Piano World Home Page Forums Fun Stuff! - Parties, Tours, Projects & More... Just For The Fun of It War and Peace - Tolstoy

Tyrone - we cross-posted. Thanks for the info - oh, I'd forgotten the term "limited warfare".

Warfare as a chronic infection of humans - sorry for the cynicism - but it seems that way to me.

That sounds like quite a movie!

Vol III Pt 2 Chpt XXI - XXIX

Old Russian still around - an icon is brought before the battle and the officers, including Kutuzov, make sure they pay respect.

The lack of communications in the Russian army is shown by the anecdote of Benningsen moving troops to the top of the Shevardino redoubt - who can defend from the bottom? - not knowing they had actually been placed there in ambush.

Andrei sees clearly the brutality of war - not a game as many "play" it - says, if we stopped playing and took no prisoners we'd have a lot less war. Also, that the war is won by the spirit of the soldiers (which, by-the-way, Tolstoy, it seems to me, portrays Napolean as being able to actually spark, and Alexander only being able to "play" spark - in fact, he has Napolean saying "take no prisoners")

Tolstoy, tho, also makes fun of the idea of Napolean's leadership having anything at all to do with what happens at Borodino - he wasn't even there, couldn't possibly have given orders based on the actual events, much less did his "having a cold", as some historians posited, have anything to do with it. But - Borodino, or any other war, wouldn't have happened at all except that all those soldiers chose to fight. And, why, may I ask, did they choose to do that? Tolstoy says because of all the (millions and millions of) decisions that had gone before - we're all at mercy of history, not in charge of it.

And Andrei's still in a snit over Anatole, who didn't care at all about the Russian purity and spirit of Natasha, but is still alive.

I enjoy reading your critiques, Cathy.

+1! I enjoy reading Cathy's analyses also!

Thanks, y'all

cmb13 - I'm not sure it was a movie - maybe it was an episode of the something like The Twilight Zone or something. But that part did make an impression on me.

Vol III Pt 2 Chpts XXX - XXXIX and some of Pt 3

Pierre is back to his blundering, doofus ways as he rides, literally, into the middle of the battle of Borodino. Eventually, settling on one of the redoubts/earthworks, the soldiers begin to think of him as kind of a mascot - a simpleton, perhaps, but to be put up with. It isn't until the redoubt is overrun and then retaken that Pierre notices the dead and wounded, and then in addition to being a doofus he is shocked. This couple of hours will haunt him in his dreams for a long while to come.

Napolean, after the battle has not been won in 8 hours, begins to realize that it won't be. The Russian troops are, finally, at the bedrock of their Russian spirit, and refuse to retreat - they've won a moral victory defending Mother Russia that Napolean's polynational troops can't match. Tolstoy spends a lot of time describing Napolean's thoughts, both here and as he realizes that the Russians have abandoned Moscow and refuse to give him the "conquering hero" reception he has day-dreamed of. It is "impossible" that Russians should be ruled by the French, so, as they have all along the invasion, the Russians left their homes, and burned them to keep the French from ruling them (so Napolean should have expected the burning of Moscow, too) - a pyrrhic victory, huh. Pardon the pun.

Tolstoy enlarges on his theory of history once again, comparing it to calculus. Frankly, I finally feel like Tolstoy has overdone it - when I get as wordy as he has it's because I haven't quite thought things thru yet On a photo site I go to the owner has a quote every day, and today's quote from Euripides says in 8 words what Tolstoy has been saying (and, more effectively, I think, illustrating) in almost 900 pages - "Circumstances rule men and not men rule circumstances." Amirite?

And Andrei dies and comes back to life again - another plot device - I thought to myself - Are you kidding me?!? I haven't gotten to the consequences of that yet - the Rostov's have left Moscow and everyone but Natasha knows Andrei is in the convoy, but I'm not further than that.

I like Kutuzov more and more He understands Russia much more than the generals and commanders around him, most of whom are plotting against him. He understands that in order for the army to defend Russia they must - at least for now, eh? - give up Moscow. He says that he's only thinking militarily, but I think to the tips of his toes he knows exactly what he's doing - it's just a part of him, he wouldn't be able to think any other way. He doesn't quite, in his mind, understand how it's gotten to this point, but his instincts are right.

The Rostovs leaving Moscow. As only the Rostovs could, and just in the nick of time. The depiction of Berg coming to try to touch Old Rostov for enough to buy Vera a small secretary that one of their neighbors will abandon is - did I understand rightly that Berg asked for a serf he could trade for it? - damning, at least to me. But maybe thoroughly Russian in the circumstances - leave, burn, return when times have changed. I finished a book a couple of months ago by Barbara Tuchman called Stillwell in China, I think, and she described the Chinese philosophy that they only need to outlast their enemies - there are so many of them, and the obstacles to any enemy are such that all enemies will eventually give up trying, and this different way of existing than the West has reminded me of Tolstoy's explanation of Russia.

I'm in to Part III, so moving right along.

Oh, and a couple of additional thoughts - I appreciate the previous commentary here on real beehives! The emptiness of Moscow compared to a beehive without a queen was masterful, but it was cool to have the facts here in addition. And I had just finished a book called Robbing the Bees, so bees were everywhere

I also was astounded that Andrei was wounded when his regiment wasn't even engaged - they were essentially sitting ducks for French artillary shells that would rain on them, killing a number of them, and then the regiment would re-group and wait for the next round of shells. What an utter waste - meaningless waste.

Great comments, Cathy, as always. What I find interesting about Tolstoy's description of Pierre visiting the battlefield of Borodino (before the battle, ch. XXI) is that Tolstoy puts his characters "inside" history, as it were--Pierre looks at "some village," asks the name of it; an officer distorts the name saying "Burdino," etc. The battle hasn't happened yet, its historical significance is not yet known, Borodino is not yet a household name; all of this, of course, had already happened in Tolstoy's own time but he presents the perspective of the people for whom this history is just unfolding. Also, I love Pierre's confusion when he looks at the battlefield. Not a military man, he has some preconceived ideas about what a battlefield should look like but instead there’s no structure, everything is muddled, there are “fields,” instead of one “field.” He doesn’t know where the Russian army is and where the French are. As always, Tolstoy shows that the actual war (and actual history) is more messy, less structured and organized than we might think (this is why he always mocks military councils where German generals discuss military science, strategy and stick pins into maps--which present a highly structured concept of space, unlike the "reality" Tolstoy portrays).

I do agree with you that Tolstoy's ruminations on the workings of history become repetitive at some point. He just can't stop. But there are some additional nuances every now and then.

Spot-on about Kutuzov! It's precisely his instincts, his being in sync with the Russian people and being passive when necessary (because he knows that he doesn't rule history) that make him a great leader in Tolstoy's portrayal. Note that the whole council of Fili, where the destiny of Moscow is decided, is described through the eyes of a little peasant girl who doesn't understand anything about military strategy, of course, but intuits correctly who is right and takes Kutuzov's side (again, Tolstoy's idealization of children and the naive point of view).

Napoleon grossly misinterprets and misunderstands both Russia in general and Moscow in particular. He fantasizes about Moscow, imagining it as an oriental beauty awaiting to be "taken" by the Western conqueror. He is waiting for the "boyars" to bring him the key to the Kremlin--the big joke here is that boyars hadn't existed in Russia for at least for 100 years; this old nobility was abolished by Peter the Great. Instead Napoleon finds a burning city and an empty beehive (a Pyrrhic victory indeed--loved the pun!).

Finally,as for the Rostovs leaving Moscow--this is exactly the scene I was referring to earlier when I defended their impracticality. Yes, it's impractical not to take your possessions and instead make room for the wounded soldiers--but isn't it more moral and human? This is why the practical mother fares not so well in this scene and is scolded by Natasha. Berg acts in his typical way as a typical bourgeois German (in Tolstoy's prejudiced portrayal), concerned with the acquisition of material things during Russian national tragedy. Cathy, I don't think he's trading a serf for the secretary; I checked the Russian and here's what Berg says, "you have many peasants out there in your courtyard, give me one, I'll pay him well and ...". I understand that he offers to pay the peasant for helping to move the secretary, although the scene is a bit ambiguous.

dumka1 - thanks for clearing up the serf stuff about Berg - I just didn't quite get it. I didn't get the little girl at the war council, either, and couldn't quite figure out why Tolstoy wrote it that way, so now it makes sense. I, too, like the fact that the characters are "in their time", as you say about Pierre and the guy that didn't know the town name exactly. It must have really added a sense of something awful looming to those who were reading the novel in serialization - a freight train they knew was coming but they couldn't prevent. And the boyars having been done away with 100 years earlier - what a telling anecdote that was if you knew that.

And yes, saving the wounded was the moral and right thing to do, and Natasha did it the same way Kutuzov led the army - it was instinctual, something that didn't require a second thought, or even a first one - just *of course* we will unload and let the wounded have the carts. It was just such a typical Rostov circus otherwise.

I have another book club that meets tomorrow but then I should have 3 weeks or so I can mostly concentrate on War and Peace, so I will! I'm looking forward to more commentary over in the Anna Karenina thread.

Vol III Pt 3 Chpts XXI-XXV

Wow. Just wow. Chpts 21-24 are sort of the usual - the folks left in Moscow, craft/guild members etc, are getting drunk and rowdy - and suspicious of their supposed role in fighting Napolean, the Russian soldiers are looting, the bridges are at a stand still with soldiers and citizens trying to leave, Rastopchin is denying/finding someone else to blame for his lack of leadership (when he *thought* he had been so close to the populace!), Rastopchin is helpless - when folks come to him asking about what to do with the prisoners and the people in the mental hospital he has made no plans (I just finished a book about New Orleans and Hurricane Katrina - I'm reminded of the chaos there) so he just says - free them all, "Let them all leave, that's all. . .And let the madmen free in the city". . .

And that's exactly what happens But Rastopchin is perhaps the biggest. Completely off his head, he has Vereshchagin brought before the crowd. That's the young man falsely accused of treason that Pierre had tried to help earlier. And, reminiscent of Pontias Pilate and Christ (I'd guess deliberately so) Rastopchin throws him to the wolves - including ordering the guard to beat him and inciting the crowd to kill him. So one of the soldiers hits Vereshchagin with his sword, and the crowd surges in for the kill. Inevitably someone else is killed, too - a man who had been inciting the crafts/guild folks to confront Rastopchin and his lying posters is also beaten and trampled.

Some in the crowd become horrified at these actions, but Rastopchin drives off in his caleche, immediately beginning to justify his actions - for the good of the people. Tolstoy makes clear that the biggest atrocities are always done in the name of "the good of the people" - all the police states, all the government crackdowns, all the represson of the populace. "For a man not gripped by passion, that good is never known; but the man who commits the crime always knows for certain what that good consists in. And Rastopchin now knew it."

For me this was the most horrifying chapter of the book (tho I'm not finished yet). For all that Tolstoy didn't flinch from describing the realities of the battlefield, the self-interested maneuvering and/or sheer incompetence of the generals, the casual trading of serfs for hunting dogs, this was the most devastating portrayal of them all. I actually can't describe it - Tolstoy does it, and it left my mouth hanging open. Won't most of us have been part of the mindless crowd - manipulated by either the tall man inciting them against Rastopchin or Rastopcin inciting them against Vereshchapin, or a looting soldier, or Rastopchin's servants merely getting the horses and carriage ready, or Rastopchin himself? And if we think not, on what basis do we think we wouldn't be? That those around us would be susceptible but not us? Really, the Rostov's stand out here as beacons of decency, huh?

And what to make of Kutuzov - saying no, he won't abandon Moscow without a fight. For Kutuzov, who knows in his soul that Napolean won't win in Moscow - he must *know* that Moscow is not lost - Moscow cannot be lost. The French will leave, and Russia will survive.

Yes, I always thought of this scene as a deliberate allusion to Pontius Pilate and Christ--too many parallels for it be a coincidence + the madman popping up in front of Rostopchin afterwards and screaming about rising from the dead three times (he uses the word "resurrect" in Russian). Great observation. I agree, it's a horrifying and extremely powerful scene.

How interesting that in Russian the word the madman screams is "resurrect". Definitely, then, an allusion to the Christian story.

Vol II Pt 3 Chpt XXVI to end of Pt 3

I think Pierre's forte is not actually political, much as he thinks he'd like to be in the battle or assassinate Napolean. It is individual acts for individual people, as illustrated here. He saves the French officer who is attacked by Alexeevich, he finds the 3-year-old girl who has hidden from the fires, he defends the Armenian family being harassed by the French soldiers, and earlier he comforted Natasha, and befriends his friend Andrei. He also has Berserker moods, like when he confronted Dolokhov and now as he defends the Armenian family. For all his worry about becoming a better person he is a basically decent person in a culture that doesn't really recognize that particular expression of it. Marya and Natasha seem to share this.

The reconciliation between Natasha and Andrei is portrayed, to me, as being spiritual - Andrei doesn't have to "forgive" because he has recognized the universal love-for-all that he felt when he saw Anatole in such fear and pain. And Natasha has found the courage, maturity, and spiritual strength to ask for forgiveness directly. So while it is true that Andrei is probably dying - his wound is putrefying - they travel on together, Natasha nursing him.

And the fires in Moscow become more widespread - perhaps those are purifying, too.

"And the fires in Moscow become more widespread - perhaps those are purifying, too."
- Nice! Great metaphor there, Cathy!

Pierre is a good person. He has no major financial concerns, and is free to act based on his sense of right and wrong. He'd be a good friend to anybody.

I agree!

Also, great point about Andrei not needing to forgive as he's found universal love. Very insightful.

Vol IV Pt 1 Chpts 1 - 10

Life in the salons of Petersburgh goes on - as Tolstoy says later, as much as current folks have the idea that all of Russia was up in arms about the French and Moscow the truth was, life went on. Vassily reads a letter in great dramatic style, everyone prefers to believe the news from Borodino is a great win, in other places Nicolai finds horses for his new command and Marya's aunt match-makes between Marya and Nicolai, Alexander postures over the news from Moscow, Helene dies (!!), Bilibin continues to be witty and Ippolito continues to think he is.

The take on Tolstoy's view of history is that no one who thinks about events and their (the thinkers) influence on history has any influence at all - only those who act unconsciously, instinctively have an influence.

Did I interpret it right that Sonya only sent the letter setting Nicolai free when she needed again to feel like she was sacrificing, but really thought that Andrei would live and reconcile with Natasha, so that it was impossible for Nicolai to marry Marya? In other words, she thought she was safe from the consequences of setting Nicolai free? Poor Sonya - she could end up like Boris's mother or Pierre's cousins.

Pierre discovers the hypocrisy of trials - they are for show only, guilt is a foregone conclusion - even after he and the judge discover each other's humanity. Another of Tolstoy's takes on causes of events - no one found Pierre guilty, it was "the order of things" from time immemorial.

Only 160 pages to go to the beginning of the first epilogue!

Final stretch! And then you can join us over in the AK thread Cathy And the first part of the epilogue is the only one that matters! 😜

I've been reading the AK thread, but I think I'm Tolstoyed out for awhile. I did pick up a used copy of The Count of Monte Cristo at the library's book store, tho, if you guys decide to do that after Anna.

Cathy, That’s my plan. I’m about half way through AK. If I move it along I can be ready to visit the Count by the end of next week.

I would love to keep reading W&P at my former pace, but frankly, I have other things I want to do, too! So I'm going faster and commenting less, not because there is less to comment on, but because - I'm just ready to move on.

So here's some comments on the end of Vol 3 and the start of Vol 4:

Tolstoy praises the role of the partisans/guerillas/muzhiks/etc, some of whom, like Denisov's and Kolokhov's groups, were actually regular army acting independently - I hadn't realized that part. He also sings the praises of the efforts of Dokturov, who was always overlooked by historians but had been in charge at every difficult time for the Russian army, just doing his job and getting on with things. Again, Tolstoy's complaint - it's not the folks historians decide are "great" who actually effect history. Tolstoy praises "the club" (more primitive) over "the sword" (more modern), particularly since what wins wars isn't all the generals/strategies, etc, but the spirit of the common soldiers of the army. He depicts Kutuzov as being the only Russian among the army generals who fully understood this, as well as the value of "time and patience" and letting the French army be destroyed under its own current circumstances, and saving the Russian soldiers, having compassion for the soldiers of both sides. Tolstoy also depicts the average soldier as feeling much the same as Kutuzov - a Christmas truce during WWI? - and the damage done to common soldiers both when they were brutalized and when they did the brutalizing.

Dolokhov was certainly the ongoing bane of the Rostov's existence, eh? Even tho Dennisov tried to protect Petya, Dolokhov was perfectly happy to exploit, just for the fun of it?, Petya's youthful stupidity. But Petya had a long history of the kind of innocent stupidity that actually got him killed. But the effect of his death on his mother was what brought Natasha back to life from mourning Andrei - she was the only one who calm her mother.

Pierre, and other prisoners, are freed by the combined Dennisov/Dolokhov raid on the French column. I thought the description of Pierre's state of mind - his not noticing when prisoners were left behind and/or shot, counting his steps in order to see the column's progress, etc - was much like Frankl's description of concentration camp prisoners during WWII in "Man's Search for Meaning" - your focus becomes very narrow, only on surviving, you become emotionless and inured to all suffering, both yours and others. Frankl says that was absolutely necessary for survival, and that "the best of us" (who retained their humanity) didn't survive.

So, on to the end of Vol 4 soon.

I read that at that time, writers were paid for the volume, so the book turned out to be so long.