War and Peace

I have just finished reading War and Peace by the Russian author Leo Tolstoy. I first read this book when I was twenty, and thought that it was the best novel that I had read. I have read many more books since then, and still think that it is one of the best books I have read (Les Miserables by Victor Hugo is one that equals it).

Tolstoy tells the story of the Napoleonic invasion of Russia. Napoleon burned Moscow, before the cold winter forced a destructive retreat. Tolstoy vividly describes the horror and futility of war.

Tolstoy’s portrayal of his numerous characters is deft. He often describes the character of person in a few subtle sentences. His is critical of high society, and exposes the artificiality of the people who were respected in the best social circles.

The book is interspersed with Tolstoy’s philosophy of history. His main point is that important people are not as influential as they think they are. Political leaders get carried away by the flow if history and do things that they did not intend to.

The generals make detailed plans in the advance of the battle, but they are usually wrong, because they do not understand the geography of the battle ground and the positioning of their forces. Once the battle starts, everything quickly changes and their plan becomes impractical. The generals are usually too far back from the battle to see what is really happening, but they continue to send messengers with new orders and instructions. Unfortunately, by the time the messenger gets to the relevant commanders, the situation has changed, and the instructions are irrelevant or impossible to implement. Often instructions were ignored, because the people on the frontline are scared, confused, or want to push their own agenda.

Tolstoy shows how the turning point in a battle is often the result of a few inconsequential people. Some cries out, “We are finished”, and everyone begins to flee. Or a soldier’s horse bolts and leads him on a charge towards the opposing infantry. In each case, many thousands of others follow and the battle is turned.

The relationships between the various members of the families at the centre of the narrative is fascinating too. They keep popping up in unexpected places, but this keeps the book interesting to the end.

War and Peace (7)

On understanding history.

Because we see out of the past only the general historical interest of that period, and we do no see all the personal human interests of the men of that time. And yet in reality these personal interests of the immediate present are of so much greater importance than public interests, that they prevent the public interest from every being felt—from being noticed at all, indeed. The majority of the people of that period took no heed of the general progress of public affairs, and were only influenced by their immediate personal interests. And those very people played the most useful part in the work of the time.

Those who were striving to grasp the general course of events, and trying by self-sacrifice and heroism to take a hand in it, were the most useless members of society; they saw everything upside down, and all that they did with the best intentions turned out to be useless folly…

In historical events we see more plainly than ever the law that forbids us to taste of the fruit of the Tree of Knowledge. It is only unself-conscious activity that bears fruit, and the man who plays a part in an historical drama never understands its significance. If he strives to comprehend it, he is stricken with barrenness (p. 1072).

War and Peace (6)

Tolstoy on the Public Good

Ever since the world has existed and men have killed one another, a man has never committed such a crime against his fellow without consoling himself with the idea. That idea is le bien publique, the supposed public good of one. To a man not swayed by passion this good never seems certain, but a man who has committed such a crime always knows positively where the public good lies (War and Peace p.1019).

War and Peace (5)

Weakness of Power

Every governing official in quiet, untroubled times feels that the whole population under his charge is only kept going by his efforts; and is this sense of being indispensably necessary in which every governing official finds the chief reward for his toils and cares. It is easy to understand that while the ocean of history is calm, the governing official holding on from his crazy little skiff by a pole to the ship of the people, and moving with it, must fancy that it is his efforts that move the ship on to which he is clinging.

But a storm has but to arise to set the sea heaving and the ship tossing upon it, and such error becomes at once impossible. The ship goes on its vast course unchecked, the pole fails to reach the moving vessel, and the pilot, from being the master, the source of power, finds himself a helpless, weak, and useless person (War and Peace p.1013).

War and Peace (4)

I enjoyed his comment about the German General Pfuhl, a war theorist.

Pfuhl had been one of those responsible for the plan of campaign that ended in Jena and Auerstadt. But in the failure of that war he did not see the slightest evidence of the weakness of his theory. On the contrary, the whole failure was to his thinking entirely due to the failures that had been made from his theory, and he used to say with his characteristic gleeful sarcasm: "Didn't I always say the whole thing is going to the devil?"

Pfuhl was one of those theorists who so love their theory that they lose sight of the object of the theory—its application to practice. His love for his theory led him to hate all practical considerations, and he would not hear of them. He positively rejoiced in failure, for failure, being due to some departure in practice from the purity of the abstract theory, only convinced him of the correctness of his theory (War and Peace p.729).

War and Peace (3)

Tolstoy experienced war, but was not impressed.

War is not a polite recreation, but the vilest thing in life, and we ought to understand that and not play at war. We ought to accept it sternly and solemnly as a fearful necessity. It all comes to this: have done with lying, and if it's war then it's war and not a game, or else warfare is simply the favourite pastime of the idle and frivolous....

The military is the most honoured calling. And what is war, what is needed for success in war, what are the morals of the military world? The object of warfare is murder; the means employed in warfare—spying, treachery, and the encouragement of it, the ruin of a country, the plundering of its inhabitants and robbery for the maintenance of the army, trickery and lying, which are called military strategy; the morals of the military class—absence of all independence, that is, discipline, idleness, ignorance, cruelty, debauchery, and drunkenness. And in spite of all that, it is the highest class, respected by every one.

All sovereigns, except the Chinese, wear a military uniform, and give the greatest rewards to the man who succeeds in killing most people.... They meet together to murder one another, as we shall do to-morrow; they slaughter and mutilate tens of thousands of men, and then offer up thanksgiving services for the number of men they have killed (and even add to it in the telling), and glorify the victory, supposing that the more men have been slaughtered the greater the achievement (War and Peace p.886).

War and Peace (2)

Tolstoy was not that impressed by big-name leaders. They assume they are in control, but they are just being swept along by history.

In historical events great men—so called—are but the labels that serve to give a name to an event, and like labels, they have the least possible connection with the event itself. Every action of theirs, that seems to them an act of their own freewill, is in an historical sense not free at all, but in bondage to the whole course of previous history, and predestined from all eternity (War and Peace p.691).

War and Peace (1)

I have just finished reading War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy. I first read this book nearly forty years ago. Back then I considered it to be one of the best novels that I have ever read. Reading it again after such a long time, I have not really changed my opinion. I had forgotten how much I had been influenced by Tolstoys thinking.

Tolstoy tells the story of Napoleon’s invasion of Russia at the beginning of the nineteenth century. He gives an amazing description of the Battle of Borodino, which was the turning point in this war. Reading his account, you get a sense of the scale and scope of the battle, but at the same time you learn what it was like in the centre of the battle. His descriptions contrast the hardships of the foot soldier with the luxury and huge baggage trains of the generals and their hanger-ons. The foolishness of the generals and emperors is revealed again and again.

At another level, Tolstoy describes the lives and interactions of half a dozen Russian families. His characters emerge from the pages with amazing detail. The story of their births and deaths, their loves and marriages, their sufferings and adventures keep the ready engaged right to the end of the book.

In between all this, Tolstoy undertakes sum detailed philosophical discussions about the meaning and purpose of life. I found this a very interesting combination.

In my next few posts, I will put up some interesting quotes.