War And Peace: Epilogue 2 - CHAPTER V

Description

THE LIFE of nations is not contained in the life of a few men, since the

connection between those few men and the nations has not been found. The theory

that this connection is based on the delegation of the combined will of a people

to its historical leaders is an hypothesis, not supported by the testimony of

history.

The theory of the delegation of the combined will of the masses to historical

personages may perhaps explain a great deal in the domain of the science of law,

and is possibly essential for its purposes. But in its application to history,

as soon as revolutions, wars, civil disturbances arise, as soon as history

begins in fact—this theory explains nothing.

This theory appears irrefutable, just because the act of delegating the will

of the people can never be verified, since it has never existed.

Whatever event might take place, and whoever might be taking the lead in such

an event, the theory can always say that such a person took the lead in bringing

about that event because the combined will was vested in him.

The answers given by this theory to historical questions are like the answers

of a man who, watching the movements of a flock, should pay no attention to the

varying quality of the pasturage in different parts of the field, nor to the

actions of the shepherd, but should look for the causes of the flock taking this

or that direction simply in the animal that happened to be foremost in it.

“The flock moves in this direction because the animal in front leads it, and

the combined will of all the other animals is delegated to the leader of the

flock.” Such is the answer given by the first class of historians, who suppose

an unconditional delegation of will to the authority.

“If the animals leading the flock are changed for others, it is due to the

fact that the combined will of all the beasts is transferred from one leader to

another owing to the fact that the first leader did not follow the direction

chosen by all the flock.” Such is the reply of those historians who assume that

the combined will of the masses is vested in their rulers on conditions which

they regard as unknown. (With this method of observation it very often happens

that the observer, judging from the direction chosen by him, reckons as leaders

those who, when the direction of the masses is changed, are not in front, but on

one side, and even sometimes the hindmost.)

“If the beasts that are foremost are constantly being changed, and the

direction taken by the flock too is continually changing, that is due to the

fact that to attain a certain direction known to us the beasts delegate their

wills to those beasts which attract our attention, and to study the movements of

the flock we ought to observe all the noticeable animals that are moving on all

sides of the flock.” So say the third class of historians, who accept all

historical characters as the expression of their age from monarchs to

journalists.

The theory of the transference of the will of the masses to historical

characters is only a paraphrase—only a restatement of the question in other

words.

What is the cause of historical events? Power.

What is Power? Power is the combined will of the masses vested in one

person.

On what conditions are the wills of the masses vested in one person? On

condition of that person's expressing the will of all men. That is, power is

power. That is, power is a word the meaning of which is beyond our

comprehension.

If the domain of human knowledge were confined to abstract reasoning alone,

then, after subjecting the explanation of power given by science to criticism,

humanity would come to the conclusion that power is only a word, and that it has

no existence in reality. But for the knowledge of phenomena, man has besides

abstract reasoning another instrument—experience—by which he verifies the

results of reasoning. And experience tells him that power is not merely a word,

but an actually existing phenomenon.

To say nothing of the fact that not a single account of the combined action

of men can omit the conception of power, the reality of power is shown us, not

only by history, but by observation of contemporary events.

Whenever an event takes place, a man or men appear by whose will the event is

conceived to have been accomplished. Napoleon III. gives an order, and the

French go to Mexico. The Prussian King and Bismarck give certain orders, and

troops go to Bohemia. Napoleon I. gives a command, and soldiers march into

Russia. Alexander I. gives a command, and the French submit to the Bourbons.

Experience shows us that whatever takes place, it is always connected with the

will of one or of several men, who decreed it should be so.

Historians, from the old habit of recognising divine intervention in the

affairs of humanity, are inclined to look for the cause of events in the

exercise of the will of the person endowed with power; but this conclusion is

not confirmed either by reason or by experience.

On one side reason shows that the expression of the will of a man—his words,

in fact, are only a part of the general activity expressed in an event, such as

a revolution or a war, and therefore without the assumption of an

incomprehensible, supernatural force—a miracle—it cannot be admitted that these

words can be the immediate cause of the movements of millions of men.

On the other side, even if one admits that words may be the cause of an

event, history shows us that the expression of the will of historical personages

in the great majority of cases does not lead to any effect at all—that is, that

their commands are often not carried out, and, in fact, sometimes the very

opposite of what they have commanded is done.

Without admitting divine intervention in the affairs of humanity, we cannot

accept power as a cause of events.

Power, from the point of view of experience, is only the dependence existing

between the expression of the will of a person and the carrying out of that will

by others.

To explain the conditions of that dependence, we have, first of all, to

reinstate the conception of the expression of will, referring it to man, and not

to the Deity.

If the Deity gives a command, expresses His will, as the history of the

ancients tell us, the expression of that will is independent of time, and is not

called forth by anything, as the Deity is not connected with the event. But when

we speak of commands that are the expression of the will of men, acting in time

and connected with one another, we must, if we are to understand the connection

of the command with the event, restore (1) the conditions of all the

circumstances that took place, the dynamic continuity in time both of the event

and of the person commanding it; and (2) the condition of the inevitable

connection in which the person commanding stands with those who carry out his

command.

$$ Buy "War And Peace: Epilogue 2 - CHAPTER V" on Amazon $$

Please check the description for download links if any or do a search to find alternative books.

Can't Download?
Please search mirrors if you can't find download links for "War And Peace: Epilogue 2 - CHAPTER V" in "Description" and someone else may update the links. Check the comments when back to find any updates.

Search Mirrors
Maybe some mirror pages will be helpful, search this book at top of this page or click here to find more info.

1. Ebooks list page : 85
2. War And Peace: Epilogue 2 - CHAPTER I
3. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER IV
4. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER V
5. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER VI
6. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER VII
7. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER XIV
8. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER IX
9. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER X
10. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER XI
11. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER XII
12. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER XVI
13. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER III
14. War And Peace: Epilogue 2 - CHAPTER IV
15. War And Peace: Epilogue 1 - CHAPTER I
16. War And Peace: Epilogue 2 - CHAPTER II