战争与和平(下)-第20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！


r　the　physical　science　of　today　fire　is　not　an　element；　but　a　phenomenon。
From　this　fundamental　difference　in　the　point　of　view　of　history　and　of　the　science　of　law；　it　comes　to　pass　that　the　science　of　law　can　discuss　in　detail　how　in　the　scientific　writer’s　opinion　power　should　be　organised；　and　what　is　power；　existing　immovable　outside　the　conditions　of　time；　but　to　historical　questions　as　to　the　significance　of　power；　undergoing　visible　transformation　in　time；　it　can　give　no　answer。
If　power　is　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　transferred　to　their　rulers；　is　Pugatchov　a　representative　of　the　will　of　the　masses？　If　he　is　not；　how　then　is　Napoleon　I。　such　a　representative？　Why　is　it　that　Napoleon　III。；　when　he　was　seized　at　Boulogne；　was　a　criminal；　and　afterwards　those　who　had　been　seized　by　him　were　criminals？
In　palace　revolutions—in　which　sometimes　two　or　three　persons　only　take　part—is　the　will　of　the　masses　transferred　to　a　new　person？　In　international　relations；　is　the　will　of　the　masses　of　the　people　transferred　to　their　conqueror？　In　1808　was　the　will　of　the　Rhine　Alliance　league　transferred　to　Napoleon？　Was　the　will　of　the　mass　of　the　Russian　people　transferred　to　Napoleon　in　1809；　when　our　army　in　alliance　with　the　French　made　war　upon　Austria？
These　questions　may　be　answered　in　three　ways：　（1）　By　maintaining　that　the　will　of　the　masses　is　always　unconditionally　delegated　over　to　that　ruler　or　those　rulers　whom　they　have　chosen；　and　that　consequently　every　rising　up　of　new　power；　every　struggle　against　the　power　once　delegated；　must　be　regarded　as　a　contravention　of　the　real　power。
Or　（2）　by　maintaining　that　the　will　of　the　masses　is　delegated　to　the　rulers；　under　certain　definite　conditions；　and　by　showing　that　all　restrictions　on；　conflicts　with；　and　even　abolition　of　power　are　due　to　non…observance　of　the　rulers　of　those　conditions　upon　which　power　was　delegated　to　them。
Or　（3）　by　maintaining　that　the　will　of　the　masses　is　delegated　to　the　rulers　conditionally；　but　that　the　conditions　are　uncertain　and　undefined；　and　that　the　rising　up　of　several　authorities；　and　their　conflict　and　fall；　are　due　only　to　the　more　or　less　complete　fulfilment　of　the　rulers　of　the　uncertain　conditions　upon　which　the　will　of　the　masses　is　transferred　from　one　set　of　persons　to　another。
In　these　three　ways　do　historians　explain　the　relation　of　the　masses　to　their　rulers。
Some　historians—those　most　distinctively　biographers　and　writers　of　memoirs；　of　whom　we　have　spoken　above—failing　in　the　simplicity　of　their　hearts　to　understand　the　question　as　to　the　meaning　of　power；　seem　to　believe　that　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　is　delegated　to　historical　leaders　unconditionally；　and　therefore；　describing　any　such　authority；　these　historians　assume　that　that　authority　is　the　one　absolute　and　real　one；　and　that　every　other　force；　opposing　that　real　authority；　is　not　authority；　but　a　violation　of　authority；　and　unlawful　violence。
Their　theory　fits　in　well　with　primitive　and　peaceful　periods　of　history；　but　in　its　application　to　complicated　and　stormy　periods　in　the　life　of　nations；　when　several　different　authorities　rise　up　simultaneously　and　struggle　together；　the　inconvenience　arises　that　the　legitimist　historian　will　assert　that　the　National　Assembly；　the　Directorate；　and　Bonaparte　were　only　violations　of　real　authority；　while　the　Republican　and　the　Bonapartist　will　maintain；　one　that　the　Republic；　and　the　other　that　the　Empire　were　the　real　authority；　and　that　all　the　rest　was　a　violation　of　authority。　It　is　evident　that　the　explanations　given　by　these　historians　being　mutually　contradictory；　can　satisfy　none　but　children　of　the　tenderest　age。
Recognising　the　deceptiveness　of　this　view　of　history；　another　class　of　historians　assert　that　authority　rests　on　the　conditional　delegation　of　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　to　their　rulers；　and　that　historical　leaders　possess　power　only　on　condition　of　carrying　out　the　programme　which　the　will　of　the　people　has　by　tacit　consent　dictated　to　them。　But　what　this　programme　consists　of；　those　historians　do　not　tell　us；　or　if　they　do；　they　continually　contradict　one　another。
In　accordance　with　his　view　of　what　constitutes　the　goal　of　the　movements　of　a　people；　each　historian　conceives　of　this　programme；　as；　for　instance；　the　greatness；　the　wealth；　the　freedom；　or　the　enlightenment　of　the　citizens　of　France　or　some　other　kingdom。　But　putting　aside　the　contradictions　between　historians　as　to　the　nature　of　such　a　programme；　and　even　supposing　that　one　general　programme　to　exist　for　all；　the　facts　of　history　almost　always　contradict　this　theory。
If　the　conditions　on　which　power　is　vested　in　rulers　are　to　be　found　in　the　wealth；　freedom；　and　enlightenment　of　the　people；　how　is　it　that　kings　like　Louis　XIV。　and　John　IV。　lived　out　their　reigns　in　peace；　while　kings　like　Louis　XVI。　and　Charles　I。　were　put　to　death　by　their　peoples？　To　this　question　these　historians　reply；　that　the　effect　of　the　actions　of　Louis　XIV。　contrary　to　the　programme　were　reacted　upon　Louis　XVI。　But　why　not　reflected　on　Louis　XIV。　and　Louis　XV。？　Why　precisely　on　Louis　XVI。？　And　what　limit　is　there　to　such　reflection？　To　these　questions　there　is　and　can　be　no　reply。　Nor　does　this　view　explain　the　reason　that　the　combined　will　of　a　people　remains　for　several　centuries　vested　in　its　rulers　and　their　heirs；　and　then　all　at　once　during　a　period　of　fifty　years　is　transferred　to　a　Convention；　a　Directory；　to　Napoleon；　to　Alexander；　to　Louis　XVIII。；　again　to　Napoleon；　to　Charles　X。；　to　Louis　Philippe；　to　a　republican　government；　and　to　Napoleon　III。　To　explain　these　rapid　transferences　of　the　people’s　will　from　one　person　to　another；　especially　when　complicated　by　international　relations；　wars；　and　alliances；　these　historians　are　unwillingly　obliged　to　allow　that　a　proportion　of　these　phenomena　are　not　normal　transferences　of　the　will　of　the　people；　but　casual　incidents；　depending　on　the　cunning；　or　the　blundering；　or　the　craft；　or　the　weakness　of　a　diplomatist　or　a　monarch；　or　the　leader　of　a　party。　So　that　the　greater　number　of　the　phenomena　of　history—civil　wars；　revolutions；　wars—are　regarded　by　these　historians　as　not　being　produced　by　the　delegation　of　the　free…will　of　the　people；　but　as　being　produced　by　the　wrongly　directed　will　of　one　or　several　persons；　that　is；　again　by　a　violation　of　authority。　And　so　by　this　class　of　historians；　too；　historical　events　are　conceived　of　as　exceptions　to　their　theory。
These　historians　are　like　a　botanist　who；　observing　that　several　plants　grow　by　their　seed　parting　into　two　cotyledons；　or　seed…leaves；　should　insist　that　everything　that　grows　only　grows　by　parting　into　two　leaves；　and　that　the　palm…tree　and　the　mushroom；　and　even　the　oak；　when　it　spreads　its　branches　in　all　directions　in　its　mature　growth；　and　has　lost　all　semblance　to　its　two　seed…leaves；　are　departures　from　their　theory　of　the　true　law　of　growth。　A　third　class　of　historians　admit　that　the　will　of　the　masses　is　vested　in　historical　leaders　conditionally；　but　say　that　those　conditions　are　not　known　to　us。　They　maintain　that　historical　leaders　have　power　only　because　they　are　carrying　out　the　will　of　the　masses　delegated　to　them。
But　in　that　case；　if　the　force　moving　the　peoples　lies　not　in　their　historical　leaders；　but　in　the　peoples　themselves；　where　is　the　significance　of　those　historical　leaders？
Historical　leaders　are；　so　those　historians　tell　us；　the　self…expression　of　the　will　of　the　masses；　the　activity　of　the　historical　leaders　serves　as　a　type　of　the　activity　of　the　masses。
But　in　that　case　the　question　arises；　Does　all　the　activity　of　historical　leaders　serve　as　an　expression　of　the　will　of　the　masses；　or　only　a　certain　side　of　it？　If　all　the　life…activity　of　historical　leaders　serves　as　an　expression　of　the　will　of　the　masses；　as　some　indeed　believe；　then　the　biographies　of　Napoleons　and　Catherines；　with　all　the　details　of　court　scandal；　serve　as　the　expression　of　the　life　of　their　peoples；　which　is　an　obvious　absurdity。　If　only　one　side　of　the　activity　of　an　historical　leader　serves　as　the　expression　of　the　life　of　a　people；　as　other　supposed　philosophical　historians　believe；　then　to　define　what　side　of　the　activity　of　an　historical　leader　does　express　the　life　of　a　people；　one　must　know　first　what　the　life　of　the　people　consists　of。
Being　confronted　with　this　difficulty；　historians　of　this　class　invent　the　most　obscure；　intangible；　and　general　abstraction；　under　which　to　class　the　greatest　possible　number　of　events；　and　declare　that　in　this　abstraction　is　to　be　found　the　aim　of　the　movements　of　humanity。　The　most　usual　abstractions　accepted　by　almost　all　historians　are：　freedom；　equality；　enlightenment；　progress；　civilisation；　culture。　Postulating　some　such　abstraction　as　the　goal　of　the　movements　of　humanity；　the　historians　study　those　persons　who　have　left　the　greatest　number　of　memorials　behind　them—kings；　ministers；　generals；　writers；　reformers；　popes；　and　journalists—from　the　point　of　view　of　the　effect　those　persons　in　their　opinion　had　in　promoting　or　hindering　that　abstraction。　But　as　it　is　nowhere　proven　that　the　goal　of　humanity　really　is　freedom；　equality；　enlightenment；　or　civilisation；　and　as　th