second epilogue-第12节

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


that　moves　sufficed　to　destroy　the　whole　cosmography　of　the

ancients。　By　disproving　that　law　it　might　have　been　possible　to　retain

the　old　conception　of　the　movements　of　the　bodies；　but　without

disproving　it；　it　would　seem　impossible　to　continue　studying　the

Ptolemaic　worlds。　But　even　after　the　discovery　of　the　law　of

Copernicus　the　Ptolemaic　worlds　were　still　studied　for　a　long　time。

　　From　the　time　the　first　person　said　and　proved　that　the　number　of

births　or　of　crimes　is　subject　to　mathematical　laws；　and　that　this

or　that　mode　of　government　is　determined　by　certain　geographical　and

economic　conditions；　and　that　certain　relations　of　population　to

soil　produce　migrations　of　peoples；　the　foundations　on　which　history

had　been　built　were　destroyed　in　their　essence。

　　By　refuting　these　new　laws　the　former　view　of　history　might　have

been　retained；　but　without　refuting　them　it　would　seem　impossible　to

continue　studying　historic　events　as　the　results　of　man's　free　will。

For　if　a　certain　mode　of　government　was　established　or　certain

migrations　of　peoples　took　place　in　consequence　of　such　and　such

geographic；　ethnographic；　or　economic　conditions；　then　the　free　will

of　those　individuals　who　appear　to　us　to　have　established　that　mode　of

government　or　occasioned　the　migrations　can　no　longer　be　regarded　as

the　cause。

　　And　yet　the　former　history　continues　to　be　studied　side　by　side　with

the　laws　of　statistics；　geography；　political　economy；　comparative

philology；　and　geology；　which　directly　contradict　its　assumptions。

　　The　struggle　between　the　old　views　and　the　new　was　long　and

stubbornly　fought　out　in　physical　philosophy。　Theology　stood　on

guard　for　the　old　views　and　accused　the　new　of　violating　revelation。

But　when　truth　conquered；　theology　established　itself　just　as　firmly

on　the　new　foundation。

　　Just　as　prolonged　and　stubborn　is　the　struggle　now　proceeding

between　the　old　and　the　new　conception　of　history；　and　theology　in　the

same　way　stands　on　guard　for　the　old　view；　and　accuses　the　new　view　of

subverting　revelation。

　　In　the　one　case　as　in　the　other；　on　both　sides　the　struggle　provokes

passion　and　stifles　truth。　On　the　one　hand　there　is　fear　and　regret

for　the　loss　of　the　whole　edifice　constructed　through　the　ages；　on　the

other　is　the　passion　for　destruction。

　　To　the　men　who　fought　against　the　rising　truths　of　physical

philosophy；　it　seemed　that　if　they　admitted　that　truth　it　would

destroy　faith　in　God；　in　the　creation　of　the　firmament；　and　in　the

miracle　of　Joshua　the　son　of　Nun。　To　the　defenders　of　the　laws　of

Copernicus　and　Newton；　to　Voltaire　for　example；　it　seemed　that　the

laws　of　astronomy　destroyed　religion；　and　he　utilized　the　law　of

gravitation　as　a　weapon　against　religion。

　　Just　so　it　now　seems　as　if　we　have　only　to　admit　the　law　of

inevitability；　to　destroy　the　conception　of　the　soul；　of　good　and

evil；　and　all　the　institutions　of　state　and　church　that　have　been

built　up　on　those　conceptions。

　　So　too；　like　Voltaire　in　his　time；　uninvited　defenders　of　the　law　of

inevitability　today　use　that　law　as　a　weapon　against　religion；

though　the　law　of　inevitability　in　history；　like　the　law　of　Copernicus

in　astronomy；　far　from　destroying；　even　strengthens　the　foundation

on　which　the　institutions　of　state　and　church　are　erected。

　　As　in　the　question　of　astronomy　then；　so　in　the　question　of

history　now；　the　whole　difference　of　opinion　is　based　on　the

recognition　or　nonrecognition　of　something　absolute；　serving　as　the

measure　of　visible　phenomena。　In　astronomy　it　was　the　immovability

of　the　earth；　in　history　it　is　the　independence　of　personality…　free

will。

　　As　with　astronomy　the　difficulty　of　recognizing　the　motion　of　the

earth　lay　in　abandoning　the　immediate　sensation　of　the　earth's

fixity　and　of　the　motion　of　the　planets；　so　in　history　the

difficulty　of　recognizing　the　subjection　of　personality　to　the　laws　of

space；　time；　and　cause　lies　in　renouncing　the　direct　feeling　of　the

independence　of　one's　own　personality。　But　as　in　astronomy　the　new

view　said：　〃It　is　true　that　we　do　not　feel　the　movement　of　the

earth；　but　by　admitting　its　immobility　we　arrive　at　absurdity；　while

by　admitting　its　motion　（which　we　do　not　feel）　we　arrive　at　laws；〃

so　also　in　history　the　new　view　says：　〃It　is　true　that　we　are　not

conscious　of　our　dependence；　but　by　admitting　our　free　will　we

arrive　at　absurdity；　while　by　admitting　our　dependence　on　the　external

world；　on　time；　and　on　cause；　we　arrive　at　laws。〃

　　In　the　first　case　it　was　necessary　to　renounce　the　consciousness

of　an　unreal　immobility　in　space　and　to　recognize　a　motion　we　did

not　feel；　in　the　present　case　it　is　similarly　necessary　to　renounce

a　freedom　that　does　not　exist；　and　to　recognize　a　dependence　of

which　we　are　not　conscious。





　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　…THE　END…

。