Briggs: The forces at work in history act beyond human reason.
Maude (chapters 1-4): Discussion of forces operating in history. Chance and genius. The ideals of glory and grandeur. Alexander's renunciation of power. The purpose of a bee
Pevear and Volokhonsky (chapters 1-4): Seven years later. General thoughts on the war of 1812 and its historical representations. Chance and genius. Reasons for the movements of peoples. The role of great men.
Translation:
The Epilogue.
Part the first.
I.
Passed seven years after the 12th year. The agitated historical sea of Europe settled down on its coast. It seemed quieted down; but the mysterious forces moving humanity (mysterious because of how the laws defining their movement, is unknown to us) continued their action.
Despite that, on the surface the historical seas seemed motionless, so the same continuous, as moves time, moved humanity. Were composed, decayed various groups in human clutches; prepared causes of education and decomposition of states, movements of peoples.
The historical sea, not directed as before, gusts from one shore to another: it seethed in its depth. The historical faces did not carry as before, waves from one coast to another; now they, it seemed, spun in one location. The historical faces, before at the head of troops reflecting the move of masses ordering wars, moves, and battles, now reflected the seething movement of political and diplomatic considerations, laws, tracts...
This activity of historical persons historians call reaction.
Describing the activity of these historical persons, arriving, by their opinion, to the reason of what they call reaction, historians strictly condemn them. All famous people of this time, from Aleksandr and Napoleon to m-me Staël, Photius, Schelling, Fichte, Chateaubriand and others, pass before their strict court and are justified or condemned, looking by whether they contributed to progress or reaction.
In Russia, by their start, in this period of time also happened reaction, and the chief guilty of this reaction was Aleksandr I, — that very Aleksandr I, which, by their same descriptions, was the chief guilty of the liberal undertakings of his reign and the safety of Russia.
In present Russian literature from the schoolboy to the scientist of the historical, no human, would not have thrown their pebble at Aleksandr for his wrong actions in this period of his reign.
"He should have done that and that. In such a case he entered okay, in such badly. He perfectly led himself at the beginning of his reign and in the time of the 12th year; but he entered badly, giving a constitution to Poland, making the sacred union, giving power to Arakcheev, encouraging Golitsin and mysticism, then encouraging Shishkova and Photius. He did badly, occupying the front part of the army; he entered badly, having casted the Semenovsky regiment and etc."
It would need to be write nine sheets so that to transfer all those reproaches that are done to him by historians in the foundation of knowledge of the good of humanity, which they possess.
What is meant by these reproaches?
Those very actions, for which historians approve of Aleksandr I, —: the liberal undertakings of the reign, a fight with Napoleon, the hardness shown by him on the 12th year and the trip of the 13th year, whether or not they flow out from one and those same sources, — the conditions of blood, upbringing, and life, which made the personality Aleksandr that what he was, — from which flow outs those actions, for which historians blame him, as that: the sacred union, the recovering of Poland, the reaction of 20 years? In what consists the essence of these reproaches?
In that such a historical face, as Aleksandr I, a face, standing on the highest possible step of human authorities, as would at a focused blinding light all concentrate on him with historical rays; the face, subject by that strongest in the world influence of intrigue, deceptions, flattery, and self-delusion that is inseparable from power; the face felt in himself, all moments of his life, the liability for all committed in Europe, and the face was not invented, but living, having as in every person, his personal habits, passion, aspirations to good, beauty, and truth, — that this face, fifty years to that backwards, was not good (for this historians do not reproach), but had not that view of the good of humanity that now the professor, from youth occupied by science, i.e. the reading of books, lectures and cheating these books and lectures into one notebook.
Yet even to suggest that Aleksandr I, fifty years to that backwards, was mistaken in his views that there are good people, unwittingly must suggest, that the historian, the judge of Aleksandr, exactly so the same by passing some time to manifest the unfair in his views that what is the good of humanity. This assumption by that is more natural and necessary, that keeping for the development of history, we see that with every year, with every new writer a change of view in that what is the good of humanity; so that what seemed good, through 10 years presents evil; and vice versa. At the same time we find out in history the completely opposing looks in that what was evil and what was good: one places the given Poland a constitution and the sacred union in merit, others reproach Aleksandr.
About the activity of Aleksandr and Napoleon it cannot be to say that it was useful or harmful, we cannot say, for what it was useful and for what it was harmful. If this activity is not liked by someone, then it is not liked only owing to the discrepancies of it with the limited understanding about what is good. Whether it is presented to me as good the preservation in the 12th year the home prepared for my father in Moscow, or thank the Russians troops, or the prosperity of Petersburg or other universities, or the freedom of Poland, or the power of Russia, or the equilibrium of Europe, or the famous family of European education — progress, I should acknowledge that the activity of any historical face had, besides these goals, still another, more general and inaccessible to me goals.
Yet to place that so called science has the opportunity to reconcile all contradictions and has for historical persons and events an unchanged measure of good and evil.
They place that Aleksandr could do all otherwise. They place that he could, by those writings that blame him, those that profess knowledge of the ultimate goals of the movements of humanity, order by that program nationalities for freedom, equality and progress (newer, it seems, no), which would be given by current accusers. They place that this program would be possible and drawn up, and that Aleksandr would have acted by it. What again would come then with the activity of all those people that contradicted then the amazing direction, — from the activity, which, by the opinion of historians, was good and useful? These activities would not be; life would not be; nothing would be.
If we allow that the life of a human may be managed by the mind, — that destroys the opportunity of life.
Mentioned: 1812, 1813, fifty years ago
Locations: Russia
Mentioned: Europe, Poland, St. Petersburg
Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Start of Epilogue with "Seven years had passed since 1812."
Tolstoy discusses the "historical sea" and what "Historians call this activity of historical figures the reaction." Most important here is the discussion of Alexander's actions, particularly his reactionary turn. Tolstoy equates the liberal initiatives in the early part of Alexander's reign as coming from the same source, the circumstances surrounding Alexander and his upbringing, as his reactionary turn. Important also is that, even just fifty years after the event, people cannot critique the morals of historical figure because their moral circumstances were different. The historian, as time goes on, will be wrong about what they think is good for people, just as Alexander was.
The chapter ends with the strong and summative statement for much of the book: "If we allow that human life can be governed by reason, the possibility of life is annihilated."
Characters (characters who do not appear, but are mentioned are placed in italics. First appearances are in Bold. First mentions are underlined. Final appearance denoted by *):
Alexander I
Napoleon
Madame de Stael
Fothier ("Foti" in Wiener. Name appears to be dropped in Bell. "Photius" in Maude, Briggs, and Edmonds. "Foty" in Garnett.)
Schelling
Fichte
Chateaubriand
Arakcheyef
Golitsuin
Shishkof
(also groups of men, Europe, historical characters, historians, as well as the Semyonovsky regiment. Also the professor that has from early young been occupied with science.)
Abridged Versions: Start of "Epilog Part First" in Dole.
Start of Epilogue Part the First" in Wiener.
Start of Epilogue in Bell.
Start of First Epilogue in Maude.
Start of Epilogue Part One in Edmonds, Garnett, Dunnigan, Mandelker, and Briggs.
No break at end in Bell.
Gibian: Start of First Epilogue: Line break instead of chapter break.
Fuller: Entire chapter is cut.
Komroff: Entire chapter is cut.
Kropotkin: Entire chapter is cut.
Simmons: Start of 1813-20 Epilogue: Entire chapter is cut and replaced with "If we admit that human life can be ruled by reason, Tolstoy declares, then the possibility of life is destroyed, and he applies this dictum to the reasoned conclusions of historians. For if we assume, as historians do that great men lead humanity to the attainment of certain ends, then it is impossible to explain the facts of history without introducing the conception of chance and genius. But chance and genius become superfluous as explanations, Tolstoy asserts--in a brief review of the careers of Napoleon and Alexander I--when we realize that the events of historic actions are inevitable and their ultimate purpose can never be immediately intelligible."
Additional Notes: Garnett: "Foty, or Photius (1792-1838), was an ascetic, apocalyptically inclined abbot of the Novgorod Monastery who spearheaded an attack on Freemasons and non-Orthodox Christians, and at one time enjoyed the protection of Tsar Alexander I.
No comments:
Post a Comment