Page:The Hero in History.djvu/66

66 affected the subsequent development of France; which would have proceeded differently if the Seven Years’ War had not deprived her of a great part of her colonies.”

This is straightforward, too, but in an opposite direction from the position taken previously. Suddenly the military causes previously listed are no longer sufficient to ensure defeat. They could have all been present, and yet by grace of another pair of gametes victory might have been snatched from the English, the colonies saved, and the development of France profoundly altered. This smacks more of WoodWoods [sic] than of Marx and Engels. Plechanov is well aware that he has something to explain. “Does not this conclusion,” he continues, “contradict the conception of a social development conforming to laws? No, not in the least. The effect of personal peculiarities in the instances we have discussed is undeniable; but no less undeniable is the fact that it could occur only in the given social conditions.”

What a come-down from the pretentious thesis that Plechanov in common with other orthodox Marxists had set out to prove! Of course, the influence of any set of personal traits or personal peculiarities is what it is only in given social conditions. The same would he true if an entirely different set of individual traits were present. Their influence, too, would be limited by the given social conditions. But the question is whether their influence would have the same or different effects from those of Louis XV.’s personal traits. In one paragraph, Plechanov says the effects would be the same. In another paragraph, he says the effects would be different. He squares the contradiction in a third paragraph by saying that, same or different, the effects of personal influence would be influenced by social conditions.

Plechanov could have made even a stronger case for the position that the influence of Madame de Pompadour was natural in the French society of her time. She was not the first or the last mistress of Louis XV. Nor was Louis XV. the first or the last French king to make a mistress a power at the Court. Indeed, one might say that maîtresse-en-titre du Roi de France was a permanent institution at the French court from the time of Charles IX. Nor did the French bourgeoisie resent an institution which was not unknown to their own circles. They objected only to the expense involved in keeping the favourite and all her relatives, which added to the burdens of taxation, and even more to any favourite who interfered with the administration