Second Epilogue: 1813-20 - Chapter I

by Leo Tolstoy

　　History is the life of nations and of humanity. To seize and putinto words, to describe directly the life of humanity or even of asingle nation, appears impossible.

　　The ancient historians all employed one and the same method todescribe and seize the apparently elusive- the life of a people.They described the activity of individuals who ruled the people, andregarded the activity of those men as representing the activity of thewhole nation.

　　The question: how did individuals make nations act as they wishedand by what was the will of these individuals themselves guided? theancients met by recognizing a divinity which subjected the nationsto the will of a chosen man, and guided the will of that chosen man soas to accomplish ends that were predestined.

　　For the ancients these questions were solved by a belief in thedirect participation of the Deity in human affairs.

　　Modern history, in theory, rejects both these principles.

　　It would seem that having rejected the belief of the ancients inman's subjection to the Deity and in a predetermined aim towardwhich nations are led, modern history should study not themanifestations of power but the causes that produce it. But modernhistory has not done this. Having in theory rejected the view heldby the ancients, it still follows them in practice.

　　Instead of men endowed with divine authority and directly guidedby the will of God, modern history has given us either heroesendowed with extraordinary, superhuman capacities, or simply men ofvery various kinds, from monarchs to journalists, who lead the masses.Instead of the former divinely appointed aims of the Jewish, Greek, orRoman nations, which ancient historians regarded as representing theprogress of humanity, modern history has postulated its own aims-the welfare of the French, German, or English people, or, in itshighest abstraction, the welfare and civilization of humanity ingeneral, by which is usually meant that of the peoples occupying asmall northwesterly portion of a large continent.

　　Modern history has rejected the beliefs of the ancients withoutreplacing them by a new conception, and the logic of the situation hasobliged the historians, after they had apparently rejected thedivine authority of the kings and the "fate" of the ancients, to reachthe same conclusion by another road, that is, to recognize (1) nationsguided by individual men, and (2) the existence of a known aim towhich these nations and humanity at large are tending.

　　At the basis of the works of all the modern historians from Gibbonto Buckle, despite their seeming disagreements and the apparentnovelty of their outlooks, lie those two old, unavoidable assumptions.

　　In the first place the historian describes the activity ofindividuals who in his opinion have directed humanity (one historianconsiders only monarchs, generals, and ministers as being such men,while another includes also orators, learned men, reformers,philosophers, and poets). Secondly, it is assumed that the goal towardwhich humanity is being led is known to the historians: to one of themthis goal is the greatness of the Roman, Spanish, or French realm;to another it is liberty, equality, and a certain kind of civilizationof a small corner of the world called Europe.

　　In 1789 a ferment arises in Paris; it grows, spreads, and isexpressed by a movement of peoples from west to east. Several times itmoves eastward and collides with a countermovement from the eastwestward. In 1812 it reaches its extreme limit, Moscow, and then, withremarkable symmetry, a countermovement occurs from east to west,attracting to it, as the first movement had done, the nations ofmiddle Europe. The counter movement reaches the starting point ofthe first movement in the west- Paris- and subsides.

　　During that twenty-year period an immense number of fields were leftuntilled, houses were burned, trade changed its direction, millions ofmen migrated, were impoverished, or were enriched, and millions ofChristian men professing the law of love of their fellows slew oneanother.

　　What does all this mean? Why did it happen? What made those peopleburn houses and slay their fellow men? What were the causes of theseevents? What force made men act so? These are the instinctive,plain, and most legitimate questions humanity asks itself when itencounters the monuments and tradition of that period.

　　For a reply to these questions the common sense of mankind turnsto the science of history, whose aim is to enable nations and humanityto know themselves.

　　If history had retained the conception of the ancients it would havesaid that God, to reward or punish his people, gave Napoleon power anddirected his will to the fulfillment of the divine ends, and thatreply, would have been clear and complete. One might believe ordisbelieve in the divine significance of Napoleon, but for anyonebelieving in it there would have been nothing unintelligible in thehistory of that period, nor would there have been any contradictions.

　　But modern history cannot give that reply. Science does not admitthe conception of the ancients as to the direct participation of theDeity in human affairs, and therefore history ought to give otheranswers.

　　Modern history replying to these questions says: you want to knowwhat this movement means, what caused it, and what force producedthese events? Then listen:

　　"Louis XIV was a very proud and self-confident man; he had suchand such mistresses and such and such ministers and he ruled Francebadly. His descendants were weak men and they too ruled Francebadly. And they had such and such favorites and such and suchmistresses. Moreover, certain men wrote some books at that time. Atthe end of the eighteenth century there were a couple of dozen menin Paris who began to talk about all men being free and equal. Thiscaused people all over France to begin to slash at and drown oneanother. They killed the king and many other people. At that timethere was in France a man of genius- Napoleon. He conqueredeverybody everywhere- that is, he killed many people because he wasa great genius. And for some reason he went to kill Africans, andkilled them so well and was so cunning and wise that when hereturned to France he ordered everybody to obey him, and they allobeyed him. Having become an Emperor he again went out to killpeople in Italy, Austria, and Prussia. And there too he killed a greatmany. In Russia there was an Emperor, Alexander, who decided torestore order in Europe and therefore fought against Napoleon. In 1807he suddenly made friends with him, but in 1811 they again quarreledand again began killing many people. Napoleon led six hundred thousandmen into Russia and captured Moscow; then he suddenly ran away fromMoscow, and the Emperor Alexander, helped by the advice of Stein andothers, united Europe to arm against the disturber of its peace. AllNapoleon's allies suddenly became his enemies and their forcesadvanced against the fresh forces he raised. The Allies defeatedNapoleon, entered Paris, forced Napoleon to abdicate, and sent himto the island of Elba, not depriving him of the title of Emperor andshowing him every respect, though five years before and one year laterthey all regarded him as an outlaw and a brigand. Then Louis XVIII,who till then had been the laughingstock both of the French and theAllies, began to reign. And Napoleon, shedding tears before his OldGuards, renounced the throne and went into exile. Then the skillfulstatesmen and diplomatists (especially Talleyrand, who managed tosit down in a particular chair before anyone else and thereby extendedthe frontiers of France) talked in Vienna and by these conversationsmade the nations happy or unhappy. Suddenly the diplomatists andmonarchs nearly quarreled and were on the point of again orderingtheir armies to kill one another, but just then Napoleon arrived inFrance with a battalion, and the French, who had been hating him,immediately all submitted to him. But the Allied monarchs were angryat this and went to fight the French once more. And they defeatedthe genius Napoleon and, suddenly recognizing him as a brigand, senthim to the island of St. Helena. And the exile, separated from thebeloved France so dear to his heart, died a lingering death on thatrock and bequeathed his great deeds to posterity. But in Europe areaction occurred and the sovereigns once again all began to oppresstheir subjects."

　　It would be a mistake to think that this is ironic- a caricatureof the historical accounts. On the contrary it is a very mildexpression of the contradictory replies, not meeting the questions,which all the historians give, from the compilers of memoirs and thehistories of separate states to the writers of general histories andthe new histories of the culture of that period.

　　The strangeness and absurdity of these replies arise from the factthat modern history, like a deaf man, answers questions no one hasasked.

　　If the purpose of history be to give a description of the movementof humanity and of the peoples, the first question- in the absenceof a reply to which all the rest will be incomprehensible- is: what isthe power that moves peoples? To this, modern history laboriouslyreplies either that Napoleon was a great genius, or that Louis XIV wasvery proud, or that certain writers wrote certain books.

　　All that may be so and mankind is ready to agree with it, but itis not what was asked. All that would be interesting if werecognized a divine power based on itself and always consistentlydirecting its nations through Napoleons, Louis-es, and writers; but wedo not acknowledge such a power, and therefore before speaking aboutNapoleons, Louis-es, and authors, we ought to be shown theconnection existing between these men and the movement of the nations.

　　If instead of a divine power some other force has appeared, itshould be explained in what this new force consists, for the wholeinterest of history lies precisely in that force.

　　History seems to assume that this force is self-evident and known toeveryone. But in spite of every desire to regard it as known, anyonereading many historical works cannot help doubting whether this newforce, so variously understood by the historians themselves, is reallyquite well known to everybody.