Chapter 10 Author's Note-1

author's note [1] (page 52) - According to Herodotus, after the false Smerdis was killed, the seven liberators of Persia gathered to discuss which form of government their country should adopt.Ordanes insisted that a republic should be established.Such an opinion is astonishing to come from a Governor-General, for, apart from his own possible hopes for power, the nobles are more afraid of a government that will force them to respect the people than they are of death. .As we thought: Ordanes' opinion was not taken.When he saw that the people were about to elect a prince, he would neither obey nor command, so he willingly surrendered his claim to the throne to other contenders, and all he asked for in return was himself and his descendants Able to be free and autonomous.This request was granted.Although Herodotus does not explicitly state the limits imposed on this privilege, we should assume that there must have been some limits.Otherwise, Ordanes would be neither subject to any law nor accountable to anyone, and he would be the most powerful man in the country, even more powerful than the king.But in this case it is almost impossible for a man who can be content with such a privilege to abuse it.In fact, neither the wise Ordanes nor any of his descendants took advantage of this privilege to cause any disorder in the kingdom.

[2] (page 62)—From the beginning of this treatise, I have relied with confidence on one of the authoritative theories which philosophers hold dear, since these are the A solid and sublime reason that can only be discovered and felt. "However much we care about knowing ourselves, I wonder if we know better about everything outside of us. Nature has endowed us with organs for self-preservation, but we use them only to receive external impressions. ;We only want to extend ourselves outwardly, and only want to exist outside of ourselves. We are overly devoted to increasing the utility of our senses and expanding the outer scope of our being, and make little use of our inner sense. But only this sense can make We return to our own true measure, which separates us from everything outside us. It is this inner sense which we should use if we wish to know ourselves. It is the only sense by which we can judge ourselves. But how to make this Sensation alive and in its full sphere? How do we free our soul—in which our inner sense resides—from all the delusions of our mind? We have lost the habit of using our soul. In our various In the turmoil of our bodily sensations, our soul is stagnant, it is consumed by the flames of our passions, and the mind, spirit, and senses are eating away at it."

(3) (p. 74)—From the changes in the structure of the human body caused by the long-term use of bipedal walking; from what we can still observe between the arms of humans and the front legs of quadrupeds. and from what we can infer from their manner of walking, it would make us wonder which is the most natural way of walking for us.All children walk on all fours at first, and they must be set by our example and taught by us before they can learn to stand up.Even some savage peoples, such as the Hottentots, are so neglectful of their children that they allow them to walk on their hands for so long that they afterwards have difficulty in getting them to stand up.The same is true of the children of the Garaibo people of the Antilles.We also have various examples of quadrupeds, and I may cite as an example a child found near Hesse in 1344.He was raised by wolves since he was a child.Afterwards he used to say at Henry's court that if he had been completely free, he would rather go back and live with wolves than with men.He was so used to walking like a wild animal that he had to be fastened to several boards to hold him upright and keep him balanced on two feet. The same is true of the child found among bears in the Lithuanian forest in 1694.M. de Condillac said that the child had no semblance of reason, walked on hands and feet, spoke no language, and uttered a completely unhuman voice.The savage boy of Hanover, who was sent to the English court many years ago, had to suffer great hardship and hardship to make himself walk on two feet. In 1719, two savages were found in the Pyrenees, both running in the mountains like quadrupeds.As for the objection, which may be raised, that the foregoing is the reason for the refusal of hands, which are of many uses, this objection, except that the hands are fully capable of two uses in the case of the monkey, only proves that man can The use of his limbs with greater ease than that which nature has gifted him with, does not prove that nature made man walk otherwise than nature dictated.

But I think we have many other and better reasons for maintaining that man is a biped.In the first place, even if one could point out that man's original structure may have been different from what we see now, and that he became what he is now, it does not suffice for us to conclude that man must have changed in this way. over here.Because, after indicating the possibility of these changes, at least the reality of these changes must be pointed out before they can be recognized.Moreover, although man's arms seem to have served him as legs when necessary, this is the only observation in favor of the statement that man is a quadruped, to the contrary of which there are many others.The main thing is that if man walks on all fours, according to the posture in which his head is connected to his body, he does not separate his eyes from the eyes as he does in other animals, as he does when he walks upright. The horizon is parallel, but one can only direct one's line of sight to the ground, which is quite detrimental to people's self-preservation.Humans don't have tails. Tails are completely useless for bipedal animals, but they are very useful for quadrupeds, so there is no quadruped without a tail.The position of the woman's breasts, which is most suitable for the biped to enable the mother to hold the child in her arms, is too inappropriate for the quadruped.Hence no quadruped has the same position of the udder as that of man.If man were also to walk on four legs, the hindquarters would be much higher than the forequarters, and he would have to crawl on his knees, with the result that man would be a disproportionately built and terribly inconvenient animal.If man were to put his hands on the same level as his feet, he would have one less joint in his hind legs than that of other animals, which joins the tibia to the femur; , would have to replace the tibia of other quadrupeds with his tarsal bone, which would be too thick, not to mention the number of bones which make up the tarsal bone, and the tarsal bone interposed between the metatarsal bone and the tibial bone, Too close together, so that in this case the human leg cannot have the flexibility of the joints of the quadrupeds.The foregoing examples of children lead us to no conclusions, for they are at an age when the natural strength of the body is not yet developed, and the limbs are not yet strong.If such an instance is to be concluded, I can likewise say that the dog is not an animal destined to walk, for within a few weeks of its birth it can only crawl.As no particular facts suffice to refute the general custom of all men; nor are the particular instances of those nations which have had nothing to do with other nations, and therefore have nothing to imitate from them, suffice to refute the universal custom of all nations. common habit.A baby abandoned in a forest before it can walk, to be fed by wild animals, may follow the example of its feeder, and learn to walk in the same way.Habit will acquire in him faculties which are not natural; and as a man with a crippled arm, by skill, can use his feet to do all that we do with our hands, so the babe has only at last learned to use his hands for feet. That's all.

[4] (p. 75)—If a superficial naturalist among the readers should question my assumption that the land is naturally fertile, I shall answer him in the following passage: "As the plant draws much more nourishment from the air and water than from the earth, when the plant decays it gives back to the earth more than it ever took from it. In addition, because the forest prevents water vapor, it can cause a lot of rain. Thus, in a forest that has been preserved for a long time and has not been harvested, the soil layer for the growth of valuables is greatly thickened. But the animals return to Soils are less than they ever took from them, especially as firewood and other vegetation are consumed in large quantities for fire and other uses. Therefore, a man-inhabited place, where vegetation can grow, must necessarily Often diminishing, and finally becoming as barren as the lands of Arabia Petria and many other parts of the Orient, where, in fact, they were first inhabited; now only salt and sand are to be found there. For the salts in plants and animals solidify and remain, and the rest evaporate."—See "Evidence of the Theory of the Land" in Natural History, Article VII.

At this point, we can add the evidence of the fact that almost all the deserted islands discovered in recent centuries are covered with a large number of trees and various plants; , it is necessary to cut down the endless forest on the ground.Here, I would like to point out the following three points: First, if there is a kind of plant that can compensate for the consumption of vegetable matter caused by animals, according to Mr. Bifeng's argument, it is mainly trees, whose tops and leaves can outperform other plants. Accumulates and retains more moisture and water vapor.Secondly, the more the land is cultivated, and the more the products of the land are consumed by the more intelligent inhabitants, the more must the destruction of the soil, that is, the loss of matter suitable for cultivation, be accelerated.Thirdly, and more important, the fruits of trees provide more nourishment for animals than any other plant can provide.I myself have made experiments comparing two plots of equal quality, one with chestnuts and the other with wheat.

[5] (p. 75)—Among quadrupeds, the two most common characteristics of carnivorous animals: the shape of the teeth, and the structure of the intestines.The teeth of animals that live only on plants are flat, such as horses, cows, sheep, and rabbits; while the teeth of carnivorous animals are pointed, such as cats, dogs, wolves, and foxes.As for the intestines, fruit-eating animals have several types of intestines, such as the colon, which carnivorous animals do not have.Humans, then, have similar teeth and intestines to fruit-eating animals, and it seems that they should be included in this category.Not only anatomical observations confirm this opinion, but also opinions in favor of this statement can be found in ancient classics.

St. Jerome said: "According to Disarge's account in his 'Ancient Greece' series, in the era of the god of agriculture, the land itself was fertile. At that time, no one lived on meat, and everyone relied on meat. to live by the fruits and vegetables which it naturally produces." ("A Reply to the Jovignians", Vol. 2) This opinion can also be found in the records of many modern travelers.Among them, François Colea pointed out that most of the residents of the Bahamas who were migrated by the Spaniards to Cuba Island, Santo Domingo Island and other places died of eating meat.It can be seen from this that I have also ignored a lot of arguments in favor of my statement.For prey is almost the only object for which carnivorous animals fight with each other, and fruit-eating animals can live for a long time in peace among themselves; It is easier to live in the state of nature, and the need and opportunity to escape from it are much less.

[6] (p. 76)——All knowledge that requires thinking, all knowledge that must be acquired and gradually perfected through the connection of ideas, seems to be completely beyond the intelligence of the savage.Because the savage has no intercourse with his fellows, that is to say, because he lacks the means by which this intercourse is facilitated, and the wants which make it necessary.The knowledge and skill of the savage are limited to jumping, running, fighting, throwing stones, and climbing trees.However, although he can only do these things, he is much better at doing them than us, because we don't have the same needs as he does for these things.And since these things depend entirely on the exercise of one's own body, and cannot be passed on from one to another, nor can any progress be made from one person to another, so in this respect the first man may differ from his last generation. It's exactly the same dexterity.

The accounts of travelers are full of examples of the physical strength and vigor of men among savage and savage peoples, and these accounts also extol their dexterity and quickness.As these things are only visible to the eye, we have no reason to distrust the instances confirmed in this respect by eyewitnesses on the spot.I can cite a few examples at will from the books I have at hand. "The Hottentots were better at fishing than the Europeans at the Cape of Good Hope," said Corban. "Whether they used nets, hooks or javelins; in the bay or in the river, they were equally dexterous. They touched with bare hands. The fish's ability is very skilled. Their swimming skills are also unparalleled. Their special swimming posture is also quite amazing: they stand upright in the water, with their arms out of the water, as if walking on land. When the sea is most turbulent, the waves are like mountains, and they dance on them, heaving with them like a piece of cork."

The same author adds: "The Hottentots, too, had a marvelous dexterity in hunting; they galloped more swiftly than we can imagine." The author is surprised that they don't often use their dexterity for bad things.But such things sometimes happen, as can be concluded from an example given by the author.He said: "A Dutch sailor, when he landed at the Cape of Good Hope, entrusted a Hottentot with a bundle of tobacco weighing about twenty catties, and followed him to the city. When the two of them were quite far away from the crowd, The Hottentot asked the sailor if he could run. The Dutchman replied: 'Run? Yes, and very fast'. The African continued: 'Let's run and see'; Tobacco ran, and soon disappeared. The sailor was so frightened by the miraculous speed that he never thought of chasing him, and his tobacco and the porter were never seen again." "They have such keen eyesight and accurate throwing skills that are far beyond the reach of Europeans. At a distance of a hundred steps, they can hit a target the size of half a copper dollar with a stone. What is especially amazing is that they not only Instead of aiming at the target with our eyes, as we do, they are constantly moving and twisting their bodies. Their stones seem to be carried by an invisible hand." Father Didiert says about the savages of the Antilles in much the same way as we have just said about the Hottentots of the Cape of Good Hope.He especially praised them for their ability to shoot flying birds and swimming fish very accurately with arrows, and they would jump into the water to take out the dead fish.The savages of North America were also noted for their physical strength and dexterity.The following example is sufficient to conclude that the South American Indians have the same skill. In 1746, an Indian in Buenos Aires was sent to Cadiz to do hard labor because he was sentenced to imprisonment.He proposed to the governor that he would risk his life on a public festival to redeem his liberty.He agreed to fight the fiercest bull alone, without any weapon, but with a rope in his hand.He will subdue it, he will rope it in the place appointed by the people to catch it.He was to saddle him, put a bridle on him, ride on him, and when he was mounted, he was to fight the other two fiercest bulls that came out of the ring.He will kill the two cows one after another at the time appointed by the people, without anyone's assistance.The governor granted his request.The Indian kept his promise, and all that was promised was done.For how he fought and the details at that time, you can refer to Mr. Yi Tiye's "Research on Natural History", 12-mo, Volume 1, p. 262.This account is quoted from the book. [7] (p. 78) - Mr. Bi Feng said: "The lifespan of horses, like all other animals, is proportional to their mature age. The mature age of humans is fourteen years old. Its lifespan is six or seven times this number, that is to say, a person can live to ninety or one hundred years. The horse's mature age is four years, and its lifespan is also six or seven times this number, that is to say, it can live to twenty-five or thirty years. Even though there are instances which may contradict this rule, they are so few that we cannot even take them as an exception from which conclusions can be drawn. And since the stout Horses have a shorter period of time to maturity than delicate horses, and they are therefore shorter-lived, aging at fifteen years." ("On the Natural History of Horses") [8] (p. 78)—I think there is another difference between carnivores and fruit-eating animals which is more general than that which I have already pointed out in Law[5], For this distinction can always be applied to birds.That is the difference in the number of births.Animals subsisting exclusively on plants never produce more than two per litter, while in carnivorous animals this number is usually exceeded.In this regard, we can easily see the arrangement of nature in the number of teats: in the first class, each female has only two teats, such as mare, cow, she-goat, doe, ewe, etc.; Other female animals, such as 781 bitch, female cat, she-wolf, tigress, etc., always have six or eight teats.Hens, geese, and ducks, like hawks, harriers, and owls, are carnivorous, and lay and brood many eggs; this is never the case with pigeons, turtledoves, and other birds that eat absolutely nothing but grain, They can only produce and brood a maximum of two eggs at a time.The reason we can believe in this distinction is that animals that live only on grasses and other vegetation, which spend almost the whole day in search of food, must spend a great deal of time in order to eat, and cannot nurse many animals at the same time. young.As for the carnivores, being fed in almost a moment, they can return more easily and often to suckle their young or to catch food, and the milk they have consumed so much is quickly restored.About all this, we should still make many special observations and careful reflections, but here there is no such need.In this paragraph it will suffice to point out the most general systems of nature.This system affords us a new reason for drawing man out of the class of carnivores and into the class of plant eaters. [9] (p. 84)--A well-known writer, who counted the happiness and pain of life, and compared the amount of the two, found that the pain greatly exceeds the happiness; and, on the whole, Life can be said to be a very bad gift that nature bestows on man.Such a conclusion of his does not surprise me, since all his arguments are drawn from the constitution of civilized man.Had he gone back to natural man, we may be sure he would have come to a very different conclusion, would have seen that man suffers nothing but his own infliction, and would then have nothing to blame against nature.And it is not without difficulty that we have come to make ourselves so unhappy.On the one hand, if we observe the great achievements of mankind: How many sciences have been studied more and more deeply; how many arts have been invented; how many powers have been used; some abysses have been filled; Some rocks were hewed; some rivers were made navigable; some wastelands were reclaimed; some lakes were dug; some swamps were dried up; some tall buildings were erected on the ground; the sea was filled with ships and sailors. , but on the other hand, if one considers for a moment what all this really contributes to the happiness of mankind, one will marvel at the disproportion between the two, and deplore the blindness of man.Because of this blindness, man, for the gratification of his foolish pride and vain self-admiration, ardently pursues all possible sufferings which benevolent nature has taken care to avoid. Men are evil now, and misery and continual experience have left us no need to prove it.But I believe it has been proved that man is naturally good, and if it were not for the changes which have taken place in man's constitution, his progress and knowledge, what could have made him so bad?Praise human society as much as you like, but in any case human society must be: the more complex the interests of men, the more mutual hatred grows.So people appear to be helping each other on the surface, but in fact they are killing each other in every possible way.In the intercourse between men, the reason of each person prescribes for himself some maxims, which are the exact opposite of what public reason prescribes for the whole society. What do people think about this kind of communication?I am afraid there is not a rich man who is not secretly wished for his death by his greedy heirs (and often his own children); no shipwreck at sea is not, for some merchants, a Good news; there is no malicious debtor who would not want his creditor's house to be set ablaze, and all his bills burned; no nation would not rejoice at the calamity of its neighbours.It is so, that we derive our own advantage from the injury suffered by our fellow beings, and the loss of one almost always brings prosperity to the other.But what is even more dangerous is that public disasters have become the expectations and hopes of many people.Some want disease; some want people to die; some want war; some want famine.I have seen terrible people weeping with sorrow at the sight of a bountiful harvest.The tragic Great Fire in the City of London cost many unfortunates their lives and property, but it may have created an opportunity for more than ten thousand people to become rich.I know that Montanis accused Dymade the Athenian of punishing a craftsman who made a fortune from the deaths of his citizens by selling coffins at a high price.But since the reason advocated by Montagnier is that all men should be punished, not just the artisan, it is evident that this also confirms my argument.We should, therefore, examine the inner workings beyond the tedious superficial intimacy we have with one another.We should also think about it: In a certain state of the world, people have to caress and hurt each other; because of obligations, people are born enemies; because of interests, people must deceive each other. What a state of the world!If anyone were to say to me, society is organized in such a way that each individual gains his own benefit by serving others.I shall reply, then, that it is well of course, if he can gain more by not injuring others.There is no lawful profit equal to that obtained illegally, and it is always more profitable to do harm than to serve others.The only question is how to get away with impunity.Therefore, in this respect the strong will use all their power, and the weak will use all their cunning. The savage, having eaten his fill, is at peace with all nature, and with all his fellows.Even when there was a quarrel over food, he always compared the difficulty of overcoming the opponent with the difficulty of finding other food elsewhere before fighting; It's just a few sparring punches and it's over.The victor eats the food, the vanquished seeks another opportunity elsewhere, and all is quiet.But this is not the case at all with social man.First, the satisfaction of the essentials; second, the pursuit of more; after that, the pursuit of pleasure, boundless wealth, subjects, and slaves, for which the man of society does not rest for a moment.Stranger still, the less natural and urgent the need, the stronger the desire.And worse is the power that satisfies these desires.So, after a long period of prosperity, after devouring great treasures and destroying countless people, my hero will at last kill everything until he is the sole master of the world.This is the epitome of human morality, if not of human life, at least of the hidden agendas of all civilized man. Contrast your prejudices, compare the state of civilized man with that of savage man, and study, if you can, how civilized man, besides his evil, his need, and his calamity, has opened a new world to pain and death. the gate.If you observe the mental anguish which wearys us, the violent passions which weary and mourn us, the overworked work which oppresses the poor, the more perilous pleasures which the rich indulge, and all the things by which others die from overeating; if you think of strange mixtures of foods, unhealthy seasonings, rotten food, adulterated medicines, Fraud, false prescribing, and poisonous vessels of all kinds; if you notice epidemics in large crowds due to foul air; disparity, from carelessness in adding or removing clothing, and from all the sensual pleasures which we pursue, which in time become necessary habits, and which thereafter tend to cost us health or life through neglect or failure to satisfy the demands of those habits. ), etc.; if you count the fires and earthquakes which have destroyed whole cities, and killed thousands of inhabitants; in short, if you add up all the dangers which, from all these When we wake up, we will feel how much nature has cost us because we have underestimated its lessons. I will not repeat here what has been said elsewhere about the war.But I would like learned people to go, or dare to publish to the masses the details of the hideous events in the army by the purveyors of rations and hospitals.We can see their deeds (almost an open secret) which can bring down the most famous regiments, and which cause more deaths among soldiers than the enemy's arms can cause.The number of deaths per year at sea, either from starvation, or from scurvy, or from piracy, or from fire, or from distress, is no less astonishing, if tallied.It is evident that all the murders, poisonings, highway robberies, and even the punishment for these crimes, are also to be blamed on the establishment of private property, and therefore on society itself.In order to prevent greater harm, punishment is certainly necessary, but because killing one person kills two or more people, it is actually a double loss for mankind.Moreover, how many disgraceful methods are employed to pervert fertility and deceive nature!These methods: or those cruel and depraved propensities for insulting the loveliest works of nature, which neither savage nor brutes have ever had, but sprung from corrupt imaginations in civilized societies; or secret abortions Abortion, the inevitable consequence of fornication and honour; Castration is performed by the unfortunate, and a part of their life and their whole posterity are sacrificed to useless singing, or, worse, to the cruel jealousy of some: in the latter case, whether from castration Judging from the experience of the perpetrators themselves, no matter from the purpose of their use, this method is a double insult to nature! Are not the cases of public insults to humanity by virtue of patriarchy more common and dangerous?How many geniuses have been buried, and how many sons and daughters have no freedom of will because of the father's brutal oppression!How many men who, in the right circumstances, might have distinguished themselves, have passed their lives miserably and humiliatingly in another, quite different from their own interests!How many happy marriages have been broken up or interfered with, and how many chaste women have lost their chastity, under conditions of society which are always contrary to the natural order!How many strange marriages formed by interests, but denied by reason and true love!How many faithful and virtuous couples, even, suffer because of a mismatched marriage!How many unfortunate youths, victims of the avarice of their parents, indulge in debauchery, or live their wretched days in tears, moaning in indissoluble unions which their hearts reject, but are made possible by money!Happier would it be if any of them, before savage violence forced them to spend their days in crime or despair, would, by virtue of their courage and virtue, have resolutely departed from this world!Poor parents forever!Forgive me, I am ashamed to have caused you pain; but I hope that your pain may serve as a perpetual and terrible lesson to anyone who dares to infringe on nature's most sacred rights in its name! Though I speak here of only those unfortunate unions which our social system produces, may it not therefore be conceivable that those unions governed by love and sympathy are free from all defects?If I add that man, in his source itself, even in this most sacred relation (even in which he dares to follow nature only after considering the question of property, and because of social disorder, has Virtue is confused with vice, continence becomes sinful prudence, refusing to reproduce becomes humane), what shall we feel then?But let us not tear down the veil of innumerable dreadful things, but let us point out this human misfortune, and expect others to correct it. In addition to all the misfortunes mentioned above, let people think of the innumerable unsanitary occupations which shorten the life span and ruin the constitution, such as mine work, metal and mineral smelting work, especially lead, Copper, mercury, cobalt, arsenic, cockscomb stone, etc., and other dangerous occupations that kill many workers every day (bricklayers, carpenters and stonemasons, quarry workers), please put all these Taken together, we can see the cause of the diminishment of man in the formation and perfection of society, which is what many philosophers have observed. Among those who covet their own comfort and yearn for the respect of others, the inevitable luxury quickly completes the disaster that society has begun.Under the pretense of feeding the poor in general (the poor should not be fed with the luxury of the rich), the luxury of the rich impoverishes all the rest, and sooner or later the population of the country will diminish. When luxury is used to cure misfortunes, it brings more misfortunes than it purports to heal; we may even say that luxury itself is the greatest evil of all evils in large and small countries; And the resulting hordes of slaves and poor people, peasants and townspeople, were squeezed out of their fortunes.奢侈好象南方的热风，使草原和绿色的田野盖满了贪食的蝗虫，把有益动物的食料完全吃光，凡是这种热风所刮到的地方，无不发生饥馑和死亡。 从社会中和从社会所产生的奢侈中，便产生了文艺、工艺、商业、文学，以及所有能使工业日趋繁荣、使国家富庶和衰亡的种种无用之物。至于国家所以衰亡的原因是很简单的。我们不难看出，农业按它本身的性质来说，应该是一切技术中获利最少的技术，因为农产品是一切人的生活必需品，所以它的价格必须适合于最贫穷人购买的能力。根据同样的原理，我们可以得出这样一个规律：在一般的情形下，技术获利的多少是和它的效用的大小成反比例的，而最必要的技术结果必然会变成最不为人所重视的技术。由此可以知道，对于工业的真正利益以及由于工业的进步而产生的实际效果，我们应当有怎样的看法。 富庶终于给最令人羡慕的国家带来一切苦难的显著的原因就是如此。随着工业与艺术的发达和繁荣，被轻视的农民负担着为了维持奢侈所必需的租税，注定要在劳苦和饥饿之间度其一生，他们于是放弃田地，到原应由他们供给食粮的城市去谋生计。都市越引起那些愚蠢的人的羡慕，便越令人悲叹地看到农村的被抛弃、田园的荒芜、大路上充满着沦为乞丐或盗贼的不幸的公民，这些公民注定有一天要在车轮刑上或穷困之中结束他们的悲惨的一生。就是这样，国家一方面富庶起来，一方面衰微下去，人口也就日益减少。也就是这样，最强盛的君主国在尽了一切的努力，使自己富庶起来却使人口日益减少之后，终于会成为遏制不住其侵略野心的那些贫穷国家的征服对象；可是等到这些征服了强大君主国的国家，也因富庶而衰微了的时候，不免又有其他的国家来侵略和灭亡它们了。 希望有人给我们解释一下，在那么多的世纪中，曾经蹂躏过欧洲、亚洲和非洲的无数野蛮人是由于哪些原因产生出来的。他们的人口所以那么众多，是由于他们艺术的精巧、法律的明智、典章制度的完善吗？希望我们的学者们给我们说明，这些凶猛的、粗野的、没有知识、没有约束、没有教育的人们，为什么不但没有因为争夺食物或争夺猎捕物而随时互相残杀以致同归于尽，反而繁衍到这种程度呢？希望学者们给我们讲讲，这些可怜的人怎么会有那么大的胆量，竟敢正视那些和我们一样智巧的、有严明的军纪、完备的法典和明智的法律的人呢？最后，为什么自从社会在北方那些国家中趋于完善以后；自从人们在那里不畏劳苦地教给人们以相互间的义务和安居乐业共同生活的艺术以后，我们反而再看不到象从前那样大量繁衍的人口呢？我很怕有人终于会这样回答我：所有这一切伟大的事物，也就是说艺术、科学和法律，乃是人们以极大的智慧发明出来的，正如同一种防止人类过度繁衍的有益的瘟疫一样，是唯恐上天给我们准备的这个世界，对于他的居民来说，终于变得太小。 那么，又当如何呢！难道必须毁灭社会，取消“你的”和“我的”这种区别，再返回森林去和熊一起生活吗？这是按照我的论敌的想法得出的结论，我愿意先把它指出，也愿意我的论敌因得出这样的结论而感到羞愧。what!你们呀！你们从未听到过上天的声音，你们认为人类生存的目的只是为了安然度过短暂的一生；你们呀！你们可以抛弃在都市中你们的那些不幸的收获、你们的不安的精神、你们的腐蚀了的心灵和你们的放纵的情欲；既然你们有完全的自由，尽可以恢复你们太古的、原始的天真；你们可以到森林里去，永远不再看见并根本忘却你们同时代的人的罪恶，而且当你们因抛弃人类的邪恶而抛弃人类的知识的时候，也丝毫不必顾虑那会贬低人类的价值。至于象我这样的人们，种种情欲已永远毁灭了原始的质朴，再不能以野草和橡子充饥，既不能没有法律，也不能没有首领；那些从他们的始祖起，就领受了超自然的训诫的人们；那些意图首先赋予人类行为以一种长久不曾获得的道德性，并把这种意图看作一句箴言（这句箴言本身对任何人都是一样的，而且在任何其他体系中也难以找到解释）的理由的人们；总之，那些深信上帝的声音是在号召整个人类响往天使的智慧和幸福的人们：所有这些人，在学习认识美德的时候，都会致力于锻炼他们所应实践的美德，以求无负于由此所应期待的永恒的奖赏；他们会尊重社会中的神圣关系，因为他们自己也是社会的成员；他们会爱他们的同类而竭力为他们服务；他们会很谨慎地服从法律，服从立法与执法的人员；他们特别会尊崇那些能够防止、医治或减轻随时可以摧毁我们的无数弊端和灾祸的贤明国王；他们会既不恐惧也不谄媚地向那些称职的官员们指出其任务的伟大和职责的庄严，以激励这些官员的热忱。但是对于这样的宪法，亦即唯有依靠往往求而不能尽得的那么多可敬的人的帮助才能维持，而且无论这些人怎样黽勉，从中所产生的实际灾难比表面上的利益为多的那种宪法，他们仍然会加以轻视。 〔十〕（第８４页）——在我们，或者由我们自己、或者由历史家、或者由旅行家，所知道的一切人当中，有的是黑色的、有的是白色的、有的是红色的；有的披着长发、有的只生有一些卷曲的短发；有的几乎全身都长着毛，有的甚至连胡须都没有。以前曾经有，现在也许还有一些民族，人们的身材高大得出奇。但是，除去关于匹格美人的传说，很可能只是一些过甚之词外，我们知道拉伯兰人，尤其是格林兰人，他们都比中等身材的人还要矮小得多。甚至有人认为有些民族象四足兽一样，全都长着尾巴。我们虽然并不盲目地相信希罗多德和克德佳斯的记述，但至少可以从中得出这样一个接近于真实的论断，即：在遥远的古代，各种不同民族所遵循的那些生活方式之间比他们现在所遵循的那些生活方式之间具有更大的差别。如果我们就这方面能做一些确切的观察，便可以在身体的形状和结构上辨别出若干显著得多的变异。所有这些事实，都很容易提出不可辩驳的证据，只有这样的人才会感到惊异：他们只习惯于观察自己周围的事物，不知道各种不同的水土、气候、食物、生活方式以及一般习惯对人所产生的强有力的影响。尤其是他们不知道这些同一的原因，当它们在世世代代中继续不断地发生作用的时候，所具有的那种惊人力量。现在，商业、旅行和征服已使各种不同的民族日益结合起来，同时由于他们的生活方式，因频繁的来往而不断地互相接近，我们可以看出某些民族间的一些差别已经减少了。例如每个人都可以看出，现在的法兰西人已经不象拉丁历史家们所描写的那样具有白色和金褐色的高大身体，虽然时间以及法兰克人和诺尔曼人（他们本身也是白色和金褐色的）的混合，应当把前此因罗马人的来来往往而被削弱了的气候对居民的自然体质和肤色的影响恢复过来。有千百种原因可能、甚至实际上已经使人类中产生种种变异，关于这方面的一切观察，不禁使我怀疑被那些旅行家们认为是野兽的各种类人动物是否就是真正的野蛮人。旅行家们不加仔细研究，或者是由于这些动物在外形上与人有些差异，或者只是因为他们不会说话，便认为他们是兽类。其实这种野蛮人，因为他们那一种族自古就散居在森林里，没有机会发展任何一种潜在的能力，没有得到任何程度的完善化，所以始终处于最初的自然状态。我举下面这个例子来说明我的意思：