Skip to main content

War and Peace 2013: Entry 14--Reading Fourteen

N.B.: This post will discuss only the events through the end of Book III, Part 1, Chapter 15. Unlike with The Odyssey, the eventual resolution of the story is not necessarily common knowledge, so I will make every attempt to avoid spoilers as we go. Also, there seems to be some weird chapter numbering going on with some editions of the novel, Kindle and otherwise. I've updated the reading schedule to make it clearer where the readings end and will be more than happy to answer any questions if you're confused.

"A king is history's slave."

A month late, but finally, here we are, at the point in War and Peace where chapters go by on end without any of our main characters appearing, or without even the broader historical context being moved forward. Instead, we have Tolstoy the philosopher of history, espousing his theory that, as mentioned above, we are all bound to history, none moreso than the king.

In a way, it's a pity that he presents the abstract formulation of his ideas so clunkily--he is not at his best when writing philosophical essays, it must be said--as, when he presents his ideas in the context of the story he is telling, his ideas have a great power. It's not an overstatement to say that the French Invasion of 1812, which takes up much of the rest of the narrative, was the defining event of the 19th century for Russia, and, to a lesser extent, for Europe as a whole. Tolstoy is clearly fascinated by it, and I think War and Peace is his attempt at explaining it--not just the what or the when, but the why. Why did Napoleon lead the largest and arguably most successful military force ever assembled--his Grand Armee--on what is, from the viewpoint of history, a doomed excursion?

Tolstoy's answer is simple--essentially, Napoleon didn't lead anyone anywhere. Neither did Emperor Alexander rally his nation to repel the invading army. Rather, as Tolstoy argues in the philosophical digression chapters that begin here and only become more central as the book continues, history is composed of the infinite choices of infinite people, stretching back to eternity. A direction comparison can be made to the Newtonian revolution in physics where, through the power of a new mathematics--the calculus (a word we'll come back to)--Newton, for the first time, could make the claim that, understanding the component forces, he could predict the motions of every object in the universe until the end of time itself. In Tolstoy's postulation, we are just like a cannonball being sent along a trajectory, acted up by forces and acting upon things in ways that we'll never understand. Rather, only a third person observer, such as Tolstoy himself, can trace our trajectories and begin to explain them, but even he is unable to take into account all of the various factors for all of the people who took part in the war.

If you made it through that last paragraph, good for you, as I barely made it through writing it. What Tolstoy is getting at is much clearer when illustrated with examples, which, as a novelist, he is uniquely qualified to present. Both Price Andrew and Count Nicholas essentially act out Tolstoy's theories, albeit it from different ends of the spectrum, as they have before.

First, we have Prince Andrew who, returned to his post-Austerlitz despondency following the collapse of his engagement, has returned to military service. Due to his previous service, especially his time at court as a reformer, Andrew is immediately attached to the highest circles, which gives Tolstoy, via Andrew, a chance to look at the important players and, one by one, expose them for being foolish, naive, and generally ignorant. This is most acutely done regarding Pfuel, who, like the Prussian generals we saw earlier, wishes to reduce military decisions to a simple matter of science. Tolstoy even accuses him of ignoring inconvenient details if they don't fit his theory--the theory is all. However, he is not the only one condemned. In turn, Andrew assesses them all and determines that none of them understand what battle and war and fighting are really like. The generals and theorists here are analogous to the historians, who think they can understand history by their theories; Andrew, however, understands that a million tiny actions create what we call history and that anyone who tries to interpret it from the top down, as these generals are doing, is doomed to failure. As such, he asks to serve at the front--better to live history, it seems, than to argue about it.

Nicholas, on the other hand, represents history as it's truly lived--from the battlefield and the individual upwards. His charge against the dragoons, leading his squad of men in a sortie that leads to the defeat of the dragoons and the capture of several of their officers--one of whom, memorably and heartbreakingly, pleads with his young face and blue eyes and dimple, telling Nicholas that he surrenders--is triggered by the thought of a moment, and takes but a few minutes from start to finish. Even before it's completed, Nicholas has already begun to wonder what drove him to it, what set of forces brought him and the young French dragoon to that place and time where Nicholas held a complete strangers life in his hands--to what end?

These ideas will come back again and again, and Tolstoy will expound on his ideas at more length as we proceed. It's roughly at this point that the book ceases to become the novel and becomes, well, War and Peace, a frustrating, brilliant, absurd, heartbreaking, challenging, and profound book, essentially unique in the history of the world. Up next--the war comes home.

Don't forget, you can follow updates and ask questions on @WandP2013 on Twitter. #WandP2013



Popular posts from this blog

Prague Blog: Preliminary -- Why?

Since I decided to uproot my entire life, move to a country I have never visited, and train in a career I have no experience with, people have often asked me, "Why?" I'm sure that many of them likely were wondering 'WHY?!?!?!" but, if so, they were polite enough to hide that fact. So, here, as the first (unofficial, preliminary) installment of my Prague Blog, I thought I would try to make the case for why this isn't a completely ridiculous thing to do.

The first starting premise for this is probably a key facet of my personality: I don't like things. Not, "there are things I don't like," but rather, on the whole, I don't care about physical things. I am not a thing person.* To a lesser extent, but still worth mentioning, I am not a creature comforts person. It is true that I go a bit stir crazy when I don't have access to walkable shops, etc., and I do have a great fondness for hot and cold running water and HVAC , but my needs in t…

Prague Blog: Preliminary -- The Things I'm Carrying, in Video Form

In Book II of the Iliad, Homer (let's just call the author that) enumerates the forces that sailed from Greece to lay siege on Troy, and then does a similar, smaller listing of the Trojan force. The "Catalogue of Ships," as it's known, stops the forward momentum of the epic to make sure the reader understands the scene on the plains outside Troy. At the same time, it establishes a great deal about the power dynamics at play, and provides us greater insight into the characters involved. Sometimes, what (or who) you own can speak volumes about who you are. In that spirit, but with none of the grandeur, I'm making a list of all the things I kept when I left my apartment and, more to the point, all the things I am taking to Prague with me.

The first category is things I'm keeping but not taking. This includes about a hundred books, mostly from my time at St. John's; a Johnnie chair, a college graduation present from my mother; various small items of sentiment…

Doctor Who & The Punch

CW: Homophobic slurs, discussions of violence

The following post is intended to be an examination of the moral dimensions of certain actions in Doctor Who, pursued in a rationalist style borrowing from Western theories of ethics. As such, it will likely strike many readers as a chilly analysis, but I hope not an insensitive one.

N.B. After several days, and a loss of several hours work, I have given up on doing linking footnotes in the interest in publishing this before the heat death of the universe. Everything is marked, though, so Control + F is your friend. I also had help editing and proofreading this post, but due to the great Save Fail of 2017, many of those edits have been lost. Management regrets the inconvenience.
A Thought Experiment Let's say I'm walking down the street, and a guy calls me a faggot as he walks past me. As a gay dude, this has definitely happened to me. I know what to do, which is to keep walking. But what if I were to turn around, tap him on the sh…