战争与和平(下)-第21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！


ven　that　the　goal　of　humanity　really　is　freedom；　equality；　enlightenment；　or　civilisation；　and　as　the　connection　of　the　masses　with　their　rulers　and　with　the　leaders　of　humanity　only　rests　on　the　arbitrary　assumption　that　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　is　always　vested　in　these　figures　which　attract　our　attention—the　fact　remains　that　the　activity　of　the　millions　of　men　who　move　from　place　to　place；　burn　houses；　abandon　tilling　the　soil；　and　butcher　one　another；　never　does　find　expression　in　descriptions　of　the　activity　of　some　dozen　persons；　who　do　not　burn　houses；　never　have　tilled　the　soil；　and　do　not　kill　their　fellow…creatures。
History　proves　this　at　every　turn。　Is　the　ferment　of　the　peoples　of　the　west　towards　the　end　of　last　century；　and　their　rush　to　the　east；　explained　by　the　activity　of　Louis　XIV。；　Louis　XV。；　and　Louis　XVI。；　or　their　mistresses　and　ministers；　or　by　the　life　of　Napoleon；　of　Rousseau；　of　Diderot；　of　Beaumarchais；　and　others？
The　movement　of　the　Russian　people　to　the　east；　to　Kazan　and　Siberia；　is　that　expressed　in　the　details　of　the　morbid　life　of　John　IV。　and　his　correspondence　with　Kurbsky？
Is　the　movement　of　the　peoples　at　the　time　of　the　Crusades　explained　by　the　life　and　activity　of　certain　Godfreys　and　Louis’　and　their　ladies？
It　has　remained　beyond　our　comprehension；　that　movement　of　the　peoples　from　west　to　east；　without　an　object；　without　leadership；　with　a　crowd　of　tramps　following　Peter　the　Hermit。　And　even　more　incomprehensible　is　the　cessation　of　that　movement；　when　a　rational　and　holy　object　for　the　expeditions　had　been　clearly　set　up　by　historical　leaders—that　is；　the　deliverance　of　Jerusalem。
Popes；　kings；　and　knights　urged　the　people　to　set　free　the　Holy　Land。　But　the　people　did　not　move；　because　that　unknown　cause；　which　had　impelled　them　before　to　movement；　existed　no　longer。　The　history　of　the　Godfreys　and　the　Minnesingers　evidently　cannot　be　regarded　as　an　epitome　of　the　life　of　the　peoples。　And　the　history　of　the　Godfreys　and　the　Minnesingers　has　remained　the　history　of　those　knights　and　those　Minnesingers；　while　the　history　of　the　life　of　the　peoples　and　their　impulses　has　remained　unknown。
Even　less　explanatory　of　the　life　of　the　peoples　is　the　history　of　the　lives　of　writers　and　reformers。
The　history　of　culture　offers　us　as　the　impelling　motives　of　the　life　of　the　people　the　circumstances　of　the　lives　or　the　ideas　of　a　writer　or　a　reformer。　We　learn　that　Luther　had　a　hasty　temper　and　uttered　certain　speeches；　we　learn　that　Rousseau　was　distrustful　and　wrote　certain　books；　but　we　do　not　learn　what　made　the　nations　cut　each　other　to　pieces　after　the　Reformation；　or　why　men　guillotined　each　other　during　the　French　Revolution。
If　we　unite　both　these　kinds　of　history　together；　as　do　the　most　modern　historians；　then　we　shall　get　histories　of　monarchs　and　of　writers；　but　not　a　history　of　the　life　of　nations。


Chapter　5
THE　LIFE　of　nations　is　not　contained　in　the　life　of　a　few　men；　since　the　connection　between　those　few　men　and　the　nations　has　not　been　found。　The　theory　that　this　connection　is　based　on　the　delegation　of　the　combined　will　of　a　people　to　its　historical　leaders　is　an　hypothesis；　not　supported　by　the　testimony　of　history。
The　theory　of　the　delegation　of　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　to　historical　personages　may　perhaps　explain　a　great　deal　in　the　domain　of　the　science　of　law；　and　is　possibly　essential　for　its　purposes。　But　in　its　application　to　history；　as　soon　as　revolutions；　wars；　civil　disturbances　arise；　as　soon　as　history　begins　in　fact—this　theory　explains　nothing。
This　theory　appears　irrefutable；　just　because　the　act　of　delegating　the　will　of　the　people　can　never　be　verified；　since　it　has　never　existed。
Whatever　event　might　take　place；　and　whoever　might　be　taking　the　lead　in　such　an　event；　the　theory　can　always　say　that　such　a　person　took　the　lead　in　bringing　about　that　event　because　the　combined　will　was　vested　in　him。
The　answers　given　by　this　theory　to　historical　questions　are　like　the　answers　of　a　man　who；　watching　the　movements　of　a　flock；　should　pay　no　attention　to　the　varying　quality　of　the　pasturage　in　different　parts　of　the　field；　nor　to　the　actions　of　the　shepherd；　but　should　look　for　the　causes　of　the　flock　taking　this　or　that　direction　simply　in　the　animal　that　happened　to　be　foremost　in　it。
‘‘The　flock　moves　in　this　direction　because　the　animal　in　front　leads　it；　and　the　combined　will　of　all　the　other　animals　is　delegated　to　the　leader　of　the　flock。’’　Such　is　the　answer　given　by　the　first　class　of　historians；　who　suppose　an　unconditional　delegation　of　will　to　the　authority。
‘‘If　the　animals　leading　the　flock　are　changed　for　others；　it　is　due　to　the　fact　that　the　combined　will　of　all　the　beasts　is　transferred　from　one　leader　to　another　owing　to　the　fact　that　the　first　leader　did　not　follow　the　direction　chosen　by　all　the　flock。’’　Such　is　the　reply　of　those　historians　who　assume　that　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　is　vested　in　their　rulers　on　conditions　which　they　regard　as　unknown。　（With　this　method　of　observation　it　very　often　happens　that　the　observer；　judging　from　the　direction　chosen　by　him；　reckons　as　leaders　those　who；　when　the　direction　of　the　masses　is　changed；　are　not　in　front；　but　on　one　side；　and　even　sometimes　the　hindmost。）
‘‘If　the　beasts　that　are　foremost　are　constantly　being　changed；　and　the　direction　taken　by　the　flock　too　is　continually　changing；　that　is　due　to　the　fact　that　to　attain　a　certain　direction　known　to　us　the　beasts　delegate　their　wills　to　those　beasts　which　attract　our　attention；　and　to　study　the　movements　of　the　flock　we　ought　to　observe　all　the　noticeable　animals　that　are　moving　on　all　sides　of　the　flock。’’　So　say　the　third　class　of　historians；　who　accept　all　historical　characters　as　the　expression　of　their　age　from　monarchs　to　journalists。
The　theory　of　the　transference　of　the　will　of　the　masses　to　historical　characters　is　only　a　paraphrase—only　a　restatement　of　the　question　in　other　words。
What　is　the　cause　of　historical　events？　Power。
What　is　Power？　Power　is　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　vested　in　one　person。
On　what　conditions　are　the　wills　of　the　masses　vested　in　one　person？　On　condition　of　that　person’s　expressing　the　will　of　all　men。　That　is；　power　is　power。　That　is；　power　is　a　word　the　meaning　of　which　is　beyond　our　comprehension。
If　the　domain　of　human　knowledge　were　confined　to　abstract　reasoning　alone；　then；　after　subjecting　the　explanation　of　power　given　by　science　to　criticism；　humanity　would　come　to　the　conclusion　that　power　is　only　a　word；　and　that　it　has　no　existence　in　reality。　But　for　the　knowledge　of　phenomena；　man　has　besides　abstract　reasoning　another　instrument—experience—by　which　he　verifies　the　results　of　reasoning。　And　experience　tells　him　that　power　is　not　merely　a　word；　but　an　actually　existing　phenomenon。
To　say　nothing　of　the　fact　that　not　a　single　account　of　the　combined　action　of　men　can　omit　the　conception　of　power；　the　reality　of　power　is　shown　us；　not　only　by　history；　but　by　observation　of　contemporary　events。
Whenever　an　event　takes　place；　a　man　or　men　appear　by　whose　will　the　event　is　conceived　to　have　been　accomplished。　Napoleon　III。　gives　an　order；　and　the　French　go　to　Mexico。　The　Prussian　King　and　Bismarck　give　certain　orders；　and　troops　go　to　Bohemia。　Napoleon　I。　gives　a　command；　and　soldiers　march　into　Russia。　Alexander　I。　gives　a　command；　and　the　French　submit　to　the　Bourbons。　Experience　shows　us　that　whatever　takes　place；　it　is　always　connected　with　the　will　of　one　or　of　several　men；　who　decreed　it　should　be　so。
Historians；　from　the　old　habit　of　recognising　divine　intervention　in　the　affairs　of　humanity；　are　inclined　to　look　for　the　cause　of　events　in　the　exercise　of　the　will　of　the　person　endowed　with　power；　but　this　conclusion　is　not　confirmed　either　by　reason　or　by　experience。
On　one　side　reason　shows　that　the　expression　of　the　will　of　a　man—his　words；　in　fact；　are　only　a　part　of　the　general　activity　expressed　in　an　event；　such　as　a　revolution　or　a　war；　and　therefore　without　the　assumption　of　an　incomprehensible；　supernatural　force—a　miracle—it　cannot　be　admitted　that　these　words　can　be　the　immediate　cause　of　the　movements　of　millions　of　men。
On　the　other　side；　even　if　one　admits　that　words　may　be　the　cause　of　an　event；　history　shows　us　that　the　expression　of　the　will　of　historical　personages　in　the　great　majority　of　cases　does　not　lead　to　any　effect　at　all—that　is；　that　their　commands　are　often　not　carried　out；　and；　in　fact；　sometimes　the　very　opposite　of　what　they　have　commanded　is　done。
Without　admitting　divine　intervention　in　the　affairs　of　humanity；　we　cannot　accept　power　as　a　cause　of　events。
Power；　from　the　point　of　view　of　experience；　is　only　the　dependence　existing　between　the　expression　of　the　will　of　a　person　and　the　carrying　out　of　that　will　by　others。
To　explain　the　conditions　of　that　dependence；　we　have；　first　of　all；　to　reinstate　the　conception　of　the　expression　of　will；　referring　it　to　man；　and　not　to　the　Deity。
If　the　Deity　gives　a　command；　expresses　His　will；　as　the　history　of　the　ancients　tell　us；　the　expression　of　that　will　is　independent　of　time；　and　is　not　called　forth　by　anything；　as　the　Deity　is　not　co