second epilogue-第5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！


activity　of　an　historical　leader　which　serves　to　express　the

people's　life；　as　other　so…called　〃philosophical〃　historians

believe；　then　to　determine　which　side　of　the　activity　of　a　leader

expresses　the　nation's　life；　we　have　first　of　all　to　know　in　what

the　nation's　life　consists。

　　Met　by　this　difficulty　historians　of　that　class　devise　some　most

obscure；　impalpable；　and　general　abstraction　which　can　cover　all

conceivable　occurrences；　and　declare　this　abstraction　to　be　the　aim　of

humanity's　movement。　The　most　usual　generalizations　adopted　by

almost　all　the　historians　are：　freedom；　equality；　enlightenment；

progress；　civilization；　and　culture。　Postulating　some　generalization

as　the　goal　of　the　movement　of　humanity；　the　historians　study　the

men　of　whom　the　greatest　number　of　monuments　have　remained：　kings；

ministers；　generals；　authors；　reformers；　popes；　and　journalists；　to

the　extent　to　which　in　their　opinion　these　persons　have　promoted　or

hindered　that　abstraction。　But　as　it　is　in　no　way　proved　that　the

aim　of　humanity　does　consist　in　freedom；　equality；　enlightenment；　or

civilization；　and　as　the　connection　of　the　people　with　the　rulers

and　enlighteners　of　humanity　is　only　based　on　the　arbitrary　assumption

that　the　collective　will　of　the　people　is　always　transferred　to　the

men　whom　we　have　noticed；　it　happens　that　the　activity　of　the　millions

who　migrate；　burn　houses；　abandon　agriculture；　and　destroy　one　another

never　is　expressed　in　the　account　of　the　activity　of　some　dozen　people

who　did　not　burn　houses；　practice　agriculture；　or　slay　their　fellow

creatures。

　　History　proves　this　at　every　turn。　Is　the　ferment　of　the　peoples

of　the　west　at　the　end　of　the　eighteenth　century　and　their　drive

eastward　explained　by　the　activity　of　Louis　XIV；　XV；　and　XVI；　their

mistresses　and　ministers；　and　by　the　lives　of　Napoleon；　Rousseau；

Diderot；　Beaumarchais；　and　others？

　　Is　the　movement　of　the　Russian　people　eastward　to　Kazan　and

Siberia　expressed　by　details　of　the　morbid　character　of　Ivan　the

Terrible　and　by　his　correspondence　with　Kurbski？

　　Is　the　movement　of　the　peoples　at　the　time　of　the　Crusades　explained

by　the　life　and　activity　of　the　Godfreys　and　the　Louis…es　and　their

ladies？　For　us　that　movement　of　the　peoples　from　west　to　east；　without

leaders；　with　a　crowd　of　vagrants；　and　with　Peter　the　Hermit；

remains　incomprehensible。　And　yet　more　incomprehensible　is　the

cessation　of　that　movement　when　a　rational　and　sacred　aim　for　the

Crusade…　the　deliverance　of　Jerusalem…　had　been　clearly　defined　by

historic　leaders。　Popes；　kings；　and　knights　incited　the　peoples　to

free　the　Holy　Land；　but　the　people　did　not　go；　for　the　unknown　cause

which　had　previously　impelled　them　to　go　no　longer　existed。　The

history　of　the　Godfreys　and　the　Minnesingers　can　evidently　not　cover

the　life　of　the　peoples。　And　the　history　of　the　Godfreys　and　the

Minnesingers　has　remained　the　history　of　Godfreys　and　Minnesingers；

but　the　history　of　the　life　of　the　peoples　and　their　impulses　has

remained　unknown。

　　Still　less　does　the　history　of　authors　and　reformers　explain　to　us

the　life　of　the　peoples。

　　The　history　of　culture　explains　to　us　the　impulses　and　conditions　of

life　and　thought　of　a　writer　or　a　reformer。　We　learn　that　Luther　had　a

hot　temper　and　said　such　and　such　things；　we　learn　that　Rousseau　was

suspicious　and　wrote　such　and　such　books；　but　we　do　not　learn　why

after　the　Reformation　the　peoples　massacred　one　another；　nor　why

during　the　French　Revolution　they　guillotined　one　another。

　　If　we　unite　both　these　kinds　of　history；　as　is　done　by　the　newest

historians；　we　shall　have　the　history　of　monarchs　and　writers；　but　not

the　history　of　the　life　of　the　peoples。

EP2｜CH5

　　CHAPTER　V



　　The　life　of　the　nations　is　not　contained　in　the　lives　of　a　few

men；　for　the　connection　between　those　men　and　the　nations　has　not　been

found。　The　theory　that　this　connection　is　based　on　the　transference　of

the　collective　will　of　a　people　to　certain　historical　personages　is　an

hypothesis　unconfirmed　by　the　experience　of　history。

　　The　theory　of　the　transference　of　the　collective　will　of　the

people　to　historic　persons　may　perhaps　explain　much　in　the　domain　of

jurisprudence　and　be　essential　for　its　purposes；　but　in　its

application　to　history；　as　soon　as　revolutions；　conquests；　or　civil

wars　occur…　that　is；　as　soon　as　history　begins…　that　theory　explains

nothing。

　　The　theory　seems　irrefutable　just　because　the　act　of　transference　of

the　people's　will　cannot　be　verified；　for　it　never　occurred。

　　Whatever　happens　and　whoever　may　stand　at　the　head　of　affairs；　the

theory　can　always　say　that　such　and　such　a　person　took　the　lead

because　the　collective　will　was　transferred　to　him。

　　The　replies　this　theory　gives　to　historical　questions　are　like　the

replies　of　a　man　who；　watching　the　movements　of　a　herd　of　cattle　and

paying　no　attention　to　the　varying　quality　of　the　pasturage　in

different　parts　of　the　field；　or　to　the　driving　of　the　herdsman；

should　attribute　the　direction　the　herd　takes　to　what　animal　happens

to　be　at　its　head。

　　〃The　herd　goes　in　that　direction　because　the　animal　in　front　leads

it　and　the　collective　will　of　all　the　other　animals　is　vested　in

that　leader。〃　This　is　what　historians　of　the　first　class　say…　those

who　assume　the　unconditional　transference　of　the　people's　will。

　　〃If　the　animals　leading　the　herd　change；　this　happens　because　the

collective　will　of　all　the　animals　is　transferred　from　one　leader　to

another；　according　to　whether　the　animal　is　or　is　not　leading　them

in　the　direction　selected　by　the　whole　herd。〃　Such　is　the　reply

historians　who　assume　that　the　collective　will　of　the　people　is

delegated　to　rulers　under　conditions　which　they　regard　as　known。　（With

this　method　of　observation　it　often　happens　that　the　observer；

influenced　by　the　direction　he　himself　prefers；　regards　those　as

leaders　who；　owing　to　the　people's　change　of　direction；　are　no

longer　in　front；　but　on　one　side；　or　even　in　the　rear。）

　　〃If　the　animals　in　front　are　continually　changing　and　the

direction　of　the　whole　herd　is　constantly　altered；　this　is　because

in　order　to　follow　a　given　direction　the　animals　transfer　their　will

to　the　animals　that　have　attracted　our　attention；　and　to　study　the

movements　of　the　herd　we　must　watch　the　movements　of　all　the　prominent

animals　moving　on　all　sides　of　the　herd。〃　So　say　the　third　class　of

historians　who　regard　all　historical　persons；　from　monarchs　to

journalists；　as　the　expression　of　their　age。

　　The　theory　of　the　transference　of　the　will　of　the　people　to　historic

persons　is　merely　a　paraphrase…　a　restatement　of　the　question　in　other

words。

　　What　causes　historical　events？　Power。　What　is　power？　Power　is　the

collective　will　of　the　people　transferred　to　one　person。　Under　what

condition　is　the　will　of　the　people　delegated　to　one　person？　On

condition　that　that　person　expresses　the　will　of　the　whole　people。

That　is；　power　is　power：　in　other　words；　power　is　a　word　the　meaning

of　which　we　do　not　understand。



　　If　the　realm　of　human　knowledge　were　confined　to　abstract　reasoning；

then　having　subjected　to　criticism　the　explanation　of　〃power〃　that

juridical　science　gives　us；　humanity　would　conclude　that　power　is

merely　a　word　and　has　no　real　existence。　But　to　understand　phenomena

man　has；　besides　abstract　reasoning；　experience　by　which　he　verifies

his　reflections。　And　experience　tells　us　that　power　is　not　merely　a

word　but　an　actually　existing　phenomenon。

　　Not　to　speak　of　the　fact　that　no　description　of　the　collective

activity　of　men　can　do　without　the　conception　of　power；　the

existence　of　power　is　proved　both　by　history　and　by　observing

contemporary　events。

　　Whenever　an　event　occurs　a　man　appears　or　men　appear；　by　whose

will　the　event　seems　to　have　taken　place。　Napoleon　III　issues　a　decree

and　the　French　go　to　Mexico。　The　King　of　Prussia　and　Bismarck　issue

decrees　and　an　army　enters　Bohemia。　Napoleon　I　issues　a　decree　and

an　army　enters　Russia。　Alexander　I　gives　a　command　and　the　French

submit　to　the　Bourbons。　Experience　shows　us　that　whatever　event　occurs

it　is　always　related　to　the　will　of　one　or　of　several　men　who　have

decreed　it。

　　The　historians；　in　accord　with　the　old　habit　of　acknowledging　divine

intervention　in　human　affairs；　want　to　see　the　cause　of　events　in

the　expression　of　the　will　of　someone　endowed　with　power；　but　that

supposition　is　not　confirmed　either　by　reason　or　by　experience。

　　On　the　one　side　reflection　shows　that　the　expression　of　a　man's

will…　his　words…　are　only　part　of　the　general　activity　expressed　in　an

event；　as　for　instance　in　a　war　or　a　revolution；　and　so　without

assuming　an　incomprehensible；　supernatural　force…　a　miracle…　one

cannot　admit　that　words　can　be　the　immediate　cause　of　the　movements　of

millions　of　men。　On　the　other　hand；　even　if　we　admitted　that　words

could　be　the　cause　of　events；　history　shows　that　the　expression　of　the

will　of　historical　personages　does　not　in　most　cases　produce　any

effect；　that　is　to　say；　their　commands　are　often　not　executed；　and

someti