second epilogue-第2章
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！
their armies to kill one another； but just then Napoleon arrived in
France with a battalion； and the French； who had been hating him；
immediately all submitted to him。 But the Allied monarchs were angry
at this and went to fight the French once more。 And they defeated
the genius Napoleon and； suddenly recognizing him as a brigand； sent
him to the island of St。 Helena。 And the exile； separated from the
beloved France so dear to his heart； died a lingering death on that
rock and bequeathed his great deeds to posterity。 But in Europe a
reaction occurred and the sovereigns once again all began to oppress
their subjects。〃
It would be a mistake to think that this is ironic… a caricature
of the historical accounts。 On the contrary it is a very mild
expression of the contradictory replies； not meeting the questions；
which all the historians give； from the compilers of memoirs and the
histories of separate states to the writers of general histories and
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
