THE SUBJECT of history is the life of peoples and of humanity. To catch and pin down in words—that is, to describe directly the life, not only of humanity, but even of a single people, appears to be impossible.

All the ancient historians employed the same method for describing and catching what is seemingly elusive—that is, the life of a people. They described the career of individual persons ruling peoples; and their activity was to them an expression of the activity of the whole people.

The questions, In what way individual persons made nations act in accordance with their will, and by what the will of those individuals themselves was controlled, the ancients answered, By the will of God; which in the first case made the nation subject to the will of one chosen person, and, in the second, guided the will of that chosen monarch to the ordained end.

For the ancients these questions were solved by faith in the immediate participation of the Deity in the affairs of mankind.

Modern history has theoretically rejected both those positions. One would have thought that rejecting the convictions of the ancients of men's subjection to the Deity, and of a defined goal to which nations are led, modern history should have studied, not the manifestations of power, but the causes that go to its formation. But modern history has not done that. While in theory rejecting the views of the ancients, it follows them in practice.

Instead of men endowed with divine authority and directly led by the will of the Deity, modern history has set up either heroes, endowed with extraordinary, superhuman powers, or simply men of the most varied characteristics, from monarchs to journalists, who lead the masses. Instead of the old aim, the will of the Deity, that to the old historians seemed the end of the movements of peoples, such as the Gauls, the Greeks, and the Romans, modern history has advanced aims of its own—the welfare of the French, the German, or the English people, or its highest pitch of generalisation, the civilisation of all humanity, by which is usually meant the peoples inhabiting a small, northwestern corner of the great mother-earth.

Modern history has rejected the faiths of the ancients, without putting any new conviction in their place; and the logic of the position has forced the historians, leaving behind them the rejected, divine right of kings and fate of the ancients, to come back by a different path to the same point again: to the recognition, that is (1) that peoples are led by individual persons; and (2) that there is a certain goal towards which humanity and the peoples constituting it are moving.

In all the works of the more modern historians, from Gibbon to Buckle, in spite of their apparent differences and the apparent novelty of their views, these two old inevitable positions lie at the basis of the argument.

In the first place the historian describes the conduct of separate persons who, in his opinion, lead humanity (one regards as such only monarchs, military generals, and ministers of state; another includes besides monarchs, orators, scientific men, reformers, philosophers, and poets). Secondly, the goal towards which humanity is being led is known to the historian. To one this goal is the greatness of the Roman, or the Spanish, or the French state; for another, it is freedom, equality, a certain sort of civilisation in a little corner of the world called Europe.

In 1789 there was a ferment in Paris: it grew and spread, and found expression in the movement of peoples from west to east. Several times that movement is made to the east, and comes into collision with a counter-movement from east westwards. In the year 1812 it reaches its furthest limit, Moscow, and then, with a remarkable symmetry, the counter-movement follows from east to west; drawing with it, like the first movement, the peoples of Central Europe. The counter-movement reaches the starting-point of the first movement—Paris—and subsides.

During this period of twenty years an immense number of fields are not tilled; houses are burned; trade changes its direction; millions of men grow poor and grow rich, and change their habitations; and millions of Christians, professing the law of love, murder one another.

What does all this mean? What did all this proceed from? What induced these people to burn houses and to murder their fellow-creatures? What were the causes of these events? What force compelled men to act in this fashion? These are the involuntary and most legitimate questions that, in all good faith, humanity puts to itself when it stumbles on memorials and traditions of that past age of restlessness.

To answer these questions the common-sense of humanity turns to the science of history, the object of which is the self-knowledge of nations and of humanity.

Had history retained the view of the ancients, it would have said: The Deity, to reward or to punish His People, gave Napoleon power, and guided his will for the attainment of His own divine ends. And that answer would have been complete and clear. One might believe or disbelieve in the divine significance of Napoleon. For one who believed in it, all the history of that period would have been comprehensible, and there would have been nothing contradictory in it.

But modern history cannot answer in that way. Science does not accept the view of the ancients as to the direct participation of the Deity in the affairs of mankind, and therefore must give other answers.

Modern history, in answer to these questions, says: “You want to know what this movement means, what it arose from, and what force produced these events? Listen.

“Louis XIV. was a very haughty and self-willed man; he had such and such mistresses, and such and such ministers, and he governed France badly. Louis's successors, too, were weak men, and they, too, governed France badly. And they had such and such favourites, and such and such mistresses. Moreover, there were certain men writing books at this period. At the end of the eighteenth century there were some two dozen men in Paris who began to talk all about men being equal and free. This led people all over France to fall to hewing and hacking at each other. These people killed the king and a great many more. At that time there was in France a man of genius—Napoleon. He conquered every one everywhere, that is, he killed a great many people, because he was a very great genius. And for some reason he went to kill the Africans; and killed them so well, and was so cunning and clever, that on returning to France he bade every one obey him. And they all did obey him. After being made Emperor he went to kill people in Italy, Austria, and Prussia. And there, too, he killed a great many. In Russia there was an Emperor, Alexander, who was resolved to re-establish order in Europe, and so made war with Napoleon. But in 1807 he suddenly made friends with him, and in 1811 he quarrelled again, and again they began killing a great many people. And Napoleon took six hundred thousand men into Russia, and conquered Moscow, and then he suddenly ran away out of Moscow, and then the Emperor Alexander, aided by the counsels of Stein and others, united Europe for defence against the destroyer of her peace. All Napoleon's allies suddenly became his enemies; and the united army advanced against the fresh troops raised by Napoleon. The allies vanquished Napoleon; entered Paris; forced Napoleon to abdicate, and sent him to the island of Elba, not depriving him, however, of the dignity of Emperor, showing him, in fact, every respect, although five years before, and one year later, he was regarded by every one as a brigand outside the pale of the law. And Louis XVIII., who, till then, had been a laughing-stock to the French and the allies, began to reign. Napoleon shed tears before the Old Guard, abdicated the throne, and went into exile. Then the subtle, political people and diplomatists (conspicuous among them Talleyrand, who succeeded in sitting down in a particular chair before any one else, and thereby extended the frontiers of France) had conversations together at Vienna, and by these conversations made nations happy or unhappy. All at once the diplomatists and monarchs all but quarrelled; they were on the point of again commanding their armies to kill one another; but at that time Napoleon entered France with a battalion, and the French, who had been hating him, at once submitted to him. But the allied monarchs were angry at this, and again went to war with the French. And the genius, Napoleon, was conquered; and suddenly recognising that he was a brigand, they took him to the island of St. Helena. And on that rock the exile, parted from the friends of his heart, and from his beloved France, died a lingering death, and bequeathed all his great deeds to posterity. And in Europe the reaction followed, and all the sovereigns began oppressing their subjects again.”

It would be quite a mistake to suppose that this is mockery—a caricature of historical descriptions. On the contrary, it is a softened-down picture of the contradictory and random answers, that are no answers, given by all history, from the compilers of memoirs and of histories of separate states to general histories, and the new sort of histories of the culture of that period.

What is strange and comic in these answers is due to the fact that modern history is like a deaf man answering questions which no one has asked him.

If the aim of history is the description of the movement of humanity and of nations, the first question which must be answered, or all the rest remains unintelligible, is the following: What force moves nations? To meet this question modern history carefully relates that Napoleon was a very great genius, and that Louis XIV. was very haughty, or that certain writers wrote certain books.

All this may very well be so, and humanity is ready to acquiesce in it; but it is not what it asks about. All that might be very interesting if we recognised a divine power, based on itself and always alike, guiding its peoples through Napoleons, Louis', and writers; but we do not acknowledge such a power, and therefore before talking about Napoleons, and Louis', and great writers, we must show the connection existing between those persons and the movement of the nations. If another force is put in the place of the divine power, then it should be explained what that force consists of, since it is precisely in that force that the whole interest of history lies.

History seems to assume that this force is taken for granted of itself, and is known to every one. But in despite of every desire to admit this new force as known, any one who reads through very many historical works cannot but doubt whether this new force, so differently understood by the historians themselves, is perfectly well known to every one.

历史是一门研究各民族和人类生活的学科。然而，人们却不能直接地去探索，并通过语言文字详尽说明——不仅描述人类的生活，而且尽述一个民族的生活，也是不可能的。

以前的史学家们常常用一种简单的办法来描述和探索那种似乎难以捉摸的民族生活。他们总是阐释一个民族的统治者的生平活动；他们认为，这种活动反映了整个民族的活动。

至于少数个别人是怎样使各族人民按照他们的意志活动的呢？这些人自己的意志又受什么支配呢？对这些问题，史学家是这样回答的：史学家对第一个问题的回答是——承认神的意志，使各民族服从一个各自选出的人的意志；对第二个问题的回答则是——还是承认那个神，是他引导被选定的人的意志去达到指定的目标。

如此这般，上述问题就用信仰神直接干预人世间的事务的办法得到了解决。

新的历史科学在理论上否定了这两条原则。

看来，现代史学观既然否定了古人关于人类服从于神和他指引各民族奔向一个既定目标这种信仰，那么，它所研究的本不该再是政权的表面现象，而应当是政权形成的原因了。但是，并没有做到这一步。它在理论上虽否定了以前史学家的观点，而在实践中却依然追随着他们。

现代史学抬出的不是一些领导芸芸众生的天赋非凡、才能超人的英雄，便是从帝王到记者的一些形形色色的领导民众的人物，用以代替前人提出的具有神赋权力和直接去执行神的意志的人们。代替从前迎合神意的犹太、希腊、罗马等民族的目的（古代史学家认为这就是人类活动的目的），现代史学家还提出——他们的目的是为法国人、德国人、英国人的福祉，采用最为抽象的概念：为全人类文明的福祉，而全人类这里一般是指仅占大陆西北角一小块地方的各民族。

现代史学虽否定了古人的信仰，却没有用新观点去取代它，而且受大势所趋，其逻辑迫使那些在意念中否定沙皇王权神授及古人的命运观的史学家又殊途同归地承认：一、各族民众是受个别人领导的；二、各民族和全人类都奔向一个已知的目标。

从基邦到保克尔的这些现代史学家们，虽然他们好像各有分歧，其观点也貌似新颖，但在其全部著述中，基本上仍然回避不了那两个陈旧的原则。

首先，史学家记述的是他所认定的领导人类的个别人物的活动（有的人认为帝王将相就是这类人物；另有人认为除帝王将相之类而外，还有演说家、学者、改良家、哲学家和诗人）。其次，史学家认为人类所要达到的目标：有的人认为这个目标就是罗马、西班牙、法国的恢宏强盛，另外有人认为这个目标就是世界上那个称为欧洲的一个小小角落的自由、平等和人们知道的某种文明。

一七八九年，巴黎掀起骚乱，它不断地扩大、蔓延，并形成一个自西向东的民族运动。这场运动曾多次向东挺进，并与自东向西的逆向运动发生冲突；一八一二年、该运动东进至其终点—莫斯科，紧接着，一个自东向西的运动，以其奇妙的对等方式、恰似头一个运动，它把中欧各民族吸引到自己的一方。这个逆向的运动，也到达了它的西部终点——巴黎，然后平息下来。

在这二十年中间，大片田园荒芜了，庐舍烧毁了，商业改变了经营方针；千百万人变穷了，发迹了，迁徙他乡，千百万宣讲爱世人的教义的基督徒在互相残杀。

这一切究竟意义何在呢？为什么会发生这种事呢？是什么迫使这些人烧毁房屋和杀害自己的同类呢？这些事件的原因是什么呢？是什么力量使人们这样做呢？喏，当人们接触到那个已经消逝的时期的运动遗迹和传说的时候，总要提出一些意想不到的、天真的而又符合天理人情的问题。

为了解答这些问题，我们就向历史科学求教，因为历史科学是各民族和全人类藉以洞悉自己的一门科学。

如果史学依然坚持陈腐的观点，它就会说：那是神在奖赏或惩罚他的子民，才赐给拿破仑权力，并且指导他的意志去实现他那个神的旨意。这个回答可以说是圆满的、明确的，人们可以相信，也可以不相信拿破化被赋予神的作用，但是在相信的人看来，那个时期的全部历史都是可以理解的，其中不可能有任何一点矛盾。

然而，现代历史科学则不能这样回答问题。科学不承认古人关于神直接参与人间万事的观点，所以它应该作出另外的解答。

现代历史科学回答这些问题时说：你们想知道这个运动的意义吗？它为何发生？是什么力量造成这些事件？请听吧：

“路易十四是一个非常骄傲自负的人。他有这样的一些情人，他有这样一些大臣，他治理法国无方。路易的继承人也是一些懦弱无能之辈，而且也都把法国治理得很糟糕。而这些继承人又有那样一些宠臣和那样一些情妇。同时，有些人这时还写了一些书。十八世纪末叶，有二十来个人在巴黎聚会，开始议论人人都应享有平等和自由的话题。因此，人们在整个法国互相残杀，这些人杀了国王和许多其他的人。与此同时，在法国出现了一位天才人物拿破仑。他所到之处，战无不胜，也就是说，他屠杀了很多人，因为他是一位天才。后来他又以某种借口去杀戮非洲人。他讨伐非洲人，干得如此狡猾和长于心计，所以，他回到法国，能够命令大家都臣服于他。于是大家都慑服了。拿破仑当了皇帝以后，他又去屠杀意大利人，奥地利人和普鲁士人。在那儿又屠杀了许多人。当时，俄国也有个皇帝，叫亚历山大。他决心恢复欧洲的秩序，因此跟拿破仑打起来。但是，在一八零七年，他又突然同拿破仑修好，一八一一年，他两人又反目为仇，于是，许多人又遭他们杀戮。接着，拿破仑率领六十万大军长驱俄罗斯，攻占了莫斯科；可是随后他突然又逃离莫斯科。当时亚历山大皇帝在施泰因和别的人的劝告下，把欧洲的武装力量联合起来，反对那个破坏欧洲太平的人。所有拿破仑的盟国一下子都变成了他的敌人；这支联军立即攻打拿破仑刚刚纠集起来的军队。盟军战胜了拿破仑，进驻巴黎，迫使拿破仑退位，并把他流放到厄尔巴岛。虽然流放他的五年前和一年以后，大家公认他是一个无法无天的强盗，不过，当时并未取消他的皇帝称号，仍尽力对他表示尊敬。嗣后路易十八即位，不过，此人一向只是法国人和盟国人取笑的对象。拿破仑挥泪告别老近卫军，逊位以后就被流放他乡。然后，精明练达的国家政要和外交家（尤其是塔列兰，他抢先他人坐上头把交椅，从而扩大了法国的疆域。）在维也纳发表谈话，使得有人喜，也有人愁。突然，外交家与君主又几乎爆发争执，就在他们准备再次诉诸武力、互相残杀的时候，拿破仑率领一营人马又回到法国，而仇恨他的法国人立刻向他屈服。为此，盟国的君主极为恼怒，于是，又跟法国人交战。天才的拿破仑被打败了，送到了圣赫勒拿岛，人们又恍然承认拿破仑确实是一个强盗。就是这个流放者离别了心爱的人们和他钟爱的法国，在孤岛的礁石上慢慢地死去，把他恢宏的业绩留给后世。欧洲的反动势力又重新抬头，各国的君主又重新欺压百姓。

列位诸君切莫认为这是一个讽刺——是一幅描述历史的漫画。恰恰相反，这是对所有史学家，从回忆录、各国专史到那个时代的新文化通史的编著者所作出的矛盾百出和答非所问的论述所给予的最温和的表述。

这些回答之所以荒诞可笑，是因为现代史好像一个聋子，在回答着谁也没有问他的问题。

如果说，史学的宗旨是记述人类和各民族的活动，那末，第一个问题（不回答这个问题，则其余的一切都不可理解）就是：各民族的活动是受什么力量推动的？对这个问题，现代史不是处心积虑地说拿破仑是一个了不起的天才，就是说路易十四狂妄，刚愎自用，再不然就例举有哪些作者撰写了哪些书。

虽然，所有这一切说法很可能都是对的，人们也愿意同意这些说法，可是，那毕竟还是答非所问。假如我们承认神权，它依靠其自身（的力量），总是借助于拿破仑之流、路易之流和著作家们来管理本民族的话，纵然，这一切说法，都可能是非常有趣的，可是，我们并不承认这种神权，因此，在谈论拿破仑之流，路易之流和著作家们之前，应该阐明这些人物和各民族的活动之间有什么关系。

假如不是神权而是另有一股力量，那末，就要说明那又是一种什么样的新力量，因为历史研究的全部旨趣就在于此。

史学家仿佛认为这种力量是不言而喻和尽人皆知的。然而，任何一位饱览史籍的人，尽管满心想承认这股力量是已知的，都不禁感到疑惑不解的是：既然这股新的力量是令人皆知的，为什么史学家们又众说纷纭，莫衷一是呢？