Briggs: The different faults of ancient and modern historians.
Maude (chapters 1-12): A general discussion on the historians' study of human life, and on the difficulty of defining the forces that move nations. the problem of freewill and necessity
Pevear and Volokhonsky (chapters 1-12): Reflections on history and historians, greatness and power, freedom and necessity.
Translation:
Part the Second.
I.
The subject of history is the life of peoples and of humanity. To directly catch and embrace in a word, — to describe the life not only of humanity, but of one people, presents as impossible.
The former historians often used one searching reception so to describe and catch the seemingly elusive — the life of the people. They described the activity of a single people, the ruling people; and this activity expressed for them the only activity of the people.
To the questions about: how the way of the single people forced the act of peoples by their will and what managed the will of these people itself, historians answered, to the first question the recognition of the commitment of God, subordinating the peoples’ wills to one elected human and to the second question — the recognition of this same God, who directed this free will of the elected to the intended goals.
In such a way these questions allowed by faith the direct participation of God in the deeds of humanity.
The new science of history in its theory has rejected both of these situations.
It would seem that rejecting the beliefs of the ancients about the subordination of people by a Deity and about definite goals, to which were conducted peoples, the new science should study not the manifestations of authorities, but the causes forming it. Yet it did not do this. Rejecting in theory the view of former historians, it should in practice.
Instead of people, gifted by divine power and directly led by the will of God, the new story places heroes, gifted by extraordinary, inhuman abilities, or simply people of the most diverse properties, from monarchs to journalists, leading the masses. Instead of the former, pleasing the Deity, the goals of peoples: Jewish, Greek, Roman, which to the ancients presented the goals of the movements of humanity, the new story places their goals — the good of the French, German, English and, in its highest distraction, good civilizations of only humanity, under which was understood usually peoples occupying a little northwestern corner of much of the mainland.
The new story rejected the former beliefs, not putting in place their new view, and the logic of the situation forced historians, rejecting the imaginary divine power of the tsar and the fate of the ancients, to come to another path to that very same: to the recognition that, 1) peoples are led by a single person, and 2) that exists a famous objective, to which move peoples and humanity.
In all the essays of the newest historians from Gibon to Buckle, despite their seeming disagreement and the seeming novelty of their views, lies the basis of these two old inevitable situations.
First, the historian describes the activity of individual persons, by his opinion, leading humanity: one considers only the same monarchs, generals, and ministers; another, — besides monarchs — orators, scientists, reformers, philosophers and poets. Second, the objective to which is underway for humanity, known to history: for one this objective is the greatness of Roman, Spanish, and French states; for another — this is freedom, equality, the famous family of civilization in a small corner of the world, called Europe.
In the 1789th year lifted a ferment in Paris; it grows up, spills over and expresses the movement of people from west to east. A few times this move is directly to the east, coming in collision with an opposing movement from east to west; in the 12th year it reaches to its extreme limit — Moscow, and, with wonderful symmetry, was committed the opposing movement from east to west, exactly so the same as in the first movement, enthralling behind itself the middle peoples. The reverse move reaches to the point of exodus movements to the west, — to Paris, and quiets down.
In this 20-year period of time a huge number of fields are not plowed; homes are burned; trade changes direction; millions of people poor and rich, move, and millions of Christian people, confessing the law of loving those near, kill each other.
What such does all this mean? From what did this happen? What forced these people to burn homes and kill the similar to themselves? What were the causes of these events? How did power force people to act in such a way? Here are the involuntary, ingenuous and most legitimate questions that a person offers oneself, stumbling on the monuments and legends of the past period of movements.
For approval of these issues we turn to the science of history, having the purpose of the self-knowledge of peoples and of humanity.
If the story would have kept the old view, it would have said: the Deity, in reward or in punishment of his people, gave Napoleon power and led his will for the achieving of its divine goals. And the answer would be full and clear. It can be to believe or not believe in the divine matters of Napoleon; but for the believer in it, throughout the history of this time, all would understand and there could not be one contradiction.
Yet the new science of history may not respond in such a way. Science does not recognize the view of the ancients in the direct participation of God in the deeds of humanity and because of it, it should give other answers.
The new science of history, answering to these questions, speaks: you want to know what means this move; from what it happened and how power produced these events? Listen.
"Louis XIV was a very proud and presumptuous person; he had such mistresses and such ministers, and he badly governed France. The heirs of Louis also were weak people and also badly managed France. And they had such favorites and such mistresses. Moreover, some people wrote in this time books. At the end of the ХVІІI century, in Paris gathered dozens of people that began to speak about how all people were wounded and free. From this throughout France people began to cut and drown each other. These people killed the king and many more. At this same time in France was an ingenious person— Napoleon. He everywhere won all, i.e. killed many people, because of how he was an extreme genius. And he went to kill for something Africans, and so well killed them and was so сunning and smart, that, having arrived in France, told all to obey himself. And all obeyed him. Made emperor, he again went to kill people in Italy, Austria and Prussia. And there many were killed. In Russia already was the Emperor Aleksandr, who decided to restore order in Europe and because of it waged war with Napoleon. Yet in the 7th year he suddenly made friends with him, but in the 11th again quarreled, and again they began to kill many people. And Napoleon brought 600 thousand people in Russia and conquered Moscow; but then he suddenly ran from Moscow, and then the Emperor Aleksandr, with the help of the advice of Stein and others, united Europe for a militia against the intruder of its calmness. All the allies of Napoleon were made suddenly his enemies; and this militia went against the gathered new forces of Napoleon. The allies conquered Napoleon, marched in Paris, made Napoleon deny from kidnapper and sent him to the island of Elba, not depriving him of the dignity of emperor and manifesting to him all respect, despite that, five years to that backwards, and the year after this, all counted him a robber beyond the law. But the reign of Louis XVIII began, above which to that since the French and the allies only laughed at. Napoleon again, spilling tears before the old guard, abdicated from kidnapper and went into banishment. Then skillful, government people and diplomats (in particular Talleyrand, having time to sit before another in the famous chair and by that increasing the borders of France), talked in Vienna and by this conversation made peoples happy or unhappy. Suddenly the diplomats and monarchs were a little bit not quarreling; they now were ready again to command their troops to kill each other; but at this time Napoleon with a battalion had arrived in France, and the French, who hated him, immediately again all submitted to him. But the allied monarchs for this were angered and went again to fight with the French. And the ingenious Napoleon was conquered and carried to the island of Elen, suddenly recognizing him as a robber. And there in exile, torn apart from his lovely heart and from the beloved by them France, he died on the rock, a slow death, and delivered his great deeds to his offspring. But in Europe had occurred a reaction, and all the sovereigns began again to hurt their peoples."
In vain would one think that this is a mockery, — a caricature of historical descriptions. The opposite, this is a very soft expression of those contradicting and not responding to questions answers, which gives all stories, from compilers of memoirs and the stories of individual states to common stories and the new family of stories of the culture of this time.
The strangeness and comedy of these answers flow out from that this new story is similar to a deaf person responding to questions, which nobody makes to him.
If the objective of history is the description of the movements of humanity and peoples, that first question, without an answer to which all the rest is unclear, — next: how does power move peoples? To this question the new story concerningly tells that Napoleon was an extreme genius, or that Louis XIV was very proud, or still that such writers wrote such books.
All this very well may be, and humanity is ready in this to agree; but it did not about this ask. All of this is could be interesting, if we recognized a divine power, established in its very self and always the same, managing its own peoples through Napoleons, Louis and writers; but this authority we do not know and because of it, before speaking about Napoleons, Louis and writers, we need to show the existing recognition between these faces and the movement of peoples.
If instead of divine authority has become another power, then it is needed to explain in what consists this new power, for it was in this strength that concludes all the interest of history.
The story as if alleges that this power itself of course is to all known. Yet, despite all of the wishes to acknowledge that this new force is known, then, who reads very many historical essays, unwittingly doubts that this new power, differently understood by historians themselves, was to all completely known.
Mentioned: 1789, 1812, twenty years, eighteenth century, 1807, 1811
Locations:
Mentioned: Judean (Jews in Pevear and Volokhonsky, Bell, and Briggs. Jewish in Maude.), Greek, Roman, French, German, English, Spanish, France (also French), Europe, Paris, West, East, Moscow, African, Italy, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Elba, Vienna, St. Helena
Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Start of Part Two.
Ancient historians used singular people (such as rulers) to stand in for the whole people and used a divinity to justify this (i.e. the divine right of kings). Modern history rejects the "direct participation of a divinity in the affairs of mankind", but only in theory, not in practice because they do not study the causes that form power, instead replacing divinity with extraordinary men that guide the masses.
"...the good of all human civilization, usually understood as the people occupying the small northwest corner of a large continent."
Tolstoy returns to what I believe is the central question of the philosophical sections of the novel (and perhaps the central question of the novel, though it doesn't seem to be treated this way in the way the book is generally talked about): why did (or do) millions of people kill each other during the Napoleonic era (or in any era)?
The ancient answer is that a divinity drove Napoleon to perform the actions he did, dragging people along with him. Modern history gives an overly long answer that starts with the corruption of Louis XIV, goes through revolutionary writing, the king was killed and Napoleon eventually took his place, tried to invade Russia, was repelled by Alexander, abdicated, came back, was then defeated, and the kings went back to mistreating their people.
The section has some great sarcasm directed at Napoleon: "He defeated everybody everywhere--that is, he killed a lot of people--because he was a great genius. And he went off for some reason to kill Africans, and he killed them so well..."
"modern people is like a deaf man, answering questions that no one has asked him."
Tolstoy wraps up the chapter by asking what force drives men if we have replaced the theory of God driving history.
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
Emperor Alexander
Stein
Louis XVIII
Louis XIV
Talleyrand
Abridged Versions:
Start of Part Second in Dole.
Start of Part the Second in Wiener.
Start of Epilogue Second Part in Bell with the footnote that "These two volumes--the third part of this work--have been revised and corrected by Mr. Edward Hamilton Bell." and "The remaining portion of this volume has been translated from the original Russian expressly for this edition." No break.
Start of Part Two in Briggs, Edmonds, Garnett, Mandelker, and Dunnigan.
Start of Second Epilogue in Maude.
Gibian: Line break instead of chapter break.
Additional Notes: Garnett: "In the days before the opening of the Council of Vienna in October 1814, Prince Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (1754-1838), France's representative, was a guest in the home of Prince Metternich (1773-1859), the Austrian diplomat and host of the council. Seeing an empty chair between his host and Lord Robert Stewart Castlereagh (1769-1822), the English diplomat, Talleyrand promptly took it and, in the course of the ensuing conversation, prevailed on his interlocutors to agree to returning France to its pre-revolutionary borders."
Mandelker: "Thomas Henry Buckle (1821-62) is known primarily for his History of Civilization in England, which, although unfinished, represents a landmark in philosophy of history and theory of historical method."
No comments:
Post a Comment