THE SUBJECT of history is the life of peoples and of humanity. —
历史的主题是人民和人类的生活。 —

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.
要用言语抓住并描述生活，无论是人类的生活还是一个民族的生活，似乎是不可能的。

All the ancient historians employed the same method for describing and catching what is seemingly elusive—that is, the life of a people. —
所有古代历史学家都采用了同样的方法来描述和描摹貌似难以捉摸的民族生活。 —

They described the career of individual persons ruling peoples; —
他们叙述个别人统治人民的经历； —

and their activity was to them an expression of the activity of the whole people.
他们的活动对他们来说是整个人民活动的表达。

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; —
古代人回答了个别人如何使民族按照他们的意愿行动以及这些个别人的意愿是如何受到控制的这些问题，通过神的意愿； —

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.
在第一个情况下，神让一个选定的人民服从他的意愿，而在第二种情况下，指导这位选定的君主的意愿达到既定的目标。

For the ancients these questions were solved by faith in the immediate participation of the Deity in the affairs of mankind.
对于古人来说，这些问题通过对神直接参与人类事务的信仰得到了解决。

Modern history has theoretically rejected both those positions. —
现代历史在理论上拒绝了这两个立场。 —

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. —
人们本以为，现代历史拒绝了古人关于人类屈服于神的信念和民族被引向一定目标的观点后，将研究导致权力形成的原因，而不是权力的表现。 —

But modern history has not done that. While in theory rejecting the views of the ancients, it follows them in practice.
但现代历史并没有这样做。在理论上拒绝古人的观点的同时，它在实践中却追随了它们。

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. —
现代历史没有建立在神圣权威直接引导下的人们基础上，而是奠定了英雄的基础，他们具有非凡的超人力量，或者仅仅是具有各种特征的人，从君主到记者，都引导着民众。 —

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.
与古代历史学家认为的诸如高卢人、希腊人和罗马人等民族运动的终极目标——神的意志相反，现代历史有了自己的目标——法国人、德国人或英国人的福祉，或者更普遍地说，整个人类的文明进步，通常指的是占据伟大母地北西角落的民族。

Modern history has rejected the faiths of the ancients, without putting any new conviction in their place; —
现代历史抛弃了古人的信仰，却没有为这些信仰找到新的替代。 —

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: —
因此，历史学家们被逻辑所迫，摈弃了拒绝的君王神权和古人的命运，重新回到相同的起点： —

to the recognition, that is (1) that peoples are led by individual persons; —
即（1）人民是由个体人物引领的事实。 —

and (2) that there is a certain goal towards which humanity and the peoples constituting it are moving.
以及（2）人类及其组成部分朝着某个目标前进。

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.
从吉本到巴克尔，现代史学家的所有作品，尽管在表面上有所不同，观点看似新颖，却都基于这两个古老的必然立场。

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; —
首先，历史学家描述了一些个别人物的行为，这些人物在他看来引领着人类（有人只将君主、军事将领和政治家视为这样的人物； —

another includes besides monarchs, orators, scientific men, reformers, philosophers, and poets). —
还有人除了君主外，还包括演说家、科学家、改革者、哲学家和诗人）。 —

Secondly, the goal towards which humanity is being led is known to the historian. —
其次，历史学家知道人类正朝着何种目标前进。 —

To one this goal is the greatness of the Roman, or the Spanish, or the French state; —
对于某些人来说，这个目标是罗马、西班牙或法国国家的伟大； —

for another, it is freedom, equality, a certain sort of civilisation in a little corner of the world called Europe.
对于另一些人来说，这个目标是自由、平等，在一个叫做欧洲的小角落实现某种文明。

In 1789 there was a ferment in Paris: it grew and spread, and found expression in the movement of peoples from west to east. —
1789年巴黎酝酿着一场动乱：它不断蔓延，并通过从西向东的民族运动找到了表达方式。 —

Several times that movement is made to the east, and comes into collision with a counter-movement from east westwards. —
这种运动多次向东方进行，与一场从东向西的反运动发生冲突。 —

In the year 1812 it reaches its furthest limit, Moscow, and then, with a remarkable symmetry, the counter-movement follows from east to west; —
1812年，它达到了极限，莫斯科，然后以惊人的对称性，逆向运动从东向西开始；（The counter-movement follows from east to west;） —

drawing with it, like the first movement, the peoples of Central Europe. —
与第一个运动一样，它带动了中欧各国人民；（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.
逆向运动达到第一个运动的起点—巴黎，并平息了。（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; —
在这二十年期间，大量的土地没有耕种；房屋被烧毁；（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; —
贸易改变了方向；数以百万计的人变得贫穷或富裕，并改变了居住地；（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.
数以百万计信奉爱的基督徒相互谋杀。 （and millions of Christians, professing the law of love, murder one another.）

What does all this mean? What did all this proceed from? —
这一切是什么意思？这一切从何而来？（What does all this mean? What did all this proceed from?） —

What induced these people to burn houses and to murder their fellow-creatures? —
是什么促使这些人烧毁房屋并谋杀他们的伙伴？（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? —
这些事件的原因是什么？是什么力量迫使人们以这种方式行动？（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.
当人们偶然遇到这些过去的不安的纪念和传统时，这些是人类最自然、最合理的问题。（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.
要回答这些问题，人类的常识会转向历史学，其目的是了解国家和人类自身。（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: —
如果历史保留了古代人的观点，它将会说：（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. —
神为了奖赏或惩罚他的子民，赐予拿破仑权力，并引导他的意志去实现他自己神圣的目的。（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. —
这个答案将会是完整和清楚的。（And that answer would have been complete and clear.） —

One might believe or disbelieve in the divine significance of Napoleon. —
人们可以相信或不相信拿破仑的神圣意义（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.
对于一个相信这种观点的人来说，那个时期的所有历史都是可以理解的，而且其中没有任何矛盾之处。

But modern history cannot answer in that way. —
但是现代史不能以这种方式回答。 —

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.
科学不接受古人所认为的神与人类事务直接参与的观点，因此必须给出其他的答案。

Modern history, in answer to these questions, says: —
现代史对这些问题的回答如下： —

“You want to know what this movement means, what it arose from, and what force produced these events? Listen.
“你想知道这次运动意味着什么，发源于何处，以及是什么力量产生了这些事件？请听我说。

“Louis XIV. was a very haughty and self-willed man; —
“路易十四是一个非常傲慢和固执的人； —

he had such and such mistresses, and such and such ministers, and he governed France badly. —
他有如此如此的情妇，以及如此如此的大臣，而且他管理法国很糟糕。 —

Louis’s successors, too, were weak men, and they, too, governed France badly. —
路易的继任者们也都是软弱的人，而且他们也都管理法国很糟糕。 —

And they had such and such favourites, and such and such mistresses. —
他们有这样那样的宠臣，以及这样那样的情妇。 —

Moreover, there were certain men writing books at this period. —
此外，在这个时期有一些人写了一些书。 —

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. —
在十八世纪末，在巴黎有大约二十四个人开始谈论人人平等和自由。 —

This led people all over France to fall to hewing and hacking at each other. —
这引导法国各地的人们开始相互残杀。 —

These people killed the king and a great many more. —
这些人杀了国王和很多其他人。 —

At that time there was in France a man of genius—Napoleon. —
那时，法国有一个天才人物——拿破仑。 —

He conquered every one everywhere, that is, he killed a great many people, because he was a very great genius. —
他征服了每个人，即他杀了很多人，因为他是一个非常伟大的天才。 —

And for some reason he went to kill the Africans; —
由于某种原因，他前往杀害非洲人； —

and killed them so well, and was so cunning and clever, that on returning to France he bade every one obey him. —
他击杀得如此出色，如此狡猾聪明，以至于回到法国后命令每个人都服从他； —

And they all did obey him. After being made Emperor he went to kill people in Italy, Austria, and Prussia. —
他们都确实服从了他。在成为皇帝之后，他去意大利、奥地利和普鲁士杀人； —

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. —
在那里，他也杀了很多人。在俄罗斯有一个名叫亚历山大的皇帝，他决心在欧洲恢复秩序，于是与拿破仑交战； —

But in 1807 he suddenly made friends with him, and in 1811 he quarrelled again, and again they began killing a great many people. —
但在1807年，他突然与拿破仑成为朋友，而在1811年，他们再次发生争吵，又开始大量杀人； —

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. —
拿破仑带领六十万人入侵俄罗斯，征服了莫斯科，然后突然逃离莫斯科，接着亚历山大皇帝在斯坦和其他人的建议下，团结起来，共同保卫她们的和平； —

All Napoleon’s allies suddenly became his enemies; —
拿破仑的所有盟友突然成为他的敌人； —

and the united army advanced against the fresh troops raised by Napoleon. —
联军向拿破仑筹集的新鲜军队发起进攻； —

The allies vanquished Napoleon; entered Paris; —
盟军战胜了拿破仑，进入了巴黎； —

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. —
联军迫使拿破仑退位，并将他放逐到埃尔巴岛，尽管没有剥夺他皇帝的尊严，实际上对他表示了所有的尊重，尽管五年前，以及一年后，他被所有人视为超出法律范围的强盗； —

And Louis XVIII., who, till then, had been a laughing-stock to the French and the allies, began to reign. —
路易十八在此之前一直是法国和盟军的笑柄，开始统治； —

Napoleon shed tears before the Old Guard, abdicated the throne, and went into exile. —
拿破仑在老卫队面前流泪，退位，进入流亡； —

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. —
然后机智的政治人士和外交家（其中著名的是塔列朗，他成功地比任何其他人坐在一个特定的椅子上，并因此扩大了法国的边界）在维也纳进行了谈判，并通过这些谈判使国家感到幸福或不幸； —

All at once the diplomatists and monarchs all but quarrelled; —
外交家和君主们突然间差点争吵起来； —

they were on the point of again commanding their armies to kill one another; —
他们几乎要再次命令他们的军队互相残杀； —

but at that time Napoleon entered France with a battalion, and the French, who had been hating him, at once submitted to him. —
但是当拿破仑率领一支队伍进入法国时，曾经憎恨他的法国人立刻屈服于他。 —

But the allied monarchs were angry at this, and again went to war with the French. —
但是联军君主对此感到愤怒，再次与法国开战。 —

And the genius, Napoleon, was conquered; —
而天才拿破仑却被征服了。 —

and suddenly recognising that he was a brigand, they took him to the island of St. Helena. —
突然他们认识到他是一个强盗，就把他带到圣赫勒拿岛。 —

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. —
在那块岩石上，被流放的他与他心爱的朋友和故土法国分别，经历了漫长的死亡，将他所有的伟大事迹留给了后世。 —

And in Europe the reaction followed, and all the sovereigns began oppressing their subjects again.”
在欧洲，随之而来的是反应，所有君主们开始再次压迫他们的臣民。

It would be quite a mistake to suppose that this is mockery—a caricature of historical descriptions. —
认为这是在嘲笑—对历史描述的漫画。 —

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.
相反，这是对历史的回答，从个人回忆录和各国历史的编纂者到一般历史和当时文化历史的新类型的描述中给出的矛盾和随意的回答的缓和描述。

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.
这些回答中奇怪和滑稽之处是由于现代历史就像一个聋子回答没有人问过的问题。

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: —
如果历史的目标是描述人类和民族的运动，那么第一个必须回答的问题，或者其他问题都将变得不可理解，是下面这个： —

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.
是什么力量推动着民族？为了回答这个问题，现代历史仔细叙述了拿破仑是一个非常伟大的天才，路易十四是非常傲慢的，或者某些作家写了某些书。

All this may very well be so, and humanity is ready to acquiesce in it; —
这一切可能是真实的，人类准备接受这一切。 —

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; —
但这并不是它所询问的。如果我们承认一个以自己为基础且总是相同的神圣力量，通过拿破仑、路易和作家引导着其民族，那就会非常有趣； —

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. —
但是我们并不承认这样一种力量的存在，因此在谈论拿破仑、路易斯以及伟大作家之前，我们必须展示这些人与民族运动之间的联系。 —

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.
如果将神圣的力量替换为另一种力量，那么就需要解释这种力量的构成，因为正是在这种力量中，历史的整个兴趣所在。

History seems to assume that this force is taken for granted of itself, and is known to every one. —
历史似乎假定这种力量本身是理所当然的，每个人都知晓。 —

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.
但是尽管希望承认这种被历史学家们以不同方式理解的新力量为众所周知，任何读过很多历史著作的人都不禁怀疑这种新力量是否被每个人完全了解。