-
Главная
-
- Книги
-
- Авторы
-
- Лев Толстой
-
- Война и мир
-
- Стр. 1252/1273
Для того чтобы воспользоваться озвучкой предложений, необходимо
Войти или зарегистрироваться
Озвучка предложений доступна при наличии PRO-доступа
Купить PRO-доступ
The
only
conception
that
can
explain
the
movement
of
the
peoples
is
that
of
some
force
commensurate
with
the
whole
movement
of
the
peoples
.
Yet
to
supply
this
conception
various
historians
take
forces
of
different
kinds
,
all
of
which
are
incommensurate
with
the
movement
observed
.
Some
see
it
as
a
force
directly
inherent
in
heroes
,
as
the
peasant
sees
the
devil
in
the
locomotive
;
others
as
a
force
resulting
from
several
other
forces
,
like
the
movement
of
the
wheels
;
others
again
as
an
intellectual
influence
,
like
the
smoke
that
is
blown
away
.
So
long
as
histories
are
written
of
separate
individuals
,
whether
Caesars
,
Alexanders
,
Luthers
,
or
Voltaires
,
and
not
the
histories
of
all
,
absolutely
all
those
who
take
part
in
an
event
,
it
is
quite
impossible
to
describe
the
movement
of
humanity
without
the
conception
of
a
force
compelling
men
to
direct
their
activity
toward
a
certain
end
.
And
the
only
such
conception
known
to
historians
is
that
of
power
.
This
conception
is
the
one
handle
by
means
of
which
the
material
of
history
,
as
at
present
expounded
,
can
be
dealt
with
,
and
anyone
who
breaks
that
handle
off
,
as
Buckle
did
,
without
finding
some
other
method
of
treating
historical
material
,
merely
deprives
himself
of
the
one
possible
way
of
dealing
with
it
.
The
necessity
of
the
conception
of
power
as
an
explanation
of
historical
events
is
best
demonstrated
by
the
universal
historians
and
historians
of
culture
themselves
,
for
they
professedly
reject
that
conception
but
inevitably
have
recourse
to
it
at
every
step
.
In
dealing
with
humanity
's
inquiry
,
the
science
of
history
up
to
now
is
like
money
in
circulation
--
paper
money
and
coin
.
The
biographies
and
special
national
histories
are
like
paper
money
.
They
can
be
used
and
can
circulate
and
fulfill
their
purpose
without
harm
to
anyone
and
even
advantageously
,
as
long
as
no
one
asks
what
is
the
security
behind
them
.
You
need
only
forget
to
ask
how
the
will
of
heroes
produces
events
,
and
such
histories
as
Thiers
'
will
be
interesting
and
instructive
and
may
perhaps
even
possess
a
tinge
of
poetry
.
But
just
as
doubts
of
the
real
value
of
paper
money
arise
either
because
,
being
easy
to
make
,
too
much
of
it
gets
made
or
because
people
try
to
exchange
it
for
gold
,
so
also
doubts
concerning
the
real
value
of
such
histories
arise
either
because
too
many
of
them
are
written
or
because
in
his
simplicity
of
heart
someone
inquires
:
by
what
force
did
Napoleon
do
this
?
--
that
is
,
wants
to
exchange
the
current
paper
money
for
the
real
gold
of
actual
comprehension
.
The
writers
of
universal
histories
and
of
the
history
of
culture
are
like
people
who
,
recognizing
the
defects
of
paper
money
,
decide
to
substitute
for
it
money
made
of
metal
that
has
not
the
specific
gravity
of
gold
.
It
may
indeed
make
jingling
coin
,
but
will
do
no
more
than
that
.
Paper
money
may
deceive
the
ignorant
,
but
nobody
is
deceived
by
tokens
of
base
metal
that
have
no
value
but
merely
jingle
.
As
gold
is
gold
only
if
it
is
serviceable
not
merely
for
exchange
but
also
for
use
,
so
universal
historians
will
be
valuable
only
when
they
can
reply
to
history
's
essential
question
:
what
is
power
?
The
universal
historians
give
contradictory
replies
to
that
question
,
while
the
historians
of
culture
evade
it
and
answer
something
quite
different
And
as
counters
of
imitation
gold
can
be
used
only
among
a
group
of
people
who
agree
to
accept
them
as
gold
,
or
among
those
who
do
not
know
the
nature
of
gold
,
so
universal
historians
and
historians
of
culture
,
not
answering
humanity
's
essential
question
,
serve
as
currency
for
some
purposes
of
their
own
,
only
in
universities
and
among
the
mass
of
readers
who
have
a
taste
for
what
they
call
"
serious
reading
.
"
Having
abandoned
the
conception
of
the
ancients
as
to
the
divine
subjection
of
the
will
of
a
nation
to
some
chosen
man
and
the
subjection
of
that
man
's
will
to
the
Deity
,
history
can
not
without
contradictions
take
a
single
step
till
it
has
chosen
one
of
two
things
:
either
a
return
to
the
former
belief
in
the
direct
intervention
of
the
Deity
in
human
affairs
or
a
definite
explanation
of
the
meaning
of
the
force
producing
historical
events
and
termed
"
power
.
"
