died of the scurvy he contracted there, or committed suicide in Paris in 1795 as he planned, nonetheless, “the French Republic would have emerged victorious from the wars it waged at that time, because its soldiers were incomparably the best in Europe.” The consequences of the 18th Brumaire would have unrolled even without Napoleon. If Napoleon had not nominated himself to bear “the good sword” which the Abbé Siéyès needed to behead the French Revolution, any number of generals could have wielded it.
The details of Plechanov’s historical illustrations as well as the validity of his historical judgments are of subsidiary interest. His method and argument, however, are of the first importance in appreciating the approach of social determinism. Let us examine a little more closely what he does with the historical incidents in question.
1. The defeat of French armies in the reign of Louis XV., Plechanov assures us, should really not be laid at the door of the glamorous Madame Pompadour. Defeat was already prefigured by the military deterioration of the army, its lack of discipline, and its unreliable officer staff, drawn from the decaying remnants of the aristocracy more intent upon pleasure than upon glory. These “general causes,” even without Madame Pompadour, would have been “quite sufficient” to ensure a lost war. By playing favourites and keeping the incompetent Soubise in a position of command, this famous lady only made a bad situation worse. Neither she nor anyone else could have saved it.
All this is straightforward enough. Plechanov, however, insists that Madame Pompadour ruled not in her own right and name but through the king, who was docile to her will. But the character of this king obviously did not follow necessarily from the general course of French economic development. Given the very same economic, social, and historical circumstances, a king of a very different character might have appeared, say a home body and family man, or a misogynist. In either case Madame Pompadour would have been out of the historical picture even if she had remained at court. But if we grant the possibility of there arising a king of a different character, concludes Plechanov, then it follows that “these obscure physiological causes,” which produced a lascivious ruler instead of one who was pure of heart or powered with only a mild sex drive, “by affecting the process and results off the Seven Years’ War, also in consequence
