If the concept of power is valid, he argues, then we must be able to explain its nature and define how it works. Tolstoy goes on to discredit the historical construct of"power" as the motive force of events.
Naturally it is ridiculous to assume that millions of people submit to whatever Talleyrand or de Stael convinced Alexander. de Stael played in changing the course of government. They cite, for example, Talleyrand's influence upon Alexander, or describe the part Mme. Tolstoy analyzes how these historians explain the decisions of the"great men" who move nations. To assume that"great men" move nations is as arbitrary as assuming, as did the ancients, that the will of God ordains history. The biographical historian is equally at fault. Tolstoy argues that a mere"idea" cannot generate such a power. How can the cultural historian explain, for instance, the murder of millions of Frenchmen during the French revolution in terms of what men thought about the equality of man, Tolstoy asks? To do this, the historian must show a propelling force equal to the resultant force, just as the physical scientist explains the thrust of a steam engine in terms of input. Examining each school of historiography, Tolstoy shows how inadequate these separate theories are to explain complex events. But, he asks rhetorically, what is the cause of these events, and what is the force that moves nations? Historians construct answers based on their special viewpoints some discuss history in terms of the"great men" theory, some in terms of cultural issues, some according to the interplay between nations. The life of peoples and humanity is the subject of history, writes Tolstoy, and the writing of history is an attempt to make intelligible the course of human events.
0 kommentar(er)
