War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, VNI

History is the life of nations and of humanity. To seize and put into words, to describe directly the life of humanity or even of a single nation, appears impossible.

The ancient historians all employed one and the same method to describe and seize the apparently elusive-the life of a people. They described the activity of individuals who ruled the people, and regarded the activity of those men as representing the activity of the whole nation.

The question: how did individuals make nations act as they wished and by what was the will of these individuals themselves guided? the ancients met by recognizing a divinity which subjected the nations the will of a chosen man, and guided the will of that chosen man so as to accomplish ends that were predestined.

For the ancients these questions were solved by a belief in the direct participation of the Deity in the human affairs.

Modern history, in theory, rejects both these principles.

It would seem that having rejected the belief of the ancients in man's subjection to the Deity and in a predetermined aim toward which nations are led, modern history should study not the manifestations of power but the causes that produce it.

However, modern history has not done this. Having in theory rejected the view held by the ancients, it still follows them in practice.

Ñoái töông cuûa lòch söû laø ñôøi soáng cuûa caùc daân toäc vaø cuûa nhaân loaïi. Nhöng naém ñöôïc moät caùch tröïc tieáp, duøng ngoân ngöõ ñeå bao quaùt taát caû, mieâu taû ñôøi soáng, ñöøng noùi laø cuûa nhaân loaïi, ngay nhö cuûa moät daân toäc duy nhaát thoâi, cuõng laø moät ñieàu cô hoà khoâng theå laøm ñöôc.

Cac su gia thoi xua thuong chi dung moi mot cach don gian de mieu ta va nam cai co ho khong the nam duoc do, tuc doi song mot dan doc. Cach cua ho la mieu ta hoat dong cua cac nha lanh dao dan toc va cho rang hoat dong cua tung ca nhan do la hoat dong cua toan the dan toc.

Co hai cau hoi: lam cach nao ma cac con nguoi ca biet kia co the bat cac dan toc hanh dong theo y muon cua minh duoc; va y muon do bi cai gi chi phoi. Cac su gia thoi xua da tra loi cau hoi thu nhat, bao rang Than Linh muon cho dan toc phai phuc tung y muon cua mot nguoi; con cau hoi the nhi thi bao rang cung vi Than Linh do chi phoi y chi cua nguoi da duoc lua chon va huong dan no toi mot muc dich tien dinh.

Vay thi nguoi thoi xua gia hai cau hoi do bang cach tin rang Than Linh truc tiep du vao cong viec cua loai nguoi,.

Khoa hoc lich su hien dai, ve phuong dien ly thuyet da bac bo hai lap luan tren.

Nguoi ta tuong rang khi trut bo long tin cua nguoi xua cho rang con nguoi tuy thuoc vaao Than Linh, bi Than Linh dan toi mot muc dich tien dinh thi khoa hoc lich su hien dai dang le ra khong nghien cua nhung bieu hien cua quyen luc moi phai. Nhung no lai khong lam nhu vay. Ve mat ly thuyet, no gat bo nhung quan niem co ma khi thuc hanh thi no lai di theo.

Instead of men endowed with divine authority and directly guided by the will of God, modern history has given us either heroes endowed with extraordinary, superhuman capacities, or simply men of very various kinds, from monarchs to journalists, who lead the masses.

Instead of the former divinely appointed aims of the Jewish, Greek, or Roman nations, which ancient historians regarded as representing the progress of humanity, modern history has postulated its own aims--the welfare of the French, German, or English people, or, in its highest abstraction, the welfare and civilization of humanity in general, by which is usually meant that of the peoples occupying a small northwesterly portion of a large continent.

Modern history has rejected the beliefs of the ancients without replacing them by a new conception, and the logic of the situation has obliged the historians, after they had apparently rejected the divine authority of the kings and the "fate" of the ancients, to reach the same conclusion by anther road, that is, to recognize (1) nations guided by individual men, and (2) the existence of a known aim to which these nations and humanity at large are tending.

Khong dua ra nhung con nguoi duoc Than Linh ban cho quyen luc va bi y chi cua Than Linh truc tiep dat dan nua, thi khoa hoc lich su hien dai lai dua ra hoac nhung vi anh hung co nhung tai duc phi thuong, sieu quan, hoac chi la nhung nguoi tai nang rat khac nhau, tu hang vua chua toi hang ky gia, hang dat dan quan chung.

De thay the nhung muc dich hoi xua cho la do Than Linh da danh truoc cho vai dan toc nhu Do Thai, Hi Lap, La Ma de huong dan nhan loai, khoa hoc lich su hien dai dua ra nhung muc dich no tu vach ra: Quyen loi cua cac dan toc Phap, Duc, Anh, va day moi la tot dinh cua su truu tuong: loi ich cua nen van minh toan the nhan loai, cai nhan loai ma bon su gia thu hep vao cac dan toc chiem cai goc nho be o tay bac dai luc.

Khoa hoc lich su hien dai da gat bo nhung tin tuong cua nguoi xua ma khong tim ra duoc gi moi de thay vao va cai "lo-gich" da buoc cac su gia sau khi lien bo cai thuyet than quyen cua vua chua va thuyet so menh cua nguoi xua, lai phai di vong mot con duong khac de tro ve nhung thuyet do, ma nhan rang: (1) cac dan toc bi cac ca nhan lanh dao, (2) co mot muc dich nhat dinh va cac dan toc va nhan loai deu tien toi muc dich do.

At the basis of the works of all the modern historians from Giobbon to Buckle, despite their seeming disagreements and the apparent novelty of their outlooks, lie those two old, unavoidable assumptions.

In the first place the historian describes the activity of individuals who in his opinion have directed humanity (one historian considers only monarchs, generals, and ministers as being such men, while another includes also orators, learned men, reformers, philosophers, and poets).

Secondly, it is assumed that the goal toward which humanity is being led is known to the historians: to one of them this goal is the greatness of the Roman, Spanish, or French realm; to another it is liberty, equality, and a certain kind of civilization of a small corner of the world called Europe.

Tat ca nhung tac pham cua cac su gia moi nhat, tu Gibbon toi Buckle, mac dau be ngoai y kien khac nhau va quan diem co ve moi, su thuc thi can ban van la dung tren hai dinh de co lo va khong sao tranh duoc nay.

Truoc het su gia mieu ta hoat dong cua mot vai nhan vat ca biet ma ho cho la dat dan nhan loai. Nguoi thi cho rang chi co vua chua, tuong lanh, thuong thu moi o trong hang do; nguoi khac lai cho rang ngoai cac vua chua con ke them cac nha hung bien, cac nha bac hoc, cac nha cai cach, cac triet gia, va thi si.

Ke do, cac su gia cho rang minh biet duoc muc dich ma nhan loai tien toi: Nguoi thi cho rang muc dich do la su vi dai cua quoc gia La Ma, Y Pha Nho, Phap; nguoi khac lai cho rang muc dich do la tu do, binh dang, mot kieu van minh nao do cua cai goc the gioi co ten la chau Au nay.

In 1789 a ferment arises in Paris; it grows, spreads, and is expressed by a movement of peoples from west to east. Several times it moves eastward and collides with a countermovement from the east westward. In 1812 it reaches its extreme limit, Moscow, and then, with remarkable symmetry, a countermovement occurs from east to west, attracting to it, as the first movement had done, the nations of middle Europe. The countermovement reaches the starting point of the first movement in the west--Paris--and subsides.

During that twenty-year period an immense number of fields were left untilled, houses were burned, trade changed its direction, millions of men migrated, were impoverished, or were enriched, and millions of Christian men professing the law of love of their fellows slew one another.

What does all this means? Why did it happen? What made those people burn houses and slay their fellow men? What were the causes of these events? What force made men act so? These are the instinctive, plain, and most legitimate questions humanity asks itself when it encounters the monuments and tradition of that period.

Nam 1789, mot cuoc bien dong xay ra o Paris; no lon len, lan ra, thanh mot cuoc di chuyen cua cac dan toc tu Tay qua Dong. Da may lan cuoc di chuyen ay tien qua Dong, vap phai mot cuoc di chuyen nguoc lai tu Dong qua Tay. Nam 1812, cuoc di chuyen do toi cai muc cuoc cung cua no o Moscou, roi voi mot su can doi ki di, co mot cuoc di chuyen nguoc lai tu Dong sang Tay, ca hai cuoc di chuyen do deu loi cuon cac dan toc o Trung Au. Cuoc di chuyen nguoc chieu nay toi diem xuat phat cua cuoc di chuyen truoc--Paris--va ngung lai.

Trong thoi gian hai chuc nam do, co biet co man nao la ruong dat bi bo hoang, nha cua bi thieu rui; nen thuong mai chuyen huong, hang trieu nguoi bi ngheo di, giau len, doi cho va hang trieu nguoi Ki To giao, chu truong cai luat thuong yeu dong loai ma lai chem giet lan nhau.

Nhu vay nghia la sao? Nguyen do o dau? Cai gi da thuc day nguoi ta dot nha va giet dong loai? Vi dau ma gay ra nhung bien co do? Suc manh nao da bat nhung nguoi do hanh dong nhu vay? Do la nhung cau hoi ngay tho nhung lai chinh dang nhat, no tu nhien hien ra trong oc con nguoi khi dung truoc nhung di tich cung nhung truyen thong cua thoi ky di chuyen da qua ay.

For a reply to these questions the common sense of mankind turns to the science of history, whose aim is to enable nations and humanity to know themselves.

If history had retained the conception of the ancients it would have said that God, to reward or punish his people, gave Napoleon power and directed his will to the fulfillment of the divine ends, and that reply would have been clear and complete.

One might believe or disbelieve in the divine significance of Napoleon, but for anyone believing in it there would have been nothing unintelligible in the history of that period, nor would there have been any contradictions.

But modern history cannot give that reply. Science does not admit the conception of the ancients as to the direct participation of the Deity in human affairs, and therefore history ought to give other answers.

Modern history replying to these questions says: you want to know what this movement means, what caused it, and what force produced these events? Then listen:

Muon giai dap nhung cau hoi ay, chung ta nho toi khoa hoc lich su ma muc dich la day cho cac dan toc va nhan loai tu nhan thuc duoc minh.

Neu su hoc van giu quan niem co, thi tat se noi: Than linh, de thuong hay phat nhan dan cua minh, da trao quyen cho Napoleon, de Napoleon lam theo y chi cua minh, thuc hien muc dich cua minh. Tra loi nhu vay la sang sua va day du.

Nguoi ta co the tin hay khong tin rang Napoleon da duoc Than Linh trao cho mot su menh; doi voi nhung nguoi da tin nhu vay thi lich su tat ca thoi dai do hoa ra de hieu, chang co gi la mau thuan ca.

Nhung khoa hoc lich su hien dai khong the tra loi nhu vay duoc. Khoa hoc khong con chap nhan cai quan niem co cho rang Than Linh an thiep truc tiep vao cac hanh dong cua nhan loai, vi vay no phai dua ra nhung cach tra loi khac.

De tra loi nhung cau hoi do no bao rang: Ong muon biet y nghia va nguyen do cua cuoc di chuyen do, muon biet dong luc nao da gay ra nhung bien co do u? Ong hay nghe day:

"Louis XIV was a very proud and self-confident man; he had such and such mistresses and such and such ministers and he ruled France badly. His descendants were weak men and they too led France badly. And they had such and such favorites and such and such mistresses. Moreover, certain men wrote some books at that time. At the end of the eighteenth century there were a couple of dozen men in Paris who began to talk about all men being free and equal. This caused people all over France to begin to slash at and drown one another. They killed the king and many other people. At that time there was in France a man of genius--Napoleon. he conquered everybody everywhere--that is, he killed many people because he was a great genius. And for some reason he went to kill Africans, and killed them so well and was so cunning and wise that when he turned to France he ordered everybody to obey him, and they all obeyed him. Having become an Emperor he again went out to kill people in Italy, Austria, and Prussia. And there too he killed a great many. In Russia there was an Emperor, Alexander, who decided to restore order in Europe and therefore fought against Napoleon. In 1807 he suddenly made friends with him, but in 1811 they again quarreled and again began killing many people. Napoleon led six hundred thousand men into Russia and captured Moscow; then he suddenly ran away from Moscow, and the Emperor Alexander, helped by the advice of Stein and others, united Europe to arm against the disturber of its peace. All Napoleon's allies suddenly became his enemies and their forces advanced against the fresh forces he raised. The Allies defeated Napoleon, entered Paris, forced Napoleon to abdicate, and sent him to the island of Elba, not depriving him of the title of Emperor and showing him every respect, though five years before and one year later they all regarded him as an outlaw and a brigand. The Louis XVIII, who till then had been the laughingstock both of the French and the Allies, began to reign. And Napoleon, shedding tears before his Old Guards, renounced the throne and went into exile. Then the skillful statesmen and diplomatists (especially Talleyrand, who managed to sit down in a particular before anyone else and thereby extended the frontiers of France) talked in Vienna and by these conversations made the nations happy or unhappy. Suddenly the diplomatists and monarchs nearly quarreled and were on the point of again ordering their armies to kill one anther, but just then Napoleon arrived in France with a battalion, and the French, who had been hating him, immediately all submitted to him. But the Allied monarchs were angry at this and went to fight the French once more. And they defeated the genius Napoleon and, suddenly recognizing him as a brigand, sent him to the island of St. Helena. And the exile, separated from the beloved France so dear to his heart, died a lingering death on that rock and bequeathed his great deeds to posterity. But in Europe a reaction occurred and the sovereigns once again all began to oppress their subjects."

"Vua Louis Thap Tu la mot con nguoi dac biet kieu ngao va tu phu; ong ta co nhung co nhan tinh nay no, co nhung ong thuong thu nay no, va ong ta cai tri nuoc Phap toi lam. Nhung ong vua ke vi ong ta la nhung nguoi nhu nhuoc va cai tri cung rat toi. Ho cung co nhung sung than, sung phi nhu Louis 14. Ngoai ra bay gio lai co vai nha viet sach. Toi cuoi the ky 18, do hai chuc nguoi hoi hop o Paris tuyen bo rang moi nguoi deu tu do va binh dang. Do do ma khap nuoc Phap, nguoi ta chem giet lan nhau, nhan nuoc nhau cho chet. Nhung nguoi do giet vua cua ho va vo so nguoi khac nua. Dung luc ay o Phap co mot bac thien tai, Napoleon. Ong nay danh dau thang day, nghia la giet duoc rat nhieu nguoi vi ong ta la mot thien tai vi dai. Va ong ta giet nhung nguoi Chau Phi, chang hieu tai sao; ong ta giet ho gioi qua--ong ta rat muu mo, rat thong minh --toi noi khi tro ve Phap, ong ta co the ra lenh cho moi nguoi phai phuc tung minh. Va moi nguoi deu phuc tung ong ta. Tu phong cho minh la Hoang De roi, ong ta lai qua Y, Ao, Pho giet nguoi mot nua. Giet duoc vo so nguoi. Luc do o Nga lai co Hoang De Alexandre quyet tam lap lai trat tu o chau Au, vi vay ma danh nhau voi Napoleon. Nhung nam 1807, Alexandre bong thanh ban than cua Napoleon cho den nam 1811, roi hai nguoi lai bat hoa voi nhau, lai thi nhau giet cho that nhieu nguoi--Napoleon keo qua Nga sau tram ngan nguoi va chiem duoc Moscou, roi thinh linh bo Moscou ma chay. Luc do Alexandre duoc Stein va nhieu nguoi khac lam co van, lien ket toan the chau Au de tan cong ke da pha hoai su yen tinh cua Chau Au. Bao nhieu ke dong minh cua Napoleon bong tro than ke thu dich cua ong ta va khoi dan toc noi day do di tan cong nhung luc luong cua Napoleon moi tap hop duoc. Quan doi dong minh thang, vo Paris, buoc Napoleon phai thoai vi va dua ong ta ra dao Elbe, nhung khong tuoc ton hieu Hoang de cua ong ta, van to ve het suc kinh trong con nguoi ma nam nam truoc va mot nam sau bi moi nguoi coi la mot ten dao tac ngoai vong phap luat. Va Louis 18, ma cho toi luc do, nuoc Phap va cac Dong Minh deu che nhao, tuc thi len ngoi bau. Con Napoleon thi nho may giot nuoc mat truoc doi can ve lao thanh cua minh, thoai vi de len duong di day. Ke do cac chinh khach va cac nha ngoai giao khon kheo (dac biet la Taileyrand, con nguoi da nhanh nhen ngoi vao mot chiec ghe banh nao do truoc ca moi nguoi, nho vay ma mo rong duoc bien gioi cua Phap) hoi hop ban tan voi nhau o Vienne va do nhung cuoc ban tan do ma lam cho dan toc nay sung suong, dan toc kia kho so. Roi thi tot nhien cac nha ngoai giao, cac vua chua gay lon nhau; ho da sap ra lenh cho quan doi cua ho chem giet nhau roi chu, thi dung luc do, Napoleon tro ve Phap voi mot tieu doan; va nhung nguoi Phap truoc day cam han ong ta thi lai phuc tung ong ta. Cac vua chua dong minh noi quau len, lai dem quan danh nguoi Phap nua. Ho thang duoc thien tai Napoleon, dem day ra dao Thanh Helene va dot nhien coi ong ta la mot ten dao tac. Bi day o do, xa cac nguoi than va xa nuoc Phap yeu quy cua ong ta, Napoleon chet dan mon tren mot mom da, de lai cho hau the nhung hanh dong vi dai cua minh. The la o Chau Au dien ra mot phong trao phan dong va tat ca cac quoc vuong lai bat dau dan ap dan chung tro lai."

It would be a mistake to think that this is ironic--a caricature of the historical accounts.

On the contrary it is a very mild expression of the contradictory replies, not meeting the questions, which all the historians give, from the compilers of memoirs and the histories of separate states to the writers of general histories and the new histories of the culture of that period.

The strangeness and absurdity of these replies arise from the fact that modern history, like a deaf man, answers questions no one has asked.

If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movement of humanity and of the peoples, the first question--in the absence of a reply to which all the rest will be incomprehensible--is; what is the power that moves peoples?

To this, modern history laboriously replies either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV was very proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books.

All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but it is not what was asked. All that would be interesting if we recognized a divine power based on itself and always consistently directing its nations through Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but we do not acknowledge such a power, and therefore before speaking about Napoleon, Louis-es, and authors, we ought to be shown the connection existing between these men and the movement of the nations.

Neu cho nhung dieu no tren la nhao bang, la mieu ta su kien lich su theo loi hoat ke thi lam day.

Trai lai do la hinh thuc on hoa nhat cua nhung cau gia dap mau thuan nhau cua cac su gia; noi la giai dap chu su thuc no chang gia dap duoc mot cau hoi nao ma toan lich su da dua ra, tu cac tac gia cua cac tap hoi ki, cac bo su tung quoc gia, den cac tac gia cua cac pho thong su hoac cac pho lich su van hoa, mot loai su moi xuat hien.

So di nhung cau giai dap ay co tinh cach ki cuc va khoi hai nhu vay la do mon su hoc giong nhu mot nguoi diec tra loi nhung cau chang ai hoi minh ca.

Neu muc dich cua su hoc la mieu ta nhung cuoc di chuyen cua nhan loai va cac dan toc thi cau hoi thu nhat doi hoi mot giai dap (he khong gia dap duoc thi bao nhieu van de con lai se khong sao hieu hoi) la cau hoi nay: Dong luc gi da thuc day cac dan toc di chuyen? De dap cau hoi do, khoa su hoc hien dai ke lai mot cach thac mac rang hoac Napoleon co mot thien tai bat tuy hoac Louis 14 rat kieu ngao, hoac bao rang co nhung tac gia nao do da viet nhung sach nay sach no.

Tat ca nhung cai do deu co the dung day va nhan loai cung san sang chap nhan; nhung nhan loai dau co hoi dieu ay. Tat ca nhung cai do co the thu vi neu chung ta thua nhan co mot quyen luc thieng lien, tu tai, bat bien, da muon tay cac Napeleon, cac Louis 14, cac nha viet sach de lanh dao cac dan toc; nhung chung ta lai khong thua nhan quyen luc ay; cho nen truoc khi noi den cac Napoleon, cac Louis 14, cac nha viet sach thi nguoi ta phai chi cho chung ta thay moi lien he giua nhung nguoi ay voi cac cuoc di chuyen dua cac dan toc da.