second epilogue- 第1部分

　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　　SECOND　EPILOGUE




　　CHAPTER　I



　　History　is　the　life　of　nations　and　of　humanity。　To　seize　and　put

into　words；　to　describe　directly　the　life　of　humanity　or　even　of　a

single　nation；　appears　impossible。

　　The　ancient　historians　all　employed　one　and　the　same　method　to

describe　and　seize　the　apparently　elusive…　the　life　of　a　people。

They　described　the　activity　of　individuals　who　ruled　the　people；　and

regarded　the　activity　of　those　men　as　representing　the　activity　of　the

whole　nation。

　　The　question：　how　did　individuals　make　nations　act　as　they　wished

and　by　what　was　the　will　of　these　individuals　themselves　guided？　the

ancients　met　by　recognizing　a　divinity　which　subjected　the　nations

to　the　will　of　a　chosen　man；　and　guided　the　will　of　that　chosen　man　so

as　to　accomplish　ends　that　were　predestined。

　　For　the　ancients　these　questions　were　solved　by　a　belief　in　the

direct　participation　of　the　Deity　in　human　affairs。

　　Modern　history；　in　theory；　rejects　both　these　principles。

　　It　would　seem　that　having　rejected　the　belief　of　the　ancients　in

man's　subjection　to　the　Deity　and　in　a　predetermined　aim　toward

which　nations　are　led；　modern　history　should　study　not　the

manifestations　of　power　but　the　causes　that　produce　it。　But　modern

history　has　not　done　this。　Having　in　theory　rejected　the　view　held

by　the　ancients；　it　still　follows　them　in　practice。

　　Instead　of　men　endowed　with　divine　authority　and　directly　guided

by　the　will　of　God；　modern　history　has　given　us　either　heroes

endowed　with　extraordinary；　superhuman　capacities；　or　simply　men　of

very　various　kinds；　from　monarchs　to　journalists；　who　lead　the　masses。

Instead　of　the　former　divinely　appointed　aims　of　the　Jewish；　Greek；　or

Roman　nations；　which　ancient　historians　regarded　as　representing　the

progress　of　humanity；　modern　history　has　postulated　its　own　aims…

the　welfare　of　the　French；　German；　or　English　people；　or；　in　its

highest　abstraction；　the　welfare　and　civilization　of　humanity　in

general；　by　which　is　usually　meant　that　of　the　peoples　occupying　a

small　northwesterly　portion　of　a　large　continent。

　　Modern　history　has　rejected　the　beliefs　of　the　ancients　without

replacing　them　by　a　new　conception；　and　the　logic　of　the　situation　has

obliged　the　historians；　after　they　had　apparently　rejected　the

divine　authority　of　the　kings　and　the　〃fate〃　of　the　ancients；　to　reach

the　same　conclusion　by　another　road；　that　is；　to　recognize　（1）　nations

guided　by　individual　men；　and　（2）　the　existence　of　a　known　aim　to

which　these　nations　and　humanity　at　large　are　tending。

　　At　the　basis　of　the　works　of　all　the　modern　historians　from　Gibbon

to　Buckle；　despite　their　seeming　disagreements　and　the　apparent

novelty　of　their　outlooks；　lie　those　two　old；　unavoidable　assumptions。

　　In　the　first　place　the　historian　describes　the　activity　of

individuals　who　in　his　opinion　have　directed　humanity　（one　historian

considers　only　monarchs；　generals；　and　ministers　as　being　such　men；

while　another　includes　also　orators；　learned　men；　reformers；

philosophers；　and　poets）。　Secondly；　it　is　assumed　that　the　goal　toward

which　humanity　is　being　led　is　known　to　the　historians：　to　one　of　them

this　goal　is　the　greatness　of　the　Roman；　Spanish；　or　French　realm；

to　another　it　is　liberty；　equality；　and　a　certain　kind　of　civilization

of　a　small　corner　of　the　world　called　Europe。

　　In　1789　a　ferment　arises　in　Paris；　it　grows；　spreads；　and　is

expressed　by　a　movement　of　peoples　from　west　to　east。　Several　times　it

moves　eastward　and　collides　with　a　countermovement　from　the　east

westward。　In　1812　it　reaches　its　extreme　limit；　Moscow；　and　then；　with

remarkable　symmetry；　a　countermovement　occurs　from　east　to　west；

attracting　to　it；　as　the　first　movement　had　done；　the　nations　of

middle　Europe。　The　counter　movement　reaches　the　starting　point　of

the　first　movement　in　the　west…　Paris…　and　subsides。

　　During　that　twenty…year　period　an　immense　number　of　fields　were　left

untilled；　houses　were　burned；　trade　changed　its　direction；　millions　of

men　migrated；　were　impoverished；　or　were　enriched；　and　millions　of

Christian　men　professing　the　law　of　love　of　their　fellows　slew　one

another。

　　What　does　all　this　mean？　Why　did　it　happen？　What　made　those　people

burn　houses　and　slay　their　fellow　men？　What　were　the　causes　of　these

events？　What　force　made　men　act　so？　These　are　the　instinctive；

plain；　and　most　legitimate　questions　humanity　asks　itself　when　it

encounters　the　monuments　and　tradition　of　that　period。

　　For　a　reply　to　these　questions　the　common　sense　of　mankind　turns

to　the　science　of　history；　whose　aim　is　to　enable　nations　and　humanity

to　know　themselves。

　　If　history　had　retained　the　conception　of　the　ancients　it　would　have

said　that　God；　to　reward　or　punish　his　people；　gave　Napoleon　power　and

directed　his　will　to　the　fulfillment　of　the　divine　ends；　and　that

reply；　would　have　been　clear　and　complete。　One　might　believe　or

disbelieve　in　the　divine　significance　of　Napoleon；　but　for　anyone

believing　in　it　there　would　have　been　nothing　unintelligible　in　the

history　of　that　period；　nor　would　there　have　been　any　contradictions。

　　But　modern　history　cannot　give　that　reply。　Science　does　not　admit

the　conception　of　the　ancients　as　to　the　direct　participation　of　the

Deity　in　human　affairs；　and　therefore　history　ought　to　give　other

answers。

　　Modern　history　replying　to　these　questions　says：　you　want　to　know

what　this　movement　means；　what　caused　it；　and　what　force　produced

these　events？　Then　listen：

　　〃Louis　XIV　was　a　very　proud　and　self…confident　man；　he　had　such

and　such　mistresses　and　such　and　such　ministers　and　he　ruled　France

badly。　His　descendants　were　weak　men　and　they　too　ruled　France

badly。　And　they　had　such　and　such　favorites　and　such　and　such

mistresses。　Moreover；　certain　men　wrote　some　books　at　that　time。　At

the　end　of　the　eighteenth　century　there　were　a　couple　of　dozen　men

in　Paris　who　began　to　talk　about　all　men　being　free　and　equal。　This

caused　people　all　over　France　to　begin　to　slash　at　and　drown　one

another。　They　killed　the　king　and　many　other　people。　At　that　time

there　was　in　France　a　man　of　genius…　Napoleon。　He　conquered

everybody　everywhere…　that　is；　he　killed　many　people　because　he　was

a　great　genius。　And　for　some　reason　he　went　to　kill　Africans；　and

killed　them　so　well　and　was　so　cunning　and　wise　that　when　he

returned　to　France　he　ordered　everybody　to　obey　him；　and　they　all

obeyed　him。　Having　become　an　Emperor　he　again　went　out　to　kill

people　in　Italy；　Austria；　and　Prussia。　And　there　too　he　killed　a　great

many。　In　Russia　there　was　an　Emperor；　Alexander；　who　decided　to

restore　order　in　Europe　and　therefore　fought　against　Napoleon。　In　1807

he　suddenly　made　friends　with　him；　but　in　1811　they　again　quarreled

and　again　began　killing　many　people。　Napoleon　led　six　hundred　thousand

men　into　Russia　and　captured　Moscow；　then　he　suddenly　ran　away　from

Moscow；　and　the　Emperor　Alexander；　helped　by　the　advice　of　Stein　and

others；　united　Europe　to　arm　against　the　disturber　of　its　peace。　All

Napoleon's　allies　suddenly　became　his　enemies　and　their　forces

advanced　against　the　fresh　forces　he　raised。　The　Allies　defeated

Napoleon；　entered　Paris；　forced　Napoleon　to　abdicate；　and　sent　him

to　the　island　of　Elba；　not　depriving　him　of　the　title　of　Emperor　and

showing　him　every　respect；　though　five　years　before　and　one　year　later

they　all　regarded　him　as　an　outlaw　and　a　brigand。　Then　Louis　XVIII；

who　till　then　had　been　the　laughingstock　both　of　the　French　and　the

Allies；　began　to　reign。　And　Napoleon；　shedding　tears　before　his　Old

Guards；　renounced　the　throne　and　went　into　exile。　Then　the　skillful

statesmen　and　diplomatists　（especially　Talleyrand；　who　managed　to

sit　down　in　a　particular　chair　before　anyone　else　and　thereby　extended

the　frontiers　of　France）　talked　in　Vienna　and　by　these　conversations

made　the　nations　happy　or　unhappy。　Suddenly　the　diplomatists　and

monarchs　nearly　quarreled　and　were　on　the　point　of　again　ordering

their　armies　to　kill　one　another；　but　just　then　Napoleon　arrived　in

France　with　a　battalion；　and　the　French；　who　had　been　hating　him；

immediately　all　submitted　to　him。　But　the　Allied　monarchs　were　angry

at　this　and　went　to　fight　the　French　once　more。　And　they　defeated

the　genius　Napoleon　and；　suddenly　recognizing　him　as　a　brigand；　sent

him　to　the　island　of　St。　Helena。　And　the　exile；　separated　from　the

beloved　France　so　dear　to　his　heart；　died　a　lingering　death　on　that

rock　and　bequeathed　his　great　deeds　to　posterity。　But　in　Europe　a

reaction　occurred　and　the　sovereigns　once　again　all　began　to　oppress

their　subjects。〃

　　It　would　be　a　mistake　to　think　that　this　is　ironic…　a　caricature

of　the　historical　accounts。　On　the　contrary　it　is　a　very　mild

expression　of　the　contradictory　replies；　not　meeting　the　questions；

which　all　the　historians　give；　from　the　compilers　of　memoirs　and　the

histories　of　separate　states　to　the　writers　of　general　histories　and

the　new　histories　of　the　culture　of　that　period。

　　The　strangeness　and　absurdity　of　these　replies　arise　from　the　fact

that　modern　history；　like　a　deaf　man；　answers　questions　no　one　has

asked。

　　If　the　purpose　of　history　be　to　give　a　description　of　the　movement

of　humanity　and　of　the　peoples；　the　first　question…　in　the　absence

of　a　reply　to　which　all　the　rest　will　be　incomprehensible…　is：　what　is

the　power　that　moves　peoples？　To　this；　modern　history　laboriously

replies　either　that　Napoleon　was　a　great　genius；　or　that　Louis　XIV　was

very　proud；　or　that　certain　writers　wrote　certain　books。

　　All　that　may　be　so　and　mankind　is　ready　to　agree　with　it；　but　it

is　not　what　was　asked。　All　that　would　be　interesting　if　we

recognized　a　divine　power　based　on　itself　and　always　consistently

directing　its　nations　through　Napoleons；　Louis…es；　and　writers；　but　we

do　not　acknowledge　such　a　power；　and　therefore　before　speaking　about

Napoleons；　Louis…es；　and　authors；　we　ought　to　be　shown　the

connection　existing　between　these　men　and　the　movement　of　the　nations。

　　If　instead　of　a　divine　powe