Note: There are NO spoilers in the the 2nd Epilogue to War & Peace, which is analyzed in bonus chapters. This final part of the novel involves a metaphysical exploration of the philosophy underlying W&P.

This is a complex chapter easy to get lost in. Tolstoy wrestles with one of his common themes -- Are people led or are they ready to move and inevitably pops up someone to guide them in the direction they were going?

Tolstoy emphasizes that the life of the nations is not symbolically expressed by the lives of great men such as like Napoleon, Czar Alexander or Kutuzov. Thus, Napoleon cannot be said to sum up the French people at the turn of the 19th Century. It is people themselves who are always the story of their times!

Tolstoy proffers that prominent historians/academics tend to teach, using animals as an allegory for historical movements — a herd of cattle goes in a direction because the animal in front leads and the collective will of the others vest in that leader; and if the one at the top changes, it is because of another transfer of collective will. Tolstoy preaches there is a false appeal in believing any such theory. For the academic, watching the aforesaid herd, pays no attention to the varying quality of the cows in different parts of the field or the driving of the herdsman. Such assessments are made with the benefit of hindsight and attribution of bias. Academics tend to prop up figures they find important based on values they wish to advance.

Historians are mistaken when they regard historical persons, from monarchs to artists to journalists, as expressions of their age. A significant aspect of power lies with the people. The responsibility for what happens in this world, remains with each of us.

Tolstoy then explores concept of “power” and how that word is understood. When we look at what causes historical events, we cannot help but incorporate this force. “Power” is something you can’t see – as you can visualize a cannon or statue -- yet it exists. There is an ineffability of the word. Yet we all give “power” significance because of our ability to reason and life experience.

Whenever a major event occurs, a man will appear by whose will it took place. To him we attach power. Examples given are: Napoleon III issues a decree and the French go to Mexico; the Kings of Prussia and Bismarck issue decrees and an army enters Bohemia; Napoleon I issues a decree Russia is invaded; Alexander I gives a command and the French submit to the Bourbons. However, reflection shows that it is more than such words that moves men. A prominent man’s orders are only part of the story, as there is also the physical act of the multitudes agreeing and going along.

History shows that a monarch’s expression of the will often produces no effect, as such commands are often not executed; and other times the very opposite of what is ordered occurs.

Power, from the standpoint of experience, is better defined as the relation that exists between the expression of someone’s will and the execution of that will by others. When there is a bilateral relationship – then there can be said to be power!

Tolstoy ends the chapter referencing an ancient school of thought, where historians took for granted a divine role in human affairs. When a deity issues a command, the expression of that will is independent of time and is not caused by anything, for divinity is not controlled or tied down by our concept of power. He finds the ancients more useful than most academics with respect to studying the nature of power and causality.