評論
打印
The law itself has already been set forth. But Plowdon gives us the reason for it. 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.
法律本身已經說得明明白白。而且普洛頓（亞·契徹耳·普洛頓（1844—1914）——英國律師，有"倫敦法官"之稱。）還給我們申述了理由。普洛頓說，大鯨之所以捉到后要歸國王和王后所有，是"因為鯨乃是一種至高無上的動物"。而且這是許多見解非常正確的詮釋家向來對此所持的無法反駁的論點。
But why should the King have the head, and the Queen the tail? A reason for that, ye lawyers!
可是，為什么國王一定要頭，而王后又一定要尾呢？你們這些律師先生倒不妨把道理擺一擺！
In his treatise on "Queen-Gold," or Queen-pin-money, an old King's Bench author, one William Prynne, thus discourseth: "Ye tail is ye Queen's, that ye Queen's wardrobe may be supplied with ye whalebone." Now this was written at a time when the black limber bone of the Greenland or Right whale was largely used in ladies' bodices. 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.
有一位名叫威廉·普林（威廉·普林（1600—1669）——英國清教徒，律師，著有一些宗教論爭的小冊子，曾為此坐過牢，被割掉兩耳，面上打下烙印。）的高等法院的老作家，他在其論《皇后的錢即皇后的零用錢》的文章中，這么說："你們的尾巴都是你們的王后的，你們的王后的衣櫥里可能還裝有你們的鯨骨呢。"他寫這篇文章的時候，正是格陵蘭鯨或者露脊鯨的黑色軟骨頭被大量用來做太太小姐們的乳褡的時代。可是，這種骨并不是長在尾巴上，而是長在頭上呀，這對于象普林這樣一個聰明的律師說來，真是一個可悲的錯誤。但是，難道王后是只人魚，這才要人們獻給她尾巴嗎？這里邊也許還含有一種比喻的意義吧。
There are two royal fish so styled by the English law writers— the whale and the sturgeon; both royal property under certain limitations, and nominally supplying the tenth branch of the crown's ordinary revenue.
英國的法律著作家們就這樣定出了兩種皇家魚——鯨和鱘；這兩種魚在某種范圍內說來，都是皇家的財產，名義上要抽取什一的普通皇稅。
