Show Notes
Note: There are NO spoilers in the the 2nd Epilogue to War & Peace, which is analyzed in bonus chapters. This final part of the novel involves a metaphysical exploration of the philosophy underlying W&P.
This is a complex chapter easy to get lost in. Tolstoy wrestles with one of his common themes -- Are people led or are they ready to move and inevitably pops up someone to guide them in the direction they were going?
Tolstoy emphasizes that the life of the nations is not symbolically expressed by the lives of great men such as like Napoleon, Czar Alexander or Kutuzov. Thus, Napoleon cannot be said to sum up the French people at the turn of the 19th Century. It is people themselves who are always the story of their times!
Tolstoy proffers that prominent historians/academics tend to teach, using animals as an allegory for historical movements — a herd of cattle goes in a direction because the animal in front leads and the collective will of the others vest in that leader; and if the one at the top changes, it is because of another transfer of collective will. Tolstoy preaches there is a false appeal in believing any such theory. For the academic, watching the aforesaid herd, pays no attention to the varying quality of the cows in different parts of the field or the driving of the herdsman. Such assessments are made with the benefit of hindsight and attribution of bias. Academics tend to prop up figures they find important based on values they wish to advance.
Historians are mistaken when they regard historical persons, from monarchs to artists to journalists, as expressions of their age. A significant aspect of power lies with the people. The responsibility for what happens in this world, remains with each of us.
Tolstoy then explores concept of “power” and how that word is understood. When we look at what causes historical events, we cannot help but incorporate this force. “Power” is something you can’t see – as you can visualize a cannon or statue -- yet it exists. There is an ineffability of the word. Yet we all give “power” significance because of our ability to reason and life experience.
Whenever a major event occurs, a man will appear by whose will it took place. To him we attach power. Examples given are: Napoleon III issues a decree and the French go to Mexico; the Kings of Prussia and Bismarck issue decrees and an army enters Bohemia; Napoleon I issues a decree Russia is invaded; Alexander I gives a command and the French submit to the Bourbons. However, reflection shows that it is more than such words that moves men. A prominent man’s orders are only part of the story, as there is also the physical act of the multitudes agreeing and going along.
History shows that a monarch’s expression of the will often produces no effect, as such commands are often not executed; and other times the very opposite of what is ordered occurs.
Power, from the standpoint of experience, is better defined as the relation that exists between the expression of someone’s will and the execution of that will by others. When there is a bilateral relationship – then there can be said to be power!
Tolstoy ends the chapter referencing an ancient school of thought, where historians took for granted a divine role in human affairs. When a deity issues a command, the expression of that will is independent of time and is not caused by anything, for divinity is not controlled or tied down by our concept of power. He finds the ancients more useful than most academics with respect to studying the nature of power and causality.
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.