second epilogue-第4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！
either because； being easy to make； too much of it gets made or
because people try to exchange it for gold； so also doubts
concerning the real value of such histories arise either because too
many of them are written or because in his simplicity of heart someone
inquires： by what force did Napoleon do this？… that is； wants to
exchange the current paper money for the real gold of actual
comprehension。
The writers of universal histories and of the history of culture are
like people who； recognizing the defects of paper money； decide to
substitute for it money made of metal that has not the specific
gravity of gold。 It may indeed make jingling coin； but will do no more
than that。 Paper money may deceive the ignorant； but nobody is
deceived by tokens of base metal that have no value but merely jingle。
As gold is gold only if it is serviceable not merely for exchange
but also for use； so universal historians will be valuable only when
they can reply to history's essential question： what is power？ The
universal historians give contradictory replies to that question；
while the historians of culture evade it and answer something quite
different。 And as counters of imitation gold can be used only among
a group of people who agree to accept them as gold； or among those who
do not know the nature of gold； so universal historians and historians
of culture； not answering humanity's essential question； serve as
currency for some purposes of their own； only in universities and
among the mass of readers who have a taste for what they call 〃serious
reading。〃
EP2｜CH4
CHAPTER IV
Having abandoned the conception of the ancients as to the divine
subjection of the will of a nation to some chosen man and the
subjection of that man's will to the Deity； history cannot without
contradictions take a single step till it has chosen one of two
things： either a return to the former belief in the direct
intervention of the Deity in human affairs or a definite explanation
of the meaning of the force producing historical events and termed
〃power。〃
A return to the first is impossible； the belief has been
destroyed； and so it is essential to explain what is meant by power。
Napoleon ordered an army to be raised and go to war。 We are so
accustomed to that idea and have become so used to it that the
question： why did six hundred thousand men go to fight when Napoleon
uttered certain words； seems to us senseless。 He had the power and
so what he ordered was done。
This reply is quite satisfactory if we believe that the power was
given him by God。 But as soon as we do not admit that； it becomes
essential to determine what is this power of one man over others。
It cannot be the direct physical power of a strong man over a weak
one… a domination based on the application or threat of physical
force； like the power of Hercules； nor can it be based on the effect
of moral force； as in their simplicity some historians think who say
that the leading figures in history are heroes； that is； men gifted
with a special strength of soul and mind called genius。 This power
cannot be based on the predominance of moral strength； for； not to
mention heroes such as Napoleon about whose moral qualities opinions
differ widely； history shows us that neither a Louis XI nor a
Metternich； who ruled over millions of people； had any particular
moral qualities； but on the contrary were generally morally weaker
than any of the millions they ruled over。
If the source of power lies neither in the physical nor in the moral
qualities of him who possesses it； it must evidently be looked for
elsewhere… in the relation to the people of the man who wields the
power。
And that is how power is understood by the science of jurisprudence；
that exchange bank of history which offers to exchange history's
understanding of power for true gold。
Power is the collective will of the people transferred； by expressed
or tacit consent； to their chosen rulers。
In the domain of jurisprudence； which consists of discussions of how
a state and power might be arranged were it possible for all that to
be arranged； it is all very clear； but when applied to history that
definition of power needs explanation。
The science of jurisprudence regards the state and power as the
ancients regarded fire… namely； as something existing absolutely。
But for history； the state and power are merely phenomena； just as for
modern physics fire is not an element but a phenomenon。
From this fundamental difference between the view held by history
and that held by jurisprudence； it follows that jurisprudence can tell
minutely how in its opinion power should be constituted and what
power… existing immutably outside time… is； but to history's questions
about the meaning of the mutations of power in time it can answer
nothing。
If power be the collective will of the people transferred to their
ruler； was Pugachev a representative of the will of the people？ If
not； then why was Napoleon I？ Why was Napoleon III a criminal when
he was taken prisoner at Boulogne； and why； later on； were those
criminals whom he arrested？
Do palace revolutions… in which sometimes only two or three people
take part… transfer the will of the people to a new ruler？ In
international relations； is the will of the people also transferred to
their conqueror？ Was the will of the Confederation of the Rhine
transferred to Napoleon in 1806？ Was the will of the Russian people
transferred to Napoleon in 1809； when our army in alliance with the
French went to fight the Austrians？
To these questions three answers are possible：
Either to assume （1） that the will of the people is always
unconditionally transferred to the ruler or rulers they have chosen；
and that therefore every emergence of a new power； every struggle
against the power once appointed； should be absolutely regarded as
an infringement of the real power； or （2） that the will of the
people is transferred to the rulers conditionally； under definite
and known conditions； and to show that all limitations； conflicts； and
even destructions of power result from a nonobservance by the rulers
of the conditions under which their power was entrusted to them； or
（3） that the will of the people is delegated to the rulers
conditionally； but that the conditions are unknown and indefinite； and
that the appearance of several authorities； their struggles and
their falls； result solely from the greater or lesser fulfillment by
the rulers of these unknown conditions on which the will of the people
is transferred from some people to others。
And these are the three ways in which the historians do explain
the relation of the people to their rulers。
Some historians… those biographical and specialist historians
already referred to… in their simplicity failing to understand the
question of the meaning of power； seem to consider that the collective
will of the people is unconditionally transferred to historical
persons； and therefore when describing some single state they assume
that particular power to be the one absolute and real power； and
that any other force opposing this is not a power but a violation of
power… mere violence。
Their theory； suitable for primitive and peaceful periods of
history； has the inconvenience… in application to complex and stormy
periods in the life of nations during which various powers arise
simultaneously and struggle with one another… that a Legitimist
historian will prove that the National Convention； the Directory；
and Bonaparte were mere infringers of the true power； while a
Republican and a Bonapartist will prove： the one that the Convention
and the other that the Empire was the real power； and that all the
others were violations of power。 Evidently the explanations
furnished by these historians being mutually contradictory can only
satisfy young children。
Recognizing the falsity of this view of history； another set of
historians say that power rests on a conditional delegation of the
will of the people to their rulers； and that
