|
The life of the nations is not contained in the lives of
a few men, for the connection between those men and the nations
has not been found. The theory that this connection is based on
the transference of the collective will of a people to certain
historical personages is an hypothesis unconfirmed by the experience
of history.
The theory of the transference of the collective will of the
people to historic persons may perhaps explain much in the domain
of jurisprudence and be essential for its purposes, but in its
application to history, as soon as revolutions, conquests, or
civil wars occur- that is, as soon as history begins- that theory
explains nothing.
The theory seems irrefutable just because the act of transference
of the people's will cannot be verified, for it never occurred.
Whatever happens and whoever may stand at the head of affairs,
the theory can always say that such and such a person took the
lead because the collective will was transferred to him.
The replies this theory gives to historical questions are
like the replies of a man who, watching the movements of a herd
of cattle and paying no attention to the varying quality of the
pasturage in different parts of the field, or to the driving of
the herdsman, should attribute the direction the herd takes to
what animal happens to be at its head.
"The herd goes in that direction because the animal in
front leads it and the collective will of all the other animals
is vested in that leader." This is what historians of the
first class say- those who assume the unconditional transference
of the people's will.
"If the animals leading the herd change, this happens
because the collective will of all the animals is transferred
from one leader to another, according to whether the animal is
or is not leading them in the direction selected by the whole
herd." Such is the reply historians who assume that the collective
will of the people is delegated to rulers under conditions which
they regard as known. (With this method of observation it often
happens that the observer, influenced by the direction he himself
prefers, regards those as leaders who, owing to the people's change
of direction, are no longer in front, but on one side, or even
in the rear.)
"If the animals in front are continually changing and
the direction of the whole herd is constantly altered, this is
because in order to follow a given direction the animals transfer
their will to the animals that have attracted our attention, and
to study the movements of the herd we must watch the movements
of all the prominent animals moving on all sides of the herd."
So say the third class of historians who regard all historical
persons, from monarchs to journalists, as the expression of their
age.
The theory of the transference of the will of the people to
historic persons is merely a paraphrase- a restatement of the
question in other words.
What causes historical events? Power. What is power? Power
is the collective will of the people transferred to one person.
Under what condition is the will of the people delegated to one
person? On condition that that person expresses the will of the
whole people. That is, power is power: in other words, power is
a word the meaning of which we do not understand.
If the realm of human knowledge were confined to abstract
reasoning, then having subjected to criticism the explanation
of "power" that juridical science gives us, humanity
would conclude that power is merely a word and has no real existence.
But to understand phenomena man has, besides abstract reasoning,
experience by which he verifies his reflections. And experience
tells us that power is not merely a word but an actually existing
phenomenon.
Not to speak of the fact that no description of the collective
activity of men can do without the conception of power, the existence
of power is proved both by history and by observing contemporary
events.
Whenever an event occurs a man appears or men appear, by whose
will the event seems to have taken place. Napoleon III issues
a decree and the French go to Mexico. The King of Prussia and
Bismarck issue decrees and an army enters Bohemia. Napoleon I
issues a decree and an army enters Russia. Alexander I gives a
command and the French submit to the Bourbons. Experience shows
us that whatever event occurs it is always related to the will
of one or of several men who have decreed it.
The historians, in accord with the old habit of acknowledging
divine intervention in human affairs, want to see the cause of
events in the expression of the will of someone endowed with power,
but that supposition is not confirmed either by reason or by experience.
On the one side reflection shows that the expression of a
man's will- his words- are only part of the general activity expressed
in an event, as for instance in a war or a revolution, and so
without assuming an incomprehensible, supernatural force- a miracle-
one cannot admit that words can be the immediate cause of the
movements of millions of men. On the other hand, even if we admitted
that words could be the cause of events, history shows that the
expression of the will of historical personages does not in most
cases produce any effect, that is to say, their commands are often
not executed, and sometimes the very opposite of what they order
occurs.
Without admitting divine intervention in the affairs of humanity
we cannot regard "power" as the cause of events.
Power, from the standpoint of experience, is merely the relation
that exists between the expression of someone's will and the execution
of that will by others.
To explain the conditions of that relationship we must first
establish a conception of the expression of will, referring it
to man and not to the Deity.
If the Deity issues a command, expresses His will, as ancient
history tells us, the expression of that will is independent of
time and is not caused by anything, for the Divinity is not controlled
by an event. But speaking of commands that are the expression
of the will of men acting in time and in relation to one another,
to explain the connection of commands with events we must restore:
(1) the condition of all that takes place: the continuity of movement
in time both of the events and of the person who commands, and
(2) the inevitability of the connection between the person commanding
and those who execute his command.
|
