second epilogue-第5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！


hypothesis　unconfirmed　by　the　experience　of　history。

　　The　theory　of　the　transference　of　the　collective　will　of　the

people　to　historic　persons　may　perhaps　explain　much　in　the　domain　of

jurisprudence　and　be　essential　for　its　purposes；　but　in　its

application　to　history；　as　soon　as　revolutions；　conquests；　or　civil

wars　occur…　that　is；　as　soon　as　history　begins…　that　theory　explains

nothing。

　　The　theory　seems　irrefutable　just　because　the　act　of　transference　of

the　people's　will　cannot　be　verified；　for　it　never　occurred。

　　Whatever　happens　and　whoever　may　stand　at　the　head　of　affairs；　the

theory　can　always　say　that　such　and　such　a　person　took　the　lead

because　the　collective　will　was　transferred　to　him。

　　The　replies　this　theory　gives　to　historical　questions　are　like　the

replies　of　a　man　who；　watching　the　movements　of　a　herd　of　cattle　and

paying　no　attention　to　the　varying　quality　of　the　pasturage　in

different　parts　of　the　field；　or　to　the　driving　of　the　herdsman；

should　attribute　the　direction　the　herd　takes　to　what　animal　happens

to　be　at　its　head。

　　〃The　herd　goes　in　that　direction　because　the　animal　in　front　leads

it　and　the　collective　will　of　all　the　other　animals　is　vested　in

that　leader。〃　This　is　what　historians　of　the　first　class　say…　those

who　assume　the　unconditional　transference　of　the　people's　will。

　　〃If　the　animals　leading　the　herd　change；　this　happens　because　the

collective　will　of　all　the　animals　is　transferred　from　one　leader　to

another；　according　to　whether　the　animal　is　or　is　not　leading　them

in　the　direction　selected　by　the　whole　herd。〃　Such　is　the　reply

historians　who　assume　that　the　collective　will　of　the　people　is

delegated　to　rulers　under　conditions　which　they　regard　as　known。　（With

this　method　of　observation　it　often　happens　that　the　observer；

influenced　by　the　direction　he　himself　prefers；　regards　those　as

leaders　who；　owing　to　the　people's　change　of　direction；　are　no

longer　in　front；　but　on　one　side；　or　even　in　the　rear。）

　　〃If　the　animals　in　front　are　continually　changing　and　the

direction　of　the　whole　herd　is　constantly　altered；　this　is　because

in　order　to　follow　a　given　direction　the　animals　transfer　their　will

to　the　animals　that　have　attracted　our　attention；　and　to　study　the

movements　of　the　herd　we　must　watch　the　movements　of　all　the　prominent

animals　moving　on　all　sides　of　the　herd。〃　So　say　the　third　class　of

historians　who　regard　all　historical　persons；　from　monarchs　to

journalists；　as　the　expression　of　their　age。

　　The　theory　of　the　transference　of　the　will　of　the　people　to　historic

persons　is　merely　a　paraphrase…　a　restatement　of　the　question　in　other

words。

　　What　causes　historical　events？　Power。　What　is　power？　Power　is　the

collective　will　of　the　people　transferred　to　one　person。　Under　what

condition　is　the　will　of　the　people　delegated　to　one　person？　On

condition　that　that　person　expresses　the　will　of　the　whole　people。

That　is；　power　is　power：　in　other　words；　power　is　a　word　the　meaning

of　which　we　do　not　understand。



　　If　the　realm　of　human　knowledge　were　confined　to　abstract　reasoning；

then　having　subjected　to　criticism　the　explanation　of　〃power〃　that

juridical　science　gives　us；　humanity　would　conclude　that　power　is

merely　a　word　and　has　no　real　existence。　But　to　understand　phenomena

man　has；　besides　abstract　reasoning；　experience　by　which　he　verifies

his　reflections。　And　experience　tells　us　that　power　is　not　merely　a

word　but　an　actually　existing　phenomenon。

　　Not　to　speak　of　the　fact　that　no　description　of　the　collective

activity　of　men　can　do　without　the　conception　of　power；　the

existence　of　power　is　proved　both　by　history　and　by　observing

contemporary　events。

　　Whenever　an　event　occurs　a　man　appears　or　men　appear；　by　whose

will　the　event　seems　to　have　taken　place。　Napoleon　III　issues　a　decree

and　the　French　go　to　Mexico。　The　King　of　Prussia　and　Bismarck　issue

decrees　and　an　army　enters　Bohemia。　Napoleon　I　issues　a　decree　and

an　army　enters　Russia。　Alexander　I　gives　a　command　and　the　French

submit　to　the　Bourbons。　Experience　shows　us　that　whatever　event　occurs

it　is　always　related　to　the　will　of　one　or　of　several　men　who　have

decreed　it。

　　The　historians；　in　accord　with　the　old　habit　of　acknowledging　divine

intervention　in　human　affairs；　want　to　see　the　cause　of　events　in

the　expression　of　the　will　of　someone　endowed　with　power；　but　that

supposition　is　not　confirmed　either　by　reason　or　by　experience。

　　On　the　one　side　reflection　shows　that　the　expression　of　a　man's

will…　his　words…　are　only　part　of　the　general　activity　expressed　in　an

event；　as　for　instance　in　a　war　or　a　revolution；　and　so　without

assuming　an　incomprehensible；　supernatural　force…　a　miracle…　one

cannot　admit　that　words　can　be　the　immediate　cause　of　the　movements　of

millions　of　men。　On　the　other　hand；　even　if　we　admitted　that　words

could　be　the　cause　of　events；　history　shows　that　the　expression　of　the

will　of　historical　personages　does　not　in　most　cases　produce　any

effect；　that　is　to　say；　their　commands　are　often　not　executed；　and

sometimes　the　very　opposite　of　what　they　order　occurs。

　　Without　admitting　divine　intervention　in　the　affairs　of　humanity

we　cannot　regard　〃power〃　as　the　cause　of　events。

　　Power；　from　the　standpoint　of　experience；　is　merely　the　relation

that　exists　between　the　expression　of　someone's　will　and　the　execution

of　that　will　by　others。

　　To　explain　the　conditions　of　that　relationship　we　must　first

establish　a　conception　of　the　expression　of　will；　referring　it　to

man　and　not　to　the　Deity。

　　If　the　Deity　issues　a　command；　expresses　His　will；　as　ancient

history　tells　us；　the　expression　of　that　will　is　independent　of　time

and　is　not　caused　by　anything；　for　the　Divinity　is　not　controlled　by

an　event。　But　speaking　of　commands　that　are　the　expression　of　the　will

of　men　acting　in　time　and　in　relation　to　one　another；　to　explain　the

connection　of　commands　with　events　we　must　restore：　（1）　the

condition　of　all　that　takes　place：　the　continuity　of　movement　in

time　both　of　the　events　and　of　the　person　who　commands；　and　（2）　the

inevitability　of　the　connection　between　the　person　commanding　and

those　who　execute　his　command。

EP2｜CH6

　　CHAPTER　VI



　　Only　the　expression　of　the　will　of　the　Deity；　not　dependent　on　time；

can　relate　to　a　whole　series　of　events　occurring　over　a　period　of

years　or　centuries；　and　only　the　Deity；　independent　of　everything；　can

by　His　sole　will　determine　the　direction　of　humanity's　movement；　but

man　acts　in　time　and　himself　takes　part　in　what　occurs。

　　Reinstating　the　first　condition　omitted；　that　of　time；　we　see　that

no　command　can　be　executed　without　some　preceding　order　having　been

given　rendering　the　execution　of　the　last　command　possible。

　　No　command　ever　appears　spontaneously；　or　itself　covers　a　whole

series　of　occurrences；　but　each　command　follows　from　another；　and

never　refers　to　a　whole　series　of　events　but　always　to　one　moment　only

of　an　event。

　　When；　for　instance；　we　say　that　Napoleon　ordered　armies　to　go　to

war；　we　combine　in　one　simultaneous　expression　a　whole　series　of

consecutive　commands　dependent　one　on　another。　Napoleon　could　not　have

commanded　an　invasion　of　Russia　and　never　did　so。　Today　he　ordered

such　and　such　papers　to　be　written　to　Vienna；　to　Berlin；　and　to

Petersburg；　tomorrow　such　and　such　decrees　and　orders　to　the　army；　the

fleet；　the　commissariat；　and　so　on　and　so　on…　millions　of　commands；

which　formed　a　whole　series　corresponding　to　a　series　of　events

which　brought　the　French　armies　into　Russia。

　　If　throughout　his　reign　Napoleon　gave　commands　concerning　an

invasion　of　England　and　expended　on　no　other　undertaking　so　much

time　and　effort；　and　yet　during　his　whole　reign　never　once　attempted

to　execute　that　design　but　undertook　an　expedition　into　Russia；　with

which　country　he　considered　it　desirable　to　be　in　alliance　（a

conviction　he　repeatedly　expressed）…　this　came　about　because　his

commands　did　not　correspond　to　the　course　of　events　in　the　first　case；

but　did　so　correspond　in　the　latter。

　　For　an　order　to　be　certainly　executed；　it　is　necessary　that　a　man

should　order　what　can　be　executed。　But　to　know　what　can　and　what

cannot　be　executed　is　impossible；　not　only　in　the　case　of　Napoleon's

invasion　of　Russia　in　which　millions　participated；　but　even　in　the

simplest　event；　for　in　either　case　millions　of　obstacles　may　arise

to　prevent　its　execution。　Every　order　executed　is　always　one　of　an

immense　number　unexecuted。　All　the　impossible　orders　inconsistent　with

the　course　of　events　remain　unexecuted。　Only　the　possible　ones　get

linked　up　with　a　consecutive　series　of　commands　corresponding　to　a

series　of　events；　and　are　executed。

　　Our　false　conception　that　an　event　is　caused　by　a　command　which

precedes　it　is　due　to　the　fact　that　when　the　event　has　taken　place　and

out　of　thousands　of　others　those　few　commands　which　were　consistent

with　that　event　have　been　executed；　we　forget　about　the　others　that

were　not　executed　because　they　could　not　be。　Apart　from　that；　the

chief　source　of　our　error　in　this　matter　is　due　to　the　fact　that　in

the　historical　accounts　a　whole　series　of　innumerable；　diverse；　and

petty　events；　such　for　instance　as　all　those　which　led　the　French

armies　to　Russia；　is　generalized　into　one　event　in　accord　with　the

result　produced　by　that　series　of　events；　and　corresponding　with

this　generalization　the　whole　series　of　commands　is　also　generalized

into　a　single　expression　of　will。

　　We　say　that　Napoleon　wished　to　invade　Russia　and　invaded　it。　In

reality　in　all　Napoleon's　activity　we　never　find　anything　resembling

an　expression　of　that　wish；　but　find　a　series　of　orders；　or

expressions　of　his　will；　very　variously　and　indefinitely　directed。

Amid　a　long　series　of　unexecuted　orders　of　Napoleon's　one　series；

for　the　campaign　of　1812；　was　carried　out…　not　because　those　orders

differed　in　any　way　from　the　other；　unexecuted　orders　but　because　they

coincided　with　the　course　of　events　that　led　the　French　army　into

Russia；　just　as　in　stencil　work　this　or　that　figure　comes　out　n