贝壳电子书 > 英文原著电子书 > second epilogue >

第2章

second epilogue-第2章

小说: second epilogue 字数: 每页4000字

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

返回目录 上一页 下一页 回到顶部 0 0

你可能喜欢的