During the course of his epic War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy alternates historical fiction on a grand scale with a number of short, analytical "essays," ultimately proposing a theory of historical events that challenges conventional views of historians. Please follow this link for one such chapter, occurring at or near the midpoint of the novel and serving as a type of thesis statement for Tolstoy's work:
(Note: This is not Chapter 1 of the entire book, but rather Chapter 1 of Book 9.)
How does Tolstoy's theory of history relate to and/or contradict the theory proposed by Raskolnikov in Crime and Punishment? You might instead choose to discuss your own thoughts on the validity of Tolstoy's theory of historical events and persons.
9 comments:
In Chapter 1 of Book 9, Tolstoy states that "in historical events the so-called great men are labels that give the event a name, which just as with labels, has the least connection of all with the event itself." When we look back at history, we usually come to blame the wars on certain people instead of all of the different causes. We are unable to dissociate the people from the actual time period. When it comes to WWII we think Hitler; Napoleanic Wars-Napolean, showing that sometimes they are even named after the person supposed to be held responsible for the event. The people we associate to the event are really just insignificant. This relates to Raskolnikov because we tend to forget all of the different causes for the pawnbroker and Lizaveta's murder and just blame Raskolnikov. Technically he is the main cause since he carried through with the murder yet no one thing is really the cause of an event according to Tolstoy. It is the many small things that come together and make something happen.
While it's true that we often base history on one person I'm gonna take it one step further and say that we also obsess with finding the big events that shaped what happened. These would be what Tolstoy say as the "causes." Generally while associating WWII with Hitler, people run around trying to pinpoint what made him come to power--the Great Depression which came about from the roaring 20's which came from the Industrial Revolution...etc. The fact is that there is no way to stop something that began as far back as time itself, or if it began as something insignificant but ended up as vast as WWII (does that make sense???) Tolstoy made sure to note that some things were meant to happen, things we could not control (and everybody likes to have control...fate = chaos in this world). Rodya Raskolnikov got so caught up trying to understand the one reason he committed murder that he couldn't step back and take in the tiny details that led him to that point. Going to School. Writing his article/theory. Dropping out of school. Living in St. Petersburg. Being poor and having to pawn things. Being cheated. Rather, Rodya deceived himself by looking at the immediate, big causes of the murder. In Conclusion you might say that Hitler did not cause the Holocaust, but the ideals of Anti-Semitism (an ancient one stemming back to the days of Jesus) and Survival of the Fittest--aka Darwinism. Thanks, Darwin, you caused WWII.
I think that Tolsoty is actually wrong by saying that the cause of history is event sthat make people. I think that raskolnikov is also wrong, however. I believe that the main cause of everything are ideas that shape periods of time. The Great Depression was shaped not by the crashing of the stock market, but to how people responded -- how fearful they were of losing money. The red scare is shaped by the main idea of fear that everyone had. These ideas may be sparked by small events, but they take on lives of their own.
In this sense, raskolnikov kind of makes sense. he has ideas that killing a person for the sake of a greater number of people is ethical. Had his plan worked, it could possibly have become this amazing idea that people agreed with. And he may have become a great man through his ideas -- not simply for his actions. History is shaped by ideas -- not events or people. But people and events are made more important by these ideas. Napoleon's idea of nationality and pro-france is what made him so successful, not his defeats of armies.
History is the product of fatalism. This is the key message I extracted upon reading Tolstoy's Chapter One. The author states that every man's way of life "has not a free but a predestined significance." Then, actions are not the result of one cause but the result of billions of causes.
Tolstoy's theory is valid in my opinion, however, leaves a distinct eeriness. If all aspects of our world are predetermined by a higher being, he suggests that we have little control over how we think, communicate, act, etc. It is uncanny to consider that I live consciously for myself and unconsciously for the achievement of universally human goals...I enjoy applying Tolstoy's theory to simple habits. For example, it is my decision to brush my hair, but how will this decision affect mankind? Has God lead me inspire cleanliness in others? Will I please my parents, therefore putting them in a better mood to" benefit the race" as they go about their day? In Tolstoy's perspective, I make history brushing my hair for all of those reasons and for none of them. As one who usually seeks a single scapegoat, I admire Tolstoy's ability to place each factor on an equal playing field in examining the deep roots of history.
I kind of like Tolstoy's theory. It's certainly a slap in the face to Raskolnikov. Raskolnikov thinks that Napoleon is god-like and that he could perhaps prove a point or change the world by killing the pawnbroker. Tolstoy says that Napoleon changed the world pretty much the same amount as I am typing this comment: The combination of factors that create a response are what matter, not the individual factors themselves. Nepoleon didn't change the world: many things changed the world. He was just one tiny slice of that equation. Raskolnikov too needs to know that killing the pawnbroker really won't make the world better, but several factors, such as giving the money to the poor (which he didn't do) would make a difference. I don't really like the idea that all of existance is predetermined: it may be absolute that the sun will eventually swallow up our planet, but I choose what to wear to school spontaneosly. Some events are inevitable, some just happen. This is why probability exists. Raskolnikov may had thought that he had no choice, that fate forced him into the crime by providing so many opportunities, but really, he could have just as easily stayed home. It's kind of like laying in bed and not wanting to get up: You are the one who decides when to finally get up, not anyone else.
Tolstoy's theory has much more validity than Raskolnikov's. Tolstoy acknowledges that even though history is made up of grand events and noteworthy names, the events and the names became notorious from the small occurences of life that allowed them to exist. Maybe if you hadn't bought the last bag of pretzels at the grocery store, someone else would have. Maybe they would have died choking on these pretzels and then they would naver have had their son who would grow up to be the President of the United States and changed the international relationships of the world creating world peace. A man that can change the world only exists because of the random minute events that occur every minute. So is he really incredible, or are random forces allowing his power? If his power is not innate, why as he worshiped as if he were a God? Overall Raskolnikov's theory is really worng, because there is no way that a man can really be so powerful that he has the right to transgress moral law especially if his power is due to the decisions and actions of the rest of society.
In my opinion, Tolstoy's theory is cop-out. First, to imply that "fate" shapes history and that most important events in history are incomprehensible is an over-simplification. So because there is an abundance of causes for a certain event, there is no cause? It sounds almost "lazy" to me, as a historian to label any event inevitable and uncontrollable. History is purposely intricate. History is not some easily understood concept. In order to understand an event such as a prominent war in history, you have to familiarize yourself with the array of reasons or causes that led to it. i.e. the economic, social, and political impetuses of the American Revolutionary War. Second, Tolstoy proposes that history "makes the man" rather than "man making history." I similarly find this to be likewise a stretch. It is unfair to say that man is irrelevant to the major developments of history. History would not occur without man. Case in point would be Hitler and the Holocaust. According to Tolstoy, the Holocaust would have happened even without Hitler. I find that not only hard to believe but just plain foolish. The Holocaust was not a matter of fate or inevitability. There was only one Hitler. No Hitler = no Holocaust. People make history; history doesn't make people. Without the despicable anti-Semitic tactics, six million innocent people wouldn't have died.
I think that Tolstoy's theory on history completely contradicts Raskolnikov's theory in Crime and Punishment. Raskolnikov reasons that if a man is extraordinary enough, he can break the law, kill people for the good of future generations and feel no guilt or remorse. Tolstoy however, argues against the "great man" theory of history. He says that no man is free to step out of history and speaks out against the sort of "free will" that Raskolnikov promotes. He syas that man is not free to step out of history and make a reality.
Like most of the others that have responded to this post, I believe after reading a chapter of War and Peace that the two theories of History are very contradictory. Raskolnikov believes that he can basically do whatever he wants to do without consequence, and Tolstoy believes that you cannot just change history or do whatever you want, because everything has its consequence. I agree more with Tolstoy since Raskolnikov believes he can murder someone if he believes it will help all men, this is obviously crazy and Tolstoy seems to be a much better ajusted human being, of course Tolstoy is real, and Raskolnikov is just a character.
Post a Comment