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！
possible to understand that Napoleon had power and so events occurred；
with some effort one may even conceive that Napoleon together with
other influences was the cause of an event； but how a book； Le Contrat
social； had the effect of making Frenchmen begin to drown one
another cannot be understood without an explanation of the causal
nexus of this new force with the event。
Undoubtedly some relation exists between all who live
contemporaneously； and so it is possible to find some connection
between the intellectual activity of men and their historical
movements； just as such a connection may be found between the
movements of humanity and commerce； handicraft； gardening； or anything
else you please。 But why intellectual activity is considered by the
historians of culture to be the cause or expression of the whole
historical movement is hard to understand。 Only the following
considerations can have led the historians to such a conclusion： （1）
that history is written by learned men； and so it is natural and
agreeable for them to think that the activity of their class
supplies the basis of the movement of all humanity； just as a
similar belief is natural and agreeable to traders； agriculturists；
and soldiers （if they do not express it； that is merely because
traders and soldiers do not write history）； and （2） that spiritual
activity； enlightenment； civilization； culture； ideas； are all
indistinct； indefinite conceptions under whose banner it is very
easy to use words having a still less definite meaning； and which
can therefore be readily introduced into any theory。
But not to speak of the intrinsic quality of histories of this
kind （which may possibly even be of use to someone for something）
the histories of culture； to which all general histories tend more and
more to approximate； are significant from the fact that after
seriously and minutely examining various religious； philosophic； and
political doctrines as causes of events； as soon as they have to
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