explained by an event from an entirely different series of causes. The biological cause of John Smith’s existence is his parents, of his parents, his grandparents, of his grandparents, his great-grandparents. John Smith’s election to office is the result of another series of causes, social causes. His elopement with the town secretary stems from still another. Now, unless his great-grandparents had existed, John Smith would not have been born, but it would be taxing them with too much to hold them responsible for his birth although they may explain some of his biological characteristics. Unless he were born, he could not have been elected to office, but his election is more relevantly explained by the political issues of the campaign. Unless he had been elected to office, he might never have encountered the town secretary, but his elopement probably can be satisfactorily explained in terms of what happened after he met her. Plechanov insists upon bringing in the great-grandfather, not only as the cause of John Smith’s existence but of his election and elopement, too.
Finally, Plechanov’s assumption is fallacious because it implies that there is “a last analysis” or an “ultimate cause” which is always relevant and therefore is independent of a specific question and context. Since Plechanov believes that “the development of productive forces [is] the final and most general cause” of historical events, the duty devolves upon him to show concretely that it is relevant to the event he has set himself to explain. His conscientiousness as an empirical historian often leads him to acknowledge that the proximate, determining causes of an event have nothing to do with the state of productive forces and social relations. His allegiance to a metaphysical dogma then seduces him into changing the subject under investigation in order that these forces and relations may be introduced with some show of plausibility. Thereupon they are declared “in the last analysis” to be the “ultimate causes” of the original subject of investigation.
It is unnecessary to follow Plechanov’s divagations in detail in his treatment of Napoleon, which follows the same pattern as the examples already considered. Plechanov assures us that what Napoleon achieved on the field of battle would have been won by other generals. Perhaps so; but it is a little hard to swallow in face of the evidence showing that French armies were almost always defeated or immobilized whenever Napoleon entrusted their command to other officers. Even the retreat from
