Big Book 2019

I find it hard to believe just how frequently and quickly the characters in War and Peace fall in and out of love, or at least how frequently they claim to fall in love.  This cycle is primarily attributed to the women in the book, while the men act as the objects of their affection.  There are obvious exceptions to this role, as Anatole chases after many women throughout the book, but it would also be easy to argue that he is not actually in love with these women and instead simply enjoys their interest in him.  

Natasha is the main character who is at the heart of many romantic relationships. Early in our introduction to her we see that she is in love with Boris, a family friend. Later, Nikolai returns home from war with his companion Denisov, who is instantly attracted to Natasha and quickly proposes to her.  Although she isn’t necessarily reciprocating the feelings, the attention she receives at such a dramatic moment lays the ground for her future involvement in relationship drama. When she attends her first ball, her friend Pierre introduces her to Andrei, and their encounter leaves Andrei interested in marrying the young countess.  Natasha seems to feel the exact same way, and has the full intention of marrying him and waiting restlessly for him to return from war to make it official. Everything changes when Natasha is introduced to Anatole, however, and she immediately doubts her love for Andrei. Natasha herself questions her ability to love multiple men at once, and wonders how authentic her interest in either man is.  Natasha calls off her engagement to Andrei with the belief that Anatole will sweep her away. When Anatole’s plot to kidnap Natasha falls through, Natasha is left without any plans to marry, falls ill, and prays for her past lovers after realizing how tumultuous their relationships were.

Another character, Princess Marya, does not have the same history of falling in love repeatedly, but does experience the same abrupt interest in a man.  Nikolai Rostov happens upon the Bolkonsky estate while moving through the countryside and ends up helping the Princess handle the muzhiks who have been giving her trouble. Nikolai makes a point of not engaging with her too much in an attempt to avoid any kind of relationship being sparked.  His efforts do not work, however, as Marya seems to feel a connection to him after only a brief conversation. Love at first sight is certainly a legitimate feeling that humans experience, but it does become rather comical when the characters in War and Peace seemingly claim to fall in love in every other chapter of the book.  

I think my favorite parts of this book are the times when Tolstoy takes the opportunity to voice his opinion about the significance of characters’ life events. When Natasha has fallen ill, Tolstoy takes a timeout to use Natasha’s illness as a commentary on the “eternal human need for the hope of relief, the need for compassion and action, which a human being experiences in a time of suffering” (656). Her family is paying countless rubles to medicate Natasha in every way possible. They hired several doctors, each seemingly concluding their own diagnosis which seems to mean giving her as many medications as possible. Regardless of the medical practices, Natasha is mysteriously ill, and the fact that these doctors are actually not physically curing her is worrying. But Tolstoy argues they are helpful, for the same reason that “the child does not believe that those who are stronger and wiser than he have no means to help his pain” (656). Tolstoy argues that we are all connected by a fundamental fear of the unknown ailment/ When I have been in pain before, there have been several occurrences when I do not know why the pain is present. Being unable to identify that, or being unable to fix it yourself can be frightening. Doctors, Tolstoy argues, do more for Natasha and her family’s mental wellbeing than physical. And perhaps that is just as useful.

I also found this chapter a thought-provoking contrast to the one prior. In chapter 15, Nikolai is having a moral crisis of sorts. While in the midst of battle, Nikolai strikes a French officer off his horse. Standing over him with his sword drawn, Nikolai controls the fate of this surrendering officer. And yet, his face presents a “simple, homelike” demeanor, one similar perhaps to his brother Petya (653). Nikolai is deeply conflicted by this moment, feeling later that “..some unpleasant feeling…wrung his heart. Something unclear, confused, something he was unable to explain to himself, had been revealed to him in the capture of this officer and the blow he had given him” (654). It seems to me that bold, gun-blazing Nikolai has had a humanizing moment. I think seeing his enemy as someone who could be a brother, a friend, maybe even himself–was sobering. Rostov later muses, “what harm has he done, with his dimple and light blue eyes?…Why should I kill him? My hand faltered. And they gave me the St. George Cross. I understand nothing, nothing!” (654-655).

The reason I like these two short chapters back to back is they contrast the War and Peace ideas so poignantly. In a place of war, we see violence and anger accompanied by compassion and regret. In a place of peace, there is family and love accompanied by disease and fear. I like that these two central themes bleed into each other. It is not the first time there has been an overlap, but I think the placement of these two, short chapters is quite deliberate.

“On all sides one saw wet, sad-faced officers, who seemed to be looking for something, and soldiers, who were dragging doors, benches, and fences from the village.”

The 19th century Russian military was broken up into two parts: the Imperial Russian Army and the Imperial Russian Navy. As the fight against Napoleon was mostly dictated over land, the Imperial Army saw most of the combat throughout the war. Tostoy often depicts the Russian army as a borderline dysfuntional group of men whose officers are indifferent to the various sufferings caused by their subordinates: “Several battalions of soldiers in nothing but their shirts, despite the cold wind, were swarming like white ants over this fortification” (174). In contrast, Napoleon’s army is often described as a highly organized and well trained. Oftentimes, this makes Russian victories seem more heroic and extraordinary.

Unfortunately, this was not the case in the French invasion of Russia. The Imperial Army was one of the strongest and well-maintained armies in Europe from the early 18th century to the mid-19th century. During his rule, Peter the Great was responsible for many of the changes that resulted in one of the most fiercest fighting forces ever assembled in European history. By law, peasants are conscripted into the military whose service obligation was 25 years. This was essentially a lifetime commitment, and as the Russian population grew rapidly in the early 1800s, it created a massive professional fighting force. Furthermore, the average soldier would be totally isolated from his hometown and the general population during war. This was an unusual standard for its time, and helped soldiers focus on the fighting. If they were awarded for their efforts in service, soldiers would be promised to have a chance at the ranks of petty officaldom. As you can tell, the Russian army was actually a formidable fighting force and was certainly not an easy opponent for Napoleon.

Unlike his counterparts, Napoleon refused to exact high standards in his own army. His personal philosophy was strength in numbers. Many historians believe that this may be why he had conscripted soldiers from multiple European nations, from Austria to Italy. At one point, his standing army numbered 680,000 soldiers. To put that in context, that is larger than the population of Oakland. He would eventually expend up to 1.5 million soliders throughout his campaigns in Europe. Due to this, his army was often dysfunctional, as the multinational, conscipted soldiers had little loyalty to the French cause.

While the defeat of Napoleon was certainly impressive, sometimes its takes more than just numbers to be strong. As history dictates otherwise, Tolstoy may have exaggerated some of the smaller details to stir up Russian pride.

Sources: Napoleon.org, Wikipedia

Tolstoy introduces the French Army through Balashov’s mission to deliver the Sovereign’s letter to Napoleon. The French Army did not care at all for Balashov’s high rank in the Russian Army, so when he arrived at the various encampments, he was very surprised to see his rank meant nothing to them. The soldiers paid “no attention to Balashov, [and] the under-officer started talking with his comrades about regimental matters and did not glance at the Russian general” (614). The French soldiers might have showed no respect to Balashov because of the ideas that Napoleon pushes forth to inspire the army. In addition to the under-officers, the higher-up officers also showed no respect to the Russian representative. Although Murat appears to be respectful to Balashov, his tone is very patronizing, since he believes he is the Neapolitan king and is better than Balashov.

    Tolstoy portrays Napoleon as an almighty figure that has no equal. He says that he is “a man who values every minute of his time” (619) and “it was clear that only what went on in [Balashov’s] soul that was of interest to him” (619). Tolstoy makes Napoleon seem like a person touched by god and the privilege to talk to him is enlightening. When Napoleon makes a big scene convincing Balashov that his sovereign was stopping peace, Balashov is convinced Napoleon will be embarrassed later. Tolstoy gives Napoleon the mindset that he can do no wrong, so, at dinner, Napoleon greeted Balashov “with a cheerful and benign air” (624). From real life events in history, Napoleon seemed to be similar to how Tolstoy portrayed him. For example, he used a failed assassination attempt on his life to justify the re-establishment of a French monarchy, in which he put himself in charge of.

Source: “Napoleon Bonaparte.” Ohio River – New World Encyclopedia, New World Encyclopedia, http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Napoleon_Bonaparte#Legacy.

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 upcoming presidential election coupled with our disdain for the current President, make us question the qualities a leader must have in order to be successful. Tolstoy presents three different types of leaders: Pfuel who is disciplined and deliberate, Nikolai Rostov with his impulsive and reckless actions and finally Tsar Alexander’s leadership through his blessed image. Pfuel, a German commanding officer, is described as “self-assured because he imagines that he knows the truth [and] science” (639). His command is based on empirical information. He looks to historical battles and analyzes them. In stark contrast to Pfuel’s leadership, Nikolai Rostov acts only from his own experiences and emotions. Rostov watched the battle unfold in front of him as if “it was a hunting scene” (652). From his experiences hunting, he felt the urge to charge the enemy, but “did not know himself how and why he was doing it” (653). He did not think and calculate his every move like Pfuel. If he had, he would’ve missed the opportunity to attack. Instead, he trusted his instincts and spurred his horse towards the enemy. Lastly, Tolstoy offers the sovereign as an example of a hands-off yet extremely influential leader. The sovereign left direct control of his troops to his entourage of assistants, taking a position as a figurehead of the war. The sovereign holds a special place in the heart of the characters in the book. He causes them to act outside of themselves. For instance, Petya in particular is caught up in Alexander. Petya got himself crushed, nearly to death, to see the Tsar and fought over receiving biscuits he had touched (675). Yet, despite his influence over the people, Alexander is unable to be himself, to accept his own personal life. He must act as the people see and believe he should. These three styles of leadership are very different, each with their own benefits and faults. In a perfect world,  one would combine the best qualities of each, but that is not shown to an option. Rather, we are left to decide which is optimal for War and Peace.

Pierre is a man who lives his life with a shocking amount of denial. Early on in War and Peace, Pierre is described as fat and clueless, and despite his inheritance and the status that comes with it, he remains surprisingly unaware of reality throughout the book. His interpretation of his own actions are skewed, and we see him deny the reality of his own life quite often. One of the most concerning examples of his denial is his alcoholism. While Pierre does realize that the way he is living does not feel morally satisfying, his inclination to drink until he feels okay with himself is concerning. Needing a whole bottle of wine to feel comfortable, his position as an “old” gentlemen in his social sphere seems both upsetting and inevitable to Pierre. Pierre, who was once very opinionated and righteous, is willing to become the gentlemen persona that he has always disapproved of. While he is aware of his hypocrisy, he is also unwilling to rectify his position in society. Pierre seems stuck. He tries many different ventures to attempt to fill something lacking within him, and yet nothing seems to satisfy him. When he joins the Masons, he fails to see that they are a somewhat corrupt society, and when he attempts to help his peasants live a better life, he is easily deceived by his estate manager.

Pierre is a hopeless idealist, and without any kind of guiding force, he is temporarily satisfied by band-aid solutions. His care for his peasants seems short-lived, his time with the masons brief, and his issues with society fixed by binge drinking. Pierre does attempt to be introspective, and while his brief stint with his journal somewhat helps him, his introspection almost never leads to any action. Because he is unable to act to solve his problems, Pierre often sends himself into major depressive episodes upon any form of self-reflection. Because of his failure to act upon his thoughts in a meaningful way, Pierre is stuck in a life that he is uncomfortable with. This leads to denial in order to preserve his state of mind. The most ridiculous denial scheme that he enacts is his 666 ploy. When it occurs to him that he should join the army, Pierre concocts an excuse not to go by associating himself with the number of the beast. Only after grammatically incorrectly altering his name is he able to get 666 from his letter to number code. Despite this, this excuse is enough for him to decide that for the good of everyone he should stay away from the war.

Despite his own denial, Pierre can still be a good friend and act to support other people. While he is unable to help himself, he often takes steps to help others. He forces Anatole to get out of the city, warns Anatole to avoid Andre, and excuses himself from Natasha’s presence when he feels that their relationship is becoming inappropriate. However inept Pierre is at handling his own life, he is always there to help others and is a positive force in the lives of many.

Joining the Freemasons and examining himself and his way of life was a real turning point for Pierre’s character, at least temporarily, but Pierre’s introduction to freemasonry would have been quite different had he encountered the real Osip Bazdeev on his way to Petersburg.

Osip, Pierre’s sponsor into freemasonry, was based on a real man by the same name. The real Osip was one of three men credited with bringing Freemasonry to Russia, and was the honorary master of the Moscow lodge. In this, he was somewhat similar to namesake, but in his life outside of the masonry he could not have been much less similar. In contrast to the man who motivated Pierre to attempt to liberate peasants on his land, the real Bazdeev was notorious for abusing his serfs: requiring absurd amounts of work from all of his surfs between 15 and 70 years old, not educating them, and imposing corporal punishment if they did not produce according to his demands which was enough to motivate many of his surfs to flee his estates. Bazdeev published a series of letters entitled “Thoughts of opposition to the common people of so-called civil liberty” in which he staunchly defends serfdom and argues that nobody should strive to change their position in the class system. Osip Bazdeev was also said to be deeply concerned with status, whereas Pierre notes that his Bazdeev is one of the few masons who has renounced wealth and class in pursuit of masonic ideals.

At least to me, it seems like this contradiction between the historically accurate Osip Alexeevich Bazdeev and his namesake was set up intentionally and ironically. Tolstoy is pretty open in his criticisms of the masonry throughout War and Peace (saying that almost every mason is only involved for personal reasons/ not actually effective), and this may have been just another, more subtle jab. The historical notes in our translation describe Bazdeev a well known Moscow mason, and because of his standing and the power he once held, the original readers would likely have known his reputation and thus understood the irony in Tolstoy’s choice. The idea the Tolstoy is not trying to venerate Bazdeev in his inclusion in War and Peace is supported by the narration of the scene in which Pierre meets Bazdeev and each of the subsequent scenes in which Bazdeev appears. We are given to perspectives on their initial encounter, Pierre’s own thoughts and a detached narrator’s. From Pierre’s perspective, this appears to be some sort of mystical experience, some divine intervention, but he is clearly confused and gullible; in contrast, the narrator describes Bazdeev very matter of factly. Pierres image of Bazdeev get only more ridiculous in the following chapters with the dream sequences.

Whether or not Tolstoy intended the audience to understand the irony of his naming, it seems unlikely that he ironically named a character who, from Pierre’s perspective, is one of the few honest, devoted masons after someone who is notorious for breaking their main tenants of brotherly love (tolerance and respect for his fellow creatures) and relief (charity and care not just for their own, but towards the community as a whole).

“…in 1808, having returned to Petersburg from his trip to the estates, Pierre involuntarily became the head of the Petersburg Masons. He organized dinners and funerals for the lodges, recruited new members, saw to the uniting of various lodges and the acquiring of authentic characters. He donated his own money for the setting up of temples, and made up, as far as he could, for the shortfall in the collection of alms, in which the majority of members were stingy and irregular. Almost alone, on his own means, he supported a poorhouse set up by the order in Petersburg.” (pg. 433).

During one of many times of uncertainty in Pierre’s life, he turns to freemasonry in a search for some higher cause or meaning. In true Pierre fashion, he puts a little too much faith in the organization and becomes deeply financially involved. He also is passionate about the philosophies of the freemasons: he seems to be the only one in the Petersburg that ponders the meanings of the core values and how they apply to his life. I was intrigued by the freemason organization because of Pierre’s cult-like devotion to at at points in the book, how he seems to fall into a financial trap because of it, and of course because of my house’s history as the Berkeley masonic temple.

Freemasons are traced from actual stonemason organizations in the 14th century. The modern organization, however, generally sorts into regional groups called lodges, though there is not necessarily a lodge that governs over and regulates all of them. Members must be men, and have to be inducted through complex processes that may or may not involve ritual allegorical plays. Though 19th century Russian freemasonry had Christian overtones, the modern freemasons are not necessarily restricted to a singular religion. Membership simply requires belief in some sort of higher and powerful deity, as well as a sworn oath to protect one’s Masonic brothers to the best of one’s ability. The actual doctrine of the freemasons is only partially known, obviously, because it’s a secret organization, but it seems to revolve around allegories about the original tools of the freemasons: the trowel, the lever, the compass, etc.

I think that Pierre is drawn to the freemasons for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it gives him some sense of purpose and meaning, which he is constantly searching for. Secondly, it gives him a way to spend his time and money in a way that is, at least in theory, virtuous. Third, it reinforces his status, in a way. The exclusivity and the almost occult nature of the group make it an acceptable pastime for a nobleman in a perpetual spiritual crisis with too much money and time on his hands.

Thoughts and reflections upon rereading the first chapter:

Tolstoy was not being subtle when emphasizing the role of the French language in Russian society. The first paragraph of the book, in addition to a multitude of other lines, are in French. When originally reading this chapter I was definitely confused about the use of French in a Russian book, but had not given it serious thought, I was mostly annoyed about how having to look at the footnotes slowed down the reading process (maybe this adds to the difficulty of getting through the first 100-200 pages?). After our discussion this week about members of the Russian nobility learning to speak their own language, I was better able to understand and appreciate the linguistic transformation that occurs during the book and why Tolstoy emphasizes it so much in the beginning.

The opening scene is Anna Pavlova’s soiree, and more specifically, this chapter is her conversation with Prince Vassily prior to the arrival of the other guests. To be completely honest I had forgotten her character entirely and when rereading mistook her for Anna Mikhailovna. She is not a significant character to us now and only seems to play the role of the hostess in this scene. On the other hand, Prince Vassily has played a larger role in the continuation of the plot. In this chapter, we are introduced to him as a seeker of status and wealth. It is revealed that the main reason for his attendance at this soiree is to try and advance his son.

“‘Tell me,’ he added as if just recalling something with special casualness, though what he asked about was the main purpose of his visit, ‘is it true that the dowager empress wants Baron Funke to be named first secretary of Vienna?…Prince Vassily wanted his son to be appointed to this post” (pg 5)

Earlier he also mentions that he has to attend a party at the British ambassador’s so that he can “put in [his] appearance” (pg 4). And later he asks Anna to introduce him to Andrei in the hopes of setting up Anatole with Marya when he learns their family is rich (pg 7). This chapter demonstrates his obsession with status and helps to foreshadow his future actions. From what I remember about the scenes he appears in, he seems only to ever be interested in improving his, or his children’s, social and wealth status.

What I found most interesting when reading this scene was Prince Vassily and Anna’s conversation about Anatole. Anna brings up the subject of the Vassily children saying, “fate has given you two such nice children (excluding Anatole, your youngest, I don’t like him)” (pg 6). So why does she single out Anatole? From the beginning, Anatole has the reputation of being “the troublesome one” (pg 6). Thinking about this conversation in the context of what we have just read about Natasha and Anatole, and previously with Mlle Bourienne, Anatole definitely lives up to his reputation.

Tolstoy’s choice of characters to open the book also stood out to me. We don’t see Anna Pavlova again (unless I am forgetting) and while Prince Vassily is a more prominent character, it seems strange that none of the main characters are present (Natasha, Pierre, Andrei, Nikolai, etc). Perhaps Prince Vassily was chosen given how intertwined his family is in the rest of the plot and with the main characters? I’m open to other suggestions.