CHAPTER VI Commencement of The Most Valuable friendship Of My Life, My Father's Death, Writings And Other Proceedings Up

第六章 最珍贵友谊的开始 父亲去世1840年前的著作和其他活动

It was at the period of my mental progress which I have now reached that I formed the friendship which has been the honour and chief blessing of my existence, as well as the source of a great part of all that I have attempted to do, or hope to effect hereafter, for human improvement. My first introduction to the lady who, after a friendship of twenty years, consented to become my wife, was in 1830, when I was in my twenty-fifth and she in her twenty-third year. With her husband's family it was the renewal of an old acquaintanceship. His grandfather lived in the next house to my father's in Newington Green, and I had sometimes when a boy been invited to play in the old gentleman's garden. He was a fine specimen of the old Scotch puritan; stern, severe, and powerful, but very kind to children, on whom such men make a lasting impression. Although it was years after my introduction to Mrs. Taylor before my acquaintance with her became at all intimate or confidential, I very soon felt her to be the most admirable person I had ever known. It is not to be supposed that she was, or that any one, at the age at which I first saw her, could be, all that she afterwards became. Least of all could this be true of her, with whom self-improvement, progress in the highest and in all senses, was a law of her nature; a necessity equally from the ardour with which she sought it, and from the spontaneous tendency of faculties which could not receive an impression or an experience without making it the source or the occasion of an accession of wisdom. Up to the time when I first saw her, her rich and powerful nature had chiefly unfolded itself according to the received type of feminine genius. To her outer circle she was a beauty and a wit, with an air of natural distinction, felt by all who approached her: to the inner, a woman of deep and strong feeling, of penetrating and intuitive intelligence, and of an eminently meditative and poetic nature. Married at an early age, to a most upright, brave, and honourable man, of liberal opinions and good education, but without the intellectual or artistic tastes which would have made him a companion for her, though a steady and affectionate friend, for whom she had true esteem and the strongest affection through life, and whom she most deeply lamented when dead; shut out by the social disabilities of women from any adequate exercise of her highest faculties in action on the world without; her life was one of inward meditation, varied by familiar intercourse with a small circle of friends, of whom one only (long since deceased) was a person of genius, or of capacities of feeling or intellect kindred with her own, but all had more or less of alliance with her in sentiments and opinions. Into this circle I had the good fortune to be admitted, and I soon perceived that she possessed in combination, the qualities which in all other persons whom I had known I had been only too happy to find singly. In her, complete emancipation from every kind of superstition (including that which attributes a pretended perfection to the order of nature and the universe), and an earnest protest against many things which are still part of the established constitution of society, resulted not from the hard intellect but from strength of noble and elevated feeling, and co-existed with a highly reverential nature. In general spiritual characteristics, as well as in temperament and organization, I have often compared her, as she was at this time, to Shelley: but in thought and intellect, Shelley, so far as his powers were developed in his short life, was but a child compared with what she ultimately became. Alike in the highest regions of speculation and in the smaller practical concerns of daily life, her mind was the same perfect instrument, piercing to the very heart and marrow of the matter; always seizing the essential idea or principle. The same exactness and rapidity of operation, pervading as it did her sensitive as well as her mental faculties, would, with her gifts of feeling and imagination, have fitted her to be a consummate artist, as her fiery and tender soul and her vigorous eloquence would certainly have made her a great orator, and her profound knowledge of human nature and discernment and sagacity in practical life, would, in the times when such a carrière was open to women, have made her eminent among the rulers of mankind. Her intellectual gifts did but minister to a moral character at once the noblest and the best balanced which I have ever met with in life. Her unselfishness was not that of a taught system of duties, but of a heart which thoroughly identified itself with the feelings of others, and often went to excess in consideration for them by imaginatively investing their feelings with the intensity of its own. The passion of justice might have been thought to be her strongest feeling, but for her boundless generosity, and a lovingness ever ready to pour itself forth upon any or all human beings who were capable of giving the smallest feeling in return. The rest of her moral characteristics were such as naturally accompany these qualities of mind and heart: the most genuine modesty combined with the loftiest pride; a simplicity and sincerity which were absolute, towards all who were fit to receive them; the utmost scorn of whatever was mean and cowardly, and a burning indignation at everything brutal or tyrannical, faithless or dishonorable in conduct and character, while making the broadest distinction between mala in se and mere mala prohibita—between acts giving evidence of intrinsic badness in feeling and character, and those which are only violations of conventions either good or bad, violations which whether in themselves right or wrong, are capable of being committed by persons in every other respect loveable or admirable.

在我思想进步达到目前这一水平的时期,我得到了一位女士的友谊,这是我一生的荣耀和最大的幸事,我为人类进步努力做的所有事情,或者希望今后实现的事情中,有一大部分也是源于这段友谊。我第一次被介绍给这位女士是在1830 年,那时我25 岁,她23 岁, 做了20 年的朋友后,她答应做我的妻子。这延续了我家和她丈夫家的老交情。她丈夫的祖父住在纽因顿格林,与我父亲是邻居,在我还是小孩子的时候,就曾被邀请到这位老绅士的花园里玩。他是一位典型的老派苏格兰清教徒:严厉,简朴,有威严,但是对小孩子很亲切,这种人会给孩子们留下长久的印象。尽管和泰勒夫人认识好几年后我和她才成为很亲密或者彼此信任的朋友,但是我很快就意识到她是我所认识的人中最值得敬佩的人。这不是说,我第一次见到那个年龄的她就具备后来她所达到的水平,这对任何人都不可能,尤其对她而言。对她来说,自我改进,取得最高的、所有可能的进步,是她天性的规律;追求进步的热情和能力的自然倾向,必然使她把自己的每一个印象或每一次经验都变成增加智慧的源泉或机会。按照公认的女性天才的标准,在我第一次见她时,她那丰富而坚强的性格就已绝大部分展现了出来。从她的外表来看,她美丽,机智,与她接近的人都能感觉到她那天生与众不同的气质。从内心来说,她有深切、强烈的感情,有洞察力和直觉的才智,有突出的、爱思考的诗人般特质。她很早就结婚了,丈夫正直,勇敢,可敬,观点开明,受过良好的教育,但是不具有成为她的伴侣所需的智力或艺术品味——不过却是位可靠、亲爱的朋友,她一生都很尊敬他,对他有强烈的感情,当他去世时,她悲痛欲绝。由于社会对妇女的限制,她无法把强大的自我才能充分运用于外界活动中。她生活在内心沉思中,只有在与一小圈子朋友进行亲密交流时才有所变化。在这些朋友中,只有一位(早已过世了)是天才,或者说具有和她相似的感觉或智力才能,但是所有朋友也都或多或少与她具有相似的情操和见解。我有幸被这个圈子接纳,很快便察觉到,她综合具备我所认识人的所有品质,而这些品质,任何一样都足以让我欣喜若狂。她完全不相信迷信(包括把虚假的完美归因于大自然和宇宙的秩序),热切地反对那些仍然属于社会既定构造的东西,这并不是源于高智商,而是源于尊贵、高尚的情感力量和非常可敬的天性。在一般的精神特性及性情和条理性上,我经常把当时的她比作雪莱。但是,在雪莱短暂的人生中,他所发挥的思维能力和智力才能,和她最终所达到的水平相比,差距仍然非常大。不论在思索的最高领域还是在日常生活中不太重大的实际问题上,她的头脑都是完美的工具,总是能刺入问题的心脏和脊髓,抓住本质的概念或原则。与她丰富的感受力和智力一样,她行动起来同样精确迅速,加上她在感觉和想象力上具有的天赋,使她足以成为一个造诣极高的艺术家。而她热烈、慈爱的灵魂和有说服力的口才,当然会使她成为一位伟大的演讲家。如果元首地位对妇女开放的话,她对人性的深刻了解,实际生活中的洞察力和聪慧,也会使她成为人类杰出的统治者之一。她的智力天赋,只贡献于我一生中曾见过的最高贵、最和谐的品德。她的无私不是后天培养出来的责任体系,而是完全认同他人感情的心地,并经常在想象中把自己强烈的感情倾注在他们的感情之中,所以经常为别人考虑得过多。她对任何人,或者所有哪怕只能够付出一点点情感作为回报的人,都甘愿付出自己的无限慷慨和爱心,若不是如此的话,人们可能就会认为对正义的热爱是她最强烈的感情。她的其他品质特征,很自然地与这些思想和心灵特质共存:最诚挚的谦逊与最高尚的自尊相结合,对所有值得的人都绝对的纯朴和真诚,对任何卑鄙和懦弱的行为都极度地蔑视,对任何残忍或专制、背信或可耻的行为和性格都表示极度的愤慨。同时,她把自然罪行和单纯的不法行为非常明确地区分开来,即把显示感情和品格中内在恶劣的行为,同那些仅仅违背或好或坏习俗的行为区分开来,这种违背不管本身是对还是错,都是那些在其他方面可爱或可敬的人可能会做出来的。

To be admitted into any degree of mental intercourse with a being of these qualities, could not but have a most beneficial influence on my development; though the effect was only gradual, and many years elapsed before her mental progress and mine went forward in the complete companionship they at last attained. The benefit I received was far greater than any which I could hope to give; though to her, who had at first reached her opinions by the moral intuition of a character of strong feeling, there was doubtless help as well as encouragement to be derived from one who had arrived at many of the same results by study and reasoning: and in the rapidity of her intellectual growth, her mental activity, which converted everything into knowledge, doubtless drew from me, as it did from other sources, many of its materials. What I owe, even intellectually, to her, is in its detail, almost infinite; of its general character, a few words will give some, though a very imperfect, idea.


With those who, like all the best and wisest of mankind, are dissatisfied with human life as it is, and whose feelings are wholly identified with its radical amendment, there are two main regions of thought. One is the region of ultimate aims; the constituent elements of the highest realizable ideal of human life. The other is that of the immediately useful and practically attainable. In both these departments, I have acquired more from her teaching, than from all other sources taken together. And, to say truth, it is in these two extremes principally, that real certainty lies. My own strength lay wholly in the uncertain and slippery intermediate region, that of theory, or moral and political science: respecting the conclusions of which, in any of the forms in which I have received or originated them, whether as political economy, analytic psychology, logic, philosophy of history, or anything else, it is not the least of my intellectual obligations to her that I have derived from her a wise scepticism, which, while it has not hindered me from following out the honest exercise of my thinking faculties to whatever conclusions might result from it, has put me on my guard against holding or announcing these conclusions with a degree of confidence which the nature of such speculations does not warrant, and has kept my mind not only open to admit, but prompt to welcome and eager to seek, even on the questions on which I have most meditated, any prospect of clearer perceptions and better evidence. I have often received praise, which in my own right I only partially deserve, for the greater practicality which is supposed to be found in my writings, compared with those of most thinkers who have been equally addicted to large generalizations. The writings in which this quality has been observed, were not the work of one mind, but of the fusion of two, one of them as preeminently practical in its judgments and perceptions of things present, as it was high and bold in its anticipations for a remote futurity.


At the present period, however, this influence was only one among many which were helping to shape the character of my future development: and even after it became, I may truly say, the presiding principle of my mental progress, it did not alter the path, but only made me move forward more boldly, and, at the same time, more cautiously, in the same course. The only actual revolution which has ever taken place in my modes of thinking, was already complete. My new tendencies had to be confirmed in some respects, moderated in others: but the only substantial changes of opinion that were yet to come, related to politics, and consisted, on one hand, in a greater approximation, so far as regards the ultimate prospects of humanity, to a qualified Socialism, and on the other, a shifting of my political ideal from pure democracy, as commonly understood by its partisans, to the modified form of it, which is set forth in my Considerations on Representative Government.


This last change, which took place very gradually, dates its commencement from my reading, or rather study, of A. de Tocqueville1's Democracy in America, which fell into my hands immediately after its first appearance. In that remarkable work, the excellences of democracy were pointed out in a more conclusive, because a more specific manner than I had ever known them to be, even by the most enthusiastic democrats; while the specific dangers which beset democracy, considered as the government of the numerical majority, were brought into equally strong light, and subjected to a masterly analysis, not as reasons for resisting what the author considered as an inevitable result of human progress, but as indications of the weak points of popular government, the defences by which it needs to be guarded, and the correctives which must be added to it in order that while full play is given to its beneficial tendencies, those which are of a different nature may be neutralized or mitigated. I was now well prepared for speculations of this character, and from this time onward my own thoughts moved more and more in the same channel, though the consequent modifications in my practical political creed were spread over many years, as would be shown by comparing my first review of Democracy in America, written and published in 1835, with the one in 1840 (reprinted in the Dissertations), and this last, with the Considerations on Representative Government .

这最后一个变化发生得非常缓慢,最早要追溯到我阅读或者说研究托克维尔先生的《论美国的民主》,该书刚一出版我就立刻拿到了手中。与我所知的任何热情的民主主义者的阐述相比,这部非凡的著作提出民主政治优越性的方式都更明确具体因而更具结论性;同时,因民主政治被视为大多数人的统治,就困扰它的具体危险,作者也进行了精辟的阐述和巧妙的分析,他并不是以此为理由反对那被作者认为是人类进步必然结果的民主政治,而是指出民主政治的弱点,同时指出捍卫它的各种方法,和必须增加的补救措施,这样可以充分发挥它的有益倾向,同时消除或减轻与它不同性质的倾向。我现在已经为进行这种思索做好了充分的准备,从这时起,我自己的思想也朝着这个方向不断前进,尽管我此后对实际政治信条的改变持续了很多年,至于这一点,把我1835 年写出来并发表的第一篇《论美国的民主》的书评,与1840 年(在《论述和讨论》中再版)的那篇进行对比,再把最近的一篇与《论代议制政府》一对比,就可以看出来。

A collateral subject on which also I derived great benefit from the study of Tocqueville, was the fundamental question of centralization. The powerful philosophic analysis which he applied to American and to French experience, led him to attach the utmost importance to the performance of as much of the collective business of society, as can safely be so performed, by the people themselves, without any intervention of the executive government, either to supersede their agency, or to dictate the manner of its exercise. He viewed this practical political activity of the individual citizen, not only as one of the most effectual means of training the social feelings and practical intelligence of the people, so important in themselves and so indispensable to good government, but also as the specific counteractive to some of the characteristic infirmities of democracy, and a necessary protection against its degenerating into the only despotism of which, in the modern world, there is real danger—the absolute rule of the head of the executive over a congregation of isolated individuals, all equals but all slaves. There was, indeed, no immediate peril from this source on the British side of the channel, where nine-tenths of the internal business which elsewhere devolves on the government, was transacted by agencies independent of it; where centralization was, and is, the subject not only of rational disapprobation, but of unreasoning prejudice; where jealousy of government interference was a blind feeling preventing or resisting even the most beneficial exertion of legislative authority to correct the abuses of what pretends to be local self-government, but is, too often, selfish mismanagement of local interests, by a jobbing and borné local oligarchy. But the more certain the public were to go wrong on the side opposed to centralization, the greater danger was there lest philosophic reformers should fall into the contrary error, and overlook the mischiefs of which they had been spared the painful experience. I was myself, at this very time, actively engaged in defending important measures, such as the great Poor Law Reform of 1834, against an irrational clamour grounded on the anti-centralization prejudice: and had it not been for the lessons of Tocqueville, I do not know that I might not, like many reformers before me, have been hurried into the excess opposite to that, which, being the one prevalent in my own country, it was generally my business to combat. As it is, I have steered carefully between the two errors, and whether I have or have not drawn the line between them exactly in the right place, I have at least insisted with equal emphasis upon the evils on both sides, and have made the means of reconciling the advantages of both, a subject of serious study.

在一个附带问题上,我也从研究托克维尔中得到了巨大的益处,这就是中央集权化的重要问题。他对美国和法国经验有力的哲学分析,让他十分重视社会集体事务,它可由人民自己安全地管理,不需要政府的任何干涉,政府不要取代人民的作用,也不要指挥他们的执行方式。他不仅把这种由公民个人参与的实际政治活动视为训练人们社会感情和实际知识的最有效方式之一。这不仅对公民本身非常重要,也是善政不可或缺的,还把它视为对付民主政治中一些典型弱点的特殊抵抗手段,以及防止民主政治退化为专制政治的必要保护手段。而专制政治是现代社会唯一有真正危险的东西——政府首脑对一群相互孤立的个人进行绝对的统治,所有人看似平等,但其实都是奴隶。确实,对于海峡这边的英国来说没有这种直接的危险。在英国,几乎全部国内事务都由独立于政府的机构办理,而在别的国家却都是移交给政府办理的。在英国,中央集权化不仅受到理性的指责,而且受到不合理的歧视。在那儿,对政府干涉的警惕是一种盲目的感情,甚至阻止或抵制了立法机构最有利地发挥作用以纠正一些弊端,比如假公济私和狭隘的地方寡头政治假装成地方自治,这经常是对地方利益进行自私又不当的管理的弊端。但是,公众越是坚定地站在反对中央集权那一边,理论改革家陷入相反错误的危险就越大,而且越会忽视他们没有经历过的痛苦的危害。我本人就在这时也积极地参与了捍卫重要措施的活动,比如1834 年伟大的济贫法改革,我就反对反中央集权化者们带有偏见的无理喧闹。如果没有托克维尔的教导,我不敢肯定自己会不会像之前的很多改革家一样,匆忙地过分反对在英国盛行的这种喧闹。因为在过去,我通常会把反击它当成是自己的任务。事实上,我小心地避开这两种错误,不管我是否正好在合适的地方给它们划清了界线,至少我坚持给双方的弊端以同等的重视,而且认真地去研究协调双方优势的手段。

In the meanwhile had taken place the election of the first Reformed Parliament, which included several of the most notable of my Radical friends and acquaintances—Grote, Roebuck2, Buller3, Sir William Molesworth4, John5 and Edward6 Romilly, and several more; besides Warburton, Strutt, and others, who were in parliament already. Those who thought themselves, and were called by their friends, the philosophic Radicals, had now, it seemed, a fair opportunity, in a more advantageous position than they had ever before occupied, for showing what was in them; and I, as well as my father, founded great hopes on them. These hopes were destined to be disappointed. The men were honest, and faithful to their opinions, as far as votes were concerned; often in spite of much discouragement. When measures were proposed, flagrantly at variance with their principles, such as the Irish Coercion Bill, or the Canada Coercion in 1837, they came forward manfully, and braved any amount of hostility and prejudice rather than desert the right. But on the whole they did very little to promote any opinions; they had little enterprise, little activity: they left the lead of the radical portion of the House to the old hands, to Hume and O'Connell7. A partial exception must be made in favour of one or two of the younger men; and in the case of Roebuck, it is his title to permanent remembrance, that in the very first year during which he sat in Parliament, he originated (or re-originated after the unsuccessful attempt of Mr. Brougham) the parliamentary movement for National Education; and that he was the first to commence, and for years carried on almost alone, the contest for the self-government of the Colonies. Nothing, on the whole equal to these two things, was done by any other individual, even of those from whom most was expected. And now, on a calm retrospect, I can perceive that the men were less in fault than we supposed, and that we had expected too much from them. They were in unfavourable circumstances. Their lot was cast in the ten years of inevitable reaction, when, the Reform excitement being over, and the few legislative improvements which the public really called for having been rapidly effected, power gravitated back in its natural direction, to those who were for keeping things as they were; when the public mind desired rest, and was less disposed than at any other period since the peace, to let itself be moved by attempts to work up the reform feeling into fresh activity in favour of new things. It would have required a great political leader, which no one is to be blamed for not being, to have effected really great things by parliamentary discussion when the nation was in this mood. My father and I had hoped that some competent leader might arise; some man of philosophic attainments and popular talents, who could have put heart into the many younger or less distinguished men that would have been ready to join him—could have made them available, to the extent of their talents, in bringing advanced ideas before the public—could have used the House of Commons as a rostra or a teacher's chair for instructing and impelling the public mind; and would either have forced the Whigs8 to receive their measures from him, or have taken the lead of the Reform party out of their hands. Such a leader there would have been, if my father had been in Parliament. For want of such a man, the instructed Radicals sank into a mere Côté Gauche of the Whig party. With a keen, and as I now think, an exaggerated sense of the possibilities which were open to the Radicals if they made even ordinary exertion for their opinions, I laboured from this time till 1839, both by personal influence with some of them, and by writings, to put ideas into their heads and purpose into their hearts, I did some good with Charles Buller, and some with Sir William Molesworth; both of whom did valuable service, but were unhappily cut off almost in the beginning of their usefulness. On the whole, however, my attempt was vain. To have had a chance of succeeding in it, required a different position from mine. It was a task only for one who, being himself in Parliament, could have mixed with the radical members in daily consultation, could himself have taken the initiative, and instead of urging others to lead, could have summoned them to follow.

同时,改革后的议会进行了第一次选举,我的好几位最著名的激进派朋友和熟人都入选了。包括格罗特、罗巴克、布勒、威廉. 莫尔斯沃思爵士、约翰. 罗米利和爱德华. 罗米利,还有其他几个人。此外,还有沃伯顿、斯特拉特等早已进入议会的一些人。这些人自认为是哲学激进派,他们的朋友也这样称呼他们,他们现在获得的地位比以前的都更有利,似乎有很好的机会展示自己的能力。我和父亲对他们寄予厚望。然而,这些希望注定要破灭。在投票问题上,这些人很诚实,忠于自己的主张,经常不在乎很多挫折。当议会提出的议案与他们的原则极其不一致时,比如《爱尔兰镇压法案》或者1837 年的《加拿大镇压法案》,他们就勇敢地站了出来,挑战所有的敌对和偏见,而不放弃正确的主张。但是总的来说,他们对发扬任何观念都没起到多大作用。他们没什么进取心,也没采取多少行动,还把下议院激进派的领导权交给老议员休谟和奥康奈尔。但必须看到有一两个年轻人是例外,比如罗巴克,他就有资格被人们永远记住,因为就在他进入议会的头一年,他就发起了(或者说在布鲁厄姆尝试失败后,重新发起了)议会全民教育运动。他还是第一个发起争取殖民地自治运动的人,而且很多年来,几乎一直靠自己的力量坚持了下去。任何其他个人所做的事情,加起来都不能和这两件事相提并论,即使是人们寄予厚望的人。现在平静地回想起来,这些人的不足并不像我们想象的那么多,我们对他们期望其实太高了。他们所处的环境很不利,他们的命运被锁定在那必然保守的十年,那时,改革热情已逝,公众真正要求的少数立法上的改良已匆匆实现,权力正回归到其自然的方向上,回到那些主张保持现状的人手里。这时,公众的心灵希望休息,比战争结束后的任何时期都更难以受到触动,把改革的感情发展成支持新事物的努力是无法触动它的。当国家处于这种状态时,必须有一个伟大的政治领袖,通过议会讨论来催生真正伟大的事情,但又不能责怪任何人不是这样的一个人。我和父亲曾希望出现一位能胜任的领袖,这个人既有哲学造诣,又有得人心的才干,能全心全意调动愿意和他一起行动的很多年轻人或者不是那么著名的人;他能够让这些人凭自己的才干,把先进的思想带到大众面前;能够把国会下议院当作教导、推动公众思想的讲坛或讲台;能够要么迫使辉格党接受他的措施,要么从他们手中夺回改革党的领导权。如果我父亲在议会的话,就会有这样一位领袖。由于缺少这样一个人,受过教育的激进分子只能沦落为辉格党的左派。我曾热切地认为,激进分子哪怕能够尽寻常之力去实践他们的观点,就会有很大的成功机会,我现在也觉得自己当时估计过高了;带着这种想法,从那时起到1839年,我既通过对他们中的一些人进行私下的影响,又通过作品向他们灌输我的想法和意图。我这样做给查尔斯·布勒和威廉·莫尔斯沃思爵士带来了一些益处。他们两人都做出了有价值的贡献,但不幸都几乎在刚开始发挥作用的时候就离开议会了。然而总的来说,我的努力是徒劳的。要在这方面获得成功,需要一个和我身处不同位置的人。这项任务只有身处议会里的人才能完成,这样的人有机会和议会里的激进分子进行日常磋商,能自己掌握主动,能号召别人追随自己,而不是激励别人去做领袖。

What I could do by writing, I did. During the year 1833 I continued working in the Examiner with Fonblanque9, who at that time was zealous in keeping up the fight for radicalism against the Whig ministry. During the session of 1834 I wrote comments on passing events, of the nature of newspaper articles (under the title of "Notes on the Newspapers"), in the Monthly Repository, a magazine conducted by Mr. Fox10, well known as a preacher and political orator, and subsequently as member of parliament for Oldham; with whom I had lately become acquainted, and for whose sake chiefly I wrote in his magazine. I contributed several other articles to this periodical, the most considerable of which (on the theory of Poetry) is reprinted in the Dissertations. Altogether, the writings (independently of those in newspapers) which I published from 1832 to 1834, amount to a large volume. This, however, includes abstracts of several of Plato's Dialogues, with introductory remarks, which, though not published until1834, had been written several years earlier; and which I afterwards, on various occasions, found to have been read, and their authorship known, by more people than were aware of anything else which I had written, up to that time. To complete the tale of my writings at this period, I may add that in 1833, at the request of Bulwer11, who was just then completing his England and the English (a work, at that time, greatly in advance of the public mind), I wrote for him a critical account of Bentham's philosophy, a small part of which he incorporated in his text, and printed the rest (with an honorable acknowledgment), as an appendix. In this, along with the favorable, a part also of the unfavourable side of my estimation of Bentham's doctrines, considered as a complete philosophy, was for the first time put into print.

凡能通过写作来完成的事情,我都做了。1833 年间,我继续和方布兰克一起为《检查报》工作,他那时很热心于支持激进主义、反对辉格党内阁的斗争。1834 年议会会议期间,我写了一些报刊文章性质的实事评论(题为《报纸评论》),发表在《每月丛刊》上,这是福克斯先生创办的杂志,他是著名的宣传家、政治演说家,后来成为代表奥尔德姆的议员。我和他不久前刚认识,我在他的杂志上写文章,也主要是因为他的缘故。我给他的刊物写了好几篇别的文章,其中最重要的一篇(讨论诗歌理论的)在《论述和讨论》中再版。从1832 年到1834 年,我所有发表的作品(不包括报纸上的文章),加起来有一大本书那么厚。然而,这里面包括好几篇柏拉图《对话录》的摘要,并带有卷首语,这些摘要其实好几年前就写了,但是到1834 年才发表。后来,我在很多场合里发现有人读过这些摘要,也知道我是它们的作者,但是他们当中很多人对我之前所写的其他作品一无所知。为了完善对我这个阶段作品的叙述,我可以补充上一件事:1833 年,布尔沃正在为他的《英国和英国人》收尾(当时这部著作远远超过了公众的思想水平)。应他的邀请,我为他写了一篇评论边沁哲学的文章,他把其中一小部分融入自己的正文,把其余的部分(附有体面的致谢)作为附录印了出来。在这篇文章里,除了我对边沁学说赞许的评价外,还有不赞许的评价,这些评价被认为是一个完整的哲学体系,这是它们第一次得到发表。

But an opportunity soon offered by which, as it seemed, I might have it in my power to give more effectual aid, and, at the same time, stimulus, to the "philosophic Radical" party, than I had done hitherto. One of the projects occasionally talked of between my father and me, and some of the parliamentary and other Radicals who frequented his house, was the foundation of a periodical organ of philosophic radicalism, to take the place which the Westminster Review had been intended to fill: and the scheme had gone so far as to bring under discussion the pecuniary contributions which could be looked for, and the choice of an editor. Nothing, however, came of it for some time: but in the summer of 1834 Sir William Molesworth, himself a laborious student, and a precise and metaphysical thinker, capable of aiding the cause by his pen as well as by his purse, spontaneously proposed to establish a Review, provided I would consent to be the real, if I could not be the ostensible, editor. Such a proposal was not to be refused; and the Review was founded, at first under the title of the London Review, and afterwards under that of the London and Westminster, Molesworth having bought the Westminster from its proprietor, General Thompson, and merged the two into one. In the years between 1834 and 1840 the conduct of this Review occupied the greater part of my spare time. In the beginning, it did not, as a whole, by any means represent my opinions. I was under the necessity of conceding much to my inevitable associates. The Review was established to be the representative of the "philosophic Radicals", with most of whom I was now at issue on many essential points, and among whom I could not even claim to be the most important individual. My father's co-operation as a writer we all deemed indispensable, and he wrote largely in it until prevented by his last illness. The subjects of his articles, and the strength and decision with which his opinions were expressed in them, made the Review at first derive its tone and colouring from him much more than from any of the other writers. I could not exercise editorial control over his articles, and I was sometimes obliged to sacrifice to him portions of my own. The old Westminster Review doctrines, but little modified, thus formed the staple of the Review; but I hoped, by the side of these, to introduce other ideas and another tone, and to obtain for my own shade of opinion a fair representation, along with those of other members of the party. With this end chiefly in view, I made it one of the peculiarities of the work that every article should bear an initial, or some other signature, and be held to express the opinions solely of the individual writer; the editor being only responsible for its being worth publishing, and not in conflict with the objects for which the Review was set on foot. I had an opportunity of putting in practice my scheme of conciliation between the old and the new "philosophic radicalism," by the choice of a subject for my own first contribution. Professor Sedgwick12, a man of eminence in a particular walk of natural science, but who should not have trespassed into philosophy, had lately published his Discourse on the Studies of Cambridge, which had as its most prominent feature an intemperate assault on analytic psychology and utilitarian ethics, in the form of an attack on Locke and Paley13. This had excited great indignation in my father and others, which I thought it fully deserved. And here, I imagined, was an opportunity of at the same time repelling an unjust attack, and inserting into my defence of Hartleianism and Utilitarianism a number of the opinions which constituted my view of those subjects, as distinguished from that of my old associates. In this I partially succeeded, though my relation to my father would have made it painful to me in any case, and impossible in a Review for which he wrote, to speak out my whole mind on the subject at this time.

但是很快就出现了一个机会,使我似乎有能力通过它为“哲学激进派”提供比以往更有效的帮助和激励。父亲和我,还有一些经常拜访他的议会激进分子和其他激进派人士,偶尔讨论过一个计划,就是要创立一个哲学激进主义的期刊,取代意在填补这个位置的《威斯敏斯特评论》。计划已经进展到要讨论从何处寻求资金投入和选择编辑了。然而一段时期内,什么事情都没落实。但是,1834 年夏天,威廉. 莫尔斯沃思爵士主动提议创办一个评论性刊物,条件是如果我不能做名誉编辑的话,就要同意做真正的编辑,其实他自己就是个勤勉的学者,缜密的形而上学思想家,能够用他的笔和金钱来支持这个事业。这样的一个提议是无法拒绝的,于是评论杂志创立了,最初命名为《伦敦评论》,后来莫尔斯沃思把《威斯敏斯特评论》从它的所有人汤普森将军那里买过来,将两者合二为一,改名为《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》。1834 年到1840 年,管理《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》占用了我大部分的空闲时间。起初,从总体上说,它完全不代表我的观点。我必须经常对无法回避的同事让步。这个评论杂志是为了代表“哲学激进分子”的观点而创办的,但是现在,我和他们中的大多数人在很多重大问题上都意见不和,我甚至不能声称自己是他们中最重要的一员。作为一名作家,我父亲给予的合作,我们都相信是不可或缺的,他写了很多文章,直到临终前生病无法写作了才停笔。他文章的主题,以及表达观点时的力度和果断,是评论杂志初期风格和色彩的主要来源,在这方面其他任何作家都是不能比的。我无法对他的文章进行编辑,有时还必须把自己文章的一部分编辑权让给他。因此,旧的《威斯敏斯特评论》的宗旨,几乎没作修改就成了《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》的主题。但是我希望除了这些之外,还要引进其他的观点和另一种风格,也为我自己的少许观点和这个党派的其他成员找到公平的展现机会。主要出于这个目的,我确保该刊物具有一个特色,就是每篇文章上都应该有作者姓名的第一个字母或其他签名,以示文章只表达作者本人的观点。编辑的职责只是确保它有刊登的价值,并且与《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》创立的宗旨不相冲突。在我第一次为它写稿的时候,通过选择文章的主题,我有机会将自己协调新旧“哲学激进主义”的计划付诸实践。塞奇威克教授在自然科学的一个特定领域很有名,但他不应该越界进入哲学领域,他最近发表了《论剑桥研究》一书,此书最突出的特征就是以攻击洛克和佩利的形式,猛烈地攻击分析心理学和功利主义伦理学。这激起了我父亲和其他人的义愤,我觉得这完全是它应得的。我设想,这是个机会,既能击退不公正的批评,同时又能把我对那些问题的许多看法插入到我对哈特利主义和功利主义的辩护之中去,而这些看法和我以前同事的是不同的。在这件事上,我取得了部分成功,然而由于我和父亲之间的关系,如若我把这时对这个问题的所有看法都说出来,无论如何都会是件很痛苦的事情,而且在他为之撰稿的《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》中也根本不可能全说出来。

I am, however, inclined to think that my father was not so much opposed as he seemed, to the modes of thought in which I believed myself to differ from him; that he did injustice to his own opinions by the unconscious exaggerations of an intellect emphatically polemical; and that when thinking without an adversary in view, he was willing to make room for a great portion of the truths he seemed to deny. I have frequently observed that he made large allowance in practice for considerations which seemed to have no place in his theory. His Fragment on Mackintosh, which he wrote and published about this time, although I greatly admired some parts of it, I read as a whole with more pain than pleasure; yet on reading it again, long after, I found little in the opinions it contains, but what I think in the main just; and I can even sympathize in his disgust at the verbiage of Mackintosh, though his asperity towards it went not only beyond what was judicious, but beyond what was even fair. One thing which I thought, at the time, of good augury, was the very favorable reception he gave to Tocqueville's Democracy in America. It is true, he said and thought much more about what Tocqueville said in favour of democracy, than about what he said of its disadvantages. Still, his high appreciation of a book which was at any rate an example of a mode of treating the question of government almost the reverse of his—wholly inductive and analytical, instead of purely ratiocinative—gave me great encouragement. He also approved of an article which I published in the first number following the junction of the two reviews, the essay reprinted in the Dissertations under the title "Civilization"; into which I threw many of my new opinions, and criticized rather emphatically the mental and moral tendencies of the time, on grounds and in a manner which I certainly had not learnt from him.


All speculation, however, on the possible future developments of my father's opinions, and on the probabilities of permanent co-operation between him and me in the promulgation of our thoughts, was doomed to be cut short. During the whole of 1835 his health had been declining: his symptoms became unequivocally those of pulmonary consumption, and after lingering to the last stage of debility, he died on the 23rd of June 1836. Until the last few days of his life there was no apparent abatement of intellectual vigour; his interest in all things and persons that had interested him through life was undiminished, nor did the approach of death cause the smallest wavering (as in so strong and firm a mind it was impossible that it should) in his convictions on the subject of religion. His principal satisfaction, after he knew that his end was near, seemed to be the thought of what he had done to make the world better than he found it; and his chief regret in not living longer, that he had not had time to do more.

然而,父亲的思想将来可能的发展,以及他和我在传播思想上永久合作的可能性,注定要被中断。1835 年整一年,他的健康每况愈下,很显然是肺结核的症状,捱过生命中最虚弱的阶段后,他于1836 年6 月23 日去世了。直到生命的最后几天,他的思想活力也没有明显减弱。他对一生中感兴趣的所有人和事的兴趣没有减少,死亡的临近也没有让他对宗教问题的信念产生丝毫的动摇(如此坚定而有主见的头脑是不可能动摇的)。在知道自己时日无多时,他主要的欣慰似乎是想到自己为把世界变得更美好而作出了努力。而他主要的遗憾是不能多活几年,没有时间做更多的事情。

His place is an eminent one in the literary, and even in the political history of his country; and it is far from honourable to the generation which has benefited by his worth, that he is so seldom mentioned, and, compared with men far his inferiors, so little remembered. This is probably to be ascribed mainly to two causes. In the first place, the thought of him merges too much in the deservedly superior fame of Bentham. Yet he was anything but Bentham's mere follower or disciple. Precisely because he was himself one of the most original thinkers of his time, he was one of the earliest to appreciate and adopt the most important mass of original thought which had been produced by the generation preceding him. His mind and Bentham's were essentially of different construction. He had not all Bentham's high qualities, but neither had Bentham all his. It would, indeed, be ridiculous to claim for him the praise of having accomplished for mankind such splendid services as Bentham's. He did not revolutionize, or rather create, one of the great departments of human thought. But, leaving out of the reckoning all that portion of his labours in which he benefited by what Bentham had done, and counting only what he achieved in a province in which Bentham had done nothing, that of analytic psychology, he will be known to posterity as one of the greatest names in that most important branch of speculation, on which all the moral and political sciences ultimately rest, and will mark one of the essential stages in its progress. The other reason, which has made his fame less than he deserved, is that notwithstanding the great number of his opinions which, partly through his own efforts, have now been generally adopted, there was, on the whole, a marked opposition between his spirit and that of the present time. As Brutus14 was called the last of the Romans, so was he the last of the eighteenth century: he continued its tone of thought and sentiment into the nineteenth (though not unmodified nor unimproved), partaking neither in the good nor in the bad influences of the reaction against the eighteenth century, which was the great characteristic of the first half of the nineteenth. The eighteenth century was a great age, an age of strong and brave men, and he was a fit companion for its strongest and bravest. By his writings and his personal influence he was a great centre of light to his generation. During his later years he was quite as much the head and leader of the intellectual radicals in England, as Voltaire was of the philosophes of France. It is only one of his minor merits, that he was the originator of all sound statesmanship in regard to the subject of his largest work, India. He wrote on no subject which he did not enrich with valuable thought, and excepting the Elements of Political Economy, a very useful book when first written, but which has now for some time finished its work, it will be long before any of his books will be wholly superseded, or will cease to be instructive reading to students of their subjects. In the power of influencing by mere force of mind and character, the convictions and purposes of others, and in the strenuous exertion of that power to promote freedom and progress, he left, as far as my knowledge extends, no equal among men, and but one among women.

在英国的文学史上,甚至在政治史上,他的地位都是很显赫的。从他的价值观中受益的一代人很少提到他,而且同那些远不如他的人相比,他也很少被人记住,他们这样做很不光彩。这大概主要有两个原因。首先,他的思想太过融入于边沁的思想中,而边沁的名声理所当然更大。然而,他绝不是边沁纯粹的追随者或信徒。恰恰由于他本人就是那个时代最有创造性的思想家之一,是最早赏识并采纳前辈们创造的大量最重要的独创思想的人之一。他的思想和边沁的思想在结构上根本不同。他不具备边沁的所有优秀素质,边沁也没有他的所有优秀素质。如果称赞他和边沁一样为人类做出了杰出贡献的话,确实是很可笑的。他没有彻底改革,或者说没有创造出人们思想的一个伟大领域。但是,如果先不考虑他工作中从边沁那儿受益的那部分,只考虑他在边沁没有涉足的领域所取得的成绩,即分析心理学,后代人就会知道,在思想的这个最重要分支里,亦即所有道德和政治科学最终都要依赖的方面,他是最伟大的人物之一,而且这也是该分支发展过程中一个最重要阶段的标志。他的名声不如应得的响亮,另一个原因就是,尽管他有很多观点,而部分通过自己的努力现已大都被采纳,但从总体上来说,他的精神和时代的精神明显对立。正如布鲁图被称为最后一个罗马人一样,他也是最后一个18世纪的人:他把18 世纪的思想和情感风格延续到了19世纪(尽管有所变化和改进),反对18 世纪是19 世纪上半叶的重要特征,这其中产生的或好或坏的影响,他都不理会。18 世纪是个伟大的时代,这个时代有很多坚强、勇敢的人,他适合与其中最坚强、最勇敢的人做朋友。通过他的著作和个人影响力,他成为那个时代伟大人物的核心。就像伏尔泰是法国哲学界的领袖一样,在他晚年的时候,他完全算是英国知识界激进分子的首脑和领袖。鉴于他规模最大的著作《英属印度史》的主题,他算得上是所有合理的治国策略的首创者,但这只是他较小的功绩之一。他会用有价值的思想去丰富所写的任何题材,除了《政治经济学原理》,这本书刚写完的时候是非常有用的,但是现在它的使命已经结束了。他的作品要很久以后才会被完全取代,对研究其主题的学生来说,也将在很长一段时间内都是有启发的读本。他仅凭思想和品格的力量就能影响别人的信念和目标,他也努力发挥这种力量以促进自由和进步,就我所知,这在男性中无人能及,女性当中倒是有一个。

Though acutely sensible of my own inferiority in the qualities by which he acquired his personal ascendancy, I had now to try what it might be possible for me to accomplish without him; and the Review was the instrument on which I built my chief hopes of establishing a useful influence over the liberal and democratic section of the public mind. Deprived of my father's aid, I was also exempted from the restraints and reticence by which that aid had been purchased. I did not feel that there was any other radical writer or politician to whom I was bound to defer, further than consisted with my own opinions: and having the complete confidence of Molesworth, I resolved henceforth to give full scope to my own opinions and modes of thought, and to open the Review widely to all writers who were in sympathy with Progress as I understood it, even though I should lose by it the support of my former associates. Carlyle, consequently, became from this time a frequent writer in the Review; Sterling15, soon after, an occasional one; and though each individual article continued to be the expression of the private sentiments of its writer, the general tone conformed in some tolerable degree to my opinions. For the conduct of the Review, under, and in conjunction with me, I associated with myself a young Scotchman of the name of Robertson, who had some ability and information, much industry, and an active scheming head, full of devices for making the Review more saleable, and on whose capacities in that direction I founded a good deal of hope: insomuch, that when Molesworth, in the beginning of 1837, became tired of carrying on the Review at a loss, and desirous of getting rid of it (he had done his part honourably, and at no small pecuniary cost), I, very imprudently for my own pecuniary interest, and very much from reliance on Robertson's devices, determined to continue it at my own risk, until his plans should have had a fair trial. The devices were good, and I never had any reason to change my opinion of them. But I do not believe that any devices would have made a radical and democratic review defray its expenses, including a paid editor or sub-editor, and a liberal payment to writers. I myself and several frequent contributors gave our labour gratuitously, as we had done for Molesworth; but the paid contributors continued to be remunerated on the usual scale of the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews; and this could not be done from the proceeds of the sale.

尽管我非常清楚,在他取得个人优势的那些方面,我远不如他,但我现在必须尝试,看看在没有他的情况下,自己有可能取得什么成就。我希望对公众思想中有关自由和民主的部分产生有益的影响,我把主要希望寄托在《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》这个工具上。没有了父亲的帮助,我也免除了获得这些帮助所需要的约束和节制。我并不觉得一定要遵从其他任何激进派的作家或政治家,只需保持自己的观点前后一致就可以了。因为得到了莫尔斯沃思的完全信任,我决心从此以后充分发挥自己的观点和思考模式,把评论杂志向所有赞成我所理解之进步的作家敞开,即使可能会因此失去以前同事的支持。因此,卡莱尔从这时起经常为《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》写文章。不久之后,斯特林也偶尔写一篇,尽管每一篇独立的文章仍然是作者私人情感的表达,但是总体的基调在一定程度上能够符合我的理念。为了管理这个评论杂志,我和一个名叫罗伯逊的苏格兰年轻人合作,他有一定的能力和见地,非常勤奋,头脑活跃,善于计划,有很多让《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》更畅销的办法,我对他这方面的能力寄予厚望。因此在1837 年初,莫尔斯沃思疲于亏本经营《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》并希望摆脱它的时候(他很光荣地尽了自己的职责,而且付出了很大的经济代价),我非常鲁莽地决定自己负责继续办下去,这一方面是为了我自己的经济利益,也是因为非常信赖罗伯逊的方法,要让他的计划充分试验一下。他的方法很好,我也从来没有理由改变自己对这些方法的看法。但是,我相信任何方法都不能让一个激进和民主主义的评论刊物有能力支付费用,包括主编和副主编的酬劳,以及给作者慷慨的稿酬。我和好几个经常性的撰稿人免费劳动,和莫尔斯沃思那时候一样,但是对于要付稿酬的撰稿人,继续按照《爱丁堡评论》和《季刊评论》的标准支付给他们报酬。而销售收入根本支付不了这笔费用。

In the same year, 1837, and in the midst of these occupations, I resumed the Logic. I had not touched my pen on the subject for five years, having been stopped and brought to a halt on the threshold of Induction. I had gradually discovered that what was mainly wanting, to overcome the difficulties of that branch of the subject, was a comprehensive, and, at the same time, accurate view of the whole circle of physical science, which I feared it would take me a long course of study to acquire; since I knew not of any book, or other guide, that would spread out before me the generalities and processes of the sciences, and I apprehended that I should have no choice but to extract them for myself, as I best could, from the details. Happily for me, Dr. Whewell16, early in this year, published his History of the Inductive Sciences. I read it with eagerness, and found in it a considerable approximation to what I wanted. Much, if not most, of the philosophy of the work appeared open to objection; but the materials were there, for my own thoughts to work upon: and the author had given to those materials that first degree of elaboration, which so greatly facilitates and abridges the subsequent labour. I had now obtained what I had been waiting for. Under the impulse given me by the thoughts excited by Dr. Whewell, I read again Sir J. Herschel17's Discourse on the Study of Natural Philosophy; and I was able to measure the progress my mind had made, by the great help I now found in this work—though I had read and even reviewed it several years before with little profit. I now set myself vigorously to work out the subject in thought and in writing. The time I bestowed on this had to be stolen from occupations more urgent. I had just two months to spare, at this period, in the intervals of writing for the Review. In these two months I completed the first draft of about a third, the most difficult third, of the book. What I had before written, I estimate at another third, so that only one-third remained. What I wrote at this time consisted of the remainder of the doctrine of Reasoning (the theory of Trains of Reasoning, and Demonstrative Science), and the greater part of the Book on Induction. When this was done, I had, as it seemed tome, untied all the really hard knots, and the completion of the book had become only a question of time. Having got thus far, I had to leave off in order to write two articles for the next number of the Review. When these were written, I returned to the subject, and now for the first time fell in with Comte's Cours de Philosophie Positive, or rather with the two volumes of it which were all that had at that time been published.

同一年,1837 年,在从事这些工作的同时,我重新开始写《逻辑学体系》。我在刚开始写归纳法的时候就停了下来,到此时已有五年没碰这个题目了。我慢慢发现,要克服逻辑学这个分支的困难,需要对整个自然科学领域进行全面和精确的了解,我担心这要花很长时间的学习才能获得。因为我不了解任何能够在我面前展现这些科学的一般原则和过程的书籍或其他指南,而我还知道自己别无选择,只能尽量从细节中吸取这些东西。幸运的是,休厄尔博士在这年年初出版了《归纳科学史》。我殷切地读完了它,发现里面有很多东西跟我想要的很接近。这部著作里有很多(如果不是大多数的话)基本原理看起来值得商榷,但是有很多材料可以供我思考时使用。作者对那些材料进行了详细阐述,这大大方便并缩减了我后来的工作。我现在得到了自己一直想要的东西。在休厄尔博士思想的促动下,我重读了约翰. 赫歇耳爵士的《论自然哲学的研究》。在这本著作给我的巨大帮助下,我能够衡量自己思想上产生的进步,虽然在几年前,我读它甚至温习它的时候几乎一无所获。现在,我满腔热情地思考这个主题,并把它写出来。我必须从其他更紧急的事情中偷出时间来用在这上面。在这段时间里,我只能从为评论杂志写文章的间隙里节省下两个月的时间。就在这两个月里,我完成了差不多初稿的三分之一,也是书中最难的三分之一。之前写的,我估计也有三分之一,所以只剩下三分之一没有完成。我这时所写的,包括推理原理剩下的部分(即一系列的推理原理和论证科学)和归纳法这一卷的大半部分。这部分写完之后,在我看来,我已经解决了所有真正的困难,全书的完成只是个时间问题了。进展到这儿为止,我必须先停下来,为下一期的《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》写两篇文章。写完文章后,我又继续写书,这时我第一次偶然读到了孔德的《实证哲学教程》,或者更确切地说,读到了两卷,当时已经出版的也只有这两卷。

My theory of Induction was substantially completed before I knew of Comte's book; and it is perhaps well that I came to it by a different road from his, since the consequence has been that my treatise contains, what his certainly does not, a reduction of the inductive process to strict rules and to a scientific test, such as the Syllogism is for ratiocination. Comte is always precise and profound on the method of investigation, but he does not even attempt any exact definition of the conditions of proof: and his writings show that he never attained a just conception of them. This, however, was specifically the problem which, in treating of Induction, I had proposed to myself. Nevertheless, I gained much from Comte, with which to enrich my chapters in the subsequent rewriting: and his book was of essential service to me in some of the parts which still remained to be thought out. As his subsequent volumes successively made their appearance, I read them with avidity, but, when he reached the subject of Social Science, with varying feelings. The fourth volume disappointed me: it contained those of his opinions on social subjects with which I most disagree. But the fifth, containing the connected view of history, rekindled all my enthusiasm; which the sixth (or concluding) volume did not materially abate. In a merely logical point of view, the only leading conception for which I am indebted to him is that of the Inverse Deductive Method, as the one chiefly applicable to the complicated subjects of History and Statistics: a process differing from the more common form of the Deductive Method in this—that instead of arriving at its conclusions by general reasoning, and verifying them by specific experience (as is the natural order in the deductive branches of physical science), it obtains its generalizations by a collation of specific experience, and verifies them by ascertaining whether they are such as would follow from known general principles. This was an idea entirely new to me when I found it in Comte: and but for him I might not soon (if ever) have arrived at it.


I had been long an ardent admirer of Comte's writings before I had any communication with himself; nor did I ever, to the last, see him in the body. But for some years we were frequent correspondents, until our correspondence became controversial, and our zeal cooled. I was the first to slacken correspondence; he was the first to drop it. I found, and he probably found likewise, that I could do no good to his mind, and that all the good he could do to mine, he did by his books. This would never have led to discontinuance of intercourse, if the differences between us had been on matters of simple doctrine. But they were chiefly on those points of opinion which blended in both of us with our strongest feelings, and determined the entire direction of our aspirations. I had fully agreed with him when he maintained that the mass of mankind, including even their rulers in all the practical departments of life, must, from the necessity of the case, accept most of their opinions on political and social matters, as they do on physical, from the authority of those who have bestowed more study on those subjects than they generally have it in their power to do. This lesson had been strongly impressed on me by the early work of Comte, to which I have adverted. And there was nothing in his great Treatise which I admired more than his remarkable exposition of the benefits which the nations of modern Europe have historically derived from the separation, during the Middle Ages, of temporal and spiritual power, and the distinct organization of the latter. I agreed with him that the moral and intellectual ascendancy, once exercised by priests, must in time pass into the hands of philosophers, and will naturally do so when they become sufficiently unanimous, and in other respects worthy to possess it. But when he exaggerated this line of thought into a practical system, in which philosophers were to be organized into a kind of corporate hierarchy, invested with almost the same spiritual supremacy (though without any secular power) once possessed by the Catholic church; when I found him relying on this spiritual authority as the only security for good government, the sole bulwark against practical oppression, and expecting that by it a system of despotism in the state and despotism in the family would be rendered innocuous and beneficial; it is not surprising, that while as logicians we were nearly at one, as sociologists we could travel together no further. M. Comte lived to carry out these doctrines to their extremes consequences, by planning, in his last work, the Système de Politique Positive,the completest system of spiritual and temporal despotism, which ever yet emanated from a human brain, unless possibly that of Ignatius Loyola18: a system by which the yoke of general opinion, wielded by an organized body of spiritual teachers and rulers, would be made supreme over every action, and as far as is in human possibility, every thought, of every member of the community, as well in the things which regard only himself, as in those which concern the interests of others. It is but just to say that this work is a considerable improvement, in many points of feeling, over Comte's previous writings on the same subjects: but as an accession to social philosophy, the only value it seems to me to possess consists in putting an end to the notion that no effectual moral authority can be maintained over society without the aid of religious belief; for Comte's work recognizes no religion except that of Humanity, yet it leaves an irresistible conviction that any moral beliefs concurred in by the community generally, may be brought to bear upon the whole conduct and lives of its individual members, with an energy and potency truly alarming to think of. The book stands a monumental warning to thinkers on society and politics, of what happens when once men lose sight in their speculations, of the value of Liberty and of Individuality.

在与孔德有任何交往之前,我早就已经是他热情的崇拜者了,直到最后我也从没有亲眼见过他。但是,有几年我们经常通信,一直到我们的通信中开始出现争论,热情冷却为止。是我首先减少了与他的通信,而他首先终止了通信。我发现,他可能也同样发现了,我对他的思想没什么帮助,而他给我带来的所有帮助,全都在他的书里面了。如果我们之间的分歧仅存在于简单的理论问题上的话,这也绝不会导致我们中止交流。但是,分歧主要存在于一些与我们双方内心最强烈的情感结合在一起的观点上,而且这些观点决定了我们目标的总体方向。他主张大多数人,包括他们生活中所有实践领域的统治者,出于情形需要,在政治和社会问题上,都必须接受在这上面比他们做了更多研究的权威人士的大部分观点,就像接受他们在自然科学上的见解一样,对此我完全赞同。在我提到的孔德的早期著作中,这个见解给我留下了非常深刻的印象。在他那本伟大的专著里,我最崇拜的是他非凡地阐述了现代欧洲国家在历史上从中世纪世俗权力和神权的分离中,以及神权的独特构造中得到的益处。我也同意他所说的,即道德和智力优势曾经一度由牧师操纵,但假以时日,一定会交到哲学家的手里,而且当哲学家的意见足够一致,且在其他方面有资格拥有这种优势时,这件事就会自然发生。但是,他把这个思想路线夸大成一种实际的制度,在这种制度里,哲学家们被组织成一种有层级的集体,授予他们几乎与过去的天主教会一样的精神权威(尽管没有任何世俗权力)。我发现,他把这种精神权威当作善政的唯一保障,反对实际压迫的唯一堡垒,还希望通过它使国家和家庭的专制制度变得无害反而有益。所以,作为逻辑学家,我们几乎完全一致,但是作为社会学家,我们无法继续一起前行,这也就没什么可奇怪的了。孔德先生一生致力于贯彻这些学说,在他的最后一部著作《实证政治学体系》里,他策划了最完善的教权和俗权专制的制度,这种专制制度,可能除了伊格内修斯. 罗耀拉外,别人根本不可能想出来。通过这种制度,可以让由精神导师和统治者组成的团体,通过控制舆论来控制所有的社会行为,并在人类能力所及的范围内控制社会成员的每种想法,除了只与本人相关的事情,还有那些关乎别人利益的事情。但是公平地说,与孔德先前相同主题的作品相比,这部作品在情感方面的很多观点上有很大的进步。但是,作为社会哲学的补充物,在我看来,它具有的唯一价值就在于结束了一种观念,即认为任何有效的道德权威,都必须借助宗教信仰的支持才能在社会上得以维持。孔德的著作除了人性,没有认可任何宗教,然而它让人不得不相信:任何受到社会普遍赞成的道德信仰,都可以用来对它个体成员的所有行为和生活施加压力,其力量和潜能确实让人一想起来就很害怕。这本书对社会学和政治学思想家是个严重的警告,它使人了解到,人们在思考的时候,一旦忽略了自由和个性的价值,将会发生什么样的后果。

To return to myself. the Review engrossed, for some time longer, nearly all the time I could devote to authorship, or to thinking with authorship in view. The articles from the London and Westminster Review which are reprinted in the Dissertations, are scarcely a fourth part of those I wrote. In the conduct of the Review I had two principal objects. One was to free philosophic radicalism from the reproach of sectarian Benthamism. I desired, while retaining the precision of expression, the definiteness of meaning, the contempt of declamatory phrases and vague generalities, which were so honorably characteristic both of Bentham and of my father, to give a wider basis and a more free and genial character to Radical speculations; to show that there was a Radical philosophy, better and more complete than Bentham's, while recognizing and incorporating all of Bentham's which is permanently valuable. In this first object I, to a certain extent, succeeded. The other thing I attempted, was to stir up the educated Radicals, in and out of Parliament, to exertion, and induce them to make themselves, what I thought by using the proper means, they might become—a powerful party capable of taking the government of the country, or at least of dictating the terms on which they should share it with the Whigs. This attempt was from the first chimerical: partly because the time was unpropitious, the Reform fervour being in its period of ebb, and the Tory influences powerfully rallying; but still more, because, as Austin so truly said, "the country did not contain the men." Among the Radicals in Parliament there were several qualified to be useful members of an enlightened Radical party, but none capable of forming and leading such a party. The exhortations I addressed to them found no response. One occasion did present itself when there seemed to be room for a bold and successful stroke for Radicalism. Lord Durham had left the Ministry, by reason, as was thought, of their not being sufficiently Liberal; he afterwards accepted from them the task of ascertaining and removing the causes of the Canadian rebellion; he had shown a disposition to surround himself at the outset with Radical advisers; one of his earliest measures, a good measure both in intention and in effect, having been disapproved and reversed by the Government at home, he had resigned his post, and placed himself openly in a position of quarrel with the Ministers. Here was a possible chief for a Radical party in the person of a man of importance, who was hated by the Tories, and had just been injured by the Whigs. Any one who had the most elementary notions of party tactics, must have attempted to make something of such an opportunity. Lord Durham was bitterly attacked from all sides, inveighed against by enemies, given up by timid friends; while those who would willingly have defended him did not know what to say. He appeared to be returning a defeated and discredited man. I had followed the Canadian events from the beginning; I had been one of the prompters of his prompters; his policy was almost exactly what mine would have been, and I was in a position to defend it. I wrote and published a manifesto in the Review, in which I took the very highest ground in his behalf, claiming for him not mere acquittal, but praise and honour. Instantly a number of other writers took up the tone: I believe there was a portion of truth in what Lord Durham, soon after, with polite exaggeration, said to me—that to this article might be ascribed the almost triumphal reception which he met with on his arrival in England. I believe it to have been the word in season, which, at a critical moment, does much to decide the result; the touch which determines whether a stone, set in motion at the top of an eminence, shall roll down on one side or on the other. All hopes connected with Lord Durham as a politician soon vanished; but with regard to Canadian, and generally to colonial policy, the cause was gained: Lord Durham's report, written by Charles Buller, partly under the inspiration of Wakefield, began a new era; its recommendations, extending to complete internal self-government, were in full operation in Canada within two or three years, and have been since extended to nearly all the other colonies, of European race, which have any claim to the character of important communities. And I may say that in successfully upholding the reputation of Lord Durham and his advisers at the most important moment, I contributed materially to this result.


One other case occurred during my conduct of the Review, which similarly illustrated the effect of taking a prompt initiative. I believe that the early success and reputation of Carlyle's French Revolution, were considerably accelerated by what I wrote about it in the Review. Immediately on its publication, and before the commonplace critics, all whose rules and modes of judgment it set at defiance, had time to pre-occupy the public with their disapproval of it, I wrote and published a review of the book, hailing it as one of those productions of genius which are above all rules, and are a law to themselves. Neither in this case nor in that of Lord Durham do I ascribe the impression, which I think was produced by what I wrote, to any particular merit of execution: indeed, in at least one of the cases (the article on Carlyle) I do not think the execution was good. And in both instances, I am persuaded that anybody, in a position to be read, who had expressed the same opinion at the same precise time, and had made any tolerable statement of the just grounds for it, would have produced the same effect. But, after the complete failure of my hopes of putting a new life into Radical politics by means of the Review, I am glad to look back on these two instances of success in an honest attempt to do immediate service to things and persons that deserved it.


After the last hope of the formation of a Radical party had disappeared, it was time for me to stop the heavy expenditure of time and money which the Review cost me. It had to some extent answered my personal purpose as a vehicle for my opinions. It had enabled me to express in print much of my altered mode of thought, and to separate myself in a marked manner from the narrower Benthamism of my early writings. This was done by the general tone of all I wrote, including various purely literary articles, but especially by the two papers (reprinted in the Dissertations) which attempted a philosophical estimate of Bentham and of Coleridge. In the first of these, while doing full justice to the merits of Bentham, I pointed out what I thought the errors and deficiencies of his philosophy. The substance of this criticism I still think perfectly just; but I have sometimes doubted whether it was right to publish it at that time. I have often felt that Bentham's philosophy, as an instrument of progress, has been to some extent discredited before it had done its work, and that to lend a hand towards lowering its reputation was doing more harm than service to improvement. Now, however, when a counter-reaction appears to be setting in towards what is good in Benthamism, I can look with more satisfaction on this criticism of its defects, especially as I have myself balanced it by vindications of the fundamental principles of Bentham's philosophy, which are reprinted along with it in the same collection. In the essay on Coleridge I attempted to characterize the European reaction against the negative philosophy of the eighteenth century: and here, if the effect only of this one paper were to be considered, I might be thought to have erred by giving undue prominence to the favourable side, as I had done in the case of Bentham to the unfavourable. In both cases, the impetus with which I had detached myself from what was untenable in the doctrines of Bentham and of the eighteenth century, may have carried me, though in appearance rather than in reality, too far on the contrary side. But as far as relates to the article on Coleridge, my defence is, that I was writing for Radicals and Liberals, and it was my business to dwell most on that in writers of a different school, from the knowledge of which, they might derive most improvement.

在建立一个激进党派的最后希望落空后,是时候停止把大量时间和金钱花费在《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》上了。作为传达我观点的工具,它在某种程度上达到了我的个人目标。它让我发表了很多我改变后的思考方式,使我和自己早期作品中较狭隘的边沁主义划清了界线。这一点是通过我写的所有文章的总体风格表现出来的,包括各种纯粹的文学作品,但主要是通过两篇试图从哲学角度评价边沁和柯尔律治的文章表现出来的(收录在《讨论与论文》里)。在第一篇文章里,我在完全公正地评价边沁优点的同时,还按照自己的理解指出了他的哲学中的错误和不足。我现在仍然认为这个评论的主旨有着非常充分的根据。但是,有时我会怀疑在那个时候发表是否合适。我经常觉得,边沁的哲学作为进步的手段,在发挥作用之前就因在某种程度上被人怀疑而名声被贬,对进步而言弊大于利。尽管现在看起来有承认边沁主义优点的趋势,但我还是能更满意地看待自己对它缺点的批评,尤其是我在批评它的同时,也证明了边沁哲学基本原则的正确性,这些文章被收录在同一个集子里。在评论柯尔律治的文章里,我尝试刻画欧洲反对18 世纪消极哲学运动的特征:在这儿,如果只考虑这一篇文章的效果,人们可能会认为我过于突出优点,就像我过分突出了边沁的缺点一样。在这两件事上,我把自己和边沁的理论以及18 世纪的学说里站不住脚的观点分开的动力,可能也让我在相反的方向上走得太远,虽然只是表面上如此,而不是在现实中。但是,对于评论柯尔律治的这篇文章,我是这样为自己辩护的:我是为激进分子和自由主义者而写,最大程度地仔细描述不同学派的作家是我的任务,从这些学派的知识中,激进分子和自由主义者们可能会获得最大的进步。

The number of the Review which contained the paper on Coleridge, was the last which was published during my proprietorship. In the spring of 1840 I made over the Review to Mr. Hickson, who had been a frequent and very useful unpaid contributor under my management: only stipulating that the change should be marked by a resumption of the old name, that of Westminster Review. Under that name Mr. Hickson conducted it for ten years, on the plan of dividing among contributors only the net proceeds of the Review, giving his own labour as writer and editor gratuitously. Under the difficulty in obtaining writers, which arose from this low scale of payment, it is highly creditable to him that he was able to maintain, in some tolerable degree, the character of the Review as an organ of radicalism and progress. I did not cease altogether to write for the Review, but continued to send it occasional contributions, not, however, exclusively; for the greater circulation of the Edinburgh Review induced me from this time to offer articles to it also when I had anything to say for which it appeared to be a suitable vehicle. And the concluding volumes of Democracy in America having just then come out, I inaugurated myself as a contributor to the Edinburgh, by the article on that work, which heads the second volume of the Dissertations.

刊登评论柯尔律治那篇文章的那期《伦敦与威斯敏斯特评论》,是我负责的最后一期。1840 年春天,我把评论杂志转让给了希克森先生,在我主办评论杂志的期间,他经常无偿为之撰稿,对我们的帮助很大。他只要求恢复原来的名字《威斯敏斯特评论》以显示该变化。他用这个名称办了十年,给投稿人按纯收入分配稿费,自己则免费为它写稿,做编辑。因为报酬太低,难以争取到作家投稿。在这种困境下,他能够较好地保持《威斯敏斯特评论》作为激进主义和进步喉舌的特征,是很值得称赞的。我并没有完全停止为《威斯敏斯特评论》撰稿,只是偶尔间断地投稿,但我不是专给它投稿,因为从这时起发行量更大的《爱丁堡评论》诱使我向它投稿,在我有见解要发表时,它看起来是个合适的媒介。《论美国的民主》的最后几卷当时刚刚出版,我开始成为《爱丁堡评论》撰稿人时写的第一篇稿子就是为那部著作写的评论,这成了《讨论与论述》第二卷的第一篇文章。

(1) 亚历克西斯·德·托克维尔(1805—1859),19 世纪法国政治思想家、历史学家。著作有《美国的民主》《旧制度与大革命》等。

(2) 约翰·罗巴克(1718 —179 4),英国成功的企业家, 拥有著名的卡伦钢铁厂。

(3) 查尔斯·布勒(1806—184 8),英国政治家、激进派改革家。

(4) 威廉·莫尔斯沃思(1810—1855),英国政治家、自由党人、议会议员。曾任公共工程大臣(1853—1855)和殖民大臣(1855)。

(5) 约翰·罗米利(18 0 2—1874),英国大法官、政治家。其父是英国法律改革家塞缪尔·罗米利爵士(1757—1818)。

(6) 爱德华·罗米利(1838—1886),英国人, 其父是约翰· 罗米利。

(7) 丹尼尔·奥康奈尔( 17 75 —18 47),19 世纪前期爱尔兰民族主义运动的主要代表。

(8) 辉格党,英国历史上的一个政党,反对绝对王权,支持新教徒享有宗教自由,是自由党的前身。与他们相对的是托利党,后者是一批持传统观点的人,支持世袭王权,保留国王, 是保守党的前身。

(9) 奥尔巴尼·威廉·方布兰克( 1793 —1872),英国新闻记者。

(10) 威廉·约翰逊·福克斯(1786 —1864),英国著名的宣传家、宗教和政治演说家。

(11) 爱德华·布尔沃-利顿 (1803—1873),英国下院议员、殖民大臣、小说家和剧作家,主要作品有历史小说《庞贝城的末日》和剧本《黎塞留》。

(12) 亚当·塞奇威克(178 5 —1878),英国著名的地质学家, 最早提出寒武纪和泥盆纪命名。

(13) 威廉·佩利( 1743 —18 0 5),英国神学家, 其经典著作为《自然神学》。

(14) 马库斯·朱尼厄斯·布鲁图(公元前85— 前42),罗马共和时期的第一任行政长官,早期曾参加过刺杀罗马独裁者恺撒的行动。他有着光明磊落的性格,在历史上是一个维护民主、不徇私情、大公无私的执政官形象。

(15) 约翰·斯特林(1806—184 4),英国作家。

(16) 威廉·休厄尔( 179 4 —186 6),英国著名的科学史家, 最有影响的著作是《归纳科学史》。

(17) 约翰·赫歇耳爵士(1792—1871),英国天文学家。其父是被誉为“恒星天文学之父”的弗雷德里克·威廉·赫歇耳爵士(1738—1822)。

(18) 伊格内修斯·罗耀拉(1491—1556),西班牙人, 罗马天主教耶稣会的创建者。