Show Notes
Tolstoy affirms that only the will of the Deity, who is not dependent on time, can make sense of any monumental event or series of events.
Tolstoy acknowledges his belief in an omnipotent God, who determines the Way. This majestic being is something we can never come close to understanding. Even the most renowned, like Napoleon, cannot veer humanity in the direction they intend. This is because man acts in his limited time and sphere. Thus, historians who attribute grand events to so-called “Great Men,” are engaged in a vain pursuit. This outlook is not surprising given Tolstoy’s affinity of Scripture, particularly the Wisdom literature of Job and Ecclesiastes.
In analyzing the futility of attributing an effect to a purported cause, Tolstoy proffers that no command can be executed without an endless chain of proceeding orders. There is no such thing as a command that appears spontaneously. At best, we can say every command and event refers to a sliver in time that can only have influence over the fraction that comes after.
Tolstoy suggests there is a general consensus that paramount decisions are made akin to the setting in motion of a clock -- such that a single command is often thought to govern a whole series of occurrences. For example, “Napoleon wished to invade Russia and did so in 1812.” However, Napoleon could never have commanded such a movement in one fell swoop. Instead, there were countless preceding missives and orders to his generals as well as the leaders of Vienna, Berlin and St. Petersburg. It is more accurate to say that events took on a direction that humanity, for some impossible to define reason, were ready to move in. The true reasons behind such movements are something only The Deity can comprehend.
Tolstoy reflects that Napoleon was more of a natural adversary of England. Therefore, there was a greater chance of him coming up with a plan to invade England as opposed to crossing the Vistula River.
Tolstoy posits that for any order to be executed -- in a philosophical sense – it is necessary that said order be possible. This is not only in the case in military endeavors, but in everyday transactions, for there are always a myriad of contingencies that could arise to prevent a command’s execution. With respect to invading Russia, there would have been many directives that if analyzed soberly and in hindsight, would never have been possible.
We have this false conception that an event is caused by a command because what occurred is looked at as a plan coming together. Yet for every directive executed there are an immense number unexecuted and forgotten. Thus, Tolstoy goes back to his theme -- that it is virtually impossible to attribute causes to grand historical events.
Tolstoy then turns to wrestling regarding the nature of power in looking at how commands and directives play out between related events, that is between very close in time events. Tolstoy finds it important to understand the roles of those giving and taking orders. In most endeavors, there are small numbers giving orders and large numbers subject to them. In military life, army leadership resembles a cone where the thickest part, the base, consists of the rank and file. Here exists the domain of the soldiers, who are told where to march and who to kill. On the next level are the noncommissioned officers, who give commands to soldiers below and get into action less frequently. An officer like Andrei customarily participates even less in the battles, but commands more. At the top, there is the commander like Kutuzov or Napoleon, who rarely takes direct part in the action.
Tolstoy feels there is similar relation of people (between the few who give orders and the majority who take them) in most common activities—including in agriculture and trade. It is this relationship which constitutes the essence of power. For example, while Napoleon may be given credit or blame for the way a particular battle turned out, All the people
More from War & Peace Podnotes, A Study Guide
As War & Peace delves into to fiction to a much greater degree than the previous section, exploring the Rostov family dynamic throughout 1806, there is a great deal that historically transpired which Tolstoy does not bring you through. In this stretch, Bonaparte was a continental Behemoth, who sets his sights on Prussia, then an industrial power with a highly organized military. The centers that made up the Prussian Kingdom were: Berlin, Potsdam, Königsberg and Danzig. You should recall that based on the battle of Austerlitz, Napoleon replaced the Habsburg Family as the principal authority in Central Europe. Austria never again reached such heights of power. Over the next 70 years Austria would lose influence over the dozens of German states while Prussia gained in this regard. It was Prussia, under Otto Von Bismarck, who in 1871 established the nation we know as Germany. In the start of 1806, France remained in a state of war against Russia, England and even Sweden. It was a busy and productive year for "the man of destiny." In February, Napoleon sent General André Messéna to Naples to overthrow the Bourbon King, Ferdinand IV, and install his brother, Joseph. Messéna was successful though fighting continued for months. In the Summer, Napoleon consolidated control of Holland and placed a crown on another brother, Louis. By mid-July, Napoleon created the Confederation of the Rhine of mostly southern German states, where he compelled alliances. The expanded territory gave the French 60,000 more troops. Napoleon was reshaping Central Europe to assure French influence and limit that of Austria, Prussia, Russia and Great Britain. Napoleon’s desire was to marginalize Britain economically after the Brtis won control of the seas at the Battle of Trafalgar, which preceded Austerlitz by a month. Just off the Southwest coast of France, the French Navy was decimated. The English controlled the water, but Napoleon was dominant on land and wanted to implement the Continental Commerce System. He had success in spreading French administrative, legal and social reforms—including the Napoleonic Code. When possible and practical, he moved to end the remnants of feudalism. The Code abolished a plethora feudal privileges, dismantled manorial courts and freed some peasants, granting basic civil rights and a semblance of equality before the law. To continue to foster his ambitions, Napoleon set his sights on Prussia, which included former Polish territory. Poland was a former Kingdom cut up (partitioned) by Russia, Prussia, and Austria, where many Polish nobles committed allegiance to the Czar or King of Prussia. While the Czar worked with much of the nobility of Poland, the peasants filled the ranks and endured. Czar Alexander was 27 in 1806. Despite the historic loss at Austerlitz, Alexander, would rule for nearly two more decades. He was fortunate that his population was forgiving. Alexander did not enter into serious peace negotiations nor publicly concede the loss. Many among the Russian nobility blamed the result on the Austrians. There are memoirs from Phillip Vigel, then a 20 year-old Russian diplomat, who detailed his observations of the mood in Moscow and Petersburg. The Muscovites were more vocal in castigating the Czar. Some would even laud Napoleon. There, Bonaparte earned nickname befitting a Russian Conqueror, Napoleoskha. In Petersburg, the population shared the humiliation. They would explain the result as a turn of luck. Vigel expressed that Petersburg society felt the desire to get themselves off the floor and prove themselves. He sensed a general optimism of youth. He also notes how the English desired Russia as allies against the French and Czar was their lifeline from French domination. Consequently, Russia spent the summer of 1806 preparing for a new war -- reorganizing and refilling their ranks. General Kutuzov fades into obscurity for a time. Just prior to Austerlitz, in the Fall of 1805, Alexander made a notable a
We now get taken from March of 1806, through the warmer months and then to the end of the year. Quite the fast-forward!
We have reached the pivotal chapter involving the death of the Little Princess and birth of the Andrei’s son.
We move further into March of 1806 and return to Bald Hills, the estate of Andrei’s father. Despite letters and official inquiries, Andrei’s body had not been found nor was he on the list of prisoners.
This episode examines some likely influences in Tolstoy’s writing of the Duel between Pierre & Dolokhov.