Briggs: The popular concepts of chance and genius are entirely superfluous.
Translation:
II.
If we allow, as do historians, that great people lead humanity to achieve famous goals, consisting of the greatness of Russia or France, or in the balance of Europe, or in spreading ideas of revolution, or in overall progress, or in that would be or was, then it is impossible to explain the phenomena of history without concepts about the cases of geniuses.
If the objective of the European wars starting the century consisted in the greatness of Russia, then this objective could be achieved without all previous wars and without invasions. If the objective was the greatness of France, then this objective could be achieved without revolution and without empires. If the objective was the spread of ideas, then typography would have carried out this much better than soldiers. If the objective was the progress of civilizations, then it is quite easy to suggest that, besides exterminating people and their wealth, there are other more expedient ways for spreading civilizations.
Why again did this happen so, but not otherwise?
Because that this so happened. "The case was a position; the genius took advantage of them," says the story.
But what such case? What such genius?
The words case and genius do not indicate anything really essential, and because of it it may not be identified. These words only indicate the famous measure of understanding phenomena. I do not know, why such a phenomenon is going on; I think that one cannot know: because I do not want to know and speak about the case. I see a force, producing disproportionate with universal properties actions; I do not understand why this is going on and I speak: genius.
For herds of rams, that ram which every night drives away the shepherd to the special stall to the food and becomes twice fatter than the others, should seem to be a genius. And that fact that every night, it was this very ram falling not in the overall sheepfold, but in the special stall to the oats, and that this, this very ram, drenched in fat, is killed for meat, must present the striking connection of genius with all nearby extraordinary accidents.
Yet the rams stood only to stop to think that all that is done with them, going on only for achieving their ram goals; it stands to allow that the happening with them events may have incomprehensible for them goals, and they immediately again see unity, consistent in what is going on with the fattening ram. If they will not know for what goals it is fattened up, then at least they will know that all what happened with the ram, happened not accidentally, and they now will not need notions about cases, or about geniuses.
Only renouncing from the knowledge of close understandable goals and recognizing that the ultimate objective of us is unfinished, we see consistency and expediency in the life of historical persons; we will open the cause of disproportionate with the universal properties of action which they produce, and we will not need the words case and genius.
It stands only to acknowledge that the objective of the unrest of the European peoples are to us unknown, but are known only facts, consisting in murder, first in France, then in Italy, in Africa, in Prussia, in Austria, in Spain, in Russia, and that the movements from west to east and from east to west form the overall essence of these events, and we not only will not need to see exclusivity and genius in the characters of Napoleon and Aleksandr, but it cannot be to represent to ourselves these faces otherwise, as such the same people, as all the rest; and it will not only be not needed to explain by chance those small events that were done by these people than they were, but it will be clear that all these small events were necessary.
Renouncing from the knowledge of ultimate goals, we clearly understand that exactly so the same as to one plant it cannot be to figure out other, more respective to it, colors and seeds, than those that it produces, exactly so the same it is impossible to figure out two other people, with all their pasts, that would correspond to such an extent to these smallest details to that appointment which they were presented to perform.
Locations:
Mentioned: Russia, Europe (also European), France, Italy, Africa, Prussia, Spain, West, East
Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: "Why did it happen this way and not otherwise?" Tolstoy has historians crediting change and genius as the movers of history, but he argues that they do not exist and cannot be defined.
"We need only admit that the purpose the upheavals of the European peoples is unknown to us, while we know only facts, which consist in murders....that the movements from west to east and from east to west constitute the essence and purpose of these events".
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 *):
Napoleon
Alexander
(also historians and the theoretical shepherd. Also European nations.)
Abridged Versions: No break in Bell.
Gibian: Line break instead of chapter break.
Fuller: Entire chapter is cut.
Komroff: Entire chapter is cut.
Kropotkin: Entire chapter is cut.
Simmons: Entire chapter is cut.
Additional Notes:
No comments:
Post a Comment