Big Book 2019

Incredibly, even during the heat of battle, the Russian soldiers seem to always stay positive.  Some are there by choice and some by force, and all of them face the same threat of death by enemy forces.  They don’t take their task lightly, but they do have a knack for lightening the mood by finding humor in certain aspects of the war.  In the Battle of Borodino scene in particular, the soldiers use Pierre as the butt of their joke. Pierre, is of course used to this by now, or at least isn’t too bothered by it, as he finds their laughing impressive: “The cavalrymen go to battle and meet the wounded… And twenty thousand of them are doomed to die, yet they get surprised at my hat! Strange!” (760).  Being new to the idea of war, Pierre doesn’t understand how these men are not completely focused on their impending death and have the mental fortitude to give their attention to something so trivial as his hat.

Most of Pierre’s battlefield experience consists of riding aimlessly around on a horse and getting in the way of those actually involved in the battle.  Pierre realizes that he doesn’t have much of a role in the battle, but is also fascinated by it and doesn’t necessarily want to get out of the way. His day begins with his attempt to mount a military horse which leads to his glasses falling off and him holding on to the horse for dear life.  The scene “provok[ed] smiles from the staff officers” (791). The next group who encounters Pierre is the infantry at the base of the hill. “They all looked with equally displeased and questioning eyes at this fat man in a white hat” because they, unlike the cavalrymen he initially met, were locked into battle and did not see the humor in his naivete (791).  

When Pierre, unbeknownst to him, finds himself in the heart of the battle, the soldiers in the trenches are taken aback by his presence.  Everything about him is out-of-place on the battlefield: his size, his inexperience, and, most noticeably, his clothing choices. “The appearance of Pierre’s nonmilitary figure in a white hat struck these men unpleasantly at first,” but as with most people who interact with Pierre, they quickly learn to appreciate his oblivion (793).  They understand that he means them no harm, and even find themselves empathizing with his innocence. Acknowledging that Pierre essentially has no purpose in battle, the soldiers “mentally received Pierre into their family… and gently made fun of him” (794). They are excited to share their world with someone new so they build a “family” around him and establish a symbiotic relationship: Pierre is accepted into a brotherhood and the soldiers have someone to lift their spirits during the battle.

While not everyone can appreciate Pierre’s lack of intelligence on the battlefield, many of the soldiers see him as a relief from their current situation.  They find in him someone to laugh with (but mostly laugh at) and someone to whom they can emotionally connect without the fear that they will lose him in battle.  

There have been some really interesting examples of nature in relation to the war in these past few readings. In Environmental History we are reading a book called Spell of the Sensuous, a text that essentially argues in Western Civilization we have become detached from our senses. We ignore our bodily interactions with the life-world and have become stuck in our own heads, obsessed with ideas about war strategy and violent technology. This detachment from our senses has made us, in a word, senseless. That is, we have lost compassion and communication with the land we live in because we see it as something that can be compartmentalized and ordered. In the case of War and Peace, we see that in the Battle of Borodino.

At the end of the battle, Tolstoy recounts the extreme carnage that has just occured. The beautiful field Pierre had been admiring is now coated with bodies of young men and their shed blood. Tolstoy then offers us a profound line, the response from the land itself, saying: “ ‘ Enough, enough men. Stop now… Come to your senses. What are you doing?’”(818). Not only is the word choice pretty spot-on, the phrase itself is one I imagine the land has not stopped uttering since then. Granted, I believe Tolstoy was not picturing the lack of connection with the earth to be the problem, but the violence between humans. Yet even still, both come from a disconnect from the earth. The war and all its strategies, “honor”, technology, and suffering are ideas that came from the Western canon. They have isolate the men from each other and the men from the earth.

Tolstoy seems to support this idea in a few ways. When Nikolai runs into that young French soldier, for example, there is a humanizing moment where he questions himself and his motives, and the war itself after actually facing his enemy. Andrei too, right before his injury has a moment of candor. “ ‘ I can’t, I don’t want to die, I love life, I love this grass, the earth, the air…’ He was thinking all that and at the same time remembered he was being looked at” (811). Deep down he knows what is important to him, and in this moment of vulnerability he allows himself to think about it: the grass, the earth, the air. Yet he remembers that now he can’t allow himself to behave this way, to enjoy what his senses perceive. I find these occasions especially interesting given the time Tolstoy was writing this big book. As far as I can tell, in the educated and upper class of Russia and Europe, it was not popular or not allowed to be in touch with one’s senses since it was not in line with the Catholic or Russian Orthodox Church.

Prince Andrei and his regiment were stationed behind the front lines getting barraged by “heavy artillery fire” (808). A lot of the regiment were getting picked off slowly and could not fight back. The morale of the Andrei’s regiment was dropping with every soldier killed. The soldiers attention were mostly occupied by “totally extraneous events, which had no relation to the battle” (809). By trying to ignore the battle going on around them, the soldiers are lessening the great sorrow they feel about all the loss they are experiencing and not being able to do anything to fight back. The main reason Andrei decided to go the battlefield was to actually fight and do something that would actually make a difference in the outcome of the war. Instead, he is stuck in the reserves with is regiment slowly being picked off. He tried to think of orders to give to his regiment, but “there was nothing for him to do or order” (809 – 810). Andrei originally thought that it would be helpful if he tried to encourage the soldiers, but quickly realized that was a futile quest because he and all the soldiers knew “the horror of the situation they were in” (810). Realizing that he couldn’t do anything, Andrei paced up and down the meadow trying to walk so that his feet landed on the footprints in the grass. At this point, Andrei was just waiting for something significant to happen so that he could act like a commander again. Suddenly, a explosive cannonball hit the ground around Andrei and the soldiers. Andrei froze and thought to himself, “I don’t want to die, I love life, I love this grass, the earth, the air” (810 – 811). It is interesting that Andrei only realizes that he is fulfilled with his life only when he thinks he is about to die. One of the officers tells everybody to get down, but Andrei starts to scold him and then the cannonball explodes and he gets shrapnel in his stomach. Andrei was scolding the officer because he wanted to show to his soldiers that he wasn’t afraid and they shouldn’t be as well. Prince Andrei probably would have wanted his final battle to be something heroic and for it to change the course of the war, but instead he provided no assistance to the victory of the Russians and probably is going to die.

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.

Tolstoy examines man’s free will within the confines of two drastically different states of being: war and peace. He notes that “such is the inevitable fate of all men of action, and the higher they stand in the human hierarchy, the less free they are” (682). Tolstoy argues that with power and wealth comes struggle.At Bogchuvaro, where the peasants are rebelling and refusing to attach the horses to the carts and let Marya leave, it is only when Nikolai arrives and threatens of “ “giv[ing] them an army detachment” to “antagonize them” (734) that the serfs fall back into line. At this moment, readers become privy to state of mind that serfdom imposes – they cannot disobey their masters. Submission to nobility is intrinsic to their identity. If they are not tied to Bolkonsky’s land and his direction, then who are they? Even though they always outnumber their masters , they cannot go through with their rebellion. They bind each other at the will of Nikolai despite their advantages over him. Yet, throughout the novel, we, as readers, are shown that it is in fact the nobility who are the least free.

While the nobility  are physically free, many of the noble characters of the novel struggle with societal pressures and issues that the serfs are blissfully ignorant to. The serfs at Bogchuvaro seem to have lived a relatively simple life, free of the complications that come with the court of the nobles. For example, in trying to live up to the status thrust upon him, Pierre struggles with his own convictions. In making donations to the war effort, Pierre was immediately opposed to blind donations of troops and money. However, it was him who eventually decided “to give a thousand men and their maintenance” (681). Most often, nobles are trying to prove or elevate  themselves higher into society. Serfs are free from these stresses, and they are complacent with their place in life because they have no social mobility. Not only do nobles struggle to prove their worth, but they are constantly under the watch and judgement of others, namely their decisions on marriage are highly scrutinized. In this past reading, it was Napoleon who Tolstoy deemed was forced into invasion of Russia, that he “had to go into the depths of Russia” (682). Napoleon was aware of the dangers of invading so close to the upcoming winter, but just as the troops at Borodino stood and fired endless cannon shots compelled by some unknown force, Napoleon pushed forward into Russia. Prince Andrei’s and Pierre’s debate over the emancipation of the serfs brings to light many of the arguments of the restraints placed on the life of nobles. Although the nobility remains physically free, they are more restricted in the paths they can take  and choices they can make – so in the end do they truly possess more free will than the serfs?

I’ll admit, last night’s reading was a lot to take in. With constant battle details and quick, important glimpses into multiple different characters, I definitely had to reread a few pages. But throughout the whole twenty pages of the reading, the same thought kept coming to my mind: “Come on Tolstoy, really? I know you’re biased towards the Russians, but you don’t have to be so damn obvious about it!” This isn’t the first time I’ve had this reaction to parts of War and Peace either.

As Pierce wrote about in his first blog post, Napoleon has never been portrayed in a flattering manner. It was obvious from the beginning that Tolstoy didn’t like Napoleon from the way Tolstoy constantly described Napoleon’s physical appearance and actions. However, only recently has Tolstoy been so bold as to express Napoleon’s thoughts and feelings. When describing Napoleon’s reaction to the battle not going his way, Tolstoy writes, “Napoleon was experiencing a painful feeling similar to that which is always experienced by a lucky gambler, who madly threw his money about, always won, and suddenly… feels that the more he thinks over his move, the more certain he is to lose” (803). It would have been enough to say that Napoleon must have been questioning his moves since his last ones didn’t work, but no. Tolstoy must throw in that Napoleon was a “lucky gambler”, “madly” making decisions that just happened to work in the past. Tolstoy continues to describe the emperor as feeling “the terror of irresistible destruction [that] takes hold of the helpless man” (804). Again, come on Tolstoy, you’re making it too noticeable. Yet, even after these quotes, I was still on the line about Tolstoy’s portrayal of Napoleon. It was on page 815 that I was pushed over the edge when Tolstoy steps away from the action for three paragraphs writing:

“Never to the end of [Napoleon’s] life was he able to understand goodness, or beauty, or truth, or the meaning of his own actions, which were too much the opposite of goodness and truth, and too far removed from everything human for him to be able to grasp their meaning. He could not renounce his actions, extolled by half the world, and therefore he had to renounce truth and goodness and everything human” (815).

Now I know I didn’t have to include the whole block-quote, but I felt it was necessary to fully grasp what Tolstoy is claiming about Napoleon here. He’s calling Napoleon inhuman. Plain and simple. Tolstoy’s saying there isn’t a shred of honesty or virtue in the emperor.

Often while reading War and Peace I have to remind myself that some parts are fiction and others are fact. However, Tolstoy has been so blatant in his bashing of Napoleon that I now find myself feeling sympathetic to Napoleon sometimes. In his writing, Tolstoy has completely obliterated the historical figure of the French emperor and turned him into a totally fictional character, at least for me. After this particular reading, I have been forced to reconsider the claim of my last blog post that there are no true villains in the book. Perhaps, in Tolstoy’s eyes, Napoleon is the overarching villain in his view.

“Y no hai remedio (And there’s nothing to be done)” from Los Desastres de la Guerra (The Disasters of War) by Fransisco Goya gives insight into the horror and trauma of Napoleonic warfare. Created to protest Napoleonic occupation of Spain, Goya clearly illustrates the hopeless and horror of war. The Spanish uprising against French occupation has many parallels to the Russian and French conflict. While the French do not take control of the Russian government, their invasion is still bloody, horrific, and offensive to the national pride of the common people. The fight for national autonomy or for the survival of the Fatherland is a theme that we see throughout the conflict with France in War and Peace. When warfare occurs where one lives, it often draws out a spirit in people that is unique to defensive armies. The people of Spain are similarly willing to risk their lives to stop the occupation of their country, and in Goya’s prints, we see the consequences of that resistance. A man awaits his death by firing squad with many others lined up behind him. The horror of the scene, exemplified by the already dead figure on the ground, sneaks up on the viewer with the slow realization of the guns and masses of people waiting to be executed.

The horror of war is a common theme in both War and Peace. These works are published years after the actual war, but both comment on the reality of the conflict. The political message of Goya’s work and Tolstoy’s narrative illustrates the objective horror and destruction of war through the disasters that happen to Tolstoy’s characters and the shaded details of Goya’s execution scene. When reading War and Peace, the battle scene seems gruesome, but it is also hard to imagine anything close to the level of human suffering that must have occurred. While still not conveying the gut-wretching morbidity of war, Goya’s piece provides a visual component that can help us envision details more clearly and create connections to the effect of Napoleon on the rest of Europe.

Surprisingly, despite Goya’s commentary of the role of the French as oppressors, the visceral emotion invoked from this image seems most clearly linked to a recent description of Napoleon. The utter hopelessness, desperation, and acceptance have a profound effect on the viewer and tell a strong message about the effects of war and yet in War and Peace, Napoleon has very recently been described as broken down and lamenting the failure of his most recent battle campaign in this way. Napoleon’s realization of the futileness of war is ironic considering that he has been the instigator of violence across Europe, and functions to further cement Tolstoy’s argument about war.

Source:

https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/ap-art-history/later-europe-and-americas/enlightenment-revolution/a/goya-disasters-of-war

Form:

This is an oil painting in the neoclassical portrait style. The subject is the young son of the emperor Napoleon and the Princess of Austria, commonly referred to as Roi de Rome. The brushwork is tight and the work is fairly detailed. This is particularly evident in the texture of the fabrics of the seat and the child’s clothing, as well as in the skin and the facial features. This work is a triangularly composed portrait, which is a common aspect of classical and neoclassical portraiture. The painting is 23.6 inches tall by 19.2 inches wide, though the actual subject matter is constricted to an oval within the canvas.

Function:

This work functions to assert the power of the Napoleonic empire to viewers. According to War and Peace, this work was brought before Napoleon in his tent shortly before the Battle of Borodino. Everyone there was appropriately impressed by the portrait: “the allegory, to all those who had seen the picture in Paris, and to Napoleon himself, obviously seemed clear and quite pleasing” (779). The soldiers outside also seemed impressed by the painting: “he heard in the front of the tent the rapturous cries of the officers and soldiers of the old guard, who came running to the portrait. ‘Vive l’Empereur! Vive le Roi de Rome!’” (780). Later, this portrait was moved to Versailles, and it is currently on display in the Attique of the Petit Trianon. Its current location also has implications for the role of this work in the canon of French art and history.

Content:

This painting depicts Napoleon II holding what appears to be a globe in his left hand, and a scepter in his right. These are obviously symbols of his power and divine right to rule. Furthermore, Tolstoy says on page 779 that the ball and scepter are components of a bilboquet set, or a traditional French game where the player tries to impale a ball on a stick. Given the double interpretations of the objects as scepter/globe or bilboquet set, there seems to be some implication that the subject’s power is almost trivial to him, like a game. The subject also has a Christ gaze and his right hand is similar to a blessing hand.

Context:

Many aspects of this work are best understood in historical context or within the context of the canon of Western art. For example, the Christ gaze is an established characteristic in the canon of Christian art, as is the blessing hand. Tolstoy specifically compares it to the child Christ in the Sistine Madonna, though the same gaze is identifiable in many works. The blessing hand is similarly identifiable in many works, and although it is not exactly the same in this work, it is likely a quote. Furthermore, it is important to consider the significance of the style of this painting. Neoclassicism became popular among European artists in the late 18th and early 19th century, and was often held up as an example of the height and power of Western civilization. Thus, it is understandable that many leaders of the time (and Napoleon in particular) commissioned portraits in the Neoclassical style as a way to assert their power in the context of other powerful European and Western leaders. Gerard was known for his neoclassical portraits, and painted most relevant royal and noble figures during the early 19th century. However, as Neoclassicism began to recede in favor of Romanticism, Gerard’s popularity declined and he died soon after.

Sources:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fran%C3%A7ois_G%C3%A9rard

http://www2.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/joconde_fr?ACTION=CHERCHER&FIELD_1=REF&VALUE_1=000PE008379

During our reading this week I was struck by how Pierre seems to narrowly avoid danger and how his lack of basic awareness seems to aids him in avoiding death. In these earlier scenes of battle, Pierre is distracted by the “beauty” of the battlefield, which seems to keep him from realizing the hazards of war (pg 789). Pierre stumbles deep into the battle after riding after a general and subsequently getting lost. Even after his horse has been shot in the leg, mere feet away from his own body, Pierre does not seem to understand his proximity to danger. At this moment, he is initially “perplexed” by the horse’s unsteadiness, not realizing that it has been injured (pg 792). His incapability to understand what seems so straightforward to us as readers is frustrating. Why is he so oblivious? Shouldn’t he be able to figure out that his horse is injured because he is riding him?

Ignorance and stupidity have been aspects of his character since the beginning of the book. I was reminded of an earlier scene at Anatole’s house when thinking about these characteristics and how they relate to his encounters with danger. Pierre arrives at Anatole’s house after spending the evening with Andrei, who has him promise not to go to Anatole’s house because of his reputation for being rowdy. Yet, Pierre ends up at Anatole’s where the already drunk men are making bets to see who can sit on the windowsill and drink a whole bottle of rum. Although Pierre observes the bet at first and makes no intention of participating, once the bet has successfully been completed he climbs into the window and declares that he will do the same thing, but needs no reward. Thankfully for Pierre, the other guests think it is a bad idea and try and dissuade him. I line I found particularly funny from this scene is the initial response to Pierre’s idea: “‘What, have you lost your mind? Who’d let you? You get dizzy on the stairs’” (pg 35). Pierre is clearly not thinking straight, as his normal level of obliviousness is heightened by his drinking. Anatole understands this ignorance and uses it to trick Pierre back to the ground, lying when he says he will “make a bet with [Pierre], but tomorrow” (pg 35).

Later in the battle scene, Pierre escapes death two more times. After following a soldier to the caisson, something he is not supposed to be doing, he is nearly killed when the caisson in front of him explodes. Moments later when he is rushing back to the battery, now fearful for his life, he discovers that battery has been captured by the French, conveniently for him when he is not present. In a subsequent interaction with a French officer, Pierre again manages to avoid death. After these experiences, a shift in his attitude is observed and he finally realizes the consequences of the war and seems to be losing his innocence. However, will this realization be sustained? I am curious to see how Tolstoy continues to depict Pierre’s character in the upcoming chapters.

A couple nights ago, while we were reading the beginning of the Battle of Borodino sequence, I was struck by Pierre’s romantic descriptions of the color and splendor of the war landscape. I was also studying for an Art History exam and I saw a strong parallel between Pierre’s romantic notion of war, which, upon further investigation, is carnage masked by the haze of smoke from a distance and Turner’s Romantic painting Slave Ship. Indeed, in Turner’s painting you are first overwhelmed by the beautiful colors and the sunset and the crashing waves, but as you look into the waves, you see limbs, chains, and blood in the water. The scene which depicts slaves being thrown overboard so that the slaver can collect insurance money, because insurance covers acts of god not acts of negligence; thus, none of the slaves make it to the other side of the Atlantic. His painting, fundamentally, is about both the divine retribution in nature but also nature’s indifference to the loss of life. The sublime power of nature represented here through color, and the color of nature far outshines the lines of the boat representing human techne and skill.

Likewise, in Pierre’s account of the war-scape, he is overcome by the beauty of the scene and describes it in vivid, colorful imagery:

“Pierre looked ahead of him and froze in delight at the beauty of the spectacle…. Now the whole terrain was covered with troops and the smoke of gunfire, and the slanting rays of the bright sun, rising behind and to the left of Pierre, cast over it, in the clear morning air,, a piercing light of a pink and golden hue, and long, dark shadows. The distant woods, ending the panorama, as if carved from precious yellow-green stone, displayed the curved line of its treetops on the horizon…. It was all lively, majestic, and unexpected…” (789).

Pierre, here, displays the romanticized view of war, one that is about honor and military genius. He sees the beauty in both the military maneuvers (although he doesn’t understand them) and the setting of the battle. The descriptions of light, especially, reminded me both of Turner’s Slave Ship, but also, later on in the art-historical timeline, of Impressionist color theory in terms of the ways the colors all play off of each other in this early morning light. The descriptions of nature, though, are uniquely Romantic, given how he is clearly overwhelmed by the sublime power of nature. However, much like in Turner’s piece, the deeper you look, the more gruesome the scene becomes. Upon first glance at the panorama, he is in awe, but as he goes into the battle itself and sees the men who he has just become acquainted with die horrible deaths, Pierre quickly sees the ugliness and cruelty of war. Additionally, in class on Friday, we were talking about how at the end, Tolstoy begins to suggest that the will of God is what governs people and worlds, and thus war (818). The idea that God is indifferent to human suffering much like the sea in Turner’s piece, I think, is the most interesting parallel between the two scenes. I have personally thought a lot about God’s indifference to suffering, and I think now looking back on the scenes leading up to the battle where the soldiers are praying to icons to get them through the battle, it’s all the more devastating watching men walk to an almost certain death, but knowing that their prayers couldn’t save them.