Big Book 2019

Through our exploration of War and Peace so far, I find myself most compelled by Tolstoy’s views on nature and history. His thoughts seem to be decades ahead of Western realizations about the inherent, deeply troubling flaws of our societies, especially when I consider Junior year Western Civ. Those authors argued for progression of civilization, destruction of nature, and a general assertion that an ordering of all things, a deviation from the “life world” (as David Abram calls it) , is the way of living towards which people should aspire and partake in. Tolstoy, however, presents a different set of ideals. He presents several instances when characters have profound interactions with nature. Whether Andrei’s experience with the sky or the oak tree, Pierre and the comet, or Natasha and Nikolai in the rural dwellings of their estate, these interactions with nature seem to offer some of the most grounding or spiritually stirring scenes for our aristocrats. One of my favorite lines comes at the beginning of the 3rd volume, when Tolstoy posits some of his feelings about the stories he is recounting. Countering the traditional view of history, Tolstoy claims, “Their every action, which seems willed by themselves, in the historical sense is not willed, but happens in connection with the whole course of history and has been destined from before all ages” (606). Unlike a linear view of history, one that seems to dominate Western thought, Tolstoy presents a cyclical, interconnected view. Unlike Descartes, Galileo, Bacon, and countless other philosophers who attempted to rationalize, compartmentalize, and unbend the bendy world around them, Tolstoy suggests that historical events, significant or not, are part of a larger web. This web is alive and reliant on the natural world and all beings with which it interacts. I don’t think these views would stand out to me if not for Environmental History. Many of our documents have emphasized the importance of the ‘life-world’, a belief that all life and beings engender the interconnected system of earth. I found this idea obvious, but it wasn’t until books like Spell of the Sensuous, and excerpts from similar books, laid out the ways in which, humans are meant to be far more active in this system than we have become. This idea was accompanied by First Nations people and First the Forests, sources which proposed life is circular and not linear; it is a system which, like Tolstoy believes, is not an independent system where events occur in isolation one another, it is the direct opposite. Tolstoy also supports the notion that through living in the life world, though his characters tend to stay fairly civilized otherwise, in nature they seem more at ease. Natasha and Nikolai come to the rural, natural setting of their uncle to only feel better, and more human. “Natasha was in such merry spirits, she felt so good in these new surroundings, that she only feared the droshky would come for her too soon” (510). I found this example the most compelling. Natasha has been sad Andrei is gone, and the court and all its luxuries cant make her feel better. Living without those physical and societal artifices, however, seems to do her a world of good.

I hadn’t paid much attention to the food the characters eat in War and Peace until the scene at the Rostov’s uncle’s house immediately following the hunt. Tolstoy himself doesn’t pay much attention to food until that scene, which may be why it stands out so much. The arrival of the tray laden with “an herb cordial, liqueurs, mushrooms, flat cakes made from dark flour and buttermilk, honey in the comb, still and foaming mead, apples, fresh and roasted nuts, and nuts in honey” (509) is so meticulously and almost artfully described that it could have been lifted from a restaurant menu.

The emphasis on food in this scene, and specifically the how the food was considered traditional and typical of peasants, made me think about the role of food in the book thus far. I came across this blog post that lists all the times different foods are mentioned in the book. A pattern emerged that made me realize why the description of food after the hunt stood out to me: all the food mentioned before that point was high class, often European (more specifically, French), expensive delicacies served at soirees and dinner parties. The Rostovs and various other hosts serve turtle soup (62), pineapple ice cream (64), champagne (67, 337, 545), strawberries and pineapple (305), and sauté au madère of hazel grouse (56), among other dishes. None of the above foods are native to Russia, and some (particularly the tropical fruits) would have been incredibly expensive to get ahold of. Furthermore, champagne and madère (or madeira) sauce are important staples of French cuisine.

The fact that European/French delicacies are the usual fare at upper-class parties in War and Peace highlights the general infusion of French customs into the Russian nobility at this time. Many characters (particularly those that have had good educations) speak French fluently and often, sometimes as much as they speak Russian. European and French culture seem to eclipse Russian traditions in the upper class. It is, in fact, a surprise to those present that Natasha is aware of traditional Russian music and enjoys the traditional food. The cultural divide between the nobility and peasants is obvious, and I think that food is an interesting lens through which to view the dual identities of the Russians in the book. The novelty of the food and of the experience for the Rostov children in that scene is particularly striking, because in theory it is their native culture, but in reality they’ve had little contact with what they deem “lower-class” customs.

Starting as the favorite illegitimate son with no real future to one of the wealthiest and most eligible bachelors in Russia, Pierre’s identity has evolved throughout the course of the novel. The only thing to remain constant is his inability to follow through with his ideas. At the beginning of the book, Pierre lives recklessly. He does whatever he wants and ignores any advice given to him. When he disregards Andrei’s wishes and breaks his “word of honor that [he] won’t go [to Anatole’s] anymore” (30) and ends up getting himself kicked out of St. Petersburg. Due to his ways it is clear that he lacks ambition and purpose. It is the qualities he lacks that lead him to question his true purpose. His marriage falls to shambles and he begins to “hate [his] life” (352). Pierre finds consolation from his depression with the Masons. The Masonry promises a brotherhood oriented at purifying oneself and society – something that Pierre believes he can benefit from and commit to. Desperate to give his life meaning, the brotherhood has an immediate impact on Pierre. Through the teaching of the Masonry, he has a crisis of conscience, and tries to emancipate his serfs but fails. Even though his life has been filled with great ideas and conviction, he has failed at almost all of his endeavors.

        Tolstoy juxtaposes Andrei and Pierre, two best friends, to highlight the differences in their characters. Pierre and Andrei both struggle to find meaning in their lives. However, Andrei is portrayed as the more successful of the two, accomplishing things that Pierre cannot. Even though Andrei initially plays the role of the contrarian in their argument about the emancipation of serfs, suggesting that “the only possible happiness is animal happiness” (385) and emancipation would “deprive [the serfs] of it” (385), he successfully frees his serfs because he agrees on a moral level with Pierre. His actions cause him to become known as a liberal by his fellow Russian politicians because he makes rational decisions based on his own sense of honor and morality. His success in freeing his serfs is due in large part to his living in the country. He can ensure that his changes are in fact implemented. Pierre, however, lives in the city and is remote to the changes at his estates. Andrei is successful because he is directly involved in creating change. The contrast of Pierre and Andrei extends to all facets of their life, and Pierre’s recent epiphany under the stars creates hope that he might successfully complete one of his many great ideas.

A duel was not common, or even legal within Russia before the late 18th century. Peter the Great had outlawed duels as barbaric practices in 1715 and threatened the hanging of both parties. However, they grew in popularity between noblemen as a way to settle almost any dispute. This convention abided loosely by a code of honor standardized by the Code Duello. This list of rules originated in Ireland and spread through Europe to later be adopted in a similar form in Russia. Most are specifications for apologies or reconciliation and focus around the honor of the duelists. Others specify the roles of seconds and the regulations in order to maintain a fair fight. Within War and Peace, duels have become a focal point within the first half of the text. Pierre has challenged and dueled Dolokhov, Prince Andrei seeks to find and challenge Anatole to a duel, and in real life, Tolstoy himself almost ended up in a duel with Turgenev. Like many duels of the time, Pierre’s duel with Dolokhov was instigated over an affair, in this case, Dolokhov’s relationship with Helene. Pierre challenged Dolokhov verbally to a duel and the two separated until they would meet to fight, as was custom. Both Pierre and Dolokhov chose a second, a trusted acquaintance who will represent them as an ambassador of sorts. This second, in this case, Rostov and Nesvitsky, would arrange details of the duel and attempt to solve the conflict peacefully. In the text, Nesvitsky asks Pierre if he would like to apologize before the duel but is declined as is Denisov when asking Dolokhov about the same question about reconciliation. It was customary to either use swords or pistols in a duel. Unreliable and inaccurate pistols were often chosen in Russia and is more likely in this situation as Pierre is not a trained swordsman and would be at a disadvantage. Pierre and Dolokhov took part in a standard duel that is defined by having a barrier between the two men and having a distance of 10 paces on either side separating the pair. In the text, Nevitsky and Denisov abided by these customs after, “measuring out the paces, left tracks imprinted in the deep wet snow from the places where they were standing to their swords, marking the barrier and stuck into the ground ten paces apart”(315).

“Code Duello: The Rules of Dueling.” PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/duel-code-duello-rules-dueling/.

“Dueling in Russia.” Music 242 Spring 2014, Habitat Degradation, pages.stolaf.edu/russian261-fall2014/russian-lit-main-page/dueling/.

Erofeyev, Victor. “The Secrets of Leo Tolstoy.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 19 Nov. 2010, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/20/opinion/20iht-ederofeyev.html.

Schuyler, Eugene. “The Quarrels Between Tolstoy and Turgenev.” New England Review (1990-), vol. 33, no. 2, 2012, pp. 186–194. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/23267253.

Yegorov, Oleg. “Getting (No) Satisfaction: How Noblemen Used to Duel in the Russian Empire.” Russia Beyond, Russia Beyond, 12 Dec. 2017, http://www.rbth.com/history/327002-duels-in-the-russian-empire.

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.

Something I have noticed while reading Tolstoy’s constant switches between scenes of war and episodes of court drama is that for most of the characters “war” and “peace” are not as black and white as the title of the book may suggest.  Initially, many of the male characters speak about war as if it is an initiation into adulthood which allows them to demonstrate their masculinity and begin construction on their military reputations. We quickly realize that for Prince Andrei and Nikolai Rostov, however, war is significantly more than an excuse to show off their cool weapons.  

The war scenes are pretty obvious to the reader, as they mostly start out by clarifying which generals are present and where they are positioned in relation to the enemy.  Some dramatic battle imagery ensues and a whole cast of new names is added. Less obvious are the scenes of peace. The soirees and balls are plentiful throughout the story, and, for the most part, they seem to indicate times of general happiness.  For the female characters who do not go to war, most of their drama unfolds at these gatherings. At Natasha’s first ball, her greatest concern is finding a balance between fitting in and standing out. Attending high status events is her own form of initiation and brings her a great deal of stress assuaged only by the judgement of others: “she realized she was liked by those who paid attention to her, and this observation reassured her somewhat” (457).  The pressure that Natasha feels to impress others and succeed in courtship is (so far) as close as she has come to the pressure of war, and has mostly resulted in an internal emotional warfare that she seems to actually revel in. Whereas Natasha’s most stressful situations are largely borne of her own mind and perpetuated by her longing for a more dramatic life, the stress faced by others is not as fabricated.

Nikolai and Andrei’s relationships to war and peace are complex and surprising.  Although I am sure they would hate to be related to one another, I think they would agree that they both much prefer war over peace.  This preference can most certainly be attributed to the sense of relief they feel on the battlefield and the lack of control they experience at home.  Court life does not suit Nikolai, primarily because of his fear of being pressured into marrying and settling down. When he first returns from war, Nikolai is confronted by Natasha’s resolution that he should reconnect with Sonya.  Nikolai, still entranced by the vividness of battle, admits that he still is interested in Sonya but refuses to give up his newfound love of war: “Why shouldn’t he love her and even marry her?… Not now….’I should remain free’” (301).  He yearns for war and feels that a more earthly love will stifle his military prowess. Andrei, a more established man of war, is even more infatuated with war than Nikolai is. His life at home in Bald Hills is spoiled by his critical father, his religious sister, the responsibility of teaching his son, and the memory of his late wife.  Court life is uncomfortable for Andrei. What should theoretically be a time of peace between wars in which he can finally spend time with his son quickly becomes a burden to him when his father lashes out at the nearest living creature. War is where Andrei holds the knowledge and therefore the power, even when he is losing the fight. The battlefield is where Andrei experiences an overwhelming moment of spiritual awakening after being knocked down: “How is it I haven’t seen this lofty sky before? And how happy I am that I have finally come to know it….And thank God!” (281).  Ironically, for Nikolai and Andrei, war is the most peaceful aspect of their lives. When it gets too intense for them at home they can go to war, and there is seemingly always a war to which they can go.

“The two most powerful warriors are patience and time” (Leo Tolstoy). I first heard these words just last night while I was meditating. The app I use for help always ends each session with a quote. Last night, the quote was Tolstoy’s. I immediately went to my computer to find the context in which Tolstoy had said or written these words and to my surprise, I found that the quote was false. Despite these words being well known as Tolstoy’s, it is actually Kutosov who says a variation in War and Peace. When speaking with Andrei about the nature of battles and war, Kutosov explains, “And yet, my dear boy, there’s nothing strong than those two warriors, patience and time” (744). This quote by Kutosov raised the question for me, what roles do patience and time play in War and Peace?

Throughout the book thus far, almost every main character deals with patience and time. The characters these forces seem to affect the most are Pierre, Andrei, and Natasha. Pierre, on multiple occasions, shows his lack of patience that results in his failures. After being inducted into the Masons, Pierre is overcome with an urge to do good and speaks to a steward of his estates about making life better for his serfs. However, when discussing the next steps, Pierre becomes lost in the “complexity of processes of lifting prohibitions… and only said to [the steward]: ‘Yes, yes, do that’” (379). Lacking the patience to oversee the changes himself, Pierre entrusts his vision with his steward who promptly does none of Pierre’s wishes. This lack of patience, leading to failure, happens again when Pierre speaks to the Masonry. When he is reprimanded for his “radical” ideas Pierre becomes “overcome by that anguish he feared so much” (436), yet he does nothing to pursue his ideas further. Throughout Pierre’s life, he has struggled with the conflict between his lack of patience and his need to feel useful and find meaning in doing good.

Another character who struggles with patience is Natasha. Each time we are reintroduced to her, she seems to be in a hurry to do something she believes will fill her with elation or distract her. Whenever we get a glimpse of her thoughts, they are constantly darting around. This is overwhelmingly noticeable in the ordeal with Anatole. Natasha had been struggling with her separation from Andrei, and her lack of patience builds up to the scenes in which she is swept up by Anatole’s charm and the promise of something new and daring. Her susceptibility to Anatole also suggests her fear of time passing. Before meeting Anatole, Natasha had slowly come to think “that her best time, which she could have used in loving [Andrei], was being wasted” (533-534). This theme of Natasha growing older is prevalent through the book, and in almost every occurrence, we have seen Natasha fight against her situation and fight against time.

Last of these characters that patience and time affect most is Andrei. Andrei shows the most patience of all the main characters. He works hard to ensure that his serfs’ lives are improved. He deals with his father and sister with respect even when he disagrees, which is exemplified when he agrees to go away for a year before marrying Natasha. Most notably, in the political world, he listens and absorbs all that is said around him, waiting to see how things play out. Yet, he is constantly at the mercy of time. His feelings toward the world are constantly changing as time goes on, he loses his fiancee because he is away too long, and most recently he is pulled back into a war that was believed to be over.

Throughout War and Peace, patience and time are portrayed as two forces which can have an enormous effect over the lives of the characters. Yet, as a final thought, let me pose a question: to what extent does Tolstoy himself believe in Kutozov’s words that these forces are the strongest of all? Hopefully, as the book continues we’ll get to hear more from Tolstoy himself in his essays, and we’ll be more able to answer this question more firmly.

“The old with the old, the young with the young, the hostess by the tea table, on which there were exactly the same cakes in a silver basket as the Panins had at their soiree–everything was exactly the same as with everyone else” (470)

In Tolstoy’s depiction of Vera and Berg’s soiree, or simply their fancy housewarming party, the couple presents themselves to Russian society. In doing so, they present their guests with quite literally what they have come to know of soirees, copying the “conversation, cards, and the general raising his voice over the cards, and the samovar, and the cakes” (pg 472). Berg even goes out of his way to make sure that there is a “loud conversation among men” and makes sure to draw Pierre into the conversation (pg 472).  

What is the reader to make of this mimicry? In present day, such direct mimicry might be socially frowned upon. However, the hosts seem to think its brilliant and are not all concerned about potential repercussions for wearing the same pelerine or having the same cakes: “‘That’s exactly the same as Princess Yusupov wore,’ said Berg with a happy and kindly smile, pointing to the pelerine” (pg 469). Perhaps imitation was thought of less harshly than it is now. Afterall, it is said that mimicry is the highest form of flattery.

Besides the ridiculousness of overtly copying previous soirees, in creating this scene, Tolstoy seems to use these characters to add a comedic quality to the book. He mocks their intellect and character by exposing the each of their thoughts to the reader. Near the beginning of the scene, when Berg and Vera are discussing the upcoming soiree, Tolstoy exposes their true feelings about each other. “Berg smiled with a consciousness of his superiority over a weak women…At the same time, Vera also smiled with a consciousness of her superiority over her virtuous, good husband” (pg 468). This continues further as Berg “considers all women weak and stupid,” while Vera considers all men to to be “proud and egotistic” (pg 469). The thoughts of the couple continue to butt heads as they make conversation with Pierre.

It should also be considered that as readers, we are predisposed to how Tolstoy has depicted the characters. In this case, both have not been shown in a particularly flattering light. This unflattering bias seems to aid in Tolstoy’s use of mockery. This leaves readers to wonder how will the characters be depicted next? How might Tolstoy continue to make fun of these characters? 

 

“Some men are born mediocre, some men achieve mediocrity, and some men have mediocrity thrust upon them. With Major Major it had been all three. Even among men lacking all distinction he stood out as a man lacking more distinction than all the rest, and people who met him were always impressed by how unimpressive he was.”

-Joseph Heller, Catch-22

Catch-22 is a book set during World War II that parodies the various absurdities in the American military. Major Major, for example, is a major in the army who is a caricature of the classic “mediocre person,” that is, somebody who lacks distinction. Joseph Heller explores both the larger characteristics of mediocrity (including vague but generally well-meaning moral attitudes, willingness to defer to authority, aversion to serious responsibility, and lack of agency) and the interaction of common mediocrity with military service. For example, Major Major is promoted to major despite his obvious incompetence, and he spends much of his time trying to avoid his leadership responsibilities. Major Major is also generally kind, but he does not have a specific set of moral principles that he is willing to pursue. Although Major Major is clearly a parody of military officials who are promoted despite their very average abilities, he and Nikolai Rostov share some of those same mediocre characteristics.

As a literal line of comparison between the two, Major Major and Nikolai Rostov have similar experiences in their military service. Tolstoy shows that the truly mediocre soldier is subject to cowardice and unremarkable actions during battle: Nikolai enters military service hoping to win glory and prove his loyalty to his country, but he falls of his horse and runs away from the enemy instead of fighting them. Despite these unremarkable actions, Nikolai Rostov eventually takes over as squadron commander after Denisov is ousted. In parallel, Major Major (in Catch-22) is promoted by accident due to a computer glitch, and runs away from his office each time somebody comes to see him.

In Part IV, Chapter 1, Nikolai Rostov enjoys the “irreproachable idleness” of the army, and prefers to remain in his peaceful world of military life rather than return home to correct his family’s finances. However, his mother eventually begs him to come home. Although he obliges, Tolstoy criticizes Nikolai’s lack of agency and conviction by writing that that “[Nikolai Rostov] had that common sense of mediocrity which told him what he ought to do” (p.489). Tolstoy acknowledges that average people (and by extension, Nikolai Rostov) usually have vague moral standards and are able to recognize that they have responsibilities to fulfill. However, Tolstoy uses the word “ought” to establish a difference between mediocre people like Nikolai (who understand their responsibilities but do not carry them out) and stronger people like Andrei, who acts on his moral principles by freeing his serfs. Meanwhile, when Nikolai finally returns home, he decides after only one tough day to give up and go hunting instead of striving to help his family. Therefore, like Major Major, Nikolai generally means well but lacks the skill and conviction to make any real difference.

Nikolai also mirrors Major Major in that he is easily influenced or controlled by others, and that he is willing to submit to authority. Dolokhov manipulates him into playing a game of cards in which he loses 40,000 roubles and financially hurts his already suffering family, which exposes his lack of resistance to outside influence. Nikolai also feels love for the sovereign and complete patriotism in a way that other, less mediocre characters, do not. During troop inspections and visits, Nikolai constantly obsesses over Alexander’s physical characteristics and movements, going so far as to say that he would die of happiness if the sovereign addressed him (p.246). Although Alexander I is historically well-known for being indecisive and guilty of patricide, Nikolai is so star-struck by his presence that he is unable to even imagine these flaws (like the rest of the mediocre Russian army). Although his patriotism is admirable in some ways, his blind obedience shows a lack of critical thinking skills, and makes him more a subject of the system than a leader of others. Similarly, in Catch-22, though Major Major is theoretically in a position of influence, he constantly defers to his superiors and refuses to take any command of or responsibility for his underlings.

Mediocrity is not a common characteristic of a protagonist. However, Nikolai Rostov’s mediocrity is important because it inspires the audience to see their own flaws and understand the plight of common people rather than uncommon and unrelatable heroes. As a contemporary example, plenty of people understand that it is ethically dubious and practically inefficient to eat animals, but few of those people have the willpower to follow through on this ethical principle. We also can observe the effects of mediocre attitudes in our society’s actions as a whole. Tolstoy described this mindset in his essay on the causes of the war between Napoleon and Alexander, in that “if all the sergeants had been unwilling to enlist for a second tour of duty, there also could have been no war” (604). He argues that if common people were willing to take a moral stand against war, there would be less fighting; yet, because most people are subject to the helplessness and deference that comes with mediocrity, they fight anyways. Nikolai Rostov’s mediocrity is central to the plot and the continuing financial problems of the Rostov family, and it forces the reader to reflect on their own mediocre mindset.