Classics and the Western Canon discussion

This is a l-o-n-g section, but full of wonderful variety. In P/V it's book four, section 2. There's some great romance here--the knight-in-shining-armor kind--and it couldn't happen to a more deserving heroine. Before that, we get to experience all the worries and emotions of having Napoleon march closer and closer to our town, and witness the dying of an old soldier. And those peasants! You just can't find good help anymore. Oh, and Pierre on the battlefield! And Napoleon's little aphorisms. Did you notice that Kutuzov starts using aphorisms, too? Does he mock l'Empereur? Did you notice that And war, terrible war, and Prince Andre's anti-climatic meeting with Anatole. It takes a while to read all this, but it is very definitely worth it.

Despite Tolstoy's excellent description of the battle of Borodino, I had a hard time visualizing it. There was a lot of unfamiliar military vocabulary in that section. I was happy to find this image:
http://www.allworldwars.com/The%20Bat...

It helped me get a better idea of the whole battlefield.

I was looking at the discussion of "the little princess" in one of the earlier threads and it reminded me of something I highlighted in book 10. In chapter 6 (sorry I don't know P/V location) there is a party at Anna Pavlovna's in which there is a guest that the narrator/author keeps referring to as a "man of great merit". It seems like some kind of inside joke but i don't get it. Was I supposed to have guessed who this man was? Like Pierre, he is a bit socially awkward. What's up with that?

I couldn't believe Pierre complains about his horses crazy riding and is told it had been shot in the leg. Then he dismounted and that was it. I wanted to know what happened with the horse. A minor detail but who just walks away from a wounded horse.

the death scene of the aged prince and his daughter was really moving!

I had to put the book down around book 6 and took a break of several weeks from it. When I picked it back up I began to enjoy it again and this book 10 was my 2nd favorite part of the book so far. The wolf hunt earlier being my favorite . I can understand why some may have had a hard time visualizing the battle. One thing I've noticed more in this second half of the book is the changing POV . Tolstoy without any warning will switch to another character and take us through the same event giving a different perspective as it would have been viewed by the different people involved. Pierre seems to take over as the main character from this point on. It is interesting to see the change from war as a glorious event to taking on a more evil appearance. Pierre begins fascinated with the fighting and battle strategies then we see him begin to realize the human side. He focuses on the men's faces and begins to get a sense of the fear and the agony involved. Even Napoleon himself has a new outlook towards war.

Travis of NNY wrote: "I couldn't believe Pierre complains about his horses crazy riding and is told it had been shot in the leg. Then he dismounted and that was it. I wanted to know what happened with the horse. A minor detail but who just walks away from a wounded horse..."

You don't think that happened during wars fought on horseback? (I don't know, hadn't thought about it before. Certainly, humane horseman often do put a wounded or maimed mount out of misery in more "normal" circumstances. I've done enough around horses to be familiar with such practices -- but not war and horses.)

Most books make a point of saying how the animal was puy down. Often in war horses were butchered because food for troops usually becomes an issue. If an officers horse us killed they would take one from a lower ranked soldier. It just struck me funny that in this detail filled door stop if a book Tolstoy takes us through this ride through the battle ending with the horse having a bullet in the leg and Pierre dismounts and gets a congratulations for his first battle scar.I would have thought the long winded Tolstoy could have fit in a sentence or two about it.

Travis of NNY wrote: "...I would have thought the long winded Tolstoy could have fit in a sentence or two about it."

Point well taken. :)

Possible spoiler from Anna Karenina if you haven't read it: (view spoiler)[I do remember that we were told about Frou-Frou (after Vronsky's failure to keep his seat at her shifting pace):

"The mare had broken her back, and it was decided to shoot her."

TOLSTOY, LEO (2011-03-20). Delphi Complete Works of Leo Tolstoy (Illustrated) (Kindle Locations 57821-57822). Delphi Classics. Kindle Edition. A.K., Chap. 25, Part 2. (hide spoiler)]

In battle they had a hard enough time taking care of wounded men. Of course the wounded horse would be shot.

Laurele wrote: "In battle they had a hard enough time taking care of wounded men. Of course the wounded horse would be shot."

They probably prioritized the rescue of wounded men. Perhaps the horrors of war even resulted in them not wanting to waste bullets while a battle was in progress?

One way or the other, Pierre is so out of his element here, that I'm not surprised he wouldn't have a clue what the right course of action might be under the circumstances.

I was really impressed with the way Tolstoy described the sunrise, and the panoramic scene of the battlefield through the eyes of Pierre. I was particularly impressed by how it takes Pierre a few minutes to realize there are dead and dying men right before his eyes. At first I thought it was just a characteristic of Pierre not to notice the details, but isn't that how it works for all of us trying to take in a whole scene - it takes us a few minutes to focus on the details (can't see the trees for the forest) and make sense of them. This would be particularly true in a strange environment such as the battlefield would look to Pierre.

Epithets--yes, you've hit on it, Patrice!

Patrice wrote: "Theresa wrote: "I was looking at the discussion of "the little princess" in one of the earlier threads and it reminded me of something I highlighted in book 10. In chapter 6 (sorry I don't know P..."

I wonder what these titles/epithets look and sound like in Russian (or French as the case, may be)?
Did they serve some as mnemonic purpose?

Patrice wrote: "I've gone over to the Discovering Russian Literature group to ask questions. There is a very nice native Russian speaker who explained to me that small and little are the same word in Russian but ..."

I'm a member of that group and have never taken the time to check out much over there. I just looked at the thread you speak of and realize I need to at least pay some attention to the conversations over there even if I don't have anything to add. Pretty interesting discussions in some of those threads.

Patrice wrote: "I've gone over to the Discovering Russian Literature group to ask questions. There is a very nice native Russian speaker who explained to me that small and little are the same word in Russian but ..."

"Little" is a compliment in Russian, not a negative. There's just no substitute for being able to read the original!

I spent a couple years living in a spanish speaking country and I noticed some similarities. Little mother, little grandmother and such are used as terms of endearment, which is not as common in america.

@2 Theresa wrote: "Despite Tolstoy's excellent description of the battle of Borodino, I had a hard time visualizing it. There was a lot of unfamiliar military vocabulary in that section. I was happy to find this ..."

@2 Thanks for the link, Theresa. I much appreciated the visuals!

Bald Hills, the home of old Prince Bolkonslky and Marya and Andrei, was located near the ancient walled city of Smolensk, which had long been the first line of defense for Moscow.

Here is the city at the time of a much earlier battle. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...

A map and some information. http://www.antibiotic.ru/en/iac/smole...

And more....

http://admin.smolensk.ru/tour_sp/eng/...

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Fil...

http://www.richard-seaman.com/Travel/...

http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_s...

Thanks for the excellent views of the Battle of Borodino, Theresa and Patrice. Here's more:

http://academics.hamilton.edu/russian...

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Bor...

The battle is reenacted on site every year. http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/...

It'd be fun to visit Russia after having read this book! :-)

Laurele wrote: "Bald Hills, the home of old Prince Bolkonslky and Marya and Andrei, was located near the ancient walled city of Smolensk, which had long been the first line of defense for Moscow....

A map and some information. http://www.antibiotic.ru/en/iac/smole... ..."

"....The battle under Smolensk in August 4 - 5th during the Patriotic war of 1812 disturbed the plan of Napoleon to destroy Russia. On the territory of Smolensk the French army was finally destroyed after its retreat from Moscow. M.I. Kutuzov received the title of Prince of Smolensk. .... Within the Great Patriotic war [1941-'45] Smolensk was destroyed over 93%. Many times demolished by the enemies Smolensk has been raised again and again from the ruins and ashes."

Interesting stuff! Thanks, Laurele.

"Smolensk was one of the first cities to have been found[ed] in old Russ. It is older than Moscow and contemporary with Kiev and Novgorod...."

It was so hard to understand what was going on at the battle of Borodino because the point of view of the main players kept changing. It was hard to get a mental picture of the layout. I had particular difficulty with the whole description of the left flank, right flank etc

"The chief action of the battle of Borodino was fought within the seven thousand feet between Borodino and Bagration's fleches”

“From the Shevardino Redoubt where Napoleon was standing the fleches were two thirds of a mile away, and it was more than a mile as the crow flies to Borodino”

“The soldiers of Dessaix's division advancing against the fleches could only be seen till they had entered the hollow that lay between them and the fleches”

“But not only was it impossible to make out what was happening from where he was standing down below, or from the knoll above on which some of his generals had taken their stand, but even from the fleches themselves”

“The Russians stood in serried ranks behind Semenovsk village and its knoll,”

“Prince Andrew's regiment was among the reserves which till after one o'clock were stationed inactive behind Semenovsk, under heavy artillery fire. Toward two o'clock the regiment, having already lost more than two hundred men, was moved forward into a trampled oatfield in the gap between Semenovsk and the Knoll Battery, where thousands of men perished that day and on which an intense, concentrated fire from several hundred enemy guns was directed between one and two o'clock.”


Napoleon oversees most of the battle from shevardino Redoubt, Pierre is at raevski's Redoubt, Andrew is behind Semenovsk

I am not sure exactly where kutosov is

“On the rug-covered bench where Pierre had seen him in the morning sat Kutuzov, his gray head hanging, his heavy body relaxed. He gave no orders, but only assented to or dissented from what others suggested.”

Not sure where that is. I also didn't see where prince Bagration was wounded.

“But before he reached the foot of the knoll he was met by a dense crowd of Russian soldiers who, stumbling, tripping up, and shouting, ran merrily and wildly toward the battery. (This was the attack for which Ermolov claimed the credit, declaring that only his courage and good luck made such a feat possible: it was the attack in which he was said to have thrown some St. George's Crosses he had in his pocket into the battery for the first soldiers to take who got there.)
The French who had occupied the battery fled, and our troops shouting "Hurrah!" pursued them so far beyond the battery that it was difficult to call them back.
The prisoners were brought down from the battery and among them was a wounded French general, whom the officers surrounded. Crowds of wounded—some known to Pierre and some unknown—Russians and French, with faces distorted by suffering, walked, crawled, and were carried on stretchers from the battery.”

This wounded French general must have been Murat.

Theresa wrote: "It was so hard to understand what was going on at the battle of Borodino because the point of view of the main players kept changing. It was hard to get a mental picture of the layout...."


Theresa -- Despite some books on famous battles among my collection and having visited various dioramas through the years, I am not one to readily grasp the dynamics of the geography of battle, so I'm not sure what is helpful to those of you that do. But, I presume you have seen this map?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bat...

Theresa wrote: "It was so hard to understand what was going on at the battle of Borodino because the point of view of the main players kept changing. It was hard to get a mental picture of the layout. "

Perhaps I'm just ignorantly stating the obvious, but I wonder if Tolstoy purposely made the whole battle difficult to follow as a technique to help us gain a sense of the chaos that is war. Perhaps if this is a technique, he's saying "no one, not even the leaders know what's going on and who is where at any particular time, and here's what that feels like." :-)

Just what I was thinking, Jeremy.

Thanks for the responses on that and apologies for the long post. I was (still am) trying to piece it together based on those highlighted passages and wasn't having as much success as I thought I should. Just thought maybe somebody here would notice some obvious glaring mistake I was making that was tripping me up. It seems to me that with the amount of explaining Tolstoy does, he must want his reader to get a mental picture of the battlefield. Perhaps he also doesn't mind if the reader is still confused (as Jeremy and Laurele suggest).

The maps and the video help to some extent. I guess it is just me, I'd like to be able to draw a little map in my mind of what is happening, where, and when. I didn't have any trouble visualizing the battle of Austerlitz.

Thanks for the responses.

Theresa wrote: "Thanks for the responses on that and apologies for the long post. I was (still am) trying to piece it together based on those highlighted passages and wasn't having as much success as I thought I ..."

I plan on watching the movie after I'm done with this book, and I bet that will help visualize that battle a little better :-)

Jeremy wrote: "the death scene of the aged prince and his daughter was really moving!"

I agree.
I left the book for this week, read this entire section in past 2 hours. Could not put it down.

There were earlier discussions about horses. In war, is there time to kill an injured horse, especially if the rider is escaping death himself?

Theresa wrote: "Thanks for the responses on that and apologies for the long post. I was (still am) trying to piece it together based on those highlighted passages and wasn't having as much success as I thought I ..."

I've also struggled to visualize the entire battle. This seemed far more chaotic and on a wider scale than Austerlitz. There are multiple view points from multiple places in the melee. I thought my confusion was intentional, that Tolstoy was portraying the chaos, destruction and heartbreak of war; as opposed to the heroism of Austerlitz.

I am, of course, behind in my reading, just finished this section. Wow.

One thing that struck me strongly is that if every person on earth had to read Book 10, would it be possible for humans to continue fighting wars? This was the best argument for pacifism I have read in a long, long time. The who idea that nobody really knew what they were fighting about, that engaging in this battle was almost an accident, that tens of thousands of men died for what, the combination of broad descriptions of the gruesomeness of the war on a wide scale combined with the tiny scale experiences of specific individuals (I will be very interested to find out whether Price Andrew does die or survives his wounds) was compelling.

I agree with the comment that Pierre stands in for the reader, but I was amazed at how he could be both so insouciant and so foolhardy at the same time.

More comments to come.

Theresa wrote: "It seems to me that with the amount of explaining Tolstoy does, he must want his reader to get a mental picture of the battlefield. Perhaps he also doesn't mind if the reader is still confused (as Jeremy and Laurele suggest). "

I also tried to follow events (my edition even has a map of the battlefield), but I came to Jeremy-Laurel conclusion that I think Tolstoy is quite content to have us wind up totally confused about what was happening. After all, most of the soldiers on the ground were confused, as was Pierre, and as were the generals. I finally decided that Tolstoy's point was to show us that even if you are told the specific details of a battle, the whole thing still remains mysterious, unintelligible, utterly confused -- sort of like trying to sort out the details of action in the mosh pit at a Rolling Stones concert.

BTW, I had never heard of fleches, and none of my dictionaries has the term defined -- the OED gives several uses of it, but no definition!

I finally found this article on the Bagration fleches,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bagratio...
which were apparently famous in their own right. (And they consisted of two lunettes and one redan, also terms I have never heard.)

BTW, I love this comment from the Wikipedia article on the battle: "Historical reports of the battle differed significantly depending on whether they originated from supporters of the French or Russian side. Factional fighting among senior officers within each army also led to conflicting accounts and disagreements over the roles of particular officers." No wonder we're confused about what actually happened!

Everyman wrote: "Theresa wrote: "It seems to me that with the amount of explaining Tolstoy does, he must want his reader to get a mental picture of the battlefield. Perhaps he also doesn't mind if the reader is sti..."

Thanks for the link. I guess I got myself in visualizing mode with Tolstoy's description of the morning light on that fateful day. I still don't suppose he is writing deliberately to confuse, but that he is well aware that the majority of his readers will be confused, so he gives us Pierre to identify with. Surely some of that detailed description of the battlefield and the events has something to do with what Tolstoy anticipates will be interest and criticism from war historians and military buffs of his day. Also, regular European readers of his time would have have had more fixed ideas about the napoleonic wars than we of the 21st century do, so it is natural for us to be a little more confused than what Tolstoy might have intended.

I wonder what the fleches were made of? Piles of dirt? Hay? sandbags? I don't suppose it matters. I'll have another look at that youtube clip and see if they were shown there.

I'm worried about Mary. With her father dead and her family home probably destroyed, what will she do with her life? And now her brother may have died on the battlefield, leaving her alone without any male support in a male-dominated culture. Is it likely that she will be able to find a husband, assuming now with her father dead that she wants/is ready for one? Will any of the family wealth be left after this war?

I worry about her.

Everyman wrote: "I worry about her...."

Wealth can be a useful asset.

Lily wrote: "Everyman wrote: "I worry about her...."

Wealth can be a useful asset."

A bon mot!

Brava!

I remember I was a little bothered by the refusal of the peasants/serfs to respect Mary's wishes. After giving it some thought, I wondered if maybe it was not so much on account of her gender as the fact that her father was not a particularly nice master (he used to abuse his staff) and therefore they felt no loyalty to the family on his account. They might have been more cooperative if the old prince had been a nicer, less conflicted character.

@ Everyman, I wasn't worried bout Mary with regards to what next, her faith is strong and serves her well. She's a good, loving person and I kept thinking she'd find a place for herself and nephew to fit into life.
@ Theresa, I agree, I was surprised the peasants didn't like Mary, as Ithought she radiated a goodness,but your explanation is a good one.

Lisa wrote: "...She's a good, loving person and I kept thinking she'd find a place for herself ... to fit into life....

What is sad and poignant to me is that the same was perhaps not quite so possible for Sonya. The juxtaposition of these two characters and the character of Nikolai acting within his family structure seems to me one of the great dramatic constructions and explorations of Tolstoy's genius -- but also affirmation of the values and life expectations in which Tolstoy was embedded.

Lily wrote: "...What is sad and poignant to me is that the same was perhaps not quite so po..."
That is true Lily, Sonja was done an injustice, on more than one level, she lacked strength of character among the Rostov's and was not assisted by them in securing her future. An explanation that I read was that Sonja chooses to be a martyr ocer being happy. I was not convinced by this.

Lisa wrote: "...An explanation that I read was that Sonja chooses to be a martyr over being happy. I was not convinced by this...."

Not sure what chapters in which some of these occur, so will use the spoiler designation : (view spoiler)[

Although the text probably permits one to say Sonya "chose" martyrdom, such an explanation feels too glib to me. All too often, there is a slippery slope between accepting victimization and being victimized. In this case, it seems to me, Nikolai, his mother, and even the father, besides Sonya herself, are all perpetrators. Even societal expectations and pressures play their roles.

(hide spoiler)]

I've said before that I find Sonya to be one of the most interesting characters in the novel (there was a question somewhere about who your favorite character was). I have admired her equanimity ever since she turned down Dolokhov's offer. She showed good judgement and managed the situation well when Natasha was losing her head over Anatole. I think all her decisions are carefully considered.

Theresa wrote: "I remember I was a little bothered by the refusal of the peasants/serfs to respect Mary's wishes. After giving it some thought, I wondered if maybe it was not so much on account of her gender as t..."

This was a transitional time for Russia's serfs, who were being encouraged toward freedom by certain forces. I had the impression that they were afraid and trying to make sure their families were safe. They didn't see a way to both protect themselves and follow Mary's wishes, and they chose the former.

Sonia has always been a puzzlement to me. She seems to be such a sad case, and yet she does not seem to be unhappy. I'm thinking that perhaps Tolstoy didn't know what to think of her, either; he just accurately portrayed her.

Laurele wrote: "This was a transitional time for Russia's serfs, who were being encouraged toward freedom by certain forces. I had the impression that they were afraid and trying to make sure their families were safe. ..." Yes, that too makes sense.

Laurele wrote: "Sonia has always been a puzzlement to me. She seems to be such a sad case, and yet she does not seem to be unhappy. I'm thinking that perhaps Tolstoy didn't know what to think of her, either; he just accurately portrayed her."

And the time and circumstances in which she lived.

(Just finished tonite Stoner by John Edward Williams. One viewpoint towards it [certainly not the only one nor necessarily even a "good" one] is to consider the extent of victimization portrayed.)