second epilogue-第4部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！


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　historical　leaders　have

power　only　conditionally　on　carrying　out　the　program　that　the　will

of　the　people　has　by　tacit　agreement　prescribed　to　them。　But　what　this

program　consists　in　these　historians　do　not　say；　or　if　they　do　they

continually　contradict　one　another。

　　Each　historian；　according　to　his　view　of　what　constitutes　a　nation's

progress；　looks　for　these　conditions　in　the　greatness；　wealth；

freedom；　or　enlightenment　of　citizens　of　France　or　some　other　country。

But　not　to　mention　the　historians'　contradictions　as　to　the　nature

of　this　program…　or　even　admitting　that　some　one　general　program　of

these　conditions　exists…　the　facts　of　history　almost　always　contradict

that　theory。　If　the　conditions　under　which　power　is　entrusted

consist　in　the　wealth；　freedom；　and　enlightenment　of　the　people；　how

is　it　that　Louis　XIV　and　Ivan　the　Terrible　end　their　reigns

tranquilly；　while　Louis　XVI　and　Charles　I　are　executed　by　their

people？　To　this　question　historians　reply　that　Louis　XIV's　activity；

contrary　to　the　program；　reacted　on　Louis　XVI。　But　why　did　it　not

react　on　Louis　XIV　or　on　Louis　XV…　why　should　it　react　just　on　Louis

XVI？　And　what　is　the　time　limit　for　such　reactions？　To　these　questions

there　are　and　can　be　no　answers。　Equally　little　does　this　view　explain

why　for　several　centuries　the　collective　will　is　not　withdrawn　from

certain　rulers　and　their　heirs；　and　then　suddenly　during　a　period　of

fifty　years　is　transferred　to　the　Convention；　to　the　Directory；　to

Napoleon；　to　Alexander；　to　Louis　XVIII；　to　Napoleon　again；　to

Charles　X；　to　Louis　Philippe；　to　a　Republican　government；　and　to

Napoleon　III。　When　explaining　these　rapid　transfers　of　the　people's

will　from　from　one　individual　to　another；　especially　in　view　of

international　relations；　conquests；　and　alliances；　the　historians

are　obliged　to　admit　that　some　of　these　transfers　are　not　normal

delegations　of　the　people's　will　but　are　accidents　dependent　on

cunning；　on　mistakes；　on　craft；　or　on　the　weakness　of　a　diplomatist；　a

ruler；　or　a　party　leader。　So　that　the　greater　part　of　the　events　of

history…　civil　wars；　revolutions；　and　conquests…　are　presented　by

these　historians　not　as　the　results　of　free　transferences　of　the

people's　will；　but　as　results　of　the　ill…directed　will　of　one　or

more　individuals；　that　is；　once　again；　as　usurpations　of　power。　And　so

these　historians　also　see　and　admit　historical　events　which　are

exceptions　to　the　theory。

　　These　historians　resemble　a　botanist　who；　having　noticed　that　some

plants　grow　from　seeds　producing　two　cotyledons；　should　insist　that

all　that　grows　does　so　by　sprouting　into　two　leaves；　and　that　the

palm；　the　mushroom；　and　even　the　oak；　which　blossom　into　full　growth

and　no　longer　resemble　two　leaves；　are　deviations　from　the　theory。

　　Historians　of　the　third　class　assume　that　the　will　of　the　people

is　transferred　to　historic　personages　conditionally；　but　that　the

conditions　are　unknown　to　us。　They　say　that　historical　personages　have

power　only　because　they　fulfill　the　will　of　the　people　which　has

been　delegated　to　them。

　　But　in　that　case；　if　the　force　that　moves　nations　lies　not　in　the

historic　leaders　but　in　the　nations　themselves；　what　significance　have

those　leaders？

　　The　leaders；　these　historians　tell　us；　express　the　will　of　the

people：　the　activity　of　the　leaders　represents　the　activity　of　the

people。

　　But　in　that　case　the　question　arises　whether　all　the　activity　of　the

leaders　serves　as　an　expression　of　the　people's　will　or　only　some　part

of　it。　If　the　whole　activity　of　the　leaders　serves　as　the　expression

of　the　people's　will；　as　some　historians　suppose；　then　all　the　details

of　the　court　scandals　contained　in　the　biographies　of　a　Napoleon　or

a　Catherine　serve　to　express　the　life　of　the　nation；　which　is

evident　nonsense；　but　if　it　is　only　some　particular　side　of　the

activity　of　an　historical　leader　which　serves　to　express　the

people's　life；　as　other　so…called　〃philosophical〃　historians

believe；　then　to　determine　which　side　of　the　activity　of　a　leader

expresses　the　nation's　life；　we　have　first　of　all　to　know　in　what

the　nation's　life　consists。

　　Met　by　this　difficulty　historians　of　that　class　devise　some　most

obscure；　impalpable；　and　general　abstraction　which　can　cover　all

conceivable　occurrences；　and　declare　this　abstraction　to　be　the　aim　of

humanity's　movement。　The　most　usual　generalizations　adopted　by

almost　all　the　historians　are：　freedom；　equality；　enlightenment；

progress；　civilization；　and　culture。　Postulating　some　generalization

as　the　goal　of　the　movement　of　humanity；　the　historians　study　the

men　of　whom　the　greatest　number　of　monuments　have　remained：　kings；

ministers；　generals；　authors；　reformers；　popes；　and　journalists；　to

the　extent　to　which　in　their　opinion　these　persons　have　promoted　or

hindered　that　abstraction。　But　as　it　is　in　no　way　proved　that　the

aim　of　humanity　does　consist　in　freedom；　equality；　enlightenment；　or

civilization；　and　as　the　connection　of　the　people　with　the　rulers

and　enlighteners　of　humanity　is　only　based　on　the　arbitrary　assumption

that　the　collective　will　of　the　people　is　always　transferred　to　the

men　whom　we　have　noticed；　it　happens　that　the　activity　of　the　millions

who　migrate；　burn　houses；　abandon　agriculture；　and　destroy　one　another

never　is　expressed　in　the　account　of　the　activity　of　some　dozen　people

who　did　not　burn　houses；　practice　agriculture；　or　slay　their　fellow

creatures。

　　History　proves　this　at　every　turn。　Is　the　ferment　of　the　peoples

of　the　west　at　the　end　of　the　eighteenth　century　and　their　drive

eastward　explained　by　the　activity　of　Louis　XIV；　XV；　and　XVI；　their

mistresses　and　ministers；　and　by　the　lives　of　Napoleon；　Rousseau；

Diderot；　Beaumarchais；　and　others？

　　Is　the　movement　of　the　Russian　people　eastward　to　Kazan　and

Siberia　expressed　by　details　of　the　morbid　character　of　Ivan　the

Terrible　and　by　his　correspondence　with　Kurbski？

　　Is　the　movement　of　the　peoples　at　the　time　of　the　Crusades　explained

by　the　life　and　activity　of　the　Godfreys　and　the　Louis…es　and　their

ladies？　For　us　that　movement　of　the　peoples　from　west　to　east；　without

leaders；　with　a　crowd　of　vagrants；　and　with　Peter　the　Hermit；

remains　incomprehensible。　And　yet　more　incomprehensible　is　the

cessation　of　that　movement　when　a　rational　and　sacred　aim　for　the

Crusade…　the　deliverance　of　Jerusalem…　had　been　clearly　defined　by

historic　leaders。　Popes；　kings；　and　knights　incited　the　peoples　to

free　the　Holy　Land；　but　the　people　did　not　go；　for　the　unknown　cause

which　had　previously　impelled　them　to　go　no　longer　existed。　The

history　of　the　Godfreys　and　the　Minnesingers　can　evidently　not　cover

the　life　of　the　peoples。　And　the　history　of　the　Godfreys　and　the

Minnesingers　has　remained　the　history　of　Godfreys　and　Minnesingers；

but　the　history　of　the　life　of　the　peoples　and　their　impulses　has

remained　unknown。

　　Still　less　does　the　history　of　authors　and　reformers　explain　to　us

the　life　of　the　peoples。

　　The　history　of　culture　explains　to　us　the　impulses　and　conditions　of

life　and　thought　of　a　writer　or　a　reformer。　We　learn　that　Luther　had　a

hot　temper　and　said　such　and　such　things；　we　learn　that　Rousseau　was

suspicious　and　wrote　such　and　such　books；　but　we　do　not　learn　why

after　the　Reformation　the　peoples　massacred　one　another；　nor　why

during　the　French　Revolution　they　guillotined　one　another。

　　If　we　unite　both　these　kinds　of　history；　as　is　done　by　the　newest

historians；　we　shall　have　the　history　of　monarchs　and　writers；　but　not

the　history　of　the　life　of　the　peoples。

EP2｜CH5

　　CHAPTER　V



　　The　life　of　the　nations　is　not　contained　in　the　lives　of　a　few

men；　for　the　connection　between　those　men　and　the　nations　has　not　been

found。　The　theory　that　this　connection　is　based　on　the　transference　of

the　collective　will　of　a　people　to　certain　historical　personages　is　an

hypothesis　unconfirmed　by　the　experience　of　history。

　　The　theory　of　the　transference　of　t