If we assume as the historians do that great men lead humanity tothe attainment of certain ends- the greatness of Russia or ofFrance, the balance of power in Europe, the diffusion of the ideasof the Revolution general progress or anything else- then it isimpossible to explain the facts of history without introducing theconceptions of chance and genius.
If the aim of the European wars at the beginning of the nineteenthcentury had been the aggrandizement of Russia, that aim might havebeen accomplished without all the preceding wars and without theinvasion. If the aim wag the aggrandizement of France, that might havebeen attained without the Revolution and without the Empire. If theaim was the dissemination of ideas, the printing press could haveaccomplished that much better than warfare. If the aim was theprogress of civilization, it is easy to see that there are otherways of diffusing civilization more expedient than by thedestruction of wealth and of human lives.
Why did it happen in this and not in some other way?
Because it happened so! "Chance created the situation; geniusutilized it," says history.
But what is chance? What is genius?
The words chance and genius do not denote any really existingthing and therefore cannot be defined. Those words only denote acertain stage of understanding of phenomena. I do not know why acertain event occurs; I think that I cannot know it; so I do not tryto know it and I talk about chance. I see a force producing effectsbeyond the scope of ordinary human agencies; I do not understand whythis occurs and I talk of genius.
To a herd of rams, the ram the herdsman drives each evening into aspecial enclosure to feed and that becomes twice as fat as theothers must seem to be a genius. And it must appear an astonishingconjunction of genius with a whole series of extraordinary chancesthat this ram, who instead of getting into the general fold everyevening goes into a special enclosure where there are oats- thatthis very ram, swelling with fat, is killed for meat.
But the rams need only cease to suppose that all that happens tothem happens solely for the attainment of their sheepish aims; theyneed only admit that what happens to them may also have purposesbeyond their ken, and they will at once perceive a unity and coherencein what happened to the ram that was fattened. Even if they do notknow for what purpose they are fattened, they will at least knowthat all that happened to the ram did not happen accidentally, andwill no longer need the conceptions of chance or genius.
Only by renouncing our claim to discern a purpose immediatelyintelligible to us, and admitting the ultimate purpose to be beyondour ken, may we discern the sequence of experiences in the lives ofhistoric characters and perceive the cause of the effect theyproduce (incommensurable with ordinary human capabilities), and thenthe words chance and genius become superfluous.
We need only confess that we do not know the purpose of the Europeanconvulsions and that we know only the facts- that is, the murders,first in France, then in Italy, in Africa, in Prussia, in Austria,in Spain, and in Russia- and that the movements from the west to theeast and from the east to the west form the essence and purpose ofthese events, and not only shall we have no need to see exceptionalability and genius in Napoleon and Alexander, but we shall be unableto consider them to be anything but like other men, and we shall notbe obliged to have recourse to chance for an explanation of thosesmall events which made these people what they were, but it will beclear that all those small events were inevitable.
By discarding a claim to knowledge of the ultimate purpose, we shallclearly perceive that just as one cannot imagine a blossom or seed forany single plant better suited to it than those it produces, so itis impossible to imagine any two people more completely adapted downto the smallest detail for the purpose they had to fulfill, thanNapoleon and Alexander with all their antecedents.