頭尾

“De balena vero sufficit, si rex habeat caput, et regina caudam.” ...the King, as Honorary Grand Harpooneer, must have the head, and the Queen be respectfully presented with the tail. A division which, in the whale, is much like halving an apple; there is no intermediate remainder. ...it is here treated of in a separate chapter, on the same courteous principle that prompts the English railways to be at the expense of a separate car, specially reserved for the accommodation of royalty.

「論鯨，則：王得其頭、后得其尾，足矣。」——布拉克頓《法》第三卷第三章。這出自《英格蘭法》典籍的拉丁文，連同上下文，意謂：凡任何人在英格蘭海岸捕得的一切鯨，國王作為「榮譽大標槍手（Honorary Grand Harpooneer）」，必得頭，王后則被恭敬地獲贈尾。這種分法，在鯨身上，很像把一個蘋果對半切——沒有中間的餘數。如今這條法律（經修改）至今在英國仍有效；而既然它在多方面就「有主之魚／無主之魚」的通則而言是個奇異的反常（anomaly），便在此另闢一章談——本著同樣的「禮貌原則」：那原則促使英國鐵路自費特設一節專為王室預留的車廂。

...the Cinque Ports are partially or somehow under the jurisdiction of a sort of policeman or beadle, called a Lord Warden. ...all the royal emoluments incident to the Cinque Port territories become by assignment his. By some writers this office is called a sinecure. But not so. Because the Lord Warden is busily employed at times in fobbing his perquisites...

……這「五港同盟（Cinque Ports）」某種程度上歸一個叫「港務勳爵（Lord Warden）」的、警察或教區執事（beadle）之類的人管轄。我相信此職直接受命於王室，五港領地一切附帶的王室收益（emoluments），便由委派而歸他所有。有些作者把這職稱作「閒差（sinecure，坐領乾薪的虛職）」。其實不然。因為這港務勳爵，時常忙著「偷揣他的外快（fobbing his perquisites）」；而那些外快之所以主要成其為他的外快，正是靠這同一個「偷揣」。

Now when these poor sun-burnt mariners... had wearily hauled their fat fish high and dry, promising themselves a good £150... up steps a very learned and most Christian and charitable gentleman, with a copy of Blackstone under his arm; and laying it upon the whale’s head, he says—“Hands off! this fish, my masters, is a Fast-Fish. I seize it as the Lord Warden’s.” Upon this the poor mariners in their respectful consternation—so truly English—knowing not what to say, fall to vigorously scratching their heads all round...

這些可憐的、曬黑的水手，赤著腳、褲管高高捲到他們鰻魚般的小腿上，疲憊地把他們的肥鯨拖上高高的乾岸，盤算著能從那珍貴的油與鯨骨賺到足足 150 鎊；憑著各自的份額，在幻想裡跟妻子品著稀罕的好茶、跟哥們（cronies）喝著好麥酒；這時，一位極博學、最虔誠、最慈善的紳士走上前、腋下夾著一本《布雷克斯通（Blackstone）法學》；他把書往鯨頭上一放、說：「住手！諸位，這條魚是『有主之魚』。我以『港務勳爵』之名沒收它。」聽到這話，可憐的水手們帶著一種恭敬的驚惶——真是太英國了——不知說什麼好，便一個勁兒地團團抓著頭；同時哀傷地把目光從鯨移向那陌生人。

“Please, sir, who is the Lord Warden?” “The Duke.” “But the duke had nothing to do with taking this fish?” “It is his.” ...“Is the Duke so very poor as to be forced to this desperate mode of getting a livelihood?” “It is his.” “I thought to relieve my old bed-ridden mother by part of my share of this whale.” “It is his.” “Won’t the Duke be content with a quarter or a half?” “It is his.”

「請問，先生，誰是港務勳爵？」「公爵。」「可公爵跟捕這條魚毫無關係啊？」「這是他的。」「我們費了大力、冒了險、還花了些錢，難道這一切都歸公爵得利，我們為自己的辛勞除了一手水泡什麼都得不到？」「這是他的。」「公爵竟窮到非得用這種絕望的方式來討生活嗎？」「這是他的。」「我本想用我這份鯨的一部分，救濟我那臥床不起的老母親。」「這是他的。」「公爵就不肯只要四分之一、或一半嗎？」「這是他的。」

In a word, the whale was seized and sold, and his Grace the Duke of Wellington received the money. ...an honest clergyman of the town respectfully addressed a note to his Grace, begging him to take the case of those unfortunate mariners into full consideration. To which my Lord Duke in substance replied... that he had already done so, and received the money, and would be obliged to the reverend gentleman if for the future he... would decline meddling with other people’s business. Is this the still militant old man... on all hands coercing alms of beggars?

一句話，這鯨被沒收、賣掉，威靈頓公爵閣下（his Grace the Duke of Wellington）收了那筆錢。鎮上一位老實的牧師，覺得這案子從某些角度看、在當時的情形下，或許有那麼一丁點兒勉強可算是「相當嚴苛的一樁」，便恭敬地寫了張便箋給公爵閣下，懇請他充分體恤那些不幸水手的處境。公爵閣下大意回覆道（兩封信都公開發表了）：他已經充分體恤過了、也收了那筆錢，並說，若這位牧師先生日後肯不再「多管別人的閒事（meddling with other people's business）」，他將不勝感激。——這就是那位仍好戰的（militant）老人嗎？——站在三個王國的角落、四面八方向乞丐強索施捨（coercing alms）？

...the alleged right of the Duke to the whale was a delegated one from the Sovereign. We must needs inquire then on what principle the Sovereign is originally invested with that right. ...Says Plowdon, the whale so caught belongs to the King and Queen, “because of its superior excellence.” And by the soundest commentators this has ever been held a cogent argument in such matters.

顯然可見，本案中公爵對鯨那「所謂的權利」，是從君主（Sovereign）那兒委授（delegated）來的。那麼我們就不得不追問：君主最初是憑什麼原則被賦予此權的？法律本身已陳述過了。但普勞登（Plowdon）給了我們它的理由。普勞登說，這樣捕得的鯨歸國王與王后所有，「因為牠卓越超群（because of its superior excellence）」。而最可靠的註釋家們，向來認為這在此類事情上是個有力的論證。

But why should the King have the head, and the Queen the tail? ...“Ye tail is ye Queen’s, that ye Queen’s wardrobe may be supplied with ye whalebone.” ...But this same bone is not in the tail; it is in the head, which is a sad mistake for a sagacious lawyer like Prynne. But is the Queen a mermaid, to be presented with a tail? An allegorical meaning may lurk here.

但為什麼國王得頭、王后得尾？——律師們，給個理由吧！一位古老的王座法庭作者、威廉·普林（William Prynne），在他論「后金（Queen-Gold）」、即王后私房錢的文章裡，如此論道（discourseth）：「尾巴是王后的，好讓王后的衣櫥能補充鯨鬚（whalebone）。」這寫於格陵蘭鯨（即露脊鯨）那黑而柔韌的骨、大量用於女士束腰（bodices）的年代。但這同一種骨並不在尾巴裡、而在頭裡——對普林這樣一位精明的（sagacious）律師，這真是個可悲的錯誤。再說，王后難道是條美人魚，要送她一條尾巴？這裡或許潛藏著某種寓意（allegorical meaning）。

There are two royal fish so styled by the English law writers—the whale and the sturgeon... I know not that any other author has hinted of the matter; but by inference it seems to me that the sturgeon must be divided in the same way as the whale, the King receiving the highly dense and elastic head peculiar to that fish, which, symbolically regarded, may possibly be humorously grounded upon some presumed congeniality. And thus there seems a reason in all things, even in law.

有兩種被英國法律作者稱為「王室之魚（royal fish）」的——鯨與鱘魚（sturgeon）；兩者在某些限制下都是王室財產，名義上構成王室常規歲入的第十項。我不知道有沒有別的作者提過此事；但由推斷，我覺得鱘魚想必也與鯨同樣地分——國王得那魚特有的、那高度緻密而有彈性的頭；象徵地看，這或許可以幽默地建立在某種假定的「性情相投（congeniality）」之上。如此說來，萬事似乎都有個理由——即使在法律裡。