Briggs: Will is only part of an event. Events often defy the will behind them.
Translation:
V.
The life of peoples does not fit in the life of several people; for the recognition between these several people and the peoples is not found. The theory about how to recognize this founded in the carried over summation of will to a historical face is a hypothesis, not confirmed by the experience of history.
The theory about the carried over summation of the will of the masses to a historical face, maybe, quite explains much in the area of the science of the right, and maybe is necessary for their goals; but in the annex to history, as only are revolutions, conquests, civil strife, as only begins history, — this theory explains nothing.
This theory seems irrefutable because of how the act of transferring the will of the people may not be verified.
What would be subjected as an event, who would become the head of events, the theory always may say that such a face has become the head of events, because of how the aggregate will was carried over to it.
The answers, given by this theory to historical questions, are similar to the answers of a man, who, looking at the moving flock and not taking to attention different kinds of pastures in the different places of the field, or the drive of the shepherd, would judge about the reasons of this or another direction of the herds by what animal is going ahead of the herds.
"The flock is going by this direction because of how ahead is going the animal leading it, and the aggregate will of all the rest of the animals is carried over to this ruler of the herd." So is the response of the first discharge of historians, recognizing the certainty of the delivery of authorities.
"Should the animal, going at the head of the herd, change, then this is going on from that the aggregate will of all the animals is transported from one ruler to another, looking by that whether leads this animal by that direction which is elected by all the flock." So answers historians, recognizing that the aggregate will of the masses is transported to rulers under the condition that they consider famous. (At such a reception of security, as it quite often is, that observer, contemplating from the elected by them direction, considers the leaders those that by the occasion of the change of directions of the masses is not cruxed now in advancing, and lateral, and sometimes the rear)."
"If incessantly changes the standing at the head animal and incessantly changes the directions of one herd, then this is going on from that for achieving these directions which we know, the animals deliver their commitment by that animal that we notice, therefore for the study of the move of the herd, it was needed to watch all the notable to us animals, going with all the parties of the herd." So speak historians of the third category, recognizing the expressions of their time all historical faces, from monarchs to journalists.
The theory transfers the will of the masses to a historical face only in paraphrase, — only the expression of other words of the issue.
How are caused historical events? — Power. What is power? — Power is the aggregate will, carried over to one face. In what kind of conditions is transported the commitment of the masses to one face? — In the conditions of the expressions of the face is the commitment of all people. I.e. power is power. I.e. power is a word, the matters of which to us is unclear.
—————
If the region of human knowledge was limited to one distracted thinking, then, subjecting to criticism of that explanation of authorities which gives science, humanity would come to the conclusion that power is only a word and in reality does not exist. Yet for known phenomena, besides distracted thinking, a person has the weapon of experience, in which he believes the results of thinking. And experience speaks that power is not a word, but really an existing phenomenon.
Not speaking about that without an idea of authorities it may not get along to one description of the aggregate activities of people, the existence of authorities is proven as history, and the observation of modern events.
Always, when is committed an event, there is a person or people, by the will of which the event presents as accomplished. Napoleon III prescribes, and the French go into Mexico. The Prussian King and Bismark prescribe, and the troops go into Bohemia. Napoleon I orders, and the troops go into Russia. Aleksandr I orders, and the French submit to the Bourbons. Experience shows us that what would subject the event, it is always connected with the will of one or several people that ordered it.
Historians, by old habit recognizing the divine participation in the deeds of humanity, want to see the cause of events in the expression of the commitment of the face endowed by power; yet this conclusion is not confirmed by reason, or experience.
From one party, reasoning shows that the expression of the commitment of a man — his words are cruxed in only part of the general activities expressed in an event, as, for example, in war or revolution; and because without the recognition of incomprehensible, supernatural forces — a miracle, cannot be allowed, so that the words could direct the cause of the movements of a million; from another party, if we even allow that the words may be the cause of events, then history shows that the expressions of the commitment of historical persons in many cases produce no action, i.e., that their orders often not only were not carried out, but that sometimes the going on is even completely reverse to that what they ordered.
Not admitting divine participation in the deeds of humanity, we cannot take power for the cause of events.
Power, from the point of view of experience, is only the dependence existing between the expression of the commitment of the face and this execution is the commitment of other people.
So that to explain to oneself the conditions of these addictions, we must restore before only the concept of the expressions of commitment, carried off to a person, but not to a Deity.
Should a Deity give back an order, expressing their free will, as that shows us the story of the ancients, that expression of this commitment is not depended on from time and nothing is caused, as the Deity is not connected with the event. Yet speaking about the order — the expression of the commitment of people, acting in time and related between ourselves, we, so that to explain to ourselves the recognized orders with events, must restore 1) the condition of the only ongoing: the continuity of movements in time, as events, so the ordering of the face, and 2) the condition of necessary communication, in which is the ordering face with those people that performed his order.
Locations:
Mentioned: French, Mexico, Prussia, Bohemia, Russia
Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Using the analogy of a herd and how historians may understand the movement of the herd, Tolstoy understands power as only being defined by circular reasoning: "power is a word the meaning of which we do not understand." This is followed by a line break.
"Unless we allow for divine participation in human affairs, we cannot take power as the cause of events. Power, from the point of view of experience, is only the dependence that exists between the expression of a person's will and the carrying out of that will by other people. In order to explain the conditions of that dependence to ourselves, we must first of all restore the concept of the expression of will, referring it to man and not a divinity."
Characters (characters who do not appear, but are mentioned are placed in italics. First appearances are in Bold. First mentions are underlined. Final appearance denoted by *):
Napoleon III
The King of Prussia (should be understood as a different king than the one mentioned in the narrative.)
Bismarck
Napoleon I
Alexander I
Abridged Versions: Line break after "which is incomprehensible to us" in Dole. Line break in the same place in Wiener, Mandelker, Briggs, Dunnigan, Edmonds, and Maude. This is the end of chapter 2 in Bell. Chapter 3 does not break off at the end of the chapter at other versions.
Gibian: Line break at "which we do not understand." The line break instead of chapter break at the end.
Additional Notes: Mandelker: "In 1864, aided by French forces, Maximilian secured the throne of Mexico, but after the conclusion of the American Civil War the French had to leave Mexico as the United States would not tolerate European interference on American soil. Maximilian was shot by the Mexicans in 1867, when Tolstoy was writing the last part of War and Peace."
No comments:
Post a Comment