Classics and the Western Canon discussion
War and Peace
>
Book 5
I love the passage where Pierre and Andrei philosophize, losing all sense of time and awareness of others around them, while they concentrate on the glory of the sunset and the hypnotism of their words. I have closed down more than one restaurant in that mode. But this is the first time I remember having encountered a passage that so accurately captures the lost in space and time sense of such moments. I can just see those poor ferrymen and coachmen, waiting for these two men."The sun had sunk half below the horizon and an evening frost was starring the puddles near the ferry, but Pierre and Andrew, to the astonishment of the footmen, coachmen, and ferrymen, still stood on the raft and talked."
TOLSTOY, LEO (2011-03-20). Delphi Complete Works of Leo Tolstoy (Illustrated) (Kindle Locations 26026-26027). Delphi Classics.
Also like the image of "an evening frost...starring the puddles". Even in the midst of broad sweeping passages, Tolstoy provides little tidbits of pleasure or surprise.
Poor Pierre.
Have any of us felt this way? Have any of us not?
"No matter what he thought about, he always returned to these same questions he could not solve and yet could not cease to ask himself. It was as if the thread of the chief screw which held his life together was stripped, so that the screw could not get in or out, but went on turning uselessly in the same place."
What a great metaphor!
At the end of his rumination he concludes that the only answer was: "You'll die and all will end. You'll die and know all, or cease asking."
This put me in mind of a zen saying I think about often think about:
"My death is certain. The time of my death unknown. What then shall I do today?"
Shortly, he will encounter and fall under the sway of someone who purports to have these answers. How do people feel about the relative conditions of existential confusion and speculation as contrasted with the systematic certainty of the Freemasons?
Have any of us felt this way? Have any of us not?
"No matter what he thought about, he always returned to these same questions he could not solve and yet could not cease to ask himself. It was as if the thread of the chief screw which held his life together was stripped, so that the screw could not get in or out, but went on turning uselessly in the same place."
What a great metaphor!
At the end of his rumination he concludes that the only answer was: "You'll die and all will end. You'll die and know all, or cease asking."
This put me in mind of a zen saying I think about often think about:
"My death is certain. The time of my death unknown. What then shall I do today?"
Shortly, he will encounter and fall under the sway of someone who purports to have these answers. How do people feel about the relative conditions of existential confusion and speculation as contrasted with the systematic certainty of the Freemasons?
Zeke wrote: "Poor Pierre. Have any of us felt this way? Have any of us not?
"No matter what he thought about, he always returned to these same questions he could not solve and yet could not cease to ask hims..."
I think this is a perfect picture of mental exhaustion. Poor Pierre! He needs a nice cruise in a warm climate and days and days of doing nothing.
Laurele wrote: "Poor Pierre! He needs a nice cruise in a warm climate and days and days of doing nothing..."What an interesting point of contrast and comparison with the path of Prince Andrei!
Laurele wrote: "Zeke wrote: "Poor Pierre. Have any of us felt this way? Have any of us not?
"No matter what he thought about, he always returned to these same questions he could not solve and yet could not ceas..."
Another literary gem is when Tolstoy describes that Pierre DOES get that "joyful feeling of peace, renewal, and return of life", even without getting that cruise!
Rather it's Tolstoy's masterful description of Pierre's process of coming to belief, leaving it undefined whether it was the "reasonable arguments in the Mason's speech", or the way in which he spoke it.
Zeke wrote: "How do people feel about the relative conditions of existential confusion and speculation as contrasted with the systematic certainty of the Freemasons? "Also contrast Rostov's relief at returning to his regiment in section 15. Incidentally, the word "regiment" or "regimental" is repeated ten times in the first couple of paragraphs (in P&V) --
There was not all that disorder of the free world, in which he found no place for himself and made wrong choices; there was no Sonya, with whom he had or did not have to talk things over. There was no possibility of going or not going here or there...
This is the classic existentialist conundrum -- peace lies in regimentation, but power lies in freedom. Rostov is happy to fall into military regimentation, at least momentarily. Pierre finds peace in Freemasonry, a different kind of regimentation. They strike me as similar choices, or escapes. On a philosophical level, this section reads like it could have come from one of Sartre's novels, if Sartre had had a lighter hand, that is.
thank you for your comments, Thomas et al. Reminded me of a personal discovery during a 5-year stint of yoga classes with the same yoga teacher. Much to my surprise I discovered that in addition to the obvious benefits, I greatly enjoyed the luxury of being told what to do for one and one half hours twice a week. Longer might have caused resistance but that amount of time was just right for me.
"Freedom is having no choice." A statement that is obviously false at many levels of interpretation. Nonetheless, if ever entangled in the pushes and pulls of too many choices, one can understand its truth, at least under certain circumstances.
Thomas wrote: "Zeke wrote: "How do people feel about the relative conditions of existential confusion and speculation as contrasted with the systematic certainty of the Freemasons? "Also contrast Rostov's relie..."
I felt that Pierre was being recruited to a cult. It is interesting that the conversion to Masonic beliefs make Pierre idealistic while not allowing him to do any effective good in the world. In trying to bring a more humane approach to his tremendous estates all at the same time, he achieves nothing, but offers opportunities to others to cheat him.
His friend Andrei has very different ideas. Pierre says to him, "With such thoughts, you'll sit without moving, without undertaking anything."
The thing is, Andrei is much more effective in what he does for other people than Pierre is.
I thought, reading this passage, that the friendship with Andrei is the only real thing in Pierre's life, the only hope that he might be an effectively good person, that his good heart would do something good in the world.
On rereading, I saw this: "The meeting with Pierre marked an epoch for Prince Andrei, from which began what, while outwardly the same, was in his inner world a new life."
Andrei is effective in what he does, but his bitterness and cynicism cast a shadow over what is mostly a good life. He needs that "new life." Pierre has joy in doing good, but that joy is mostly based in illusion.
Their friendship is the only thing that brings positive reality to either life.
What then is the importance of ideas, of beliefs? I don't know what Tolstoy is giving us here on that front. It is clear that friendship makes the anchor of a life, a defence at once against despair and self-delusion.
Nikolai seems to form his values by breathing them in from the military surroundings. He has his virtues: he takes the risk of going to Tilsit to intervene for Denisov in 2.2.19-21 (Book 5, chs 19-21). But the military mentality just as often leads him astray, as when he almost gets into a duel with Andrei by arbitrarily insulting him in 1.3.7 (Book 3 ch 7), or when the conventional Russian-officer gambling behaviour and pride allow Dolokhov to nearly ruin his family. He formed these values just by adopting the conventions of his environment. That's quite different from Pierre, who forms values in a life-changing conversation, or Andrei, who really does learn from experience. Andrei's attitude to life is also much changed by the conversation with Pierre on the ferry.
One can certainly criticise Pierre, but he is unlike Nikolai in that conventional ideas do not lead him astray. At the beginning, he is sounding off to a room full of aristocrats about the virtues of the French revolution.
There's an interesting reversal between the beginning and this book. In 1.1.2 (Book 1 ch 2), Pierre insists that Abbé Morio's "plan for eternal peace" is "hardly possible." In 2.2.14 (5.14), "Pierre insisted that a time would come when there would be no war." Andrei has core convictions, but at this stage, does Pierre?
Correction: I was forgetting Pierre's spinelessness in the affair of the policeman and the bear. He can be led astray socially by his conventionality, but in the expression of ideas he has a certain firmness.
Matthew wrote: "I felt that Pierre was being recruited to a cult. It is interesting that the conversion to Masonic beliefs make Pierre idealistic while not allowing him to do any effective good in the world. In trying to bring a more humane approach to his tremendous estates all at the same time, he achieves nothing, but offers opportunities to others to cheat him..."It's interesting to contrast Pierre's attraction to Freemasonry with his revelation about Marya's "people of God." He listens with sincerity to Pelageyushka speak about the oil dripping from the icon, and sees through the deception immediately:
"But it's a trick," Pierre said naively, having listened attentively to the wanderer woman. ..."They trick the people," he repeated.
But when he sees that he has upset the woman, he regrets his comment and says it was only a joke.
What is the difference between Pelageyushka's faith, and Pierre's faith in the goodness of Freemasonry? Or for that matter, Nikolai's belief in the greatness of the Emperor?
Thomas wrote: "...What is the difference between Pelageyushka's faith, and Pierre's faith in the goodness of Freemasonry? Or for that matter, Nikolai's belief in the greatness of the Emperor? ..."Wow, what questions. Rather than try to "answer," I'll only ask another, what is Tolstoy conveying about the role of faith in human lives with these rather diverse examples? Or, to ask another, does Prince Andrei act "without faith" or belief when he frees his serfs? Is it as simple as the power, or at least usefulness, of hope?
Andrei starts out from a point of despair and gains a sense of hope after Pierre's visit, but what does he believe in? What supports his hope? He is a practical man, and a competent one, but does he really buy into Pierre's idealism? Maybe Andrei's solace lies in doing and acting rather than believing in something? I'm not sure at this point.I'm very curious to see if there is a clear 'message' about faith that Tolstoy wants to deliver. Right now it seems a bit muddled.
It's really nice the way Matthew, Thomas and Lily bring together the way the selected characters turn to a variety of faith objects to try to find their way in the world. I also like the questions it raises.
They say that when you read a book at different times in your life it is like reading a different book. I am definitely finding that true of my response to Pierre. In past readings he has been my favorite character. Now, however, I am having trouble getting past his naivete and guilelessness. (Are these synonymous?)
For example, he decides the serfs should be freed and so orders his steward, "a very stupid but cunning man," The steward sees through him and "played with him as with a toy."
However, the comments above brought home to me the fact that all faith is treated in similar fashion by our cynical culture. Perhaps this is why "Christ-figures" are often portrayed in art as clowns or innocents.
They say that when you read a book at different times in your life it is like reading a different book. I am definitely finding that true of my response to Pierre. In past readings he has been my favorite character. Now, however, I am having trouble getting past his naivete and guilelessness. (Are these synonymous?)
For example, he decides the serfs should be freed and so orders his steward, "a very stupid but cunning man," The steward sees through him and "played with him as with a toy."
However, the comments above brought home to me the fact that all faith is treated in similar fashion by our cynical culture. Perhaps this is why "Christ-figures" are often portrayed in art as clowns or innocents.
Thomas wrote, It's interesting to contrast Pierre's attraction to Freemasonry with his revelation about Marya's "people of God." He listens with sincerity to Pelageyushka speak about the oil dripping from the icon, and sees through the deception immediately: "But it's a trick," Pierre said naively, having listened attentively to the wanderer woman. ..."They trick the people," he repeated.
I'm afraid I think Tolstoy is rather condescending toward his female characters, and Marya and Pelageyushka have unsound faith because they are female, and therefore credulous. I think of the place earlier, when Liza Bolkonsky and Mlle Bourienne are dressing up Princess Marya: (1.3.3, 3.3):
"they ... undertook to dress her up in all sincerity, with that naïve and firm conviction that clothes can make a face beautiful."
This seems to me a great travesty of what women do for one another. I have often been amazed at the way women can build on virtues and distract from faults in appearance. It is certainly true that the face doesn't change, but I don't think women imagine it does.
That strangely unrealistic condescension toward women has stuck with me since that moment, and I think I see it again in the treatment of women's Christianity. (I may turn out to be wrong. I hope so.)
Matthew wrote: "This seems to me a great travesty of what women do for one another. I have often been amazed at the way women can build on virtues and distract from faults in appearance. It is certainly true that the face doesn't change, but I don't think women imagine it does...."Thank you for your thoughtful and sensitive reading, Matthew.
What has bothered me far more in this re-reading has been Prince Nikolay's [verbal] abuse of his daughter, Princess Marya, and her seeming lack of resources with which to protect herself, other than [excessive?] humility with love.
Thomas wrote: "I'm very curious to see if there is a clear 'message' about faith that Tolstoy wants to deliver. Right now it seems a bit muddled...."[Smile] "Muddled" may well be the 'clear message' Tolstoy wants to deliver, whether he would have been willing to admit such or not.
I listened this morning to a lecture on "entitlement" concerns that spoke of energy and health care expectations of U.S. citizens from the perspective of John Locke and the philosophy of the Commons -- those things "held in common" by humankind from which there is expected a return, but towards which Locke posited obligations. Talk about "muddle."
One of my favorite management books was always one from AMA titled Muddling Through. Recently a friend and I have been "muddling through" the Lions Handbook of Science and Christianity.
Thomas, maybe it's my mood tonight, but somehow "muddling" feels like a rather appropriate designation for complicated human perceptions. [g]
Thomas wrote: "Andrei starts out from a point of despair and gains a sense of hope after Pierre's visit, but what does he believe in? What supports his hope? He is a practical man, and a competent one, but does ..."I think he just decides to give Pierre's point of view a chance? He knows that there is something in Pierre that is not in him, so even if he at first dismisses his views, those views probably weigh on him later when he is alone and thinks it over.
When we were first introduced to Andre and Pierre in book one we saw how Andrei lit up as soon as he saw his friend. Remember at that time Andre was quite bored with his social circle and Pierre was considered by others to be an embarrassment.
Theresa wrote: I think he just decides to give Pierre's point of view a chance?I think we need a warmer statement than that. There is something in Pierre that some people believe in, that they feel. Andrei doesn't believe in any doctrine or ideas, but he believes in the way he feels when he's with PIerre. He feels a rightness with PIerre the way he feels a wrongness with his father.
Matthew wrote: "Theresa wrote: I think he just decides to give Pierre's point of view a chance? I think we need a warmer statement than that. There is something in Pierre that some people believe in, that they fe..."An apt comment, Matthew. I would add that the problem with the old Bolkonsky, a certain thoughtless cruelty, is caused or at least stimulated by a system based on extreme social differences. Power corrupts the privileged most of all. That is why Andrej says that to do good is less important than to protect one's integrity. One of those remarks that makes some readers want to identify with him, though he is no stranger to the faults he sees in his father. He has every reason to regret the coldness towards his late wife.
Andrej's childish dream of glory on the eve of Austerlitz on the other hand seems a bit out of place. I think of it as a rather crude way to demonstrate the pride that is young Bolkonsky's main weakness. Though Tolstoy prefers to stress his many positive qualities. The same is true for Pierre, his simple goodness and open mind come first. But on his admission to the Freemasons, he reveals that women are the 'passion which more than all others caused (him) to waver on the path of virtue' (and we know he is a frequent visitor of brothels).
This obsession remains, for the time being, in the background. The main heroines of W&P are immature flappers, they seem to pose no serious threat. But we should not forget this essential component of Pierre's personality. And that of Tolstoy, I believe (I tend to think of Andrej and Pierre as the head and heart of the author). In Anna Karenina Tolstoy will undertake a more thorough research of the female enigma (in reality the male image of the female) and eventually, in Kreutzer Sonata, Pierre's disturbed sexuality will lead to murder.
Lily wrote: "I love the passage where Pierre and Andrei philosophize, losing all sense of time and awareness of others around them, while they concentrate on the glory of the sunset and the hypnotism of their w..."Thanks for sharing the passage and your own experience. It's a pleasure to read. :)
What has bothered me far more in this re-reading has been Prince Nikolay's [verbal] abuse of his daughter, Princess Marya,
Which passage were you referring to?
Nemo wrote: "Lily wrote: "What has bothered me far more in this re-reading has been Prince Nikolay's [verbal] abuse of his daughter, Princess Marya,..."Which passage were you referring to? ..."
There are others (like ones on math Patrice mentions), but this one in particular -- I find it hard to imagine saying words so cruel and uncouth in front of guests:
"Then rising, he suddenly went up to his daughter.
"'Is it for visitors you’ve got yourself up like that, eh?' said he. 'Fine, very fine! You have done up your hair in this new way for the visitors, and before the visitors I tell you that in future you are never to dare to change your way of dress without my consent.'
"'It was my fault, mon pere,' interceded the little princess, with a blush.
"'You must do as you please,' said Prince Bolkonski, bowing to his daughter-in-law, 'but she need not make a fool of herself, she’s plain enough as it is.'
"And he sat down again, paying no more attention to his daughter, who was reduced to tears."
TOLSTOY, LEO (2011-03-20). Delphi Complete Works of Leo Tolstoy (Illustrated) (Kindle Locations 20992-21002). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition.
This has all been preceded by the rather stupid sequence wherein Lise and Madame B. try to dress Princess Marya and arrange her hair, then to reverse their attempts, but Marya rebuffs them. Then to suffer the cruel, controlling remarks of her father. I wanted to cry for her and have her get up and slap them all (at least her father) in the face and walk out. Well, not really THAT out of character for her social breeding -- but whatever would have been an appropriate comeuppance.
Wow, such an interesting conversation, I want to go reread it, and the book before I attempt to join in.I do want to ask how everyone felt about the chapters surrounding Denisov.
It was shocking. Denisov has been a favourite character and I wish he had married Sonya (I am always trying to marry the characters). I loved how he stole the food, then stood up for himself, and then went into a blind rage over an insult that got him up for a court martial.
I was appaled at the descriptions of the hospitals. I have borrowed some books from the town library about the russian wars and they all paint very grim pictures and I was really glad to see it addressed in the novel.
The men did not have shelters, the officers barely had anything (a hole covered in sticks), the enlisted men had to make do with whatever they could find. Tolstoy doesn't directly point this out (though it can be surmised from the description of the officers 'quarters'), but the reference books I am reading make the horrors quite clear.
Men froze to death from cold, as well as the starvation.
Lily wrote: "There are others (like ones on math Patrice mentions), but this one in particular -- I find it hard to imagine saying words so cruel and uncouth in front of guests:.."As Tolstoy explained in the next chapter, the Old Prince looked upon those "guests" as intruders, no, invaders, who were intent on cheating and robbing him of his daughter.
Anatole cared nothing about Marya, who dressed up herself for him. He flirted with another woman right in front of her face, and she couldn't see it. But the Old Prince saw it all with one glance. He felt insulted and humiliated through his daughter. In a way, he felt deserted by her, who bent backward to please such an unworthy "visitor".
There was no mother figure in the household, who could provide emotional support and guidance for Marya. The Old Prince tried his best to protect Marya, but he treated her more like a female soldier than a daughter. He was uncouth, but not predatory. Considering what happened afterwards, he protected his daughter from heartbreak.
Nemo wrote: "He was uncouth, but not predatory. Considering what happened afterwards, he protected his daughter from heartbreak...."True. However, that does not exonerate his behavior.
@Nemo. You summed that up so well. I completely agree.
Or Kierkegaard. (I followed up on Eman's link to Kierkegaard.)
He has an essay, "Understanding the Gift," on James 1:17.
"Every good and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the father of lights, in whom is no change or shadow turning."
K writes that we gain insight when we finally come to see that we "had been wanting God's ideas about what was good for us to be the same" as our own.
K, too, writes along the line that everything is for our good...if we can thank God for it.
"And when your allotted share was little, did you thank God? And when your wish was denied, did you thank God? ..... And when people acted unjustly towards you and did you wrong, did you thank God?
We are not saying that human injustice thereby ceases to be unjust-- what would be the point of saying such a sick and stupid thing.
Whether it was unjust is something you yourself can decide on, but the question is whether you traced the injustice and injury back to God and, by means of being thankful for it, received it from His hand as a good and perfect gift." K... This will further your salvation.
Kinda reads to me like Tolstoy's line.
And I am waiting to see how the tragedy in Andrew/Andrei's life changes him.
He has an essay, "Understanding the Gift," on James 1:17.
"Every good and every perfect gift is from above and comes down from the father of lights, in whom is no change or shadow turning."
K writes that we gain insight when we finally come to see that we "had been wanting God's ideas about what was good for us to be the same" as our own.
K, too, writes along the line that everything is for our good...if we can thank God for it.
"And when your allotted share was little, did you thank God? And when your wish was denied, did you thank God? ..... And when people acted unjustly towards you and did you wrong, did you thank God?
We are not saying that human injustice thereby ceases to be unjust-- what would be the point of saying such a sick and stupid thing.
Whether it was unjust is something you yourself can decide on, but the question is whether you traced the injustice and injury back to God and, by means of being thankful for it, received it from His hand as a good and perfect gift." K... This will further your salvation.
Kinda reads to me like Tolstoy's line.
And I am waiting to see how the tragedy in Andrew/Andrei's life changes him.
Adelle wrote: "And I am waiting to see how the tragedy in Andrew/Andrei's life changes him. ...."Which one? I'm afraid this dear strong man needs more than one to "change" him, although he is probably changing all along, too.
Adelle wrote: "(I followed up on Eman's link to Kierkegaard.) He has an essay, "Understanding the Gift," ..."Could you post the link here? Thanks.
Lily wrote: "
Which one? I'm afraid this dear strong man needs more than one to "change" him, although he is pr..."
Ah, Lily, I guess I was using "tragedy" as a collective noun. I was including his experiences during the war, the death of his wife, and his marrying his wife n the first place... Had she lived...that might have weighed most heavily on his soul.
(I am quite a ways behind.)
Which one? I'm afraid this dear strong man needs more than one to "change" him, although he is pr..."
Ah, Lily, I guess I was using "tragedy" as a collective noun. I was including his experiences during the war, the death of his wife, and his marrying his wife n the first place... Had she lived...that might have weighed most heavily on his soul.
(I am quite a ways behind.)
Nemo wrote: "Adelle wrote: "(I followed up on Eman's link to Kierkegaard.) He has an essay, "Understanding the Gift," ..."
Could you post the link here? Thanks."
https://www.coursera.org/course/kierk...
Everyman's post #303 in theTea Room.
Could you post the link here? Thanks."
https://www.coursera.org/course/kierk...
Everyman's post #303 in theTea Room.
Where can I find the essay "Understanding the Gift"?
I don't see Andrews life as being tragic. It is rather cushy and convenient. He is rich. His wife died but he didn't miss her, his grief is more about his guilt. What else has happened tragically? He is disallusioned, and I think that is altering him in a slow way.
Cass wrote: "I don't see Andrews life as being tragic. It is rather cushy and convenient. He is rich. His wife died but he didn't miss her, his grief is more about his guilt. What else has happened tragically? ..."
Oh, I don't think his life was tragic. I see that there were tragedies in his life. Entirely different.
Actually, I see the tragedies in his life as the only things that will keep his life from being tragic.
I very much like Andrew/Andrei. How terrible his life would have been had he remained married to his wife. She wasn't a "bad" person. But she entirely wrong for him---she wasn't serious; he was. She engaged in the culture; he didn't. As I see, year after year the marriage would have eaten away at him. How could he stand it? Would he have had an affair to be with a woman he could respect instead of his wife for whom he had no respect for her intellect or her personality? But if he did that, how could he have any respect for himself?
His wealth...which contributes to his having nothing purposeful to do...is a negative in his life.
Someone, I think it was a Mason, said to Pierre, "Look then at thy inner self with the eyes of the spirit and ask thyself whether thou art content with thyself."
I see Andrew/Andrei VERY much as an "inner self" man, and he hasn't been contented with himself for years. His only hope of a life are these tragedies. Something to slam him and wake him up so that he might find some decent, worthwhile reason to live.
I can see that "disillusion" could be an interpretation.
But...that particular word doesn't work for me. For me, I don't see Andrew/Andrei as a man with many illusions. I imagine his life pre-War and Peace not as cushy and convenient, but as empty. I imagine him not so much as having illusions, but as having ... mmm... hopes... that he's been trying to attribute meaning to various things in hopes of having something of meaning, something of value, in his own life.
WAS he under the illusion that he could be happy with Lisa (it is Lisa, isn't it?)? Was he possibly under the illusion that they could be happy together? Or did he marry her for lust or for proper connections? I don't know.
I suspect that he was thinking that maybe marriage would fill the emptiness in his life... but it didn't. It made it worse.
I suspect that he was thinking that the meaning he was needing might be found in the military. But it wasn't. The military in and of itself didn't make men more than they were.
Andrew/Andrei, I think, is made much in his father's mold. And I like his father. But Andrew/Andrei, I think, knows he has his father's personality... but he knows, too, that he needs to find something MORE in his life.
Oh, I don't think his life was tragic. I see that there were tragedies in his life. Entirely different.
Actually, I see the tragedies in his life as the only things that will keep his life from being tragic.
I very much like Andrew/Andrei. How terrible his life would have been had he remained married to his wife. She wasn't a "bad" person. But she entirely wrong for him---she wasn't serious; he was. She engaged in the culture; he didn't. As I see, year after year the marriage would have eaten away at him. How could he stand it? Would he have had an affair to be with a woman he could respect instead of his wife for whom he had no respect for her intellect or her personality? But if he did that, how could he have any respect for himself?
His wealth...which contributes to his having nothing purposeful to do...is a negative in his life.
Someone, I think it was a Mason, said to Pierre, "Look then at thy inner self with the eyes of the spirit and ask thyself whether thou art content with thyself."
I see Andrew/Andrei VERY much as an "inner self" man, and he hasn't been contented with himself for years. His only hope of a life are these tragedies. Something to slam him and wake him up so that he might find some decent, worthwhile reason to live.
I can see that "disillusion" could be an interpretation.
But...that particular word doesn't work for me. For me, I don't see Andrew/Andrei as a man with many illusions. I imagine his life pre-War and Peace not as cushy and convenient, but as empty. I imagine him not so much as having illusions, but as having ... mmm... hopes... that he's been trying to attribute meaning to various things in hopes of having something of meaning, something of value, in his own life.
WAS he under the illusion that he could be happy with Lisa (it is Lisa, isn't it?)? Was he possibly under the illusion that they could be happy together? Or did he marry her for lust or for proper connections? I don't know.
I suspect that he was thinking that maybe marriage would fill the emptiness in his life... but it didn't. It made it worse.
I suspect that he was thinking that the meaning he was needing might be found in the military. But it wasn't. The military in and of itself didn't make men more than they were.
Andrew/Andrei, I think, is made much in his father's mold. And I like his father. But Andrew/Andrei, I think, knows he has his father's personality... but he knows, too, that he needs to find something MORE in his life.
Cass wrote: "I don't see Andrews life as being tragic. It is rather cushy and convenient. He is rich. His wife died but he didn't miss her, his grief is more about his guilt. What else has happened tragically? ..."Well, perhaps there is a difference between a life being tragic and a life having tragedy in it. At this point, I would say Prince Andrei is more in the position of the latter. You may be on spot as to his grief for Lise, but still it seems a tragedy to lose the wife of one's son, even with a sister and father and servants to raise him. There is lost the potential of other children as well, without undergoing the process of courtship again, regardless of conjugal emotional closeness.
I'm also ahead of here in reading. Life isn't done with Prince Andrei yet.
Book V, Chapter IX (view spoiler)
Patrice wrote: " Remember when Odysseus meets Achilles in Hades? Achilles says he should have chosen a simple life down on the farm, rather than the military life.
..."
First, thank you, Patrice, you say the nicest things.
And now you've gone and nudged me further towards Andrew/Andrei with the Achilles comparison...as I have always liked Achilles. :)
Doesn't Andre say that the worst thing is to suffer "regret"?
Did he? I must read more carefully ;)
..."
First, thank you, Patrice, you say the nicest things.
And now you've gone and nudged me further towards Andrew/Andrei with the Achilles comparison...as I have always liked Achilles. :)
Doesn't Andre say that the worst thing is to suffer "regret"?
Did he? I must read more carefully ;)
Cass, I forged ahead into Book 6...and although I can't quite agree with Tolstoy, lol, Book 6, Chapter XI (view spoiler)
Disillusionment is the removal of illusions. The illusions are not Prince Andrew's personal illusions (ie thinking he could have a happy marriage with Lise) but the more global illusions that various aspects of society accept, (eg thinking that marriages are about mutual love and respect - I believe he uses his own marriage to surmise that all marriages are like his, his speech to Pierre suggests this, and he never had a mother/father to observe).For example (in general, but it applies to Prince Andrew) we accept that our politicians work diligently towards the greater good of our country, when we see past this illusion we realise that, on the contrary, the politicians make many choices based on personal gain instead of the greater good.
This is Prince Andrew's ongoing theme. He is the man in the room that sees past all the illusions, past the smokescreens, past the lies. He is shocked and saddened by what he sees, and he becomes disillusioned by it all. What hope is there? It is all lies. He tries on occasion to find a way to fix it, or to be the man in the room thinking about the greater good over personal gain, but he constantly sees that the politicking is a requirement. I think you can include some disappointment that the rest of the society is happy to go along with the illusions.
Society, politics, war, marriage, even watching the way his father treats his sister, it is all about Prince Andrew seeing the truth of everything.
What a delightfully intriguing angle!
It is easy to be kind and forgiving to handsome, valiant men. My first reading Andrew was my romantic hero. But, while hubris can be valiant, it can also be a tough taskmaster.
Sigh. Yes, there may be some truth in that. In searching for one of those passages you had mentioned, I ran across this sentence:
"He [Prince Andrew] felt offended, and without his noticing it the feeling of offense immediately turned into one of distain which was quite uncalled for."
Book 2, Chapter XI.
Well...yes...that may be a character flaw... But he's still so handsome and valiant... I choose to forgive him. ;)
"He [Prince Andrew] felt offended, and without his noticing it the feeling of offense immediately turned into one of distain which was quite uncalled for."
Book 2, Chapter XI.
Well...yes...that may be a character flaw... But he's still so handsome and valiant... I choose to forgive him. ;)
Adelle @43: Oh, I don't think his life was tragic. I see that there were tragedies in his life. Entirely different.
Followed by Lily @ 45: Well, perhaps there is a difference between a life being tragic and a life having tragedy in it.
Should we be considering a distinction between "tragedy" and "misfortune?" To me, it seems like Tolstoy offers us this choice on countless occasions. Indeed, it could be a central theme of the book, as we have touched on previously: is man's fate self determined (opening the grounds for tragedy)? Or is it externally determined and therefore something to be coped with (possibly in heroic manner, possibly not)?
Followed by Lily @ 45: Well, perhaps there is a difference between a life being tragic and a life having tragedy in it.
Should we be considering a distinction between "tragedy" and "misfortune?" To me, it seems like Tolstoy offers us this choice on countless occasions. Indeed, it could be a central theme of the book, as we have touched on previously: is man's fate self determined (opening the grounds for tragedy)? Or is it externally determined and therefore something to be coped with (possibly in heroic manner, possibly not)?
Great question. I little of both perhaps.
And, definitions being important, I googled.
I had rather thought of tragedy as something bad which befell people...in which their own actions had been involved...but in which none of the people involved had intended anything bad to happen.
So I would put Andrew and Lise's marriage in this category. Neither had wanted it to be bad; both were unhappy. And they were stuck. They couldn't change it.
(Oedipus.}
A misfortune, I would think, befalls people entirely as a result of events outside their control.
Google definition.
1. an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe.
"a tragedy that killed 95 people"
synonyms: disaster, calamity, catastrophe, cataclysm, misfortune, mishap, blow, trial, tribulation, affliction, adversity More
"the flood was the worst tragedy in the city's history"
I think though that it's combination. Like...there is fortune and misfortune in where/when/what family one is born into/whether Napoleon is attacking... which provides the primary shape of one's life, over which one has no control.
And then...on a personal level...how one deals with that.
It's...as though one's parents/or fate/or the gods are the architects of the building of one's life. There is very little one can do to change the actual foundation or structure.
After the foundation has set and the beams are up, one can mostly only do surface work... yes, maybe move the walls about...but not a support wall! One can paint as one chooses... Select the drapes one prefers... Perhaps...if one has INCREDIBLE self-resources one can shore up the foundation a little... but one can never re-pour that foundation.
So, as I see it, the important things that really shape one's life and hold it up can't be changed. And yet, how one finishes the building or how one maintains that building absolutely make a difference in one's life.
Thanks Zeke. Which do you think? Have you come to any conclusions?
And, definitions being important, I googled.
I had rather thought of tragedy as something bad which befell people...in which their own actions had been involved...but in which none of the people involved had intended anything bad to happen.
So I would put Andrew and Lise's marriage in this category. Neither had wanted it to be bad; both were unhappy. And they were stuck. They couldn't change it.
(Oedipus.}
A misfortune, I would think, befalls people entirely as a result of events outside their control.
Google definition.
1. an event causing great suffering, destruction, and distress, such as a serious accident, crime, or natural catastrophe.
"a tragedy that killed 95 people"
synonyms: disaster, calamity, catastrophe, cataclysm, misfortune, mishap, blow, trial, tribulation, affliction, adversity More
"the flood was the worst tragedy in the city's history"
I think though that it's combination. Like...there is fortune and misfortune in where/when/what family one is born into/whether Napoleon is attacking... which provides the primary shape of one's life, over which one has no control.
And then...on a personal level...how one deals with that.
It's...as though one's parents/or fate/or the gods are the architects of the building of one's life. There is very little one can do to change the actual foundation or structure.
After the foundation has set and the beams are up, one can mostly only do surface work... yes, maybe move the walls about...but not a support wall! One can paint as one chooses... Select the drapes one prefers... Perhaps...if one has INCREDIBLE self-resources one can shore up the foundation a little... but one can never re-pour that foundation.
So, as I see it, the important things that really shape one's life and hold it up can't be changed. And yet, how one finishes the building or how one maintains that building absolutely make a difference in one's life.
Thanks Zeke. Which do you think? Have you come to any conclusions?
I've always been partial to the idea that a tragedy must be "self inflicted", the product of a "tragic flaw." The tragic hero does not understand the nature of this flaw (which often is the same as his strengths) until it is too late. Then comes his moment of anagnorsis: the critical moment of discovery about the real situation. (Think Othello or Lear as good examples.)
Even the Shorter OED is less selective than me. While its first two definitions refer to classical dramatic tragedy the third, more general one, uses synonyms like catastrophe, disaster, etc.
I find that unsatisfying, but I am clearly in the minority.
Incidentally, OED also cites the etymology as "goat song." Does anyone know what's up with that?
Even the Shorter OED is less selective than me. While its first two definitions refer to classical dramatic tragedy the third, more general one, uses synonyms like catastrophe, disaster, etc.
I find that unsatisfying, but I am clearly in the minority.
Incidentally, OED also cites the etymology as "goat song." Does anyone know what's up with that?
Zeke wrote: "I've always been partial to the idea that a tragedy must be "self inflicted", the product of a "tragic flaw." The tragic hero does not understand the nature of this flaw (which often is the same as..."
You make me sad...Zeke. (So tempted was I to quote Monty Python...but I managed, at the last, to resist.)
Sad, sad, sad. Because you exampled Lear. The most sad, most perfectly sad example of [mostly] self-inflicted tragedy. Like you, a like some self inflictedness in the mix. Did you see the Japanese version of Lear--kinda, sorta? It's even sadder, IF that is at all possible.
Ran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ran_(film)
OK, here's what I found regarding "goat song."
"The usual explanation of tragoidia is goat song (tragon oide), and it is widely supposed that the original chorus consisted of satyrs who were in some respects goatlike.
Else, however, has argued in The Origin and Early Form of Greek Tragedy[1962} that this explanation is wrong, notwithstanding Nietzsche, Gilbert Murray, the so-called Cambridge school of classical philologists, and all the critics and writers who relied on one or another of these.
His own thesis, argued brilliantly and consisely, is that 'tragoidoi was the official title of the contestants in tragedy, those who actually competed for the prize,' and that 'the original prize for which the "tragedian" competed was a goat.
Very likely the name was ironic when it was first bestowed: "goat bard" might convey the suggestion'
'The original competitor in the tragic contest, and therefore the sole possessor of the title tragoidos before the year 509 or 502, was the tragic poet.
And the poet was his own actor...The word tragoidia was made from tragoidos....Thspis...was the first tragoidos, and the tragoidia was what he invented...'"
Tragedy & Philosphophy; Walter Kaufmann pp 38-39.
(Picked up this book years ago, I think at the Friends of the Denver Library Sale.)
For what it's worth.
[author:Walter Kaufmann|14824]
Couldn't manage to post a link to the book. Sorry.
You make me sad...Zeke. (So tempted was I to quote Monty Python...but I managed, at the last, to resist.)
Sad, sad, sad. Because you exampled Lear. The most sad, most perfectly sad example of [mostly] self-inflicted tragedy. Like you, a like some self inflictedness in the mix. Did you see the Japanese version of Lear--kinda, sorta? It's even sadder, IF that is at all possible.
Ran
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ran_(film)
OK, here's what I found regarding "goat song."
"The usual explanation of tragoidia is goat song (tragon oide), and it is widely supposed that the original chorus consisted of satyrs who were in some respects goatlike.
Else, however, has argued in The Origin and Early Form of Greek Tragedy[1962} that this explanation is wrong, notwithstanding Nietzsche, Gilbert Murray, the so-called Cambridge school of classical philologists, and all the critics and writers who relied on one or another of these.
His own thesis, argued brilliantly and consisely, is that 'tragoidoi was the official title of the contestants in tragedy, those who actually competed for the prize,' and that 'the original prize for which the "tragedian" competed was a goat.
Very likely the name was ironic when it was first bestowed: "goat bard" might convey the suggestion'
'The original competitor in the tragic contest, and therefore the sole possessor of the title tragoidos before the year 509 or 502, was the tragic poet.
And the poet was his own actor...The word tragoidia was made from tragoidos....Thspis...was the first tragoidos, and the tragoidia was what he invented...'"
Tragedy & Philosphophy; Walter Kaufmann pp 38-39.
(Picked up this book years ago, I think at the Friends of the Denver Library Sale.)
For what it's worth.
[author:Walter Kaufmann|14824]
Couldn't manage to post a link to the book. Sorry.
Then there is "scape-goat" -- the goat that is laden with all the sins of the people and expelled from the city to wander and probably die. (The one who carries the blame for the actions of others.) Why the goat, who also had a particular role, which I don't remember, in tending herds of sheep?
Lily: In Merchant of Venice in the depth of his self pity, as it appears Shylock will prevail and take his "pound of flesh," Antonio says:
I am a tainted wether of the flock,
Meetest for death: the weakest kind of fruit
Drops earliest to the ground; and so let me
You cannot better be employ'd, Bassanio,
Than to live still and write mine epitaph.
Until your post I never thought about the (anachronistic) irony of the Christian using the image of the scapegoat.
I am a tainted wether of the flock,
Meetest for death: the weakest kind of fruit
Drops earliest to the ground; and so let me
You cannot better be employ'd, Bassanio,
Than to live still and write mine epitaph.
Until your post I never thought about the (anachronistic) irony of the Christian using the image of the scapegoat.
Meanwhile, Denisov takes matters into his own hands for the good of his men, and Nikolai tries to help him out of his scrape and in the process gets a new view of Napoleon and Alexander. We meet little Tushin again, as well. Tune in tomorrow for another episode. . . .
Textual note: For some reason, the Maudes add a very short 22nd chapter--the two or three pragraphs that the other three translations I have put at the beginning of the next section.