Chapter 11 Author's Note-2

The translator of the "Compendium of Travel Chronicles" said: "The large number of tall animals found in the Kingdom of the Congo (in the East Indies, they are called Aurang Udang) are a species between humans and apes. A kind of animal. Battelle narrated that in the Maiyomba Forest of the Roango Kingdom, people found two kinds of monsters, the largest of which was called Penguo, and the other was called Angrik. The former was extremely different from humans. Similar, but much thicker than humans, and very tall. They have human-like faces, except that the eyes are very sunken; hands, cheeks, and ears are hairless, but have very long eyebrows. Although the rest of their bodies Parts also have some hair, but it is not very thick, and the color of the hair is brown. Finally, the only part of them that is different from humans is that their legs do not have calf. They walk upright while holding their hands. hair on the neck. Their hiding place is in the forest. They sleep in trees and can make a kind of hut in the trees for shelter from the rain; their food is wild fruit or walnuts. They never eat meat. Passing The Negroes of the forest, who are used to lighting fires in the forest at night, noticed that when they set out in the morning, the bongos took their place around the fire, and did not go away until it was extinguished. For, although they Dexterous, but not clever enough to add wood to the fire and keep it going.

"They sometimes walk in groups and kill the blacks who pass through the forest. They even dare to attack the elephants that come to eat grass where they live, and use their fists or sticks to trouble the elephants in various ways, and finally make them run away screaming. One can't catch the bongos alive, because they are so strong that ten men can't catch them. But after the negroes kill the mother bongos, they catch some young ones, because the young bongos are tight. Tightly attached to the mother. Whenever a bongo dies, the remaining bongos cover its body with branches or leaves. Polches also said that in his conversation with Battelle, he had Heard Bartle himself that a Pongo robbed one of his little Negroes, and the little Negro lived a whole month in the society of these animals, because they do no harm to the prey as long as one does not stare at them. This is what the little black man saw with his own eyes. As for the second kind of monster, Anjik, Battelle did not describe it. "Dabile once said with certainty that there is a kind of monster everywhere in the Kingdom of Congo. Animals, in India, people call this animal Orang Udang, which means forest dwellers, while Africans call them Gogas Moros.The animals, he said, were so resemblance to man that some travelers thought they might have been the result of a cross between a woman and a monkey.Even black people would not believe such nonsense.One such animal was brought from the Congo to Holland and dedicated to Frederick Henry, king of Orange.This animal is as tall as a three-year-old child, moderately fat and thin, but strong, with all parts proportioned, very sensitive, very lively, with plump and strong legs, no hair on the chest, but black hairs on the back of the spine.At first glance, its features are very human, and its nose is flat and curved; its ears are also like human ears; Very straight; its hands are also divided into thumb and several other fingers; the calf and heel are thick and muscular.It often walks upright on its legs and is able to lift and carry considerable weight.When it wants to drink water, it holds the lid of the pot with one hand and the bottom of the pot with the other hand. After drinking, it purses its lips gracefully.When going to sleep, it lay down with a small pillow on its head, and covered itself with something cleverly, just like a person sleeping on the bed.Negroes have all sorts of strange legends about this animal.They affirmed that the animal not only pursued women, but also dared to attack armed men.In short, from the outside, they are probably what the ancients called half-man, half-goat gods.Maybe it was just this animal that Melola had said that when negroes hunted they usually caught wildlings, both males and females. "

In the third volume of the same Travel Chronicles, these kinds of humanoids are also dealt with, but they are called bagels and mandaliers.But, if we believe the above account, in the descriptions of these so-called monsters we can find some obvious resemblance to man, and some differences even less than we can point out between man and man.In the chapters of this volume we see no reason why the authors should not call the animals they describe savages.Naturally we can easily guess that this is due to their ignorance, but also because they cannot speak.These reasons, to those who know that language itself is not innate although the organ of speech is present in man, are of great importance to those who know how far the perfecting power of language can raise civilized man above his primitive state. For those of this level, they are all weak and powerless.The few lines which these descriptions occupy enable us to judge how little these animals have been carefully observed, and with what prejudice they have been understood.For example: people describe them as monsters, but they also think that they can give birth.In one account, Battelle says that Pongo killed the blacks who passed through the forest; It's like that when you stare at them.It is a fact that the niggers start a fire in the woods, and when they start, the bongos gather around the fire, and when the fire dies, they go away.And in the Notes of the Observer it says this: For though they are dexterous, they are not clever enough to add wood to the fire and keep it alive.It is difficult for me to understand how Battelle or the editor Polchise could know that Pengo left there because of their stupidity and not because of their own will?In a climate like Roango's, fire is not a very necessary thing for animals, and the negroes light fires more to frighten wild animals than to keep out the cold.The reason, then, is simple. After the bongos have admired the flames for a while, or have warmed themselves, they get tired of staying in one place for a long time, and look for food elsewhere, because they do not eat Meat, so must have had more time to find food.Besides, we know that most animals (human beings are no exception) are naturally lazy and are unwilling to do things that are not absolutely necessary.Finally, is it not strange that Pengo, who is praised for his dexterity and physical strength, knows how to bury the dead and how to build a nest, but does not know how to add more wood to the fire?I remember seeing a monkey once do that act of adding wood to a fire that people are reluctant to admit that Pongo can do.Indeed, at that time my thoughts were not yet turned in this direction, and I therefore committed the same error which I reproached our travelers, in that I was negligent in not studying the monkeys. Does the fire not go out, or is it simply imitating human actions as I thought?At any rate, it has been definitively proved that the monkey is not a variety of man; not only because it lacks the faculty of speech, but especially because monkeys are really incapable of the self-perfecting powers of the species which are is a characteristic of human beings.We do not seem to have carried out, with regard to Pengo and Orang-Udang, experiments so careful as to enable us to draw the same conclusion.But if Orang Udang, or any other animal, were human, there would always be a way for the most careless observer to demonstrate it empirically; It was regarded as impracticable, because before the experiment, which should confirm the fact, had to be confirmed first, so that the experiment would not be reproachable, what was only supposed.

Hasty judgment, which is by no means the product of sound reason, tends to drive men to extremes.The same animals which the ancients called demigods, field gods, and forest gods and regarded as gods, our travelers have taken the liberty of calling them Pengo, Mandelier, Oran. Udang regards them as beasts. Perhaps after more careful research, people will find that these animals are neither beasts nor gods, but people.Before doing this kind of research, I think that since I can trust the merchant Battelle on this issue, and I can trust Dabell, Borches and other compilers, I also have reasons to trust Merola, a learned missionary. It is a person who witnessed it personally. Although he is very simple, he is still a talented person.

Let us think about it, what would such observers say about the child I mentioned above, discovered in 1694?The child had no signs of reason, walked on two feet and two hands, did not have any language, and shouted a voice that was not at all like a human voice. The philosopher who gave me this fact went on to say: "For a long time before he could speak a word, his voice was still very rough. When he could speak, people asked him The original situation, but he can't remember it at all, just like we can't remember what happened in the cradle." Should this child fall into the unfortunate hands of our travelers, we may be sure that, when they see his silence and ignorance, they will send him back to the forest, or shut him up in a zoo, after which they will They will exaggerate it in their beautifully rhetorical travel notes, describing him as a very strange and human-like beast.

For three or four hundred years, Europeans have traveled all over the world, and they are constantly publishing new travel chronicles and journals.But I am convinced that we only know some Europeans in the knowledge of man, and that there are still so many ridiculous prejudices among literati, so that on the great subject of the study of man, everyone seems to study only people of his own country.Philosophy never seems to travel, though men come and go, so that the philosophy of one people is not very applicable to another.The reason for this is obvious, at least as far as distant lands are concerned, since not many people make long journeys except sailors, merchants, soldiers, and missionaries.And of those four, of the first three we cannot expect any good observers, and of the fourth, busy with their sacred business, even though they are not like any other, Prejudice from my position, but we can conclude that they were unwilling to bury their heads in what seemed to be pure curiosity, because such work would interfere with their own more important tasks.Moreover, in order to preach the Gospel more effectively, all that is needed is piety, and the rest is given by God; as for the study of mankind, some intelligence is required, which God is not bound to give to any man, and which does not Not necessarily unique to saints.Every time we open a book of travel notes, we always find that there are many descriptions about human relationships and customs.But it is very surprising that the people who wrote these travel notes described so many things, but only said things that everyone knew.In the remotest places, all they can discover are things that they can perceive without stepping out of the streets in which they live.As for those real characteristics which distinguish different peoples, which should be obvious to all, they are hardly seen.From this arises an ethical idiom commonly used by those broad-minded philosophers: "All people are the same".Since all men in the world have the same passions and the same vices, it is of little use to study the characteristics which distinguish the various peoples.This statement is almost the same as the saying that Pierre and Jacques cannot be distinguished because they both have a nose, a mouth and two eyes.

Will one never see the reappearance of such happy times?In those days, the people were not philosophic, but people like Plato, Thales, and Pythagoras, with a passionate desire for knowledge, traveled long distances just for the sake of learning.They went to distant places to break the shackles of national prejudices, to understand human beings from the similarities and differences among various nations, and to obtain general knowledge.This knowledge is not just the knowledge of one era or one place, but the knowledge of all ages and all places, and it can also be said that it is the knowledge that all wise men should have.

Many inquisitives have traveled, at great expense, by themselves or by others, with scholars and painters, in order to copy there humble houses, and to identify or copy inscriptions, and their feats are It's amazing.But it is difficult for me to understand how, in an age when people pride themselves on their profound knowledge, it is impossible to find two people who are well combined, one rich in wealth and the other rich in genius, both of whom love glory and desire immortality, One sacrificed his fortune of twenty thousand ducats, and the other ten years of his life to make a famous trip round the world.Such journeys are not always to study rocks and plants, but to examine people and customs; and after so many centuries have been spent by others measuring and examining houses, it occurs to them at last to know their occupants.

The academicians of the Academy of Sciences who have traveled to northern Europe and southern America mostly visited various places with the purpose of geometers and not necessarily with the purpose of philosophers.Nevertheless, as they were geometers and philosophers at the same time, we can no longer regard places that have been observed and described by scholars like La Condamine and Mauberduil as having been completely unexplored. A place where people know each other.Chardan, the jeweler who traveled like Plato, has written a detailed account of Persia.China seems to have been carefully observed by the Jesu priests.What Campfort saw in Japan, though limited, gave us some pretty clear ideas.We know nothing of the peoples of the East Indies, except what travelers describe, and are frequented only by Europeans who are more interested in filling their pockets than their heads.All Africa, with its populous inhabitants, is still to be studied; and they are peculiar both in character and complexion.The whole earth is still covered with many kinds of peoples, we only know their names until now, and we want to judge human beings!Suppose a Montesquieu, a Buffon, a Diderot, a Duclos, a D'Alembert, a Condillac, or any other such illustrious man, in order to furnish their fellow-men Traveled around the world with greater knowledge, each observing and describing, as best he could, Turkey, Egypt, Barbary, the Moroccan Empire, Guinea, Gabrielia, the interior of Africa and its eastern coast, Malabar, Mughal, the banks of the Ganges, the kingdoms of Siam, Begu and Ava, China, Tartar, and especially Japan; Patagonians, real or not), Tucumán; if possible, Paraguay, Brazil; and finally the Lesser Antilles, the Florida peninsula, and all the wilderness.This is the most important of all travels, and one that should be done with great care.If these new monsters, returning from these memorable excursions, write a history of nature, ethics, or politics according to what they have seen, according to their own meaning, we will see with our own eyes. , a new world emerges from their pens, so that we can learn to recognize our world.We may of course trust such observers when they affirm that one animal is man and another animal.But at this point we would be naive if we believed the careless travellers, to whom we sometimes wished to ask themselves the same questions which they overreached with respect to other animals. question.

[XI] (p. 85) I think this is very obvious, but I cannot understand how all the emotions that our philosophers think that natural people have come into being.Apart from the only physical needs which nature itself requires, all our wants arise either from habit (they do not become needs until they become habit) or from our desires, and we There is no desire for what is known.From this it follows that since the savage desires only what he knows, and what he knows is limited to what he can possess or easily obtain, there is nothing quieter than his mind, and nothing clearer than his mind. It's limited.

[12] (p. 89) I have read in Locke's "Essay on Government" a different version, which I find too plausible to allow me to remain silent. The philosopher said: "The purpose of the union between male and female is not only for reproduction, but also for the continuation of the species, so this union, even after reproduction, should continue, at least for as long as is necessary for the feeding and protection of the newborn. It is also long-lasting, that is to say, at least until the newborn can supply its own needs. This is the rule established by the Creator with his infinite wisdom among the creatures created by himself. When we see animals that are lower than humans, they all This rule is perpetually and exactly observed. In grass animals, the union of the sexes lasts no longer than each copulation, for the female's breasts are sufficient to feed the young until they are able to feed themselves. So the male is only satisfied with reproduction. After that, he no longer cares about the females and young, and cannot help them in any way. As for carnivorous animals, the time between male and female is relatively long , for the female cannot adequately sustain herself and her young on the one hand from her prey alone. This method of subsistence by prey is more laborious than subsistence by taking plants and is also are more dangerous. Hence, the assistance of the male is absolutely necessary in order to maintain their common family (if the term can be used), which can consist only of male and female In all kinds of birds, except that some poultry do not need to pay attention to rearing young because they have been in places where there is always abundant food for a long time, we can also see the same situation. During feeding, males and females carry food into the nest until the young are able to fly and forage for themselves. "It is my opinion that this is the chief, if not the only, reason why the union of the sexes in man has to last longer than in other creatures. That is, because women have the faculty of conception, and the fact that In fact, she will often conceive again and give birth to another child long before the previous child is able to separate from the care of the parents and provide for itself. Thus, it is necessary for the father to take care of the children he has born, and to take care of the children. For a long time, he must continue to live conjugal life with the woman who bore him these children. The life of this conjugal relationship is much longer than the duration of the union of other living beings. The youngness of other living beings, Before the next birth period of motherhood comes, they are able to live on their own, and the relationship between male and female is thus naturally interrupted, and the two are in a state of complete freedom. It is not until the annual mating season of animals that they choose a new one. Spouse. Here, we have to praise the wisdom of the great creator, because he has endowed human beings with all kinds of abilities, so that they can not only prepare for the present, but also prepare for the needs of future life, so the creator is willing and trying to To make the union of man and woman much longer than that of other creatures, so that the industry of man and woman may be more stimulated, and their interests better united, for the joint rearing of children and the accumulation of property for them, For nothing is more injurious to a child than an unstable union, or easy and frequent divorce." The same love of truth which has faithfully stated Locke's variant, has inspired me to add some commentary; so that, if not solving the problem, it may at least make it clearer. . (1) First of all, I would like to point out that spiritual proofs are not very convincing when it comes to material questions.This kind of proof can only explain the existing facts at best, but is not enough to prove the real existence of those facts.But, in the above quotation, Mr. Locke employs just such a method of proof.For although the union of a man and a woman may be a useful thing to mankind if it lasts for a long time, we cannot be sure that it is a creation of nature. Otherwise, we can also say that civilized society, art, commerce, and all people Things that are believed to be beneficial to people are also created by nature. (2) I do not know where Mr. Locke found that the union of the sexes in carnivorous beasts lasts longer than in herbivorous beasts, and that the males also help the females to feed their young.For we see no male dog, male cat, male bear, or male wolf, who recognizes the female with whom it has been mated, any more than the male horse, the male sheep, the male bull, the stag, and every other quadruped.The fact seems to be on the contrary, that if the male's assistance to the female is necessary for the protection of the young, it is especially so in the herbaceous beasts.Because the females eat grass for a long time, during which time they have to ignore their young; but a female bear or wolf takes a short time to devour their prey, and can have more time. More time to nurse young without feeling hungry.This inference has been confirmed by the observations I have mentioned in Note 8, as to the relative number of udders and juveniles sufficient to distinguish carnivorous from vegetable fruitivorous species.If this observation is correct and general, the fact that women have only two breasts and seldom give birth to more than one baby at a time is another strong reason for doubting whether man is by nature a carnivore. .Therefore, I think that in order to draw Locke's conclusion, his reasoning should be completely reversed.It is likewise unwarranted to apply to birds the distinction that Locke makes.For who can believe that the union of male and female lasts longer between vultures and crows than between turtledoves?Our two species of domestic fowl, the duck and the pigeon, furnish us with instances directly contrary to what this scholar has said.In pigeons that live only on grain, the male and the female live together forever, and rear their young together; but the drake, who is known to be a glutton, cannot recognize the female with whom he has mated, nor can he recognize the female who was born by the female. The ducklings are born, so they don't help them find food.Chickens can also be counted as carnivores, but among chickens, we don't see any concern for roosters for chicks.If in other species the male and female share the labor of rearing the young, it is because the birds are at first flightless, and the females cannot suckle, and are more dependent on the help of their father than in the quadrupeds, for which It is said that the milk of the female beast is enough to eat, at least for a short period of time. (3) The principal facts upon which Mr. Locke's whole reasoning is based are in many respects unreliable.For it would require some experimentation to know whether, in a state of pure nature, a woman tends to conceive again and give birth to another child, as he says, long before the previous child is unable to provide for itself. It can only be proved; and this kind of experiment, we can assert that Mr. Locke has not done it, and it is also impossible for anyone to do it.The continued cohabitation of husband and wife is the most direct cause of women's susceptibility to re-pregnancy, so it is hard to believe that in a purely natural state, the coupling of a man and a woman or a simple sexual impulse will produce as frequent pregnancy results as in a state of conjugal relationship.The infrequent pregnancies may result in a more vigorous child, and may be compensated in the capacity for pregnancy, which continues to a later age, since a woman does not conceive too often during puberty.With regard to children, there are many reasons to believe that their physical strength and organs must have been developed later in our society than in the primitive state of which I speak.Congenital weakness inherited from the constitution of the parents, the impediment of the movements of the limbs by enclosing the infant, the pampering of the young, or the substitution of other milk for the mother's milk, all these are against them. Or delayed initial natural development.It is also a great hindrance to their physical development that they are forced to be concerned about countless things, and to concentrate their attention on them, without exercising their physical strength in any way.If their energies were not exhausted prematurely in a thousand ways, and their spirits were weary, and their bodies were exercised by continual exercise, as nature requires, we may believe that they would have Able to walk, move and provide for their own needs. (4) Finally, Mr. Locke has proved at best the reasons why men continue to live with a woman when she has a child, but he has not proved why men continue to live with her before childbirth and during the nine months of pregnancy. She lives together.If during these nine months the woman had not been concerned by the man, if she had even become a stranger to him, why did he come to help her after she gave birth?Why would she help her with a child he didn't even know was his own, and which he neither wanted nor expected he would have?Mr. Locke evidently assumes what is in question to be true, for what is at issue here is not why a man continues to live with a woman after she has given birth, but why he continues to live with her after she becomes pregnant. question.After the sexual desire is satisfied, the man does not need the woman, and the woman does not need the man; the man will be indifferent to the consequences of his actions, and will not even have the slightest impression.The man and the woman have gone their own way since then, and it is hard for us to imagine how they would remember that they had known each other nine months later.For this kind of memory—that is, one's ability to remember that one has chosen an object for the act of reproduction—requires either a greater progress or a greater corruption of human understanding (as I have demonstrated in this essay), and what is here The said person is still in the state of an animal, and we cannot imagine such an improvement or deterioration in his understanding.Another woman can satisfy the man's new sexual desires with the same ease as the woman the man has known previously; However, the veracity of this assumption is still worthy of our doubts.If, in the natural state, after a woman becomes pregnant, she no longer has sexual desires, her obstacles to living with a man become even greater, because then she no longer needs the man who impregnated her, No need for any other men either.Then there is no reason on the man's side to pursue the same woman, and no reason on the woman's side to pursue the same man.Locke's reasoning broke down, and all the philosopher's dialectic finally failed to save him from the error of Hobbes and others.What they were supposed to be stating was a fact in a state of nature—a state in which men live alone, without any reason for one to be with another, or even perhaps for some to be with another. Some people live together without thinking beyond the time of society, that is to say, without going back to a time before society was established.Ever since society has existed there has been a constant need of men to live together, and each has always had a need of living with another man or woman. [Thirteen] (p. 90)——Whether the creation of language is beneficial or harmful to human beings, some philosophical thinking can be done in this regard, but I try to avoid involving such thinking, because people allow attacks on secular wrong , not me, and scholars are too respectful of their own prejudices to tolerate the fallacies of what is called me.However, in order to safeguard the truth, some people sometimes dare to put forward opinions that are contrary to the majority, and people do not consider it a crime, so let us listen to what these people say. "If men were freed from the misery of so many languages; if men were accustomed to have only one way of expressing their meanings; if they could always express themselves by signs, gestures, and gestures, then the happiness of mankind In fact, things work the other way around, and animals that we usually think of as stupid are in this respect better than we are, because they can outperform any of us without any intermediary. People express their feelings and thoughts more quickly, and perhaps more successfully, than those who speak foreign languages." (Isaac Voscius: "On the Properties of Poetry and Rhythm," pp. 66 pages.) [XIV] (p. 95)—Plato once pointed out that the idea of ​​discontinuous quantity and its relations is so necessary even in the smallest art, and he thus justifiably ridiculed his contemporaries. , because they actually think that "number" was invented by Balamed during the siege of Troy.The philosopher said, as if Agamenon might not even know how many legs he had until then.In fact, we think that society and art have reached the point at which they were at the siege of Troyes that it is impossible that people have not yet used the methods of number and calculation.But the necessity of knowing numbers does not make the invention of numbers easy to conceive without acquiring other knowledge.Once the names of numbers are known, it is easy to explain the meaning of the numbers, and it is also easy to generate the concepts represented by these names.But in order to invent these names, one must, before conceiving these same ideas, have become accustomed to philosophizing, and have become adept at seeing things in their sole essence, independent of any other concept, and this abstraction is Very difficult, very metaphysical, very unnatural.But without this abstraction, it would never be possible to transfer these ideas from one or one kind to another or another, and number would have no universality.A savage can observe his right and left legs separately, or in general under the indivisible concept called a pair, and never think that he has two legs.For the idea of ​​representation which reflects the body is one thing, and the idea of ​​number which determines the body is another.The savage cannot even count to five, and though he may notice, when he lays one palm on top of the other, that the fingers of both hands coincide exactly, it never occurs to him that they have the same number of fingers.He can't count his fingers any more than he can count his hairs.After having made him understand what number is, he might be very surprised if someone told him that he had as many fingers as he had toes, and when he compared the two, found it true. [15] (p. 99)—Pride and self-love should not be confused, for the two affections are quite different in their nature and effect.Self-love is a natural affection which calls all animals to self-preservation.Among human beings, since self-love is guided by reason and tempered by compassion, humanity and virtue arise.自尊心只是一种相对的、人为的、而且是在社会中产生的感情，它使每一个人重视自己甚于重视其他任何人，它促使人们彼此间作出种种的恶，它是荣誉心的真正根源。 如果以上所述被人正确理解的话，我还可以说，在人类的原始状态中，在真正的自然状态中，自尊心是不存在的。因为每一个人都把自己看成是观察其自身的唯一的观察者，是宇宙中关心自己的唯一存在物，是自己才能的唯一评判人，因之，以他所不能作出的互相比较为根源的那种感情，在他的心灵中萌芽是不可能的。由于同样的理由，自然人既没有怨恨，更没有复仇的欲望，因为这些感情只能从对于所受某种凌辱的看法中而产生。而且，因为构成凌辱的是轻蔑或侵害的意图，并不是损害本身，所以不会相互评价或相互比较的人，是永远不会相互侵害的，虽然他们彼此之间为了获得利益也会发生许多暴力行为。总之，每个人看他的同类，不过如同看另一种动物一样，他能从较弱者的手里抢夺猎获物，或者对强者放弃他自己的猎获物，但是，他只把这种掠夺看作是自然的事件，一点没有傲慢或愤恨的情绪，而且除对成功或失败的结果感到快乐或痛苦外，是没有别的心情的。 〔十六〕（第１２０页）这是一件非常值得注意的事情：许多年来欧洲人煞费苦心地想引导世界上各地的野蛮民族采取欧洲人的生活方式，他们纵然借助了基督教的力量，但至今连一个野蛮人也没有被说服。因为我们的传教士有时能使一些野蛮人成为基督教徒，却总不能使他们变成文明人。任何东西也不能克服他们对于采取我们的习俗和按照我们的方式来生活所具有的那种无比的反感。而另一方面，我们在旅行纪事中到处都可以读到，有一些法兰西人和其他欧洲人，自愿地遁居在那些野蛮民族之中，在那里度过了他们整个的一生，不愿意再抛弃那么奇怪的生活方式。我们甚至还可以读到，有一些明智的传教士，当他们忆起他们在那么被人蔑视的民族中度过的安宁而天真的日子时，都还有一种惆怅的心情。如果这些可怜的野蛮人真的象我们所认为的那样不幸，他们的判断力到底败坏到怎样不可想象的程度，竟使他们始终拒绝模仿我们，使自己文明化，或者学会幸福地生活在我们之中呢？假如有人回答说：野蛮人没有足够的智慧，来正确地判断他们和我们的生活状况的区别，那么我将答辩说：对幸福的评价，与其说是理性上的事情，倒不如说是情感上的事情。而且这种回答适足以更有力地反驳我们文明人，因为野蛮人的观念距离能够理解我们的生活方式固然很远，而我们的观念距离能够理解野蛮人对于他们的生活方式所感到的乐趣则恐怕更远。实际上，人们在进行了某些观察之后，就很容易看出我们一切事业都只趋向于两个目的，即：为了自己生活的安乐和在众人之中受到尊重。但是，一个野蛮人却很快乐地在森林中过他的孤独生活，或者打渔，或者吹着一只粗糙的笛子，他从不会吹出什么音调来，也不想学会吹出什么音调来，我们有什么方法来理解此中之乐呢？ 人们曾有许多次把一些野蛮人带到巴黎、伦敦和其他城市。人们急于向他们夸示我们的豪华、我们的财富和一切最有用而最出色的艺术：这一切对于他们只引起一种愚蠢的惊叹，可是他们丝毫没有羡慕的心情。我还想起大约三十年前被人领到英国皇宫里的某些北美洲人的一个酋长的故事。为了送给这位酋长一件最能使他喜爱的礼品，人们把千百种东西摆在他面前，结果并没有发现一件东西引起他的注意。我们的武器在他看来可能是笨重而不方便；我们的靴鞋使他的脚感觉疼痛；我们的衣服使他身体觉得很不舒服，他拒绝了一切。最后，人们看见他拿起一条毛毯，他好象很想用它把肩膀裹起来似的。人们立刻向他说：“你至少承认这件东西的用处吧？”他回答道：“是的，我觉得它差不多和一块兽皮同样合适。”如果他用这条毛毯去遮雨的话，也许他连这样的话都不会说呢。 或许有人向我说，每个人所以留恋于自己的生活方式，乃是由于习惯的缘故，因此习惯也阻止着野蛮人感觉到我们生活方式中的优点：从这种观点来说，习惯的力量使野蛮人留恋于他们的贫困，却比使欧洲人留恋于他们的安乐还要大，这至少应该是一件非常奇怪的事。但是为了给这种说法以一个无可置辩的回答，我不想引证人们徒然努力使其文明化的那些青年野蛮人作为我的论据，我也不想谈人们曾想在丹麦加以教养，后因悲伤和绝望而全数死亡了的格林兰和冰岛上的那些居民（他们有的是死于长期的忧郁，有的是想泅水逃回故乡而死在海中）；我只想引证一个业经完全证实的事例，提供欧洲文明的赞赏者来研究。 “好望角的荷兰传教士们曾尽一切努力，但从不能使一个霍屯督人改变其信仰。好望角总督方·德·斯太尔收养过一个霍屯督人，自幼就使人依照基督教的教理和欧洲的习惯来教养他。人们给他穿极华丽的衣服，教他学了许多种语言，他在各方面的进步也都足以报答人们对他的教育的关心。这位总督对他的才智，抱有很大的希望，派他跟一位专员到印度去。专员很重用他，派他办理公司的事务。专员死后，他又回到了好望角。他回来后不几天，在拜访几位霍屯督族人的时候，就决意抛弃欧洲式的装束，重新披上羊皮。他穿着这身新装，背着一个包裹，里面装着他先前穿的衣服回到城堡，他把这些衣服呈献给总督，并向他这样说：先生，求您垂鉴，我要永远放弃这种服装；我也要终身放弃基督教的信仰。我决意在我祖先的宗教、礼仪和习惯中生活和死亡。我向您恳求的唯一恩典，就是把我所戴的项圈和所佩的短刀送给我，为了对您的爱，我将永远保存这两件东西。不等方·德·斯太尔的回答，他马上就逃走了。从此，人们在好望角便没有再看见他。”（“旅行纪事”，第５卷，第１７５页） 〔十七〕（第１２６页）——也许有人反驳我说，在这样的混乱中，如果对于人们的分散没有任何限制的话，人们与其一味地互相残杀，勿宁各自分散。但是首先，这些限制至少是地面本身的限制；如果我们考虑到由自然状态而产生的人口过多的结果，我们便可以推断：在这种状态中，地球很快地就会被那些不得不实行群居的人们所布满。此外，假使祸害来得很快，假使这是一朝一夕所发生的变化，人们是会各自分散的。但是，他们生来就处于枷锁之下，当他们感到枷锁的重量时，他们已经有了戴枷锁的习惯，只以等待机会来摆脱它为满足。最后，他们业已习惯于使他们不得不实行群居的千百种的便利，人们的分散，不象在原始时代里那么容易了。在原始时代，每一个人，除自己外，不需要任何人；如果他有所决定的话，是无须等待别人的同意的。 〔十八〕（第１２９页）——德·维拉尔元帅讲过这样一件事：在他的某次战役中，因为军粮承揽人屡次诈骗巨款，致使兵士生活很苦，军中不免发生怨言。他严厉地谴责了这个承揽人，并且威胁他说，要叫人把他绞死。这个骗子大胆地回答道：“这种威胁我是不怕的。我很愉快地告诉你，人们决不会绞死一个拥有十万银币的人。”元帅天真地接着说道： “我也不明白这是怎么回事，虽然他已经有一百次应当被绞死，可是实际上，他始终也没有被绞死。” 〔十九〕（第１４３页）——在文明社会里，赏罚上的公平即便是可以实行的话，这种公平与自然状态中严格的平等也是相对立的。由于国家的所有成员都应当按自己的才能和力量为国家服务，所以公民也应当按照他们的贡献受到提拔和优待。我们应当从这种意义上去理解伊索克拉特的一段文章。在这段文章里，他盛赞古雅典人，因为他们已经善于区分在两种平等中哪一种是最有益的：一种是毫无差别地给予所有的公民同样的利益；另一种是按每人的功劳给以不同的利益。这位雄辩家还说，这些熟练的政治家们，一面摈弃了对恶人和善人不加任何区别的那种不公正的平等，同时，坚决拥护按照每人的功过予以赏罚的那种平等。但我在这里应当指出：第一，从来不曾有一个对恶人和善人不加任何区别的社会，无论这个社会腐败到什么程度；其次，关于道德方面的事情，法律不能规定出一种相当精确的尺度作为官吏运用的准则，为了不使公民的等级或命运完全听凭官吏的支配，所以法律禁止官吏判断人的本身的善恶，而只许他判断人的行为的是非，这是很明智的措施。只有古代罗马人那样淳朴的风俗，才能经得起监察官的监察；但是象这样的裁判所，如果今天还存在的话，很快就会造成社会的混乱。如何把恶人和善人加以区别，应当付之于公众的评论。官吏只不过是严正的法律上的裁判者；人民才是真正的道德上的裁判者，也就是：最清廉的，甚至可以说在这一点上富有经验的裁判者，这样的裁判者，人们或许可以欺骗他，却决不能腐蚀他。因此，公民的等级，不应该根据他们个人的善恶来决定（这差不多等于给官吏以任意适用法律的方便），而应该根据他们对国家的实际贡献来决定，只有根据实际的贡献才能做出更正确的评价。