Author: nicolasr2019

Before I begin, I’ll briefly describe my intention for this blog post. My plan for the final paper is to write about three somewhat extended scenes, all of which feature a naive newcomer, and how that newcomer is important to the scene. The three scenes will be Natasha at the ball, which has already been partially drafted in a previous post, Pierre at the Battle of Borodino, and Petya spending time with Dolokhov and Denisov. Here I will discuss how Petya’s is used by Tolstoy. As this is a draft, some notes may be present to indicate places I wish to expand upon.

The scenes leading up to Petya’s death echo those of Pierre and Natasha. All of them have recently arrived at something entirely new to them, be it the opera or bloody fighting. Petya however differs in three major ways. One is that he is actually going against orders by being present, as I believe he was ordered to return, not to attach himself to a new group of soldiers, a fact he lies about in order to join. Another is his open desire to actually participate in the details of the scene. Natasha only desired to see the opera which she had never seen before, and then to understand why people were so interested in it. Pierre also just wanted to view his interest, though this time it was war. Petya alone wished to actually ingratiate himself into the group of soldiers and actually participate in the fighting. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, Petya is obviously the only character who dies.

Petya is again used to set the scene for the readers, this time showing how the soldiers are living as they chase down the French. However, he nearly immediately participates in the daily routine, something Pierre never really did, instead staying as an outsider, and Natasha only achieved by the end of the opera. The three therefore cover three ways of approaching a new experience: Petya jumps straight in, Natasha observes before getting involved, and Pierre only observes, excluding when he is forced to defend himself. [Note: expand the set up]

The similarities between the various scenes invite the reader to draw certain conclusions. One is that Tolstoy wanted us to compare the social life in cities with the fighting in the war, and by making the setups so similar, it is easy to say that he actually wants them to be seen as such. Whether at peace or at war, people will still have their rituals, and other people will want to join in. In fact, even deeper similarities can be found between Natasha and Petya than may first be visible. For instance, Petya initially stands out due to his death. However, Natasha met Anatole at the opera, and Anatole is the one who sets off the chain of events that eventually leads her to trying to take her own life. In a way, this can be compared to Petya meeting Dolokhov and Denisov. Both Petya and Natasha held some form of trust or admiration for these figures, and because of Petya and Natasha’s attempted involvement in their lives (in Petya’s case by participating in the attack) both suffered.

This similarity seems to stretch beyond the idea of comparing peace and war, and instead feels like a comment on not being swept away by something you don’t truly understand. Natasha has changed radically by the end of her visit to the opera, now just as enraptured as every other audience member. Pierre nearly gets killed several times because he doesn’t really get what a battle actually means. Finally, Petya even more clearly doesn’t know what he’s getting into, a fact emphasized by how he has to ask someone else to sharpen his sword for the first time ever, and dies as a result of getting carried away and charging ahead of the other soldiers.

In general, Petya fits Tolstoy’s pattern of having characters who don’t really know what they’re doing but are very interested in being involved anyways. This can particularly be seen in Natasha, who is loves the idea of entering society, but is unsure of how to actually do so. It can also be seen in others, albeit in marginally different forms, such as Rastopchin who was overwhelmingly hopeful that he would get to contribute to a glorious defense of Moscow, but only made things worse for everyone.

I am still undecided on what my paper will be about, though there are several topics that I am interested in.

One is further examining the idea of using a naive outsider to explore a specific concept. We see this used when Natasha first visits the opera, and Tolstoy uses her to explain what the opera actually looks like, setting the scene, and then soon after using her to call out specific features of the opera as fake. We also get to see how Natasha is rapidly absorbed into the in-group, clapping along with everyone else when just shortly before she was feeling embarrassed about how fake everything looked. The technique is also used when Pierre visits the Battle of Borodino. The usage of Pierre to set the scene is less noticeable here, since Tolstoy was never one to shy away from explaining how a battle would work. However, we still get to see all the ways Pierre, someone with an entirely fantastical idea of what a battle consists of, reacts to what I believe is the bloodiest battle of the war. Just as Natasha rapidly became part of the in-group, so did Pierre rapidly form an opinion, but in the opposite direction, declaring the whole battle barbaric. Finally, we also see a naive outsider in Petya, particularly in the scenes leading up to his death. We get to see his viewpoint right after Tolstoy has gone on and on about how terrible the conditions were, and it is quite the contrast, instead filled with hero worship for leaders and a burning desire to fit in. We never quite get to see the result of Petya’s experience as he dies before the conclusion of the battle. Overall, these all share some significant similarities, but also differences, which should make them interesting to analyze. I could talk about how each character is used to provoke a reconsidering of what would otherwise be taken for granted. It could also be taken as a variety of cautionary tales, from Natasha being swept up in something she doesn’t understand to Petya’s needless death. Additionally, I’m fairly confident I could write a full paper on this topic, since I have already written a two page blog post on the opera scene.

Another option is looking at the usage of animal metaphors, which I believe was brought up in class. There are many, with perhaps the most memorable being the bee one, but we have received several recently. One is the metaphor of ants and a kicked over ant hill, used when describing how Moscow rapidly recovered after Napoleon was pushed away, even though it had been burned down. Another was the usage of bees again, this time to describe how something can have many aspects and purposes, and one person could never hope to see them all. More distant connections could be the usage of the animals in the hunt scene, seeing as it is at least partially a metaphor for war. Overall, I could analyze how Tolstoy uses each metaphor to support his own points, or the overarching themes.

Finally, the last option I have considered would be examining either Dolokhov or Denisov. I think both are very interesting characters, with varying roles to play in the book, sometimes as antagonists, such as when Dolokhov duels Pierre, or as more positive characters, such as when Petya is shown to look up to the two. Interestingly, and something I could possibly explore beyond their dual uses, is how alike they sometimes feel in my mind. Both have relatively similar names, starting with the same letter and having the same number of syllables, and both serve in the army. Additionally, they both aren’t really shown as a part of the nobility, being much more at home in the military. Overall, as characters with interesting but relatively focused roles in the war, either one would be good to examine.

Overall, I lean the most towards the first option.

A certain setup that has continued to repeatedly come up in War and Peace is where an outsider to a type of event is used to both analyze and explain an event to to the reader, often highlighting the flaws in the original concept. Through this Tolstoy is able to comment on topics which may have been out of the reach of an average reader, while not resorting to the plain essays we encounter on such topics as the outcome of the Battle of Borodino. Two fairly important occurrences of this setup were when Natasha visits the opera, and when Pierre explores the Battle of Borodino. I will be looking at the former.

Natasha is perfectly set up as an outsider through which we can watch the opera. She is very interested in all the city has to offer, and thus does not shrink away from attending the opera. However, as soon as it starts, it becomes very clear that she is out of her depth.

“The stage consisted of flat boards in the middle, with painted pieces of cardboard on the sides representing trees, and canvas stretched boards at the back. In the middle of the stage sat girls in red bodices and white skirts. One, very fat, in a white silk dress, sat apart on a low stool with a piece of green cardboard glued to the back of it. They were all singing something…The man in tight breeches sang alone, then she sang. Then they both fell silent, music began to play, and the man began to touch the hand of the girl in the white dress with his fingers…They sang together, and everybody in the theater clapped and shouted, and the man and the women on stage, who represented lovers, began to bow, smiling and spreading their arms. After the country, and with the serious mood she was in, Natasha found all this wild and astonishing” (560-561).

Natasha’s narration reads like someone’s first attempt at a novel: while technically the details of the scene are there, it feels more like a textbook, blandly narrating the scene. However, there is more subtlety than the emotionless narration. For example, only by the very end is it noted that they represent lovers, even though such a detail is normally critical to a story. But if we take this narration as what Natasha sees, it becomes apparent that the delay in this information is actually due to her only realizing they are lovers right at the end, driving home her lack of knowledge.

Overall, this description serves two purposes. The first is that it forces the reader to reassess the opera. When one reads this description, nothing is incorrect, and therefore has to be acknowledged as a valid view. Because of this, the reader then, at least for a brief moment, sees the opera from an outside perspective, noticing the various details that would be glossed over in order to have a good story. For example, the fake scenery. Everyone knows it’s fake, but we pretend it’s real in order to better enjoy the story. In reading this passage we are forced to re-acknowledge this. The other purpose it serves is to introduce the idea of an opera. I personally had no idea what a nineteenth century opera would look like, and I have barely more knowledge about modern day opera. After this description I now have a far better framework upon which to build my image of the scene. While one could take this as just a way to build the character of Natasha, I think this could also be viewed as Tolstoy critiquing the opera, and reminding the reader of its falseness.

The idea of Tolstoy using an outsider to examine a specific event should also take into account the immense change that Natasha has undergone by the conclusion of the opera scene. At the end, she is clapping just as much as anyone else, a stark contrast to her initial confusion. This conversion from an outsider to someone that has formed an opinion about the topic is not unique to this scene. Pierre, when viewing the Battle of Borodino, also starts out naive, but by the time he leaves the field of battle he believes quite strongly that after all the savagery of the fighting he has witnessed that they will stop soon. As we know, they do not. The similarities show that the conversion aspect is most likely intended, and thus important. One interpretation could be that Tolstoy believes it is impossible to stay truly impartial to a topic once one truly begins to learn about it.

Overall, Tolstoy uses this technique of an outsider looking in to both great analytical, and in the case of Natasha, comedic effect.

This post will be taking a look at the first soirée hosted by Anna Pavlovna, and all the foreshadowing and details that stand out to me now that we are over 900 pages into the book. Rereading this scene was actually very interesting, especially considering all the character introductions, which make evaluating how much, or little, a character has changed rather easy.

    One of the first things to jump out at at me when reading was the gratuitous French. While I was intellectually aware that the usage of French had grown sparser, I never quite realized how much it used to feature. In fact, on page seven there are seven different occurrences of French, all with their own foot note. I had forgotten how much reading the first scene felt like getting thrown into the deep end. Now of course, excepting the scenes with Napoleon, French occurs very little, particularly when Tolstoy gives us one of his lectures which can stretch on for many pages.

    The next most interesting feature of note is Pierre’s introduction. Pierre is introduced as “a massive, fat young man” with an “intelligent and at the same time shy, observant, and natural gaze” (9). While Pierre feels like he has grown leaps and bounds as a character, much of this description remains true. By where we are in the book, he has apparently only become more massive, and as can be seen in the scene on the hill during the Battle of Borodino is still shy but observant and curious. Following his introduction, I found there to be two large pieces of foreshadowing. One is a thought about Pierre by Anna Pavlovna, who thinks of Pierre as the “young man who did not know how to live”. In the context of the scene, this refers to his lack of knowledge about how to conduct himself at a high society soirée, and can therefore be brushed over as a simple description of his upbringing. But after reading through three quarters of the book, it becomes apparent that finding how he wants to live is one of Pierre’s core struggles. He struggles to choose between the armed forces or the diplomatic corps, he struggles with morality and religion, he struggles to free his serfs, and most recently he struggles with understanding war. Pierre would not be Pierre if he was not struggling with life in general. The other piece of foreshadowing also ties into Pierre’s conduct in life. Pierre is described as drifting around the soirée, looking for a conversation to join and afraid of missing out on something. This yet again, though admittedly in broad strokes, is how he has conducted himself throughout the book. He moves from one goal, vice, or topic to another, never staying for long without changing something up. Even the Masons, which he is still at least nominally a part of, has involved change, going from near blind belief in the group to belief in his own personal philosophy, before having yet another revelation, and so on. Again, this scene is just so very Pierre.

    Another interesting moment is seeing Prince Andrei introduced. As of the Battle of Borodino, Andrei has shifted some, but is still remarkably similar. It is described how “he not only knew everyone in the drawing room, but was also so sick of them that it was very boring for him to look at them and listen to them” (14). This does sound quite like the current Prince Andrei, sick of political life and the people who are associated with it, though beneath the surface the reasons for this dislike are quite different. However, a major difference is when he proudly announces how Kutuzov wants him as an adjutant. By the Battle of Borodino he had rejected any such position similar to that of an adjutant, finding much more purpose as an actual officer in the thick of things.

    Overall, I am quite glad I reread the first scene considering how much interesting comparisons and foreshadowing is packed inside, nearly all of which I missed on the first read through.

We all know Tolstoy’s opinion on military genius in comparison to the conduct of the general soldiers, especially in regards to the leaders who direct from the rear. Considering how many battle scenes have been featured in the recent scenes, I felt that this was an important topic. In this blog post, I want to more deeply analyze why Tolstoy argues this, and how he supports it.

Part of the reasoning I have assembled for Tolstoy’s conclusion is actually in relation to one of my previous blog posts on communication. As I wrote there, communication was immensely difficult in the early 19th century, particularly in a chaotic battlefield. There are many quotes that support this, especially in the most recent reading. One such moment is when “An adjutant came galloping from the flèches…to inform Napoleon than the attack had been repulsed and that Compans had been wounded and Davout killed, but meanwhile the flèches had been taken by another section of troops, just as the adjutant was being told the French had been repulsed, and Davout was alive and only slightly bruised (800). At this point, you may have wondered if there was any better way to communicate. However, the conditions of battle seem to preclude nearly all other other options. One such method could be through semaphore, since sight is farther reaching than the voice. However, this runs into the issue of the terrible visibility that is always commented on, particularly when all the guns begin to fire and a smoke clouds are appearing everywhere. Perhaps loud horns or other noise making methods could be used, but then you are limited to pre arranged signals, and the clamor of battle, particularly the cannons, could easily overshadow such communication. Essentially, the role of the leaders in the rear is directly limited by the lack of control and knowledge they have at the front. How can someone contribute to the battle if they don’t know what’s going on, and can’t even tell other people what to do?

The other major component of Tolstoy’s theory is also born out in the Battle of Borodino. Remember, he stated that the most important aspect of a battle is the morale of the soldiers, and here we see why. It is described how the French soldiers would constantly attack the Russian positions, and then in the face of the fierce fighting break ranks and flee. They would then be whipped back into a cohesive unit by the officers, and be sent forward again. Then pattern would repeat. Imagine if the soldiers on one side of the battle essentially never wavered. The other side would be nearly always on the back foot as a result, especially as momentum built.

The other reasons we see that explains why morale is important is Andrei and his men getting shelled. Let us assume that Andrei is actually serving a purpose by waiting there, such as by plugging an otherwise open hole in the Russian position or being ready to react to any nearby point where the French have gained the upper hand. Then it is integral that his soldiers do not move, even under constant shelling. Since there is no actual enemy to force Andrei or his soldiers to move, the only way they could be forced back is if they became so disheartened or fearful that they felt it necessary to pull back.

Another place we see the issue of morale being placed front and center is Kutuzov managing the battle. One subtle example is when Tolstoy writes “When Scherbinin came galloping from the left flank with a report that the French had taken the flèches and Semyonovskoe, Kutuzov, guessing by the sounds from the battlefield and Scherbinin’s face that the news was bad, got up as if to stretch his legs and, taking Scherbinin’s arm, led him aside” (806). Here we can Kutuzov acting to keep the bad news away from the other people present in order to keep morale up. Interestingly, this paints the actions of Wolzogen in an even worse light, since he makes a spectacle of his report of bad news. The other big moment is when Kutuzov announces that they will attack the French tomorrow. Even though he must realize such an action is untenable he still announces it, and the soldiers’ spirits are lifted. I would not be surprised if such an attack never materializes.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly of all, comes when Tolstoy lectures the reader. He essentially states that the only reason the French did not win the battle is “because the army’s fallen spirits did not allow it” (819). What effects the French army being willing to send forth more men to fight, and thereby force the Russian force to flee entirely, will never be answered.

Overall, the spirit of the men being most important to winning a battle is central to Tolstoy’s description of the Battle of Borodino, whether because the leaders are just unable to command properly or because of the style of fighting. However, this should not surprise anyone, as Tolstoy seems to always be willing to go all out in supporting a conclusion of his.

In class today we briefly touched upon how Tolstoy believes that there are two ways that people react to danger.

“At the approach of danger, two voices always speak with equal force in a man’s soul: one quite reasonably tells the man to consider the properties of the danger and the means of saving himself from it; the other says still more reasonably that it is too painful and tormenting to think about the danger, when it is not in man’s power to foresee everything and save himself from the general course of things, and therefore it is better to turn away from the painful things until they come and think about what is pleasant. In solitude, a man most often yields to the first voice; in company on the contrary, to the second” (745).

It may initially appear that Tolstoy has only recently been building towards supporting this statement, mainly through the seeming nonchalance that the attendees of the various groups in Moscow regard the war. However, this view of human nature is actually visible even earlier in the book.

One of the earliest moments in which we get to see someone react to danger is Nikolai Rostov charging with his unit to set fire to a bridge in order to deny the French an easy river crossing. You may remember that Nikolai, while seemingly quite sure of himself and the glory he will earn beforehand, becomes entirely ineffective and indecisive as soon as he rides into danger. In fact, it is described how he “looked at this enemy and wanted to run further”, putting himself in even more danger, resulting in one of the officers shouting at him to get back into cover (147). This in fact entirely supports Tolstoy’s view. Nikolai had spent essentially all his time leading up to the charge with his group of soldiers, and thus did not feel concerned about the coming danger. However, as soon as the danger is actually present, he folds like a house of cards.

Interestingly, Nikolai continues to follow a variation of this pattern even once he has become used to the danger of fighting. Earlier in the scene wherein Nikolai leads a counter charge into the charging French horsemen, he is described as, rather than being frightened, instead invigorated by the sounds of bullets whizzing by. This seems to be a logical extension of Tolstoy’s thought process. Instead of awakening to the danger once it is in front of him, Nikolai continues to be oblivious, as this leaves him much happier. It could even be argued that one of the reasons he is so knocked off balance by wounding the French horseman is because it forced him to realize that he himself could in fact be injured. Additionally, in both of these scenes Nikolai is in perhaps one of the biggest unified groups of them all: an army. The strong relationship between soldiers can be seen both with Andrei and his troops, showing it is possible for the common soldier to form a bond with a prince, as well as with Denisov, who seizes a supply transport destined for another part of the army in order to feed his own troops who “haven’t eaten for two weeks” (399). If Tolstoy believes that being in a group is enough to push away the consideration of danger, then the army would surely be one of the best groups to do so.

Other characters this effect can be seen in include both Andrei and Tushin, the officer in charge of the cannons at the battle of Schöngraben. At said battle Andrei never fears for his life, and instead views the whole experience as a way to finally have his moment to excel and be recognized as above the rest. The reason he never feels in danger is because he never actually is directly confronted by it, and instead spends most of his time with the commanding officer or riding up and down the lines, thereby remaining a part of the group. Tushin is an even more extreme example. At one point Tolstoy remarks on how Tushin was left unaware of how the soldiers screening him from the French had left their positions, emphasizing how either brave or foolhardy, depending on your perspective, he was by remaining in place. Yet again, this could be explained by how Tushin, in addition to being left fairly battle crazed by the whole experience, though he was surrounded by allies and thus felt secure.

Overall, Tolstoy does not appear to be an author who states an opinion without truly believing it, since his belief about how people face danger is present essentially throughout all that we have read.

A concept important to the recent chapters of War and Peace is communication, both long distance, now that Napoleon has invaded Russia, and interpersonal. The difficulty involved in communicating over long distances is not something that concerns most of us in the present day, but to Tolstoy the delays and confusions would have been easily apparent and important to day to day life, as can be seen in the recent readings.

    One of the bigger points illustrating the uncertainty of communication is Andrei’s letter, in which he writes “The French are in Vitebsk, in four day’s march they may be in Smolensk; they may be there already” (691). This may seem rather nonspecific and not very urgent, but consider the circumstances of the letter. Andrei wrote this letter “from near Vitebsk”, and the Old Prince seems to have not gotten around to reading it for some time (687). Adding in the distance involved, the lack of an automobile, and likely a good road, Andrei’s letter would have been sent a fair while in the past. This consideration explains how noncommittal in the letter he is, as a war is ever evolving and the situation could have changed drastically since he sent the letter. Additionally, Andrei likely lacks good information. Earlier in the text, it is described how one general “condemns point by point the future battlefield which he has not seen”, which illustrates how easily flawed the information Andrei could have access to could be (686).

This whole situation shows how one case of communication can break down. First someone may not do their job, like the nameless general. Then someone else has to reinterpret the information, in this case hopefully Andrei, as otherwise there is an even longer chain of people involved. Only now can the letter be sent to Bald Hills, where the changing state of a war could easily invalidate the information within the letter. Finally, the Old Prince doesn’t even read the letter immediately, adding even more delay, and when he does, he is barely capable of understanding it. In the present day, such a situation could likely be averted by easier and faster communication through telephones and the internet, or even just faster vehicles.

Another example of failed communication comes when the Old Prince’s servant Alpatych arrives in Smolensk. It almost immediately becomes clear that none of the lower class people have any clear idea of what is going on, with some fleeing, and others scoffing at what is going on. The confusion even seems to have extended up to the governor of Smolensk, who gives Alpatych a copy of the message he received from Barclay de Tolly on page 695, wherein he is told that Smolensk and its inhabitants have nothing to fear from the French. This declaration stands in stark contrast to the shelling Smolensk soon comes under. Tolstoy has a personal opinion on this governor, as he states that “Smolensk is burned by its own inhabitants, deceived by their governor”, though whether the governor purposefully misled the inhabitants or he himself was misled by the communication from the army is unclear (686). The former appears more likely to me, as why would the governor flee only just before Smolensk comes under bombardment, unless he had no idea as to the scale of danger Smolensk was in. Additionally, our previous case, while not even taking into account the political ill will that would be generated by saying Smolensk is lost, illustrates just how easily communication from another group, such as the army, can break down. In any case, yet again the communication going on is shown to be substandard.

Overall, the purpose of this post is to show how important little details that can easily be missed are to the story. Unless careful consideration is given to the details of communication, certain facts can be overlooked. For one, it may appear that the governor was acting in bad faith in not warning the inhabitants of Smolensk as to the danger, while in actuality it is unclear whether he was aware of the immediacy of such danger. Another possibility is that extra blame could be assigned to the army for not defending Smolensk, when it is clear both from Tolstoy’s essay and the points covered above that such an undertaking would be quite difficult.

The question of why Pierre remains with Helene despite their unhappy relationship is always answered with how divorce was seen negatively and was incredibly uncommon in Russia at the time. I was interested in finding out why this was, and why Pierre, one of the richest people in Russia at the time, was unable to create an exception. As a result of my research, I have found several interesting facts about marriage in Russia during the time of War and Peace.

The root of the situation was the Russian Orthodox Church. The church had always held very strict beliefs about marriage, as they believed it to be a sacrament. However, only in the years leading up to the 19th century did the church actually begin to act on these beliefs, as before hand they were unable to enforce any of their views due to an ineffective bureaucracy. One of the effects of the rule of Peter the Great was essentially a massive upgrade to said bureaucracy, which in combination with Peter’s decree that marriage was in nearly all cases a spiritual matter led to the church finally acting. Beforehand divorce and annulment of marriages was rampant, including among the serfs, as the local church representatives had little effective oversight by higher church officials. However, after the crackdown by the church divorces and annulments slowed to a trickle.

The table above illustrates the divorce rates from 1836 to 1860, which is later than the time period of the book. However, it is unlikely that divorce rates differ by much. It should also be noted that the all periods in the scanned document are missing, so the per annum rate is 58.32, not 5,832. In terms of population, that is “0.0071 divorces per 10,000 inhabitants, or 8.62 divorces per 10,000 marriages”. Furthermore, adultery makes up only 6.3% of all the divorces, showing just how little the church considered it a valid reason when they could instead encourage reconciliation. In general, if the church could find a reason to deny the divorce, they would. The two major reasons for divorce, Siberian exile and desertion, are also the most cut and dry reasons. It would be hard for the church to argue that someone exiled to Siberia could still function as a spouse. In the case of adultery, the church can much easier argue for a more moderate approach. Finally, it is also noted by the article that the church “resisted any divorce suit, whatever the plaintiff’s social rank or gender”, leaving Pierre no special exemption due to his nobility.

All together, this explains how Pierre getting a divorce is essentially impossible. There is both an incredibly low chance that his case would even be accepted, as well as the fact that the low rate of divorces and negative church opinion would make getting a divorce in the first place likely heavily stigmatized by others. In addition, the divorce of Pierre and Helene would be talked about by everyone, and the church would probably dislike so much discussion of a divorce. One might think that Helene being the one committing adultery would lead to a higher chance of the divorce being allowed, such as was the case in other countries of the time, but the church rejected suits by males with no less zeal than those from females. Interestingly, the seriousness with which the church takes marriage only emphasizes how dangerous the actions of Natasha, and especially Anatole, as he was already married, appear to the other characters.

Citation:

Freeze, Gregory L. “Bringing Order to the Russian Family: Marriage and Divorce in Imperial Russia, 1760-1860.” The Journal of Modern History, vol. 62, no. 4, 1990, pp. 709–746. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1881061.