MANY HISTORIANS assert that the French failed at Borodino because Napoleon had a cold in his head; that if he had not had a cold the orders given by him before and during the battle would have been even more remarkable1 for their genius, and Russia would have been lost and the face of the world would have been changed. To historians, who can maintain that Russia was transformed at the will of one man—Peter the Great—and that France, from a republic, became an empire, and that the French army marched into Russia at the will of one man—Napoleon—the conclusion that Russia has remained a power because Napoleon had a bad cold on the 26th of August may seem indisputable and convincing. Had it depended on Napoleon's will to fight, or not to fight, at Borodino, or had it depended on his will whether he gave this order or that, it is evident that a cold, affecting the manifestation2 of his will, might be the saving of Russia, and consequently the valet, who forgot to put on Napoleon's waterproof3 boots on the 24th, would be the saviour4 of Russia. On that method of reasoning such a deduction5 is inevitable6; as inevitable as the contention7 which Voltaire maintains in jest (unconscious what he was ridiculing) that the Massacre8 of St. Bartholomew was due to an attack of dyspepsia from which Charles IX was suffering. But for minds that cannot admit that Russia was transformed at the will of one man—Peter the Great—and the French empire was created, and the war with Russia begun, at the will of one man—Napoleon—such a contention will seem not merely unsound and irrational9, but contrary to the whole nature of humanity. The question, What constitutes the cause of historical events? will suggest to them another answer, resting on the idea that the course of earthly events is predestined from on high, depends on the combination of all the wills of the men taking part in those events, and that the predominant influence of Napoleon in those events is purely10 external and fictitious11.
Strange at first sight as appears the proposition that the Massacre of St. Bartholomew, the order for which was given by Charles IX., was not the result of his will, and that it was only in his fancy that the command he had given was the cause of it, and that the Borodino slaughter12 of eighty thousand men was not due to Napoleon's will (though he gave the order for the commencement of the battle), and that it was only his fancy that it was his doing, strange as this proposition appears, yet human dignity, that tells us that every one of us is neither more nor less a man than Napoleon, bids us admit that solution of the question, and historical researches abundantly confirm the proposition.
At the battle of Borodino Napoleon did not fire at any one, nor kill any one. All that was done by his soldiers. Therefore it was not he who killed those men. The soldiers of the French army went out to slay13 their fellow-men at Borodino, not owing to Napoleon's commands, but through their own desire to do so. The whole army—French, Italians, Germans, Poles—hungry, ragged14, and exhausted15 by the march, felt at the sight of an army, barring their way to Moscow: the wine is drawn16, it must be drunk. Had Napoleon forbidden them at that point to fight the Russians, they would have killed him, and have proceeded to fight the Russians, because it was inevitable for them.
When they heard Napoleon's proclamation, offering them as consolation17 for maiming and death the reminder18 that posterity19 would say that they had been at the battle before Moscow, they shouted, “Vive l'Empereur,” just as they shouted “Vive l'Empereur” at the sight of the picture of the little boy playing cup and ball with the earth, and just as they shouted “Vive l'Empereur” at every absurdity20 that was said. There was nothing left for them to do but to shout “Vive l'Empereur!” and to fight so as to get food and rest as conquerors21 in Moscow. Therefore it was not owing to Napoleon's commands that they killed their fellow-men.
And it was not Napoleon who ordained22 the course of the battle, because none of his instructions were put into execution, and he knew nothing of what was passing before him. Therefore the manner in which these men slaughtered23 one another did not depend on Napoleon's will, but proceeded independently of him, from the wills of the hundreds of thousands of men who took part in the affair. It only seemed to Napoleon that all this was due to his will. And therefore the question whether Napoleon had or had not a cold in his head is of no more interest to history than the cold of the lowest soldier of the commissariat.
The contention of some writers, that Napoleon's cold was the reason of his previous instructions and commands during the battle being weaker than usual, is completely groundless.
The instructions that have been reproduced here are by no means inferior, are indeed superior, to many similar arrangements by which he had gained victories in the past. His supposed instructions during the day were also in no way inferior to the commands he had given in previous battles, but were much the same as usual. But these instructions are supposed to be inferior, simply because Borodino was the first battle in which Napoleon was not victorious24. The finest and profoundest combinations seem very poor, and every military student can criticise25 them with a consequential26 air, when the battle has not been won by means of them; and the stupidest combinations will seem exceedingly ingenious, and serious writers will fill volumes in proving their excellence27, when the battle that followed chances to have been a victory.
The plan composed by Weierother at Austerlitz was a model of perfection in its own line, but it has yet been condemned28, and condemned for its very perfection, for its over-minuteness in detail.
At Borodino Napoleon played his part as the representative of supreme29 power as well, or even better, than he had done at previous battles. He did nothing likely to hinder the progress of the battle; he yielded to the most sensible advice; he was not confused, did not contradict himself, did not lose his presence of mind, nor run away from the field of battle, but with his great tact30 and military experience, he performed calmly and with dignity his role of appearing to be in supreme control of it all.
许多史学家说，波罗底诺战役法国人没有打赢是因为拿破仑感冒了，如果他没有感冒，在战斗之前和在战斗期间他的作战命令一定更加有天才，俄国人一定失败，et la face du monde eut été changée①。一些史学家认为，俄国的缔造是由于一个人的意志——彼得大帝的意志，法国由共和变为帝制，法国的军队开进俄国，也是由于一个人的意志所为——拿破仑的意志，俄国所以强盛，是因为拿破仑在八月二十六日患了重感冒，这些论断在一些史学家看来无疑是合乎逻辑的。
①法语：而世界的面貌也就会改变了。
假如波罗底诺战役的发动与否取决于拿破仑的意志，发出这个或那个命令也取决于他的意志，那么，显然能够影响他表现意志的伤风感冒可能是俄国得救的原因，因此，那个在二十四日忘记给拿破仑防水靴子的侍仆也是俄国的救星了。用这种思路得出的结论是无可怀疑的，正如伏尔泰开玩笑（他自己也不知嘲笑什么）说，巴托洛缪之夜①是由于查理九世肠胃失调引起的，这个结论同样是无可怀疑的。但是有人不认为俄国的缔造只凭彼得大帝一个人的意志，法兰西帝国的形成以及它同俄国的战争也不是由于拿破仑一个人的意志，在这些人看来，前面的有关结论不仅是不正确的，不合理的，而且与整个人类的现实生活相矛盾。关于形成历史事件的原因这个问题的另一答案是：这世界事件的过程是上天注定的，它取决于参加这些事件的人们的任意行动的巧合，拿破仑之类的人物对事件过程的影响，不过是表面的，虚假的。
①巴托洛缪之夜指一五七二年八月二十四日的前夕，巴黎天主教对于戈诺教徒的大屠杀。
有一种看法乍一看来很奇怪，那就是：巴托洛缪之夜的屠杀事件，虽然发命令的是查理九世，但不是按照他的意志发生的，他不过觉得是他命令这样做的；波罗底诺八万人的大屠杀事件也不是按照拿破仑的意志发生的（虽然开战及战斗中的命令都是他发出的），他不过觉得命令是他发布的罢了，——不管这个看法多么奇怪，但是，人的尊严告诉我，我们每一个人，作为一个人来说，纵然不比伟大的拿破仑强，无论如何不会比他差多少，人的尊严叫我们这样看问题，历史的研究也充分肯定了这种看法。
在波罗底诺战役中，拿破仑没有对任何人射击，也没有杀一个人，一切都是士兵做的。由此可见，杀人的不是他。
法国士兵在波罗底诺战役中屠杀俄国士兵，并不是由于拿破仑的命令，而是出于自愿。全部军队：法国人、意大利人、德国人、波兰人——他们饥肠辘辘、衣衫褴褛、在行军中累得精疲力尽，——看见阻碍他们去莫斯科的军队，他们就感到，le vin est tiré et qu'il faut le boire①。假若拿破仑当时禁止他们和俄国人打仗，他们会把他杀死，然后去打俄国人，因为这是他们必需要做的。
当他们听到拿破仑在命令中晓谕他们，子孙后代会因为他们在莫斯科城下战斗过，有过阵亡和受伤而得到慰藉，他们就高呼：“Vive l'empereur！”②，正像他们一看见小孩用小棒捅地球的画像，就喊：“Vive l'empereur！”一样，也正如他们不论听到什么毫无意义的话就高呼？“Vive l'empereur！”一样。他们除了高呼“Vive l'empereur！”和去打仗，以便在莫斯科以征服者的身份得到食物和休息以外，再没有什么事可做了。由此看来，他们残杀自己的同类并非由于拿破仑的命令。
①法语：瓶塞已打开，就得把酒喝掉。
②法语：皇帝万岁。
在整个战斗过程中发号施令的也不是拿破仑，因为他的战斗部署没有一条是付诸实行的，而且在战斗中间他不知道他前面的情况。因此，那些人互相残杀，并不是按照拿破仑的意志才发生的，而是不以他为转移，按照参加共同行动的几十万人的意志进行的。只不过拿破仑觉得，好像一切都是按照他的意志进行的。所以说，拿破仑伤风感冒，并不比一个最小的运输兵伤风感冒具有更大的历史意义。
一些作者又说，由于拿破仑感冒，他的部署和在战斗中的命令不像以前那么好，这完全不正确。正是这一点说明拿破仑八月二十六日的感冒没有什么意义。
此处引述的战斗部署一点也不比先前他打胜仗的所有战斗部署更差，甚至还要好些。那些在战斗中臆想的命令也并不比以前的更差，完全和以前的一样。这些部署和命令之所以好像比以前差，那不过是因为波罗底诺战役是拿破仑第一次败北罢了。不论多么优秀单绝、深思熟虑的部署和命令，只要据此打了败仗，就好像是非常糟的，每一个军事科学家都煞有介事地批评它们，不论多么糟的部署和命令，只要据此打了胜仗，就好像是非常好的，那些严肃认真的学者都撰写卷帙浩繁的书籍论证它的优点。
魏罗特尔拟定的奥斯特利茨战役的部署，就是这类作品的完美典范，但是人们仍然指摘它，指摘它的完美，指摘它过分的烦琐。
拿破仑在波罗底诺战役中完成它作为权力代表者的任务并不比在其他战役中完成得差，甚至更好些。他并没有作出妨碍战斗进行的事情；他倾听比较合理的意见；他没有手忙脚乱，没有自相矛盾，没有惊慌失措，也没有从战场上逃跑，而是施展了他那巨大的节制能力和作战经验，镇静而庄严地扮演了他那貌似统帅的角色。
收听单词发音 |
1
remarkable
|
|
| adj.显著的，异常的，非凡的，值得注意的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
manifestation
|
|
| n.表现形式；表明；现象 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
waterproof
|
|
| n.防水材料；adj.防水的；v.使...能防水 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
saviour
|
|
| n.拯救者，救星 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
deduction
|
|
| n.减除，扣除，减除额；推论，推理，演绎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
inevitable
|
|
| adj.不可避免的，必然发生的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
contention
|
|
| n.争论，争辩，论战；论点，主张 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
massacre
|
|
| n.残杀，大屠杀；v.残杀，集体屠杀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
irrational
|
|
| adj.无理性的，失去理性的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
purely
|
|
| adv.纯粹地，完全地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
fictitious
|
|
| adj.虚构的，假设的；空头的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
slaughter
|
|
| n.屠杀，屠宰；vt.屠杀，宰杀 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
slay
|
|
| v.杀死，宰杀，杀戮 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
ragged
|
|
| adj.衣衫褴褛的，粗糙的，刺耳的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
exhausted
|
|
| adj.极其疲惫的，精疲力尽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
drawn
|
|
| v.拖，拉，拔出；adj.憔悴的，紧张的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
consolation
|
|
| n.安慰，慰问 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
reminder
|
|
| n.提醒物，纪念品；暗示，提示 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
posterity
|
|
| n.后裔，子孙，后代 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
absurdity
|
|
| n.荒谬，愚蠢；谬论 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
conquerors
|
|
| 征服者，占领者( conqueror的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
ordained
|
|
| v.任命（某人）为牧师( ordain的过去式和过去分词 )；授予（某人）圣职；（上帝、法律等）命令；判定 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
slaughtered
|
|
| v.屠杀，杀戮，屠宰( slaughter的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
victorious
|
|
| adj.胜利的，得胜的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
criticise
|
|
| v.批评，评论；非难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
consequential
|
|
| adj.作为结果的，间接的；重要的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
excellence
|
|
| n.优秀，杰出，(pl.)优点，美德 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
condemned
|
|
| adj. 被责难的, 被宣告有罪的 动词condemn的过去式和过去分词 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
supreme
|
|
| adj.极度的，最重要的；至高的，最高的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
tact
|
|
| n.机敏，圆滑，得体 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
| 欢迎访问英文小说网 |