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！
activity of an historical leader which serves to express the
people's life； as other so…called 〃philosophical〃 historians
believe； then to determine which side of the activity of a leader
expresses the nation's life； we have first of all to know in what
the nation's life consists。
Met by this difficulty historians of that class devise some most
obscure； impalpable； and general abstraction which can cover all
conceivable occurrences； and declare this abstraction to be the aim of
humanity's movement。 The most usual generalizations adopted by
almost all the historians are： freedom； equality； enlightenment；
progress； civilization； and culture。 Postulating some generalization
as the goal of the movement of humanity； the historians study the
men of whom the greatest number of monuments have remained： kings；
ministers； generals； authors； reformers； popes； and journalists； to
the extent to which in their opinion these persons have promoted or
hindered that abstraction。 But as it is in no way proved that the
aim of humanity does consist in freedom； equality； enlightenment； or
civilization； and as the connection of the people with the rulers
and enlighteners of humanity is only based on the arbitrary assumption
that the collective will of the people is always transferred to the
men whom we have noticed； it happens that the activity of the millions
who migrate； burn houses； abandon agriculture； and destroy one another
never is expressed in the account of the activity of some dozen people
who did not burn houses； practice agriculture； or slay their fellow
creatures。
History proves this at every turn。 Is the ferment of the peoples
of the west at the end of the eighteenth century and their drive
eastward explained by the activity of Louis XIV； XV； and XVI； their
mistresses and ministers； and by the lives of Napoleon； Rousseau；
Diderot； Beaumarchais； and others？
Is the movement of the Russian people eastward to Kazan and
Siberia expressed by details of the morbid character of Ivan the
Terrible and by his correspondence with Kurbski？
Is the movement of the peoples at the time of the Crusades explained
by the life and activity of the Godfreys and the Louis…es and their
ladies？ For us that movement of the peoples from west to east； without
leaders； with a crowd of vagrants； and with Peter the Hermit；
remains incomprehensible。 And yet more incomprehensible is the
cessation of that movement when a rational and sacred aim for the
Crusade… the deliverance of Jerusalem… had been clearly defined by
historic leaders。 Popes； kings； and knights incited the peoples to
free the Holy Land； but the people did not go； for the unknown cause
which had previously impelled them to go no longer existed。 The
history of the Godfreys and the Minnesingers can evidently not cover
the life of the peoples。 And the history of the Godfreys and the
Minnesingers has remained the history of Godfreys and Minnesingers；
but the history of the life of the peoples and their impulses has
remained unknown。
Still less does the history of authors and reformers explain to us
the life of the peoples。
The history of culture explains to us the impulses and conditions of
life and thought of a writer or a reformer。 We learn that Luther had a
hot temper and said such and such things； we learn that Rousseau was
suspicious and wrote such and such books； but we do not learn why
after the Reformation the peoples massacred one another； nor why
during the French Revolution they guillotined one another。
If we unite both these kinds of history； as is done by the newest
historians； we shall have the history of monarchs and writers； but not
the history of the life of the peoples。
EP2｜CH5
CHAPTER V
The life of the nations is not contained in the lives of a few
men； for the connection between those men and the nations has not been
found。 The theory that this connection is based on the transference of
the collective will of a people to certain historical personages is an
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
someti