Sara Gormley - Entry No. 1 (Tolstoy/Greer)

Tolstoy’s epilogue critically analyzes the way in which history is examined, and dares to explore human experience with a deeper scrutiny of historical events in order to reach a complete answer to our questions. As the Arab Spring is a modern day example of one of these events, we can use the lens which Tolstoy has provided to scrutinize the events that have occurred in Tahrir square. In Greer’s article, she considers Tosltoy’s multidimensional and at times paradoxical account. While at times his interpretation can be contradictory, maybe it is only by looking at opposing sides that dictates Tolstoy as the one best suited to look far and thoroughly enough to give credit to a legitimate analysis of historical events and human experience. It would be easy, as Tolstoy says has been done by historians, to apply one theory to all events. In reality, our approach must be as multifaceted and complex as the events themselves.

In the epilogue arises the notion of chance and genius, chance being everything that must align itself in order to provide an opportunity for a specific person to take power, and genius being what this person does with the power. Many events led to the ascension and maintenance of Mubarak’s power for so long, and similarly events would lead to his demise. This is comparative to the rise and fall of Napoleon’s power in France in the sense that certain events called for a specific leader who eventually revealed himself to many to be cancerous for the state. Tolstoy details Napoleon’s self-deluded confidence that convinced the world to accept his power. Greer equates this to Mubarak’s authority depending on “a shared delusion of power,” which she concluded through the Tolstoy point of view of power. In reality, as shown in the events of Tahrir square, Mubarak was in fact weak and simply human, without the exceptional strength many ancient historians, according to Tolstoy, believed rulers to possess.

Another way in which Tolstoy considers a topic which now parallels the revolution in Egypt is the question of whether all will of all people shifts to a new ruler when there is a change in power, even for those who did not participate in bringing about the change. In Egypt, for those not participating in the protests of Tahrir square, would their will shift to support the new ruler when the time came? With the emergence of a new government in Egypt, would the revolution of some transfer the will of all? Tolstoy gives a number of possibilities. First, that will is unconditionally transferred and second that this means any transgression of power is a violation of rules toward those who entrusted them with power. Finally, Tolstoy makes the point that will is transferred conditionally, albeit in an unknown and indefinite way which new leaders must adhere to or else face varying levels of conflict. Both Tolstoy and Greer however stress the importance in understanding the notion that, despite our attempts otherwise, questions like these surrounding historical events will be flawed due to our subjective point of view from our singular moment in history. Our attempts to discern events are futile as history will continue to change what it all means as time goes on. 

Finally, Greer describes the inadequacy of our modern society to equate historical events to the events of Tahrir square in order to make sense of our modern-day historical events. Many points Tolstoy makes throughout his epilogue can be brought back to this notion that historical analysis as it has been done is insufficiently analyzing current events. It is not enough to apply the explanation of one event to a completely unique and dimensional moment in history that has occurred in Egypt. Tolstoy stresses the importance of a multifaceted approach to historical analysis. We must ask the questions not just who, but why? Not just why, but for what reason? What does this mean and what is the force behind it? Ancient historians looked to a Deity to explain human actions, but modern day historians reject this idea without a replacement. This is where Tolstoy, as Greer put it, marks the necessity for a “grand theory” for a deep and thorough explanation. While historians often fall short in their response, Tolstoy's maverick theories are a bold and unique attempt to answer the questions behind life's great events.