Dea Closson- Entry No.1 (Tolstoy/ Greer)

When I began reading the epilogue to Tolstoy’s War and Peace the first thoughts that came to my head were about how everything he was discussing about history was wrong, and totally opposite to the methods I have learned in my educational career. But that is exactly the point to his writing. Tolstoy’s grandiose novel approaches what he indicates is the right way to think about, and record history. His theory is centered on the idea of determinism, with the thoughts that we, as humans, are incapable of ever fully understanding the ultimate purpose of our predetermined history. Tolstoy spends the epilogue to his book outlining his thoughts on history, and begins to outline his theme of determinism.

            In the first part of the epilogue Tolstoy begins to outline his thesis by discussing his concept of chance and genius. Chance is essentially the concept of being in the right place at the right time, while genius is the utilization of this advantageous situation. He uses Napoleon as the main example to explain this thought saying that chance repeatedly gave Napoleon opportunities that, in any historical context, should not have necessarily made sense to be given to him.  But Tolstoy quickly refutes the idea of chance and genius being an effective method of explanation for historical events.  This is where the idea of determinism first reveals itself.  He brings this idea in by refuting the “big man theory” saying “ The higher the human intellect rises the in the discovery of these (ultimate) purposes, the more obvious it becomes that the ultimate purpose is beyond our comprehension” (Tolstoy, 1225)

            In the second par of the epilogue Tolstoy builds on this idea using two main methods, the explanation of power and the context of Free will.  Tolstoy spends the first half explaining what exactly power is, and this he does because he uses power as the driving force behind history.  He ultimately defines power to be the inverse relationship between participation in an event and opinions, predictions, and justifications given about the event.  Tolstoy goes to immediately say that power is not the singular defining factor to the reasoning behind history and that the men with power are ultimately floating in the general ebb of the people, that ultimately the whole of people make the history. He then introduces his defining contradiction between free will and determinism, saying that free will gives humans life, but to say that leaders make history by their free will is to break the laws of history, thus stating that everything is pre-determined. 

            It is through this lens that Erin Greer wrote her article “Tolstoy and Tahrir.” She immediately makes the connection between Tolstoy’s denouncement of the “big man” theory with the leadership of Mubarak.  She compares the revolution in Egypt and the protests in Tahrir square to the ebb and flow of the masses dropping the curtain on Mubarak’s power. She uses Tolstoy to explain the concept of a leaderless revolution.  She ultimately says that war and peace could be used as a lens to view these current events of history and can be used to explain why these events are occurring.

            Reading these two readings together really opened my eyes to alternate ways of thinking about how history is made. But is also seems to me that Tolstoy contradicts himself too much.  It seems that his ideas are fundamentally heading towards the same goal, but in practice end up contradicting themselves. This contradiction compared to a modern day event, taken in a more realistic viewpoint instead of a philosophical one, slightly cheapened some of Tolstoy’s theories while at the same time reaffirmed others. This comparison allowed for a thoughtful way of explaining current history.