Classics and the Western Canon discussion

Here you may post web links, visuals, titles, anything that you think will enhance our reading of War and Peace.

There are two audiobooks, that is, 61 hours of listening pleasure, available at Audible.com. Both are Maude translation, and another one in Russian.

http://www.audible.com/search?field_f...

Speaking of visuals, from Tolstoy in Art:

Large image: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...



"Napoleon Visiting the Plague Victims at Jaffa in 1799" (1804) -- Jean Gros

http://www.louvre.fr/en/oeuvre-notice...

There will be a reference to this incident in the one of the very early chapters. This Louvre description is a good one, but the video below gives slightly different perspectives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rx1HtF...

This link is to a searchable text of the Maude translation. It may be helpful if, like me, you need to try to remember a character or incident that happened hundreds of pages previously.

The advanced search can find specific phrases if you can cite the key words.

http://www.online-literature.com/tols...

This site is kind of like Cliff Notes. It's called Smoop and their slogan is "we speak student." I mention it because it has some pretty funny chapter summaries; they really do "speak student." However, as best I can tell from what I've read so far, the summaries are accurate and helpful to understanding what is going on.

I am not sure if you are limited to a certain number of page views before being required to register.

http://www.shmoop.com/war-and-peace/s...

St. Petersburg: "The reign of Catherine the Great was a magnificent era during which, according to a contemporary, 'Russia became a European country and St. Petersburg came to occupy an important place amongst the capitals of the educated world.'" Her reign was 1762-1796. W&P starts about 1805, maybe a little earlier? (Its original title was The Year 1805.)

http://www.hermitagemuseum.org/html_E...

The page has some pictures that allow us to imagine the appearance of some of our military characters.

An excerpt in spoiler form from the Wiki article on Catherine the Great, specifically the section on Foreign Affairs: (view spoiler)[

"During her reign Catherine extended the borders of the Russian Empire southward and westward to absorb New Russia, Crimea, Northern Caucasus, Right-bank Ukraine, Belarus, Lithuania, and Courland at the expense, mainly, of two powers – the Ottoman Empire and the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. All told, she added some 200,000 square miles (520,000 km2) to Russian territory.

"Catherine's foreign minister, Nikita Panin (in office 1763–81), exercised considerable influence from the beginning of her reign. A shrewd statesman, Panin dedicated much effort and millions of rubles to setting up a 'Northern Accord' between Russia, Prussia, Poland, and Sweden, to counter the power of the Bourbon–Habsburg League. When it became apparent that his plan could not succeed, Panin fell out of favour and Catherine had him replaced with Ivan Osterman (in office 1781–97).

"Catherine agreed to a commercial treaty with Great Britain in 1766, but stopped short of a full military alliance.[12] Although she could see the benefits of Britain's friendship, she was wary of Britain's increased power following its victory in the Seven Years War, which threatened the European balance of power."

(hide spoiler)]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherin...

http://www.flickr.com/photos/momcilo5...

Asiatic Black Bear at the Moscow Zoo.

Why is Pierre depicted as fat? Does it have anything to do with the appearance of the Russian bear? That is pure conjecture on my part -- I have not read any commentary that I recall on Pierre's physical appearance, but his physiognomy, i.e., external aspect, certainly is clearly enunciated by Tolstoy.

Magnificence of the Tsars: Ceremonial Men's Dress of the Russian Imperial Court, 1721-1917, , from the collection of the Moscow Kremlin museums by Svetlana Amelekhina and Alexey K. Levykin ; introduction by Rosalind P. Blakesley

Don't know where a copy to borrow might be found, but for those of you interested in fashion, this appears to be a book it could be fun to get one hands on.

Anyone have any good Napoleonic-era map resources?

Thomas wrote: "Anyone have any good Napoleonic-era map resources?"

I like this one, Emerson Kent:
http://www.emersonkent.com/map_archiv... (very slow at the moment - but normally ok).

Here's a map of the war. http://images.classwell.com/mcd_xhtml...

Thanks for the maps, Wendel and Laurel. They are helping me situate the action in the next part.

Regarding Shakespeare, I thought briefly of Pierre as Falstaff. His only moment of near bravery comes after he is thoroughly in his cups -- when he intends to duplicate the rum-guzzling stunt on the window ledge, but doesn't. It's early in the book though and Pierre's character, like every other character, is hardly developed at this point.

Gian wrote: "@Lily: This is pure speculation on my part but I would like to think that Tolstoy is (consciously or not) making a reference to Shakespeare here, specifically Julius Caesar Act 1 Scene 2, lines 202..."

Gian -- Thanks for suggesting that possibility. The idea of the great rivalry with Shakespeare actually feeding the imagination of Tolstoy I find delightful -- and plausible.

But, my imagination doesn't yet rule out the images of Pierre, Mother Russia, naive and sophisticated, symbolized by the lovable bear that can do marvelous tricks, short-sighted, but strong and can't quite be tamed or totally trusted.

Patrice wrote: "I don't know how anyone else feels but I fell in love with Pierre instantly,
"

I didn't. I can't fall in love with formlessness.

Patrice wrote: "Pierre is Tolstoy. Was Tolstoy a bit heavy? My initial feeling is that it makes Pierre seem awkward, naive, ill at ease, innocent, socially awkward, vulnerable, gentle, non athletic. He's no soldier. BTW, I don't think he's supposed to be "fat" just kind of heavy and awkward. Maybe like a bear, yes. But less threatening. It also makes him stand out against Andrey."

'Tolstoy' comes quite close to the Russian word for fat, if I remember correctly.

Everyman wrote: "I can't fall in love with formlessness."

Round is a form.

Laurele wrote: "'Tolstoy' comes quite close to the Russian word for fat, if I remember correctly. .."

That's funny. Tolstoy was a health and fitness buff.

(P.S. Shouldn't these discussions be moved to "His Life and Ideas" thread?)

I stumbled upon a book called Napoleon's Russia Campaign. I am going to try to read this along with W & P. I would like to see how historically accurate Tolstoy happens to be.

Thomas: Regarding Shakespeare, I thought briefly of Pierre as Falstaff. His only moment of near bravery comes after he is thoroughly in his cups -- when he intends to duplicate the rum-guzzling stunt on the window ledge, but doesn't. It's early in the book though and Pierre's character, like every other character, is hardly developed at this point.

Although I am not in agreement that Shakespeare would have inspired the character of Pierre, without spoilers I would agree that he is a "Shakespearean" character. Time will tell if others agree.

My personal nomination for doppleganger would not be Falstaff. Despite the superficial, physical resemblance Falstaff is in control of every scene he is in (until he isn't). Pierre seems befuddled and in control of nothing at this point in the novel. Also Falstaff disdains "honor" as a social construct designed to reinforce the status quo--one of the reasons I love him.

On the other hand, from the start Pierre seems to be searching for something and to expect that, eventually, he will find the right path. (Interesting to compare him to Hans Castorp perhaps.)

My choice would be Prince Hal. Like Hal Pierre will come into power (via inheritance) through no virtue of his own. And he is certainly leading a ribald youth. However, this wonderful speech of Hal's resonates for me when I think of Pierre:

I know you all, and will awhile uphold
The unyoked humour of your idleness:
Yet herein will I imitate the sun,
Who doth permit the base contagious clouds
To smother up his beauty from the world,
That, when he please again to be himself,
Being wanted, he may be more wonder'd at,
By breaking through the foul and ugly mists
Of vapours that did seem to strangle him.
If all the year were playing holidays,
To sport would be as tedious as to work;
But when they seldom come, they wish'd for come,
And nothing pleaseth but rare accidents.
So, when this loose behavior I throw off
And pay the debt I never promised,
By how much better than my word I am,
By so much shall I falsify men's hopes;
And like bright metal on a sullen ground,
My reformation, glittering o'er my fault,
Shall show more goodly and attract more eyes
Than that which hath no foil to set it off.
I'll so offend, to make offence a skill;
Redeeming time when men think least I will.

It will be interesting to see how he does. I suspect it won't be easy.

After responding to Zeke's question about the struggled-over portfolio elsewhere, I went looking for a family tree. I found a seemingly excellent one, but I am enclosing it in a spoiler below because it is obvious it contains considerable information I did not learn until I had read W&P the first time and which even I consider among the plot pulls of the story. However, in support of Zeke's question about why Prince Vasili Kuragin considered himself and the women at Count Kirili Bezukhov's as suitable heirs, I do believe it is fair to share this notation about them "relations not clear, obviously Kirili's sisters or cousins." In the case of Prince Vasili, I'd add the possibility of "in-law." How like Tolstoy, with his penchant for probing family dynamics!

SPOILER: Family trees for W&P (view spoiler)[

More detailed: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia...

Simpler -- little on the question at hand:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:War...

Yes, I guess I now have an answer about Pierre's mother, unless the creator of this chart missed something that is in the text. (hide spoiler)]

Jonathan wrote: "I stumbled upon a book called Napoleon's Russia Campaign. I am going to try to read this along with W & P. I would like to see how historically accurate Tolstoy happens to be."

Jonathan -- good luck! I believe the scholars still argue over that one. You also should be able to find some academics who have made those comparisons -- and don't necessarily agree with each other!

If you are interested in digging into Russia's systems of inheritance (estates), the following may be one take-off point. It also has a reference to a book available online.

Russiahttp://www.roots-saknes.lv/Estates/Es...

Russia by Donald Mackenzie Wallace (online link in article above)

Elsewhere I posted some links to pictures of St. Petersburg. Here are some 360 degree panoramas. They do require QuickTime 4.0 plugin. (I don't have it at the moment, but have looked at these in the past.)

http://www.saint-petersburg.com/panor...

Here is another link with 1900 pictures of St. Petersburg, later than our novel, but still with an older perspective. There are two links to maps at the bottom of the picture linked directly.

http://www.alexanderpalace.org/peters...

Tolstoy: A Critical Introduction by Reginald Frank Christian

This was my favorite critical guide the first time I read W&P. Anyone with another, I'd love to hear your suggestions. My impression at the time was that many of the best were still in untranslated Russian. This one included notes of Tolstoy's initial sketches and plans for his characters. (I borrowed it at the time from a university library.)

Zeke wrote: "Although I am not in agreement that Shakespeare would have inspired the character of Pierre, without spoilers I would agree that he is a "Shakespearean" character. Time will tell if others agree."

Considering that one of Tolstoy's major criticisms of Shakespeare is that the latter's characters don't talk or act like real people, to say Pierre is a Shakespearean character would be the ultimate insult to Tolstoy (especially in his later years). :)

While reading Zeke's post, it occurred to me that Pierre embodies Tolstoy's philosophy of history in his character development, i.e., his personal history. There isn't one defining influence or event in his life, despite several people's attempts to manipulate him to their own advantage. Unlike the typical Shakespearean/Greek tragic characters, he has neither a character flaw that would lead to his downfall, nor an intentional design and will to power. His life consists of numerous influences: relations and friendships, social and historical events. He experiences, explores and bears everything and everybody, and they all contribute to his character development.

Nemo's explanation of Tolstoy's disdain for Shakespearean characters is interesting and stimulation. Perhaps it is more a conversation for the tea room, but I will try to comment in a manner that fits our discussion of W&P by raising the issue of style.

Tolstoy's characters are, indeed, realistic. The language with which he describes them is prose. Using poetry, Shakespeare heightens the reality of his characters and, for me, makes them even more "true" or representative of the human condition than realistic characters.

I suppose there is a continuum: journalism, fiction, poetry. Or, photography, sculpture, painting.

Tolstoy claimed that W&P was not a novel. At some point we will probably be trying to come to terms with what it exactly is then.

Zeke wrote: "At some point we will probably be trying to come to terms with what it exactly is then...."

Or decide this is one case where categorization may not matter, except where it is needed for some purpose or another. It just is.

Zeke wrote: "Tolstoy claimed that W&P was not a novel. "

What is a novel? Or rather, what did Tolstoy think was a novel?

Zeke wrote: "Nemo's explanation of Tolstoy's disdain for Shakespearean characters is interesting and stimulation..."

I'd recommend anyone who is interested to read Tolstoy's essay on Shakespeare. There is one iconoclast who can think and speak for himself.

Regarding poetry, Tolstoy makes his point clear in comparing Shakespeare with Homer.

However distant Homer is from us, we can, without the slightest effort, transport ourselves into the life he describes,...because he believes in what he says and speaks seriously, and therefore he never exaggerates, and the sense of measure never abandons him. This is the reason why, not to speak of the wonderfully distinct, lifelike, and beautiful characters of Achilles, Hector, Priam, Odysseus, and the eternally touching scenes of Hector's leave-taking, of Priam's embassy, of Odysseus's return, and others--the whole of the "Iliad" and still more the "Odyssey" are so humanly near to us that we feel as if we ourselves had lived, and are living, among its gods and heroes.

Not so with Shakespeare. From his first words, exaggeration is seen: the exaggeration of events, the exaggeration of emotion, and the exaggeration of effects. One sees at once that he does not believe in what he says, that it is of no necessity to him, that he invents the events he describes, and is indifferent to his characters--that he has conceived them only for the stage and therefore makes them do and say only what may strike his public; and therefore we do not believe either in the events, or in the actions, or in the sufferings of the characters.

Nothing demonstrates so clearly the complete absence of esthetic feeling in Shakespeare as comparison between him and Homer. The works which we call the works of Homer are artistic, poetic, original works, lived through by the author or authors; whereas the works of Shakespeare--borrowed as they are, and, externally, like mosaics, artificially fitted together piecemeal from bits invented for the occasion--have nothing whatever in common with art and poetry.

Having read Homer myself, I can agree completely with Tolstoy's approbation. However, I can't say whether his criticism applies to all of Shakespeare's works, though I see it in those I have read. I'd be very interested in hearing how the Shakespeare fans in this group would respond to the criticism. :)

Jonathan wrote: "I stumbled upon a book called Napoleon's Russia Campaign. I am going to try to read this along with W & P. I would like to see how historically accurate Tolstoy happens to be."

Libraries can be filled with books on 1812. But I'm now reading Adam Zamoyski's recent (2004) Moscow 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March and I find it terrific. The narrative is epic and the analysis convincing. It has fundamentally changed my view on the war (which was largely based on an earlier reading of W&P).

Nemo: Not so with Shakespeare. From his first words, exaggeration is seen: the exaggeration of events, the exaggeration of emotion, and the exaggeration of effects.

Good stuff Nemo @39. I have begun marking the spots where, imho, Tolstoy commits the same "offense."

Zeke wrote: "Not so with Shakespeare. From his first words, exaggeration is seen: the exaggeration of events, the exaggeration of emotion, and the exaggeration of effects.

Good stuff Nemo @39. I have begun mar..."

LOL! When Giants Rumble!

(I need to soon return the books of criticism on Magic Mountain that I had borrowed from a university library and which I have only been able to partially read. Tonight I encountered a passage on the strain placed on the friendship between Gerhart Hauptmann and Mann when Mann used Hauptmann as his model for Mynheer Peeperkorn!

Hauptmann was primarily a dramatist and had received the Nobel in 1912. Mann did still serve as "official laudator" for Hauptmann, despite the mentor-rival aspects of their relationship. See Hans Rudolf Vaget, "The Making of The Magic Mountain, in the A Casebook Vaget edited for more of the story.)

Zeke wrote: " I have begun marking the spots where, imho, Tolstoy commits the same "offense.."

If you find them in W&P, do share. That might explain why Tolstoy rejected his own works in his later years. A bono fide iconoclast, not sparing his own image.

A brief history of Russian literature, not as fulsome on the folkloric traditions as I should like to have found: http://russia-ic.com/culture_art/lite...

Some of you may remember that one of Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis's projects was a lovely book of Russian folktales: The Firebird and Other Russian Fairy Tales.

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleo...

Fascinating site with many layers. Relates to the military aspects of W&P. I have only flicked through a few parts of it. A number of pictures (but I am still looking for one with a more extensive gallery of the Russian and French generals that we had last time I read W&P). Don't know the accuracy of what is presented here. Would be interested in the reaction of any others who do explore.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybN-DA...

Set long before W&P, but set me to thinking about all I don't know about Tartars, Cossacks, Hussars, Ukraine, Poland, Prussia, ....

http://www.napolun.com/mirror/napoleo...



I would presume that something like the greatcoat at the right is what the regiment had to extract from their knapsacks and don before the review by Kutuzov. Imagine just the weight of such a heavy woolen garb being carried across some 700 miles -- but how necessary, and inadequate, for the cold winters. (This was October.) I wonder what part of the infantry was on foot, versus on horseback. (700miles/20 per day -- 35 day march -- is that at all what such armies did? I'm doing this as a totally crude first guesstimate.)

Note 9, Part One from P&V translation of W&P:

"the famous Prince Bolkonsky: Tolstoy took many features of the old Prince Bolkonsky from his maternal grandfather, Prince Nikolai Sergeevich Volkonsky (1753-1821), a high military dignitary under the empress Catherine the Great, who was disgraced under her son, the emperor Paul I, and retired to his estate. Tolstoy similarly drew features from his paternal grandfather, Count Ilya Andreevich Tolstoy (1757-1820), in portraying Count Ilya Andreevich Rostov. The old prince Bolkonsky is called 'the king of Prussia' because he continued, contrary to the new fashion, to wear a powdered 'pigtail and bag' wig, knee breeches, and so on, like the Prussian king Frederick II, the Great (1712-86)."

See also:
http://books.google.com/books?id=4Z8Y...

Patrice wrote: "Ah! So he was Germanic!..."

Among the comments about the troops, I'm having a hard time figuring out to whom the appellation "German" was being applied. I may eventually have to dig out some maps and history of the period. It certainly wasn't Germany as we think of it today.

Lily wrote: "Patrice wrote: "Ah! So he was Germanic!..."

Among the comments about the troops, I'm having a hard time figuring out to whom the appellation "German" was being applied. I may eventually have to ..."

I, also, am having trouble figuring out who is on whose side when.

Patrice wrote: "Could that be intentional? [that I can't figure out who is on who's side]"

I don't think so. I think he was writing for his time, when every reader would know who was on whose side. For example, an American writer in 1870 might well have written about General Grant without being explicit about which side he was on because everybody would know.

Everyman wrote: "I, also, am having trouble figuring out who is on whose side when.."

As are many of the characters.

One of my confusions in the war strategy and action scenes is whether Austrian, Prussian, and German are separate categories, or does German include the other two, or...? The confusion for me started when Prince Andrey was talking to his father.

;)

The dance is English.
They speak French.
An old man exclaims, Ah, good Russian tea! (drunk in handless Oriental cups).

http://www.salisburycathedral.org.uk/...

This video is from the filming of Pillars of the Earth but the animals, especially the bear and the horses made me think of W&P.

Lily wrote: "One of my confusions in the war strategy and action scenes is whether Austrian, Prussian, and German are separate categories, or does German include the other two, or...? The confusion for me star..."

As I interpret it, a "German" is anyone who speaks German. There was, after all, no country called "Germany" at the time. I may be mistaken, but I think all the Germans mentioned in Book II are Austrians, or at any rate attached to the Austrian army.

Matthew wrote: "As I interpret it, a "German" is anyone who speaks German..."

That's correct. Austria and Prussia were political entities, Germany a cultural idea (different as north and south were and are).

However, we should not forget that the Germans were also important within Russia. As Baltic nobles or immigrant bourgeois. In Russian novels these Germans (for instance Oblomov's steward) are often the active and rational element - very different from the ineffective Russian great souls. Admirable and despicable at the same time.

And that may remind us of the distinction between Germany and the West we saw in Mann's defence of the German position in 1914. In Mann's view the Germans were the great souls opposing a heartless and corrupt West. It's all relative.

Wendel wrote: "Matthew wrote: "As I interpret it, a "German" is anyone who speaks German..."

That's correct. Austria and Prussia were political entities, Germany a cultural idea (different as north and south wer..."

Right, Germans who must be Russian citizens, like Berg and Bogdanych. Tolstoy has Bogdanych speak with an accent. I had been reading Briggs and I thought Briggs made him sound like Pepe le Pew. Denisov was even worse: Elmer Fudd. I ordered P & V on interlibrary loan, having failed to find it in bookstores. Much better.

Alexander Boot writes in his blog athttp://alexanderboot.com/content/1812... :

"Tolstoy describes all German officers fighting the Russian corner as pedantic bunglers and nincompoops. This took much fancy footwork, since that group included such internationally respected warriors as Wittgenstein, Bennigsen, Barclay de Tolly and Stein. But then Tolstoy even tags Napoleon as a military nonentity.

The writer glosses over the fact that three of the four supreme commanders of Russian armies during the Napoleonic wars were German (Barclay de Tolly, Wittgenstein, Bennigsen) and only Kutuzov was a simon-pure Russian. It was actually the German Scot Barclay, not the senile Commander-in-Chief Kutuzov, who was chiefly responsible for saving what was left of the army after the Russians’ defeat in the only major battle of the war.

Yet Tolstoy extols Kutuzov as a military genius, a sort of Antaeus deriving his strength from Russia’s saintly soil. Serious historians beg to differ."

What I've read so far doesn't particularly confirm this, but there's a lot still to come.

Thank you, Wendel and Matthew. I may have further similar questions as we go on, perhaps specific passages.

Patrice wrote: "This might help, scroll down to 1805:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleonic_Wars"

That's very helpful. Thanks! And as the book moves forward, I'll go further down the page to the later years. All is much clearer now.