second epilogue-第2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！


the　new　histories　of　the　culture　of　that　period。

　　The　strangeness　and　absurdity　of　these　replies　arise　from　the　fact

that　modern　history；　like　a　deaf　man；　answers　questions　no　one　has

asked。

　　If　the　purpose　of　history　be　to　give　a　description　of　the　movement

of　humanity　and　of　the　peoples；　the　first　question…　in　the　absence

of　a　reply　to　which　all　the　rest　will　be　incomprehensible…　is：　what　is

the　power　that　moves　peoples？　To　this；　modern　history　laboriously

replies　either　that　Napoleon　was　a　great　genius；　or　that　Louis　XIV　was

very　proud；　or　that　certain　writers　wrote　certain　books。

　　All　that　may　be　so　and　mankind　is　ready　to　agree　with　it；　but　it

is　not　what　was　asked。　All　that　would　be　interesting　if　we

recognized　a　divine　power　based　on　itself　and　always　consistently

directing　its　nations　through　Napoleons；　Louis…es；　and　writers；　but　we

do　not　acknowledge　such　a　power；　and　therefore　before　speaking　about

Napoleons；　Louis…es；　and　authors；　we　ought　to　be　shown　the

connection　existing　between　these　men　and　the　movement　of　the　nations。

　　If　instead　of　a　divine　power　some　other　force　has　appeared；　it

should　be　explained　in　what　this　new　force　consists；　for　the　whole

interest　of　history　lies　precisely　in　that　force。

　　History　seems　to　assume　that　this　force　is　self…evident　and　known　to

everyone。　But　in　spite　of　every　desire　to　regard　it　as　known；　anyone

reading　many　historical　works　cannot　help　doubting　whether　this　new

force；　so　variously　understood　by　the　historians　themselves；　is　really

quite　well　known　to　everybody。

EP2｜CH2

　　CHAPTER　II



　　What　force　moves　the　nations？

　　Biographical　historians　and　historians　of　separate　nations

understand　this　force　as　a　power　inherent　in　heroes　and　rulers。　In

their　narration　events　occur　solely　by　the　will　of　a　Napoleon；　and

Alexander；　or　in　general　of　the　persons　they　describe。　The　answers

given　by　this　kind　of　historian　to　the　question　of　what　force　causes

events　to　happen　are　satisfactory　only　as　long　as　there　is　but　one

historian　to　each　event。　As　soon　as　historians　of　different

nationalities　and　tendencies　begin　to　describe　the　same　event；　the

replies　they　give　immediately　lose　all　meaning；　for　this　force　is

understood　by　them　all　not　only　differently　but　often　in　quite

contradictory　ways。　One　historian　says　that　an　event　was　produced　by

Napoleon's　power；　another　that　it　was　produced　by　Alexander's；　a　third

that　it　was　due　to　the　power　of　some　other　person。　Besides　this；

historians　of　that　kind　contradict　each　other　even　in　their

statement　as　to　the　force　on　which　the　authority　of　some　particular

person　was　based。　Thiers；　a　Bonapartist；　says　that　Napoleon's　power

was　based　on　his　virtue　and　genius。　Lanfrey；　a　Republican；　says　it　was

based　on　his　trickery　and　deception　of　the　people。　So　the　historians

of　this　class；　by　mutually　destroying　one　another's　positions；　destroy

the　understanding　of　the　force　which　produces　events；　and　furnish　no

reply　to　history's　essential　question。

　　Writers　of　universal　history　who　deal　with　all　the　nations　seem　to

recognize　how　erroneous　is　the　specialist　historians'　view　of　the

force　which　produces　events。　They　do　not　recognize　it　as　a　power

inherent　in　heroes　and　rulers；　but　as　the　resultant　of　a

multiplicity　of　variously　directed　forces。　In　describing　a　war　or

the　subjugation　of　a　people；　a　general　historian　looks　for　the　cause

of　the　event　not　in　the　power　of　one　man；　but　in　the　interaction　of

many　persons　connected　with　the　event。

　　According　to　this　view　the　power　of　historical　personages；

represented　as　the　product　of　many　forces；　can　no　longer；　it　would

seem；　be　regarded　as　a　force　that　itself　produces　events。　Yet　in

most　cases　universal　historians　still　employ　the　conception　of　power

as　a　force　that　itself　produces　events；　and　treat　it　as　their　cause。

In　their　exposition；　an　historic　character　is　first　the　product　of　his

time；　and　his　power　only　the　resultant　of　various　forces；　and　then　his

power　is　itself　a　force　producing　events。　Gervinus；　Schlosser；　and

others；　for　instance；　at　one　time　prove　Napoleon　to　be　a　product　of

the　Revolution；　of　the　ideas　of　1789　and　so　forth；　and　at　another

plainly　say　that　the　campaign　of　1812　and　other　things　they　do　not

like　were　simply　the　product　of　Napoleon's　misdirected　will；　and

that　the　very　ideas　of　1789　were　arrested　in　their　development　by

Napoleon's　caprice。　The　ideas　of　the　Revolution　and　the　general　temper

of　the　age　produced　Napoleon's　power。　But　Napoleon's　power

suppressed　the　ideas　of　the　Revolution　and　the　general　temper　of　the

age。

　　This　curious　contradiction　is　not　accidental。　Not　only　does　it　occur

at　every　step；　but　the　universal　historians'　accounts　are　all　made

up　of　a　chain　of　such　contradictions。　This　contradiction　occurs

because　after　entering　the　field　of　analysis　the　universal

historians　stop　halfway。

　　To　find　component　forces　equal　to　the　composite　or　resultant

force；　the　sum　of　the　components　must　equal　the　resultant。　This

condition　is　never　observed　by　the　universal　historians；　and　so　to

explain　the　resultant　forces　they　are　obliged　to　admit；　in　addition　to

the　insufficient　components；　another　unexplained　force　affecting　the

resultant　action。

　　Specialist　historians　describing　the　campaign　of　1813　or　the

restoration　of　the　Bourbons　plainly　assert　that　these　events　were

produced　by　the　will　of　Alexander。　But　the　universal　historian

Gervinus；　refuting　this　opinion　of　the　specialist　historian；　tries

to　prove　that　the　campaign　of　1813　and　the　restoration　of　the　Bourbons

were　due　to　other　things　beside　Alexander's　will…　such　as　the　activity

of　Stein；　Metternich；　Madame　de　Stael；　Talleyrand；　Fichte

Chateaubriand；　and　others。　The　historian　evidently　decomposes

Alexander's　power　into　the　components：　Talleyrand；　Chateaubriand；

and　the　rest…　but　the　sum　of　the　components；　that　is；　the　interactions

of　Chateaubriand；　Talleyrand；　Madame　de　Stael；　and　the　others；

evidently　does　not　equal　the　resultant；　namely　the　phenomenon　of

millions　of　Frenchmen　submitting　to　the　Bourbons。　That

Chateaubriand；　Madame　de　Stael；　and　others　spoke　certain　words　to

one　another　only　affected　their　mutual　relations　but　does　not

account　for　the　submission　of　millions。　And　therefore　to　explain　how

from　these　relations　of　theirs　the　submission　of　millions　of　people

resulted…　that　is；　how　component　forces　equal　to　one　A　gave　a

resultant　equal　to　a　thousand　times　A…　the　historian　is　again

obliged　to　fall　back　on　power…　the　force　he　had　denied…　and　to

recognize　it　as　the　resultant　of　the　forces；　that　is；　he　has　to

admit　an　unexplained　force　acting　on　the　resultant。　And　that　is　just

what　the　universal　historians　do；　and　consequently　they　not　only

contradict　the　specialist　historians　but　contradict　themselves。

　　Peasants　having　no　clear　idea　of　the　cause　of　rain；　say；　according

to　whether　they　want　rain　or　fine　weather：　〃The　wind　has　blown　the

clouds　away；〃　or；　〃The　wind　has　brought　up　the　clouds。〃　And　in　the

same　way　the　universal　historians　sometimes；　when　it　pleases　them

and　fits　in　with　their　theory；　say　that　power　is　the　result　of　events；

and　sometimes；　when　they　want　to　prove　something　else；　say　that

power　produces　events。

　　A　third　class　of　historians…　the　so…called　historians　of　culture…

following　the　path　laid　down　by　the　universal　historians　who　sometimes

accept　writers　and　ladies　as　forces　producing　events…　again　take

that　force　to　be　something　quite　different。　They　see　it　in　what　is

called　culture…　in　mental　activity。

　　The　historians　of　culture　are　quite　consistent　in　regard　to　their

progenitors；　the　writers　of　universal　histories；　for　if　historical

events　may　be　explained　by　the　fact　that　certain　persons　treated　one

another　in　such　and　such　ways；　why　not　explain　them　by　the　fact　that

such　and　such　people　wrote　such　and　such　books？　Of　the　immense

number　of　indications　accompanying　every　vital　phenomenon；　these

historians　select　the　indication　of　intellectual　activity　and　say　that

this　indication　is　the　cause。　But　despite　their　endeavors　to　prove

that　the　cause　of　events　lies　in　intellectual　activity；　only　by　a

great　stretch　can　one　admit　that　there　is　any　connection　between

intellectual　activity　and　the　movement　of　peoples；　and　in　no　case

can　one　admit　that　intellectual　activity　controls　people's　actions；

for　that　view　is　not　confirmed　by　such　facts　as　the　very　cruel　murders

of　the　French　Revolution　resulting　from　the　doctrine　of　the　equality

of　man；　or　the　very　cruel　wars　and　executions　resulting　from　the

preaching　of　love。

　　But　even　admitting　as　correct　all　the　cunningly　devised　arguments

with　which　these　histories　are　filled…　admitting　that　nations　are

governed　by　some　undefined　force　called　an　idea…　history's　essential

question　still　remains　unanswered；　and　to　the　former　power　of　monarchs

and　to　the　influence　of　advisers　and　other　people　introduced　by　the

universal　historians；　another；　newer　force…　the　idea…　is　added；　the

connection　of　which　with　the　masses　needs　explanation。　It　is

possible　to　understand　that　Napoleon　had　power　and