THE LIFE of nations is not contained in the life of a few men, since the connection between those few men and the nations has not been found. —
国家的生活并不仅仅限于少数人的生活，因为那些少数人与国家之间的联系还未得到发现。 —

The theory that this connection is based on the delegation of the combined will of a people to its historical leaders is an hypothesis, not supported by the testimony of history.
基于将一个民族的集体意志委托给历史领导人的这种连接的理论是一种假设，并没有得到历史的证明。

The theory of the delegation of the combined will of the masses to historical personages may perhaps explain a great deal in the domain of the science of law, and is possibly essential for its purposes. —
将群众的集体意志委托给历史人物的理论或许可以在法学领域的科学方面解释很多事情，并且对于其目的可能是必要的。 —

But in its application to history, as soon as revolutions, wars, civil disturbances arise, as soon as history begins in fact—this theory explains nothing.
但是在历史的应用中，一旦革命、战争、内乱出现，一旦历史事实开始发生，这个理论就解释不了什么了。

This theory appears irrefutable, just because the act of delegating the will of the people can never be verified, since it has never existed.
这个理论似乎是无可辩驳的，因为人民意志的委托行为永远无法验证，因为它从未存在过。

Whatever event might take place, and whoever might be taking the lead in such an event, the theory can always say that such a person took the lead in bringing about that event because the combined will was vested in him.
无论发生任何事件，无论是谁在引导这个事件，该理论总能说这个人之所以引导这个事件，是因为人民的集体意志寄托在他身上。

The answers given by this theory to historical questions are like the answers of a man who, watching the movements of a flock, should pay no attention to the varying quality of the pasturage in different parts of the field, nor to the actions of the shepherd, but should look for the causes of the flock taking this or that direction simply in the animal that happened to be foremost in it.
这个理论对历史问题的回答就像是一个人观察一个兽群的移动，却不注意到场地不同部分的草场质量的差异，也不注意牧羊人的行动，而只是简单地认为兽群采取这个或那个方向的原因在于恰巧在前面的那只动物。

“The flock moves in this direction because the animal in front leads it, and the combined will of all the other animals is delegated to the leader of the flock. —
“兽群朝这个方向移动是因为前面的那只动物带领它，而其他动物的集体意志也都赋予了这个兽群的领导者。” 这就是第一类历史学家给出的答案，他们认为意志是无条件委托给权威的。 —

” Such is the answer given by the first class of historians, who suppose an unconditional delegation of will to the authority.
“如果领导兽群的动物被替换为其他动物，那是因为所有野兽的集体意志从一个领导者转移到另一个领导者，这是因为第一个领导者没有按照整个兽群选择的方向行动。”

“If the animals leading the flock are changed for others, it is due to the fact that the combined will of all the beasts is transferred from one leader to another owing to the fact that the first leader did not follow the direction chosen by all the flock. —
这是第一类历史学家给出的答案，他们认为意志是无条件委托给权威的。 —

” Such is the reply of those historians who assume that the combined will of the masses is vested in their rulers on conditions which they regard as unknown. —
“这是历史学家的回答,他们认为群众的意愿是以他们认为未知的条件掌握在统治者手中的。” —

(With this method of observation it very often happens that the observer, judging from the direction chosen by him, reckons as leaders those who, when the direction of the masses is changed, are not in front, but on one side, and even sometimes the hindmost.)
“通过这种观察方法，观察者往往会根据他选择的方向，把那些在群众方向改变时并不站在最前面，而是在一侧甚至有时是最后面的人视为领导者。”

“If the beasts that are foremost are constantly being changed, and the direction taken by the flock too is continually changing, that is due to the fact that to attain a certain direction known to us the beasts delegate their wills to those beasts which attract our attention, and to study the movements of the flock we ought to observe all the noticeable animals that are moving on all sides of the flock. —
“如果领先的动物不断变换，群体的方向也不断变化，那是因为为了达到我们所知道的某个方向，动物们把他们的意愿委托给那些吸引我们注意的动物，为了研究群体的运动，我们应该观察所有在群体周围移动的显著动物。” —

” So say the third class of historians, who accept all historical characters as the expression of their age from monarchs to journalists.
“所以说，第三类历史学家认为所有历史人物都是他们时代的表现，从君主到新闻记者都是如此。”

The theory of the transference of the will of the masses to historical characters is only a paraphrase—only a restatement of the question in other words.
“将群众的意愿转移给历史人物的理论只是对问题的另一种陈述方式。”

What is the cause of historical events? Power.
“历史事件的原因是什么？权力。”

What is Power? Power is the combined will of the masses vested in one person.
“什么是权力？权力是群众集体意愿掌握在一个人手中。”

On what conditions are the wills of the masses vested in one person? —
“群众的意愿掌握在一个人手中的条件是什么？” —

On condition of that person’s expressing the will of all men. That is, power is power. —
“条件是那个人表达了所有人的意愿。也就是说，权力就是权力。” —

That is, power is a word the meaning of which is beyond our comprehension.
“也就是说，权力是一个我们无法理解的词的意思。”

If the domain of human knowledge were confined to abstract reasoning alone, then, after subjecting the explanation of power given by science to criticism, humanity would come to the conclusion that power is only a word, and that it has no existence in reality. —
“如果人类的知识领域仅限于抽象推理，那么在对科学提出的权力解释进行批判之后，人类会得出这样的结论：权力只是一个词，而在现实中并不存在。” —

But for the knowledge of phenomena, man has besides abstract reasoning another instrument—experience—by which he verifies the results of reasoning. —
“但对于现象的认识，人类除了抽象推理外还有另一个工具——经验，通过这个工具，人类验证了推理结果。” —

And experience tells him that power is not merely a word, but an actually existing phenomenon.
“而经验告诉他，权力不仅仅是一个词，而是一个实际存在的现象。”

To say nothing of the fact that not a single account of the combined action of men can omit the conception of power, the reality of power is shown us, not only by history, but by observation of contemporary events.
更不用说没有一个人类行动的账目可以忽略对权力的概念。现实的权力不仅通过历史，而且通过对当代事件的观察向我们展示。

Whenever an event takes place, a man or men appear by whose will the event is conceived to have been accomplished. —
无论何时发生一件事件，总会有一个或多个人出现，他们的意愿被认为是事件发生的原因。 —

Napoleon III. gives an order, and the French go to Mexico. —
拿破仑三世下令，法国人就去了墨西哥。 —

The Prussian King and Bismarck give certain orders, and troops go to Bohemia. —
普鲁士国王和俾斯麦下达命令，军队就去了波希米亚。 —

Napoleon I. gives a command, and soldiers march into Russia. —
拿破仑一世下达命令，士兵们就进军俄罗斯。 —

Alexander I. gives a command, and the French submit to the Bourbons. —
亚历山大一世下达命令，法国人就顺从于波旁王朝。 —

Experience shows us that whatever takes place, it is always connected with the will of one or of several men, who decreed it should be so.
经验告诉我们，无论发生什么事情，它总是与一个或多个人的意愿相关，他们决定了事情会这样发生。

Historians, from the old habit of recognising divine intervention in the affairs of humanity, are inclined to look for the cause of events in the exercise of the will of the person endowed with power; —
从历史学家习惯上承认神的介入人类事务这个角度来看，他们倾向于寻找事件的原因在于拥有权力的人的意愿的行使; —

but this conclusion is not confirmed either by reason or by experience.
但这个结论既没有理性的支持，也没有经验证实。

On one side reason shows that the expression of the will of a man—his words, in fact, are only a part of the general activity expressed in an event, such as a revolution or a war, and therefore without the assumption of an incomprehensible, supernatural force—a miracle—it cannot be admitted that these words can be the immediate cause of the movements of millions of men.
一方面，理性展示了一个人的意愿表达-他的话语，实际上只是在事件中表达的一部分总体活动，比如革命或战争，因此在没有假设一个不可理解、超自然的力量-奇迹-的情况下，我们不能接受这些话语能成为数百万人行动的直接原因。

On the other side, even if one admits that words may be the cause of an event, history shows us that the expression of the will of historical personages in the great majority of cases does not lead to any effect at all—that is, that their commands are often not carried out, and, in fact, sometimes the very opposite of what they have commanded is done.
另一方面，即使承认言辞可能是一个事件的原因，历史向我们展示，在绝大多数情况下，历史人物的意愿表达并不会引起任何影响-换句话说，他们的命令经常不被执行，事实上，有时会做与他们所命令的恰好相反的事情。

Without admitting divine intervention in the affairs of humanity, we cannot accept power as a cause of events.
如果不承认神的介入人类事务，我们就不能把权力视为事件的原因。

Power, from the point of view of experience, is only the dependence existing between the expression of the will of a person and the carrying out of that will by others.
从经验的角度来看，权力仅仅是存在于一个人的意愿表达和他人执行这一意愿之间的依赖关系。

To explain the conditions of that dependence, we have, first of all, to reinstate the conception of the expression of will, referring it to man, and not to the Deity.
要解释这种依赖关系的条件，首先需要恢复意愿表达的概念，将其指向人而不是神。

If the Deity gives a command, expresses His will, as the history of the ancients tell us, the expression of that will is independent of time, and is not called forth by anything, as the Deity is not connected with the event. —
如果神发出命令，表达了他的意愿，正如古代历史所告诉我们的，那么意愿的表达是独立于时间的，不受任何事物的影响，因为神与事件没有联系。 —

But when we speak of commands that are the expression of the will of men, acting in time and connected with one another, we must, if we are to understand the connection of the command with the event, restore (1) the conditions of all the circumstances that took place, the dynamic continuity in time both of the event and of the person commanding it; —
但是当我们谈论那些时间上与彼此相关的人的意愿表达时，如果我们要理解命令与事件的关系，我们必须恢复(1)发生的所有情况的条件，事件和命令者在时间上的动态连续性; —

and (2) the condition of the inevitable connection in which the person commanding stands with those who carry out his command.
以及(2)命令者与执行其命令的人之间不可避免的联系条件。