Show Notes
Tolstoy addresses how divided opinions persist through the ages. There will be a prominent crisis grabbing Your attention where every opinion under the sun is stated. He posits there is a perception afforded to a select few people involved in whatever conflict is at hand. There will naturally be some who get close to an accurate prediction of how a matter turns out and are often mistaken with being responsible for the event. For example, if Napoleon orders an advance and wins the field, he will get credit for taking ground. Tolstoy has us examine if there is more to the story.
To illustrate this, Tolstoy has us imagine the hypothetical of men hauling a log, where each expresses an opinion as to how and where to take it. Eventually, the log will be hauled to some location in a manner most similar to how one, or a small group, predict. We are led to the conclusion that those who predict most accurately are responsible for the task. However, Tolstoy’s goal is to relate to the complexity of attributing causes for events. He proffers that there is merely a perception of command and illusory nature of power.
With the Log-haul, there will be various men doing most of the physical work and because of their attention to the task, do not often think so much about what they are doing. Tolstoy proposes that they are as much responsible for the result as so-called decision makers.
Tolstoy infers that certain men who take initiative to “talk more” are often given accolades and find themselves with decision-making capacity and work less with his hands. Napoleon was one such man.
In affairs of the military or other large-scale enterprises, masses direct themselves with grander objectives than hauling a log. The commanding is often done in small teams, who do little of the actual fighting. Tolstoy attributes to this group similar attributes to how man perceives himself when he works alone and develops values to draw from. Basically, considerations which directed past activity, justify present activity, as serve as a guide for his future actions.
Tolstoy finds that this analytical process does not take the overriding values bestowed through the Gospel into account and allows us to devise justifications or rationalizations for collective activity. Tolstoy provides an example through the French Revolution. He notes: for reasons known or unknown the French began to drown and kill one another in that affair of 1789. There was an overriding belief that such was necessary for the welfare of France and for Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality.
The People later felt differently and ceased to kill one another. It was then believed that a centralization of power was necessary as well as resistance to those who desired to stay attached to monarchies. This resolve led to another effort that involved marching out of country to kill at the behest of men like Napoleon. This was accompanied by phrases about the glory of France and baseness of England.
It is such that every movement that occurs inevitably coincides with someone’s expressed wish and receives some justification. Tolstoy proclaims that the justifications made for such wars have no logic but have formidable significance. They serve to release people from moral responsibility for our collective crimes, such as how we kill millions of our fellows. Our intellect can excuse, reframe, or justify anything!
Tolstoy is wrestling with the nature of life, like the Preacher in Ecclesiastes, who Tolstoy often cites. He is expressing that man must rely on more than what other men say -- no matter how convincing. As Andrei realized on the field of Austerlitz, man must look above and beyond himself and act as if he is accountable to the Almighty even when he is flowing with the strongest currents of conventional thinking. We all have a voice in where we are going and for the wars and oppression around us. We share the responsibility of not justifying the unjustifiable.
He uses a metaphor to make the po
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.