-
(单词翻译:双击或拖选)
Chapter 11 - An informal Council of War
Prince Andrey’s eyes were still following Pfuel out of the room when Count Bennigsen entered hurriedly, and nodding to Bolkonsky, but not pausing, went into the study, giving instructions to his adjutant as he went. The Emperor was following him, and Bennigsen had hastened on to make some preparations and to be ready to receive the sovereign. Chernyshev and Prince Andrey went out into the porch, where the Emperor, who looked fatigued1, was dismounting. Marquis Paulucci was talking to him with particular warmth and the Emperor, with his head bent2 to the left, was listening with a dissatisfied air. The Emperor moved forward evidently wishing to end the conversation, but the flushed and excited Italian, oblivious3 of decorum, followed him and continued to speak.
“And as for the man who advised forming this camp — the Drissa camp,” said Paulucci, as the Emperor mounted the steps and noticing Prince Andrey scanned his unfamiliar4 face, “as to that person, sire . . . ” continued Paulucci, desperately5, apparently6 unable to restrain himself, “the man who advised the Drissa camp — I see no alternative but the lunatic asylum7 or the gallows8!”
Without heeding9 the end of the Italian’s remarks, and as though not hearing them, the Emperor, recognizing Bolkonsky, addressed him graciously.
“I am very glad to see you! Go in there where they are meeting, and wait for me.”
The Emperor went into the study. He was followed by Prince Peter Mikhaylovich Volkonski and Baron10 Stein, and the door closed behind them. Prince Andrey, taking advantage of the Emperor’s permission, accompanied Paulucci, whom he had known in Turkey, into the drawing room where the council was assembled.
Prince Peter Mikhaylovich Volkonski occupied the position, as it were, of chief of the Emperor’s staff. He came out of the study into the drawing room with some maps which he spread on a table, and put questions on which he wished to hear the opinion of the gentlemen present. What had happened was that news (which afterwards proved to be false) had been received during the night of a movement by the French to outflank the Drissa camp.
The first to speak was General Armfeldt who, to meet the difficulty that presented itself, unexpectedly proposed a perfectly11 new position away from the Petersburg and Moscow roads. The reason for this was inexplicable12 (unless he wished to show that he, too, could have an opinion), but he urged that at this point the army should unite and there await the enemy. It was plain that Armfeldt had thought out that plan long ago and now expounded13 it not so much to answer the questions put — which, in fact, his plan did not answer — as to avail himself of the opportunity to air it. It was one of the millions of proposals, one as good as another, that could be made as long as it was quite unknown what character the war would take. Some disputed his arguments, others defended them. Young Count Toll14 objected to the Swedish general’s views more warmly than anyone else, and in the course of the dispute drew from his side pocket a well-filled notebook, which he asked permission to read to them. In these voluminous notes Toll suggested another scheme, totally different from Armfeldt’s or Pfuel’s plan of campaign. In answer to Toll, Paulucci suggested an advance and an attack, which, he urged, could alone extricate15 us from the present uncertainty16 and from the trap (as he called the Drissa camp) in which we were situated17.
During all these discussions Pfuel and his interpreter, Wolzogen (his “bridge” in court relations), were silent. Pfuel only snorted contemptuously and turned away, to show that he would never demean himself by replying to such nonsense as he was now hearing. So when Prince Volkonski, who was in the chair, called on him to give his opinion, he merely said:
“Why ask me? General Armfeldt has proposed a splendid position with an exposed rear, or why not this Italian gentleman’s attack — very fine, or a retreat, also good! Why ask me?” said he. “Why, you yourselves know everything better than I do.”
But when Volkonski said, with a frown, that it was in the Emperor’s name that he asked his opinion, Pfuel rose and, suddenly growing animated18, began to speak:
“Everything has been spoiled, everything muddled19, everybody thought they knew better than I did, and now you come to me! How mend matters? There is nothing to mend! The principles laid down by me must be strictly20 adhered to,” said he, drumming on the table with his bony fingers. “What is the difficulty? Nonsense, childishness!”
He went up to the map and speaking rapidly began proving that no eventuality could alter the efficiency of the Drissa camp, that everything had been foreseen, and that if the enemy were really going to outflank it, the enemy would inevitably21 be destroyed.
Paulucci, who did not know German, began questioning him in French. Wolzogen came to the assistance of his chief, who spoke22 French badly, and began translating for him, hardly able to keep pace with Pfuel, who was rapidly demonstrating that not only all that had happened, but all that could happen, had been foreseen in his scheme, and that if there were now any difficulties the whole fault lay in the fact that his plan had not been precisely23 executed. He kept laughing sarcastically25, he demonstrated, and at last contemptuously ceased to demonstrate, like a mathematician26 who ceases to prove in various ways the accuracy of a problem that has already been proved. Wolzogen took his place and continued to explain his views in French, every now and then turning to Pfuel and saying, “Is it not so, your excellency?” But Pfuel, like a man heated in a fight who strikes those on his own side, shouted angrily at his own supporter, Wolzogen:
“Well, of course, what more is there to explain?”
Paulucci and Michaud both attacked Wolzogen simultaneously27 in French. Armfeldt addressed Pfuel in German. Toll explained to Volkonski in Russian. Prince Andrey listened and observed in silence.
Of all these men Prince Andrey sympathized most with Pfuel, angry, determined28, and absurdly self-confident as he was. Of all those present, evidently he alone was not seeking anything for himself, nursed no hatred29 against anyone, and only desired that the plan, formed on a theory arrived at by years of toil30, should be carried out. He was ridiculous, and unpleasantly sarcastic24, but yet he inspired involuntary respect by his boundless31 devotion to an idea. Besides this, the remarks of all except Pfuel had one common trait that had not been noticeable at the council of war in 1805: there was now a panic fear of Napoleon’s genius, which, though concealed32, was noticeable in every rejoinder. Everything was assumed to be possible for Napoleon, they expected him from every side, and invoked33 his terrible name to shatter each other’s proposals. Pfuel alone seemed to consider Napoleon a barbarian34 like everyone else who opposed his theory. But besides this feeling of respect, Pfuel evoked35 pity in Prince Andrey. From the tone in which the courtiers addressed him and the way Paulucci had allowed himself to speak of him to the Emperor, but above all from a certain desperation in Pfuel’s own expressions, it was clear that the others knew, and Pfuel himself felt, that his fall was at hand. And despite his self-confidence and grumpy German sarcasm36 he was pitiable, with his hair smoothly37 brushed on the temples and sticking up in tufts behind. Though he concealed the fact under a show of irritation38 and contempt, he was evidently in despair that the sole remaining chance of verifying his theory by a huge experiment and proving its soundness to the whole world was slipping away from him.
The discussions continued a long time, and the longer they lasted the more heated became the disputes, culminating in shouts and personalities39, and the less was it possible to arrive at any general conclusion from all that had been said. Prince Andrey, listening to this polyglot40 talk and to these surmises41, plans, refutations, and shouts, felt nothing but amazement42 at what they were saying. A thought that had long since and often occurred to him during his military activities — the idea that there is not and cannot be any science of war, and that therefore there can be no such thing as a military genius — now appeared to him an obvious truth. “What theory and science is possible about a matter the conditions and circumstances of which are unknown and cannot be defined, especially when the strength of the acting43 forces cannot be ascertained44? No one was or is able to foresee in what condition our or the enemy’s armies will be in a day’s time, and no one can gauge45 the force of this or that detachment. Sometimes — when there is not a coward at the front to shout, ‘We are cut off!’ and start running, but a brave and jolly lad who shouts, ‘Hurrah!’— a detachment of five thousand is worth thirty thousand, as at Schon Grabern, while at times fifty thousand run from eight thousand, as at Austerlitz. What science can there be in a matter in which, as in all practical matters, nothing can be defined and everything depends on innumerable conditions, the significance of which is determined at a particular moment which arrives no one knows when? Armfeldt says our army is cut in half, and Paulucci says we have got the French army between two fires; Michaud says that the worthlessness of the Drissa camp lies in having the river behind it, and Pfuel says that is what constitutes its strength; Toll proposes one plan, Armfeldt another, and they are all good and all bad, and the advantages of any suggestions can be seen only at the moment of trial. And why do they all speak of a ‘military genius’? Is a man a genius who can order bread to be brought up at the right time and say who is to go to the right and who to the left? It is only because military men are invested with pomp and power and crowds of sychophants flatter power, attributing to it qualities of genius it does not possess. The best generals I have known were, on the contrary, stupid or absent-minded men. Bagration was the best, Napoleon himself admitted that. And of Bonaparte himself! I remember his limited, self-satisfied face on the field of Austerlitz. Not only does a good army commander not need any special qualities, on the contrary he needs the absence of the highest and best human attributes — love, poetry, tenderness, and philosophic46 inquiring doubt. He should be limited, firmly convinced that what he is doing is very important (otherwise he will not have sufficient patience), and only then will he be a brave leader. God forbid that he should be humane47, should love, or pity, or think of what is just and unjust. It is understandable that a theory of their ‘genius’ was invented for them long ago because they have power! The success of a military action depends not on them, but on the man in the ranks who shouts, ‘We are lost!’ or who shouts, ‘Hurrah!’ And only in the ranks can one serve with assurance of being useful.”
So thought Prince Andrey as he listened to the talking, and he roused himself only when Paulucci called him and everyone was leaving.
点击
收听单词发音
收听单词发音 |
1
fatigued
|
|
| adj. 疲乏的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
2
bent
|
|
| n.爱好，癖好；adj.弯的；决心的，一心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
3
oblivious
|
|
| adj.易忘的，遗忘的，忘却的，健忘的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
4
unfamiliar
|
|
| adj.陌生的，不熟悉的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
5
desperately
|
|
| adv.极度渴望地，绝望地，孤注一掷地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
6
apparently
|
|
| adv.显然地；表面上，似乎 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
7
asylum
|
|
| n.避难所，庇护所，避难 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
8
gallows
|
|
| n.绞刑架，绞台 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
9
heeding
|
|
| v.听某人的劝告，听从( heed的现在分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
10
baron
|
|
| n.男爵；(商业界等)巨头，大王 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
11
perfectly
|
|
| adv.完美地，无可非议地，彻底地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
12
inexplicable
|
|
| adj.无法解释的，难理解的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
13
expounded
|
|
| 论述，详细讲解( expound的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
14
toll
|
|
| n.过路(桥)费；损失，伤亡人数；v.敲(钟) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
15
extricate
|
|
| v.拯救，救出；解脱 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
16
uncertainty
|
|
| n.易变，靠不住，不确知，不确定的事物 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
17
situated
|
|
| adj.坐落在...的，处于某种境地的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
18
animated
|
|
| adj.生气勃勃的，活跃的，愉快的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
19
muddled
|
|
| adj.混乱的；糊涂的；头脑昏昏然的v.弄乱，弄糟( muddle的过去式)；使糊涂；对付，混日子 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
20
strictly
|
|
| adv.严厉地，严格地；严密地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
21
inevitably
|
|
| adv.不可避免地；必然发生地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
22
spoke
|
|
| n.（车轮的）辐条；轮辐；破坏某人的计划；阻挠某人的行动 v.讲，谈（speak的过去式）；说；演说；从某种观点来说 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
23
precisely
|
|
| adv.恰好，正好，精确地，细致地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
24
sarcastic
|
|
| adj.讥讽的，讽刺的，嘲弄的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
25
sarcastically
|
|
| adv.挖苦地，讽刺地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
26
mathematician
|
|
| n.数学家 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
27
simultaneously
|
|
| adv.同时发生地，同时进行地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
28
determined
|
|
| adj.坚定的；有决心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
29
hatred
|
|
| n.憎恶，憎恨，仇恨 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
30
toil
|
|
| vi.辛劳工作，艰难地行动；n.苦工，难事 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
31
boundless
|
|
| adj.无限的；无边无际的；巨大的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
32
concealed
|
|
| a.隐藏的，隐蔽的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
33
invoked
|
|
| v.援引( invoke的过去式和过去分词 )；行使（权利等）；祈求救助；恳求 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
34
barbarian
|
|
| n.野蛮人；adj.野蛮(人)的；未开化的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
35
evoked
|
|
| [医]诱发的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
36
sarcasm
|
|
| n.讥讽，讽刺，嘲弄，反话 （adj.sarcastic） | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
37
smoothly
|
|
| adv.平滑地，顺利地，流利地，流畅地 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
38
irritation
|
|
| n.激怒，恼怒，生气 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
39
personalities
|
|
| n. 诽谤，（对某人容貌、性格等所进行的）人身攻击； 人身攻击；人格, 个性, 名人( personality的名词复数 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
40
polyglot
|
|
| adj.通晓数种语言的；n.通晓多种语言的人 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
41
surmises
|
|
| v.臆测，推断( surmise的第三人称单数 )；揣测；猜想 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
42
amazement
|
|
| n.惊奇，惊讶 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
43
acting
|
|
| n.演戏，行为，假装；adj.代理的，临时的，演出用的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
44
ascertained
|
|
| v.弄清，确定，查明( ascertain的过去式和过去分词 ) | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
45
gauge
|
|
| v.精确计量；估计；n.标准度量；计量器 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
46
philosophic
|
|
| adj.哲学的，贤明的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
47
humane
|
|
| adj.人道的，富有同情心的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
|
48
standing
|
|
| n.持续，地位；adj.永久的，不动的，直立的，不流动的 | |
参考例句： |
|
|
|
购买
在百度中搜索