我們將要深入探討的，是她於1790年緊急寫就的《男權辯護：致敬愛的埃德蒙·柏克閣下的一封信，因其對法國大革命的反思而作》（*A Vindication of the Rights of Men, in a Letter to the Right Honourable Edmund Burke; Occasioned by his Reflections on the Revolution in France*）。這本書是她對埃德蒙·柏克（Edmund Burke）的《法國大革命反思》（*Reflections on the Revolution in France*）的直接駁斥。柏克在這部作品中，以其著名的修辭和感傷情懷，捍衛了英國的傳統、貴族制度和君主制，並對法國大革命的激進變革表達了深刻的悲觀與恐懼。他頌揚了「繼承權利」和「先例」的力量，認為社會秩序應根植於情感、傳統和歷史的「偏見」，而非抽象的理性原則。
然而，沃斯通克拉夫特卻以其銳利的筆鋒，揭露了柏克論點中偽善與矛盾之處。她主張，人類的權利並非來自於歷史的恩賜或繼承的特權，而是源自於上帝賦予的理性能力。
當我讀到柏克先生的《反思》，一開始只是為了消遣，但字裡行間那種拐彎抹角的詭辯，偽裝成天生情感與常識的論調（*my indignation was roused by the sophistical arguments, that every moment crossed me, in the questionable shape of natural feelings and common sense*），卻激起了我內心深處的憤怒。他對法國大革命的悲鳴，對王后瑪麗·安托瓦內特命運的哀悼，看似情感真摯，實則不過是他對特權與財產的狂熱崇拜。他用華麗的辭藻和感傷的筆觸，試圖掩蓋他對理性與正義的蔑視。我無法忍受這種偽善。」
她輕輕地嘆了口氣，又很快地收斂了情緒，轉而面向我，眼神重新凝聚起來：「我的目的很簡單，就是要為『男人的權利』（*the Rights of Men*）進行一場直接的辯護，讓那些被花言巧語所蒙蔽的真相顯現。我沒有那麼多的閒暇與耐心，去追隨他那漫無邊際的思緒，我只專注於他的核心原則，那些他試圖以華麗外衣掩蓋的、實則充滿偏見與不公的原則。」
（*I have not yet learned to twist my periods, nor, in the equivocal idiom of politeness, to disguise my sentiments, and imply what I should be afraid to utter: if, therefore, in the course of this epistle, I chance to express contempt, and even indignation, with some emphasis, I beseech you to believe that it is not a flight of fancy; for truth, in morals, has ever appeared to me the essence of the sublime; and, in taste, simplicity the only criterion of the beautiful.*）」
**瑟蕾絲特：**「您對真理的堅定追求，的確如利劍般劃破了虛偽
（*the birthright of man... is such a degree of liberty, civil and religious, as is compatible with the liberty of every other individual with whom he is united in a social compact, and the continued existence of that compact.* p. 7-8）這個定義深刻且具普世性。然而，您也指出，『財產』的魔鬼總是在侵犯這些神聖的權利。在您看來，財產權是如何扭曲了人類的本質，甚至凌駕於人權之上的呢？」
**瑪麗·沃斯通克拉夫特：** (她的眉頭微蹙，似乎想起了那些因財產而扭曲的人性，眼神中閃過一絲痛苦，隨即又被銳利取代。)
「你問得很好，瑟蕾絲特。財產，尤其是那種代代相傳、不勞而獲的財產，是文明進步的巨大阻礙。它不僅沒有促進真正的自由，反而成為一道森嚴的壁壘，將人類劃分為所謂的『高貴』與『低賤』。
（*The man has been changed into an artificial monster by the station in which he was born, and the consequent homage that benumbed his faculties like the torpedo’s touch... Lost to the relish of true pleasure, such beings would, indeed, deserve compassion, if injustice was not softened by the tyrant’s plea—necessity; if prescription was not raised as an immortal boundary against innovation.* p. 11-12）他們會認為，慈善是施捨，而不是對被剝奪者應有權利的歸還。他們享受著虛假的恭維，被奉承所滋養，對知識與德行卻不屑一顧。
（*The younger children have been sacrificed to the eldest son; sent into exile, or confined in convents, that they might not encroach on what was called, with shameful falsehood, the family estate. Will Mr. Burke call this parental affection reasonable or virtuous?—No; it is the spurious offspring of over-weening, mistaken pride.* p. 46）
「財產的流動性至關重要，如果它能在家庭成員之間更公平地分配，就不會成為一道『永恆的壁壘』，讓長子輕易地凌駕於才華與美德之上。」
（*Property, I do not scruple to aver it, should be fluctuating, which would be the case, if it were more equally divided amongst all the children of a family; else it is an everlasting rampart, in consequence of a barbarous feudal institution, that enables the elder son to overpower talents and depress virtue.* p. 50）
**瑟蕾絲特：** (我聽著她激昂的論述，思緒如同被風吹拂的沙丘，表面看似混亂，實則有其內在的紋路。她對財產權的批判，不僅是經濟層面的，更是對人性深層的扭曲進行了深刻剖析。這讓我不禁聯想到榮格所說的『陰影』——那些被社會壓抑、忽視的面向，如何反噬個體與集體。)
「您對社會階層與財富分配的觀察，如同一面剔透的稜鏡，映照出時代的弊病。
（*cold declamation of the head, and not the effusions of the heart* p. 5）他的這種『過度嬌寵的感性』（*pampered sensibility*），只會讓思緒被煙霧繚繞，驅散理性的清醒建議。（*fumes, mounting to your brain, dispel the sober suggestions of reason.* p. 6）這也就不難理解，為何他在應該提出論證時變得激動，為何反思反而點燃了他的想像，而非啟迪他的理解。」
「人類與禽獸的根本區別何在？就在於理性。禽獸也有希望與恐懼，愛與恨，但它們無法透過理性去提升自我、修煉德行。若智慧不引導情感，我們與動物何異？（*In what respect are we superior to the brute creation, if intellect is not allowed to be the guide of passion?
Brutes hope and fear, love and hate; but, without a capacity to improve, a power of turning these passions to good or evil, they neither acquire virtue nor wisdom.—Why? Because the Creator has not given them reason.* p. 70-71）當然，培養理性是一項艱巨的任務，許多人更傾向於跟隨情感的衝動，並說服自己和他人，這是最『自然』的。然而，真正的美德，如同我在書中所說的，必須建立在正義的基礎之上，並由普世之愛所凝聚。任何不基於此的情感，都是虛假和偽善的。」
「我的核心論點是：我們應當擺脫對過去的盲目崇拜，不再將『古老的鏽跡』奉為圭臬。人類的進步，仰賴於不斷的審視與改進。如果我們像柏克先生所建議的那樣，永遠停留在『冰冷的靜止狀態』，只因害怕解凍會帶來一時的洪流，那麼我們將永遠無法爭取到最珍貴的權利。這番道理，我承認，只有富人和目光短淺之輩才會奉為圭臬。」
（*Further, that we ought cautiously to remain for ever in frozen inactivity, because a thaw, whilst it nourishes the soil, spreads a temporary inundation; and the fear of risking any personal present convenience should prevent a struggle for the most estimable advantages. This is sound reasoning, I grant, in the mouth of the rich and short-sighted.* p. 10）
**瑟蕾絲特：** (她對理性的尊崇，以及對傳統盲目崇拜的批判，在我的心中迴盪。這讓我想起塔羅牌中的『劍』元素，代表著思維、真理與分析，它不畏懼斬斷舊有的束縛，即使這過程伴隨著痛苦。)
「您在書中對於窮人的處境，以及社會對他們的冷漠，表達了深刻的悲憫與激烈的控訴。
（*The tears that are shed for fictitious sorrow are admirably adapted,’ says Rousseau, ‘to make us proud of all the virtues which we do not possess.’* p. 27）盧梭的這句話，精準地描繪了柏克先生的偽善。」
「英國的刑法對偷竊數鎊的小偷判處死刑，但強行掠奪一個人的自由，將他們從家中帶走，卻不被視為滔天大罪。誰敢抱怨這項將鹿的生命看得比人還神聖的法律？（*Our penal laws punish with death the thief who steals a few pounds; but to take by violence, or trepan, a man, is no such heinous offence.
—For who shall dare to complain of the venerable vestige of the law that rendered the life of a deer more sacred than that of a man?* p. 26）在柏克先生的眼裡，『財產安全』幾乎等同於『英國自由』的定義。為了這個自私的原則，所有更高尚的原則都被犧牲了。英國人取代了人類，而上帝的形象則在『公民』的稱謂中迷失了！」
「這也解釋了為何他對我書中談及的貧窮問題隻字不提。他似乎認為貧民不過是莊園裡的牲畜，世襲貴族的點綴。當他對『苦難的靜默威嚴』都如此不屑一顧時，我又怎會驚訝他對一個沒有主教冠冕，名氣可能傷害了他虛榮心的人（指理查德·普萊斯博士）的態度呢？」
（*When you had so little respect for the silent majesty of misery, I am not surprised at your manner of treating an individual whose brow a mitre will never grace, and whose popularity may have wounded your vanity—for vanity is ever fore.* p. 32）
「他在《反思》中甚至說，人民必須『尊重他們無法分享的財產』，並且『必須透過勞動來獲得可以獲得的東西；當他們發現成功與努力不成比例時，他們必須在永恆正義的最終比例中尋求慰藉。』」（*They must respect that property of which they cannot partake.
They must labour to obtain what by labour can be obtained; and when they find, as they commonly do, the success disproportioned to the endeavour, they must be taught their consolation in the final proportions of eternal justice.* p. 143）這不是對人類的同情，這是冷酷無情的詭辯！這句話的意思是：窮人就該認命，別想著改變現狀，把希望寄託在來世吧！這不是在幫助他們，而是在鞏固不公的現狀。
「我認為，在這個世界上讓窮人過得更幸福是**可能**的，而且無需侵犯富人的享受。如果富人與窮人之間能建立起真正的交流，那將是在這片『陰影之地』，這個嚴酷的『道德訓練場』中，唯一能抓住的真實快樂。真正的慈善，不是施捨，而是找到能培養他們美德習慣的雇傭方式。愛是愛的果實，而單純的施恩和權威，只會導致表面上的服從。」
（*It is, Sir, possible to render the poor happier in this world, without depriving them of the consolation which you gratuitously grant them in the next. They have a right to more comfort than they at present enjoy; and more comfort might be afforded them, without encroaching on the pleasures of the rich...
No; if an intercourse were established between them, it would impart the only true pleasure that can be snatched in this land of shadows, this hard school of moral discipline.* p. 144）
**瑟蕾絲特：** (瑪麗女士的這番話，像一陣凜冽的風，吹散了籠罩在社會表面上虛偽的溫情。她所描繪的，是社會病態的深刻根源。她似乎看到了人性的兩極——被特權異化的麻木與被貧困扭曲的掙扎。這讓我想起了塔羅牌中的『惡魔』牌，它代表著束縛、誘惑與物質的枷鎖，而她正試圖用理性的光芒去打破這些看不見的鎖鏈。)
「您對社會階級的固化，對『出身』與『財富』如何腐蝕人心的分析，令人警醒。這也延伸到您對教育的看法。您在書中提到，英國的教育很大程度上掌控在教士手中，從小到大都在灌輸對宗教機構的尊重。您認為這種教育方式，反而損害了真正的道德與智慧的培養。在您看來，理想的教育應該是怎樣的？它又如何能培養出真正具有『人性尊嚴』的公民？」
（*In schools and colleges they may, in some degree, support their dignity within the monastic walls; but, in paying due respect to the parents of the young nobility under their tutorage, they do not forget, obsequiously, to respect their noble patrons. The little respect paid, in great houses, to tutors and chaplains proves, Sir, the fallacy of your reasoning.* p. 90）
「我甚至可以斷言，很少有主教，即使其中不乏有學識和品德的人，不是透過奴顏婢膝的依附才得以升遷。所有這些，柏克先生您都心知肚明，然而您卻仍在談論美德與自由，就像俗人談論法律條文，或彬彬有禮的人談論得體一樣。
（*You must have known that a man of merit cannot rise in the church, the army, or navy, unless he has some interest in a borough; and that even a paltry exciseman’s place can only be secured by electioneering interest. I will go further, and assert that few Bishops, though there have been learned and good Bishops, have gained the mitre without submitting to a servility of dependence that degrades the man.* p. 43）
「真正的教育，應該是喚醒和培養理性。正如我所說，『兒童生而無知，因此無辜；激情本身既非善也非惡，除非它們獲得了方向。』
（*Children are born ignorant, consequently innocent; the passions, are neither good nor evil dispositions, till they receive a direction* p. 72）只有當理性，透過反思而趨於完善，才能引導這些激情，使其產生豐碩的果實。如果美德只能透過經驗獲得，或透過榜樣教導，那麼理性就必須是這些情感的舵手。否則，就像一艘沒有舵的船，任憑風吹浪打，永遠無法抵達預定的港口。」（*reason, perfected by reflection, must be the director of the whole host of passions, which produce a fructifying heat, but no light, that you would exalt into her place.
—She must hold the rudder, or, let the wind blow which way it list, the vessel will never advance smoothly to its destined port; for the time lost in tacking about would dreadfully impede its progress.* p. 73）
「我不相信有所謂的『天生美德』或『與生俱來的情感』。如果這些情感不是後天習得的，那麼野蠻民族就不會缺乏溫文爾雅的情感。激情或英雄主義，是反思的產物，是專注於一個目標沉思的結果。只有食慾，才是唯一我能辨別的完美天生本能。」（*Why are not the Tartars in the first rude horde endued with sentiments white and elegant as the driven snow?
Why is passion or heroism the child of reflection, the consequence of dwelling with intent contemplation on one object? The appetites are the only perfect inbred powers that I can discern* p. 74-75）
「教育的目標，應是讓每個人都能獨立思考，而不是被傳統或權威所束縛。只有當人們學會運用自己的理性，去辨別真偽、判斷是非，他們才能真正擺脫愚昧和偏見，成為一個完整的人。這就是我所說的『自我尊重』，這份尊重並非來自於外在的頭銜或財富，而是源於對自身理性能力的肯定和對正義的追求。」（*This fear of God makes me reverence myself.
—Yes, Sir, the regard I have for honest fame, and the friendship of the virtuous, falls far short of the respect which I have for myself.* p. 79）
**瑟蕾絲特：** (瑪麗女士對教育的見解，與她對理性力量的信仰一脈相承。她看到了知識與道德的內在連結，這不禁讓我想起榮格的『個體化』過程，那是一種不斷覺察與整合自我的旅程。她挑戰著社會對女性的刻板印象，認為女性的價值並非僅限於『美貌』和『取悅他人』。您在書中對柏克先生所描繪的女性形象進行了尖銳的批評，認為他將女性束縛在狹隘的『美』與『弱點』之中，這不僅是侮辱，更是阻礙了女性追求更高尚的道德與智慧。您能進一步闡述這點嗎？這與您後來的《女權辯護》有何淵源？)
**瑪麗·沃斯通克拉夫特：** (她的眼神變得更為堅定，甚至帶著一絲挑戰。她輕輕地拂過她那深色的連衣裙，這件衣服樸素卻剪裁得體，與當時貴族女性的華麗繁複形成鮮明對比。)
（*You may have convinced them that littleness and weakness are the very essence of beauty; and that the Supreme Being, in giving women beauty in the most supereminent degree, seemed to command them, by the powerful voice of Nature, not to cultivate the moral virtues that might chance to excite respect, and interfere with the pleasing sensations they were created to inspire.* p. 112）
「這種觀點導致了女性道德上的鬆懈。女孩子們為了家族利益或嫁入豪門而被犧牲，她們學會了放蕩不羈地與那些我已描述過的『花花公子』調情。
（*the constitution of our church and state... was formed ‘under the auspices, and was confirmed by the sanctions, of religion and piety.’* p. 80）然而，任何翻閱過歷史的人都知道，事實並非如此。私下的陰謀、公開的紛爭、個人的美德與惡行、宗教與迷信，所有這些都共同促成了這些體制的現狀。甚至可以說，它們引人注目的外表，部分要歸功於大膽的叛亂和陰險的創新。派系鬥爭是酵母，而個人利益反而催生了所謂的『公共利益』。」
（*That civilization, that the cultivation of the understanding, and refinement of the affections, naturally make a man religious, I am proud to acknowledge.—What else can fill the aching void in the heart, that human pleasures, human friendships can never fill?* p. 94-96）
**瑟蕾絲特：** (您對『理性』的強調，對『傳統』的批判，以及對『財產』和『地位』如何腐蝕人性的深刻洞察，無疑是您時代最前沿的思想。這份對真理的執著與對社會的悲憫，相互交織，形成了您獨特的精神面貌。這也讓我看到您作為一個獨立的女性思想家，是如何在那個時代的重重束縛下，堅定地為自己的信念發聲，並為後世開闢道路。我感覺到，在您那看似嚴謹的理性批判之下，湧動著一顆對人類命運深切關懷的心。
（*This instinct... has been termed common sense, and more frequently sensibility; and, by a kind of indefeasible right, it has been supposed... to reign paramount over the other faculties of the mind, and to be an authority from which there is no appeal.
This subtle magnetic fluid, that runs round the whole circle of society, is not subject to any known rule... and, though supposed always to point to truth, its pole-star, the point is always shifting, and seldom stands due north.* p. 68-69）
「我承認，詩人必須訴諸情感，因為他們面對的讀者尚未在『人權學校』中畢業。他們必須透過一種機械式的感動來觸動人心，這確實常常會蒙蔽理解力。但是，在劇場裡，情感的『第一直覺目光』就能辨別真理的形式，看到它美好的比例，這點我深表懷疑。情感的心靈是神聖的！當它凝聚成灼熱的火焰，便成為生命的太陽；沒有它的滋養，理性或許會陷入無助的沉寂，永遠無法孕育出它唯一的合法後代——美德。但要證明美德確實是個體的獲得，而非永無謬誤的本能衝動，那麼私生子式的惡行也常常是來自同一個父親。」
（*Sacred be the feelings of the heart! concentred in a glowing flame, they become the sun of life; and, without his invigorating impregnation, reason would probably lie in helpless inactivity, and never bring forth her only legitimate offspring—virtue. But to prove that virtue is really an acquisition of the individual, and not the blind impulse of unerring instinct, the bastard vice has often been begotten by the same father.* p. 70）
「對我而言，靈感是一種來自於對世界深刻觀察與反思後的洞見，它不是憑空而來。
它需要心靈的『練習』（*exercise of our faculties*），需要不懈的探究，即使這探究讓我們徘徊在不確定性的邊界，甚至深入那黑暗的深淵。這些『活潑的猜想』，正是維持湖水不至於停滯的微風。」（*Perhaps the most improving exercise of the mind, confining the argument to the enlargement of the understanding, is the restless enquiries that hover on the boundary, or stretch over the dark abyss of uncertainty. These lively conjectures are the breezes that preserve the still lake from stagnating.* p. 38）
「最終，我對上帝的敬畏，也建立在理性的基礎之上。我敬畏那創造我的崇高力量，其創造動機必然是智慧而良善的。
—I fear that sublime power, whose motive for creating me must have been wise and good; and I submit to the moral laws which my reason deduces from this view of my dependence on him.—It is not his power that I fear—it is not to an arbitrary will, but to unerring reason I submit... This fear of God makes me reverence myself.* p. 78-79）
「我的旅程，就是將這些基於理性的洞見，轉化為文字，去挑戰那些看似堅不可摧的謬論與不公。它或許艱辛，但每當我看到文字能激發哪怕一絲的思考，能點亮哪怕一盞的理解之燈，那份努力便有了意義。這份無形的力量，便是真理本身的光芒，它透過我的筆，試圖喚醒沉睡的靈魂。」
