How Liberals Funked It? 自由派是如何可耻遁匿的？ 作者：Robert Conquest @ 1999-7-30 译者：Yuncong Yang 校对：Marcel ZHANG（@马赫塞勒张），沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：Hoover Institution，http://www.hoover.org/research/how-liberals-funked-it A liberal is, by definition, one whose aim is the furtherance of ever greater political liberty, freedom of thought, and social justice. A number of those who thought of themselves as, and were thought of as, liberals became apologists for Stalinist or similar regimes whose most notable characteristics were extreme terror, narrow dogmatism, social oppression, and economic failure. That is, they were all that the liberal tradition opposed. 按定义，一个“自由派”理应是以推进政治自由、思想自由与社会公正为其目标。但是，许多自认为且被大众认为是自由派的人，却成了斯大林主义及类似政权的辩护士。这类政权最昭著的特征是极度的恐怖，僵化的教条主义，社会压制，以及经济失败。显然，所有这些都是自由派最应当反对的东西。 How, and why, did a number of liberals explicitly, and a large swath of liberaldom implicitly, overcome this objection? How did this apparent paradox come to pass? Why in the 1930s and later do we find a sort of general infection of the atmosphere in which much of the intelligentsia moved? Even apart from those who became more or less addicted to communism, there was also a stratum that usually gave the Soviet Union and such regimes some moral advantage over the West. 那么，那些明确这么做的自由派，以及更多默认其做法的泛自由派人士，为何能够克服这种显而易见的自相矛盾？它们又是如何做到这一点的？为什么会出现一个如此明显的悖论？为什么自1930年代起，整个知识界都感染了这种气氛？即使不算那些多少痴迷于共产主义的人，知识界里还有一大批人乐于认为：与西方相比，苏联及类似政权具有某种道义优势。 First, of course, we should say that there were many liberals—and in general many on the left—who kept their principles unsullied and were often among the strongest opponents of the communist despotisms. Liberal is, indeed, a vague term. Many of us would take a “liberal” position on some issues, a “conservative” one on others—as most of the American or British people in fact do (an attitude shared by the present writer). 首先应当指出的是：许多自由派——以及一般而言，许多左派——还是保持着他们的原则未受玷污的。他们时常还属于共产暴政最坚决的反对者之列。“自由派”这个词的意义本身就是相当含糊的。大多数人都在一些问题上抱着“自由派”的看法，而在另一些问题上持“保守派”观点，多数英国人或美国人——含笔者在内——都是这样。 These two vaguely differentiated attitudes are the poles within the normal development, or balance, of a civic or consensual society. But all those with a reasonably critical intelligence, whether “conservative” or “liberal” on other issues, were hostile to the USSR. Those who supported it unreservedly were Communists; those who excused it may have thought of themselves as liberals, but to that extent they degraded the term. 在一个平衡发展的公民社会或协约社会（consensual society）里，出现“自由派”和“保守派”这样两种各居一极但分野并不明确的观点，是再正常不过的了。但是所有具有适当批判思维能力的人，不管他在其它问题上自认为是保守派还是自由派，都是对苏联怀有敌意的。明确表态支持苏联的人无疑是共产主义者，而那些对苏联抱有心怀体谅的人，或许自认为是自由派，但他们这么做时，正是在给“自由派”这个词抹黑。 The phenomenon we deal with here is what Orwell called “renegade liberalism.” He defined these renegade liberals with characteristic felicity, in the unused preface to Animal Farm, as those who hold that “democracy” can only be defended by discouraging or suppressing independent thought. 本文要讨论的，是被乔治·奥威尔称为“变节的自由主义”的现象。奥威尔在《动物庄园》的一篇未发表的序文中，以他标志性的精妙笔触，定义了这些变节的自由派：这些人认为保卫他们眼中的“民主”的唯一方式，就是阻止或压制独立思考。 His immediate concern was that “where the USSR and its policies are concerned one cannot expect intelligent criticism or even, in many cases, plain honesty from liberal writers and journalists who are under no direct pressure to falsify their opinions.” 当时，最令奥威尔感到担忧的现象是，“即使并未受到什么迫使他们说假话的直接压力，自由派作家或记者们在讨论苏联及其政策时，也难以指望他们表现出一点批判性智慧，许多时候他们甚至都不肯说句实话。” Elsewhere (in “The Prevention of Literature”), he comments, “When one sees highly educated men looking on indifferently at oppression and persecution, one wonders which to despise more, their cynicism or their shortsightedness.” And, he felt obliged to add, “it is the liberals who fear liberty and intellectuals who want to do dirt on the intellect.” 在另一篇文章（《对文学的阻碍》）中，奥威尔评论道：“当一个受过高等教育的人对他眼前的压制和迫害熟视无睹，我真不知道是更应当鄙视他的冷漠还是他的短视。”可能是觉得自己有义务说得更明白一些，他又写道：“害怕自由的恰恰是那些自由派，而抹黑智识的正是知识分子。” THE SLIPPERY CONCEPT OF EQUALITY 平等：一个难以捉摸的概念 We can trace the roots of this aberration a long way back. Even before the First World War, L. T. Hobhouse in his classic Liberalism had written, “liberty without equality is a name of noble sound and squalid meaning.” “Equality” is a slippery word. In a general sense we may allow that genuine liberals—and others—are committed to a society of equal citizens. 自由派的这种错乱由来已久。在第一次世界大战前，L.T.霍布豪斯在其经典著作《自由主义》中已然写道：“如果不讲平等，那么自由只是个表面好听而含义令人作呕的名词。”“平等”是个不大好定义的词。往大里说，我们可以认为那些真诚的自由派——也算上其他自由派好了——希望建成一个由平等公民组成的社会。 The liberal state may have a legitimate role in redressing poverty, making health care available, and so forth, but after a point we find that the liberté and égalité that proved incompatible in the 1790s are still awkward companions. 一个秉承自由派理念的国家，或许可以合法地在消除贫困，普及医疗保健等方面发挥作用。可是当自由派理念进一步延伸到社会生活的其他方面时，我们将会发现，在法国大革命时曾被证明不能无限相容的“liberté”和“égalité”依然会起冲突。 And, as the liberal attitude became more and more concerned with the use of political power to promote equality, it tended to become less and less concerned with the liberty side; even domestically (in Thomas Sowell’s words), “the grand delusion of contemporary liberals is that they have both the right and the ability to move their fellow creatures around like blocks of wood—and that the end results will be no different than if people had voluntarily chosen the same actions.” 并且，当自由派们越来越重视使用政治权力来推进平等的时候，他们会渐渐倾向于无视他们理念里的“自由”部分，即使这自由是他们同胞的自由。用托马斯·索维尔的话讲：“当代自由派陷入了一个巨大的幻觉：他们觉得他们既有权利也有能力像搬动木材一样随意指挥他们的同胞们。而且在他们指挥下，最终结果就跟人们最初自发选择同样的行动没什么差别。” And when these liberals looked abroad they found a regime that claimed to have the same aims—and used the same, or much the same, vocabulary. If anything, from a skeptic’s point of view, the Communists overdid it (with the result that any country nowadays calling itself a People’s Republic or a Democratic Republic is known at once to be a ruthless dictatorship). 当这些自由派们放眼海外，他们看到了一个号称和他们追求同一个目标的政权——而且这个政权也说着和他们大体相同的一套话。不，从一个怀疑者的眼里看来，共产主义者甚至可以说是把自由派的理想做过了头（其结果是现在人们看到一个“某某人民共和国”或者“某某民主主义共和国”，就立刻知道那是个残忍无情的专制政权）。 ROTTEN LIBERALS—AND THE VAST KLEPTOCRACY 腐臭的自由派——及广泛的盗贼统治 Communists in fact despised liberals, even if not quite as much as they despised social-democrats. It was in his procommunist period that W. H. Auden wrote: 共产主义者们实际上是鄙视自由派的，当然可能没有他们鄙视社会民主党人来得那么厉害。W.H.奥登在他支持共产主义的那段时期写下过这样的诗句：

Because you saw but were not indignant The invasion of the great malignant Cambridge ulcer That army intellectual Of every kind of liberal, Smarmy with friendship but of all There are none falser. 你看到了那恶心的剑桥脓疮， 看到了它入侵我们的国度， 却并不感到愤怒。 那支诸种自由派知识分子组成的侵略军， 表演着种种虚假的好意， 实际上，没人比他们更加虚伪卑鄙

“Rotten liberalism” was, of course, the conventional charge made by the Soviet Communists against those insufficiently ruthless in the repression of enemies of the people. 当然，“腐臭的自由主义者”这个词也是苏维埃共产主义者创造出来的。他们时常拿这个词来鄙视那些在镇压人民的敌人方面做得不够狠辣到位的家伙们。 Moreover, Lenin’s own interest in the overthrow of the existing order was so intense that he did not spread his progressivism into any other fields and had nothing but contempt for modern art, free love, unorthodox medicine, and all the other paraphernalia. Communist artistic principles—socialist realism and so forth—remained overtly hostile to all the modernisms dear to many liberal hearts. 此外，列宁本人是如此醉心于推翻现有秩序，以致他只有在这一方面才表现出了那么一点进步派倾向，而与此同时彻底无视了其他领域。对于现代艺术、自由恋爱、非传统医学，以及其它种种现代事物，列宁的态度只有鄙视。共产主义艺术的准则——社会主义现实主义等等——始终全面敌视各种形式的现代艺术，而这些现代艺术正是许多自由派们全心珍爱着的。 The Communists’ attitude to homosexuality, at least after its criminalization in the USSR in 1935, was contrary to an important component of the liberal worldview—but Moscow did not lose the allegiance even of homosexuals such as Guy Burgess. The Soviets suppressed and maligned all the psychological views, Freudian and other, dear to Western intellectuals. And Stalin’s extreme anti-Semitism in the post–World War II years ran against anything describable as liberal. 共产主义者对同性恋的态度，至少是在1935年苏联将同性恋入刑之后，是与自由派世界观的一个重要方面相抵触的。但即使是盖伊·伯吉斯【译注：英国情报人员和外交官，著名苏联间谍】这样的同性恋者，也从未放弃过对莫斯科的忠诚。苏联压制和批判所有那些西方知识分子视若珍宝的心理学学说——弗洛伊德主义等等。战后斯大林表现出的露骨的极端反犹倾向，更是和一切能被称为自由主义的思想相对立的。 But, some liberals felt, at least the Stalinists were not capitalists, not motivated by greed, which, taken as the defining quality of the economic system in the West, was thus the most detested of all vices for certain liberals. These were, in general, those who gained their income (and were highly competitive with rivals for it) in academic or media spheres, that is, money derived from, but not directly dependent on, “capitalism.” 但是，一些自由派们还是认为，至少斯大林主义者不是利欲熏心的资本家，而后者在一些自由派看来，是整个西方经济制度的根本特质，因此是所有罪恶中最可鄙弃的罪恶。抱有这样看法的人，通常都是从学术界或媒体业挣得收入（而且是通过与其对手的高强度竞争而挣得），这些钱自然也派生于 “资本主义”，虽然并不直接依靠于它。 Greed, it might be argued, is not as bad as mass murder. But in any case greed was equally prevalent in the mass murder societies. Corruption of every possible type has flourished in all the communist countries. It is not only that the USSR, for example, became a vast kleptocracy but also that even the supposedly pristine early revolutionaries were anything but immune. 或许有人会说，贪欲再怎么也没有大规模屠杀那么坏呀？可事实上，在那些发生大屠杀的国家里，贪欲和西方社会一样盛行。在所有共产主义国家里，一切人类社会中可能发生的腐败活动都大行其道。不仅苏联很快变成了一个巨大的盗贼统治国家，那些据说品行高洁的早期革命家们也都绝非纯洁无瑕。 In fact, with few exceptions the victorious Bolsheviks lived comfortably through the deprivations of the postrevolutionary period. Milovan Djilas, then a Yugoslav communist leader, was shocked at how his victorious partisans, on entering Belgrade, seized villas, cars, women, and so on. The same was noted of the Sandinistas when they entered Managua. 事实上，在革命后的匮乏时期里，得胜的布尔什维克领袖几无例外都过着优裕生活。米洛凡·吉拉斯，当年的南斯拉夫共产党领导人，震惊地看到他的同志们获胜进入贝尔格莱德后个个都开始霸占别墅、汽车和女人了。尼加拉瓜的桑地诺武装分子们打进马那瓜后的表现也一模一样。 THE SWING IN LEFTISH OPINION 左派观点的转变 The phenomenon of renegade liberalism arose in the early days of the Soviet regime. Lincoln Steffens, the fearless journalist exposer of American corruption, famously said of the USSR, “I have seen the future and it works.” He had seen nothing and that future didn’t work. 在苏维埃政权的幼年时期，变节的自由主义现象已经出现了。林肯·斯蒂芬斯，那位无畏的揭露美国种种腐败现象的名记者，曾说过一句关于苏联的名言：“我看到了它的未来，它行得通。”当然，实际上他啥也没看到，而那个未来也没行通。 But until the 1930s the Sovietophiles were a minority among liberals. It is in 1933 that we see a real swing in leftish opinion. The terror-famine early that year, in which millions died, had been widely and accurately reported in much of the Western press. 但直到2ij如此醉心于推翻现有秩序写下过这样的诗句191919119130年代，亲苏分子还只占自由派中的一小部分。西方左派对苏联态度的真正转变发生在1933年。在那年初，恐怖的乌克兰大饥荒——数百万人丧生——在西方得到了广泛且准确的报道。 But the Soviet government simply denied that any famine had taken place. President Kalinin, speaking of “political cheats who offer to help the starving Ukraine,” commented that, “only the most decadent classes are capable of producing such cynical elements.” 苏联政府则矢口否认曾发生过任何饥荒。最高苏维埃主席加里宁在谈到那些“号称要帮助饥饿的乌克兰的政治骗子”时说道：“只有那些最最卑劣的家伙才能编出这种犬儒主义的谎言。” The Soviet story was supported—as we now know for disreputable reasons—by reporters such as Walter Duranty. Thus two versions were available to the American liberals. But it was Duranty who received the Pulitzer Prize—for “dispassionate, interpretive reporting of the news from Russia.” 一些像沃尔特·杜兰蒂之类的记者支持了苏联方面的说法——我们今天知道，这些支持背后有着不可见人的理由。这样，在美国自由派的面前就出现了两种迥然相异的说法。但是最后得到普利策奖的是杜兰蒂——为他“就俄国消息作出的冷静的，解读性的报道”。 The announcement of the prize added that Duranty’s dispatches were “marked by scholarship, profundity, impartiality, sound judgment, and exceptional clarity,” being “excellent examples of the best type of foreign correspondence.” 普利策评奖委员会的颁奖通稿里继续写道，杜兰蒂的报道表现了“学术性，洞察力，中立性，优秀的判断力，而且格外清晰明了”，这些报道是“最佳外国新闻报道的杰出典范”。 The Nation, citing him in its annual “honor roll,” described his as “the most enlightening, dispassionate and readable dispatches from a great nation in the making which appeared in any newspaper in the world.” 《国家》杂志在它一年一度的“荣誉榜”里列入了杜兰蒂的名字，说他的报道是“最富启示的公允冷静报道，可读性极佳。来自一个正浮现于全世界所有报章之上的，正在创建中的伟大国家”。 A banquet was given at the Waldorf Astoria in 1933 to celebrate the recognition of the USSR by the United States. A list of names was read, each politely applauded by the guests until Walter Duranty’s was reached; then, Alexander Woollcott wrote in the New Yorker, “the only really prolonged pandemonium was evoked. . . . Indeed, one got the impression that America, in a spasm of discernment, was recognizing both Russia and Walter Duranty.” 1933年，在纽约华尔道夫饭店举办了一场盛大宴会，旨在庆祝美国对苏联的承认。会上宣读了一串名字，每个名字都得到了人们礼貌性的掌声。接着杜兰蒂的名字出现了，亚历山大·沃尔科特在《纽约客》上写道：“（杜兰蒂的名字）激发了当晚唯一一次长时间的狂热喧腾……的确，当晚来宾都感觉到，仿佛美国出现了一次鉴别力大爆发，同时承认了苏联和杜兰蒂。” This scene in the Waldorf was clearly a full-dress appearance of the liberal establishment. And all this was before Stalin and his Comintern had given up their overt hostility to social democrats and liberals and moved over to a popular front. 华尔道夫饭店的景象，无疑象征着美国自由派当权集团的正式亮相。而所有这些，都是在斯大林和他的第三国际全面放弃对社会民主主义者及自由派的公开敌视态度、转而采取一种更受欢迎的面貌之前发生的。 THE ACADEMIC FRONDE 学术界的投石党人 From the start, it was not only the occasional corrupt journalist such as Walter Duranty but also a veritable Fronde of academics who were at least equally responsible for mediating the Soviet phenomena for the Western liberal intelligentsia. It would be to present all the horrors of expert academe. 打一开始，在西方自由派知识界面前为苏联洗地的，就不只是杜兰蒂等几个腐败记者。一伙名副其实的学术界投石党人至少要和杜兰蒂之流负相等的责任。从中将揭示出整个专业学界最恶心的事。 Most notorious, of course, were the deans of Western social science, Sidney and Beatrice Webb, who went to Russia, saw the system, and produced what purported to be a learned tome on the subject—Soviet Communism: A New Civilisation?—which in its second edition, at the height of the terror, dropped the question mark. 最臭名昭著的，当然是当时西方社会科学界掌门人西德尼·韦伯和贝亚特丽斯·韦伯夫妇。他们前往苏联，看到了苏联体制，然后写出了号称苏联问题权威著作的《苏联共产主义：一种新的文明？》——此书再版时，书名里的那个问号被删掉了，而此时正值苏联政治恐怖的高峰。 Their massive exercise in drivel was largely based on believing Soviet official documents. They were, in effect, taken in above all by Potemkin paperwork—of elections, trade unions, cooperatives, statistics, all the documents of the phantom USSR. 韦伯夫妇之所以表现出如此惊人的愚蠢和幼稚，很大程度上归因于他们对苏联官方文件的盲信。实际上，他们被眼前的波将金式虚假资料彻底蒙骗了。这些资料里描述了选举，工会，合作社，包含各种统计数据，向韦伯夫妇呈现了一个完全虚假的苏联。 Many others followed, such as Harold Laski, professor of political science at the London School of Economics and at one point chairman of the Labour Party. When Sir Bernard Pares, the West’s leading “Russianist,” arrived in Russia, his previous anti-Soviet feelings evaporated. 很多人趋步韦伯夫妇之后尘，比如伦敦经济学院的政治学教授哈罗德·拉斯基，他后来曾任工党主席。西方世界的首席“俄国通”伯纳德·帕雷斯爵士一踏上俄国国土，他之前的反苏倾向立刻烟消云散了。 As his son admiringly put it, he “had not left the Moscow railway station before his mind was flooded with the realization that the Bolsheviks were, after all, Russia.” He, Laski, the Webbs, and others all pronounced the show trials genuine exercises in truth and legality. 就像后来他儿子满怀着敬慕之心写下的那样，他“在踏出莫斯科火车站之前就已得出结论，布尔什维克就是俄国”。帕雷斯，拉斯基，韦伯夫妇和许多其他人都认为，他们看到的那些审判秀都是真正基于真相与合法性的实践。 These were, indeed, individuals. The academic world, though liberal in a general way, was not as yet a scene of organized error on the communist regime. That came later and in particular in the last quarter of the twentieth century. 以上说到的这些多是个人行为，当时的学术界，虽然总的来说是偏自由派的，还并没有在共产政权问题上表现出后来那种几乎是有组织的错误倾向。那要等到以后，特别是要在二十世纪的最后1/4才会大行其道呢。 THE POTEMKIN PHENOMENON 波将金现象 The Potemkin phenomenon proper—the presentation of faked appearances of prosperity or social triumphs—was, of course, widespread in all the communist countries. Anyone who ever visited the Exhibition of Economic Achievements in Moscow will know the score. Similarly, when Vice President Henry Wallace, on a flight from America to China, was for a few days in the midst of the frightful Kolyma labor camps, the guard towers and barbed wires were torn down, the miserable prisoners replaced by strong and healthy NKVD men, and so on. 波将金现象——伪造出虚假的繁荣或社会成就用于展示——当然在所有共产主义国家中都广泛存在。随便哪个看过莫斯科的经济成就展的人都知道那是怎么回事。与此相似，当美国副总统亨利·华莱士自美国飞往中国时，他曾在那恐怖的科雷马劳改营中待过几天。在华莱士停留期间，所有的守卫塔和铁丝网都拆掉了。可怜的囚犯们被换成了身强力壮的内务人民委员部人员。诸如此类。 Many such stories could be told. Yet the most extraordinary are those representing the Soviet penal system as humane and progressive. The facts about the Gulag were already available in a number of firsthand accounts. But, entirely for deceiving the Western liberals, the Stalinists maintained some “model prisons”—in particular one at Bolshevo where J. L. Gillin, a former president of the American Sociological Society, noted that: 这样的故事还有很多，其中最为卓异的，无疑是那些把苏联刑罚系统包装为“人道”和“进步”的体制。当时，已经有一些有关古拉格实情的第一手记述出现了。然而，斯大林主义者们为了蒙骗西方自由派，特意设置了一些“模范监狱”。比如设在波尔谢夫的模范监狱。曾任美国社会学学会主席的J.L.季林在访问波尔谢夫监狱后写道：

In accordance with the spirit of the Revolution the terms current in capitalist penology are discarded. There are no “crimes”; there are “wrongs.” . . . There is no “punishment,” only “measures of social defence.” 根据革命精神，资本主义刑罚学说里的词语都被抛弃了。不再有“犯罪”了，只有“错误”……再也没有“惩罚”，有的只是“社会防卫措施”。

One liberal visitor, Jerzy Gliksman, a progressive member of the Warsaw City Council, was thus deceived but later experienced the real Soviet penal behavior—described in his striking memoirs of the Gulag. 一位自由派访问者乔治·格利克斯曼当时是华沙市议会的一位进步派成员，他也上了当。不过后来他亲身体验了真正的苏联刑罚，并在回忆录中记下了自己令人发指的古拉格体验。 As Hans Magnus Enzensberger writes of Havana two generations later, there were delegates living “in the hotels for foreigners who had no idea that the energy and water supply in the working quarters had broken down during the afternoon, that bread was rationed, and that the population had to stand for two hours in line for a slice of pizza; meanwhile the tourists in their hotel rooms were arguing about Lukacs.” 就像汉斯·马格努斯·恩森斯伯格在几十年后描写的哈瓦那一样，很多访问者住在“外国人专用的旅馆里。这些外国佬根本不知道当天下午工人居住区曾经断水断电，不知道面包是按配给定额发放的，不知道他们在旅馆房间里争论有关卢卡奇的问题时，群众们在外面为领一块比萨饼要排两个小时的队。” Even the actual optic nerves of Western viewers seem to have become distorted, with falsehood coming from both outside and inside. As Malcolm Muggeridge noted: 在内外夹攻的假话冲击之下，这些西方访客的视神经似乎都被扭曲了。正如马尔科姆·穆格里奇写到的：

There were earnest advocates of the humane killing of cattle who looked up at the massive headquarters of the OGPU with tears of gratitude in their eyes, earnest advocates of proportional representation who eagerly assented when the necessity for a Dictatorship of the Proletariat was explained to them, earnest clergymen who walked reverently through anti-God museums and reverently turned the pages of atheistic literature, earnest pacifists who watched delightedly tanks rattle across the Red Square and bombing planes darken the sky, earnest town planning specialists who stood outside overcrowded ramshackle tenements and muttered: “If only we had something like this in England!” The almost unbelievable credulity of these mostly university-educated tourists astonished even Soviet officals used to handling foreign visitors. “望见国家政治保卫总局总部的宏伟大厦时，一些真诚主张人道屠宰牲口的活动家流下了感激的热泪；听完苏联的无产阶级专政是如何必要的说教后，一些真诚主张比例代表制的活动家热切地表示着同感；真诚的教士们满怀敬意的走在反上帝主题博物馆里，翻阅着宣扬无神论的著作；真诚的和平主义者们高兴地观看开过红场的坦克和遮天蔽日的轰炸机；真诚的城市设计专家们站在拥挤失修的居民楼外，嘴里嘟囔着：‘我们英国要是也有这个就好了！’这些几乎都受过高等教育的访客们表现的这种令人难以置信的轻信，甚至把那些专职糊弄外国来客的苏联官员都惊呆了。”

GOGHDZE IS A FINE MAN 贡加泽是个好人 It was not only the facts about communist regimes that received such treatment but even Stalinist personalities. The French progressive novelist Romain Rolland described secret police chief Genrikh Yagoda (later shot) as sensitive and intellectual. Harold Laski had a long discussion with Vyshinsky, faker of show trials, whom he found “a man whose passion was law reform. . . . He was doing what an ideal Minister of Justice would do if we had such a person in Great Britain.” 受到这种对待的不止是共产主义政权的方方面面，还包括斯大林主义者的品格。法国进步小说家罗曼·罗兰把秘密警察头子亨利希·亚戈达（后被枪毙）描述为一个敏感聪慧的人。哈罗德·拉斯基在和维辛斯基——一系列审判秀的策划者和执行者——长谈之后，觉得他是“一个全心投入法律改革事业的人……如果他生在英国，他做的就是一个理想的司法大臣所做的事。” Vice President Henry Wallace later described Beria’s terror henchman in the Soviet Far East, Goghdze, as “a very fine man, very efficient, gentle and understanding with people.” Owen Lattimore saw I. F. Nikishov, the head of the most murderous camp system in the Gulag, as having “a trained and sensitive interest in art and music and also a deep sense of civic responsibility.” 在亨利·华莱士副总统口中，贝利亚在远东的忠实走狗贡加泽是“一个非常好的人，效率很高，待人温和，善于理解他人。”欧文·拉铁摩尔认为I.F.尼基绍夫——他管辖的集中营系统即使在古拉格中也是最凶残致命的一个——拥有“在音乐和艺术上训练有素且趣味敏锐，同时对于公民责任的深刻认知”。 H. G. Wells arrived in Moscow in 1934 full of hostility to communism and to Stalin. An interview changed that. Stalin, it is true, “looked past me rather than at me” but “not evasively.” He asked Wells’s permission to smoke his pipe and in this and other ways soon allayed Wells’s hostility. H.G.威尔斯在1934年满怀着对共产主义和斯大林的敌意来到了莫斯科。和斯大林的一次会面完全改变了他的态度。斯大林，当真的，“把目光投向了我的身后而不是看着我”，但“并不是为了躲开我。”在点燃烟斗前，斯大林特意征得了客人的同意。这样那样的小姿态很快就把威尔斯的敌意消解于无形了：

I have never met a man more candid, fair and honest, and to these qualities it is, and nothing occult and sinister, that he owes his tremendous undisputed ascendancy in Russia. I had thought before I saw him that he might be where he was because men were afraid of him but I realize that he owes his position to the fact that no one is afraid of him and everybody trusts him. “我从没见过一个更加直率、公正且诚实的人。正是由于他的这些品质，而非什么神秘或卑劣的因素，他才能得到他在今日俄国的伟大且无争议的统治地位。在见到他之前，我曾认为他是由于别人对他的恐惧才得到今天的地位的。我现在才明白，他的地位正是来源于这一事实：没有人害怕他，相反所有人都信赖他。”

Even Franklin Roosevelt—deceived indeed by Harold Ickes—was charmed by Stalin into speaking of his being above all “getatable”: the great British Russianist Ronald Hingley commented that “ungetatability” was one of Stalin’s central characteristics. 即使富兰克林·罗斯福——其实他是被哈罗德·伊克斯骗了——也被斯大林的魅力打动，以致他评论斯大林首先是个“易于亲近的人”：伟大的俄国通，英国人罗纳德·辛格利对此评论说，“不易亲近”正是斯大林性格的核心特征之一。 Among the most egregious of what I hope I may be excused as calling the Kremlin creepers was a number of those who would have been called liberal Christians. One might have expected a certain alienation from communism by any of them that had read Lenin’s virulent condemnation of all religion but particularly of sophisticated religion. The active persecution of religion in the communist countries might, you would also think, have also had an effect. 在所有那些“克里姆林宫的小爬虫”——希望大家原谅我使用这个词——中，最令人震惊不解的，就是那些曾被称作自由派基督徒的家伙。一般人都会认为：宗教人士只要读过列宁对宗教，特别是繁琐神学的那些恶毒攻击，总会对共产主义有所疏远。共产主义国家对于宗教的现实迫害也应该会加深这种排斥。 But to take only one example—the World Council of Churches Central Committee’s meeting in 1973 passed a resolution deploring oppression in the Middle East, Africa, Latin America, the United States, and elsewhere. An attempt by a Swedish clergyman to add the communist countries was defeated ninety-one to three, with twenty-six abstentions. 但让我举一个例子吧：世界基督教协进会在1973年的中央委员会上通过了一项决议，谴责中东、非洲、拉丁美洲、美国和其他一些地方对宗教的压迫。会上一位瑞典教士试图把共产主义国家加入谴责范围，对这一提案的投票结果是：三票赞成，九十一票反对，二十六票弃权。

---

We might say that there are two sorts of liberal, as there are two sorts of cholesterol, one good and one bad. 或许可以这么说：正如胆固醇有两种，自由派也有两种：好的和坏的。

---

Here again, the commitment has often been so strong that it is hard to imagine that complete conversion to communism has not taken place. A Communist once told me his method. First you explain to a Christian sympathizer that communism is compatible with Christianity. That accomplished, you explain that Christianity is not compatible with communism. 在这里我们也看到，他们对共产主义的支持是如此强烈，以致人们很难想象他们居然还没有完全改宗共产主义。一位共产主义者曾经跟我说过他的妙法：首先，对一个同情共产主义的基督徒解释共产主义与基督教义可以相容，完成这一步之后，你再向他解释基督教义和共产主义不能相容就行了。 BUT WHY? 为什么？ I started by advancing a general reason, or context, for these phenomena. I argued that they arose from an excessive regard for equality as against liberty. That is, people thought they saw a system, superior to our own, in which the abhorrent profit motive had been eliminated (in a sense so it had, but there are other ways of robbing the population). It was rather as if they would rejoice to find that a slum landlord had been replaced by a gangster extortionist. 在本文开始时，我试图为这些现象提出一个总体原因或情境。我提出：这种现象出现的根源是过分注重平等而不惜放弃自由。也就是说：这些人认为他们看到了一种比我们的体制更优越的体制，这种体制消灭了追逐利润这一可怕动机（一定意义上它确实做到了，当然与此同时，搜刮民脂民膏的办法还多得很呢）。事实上，他们更像是乐于看到一个黑帮勒索者取代一个贫民窟房东。 But even this is hardly enough to explain how the mind of the liberal intelligentsia became so much a subject of deception and self-deception. We must inquire further. 但是就算这一原因也不足以解释，为什么自由派知识分子的心智沦落至此，以至让他们成为如此程度的欺骗和自欺的牺牲品。还有必要向更深处找寻原因。 That is so even when we consider the attraction of anything “noncapitalist”—even when we consider domestic resentment against “conservatives” on home soil—for, as Macaulay writes of British politicians in the eighteenth century, “it is the nature of parties to retain their original enmities far more firmly than their original principles.” 即使我们考虑到任何“非资本主义”事物对自由派的吸引力，即使我们考虑自由派对本国“保守派”的忿恨——正如麦考莱在论述18世纪英国政治家时写下的：“政党总是把它的最初之敌而非最初宗旨记得更牢”——，也无法解释这种现象。 But pas d’ennemi à gauche—the idea that the far left, even if wrong in some respects, when it came down to essentials was against the real enemy, the right—cannot sustain the procommunist liberal case. “敌人永远在右”——也就是说，极左即使某些方面是错的，本质上也还是在反对真正的敌人，也就是右派——即便这句格言也不能解释为什么会有亲共产主义自由派这一现象。 For not all on the far left were covered: Trotskyites, the POUM in Spain, Anarchists. If we ask why this did not affect some “liberal” minds, it seems that in the first two cases, at least, the Stalinist version (that these were not “left” at all but secret agencies of Hitler) had some distractive effect. 因为并非所有极左翼都得到自由派的亲近，托派、西班牙的马克思主义统一工人党（POUM）或无政府主义者都无此幸运。为什么这些组织没有打动自由派的心呢？看来，至少托派和POUM可能受害于斯大林主义者的宣传，后者坚持这些组织都不是真左派，而是希特勒的特务。 Then again, the Trotskyites lacked the huge propaganda funding available to Stalinists everywhere, though the pervasiveness of a notion has traditionally not been the key point for critical minds. Where issues of fact were in question, the anti-Stalinist left was not only truer but also far more plausible. 另外，托派没有斯大林主义者那么多的宣传资金，尽管对于具有批判性头脑的人来讲，一种思想的传播力度不该影响它的说服力。实际上，当涉及事实问题时，那些反斯大林左派的说法不仅更加真实，还更有说服力。 We can list, in addition to utopianism and parochial partisanship, a number of other characteristics to be found, if not in all, than in many of the Stalinophiles (and Mao-ophiles, Castrophiles, and Ho-ophiles): in some cases vanity, in others pleasure at adulation, in others yet an adolescent romanticism about “revolution” as such. 除了乌托邦情结和狭隘的党派偏见外，在很多斯大林粉（还有毛粉，卡斯特罗粉，胡志明粉等等）身上通常都可以找到一些其他特性：一些人的共同点是求名的欲望；另一些人的共同点是爱听奉承话；而其他一些人的共同点是有一种对“革命”的青春浪漫主义。 Nor should mere boredom be omitted, as Simone de Beauvoir once confessed, which may remind us of the attitudes of a certain type of French intellectual, different, but not all that different, from his American or British counterparts, as given by Herbert Luthy in the early 1960s. 当然，单纯的无聊也是个不能不提的因素，正如西蒙·德·波伏娃曾经坦白过的那样，这或许能使我们想起赫伯特·卢蒂曾于1960年代初描述过的那类法国知识分子的态度，这种态度与他们的英美同行有所不同，但其实也相去不远：

For ten years the French intellectuals have discussed the big issues of the day so to speak in front of the looking-glass,in search less of facts and knowledge than of an attitude befitting their traditional role—of the “correct pose.” “十年来，法国知识分子们一直在镜子前讨论着所谓的‘当前重大问题’，他们的讨论与其说是为了寻求真相或知识，不如说是为了找到一种适合他们传统角色的态度——所谓的‘正确姿态’。”

THE HEROES OF THE ARGUMENT 论争中的英雄们 Nevertheless, it might be argued that the true heroes of the long argument were not so much the committed anticommunist conservatives (who were, of course, right, and fully deserve the verdict in their favor as against the procommunist liberals) as those within the liberal intelligentsia who not only were not deceived but also fought for the truth over years of slander and discouragement. 尽管如此，我们依然可以说：在这场漫长的论争中，真正的英雄与其说是那些坚定反共的保守派，不如说是那些虽身在自由派阵营却不仅不受蒙蔽，还常年冒着中伤和挫折而努力寻求真相的自由派们。当然，反共的保守派是正确的，他们在与亲共自由派论争中做出的功绩也完全值得肯定。 We might in fact say that there are two sorts of liberal, as there are two sorts of cholesterol, one good and one bad. The difficulty is, or has been, that good liberalism implies a good deal of mental self-control. 实际上，我们可以说，正如胆固醇有两种，自由派也有两种，一种好，一种坏。如今的困难在于——或者说一直如此——好的自由主义必然要求强大的精神自律。 AND NOWADAYS? 今天呢？ Kenneth Minogue, the Anglo-Australian political scientist, has observed that “as radicals have lost plausible utopias of one kind or another—from the Soviet Union to Cuba—they have become more ferociously intolerant of the society in which they live.” 英裔澳大利亚政治学家肯尼思·米诺格观察到，“当激进派失去一个又一个曾经具有说服力的乌托邦——从苏联到古巴——时，他们对自己身处其中的这个社会变得越来越不宽容了。” There are plenty of up-to-date insane absurdities, such as John Le Carré writing (in a letter to the Washington Post) that capitalism was today killing many more than communism ever had; such as Nigel Nicolson in Britain saying that Solzhenitsyn had betrayed his country just as Anthony Blunt had his. 时至今日，疯狂的荒谬论调依然层出不穷。比如约翰·勒卡雷投书《华盛顿邮报》，声称今天资本主义正在杀死的人数比共产主义曾经杀掉的还要多的多；比如英国的奈杰尔·尼科尔森声称，索尔仁尼琴正像安东尼·勃朗特【校注：英国艺术史家、苏联间谍】一样，无非是个叛国者。 And in academe we still find noisy cliques working to lower the Soviet death roll, to prove the West as the villain of the Cold War, and to call for “dispassionate” study of Stalin and Mao. 在学术界，我们也可以发现一些吵闹的小集团努力降低苏联时期的死亡数字，以便证明西方才是冷战中的那个恶棍，并呼吁对斯大林和毛泽东进行“公允不偏”的研究。 Such notions are, of course, not confined to campuses. We now get an allegedly historical film series sponsored by Ted Turner, which, with some concessions to reality, in effect tilts the balance against the West, Stalin offset by McCarthy, Castro better than Kennedy. 这种思潮当然不只存在于大学校园之内。现在出现了泰德·透纳赞助的一些所谓历史影集。虽然在一定程度上承认事实，这些影集事实上在把天平翘向反西方的那一侧。在这些影片中，麦卡锡主义被拿来抵销斯大林的罪恶，而卡斯特罗被塑造成了一个比肯尼迪更好的人。 A WORD TO YOUNG LIBERALS 对年轻自由派们的赠言 Can one offer any advice to the current generation of liberals? Well, one can advise them not to let passions provoked by the internal politics of their homelands go too far. Rhetoric of party faction is part of democratic life, but do not project it into your assessment of alien regimes and mentalities and do not accept accounts of these cultures provided by partisan sources without a critical assessment (a point that applies, indeed, to the acceptance of supposed facts in any field in which strong emotions prevail). 我们能对现今一代的自由派提出什么建言吗？当然，我们可以建议他们控制头脑里被本国政治斗争挑起的激情。党派话语是民主政治生活的一部分，但不要让这些话语影响了你对外国政权或思想的评价。此外，不要照单全收有党派偏见的来源所提供的各种关于外国文化的材料（这一点还适用于接受各种可能受到强烈感情因素影响的领域的材料）。 As to the academics criticized above, it seems that nothing is to be done. They are committed to their misconceptions. One can only urge their younger colleagues (even if hardly able to speak out frankly in an atmosphere of academic persecution, denial of tenure, and so on) that they should work at least at thinking independently, while biding their time. 至于上文中批判到的那些学者们，看起来无可救药了。他们虔诚于自己的错误信念。我们只能呼吁他们的年轻同事们（当然，在目前的大学空气里充斥着学术迫害，否决终身教职等等威胁，要直率说出自己的想法并不容易），至少努力做到独立思考，等着属于他们的时代到来。 Above all, as Granville Hicks, himself temporarily deceived, put it: “It is no defence whatever for an intellectual to say that he was duped, since that is what, as an intellectual, he should never allow to happen to him.” 毕竟，正如自己也曾一度受到蒙骗的格兰维尔·希克斯所说的：“知识分子是不能用一句‘我上当了’来为自己辩护的。因为一个知识分子有不受蒙骗的义务。” Excerpted and adapted from the New Criterion, February 1999, from an essay entitled “Liberals and Totalitarianism.” 摘编改写自《新标准》(The New Criterion)1999年2月号刊登的《自由派与极权主义》一文。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

The coup d'etat of 1714 - when the Whigs won 1714年辉格党人赢取的那场政变

作者：Matt Ridley @ 2014-8-2 翻译：陆嘉宾（@晚上不买白天买不到） 校对：Pyro，沈沉（@你在何地-sxy） 来源：作者个人博客，http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/the-coup-d'etat-of-1714-when-the-whigs-won.aspx Was an English Enlightenment delayed by the Hanoverian succession? 汉诺威王室入继大统拖延了英格兰的启蒙运动吗？ The centenary of the start of the first world war is getting much more attention than the tricentenary of the accession of George I, which also falls this week. As far as I can tell, no new biographies of the first Hanoverian king are imminent, whereas books on the great war are pouring forth. You can see why. 相比于同在本周的一战爆发百年纪念，乔治一世登基三百周年就没有那么引人注目了。据我所知，短期内没有这位汉诺威王朝首位国王的新传记出版，而关于一战的书籍却是铺天盖地。原因是显而易见的。 The replacement of a plump, if benign, queen by an ‘obstinate and humdrum German martinet with dull brains and coarse tastes’ (Winston Churchill’s words), who presided over a huge financial scandal and died unlamented after a short reign, need hardly detain us. 乔治在位经历了巨大的财务丑闻，不久便去世了，无人哀悼。用丘吉尔的话说，他是个“固执、无聊、头脑迟钝、品味糟糕的德国呆子”——这样一位国王取代一位胖得恰到好处的女王。算了吧，我们不必为此多费口舌了。 But forget the royals and focus on what we might call the reshuffle among politicians that accompanied the change. 还是忘记这些皇室成员，让我们把注意力放到那些伴随这一变故的所谓“政治洗牌”上来吧。 Here’s how Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke, described the last week of July 1714 in a letter to Dean Swift: ‘The Earl of Oxford was removed on Tuesday. The Queen died on Sunday. What a world this is, and how does fortune banter us.’ 第一代博林布鲁克子爵，亨利·圣约翰，在一封写给斯威夫特教长【译注：即Jonathan Swift，文学家，《格列佛游记》作者，曾担任都柏林圣帕特里克大教堂教长】的信中是这样描写1714年7月最后一周的：“牛津伯爵【译注：Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford，安妮女王事实上的首席大臣】在周二被罢免，女王在周日去世。这是一个怎样的世界，命运如此戏弄我们。” The fall of the Jacobite-leaning Tories, led by Bolingbroke and his rival and former friend Oxford, with a coup d’état in the Privy Council by the Hanoverian-favouring Whigs, led by the Duke of Shrewsbury, on 30 July turned out to be a key moment in British history. It was never reversed, despite several attempts. In its own way it was as significant as 1215 and 1688. 发生在7月30日的两件事——博林布鲁克子爵及其前密友、现对手牛津伯爵所领导的亲詹姆斯派的托利党人失利，什鲁斯伯里公爵领导的亲汉诺威辉格党在枢密院政变成功——使这一天成为了英国历史上的关键时刻。尽管失败者数次试图反扑，但结果从未改变。这一年份在历史上和签署大宪章的1215年以及光荣革命的1688年同等重要。 The Tory Bolingbroke, a dazzling orator and spectacular libertine, had been stuffing positions of power with fellow Jacobites since becoming secretary of state and overshadowing his erstwhile ally the Earl of Oxford. 托利党人博林布鲁克能言善辩、风流成性，成为国务大臣之后一直忙于在重要职位上安插詹姆斯派党羽，压制前战友牛津伯爵。 But at an emergency privy council meeting on 30 July following the Queen’s stroke, he found himself outwitted by Shrewsbury, who unexpectedly summoned two fellow Whigs, the Dukes of Argyll and Somerset. The council got the barely conscious Queen to make Shrewsbury Lord Treasurer, then sat late into the night dispatching messages to alert garrisons and ensure that the Hanoverian succession was proclaimed. 但是在7月30日那次女王中风后的紧急枢密院会议上，他发现自己被什鲁斯伯里摆了一道。什鲁斯伯里出乎意料的招集了自己的两位辉格党同党——阿盖尔公爵和萨默塞特公爵。枢密院先是让几乎丧失意识的女王任命什鲁斯伯里为财政大臣，然后又连夜发送急件通知警备队保持警惕，以确保汉诺威王室宣告继位。 Had Bolingbroke prevailed at that meeting, we would probably have had a King James III, though there would almost certainly have been a civil war (instead of the minor fiasco of the Fifteen). Britain might have been more absolutist, more French influenced, more Catholic-tolerant and less commercial. 如果博林布鲁克在那场会议上取胜，我们也许会迎来一位詹姆斯三世国王，虽然那几乎一定会引发一场内战（而不是1715年詹姆斯党叛乱那种小闹剧）。不列颠也许会更加专制，受法国影响更大，更能容忍天主教，商业化也更少。 The stirrings of steam in the north that were to start the industrial revolution — the first faltering steps to turning heat into work — might have fizzled. The Act of Union with Scotland, agreed to some years earlier as part of the English insistence on the Hanoverian succession, might have unravelled. 北方那即将开启工业革命的滚滚蒸汽，也就是将热能用于生产活动的蹒跚尝试，也许就会胎死腹中。几年前通过的苏格兰联合法案——这是英国人坚持施加于汉诺威继承者的要求之一——，则可能就此解除。 At least, so goes conventional wisdom. In Churchill’s words, the outcome of that long meeting of the privy council was ‘No popery, no disputed succession, no French bayonets, no civil war’. 至少，传统的看法就是这样的。用丘吉尔的话说，枢密院那次长时间会议的结果是“没有罗马天主教，没有王位继承争端，没有法国的刺刀，没有内战。” However, there is another possibility. When not bonking, Bolingbroke was a philosopher, a religious free thinker greatly admired by Voltaire and Alexander Pope. 然而事情还有另一种可能性。当博林布鲁克并不沉迷于风月的时候，他是一位深受伏尔泰和亚历山大·蒲柏大力推崇的哲学家和宗教自由思想家。 His speeches and writings were read with avidity by the American founding fathers, who credited Bolingbroke with the idea that liberty means being free, ‘not of the law but by the law’. 其演讲和著作曾被后来的美国国父们如饥似渴地阅读，他们信奉博林布鲁克的这一理念：自由并不是“免于法律约束”的自由，而是“依靠法律而获得”的自由。 He invented the concept of an official political opposition and saw it as his duty to prevent the Whigs turning into a perpetual oligarchy. He proposed free trade with France. 博林布鲁克开创了正式政治反对派的概念，并将阻止辉格党成为永久性政治寡头视为己任。他还提出了与法国的自由贸易。 He was, in other words, a great deal more of an Enlightenment figure than the Whig who replaced him and, thanks to the blind support of George I and II, dominated politics for 20 years, while filling his pockets with ill-gotten gains: Robert Walpole. 换句话说，相比那个取代他的辉格党人——罗伯特·沃波尔，他远更像一位启蒙人物。而后者全靠乔治一世和二世的盲目支持，才主导政坛20年，并用不义之财塞满了自己的腰包。 Thus the cartoon version of history in which Whigs and Hanoverians brought liberty, parliament, Protestantism and trade, while Tories and Stuarts would have brought absolutism, Popery and civil war, may not be right. 因此，“辉格党和汉诺威王朝带来了自由、国会、新教和贸易，而如果换了托利党和斯图亚特王朝，带来的则会是专制、罗马天主教和内战”，这种卡通版历史可能是错误的。 You cannot quite help wondering if a Bolingbroke ascendancy might have given England a more vigorous Enlightenment, too, to rival those in France and Scotland. It has always puzzled me that the stars of the Enlightenment — Voltaire, Diderot, Hume, Smith and co. — included plenty of Scots and French, but no Englishmen. 你会不禁想象，如果当时博林布鲁克占据了主导，他也许会给英格兰带来一个更为活跃、足以媲美法国和苏格兰的启蒙运动。我一直有一个疑问，启蒙运动的璀璨群星，如伏尔泰、狄德罗、休谟和斯密等，其中有很多苏格兰人和法国人，却从来没有英格兰人。 Had Bolingbroke persuaded James Edward Stuart to turn Protestant, as he had tried to, then many British people would have welcomed a Stuart king. The idea of a German-speaking monarch was not at all popular. Shrewsbury’s coup might well have failed. 博林布鲁克曾尝试劝说詹姆斯·爱德华·斯图亚特【校注：即前述1715年叛乱的主导者，詹姆斯二世之子，史称“老僭王”】改信新教，如果他得以成功，那么许多不列颠人将会欢迎一位斯图亚特国王。由一位讲德语的人来当君主，这个主意从来都不受欢迎。这样的话，什鲁斯伯里的政变也许会彻底失败。 As it was, it was a close-run thing. There were plenty of Protestants who favoured James. I recently found out that my ancestor, who was Tory mayor of Newcastle that year, refused to declare the accession of George despite being a staunch Protestant. 其实就那时的情况来说，局面还是比较胶着的。当时有很多支持詹姆斯党的新教徒。我最近才发现我的祖先Richard Ridley那年担任纽卡斯尔的托利党人市长。虽然他是一位坚定的新教徒，但也拒绝宣布乔治登基的消息。 A rival faction did declare it, so Richard Ridley sent his thugs to stamp it out, resulting in a Friday night riot on the Quayside (nothing much has changed). 但有一个敌对派别宣布了，他就派手下的那些恶棍去摆平这件事情，结果某个周五晚上还在码头区导致了一场骚乱（这种情况现在也好不了多少）。 Still, it all worked out in the end. Britain may not have loved its new king, nor the corrupt grandees who ruled in his name and promptly debauched the currency in the South Sea Bubble. But George did give sanctuary to Voltaire when he was exiled from France, and gradually the country did take advantage of the largest free-trade area in Europe (England and Scotland) to sow the seeds of prosperity and incubate freedom. 尽管如此，事情最后还是得以解决。不列颠人也许从未爱戴过他们的新国王，更别说那些打着他名号统治，还在南海泡沫事件中快速贬值货币的腐败高官了。不过乔治毕竟在伏尔泰被法国驱逐之后给予其庇护，而且这个国家也逐步利用欧洲最大的自由贸易区（英格兰和苏格兰）播下了繁荣的种子，并且孕育了自由。 Bolingbroke’s most famous work, The Idea of a Patriot King, was written at Alexander Pope’s behest much later in 1738 to influence George I’s grandson Frederick, Prince of Wales, into being a monarch who rose above faction, was a father to his country and championed trade. 博林布鲁克最著名的作品《爱国者君主的观念》晚至1738年才在亚历山大·蒲柏的请求下写成，其目的是用来引导乔治一世的孙子，威尔士亲王弗雷德里克，成为一个超越党派、扮演国家慈父角色、并拥护贸易的君主。 Which, if you think about it, is roughly what we have now. 仔细想想，我们现在所拥有的体制，大体就是如此。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Rival theories for a global cooling 有关一次全球冷却事件的竞争理论    作者：Matt Ridley @ 2013-1-13 译者：史祥莆（微博：@史祥莆） 校对：Marcel ZHANG（微博：@马赫塞勒张），小册子（微博：@昵称被抢的小册子） 来源：作者个人网站，http://www.rationaloptimist.com/blog/younger-dryas.aspx Did a cosmic impact cause the Younger Dryas cooling? 新仙女木降温事件是天体撞击导致的吗？ My latest Mind and Matter column for the Wall Street Journal: Scientists, it's said, behave more like lawyers than philosophers. They do not so much test their theories as prosecute their cases, seeking supportive evidence and ignoring data that do not fit-a failing known as confirmation bias. They then accuse their opponents of doing the same thing. This is what makes debates over nature and nurture, dietary fat and climate change so polarized. 我在《华尔街日报》Mind and Matter专栏的最新文章中说： 据说科学家表现得更像律师而不是哲学家。他们不像对待案件诉讼那样详细地检验他们的理论，他们寻找支撑证据并且忽略掉那些不合用的数据——这就是被称为确认偏误【校注：指个人选择性地回忆、搜集有利细节，忽略不利或矛盾的资讯，来支持自己已有的想法的片面诠释的现象。】的过失。接着他们指控他们的对手在做同样的事。就是这个原因，导致有关先天与后天、膳食脂肪和气候变化等问题上的争议变得如此两极化。 But just because the prosecutor is biased in favor of his case does not mean the defendant is innocent. Sometimes biased advocates are right. An example of this phenomenon is now being played out in geology over the controversial idea that a meteorite or comet hit the earth 12,900 years ago and cooled the climate. 但检察官对案件带有偏见，并不意味着被告人无辜。有时候带偏见地坚决拥护是对的。这种现象最近在地质学领域有了个例子，那就是关于12900年前陨石（或彗星）撞击地球导致气候变冷的争议。 That the climate suddenly cooled then, plunging the Northern Hemisphere back into an ice age for 1,300 years, is not in doubt. The episode is known as the Younger Dryas, because in Scandinavia abundant pollen from a tundra flower called the mountain avens, Dryas octopetala, reappears in soil from this date, indicating that the forest had once more given way to tundra. With the sudden arrival of cooler, drier and less predictable seasons, early human attempts at agriculture in the Near East ceased, and people returned to nomadic hunting and gathering. 气候在那时突然变冷，使北半球猛然回到冰河时期并持续长达1300年，这是毫无疑问的。这段插曲被称为新仙女木事件，因为在斯堪的纳维亚，大量来自苔原花朵仙女木的花粉，在这一时期的土壤中再次出现，意味着森林曾经又一次让位于苔原。因为更加寒冷干旱和更加难以预测的季节变化突然出现，人类在近东的早期农业尝试停止了，人们回到了游动性的捕猎采集生活。 The cause of this cold lurch was seemingly settled some time ago when Wallace Broecker, a Columbia University geochemist, suggested that a North American ice sheet collapsed, flooding the Atlantic with fresh water, which interrupted the normal circulation of the Gulf Stream. 早些时候，造成这次寒冷突变的原因看似已有了定论。哥伦比亚大学的地质化学家Wallace Broecker认为，因北美冰盖崩塌而新增的融水涌入大西洋，这使得墨西哥湾流的正常循环被打断。 Then a marine geologist, James Kennett of the University of California, Santa Barbara, said he had found evidence of the impact of a large object from space 12,900 years ago, in the form of carbon spherules in silt. 然而，加州大学圣芭芭拉分校的一位海洋地理学家James Kennett说，他从淤泥里碳球粒状体的形态中发现了12900年前大型天体撞击的证据。 Dr. Kennett's argument is that a swarm of meteorites punched through the atmosphere and caused a vast conflagration, filling the air with dust and soot. This shut out the sun, causing decades of continuous winter -sufficient to trigger an advance of ice sheets that, even when the dust cleared, kept the climate cool for more than a thousand years, at least in the Northern Hemisphere. Kennett博士的观点是，大量陨石击穿大气层并导致了大规模燃烧，使空气中充满了灰尘和烟雾。它们遮蔽了太阳，导致了持续数十年的冬天，从而引致冰盖大幅扩张。即使灰尘消散后，这些冰盖也足以使寒冷气候维持一千年以上，至少在北半球是这样。 Dr. Kennett prosecuted his case with gusto, also suggesting that the impact had extinguished North American mammoths, just as an earlier impact had finished off the dinosaurs (a theory hard to reconcile with the survival of mammoths for thousands of years longer on islands off Siberia and Alaska, where hunters could not reach them). Kennett博士兴致盎然地提出了他的根据，还认为这次撞击导致了北美猛犸象的灭绝，就像之前的一次撞击导致了恐龙灭绝那样（不过这个理论很难和如下事实协调起来：猛犸象在猎人无法到达的西伯利亚和阿拉斯加边缘岛屿又生存了几千年）。 He suffered a key setback in recent years when several groups failed to find the right kinds of spherules or otherwise duplicate the results of his team's work-and, worse, when a spherule sample from Younger Dryas rocks proved to be only 135 years old. 近年来他遭受的一个重要挫折是，几个小组都没能找到能印证该理论的其他球粒体，或者好歹和他的团队有同样的发现，并且更糟糕的是，一个新仙女木岩石中的球粒体样本被证明只有135年历史。 But spherules, dated to the right period, now have apparently shown up. Dr. Kennett and colleagues have published evidence in the prestigious Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that a "black mat" from the sediment of a Mexican lake dates to 12,900 years ago and shows a sudden peak of magnetic and carbon spherules, "nanodiamonds" of a kind known as lonsdaleite, and charcoal: all of it evidence of extreme heat. 但是如今，形成年代与该理论吻合的球粒体看来已经被找到了。Kennett博士和他的同事们在权威的《美国国家科学院院刊》(PNAS)上发表了证据，表明墨西哥湖沉积物中有一黑色薄层形成于12900年前，其中含有突然陡增的带磁性碳球粒体，一种被称为六方碳的“纳米钻石”，还有木炭：所有这些都是极端高温的证据。 Last year Michael Higgins of the University of Quebec published details of an underwater crater in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, arguing that it may also date from as little as 12,900 years ago. The crater, three miles across, has the characteristic central mound of a fresh meteorite impact. Its meteorite was probably too small to shift the climate, but perhaps it was part of a swarm. 去年，魁北克大学的Michael Higgins发表了关于圣劳伦斯湾一个水下陨石坑的细节，声称它也可以追溯到12900年前。这处3英里宽的陨石坑具有新陨石撞击坑所特有的中心土丘。这颗陨石可能太小，尚不足以影响气候，但也许它是一个陨石群的一部分。 After the previous debacles, the jury will take much convincing that the new results can be replicated. But the burden of proof has shifted a little in Dr. Kennett's favor. After all, Dr. Broecker and his followers, too, may be emotionally invested in his ice-sheet theory: Confirmation bias can affect us all. 先前的论点垮台之后，要让陪审团相信新结果能够重复观察到，还需要花很多功夫。但举证责任现在向有利于Kennett博士的方向偏移了一点。毕竟，Broecker博士和他的追随者们也可能已经在他的冰盖理论上投入了情感：确认偏误可以影响我们所有人。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Mysterious Indo-European homeland may have been in the steppes of Ukraine and Russia 乌俄大草原或许是印欧人的神秘故乡 作者：Michael Balter @ 2015-2-13 译者：@Ulula_Ali_Reis 校对：林翠（@cwlinnil），小册子（@昵称被抢的小册子） 制图：amen 来源：sciencemag.org，http://news.sciencemag.org/archaeology/2015/02/mysterious-indo-european-homeland-may-have-been-steppes-ukraine-and-russia What do you call a male sibling? If you speak English, he is your “brother.” Greek? Call him “phrater.” Sanskrit, Latin, Old Irish? “Bhrater,” “frater,” or “brathir,” respectively. 你如何称呼与你同父母的男性呢？如果用英语，他就是你的“brother”。在希腊语里，他就叫“phrater”。而在梵语、拉丁语、古爱尔兰语里，他分别是“bhrater”、“frater”、“brathir”。 Ever since the mid-17th century, scholars have noted such similarities among the so-called Indo-European languages, which span the world and number more than 400 if dialects are included. Researchers agree that they can probably all be traced back to one ancestral language, called Proto-Indo-European (PIE). But for nearly 20 years, scholars have debated vehemently when and where PIE arose. 自17世纪中叶起，学者们已注意到所谓“印欧系”各语言之间，有着诸如此类的相似性。印欧语系横跨全世界，算上方言的话，包括了超过400多种语言。研究者认为，这些语言都可追溯到同一始祖语言——原始印欧语（PIE）。然而关于原始印欧语在何时何地出现，学者们已经激烈争论了近20年。 Two long-awaited studies, one described online this week in a preprint and another scheduled for publication later this month, have now used different methods to support one leading hypothesis: that PIE was first spoken by pastoral herders who lived in the vast steppe lands north of the Black Sea beginning about 6000 years ago. One study points out that these steppe land herders have left their genetic mark on most Europeans living today. 如今，有两份众人期待已久的研究报告，其中一份本周已在网上发布了预印本，而另一份则安排在本月稍晚时出版，通过不同方法，两份报告都支持了一个主流假说：最先使用原始印欧语的，是6000年前生活在黑海以北大草原的畜牧群体。其中一份研究指出，在今天大多数欧洲人身上均能找到这些草原牧民的遗传标记。 The studies’ conclusions emerge from state-of-the-art ancient DNA and linguistic analyses, but the debate over PIE’s origins is likely to continue. A rival hypothesis—that early farmers living in Anatolia (modern Turkey) about 8000 years ago were the original PIE speakers—is not ruled out by the new analyses, most agree. 这两份研究的结论，得自于最新技术下的古DNA研究以及语言学分析，不过有关原始印欧语起源的争论大约还得继续下去。大多数研究者同意，另一个与之竞争的假说——认为距今8000余年前生活在安纳托利亚（今土耳其）的早期农耕者，才是原始印欧语的最初使用者——并未被新的分析成果所排除。 Although the steppe hypothesis has now received a major boost, “I would not say the Anatolian hypothesis has been killed,” says Carles Lalueza-Fox, a geneticist at PompeuFabra University in Barcelona, Spain, who participated in neither of the new studies. 尽管如今草原假说得到了较多的支持【译注：草原假说又称库尔干假说】，卡勒斯·拉鲁扎－福克斯表示："我不认为安纳托利亚假说已经寿终正寝。”他是西班牙巴塞罗那庞贝法布拉大学的一名遗传学家，未参与上述两项新研究。 Up until the 1980s, variations of the steppe hypothesis held sway among most linguists and archaeologists tracking down Indo-European’s birthplace. Then in 1987, archaeologist Colin Renfrew of the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom proposed that PIE spread with farming from its origins in the Fertile Crescent of the Middle East, moving west into Europe and east further into Asia; over time the languages continued to spread and diversify into the many Indo-European languages we know today. 直到80年代，各种版本的草原假说深深影响着寻找印欧语发源地的多数语言学家和考古学家。之后在1987年，英国剑桥大学考古学家科林·伦弗鲁提出，原始印欧语是从其发源地中东新月沃地（Fertile Crescent）出发，伴随着农业扩张，向西传播至欧洲，向东传播远至亚洲。随着时间推移，印欧语持续四处传播，分化成了今天我们所知的诸多印欧语系语言。 Traditional linguists, meanwhile, painstakingly reconstructed PIE by extrapolating back from modern languages and ancient writings. (Listen to a short fable spoken in PIE here.) They disdained Renfrew’s idea of an Anatolian homeland, arguing for example that the languages were still too similar to have begun diverging 8000 years ago. 与此同时，传统语言学家则从现代语言和古代文字材料回推，煞费苦心地重建原始印欧语（点击此处收听一小段以原始印欧语讲述的传说故事）。他们鄙视伦弗鲁的安纳托利亚起源观点，他们的论证理由之一是，印欧诸语言迄今仍太过相似，因而还不可能从8000年前就开始分化了。【译注：这一论证基于某些语言学家的这样一个假设：语言分化程度随时间而提高，当两支语言分开五六千年以上时，其词汇上的同源关系就难以辨认了，分开一万年时，即便综合其他语言学特性，同源关系也难以辨认。】 【图一】 从右往左分别是：安纳托利亚语族，吐火罗语族，亚美尼亚语族，希腊语族，阿尔巴尼亚语族，印度-伊朗语族，波罗的-斯拉夫语族，日尔曼语族，意大利语族，凯尔特语族 More than 400 Indo-European languages diverged from a common ancestral tongue; the earliest ones (top right), Anatolian and Tocharian, arose in today’s Turkey and China, respectively. 超过400种印欧语系内的语言从一种共同的始祖语言分化而出；最早的两支（右侧顶部），安纳托利亚语族和吐火罗语族分别出现在今天的土耳其和中国。 But many archaeologists noted that genetic and archaeological studies did indeed suggest massive ancient migrations from the Middle East into Europe that could have brought PIE and sparked such language diversification. In 2003, evolutionary biologists Russell Gray and Quentin Atkinson of the University of Auckland in New Zealand used computational methods from evolutionary biology to track words as they changed over time, and concluded that the Anatolian hypothesis was right. But steppe supporters remained unconvinced, even after Gray’s team published a confirming analysis in Science in 2012. 但是很多考古学家注意到，遗传学和考古学研究证实了，由中东至欧洲的古代大规模迁徙确实发生过，这一迁徙可能令原始印欧语随之传播并促进其分化。2003年，新西兰奥克兰大学进化生物学家拉塞尔·格雷和昆廷·阿特金森使用进化生物学所发展出的计算技术，跟踪对比了词汇随时间推移而发生的变化，并断定安纳托利亚假说是正确的。但是，尽管格雷的团队2012年在《科学》杂志上发表了确认这一判断的分析，仍未能说服草原假说的支持者。 Fans of the steppe hypothesis are now hailing a genetics study that used ancient DNA from 69 Europeans who lived between 8000 and 3000 years ago to genetically track ancient population movements. 草原假说的支持者们如今正在为一项遗传学研究而欢呼雀跃，该研究利用了生活在3000至8000年前的69个古代欧洲人的DNA样本，从遗传学上追踪了古代人群的迁移活动。 The work, now posted on the bioRxiv preprint server, was done by a large team led by geneticists David Reich and Iosif Lazaridis of Harvard Medical School in Boston and Wolfgang Haak of the University of Adelaide in Australia. 这项研究由三位遗传学家——波士顿哈佛医学院的大卫·赖克、约瑟夫·拉扎里迪斯和澳大利亚阿德莱德大学的沃尔夫冈·哈克——所领导的一个庞大研究团队承担，其结果已公布在bioRxiv的预印本服务器上。 Among the team’s samples were nine ancient individuals—six males, two females, and a child of undetermined sex—from the Yamnaya culture north of the Black Sea in today’s Russia. Beginning about 6000 years ago, these steppe people herded cattle and other animals, buried their dead in earthen mounds called kurgans, and may have created some of the first wheeled vehicles. (Many linguists think PIE already had a word for “wheel.”) 该团队所使用的基因样本中，有9份古代个体样本采自黑海北岸今俄罗斯境内的颜那亚（Yamnaya）文化群体，其中包括6个男性、2个女性和一个无法确定性别的儿童。大约从6000年前开始，这群草原居民畜养牛群和其他动物，把族人的遗骸埋葬在被称为库尔干（kurgans）的土丘中，而且可能已制造出一些最早期的有轮车辆（许多语言学家认为原始印欧语中已有表示“车轮”的单词）。 The team also retrieved ancient DNA from four skeletons from the later Corded Ware culture of central Europe, known for the distinctive pottery for which they are named (see photo above), as well as their dairy farming skills. Archaeologists had noted similarities among these cultures, especially in their emphasis on cattle herding. 研究团队还从中欧地区属于晚期绳纹器（Corded Ware）文化的四具骨骸中提取了古DNA，该文化以其独具特色并因此得名的陶器（见图2）和发达的乳业技术而闻名。考古学家业已指出这些文化之间的相似性，特别是在重视养牛业这一点上。 【图2】 The creators of the Corded Ware culture, named after this intricate pottery, may have spoken an Indo-European language derived from one spoken by herders from the East. 绳纹器文化以其复杂的陶器而得名，该文化的创造者们可能讲一种从东部牧民语言衍化而来的印欧语。 The team focused on sections of DNA that they suspected would provide markers for past population movements and identified nearly 400,000 DNA positions across the genome in each individual. They used new techniques to zero in on the key positions in the nuclear DNA, allowing them to analyze twice as many ancient nuclear DNA samples from Europe and Asia as previously reported in the entire literature. 研究团队将注意力集中在一些DNA片段上，他们猜测其中包含了能够揭示过去人口迁移的标记，并在每一个体样本的基因组上识别了将近40万个基因位置。研究者借助新技术校正了核DNA上的关键点位，从而得以分析来自古代欧亚的大量核DNA样本，数量两倍于之前所有文献报告过的总数。 The comparison of the two cultures’ DNA showed that the four Corded Ware people could trace an astonishing three-quarters of their ancestry to the Yamnaya. That suggests a massive migration of Yamnaya people from their steppe homeland into central Europe about 4500 years ago, one that could have spread an early form of the Indo-European language, the team concludes. Thus the paper for the first time links two far-flung material cultures to specific genetic signatures and to each other—and suggests, the team says, that they spoke a form of Indo-European. 通过比对两种文化的DNA，发现四个绳纹器人样本中，有高达3/4的血统可以追溯到颜那亚人。研究团队的结论是，这一证据说明了，大约在4500年前，大量颜那亚人从他们的草原故土迁入中欧，并可能将一种早期形态的印欧语传播了出去。这份报告首次将两个相距甚远的物质文化通过明确的基因标识联系在了一起。同时，研究团队还指出，两个人群使用的都是某种印欧语言。 The Corded Ware culture soon spread across north and central Europe, extending as far as today’s Scandinavia. So the “steppe ancestry,” as the authors of the preprint call it, is found in most present-day Europeans, who can trace their ancestry back to both the Corded Ware people and the earlier Yamnaya. The work thus adds to genetic findings from last fall showing that the genetic makeup of today’s Europeans is more complicated than anyone expected. 绳纹器文化迅速扩散到整个北部和中部欧洲，最远到达今天的斯堪的纳维亚地区。所以预印本作者所说的“草原血统”，在当今大部分欧洲人身上都能找到，他们可以循系谱上溯到绳纹器人和更早的颜那亚人。这项工作因而补充了去年秋天的遗传学研究成果，揭示了当今欧洲人的基因构成比大家预计的要复杂得多。 The results are a “smoking gun” that an ancient migration into Europe from the steppe occurred, says Pontus Skoglund, an ancient DNA specialist who is now working in Reich’s lab but was not a co-author on the paper. (Although the paper is publicly available on a preprint server, it is not yet published, and the authors declined to discuss their work until it’s published.) The paper “levels the playing field between the steppe hypothesis and the Anatolian hypothesis by showing that the spread of farming was not the only large migration into Europe,”Skoglund says. 古DNA专家蓬图斯·斯科格隆目前在赖克实验室工作，但并未参与编写上述研究报告，他说上述研究成果为古代草原牧民入欧大迁徙提供了“确凿证据”。（尽管该报告已经在预印本服务器上公开，但尚未出版，编者们拒绝在正式出版前讨论他们的研究成果。）如斯科格隆所说，这一报告“显示了农业扩张并非唯一一次进入欧洲的大迁徙，从而拉平了草原假说与安纳托利亚假说之间的竞争局面。” The second new paper to address PIE’s origin, in press at Language and due to be published online during the last week of February, uses linguistic data to focus on when PIE arose. A team led by University of California, Berkeley, linguists Andrew Garrett and Will Chang employed the language database and evolutionary methods previously used by Gray to create a family tree of the Indo-European languages from their first origins in PIE. 第二份关于探寻原始印欧语起源地的新报告，已发表在Language杂志上，并准备于二月份最后一周在网上公布，该报告运用语言学数据来研究原始印欧语出现的时间。加州大学伯克利分校的语言学家安德鲁·加勒特和威尔·张所领导的团队使用了语言学数据库以及之前格雷使用过的进化生物学计算方法，构建了以原始印欧语为起点的印欧语系家族树。 But in certain cases, Garrett and Chang’s group declared that one language was directly ancestral to another and put that into their tree as a certainty. For example, they assumed that Latin was directly ancestral to Romance languages such as Spanish, French, and Italian—something that many but not all linguists agree on—and that Vedic Sanskrit was directly ancestral to the Indo-Aryan languages spoken on the Indian subcontinent. 但在某些实例中，加勒特和张领导的团队宣称某种语言为另一语言的直接先祖，并确切地将其安置在树状图中。例如他们认为拉丁语是罗曼语族（如西班牙语、法语和意大利语）的直接先祖（许多但并非所有语言学家赞同这一点），而吠陀梵语则是在印度次大陆盛行的印度-雅利安语支的直接先祖。 These constraints transformed the results from what Gray’s team has published: Garrett, Chang, and their colleagues found that the origins of PIE were about 6000 years ago, consistent with the steppe hypothesis but not the Anatolian, because the farming migration out of the Middle East was 8000 years ago. Once the original PIE speakers began to sweep out of the steppes about 4500 years ago, their languages spread and diversified, Garrett’s team says. 这些限定改变了格雷团队的研究报告所引出的结论：加勒特和张以及他们的同事发现，原始印欧语大致起源于6000年前，这与草原假说一致，而与安纳托利亚假说不符——因为走出中东的农业迁移发生在8000年前。加勒特团队认为，在约4500年前，使用最初原始印欧语的人群开始从草原向外迁徙，他们的语言也随之传播并分化。 But many supporters of the Anatolian hypothesis remain staunchly unconvinced. Paul Heggarty, a linguist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, questions Garrett’s methods, arguing that, for example, linguists cannot be sure if the Latin attested to in written documents really was the direct ancestor of later Romance languages, rather than some dialect of Latin for which no record remains. Even small differences in the true ancestral language, Heggarty insists, could throw off the timing estimates. 但是许多安纳托利亚假说的支持者依然坚持己见，德国莱比锡的马克斯·普朗克进化人类学研究所的语言学家保罗·赫加蒂质疑了加勒特的研究方法。例如，他认为语言学家无法确定，后来的罗曼语族的直接先祖，是由书写文档所见证的拉丁语，还是某种无文字记录留存的拉丁方言。赫加蒂坚称，即使在真正先祖语言的判定上仅有细微差异，也可使时间推算工作前功尽弃。 As for the Reich paper, many archaeologists and linguists praise the data on ancient migrations. But they challenge what they see as its speculative link to language. The movement out of the steppes, Renfrew says, “may be a secondary migration into central Europe 3000 to 4000 years later than the spread of farmers, which first brought Indo-European speech to Europe.” 至于赖克的那篇论文，许多考古学家和语言学家高度评价了其有关古代迁徙的数据资料，但他们质疑这些数据和语言传播的联系只是猜测性的。对于来自草原的大迁徙，伦弗鲁声称：“也许进入中欧的第二次大迁徙比农业扩张晚了3000到4000年，而第一次大迁徙已经将印欧语言带进了欧洲。” If so, the Yamnaya steppe people would not have spoken PIE but an already derived Indo-European tongue ancestral to today’s Balto-Slavic languages such as Russian and Polish, Heggarty says. He adds that the wording of the Reich paper is “misleading.” 赫加蒂说，如果是这样的话，那么颜那亚的草原居民说的就不是原始印欧语，而是一种已从原始印欧语中分化出来的印欧语言——也就是今日俄语、波兰语之类波罗的-斯拉夫语族的先祖语言。他认为赖克论文中的措辞具有“误导性”。 Indeed, in a lengthy discussion in the paper’s Supplementary Information section, Reich and colleagues do concede that “the ultimate question of the Proto-Indo-European homeland is unresolved by our data.” They suggest that more ancient DNA, especially from points east of the steppes, may finally tie our linguistic history with our genes. 实际上，在论文补充信息部分的一段冗长讨论中，赖克和他同事的确承认：“我们的数据并未彻底解决PIE起源地这一终极问题。”他们认为，如果能收集到更多古DNA，特别是来自草原东部边界的DNA的话，也许最终能够把基因与语言演变史联系起来。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

Daniel J. Boorstin, RIP - Historian, Critic, and American Man of Books 丹尼尔·约瑟夫·布尔斯廷，息止安所 ——美国历史学家、评论家和饱读之士

作者：《新亚特兰蒂斯》多名编辑 @ 2004年春季第五号 译者：Marcel ZHANG（@马赫塞勒张） 校对：史祥莆（@史祥莆），慕白（@李凤阳他说） 来源：《新亚特兰蒂斯》（The New Atlantis），http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/daniel-j-boorstin-rip The nation’s collective IQ took a nosedive on February 28, 2004, when Daniel Joseph Boorstin — historian, professor, writer, curator, librarian, and great American booster — died of pneumonia at age 89. 美利坚的民族智慧在2004年2月28日这天蒙受了重大损失，是日，美国历史学家、教授、作家、博物学家、图书馆馆长、伟大的美国促进者丹尼尔·约瑟夫·布尔斯廷（Daniel Joseph Boorstin）因肺炎逝世，享年89岁。 Boorstin was best known as a former Librarian of Congress and the author of two best-selling trilogies, one about early America (The Americans, 1958, 1965, 1973), and one about Western science, art, and philosophy (The Discoverers, 1983; The Creators, 1992; and The Seekers, 1998). 布尔斯廷因出任美国国会图书馆馆长和作为两套畅销三部曲的作者而为世人所知，两套三部曲分别是关于早期美国的三部曲（即（《美国人》三部曲，分别出版于1958、1965和1973年）和关于西方科学、艺术和哲学的三部曲（即“人类文明史三部曲”，分别为出版于1983年的《发现者》、1992年的《创造者》和1998年的《探索者》）。 These works of popular history, together with Boorstin’s many other books and essays, combined vast knowledge, erudition, wit, and clarity, and were especially renowned for unexpected and illuminating insights on everyday life, particularly on the unforeseen significance of technological developments. 这些有关通俗历史的杰作，连同他的其他著作和论文，都蕴含着无尽的知识、学识、才识和卓识，尤其是因为其中对于日常生活那出乎意料且富有启发的洞察，特别是对于科技发展那未曾被预见的重要性的洞察，而享有盛名。 Born in Atlanta in 1914, and raised in Tulsa, Oklahoma, Boorstin was quickly recognized as a prodigy, and entered Harvard University at age 15. From there he went to Oxford to study law, and earned the rare distinction of being called to the English bar as an American. Returning to Harvard, he was a lecturer in legal history, and published his first book, The Mysterious Science of the Law, in 1941. 1914年，布尔斯廷出生于亚特兰大，而后在俄克拉荷马州的塔尔萨长大，他很小的时候就被公认为是一个神童，并在年仅15岁时进入哈佛大学。以此为跳板，他又前往牛津大学专修法学，此外还以美国人的身份获得了受邀进入英格兰大律师工会的殊荣。回到哈佛后，他成为法律史讲师，并在1941年出版了他的第一部作品《神秘的法科学》。 His interests turned from law to history, and in 1944 he began a 25-year stint as a member of the history faculty at the University of Chicago. Not formally trained in history, Boorstin was, in his own words, always an amateur — which, he reveled in pointing out, etymologically meant simply “a lover” of the practice. He sometimes seemed to get a special pleasure out of the disdain in which the professionals held him throughout his career. 此后，他的志趣由法律转向了历史，并在1944开始了在芝加哥大学历史系长达25年的执教生涯。布尔斯廷并不是历史学科班出身，用他自己的话讲，始终是个业余人士（amateur）——他总乐于指出，从词源上讲，amateur的意思是“喜好”某种行当的人。在他的整个职业生涯中，总是有内行向他投来鄙夷的目光，而他似乎从中得到了某种特殊的快感。 While at Chicago, Boorstin’s work focused mainly on early American history, and through a series of books (including his Americans trilogy) he pursued the thesis that America’s political life was so peculiar and successful not because of its theories of government, but because the unique circumstances of American history and geography have made Americans inhospitable to abstract philosophy: a nation of pragmatists rather than ideologues, and yet a nation that understands its pragmatism as a theory. 在芝大期间，布尔斯廷的研究主要集中于早期美国历史，并试图在一系列著述（包括他的《美国人》三部曲）中阐述一个论点，那就是美国的政治生活之所以能如此特殊、如此成功，并不是因为它的执政理念，而是因为美国独一无二的历史和地理环境使得美国人对抽象哲学不甚热衷：这个国家的人多为实用主义者，而非理论家，但同时又将实用主义作为一种理论加以阐发。 In his characteristically paradoxical style, Boorstin wrote that “the belief in the existence of an American theory has made a theory superfluous.” This idea, advanced in Boorstin’s underappreciated 1953 book The Genius of American Politics, put him at odds with the scholars of ideology who then dominated the academy, and earned him a reputation as a peculiar conservative iconoclast that would stay with him. 布尔斯廷以他一贯的诡逆风格写道：“认为存在一种‘美国理论’就已经使这种理论的存在成为多余”。他在出版于1953年的一本被低估的著作《美国政治精神》中提出的这个观点，使得他与一些学者格格不入，这些学者的意识形态统治着当时的学术界，为此他还收获了一个伴其终身的名号——乖戾的右翼反传统者。 Boorstin’s boldest and most groundbreaking work was, however, not a history of early America but a piercing analysis of contemporary American self-delusion. The Image, published in 1961, was an effort to reveal the ways in which new technologies, combined with a traditional American craving for novelty and penchant for fantastical salesmanship, were increasingly distancing American life from reality. 不过，布尔斯廷最为大胆和革新的成果不在于早期美国历史，而在于对当代美国的自我蒙蔽所做出的一个鞭辟入里的分析。于1961年出版的《美国虚构事件指南》一书，便旨在揭示，新兴技术与传统美国人对新奇事物和神奇推销术趋之若鹜的结合，是如何令美国人的生活越来越远离现实的。 In the book, Boorstin introduced the term “pseudo-event” (an event, such as a press conference or “photo opportunity,” that exists purely for the purpose of being reported); he famously defined the celebrity as “a person who is well-known for his well-knownness”; and he sought to show, through historical narrative and telling anecdotes, what has been lost and what has been gained as news-making replaces news-gathering, celebrities replace heroes, tourists replace travelers, and images replace ideals. 在这本书中，布尔斯廷率先提出了一个术语“伪事件”（即这样一种事件，比如新闻发布会或“拍照时机”，这种事件的存在纯粹是为了被报道） ；他对名人的著名定义是：“一个因其知名度而知名的人” ；此外，他还千方百计地通过史述和轶事展现诸如以制造新闻取代搜集新闻，以名流取代英雄，以观光客取代旅行者，和以图像取代理想等等现象中的成败得失。 Boorstin’s comments on the first televised presidential debate (the Kennedy-Nixon debate, held the year before The Image was published) still ring as true in this election year as they did four decades ago: 布尔斯廷对第一次总统大选电视辩论（肯尼迪与尼克松的辩论，在《美国虚构事件指南》一书出版前一年举行）所做的评论，在今年这个选举年与40年前一样振聋发聩： “The drama of the situation was mostly specious, or at least had an extremely ambiguous relevance to the main (but forgotten) issue: which participant was better qualified for the presidency. Of course, a man’s ability, while standing under klieg lights, without notes, to answer in two and a half minutes a question kept secret until that moment, had only the most dubious relevance — if any at all — to his real qualifications to make deliberate presidential decisions on long-standing public questions after being instructed by a corps of experts. “这种情形下的戏剧性场面多半是华而不实的，或者至少在与这个主要问题（但被遗忘了）的相关性上是极其含糊不清的：究竟哪个参选人更有资格登上总统宝座？当然，一个人站在弧光灯之下在两分半钟内脱稿回答一个直到那时之前都秘而不宣的问题的能力，跟他作为总统做出决策的能力，只有微不足道的关系，甚至毫无关系。总统就长期存在的公共问题做决策时，总是在有一群专家提供咨询，在深思熟虑之后做出的决定。 “The greatest presidents in our history (with the possible exception of F.D.R.) would have done miserably; but our most notorious demagogues would have shone. Pseudo-events thus lead to emphasis on pseudo-qualification.” “我们历史中最伟大的总统——可能要排除小罗斯福总统这个特例——可能会在电视辩论中表现得非常糟糕；而那些最臭名昭著的煽动家很可能表现得光芒四射。因此，伪事件导致了对伪资格的重视。” The character of television, Boorstin argued, reinforced the powerful American love of illusion, and the results were not always to be welcomed. 布尔斯廷还认为，电视的特质助长了美国人对假象的热爱，而且有时会产生不受欢迎的后果。 In this and other books, Boorstin made much of the ways in which new technologies and technological attitudes radically alter familiar ways of living in utterly unexpected ways, often for better, though sometimes for worse. In his books and numerous essays, Boorstin reflected on the meaning of science and technology for human life, past and present. 在这本以及其他书中，布尔斯廷列举了很多新型技术和技术性态度是怎样把生活方式彻底转变为一种完全出乎意料的形式的，通常是改良，但有时是恶化。在他数目繁多的书籍和论文中，他反思了由古至今科技对人类生活的意义。 In one essay, “The Republic of Technology and the Limits of Prophecy,” he describes some of the technological forces “that will shape our American lives” in the twenty-first century: Technology invents needs and exports problems; it creates momentum and is irreversible; it uproots and assimilates; it insulates and isolates. 在一篇论文《科技共和与预言之局限》中，他描绘了某些科技力量在21世纪“将会重塑我们的美国生活”：科技催生需求，但同时制造难题；科技会制造出一种态势，而且不可逆转；科技力量摧枯拉朽又潜移默化，隔离社会并孤立人性。 Will we be able, Boorstin wondered, “to share the exploring spirit, reach for the unknown, enjoy multiplying our wants, live in a world whose rhetoric is advertising, whose standard of living has become its morality — yet avoid the delusions of utopia and live a life within satisfying limits?” 布尔斯廷思考的是，我们是否能够“分享探索精神，寻求未知世界，享受欲望倍增的快感，生存于一个以广告为修辞、以生存标准为道德规范的世界，却又回避对乌托邦的幻想而在令人满足的边界中安于现状？” Timepieces and telescopes, engines and electricity, statistics and space — no aspect of science and technology was beyond his ken. But Boorstin always argued that the book was in fact man’s greatest technical innovation, never surpassed. “The computer can help us find what we know is there,” he said in a speech at the dawn of the age of personal computers, “but the book remains our symbol and our resource for the unimagined question and the unwelcome answer.” 计时器与望远镜，引擎与电力，统计与太空——科技的方方面面都没有脱离他的视野。而布尔斯廷却时常强调，书籍实际上才是人类无出其右的最伟大技术革新。他在个人电脑时代前夕的一次演讲中说到:“计算机可以帮我们找到已经确定在那的东西，但为了探寻以前未曾想象过的问题，找到不受欢迎的答案，书籍仍然是我们的路标，是我们的资料库。” And Boorstin was always identified with books. His nomination by President Ford to be Librarian of Congress in 1975 was a natural choice, though professional librarians opposed him as — again — a mere amateur, and some liberals in Washington thought him too conservative. A more practical obstacle to his appointment, though, was the demand by several Senators that the prodigious Boorstin not do any of his own writing while he headed the Library of Congress. 并且布尔斯廷也经常被和书籍联系在一起。1975年他被福特总统提名为美国国会图书馆馆长就是一个实至名归的选择，尽管职业图书馆管理员们又一次以他不过是个业余人士为由来反对，此外，一些华盛顿的自由派也觉得他过于保守。而另一个对其任命更实际的阻碍是，几位参议员要求布尔斯廷在供职期间不可著书立说。 Boorstin refused, but promised to write only on his own time, and during his twelve years as Librarian of Congress he continued to write on weekends, in the evenings, and on nearly every weekday from 4 a.m. to 9 a.m., publishing several books and collections of essays. 布尔斯廷拒绝了，但他保证只利用个人时间来写作。在任职美国国会图书馆馆长长达12年期间，他在每个周末，每个晚上和几乎每个工作日的早晨四点到九点都在持续写作，其间出版了几本著作和论文集。 His term at the Library of Congress was noted for its focus on modernizing and democratizing the library’s resources, making them available to the public, and not just to members of Congress. Boorstin opened the library’s reading rooms and collections to all, and during his term the library began to host public events and act as a center of intellectual activity in Washington. 他在国会图书馆的任期因致力于将图书馆资源现代化和民主化而为世人所知，他让这些资源面向公众开放，而不仅限于国会成员。布尔斯廷将图书馆阅览室和馆藏对外开放，而且在他任职期间，图书馆开始承办公共活动，并成为华盛顿的一个学术活动中心。 He even ordered the majestic bronze doors of the library’s main building to be opened up. “They said it would create a draft,” Boorstin told reporters, “and I replied, ‘Great — that’s just what we need.’” 他甚至曾经下令让图书馆主建筑那宏伟铜门保持敞开。布尔斯廷告诉记者：“他们说这会引起一阵气流，而我的回答是，‘太好了，这正是我们所需要的。’” For six decades, Daniel J. Boorstin’s keen eye and sharp pen were just what America needed to understand the flow and meaning of its history, and to think about its future with a mind open to the unexpected. 60年来，布尔斯廷那敏锐的视角和凌厉的笔触正是美国亟需的，借以了解自身历史的流程和意义，以面向未知的开放心态来看待自身的未来。 In The Seekers, his final book, he warned of the dangers of giving in to the modern technical outlook and forgetting to look upon the world with awe: “Western culture has turned from seeking the end or purpose to seeking causes — from the Why to the How. Might this empty meaning from our human experience?” It was an open question, and Boorstin’s own career offered hope that the answer did not have to be yes. He shall be missed. 他在最后一本著作《探索者》中，对屈服于现代科技图景和忘记对世界心存敬畏的危险发出了警告：“西方文化已经从探求尽头或目标转向了探寻源由——从探寻“为何”转向探寻“如何”。这会清除我们人类经验的意义吗？”这是个没有答案的问题，而布尔斯廷的事业给了我们希望：此问题的答案未必是肯定的。他理应被怀念。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

【2015-08-10】 @冬川豆 “在可以预见的未来，认同政治的历史影响将会凌驾于共识政治之上。我之所以要给读者提供认知训练，就是为了让他们在即将来临的决断时刻正确判断形势。骰子落地以前，机会千金难买；骰子一旦落地，坐失良机者必定后悔莫及。”《读史早知今日事——<经与史>跋》 http://t.cn/RLEXoZc @whigzhou: 我来概括一下吧，本文大概表达了三点意思。A）我们需要某种历史哲学吗？需要。这点 我完全同意，理由见托马斯·库恩，如我常说的：1）不戴上某副眼镜，你啥也看不见，2）眼镜质量严重影响观看效果；3）假如你以为自己没戴眼镜，那其实只是因为你对自己所戴眼镜缺乏自省，而这往往意味着你那副眼镜质量很差 @whigzhou: B）第二点意思可以用我的两勺旧鸡汤概括：1）等科学证据来了再行动（或判断），是很不科学的；2）一个理性的人，会利用任何线索（无论有多微弱）来调整自己的判断和行动，以不合科学评审标准而放弃这样的机会，是很不理性的 @whigzhou: 好，现在最精彩的部分来了，C）那么历史哲学究竟价值何在？答：它把历史学变成了狗屎，正如科学哲学把科学变成了狗屎，历史哲学是文明曙光，历史学则是文明朽坏之际发出的腐臭 #神奇大逆转# @whigzhou: #大伯剃头学#  

【2015-08-03】 @海德沙龙 人类男性间的性竞争强度历来很高，而且远远高于女性，在历史上大部分时间，留下后代的男性数量大概只有女性的1/4-1/3，不过这份最新研究显示，农业起源之后不久，男性间的性竞争强度突然急剧提高，背后原因引人深思…… @侯杨方: 根据明朝徽州的户口册，我算出临终时，只有三分之一成年男子有男性后代。 @whigzhou: 哇～ @大音希声声声:貌似黑非洲没有经历过长时期的农业文明，是否他们的基因就还比较多样性…所以…接下去就有点政治不正确了…… @whigzhou: 下撒哈拉非洲的农业历史并不短，班图语系各族有很长农耕史，尼罗-撒哈拉语系各族则有很长畜牧史，后者甚至已独立发展出了乳糖耐受 @whigzhou: 非洲的基因多样性最高，是因为她是智人的发源地，发源地多样性最高，这是进化的普遍现象，包括文化进化也是，比如波利尼西亚语在其发源地台湾的多样性，比台湾以外的全部波利尼西亚语加起来还高 @whigzhou: 班图大扩张就是农业民族从西非向东向南扩散的过程，和东亚类似，尼罗语牧民也在不断向南侵袭，但不同的是，非洲的热带雨林（及其孳生的病原体）构成了此类大规模扩张/替代的巨大屏障，所以欧亚大陆那种规模和频率的大清洗就较少发生，这大概也为非洲保留了更多多样性  

The Dark Age Myth: An Atheist Reviews “God’s Philosophers” 黑暗时代神话：一位无神论者评《上帝的哲学家》 作者：Tim O‘Neill @ 2009-10-17 译者：Ghost（@ Ghostmarine） 校对：Drunkplane（@暂时只看书不旅行了-zny），慕白（@李凤阳他说） 来源：Strange Notions，http://www.strangenotions.com/gods-philosophers/ My interest in Medieval science was substantially sparked by one book. Way back in 1991, when I was an impoverished and often starving post-graduate student at the University of Tasmania, I found a copy of Robert T. Gunther's  Astrolabes of the World - 598 folio pages of meticulously catalogued Islamic, Medieval and Renaissance astrolabes with photos, diagrams, star lists and a wealth of other information. I found it, appropriately and not coincidentally, in Michael Sprod's  Astrolabe Books - up the stairs in one of the beautiful old sandstone warehouses that line  Salamanca Place on Hobart's waterfront. 我对中世纪科学的兴趣其实源于一本书。早在1991年时，我还在塔斯马尼亚大学读研究生，生活穷困潦倒，过着有一顿没一顿的日子。算不上多么机缘巧合，就在霍巴特（Hobart）河岸边萨拉曼卡广场（Salamanca Place）一间优美古老的砂岩建筑二楼，Michael Sprod的星盘书店，我发现了一本Robert T. Gunther的《世界星盘》（Astrolabes of the World）。实际上，我认为在这家书店发现这本书真是再恰当不过了。这本书足有598页，细致地将伊斯兰、中世纪，以及文艺复兴时期的星盘收集编目，配有图片、图表、星表，以及丰富的相关信息。 Unfortunately the book cost $200, which at that stage was the equivalent to what I lived on for a month. But Michael was used to selling books to poverty-stricken students, so I went without lunch, put down a deposit of $10 and came back weekly for several months to pay off as much as I could afford and eventually got to take it home, wrapped in brown paper in a way that only Hobart bookshops seem to bother with anymore. There are few pleasures greater than finally getting your hands on a book you've been wanting to own and read for a long time. 非常不幸，这本书要价二百，相当于我那时一个月的开销。好在Michael经常卖书给穷学生，所以我没吃午饭，放下十块定金，接下来几个月，每周过来一趟，付上一笔钱，有多少就付多少，最终，把它裹在棕色的包装纸中搬回家。现在想来，好像只有霍巴特的书店愿意在卖书时那么劳烦地用纸把书包好。手抚摸在长久以来日思月想、梦寐以求的一本书上，那种乐趣，世间少有。 I had another experience of that particular pleasure when I received my copy of James Hannam's God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science a couple of weeks ago. 几周前，收到手头这本James Hannam的《上帝的哲学家：中世纪如何为现代科学奠基》（God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science），我又一次体验到了这种独特乐趣。 For years I've been toying with the idea of creating a website on Medieval science and technology to bring the recent research on the subject to a more general audience and to counter the biased myths about it being a Dark Age of irrational superstition. Thankfully I can now cross that off my to do list, because Hannam's superb book has done the job for me and in fine style. 很多年来，我一直想着要建个网站，关注中世纪科学与技术，向普通读者介绍有关这一主题的新近研究，同时反驳各种偏颇的神话，认为中世纪是个迷信横行的“黑暗时代”。现在我终于可以不再操心这项工程，因为Hannam这部杰出的作品已经完成了这个任务，而且完成得非常漂亮。

The Christian Dark Age and Other Hysterical Myths 基督教黑暗时代以及其他歇斯底里的神话

One of the occupational hazards of being an atheist and secular humanist who hangs around on discussion boards is to encounter a staggering level of historical illiteracy. I like to console myself that many of the people on such boards have come to their atheism via the study of science and so, even if they are quite learned in things like geology and biology, usually have a grasp of history stunted at about high school level. I generally do this because the alternative is to admit that the average person's grasp of history and how history is studied is so utterly feeble as to be totally depressing. 作为一个流连于各大讨论版的无神论者和世俗人文主义者，“职业危害”之一就是会遇到数不胜数的历史盲。我时常宽慰自己，这些讨论版上很多人通过学习科学知识成为了无神论者，因此即使他们在地质、生物这样的领域相当精通，但在历史方面的教育却没有跟上，也不过就是高中生水平。我如果不这样安慰自己，那就要承认，一般人对历史相当缺乏理解，对历史的研究方法几乎一无所知，这种情形非常令人沮丧。 So, alongside the regular airings of the hoary old myth that the Bible was collated at the Council of Nicea, the tedious internet-based "Jesus never existed!" nonsense, or otherwise intelligent people spouting pseudo historical claims that would make even Dan Brown snort in derision, the myth that the Catholic Church caused the Dark Ages and the Medieval Period was a scientific wasteland is regularly wheeled, creaking, into the sunlight for another trundle around the arena. 我们都听说过一些传言，比方说《圣经》由尼西亚会议（Council of Nicea）编修，互联网上“耶稣从未存在！”这样的胡说八道甚嚣尘上，还有一些本来挺聪明的人却胡诌出连丹·布朗（Dan Brown）都嗤之以鼻的伪历史断言，与这些耳熟能详的老套神话相提并论的，还有人说天主教会引发黑暗时代、中世纪是科学荒漠，这种神话时不时被人花样翻新之后重新拉回论战的舞台。 The myth goes that the Greeks and Romans were wise and rational types who loved science and were on the brink of doing all kinds of marvelous things (inventing full-scale steam engines is one example that is usually, rather fancifully, invoked) until Christianity came along. Christianity then banned all learning and rational thought and ushered in the Dark Ages. Then an iron-fisted theocracy, backed by a Gestapo-style Inquisition, prevented any science or questioning inquiry from happening until Leonardo da Vinci invented intelligence and the wondrous Renaissance saved us all from Medieval darkness. 这种神话大概是说，希腊人、罗马人聪明理性热爱科学，基本上已经快要发明出各种奇观壮举（通常会梦呓似地举出发明完整蒸汽机这样的例子），直到基督教降临。基督教随后禁绝了所有学问和理性思考，开启了黑暗时代。接下来，在盖世太保般的宗教裁判所支持下，神权实施了铁腕统治，杜绝任何科学或者质疑的出现，直到达芬奇发明智慧，伟大的文艺复兴将我们从中世纪的黑暗中拯救。【译注：话说我中学时候就是这样觉得的。】 The online manifestations of this curiously quaint but seemingly indefatigable idea range from the touchingly clumsy to the utterly shocking, but it remains one of those things that "everybody knows" and permeates modern culture. 这种观点稀奇古怪，但同时颇有生命力，其在网上的表现时而让人觉得粗陋不堪，时而又让人深感震惊，然而它终究取得了“众人皆知”的地位，渗透进现代文化的方方面面。 A recent episode of Family Guy had Stewie and Brian enter a futuristic alternative world where, it was explained, things were so advanced because Christianity didn't destroy learning, usher in the Dark Ages and stifle science. The writers didn't see the need to explain what Stewie meant - they assumed everyone understood. 最近一集《恶搞之家》（Family Guy）里，Stewie和Brian进入了另一个未来主义的异次元世界，那里一切非常先进，因为基督教并没有摧毁学问，开创黑暗时代，扼杀科学。剧集中没有解释Stewie的观点，因为在编剧看来，大家都懂。 About once every 3-4 months on forums like RichardDawkins.net we get some discussion where someone invokes the old "Conflict Thesis". That evolves into the usual ritual kicking of the Middle Ages as a benighted intellectual wasteland where humanity was shackled to superstition and oppressed by cackling minions of the Evil Old Catholic Church. 类似RichardDawkins.net这样的论坛，每隔三四个月，就会有人提起这个老生常谈的“冲突论”（Conflict Thesis），令大家纷纷卷入讨论之中。一般习惯上会将中世纪看成蒙昧的智识荒漠，邪恶的古代天主教会下属走狗们一脸阴笑，肆意欺压，人性受到束缚，沉溺于迷信之中。 The hoary standards are brought out on cue. Giordiano Bruno is presented as a wise and noble martyr for science instead of the irritating mystical New Age kook he actually was. Hypatia is presented as another such martyr and the mythical Christian destruction of the Great Library of Alexandria is spoken of in hushed tones, despite both these ideas being totally untrue. The Galileo Affair is ushered in as evidence of a brave scientist standing up to the unscientific obscurantism of the Church, despite that case being as much about science as it was about Scripture. 这种时候，一些霉迹斑斑的旧旗帜又会被扛出来。布鲁诺被推为睿智而尊贵的科学殉道者，而非新时代让人恼火的神秘主义傻瓜，要知道后者才是他的本来面目。希帕提娅成为传说中的另一个悲情殉道者，是基督徒焚毁了亚历山大大图书馆的故事也在低声流传，然而，这二者都是彻头彻尾的不实之词。伽利略事件，也被看成是勇敢的科学家抵抗教会蒙昧主义的证据，尽管那起案子中，牵扯到的科学纷争并不比《圣经》纷争来的少。 And, almost without fail, someone digs up a graphic (see below), which I have come to dub "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever", and to flourish it triumphantly as though it is proof of something other than the fact that most people are utterly ignorant of history and unable to see that something called "Scientific Advancement" can't be measured, let alone plotted on a graph. 而且，几乎无一例外，总有人会挖出一张图（如下），趾高气昂地挥舞，好像它能够证明点什么似的。这张被我称作“互联网有史以来错得最离谱的东西”，只不过证明了绝大部分人对历史一无所知，根本没有意识到所谓“科学进步”这种玩意根本无法度量，更别说像这样有模有样地标在图标上了。 It's not hard to kick this nonsense to pieces, especially since the people presenting it know next to nothing about history and have simply picked up these strange ideas from websites and popular books. The assertions collapse as soon as you hit them with hard evidence. 将这种胡说八道彻底击碎并不困难，尤其是因为，能够亮出这张图的人，往往对历史一无所知，仅仅从某些网站或者通俗书籍中摘下这些千奇百怪的观点。只要亮出强有力的证据，这些看法便会分崩离析。 I love to totally stump these propagators by asking them to present me with the name of one - just one - scientist burned, persecuted, or oppressed for their science in the Middle Ages. They always fail to come up with any. They usually try to crowbar Galileo back into the Middle Ages, which is amusing considering he was a contemporary of Descartes. 我倒挺喜欢刁难这些大话家，请他们举出中世纪一个因为从事研究而被烧死、被迫害或者被压迫的科学家的名字，一个就好。他们总是一筹莫展，常常会把伽利略拽回中世纪，可只要一想到其实他和笛卡尔处在同一时代，就让人觉得好笑。 When asked why they have failed to produce any such scientists given the Church was apparently so busily oppressing them, they often resort to claiming that the Evil Old Church did such a good job of oppression that everyone was too scared to practice science. 再问问，既然教廷这么忙于压迫科学家，为什么他们却举不出这样的例子，他们通常会这么辩称，邪恶的古代教廷压迫工作做得实在太好，每个人都吓得瑟瑟发抖，不敢从事科学研究。 By the time I produce a laundry list of Medieval scientists - like Albertus Magnus, Robert Grosseteste, Roger Bacon, John Peckham, Duns Scotus, Thomas Bradwardine, Walter Burley, William Heytesbury, Richard Swineshead, John Dumbleton, Richard of Wallingford, Nicholas Oresme, Jean Buridan and Nicholas of Cusa- and ask why these men were happily pursuing science in the Middle Ages without molestation from the Church, my opponents usually scratch their heads in puzzlement at what just went wrong. 这时，我会列一个中世纪科学家清单——例如大阿尔伯图斯（Albertus Magnus）、罗伯特·格罗斯泰斯特（Robert Grosseteste）、罗吉尔·培根（Roger Bacon）、约翰·佩克汉姆（John Peckham）、邓斯·司各脱（Duns Scotus）、托马斯·布雷德华（Thomas Bradwardine）、沃特·伯利（Walter Burley）、赫特斯柏立的威廉（William Heytesbury）、理查德·斯韦恩斯赫（Richard Swineshead）、约翰·登布尔顿（John Dumbleton）、沃灵福德的理查德（Richard of Wallingford）、尼古拉斯·奥里斯姆（Nicholas Oresme）、让·布里丹（Jean Buridan），还有库萨的尼古拉斯（Nicholas of Cusa），然后问道，为什么这些人能够在中世纪快乐地追求科学，而没有受到教廷的摧残，我的对手们通常会困惑地挠挠头，不知道哪里出了问题。

The Origin of the Myths 神话的起源

How the myths that led to the creation of "The Most Wrong Thing On the Internet Ever" is well documented in several recent books on the the history of science. But Hannam wisely tackles it in the opening pages of his book, since it would be likely to form the basis for many general readers to be suspicious of the idea of a Medieval foundation for modern science. “互联网有史以来错得最离谱的东西”到底是如何产生的，在近期好几本科学史作品中都有很好的展现。既然很多大众读者对中世纪为现代科学奠基这种理念持普遍怀疑态度，Hannam明智地在这本书开篇就解决这个问题。 A festering melange of Enlightenment bigotry, Protestant papism-bashing, French anti-clericism, and Classicist snobbery have all combined to make the Medieval period a by-word for backwardness, superstition and primitivism, and the opposite of everything the average person associates with science and reason. 启蒙主义的固执盲从、新教对天主教的攻击、法国人的反教权运动，以及古典主义者的势利，所有这一切杂糅在一起并不断发酵，将中世纪描述成一个落后、迷信、原始的时代，从一切角度来说都是普通人所认为的科学和理性的反面。 Hannam sketches how polemicists like Thomas Huxley, John William Draper, and Andrew Dickson White, all with their own anti-Christian axes to grind, managed to shape the still current idea that the Middle Ages was devoid of science and reason. And how it was not until real historians bothered to question the polemicists through the work of early pioneers in the field like  Pierre Duhem,  Lynn Thorndike, and the author of my astrolabe book,  Robert T. Gunther, that the distortions of the axe-grinders began to be corrected by proper, unbiased research. That work has now been completed by the current crop of modern historians of science like David C. Lindberg, Ronald Numbers, and Edward Grant. Hannam描述了像Thomas Huxley、John William Draper以及Andrew Dickson White这样能言善辩的旗手，如何融入自己的反基督观点，扭曲地构建了科学和理性在中世纪寸步难行这类当前通行的观点。书中还记录，直到正牌历史学家开始利用自己的作品不厌其烦地对这些雄辩家们进行质疑，别有用心者的歪曲才开始被不带偏见的恰当研究所纠正，该领域早期开拓者包括Pierre Duhem、Lynn Thorndike，以及我的那本星盘书作者Robert T. Gunther。目前，David C. Lindberg、Ronald Numbers以及Edward Grant这样的现代科学史学家业已完成这项工作。 In the academic sphere, at least, the "Conflict Thesis" of a historical war between science and theology has been long since overturned. It is very odd that so many of my fellow atheists cling so desperately to a long-dead position that was only ever upheld by amateur Nineteenth Century polemicists and not the careful research of recent, objective, peer-reviewed historians. This is strange behavior for people who like to label themselves "rationalists". 至少在学术界，科学与神学之间的“冲突论”历史之争早已被推翻了。所以这就显得很奇怪，为什么那么多无神论者如此热切的执着于一种早已死去的信条，这种信条本来只有十九世纪的业余辩论家们才会承认，而不应被现代客观、经过同行评议的历史学家所信奉。对于那些热衷于为自己贴上“理性主义者”标签的人们来说，这种坚持倒真是一樁咄咄怪事。 Speaking of rationalism, the critical factor that the myths obscure is precisely how rational intellectual inquiry in the Middle Ages was. While writers like Charles Freeman continue to lumber along, claiming that Christianity killed the use of reason, the fact is that thanks to Clement of Alexandria and Augustine's encouragement of the use of pagan philosophy, and Boethius' translations of works of logic by Aristotle and others, rational inquiry was one intellectual jewel that survived the catastrophic collapse of the Western Roman Empire and was preserved through the so-called Dark Ages. Edward Grant's superb God and Reason in the Middle Ages details this with characteristic vigor, but Hannam gives a good summary of this key element in his first four chapters. 谈及理性主义，这些神话遮盖了这样一个至关重要的问题：中世纪智识方面的理性探索究竟处于何种状态？像Charles Freeman这样的作家还在抱着这堆破烂，说什么基督教让理性毫无用武之地，而事实却是，亚历山大的克莱门特（Clement of Alexandria）和奥古斯丁对异教哲学的运用多有鼓励，波伊提乌（Boethius）翻译了亚里士多德和其他人的逻辑学作品，理性探索一度是智识的明珠，于西罗马帝国崩溃之后幸存下来，在所谓的黑暗时代得以流传。对此，Edward Grant的杰作《中世纪的上帝与理性》花了极大的力气详加阐述，而Hannam在书中的前四章便给出了绝佳的概述。 What makes Hannam's version of the story more accessible than Grant's is the way he tells it though the lives of key people of the time - Gerbert of Aurillac, Anselm, Abelard, William of Conches, Adelard of Bath etc. Hannam的故事之所以比格兰特更加通俗易懂，原因在于他利用那个年代关键人物的生平阐释其观点，其中包括奥里亚克的吉尔伯特（Gerbert of Aurillac）、安塞姆（Anselm）、阿伯拉尔（Abelard）、康奇斯的威廉（William of Conches）、巴斯的阿德拉德（Adelard of Bath）等人。 Some reviewers of Hannam's book seem to have found this approach a little distracting, since the sheer volume of names and mini-biographies could make it feel like we are learning a small amount about a vast number of people. But given the breadth of Hannam's subject, this is fairly inevitable and the semi-biographical approach is certainly more accessible than a stodgy abstract analysis of the evolution of Medieval thought. 一些评论家认为Hannam作品的这种处理方法甚至令主题略有分散，的确这些姓名和小传数量之多让人颇有目不暇接之感。然而考虑到Hannam所论主题之宏大，这种做法也是在所难免，而且半传记的处理方式也确实比对中世纪思想演变的呆板而抽象的分析更为引人入胜。 Hannam also gives an excellent precis of the Twelfth Century Renaissance which, contrary to popular perception and to "the Myth", was the real period in which ancient learning flooded back into western Europe. Far from being resisted by the Church, it was churchmen who sought this knowledge out among the Muslims and Jews of Spain and Sicily. And far from being resisted or banned by the Church, it was embraced and formed the basis of the syllabus in that other great Medieval contribution to the world: the universities that were starting to appear across Christendom. Hannam还对十二世纪复兴（Twelfth Century Renaissance）进行了绝佳的概括，与通行的认知和前述神话不同的是，那是一个古代学识如洪水般涌回西欧的岁月。真相远远不是教会扼杀知识，恰恰是神职人员从西班牙和西西里的穆斯林和犹太人中间发掘出这些知识。知识也远远没有被教会禁绝，知识在基督教世界刚刚兴起的大学中构成了基本教学大纲，而大学，恰恰是中世纪对世界的另一伟大贡献。

God and Reason 上帝与理性

The enshrining of reason at the heart of inquiry, combined with the influx of "new" Greek and Arabic learning, launched a veritable explosion of intellectual activity in Europe from the Twelfth Century onwards. It was as though the sudden stimulus of new perspectives and new ways of looking at the world fell on the fertile soil of a Europe that was, for the first time in centuries, relatively peaceful, prosperous, outward-looking, and genuinely curious. 将理性置于探索的核心，与纷至沓来的“新”希腊和阿拉伯知识相融合，推动了欧洲自十二世纪以来真正的智力活动大爆发。仿佛突然之间，观察世界的新视角和新方法被播撒到旧欧洲这片沃土上，那么多世纪以来第一次，出现了相对和平、繁荣、外向以及真正求知的一段时期。 This is not to say that more conservative and reactionary forces did not have misgivings about some of the new areas of inquiry, especially in relation to how philosophy and speculation about the natural world and the cosmos could affect accepted theology. Hannam is careful not to pretend that there was no resistance to the flowering of the new thinking and inquiry but, unlike the perpetuators of "the Myth", he gives that resistance due consideration rather than pretending it was the whole story. 这并不是说，较为保守、反动的势力对于新领域的探索安之若素，尤其在关于自然和宇宙的哲学和思考对普遍接受的神学可能会产生何种影响方面，他们更是疑虑重重。Hannam行文小心谨慎，没有对全面开花的新思潮新探索所遭遇的抵抗视而不见，然而与上述“神话”死忠信徒们不同的是，在深思熟虑之后，他对这种抵抗予以剖析，而非简单认定，遭遇的抵抗就是故事的全部。 In fact, the conservatives and reactionaries' efforts were usually rear-guard actions and were in almost every case totally unsuccessful in curtailing the inevitable flood of ideas that began to flow from the universities. Once it began, it was effectively unstoppable. 其实，保守反动势力的努力常常不过是防御性的行动，总体而言，绝大部分试图遏制源自大学、势不可挡的理念洪流都以失败告终。这种洪流一旦开始，便不可阻挡。 In fact, some of the efforts by the theologians to put some limits on what could and could not be accepted via the "new learning" actually had the effect of stimulating inquiry rather than constricting it. The "Condemnations of 1277" attempted to assert certain things that could not be stated as "philosophically true", particularly things that put limits on divine omnipotence. This had the interesting effect of making it clear that Aristotle had, actually, got some things badly wrong - something Thomas Aquinas emphasized in his famous and highly influential Summa Theologiae: 实际上，神学家努力为“新学问”划定一条界线，规定某些事可以做，某些事不能做，这样的努力恰恰鼓励而非限制了探索。“1277大谴责”（Condemnations of 1277）力图主张某些事情不能被称为“在哲学上是真实的”（philosophically true），尤其是那些限制了“全能的神性”（divine omnipotence）的事情。这次事件产生了一种有趣的效果，让人们清楚无疑地看到，亚里士多德在某些方面其实错得非常离谱。而这些错误正如托马斯·阿奎那（Thomas Aquinas）在其极具影响力的、著名的《神学大全》（Summa Theologiae）中曾着重指出这一点。 "The condemnations and Thomas's Summa Theologiae had created a framework within which natural philosophers could safely pursue their studies. The framework ....laid down the the principle that God had decreed laws of nature but was not bound by them. Finally, it stated that Aristotle was sometimes wrong. The world was not 'eternal according to reason' and 'finite according to faith'. It was not eternal, full stop. And if Aristotle could be wrong about something that he regarded as completely certainly certain, that threw his whole philosophy into question. The way was clear for the natural philosophers of the Middle Ages to move decisively beyond the achievements of the Greeks." (Hannam, pp. 104-105) “大谴责和托马斯的《神学大全》创建出了一个框架，自然哲学家可以安然地在其中进行研究。该框架……主张，上帝颁布了自然律令，但上帝并不受自然律令的限制。最终，框架指明，亚里士多德在某些情况下是错的。世界并不‘因理性而永恒’，也不‘因信仰而有限’。总而言之，世界并不永恒。如果亚里士多德在自己确信无疑的问题上能够犯错，那么他的整个哲学体系就难免遭到质疑。对于中世纪的自然哲学家而言，果断突破希腊人业已取得成就的道路就得以扫清了。”（Hannam，pp.104-105） Which is precisely what they proceeded to do. Far from being a stagnant dark age, as the first half of the Medieval Period (500-1000 AD) certainly was, the period from 1000 to 1500 AD actually saw the most impressive flowering of scientific inquiry and discovery since the time of the ancient Greeks, far eclipsing the Roman and Hellenic Eras in every respect. 超越希腊人正是哲学家们接下来做的事情。中世纪上半叶（公元500年-1000年）或许并不光明，而从公元1000年至1500年远不是一个黑暗停滞的时代，历史见证了自古希腊以来科学探索最为蓬勃发展的景象，方方面面远超罗马和希腊化时代（Hellenic Eras）。 With Occam and Duns Scotus taking the critical approach to Aristotle further than Aquinas' more cautious approach, the way was open for the Medieval scientists of the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries to question, examine, and test the perspectives the translators of the Twelfth Century had given them, with remarkable effects: 奥卡姆和邓斯·司各脱对亚里士多德的批判远比小心翼翼的阿奎那走得更远，这为十四、十五世纪的中世纪科学家开辟了一条坦途，他们得以对十二世纪传播者们的观点进行质疑、检查及测试，成绩斐然： "[I]n the fourteenth century medieval thinkers began to notice that there was something seriously amiss with all aspects of Aristotle's natural philosophy, and not just those parts of it that directly contradicted the Christian faith. The time had come when medieval scholars could begin their own quest to advance knowledge ....striking out in new directions that neither the Greeks nor the Arabs ever explored. Their first breakthrough was to combine the two subjects of mathematics and physics in a way that had not been done before." (Hannam, p. 174) “十四世纪的中世纪思想家开始注意到，亚里士多德自然哲学的方方面面都存在严重缺陷，不仅限于那些与基督教信仰直接冲突的部分。中世纪学者可以自行探索先进知识的时刻到来了……他们向无论是希腊人还是阿拉伯人都未曾探索过的新领域前进。他们取得的第一项突破是，以前所未有的方式将数学和物理这两门学科结合在一起。”（Hannam，P174） The story of that breakthrough, and the remarkable Oxford scholars who achieved it and thus laid the foundations of true science - the "Merton Calculators" - probably deserves a book in itself. But Hannam's account certainly does them justice and forms a fascinating section of his work. 那项突破，那些实现该突破的、名垂青史的牛津学者（他们因此为真正的科学奠定下基础）——“默顿计算者”（Merton Calculators）——的故事，本身就值得大书特书。然而Hannam行文对他们的刻画精准而恰当，构成了作品迷人的一部分。 The names of these pioneers of the scientific method - Thomas Bradwardine, Thomas Bradwardine, William Heytesbury, John Dumbleton and the delightfully named Richard Swineshead - deserve to be better known. 这些科学方法的先驱——托马斯·布雷德华、赫特斯柏立的威廉、约翰·登布尔顿，以及名字极为喜庆的理查德·斯韦恩斯赫（Richard Swineshead）【译注：理查德·猪头，确实够喜庆～】应该被更多的人知道。 Unfortunately, the obscuring shadow of "the Myth" means that they continue to be ignored or dismissed even in quite recent popular histories of science.Bradwardine's summary of the key insight these men uncovered is one of the great quotes of early science and deserves to be recognized as such: 不幸的是，由于“中世纪神话”造成的影响，即使在较为新近的科学史大众读物中，他们也一直被忽略和无视。布雷德华对于这些先驱在智识方面洞见的总结，是早期科学领域的名言之一，配得上“伟大”这个两个字： "[Mathematics] is the revealer of every genuine truth ... whoever then has the effrontery to pursue physics while neglecting mathematics should know from the start that he will never make his entry through the portals of wisdom." (Quoted in Hannam, p. 176) “（数学）是所有真理的揭示者……无论哪个胆大妄为之徒，胆敢忽略数学而去探索物理，从一开始就应该知道，他将永远不会在智慧的圣殿登堂入室。”（Hannam书中的引文，p.176） These men were not only the first to truly apply mathematics to physics but also developed logarithmic functions 300 years before John Napier, and the Mean Speed Theorem 200 years before Galileo. The fact that Napier and Galileo are credited with discovering things that Medieval scholars had already developed is yet another indication of how "the Myth" has warped our perceptions of the history of science. 这些人不仅仅是第一批真正将数学应用于物理领域的学者，还早于约翰·纳皮尔（John Napier）三百年推演出对数方程，早于伽利略二百年发现平均速度定理。纳皮尔和伽利略发现了中世纪学者已经发现的现象，从而获得殊荣，这就是“黑暗中世纪神话”如何蒙蔽我们对科学史认知的又一例证。 Similarly, the physics and astronomy of Jean Buridan and Nicholas Oresme were radical and profound, but generally unknown to the average reader. Buridan was one of the first to compare the movements of the cosmos to those of another Medieval innovation - the clock. The image of a clockwork universe which was to serve scientists well into our own era began in the Middle Ages. 与之类似，让·布里丹和尼古拉斯·奥里斯姆的物理学和天文学博大精深，普通读者对此却一无所知。布里丹是最早将宇宙的运动比拟为时钟的几个人之一，而时钟则也是中世纪的产物。直到现在，科学家们还认为，宇宙像时钟一样运行，这种观点实肇始于中世纪。 And Oresme's speculations about a rotating Earth shows that Medieval scholars were happy to contemplate what were (to them) fairly outlandish ideas to see if they might work - Oresme found that this particular idea actually worked quite well. 奥里斯姆关于地球旋转的猜测则表明，中世纪学者是多么乐于思索各种天马行空的观点，并验证其是否有效——奥里斯姆发现地球旋转这个猜想其实相当有解释力。 These men are hardly the products of a "dark age" and their careers are conspicuously free of any of the Inquisitors and threats of burning so fondly and luridly imagined by the fevered proponents of "the Myth". 很难说这样的人会是“黑暗时代”的产物，他们的工作也显然不像“黑暗中世纪神话”热情拥趸们所持有的天真而骇人听闻的想象那样，受到宗教裁判所的法官（Inquisitors）的压迫，也没人威胁要把他们统统烧死。

Galileo, Inevitably 伽利略，绕不过去的伽利略

As mentioned above, no manifestation of "the Myth" is complete without the Galileo Affair being raised. The proponents of the idea that the Church stifled science and reason in the Middle Ages have to wheel him out, because without him they actually have absolutely zero examples of the Church persecuting anyone for anything to do with inquiries into the natural world. 如前所述，“中世纪神话”总是与伽利略事件如影随形。坚持认定中世纪教廷扼杀科学与理性的论者们一定会抛出伽利略，因为要不是伽利略，他们对于教廷迫害探索自然世界的科学家连一个例子都举不出来。 The common conception that Galileo was persecuted for being right about heliocentrism is a total oversimplification of a complex business, and one that ignores the fact that Galileo's main problem was not simply that his ideas disagreed with scriptural interpretation but also with the science of the time. 通常的观点认为，伽利略是由于日心说而遭到了迫害，这是一个对复杂案例的过分简化，常常被忽略的事实是，伽利略的主要问题并非仅仅是其观念与经文的诠释不符，当时的科学现状也是问题。 Contrary to the way the affair is usually depicted, the real sticking point was the fact that the scientific objections to heliocentrism at the time were still powerful enough to prevent its acceptance. Cardinal Bellarmine made it clear to Galileo in 1616 that if those scientific objections could be overcome then scripture could and would be reinterpreted. 与通常所讲述的故事不同，事情真正的症结在于，当时科学对于日心说的反对依然强大，阻碍了这一学说被广为接受。红衣主教贝拉明（Cardinal Bellarmine）在1616年向伽利略说得很清楚，如果这些科学反对意见能够被克服，那么经文就可以重新诠释。 But while the objections still stood, the Church, understandably, was hardly going to overturn several centuries of exegesis for the sake of a flawed theory. Galileo agreed to only teach heliocentrism as a theoretical calculating device, then promptly turned around and, in typical style, taught it as fact. Thus his prosecution by the Inquistion in 1633. 然而当时反对意见不屈不挠，教廷很难因为一个存在缺陷的理论而推翻几个世纪以来诠释，这倒也在情理之中。伽利略同意仅仅将日心说作为一种理论计算工具加以传授，可是一转身，他就以自己典型的风格背弃约定，将其作为事实四下宣扬。因此才有了1633年他被宗教裁判迫害的事件。 Hannam gives the context for all this in suitable detail in a section of the book that also explains how the Humanism of the "Renaissance" led a new wave of scholars, who sought not only to idolize and emulate the ancients, but to turn their backs on the achievements of recent scholars like Duns Scotus, Bardwardine, Buridan, and Orseme. Hannam在本书的一节中将这件事情的来龙去脉一一道来，还阐释了“文艺复兴”的人文主义是如何引导了新一波学者，他们不仅崇拜古人，模仿古人，而且对邓斯·司各脱、布雷德华、布里丹，以及奥里斯姆等近代学者的成就视而不见。 Thus many of their discoveries and advances were either ignored and forgotten (only to be rediscovered independently later) or scorned but quietly appropriated. The case for Galileo using the work of Medieval scholars without acknowledgement is fairly damning. 因此中世纪学者们的很多发现和进展被忽视和遗忘（后来又被重新独立发现），更有甚者，中世纪学者的成就表面上被不屑一顾，但在暗地里被改头换面，成为“文艺复兴”学者们的功绩。伽利略使用中世纪学者成果但并不明确承认的例子相当令人齿冷。 In their eagerness to dump Medieval "dialectic" and ape the Greeks and Romans - which made the "Renaissance" a curiously conservative and rather retrograde movement in many ways - they discarded genuine developments and advancements by Medieval scholars. That a thinker of the calibre of Duns Scotus could become mainly known as the etymology of the word "dunce" is deeply ironic. 他们热切地将中世纪“辩证法”抛诸脑后，争先恐后地效仿希腊人和罗马人，这种做法在很多方面令“文艺复兴”成为一种奇妙的保守甚至倒退的运动，因为他们摒弃了中世纪学者真正的开拓和进步。邓斯·司各脱这种水准的思想家的名字（Duns）不过以傻瓜（dunce）之词源而闻名，这是多么深刻的讽刺啊。 As good as the final part of the book is and as worthy as a fairly detailed analysis of the realities of the Galileo Affair clearly is, I must say the last four or five chapters of Hannam's book did feel as though they had bitten off a bit more than they could chew. I was able to follow his argument quite easily, but I am very familiar with the material and with the argument he is making. I suspect that those for whom this depiction of the "Renaissance," and the idea of Galileo as nothing more than a persecuted martyr to genius, might find that it gallops at too rapid a pace to really carry them along. Myths, after all, have a very weighty inertia. 尽管这本书的最后部分同样精彩，尽管清晰而具体地分析伽利略事件相当有价值，我不得不说Hannam这本书的最后四五章有点过于贪心。我之所以能够轻松地跟上他的论证，是因为我对历史材料和他所进行的讨论相当熟悉。我猜，对于某些人来说，理解对“文艺复兴”的这种叙述，以及伽利略只不过是个受宗教迫害的天才这样的观点，就像拼命赶上一匹飞驰的骏马那样艰难。毕竟，神话有着巨大的惯性。 At least one reviewer seems to have found the weight of that inertia too hard to resist, though perhaps she had some other baggage weighing her down. Nina Power, writing in New Humanist magazine, certainly seems to have had some trouble ditching the idea of the Church persecuting Medieval scientists: 至少有一位评论者似乎认为这样的惯性非常难以克服，然而，这或许是因为她在某些方面的包袱过重。Nina Power在《新人文主义》（New Humanist）杂志撰文，似乎认为摒弃教廷迫害中世纪科学家的观点还颇为困难： Just because persecution wasn’t as bad as it could have been, and just because some thinkers weren’t always the nicest of people, doesn’t mean that interfering in their work and banning their ideas was justifiable then or is justifiable now." 仅仅因为迫害并没有那么严重，仅仅因为有些思想家并不总是那么和善，并不意味着对他们工作的干扰，对他们理念的禁止，就是合理的，无论是那时还是现在。 Well, no-one said it was justifiable, and simply explaining how it came about and why it was not as extensive, or of the nature, that most people assume is not "justifying" it anyway - it is correcting a pseudo-historical misunderstanding. 拜托，没人说那是合理的，这本书仅仅解释了这些迫害究竟是怎么回事，为什么并没有大多数人以为的那么严重，而不是为迫害正名。——这本书无非是要澄清一个伪历史炮制出来的误会。 That said, Power does have something of a point when she notes "Hannam’s characterization of [Renaissance] thinkers as “incorrigible reactionaries” who “almost managed to destroy 300 years of progress in natural philosophy” is at odds with his more careful depiction of those that came before." This is not, however, because that characterization is wrong, but because the length and scope of the book really do not give him room to do this fairly complex and, to many, radical idea justice. 不过，Power也的确注意到某些问题，她指出：“Hannam将（文艺复兴）思想家描述为‘不可救药的反动派’，‘几乎摧毁了自然哲学在三百年内取得的进步’，这与他描述文艺复兴到来之前所采取的小心翼翼的笔法大异其趣。”不过，这倒不是因为描述不准确，而是限于本书的篇幅和涉及范围，Hanman缺乏足够的空间，对他的这些较为复杂，且让很多人感到激进的观点展开论述。 My only criticisms of the book are really quibbles. The sketch of the "agrarian revolution" of the Dark Ages described in Chapter One, which saw technology like the horse-collar and the mouldboard plough adopted and water and wind power harnessed to greatly increase production in previously unproductive parts of Europe is generally sound. But it does place too much emphasis on two elements in Lynn White's thesis in his seminal Medieval Technology and Social Change - the importance of the stirrup and the significance of the horse collar. 我对于这本书的批评无非就是吹毛求疵而已。第一章描绘了黑暗时代“农业革命”的概貌，马项圈、板犁之类的技术被采纳，水力和风力得到利用，在欧洲贫瘠的地区极大地提升了生产力，整体上比较合理。但是，文章过度强调了林恩·怀特（Lynn White）在他那本影响深远的《中世纪的技术和社会变迁》中提到的两项要素——马镫和马项圈的重要性。 As important and ground-breaking as White's thesis was in 1962, more recent analysis has found some of his central ideas dubious. The idea that the stirrup was as significant for the rise of shock-heavy cavalry as White claimed is now pretty much rejected by military historians. Also, his claims about how this cavalry itself caused the beginnings of the feudal system were dubious to begin with. 怀特的观点在1962年极具开创性意义，然而近来很多学术分析在某种程度上削弱了他的核心观点。怀特宣称马镫对于重装骑兵的出现有着至关重要的影响，这种观点目前被很多军事史学家所反对。还有，他认为重装骑兵本身就是封建制的开端，这种观点也开始被怀疑。 Finally, the idea that Roman traction systems were as inefficient as White's sources make out has also been seriously questioned. Hannam seems to accept White's thesis wholesale, which is not really justified given it has been reassessed for over forty years now. 最后，本书认为罗马时代的牵引系统正如怀特所证明得那样低效，这样的观点也被严重质疑。Hannam似乎全盘接受了怀特的论点，考虑在四十年的时间里，学界已经对怀特的观点进行了重新审视，这种忠诚似乎并不可取。 On a rather more personal note, as a humanist and atheist myself, there is a rather snippy little aside on page 212 where Hannam sneers that "non-believers have further muddied the waters by hijacking the word 'humanist' to mean a softer version of 'atheist'." 就个人感受而言，作为一个人文主义者和无神论者，看到Hannam在第212页嘲弄道，“无信仰者劫持‘人文主义者’这个词，将其作为‘无神论者’的柔性表达，这进一步把水搅浑”，我感觉有点离题。 Sorry, but just as not all humanists are atheists (as Hannam himself well knows) so not all atheists are humanists (as anyone hanging around on some of the more vitriolically anti-theist sites and forums will quickly realize). So there is no "non-believer" plot to "hijack" the word "humanist". Those of us who are humanists are humanists - end of story. And "atheism" does not need any "softening" anyway. 不好意思，就像并非所有的人文主义者都是无神论者（Hannam自己就清楚地知道这一点），也并非所有的无神论者都是人文主义者（只要有人乐意浪费时间在那些反宗教网站和论坛转转便能很快发现这一点）。因此，并不存在“无信仰者”别有用心地“劫持”“人文主义者”这回事。我们这些人文主义者就是人文主义者，仅此而已。而且“无神论”用不着“柔化”。 That aside, this is a marvelous book and a brilliant, readable, and accessible antidote to "the Myth". It should be on the Christmas wish-list of any Medievalist, science history buff, or anyone who has a misguided friend who still thinks the nights in the Middle Ages were lit by burning scientists. 除此之外，这是一部令人叹为观止的作品，是“黑暗中世纪神话”一剂绝妙而易读的解毒剂。任何中世纪研究者、科学史爱好者，或者你有位误入歧途、依然相信在中世纪教廷靠焚烧科学家来照亮夜空的朋友，都应该把这本书放在圣诞礼品单上。 Tim O'Neill 作者简介 Tim O'Neill is an atheist blogger who specializes in reviews of books on ancient and medieval history as well as atheism and historiography. He holds a Master of Arts in Medieval Literature from the University of Tasmania and is a subscribing member of the Australian Atheist Foundation and the Australian Skeptics. He is also the author of the History versus The Da Vinci Code website and is currently working on a book with the working title History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion. He finds the fact that he irritates many theists and atheists in equal measure a sign that he's probably doing some good. Follow his blog at Armarium Magnum. 蒂姆·奥尼尔是一位无神论博客作者，专注于古代史、中世纪史、以及无神论和史学领域的书评创作。他毕业于塔斯马尼亚大学，获得中世纪文学硕士学位，是澳大利亚无神论者基金会（Australian Atheist Foundation）和澳大利亚怀疑论协会（Australian Skeptics）的会员。他还是History versus The Da Vinci Code 网站的作者，目前正在撰写一本名为History for Atheists: How Not to Use History in Debates About Religion的书。他的观点常常在有神论者和无神论者之间造成相同程度的轩然大波，这或许表明，他的工作起到了一些良好的作用。请关注他在Armarium Magnum的博客。 （编辑：辉格@whigzhou） *注：本译文未经原作者授权，本站对原文不持有也不主张任何权利，如果你恰好对原文拥有权益并希望我们移除相关内容，请私信联系，我们会立即作出响应。

——海德沙龙·翻译组，致力于将英文世界的好文章搬进中文世界——

【2015-07-31】 @大象公会 【真问真答】为什么欧洲国家相比之下面积小、数量多？ @whigzhou: 远点说，罗马在条顿堡战役后放弃征服日耳曼尼亚，因而没能消灭日耳曼语，近点说，有我大英坚持不懈的阻挠大陆出现单一强权。 @凌山伯:条顿战役让罗马人停止东扩我懂 但是请问大英阻扰大陆出现单一强权怎么讲？ @whigzhou: 腓力二世的西班牙，黄金时代的荷兰，拿破仑的法国，哈布斯堡的奥匈，统一后的德国，这些欧洲霸权的最有力竞争者，不都是大英的打击对象嘛  

【2015-07-27】 @阿尔及利亚苏丹陈毓秀 费孝通先生说乡土中国是差序格局，与之对立的则是群己权界界限分明的团体格局。我比较好奇的是西欧中世纪的农村是不是差序格局，因为我觉得团体格局更像是城市兴起之后才有的产物。如果西欧中世纪的农村更接近团体格局，而非差序格局，那么造成这样现象的物质/制度因素又是什么呢？ @whigzhou: 中世纪西欧农村的主流社会结构是庄园制，领主通过管家经营庄园（相比之下，中国地主自中古后就不再经营土地，仅仅收租），由于庄园制涉及大量管理工作、公共事务和权利划分，比如公地/份地之分、封建义务、多圃制下的轮作安排，早期还有领主法庭承担司法职能，等等 @whigzhou: 直到后来圈地运动瓦解了庄园制，家庭农庄才成为主流社会结构 @whigzhou: 庄园是一种企业，而且其结构之组成不依赖于家庭/家族等自然关系，因而确实对权利边界的确定和基层地方处理公共事务的能力提供了发展机会，为此后的乡村/地方自我治理能力打下了基础，也为人民参与公共/政治事务培养了习惯，这一点我们在北美殖民者身上可以看得很清楚。 @whigzhou: 五月花号殖民者在船上就开始制定宪法了，西进运动者在大篷车上就开始组织政府了，狂野西部在政府力量极为微弱的条件下也维持了相当水平的法律和秩序，相比之下，华人移民社区只有家族纽带和黑社会  

【2015-07-26】 @whigzhou: 古代农民常以“一束禾”、“一担谷”之类产能指标为单位计量一块耕地之大小，类似的，欧洲人常以“百头猪”为单位计量一片wood之大小，史家曾考证，其实像“亩”这种看似以面积计的单位，其实也往往是以产能为基准的，所以读史不能轻易望文生义，即便该文之义貌似再直白不过。 @whigzhou: 诺曼征服后编制的土地清查档案《末日审判书》（Domesday Book）中，许多森林便是以这种方式计量的。 @迢书:说一块田“一挑”，会不会是租或税一挑（100斤）呢？我家5挑那块田，年产水稻3000斤左右。一个猜想，不一定对。 @whigzhou: 嗯，应该是租，而且估计是田皮租，即可自由流通（而非永佃）的那部分产权（田皮）的租金，这是田皮市场价格的表达方式  

【2015-06-27】 @格林黑风:辉总对法国精英持强烈批判态度吗?可为何直到现在法国依旧是最发达国家之一呢？ @whigzhou: 对，在我看来，法国精英是西方文明中一股重要的负面力量，他们推动了文明世界的许多负面发展，也对文明世界以外的许多悲剧负有责任，法国还没变得更坏，一是因为过去底子较好，二是因为还有其他力量存在 @whigzhou: 我历来认为，宪政基础、自由、经济/文化繁荣，这三者是高度相关的，但我想强调的是，它们的相继出现是存在时滞的，而且滞后的时间可以很长，长达几百年。英格兰宪政的巅峰是15世纪兰开斯特朝，而自由的巅峰是汉诺威朝诸乔治时代，文化繁荣的巅峰则是维多利亚时代。 @pathto:请问，过去底子好指的是什么时候 @whigzhou: 所谓底子好，近点说，是冷战时出于对苏联的恐惧而加入了美国主导的西方体系，因而大致保存了私人财产和自由市场，远点说，是启蒙时代之后追随不列颠拥抱市场制度，再远点说，是法兰克封建体系和罗马教会的长期存在，让法国也拥有一些权力分立制衡的传统 @heracles的救赎:其他力量呢？指的是法兰西内部的还是法兰西以外的 @whigzhou: 都有，但主要是指内部的，因为有皿煮在，要剥夺已经拥有的权利是很不容易的，没法明目张胆的来，只能靠哄骗着慢慢蚕食  

【2014-11-18】 @冯学荣读史 发表了文章 《民国为何多光棍》 现在中国的男子，娶妻还是相当容易的——给婚姻介绍所一两百块大洋的介绍费，主要你不挑，当天就能见到人，对方同意的话，下个月就能摆酒、领证——当然，在现实生活中，确有一些男 @局外人c的空间:光棍多，在马尔萨斯陷阱中是应有之义，所谓低水平均衡吧。 @whigzhou: 嗯嗯，人口压力降低生育资源价值，从而削弱对女儿的偏好，确有增加光棍的效果，而大量光棍对性产业的需求将更多女性拉出婚姻市场，更增加光棍，这一正反馈效果好像也说的通 @whigzhou: 不过，更全面考虑的话，我会强调另外几个因素：1）宗族制度对子女性别偏好的影响，我之前写过 http://t.cn/8sEofhy 2）和平环境降低了男女死亡率差异；3）多妻制 @whigzhou: 原文说“现在中国的男子，娶妻还是相当容易的”，这判断恐怕错的远，现如今约炮是容易了，娶老婆可是另一码事 @whigzhou: 人口压力在东西方的影响不同，西欧婚育模式下，人口压力同时增加了光棍和老处女，这一效果在殖民时代可以看的很清楚：北美殖民者的母国以晚婚和高独身率著称，但一到北美，人口压力解除，马上普遍早婚早育  

【2014-11-16】 @放风筝的唐僧 我一直在想，汉初的七国之乱，如果汉朝皇帝没打赢，最后和叛乱国达成妥协了会怎样？会不会进一步瓦解本就不够强大的中央集权，让中国再次变成封建制？然后中国也会进入漫长的中世纪，像西欧一样。再往前，如果不是出现了商鞅这个奇人，秦也未必就能统一中国，中国就更像欧洲了。 @newobject：我觉得这两种情况都不会成立的。第一，七国乱如果未平，可能会经过一个短暂的“战国”时期，最后会出现一个“秦”再次统一。两点原因：1）已有中央集权统一先例，开创了这种政治体制，也证明了在那个时代是更具效率的政制（秦帝国证明了可行性，也在文化上进入士人心）； @newobject：2）在当时的文明中心黄淮流域，地理原因也造成了最后一定会有一家独大一时，最后统一（自商朝就是同一个天下，不同的国家），当时的生产力，信息传播速度，都能支撑统一帝国那个先进政制。 @newobject：回复@放风筝的唐僧:其实有一个可能会出现东亚像欧洲那样的，@whigzhou 曾说过，我比较赞同：日本整体向西南移动600公里（类似英国）。日本是不愿意也不会让中国统一的，像英国也不会让欧洲大陆一家独大的。再加上北方匈奴，就类似俄罗斯了。 @whigzhou: 呵呵，昨天刚好又说到这事儿 http://t.cn/RzvrjtK 依我看，齐桓之后，这条路就已经断了，七王只是帝国小波澜，没希望成功的 @whigzhou: 汉初郡县与封国的百衲衣混合模式，只是对秦过度激进集权的现实主义调整，认识到行政组织能力尚难直接控制如此大疆域，先后退一步，等集权机器充分运转起来，削夺撤销封国是早晚的事

1）在春秋得以壮大、称霸、并幸存到战国的诸侯，皆处于边缘位置，秦晋齐宋楚，加上后起之吴越燕，刚好把中原围了一圈，似非偶然； 2）早先我以为这是因为边缘诸侯与蛮族冲突频繁，所以既然能幸存下来，必有其军事优势，且较高战争强度下，君权会较为集中和强大； 3）仔细考虑之后，感觉另一种解释可能更有说服力：边缘位置让争雄者在变化多端的联盟关系中处于有利地位，邻国越少，处境越有利； 4）因为邻国越少，需要防御的方向越少，因而本土越安全，越可以从容选择联盟对象，控制扩张节奏，即便国力削弱期间，也更容易自保； 5）由于邻国总是比非邻国更多纠纷摩擦，而且依附强邻有被吞并的危险，因而远交近攻总是优选策略； 6）当大家都选择远交近攻时，邻国多便意味着敌人多； 7）组建军事联盟的春秋诸霸，即便在其霸业巅峰期，也很少去主动攻击其远方的主要对手，比如齐桓晋文/惠称霸时，就很少主动去打楚国，展示霸权的军事行动主要是用来压服联盟成员的背叛和违规行为的，特别是惩罚那些倒向敌方阵营的成员；这是因为，打击远方敌人成本太高，却不能带来实际利益，而打压联盟内弱小成员，则可以经常能得到实实在在且能够控制消化的利益（纳贿夺邑牵牛割禾之类）； 8）当霸主们都采用这种“安内先于攘外”的策略时，夹在中间的国家最吃瘪，往往左右不是人，最典型的是郑国，还有许陈等小国，两大阵营冲突时，盟主往往避开头号对手的锋芒，专拿投靠对方的小国揍一顿了事，这样既避免了过高代价，也捍卫了盟主权威； 9）春秋早期，虢国和郑国都是头号强国，但就因为夹在中间，前后左右不是人，结果一个很快被灭，一个虽强大威猛了很久，最终却未能成霸；齐楚、晋楚争霸期间，郑国夹在中间反复挨揍，却很少得到友邦支持，如此境地，不衰弱也难； 10）春秋经验，壮大和称霸的前提，四个方向上至少两个方向没有邻国，最好三个方向上都没有，满足后一条件的，只有分裂之前的晋，和后来崛起的秦，前者称霸时间最长，后者最终成为通吃赢家； 【附春秋列国图】