战争与和平(下)-第17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！


ng　from　the　Gospel　of　love；　do　not　confirm　this　hypothesis。
But　even　admitting　that　all　the　cunningly　woven　arguments　with　which　these　histories　abound　are　correct；　admitting　that　nations　are　governed　by　some　indefinite　force　called　an　idea—the　essential　question　of　history　still　remains　unanswered；　or　to　the　power　of　monarchs　and　the　influence　of　counsellors　and　other　persons；　introduced　by　the　philosophic　historian；　another　new　force　is　now　joined—the　idea；　the　connection　of　which　with　the　masses　demands　explanation。　One　can　understand　that　Napoleon　had　power　and　so　an　event　came　to　pass；　with　some　effort　one　can　even　conceive　that　Napoleon　together　with　other　influences　was　the　cause　of　an　event。　But　in　what　fashion　a　book；　Le　Contrat　Social；　led　the　French　to　hack　each　other　to　pieces　cannot　be　understood　without　an　explanation　of　the　causal　connection　of　this　new　force　with　the　event。
There　undoubtedly　exists　a　connection　between　all　the　people　living　at　one　time；　and　so　it　is　possible　to　find　some　sort　of　connection　between　the　intellectual　activity　of　men　and　their　historical　movements；　just　as　one　may　find　a　connection　between　the　movements　of　humanity　and　commerce；　handicrafts；　gardening；　and　anything　you　like。　But　why　intellectual　activity　should　be　conceived　of　by　the　historians　of　culture　as　the　cause　or　the　expression　of　a　whole　historical　movement；　it　is　hard　to　understand。　Historians　can　only　be　led　to　such　a　conclusion　by　the　following　considerations：　（1）　That　history　is　written　by　learned　men；　and　so　it　is　natural　and　agreeable　to　them　to　believe　that　the　pursuit　of　their　calling　is　the　basis　of　the　movement　of　the　whole　of　humanity；　just　as　a　similar　belief　would　be　natural　and　agreeable　to　merchants；　agriculturists；　or　soldiers　（such　a　belief　on　their　part　does　not　find　expression　simply　because　merchants　and　soldiers　don’t　write　history）；　and　（2）　that　spiritual　activity；　enlightenment；　civilisation；　culture；　ideas　are　all　vague；　indefinite　conceptions；　under　cover　of　which　they　can　conveniently　use　phrases　having　less　definite　signification；　and　so　easily　brought　under　any　theory。
But　to　say　nothing　of　the　inner　dignity　of　histories　of　this　kind　（possibly　they　are　of　use　for　some　one　or　for　something）；　the　histories　of　culture；　towards　which　all　general　histories　tend　more　and　more　to　approximate；　are　noteworthy　from　the　fact　that　though　they　give　a　serious　and　detailed　analysis　of　various　religious；　philosophic；　and　political　doctrines　as　causes　of　events；　every　time　they　have　to　describe　an　actual　historical　event；　as；　for　instance；　the　campaign　of　1812；　they　unconsciously　describe　it　as　the　effect　of　the　exercise　of　power；　frankly　saying　that　that　campaign　was　the　work　of　Napoleon’s　will。　In　saying　this；　the　historians　of　culture　unconsciously　contradict　themselves；　to　prove　that　the　new　force　they　have　invented　is　not　the　expression　of　historical　events；　and　that　the　sole　means　of　explaining　history　is　by　that　power　which　they　had　apparently　rejected。


Chapter　3
A　STEAM…ENGINE　moves。　The　question　is　asked；　How　is　it　moved？　A　peasant　answers；　It　is　the　devil　moving　it。　Another　man　says；　The　steam…engine　moves　because　the　wheels　are　going　round。　A　third　maintains　that　the　cause　of　the　motion　is　to　be　found　in　the　smoke　floated　from　it　by　the　wind。
The　peasant’s　contention　is　irrefutable。　To　refute　him　some　one　must　prove　to　him　that　there　is　no　devil；　or　another　peasant　must　explain　that　it　is　not　a　devil；　but　a　German　who　moves　the　steamer。　Then　from　their　contradictory　views　they　see　that　both　are　wrong。　But　the　man　who　says　the　cause　is　the　movement　of　the　wheels　refutes　himself；　seeing　that　having　once　entered　on　the　path　of　analysis；　he　ought　to　proceed　further　and　further　along　it；　he　ought　to　explain　the　cause　of　the　wheels　moving。　And　he　has　not　to　stop　in　his　search　for　a　cause　till　he　finds　the　ultimate　cause　of　the　movement　of　the　steam…engine　in　the　steam　compressed　in　the　boiler。　As　for　the　man　who　explained　the　movement　of　the　steam…engine　as　due　to　the　smoke　being　blown　back　from　it；　he　has　simply　noticed　that　the　wheel　explanation　was　insufficient；　and　pitching　on　the　first　accompanying　symptom；　gave　that　out　as　his　cause。
The　only　conception　which　can　explain　the　movement　of　the　steamer　is　the　conception　of　a　force　equal　to　the　movement　that　is　seen。
The　only　conception　by　means　of　which　the　movements　of　nations　can　be　explained　is　a　conception　of　a　force　equal　to　the　whole　movement　of　the　nations。
Yet　under　this　conception　there　are　included　by　various　historians　forces　of　the　most　various　kinds；　and　all　unequal　to　the　movement　that　is　seen。　Some　see　in　it　a　force　directly　pertaining　to　heroes；　as　the　peasant　sees　the　devil　in　the　steam…engine。　Others；　a　force　resulting　from　several　other　forces；　like　the　movement　of　the　wheels；　a　third　class；　intellectual　influence；　like　the　smoke。
So　long　as　histories　are　written　of　individual　persons—whether　they　are　C？sars　and　Alexanders；　or　Luthers　and　Voltaires—and　not　the　history　of　all；　without　one　exception；　all　the　people　taking　part　in　an　event；　there　is　no　possibility　of　describing　the　movement　of　humanity　without　a　conception　of　a　force　impelling　men　to　direct　their　activity　to　one　end。　And　the　only　conception　of　this　kind　familiar　to　historians　is　power。
This　conception　is　the　sole　handle　by　means　of　which　the　material　of　history；　as　at　present　expounded；　can　be　dealt　with；　and　the　historian　who　should；　like　Buckle；　break　off　this　handle；　without　discovering　any　other　means　of　dealing　with　historical　material；　would　only　be　depriving　himself　of　the　last　chance　of　dealing　with　it。　The　necessity　of　the　conception　of　the　exercise　of　power　to　explain　the　phenomena　of　history　is　most　strikingly　shown　by　the　very　writers　of　universal　history　and　the　history　of　culture；　who；　after　professedly　rejecting　the　conception　of　power；　inevitably　resort　to　it　at　every　step。
Historical　science　in　relation　to　the　questions　of　humanity　has　hitherto　been　like　money　in　circulation—paper　notes　and　metal　coins。　The　historical　memoirs　and　histories　of　separate　peoples　are　like　paper　money。　They　may　pass　and　be　accepted；　doing　their　part　without　mischief　to　any　one；　and　even　being　useful；　so　long　as　no　question　arises　as　to　their　value。　One　has　only　to　forget　the　question　how　the　will　of　heroes　produces　events；　and　Thiers’s　histories　will　be　interesting；　instructive；　and　will；　moreover；　not　be　devoid　of　a　certain　poetry。　But　just　as　a　doubt　of　the　stability　of　paper　money　arises；　either　because　from　the　ease　of　making　it；　too　much　is　put　into　circulation；　or　because　of　a　desire　to　replace　it　by　gold；　so　a　doubt　of　the　real　value　of　history　of　this　kind　arises　either　because　too　many　such　histories　appear；　or　because　some　one　in　the　simplicity　of　his　heart　asks：　By　what　force　did　Napoleon　do　that？—that　is；　wishes　to　change　the　current　paper　for　the　pure　gold　of　a　true　conception。
The　writers　of　general　history　and　the　history　of　culture　are　like　men　who；　recognising　the　inconvenience　of　paper　money；　should　decide　to　make　instead　of　paper　notes；　jingling　coin　of　metal　not　of　the　density　of　gold。　And　such　coin　would　be　jingling　coin；　and　only　jingling　coin。　A　paper　note　might　deceive　the　ignorant；　but　coin　not　of　precious　metal　could　deceive　no　one。　Just　as　gold　is　only　gold　when　it　is　of　value；　not　only　for　exchange；　but　also　for　use；　so　the　writers　of　universal　history　will　only　prove　themselves　of　real　value　when　they　are　able　to　answer　the　essential　question　of　history：　What　is　power？　These　historians　give　contradictory　answers　to　this　question；　while　the　historians　of　culture　altogether　evade　it；　answering　something　quite　different。　And　as　counters　in　imitation　of　gold　can　only　be　used　in　a　community　of　persons　who　agree　to　accept　them　for　gold；　or　who　are　ignorant　of　the　true　character　of　gold；　so　do　the　historians　who　do　not　answer　the　essential　questions　of　humanity　serve　for　some　objects　of　their　own　as　current　coin　at　the　universities　and　with　that　crowd　of　readers—fond　of　serious　reading；　as　they　call　it。


Chapter　4
SINCE　HISTORY　has　abandoned　the　views　of　the　ancients　as　to　the　divine　subjection　of　the　will　of　a　people　to　one　chosen　vessel；　and　the　subjection　of　the　will　of　that　chosen　vessel　to　the　Deity；　it　cannot　take　a　single　step　without　encountering　contradictions。　It　must　choose　one　of　two　alternatives：　either　to　return　to　its　old　faith　in　the　direct　intervention　of　the　Deity　in　the　affairs　of　humanity；　or　to　find　a　definite　explanation　of　that　force　producing　historical　events　that　is　called　power。
To　return　to　the　old　way　is　out　of　the　question：　the　old　faith　is　shattered；　and　so　an　explanation　must　be　found　of　the　meaning　of　power。
Napoleon　commanded　an　army　to　be　raised；　and　to　march　out　to　war。　This　conception　is　so　familiar　to　us；　we　are　so　accustomed　to　this　idea　that　the　question　why　six　hundred　thousand　men　go　out　to　fight　when　Napoleon　utters　certain　words　seems　meaningless　to　us。　He　had　the　power；　and　so　the　commands　he　gave　were　carried　out。
This　answer　is　completely　satisfactory　if　we　believe　that　power　has　been　given　him　from　God。　But　as　soon　as　we　do　not　accept　that；　it　is　essential　to　define　what　this　power　is　of　one　man　over　others。
This　power　cannot　be　that　direct　power　of　the　physical　ascendency　of　a　strong　creature　over　a　weak　one；　that　ascendency　based　on　the　application　or　the　threat　of　the　application　of　physical　force—like　the　power　of　Hercules。　Nor　can　it　be　based　on　the　ascendency　of　moral　force；　as　in　the　simplicity　of　their　hearts　several　historians　suppose；　maintaining　that　the　leading　historical　figures　are　heroes—that　is；　men　endowed　with　a　special　force　of　soul　and　mind　called　genius。　This　power　cannot　be　based　on　the　ascendency　of　moral　force；　for；　to　say　nothing　of　historical　heroes；　like　Napoleon；　concerning　whose　moral　qualities　opinions　greatly　differ；　history　proves　to　us　that　neither　Louis　XI。　nor　Metternich；　who　governed　millions　of　men；　had　any　marked　characteristics　of　moral　force；　but　that　they　were；　on　the　contrary；　in　most　respects　morally　weaker　than　any　one　of　the　millions　of　men　they　governed。
If　the　source　of　power　lies　not　in　the　physical　and　not　in　the　moral　characteristics　of