Fatalism and the Study of History

Fatalism and the Study of History

We are forced to fall back on fatalism as an explanation of irrational events ( that is to say, events the reasonableness of which we do not understand). Pg. 537
To study the laws of history we must completely change the subject our of observation, must leave aside kings, ministers, and generals, and study the common, infinitesimally small elements by which the masses are moved. Pg 733.
Every act of theirs, which appears to them an act of their own will, is in a historical sense involuntary and is related to the whole course of history and predestined from eternity. Pg. 538.

One overarching theme throughout War and Peace is the question of great men. Tolstoy seems to suggest that the idea of a “great man” is simply a label given by historians to help explain the events of a particular time. For Tolstoy, it seems that there are no great men, but simply the onward rush of history, and men are swept along with hardly anymore choice than an animal or even a non-living object. Fatalism is the simple answer to irrational historical events. Are the actions of a single peasant equal, in terms of historical significance, to the activities of a tsar?
Tolstoy, however, readily admits that the higher a man stands on the social ladder, the more power he has over the actions of others. This standing does not give him anymore freedom of action, but rather ties him even more securely and evidently to their own predestined fate. The deeper questions lies in whether Tolstoy views such predestination as a progressive or regressive force. Will men ever learn to avoid “irrational events” such as war, or is War and Peace an apt name for the continual flux between these two poles that will forever characterize history? Hobbes has long since suggested that the natural state of man is war. I tend to think that Tolstoy would agree with Hobbes in contending that the only way to escape the nature state of war is to enter into civil society. Even in society, however, the balance between war and peace is harrowingly narrow.

A further interesting philosophical notion is the way in which one should go about studying history. This idea is, of course, intricately connected with Tolstoy's denial of “great men”. Great men are not the movers of history alone, but rather history is a conglomeration of all the actions and thoughts of humans throughout time regardless of their societal, economic, or political standing. The true historian is compelled, then, to study “infinitesimally small units for observation (732).” From these units, one can begin to formulate the “laws of history (732)”. Are there really such laws that govern all of history? Is Tolstoy suggesting a kind of natural law that drives history? Furthermore, how is it possible for one to study these minute units of history? His implicit suggestion that history must include philosophy, psychology, sociology, etc. to inform itself is an excellent one. Events can only be understood in the context of “how”, in other words through the intentions of, and influences of their authors. Studying minute historical units through the lenses of different sciences should indeed lend a more synoptic view of humankind's history as a whole.