《我的知識之路》第四章 青年時代的宣傳事業(yè) 《威斯敏斯特評論》

CHAPTER IV Youthful Propagandism The Westminster Review

第四章 青年時代的宣傳事業(yè) 《威斯敏斯特評論》

The occupation of so much of my time by office work did not relax my attention to my own pursuits, which were never carried on more vigorously. It was about this time that I began to write in newspapers. The first writings of mine which got into print were two letters published towards the end of 1822, in the Traveller evening newspaper. The Traveller (which afterwards grew into the Globe and Traveller by the purchase and incorporation of the Globe) was then the property of the well known political economist Colonel Torrens. Under the editorship of an able man, Mr. Walter Coulson (who, after being an amanuensis of Mr. Bentham, became a reporter, then an editor, next a barrister and conveyancer, and died Counsel to the Home Office), it had become one of the most important newspaper organs of Liberal politics. Col. Torrens himself wrote much of the political economy of his paper; and had at this time made an attack upon some opinion of Ricardo and my father, to which, at my father's instigation, I attempted an answer, and Coulson out of consideration for my father and goodwill to me, inserted it. There was a reply by Torrens, to which I again rejoined. I soon after attempted something considerably more ambitious. The prosecutions of Richard Carlile and his wife and sister for publications hostile to Christianity, were then exciting much attention, and nowhere more than among the people I frequented. Freedom of discussion even in politics, much more in religion, was at that time far from being, even in theory, the conceded point which it at least seems to be now; and the holders of obnoxious opinions had to be always ready to argue and re-argue for the liberty of expressing them. I wrote a series of five letters, under the signature of Wickliffe, going over the whole length and breadth of the question of free publication of all opinions on religion, and offered them to the Morning Chronicle. Three of them were published in January and February, 1823; the other two, containing things too outspoken for that journal, never appeared at all. But a paper which I wrote soon after on the same subject, à propos of a debate in the House of Commons, was inserted as a leading article; and during the whole of this year, 1823, a considerable number of my contributions were printed in the Chronicle and Traveller: sometimes notices of books, but oftener letters, commenting on some nonsense talked in Parliament, or some defect of the law, or misdoings of the magistracy or the courts of justice. In this last department the Chronicle was now rendering signal service. After the death of Mr. Perry, the editorship and management of the paper had devolved on Mr. John Black, long a reporter on its establishment; a man of most extensive reading and information, great honesty and simplicity of mind; a particular friend of my father, imbued with many of his and Bentham's ideas, which he reproduced in his articles, among other valuable thoughts, with great facility and skill. From this time the Chronicle ceased to be the merely Whig organ it was before, and during the next ten years became to a considerable extent a vehicle of the opinions of the Utilitarian Radicals. This was mainly by what Black himself wrote, with some assistance from Fonblanque, who first shewed his eminent qualities as a writer by articles and jeux d'esprit in the Chronicle. The defects of the law, and of the administration of justice, were the subject on which that paper rendered most service to improvement. Up to that time hardly a word had been said, except by Bentham and my father, against that most peccant part of English institutions and of their administration. It was the almost universal creed of Englishmen, that the law of England, the judicature of England, the unpaid magistracy of England, were models of excellence. I do not go beyond the mark in saying, that after Bentham, who supplied the principal materials, the greatest share of the merit of breaking down this wretched superstition belongs to Black, as editor of the Morning Chronicle. He kept up an incessant fire against it, exposing the absurdities and vices of the law and the courts of justice, paid and unpaid, until he forced some sense of them into people's minds. On many other questions he became the organ of opinions much in advance of any which had ever before found regular advocacy in the newspaper press. Black was a frequent visitor of my father, and Mr. Grote used to say that he always knew by the Monday morning's article, whether Black had been with my father on the Sunday. Black was one of the most influential of the many channels through which my father's conversation and personal influence made his opinions tell on the world; co-operating with the effect of his writings in making him a power in the country, such as it has rarely been the lot of an individual in a private station to be, through the mere force of intellect and character: and a power which was often acting the most efficiently where it was least seen and suspected. I have already noticed how much of what was done by Ricardo, Hume, and Grote, was the result, in part, of his prompting and persuasion. He was the good genius by the side of Brougham in most of what he did for the public, either on education, law reform, or any other subject. And his influence flowed in minor streams too numerous to be specified. This influence was now about to receive a great extension by the foundation of the Westminster Review.

辦公室工作占據(jù)了我非常多的時間，但是我并沒有放松自己的追求，我比以往任何時候都更精力旺盛地堅持著。大約從這個時候起，我開始為報紙撰稿。我發(fā)表的第一個作品，是1822年底在《旅行者》晚報上刊登的兩封信?！堵眯姓摺罚ê髞硎召徍喜⒘恕董h(huán)球》，成為《環(huán)球旅行者》）當時屬于著名的政治經(jīng)濟學家托倫斯上校。憑借能干的編輯沃爾特.庫爾森先生（他曾是邊沁先生的抄寫員，后來成了記者，然后做編輯，接著做承辦轉讓事務的律師，去世時是英國內政部的法律顧問），該報成了自由主義政治最重要的機關報之一。托倫斯上校親自為自己的報紙寫了很多政治經(jīng)濟學的文章。這時，他寫了一篇文章，攻擊李嘉圖和我父親的一些觀點，在父親的鼓動下，我試著寫了一篇回應文章，庫爾森出于對父親的考慮，以及對我的好意，把它插到了報紙里面。托倫斯寫了一篇文章回應，我也再次反駁。之后不久，我嘗試寫更具挑戰(zhàn)性的東西。理查德.卡萊爾和他的妻子以及姐姐，由于發(fā)表敵視基督教的文章而招致起訴，在當時引起了很大的關注，我經(jīng)常拜訪的人對此尤為關注。討論的自由在當時，不用說宗教上的，即便是政治上的，也和目前至少看起來是被理論上認可接受的界點相距甚遠。持有讓人討厭的觀點的人為了能自由表達，總是得做好多次辯論的準備。我用威克利夫的筆名寫了五封系列書信，全面闡述了自由發(fā)表一切宗教觀點的問題，投給了《紀事晨報》。其中三封在1823年的1月和2月發(fā)表，另外兩封，由于內容對這個雜志來說太直率，一直沒有發(fā)表。但是不久后，我寫了一篇同一主題的文章，是關于下議院一次辯論的話題，作為社論刊登了出來。1823年一整年中，我的很多投稿都發(fā)表在《紀事晨報》和《旅行者》上，有的是書評，但更多的是書信，評論議會里面說的一些胡話、法律的缺陷以及地方行政官員或法庭做的壞事。在揭露腐敗方面，《紀事晨報》當時做得相當出色。佩里先生去世后，報紙的編輯和管理職務移交給了約翰.布萊克先生，從發(fā)刊以來他就是該報的記者。他博覽群書，閱歷廣泛，誠懇而思想純樸。他是我父親一位很特別的朋友，很多觀點受到父親和邊沁的影響，他在自己的文章里重現(xiàn)這些觀點和其他有價值的思想，表達得非常流利，技巧嫻熟。從這時起，《紀事晨報》不再像以前那樣僅僅是輝格黨的機關報。在接下來的十年里，它在很大程度上成為功利主義激進分子表達觀點的工具。這主要在于布萊克的文章，得到了方布蘭克的協(xié)助，后者在《紀事晨報》上面發(fā)表的文章和妙語初次展現(xiàn)了一個作家的杰出素質。法律和司法管理方面的缺陷，是這家報紙主要致力于改善的。在那以前，除了邊沁和我父親，幾乎沒有任何人批評過英國公共機構和它們管理中的最大弊端。英國人幾乎普遍相信，英國法律、英國司法以及英國不取報酬的地方行政官員，都是優(yōu)秀的典型。我這么說一點都不過分，除了提供主要資料的邊沁，這種可鄙迷信的破除便最應歸功于作為《紀事晨報》編輯的布萊克了。他不計報酬地不斷向這種迷信開火，暴露法律和法庭的荒謬與缺陷，直至人們感覺到這些為止。在很多問題上，他都成為輿論的喉舌，所發(fā)表的意見經(jīng)常比其他報紙?zhí)岢脑绾芏?。布萊克先生經(jīng)常拜訪我父親，格羅特先生常說，他總能從周一早上的文章中得知布萊克周日是否和我父親在一起。布萊克是父親通過交談和個人影響使其見解為世人所知的眾多渠道中最重要的一個。加之其作品的影響，他成了這個國家的一股力量，這對于平民身份的個人來說，僅僅通過智力和品格的力量是很難做到的。這股力量經(jīng)常在最難以覺察和最不受懷疑的地方，最有效率地發(fā)揮作用。我已經(jīng)注意到，李嘉圖、休謨和格羅特所做的事情，一部分是他激勵和說服的結果。他簡直是布魯厄姆身邊為公眾謀福利的天才，不管是從教育、法律改革，還是其他方面都可以看出來。他的影響就像難以數(shù)計的溪流。這種影響現(xiàn)在馬上要大大擴展了，因為《威斯敏斯特評論》創(chuàng)刊了。

Contrary to what may have been supposed, my father was in no degree a party to setting up the Westminster Review. The need of a Radical organ to make head against the Edinburgh and Quarterly (then in the period of their greatest reputation and influence), had been a topic of conversation between him and Mr. Bentham many years earlier, and it had been a part of their cháteau en Espagne that my father should be the editor; but the idea had never assumed any practical shape. In 1823, however, Mr. Bentham determined to establish the Review at his own cost, and offered the editorship to my father, who declined it as incompatible with his India House appointment. It was then entrusted to Mr. (now Sir John) Bowring, at that time a merchant in the City. Mr. Bowring had been for two or three years previous an assiduous frequenter of Mr. Bentham, to whom he was recommended by many personal good qualities, by an ardent admiration for Bentham, a zealous adoption of many, though not all of his opinions, and, not least, by an extensive acquaintanceship and correspondence with Liberals of all countries, which seemed to qualify him for being a powerful agent in spreading Bentham's fame and doctrines through all quarters of the world. My father had seen little of Bowring, but knew enough of him to have formed a strong opinion, that he was a man of an entirely different type from what my father considered suitable for conducting a political and philosophical Review: and he augured so ill of the enterprise that he regretted it altogether, feeling persuaded not only that Mr. Bentham would lose his money, but that discredit would probably be brought upon Radical principles. He could not however desert Mr. Bentham, and he consented to write an article for the first number. As it had been a favorite portion of the scheme formerly talked of, that part of the work should be devoted to reviewing the other Reviews, this article of my father's was to be a general criticism of the Edinburgh Review from its commencement. Before writing it he made me read through all the volumes of the Review, or as much of each as seemed of any importance (which was not so arduous a task in 1823 as it would be now), and make notes for him of the articles which I thought he would wish to examine, either on account of their good or their bad qualities. This paper of my father's was the chief cause of the sensation which the Westminster Review produced at its first appearance, and is, both in conception and in execution, one of the most striking of all his writings. He began by an analysis of the tendencies of periodical literature in general; pointing out, that it cannot, like books, wait for success, but must succeed immediately, or not at all, and is hence almost certain to profess and inculcate the opinions already held by the public to which it addresses itself, instead of attempting to rectify or improve those opinions. He next, to characterize the position of the Edinburgh Review as a political organ, entered into a complete analysis, from the Radical point of view, of the British Constitution. He held up to notice its thoroughly aristocratic character: the nomination of a majority of the House of Commons by a few hundred families; the entire identification of the more independent portion, the county members, with the great landholders; the different classes whom this narrow oligarchy was induced, for convenience, to admit to a share of power; and finally, what he called its two props, the Church, and the legal profession. He pointed out the natural tendency of an aristocratic body of this composition, to group itself into two parties, one of them in possession of the executive, the other endeavouring to supplant the former and become the predominant section by the aid of public opinion, without any essential sacrifice of the aristocratical predominance. He described the course likely to be pursued, and the political ground occupied, by an aristocratic party in opposition, coquetting with popular principles for the sake of popular support. He shewed how this idea was realized in the conduct of the Whig party, and of the Edinburgh Review as its chief literary organ. He described, as their main characteristic, what he termed "seesaw;" writing alternately on both sides of every question which touched the power or interest of the governing classes; sometimes in different articles, sometimes in different parts of the same article: and illustrated his position by copious specimens. So formidable an attack on the Whig party and policy had never before been made; nor had so great a blow been ever struck, in this country, for Radicalism; nor was there, I believe, any living person capable of writing that article, except my father.

與大家可能會預想的相反，我父親完全沒有參與創(chuàng)立《威斯敏斯特評論》。很多年前，他和邊沁先生就談論過，予以《愛丁堡評論》和《季刊評論》迎頭痛擊需要一份激進主義的報紙（當時，這兩份報紙正處于名聲和影響最大的時候），父親做編輯也在計劃之中，但這個想法從未付諸實施。然而，1823年，邊沁先生決定自己出資創(chuàng)立這個評論雜志，讓我父親做編輯，但父親拒絕了，因為這與他在東印度公司的職位相沖突。于是評論雜志就委托給了鮑林先生（現(xiàn)在的約翰爵士），當時他是倫敦的一名商人。鮑林先生在這之前的兩三年，經(jīng)常拜訪邊沁先生，他有許多優(yōu)秀品質，非常仰慕邊沁，熱情地采納邊沁的大部分觀點，盡管不是全部，并與所有國家的自由主義者有著廣泛的認識和聯(lián)系。所有這些都使邊沁對他十分欣賞，似乎也讓他有資格成為一名有力的代理人，向世界各地傳播邊沁的名聲和學說。父親雖沒怎么見過鮑林，但是對他的了解足以形成深刻的印象，他與父親心目中適合管理政治和哲學評論雜志的人是完全不同的類型。并且，他認為這項事業(yè)前景壞到令他為整件事情惋惜，不僅覺得邊沁先生肯定會損失金錢，而且還可能會損害激進主義原則的名譽。然而，他又不能置邊沁先生于不顧，他答應給創(chuàng)刊號寫一篇文章。作為之前討論的方案里備受喜愛的一部分，這部分內容應該是用來回顧和評論其他評論報紙的。于是父親的這篇文章就是對《愛丁堡評論》自創(chuàng)刊以來的一個總體批評。在寫這篇文章之前，父親讓我讀了每一期的《愛丁堡評論》，或者每一本里面看起來比較重要的文章（這項工作在1823年時不像現(xiàn)在這么艱巨），并讓我把我認為他會愿意研究的文章，根據(jù)其好壞，給他作注釋。父親的文章是《威斯敏斯特評論》一面世即引起轟動的最主要原因，而且，不論在構思上還是在寫作手法上，都是其佳作之一。他首先分析了期刊文學的總體趨勢，指出它不能像書籍一樣等待成功到來，而必須立刻成功，要么就永遠無法成功，因此幾乎可以肯定，期刊會針對其受眾公開宣稱并反復灌輸他們已經(jīng)持有的觀點，而不是試圖矯正或改進那些觀點。接下來，為了刻畫《愛丁堡評論》作為政治喉舌的立場，他用激進主義的觀點對《英國憲法》進行了全面分析。他進一步指出憲法徹頭徹尾的貴族政治特征：幾百個家庭就決定了下議院大多數(shù)人的任命；把更加獨立的一部分人——郡議員——完全等同于大土地所有者；為了方便，這個狹隘的寡頭統(tǒng)治國家讓不同階層分享一部分權力；最后提到的是教會和律師業(yè)，他把它們稱作憲法的兩個靠山。他指出，這種結構的貴族團體的自然趨勢是把自己分成兩黨，一黨掌控政府，另一黨竭力在公共輿論的幫助下，取代前者，占據(jù)支配地位，而貴族的統(tǒng)治不會有任何實質上的犧牲。他描繪了在野的貴族黨可能會采取的做法，以及他們會持有的政治立場，即為了得到大眾支持而賣弄流行的原則。他展示了這種理念是如何在輝格黨及其文化喉舌《愛丁堡評論》的行為中體現(xiàn)的。父親描述了他們的主要特征，即他所謂的“蹺蹺板”現(xiàn)象：輪流寫雙方每個觸及統(tǒng)治階級權力或利益的問題；有時在不同的文章里面寫，有時在同一篇文章的不同地方寫。父親還舉出了豐富的例子來表明他的立場。對輝格黨和它的政策，以前從未有過這么有力的攻擊。在這個國家，也從未有人為了激進主義做出如此強烈的一擊。我相信，除了父親外，也沒有任何人能寫出那樣的文章。

In the meantime the nascent review had formed a junction with another project, of a purely literary periodical, to be edited by Mr. Henry Southern, afterwards a diplomatist, then a literary man by profession. The two editors agreed to unite their corps, and divide the editorship, Bowring taking the political, Southern the literary department. Southern's review was to have been published by Longman, and that firm, though part proprietors of the Edinburgh, were willing to be the publishers of the new journal. But when all the arrangements had been made, and the prospectuses sent out, the Longmans saw my father's attack on the Edinburgh, and drew back. My father was now appealed to for his interest with his own publisher, Baldwin, which was exerted with a successful result. And so, in April 1824, amidst anything but hope on my father's part, and that of most of those who afterwards aided in carrying on the Review, the first number made its appearance.

同時，初生的評論雜志和另一個項目——一個純文學期刊——聯(lián)合了起來，這個新期刊將由亨利.薩瑟恩先生任編輯，他后來成了外交家，當時專職搞文學創(chuàng)作。兩個編輯同意把他們的隊伍聯(lián)合起來，進行分工，鮑林負責政治部分，薩瑟恩負責文學部分。薩瑟恩的評論雜志按計劃要由朗文出版，這個公司盡管是《愛丁堡評論》的股東之一，但還是樂于做這個新期刊的發(fā)行人。但是，當所有安排都做好了，簡介也已經(jīng)發(fā)出去了的時候，朗文的人看到了我父親對《愛丁堡評論》的攻擊，退出了。這時父親為了自己的利益向他的出版商鮑德溫求助，結果成功了。于是在1824年4月，在父親的滿懷期待中，以及大多數(shù)后來協(xié)助經(jīng)營這個評論雜志的人的期待中，創(chuàng)刊號問世了。

That number was an agreeable surprise to most of us. The average of the articles was of much better quality than had been expected. The literary and artistic department had rested chiefly on Mr. Bingham, a barrister (subsequently a police magistrate), who had been for some years a frequenter of Bentham, was a friend of both the Austins, and had adopted with great ardour Mr. Bentham's philosophical opinions. Partly from accident, there were in the first number as many as five articles by Bingham; and we were extremely pleased with them. I well remember the mixed feeling I myself had about the Review; the joy at finding, what we did not at all expect, that it was sufficiently good to be capable of being made a creditable organ of those who held the opinions it professed; and extreme vexation, since it was so good on the whole, at what we thought the blemishes of it. When, however, in addition to our generally favourable opinion of it, we learned that it had an extraordinarily large sale for a first number, and found that the appearance of a Radical Review, with pretensions equal to those of the established organs of parties, had excited much attention, there could be no room for hesitation, and we all became eager in doing everything we could to strengthen and improve it.

那一期對我們大多數(shù)人來說是個驚喜。文章的平均水平比預期要高很多。文學和藝術部分主要靠賓厄姆先生，他是個律師（后來是警備司法官），有幾年是邊沁的?？停菉W斯丁兄弟倆的朋友，以很大的熱情采納了邊沁先生的哲學觀點。部分出于巧合，第一期里面賓厄姆的文章竟然有五篇之多，我們非常喜歡這些文章。我清楚地記得自己對《威斯敏斯特評論》的復雜感情。我們意外地發(fā)現(xiàn)它足以成為那些秉持期刊公開宣揚的觀點的人可信賴喉舌時的快樂。還有極度的苦惱，因為大體上來說，連以前我們認為會是瑕疵的地方，它都做得很好。然而，除了我們普遍贊成它之外，我們還得知期刊的銷售數(shù)量對于首期來說非常之大，并且發(fā)現(xiàn)這一和其他具有一定基礎的黨派喉舌報刊意圖相同的激進主義評論雜志的出現(xiàn)引起了很多關注。此時我們不再猶豫，都變得很熱切，想竭盡全力去鞏固它，改善它。

My father continued to write occasional articles. The Quarterly Review received its exposure, as a sequel to that of the Edinburgh. Of his other contributions, the most important were an attack on Southey's Book of the Church, in the fifth number, and a political article in the twelfth. Mr. Austin only contributed one paper, but one of great merit, an argument against primogeniture, in reply to an article then lately published in the Edinburgh Review by McCulloch. Grote also was a contributor only once; all the time he could spare being already taken up with his History of Greece. The article he wrote was on his own subject, and was a very complete exposure and castigation of Mitford. Bingham and Charles Austin continued to write for some time; Fonblanque was a frequent contributor from the third number. Of my particular associates, Ellis was a regular writer up to the ninth number; and about the time when he left off, others of the set began; Eyton Tooke, Graham, and Roebuck. I was myself the most frequent writer of all, having contributed, from the second number to the eighteenth, thirteen articles; reviews of books on history and political economy, or discussions on special political topics, as corn laws, game laws, law of libel. Occasional articles of merit came in from other acquaintances of my father's, and in time, of mine; and some of Mr. Bowring's writers turned out well. On the whole, however, the conduct of the Review was never satisfactory to any of the persons strongly interested in its principles, with whom I came in contact. Hardly ever did a number come out without containing several things extremely offensive to us, either in point of opinion, of taste, or by mere want of ability. The unfavorable judgments passed by my father, Grote, the two Austins, and others, were re-echoed with exaggeration by us younger people; and as our youthful zeal rendered us by no means backward in making complaints, we led the two editors a sad life. From my knowledge of what I then was, I have no doubt that we were at least as often wrong as right; and I am very certain that if the Review had been carried on according to our notions (I mean those of the juniors), it would have been no better, perhaps not even so good as it was. But it is worth noting as a fact in the history of Benthamism, that the periodical organ, by which it was best known, was from the first extremely unsatisfactory to those, whose opinions on all subjects it was supposed specially to represent.

父親繼續(xù)時不時地寫文章?！都究u論》緊隨《愛丁堡評論》被曝光。在他的其他稿件中，最重要的是一篇抨擊騷塞《宗教論》的文章，發(fā)表在第五期上；還有一篇政治文章，發(fā)表在第十二期上。奧斯丁先生只投了一篇論文，但是很有價值，論證反對長嗣繼承權，回應麥卡洛克當時剛剛發(fā)表在《愛丁堡評論》上的一篇文章。格羅特也只發(fā)了一篇文章，他能勻出來的時間都用在《希臘史》上了。他的文章寫的是他自己的主題，非常全面地揭露和譴責了米特福德。賓厄姆和查爾斯.奧斯丁的寫作持續(xù)了一段時間；從第三期起，方布蘭克開始經(jīng)常投稿。而我的密友中，埃利斯經(jīng)常供稿，一直到第九期。后來他不寫了，其他人就接手了，有艾頓.圖克、格雷厄姆和羅巴克。我自己是所有作者中最經(jīng)常寫的，從第二期到第十八期，投了十三篇文章；評論歷史和政治經(jīng)濟學書籍，或者討論特殊的政治話題，如《谷物法》《狩獵法》和《誹謗法》。偶爾有些很有價值的文章是父親的其他熟人寫的，這些人后來也成了我的熟人。鮑林先生的一些作家也表現(xiàn)得很好。然而，總體上來說，這個評論雜志的表現(xiàn)從來沒有讓那些我接觸到的對它的原則特別感興趣的人都滿意過。幾乎每一期出來的時候，上面都有讓我們極其反感的東西，要么是觀點、品味，要么就是純粹的能力缺乏。我父親、格羅特、奧斯丁兄弟倆，和其他人給出的負面評價，得到我們年輕人的附和和夸大；年輕人的熱情決定了我們決不會在發(fā)牢騷上落后，結果害慘了兩個編輯。以我對自己當時情況的了解，我堅信我們錯的時候至少與對的時候一樣多。我敢肯定，如果評論雜志按我們的想法經(jīng)營下去的話（我指的是年輕人的想法），它不會更好，甚至可能不如原來的好。但是，在功利主義的歷史中有個值得注意的事實，就是這個讓功利主義非常知名的喉舌期刊從一開始，就讓本意欲讓其代言之人極度不滿意。

Meanwhile, however, the Review made considerable noise in the world, and gave a recognised status, in the arena of opinion and discussion, to the Benthamic type of radicalism, out of all proportion to the number of its adherents, and to the personal merits and abilities, at that time, of most of those who could be reckoned among them. It was a time, as is known, of rapidly rising Liberalism. When the fears and animosities accompanying the war with France had been brought to an end, and people had once more a place in their thoughts for home politics, the tide began to set towards reform. The renewed oppression of the Continent by the old reigning families, the countenance apparently given by the English Government to the conspiracy against liberty called the Holy Alliance, and the enormous weight of the national debt and taxation occasioned by so long and costly a war, rendered the government and parliament very unpopular. Radicalism, under the leadership of the Burdett and Cobbett1, had assumed a character and importance which seriously alarmed the Administration: and their alarm had scarcely been temporarily assuaged by the celebrated Six Acts2, when the trial of Queen Caroline roused a still wider and deeper feeling of hatred. Though the outward signs of this hatred passed away with its exciting cause, there arose on all sides a spirit which had never shewn itself before, of opposition to abuses in detail. Mr. Hume's persevering scrutiny of the public expenditure, forcing the House of Commons to a division on every objectionable item in the estimates, had begun to tell with great force on public opinion, and had extorted many minor retrenchments from an unwilling Administration. Political economy had asserted itself with great vigour in public affairs, by the petition of the merchants of London for free trade, drawn up in 1820 by Mr. Tooke and presented by Mr. Alexander Baring3; and by the noble exertions of Ricardo during the few years of his parliamentary life. His writings, following up the impulse given by the Bullion controversy, and followed up in their turn by the expositions and comments of my father and McCulloch (whose writings in the Edinburgh Review during those years were most valuable), had drawn general attention to the subject, making at least partial converts in the Cabinet itself; and Huskisson, supported by Canning4, had commenced that gradual demolition of the protective system, which one of their colleagues virtually completed in 1846, though the last vestiges were only swept away by Mr. Gladstone5 in 1860. Mr. Peel, then Home Secretary, was entering cautiously into the untrodden and peculiarly Benthamic path of Law Reform. At this period, when Liberalism seemed to be becoming the tone of the time, when improvement of institutions was preached from the highest places, and a complete change of the constitution of Parliament was loudly demanded in the lowest, it is not strange that attention should have been roused by the regular appearance in controversy of what seemed a new school of writers, claiming to be the legislators and theorists of this new tendency. The air of strong conviction with which they wrote, when scarcely any one else seemed to have an equally strong faith in as definite a creed; the boldness with which they tilted against the very front of both the existing political parties; their uncompromising profession of opposition to many of the generally received opinions, and the suspicion they lay under of holding others still more heterodox than they professed; the talent and verve of at least my father's articles, and the appearance of a corps behind him sufficient to carry on a Review; and finally, the fact that the Review was bought and read, made the so-called Bentham school in philosophy and politics fill a greater place in the public mind than it had held before, or has ever again held since other equally earnest schools of thought have arisen in England. As I was in the head quarters of it, knew of what it was composed, and as one of the most active of its very small number, might say without undue assumption, quorum pars magna fui, it belongs to me more than to most others to give some account of it.

然而與此同時，《威斯敏斯特評論》在世界上發(fā)出了不小的聲音，在輿論界給功利主義式的激進主義以公認的地位，這地位和它追隨者的數(shù)量及當時大部分能被算在追隨者之內的人的優(yōu)點和能力是不相稱的。眾所周知，那是個自由主義迅速崛起的時代。由于與法國的戰(zhàn)爭而帶來的恐懼和仇恨已經(jīng)消散，人們開始再次審視國內政治，潮流開始傾向于改革。歐洲大陸重新受到舊的統(tǒng)治家族的壓迫，英國政府對被稱作神圣同盟的反自由主義陰謀集團的明確支持，加上長時間損失慘重的戰(zhàn)爭導致的巨大國債和稅收負擔，讓政府和議會很不得人心。在柏代特和科貝特的領導下，激進主義獲得的聲譽和地位讓政府很驚恐，他們的驚恐幾乎沒有因為著名的《六項法案》而暫時減輕，因為對卡羅琳王后的審判激起了人們更廣泛、更深刻的仇恨之情。盡管這種仇恨的外部跡象隨著它激動人心的運動一起消散了，但是到處都萌生了一種前所未有的反對濫用各種職權的精神。休謨先生不屈不撓地審查公共開支，迫使下議院劃分財政收支概算的每一個引起異議的項目，他的行動已經(jīng)對公眾輿論產(chǎn)生了強有力的影響，迫使不情愿的政府縮減了很多不重要的開支。1820年，由圖克先生草擬，亞歷山大.巴林提呈的《倫敦商人貿易自由請愿119書》，和李嘉圖在數(shù)年議會生涯中的不懈努力，使政治經(jīng)濟學在公共事務中大顯身手。李嘉圖受金價論戰(zhàn)的推動而做的著述，加上隨后我父親和麥卡洛克相繼的闡述和評論（那幾年，他在《愛丁堡評論》上的作品很有價值），引起了人們對政治經(jīng)濟學的普遍關注，至少讓內閣的一部分人相信了它。哈斯基遜在坎寧的支持下，開始逐漸摧毀保護體系。他們的一個同事實際上在1846年就完成了這件事情，盡管最后的殘余要到1860年才被格萊斯頓先生掃清。皮爾先生，當時的內政大臣，謹慎地走上前無古人的功利主義法律改革道路。在這一時期，自由主義似乎將要成為時代的主旋律，最高層鼓吹要改進制度，最底層則強烈要求全面變革議會的章程。這時一批看似屬于新興學派的作家一般都會在爭論中出現(xiàn)，他們要求成為這個新趨勢的立法者和理論家，由此引起人們的關注也不足為奇。他們寫作時帶著堅定的信念，而好像很少有人對一個同樣明確的信條有同樣強烈的信心；他們用大膽的文字正面抨擊現(xiàn)有的兩個政黨；他們毫不妥協(xié)地宣稱反對很多為人們普遍接受的觀點，并由于認為他人比他們宣稱的更異端而飽受懷疑；還有至少從我父親的文章中體現(xiàn)出來的才能和氣魄，以及他身后足以支撐一家評論雜志的團體。最后，這家評論雜志擁有讀者的事實——所有這一切，讓哲學和政治領域的功利主義學派，在公眾的心中占據(jù)了前所未有的重要位置，或者說在其他同樣急切的思想學派在英國興起后以來再次獲得了重要的地位。由于我處在其核心位置，了解其構成，作為少數(shù)最活躍的分子之一極大地參與了它的事務，我這么說可能沒什么不合適，即與其他大部分人相比，描述一下它的情況是我的分內之事。

This supposed school, then, had no other existence than what was constituted by the fact, that my father's writings and conversation drew round him a certain number of young men who had already imbibed, or who imbibed from him, a greater or smaller portion of his very decided political and philosophical opinions. The notion that Bentham was surrounded by a band of disciples who received their opinions from his lips, is a fable to which my father did justice in his "Fragment on Mackintosh," and which, to all who knew Mr. Bentham's habits of life and manner of conversation, is simply ridiculous. The influence which Bentham exercised was by his writings. Through them he has produced, and is producing, effects on the condition of mankind, wider and deeper, no doubt, than any which can be attributed to my father. He is a much greater name in history. But my father exercised a far greater personal ascendancy. He was sought for the vigour and instructiveness of his conversation, and did use it largely as an instrument for the diffusion of his opinions. I have never known any man who could do such ample justice to his best thoughts in colloquial discussion. His perfect command over his great mental resources, the terseness and expressiveness of his language and the moral earnestness as well as intellectual force of his delivery, made him one of the most striking of all argumentative conversers: and he was full of anecdote, a hearty laugher, and, when with people whom he liked, a most lively and amusing companion. It was not solely, or even chiefly, in diffusing his merely intellectual convictions that his power shewed itself: it was still more through the influence of a quality, of which I have only since learnt to appreciate the extreme rarity: that exalted public spirit and regard above all things to the good of the whole, which warmed into life and activity every germ of similar virtue that existed in the minds he came in contact with: the desire he made them feel for his approbation, the shame at his disapproval; the moral support which his conversation and his very existence gave to those who were aiming at the same objects, and the encouragement he afforded to the fainthearted or desponding among them, by the firm confidence which (though the reverse of sanguine as to the results to be expected in any one particular case) he always felt in the power of reason, the general progress of improvement, and the good which individuals could do by judicious effort.

這個所謂的學派，其實不過是父親的作品和談話使得一些年輕人圍繞在他周圍，這些年輕人有的已經(jīng)吸收了，有的正從他那里或多或少地吸收他非常堅定的政治和哲學觀點。有人認為邊沁周圍聚集了一幫信徒，這些人接受的觀點都是他親口教授的，這純屬無稽之談。我父親在他的《略論麥金托什》里作了澄清，而對所有了解邊沁先生生活習慣和談話方式的人來說，這種說法很可笑。邊沁對人的影響是通過他的作品產(chǎn)生的。通過作品，他對人類的狀態(tài)造成了影響，而且正在產(chǎn)生影響，這影響毫無疑問比我父親所做的一切要深遠得多。在歷史上，他的名氣遠比我父親的大。但是，我父親發(fā)揮了更大的個人優(yōu)勢。人們是從他的談話中尋求活力和指導的，他也確實經(jīng)常把交談當作傳播自己觀點的工具。我從來不認識任何人能像他一樣在交談中就能精僻闡述自己最精華的思想。他對自己高智商有著完美的掌控，語言簡潔精練，富有表現(xiàn)力，講話時內心誠懇，充滿智慧，這使他成為最引人注目的善辯的談話者之一。他會講很多軼事，喜歡開懷大笑，與他喜歡的人在一起時，他是個非?；顫?、有趣的同伴。他的力量不單是，甚至不主要是通過傳播他的純粹精神信念展現(xiàn)出來的：他的力量更常通過一種品質的影響力來展現(xiàn)，此后我才學會去欣賞它的絕妙之處。他那種高尚的公德心和將大眾利益看得高于一切的胸懷，使得與他接觸過的人心里類似美德的每一個萌芽都得到溫暖，有了生命和活力；他讓他們渴望得到他的嘉許，讓他們覺得因被他反對而羞恥；他的談話以及他的存在本身，就給了那些目標相同的人以精神支持，通過對理智的力量、總體的改良進展以及個人通過審慎的努力可以行善的堅定信心（盡管在個別特殊情況下，會出現(xiàn)與預期相反的、不樂觀的結果），給他們當中怯懦或意志消沉的人以鼓勵。

It was my father's opinions which gave the distinguishing character to the Benthamic or utilitarian propagandism of that time. They fell singly scattered from him in many directions, but they f lowed from him in a continued stream principally in three channels. One was through me, the only mind directly formed by his instructions, and through whom considerable influence was exercised over various young men, who became, in their turn, propagandists. A second was through some of the Cambridge cotemporaries of Charles Austin, who, either initiated by him or under the general mental impulse which he gave, had adopted many opinions allied to those of my father, and some of the more considerable of whom afterwards sought my father's acquaintance and frequented his house. Among these may be mentioned Strutt, afterwards Lord Belper, and the present Lord Romilly, with whose eminent father, Sir Samuel, my father had of old been on terms of friendship. The third channel was that of a younger generation of Cambridge undergraduates, cotemporary, not with Austin, but with Eyton Tooke, who were drawn to that estimable person by affinity of opinions, and introduced by him to my father: the most notable of these was Charles Buller. Various other persons individually received and transmitted a considerable amount of my father's influence: for example, Black (as before mentioned) and Fonblanque: most of these however we accounted only partial allies; Fonblanque, for instance, was always divergent from us on many important points. But indeed there was by no means complete unanimity among any portion of us, nor had any of us adopted implicitly all my father's opinions. For example, although his Essay on Government was regarded probably by all of us as a masterpiece of political wisdom, our adhesion by no means extended to the paragraph of it, in which he maintains that women may consistently with good government, be excluded from the suffrage, because their interest is the same with that of men. From this doctrine, I, and all those who formed my chosen associates, most positively dissented. It is due to my father to say that he denied having intended to affirm that women should be excluded, any more than men under the age of forty, concerning whom he maintained, in the very next paragraph, an exactly similar thesis. He was, as he truly said, not discussing whether the suffrage had better be restricted, but only (assuming that it is to be restricted) what is the utmost limit of restriction, which does not necessarily involve a sacrifice of the securities for good government. But I thought then, as I have always thought since, that the opinion which he acknowledged, no less than that which he disclaimed, is as great an error as any of those against which the Essay was directed; that the interest of women is included in that of men exactly as much and no more, as the interest of subjects is included in that of kings; and that every reason which exists for giving the suffrage to anybody, demands that it should not be withheld from women. This was also the general opinion of the younger proselytes; and it is pleasant to be able to say that Mr. Bentham, on this important point, was wholly on our side.

是父親的見解讓當時的邊沁主義或功利主義的宣傳有了不同于一般的特點。這些見解從他那里向不同方向零散地傳播開來，這種源源不斷的傳播主要有三條渠道。一個是通過我，我的思想是唯一一個直接由他指導塑造而成的，他通過我對很多年輕人產(chǎn)生了重大影響，這些人繼而成了宣傳員。第二個是通過查爾斯.奧斯丁的劍橋同輩，他們或者是受到他的啟蒙，或者受到他主要精神的推動，采納了很多跟我父親類似的觀點，其中一些更重要的人后來尋求與父親結識的機會，經(jīng)常去拜訪他。這些人中值得一提的是斯特拉特（后來成為貝爾珀勛爵），和現(xiàn)在的羅米利勛爵，我父親和他德高望重的父親塞繆爾爵士，早就是好朋友的關系。第三個渠道是劍橋更年輕一代的在校大學生，他們與奧斯丁不是同輩，和艾頓.圖克是同輩。由于觀點相近，他們被吸引到可敬的圖克身邊，然后由他引薦給我父親。這些人中最突出的是查爾斯.布勒。其他人個別地接受、傳播了不少父親的影響，比如，布萊克（之前提到過）和方布蘭克。然而，我們都認為這些人中的大多數(shù)都不是徹底的同盟，比如方布蘭克總是在很多重要的地方與我們有分歧。但實際上，我們當中任何一部分人都決不會完全一致，也沒有任何人毫無保留地接受父親的所有觀點。例如，盡管可能我們都認為他的《論政府》是部充滿政治智慧的杰作，但是我們絕對并非贊同它的每個段落，在文章里他主張不給予婦女選舉權，說這與善政并不矛盾，因為她們的利益和男人是相同的。對于這種說法，我和我所有的同仁們都斷然反對?？陀^地說，父親說過他否認自己有意斷言婦女應該被排除在選舉權之外，四十歲以下的男子其實也應被排除，對這部分人他在下一段里就提出了完全類似的論點。正如他所說的，他并非在討論選舉權是否最好受到限制，而僅僅（假設它受限制的話）在討論：在不必犧牲善政保障措施的前提下，限制的最大限度。但是那時我認為，之后我也一直都這么認為，他承認的觀點和他否認的觀點以及論文要反對的任何觀點一樣，是個很大的錯誤。婦女的利益包含在男子的利益里面恰恰像臣民的利益包含在國王的利益里面一樣，任何人人享有選舉權的現(xiàn)有理由都要求婦女不應被剝奪選舉權，這也是年輕皈依者們的一般觀點。令人欣慰的是，邊沁先生在這個重要問題上完全站在我們這一邊。

But though none of us, probably, agreed in every respect with my father, his opinions, as I said before, were the principal element which gave its colour and character to the little group of young men who were the first propagators of what was afterwards called "Philosophic Radicalism." Their mode of thinking was not characterized by Benthamism in any sense which has relation to Bentham as a chief or guide, but rather by a combination of Bentham's point of view with that of the modern political economy, and with the Hartleian metaphysics. Malthus's population principle was quite as much a banner, and point of union among us, as any opinion specially belonging to Bentham. This great doctrine, originally brought forward as an argument against the indefinite improvability of human affairs, we took up with ardent zeal in the contrary sense, as indicating the sole means of realizing that improvability by securing full employment at high wages to the whole labouring population through a voluntary restriction of the increase of their numbers. The other leading characteristics of the creed, which we held in common with my father, may be stated as follows:

但是，盡管很可能我們之中沒有一個人在所有方面都同意父親的觀點，但像我之前說過的那樣，我們這個年輕人小團體的風格和特征主要是他的觀點賦予的，這些年輕人就是后來被稱為“哲學激進主義”的首批傳播者。這種思考模式與以邊沁為領袖或向導的功利主義從任何意義上來說都毫無關聯(lián)，它實際上是邊沁的觀點和現(xiàn)代政治經(jīng)濟學以及哈特利的形而上學觀點的綜合。馬爾薩斯的人口論幾乎和專屬邊沁的任何觀點一樣，可以說是一面旗幟，也是我們的共同點之一。這個偉大的學說最初提出來是為了反對人類事務可以無限改良的說法，我們從一個相反的層面熱忱地采納了它，說明通過自愿控制人口數(shù)量的增長，確保讓所有勞動人口領取高薪，完全就業(yè)，是實現(xiàn)這種改良的唯一方法。這個學說的另一個主要特點得到了我們和我父親的一致支持，或許可以歸納如下：

In politics, an almost unbounded confidence in the efficacy of two things: representative government, and complete freedom of discussion. So complete was my father's reliance on the influence of reason over the minds of mankind, whenever it is allowed to reach them, that he felt as if all would be gained if the whole population were taught to read, if all sorts of opinions were allowed to be addressed to them by word and in writing, and if by means of the suffrage they could nominate a legislature to give effect to the opinions they adopted. He thought that when the legislature no longer represented a class interest, it would aim at the general interest, honestly and with adequate wisdom; since the people would be sufficiently under the guidance of educated intelligence, to make in general a good choice of persons to represent them, and having done so, to leave to those whom they had chosen a liberal discretion. Accordingly aristocratic rule, the government of the Few in any of its shapes, being in his eyes the only thing which stood between mankind and an administration of their affairs by the best wisdom to be found among them, was the object of his sternest disapprobation, and a democratic suffrage the principal article of his political creed, not on the ground of liberty, Rights of Man, or any of the phrases, more or less significant, by which, up to that time, democracy had usually been defended, but as the most essential of "securities for good government." In this, too, he held fast only to what he deemed essentials; he was comparatively indifferent to monarchical or republican forms—far more so than Bentham, to whom a king, in the character of "corrupter-general," appeared necessarily very noxious. Next to aristocracy, an established church, or corporation of priests, as being by position the great depravers of religion, and interested in opposing the progress of the human mind, was the object of his greatest detestation; though he disliked no clergyman personally who did not deserve it, and was on terms of sincere friendship with several. In ethics, his moral feelings were energetic and rigid on all points which he deemed important to human well being, while he was supremely indifferent in opinion (though his indifference did not shew itself in personal conduct) to all those doctrines of the common morality, which he thought had no foundation but in asceticism and priestcraft. He looked forward, for example, to a considerable increase of freedom in the relations between the sexes, though without pretending to define exactly what would be, or ought to be, the precise conditions of that freedom. This opinion was connected in him with no sensuality either of a theoretical or of a practical kind. He anticipated, on the contrary, as one of the beneficial effects of increased freedom, that the imagination would no longer dwell upon the physical relation and its adjuncts, and swell this into one of the principal objects of life; a perversion of the imagination and feelings, which he regarded as one of the deepest seated and most pervading evils in the human mind. In psychology, his fundamental doctrine was the formation of all human character by circumstances, through the universal Principle of Association, and the consequent unlimited possibility of improving the moral and intellectual condition of mankind by education. Of all his doctrines none was more important than this, or needs more to be insisted on: unfortunately there is none which is more contradictory to the prevailing tendencies of speculation, both in his time and since.

在政治上，人們幾乎無限制地相信兩件事情的功效：代表制的政府和完全的言論自由。父親完全相信理智對人類思維的影響——只要能夠影響到的話——他的信念是如此之深，以致于他覺得，如果能教全民讀書，允許把所有觀點以口頭或書面形式呈現(xiàn)給他們，而他們能依靠選舉權任命執(zhí)行他們觀點的立法機關的話，一切都能實現(xiàn)。他認為，當立法機關不再只代表某個階級的利益之時，它就會真誠地、十分明智地為整體的利益服務。因為人們將在受過教育的才智的充分指導下，選擇一般說來合適的人來代表他們，并在此后賦予選出來的人以自由的決斷力。相應地，貴族的統(tǒng)治，即不管是什么形式的少數(shù)人的政府，在他眼里都是阻礙人類用他們當中最卓越的賢才來管理自己事務的唯一障礙，是他嚴厲指責的對象。民主的選舉權是他政治信條的主要內容，不是把一直到那時候都用來支持民主政治的自由、人權或任何有著類似的意義更大或更小的話語作為理由，而是把民主的選舉權當作最重要的“善政保障設施”。在這一點上，他還是只堅持他所認為的要點。相比之下，他比邊沁還要不關心君主或共和政體的形式——在邊沁眼里，國王扮演的是“腐敗將軍”，看起來肯定很可憎。除了貴族統(tǒng)治，英國國教或牧師組織也是他憎惡的對象，因為它們的地位決定了它們是讓宗教墮落的重要因素，還樂于反對人類進步。盡管他私底下并不討厭不應承擔過錯的牧師本人，甚至還和好幾個結下了誠摯的友誼。在道德規(guī)范上，對于他認為的對人類福利比較重要的所有要點，他的道德情感都很積極堅定，然而他對普通道德觀的所有教條一點也不關心（盡管他的漠不關心沒有在行為中表現(xiàn)出來），他認為這些教條除了根植于禁欲主義和教士權術外，沒有什么根據(jù)。比如，他期盼兩性之間的自由度能有較大提高，但是沒有裝模作樣地要去界定這種自由的具體情形是什么樣子，或者應該是什么樣子。這種觀點在他那里，不管是理論上還是實踐上都不是和縱欲聯(lián)系在一起的。相反，他期望自由度提升后的益處之一，就是人們的想象不再僅僅關注肉體關系及其附加物，不再把它擴大為人生的主要目標之一。他認為，這種想象和情感的墮落是人類頭腦中最根深蒂固、最普遍的罪惡。在心理學方面，他的主要信條是所有人類性格都是由環(huán)境決定的，通過普遍聯(lián)系的原則，以及隨之而來的、用教育提升人的道德水準和智力狀況的無限可能性。這是他所有學說中最重要的，或者最需要堅持的。不幸的是它也是和當時及以后的主要思潮最相矛盾的。

These various opinions were seized on with youthful fanaticism by the little knot of young men of whom I was one: and we put into them a sectarian spirit, from which, in intention at least, my father was wholly free. What we (or rather a phantom substituted in the place of us) were sometimes, by a ridiculous exaggeration, called by others, namely a "school," some of us for a time really hoped and aspired to be. The French philosophes of the eighteenth century were the example we sought to imitate, and we hoped to accomplish no less results. No one of the set went to so great excesses in this boyish ambition as I did; which might be shown by many particulars, were it not a useless waste of space and time.

一小群狂熱的年輕人抓住了這些不同的觀點，我也是其中一員。我們還把宗派主義的傾向帶進這些觀點里面，我父親則完全沒有這種傾向，至少意圖上沒有。有時，由于荒唐的夸張，我們（還不如說是替代了我們的一個幽靈）被人稱作一個“學派”，但這也是有一陣子我們當中的某些人確實期待和追求過的。18世紀的法國哲學家是我們努力模仿的榜樣，我們希望取得和他們同樣多的成就。我是這群人中懷著這個孩子氣的野心走得最極端的。要不是怕浪費時間和空間的話，倒是可以用很多細節(jié)說明一下。

All this, however, is properly only the outside of our existence; or, at least, the intellectual part alone, and no more than one side of that. In attempting to penetrate inward, and give any indication of what we were as human beings, I must be understood as speaking only of myself, of whom alone I can speak from sufficient knowledge; and I do not believe that the picture would suit any of my companions without many and great modifications.

然而，嚴格來說所有這些都只是我們生活的表面，或僅僅是理性的方面，而且還只是理性方面的一個側面。要試圖看穿內部，說明我們是什么樣的人的話，就必須知道我只是在說自己，因為我只能憑對自己足夠的了解來進行說明。我相信，如果不對我的描述進行很多、很大的修改的話，它就不會適用于我的任何一位同伴。

I conceive that the description so often given of a Benthamite, as a mere reasoning machine, though extremely inapplicable to most of those who have been designated by that title, was during two or three years of my life not altogether untrue of me. It was perhaps as applicable to me as it can well be to any one just entering into life, to whom the common objects of desire must in general have at least the attraction of novelty. There is nothing very extraordinary in this fact: no youth of the age I then was, can be expected to be more than one thing, and this was the thing I happened to be. Ambition and desire of distinction, I had in abundance; and zeal for what I thought the good of mankind was my strongest sentiment, mixing with and colouring all others. But my zeal was as yet little else, at that period of my life, than zeal for speculative opinions. It had not its root in genuine benevolence, or sympathy with mankind; though these qualities held their due place in my ethical standard. Nor was it connected with any high enthusiasm for ideal nobleness. Yet of this feeling I was imaginatively very susceptible; but there was at that time an intermission of its natural aliment, poetical culture, while there was a superabundance of the discipline antagonistic to it, that of mere logic and analysis. Add to this that, as already mentioned, my father's teachings tended to the undervaluing of feeling. It was not that he was himself cold-hearted or insensible; I believe it was rather from the contrary quality; he thought that feeling could take care of itself; that there was sure to be enough of it if actions were properly cared about. Offended by the frequency with which, in ethical and philosophical controversy, feeling is made the ultimate reason and justification of conduct, instead of being itself called on for a justification, while, in practice, actions, the effect of which on human happiness is mischievous, are defended as being required by feeling, and the character of a person of feeling obtains a credit for desert, which he thought only due to actions, he had a real impatience of attributing praise to feeling, or of any but the most sparing reference to it, either in the estimation of persons or in the discussion of things. In addition to the influence which this characteristic in him, had on me and others, we found all the opinions to which we attached most importance, constantly attacked on the ground of feeling. Utility was denounced as cold calculation; political economy as hard-hearted; antipopulation doctrines as repulsive to the natural feelings of mankind. We retorted by the word "sentimentality," which, along with "declamation" and "vague generalities," served us as common terms of opprobrium. Although we were generally in the right, as against those who were opposed to us, the effect was that the cultivation of feeling (except the feelings of public and private duty), was not in much esteem among us, and had very little place in the thoughts of most of us, myself in particular. What we principally thought of, was to alter people's opinions; to make them believe according to evidence, and know what was their real interest, which when they once knew, they would, we thought, by the instrument of opinion, enforce a regard to it upon one another. While fully recognizing the superior excellence of unselfish benevolence and love of justice, we did not expect the regeneration of mankind from any direct action on those sentiments, but from the effect of educated intellect, enlightening the selfish feelings. Although this last is prodigiously important as a means of improvement in the hands of those who are themselves impelled by nobler principles of action, I do not believe that any one of the survivors of the Benthamites or Utilitarians of that day, now relies mainly upon it for the general amendment of human conduct.

功利主義者經(jīng)常被描述成純粹的推理機器，我認為盡管這對于大多數(shù)被冠以這種頭銜的人來說非常不合適，但是在我人生的兩三年里我卻確實如此。這種說法可能很適合我，就像它也適合任何開始生活的人一樣，通常他們所渴望的事物總體來說一定由于新奇而具有吸引力。這一事實沒有任何特別之處：對于任何跟我當時一樣大的年輕人，只能指望他有一種樣子，就是我當時碰巧具有的樣子。我的野心很大，對名譽非?？释?；對我心目中人類福利的熱心是我最強烈的感情，它和所有別的感情混合在一起，并影響了它們。但在那段時期，我基本上只熱衷于思辨性的觀點。這種熱情并沒有根植于真正的仁愛之心，或者根植于對人類的同情。但是，這些品質在我的道德標準里有它們應有的位置。它也沒有與任何對完美高尚的高度熱情聯(lián)系在一起。然而，我在想象中很容易受這種情感的影響。但那時，它的天然養(yǎng)料——詩歌的陶冶——中斷了，同時還有過多逆其道而行之的訓練：純粹的邏輯和分析訓練。再加上我之前提到的，父親的教學往往低估情感的價值。這不是說他本人冷酷無情或麻木不仁，我相信恰恰是由于相反的品質。他認為不需要單獨考慮情感，如果關注好行動的話，情感就一定會充足。在道德和哲學論戰(zhàn)中，情感經(jīng)常被作為行為的最終理由和辯護，但是情感本身就需要有理由辯護。而現(xiàn)實中，對人類幸福產(chǎn)生危害的行為被說成是情感需要，一個有感情的人的品格卻遭到唾棄，而父親認為這本應歸罪于行為，他確實沒有耐心去贊賞情感，只是在評價別人或議論事情的時候偶爾提起過它。除了他的這種特點對我和他人的影響之外，我們還發(fā)現(xiàn)所有我們認為很重要的觀點，都經(jīng)常因為情感原因而受到攻擊。效用被指責為冷冰冰的算計，政治經(jīng)濟學被認為無情，控制人口學說被認為是對人類自然情感的排斥。我們用“多愁善感”一詞來反駁，它和“激辯”“含糊的概括”一起成了我們指責他人時常用的詞語。盡管我們反對與自己意見相左的人的行為大體是正確的，但是結果是我們這些人也不怎么看重感情的陶冶（除了對公眾和個人責任的情感之外），我們中的大多數(shù)人也幾乎沒有考慮過它，尤其是我自己。我們主要思考的是如何改變人們的想法，讓他們相信有根據(jù)的東西，知道自己的真正利益是什么。我們想，他們一旦知道了自己的利益后，就會通過輿論工具促使彼此加以留意。盡管我們完全認可無私的仁愛和對正義的熱愛是至上的美德，但是我們沒指望人類通過直接按照這些情感去行動，從而獲得新生，而是期望通過用經(jīng)過教化的智力的影響，來教導他們擺脫自私的感情。在自身受到更崇高行為準則驅使的人那里，盡管最后一條仍是非常重要的改良手段，但是我不相信任何現(xiàn)在仍信仰邊沁主義或者功利主義的人，現(xiàn)在還會主要依賴它作為改進人類行為的常規(guī)方法。

From this neglect both in theory and in practice of the cultivation of feeling, naturally resulted, among other things, an undervaluing of poetry, and of Imagination generally, as an element of human nature. It is, or was, part of the popular notion of Benthamites, that they are enemies of poetry: this was partly true of Bentham himself; he used to say that "all poetry is misrepresentation," but, in the sense in which he said it, the same might have been said of all impressive speech; of all representation or inculcation more oratorical in its character than a sum in arithmetic. An article of Bingham's in the first number of the Westminster Review, in which he offered as an explanation of something which he disliked in Moore6, that "Mr. Moore is a poet, and therefore is not a reasoner," did a good deal to attach the notion of hating poetry to the writers in the Review. But the truth was that many of us were great readers of poetry; Bingham himself had been a writer of it, while as regards me (and the same thing might be said of my father), the correct statement would be, not that I disliked poetry, but that I was theoretically indifferent to it. I disliked any sentiments in poetry which I should have disliked in prose; and that included a great deal. And I was wholly blind to its place in human culture, as a means of educating the feelings. But I was always personally very susceptible to some kinds of it. In the most sectarian period of my Benthamism, I happened to look into Pope7's Essay on Man, and though every opinion in it was contrary to mine, I well remember how powerfully it acted on my imagination. Perhaps at that time poetical composition of any higher type than eloquent discussion in verse, might not have produced a similar effect on me: at all events I seldom gave it an opportunity. This, however, was a mere passing state. Long before I had enlarged in any considerable degree, the basis of my intellectual creed, I had obtained in the natural course of my mental progress, poetic culture of the most valuable kind, by means of reverential admiration for the lives and characters of heroic persons; especially the heroes of philosophy. The same inspiring effect which so many of the benefactors of mankind have left on record that they had experienced from Plutarch8's Lives, was produced on me by Plato's pictures of Socrates, and by some modern biographies, above all by Condorcet's Life of Turgot9; a book well calculated to rouse the best sort of enthusiasm, since it contains one of the wisest and noblest of lives, delineated by one of the wisest and noblest of men. The heroic virtue of these glorious representatives of the opinions with which I sympathized, deeply affected me, and I perpetually recurred to them as others do to a favorite poet, when needing to be carried up into the more elevated regions of feeling and thought. I may observe by the way that this book cured me of my sectarian follies. The two or three pages beginning "Il regardait toute secte comme nuisible," and explaining why Turgot always kept himself perfectly distinct from the Encyclopedists, sank deeply into my mind. I left off designating myself and others as Utilitarians, and by the pronoun "we" or any other collective designation, I ceased to afficher sectarianism. My real inward sectarianism I did not get rid of till later, and much more gradually.

這種理論上以及實踐上對情感陶冶的忽視，必然導致的結果之一就是對詩歌和想象力的低估，只一般地把它們看作是人性的一個因素。功利主義者普遍認為，或者曾經(jīng)認為，他們是詩歌的敵人。對于邊沁本人，這確有幾分正確。他經(jīng)常說，“所有詩歌都是錯誤的表達”，但是，按照他所說的意思，這句話也同樣可以用于所有感人的演說，以及所有比數(shù)學里的算術題更具演說特征的陳述和教導?！锻姑羲固卦u論》第一期中有一篇賓厄姆的文章，他在里面解釋了自己不喜歡穆爾的一些地方，說“穆爾先生是詩人，因此，不是推理家”，這在很大程度上給《威斯敏斯特評論》的作家冠上了討厭詩歌的聲名。但事實上，我們很多人都是詩歌的熱心讀者。賓漢姆本人也曾寫過詩，至于我（也可以這么說我父親），正確的說法是我并非不喜歡詩歌，而是在理論上對它漠不關心。在散文中我不喜歡的情感，在詩歌中我也不會喜歡，這種情感有很多。我完全無視它作為教化情感的方法在人類文化中的位置。但我自己總是很容易受到某些情感的感染。在我功利主義思想最狹隘的時期，我碰巧研讀了蒲柏的長詩《原人篇》，盡管里面的每個觀點都與我的相反，但是我清楚地記得它對我的想象力產(chǎn)生了多么強有力的影響。當時任何比用詩體寫出來有說服力的討論更高級的詩歌創(chuàng)作形式，可能都不會對我產(chǎn)生類似的影響。無論如何，我也幾乎從來沒給過它機會。然而，這種情形只不過是暫時的。早在我大規(guī)模擴大理性信條的基礎之前，我就在精神進步的自然過程中，通過膜拜英雄人物的生活和品格——尤其是哲學英雄，而獲得了最有價值的詩歌文化。對人類作出貢獻的很多人，把他們從普盧塔克的《傳記》中體驗到的鼓舞人心的影響記錄了下來。柏拉圖對蘇格拉底的描述，以及一些現(xiàn)代傳記，尤其是孔多塞的《杜爾哥傳》，對我產(chǎn)生了同樣令人鼓舞的影響。《杜爾哥傳》構思精巧，旨在激起最大的熱情，因為它的作者是個非常賢明、高貴的人，他描繪的也是一個非常賢明、高貴的人的生平。這些和與我有共鳴的顯赫代表人物的超人美德，深深地打動了我，當我需要把情感和思想提升到更崇高的領域時，我總是求助于他們，就像別人求助于最喜歡的詩人一樣。我應該順便說一下，這本書消除了我的宗派主義愚行。以“他認為所有宗派都是有害的”開頭的兩三頁，這幾頁也解釋了為什么杜爾哥總是把自己與百科全書編纂者截然分開，深深地印入了我的腦海。我不再標榜自己和其他人是功利主義者，不再讓代詞“我們”或其他任何集體稱號帶上宗派主義的色彩。我對內心深處真正的宗派主義則擺脫得更晚些，而且更加緩慢漸進。

About the end of 1824, or beginning of 1825, Mr. Bentham, having lately got back his papers on Evidence from M. Dumont (whose Traité des Preuves Judiciaires, grounded on them, was then first completed and published) resolved to have them printed in the original, and bethought himself of me as capable of preparing them for the press; in the same manner as his Book of Fallacies had been recently edited by Bingham. I gladly undertook this task, and it occupied nearly all my leisure for about a year, exclusive of the time afterwards spent in seeing the five large volumes through the press. Mr. Bentham had begun this treatise three times, at considerable intervals, each time in a different manner, and each time without reference to the preceding: two of the three times he had gone over nearly the whole subject. These three masses of manuscript it was my business to condense into a single treatise; adopting the one last written as the groundwork, and incorporating with it as much of the two others as it had not completely superseded. I had also to unroll such of Bentham's involved and parenthetical sentences, as seemed to overpass by their complexity the measure of what readers were likely to take the pains to understand. It was further Mr. Bentham's particular desire that I should, from myself, endeavour to supply any lacun? which he had left; and at his instance I read, for this purpose, the most authoritative treatises on the English Law of Evidence, and commented on a few of the objectionable points of the English rules, which had escaped Bentham's notice. I also replied to the objections which had been made to some of his doctrines, by reviewers of Dumont's book, and added a few supplementary remarks on some of the more abstract parts of the subject, such as the theory of improbability and impossibility. The controversial part of these editorial additions was written in a more assuming tone, than became one so young and inexperienced as I was: but indeed I had never contemplated coming forward in my own person; and as an anonymous editor of Bentham, I fell into the tone of my author, not thinking it unsuitable to him or to the subject, however it might be so to me. My name as editor was put to the book after it was printed, at Mr. Bentham's positive desire, which I in vain attempted to persuade him to forego.

大概在1824年年底，或者1825年年初，邊沁先生剛從杜蒙先生那里拿回他的《論證據(jù)》論文（杜蒙先生以這些論文為基礎寫的《論司法證據(jù)》那時剛完成并發(fā)表），他決定按原稿發(fā)表，并想起來我能夠做出版前的準備工作。他的《謬誤集》最近也是由賓厄姆以同樣的方式編輯的。我很高興地接受了這項工作，它幾乎占用了我一年中的所有空閑時間，還不包括后來在出版社安排五大卷書的付印所花的時間。邊沁先生分三次寫成這部專著，每次中間都有很長的間隔，每次風格都不同，而且每次都沒有參考前面的內容，三次中有兩次他都幾乎涉及了整個主題。這三大本手稿要由我濃縮成一本專著，我把他最后寫的那本當作藍本，盡量把其他兩本中沒有被它完全更替的地方合并到其中去。我還必須拆分邊沁的長難句和插入句，因為它們過于錯綜復雜，讀者很可能沒有耐心去想辦法弄懂它們。邊沁先生還進一步特別要求我從自身出發(fā)，盡力去填補他遺留下的任何不足。在他的要求下，我為此讀了有關《英國證據(jù)法》最權威的論文，對邊沁沒注意到的、英國統(tǒng)治中值得反對的幾個地方作了評論。我還回應了杜蒙著作的評論家對邊沁某些學說的異議，還在這個主題的一些比較抽象的部分里，比如非必然性與無可能性理論，加上了少許補充評論。這些編輯添加的評論中有爭議的部分是我用十分傲慢的語氣寫的，這與我這樣一個年輕、沒經(jīng)驗的人是很不相稱的，但我確實從來沒打算自告奮勇親自去做。作為邊沁的匿名編輯，我用作者的語氣說話，沒想過這樣做對他或主題是否適合，然而這對我來說可能確實不合適。該書出版后，在邊沁先生的積極要求下我的名字被作為編輯加了進去，我試圖勸說他不用這么做，但沒有成功。

The time occupied in this editorial work was extremely well employed in respect to my own improvement. The "Rationale of Judicial Evidence" is one of the richest in matter of all Bentham's productions. The theory of evidence being in itself one of the most important of his subjects, and ramifying into most of the others, the book contains, very fully developed, a great proportion of all his best thoughts: while, among more special things, it comprises the most elaborate exposure of the vices and defects of English law, as it then was, which is to be found in his works; not confined to the law of evidence, but including, by way of illustrative episode, the entire procedure or practice of Westminster Hall. The direct knowledge, therefore, which I obtained from the book, and which was imprinted upon me much more thoroughly than it could have been by mere reading, was itself no small acquisition. But this occupation did for me what might seem less to be expected; it gave a great start to my powers of composition. Everything which I wrote subsequently to this editorial employment, was markedly superior to anything that I had written before it. Bentham's later style, as the world knows, was heavy and cumbersome, from the excess of a good quality, the love of precision, which made him introduce clause within clause into the heart of every sentence, that the reader might receive into his mind all the modifications and qualifications simultaneously with the main proposition: and the habit grew on him until his sentences became, to those not accustomed to them, most laborious reading. But his earlier style, that of the Fragment on Government, Plan of a Judicial Establishment, &c., is a model of liveliness and ease combined with fullness of matter, scarcely ever surpassed: and of this earlier style there were many striking specimens in the manuscripts on Evidence, all of which I endeavoured to preserve. So long a course of this admirable writing had a considerable effect upon my own; and I added to it by the assiduous reading of other writers, both French and English, who combined, in a remarkable degree, ease with force, such as Goldsmith, Fielding, Pascal, Voltaire, and Courier. Through these influences my writing lost the jejuneness of my early compositions; the bones and cartilages began to clothe themselves with flesh, and the style became, at times, lively and almost light.

就我自己的進步而言，做這份編輯工作的時間得到了非常充分的利用。在邊沁的所有作品中，《司法證據(jù)原理》是內容最豐富的著作之一。證據(jù)理論本身就是他最為重要的主題之一，并且衍生出大部分其他主題，這本書包括了他所有精華思想中的一大部分，這些思想被闡釋得非常充分。同時更特別的是，它包含了對當時英國法律中的缺陷和瑕疵極為詳盡的披露，這些在他的作品中可以找到。通過例證事件，這一披露不局限于證據(jù)法，還包括了威斯敏斯特議會大廳里的整套程序和做法。因此，通過編輯這本書而獲得的，比簡單閱讀更深刻地鐫刻在我腦海中的直接知識，本身就是不小的收獲。但是，這項工作給我?guī)淼臇|西似乎比預期的還要多。它對我的寫作能力培養(yǎng)來說是一個很好的開端。完成這項編輯工作之后我寫的每一部作品，比之前寫的任何東西都明顯好很多。邊沁后期的文風，如世人所知，較為沉悶，繁瑣。由于過度追求質量，喜歡精確，他的每個句子都是一個從句嵌著另一個從句，直到句子的中心，這樣讀者可能會同時接受所有的修飾、限定語和主命題。這種習慣在他身上日益增長，直到讓不習慣讀他句子的人讀起來非常費力。但是他早期的文風，如《政府片論》和《司法機構計劃》的風格，卻是輕松活潑與內容豐富相結合的典范，幾乎從未被超越，在《證據(jù)論》的手稿中，有很多顯著的有著早期風格的例子，所有這些我都盡力保存。編輯這部令人欽佩的著述花了如此長的時間，這對我自己的寫作產(chǎn)生了很大影響。另外我還刻苦地研讀了其他作家的作品，法語的和英語的都有，這些作品在相當大的程度上既揮灑自如又鏗鏘有力，比如哥爾德斯密斯、菲爾丁、帕斯卡、伏爾泰和庫里耶。由于這些作品的影響，我的作品丟掉了早期的空洞性，變得日趨飽滿，有血有肉，風格有時很活潑，甚至幾近明快。

This improvement was first exhibited in a new field. Mr. Marshall, of Leeds, father of the present generation of Marshalls, the same who was brought into Parliament for Yorkshire, when the representation forfeited by Grampound was transferred to it, an earnest Parliamentary reformer, and a man of large fortune, of which he made a liberal use, had been much struck with Bentham's Book of Fallacies: and the thought had occurred to him that it would be useful to publish annually the Parliamentary Debates, not in the chronological order of Hansard, but classified according to subjects, and accompanied by a commentary pointing out the fallacies of the speakers. With this intention, he very naturally addressed himself to the editor of The Book of Fallacies; and Bingham, with the assistance of Charles Austin, undertook the editorship. The work was called "Parliamentary History and Review." Its sale was not sufficient to keep it in existence, and it only lasted three years. It excited, however, some attention among parliamentary and political people. The best strength of the party was put forth in it; and its execution did them much more credit than that of the Westminster Review had ever done. Bingham and Charles Austin wrote much in it; as did Strutt, Romilly, and several other liberal lawyers. My father wrote one article in his best style; the elder Austin another. Coulson wrote one of great merit. It fell to my lot to lead off the first number by an article on the principal topic of the session (that of 1825), the Catholic Association and the Catholic disabilities. In the second number I wrote an elaborate Essay on the Commercial Crisis of 1825 and the Currency Debates. In the third I had two articles, one on a minor subject, the other on the Reciprocity principle in commerce, à propos of a celebrated diplomatic correspondence between Canning and Gallatin10. These writings were no longer mere reproductions and applications of the doctrines I had been taught; they were original thinking, as far as that name can be applied to old ideas in new forms and connexions: and I do not exceed the truth in saying that there was a maturity, and a well-digested character about them, which there had not been in any of my previous performances. In execution, therefore, they were not at all juvenile; but their subjects have either gone by, or have been so much better treated since, that they are entirely superseded, and should remain buried in the same oblivion with my contributions to the first dynasty of the Westminster Review.

這種進步最初在一個新領域展現(xiàn)了出來。利茲的馬歇爾先生是這一代馬歇爾家族的族長，在格蘭龐德選區(qū)的代表權被剝奪并移交至約克郡后，他代表約克郡進入了議會——他是位熱心的議會改革家，富有而慷慨，邊沁的《謬誤集》給他以很大沖擊。他有了一個想法，覺得每年出版一次議會辯論的記錄文件會很有用，不是按照《英國議會議事錄》采用的時間次序，而是按主題分類，通過加上注釋指出發(fā)言人的謬誤。帶著這個目的，他很自然地和《謬誤集》的編輯賓厄姆取得了聯(lián)系，在查爾斯·奧斯丁的協(xié)助下，賓厄姆擔任了編輯的職務。這個刊物叫《議會歷史與評論》。它的銷售量不足以維持它的存續(xù)，只堅持了三年。然而，它引起了議員和政治人物的注意。團體的最大力量得以展現(xiàn)出來，它的發(fā)行給他們帶來的榮譽遠比《威斯敏斯特評論》多得多。賓厄姆和查爾斯.奧斯丁寫了很多文章，還有斯特拉特、羅米利和好幾位信仰自由主義的律師都寫了不少文章。我父親以他最好的文風寫了一篇論文，年長的奧斯丁寫了另一篇。庫爾遜寫了一篇，具有重要價值。這次我負責以1825年議會會議的主要議題，即天主教協(xié)會和天主教的無能為主題，寫一篇文章作為第一期的開篇。在第二期上，我精心寫了一篇名為《論1825年的商業(yè)危機和貨幣爭論》的評論。在第三期上，我寫了兩篇文章，一篇寫的是小事情，另一篇寫商業(yè)里的互惠原理，是關于坎寧和加勒廷之間著名的外交通信。這些作品不再僅僅是再現(xiàn)和應用我學到的教條。它們是嶄新的思考，如果新思考可以用來指代以新形式和新關系表現(xiàn)舊觀點的話。如果我說它們展現(xiàn)出成熟、融會貫通的特征，這并沒有夸大事實，這些特征在我之前的任何作品中都是沒有的。因此，在表達時這些思想也并不顯得幼稚。但是它們的主題要么已經(jīng)過時了，要么在那之后得到了更好的論述，所以它們已被完全超越了，應該和我發(fā)表在《威斯敏斯特評論》上的第一代文章一樣，被埋沒在人們遺忘的角落。

While thus engaged in writing for the public, I did not neglect other modes of self-cultivation. It was at this time that I learnt German; beginning it on the Hamiltonian method, for which purpose I and several of my companions formed a class. For several years from this period, our social studies assumed a shape which contributed very much to my mental progress. The idea occurred to us of carrying on, by reading and conversation, a joint study of several of the branches of science which we wished to be masters of. We assembled to the number of a dozen or more. Mr. Grote lent a room of his house in Threadneedle Street for the purpose, and his partner, Prescott, one of the three original members of the Utilitarian Society, made one among us. We met two mornings in every week, from half-past eight till ten, at which hour most of us were called off to our daily occupations. Our first subject was Political Economy. We chose some systematic treatise as our textbook; my father's Elements being our first choice. One of us read aloud a chapter, or some smaller portion, of the book. The discussion was then opened, and any one who had an objection, or other remark to make, made it. Our rule was to discuss thoroughly every point raised, whether great or small, prolonging the discussion until all who took part were satisfied with the conclusion they had individually arrived at; and to follow up every topic of collateral speculation which the chapter or the conversation suggested, never leaving it until we had untied every knot which we found. We repeatedly kept up the discussion of some one point for several weeks, thinking intently on it during the intervals of our meetings, and contriving solutions of the new difficulties which had risen up in the last morning's discussion. When we had finished in this way my father's Elements, we went in the same manner through Ricardo's Principles of Political Economy, and Bailey's Dissertation on Value. These close and vigorous discussions were not only improving in a high degree to those who took part in them, but brought out new views of some topics of abstract Political Economy. The theory of International Values which I afterwards published, emanated from these conversations, as did also the modified form of Ricardo's theory of Profits, laid down in my Essay on Profits and Interest. Those among us with whom new speculations chief ly originated, were Ellis, Graham, and I; though others gave valuable aid to the discussions, especially Prescott and Roebuck, the one by his knowledge, the other by his dialectical acuteness. The theories of International Values and of Profits were excogitated and worked out in about equal proportions by myself and Graham: and if our original project had been executed, my Essays on Some Unsettled Questions of Political Economy would have been brought out along with some papers of his, under our joint names. But when my exposition came to be written, I found that I had so much over-estimated my agreement with him, and he dissented so much from the most original of the two Essays, that on International Values, that I was obliged to consider the theory as now exclusively mine, and it came out as such when published many years later. I may mention that among the alterations which my father made in revising his Elements for the third edition, several were founded on criticisms elicited by these conversations; and in particular he modified his opinions (though not to the extent of our new speculations) on both the points to which I have adverted.

盡管這樣沉浸于為公眾寫作，我并沒有忽視其他形式的自學。就在這時，我學了德語，開始學時用了漢密爾頓的方法，為此，我和好幾個同伴組成了一個班。從這時起，之后的好幾年中，我們的集體學習初具規(guī)模，并對我的思想進步起到了很大作用。我們想起一個點子，就是通過閱讀和交談，繼續(xù)共同學習我們想熟練掌握的好幾個自然科學的分支。我們聚集了12個人或者更多。格羅特先生把他在針線街的房子借了一間供我們學習用，他的伙伴、功利主義學會三名創(chuàng)始人之一的普雷斯科特也成了我們的一員。我們每個星期有兩天上午見面，從八點半到十點，在這幾個小時里，我們大部分人都放棄了自己的日常工作。我們的第一個主題是政治經(jīng)濟學。我們選了一些系統(tǒng)的論文作為教科書，我父親的《政治經(jīng)濟學要義》是我們的首選。先由我們中的一個人朗讀書中的一章或者一小部分，然后討論就開始了，任何人有異議或者有其他評論的話，就直接發(fā)言。我們的規(guī)則是要徹底討論提出的每一個要點，不論大小，一直討論到所有參與者都滿意自己得出的結論為止。要把這一章或交談中產(chǎn)生的每個思考話題探究到底，從不丟下不管，直到解決我們發(fā)現(xiàn)的每個復雜問題為止。我們曾多次持續(xù)好幾個星期連續(xù)討論某一個話題，在不見面的時候專心思考，設法解決上次討論時出現(xiàn)的新困難。我們以這種方式學完了父親的《政治經(jīng)濟學要義》之后，又以同樣的方法學了李嘉圖的《政治經(jīng)濟學原理》，和貝利的《價值論文》。這些徹底的、熱烈的討論不僅大大提升了那些參與者的素質，還催生了抽象政治經(jīng)濟學一些主題的新觀點。我后來發(fā)表的國際價值理論就起源于這些交談，而后我在《論利潤和利益》中所闡述的李嘉圖利潤理論的改良形式也是如此。在我們當中，新思想主要起源于埃利斯、格雷厄姆和我。但是其他人也給了這些討論有價值的幫助，尤其是普雷斯科特和羅巴克，一個通過知識，另一個通過辯證的敏銳。國際價值理論和利潤理論是由我和格雷厄姆共同思考和總結出來的，兩人平分秋色。如果我們最初的方案得以執(zhí)行的話，我的《論政治經(jīng)濟學中若干未解決的問題》就應該和他的一些論文一起出版，署上我們兩人的名字。但是我開始撰文時發(fā)現(xiàn)自己過高地估計了與他的一致性，而他對《論國際價值》從最開始的兩篇評論就持不同意見，所以我不得不認為這個理論現(xiàn)在只屬于我自己，多年后出版的時候也只署了我的名字。我應該提到，我父親在《政治經(jīng)濟學要義》第三版中作的修正，有好幾處是基于從這些交談中得出的批評。特別是把他的觀點中我注意到的兩點作了修改（盡管沒有修改到我們最新推斷的程度）。

When we had enough of political economy, we took up the syllogistic logic in the same manner, Grote now joining us. Our first text-book was Aldrich, but being disgusted with its superficiality, we reprinted one of the most f inished among the many manuals of the school logic, which my father, a great collector of such books, possessed, the Manuductio ad Logicam of the Jesuit Du Trieu. After finishing this, we took up Whately's Logic, then first republished from the Encyclopaedia Metropolitana, and finally the Computatio sive Logica of Hobbes11. These books, dealt with in our manner, afforded a wide range for original metaphysical speculation: and most of what has been done in the First Book of my System of Logic, to rationalize and correct the principles and distinctions of the school logicians, and to improve the theory of the Import of Propositions, had its origin in these discussions; Graham and I originating most of the novelties, while Grote and others furnished an excellent tribunal or test. From this time I formed the project of writing a book on Logic, though on a much humbler scale than the one I ultimately executed.

學完政治經(jīng)濟學后，我們以同樣的方式開始學習三段論邏輯學，此時格羅特加入了我們。我們的第一本課本是奧爾德里奇的著作，但是由于不喜歡它的膚淺，我們重印了耶穌會士迪特里厄的《邏輯學入門》，在很多學院邏輯學的參考書中這本是非常完美的，我父親熱衷于收集此類書籍，我們印的就是他收藏的。讀完這本之后，我們開始繼續(xù)讀惠特利的《邏輯學》，當時剛被《大都會百科全書》第一次再版，最后讀了霍布斯的《計算法和邏輯學》。以我們自己的方式讀的這些書，為新穎的形而上學思考提供了廣闊的空間。我在《邏輯學體系》第一本里做的大部分工作，如闡釋和校正學院邏輯學家的原則和特征、改進命題意義的理論等，都根源于這些討論。新穎的思想大都是格雷厄姆和我提出的，而格羅特和其他人則提供了極好的公斷，或者說檢驗。從這時起，我計劃要寫一本關于邏輯學的作品，盡管其規(guī)模與我最終的成書相比小很多。

Having done with Logic, we launched into Analytic Psychology, and having chosen Hartley12 for our text-book, we raised Priestley's edition to an extravagant price by searching through London to furnish each of us with a copy. When we had finished Hartley, we suspended our meetings; but, my father's Analysis of the Mind being published soon after, we reassembled for the purpose of reading it. With this our exercises ended. I have always dated from these conversations my own real inauguration as an original and independent thinker. It was also through them that I acquired, or very much strengthened, a mental habit to which I attribute all that I have ever done, or ever shall do, in speculation; that of never accepting half-solutions of difficulties as complete; never abandoning a puzzle, but again and again returning to it until it was cleared up; never allowing obscure corners of a subject to remain unexplored, because they did not appear important; never thinking that I perfectly understood any part of a subject until I understood the whole.

學完邏輯學之后，我們開始投入分析心理學，選了哈特利的著作作為我們的課本，為了使我們人手一本普里斯特利的版本，我們把倫敦城仔細搜尋了一遍，一度使其價格飛漲。讀完哈特利之后，我們暫停了會面。但是，我父親的《人類心靈現(xiàn)象的分析》很快就出版了，為了閱讀這本書，我們又重新聚到一起。讀完這本書后，我們的練習就終止了。我總是把自己成為一個有創(chuàng)造性的獨立思想家的開端追溯到這些對話中。也是通過它們我獲得了一個思考習慣，或者說深深加固了這個習慣，我把自己做過的一切思考以及將來要進行的思索，都歸功于這個習慣。這個習慣就是，如果困難只解決了一半，就不能當成全部解決。永遠不放棄任何一個難題，而要反復研究，直到完全解決為止。永遠不允許因為看似不重要，就忽略一個問題不引人注意的角落。在完全理解一個問題之前，永遠不能認為自己完全理解了它的任何一部分。

Our doings from 1825 to 1830 in the way of public speaking, filled a considerable place in my life during those years, and as they had important effects on my development, something ought to be said of them.

從1825到1830年間，我們的演說活動，在我那幾年的生活中占據(jù)了很重要的位置，因為它們對我的發(fā)展有重要影響，所以應該提一下。

There was for some time in existence a society of Owenites13, called the Cooperative Society, which met for weekly public discussions in Chancery Lane. In the early part of 1825, accident brought Roebuck in contact with several of its members, and led to his attending one or two of the meetings and taking part in the debate in opposition to Owenism. Some one of us started the notion of going there in a body and having a general battle: and Charles Austin and some of his friends who did not usually take part in our joint exercises, entered into the project. It was carried out by concert with the principal members of the Society, themselves nothing loth, as they naturally preferred a controversy with opponents to a tame discussion among their own body. The question of population was proposed as the subject of debate: Charles Austin led the case on our side with a brilliant speech, and the fight was kept up by adjournment through five or six weekly meetings before crowded auditories, including along with the members of the Society and their friends, many hearers and some speakers from the Inns of Court14 When this debate was ended, another was commenced on the general merits of Owen's system: and the contest altogether lasted about three months. It was a lutte corps-à-corps between Owenites and political economists, whom the Owenites regarded as their most inveterate opponents: but it was a perfectly friendly dispute. We who represented political economy, had the same objects in view as they had, and took pains to show it; and the principal champion on their side was a very estimable man, with whom I was well acquainted, Mr. William Thompson, of Cork, author of a book on the Distribution of Wealth, and of an Appeal in behalf of women against the passage relating to them in my father's Essay on Government. Ellis, Roebuck, and I, took an active part in the debate, and among those from the Inns of Court who joined in it, I remember Charles Villiers. The other side obtained also, on the population question, very efficient support from without. The well known Gale Jones, then an elderly man, made one of his florid speeches; but the speaker with whom I was most struck, though I dissented from nearly every word he said, was Thirlwall, the historian, since Bishop of St. David's, then a Chancery barrister, unknown except by a high reputation for eloquence acquired at the Cambridge Union before the era of Austin and Macaulay. His speech was in answer to one of mine. Before he had uttered ten sentences, I set him down as the best speaker I had ever heard, and I have never since heard any one whom I placed above him.

有段時間，曾經(jīng)有一個歐文主義者的學會，叫做合作社，它的成員在大法官法庭巷集會，每星期進行一次公開討論。1825年上半年，羅巴克偶然接觸到好幾個合作社的成員，所以他參加了一兩次集會，并參與辯論反對歐文主義。我們當中有個人產(chǎn)生了以團體的形式去那里來一次全體論戰(zhàn)的想法。查爾斯.奧斯丁和他的一些朋友本來很少參加我們的集體活動，這次也參與了這個計劃。合作社的主要成員一致同意執(zhí)行這個計劃，一點都不感到勉強，因為與自己團體內部枯燥乏味的討論相比，他們無疑更喜歡和對手論戰(zhàn)。人口問題被提議作為辯論的主題，我方的查爾斯.奧斯丁用一篇才華橫溢的演說開始了辯論，論戰(zhàn)在每周一次的集會上舉行，持續(xù)了五六個星期，擠滿了觀眾，包括合作社的成員和他們的朋友，以及很多聽眾和一些來自律師培養(yǎng)學院里的演講人。這個辯論結束后，另一個關于歐文體系總體價值的辯論開始了，論戰(zhàn)總共持續(xù)了差不多三個月。這是歐文主義者和政治經(jīng)濟學者之間的激烈斗爭，前者把后者當作最頑固的對手，但是這卻是個非常友好的辯論。代表政治經(jīng)濟學的我們，和他們考慮的目標是一致的，并盡力表現(xiàn)出來。他們那邊的主辯是個非常可敬的人，我和他很熟，他就是科克城的威廉.湯普森先生，《論財富分配》一書的作者，還代表婦女寫了《呼吁書》，反對我父親的《政府論》中有關婦女的觀點。埃利斯、羅巴克和我在辯論中很積極，我記得加入辯論的律師學院的人當中有查爾斯.威利爾斯。在人口問題上，對方也從外面得到了很有效的支持。當時已上年紀的著名的蓋爾.瓊斯，也作了一個華麗的演講。但是最讓我震驚的演說人是瑟爾沃爾，雖然他說的任何一個詞我?guī)缀醵疾煌?。他自圣戴維主教時起就是個歷史學家，后來成為大法官法庭律師，世人只知他善于雄辯，那還是在劍橋協(xié)會，在奧斯汀和麥考利那個時代之前。他的演講是為了回應我的一個演講。他只說了不到十句話，我就斷定他是我聽過的最厲害的演說家，那之后我也從來沒聽過比他更好的。

The great interest of these debates predisposed some of those who took part in them, to catch at a suggestion thrown out by McCulloch, the political economist, that a Society was wanted in London similar to the Speculative Society at Edinburgh, in which Brougham15, Horner, and others first cultivated public speaking. Our experience at the Cooperative Society seemed to give cause for being sanguine as to the sort of men who might be brought together in London for such a purpose. McCulloch mentioned the matter to several young men of influence, to whom he was then giving private lessons in political economy. Some of these entered warmly into the project, particularly George Villiers, afterwards Earl of Clarendon. He and his brothers, Hyde and Charles, Romilly, Charles Austin and I, with some others, met and agreed on a plan. We determined to meet once a fortnight from November to June, at the Freemason's Tavern, and we had soon a splendid list of members, containing, along with several members of Parliament, nearly all the most noted speakers of the Cambridge Union and of the Oxford United Debating Society. It is curiously illustrative of the tendencies of the time, that our principal difficulty in recruiting for the Society was to find a sufficient number of Tory speakers. Almost all whom we could press into the service were Liberals, of different orders and degrees. Besides those already named, we had Macaulay, Thirlwall, Praed, Lord Howick, Samuel Wilberforce (afterwards Bishop of Oxford), Charles Poulett Thomson (afterwards Lord Sydenham), Edward and Henry Lytton Bulwer, Fonblanque, and many others whom I cannot now recollect, but who made themselves afterwards more or less conspicuous in public or literary life. Nothing could seem more promising. But when the time for action drew near, and it was necessary to fix on a President, and find somebody to open the first debate, none of our celebrities would consent to perform either office. Of the many who were pressed on the subject, the only one who could be prevailed on was a man of whom I knew very little, but who had taken high honours at Oxford and was said to have acquired a great oratorical reputation there; who some time afterwards became a Tory member of Parliament. He accordingly was fixed on, both for filling the President's chair and for making the first speech. The important day arrived; the benches were crowded; all our great speakers were present, to judge of, but not to help our efforts. The Oxford orator's speech was a complete failure. This threw a damp on the whole concern: the speakers who followed were few, and none of them did their best: the affair was a complete fiasco; and the oratorical celebrities we had counted on went away never to return, giving to me at least a lesson in knowledge of the world. This unexpected breakdown altered my whole relation to the project. I had not anticipated taking a prominent part, or speaking much or often, particularly at first, but I now saw that the success of the scheme depended on the new men, and I put my shoulder to the wheel. I opened the second question, and from that time spoke in nearly every debate. It was very uphill work for some time. The three Villiers' and Romilly stuck to us for some time longer, but the patience of all the founders of the Society was at last exhausted, except me and Roebuck. In the season following, 1826—7, things began to mend. We had acquired two excellent Tory speakers, Hayward, and Shee (afterwards Sergeant Shee): the Radical side was reinforced by Charles Buller, Cockburn, and others of the second generation of Cambridge Benthamites; and with their and other occasional aid, and the two Tories as well as Roebuck and me for regular speakers, almost every debate was a bataille rangée between the "philosophic Radicals" and the Tory lawyers; until our conflicts were talked about, and several persons of note and consideration came to hear us. This happened still more in the subsequent seasons, 1828 and 1829, when the Coleridgians, in the persons of Maurice and Sterling, made their appearance in the Society as a second Liberal and even Radical party, on totally different grounds from Benthamism and vehemently opposed to it; bringing into these discussions the general doctrines and modes of thought of the European reaction against the philosophy of the eighteenth century; and adding a third and very important belligerent party to our contests, which were now no bad exponent of the movement of opinion among the most cultivated part of the new generation. Our debates were very different from those of common debating societies, for they habitually consisted of the strongest arguments and most philosophic principles which either side was able to produce, thrown often into close and serré confutations of one another. The practice was necessarily very useful to us, and eminently so to me. I never, indeed, acquired real fluency, and had always a bad and ungraceful delivery; but I could make myself listened to: and as I always wrote my speeches when, from the feelings involved, or the nature of the ideas to be developed, expression seemed important,I greatly increased my power of effective writing; acquiring not only an ear for smoothness and rhythm, but a practical sense for telling sentences, and an immediate criterion of their telling property, by their effect on a mixed audience.

對這些辯論的巨大興趣讓一些參與者很容易地接受了政治經(jīng)濟學家麥卡洛克提出的一個建議，即倫敦需要有一個和愛丁堡思辨學會相似的學會，愛丁堡的思辨學會是布魯厄姆、霍納和其他一些人最初培養(yǎng)演說能力的地方。我們在合作社的經(jīng)歷似乎讓人相信我們就是可以聚集在倫敦共同做這樣一件事情的人。麥卡洛克跟幾位有影響力的年輕人提過這件事，那時他正給他們單獨講授政治經(jīng)濟學的課程。他們中有幾位熱心地加入了這個計劃，尤其是后來成為克拉倫登伯爵的喬治.威利爾斯。他和他的兄弟海德和查爾斯、羅米利、查爾斯.奧斯汀，還有我，以及其他一些人會面并達成一個計劃，我們決定從11月到6月在共濟會會員的旅館每兩星期集會一次，我們很快就有了不少杰出的會員，連同好幾位議會議員一起，幾乎囊括了劍橋協(xié)會和牛津聯(lián)合辯論協(xié)會所有的著名演說家。我們的主要困難在于為學會征募足夠的保守黨演說者，這一點很奇特地反映了當時的趨勢。我們能緊急找來的幾乎都是來自不同階層、不同學歷的自由主義者。除了已經(jīng)提到的，還有麥考利、瑟爾沃爾、普雷德、豪伊克勛爵、塞繆爾.威爾伯福斯（后來成為牛津的主教）、查爾斯.波利特.湯姆森（后來成為悉登漢姆勛爵）、愛德華、亨利.利頓.布爾沃、方布蘭克，還有很多我現(xiàn)在想不起來的人，但他們后來都或多或少在公共或文學領域中有出色的表現(xiàn)。一切看起來都充滿希望。行動的日子要到了，這時需要確定一個主席，并找一個人作開場辯論，但是我們的名人中沒有一個同意履行兩個職責中的任何一個。我們敦促很多人做這件事，但被說服了的只有一個，我對此人知之甚少，但他在牛津很受尊敬，據(jù)說在那兒獲得了很高的演說上的聲譽，后來成了議會的保守黨議員。因此，我們就確定他擔任主席一職，并第一個發(fā)言。重大的日子到了，長凳上擠滿了人，我們所有偉大的演說家都到場了，但他們是來評價我們的努力，而不是來幫忙的。這位牛津演說家的演說徹底失敗了。這讓所有人都很沮喪，接下來演說的人很少，而且沒有一個發(fā)揮出最佳狀態(tài)，徹底慘敗。我們曾指望的演說名人離開了，再也沒回來，這至少在了解世事上給了我一個教訓。這個意外的事故改變了我和這個計劃的整個關系。我以前沒有想過要扮演主要角色或者經(jīng)常演講，尤其是一開始的時候。但是，現(xiàn)在我發(fā)現(xiàn)這個計劃的成功要依靠新人，我決定擔起重任。我在第二個問題上首先發(fā)言，從那時起，我?guī)缀踉诿看无q論中都發(fā)言。有一陣子這是非常艱難的工作。威利爾斯三兄弟和羅米利與我們一起堅持了比較長的時間，但是最終除了我和羅巴克，協(xié)會所有創(chuàng)始人的耐心還是耗盡了。在接下來的時期里（1826—1827年），情況開始好轉。我們得到了兩個卓越的保守黨演說家的支持：海沃德和希（后來成為高級律師）。隨著查爾斯·布勒、科伯恩和劍橋功利主義者第二代一些人的加入，激進主義這一邊也得以加強；有他們和其他人的偶爾協(xié)助，加上兩個保守黨黨員，羅巴克和我定期發(fā)言，使得幾乎每一次辯論都是“哲學激進分子”和保守黨律師之間的對陣戰(zhàn)。一直到人們開始議論我們的辯論，好幾個受人尊敬的著名人物來聽我們的辯論為止。在接下來1828—1829年的辯論季當中，這種情況更多了，當時以莫里斯和斯特林為代表的浪漫主義者，作為第二個自由主義甚至激進主義派別出現(xiàn)在學會里，他們的依據(jù)與功利主義完全不同，而且激烈地反對功利主義。他們把歐洲反對18世紀哲學時普遍使用的學說和思考方式帶到這些討論中來，并成為我們論戰(zhàn)中非常重要的好戰(zhàn)第三方，當時他們是新一代思想運動中最有教養(yǎng)的倡導者。我們的辯論和普通辯論協(xié)會中的大不相同，因為我們雙方都能提出來最有說服力的論點和最具哲學性的原則，使得雙方的互相駁斥經(jīng)常陷于激烈的勢均力敵的狀態(tài)。這種實踐對我們來說非常有益，不可或缺，尤其是對我。其實，我從來沒獲得真正流暢的表達能力，表達的時候總是很差，不優(yōu)美，但我還是能抓住聽眾的注意力。由于我總是在表達看起來很重要的時候才寫演講稿，不論是從內心的感情出發(fā)，還是從要闡明觀點的本質出發(fā)，我都大大提高了實際寫作的能力，不僅能夠分辨語言是否流利和有節(jié)奏，還能實際地辨別有說服力的句子，并通過它們對不同觀眾的效果，直接評判它們的說服力。

The Society, and the preparation for it, together with the preparation for the morning conversations which were going on simultaneously, occupied the greater part of my leisure; and made me feel it a relief when, in the spring of 1828, I ceased to write for the Westminster. The Review had fallen into difficulties. Though the sale of the first number had been very encouraging, the permanent sale had never, I believe, been sufficient to pay the expenses, on the scale on which the review was carried on. Those expenses had been considerably, but not sufficiently, reduced. One of the editors, Southern, had resigned; and several of the writers, including my father and me, who had been paid like other contributors for our earlier articles, had latterly written without payment. Nevertheless, the original funds were nearly or quite exhausted, and if the Review was to be continued some new arrangement of its affairs had become indispensable. My father and I had several conferences with Bowring on the subject. We were willing to do our utmost for maintaining the Review as an organ of our opinions, but not under Bowring's editorship: while the impossibility of its any longer supporting a paid editor, afforded a ground on which, without affront to him, we could propose to dispense with his services. We and some of our friends, were prepared to carry on the Review as unpaid writers, either finding among ourselves an unpaid editor, or sharing the editorship among us. But while this negotiation was proceeding with Bowring's apparent acquiescence, he was carrying on another in a different quarter (with Colonel Perronet Thompson), of which we received the first intimation in a letter from Bowring as editor, informing us merely that an arrangement had been made, and proposing to us to write for the next number, with promise of payment. We did not dispute Bowring's right to bring about, if he could, an arrangement more favorable to himself than the one we had proposed; but we thought the concealment which he had practised towards us, while seemingly entering into our own project, an affront: and even had we not thought so, we were indisposed to expend any more of our time and trouble in attempting to write up the Review under his management. Accordingly my father excused himself from writing; though two or three years later, on great pressure, he did write one more political article. As for me, I positively refused. And thus ended my connexion with the original Westminster. The last article which I wrote in it had cost me more labour than any previous; but it was a labour of love, being a defence of the early French Revolutionists against the Tory misrepresentations of Sir Walter Scott16, in the introduction to his Life of Napoleon. The number of books which I read for this purpose, making notes and extracts—even the number I had to buy (for in those days there was no public or subscription library from which books of reference could be taken home), far exceeded the worth of the immediate object; but I had at that time a half-formed intention of writing a History of the French Revolution; and though I never executed it, my collections afterwards were very useful to Carlyle17 for a similar purpose.

協(xié)會以及為協(xié)會做的準備工作，加上為同時進行的上午交談做的準備，占用了我大部分的閑暇時間。因此1828年春天，我停止為《威斯敏斯特評論》寫稿的時候，感覺輕松了不少。評論雜志陷入了困境。盡管第一期的銷售量非常振奮人心，但是我相信，以評論雜志開展的規(guī)模來說長期的銷售量從未能應付開支。開支已經(jīng)縮減了很多，但是縮減得還是不夠。一個編輯——薩瑟恩——已經(jīng)辭職了。好幾個作者，包括父親和我，早期的稿件和其他撰稿人一樣獲得稿酬，但最近已經(jīng)沒有報酬了。然而，原始資金已幾近耗盡，或者已經(jīng)完全耗盡了，如果這份刊物想繼續(xù)維持下去的話，必須重新安排它的事務。我父親和我就這個問題和鮑林討論了好幾次。我們樂意盡力維持評論雜志，讓它作為我們觀點的喉舌，但是不用鮑林做我們的編輯。而報紙無法再負擔有償編輯給我們提供了一個理由，既不會冒犯到他，又可以提議免去他的職責。我們，還有一些朋友，都準備好了做無償作者，繼續(xù)維持評論報，要么在我們中間找一個無償?shù)木庉嫞垂餐袚庉嬛?。但是，就當談判在鮑林的明顯默許下正在進行的時候，他卻在另一個地區(qū)進行另一個談判（和佩羅內特.湯普森上校），我們收到的第一個通告是鮑林作為編輯給我們寫的一封信，僅僅告訴我們說做了些安排，建議我們?yōu)橄乱黄趯懜?，承諾支付報酬。如果他有這個能力，他有權做比我們的提議更有利于他自己的安排，我們不會阻止。但是他對我們加以隱瞞，而表面上看起來還是在參加我們的計劃，我們覺得這是一種公開侮辱。即使我們沒這么想，我們也不愿意再浪費時間和精力為他主編的《威斯敏斯特評論》繼續(xù)寫文章。因此，我父親不再寫文章。盡管兩三年后，在巨大的壓力下他不得不寫了一篇政論文。至于我，則堅決拒絕了再為其撰稿。這樣，我和原先的《威斯敏斯特評論》的聯(lián)系終止了。我在上面寫的最后一篇文章，付出的努力比以往任何文章都多。但是這是出于愛的努力，因為它是為早期法國革命家辯護，反對沃爾特.司各特爵士在他的《拿破侖傳》序言中對他們保守的曲解。為了寫這篇文章，要做筆記，做摘錄，為此所讀的書的數(shù)量——甚至我必須購買的數(shù)量（因為那時候沒有能把參考書借回家的公共圖書館或訂閱圖書館），遠遠超過了直接目標的價值。但是，我當時有個寫法國大革命史的不成熟的想法。盡管我從來沒有付諸實際，但是我的藏書后來對卡萊爾寫類似的作品非常有用。

(1)威廉·科貝特（1762—1835），英國記者、政治活動家和政論家、小資產(chǎn)階級激進派的著名代表人物。

(2)《六項法案》，1819年，英國政府為了防止動亂而制定的一系列新法律，把任何形式的激進主義改革都歸為“明顯的叛國陰謀”。

(3)亞歷山大·巴林（1774—1848），英國金融家和國家官員，參加了英美談判并簽訂了確定加拿大與緬因邊界的條約（1842年）。

(4)喬治·坎寧（1770—1827），英國政治家、外相，曾短暫出任英國首相。

(5)威廉·尤爾特·格萊斯頓（1809—1898），英國政治家，于1868—1894年間四度出任英國首相。

(6)托馬斯·穆爾（1779—1852），愛爾蘭浪漫主義詩人，他的許多懷舊和愛國的抒情詩諸如《吟游少年》，都帶有傳統(tǒng)的愛爾蘭曲調。

(7)亞歷山大·蒲柏（1688—1744），英國作家，其最著名的作品是諷刺性仿英雄體史詩《奪發(fā)記》（1712年）和《群愚史詩》（1728年）。

(8)普盧塔克（約公元46—120），古希臘傳記作家和哲學家。他寫的《希臘羅馬名人比較列傳》和一部傳記集，曾被莎士比亞用在他的古羅馬戲劇中。

(9)安·羅伯特·雅克·杜爾哥（1721—1781），法國經(jīng)濟學家、18世紀后半葉法國資產(chǎn)階級古典經(jīng)濟學家、重農學派最重要的代表人物之一。

(10)阿爾貝特·加勒廷（1761—1849），瑞士裔的美國金融家和政治家，曾任美國財政部長。

(11)托馬斯·霍布斯（1588—1679），英國政治哲學家、機械唯物主義者。

(12)大衛(wèi)·哈特利（1705—1757），英國哲學家、醫(yī)生、聯(lián)想主義心理學創(chuàng)始人之一。

(13)羅伯特·歐文，英國空想社會主義者，合作社運動的先驅。

(14)律師學院，英國倫敦四個培養(yǎng)律師的組織。

(15)亨利·彼得·布魯厄姆（1778—1868），英國政治家，曾任大法官。

(16)沃爾特·司各特（1771—1832），蘇格蘭小說家、詩人、歷史小說首創(chuàng)者、浪漫主義運動的先驅。

(17)托馬斯·卡萊爾（1795—1881），蘇格蘭歷史學家和散文作家，其著作有《法國革命》等。