Second Epilogue: 1813-20 - Chapter XII

by Leo Tolstoy

　　From the time the law of Copernicus was discovered and proved, themere recognition of the fact that it was not the sun but the earththat moves sufficed to destroy the whole cosmography of theancients. By disproving that law it might have been possible to retainthe old conception of the movements of the bodies, but withoutdisproving it, it would seem impossible to continue studying thePtolemaic worlds. But even after the discovery of the law ofCopernicus the Ptolemaic worlds were still studied for a long time.

　　From the time the first person said and proved that the number ofbirths or of crimes is subject to mathematical laws, and that thisor that mode of government is determined by certain geographical andeconomic conditions, and that certain relations of population tosoil produce migrations of peoples, the foundations on which historyhad been built were destroyed in their essence.

　　By refuting these new laws the former view of history might havebeen retained; but without refuting them it would seem impossible tocontinue studying historic events as the results of man's free will.For if a certain mode of government was established or certainmigrations of peoples took place in consequence of such and suchgeographic, ethnographic, or economic conditions, then the free willof those individuals who appear to us to have established that mode ofgovernment or occasioned the migrations can no longer be regarded asthe cause.

　　And yet the former history continues to be studied side by side withthe laws of statistics, geography, political economy, comparativephilology, and geology, which directly contradict its assumptions.

　　The struggle between the old views and the new was long andstubbornly fought out in physical philosophy. Theology stood onguard for the old views and accused the new of violating revelation.But when truth conquered, theology established itself just as firmlyon the new foundation.

　　Just as prolonged and stubborn is the struggle now proceedingbetween the old and the new conception of history, and theology in thesame way stands on guard for the old view, and accuses the new view ofsubverting revelation.

　　In the one case as in the other, on both sides the struggle provokespassion and stifles truth. On the one hand there is fear and regretfor the loss of the whole edifice constructed through the ages, on theother is the passion for destruction.

　　To the men who fought against the rising truths of physicalphilosophy, it seemed that if they admitted that truth it woulddestroy faith in God, in the creation of the firmament, and in themiracle of Joshua the son of Nun. To the defenders of the laws ofCopernicus and Newton, to Voltaire for example, it seemed that thelaws of astronomy destroyed religion, and he utilized the law ofgravitation as a weapon against religion.

　　Just so it now seems as if we have only to admit the law ofinevitability, to destroy the conception of the soul, of good andevil, and all the institutions of state and church that have beenbuilt up on those conceptions.

　　So too, like Voltaire in his time, uninvited defenders of the law ofinevitability today use that law as a weapon against religion,though the law of inevitability in history, like the law of Copernicusin astronomy, far from destroying, even strengthens the foundationon which the institutions of state and church are erected.

　　As in the question of astronomy then, so in the question ofhistory now, the whole difference of opinion is based on therecognition or nonrecognition of something absolute, serving as themeasure of visible phenomena. In astronomy it was the immovabilityof the earth, in history it is the independence of personality- freewill.

　　As with astronomy the difficulty of recognizing the motion of theearth lay in abandoning the immediate sensation of the earth'sfixity and of the motion of the planets, so in history thedifficulty of recognizing the subjection of personality to the laws ofspace, time, and cause lies in renouncing the direct feeling of theindependence of one's own personality. But as in astronomy the newview said: "It is true that we do not feel the movement of theearth, but by admitting its immobility we arrive at absurdity, whileby admitting its motion (which we do not feel) we arrive at laws,"so also in history the new view says: "It is true that we are notconscious of our dependence, but by admitting our free will wearrive at absurdity, while by admitting our dependence on the externalworld, on time, and on cause, we arrive at laws."

　　In the first case it was necessary to renounce the consciousnessof an unreal immobility in space and to recognize a motion we didnot feel; in the present case it is similarly necessary to renouncea freedom that does not exist, and to recognize a dependence ofwhich we are not conscious.