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！
ete and clear。 One might believe or disbelieve in the divine significance of Napoleon。 For one who believed in it； all the history of that period would have been comprehensible； and there would have been nothing contradictory in it。
But modern history cannot answer in that way。 Science does not accept the view of the ancients as to the direct participation of the Deity in the affairs of mankind； and therefore must give other answers。
Modern history； in answer to these questions； says： ‘‘You want to know what this movement means； what it arose from； and what force produced these events？ Listen。
‘‘Louis XIV。 was a very haughty and self…willed man； he had such and such mistresses； and such and such ministers； and he governed France badly。 Louis’s successors； too； were weak men； and they； too； governed France badly。 And they had such and such favourites； and such and such mistresses。 Moreover； there were certain men writing books at this period。 At the end of the eighteenth century there were some two dozen men in Paris who began to talk all about men being equal and free。 This led people all over France to fall to hewing and hacking at each other。 These people killed the king and a great many more。 At that time there was in France a man of genius—Napoleon。 He conquered every one everywhere； that is； he killed a great many people； because he was a very great genius。 And for some reason he went to kill the Africans； and killed them so well； and was so cunning and clever； that on returning to France he bade every one obey him。 And they all did obey him。 After being made Emperor he went to kill people in Italy； Austria； and Prussia。 And there； too； he killed a great many。 In Russia there was an Emperor； Alexander； who was resolved to re…establish order in Europe； and so made war with Napoleon。 But in 1807 he suddenly made friends with him； and in 1811 he quarrelled again； and again they began killing a great many people。 And Napoleon took six hundred thousand men into Russia； and conquered Moscow； and then he suddenly ran away out of Moscow； and then the Emperor Alexander； aided by the counsels of Stein and others； united Europe for defence against the destroyer of her peace。 All Napoleon’s allies suddenly became his enemies； and the united army advanced against the fresh troops raised by Napoleon。 The allies vanquished Napoleon； entered Paris； forced Napoleon to abdicate； and sent him to the island of Elba； not depriving him； however； of the dignity of Emperor； showing him； in fact； every respect； although five years before； and one year later； he was regarded by every one as a brigand outside the pale of the law。 And Louis XVIII。； who； till then； had been a laughing…stock to the French and the allies； began to reign。 Napoleon shed tears before the Old Guard； abdicated the throne； and went into exile。 Then the subtle； political people and diplomatists （conspicuous among them Talleyrand； who succeeded in sitting down in a particular chair before any one else； and thereby extended the frontiers of France） had conversations together at Vienna； and by these conversations made nations happy or unhappy。 All at once the diplomatists and monarchs all but quarrelled； they were on the point of again commanding their armies to kill one another； but at that time Napoleon entered France with a battalion； and the French； who had been hating him； at once submitted to him。 But the allied monarchs were angry at this； and again went to war with the French。 And the genius； Napoleon； was conquered； and suddenly recognising that he was a brigand； they took him to the island of St。 Helena。 And on that rock the exile； parted from the friends of his heart； and from his beloved France； died a lingering death； and bequeathed all his great deeds to posterity。 And in Europe the reaction followed； and all the sovereigns began oppressing their subjects again。’’
It would be quite a mistake to suppose that this is mockery—a caricature of historical descriptions。 On the contrary； it is a softened…down picture of the contradictory and random answers； that are no answers； given by all history； from the compilers of memoirs and of histories of separate states to general histories； and the new sort of histories of the culture of that period。
What is strange and comic in these answers is due to the fact that modern history is like a deaf man answering questions which no one has asked him。
If the aim of history is the description of the movement of humanity and of nations； the first question which must be answered； or all the rest remains unintelligible； is the following： What force moves nations？ To meet this question modern history carefully relates that Napoleon was a very great genius； and that Louis XIV。 was very haughty； or that certain writers wrote certain books。
All this may very well be so； and humanity is ready to acquiesce in it； but it is not what it asks about。 All that might be very interesting if we recognised a divine power； based on itself and always alike； guiding its peoples through Napoleons； Louis’； and writers； but we do not acknowledge such a power； and therefore before talking about Napoleons； and Louis’； and great writers； we must show the connection existing between those persons and the movement of the nations。 If another force is put in the place of the divine power； then it should be explained what that force consists of； since it is precisely in that force that the whole interest of history lies。
History seems to assume that this force is taken for granted of itself； and is known to every one。 But in despite of every desire to admit this new force as known； any one who reads through very many historical works cannot but doubt whether this new force； so differently understood by the historians themselves； is perfectly well known to every one。
Chapter 2
WHAT is the force that moves nations？
Biographical historians； and historians writing of separate nations； understand this force as a power residing in heroes and sovereigns。 According to their narratives； the events were entirely due to the wills of Napoleons； of Alexanders； or； generally speaking； of those persons who form the subject of historical memoirs。 The answers given by historians of this class to the question as to the force which brings about events are satisfactory； but only so long as there is only one historian for any event。 But as soon as historians of different views and different nationalities begin describing the same event； the answers given by them immediately lose all their value； as this force is understood by them； not only differently； but often in absolutely opposite ways。 One historian asserts that an event is due to the power of Napoleon； another maintains that it is produced by the power of Alexander； a third ascribes it to the influence of some third person。 Moreover； historians of this class contradict one another even in their explanation of the force on which the influence of the same person is based。 Thiers； a Bonapartist； says that Napoleon’s power rested on his virtue and his genius； Lanfrey； a Republican； declares that it rested on his duplicity and deception of the people。 So that historians of this class； mutually destroying each