-
Главная
-
- Книги
-
- Авторы
-
- Лев Толстой
-
- Война и мир
-
- Стр. 1254/1273
Для того чтобы воспользоваться озвучкой предложений, необходимо
Войти или зарегистрироваться
Озвучка предложений доступна при наличии PRO-доступа
Купить PRO-доступ
From
this
fundamental
difference
between
the
view
held
by
history
and
that
held
by
jurisprudence
,
it
follows
that
jurisprudence
can
tell
minutely
how
in
its
opinion
power
should
be
constituted
and
what
power
--
existing
immutably
outside
time
--
is
,
but
to
history
's
questions
about
the
meaning
of
the
mutations
of
power
in
time
it
can
answer
nothing
.
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
can
not
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
.
