SEVEN YEARS had passed by. The storm-tossed, historic ocean of Europe was subsiding within its shores. —
七年过去了。这个历史悠久的欧洲大海在其岸边平静下来。 —

It seemed to have grown calm; but the mysterious forces moving humanity (mysterious, because the laws controlling their action are unknown to us) were still at work.
它似乎已经平静下来了；但是移动人类的神秘力量（神秘的原因是我们不知道控制它们行动的规律）仍在起作用。

Although the surface of the ocean of history seemed motionless, the movement of humanity was as uninterrupted as the flow of time. —
虽然历史的海洋表面看似静止不动，但人类的运动就像时间的流动一样连续不断。 —

Various series of groups of men were joining together and separating; —
各种各样的人群正在聚集和分离； —

the causes were being prepared that would bring about the formation and the dissolution of empires and the migrations of peoples.
这些原因正在准备着帝国的形成和解体，以及人民的迁徙。

The ocean of history was not now, as before, tossed violently from one shore to the other; —
历史的海洋现在不再像以前那样从一岸猛烈地被抛向另一岸； —

it was seething in its depths. Historical figures were not dashing abruptly from one side to the other; —
它在深处翻腾着。历史人物不再突然地从一边冲向另一边； —

now they seemed to be rotating on the same spot. —
现在他们似乎只是在原地旋转。 —

The historical figures, that had in the preceding years at the head of armies reflected the movement of the masses, commanding wars, and marches, and battles, now reflected that movement in political and diplomatic combinations, statutes, and treaties.
那些在前几年曾率领军队反映人群运动的历史人物，指挥战争、行军和战斗的历史人物，现在通过政治和外交组合、法令和条约来反映这种运动。

This tendency on the part of the figures of history, the historians call the reaction.
历史人物表现出的这种倾向，历史学家称之为反应。

In describing the part played by these historical personages, the historians criticise them severely, supposing them to be the cause of what they call the reaction. —
在描写这些历史人物所扮演的角色时，历史学家严厉地批评他们，认为他们是所谓的反应的原因。 —

All the celebrated persons of that period, from Alexander and Napoleon to Madame de Sta? —
据他们所说，那个时期的所有著名人物，从亚历山大和拿破仑到斯德哥尔摩大公夫人、弗堤、谢林和费希特，都受到了他们的最严厉批评，并根据他们是为了进步还是为了反动而被判无罪或有罪。 —

l, Foty, Schelling, Fichte, Chateaubriand, and so on, receive the severest criticism at their hands, and are acquitted or condemned according as they worked for progress or for reaction.
据他们所说，在俄罗斯，那个时期也正在发生着一场反动，并且最主要的责任人是亚历山大一世，正是这个亚历山大一世根据他们的叙述，在他执政初期是自由主义运动的首要推动者，也是俄罗斯的救星。

In Russia, too, so they tell us, a reaction was taking place at that period, and the person chiefly to blame for that reaction was Alexander I.—the same Alexander who, by their own account, was chiefly responsible for the liberal movement at the beginning of his reign, and for the saving of Russia.
所有这一切都是历史学家告诉我们的。

In modern Russian literature there is no one, from the schoolboy essay writer to the learned historian, who would not throw his stone at Alexander for the unprincipled acts of this later period of his reign.
在现代俄罗斯文学中，无论是小学生作文作家还是博学的历史学家，没有人不对亚历山大晚年统治时期的不择手段行为表示不满。

“He should have acted in such and such a way. —
“他本应该以某种方式行事。 —

On that occasion he acted well, and on that other he acted ill. —
在那个场合，他表现得好，而在另一个场合，他表现得不好。 —

He behaved splendidly in the beginning of his reign and during 1812; —
他在统治的初期和1812年期间表现得出色； —

but he did ill in giving a constitution to Poland, in making the Holy Alliance, in letting Araktcheev have power, in encouraging Golitsin and mysticism; —
但他在给予波兰宪法，在缔结圣同盟，让阿拉克切夫获得权力，鼓励戈里津和神秘主义方面表现得不好； —

and later on, in encouraging Shishkov, and Foty. He acted wrongly in interfering with the army on active service; —
后来，他又在鼓励希什科夫和福堤方面表现得不好。他干预在战斗中的军队是错误的； —

he acted wrongly in cashiering the Semyonovsky regiment, and so on.”
他解雇塞缅诺夫斯基团的做法也是错误的，等等。”

One might cover ten pages in enumerating all the faults found in him by the historians on the assumption that they possess a knowledge of what is for the good of humanity.
可以列举出历史学家们对他进行的数十页的批评，假设他们了解对人类福祉而言什么是好的。

What do these criticisms mean?
这些批评意味着什么？

Do not the very actions for which the historians applaud Alexander I., such as the liberalism of the early part of his reign, the struggle with Napoleon, the firmness shown in 1812, and the campaign of 1813, proceed from those very sources—the circumstances of birth and breeding and life that made Alexander’s personality what it was—from which proceed also the acts for which he is censured by the historians, such as the Holy Alliance, the restoration of Poland, the reaction from 1820 onward?
历史学家所赞扬亚历山大一世的行为，如他在统治早期的自由主义，与拿破仑的斗争，1812年的坚定，以及1813年的战役，难道不是源于他个人所具备的那些因素 - 出生，教养以及生活环境 - 吗？同时，他也因为历史学家所批评的行为而受到谴责，比如圣同盟，波兰的恢复和1820年以后的反动政策？

What is the substance of the charge brought in these criticisms? —
这些批评的实质是什么？ —

It is a charge brought against an historical personage standing at the highest possible pinnacle of human power, as it were, in the focus where all the rays of history concentrated their blinding light upon him; —
这是对一个历史人物的指责，他处于人类权力的最高巅峰，仿佛站在历史的聚光灯下，所有的光芒都聚焦在他身上； —

a personage subjected to the strongest influences of intrigue, deceit, flattery, and self-deception, inseparable from power; —
一个人受到权力带来的阴谋、欺骗、奉承和自欺的最强烈影响的人物； —

a personage who felt himself at every moment of his life responsible for all that was being done in Europe; —
一个人感到他一生中的每一刻都对欧洲发生的一切负有责任。 —

and a personage, not an invented character, but a live creature, like any other man, with his own personal idiosyncrasies, and passions and impulses towards goodness, beauty, and truth. —
这个人物不是一个虚构的角色，而是一个活生生的存在，不同于其他人，有着自己的个性特点、对善良、美和真理的追求。 —

And the charge brought against this personage is not that he was not virtuous (the historians have no reproach to make against him on this score), but that he, living fifty years ago, had not the same views as to the good of humanity as those held to-day by a professor who has, from his youth up, been engaged in study, i. —
对这个人物的指责并非他不道德（历史学家对他在这方面没有任何指责），而是他在五十年前并没有与今天的一位教授持有相同的人类福祉观点。而这位教授从年轻时就一直从事研究，即阅读书籍、听讲座，并在笔记本上记录这些书籍和讲座的内容。 —

e. in reading books, listening to lectures, and making notes of those books and those lectures in a note-book.
但是即使我们认为五十年前的亚历山大一世在人类福祉的观点上犯了错误，我们也几乎可以假定，评论亚历山大的历史学家，经过一段时间后，他对人类福祉的观点也会被证明是不正确的。

But even if we assume that Alexander I., fifty years ago, was mistaken in his view of what was for the good of peoples, we can hardly help assuming that the historian, criticising Alexander, will, after a certain lapse of time, prove to be also incorrect in his view of what is for the good of humanity. —
这种假设更为自然和不可避免，因为我们观察历史的发展，发现随着每一年，随着每一位新的作家，对于人类福祉的观点都会有所改变，所以在十年后，曾经被认为是好的事物被看作是有害的，反之亦然。 —

It is the more natural and inevitable to assume this because, watching the development of history, we see that with every year, with every new writer, the view of what is for the good of humanity is somewhat shifted; —
而且，我们甚至在历史中发现了同时代对于什么是好的、什么是有害的观点完全相反的情况。 —

so that what did seem good, after ten years, is regarded as harmful, and vice versa. —
以上并非所有。尽管一位教授通过研究阅读和笔记记录对人类福祉的观点和亚历山大一世不同，然而这位教授对人类福祉的观点在未来某个时刻可能也会被认为是不正确的。 —

That is not all. We even find in history the views of contemporaries as to what was good, and what was harmful, utterly opposed to one another. —
我们必须考虑到这种历史观点的变化和多样性，以及由此产生的不同评价的出现。因为人类福祉是一个复杂的概念，它随着时间和不同的个体而变化，不同的人对于什么是好的和有益的有不同的看法。 —

Some regard the giving of a constitution to Poland, and the Holy Alliance, as highly to the credit of Alexander; —
有人认为将宪法赋予波兰和神圣同盟是亚历山大值得赞赏的举动； —

while others regard the same actions as a slur on his name.
而其他人则认为同样的行动是对他名誉的诋毁。

It is impossible to say of the careers of Alexander and of Napoleon that they were beneficial or harmful, seeing that we cannot say wherein the benefit or harm of humanity lies. —
无法说亚历山大和拿破仑的事业是有益还是有害，因为我们无法确定人类的益处或伤害在哪里。 —

If any one dislikes the career of either, he only dislikes it from its incompatibility with his own limited conception of what is the good of humanity. —
如果有人不喜欢其中任何一个人的事业，那只是因为它与他对人类利益的有限观念不相容。 —

Even though I regard as good the preservation of my father’s house in Moscow in 1812, or the glory of the Russian army, or the flourishing of the Petersburg or some other university, or the independence of Poland, or the supremacy of Russia, or the balance of European power, or a special branch of European enlightenment—progress—yet I am bound to admit that the activity of any historical personage had, apart from such ends, other ends more general and beyond my grasp.
即使我认为1812年莫斯科保留了我父亲的房子，或者俄罗斯军队的荣耀，或者彼得堡或其他大学的繁荣，或者波兰的独立，或者俄罗斯的至高无上，或者欧洲的平衡，或者欧洲启蒙运动的某个特定领域，是好的，我还是不得不承认任何历史人物的活动除了这些目标外，还有更普遍、超出我的理解的其他目标。

But let us suppose that so-called science has the power of conciliating all contradictions, and has an invariable standard of good and bad by which to try historical personages and events.
但让我们假设所谓的科学有能力调和所有矛盾，并且拥有一个确定的好坏准则来评价历史人物和事件。

Let us suppose that Alexander could have acted quite differently. —
让我们假设亚历山大本可以行事不同。 —

Let us assume that, in accordance with the prescription of those who censure him, and who profess a knowledge of the final end of the movement of humanity, he could have followed that programme of nationalism, of freedom, of equality, and of progress (there seems to be no other) which his modern critics would have selected for him. —
让我们假设他可以根据那些批评他的人提出的、他们声称能预知人类进程最终目标的纲领——民族主义、自由、平等和进步（似乎没有其他纲领可选）来行动。 —

Let us suppose that programme could have been possible, and had actually been formulated at that time, and that Alexander could have acted in accordance with it. —
让我们假设那个纲领在当时可能并已经提出，并且亚历山大可以按照它的要求行动。 —

What, then, would have become of the activity of all the persons who were opposing the tendency of the government of that day—of the activity which, in the opinion of the historians, was good and beneficial? —
那么，当时反对这一政府倾向的所有人的活动——在历史学家看来是好的和有益的——会有什么结局？ —

There would have been none of that activity; —
那种活动将会完全消失； —

there would have been no life; there would have been nothing.
就不会有生命，就什么都没有；

Once admit that human life can be guided by reason, and all possibility of life is annihilated.
一旦承认人类生活可以被理性引导，所有生活的可能性都将被消灭。