second epilogue-第3部分

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！


describe　an　actual　historic　event　such　as　the　campaign　of　1812　for

instance；　they　involuntarily　describe　it　as　resulting　from　an　exercise

of　power…　and　say　plainly　that　that　was　the　result　of　Napoleon's　will。

Speaking　so；　the　historians　of　culture　involuntarily　contradict

themselves；　and　show　that　the　new　force　they　have　devised　does　not

account　for　what　happens　in　history；　and　that　history　can　only　be

explained　by　introducing　a　power　which　they　apparently　do　not

recognize。

EP2｜CH3

　　CHAPTER　III



　　A　locomotive　is　moving。　Someone　asks：　〃What　moves　it？〃　A　peasant

says　the　devil　moves　it。　Another　man　says　the　locomotive　moves　because

its　wheels　go　round。　A　third　asserts　that　the　cause　of　its　movement

lies　in　the　smoke　which　the　wind　carries　away。

　　The　peasant　is　irrefutable。　He　has　devised　a　complete　explanation。

To　refute　him　someone　would　have　to　prove　to　him　that　there　is　no

devil；　or　another　peasant　would　have　to　explain　to　him　that　it　is

not　the　devil　but　a　German；　who　moves　the　locomotive。　Only　then；　as

a　result　of　the　contradiction；　will　they　see　that　they　are　both　wrong。

But　the　man　who　says　that　the　movement　of　the　wheels　is　the　cause

refutes　himself；　for　having　once　begun　to　analyze　he　ought　to　go　on

and　explain　further　why　the　wheels　go　round；　and　till　he　has　reached

the　ultimate　cause　of　the　movement　of　the　locomotive　in　the　pressure

of　steam　in　the　boiler；　he　has　no　right　to　stop　in　his　search　for

the　cause。　The　man　who　explains　the　movement　of　the　locomotive　by

the　smoke　that　is　carried　back　has　noticed　that　the　wheels　do　not

supply　an　explanation　and　has　taken　the　first　sign　that　occurs　to

him　and　in　his　turn　has　offered　that　as　an　explanation。

　　The　only　conception　that　can　explain　the　movement　of　the

locomotive　is　that　of　a　force　commensurate　with　the　movement　observed。

　　The　only　conception　that　can　explain　the　movement　of　the　peoples

is　that　of　some　force　commensurate　with　the　whole　movement　of　the

peoples。

　　Yet　to　supply　this　conception　various　historians　take　forces　of

different　kinds；　all　of　which　are　incommensurate　with　the　movement

observed。　Some　see　it　as　a　force　directly　inherent　in　heroes；　as　the

peasant　sees　the　devil　in　the　locomotive；　others　as　a　force

resulting　from　several　other　forces；　like　the　movement　of　the

wheels；　others　again　as　an　intellectual　influence；　like　the　smoke　that

is　blown　away。

　　So　long　as　histories　are　written　of　separate　individuals；　whether

Caesars；　Alexanders；　Luthers；　or　Voltaires；　and　not　the　histories　of

all；　absolutely　all　those　who　take　part　in　an　event；　it　is　quite

impossible　to　describe　the　movement　of　humanity　without　the　conception

of　a　force　compelling　men　to　direct　their　activity　toward　a　certain

end。　And　the　only　such　conception　known　to　historians　is　that　of

power。

　　This　conception　is　the　one　handle　by　means　of　which　the　material

of　history；　as　at　present　expounded；　can　be　dealt　with；　and　anyone　who

breaks　that　handle　off；　as　Buckle　did；　without　finding　some　other

method　of　treating　historical　material；　merely　deprives　himself　of　the

one　possible　way　of　dealing　with　it。　The　necessity　of　the　conception

of　power　as　an　explanation　of　historical　events　is　best　demonstrated

by　the　universal　historians　and　historians　of　culture　themselves；

for　they　professedly　reject　that　conception　but　inevitably　have

recourse　to　it　at　every　step。

　　In　dealing　with　humanity's　inquiry；　the　science　of　history　up　to　now

is　like　money　in　circulation…　paper　money　and　coin。　The　biographies

and　special　national　histories　are　like　paper　money。　They　can　be

used　and　can　circulate　and　fulfill　their　purpose　without　harm　to

anyone　and　even　advantageously；　as　long　as　no　one　asks　what　is　the

security　behind　them。　You　need　only　forget　to　ask　how　the　will　of

heroes　produces　events；　and　such　histories　as　Thiers'　will　be

interesting　and　instructive　and　may　perhaps　even　possess　a　tinge　of

poetry。　But　just　as　doubts　of　the　real　value　of　paper　money　arise

either　because；　being　easy　to　make；　too　much　of　it　gets　made　or

because　people　try　to　exchange　it　for　gold；　so　also　doubts

concerning　the　real　value　of　such　histories　arise　either　because　too

many　of　them　are　written　or　because　in　his　simplicity　of　heart　someone

inquires：　by　what　force　did　Napoleon　do　this？…　that　is；　wants　to

exchange　the　current　paper　money　for　the　real　gold　of　actual

comprehension。

　　The　writers　of　universal　histories　and　of　the　history　of　culture　are

like　people　who；　recognizing　the　defects　of　paper　money；　decide　to

substitute　for　it　money　made　of　metal　that　has　not　the　specific

gravity　of　gold。　It　may　indeed　make　jingling　coin；　but　will　do　no　more

than　that。　Paper　money　may　deceive　the　ignorant；　but　nobody　is

deceived　by　tokens　of　base　metal　that　have　no　value　but　merely　jingle。

As　gold　is　gold　only　if　it　is　serviceable　not　merely　for　exchange

but　also　for　use；　so　universal　historians　will　be　valuable　only　when

they　can　reply　to　history's　essential　question：　what　is　power？　The

universal　historians　give　contradictory　replies　to　that　question；

while　the　historians　of　culture　evade　it　and　answer　something　quite

different。　And　as　counters　of　imitation　gold　can　be　used　only　among

a　group　of　people　who　agree　to　accept　them　as　gold；　or　among　those　who

do　not　know　the　nature　of　gold；　so　universal　historians　and　historians

of　culture；　not　answering　humanity's　essential　question；　serve　as

currency　for　some　purposes　of　their　own；　only　in　universities　and

among　the　mass　of　readers　who　have　a　taste　for　what　they　call　〃serious

reading。〃

EP2｜CH4

　　CHAPTER　IV



　　Having　abandoned　the　conception　of　the　ancients　as　to　the　divine

subjection　of　the　will　of　a　nation　to　some　chosen　man　and　the

subjection　of　that　man's　will　to　the　Deity；　history　cannot　without

contradictions　take　a　single　step　till　it　has　chosen　one　of　two

things：　either　a　return　to　the　former　belief　in　the　direct

intervention　of　the　Deity　in　human　affairs　or　a　definite　explanation

of　the　meaning　of　the　force　producing　historical　events　and　termed

〃power。〃

　　A　return　to　the　first　is　impossible；　the　belief　has　been

destroyed；　and　so　it　is　essential　to　explain　what　is　meant　by　power。

　　Napoleon　ordered　an　army　to　be　raised　and　go　to　war。　We　are　so

accustomed　to　that　idea　and　have　become　so　used　to　it　that　the

question：　why　did　six　hundred　thousand　men　go　to　fight　when　Napoleon

uttered　certain　words；　seems　to　us　senseless。　He　had　the　power　and

so　what　he　ordered　was　done。

　　This　reply　is　quite　satisfactory　if　we　believe　that　the　power　was

given　him　by　God。　But　as　soon　as　we　do　not　admit　that；　it　becomes

essential　to　determine　what　is　this　power　of　one　man　over　others。

　　It　cannot　be　the　direct　physical　power　of　a　strong　man　over　a　weak

one…　a　domination　based　on　the　application　or　threat　of　physical

force；　like　the　power　of　Hercules；　nor　can　it　be　based　on　the　effect

of　moral　force；　as　in　their　simplicity　some　historians　think　who　say

that　the　leading　figures　in　history　are　heroes；　that　is；　men　gifted

with　a　special　strength　of　soul　and　mind　called　genius。　This　power

cannot　be　based　on　the　predominance　of　moral　strength；　for；　not　to

mention　heroes　such　as　Napoleon　about　whose　moral　qualities　opinions

differ　widely；　history　shows　us　that　neither　a　Louis　XI　nor　a

Metternich；　who　ruled　over　millions　of　people；　had　any　particular

moral　qualities；　but　on　the　contrary　were　generally　morally　weaker

than　any　of　the　millions　they　ruled　over。

　　If　the　source　of　power　lies　neither　in　the　physical　nor　in　the　moral

qualities　of　him　who　possesses　it；　it　must　evidently　be　looked　for

elsewhere…　in　the　relation　to　the　people　of　the　man　who　wields　the

power。

　　And　that　is　how　power　is　understood　by　the　science　of　jurisprudence；

that　exchange　bank　of　history　which　offers　to　exchange　history's

understanding　of　power　for　true　gold。

　　Power　is　the　collective　will　of　the　people　transferred；　by　expressed

or　tacit　consent；　to　their　chosen　rulers。

　　In　the　domain　of　jurisprudence；　which　consists　of　discussions　of　how

a　state　and　power　might　be　arranged　were　it　possible　for　all　that　to

be　arranged；　it　is　all　very　clear；　but　when　applied　to　history　that

definition　of　power　needs　explanation。

　　The　science　of　jurisprudence　regards　the　state　and　power　as　the

ancients　regarded　fire…　namely；　as　something　existing　absolutely。

But　for　history；　the　state　and　power　are　merely　phenomena；　just　as　for

modern　physics　fire　is　not　an　element　but　a　phenomenon。

　　From　this　fundamental　difference　between　the　view　held　by　history

and　that　held　by　jurisprudence；　it　follows　that　jurisprudence　can　tell

minutely　how　in　its　opinion　power　should　be　constituted　and　what

power…　existing　immutably　outside　time…　is；　but　to　history's　questions

about　the　meaning　of　the　mutations　of　power　in　time　it　can　answer

nothing。

　　If　power　be　the　collective　will　of　the　people　transferred　to　their

ruler；　was　Pugachev　a　representative　of　the　will　of　the　people？　If

not；　then　why　was　Napoleon　I？　Why　was　Napoleon　III　a　criminal　when

he　was　taken　prisoner　at　Boulogne；　and　why；　later　on；　were　those

criminals　whom　he　arrested？

　　Do　palace　revolutions…　in　which　sometimes　only　two　or　three　people

take　part…　transfer　the　will　of　the　people　to　a　new　ruler？　In

international　relations；　is　the　will　of　the　people　also　transferred　to

their　conqueror？　Was　the　will　of　the　Confederation　of　the　Rhine

transferred　to　Napoleon　in　1806？　Was　the　will　of　the　Russian　people

transferred　to　Napoleon　in　1809；　when　our　army　in　alliance　with　the

French　went　to　fight　the　Austrians？

　　To　these　questions　three　answers　are　possible：

　　Either　to　assume　（1）　that　the　will　of　the　people　is　always

unconditionally　transferred　to　the　ruler　or　rulers　they　have　chosen；

and　that　therefore　every　emergence　of　a　new　power；　every　struggle

against　the　power　once　appointed；　should　be　absolutely　regarded　as

an　infringement　of　the　real　power；　or　（2）　that　the　will　of　the

people　is　transferred　to　the　rulers　conditionally；　under　definite

and　known　conditions；　and　to　show　that　all　limitations；　conflicts；　a