-
Главная
-
- Книги
-
- Авторы
-
- Лев Толстой
-
- Война и мир
-
- Стр. 1250/1273
Для того чтобы воспользоваться озвучкой предложений, необходимо
Войти или зарегистрироваться
Озвучка предложений доступна при наличии PRO-доступа
Купить PRO-доступ
What
force
moves
the
nations
?
Biographical
historians
and
historians
of
separate
nations
understand
this
force
as
a
power
inherent
in
heroes
and
rulers
.
In
their
narration
events
occur
solely
by
the
will
of
a
Napoleon
,
and
Alexander
,
or
in
general
of
the
persons
they
describe
.
The
answers
given
by
this
kind
of
historian
to
the
question
of
what
force
causes
events
to
happen
are
satisfactory
only
as
long
as
there
is
but
one
historian
to
each
event
.
As
soon
as
historians
of
different
nationalities
and
tendencies
begin
to
describe
the
same
event
,
the
replies
they
give
immediately
lose
all
meaning
,
for
this
force
is
understood
by
them
all
not
only
differently
but
often
in
quite
contradictory
ways
.
One
historian
says
that
an
event
was
produced
by
Napoleon
's
power
,
another
that
it
was
produced
by
Alexander
's
,
a
third
that
it
was
due
to
the
power
of
some
other
person
.
Besides
this
,
historians
of
that
kind
contradict
each
other
even
in
their
statement
as
to
the
force
on
which
the
authority
of
some
particular
person
was
based
.
Thiers
,
a
Bonapartist
,
says
that
Napoleon
's
power
was
based
on
his
virtue
and
genius
.
Lanfrey
,
a
Republican
,
says
it
was
based
on
his
trickery
and
deception
of
the
people
.
So
the
historians
of
this
class
,
by
mutually
destroying
one
another
's
positions
,
destroy
the
understanding
of
the
force
which
produces
events
,
and
furnish
no
reply
to
history
's
essential
question
.
Writers
of
universal
history
who
deal
with
all
the
nations
seem
to
recognize
how
erroneous
is
the
specialist
historians
'
view
of
the
force
which
produces
events
.
They
do
not
recognize
it
as
a
power
inherent
in
heroes
and
rulers
,
but
as
the
resultant
of
a
multiplicity
of
variously
directed
forces
.
In
describing
a
war
or
the
subjugation
of
a
people
,
a
general
historian
looks
for
the
cause
of
the
event
not
in
the
power
of
one
man
,
but
in
the
interaction
of
many
persons
connected
with
the
event
.
According
to
this
view
the
power
of
historical
personages
,
represented
as
the
product
of
many
forces
,
can
no
longer
,
it
would
seem
,
be
regarded
as
a
force
that
itself
produces
events
.
Yet
in
most
cases
universal
historians
still
employ
the
conception
of
power
as
a
force
that
itself
produces
events
,
and
treat
it
as
their
cause
.
In
their
exposition
,
an
historic
character
is
first
the
product
of
his
time
,
and
his
power
only
the
resultant
of
various
forces
,
and
then
his
power
is
itself
a
force
producing
events
.
Gervinus
,
Schlosser
,
and
others
,
for
instance
,
at
one
time
prove
Napoleon
to
be
a
product
of
the
Revolution
,
of
the
ideas
of
1789
and
so
forth
,
and
at
another
plainly
say
that
the
campaign
of
1812
and
other
things
they
do
not
like
were
simply
the
product
of
Napoleon
's
misdirected
will
,
and
that
the
very
ideas
of
1789
were
arrested
in
their
development
by
Napoleon
's
caprice
.
The
ideas
of
the
Revolution
and
the
general
temper
of
the
age
produced
Napoleon
's
power
.
But
Napoleon
's
power
suppressed
the
ideas
of
the
Revolution
and
the
general
temper
of
the
age
.
This
curious
contradiction
is
not
accidental
.
Not
only
does
it
occur
at
every
step
,
but
the
universal
historians
'
accounts
are
all
made
up
of
a
chain
of
such
contradictions
.
This
contradiction
occurs
because
after
entering
the
field
of
analysis
the
universal
historians
stop
halfway
.
To
find
component
forces
equal
to
the
composite
or
resultant
force
,
the
sum
of
the
components
must
equal
the
resultant
.
This
condition
is
never
observed
by
the
universal
historians
,
and
so
to
explain
the
resultant
forces
they
are
obliged
to
admit
,
in
addition
to
the
insufficient
components
,
another
unexplained
force
affecting
the
resultant
action
.
Specialist
historians
describing
the
campaign
of
1813
or
the
restoration
of
the
Bourbons
plainly
assert
that
these
events
were
produced
by
the
will
of
Alexander
.
But
the
universal
historian
Gervinus
,
refuting
this
opinion
of
the
specialist
historian
,
tries
to
prove
that
the
campaign
of
1813
and
the
restoration
of
the
Bourbons
were
due
to
other
things
beside
Alexander
's
will
--
such
as
the
activity
of
Stein
,
Metternich
,
Madame
de
Staël
,
Talleyrand
,
Fichte
,
Chateaubriand
,
and
others
.
The
historian
evidently
decomposes
Alexander
's
power
into
the
components
:
Talleyrand
,
Chateaubriand
,
and
the
rest
--
but
the
sum
of
the
components
,
that
is
,
the
interactions
of
Chateaubriand
,
Talleyrand
,
Madame
de
Staël
,
and
the
others
,
evidently
does
not
equal
the
resultant
,
namely
the
phenomenon
of
millions
of
Frenchmen
submitting
to
the
Bourbons
.
That
Chateaubriand
,
Madame
de
Staël
,
and
others
spoke
certain
words
to
one
another
only
affected
their
mutual
relations
but
does
not
account
for
the
submission
of
millions
.
And
therefore
to
explain
how
from
these
relations
of
theirs
the
submission
of
millions
of
people
resulted
--
that
is
,
how
component
forces
equal
to
one
A
gave
a
resultant
equal
to
a
thousand
times
A
--
the
historian
is
again
obliged
to
fall
back
on
power
--
the
force
he
had
denied
--
and
to
recognize
it
as
the
resultant
of
the
forces
,
that
is
,
he
has
to
admit
an
unexplained
force
acting
on
the
resultant
.
And
that
is
just
what
the
universal
historians
do
,
and
consequently
they
not
only
contradict
the
specialist
historians
but
contradict
themselves
.
