最低等的动物

作者：马克·吐温
编译：《英语小品精选（English-Chinese A Choice Selection of English Essays）》 庄玲　贝合宁
　　
我一直在研究（所谓的）低等动物的特点和习性，把它们与人类的特点和习性进行对比。我发现研究的结果使我感到羞愧。因为它使我不得不背弃原来坚信不移的达尔文理论：“人是从低等动物上升进化的”。这一理论应该让位给另一个更为正确的新理论，这个更为正确的新理论将命名为“人是从高等动物堕落退化的 ”。
　　　　　
在得出这一令人不愉快的结论过程中，我没有作任何猜想、揣测或臆断，而是运用通常所谓的科学方法。这就是说，我把每一个自动呈现出来的假想放到真正的实验中进行严格的检验根据检验的结果决定取舍，我验证并确定每一个步骤之后，再顺次处理下一个步骤。这些实验是在伦敦动物园进行的，付出了好几个月费力耗神的劳动。
　　
在具体叙述一次实验之前，我想先提出几点，看来在这里提出来比放在后面更为合适，这样做有利于讲清问题。从整个实验中概括出令我满意的以下几点：
　　

1. 人类是一个独特的物种。由于气候、环境等条件，在肤色、身材、智力等方面显示出细微的差异。但是它是一个独立的物种，不会与其他任何物种互相混淆。
2. 四足动物是一个独特的科。这个科在肤色、体积和食物选择等方面显示出差异，但它是一个独立的科。
3. 其他的科——鸟、鱼、昆虫、爬虫等——也或多或少地各有特点。他们处在一个系列之中。

　　
他们是一个生物链中的各个环节，从高等动物一直到最底层的人类。
　　
我的实验中有一些是很奇怪的。我在阅读资料时看到一件事：多年前在我们的大平原上一些猎人组织了一次捕猎野牛的活动，用以款待一位英国伯爵，并为他提供一些新鲜肉食。这次行猎收获不错。他们打死了72头野牛，吃了其中一头的一部分肉，抛弃了71头，任其腐烂。为了确定蟒蛇和伯爵的区别，我把7头小牛赶到关蟒蛇的笼子里。这个感恩不尽的爬虫立即把其中一头撕碎后吞了下去，然后心满意足地往后一躺。它对其余的小牛不再感兴趣了。我对其他蟒蛇也作了试验，得到的结果都是同样。这证实了一位伯爵和一条蟒蛇的区别是：伯爵是残忍的，而蟒蛇不是。伯爵凶狠地消灭了对他无用的东西，而蟒蛇并没有。看来说明蟒蛇不是伯爵的后代，而伯爵是蟒蛇的后代，而且在转变过程中丢失了蟒蛇的许多特性。
　　
我了解有许多人积敛的钱财超过他们的消费能力多达数百万美金，但仍狂热地渴望获得更多的财富。他们肆无忌惮地榨取那些无知无能的人们那份可怜的食物，使他们自己的贪欲得到部分的满足。我向100种不同的野生或驯服的动物提供了积存大量食物的机会，但它们之中没有一个愿意这样做。松鼠、蜜蜂以及某些飞鸟是储存食物的，但它们储存到足够维持一个冬天的数量就停止了。无论用诚实或哄骗的办法都无法说服它们再多储存一些。蚂蚁为了维护它们摇摇欲坠的名声，假装正在储存食物的样子，但我没有受骗，我是了解蚂蚁的。这些实验使我自己坚信人类与高等动物之间的区别：他是贪婪和吝啬的，而它们却不是。
　　
我在进行实验的过程中，坚信动物之中只有人类念念不忘自己受到的侮辱和损害，心里经常盘算着，等待时机到来就立即进行报复。高等动物是没有火热的复仇之心的。
　　
雄鸡设有侧室，但那是经过它们的小妾同意的，因此并未委屈谁。男人也设有侧室，但那是依仗专横的暴力、和不允许女性参加而制订的残暴法律所授予的特权。在这一方面人的地位比雄鸡低下得多。
　　
猫的行为是放荡的，但并非出于自觉。人作为猫的后代，承袭了猫的放荡，却把猫的不自觉性丢弃了——不自觉性是足以补偿一切过错的特性，它使猫得到了宽恕。猫是无辜的，而人不是。
　　
下流、庸俗、淫秽——这些都严格限于人类所有，是人类发明了它们。在高等动物中丝毫也没有。它们不掩饰什么东西，它们不感到羞耻。人的心地龌龊，总想掩饰自己，他甚至不愿意裸露着胸背走进一间会客室，他和他的同伴们对稍许有失礼仪的迹象敏感到如此程度。据说人是“笑的动物”，但正如达尔文先生指出：猴子也是的，名叫“笑鴗”的澳洲鸟也是的。不，人是“脸红的动物”。他是唯一的脸红的动物——或者说唯一有理由脸红的动物。
　　
在本文的开头⁽¹⁾作者在本文开端曾引用报纸上关于克里特岛上暴行的报道，原文以佚。我们看到几天前“有3个修道士被烧死”，还有“被人用极残暴的手段处死的修道院长”。我们查问过详细情况没有？没有。否则我们就会发现割去修道院长身体的某个部位这种残暴行为是不宜印成文字公布于众的。人——当他是一个北美印第安人时——挖取俘虏的眼珠子；当他是约翰王⁽²⁾英王约翰（1167～1216），传说曾残酷杀害侄儿阿塞（Arthur），引起公愤。时，为了防止他的侄儿捣乱，使用了火烫的熨斗；当他是中世纪狂热的宗教信徒时，对付异教徒的办法是俘获后活剥他们的皮，再把盐洒在他们的脊背上，在理查一世⁽³⁾英王理查一世（1157～1199），又称“狮心理查”（Richard the Lion-hearted），为历史上的暴君。时代，他把许多犹太人全家关进塔楼用火烧死；在哥伦布时代，他捕获一家西班牙犹太人之后，就——不过这事也不宜印成文字；在我们这个时代，英国有一个人用一把椅子打得他母亲几乎死去，罚款10个先令；另一个人因为有了4个野鸡蛋未能令人满意地说清是怎么弄到它们的，罚款40先令。在所有的动物中，只有人是残忍的。他是唯一为了自己取乐而制造痛苦的动物。这种特性高等动物是没有的。猫在玩弄受惊的老鼠，但她有辩解的理由：她不知道老鼠在受苦。猫是有节制的——人类不具备那种节制。她只是吓唬一下老鼠，并没有伤害它；她没有挖它的眼睛、剥它的皮，或者用尖细的东西刺进它的指甲——那都是人类采用的手段；她玩够了老鼠就突然拿它当作一顿饭，结束了它的苦恼。人是“残忍的动物”，只有他具有残忍的特性。
　　
高等动物之间只有单个的战斗，从来没有进行过有组织的集体战斗。人是从事暴行中的暴行亦即战争的唯一动物，唯有他把弟兄们纠合在自己周围，冷酷无情而又心安理得的前去消灭他的同类。他是为了拿肮脏的佣金开赴战场的唯一动物，他参加杀戮与他素不相识、从未伤害过他也未和他吵过架的同类，诸如在我们独立战争中的赫斯雇佣军⁽⁴⁾在美国独立战争中一部分德国赫斯地方的士兵充当英国政府的雇佣军。 和祖鲁战争中孩子气的拿破仑王子⁽⁵⁾指拿破仑三世的独子，生于1856年，在英国入军校，后来自愿到南非参加英军与祖鲁人的战争，1879年遭到伏击被击毙。。
　　
人是掠夺孤弱同类的家园的唯一动物。他把它据为己有，把他的同类赶走或消灭掉。人在各个时代都是这样干的。地球上没有一亩土地未曾通过武力和流血周而复始地从一个又一个主人手里夺走。
　　
人是唯一的奴隶。他又是唯一的奴役他同类的动物。他永远是这种或那种形式的奴隶，总是用这种或那种形式把其他奴隶置于自己的控制之下。在我们这个时代里他为了拿工资而充当别人的奴隶，替那个人干活；这个奴隶的手下又有其他奴隶，他们为了更少的工资替他干活。高等动物毫无例外地为自己干活，靠自己谋生。
　　
人是唯一的爱国者。他使自己在本国超群出众，打出自己的旗号，讪笑其他的民族，他出重金豢养众多穿制服的杀手去攫取其他国家一片又一片领土，并阻止别人攫取他的领土。在战役的间歇他洗掉双手的血迹，为“四海之内皆兄弟也”的理想奉献力量——用他的嘴巴。
　　
人是信宗教的动物。他是唯一信教的动物。他是唯一有“真正宗教”（有好几种）的动物。他是爱邻如己的唯一动物。如果邻人的宗教不对头，那就割断那邻人的喉咙。他把地球变成一片墓地，最忠诚的为他的弟兄铺平通向幸福和天国的道路。他在恺撒时代这样干，他在穆罕默德时代这样干，他在宗教审判时代这样干，他在法国这样干了两个世纪，他在英国玛丽女王⁽⁶⁾玛丽一世（1516～1558），英国女王，被称为“血腥的玛丽”（Bloody Mary），在位时残酷杀害异教徒数百人。时代这样干，自从他第一次见到光以来他一直这样干，他现在在克里特岛上这样干——根据上面所引的电文⁽⁷⁾电文以佚，见前注。，他明天将在其他地方这样干。高等动物没有宗教。我们听说在“来世”要把它们去除掉。我不懂这是为什么？这种鉴别能力是很成问题的。
　　
人是“理性的动物”。这是他自许的。我认为值得争议。我的实验确实向我证明他是“非理性的动物”。请注意上面简述的他的历史。不管他是什么，他不是理性的动物。我感到这一点是很清楚的。他的历史是一个疯子的狂乱历史。我认为对他的理智最强有力的反证就是：尽管他的背后有那样一部历史，他还厚颜无耻地自封为万物之首，但按照他自己规定的标准来衡量，他是最底层的动物。
　　
事实上人的愚蠢已经到了不可救药的地步。其他动物很容易学会的东西，他就是学不会。我的实验中就有这一项。我在一个小时之内教会一只猫和一只狗做朋友。我把它们放进一个笼子。另一个小时之内我教会它们和一个兔子做朋友。在两天内我还能加上一只狐狸、一只鹅、一只松鼠，和几只鸽子。最后还有一个猴子。它们住在一起相安无事，甚至相亲相爱。
　　　　
然后我在另一个笼子里关进一名来自蒂波雷里的爱尔兰天主教徒。在他开始表现驯化时我立即加进一个来自阿伯丁的苏格兰长老会教徒，其次是一个来自君士坦丁堡的土耳其人，一个来自克里特岛的希腊基督教徒，一个阿美尼亚人，一个来自阿肯色斯荒野的卫理公会教徒，一个中国佛教徒，一个来自贝拿勒斯⁽⁸⁾在印度东部，恒河南岸。的婆罗门教徒，最后是一个来自沃平⁽⁹⁾在美国康涅狄格州。的救世军上校。然后我离开那里整整两天。等我回来观察结果时，高等动物的笼子安然无恙。但另一个笼子里只见一堆混杂血污的穆斯林头巾、土耳其帽、发辫、骨头和肉的残余——没有一个实验品生存下来。这些“理性的动物”在一个宗教教义的细节上意见不一致，把问题诉诸高等法院了。
　　　
我们不得不承认：在真正崇高的品格上，人甚至没有资格自认为接近高等动物中最卑下的那一种。显然他在本质上无法接近那个高度。他本质上的缺点使这种接近无法实现。因为这种缺点很明显地在他身上是永久性的，无法摧毁也不能根除。
　　
我发现这个缺点就是他的道德观念。他是唯一有这东西的动物。他之所以退化堕落，秘密就在于此。这是引导他做错事的品性。它没有其他功能。它不能发挥其他任何作用。我们永远也不可能指望它发挥任何其他作用。没有它人就不会做错事。他就会上升到高等动物的水平。

The Lowest Animal

Mark Twain

I have been scientifically studying the traits and dispositions of the "lower animals" (so-called), and contrasting them with the traits and dispositions of man. I find the result humiliating to me. For it obliges me to renounce my allegiance to the Darwinian theory of the Ascent of Man from the Lower Animals; since it now seems plain to me that the theory ought to be vacated in favor of a new and truer one, this new and truer one to be named the Descent of Man from the Higher Animals.

In proceeding toward this unpleasant conclusion I have not guessed or speculated or conjectured, but have used what is commonly called the scientific method. That is to say, I have subjected every postulate that presented itself to the crucial test of actual experiment, and have adopted it or rejected it according to the result. Thus I verified and established each step of my course in its turn before advancing to the next. These experiments were made in the London Zoological Gardens, and covered many months of painstaking and fatiguing work.

Before particularizing any of the experiments, I wish to state one or two things which seem to more properly belong in this place than further along. This is in the interest of clearness. The massed experiments established to my satisfaction certain generalizations, to wit:

I. That the human race is of one distinct species. It exhibits slight variations-in color, stature, mental caliber, and so on-due to climate, environment, and so forth; but it is a species by itself, and not to be confounded with any other.

2. That the quadrupeds are a distinct family, also. This family exhibits variations-in color, size, food preferences and so on; but it is a family by itself.

3. That the other families-the birds, the fishes, the insects, the reptiles, etc.-are more or less distinct, also. They are in the procession. They are links in the chain which stretches down from the higher animals to man at the bottom.

Some of my experiments were quite curious. In the course of my reading I had come across a case where, many years ago, some hunters on our Great Plains organized a buffalo hunt for the entertainment of an English earl-that, and to provide some fresh meat for his larder. They had charming sport. They killed seventy-two of those great animals; and ate part of one of them and left the seventy-one to rot. In order to determine the difference between an anaconda and an earl-if any-I caused seven young calves to be turned into the anaconda's cage. The grateful reptile immediately crushed one of them and swallowed it, then lay back satisfied. It showed no interest in the calves, and no disposition to harm them. I tried this experiment with other anacondas; always with the same result. The fact stood proven that the difference between an earl and an anaconda is that the earl is cruel and the anaconda isn't; and that the earl wantonly destroys what he has no use for, but the anaconda doesn't. This seems to suggest that the anaconda was not descended from the earl. It also seemed to suggest that the earl was descended from the anaconda, and had lost a good deal in the transition.

I was aware that many men who have accumulated more millions of money than they can ever use have shown a rabid hunger for more, and have not scrupled to cheat the ignorant and the helpless out of their poor servings in order to partially appease that appetite. I furnished a hundred different kinds of wild and tame animals the opportunity to accumulate vast stores of food, but none of them would do it. The squirrels and bees and certain birds made accumulations, but stopped when they had gathered a winter's supply, and could not be persuaded to add to it either honestly or by chicane. In order to bolster up a tottering reputation the ant pretended to store up supplies but I was not deceived. I know the ant. These experiments convinced me that there is this difference between man and the higher animals: he is avaricious and miserly, they are not.

In the course of my experiments I convinced myself that among the animals man is the only one that harbors insults and injuries, broods over them, waits till a chance offers, then takes revenge. The passion of revenge is unknown to the higher animals.

Roosters keep harems, but it is by consent of their concubines; therefore no wrong is done. Men keep harems, but it is by brute force, privileged by atrocious laws which the other sex were allowed no hand in making. In this matter man occupies a far lower place than the rooster.

Cats are loose in their morals, but not consciously so. Man, in his descent from the cat, has brought the cat's looseness with him but has left the unconsciousness behind-the saving grace which excuses the cat. The cat is innocent, man is not.

Indecency, vulgarity, obscenity-these are strictly confined to man; he invented them. Among the higher animals there is no trace of them. They hide nothing; they are not ashamed. Man, with his soiled mind, covers himself. He will not even enter a drawing room with his breast and back naked, so alive are he and his mates to indecent suggestion. Man is "The Animal that Laughs." But so does the monkey, as Mr. Darwin pointed out; and so does the Australian bird that is called the laughing *******. No-Man is the Animal that Blushes. He is the only one that does it-or has occasion to.

At the head of this article* we see how “three monks were burnt to death" a few days ago, and a prior “put to death with atrocious cruelty." Do we inquire into the details? No; or we should find out that the prior was subjected to unprintable mutilations. Manwhen he is a North American Indian-gouges out his prisoner's eyes; when he is King John, with a nephew to render untroublesome, he uses a red-hot iron; when he is a religious zealot dealing with heretics in the Middle Ages, he skins his captive alive and scatters salt on his back; in the first Richard's time he shuts up a multitude of Jew families in a tower and sets fire to it; in Columbus's time he captures a family of Spanish Jews and-but that is not printable; in our day in England a man is fined ten shillings for beating his mother nearly to death with a chair, and another man is fined forty shillings for having four pheasant eggs in his possession without being able to satisfactorily explain how he got them. Of all the animals, man is the only one who is cruel. He is the only one that inflicts pain for the pleasure of doing it. It is a trait that is not known to the higher animals. The cat plays with the frightened mouse; but she has this excuse, that she does not know that the mouse is suffering. The cat is moderate-unhumanly moderate; she only scares the mouse, she does not hurt it; she doesn't dig its eyes, or tear off its skin, or drive splinters under its nails-man-fashion; when she is done playing with it she makes a sudden meal of it and puts it out of its trouble. Man is the Cruel Animal. He is alone in that distinction.

The higher animals engage in individual fights, but never in organized masses. Man is the only animal that deals in that atrocity of atrocities, War. He is the only one that gathers his brethren about him and goes forth in cold blood and with calm pulse to exterminate his kind. He is the only animal that for sordid wages will march out, as the Hessians did in our Revolution, and as the boyish Prince Napolean did in the Zulu war, and help to slaughter strangers of his own species who have done him no harm and with whom he has no quarrel.

Man is the only animal that robs his helpless fellow of his country-takes possession of it and drives him out of it or destroys him. Man has done this in all the ages. There is not an acre of ground on the globe that is in possession of its rightful owner, or that has not been taken away from owner after owner, cycle after cycle, by force and bloodshed.

Man is the only Slave. And he is the only animal who enslaves. He has always been a slave in one form or another, and has always held other slaves in bondage under him in one way or another. In our day he is always some man's slave for wages, and does the man's work; and this slave has other slaves under him for minor wages, and they do his work. The higher animals are the only ones who exclusively do their own work and provide their own living.

Man is the only Patriot. He sets himself apart in his own country, under his own flag, and sneers at the other nations, and keeps multitudinous uniformed assassins on hand at heavy expense to grab slices of other people's countries, and keep them from grabbing slices of his. And in the intervals between campaigns he washes the blood off his hands and works for "the universal brotherhood of man"-with his mouth.

Man is the Religious Animal. He is the only Religious Animal. He is the only animal that has the True Religion-several of them. He is the only animal that loves his neighbor as himself, and cuts his throat if his theology isn't straight. He has made a graveyard of the globe in trying his honest best to smooth his brother's path to happiness and heaven. He was at it in the time of Caesars, he was at it in Mahomet's time, he was at it in the time of the Inquisition, he was at it in France a couple of centuries, he was at it in England in Mary's day, he has been at it ever since he first saw the light, he is at it today in Crete-as per the telegrams quoted above*-he will be at it somewhere else tomorrow. The higher animals have no religion. And we are told that they are going to be left out, in the Hereafter. I wonder why? It seems questionable taste.

Man is the Reasoning Animal. Such is the claim. I think it is open to dispute. Indeed, my experiments have proven to me that he is the Unreasoning Animal. Note his history, as sketched above. It seems plain to me that whatever he is he is not a reasoning animal. His record is the fantastic record of a maniac. I consider that the strongest count against his intelligence is the fact that with that record back of him he blandly sets himself up as the head animal of the lot: whereas by his own standards he is the bottom one.
In truth, man is incurably foolish. Simple things which the other animals easily learn, he is incapable of learning. Among my experiments was this. In an hour I taught a cat and a dog to be friends. I put them in a cage. In another hour I taught them to be friends with a rabbit. In the course of two days I was able to add a fox, a goose, a squirrel and some doves. Finally a monkey. They lived together in peace; even affectionately.

Next, in another cage I confined an Irish Catholic from Tipperary, and as soon as he seemed tame I added a Scotch Presbyterian from Aberdeen. Next a Turk from Constantinople; a Greek Christian from Crete; an Armenian; a Methodist from the wilds of Arkansas; a Buddhist from China; a Brahman from Benares. Finally, a Salvation Army Colonel from Wapping. Then I stayed away two whole days. When I came back to note results, the cage of Higher Animals was all right, but in the other there was but a chaos of gory odds and ends of turbans and fezzes and plaids and bones and flesh-not a specimen left alive. These Reasoning Animals had disagreed on a theological detail and carried the matter to a Higher Court.

One is obliged to concede that in true loftiness of character, Man cannot claim to approach even the meanest of the Higher Animals. It is plain that he is constitutionally incapable of ap????proaching that altitude; that he is constitutionally afflicted with a Defect which must make such approach forever impossible, for it is manifest that this defect is permanent in him, indestructible, ineradicable.

I find this Defect to be the Moral Sense. He is the only animal that has it. It is the secret of his degradation. It is the quality which enables him to do wrong. It has no other office. It is incapable of performing any other function. It could never have been intended to perform any other. Without it, man could do no wrong. He would rise at once to the level of the Higher Animals.

Since the Moral Sense has but the one office, the one capacity (to enable man to do wrong) it is plainly without value to him. It is as valueless to him as is disease. In fact, it manifestly is a disease. Rabies is bad, but it is not so bad as this disease. Rabies enables a man to do a thing, which he could not do when in a healthy state: kill his neighbor with a poisonous bite) one is the better man for having rabies: The Moral Sense enables a man to do wrong. It enables him to do wrong in a thousand ways. Rabies is an innocent disease, compared to the Moral Sense. No one, then, can be the better man for having the Moral Sense. What now, do we find the Primal Curse to have been? Plainly what it was in the beginning: the infliction upon man of the Moral Sense; the ability to distinguish good from evil; and with it, necessarily, the ability to do evil; for there can be no evil act without the presence of consciousness of it in the doer of it.

And so I find that we have descended and degenerated, from some far ancestor (some microscopic atom wandering at its pleasure between the mighty horizons of a drop of water perchance) insect by insect, animal by animal, reptile by reptile, down the long highway of smirch less innocence, till we have reached the bottom stage of development (namable as the Human Being). Below us, nothing.