友情提示:如果本网页打开太慢或显示不完整,请尝试鼠标右键“刷新”本网页!阅读过程发现任何错误请告诉我们,谢谢!! 报告错误
九色书籍 返回本书目录 我的书架 我的书签 TXT全本下载 进入书吧 加入书签

first epilogue-第1章

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!






                           FIRST EPILOGUE: 1813 … 20



  CHAPTER I



  Seven years had passed。 The storm…tossed sea of European history had

subsided within its shores and seemed to have become calm。 But the

mysterious forces that move humanity (mysterious because the laws of

their motion are unknown to us) continued to operate。

  Though the surface of the sea of history seemed motionless; the

movement of humanity went on as unceasingly as the flow of time。

Various groups of people formed and dissolved; the coming formation

and dissolution of kingdoms and displacement of peoples was in

course of preparation。

  The sea of history was not driven spasmodically from shore to

shore as previously。 It was seething in its depths。 Historic figures

were not borne by the waves from one shore to another as before。

They now seemed to rotate on one spot。 The historical figures at the

head of armies; who formerly reflected the movement of the masses by

ordering wars; campaigns; and battles; now reflected the restless

movement by political and diplomatic combinations; laws; and treaties。

  The historians call this activity of the historical figures 〃the

reaction。〃

  In dealing with this period they sternly condemn the historical

personages who; in their opinion; caused what they describe as the

reaction。 All the well…known people of that period; from Alexander and

Napoleon to Madame de Stael; Photius; Schelling; Fichte;

Chateaubriand; and the rest; pass before their stern judgment seat and

are acquitted or condemned according to whether they conduced to

progress or to reaction。

  According to their accounts a reaction took place at that time in

Russia also; and the chief culprit was Alexander I; the same man who

according to them was the chief cause of the liberal movement at the

commencement of his reign; being the savior of Russia。

  There is no one in Russian literature now; from schoolboy essayist

to learned historian; who does not throw his little stone at Alexander

for things he did wrong at this period of his reign。

  〃He ought to have acted in this way and in that way。 In this case he

did well and in that case badly。 He behaved admirably at the beginning

of his reign and during 1812; but acted badly by giving a constitution

to Poland; forming the Holy Alliance; entrusting power to Arakcheev;

favoring Golitsyn and mysticism; and afterwards Shishkov and

Photius。 He also acted badly by concerning himself with the active

army and disbanding the Semenov regiment。〃

  It would take a dozen pages to enumerate all the reproaches the

historians address to him; based on their knowledge of what is good

for humanity。

  What do these reproaches mean?

  Do not the very actions for which the historians praise Alexander

I (the liberal attempts at the beginning of his reign; his struggle

with Napoleon; the firmness he displayed in 1812 and the campaign of

1813) flow from the same sources… the circumstances of his birth;

education; and life… that made his personality what it was and from

which the actions for which they blame him (the Holy Alliance; the

restoration of Poland; and the reaction of 1820 and later) also

flowed?

  In what does the substance of those reproaches lie?

  It lies in the fact that an historic character like Alexander I;

standing on the highest possible pinnacle of human power with the

blinding light of history focused upon him; a character exposed to

those strongest of all influences: the intrigues; flattery; and

self…deception inseparable from power; a character who at every moment

of his life felt a responsibility for all that was happening in

Europe; and not a fictitious but a live character who like every man

had his personal habits; passions; and impulses toward goodness;

beauty; and truth… that this character… though not lacking in virtue

(the historians do not accuse him of that)… had not the same

conception of the welfare of humanity fifty years ago as a present…day

professor who from his youth upwards has been occupied with

learning: that is; with books and lectures and with taking notes

from them。

  But even if we assume that fifty years ago Alexander I was

mistaken in his view of what was good for the people; we must

inevitably assume that the historian who judges Alexander will also

after the lapse of some time turn out to be mistaken in his view of

what is good for humanity。 This assumption is all the more natural and

inevitable because; watching the movement of history; we see that

every year and with each new writer; opinion as to what is good for

mankind changes; so that what once seemed good; ten years later

seems bad; and vice versa。 And what is more; we find at one and the

same time quite contradictory views as to what is bad and what is good

in history: some people regard giving a constitution to Poland and

forming the Holy Alliance as praiseworthy in Alexander; while others

regard it as blameworthy。

  The activity of Alexander or of Napoleon cannot be called useful

or harmful; for it is impossible to say for what it was useful or

harmful。 If that activity displeases somebody; this is only because it

does not agree with his limited understanding of what is good。 Whether

the preservation of my father's house in Moscow; or the glory of the

Russian arms; or the prosperity of the Petersburg and other

universities; or the freedom of Poland or the greatness of Russia;

or the balance of power in Europe; or a certain kind of European

culture called 〃progress〃 appear to me to be good or bad; I must admit

that besides these things the action of every historic character has

other more general purposes inaccessible to me。

  But let us assume that what is called science can harmonize all

contradictions and possesses an unchanging standard of good and bad by

which to try historic characters and events; let us say that Alexander

could have done everything differently; let us say that with

guidance from those who blame him and who profess to know the ultimate

aim of the movement of humanity; he might have arranged matters

according to the program his present accusers would have given him… of

nationality; freedom; equality; and progress (these; I think; cover

the ground)。 Let us assume that this program was possible and had then

been formulated; and that Alexander had acted on it。 What would then

have become of the activity of all those who opposed the tendency that

then prevailed in the government… an activity that in the opinion of

the historians was good and beneficent? Their activity would not

have existed: there would have been no life; there would have been

nothing。

  If we admit that human life can be ruled by reason; the

possibility of life is destroyed。

EP1|CH2

  CHAPTER II



  If we assume as the historians do that great men lead humanity to

the attainment of certain ends… the greatness of Russia or of

France; the balance of power in Europe; the diffusion of the ideas

of the Revolution general progress or anything else… then it is

impossible to explain the facts of history without introducing the

conceptions of chance and genius。

  If the aim of the European wars at the beginning of the nineteenth

century had been the aggrandizement of Russia; that aim might have

been accomplished without all the preceding wars and without the

invasion。 If the aim wag the aggrandizement of France; that might have

been attained without the Revolution and without the Empire。 If the

aim was the dissemination of ideas; the printing press could have

accomplished that much better than warfare。 If the aim was the

progress of civilization; it is easy to see that there are other

ways of diffusing civilization more expedient than by the

destruction of wealth and of human lives。

  Why did it happen in this and not in some other way?

  Because it happened so! 〃Chance created the situation; genius

utilized it;〃 says history。

  But what is chance? What is genius?

  The words chance and genius do not denote any really existing

thing and therefore cannot be defined。 Those words only denote a

certain stage of understanding of phenomena。 I do not know why a

certain event occurs; I think that I cannot know it; so I do not try

to know it and I talk about chance。 I see a force producing effects

beyond the scope of ordinary human agencies; I do not understand why

this occurs and I talk of genius。

  To a herd of rams; the ram the herdsman drives each evening into a

special enclosure to feed and that becomes twice as fat as the

others must seem to be a genius。 And it must appear an astonishing

conjunction of genius with a whole series of extraordinary chances

that this ram; who instead of getting into the general fold every

evening goes into a special enclosure where there are oats… that

this very ram; swelling with fat; is killed for meat。

  But the rams need only cease to suppose that all that happens to

them happens solely for
返回目录 下一页 回到顶部 0 0
未阅读完?加入书签已便下次继续阅读!
温馨提示: 温看小说的同时发表评论,说出自己的看法和其它小伙伴们分享也不错哦!发表书评还可以获得积分和经验奖励,认真写原创书评 被采纳为精评可以获得大量金币、积分和经验奖励哦!