“To Understand a Person You Have To Know What Was Happening in the World When That Person Was Twenty“
This profound observation offers a unique key to unlocking human character. It suggests that we are not merely products of our genetics or childhoods. Instead, the cultural atmosphere of our early adulthood shapes us definitively. When we reach the age of twenty, we step out of the family shadow. We enter the broader stream of history. Consequently, the political events, popular books, and social movements of that specific year imprint themselves upon our minds.
Biographers and historians have long utilized this concept to explain the motivations of great figures. Source It provides a framework for empathy and analysis. By looking at the world through the eyes of a twenty-year-old, we see their formative reality. We understand the fears that gripped them. We recognize the hopes that inspired them. However, the origin of this brilliant insight remains a subject of debate. Many people attribute it to a famous emperor. Others credit a meticulous scholar. . Uncovering the true source reveals much about how we remember history.
The Psychological Significance of Age Twenty
Why does this specific age matter so much? Developmental psychologists and sociologists often point to late adolescence and early adulthood as critical periods. During this phase, individuals solidify their worldviews. They transition from passive observers to active participants in society. Therefore, the zeitgeist of that moment becomes part of their identity.
Consider the impact of major global events. A person turning twenty during a time of peace views the world differently than someone coming of age during a war. The former might value stability and commerce. In contrast, the latter might prioritize security or revolution. These external forces act as a mold. They shape the soft clay of a young mind before it hardens into adult convictions.
Furthermore, cultural trends play a massive role. The music, literature, and art popular during one’s twentieth year often remain favorites for life. They form a generational language. When we understand these influences, we decode the person. We see the invisible scaffolding that supports their adult personality. Thus, this biographical tool remains essential for anyone trying to understand the past.
Investigating the True Author
Popular culture frequently credits this quote to Napoleon Bonaparte. The French Emperor remains one of history’s most quoted figures. His larger-than-life persona acts as a magnet for profound sayings. People naturally associate strategic wisdom with his name. However, historical evidence tells a different story. A closer look reveals a significant discrepancy in this attribution.
Napoleon died in 1821. Yet, scholars cannot find this specific phrase in his vast correspondence or recorded conversations. No contemporary accounts from his lifetime mention it. In fact, the attribution to Napoleon appears to be a modern invention. It lacks the documentary trail one would expect for such a famous figure.
Instead, the trail leads to the twentieth century. The true originator appears to be the English historian G. M. Young. He was a scholar known for his deep understanding of the Victorian era. His work focused on the context of historical events. He believed deeply in the connection between an individual and their times. Therefore, credit belongs to the historian, not the general.
G. M. Young’s Biographical Method
G. M. Young first articulated this principle during a lecture in 1943. He spoke to the British Academy about the statesman Edmund Burke. Young wanted to explain how Burke’s mind worked. To do so, he looked backward. He pinpointed the year Burke turned twenty. Then, he examined the intellectual climate of that specific time.
Young did not stop there. He expanded on this idea in 1949. He wrote an article for “The Listener,” a BBC publication. In this piece, he refined his methodology. He stated that whenever he studied a historical figure, he asked one question. What was happening in the world when they reached their twentieth year?
Specifically, Young looked for influential books. He argued that the ideas circulating in print shape a young person’s philosophy. For a young man in the 18th century, this might mean reading David Hume. For someone in the 19th century, it might involve political reform tracts. Young believed these intellectual currents were inescapable. They formed the water in which the young subject swam. Consequently, understanding the water explains the swimmer.
The Mechanics of Misattribution
How did Napoleon get the credit? The shift from Young to Napoleon is a fascinating case of historical telephone. It seems to have started in the late 1990s. R. F. Foster published a biography of the poet W. B. Yeats in 1998. In this book, Foster presented the idea as Napoleon’s dictum.
Crucially, Foster provided no citation for this claim. He simply stated it as fact. He used the quote to explain Yeats’s connection to Ireland. The concept fit perfectly. However, the attribution was likely an error. Despite this, the connection stuck.
Subsequent authors picked up the torch. D. R. Thorpe wrote a biography of Anthony Eden in 2003. He also credited Napoleon. Thorpe used the quote to describe Eden’s experience in World War I. The quote’s power made it irresistible. Authors wanted the authority of Napoleon to back up their analysis. As a result, the true author, G. M. Young, faded into the background.
Why Correct Attribution Matters
Accuracy is the bedrock of history. When we misattribute quotes, we distort the past. We rob the true thinker of their due credit. G. M. Young developed this specific method of historical analysis. It was his intellectual contribution. Giving the credit to Napoleon simplifies history. It reduces a nuanced scholarly method to a soundbite from a famous general.
Moreover, understanding the source helps us understand the quote. Young was a historian thinking about how to write history. Napoleon was a general thinking about how to conquer Europe. The quote is an analytical tool, not a military strategy. It fits Young’s character perfectly. It reflects his careful, contextual approach to the past.
Therefore, we should correct the record. We can still use the quote. It remains a brilliant insight. However, we should attach the correct name to it. We honor the idea by honoring its creator.
Applying the Principle Today
We can apply Young’s principle in our own lives. It works for more than just famous historical figures. It helps us understand our parents, colleagues, and friends.
Think about a parent born in the 1960s. They turned twenty in the 1980s. What was happening then? The Cold War was ending. Technology was shifting. The economy was changing. These events shaped their expectations of the world.
Similarly, consider a colleague who turned twenty in 2008. They came of age during a massive financial crisis. This experience likely influenced their views on job security and money.
By asking “what was happening,” we build bridges. We move beyond judgment. We start to see the external forces that molded the person in front of us. Indeed, this simple question fosters deep empathy. It reminds us that we are all, to some extent, children of our times.