战争与和平(下)- 第22节

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　the　person　possessing　it；　it　is　evident　that　the　source　of　this　power　must　be　found　outside　the　person—in　those　relations　in　which　the　person　possessing　the　power　stands　to　the　masses。
That　is　precisely　how　power　is　interpreted　by　the　science　of　law；　that　cash　bank　of　history；　that　undertakes　to　change　the　historical　token　money　of　power　for　sterling　gold。
Power　is　the　combined　wills　of　the　masses；　transferred　by　their　expressed　or　tacit　consent　to　the　rulers　chosen　by　the　masses。
In　the　domain　of　the　science　of　law；　made　up　of　arguments　on　how　a　state　and　power　ought　to　be　constructed；　if　it　were　possible　to　construct　it；　all　this　is　very　clear；　but　in　its　application　to　history　this　definition　of　power　calls　for　elucidation。
The　science　of　law　regards　the　state　and　power；　as　the　ancients　regarded　fire；　as　something　positively　existing。　But　for　history　the　state　and　power　are　merely　phenomena；　just　as　for　the　physical　science　of　today　fire　is　not　an　element；　but　a　phenomenon。
From　this　fundamental　difference　in　the　point　of　view　of　history　and　of　the　science　of　law；　it　comes　to　pass　that　the　science　of　law　can　discuss　in　detail　how　in　the　scientific　writer’s　opinion　power　should　be　organised；　and　what　is　power；　existing　immovable　outside　the　conditions　of　time；　but　to　historical　questions　as　to　the　significance　of　power；　undergoing　visible　transformation　in　time；　it　can　give　no　answer。
If　power　is　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　transferred　to　their　rulers；　is　Pugatchov　a　representative　of　the　will　of　the　masses？　If　he　is　not；　how　then　is　Napoleon　I。　such　a　representative？　Why　is　it　that　Napoleon　III。；　when　he　was　seized　at　Boulogne；　was　a　criminal；　and　afterwards　those　who　had　been　seized　by　him　were　criminals？
In　palace　revolutions—in　which　sometimes　two　or　three　persons　only　take　part—is　the　will　of　the　masses　transferred　to　a　new　person？　In　international　relations；　is　the　will　of　the　masses　of　the　people　transferred　to　their　conqueror？　In　1808　was　the　will　of　the　Rhine　Alliance　league　transferred　to　Napoleon？　Was　the　will　of　the　mass　of　the　Russian　people　transferred　to　Napoleon　in　1809；　when　our　army　in　alliance　with　the　French　made　war　upon　Austria？
These　questions　may　be　answered　in　three　ways：　（1）　By　maintaining　that　the　will　of　the　masses　is　always　unconditionally　delegated　over　to　that　ruler　or　those　rulers　whom　they　have　chosen；　and　that　consequently　every　rising　up　of　new　power；　every　struggle　against　the　power　once　delegated；　must　be　regarded　as　a　contravention　of　the　real　power。
Or　（2）　by　maintaining　that　the　will　of　the　masses　is　delegated　to　the　rulers；　under　certain　definite　conditions；　and　by　showing　that　all　restrictions　on；　conflicts　with；　and　even　abolition　of　power　are　due　to　non…observance　of　the　rulers　of　those　conditions　upon　which　power　was　delegated　to　them。
Or　（3）　by　maintaining　that　the　will　of　the　masses　is　delegated　to　the　rulers　conditionally；　but　that　the　conditions　are　uncertain　and　undefined；　and　that　the　rising　up　of　several　authorities；　and　their　conflict　and　fall；　are　due　only　to　the　more　or　less　complete　fulfilment　of　the　rulers　of　the　uncertain　conditions　upon　which　the　will　of　the　masses　is　transferred　from　one　set　of　persons　to　another。
In　these　three　ways　do　historians　explain　the　relation　of　the　masses　to　their　rulers。
Some　historians—those　most　distinctively　biographers　and　writers　of　memoirs；　of　whom　we　have　spoken　above—failing　in　the　simplicity　of　their　hearts　to　understand　the　question　as　to　the　meaning　of　power；　seem　to　believe　that　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　is　delegated　to　historical　leaders　unconditionally；　and　therefore；　describing　any　such　authority；　these　historians　assume　that　that　authority　is　the　one　absolute　and　real　one；　and　that　every　other　force；　opposing　that　real　authority；　is　not　authority；　but　a　violation　of　authority；　and　unlawful　violence。
Their　theory　fits　in　well　with　primitive　and　peaceful　periods　of　history；　but　in　its　application　to　complicated　and　stormy　periods　in　the　life　of　nations；　when　several　different　authorities　rise　up　simultaneously　and　struggle　together；　the　inconvenience　arises　that　the　legitimist　historian　will　assert　that　the　National　Assembly；　the　Directorate；　and　Bonaparte　were　only　violations　of　real　authority；　while　the　Republican　and　the　Bonapartist　will　maintain；　one　that　the　Republic；　and　the　other　that　the　Empire　were　the　real　authority；　and　that　all　the　rest　was　a　violation　of　authority。　It　is　evident　that　the　explanations　given　by　these　historians　being　mutually　contradictory；　can　satisfy　none　but　children　of　the　tenderest　age。
Recognising　the　deceptiveness　of　this　view　of　history；　another　class　of　historians　assert　that　authority　rests　on　the　conditional　delegation　of　the　combined　will　of　the　masses　to　their　rulers；　and　that　historical　leaders　possess　power　only　on　condition　of　carrying　out　the　programme　which　the　will　of　the　people　has　by　tacit　consent　dictated　to　them。　But　what　this　programme　consists　of；　those　historians　do　not　tell　us；　or　if　they　do；　they　continually　contradict　one　another。
In　accordance　with　his　view　of　what　constitutes　the　goal　of　the　movements　of　a　people；　each　historian　conceives　of　this　programme；　as；　for　instance；　the　greatness；　the　wealth；　the　freedom；　or　the　enlightenment　of　the　citizens　of　France　or　some　other　kingdom。　But　putting　aside　the　contradictions　between　historians　as　to　the　nature　of　such　a　programme；　and　even　supposing　that　one　general　programme　to　exist　for　all；　the　facts　of　history　almost　always　contradict　this　theory。
If　the　conditions　on　which　power　is　vested　in　rulers　are　to　be　found　in　the　wealth；　freedom；　and　enlightenment　of　the　people；　how　is　it　that　kings　like　Louis　XIV。　and　John　IV。　lived　out　their　reigns　in　peace；　while　kings　like　Louis　XVI。　and　Charles　I。　were　put　to　death　by　their　peoples？　To　this　question　these　historians　reply；　that　the　effect　of　the　actions　of　Louis　XIV。　contrary　to　the　programme　were　reacted　upon　Louis　XVI。　But　why　not　reflected　on　Louis　XIV。　and　Louis　XV。？　Why　precisely　on　Louis　XVI。？　And　what