second epilogue-第3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！
same way the universal historians sometimes； when it pleases them
and fits in with their theory； say that power is the result of events；
and sometimes； when they want to prove something else； say that
power produces events。
A third class of historians… the so…called historians of culture…
following the path laid down by the universal historians who sometimes
accept writers and ladies as forces producing events… again take
that force to be something quite different。 They see it in what is
called culture… in mental activity。
The historians of culture are quite consistent in regard to their
progenitors； the writers of universal histories； for if historical
events may be explained by the fact that certain persons treated one
another in such and such ways； why not explain them by the fact that
such and such people wrote such and such books？ Of the immense
number of indications accompanying every vital phenomenon； these
historians select the indication of intellectual activity and say that
this indication is the cause。 But despite their endeavors to prove
that the cause of events lies in intellectual activity； only by a
great stretch can one admit that there is any connection between
intellectual activity and the movement of peoples； and in no case
can one admit that intellectual activity controls people's actions；
for that view is not confirmed by such facts as the very cruel murders
of the French Revolution resulting from the doctrine of the equality
of man； or the very cruel wars and executions resulting from the
preaching of love。
But even admitting as correct all the cunningly devised arguments
with which these histories are filled… admitting that nations are
governed by some undefined force called an idea… history's essential
question still remains unanswered； and to the former power of monarchs
and to the influence of advisers and other people introduced by the
universal historians； another； newer force… the idea… is added； the
connection of which with the masses needs explanation。 It is
possible to understand that Napoleon had power and so events occurred；
with some effort one may even conceive that Napoleon together with
other influences was the cause of an event； but how a book； Le Contrat
social； had the effect of making Frenchmen begin to drown one
another cannot be understood without an explanation of the causal
nexus of this new force with the event。
Undoubtedly some relation exists between all who live
contemporaneously； and so it is possible to find some connection
between the intellectual activity of men and their historical
movements； just as such a connection may be found between the
movements of humanity and commerce； handicraft； gardening； or anything
else you please。 But why intellectual activity is considered by the
historians of culture to be the cause or expression of the whole
historical movement is hard to understand。 Only the following
considerations can have led the historians to such a conclusion： （1）
that history is written by learned men； and so it is natural and
agreeable for them to think that the activity of their class
supplies the basis of the movement of all humanity； just as a
similar belief is natural and agreeable to traders； agriculturists；
and soldiers （if they do not express it； that is merely because
traders and soldiers do not write history）； and （2） that spiritual
activity； enlightenment； civilization； culture； ideas； are all
indistinct； indefinite conceptions under whose banner it is very
easy to use words having a still less definite meaning； and which
can therefore be readily introduced into any theory。
But not to speak of the intrinsic quality of histories of this
kind （which may possibly even be of use to someone for something）
the histories of culture； to which all general histories tend more and
more to approximate； are significant from the fact that after
seriously and minutely examining various religious； philosophic； and
political doctrines as causes of events； as soon as they have to
describe an actual historic event such as the campaign of 1812 for
instance； they involuntarily describe it as resulting from an exercise
of power… and say plainly that that was the result of Napoleon's will。
Speaking so； the historians of culture involuntarily contradict
themselves； and show that the new force they have devised does not
account for what happens in history； and that history can only be
explained by introducing a power which they apparently do not
recognize。
EP2｜CH3
CHAPTER III
A locomotive is moving。 Someone asks： 〃What moves it？〃 A peasant
says the devil moves it。 Another man says the locomotive moves because
its wheels go round。 A third asserts that the cause of its movement
lies in the smoke which the wind carries away。
The peasant is irrefutable。 He has devised a complete explanation。
To refute him someone would have to prove to him that there is no
devil； or another peasant would have to explain to him that it is
not the devil but a German； who moves the locomotive。 Only then； as
a result of the contradiction； will they see that they are both wrong。
But the man who says that the movement of the wheels is the cause
refutes himself； for having once begun to analyze he ought to go on
and explain further why the wheels go round； and till he has reached
the ultimate cause of the movement of the locomotive in the pressure
of steam in the boiler； he has no right to stop in his search for
the cause。 The man who explains the movement of the locomotive by
the smoke that is carried back has noticed that the wheels do not
supply an explanation and has taken the first sign that occurs to
him and in his turn has offered that as an explanation。
The only conception that can explain the movement of the
locomotive is that of a force commensurate with the movement observed。
The only conception that can explain the movement of the peoples
is that of some force commensurate with the whole movement of the
peoples。
Yet to supply this conception various historians take forces of
different kinds； all of which are incommensurate with the movement
observed。 Some see it as a force directly inherent in heroes； as the
peasant sees the devil in the locomotive； others as a force
resulting from several other forces； like the movement of the
wheels； others again as an intellectual influence； like the smoke that
is blown away。
So long as histories are written of separate individuals； whether
Caesars； Alexanders； Luthers； or Voltaires； and not the histories of
all； absolutely all those who take part in an event； it is quite
impossible to describe the movement of humanity without the conception
of a force compelling men to direct their activity toward a certain
end。 And the only such conception known to historians is that of
power。
This conception is the one handle by means of which the material
of history； as at present expounded； can be dealt with； and anyone who
breaks that handle off； as Buckle did； without finding some other
method of treating historical material； merely deprives himself of the
one possible way of dealing with it。 The necessity of the conception
of power as an explanation of historical events is best demonstrated
by the universal historians and historians of culture themselves；
for they professedly reject that conception but inevitably have
recourse to it at every step。
In dealing with humanity's inquiry； the science of history up to now
is like money in circulation… paper money and coin。 The biographies
and special national histories are like paper money。 They can be
used and can circulate and fulfill their purpose without harm to
anyone and even advantageously； as long as no one asks what is the
security behind them。 You need only forget to ask how the will of
heroes produces events； and such histories as Thiers' will be
interesting and instructive and may perhaps even possess a tinge of
poetry。 But just as doubts of the real value of paper money arise
either because； being easy to make； too much of it gets made o
