‘‘StillIamnotthesameasamother，’’saidCountessMarya。‘‘Ifeelthatit’snotthesame，anditworriesme。He’sawonderfulboy;butIamawfullyafraidforhim。Companionshipwillbegoodforhim。’’
‘‘Oh，well，it’snotforlong;nextsummerIshalltakehimtoPetersburg，’’saidNikolay。‘‘Yes，Pierrealwayswas，andalwayswillbe，adreamer，’’hewenton，returningtothediscussioninthestudy，whichhadevidentlyworkedonhisfeelings。‘‘Why，whatconcernisallthatofmine—Araktcheev’smisdoings，andalltherestofit—whatconcernwasitofmine，whenatthetimeofourmarriageIhadsomanydebtsthattheyweregoingtoputmeinprison，andamotherwhocouldn’tseeitorunderstandit。Andthenyou，andthechildren，andmywork。It’snotformyownpleasureIamfrommorningtonightlookingafterthemen，orinthecounting-house。No，IknowImustworktocomfortmymother，repayyou，andnotleavemychildreninbeggary，asIwasleftmyself。’’
CountessMaryawantedtotellhimthatmandoesnotlivebybreadalone;thatheattachedtoomuchimportancetothiswork。Butsheknewthatshemustnotsaythis，andthatitwouldbeuseless。Sheonlytookhishandandkissedit。Heacceptedthisgestureonhiswife’spartasasignofassentandapprovalofhiswords，andafterafewmomentsofsilentthoughthewentonthinkingaloud。
‘‘Doyouknow，Marie，’’hesaid，‘‘IlyaMitrofanitch’’（thiswasastewardofhis）‘‘washereto-dayfromtheTambovestate，andhetellsmetheywillgiveeightythousandfortheforest。’’AndwithaneagerfaceNikolaybegantalkingofthepossibilityofbuyingOtradnoebackwithinaveryshorttime。‘‘Anothertenyearsoflife，andIshallleavethechildren…inacapitalposition。’’
CountessMaryalistenedtoherhusband，andunderstoodallhesaidtoher。Sheknewthatwhenhewasthusthinkingaloud，hewouldsometimesaskwhathehadbeensaying，andwasvexedwhenhenoticedshehadbeenthinkingofsomethingelse。Butshehadtomakeagreatefforttoattend，becauseshedidnotfeeltheslightestinterestinwhathewassayingtoher。Shelookedathim，andthoughshewouldnotexactlythinkofotherthings，herfeelingswereelsewhere。Shefeltasubmissive，tenderloveforthisman，whocouldneverunderstandallthatsheunderstood;andsheseemed，forthatveryreason，tolovehimthemore，withashadeofpassionatetenderness。Apartfromthatfeeling，whichabsorbedherentirely，andpreventedherfromfollowingthedetailsofherhusband’splans，thoughtskeptfloatingthroughherbrainthathadnothingincommonwithwhathewassaying。Shethoughtofhernephew（whatherhusbandhadsaidofhisexcitementoverPierre’stalkhadmadeagreatimpressiononher），andvarioustraitsofhistender，sensitivecharacterrosetohermind;andwhileshethoughtofhernephew，shethought，too，ofherownchildren。Shedidnotcomparehernephewwithherownchildren，butshecomparedherownfeelingforhim，andherfeelingforherchildren，andfelt，withsorrow，thatinherfeelingforNikolinkatherewassomethingwanting。
Sometimestheideahadoccurredtoherthatthisdifferencewasduetohisage;butshefeltguiltytowardshim，andinhersoulvowedtoamend，andtodotheimpossible，thatis，inthislife，toloveherhusband，andherchildren，andNikolinka，andallherfellow-creatures，asChristlovedmen。CountessMarya’ssoulwasalwaysstrivingtowardstheinfinite，theeternal，andtheperfect，andsoshecouldneverbeatpeace。Asternexpressioncameintoherfacefromthathidden，loftysufferingofthespirit，weigheddownbytheflesh。Nikolaygazedather。‘‘MyGod！Whatwillbecomeofus，ifshedies，asIdread，whenshelookslikethat？’’hethought，andstandingbeforetheholyimages，hebegantorepeathiseveningprayer。
Chapter16
NATASHA，assoonasshewasalonewithherhusband，hadbeguntalkingtoo，asonlyhusbandandwifecantalk，thatis，understandingandcommunicatingtheirthoughtstoeachother，withextraordinaryclearnessandrapidity，byaquitepeculiarmethodopposedtoalltherulesoflogic，withouttheaidofpremises，deductions，andconclusions。NatashawassousedtotalkingtoherhusbandinthisfashionthatalogicalsequenceofthoughtonPierre’spartwastoheraninfalliblesymptomofsomethingbeingoutoftunebetweenthem。Whenhebeganarguing，talkingreasonablyandcalmly，andwhenshewasledonbyhisexampleintodoingthesame，sheknewitwouldinfalliblyleadtoaquarrel。
FromthemomenttheywerealonetogetherandNatasha，withwide-open，happyeyes，creptsoftlyuptohimandsuddenly，swiftlyseizinghishead，pressedittoherbosom，saying，‘‘Nowyou’reallmine，mine！Youshan’tescape！’’thatconversationbeganthatcontravenedeveryruleoflogic，especiallybecausetheytalkedofseveraldifferentsubjectsatonce。Thisdiscussionofallsortsofthingsatonce，farfromhinderingclearnessofcomprehension，wasthesuresttokenthattheyunderstoodoneanotherfully。
Asinadreameverythingisuncertain，meaningless，andcontradictoryexceptthefeelingthatdirectsthedream，sointhiscommunionofideas，apartfromeverylawofreason，whatisclearandconsecutiveisnotwhatissaid，butthefeelingthatpromptsthewords。
NatashatalkedtoPierreofthedailyroundofexistenceatherbrother’s;toldhimhowshehadsufferedandbeenhalf-deadwithouthim;andthatshewasfonderofMariethanever，andMariewasbetterineverywaythanshewas。InsayingthisNatashawasquitesincereinacknowledgingMarie’ssuperiority，butatthesametimesheexpectedPierretopreferhertoMarieandallotherwomen，andnow，especiallyafterhehadbeenseeingagreatmanywomeninPetersburg，totellhersoanew。InresponsetoNatasha’swords，PierretoldherhowintolerablehehadfoundtheeveningpartiesanddinnerswithladiesinPetersburg。
‘‘Ihavequitelosttheartoftalkingtoladies，’’hesaid;‘‘itwashorriblytiresome。EspeciallyasIwassobusy。’’
Natashalookedintentlyathim，andwenton。‘‘Marie，nowsheiswonderful！’’shesaid。‘‘Theinsightshehasintochildren。Sheseemstoseestraightintotheirsouls。Yesterday，forinstance，Mitenkawasnaughty…’’
‘‘Andisn’thelikehisfather？’’Pierreputin。
NatashaknewwhyhemadethisremarkaboutMitenka’slikenesstoNikolay。Hedislikedthethoughtofhisdisputewithhisbrother-in-law，andwaslongingtohearwhatshethoughtaboutit。
‘‘It’saweaknessofNikolay’s，thatifanythingisnotgenerallyaccepted，hewillneveragreewithit。AndIseethatthat’sjustwhatyouvaluetoouvrirunecarrière，’’shesaid，repeatingaphrasePierrehadonceuttered。
‘‘No，therealthingisthattoNikolay，’’saidPierre，‘‘thoughtsandideasareanamusement，almostapastime。Herehe’sformingalibraryandhasmadeitarulenottobuyanewbooktillhehasreadthroughthelasthehasbought—SismondiandRousseauandMontesquieu，’’Pierreaddedwithasmile。‘‘YouknowhowI—，’’hewasbeginningtosoftenhiscriticism;butNatashainterrupted，givinghimtherebytounderstandthatthatwasnotnecessary。
‘‘Soyousayideastohimarenotserious…’’
‘‘Yes，andtomenothingelseisserious。AllthewhileIwasinPetersburg，Iseemedtobeseeingeveryoneinadream。WhenIamabsorbedbyanidea，nothingelseisserious。’’
‘‘Oh，whatapityIdidn’tseeyourmeetingwiththechildren，’’saidNatasha。‘‘Whichwasthemostpleased？Liza，ofcourse？’’
‘‘Yes，’’saidPierre，andhewentonwithwhatinterestedhim。‘‘Nikolaysaysweoughtnottothink。ButIcan’thelpit。Tosaynothingofthefact（Icansaysotoyou）thatinPetersburgIfeltthatthewholethingwouldgotopieceswithoutme，everyonepulledhisownway。ButIsucceededinbringingthemalltogether;andthenmyideaissoclearandsimple。Idon’tsayweoughttoworkagainstsoandso。Wemaybemistaken。ButIsayletthosejoinhandswhocareforthegoodcause，andletouronestandardbeenergyandhonesty。PrinceSergeyisacapitalfellow，andclever。’’
NatashawouldhavehadnodoubtthatPierre’sideawasagrandidea，butthatonethingtroubledher。Itwashisbeingherhusband。‘‘Isitpossiblethatamanofsuchvalue，ofsuchimportancetosociety，isatthesametimemyhusband？Howcanithavehappened？’’Shewantedtoexpressthisdoubttohim。‘‘Whoarethepersonswhocoulddecidepositivelywhetherheissomuchclevererthanallofthem？’’shewondered，andshewentoverinimaginationthepeoplewhowereverymuchrespectedbyPierre。Therewasnobodywhom，tojudgebyhisownaccount，hehadrespectedsomuchasPlatonKarataev。
‘‘DoyouknowwhatIamthinkingabout？’’shesaid。‘‘AboutPlatonKarataev。Whatwouldhehavesaid？Wouldhehaveapprovedofyounow？’’
Pierrewasnotintheleastsurprisedatthisquestion。Heunderstoodtheconnectionofhiswife’sideas。
‘‘PlatonKarataev？’’hesaid，andhepondered，evidentlytryingsincerelytopicturewhatKarataev’sjudgmentwouldhavebeenonthesubject。‘‘Hewouldnothaveunderstood，andyet，perhaps，hewould。’’
‘‘Ilikeyouawfully！’’saidNatashaallatonce。‘‘Awfully！awfully！’’
‘‘No，hewouldn’thaveapproved，’’saidPierre，musing。‘‘Whathewouldhaveapprovedofisourhomelife。Hedidsoliketoseeseemliness，happiness，peaceineverything，andIcouldhaveshownhimallofuswithpride。Youtalkaboutseparation。ButyouwouldnotbelievewhataspecialfeelingIhaveforyouafterseparation…’’
‘‘And，besides，…’’Natashawasbeginning。
‘‘No，notso。Ineverleaveofflovingyou。Andonecouldn’tlovemore;butit’ssomethingspecial。…’’Hedidnotfinish，becausetheireyesmeetingsaidtherest。
‘‘Whatnonsense，’’saidNatashasuddenly，‘‘itallisaboutthehoneymoonandthatthegreatesthappinessisatfirst。Onthecontrary，nowismuchthebest。Ifonlyyouwouldn’tgoaway。Doyourememberhowweusedtoquarrel？AndIwasalwaysinthewrong。Itwasalwaysmydoing。Andwhatwequarrelledabout—Idon’tremembereven。’’
‘‘Alwaysthesamething，’’saidPierresmiling。‘‘Jea…’’
‘‘Don’tsayit，Ican’tbearit，’’criedNatasha，andacold，vindictivelightgleamedinhereyes。‘‘Didyouseeher？’’sheaddedafterapause。
‘‘No;andifIhad，Ishouldn’thaveknownher。’’
Theyweresilent。
‘‘Oh！doyouknow，whenyouweretalkinginthestudy，Iwaslookingatyou，’’saidNatasha，obviouslytryingtodriveawaythecloudthathadcomebetweenthem。‘‘Anddoyouknowyouarelikehimastwodropsofwater，liketheboy。’’Thatwaswhatshecalledherbabyson。‘‘Ah，it’stimeIwenttohim。…ButIamsorrytogoaway。’’
Theywerebothsilentforsomeseconds。Thenallatonce，atthesamemoment，theyturnedtoeachotherandbegantalking。Pierrewasbeginningwithself-satisfactionandenthusiasm，Natashawithasoft，happysmile。Interruptingeachother，bothstopped，waitingfortheothertogoon。
‘‘No，whatisit？Tellme，tellme。’’
‘‘No，youtellme，itwasn’tanything，onlynonsense，’’saidNatasha。
Pierresaidwhathehadbeengoingtosay。ItwasthesequeltohiscomplacentreflectionsonhissuccessinPetersburg。ItseemedtohimatthatmomentthathewasdestinedtogiveanewdirectiontotheprogressofthewholeofRussiansocietyandofthewholeworld。
‘‘Ionlymeanttosaythatallideasthathaveimmenseresultsarealwayssimple。Allmyideareallyisthatifviciouspeopleareunitedandformapower，honestmenmustdothesame。It’ssosimple，yousee。’’
‘‘Yes。’’
‘‘Butwhatwereyougoingtosay？’’
‘‘Oh，nothing，nonsense。’’
‘‘No，sayitthough。’’
‘‘Oh，nothing，onlysillynonsense，’’saidNatasha，breakingintoamorebeamingsmilethanever。‘‘IwasonlygoingtotellyouaboutPetya。Nursecameuptotakehimfrommeto-day，helaughedandpuckereduphisfaceandsqueezeduptome—Isupposehethoughthewashiding。He’sawfullysweet。…Thereheiscrying。Well，good-bye！’’andsheranoutoftheroom。
Meanwhile，belowinNikolinkaBolkonsky’sbedroomalampwasburningasusual（theboywasafraidofthedarkandcouldnotbecuredofthisweakness）。Dessallewasasleepwithhisheadhighonhisfourpillows，andhisRomannosegaveforthrhythmicsoundsofsnoring。Nikolinkahadjustwakedupinacoldsweat，andwassittingupinbed，gazingwithwide-openeyesstraightbeforehim。Hehadbeenwakedbyafearfuldream。InhisdreamhisUnclePierreandheinhelmets，suchasappearedintheillustrationsinhisPlutarch，weremarchingattheheadofanimmensearmy。Thisarmywasmadeupofslanting，whitethreadsthatfilledtheairlikethosespider-websthatfloatinautumnandthatDessalleusedtocalllefildelaVierge。Aheadofthemwasglory，whichwassomethinglikethosethreadstoo，onlysomewhatmoreopaque。They—heandPierre—wereflyinglightlyandhappilynearerandnearertotheirgoal。Allatoncethethreadsthatmovedthemseemedtogrowweakandtangled;anditwasalldifficult。AndUncleNikolaystoodbeforetheminasternandmenacingattitude。
‘‘Haveyoudonethis？’’hesaid，pointingtobrokenpensandsticksofsealing-wax。‘‘Ididloveyou，butAraktcheevhasbiddenme，andIwillkillthefirstthatmovesforward。’’
NikolinkalookedroundforPierre;butPierrewasnotthere。InsteadofPierre，therewashisfather—PrinceAndrey—andhisfatherhadnoshapeorform，buthewasthere;andseeinghim，Nikolinkafelttheweaknessoflove;hefeltpowerless，limp，andrelaxed。Hisfathercaressedhimandpitiedhim，buthisUncleNikolaywasmovingdownuponthem，comingcloserandcloser。AgreathorrorcameoverNikolinka，andhewakedup。
‘‘Myfather！’’hethought。（AlthoughthereweretwoverygoodportraitsofPrinceAndreyinthehouse，Nikolinkaneverthoughtofhisfatherinhumanform。）‘‘Myfatherhasbeenwithme，andhascaressedme。Heapprovedofme;heapprovedofUnclePierre。Whateverhemighttellme，Iwoulddoit。MuciusScaevolaburnthishand。Butwhyshouldnotthesamesortofthinghappeninmylife？Iknowtheywantmetostudy。AndIamgoingtostudy。ButsomedayIshallhavefinished，andthenIwillact。OnethingonlyIprayGodfor，thatthesamesortofthingmayhappenwithmeaswithPlutarch’smen，andIwillactinthesameway。Iwilldomore。Everyoneshallknowofme，shallloveme，andadmireme。’’AndallatonceNikolinkafelthisbreastheavingwithsobs，andheburstintotears。
‘‘Areyouill？’’heheardDessalle’svoice。
‘‘No，’’answeredNikolinka，andhelaybackonhispillow。‘‘Howgoodandkindheis;Ilovehim！’’HethoughtofDessalle。‘‘ButUnclePierre！Oh，whatawonderfulman！Andmyfather？Father！Father！Yes，Iwilldosomethingthatevenhewouldbecontentwith…’’
EpilogueII
Chapter1
THESUBJECTofhistoryisthelifeofpeoplesandofhumanity。Tocatchandpindowninwords—thatis，todescribedirectlythelife，notonlyofhumanity，butevenofasinglepeople，appearstobeimpossible。
Alltheancienthistoriansemployedthesamemethodfordescribingandcatchingwhatisseeminglyelusive—thatis，thelifeofapeople。Theydescribedthecareerofindividualpersonsrulingpeoples;andtheiractivitywastothemanexpressionoftheactivityofthewholepeople。
Thequestions，Inwhatwayindividualpersonsmadenationsactinaccordancewiththeirwill，andbywhatthewillofthoseindividualsthemselveswascontrolled，theancientsanswered，BythewillofGod;whichinthefirstcasemadethenationsubjecttothewillofonechosenperson，and，inthesecond，guidedthewillofthatchosenmonarchtotheordainedend。
FortheancientsthesequestionsweresolvedbyfaithintheimmediateparticipationoftheDeityintheaffairsofmankind。
Modernhistoryhastheoreticallyrejectedboththosepositions。Onewouldhavethoughtthatrejectingtheconvictionsoftheancientsofmen’ssubjectiontotheDeity，andofadefinedgoaltowhichnationsareled，modernhistoryshouldhavestudied，notthemanifestationsofpower，butthecausesthatgotoitsformation。Butmodernhistoryhasnotdonethat。Whileintheoryrejectingtheviewsoftheancients，itfollowstheminpractice。
InsteadofmenendowedwithdivineauthorityanddirectlyledbythewilloftheDeity，modernhistoryhassetupeitherheroes，endowedwithextraordinary，superhumanpowers，orsimplymenofthemostvariedcharacteristics，frommonarchstojournalists，wholeadthemasses。Insteadoftheoldaim，thewilloftheDeity，thattotheoldhistoriansseemedtheendofthemovementsofpeoples，suchastheGauls，theGreeks，andtheRomans，modernhistoryhasadvancedaimsofitsown—thewelfareoftheFrench，theGerman，ortheEnglishpeople，oritshighestpitchofgeneralisation，thecivilisationofallhumanity，bywhichisusuallymeantthepeoplesinhabitingasmall，northwesterncornerofthegreatmother-earth。
Modernhistoryhasrejectedthefaithsoftheancients，withoutputtinganynewconvictionintheirplace;andthelogicofthepositionhasforcedthehistorians，leavingbehindthemtherejected，divinerightofkingsandfateoftheancients，tocomebackbyadifferentpathtothesamepointagain：totherecognition，thatis（1）thatpeoplesareledbyindividualpersons;and（2）thatthereisacertaingoaltowardswhichhumanityandthepeoplesconstitutingitaremoving。
Inalltheworksofthemoremodernhistorians，fromGibbontoBuckle，inspiteoftheirapparentdifferencesandtheapparentnoveltyoftheirviews，thesetwooldinevitablepositionslieatthebasisoftheargument。
Inthefirstplacethehistoriandescribestheconductofseparatepersonswho，inhisopinion，leadhumanity（oneregardsassuchonlymonarchs，militarygenerals，andministersofstate;anotherincludesbesidesmonarchs，orators，scientificmen，reformers，philosophers，andpoets）。Secondly，thegoaltowardswhichhumanityisbeingledisknowntothehistorian。ToonethisgoalisthegreatnessoftheRoman，ortheSpanish，ortheFrenchstate;foranother，itisfreedom，equality，acertainsortofcivilisationinalittlecorneroftheworldcalledEurope。
In1789therewasafermentinParis：itgrewandspread，andfoundexpressioninthemovementofpeoplesfromwesttoeast。Severaltimesthatmovementismadetotheeast，andcomesintocollisionwithacounter-movementfromeastwestwards。Intheyear1812itreachesitsfurthestlimit，Moscow，andthen，witharemarkablesymmetry，thecounter-movementfollowsfromeasttowest;drawingwithit，likethefirstmovement，thepeoplesofCentralEurope。Thecounter-movementreachesthestarting-pointofthefirstmovement—Paris—andsubsides。
Duringthisperiodoftwentyyearsanimmensenumberoffieldsarenottilled;housesareburned;tradechangesitsdirection;millionsofmengrowpoorandgrowrich，andchangetheirhabitations;andmillionsofChristians，professingthelawoflove，murderoneanother。
Whatdoesallthismean？Whatdidallthisproceedfrom？Whatinducedthesepeopletoburnhousesandtomurdertheirfellow-creatures？Whatwerethecausesoftheseevents？Whatforcecompelledmentoactinthisfashion？Thesearetheinvoluntaryandmostlegitimatequestionsthat，inallgoodfaith，humanityputstoitselfwhenitstumblesonmemorialsandtraditionsofthatpastageofrestlessness。
Toanswerthesequestionsthecommon-senseofhumanityturnstothescienceofhistory，theobjectofwhichistheself-knowledgeofnationsandofhumanity。
Hadhistoryretainedtheviewoftheancients，itwouldhavesaid：TheDeity，torewardortopunishHisPeople，gaveNapoleonpower，andguidedhiswillfortheattainmentofHisowndivineends。Andthatanswerwouldhavebeencompleteandclear。OnemightbelieveordisbelieveinthedivinesignificanceofNapoleon。Foronewhobelievedinit，allthehistoryofthatperiodwouldhavebeencomprehensible，andtherewouldhavebeennothingcontradictoryinit。
Butmodernhistorycannotanswerinthatway。SciencedoesnotaccepttheviewoftheancientsastothedirectparticipationoftheDeityintheaffairsofmankind，andthereforemustgiveotheranswers。
Modernhistory，inanswertothesequestions，says：‘‘Youwanttoknowwhatthismovementmeans，whatitarosefrom，andwhatforceproducedtheseevents？Listen。
‘‘LouisXIV。wasaveryhaughtyandself-willedman;hehadsuchandsuchmistresses，andsuchandsuchministers，andhegovernedFrancebadly。Louis’ssuccessors，too，wereweakmen，andthey，too，governedFrancebadly。Andtheyhadsuchandsuchfavourites，andsuchandsuchmistresses。Moreover，therewerecertainmenwritingbooksatthisperiod。AttheendoftheeighteenthcenturythereweresometwodozenmeninPariswhobegantotalkallaboutmenbeingequalandfree。ThisledpeoplealloverFrancetofalltohewingandhackingateachother。Thesepeoplekilledthekingandagreatmanymore。AtthattimetherewasinFranceamanofgenius—Napoleon。Heconqueredeveryoneeverywhere，thatis，hekilledagreatmanypeople，becausehewasaverygreatgenius。AndforsomereasonhewenttokilltheAfricans;andkilledthemsowell，andwassocunningandclever，thatonreturningtoFrancehebadeeveryoneobeyhim。Andtheyalldidobeyhim。AfterbeingmadeEmperorhewenttokillpeopleinItaly，Austria，andPrussia。Andthere，too，hekilledagreatmany。InRussiatherewasanEmperor，Alexander，whowasresolvedtore-establishorderinEurope，andsomadewarwithNapoleon。Butin1807hesuddenlymadefriendswithhim，andin1811hequarrelledagain，andagaintheybegankillingagreatmanypeople。AndNapoleontooksixhundredthousandmenintoRussia，andconqueredMoscow，andthenhesuddenlyranawayoutofMoscow，andthentheEmperorAlexander，aidedbythecounselsofSteinandothers，unitedEuropefordefenceagainstthedestroyerofherpeace。AllNapoleon’salliessuddenlybecamehisenemies;andtheunitedarmyadvancedagainstthefreshtroopsraisedbyNapoleon。ThealliesvanquishedNapoleon;enteredParis;forcedNapoleontoabdicate，andsenthimtotheislandofElba，notdeprivinghim，however，ofthedignityofEmperor，showinghim，infact，everyrespect，althoughfiveyearsbefore，andoneyearlater，hewasregardedbyeveryoneasabrigandoutsidethepaleofthelaw。AndLouisXVIII。，who，tillthen，hadbeenalaughing-stocktotheFrenchandtheallies，begantoreign。NapoleonshedtearsbeforetheOldGuard，abdicatedthethrone，andwentintoexile。Thenthesubtle，politicalpeopleanddiplomatists（conspicuousamongthemTalleyrand，whosucceededinsittingdowninaparticularchairbeforeanyoneelse，andtherebyextendedthefrontiersofFrance）hadconversationstogetheratVienna，andbytheseconversationsmadenationshappyorunhappy。Allatoncethediplomatistsandmonarchsallbutquarrelled;theywereonthepointofagaincommandingtheirarmiestokilloneanother;butatthattimeNapoleonenteredFrancewithabattalion，andtheFrench，whohadbeenhatinghim，atoncesubmittedtohim。Butthealliedmonarchswereangryatthis，andagainwenttowarwiththeFrench。Andthegenius，Napoleon，wasconquered;andsuddenlyrecognisingthathewasabrigand，theytookhimtotheislandofSt。Helena。Andonthatrocktheexile，partedfromthefriendsofhisheart，andfromhisbelovedFrance，diedalingeringdeath，andbequeathedallhisgreatdeedstoposterity。AndinEuropethereactionfollowed，andallthesovereignsbeganoppressingtheirsubjectsagain。’’
Itwouldbequiteamistaketosupposethatthisismockery—acaricatureofhistoricaldescriptions。Onthecontrary，itisasoftened-downpictureofthecontradictoryandrandomanswers，thatarenoanswers，givenbyallhistory，fromthecompilersofmemoirsandofhistoriesofseparatestatestogeneralhistories，andthenewsortofhistoriesofthecultureofthatperiod。
Whatisstrangeandcomicintheseanswersisduetothefactthatmodernhistoryislikeadeafmanansweringquestionswhichnoonehasaskedhim。
Iftheaimofhistoryisthedescriptionofthemovementofhumanityandofnations，thefirstquestionwhichmustbeanswered，oralltherestremainsunintelligible，isthefollowing：Whatforcemovesnations？TomeetthisquestionmodernhistorycarefullyrelatesthatNapoleonwasaverygreatgenius，andthatLouisXIV。wasveryhaughty，orthatcertainwriterswrotecertainbooks。
Allthismayverywellbeso，andhumanityisreadytoacquiesceinit;butitisnotwhatitasksabout。Allthatmightbeveryinterestingifwerecognisedadivinepower，basedonitselfandalwaysalike，guidingitspeoplesthroughNapoleons，Louis’，andwriters;butwedonotacknowledgesuchapower，andthereforebeforetalkingaboutNapoleons，andLouis’，andgreatwriters，wemustshowtheconnectionexistingbetweenthosepersonsandthemovementofthenations。Ifanotherforceisputintheplaceofthedivinepower，thenitshouldbeexplainedwhatthatforceconsistsof，sinceitispreciselyinthatforcethatthewholeinterestofhistorylies。
Historyseemstoassumethatthisforceistakenforgrantedofitself，andisknowntoeveryone。Butindespiteofeverydesiretoadmitthisnewforceasknown，anyonewhoreadsthroughverymanyhistoricalworkscannotbutdoubtwhetherthisnewforce，sodifferentlyunderstoodbythehistoriansthemselves，isperfectlywellknowntoeveryone。
Chapter2
WHATistheforcethatmovesnations？
Biographicalhistorians，andhistorianswritingofseparatenations，understandthisforceasapowerresidinginheroesandsovereigns。Accordingtotheirnarratives，theeventswereentirelyduetothewillsofNapoleons，ofAlexanders，or，generallyspeaking，ofthosepersonswhoformthesubjectofhistoricalmemoirs。Theanswersgivenbyhistoriansofthisclasstothequestionastotheforcewhichbringsabouteventsaresatisfactory，butonlysolongasthereisonlyonehistorianforanyevent。Butassoonashistoriansofdifferentviewsanddifferentnationalitiesbegindescribingthesameevent，theanswersgivenbythemimmediatelylosealltheirvalue，asthisforceisunderstoodbythem，notonlydifferently，butofteninabsolutelyoppositeways。OnehistorianassertsthataneventisduetothepowerofNapoleon;anothermaintainsthatitisproducedbythepowerofAlexander;athirdascribesittotheinfluenceofsomethirdperson。Moreover，historiansofthisclasscontradictoneanotherevenintheirexplanationoftheforceonwhichtheinfluenceofthesamepersonisbased。Thiers，aBonapartist，saysthatNapoleon’spowerrestedonhisvirtueandhisgenius;Lanfrey，aRepublican，declaresthatitrestedonhisduplicityanddeceptionofthepeople。Sothathistoriansofthisclass，mutuallydestroyingeachother’sposition，atthesametimedestroytheconceptionoftheforceproducingevents，andgivenoanswertotheessentialquestionofhistory。
Writersofuniversalhistory，whohavetodealwithallthenationsatonce，appeartorecognisetheincorrectnessoftheviewsofhistoriansofseparatecountriesastotheforcethatproducesevents。Theydonotrecognisethisforceasapowerpertainingtoheroesandsovereigns，butregarditastheresultantofmanyforcesworkingindifferentdirections。Indescribingawaronthesubjugationofapeople，thewriterofgeneralhistoryseeksthecauseoftheevent，notinthepowerofoneperson，butinthemutualactionononeanotherofmanypersonsconnectedwiththeevent。
Thepowerofhistoricalpersonagesconceivedastheproductofseveralforces，accordingtothisview，canhardly，onewouldhavesupposed，beregardedasaself-sufficientforceindependentlyproducingevents。Yetwritersofgeneralhistorydointhegreatmajorityofcasesemploytheconceptionofpoweragainasaself-sufficientforceproducingeventsandstandingintherelationofcausetothem。Accordingtotheirexpositionnowthehistoricalpersonageistheproductofhistime，andhispowerisonlytheproductofvariousforces，nowhispoweristheforceproducingevents。Gervinus，Schlosser，forinstance，andothers，inoneplace，explainthatNapoleonistheproductoftheRevolution，oftheideasof1789，andsoon;andinanotherplainlystatethatthecampaignof1812andothereventsnottotheirlikingaresimplytheworkofNapoleon’swronglydirectedwill，andthattheveryideasof1789werearrestedintheirdevelopmentbyNapoleon’sarbitraryrule。TheideasoftheRevolution，thegeneraltemperoftheageproducedNapoleon’spower。ThepowerofNapoleonsuppressedtheideasoftheRevolutionandthegeneraltemperoftheage。
Thisstrangeinconsistencyisnotanaccidentalone。Itconfrontsusateveryturn，and，infact，wholeworksuponuniversalhistoryaremadeupofconsecutiveseriesofsuchinconsistencies。Thisinconsistencyisduetothefactthataftertakingafewstepsalongtheroadofanalysis，thesehistorianshavestoppedshorthalfway。
Tofindthecomponentforcesthatmakeupthecompositeorresultantforce，itisessentialthatthesumofthecomponentpartsshouldequaltheresultant。Thisconditionisneverobservedbyhistoricalwriters，andconsequently，toexplaintheresultantforce，theymustinevitablyadmit，inadditiontothoseinsufficientcontributoryforces，somefurtherunexplainedforcethataffectsalsotheresultantaction。
Thehistoriandescribingthecampaignof1813，ortherestorationoftheBourbons，saysbluntlythattheseeventswereproducedbythewillofAlexander。ButthephilosophichistorianGervinus，controvertingtheviewofthespecialhistorianofthoseevents，seekstoprovethatthecampaignof1813andtherestorationoftheBourbonswasduenotonlytoAlexander，butalsototheworkofStein，Metternich，MadamedeSta？l，Talleyrand，Fichte，Chateaubriand，andothers。ThehistorianobviouslyanalysesthepowerofAlexanderintocomponentforces。Talleyrand，Chateaubriand，andsoon，andthesumofthesecomponentforces，thatis，theeffectononeanotherofChateaubriand，Talleyrand，MadamedeSta？l，andothersisobviouslynotequaltotheresultanteffect，thatis，thephenomenonofmillionsofFrenchmensubmittingtotheBourbons。SuchandsuchwordsbeingsaidtooneanotherbyChateaubriand，MadamedeSta？l，andothers，onlyaffectstheirrelationtooneanother，anddoesnotaccountforthesubmissionofmillions。Andthereforetoexplainhowthesubmissionofmillionsfollowedfromtheirrelationtooneanother，thatis，howfromcomponentforcesequaltoagivenquantityA，therefollowedaresultantequaltoathousandtimesA，thehistorianisinevitablyboundtoadmitthatforceofpower，whichhehasrenounced，acceptingitintheresultantforce，thatis，heisobligedtoadmitanunexplainedforcethatactsontheresultantofthosecomponents。Andthisisjustwhatthephilosophichistoriansdo。Andconsequentlytheynotonlycontradictthewritersofhistoricalmemoirs，butalsocontradictthemselves。
Countrypeoplewhohavenoclearideaofthecauseofrainsay：Thewindhasblownawaytherain，orthewindisblowingupforrain，accordingastheyareinwantofrainoroffairweather。Inthesameway，philosophichistoriansattimes，whentheywishittobeso，whenitfitsinwiththeirtheory，saythatpoweristheresultofevents;andattimes，whentheywanttoprovesomethingelse，theysaypowerproducestheevents。
Athirdclassofhistorians，thewritersoftheso-calledhistoryofculture，followingonthelineslaiddownbythewritersofuniversalhistorywhosometimesacceptwritersandladiesasforcesproducingevents，yetunderstandthatforcequitedifferently。Theyseethatforceinso-calledculture，inintellectualactivity。Thehistoriansofculturearequiteconsistentasregardstheirprototypes—thewritersofuniversalhistory—forifhistoricaleventscanbeexplainedbycertainpersonshavingsaidcertainthingstooneanother，whynotexplainthembycertainpersonshavingwrittencertainbooks？Outofalltheimmensenumberoftokensthataccompanyeverylivingphenomenon，thesehistoriansselectthesymptomofintellectualactivity，andassertthatthissymptomisthecause。Butinspiteofalltheirendeavourstoprovethatthecauseofeventsliesinintellectualactivity，itisonlybyagreatstretchthatonecanagreethatthereisanythingincommonbetweenintellectualactivityandthemovementofpeoples。Anditisaltogetherimpossibletoadmitthatintellectualactivityhasguidedtheactionsofmen，forsuchphenomenaasthecruelmurdersoftheFrenchRevolution，resultingfromthedoctrineoftheequalityofman，andthemostwickedwarsandmassacresarisingfromtheGospeloflove，donotconfirmthishypothesis。
Butevenadmittingthatallthecunninglywovenargumentswithwhichthesehistoriesaboundarecorrect，admittingthatnationsaregovernedbysomeindefiniteforcecalledanidea—theessentialquestionofhistorystillremainsunanswered;ortothepowerofmonarchsandtheinfluenceofcounsellorsandotherpersons，introducedbythephilosophichistorian，anothernewforceisnowjoined—theidea，theconnectionofwhichwiththemassesdemandsexplanation。OnecanunderstandthatNapoleonhadpowerandsoaneventcametopass;withsomeeffortonecanevenconceivethatNapoleontogetherwithotherinfluenceswasthecauseofanevent。Butinwhatfashionabook，LeContratSocial，ledtheFrenchtohackeachothertopiecescannotbeunderstoodwithoutanexplanationofthecausalconnectionofthisnewforcewiththeevent。
Thereundoubtedlyexistsaconnectionbetweenallthepeoplelivingatonetime，andsoitispossibletofindsomesortofconnectionbetweentheintellectualactivityofmenandtheirhistoricalmovements，justasonemayfindaconnectionbetweenthemovementsofhumanityandcommerce，handicrafts，gardening，andanythingyoulike。Butwhyintellectualactivityshouldbeconceivedofbythehistoriansofcultureasthecauseortheexpressionofawholehistoricalmovement，itishardtounderstand。Historianscanonlybeledtosuchaconclusionbythefollowingconsiderations：（1）Thathistoryiswrittenbylearnedmen;andsoitisnaturalandagreeabletothemtobelievethatthepursuitoftheircallingisthebasisofthemovementofthewholeofhumanity，justasasimilarbeliefwouldbenaturalandagreeabletomerchants，agriculturists，orsoldiers（suchabeliefontheirpartdoesnotfindexpressionsimplybecausemerchantsandsoldiersdon’twritehistory）;and（2）thatspiritualactivity，enlightenment，civilisation，culture，ideasareallvague，indefiniteconceptions，undercoverofwhichtheycanconvenientlyusephraseshavinglessdefinitesignification，andsoeasilybroughtunderanytheory。
Buttosaynothingoftheinnerdignityofhistoriesofthiskind（possiblytheyareofuseforsomeoneorforsomething），thehistoriesofculture，towardswhichallgeneralhistoriestendmoreandmoretoapproximate，arenoteworthyfromthefactthatthoughtheygiveaseriousanddetailedanalysisofvariousreligious，philosophic，andpoliticaldoctrinesascausesofevents，everytimetheyhavetodescribeanactualhistoricalevent，as，forinstance，thecampaignof1812，theyunconsciouslydescribeitastheeffectoftheexerciseofpower，franklysayingthatthatcampaignwastheworkofNapoleon’swill。Insayingthis，thehistoriansofcultureunconsciouslycontradictthemselves，toprovethatthenewforcetheyhaveinventedisnottheexpressionofhistoricalevents，andthatthesolemeansofexplaininghistoryisbythatpowerwhichtheyhadapparentlyrejected。
Chapter3
ASTEAM-ENGINEmoves。Thequestionisasked，Howisitmoved？Apeasantanswers，Itisthedevilmovingit。Anothermansays，Thesteam-enginemovesbecausethewheelsaregoinground。Athirdmaintainsthatthecauseofthemotionistobefoundinthesmokefloatedfromitbythewind。
Thepeasant’scontentionisirrefutable。Torefutehimsomeonemustprovetohimthatthereisnodevil，oranotherpeasantmustexplainthatitisnotadevil，butaGermanwhomovesthesteamer。Thenfromtheircontradictoryviewstheyseethatbotharewrong。Butthemanwhosaysthecauseisthemovementofthewheelsrefuteshimself，seeingthathavingonceenteredonthepathofanalysis，heoughttoproceedfurtherandfurtheralongit;heoughttoexplainthecauseofthewheelsmoving。Andhehasnottostopinhissearchforacausetillhefindstheultimatecauseofthemovementofthesteam-engineinthesteamcompressedintheboiler。Asforthemanwhoexplainedthemovementofthesteam-engineasduetothesmokebeingblownbackfromit，hehassimplynoticedthatthewheelexplanationwasinsufficient，andpitchingonthefirstaccompanyingsymptom，gavethatoutashiscause。
Theonlyconceptionwhichcanexplainthemovementofthesteameristheconceptionofaforceequaltothemovementthatisseen。
Theonlyconceptionbymeansofwhichthemovementsofnationscanbeexplainedisaconceptionofaforceequaltothewholemovementofthenations。
Yetunderthisconceptionthereareincludedbyvarioushistoriansforcesofthemostvariouskinds，andallunequaltothemovementthatisseen。Someseeinitaforcedirectlypertainingtoheroes，asthepeasantseesthedevilinthesteam-engine。Others，aforceresultingfromseveralotherforces，likethemovementofthewheels;athirdclass，intellectualinfluence，likethesmoke。
Solongashistoriesarewrittenofindividualpersons—whethertheyareC？sarsandAlexanders，orLuthersandVoltaires—andnotthehistoryofall，withoutoneexception，allthepeopletakingpartinanevent，thereisnopossibilityofdescribingthemovementofhumanitywithoutaconceptionofaforceimpellingmentodirecttheiractivitytooneend。Andtheonlyconceptionofthiskindfamiliartohistoriansispower。
Thisconceptionisthesolehandlebymeansofwhichthematerialofhistory，asatpresentexpounded，canbedealtwith;andthehistorianwhoshould，likeBuckle，breakoffthishandle，withoutdiscoveringanyothermeansofdealingwithhistoricalmaterial，wouldonlybedeprivinghimselfofthelastchanceofdealingwithit。Thenecessityoftheconceptionoftheexerciseofpowertoexplainthephenomenaofhistoryismoststrikinglyshownbytheverywritersofuniversalhistoryandthehistoryofculture，who，afterprofessedlyrejectingtheconceptionofpower，inevitablyresorttoitateverystep。
Historicalscienceinrelationtothequestionsofhumanityhashithertobeenlikemoneyincirculation—papernotesandmetalcoins。Thehistoricalmemoirsandhistoriesofseparatepeoplesarelikepapermoney。Theymaypassandbeaccepted，doingtheirpartwithoutmischieftoanyone，andevenbeinguseful，solongasnoquestionarisesastotheirvalue。Onehasonlytoforgetthequestionhowthewillofheroesproducesevents，andThiers’shistorieswillbeinteresting，instructive，andwill，moreover，notbedevoidofacertainpoetry。Butjustasadoubtofthestabilityofpapermoneyarises，eitherbecausefromtheeaseofmakingit，toomuchisputintocirculation，orbecauseofadesiretoreplaceitbygold，soadoubtoftherealvalueofhistoryofthiskindariseseitherbecausetoomanysuchhistoriesappear，orbecausesomeoneinthesimplicityofhisheartasks：BywhatforcedidNapoleondothat？—thatis，wishestochangethecurrentpaperforthepuregoldofatrueconception。
Thewritersofgeneralhistoryandthehistoryofculturearelikemenwho，recognisingtheinconvenienceofpapermoney，shoulddecidetomakeinsteadofpapernotes，jinglingcoinofmetalnotofthedensityofgold。Andsuchcoinwouldbejinglingcoin，andonlyjinglingcoin。Apapernotemightdeceivetheignorant;butcoinnotofpreciousmetalcoulddeceivenoone。Justasgoldisonlygoldwhenitisofvalue，notonlyforexchange，butalsoforuse，sothewritersofuniversalhistorywillonlyprovethemselvesofrealvaluewhentheyareabletoanswertheessentialquestionofhistory：Whatispower？Thesehistoriansgivecontradictoryanswerstothisquestion，whilethehistoriansofculturealtogetherevadeit，answeringsomethingquitedifferent。Andascountersinimitationofgoldcanonlybeusedinacommunityofpersonswhoagreetoacceptthemforgold，orwhoareignorantofthetruecharacterofgold，sodothehistorianswhodonotanswertheessentialquestionsofhumanityserveforsomeobjectsoftheirownascurrentcoinattheuniversitiesandwiththatcrowdofreaders—fondofseriousreading，astheycallit。
Chapter4
SINCEHISTORYhasabandonedtheviewsoftheancientsastothedivinesubjectionofthewillofapeopletoonechosenvessel，andthesubjectionofthewillofthatchosenvesseltotheDeity，itcannottakeasinglestepwithoutencounteringcontradictions。Itmustchooseoneoftwoalternatives：eithertoreturntoitsoldfaithinthedirectinterventionoftheDeityintheaffairsofhumanity;ortofindadefiniteexplanationofthatforceproducinghistoricaleventsthatiscalledpower。
Toreturntotheoldwayisoutofthequestion：theoldfaithisshattered，andsoanexplanationmustbefoundofthemeaningofpower。
Napoleoncommandedanarmytoberaised，andtomarchouttowar。Thisconceptionissofamiliartous，wearesoaccustomedtothisideathatthequestionwhysixhundredthousandmengoouttofightwhenNapoleonutterscertainwordsseemsmeaninglesstous。Hehadthepower，andsothecommandshegavewerecarriedout。
ThisansweriscompletelysatisfactoryifwebelievethatpowerhasbeengivenhimfromGod。Butassoonaswedonotacceptthat，itisessentialtodefinewhatthispowerisofonemanoverothers。
Thispowercannotbethatdirectpowerofthephysicalascendencyofastrongcreatureoveraweakone，thatascendencybasedontheapplicationorthethreatoftheapplicationofphysicalforce—likethepowerofHercules。Norcanitbebasedontheascendencyofmoralforce，asinthesimplicityoftheirheartsseveralhistorianssuppose，maintainingthattheleadinghistoricalfiguresareheroes—thatis，menendowedwithaspecialforceofsoulandmindcalledgenius。Thispowercannotbebasedontheascendencyofmoralforce;for，tosaynothingofhistoricalheroes，likeNapoleon，concerningwhosemoralqualitiesopinionsgreatlydiffer，historyprovestousthatneitherLouisXI。norMetternich，whogovernedmillionsofmen，hadanymarkedcharacteristicsofmoralforce，butthattheywere，onthecontrary，inmostrespectsmorallyweakerthananyoneofthemillionsofmentheygoverned。
Ifthesourceofpowerliesnotinthephysicalandnotinthemoralcharacteristicsofthepersonpossessingit，itisevidentthatthesourceofthispowermustbefoundoutsidetheperson—inthoserelationsinwhichthepersonpossessingthepowerstandstothemasses。
Thatispreciselyhowpowerisinterpretedbythescienceoflaw，thatcashbankofhistory，thatundertakestochangethehistoricaltokenmoneyofpowerforsterlinggold。
Poweristhecombinedwillsofthemasses，transferredbytheirexpressedortacitconsenttotherulerschosenbythemasses。
Inthedomainofthescienceoflaw，madeupofargumentsonhowastateandpoweroughttobeconstructed，ifitwerepossibletoconstructit，allthisisveryclear;butinitsapplicationtohistorythisdefinitionofpowercallsforelucidation。
Thescienceoflawregardsthestateandpower，astheancientsregardedfire，assomethingpositivelyexisting。Butforhistorythestateandpoweraremerelyphenomena，justasforthephysicalscienceoftodayfireisnotanelement，butaphenomenon。
Fromthisfundamentaldifferenceinthepointofviewofhistoryandofthescienceoflaw，itcomestopassthatthescienceoflawcandiscussindetailhowinthescientificwriter’sopinionpowershouldbeorganised，andwhatispower，existingimmovableoutsidetheconditionsoftime;buttohistoricalquestionsastothesignificanceofpower，undergoingvisibletransformationintime，itcangivenoanswer。
Ifpoweristhecombinedwillofthemassestransferredtotheirrulers，isPugatchovarepresentativeofthewillofthemasses？Ifheisnot，howthenisNapoleonI。sucharepresentative？WhyisitthatNapoleonIII。，whenhewasseizedatBoulogne，wasacriminal，andafterwardsthosewhohadbeenseizedbyhimwerecriminals？
Inpalacerevolutions—inwhichsometimestwoorthreepersonsonlytakepart—isthewillofthemassestransferredtoanewperson？Ininternationalrelations，isthewillofthemassesofthepeopletransferredtotheirconqueror？In1808wasthewilloftheRhineAllianceleaguetransferredtoNapoleon？WasthewillofthemassoftheRussianpeopletransferredtoNapoleonin1809，whenourarmyinalliancewiththeFrenchmadewaruponAustria？
Thesequestionsmaybeansweredinthreeways：（1）Bymaintainingthatthewillofthemassesisalwaysunconditionallydelegatedovertothatrulerorthoserulerswhomtheyhavechosen，andthatconsequentlyeveryrisingupofnewpower，everystruggleagainstthepoweroncedelegated，mustberegardedasacontraventionoftherealpower。
Or（2）bymaintainingthatthewillofthemassesisdelegatedtotherulers，undercertaindefiniteconditions，andbyshowingthatallrestrictionson，conflictswith，andevenabolitionofpowerareduetonon-observanceoftherulersofthoseconditionsuponwhichpowerwasdelegatedtothem。
Or（3）bymaintainingthatthewillofthemassesisdelegatedtotherulersconditionally，butthattheconditionsareuncertainandundefined，andthattherisingupofseveralauthorities，andtheirconflictandfall，aredueonlytothemoreorlesscompletefulfilmentoftherulersoftheuncertainconditionsuponwhichthewillofthemassesistransferredfromonesetofpersonstoanother。
Inthesethreewaysdohistoriansexplaintherelationofthemassestotheirrulers。
Somehistorians—thosemostdistinctivelybiographersandwritersofmemoirs，ofwhomwehavespokenabove—failinginthesimplicityoftheirheartstounderstandthequestionastothemeaningofpower，seemtobelievethatthecombinedwillofthemassesisdelegatedtohistoricalleadersunconditionally，andtherefore，describinganysuchauthority，thesehistoriansassumethatthatauthorityistheoneabsoluteandrealone，andthateveryotherforce，opposingthatrealauthority，isnotauthority，butaviolationofauthority，andunlawfulviolence。
Theirtheoryfitsinwellwithprimitiveandpeacefulperiodsofhistory;butinitsapplicationtocomplicatedandstormyperiodsinthelifeofnations，whenseveraldifferentauthoritiesriseupsimultaneouslyandstruggletogether，theinconveniencearisesthatthelegitimisthistorianwillassertthattheNationalAssembly，theDirectorate，andBonapartewereonlyviolationsofrealauthority;whiletheRepublicanandtheBonapartistwillmaintain，onethattheRepublic，andtheotherthattheEmpireweretherealauthority，andthatalltherestwasaviolationofauthority。Itisevidentthattheexplanationsgivenbythesehistoriansbeingmutuallycontradictory，cansatisfynonebutchildrenofthetenderestage。
Recognisingthedeceptivenessofthisviewofhistory，anotherclassofhistoriansassertthatauthorityrestsontheconditionaldelegationofthecombinedwillofthemassestotheirrulers，andthathistoricalleaderspossesspoweronlyonconditionofcarryingouttheprogrammewhichthewillofthepeoplehasbytacitconsentdictatedtothem。Butwhatthisprogrammeconsistsof，thosehistoriansdonottellus，oriftheydo，theycontinuallycontradictoneanother。
Inaccordancewithhisviewofwhatconstitutesthegoalofthemovementsofapeople，eachhistorianconceivesofthisprogramme，as，forinstance，thegreatness，thewealth，thefreedom，ortheenlightenmentofthecitizensofFranceorsomeotherkingdom。Butputtingasidethecontradictionsbetweenhistoriansastothenatureofsuchaprogramme，andevensupposingthatonegeneralprogrammetoexistforall，thefactsofhistoryalmostalwayscontradictthistheory。
Iftheconditionsonwhichpowerisvestedinrulersaretobefoundinthewealth，freedom，andenlightenmentofthepeople，howisitthatkingslikeLouisXIV。andJohnIV。livedouttheirreignsinpeace，whilekingslikeLouisXVI。andCharlesI。wereputtodeathbytheirpeoples？Tothisquestionthesehistoriansreply，thattheeffectoftheactionsofLouisXIV。contrarytotheprogrammewerereacteduponLouisXVI。ButwhynotreflectedonLouisXIV。andLouisXV。？WhypreciselyonLouisXVI。？Andwhatlimitistheretosuchreflection？Tothesequestionsthereisandcanbenoreply。Nordoesthisviewexplainthereasonthatthecombinedwillofapeopleremainsforseveralcenturiesvestedinitsrulersandtheirheirs，andthenallatonceduringaperiodoffiftyyearsistransferredtoaConvention，aDirectory，toNapoleon，toAlexander，toLouisXVIII。，againtoNapoleon，toCharlesX。，toLouisPhilippe，toarepublicangovernment，andtoNapoleonIII。Toexplaintheserapidtransferencesofthepeople’swillfromonepersontoanother，especiallywhencomplicatedbyinternationalrelations，wars，andalliances，thesehistoriansareunwillinglyobligedtoallowthataproportionofthesephenomenaarenotnormaltransferencesofthewillofthepeople，butcasualincidents，dependingonthecunning，ortheblundering，orthecraft，ortheweaknessofadiplomatistoramonarch，ortheleaderofaparty。Sothatthegreaternumberofthephenomenaofhistory—civilwars，revolutions，wars—areregardedbythesehistoriansasnotbeingproducedbythedelegationofthefree-willofthepeople，butasbeingproducedbythewronglydirectedwillofoneorseveralpersons，thatis，againbyaviolationofauthority。Andsobythisclassofhistorians，too，historicaleventsareconceivedofasexceptionstotheirtheory。
Thesehistoriansarelikeabotanistwho，observingthatseveralplantsgrowbytheirseedpartingintotwocotyledons，orseed-leaves，shouldinsistthateverythingthatgrowsonlygrowsbypartingintotwoleaves;andthatthepalm-treeandthemushroom，andeventheoak，whenitspreadsitsbranchesinalldirectionsinitsmaturegrowth，andhaslostallsemblancetoitstwoseed-leaves，aredeparturesfromtheirtheoryofthetruelawofgrowth。Athirdclassofhistoriansadmitthatthewillofthemassesisvestedinhistoricalleadersconditionally，butsaythatthoseconditionsarenotknowntous。Theymaintainthathistoricalleadershavepoweronlybecausetheyarecarryingoutthewillofthemassesdelegatedtothem。
Butinthatcase，iftheforcemovingthepeoplesliesnotintheirhistoricalleaders，butinthepeoplesthemselves，whereisthesignificanceofthosehistoricalleaders？
Historicalleadersare，sothosehistorianstellus，theself-expressionofthewillofthemasses;theactivityofthehistoricalleadersservesasatypeoftheactivityofthemasses。
Butinthatcasethequestionarises，Doesalltheactivityofhistoricalleadersserveasanexpressionofthewillofthemasses，oronlyacertainsideofit？Ifallthelife-activityofhistoricalleadersservesasanexpressionofthewillofthemasses，assomeindeedbelieve，thenthebiographiesofNapoleonsandCatherines，withallthedetailsofcourtscandal，serveastheexpressionofthelifeoftheirpeoples，whichisanobviousabsurdity。Ifonlyonesideoftheactivityofanhistoricalleaderservesastheexpressionofthelifeofapeople，asothersupposedphilosophicalhistoriansbelieve，thentodefinewhatsideoftheactivityofanhistoricalleaderdoesexpressthelifeofapeople，onemustknowfirstwhatthelifeofthepeopleconsistsof。
Beingconfrontedwiththisdifficulty，historiansofthisclassinventthemostobscure，intangible，andgeneralabstraction，underwhichtoclassthegreatestpossiblenumberofevents，anddeclarethatinthisabstractionistobefoundtheaimofthemovementsofhumanity。Themostusualabstractionsacceptedbyalmostallhistoriansare：freedom，equality，enlightenment，progress，civilisation，culture。Postulatingsomesuchabstractionasthegoalofthemovementsofhumanity，thehistoriansstudythosepersonswhohaveleftthegreatestnumberofmemorialsbehindthem—kings，ministers，generals，writers，reformers，popes，andjournalists—fromthepointofviewoftheeffectthosepersonsintheiropinionhadinpromotingorhinderingthatabstraction。Butasitisnowhereproventhatthegoalofhumanityreallyisfreedom，equality，enlightenment，orcivilisation，andastheconnectionofthemasseswiththeirrulersandwiththeleadersofhumanityonlyrestsonthearbitraryassumptionthatthecombinedwillofthemassesisalwaysvestedinthesefigureswhichattractourattention—thefactremainsthattheactivityofthemillionsofmenwhomovefromplacetoplace，burnhouses，abandontillingthesoil，andbutcheroneanother，neverdoesfindexpressionindescriptionsoftheactivityofsomedozenpersons，whodonotburnhouses，neverhavetilledthesoil，anddonotkilltheirfellow-creatures。
Historyprovesthisateveryturn。Isthefermentofthepeoplesofthewesttowardstheendoflastcentury，andtheirrushtotheeast，explainedbytheactivityofLouisXIV。，LouisXV。，andLouisXVI。，ortheirmistressesandministers，orbythelifeofNapoleon，ofRousseau，ofDiderot，ofBeaumarchais，andothers？
ThemovementoftheRussianpeopletotheeast，toKazanandSiberia，isthatexpressedinthedetailsofthemorbidlifeofJohnIV。andhiscorrespondencewithKurbsky？
IsthemovementofthepeoplesatthetimeoftheCrusadesexplainedbythelifeandactivityofcertainGodfreysandLouis’andtheirladies？
Ithasremainedbeyondourcomprehension，thatmovementofthepeoplesfromwesttoeast，withoutanobject，withoutleadership，withacrowdoftrampsfollowingPetertheHermit。Andevenmoreincomprehensibleisthecessationofthatmovement，whenarationalandholyobjectfortheexpeditionshadbeenclearlysetupbyhistoricalleaders—thatis，thedeliveranceofJerusalem。
Popes，kings，andknightsurgedthepeopletosetfreetheHolyLand。Butthepeopledidnotmove，becausethatunknowncause，whichhadimpelledthembeforetomovement，existednolonger。ThehistoryoftheGodfreysandtheMinnesingersevidentlycannotberegardedasanepitomeofthelifeofthepeoples。AndthehistoryoftheGodfreysandtheMinnesingershasremainedthehistoryofthoseknightsandthoseMinnesingers，whilethehistoryofthelifeofthepeoplesandtheirimpulseshasremainedunknown。
Evenlessexplanatoryofthelifeofthepeoplesisthehistoryofthelivesofwritersandreformers。
Thehistoryofcultureoffersusastheimpellingmotivesofthelifeofthepeoplethecircumstancesofthelivesortheideasofawriterorareformer。WelearnthatLutherhadahastytemperandutteredcertainspeeches;welearnthatRousseauwasdistrustfulandwrotecertainbooks;butwedonotlearnwhatmadethenationscuteachothertopiecesaftertheReformation，orwhymenguillotinedeachotherduringtheFrenchRevolution。
Ifweuniteboththesekindsofhistorytogether，asdothemostmodernhistorians，thenweshallgethistoriesofmonarchsandofwriters，butnotahistoryofthelifeofnations。
Chapter5
THELIFEofnationsisnotcontainedinthelifeofafewmen，sincetheconnectionbetweenthosefewmenandthenationshasnotbeenfound。Thetheorythatthisconnectionisbasedonthedelegationofthecombinedwillofapeopletoitshistoricalleadersisanhypothesis，notsupportedbythetestimonyofhistory。
Thetheoryofthedelegationofthecombinedwillofthemassestohistoricalpersonagesmayperhapsexplainagreatdealinthedomainofthescienceoflaw，andispossiblyessentialforitspurposes。Butinitsapplicationtohistory，assoonasrevolutions，wars，civildisturbancesarise，assoonashistorybeginsinfact—thistheoryexplainsnothing。
Thistheoryappearsirrefutable，justbecausetheactofdelegatingthewillofthepeoplecanneverbeverified，sinceithasneverexisted。
Whatevereventmighttakeplace，andwhoevermightbetakingtheleadinsuchanevent，thetheorycanalwayssaythatsuchapersontooktheleadinbringingaboutthateventbecausethecombinedwillwasvestedinhim。
Theanswersgivenbythistheorytohistoricalquestionsareliketheanswersofamanwho，watchingthemovementsofaflock，shouldpaynoattentiontothevaryingqualityofthepasturageindifferentpartsofthefield，nortotheactionsoftheshepherd，butshouldlookforthecausesoftheflocktakingthisorthatdirectionsimplyintheanimalthathappenedtobeforemostinit。
‘‘Theflockmovesinthisdirectionbecausetheanimalinfrontleadsit，andthecombinedwillofalltheotheranimalsisdelegatedtotheleaderoftheflock。’’Suchistheanswergivenbythefirstclassofhistorians，whosupposeanunconditionaldelegationofwilltotheauthority。
‘‘Iftheanimalsleadingtheflockarechangedforothers，itisduetothefactthatthecombinedwillofallthebeastsistransferredfromoneleadertoanotherowingtothefactthatthefirstleaderdidnotfollowthedirectionchosenbyalltheflock。’’Suchisthereplyofthosehistorianswhoassumethatthecombinedwillofthemassesisvestedintheirrulersonconditionswhichtheyregardasunknown。（Withthismethodofobservationitveryoftenhappensthattheobserver，judgingfromthedirectionchosenbyhim，reckonsasleadersthosewho，whenthedirectionofthemassesischanged，arenotinfront，butononeside，andevensometimesthehindmost。）
‘‘Ifthebeaststhatareforemostareconstantlybeingchanged，andthedirectiontakenbytheflocktooiscontinuallychanging，thatisduetothefactthattoattainacertaindirectionknowntousthebeastsdelegatetheirwillstothosebeastswhichattractourattention，andtostudythemovementsoftheflockweoughttoobserveallthenoticeableanimalsthataremovingonallsidesoftheflock。’’Sosaythethirdclassofhistorians，whoacceptallhistoricalcharactersastheexpressionoftheiragefrommonarchstojournalists。
Thetheoryofthetransferenceofthewillofthemassestohistoricalcharactersisonlyaparaphrase—onlyarestatementofthequestioninotherwords。
Whatisthecauseofhistoricalevents？Power。
WhatisPower？Poweristhecombinedwillofthemassesvestedinoneperson。
Onwhatconditionsarethewillsofthemassesvestedinoneperson？Onconditionofthatperson’sexpressingthewillofallmen。Thatis，powerispower。Thatis，powerisawordthemeaningofwhichisbeyondourcomprehension。
Ifthedomainofhumanknowledgewereconfinedtoabstractreasoningalone，then，aftersubjectingtheexplanationofpowergivenbysciencetocriticism，humanitywouldcometotheconclusionthatpowerisonlyaword，andthatithasnoexistenceinreality。Butfortheknowledgeofphenomena，manhasbesidesabstractreasoninganotherinstrument—experience—bywhichheverifiestheresultsofreasoning。Andexperiencetellshimthatpowerisnotmerelyaword，butanactuallyexistingphenomenon。
Tosaynothingofthefactthatnotasingleaccountofthecombinedactionofmencanomittheconceptionofpower，therealityofpowerisshownus，notonlybyhistory，butbyobservationofcontemporaryevents。
Wheneveraneventtakesplace，amanormenappearbywhosewilltheeventisconceivedtohavebeenaccomplished。NapoleonIII。givesanorder，andtheFrenchgotoMexico。ThePrussianKingandBismarckgivecertainorders，andtroopsgotoBohemia。NapoleonI。givesacommand，andsoldiersmarchintoRussia。AlexanderI。givesacommand，andtheFrenchsubmittotheBourbons。Experienceshowsusthatwhatevertakesplace，itisalwaysconnectedwiththewillofoneorofseveralmen，whodecreeditshouldbeso。
Historians，fromtheoldhabitofrecognisingdivineinterventionintheaffairsofhumanity，areinclinedtolookforthecauseofeventsintheexerciseofthewillofthepersonendowedwithpower;butthisconclusionisnotconfirmedeitherbyreasonorbyexperience。
Ononesidereasonshowsthattheexpressionofthewillofaman—hiswords，infact，areonlyapartofthegeneralactivityexpressedinanevent，suchasarevolutionorawar，andthereforewithouttheassumptionofanincomprehensible，supernaturalforce—amiracle—itcannotbeadmittedthatthesewordscanbetheimmediatecauseofthemovementsofmillionsofmen。
Ontheotherside，evenifoneadmitsthatwordsmaybethecauseofanevent，historyshowsusthattheexpressionofthewillofhistoricalpersonagesinthegreatmajorityofcasesdoesnotleadtoanyeffectatall—thatis，thattheircommandsareoftennotcarriedout，and，infact，sometimestheveryoppositeofwhattheyhavecommandedisdone。
Withoutadmittingdivineinterventionintheaffairsofhumanity，wecannotacceptpowerasacauseofevents。
Power，fromthepointofviewofexperience，isonlythedependenceexistingbetweentheexpressionofthewillofapersonandthecarryingoutofthatwillbyothers。
Toexplaintheconditionsofthatdependence，wehave，firstofall，toreinstatetheconceptionoftheexpressionofwill，referringittoman，andnottotheDeity。
IftheDeitygivesacommand，expressesHiswill，asthehistoryoftheancientstellus，theexpressionofthatwillisindependentoftime，andisnotcalledforthbyanything，astheDeityisnotconnectedwiththeevent。Butwhenwespeakofcommandsthataretheexpressionofthewillofmen，actingintimeandconnectedwithoneanother，wemust，ifwearetounderstandtheconnectionofthecommandwiththeevent，restore（1）theconditionsofallthecircumstancesthattookplace，thedynamiccontinuityintimebothoftheeventandofthepersoncommandingit;and（2）theconditionoftheinevitableconnectioninwhichthepersoncommandingstandswiththosewhocarryouthiscommand。
Chapter6
ONLYTHEEXPRESSIONofthewilloftheDeity，notdependingontime，canrelatetoawholeseriesofeventsthathavetotakeplaceduringseveralyearsorcenturies;andonlytheDeity，actingbyHiswillalone，notaffectedbyanycause，candeterminethedirectionofthemovementofhumanity。Manactsintime，andhimselftakespartintheevent。
Restoringthefirstconditionthatwasomitted，theconditionoftime，weperceivethatnosinglecommandcanbecarriedoutapartfromprecedingcommandsthathavemadetheexecutionofthelastcommandpossible。
Neverisasinglecommandgivenquiteindependentlyandarbitrarily，nordoesitcoverawholeseriesofevents。Everycommandisthesequeltosomeother;anditneverrelatestoawholecourseofevents，butonlytoonemomentinthoseevents。
Whenwesay，forinstance，thatNapoleoncommandedthearmytogotofight，wesumupinonesingleexpressionaseriesofconsecutivecommands，dependingoneuponanother。NapoleoncouldnotcommandacampaignagainstRussia，andneverdidcommandit。HecommandedonedaycertainpaperstobewrittentoVienna，toBerlin，andtoPetersburg;nextdaycertaindecreesandinstructionstothearmy，thefleet，andthecommissariat，andsoonandsoon—millionsofseparatecommands，makingupawholeseriesofcommands，correspondingtoaseriesofeventsleadingtheFrenchsoldierstoRussia。
NapoleonwasgivingcommandsallthroughhisreignforanexpeditiontoEngland。Onnooneofhisundertakingsdidhewastesomuchtimeandsomucheffort，andyetnotonceduringhisreignwasanattemptmadetocarryouthisdesign。YethemadeanexpeditionagainstRussia，withwhich，accordingtohisrepeatedlyexpressedconviction，itwastohisadvantagetobeinalliance;andthisisduetothefactthathiscommandsinthefirstcasedidnot，andintheseconddid，correspondwiththecourseofevents。
Inorderthatacommandshouldcertainlybecarriedout，itisnecessarythatthemanshouldgiveacommandthatcanbecarriedout。Toknowwhatcanandwhatcannotbecarriedoutisimpossible，notonlyinthecaseofNapoleon’scampaignagainstRussia，inwhichmillionstookpart，buteveninthecaseofthesimplestevent，sincemillionsofobstaclesmayalwaysarisetopreventitsbeingcarriedout。Everycommandthatiscarriedoutisalwaysoneoutofamassofcommandsthatarenotcarriedout。Alltheimpossiblecommandsareinconsistentwiththecourseofeventsandarenotcarriedout。Onlythosewhicharepossibleareconnectedwithconsecutiveseriesofcommands，consistentwithseriesofevents，andtheyarecarriedout。
Ourfalseconceptionthatthecommandthatprecedesaneventisthecauseofaneventisduetothefactthatwhentheeventhastakenplaceandthosefewoutofthousandsofcommands，whichhappentobeconsistentwiththecourseofevents，arecarriedout，weforgetthosewhichwerenot，becausetheycouldnotbecarriedout。Apartfromthat，thechiefsourceofourerrorarisesfromthefactthatinthehistoricalaccountawholeseriesofinnumerable，various，andmostminuteevents，as，forinstance，allthatledtheFrenchsoldierstoRussia，aregeneralisedintoasingleevent，inaccordancewiththeresultproducedbythatseriesofevents;andbyacorrespondinggeneralisationawholeseriesofcommandstooissummedupintoasingleexpressionofwill。
Wesay：NapoleonchosetoinvadeRussiaandhedidso。InrealityweneverfindinallNapoleon’sdoingsanythinglikeanexpressionofthatdesign：whatwefindisaseriesofcommandsorexpressionsofhiswillofthemostvariousandundefinedtendency。OutofmanyseriesofinnumerablecommandsofNapoleonnotcarriedout，oneseriesofcommandsforthecampaignof1812wascarriedout;notfromanyessentialdifferencebetweenthecommandscarriedoutandthosenotcarriedout，butsimplybecausetheformercoincidedwiththecourseofeventsthatledtheFrenchsoldiersintoRussia;justasinstencil-workonefigureoranotherissketched，notbecausethecoloursarelaidonthissideorinthatway，butbecauseonthefigurecutoutinstencil，coloursarelaidonallsides。