It is always admirable when the historian or biographer manages to clearly show us the man behind the work. This is a very difficult task, full of pitfalls that can jeopardize any effort to understand. But when successful, it gives the reader invaluable material, not only in terms of the connection between life and work on which it depends, but also in terms of the larger picture of existence. We see there habits, beliefs, conflicts, ideas, predispositions, and whether we identify with them or not, we increase our arsenal of possibilities, we understand life better. In short, this material enables us to learn from the example of a real man.
Tag: history
In Fact, We Have to Be Very Careful…
In fact, we have to be very careful with a general history of anything, because it will necessarily hide more than it reveals. Of course, we cannot conclude from this that it is useless, but we must be aware that for each of the conclusions it may draw, there will be contradictory examples in the specific history of the events covered. So, while the tremendous effort involved in producing a general history cannot be overlooked, it is clear that the best history is always micro-history, and it is on this that any serious study should focus.
There Are Very Few Biographies…
There are very few biographies in which there is not at least one moment in which an unforeseen external event positively changes the biographee’s situation. We always find it, although it is true that sometimes the change does not last. However, luck is there, allowing the change to crystallize and transform—which does not always happen. But it is curious to note that sometimes this event happens at the end of life, and we would assume that it is accompanied by the feeling that it has come too late. We never find this feeling and, privileged to be able to look at the whole biography, we conclude that it would be one hundred percent unreasonable.
The Cultural Environment in Russia…
The cultural environment in Russia in the mid-19th century seems fantastic. Not only because of the vigor, the effervescence of the debates, the practical consequences of the ideas in circulation, the active censorship, the controversies, the political events… but it is astonishing, first of all, the calibre of the authors who were publishing in the press—a press that was still home to much, much literature, and boasted a plethora that Russia had never produced and will never produce;—then, the relevance of what was being discussed, the historical importance of the discussions. The enthusiasm with which all this took place proved to be entirely justified, and words fail to describe the contrast with what is happening in the press today. It is didactic, however, to note the explosive results that followed such vigor.