战争与和平(下)-第21部分

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！


event　are　devoid　of　all　common…sense；　that　they　are　inconsistent　with　one　another；　as；　for　instance；　the　murder　of　a　man　as　a　result　of　the　declaration　of　his　rights；　and　the　murder　of　millions　in　Russia　for　the　abasement　of　England。　But　those　justifications　have　an　incontestable　value　in　their　own　day。
They　remove　moral　responsibility　from　those　men　who　produce　the　events。　At　the　time　they　do　the　work　of　brooms；　that　go　in　front　to　clear　the　rails　for　the　train：　they　clear　the　path　of　men’s　moral　responsibility。　Apart　from　those　justifications；　no　solution　could　be　found　for　the　most　obvious　question　that　occurs　to　one　at　once　on　examining　any　historical　event；　that　is；　How　did　millions　of　men　come　to　combine　to　commit　crimes；　murders；　wars；　and　so　on？
Under　the　existing　complex　forms　of　political　social　life　in　Europe；　can　any　event　be　imagined　which　would　not　have　been　prescribed；　decreed；　commanded　by　some　sovereigns；　ministers；　parliaments；　or　newspapers？　Is　there　any　sort　of　combined　action　which　could　not　find　justification　in　political　unity；　or　in　patriotism；　or　in　the　balance　of　power；　or　in　civilisation？　So　that　every　event　that　occurs　inevitably　coincides　with　some　expressed　desire；　and　receiving　justification；　is　regarded　as　the　result　of　the　will　of　one　or　more　persons。
Whichever　way　the　ship　steers　its　course；　there　will　always　be　seen　ahead　of　it　the　flow　of　the　waves　it　cleaves。　To　the　men　in　the　ship　the　movement　of　those　waves　will　be　the　only　motion　perceptible。
It　is　only　by　watching　closely；　moment　by　moment；　the　movement　of　that　flow；　and　comparing　it　with　the　movement　of　the　ship；　that　we　are　convinced　that　every　moment　that　flowing　by　of　the　waves　is　due　to　the　forward　movement　of　the　ship；　and　that　we　have　been　led　into　error　by　the　fact　that　we　are　ourselves　moving　too。
We　see　the　same　thing；　watching　moment　by　moment　the　movement　of　historical　personages　（that　is；　restoring　the　inevitable　condition　under　which　all　action　takes　place—the　condition　of　the　continuity　of　motion　in　time）；　and　not　losing　sight　of　the　necessary　connection　of　historical　figures　with　the　masses。
Whatever　happens；　it　always　appears　that　that　was　foreseen　and　decreed。　Whichever　way　the　ship　turns；　the　waves　gurgle　in　front　of　it；　and　neither　guiding　nor　accelerating　its　movement；　will　seem　to　us　at　a　distance　to　be　moving　arbitrarily　and　guiding　the　course　of　the　ship。
Examining　only　those　expressions　of　the　will　of　historical　characters　which　related　to　events　as　commands；　historians　have　assumed　that　the　events　were　dependent　on　the　commands。　Examining　the　events　themselves；　and　that　connection　in　which　the　historical　characters　stand　with　the　masses；　we　have　found　that　historical　characters　and　their　commands　are　dependent　on　the　events。　An　incontestable　proof　of　this　deduction　is　to　be　found　in　the　fact　that；　however　many　commands　may　be　given；　the　event　does　not　take　place　if　there　is　no　other　cause　to　produce　it。　But　as　soon　as　an　event　does　take　place—whatever　it　may　be—out　of　the　number　of　all　the　expressions　of　the　will　of　different　persons；　there　are　always　some　which；　from　their　meaning　and　time　of　utterance；　are　related　to　the　events　as　commands。
Having　reached　this　conclusion；　we　can　directly　and　positively　answer　these　two　essential　questions　of　history：—
1。　What　is　power？　
2。　What　force　produces　the　movements　of　peoples？　
1。　Power　is　a　relation　of　a　certain　person　to　other　persons；　in　which　that　person　takes　the　less　direct　share　in　an　act；　the　more　he　expresses　opinions；　theories；　and　justifications　of　the　combined　action。　
2。　The　movement　of　peoples　is　not　produced　by　the　exercise　of　power；　nor　by　intellectual　activity；　nor　even　by　a　combination　of　the　two；　as　historians　have　supposed；　but　by　the　activity　of　all　the　men　taking　part　in　the　event；　who　are　always　combined　in　such　a　way　that　those　who　take　most　direct　part　in　the　action　take　the　smallest　share　in　responsibility　for　it；　and　vice　versa。　
In　its　moral　aspect　the　cause　of　the　event　is　conceived　of　as　power；　in　its　physical　aspect　as　those　who　were　subject　to　that　power。　But　since　moral　activity　is　inconceivable　apart　from　physical；　the　cause　of　the　event　is　found　in　neither　the　one　nor　the　other；　but　in　the　conjunction　of　the　two。
Or；　in　other　words；　the　conception　of　cause　is　not　applicable　to　the　phenomenon　we　are　examining。
In　our　final　analysis　we　are　brought　to　the　circle　of　infinity；　to　that　utmost　limit；　to　which　the　human　intellect　is　brought　in　every　department　of　thought；　if　it　is　not　merely　playing　with　its　subject。　Electricity　produces　heat；　heat　produces　electricity。　Atoms　are　attracted；　atoms　are　repelled。
Speaking　of　the　mutual　relations　of　heat　and　of　electricity　and　of　atoms；　we　cannot　say　why　it　is　so；　and　we　say　it　is　so　because　it　is　unthinkable　otherwise；　because　it　must　be　so；　because　it　is　a　law。　The　same　thing　applies　also　to　historical　phenomena。　Why　does　a　war　or　a　revolution　come　to　pass？　We　do　not　know。　We　only　know　that　to　bring　either　result　to　pass；　men　form　themselves　into　a　certain　combination　in　which　all　take　part；　and　we　say　that　this　is　so　because　it　is　unthinkable　otherwise；　because　it　is　a　law。


Chapter　8
IF　HISTORY　had　to　deal　with　external　phenomena；　the　establishment　of　this　simple　and　obvious　law　would　be　sufficient；　and　our　argument　would　be　at　an　end。　But　the　law　of　history　relates　to　man。　A　particle　of　matter　cannot　tell　us　that　it　does　not　feel　the　inevitability　of　attraction　and　repulsion；　and　that　the　law　is　not　true。　Man；　who　is　the　subject　of　history；　bluntly　says：　I　am　free；　and　so　I　am　not　subject　to　law。
The　presence　of　the　question　of　the　freedom　of　the　will；　if　not　openly　expressed；　is　felt　at　every　step　in　history。
All　seriously　thinking　historians　are　involuntarily　led　to　this　question。　All　the　inconsistencies；　and　the　obscurity　of　history；　and　the　false　path　that　science　has　followed；　is　due　to　that　unsolved　question。
If　the　will　of　every　man　were　free；　that　is；　if　every　man　could　act　as　he　chose；　the　whole　of　history　would　be　a　tissue　of　disconnected　accidents。
If　one　man　only　out　of　millions　once　in　a　thousand　years　had　the　power　of　acting　freely；　that　is；　as　he　chose；　it　is　obvious　that　a　single　free　act　of　that　man　in　opposition　to　the　laws　governing　human　action　would　destroy　the　possibility　of　any　laws　whatever　governing　all　humanity。
If　there　is　but　one　law　controlling　the　actions　of　men；　there　can　be　no　free　will；　since　men’s　will　must　be　subject　to　that　law。
In　this　contradiction　lies　the　question　of　the　freedom　of　the　will；　which　from　the　most　ancient　times　has　occupied　the　best　intellects　of　mankind；　and　has　from　the　most　ancient　times　been　regarded　as　of　immense　importance。
Looking　at　man　as　a　subject　of　observation　from　any　point　of　view—theological；　historical；　ethical；　philosophical—we　find　a　general　law　of　necessity　to　which　he　is　subject　like　everything　existing。　Looking　at　him　from　within　ourselves；　as　what　we　are　conscious　of；　we　feel　ourselves　free。
This　consciousness　is　a　source　of　self…knowledge　utterly　apart　and　independent　of　reason。　Through　reason　man　observes　himself；　but　he　knows　himself　only　through　consciousness。
Apart　from　consciousness　of　self；　any　observation　and　application　of　reason　is　inconceivable。
To　understand；　to　observe；　to　draw　conclusions；　a　man　must　first　of　all　be　conscious　of　himself　as　living。　A　man　knows　himself　as　living；　not　otherwise　than　as　willing；　that　is；　he　is　conscious　of　his　free　will。　Man　is　conscious　of　his　will　as　constituting　the　essence　of　his　life；　and　he　cannot　be　conscious　of　it　except　as　free。
If　subjecting　himself　to　his　own　observation；　a　man　perceives　that　his　will　is　always　controlled　by　the　same　law　（whether　he　observes　the　necessity　of　taking　food；　or　of　exercising　his　brain；　or　anything　else）；　he　cannot　regard　this　never…varying　direction　of　his　will　otherwise　than　as　a　limitation　of　it。　If　it　were　not　free；　it　could　not　be　limited。　A　man’s　will　seems　to　him　to　be　limited　just　because　he　is　not　conscious　of　it　except　as　free。　You　say：　I　am　not　free。　But　I　have　lifted　and　dropped　my　hand。　Everybody　understands　that　this　illogical　reply　is　an　irrefutable　proof　of　freedom。
This　reply　is　an　expression　of　a　consciousness　not　subject　to　reason。
If　the　consciousness　of　freedom　were　not　a　separate　source　of　self…knowledge　apart　from　reason；　it　would　be　controlled　by　reasoning　and　experience。　But　in　reality　such　control　never　exists；　and　is　inconceivable。
A　series　of　experiments　and　arguments　prove　to　every　man　that　he；　as　an　object　of　observation；　is　subject　to　certain　laws；　and　the　man　submits　to　them；　and　never；　after　they　have　once　been　pointed　out　to　him；　controverts　the　law　of　gravity　or　of　impenetrability。　But　the　same　series　of　experiments　and　arguments　proves　to　him　that　the　complete　freedom　of　which　he　is　conscious　in　himself　is　impossible；　that　every　action　of　his　depends　on　his　organisation；　on　his　character；　and　the　motives　acting　on　him。　But　man　never　submits　to　the　deductions　of　these　experiments　and　arguments。
Learning　from　experience　and　from　reasoning　that　a　stone　falls　to　the　ground；　a　man　unhesitatingly　believes　this；　and　in　all　cases　expects　the　law　he　has　learnt　to　be　carried　out。
But　learning　just　as　incontestably　that　his　will　is　subject　to　laws；　he　does　not；　and　cannot；　believe　it。
However　often　experience　and　reasoning　show　a　man　that　in　the　same　circumstances；　with　the　same　character；　he　does　the　same　thing　as　before；　yet　on　being　led　the　thousandth　time　in　the　same　circumstances；　with　the　same　character；　to　an　action　that　always　ends　in　the　same　way；　he　feels　just　as　unhesitatingly　convinced　that　he　can　act　as　he　chooses；　as　ever。　Every　man；　savage　and　sage　alike；　however　incontestably　reason　and　experience　may　prove　to　him　that　it　is　impossible　to　imagine　two　different　courses　of　action　under　precisely　the　same　circumstances；　yet　feels　that　without　this　meaningless　conception　（which　constitutes　the　essence　of　freedom）　he　cannot　conceive　of　life。　He　feels　that　however　impossible　it　may　be；　it　is　so；　seeing　that；　without　that　conception　of　freedom；　he　would　be　not　only　unable　to　understand　life；　but　could　not　live　for　a　single　instant。
He　could　not　live　because　all　men’s