Classics and the Western Canon discussion
War and Peace
>
Book 9
Some things I had to look up:Napoleon crossing the Nieman http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neman_River
Uhlans: Polish light cavalry armed with lances, sabers, and pistols. http://www.ask.com/fr?q=uhlans&de...
Did you notice the wolf hunt/battle connection? You were right!
The Russian nobility are finally learning to speak Russian!"People are being arrested..." said the count. "I've told the countess she should not speak French so much. It's not the time for it now."
"And have you heard?" Shinshin asked. "Prince Golitsyn has engaged a master to teach him Russian. It is becoming dangerous to speak French in the streets."
(Chapter 20)
Poor Pierre!"Well, Peter Kirilych, let's go and have a smoke," he said.
Pierre was agitated and undecided. Natasha's unwontedly brilliant eyes, continually glancing at him with a more than cordial look, had reduced him to this condition.
"No, I think I'll go home."
"Home? Why, you meant to spend the evening with us.... You don't often come nowadays as it is, and this girl of mine," said the count good-naturedly, pointing to Natasha, "only brightens up when you're here."
"Yes, I had forgotten... I really must go home... business..." said Pierre hurriedly.
"Well, then, au revoir!" said the count, and went out of the room.
"Why are you going? Why are you upset?" asked Natasha, and she looked challengingly into Pierre's eyes.
"Because I love you!" was what he wanted to say, but he did not say it, and only blushed till the tears came, and lowered his eyes.
"Because it is better for me to come less often... because... No, simply I have business...."
"Why? No, tell me!" Natasha began resolutely and suddenly stopped.
They looked at each other with dismayed and embarrassed faces. He tried to smile but could not: his smile expressed suffering, and he silently kissed her hand and went out.
Pierre made up his mind not to go to the Rostovs' any more.
Patrice, it's volume three, part 1, page 935, in Pevear.
I found chapter 9 and 21 of the Maude translation to be well worth a re-read. Chapter 9 goes into a lot of detail about the organization of the army from the point of view of Andrei, who is trying to decide where he fits in. It does seem a bit dense, it describes about 10 different groups that surround the Tsar and Andrei finds them all wanting in some way and doesn't see a significant or useful role for himself in any of that crowd at Drissa. Andrei is a General, is he not? (I'm not clear on this). Anyway, the chapter ends with his decision that his place is in the ranks of the foot soldiers. The chapter shows how he came to that decision, and how there was nothing else for it, given Andrei's feelings about the groups surrounding the Tsar. Chapter 21 is somewhat similar, in that it shows the beginnings of Petra's story arc, and how Petra with his Rostov personality traits, is blown over by the romance of the world surrounding the Tsar (unlike Andrei who is a bit cynical about the Tsar and the people who surround him). The chapter ends with his decision to join the army. Within the chapter Tolstoy shows us how there was really no other role for him in life - given his desire to be a soldier, his passion for the Tsar, the wave of history that he was a part of in his time and place. His own free will brought him to his decision but at the same time, there was really no other option, as he wouldn't have it any other way.
Theresa wrote: "I found chapter 9 and 21 of the Maude translation to be well worth a re-read. Chapter 9 goes into a lot of detail about the organization of the army from the point of view of Andrei, who is tryin..."I think Andre is an adjutant, an assistant to an officer.
I was a bit confused about Andrei's role at this point of the story. At the beginning of chapter nine (one or two pages in)it says:The Emperor, moreover, had with him not a commander in chief's staff but the imperial headquarters staff. In attendance on him was the head of the imperial staff, Quartermaster General Prince Volkonski, as well as generals, imperial aides-de-camp, diplomatic officials, and a large number of foreigners, but not the army staff. Besides these, there were in attendance on the Emperor without any definite appointments: Arakcheev, the ex-Minister of War; Count Bennigsen, the senior general in rank; the Grand Duke Tsarevich Constantine Pavlovich; Count Rumyantsev, the Chancellor; Stein, a former Prussian minister; Armfeldt, a Swedish general; Pfuel, the chief author of the plan of campaign; Paulucci, an adjutant general and Sardinian emigre; Wolzogen- and many others.
I'm not sure what a Quartermaster General is exactly, some kind of adviser I suppose.
It is not clear whether these are the people around him at Vilna, Drissa, or both. Andrei wasn't in Vilna...is Quartermaster General Prince Volkonski his father, the old Prince? The Emperor is with the 1st army (which was divided into 3 at Drissa) but he is not commander of it.
Also, I said in my comment above that Andrei comes to his decision to leave the the Emperor's circle at the end of chapter 9 but it is actually at the end of chapter 11, after observing some chaotic war council/meeting, that he comes to that conclusion:
At the review next day the Emperor asked Prince Andrew where he would like to serve, and Prince Andrew lost his standing in court circles forever by not asking to remain attached to the sovereign's person, but for permission to serve in the army.
Nevermind, I figured it out - Bolkonski, not Volkonski. So hard to keep these names straight. :)
Theresa wrote: "Nevermind, I figured it out - Bolkonski, not Volkonski. So hard to keep these names straight. :)"To make it even more confusing, B's and V's get all mixed up in the Cyrillic alphabet. I wonder if children are admonished to mind their B's and V's?
I think your right about The Uncle, Patrice. He could almost come from one of those wonderful Russian folk tales.
I found it interesting how little ambition Pierre has but how he managed to creatively fix upon himself a divinely appointed role to take part in the downfall of Napoleon in some yet to be discovered manner! :-)
The concept that the peasants couldn't go to war of their own accord but then could be promised to the war effort by their masters was interesting to me. I'm thinking of the meeting of the nobility with the Zar. They weren't even free to choose to fight for their country, or to not to. Crazy that slavery was ever seen as an acceptable practice among predominantly christian nations!
Jeremy wrote: "...Crazy that slavery was ever seen as an acceptable practice among predominantly christian nations! ..."I know the total world population is so much larger, but I still can't get my mind around the idea that supposedly there is more slavery today than ever in history. Allegedly, the major offender is not a "Christian nation," but still....
Patrice wrote: "Where Lily?"Google it, Patrice. I'm still sorting out the sources and their credibility.
Laurele wrote: "Russia and France are at war with each other again. Tolstoy philosophizes on the causes of war and causation in general. Natasha is very ill. Tolstoy philosophizes about doctors. Natasha turns to t..."I love this synopsis!!
Patrice wrote: "I'm not sure if this is the right thread but I just have to ask this question. Tolstoy writes"and war began--that is an event took place contrary to human reason and to the whole of human nature..."
Could I get a quick reference to the chapter and book so that I can re-read that in context?
I don't know what Tolstoy meant, but I do know that violence is contrary to the nature of women but not to men (but since we live in a world largely dominated by male values, we sometimes think it is 'human' nature, despite what the statistics tell us).
He might mean that it is contrary to the interests of humanity?
Patrice wrote: "But what does he mean by contrary to the whole of human nature?" This is an interesting concept. I think there's a dual and opposite meaning in the phrase "human nature." In one sense I think it can be used to talk about the animalistic and lesser evolved state or the Christian concept of "the natural man," which refers to the selfish and corrupt state humane beings resort to if they don't work on their spirituality and become more Christ-like through faith and works. However in another sense the same "human nature" can ascribe itself to the idea of being "humane" as in the best of what mankind has become since leaving is lesser evolved more animalistic state or the christian concept of becoming Christ-like. The word "unnatural" is also another word used to describe the opposite of "natural." The word "natural" can be either good or bad, whereas the word "unnatural" only has a negative connotation. Kind of weird... Blame it on the semantics of the english language, and perhaps and many other languages in the world?
Patrice wrote: "BTW, I really loved his little riff on causation but I got lost in it. I'm saving that page to read a few more times because, as with most of his theories, they make great sense...until they don't. lol..."I did find that fascinating. In the book 3 thread (comment 42) I said: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...
Zeke and Jeremy's response to it were interesting but I didn't answer them there because I didn't want to get too far ahead of book 3. Anyway, since I was on book 11 at the time Zeke pointed out a passage to me in book 9 (via mail) which I think is interesting in context of the submarine captains refusal to release the nuclear weapon (my link in the comment 42).
Here is the passage:
"Had Napoleon not taken offense at the demand that he should withdraw beyond the Vistula, and not ordered his troops to advance, there would have been no war; but had all his sergeants objected to serving a second term then also there could have been no war."
Book 9 ch 1
here is a little more information about the submarine officers (scroll down to paragraph 9) http://www.theguardian.com/world/2002...
in addition to the wiki link I posted in the comment 42 book 3 thread.
Food for thought...
Patrice wrote: "I'm not sure if this is the right thread but I just have to ask this question. Tolstoy writes"and war began--that is an event took place contrary to human reason and to the whole of human nature..."
This quote from the very beginning of book 9 still intrigues me. Still not sure what Tolstoy meant by the whole of human nature, but I do know what I think about it. I don't think that Man (men or women) are by nature violent. I think violence is a byproduct of power, and that explains partly why there is so much less violence perpetrated by women (since women, historically, and in most if not all societies, rarely have a chance of gaining power, although we do have influence).
Patrice wrote: "It just has to be channeled well. I agree men like power. That's why his view of "human nature" surprised me. "Well if we can use the word man to mean woman and man, perhaps he meant "woman nature," and he was just thinking of his mother :-) Perhaps it Russian has a word for woman nature and english doesn't and so it translated weird? :-)
Patrice wrote: "Good one! I was replying more to Theresa's point about woman vs man. Not that women don't have some testosterone too...just think of the dragon lady...I forget her name, who rules over the Rostov..."Or Tiger moms! :-)
It may seem we have gone a bit off topic with this, but consider the name of the Novel: War and Peace. Its like yin and yang, male and female. I've thought about the testosterone explanation but I'm afraid I am still convinced it has more to do with power relationships than with biology. I could be wrong, of course. The only evidence of female violence statistics coming close to male violence statistics is in the case of women (usually young mothers I suppose) being more likely to kill their newborn babies (often girls) than fathers are. That would suggest to me that humans become violent when they are in a position of power (which women rarely are, except possibly with newborn babies that they haven't yet formed a bond with).
Patrice wrote: "I had that moment yesterday when I realized there was a difference between Kuragan and is it Kurugan? I should check the spelling, I wonder why he did that?And isn't it interesting that one of ..."
While I am listening to audio I had a time of confusion with these two names as well
Which audio are you listening to, Travis?
Laurele wrote: "Which audio are you listening to, Travis?"I'm also listening to the audio, it's Blackstone Audio with Frederick Davidson. I think he does a great job, and I loved how well he did with reading Les Miserables!
Laurele wrote: "Which audio are you listening to, Travis?"It's Naxos audio narrated by Neville Jason who in my opinion always seems to do a nice job.
I have listened to Frederick Davidson's recording several times. He always does a great job with character voices, though his narrative voice is a bit dry. When I heard the Naxos had done one with Neville Jason, I had to get that, too, because Naxos and Jason are both excellent. That's what I'm listening to this time through.
Looking at early comments, I think that men and women have equal capacity for aggression, but it may manifest differently based on societal and cultural norms and is additionally influenced by physical strength.When reading of the battle, I wish I had a visual aid. I know that this was previously a film but I'm sure that much was lost, would e a great miniseries!
That's how I would apply it to people. Although a man's physical strength increases his ability to be violent, women have cultivated a far more complicated system of viciousness.
Lisa wrote: "That's how I would apply it to people. Although a man's physical strength increases his ability to be violent, women have cultivated a far more complicated system of viciousness."Huh? Not sure I buy into either half of that. One of my acquaintances familiar with police calls stated that oft times men are reluctant to report physical violence initiated by women, partly because of cultural expectations that they should be able to "protect" themselves. Many men with significant physical strength are not violent. And, if you have ever worked in a large scale "masculine environment", you have probably observed or even been subject to a variety of Machiavellian machinations. None of which is a pass for either men or women, even if tactics and strategies may be considerably different and even gender biased.
Patrice wrote: ""a man's physical strength increases his ABILITY to be violent". You disagree with that?..."I'm not sure what part of violence is controlled by the "physical systems" versus the emotional and the rational systems of the body.
How can we bring this back to War and Peace?
Laurele wrote: "How can we bring this back to War and Peace?"Pierre is probably a good example for evidence for both sides of the argument. Tolstoy does a nice complicated job of suggesting the tensions in a wide variety of situations.
Lily, I agree. That is why I used the words 'greater physical capacity', men are physically stronger. Sadly, I've spent years working in hospitals. I can think of once where the woman physically injured the man significantly. In my country (I'm not American) if a woman physically injures a man, she comes off second best. I think that's why women are better at emotional tactics.
Anyway, I was giving an opinion to an earlier comment regarding men and war. I think it's physically easier for men to engage in fighting, yes there are women soldiers in these days, but the nature of war is different.
Bringing it back to War and Peace, could this war have been avoided? We see the families at home missing there loved one but I wonder if the Rostov family, when hearing reports of the war, were frightened for their son. In my opinion, there's an emphasis on heroics and less on distress (with regards to the war).
earlier in the thread I was responding to a comment from Patrice in which she quoted Tolstoy:"and war began--that is an event took place contrary to human reason and to the whole of human nature...
I just felt that it was important to point out that if it is or is not human nature, than half of the human population is not being represented. I know it seems sort of obvious, but I think it is also good to look seriously at otherwise obvious things. I still think that violence is more a byproduct of power and power structures than a manifestation of some biological difference of males.
Theresa, I was responding to a comment made earlier in the thread that men are inherently aggressive. And I do not think that is true. I think that physical strength can lead to a more physically devastating enactment of aggression, but I do not view this as a cause of War, physical strength merely lends the ability to fight. I agree fully that war is about power, this was brewing for ages. What I understand is that Napoleon wanted power and control of other counties, these countries opposed him. This led to war.
Changing topic, I've wondered if Nicholas Bolkonski is dementing- his personality quirks are magnified, he is moodier and seems to lack his previous cognitive sharpness.Then with regard to Natalya, I would say she is depressed, poor kid and back then the treatments were hopelessly inadequate.
I'm always struck by Tolstoy's inclusion of mental illness and wonder if his awareness of its devastation was due to his own battles with depression.
Lisa wrote: "Changing topic, I've wondered if Nicholas Bolkonski is dementing- his personality quirks are magnified, he is moodier and seems to lack his previous cognitive sharpness.Then with regard to Natalya..."
Oh, I think so. He is really losing it.
Well he's losing it for sure, but does that mean he is dementing? I've seen people behave like that from the extreme stress of being elderly and the impending changes they have to undergo with leaving their home and going to live somewhere else, yet they still had their wits fully about them. I think he just knows he is getting old, and knows that he won't be able to be as in control of his family, his serfs, his fortune, as he was all his life. Mortality offends his ego and his love of life. He gets angrier in the face of looming helplessness and his anger is expressed in the way he has become accustomed to expressing it, (with abuse) only more so. The impending invasion (which he is in denial of) is probably affecting the mood of everyone around him so maybe that is having an effect on him too? I don't see where he is losing cognitive sharpness (not really sure that we ever saw him as being very sharp). Given his personality and poor interpersonal skills, wouldn't he have behaved the same way under similar circumstances had his health and fortune be threatened at a much younger age?
I was thinking about the early changes, which occur before memory problems. Usually personality changes are first with or without aggression. Responses are exacerbated, sensitivity to stress is heightened. Then moodiness usually starts. Cognitive fallout is later, although its what we notice first (I am referring to more classical Alzheimer's type dementia, I know there are multiple causes). With Princess Nicholas in mind concerned me wrt cognition was the loss of interest in cognitive pursuits, his shortness in conversation. It was in something Prince Andrey said, I'd have to look for it. I guess after neuropsych and geriatric psych training, I get concerned if an older person, as in Nicholas's case, becomes pervasively more moody and less discrete with heightened personality responses. Obviously it could be a due to a depression; but in terms of a life stressor, the person should achieve a new level of functioning.
Obviously, if he was a real person, I'd want to interview him and his family and check cognitive functioning at least before a diagnosis. Unfortunately, he's a character in a book, but I continue to be suspicious.
Theresa wrote: "earlier in the thread I was responding to a comment from Patrice in which she quoted Tolstoy:"and war began--that is an event took place contrary to human reason and to the whole of human nature.... (See entire msg 52)"
Hmm! I am thoroughly confused by our discussion that started with Patrice's msg 23, where she stated being stumped by Tolstoy's statement considering "war -- contrary to the whole of human nature." I'm still with Patrice on that one -- is Tolstoy saying war is truly contrary to human nature, given all the existence of war in human history? Perhaps the attempt here has been to split (discern?) the discussion into whether war is contrary to man's nature versus is war contrary to woman's nature?
Although I don't know the Russian, I do suspect "war" is a different concept here than "violence," in the sense of war being an event that includes political, communal, and even imperial decisions (regardless of whether "imperial" derives from royal or constitutional prerogatives).
Tonight I was struck by Tolstoy's taking this idea of aversion to war down to a fairly individual (male) level in a passage in Vol IV, Part XI, p. 968, which I will place in spoiler format: (view spoiler)
Tolstoy is very critical of historians who come to general conclusions about why historical events happen. He sees historical events as the result of many different and complex forces rather than singular and simple ones. This seems right to me, but this way of looking at history seems at odds with the generalization that "war is contrary to human nature." I would have expected a more complex analysis rather than this generalization, given that the book he is writing is a precisely drawn description of the opposite phenomenon -- it would appear from the story that war is indeed a facet of human nature. Even the thoughtful Pierre is drawn into duels, and nationalism, and fantasies of assassination. Could it be that the statement is meant ironically? (Or perhaps we are reading too much into it?)
Thomas wrote: "Tolstoy is very critical of historians who come to general conclusions about why historical events happen. He sees historical events as the result of many different and complex forces rather than s..."I think that Tolstoy's view of history is the view that processes have a life of their own. The wine has been poured and must be drunk. The next event evolves organically from all the events that preceded it. Whether the next event is war, or the marriage of Pierre and Helene, or the somber gambling dance between Nicholas and Dolokhov, in which Nicholas kept gambling until he was forced to stop - in all of these situations, the next move is somehow the only possible response. For some reason beyond everyone's control it all has to be played out. The wine has been poured and must be drunk.
Theresa wrote: "I think that Tolstoy's view of history is the view that processes have a life of their own. The wine has been poured and must be drunk. "I agree, but if the wine has been poured -- and it has been pouring for a long time -- how can he say that war is contrary to human nature? It seems to be a natural result of the wine, which as you say, must be drunk. It is beyond everyone's control.
Hmm -- fascinating discussion, Thomas and Theresa. Are we watching Tolstoy articulate and develop his pacifist views and the values or assumptions on which those views could rest?
Thomas wrote: "how can he say that war is contrary to human nature? "He is saying it is an event. An event that occurred. An event could be something like an earthquake or a volcanic eruption, or it could be something like a war. Perhaps he is saying that war is not one hundred percent the result of human decisions or a manifestation of human nature? Sometimes we are pushed in the direction of war because of territorial pressures, or famines. There are a lot of different causes. In ancient times the unseen forces of the Gods would have been among those different causes. Sometimes the causes that are outside our control are overwhelming and no matter what we do we just can't get the genie back in the bottle..
Lily wrote: "Hmm -- fascinating discussion, Thomas and Theresa. Are we watching Tolstoy articulate and develop his pacifist views and the values or assumptions on which those views could rest?"Develop, perhaps, but articulate? I guess I'm not convinced of that quite yet. Tolstoy is a master of his plot and his characters, and it's what I love about this book. But his historical interpretation is not nearly as strong. I'm hoping to see at the end how the story can serve as a framework for pacifism. If it works I will be most surprised.
This section is great fun.