬和21个组织，包括军事俱乐部和海军协会。用《诺特海姆最新消息》的话说，这是“诺特海姆第一个真正成功的宪法日庆祝活动”。 [62]

    社会民主党在立法方面也很活跃。1930年6月，诺特海姆登记在册的失业者有272人，这是社会党人最关切的问题，因此他们向市议会提出请愿，并针对有限的公共事业项目提出明确的计划。8月，这些努力获得了回报，议会采纳了社会民主党的项目，并且针对扩展某些街道、建设操场和为“流离失所者”另外建立两栋应急住房的投资问题进行投票。 [63] 社会民主党现在进行的选举活动与针对纳粹煽动行为的建设性行动相对立。

    这对于纳粹分子而言很重要，受竞选活动的刺激，他们变得越来越活跃了。8月10日，他们举行了第一次竞选集会，有一个外来的演讲者，主题是“11年的共和国——11年的大苦难”。一周后，纳粹分子的第二次集会上，一个大区领袖论及“抽税直到最后一分钱”。这次吸引了很多观众，以至于很多人难以挤进卡特莱拍卖大厅。五天后的一场集会由一名普鲁士议会的成员主导，在只能站着的房间里举行，那之后又过了一个星期举行了另一场。 [64]

    社会民主党人举行的竞选集会更少，但是他们努力地让这些集会给人留下深刻的印象。8月24日，社会民主党人举行了县党派纪念活动，有600名国旗队成员参加，他们分成四队，在市集广场会合。发表了几场演讲之后，1 200名参与者和5个军乐队进行了第二次穿越诺特海姆的游行。游行的终点是露天啤酒花园，他们在那里进行了演讲、歌唱、杂技表演，晚上还举行了舞会。10天后，社会民主党人在“1910年代圆顶”又举行了一次群众集会。入场费只有20芬尼（失业者免费），大厅里都挤满了人。一系列演讲捍卫了社会民主党人的政策，攻击了那些随时诘问他们的纳粹分子。 [65]

    其他党派远没有这么努力。德国的民族主义党派举行了一次集会，规模很小。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》是他们的主要竞选工具；投票前的最后两周，该报一天至少刊登五则关于阿尔弗雷德·胡根堡及其德国国家人民党 [21] 的宣传广告。在选举前夜，报上几乎充满了民族主义政党的宣传。比如，第一页上有一整幅胡根堡的照片、一首赞扬党派的诗歌以及为德国国家人民党投票的号召。人民党派也广泛利用《诺特海姆最新消息》进行选举宣传，投票选举前的三周至少每天一次。德国人民党 [22] 的总路线是“秩序、法律、道德和团结”，这让他们可以自由地攻击社会民主党（因为“造成了萧条”）和纳粹党（因为“破坏性的激进主义”）。这也是竞选运动中德国人民党一次集会的主题，在这次集会上，他们用严苛的措辞指责纳粹分子，同时赞美人民党派是已故的古斯塔夫·施特雷泽曼 [23] 的精神的传承者，也是中产阶级的可靠核心。这次集会进行得顺利，其参加者很克制。 [66] 另一场选举运动集会是在国家党的主持下进行的，国家党是僵化的民主党的保守派继承者。演讲者号召有序的、中产阶级议会统治，呼吁制定相关法律，“根据犹太人的品性和成就授予公民资格” [67] 。但是这次集会的出席率很低。

    竞选运动的高潮发生了一个事件，不过并不是直接和选举相关的，这次事件的目标是援助民族主义事业，很可能也是援助纳粹分子。8月的最后几天，德国的小型国防军的分支机构之一——第17步兵团在去秋季演习的途中经过诺特海姆。一个连队在城镇中驻扎一晚，兵团军乐队在市集广场召开了一场音乐会，吸引了一大批观众，赢得了很多喝彩。各家报纸都对这一事件进行了大量的描述，《诺特海姆最新消息》狡猾地报道士兵们和地方的女孩子们相处得很好。第二天早上6点，很多孩子起床去看军队行军，乐队仍旧进行了演奏。 [68]

    竞选运动的最后一段日子进入了白热化阶段，所有的党派都在张贴海报，分发传单。不可避免地，爆发了暴力事件。在投票的五天前，三名共产主义者痛打了一个国旗队队员，因为这个人不接受他们分发的传单。这之后不久，另一个国旗队队员被两名纳粹冲锋队队员打了。气氛如此紧张，以至于领袖们坚决要求国旗队在示威游行时不能携带棒子。州权力机关也发布命令要求所有的集会只能进行到10点钟，如果发现参加竞选集会的人随身携带小刀或者棒子，就会对其进行严格的惩罚。 [69]

    选举前夜，社会民主党在“1910年代圆顶”举行了最后的群众集会，直接号召其追随者投票给社会党人，让“非社会的资本家集团内阁”去死。纳粹分子在最后的集会上找来了一位路德派牧师，让他进行演讲，以吸引诺特海姆的有信仰者。卡特莱拍卖大厅人潮拥挤，演讲者向听众们保证纳粹分子既不是经济上的激进分子，也不是反宗教的极端人士。 [70]

    1930年9月14日，星期天，诺特海姆人进行了大萧条时期的第一次投票。投票非常激烈：6 235人投票，其中94%的投票是有效的。在诺特海姆，和整个德国的其他地方一样，最令人惊异的就是纳粹力量的迅速崛起。在国民议会中，纳粹代表从12个席位增加到107个。诺特海姆的国社党所获票数从123张（1928年）增加到1 742张，获得了所有选票中的28%。纳粹的收获并没有损害社会民主党（社会民主党实际上获得了2 246张选票）和人民党（人民党获得了788张选票，相比1928年选举只净损失了46张选票），但是投了805张“新的”选票，各种各样的小党派损失了1 000多张选票，结果就是纳粹得到了支持。 [71] 新选民中至少3/4的人投票支持国社党，纳粹分子所获得的选票中至少一半来自那些之前投票给其他党派的选民。这些选票尤其是来自民族主义党派和国家党。因为新的有资格投票的选民不足350人，所以纳粹分子的收获必然来自那些不仅年轻，而且在1928年投票支持其他党派或者根本没有费心去投票的选民。

    无论投票的来源是什么，很明显的是，国社党的支持率增加了15倍。诺特海姆超过1/4的成年人现在寄希望于阿道夫·希特勒。激进分子、极端主义者、专制政权的拥护者已经大批登场了。

    四　开拓胜利（1930—1931年，秋冬）

    民主经常被煽动者的傲慢无礼所腐蚀。 ——亚里士多德：《政治学》（第五卷）

    1930年9月的每个星期都有大约6 000人来诺特海姆。他们来自四个县，都是来找工作或者来诺特海姆地区就业办事处领救济金。就业办事处位于城镇北部旧军营的一处营房里，其他营房充当着绝大多数贫穷的诺特海姆公民——“流离失所者”——的应急住房。这些军营的营房形成了一个四方院子，在这片小区域中，痛苦的失业者们在就业办事处的窗前时常漫无目的地乱转，等着轮到自己。难以避免的是，这里会发生碰撞、争吵，那些闲散人员压抑已久的情绪会突然迸发出来。绝大多数无业者属于社会民主党，但也有很多纳粹分子和共产主义分子，必然经常发生争斗。在高压的政治氛围中，军营的营房每天都会涌入大量饥饿和焦虑的人，对于诺特海姆人而言，这是日益加深的大萧条所带来影响的明证。

    那些看着失业者们穿越诺特海姆的市民们不只是将他们视为经济灾难和潜在社会退化的象征。比起同情，失业者们的不幸更容易激发出质疑和厌恶。某个教师回忆起的主要是“大量的年轻人无所事事地站在角落里，发出很大的噪声，经常辱骂经过的行人”。某个家庭主妇也有相似的反映：“有很多失业者懒散地站着，他们中很多人只是懒惰，不想工作而已。他们令人感到不快。” [1]

    不过，有些人确实是在找工作的——例如，每年秋天收割谷物后，诺特海姆的制糖精炼厂都还另外需要200人。1930年9月，900多人申请了这些工作。《人民报》宣称精炼厂偏向于纳粹的支持者们，因为他们没有加入工会。《人民报》沮丧地预测精炼厂之前在薪酬和工作条件上的改善都将不复存在了。 [2] 即便薪酬更低了，工作仍旧抢手，因为他们恢复了工人获得常规失业救济金的权利。一个工人能够获得失业救济金的最长期限是一整年——取决于他之前工作多久。在常规救济金用尽之后，失业者还可以再领取35周的“紧急”救济金。之后，失业的工人还可以接受城市的福利办事处的照管，福利办事处通常是帮助孤儿、残疾人和老年人的。工人名列福利办事处名册上的时间没有限制，只要他没有其他收入即可。

    半熟练工人的正常工资大约是一周30马克；常规失业救济金是每周15马克，“紧急”救济金只是略少而已。但是已婚者的福利救济金只有每周8.75马克，而单身者则只有一半。1930年9月决定“紧急”救济金只可以发给能够“证明需要”的人，于是，形势恶化的进程加速了。沉闷而灵活易变的概念是首要的权宜之计，主要目的是缓解失业对国家和地方财政预算造成的压力。至于失业者，1930年秋天在他们之中已经形成了阶级结构，那些领取常规失业救济金的人成了不安的精英阶层。 [3]

    商店店主和其他以前从事个体经营的人在形势恶化阶段被排除在外了。如果没了收入，他们可以直接领取福利救济金。1930年，诺特海姆的三家工匠商店倒闭了，其中两家大约是在9月选举的时候倒闭的。 [4] 虽然每家商店本来都是边缘店铺，但是每一件事都会引发城镇人的反思。工匠联盟认为其成员们的困境是因为失业熟练工们的非法竞争。1930年11月，工匠联盟刊登启事，请求与诺特海姆人就他们正在计划中的修理工程签订合同，并且不要雇用非法工人。 [5]

    社会民主党并没有同情这些市民们，反而是利用了这些倒闭事件。一个锁匠是9月破产的人之一，他碰巧成了一名纳粹分子。《人民报》偏爱残酷的细节。根据其描述，锁匠的“财产状况很糟糕。有大量的非法债务”。当锁匠的一个雇工和一个年轻的女士偷走了店里剩余的钱时，最后的打击来了。《人民报》将整个事件描述为“纳粹商业手段的最佳例证” [6] 。

    社会党人还通过其他方式在中产阶级的伤口上撒盐。在军队逗留诺特海姆期间，他们刊登广告，有偿征用宿舍，但是几乎没有接受者。9月选举之后不久，《人民报》揭露了这件事。《人民报》觉得奇怪的是，“拥有大房子的右翼分子”并没有为士兵们提供额外的房间，许多士兵都不得不住在大厅里。《人民报》问道：“战士联盟的400名成员在哪里？民兵和预备役军人俱乐部的400名成员在哪里？无数的欢呼着的爱国者俱乐部在哪里？” [7] 社会民主党也毫不犹豫地公开抨击主要的民族主义者，后者不负责任地否认了这一点。有个事例是，来自诺特海姆县的一个民族主义领袖冯·施特拉伦海姆伯爵在1930年9月写信给《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》，说他在庄园里只雇用了几个外国的工人，他在战争中受伤而获得的抚恤金却很少，社会民主党应该为高税收和失业负责。 [8] 诺特海姆人也不喜欢社会党人受到攻击时易怒的表现。比如，1930年，市议员库埃尔富尔特将《禁止制服法令》的油印副本寄给诺特海姆县所有的冲锋队队员，从一位冲锋队队员那里，他收到了尖刻的回复。库埃尔富尔特将其告上法庭，法庭判定这是侮辱性言论，他因此而获得了50马克的赔偿。 [9]

    因此，许多诺特海姆人认为出现了反对社会民主党的好理由，有一些理由是明显而合理的，还有些则源于对危险经济形势的普遍不安。如果市民们想要社会党人下台，他们就会辩称他们只是在恢复传统秩序。在普鲁士，1918年之前，像诺特海姆这样的城镇是由封闭的富人圈子掌管的。排除其他人参与的手段是“三等级”投票制度，按照这种制度，那些支付最高税收的人控制着城市议会。1918年革命清除了所有金钱选举权上的差别，引入了直接的、公平的和秘密的投票制度。正是在这种情况下，拥有大量支持的社会民主党突然在诺特海姆城市议会获得了主导权，这在城镇历史上是首次。 [10]

    在纳粹主义崛起之前，使用政治工具去对抗社会党人的是“公民协会”[24] 。如果各种各样令人眼花缭乱的国家政党可以在地方选举中独立竞选的话，拥有大量固定投票的社会党人就会完全控制住城市政府。为了阻止这种情况，所有支持中间偏右翼的人都加入了支持平民候选者的行列中。但是公民协会不只是一个地方政治联盟，它同时也是一个独立的实体，有自己的人员、财政和按职业划分的候选人：工匠、零售商等。不过，这一组织的巩固引起了社会民主党的反感。 [11]

    公民协会的主席是市议员马纳，他是一家小企业的老板和德国国家人民党的成员。他是坚定的路德派教徒和不加掩饰的反对改革者。从1924年到1929年，公民协会在诺特海姆的城市议会中拥有最多的代表，当时的城市议会包含8名公民协会的市议员、7名社会民主党人和5名来自公务员党的成员。1929年11月，社会民主党的代表增加到了9名，而其他两个团体各丢失了一个席位。如果社会党人再获得两个席位，他们就会占绝大多数。

    在1930年9月举行的国民议会选举中，诺特海姆的社会民主党再次小幅增加了一些选票。领袖们开始考虑活动的新区域，但是他们所作出的选择加深了城镇里中产阶级对他们的厌恶。10月即将举行诺特海姆路德教会长老选举。像城镇中其他人一样，9/10的社会民主党人是路德派教徒。但是，他们一直以来在教会执事会中都没有代表，而且觉得诺特海姆的牧师们过分强调民族主义。因此，社会党人为长老会选举准备了候选人名单。

    市民们将这看作无法容忍的挑衅。公民协会在10月23日召开了一次集会，市议员马纳在会上抨击社会民主党人是反宗教的。他要求以大量的选票来击败“马克思主义者”。公民协会和福音派俱乐部的宣传控诉道：“这是第一次，反教会的社会民主党想要将党派政治的仇恨和骚动拖入教会中……” [12]

    绝大多数社会党人对这次攻击感到难堪。在他们自己的集会上，也就是选举之前不久举行的集会上，演讲者一开始就表达了他对将政治带入教会中感到遗憾，政治是不属于教会的。然而，他坚称因为绝大多数社会民主党人都是路德派教徒，所以他们是有代表权的。如果右翼人士愿意和社会民主党列出一个折中的候选人名单，那么就可以避免激烈的竞选了。他希望将来不会发生类似的事情。 [13]

    如果说社会党人感到难堪，右翼分子感到愤怒，那么纳粹党人就会感到高兴了，因为这给了他们将自己描述为“马克思主义”的有效对手的新机会。自从9月中旬赢得选举以来，他们绝不是无所作为的。那场选举结束10天后，他们就举行了一次夜晚讨论会；5天后，一名国家议会的成员被邀请过来发表演讲。几天之后，放映了两场《国家社会主义的成长》，每场电影后都有一位演讲者发表演讲。最后，10月12日，举行了一场以之前选举的主要候选人为主角的集会，他现在是国家议会的议员。因此在选举后的那个月，诺特海姆的纳粹党人像选举前的那个月一样，尽可能多地举行公共集会——这是一个很好的例子，证明了他们持续的竞选活动策略。 [14]

    持续的骚动至少部分是受到了纳粹大区办事处的鼓励。9月15日，纳粹大区的宣传部门指示地方小组继续前一天已经结束的竞选活动，不要有任何停顿。地方小组被要求至少每月举行一次集会，否则就要递交详细的解释说明他们为什么没有做到。 [15]

    9月的竞选活动教会诺特海姆的纳粹党人，他们手中最吸引人的王牌是宗教信仰和民族主义，最好是将两者结合起来。这一经验现在被应用于利用中产阶级对社会民主党加入教会长老选举的不满中。选举前一天，国社党举行了一次以路德派牧师为主角的集会，他同时也是国民议会中的纳粹党成员。公开的主题为“谋杀德国人民的马克思主义者已经被敌人收买了”。纳粹党相信会有大量的观众，于是租赁了“1910年代圆顶”，这里可以容纳1 200人。入场费是50芬尼，由于这场集会的直接目标是中产阶级，所以没有提供给失业者的低价。

    纳粹党人的期望是完全合理的；来参加集会的人非常多，以至于只有站着的地方。牧师的主要话题是国社党的性质，他将国社党比作旧式帝国陆军，因为这两者都是代表全部德国人民而非特定群体的。在演讲接近尾声的时候，他详细论述了诺特海姆的长老选举，他所说的是要证明社会民主党的专制动机。他规劝大家投票支持“无党派人士”。 [16]

    第二天是星期天，这一天举行了选举。在更早的教会选举中，只有17%的路德派团体投票；这一次有大约60%的人投票。大量的投票得到了公民协会的运输机构的帮助，他们将投票者带到投票地点。社会民主党只鼓动了它平常投票力量的1/4，其候选人以5：1的劣势被打败了。一群坚决的保守派长老当选了。

    尽管纳粹党人并没有参加竞选的候选人，但是他们对这个结果相当满意。竞选运动加重了公民对社会民主党的厌恶。纳粹党人可以声称他们的集会对社会党人的失败作出了重大的贡献，这也是他们在诺特海姆进行的第一次真正的群众集会。最好的一点是，市民们知道了社会民主党是可以被打败的。为了反复强调这一经验，冲锋队队员们自那之后每周四和周日都会举行穿越城镇的游行。

    1930年剩下的时间里充斥着纳粹党人频繁但相当普通的集会，所有的都是在卡特莱拍卖大厅举行的。11月9日，纳粹党人纪念那些在希特勒于1923年发动的失败的啤酒馆政变中丧生的人们。四天后，举行了一场夜晚讨论会，两天后，举行了一场演讲，题目为“9月14日的选举在外国的反响”。12月初，一场关于经济的演讲强调纳粹依靠下层中产阶级，圣诞节之前的一周举行的另一场演讲攻击了社会民主党。1930年结束的时候，纳粹为孩子们举行了一场圣诞晚会，为成年人举行了“娱乐晚会”。 [17]

    到1930年年底，纳粹党的高层官员们为更广泛和更精练的竞选宣传策略做准备，他们9月的选举胜利所带来的资金资助和群众支持对此起到了刺激作用。大区宣传部门每月的定期通知现在向地方小组提供协调活动的指导方针、可用的演讲者（以及话题）清单，还有满足各种各样具体要求的宣传单和小册子的总目录。也可以租赁幻灯片和电影，包括一部有声电影。所有这些都是直接从位于慕尼黑的全国总部订购，需要预先付款。

    而且，“演讲者办事处”系统加强了。1931年1月1日开始，在纳粹的集会上，没有大区发的特别身份识别卡就无法成为正式的演讲者，只有通过测试的演讲者才能获得识别卡。通过测试的演讲者的标准费用是每场演讲7马克（在大萧条年代算是高薪了），再加上交通和住宿费用，许多纳粹党人都努力获得官方认证，而大区会仔细挑选。只有不到1/3的申请者能够合格。当然，这之后无论他们是否希望经常演讲，他们未来的雇佣都取决于在巡回演讲中的成功。所以，纳粹党久经考验的宣传系统需要进一步地打磨。此外，印刷的宣传材料以合理的价格不断地增加。一份4页的小册子只花了地方小组1芬尼，量大的还可以打折。海报的数目已经增加到了只印刷海报目录就要花费地方小组1马克的地步。最后，大区宣传部门会向地方小组提供对手党派最新观点的简短摘要，以及推荐的反驳观点。 [18]

    诺特海姆地方小组到此时为止已拥有了自己的宣传专家：一位成员负责收集、整理并且进一步传达大区宣传部门下发的信息。在诺特海姆，纳粹党人表示特别需要对抗社会民主党人的演讲者和海报，他们想要举行持续的宣传游行，而且不仅在诺特海姆，也在附近的其他乡村。 [19]

    对于社会民主党而言，除了宣传活动和闯入教会政治，还有工作要做。10月，城市议会中的社会民主党一派提出了大量的公共工程计划，可以让失业者不再流落街头。这个计划包括修缮诺特海姆的公园和街道，纳粹党人掌权后使用了这个计划的部分内容。这个计划的主要特征是提供很多工作，工具或材料的支出却很少。这个雄心勃勃的计划中只有一项措施通过了——在城镇拥有的森林中拓宽林中小路，而这是第一个只雇用失业工人的工程。 [20]

    在县议会中，社会民主党占据着21个席位中的10个，由于和两个“中间党派”代表结盟，社会民主党控制了议会，全部的社会民主党计划都被投票了。到10月为止，已经对工程项目投入了18万马克。但是这个计划并没有成效，到12月为止，因失业而引起的福利成本上升让县负债累累，以至于什么也无法实施。 [21] 接下来的两年，县议会因财政衰弱而无能为力。自社会民主党的联盟形成后，投票一直是可预测的，议会成了参与政治家们的参谋。比如，1930年12月，右派对《人民报》提出忠告，而在随后的辩论中，卡尔·库埃尔富尔特猛烈攻击纳粹党人，以至于全体右翼分子离席抗议。 [22] 增加税收的可能性是有限的。仅仅是提到这一点就在1930年12月引发了一次公民协会的抗议集会，他们宣称更高的税收是“难以忍受的”。在这次集会上，诺特海姆的一名教师，同时也是纳粹党员的海因里希·沃格在公民协会发表了长篇演讲，证实《凡尔赛条约》是诺特海姆财政问题的根源。 [23]

    对于社会民主党而言，日益增加的纳粹威胁同大萧条一样令人担忧。11月22日，国旗队举行了一场人潮拥挤的集会，主题是“墨索里尼的意大利”。演讲者将德国的民主与意大利的独裁进行对比，直接针对纳粹的计划。许多诺特海姆人都感到了危险。国旗队报告说在9月选举前他们总共有100名成员，而其间有70名新成员加入。几周后，一个阴沉的星期天下午，国旗队又举行了一场集会，这次是在市集广场。有五面旗帜和一个军乐队的游行队伍吸引了很大一批观众。演讲者的主题是纳粹的口号：“人头将会落地。”他宣称国旗队准备好了为保卫共和国而战斗，但是并不会率先动手。两天后，一场成员集会宣布过去几周新加入国旗队的有39人。 [24] 到1931年年初为止，诺特海姆的国旗队总共有300名成员，包括青年部的56名成员。 [25] 诺特海姆的民主将不会不战而退。

    社会民主党的决心既不能阻止纳粹党的意图，也不能缓解自新年以来逐渐加剧的政治紧张局势。1931年元旦发生了第一起暴力事件。三个明显喝醉了的纳粹党人，将卡尔·库埃尔富尔特十几岁的儿子拖进其中一人所住的城镇宾馆的房间里，殴打了他。几个国旗队的人冲进去救他，但是宾馆的老板足够冷静，由此才避免了一场混战。 [26] 也是在1931年的第一周，社会民主党举行了一场大规模的集会，强调纳粹党的威胁。“1910年代圆顶”挤满了人，他们听到社会民主党的国会议员强调要想尽一切方法让纳粹党人无法进入政府。他准确地预言道：“一旦这群人进入政府，民主就将不复存在。” [27]

    诺特海姆纳粹党人的1931年是以在卡特莱拍卖大厅的一场星期天下午的集会开始的。演讲者来自汉诺威，话题很有代表性：“受束缚的司法——党国束缚下的德国法律？” [28] 经历过前一年的大量观众以及社会民主党最近的集会之后，这种规模的集会已经很难令诺特海姆的纳粹党人满意了。能够填满大厅的是对民族主义的号召。1931年1月16日，《诺特海姆最新消息》激动地报道：“国社党会邀请著名的U型潜艇 [25] 艇长赫辛 [26] 来诺特海姆发表演讲。赫辛是世界大战期间第二有名的U型潜艇英雄，击沉了很多艘船只。” [29] 纳粹的宣传也是兴高采烈的：
    德国人民清醒一下！
    来诺特海姆！
    1月25日，星期天
    下午三点在“1910年代圆顶”，将有同志发表讲话：
    1.海军上校（已退役）赫辛，U-21号潜艇的指挥官。
    2.著名的（奥格登堡）农业革命家布兰肯迈耶。
    费用：在施潘瑙斯的书店预售价是50芬尼，售票处售价是60芬尼。
    自由讨论！
    与大众一起！
    国社党，诺特海姆地方小组。 [30]

    为了给这个事件添加一些趣味，纳粹党告诉一位诺特海姆的社会民主党主要人物，他可以在纳粹集会上进行45分钟的演讲，并且国旗队的人可以随行，只是他们必须交30芬尼的入场费。集会召开前，整个诺特海姆县的冲锋队进行了穿过城镇的游行，国旗队的游行队伍紧随其后。在纳粹集会开始前的10分钟，150名国旗队队员出现在了“1910年代圆顶”。纳粹领袖瓦尔特·施泰内克负责赫辛的集会，他对此有点儿震惊，声称他只能允许20名国旗队队员付30芬尼的入场费——其余人必须支付全额。这引发了一场激烈的争论，在此期间突然又出现了150名国旗队队员。纳粹党人赶快让警察关闭了大门，于是社会民主党就到市集广场去了，并且举行了一场反示威游行。两场集会都终止后，人们的情绪仍旧高涨，冲锋队和国旗队之间的斗殴勉强被阻止了。 [31]

    接下来的两周，国旗队队员试图阻止纳粹党的游行时，又险些爆发了两场争斗。 [32] 2月8日，社会民主党又举行了一场群众集会，以埃里克·内尔廷教授为主角，主题是“国家社会主义：其开始和终结”。1 000多名拥护共和国的人挤满了大厅，听他们详细讲述希特勒的意图：“想要在德国成功发动政变的人也必须掌握国家权力。所以，希特勒想要进入政府，并且不想再离开了。” [33]

    纳粹党人开始感受到社会党人的战斗状态所带来的压迫感。内尔廷教授的集会之后不久，一个纳粹党人撕掉了一个“年轻旗帜队”成员帽子上的帽徽，他立即被旁边一个国旗队的人击倒了。在就业办事处也发生了一连串事件，受害者是来自其他地方的纳粹党人，他们来诺特海姆领取他们的补偿金。 [34] 在城市议会中，社会民主党提议城镇上不再通过威廉·施潘瑙斯的书店购买所需的教科书了，因为施潘瑙斯是一名纳粹。对于他来说，幸运的是，公务员党在一定程度上和公民协会联合起来了，因而阻止了这项提议。一个保守派议员对这一提议甚为遗憾，“因为在我们的世界，政治每天都在发生改变” [35] 。

    为了回应内尔廷的集会，纳粹党人将之前计划的集会题目由“陷入困境的政客，进入猪圈的人们”，改为“对内尔廷主题的纠正，也就是，‘国家社会主义的开始，社会民主党的终结’”。而且，他们降低了失业者的入场费，由15芬尼降到了免费。 [36] 但是，这次集会以及一周后直接指向“动手又动脑的年轻工人”的集会都没能吸引很多观众，于是纳粹党人转而利用了诺特海姆的特殊性——高比例的政府雇员——召开了一次群众集会。主题是“行政机构和国家社会主义”，而演讲者是一个铁路工作者，“著名的老战士、机车司机德雷埃尔，国民议会的议员”。租赁的场地是“1910年代圆顶”，而入场费用降到了30芬尼。

    集会吸引了超过1 200人。一支强大的冲锋队小分队就在现场，因此气氛变得紧张起来了，而这时一群国旗队队员以紧密的列队进入大厅，高举着他们的旗帜，质问演讲者，尤其是针对他并没有谈及事先宣布的主题这一点上。《诺特海姆最新消息》在一篇呼吁政治稳健的社论文章中谈及此事，“随即发生了一场大骚乱，但是，双方领袖的理性维持住了秩序”。 [37]

    在忙碌的2月，社会党人的政治活动和纳粹党人的同时进行。国旗队在忙于挫败纳粹的政变。在上述事件发生前不久，在国旗队的地方指挥官突然造访诺特海姆时，进行了一次警报测试。只提前一小时接到通知，就有100名国旗队队员聚集到市集广场，听从指挥官那鼓舞士气的讲话，并且举行了宣传游行。第二周，社会民主党的县组织开会，说现在是战胜纳粹党人的时候了。每个社会党人都被劝告要再招募新人。几天后，国旗队的整个县组织聚集到一起，庆祝其成立7周年。这支游行队伍有900名国旗队队员，全部来自诺特海姆县，他们准备了20面旗子、两支乐队和两支军乐团。他们还在市集广场和马戏场举行演讲，在“1910年代圆顶”举行了一场舞会。集会主题表达了对纳粹政变的普遍恐惧：“为了保卫共和国，国旗队将会变得足够强大。”好像是为了强调这一点一样，一小队冲锋队队员冲进了舞会，在被警察驱逐之后，他们将椅子腿扔出了大厅的窗户。 [38] 这些天以来，社会党人也并没有忘记他们对资本主义的反感。这是情人节时由自由工会上演的一出戏剧的主题，共吸引了400名观众。 [39]

    纳粹党人也不甘示弱，2月26日，他们在“1910年代圆顶”举行了另一场大规模集会，一个前陆军中卫和另一个演讲者发表了题为“共和国的12年——自由在哪儿？”的演讲。 [40] 城镇中充满了政治活动。自纳粹党举行以U型潜艇英雄为主角的那次集会31天以来，这里已经发生了12次不同的政治事件：游行、集会、会议——6次是由社会民主党进行的，6次是由纳粹党进行的。差不多一直在使用“1910年代圆顶”，大部分事件都带有暴力或者至少是极度紧张的色彩。对政治上玩忽职守的指控也出现了。2月27日，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》引用了纳粹报纸的一篇文章，指责道：“诺特海姆城市建设办事处丑态百出。”文章声称不想参加社会民主党游行的工人们受到了“难以置信的恐吓”，有个工人为了保护自己而放弃了工作。城市建设办事处在一名社会民主党议员的职权范围内，因此，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》要求进行调查和停职。对于民族主义者而言，不幸的是，城市议会已经调查了这件事，发现纳粹的指责缺乏事实依据。在《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》那篇社论文章发表之后的第二天，《人民报》高兴地报道了这件事情，接着给这篇社论文章贴上了“另一场无耻的中产阶级骗局”的标签。 [41]

    到1931年2月为止，毫无疑问的是，社会党人已经成功地应对了纳粹的挑战。冲锋队的傲慢自大与国旗队的好战相互映衬。纳粹的指责被反驳了，纳粹的阴谋被揭露了。每次纳粹会议或者集会都会被社会党人的集会反击。但是自9月选举的半年内，城镇的整个政治氛围已经改变了。政治变得激进了，除了选举运动期间，群众集会、示威游行和街道冲突代替了原本在诺特海姆常见的相当乏味的地方政治活动。

    这种转变必然会对采取观望态度的市民有所影响。时代在急剧地变化。在将激进主义和纳粹党人相匹配的博弈中，社会民主党并不指望能获胜，因为他们没有对手那么残酷无情和缺乏理性。而且，行动中的每个步骤只是增加了诺特海姆中产阶级的不安情绪，让他们更易受极端主义呼吁的伤害。

    五　政权统一（1931年，春夏）

    纳粹党的宣传对人性中的卑鄙完全具有永久的吸引力。 ——库尔特·舒马赫博士（社会民主党）：国民议会演讲，1932年2月23日

    对于社会党人而言，纳粹党人只有在试图进行武装政变的时候，才是一个威胁。严肃的政治是一种理性的呼吁和积极的结果。因为国社党看似两者都不具备，所以，他们不能构成政治威胁。纳粹党的宣传似乎说明了这一点，因为它持续给社会民主党钉上了两个标签：“马克思主义者”和“远离人民的当权者”（Bonzen，大概就是“依附于政客的人”，暗示着腐败）。这些标签当然是互相矛盾的，很难想象狂热的激进分子同时会舒服地贪污。但是有效的宣传并不需要符合逻辑，只要它能激发质疑、蔑视或憎恶就行。这两个词的选择不仅是因为对中产阶级有影响，而且它准确地总结了社会民主党所面临的困境。

    尽管社会民主党使用的表达方式让它看起来像是“马克思主义者”，但它并不是。因此，社会民主党受到了双重阻碍，当社会革命是捍卫民主的最佳方式时，它并不愿意成为革命性的党派，而另一方面，它的革命传统注定了只能寻求或者接受工人阶级的支持。而且，社会民主党捍卫民主制实际上就意味着捍卫现状，而绝大多数的诺特海姆人都认为现状就是国耻和经济崩溃。 [1]

    社会民主党作为无产阶级政党的传统是他们与诺特海姆中产阶级相处时最严重的障碍。城镇的阶级结构和中产阶级对社会的憎恶导致了如下情况：诺特海姆人怨恨社会民主党坚持的阶级意识，虽然这种阶级意识很大程度上是中产阶级意识的反射。与个别社会民主党人有联系的城镇民众承认他们是优秀的、有能力的人，但是一般仍旧不信任社会民主党。 [2]

    从社会民主党的角度来看，与诺特海姆的中产阶级联盟似乎没有什么收获。城镇中一直是右翼占据大多数，社会民主党经常受到右翼的压制。尤其是1930年后，诺特海姆的中产阶级分子似乎下定决心要削弱社会民主党，并且愿意支持纳粹党人来完成这件事。对于诺特海姆的工人而言，城镇的商人们看起来都是纳粹分子。 [3] 从传统、组织和意识形态来看，工人们认为只能依靠他们自己。为什么社会民主党要冒着失去其主要支持者——工人——的风险来吸引中产阶级呢？如果社会民主党放松其一贯的激进主义，那么共产主义者将会吸引持不同政见者。所以，社会党人和温和的中产阶级都不愿意为和解而努力。

    随着大萧条的加深，让中产阶级与社会民主党疏远的不再是激进主义，而是激进主义的诘问特征。没人相信社会党人真的在尝试进行基本的经济改变。许多人责备社会民主党人（在经济事务上）做得不彻底，同时憎恶他们的社会结构和“调整”目标。 [4] 这样一来，社会民主党就无法阻止中产阶级聚集到国社党的旗帜下，因为纳粹党被称为真正的激进分子。宣扬对民主或者共和国的忠诚是不够的。绝大多数诺特海姆人显然认为没有理由来回应这样的呼吁。削弱纳粹党的方式不应该是盲目的反对，而应该是安排有足够吸引力的计划，以此在中产阶级的内心中唤醒那些纳粹党能够唤醒的希望。

    相反的是，社会民主党人专注于保持工人阶级的忠诚，而且是从武装起义的角度来看待纳粹党的。因此，无论诺特海姆的社会党人多么努力，他们都无法提供有效的对抗纳粹党的方式。

    绝大多数诺特海姆的社会民主党成员出身于工人阶级家庭。他们对社会主义的信仰更多来自家庭背景，而不是代代相传的坚定不移。一个典型的社会民主党成员的父亲一直在城镇的铁路调车场工作，在世纪之交前他成了社会民主党的追随者，还把他的孩子培养成了社会党人。因此，普通的社会民主党人几乎是无意识地投入了社会主义，就像普通的美国工人必然会加入工会体制一样。 [5] 纳粹主义在这些人中几乎没有什么收获。几乎所有的诺特海姆人都知道这件事，而投票数据也显示出来了。 [6] 诺特海姆的工人们并没有加入或者支持纳粹党，反而是以极度反对纳粹主义而闻名。当一个社会民主党领袖的妻子询问他所反对的纳粹主义的威胁时，他这样回答道：“我宁愿失去一切，也不愿失去自由。” [7]

    这种冷静的决心是绝大多数社会民主党领袖的特征。他们并不是引人瞩目的人。从工会干事、消费者合作社主席再到社会主义政治组织的其他职务，他们在等级和职位上一路晋升，凭借的是自己的能力和认真，而不是超凡魅力的品性。在他们还年轻的时候，社会主义运动最重要的一个口号是：“知识就是力量！”在常规工作之后的劳累时间里，有抱负的社会党人领袖会将自己年轻的精力投入学习经济学、历史或者社会福利法律中。那些因自己的社会地位而蔑视无产阶级政党的人，很容易就表现得像“远离人民的当权者”，他们当然不是革命者。

    三个诺特海姆的社会民主党领袖在他们安静的同仁中脱颖而出——卡尔·德佩、弗雷德里希·哈泽和市议员卡尔·库埃尔富尔特。卡尔·德佩是国旗队领袖，不仰慕他的人称他为“野蛮和轻率的人”。 [8] 他个子矮，但很威武，在第一次世界大战期间，他遭遇了毒气攻击，因而声音变得嘶哑而微弱。尽管他的正式职业是医院检查员（也就是调查城镇医院中的保险收款员），但他本质上是政治家。此外，他和国旗队队员一起工作，还在社会民主党的地方和其他工人组织担任职位，他是城市议会的议长，县议会的代表。他易怒而好战，因粗暴而与许多人都很疏远，但是他非常受工人尊敬，在战斗中很冷静。

    他的助手，同时也是国旗队青年部的领袖——弗雷德里希·哈泽正好相反。他身材高大修长，非常孩子气，说话时的声音清晰而动人。他曾经想成为歌手，并且接受了声乐训练，但是后来放弃了，成了县政府中的一名职员。县长是社会民主党人的时候，弗雷德里希·哈泽有尽可能多的自由时间，可以为国旗队工作，不过，1932年，一个保守派人士成为县长，这样的情况就结束了。弗雷德里希·哈泽的脸上闪耀着诚实、谦逊和亲切；绝大多数诺特海姆人都喜欢他。

    诺特海姆社会民主党的真正领袖是卡尔·库埃尔富尔特。他也是诺特海姆社会民主党地方和县组织的主席。他是诺特海姆城市政府的评议员，县议会中的社会民主党多数派领袖。他也是汉诺威省议会的代表，以及其下设12人执行委员会的成员之一。对于许多人而言，他就是诺特海姆社会民主党的化身。

    卡尔·库埃尔富尔特并不是工人。他在旧城区中心拥有一家烟草店。他长得很帅，有着茶色头发，面色红润。保守派县长冯·德·舒伦堡将他描述为“具有极高的天赋，但是崇尚暴力；他还将这种暴力的性格灌输到了整个社会民主党地方组织中” [9] 。

    议员库埃尔富尔特是那种少见的、完全党派化的人。他能说出那种特别油腔滑调的政治空话，而且能够成功地让这些话听起来直率而真诚。他有着极强的自信、勇气，并且镇定自若（他在战争中的履历很优秀），但也会运用精练的抨击和斥责。具有这些品质的他很善于判断人的性格，他相信理性和热爱会取得最终的胜利，不过这只是在模糊的未来，而且在并没有什么争斗的情况下。绝大多数诺特海姆人都接受了他本来的样子——彻底的政治家，而城镇中的工人们却将他理想化了。最后，他还拥有两个特质：完全献身于民主政治，拥有广泛的常识。他非常适合领导诺特海姆的社会民主党，但是完全没有能力建立一个超级社会党人联盟。他的对手讨厌他，也会对他表示吝啬的赞赏。很少人会低估卡尔·库埃尔富尔特。

    这就是诺特海姆的社会民主党，是城镇中唯一的民主制捍卫者，也是反对纳粹主义的唯一堡垒。1933年之前的那些年里，他们没能通过考验。然而，他们失败并不意味着他们缺少勇气或者不够高尚。

    社会民主党在1931年1月和2月积极努力过后，不再试图为了与纳粹党竞争而举行集会了，不过在诺特海姆县，他们举行了16场公共集会，而纳粹党举行了8场。纳粹党在城镇中保持着更强的煽动节奏。3月的第一周，他们举行了不同类型的集会，一场“带有戏剧表演和德国舞曲的冲锋队征召新人晚会” [10] 。这场集会五天后，又一个名人被邀请来发表演讲，吸引了800名观众：“（国会议员）埃德蒙·海内斯 [27] ，斯德丁女性谋杀审判中的……第一被告。”20世纪初，海内斯参加了高度民族主义的自由军团，在一场私设法庭的审判后，他“处决了”一个“叛徒”，在右翼法官进行的审判中，他没有得到任何惩罚。这次集会是在“1910年代圆顶”举行的，根据《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》所说，当海内斯讲他射杀受害者的经历时，观众们都欢呼起来，之后还响起了热烈的掌声，整个集会在掌声、欢呼声和《霍斯特·威塞尔之歌》 [28] 中达到高潮。 [11]

    与这种杀人狂形成对比的是，纳粹党决定接下来激起民众对传统犹太人宰杀牲畜方法的反对。于是，他们就这一主题组织了一次演讲，以彩色幻灯片的方式，由汉诺威阻止虐杀动物协会主席主讲。在演讲中，诺特海姆的纳粹领袖公开表示他们反对这种做法。 [12]

    《人民报》很快就指出，颇具讽刺意味的是，“纳粹党人高喊着‘残忍的犹太人所使用的宰杀方法是20世纪最大的文化耻辱’”，而他们自己也“一直说着‘人头将会落地’”。但是很明显，有些人重视了纳粹的指控，《人民报》也贡献了一篇长文，为他们指控城镇中屠宰场的拉比残忍地对待动物进行辩驳。文章中也指出“纳粹分子经常在屠宰场周围闲逛，对待犹太人的态度粗鲁无礼”。这产生了影响：主管屠宰场的社会民主党议员控告最开始指责“诺特海姆的屠宰场残忍地宰杀动物”的纳粹报纸，而诺特海姆的参议院对两名纳粹党人提出警告，如果他们再对犹太人粗鲁无礼，将会被禁止进入屠宰场。 [13]

    在此期间，诺特海姆地方小组也继续在卡特莱拍卖大厅举行两周一次的半公开“夜晚讨论会”，目的是教化新成员并征召新人。话题包括“我们的计划”“国家主义和社会主义”这样的内容，讨论会的领导者是如恩斯特·吉尔曼那样的地方纳粹党人，平均每场有85名出席者。到4月末为止，地方小组的成员上升到191人，但是与之前一样，这些成员大部分都来自诺特海姆县，而某个单独的村镇一达到最小数量的15名成员就会分离出去形成自己的地方小组。因此，诺特海姆地方小组的数目一直在增加，而城镇中心居民的成员数量却在缩减。不过，这已足够他们举行经常的集会、散发传单和进行游行示威了。 [14]

    接二连三的煽动将其他党派吸引到了活动中来，尤其是民族主义党派，他们认为可以利用相似的呼吁方式来获得纳粹党那样的成功。早在2月，“钢盔团”（他们在地方上与德国国家人民党的关系就像冲锋队与纳粹的关系一样）就在诺特海姆举行了一年多以来的第一次集会，主题是“冯·亨宁·奥夫·舍恩霍特阁下”。几乎和民族主义党派的其他集会一样，这场集会在城镇中最好的旅馆桑尼举办，不收入场费。（这家旅馆的所有者是德国国家人民党成员。）演讲者除了攻击自由主义者、马克思主义者、犹太人和社会民主党人之外，还宣称希特勒是“民族主义思想的鼓手”，“俾斯麦是第一个国家社会主义者”。有30名新成员加入了钢盔团。一个月后，德国国家人民党举行了一场以民族主义党派的国会议员为主角的集会。三周后又举行了一场钢盔团的集会，这次是以电影来吸引观众。 [15] 接着，公民协会在3月的时候举行了一场露天集会，议员马纳在集会上抨击《凡尔赛条约》，并且预言当内部团结起来的时候，德国将再次成为世界强国。现场的乐队引导群众，高唱《德意志高于一切》。 [16]

    共产主义者也很活跃，他们在诺特海姆举行了第一次游行和集会。他们租赁了骑术大厅用于召开集会，这个大厅很大，但并不是真正的会议大厅。来参加共产主义者集会的还不到100人。 [17]

    诺特海姆被如此多的不同的政治观点包围着，以至于很难想象任何近似于共同政治行动的事情。然而，1931年3月，即将发生的一个事件证明共产主义者、纳粹党人、民族主义党派和人民党派是能够携手合作的——至少在反对社会民主党方面。

    魏玛德国的民主政治堡垒是普鲁士邦，在德国特有的联邦制中，普鲁士邦占据着德国3/5的人口和土地。普鲁士邦由天主教中央党和社会民主党组成的联合政府进行统治，前者汲取了罗马天主教在莱茵兰各省的力量，后者获得了鲁尔、西里西亚、柏林和汉萨同盟中各港口城市的支持。只要普鲁士的社会民主党—中央党联盟控制着政府，民主制度就是安全的。

    渡过了大萧条的第一个严冬之后，纳粹党和共产主义者认为他们已经拥有了足够多的支持，如果举行选举的话，他们能够终止联合政府的多数派。然而，要举行选举，普鲁士的国会就将被解散，掌权的联合政府拒绝这样做。《魏玛宪法》提供了另一种方式。如果有足够多的人签名请愿，就可以进行公投，而如果公投票数足够多，就可以不管国会内的政府多数派而强制解散普鲁士国会。

    纳粹党提出了这个想法，共产主义者很快就支持他们了（遵循着共产国际扭曲的想法，即认为打败社会民主党是主要目标）。民族主义党派、汉诺威的圭尔夫党派和人民党派也承诺会帮助，不过至少还有一个诺特海姆的人民党派领袖拒绝加入这个纯粹消极的策略。 [18] 绝大多数分裂党派的混乱随之发生了。公民协会也参与了；议员马纳解释说他们虽然是为了地方政治而存在的，但是，在普鲁士政府中发生的改变应该也会对地方政府产生决定性的影响。 [19]

    在请愿活动中，纳粹集会放慢了速度，请愿活动吸纳了他们大部分的力量。为了发挥作用，这项活动需要实际收集签名；宣传还不够。不管怎样，纳粹党至少还是找到时间来举行一场盛大集会，他们在卡特莱拍卖大厅举办了一场演讲，主题是“公务员和政府雇员在解散普鲁士国会中的立场，以及，结束失业”。演讲者是前普鲁士公务员，他现在是纳粹党在国会的代表。 [20] 在请愿活动中，公民协会的集会规模更大，是在“1910年代圆顶”举行的。议员马纳抨击普鲁士的社会民主党及其政府的“专政”。他希望所有的诺特海姆人都能在请愿书上签名，“削弱社会民主党的力量”。 [21]

    社会党人对请愿活动很担心，主要是因为他们害怕纳粹的高压手段。选民们的家门口站着冲锋队队员，没有准备投票箱，选民们必须公开回答“赞成”或者“反对”。《人民报》指责纳粹党正在利用请愿名单来抵制那些不签名的商人。社会民主党特别担心在某些诺特海姆县偏远村庄中的纳粹威胁。后来进行公投的时候，《人民报》指出在某些诺特海姆县的村庄，投赞成票的人比在请愿书上签名的人要少。 [22]

    社会民主党对此的回击是增加了国旗队的活动。3月24日，在请愿活动开始前的一周，国旗队在市集广场举行了一场集会。德佩是主讲者，他拼尽了全力。他认为慕尼黑政变中的希特勒是懦夫，他评论了纳粹的政治暗杀，谴责杀人犯海内斯，海内斯是在纳粹党中起重要作用的主讲者。两天后，100名诺特海姆的国旗队队员进行了穿过整个县的35公里游行，随之又在市集广场举行了演讲。几天后，据称国旗队增加了22名成员，驱逐了一名纳粹党的间谍。 [23]

    在签名请愿活动中期，4月10日，国旗队又进行了一场示威游行。大约200名国旗队队员参与了游行，由一支军乐队领头。游行队伍直接穿过山坡上的住宅区，两次停留在公民协会办事处的前面呐喊示威。背后暗含的是社会民主党领袖对保守派同纳粹党勾结的愤怒。在市集广场，德佩发表了被《诺特海姆最新消息》称为针对纳粹党和民族主义党派的“煽动性演讲”。另一场演讲是在市政厅举行的，为了庆祝西班牙独裁者普里莫·德·里维拉 [29] 倒台。 [24] 国旗队正在制造自己的存在感。

    《人民报》也指责纳粹党正在违反制服禁止法令，并且督促政府重申针对褐衫队的禁令。汉诺威省的社会民主党省长诺斯克禁止参与政治集会的人乘坐卡车或者公共汽车，因为好战分子（尤其是党卫军）经常被带到政治集会上，他们比地方部队更易于发起街头战斗。诺斯克也——在私人理论的基础上采取行动——禁止除了官方海报之外的其他海报使用红色。 [25]

    尽管采取了这些措施，但是与日俱增的紧张感还是难以避免地导致了暴力行为。4月8日，两名纳粹党人和四名国旗队队员发生了一场打斗，纳粹党人的下场很惨。一周后，《人民报》报道称，一名纳粹党人殴打了一名国旗队队员的妻子；他威胁说如果警方不提供更多的保护，就会自行处理。在请愿运动的高峰时期，《诺特海姆最新消息》报道称两名年轻的纳粹党人虐待了一名女性社会民主党人，而两名国旗队队员撕扯掉了一位女士外套上的纳粹徽章，这位女士是纳粹女性附属机构的成员，还有一些国旗队的青年部成员们嘲笑去教堂的孩子们。《人民报》否认了后两件事。 [26]

    运动的氛围也导致《人民报》进行广泛的宣传。4月1日，《人民报》报道称来自诺特海姆县的一个牧师的儿子获得了奖学金，而奖学金本来是给高级中学中贫穷但有天赋的学生的。《人民报》指出一个牧师每个月赚800马克，而一个失业者每月最多只能赚60马克；该报还邀请读者就此事发表自己的结论。两天后，《人民报》指出有三份纳粹党的《人民观察家报》出现在诺特海姆县图书馆的桌子上。《人民报》发表社论：“这种颠覆分子的报纸怎么会出现在公共图书馆？” [27]

    如果说社会党人正在到处见到纳粹党的话，那就是因为在请愿活动中，中产阶级和纳粹党勾结在一起了。1931年4月19日，所有支持请愿活动的团体参加了一场群众集会。正式发起人是钢盔团，晚间的主讲人是其青年部的成员。但是集会的支持者主要是参加请愿活动的所有政治党派（除了共产主义者），以及诺特海姆的几乎所有右翼组织：县农业协会、泛德意志联盟、德国军官全国协会、储蓄存款联盟、德国学徒协会，最后是公民协会。“1910年圆顶”挤满了人。钢盔团准备了一支来自邻近村庄的乐队，还有一支诺特海姆自己的军乐队，而纳粹党还组织了冲锋队小分队。主讲人一直在咒骂“不信神运动”，他所指的就是社会民主党，之后他又继续说道，社会民主党—中央党是一个介乎于“罗马和激进分子”之间的联盟。集会结尾，他们热情洋溢地歌唱了《守望莱茵河》和德国国歌。 [28]

    签名集会仅仅持续了两周，证明了纳粹党强大的组织能力，纳粹党是请愿活动背后的主要驱动力。在前十天，诺特海姆几乎有1/5（1 275人）的合格选民签名了。后来，纳粹党人投入了更多的力量，最后四天几乎收集到了同样多的签名，总数达到了2 246，占城镇中选民的1/3。在普鲁士的其他地方，所收集的签名足够举行公投了，最后确定下的日期为1931年8月。

    当然，许多诺特海姆人签署请愿书是因为当时的经济收缩现象。4月2日，商业和私人银行的诺特海姆分支营业所永久关闭了。一周后，大萧条期间最不幸的灾难降临到城镇中的中产阶级身上：企业银行破产了，这是地方上的资助合作银行，也是下层中产阶级的骄傲。1931年4月9日，银行宣布破产，不过直到1933年才进行清算，这引发了相当多的怨恨。企业银行破产并不是因为总体上的经济形势，而是糟糕的管理，尤其是利率政策造成的影响。债权人的集会争论激烈，这件事演变成了一个政治问题。纳粹党人宣称破产是因为《凡尔赛条约》和政府的共和政体形式，而社会民主党人愉快地指出银行董事会是由民族主义党派和纳粹党人组成的，并且罗列了导致银行破产的各种重大错误。1933年之后，纳粹党默认是管理不善的原因，对银行的前经理提起了法律诉讼。

    城镇中大约15%的小商人受到了这次事件的直接影响，至少有一人因此事而宣布破产。其后，许多人不得不为生存而奋斗。 [29]

    在这种情况下，抗议活动更加激烈了。4月7日举行了一场诺特海姆家庭主妇俱乐部的集会，主讲者控诉“经济的美国化”，反对百货商店、消费者协会和对外出口。他劝告女性只买小经销商的商品。 [30] 在包罗万象的宣传中，纳粹党人承诺会援助小商人，但是直到太平时期到来，商人们依旧被迫为纳粹事业捐款。到1931年4月末为止，《人民报》指出诺特海姆的纳粹党人并没有付清账单，而且已经没钱支付了。《人民报》警告商人们不要允许国社党赊账，它还暗示说纳粹党人经常以抵制活动来威胁商人们，从而赊账或者敲诈捐款。至少有一个诺特海姆商人之后证明了这种指控。 [31]

    商人们是最不能遭受大萧条之苦的人；到1931年4月为止，诺特海姆就业办事处登记在册的失业人员已经达到了12 000人——是前一年秋天的两倍。其他工人们遭遇了减薪和缩短工作时间。城镇的雪茄工厂（有250名雇员）四个月来每周的工作时间都在减少。 [32] 《人民报》在报道诺特海姆县一个10岁小男孩死于农业机械的意外事件时，顺带指出这个男孩挣的钱比他父亲还多。 [33] 在这种情况下，1931年的一个星期五举行庆祝五一国际劳动节的活动时，几乎没有工人丢下工作去参加。游行规模小得可怜，只有三面红旗和一个写着“我们要求每周工作40小时”的标语牌。城镇乐队在市集广场演奏了几支曲子，而这就是全部了。 [34]

    总体上而言，在请愿活动之后政治活动减少了，不过纳粹党人试图继续施压。5月2日，他们请一个国民议会代表发表了一场演讲，吸引了260人；几周后，他们举行了有600名冲锋队队员参加的游行示威、一场音乐会，并在“1910年代圆顶”举行了一场集会。大约900人出席了集会，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》称之为“国社党最伟大的成功之一”，而唯一玷污了“这种成功”的实际上是纳粹党人认为增加了趣味的一件事：在游行活动中和一些国旗队队员短兵相接。 [35] 早在6月，他们就在“1910年代圆顶”举行了其他的不同活动，包括音乐会、戏剧表演、演讲、抽奖活动和舞会。这也吸引了很大一群观众（650人），他们非常喜欢这种活动，不过“戏剧表演”中只包含冲锋队队员痛打共产主义者的场景。 [36] 四周后，普鲁士议会的主席代表纳粹党在诺特海姆讲话，一周后，为了符合轻松的夏天氛围，冲锋队乐队在诺特海姆外的一个旧城堡废墟上举行了音乐会。 [37]

    民族主义党派也放松了。5月，他们举行了一次征召新成员的晚会，钢盔团在这次晚会上招到了10个新成员，除此之外，他们唯一的活动就是1931年夏初举行了一场6月花园聚会，为了纪念他们国家指挥官的50岁生日，同时还举行了一场音乐会和其他娱乐活动。 [38] 只有一件不愉快的事情让保守派很困扰。5月，议员马纳指责社会民主党使用福利办事处的资金来放映他们的宣传电影给领取抚恤金的人员观看。马纳立即被社会民主党领袖控告了，并且被要求在《诺特海姆最新消息》上刊登一则广告，说明：（1）他并没有真的提出指控；（2）他带着深深的懊悔收回前言；（3）他会支付所有的诉讼费用。 [39]

    在春末夏初的时候，社会民主党活动的速度也放慢了。6月初，国旗队举行了一场示威游行活动，而在市政厅举行的一场演讲中，弗雷德里希·哈泽详述了意大利工人阶级的不幸遭遇，强调说社会主义意识形态只有在民主制度中才能繁荣起来。几天后，社会民主党在“1910年代圆顶”举行了一场群众集会，主角是被驱逐的意大利反法西斯者马里奥·科菲教授。一大群人听他谈论“血腥又可耻的意大利法西斯政权”。演讲的题目是“纳粹标记的国度”。一些纳粹党人出席了，但是没人试图说些什么。 [40]

    几天后，诺特海姆涌入一群“年轻的社会党工人”，他们举行了为期两天的大会。社会民主党地方组织利用它们的存在发起了游行，并在市集广场上召开了集会。《诺特海姆最新消息》认为男孩子们和女孩子们的游行很壮观，他们穿着蓝色衬衫，系着红色领带，唱着歌，举着鲜红的旗帜。 [41] 另一件令人高兴的插曲是一周后，也就是6月15日举行的“工人运动会”活动。工人运动俱乐部和城市乐队以及国旗队的军乐队一起游行，之后还举办了各种各样的体育竞赛项目。晚上，有一场火炬游行，人民合唱团演唱了歌曲，还有一场关于社会党人引入体育运动的演讲。这天结束的时候，大家高呼着“德意志共和国万岁！”并且高唱着《国际歌》。几天后，社会民主党尝试了更多的低调宣传，它派遣了一辆带扩音器的卡车，在诺特海姆内穿行，只进行一些口号宣传，主要是轻松的、非政治性的内容。 [42] 1931年6月，大萧条减轻了；诺特海姆的失业人数降到了8 000人，这是自去年10月以来的最低值。

    然而，随着炎热的夏天逐渐过去，出现了新的经济危机。美国股票市场崩溃导致美国银行开始收回借给德国的贷款。1931年中期，信贷危机严重起来，7月，主要的德国银行开始倒闭。政府宣布7月14日是银行假日。诺特海姆并没有出现真正的银行挤兑。一家银行的前任主管回忆道：“只有几个人来银行挤兑，之后他们又以尴尬的借口把钱送回来了。” [43] 但城镇们的领袖很担心。城市议会一致决定不参加每年举行的射击协会庆祝活动。其理由是总体上的经济灾难让庆祝活动显得不合时宜。这一决定特别不受欢迎，因为大众持相反观点，他们认为特别需要啤酒和撞柱游戏来把注意力从大萧条中转移出来。议会在下一年没有重复这一错误，不过那时经济危机更加严重了。 [44]

    社会民主党也表示担忧，尤其是因为共产主义者很可能打入失业者内部。6月，自由工会召开了一次特别集会，讨论应对德国共产党 [30] 在失业者中的活动的对策。一周内，《人民报》就报道说，通过社会民主党的市议员们的努力，诺特海姆的城镇已经为自由工会准备了用于分发的土豆和其他食物，也安排了失业者自由使用城镇的游泳池。《人民报》也坚决否认共产主义者正在打入诺特海姆的“年轻的社会党工人”中。 [45]

    随着经济忧虑而来的是政治紧张感，尤其是8月8日即将发生的“针对解散普鲁士国会的公投”。7月中旬，有谣言说会有纳粹政变，而诺特海姆的国旗队已经被动员起来了，但是晚上只举行了一场游行并且在市集广场上进行了一场演讲。一周后，国旗队再次出动，针对汉诺威的国旗队队员被杀事件发起了抗议游行。诺特海姆人很可能还记得6月发生的一起恶劣事件，当时两名冲锋队队员用靴子踩踏一名社会党人，然后用镰刀切掉了他的手指。在抗议游行中，由军乐队领头的国旗队队员朝着市集广场行进，在那里聆听弗雷德里希·哈泽承诺他们会捍卫共和国，并且让德佩在民主政治“万岁”的呼声中带领着他们前进。 [46]

    8月公投将所有支持4月请愿运动的反对社会主义的力量集中到了一起。民族主义党派的宣传变成了《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的主要内容，而《诺特海姆最新消息》在8月9日前连续12天登载钢盔团的广告，号召人们投赞成票。和以前一样，纳粹党人是推动力量。8月1日，他们在卡特莱拍卖大厅举行了一场集会，而在此之前，他们进行了一场游行，大约有600名冲锋队队员、纳粹党卫军和希特勒青年团参与其中，此外还有一支乐队。他们也有幸举行了选举前夜的集会。每场集会都有七八百人参加。 [47] 8月5日轮到公民协会了，马纳号召“组成反对布尔什维主义的共同阵线”（他忽视了共产主义者也支持公投的事实）。集会上，他们安排了一个车队用于拉票。 [48]

    国旗队再一次将注意力转向诺特海姆县的偏远乡村，他们用卡车作为运输工具。每场在乡村中举行的集会都喊着“共和主义者随时准备战斗”的口号。一次出行以穿过卡特莱拍卖厅的游行为结束，因而受到了《诺特海姆最新消息》的警告。在市集广场进行的一系列演讲中，“反对破坏普鲁士”，德佩强调纳粹党人和共产主义者正在一起致力于破坏社会民主党的权威。 [49] 社会民主党也在诺特海姆县的偏远地区举行了集会，投入完全纳粹化的农民中。来自诺特海姆的国旗队队员经常陪同着他们以提供保护，而社会党人演讲者的妻子们会一直等待着她们的丈夫归来。 [50] 有一次，卡尔·库埃尔富尔特只能通过拖延演讲的方式，直到城镇中的国旗队队员来支援才免于被打。事实就是这样，就在冲锋队队员开始搞破坏的时候，警察和国旗队队员同时到了。 [51] 在诺特海姆县的其他地方，社会党人实际上生活在一种恐惧的状态中。在某个乡村里，一个22岁的工人在春天的时候死于纳粹党人的殴打，而8月，纳粹党人在同一个乡村里发动了针对国旗队队员的大规模袭击。在诺特海姆，这一事件被详细地记录下来了，特别是有30名纳粹党人因他们所实施的攻击而受到了罚款和监禁128个月的处罚。 [52]

    也有谣言说即将发生纳粹政变。这种谣言非常常见。一年前，在1930年9月选举后，《诺特海姆最新消息》努力地澄清关于希特勒式政变的谣言是假的，还指出国防部长曾说他打算将所有的革命都扼杀在摇篮中。 [53] 在这一切的背后，唯一记录在册的事实就是希特勒曾经试图发动一次政变——1923年11月失败的慕尼黑啤酒馆政变。

    选举前的几天，诺特海姆的国旗队队员五人一组，在街上巡逻。市长，作为治安负责人，立即警告国旗队队员不要这样做。作为回应，《人民报》发表了一封好战的公开信，要求得到更好的警方保护并且拒绝停止巡逻。 [54] 诺特海姆的警察也禁止纳粹分子在选举前夜游行，他们担心会“对治安造成威胁”。 [55]

    选举之前的几天，诺特海姆周围的农村地区已经割好了干草，这样一来，许多冲锋队队员就能去城镇里了，政治情绪因此而高涨起来。当时的情绪到了只要发生一点儿小事就会演变成暴力事件的地步。比如，选举的前一天，一个冲锋队队员进入一家酒馆，宣称：“都让开，冲锋队来了！”一个国旗队队员立刻把他打昏了。当时并没有发生更激烈的暴力行为，不过这为之后的暴力行为做了准备。同一天，一个叫作塔普曼的诺特海姆纳粹党人用指节铜环殴打工人急救协会成员的头部，导致他到医生那里缝了好几针。 [56] 简言之，所有事情促成了发生在8月9日选举夜晚的主战。那段日子，国旗队和冲锋队成员都处于高度戒备状态。在随后的审判中，纳粹的律师展示了如下的秘密指令，足以表明这一天的氛围：

    黑—红—金国旗队，第10区

    致第10区所有的地方组织

    同志们：

    第10区所有地方组织将会处于高度戒备状态。如果发现敌人有政变企图，应立即向地区领袖报告。每个地方组织（X、Y和Z）都要配有一个骑摩托车的人，以便和地区领袖保持联系。这些联系人在9日星期天晚上7点必须出现在地区领袖的家里。他们身着没有任何标志的平民服装。所有地方组织要确保他们配有更多的骑摩托车的人或者骑自行车的人，以防电话通信中断，地方组织必须与地区领袖保持联系。出于安全考虑，所有的指令都是口头传递。星期天晚上7点后只可以打电话给诺特海姆的市政厅地下室酒吧，号码是204。晚上10点后打给城市建设办事处，号码是357。

    自由万岁！

    德佩，地区指挥官，第10区 [57]

    在诺特海姆，身着制服的国旗队队员在市政厅地下室小酒吧聚集，而冲锋队在沿着宽街直走两个街区的另一间酒吧里保护总部。8点，天色暗沉了，两群人开始在城镇中巡逻。难以避免的是，这两群人在两间酒吧中间迎面相遇了。纳粹这边是恩斯特·吉尔曼、诺特海姆的副领袖和塔普曼，国旗队一整天都在讨论塔普曼，因为他前天晚上用指节铜环攻击别人。双方争吵起来，纳粹党人先动了手。嘈杂声引起了两间酒吧的注意，不到一分钟，宽街上就充满了打架的人。双方领袖都想要停止打斗，但是国旗队队员看到他们有两个同志倒在血泊中，而已经被刀刺伤的吉尔曼一边用手杖打人，一边大喊道：“我会把你打到死的。”什么都无法阻止他们了。纳粹领袖打电话给警察，十分钟后，警察到来，这才终止了这场打斗。双方都有因刀伤和头上的伤住院治疗的人，许多人都受伤了。

    警方调查之后以殴打伤害罪起诉了三名在最初的巡逻中携带致命武器的纳粹党人。由于证词混淆矛盾，需要进行两场审判。法庭认定三名纳粹党人有罪。恩斯特·吉尔曼被判两个月监禁，300马克罚款和三年缓刑。塔普曼被判四个月监禁，与此同时，另一名被指控谋杀的纳粹党人逃走了。法庭在判决书中宣布正如国旗队自己所说的一样，他们在“公投日打斗”中无罪。 [58]

    实际的公投在整个普鲁士失败了，社会民主党—中央党联盟继续执政。在诺特海姆，社会民主党并没有尽力去“争取选票”，因为没有选票就等同于投否决票。纳粹党人很努力，1 000多名诺特海姆人参与了投票，比在请愿书上签名的人还多。然而，投赞成票的总数只勉强超过各党派在1930年9月支持解散时获胜的投票总数。

    投票结果并不是纳粹胜利，因为并没能推翻政府，但是国社党对春夏请愿运动所制造的氛围非常满意。不仅仅是因为所有的党派都屈服于纳粹的领导，而且通过一项旨在确保最大限度的民主的宪法规定，政治进程变得更激进了。诺特海姆的暴力活动令人满意，因为这是将城镇中陷入困境的市民带到希特勒那边的另一步。如果没有好的警察，独裁者什么都不是。

    六　大萧条的深渊（1931—1932年，秋冬）

    没有救世主会来救我们，
    没有上帝，没有恺撒，也没有护民官。
    如果想要从痛苦中解脱，
    就只能靠我们自己。
    ——《国际歌》的德国社会主义者版本

    嘴唇裂开、脑袋受伤、参差不齐的割伤和绞痛的肿块是“公投日打斗”的结果，但它至少有一个有利影响。它们清除了暴力氛围，满足了双方中暴脾气的人。8月9日之后差不多三个月再没发生肢体冲突事件。

    这并不意味着所有的紧张都缓和了，因为这场运动所产生的指责和怀疑的后果仍旧存在。公投三天后，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》指控卡尔·库埃尔富尔特作为投票监督委员会的主席，允许选民在投票间中随意乱写选举标语。城市议会调查了这一指控，发现指控不实，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》随即取消了指控并且进行了道歉。接着，《人民报》发出了相对温和的回击。 [1] 实际上，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》在辩论中失败，与其说是因为《人民报》的冷嘲热讽，不如说是因为一个会进行毫无节制攻击的竞争对手出现了，即纳粹每周发行的时事通讯《听！听！》，第一期于8月初发行，每月66芬尼。每一期都包含着各种各样攻击社会民主党的内容，尤其是社会民主党参议员职权范围内的城市运作状况，其中最重要的是“红色”健康保险办事处。手段就是《人民报》所熟练使用的那种反问句式，比如：“健康保险办事处怎么能派三个人和一台车去参加会议？他们不能省钱么？” [2]

    《人民报》就其自身而言，主要将注意力集中在议员马纳身上，因为他和纳粹合作，致力于解散普鲁士议会。《人民报》指责马纳上了纳粹的当，选举当天，公民协会的公用车队被纳粹党人用于树立自己的威望了。它还指责马纳为《听！听！》所写的文章以及将公民协会金库中的资金转移到纳粹手中。这是摧毁马纳运动的开始，这场运动最终成功了。 [3]

    另一个公投运动所产生的痛苦影响是忽视了每年的宪法日庆祝活动。公共集会只在一所学校中举行，集会厅里只坐满了2/3的人。《人民报》抱怨道，只有极少数人大概是出于对共和国的忠诚才出席了集会。晚上举行的火炬游行只有国旗队和自由工会的成员参加。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》指责，因为社会党人坚持让国旗队带头游行，所以其他俱乐部和工会都不参加了。 [4]

    还有其他的迹象表明“公投日打斗”的不良影响。在城市议会接下来的会议上，社会民主党要求为工人急救协会提供每年25马克的补贴。诺特海姆已经资助了红十字的志愿急救协会，但是卡尔·库埃尔富尔特威胁说如果议会不通过他的议案，他就要限制对该协会的拨款。公务员党无奈地帮助社会民主党压过了公民协会，补贴议案通过了。 [5]

    钢盔团也采取了预备性措施。9月，一场以两名党外人士为主角的集会上，一名钢盔团领袖宣称德国将会发生一场内战，“在布尔什维克人和国家反对党之间”，而且“不会存在中立派”。第二天早上，诺特海姆钢盔团青年部进行了“防守运动”练习。一周后，1 000名钢盔团成员试图在诺特海姆进行同样的活动，但是警方担心有麻烦，就禁止了该项活动。这时，《人民报》激动地报道：“星期天早上，一些钢盔团成员在诺特海姆公园练习扔手榴弹，他们将之称为‘体育运动’。而凌晨2点，他们唱着歌在街上游行。警察会对此采取什么措施吗？” [6]

    随着第一缕秋风扫过德国北部平原，这些问题被搁置一旁了，因为又一个萧条的冬天迫近城镇了。失业数据随着季节而变化，在冬天的时候达到了顶峰。到10月为止，每周有9 000名登记在册的失业者来诺特海姆的就业办事处。城镇中有418名失业者。这一人数并不比去年的同一时间更多，但是1930年10月时，城镇中有2/3的失业者仍旧有固定的失业补助，而到了1931年10月，只有1/3的失业者有补助；剩下的人领取紧急救济金或者福利救济金。这种重大变化是令人绝望的。

    申请去制糖厂工作的人数量众多。《人民报》报道称，一个过去20年来每个丰收季都在制糖厂工作的人被拒绝了，因为他拥护共和政体。这名工人说，就业主任告诉他如果想要得到这份工作，必须改变政治派别。 [7]

    就在失业者日益陷入困境时，出现了通过私人慈善机构来缓和这种情况的尝试。1931年10月，诺特海姆所有的慈善组织（纳粹分子和钢盔团除外）决定建立一个共同金库。这个“辅助联盟”包括路德派、天主教派和犹太慈善团体，以及包括“社会主义工人福利”在内的左派组织和包括“祖国的女子俱乐部”在内的右派组织。它也得到了诺特海姆县长和市长的支持。辅助联盟着手组织街头募捐，并分发食物、衣服和燃料。到11月为止，共募捐了1 350马克。除此之外，商人们捐赠了衣服，食品商、面包师和屠户承诺会每周派送食物。城镇中的犹太商人是捐赠最多的人。自由工会组织了福利晚会，吸引了很大一群人，入场费用是每人75芬尼。人民合唱团和城市乐队带来了音乐。各种各样的当地喜剧演员进行演出，工人体育协会也表演了节目。辅助联盟只从这项活动中就赚了350马克，工人福利协会也举行了自制圣诞礼物售卖活动，收益全部用于帮助失业者。到1931年11月27日为止，有250名失业者申请帮助。他们也要求从自己的阶级中选出四名代表来监督援助分配情况，但是被一致拒绝了。 [8]

    在全体努力下，煤炭经销商为所有失业者降低了褐炭砖的价格，诺特海姆面包师行会将面包价格降低了8%。促使面包师这样做的原因并不是利他主义，而是《人民报》无情地攻击了他们的定价政策，将其与邻近城镇的价格进行了不利的对比。1931年12月降价之后，《人民报》并没有喝彩，只是指出现在面包房的面包价格和消费者合作社的价格相同。因为诺特海姆的面包师“为纳粹做宣传”，因此即便没有更低的价格优势，工人们也被建议去合作社的商店里买面包。 [9]

    城市也帮助减少了失业人数。1931年2月开始，免费的“人文”电影在一所公共学校上映。城镇在第二个秋天开始为年轻的失业者提供职业技能培训，还把城市拥有的几英亩 [31] 园地租给失业家庭。1931年至1932年的那个冬天，贫穷的失业者获得了每月以低于正常价格30芬尼的价格来购买一袋煤炭的资格，这样他们每月最多能买200磅煤。 [10]

    尽管有这么多的措施，大萧条还是更严重了。1931年有六家公司破产，是1930年的两倍，1931年12月城镇中最大的一家公司——一家纸袋厂倒闭了，准备从诺特海姆搬走。 [11] 冬天结束的时候，诺特海姆有704名失业者。诺特海姆地区就业办事处有超过13 000人，这就意味着每天有2 000人徒步穿过诺特海姆，到旧军营营房。似乎是为了让经济形势创造的苦难更加完整，大自然增加了灾难。1931年1月，鲁默河洪水泛滥，对铁路轨道北部区域的工人们造成了极大的伤害。甚至在旧军营营房为流离失所者准备的紧急住所也被洪水冲毁了。诺特海姆县的全部损失估计有25万马克。 [12]

    银行业也开始出现收缩的迹象。随着前年夏天实行银行假日，城市储蓄银行的账户损失了5万马克。这其实还不到总数的3%，但是足以让议员马纳要求公民协会成员将钱存在城市储蓄银行中，“尽管有恶意的谣言”，但银行是绝对安全的。他要求对人了，离开银行的这些人有很大一批账户，每个账户都超过500马克。1931年年底，城市议会、县长和12个经济组织进行了大规模的宣传，告诉诺特海姆人不要把钱藏起来，而是要放在银行里，这样才是安全的。 [13] 尽管并没有在新闻上报道，但是这种方法奏效了；到1932年年底，不仅很多账户重开了，而且又开了许多新的小账户，以至于城市储蓄银行在大萧条的三年中实现了净增长。城镇人口中至少有1/4的人在城市储蓄银行有超过100马克的储蓄账户，这还不包括放在诺特海姆其他银行的钱以及投入股票和债券的钱。诺特海姆的中产阶级几乎没有受到大萧条的影响，除了在心理上。 [14]

    为了进行有效的煽动，纳粹党人开始利用日益严重的大萧条。公投结束之后，又开始了旧式集会。8月末，在卡特莱拍卖大厅举行了一场集会，主角是前军队军官和前共产主义者，他演讲的题目是：“我们朝着巨大的胜利前进了一大步！红色恐怖！”一周后，一个希特勒青年团领袖演讲的题目是：“对年轻人的谋杀。”这之后不久，纳粹党人租赁了“1910年代圆顶”，举行了一场关于戏剧的演讲：“国家社会主义正在试着拯救德国艺术，再创造属于德国的艺术。因此，国家社会主义舞台团将会表演戏剧‘毒气506’……”尽管有“著名的演员；低廉的价格”这样的噱头，但是出席率依旧不值一提。很明显的是，城镇只能承受这么多的“夜晚活动”，因为9月晚些时候，纳粹党人参加了由钢盔团举行的活动而不是他们自己的。 [15]

    10月，纳粹党人开始致力于城镇所关注的经济事务。第一周举行了一场题目为“冬天将会带给我们什么？”的演讲。两星期后，首席纳粹党经济理论家戈特弗里德·菲德尔 [32] 来到诺特海姆，发表了题为“国家社会主义国家中的金融和经济政策”的演讲。他吸引了很大一群人到“1910年代圆顶”，包括许多对纳粹党的经济项目感兴趣的中产阶级。他们得到的一般性结论是“并不是富有成效的自由经济的国有化”和“有组织的经济领导”。不管怎样，这是纳粹党最有成效的集会之一。 [16]

    纳粹党在1931年剩下的时间里进行的都是相当普通的活动：戏剧、慕尼黑政变的每年庆祝活动、福利音乐会和圣诞晚会。唯一的群众集会是在11月26日举行的，主角是普鲁士议会成员，他指责社会民主党应该为现在的经济困境负责，并且承诺如果纳粹党掌权，他们“不会使用软弱的手段” [17] 。

    纳粹党也不仅利用大萧条进行政治宣传。1931年秋末，他们开办了赈济处救济失业者。赈济处坐落在一家罐头公司以前的工厂，这家公司于1929年破产了；其所有人免费提供了场地。希特勒和民族主义党派于1931年10月结成联盟——所谓的“哈尔茨堡阵线”。因此，在地方层面上进行更紧密合作的途径打开了，赈济处是纳粹党—钢盔团的联合事业。这个联盟和辅助联盟是竞争对手，纳粹党试图让人质疑城镇中总体上的救灾工作：

    100年来最糟糕的冬天！省和国家都拒绝帮助！只有所有人都关注这种强烈的需求时，德国人才能从苦难中解脱出来！每个人都必须尽可能多地付出。以国家反对派为代表的人民中的大多数，只有团结在一起，所有人团结一致，才能控制住不幸。只能捐款给拥有我们卡片的代表。

    钢盔团（阵线士兵联盟）

    国社党，诺特海姆县 [18]

    赈济处获得了足够多的捐款，到12月中旬的时候，每天能救济200人，包括40个家庭、20个单身人士和数名冲锋队队员。大部分食物都是农民（有时是从他们那里强取的）以及诺特海姆的食品商、面包师和屠户捐赠的。纳粹党声称他们只向能拿出食物的人索要，而且不会针对政治派别分发食物，但是至少有一个工人因为“左翼”身份而被拒绝分发食物，《人民报》声称只有失业的纳粹党人才能得到救济。 [19]

    1932年年底，纳粹党的赈济处分发了12 000次晚餐，但是福利活动并不是赈济处唯一的功能。有一些房间是专门留给冲锋队队员的（在1932年初，“哈尔茨堡阵线”崩溃后，钢盔团被排挤出去了），工厂成了诺特海姆冲锋队的总部和“营房”。工厂投入使用不到两个星期，纳粹党旗就飘扬在了最高的烟囱上。因为纳粹党被禁止在普鲁士展示党派标志，《人民报》很快就要求警方对此展开行动。然而，警方什么都没做，直到1932年春末冲锋队短暂解散，警方才命令将旗帜降下来，但是只持续了几天而已。在一个充满标志的国家中，诺特海姆上空持续飘扬的纳粹党旗一定会被视作让摇摆不定的中产阶级确信纳粹党是未来政党的另一个步骤。 [20]

    1931年年底，诺特海姆的纳粹党回顾了这繁忙的一年。他们的集会数量并没有比前一年更多，但是他们的角色改变了。首先，国社党可以利用前年选举的国会代表的共同资金，用于地方集会。1931年出现在诺特海姆纳粹讲台上的国会代表不少于5名，除此以外还有普鲁士议会主席和该机构的纳粹党国会领袖。对于一个有1万人的城镇而言，有丰富的可选择的演讲者资源，尤其是也包括戈特弗里德·菲德尔在内，在普通大众的眼里，他是最高的纳粹党领袖。而且，国社党开始向诺特海姆市民强调军国主义理想。这一年，他们准备了三名前军官作为演讲者，举行了五次准军事游行。但是最引人注目的变化是纳粹党集会的规模。纳粹党在1930年只租赁了一次“1910年代圆顶”；1931年他们用了不少于10次，每一场都是真正的群众集会，大约都有1 000人。在卡特莱拍卖大厅也举行了14场集会。换句话说，几乎每场集会都有很大一群观众。最后，1931年也见证了纳粹党“夜晚活动”的开端：像政治盛会一样，但是有不同的吸引力，节奏变化上明显不同于通常三到五小时的演讲。

    当人们发现1933年之前诺特海姆的国社党实际成员只有60人时，纳粹的活动记录变得更令人震惊了。这些活动得到了县中很多党派成员以及很多同路人的援助，但活动核心有严格限制。一旦运动受到了大批人追捧，有限制的核心就不是一个限制因素了，1930年年中的诺特海姆很明显就是这样。有很多党派成员就住在城镇外面。诺特海姆周围的乡村地带依旧是纳粹党成员最强大的来源地，诺特海姆地方小组还包括了那些没有自己地方小组的县成员。1931年，瓦尔特·施泰内克花费了相当多的时间（据他自己所说是春天的每个夜晚）将包含15名以上成员的地区转变为独立的地方小组。到1931年12月为止，诺特海姆县有23个地方小组。当年8月，诺特海姆登记在册的地方小组从184个变为82个，因为新的地方小组蒙受了损失（再加上其他人搬走了或者不再缴纳会费了）。纳粹党中有很多农民，所以，施泰内克向大区汇报说，秋天的时候诺特海姆县的活动必须因收割而终止。并不是所有农民都是因为信仰而成为纳粹党人的；警方有证据证明诺特海姆周围的农民是受到联合抵制的威胁才被迫加入纳粹党的，农场工人也被告知如果他们不加入纳粹党或冲锋队，将会被开除。农民们也为他们雇用的帮手支付会费。 [21] 因此，有很大一群外来者可以协助城镇中地方小组的活动。而且，很少诺特海姆人会质疑城镇中缴纳会费的成员这么少。城镇中的人都认为纳粹人数众多，而且大部分都是年轻人。 [22]

    就年轻的方面而言，这是相当正确的。诺特海姆高级中学的学生们被纳粹强烈地吸引住了。绝大部分公开进行的活动都是由冲锋队中的年轻人或者希特勒青年团来完成的。一位诺特海姆的希特勒青年团前成员仍旧清楚地记得绘制纳粹党旗、写人行道和墙上的标语以及分发宣传单和小册子。 [23] 尽管纳粹党依靠口头语言，但是他们也分发印刷品，尤其是在选举时期，比如向诺特海姆的几乎每栋房子投递党派报纸、攻击性的宣传单和参加他们集会的免费门票。 [24] 尽管希特勒青年团被安排做这些事情，但是他们所进行的很多活动都不是直接与纳粹有关的。一名前成员这样描述1933年之前的诺特海姆希特勒青年团：

    我加入希特勒青年团并不是受到了来自父亲或其他人的压力——我自己独立决定加入，只是因为我想要加入一个男孩子的俱乐部，在这里我可以为了民族主义理想而努力奋斗。希特勒青年团有露营、远足和团体会议。1930年我加入青年团的时候是诺特海姆的第九个人。这里有来自各个阶层的男孩子，不过主要是来自中产阶级和工人的。并没有什么社会或阶级差别，这是我最支持的。直到后来才出现了直接或明显的政治教化——在希特勒掌权之后。诺特海姆希特勒青年团虽然没有努力招纳新成员，但是发展速度很快。我认为大部分男孩子加入这个团体的理由和我是一样的。他们是在寻找一个能够和其他男孩子一起进行激动人心的活动的组织。这也是因为在大萧条时期，这些正派的男孩子们想要摆脱来自国外的不良影响。任何情况下，我都认为政治因素并不是男孩子们加入青年团的主要原因。我们确实参加了示威游行，而且讨厌社会民主党，但是这都是普遍的，并不是特殊的——这只是其中的一部分。我们并没有充分认识到自己正在做什么，但是我们很高兴，而且感觉自己很重要。 [25]

    1932年年底，诺特海姆希特勒青年团成员增加到了75人。

    与希特勒青年团相对应的女性团体是“德国女孩联盟”，对10岁到18岁的人开放。诺特海姆分支是由纳粹党卫军领袖赫尔曼·登茨勒的妻子克莱尔领导的。尽管这个组织强调实践活动，比如急救训练，但它也被用于宣传工作：女孩子们在游行中和公众集会中列队。到1932年年底，诺特海姆的德国女孩联盟有92名成员，不过并不是所有人都是城镇中的居民。 [26]

    纳粹也有专门针对女性的组织，是1931年年初建立的，开始时有22名成员。其中大部分的成员是纳粹党人的妻子。内部争吵不断是诺特海姆女性附属机构的特征，这主要是因为女主席迈耶夫人的个性，因此这个组织从没有发挥过作用。尽管她不受欢迎，但是迈耶夫人得到了恩斯特·吉尔曼一意孤行的支持，一直担任这个职位直到1933年年初，他最终罢免了她，是因为她的领导地位所引起的骚动已经威胁到了他自己的地位。 [27]

    诺特海姆纳粹组织真正的主力军是“风暴部”：冲锋队或者“褐衫队”。并不是所有的党派成员都是冲锋队队员，也不是所有的冲锋队队员都是党派成员，虽然有些人是重叠身份的。在诺特海姆，1933年之前，冲锋队队员不超过50人，不过在大多数城镇人看来，他们的人数比这多三到八倍。每当纳粹党举行公众集会时，他们总会从乡村叫来冲锋队队员负责保卫工作，这给大众留下了深刻的印象。冲锋队每天大部分的日常工作也是由这些来自诺特海姆县乡村的人所做的。每当他们来城镇时，他们就会聚在赈济处或者诺特海姆的纳粹总部（在宽街上的一家酒吧），除了喝酒和谈论政治，他们还可以做任何任务。有个公开的秘密，就是冲锋队队员每周五晚上在卡特莱拍卖大厅接受军事训练，拍卖大厅的所有者让他们免费使用场地。 [28] 经常能在街上看到他们，他们通过辱骂社会民主党人或者对其他人大喊“希特勒万岁！”而让自己变得显眼。因此，这里看起来好像有比实际人数更多的冲锋队队员。 [29]

    冲锋队队员有很多事情要做。许多纳粹集会都是在他们的保护下进行的，几乎所有的活动都需要他们参与保护，包括音乐会或者娱乐活动。张贴海报也是他们的工作，基本上还要进行宣传。冲锋队也会采取各种各样的行动，要么是因为无聊，要么是因为野兽般的精力。因此1931年，两个冲锋队队员爬到一名诺特海姆社会民主党领袖的家里，在他家的门上画了纳粹党旗，还写下了如下的话：“在这个标志下，你将会流血，你这头红色蠢猪。” [30] 诺特海姆人很快就看到了墙上或者电线杆上的标语，“让犹太人滚出去！”或者“犹太人是我们的灾难！”这些也是冲锋队的非正式工作。 [31]

    如果冲锋队没什么事情做，他们就会设法说服潜在的亲纳粹分子。纳粹党会紧密关注那些来参加他们集会的人，之后就会努力说服这些人加入纳粹，为纳粹作贡献或者至少为国社党投票。

    许多冲锋队队员都是粗野的人，有些人至少之前是共产主义者。诺特海姆的工人很可能痛打了他们，而且，冲锋队的训练经常造成无政府主义暴行。冲锋队还总是把武器藏在他们的制服中。皮革肩带是可拆卸的，带扣增加了重量。许多冲锋队队员会随身携带金属棍棒、指节铜环或者钢刀。最后还有一种巧妙的武器，是一端开口的短管子，里面有一个连接着钢球的弹簧。短管握在手里，弹簧和钢球组合成武器。旋转的时候，钢球会被弹簧弹出来，利用延伸长度来攻击，整个精巧的装置可以灵巧地放到口袋里。这群粗鲁、全副武装和烦人的冲锋队队员大部分来自诺特海姆外，他们是城镇中暴力行为的主要来源。 [32]

    在纳粹党举行游行活动时，诺特海姆人经常看到冲锋队队员。报纸通常会支持他们的演习指令。但是冲锋队队员决定不只要成为好的游行战士。1931年，《人民报》已经报道称经过卡特莱拍卖大厅的人能听到军事演习的声音。1932年秋天，诺特海姆的冲锋队队员在附近的森林里进行大规模的公共演习，之后举行了“演习舞会”。1932年年底，他们开办了训练课程，冲锋队在一所废弃工厂建立了自己的基地，搬离了赈济处。 [33] 总而言之，到1932年年底，主要是由年轻的农民们的儿子组成的冲锋队发展成了强大的工具：受过良好训练、装备精良并且有庇护；英勇的、遵守纳粹党的钢铁纪律。在第三帝国初期，人们知道这个组织的存在成了一个很重要的影响因素。

    许多冲锋队队员是失业者，买不起冲锋队的制服。纳粹的解决方法就像他们的财务安排一样，有独创性、灵活性而且是分散化的。制服可以通过赊账来购买；更为常见的是，作为一种权宜之计，当地党派成员会被要求捐款；对于他们而言，“供养”一个特殊的冲锋队队员无疑是令人高兴的。诺特海姆富有的纳粹党人或许还会供养五到六名冲锋队队员。 [34] 这些钱绝不会来自城镇外，而冲锋队自己筹到的钱（无论是在街上还是集会上）都必须移交给纳粹党的地方小组，它负责冲锋队的所有费用。 [35] 就像诺特海姆纳粹党的整体运作一样，冲锋队全部由当地资源提供资金援助。地方小组并不是从国家的国社党那里获得钱，而是被要求自己筹钱。诺特海姆地方小组为自己的运营而使用的钱来自各种各样的手段。整个筹措资金的核心就是公众日益增长的对纳粹主义的支持、狂热的自我牺牲的成员结构和许多有小商人背景的纳粹领袖的不择手段的行为。

    固定的收入来源是每个成员支付的会费，每人每月大约1.4帝国马克。其中的30芬尼交由地方小组保存，剩下的交给大区（大区转而要将其中的一半交到慕尼黑的全国总部）。 [36] 每月固定汇款的要求使得纳粹党的每个层级都热衷于精确记录成员数量，也使得上一层级会根据成员数量来收取钱款。任何一名纳粹党人，如果三个月没交会费，就会被自动驱逐出党——这是目前为止出现成员高流动率的主要原因。新成员也必须支付0到3马克不等的“入会费”，主要是根据其个人收入决定。除此以外，还会定期评估成员们对“各种运动的捐款”，每人最多可达15马克。例如，1933年39名加入诺特海姆地方小组的成员总共支付了202马克，包括会费和入会费。有两人没有支付入会费，有六人分别支付2马克，剩下的每人支付3马克。他们的竞选捐款总共97马克：一人支付了15马克，两人支付了10马克，13人没有捐款，剩下的每人捐款1到3马克。 [37]

    经常还会要求成员们进行特别捐款。国会选举的时候，每人必须额外多支付1马克。1931年3月，南部汉诺威—布伦瑞克大区的每个党派成员都必须分摊10马克的《州报》费用，这样大区都能有日报了（当然，每个纳粹党人也被期望着能够订阅）。接下来的一个月，每个成员都固定分摊了购买希特勒青年团固定设备的费用。这只是国家和地区领袖正式索取的费用，还有很多地方领袖要求的相似的、非正式的费用。一切都基于纳粹党人应该为纳粹的事业做出牺牲这一想法。简言之，纳粹党成员承受着各种各样的剥削。 [38]

    而纳粹党的运作方式非常商业化：预付现金是地方小组能从大区得到每一样东西的规则，从成捆的印刷宣传品费用到演讲者的费用。甚至发给向地方小组捐款的城镇人民的收据也不是免费的。有一种积木是用不同的颜色对从50芬尼到5马克的金额进行编码，大区向诺特海姆地方小组索要印刷费用、邮寄费用，并且会严格核算售卖的收益。 [39]

    地方小组对其自己的运作费用同样吝啬。在任何可能的情况下，人们都会被要求支付纳粹发给他们的传单和宣传册的费用。在每一场集会上，诺特海姆地方小组都会针对每200人支付1马克的保险费，用于保护他们自己免于可能产生的损害诉讼。所有的诺特海姆县和地方小组官员都是免费的志愿者；唯一支付的薪水是给一个打字员的每月45马克。党派的办公室位于宽街上的一家酒吧，租赁费用是每月25马克。但是他们也把接待室转租给了一个小商人，他在这里售卖纳粹的明信片、文具和贺卡，他每月向地方小组支付10马克。当地方小组必须签订如法律代理这样的外部服务的合同时，他们会向提供服务者提出一个礼貌的建议，让他考虑将应得的费用转为竞选捐款。 [40] 他们几乎不会错过任何节省或赚取几芬尼的机会。

    收入的主要来源是群众集会：从售卖入场费到演讲结束后的募捐。通常情况下，会根据城镇的偏好精心筹备集会；从收益角度来看，这些集会可以和同一时间在美国中西部举行的复兴集会相比。当然，纳粹党非常清楚他们在诺特海姆这样的小镇举行群众集会的娱乐价值。 [41] 他们也发现，当集会请来著名的演讲者时，他们的收益足够再举办一场，而再举办的这场就可以获得纯利润了。入场券和捐款通常可以达到每人1马克，在“1910年代圆顶”召开两场满座的集会明显能获得超过1 000马克。当然，结果很少会这么顺利，经常会出差错（比如晚上会下雨）。即便是身处大萧条的环境中，许多纳粹领袖依旧有获得大笔资金的想法。 [42]

    这是很重要的事情，所以大区宣传部就如何举办集会制订了详细的规定，他们列出了所有事项的清单，从刊登广告到利用冲锋队。甚至有一个典型的脚本，里面写着在会议各个环节要使用的实际言辞，空白处还写着城镇和演讲者的名字，等等。典型的集会总是包括筹款环节。备忘录的附录是一个冗长的部分，内容是对演讲者的实际照顾和供养：他必须有安静的时间，因此不能总是参加“娱乐活动”或者社交活动；付给他的费用不能是集会上筹集的小硬币；必须严格执行他的日程表，这样他能最大限度地进行演讲；总体上而言，他是一个有价值的人，而对他的精心照顾将会获得同等的回报。 [43] 纳粹集会不仅为本场集会付出，它们所资助的其他宣传活动会增加今后集会的出席率。到1931年为止，纳粹党成了一种“金字塔俱乐部”，只要可以保持住势头，他们似乎就可以无限制地增加收益。

    尽管地方领袖并没有自己保留由集会和其他资源产生的收益，但有收益就意味着这些资金之后可以进一步应用于地方上的招新活动，而成功地建立起对纳粹主义支持的领袖将会在纳粹统治集团中获得晋升。大区在印刷关于地方小组的征召材料方面孜孜不倦（当然，必须预付现金）。有些指导方针和宣传册子是关于挨家挨户的竞选活动，幻灯片和电影，在集会上派发或者塞进邮箱里的传单，以及贴在公告栏上的海报（根据党派中的宣传专家所说，红色是最受人喜爱的颜色），还有贴在墙上和篱笆上的涂胶贴纸。有很多的主题和内容，所以可以创造出各种各样的联系来满足特殊的需要。还有些关于如何为“夜晚讨论会”写个人邀请函的建议，甚至分列出了举行一场群众游行所需的费用明细。 [44] 地方小组越是举行有收益的集会，就越能购买征召新成员和支持者的宣传材料，而反过来又可以召开更多的集会，获得更多的收益。回报就是成员队伍的壮大以及越来越多的纳粹选票，这两方面通过确切的统计资料就可以证实。在整个纳粹运动中，增长有助于增加负责领导人的荣光。成功很容易衡量，失败也一样。所以，不仅有持续举行活动的压力，还有关于何种活动会发挥效用的持续反馈。这种持续强化的系统是1930—1933年期间希特勒运动的力量日益强大的主要原因。

    这一系统的关键即整个过程中的基本因素，是适合群众集会的方法，要有合适的演讲者，要针对地方的利益和关注点。而且，就到场人数和贡献而言，要立即衡量出哪些是有效的，这样一来就可以重复利用那些有效的主题和演讲者了，同时可以放弃无效的组合。如果纳粹党人发现没必要自下而上地资助他们自己，那么他们很可能就不会产生这种自我调节的宣传机制了。

    运行这一系统的负担公平地落到了地方小组领袖和纳粹办公室的身上（虽然专门的宣传材料和主题是由国家纳粹党总部设计和制作的）。而大区领袖几乎没提供任何实际的指导。地方上的纳粹党人和大区领袖之间大部分的通信都是关于宣传（获得地方上需要的演讲者和印刷给地方分支的材料）、钱（主要是汇出的费用是否正确，有时是关于债务的）和组织（证实成员都有谁，确保所有地方党派的位置都有合适的人）。至于其他的，大区在很大程度上依赖地方领袖的精力和能力，只要他们能挣钱，能增加成员和投票数，几乎就会给他们完全的行动自由。 [45]

    在诺特海姆，纳粹的努力受到了两名官员的指导：县领袖瓦尔特·施泰内克，直到1932年年末他仍旧是名义上的地方小组领袖；以及诺特海姆的地方小组副领袖恩斯特·吉尔曼，他是城镇中纳粹党的实际运作者。吉尔曼理论上是施泰内克的下属，实际上他们地位相等，因为施泰内克并没有时间管理城镇中的日常运营，因此不得不让吉尔曼进行自由管理。吉尔曼极度独断，又渴望权势，他充分利用了和施泰内克的这种现状，从1930年开始作为诺特海姆地方小组的实际领袖运营整个组织。

    县领袖瓦尔特·施泰内克在1929年6月加入纳粹党，当时正值诺特海姆的纳粹党复兴时期。他属于下层中产阶级，是一个比较成功的农具销售商，当年他刚刚搬到诺特海姆。他最大的弱点就是好酒，他在酒上花了很多钱，第二次世界大战期间他最终死于酒精。他总是坐在诺特海姆铁路车站的行李寄放处，喝着自带酒瓶中的酒，给工人们讲着粗俗的笑话。他也为纳粹事业奉献了相当多的时间和精力，忽视了他自己的生意（反正因为大萧条，他的生意也衰败了），1933年他到了破产的边缘。在诺特海姆的第一任纳粹领袖鲁道夫·恩斯特于1930年春天被解职之后，施泰内克接受了县领袖的职务，结果证明这是成功的。管理县组织是一项逐渐繁重的任务，但是施泰内克以一种轻松的方式来应对，这得益于他的商人背景。只是从1932年年末开始，在紧张的状态下，他的健康状况出现了问题。他虽然是一个多愁善感的人，但总是尽力和冲锋队队员们开玩笑。他并不是一个出色的演讲者，总是会悲叹曾经在卡特莱拍卖大厅举行的旧式私人集会。他虽然做事冷酷无情，但并不是一个粗鲁的人，甚至他的对手都认为在粗鲁的外表下，他有颗热心肠。 [46]

    恩斯特·吉尔曼是完全不同的人。他矮矮胖胖的，有着金色头发，脸色红润，浅灰色的眼睛，他精力充沛又固执。提及他时最友善的话语就是他是“一个令人不快的同代人”，这至少是绝大部分诺特海姆人的反应，包括瓦尔特·施泰内克。吉尔曼也有在其父亲的五金店工作的经历，不过他的兄长卡尔实际上管理着生意。他的另一个兄弟死于第一次世界大战，恩斯特也参加了第一次世界大战并且受伤了。实际上，恩斯特·吉尔曼并没有迷失在他作为军官参加那场战争而获得的痛苦中，他很可能轻视了他从战争中带回家的同胞们。他冷酷、愤世嫉俗、粗鲁、无情而且残忍。他对做生意从不感兴趣，但是很有成为管理者和政治家的天赋。成为纳粹变成了他毕生的事业：他于1922年加入纳粹党，在第三帝国期间成为诺特海姆的市长。也许是因为诺特海姆长期忽视了纳粹党人，所以吉尔曼也经常忽视城镇中人。他酗酒，一喝酒脾气就变坏了。他最常见的情绪就是生气，甚至会发展成大发雷霆。在纳粹统治终结了很久之后，诺特海姆人一回忆起他那通红的脸和讽刺的语言还是会感到恐惧。吉尔曼缺乏其他的情绪，着迷于野心抱负，他是纳粹党在诺特海姆地方小组的主要发展动力。

    尽管恩斯特·吉尔曼从1922年就成了纳粹党，早年期间也是城镇中的领导者，但是他离领袖地位依旧很远，直到1930年，他才接管了诺特海姆地方小组副领袖的职位。一般不为人所知，甚至一些城镇中的党派成员也不知道的是，他很快就将冷酷和强劲的个性强加给了组织。他成功地将城镇变成了纳粹大本营，因此于1932年11月受到了大区领袖奖赏，他被正式委任为诺特海姆地方小组的领袖。到那时为止，在城镇的国社党成员中，他也有很多敌人。对于那些不是纳粹党的人来说，恩斯特·吉尔曼就是纳粹主义粗暴、不良的那面。 [47]

    “在诺特海姆有两群纳粹分子，”一个前公务员说，“正派的和粗俗的。结果，粗俗的一方胜出了。” [48] 这是很多诺特海姆人的感觉，即便是投票给国社党的人也是心绪复杂。但是这里有像威廉·施潘瑙斯一样的纳粹党人，实际上有许多令人尊敬的诺特海姆人都是纳粹分子：一家城镇旅馆的老板、高中的理事、大约三名教师、雪茄厂老板、市集广场上一家电影院的老板、县法院的两名法官和铁路董事会的几名高级官员。当然，住在诺特海姆县的主要纳粹党人是冯·施特拉伦海姆伯爵，他是一个无可挑剔的人——贵族、地主，而且参加了第一次世界大战。他放弃民族主义，转而加入纳粹党时，成了《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》和《诺特海姆最新消息》的头条新闻。 [49]

    对于绝大多数诺特海姆人而言，纳粹主义另一个矛盾的地方就是该党的反犹太主义。针对犹太人的社会歧视在城镇中实际上是不存在的。犹太人是融合在各阶级界线中的：两个富有的犹太家庭属于上层阶级的圈子和俱乐部，中等收入的犹太人属于中产阶级的社会组织，工人阶级的犹太人属于社会主义团体。虽然以笑话的形式或者普遍厌恶的表达来表现抽象的反犹主义是广为流传的，但在某种程度上，这些事情只存在于20世纪30年代的美国。如果说纳粹的反犹主义对城镇人有任何吸引力的话，那就是它的形式非常抽象，而作为一种遥远的理论，它与诺特海姆真实的犹太人日常生活无关。诺特海姆的国社党认识到了这点，因此，除了形式上以外，并没有在宣传中增加反犹主义的内容。（主要的例外是冲锋队用粉笔写下或者大吼出来的口号，农民和手工匠商店中的一些吵闹的员工接受了这些口号。）诺特海姆人之所以会被反犹主义吸引，是因为他们被纳粹主义吸引了，而不是其他的原因。许多投票给纳粹的人只是忽视了该党的反犹主义或者将其合理化了，就像他们忽视了纳粹运动中其他不愉快的方面一样。

    在希特勒掌权之前，诺特海姆人加入国社党的原因有很多。有个人和他的妻子被“社会”原因感动了：“我们认为普通人本应该有更好的生活，社会主义是至关重要的。我们是理想主义者。实际上，我们是少数有积累的人，因为我的生意很成功。” [50] 诺特海姆女子高中的校长主要是受到反共产主义的激励。他于1932年加入纳粹，很快就陷入了与恩斯特·吉尔曼的“腐败行为”相关的斗争中，在第三帝国建立后，他被迫离开了城镇。战后，他写道：

    1925年，我从柏林来到了诺特海姆，我在柏林已经住了30年，每年假期的时候我都会回柏林待几个星期。我在柏林观察到了很多在小城镇中没被注意到的事情——或者说是较次要的事情。我看到了共产主义的危险、共产主义的恐怖，他们这群人破坏了“资产阶级的”集会，“资产阶级”党派完全无可奈何，纳粹是唯一能用反恐怖破坏恐怖的党派。我看到了“资产阶级”党派在处理经济危机时的彻底失败（有六七百万人失业，国家银行的损失高达15%）。只有国家社会主义才有希望。反犹太主义在柏林有另一面，绝大多数纳粹党个人并不讨厌犹太人，许多人有犹太人朋友，但是他们担心犹太问题：绝大部分犹太人虽然已经准备完全被同化，愿意成为百分之百的德国人，但是仍旧坚持忠于他们的犹太伙伴（这些人大多来自波兰和俄国），这些伙伴帮助他们，推动他们前进，这样一来，越来越多的犹太人不仅在贸易、银行、剧院、电影、报纸等行业占据位置，而且整个经济和关键位置都掌握在犹太人手中，还包括医生、律师等。（犹太人参与政治的直接影响被纳粹党人高估了。）许多人发现了这一问题的危险。没有人知道如何解决这个问题，但是他们希望纳粹知道。如果他们早就猜到纳粹会如何解决这个问题，那么没有一个人会加入纳粹党。 [51]

    其他人加入国社党的原因更简单：因为看起来纳粹会胜利，而他们想要从中获益。众所周知的一个案例是高级中学的一个教师在纳粹掌权后获得了晋升。 [52] 还有一个开印刷厂的人因为商业原因而加入：

    正处于大萧条期间，生意不佳。纳粹曾经让我的父亲捐款，但是他拒绝了。结果，他丢掉了生意。因此，他加入了纳粹党。但这又导致他失去了其他客人，他对整个形势感到气馁。按照他自己的选择，他很可能不会加入。 [53]

    在一位敏锐的观察家看来，“绝大多数加入纳粹党的人之所以这样做，是因为想要一个解决经济问题的激进方式。当然，人们也想要一个努力的、敏捷的、清楚的领导者——他们对国会政党政治中一直存在的政治冲突感到厌恶”。 [54]

    而绝大多数诺特海姆人是半信半疑的。“我之前的经历证明国社党的队伍中充斥着无能者和破产者。” [55] 这是保守的诺特海姆县长的意见（他后来改变了想法）。“1933年之前纳粹党中主要是破产者——都是穷人、小偷，以及道德和财务上的破产者。”另一个后来加入国社党的人说道。 [56] 当然，社会民主党都同意这种意见。

    绝大多数诺特海姆人不知道纳粹掌权后真正会做些什么。即便是犹太人也不知道纳粹党所说的真正意味着什么。 [57] 这并不是缺乏信息所造成的。任何经常去参加纳粹集会，或者读过他们的宣传册，或者看过在墙上用粉笔写的口号的人本应该认识到国社党粗俗、暴力的那一面。通过阅读纳粹在诺特海姆发行的出版物《听！听！》，当地人应该立刻就能发现这一点。其中的每篇文章都在嘲讽个别人，之所以具有可读性，就是因为其中的嘲讽形式非常多样。讽刺和粗俗的语言是规则。这份报纸没有一期包含积极的想法。该报的主编是个骗子。 [58]

    通过《人民报》的专栏，诺特海姆人可以了解到一系列关于纳粹分子都是什么人的观点。但诺特海姆人不必通过阅读社会民主党的报纸来听这些故事，因为他们劲头十足，总是口口相传。《人民报》的故事试图证明诺特海姆的纳粹分子都是荒唐、粗鲁、唯利是图和野蛮的。如果一个送货男孩在试图行纳粹礼时从自行车上摔下来，《人民报》就会报道。 [59] 如果冲锋队队员将纳粹党徽贴在墓地的墓碑上，新闻标题会是“纳粹对死者的敬意”。 [60] 《人民报》相信绝大多数纳粹党人都是小偷，它总是报道这样的故事：“B——《听！听！》的作者……诺特海姆纳粹党的栋梁，他刚刚因诽谤省长诺斯克被判刑三个月，现在又背叛了他的女房东，偷了她的钱。另一个纳粹也被证明是个常见的骗子。谁会是下一个？” [61]

    除了将纳粹分子看作愚蠢的、粗鲁的和贪婪的，《人民报》还将他们描绘成暴力和品行不端的。一个接一个的故事建立起了这种形象：一个4岁的男孩被他的纳粹党继父打伤住进了诺特海姆医院；一个16岁的希特勒青年团成员在抢劫他的祖母时射伤了她；最不堪的是，临近村镇的一个纳粹木匠企图强奸一个已婚妇女，当时她正在城镇教堂中打扫圣坛。 [62] 另一份报纸没有报道这类事件。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的编辑虽然是一个民族主义者，却对纳粹主义有好感。《诺特海姆最新消息》认为这些新闻太粗俗了；即便是必须报道这类令人讨厌的事件，他们也会避免提及当事人的名字，而是使用其个人职业和姓氏的首字母来代替。能在《诺特海姆最新消息》上读到的有关纳粹最糟糕的报道就是他们因违反制服禁令而被监禁，或者《听！听！》因诽谤而被镇压（都是经常发生的）。到1932年年末，《诺特海姆最新消息》的编辑愈发反对纳粹，但他也是一个谨慎的商人，不想失去发行量或者广告宣传，因为有很多人投票给纳粹。

    因此，除非诺特海姆人相信社会党人的新闻，否则的话，他们几乎没什么机会得到关于国社党的不利意见，而这些新闻很可能只是给那些已经成为社会党人的城镇人看的。纳粹党人的性格通过他们的言行举止已经表现得足够明显了，即便是投票给他们的人也是半信半疑，但事实仍旧是几乎没有诺特海姆人真正意识到纳粹掌权后会做些什么。诺特海姆人主要认为当时的形势糟糕，而纳粹是一群年轻又有活力的人，他们一定能改变现状。

    唯一能正确理解到纳粹威胁的人是社会民主党人。1931年8月公投后，社会民主党人不怎么活跃。10月，国旗队举行了一场穿越整个县的游行，12月，举行了一场有600人参加的公共集会。演讲者试图证明布伦瑞克的纳粹—资产阶级联盟对中产阶级是不利的，但是他唯一的建议就是中产阶级应该加入社会民主党。这一年的最后一个大事件是反共产主义电影的上映。 [63]

    但是，公共集会并不是社会民主党在1931年所做的唯一工作。那一年，社会党人在诺特海姆举行了七场成员集会，在县里举行了63场。资金来源于会费以及一些公共集会的少量入场费。诺特海姆社会民主党派在大萧条这年的收入是1 841马克；支出是1 762马克，组织了三次孩子们的远足旅行，向贫穷家庭分发了206份圣诞包裹，向老年人分发了67份包裹，工人们的妻子们制作了350件衣物。这带来了2 125马克的收入，支出了1 859马克，这种努力让社会民主党派在城镇中领先于其他私人的社会福利组织。“社会主义女性团体”这一年举行了50场集会，成员增加了130名。“年轻的社会主义工人”举行了85场集会，展映了一些电影，在党派工作之外，他们还举办了一场“亲子晚会”。“社会民主党孩子们的朋友们运动”拜访了35个孩子，确保他们受到了很好的照顾。对社会民主党而言，政治几乎成了副业。 [64]

    1932年是德国民主政治的最后一年。诺特海姆的社会民主党并不知道这一点，但是他们确实有了危机感。其中的一个迹象就是针对纳粹—民族主义党派的“哈尔茨堡阵线”，他们做了一个全国性的决定，即将所有反纳粹的群体合并为一个组织，命名为“钢铁阵线”。在诺特海姆，一个代表所有工人组织的新的执行委员会于1月末在“1910年代圆顶”召开了一场群众集会。大厅里挤满了人，许多人只能站着。魏玛共和国的黑红金三色国旗飘扬着，国旗队的军乐队演奏着，两个工人合唱团演唱着。他们展映了一部卡通片《在第三帝国》。有四名演讲者，包括德佩和卡尔·库埃尔富尔特。演讲内容主要是强硬的反纳粹，不过也有个人强调了社会民主党的成就和纳粹资本家之间的关系。三周后，另一场群众集会主要是指责国社党，并且预示“钢铁阵线”将会取得胜利。在2月16日举行的社会民主党县全体大会上，全体成员一致认为纳粹主义是主要的敌人，并且这是与希特勒“决一死战”的一年。 [65]

    从1932年开始，纳粹分子也将运动推向了高潮。1月25日，他们举行了一场“大型军事游行和音乐晚会”，还有体操表演，演讲者是一名冲锋队指挥官。“1910年代圆顶”直到凌晨一点都挤满了人。就在第二天，他们又举行了一场盛大的集会，有三名演讲者，包括一名国会议员和普鲁士议会议员。五个小时的演讲是关于农业、中产阶级和“对抗马克思主义和自由主义的斗争”的。 [66]

    纳粹分子并没有忽视诺特海姆的宗教诉求，他们得到了恐惧社会民主党的路德派的支持。据说，去年秋天，一个来自汉诺威的牧师提醒虔诚的信徒要提防社会民主党，他将社会民主党描述为“从根本上反教会”的人。他的演讲得到了冯·施特拉伦海姆伯爵的支持，他指示聚集起来的牧师与“布尔什维主义”战斗。1932年2月，在诺特海姆路德派堂区举行的一场集会上，另一个牧师将社会民主党和共产主义者联系在一起，认为其后的主要推动力是无神论和“自由思想意识”。 [67] 社会民主党只是忽视了这些指责，而纳粹分子则转而利用了这些内容。1932年2月12日，他们请来一位牧师在城镇的一家旅馆发表演讲，主题是“国家社会主义和基督教”，观众是精心挑选的“传教士、教会长老、教师和学校的管理人员”。演讲者宣称德国的基督教受到了魏玛宪法的冲击，他直接将矛头指向布尔什维主义。他将纳粹的目标描述为“具有民族性的、有组织的、敬畏上帝的人”。至少有一位牧师对此提出了异议，他认为纳粹激进的计划会导致“全国性的偶像崇拜和大规模的仇恨”。但是“演讲者激烈地否认，观众们热情地鼓掌”。 [68]

    民族主义也得到了发展。2月12日，“1910年代圆顶”里挤满了人，来自布伦瑞克的纳粹内政部长用了两小时时间攻击“泛欧洲”运动。 [69] 德国国家人民党在桑尼旅馆举行了类似主题的集会，一个退役的陆军中将在集会上描述道，如果没有国内的叛徒在背后捅刀，德国军队本将赢得第一次世界大战。有19名钢盔团青年部新成员宣誓加入，集会以演唱《德意志高于一切》并宣誓效忠于黑白红的帝国旗帜结束。 [70]

    在这一背景下，社会民主党获得了一次成功。自从8月公投以来，《人民报》一直在无情地攻击公民协会的议员马纳。议员在市政府中的管辖范围是诺特海姆的啤酒厂。1931年年末，《人民报》的报道称一直有传言说啤酒厂的会计员挪用了公款。社论激动地质疑：“难道议员马纳没有进行严格的监管吗？”几个月后，整个事件清楚了：自1924年以来，会计员盗用了9万马克。《人民报》激动地问道：“没有审查过账簿吗？议员马纳采取适当的措施来防止挪用公款了吗？什么时候能举行公开听证会？”几周后，《人民报》喜不自胜地报道称会计员是德国民族主义党派成员，和议员马纳一样。 [71]

    议员最终因《人民报》接连的攻击而陷入了绝望。实际上，每次公民协会召开会议时，他都会抱怨这份报纸，并且试图阻止诺特海姆的商人们去这家报纸上刊登广告。他强烈地否认自己是国社党成员，并称自己是超越党派的（“代表市民的、中立的”）。他在1932年2月26日召开的公民协会全体大会上说道，啤酒厂会计员已经偿还了所有挪用的公款，城市议会一致决定不起诉他。这次说明之后，议员马纳宣布他再也忍受不了《人民报》的攻击了，于是决定辞去公民协会的主席一职。他的同伴们都站在他这边，之后也试图重选他，但是他拒绝继续担任主席。他脱离了战斗；之后不再发表任何演讲，不再活跃了。 [72]

    即便是这样也没能安抚《人民报》。只要马纳依旧担任参议员，对他品性的攻击就继续着。4月，有指责称啤酒厂向附近城镇的纳粹冲锋队学校提供免费的啤酒。8月，《人民报》指责称，对啤酒厂汽车的修理有差错，但是啤酒厂仍旧向车厂主支付了1 000马克。1932年12月，马纳被指责雇用了“有双份收入的人”做城市工作，而不是那些失业者。 [73]

    对诺特海姆人而言，这些内容读起来有趣，很有可能也增加了《人民报》的销量。某些情况下甚至可能会影响到投票。但是主要的影响是败坏了政治的本质，破坏了信任的基础和相互尊重，没有了这些，民主政治将无法取得成功。政治变成了诽谤和影射，最终人们会对整个进程感到厌恶。人们开始期待着超越狭隘的党派群体的强人出现。纳粹分子充分利用了这种情感，虽然他们大大加剧了党派间的唇枪舌剑，但是他们也率先提出“政治家”就是要尽可能地利用各种轻蔑和讽刺的语调发声。

    七　政治高潮（1932年，春）

    选兴登堡！选最好的！
    他不服务于任何党派——
    他只遵循着上帝和自己的良知。
    ——诺特海姆德国人民党的宣传广告，刊登于1932年3月11日的《诺特海姆最新消息》

    1931年至1932年的那个冬末，诺特海姆的形势有利于纳粹主义的快速发展，大萧条正是其最糟糕的时候，暴力变得更加频繁，民族主义和阶级对立的双重激情在其最高峰。诺特海姆的纳粹分子将他们自己塑造成了令人尊敬的和激进的人。他们被视为爱国的、反社会主义的和虔诚的人。他们显然得到了保守党的祝福。而同时，纳粹分子看起来精力充沛、有决心，更重要的是，他们准备使用激进的方式来处理关键问题——大萧条。事实证明，普通措施可以有效地促进福利事业，但是只有极端措施才能终结大萧条，而只有纳粹分子被视为特别极端的。促成有利局面所需要的就是煽动新的选举运动。

    当然，有利的形势并不是在当地占据主导地位。尽管国社党在诺特海姆有持续的活动，但他们赢得第一次的胜利是在国家层面的民主恶化之后。从1930年开始，他们就难以在国会中获得稳定的大多数，而总理布吕宁 [33] 通过使用兴登堡的总统紧急权力发布了针对国会首脑的法律。尽管布吕宁的法令并不受社会民主党的欢迎，但是社会党人拒绝推翻他，因为他们害怕选举骚动会导致纳粹和共产主义者进一步获益。因此，从1930年春天—1932年春天存在于德国的不稳定的困境就是：统治这个国家的是不得人心的法律，这项法律并不是基于民主的国会权威所发布的，而是基于1925年当选总统的年迈陆军元帅兴登堡的权威。

    这种削弱力量的程序存在的唯一理由本应该是成功地解决大萧条。但是布吕宁基于正统经济学理论而采取的通货紧缩措施实际上加剧了大萧条的影响，纳粹分子成功地给他贴上了“饥饿总理”的标签。就避免新选举的意义而言，布吕宁的半极权统治唯一的有利影响就是造成了政治上的停滞不前。1932年，兴登堡的任期到期时，这一局面才结束。纳粹在诺特海姆发展的最后阶段就是现在了。

    总统选举定于1932年3月13日进行。兴登堡寻求连任，从社会民主党到人民党的共和国派都支持他。纳粹党支持希特勒，而共产主义者也推举了候选人——退役的斯大林主义者恩斯特·台尔曼。民族主义党派不愿意支持兴登堡，因为他不会颠覆共和国，他们也不愿意将命运托付给希特勒，于是提名了钢盔团的副指挥杜斯特博格。还有一个叫作温特的怪人成功获得了竞选资格。但是几乎每个德国人都将这场选举视为希特勒与兴登堡之间的重要竞争。

    在诺特海姆，几乎可以预见到即将到来的选举的第一个迹象就是暴力激增。自去年8月的“公投日打斗”以来，除了12月初在酒吧发生的打架外，城镇中没有发生过政治斗争。 [1] 然而，1932年2月的最后两周，在铁路车站附近发生了持刀斗殴，之后宽街上还发生了两次打架，打斗双方是纳粹分子和国旗队队员。 [2] 一周后，一个愤怒的诺特海姆人写信给《诺特海姆最新消息》，说连小孩子都被卷入其中了。他发现一群男孩在新成立的纳粹选举总部前用脏话骂希特勒（这得到了他们父母的支持）。《人民报》进行了反击，报道三名纳粹年轻人尾随一些职业女性，还用污言秽语大骂她们。《人民报》指控了在赫尔曼·登茨勒商店里工作的一个男孩。《人民报》还报道了一名女性在周日早上带孩子去教会时，因为拒绝接受一个年轻的钢盔团成员发的政治传单而被一捆传单打了脸。 [3] 这些事件被刊登在报纸上，但是国旗队队员和纳粹分子之间的嘲弄和辱骂每天都在发生。

    在痛苦的背后是经济不景气，自从竞选运动开始以来，诺特海姆在大萧条期间的失业人数达到了最多。1932年3月和4月，城镇中登记的失业人数超过700人，比照前一年的同一时间增加了几乎50%。而且从这时起，福利名册上登记的人数时常超过领取失业保险金的人数。几乎有14 000名登记在册的失业者每周都要郁闷地去位于旧军营的地区就业办事处，这是诺特海姆成年人口的两倍。2月出现了两次破产，政府计划降低啤酒价格，这引发了诺特海姆县酒吧管理人协会的强烈抗议，以至于当局被迫放弃了他们的计划。甚至孀妇和孤儿都参加了抗议。2月初，“战争孀妇和工业事故受害者”举行了一场群众集会，抗议降低抚恤金。因为集会是由社会党人控制的，存在这么多的孀妇和孤儿被归罪于第一次世界大战而非共和国，但是观众们情绪低落。 [4]

    也是在1932年3月，工人丧葬节约协会瓦解时，一些诺特海姆人遭遇了最沉重的打击。这是由协会会计挪用公款所引发的，但是如果有新用户加入的话，协会本来会承受住这一损失的。470名成员每人所获得的补偿只是这些年来他们放在协会中的一小部分钱。随着年老的工人们和他们的妻子排队走出大厅，他们知道现在自己只拥有穷人的墓穴了。 [5]

    这种挫败感很容易被分裂派的媒体引导为攻击性。纳粹分子关注着腐败指控，即便并没有腐败发生。在竞选运动开始前，《听！听！》被诺特海姆参议院指控刊登了一篇针对城市医院的诽谤性文章，被县长指控中伤一名县官员，被健康保险办事处指控发布错误的报道。《人民报》不那么笨拙了，但是相当狠毒。此外，《人民报》注意到一个诺特海姆保守派领袖（“社会党人法律的主要敌人”）让他的女儿去领取失业救济金。《人民报》热切地期望就业办事处可以格外小心地调查这个事件。同样地，关于纳粹暴行的新例证被发现并发表出来了。 [6]

    不过，社会民主党支持兴登堡连任只是因为他“不太邪恶”，所以他们在诺特海姆发动了一场声势浩大的竞选运动。3月6日，新的“钢铁阵线”举行了一场群众示威游行，城镇乐队、国旗队的军乐队也加入了，还有25面旗帜和横幅。在市集广场上，他们几乎没说什么兴登堡的优势，而是说了很多纳粹主义的弊端，一位女性演讲者引用戈培尔 [34] 和施特拉塞 [35] 的话来支持自己的论断，即“在第三帝国中，女性会成为生育奴隶” [7] 。

    社会民主党在骑术大厅又举行了一场关于兴登堡的集会，因为他们不能使用“1910年代圆顶”。之所以不能使用，是因为城镇中的纳粹分子采取特别的方式一直租赁这个地方，他们就是不让其他人使用，不过花费很大。 [8] 尽管如此，在令人不舒服的骑术大厅举行的社会民主党集会影响还是很大。超过1 200人出席，他们听到卡尔·库埃尔富尔特和卡尔·德佩攻击纳粹分子和公民协会，号召大家支持兴登堡的连任。 [9] 人民党公开支持兴登堡，他们的支持仅限于在《诺特海姆最新消息》上刊登宣传广告，宣称兴登堡是超越党派的。 [10]

    竞选活动的刺激甚至将共产主义者再次带到了诺特海姆。2月，共产主义者的铜管乐队来城镇举行了一场游行，在酒吧前召开了一场集会。就在投票前，德国共产党举行了一场由系红领巾的10岁小男孩领头的游行。气氛变得有点儿紧张起来，因为一群强壮的国旗队队员加入了游行；共产主义者迅速决定以铜管乐队的音乐会而非市集广场上的演讲来结束这场游行。 [11]

    在竞选运动中，民族主义者主要是在选民面前保持他们的认同。他们也希望通过日益高涨的激进主义来重获那些被纳粹阵营吸引的前追随者们的忠诚。第一次选举集会的主角是一个中校，他对纳粹主义的立场模糊，他说德国国家人民党是“反对希特勒的政治活动，而不是希特勒本人”。之后钢盔团举行了一场“剧院之夜”活动，内容是百年风俗喜剧，在选举之前的最后一周还有两场政治集会。一场的主角是德国国家人民党的国会议员，他谈了自己的苏联之旅，吸引了很大一群观众。另一场会议的出席率很低，一个钢盔团成员猛烈地攻击希特勒，声称他想要解散钢盔团，实行社会主义。 [12]

    和纳粹的努力相比，这些大量的政治活动都不算什么。选举之前的一个月，国社党将布伦瑞克的纳粹内政部长带到诺特海姆，举行了一场群众集会。 [13] 但是，诺特海姆的纳粹分子并没有继续这项活动，而是采取了新的策略。虽然直到3月初才举行了进一步的集会，但是，纳粹分子在“1910年代圆顶”举行了八天的集会。有四天晚上举行了大众集会，而白天的示威游行是为了让城镇中充满纳粹的宣传。这是一场拼尽全力的竞选运动，让希特勒对手们的努力都黯然失色了。

    纳粹分子关注竞选运动并不是一项有预谋的策略，之所以会这样，是因为纳粹党的省党部领袖经历了宣传递送系统的崩溃。早在2月初，诺特海姆的地方小组就向上级领导求助，因为他们没有为接下来的竞选运动预定任何的演讲者，现在只剩下不到一个月的时间了。之后，他们所得到的演讲者都很平庸；他们真正想要的是四名在国家层面很优秀的人以及两名地方上的名人。其他的计划也显示出了诺特海姆的纳粹分子变得多么有抱负和多么放纵。比如，他们订购的传单足可以分发给整个县一半的合格选民。然而，他们所提供的一些宣传材料是欠考虑的，产生了反效果，尤其对那些反兴登堡的人来说。在诺特海姆县和城镇中的竞选运动要求也让他们的问题更为复杂了，因为到这时为止在县领袖施泰内克管理下的地方小组大概有30个。但是最终问题都解决了，从2月中旬到3月中旬，诺特海姆县的组织举行了40场群众集会，包括8场电影展映会。 [14] 3月初，城镇中的纳粹分子正在准备他们自己具有渗透性的竞选运动。更为有效的是，纳粹分子可以优先使用城镇中的集会大厅，这样一来，对手们都难以对抗纳粹联盟了。

    第一场群众集会于3月6日星期天举行，演讲者包括上个月在教会导向的集会中发表演讲的牧师和一名省议会的纳粹党成员，有很大一群观众，主题是中产阶级的绝望和柏林存在的腐败。两场晚会之后，举行了一场针对工人们的群众集会，“前共产党船员马德尔同志和前共产党矿工克诺特同志”发表了题为“社会民主党和德国共产党对工人们的背叛。马克思主义带给我们死亡，只有国家社会主义才是我们的救星”的演讲。天气很不好，所以出席人数较少，这对纳粹分子来说很可能比较好，因为第二名演讲者说了关于“冷漠的中产阶级不会帮助工人们”这样令人不快的事情，对诺特海姆国社党中占压倒性优势的中产阶级追随者而言，令人怀疑的话语才会有吸引力。这两场集会的入场费都打折了：30芬尼，失业者免费。 [15]

    3月10日星期四，冲锋队接手了。纳粹分子充分利用了所有诺特海姆县和附近区域的冲锋队队员，举行了长达一小时的游行，乐队、军乐队以及接近1 500名冲锋队队员和党卫军加入了其中。街上挤满了朋友、敌人和好奇的人，游行者时而受到欢迎，时而被喝倒彩。市集广场上聚集了很多共产主义者。纳粹分子在行进过程中唱着《霍斯特·威赛尔之歌》，人群中发出嘘声和咒骂声，他们还以《国际歌》作为回击。诺特海姆的警察在国家部队的大力帮助下成功地让纳粹穿过狭窄街道的游行而没有发生任何意外事件。褐衫队的游行以在“1910年代圆顶”举行的演讲为结束。但是当纳粹分子开始往回走，穿越诺特海姆的中心时，他们发现路被铁路上的一大群人给堵住了，这群人受到了共产主义者的很大影响。人群蔑视了警察要清场的命令，于是，警察用警棍对付他们，逮捕了很多人。这引发了新的问题，人们试图夺回被抓的人。面对这样一群暴徒，警方几乎是无能为力的，最终只能在市集广场释放了被捕者，这些人大吼着“红色阵线！”来庆祝。整个过程中，纳粹冲锋队的队伍一直保持着极好的秩序，最终静悄悄地解散了。

    社会党人对白天所发生的事情特别愤怒，因为上个星期天，国旗队队员刚刚被禁止在游行中唱歌或者穿制服，而现在纳粹分子却被允许做这两件事。社会民主党认为如果警察对纳粹分子严格一些，就不会产生这些麻烦事了。这一指控巧妙地掩盖了暴力的主要影响，在中产阶级眼里，这就让纳粹对“马克思主义者”的指控更为合理了。

    不管怎样，到了晚上城镇就冷静下来了，没有再出现麻烦。国社党令“1910年代圆顶”满座，他们进行了关于“他们如何说谎”和“布伦瑞克的冲锋队游行”的胶卷幻灯片演讲，以及关于“第三帝国的金钱政策”的演讲。 [16]

    第二天，也就是星期五，没安排什么事情，但是有一个大事件，就是阿道夫·希特勒中午在去附近城镇的路上经过诺特海姆。他受到了一大群纳粹分子的欢迎，他停下车表示了感谢。前一天，气氛就高涨起来了，以至于对领袖的接待并不全是友好的。他的车被迫停在了铁路交叉道口，有一大群失业者高呼着“红色阵线”。领袖的党卫军保镖以亮出手枪的方式来清路，《人民报》反问道：“我们已经身处第三帝国了吗？” [17]

    最后一桩纳粹事件是星期六晚上（选举前夜）的“娱乐晚会”，还有演奏会以及汉诺威大区领袖发表的关于“进入最后战斗”的演讲。出席率很高。 [18]

    这种竞选活动——直到最后一分钟都在渗透——不一定会赢得选票。纳粹分子在选举中获得的选票究竟是这些策略的结果，还是其他因素积累的影响，很难说清楚。无论怎样，这显示了令人印象深刻的力量、想象力和活力。群众集会多种多样且有趣，街道游行有秩序并且强有力、时机巧妙（从直白的演讲到纯粹的娱乐活动）。这是纳粹的煽动能力和组织能力达到巅峰的例子。

    选举结果的统计数据显示了自1930年9月的国会选举后，纳粹党的收获有多少。他们在诺特海姆获得了双倍的支持。希特勒获得了3 261张选票，纳粹分子现在在城镇人中拥有51%的支持率。被称为“兴登堡联盟”（包括社会民主党、中央党派、人民党派和绝大多数分裂党派）的党派在1930年总共获得了差不多4 000张选票；现在他们输给了希特勒超过1 100张选票。民族主义者虽然进行了激烈的竞选活动，但是却发现他们的选票少了一半。共产主义者获得了67张选票（但是不到一个月就会失去全部选票）。纳粹党的支持率日益提高，他们至少赢得了300个“新选民”中的3/4的选票，还吸引了其他党派的成员，尤其是那些以中产阶级为中心的党派。 [19] 国社党现在可以自夸说在诺特海姆占据绝对大多数了。

    纳粹党很难超越这场竞选运动的影响了，但这确实是他们被要求做到的。在3月13日的选举中，兴登堡赢得了多数票，但并不是绝大多数（在全国范围内，希特勒只获得了30%的选票）。因此又举行了一场选举，在第一场选举之后的四个星期，也就是4月10日。自从希特勒再次竞选总统以来，诺特海姆的纳粹分子再次开始了竞选活动。而且，他们的竞选运动是在极其不利的形势下展开的，因为他们被发现准备武力夺取政权。

    关于实施纳粹政变的谣言在第一次总统选举前有很多。《诺特海姆最新消息》宣称这些谣言是毫无事实根据的，但也指出警方和国家部队已经取消了所有假期，随时准备着维护和平与秩序。这一次，国旗队队员立刻回击，加大了竞选活动的力度。到1932年年初，诺特海姆有400名受过训练的国旗队队员，这里也是国旗队第十分部（诺特海姆县加上其他三个县），总共有大约2 000名成员。国旗队的策略是认为在纳粹冲锋队发起起义的情况下，工人们可以武装起来，以补充人数不足的德国军队。因此，他们进行了频繁的秘密军事演习和迅速的动员测试；不到半个小时，他们就能集结起整个诺特海姆的军事力量，而且不需要电话、摩托车或者自行车，正如他们反复的“警报测试”所显示的那样。 [20]

    在选举当天，也就是1932年3月13日，诺特海姆的国旗队队员一直处于警戒状态，非常密切地关注着纳粹的行动。晚上，相当多的纳粹党冲锋队队员并没有去听选举结果，而是穿着制服聚集到了城镇边的森林中。国旗队队员被派去监视他们，于是，移动到距离全部冲锋队队员不到50英尺的地方。警方接到通知，立即出了城镇，解散了褐衫队。一些纳粹分子再次聚集到冲锋队的赈济处，来自附近村镇的其他冲锋队队员在此处与他们会合。大约凌晨3点，警方突袭赈济处，命令冲锋队队员离开诺特海姆。那晚剩下的时间是平静的。 [21]

    要不是在距离诺特海姆10英里远的小镇上同时发生的事件，诺特海姆的事件很可能会被解读为异想天开的鬼把戏。选举当天，在附近小镇上，警方截获了一辆卡车，里面有5把来复枪、18个钢盔、18个新的帆布包（每个包里装着两天的口粮），200发来复枪子弹，还有1 000立方厘米炸弹和两根引线。帆布包上标记着当地纳粹分子的名字；因此，当地国社党总部被搜查了，又发现了28个钢盔和几千发子弹。警方也发现城镇中的纳粹分子计划在附近的森林中聚集。《诺特海姆最新消息》对整个事件做了突出报道。

    到此时为止，城镇中开始出现内战气氛。上个周末，国旗队和冲锋队都组织了穿过诺特海姆街道的“巡逻”，并且在各自总部里保持着常备军队，甚至在选举后也是这样。警方很紧张，于是向国家部队求援，搜查了双方的总部。除此之外，诺特海姆（以及附近城镇）的镇长和诺特海姆县长一起发布了全面禁令，禁止在政治总部中“警戒”和进行“巡逻”。因此，双方都不得不更加慎重。 [22]

    由于在选举当天的可疑行动，国社党在诺特海姆暂时受到了质疑。纳粹的官方消息立即否认知道这些在附近城镇发现的武器，并且之后宣布开除了那些有行为过失的人。当地冲锋队组织的领袖发布声明，声称冲锋队的所有行动都是防御性的，只是为了保护自己成员的生命安全，免受“钢铁阵线”的攻击。冲锋队领袖发誓总统选举日当天并没有计划任何政变。几天后，诺特海姆的纳粹分子刊登广告称他们的地区宣传领袖将会就“不是内战，而是复兴共和国”这一主题发表演讲。集会是在“1910年代圆顶”举行的，入场费降到了30芬尼，失业者免费。但是诺特海姆人并没有听到这场演讲，因为他被另一个演讲者取代了，后者严厉地抨击了国际主义、共济会会员、保守派、“马克思主义”和“现行制度”。有很大一群观众，除了社会党人，没人提出关于帆布包、钢盔、子弹、炸药以及夜晚在森林中聚集等问题。 [23]

    新的选举运动也分散了对政变恐慌的注意力。兴登堡距离连任非常之近，所以社会民主党并没有在第二次总统竞选中投入太多精力。他们只举行了一场集会，得到了专设的“兴登堡委员会”的支持。演讲者是人民党的成员之一哥廷根大学的珀西·施拉姆教授，他发表了一场平静的演讲，题为：“为什么会是兴登堡？”在讨论期间，当地的纳粹领袖恩斯特·吉尔曼发表了激烈的反对演讲。演讲结束的时候，所有出席的纳粹分子唱着《霍斯特·威赛尔之歌》离开了大厅。一个18岁的纳粹大喊着“该死的兴登堡”，因此他立即被逮捕了。 [24]

    其他的党派都不活跃。民族主义者在第二次选举中决定支持希特勒，为此他们仅举行了一场集会。很明显的是，这时有些人对德国国家人民党的策略有所怨言，因为其下属的“非党派”女性附属机构——“露易丝王后联盟”——在《诺特海姆最新消息》上刊登了如下独特的广告：

    露易丝王后联盟

    地方小组领袖号召其成员参加本周日举行的国家总统选举。

    虽然联盟官方保留了自己的声音，但在其体制的基础上行动起来却毫无压力，这一体制提供了强烈而固定的无党派身份，不管怎样，这并不意味着你不用投票。

    第二次选举也包含在为了人民的自由而与马克思主义的斗争中。因此，4月10日，每个人都要投票给哈尔茨堡阵线的候选人阿道夫·希特勒，无论哪一个国家党派的成员都会发现自己被吸引过来了。 [25]

    没有竞选运动并不意味着暴力气氛会减弱。到1932年为止，诺特海姆就像有两个武装阵营露宿在一个封闭的、紧张的区域里。就算常规的警方保持警觉，可以阻止绝大多数主要战斗，但是这样并不能消除个人暴力，这在两次选举之间几乎没有减少过。第一次选举的两天后，警方不得不去就业办事处营救被愤怒的人群包围的塔普曼（他参与了去年8月的“公投日打斗”，但还没有被抓起来）。就在警察到的时候，塔普曼正在用手杖打一个社会党人。人群一直跟着警察到了城市监狱，好不容易才被驱散。一周后，发生了15人的械斗，由于警察的迅速行动，才没有发展成一场大战。双方都随身携带了武器。在第二次选举投票的清早，一个纳粹因在诺特海姆的主街道朝一个共产主义者开枪而被逮捕。同一天，一个国旗队队员因携带一把军用手枪和五发子弹而被逮捕。 [26]

    在这种情况下，诺特海姆不允许进行任何的政治游行，这就阻止了纳粹分子再举行一场冲锋队的表演。不管怎样，国社党试图重复他们的“直到最后一分钟”的竞选策略。选举日前的一周举行了第一场群众集会，主角是在上一次竞选运动中发言的组合——克诺特和马德尔。这一次天气很好；他们的演讲高朋满座。两人都抨击了“马克思主义”，马德尔将之描述为（与社会党人的指控相对应）对女性尤其是母亲的威胁。克诺特进一步指出“马克思主义”是反国家的，而不是超越国家的，他声称兴登堡正在“被骗去拯救这一体制”。五天后，有一场“娱乐晚会”，还表演了四幕剧（《1914年，1918年，腐败，纳粹的胜利》）以及唱歌和跳舞。最后一场集会是选举前夜举行的，包含一场演讲，目标是纳粹从未做过特殊呼吁的唯一群体——领抚恤金者和战争孀妇。这些人免费入场，出席率很高。 [27]

    这是值得称赞的努力——四场集会，其中三场是在选举前的一周举行的——但是其中确实缺少上次竞选运动那样的吸引力。特别缺少的就是群众游行的景象。不管怎样，在4月10日的投票中，诺特海姆的纳粹分子比照一个月前的选举多获得了435张选票。纳粹所获选票中超过一半来自他们新赢得的民族主义党派的支持（240张选票）。兴登堡联盟失去了12张选票，而共产主义者失去了55张选票；所有这些选票都流向了希特勒，而且纳粹通过积极的竞选活动获得了106张新选票。兴登堡很顺利地连任了，但是从全国而言，纳粹在德国人中所获得的支持增加到了大约37%。

    这个难以置信的春天的选举活动还没有结束。还有新的普鲁士议会的选举，定在4月24日，大约有3/5的德国人会参加投票。

    社会民主党终于能为他们全心全意支持的候选人开展竞选运动了，他们开始认真地为布劳恩—泽韦林政府工作。两周内举行了两场集会，都获得了“诺特海姆钢铁阵线”的支持，都是在骑术大厅举行的，因为纳粹分子预先租赁的“1910年代圆顶”仍旧在有效期内。一千多人来参加了第一场集会，一个来自柏林的国会成员在会上就选举发表了演讲，而作为选举候选人的诺特海姆的卡尔·库埃尔富尔特抨击了“诺特海姆人的纳粹谎言”。第二场集会因为下雨而出席率很低。身为社会民主党国会代表的演讲者对比了普鲁士的三级投票和1932年的投票，劝告在场观众为社会民主党投票，以免失去所有已获得的好处。 [28]

    分裂党派中有两个也加入了这场竞选运动。国家党举行了题为“我们想要没有希特勒的普鲁士”的集会，但是唯一出席的人只有一群强壮的国旗队队员，他们将这场集会变成了一场反纳粹的示威游行。有了这次经历之后，国家党放弃了在诺特海姆的活动。 [29] 另一个在竞选运动中活跃的分裂党派是德国汉诺威党，这是一个暴躁而反动的国家右翼组织。他们竞选运动的口号是“反对普鲁士，反对德意志帝国”。 [30] 犹豫不决的德国民族主义政党也在两周的竞选运动期间举行了一场集会，强调其要求是平衡预算，结束社会民主党—中央党联盟在普鲁士的统治。 [31]

    纳粹分子并没有表现出期待中的疲惫感。在最终的总统选举四天后，他们就开始了第三场竞选活动，举行了一场群众集会，主角是戈特弗里德·菲德尔，他前年在诺特海姆做得非常好。广告发布了，题为“普鲁士密码”。观众很多，当菲德尔使用激烈的讽刺语言去抨击刚刚连任的兴登堡时，纳粹谄媚者们响起了不绝的喝彩声。一些城镇人对此的反应明显是消极的。 [32] 八天后，就在选举前，有一场决定性的集会，一名国会成员在会上全力抨击社会民主党。尽管当天下雨了，但依然满座。由此，在8周的竞选活动期间，纳粹分子一共召开了10次集会，每一场的出席率都很高。

    纳粹也对诺特海姆县的乡村要塞付出了很大的努力，在普鲁士议会竞选运动期间，他们至少举行了25场集会。 [33] 住在附近村镇的社会党人中几乎没人感觉受到威胁，以至于《人民报》在两周的普鲁士议会竞选运动期间至少三次提醒他们的读者，投票是秘密的。 [34] 在诺特海姆，紧张的政治活动在选举当天达到了高峰，冲锋队队员和国旗队队员之间爆发了一场大战。双方都在那天早上出去张贴选举海报了，当社会党人开始撕毁纳粹的海报时，发展成了涉及25人的打斗。双方都没有携带武器，但是他们很快就把拔出的栅栏当作武器了。与明确的警察命令相反，双方的准军事力量都在城镇中的不同地点保持着警戒状态，几分钟内，双方都增加了六七十人。幸运的是，警方及时赶到，遏制了大战的爆发，不过还是有几个人受伤严重。接着，五名国旗队队员因殴打罪被起诉，其中四人被无罪释放，第五个人获得了缓刑。这并没有结束破坏对手海报的行动，但是，这确实导致行动变得更加隐秘。 [35]

    投票结果与第二次总统选举的结果相比几乎没什么变化。总投票数只减少了15票，而纳粹党只失去了76张选票；换句话说，他们实际上紧紧抓住了之前在总统选举中所获得的所有成就。在总数为6 585张投票中，国社党总共获得了3 620张选票，现在得到了55%的诺特海姆人的支持。落后于他们的是社会民主党的2 024张选票，即31%的支持率（自1930年以来减少了222张选票）。剩下的14%分布于民族主义者、共产主义者和分裂党派中。

    正如这些数据显示的，纳粹的胜利是以中立和相对温和的右翼党派的牺牲为前提的。1928年，这些党派拥有诺特海姆差不多一半选民的支持率。但是，这些选民对不少于10个党派表示忠诚，包括像“农民、房屋和地主党派”这样内行人的组织。到1932年4月普鲁士议会选举时，这些党派的支持率减少到了一定的程度，它们所控制的选票不超过450张。到1932年夏天时，它们的选票减少到了200张，不过总的投票人数却增加了1 200多。它们从前的支持者们都投票支持纳粹了。

    在诺特海姆，最重要的小党派是人民党派，即德国人民党。1928年，其在规模上仅次于社会民主党，拥有834张选票。1930年，它比其他保守党派更好地抵挡住了纳粹的猛攻，只失去了46张选票。但是在普鲁士议会选举时，德国人民党也不得不向纳粹分子移交自己的选民了，只剩下154张选票。到1932年夏天，它又失去了一半的选票，只有69张选票的德国人民党变得完全无关紧要了。

    平时，德国人民党在诺特海姆是最受欢迎的中产阶级政党，这很可能是因为城镇中的公务员因素。德国人民党在现实中接受魏玛共和国，其通常不具有煽动性的特征以及与古斯塔夫·斯特莱斯曼 [36] 之间的关系，对牢固的市民群体而言是具有吸引力的。而德国人民党是特别资本主义和民族主义的。在诺特海姆，人民党的领导人物是非常可靠的市民：粮食磨坊的主管、《诺特海姆最新消息》的出版人和两名高级中学立备受尊敬的老师。在绝大多数诺特海姆人的眼中，以《诺特海姆最新消息》一贯冷静而相当温和的立场来看，德国人民党在本质上是中间派的。

    对诺特海姆的德国人民党伤害最大的是其对民主的矛盾态度和对社会党人的厌恶。当德国人民党像1930年9月选举中那样公开与纳粹分子对战时，它能留住其追随者。然而，第二年夏天，德国人民党加入了解散普鲁士议会的行动中，这就将它对社会民主党的敌意放置在了对纳粹分子的厌恶之上。一年后，德国人民党再次转变立场，他们与社会党人结盟，一起支持兴登堡。

    人民党派为1932年4月普鲁士议会选举所举行的集会很好地证明了它的基本矛盾。演讲者是一个退休的海军上将，他宣布反对分裂党派、肆无忌惮的激进宣传、纳粹分子和社会民主党。他特别反对共产主义者，反对“政治情绪”，他严厉地指责布吕宁不允许希特勒进入政府。完全不清楚他支持哪一方。 [36] 在接下来的竞选运动中，德国人民党更明确了。德国人民党想要的是基于总统权力的集权国家，这会“摧毁德国国会糟糕的党派政治” [37] 。

    德国人民党对民主事业的贡献确实是值得怀疑的。德国人民党确实反对纳粹分子，但主要是因为他们的“激进主义”。《诺特海姆最新消息》也为各种各样过分的行为喋喋不休。就像亚里士多德时代一样，这是个好观点，非常适合正常时期。但是此时是激进又过度的时期，正如纳粹集会的出席率所显示的那样。《诺特海姆最新消息》谨慎的温和态度主要是为了让其读者在晚餐后可以放松；它并不能有效地与纳粹主义作战。如果德国人民党及其机构奋力争取理性而进步的民主制度，那么国社党将会发现德国人民党是比社会民主党更为危险的对手。但是由于模糊的机会主义和盲目的“反马克思主义”，诺特海姆的德国人民党不仅无法解决纳粹威胁，而且很可能会拒绝承认诺特海姆中产阶级唯一可能的选择就是国社党。

    1928年，诺特海姆第三大的党派是民主党派。当时，它拥有大约500张选票，接近总投票数的10%。在这方面诺特海姆是个例外，因为从全国层面而言，民主党派的表现非常糟糕，以至于在纳粹选举浪潮之前，它就不复存在了。它曾经是魏玛共和国的非社会主义者、非天主教的支持者。随着民主党派的消亡，其成员根据他们对“马克思主义”的感情，一些人将选票投给了社会民主党，还有些人投给了德国人民党。 [38]

    民主党派中存在一个极端右翼组织，由此建立起一个成功的党派，叫作国家党。在诺特海姆，国家党是反纳粹的，而且也是集权、过度民族主义、反社会主义和反犹太人的——一种对希特勒运动的拙劣模仿。因为诺特海姆人更喜欢“原装内容”，国家党的投票总数从1930年的246张选票降到了普鲁士议会选举时期的105张。到1932年秋天，只有34人投票给国家党；它只是使选票结果混乱了。

    诺特海姆还有影响的最后一个分裂党派很特别，它位于原属于汉诺威王国的区域，能够反映当地居民的仇外心理。这就是德国汉诺威党或者圭尔夫派，它创立于俾斯麦时代，反对普鲁士在德国的统治。汉诺威的目标是“纠正1866年的罪过”，也就是将前汉诺威王国的领土从普鲁士分离出去（1866年普奥战争后合并的）。19世纪党派意识的残余与魏玛共和国的问题是没有关系的，这一点毫无疑问；不管怎样，德国汉诺威党确实对其他主题有看法，而且确实有一群追随者。其立场是民族主义、保守派、极权主义和反社会主义。其追随者是粗野、暴躁和守旧的。令人惊异的是德国汉诺威党有一批坚定的追随者。1928年，德国汉诺威党拥有455张选票——超过总数的8%以上。随着大萧条的现状影响到诺特海姆人，这些都迅速消失了。到1932年4月为止，德国汉诺威党在诺特海姆的城镇登记在册的选票只有62张，这代表着“汉诺威先行者”的中坚力量。在周围的乡村，德国汉诺威党给纳粹主义的甚至更多：其在诺特海姆县的投票数从1928年的5 900张下降到了1932年7月的200张，到那时为止，这些选票占据了纳粹所获得选票的1/4以上。 [39]

    德国汉诺威党对诺特海姆政治斗争的影响主要是消极的。与社会民主党相反，德国汉诺威党在解散普鲁士议会的行动中支持纳粹分子，不过他们在1932年投票给兴登堡了。总体上而言，德国汉诺威党公开反对独裁主义和激进主义，但即便是在1932年这样重要的一年，德国汉诺威党也按照其核心政纲，提议汉诺威从普鲁士分离出去。 [40]

    因此，由于德国汉诺威党为完全脱离现实的计划背书，它有400张选票流到了纳粹分子那里——这些追随者之所以会离开，是因为他们在政治上并不完全理解纳粹主义有什么错误。像其他的分裂党派一样，通过宣传民族主义和反社会主义，它为希特勒铺平了道路。实际上，分裂党派的主要贡献在1932年4月完全清楚了。这些是潜在的纳粹支持者的大本营。

    中产阶级党派抵抗纳粹选举攻势失败的原因是多重的，有一些已经提到了。但是，其中最重要的是他们的追随者对民主制度的承诺（或理解）不足。德国中产阶级几乎不想要无政府主义的独裁统治，但是，他们从俾斯麦和威廉二世时代继承的思想遗产使得他们并没有准备好理解纳粹主义意味着什么，或是开发出一套可替代的方案。在大萧条的可怕氛围中，由于意识形态贫乏，他们响应了构成纳粹宣传的标志的操纵。从这个意义上来说，纳粹主义的发展既是两代人的民主价值观被侵蚀的产物，也是希特勒掌权那些年一系列情况的结果。

    从1932年3月和4月举行的三场选举的投票总数可以发现决定性的事项。共产主义党派开始时有115张选票，然后升到了182张，在普鲁士议会选举中又降到了117张。从这一点来看，清楚的是，至少有65名诺特海姆人从共产主义者转向了纳粹。接下来的选举证明了有越来越多的人在两个党派之间来回转变立场。 [41]

    很明显的是，到1932年为止，至少有些诺特海姆人已经准备好接受独裁统治了，只要独裁统治能保证进行革命。

    八　分崩离析（1932年，夏）

    分崩离析，中心失控；
    世间一片混乱，
    模糊的血色潮流横行于世
    纯真的礼仪被淹没了；
    好人们缺乏信念，
    而坏人们充满了激情。
    ——W. B.叶芝：《基督再临》

    3月和4月的选举之后，诺特海姆相对平静下来，普通人（很可能投票给纳粹了）有时间思考自1930年以来大萧条对其城镇所造成的影响。从各种各样的新闻报道中浮现出的第一个事实是人们的消费变少了。在城镇的两所中学中，学生数量从1930年的472人下降到了1932年的387人。这显然是父母要省钱的问题，而同时小学人数却有所增加。 [37] 职业学校的学费只有一年16马克，自1930年以来入学人数下降了1/4。这是一种不祥的预兆，父母以牺牲孩子们未来的做法来省钱。 [1]

    诺特海姆人大幅削减不必要的开支。博物馆协会的秘书报告说其成员数量在1932年下降了12%，因为人们不愿意支付每年2马克的费用。 [2] 诺特海姆人拥有的轿车数量在1932年下降到了143辆，这一总数又回到了1929年的水平。 [3] 1930年至1932年期间，养犬许可证的收入下降了1/3，娱乐税收也是一样的，甚至在公共浴室售卖的澡票数量也减少了。城镇中人甚至节省了城镇公墓中的墓碑和墓地费用，1930年至1932年期间其收入几乎减少了一半。 [4]

    经济萎缩更为严重的表现是住房建设。1930年，新建了68所住房；而1932年，只有16所，其中12所是公共资助的。但是，存在着严重的住房短缺问题。早在1930年就有136个家庭需要新公寓，或者是因为他们和亲戚住在一起并住在危楼里，或者是登记为“流离失所者”并住在当局提供的住所里。后者中有些人住在旧军营营房里，每月要支付5马克。另一些人住在备用房子里，完全不用支付费用。1930年，每月平均有51个人是这样住的；1932年，平均人数上升到114人。将这些穷困的人压缩在一片小区域内不仅产生了极易引起争论的社会环境，也是不合理的。诺特海姆有很多大公寓因为太大了而难以租赁，如果把这些公寓再分割一下，“流离失所者”本来可以负担。 [5]

    更具讽刺意味的是，诺特海姆有很多可用的资本可以援助分割公寓或者建设新公寓。光是在城市储蓄银行就有至少1 500个账户超过100马克，还有800个超过500马克的账户。 [6] 除此以外，诺特海姆人的储蓄都投资在股票、债券和城镇中的其他银行了。诺特海姆人越是关注大萧条，他们越是为了存钱而减少消费。因此，大萧条影响了他们的情绪而不是他们的钱包，如果说诺特海姆的消费水平下降了的话，那并不是因为中产阶级受到了打击，而是因为他们藏起了自己的钱。 [7]

    有两群人受到了大萧条的伤害——与建筑相关的小工匠，还有工人们。建筑业的工匠们在1932年特别拮据，不过他们还能在缩减的基础上继续运营。到1932年夏天时，诺特海姆的工艺大师大会要求一项公共工程项目，并且严厉谴责非法竞争和资本主义体系。几乎没有工匠被赶出这个行业，除了本来就效率低下的人。 [8]

    城镇中工人的情况就不一样了，尤其是那些已经失业的工人。通常情况下，失业者会在冬天达到顶峰，在夏天减少。1932年夏天却没有迅速地减少；高失业率持续存在。统计数据中唯一的改变就是失业者数量和领取常规或“紧急”补助金者的数量之间的差距逐渐扩大了。而且，1932年6月，新规定生效了，即限制那些之前有固定薪资的人领取福利金。因此，许多年轻人被排除在了所有资助之外，这引发了激烈的抗议。 [9] 到7月为止，诺特海姆地区就业办公室中只有1/3登记在册的人实际上收到了救济金。剩下的大多数人长期没有工作，以至于他们一直受到官方慈善机构的保护——这些人已经忘记如何去工作了，这些人是没有未来的。

    对于这些人而言，1932年的夏天是干燥且贫瘠的，而非多产的。从字面上来看就是如此，7月，100年以来的高温纪录被打破了。那年夏天，小儿麻痹症的发病率也大幅提升。 [10]

    绝望必然会引起政治上的注意，甚至是在与社会民主党有密切联系的工人阶级中。1932年春天的选举显示出社会民主党在大萧条时代的第一次失利。虽然只失去了222名选民（是之前总数的1/11，而这些人中大部分明显投票给共产主义者了，不过还是有些人去了纳粹阵营），但是对一个稳定发展了几十年的党派而言是影响重大的。

    对于迟钝的社会党人领袖而言，解决方法必须直击问题的根源，因此只能采取大规模公共工程项目的方式。但是诺特海姆没钱。在大萧条的前两年，城镇预算是平衡的，但这只是因为城镇在持续地削减。到1932年为止，预算只有100万马克了，而1929年还有150万马克的。即便这样，1932年也有5万马克的赤字，啤酒税和人头税都增加了。不仅福利开销在持续增长，而且税收来源也威胁着他们的收益。1931年和1932年，营业税的百分比是一样的，但是1932年利润税的收益只有前一年的一半。德国的税收体系允许税务员在利润税不足的情况下按照资本控股来收税，这样一来就可以避免因利润税的下降影响到总的商业税收益，可以免除大约5%。但很明显的是，税收收入不能增加到满足日益高涨的福利成本，持续的资本税而非利润税是危险的。 [11] 城镇也无法为了公共事业项目借钱，因为到1932年，中央政府各种各样的紧急指令都禁止这么做。 [12]

    不过，社会党人一直坚称启动公共工程远远超越前几年已经做的事情。1932年4月，城市议会中的社会民主党派提出了一项新的详细的工程项目，主要是道路建设和其他只需要最少的材料支出并提供最多的就业机会的项目。中间派和右翼议会成员对有关城镇金融局势的看法持怀疑态度。5月，《人民报》刊登讽刺性的社论，要求实行社会党人的计划，并且质问之前为这种项目储存的资金都是怎么使用的。1932年6月，议会最终极为勉强地批准了涉及三项社会民主党计划的有限项目。 [13]

    同一年夏天，中央政府计划的工程项目开始实施。“志愿劳动服务”在诺特海姆建立了一个单位。它的第一个项目是大型体育场，工期是5 500天。这会减少该镇的失业人数，但是1932年时已经太晚了。而且，国家资助大型项目的可能性阻碍了地方上的行动。诺特海姆城市议会的持续讨论推迟了所有的工程项目，直到政府提供资金支持为止。他们在1933年1月获得了资助——在希特勒成为总理两周前。 [14]

    最有希望的公共工程计划来自失业者自己。这是“移居俱乐部”开发的，该组织于1932年春天在诺特海姆成立。该计划是要在归属于地方修道院办公室的荒置土地上建造廉价的独栋房子，雇用失业工人做这项工作。建造房子的工人们之后可以住在这些房子里。一个失业建筑师画了很容易建造的房子蓝图，只需要使用很少的材料。如果城市可以为每栋房子提供材料和500马克，那么中央政府将会借给每位移居者2 500马克。唯一的问题就是修道院管理层只有拿到钱才会放弃土地，而国家只有拥有自由土地才会借出钱。 [15]

    8月，僵局被打破了，诺特海姆城市议会为第一批30栋房子投入了资金，不过，必须要保证的是每栋房子的花费必须控制在政府借款的范围内。城市也同意提供免费的沙子、碎石和森林木材。议会中的右翼成员增加了一个附带条件，就是其他的材料必须从诺特海姆商人那里购买。下一步就是从城市议会那里获得批准，议会中的社会民主党—中间派联盟都支持这项计划。但是纳粹却非常反对。

    城市议会中的纳粹领袖指责全部移居计划是“社会主义的”，提出无限期地推迟考虑该计划。结果引发了激烈的争议，整个社会民主党派一度因抗议纳粹分子所使用的语言而离开房间。当时，纳粹分子要求迅速进行投票，否决该计划。

    这些策略后来受到了中间党派的挑战，在第二轮投票中，该计划被批准了。一个社会民主党人提议为无力偿还贷款的人做担保，由于纳粹党人的反对而失败了，因为这项提议需要2/3的大多数人同意。在这一点上，卡尔·库埃尔富尔特爆发了，他反对纳粹的演讲非常激烈，以至于县长不得不召集警察来阻止武力威胁。 [16]

    纳粹分子后来声称他们实际上是支持这项移居计划的，但是时机还不成熟。就县里为移居提供担保而言，是对的，因为当时该县有超过20万马克的难以抵消的赤字，而且鉴于县财政即将崩溃，只能向普鲁士政府求助。赤字主要是由于高涨的福利成本。 [17]

    由于诺特海姆县已经拒绝了，现在就轮到城镇来担保这些贷款了。社会党人再次积极地支持这项计划，而右翼则反对。卡尔·库埃尔富尔特号召大家注意迫切的住房短缺问题，指出即便是一笔小支出，也会对城镇的经济有所帮助。右翼反对移居的唯一理由就是孩子们需要走过1英里才能到学校。在公务员党的支持下，社会民主党打败了城市议会中的右翼，城镇变成了移居的赞助人。 [18]

    但这时已经是1932年秋天了；时间越来越短，工程却还没有开始。失业者不得不靠着希望而活着，直到第二年春天。那时，纳粹分子已经掌权了，它推动了移居项目，并声称该项目的成功都是纳粹的功劳。

    如果说城镇的工人们对他们的经济困境感到绝望，那只是故事的一半。还有一半是纳粹分子因在春天的选举中获胜而激动不已，而他们在诺特海姆拥有绝对多数的武装，于是，他们开始对社会民主党的追随者施加无情的政治和经济压力，这是社会党人无力抵挡的。

    这一过程是更加折磨人的，因为1932年春天开始，反纳粹分子的希望被德意志政府的行动瞬间点燃了。4月，布吕宁内阁发布解散冲锋队的命令。前一天，《人民报》刚刚就冲锋队队员发表了如下意见：

    在《听！听！》上，我们读到了一个便签，是希特勒让诺特海姆冲锋队承袭旧汉诺威皇家普鲁士军重骑兵军团的传统。应该笑还是哭？冲锋队的队伍中满是盗贼、骗子和更坏的人。旧卫兵们如果知道的话，一定会把他们都赶出去。 [19]

    第二天，冲锋队正式被禁止。在诺特海姆，得到国家部队支持的警察突袭了纳粹总部，搜查了冲锋队和党卫军领袖的家。他们并没有发现武器，不过要不是一个警察在突袭之前几个小时向诺特海姆党卫军的首领告密的话，警方本会有所发现的。 [20] 社会党人满意地看到纳粹的赈济处即冲锋队营房关闭了，自前年秋天一直飘荡在诺特海姆上空的纳粹旗帜被警方拉下来了。 [21]

    高兴还太早了。只过了几天，警方就向纳粹分子承诺重开他们的赈济处，纳粹旗帜又一次马上就升起了。而且，冲锋队只是名义上解散了。解散命令发布还不到一周，《人民报》就发现：“之前的紧急命令看起来对诺特海姆没有任何影响，当地的冲锋队、希特勒青年团和党卫军依旧穿着制服在城镇中闲逛。普鲁士内政部长的长臂何时才能伸到诺特海姆？” [22]

    虽然如此，社会民主党觉得有理由进行大规模的五一国际劳动节庆祝活动。国旗队的军乐队一大早就沿着全城镇游行，以此提醒人们今天究竟是什么日子。城镇乐队在市集广场上演奏了更多的音乐，下午，庄严的游行队伍蜿蜒地穿过城镇，有很多旗帜和横幅，一直走到啤酒花园。在那里，工人们听着人民合唱团演唱的歌曲，看着社会党人青年团体表演的杂技，喝着很多的啤酒。反对资本主义的演讲给德国人和国际社会主义带来了响亮的欢呼声。《人民报》将整个事件解释为“工人们对抗纳粹主义斗争的转折点” [23] 。

    5月的第一个星期，国社党的活动很克制，但并不是因为与社会民主党的交战。其中一个原因是春天时一系列繁忙的竞选活动所带来的疲惫感和混乱感。另一个原因也许是贫穷：4月和5月，诺特海姆地方小组既没有向纳粹党上级组织汇报，也没有支付要求的费用——诺特海姆县几乎有一半的地方小组都有这种玩忽职守的现象。 [24] 过度依赖未来增长的消费行为让诺特海姆的纳粹分子尝到了恶果。由此，他们一直负担着债务，直到希特勒建立起独裁统治时，才解决了他们的财政问题。

    但即便是纳粹减少努力了，也并不是完全不活跃了。5月第一周，他们举行了一场相对没那么政治化的“5月步行”活动，有250名男性、女性和孩子去诺特海姆的森林远足旅行，之后在傍晚的时候回到城市公园，喝咖啡，吃蛋糕。虽然一周后举行的纳粹第二场集会被大胆地宣传为“战斗仍在继续”，但是会上只讨论了纳粹分子会如何通过轻度通货膨胀信贷项目来解决失业问题。 [25] 诺特海姆的暴力行为也减少了，但是5月中旬还是发生了一场八人打斗，其中一人受伤严重，6月，一个纳粹把一个年轻人打到失去意识了。 [26] 然而，5月末，希望的序曲终结了，纳粹的主宰力量再次向前推动。

    在整个国家层面，容克 [38] 和军事领袖的阴谋导致布吕宁辞职。冯·施莱歇尔将军 [39] 保证了右翼政权的任命，冯·帕彭 [40] 成了没有国会支持的内阁总理。冯·帕彭的第一批行动之一就是解除对冲锋队的禁令，另外他还撕毁了禁止纳粹分子穿制服的命令。

    在诺特海姆，纳粹分子选择在1932年春末将社会民主党驱逐出其权力附属职位，尤其是学校咨询委员会。这是一个有效的攻击，因为社会民主党一直担心诺特海姆的学校成分。早在1930年12月，《人民报》就指出高中的学生们经常以“希特勒万岁！”来问候彼此。10个月后，《人民报》报道了两个纳粹化的高中学生将一颗臭气弹扔进了开着窗户的房子里。该报评论道：“校方将如何处理孩子们头脑里的所有纳粹思想？” [27] 尽管高中校长禁止学生们行纳粹礼，地方政府禁止学生们成为希特勒青年团成员，但是社会民主党并没有放松其担忧之情。1931年年末，《人民报》指控第一市立中学为“纳粹大本营”。它暗示有几个教师是纳粹分子，并指出学校周围的建筑和路灯柱“装饰着纳粹标志”。 [28] 因此，正是在社会党人非常担心纳粹教师影响的时候，纳粹决定将社会党人从学校咨询委员会驱逐出去。

    1932年4月初，社会民主党发起了一项清除学校里纳粹教师的运动。《人民报》指责第一市立中学的教师海因里希·沃格是激进的纳粹分子，他读《听！听！》，在课上教政治，在黑板上写纳粹口号——这些都是事实。 [29] 因为普鲁士的教师加入国社党是违法的，所以这变成了严重的问题。几天后，《人民报》又抨击了另外两名教师，指控其中一人在凌晨3点喝醉了，踉跄着穿越诺特海姆的街道时，大喊着：“希特勒万岁！”还指控另一名教师在上课时行纳粹礼并且允许学生们在学校远足时携带纳粹三角旗。后一项指控是有目击证人的。 [30] 4月末，城市议会中的社会党人正式要求将沃格和第一市立中学的另一名纳粹教师作为危险分子开除。然而，市长认为这一行为超越了议会的权限。 [31]

    如果社会党人认为这些曝光将会为他们赢得中产阶级的支持，那他们就错了。社会民主党试图为新的学校咨询委员会选举列出一个普通的候选人名单，但是被拒绝了。正如《人民报》所说的：

    中产阶级已经选定了一份“基督教的—民族的”候选人名单，几乎全部由纳粹分子组成，其中也有些是转投纳粹的前共产主义者。这自然引起了工人们的反对。 [32]

    社会民主党质疑第一和第二市立中学的选举，他们两所学校的候选人名单被称为“社会的—共和政体的进步”。《诺特海姆最新消息》和《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》向社会党人施加压力。两者都报道了社会民主党向城市议会提议削减该镇对路德派教会的补贴；两者还都报道了（在当地新闻版块）社会民主党在普鲁士议会中投票赞成共产主义者的建议，即向所有收入12 000马克以上的人收税。 [33]

    纳粹分子发起了攻击。5月末，一个路德派牧师，同时也是纳粹党的国会成员，在一场群众集会上发表讲话，他严厉地抨击了社会民主党，要求在德国境内将其定为非法者。除了宣称宗教支持纳粹主义，他还坚称德国军队是希特勒运动强有力的支持者。一周后，在“1910年代圆顶”有一场“娱乐晚会”，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》报道称，这场晚会是“真正德国化的”。投票前的一周，纳粹分子公开表示了对年轻人的关心，他们在诺特海姆举行了希特勒青年团会议，还有游行、乐队演奏和体育比赛。之后，在选举前夜，另一个路德派牧师在群众集会上就基督教的—民族的候选人名单发表讲话。演讲者宣称自由主义和社会主义正在毒害着青年人，“福音派（新教）和德意志民族密不可分”，而“在国家社会主义运动中，基督教将会庆祝它的重生”。集会以演唱《霍斯特·威赛尔之歌》并重复高呼“万岁”[41] 而结束。参加投票的人很多。 [34]

    两所学校的投票竞争很激烈。在位于山坡处住宅区的第一市立中学，纳粹分子赢得了14个代表中的10个席位。在位于铁轨北边的第二市立中学，投票结果是分裂的，社会党人和基督教的—民族的候选人分别赢得了五个代表席位。 [35] 社会民主党的无能已经在自己的领域内显现出来了。第二天，也就是6月22日，为了庆祝旧日耳曼部落的夏至节日，纳粹分子在诺特海姆县举行了群众游行。来自三个县的三个乐队和1 200名冲锋队队员一起创造了一个令人印象深刻的事件。 [36] 不到一个星期，诺特海姆地方小组就急忙写信给省党部领袖，想要更多的申请表格以分发给急着加入纳粹党的诺特海姆人。 [37]

    纳粹在学校选举中的胜利令人沮丧，但对社会党人而言还不是灾难性的。严重的问题是纳粹的经济压力。诺特海姆社会党人的核心力量是铁路工人们。1930年，在工人委员会成员的选举中，社会党人工会以10：1的绝对大多数获胜。1932年春天，纳粹分子开始削弱工会，强迫工人们至少在表面上接受纳粹主义。

    正在发生的事情的第一个迹象出现在5月中旬《人民报》的报道中。诺特海姆铁路办公室开除了很多人，其中有些人在这里工作了长达20年。终身制领薪水的工人们被迫签署同意书，变为领小时工资的工人，并且不再是终身制。九人拒绝签署，马上就被开除了。同时，薪水降到了每小时50芬尼。 [38] 前铁路工人赫尔曼·舒尔策描述了这个过程：

    1932年春天，纳粹分子第一次试图把铁路工人们组织起来。纳粹主义已经在管理层、控制室、办事处工人们等那里有着很大的影响力了。纳粹主义从高层职员开始，向下层做工作。从1931年开始，职员们发现那些属于褐衫队的工人们得到了特殊待遇……经常发生激烈的争吵甚至是打斗。当我和工人们讨论反对纳粹分子的时候，主管要求我上班时间不要讲话……1932年春末，所有的社会党工人都被迫签署了放弃终身制的同意书。他们中的大多数人宁可签字也不想失去工作。压力开始施加到其他工人身上，最后一步就是“要么加入（纳粹工会），要么被开除”。我是唯一一个坚持下来并且（公开）留在社会民主党的人。 [39]

    这一进程持续了整个夏天，9月开始了新一轮的解雇，包括舒尔策在内。由于舒尔策的顽固，没有任何文件说明，他就被解雇了，这就意味着他既不能找新工作，也不能领取失业救济金。调车场主任曾亲自向舒尔策承诺，只要他加入纳粹阵营就可以保住工作，但是舒尔策认为自己处境安全，因为作为工人委员会成员，从法律上而言，他并不能被解雇。可当事情发生的时候，工会的全国办事处无力改变整个进程，这让其他工人认为他们是毫无防御能力的。 [40]

    这场斗争是无声的，因为社会党人明显不愿意暴露他们的弱势，而《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》刊登了官方的解释，即“季节性裁员”。自由工会在7月安排了一场群众集会，会上的工人们期待着可以就这一问题进行某些抵抗。与此相反，演讲只是强调了保卫共和国和最终实现社会主义的必要性。唯一与诺特海姆铁路工人们的迫切要求相关的是一个工会部长提出的无产阶级团结的号召。 [41]

    铁路调车场的第二次解雇浪潮之后，在工人委员会的终身雇员中举行了选举。投票的前一天，地方铁路办公室宣布其会在诺特海姆地区雇用1 000名工人以替代85%的被解雇的人。在选举中，纳粹代表赢得了六个席位中的四个，社会党人一个都没获得。整个地区的结果都是一样的，一个即将成为第三帝国中“德国工人阵线”地方领袖的人被提名为诺特海姆的地方代表。1932年11月，诺特海姆铁路车站雇用了30名新工人。 [42]

    总体的经济形势让社会党人很无助。成千上万名工人正在等着每一份工作，罢工是不可能出现的。即便是舒尔策那种情况明确的法律诉讼也会因缺乏证据而失败，工人们感到恐慌。结果，社会民主党采取的唯一行动就是号召抵制纳粹的商店。《人民报》公布了一系列由纳粹分子所开的商店名称，并且讽刺性地提议道：“拥护共和政体的人会确保这些商店幸存下来。” [43] 抵制运动并没能推行开来。因为几乎所有的诺特海姆商人都是纳粹分子，工人们几乎没有选择余地。另一方面，追随社会民主党的贫穷工人们根本没有以抵制措施来施加决定性影响的经济力量，而最具政治意识的人早已通过他们的消费者合作社进行购物了。 [44]

    不管怎样，几乎没有人能抵制铁路，这里正是工人们受苦的地方。工人们因自身经历而产生的无助感在1932年夏天转变成了一种愤怒和失望的情绪，最终使他们产生了一种听天由命的感觉，而这最终帮助诺特海姆的纳粹分子在1933年后毫无阻力地就掌握了权力。

    那年夏天，社会党人受到了决定性的打击。冯·帕彭对冲锋队的放任态度难以避免地导致在德国出现暴力行为的浪潮。冯·帕彭以这一点为借口，于7月20日在普鲁士发动政变。社会民主党—中央党政府被罢免，取而代之的是一个极权委员会。社会党人选择将这件事告上法庭，而不是与之战斗。德国民主堡垒就这样不费一枪就被攻破了。

    纳粹分子不仅在1932年夏天攻击了社会民主党的下属要塞，而且还利用他们新获得的绝对多数席位渗入了保守的公民协会。这是简单的：诺特海姆的地方小组只要求每个党派成员加入公民协会，这样瞬间就获得了绝对多数席位。 [45] 自从社会党人迫使议员马纳辞职之后，7月，他们选出了一个新的执行委员会，大部分的诺特海姆纳粹分子将会发现这是正确的。九名新当选的执行委员会成员中至少有六名是纳粹，包括主席、副主席、秘书和会计。新主席的第一个行动就是号召公民协会的所有成员在即将到来的国会选举中投票支持国社党。新的副主席就是纳粹党在诺特海姆地方小组的领袖恩斯特·吉尔曼，他补充说纳粹分子是中产阶级可靠的保护者，而民族主义党派是由“大资本”控制着的。他的这一声明赢得了很多喝彩，但是其中很可能没有民族主义者的参与，而他们是当时这一组织的支柱。 [46]

    纳粹进攻的最后一个层面在1932年7月到来了，就是国会选举。投票定在7月31日，但是纳粹为他们所设计好的最协调的努力所做的准备很早就开始了。6月20日，省党部领袖将来自慕尼黑国家总部的要求传达给诺特海姆地方小组，告诉他们在社会民主党控制的健康保险办事处存在不当行为，自此，“腐败”成了这场竞选运动的中心议题。（诺特海姆的纳粹分子只能汇报说他们城镇的健康保险办事处实际上是由社会民主党控制的，其腐败在于雇用了一个社会民主党人，而他之前被另一项公务员工作解雇了。 [47] ）此后不久，出现了如何开展这场竞选运动的明确指示：组织、金融援助、口号和需要强调的中心议题——腐败。

    这一指示传达给了大区中的600名主要纳粹分子，包括15名县领袖、430名地方小组领袖和120名大区演讲者。其中包含了利用新技巧的明确指令：根据成员的特定领域向选中的投票者寄送手写信，针对不同群体有不同的文本。为战争孀妇、领抚恤金者、战争伤员、乡村工人、共产主义者、女性、年轻工人、工会成员、中产阶级、中产阶级的妻子和“才智过人的女性”提供了示范文本。每一份文本都手抄在很好的信纸上——让其看起来像是原始文本而非复本，这样一来，接收者会确信这是私人信件——并由同一领域的某些人签名。因此，一个纳粹工会成员会写信给另一个工会成员，附上：“正如你所知道的，我对政治不太感兴趣，但是这次我想投票给希特勒，因为我厌倦了所有腐败……” [48] 诺特海姆地方小组命令其各种各样的组织成员都努力做这项工作，在选举运动结束时，合适的信件已经送到了城镇中的每一个选民手中。 [49]

    除此以外，纳粹分子挨家挨户地发传单，还有平时的群众集会和冲锋队队员游行，这些在过去两年经检验表现良好。即便是这样，随着投票日迫近，大区的演讲者组织还是紧张起来了。7月中旬，瓦尔特·施泰内克惊慌地写信给省党部领袖，因为他没有“大牌”演讲者了，他担心社会民主党和德国国家人民党在诺特海姆的竞选活动会比纳粹分子的更加活跃。 [50]

    选举运动产生了一个可预见的影响：暴力行为。

    1932年持续的政治活动已经将城镇带到了崩溃的边缘。政治分裂波及了生活的各个方面。学校也因此陷入了混乱。家庭因为纳粹主义问题而分裂。夏天时，希特勒青年团的男孩子们在集会后不敢独自回家，只有带着反纳粹的标志（比如“钢铁阵线”的三个箭头）才能避免被攻击。政治暴力变得司空见惯。 [51]

    1932年7月，不仅选举运动到来了，潮湿闷热的天气也来了。冲锋队最近被允许穿他们的制服了，因而一直处于备战状态。“挨饿受冻地度过了”冬天的社会主义工人发现连短期工作都找不到。整个德国爆发了大规模的暴力行为。7月1日至7月20日，普鲁士爆发了461场政治骚乱，其中有82个人被杀，400多人受伤严重。 [52]

    在诺特海姆，傲慢自大的情绪环绕着希特勒的追随者们。冲锋队自己已经准备好了武装起义。《人民报》在6月的时候报道称，80名穿着制服的纳粹分子正在诺特海姆的森林里进行军事演习，他们殴打了一个国旗队队员，当时他“碰巧晚上出来散步”。诺特海姆的警察局长要求采取行动。 [53] 第一次的纳粹竞选集会强调了制服的妙处：

    1932年7月2日，星期六，在“1910年代圆顶”。晚上军队的游行和冲锋队征召新成员。军队游行的音乐将由44名接受了优秀的冲锋队82分队的音乐训练的人演奏。***所有的（娱乐活动）表演都由冲锋队负责。***冲锋队分队的某位领袖将就“防卫的意愿——通向自由之路”发表演讲。

    冲锋队是1914年精神的传承者。

    冲锋队拥有英勇的心。

    晚会将以穿越城市的宣传游行作为开端。

    第一党卫军82分队

    冲锋队82分队

    在斯潘瑙斯的店里和国社党的商业办公室有预售票。 [54]

    这一事件实现了纳粹希望500多名冲锋队和党卫军成员举行游行的期望。“1910年代圆顶”挤满了热情的观众，他们为冲锋队的表演（体操表演）喝彩，尤其是音乐表演，按照《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》所说，“拥有真正的民族主义的光环和崇高的精神”。

    四天后，纳粹分子召开了另一场针对即将到来的选举的群众集会。演讲者是一个国会议员，主题是“布吕宁——从此不再！冯·帕彭——过渡时期！给希特勒权力！”。演讲者明确地将纳粹分子从冯·帕彭的政府中分离出来，坚称“没有社会主义，民族主义是不可能的”。他也发誓希特勒会合法掌权，而“11月罪人 [42] 和社会民主党杀人犯”将“为他们的罪行负责”。“1910年代圆顶”响起了喝彩声，结束时回荡着《霍斯特·威赛尔之歌》。 [55]

    社会党人努力地保持工人阶级的忠诚，阻挡纳粹浪潮，以极端的战斗状态回应一切。冲锋队的“军事游行之夜”之后的那天，诺特海姆“钢铁阵线”举行了一场对抗游行，以城镇乐队、两个军乐队和许多装饰着三个箭头的旗帜为首。在市集广场上的演讲又是关于捍卫共和国的。五天后，共产主义者也举行了一场宣传游行，有50人和一些红旗。第二天，社会党人又举行了游行，是由“钢铁阵线”发起的大规模示威游行。战斗情绪也反映在这次事件的宣传广告中：

    致诺特海姆县所有的拥护共和政体者！7月9日星期六晚上7点，在诺特海姆：诺特海姆县拥护共和政体的工人进行反法西斯主义的示威游行。所有的街道都属于拥护共和政体者！因此，所有的拥护共和政体者必须参加游行！ [56]

    游行持续了一个半小时，由30个举着旗帜的人和两个军乐队带领。在市集广场上，一个演讲者严厉谴责冯·帕彭政府，在结束的时候吼道：“在国会选举中，我们不能被纳粹打败！” [57] 第二天，又举行了一场群众集会，这一次是由失业者和社会党人所控制的专设的失业者委员会发起的。接下来的一周，表达了为失业者增加工资的要求，制订了在诺特海姆进行大规模抗议游行的计划。 [58]

    7月10日是有纪念意义的，不只是因为社会民主党的集会，还因为这一天在诺特海姆，被压抑很久的暴力行为终于爆发了。一大清早，六个纳粹分子殴打了一个佩戴“三支箭”别针的“钢铁阵线”成员。这为真正的战斗做好了准备，战斗在当晚7点爆发。大约25名国旗队队员从就业办事处出发朝诺特海姆行进，就在跨过“长桥”的时候，他们遇到了从对面方向过河的60名冲锋队队员。两支队伍的首领平安无事地擦身而过，其身后的队伍却互相咒骂起来。“长桥”上的通道很窄，辱骂迅速地变成了全面战斗。双方使用了棍棒、手杖、自行车打气筒和其他的简易武器。在桥北面旧军营居住的“流离失所者”看到正在发生的事情，冲过来帮助国旗队队员。在警方赶到并终止打斗之前，有大约80人正在用石头殴打纳粹分子。即便是警方努力让对立的双方分开，依旧发生了个人打斗，人们开始越过警方的头顶将石头扔向冲锋队的队伍。这一直持续到一个警察朝人群开枪才结束。双方终于被分开了，两名党卫军成员破坏了就业办事处那边的桥，人群将他们手中最后的石头扔了出去。党卫军急忙撤退了。

    这场战斗的结果是有三人住院，多人受轻伤。在受伤的国旗队队员穿过诺特海姆之前，战斗的消息已经引发了一群人的敌意，他们在去医院的路上一直被嘲笑。

    在接下来的审判中，也就是一个月后在诺特海姆举行的，九个国旗队队员被指控使用致命武器进行攻击。其中四人无罪释放，其他人被判处二到六个月的刑期。在传达判决的时候，法官宣布双方都有错，遗憾的是，没有充足的证据能起诉冲锋队中的一些人。 [59]

    “长桥”战斗的四天后，也就是7月14日的“巴士底日”[43] ，失业者进行了抗议示威游行。尽管是社会民主党的计划，但是共产主义者和纳粹分子都渗入了队伍中。前一天，共产主义者举行了一场100人参加的游行，发表了演讲，呼吁与社会民主党团结起来共同对抗法西斯主义。那天晚上，警方在诺特海姆森林里逮捕了两名共产主义者，两人都携带着左轮手枪和子弹。 [60]

    7月14日，有500名男性和女性参加了失业者的示威游行。这立即就被报纸称为“饥饿游行”。游行事先制订的目标是抗议过低的失业救济金并向城市议会提出具体要求，比如免费洗浴和终止义务劳动。

    在穿过诺特海姆的游行之后，队伍在市政厅聚集，他们举着标牌、海报和一面黑色旗帜（象征着普遍存在的悲伤和极其痛苦的情绪，至今仍旧在整个欧洲使用）。在游行期间，失业者越来越焦躁不安，开始大喊“饥饿！”和“给我们面包和工作！”。在市政厅，呼喊声传到市长那里，要求他出来和他们谈话。他拒绝了队伍的请求之后，怨愤声四起，一个人大喊道：“我们应该如何对待这个市长？”人群大喊着回应：“绞死他！”之后，最前面的人走上台阶，进入市政厅。

    警察立即抽出他们的警棍，有些人被抓住和控制住了，还有些人被殴打了，人群向前涌去，有一个人大喊着：“无论付出什么代价，我们都要进去！”一个警察掏出了枪，一个示威者对他说：“你只有一次开枪的机会！”

    进入市政厅后，失业者不知道接下来能做些什么事情。人群发生了混乱，警方阻止他们向一楼以上的地方前进。示威游行最初的领导者之一，也就是工会秘书和社会民主党的地方领袖发表了一个简短的演讲，劝说人们离开大楼。人们出去之后再次聚集起来，有序地朝着县辖区行进，县长现身并且告诉他们，他本想提高失业救济金，但是县现在几乎要破产了。于是，游行队伍解散了。

    第二天，失业者仍旧心情不好。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》写了一篇关于这件事的讽刺性文章，生气的人们聚集到该报的编辑部，开始敲窗。警方及时到达，从而阻止了暴力的发生。这天稍晚的时候，参与“长桥”战斗的一个国旗队队员出院了，立刻被一个纳粹分子袭击，惨遭殴打。同一天，两名女性之间还爆发了政治争吵。

    八名“饥饿游行者”后来在诺特海姆的巡回法院接受审判。审判拖到了11月，越来越超过限度了。法庭不得不反复地清场，法官一度威胁说要逮捕所有的观众。后来，他以蔑视法庭罪审判了其中一个被告。纳粹分子和共产主义者都提供了辩护律师。有七名被告被认定为有罪，被判处6到9个月的刑期。宣布审判结果的时候，一个共产主义被告在被告席上大声呼喊着：“德国的‘下层人民’很快就会进行另一场审判。你们可以锁住我的身体，但我的灵魂是自由的！”这时，法庭的观众席上唱响了《国际歌》，这是非常困难的，因为警方会清场并且把人群驱散到外面去。 [61]

    “长桥”骚乱和“饥饿游行”之后，纳粹分子变得相当沉寂。他们唯一的活动发生在7月18日，冲锋队的合唱团在为一名冲锋队队员及其新娘演唱完《霍斯特·威赛尔之歌》后，举行了穿越诺特海姆县的宣传游行。 [62] 减少活动是因为他们在准备纳粹项目中的一场最大事件——阿道夫·希特勒的演讲。

    1932年夏天，阿道夫·希特勒成了德国主流媒体的明星，希特勒的演讲就像组合狂欢节、摇滚音乐会和大联盟冠军赛一样。演讲吸引了寻求神秘交流的信仰者、刚刚经历了所发生的一切的有求知欲的人以及想要分享其他人都做了些什么的好奇者。一宣布举行演讲，票立刻就被卖光了；通常情况下，票只在当地纳粹重要人物中谨慎分配，由他们加价出售。早些时候，瓦尔特·施泰内克请求省党部领袖将一部分票发给第一次世界大战中的伤残人士，他非常幸运，被分配到了11张2马克一张的票。 [63] 施泰内克还在6月中旬写信给大区，当时希特勒的行程已经定好了，哥廷根附近的城镇被挑选为希特勒的演讲地之一，他在信中指出了本应选择诺特海姆的原因。 [64]

    但是，希特勒的演讲地点不能轻易地选取；1932年，地方上的纳粹官员经常事先收到一套完整的印刷的指示说明，是关于如何举行希特勒的集会的，内容非常详细，包括希特勒要求的矿泉水牌子，还有一些奇怪的要求，比如天气热的时候，希特勒要求讲台上必须放一碗冰，这样他可以凉手。 [65] 希特勒的演讲也是一项重要的财政事业和主要的创收事业。1932年7月21日，在哥廷根举行的演讲花费了11 470帝国马克，但是卖出了15 545张票（每张票高达3马克），总收入达19 222帝国马克，净收益7 751帝国马克。即便是元首抽取一半的收益，仍旧能挣很多钱。 [66] 而重点是无论希特勒出现在哪里，他的演讲都极大地推动了纳粹的竞选运动。

    希特勒将要发表演讲的哥廷根城镇距离诺特海姆10英里。为了将诺特海姆人和其他人带到这里，铁路安排了几辆专列。集会将在露天举行，整个空间可以容纳15 000名观众。希特勒之前是威廉·弗里克教授，教授在晚上8点开始演讲，场地3点就开放。希特勒会坐飞机来。

    下午很早的时候，几乎所有的座位都坐满了。演讲者的讲台上布置了很多纳粹标志和旗帜，讲台后面就能看到旗帜。当地冲锋队队员作为引座员，而党卫军和希特勒青年团成员成群地站着。作为一种荣耀，在战争中受伤的人被带到了前排的特殊席位；之后，病人被抬了进来，包括（据称）一个声称最后心愿就是见到希特勒的濒死的人。等待期间，气氛越来越紧张。突然，8点的时候，人们呼喊起来，因为希特勒的飞机越过了布伦瑞克，他早些时候在这里发表过演讲。人们高喊着：“万岁！”当飞机飞向机场时，他们挥舞着手帕。

    之后，弗里克教授开始演讲。“如果警方说他们不能保护冲锋队，我们将会自我保护。只要给我们多年来我们的敌人对付我们时所使用的武器就行了。”9点45分，他结束了演讲，人们一边等待着，一边不停地低声抱怨着。开始下起了细雨。突然，希特勒出现在了讲台上，迎接他的是欢呼声和自发的“万岁”。说了几句粗话后，他命令把讲台上的雨伞拿走，这样一来，他就像观众们一样没有任何庇护地站在细雨中了。他大概说了如下的话：

    各国历史上都会迎来各种各样的决定性时刻。即将到来的投票并不只是一场选举，而是两个世界之间的抉择——国际主义的世界和真正德国精神的世界。人们必须在被阶级、党派、宗教分裂的德国和拥有一种意志、一个目标的德国之间做出抉择。过去的13年带来了痛苦、毁灭。本没有人能摧毁国家财富，创造数百万的失业者。所有的成分都有他们的党派，只有德国人民没有。但是国社党永远不会放弃斗争，因为只有国社党拥有勇气，并且愿意采取行动。

    他离开讲台时，响起了热烈的掌声，之后又被高呼“万岁”的声音打断了，最后，人们自发地唱起《霍斯特·威赛尔之歌》。“每个人都浑身湿透地回了家，但心中充满了希望，”《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》报道称，“铁路车站附近的路灯都熄灭了——我们听到马克思主义者也‘断电了’。” [67]

    尽管在希特勒的演讲之后，任何其他的事情都会变得扫兴，但是纳粹分子仍旧不得不以选举集会来填充7月剩下的10天。他们举行了两场集会，每一场都不出彩。7月25日，一个维也纳的纳粹被邀请到诺特海姆，发表了反对犹太人的讲话，选举前夜在卡特莱拍卖大厅举行了“娱乐晚会”，播放了希特勒、戈林 [44] 和施特拉塞的“有声”影片。 [68] 为了填补空白，纳粹分子在他们的报纸《听！听！》上发表了诽谤性的指控。

    媒体的谩骂很可能已经到了收效递减的阶段。一个恰当的例子就是一年前，一群在诺特海姆邮政局工作的办事员被《人民报》贴上了纳粹分子的标签，但是随后该报就撤销了指控。而现在，1932年7月，纳粹分子抨击同样一群人为社会党人。这群办事员最终对纳粹分子提起了法律诉讼，经公证人证实，他们不属于任何党派，因而恢复了平静。 [69]

    但是纳粹的诽谤在诺特海姆健康保险办事处起效了。这一机构由社会党人管理，自1931年8月《听！听！》第一期发行以来，办事处就一直承受着纳粹分子的抨击。在1932年7月31日国会选举前的一周，健康保险办事处的董事会发表了一封公开信，解释其对《听！听！》发起的诉讼已经失败了，因为法庭裁定读者们不可能从纳粹文章的扭曲语言中发现任何意义，但是《听！听！》开始了新一轮攻击，因此，董事会发起了新的诉讼。《诺特海姆最新消息》广泛报道了新的指控，即健康保险办事处向各种各样的工人组织承诺可以使用它的油印机。《听！听！》从一个该办事处的雇员那里得知了这个消息，该雇员后来被解雇了。社会党人坚称这并没有什么不合适的，市政厅和县辖区多年来一直这样做，每一次使用这个机器都付钱了。事情很快就清楚了，县长和审查委员会调查了这一事件，宣布纳粹的指控是诽谤。委员会免除了健康保险办事处的所有责任，并且支持办事处开除一开始将此事出卖给《听！听！》的雇员。但是，这一消息只在《人民报》上发表了，而且是在选举后。去投票的诺特海姆人对纳粹的指控记忆犹新，很可能有一种印象，就是不管有什么样的声音，健康保险办事处及其社会党人董事会一定有问题。 [70]

    选举前夜，社会党人执迷于疯狂的指控，包括声称纳粹分子会给穿着冲锋队制服在城镇中行走的工人3马克，还会给成为冲锋队队员的人50马克。除此以外，社会民主党最后举行了两场集会。其中一场是由工会发起的，于冯·帕彭在普鲁士的政变之后六天举行，他们向政府就此事提出抗议。另一场是选举之前两天举行的。集会上的演讲者之一是主要的社会民主党候选人，他客观分析了纳粹分子的承诺和行动之间的差别。第二位演讲者是一个地方工会的秘书，他详细地反驳了纳粹对健康保险办事处的指控。集会的内容相当不同于最初的广告宣传：“我们正在进击！奋起！攻击敌人！”不过，出席率很高。 [71]

    其他政党变得无足轻重了，因此并没有发起竞选运动，只有民族主义者除外。虽然冯·帕彭并不是德国国家人民党成员，但是他代表了该党的一些观点，因此该党是国会中唯一支持帕彭的党派，德国国家人民党认为这给了它新的政治可能性。在诺特海姆，德国国家人民党在投票的两天前举行了一场竞选集会，会上，该党成员谨慎地将其从国社党中分离出来。民族主义演讲者说他们钦佩纳粹分子的爱国主义，但是反对他们的计划，尤其是“社会主义”方面的计划。他也指责希特勒想要摧毁其他党派的愿望，因为“德国文化就是通过多样性发展起来的”。集会的出席率很低。 [72]

    7月31日星期天，6 730名诺特海姆人去投票，其中有96%的人符合条件。纳粹获得了4 195张选票，比前一年增加了500多张。他们现在代表了诺特海姆62%的选民。他们获得了所有“新”选民的支持，也吸引了其他党派的选民。社会民主党在这次选举中失去了385张选票，现在只代表城镇中1/4的选民。除了纳粹之外唯一选票增长的是共产主义者，他们的选票翻了一番，但只有285张，即所有选民的4%，这让他们成了诺特海姆的第三大政党。就算最大限度地将社会民主党的选票转给共产主义者，也至少有200张社会民主党的选票投给了纳粹分子。痛苦和无助感开始侵袭社会民主党曾经的追随者们。

    民族主义者在诺特海姆站稳了脚跟。获得了200多张选票之后，他们从普鲁士议会选举时的最底端攀升上来。而这并不是让他们狂喜的原因，还发生了很多鼓舞极权保守主义追随者们的事情。冯·帕彭的政变让他控制了普鲁士邦，他现在可以清理普鲁士的社会党人政府，并且以保守主义者取代他们了。城市议会试图就谴责《人民报》一事进行投票，不过没有成功，因为中间派不同意。然而，更为重要的是，县长被免职了，他被一个民族主义者取代了，而且县议会被解散了。 [73]

    前任县长基施鲍姆虽然是一个社会党人，但却是一个非常冷静的人；他也很客观，以至于纳粹分子对其在1932年离任也表示遗憾。即便是身处口水战中心的卡尔·库埃尔富尔特忘记了他们都是社会党人，并且称他为独裁者的时候，他也保持着镇定。新县长奥托·冯·德·舒伦堡是一个反纳粹的保守派，他质疑民主，厌恶社会党人。他的上任也就意味着社会党人在县议会中占绝对多数的形势结束了，因为冯·帕彭政府决定将诺特海姆县并入临近的乌斯拉尔，保留诺特海姆的县地位，但是解散其议会。取而代之的是一个临时委员会，由两名社会民主党成员、两名纳粹党人、一名民族主义者和一名温和的右派组成。 [74] 社会党人又从另一个权力位置上被驱逐了。

    所有改变的标志是1932年8月的宪法日庆祝活动。并没有举行游行。只在第一市立中学举行了一场小规模的集会，所有的学校这天甚至都没有放假。下午晚些时候举行了游泳比赛，但这就是民主的魏玛共和国为其主要年度节假日做的所有事情了。 [75]

    考虑到整个夏天所发生的事情，没什么值得庆祝的。

    九　最后的寒冬（1932—1933年，秋冬）

    “我很饿！除了饥饿，我一无所有！” ——一个失业工人大喊道，他因扰乱治安而被捕，据1932年12月6日《诺特海姆最新消息》报道

    尽管社会民主党遭遇了一系列毁灭性的打击，尽管纳粹分子在7月的国会选举中获得了决定性的绝大多数，但夏季选举后，诺特海姆的政治形势陷入停滞不前。纳粹分子几乎没什么可做的了；这是他们最受欢迎的时候，但他们仍旧没有权力。全国的情况都是这样的。经过密切观察，纳粹在7月国会选举中赢得的230个席位的“胜利”是空洞的。国社党只获得了37%的投票——自第二次总统选举之后，这一比例就没有增加过。8月13日，希特勒向冯·兴登堡举荐自己，希望能被允许组建内阁，这位老人家不仅拒绝了，还暗示他永远都不会允许希特勒成为总理。如果不可能“合法取得权力”，毫无疑问会使用武力。冲锋队于1932年8月发动了一波恐怖袭击，冯·帕彭政府以紧急法令作为回应，按照这一法令，五名冲锋队队员因谋杀罪被判死刑，军队告诉戈林一旦纳粹试图发动政变，他们就会开枪。

    在这种僵持局面中，军队似乎占据着优势。在诺特海姆，1932年秋初的重要事件反映了这一点，因为来自第17步兵团的军队访问诺特海姆，进行了秋季军事演习。城镇热情地接待了400名士兵和6名军官。各种报纸满是关于军事演习的叙述，军乐队举行了两场音乐会，在各种各样的酒吧里举行了多场“演习舞会”。《诺特海姆最新消息》报道称城镇中的孩子们听到老兵的歌曲很高兴，因为他们骨子里都热爱军队。为了促进对他们的教育，学校给孩子们放假，让他们去看第二天的军事演习。简而言之，整个城镇都沉浸在纯粹的军事表演中。 [1]

    以前，在小范围内，同样的事情也经常发生。1930年11月，一个自行车团体访问诺特海姆并举行了“同道中人晚会”，和诺特海姆“以前的90名先行者预备队团体”的成员一起喝啤酒。1931年5月，一个小型摩托车分队在城镇中因模拟演习待了两天。很明显的是，诺特海姆人非常渴望军事生活，以至于他们看到警察部队来城镇时都很高兴。1931年，为庆祝一支警察部队驻扎在诺特海姆，举办了一场晚会，1932年6月，警察部队访问城镇的时候，举行了一场“演习舞会”。人们还应该了解的是，有几个诺特海姆人是非法军队（黑色国防军 [45] ）的志愿者会员，这支军队驻扎在城镇东部15英里远的山丘上。 [2]

    投入军事主义并不只是观看士兵们的游行。1930年，陆军元帅冯·马肯森 [46] 访问诺特海姆所引发的精彩的庆祝活动充分证明了这一点。1932年，前陆军元帅再次穿过诺特海姆，路上，他去拜访家宅位于诺特海姆附近的老朋友冯·施特拉伦海姆伯爵（当地最重要的纳粹分子）。他要求不需要小题大做的，但是150名钢盔团成员在火车站迎接他，诺特海姆露易丝王后协会为他献花。他乘着伯爵的豪华轿车穿过城镇（许多房子上都挂着向他致敬的旗帜），“长桥”上一支钢盔团卫队列队欢迎他。在被检阅和解散之前，钢盔团一直跟在汽车后直到冯·施特拉伦海姆的家。之后，当地的“骑兵俱乐部”被邀请到伯爵的宅邸喝茶，与老战士会面。当《人民报》刊登了伯爵庄园的半版照片时，对马肯森的到来很高兴的诺特海姆人几乎笑不出来了，照片中包括仆人们的住房、马厩等，题述是：“这里住着冯·施特拉伦海姆伯爵——工人们的领袖——国社党的领袖——不需要进一步的评论了。” [3]

    在大萧条的年代，诺特海姆人持续表现出的民族主义被视为一种政治常态，但是几乎没人能像纳粹分子那样熟练地利用民族主义。甚至娱乐活动也受到了民族主义的影响。“演讲协会”经常有军队的演讲者。在1931—1932年的圣诞假期，有一部军事滑稽剧电影《舒适的后备队》打破了诺特海姆电影院的所有纪录，连续两周都满座。该电影比汤姆·米克斯和哈利·皮尔 [47] 那样的中坚分子更具吸引力。但该电影并不是宽容的民族主义。1931年8月，《诺特海姆最新消息》报道称在城镇附近发现了一个来自比利时的小气球，上面系着一张明信片，询问发现的时间和地点。“许多人认为这是个无意义的玩笑，”《诺特海姆最新消息》的社论称，“但是，有很多人来询问关于风向、天气和发现地点的问题，可以认为这些寄送者正在调查战略信息。因此，不要把明信片寄到法国或者比利时……”《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》指出，想要爬到树上拿气球的那个诺特海姆男孩的裤子被划破了；该报严肃地建议法国人给他买一条新裤子。《人民报》对这个故事没发表任何评论。 [4] 宗教也被利用来培养民族主义了；虽然教会并没有举行宪法日庆祝活动，但他们确实举行了纪念俾斯麦建立帝国的庆祝活动，1932年10月，他们庆祝了冯·兴登堡总统的生日。 [5]

    正是在这种氛围中，纳粹诉诸民族主义和军事主义，虽然粗暴，但却有效。另一方面，社会党人指责纳粹分子崇尚军国主义是毫无价值的，尤其是其中包括隐含的暴力威胁。1932年秋末，《人民报》被驱使着要求城镇政府采取行动，反对纳粹分子穿制服并高举旗帜在城镇游行。该报认为这样的活动是在“挑起暴力”。 [6] 然而，城镇中的纳粹分子知道正是这样的姿态吸引了他们在诺特海姆的追随者。因此，纳粹分子并没有试图与民族主义的、以军事主义为基础的冯·帕彭政府战斗，而是将新的重点转化为自己的优势了。

    9月17日，诺特海姆的纳粹分子举行了他们在7月31日国会选举之后的第一场集会。这场集会被宣传为“盛大的军事游行晚会”，特色是“党卫军的体育表演”。有很大一群人到场观看党卫军的表演，不过他们的“体育表演”结果是一场被委婉地称为“国防体育”的展览，即军事演习。两天后，冲锋队在诺特海姆附近的森林进行了大量的公众演习，随之还举行了“演习舞会”。这类活动比一周后举行的另一场集会更加吸引人，在集会上，“所有阶层的工人！商人！工匠！农民”都被邀请“和我们一起带着反对马克思主义的基本愤怒和行动来发起猛攻”！根据《人民报》所说，这次集会只有通常出席率的1/10。 [7]

    虽然最近获得了很多成功，但是诺特海姆地方小组还是陷入了麻烦，整个南汉诺威—布伦瑞克大区都是如此。其中的一个因素是财政。虽然有大量的资金转入，但是收入没有增加，支出反而增加了——按照预期，收益会增加。1931—1932年的“金字塔俱乐部”将群众集会的收益投入宣传，想要以此从群众集会中获得更高收益，到了1932年夏天，它已经到了极限并且开始崩溃了。再也没有大批新的希特勒追随者来供养这个循环了。而且，过分乐观的纳粹领袖期望每场竞选运动都能带来最终的胜利，于是，不断的选举导致了不计后果的浪费和难以偿还的债务，因为增长率相对下降了。

    1932年8月，省党部领袖生气地催促诺特海姆地方小组缴纳6月以来拖欠的会费，总计823.5帝国马克。8月末，地方小组偿还了债务，但是很快又陷入了困境。9月末，诺特海姆一共拖欠了555.5帝国马克，10月，又未能支付当月的261帝国马克会费。12月8日，省党部领袖提醒诺特海姆地方小组自8月以来它没有支付任何会费，并要求它立即汇款。 [8] 不仅诺特海姆欠大区的钱，整个南汉诺威—布伦瑞克的地方小组都没能付款。 [9]

    另一个问题是纳粹党派中的成员人数实际上在减少。1932年9月末，大区记录当月净减少了401名成员。有84名新成员，但是有330人退出，155人被开除（绝大多数是因为未支付会费）。捐款也减少了。 [10] 这可能是因为国社党之前对其追随者压榨得太多了。也可能是因为国社党变得更加“偏左了”，它试图与冯·帕彭的政府拉开距离，因而疏远了一些中产阶级追随者。如果是这样的话，这也是一个不祥的政治问题。 [11]

    1932年10月，诺特海姆面临一场新的竞选运动——八个月以来的第五次。7月选出的国会只召开了一次有关商业的会议，当时反对冯·帕彭政府的“不信任”投票以10：1的绝对大多数通过了。冯·帕彭无意在国会信任的基础上进行统治，于是立即解散国会，要求于11月6日进行新选举。很明显，只有冯·兴登堡的权威和军队的刺刀支持着政府，在国会内，没有其他可能的联盟能组成政府了；608个席位中有319个由纳粹分子或者共产主义者控制着。他们不能共同统治，但是可以联合起来阻止其他人的统治。

    因此，就很多方面而言，秋季国会选举既没有希望，也没有意义。如果纳粹分子想要保持他们不可战胜的光环，他们就得加入战斗并且展示成果。大区再次下达了战术指令，并再次询问诺特海姆地方小组的宣传需要。瓦尔特·施泰内克不再是夏天那个挥金如土的人了，他回答道，他已经拥有足够的印刷材料了。他不再像7月选举那样要求“五个大区演讲者、三个国家演讲者和一个参加选举前夜15 000人的示威游行的重要人物” [12] 。省党部领袖也设计了一些能以人力而非资金完成的策略：“传教士般的”演讲者挨家挨户地进行选举宣传，每一个人的目标都是使10到20个家庭“皈依”（并且将印刷品卖给这些家庭）；再次进攻没有设立地方小组的地点；再次使用了曾经在7月用过的私人信件写作策略。竞选运动仍将使用经过检验的煽动性方法，比如群众集会。 [13]

    10月8日举行了第一场纳粹群众集会——又是一场混合性的活动而不是简单的演讲活动。有抽奖活动，冲锋队演奏了音乐，希特勒青年团表演了题为“在敌人的金牌里”的戏剧。三天后，一个普鲁士议会的纳粹成员发表了题为“打倒富翁们的独裁统治”的演讲。他针对的目标就是冯·帕彭和民族主义者，他承诺纳粹分子会粉碎这场“资本主义政党的阶级斗争”。两场活动的出席率都很高。 [14]

    随着新竞选运动而来的是令人厌烦的暴力和谩骂的日益增加。整个8月和9月，城镇都很安静。唯一的例外是9月初，当时积习难改的纳粹好斗者塔普曼殴打了一名社会党人，他因此被象征性地处罚了10马克。然而，10月23日，两名国旗队队员和一名纳粹分子打架，纳粹分子的头被打破了。同一周，一名“钢铁阵线”成员因辱骂警察而被法庭罚款，一名纳粹分子因辱骂城镇议员而被罚款。 [15] 在10月10日的“乐队之战”上出现了有趣的调剂。城镇乐队（纳粹认为该乐队是社会党的，因为社会民主党集会经常雇用他们）正在市集广场上举行每周的惯例音乐会，就在此时冲锋队的乐队来了。由于警方的工作疏漏，纳粹分子也被允许在同一时间和同一地点进行表演。广场上的观众很快就将之等同于政治事件，交替大喊着“自由！”和“希特勒万岁！”。为了避免暴力，警察在广场中央画了一条线，在两支乐队猛攻彼此的时候，他们在线的旁边就位。在警方的督促下，两支乐队最后离开了，群众也安全地解散了。不管怎样，那天的诺特海姆人很可能已经听够了音乐，因为那天的早些时候，共产主义者的铜管乐队乘着卡车穿越了城镇。 [16]

    10月22日，社会民主党以一场大规模的国旗队队员集会开始了竞选运动。主要的演讲者是国旗队的全国领袖卡尔·赫尔特曼，集会之前，来自汉诺威的国旗队乐队在市集广场上举行了巡游和音乐会。因为全部国旗队第十区的人都为此次活动来诺特海姆了，所以这次巡游给人留下了深刻印象。赫尔特曼的演讲标题是“我们的自由岌岌可危”，是对纳粹分子的猛烈攻击。整个事件充分展现了他们的力量。一周后，社会民主党青年部举行了一场游行，他们高唱着歌曲，表演着反纳粹戏剧。最后的一场游行于11月4日到来，主角是奥托·格罗提渥，他在激昂的演讲中抨击了共产主义者和纳粹分子。 [17]

    民族主义党派在竞选运动中举行了两场集会，都是在最后一周，都攻击了纳粹分子和国会政府。 [18]

    纳粹分子以一场群众集会开始了最后的选举运动，起重要作用的是德国女孩联盟。诺特海姆的领袖克莱尔·登茨勒发表的演讲强调了“热爱祖国、人民团体、德意志意识和德国道德”。三天后举行的一场对抗的集会吸引了“收租者、领抚恤金者和战争伤残者”，还吸引了“德国的工匠和商人”。票价降到了20芬尼，这是纳粹集会的最低金额。早上，冲锋队、党卫军和希特勒青年团一起去教会，中午冲锋队乐队举办了音乐会。两天后，一个路德派牧师代表纳粹分子讲话。票价再次降低了，但纳粹还有财政麻烦，他们第一次进行了公众集资。牧师抨击了冯·帕彭政府，不过像往常一样，他强调宗教信仰和民族主义：“我们所侍奉的天上的神只有一位，我们所热爱的祖国只有一个。”有很大一群热情的观众。最后，在选举前夜，希特勒青年团和德国女孩联盟一起举办了“娱乐晚会”，有唱歌和跳舞，还有当地领袖的演讲。 [19] 在扣除掉啤酒的成本之后，这次活动的400马克收益表明仍旧能从诺特海姆中产阶级的身上赚钱。 [20]

    在自1930年以来的第一次选举中，纳粹分子以报纸宣传来补充他们的集会。在选举之前的那周，《诺特海姆最新消息》和《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》上每天都出现大量的广告宣传，还包含如下的简短口号：“14年的痛苦、羞耻和丑闻！保护你自己！”“我们每天的面包是首要需要。我们想要能忍受的生活条件！”除此以外，全党各个部分都被派出去分发印刷品和集会门票了。纳粹分子明显很谨慎。

    11月6日星期天的选举表明诺特海姆对纳粹的支持率第一次下降了。这在一定程度上可归因于“选举疲劳”；不过投票人数只减少了100人，这些一定是来自国社党的数据，总票数减少了267张。获得这些选票的主要是人民党和民族主义党派，不过共产主义者也增加了大约50张选票。社会民主党似乎呈平稳状态。社会民主党虽然在诺特海姆失去了12张选票，但实际上在诺特海姆县是有所收获的。尽管纳粹的力量有所削弱，他们仍旧控制着59%的大众选票，而社会党人只有24%。在全国范围内，国社党似乎已经过了巅峰时期。它在国会中的席位从230个下降到196个，而共产主义者的席位从89个增加到了100个。然而，选举没有解决任何问题，因为纳粹分子和共产主义者仍旧保持着“消极多数”，而专制政府也在继续着。

    好像是为了说明这一点一样，冯·帕彭发布了一个法令，禁止选举日在德国的任何地方召开所有的政治集会，为期12天。即便是这样，也没能阻止暴力行为；选举结束两天后，几名冲锋队队员和国旗队队员发生了打斗，不过没有人严重受伤。 [21] 在危险的政治贫瘠中，只有一个乐观的理由。1932年秋天已经度过了大萧条最严重的时期，即便没有政府行动，现在人们都期待着恢复过来。诺特海姆的每份报纸每月两次刊登当地的失业数据，研究这些数据的诺特海姆人会发现1932年春天达到失业顶峰时几乎没有超过前一年。他们会注意到，秋天的失业率并没有像往常那样增长。1932年10月，该区的工业和贸易委员会已经得出结论：经济正在复苏。他们向公众发布了一项声明，并提供了相关的证据，这是大萧条年代第一个充满希望的声明。 [22]

    然而，这并没有给失业者带来多少欢乐。即便是1932年秋天在制糖厂找到工作了，每周的工资也只比失业津贴多了2马克；工资水平是1929年的一半。1932年11月，一个年轻的接受福利救济的女性在市政厅大喊：“饿！”因为福利办事处没能满足她的需要。她一直呼喊着，直到警察把她赶走。11月下旬，当地法庭判处一个工人一个月监禁，因为他在发现自己一大家子的失业救济金被削减了之后，生气地大吼道：“走向街垒！走向内战！”当领取福利救济金的人了解到他们的救济金被削减了的时候，市政厅几乎发生了骚乱。12月初，一个在福利办事处的失业者非常愤怒，他拒绝离开，因而被逮捕了。去拘留所的路上，他一直大喊着：“我很饿！除了饥饿，我一无所有！”同时，工业事故受害者和孀妇协会向政府要求更好和更公正的抚恤金。 [23]

    城市尽可能地提供帮助。向失业者提供廉价的肉，如果有人有一头猪，可以在城镇屠宰场宰杀并且免费烹调加工。城市准备了一些土豆以备紧急使用，没有任何食物的人可以在城镇赈济处获得免费的餐食（1932年每天平均分发37顿餐食）。城市公共浴室以每人10芬尼的价格提供温水浴，在特别的情况下，失业者可以免费洗浴。还为失业者建了一个温暖的大厅。 [24] 城市之所以会采取这样的行动，部分原因是私人慈善团体做不到这些。1931年的慈善联盟在1932年没有再出现，“主要是为了逃避他们去年遇到的困难”。政治对立的加剧使得各个慈善团体难以凝聚起来。 [25]

    在希特勒掌权之前的最后两个月内，社会民主党人受到了一种特殊宿命论的强烈影响。自夏天以来，他们一直在质疑自己控制局势的能力。他们没有举行公共集会，不过国旗队队员仍旧在为防止纳粹分子夺权而准备战斗。他们在柏林总部建立了一个秘密短波电台，11月后全天有人值班，一旦纳粹发动攻击，他们能立刻发出信号。在诺特海姆，人们等待的时间越长，就变得越好斗。国旗队的领袖们不断警告着不能仓促采取行动。他们也渴望战斗，但他们几乎没有获胜的希望。1932年12月，一个工会领袖把其成员名单烧毁了。一个来自紧挨着诺特海姆郊区的国旗队领袖难以阻止其成员发起针对纳粹分子的独立罢工，但同时他采取预防措施，先摧毁了其成员名册，这件事也发生在12月。 [26] 一个普通工人总结了普遍情绪。他发现纳粹分子拥有压倒性的力量，主要是财政上的。他不会在他们面前退缩——实际上他是与一些冲锋队队员打架的领头人之一，他因而曾被判入狱——但是，他也确实觉得纳粹分子会掌权，这是他无法阻止的。毕竟，他“只是一个小人物” [27] 。

    城镇中人也认为纳粹必然会胜利。人们普遍相信国社党已经编制了如何在诺特海姆分配权力位置的清单。 [28] 非社会党人都不相信国旗队队员会战斗；他们认为其领袖是和平主义者，缺乏个人勇气。 [29] 不过，事实是绝大多数诺特海姆的国旗队领袖都获得了能证明自己勇气的战争勋章（卡尔·德佩拥有一级铁十字勋章）。而当城镇在12月和次年1月等待着第三帝国的时候，什么事情都没有发生。

    不过，这轮毫无意义的政治活动依旧在继续着。共产主义者坚持煽动旧军事营房的失业者并且分发传单。人行道上能发现共产主义者用棕色油漆写的口号，这给清理的城市工人带来了无尽的麻烦。1月，德国共产党让大约80名参加游行的示威者拿着刻有口号的牌子：“打开橱柜！拿着煤、土豆和面包出来！”这也引发了城镇中人的一些思考。《人民报》曾两次强烈地否认德国共产党在“年轻的社会主义工人”中取得了进展。

    与关于社会党人的流行观点相反，共产主义者被认为是在纳粹掌权时会进行战斗的严肃的革命者。但诺特海姆权威机构并不认同这一观点。1931年，镇上的警察对一项官方调查的回应如下：“我们的调查结果是没人对共产主义者表示担忧。他们的地方组织只有15到20名成员，直到现在都不活跃。” [30] 诺特海姆共产主义者也不准备战斗。1932年8月，当普鲁士警察在整个诺特海姆县搜查主要的共产主义官员的家时，从14所房子里搜到的全部武器包括四根“棍子”、两把“匕首”、一把左轮手枪和一副指节铜环——后者是诺特海姆城镇的共产主义者唯一的武器。 [31] 但是在大萧条的环境中，诺特海姆的共产主义者有成长起来的可能性，这就给纳粹分子提供了替罪羔羊，给中产阶级提供了担忧的新原因，也给社会党人提供了造成围攻气氛的另一个理由。 [32]

    纳粹分子在整个严冬的几个月里一直在继续他们的煽动活动。12月初，他们发起了两场活动，一场是宣传电影，另一场是多样化的娱乐活动。1月，冲锋队举行了一场宣传游行，还有一场群众集会，他们的演讲者在会上将国社党描述为“一个优等民族发出的最后一声备受折磨的呐喊”。许多可以免费入场的失业者来这里主要是因为纳粹分子宣传称“大厅非常暖和”。最后，1月末，冲锋队召开了另一场“军事游行晚会”，还表演了一出戏剧《褐衫英雄》。这些活动并不是源自他们的活力，按照之前的情况来看，只是源于坚韧的决心和惯性。 [33]

    纳粹分子的部分问题是在全国范围内陷入了僵局。另一部分是恩斯特·吉尔曼（他自1932年12月1日起最终正式接任了诺特海姆地方小组领袖）所说的“暂时的财政灾难”，尽管这实际上是一场地域性的而非全国范围内的危机。 [34] 总之，12月，地方小组陷入了贫困，以至于都不能使用“1910年代圆顶”来举行集会了，只能租下骑术大厅，他们降到了与之前蔑视的社会民主党同等的地位。 [35] 他们迫切地需要资金，甚至开始敲诈他们自己的选民。吉尔曼提出了一个计划，就是发行一个诺特海姆各党派成员所拥有的各种商业的目录。纳粹分子之后被命令只能在目录上所列的商店买东西，一共分发了2 000份。要登上目录，一个纳粹商人就必须支付4马克。吉尔曼称之为“廉价的广告宣传”，但是他几乎没给受害者们什么选择：“你想要以怎样的方式被顾客读到？” [36]

    其间，县领袖瓦尔特·施泰内克生病了（胃溃疡已经折磨他10个星期了），他卧床不起，完全没有收入，只能靠亲戚们的救济来存活，他没有从大区那里收到任何官方经费的补偿。他有117帝国马克的电话账单已经过期了，他的电话会被取走。12月19日，他写信给省党部领袖，为他的过期会费申诉，他提道：“今天，在来自省党部领袖的信中，我为‘拖延会费’给出了我最后的20芬尼。”他支付费用的那封信是提醒他过去几个月一直欠大区的会费，并且要求他支付欠大区演讲者的57.5帝国马克，因为这个演讲者现在“身无分文”。 [37] 结果显示，纳粹党人没有人能付给其他人任何东西。

    除了艰难地举行集会和“娱乐晚会”之外，恩斯特·吉尔曼的解决方法是请求上级派来“有影响力的”演讲者。他请求大区让希特勒来。他邀请戈培尔到诺特海姆，向他讲述这个城镇的吸引力。最终，他请求省党部领袖的老同志们派来任意一个重要的演讲者，但是他们没做出任何承诺。 [38]

    其间，在诺特海姆的国社党爆发了派系争斗。持不同政见的纳粹分子指责吉尔曼任人唯亲、财政违规和独裁。他以简单的驱逐作为回应。1月，地方小组似乎要解散了。而且，冲锋队的情绪越来越糟糕了。圣诞节前的一周，他们中的一个人痛殴了一个年迈的社会民主党，导致他瞎了一只眼睛。 [39] 没人能预见到阿道夫·希特勒将被委任为国家总理，以及第三帝国将会出现。城镇一直在致力于纳粹事业，但是1933年1月，除了一直持续的宣传和暴力行为之外，纳粹分子也不知道能做些什么了。

    占诺特海姆选民3/5的纳粹绝对大多数（几乎是全国平均水平的两倍）将这座小镇带到第三帝国边缘的因素并不多，但是它们之间有复杂的关系。其中最重要的就是大萧条。不过在这三年危机期间，只有工人阶级遭受了痛苦，对城镇中产阶级影响更大的是他们的担忧，即最终的灾难会降临，他们会承受和“流离失所者”同样的命运，或者社会革命会摧毁其地位。比大萧条造成的实际痛苦更重要的是一直强调这种痛苦的新闻报道。

    在整个大萧条年代，诺特海姆只有17次破产，其中的11次规模很小，只是边缘化的商店主人，而剩下的6次与大萧条无关。但是长期以来一直存在破产现象，每次都涉及冗长而痛苦的法律程序，所有的内容都在新闻上如实报道。1932年4月，在失业顶峰时，只有8%的城镇中人失业，但是持续的抗议、打斗、示威游行和源源不断的面色灰白的工人们去地区就业办事处让失业问题成了城镇中产阶级最关心的事情。纳粹的煽动吸引了这种情绪，并且加强了不安定的氛围。

    失业者的绝望不仅令中产阶级恐惧和厌恶，也摧毁了工人们的自信。多年的懒散破坏了他们的纪律；工会权力的削弱使他们面临着严峻的经济压力。十多年来获得的工资收入都没有了，甚至仍旧有工作的人也一直担心会丢掉工作。

    大萧条不仅创造了纳粹分子得以蓬勃发展的恐惧氛围，而且让政治进程更加痛苦。政治对抗反过来又妨碍了可以缓和大萧条影响的合作。在诺特海姆，危机政治表现为普遍的阶级战争。城镇中的中产阶级从没有将社会民主党视为公共机构；现在随着纳粹主义的崛起，出现了一种摧毁社会民主的方式。社会民主党的一种回应方式是增加了《人民报》对一些诺特海姆主要市民的恶意抨击。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》和《听！听！》则成功地削减了政治性，增加了紧张性。基本上，纳粹分子是最擅长辱骂的，在普通时代，这本会对他们起反作用，但是在恶意中伤的混乱中，这增加了他们的声望。在争夺党派利益中，只有城市议会中公务员团体的温和态度才能造就有效的城市政府。正是对社会民主党的憎恶让诺特海姆投入了纳粹分子的怀抱。在纳粹分子摧毁了社会民主之后，几乎没有保守派人士认识到纳粹将会攻击他们从前的同盟者并且摧毁这些同盟者。

    如果纳粹分子在其他方面没被中产阶级所接受的话，那么他们本不会被选为遏制社会民主党的工具。纳粹分子令人尊敬的特质是他们强烈的民族主义、他们对宗教信仰的操纵以及他们所获得的保守派的支持。

    1930年之前的很长一段时间里，诺特海姆都是一个民族主义的城镇，不过随着大萧条的出现，对民族主义和军事主义的投入增加了。外部力量促成了这种现象，纳粹的宣传就是这样，但是通过操纵爱国主义象征，诺特海姆的国社党将其与重要的传统惯例联系在一起了。纳粹分子同样利用了宗教感情，尤其是在诺特海姆以路德派牧师作为演讲者。和纳粹分子联系在一起的德国民族主义党派也是互惠的。德国国家人民党和国社党在诺特海姆的整个前希特勒时代或多或少都是结盟的。两者之间唯一真正痛苦的时期是冯·帕彭政府统治时期，当时的空气中充斥着“反动分子”和“社会主义激进分子”的反攻。1933年1月末，纳粹分子和民族主义者又一次在音乐会上共演，因为希特勒政府最开始就是联合政府。

    纳粹分子和德国国家人民党有很多共同点：极端的民族主义、狂热的反社会主义以及致力于破坏魏玛共和国。在诺特海姆，主要的民族主义者对纳粹的成功感到高兴，不过纳粹分子常常表现出明显轻视他们的迹象。《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》给予他们社论支持，经常报道和支持纳粹的所作所为（记者是纳粹分子），并且明显提供了减价或者免费的广告宣传版面。在纳粹成长的早期，《哥廷根—格鲁本哈根报》的印刷机可以用于印刷纳粹的小册子和海报，该报的专栏是纳粹分子能直达大众的唯一途径。 [40]

    虽然德国国家人民党在诺特海姆只有一小批追随者，但他们还有两项有益于纳粹分子的资产。其中一个就是资金。在诺特海姆，德国国家人民党的大部分成员是地位高的公务员、企业家，或者贵族。另一项资产就是社会地位。不仅其成员都是“最优秀的”人，而且它还继承了德国伟大的黄金时代以来一直坚定支持君主制的传统。最后，它还通过钢盔团和军队关系密切，钢盔团名誉上的全国指挥官是冯·兴登堡。通过对纳粹分子给予热情的支持和限制对纳粹社会目标的反对（在此期间，党派间是不和的），德国国家人民党帮希特勒铺平了道路。对诺特海姆人而言很明显的是，最优秀的人是支持纳粹的，这可能会影响到他们的钱包。

    有利于诺特海姆的纳粹主义发展的另一个因素是政治化。由大萧条而产生的渴望和需要、阶级对抗和复苏的民族主义似乎都能以政治方法解决。持续的选举意味着持续的竞选运动，而每一场竞选运动都刺激着仇恨和激进主义。从1929年11月的地方选举到1932年11月的国会选举，一共有九场重要的竞选运动，单是1932年就有五场。诺特海姆的大部分人都在所有的选举中投票了。这遵循了整个选区的模式，这是德国35个选区中参与率第二高的地区。 [41] 在诺特海姆，每场重要的选举中，都有94%—97%的合格选民进行投票。因为是自行登记，所以只有生病的人和虚弱的人待在家里。剩下的人都被卷入政治中了，也就是说，政治热情几乎蔓延到了城镇中有人存在的所有区域。

    所有的这些因素导致了纳粹在诺特海姆的成功，但即便是有利的形势也无法解释在大萧条的三年中纳粹所获得的选票从123张飞涨到了近4 200张这一现象。 [42] 为了理解这种现象，人们必须考虑到纳粹分子投入竞选运动的技能和努力。数量是首要因素。从1930年1月到1933年1月这三年间，诺特海姆的纳粹分子平均每月召开三场集会。随着时间的流逝，纳粹分子公共集会的数量、规模和种类在日益增加。在选举运动中达到了巅峰；1932年7月，有六场集会：三场是带有演讲的集会，两场是带有游行的集会，还有一场是“娱乐晚会”。而且，活动一直在继续；在整个三年期间，只有两个月没有纳粹集会（1930年7月和1932年8月）。 [43] 活力是他们给人留下的最深刻的印象。

    纳粹在诺特海姆的宣传努力超越了纯粹的行动主义。持久稳固的、富于创造力的和强劲的努力，再加上对特别适合诺特海姆和城镇中每一种因素的敏锐触觉。除了关于民族主义、犹太人和“马克思主义者”的普通演讲外，他们的集会也是专门为工匠、商人、公务员、领抚恤金者、工人和其他目标群体举行的。还要考虑到诺特海姆的地方特性，城镇中几乎没有真正反犹主义的人，因此这一效果较弱。但是城镇中人有很强烈的宗教信仰，这被充分利用了。当纳粹分子不吸引特定群体时，他们会依赖于盛会、“娱乐晚会”、放映电影、演戏剧、杂技表演、抽奖、舞会、体育表演、军事演习、儿童朗诵和其他取之不尽的手段。 [44] 他们将受苦的群众吸引到盛大的集会中，在集会中，人们会沉浸在参与一场充满活力且包罗万象的活动的感觉，在这场活动中为满足每一种需要而调整激进的行动。敌人的定义也差不多：他是犹太人、社会党人、不敬神的人，或者更受偏爱的是无定型的普遍形式，是一种需要为从企业银行的崩溃到《凡尔赛条约》的签订负责的“体系”。

    简言之，国社党成功地成了所有人的一切。这甚至反映在广告宣传中所使用的名字上，分别是“National Soc.German Wkrs.Party”或者“Nat.Socialist Germ.Workers Party”，或者是根据需要而出现的各种变化形式。在混乱的宣传中，纳粹分子表现为虔诚的、严肃的、完全爱国的、在满足民族主义需要的情况下是“马克思主义”“社会主义”的主要敌人，而且（如果你曾经出席他们的“娱乐晚会”）很明显是友好的。但是，纳粹集会所取得的效果仅仅是通过他们的人数来完成的。如果你想要一个有活力的政党，那么国社党就是这样。

    从远处来看，纳粹分子的活力和技能看起来是神秘的，但是当某人分析该党派在当地的实际操作中所表现出来的动力、成分和构成时，一切都变得可以理解了。从中可以推测出纳粹狂热主义的意识形态和历史根源，如同邪教般的伪宗教信仰运动特性，以及被恶魔般地释放出来的由受虐狂似地依附于全能的、有超凡魅力的领袖所产生的力量。但是更简单的解释似乎更能揭露纳粹分子疯狂行动的主要因素。

    首先，从纳粹党由边缘现象转换为大众运动开始，他们的目标就变得非常简单了——获得权力。这要通过获得更多的成员和选票来实现。所有的其他内容——比如主义上的一致性或者人类尊严——都服务于唯一的目标，即动员群众支持，让希特勒掌权。一个如此简单的目标，可以允许他们集中所有的努力，非常合算地利用各种才能和活力。

    其次，与以前的党派相比，纳粹党的构成给了他们以最少的努力实现最简单目标的才能。国社党是中产阶级的第一场群众运动。他们已经了解了如何在现实世界中以最少的努力完成各种事情。他们从成本核算的角度考虑问题（明白如何记录分类账户，这一点与社会民主党的无产阶级追随者不同，在他们眼中，学习这一内容就像是学外语一样），他们熟悉广告宣传、设备租赁、筹资和办公室间备忘录等。他们有交流网络（至少是在地方层面上），了解各部分的业务专长，能够处理像租赁麦克风或者在一夜之间设计并印刷海报这样的实际问题。他们的中产阶级背景和商业经历意味着他们已被训练成守时、勤勉、自律、守序和节俭的人。参与战斗的人也熟知冷酷无情，他们会毫无疑问地服从命令，并且迅速地利用各种机会。纳粹领袖也有中产阶级那些偏狭、自信、易受骗和粗心大意的自以为是的特性——希特勒非常了解如何加强和利用这些性格缺陷。

    最后，1930年之前，纳粹党通过试验和错误而制订出的宣传和群众动员机制是简单的、自我修正的和自我强化的。通过形成多样化的书面宣传的要求清单和对各种主题的演讲者的广泛选择（1932年12月，诺特海姆的纳粹分子可以任用的大区演讲者有80名 [45] ），国社党的高级官员让地方的纳粹领袖几乎可以任意选择满足当地需要的组合。这些选择的结果是令人怀疑的，但是举行过一场群众集会之后，可以通过统计门票销量和筹款所得来更加精准地评估结果。未来的策略会进行相应的调整，而且可以根据反馈系统进行调整。收益是衡量一个专门的演讲者或他的主题（每一位演讲者在其最佳表现中也有利害关系）是成功还是失败的最容易的标准，收益可以用于更多的活动和宣传。因此，纳粹分子持续的竞选运动主要可以通过群众集会和筹资方法之间的关系来解释。从根本上来说，最重要的反馈系统包括其他经常被记录和容易被统计的内容：申请成员数量和选票。因为追求权力是唯一的目标，所以这些内容也是整个机制的主要奖励和强化因素。

    其中的任何一项都不能暗示纳粹分子是无敌的，或者他们强大的破坏力是无法阻挡的。他们从1930年到1932年之间的大部分成功必须归因于他们求新而顺应潮流的影响力。一旦这些因素无法发挥作用了，这场运动就会陷入麻烦——以1932年秋天诺特海姆地方小组的问题为例。到那时为止，诺特海姆纳粹分子能让城镇中人参加集会的唯一可靠的方法就是把集会变成一场“娱乐晚会”。换句话说，纯粹的政治宣传对普通的纳粹选民来说已经失去了吸引力。大众的冷漠和疲惫已经取代了好奇心和热情，金融泡沫破灭了，否认了迫近胜利的期望所带来的外部关注的党派已经开始攻击自己了。纳粹的极度活跃也要求从地方层面的领袖那里收取费用；他们很快就心力交瘁了，像是鲁道夫·恩斯特和瓦尔特·施泰内克。整件事情就像一次生死攸关的骑兵冲锋，1933年1月，事情很容易地向另一个方向发展了。

    明显的是，如果一个德国的国家领袖有决心和勇气取缔国社党和共产主义者的话（将全部国旗队队员转为储备军也许是为了支持这一观点），希特勒就会走投无路了。该党无疑会继续存在，但是正如1922年的普鲁士禁令所显示的，由于缺乏煽动和资金，纳粹党本会萎缩的。希特勒绝不是不可抵挡的，不过1933年开始，希特勒的追随者所付出的努力和技能让他看起来是难以抵挡的。

    如果当时有任何有效的反对力量的话，纳粹分子并不会在诺特海姆取得那么大的成功。各种各样的右翼分裂党派并没有什么竞争性，因为他们同意纳粹分子的民族主义和反社会主义，最多也就是高度怀疑民主的价值。 [46] 只有两个党派无条件地献身于民主事业并且清楚地认识到了纳粹主义的危险——天主教中央党派和社会民主党。因为城镇中的宗教情况，中央党派在诺特海姆只有一小批追随者，但是很稳定——每次选举都获得了180张选票，差不多会有10张的浮动。就大萧条直接对社会党人的追随者施加了压力这一事实而言，社会党人也保持着相当的稳定性。直到1932年春天，他们才出现损失。在1932年春天和夏天的选举中，社会民主党失去了28%的支持者，但是其本身还是稳固的。社会同质性是社会民主党的力量来源，也是它无法有效对抗纳粹主义的根源。如果社会党人与非纳粹的中产阶级改善关系，他们本可以阻止纳粹主义的发展。城镇中的社会主义传统阻碍了他们。如果社会党人提出一项改革计划，他们本可以从纳粹分子手中盗走激进主义的旗帜。他们自己的改革传统阻碍了他们。他们在战略上的基本错误是认为纳粹主义的威胁在于其进行武装起义的潜在可能性。社会党人随时准备进行抵抗；他们无法抵抗的是纳粹的政治威胁。相反的是，他们的做法完全是消极的。

    社会民主党强调纳粹主义的邪恶性，但却没有替代计划。它捍卫共和国，但是却不能允诺更好的未来。社会民主党、国旗队队员或者工会集会的心境完全是防御性的，甚至到了在全国竞选运动中利用群众集会来解决纳粹分子在地方层面上攻击的程度。在社会主义意识形态中，社会民主党有一个解决大萧条的超级武器，但是在诺特海姆，除了在《人民报》上刊登攻击个别中产阶级的粗鲁中伤外，这一武器却从未发挥作用。整体上来看，社会民主党的工作可以被视为最具奉献精神的活动却没起任何效果的一个例证，其后没有任何有效的策略。而且，社会民主党越是努力地想在决心上赶上纳粹分子，他们就越是将中产阶级赶向纳粹的怀抱。社会党人的战斗状态只是增加了诺特海姆的政治紧张局势，并没有消除纳粹的吸引力。

    在诺特海姆，有益于激进的右翼群众政党崛起的因素是丰富的：看起来越来越恶化的经济灾难；由于政治上的不宽容，传统的阶级划分变得更加严重；强烈的民族主义和狂热的军事主义；不起作用但是好战的左翼；以及分裂、愤慨而且不稳定的右翼。除了其宣传外，国社党还为这种混乱的状态——社会秩序的崩溃——贡献了其他要素。

    从1930年到1933年，在诺特海姆出现了不少于37场政治打斗。其中四场是大规模的混战。这些数据中还不包括未遂的打斗——有几次是警方的积极行动或者对立领袖的克制阻止了暴力行为的爆发。还有几次是警方禁止召开集会，国家警察分遣队被派到诺特海姆作为增援，而报纸在报道出现或者没有暴力行为时，几乎都统一口径说是天气或者汽车意外事故。虽然有警方的规则和规定、政府的布告和紧急法令，但这些没有一项能彻底根除在德国这片有严厉法律和严格秩序的古老土地上每天都出现的街头打斗。

    问题的根源是将城镇中完全对立的对手分成两个组织，其中每一个都想要摧毁另一个；一个想要建立独裁统治，另一个即便是遭受了猛击也想要维持现在的民主。这种冲突的观点导致了互相的诽谤，首先是党派间的，其次是个人间的。诽谤诉讼变得司空见惯了。言语和行为上的嘲讽和辱骂助长了傲慢情绪。恐怖主义，尤其是在诺特海姆县，成了一个标准的武器；刀子、金属棒甚至是枪都成了标准装备。除此以外，还持续存在着即将发生纳粹政变的谣言，有些是以事实为基础的。

    诺特海姆从一个不活跃的偏远的城镇变成了暴力行为的爆炸中心。可以绘制一个由政治活动和街头打斗构成的“狂热图表”。 [47] 它会证明竞选运动、频繁的政治集会和肢体冲突之间的直接关系。这三年是与日俱增的。而且，法庭基本上会宽大处理，以至于双方性急的人都受到了怂恿。1933年1月20日，这一心态达到了顶峰，当时在“饥饿游行”和“长桥”战斗中犯罪的人都被大赦。因此，在希特勒掌权后，他们可以自由地参与各种活动。

    三年来的暴力行为的遗产，打破头、撕裂嘴角和打伤眼睛的后果是多样化的。当然，任何一场打斗都没能决定什么，这些打斗与其说是政治紧张的原因，不如说是其结果。但是这些打斗为城镇积累了足够的痛苦。由于和平的解决被证明是不可能了，诺特海姆人越来越习惯于以暴力的方式解决政治不合。有秩序的人对经常发生的打斗感到厌恶，但最后却习惯了打斗。因此，这为希特勒上台后纳粹分子系统地利用暴力和恐怖行为铺平了道路，也为诺特海姆人相对冷漠地接受他们铺平了道路。这就是纳粹掌权的主要原因。

  • 马戛尔尼《1793乾隆英使觐见记》

    第一章　北上见闻

    ●一路北上

    1793年6月15日，礼拜六。吾船“狮子”号，自交趾支那之多伦海湾出发，向中国开行。同行者有三船，一为“印度斯坦”号，较大。余二船，一曰“戛考尔”；一曰“克拉伦司”，均二桅之小帆船也。

    19日礼拜三。下午二时，中国大陆已隐隐可见，其方向则罗盘中之“东北偏北”也。

    20日礼拜四。晨六时，下碇于辣得郎海口。余命史但顿勋爵、密司忒麦克斯威尔、甲必丹麦金吐司三人登陆，报告吾船抵埠之息耗，顾以此时一季中之商船多未抵埠。

    译者按：尔时交通机关尚未大备，海外商船之来华营业者，不能如现时之川流不息，仅能按季往来一次，且必结伙同行，互相照应，故云然。

    即欧洲各国商人之营业于东方者，亦多在澳门，故报告而后，岸上未有若何之举动也。

    22日礼拜六。下午，史但顿勋爵回船，言得澳门消息，中国朝廷自得吾英特派使臣来行觐聘礼之确耗而后，文武官员均大为满意。乾隆皇帝亦以为己身克享遐龄，以古稀天子之身，至政幕将闭之候。而犹得一远国如吾英吉利者，使使万里东来，共敦睦谊，则其毕生之威名荣誉，至是而益增矣。因通令全国各海口，凡有吾英皇帝陛下所属之船只抵埠者，当以至敬之仪节迎接云。

    译者按：《东华录》乾隆五十七年，冬十月，乙酉，上谕：军机大臣郭世勋等奏，据洋商蔡世文等禀，有英吉利国夷人波唧哑口兔口值口臣等来广禀称，该国王因前年大皇帝八旬万寿，未及叩祝，今遣使臣马戛尔尼进贡，由海道至天津赴京等语，并译出原禀进呈，阅其情词，极为恭顺恳挚，自应准其所请，以遂其航海向化之忧，即在天津进口赴京。但海洋风帆无定，或于浙闽江苏山东等处近海口岸收泊，亦未可知，该督抚等如遇该国贡船到口，即将该贡使及贡物等项派委妥员迅速护送进京，毋得稍有迟误。至该国贡船虽据夷人禀称，约于明年二三月可到天津，但洋船行走，风信靡常，或迟到数月或早到数月难以预定。该督抚等应饬属随时禀报，遵照妥办。再该贡船到天津时，若大船难以进口，著穆腾额预备小船，即将贡物拨运起岸，并派员同贡使先行进京，不可因大船难以进口、守候需时致有耽延也。将此传谕各督抚，并谕郭世勋盛住知之。

    28日礼拜五。向归山岛（译音）驶行。因雾重天黑，与“印度斯坦”船及两二桅小帆船相失。先是东印度公司主事者曾派甲必丹柏乐克滔，驾一二桅帆船“勉励”号驶往归山岛，令其游弋该处，候至六月三十日为止，俾与吾船相值。

    30日礼拜。海面不见“勉励”号船之踪迹，遍问中国渔船，亦鲜有见者。此间中国渔船极多，数以千计，望之满目都是，碧波如镜，缀此无数小舟，至足观也。

    吾船下碇后，即有一华人，业领港者，率其所属上船参观。此人虽业领港，顾始终未见一船宏大如吾“狮子”船者，故觉事事新奇，称誉不止。

    后于舱中见壁间悬一中国皇帝之御容，彼辈立即俯伏于地以至恭敬之状，向地皮亲吻数四。

    译者按：以意度之，当是磕头，而外人误为向地皮亲吻，抑何可笑。参考史但顿《出使中国记》曰：彼辈向地皮亲吻，起立，而后咸向吾辈作喜色，似谓汝辈外国人，乃亦敬重吾中国皇帝，悬其像于船中，殊足感谢也。

    7月1日礼拜一。吾船与“印度斯坦”号、“戛考尔”号、“克拉伦司”号三船相遇。

    自上月十九至今，无日不雨，无日不雾，天色沉黑如晦，有时加以风警，航行至此，困苦已极。其中晴畅者仅有一日也。

    3日礼拜三。抵珠山下碇。

    吾即遣史但顿勋爵乘“克拉伦司”船，入城与当地官长商量，俾得一熟悉海路之人，为吾船引港，以便开往天津。吾船停泊之处，盖在城东五十英里许。

    7日礼拜。史但顿勋爵回船，与二引港人俱。引港人言：他种船只均可直抵天津，独“狮子”船体积太大，吃水太深，至庙岛后即不能再进。又言：庙岛地近登州，居北直隶海湾之入口，北直隶海湾浅而多沙，停泊之地绝少。自此往庙岛约四日之程云。史但顿勋爵亦言：抵城后，得此引港之人殊不容易。谓与当地长官说明来意后，当地长官即曰：吾等权利，仅能令引港者导尊船至次一口岸交卸，复由次一口岸供给引港之人，如是逐节交换，至于末一口岸而止。史但顿曰：似此情形，旷时费日，于敝船殊为不便。倘尊船无引港好手能直导吾船至于末一港口者，或宁波地方较大，商业较繁，必能具有此种引港之人，务请贵长官代向宁波雇用。

    长官一闻此言，即念及乾隆皇帝曾有通饬各口岸优待吾船之通令，又恐不为吾等办理此事，吾船抵宁波后，向其上一级之长官言之，此当地之长官必受谴责。乃立允为吾船竭力设法，调查既久，使得二人。系前此自备船只往来经商于天津各口者。令其担任此责，即吾偕来之二人是也。

    然二人虽略有经验，而于航海之知识与技术则殊形浅薄。逆料此去船上引港事宜，仍当自行料理，此二人仅足略备顾问而已。

    19日礼拜五。抵竹岛。竹岛吾尝闻之，庙岛则未之前闻，至是始知引港人之所谓庙岛者，即竹岛之误。

    译者按：山东有竹岛，亦有庙岛，唯竹岛近岸而庙岛孤悬海心。引港人之言虽误，究未全误也。

    负以本国一重要海岸之名词，此辈犹不能记忆无误，则其航海之知识，已概可想见。无怪吾船离岸稍远或偶至海水较深之地，彼等辄战战兢兢以为不可；又无怪吾船破浪而进，不肯受风雨之阻，彼等辄摇首咋舌视为非常也。

    20日礼拜六。自岸上得一新引港人，启碇前行，数小时抵登州府。数日来，天气变更无定，时而暴风骤雨、时而风定雾生。闷坐船中，至觉不快。入暮，约当下碇三小时之后，登州府长官到船拜见。其人为中国大员，一与我见，即言：兄弟已奉到朝廷命令，优待贵使。贵使苟有所需，第在兄弟权力所能办者，当无不如命。倘贵使欲自登州府取陆路晋京，则车辆及一切装运之事，当由兄弟担任云云。余均颔之。此人年事约三十五六，颇精干善交际，与余琐谈杂事，历二小时始去。神意无倦，以素未谋面之人，而周至殷勤，乃如老友，是亦不可多得者矣。

    21日礼拜。登州府长官遣人送礼物至船，计：牛四头，绵羊、山羊各八头，白米、红米各五石，麦粉二百斤，蔬果各数筐。余受其礼，配以相当之回谢礼物，付其使者携去。又有一引港老人，年纪已七十许，亦登州府长官派至船中，听候差遣者。此人言：每当两历七、八、九月之交，北直隶海湾中，恒风平浪静，吾船此去，可无险阻。又言：为吾船驳运行李礼物之船只，今已停泊大沽口，一俟吾船到口，即可改登驳船，开往天津。好在各船均坚固宏大，不虞船中什物之损坏潮湿也。

    ●抵北直隶海湾

    23日礼拜二。吾船在北直隶海湾之内。北直隶海湾为黄海之一部，风浪甚静，一如彼老引港人之所言。黄昏时，吾船与“勉励”号相遇。此船抵澳门时，东印度公司之主事者，不知吾船抵澳门之时，亦须暂泊，因以信札付“勉励”号，令其径行北驶。俾于吾船未抵天津之前，在中途与吾船相遇。及吾船抵澳门，“勉励”号已于数小时前北驶，吾船遂与“勉励”号相失，至是始遇。

    25日礼拜四。晨起，日甫出，即见吾船四周，有中国船无数，大小不等，所占面积可二三英里。吾因问引港人此地何地？去天津之口岸（原注：指大沽口）为程几何？引港人未能明答。而余见远远樯桅丛密之处，南北两旁，均有树木家屋，隐然可见。以意度之，彼处必为直达天津之河道之出口处，与吾船相距，为程不过九英里。顾不审吾所料果否无误，乃命康倍尔大副及密司忒许德南二人，乘“戛考尔”船前往探取息耗。傍晚，二人归，始知吾料果不谬。且言渠等到口之时，即有下级华官数人上船询问，及知此船乃隶于英国钦使部下，华官立请彼等上岸与两大员相见。此两大员已驻节彼间多时，日盼余至，故一见二人，多异常欣忭，待以殊礼，且细问英国钦使及钦使部下各员情形。凡各员之职位品格、性情、年岁，以及此次带来之礼物，“狮子”船及各属船之形式驶力，莫不一一缕问。且令一书记旁侍，将二人答语，笔之于书。二人别时，两大员言：目下岸上各事多已齐备，一俟“狮子”船抵滩（原注：“狮子”船过大，不能傍岸，只可驶抵沙滩而止），当由两大员躬至船上，候英国钦使安好。又言：目下“狮子”船去滩不远，为程不过三海里矣。二人复言默观华员神气，咸料吾船此次带来之礼物必大有可观。而吾船所备者，实为数无几，万一进呈御览时，乾隆皇帝不能满意，则吾辈此行，结果必不能十分圆满。史但顿勋爵亦谓曩在澳门之时，尝与一绅士闲谈。此绅士来华已久，熟悉东方情形。因问钦使，此次东来，携有礼物若干？史但顿举船中所备者告之。绅士曰：似此恐不免令华人失望。职是之故，余乃与史但顿会商添加礼物之法，顾所加之物，既欲求其珍贵，又当以吾英国产为限。而万里东来，所携有限，势不能复回本国而取之。不得已，调查船上各员自备品之珍贵者，照原价估之，借作公用。计得二物：一为大望远镜一具，密司忒勃郎所有；一为潘克氏制大灵司一具。

    译者按：灵司，为光学中凸凹镜之总称，此言潘克氏所制灵司，想系用凸镜或凹镜制成之一种器械，具有特别功用者。

    甲必丹麦金吐司所有。此灵司珍贵异常，不特东方罕见，即吾英亦不可多得。甲必丹曾以重价得之，携之来华，意将奇货居之鬻诸华商，吾恐此物一入华商之手，则达官亲贵，必辗转求之，终至贡诸乾隆皇帝而后已。果使此物仍为乾隆皇帝所得，则同是西方货物，皇帝万机之暇，取吾英所进礼物，于此物比较之，吾礼物优美之光华，必为此物所掩蔽，而皇帝心中，亦必谓英国国家见贻之品，奈何反不如吾臣下之所贡。如是则吾此番出使之荣誉，必为之稍减，而于吾英国国家之光荣，亦所关非细也，故余与甲必丹熟商，移购此物置之礼物之中，自谓礼物中有此二物。北京虽大，而所藏西洋精美之品，殆无有足与相埒者矣。

    入夜，余以登岸之前，有种种急应与华官斟酌布置之事。而入国问禁，吾盲于中国习俗，凡关于仪注一切，尤不得不先有人为余探询。因复遣许德南乘“勉励”船登岸，与华官接洽。

    28日礼拜。有下级华官数人来船问安好，且言：岸上各事现已布置就绪，有驳船多艘，已在沙滩恭候。尚有多艘，定于明日开至沙滩云。

    30日礼拜二。密司忒许德南乘“勉励”号回船，自言承办各事，已一一接洽妥当。又言，当“勉励”号傍岸停泊之时，曾有华官多人，上船询问：汝等有钟表及刀剑出卖否？许德南辞以吾船并非商船，不卖钟表刀剑。彼等乃露失望之色，悻悻而去。准是以观，彼等殆有热望，吾等以此种零星小物见赠之意，余苟不设法赠之，必非彼等所愿。顾所备礼物，既不能分拆，而船上各员行李中所携之零星小物，亦为数无几，不敷分派。不得已，与“印度斯坦”船上各执事人商量，购其随身携用之时表以益之。

    ●友人至

    31日礼拜三。终日大风，海湾中小船不能行驶。午刻，两大员督驾大号驳船七艘，自岸上装运大宗粮食杂物到船。计：牛二十头、羊一百三十头、猪一百二十头、鸡一百只。

    鸭一百头、粉一百六十袋、米一百六十袋、满洲面包十四箱、茶叶十箱，小米一箱、红米十箱，白米十箱，蜡烛十箱，西瓜一千个，甜瓜三千个、干制桃子二十二箱，蜜饯果子三十二箱、干制果子二十二箱、蜜饯蔬菜二十二箱、盐制蔬菜二十二箱、大号冬瓜四十篮、南瓜一千个、新鲜蔬菜四十捆、豌豆荚二十担、陶器三篓，供给之周于如此，而礼貌又优渥异常，恐世界各国之优待他国使臣者，多不能与此东方帝国比也。顾吾以其所赠之物太多，供过于需，全受之或滋霉腐，故仅受其大半，而璧其小半。两大员一曰樊大人、一曰周大人（译者按：均译音）。樊、周二字系族氏，大人则其尊称，言伟人之人物也。

    樊大人为一武官，头上插孔雀毛，戴红珊瑚顶子。红珊瑚顶子者，二品官之标记也。

    周大人则为文官，科甲出身，戴一蓝顶子。蓝顶子与红顶子较，品级居次，然华人重文轻武，樊大人之权，似反在周大人之下也。

    二人上“狮子”船后，先与余寒暄，作种种中国式之客气状态，余亦勉效一二以报之，然自问殊不能中式也。坐定后，即谈正事。周大人且谈且记，凡渠意中以为必须记录者，一一笔之于书。未几，凡关于吾辈登岸时之一切设备，以及装运行李礼物之方法、应用驳船之形式及多寡，均已商量就绪。而余一计登岸之前，尚有种种预备，恐非在四五日之后，不能离船也。两大人均英敏有才具，语言流畅，而又明于事理，宛而能达，以故舌人居间翻译，无误会阻隔之弊。

    谈话既毕余即留两大人在船中小酌。吾人所用刀叉，两大人初觉用之不习，然未几即能随意叉切。船中原备之肴馔，初无珍品，即由庖丁自两大人见赠各品中，择其珍贵者烹调以进。酒则悉系西品，因东西口味不同，尽出所藏种种名酒于案，听两大人自择。两大人乃一一遍尝之，凡葡萄酒、杜松子酒、烧酒、啤酒、糖水酒、椰子酒、舍利别酒、白兰地酒等，莫不各饮少许。而以白兰地酒最当其意，故所饮较多。两大人告别时，亦学西礼，与余握手。及至舱面，见吾船卫队及音乐队，方整列行送别之礼，则顾而大乐，驻足听音乐移时，始欢然而去。吾知两大人心中必甚满意也。两大人在船时，曾一问吾船带来礼物何若？余告之以各物之名，及其形式功用，两人均言此种礼物甚为合适，请开一清单见示。俾先期译为华文，进呈御览，余诺之。

    8月2日礼拜五。有大号驳船数艘，自岸上来，装驳“印度斯坦”船中各物。一三品官戴蓝顶子者，同来监督其事，至各驳船一律装满后始去。

    3日礼拜六。仍自岸上派驳船前来装驳货物，约计下礼拜一可以装完。其监理之人，仍为昨日之三品官。

    4日礼拜。是日，装驳货物之人，均异常出力，仅一日之长将各物装置完毕。装毕后，预定先将此种大号驳船开至大沽，再从大沽换用小号驳船开至通州。通州离北京十二英里，至此水道已尽，须改由陆路入京矣。余不耐闷坐，至船头观看中国苦力搬运货物，见人人多筋骨坚壮，饶有气力。虽做事之时，歌唱呼唤，殊扰人耳，而秩序井然不紊，又能各尽其力，无贪懒嬉戏者，洵足多也。各驳船装置货物既毕，三品官即分派下级官员数人，令各司一船，以各船所装货物之细账付之，使为一船之长，担负职任，以防遗误，亦善法也。此时余料明日之晨，余及属员必须登陆。登陆之后，华人之欢迎供张必备极优异。若互派公使一事，得蒙中国朝廷批准，则吾辈勾留之时间，亦必甚久。倘留此数船静候于此，殊属无谓，计不如令各船回至珠山休息。因“狮子”船中上下司役，困于船居已久，当得一安静之地泊之，令船中人得登陆一舒体气。若休息若干时后，吾犹无回国之必要者，各船即可先行回国，而“印度斯坦”容量甚大，力能任重。苟于抵珠山后，装载商货若干回英发卖，亦未始非吾英商务推广于中国珠山一处之先声也。至于甲必丹麦金吐司，则吾意拟偕其同在北京后，即向华官乞一护照，使返珠山。俾驾其所管之船，由珠山为吾传递公文回英，此种计划自谓斟酌颇当也。

    ●抵大沽口

    5日礼拜一。晨九时，吾离“狮子”军舰登岸。

    吾与属员仍分坐“克拉伦司”、“戛考尔”、“勉励”三船，其余卫队、仆役等人，则坐中国驳船，杂于行李、礼物之间。自吾离船之地至白河口（译者按：大沽口），为程十八英里，半日而达。

    入口而后，见河中船只甚多，不可以数计。河面几为之尽塞，其南岸则有中国兵队，整列行礼，军容殊整饬可观。樊大人及周大人，一见吾至，立即欢笑而前，谓岸上已备有筵宴，邀吾一临。吾以体甚罢茶，酬酢为苦，坚辞之。两大人固请，吾仍以身体欠佳为辞，乃易坐中国客船，以便溯河而上。此种客船，乃樊、周两大人先期为吾预备者，洁净高爽，极合卫生。其停泊地点，离河口约一英里。及吾等甫上客船，而樊、周两大人亦已赶至，至则先向余候安。且言，船上一切，简慢异常，钦使若有所需，请即见示。余言：两大人周至如此，所需之物，谅已尽备，外此必无他需。

    两大人复一一问诸各属员，各属员均以此言谢之。其殷恳之忱，至足感也。

    吾船泊处，其居民咸至岸头驻足而观。余于人丛中见妇女数人，亦系大足，轻便善走，不与中国普通妇女之跛躄难行者相类，心甚奇之。后乃知缠足仅为上流妇女之风尚，下流妇女为便于做工自活计，缠者甚少。此种风俗，中国南北各省皆同。唯近以北方密迩帝都，下流妇女竞效时装，致不缠足者较少于他省云。余所见妇女，大都食力自活者，肌肤为风霜所剥，颇不美丽。然此间天气尚佳，面色虽见侵于风霜，致中年之人带有老年之貌，而气色则固无憔悴之状也。

    妇女多束起粗黑之发于头顶，压之以金质之针；小儿则露体者居多，亦有袒露其上体者；男子多雄伟有力，四肢筋肉突起，无委靡不振之相。余逐处留意观之，不觉朗诵诗人莎士比亚《飓引曲》中之句曰：观此芸芸之众生兮，叹造物之神奇，朕人类之美且大兮，吾乐乎新世界之自居。

    6日礼拜二。朝曦甫上，即有华官以食物及种种需用之品，逐一至各船分发。秩序既佳，礼貌亦即恭谨。

    既而有高级官员数人上船，向余问安好。且言北直隶总督某大人，向来驻节保定府。保定府距此凡一百英里，今因受皇帝之命，令其欢迎英国钦使，特移节此间，俾与钦使一面，且可照料一切，以尽东道之礼。

    八时，余与史但顿勋爵及史但顿之子——小史但顿，与译员一人，相率离船登岸。登岸时，自甲板以至岸边，已架一木桥以便行走。桥绝阔，面上铺以洁净之草席，两旁有栏，缠以红锦，颜色夺目。即此一桥之费，亦已甚可观矣。一抵岸头，即有轻轿四乘，胪列以待，轿用竹制，外张色缎，每乘有轿夫四人，二前而二后均强健善走。上轿后，有马兵一队为吾辈前驱。行一英里，抵海神庙。海神庙者，总督之行辕，且用以接待吾辈者也。庙门之外，有棚帐数座，颜色不一，有白、红、蓝各种，其中似以蓝色一种品级较高。吾侪未至之前，帐门均阖，行稍近，帐中兵队即出帐外站班。各兵手中均执钢刀，无有荷火器者。军服系蓝布或蓝羽毛所制，镶以绝阔之红边；又有马兵一队，排列庙前，手中不持刀，亦无手枪，但有弓一张、矢一束，为状与吾英古代之甲士同也。

    抵庙门，总督亲出欢迎，礼貌极隆。旋导余至一广厅，坐甫定，有其属员及侍从多人，至厅中恭立站班，亦有分列两行，作“八”字式，站于堂下者。中国俗尚，客至必进茶，吾辈进茶后，总督又导余至一陈设精美之室中小坐。自广厅至此室，中间经一天井，四面均有房屋围之。此天井四周之墙壁，有五彩画图极可娱目。余初意此壁必为木制，木外复加以油漆，绘成人物宫室之形，乃逼近观之，全体均属瓷瓦，其花纹乃自窑中烧出。则东方之瓷业，洵有足为吾辈艳羡者也。

    既入此室，吾即与总督谈论一切。总督先向吾寒暄，问吾身体康健。继即言中国皇帝自闻贵钦使来此觐见之消息后，异常满意。现皇帝方在热河避暑，皇帝之意，甚愿贵钦使早日安抵热河云云。余亦先向总督作适当之寒暄语，次即言敝使此来，随从之人既众，而所携行李，以及将来赠与皇帝之礼物，为数亦复不少，拟请贵总督先在北京代觅宽大之房屋，以便居息。又言：目下皇帝避暑热河，敝使既来，自当径往热河觐见。但北京热河之间多为陆路，苟悉数将所携薄礼运去，恐颠簸之余，不免有所损坏，故拟将轻便者随身携去，其重大者则于抵北京之后即运至皇宫中存放。又言：敝国皇帝，为西方第一雄主；贵国皇帝，则为东方第一雄主。今敝国皇帝遣敝使来此，意欲永修两国之好，令敝使此行得有优良之结果。敝使秉承敝国皇帝之命，又承敝国皇帝委以全权，自当以皇帝之心为心，处处仰体上意，方可勿亏厥职。但东西习俗不同，敝使深虞处事不当，尚望贵总督不吝教言，时时加以指导，庶于觐见贵国皇帝之时免贻笑柄。又言：敝使所坐“狮子”等船，困于海程者已有数月之久。今船上之人，既欲得一适当之地以一舒体气。即船体亦当有所修治，倘贵总督惠及远人，许各船得驶出北直隶海湾，至南方择适宜之口岸停泊，则感激不尽矣。

    总督人极和善，其恭敬谦㧑之状，几非吾笔所能述。一闻余言，立即应曰：此事必可如命，且贵使部下船只，必有多时勾留，兄弟当饬属下以十二个月中所需之物品供给之。总督年已七十八岁，体不高，目小而有英光流露，须白如银，下垂及胸，容貌蔼然可亲，举动雅驯有儒者气。即待其属员亦无矜居自大之色。比吾返，船中已设有盛宴，珍肴满桌，香沁心脾。问之，则总督之所馈也。

    7日礼拜一。晨间樊大人来，言：总督大人将于十点钟到船，向余问安好。但大人春秋已高，步履颇觉艰苦，倘欲从岸头到船，势必由此水桥而过，此木桥势甚峻险，以龙钟如大人者行之，恐有危险。余聆其言，不解所谓，即曰：总督大人年鬓既高，屈驾至此，已属万不敢当，如以过此木桥为危险，则敝使更不敢强其履险。且敝使昧于贵国风俗，今后各事，请各大人就贵国习尚中所有者便宜行之，敝使决不稍持异议。今总督大人，为乾隆皇帝信任之封疆大臣，吾知其对于敝使，凡所措施，均能深合贵国皇帝优待远人之意。樊大人乃曰：如是则甚善。现在总督大人之意，拟亲至河岸，遣一人至船，持总督大人之名片向贵使请安。缘敝国习俗，本人或以不得已之故不能亲至，则名片之至，亦与本人之至同。今总督大人以年老不能过桥，用一名片为代，不知贵使满意否？余曰：可。此事悉听总督大人尊便可也。樊大人遂欣然而去。

    钟十鸣，总督果来。仪仗之盛足令观者炫目。总督一至岸头，即命停轿，轿口与木桥相对，其随队之厮役立即下跪，向大人行礼。兵士及属官之骑马者亦下马而跪。其尊严殆非吾西方之帝王所能及也。于是，总督乃命一属官持一名片过木桥至吾船，口称恭候钦使大人钧安。吾部下译员受其名片，从华语语之曰：请代候贵总督大人钧安。属官遂行礼而去。吾视总督之名片，红色，大逾吾西人所用名片可数倍。上用大字刊其官衔名字，殊大方可爱。

    属官一至岸头，向总督打千，禀白数语而后，总督以公事已毕，立即传命回轿。于是跪地者纷纷起，依来时之仪仗，整列而去。此时吾辈拜会酬酢之事已毕，乃一意整理行李什物，由大号驳船运至小号客船之中，俾得上驶。有官员数人受上官之命，到船督饬厮役搬运，其干事之勤恳、秩序之整肃，吾船上下员司见之莫不啧啧称异。

    以为中国朝廷，其组织之法，足令上方之力，直达下方，为状殆类一机器。但令此机器之原动力一发，则机器各部即依其秩序而转动，不辍不滞，凡人力能为之事，莫不能任之，洵可异也。

    吾辈整理行李什物，费时二日之久，所用船只，自吾本人起，以至役夫、工匠、卫队、乐工及一切行李、礼物等，大小共37艘。每艘各有一桅，桅头悬旗，旗上用中国字标明英使船只。使见者知吾船与普通客船有别，且可令沿路地方官知所保护。37船而外，复有华官及中国厮役所乘之大小船只数十艘，以便沿途照料，供给一切。

    其中官员之品级大有不同。吾观其头上顶子，既分红、蓝、白、黄各种，各种之中，颜色复有深浅明暗之别。衣上花纹亦各异其状，仔细分之恐有百数十级之多也。

    9日礼拜五。各事已就绪，静俟开船。一至午刻，各船船户忽出铜锣齐鸣之，声音洪亮异常，置身其中，对面不能闻言语。余不解所以，问之，始知此系官员所坐船只开船时之记号。鸣锣约半小时，各船次第解缆，鱼贯而进，风顺而平，各船均扯篷，速率每点钟约可五英里。

    ●抵天津

    11日礼拜。早晨抵天津。总督大人已于昨晚抵此，设行辕于河岸。另有一金（译者注：金字译音）大人，系鞑靼籍。

    译者按：尔时西人昧于东方地理，凡满蒙各处，以及中央亚细亚等，通称之曰鞑靼。此言鞑靼籍，当指旗籍而言。

    向来驻节天津，官位极高甚有权力。此次乾隆皇帝因总督大人已老，不能任劳苦之役，特命金大人为钦差，樊大人、周大人副之，使经办一切。凡关于吾英钦使来华觐聘之事，均由金大人斟酌办理。将来吾辈由北京前往热河，亦由金、樊、周三人一路保护，至是吾辈始与金大人相遇。吾船停泊之地，适在全埠中央，居总督行辕之前。岸上与吾船正对处，贴近水边，有中国式之戏园一座，乃临时所造，专供欢迎吾辈所用者。此戏园构造虽不坚实耐久，然装饰颇佳，四周用五色锦绣扎彩，微风动之，红紫缤纷，目为之眩。

    吾船下碇之后，园中即金鼓大作，文武艺员出场奏技。有神怪之剧，有人事之剧，至剧目数更，历数小时之久始辍演。戏园而外，复有兵队甚多，排列两岸，延长可及一英里。各兵均着军服，兀立不动，军旗之多不可胜数。自远望之，气象森严，不可逼近，亦有军乐，见吾船一到，即大吹大擂作雄壮之曲。至午，余乃率部下官员及仆从、卫队、乐工之属全体登岸。总督大人及钦差金大人迎于岸边，导吾至其行辕中茶话。坐定之后，总督复向余寒暄，为状一与在海神庙时相若，费时甚多，余颇觉不耐。

    寒暄而后，乃入正文。当谈论正事之时，余于语气中隐窥钦差金大人之意，颇似不欲与吾辈友善，排外之心，见诸颜色，不独处处与余无理取闹，即对其上官总督大人亦有不逊之气，何为而然？则非吾所悉也。

    吾辈谈话之第一段，即路程问题。讨论多时，始议决自此以往，先由水路赴通州，通州至北京，为程十二英里。然至此水路已尽，必须改由陆路。据华官之意，从陆路共计费时不过七日。本日为十一日，抵北京之日，当为十八日。余以为自水路改换陆路，须将船中行李什物一一起出，用车辆装载，此起载之事既非顷刻间可了，而吾及部下人员，或者又因他事，必须小作勾留，不能随到随发。则抵京之期，至早必在本月二十日。宁算之过宽，毋算之过促也。

    至于抵京之后，吾辈仆仆长途，困惫已久，势不能不有十数日之休息。且以吾私人而论，眷属既不耐陆行，不能同赴鞑靼（译者按：指热河），则吾必于北京觅一安静之地以居之。以公事而论，种种聘礼，既不能悉数携至热河，则凡重大宜损之物，如“浑天仪”、“地球仪”、“大灵司”、“自鸣钟”、折光镜等，均当于北京择妥当之地安置之。凡此种种，均当费去相当之时间。预计从北京启行之期，当在九月五日，而自北京至热河，为程少则六日，多则八日。即以八日论，亦能于乾隆皇帝诞辰之前赶到。以乾隆皇帝诞辰，乃在九月十七日也。余述此种种，自谓斟酌适当，极合情理，两大人静坐听之，亦时时点首称是。及至余述毕之后，金大人忽趋至余前，若有急迫之事，与吾商榷，不复顾及仪容礼貌者。其言曰：贵使之言须重加讨论，即如礼物一项，亦非一律运至热河，同时交与皇帝阅看不可。语时声色颇不和顺，若欲与吾喧辩者。余从容语之曰：倘于事实上能依照贵钦差之意，一律办到，诚为敝使所甚愿，只以陆路太长，有多数礼物质料脆弱，万万不能经车辆之颠簸，故不得不留置北京，非有所惮劳也，因酌举数物之形式材料详细告之。

    金大人气少平，然犹期期以为不可，谓：乾隆皇帝之意，深信贵使必能将各物运至热河，同时进呈，非敝钦差有意为难。余曰：乾隆皇帝为贵国元首，率土之滨莫不在皇帝治权之下，故无论何物，但使皇帝之意欲置之于何处者，臣下在所必遵。敝使之意，非不欲谨遵皇帝之命，只恐遵之不以其道，致区区薄礼尽于中途毁之，此则非特重敝使之罪而已也，且恐大非吾英皇帝陛下致礼之本意，亦非贵国皇帝陛下受礼之本意也。今贵钦差谨遵贵国皇帝之命，敝使虽至愚，亦安敢坚执异议，但愿贵钦差稍费精神，代敝使一任转运之劳，则贵钦差既可如愿以偿，敝使亦可免于获咎。事之两全，无有过此者矣。

    金大人一闻此言，自计万一报保不周，致礼物稍有破损必获重谴，乃立正改其桀骜不驯之状，愿与吾从长计议。总督大人亦劝其不复固执，遂议决仍从初议。然余初与金大人见面，金大人即无理取闹，则后于此公共事，势难顺手。言念及此，心滋不快，讨论毕，告别回船。

    总督大人已预遣属官送筵宴至，酒、肉、蔬、果、糖食均备，复有丝、茶、棉布之属，云是薄礼。嘱余代为分派，赠与吾部下各员，及船上一切仆役、卫队、乐工机匠等人。

    虽所赠并非珍品，而厚意殷殷，殊可感谢。余乃不得不用绝隆重之言辞答谢之。且以总督大人既与吾善，吾此后前往热河正当托其荫庇，缘彼于此间事了之后，即需径往热河觐见。但令总督觐见之时，向乾隆皇帝为吾辈略事吹嘘，则皇帝一信总督之言，金钦差即莫由肆其伎俩，吾乃大受其惠。以此之故，彼礼虽菲，余仍不得不以隆辞答其盛情也。

    入夜，天津地方官及邻县地方官，均到船向余问安好。余一一以适当之礼款接之。彼等见余所用什物、书籍、衣服之类，咸细加考究，眉目间颇露惊异之色，盖见所未见，自不得不尔也。

    余细观各人性质，大都活泼率真，长于言语，工于应酬，而又沉静有毅力，是亦足窥中国人性情之一部分矣。

    是夜，北京教士格拉姆孟德致余二书。言钦使此来，敝教士愿为钦使服役，顷闻中国皇帝，已延一葡萄牙教士，为钦使舌人，至钦使觐见之时，语言概由该教士传达。此事恐非钦使所愿，谨以所闻，上尘清听云云。

    译者按：彼时英葡不睦，故有此信。

    余以此事初未接有总督及钦差之通告，即樊、周二大人亦未尝言及，万一格拉姆孟德之言见诸实事，大非吾初意所及。乃立即函告总督及金钦差，言吾辈到北京后，拟自就各欧洲教士中聘一适当之人，为觐见时之翻译。缘欧洲言语种类甚多，有吾英人所解者，亦有吾英人不解者，苟用一旦解华语不解英语之人，于事仍无所补，因此拟请代奏圣明，不必代为聘用。书去未久，即复书。言此事当遵命代奏，谅可批准，无劳仅念云云。余心始释然。

    此时，岸上及船中之中国人民，咸企足引首，向吾船观看，面上各露惊异之色。

    且多久立不去，若愿穷一日之力，以研究吾辈之举动者，惜吾船未能久留。

    ●即抵京城

    吾回船未几，即解缆循西北之方向开行。自此以后，每日除晨间华官监送当日之饮食至船，及沿途地方官上船拜谒，略事停船外，均不分日夜开行。

    12日礼拜一。清晨抵武清，未几即复开行。余于船中无所事事，乃得以吾笔之余沈，择不甚紧要而有可记之价值者记之。

    华官派至各船执役之人，平均每船十四五名，以37船共计，数达500以外。故每有所事，一呼百诺。即至难之事，亦无不立办。此辈服务既勤，身体亦异常坚硕，足应其劳动之所需。虽肩背多曲，作圆球形，然绝非病象，乃作工时俯首曲背之所致。面色以久暴日中，作紫铜之色。初见之者，以为面色既黑，体干必笨重，不能为灵巧之事。然吾观彼辈投身河中，洗冷水之浴，出没于波浪之间，其活泼敏捷，固未尝以面黑而减色也。彼辈一至夏季，即裸其上体，故自腰以上，肤色之黑与面若，腰以下则甚白也。此间多蚊蚋，终日随船缠扰，挥之不去，殊以为苦；又有一种巨蛾，其大几与嘤嘤雀相若，亦至可厌恶。而两岸深树之中，日夜蝉鸣不绝，无事时静焉聆之，觉凉风习习自两腋而来也。

    13日礼拜二。晨间，有下级华官数人，督饬厮役，循例送供给之物至船。有食物数种，已发酵不可复食。余以是日天气极热，法伦表升至88度以上，食物之酵腐，正意中事，不能厚责经办之人。故仅令厮役取去，嘱易新鲜者送来，未曾加以声色。而高级华官闻之，立传经办之下等华官去，捽去其头上顶子以示罚；又呼厮役至其船，笞责若干数。

    余闻其事，甚骇其所用刑罚之不当。

    至午，与樊大人相见，即为言明天热致酵之故，请不必重责经办之人。今厮役受笞，固已无可挽救，至革去顶戴之官员数人，尚望从宽开复，恕其既往，敝使雅不愿贵国官员以敝使之故，致遭斥革。樊大人唯唯而去其状虽颇以吾言为然，而已革之华官数人，则始终未闻有开复之消息，是可见中国之法律与公理，不能以吾西人之目光判断也。

    14日礼拜三。上午，至北岸望见绝华丽之大厦一所，云是乾隆皇帝南下之行宫，屋顶多用黄瓦，日光烛之，烂然作黄金之色，奇观也。是日，天气较前数日凉爽，天空中恒有浮云飞驶而过，然又无雨。苟吾船开行时，船前不鸣锣以喧扰吾耳者，吾此行爽快极矣。据华人言，开船鸣锣，乃向吾表示敬礼之意。但吾仔细观察之，凡吾船至转弯或调换方向之时，亦鸣锣以关照同行各船，则此扰人意绪之锣声，于表示敬礼之外，尚含有航行时之信号之性质也。

    15日礼拜四。吾船自入口来，一路多为荒野，望之令人气闷。至此乃于岸上相距三四十英里之处，见有青山环列，矮树甚多，为状至堪入画，吾人神绪遂不期为之一振。而自开船之后，金、樊、周三大人，必日日过吾船谈话。今日之晨，彼等又来，神气乃较往日为严整，若行正式拜会之礼者。余问其故，则言：现在已得乾隆皇帝诏谕，前此贵钦使所开礼物目录，已译成华文进呈御览，皇帝见之，龙颜大悦。至于礼物不能悉数运至热河，须将重大者安置北京一事，亦已蒙皇帝批准。皇帝又谕令敝钦差等，在北京为贵钦使预备广厦二处，一处在城中，一处在城外六英里，与圆明园相近。此二处中，孰适孰不适？一凭贵钦使自择。但以敝钦差等观之，城外一区，既与圆明园毗邻，必饶山水花木之胜，贵钦使雅人，自必就此而弃彼也。又言，贵钦使抵热河后，一过皇上万寿之期，即可返京。即皇上亦当于万寿之后，即回銮听政也。

    余前此与三大人谈论之时，曾言礼物中有野战炮数尊，旧炮数尊，物虽重滞，颇不易碎损，尽可携往热河。至是，彼等乃言：贵钦使居热河之时，必甚短促。此种武器亦不妨留置北京，恐带至热河之后，仍无试演之机会与时刻，故不如不带之为是。余诺之。彼等乃侈谈他事，然意中仍有所归束，并非与正文绝无关系者。吾于此乃不得不深叹华官谈话时，具有开合擒纵之能力，初非乱说乱道者比也。

    彼等初向余琐谈中国朝廷之礼节及宫殿之宏丽，余静聆之，一一加以称誉。谓毕竟文明古国，气象是当如是。彼等乃复谈各国服制之同异，谈过半，行至吾旁，执吾衣襟袖观之，因言：贵使之衣窄小轻便，吾中国之衣则宽大舒适，二者相较，似以中国之衣为善。余颔之。彼等复言：吾中国皇帝见臣下时，衣服必取一律，因贵钦使之衣，与华人不同，似于观瞻有碍。彼言至此，据指吾所缚蔽膝曰：此物于行礼大不方便，贵钦使觐见之时，先宜去之。余闻此言不解其意，因曰：此事可无劳贵钦差置念，敝使在本国之时，常着用此种礼服，觐见敝国皇帝陛下，殊不觉有所不便。今来贵国，拟用觐见敝国皇帝陛下之礼，觐见贵国皇帝陛下。谅贵国皇帝，不至强我必用华礼。彼等曰：敝钦差等以为觐见皇帝之礼，各国必同，敝国觐见皇帝时，例当双膝下跪，磕响头九个，想贵国亦必如此。余曰：敝国礼节与此略异。今敝使来此，虽当以至诚之心，使事事致贵国皇帝于满意之地，仍宜以尽职于敝国皇帝为第一要务。果欲令敝使舍本国祖宗相传之礼节，强从华俗，则此种答语，敝使雅不愿发诸口吻。万一必欲吾置答者，吾当作一意见书，至抵北京之时交奉。

    彼等见余言辞决绝，遂不接下文，改谈他事。谓：贵使此来，道路既远，所历艰险必多，谅贵国皇帝陛下必甚念贵使。现敝国皇帝已决意将今年秋狩之说取消，俟万寿期过即当回京，俾与贵使就北京接治一切，勿令贵使淹滞敝国，致劳贵国皇帝陛下挂念。余曰：贵国皇帝神圣英武，此次敝使航海东来，捧呈敝国皇帝之手书以进，谅贵国皇帝必能洞悉敝国皇帝致书之本义何若？敝使来此之本意何若？既如是，则敝使回英之时期，以及回英之后，如何履命于敝国皇帝，谅贵国皇帝必已胸有成竹。贵国皇帝声威及于全国，荣名被于海外，敝使来此观光，荣幸无极。将来回英之后，将缕陈于敝国皇帝之前，使敝国皇帝知此东方之雄主，乃一大有为之人也。

    彼等又问：贵钦使此来，既为贵国皇帝携来礼物多种，不知贵使亦自备礼物，以为敝国皇帝上寿否？此问为外交上绝无仅有之奇问。余骤闻之，几至不能置答，旋以此或中国风俗使然，似亦不足为异。而余来此之时，本有马车一辆，以备送与乾隆皇帝者，因从容答之曰：敝使亦自备一马车，虽价值远不逮敝国皇帝所备礼物之珍贵。（原注：臣不能僭君，吾所备礼物例当贱于英皇之礼物也。）虽式样颇与中国车辆不同，而在英国马车中，已得上品之誉，故不揣菲陋，拟上之贵国皇帝，不知贵国皇帝能哂受否。又曰：此外尚有微礼数种，拟至新年时进呈。此盖非由衷之言，第言之以一探彼等之意耳。因吾自抵天津后，即闻一种风说，谓中国体制，不许他国使臣久驻，与欧洲各国情形不同。吾以此种消息甚有关系，故不得不探。而此言一发，彼等果未有若何之答语，但以支吾应之。则前此所得风说，已信而有征矣。

    此三人中，钦差金大人与吾最不契合。吾自天津至此，每与见面心中即觉不快，彼亦强自伪饰，示吾不怀恶意，而其排外之观念终能于其不知不觉间见之。吾以不与彼亲，终非吾福，每见必竭诚相待，冀破其以蛮夷戎狄视我之鄙念，然其人不可理喻，终莫如之何也。

    樊、周二大人，则极意与吾交好，盛意殷殷极可感慰。尝有一次，金大人适以事他去，彼二人造吾闲谈，言：乾隆皇帝鞑靼也，鞑靼不信华人，只信鞑靼。故国家无论何事，有华人办之，必有鞑靼掣其肘。今欲欢迎贵钦使，苟无一鞑靼如金某其人者厕乎其间，为事岂不大妙。乃皇帝必欲重任鞑靼，委以全权，事无巨细，概须由此鞑靼上达圣听。而此鞑靼复为群鞑靼之尤，愚黯昏盲，而又自作聪明。吾辈乃大觉扫兴。又言：贵钦使属警敏，一见此人即知其人格之不善，时时用忍耐之心加以防范，非聪明人安得如此云。

    16日礼拜五。下午六点半钟，抵通州城外，至此水路已尽，遂舍舟登陆。然于未登陆之前，有一事颇关重要，吾当补述之。

    一日，余与三大人闲谈。一大人忽谈及印度孟加拉所驻英军，问吾该军情势何若？吾约举告之。其人即曰：近日中国西藏不幸有土番之乱，不知孟加拉所驻贵国军队，何事援助西藏叛民与敝国开衅？余以此事未之前闻，疑骇不可名状，立言此事万非情理所有，敝使可力保其必非确耗。其人曰：否！吾中国官军与叛军开战之时，初意叛军多乌合之众，官军一至势将瓦解。交锋而后，乃知叛军亦颇有能力可与官军抵抗。因疑叛军苟非得有外人之援助，必不至善战至此。后乃果于开战之时，见叛军中有西人数名，为之指挥，而所戴帽子则与贵国之兵相若，故疑为孟加拉之英军。余以此事苟不加以明辨，颇足酿成国际之恶感。或者事本乌有，此人特假设其辞，以一试吾英人有无凯觎中国边地之野心，则尤不得不声辩于先。乃曰：此事真伪姑不论，即以地理言，孟加拉之与西藏相去绝远，西藏有事，吾英军不惟不能参与，即消息亦莫能传达。其人始无言而去。次日，其人又问曰：贵国孟加拉军队，前此谣传援助西藏叛军之事，已由贵钦使证明其误，敝国上下，万无不信贵使之言之理，但不知孟加拉军队，亦肯助吾官军以平叛军否？余以此人调皮至极，即答之曰：否！以地理而论，吾军既不能助叛军，即有助官军之心，亦鞭长莫及。此人盖欲令吾于无意之中，答以英军用助官军，然后将余昨日地理上风马牛不相及之说，根底推翻也。

    吾船自天津至此，一路供给之物，如酒、肴、蔬、果之属，罔不穷极奢贵，伺候之人亦殷勤逾恒。而两岸相近之处，驻有兵队额多，每见吾船过时，各兵队辄自篷帐中整列而出，就岸头行礼，高竖军旗，和以军乐，如在夜间，则添点灯笼，为数可达万许，照耀几同白昼。灯笼之外，复有焰火，亦颇可娱目。船中偶有所需，但一发吻，华官无不于俄顷间办至。有数物，余以非关公用，拟自出所值购之，而华官必不肯受钱。谓：受则必受上峰之责。

    平心而论，中国人以此种盛礼待客，而与吾接见之各官员，又复谦㧑和蔼，常带笑容，似亦不能复有所讥仪矣。然于敬礼之中，不免寓有虚伪，诚意乃隐而不露，此则吾不得不引为缺憾者也。例如吾船过处，每见风景清幽之地，或乡村风物，吾欲观之以一窥社会情状者，吾虽屡请停船，俾上岸一观其究竟，而终为华官所阻。顾华官阻我之时，能随时随地发为妙论，令吾明知其阻我之行，而不复有所允怨，或且反可因此自娱，此盖由于各华官平时于言语礼貌一门，娴习有素故也。尤有一事，吾亦不得不述。即吾侪抵此之后，华官于表面上虽加以敬礼，而实则一言一动，罔不受华官之监察。不特监察已也，即起居服御，以及一切习惯礼节，华官亦多以嫉妒之眼光观察之。吾尝读中国历史，知中国人最妒外人。今身历其境，乃知其实在情状，过于历史所言者万万。然吾虽存此心，表面上则事事以和颜悦色处之，冀吾此次之行，得获完美之果。即如各船所悬旗帜，大书特书曰，英国使臣进贡之船，吾亦视若无睹置之不问，盖将待至正当之时刻，方可提议此事也。

    17日礼拜六。既至通州，吾及拟小作勾留，将各种礼物行李，收拾齐整，径用车辆装往圆明园。圆明园距北京7英里，此间距北京12英里，合计19英里。苟不于北京耽搁，则此19英里之途程，仅费一日之力可矣。

    吾船抵此之时，岸头已建有货栈二所，专为存放行李礼物之用，每所各长207英尺，阔13英尺；自地至檐头，高13英尺；自檐头至屋脊亦如之，材料则为坚竹，上覆厚席，以防雨水。两栈之间，建一广道，阔42英尺，道之两端，各设一门，驻之以兵，严禁携火者羼入，以防火烛。据云，此货栈及广道，乃于数点钟之内，督饬工匠数百名赶成之。吾船抵此之后，未及一日之长，此辈工匠已尽将37船之物，一一移置货栈之中。中有数物，分量既重，形体复极庞大，而中国工匠乃能以其臂力与其活泼之精神，合力舁之，自船至栈，直行不息，而观其神情又异常欣喜，初不若有人驱之迫之者。此或中国政体之完备，及人民天赋之独厚使然，非他国所能及也。盖中国苦工，具有一种无重不举之能力。若一物之重量过大，非一人所能举，彼等即以坚绳缚之，然后取粗竹二根穿诸绳中，每人各以竹之一端置之于肩，舁之前行。若此二人之力犹不能举，则更取二竹与前二竹相交做“十”字形，则人数即可添加一倍。万一再不能举，犹得以同样之加竹添人之法继之。务使物力不复能与人力敌，乃且呼且笑，舁物疾行，若自忘其为苦力也者。国家有此种下流社会以为其基础，诚令人艳羡不置也。

    此时吾等寄居之地，乃为一庙宇，其中有厅事及洁净之房间甚多。吾辈居之，颇觉快意，供给之物仍与在船时同。无论何时，意有所欲，莫不咄嗟立办。据云，此庙建于数百年前，当时有高僧12人，受制于某显宦。显宦乃出资建庙以安其衣钵，顾庙宇虽大，仅划出一小部分供佛，兼供一种女神，阶级较次于佛者。此外多为寮房，亦有和尚居之者，亦有平时不居和尚，每遇达官贵人过此，即借作息宿之地者。此盖以庙宇之于中国，既含有一种公共建筑之性质，故身有公务者，即得自由借用之也。吾部下员司夫役人数极多，全庙尽为所占，即守庙之和尚亦仅留一人，令司佛殿香火，及看守琉璃灯，使永明勿灭。其余大小和尚，概由华官传令暂移邻近他庙居住云。

    18日礼拜。晨餐时，樊大人来，言：车辆夫役，约于礼拜二早晨可以备齐，备齐之后，随将货栈中物件一一装入车中，至礼拜三之晨，即可出发径往圆明园。途经北京不必下车停滞。又言：乾隆皇帝现已派阁老一员，欧洲教士一员，在圆明园恭候贵使驾临。此教士究系何人？樊大人并未明言其名氏，以意测之，当是葡萄牙教士彼那铎阿尔美达，即吾心中不满意之人也。

    入暮，樊大人复与周大人同来，言：鞑靼钦差金大人今以体病，不能同来向贵使问安好，故嘱兄弟等来此告罪。余言：金大人以贵使来此之故劳碌致病，敝使意殊不安，明日当趋往问病。樊、周两大人连称不敢而去。然吾自信彼鞑靼钦差未必果为病魔所扰，或者心意与吾不洽，懒于见我，故托病耳。

    19日礼拜一。晨起，余自至货栈中，一观彼间所装货物奚若，而金大人、樊大人、周大人亦适已至栈。方率属僚多人，斟酌明日出发事宜，余遂与三大人语。且向金大人问病状，及三大人公事已毕。余曰：今日适无要事，礼物中有轻便铜制野战炮一尊，取出尚便，敝使拟于此间一试，藉博三大人一粲，三大人亟称善。余遂命炮匠取出试之，约每分钟开放二十响以至三十响，余初以此种速率，三大人见之，必甚以为异。初不料彼等虽用心观玩，而意态殊觉落寞，若无足轻重者。然而此非炮之不善，吾敢决言中国全境，必无此种轻快之炮。彼三人意态之所以落寞者，殆犹茫然于此炮轰击力之如何耳？及吾自栈房回，樊、周二大人随余至庙。言：目下已得皇上复谕，贵使抵北京后，可自择一欧洲绅士之服役于皇上者，充贵使觐见之舌人。现皇上对于贵使，极表欢迎之意。贵使自抵中国之后，一切情形均随时上达圣听，皇上以为贵使文明有礼，异常满意。故命臣下以至敬之礼接待。余曰：此足见贵国皇帝与敝国皇帝同具敦睦友谊之心，敝使感激之余，敢代敝国皇帝致谢。两大人乃复言及觐见时之礼节问题。此问题自前次提议时，经吾否认而后，各华官已数日不复提及。今两大人乃复极力言之，若必欲迫吾承认，无有转圜之余地者。余曰：敝使承敝国皇帝之命而来，在理不能改变敝国原有之礼节，即曰可改，恐非娴习有素，临时必有失礼之讥，与其强改其不可改，而又始终不能甚肖贵国之礼节，无宁不改之为善。两大人曰：敝国礼节习之殊易，因自就地板上作跪拜之状，坚请余照式习之。余曰：敝国礼节既万不能改，此项华礼亦毋庸学习。两大人乃命吾译员习之，意将欲以榜样示我也，而吾译员虽系华人，乃唯我一人之命是听。闻二大人言，即请命于吾。吾曰：不必。译员竟不跪拜，两大人乃大不快意，然声色仍极怡悦，不似因此与吾互生恶感者。余以两大人欣然而来，不能令其扫兴而去，遂命乐工奏乐以娱之，两大人悦。告别时，仍与吾作表示敬礼之语，为状一与来时同，似顷间之争执，已一笑了之矣。

    是日，亨利·欧地士病故。亨利系铜铁工技师，颇有巧智。方吾自伦敦启行之前，意欲得一铜铁工技师，使为随员。一时自荐者甚多，亨利则蓄远游之志更切，屡向余及史但顿勋爵坚请。余考验其技艺颇堪合用，遂挚与偕行，不料其体质孱弱，不能任风浪之苦。一至船中即罹重病，舟抵马第拉，余拟令其改乘他船回国，而亨利决意不肯，必欲一观中国景物。遂致病殁于此，亦可悲矣。

    20日礼拜二。晨间，为亨利治丧事。乐工、卫队、仆役之属均整队送葬。此间虽无牧师，而临葬时诵经祷告之礼仍照例举行。

    华人观者甚众，然多肃静不哗，若与吾辈同表其哀悼者。丧事既毕，即预备出发，取货栈中物体一一装入车中，装毕，令各货车于今日先行。吾部下之人吕、夫役，则定于明日登程，因人速货迟，人货并进，货必落于人后也。

    21日礼拜三。早起，车、马、轿各种行具已备。金、樊、周三大人则于门次候吾登车，吾乃立即出发，不少濡滞。

    未几，至一村，地在北京通州之中央，吾辈就村中小憩，且进早食。以天然路劣，颠簸甚苦，不得不随行随息也。

    第二章　觐见乾隆

    ●抵北京

    自此行两小时抵北京，在宫门略进茶点（译者按：宫门二字，原文做Palace Gate，不知何指？），即复前行，以下午三时抵圆明园。见昨夕出发之货车大半已到，其行走较迟之一小部分，则于吾侪到园后数点钟之内陆续到齐。

    吾等自通州至此，一路均有兵队为前驱，各兵手执长鞭，时时向两旁挥打，勿令路旁观者，得与吾辈相近。吾意此必中国大员外出时之示威举动，今乃假为吾用者也。

    既抵圆明园，华官即导吾等至一居留之馆舍。此馆舍在一花园之内，有房屋、天井甚多，又有一曲径，饰以花木，曲径尽处为一小河，循河而下，曲折至一湖，湖中有一人工之小岛，岛上有草地、有树木、有奇石，其中央则有一楼，为避暑之用。而全园四周则围之以高墙，有兵一队驻于入园之处，以为保护，园中房舍虽间有数处，颇清洁完好，可资居住。然以全体而言则荒秽不饬，破坏殊甚。夏季犹可敷衍，一至冬季万难居人，或者此处专供夏季之用，冬季所用者别有他处，亦未可知。然吾闻人言，此类馆舍多为招待外国使节之用，虽有数处之多，而求其完好者，当以此处为第一。则他处馆舍残缺不全之状，更可想见矣。

    余一入此室，心中大异，以其前此招待何其恭，今又何其一陋至此，向华官问其故，华官言：此屋虽陋，而每有大人至此，辄假为行辕，实因此间并无较优之房屋，非敢故以陋室奉屈。余曰：虽然，无论如何君必为余择一较优者，此戏室则万非人类所宜居。华官乃导余至他室，此室虽不如前室之破坏零落，然已数月未加打扫，室门一启，霉臭之气扑鼻，华官立命夫役扫除，墙壁、地板均大加洗濯，然后搬吾辈之行李入内。亦有华官数人以此室较善于他室，自携行李来，就空处设榻与吾辈同居。已而具食，则精美仍与往时相若。吾身栖陋室，而食必盛馔，羹味之鲜美，既为吾毕生之所未尝，而条面及他种面食又白净如雪，清洁可口，是亦不可思议矣。

    吾在通州时，华官谓余，吾辈一抵圆明园即当有欧洲教士来此与吾觌面。然今日乃未有人来，意或尚在途中也。

    22日礼拜四。晨间，鞑靼钦差来此候安。言有一国老奉皇帝之命，自热河来此，与贵使讨论觐见事宜。又言：国老现已上途，随带教士三人，大约明日可到。余称善。而隐察金大人神色，似较前此和悦可近，不复作桀骜不驯之状。因谓之曰：敝使居此，意颇不适，因此间房屋破坏已极，非大加修理不能居人。而吾欧洲人之生活状态又与贵国人稍异，居此甚觉有碍卫生，故敝使不拟勾留于此，俟诸事措置已毕即当迁往北京。敝使逆料贵钦差必能使敝使抵北京之后，居处之安适，较胜于此也。金钦差首肯，谓：当立即传令属官，至北京预备。余观神色似此事尚无若何之阻碍也。

    23日礼拜五。晨间，金大人遣人来言：今日十时，彼当带同欧洲教士数人至吾馆舍中谒见。既而果来，中有葡萄牙人二名，一即彼那铎阿尔美达路丁其司，一曰安东尼；意大利人三名。一曰路易司卜雷德，一曰约瑟本西，一曰第奥豆的；法人一名，曰约瑟巴黎。此外复有一二西人，籍隶他国无关紧要。各西人来时，均穿中国礼服，而乾隆皇帝亦以吾此次东来，为稀有之盛举，特以顶子赐诸各西人，令戴之。路易司卜雷德及第奥豆的均戴白色之顶；彼那铎官级较高，则戴蓝顶，余人均戴镀金之铜顶。铜顶者，顶子中之下乘也。

    彼那铎此人，虽为乾隆皇帝客卿之一，而对于中国国事初无参与之权，然妒念极重，凡西人东来者，除其本国人外，罔不加以仇视。对于英人怀恨尤切。吾至澳门之时，即有人嘱余抵北京后善防此人。今日一与此人相见，观其沉毅阴险之貌，始知此人非处处防范，必为所陷。此人初为罗马教信徒，兹已不受宗教之约束。度其年事已近七十。来中国后，兹已有数十年之经验。今方在算学书院（译意）任事，然其算学知识颇属有限。但以工于外科医术，曾为相国和中堂治病，兹乃以和中堂之力，荐诸皇帝，遂得派为吾觐见时之译员。吾见此人欣然而来，意颇不怿，以为彼既奉有中国皇帝之命，则吾前此要求于北京各教士中自选贤能之说能否成功，正在不可知之数。万一吾说不成，而此人竟由华官承认为觐见时正式之译员，则语言传达之际，但令更改一二，或不改其言辞，而改其语气，即足挑动两国之恶感，此何等事，而可不为之焦悚万状耶。幸而此人与吾款接之时，吾所言通常习见之语，彼均茫然不解。即其同来各西人亦半明半昧，隔阂不通，吾心乃大乐。彼那铎至此似亦可以止矣。而其妒忌他人之欲念乃仍不可遏。频以拉丁语，与其近座之两意大利人，谈吾英国之短，其意盖以余为不解拉丁语者。不知余即不解拉丁语，但观其眉目开动之状已足知其蓄意不善，而况拉丁语学，余固童而习之者耶。

    谈次，余仍向金大人提及迁居北京之事，彼那铎立即乘间阻挠。谓：迁居北京后，将来往热河时，大不便利。虽金大人甚然其悦，而终以余所持理由充足，彼那铎无所肆其鬼蜮之技，状殊悻悻。其同来各教士以其声色严厉，非双方款接时仪式上所应有，力劝其忍怒，勿为无谓之争。彼那铎虽唯唯，而气终不平。余静观其状几至失笑，然仍自保威仪，不为不应为之言，至彼那铎告别时，余惧其羞愧无以自容，转用好言慰之曰：惜敝使不解葡语，致意见不能尽达，否则以足下之才，为吾翻译必大足为吾助。彼那铎气少平，言曰：卑人深愧不能为钦使服役，后此苟有可以尽力之处必竭愚诚。余亟称谢，心中则以为此人既尽暴其本相于吾前，吾此后乃不得不格外谨慎，俾不致坠其陷阱。然平心而论，此人亦可造之才，但欲求其为吾所用。则吾非至愚，决不存此谬想也。

    约过一小时，樊大人与周大人同来，言：乾隆皇帝特派之国老淳（译音）大人，现在已到北京。后此关于贵使一切事务，可由兄弟等自向淳大人商量，不必再经金大人之手。余闻言大悦，因命译员一人及吾书记麦克司威尔与樊大人同赴北京，料理该处馆舍，以便此间事毕之后，立即迁居。

    ●游圆明园

    彼等既去，周大人即导我游圆明园。此园为皇帝游息之所，周长18英里。入园之后，每抵一处必换一番景色，与吾一路所见之中国乡村风物大不相同。盖至此而东方雄主尊严之实况，始为吾窥见一二也。园中花木池沼以至亭台楼榭，多至不可胜数，而点缀之得宜，构造之巧妙，观者几疑为神工鬼斧，非人力所能及。吾以此来不仅为游观计，尚当商量安置各种礼物之法，故仅就行过之处略一寓目，未能曲寻其胜。以全园计之，恐吾所见尚不及其什一。然即此不及什一者而言，已能令当时景象永镌吾脑而不忘。而吾笔记中欲详言其状，亦觉景物万千，不知从何处说起，转不如不说之为善也。

    已而至宝殿，殿长150英尺，阔60英尺，仅有一面开窗，与窗相对之一面，即为御座所在。御座为一桃心木之大椅，上刻精美之花纹，其木料则产自英国。华人以为稀有之品，故用以制为御座。御座之下有一台，高数尺，两边有木制之短阶，以便上下；御座之上，有一广额，署“正大光明福”五大字。

    译者按：此五字原文做Ching-Tha-Quan-Ming-Foo，释其意为Verus, Magnus,Gloriosus, Splendidus, Felix五字，直译之，当以“正大光明福”五字为近理。然于“正大光明”四字之下加一“福”字，则为译者此前所未闻也。

    其两旁则各有一孔雀毛制成之扇，面积极大作圆形，颇美丽可爱。全殿地皮均用大理石铺之，石有灰色、白色两种，纵横相间，望之如棋盘形。石上人行之处，复铺以洁净之席。殿之一角有一八音时辰钟，拨其奏乐之键，能奏乐十二阕，如Black, Joke, Lillibulero，以及《乞丐》一剧中之歌曲等类，均为英国旧时流行之乐曲。钟上饰物均为旧式，有透明及五色之宝石多枚，此钟虽非珍品，然以历年既久，余不得不以其为古董而贵之。钟面有英文数字，曰：伦敦理敦赫尔街乔治克拉克钟表店造。其制造年代及运入中国之时日，则已不可考矣。

    宝殿为皇帝正式办事处，一国之观瞻所系，而面积复广大异常。余决意以礼物中之珍贵动目者置诸殿中，其排列之法，拟于御座之侧。一面置地球仪；一面置浑天仪、折光镜数面，则自天花板悬垂而下，自各镜至殿顶之中心，距离均相等。殿北置行星仪一座，其南面则陈列佛列姆内之大自鸣钟、风雨表及特拜歇尧之瓷器、瓷像、弗拉苏氏之天体运行仪等。集此种种精美可观之物品于一处，恐地球虽大，更无第二处足与此中国圆明园之宝殿比也。

    余入园时，与国老景升（译者按：景升二字译音）大人相遇。景升大人遂为余向导，指点园中一切事物以告，及余自宝殿出。景升大人导余至一清洁之处，出水果及糖食相飨，余甫就座。而金大人忽来，殷勤劝食，余乃大异。念据樊、周二大人顷间所言，此公何可不必多劳矣。今若此，吾此后犹不免受其牵掣，而樊、周二大人虽极意与吾交好，亦以受制于此公，无能为力。万一此公永为余伴，至热河时，本其排外之天性，进谗言于乾隆皇帝，则吾此行之结果必有不可预料者。言念及此，心中殊觉不快。

    ●作觐见准备事宜

    晚八时，麦克司威尔等自北京归，言北京馆舍已阅看一过，其中厅室、房间、天井均备，颇堪居住云。

    24日礼拜六。史但顿勋爵率密斯脱摆劳、丁威台博士及太白儿得、丕的派亚暨技师数人，工匠多人，同往圆明园装配各项礼物。预料此项礼物，若欲一一装配完好，至少当有六七礼拜之时间。大约将来余往热河时，尚须留技师数人在此间监督工事也。有数种礼物运往圆明园后，中国工匠未得技师之许可遽欲启箱，译员恐其开启不能如法，致损内中所装之物，因往过阻之曰：此系英国送来之礼物，英国钦使尚未交卸，汝等不宜妄动。而金大人闻之，立即喧辩曰：此系英国进呈之贡品，安可唤作礼物。译员曰：英国与中国处于对等之地位，只能唤作礼物，不能称为贡品。两人辩论不已。国老景升大人闻之，出为和事佬，言：唤作礼物亦未尝不可，何必为此无谓之争。金大人乃无言。

    译员归，向余言：适自樊、周二大人处来，二大人略有意见，嘱微员上达致使。余曰：二大人，吾友也，渠等有何事嘱汝，汝可恣言之。译员曰：二大人言，钦使此来，一切费用虽由皇帝颁发，而颁发之数有限，其不在预算中者，概由二大人自垫，故二大人意中，颇思钦使以一优美之礼物赠之。余曰：可！弟不知二大人心爱何物？苟所爱者适为吾所有之物，当立即举以奉赠。译员踌躇有顷，言曰：二大人心中似以赠以现金500元为最宜。余一闻此言，不少犹豫，立即答曰：可！此盖因二大人既极意与吾交好，微论其自解私囊之说，确与不确，吾万不宜厚拂其意，使吾与以钱，而二大人竟为吾效力，与国老联络，合力与金大人相抗。勿令金大人此前之行为，再暴于吾客，则500元之代价并不昂贵。万一二人得钱之后竟不肯为吾所用，一反往时缔结交谊之行为，则慈悲之权已操诸我手，我固不难以举手投足之劳而祸福之也。而况野兽一吮人血即觉他物之血不甘，二大人既以与吾交好之故，而得此500元于前，宁不思此人血之余甘，而奋勉图报，以冀复尝此血于后也。

    25日礼拜。晨间，译员来言：昨日之议今兹已可取消。余问其故。曰：微员今日已往两大人处复命，两大人乃一改昨日之语气，谓：兄弟等自以诚敬待钦使，且深以得领钦使之厚赐为荣幸，然金钱之赠品则究于情理上不能接受。至昨日所言自垫之费用，确系实情，然此款均系周大人一人垫之，樊大人则所费甚少。缘周大人家资颇富，肯花钱而殚于尽力，除收发公文及登记账目、发付工力而外，其余一切，如置备车马、雇用船只、工役及购办供给之物，笞责不尽力之厮段等，概由樊大人尽奔走之劳。今周大人以家资富有之故，不必复得钦使之钱以资弥补；而樊大人又仅费劳力未垫金钱，万无接受钦使补助之理，故请钦使将昨日之议即行取消云云。

    夫昨则要求之，今日则坚辞之，此中理由如何，诚非吾不熟中国情形者所能知矣。同时又有一事足证明中国人之性质与吾英人不同，而且大不可解。

    昨日金大人来，交我一信，此信系吾英衣拉司麦司古完勋爵自登州府嘱驿吏送来，由金大人转交于余者。今日，余按照来信，作一复信。而金大人适来，谈此，坚问余古完勋爵信中作何语？余复信中又作何语？余以此种问题万非吾英人所能问，然以两国风俗性质不同之故，不能厚违其意，即招译员来，取来信、去信，令依口译之法，译与金大人听之。译毕，余笑谓金大人曰：信中初无若何秘密，然以内容剖示于君，料君必甚欢迎。金大人临去时，复问觐见在即，仪节如何？请贵使速为预备，且宜先期练习。聆其语气，似急欲吾承认其改用中国礼节之说者。余曰：觐见之仪节敝使拟开具说帖，就正贵钦差，此说帖当于抵北京后一二日内奉交，请勿急急。金大人乃道别而去。

    26日礼拜一。是日，由圆明园迁往北京预定之馆舍。不特清洁完好，与圆明园有霄壤之别，而且华美异常。有厅室十一处之多，陈设既佳且多空气，居之颇合卫生也。

    27日礼拜二。法国巴黎圣拉萨勒司教会会员劳克司神父。

    至馆舍谒见。言奉皇帝之命来此为钦使服役，钦使如有需吾尽力之处，吾可日日来此听候差遣。予观其人，体格修伟，道貌岸然而又长于言语之学，法文、英文之外能操中国语及满洲语甚熟。自言抵此之后，心意多快，现已作久居中国计。因胪举中国社会情形以告，谈论多时娓娓不倦。吾乃自计，后此如有中国事实为吾所不解者，尽可问诸此人，不必复处闷葫芦中矣。

    28日礼拜三。密斯脱摆劳自圆明园来。言：该园宝殿中，现已动工，将各项礼物依钦使预定之方法排列安置，将来安置完毕，殿中诸美咸备，必大有可观。又言：礼物运至宝殿后，即有乾隆皇帝之孙三人至殿中参观，状殊欣喜。

    而尤注意于特拜歇尧之瓷器，观玩多时，问余：中国瓷器与贵国瓷器孰佳？余言：此种特拜歇尧之瓷器，系敝国有名出品，苟非名品，敝国钦使决不敢带来赠诸贵国皇帝。但敝国商船每来广东必购大宗瓷器以归，销售于人。贵国瓷器既为敝国人士所欢迎，其价值之高，自可想见，究之各有其妙，不能强判伯仲也。三皇孙闻此答殊为满意。

    有一大员来园监视华工者，见启发货物时，行星仪中之大镜已损坏一块，神情至为惶恐，此镜想系中途颠碎，今中国既无造镜之厂，势亦无从添配矣。

    29日礼拜四。余取加拿派（译者按：加拿派形如一伞，装于帝座或帝王肖像之上，以表示其尊严者，盖欧洲帝王名器之一也）及吾英皇帝、皇后两陛下之肖像悬诸馆舍之中堂。别取一纸，开具将来抵热河后拟行之觐见礼节，嘱劳克司神父译之。劳克司译此颇费苦心，因中英公文程式初不相同，欲字字斟酌得当已属大难，而吾禀命东来，与本国政府相距既远，事事均须斟酌独断，万一处理不当，必贻国际之羞。故劳克司译此仪式之说帖，视为生平第一棘手之事。译就，不肯自书，亦不肯令其书记书之。谓：渠二人均系中国客卿，若中文有不妥之处，一露笔迹即易取咎，故坚请余另觅他人司缮写之事。余遂命史但顿勋爵之公子小史但顿书之。

    小史但顿以一十三龄童子，即能承办此事殊可欣喜。渠初亦不解华文华语，自伦敦出发后，船中无事，日就于两译员处学习语言，进步甚速，旋又学写华字，颇方正干净。前此礼物目录即彼所写，后生可畏，非虚语也。

    说帖内容，大致谓敝使此来，虽极愿使贵国大皇帝满意，凡敝使以为合宜之事无一不可实行。但敝国皇帝为西方第一雄主，敝使承敝国皇帝之诏命而来，仍当以敝国皇帝为本位，此盖由敝使之服从敝国皇帝，与贵国臣民之服从贵国皇帝于理相同也。今觐见礼节，敝使拟用觐见敝国皇帝之诚礼，若贵国必欲改用中国礼节，亦未尝不可，但须请贵国派一大臣，职位与敝使相若者，至馆舍中向吾英皇帝、皇后两陛下肖像行一觐见中国皇帝之礼，则敝使无不如命。

    金大人一观此帖，立即摇头，谓此事万难办到。樊、周二大人则言：此事必可如命，我等二人不妨立即向贵国皇帝、皇后行三跪九叩之礼。余以二人职位不能与吾敌，婉言却之。

    是日，神父安易德遣人送来一信，附以照片。信中辞气诚恳逾恒，言：钦使此来，老夫闻之殊为欣慰，但以就木之年，复抱痼疾，不能亲临馆舍为钦使略分劳役，意颇自戚。尚辱不弃，勿耻下问，但以书来，老夫当尽举所知以告，匪然云助，实老夫天职所应尔也。此老年已80，侨居中国亦已60年之久，而眷怀祖国之心，尤得于此一小柬之字里行间见之。前辈老成，滋足敬也。

    30日礼拜五。今日，余已选定轻小便于携带之礼物若干种，备带往热河进呈之用。乃一面命令部下人员、夫役准备启程。

    一面通知鞑靼钦差，言：吾辈已定于九月二日（译者按：次礼拜一，中历七月二十七日）起程前往热河，但今日为八月三十日，中间尚有二日余暇，敝使拟乘此余暇一观北京宫殿及各处有名胜迹，不知贵钦差能不辞劳瘁，为吾向导否？

    金大人曰：向导之职诚不敢辞，但按照中国成例，凡各国使臣至北京者，必须于觐见皇帝之后始可参观一切。即宾客亦当于觐见之后接见，贵使意欲参观，请俟诸归自热河之后。余以既有成例自不能相强，即亦无言。而金大人复曰：觐见之时，不审贵使本人将以何物赠诸皇帝？余曰：敝使此前已有奉赠一车之说，自不敢食言。金大人曰：车虽佳，惜嫌其太重，不能亲手持赠。余曰，岂必授受以亲，始得谓赠耶？金大人曰：此亦往例如是，此前各国使臣觐见时，从未有空其两手者。余曰：既如是，敝使自当预备一物，但此时尚不能决定，须俟所携行李悉数解发后，始可从容选择。然口头虽作此答语，心中则甚虑无物可以入选。因所携珍贵之物已悉数开入礼物目录中，用英皇名义赠与乾隆皇帝。外此私人所携物品不特并不珍贵，而且为日用所必需，万无举以赠人之理。幸而甲必丹麦金吐司携有极佳时表数事，拟于归途到广东时发卖者，余乃与之婉商，令让渡于我，且给于相当之利益，勿使空任购办携带之劳。议定，余以顷刻间骤得多数极佳之时表，意颇自喜，盖以既得此项礼物，不特可选其最佳之一枚赠诸皇帝，且可以其余各枚分赠各皇族及各大员，对于自备礼物一事可无供不应求之患矣。于是自开一单列应行送礼诸人之名字于其上，以便分派。计：皇帝一枚、皇帝之嫡子各一枚、皇帝之长孙各一枚、大将军阿中堂一枚、和中堂及福中堂各一枚，和、福二人乃皇帝最亲信之大臣。此外，则礼部大臣一枚，与吾往还之诸大员各一枚。然余以北京之宫殿名胜，必俟归自热河而后始许吾参观。吾亦小作诙谐，声言此项礼物亦必觐见皇帝之后，返至北京然后一一分赠诸公也。

    ●探知中国情势

    今日劳克司神父仍如日常之例到馆舍中办事，且携来精洁食物多种，如德国面包、糖果、蜜渍物、大红花果、红白葡萄等。其中白葡萄一种味美而无核，向产于察莫。察莫地傍戈壁，在中国之东北部，此种葡萄自移植于北京教堂以后，以栽种得法，种乃益美，故甘洌独绝。

    余以是日既无所事事又不能外出参观宫殿，遂与劳克司侈谈中国国情及宫廷状况。凡樊、周二大人未曾告我或语焉不详者，余一一问之。

    因知乾隆皇帝共有22子，今仅存4子，而大位谁属，犹未预定。皇帝深恐4人有猜忌争夺情事，政必躬亲，奏章诏谕，咸自批自发，勿令4人参预其事，即事之琐细者，皇帝亦不以躬 亲为苦。皇帝之首相，即和中堂，其人乃一鞑靼，出身颇微，然甚有才具，初为皇帝卫队之一。20年来，皇帝重其人，历擢至相，且以公主尚其长子，亦可谓极人世之荣矣。次相曰福中堂，亦鞑靼，少年公子也。其兄亦据要津，娶一公主，此公主非皇帝之女，即皇帝之侄女。劳克司不能言其详，而福中堂年鬓虽未高，于台湾之战则为统兵官，旋为两广总督。近日西藏疆场不靖，又任为将军，殆亦中国之兵家耶。和、福二人之外，最有名望者为阿中堂。此人所受恩遇远在和、福二人之上，功业亦颇有可观。法人所著《中国回忆录》一书备载其事，今已年老致仕，不复与闻政务，而皇帝犹以优礼待之。然皇帝对于此人，只视为国家的忠臣，不视为个人的亲信也。

    此外尚有三国老，均才力过人，富于经验，惜为华人而非鞑靼。皇帝虽以优礼待之，终未畀以丝毫实权也。

    劳克司神父又言：目下北京城中信耶教之华人已达5000名之多，全国共计数在15万以上，再越数年，耶教之发达必数十倍于此。又言：我辈读中国之历史，证以目睹，则中国社会似尚上午显著之缺点。唯残害婴儿一事，吾西人以为极背天理，华人则视为无足轻重，即日日见之，亦不以为怪。近日北京巡警（译者按：当是步军统领衙门）特备一车，每日清早令人驱车巡视街道，见有已死或见弃之婴儿，则纳之车中，拉至义冢埋之，亦有弃于沟中者，自此种巡街车发现后，北京各教士乃大忙。每日此车巡视归来时，诸教士群集车旁，遍察各婴儿之尸，见其中尚有气息者必抱归灌救，救活则就教堂中抚养之，长而施以洗礼，使知此残余之生命系仰托上帝之佑护。自鬼界夺来，非终身虔信上帝不能报此再生之德。

    劳克司又言：目下中国人仇教之心已不如往昔，此虽时代使然，要亦由于现在各教士能谨慎将事，不若此前各教士时有性情躁急之举也。然中国政府对于此等教士仍不能无所疑忌。近十二月中，各教士往来信札自北京、广东间驿使传寄者，恒于未达之前，先有人为之启阅，推其启阅之故，半由于疑忌；半则在于探刺欧洲之息耗。因中国人不知目下欧洲情况若何？有言英法各国现方打仗者，亦有言各国中复各有内乱者，传说纷纷，莫衷一是，故好事之徒均喜窃启书信，一窥究竟。即余抵天津后，每与金大人相见，金大人辄问余来时路上安稳否？英吉利国现在与各国和好否？以此证之，乃知所问故非无因也。

    是日，北京主教亚力山大戈尼阿，得华官之许可，正式至吾馆舍中谒见。

    其人年40岁，葡萄牙籍，外貌颇和易可近。而谈者每谓其居心奸诈且无真实学问，然能说拉丁语甚纯熟。进谒时，自用拉丁语宣述意见至一刻之久，信口直谈，颇不费力。随从者有葡萄牙教士二人、别国教士数人，仪节至觉隆重。

    戈尼阿且力述愿与吾缔结友谊之诚心，请余勿以近来英葡二国交战之事梗积于心，致对于葡国教士，感情不能与他国教士一致。余以相当之言辞报之。乃当此接见之时，其随从之他国教士中即有一人乘其不意语我曰：勿信此伦之言。余退思其故，此言不为无因，因葡萄牙人妒视他国人之心已达极度。

    现方自结团体研究一种计划，以排除中国境内之他国人为宗旨，除其本国以外，凡他国派教士来华者，彼等即以公敌视之。数日前，一意国教士谓余，吾辈同是欧洲人，人人咸与葡萄牙人缔结友谊之心理，而葡萄牙人心中则以除葡萄牙人而外，殆无足与之为友者，吾辈又何必自讨没趣。由是言之，戈尼阿之巧言令色唯有一笑皆之耳，又葡国教士彼那铎，自圆明园与吾一见之后，即不履吾门。据云：仅已奉皇帝之命召回热河矣。

    31日礼拜六。法国神父格拉孟德来见，此人即系余在天津时，得其所发信件，谓皇帝将命葡萄牙人充当翻译，嘱吾预行抗议者。此人初亦罗马教徒，年已老，来华已有30余年。

    一与吾见，即言本拟早日拜见钦使，只因鞑靼钦差金大人，前此曾闻余言及英国之国势何若？商业何若？对于中国之关系何若？心怀妒意，恐余一与钦使相见从中传递消息，于中国有所不利，故百计留难，直至今日始得其允可，许吾进见，幸钦使勿以为罪。余聆其谈吐，轻畅流利，知为一绝顶聪明人，而又极熟悉中国事务者。然此人不理于口，北京各国教士一闻此人，辄言其心无主宰，顷刻万变，与之交接者当善自防卫云。

    9月1日礼拜。因明日将赴热河，今日预备极忙。然余在去京之前，当将抵京后，闻见中较有兴趣者补述于此。除金大人、樊大人、周大人等及各教士外，每日造吾馆舍中谒见之大员为数颇多。其中有以服官之故，于职任上应来谒见者；有以好奇心切，视吾辈如古董，虽无职任上之关系，亦来此一广见闻者；尤有多人则为听音乐而来。因吾接见宾客之室中，每晚必令乐工奏乐也。此专听音乐之诸宾客中，有一人为乾隆皇帝之乐官，见乐队中有乐器数种，形式既佳，声调亦美，因向余婉商，欲借此数种器绘一图。余言：君苟爱此数物，俟吾觐见归来时，即举以为赠。渠曰：绘其图样可矣，惠赠则不必，因余不解贵国乐器之用法，有之亦属搁置。余曰：既如是，君可请画工绘之，决无阻止之理。

    次日，渠果偕画工来，敷大纸于地，置克朗内脱、弗路脱倍松等乐器于纸上，先用炭笔勾其轮廓，然后细量乐器上各小件之分寸，一一绘之。据云：渠将依照此种形式，令中国工人仿造，以己意定其音阶，使成一种西式之中国新乐器。果尔，此人亦聪明人也。

    吾馆舍中各物最为华人注意者，即兰脑尔特勋爵所绘英皇英后两陛下肖像，像悬于正厅，去大门甚近，故观者特多。其初不过官员及地方绅士，后则中下流社会亦蜂拥而进，拥挤既甚，复杂以谈话之声颇妨吾等行动。吾乃与樊大人商量，规定一参观之时间，而于参观者之人品及数目亦略加限制，此实不得不尔，非有轻视华人之意。华人对于吾辈所带礼物既极意赞誉，而对于普通应用之什物观之亦称誉不止。然辗转传观，什物间有因此受损者，其中以柏尔明亨埠极尔司厂所造刀片最为华人所爱。因此种刀片系精钢制成，极软，可弯作圈形，然又锋利异常，故华人咸以宝剑目之。

    吾以二刀赠樊大人，樊大人大喜过望，言：得此二刀，感谢之心乃倍蓰于他物之百倍其值者。此老出身行伍，以武功得显，爱刀固其分也，然吾于此事乃不得不思及通商问题。照此情形，吾英倘以零星物件运来必能大受华人欢迎也。至于东印度公司，前此提议扩充粗呢出口问题亦颇有见解，吾料不出数年，此类呢货，中国人之所求必远非吾英呢厂所能供。而呢货之外，凡上等之布匹（原注：吾英人所谓上等之布匹，尚非真正之上等，故当自选上自者运出）以及丝绒、纱罗之属，亦颇有销场。因吾辈所穿衣服，华人见之，多称其质料之优美。而乾隆皇帝近顷又下一诏，言：春秋两季，百官叩见时，准穿布服；夏季用轻绸；冬季则用绸缎为面，皮毛为里。吾英布匹及丝绒、纱罗既受华人欢迎，则此一时期正为推广销路之日矣。

    夜分，国老景绥大人（译者按：景绥二字译音，前有景升，此有景绥，不知是一是二？）知吾明日早起，即当启程，特率属员二人，官级甚高而戴红顶子者，至馆舍中与吾谈话。言：现在乾隆皇帝急欲与贵使相见，贵使所乘“狮子”船上随从人等不能同往热河者，现已择定珠山一处供其休息，且划定界线免致水手、夫役四出游荡滋事。皇帝以为此种计划颇为合宜，已命令贵国古完勋爵便宜行事，其在该处居住之时期或久或暂，亦听伊斟酌。准此言之，吾至中国后每有一事，苟与华官言及，华官殆无有不立时上达，亦无有不立时措置者，谁谓中国上下雍塞耶。

    ●作热河行

    9月2日礼拜一。晨六时自北京出发。余与小史但顿共坐一英国式之邮车，此车乃余自伦敦带来者，用鞑靼小马四匹拽之，马高不及11手，（译者按：“手”为英国通俗量名，每手之长约为四英寸）而轻快善走，久行不疲，良马也。史但顿勋爵则以感冒寒疾不能乘车，坐肩舆而行。此外属员、卫队、仆役、工匠、乐工等则骑马驾车各随其便，同行者共70人。其中40人为卫队，别有21人则留于北京，或在圆明园装置礼物，或在馆舍中照料，均各有专职，不能同行。

    装运行李、礼物之车马，为数多至不可胜计，即所用苦力，沿途照料此项行李、什物者亦有200名之多。

    吾侪自馆舍出发，行四英里半，出北京城。又行五英里至清河，稍息，进早食。清河乃一小镇，有城墙卫之，自清河前行，一路景色绝佳，道路亦平坦，极利行车，而人民勤俭、诚实之状复与英国人民相若。吾行至此，恍如置身于英国疆土之中，不禁感想系之矣。

    3日礼拜二。晨五时出发，行八英里半，抵怀柔县之城外，进早食。怀柔县者，第三等之城邑也。又行二小时半抵密云县，亦第三等之城邑，城中有皇帝行宫，吾等即借宿于宫中。一路景色仍与昨日相若，唯多山，蜿蜒起伏随时异趣。此种连亘不断之山脉倘在春夏二季，在繁茂之树木蔽之，景色必大可娱意。今则木叶尽脱，满山多作棕黄之色矣。抵行宫后，见左方相距八九英里之处，有一山，峻峭异常，山顶有雄固之城壁横跨之，即万里长城之一节也。

    入夜，一鞑靼大员，统领此间兵队者，至行宫中拜见。带来水果、糖物各少许，以为赠品。此人举止动作颇彬彬有礼，有君子气概且极有见解，深信英吉利国为欧洲强大文明之国，与他人鄙视吾英为蛮夷戎狄者不同，然此人殊傲慢自大。樊大人虽亦戴一红顶子，且武职与此人相若，然当此人之前，樊大人惶恐不敢就坐，则鞑靼官员之气焰，必有令中国官员不寒而栗者在也。

    两日来，吾车行时，樊大人及周大人时时至吾车中谈话。渠等向来所用代步之物仅有马、轿、驴车三种，从未见过英国式之车辆。今见吾车轻快异常，轮际装有弹簧，乘者不觉颠簸，两旁玻璃之窗复可上下移动，又有窗帏以幛之。渠等乃交口称誉，叹为绝无仅有。已而金大人亦至，向吾道歉，言：前此贵使书就一信，嘱吾寄交贵国古完勋爵，今此信尚未付寄。以我思之，信中既无要言，不寄亦属无妨，因以信还我，我受其信，自思信中诚无紧要语言，而金大人不肯为我寄递，亦属大不可解。金大人又言：明日当与吾暂别，先一日赶至热河，预备迎接吾等之事物云。

    5日礼拜四。早发，行13英里至古北口，进早食。食后，因此间为中国与鞑靼交界之口，有长城以界之。吾等久闻长城之名，既至此间，自不得不一观长城之景象何若。乃相率下车系马，徒步就之。地既崎岖不平，步行乃觉甚苦。行半小时至城下，复拾级而上至于城顶，举目一望，见其建筑之坚固，似已超出于人类体力范围之外，若此城全部尽于吾所见之一部分相同，则吾可决言全世界各种有名工程虽尽合于一处，决不能与此中国长城之工程相敌。惜历年已久，毁坏者居其大半，似中国人不甚重视之者，亦有数处颇完好，似近日曾加以修理。余方拟就其完好者与破残者，研究其或修或不修之故，而华官已促余前行，谓：此城无足盘桓，贵钦使当以早日赶至热河为当。言时，意甚焦急，似不容吾有置答之余地，亦有数人窃窃私议，谓：此辈外国人留意考察此城，心中必怀不测。余恐此种无谓之疑虑酿成恶果，立即下城登车前进。

    车中，余问樊大人前此曾来看过此城否？渠言：往来此地，前后已有20余次之多，然以此城无关紧要，仅去看过一次。其余各华官则言，从来未去看过，想此城仅为历史上一种成绩，无关国势，故华人不复注意之也。

    自古北口行十一英里至辽金坊（译音）。其地有一皇帝行宫，吾辈即借宿其中。夜分，华人中发生一事，颇足证明鞑靼与中国人之恶感。一鞑靼下流社会人，乘人不备至行宫中偷窃供张之物事数件，未及他遁，即为华官所执。樊、周二人大怒，立命就其窃物之处通笞之。笞已，鞑靼忽放声狂骂，谓：中国官在长城之外，例无笞责鞑靼之权。

    二大人益怒。复执而笞之，责其犯上之罪。其人恐有第三次之笞责，笞后即默然而去。时余亦在旁，观此一出滑稽之短剧，心中甚疑两大人于地理之关系上不知果否有笞责此人之权？后乃知此实出于鞑靼小窃之不服华官，律例中并无不许华官在长城外笞责鞑靼之规定，故尔时樊大人愤极而笑。语吾译人曰：此辈鞑靼一辈子教训不好，只可听他做他的鞑靼。周大人亦言鞑靼与华人之不能融合，将来贵使觐见时自能见之云。

    6日礼拜五。地去热河已近，不日可达。晓发，行13英里抵锦章营（译音）住宿。自北京来此，天气逐日凉爽，今日清晨已大有秋气渐深之象，此半由于天时使然，半由于地理使然也。此间山光水色略如欧洲之阿尔卑斯山，居是与居于瑞士无异，乾隆皇帝避暑于此，良有以也。

    黄昏时，译员语我曰：（译意）近日天津公报登载一段新闻，读之大足令人捧腹，吾英报纸中万无刊登此种荒谬不经之谈者。余问所刊何事？译员曰：报中言英国钦使带来礼物，悉系怪物，其中有小人数名，长不及12英寸，然作军装，勇气知识与长大之人无异；有一象，大不逾猫、一马其形如鼠；一唱歌之鸟，其大如鸡，食木炭为活，日需50磅；此外则有一魔枕，卧之可得奇梦，远至广东、台湾、欧洲等处均可于梦中至之，不劳跋涉。此事虽类神怪小说，无可记之价值。而吾以其可觇中国之民智，似不能屏诸书外也。

    8日礼拜。自距热河12英里之廓拉邱隘（译音）出发，无刻抵昆尔伦（译音）地，去热河两英里而弱，除行李、什物依旧前行外，余及部下人员、夫役均止于其地，更换礼服、排列仪仗。仪仗之次序详列如下：华官（译者按：华官恐系华兵之误）100员骑马前导。陆军少佐彭森（译者按：英人）、德拉功4名（译者按：德拉功系英国步骑两用之轻兵）、陆军副官潘立熙（译者按：英人）、军鼓军笛（译者按：英国军队所用者）、炮手8人、炮兵大尉1员、陆军副官可留维、步兵16人、步兵军曹1人、仆役八人、急使2人、乐工4人（译者按：仆役、乐工、急使均穿绿色金缘之衣服）、随员6人（译者按：均穿大红色金绣之制服）。

    余及史但顿勋爵及其子小史但顿，合坐一英国式之军车，车后有仆役一人，亦穿绿色金缘之衣服。此项仪仗排列至二点钟之久，故得从容布置，弗损威仪。排列既毕，即循序鱼贯而进，直达热河。行李、礼物则以中途未停，早至一小时许。

    ●补述抵京诸事

    既抵热河吾仍如前例，先取一路所见所闻未及尽记者补记之，然后接记热河之事。自北京至热河，为程不过120余英里，而分作七日，故天气虽热，途中尚不甚困苦。

    吾辈逐日寄宿之处均为皇帝之行宫，皇帝每自北京赴鞑靼，即驻跸于此。吾侪所住者，均为行宫之侧屋，其正屋则以名分上之关系，非皇帝亲来不能开启。各行宫建造式样大致相同，虽规模并不甚大，然为数极多，每过十数里即有一宫，估其建筑之费必大有可观也。

    北京、热河之间，道路颇平坦，末后二日所经之路尤完整可喜，然此路并非御道。御道乃为与此路平行之一路，平时严禁人行，必皇帝出巡始能盛列鸾仗，驰骤于其上。此等帝王之尊荣，恐读遍世界各国历史，不能复有第二国似之者也。

    本月下旬，皇帝将自热河回銮，故御道之上此时已开始修理，加敷黄土。黄土者，御道之特别标识也。御道之长，凡126英里，所用修道兵丁有23000之多。故御道附近逐段有营帐可见，每帐所住兵数，自6人以至15人不等。渠等虽在工程劳碌之际，亦颇知尽礼。每见余辈自隔道过，即升其帐顶之小黄旗，取一铜锣鸣之，且出铁铳，头作三分形者，声炮三门以为礼。至皇帝驻跸热河时，所用卫护之兵丁为数乃达10万以上云。

    ●抵热河

    既至热河，行装甫卸，而金大人已来，以余在北京时所开觐见礼式单还我。谓：贵使可将此单交于相国和中堂阅之，必得适当之答复。余不解其意，亦姑受之，已而译员来言，谓：适见樊、周二大人，二大人言贵国钦使排列仪仗至热河时，皇帝已在山庄内一高台上看见了，目下龙颜甚喜，已命相国及另一国老立刻至钦使处请安。言至此，樊、周二大人自至，言：相国本欲亲自来此请安，只以此房屋狭小，相国属员众多不能容纳，而相国又因足有伤创，行动甚苦，故不能至此，特嘱吾等前来道歉，倘贵使能至彼处一谈，吾等原为前驱。余言：敝使自去当列仪仗，而吾仆役、卫队此时已觉甚累，行李等物亦亟待安置，不能分身。倘相国有事见教，敝使当于黄昏时，命史但顿勋爵至其行辕中叩见，敝使本人则请俟异日。

    二大人皆曰：可。寻言：鞑靼钦差金大人，今因办理贵使到中国后一切事宜，未能悉称皇帝旨意，已奉旨严加申斥，降三级示罚。余问：金大人办理公事尚无大错，何以遽撄皇帝之怒？二大人乃言：皇帝前此曾闻贵使所坐“狮子”船上，悬有皇帝御容一座，当任命金大人为钦差时，面谕金大人：“狮子”船到埠，当亲自上船，一看该像果肖御容与否？乃金大人天性怕水不敢登船，不独御容未见，即“狮子”船亦未及寓目。至是，皇帝问汝往天津曾看见御容否？金大人仓卒无以为对，皇帝乃大怒。不一刻，申斥之旨遂下。

    二大人去后，有高级华官数人至馆舍中拜见，中有穿黄马褂者数人。据云：黄马褂系中国最贵重之衣服，非有特别勋劳者不能邀皇帝之赏赐也。

    未几，樊大人又遣人来言：相国急欲与史但顿勋爵一面，史但顿乃立与其子小史但顿偕译员一人，至其行辕中谒见。行辕与馆舍相去可一英里，自馆舍至行辕当经过热河城中街道之大半。

    抵门，金大人已候于门次，引史但顿等入内，至厅室，见相国坐于正中，旁有国老四人站班。4人均戴红顶子，其中2人则穿黄马褂。

    史但顿归。余问：相国之意见何若？渠言：相国意欲一观英国皇帝致乾隆皇帝之书信，内容究作何语？余即命书记录一副本付之。史但顿又言：前此钦使因觐见时之礼节问题，自开一说帖付予金大人，今金大人虽以说帖交还，而相国则已阅看一过。其所以必欲先观英皇书信内容者，盖鉴于两国礼节上既有不同之点，恐书信中存问皇帝之语，亦有不甚合宜者，故必先为仔细斟酌可也。

    余曰：既如是，彼金大人交回之礼节说帖可即由汝正式递与和相国，看其作何等斟酌可也。

    9日礼拜一。晨间，金大人、樊大人、周大人同来，劝余勉从中国礼节，不必再固执前议。余言：敝使系西方独立国帝王所派之钦使，与贵国附庸国君主所遣贡使不同，贵国必欲以中国礼节相强，敝使抵死不敢奉教。

    争执多时，卒无成议而散。后有某华官以个人之交谊语予曰：此种争执，乾隆皇帝一点儿都不知道，患在其左右之人，欲借此邀功固宠耳，其然岂非然耶？

    10日礼拜二。早晨，金大人、樊大人、周大人同至，赓续前议。余曰：此事不必多说，以事理论，若欲一国特派之使臣对他国皇帝所行之礼，重于对本国皇帝所行之礼，无论何人决不肯承认，如必欲相强，吾唯有坚执前议。请贵国先派一与敝使职分相同之大臣，向吾国皇帝、皇后圣像行三跪九叩之礼，敝使即唯命是听。彼等曰：倘贵使不肯行中国礼，即行英国礼亦属不妨，但不知英国礼是何式样？贵使亦能赐教否？余曰：英国礼乃系屈一膝，引手伸嘴，握皇帝陛下之手而亲之。彼等大诧曰：怎么这样？在咱们皇上面前使得么？余曰：自然使得，敝使以见本国皇帝之礼见贵国皇帝，已属万分恭敬，何言使不得！言次，屈一膝作行礼之状示之，三人颔首而去，容色似已满意，不复如前此之极力喧辩矣。

    下午，周大人复来，言已回过相国的话，他说此时或由贵使径行英礼，或先派大臣向贵国皇帝、皇后圣像行中国礼，尚未商议妥当，晚半天可有回音。余无言。

    未几，鞑靼钦差又来，言：目下已决议请贵使行英国礼。但照中国风俗说来，拉了皇帝的手亲嘴，总不是个道理，拟请贵使免去拉手亲嘴，改用双足下跪以代之。余曰：敝使早已说过不用中国礼，这双足下跪还不是中国礼么？此礼诸位行得，敝使行不得。金大人曰：既如是，双足、单足且不去管他，那拉手亲嘴总得免掉才是。余曰：此则悉听诸君之便，用诸君记者，此系诸君之意见，非敝使之意见。敝使本欲向贵国皇帝行个全礼，今屈从诸君之意，改做个半礼了。

    至是，辩论已终，而中国朝廷之状况及华员宝贵其本国礼节之心，亦可因此窥其大凡矣。

    ●谒见和珅

    11日礼拜三。九点半，金大人、樊大人、周大人同来，偕吾往谒相国。相国行辕房屋颇大，有厅事甚多。吾行过数厅，始抵其接见之宾客之室，室中什物及一切陈设并不华丽，而相国之颜色则蔼然可亲。史但顿勋爵言：此人今日容貌与前数日几如判若两人，亦不知其何因而然也？

    相国年事约在40以至45岁之间。容貌端重，长于语言，谈吐隽快纯熟。其右边之人即福中堂，年不过30，而衣服都丽，面上英气崭然，一翩翩少年贵胄也。左边二人亦系国老，一礼部尚书、一吏部尚书，年老矣，似非鞑靼，于朝中颇无权力。又一人坐于末席，虽穿黄马褂，而就其外貌观之，品级、职位似多不能与其余诸国老相比也。

    余与相国相见，首言：前数日敝使以跋涉长途身体颇累，又因亟待部署之事甚多，未能早日趋前拜见，殊以为歉，今身体已经复原，琐事亦已措置完毕，特来向中堂请安，且愿早日觐见皇帝。俾将吾英皇帝亲笔信札呈阅。次言：敝使到中国后，闻乾隆皇帝多福多寿，年逾八十而精神矍铄，乃过少年，其臣下亦多欢悦爱戴。此种盛境，不特敝使为之欣忭。即吾英国皇臣以西方第一雄主之资格，亦当为此东方第一雄主额手称庆。

    相国闻此称颂圣德之言，颇形满意，即用相当之问候语以为答。次乃言：贵使此来，路途既远，而所携礼物，复倍极珍贵。凡中国风俗，贵使以为不适者自不能相强，将来觐见时，贵使可即用英礼不必改用华礼。贵国皇帝之手书亦可由贵使面呈。至此，礼节上之争执已完全终结。乃议决本星期六，为吾觐见皇帝之期，由相国亲为引见。

    正事之谈判既毕，相国又与吾闲谈若干时。先问余路上情形如何？次问余一路航海曾在何处停泊？停泊时，所为何事？余一一约举告之。述至交趾支那多伦海湾时，相国言：彼处乃我们中国的藩属。余曰：贵国声威四布，远方臣服，敝使殊为欣喜。彼乃问曰：俄罗斯与英吉利国相去多远？目下两国要好否？意大利与葡萄牙两国与英吉利国相近否？臣服于英吉利国否？余乃用中国里数说明英、俄两国相距之远近。又言：目前英吉利国与世界各国都甚要好，与俄国女皇亦很和睦。但吾英国皇帝陛下居心仁正，以保障和平、扶助弱国为心。曾有一次，俄罗斯女皇欲发兵与土耳其国打仗，侵夺其地面，吾英国皇帝出面干涉，使俄国不逞志于东方，以致两国不免稍有芥蒂，然现在仍很和睦，并无战事。至于意大利、葡萄牙两国则与英国相去甚远，且并非英国之属国。然吾英国皇帝乃西方盟主，对于各国均用友谊联络之、用正义保护之，对于意葡两国亦然，两国之于英国在实际上亦甚有关系也。

    相国闻予讲西方各国之形势，大喜，至吾告别时，起立与吾握手。言：吾得与贵使相识殊为欣喜，将来回北京后，得暇请常至圆明园与吾会晤。此时因皇帝万寿之期已近，吾须代备筵宴及一切供张之具，至觉冗忙，不能多谈为歉。

    吾返馆舍后，下午，吾友樊大人、周大人同来，代相国传达致候之语，言辞备极恭敬。又言：贵使到热河后，一切情形均随时报告圣上，目下皇帝急欲与贵使相见，意中颇不耐候至礼拜六云。

    有顷，鞑靼钦差至，亦为相国传达致候之语，辞意与樊、周二大人所述者大致相同。又带来粮食、水果若干，言是相国所赠。余受而谢之。是日，整理一切礼物。

    12日礼拜四。将礼物进至避暑山庄陈列。鞑靼钦差金大人又代相国送糖食、水果，多少与昨日相若，种类则与昨日不同。

    13日礼拜五。樊大人、周大人同来，言：各种礼物均大蒙皇帝赞赏。

    然于望远镜一物，皇帝不谙用法，拟请贵使派人前去试演。余乃令吉伦博士偕一译员，往授以日镜、夜镜之用法及活落架之装卸法。吉伦归时，言：试演之时，有华官数人，虽于望远镜各种运用之程序茫无所知，然犹自命在行，一知半解，指点一切。余惧其未能纯熟反滋事，仍依顺序教授之，至于完全明白而后已。明日为吾觐见之期，今日预备甚忙。

    ●觐见乾隆

    14日礼拜六。晨四时，樊大人、周大人即来，引吾等入觐。觐见之地为万树园，园与馆舍相距为三英里，行一小时许而达，吾部下各员均随吾通行。有骑马者、有步行者，吾则乘肩舆，舆前有卫队、音乐，仪仗虽不多，气概颇为整肃。

    余穿绣花天鹅绒官服，上罩一爵士Order of Bath之外衣缀以钻石宝星一座，钻石徽带一条。

    史但顿勋爵亦穿绣花天鹅绒官服，以其为奥斯福大学法律博士，特于官服之外，加罩一红绸之法律博士大褂。余之所以必记此琐细之事者，因欲表吾东来之后事无巨细，莫不小心谨慎以临之也。

    余辈至园门，下马出舆，步行而入。至于皇帝所居大幄之前，其旁有一幄，系华官专为余等设备者。樊、周二大人即导吾等入内，言：圣驾顷刻且至，贵使等姑就幄中少待。待可一点钟，圣驾果至，驾前列鼓乐仪仗，备极喧赫。

    余等一闻圣驾已至，立即出幄，循地上所铺彩色地毯前行以迎之。见皇帝坐于一无盖之肩舆中，用60人抬之；舆前有执事官多人，手执旗伞旌节之属，驾过吾前，吾等曲一膝以为礼，华官则行其本国礼节。

    皇帝抵御幄之前，即下舆入幄。余俟其升坐宝座之后，即恭捧英皇帝亲笔书信，入幄至宝座之旁，拾级而上，呈书信于皇帝手中。此信装于一木匣中，匣外用钻石为饰。皇帝手接此信后，并未启阅，仅随手交于旁立之相国。相国亦并未启阅，仅置之于宝座之旁一锦垫之上。于是皇帝乃以赠予英皇之第一种礼物授我，嘱为转呈。其物名曰“如意”，取诸事如意及和平兴旺之意，盖皇帝心中甚愿吾英国皇帝常与中国交好往来也。唯此种如意系一种长一英尺半之白石，刻花而成，石质略类玛瑙，虽华人以为此物异常名贵，余则以为就此一物之原价而论，未必值钱。其次，皇帝复以一如意赐我，绿色，所刻花纹则与赠英皇者相若。余乃出镶嵌钻石之金表两枚赠之，此表盖系前此华官向余言及后，余特为预备者也。

    复次，余引史但顿勋爵入觐，言：敝使奉命东来，敝国政府命史但顿勋爵为副，万一敝使遇有意外或身故等情，即由此人代理。于是史但顿自至宝座之前，曲一膝以为礼，状与吾同。皇帝亦赐之以如意一枝，亦系绿色，式样与赐余者相差无几。史但顿亦亲呈气枪二枝以为皇帝寿。已而余导人部下各员，使一一觐见，皇帝均以相当之物赏赐之。

    觐见之礼既毕，吾等依引导者之指示，自宝座退下至其左旁所铺锦垫之上坐之。中国各大员则依其官级之大小坐于右旁锦垫之上。垫前设有食桌，桌上有桌盖盖之，宝座之前亦设一桌，式样与吾等面前者相同。至吾等及各大员坐定之后，执事官乃启起桌盖，而桌面所具盛肴，遂呈于吾等目中矣。

    此御前宴会开始后，吾桌上所有酒馔既备极丰盛，而皇帝复分外殷渥，命执事官取其桌上之盛馔数色及酒一壶送至吾桌。此种之酒虽华人但称之曰酒，而实则并非葡萄所制，系以米及香草、蜂蜜等物混合制成，饮之颇甘美适口。

    约过半点钟，皇帝招余及史但顿勋爵至其前，各亲赐温酒一杯，吾二人就其面前立饮之。

    是日，晨间天气颇冷且有风，饮此温酒体乃大畅。余等归座后，皇帝与吾闲谈。问：你们英吉利国国王今年几岁了？余据实告之。皇帝曰：朕今年83岁了，望你们国王与我一样长寿。言时，意颇自得，气概尊严若有神圣不可侵犯之状，然眉宇间仍流露其蔼然可亲之本色。余静观其人，实一老成长者，形状与吾英老年绅士相若，精神亦颇健壮，80岁老翁望之犹如60许人也。

    此御前宴会自始至终，秩序异常整肃，执事官按序进馔，既恭谨万状，与宴者亦都沉默不喧，全幄上下人等不下数十，而侧耳听之，竟寂无声息，是可见东方人对于帝王所具之敬礼，直与吾西人对于宗教上所具敬礼相若也。

    全幄作圆形，圆径之长约在24码至26码之间，用圆柱多根支撑之。柱上有镀金者、有绘各种花纹者、有加漆者，各视其地位及距离之适宜而排列之。幄中一切陈设之物，如桌椅及一切木器既穷极华丽，而壁绒、帏幔、地毯、灯笼、缨穗、窗帘之属亦无一非最精之品，而且颜色之相配、光线浓淡之采择，无一不斟酌适当。置身其间，目之所及，但觉金碧辉煌，五色相错，娱意之余，不禁念及亚洲人生活程度之高及帝王自奉之奢侈，乃远非吾欧洲人所能及也。

    宴会时，有鞑济（译音）之贡使三人及中国西南回教部落喀尔麦克（译音）所派使臣六人均在座。然皇帝颇蔑视之，各华官亦不甚加以敬礼。余观察诸使臣神情亦卑谦万状，惴惴然唯恐仪节有亏，至陷于刑戮也。

    此宴会自始至终，为时有五点余钟之久，幄外有翻筋斗、拳术、走绳、戏剧诸技，以娱宾客，时时变换其节目，颇能令观者不倦。然以相距太远，观之殊觉模糊也。

    宴会既毕，余辞别皇帝而归，自叹曰：吾今乃得见现世之苏罗门大帝矣。盖吾幼年读苏罗门大帝故事，每叹其极人世之尊荣，非后世人主所能及。而今之乾隆皇帝则较之苏罗门大帝有过之无不及也。

    ●观万树园

    15日礼拜。先是吾曾托华官转达皇帝，言：敝使此来颇不易，意欲一穷中国之名胜而后归，不知热河之御园（原注：此御园华人称之为万树园，意谓树木多至不可胜数也。）能赐予敝使一观否？皇帝首肯，且令余今日往观（原注：此在中国制度上为特别恩典）。

    故今日早晨三点钟，吾等即起，至行宫门首，与中国各大员同候圣驾（原注：候驾系中国礼节）。候至三点钟之久，圣驾方至。

    其状与昨日相同，皇帝自坐一极高之无盖肩舆，用16人抬之。其前有音乐、卫队、旗伞、旌节无数。抵门，见吾辈立于门前，即一面令舆夫停舆，一面招吾至舆前谈话，为状颇觉亲切。言曰：朕此时要往宝塔上礼佛去，天天早晨，朕总得要去的，你愿跟我去么？余曰：敝使所奉宗教与陛下不同，礼佛即与教律有背。皇帝曰：那么不跟我去亦好，你要往万树园中去玩儿，我便找几个人陪你去。可是万树园地方太大了，一下子也玩儿不了许多，你到了园中，爱玩儿什么地方，便叫他们引导，不必拘束。余亟向皇帝行相当之礼，称谢曰：敝使蒙陛下被以殊恩，使草野之人得增见识，实属感激不尽。又言：敝使抵热河后所见所闻，均足令远人称誉不止，贵国地大物博，财力殷富，即此已足见其一斑矣。于是皇帝喜甚，立命相国和中堂及国老数人为吾游园之伴侣，己则仍令舆夫前行往宝塔礼佛。

    吾与和中堂及诸国老端立道旁，俟圣驾前去已远，乃相偕至一幄休息片刻，略进果点。此幄盖专为予等预备者，陈设亦颇井井可观。已而余等离幄，骑马入园，曲折行三英里，所见风景略与吾英彼德福省之留墩相若，而气象之雄厚则过之。园中多奇树，逐路均有丛菁，修治整洁，自远望之，蔚然覆地，以其形态及大小之不同，遂令全园景色随地异趣。已而豁然开朗，面前突现一湖，临湖以望，彼岸乃渺茫不能悉见，则全湖之大，盖非吾目测所能计其面积也。此时湖中已有一装饰华丽之船，停泊以待，其旁复有小船数艘，系预备装载侍从之人者。于是吾等乃登船泛湖。湖景不必言，即就船中所陈之瓷瓶、古董及壁间所悬书画等，仔细研究之，已足令吾终日不厌。然吾此行为游园而来，心不能专注船中也。

    船既开行，吾等一见岸上有特别之建筑，及可以注意之景物，立即停舶登岸观之。统计是日停舶之次数约在40至50之间，即一路所经宫殿及帷幄，共有四五十处之多也。此等宫殿及帷幄、建筑均雄大异常，其中有悬挂乾隆皇帝《秋狩图》及其《功业图》者；有藏各种绝大之玉瓶及玛瑙瓶者；有藏最良之瓷器及漆器者；有藏欧洲之玩物及音乐、歌唱之器者；余如地球仪、太阳系统仪、时钟、音乐自动机以及一切欧洲所有之高等美术品，罔不俱备。

    于是，吾乃大骇，以为吾所携礼物，若与此宫中原有之物相较，必如孺子之见于猛夫，战栗而自匿其首也。然而华官复言：此处收藏之物若与寝宫中所藏妇女用品较，或与圆明园中专藏欧洲物品之宫殿较，犹相差万万。吾直不知中国帝王之富力何以雄厚至此也。

    所经各宫或各幄必有一宝座，宝座之旁必有一如意，其状与昨日赠与英皇者相若，盖亦代表和平兴盛之意云。吾欲缕述此万树园中之景物势必成一无穷故事，篇幅有限，讵能多记，要而言之，凡吾侪英人以为天然之景色，人为之美术品，以及历史上遗传之古董，足令风雅之士流连把玩而不忍舍者，此园中罔不全备之也。

    已而游兴渐阑，吾与同游诸大员告别。相国和中堂曰：今天我们只看了全园东边一小半，尚有西边一大半未曾走到，异日再陪贵使玩儿罢。

    同游诸人除相国和中堂外，一为次相福中堂；一为福中堂之兄福大人。福大人初为两广总督，而近任四川总督者。一为松大人，青年之能员，曾任外交事务者，四人均系鞑靼，均穿黄马褂。松大人则新自俄边回华，闻余曾任驻俄公使之职，居圣彼得堡有年，乃与余谈俄事。自言：近来奉命赴察克图与俄官会商通商事务，俄官所派者为一大将军，制服之上有一红色徽带，且有一宝星，式样与贵族所佩者相像。吾与俄将军相见后，意见颇洽，未及多时，即将交涉办妥。言时，颇有得色。且问余俄国之富力何若？兵力何若？若欲一探余学问之深浅，及余对于中俄两国之感情如何者，余均以相当之言辞答之。

    是日游园之际，相国和中堂状貌最为恭恪，无一时不注意于礼节，无一时不保守其大臣之威仪。然余细察其隐衷，则与余甚不相得。

    晨间，余与彼骑马同行之时，余曰：热河一处，本系荒僻之乡，今乃美如锦绣、烂若春花，令吾辈得徜徉其间，饱享清福，实不得不拜谢康熙大帝之赐，而大帝开创热河之奇功，尤足动后人之敬仰也。和中堂大奇，问曰：你何以亦知康熙大帝？谁告诉你的？余曰：敝国系文明进化之国，学僮、士子均习历史之学，岂有强大如贵国声名威德震烁全球者，敝国人反有不知其历史之理耶？余为此言，所以称道中国、谀颂中国者至矣。而和中堂则始终不悦，以为吾辈英人不必具有学问知识，有之亦不能令华人起敬，吾诚不知其于意何居也？

    次相福中堂，意态洒脱，待人亦和善，颇不拘于虚礼。其兄福大人则一举一动无不谨守绳墨，且以前此人曾任两广总督，与西人时有交接之故，对于吾辈亦颇以能员自命。今晨，皇帝驾抵宫门之时，余与各大员趋前致敬。彼忽自后微掣余袖，余不解其故，方拟回首视之，而彼又举手轻叩余帽，意似告余皇帝之前应免冠以为礼者。此免冠之礼惟吾西方有之，中国人无论何时，万无磕头见人之礼。此公惧余失仪，嘱余御前脱帽，不问即可知其以熟于西洋事务自命也。

    职是之故，余至游园之时，自计此人既以熟于洋务自命，余当设法以娱之，使至皇帝之前为吾吹嘘一二，或者于吾此次来意不无小补。因曰：大人为中国兵家，功业彪炳，敝使良深仰慕，此次敝使东来，部下带有卫队一班，颇精于欧洲新式之火器操法，倘异日大人有暇，敝使拟请大人观操，藉聆雅教，弗审大人亦肯赏光否？福大人意颇冷淡，岸然答曰：看亦可，不看亦可，这火器操法谅来没有什么稀罕。

    余聆此答语，心乃不胜大异，余于福大人虽不能断定其曾否一睹火器之式样，而中国目下之军队，则可决言其必无火器。既无火器，而犹故步自封，以没有什么希罕一言了之，吾诚不解其用意所在矣。此事当余发吻之初，吾料其必甚乐闻，乃不意得此冷淡之答语，吾心颇觉不怿。尤有一事，亦大足令吾丧气。

    游园时，相国语我曰：方才得到个信息，说你们那“狮子”船与“印度斯坦”船已到了珠山了。余以“印度斯坦”船长麦金吐司有回船之意，即乘机言曰：此次敝使所携各项礼物大半均由“印度斯坦”船装载，而该船船长麦金吐司现在已见过皇帝，留滞此间亦无所事事，拟先令彼回船料理一切，俾将来回国时可减缩预备之时间，不知中堂能允许否？中堂未及置答，福大人即掺言曰：这哪使得，我们天朝万没有允许外国人个人往各省去旅行的规矩。言时面色至觉严厉。余竭力解释其理由，且竭力谀颂之，彼不惟置之不顾，且自此以后，终日不露笑容。

    余静思其故，苟非此公在广东任内，曾遇有同样之事件，而酿成棘手之交涉者，即此公自命能人，深恐吾英吉利人，随地探察中国之民情风俗，于中国有所不利耳。此二种理由均有令福大人拒吾建议之能力，而后一种理由似尤较前一种为近情也。余见此项谈判既无进行之余地，即亦舍之。而谓相国和中堂曰：敝使尚有数事，拟与中堂从长计议，不知明日或后日，中堂能拨冗与敝使谈话片刻否？中堂为人外貌恭谨异常，谈话时，声色亦颇和悦客气，然于此事乃亦不肯应允，仅向余道歉数回。言：这几天，皇上万寿期近了，我要布置一切，忙得很。万寿之后，皇上即须预备回銮，料来也没有什么空闲，倒不如索性到了北京，我们在圆明园中常叙叙。

    余思相国之言如此，其意盖以在热河之时，已不愿与吾再见，而吾心中所欲陈白之事，万不能即此缄默。因曰：中堂政事纷繁，既无暇赐见，敝使自当听命，但敝使尚有微忱未能伸达，拟于日内开一说帖进呈左右。中堂政务之暇能赐予批览否？中堂曰：那是无所不可，请送过来罢了。余思此进递说帖一举，已为吾最后之办法，即承中堂允许，自当于一二日中办妥送去。至于效果如何，则颇非余所能预测也。

    ●中西之异

    16日礼拜一。余来热河后，已与乾隆皇帝见面二次。按诸在北京时华官告我之言，则吾既与皇帝相见，即不得华官允许，亦已有外出游览之自由。然余恐偶一不慎所事，或与中国法律有背，即大足为吾此行效果上无形之障碍，因仍杜门不出，就馆舍中自择应行办理之事办之。

    史但顿勋爵则于今日偕随员数人，同至乡村中作小游。据云：彼等行时，虽无人限制其举动，亦无人为之指示路径。而其后仍有华官及华兵多人一路尾随之，相距甚近，诸人一举一动咸不能脱于华人视线之外。由是言之，吾辈虽竭意示好于华官，冀欲自脱于华人疑忌范围之外。而华人之疑忌我英人者，犹与向之疑忌西洋别国之人无异也。意者华官以吾等服饰、语言与华人不同，仍守其原有见地，以野蛮目吾英人，恐吾英野蛮之人与地方人民不免有争闹情事，而按诸中国法律，外人之在中国者，万不许其与本国人争闹，若有此事，政府即唯地方官是问。故地方官不得不因此而从严防范吾等耶。

    今晨，相国和中堂体忽不适。知吾部下吉伦博士业医，遣人来招之去。告以病状，且叩其疗治之法，其病盖系偻屈及偻貌质斯（译者按：病名从日人译音）。吉伦博士拟开一方案，详述治疗之法与之，且允录一副本与我云。

    下午，一青年鞑靼戴亮红顶子及双眼花翎者至馆舍中拜见，其满洲名字曰：溥大藩，汉名则为毛廖（译音）。举动颇恂恂有儒者气，能自述其本国之历史、地理甚详。言：中国现代之皇帝系蒙古忽必烈大帝之后裔。忽必烈大帝者，即吾欧人历史书中之仇伯拉可汗成吉思汗之子也。13世纪时，成吉思汗称霸，入主中国，是谓元朝，传百年而弱，明太祖起而代之。蒙古余族自知不能安居于中土，窜至满洲，与满洲人通婚，成为满蒙相杂之种族。尔时势力不张，但有部落，未建国家。及后，某部落中有一不世出之人物崛起，其名曰：努尔哈赤。

    原注：此项系统，余曾加以研究，历问多人，均言溥大藩之言全无根据。译者按：努尔哈赤原文作Bogdoi音，与布库里里相近。然下文言：此人为满洲开国之主，而满洲开国之主实为努尔哈赤为是。

    英明威武，卓绝一时，以1640年入主华夏，是为清朝，即当代皇帝开国之始祖也。溥大藩又言：前日贵使觐见时，与贵使同邀圣上之恩典，得列席于御前会议者，朝中诸大员而外均为满洲亲贵。此等亲贵各有一定之产邑，一旦国家有事，诸亲贵有带兵打仗之责，其所带兵队即各由产邑中征之。用各种颜色之旗以为识别，其产邑均传自先人，继袭之法则尚长子，父死，次子虽贤，万无袭产之例。故自开国至今，诸功臣之得有封产者，至今疆界仍与往时相若，初未闻有争产交涉事情发生于其间也。

    各亲贵所娶妻，以皇族女子为多。娶妻后，皇帝以其为额驸之故，恒于所受封产而外，授以一相当之武职，然平时不必常在京城供职，尽可自就产邑中安居。唯每年万寿之期，则须齐集京师，向皇帝拜寿。此外唯国家疆场有事时，当遵命听候调遣耳。

    诸亲贵多不习文艺，朝廷亦不以文艺责之，但明定章程，以武事为诸亲贵之唯一教育。所用军器以弓箭、朴刀为主。青年亲贵，殆无有不寝馈于此者，故国家有乱大都恃旗兵骁勇善战以戡定之。余曰：旗兵诚勇矣，但军器终当改良。吾欧洲诸国此前亦用刀、枪、弓、矢为战器，今则大半已用火器代之矣。

    溥大藩作诧异之状，良久曰：弓箭毕竟是好东西，打起仗来少不了它。余无言，内念中国人之重视弓箭，殆较他种军器为尤甚，缘溥大藩之言既如此，而余在万树园中所见乾隆皇帝之《出狩图》，大都作骑马弯弓、射杀虎狼之状，未有一图绘他种军器，或绘于火器之形者。则乾隆皇帝之爱用弓箭，盖可知也。

    溥大藩又言：奉天为中国之陪京，地去北京为200英里，人口之繁盛，实在北京之上。

    该处宫中亦藏宝物甚多，以与北京相距太远，汉人鲜有至其地者，亦无有知该处之繁盛者。

    ●祝寿乾隆

    17日礼拜二。今日为乾隆皇帝万寿之期，余等早晨三点钟即起，仍由樊、周两大人导往行宫中祝寿。

    抵宫门，吾等均步行而入，至朝房中小憩。朝房系门内之左右两厢，专供各大员上朝前休憩之用者。此时朝房中已集有中国大员甚多，见余等至，一一起立为礼，且延余等就坐。有间，执事官奉茶点、水果、温牛乳之属至，陈之桌上。余等与华官且进茶点，且谈杂事，殊觉欣洽。约过二点钟，执事官入曰：寿筵已具，请诸位大人至万树园向皇上祝寿，恭与宴会。于是吾等循阶而下，步行至万树园。

    至万树园，中国诸大老已齐集于御幄之前，各穿朝服向幄恭立。然皇帝则并未露面，但于幄中一锦帘之后，隐隐似有皇帝之御影，为状如高坐以享受其臣下之叩祝者。而各华官虽不能断定皇帝果在帘内与否，亦一律正容注目于帘中，屏息勿动。似假定帘内之宝座即为皇帝，无论皇帝在座与否，其叩祝之礼要当对此宝座敬谨行之，不敢少慢。于时音乐徐奏，有金属制成之鼓以为之节拍，远处复有清脆之钟声，相闻于其间。已而乐止钟歇，全场寂然，稍停，乐声复做，钟声复起，然不一刻复止，如是数起数止，即有数人往来进退于幄前，如优伶演剧时进时退之状。

    音虽小解此辈何做，然以意度之，当是预备仪节无疑也。忽而乐声大作，各华官咸仰首上视，其意若谓皇帝之尊，高与天齐，可望而不可见。欲见皇帝唯有仰首向云表中求之。各华官仰首有时，声乐又做和美雄壮之曲，其为国乐或叩祝万寿之乐。余虽不知，而与乐声相和之赞礼声，则为“普天率土，齐向乾隆大皇帝叩首”字样（译者按：赞礼词译意）。于是除余及随从诸员仍依往例曲一膝为礼外，其余大小华官咸向乾隆皇帝行叩首之礼。叩首之迟速以乐节为律，乐声一扬则无数之红顶子一齐扑地；乐声一舒则又同时而起，凡三跪九叩而礼毕。嗟夫！余毕生所见各种宗教上之礼拜亦多矣，即不会以余所见者为限，而复求诸史乘。凡往古来今，各种宗教信徒之拜其教主若教王者，其仪式之隆重，殆均不能与此中国臣民之拜其乾隆大帝相比论也。

    是日全日，吾辈终始未与皇帝相见，即各大员亦未曾见面。缘各大员进祝之时，与吾辈同进，宴罢而退，亦与吾辈同退也。

    ●复游万树园

    已而，相国和中堂、副相福中堂及其兄福大人、松大人等四人同向余言：前日与贵使同游万树园，只游得东边一半，今天不妨再至西园一游。又言：东园富于庋藏之宝物；西园则富于天然界之景色。虽同属一园，而意趣各自不同，不知贵使亦颇有游兴否？余亟向彼等道谢，谓：即承宠邀，万无不奉陪之理。

    于是吾辈4人仍如前日之例，联辔游园。行有时，至一处少憩，执事官进水果、糖食、牛乳、冰水等物，佐以咸肉、细点，颇觉可口。食已将起，见内监数人正督同夫役，扛黄色之木箱数只自路旁而过。箱做扁形，无盖，所容为绸缎、瓷器。华官言：此系皇帝送与贵使之礼物，俟贵使归馆舍后，即当令人送至。余一面向华官做道谢之辞；一面俟扛木箱者过吾面前时向之鞠躬为礼，以示敬重皇帝之意。

    未几，又至一处，见广厅之中建一剧场，场中方演傀儡之剧，其形式与演法颇类英国之傀儡戏，唯衣服不同，戏中情节与希腊神话相似，有一公主运蹇，被人幽禁于一古堡之中，后有一武士，见而怜之，不惜冒危险与狮、龙、虎、豹相战，乃能救出公主与之结婚。婚时，大张筵宴，有马技斗武诸事，以壮观瞻。虽属刻木为人，牵线使动，然演来颇灵活可喜。

    傀儡戏之外，有西洋喜剧一折。其中主要角色乃本其夫妇及彭迪米阿、史加拉毛克四人所扮。

    译者按：万树园中，何以能有西剧？原书并未明言其故，以意度之，当系乾隆重视英使，特命在华供职各西人会串以娱之。或者各西人自行组织以为皇帝上寿，亦属近理。

    据云：此项傀儡戏，本系宫眷等特备之游戏品，向来不轻易演与宫外人员观看。此次华官因余到廷叩祝之故，请于皇帝，皇帝特颁恩典，始许送至宫外一演。故各华官观看之时，均兴高采烈。中有一场，各华官同声喝好，声震屋瓦。余就各华官神色间观之，知此项游戏品，皇帝及内廷各宫眷必甚爱之也。

    今日游园，相国和中堂乃大显其神力，时时与吾谈论园中景物，指东划西娓娓不绝。余欲乘间与彼一谈正事。谓：彼前日许我呈递之说帖，兹已预备妥当，拟于明日送至相府云云。而和中堂议论风生，终始不令予有插口之机会。候之有时，予不能复耐，急承其语气略作逗顿之时，与彼言之，言简意赅，仅三数语而了。和中堂唯唯否否，答曰：此刻已三点钟，我尚有些要事不能久陪了，倘贵使有什么见教，反正将来见了面可以细细谈论的。又言：宝太来庙一带（译者按：庙名译音），风景颇好，请松大人陪着贵使去逛逛，兄弟少陪了，再见！再见！言已，自偕福中堂、福大人而去。

    宝太来庙系一绝大建筑，中央为宝塔及佛殿，四周建有房屋甚多。佛殿之中有喇嘛等人，衣黄衣，手捧经卷，高诵佛号，其声音状态大类天主教堂之弥撒。吾虽不解其语言文字，而听之亦殊不刺耳。殿中有佛台、佛像及神龛、香炉、烛台、琉璃灯等物，均式样古拙，质料精贵，极庄严绚烂之致，为状与欧洲富强各国之大礼拜寺相同也。殿之中央有佛台三座，高出地板三级，台式构造精绝，一台之上建有佛像、一台建佛妻（译者按：佛妻二字译意，佛而有妻，殊堪发噱，想系观音大士之误）之像。又一台则建一神像做鞑靼衣饰，云是鞑靼人所奉之天神，其名字余已不能记忆。三像均纯金所铸，体积极大，像后为圣场，意是诸佛菩萨退隐之所。场顶悬一琉璃灯，光色黯淡，若用以吸收宗教上之恐怖，而使人永远虔敬之者。灯后为一大龛，有锦幙垂于其前。余等未近龛时，锦幙微启，及吾等行近，司幙之僧遽扯之令蔽，勿任神像为吾辈所见，僧面目微露骇异之容，吾不知其用意如何也。

    庙中有一宝塔，塔中供宝太来像。宝太来者，佛之化身，据信仰佛教者言：佛为天上最高之神，然不常居天上，恒降临下界，附于人类或一切众生体中以察世变。因之塔中广建佛塔之化身像，有独身者；有骑龙、骑犀牛、骑象、骑驴、骑骡、骑狗、骑鼠、骑猫、骑鳄鱼及骑一切奇禽怪兽者，总计其数不下数千。其中有相貌狞恶之妖怪像千余，尤觉穷奇极丑，不特为人世中所万不能见。即高至九天，深至九渊，亦决不至真有此物。至于普通之佛像及女神像则尤多至不可胜计，是盖因鞑靼人酷信喇嘛，故喇嘛按经典之所载，令鞑靼不惜工本造之。而乾隆皇帝复笃信佛教，自言其圣体虽非活菩萨化身，而践阼以后，国势兴隆，遐龄克享，深信确有一佛已附入其体中云云。此说虽怪诞不近情理，而皇帝自信甚笃，故综计其晚年前后所造佛像及一切皈依佛教、蓄养喇嘛之费颇不赀也。

    ●入宫观戏

    18日礼拜三。先是余得华官通告，谓皇帝万寿之庆祝典礼，虽已于昨日举行，而近日宫中尚有戏剧及各种娱乐之品为皇帝上寿，皇帝亦备有珍品多种，亲赐群臣，且将以礼物赠诸贵使，贵使可仍于晨间入宫，一观其盛。

    至今日晨间，余如言与随从各员入宫。至八时许，戏剧开场，演至正午而止。演时，皇帝自就戏场之前设一御座坐之。其戏场乃较地面略低，与普通戏场高出地面者相反。戏场之两旁则为厢位，群臣及吾辈坐之；厢位之后有较高之座位用纱帘障于其前者乃是女席，宫眷等坐之，取其可以观剧，而不至为人所观也。

    吾等入座未几，皇帝即命人招余及史但顿二人至其前，和颜言曰：朕以80老翁，尚到园子里来听戏，你们见了可不要骇异，便是朕自己，平时也以为国家疆域广大，政事纷繁，除非有什么重大庆典，像今天一般，也总觉没有空儿常到此间来玩。余曰：贵国治安日久，方有此种歌舞升平之盛况。敝使东来，适逢其盛，殊以为快。皇帝喜吾对答得当，随自座旁取一髹漆之木匣授我，曰：此一匣宝物乃自我们祖宗传下来的，到如今已有800年了，你可好好地带回去，替我代赠与你们英吉利国王。

    余受而观之，见玛瑙及各种宝石数块，均华人及鞑靼人视为至可宝贵者，匣顶则有小书一册，中有图画及文字，均皇帝御笔，同时皇帝又以小书一册亦御笔书画者，及槟榔荷包数事授余，余谢而受之。史但顿亦得一荷包，式样与吾所得者相同，其余吾部下随员亦均由皇帝赠以小件之礼物。吾等退，皇帝乃以丝绸数匹、瓷器若干事分赐各鞑靼亲王及各大员。吾自旁观之，虽所赐之物似不甚值钱，而受之者向皇帝谢恩时其卑微感激之状，则又非吾笔所能形容也。

    戏场中所演各戏时时更变，有喜剧、有悲剧，虽属接演不停，而情节并不连贯。其中所演事实有属于历史的、有属于理想的，技术则有歌有舞配以音乐，亦有歌舞、音乐，均屏诸勿用，而单用表情、科白以取胜者。论其情节则无非男女之情爱、两国之战争以及谋财害命等，均普通戏剧中常见之故事。至最后一折则为大神怪戏，不特情节诙诡颇堪寓目，即就理想而论，亦可当出人意表之誉，盖所演者为大地与海洋结婚之故事。开场时，乾宅坤宅各夸其富，先由大地氏出所藏宝物示众，其中有龙、有象、有虎、有鹰、有鸵鸟，均属动物；有橡树，有松树以及一切奇花异草，均属植物。大地氏夸富未已，海洋氏已尽出其宝藏，除船只、岩石、介蛤、珊瑚等常见之物外；有鲸鱼、有海豚、有海狗、有鳄鱼以及无数奇形之海怪，均系优伶所扮，举动、神情颇能酷肖。

    两氏所藏宝物既尽暴于戏场之中，乃就左右两面各自绕场三匝，俄而金鼓大作，两方宝物混而为一，同至戏场之前方，盘旋有时，后分为左右两部，而以鲸鱼为其统带官员立于中央，向皇帝行礼。行礼时口中喷水，有数吨之多，以戏场地板建造合法，水一至地即由板隙流去，不至涌积。此时观者大加叹赏，中有大老数人，座与吾近，恐吾不知其妙，故高其声曰：好呀！好呀！余以不可负其盛意亦强学华语，连呼“好”、“好”以答之。

    演戏时，吾辈所座厢位做通长之式，不似欧洲戏场，各厢互相分隔者，故座客尽可自由往来随意谈话。于中有大员数人情谊颇为殷恳，时时离其原定之座位至吾座旁闲谈，然以鞑靼为多，汉人则甚少。

    其与吾谈论最为亲洽者有二人，虽着中国装，而面貌不类华人，亦不类鞑靼。与吾相见，首问吾能解波斯语或阿拉伯语否？余问曰：然则两君其中央亚细亚人耶？彼等乃自言邦族，谓是喀尔麦克之回人，其先人游牧之处，在中央亚细亚里之海滨，近因与俄人交閧，相牵迁至中国西南部边境，倾心内向，派彼等二人为曼尔石司至天朝进贡。曼尔石司者，回语言使臣也。乾隆皇帝见二人至，圣心大悦，各赏以蓝顶蓝翎，且许其留居热河，恭叩万寿，以示柔怀远人之意。二人来此以后，得见天朝文化，自言心中至以为快云。

    下午一时，晨会已毕，余等退至四时，复往观夜会。夜会地点在一广场之上，地在吾初次觐见皇帝之大幄之前。吾辈到场未几，御辇即至。皇帝降辇后，自就一临时所设之宝座坐之，挥手发一起始开演之记号，于是广场之上即有拳术、跳舞、走绳、刀剑以及种种有趣之武艺陆续献技。此项技师均穿中国宽大之衣服，蹑寸许高之厚底大靴。而演技时仍纯熟活泼，似不见碍于衣履者也。

    吾乃不得不加以赞誉，唯旗人好马，中国历史上殆无有不记旗人善于骑射者。而此种盛会乃未有马技列乎其间，令吾一观旗人之马技何若？亦憾事也。武技既毕，以花火为夜会之殿。此项花火大有陆离光怪之奇观，在余来华后所见各项娱乐品种中，当推此为第一。余昔在勃打维亚所见花火虽变化之众多，火力之雄大较胜于此，而以趣味言此胜于彼。花火之末一场为绝大火景，有火山之爆裂形、有太阳与星辰之冲突、有爆火箭、有开花大炮、有连环炮，一时火光烛天，爆声隆隆。至光消声歇而后，余烟之缭绕于园中树木之间者，犹至一小时后方散也。

    观技时，皇帝使人送茶点至，虽未极精之品，而余以时去晚膳未几，腹中尚饱颇不愿食，然因其为皇帝所赐，按诸中国礼节不可不食，遂略进少许。

    此一夜会与晨会相较，其到场观看者及场中秩序大致相同，唯晨会则皇帝坐于戏场之前，而群臣咸坐于两厢，夜会则皇帝坐于中央，群臣分作左右二行列于其旁，有坐者、有立者、有跪者、卫队及执旗持节之人，多至不可胜数。则站于宝座及群臣之后，其尤异之点，则晨会时，观者可以自由谈话、喝彩、鼓掌在所不禁；夜会则全场寂然，自始至终未有一人敢发生谈笑者。

    夜会既毕，吾等未出，樊大人即来谓余曰：目下万寿庆祝之礼已经完毕，皇帝定于本月二十四日启跸回銮，贵使为便利计，宜先期启节回至北京。鄙意以二十一日为便，不知颇蒙贵使许可否？余曰：可。樊大人遂欢然而去。

    ●说帖之争

    返抵馆舍，见余所拟致相国和中堂之说帖已由译员译就。内容大致谓甲必丹麦金吐司目下已由英伦承领各项礼物，用所管“印度斯坦”船装运来毕，妥密交卸，其本人亦已蒙贵国大皇帝恩赐引见。兹因“印度斯坦”船停泊珠山海港修理，船中不宜久无统率之人，故拟令该甲必丹即日回珠山原船办事。倘该甲必丹到珠山之后意欲就近购买茶叶或它种土货，以便随船带回英国发卖，或该船船上员役等人有随船带来之英国物品意欲卖于珠山一带之中国人民者，亦望照准。再者，敝使来时，同船有精于算学者二人，拟请贵国大皇帝酌予录用，听其当差。该二人曾同至大沽口，今则尚在“印度斯坦”船中，倘蒙中堂府允该甲必丹回船，能否特加恩典，另派一欧洲教士偕其同去？俾该教士得带同二人同至北京云云。

    此项说帖虽已译就，而苦无相当之呈递人。因鞑靼钦差既为吾辈所不信，而前此皇帝所派之欧洲教士亦未有同来热河者，樊、周二大人则以此事与鞑靼有关，不敢贸然经手。普通之送信人又不宜用之，免致唐突相国。吾思之竟夕，终不得一适当之解决法也。

    19日礼拜四。晨起，吾译员来言自愿担任呈递说帖之事。余斟酌许久，以为随从诸员中堪当此任者，当以此人为最宜。因以说帖付之，嘱其慎重将事，译员欣然而去。

    未几，议员归馆舍复命曰：微员往递说帖，以所穿为英国衣服，不特途中惹人注意，即呈递时亦因此略有阻碍。然说帖则已递去，但未能亲手递与相国和中堂，仅能交其书记马老爷代为呈递而已。此马老爷待人颇觉和气，自信此项说帖当立即呈与中堂阅看，不久即有回文，由专员送至馆舍。余以此人既肯代递，则余事已了，遂出身间所备金钱的敬礼奉诸马老爷求其收纳，而马老爷必不肯受，说你们外国人的钱我不能受的，可是将来到了北京，若蒙你们钦差大人送我几件外国玩意儿，那么兄弟一定领情。余不敢相强，遂辞别而退，谅和中堂之复书近日必可送来也。

    入夜，金大人、樊大人、周大人三人果联袂而来。坐甫定，金大人即出一纸向吾宣读其意，而令议员译之。其言曰：英国钦使所请拟令甲必丹麦金吐司先行回珠山一节，碍难照准。该甲必丹既已到京，自当在京守候，至将来该钦使回国时同时启程方为合理。至所请该国洋船“印度斯坦”号船上随员、夫役等，欲在珠山一带收买土货，出卖洋货，事属可行，且可从优体恤，不必收取进出货税。其随船同来之洋人二名，据该钦使言系精于算学之人，欲求天朝录用，准予当差，亦可照办。但天朝自有办法护送该洋人进京，该钦使毋庸越俎代谋也。

    金大人宣读既竟，即折叠其纸藏诸怀中。余欲向其抄录一份，而彼固执不肯，且其倔强及反对吾西人之态度，仍与前此未经申斥时无二。吾殊不觉其用意何若？

    其尤异者则余闻华人言：中国朝廷对于吾辈之事视为一种极重要之问题，数日前，相国和中堂曾招集各大员会议此事。会议时不特前任两广总督之福大人在座，即前任广东藩司之某大人，因犯罪多款，锢诸狱中有年者，至是亦出之于狱，令报告之广东洋务情形，以为对付吾辈之张本。虽此次会议之结果余现在尚未有所闻，然以意度之，恐利少而不利居多也。

    20日礼拜五。因明日为启节回北京之期，故今日预备极忙。除余及部下员役所备行李照旧归束外，凡皇帝赠予英皇之礼物，如明角灯、匹头丝绸、茶球、图画之类，一一于今日之晨请华官监视，督令工人另行装箱，箱外大书“乔治第三收受”字样。俾华官得尽心照料，工人搬运时得分外留意，而彼等亦深知吾意，以为此项货箱其价值之大无与伦比也。

    据樊、周二大人言：吾等来时所携物件甚多，故途中延搁至七日之久。今车轻物简，六日即可抵京，较来时可缩短一日也。鞑靼钦差金大人，今日亦来拜见一次，并未提起昨日之事，只言明日吾等出发，彼必与吾等同行，一路停止之所，彼当时时过来与吾谈话云。

    ●启程回京

    21日礼拜六。晨七时出发，为状与来时相同，唯天气冷而多风。虽有日光而淡然，殊不能令人生暖也。

    今日，余卫队中有一兵士曰极尔密李德者，以暴病身死。此人本为皇家炮兵队中炮手，今兹之死乃系多食水果所致。据其同伴所言：彼于朝食时，连啖橘子40枚之多云。

    22日礼拜。晨间，葬李德。行18英里，至锦章营下宿。黄昏时，金大人至寓中拜见，谈话未几，即去。

    23日礼拜一。行24英里，至古北口。抵口之前一点余钟，万里长城已蜿蜒相望。就车中观之，前、左、右三方景色极佳，而气象之雄厚磅礴，尤为吾毕生所未见。既至其地，吾随从各员中，有欲复做第二次之游者。惜吾辈来时所走登城之路，已有砖石、瓦屑塞之，不能复行矣。

    后伊等寻觅许久，始得一间道，卒能偿其登临之愿焉。

    26日礼拜四。晨间时出发，行27英里抵北京官舍，时正午。综计自热河至京师仅费时五日有半，一路停顿之处仍系借住行宫之厢房，为状与去时相若。

    樊、周二大人招待颇为周到，且情意殷挚，凡权力所及无一处无一事不表示其真正之友谊。鞑靼钦差金大人则仍守其桀骜不驯之态度，虽中途亦有数次，诣吾寓中谈话问安，而其不满意于外人之神情，则时时流露于言外也。

    27日礼拜五。取所余各种礼物之存在馆舍中者，督率部下整理之，以便运往圆明园陈列。此事初不必汲汲，而华官则颇有催促之意，余就其神情中观察之，似系外国派来之钦使，不能在中国久居。余来此以后，既经觐见，华官遂有不愿留吾在此度岁之意，故频加催促，使吾速了其事也。

    28日礼拜六。各项礼物已大致措置完备，即于是日交与华官运至圆明园，且派吾译员同去，令其以各种仪器及机器之用法，向当差各教士详为解释。此等当差之教士即系受皇帝之命在圆明园中掌司各种外国珍品者。吾令译员向彼等详解各物之用法，盖备吾等归国后各教士或华官能自由运用之，而无所阻隔也。

    鞑靼钦差金大人来信：皇上定于下礼拜一回銮，按照成例，凡在京各大员及各国派来使臣，均须行郊迎之礼。其迎接之处离北京为12英里，贵使既在北京，照例当屈驾前往迎之。余曰：即如此，敝使必去，但相隔既远，贱躯亦小有不适，往来奔波颇以为苦也。金大人曰：其地去圆明园较近，贵使可于明日移往圆明园馆舍中，后日破晓而往，当可节劳不少。余曰：敬如教，敝使虽惫，亦甚愿自勉也。

    29日礼拜。上午未事事，下午往圆明园，至馆舍后，疲劳甚，早睡。

    30日礼拜一。晨四时即起，行二小时至郊迎皇帝之处。其地有一广厅，厅中设茶点，吾等略进茶点后即出，至迎銮场。场在一大道之左旁，吾辈至时，见两旁及对面已站有大小官员及兵队执事人等，有数千之多，延长几及数英里，人人咸侧目向远处而望，以待驾至。

    未几，御驾至矣。皇帝自坐一大轿（参考《出使中国记》曰：此轿以黄绸为衣，有玻璃窗，抬者8人，更替者亦8人），轿后有一二轮车随之，式样既重笨可厌且无弹簧，坐之至不舒适。吾料将来皇帝得坐吾所赠马车后，必将此车置之高阁也。

    译者按：此语殊不尽然。参考摆劳氏《中国旅行记》曰：吾回英后一年，得一荷兰人在中国当差者之书曰：去年马戛尔尼伯爵带来各种赠品，有数种并不为华人所重，仅置诸普通物品中，不甚珍惜之。至伯爵自赠之马车，在伦敦市上已为罕见之精品，而华人乃以此车与其原有粗笨之车弃置一处，不特不加以拂泽，且始终未尝一用也。

    御轿过吾前时，吾照旧行曲一膝之礼，华人则一律双膝下跪。皇帝见余，就轿中差一人来问余言曰：听说你身体有些不好，皇上牵挂得很。现在天气已渐渐冷了，若老住在圆明园颇不好，不如搬回北京居住才觉得方便些。余作一简单之道谢辞，令此人回复皇帝。皇帝点首龙颜颇悦。

    皇帝之后，紧随者为相国和中堂，见余在路旁，行礼甚恭，然未曾少停，想系仪节如此也。

    御驾过后，迎者渐散，余亦归圆明园少息，下午回北京。奔波一日，体又不适，抵馆舍时已倦极思睡矣。

    ●逐　客

    10月1日礼拜二。余自热河回北京时，随从各员及技师等加之在圆明园装配礼物者齐至北京欢迎，即在北京馆舍中下榻。至今日，余以圆明园工作尚未完竣，命彼等回园治事，俾将天文仪、地球仪、行星仪等从速装配完备。据彼等言：各种礼物中，华人视之并不称异，唯于派克氏之大灵司（原注：即余向甲必丹麦金吐司转购者），则视为一种珍重之物而颇注意之。然亦昧于事理，以为此种大镜并非世界稀有之物。尝有一次，一华官问摆劳曰：这座大镜子颇有意思，颇好玩，你能在北京再造一座否？摆劳答曰：此镜非专家不能制造，且此镜极大为世界之冠，他国所有同式之镜决不能与此镜相比。

    华官闻之，摇首做微笑，意若不信，后又问诸吉伦博士。博士以同样之言答之，始信。然彼等之意以为此物虽奇，装之颇属容易，费一二日之功即可完毕。及摆劳告以此镜决非旦夕间所能装就，彼等乃大加催促。谓：现在皇上急于看看你们这些外国玩意儿，你们总得赶紧装配才好，若人手不足，要用帮手，别说一百、二百，便是一千、二千也可马上叫来，可是千万不可延缓。

    鞑靼钦差金大人亦以吾辈装配各物，事属极易，不必多费时刻。吾初至圆明园时，告以此项工程统计当费数星期之时间云云，彼即大骇，以为不经之谈。至归自热河后，见工程犹未告竣，则催促益力，谓皇帝已再三催促，欲即日到园观看，倘延缓过久，必非皇帝所喜。此语实非由衷之言。吾初抵中国即有华官数人，向吾谈及中国风俗，言：外国使臣无久驻中国之前例，以法律论，使臣到京至多不过勾留40日，40日后如不自去，亦必斥逐。贵使此来，当预算日期，尽40日之内办妥一切事务，从速离京，方不至违背天朝体制。由是言之，今日金大人等之催促工程显然夹有逐客之意。虽华官口中尚未有勒令余等于某日启程之明言，而要求互派使臣实为余此行主要问题之一。今金大人等之态度，既有此等表示，吾不得不设法先探中国朝廷究竟有无不许余等久留之意，然后自定进止。

    乃作书致和中堂，大致言：甲必丹麦金吐司所驾船只，既承贵国大皇帝许其在珠山一带买卖货物，敝使感激之至，拟请中堂代向皇帝致谢。但该甲必丹为全船最有经验之人，船中若无此人料理殊属不便，尚望中堂破格通融，许其即日回船办事。至于敝使本人则将来拟由广州回国。缘时至明春，敝国必有多数船只自欧西驶抵广州，倘蒙贵国允许敝使小做勾留，敝使即可附乘此项船只回英也。书去未几即得复书，约余明日早晨至圆明园面谈。

    2日礼拜三。晨间赴圆明园，面相国和中堂，福中堂兄弟亦在坐，然未有其他之国老侍立。既见，互问安好后，中堂即出书信数封授余曰：此系珠山寄来者。余接视其信，见其中一封为“印度斯坦”船大副所写，书明复甲必丹麦金吐司收拆；余二封则系古完勋爵所书。余略视信面即拟置诸怀中，而中堂乃问余曰：信中说些什么？有什么消息，讲给我听听。余乃不得不启封而以书中内容告之，言：目下“狮子”、“印度斯坦”二船，均停泊珠山。“狮子”船已预备就绪，一得敝使命令即可启碇回国，“印度斯坦”号则非俟甲必丹麦金吐司回船不能开驶。述毕，以原信授中堂，令其自阅，俾不疑吾言之虚伪。中堂乃曰：你那“狮子”船可以不必回去，因为你们离家已久，谅来对于故乡风物必定牵记得很。皇上的意思也以为你部下的人到中国后已死了几个，你自己身体又不舒服，想来北京天气太冷，与你们洋人的体质不甚合宜。将来交了霜降，天气还要冷得紧，替你们设想，还是早一点儿回国的好。而且我们天朝的宴会礼节，新年时与万寿时差不多，贵使既在热河看见了万寿礼，也不必再看新年礼了。

    余曰：敝使颇堪耐冷，北京天气虽寒，敝使来华之前已有御寒之备，即久处北京亦可于身体无碍。承贵国皇帝及中堂垂念，敝使感激万状。又曰：在热河时，承中堂面允回京之后，可时时与敝使相见讨论一切。今日得蒙中堂赐见，俱见中堂诚实不欺，敝使愿于此时，将此次来华各项重大问题与中堂妥商。因曰：敝国皇帝此次派敝使来此，非为暂时的联络感情计，实欲与贵国永远共敦睦谊计。故敝国皇帝之意，拟令敝使久驻北京，倘此后两国国际上发生何等之问题，即由敝使代表敝国皇帝，就近与贵国政府直接商量。至敝使在北京时所用一切起居饮食之费，概由敝国政府开发，不必由贵国供给。倘贵国皇帝有与敝国互派使臣之意，尤为敝国所欢迎，所有船只一切以及到英国后种种供给之物，均可由敝国代为具备。敝国皇帝、臣民亦当以极尊荣之敬礼待此使臣。此种互派使臣之法，系目下欧洲各国国际通行之惯例。倘蒙贵国皇帝允准，则东西两大雄主既可常通往来，复可交换文明，不特两国之私幸，亦为世界文明进化之公幸。

    余与中堂虽前后相见已有数次，而相见之时，中堂恒侈谈杂事指东划西，不令余有讨论正事之机会。直至今日，余已不可复耐，始为中堂力疾言之，意谓中堂必可与吾从长计议矣。而中堂犹保守其置若罔闻之故态，时时向吾絮问身体何若，起居何若，而于吾认真陈白之事则终始不做一答语。至吾述竟，则言之：皇上的意思，本来也很愿你常驻北京，不过你身体不好，天气又不合宜，水土又不服，所以不能强留了。

    余闻此言，知华人逐客之意已确凿可据，即起立兴辞。然面上仍不露失望之色，但以和易诚挚之言词动之，冀于万一之中，犹有转机之望。

    乃返至馆舍后，即得馆外西人传来消息，谓：乾隆皇帝致英皇之书信目下已经写就，方命人译为拉丁文，至译就后，即可交付。嗟夫！此说果信，不特华人逐客之令可以证实，而促吾速即启程回国之意亦已见诸言外矣。然吾犹冀此项书信交付之后，希望未必遽绝，或者犹有婉商之余地。

    乃未几，而樊、周二大人亦至，向吾曰：说不定明天和中堂还要你去见见他，也说不定那时候中堂便把皇上写给贵国皇帝的书信交付你。倘若果然交付了呢，我劝你还是立刻向中堂辞行，择期动身回国。可是此刻还说不定，咱们俩不知内中的底细怎样？余曰：闻命矣。两公此来，必有所授意者。二人力辩曰：否。我们俩来同贵使说起这句话，正见得我们的私交。老实说，咱们也很愿贵使常驻中国，贵使回国之后，我们虽未必闲散，却是再找不到这种好差使了。此言似颇足信。

    ●授乾隆复信

    3日礼拜四，晨间。余卧病未起，鞑靼钦差金大人已至。言：目下相国和中堂及国老多人，均在皇宫中等候贵使前去谈话。余以连日奔走，所事又不能如愿，今日本拟少息，兹闻金大人之言，心中至觉不快。即四肢亦疲惫乏力，几令吾不能起床，然以事关重要，不得不勉强从事。乃立即披衣而起，命部下预备一切，匆促出门。

    计自金大人至馆舍，至吾抵宫门之时，为时不过一钟，而抵宫门后静候至三点钟之久，方见和中堂及诸国老联翩出迎。行相见礼后，即导余进宫。经华丽之厅事数座、长桥数道，始抵宝殿之前。殿基极高，有石级数十，如梯形，石级尽处，有黄缎包成之圈手椅一行，状颇郑重。中有一椅，椅上有一黄封，即系乾隆皇帝致英皇之书信。

    吾等在殿下行礼后，拾级而登，至于宝座之前，和中堂乃指椅上之黄封曰：这是皇上赐予你们国王的书信，等一会儿，便须叫执事官送往你馆舍里去。但是照规矩你得先到此地来行个接受礼，所以我叫金钦差请你来。

    殿中黄椅之旁尚有低桌数张，桌上累累然置有物品多许，均做卷筒之形，其上亦用黄绸盖之，不辨所盖者为何物。而和中堂则指而告余曰：这是皇上赐给你们国王的东西，其中也有几种是赏给你自己和你部下官员的。因为你们英国与天朝相距极远，这回航海到此，路上苦也吃得多些，故皇上赏赐之物比平常外藩使臣多了一倍。余曰：即此可见贵国大皇帝优待远人，礼意隆渥，敝使感激异常，请中堂代为致谢。

    此时中堂神情，与前在热河游园时和蔼可接者大不相同，恭静之中颇夹有威严之气。此种威仪之气，凡为大臣者多有之。余见之亦不以为异，但在此时则心中至觉不耐。盖余航海而来，其本意并非欲希冀中国区区之礼物，今中堂但言礼物而置正事于不问，吾即具忍耐功夫，心中亦断无不愤懑之理。余初来时，曾以所备各种优美之礼物分赠中堂及诸国老，意其必肯收受，乃送去之物一一打回，竟无一人肯收受者，余乃大异。至今思之，彼等之所以不肯受礼，即为今日以威严之气临吾之预备，亦无足异也。

    余进宝殿后与中堂等略作数语，自觉四肢乏力，全身发抖，有不能支持之势，即向中堂告退曰：敝使病体未愈，今不特不能坐立且不能复语，拟先行告退。中堂如有所命令，可与余副官史但顿勋爵言之。中堂曰：也没有什么话说了，你们正副二使不妨同时回去，若你有什么意见可再开个帖儿来。余曰：遵命。遂与史但顿同退。退时，自思中堂虽有此言，而就其神气观之，余即有所陈白亦万无成功之望。他姑不论，即如昨日所谈之事，余向彼竭力言之，意其无论如何今日相见时或成或否，必有相当之答辞，乃竟无一语提及。则今日之所谓开个帖儿云者，亦无非费吾纸墨而已。

    抵馆舍未几，下午有华官16人率从者多人，合赍皇帝致英皇之书信至馆，仪式至为隆重。赍书信者甫去，礼物十数扛，复相继而至。余就中挑选其送与英皇者分别装箱，箱上仍书“乔治第三”字样以为标志。其送与余及随从各员者，则各自藏护之。

    此时，中国朝廷虽未有命吾即日回国之明文，而其命吾即日回国之决心则已彰明显著无复可疑。

    ●六点请求

    倘吾不知其用意所在犹不再做归计，则华官或者以非礼之举相加，是不特于吾出使之荣誉体面有关，而对于吾此行之目的，尤必有至恶之结果也。然和中堂既有命开具说帖之言，吾虽明知其无效，亦不得不姑以为有效而开具之。乃不顾病体之痛苦勉强捉笔开具六事如下：

    第一，请中国允许英国商船在珠山、宁波、天津等处登岸，经营商业。

    第二，请中国按照从前俄国商人在中国通商之例，允许英国商人在北京设一洋行，买卖货物。

    第三，请于珠山附近划一未经设防之小岛归英国商人使用，以便英国商船到彼即行收藏，存放一切货物且可居住商人。

    第四，请于广州附近得一同样之权利，且听英国商人自由往来，不加禁止。

    第五，凡英国商货自澳门运往广州者，请特别优待赐予免税。如不能尽免，请依1782年之税律从宽减税。

    第六，请允许英国商船按照中国所定之税率切实上税，不在税率之外另行征收。且请将中国所定税率录赐一份以便遵行。缘敝国商人向来完税，系听税关人员随意估价，从未能一窥中国税则之内容也。

    译者按：前文所录两敕，《东华录》中同载一日之下，且首尾紧接似系一日间事。然照此日记而论，前敕当是今日事，后敕乃今日以后之事也。

    4日礼拜五。昨日安育德神父至馆舍中拜见，谓将有所陈白。余以病甚不能见客，嘱史但顿见之。今日史但顿以安神父之言转告于余，余以其颇有记述之价值，又因安神父对于余奉命使华之举心亦异常关切。凡中国政府中苟有若何之消息，与吾英国使臣有关而为吾所未知者，此人必须先通信，其望吾成功之心几与吾自望之心相若。

    吾故乘今日病体较苏之时，补记其言于此。安神父曰：吾欧人之所谓钦使多有常驻的性质，俾两国发生交涉得以就近接洽。而华人对于他国之使臣仅视为一种点染太平之具，苟非国家有庆祝宴会之盛举，则使臣可以不必来，来则亦万不许其久留，事毕，即促令回国。前此葡萄牙派来使臣，中国虽亦以至隆重之礼节款接之，而其居留中国之时期亦不过六礼拜。此因中国向来闭关自守，不知世界大势。初非挟有恶意，即如缔结条约、互相通商，为现今文明各国共有之办法，中国则从来未闻有与他国订结条约之事。然谓中国人固执不化，将来永无与他国人缔约交通之一日，则又未必尽然。不过无论何事总当渐次做去，若能按部就班逐节进行，将来必有成功之一日。倘躁急从事抹去种种手续则未克有济也。

    安神父又言，钦使此次来华，所受困难实已不少，然钦使到华较早，在中国朝廷未闻欧洲战耗之前，则困难之事必可减去一半，因中国人向来以蛮夷戎狄目欧人。近来复得有一种风说：谓欧洲诸国方有战祸，其以蛮夷戎狄视欧人之心遂因此益甚，钦使到华后，亦因此大受影响。然钦使精干英明，仪表亦彬彬有礼，既来此邦，此邦人士心目之中必永远留此钦使之影像。虽现在之结果未必甚佳，而将来倘有成功之一日，终不能不归功于钦使也。据鄙见所及，以为钦使既经来华，来华之后，既经中国皇帝准予瞻觐，纵留华之时间极短，亦未始非英人在中国得有立足地之初步。倘自此以后，英人不以此自馁其气，仍由英皇陛下时时以书信与中国皇帝互相投报，每有商船到华即奉以一书，一面于广东地方派一英侨司理其事，此英侨当以富有经历长于交际之人充之，由英皇陛下赐予敕令，嘱其时时与两广总督联络感情。所有各项书信即由此人面托两广总督代为呈递。倘将来中国之新皇登基，或有他种重大国庆，此人即可就近托两广总督转奏，自请晋京庆祝。如是在中国一面，既不背其使臣不许久留之定章；在英国一面，亦可免去特派使臣之费用及心力，而两国感情仍可互相联络，无常驻钦使之名，可收常驻钦使之实。事之两全无有过于此者，将来瓜熟蒂落，必有缔约通商及互派使臣之一日。至以目下而论，华人既不愿钦使久留，钦使自当立往辞行，准备回国，毋令华人逐客之令见诸明文，转使将来之事难于着手也。

    安神父在华有年，所言至有经验，其对于将来应行事务之主张，至吾回国后，固可视为一种堪资讨论之计划。而其现在劝吾速即辞行准备回国，亦属正当之忠告，吾思之再三决意从之。然前据珠山来信：“狮子”船有即日启碇回国之意，今相去数日，该船已否启碇，尚在不可知之数，故于决定速做归计之后，立草一函致相国和中堂。

    函中内容，开首系通常问候之词，其次即言昨上说帖，计达左右，倘承赐以回复。敝使拟即于接到回复之日启行回国，其程途则拟先至珠山，一探“狮子”船已否启碇，倘系尚无，固属甚妙；其或已经启碇，则敝使可改坐“印度斯坦”船，因该船非至甲必丹到船后绝不能开行。今甲必丹尚留居北京，则该船必停泊港中无疑。然敝使部下随从之人既重，行李复多，“印度斯坦”船中仅能容其半数，故“狮子”船虽已启碇亦必设法阻止。今附上一函请中堂速即饬人飞送珠山投交古完勋爵，倘该勋爵已经乘坐“狮子”船南驶，则请中堂饬送信之人飞急赶至广州截之，是为至要。下文复用通套之问候语结之，无关紧要，不赘。

    夜分，鞑靼钦差金大人来，言贵使致古完勋爵之信，已由和中堂饬入送去，贵使自请即日回国一节亦已由中堂奏禀皇帝。皇帝说：如此办法很好！很好！但他们外国人受不起风浪的，朕为体恤他们起见，已饬钦天监选定本月七日吉日，着他们动身。又饬令该英国使臣沿途路经过各地的文武官员，一律优加保护，用敬礼接待，不得怠慢。金大人又言：贵使昨致和中堂之说帖，已定于贵使启行之日答复。因目下中堂尚在颐和园中，至贵使启行之一日方能来京，以复书面交贵使也。

    5日礼拜六。时至今日，诸事多已无可为力，只能自做归计矣。

    下午，樊大人与周大人同来，言：贵使归时，自北京往珠山，皇帝已特命大员二人为贵使之导护人。其一为松大人，即前此游万树园时与贵使为伴者；又一人则为阿顺（译者按：阿顺二字音译）大人。在热河时亦曾与贵使见过一次。至于金大人则仅奉命护送贵使至于天津而止，余二人虽尚未奉明命，以意度之，行程亦当仅以直隶一省为限也。

    6日礼拜。金大人、樊大人、周大人均于是日同至馆舍中，督饬夫役助余等收拾行李，以备明日启行。

    渠等言：明日贵使启行时，尚当与和中堂行一握别之礼，但行礼之时间由中堂自定，故贵使当预先将行李等物装置妥当，俾一闻中堂之命即可启程。又言：中国朝廷诸大员中颇有数人与贵使甚形相得，兹闻贵使来此未久即行回国，颇觉为之不快云。

    第三章　南归之途

    ●启程南归

    10月7日礼拜一。午刻，由北京馆舍出发。

    未出京城之前，途经一幄，和中堂及福中堂兄弟与高级官员数人均已齐集幄中。身服官服，气象至为雍穆，似专候余等者。余入，与诸人行相见礼后，即见幄之正中设一桌，桌上复以黄绸，黄绸之下有卷形之物两件。和中堂曰：此中一系敕书，即皇上答复贵使说帖之书信；一系物品清单，详开皇上赐予贵国国王各物之名目。俾贵使回国后有所查照。

    余曰：敝使来此，观光未久，遽尔言归，心中自不能无所悒悒，但愿贵国皇帝俯允敝使所请，则今兹别之悲或可稍杀。中堂闻言大愕，似深异吾言之不当，以至下文之答语竟无从说起者。默对有顷，中堂即改谈他事。言：贵使留京之时，不知饮食一项颇合贵国人士口吻否？又言：今兹贵使自北京前往珠山，皇上已派定松大人为护送官，此人办事很好，谅能与贵使投合。言时，面有笑容，蔼然若友朋之送别。

    福中堂兄弟则面色至觉不怿，且不喜与吾交谈。吾因此乃不能无疑，或者中国朝廷诸大员对于吾此次所上说帖，意见各自不同。当会同讨论如何答复之时，不免小有冲突，故有如是之现象欤？

    吾与中堂谈话既竟，将告别出幄，中堂即呼一五品官头戴水晶顶子者，至其前使跪，别有二官捧案上之敕书及礼物清单，用黄色阔带两条缚于此五品官之背上。缚已，五品官起立出幄，上马向通州而行。吾及部下各员亦立即上马。

    行二小时，抵通州馆舍，前导之五品官复下马入其厅事，跪于吾前，至吾以亲手接受其背上所缚之敕书及礼物清单后，始鞠躬而退。

    通州一处有馆舍甚多，然大半僻处陋巷之中，荒废不治。吾所居之馆舍则与城垣相近，房屋尚新，建造之费达十万金磅，然其始并非特造之馆舍，乃某藩司之私宅。据教士言：此大员前此服官广东，以贪墨不法之故，为乾隆皇帝所斥罢。房屋财产悉数充公，其本人则今尚禁锢狱中，已终身无赦释之望。又言：此座房屋当以吾欧人居之最为合宜，因此屋建造之费都系该藩司服官广东时，向吾欧人勒索而来者也。

    通州一处，地方虽小，然以密迩京师之故，中朝颇重视之。设有文武大员各一，武员即樊大人，汉人也；文员乃一满洲鞑子。今日见吾至，即来馆舍中请见，言：这几天河里的水已浅了，此后一天天浅下去，再过几天，大船即不能行走，若用小船装运或由陆路行走，实在太不便当。幸而贵使来得还早，明天即赶紧动身，或尚不至有什么阻碍。目下船只等项已由兄弟代为置办，明日早晨贵使即可上船，然而此刻已迟了几天了，若能早几日到此，路上必可格外方便些。

    余聆其言自至河畔观之，则河中水量，果较浅于吾辈自天津来时多矣。

    8日礼拜二。上午，至河岸督饬苦力搬运什物上船，数小时始毕。华官对于吾辈之敬礼及代为照顾什物、行李之妥密，仍与来时相同，夜分启碇。

    9日礼拜三。昨夜虽启碇，而所行不远，因水量极小时时搁浅也。

    今日复搁浅二三次，天气则夜分及早晨甚冷，昼间颇温暖。

    10日礼拜四。下午，樊大人来言：现在松大人奉到皇上手谕一道，那谕中所说的话，松大人打算自己过来与贵使谈谈。余曰：甚好。

    未几，松大人已乘一快船向余船疾驶而来。余即谓樊大人曰：请你先去招呼松大人，说等他的船停了，敝使先去拜见他。樊大人如言先驾一小船而去，至松大人之船与吾船相并时，吾即过船与松大人相见。

    见面之初无非重提旧事，说前在热河时承松大人引导游园，敝使感激之至，现在又承贵国皇帝命松大人为敝使之导护官，敝使更觉荣幸万分。松大人亦做相当之客套，言：兄弟蒙皇上派为导护官，得与贵使同往珠山一行，实在荣幸得很。因自怀间出皇上之手谕读之，谕中大致谓：着松筠导护英国使臣前往珠山上船，一路当留心照顾，切实保护。倘英国洋船已不在珠山，即着松筠径行带同该使臣等至广州上船。务须亲视该使臣等妥稳上船后，方得回京复命云云。

    读毕，余问曰：现在敝使将往珠山，不知前日敝使托和中堂饬人送往珠山之信现在已经送去否？松大人问：什么书信？余曰：即系敝使写与古完勋爵嘱其停船守候者。松大人曰：这封信想来不关重要，怕还没有送去。余曰：此信并非不关紧要之信，缘敝国皇帝只命古完勋爵督驶“狮子”船，运送敝使到中国为止。到中国之后，倘敝使不令其留候，该勋爵即可自由督饬该船驶往它处，缘“狮子”军舰之事务甚多，非仅限于运送敝使也。松大人曰：那么兄弟立刻写信往北京去，请和中堂派人飞送珠山，想来不至于赶不上。余曰：如此甚好，费神，费神。遂辞别还船。

    未及一点钟，松大人即过船回拜。客套既毕，因正式之谈话已于顷间说过，此时乃随意闲谈。

    首由松大人讲述俄国情形，谓俄罗斯的百姓虽然凶狠野蛮，却还不能算得恶人。余曰：前此敝使奉敝国皇帝之命，亦在俄国居住至3年之久。松大人曰：奇事！怎么做一任钦差会做到这般长久呢？余曰：我们欧洲各国，大家都讲交情，这一国派了钦差常驻在那一国；那一国也派了钦差常驻在这一国。如此两国之中若发生了什么问题，便可由所派的钦差就近办理，此是欧洲各国向来通行之法。现在无论何国都一致办理的。松大人曰：我们中国的法律就不是这样，我们本国从来没有派使臣到外国去过。外国派来进贡的使臣乃是一种临时的举动，照例至多只许在京城里耽搁40天。倘有了重大事故，也许延长到80天，可是虽有这句话，却是千载难逢的。又曰：中国自有中国的规矩，若这种规矩对于中国，并没有什么不便之处，决不该将它改变。所以外国人到了中国，遇了中西规矩不同之处，只能依了中国的规矩行事。因这种规矩中国人行之已久，虽外国人眼中看了以为奇怪或行之以为不便，中国却决不能依了外国人的话，改变成法的。余曰：中外规矩既已不同如此，敝使此次到华，对于中国的种种规矩实在生疏得很，难保于觐见之时不无失误之处。但是这种种失误，不能算得敝使的过失。因敝使到中国后，自知人地生疏，非向一般富有经验的人讨教讨教，说不定要闹笑话。故一举一动都依了向在中国当差的西人的话干去，倘依了他们的话还是不对，那便不是我的不是，是他们的不是了。松大人曰：贵使这话从哪里说起？贵使此番到中国来，一切举动都颇能合成，即使有什么不周到之处，我们天朝也决不在这一些小事情上过于苛求的。

    松大人此言，颇合中国大臣身份，盖中国大臣所言莫不夹有此种语气也。松大人去后，樊、周二大人仍留吾船中，至夜分始去。

    吾与彼等闲谈时涉及一事颇堪记述。彼等言：现在贵使自北京前往珠山，所用各项船只大小凡40艘，执事之人自大员到苦力船户为数约为1000。此项用费皇帝规定数目，每天以5000两为限，倘或不敷，应由沿途地方供给。又言：贵使留居北京时，每日用费规定1500两云。夫一两之数约合英金六先令八便士。以物价极廉之中国，而吾等一日之用费竟有此至巨之数目，宁非咄咄怪事！当吾等居留北京时，日用之费自起居饮食以至于一切杂物，虽颇有失之过奢者，而谓每日需用1500两，则吾无论如何决不肯信，或者乾隆皇帝为优待吾等计，定此极丰之数。而墨吏极多，层层剥削之，规定之数与开销之实数相去，乃不可以道理计耳。

    记得周大从曾向余言：去年山东河决，淹没居户无数。皇帝中年曾在该省打猎，深知该省情形，闻奏，立命拨发库银十万两赈济灾民。而户部先没去其两万两，以下每一转手则复去若干两，自两万、一万以至数千数百不等，层层干没之手续既过，最后之实利及于灾民者不过两万而已。嗟夫！孰谓中国人之道德优胜于他人，窃恐东洋孔夫子之子孙与西洋美门（译者按：美门一字，源出叙里亚，言财帛也。《新约》经尝用之，指执掌天下财富之神，今人有译作财神者）之子孙，同其为不肖而已。

    11日礼拜五。船行极迟，船户及纤夫竭全日之力，所行不过十数华里。盖因河水极浅，水力已不能浮船，所以能前者，用人力强拉之，使船底与河底相擦而进耳。有一船体积较大，而所载较重，竭力拉之竟不进咫尺，后由密司脱麦克司威尔、甲必丹麦金吐司、吉伦博士等进策于华官，令以大船所装之物分作数小船装之，始能前进。三人本在大船之上者，至此亦改乘较小之船矣。

    12日礼拜。过船谒松大人，松大人言：据珠山最近来信，你们那洋船仍旧停在珠山等着，贵使可以不必性急了。又言：现在水浅船慢，若贵使老是坐在船中觉得有些气闷，不妨上岸走走，看看村景，但是走时当留心着，不要离船太远，太远了找不到船就麻烦了。

    谈论有时，余复提及正事。言：此次敝国皇帝令敝使远使贵国，意在开辟英中两国交际之萌芽，俾此后两国常相往来，感情益形亲密。而贵国大皇帝或可因此对于吾英国臣民之来华者，格外推诚相待，保护亦可因此格外周到。余言未及已，松大人即曰：我们皇上对于广州的外国人，不论是哪一国臣民，都是一体好好儿看待的。余曰：那自然，敝国侨民也没有一个不敬爱贵国皇帝，故于贵国皇帝所颁布的命令，不论怎样，只须能力上办得到，敝国商人无不乐从。可是我们两国通商至今，前后已有12年之久，这12年中，贵国皇帝对于我们侨商所颁布的上谕，已不止三道五道，而我们侨商却一道都没有见过。旁的不必说，单就说税率一端而论，起初几年，洋货的入口税收得极轻，现在一年重似一年，与从前相比已加了数倍，若贵国有正当的理由或有特别的支出，加税本来是可以的，无如加的是加，而理由却始终没有明白宣布。倘若贵国只顾加税，有增无已，敝使恐怕将来英国商人到了负担不起的那一天，那每年60大船的商品简直不能再运到贵国来了。所以这一件事总得望贵国想一个正当的方法才好。

    松大人曰：方法是要想的，不过我们天朝的税则不是老不更变的。若遇国家用费少的时候自然赋税轻些，连你们外国人也可沾些光；若国家费用太繁，或因某某数省出了重大事故急待大宗款项使用，那么不得不在赋税上面酌量加些。这是不论本国商人、外国商人都是一样的，并不是专门挖苦你们洋人。余曰：这话说得不差，即如1782年的加税，敝使也知道贵国因安南西藏发生变乱，军饷浩繁的缘故，但是此种临时增加的税，到事平了就应该减少恢复原状。自从那税增加了到如今已有十年了，中国并无减轻之意，故我们英国商人心上颇有些不舒服。

    松大人曰：现在中国已太平了，这一宗税，便是贵使不说，中国朝廷也早已提议裁减的了。余曰：果使此项消息确凿，则贵国皇帝体恤英人之心大足令敝使欣喜敬仰。敝使甚愿贵国皇帝德泽四布，声威益张，使其祖宗相传之大业安然立于稳固不摇之地位。所惜者，敝使来此之后，为时匆促异常，未能将心中积悃与相和中堂详细谈之，请其转达圣听。而敝使晋京时之导护官又适为金大人，其人天性倔强，排外之见甚深，敝使有所建议辄为此人所阻，心中至以为闷。倘贵国皇帝于敝使晋京时即派大人为导护敝使之人，吾知以大人之开明和易，必造福于吾英人不浅。此非敝使面谀之言，盖事势然也。

    松大人曰：那自然，那自然，兄弟是很熟悉洋务的，向来和洋人很要好。这一回的事虽然现在机会已过。敝使不能为力，然使将来别有机会，兄弟必从中出力。要知道咱们虽是国籍各异，言语不通，交情总还讲的。

    语时情意之殷恳，足令吾深信其字字由衷，绝无虚饰。倘松大人此一席话犹含有虚伪敷衍之性质，而非推诚相待者，则松大人可谓世界第一虚伪家矣。

    13日礼拜。至天津，华官至岸上采办大宗供给之物储之船中，以备航行之用。其中肉类有羊肉、猪肉、鹿脯三种；果类有梨、桃、橘、栗、葡萄各种；又有数种则非欧洲所有，吾不能举其名，但知其为味鲜美可口而已。此种供给之物吾已记不一记，即此番自北京至天津，一路饮食，亦无日不有佳馔。今日必欲特别标出之者，以今日尝新之时，松大人曾亲至船中请安故也。尤有一事吾亦不得不记，牛乳之为物，吾欧洲之人殆无一不视为通常食用之物，而华人则但视为母牛哺育子牛之用，人类鲜有取而食用之者。后见吾等每食必用牛乳，即所饮之茶亦用牛乳调之，始知吾等有一日不可无此君之势。乃于供给物中增入牛乳一项，以投吾人之好。然以此物得之不易，航行之中更无从日取得鲜乳。松大人意在示好于吾，命人购得多乳之母牛二头，特用一船装之以备不时之需。此举于吾英国旅客至有益也。

    吾于此时意想中乃不得不重提往事。方吾来时，自天津登岸而后，一路供张之具既穷极侈靡，而抵热河之时，复由天朝相国费二日之光阴导吾游园。宫廷之中，皇帝万寿之大礼余亦得躬与其盛，平心而论，一国之对待外国使臣如此亦可谓克尽厥礼矣。然而居未二月即欲令我回国，方其逐客之际其势汹汹，几不容吾多做一日之勾留，则其情景亦大足令吾丧气。及吾既首途，供张之盛又复如前，即此牛乳一项为事虽小，亦不得不感佩华官照料之周到。而始而热，继而冷，终乃复热，出尔反尔，此中起伏之波遂令余百思不得其解。就吾武断之意见言之，或者此番供张之所以复盛者，乃系中国朝廷自知其逐客之行为不合于理，而又不便直认其过，故为此以为弥缝之计耳。

    14日礼拜一。晨间天气极冷，亭午乃暴热，顷刻之间变化乃如易季，身体遂大受其影响，有卫队数人因此致病。

    17日礼拜四，路过大坟场数处。

    以意度之，此地必与大市镇或大都会相近，即此地岸上所见之人民数亦较多于前。据云：中国之人口南多于北，此后每日趋南，人数必按日递增也。今日于岸上人丛中见妇女多人，相貌既不楚楚可观，衣服亦殊欠整齐，以状度之，彼田中劳动之人，现方力事秋收者或即此辈妇女之所为也。

    ●乾隆敕书

    21日礼拜一。上午往谒松大人，谈论甚久。谈论之要题，即系乾隆皇帝之敕书。谈论时，有一书记官亦在座，此人盖即代乾隆皇帝草敕书之人，今乃隶属松大人部下，随同办事者。既与吾相见，即向吾道歉，言：皇上所赐第二道敕书实系兄弟起草，其中有以上所谕各条，原因尔使臣之妄说，尔国王或未能深悉天朝体制，并非有意妄干，及尔国王或误听尔下人之言等句，均非皇上之意，乃系兄弟加入，兄弟今见贵使殊觉抱歉。

    余曰：此数句既非皇上之意，阁下何必加入？此中理由愿即明示。

    其人曰：此系政治上的哑谜（此句译意），中朝习用之。因皇上对于他国君主倘欲其所请，往往不用直斥之法，以顾全其体面。故敕书中不言所请各条出自贵国皇帝，只言贵使并未奉有英皇之命，发为妄谈，如是则虽加驳斥，于英皇体面仍无所亏欠。此系兄弟措辞之苦衷，想贵使闻之亦必颇表赞同，而加以原宥也。

    此人之言虽难圆转有理，且言时为状甚恭，似系实情，而余则仍不能无疑。试问甲国君主，既自知降敕直斥乙国君主之非礼，则虽不直斥其君主而斥其君主之代表，亦岂得谓礼耶？窃恐此种举动，在华人则为取悦英皇，在英皇则未必因此而快意。至于余者得能代英皇承受其咎已属荣幸，彼中国皇帝驳斥之词，吾唯一笑置之，决不以此事久蓄于心也。

    余又言：皇帝第二道敕书中，有至于尔国所奉之天主堂原系西洋各国向奉之教。天朝自开辟以来，圣帝明王，垂教创法，四方亿兆，率由有素，不敢惑于异说。即在京当差之西洋人等居住在堂，亦不准与中国人民交结，妄行传教，华夷之辨甚严。今尔国使臣之意欲听任夷人传教尤属不可等语，查敝使所开说帖之中事事关于商务，未有一语及于宗教。今敕书之中忽节外生枝，羼入此事殊不可解。

    松大人曰：这是因为向来到中国的西洋人大都很喜欢传教，皇上恐怕你们英国人也有要求传教之意，故声明在前。

    余曰：此事虽本于华人对于欧人之经验，而吾英人对于宗教问题，意见与欧洲他国之人稍异，盖他国之宗教家主张一尊之说，以为世上既有天主教，余教悉无存立之余地。故必力布天主教，使余教一律消灭。吾英人之意则以为吾人既崇拜天主，而天主之意虽在化民为善，他种宗旨之宗教亦罔不与天主教相同。宗旨既同则无论何种宗教，凡天主之意许其存立者，吾人即不必强用人力以摧残之。故英人虽笃信宗教，而传教之热度则不敌葡萄牙诸国。试观澳门、广州二处，他国人民之至其他者恒有一二宗教家参错其间。吾英吉利则但有商人，始终未派一以传教为业之教士来此，即此次敝使随从各员之中虽有一二人系属教友，而其职任乃在管理各种礼物，并无传教之责，仍不能以完全之教士目之。当知吾英人与葡萄牙人虽同隶一教，而传教之热心各不相同。今敕书之中忽有“尔英吉利国人素喜传教，布为谬说”等语，实与事实不合，想系葡萄牙教士欲令中英二国互起恶感，故以此种不经之说进于皇帝之前，皇帝从而引为敕书中之材料，否则华人素昧欧洲情形，决不做此揣测之辞也。

    松大人曰：敕书中并没有这两句话，汉文、清文都是没有，若拉丁文中有了，便是翻译的不是。

    余曰：汉文、清文敝使悉不之解，唯拉丁文中则明明有此二句也。稍停又曰：观第一敕书，其主意仅在不允互派使臣，而敕书中乃有西洋诸国甚多，非止尔一国。若俱似尔国王恳请派人留京岂能一一听许等语。又第二敕书中，除前言之宗教问题外，每驳斥一条必殿以若他国纷纷效尤，岂能各应所求等语。以意度之，颇似皇上深恐敝国帮助他国之人援据此项成例，复向贵国要求权利，不知敝使之所请，悉系为推广敝国商业起见，并无帮同他国向中国要求权利之心。即他国以厚利啖吾英人，吾英人亦决不能允许，贵国皇帝预计及此似属过虑。至于广东人口税之繁重，敝国商人受其痛苦已久，苟中国朝廷再不设法清理，一任墨吏从中蒙蔽勒索，则异日英人之商业既衰，广州之繁盛亦必因此日渐退步，此于吾英人固有所不利，于华人一方面亦未必是福。而敕书之中乃有粤海关征收船料向有定例二语，若皇帝全不知该关征税近情者，则又未免失之昧于近事矣。

    松大人曰：不要说了，不要说了，总而言之，贵使对于皇上所下的两道敕书，无非是满肚皮不快活。其实咱们皇上对于你们英国人非常好，在他心上也恨不能畅快儿依了你的话，只因我们天朝祖宗的成法如此，便是皇上要依你也依你不来。至于你所说的税关弊端，皇上也未尝不知。不过写在敕书上太不好看，于天朝体面攸关。故一面在公文上面仍是糊糊涂涂说了一句，暗地里却已派人切实整顿，保管不上多时便有眉目给你看了。

    余曰：此派人切实整顿的信息不知确否？

    松大人曰：哪得不确。目下新任两广总督（长麟）大人乃是一位能员，皇上很信任他。他办起事来对本国人是铁面无私，对外国人也很讲情理。前在浙江任内政绩甚好，故此次皇上特派他为两广总督，要他将该省前此各项弊端一一查明复奏，且许其便宜行事，酌量兴革。吾料此人到广东后，全省政务必可大有起色，然地方既大，积弊复深，整顿之颇非旦夕间事。即如关税一项，整顿后之办法恐非贵使在中国时所能听得，只可俟后日贵国船只到广东时用书信通报的了。

    余曰：该处税则但须切实整顿，迟早均系敝使所乐闻，但有一事，务请大人代为办到。松大人问何事？

    余曰：此种整顿税则之消息敝国皇帝必甚欢迎，而前此第二道敕书中既有一处系翻译上之谬误，亦难保它处不再有误点。故拟请大人代奏皇帝，请其写作一敕书，书中详述整顿广东税关之事，而于前二书之谬误则详叙而校正之。俾吾回国觐见英皇时有所交代。

    松大人曰：再降一敕，本是办得到的事，但现在贵使已经动身，若朝廷再降敕书恐于成法有背。又曰：我们皇上自从贵使来后，非常欣喜。在热河时几乎没一天不提起贵使，连贵使的起居饮食也时时问起的。便是现在贵使离了北京，皇上还仍是牵记得很，这都是贵使举动文明，颇蒙皇上赏识的缘故。不过现在要请皇上再降一道敕书，虽然在情理上说来皇上无不许之理，只恐向来没有这项规矩，能不能办到就说不定了。这件事兄弟不妨给你写个信去，将来贵使到了杭州与新任两广总督长大人相见之后，长大人必能将此中情形仔仔细细地告诉你，因为此刻写信去，预算回信到时，我们已在杭州了。

    松大人与吾一路同行，吾见其每日必收发文书多件，用急使送之，想此事亦不过多发一文书之劳，松大人未必不践其诺。至于华人传递文书之迅速，则诚有出吾欧人意料之外者。大约为程1500英里，费时不过10日或多至12日。

    24日礼拜四。松大人使人来言：顷奉皇上手谕一道，事与贵使有关，拟过船与贵使言之，不知何时为便？余以今日病甚不能起床，请彼明日来。

    25日礼拜五。松大人来言：皇上闻贵使启行后一路安吉，圣心甚悦，今特遣人送来牛酪一事，糖果若干，以为皇上厚爱贵使之证。又手书一谕，嘱兄弟代向贵使候安，想贵使闻之意必甚乐。余亟称谢，且请其代为奏请圣安，已而复谈及前回相见时所谈之事。

    松大人言：现在新任之两广总督长大人为人公正不阿，将来到任之后定能将从前积弊一洗而清。贵国人民之经商于该处者必能大受其惠。语时，神气殷恳似欲吾深信其言。余意果使中国朝廷能以诚意待吾英人者，此诺迟早在所必践也。

    26日礼拜六，仍在运河中航行，左方见一湖，面积甚大，盖系供给此河之水量者。

    28日礼拜一。数日来，吾留心观察，乃知吾侪所乘船只，每船有纤夫18人，用一头目领之。

    此辈举动素无秩序，至此乃稍觉整齐，或者此间之警察较严于他处欤？

    译者按：此语误，尔时中国并无警察。

    据华人言：凡中国官船或公事船所过之处，纤夫应由沿路地方官代为招集，为状如德法两国邮局之代为旅客雇用马匹。唯中国之招集纤夫工值极薄，普通人民每不愿承命，地方官乃不得不按户勒派，往往有较为殷实之农户自己不愿当差者，别出重值雇人以为代，亦云苦矣。

    29日礼拜二。天气甚佳，有风自东南方来，吹人滋快。天作灰色形如大理石，而时时浮云开动，日光由云隙中下射，烁烁夹有生气，着人颜面不觉幻为笑容。

    晨间，松大人来，言：顷得北京消息，“狮子”船及其同行之“戛考尔”等船目下已离珠山，“印度斯坦”船则尚未启碇。想来贵使回国只能乘坐“印度斯坦”船前往澳门的了。余曰：“印度斯坦”船系商船格式，能多载货物不能多载搭客。敝使部下人员为数甚众，且向来不惯拥挤，若以此多数之人齐挤于“印度斯坦”一船之上势必致病。

    松大人曰：这话亦说得近理，兄弟当立刻写信至北京，请他们妥筹办法。至于我们现在不妨到了珠山后再做计较。若嫌“印度斯坦”船太小，尽可将行李等物由该船运载，其余官员、夫役仍用中国船只运往广东，想来没有什么不便之处。余曰：此种办法虽好，但不知敝使写于古完勋爵之信现已由北京送去否？倘北京执政之人能早日送去，今日何至复有此等周折。

    松大人一闻此言意颇不悦，立即乱以它语。余乃不禁奇骇，念中国朝廷对于吾辈英人，虽表面上颇有推心置腹之状，几乎无一事不以诚意相待，而其内容乃即此一信之微，亦不肯代为尽力。则其余种种事务，如改良广东之税则等恐亦不免多成画饼。果然者，余此番跋涉之劳，其结果直等一个无字而已。

    31日礼拜日。松大人复来，言：我们自从启行之后，一路情形和兄弟与贵使的谈话都由兄弟随时禀报皇帝。现据北京来信，皇帝见了这项报告之后非常欣喜。从前皇帝对于贵使者到中国来的一回事，心上颇有些疑虑，现在却已完全明白，知道贵使此来无非为联络友谊及振兴商务起见。故新任的两广总督已由皇上特降谕旨，着其将外洋入口税务切实整顿，倘外洋人受了冤屈，许其直接禀报总督大人查办，不必依照从前的规矩由行家转手。

    余曰：既承贵国皇帝加意照拂我们外洋人，敝使实在感激不尽。但此种情形，敝使自己回去向英皇说，总不如由贵国皇帝出一封书信的好。不知前数日所谈请贵国皇帝再降一敕的话能否办到？

    松大人曰：皇上办事自有主意，主意打定了便不愿意有旁人去干预他。这件事我想既由皇上答应办理，将来无论如何自有必行之势，贵使可不必汲汲。若定要捏了他的字儿做凭证，恐怕越是催得急，事实上反不免别生变卦。况且贵使要请皇上再降一敕的话，兄弟早已有信去过，若皇帝心上以为此事可以办到，保管不久便有回信来，不过此时还没有，请贵使耐着守罢。

    ●过运河

    11月1日礼拜五。自昨日路经一水闸后，河面渐阔。至今日所经之处，其阔堪与吾英柏得内地方之泰晤士河相埒也。

    2日礼拜六。晨间，自运河横渡黄河。黄河为中国四大名川之一，与历史上颇有名。吾侪所渡之处阔可三英里，水急多泥，其色黄浊，黄河之名殆即以此。

    渡黄河后，仍循运河曲折南行，预计不出数日可抵扬州。松大人言：吾等至扬州后当休息数日云。

    5日礼拜二。至扬州，其地商业甚盛，吾等本拟在此略做休止，兹以松大人己改换计划，拟俟抵杭州后始命停船，故此间并未耽搁，扬州名胜之区仅在吾眼帘中一闪而过也。

    6日礼拜三。拂晓即渡扬子江，渡口阔可一英里半，既渡，抵镇江。镇江为扬子江下游胜地，人口甚繁，昔时曾筑一巩固之城以卫之，今城已旧敝，无裨兵事矣。过镇江时岸上有华兵2 000人，左右整列，鼓乐而过，有军旗导之，观其状，似此间方举行阅兵式也。

    7日礼拜四。晨间抵常州府，过一建筑极精固之三圜桥，其中央一圜甚高，吾船直过其下，无需下桅也。常州亦为南省头等都会之一，昔时衣冠之盛卓绝一时，今已渐就式微矣。已而又过三小湖，乃互相毗连者，其旁有一长桥，环洞之多几及一百，奇观也！

    松大人来，言：顷奉朝廷明谕，吾等同至杭州后即由新任两广总督长大人川导护贵使同往广东，贵使部下之甲必丹麦金吐司，既系“印度斯坦”船船长，即听其前往珠山地方，回原船办事。

    余曰：该甲必丹回“印度斯坦”船时，敝使所带行李之重滞者及贵国皇帝赠与英皇之礼物，拟即由该甲必丹带往船上运回英国，即由敝使分遣卫队及侍从数人上船料理此事，不知可否？

    松大人曰：可。此种办法甚好。

    又曰：贵使到了杭州，既有长大人与贵使做伴，同往广东，兄弟也不必再向南方走了。现在打算到杭州之后再往宁波，将甲必丹麦金吐司上船的事料理清楚了立即回京。将贵使此次南下情形面奏皇上，想来此次兄弟与贵使同往，贵使心中未必有什么不满意于兄弟之处。

    余曰：一路承大人照顾，敝使感激不尽，万没有不满意的话。

    松大人曰：既如此，兄弟也勉强可以交卸得过了。又曰：前此贵使曾言，甲必丹麦金吐司到珠山之后，拟在该处收买土货预备回国贩卖。当承和中堂允许，此次甲必丹前往珠山，若因时间匆促或因别种缘故不能收买土货，那就不妨到广东去收买。兄弟可以代为招呼广东官吏免其上税，以示优待，请贵使也招呼一声该甲必丹便了。

    ●见长麟

    9日礼拜六。晨间至杭州，在城外一处停泊。时新任两广总督长大人已自乘一船，自城中出迎松大人。且言见过松大人后即当过船见余。此人将来至广东后，果能如松大人之言清理该处税务与否？现在虽在不可知之数，而此人得能与吾见面实为吾所甚喜。

    停船未几，长大人果来。余相其状貌颇类读书明理之士，举动亦彬彬然如君子人。相见之后，长大人即言：兄弟此次要往广东，想松大人已与贵使说过的了。到广东后凡是贵国商民，兄弟必格外出力照顾，那整顿税则一项固然不容说得，便是它种事务，凡贵国商人受了屈也尽管直接报告兄弟，无论本人来也好，写信来也好，兄弟总凭公替他们理个清楚。

    继乃与余闲谈，问余自英国至中国来回有多远？余如言告之。

    长大人曰：原来有这么许多路，怪不得这回贵使到中国，咱们皇上分外地欢喜了。言时，遂命随从之人捧进数物，曰：这是皇上加赠与你们英皇的礼物，请贵使代为收着。其中盖系金色之丝绸书匹，皇上自佩之荷包数个，而其最贵重之物乃为御书“福”字堂轴。据华人言，此项堂轴非常名贵，不特外国人不易得，即中国大臣或贵族亦以得之为荣。

    此数物余一一领受之后，长大人复以一“福”字堂轴授余曰：此系皇上赐与贵使者。余亦受而谢之。已而谈及同往广东之事，长大人曰：现在兄弟还没有将此间事务交待清楚，大约过了四五天方可动身，动身后咱们俩一路同行，尽可时时过船谈天。至于你部下的甲必丹麦金吐司，到现在已经商妥，由松大人陪他往珠山去上船，不过他到那边去，若说到购买货物一层颇有些困难之处。

    余曰：敝使与该甲必丹分路在即，倘大人意中以为他去时有什么困难，不妨叫他来，当面同他讲讲。

    因传甲必丹麦金吐司至，长大人语之曰：广州的中国商人和洋人来往很多，珠山的情形则与广州不同，你到了那边不特各种货物全须用现银购买。且恐该处出品未必即适于洋人之用，倒不如索性往广东去买的好。

    以下复力言外洋人不便在该处购买货物之情形甚详，不必尽述。要之，吾初意拟令甲必丹麦金吐司在该处买卖货物者，心中为希望中国政府准吾英人在该处经营商业起见，故欲借此次之便开其先端。今该处将来之事既经中国政府批斥不许，则此仅有一回之交易似亦无足轻重，故长大人既力言珠山不便买货，吾亦即不与争辩，好在珠山可以免税，广州亦可以免税也。

    10日礼拜。总督长大人复来拜见，所谈与昨日无异。仅言皇上既命兄弟去整顿广东的事务，兄弟万无不竭力之理。且兄弟向来很体谅外国人，到了那边决不令外国人负屈，贵使尽可放心得下。

    11日礼拜一。接到古完勋爵一信，系上月15日自珠山寄发，其所以迟至今日相隔几及一月始能送到者，谅系中国政府疑忌外人之心极甚，故为压搁之故耳。信中言：“狮子”船中病者甚多，医生、大副亦病，而又无药，不得已，只可开往广东江口购药以苏同人之困。一俟药物购置完备后立当返棹北旋，迎钦使于珠山原地云云。

    余一见此信立即往谒长大人，言：计算时间，目下“狮子”船当在澳门附近，倘能立即送一急信前去，该船必能接到此信，不知大人能代为措置此事否？

    长大人曰：可以，可以。你快去写信来，兄弟今夜就打发专差送去，送至广州，请密司脱勃郎转交，一定不至于有什么失误。

    余乃立草一函，请长大人饬人送去。信中仅数语，即嘱古完勋爵停船在澳门守候，不必复开至珠山是也。

    12日礼拜二。长大人复来拜见一次，二人情谊因此益形亲密。

    13日礼拜三。松大人来此别，观其情状似与吾甚有友谊，不忍即别。谈话时，有数语颇足显其具有识见，盖系吾前后所见汉人若满人所不能言者。其言曰：各国有各国的法律习惯，决不能强同。中英两国相距既远，不同之处比较相距较近之国为多，故此次贵使到中国来，虽然见了许多可惊可异之事，却也不足为异。若易地以观，兄弟到了贵国，信中惊异之情也少不了和贵使一样。故贵使回国之后请千万不要把心中对于中国有什么不满意的地方老是记着，这便是兄弟最希望于贵使的事了。

    此人性情和易可近，在华官职中当推为一最为有识见者。此次自京至杭，一路颇受其照拂。至是，吾乃取礼物数种赠之，而彼必不肯受，谓受则有违国法，吾遂不敢相强。后又谈及俄国情形，渠言：俄罗斯人多是不可理喻的，往往中俄两国交界之处有什么流氓、盗贼闹了乱子逃亡俄国去了，去同俄国政府说说，老是个不理会，只是说你们中国人若是当场捉得到便捉去杀了；若捉不到还干得谁事？这种人虽恃强逞霸全不讲理，却是究竟不能算得恶人。

    原注：中国之普通人民与俄国之普通人民，同系半开化之民族。中国上等人之受有教育者若任其居住本国，不与外界接触，其开化之程度已足称完备；若令其与世界民族相见则知识殊形缺乏。俄国之上等人则知识悉从旅行中得来，倘令其杜门不出，其程度必更在华人之下。此二种人各有所失，要不足称为全开化之民族也。

    此种议论，言者不仅松大人一人，尝有三数华人与吾谈及俄国事务亦主此说。且谓渠等对于俄国女皇之性情及其得履皇位之历史均研究有素云。

    ●出杭州南下

    14日礼拜四。晨间，自杭州府向南方出发，余坐一肩舆至城中一行。方余初抵杭州城外时就船上观看杭垣景象，即知此城必为南省名城之一，及今日入城后乃知此城之殷富，大过于吾前此之理想。

    已而出城，抵一大湖之旁，景色绝佳。有一运河及小河数条贯注之，湖之一面有平稳之小山脉障之，自麓至巅遍植松柏杂树之属，远望一绿如锦。尤有一塔，亦在湖边，高凡四层，塔顶一层尚不在内，全塔做八角形，用绝巨之红石及黄石砌成，高约200英尺，古树槎枒，杂出其下。塔之建造亦古拙有奇趣，土人称之为“雷峰塔”，言其建筑之期乃在2500年前。此语虽不可信，然塔虽残废，蔓草荆棘，杂生其上，而塔基仍巍然高峙，绝不顷坏，则谓非古人建筑之物不可也。

    出杭州东门行6英里，览此湖景而后即抵一江（译者按：此系西湖与钱塘江），江中已有大船多艘停泊以待，此种船只用棉布制篷，船前后作尖形，颇与欧洲船只相似。底虽平阔而吃水不深，平均载重2.5吨，吃水不过10英寸。

    方吾自杭州城内来此时，路上每过一兵站，站中兵士必出而行礼，礼节极隆，盖系跪于地上，至吾肩舆行过后始起立也。及至江岸，又有兵丁一大队，数在500——1000，向吾行迎接之礼。此种兵队衣服极整齐，军械亦极锋利，吾至中国后，眼中所见，求其形式之像得兵队者当以此队为第一。此队兵士对于吾卫队之军容亦颇注意，凡衣服、军械以至于进行时之快步、慢步无不留心观察之。

    15日礼拜五。天明，见吾船已开至江上之上游，此间江面虽仍有半英里之阔，而水力已不及下游，故昨日开船时悬帆而行，今日则改为拉纤。

    午刻，过船往谒长大人，樊大人、周大人亦在座。樊、周二人本拟送吾至杭州后即回北京，后以此二人与长大人为旧识，而长大人以其与吾甚有友谊，故仍令其随同前行，俟将来同至广州后乃令返京。

    今日余与长大人谈晤虽久，然未尝提及正事，语调悉视长大人之谈锋为转移。盖因此人和易可近。而自此间前往广州为程又甚长，吾二人既一路同行，则后此正有仔细讨论之机会，自不必于今日一日中，向彼开若何之谈判也。

    17日礼拜。长大人过船回拜，向余提起英国在中国之商务问题。言：这一件事，兄弟向来没有考究过，此番到了广东，一切情形很不熟悉，不知贵使心上要兄弟帮忙的是哪几件事？余照直告之。长大人曰：那么请贵使开个帖儿，一项项地写个仔细，不知可否？

    余曰：此是敝使最乐闻的事，既承大人叫我开写，自当从速开写过来。

    长大人曰：这事本不必写的，谈谈就可以了，不过兄弟事情很多，这一件事关系又极重，必得有了个底子，在空闲时自己仔细斟酌过一番，然后才可以着手办理。因为要办这件事决不是凭空说几句敷衍门面的话就能了的，必须凭公处置，筹议了一个妥当之法，将应兴的事兴起来，应革的事革去，然后才能办得好。而这回兄弟奉命往广东去，虽则皇上很信任我，我的地位颇能切实办事，不怕旁人掣肘。却是有一层，国家的政事上有了弊端，在于一方面，固然有许多人受他的害；在于另一方面，却必有许多人靠了作弊过活。现在要肃清弊窦，明明是打破他们的饭碗，他们要将兄弟恨得切骨，那么兄弟要办这件事就不免大做难人了。然而和这般小人作对还算不了什么事，其中最麻烦的便是福中堂，因为福中堂现在已做了军机大臣，在朝中颇有权力。然而前几年他也是个两广总督，说不定广东的种种弊端多是他一个人养成的。如今兄弟到广东去，若将他在该省所办的事有意推翻，则他面子上既不好看，他必不肯与我干休，所以兄弟实在处于两难的地位，只能到了那边从长应付。但是有一件事，务望贵使听信兄弟的话。贵使此番进京，听说曾上了个说帖，由和中堂批驳不准，故贵使出京时心中颇觉失望，以为中朝对于英国很不要好。其实皇上很看重英国人，所以不能答应贵使请求者实在是受了成法的拘束，并非故意不肯。贵使回国复命之时务请将此中原因明白奏禀贵国皇帝，心中不可稍存芥蒂，致丧两国之邦交。至于兄弟，到广东后，无论如何困难，必定设法将该处洋人上税的事整理清楚，其有英人至广东经商者亦必从优保护。不知贵使能看兄弟面上将前此所成之意见破除否？

    余曰：敝使出京时，心中至觉快快，颇疑贵国对于敝国不愿互相联络，今闻阁下及松大人前后解释之言，始知贵国不能允敝使之情亦有苦衷，初非以一概驳绝为快，则将来回国后，自当据实奏禀敝国皇帝。至于广东之事，尚当仰仗大力。

    长大人曰：那自然，那自然。不容贵使多说的。长大人去后，未几，即有使者数人送茶叶、扇子、香料等物至船，盖系赠与余及随从各员者。

    ●见琉球使

    黄昏时，樊大人带同少年绅士二人至吾船拜见。问之，乃系琉球国王所派使臣，今将往北京进贡，道中适与吾船相遇，故请樊大人为介绍，过船相见。琉球为一岛国，位置在中国之东南，臣服中国有年，按照定例每越二年，国王必派亲贵二人航海至福建省之厦门登岸，恭赍表章方物至北京进贡。此二人亦系国中亲贵，能说华语甚熟，然其本国亦自有一种语言，佶倔聱牙通者绝少，有谓此种琉球语与日本语相近者，亦有谓其与朝鲜语相近者。余于东方语言文字之学素欠研求，不能辨其说之孰是孰非也。

    两人言：琉球国中自古至今，从未有西洋船只到过，倘西洋商人愿往该国买卖，该国人士必一致欢迎，缘该国向无禁止洋人前往经商之成令。而于该国京城附近之处，则有一深阔之海港，足容极大之船只多艘。其京城人口既多面积亦甚大，倘有洋船开往彼处，贸易必佳。又言：该国出产以粗茶为大宗，虽质味远不敌华茶，而价值极廉。此外复有铜矿、铁矿甚多，每年开出之矿质为数亦颇有可观，唯金银二矿则以国中无娴习矿事者，至今尚未能采得其矿苗所在云。

    二人所穿衣服颇奇异有趣，其上衣甚宽大，类一披肩，以琉球土布制成，染为棕色，缀以栗鼠之皮，远望之作柳条花纹，颇觉美丽；首不冠，但用丝巾缠之。两人巾色不同，一人用黄色，一人用紫色，以东方之习惯言之，似黄巾人之品级较高于紫巾人也。全身衣服多为单层之布，不用衬里，不铺棉花，且尺寸宽大，不着肌肉。至隆冬时，吾料其必不足以御寒也。

    两人雅善谈论，举止神色绝类中国人。以地理上言之，其岛国所处地位天然无独立之资格，不属中国，即当属诸日本。今日本尚取闭关主义，于其本国三岛之外，既有攫取他国领土之心，而他国船只之抵其海口者，日本人亦殊形厌恶。故琉球国王不依附日本而依附中国，其对于中国所尽之义务，除上文所述二年一贡外，每有新王登极，当专差禀报北京政府，由北京政府降敕承认后，国人始得奉为国王云。

    ●继而南下

    19日礼拜二。此间河面虽阔狭与昨日经过之处大略相等，而深浅不同，且水量随地而异。有数处水深10英尺或12英尺，船只仍可通行无阻；又有数处则河中但有泥沙，船只概从沙上强拽而过。吾辈所乘船只长约70英尺，阔约12英尺，每船居人十数名，复装有行李及它种重滞之物，估其重量必在万斤以上。而中国船户犹能出死力以拽之。吾英苦力见之未有不为之咋舌者也。

    一二日来，自船中举目外眺，见两岸都为荒野，虽人烟寥落，而风景至佳，其地面则有已辟未辟二种，大都平地以已辟者为多。近山之处则半属未辟，但植以树木，山势亦不甚高峻，而近山之人则颇有山居民族之景象，与广东等处之人民为状微有不同也。

    今日周大人来，言：长大人接到北京消息，古完勋爵已于前月31日抵澳门，特为知照。夫自澳门传出信息，至抵北京而后再传至此间，加入中途各种周折所费之时刻，通计尚不及20天。而中国官场对于吾英“狮子”军舰之行动，必异常注意可知矣。

    20日礼拜三。自杭州启程后至今日黄昏时，水路乃尽，拟于明日上岸由陆路往玉山，再由玉山改乘船只前往广东。而今日停船之后，不一刻，长大人即过船道歉，言：贵使自杭州至此必已累极了，兄弟招呼实在不周到得很，种种怠慢之处，尚望贵使见谅。

    余曰：一路承大人照拂，敝使感激不尽。在船上时一切起居饮食多和大人自己一样，敝使方以为受之不安，心中决没有什么不满意之处了。

    长大人乃变其语调曰：虽然如此，兄弟以为贵使此次出使中国，所要求的几件事，既已一件都没有办到，心中究竟总有些不快。前次兄弟与贵使见面时曾言中国所以不能允准贵使要求的缘故，实在因为有背成法并无它种恶意，不知贵使能相信兄弟的话否？

    余曰：此事既经松大人和你长大人向敝使说过，敝使已深知其故，心中已一点芥蒂都没有了。

    长大人似犹不肯深信余言，继续问曰：自此以后不知你们英皇尚愿与我们皇上来往否？尚愿与我们皇上通信否？将来如果我们皇上，心中要你们再派个钦差来时，不知你们英皇愿派来否？

    余曰：此次敝使来华，无论所请之事得蒙中国批准与否，而中国对于吾英感情之亲密，已可于款待敝使之优厚，及贵国皇帝回赠英皇种种珍物见之，中国既有与吾英亲密之心，吾英自无有不乐与中国常常往来之理。至于通信一层，则此次敝使回国后，一将贵国皇帝所赠的礼物交与英皇，英皇立即写一谢信交由敝国商船带回。若论将来再派钦差的事，则中英两国意见稍有不同。我们英国本来主张两国互派钦使，常驻京城的，若中国能答应这句话，敝使便打算住在北京，俟满任之后回国。任内两国国际上起有交涉，即由敝使就近与贵国政府妥商办理，此因两国相去极远，为节省经费办事妥便起见，自以此法为最善。后贵国政府以此事有背成法不允所请，敝使只得回国。然回国之后将来倘有机会，英皇一定可以再派钦差到中国来的。不过敝使本人因为体质和东方不甚合宜，到了中国几乎无日不病，将来恐怕未必再来了。

    长大人曰：不知这第二位钦使什么时候可以派来？

    余曰：此则颇难说定，因派遣钦使非敝使权力所及。而英国与中国之间重洋遥隔，派一使臣为事非易，敝使无从预算其时期也。

    余与长大人谈论多时，长大人意殊欣喜，言：此事皇上闻之意必甚悦。当立草一折，详述吾二人之谈话，由急使送往北京。临去时，余授以一纸，即前日所言之说帖，长大人欣然受之。

    去后不数分钟复至吾船。言曰：兄弟要请贵使用中国文体写一封信，算是写给兄弟的。信中的话除通常客套而外，略述贵使到中国后颇蒙中国皇帝优待，回国时又承皇帝简派能员妥为照料，心中感谢之至，请为代谢圣恩云云。这封信贵使写来了，兄弟便把它附入折中，送往北京，皇帝见了准可格外欣慰，不知贵使亦赞成否？

    余曰：赞成之至，明天便写好了送来。

    此人办事颇具热心，且每与余相见一次即觉亲密一次。吾知其接广东任后洋商必大受其惠也。

    21日礼拜四。上午10点钟，登陆，行9点钟，历程24英里而至玉山，午饭则于半途用之。其地盖浙江、江西两省交界也。吾等船行已久，今日忽有一日之陆行，精神颇觉爽畅。

    行时，华官备有敞轿、官轿、马匹三种代步，听人自择。吾辈以天气甚佳路亦平整，颇堪驰骤，故骑马者居多。又，吾随员中有喜研究博物之学者数人，沿路见奇异之虫、鱼、花、草即采集之，长大人并不加以禁阻。

    余则见一处种茶树甚多，出资向乡人购其数株，令以泥土培壅其根，做球形，使入舁之以行，意将携往印度孟加拉种之。果能载种得法，地方官悉心提倡，则不出数十年，印度之茶叶必能著闻于世也。

    今日，余以昨日长大人嘱余书之信札面交长大人。长大人见其字端秀，即问这一封信是谁誊写的？余告以系小史但顿所写。长大人不信，诧曰：这么一个十二三岁的外国小孩子怎能写得出这一笔中国字来？后见书末有小史但顿自书之乔治·史但顿誊写字样，长大人乃曰：这人毕竟还有些孩子气，我们中国规矩，信上面誊写人决不具名的。现在具了名，好笑极了。

    24日礼拜日。昨晚抵玉山后又复上船，改由水路进行。以近数日中此间降雨极多，地面所受水分太足，夜来乃郁而为雾。

    故昨夜开船后，虽河身较前此所经之处深阔几及一倍，而以雾重之故航行乃转觉危险，两船互相撞击之事一夕可闻十数次，船中乘客因此咸不能安睡。至于两岸景色则无论树木、房屋、寺院、宝塔之属均模糊莫辨，但见其起伏于白色迷漠中，宛若天魔海怪獠牙张舌做扑人之状而已。

    28日礼拜四。航行至此，改乘一种较大之船只前进。从前所乘之小号船只布置颇雅洁可人意，只以船体太小不能多置什物，处身其中略嫌局促。今江面较宽故即改用大船也。

    29日礼拜五。夜间停船于一距南昌府4英里之村庄。江西抚台特自省城到船拜见，随身带来礼物多种，有茶叶、茶杯、小珠、丝绸、红缎等物。余亦以镶珠时表一对及小刀、剪刀、葡萄酒、白兰地酒等物赠之。

    30日礼拜六。至此河身益宽，然极浅，仅中央一部可通舟楫。弥望两岸，都如沙滩，无树木、房屋。据云，每年夏秋水发，此种沙滩悉成泽国，望之一片汪洋，广袤可及数十里也。

    今日天气甚寒，冻云蔽日，蛰居舟中，至觉无聊。

    夜分，长大人率樊、周二大人过余船做长谈。神情为之一畅。渠等来时乃8点钟，直至此时始去，此时盖已夜半12点钟矣。

    长大人为人极谦和，每谈一事辄喜道其详尽，其所不知者亦津津穷问其原委。今日与吾相见时，先问余英吉利人在广东之商业如何？贸易总数究有多少？余据实告之。彼乃曰：目下广东官员营私作弊吞没公款的非常之多，皇上虽是在北京却也颇有所闻，故此次特派兄弟前往整顿。但该省的事务复杂得很，再夹了许多洋人在里面，兄弟一时实在弄不清楚，若其中有什么事，贵使知道的很确凿的，还望指教指教。俾兄弟心中有了这个底子，查办起来可以容易些。

    余曰：敝使从前并未到过广东，故于该处情形除税关事务略知一二外，其余各事茫无所知，但此次到广东后，必可代替大人打听一二。缘该处积弊既深，英国侨商必有能道其详尽者。今大人既存剔清弊窦之心，彼等到自无不乐举以告也。

    长大人曰：那么很好，贵使倘有所闻请告诉周大人。

    遂谓周大人曰：老兄文理很好，要是马钦差告诉你的话呢，你便将它记了下来给我看。语时，长大人偶欲点火吸烟，而其长随适出，余即自身间出一磷瓶（译者按：此系火柴之古制）取火与之，彼乃大异，诧曰：奇了，怎么一个人衣袋里放了火会没有危险的呢？

    余乃告以磷能取火故，且即以磷瓶赠之。有此一事，吾辈之谈话，乃由政治问题转入工业问题。中国工业虽有数种，远出吾欧人之上，然以全体而论，化学上及医学上之知识，实处于极幼稚之地位。吾至中国见其人民中瞽者极多，跛者亦随处皆是，而目瞽则无良药以疗之；足跛则但能支之以棒而不能装用木足。因曰：国家人口之繁盛与否，与医学、化学至有关系，倘医、化两学不能发达，则人民死于非命者甚多，国势必不能强盛。

    长大人曰：这话说得很有道理。

    余曰：敝国人士对于医、化两学研习颇勤，现在已发明妙术多种，如：溺水之人可用机械的手续使之复活。失明者可用glan coma抽出法，使其重明；足抱残疾，则可装用木足令其行动如常。凡此仁术倘贵国朝廷能许吾英人自由来华者，吾英人必能悉心传授华人，于华人一面似属不无小补。

    长大人及樊、周二大人一闻此言，为状乃如大梦初觉，意想中似深以中朝用冷淡之态度对待英人为不善，故向吾不得不示其抱歉之意。然因此二人之故，吾乃不得不回念和中堂之态度。前在热河时，一日吾与和中堂谈及欧洲物质上之文明，言近日欧洲发明之物事，日多一日。即如升天一事，昔人以为无论如何万非人力所能办到者，今则已有气球之发明，凌霄高举颇非难事，倘中堂有意敝使可令一长于此技者到京演习。此事在他人闻之，吾料其必喜形于色，而中堂则不特以冷漠之态度对待此事，即对于其余一切物质上之进化，凡吾人以为奇妙不可思议者，均一律以唯唯否否置之，其态度与长、樊、周三大人相较，冷热几同冰炭。究竟和中堂之知识出于三人之下欤，抑中堂为成法所拘，不能为此空前未有之奇事欤，则非余所知矣。然吾闻康熙大帝御极之日亦颇重科学，一时西洋教士来华当差者为数甚多，乃至大帝殡天之后，后员竟不克继其大志。虽当差洋人并未辞退，而政府对于彼辈初不重礼，几有全不理会之态，此殆以当时士所研究者初无成绩之可言，或即有成绩亦不切实用，遂致中国政府不复以科学为人生所急，而对于西洋物质上之进步亦以此一概抹杀。果如是者，吾苟设为一言，谓中国上有鞑靼之政府，而其所属人民得有休养元气之福泽者，则此言必为大误。它姑不论，近年中国各省兵乱之事，几于无岁无之，虽此种兵乱旋起旋灭，于国家大势无关，而祸根不除，人民之当其冲者，宛如病虐大寒大热交尅其身，日日不已，有不精疲力倦者乎？

    12月5日礼拜四。天晴日出，日与吾等久违矣，今日相见，同行者无不大表欢迎。两岸青山亦嫣然含笑；山下树木蔚然成林；树木深处、岩石之上，时有小村，隐约可见，野人睹吾船衔接而过则鼓噪以示欢，旅行至此凡虑尽涤矣。

    夜抵赣州，乃一头等城邑，有城垣围之。船到时，当地兵队整列出迎。至此吾当总括一笔，盖吾辈一路至此，每过兵站，兵士怠无有不行之礼者，均高举军旗，奏乐鸣炮，鸣炮之数以三响为常，亦有略备果点遣人送至船上者。

    9日礼拜一。天色仍佳，而所过之地荒凉倍于从前。然有一事颇堪注意，即下流社会之妇女是也。此间穷苦妇女多不缠足，且不着履袜，能负重以远行，亦能为种种劳动之事，凡男子所能者，渠等无不能之。衣饰亦与男子大同小异，除挽发做髻及两耳戴有耳环外，其余无一不与男子相同。此等女子体质最强且能耐苦，中国下流社会之人咸以娶得江西老婆为交好运云。

    今日下午9点钟抵南安府。长大人手持一纸来谓我曰：此系皇上所降谕旨，顷自北京送来者。余问谕中有何话说？长大人曰：谕中言，皇上对于贵使非常满意，若将来贵国再派使臣到中国，中国一定欢迎。但是来的时候请在广东上岸，不必将洋船开往天津。此项谕旨兄弟可叫人抄写一个副本交给贵使存着。

    余谢其意，内念向来洋人到中国者，悉在广东上岸，中国东北部沿海一带如渤海、黄海等处从未有洋人足迹。今乾隆皇帝虽降谕下次英来时当在广东上岸，而余此次之来，得至洋人向来未至之处亦殊可欣慰也。

    长大人又言：前日贵使嘱兄弟送往广东的书信早已送去，只是到现在还没有回信，不知“狮子”船究竟怎样了。

    10日礼拜二。早晨登陆，自南安府出发。此时亦一繁盛之区，倚山为城，山势甚峻，自江上突起，形势绝佳。行时，华官亦如前此陆行之例，备马、轿两种听人自择。轿式与前此所乘者无异，而马则特小，然有力耐走，久行不疲，自南江至南州府为程33英里，行9小时即达，中途休息及茶点之时间亦在其内。

    今日所经之路盖在山南，山南之民以外观言之，似较山北朴塞，其文明程度究竟相差几何，则无从臆测。

    11日礼拜三。自南州出发仍由水道前进。南州人口甚繁，城池亦甚大。昨日吾等进城门后，行一点余钟始至馆舍。此馆设乃系考试士子贡院，华官以城中无特设之馆舍，即借为款接吾辈之用。吾随员中曾有数人宿于院内，吾则以到城之时船只已备，即径往船中居之。

    今日晨起，开船之后见河水，益形浅促，船户推挽船只之苦百倍于前。

    两岸复多沙土偶为雨水所冲，即坍入河身为交通之障碍。此河苟不加以修治，恐再越数年或十数年，舟楫之利必致全废也。

    据华人言：自此以往，过韶州而后河水较深，即可改用较大之船只，唯装运货物之船则以仍用小船为便。又言：自南州至广州，通常不过七八日路程。然长大人之意则拟先率其部下人员、夫役赶往广州预备款接吾等之礼，以是吾等行程不得不特意延缓一二日，俾长大人得而从容预备。

    长大人自杭州至此一路与吾同行，至今日乃来与吾辞别。言：兄弟在未抵广州之前拟写一封信往北京去，说贵使此次回国不特心中并无不满意之处，而且对于皇上优待之意颇行感激，想来兄弟说这一句话，贵使无有不赞成的？

    余曰：敝使至此承贵国皇帝极意优待，又承待简一贤明大员如阁下者，至广东剔清弊窦，保护洋商。敝使个人固宜厚致谢意，即敝国皇帝陛下亦必能因此深悉贵国皇帝联络交友之忱。请大人便照这句话写去便了。

    于是长大人遂欣然登舟而去，留樊、周二大人与余做伴。樊、周二大人与余相见之后，即无一时无一事不以诚意相待。今长大人待余殷恳至此，亦半系二人之力，盖二人于长大人为旧交，二人既与吾善，长大人自能听信其言而善吾也。

    14日礼拜六，自韶州府启行抵昆桑港（译音）夜泊。

    15日礼拜。日间往游菩萨庙（译音，游庙情形删）。夜分开船。

    16日礼拜一。自此以往船行于两山之间，山势极高且峻峭，绿树森立，江则平阔且深，船行极稳。自船中外望，见山之一峰有一黑色小径蜿蜒于其上，小径尽处则为一黑色之堆，问诸华人始知黑堆系山中开出之石炭。此石炭一物中国出产颇富，然中国以科学的工业未曾发达之故，无所用此也。

    晚抵清远，樊、周二人同过吾船与余做竟夕之谈。余自北京至此，见各处均有荒山荒地未经垦殖者，因问此种荒地是否有主？

    周大人曰：中国定制，凡已垦之地各有业主，未垦者不论平地、山地悉归官有，其有愿垦之人可向官厅报明数目自行领种，领种无需缴费，但至垦熟后须照例完税而已。然余以为中国可以垦种之田地，至今已无一亩不有人垦种之矣。（译者按：此二语未必尽然。）

    ●谈及乾隆

    后两大人与吾谈及乾隆皇平居（原注：平居云者，指非旅行时期及非狩猎时期而言。）之状况。言：皇帝每日破晨三点钟即起，起后立往宝塔中拜佛，此拜佛一事乃皇帝个人之私事，与国事无关。拜佛之后即浏览章奏，皇帝登极后各处大员均许直接呈递章奏。章奏到京后，皇帝一一必亲自批阅，故每日必划出数时浏览之，到七时始进早食。

    食后，在宫中小憩，与宫眷、嫔妃、太监之属杂谈琐事。

    次乃召相国入，与论时事，又次则临朝。国老大臣之例须上朝者均至。

    午饭时间，恒在下午三点钟，饭后或往戏园或为它种游戏，后此则为读书直至就寝而止。其就寝之时间无迟至下午七点钟以后者。

    皇帝有后一，今已死，贵妃二、妃六、嫔百。有已死者，有尚在者。子甚多，嫡出庶出不一，然存者已不过数人。有数女均嫁鞑靼，不与汉族通婚。

    皇帝天性豁略有大度，读书解事理，性质慈善而笃信佛教。对于臣下恒持恕道，然有与之为敌者必穷治弗赦，又以国家兴盛、功业宏大之故，处事不免失之躁急。每有无关紧要之事，皇帝意中以为不善者辄盛怒以临之，怒则其势汹汹不可扼制；性又多忌，不特为大臣者不能操纵事权。即诸皇子中虽有年过40者，而皇帝犹不许其预闻政事，故皇帝春秋虽高，将来大位谁属，尚未能定。唯以群议测之，皇长孙少年英俊且曾由皇帝命其办事颇著勋劳，在诸皇子皇孙中，或以此人为最有希望云。

    数年前，皇帝以在位日久倦于政事，曾定一日期预备传位，至日期将近帝忽变意，言曰：朕年力尚壮颇能办事，若此即将大事传与孩子们去干，一定干不好。至近日，皇帝又定1796年为传位之期，然国人尚疑其未必果肯传位。

    帝今年已83岁，体格强健，饶有臂力，行旅治事绝无龙钟之状，尝自命为古稀天子，其实不特古稀，亦中外各国之所稀见也。

    ●即至广州

    17日礼拜二。至此河面极阔且已与外海潮水相遇，故航行极易。其地距广州已不过30英里，两岸均有山，两山相距则可七八英里。

    夜抵三水县，县中华官已备有大号官船，供装运吾等至广州之用。余恐长大人尚未能预备就绪，拟迟迟而行，定于礼拜四至广东。

    18日礼拜三。早晨过佛山，乃一寻常之城邑。

    午刻，抵一花园，系广州中国行家所建。入园后，有广东商务公司（译者按：英人所设）之书记哈尔及其经理人勃朗尼、爱尔英、杰克生等人同出欢迎。言钦使致古完勋爵之信已经送去，现在“狮子”船并未它往，仍停泊广东沿海。又出欧洲寄来之书信、包裹等物分致余等。

    余等自启行来华后，已15个月未得欧洲息耗，今日得见此项信件，欢喜直无可伦比。后彼等又为余介见广东行家之执事人多人，盖均系来自广州专程欢迎者。余感其盛意，一一温辞慰谢之，且定于明日前往广东。

    余在未至广东之前，有一事不可不补记。其事盖即自南州府以降，每过一城镇即有极严肃之兵队向吾辈行礼，此军队行礼之事吾于所经各处均遇之，此间之军队，想亦不过受长大人命令向吾辈表示敬意。初无足异，然其人数之众多、军容之整肃，于行礼之中似夹有示威之性质，乃不能令我无疑。广东一处地近海洋，洋人到中国者必在此间登岸，中国为防御洋人起见，特设重兵镇之。今兵队向吾等行礼而夹有示威之性质者，吾料其心中必蓄有一语，谓汝辈洋人看者，吾中国兵备甚佳，汝等若敢犯顺，吾辈无时不有对付之具。

    然以余观之，此种宽衣大袖之兵，既未受过军事教育，而所用军器又不过刀、枪、弓、矢之属，一旦不幸，洋兵长驱而来，此辈果能抵抗与否？尚属一不易置答之疑问也。

    19日礼拜四。上午11时，乘坐华官所备官船前往广州。

    下午二时登岸，经一大石级复行五六十码，即抵一特设之馆舍。总督长大人及抚台、藩台与广州附近各地方之高级官员均官服出迎，导吾等至一广厅。厅中左右两面均有安乐椅二行，排列做相套之半圆形。

    进厅后，长大人及其属员与吾等对面而坐，谈论约及一小时。所谈之事大半系吾辈自北京至此所经各处之情形，及“狮子”船已经开至广东黄埔（译者按：黄埔系广东沿海一小岛）之息耗。后长大人导吾辈至戏园中观剧（原注：所演者为喜剧，优伶均系一时名角，长大人派人往南京雇来者），即于园中设宴款接，肴馔之盛既为吾毕生所未见，而长大人招待之殷勤，亦足令吾心感靡既。据华人言：向来洋人之至广东者，中国官场从不加以礼遇，此次总督大人到任之初即设盛宴款接洋人，实为从来未有之奇举。故当地人民无不异常注意云。

    吾辈所居之馆舍在一小岛之上，地与英国洋行相对。英国洋行盖建于大陆之上，地在广州城外，与馆舍相隔之河面其宽不过半英里也。馆舍之中，房屋极多，分为数院，互相隔离。各院之装置形式虽殊，而其精致华丽，适合卫生则一。中有数院用西洋陈设之法，有玻璃之窗及燃煤之火炉，于吾辈之生活尤为合适，盖际此冬季，吾辈惯于向火者非火炉不暖也。

    馆舍四周乃一绝大之花园，有奇异之花木及不易习见之名卉甚多。其一旁有一神庙，庙中有一高台，登台远望，广州全城之景及城外江河舟楫，可尽入寸瞳间也。

    20日礼拜五。晨起，戏园中金鼓已作，优伶已粉墨登台。余乃大奇，后闻华人言：中国官场接待上宾，当于宾客到馆之一日起至离馆之一日止，令伶人继续演剧，自晨至暮不可稍休，休则即系失礼。然吾以此间之戏园，适建于吾所居院落之前，若终日连演不已，不特观之生厌，而且金鼓之声足喧扰人耳，使不能治事。苟于中国成法无背，吾必声请长大人罢此重礼，或请长大人令伶人不必日夕开演，至吾莅园之时乃演之。然吾恐将来乾隆皇帝遣使至英国时，雇用伶人演剧以娱之即可，若欲罗致名伶人多人日夕开演，则势有所不能也。

    21日礼拜六至23日礼拜一。三日中接见宾客甚忙。

    接见之人，长大人而外有本省之抚台、藩台，韶州之知府及地方官多人，来自远处者。

    有一日，长大人及藩台均在座，余提及广东之商业及税务问题。长大人曰：兄弟知道本省弊端很深，非大大地改换办法，一辈子都整顿不好。

    藩台即起与辩论，言本省并无何种弊端，依着成法办理最为稳妥，倘有了无谓的更张反要误事。

    二人辩论之终未能有若何之解决，然而即此一席话，吾已知藩台必为此间作弊大王。有此弊王作梗，吾虽甚望长大人之得以推行其志，而长大人之志之果能推行与否，则在不可知之数矣。

    24日礼拜二。吾中国译员李君，向余言，华官之中有数人意欲得吾礼物，以为纪念。余乃自开一单命摆劳分赠之。

    25日礼拜三。今日系耶稣圣诞，余及随从诸员均渡河至英国洋行，与行中诸英人同饭。

    1794年1月1日礼拜三。晨间，总督长大人盛列仪仗至吾馆舍中拜见。言：顷由北京送到敕书一道，系皇帝赐与贵使者。因自一亭式之肩舆中，双手捧出黄纸一卷置吾手中。吾敬谨接受后即问：敕书中内容何若？长大人乃为余解释其义。略曰：（译者按：以下译意）谕尔英吉利国使臣马戛尔尼：尔英吉利国地在海外，与天朝相去甚远。尔国国王以仰慕天朝文化之故，命汝赍远表章方物到京进贡。朕披阅表章，见其情词恭顺，除将所呈贡物分别赏收及准汝瞻觐外，复以文绮珍玩等物赐汝，且令大臣等妥为保护（译者按：原文中略）。兹据大臣等转奏，尔意中尚拟恳联再降一谕，说明天朝不能允准尔前此所请各节之故。尔于天朝体制原未谙悉，朕前此所降二敕，尔既尚有未能明白之处，应即依尔所请再为汝剀切言之，以示宽待远人之意（译者按：原文中略）。当知尔所请各节实因碍于天朝体制，不能照准，即朕虽有允准之心，亦不能改变祖宗成法。尔回国后务将此事禀尔国王，以见天朝并无恶尔英人之意。此谕到后，仰该使所在地方长官细为该英吉利使臣解释之云云。

    译者按：此谕汉文原本已无从查考；英文译本则语气与前二敕不类，盖二敕为大国对小国之口气，此谕则为平等国口气，显系译员从中改窜者，今依英文译出，虽意不失真而字句则恐与原文相去远矣。

    长大人又言：兄弟到了广东虽不多几日，却已出了两道告示，说凡有伤害洋人及欺侮洋人的一概从重治罪。

    余则以到广州后所探得之官场弊端之一告之，嘱其着手整顿。

    今日为吾西历新年，余及随从诸员均渡河至英国洋行中宴饮。

    8日礼拜三。上午十点钟余及各随员同往英国洋行，此盖为中国官员及英国商人预定饯别吾等之地。故余等至行时，长大人、周大人、樊大人及本省抚台、藩台、潮州知府等，已先在门首恭候。相见礼毕，即入行中饮宴，宾主异常欢洽。

    下午1时，余与史但顿、小史但顿、古完、彭森及其他各随员，向彼等告别，同坐驳船至黄埔地方，登“狮子”船。驳船之上悬以旗旆，船户亦着用制服，诸船衔接自江中过时状殊整齐可观。

    上“狮子”船后，至晚，樊、周二大人上船话别。余命庖丁治馔享之。二人自与余相见之后，无一事不竭诚照料，至今日话别时乃不禁向作挥泪，其爱我之性决非伪饰。吾苟受其惠而忘之，上帝必不吾许也。

    9日礼拜四。樊、周二大人以个人资格，遣人送来蔬果20大篓。

    10日礼拜五。启碇，俟至澳门时略作勾留后，即径行回国。

    以上所记各事乃吾出使中国时逐日随笔记述者。其关于国际与社会之观察及它种重要问题，另有《中国游记》一书详述之。

    译者按：乾隆六十年十二月壬寅，即高宗退位之前八日，又一敕与英王乔治第三，实为英使马戛尔尼来华行朝觐礼最后之结束。敕曰：军机大臣等朱珪奏英吉利国呈进表贡一折，该国王因前年贡使进京赏赍优渥，特具表文土物呈进，具见悃忱。虽未派专使来粤，有何不可，已准其赏收，并发给敕书一道。谕以尔国远隔重洋，上年遣使恭赍表贡，航海祝釐，朕鉴尔国王悃忱，令使臣等瞻觐与宴，锡赍骈藩，颁发敕谕回国，并赐尔国王文绮珍玩，用示怀柔。兹尔国王复备具表文土物由夷船寄粤进呈，具见恭顺之诚。天朝抚有万国，琛尽来廷，不贵其物唯贵其诚，已饬谕疆臣将贡物进收。俾申虔敬。至天朝从前征剿廓尔克喀时，大将军统领大兵深入连得要隘，廓尔喀震慑兵威，匍匐乞降，大将军始拒情入奏。天朝仁慈广被，中外一体，不忍该处生灵咸就歼除，是以允准投诚。彼时曾据大将军奏及尔国王遣使前赴卫藏投禀，有劝令廓尔喀投顺之语，其时大功业已告成，并未烦尔国兵力。令尔国王表文内以此事在从前贡使起身之后未及奏明，想未详悉始末，但尔国王能知大义，恭顺天朝，深堪嘉尚，兹特颁赐尔国王锦缎等件。尔国王其益励荩诚，永承恩眷，以副朕绥远敷仁之至意。朱珪接到后，可即交与该国大班波郎专送回国，俾该国王益加感戴恭顺，以示怀柔。至天朝官员例不与外夷交际，其致送前任总督监督礼物，朱珪饬令寄回，所办亦是。

    刘半农 译