Text 1

From

Personal Names

by George R. Stewart

   Do you know the principal source of tradition for naming habits among Americans? How did the Indians and Negroes come by their family names? Why did immigrants take Americanized names? The following discusses these issues.

   In an anthropological account of any tribe, the manner of its giving of personal names is often thought of sufficient importance or inclusion, and so we may fittingly attempt an appraisal of such habits among the Americans.

   Names are a part of language, but they represent a highly specialized part, and so cannot be included under a general discussion. In particular, the influence of later immigration and of native developments has been of much more importance for our names than for our language in general.

   In our naming habits, as in so much else, we inherit the English tradition, although this differs little from that of Europe in general. In this English tradition, as it was established during the Middle Ages and well before any settlement of America, a personal name was dual, consisting of a given and a family name, in that order. A king or nobleman, or rarely someone of lower rank, might bear more than one given name. But among the kids of people who migrated to America what has later come to be called a "middle" name was so rare as to be almost non-existent. One of the very few examples to be cited is the curiously named Edward Maria Wingfield, first president of the council at Jamestown.
   Since from the beginning the immigrants bore family names and since those names were already hereditary, the early colonists merely kept the names that they already had, and there is little to be told. The question has been raised, however, whether all of the early English immigrants actually had family names. Such an idea might be suggested by the entry "old Edward" in one of the first Jamestown lists. More likely, however, he actually had a family name, and it was omitted carelessly from the list, or forgotten, after he was dead. More commonly we find people entered only by the family name, as in a Jamestown list of 1608, where even two boys are recorded as Milman and Hellyard, not by their given names. Quite possibly, a few English waifs and strays, especially those of illegitimate birth, came to America, lacking or not knowing their family names. If so, they must soon have taken ordinary names, and did not produce any particularly American flavor.

  The only two large groups that have actually had to take family names while on our soil are the Indians and the Negroes. The Indians usually bore but a single name, although this was often long and detailed in description. They tended, however, to adopt the naming habits along with other European customs. If an Indian was converted, he might take a baptismal or Christian name, and then bear his old one as a family name. Thus we could probably account for Caleb Cheeshahteaumuch, who graduated from Harvard in 1665 and died in the next year. But many Indians simply adopted ordinary American family names. When we read of Jim Thorpe or of Colonel Ely Samuel Parker, we cannot tell from their names that they were Indians. In later times, and doubtless in earlier times too, many of their native names were translated, sometimes in simplified forms. Once translated and simplified, such a formerly colorful name tended to become commonplace. Thus an Indian whose name meant "Talking-Crow" might have his name translated and be baptized John, and thus become John Talking Crow. Then his son might be merely William Crow, and would become indistinguishable in a list from anyone of English birth bearing the same family name. An Indian named James Night-Walker could become a mere James Knight Walker. Unfortunately these colourful Indian names seem, on the whole, to be dying out.

   The Negroes, when they came from Africa, had nothing corresponding to a family name. While they remained slaves, they generally had no need for one. Being legally chattels, they did not vote, enter into contracts, testify in court, or do any of the other things for which a full name was demanded. Since they lived in small communities, they did not need two names for distinction, and could be called either by the given name, by a nickname, or by the given name with some distinction, such as "Old Joe", or "Big Jack".

   But if not before freedom, certainly afterward, the Negroes took family names like other people. In fact, we may say that they took them too much "like other people", and instead of using their own exuberant fancy, they seem to have chosen rather the more commonplace ones. Thus Johnson is the commonest Negro name, and after it come Brown, Smith, and Jones. It looks rather as if the Negro tried to efface himself by taking the name which would not bring any attention to him. The old theory that he took the name of his master seems to have little foundation, as is evidenced by the failure of the names of the great slave-holding families to be very common among Negroes.

   Although there is little that can be called a distinctive American creative activity as regards family names, a certain creative process has been at work producing new names from old names by means of radical changes of practically all conceivable kinds. We thus have many names that seem to exist in the United States but not in Europe, such as Yokum, Legree, Goochey, and Lovewear. Only by careful study can a scholar determine that these particular names originated from the German and French names of Joachim, Legare, Gauthier, and Lavoie. Similarly, the frequent shortening of long foreign names has produced new names which presumably never existed in the old countries. From Calogropoulos we have Caloyer; from Kalliokowski, Kallio; from Nieninen, Nieni. Translation has also done its work. Frequently it resulted in nothing new, as when a Zimerman became a Carpenter, or a Jaeger was translated into another Hunter. But when a name was partly translated and partly taken over by sound, the result might be an entirely new name, as when Breitmann became a Brightman.

   The taking of Americanized or partially Americanized names by immigrants is one of our characteristic phenomena. Sometimes this has resulted from a desire to escape from a real or fancied stigma of association with a foreign background. Sometimes it has resulted merely from nuisance of trying to maintain an unusual name. Sometimes, especially in the earlier years, it merely happened because no one knew or cared much how the name was spelled. The taking of names by immigrants, like the taking of names by Negroes, has generally worked toward a leveling. Whether a man is trying to escape into the crowd or to become one of the group, he is likely to choose a common name. For this reason the number of people called by the traditional British names has risen higher in proportion.

   On the other hand, this leveling process has failed to eliminate very many names, and the number of names in Great Britain or any other country. Thus many a German Mueller has become a mere Miller, but some of them still remain, and others have the form Muller; the result is thus three names in the United States.

   The total number of family names in this country has been the subject of a careful study by Elsdon C. Smith, for his Story of Our Names. In the Chicago telephone book he estimated that there were 154 750. In arriving at this figure he counted all variations in spelling. He estimated further that there must be about 350 000 different family names in the whole United States. Even if we divide this figure by three to make allowance for mere variations of spelling, the number remains tremendous.

   With given names, as compared with family names, the Americans have been much more creative. This could be taken for granted. In the vast majority of instances, a man passes his family name to his children without change and without even considering the possibility of change. But someone, commonly a parent, chooses a particular name for each child. Usually this name is a traditional one, but sometimes it may be "made up". Even for traditional names, the storehouse of the past is so jammed with thousands of examples that the problem of choice becomes almost a matter of creation. Therefore, while family names remain stable over generations and through centuries, given names have been subject to fashions and fads, and in the course of a century the "name pattern" of a community may change strikingly.

   Our history of given names can begin with Raleigh's colony of 1587, even though it died out and left no descendants. Among the ninety-nine men and boys of that group the commonest names were John (23), Thomas (15), William (10) , Henry (7), Richard (7), George (3), and Robert (3). From the same colony we have only sixteen women's names preserved, too small a number for good statistics. There was, as it happened, no Mary among them. But there were three Janes, two Elizabeths, and the other names were common enough, such as Agnes, Eleanor, Margaret, and Rose.

   We must, then, return to the list of men to arrive at the name pattern. All the commoner names of these first colonists are in the English tradition. Both John and Thomas are eventually Hebrew, and are from the Bible. John, from the beloved disciple, had been a favorite name for centuries all over Christendom. Thomas, also the name of a disciple, had become a popular and peculiarly English name since the twelfth century, because of the hero-martyr St. Thomas of Canterbury. William, Henry, Richard, and Robert were old Germanic names that had been popularized in England by the Norman conquerors. All except Robert had been borne by English kings, and this had probably helped their popularity. George, a Greek name, owed its place to the fact that St. George had been regarded as the patron saint of England since the fourteenth century. This English tradition of naming was maintained in the southern colonies for a century or more—and, we may add, for women as well as for men.
   A more peculiarly American development arose in the Puritan colonies of New England. Originally, the name pattern did not differ greatly from that of the southern immigrants. The ten commonest names of those coming to Massachusetts were in order: John, William, Thomas, Richard, Robert, Edward, Samuel, George, James, and Francis.

   The appearance of the single Old Testament name of Samuel alone distinguishes this list from the southern one by giving it a slight Old Testament flavor. But the sons of these immigrants bore very different names. The proportion of Biblical names soared upward, especially those of favorite characters from the Old Testament. Among boys born in Boston between 1640 and 1699 John was still the favorite name. But after it came in order: Samuel, Joseph, Thomas, Nathaniel, Benjamin, James, Jonathan, William, and Richard. Thus the first eight names have all become Biblical, and the once popular William and Richard have been shoved into ninth and tenth place. The second ten names show the Old Testament influence even more strongly: David, Jacob, Josha, Issac, Peter, Ebenezer, Ephraim, Edward, Abraham, and Daniel.

   With women, also, the use of traditional but non-Biblical names such as Joan, Agnes, and Margaret fell off, and some of them even vanished completely. Girls born in Boston in the seventeenth century were most commonly named, in order: Mary, Elizabeth, Sarah, Hannah, Abigail, Rebecca, Ruth, Lydia, Anna, and Martha. These are all Biblical names, and four of them are from the Old Testament. Some of the traditional favorites managed to appear in the second ten, where we find Ann, Margaret, Joanna, and Jane mingled with Mehitabel, Susannah, Deborah, Bethiah, Rachel, and Dorcas.

   Also fairly common for women in the Puritan colonies—totaling about 15 percent—were "meaningful" names of abstract qualities. Of these, Mercy was the commonest, but we find also Patience, Thankful, Desire, Experience, Charity, Hope, Grace, and many others. Names of this kind, such as Grace, are to be taken in their spiritual or theological sense, not their physical one. Some of the names are presumably to be construed as verbs rather than as nouns, and may be taken as standing for some Biblical admonition such as, "Desire spiritual gifts". Similar names occurred among the men, though less commonly: Increase, Hope-for, Constant, Tremble, Love, Wrestling.

   Of all the Biblical names the most interesting is Ebenezer. It is the name of a place in the Old Testament, and seems to have been used as a personal name first in New England. It became one of the commonest names there, and remained so for more than a century.

   Although the increased use of Old Testament and of meaningful names was a feature of Puritanism in England also, it was more strongly developed in New England. From those colonies it spread by migration, and our history has become spotted with men bearing such colourful names as Increase, Israel, Zachary, Abraham, Preserved, and Gamalief. It has affected our legendry, and given us "Brother Jonathan" as a name for a New Englander or even for an American, "Uncle Same" as the embodiment of the initials U.S., and "Caleb" or "Old Ephraim".

(2200 words) TOP

课文一

人名

乔治·斯提沃特

    你知道美国人取名习惯主要的传统来源吗？印第安人和黑人是如何获得自己的姓氏的？为什么移民要采用美国化的姓名？下面的文字讨论这些问题。

    在任何民族的人类学研究中，取名的习俗往往非常重要，而且包含许多内容。因此，我们很可以对美国人的取名习俗作一番研究。

    名字是语言的一部分，然而，由于它们代表的是非常特殊的一部分，我们无法将其归入一般的讨论中。特别是，后来移民的影响和原来习俗的发展变化，对我们的名字来说已经比一般的语言更重要了。

    和许多其它习俗一样，我们取名的习惯承袭了英国传统，尽管和整个欧洲的习俗也差别不大。根据英国的传统，一个人的名字由两部分组成：名和姓，名在前姓在后。这一传统形成于中世纪，远远早于美国的任何殖民地形成之前。国王和贵族，偶尔某些级别较低的人，可以有不止一个名。在移民到美国来的人的孩子中，后来被称做“中间名”的，已很少见，几乎消失了。可以举出的这样的例子非常少，其中一个奇怪地叫做爱德华·玛利亚·英费尔德，是詹姆斯镇第一任地方议会的主席。

    由于从一开始移民们就有姓氏，而姓氏是继承的，早期的殖民者只不过保留他们已有的姓，对此没有多少可说。然而人们提出了这样的问题，是不是所有早期的英国移民实际上都有姓？有这样的疑问，是因为在詹姆斯镇最早的名单中，有“老爱德华”这样的名字。情况很可能是，他确实有一个姓，只不过由于疏忽从名单上略去，而在他死后也就被人遗忘。当时更经常的情况是，人们登记的是自己的姓。例如在詹姆斯镇1608年的一张名单中，甚至有两个男孩登记为米尔曼和赫尔亚德，而不是用他们的名。很可能是，一些英国流浪者，特别是那些没有合法出身的人来到美国，却没有或者不知道自己的姓。如果这样，他们必须很快起一个平常的姓，不带有任何特殊的美国味道。

    在我们这片土地上，唯一必须有姓的两大民族是印第安人和黑人。印第安人通常只有一个名字，往往很长，描述又很详细。然而他们也倾向于接受欧洲的取名习惯和其它习俗。如果一个印第安人皈依了基督教，他会取一个受洗名或教名，然后把原有的名当作姓。这样我们就可以理解凯莱·奇沙特马奇这样一个名字。他1665年毕业于哈佛大学，次年去世。但很多印第安人只起普通的美国姓。如果我们看到吉姆·索波或伊莱·塞缪尔·帕克上校这样的名字，我们很难从名字上判断他们是印第安人。后来，当然早先也是，很多印第安人把自己的名字翻译成英语，有时以简化的形式出现。一旦经过翻译和简化，原本具色彩丰富的名字就变得普通了。例如，一个印第安人的名字意思是“说话的乌鸦”（Talking-Crow），他把自己的名字翻译成英语，受洗为“约翰”，这样，他的名字就变成约翰·托金·克劳（John Talking Crow）。而他的儿子可能只是威廉姆·克劳，在一份名单上同其他有同样姓的英国人没有什么差别。一个叫作詹姆斯·奈特-沃克夜行者（James Night-Walker）的印第安人就变成了詹姆斯·奈特·沃克(James Knight Walker)。不幸的是，总的来说，这些独具特色的印第安名正在消失。

    黑人从非洲来的时候根本没有相当于姓的东西。当奴隶时他们也不需要姓。作为法定的奴隶，他们不能选举，无权签定合同，不能在法庭上作证，或做任何需要有全名的事。由于他们居住的社区小，也就不需要有两个名来加以区别。可以叫他们的名、绰号、或者加上某些特征的名，例如“老乔”，或“大杰克”。

    如果黑人在自由前不需要姓的话，那么在获得自由后，他们肯定像其他人一样取一个姓。事实上，我们可以说他们是要取一个太“像其他人一样”的姓，因此，他们放弃使用自己丰富的想象力，来采用那些最常见的姓。于是，约翰逊是最常见的黑人姓，其后是布郎，史密斯和琼斯。黑人们似乎要取一个最不引人注意的姓，来抹杀自己的存在。过去认为黑人用的是自己主人的姓的说法，似乎站不住脚，因为事实证明拥有大量奴隶的家族的姓并没有成为黑人中的常见姓。

    尽管我们还没有什么可以称作是具有独特美国创造性的取姓方法，某种创造性过程一直在发挥作用，通过事实上一切可能想象的巨大变化，来用新名字代替旧名字。因此，我们就有了一些似乎只有在美国有，欧洲没有的姓。例如，优克姆（Yokum），莱格利(Legree)，古雪(Goochey)，和洛弗威尔(Lovewear)。学者只有经过仔细的研究才能发现，这些特殊的姓来源于德国或法国姓乔奇姆(Joachim)，莱格尔(Legare)，古西亚(Gauthier)，和洛弗伊(Lovoie)。同样，人们经常把很长的外国姓缩短，变成在原来的国家可能从来没有过的姓。卡劳格洛普洛斯(Calogropoulos)变成了卡劳亚(Caloyer)，卡利亚果斯基(Kalliokowski)变成了卡利奥(Kallio)，尼恩尼内(Nieninen)变成了涅尼(Nieni)。人们也使用翻译的方法。翻译的结果通常没什么新意。辛莫曼（Zimerman,木匠）变成了卡朋特（Carpenter,木匠），杰格（Jaeger, 猎人）变成了亨特（Hunter,猎人）。然而如果半用翻译的方法，半用发音的方法的话，结果就会是一个全新的姓，例如，布雷特曼（Breitman）变成了布莱特曼(Brightman)。

    移民们起一个美国化或半美国化的姓是一个典型的现象。有时，这是由于想摆脱和外国背景联系产生的现实存在的或想象的污点。有时纯粹是由于有一个不同寻常的姓太麻烦所致。而有时，特别是早些时候，只是因为人们不知道或者不在意姓的拼写，就发生了这样的事情。移民们的取名，同黑人取名一样，一般来说趋向于一致。不管他是想隐遁于人群中，或是想成为集体的一员，常常是取一个普通的姓。由于这个原因，用传统英国姓称呼的人的人数比例上升了。

     另一方面，这种趋向一致的过程并没有使大量的姓消失，也没有减少英国或其他国家姓的数量。很多姓缪勒（Mueller）的德国人改成了米勒(Miller)，但很多人仍然姓缪勒，另有一些人则选用穆勒(Muller)的形式。结果是这三种姓在美国都有。

    艾尔斯顿·C·史密斯在《名字的故事》一书中，仔细地研究了美国姓氏的总数。他估计，在芝加哥市电话簿中有154750个姓。这个数字包括拼写不同的姓。他进而估算出，全美国一定会有350000个不同的姓。即使我们把这个数字除以三，以排除掉那些只是拼写不同的姓，这仍然是一个庞大的数字。

    相比之下，美国人在起名时要比对待他们的姓表现出多得多的创造性。这可以看成是理所当然的事情。绝大多数情况下，一个人把自己的姓原封不动地传给孩子，根本不考虑是否可能要改变。但人们，通常是父母，总是要为每一个孩子起一个独特的名字。他们通常会起一个传统的名，有时也会“造”一个。然而，即使是传统的名，历史的仓库也塞满了成千上万个例子，选择的问题就几乎是创造。因此，美国人的姓经久不变，代代相传，名却跟随时尚潮流而变化，而在一个世纪过程中，一个社区的“取名模式”会发生很大的变化。

    我们关于名的历史可以追溯到1587年罗利开创的殖民地，尽管它后来消亡了，没有留下后代。在那99名男子和少年中，最多的名是约翰（23个），托马斯（15个），威廉姆（10个），亨利（7个），理查德（7个），乔治（3个）和罗伯特（3个）。在这同一个殖民地中，我们只有16个女性的名保存下来，这个数目太少，无法进行科学的统计。其中没有玛丽这个名，但有三个珍妮，两个伊丽莎白。其它的名也很常见，像阿格尼斯，伊莲娜，玛格丽特，和罗丝。

     这样，我们现在就必须回过来从这些男子的名中推测当时的取名模式。在这些第一代殖民者中，所有较常见的名都是英国传统的。约翰和托马斯都来源于希伯来语，取自《圣经》。约翰来自受人爱戴的信徒，几个世纪以来这个名在基督教世界一直很受欢迎。托马斯也是一个信徒的名，由于坎特伯雷的殉教者圣托马斯，它自12世纪起就成为一个流行的英国名。威廉姆、亨利、理查德和罗伯特都是日尔曼人名，诺曼征服者使之在英国流行。除了罗伯特外，它们都曾是英国国王的名，这也许促使了它们的流行。乔治是一个希腊名，它能够流行是因为自14世纪以来圣徒乔治就被认为是英国的保护神。这种取名的英国传统在南部的殖民地保持了一个多世纪——可以补充说，不论是用作男名还是女名都是如此。

     一种更为特别的美国式发展，起源于新英格兰的清教徒殖民地。最初，起名的方式同南部移民没有什么差别，抵达马萨诸塞的移民中最常见的名依次是：约翰，威廉，托马斯，理查德，罗伯特，爱德华，塞缪尔，乔治，詹姆斯和弗朗西斯。

    取自《旧约》的唯一的名塞缪尔的出现，使这个名单不同于南部的名单，具有一点《旧约》味。然而北部移民的后代们却有很不一样的名。取自《圣经》的名大大增加，特别是那些《旧约》中很受欢迎的人物的名。1640到1699年间出生在波士顿的男孩的名中，约翰仍然是最流行的。但以下依次是：塞缪尔，约瑟夫，托马斯，纳撒尼尔，本杰明，詹姆斯，乔纳森，威廉和理查德。处于前8位的名都取自于《圣经》，而一度很流行的威廉和理查德被挤到了第九和第十位。其次十个名更能说明《旧约》的影响：大卫，雅各布，约书亚，以撒克，彼德，埃比尼泽，伊弗雷姆，爱德华，亚伯拉罕和丹尼尔。

    至于女性，使用传统的但非《圣经》的名，像琼，阿格尼斯和玛格丽特等减少，有的甚至完全消失。17世纪出生在波士顿的女孩，通常起的名依次是：玛丽，伊丽莎白，萨拉，汉娜，艾比盖尔，吕贝卡，露丝，丽迪娅，安娜和玛莎。这些都是《圣经》中的名，其中四个来自《旧约》。一些传统的流行名出现在后十位，有安，玛格丽特，乔安娜，还有珍妮，同梅海塔布尔，苏珊娜，黛博拉，贝瑟尔，雷切尔，和多加这些名排列在一起。

    在清教徒殖民地里，常见的女名还有那些关于抽象品质的“有意义”的名，约占15%。其中，梅茜（Mercy,仁慈）是最普遍的，其它还有贝雪丝（Patience,忍耐），萨克弗（Thankful,感恩），笛萨尔（Desire,渴望），以克佩里丝（Experience,经验），查里提（Charity,慈善），荷蒲（Hope,希望），格雷丝（Grace,优雅）等。像格雷丝（优雅）这样的名，用的是精神和神学的意义，而不是体态的意义。一些名要当作动词而不是名词来理解，可以看成是代表某个宗教教训，例如，“渴望精神才能”（Desire spiritual gifts）。同样的情况也出现在男名中，不过不太多，有：英克莱斯（Increase,增加），荷蒲弗（Hope-for,希望），康斯坦丁（Constant, 坚决），特莱普尔（Tremble,颤抖），洛弗（Love,爱），莱塞林（Wrestling,搏斗）等。

    在这些取自《圣经》的名中，最有趣的是埃比尼泽。这是《旧约》中的一个地名，最初用作人名似乎是在新英格兰。在那里，一个多世纪以来，它成为最常见的名之一。
 

    尽管越来越多地使用《旧约》或“有意义的”名也是英格兰清教主义的一个特点，然而这在新英格兰更为流行。这种习俗由于移民的迁徙从殖民地流传开来，我们的历史上就有人有这样丰富多彩的名，如：英克莱斯，伊斯雷尔，扎卡里，亚伯拉罕，普里瑟弗德和甘梅利尔。它影响了我们的民族传奇，使“乔纳森大哥”成为我们新英格兰人甚至美国人的名子，“萨姆大叔”(Uncle Sam)代表美国(U.S.)，还给了我们“凯莱布”（犹太人的首领，与约书亚一起被上帝遣往迦南），或“老伊弗莱姆”（《圣经》中约瑟的次子，以色列王国）这样的名子。

返回

Text 2

Wine in American Life

by Matt Miller

   The availability of cheap, plentiful whiskey was one key to the extensive use of spirituous liquor by so many Americans in the early nineteenth century; another key was the American diet. There were a number of ways in which the habits of eating and drinking at that time encouraged Americans to drink whiskey. But that preference was also related to larger social questions. Dietary habits, as Claude Levi-Strauss has pointed out, are good indicators of a culture's popular attitudes and social structure. Thus, an examination of the role of whiskey in the American diet in the early nineteenth century will both inform us about the use of whiskey in everyday life and broaden our understanding of the inner workings of American society in those years.

   To understand the great popularity of whiskey we have to consider, among other things, the shortcomings of other available beverages. To begin with, neither Americans nor Europeans of the period tended to indulge in refreshing glasses of water. This was not so much the consequence of an aversion to that healthful beverage as that the available water was seldom clear, sparkling, or appetizing. The citizens of St. Louis, for example, had to let water from the Mississippi River stand before they could drink it, and the sediment often filled one-quarter of the container. Further downstream, at Natchez, the river water was too muddy to be drunk even after it had settled. Instead, people drank rainwater, which they collected in roof cisterns. During frequent droughts, however, the cisterns were empty. Rural areas often lacked good water because deep wells were expensive and difficult to build, while the water from shallow wells was usually cloudy. The purest water came from clear, free-flowing springs, but these were not always conveniently located. Although Kentucky and Tennessee had abundant low-lying springs, pioneers who feared swamp fevers or Indian attacks preferred to build their cabins on high ground. As a result, water had to be carried uphill in a bucket, as at Lincoln's birthplace at Hodgenville, Kentucky. Toting water lessened the frontiersman's enthusiasm for drinking it. So did the cold of winter, for then, recalled one pioneer, water had to be thawed.

   Water supplies were no better in the nation's largest and wealthiest cities. Washingtonians, for example, long had to depend upon water from private wells because of a deep-seated opposition to higher taxes to pay the cost of digging public wells. During the 1820s the capital city's only piped water was from a privately owned spring that supplied two blocks along Pennsylvania Avenue. Cincinnati was no better off. There, according to a concerned Dr. Daniel Drake, most people drank "often impure" water drawn in barrels from the frequently low and muddy Ohio. To escape beclouded river water, wealthy citizens dug their own wells, which provided an ill-tasting drink "slightly impregnated with iron, and...salts." New York City was worse, for Manhattan's shallow, brackish wells made it certain that the drinker of water would not only quench his thirst but also be given "physic". It was this latter effect, perhaps, that caused New Yorkers to avoid drinking water and earned them a reputation for preferring other sorts of beverages. One resident who was asked whether the city's water was potable replied, "Really, I cannot pretend to say, as I never tasted water there that was not mixed with some kind of liquor." Conditions were so bad that New Yorkers adopted a plan to dam the Croton River and transport its water forty miles to the city. As soon as the aqueduct opened in 1842, residents began to switch from spirits to water. Two years later, on the 4th of July, teetotaling Mayor James Harper shrewdly countered traditional holiday dram-drinking by setting up in the city hall park a large basin of iced Croton water. It was only after the improvement of public water supplies that temperance zealots embraced the idea of "Cold Water" as a substitute for alcohol.

   During the first third of the century water was often condemned on the ground that it lacked food value and did not aid digestion. Indeed, many people believed water unfit for human consumption. As one American said, "It's very good for navigation." Others thought water to be lowly and common; it was the drink of pigs, cows, and horses. Or, as Benjamin Franklin put it, if God had intended man to drink water, he would not have made him with an elbow capable of raising a wine glass. There were also those who thought that water could be lethal, especially if drunk in hot weather. English immigrant Joseph Pickering, for example, so feared the effect of drinking water on scorching days that he resolved the drink only a concoction of water and rye whiskey, a beverage he believed to be less dangerous. Nor was Pickering alone in refusing to drink this insidious liquid. From Virginia, Elijah Fletcher assured his father in Vermont, "I shall not injure my health in drinking water. I have not drank a tumbler full since here. We always have a boll of toddy made for dinner... " In the same spirit, John Randolph warned his son, "I see by the papers, eight deaths in one week from cold water, in Philadelphia alone." Randolph himself was unlikely to fall victim to water drinking, for he used none in mixing his favorite mint juleps.

   While water was eschewed, many Americans drank milk—when they could get it. Sometimes milk was excellent, cheap, and plentiful; at other times, especially on the frontier, it was not available or its price was as high as 12C a quart, more than whiskey. Costs were erratic and supplies spotty because each locality depended upon its own production. Bulk and lack of refrigeration made both transportation and storage difficult. During the winter poor fodder insured that the supply of milk was small, and in all seasons the needs of children often forced adults to forego this drink. Even when milk was plentiful, many did not drink it for fear of the fatal "milk sickness". This illness, which killed Abraham Lincoln's mother, was caused by a poison transmitted through milk from cows that had grazed on the wild jimson weed. Those who believed that it was better not to risk getting the milk sickness turned to safer beverages, such as whiskey.

   Americans also rejected tea, which was relatively expensive. During the 1820s, a cup of tea cost more than a mixed drink made with whiskey. As much as half the price of tea represented import duties, which had been set high because tea was imported from the British colony of India, carried in British ships, and drunk by the rich. Although tea's unpopularity was usually attributed to its high price, its popularity remained low even after temperance advocates succeeded in getting the impost halved. In 1832 annual consumption continued to average less than a pound—250 cups—per person. Even when its price was low, most Americans considered tea to be an alien "foreign luxury". To drink it was unpatriotic. While popular in anglophilic New England, imported teas were so disliked in the rest of the country that New Yorkers substituted glasses of wine at society "tea parties", and westerners, who disdained imports, brewed their own sassafras, spicewood, mint, and wild root teas. Frontiersmen believed teas to be insipid "slops" fit only for the sick and those who, like British Lords, were incapable of bodily labor. So rare was tea on the frontier that its proper method of preparation was not always known. Thus, when one English traveler presented an innkeeper's wife with a pound of tea and asked her to brew a cup, she obliged by boiling the entire amount and serving the leaves in their liquid as a kind of soup.

   Although tea was expensive, it cost less per cup than coffee, and before 1825 tea outsold coffee. At 25C a pound, the annual per capita consumption of coffee was less than two pounds or 100 cups. Imported coffee was then such a luxury that many Americans drank unappetizing homemade substitutes concocted from rye grain, peas, brown bread, or burned toast. Although coffee was imported, it did not share the scorn heaped upon tea. Perhaps coffee was more acceptable because it was imported from Latin America. Nor had there ever been a Boston Coffee Party. During the late 1820s, therefore, when the price of coffee fell to 15C a pound, imports rose, and consumption increased correspondingly. This development delighted those temperance reformers who wanted coffee to replace distilled spirits, and in 1830 they succeeded in persuading Congress to remove the duty on coffee. The price soon dropped to 10C a pound, a rate that brought the price of a cup of coffee down to the price of a glass of whiskey punch and pushed coffee sales ahead of tea to five pounds per person. By 1833 coffee had ceased to be a luxury and, according to the Baltimore American, entered "largely into the daily consumption of almost every family, rich and poor," prominent “among the necessaries of life." But in the first third of the century it had been too expensive to compete with whiskey.

   Having found coffee, tea, milk, and water unacceptable for one reason or another, some Americans turned to fermented drinks, such as wine. Although its high price of $1 a gallon, often four times that of whiskey, limited annual per capita consumption of wine to less than a fifth of a gallon, its preference by the wealthy and their attempts to promote its use gave it a social importance out of proportion to its small sales. Many upper class opponents of distilled spirits favored wine because they believed it to be free of alcohol, the chemical that a number of physicians and scientists regarded as a poison. While the presence of alcohol in distilled beverages had long been recognized, early nineteenth-century wine drinkers noted with satisfaction that no experimenter had found that compound in a fermented beverage. It was an unpleasant surprise when chemist William Brande succeeded in measuring the amount of alcohol in fermented drinks and not only proved that wine contained a higher percentage of alcohol than hard cider or beer, but also showed that the favorite American wine, Madeira, was more than 20 percent alcohol. After 1820, as temperance organizations disseminated Brande's findings, the number of wine advocates declined, although a few, such as Dr. S. H. Dickson of South Carolina, insisted that the alcohol in wine was rendered harmless by its incorporation into the wine.

   Early wine connoisseurs included such men as Thomas Jefferson, Andrew Jackson, and John Marshall. At the executive mansion during Jefferson's presidency, diners enjoyed round after round of fine, light French wines, and at Monticello the Sage himself customarily drank three glasses of wine each day, a task facilitated by a dumbwaiter that carried wine bottles from the cellar to Jefferson's dining room. Another wine fancier was Jefferson's political rival Aaron Burr, who maintained New York's most impressive cellar. It was at a Burr dinner that Andrew Jackson was introduced to the subtleties and pleasures of the grape. He subsequently stocked the Hermitage in Tennessee with a selection that led to its reputation as the wine center of the West. Vinous drink, however, had no greater devotee than Chief Justice John Marshall. At the boarding house in Washington where the Supreme Court justices lived, the boarders permitted wine only in wet weather, for the sake of their health. Upon occasion, the chief justice would command Justice Story to check the window to see if it were raining. When informed that the sun shone brightly, Marshall would observe, "All the better; for our jurisdiction extends over so large a territory that the doctrine of chances makes it certain that it must be raining somewhere." The chief justice, observed Story, had been "brought up upon Federalism and Madeira, and he [was] not the man to outgrow his early prejudices."

   During the first quarter of the century, among society's upper classes, wine was central to the male dinner party. Wine provided both a chief topic of discussion and an excuse for late hours, which were spent sampling new and exotic varieties. A well-to-do Maine landowner, Robert Gardiner, has left a picture of one such party held in New York in 1803. "After the cloth was removed and the bottle had passed once around," he wrote, "Mr. Hammond asked what was the duty of the guests when the host opened for them a bottle of very choice wine." A voice replied, "To see the bottom of it." The servants then presented the party with a gallon bottle. "This, gentlemen," said the host, "is very fine old wine, the best I have, and as I open it for you, I expect you will finish it." Gardiner was forced, as a matter of propriety, to drink until he left the party with his head reeling. While the custom of holding these lengthy gentlemen's dinners gradually faded, it did not disappear before mid-century. As late as 1836 New York socialite Philip Hone, who often hosted such dinners, noted with satisfaction that his well-stocked cellar contained 672 gallons of Madeira and sherry.
   Although wealthy wine drinkers continued to indulge their palates, the Revolution's patriotic and democratic ideals had put these Americans on the defensive. Nearly all the wine Americans drank was imported, largely from Madeira, and to continue to purchase dutied, foreign beverages both worsened the American balance of payments and cast doubts upon the patriotism of the purchasers. Then, too, continuing to drink a refreshment priced beyond the means of the average citizen was considered elitist and undemocratic. On the other hand, few devotees of wine were willing to forego their beverage. To resolve these conflicts, wine drinkers promoted the planting of American vineyards in the hope that the United States could produce a cheap, native wine. Men such as Thomas Jefferson, John Calhoun, and Henry Clay experimented with grapes on their own land, encouraged others to do so, and invited European vintners to immigrate to America to establish vineyards. During the 1820s vintner's guides proliferated, and numerous periodicals printed recipes for making wine. Journalist Hezekiah Niles, one of the leaders of this movement, prophesied that in time the United States would produce all its own wine.

(2391 words)  TOP

课文二

美国人生活中的葡萄酒

迈特·米勒

    十九世纪早期，很多美国人大量饮用酒精饮料，一个原因是当时有很多便宜的威士忌；另一个原因是美国人的饮食习惯。当时的饮食方式多方面地助长了美国人饮威士忌酒的习惯。但对威士忌的偏好还同某些社会问题有关。正如克劳德·莱维—斯特劳斯指出的，饮食习惯能很好地表现出一种文化中的流行观念和社会结构。因此，研究十九世纪初威士忌在美国饮食中的角色，可以告诉我们威士忌在当时日常生活中的作用，并拓宽我们对当时美国社会内部运转方式的理解。

    要理解威士忌的广泛流行，我们首先必须考虑到其它饮料的缺点。第一，当时的美国人和欧洲人都没有用水来提神的习惯。这并不是因为他们厌恶水这种健康饮料，而是因为当时的水很少是干净、晶亮、可口的。比如，圣路易斯的市民们不得不把密西西比河的水澄清后才饮用，而澄清后的沉淀物往往积满水箱的四分之一。在下游的纳齐兹，浑浊的河水即使沉淀后也无法饮用。于是，人们在房顶上建蓄水池接雨水喝。而在频繁的干旱期，蓄水池是空的。乡村地区往往没有好的水源，因为开凿深水井既昂贵又困难，而浅水井的水又通常很浑浊。最纯净的水来自自然流淌的清澈泉水，可有水的地方不总是很方便。肯塔基和田纳西州有丰富的浅层泉水，可是由于害怕沼地热和印第安人的袭击，拓荒者们都把小屋建在高处，于是他们不得不用水桶把水运上山，就像在林肯的出生地，肯塔基的霍金维尔。运水困难减少了边疆人的饮水热情。冬天的严寒也是如此，因为那个时候，一位拓荒者回忆道，水必须先解冻。

    在这个国家最大最富庶的城市，供水也并不好些。例如，华盛顿的市民长期以来不得不依靠私井，因为有人强烈反对多交税来支付开凿公共水井的开支。19世纪20年代，首都唯一的水管引自一眼私人拥有的泉水，为宾夕法尼亚大道旁的两个街区供水。辛辛那提的情况也一样糟。根据关注此事的丹尼尔·德雷克博士的说法，多数人饮用从经常是低浅浑浊的俄亥俄河用桶运来的“通常是不纯净”的水。有钱人为避免河水的污浊，自己开凿水井，而那水很难喝，“还带着点儿铁和……盐的味儿”。纽约市更糟。曼哈顿的浅水井水带着盐味，使饮用者在解渴的同时，又服了一剂“泻药”。也许正是因为这后一种原因，纽约人避免喝水，从而获得了偏爱其它饮料的名声。一个居民曾被问到纽约的水是否适于饮用，他回答，“说实话，我不知道，因为我从未喝过没掺饮料的水。”这种糟糕的情况迫使纽约人计划在克劳顿河上建了一个大坝，再把水从四十英里外运到城里。1842年，导水管一开通，居民们就开始由饮酒转而饮水。两年后的7月4日，主张绝对禁酒的市长詹姆斯·哈泼在市政厅公园内建了一个水池，装有冰冷的克劳顿河水，聪明地藉此抵制节日期间少量饮酒的传统习惯。直到公共供水系统改善后，主张适当禁酒者才拥护用“冷水”代替酒精的办法。

    水在十九世纪前三十多年常常受到批评，理由是它不具有食物的营养价值，也无助于消化。的确，许多人认为水不适合人类饮用。就像一个美国人说的：“它的价值在于航运。”有些人认为水是低劣的饮品，只适于猪、牛、马等饮用。或者，像本杰明·富兰克林说的，如果上帝想让人喝水的话，就不会给他胳膊肘，让他能端酒杯。还有些人觉得水可以致命，特别是在热天喝的话。比如，英国移民约瑟夫·皮克灵非常害怕在暑天饮水的影响，总是把水和黑麦威士忌酒调配着喝，认为这样的饮料危险小些。皮克灵也不是唯一拒绝饮用这种阴险液体的人。艾利亚·弗莱切尔从弗吉尼亚写信给他在佛蒙特的父亲，保证说，“我不会喝水来损害自己的健康。自从到这里以来，我总共喝的水还不到一杯。用餐时我们总是喝一博耳棕榈汁……”同样，约翰·兰朵夫也警告自己的儿子：“我在报纸上读到，仅在费城，一周内就有八个人因饮用冷水死亡。”兰朵夫自己不大可能死于喝水，因为他从不在自己喜爱的冰镇薄荷酒中掺入任何东西。

    当人们远远避开水的时候，很多美国人去喝牛奶——如果弄得到的话。有时，牛奶质优、价廉、货源充足；可有时，特别是在边疆地区，就买不到牛奶，或价格昂贵，高到每夸脱12美分，比威士忌还要贵。因为每个地方都依赖本地产品，牛奶的成本高低不一，供应质量也参差不齐。牛奶体积大，又没有冷冻设备，运输和贮藏都很困难。冬季，由于饲料匮乏，牛奶产量也就很小，而孩子们一年四季都需要牛奶，经常迫使大人们放弃这种饮料。即使牛奶供应充足时，很多人也不喝牛奶，害怕染上致命的“牛奶病”。亚伯拉罕·林肯的母亲就死于这种病，这种病由食用了蔓陀罗草的奶牛通过牛奶散发的毒性引起。一些人觉得最好还是不要冒这牛奶病的危险，就去喝安全一些的饮品，比如威士忌。

    美国人也拒绝相对比较贵的茶。十九世纪二十年代，一杯茶的价格比掺有威士忌酒的饮料还贵。进口税占了茶价的一半，因为茶叶是从英国殖民地印度进口的，并由英国船只运输，是富人喝的。尽管人们很少喝茶是因为价格贵，可即使是适当禁酒主义者通过活动把茶叶关税降低了一半后，喝茶的人还是不多。1832年茶的年消费量仍然是平均每人不到一磅，约250杯。即使是价格降低后，大多数美国人仍然认为茶是异己的“外国奢侈品”。而喝茶是不爱国的表现。进口的茶尽管在亲英的新英格兰地区流行，在其它地方却很不受欢迎，以致纽约人在社交“茶会”上用酒代替茶，而鄙视进口货的西部人用檫木的干燥根皮，山胡椒，薄荷，和野生植物的根等泡茶。边疆人认为茶是一种稀薄乏味的饮料，只适合病人或不能进行体力劳动的人饮用，例如英国的贵族老爷们。茶在边疆地区极为少见，人们也就不知道如何泡茶。曾经有一个英国旅行者交给旅店老板娘一磅茶叶，让她为自己泡杯茶，而她却把茶叶全都煮了煮，连茶叶带水当作一道汤端了上来。

    尽管茶很贵，每杯的价格还是比咖啡低。1825年之前茶的销量就超过了咖啡。咖啡每磅25美分，每年的人均消耗量不到两磅，相当于100杯。当时，进口咖啡是一种奢侈品，很多美国人就喝味道不好的本国咖啡，由黑麦，豌豆，黑面包，或烤面包片调制而成。尽管咖啡也是进口的，却不像茶那样饱受轻视。也许咖啡较被人们接受，是因为它由拉丁美洲进口。也从没有过一个“波士顿咖啡党”。因此，十九世纪二十年代末，当咖啡的价格降到每磅15美分时，进口就增加了，消耗量也相应上升。这使适当禁酒主义者很高兴，他们希望用咖啡代替蒸馏的酒精饮料。1830年他们成功地劝使国会免去咖啡税。于是，咖啡的价格很快降到每磅10美分，使每杯咖啡的价格降到相当于一杯威士忌。这使咖啡的消费量大大超过了茶，平均每人达5磅。到1833年，咖啡已经不是奢侈品了，根据《巴尔的摩美国人》，咖啡已经进入了“几乎每个家庭的日常消费中，不论贫富”，成为主要的“日常必需品”。而在十九世纪前三十多年，咖啡还太贵，无法同威士忌竞争。

    这样咖啡、茶、牛奶和水，由于各种原因，都不适于饮用；于是，一些美国人转向发酵饮品，例如葡萄酒。然而，它价格很高，每加仑1美元，是威士忌的四倍。这使葡萄酒的年人均消费量低于五分之一加仑。但有钱人偏爱它，又努力提倡饮用它，使葡萄酒具有了同其低销售量不相称的社会重要性。许多上层人士反对蒸馏的烈酒而喜爱葡萄酒，因为他们相信葡萄酒不含酒精，而当时的一些医师和科学家认为酒精是一种有毒的化学物质。人们早就知道蒸馏的饮料中含有酒精，而十九世纪初的葡萄酒饮用者发现，没有实验证明发酵的饮料中也含有这种物质，这使他们很满意。然而，化学家威廉姆·布兰德在发酵的饮品中也发现了一定含量的酒精，并不仅证明葡萄酒所含的酒精比例要高于发酵汁和啤酒，而且证明美国人喜爱的玛德拉葡萄酒酒含有20%多的酒精。这是个不愉快的消息，让人大吃一惊。1820年后，适当禁酒组织把布兰德的发现公之于众，葡萄酒的支持者就减少了。尽管有些人，如南卡罗莱纳的S·H·迪克森医生，仍然坚持认为，葡萄酒中的酒精是无害的，因为它已同葡萄酒混合在一起。

    早期的葡萄酒品尝家包括托马斯·杰斐逊、安德鲁·杰克逊和约翰·马歇尔等人。在杰斐逊就任总统期间的行政官邸，用餐者一杯接一杯地享用着上好的法国低度葡萄酒，而在杰斐逊的宅邸蒙蒂塞罗，这位先贤每天习惯喝三杯葡萄酒，由一个哑侍把酒从地窖里送到餐厅。另一个葡萄酒的迷恋者是杰斐逊的政敌亚伦·伯尔，他拥有纽约最好的酒窖。正是在伯尔的餐桌上，安德鲁·杰克逊首次领略到葡萄的微妙和赏心悦目之处。他随之贮藏了田纳西州的精品罗纳葡萄酒，这后来使田纳西成为西部的葡萄酒中心。然而，再没有比大法官约翰·马歇尔更热爱葡萄酒的人。在华盛顿最高法院的法官们居住的公寓里，为了健康，法官们只允许在雨天喝葡萄酒。有时，大法官就会让斯托里法官到窗户前，看看是否下雨。当斯托里告诉他阳光灿烂时，马歇尔就会说：“好极了；我们的管辖范围这么大，根据概率，总有地方在下雨。”斯托里说，大法官“一贯偏爱联邦制和玛德拉酒，他不是那种能摆脱自己早期偏见的人。”

    在十九世纪的前二十五年，上层社会阶层绅士的晚宴上最重要的就是葡萄酒。它既为晚宴提供了主要的话题，也提供了借口，品尝各种新奇品种，消磨时光。缅因州一个富有的地主罗伯特·卡狄那留下了一幅1803年在纽约举办的此类宴会的图画。他写道，“当桌布被撤掉，酒又轮了一圈后，哈蒙德先生问道，如果主人打开一瓶上好美酒，客人们的责任是什么？”一个声音回答说，“喝干见底。”于是，仆人们献上一瓶一加仑的酒。主人说：“先生们，这是上好的老酒，也是我最好的酒。在我为大家打开时，希望诸位一饮而尽。”出于礼貌，卡狄那不得不继续喝，直到他头晕晕地离开晚会。这样冗长的绅士宴会渐渐减少，可一直到十九世纪中期这一习俗才消失。直到1836年，经常举办此类宴会的纽约社交名流菲利普·霍恩，很满意地说，自己的地窖贮藏丰富，存有672加仑的玛德拉酒和雪利酒。

    尽管富有的葡萄酒饮者继续沉湎杯中之物，独立革命时期的爱国主义和民主理想迫使他们处于防御状态。因为几乎所有美国人喝的葡萄酒都是进口的，主要是来自马德拉(群)岛。而继续购买课税的外国饮料恶化了美国的收支平衡，并使人对这些购买者的爱国主义产生怀疑。而继续饮用这种价格高出一般市民承受力的饮料，会让人觉得高人一等，不民主。另一方面，没有几个葡萄酒爱好者愿意放弃自己的饮料。为了解决这些矛盾，葡萄酒爱好者促进了美国葡萄园的种植，希望美国也能酿造便宜的本土葡萄酒。托马斯·杰斐逊、约翰·卡尔霍恩、亨利·克莱等人都在自己的土地上实验种植葡萄，鼓励其他人也这么做，还邀请欧洲葡萄酒商移民到美国建设葡萄园。十九世纪20年代，出现了很多酿酒指南，无数期刊刊登了酿酒配方。该运动的领导人之一，记者希西家·奈尔斯预言，美国到时候会酿造所有自己的葡萄酒。

返回