重构基督教传统

专门研究19世纪英国的历史学家基特森·克拉克（Kitson Clark）曾经指出，19世纪英国“国民生活在很大程度上受到宗教主张的影响，人们以宗教之名能行使巨大权力”，其程度几乎再没有另一个时代可比拟。 ^[162] 另一英国历史学家斯特凡·科里尼（Stefan Collini）亦认为，身处于世俗时代的我们往往轻易“低估了19世纪宗教和信仰的强大力量和广泛性”，他提醒我们，事实上“19世纪的许多重大智识争论要么直接与宗教有关，要么由于它对宗教信仰可能造成的影响而更加受到重视”。 ^[163] 除了动物虐待的问题，围绕演化论的争议也是一个典型例子。相关争议能在19世纪后期的英国社会掀起持续的大风浪，正是由于人们认为宗教和人道对待动物之间有着密切的联系。宗教在当时的英国国民的公共和私人生活中，拥有巨大的权威和力量。因此，为追求各种目标而积极动员基督教传统的动保运动所产生的文化影响不容忽视。诚然，19世纪动保事业的进步和巩固不能仅仅归因于对基督教传统的挪用，但基督教确实在将近一整个世纪的时间里充当了无数运动者身份认同、正当性和灵感的主要来源，动保事业大半的成就依然得归功于它。此外，基督徒运动者通过以基督教之名发言，诉诸国民的道德良知，全面挪用基督教传统中所有能与当时文化产生共鸣的神学、道德、情感和修辞资源，又利用家长制、民族主义、“道德帝国主义”（moral imperialism）等与当时英国政策相符的主流意识形态，不仅有效地为人道对待动物的主张建立了意识形态基础，并且成功地把善待动物提升为现代英国身份认同的特色之一。

话虽如此，动物保护运动从来就不是完全由基督徒主导，也不是仅仅依靠基督教传统来进行动员工作的。接下来，我们会探讨自19世纪后期开始，抱持不同宗教信仰和政治信念的运动者，如何同样挪用了与自己最密切相关的传统资源，来对动保运动产生显著的影响。

注释

[1] 故事被引用于“Facts and Scraps: The Force of Religion,” The Voice of Humanity , 3(1832), p.75。同时亦在以下文献中被引用或提及：W. H. Drummond, Humanity to Animals: The Christian’s Duty; A Discourse (London: Hunter, 1830), p.45; John Dent, The Pleasures of Benevolence; A Poem (London: Hunter, 1835); Rod Preece and Chien-hui Li eds., William Drummond’s The Rights of Animals and Man’s Obligation to Treat Them with Humanity (1838) (Lewiston: Edwin Mellen Press, 2005), p.223; Abraham Smith, A Scriptural and Moral Catechism Designed to Inculcate the Love and Practice of Mercy, and to Expose the Exceeding Sinfulness of Cruelty to the Dumb Creation (London: SPCA, 1839), pp.62—63; James Macaulay, Essay on Cruelty to Animals (Edinburgh: John Johnstone, 1839), pp.132—133。

[2] 参见Lynn White,“The Historical Roots of Our Ecological Crisis,” Science , 155 (1967),pp.1203—1207; Peter Singer, Animal Liberation (London: Pimlico, 2nd ed., 1995),pp.189—212; Steven M. Wise, Rattling the Cage: Towards Legal Rights for Animals (London: Profile Books, 2001), pp.10—22; Andrew Linzey, Animal Rights: A Christian Assessment of Man’s Treatment of Animals (London: SCM Press, 1976); Andrew Linzey, Christianity and the Rights of Animals (London: SPCK, 1987)。关于挑战此主流看法的作品，参见Rod Preece, Animals and Nature: Culture Myths, Culture Realities (Vancouver: University of British Columbia Press, 1999)。越来越多学者观察到这种观点的局限性，因而转向基督教寻求有助于构建“动物友善”神学的资源和灵感，参见Andrew Linzey, Animal Theology (London: SCM Press, 1994); Andrew Linzey and Dorothy Yamamoto eds., Animals on the Agenda: Questions about Animals for Theology and Ethics (London: SCM Press, 1998); Andrew Linzey and Dan Cohn-Sherbok, After Noah (London: Mowbray, 1997); S. H. Webb, On God and Dogs: A Christian Theology of Compassion for Animals (Oxford: Oxford University Press,1998); David L. Clough, On Animals: Volume 1 Systematic Theology (London: T& T Clark, 2012); David L. Clough, On Animals: Volume 2 Theological Ethics (London: T& T Clark, 2017); Waldau and Kimberley Patton eds. A Communion of Subjects: Animals in Religion, Science & Ethics (New York: Columbia University Press, 2006)。

[3] 本书使用“动物保护运动”“反残酷运动”或“动物捍卫运动”来涵盖所有关于救助动物的运动以及反动物实验运动。为忠实反映当时人们所采用的术语和范畴，本书同样依照当时用法来使用“受造动物”“野蛮动物”“无理性的受造物”或“动物”之类的词语。然而，在不特别提及某历史人物或人群的观点时，本书则简单地采用“动物”一词来指除人类以外的一切动物。

[4] David Englander,“The Word and the World: Evangelicalism in the Victorian City,”in Gerald Parsons ed., Religion in Victorian Britain , Vol.2, Controversies (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), pp.14—38, at p.18.

[5] 参见Alex Owen, The Place of Enchantment: British Occultism and the Culture of the Modern (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004), pp.1—16; S. J. D. Green, Religion in the Age of Decline: Organisation and Experience in Industrial Yorkshire, 1870—1920 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1996) pp.1—30; Jacqueline De Vries and Sue Morgan eds., Women, Gender and Religious Cultures in Britain,1800—1940 (London: Routledge, 2010); Simon Skinner,“Religion,”in David Craig and James Thompson eds., Languages of Politics in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2013), pp.93—117。

[6] 参见 Report of the Society for Preventing Wanton Cruelty to Brute Animals (Liverpool: Egerton Smith, 1809)。

[7] “理性人道对待受造动物促进会”出版了季刊《人道之声》（ The Voice of Humanity ），到1832年至少已有四个地方分会，并于同年与“防止虐待动物协会”合并。

[8] “动物之友协会”出版了刊物《动物之友》，又称《人道进展》（ Progress of Humanity ）。本书使用后者以区别于另一本在1894年创刊，同名为《动物之友》的期刊。

[9] “（皇家）防止虐待动物协会”提出的动物虐待诉讼从首年的100宗增加到19世纪末的平均每年5 000宗。参见B. Harrison, Peaceable Kingdom (Oxford: Clarendon,1982), pp.82—122。

[10] 关于福音主义及其对维多利亚社会的影响，参见Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Socialand Economic Thought, 1785—1865 (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1988); J. Wolffe, God and Greater Britain: Religion and National Life in Britain and Ireland 1843—1945 (London: Routledge, 1995), pp.20—30; D. W. Bebbington, Evangelicalism in Modern Britain: A History from the 1730s to the 1980s (London: Unwin Hyman, 1989)。

[11] 关于当时英国风俗改革和道德改革传统，参见J. Innes,“Politics and Morals: The Reformation of Manners Movement in Later Eighteenth-century England,”in E. Hellmuth ed., The Transformation of Political Culture: England and Germany in the Late Eighteenth Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1990), pp.57—118; Alan Hunt, Governing Morals: A Social History of Moral Regulation (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999); M. J. D. Roberts, Making English Morals: Voluntary Association and Moral Reform in England, 1787—1886 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)。

[12] E. G. Fairholme and W. Pain, A Century of Work for Animals (London: J. Murray,1924), p.55.

[13] A Report of the Proceedings at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Promoting Rational Humanity Toward the Animal Creation (London, 1832), p.16.

[14] An Address to the Public from the Society for the Suppression of Vice, Part the Second (London, 1803), p.91.动物虐待个案只是该协会起诉工作的一小部分，在协会第一年促成的678起定罪之中，有超过600起是关于违反安息日的，只有4起与虐待动物有关。

[15] Herald of Humanity , Mar.1844, p.2（按：此为当时的运动刊物而非学术刊物，故无卷期资料）；“Bartholomew Fair,” Voice of Humanity , 1 (1830), p.54.

[16] A Report of the Proceedings at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Promoting Rational Humanity Toward the Animal Creation (London, 1832), p.13.另参见 RSPCA Annual Report, 1832 , p.13。

[17] Report of an Extra Meeting of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. (London: SPCA, 1832), p.4.

[18] Thomas Greenwood,“On National Cruelty,” The Voice of Humanity , 1 (1830),pp.146—147.

[19] 参见“Appendix to the Prospectus of the Animals’Friend Society,” Progress of Humanity ,1 (1833), pp.20—21; Progress of Humanity , 1 (1833), pp.7—9。

[20] A Report of the Proceedings at the Annual Meeting of the Association for Promoting Rational Humanity Toward the Animal Creation (London, 1832), p.13.

[21] 例如，“防止虐待动物协会”的工作有好一段时间仍然主要局限在大伦敦地区，但“动物之友协会”在1841年时已经设立了十个分会，扩展到多佛、坎特伯雷、格雷夫森德、伯明翰、沃尔索尔、布里斯托尔、雅茅斯、布莱顿、诺维奇和曼彻斯特等地方，而且“动物之友协会”也会更一视同仁地谴责社会各阶层的动虐行为。

[22] 参见 Herald of Humanity , Mar 31. 1844, pp.1—2, 16。

[23] RSPCA Annual Report, 1835 , p.39.

[24] 例如，“理性人道对待受造动物促进会”的组织成员包括了不少圣公会牧师，其秘书之职则由另一教派卫斯理公会的周报（ Christian Advocate ）副主编J.W.格林（J. W. Green）担任。

[25] L. Gompertz, Objects and Address of the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (London: SPCA, 1829), p.6.

[26] 贡珀兹仍担任“防止虐待动物协会”秘书时，曾控告“理性人道对待受造动物促进会”的约翰·路德·芬纳（John Ludd Fenner）侵吞了本应给予协会的捐款。参见 Remarks of the Proceedings of the Voice of Humanity and the Association for Promoting Rational Humanity to the Animal Creation (London, n.d., tract circulated by the AFS), pp.2—5。

[27] Progress of Humanity, 1 (1833), p.6;“Letter of An Hindo to His Friend,” Progress of Humanity, 3 (1835), reprinted in Gompertz, Fragments in Defence of Animals , p.109.

[28] 参见Best,“Evangelicalism and the Victorians,”p.38。

[29] RSPCA Annual Report, 1838 , p.55.

[30] 关于曾引用此经文的布道，参见J. Granger, An Apology for the Brute Creation, or Abuse of Animals Censured (London: printed for T. Davies; and Sold by J. Bew, 1774),p.5; On Cruelty to Animals (London: Tract Association of the Society of Friends,1856), p.4; John Dent, Bull Baiting! A Sermon on Barbarity to God’s Dumb Creation (Reading: Smart and Cowslade, 1801); Thomas Moore, The Sin and Folly of Cruelty to Brute Animals: A Sermon (Birmingham: J. Belcher and Son, 1810), p.1。

[31] T. Greenwood,“The Existing and Predicted State of the Inferior Creatures, a Sermon,” The Voice of Humanity , 2 (1831), p.149.

[32] Rod Preece and Chien-hui Li eds., William Drummond’s The Rights of Animals (1838) ,pp.27—28.

[33] Rod Preece and Chien-hui Li eds., William Drummond’s The Rights of Animals (1838) ,p.28.

[34] H. Primatt, A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals (Fontwell, Sussex, 1992 [1776]), p.29.

[35] E. G. Fairholme and W. Pain, A Century of Work for Animals , p.10.普莱马特的著作在1822年、1823年和1834年数度再次发行。

[36] John Hunt, The Relation Between Man and the Brute Creation: A Sermon (London: Whittaker and Co., 1865), p.6.

[37] 参见Thomas Moore, The Sin and Folly of Cruelty to Brute Animals: A Sermon (Birmingham: J. Belcher and Son, 1810), p.6; H. Primatt, A Dissertation on the Duty of Mercy and Sin of Cruelty to Brute Animals , Chapter 3。

[38] “皇家防止虐待动物协会”于1883年替“怜悯小团”会议设计的奖牌，就刻上了经文“如你父般怜悯”（Be Merciful After Thy Power）。

[39] “防止虐待动物协会”所印制的传单，“On the Folly of Supposing Dumb Animals to Have No Feeling,”in RSPCA Annual Report, 1837 , pp.104—105; Short Stories No.3. On Cruelty to Animals (London: SPCA, 1837)。

[40] 19世纪上半叶的反残酷文学中经常引用《箴言》12：10的经文：“义人顾惜牲畜的性命”。参见 RSPCA Annual Report , 1832, p.5; Henry Crowe, Animadversions on Cruelty to the Brute Creation, Addressed Chiefly to the Lower Classes (Bath: J. Browne, 1825), title page。

[41] “防止虐待动物协会”所印制的传单，“An Address to the Drivers of Omnibuses and Other Public Carriages,”in RSPCA Annual Report, 1837 , pp.113—114, at p.114。

[42] Anon, Short Stories. Awful Instances of God’s Immediate Judgement for Cruelty to Brute Creation (London: SPCA, 1837).

[43] Abraham Smith, Scriptural and Moral Catechism Designed to Inculcate the Love and Practice of Mercy , pp.59—60.

[44] Short Stories No.3. On Cruelty to Animals , p.1.

[45] 关于19世纪基督教末世论和福音派神学的发展，参见Geoffrey Rowell, Hell and the Victorians: A Study of the Nineteenth-Century Theological Controversies Concerning Eternal Punishment and the Future Life (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974); Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Socialand Economic Thought, 1785—1865 。

[46] 例如，福音派对自然神学中各派思想的态度远非一致。不少人曾指出对自然的研究未必足以回应福音派信仰中的一些核心元素（如赎罪和救赎），而且多数基督徒都不会依靠它来证明上帝之存在。参见Aileen Fyfe, Science and Salvation: Evangelical Popular Science Publishing in Victorian Britain (Chicago: Chicago University Press, 2004), pp.7—8; Jonathan R. Topham,“Science, Natural Theology, and Evangelicalism in Early Nineteenth-Century Scotland,”in David N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart, and Mark A. Noll eds., Evangelical and Science in Historical Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999), pp.142—174。

[47] J. Styles, The Animal Creation: Its Claims on Our Humanity Stated and Enforced (London: Thomas Ward and Co., 1839), pp.71, 109, 112.

[48] Samuel Sharp, An Essay in Condemnation of Cruelty to Animals (London: Messrs. Simpkin, Marshall and Co., 1851), p.1.

[49] “Late Royal Patronage of Educational Measures for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,” The Animal World , Sep.1872, p.195.

[50] “Late Royal Patronage of Educational Measures for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals,”p.195.

[51] RSPCA Annual Report, 1851 , p.24.

[52] 关于“帝国托管者”（imperial trusteeship）的思想，参见C. C. Eldridge, England’s Mission: The Imperial Idea in the Age of Gladstone and Disraeli 1865—1880 (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 1973)。

[53] Charlton [Hon. Mrs.], Toilers and Toll at the Outposts of Empire (London: RSPCA,1911), p.2.

[54] 关于印度殖民时期的动保团体与大英帝国机器之间的关系分析，参见Janet M. Davis, The Gospel of Kindness: Animal Welfare & the Making of Modern America (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2016), pp.160—167。

[55] RSPCA Annual Report, 1918 , p.158.

[56] RSPCA Annual Report, 1885 , p.84.

[57] RSPCA Annual Report, 1907 , pp.51—73.

[58] 关于女王的周年纪念如何作为一种帝国盛事，参见David Cannadine, Ornamentalism: How the British Saw Their Empire (London: Penguin, 2001), Chapter 8。

[59] “The Lamented Decease of the Queen,” The Animal World , Feb.1901, p.18.

[60] 更多有关反动物实验的相关争议，参见L. G. Stevenson,“Religious Elements in the Background of the British Anti-Vivisection Movement,” Yale Journal of Biology and Medicine , 29 (1956), pp.125—157; R. French, Anti-vivisection and Medical Science in Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975); C. Lansbury, The Old Brown Dog: Women, Workers, and Vivisection in Edwardian England (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1985); N. A. Rupke ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Croom Helm, 1987)。有关19世纪英国实验生理学和医学发展，参见Gerald L. Geison, Michael Foster and the Cambridge School of Physiology: The Scientific Enterprise in Late Victorian Society (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978); Andrew Cunningham and Perry Williams eds., The Laboratory Revolution in Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1992); W. E. Bynum, Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994); M. Worboys, The Transformation of Medicine and the Medical Profession in Britain 1860—1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2000)。

[61] 有关这两个法案草案的对比，以及其与最终通过的法案的关系，参见R. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science , pp.112—159; Susan Hamilton,“Introduction,”in Susan Hamilton ed., Anima Welfare & Anti-Vivisection 1870—1910 , Vol.1 (London: Routledge, 2004), pp.xiv—xlvii, at pp.xxiv—xxx; David Allan Feller,“Dog Fight: Darwin as Animal Advocate in the Antivivisection Controversy of 1875,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences , 40, no.4 (2009),pp.265—271。

[62] 关于谢兹柏利伯爵就1876年法案于下议院之发言，参见 Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates , Jul.15, 1879, p.426。

[63] “实验常用动物保护协会”在1881年进行了一项调查，调查动保团体对于动物实验的态度。在给予了回复的69个团体中，超过一半明确表示反对动物实验，有部分团体没有形成共识，只有一个团体持支持动物实验的非官方立场。参见“Prevention of Cruelty Societies and Vivisection,” Zoophilist , Jan.1882, pp.169—171。

[64] 关于反疫苗运动和反动物实验运动与工人阶级对人体实验的恐惧之间的联系，参见Nadja Durbach, Bodily Matters: The Anti-Vaccination Movement in England,1853—1907 (Durham: Duke University Press, 2005); Ian Miller,“Necessary Torture?Vivisection, Suffragette Force-Feeding, and Responses to Scientific Medicine in Britain c. 1870—1920,” Journal of the History of Medicine , 64, no.3 (2009), pp.333—372。

[65] F. Prochaska, Women and Philanthropy in Nineteenth-Century England (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1980), p.243。

[66] R. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science , p.239.

[67] 关于妇女在反动物实验运动中的参与，参见Mary Ann Elston,“Women and Anti-Vivisection in Victorian England, 1870—1900,”in N. A. Nupke ed., Vivisection in Historical Perspective (London: Routledge, 1987), pp.159—294; Diana Donald, Women Against Cruelty: Animal Protection in Nineteenth-Century Britain (Manchester: Manchester University Press, forthcoming in 2019)。

[68] W. E. Bynum, Science and the Practice of Medicine in the Nineteenth Century , p.114.

[69] J. Verschoyle,“The True Party of Progress,” Zoophilist , Jan.1884, p.232.

[70] Walter E. Houghton, The Victorian Frame of Mind, 1830—1870 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1957), p.67.

[71] 此说法出自莫里斯.曼德尔鲍姆（Maurice Mandelbaum），引自James R. Moore,“Theodicy and Society: The Crisis of the Intelligentsia,”in Richard J. Helmstadter and Bernard Lightman eds., Victorian Faith in Crisis: Essays on Continuity and Change in Nineteenth-Century Religious Belief (London: Macmillan, 1990), pp.153—186, at p.154。

[72] J. L. Altholz,“The Warfare of Conscience with Theology,”in Gerald Parsons ed., Religion in Victorian Britain, Volume IV Interpretations (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1988), pp.150—169.

[73] Jonathan Parry, Democracy and Religion: Gladstone and the Liberal Party, 1867—1875 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1986), p.5.关于19世纪宗教在政治中的中心地位，参见Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Socialand Economic Thought, 1785—1865 。

[74] “Cobbe’s letter to the editor,” Home Chronicler , Sep.16, 1876, p.201.

[75] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates , May 22, 1876, p.1021.

[76] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates , Jul.15, 1879, p.434.

[77] Zoophilist , Mar.1896, p.322.

[78] Zoophilist , Mar.1896, p.328.

[79] Zoophilist , Apr.1897, p.212.

[80] Zoophilist , Mar.1899, p.219.

[81] Against Vivisection: Verbatim Report of the Speeches at the Great Public Demonstration (London: LAVS, 1899), p.26.

[82] F. P. Cobbe,“Miss Frances Power Cobbe on‘Lesser Measures,’” Zoophilist , Feb.1898, p.171.

[83] “Our Cause and the Moral Law,” Abolitionist , Jul.15, 1902, pp.39—41, at p.40.

[84] Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Socialand Economic Thought, 1785—1865 .

[85] S. Collini, Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain (Oxford: Clarendon, 1991), pp.60—90; J. F. C. Harrison, Late Victorian Britain 1875—1901 (London: Fontana, 1990), pp.120—130.

[86] H. N. Oxenham, Moral and Religious Estimate of Vivisection (London: John Hodges,1878), p.13.

[87] “The Pulpit: Vivisection and Christianity,” Abolitionist , Apr.1902, p.51.

[88] Man’s Relation to the Lower Animals, Viewed from the Christian Standpoint (London: CAVL, n.d.), p.12.

[89] F. O. Morris, The Cowardly Cruelty of the Experiments on Animals (London: n.p.,1890); Ouida,“The Culture of Cowardice,” Humane ReviewI , 1 (1900—1901), pp.110—119.

[90] S. Collini, Public Moralists: Political Thought and Intellectual Life in Britain , pp.60—90.

[91] “The British Institute at Chelsea,” Zoophilist , Aug.1898, p.72.

[92] R. Barrett,“May a Christian Tolerate Cruelty?” Home Chronicler , Jul.6, 1878, p.11.

[93] C. Adams, The Coward Science: Our Answer to Prof. Owen (London: Hatchards,1882), pp.196, 228—229.

[94] Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates , Jul.15, 1879, p.430.

[95] F. P. Cobbe,“Mr. Lowe and the Vivisection Act,” Contemporary Review , 29 (1876—1877), p.347.

[96] 引用自Edward Berdoe, An Address on the Attitude of the Christian Church Towards Vivisection (London: VSS, 1891), p.5。

[97] Zoophilist , Jun.1901, p.10.

[98] Boyd Hilton, The Age of Atonement: The Influence of Evangelicalism on Socialand Economic Thought, 1785—1865 , pp.5—6.

[99] J. F. C. Harrison, Late Victorian Britain 1875—1901 , p.126.

[100] “Annual Meeting of the LAVS,” Animals’Guardian , Jun.1893, pp.150—164, at p.156.

[101] J. D. Coleridge,“The Nineteenth Century Defenders of Vivisection,” Fortnightly Review , 31 (1882), p.236.

[102] “Our Cause in the Pulpit,” Zoophilist , Jun.1891, p.27.关于贵格派反动物实验人士为何也采用相同方式提问，参见Halye Rose Glaholt,“Vivisection as War: The‘Moral Disease’of Animal Experimentation and Slavery in British Victorian Quaker Pacifist Ethics,” Society and Animals, 20 (2012), pp.154—172, at pp.162—163。

[103] “From the Battlefield,” Animals’Friend , Sep.1894, pp.40—42, at p.42.

[104] Diana Donald, P icturing Animals in Britain, 1750—1850 (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007).

[105] “Christ in the Laboratory,” Animals’Guardian , May 1902, p.57.

[106] Robert Buchanan,“The City without God,” The Monthly Record and Animals’Guardian , Jun.1901, pp.66—67.

[107] Ella Wheeler Wilcox,“Christ Crucified,”in Poems by Ella Wheeler Wilcox (London: Gay & Hancock, 1913), pp.106—108, at p.108.关于另外两首同样描写基督和受苦动物的诗，参见 Animal Guardian , Jun.1909, p.105。

[108] H. N. Oxenham, Moral and Religious Estimate of Vivisection , p.11.

[109] 更多有关科学自然主义的资料，参见Frank Turner, Between Religion and Science: the Reaction to Scientific Naturalism in Late Victorian England (London: Yale University Press, 1974); Frank Turner, Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1993); Bernard Lightman, Evolutionary Naturalism in Victorian Britain: The“Darwinians”and Their Critics (Farnham: Ashgate, 2009); Gowan Dawson and Bernard Lightman eds., Victorian Scientific Naturalism: Community, Identity and Continuity (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2014); Bernard Lightman and Michael S. Reidy eds., The Age of Scientific Naturalism: Tyndall and His Contemporaries (London: Pickering& Chatto, 2014)。

[110] Frank Turner, Contesting Cultural Authority: Essays in Victorian Intellectual Life ,pp.197—198, 201—228; Ruth Barton,“Huxley, Lubbock, and Half a Dozen Others: Professional and Gentlemen in the Formation of the X Club, 1851—1864,” Isis , 89,no.3 (1998), pp.410—444.

[111] Bernard Lightman,“Science and Culture,”in Francis O’Gorman ed., The Cambridge Companion to Victorian Culture (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010),pp.12—60.

[112] 关于反动物实验运动对迅速发展中的科学、医学专业以及伴随而来的科学自然主义意识形态的更多批评，参见R. French, Antivivisection and Medical Science ,pp.220—372。

[113] James R. Moore, Post-Darwinian Controversies: A Study of the Protestant Struggle to Come to Terms with Darwin in Great Britain and America, 1870—1900 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1979); J. H. Brooke, Science and Religion: Some Historical Perspectives (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991); Bernard Lightman,“Victorian Sciences and Religion: Discordant Harmonies,” Osiris , 16(2001), pp.343—366; D. N. Livingstone, D. G. Hart and M. A. Noll eds. Evangelicals and Science in Historical Perspective (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1999).

[114] “The Twentieth Annual Report of the Victorian Street Society,” Zoophilist , Jul.1895,p.205.

[115] “Professor F. W. Newman‘On Cruelty,’in‘Fraser’s Magazine,’April, 1876,” Home Chronicler , Jul.29, 1876, pp.90—91, at p.90; 亦见于H. N. Oxenham, Moral and Religious Estimate of Vivisection , p.19。

[116] “Vivisection Meeting at Shrewsbury,” Home Chronicler , Oct.27, 1877, pp.1130—1132, at p.1130.

[117] Francis Galton, English Men of Science: Their Nature and Nurture (London: Macmillan, 1874), pp.259—260.

[118] Zoophilist and Animals’Defende r, Jun.1902, p.34.

[119] 关于著名运动人士安娜·金斯福德如何生动地运用此比喻，参见Samuel Hopgood Hart ed., Anna Kingsford: Her Life, Letters, Diary and Work. By Her Collaborator Edward Maitland, Vol.I, 3rd ed (London: J.M. Watkins, 1913), p.261;“Professor Michael Foster on Vivisection,” Verulam Review , Oct.1894, pp.303—307。

[120] “London: Church Anti-Vivisection League,” Zoophilist , Jul.1901, p.84.

[121] “Cobbe’s letter to the editor”, Home Chronicler , Sep.16, 1801.

[122] F. P. Cobbe,“The New Morality,”in The Modern Rack: Papers on Vivisection (London: Swan Sonnenschein, 1889), p.65—69, at p.65.

[123] Colonel Osborn, Colonel Osborn on Christianity and Modern Science (London: VSS,1891(?)), p.2.

[124] Stephen Coleridge, Great Testimony against Scientific Cruelty (London: Bodley Head,1918), p.vi.

[125] F. P. Cobbe,“Magnanimous Atheism,”in The Peak in Darien (Boston: Geo. H. Ellis,1882), pp.9—74, at pp.50—51.

[126] Stephen Coleridge, The Idolatry of Science (London: John Lane, 1920), pp.7, 93.

[127] “A Portrait,” Zoophilist , Feb.1882, pp.179—181, at p.179.

[128] F. P. Cobbe, The Scientific Spirit of the Age, and Other Pleas and Discussions (Boston: G.H. Ellis, 1888), p.12.

[129] Zoophilist , Aug.1902, p.93.

[130] The Place of Pasteur in Medicine , 8, in“Pamphlets 1876—1927,”U DBV/25/3, BUAV Archives, University of Hull.另参见 The Scientist at the Bedside (written by an M. D) (London: VSS, 1887)。关于“以病人为本”运动的更多资料，参见Roy Porter ed., The Cambridge History of Medicine (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006), pp.123—126。

[131] Cobbe,“Hygeiolatry,”in The Peak in Darien (Boston: Geo. H. Ellism, 1882), pp.9—74, at p.78.

[132] Zoophilist , Jun.1902, p.34.

[133] L. I. Lumsden, An Address given at the Fourth Annual Meeting of the Scottish Branch of the National Anti-Vivisection Society (London: NAVS, n.d), p.6.

[134] Zoophilist , Jun.1896, p.20.

[135] Ruth Barton,“Evolution: The Whitworth Gun in Huxley’s War for the Liberation of Science from Theology,”in David Oldroyd and Ian Lanham eds., The Wider Domain of Evolutionary Theory (Dordrecht, Holland: D. Reidel, 1983), pp.261—287, at p.262.

[136] 见本书第五章。

[137] Egerton Smith,“Prospectus of the Late Association for Promoting Rational Humanity Towards the Animal Creation,”in Elysium of Animals: A Dream (London: J. Nisbet,1836), p.1; RSPCA First Minute Book, 1824—1832 , p.113; The Voice of Humanity , 2(1831), p.149.

[138] T. Greenwood,“The Existing and Predicted State of the Inferior Creatures, a Sermon,”p.149.

[139] J. Granger, An Apology for the Brute Creation, or Abuse of Animals Censured , p.28.

[140] The Voice of Humanity , 2 (1831), p.21.

[141] RSPCA Annual Report, 1896 , p.125.

[142] RSPCA Annual Report , 1897 , p.126.

[143] 此统计结果源自“皇家防止虐待动物协会”的干部名单，参见“Appendix IV. Branches and office bearers,” RSPCA Annual Report, 1889 , lv—lxx。

[144] “Kindness to Animals,” Times , Jul.4, 1898, p.11.

[145] “Kindness to Animals,”Jul.7, 1903, p.15.

[146] RSPCA Annual Report, 1892 , p.139.

[147] Zoophilist , Nov.1897, p.130.

[148] Zoophilist , Apr.1896, p.333.

[149] F. P. Cobbe, Life of Frances Power Cobbe as Told by Herself (London: S. Sonneschein & Co., 1904), p.675.

[150] F. P. Cobbe, The Churches and Moral Questions (London: VSS, 1889), p.5.

[151] C. Dunkley ed., The Official Report of the Church Congress, Held at Folkestone, 1892 (London: Bemrose & Sons, 1892), p.440.

[152] “The Church Congress,” Times , Oct.7, 1892, p.6;“Experiments Upon Living Animals,” Times , Oct.25, 1892, p.2.

[153] Frank Turner,“The Victorian Crisis of Faith and the Faith That Was Lost,”in R. J. Helmstadter and B. Lightman eds., Victorian Faith in Crisis (Basingstoke: Macmillan,1990), pp.3—98, at pp.13—17.

[154] J. D. Coleridge,“The Nineteenth Century Defenders of Vivisection,”p.236.

[155] “Vivisection Denounced,” Zoophilist , May 1913, p.10.

[156] “Vivisection Denounced,”p.10.

[157] “A Bishop on Vivisection,” Zoophilist , Mar.1911, p.174; Edward Berdoe,“Progressive Morality,” Zoophilist , Jan.1914, pp.140—141; Stephen Coleridge,“Dr. Randall Davidson, Archbishop of Canterbury,” Zoophilist , Oct.1912, p.94.

[158] Sidney Trist, De Profundis: An Open Letter (London: LAVS, 1911), pp.13—14.

[159] 就工作方针而言，更恰当地说，两大阵营之间的区别应是“渐进主义者vs.即时主义者”（gradualists vs. immediatists）。即使是致力于修订1876年法案的“全国反动物实验协会”和“反动物实验与动物捍卫联盟”，亦没有放弃将彻底废除动物实验作为其不可动摇的最终目标。本书英文版的封面图片取自“反动物实验与动物捍卫联盟”的刊物《反动物实验评论》（ The Anti-vivisection Review ），恰恰表达了当时大多数反动物实验团体的共同目标：箭靶圆心是完全废除动物实验，中间圈是限制动物实验，外圈则是反对一切动物虐待，尽管它们彼此间存有歧异。关于反动物实验团体的分裂和相关争议，参见Stephen Coleridge,“The Aim and Policy of the National Anti-Vivisection Society,” Zoophilist , Oct.1900, pp.138—139; F. P. Cobbe, The Fallacy of Restriction Applied to Vivisection (London: VSS, n.d.); V. W.,“Half a Loaf,” Zoophilist , Aug.1902, p.70。

[160] F. P. Cobbe,“Miss Frances Power Cobbe on‘Lesser Measures,’”p.171.

[161] [editorial]“Abolition and Christian Duty,” Abolitionist , Apr.1899, pp.6—8, at p.8.

[162] G. Kitson Clark, The Making of Victorian England (London: Routledge, 1962), p.20.

[163] Stefan Collini, Matthew Arnold: A Critical Portrait (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 2008),p.93. UU/07T5JB5QbWVlhEOYQKqKa83aznoq0i1gatw5k34M7PQwx4LNBWRrAy7lKlBEw