战争与和平(上)-第348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！


the　physical　law　of　gravitation；　the　immense　mass　of　them　drew　the　separate　atoms　to　itself。　They　moved　in　their　mass　of　hundreds　of　thousands　like　a　whole　state。
Every　man　among　them　longed　for　one　thing　only—to　surrender　and　be　taken　prisoner；　to　escape　from　all　the　horrors　and　miseries　of　his　actual　position。　But　on　one　hand　the　momentum　of　the　common　impulse　toward　Smolensk　drew　each　individual　in　the　same　direction。　On　the　other　hand；　it　was　out　of　the　question　for　a　corps　to　surrender　to　a　squadron；　and　although　the　French　took　advantage　of　every　convenient　opportunity　to　straggle　away　from　one　another；　and　on　the　smallest　decent　pretext　to　be　taken　prisoners；　those　opportunities　did　not　always　occur。　Their　very　number；　and　their　rapid　movement　in　such　a　closely…packed　mass；　deprived　them　of　such　possibilities；　and　made　it　not　only　difficult　but　impossible　for　the　Russians　to　stop　that　movement　into　which　the　whole　energy　of　that　great　mass　was　thrown。　No　mechanical　splitting　up　of　the　body　could　accelerate　beyond　certain　limits　the　process　of　dissolution　that　was　going　on　within　it。
A　snowball　cannot　be　melted　instantaneously。　There　is　a　certain　limit　of　time　within　which　no　application　of　heat　can　thaw　the　snow。　On　the　contrary；　the　greater　the　heat；　the　harder　the　snow　that　is　left。
Of　the　Russian　generals　no　one　but　Kutuzov　understood　this。　When　the　flight　of　the　French　army　took　its　final　direction　along　the　Smolensk　road；　then　what　Kutuzov　had　foreseen　on　the　night　of　the　11th　of　October　began　to　come　to　pass。　All　the　generals　and　officers　of　the　Russian　army　were　eager　to　distinguish　themselves；　to　cut　off　the　enemy’s　retreat；　to　overtake；　to　capture；　to　fall　upon　the　French；　and　all　clamoured　for　action。
Kutuzov　alone　used　all　his　powers　（and　the　powers　of　any　commander…in…chief　are　far　from　great）　to　resist　this　clamour　for　attack。
He　could　not　tell　them　what　we　can　say　now：　he　could　not　ask　them　what　was　the　object　of　fighting　and　obstructing　the　road　and　losing　our　men；　and　inhumanly　persecuting　the　poor　wretches；　when　one…third　of　that　army　melted　away　of　itself　without　a　battle　between　Moscow　and　Vyazma。　But　drawing　from　the　stores　of　his　aged　wisdom　what　they　could　understand；　he　told　them　of　the　golden　bridge；　and　they　laughed　at　him；　slandered　him；　pushed　on　and　dashed　forward；　exulting　over　the　wounded　beast。
Near　Vyazma；　Yermolov；　Miloradovitch；　Platov；　and　others；　finding　themselves　in　the　neighbourhood　of　the　French；　could　not　resist　the　desire　to　cut　them　off　and　to　fall　upon　two　French　corps。　In　sending　to　inform　Kutuzov　of　their　project；　they　slipped　a　blank　sheet　of　paper　into　the　envelope　instead　of　the　despatch。
And　in　spite　of　Kutuzov’s　efforts　to　restrain　the　army；　our　soldiers　attacked　the　French　and　tried　to　bar　their　way。　The　infantry　regiments；　we　are　told；　marched　to　attack　them　with　music　and　beating　of　drums　and　slew　and　were　slain　by　thousands。
But　as　for　cutting　off　their　retreat—none　were　cut　off　nor　turned　aside。　And　the　French　army；　brought　into　closer　cohesion　by　danger；　and　slowly　melting　as　it　went；　kept　still　on　its　fatal　way　to　Smolensk。


Part　Fourteen
Chapter　1
THE　BATTLE　of　Borodino　with　the　occupation　of　Moscow　and　the　flight　of　the　French；　that　followed　without　any　more　battles；　is　one　of　the　most　instructive　phenomena　in　history。
All　historians　are　agreed　that　the　external　activity　of　states　and　peoples　in　their　conflicts　finds　expression　in　wars；　that　the　political　power　of　states　and　peoples　is　increased　or　diminished　as　the　immediate　result　of　success　or　defeat　in　war。
Strange　are　the　historical　accounts　that　tell　us　how　some　king　or　emperor；　quarrelling　with　another　king　or　emperor；　levies　an　army；　fights　a　battle　with　the　army　of　his　foe；　gains　a　victory；　kills　three；　five；　or　ten　thousand　men；　and　consequently　subdues　a　state　and　a　whole　people　consisting　of　several　millions；　and　incomprehensible　it　seems　that　the　defeat　of　any　army；　one　hundredth　of　the　whole　strength　of　a　people；　should　force　that　people　to　submit。　Yet　all　the　facts　of　history　（so　far　as　we　know　it）　confirm　the　truth　of　the　statement；　that　the　successes　or　defeats　of　a　nation’s　army　are　the　causes　or；　at　least；　the　invariable　symptoms　of　the　increase　or　diminution　of　the　power　of　a　nation。　An　army　gains　a　victory；　and　immediately　the　claims　of　the　conquering　people　are　increased　to　the　detriment　of　the　conquered。　An　army　is　defeated；　and　at　once　the　people　loses　its　rights　in　proportion　to　the　magnitude　of　the　defeat；　and　if　its　army　is　utterly　defeated；　the　people　is　completely　conquered。　So　（according　to　history）　it　has　been　from　the　most　ancient　times　up　to　the　present。　All　Napoleon’s　earlier　wars　serve　as　illustrations　of　the　rule。　As　the　Austrian　armies　were　defeated；　Austria　was　deprived　of　her　rights；　and　the　rights　and　power　of　France　were　increased。　The　victories　of　the　French　at　Jena　and　at　Auerstadt　destroyed　the　independent　existence　of　Prussia。
But　suddenly；　in　1812；　the　French　gained　a　victory　before　Moscow。　Moscow　was　taken；　and　in　consequence　of　that；　with　no　subsequent　battles；　not　Russia；　but　the　French　army　of　six　hundred　thousand；　and　then　Napoleonic　France　itself　ceased　to　exist。　To　strain　the　facts　to　fit　the　rules　of　history；　to　maintain　that　the　field　of　Borodino　was　left　in　the　hands　of　the　Russians；　or　that　after　the　evacuation　of　Moscow；　there　were　battles　that　destroyed　Napoleon’s　army—is　impossible。
After　the　victory　of　the　French　at　Borodino；　there　was　no　general　engagement；　nor　even　a　skirmish　of　any　great　importance；　yet　the　French　army　ceased　to　exist。　What　is　the　meaning　of　it？　If　it　had　been　an　example　from　the　history　of　China；　we　could　have　said　it　was　not　an　historical　fact　（the　resource　of　historians　when　anything　will　not　fit　in　with　their　rules）。　If　it　had　occurred　in　a　conflict　on　a　small　scale；　in　which　only　small　numbers　of　soldiers　had　taken　part；　we　might　have　looked　upon　it　as　an　exception。　But　all　this　took　place　before　the　eyes　of　our　fathers；　for　whom　it　was　a　question　of　life　and　death　for　their　country；　and　the　war　was　on　a　larger　scale　than　any　wars　we　know　of。
The　sequel　of　the　campaign　of　1812—from　Borodino　to　the　final　expulsion　of　the　French—has　proved　that　victories　are　not　always　a　cause　nor　even　an　invariable　sign　of　conquest；　it　has　proved　that　the　force　that　decides　the　fate　of　peoples　does　not　lie　in　military　leaders；　nor　even　in　armies　and　battles；　but　in　something　else。
The　French　historians；　who　describe　the　position　of　the　French　troops　before　they　marched　out　of　Moscow；　assert　that　everything　was　in　good　order　in　the　Grande　Armée；　except　the　cavalry；　the　artillery；　and　the　transport；　and　that　there　was　no　forage　for　the　horses　and　cattle。　There　was　no　remedy　for　this　defect；　because　the　peasants　of　the　surrounding　country　burned　their　hay　rather　than　let　the　French　have　it。
Victory　did　not　bring　forth　its　usual　results；　because　the　peasants；　Karp　and　Vlas；　by　no　means　persons　of　heroic　feelings　（after　the　French　evacuation；　they　hurried　with　their　carts　to　pillage　Moscow）；　and　the　immense　multitude　of　others　like　them　burnt　their　hay　rather　than　bring　it　to　Moscow；　however　high　the　prices　offered　them。
Let　us　imagine　two　men；　who　have　come　out　to　fight　a　duel　with　swords　in　accordance　with　all　the　rules　of　the　art　of　swordsmanship。　The　fencing　has　lasted　for　some　time。　All　at　once　one　of　the　combatants；　feeling　that　he　is　wounded；　grasping　that　it　is　no　joking　matter；　but　a　question　of　life　and　death；　flings　away　his　sword；　and　snatching　up　the　first　cudgel　that　comes　handy；　begins　to　brandish　that。　But　let　us　imagine　that　the　combatant；　who　has　so　sensibly　made　use　of　the　best　and　simplest　means　for　the　attainment　of　his　object；　should　be　inspired　by　the　traditions　of　chivalry　to　try　and　disguise　the　real　cause　of　the　conflict　and　should　persist　in　declaring　that　he　had　been　victor　in　the　duel　in　accordance　with　all　the　rules　of　swordsmanship。　One　can　imagine　what　confusion　and　obscurity　would　arise　from　his　description　of　the　duel！
The　duellist；　who　insisted　on　the　conflict　being　fought　in　accordance　with　the　principles　of　the　fencer’s　art；　stands　for　the　French；　his　opponent；　who　flung　away　his　sword