second epilogue-第6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！


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

Russia；　just　as　in　stencil　work　this　or　that　figure　comes　out　not

because　the　color　was　laid　on　from　this　side　or　in　that　way；　but

because　it　was　laid　on　from　all　sides　over　the　figure　cut　in　the

stencil。

　　So　that　examining　the　relation　in　time　of　the　commands　to　the

events；　we　find　that　a　command　can　never　be　the　cause　of　the　event；

but　that　a　certain　definite　dependence　exists　between　the　two。

　　To　understand　in　what　this　dependence　consists　it　is　necessary　to

reinstate　another　omitted　condition　of　every　command　proceeding　not

from　the　Deity　but　from　a　man；　which　is；　that　the　man　who　gives　the

command　himself　takes　part　in

　　This　relation　of　the　commander　to　those　he　commands　is　just　what

is　called　power。　This　relation　consists　in　the　following：

　　For　common　action　people　always　unite　in　certain　combinations；　in

which　regardless　of　the　difference　of　the　aims　set　for　the　common

action；　the　relation　between　those　taking　part　in　it　is　always　the

same。

　　Men　uniting　in　these　combinations　always　assume　such　relations

toward　one　another　that　the　larger　number　take　a　more　direct　share；

and　the　smaller　number　a　less　direct　share；　in　the　collective　action

for　which　they　have　combined。

　　Of　all　the　combinations　in　which　men　unite　for　collective　action　one

of　the　most　striking　and　definite　examples　is　an　army。

　　Every　army　is　composed　of　lower　grades　of　the　service…　the　rank

and　file…　of　whom　there　are　always　the　greatest　number；　of　the　next

higher　military　rank…　corporals　and　noncommissioned　officers　of　whom

there　are　fewer；　and　of　still…higher　officers　of　whom　there　are

still　fewer；　and　so　on　to　the　highest　military　command　which　is

concentrated　in　one　person。

　　A　military　organization　may　be　quite　correctly　compared　to　a　cone；

of　which　the　base　with　the　largest　diameter　consists　of　the　rank　and

file；　the　next　higher　and　smaller　section　of　the　cone　consists　of

the　next　higher　grades　of　the　army；　and　so　on　to　the　apex；　the　point

of　which　will　represent　the　commander　in　chief。

　　The　soldiers；　of　whom　there　are　the　most；　form　the　lower　section

of　the　cone　and　its　base。　The　soldier　himself　does　the　stabbing；

hacking；　burning；　and　pillaging；　and　always　receives　orders　for

these　actions　from　men　above　him；　he　himself　never　gives　an　order。　The

noncommissioned　officers　（of　whom　there　are　fewer）　perform　the

action　itself　less　frequently　than　the　soldiers；　but　they　already　give

commands。　An　officer　still　less　often　acts　directly　himself；　but

commands　still　more　frequently。　A　general　does　nothing　but　command　the

troops；　indicates　the　objective；　and　hardly　ever　uses　a　weapon

himself。　The　commander　in　chief　never　takes　direct　part　in　the

action　itself；　but　only　gives　general　orders　concerning　the　movement

of　the　mass　of　the　troops。　A　similar　relation　of　people　to　one　another

is　seen　in　every　combination　of　men　for　common　activity…　in

agriculture；　trade；　and　every　administration。

　　And　so　without　particularly　analyzing　all　the　contiguous　sections　of

a　cone　and　of　the　ranks　of　an　army；　or　the　ranks　and　positions　in

any　administrative　or　public　business　whatever　from　the　lowest　to

the　highest；　we　see　a　law　by　which　men；　to　take　associated　action；

combine　in　such　relations　that　the　more　directly　they　participate　in

performing　the　action　the　less　they　can　command　and　the　more

numerous　they　are；　while　the　less　their　direct　participation　in　the

action　itself；　the　more　they　command　and　the　fewer　of　them　there

are；　rising　in　this　way　from　the　lowest　ranks　to　the　man　at　the　top；

who　takes　the　least　direct　share　in　the　action　and　directs　his

activity　chiefly　to　commanding。

　　This　relation　of　the　men　who　command　to　those　they　command　is　what

constitutes　the　essence　of　the　conception　called　power。

　　Having　restored　the　condition　of　time　under　which　all　events

occur；　find　that　a　command　is　executed　only　when　it　is　related　to　a

corresponding　series　of　events。　Restoring　the　essential　condition　of

relation　between　those　who　command　and　those　who　execute；　we　find　that

by　the　very　nature　of　the　case　those　who　command　take　the　smallest

part　in　the　action　itself　and　that　their　activity　is　exclusively

directed　to　commanding。

EP2｜CH7

　　CHAPTER　VII



　　When　an　event　is　taking　place　people　express　their　opinions　and

wishes　about　it；　and　as　the　event　results　from　the　collective　activity

of　many　people；　some　one　of　the　opinions　or　wishes　expressed　is　sure

to　be　fulfilled　if　but　approximately。　When　one　of　the　opinions

expressed　is　fulfilled；　that　opinion　gets　connected　with　the　event

as　a　command　preceding　it。

　　Men　are　hauling　a　log。　Each　of　them　expresses　his　opinion　as　to

how　and　where　to　haul　it。　They　haul　the　log　away；　and　it　happens

that　this　is　done　as　one　of　them　said。　He　ordered　it。　There　we　have

command　and　power　in　their　primary　form。　The　man　who　worked　most

with　his　hands　could　not　think　so　much　about　what　he　was　doing；　or

reflect　on　or　command　what　would　result　from　the　common　activity；

while　the　man　who　commanded　more　would　evidently　work　less　with　his

hands　on　account　of　his　greater　verbal　activity。

　　When　some　larger　concourse　of　men　direct　their　activity　to　a

common　aim　there　is　a　yet　sharper　division　of　those　who；　because　their

activity　is　given　to　directing　and　commanding；　take　less　less　part

in　the　direct　work。

　　When　a　man　works　alone　he　always　has　a　certain　set　of　reflections

which　as　it　seems　to　him　directed　his　past　activity；　justify　his

present　activity；　and　guide　him　in　planning　his　future　actions。　Just

the　same　is　done　by　a　concourse　of　people；　allowing　those　who　do　not

take　a　direct　part　in　the　activity　to　devise　considerations；

justifications；　and　surmises　concerning　their　collective　activity。

　　For　reasons　known　or　unknown　to　us　the　French　began　to　drown　and

kill　one　another。　And　corresponding　to　the　event　its　justification

appears　in　people's　belief　that　this　was　necessary　for　the　welfare

of　France；　for　liberty；　and　for　equality。　People　ceased　to　kill　one

another；　and　this　event　was　accompanied　by　its　justification　in　the

necessity　for　a　centralization　of　power；　resistance　to　Europe；　and

so　on。　Men　went　from　the　west　to　the　east　killing　their　fellow　men；

and　the　event　was　accompanied　by　phrases　about　the　glory　of　France；

the　baseness　of　England；　and　so　on。　History　shows　us　that　these

justifications　of　the　events　have　no　common　sense　and　are　all

contradictory；　as　in　the　case　of　killing　a　man　as　the　result　of

recognizing　his　rights；　and　the　killing　of　millions　in　Russia　for

the　humiliation　of　England。　But　these　justifications　have　a　very

necessary　significance　in　their　own　day。

　　These　justifications　release　those　who　produce　the　events　from　moral

responsibility。　These　temporary　aims　are　like　the　broom　fixed　in　front

of　a　locomotive　to　clear　the　snow　from　the　rails　in　front：　they

clear　men's　moral　responsibilities　from　their　path。

　　Without　such　justification　there　would　be　no　reply　to　the　simplest

question　that　presents　itself　when　examining　each　historical　event。

How　is　it　that　millions　of　men　commit　collective　crimes…　make　war；

commit　murder；　and　so　on？

　　With　the　present　complex　forms　of　political　and　social　life　in

Europe　can　any　event　that　is　not　prescribed；　decreed；　or　ordered　by

monarchs；　ministers；　parliaments；　or　newspapers　be　imagined？　Is

there　any　collective　action　which　cannot　find　its　justification　in

political　unity；　in　patriotism；　in　the　balance　of　power；　or　in

civilization？　So　that　every　event　that　occurs　inevitably　coincides

with　some　expressed　wish　and；　receiving　a　justification；　presents

itself　as　the　result　of　the　will　of　one　man　or　of　several　men。

　　In　whatever　direction　a　ship　moves；　the　flow　of　the　waves　it　cuts

will　always　be　noticeable　ahead　of　it。　To　those　on　board　the　ship

the　movement　of　those　waves　will　be　the　only　perceptible　motion。

　　Only　by　watching　closely　moment　by　moment　the　movement　of　that

flow　and　comparing　it　with　the　movement　of　the　ship　do　we　convince

ourselves　that　every　bit　of　it　is　occasioned　by　the　forward　movement

of　the　ship；　and　that　we　were　led　into　error　by　the　fact　that　we

ourselves　were　imperceptibly　moving。

　　We　see　the　same　if　we　watch　moment　by　moment　the　movement　of

historical　characters　（that　is；　re…establish　the　inevitable

condition　of　all　that　occurs…　the　continuity　of　movement　in　time）

and　do　not　lose　sight　of　the　essential　connection　of　historical

persons　with　the　masses。

　　When　the　ship　moves　in　one　direction　there　is　one　and　the　same

wave　ahead　of　it；　when　it　turns　frequently　the　wave　ahead　of　it　also

turns　frequently。　But　wherever　it　may　turn　there　always　will　be　the

wave　anticipating　its　movement。

　　Whatever　happens　it　always　appears　that　just　that　event　was　foreseen

and　decreed。　Wherever　the　ship　may　go；　the　rush　of　water　which　neither

directs　nor　increases　its　movement　foams　ahead　of　it；　and　at　a

distance　seems　to　us　not　merely　to　move　of　itself　but　to　govern　the

ship's　movement　also。



　　Examining　only　those　expressions　of　the　will　of　historical　persons

which；　as　commands；　were　related　to　events；　historians　have　assumed

that　the　events　depended　on　those　commands。　But　examining　the　events

themselves　and　the　connection　in　which　the　historical　persons　stood　to

the　people；　we　have　found　that　they　and　their　orders　were　dependent　on

events。　The　incontestable　proof　of　this　deduction　is　that；　however

many　commands　were　issued；　the　event　does　not　take　place　unless

there　are　other　causes　for　it；　but　as　soon　as　an　event　occurs…　be　it

what　it　may…　then　out　of　all　the　continually　expressed　wishes　of

different　people　some　will　always　be　found　which　by　their　meaning

and　their　time　of　utterance　are　related　as　commands　to　the　events。

　　Arriving　at　this　conclusion　we　can　reply　directly　and　positively

to　these　two　essential　questions　of　history：

　　（1）　What　is　power？

　　（2）　What　force　produces　the　movement　of　the　nations？

　　（1）　Power　is　the　relation　of　a　given　person　to　other　individuals；　in

which　the　more　this　person　express