There’s only one appropriate response to having completed the entirety War and Peace—as one participant so wisely expressed it, “Woo-hoo!” At the same time, though, one mentioned, “Hate to see it end.” It is difficult arriving at the ends of things. Tolstoy must have agreed with these sentiments so much that he decided to have not just one, but two whole epilogues to conclude the novel. The first epilogue begins similarly to how the second one ends—by making arguments against using “ultimate purposes” and reason to explain history and the movement of humanity. Tolstoy claims, “Just as the sun and every atom of ether is both a sphere complete in itself and also only a tiny part of an inconceivably vast whole, so every personality bears within himself his own aims whilst bearing them also in service of generalized aims that lie beyond human comprehension…The higher the human intellect goes in discovering more and more purposes, the more obvious it becomes that the ultimate purpose is beyond human comprehension.” Tolstoy explains that man is an infinitesimal part of the whole; thus, his decisions made with free will actually constitute a small part of a larger force moving humanity, a force with already determined “generalized aims” unintelligible to man himself. We see the transformations of a number of characters in the seven years that pass. Their transformations, renewed goals (which, in a lot of ways, echo their old ones), and the rise of the younger generation seem to bring things full circle. Their new hopes and dreams, even the repeated names, bring to mind the image of this “sphere complete in itself.”
Ideal Relationships, Family Life, and Knowing Each Other’s Thoughts
Regarding Pierre and Natasha’s as well as Nikolai and Princess Marya’s married lives, a participant mentioned, “I thought the interactions between the married couples were dead-on correct.” One observed, “The marital scenes were realistic--kind of make it okay to get fat and frumpy--and be happy!”—which is depicted very positively and is something important to Tolstoy. The couples seem to know each other inside and out, even understanding the needs of the other in an almost spiritual sense without the need of communicating through words. “The scene where Marya knows her husband is going to be irritable, and the ‘discussion’ scene between Natasha and Pierre showed that you do learn to recognize moods and can follow each other's thoughts during conversations.” Another observed, “It appears that the group of married people are now mature and relish their new life, a more earthy, at peace with themselves lifestyle,” and another, “Both couples chose to stay primarily out of ‘frivolous’ society and lead quieter, happier, stable lives.” Tolstoy seems to consider such characteristics to be key in a successful marriage—partners need to communicate and understand each other and be united beyond money, societal prestige, or sexual attraction. Many pointed out that Pierre and Natasha’s as well as Nikolai and Princess Marya’s relationship were more ideal than other marriages in the novel, such as the ones between Boris and Julie Karagin, Vera and Berg, and not to mention, all the scandal surrounding Helene. Instead, family becomes the center of attention: “Many men and women that were once wild or free spirited, and once they were married with children, those forces seem to fade into the background.” Tolstoy’s ideal runs contrary to the norm in that time period—Sara pointed out, “Adultery was actually quite common during this time period (in Russia and elsewhere - the French, oh my!), because pre-marital sex was taboo, so unmarried young men would have affairs with married women.” So the Pierre/Natasha and Nikolai/Princess Marya marriages were quite rare for aristocratic society.
Natasha’s Transformation into a Mother Figure
All four of them do change considerably in married life, though most of those in the discussion found Natasha’s transformation particularly striking. One made the inference, “Natasha's character fully developed to a logical conclusion, it seemed to me, at least for that period of time.” However, she does change considerable from her younger self. “Natasha was light-hearted, etc., when she was young, knew less of the world, was supposed to be attracting a husband. Now she doesn't have to do that, and is devoted to children and husband--no need to play to anyone else.” One participant did mention, “Natasha does carry it a bit far; or at least I was sorry that she gave up her singing.” She does give up those activities that once made her attractive to men—her singing and dancing—but these activities also marked her with a certain vitality and uplifting spirit. She seems to have replaced her special spirituality through singing and dancing with a spirituality distinguished by motherhood. A participant noted, “I think that once you have a child, you realize how much you love that person, would sacrifice for that person, and as a mother ( and father's sacrifice, too) you do put them first.” By 1820, she has transformed into what seems to be Tolstoy’s ideal of a mother figure. “She lets go of her previous interests and focuses on bearing and raising children. She was even applauded the fact she was breastfeeding her child, very unusual for that time, especially for a noblewoman.” Another observed, “That new ‘quietness’ shows a kind of contentment with who she has become, as well as an acceptance of her life as it has turned out.” Natasha’s new role as a mother has allowed her “to learn to love on a broader level, beyond her own interests.”
Despite her change in personality, it isn’t too surprising since “taking on those roles of marriage and motherhood seemed to be the forces that matured her and made her focus on what was considered then to be important -- her husbands happiness, the children's needs before her own, etc.” Many observed how Natasha takes a completely different path than Helene, who was “one of those women who continued to be wild, and often don't stay married! She was running after youth.” Even Prince Andrei’s former wife Lise had complaints about married life—she didn’t like being away from society because of her pregnancy. Unlike Helene and Lise, Natasha fully embraces the responsibilities of married life as a mother.
The Development of Nikolai Rostov
A few participants pointed out, “Nikolai doesn’t seem to grow or change as the novel progresses.” Many turned down the idea that Nikolai is “the hero” of the novel. One noted, “Tolstoy is describing Nikolai and Sonya's marriage as lacking the foundations needed in order to survive, or even thrive, after a economic or some other kind of disaster.” They simply don’t have the foundation in their relationship to thrive, not like his relationship with Princess Marya. A participant observed, “Nikolai seemed to mature on a fairly normal trajectory--not a’heroic’ one.” But would Tolstoy consider his “normal trajectory” unheroic? One responded, “Nikolai didn’t do much out the ordinary—though sometimes just making it through the day with a a certain amount of grace may be heroic!” Nikolai ends up being “a solid individual. He appears to stay focused on task and strives to do his best.” Tolstoy wants us to question our notions of what a hero really is. Nikolai could embody that simplicity that Tolstoy seems to hold as ideal.
Little Nikolai Bolkonsky and the New Generation
There are many echoes between older generation (Pierre, Natasha, Nikolai, Princess Mary) and the younger one (their children and Prince Andrei’s son, Little Nikolai). Many in the discussion found Little Nikolai to be a bit of an outsider, though: “He seemed like a rather pathetic character--not wholly loved.” Interestingly, this characteristic somehow links him with his father, as one noted, “He is a quiet thinker...like his father was.” One observed, “Young Nikolai serves as a link to Andrei. Pierre and Andrei had a friendship, and young Nikolai admires Pierre.” So the connection between Pierre and Prince Andrei is reinforced by the connection Pierre has with his friend’s son. Even the tensions between Nikolai and Prince Andrei manifest in the tensions between Nikolai and Little Nikolai. The uncle has a certain coldness towards his nephew. Nikolai even appears in his nephew’s dream “as a such a frightening figure, representative of some kind of crushing authority” after the political disagreement between Pierre and Nikolai. There is a strong foreboding atmosphere when Nikolai tells Pierre, “If you get involved in activities against the government and I am ordered to arrest or shoot you, I will.” Little Nikolai’s connection with Pierre (especially since Pierre was his father’s best friend) positions him against his uncle.
This connection between the old and the new is very strong—a participant even made the reminded us “Note how the children are named after several deceased characters.” These interconnections between the old and the new seems “to represent the circle of life; a new generation interested in ideals and eager to make their mark on the world but hasn’t quite learned from history.”
The Effects of Prince Andrei’s Death Reflected in the Epilogue
Besides the presence of Little Nikolai, many felt that Prince Andrei had a strong presence in the epilogue since his death allowed all of these new developments to happen. A participant pointed out, “Nikolai and Marya could not have married if Price Andrei lived…Pierre or Natasha for that matter!” One agreed with the point that it seems as if “most of the characters ended up better off because Prince Andrei died.” The Rostov’s fortunes were saved through Nikolai’s marriage with Princess Marya, and many doubted that Natasha and Prince Andrei would have ended up happy together. “Andrei was always trying to get away from his wife and family, and that's what Natasha wants at the end - to bind Pierre to her and the family.” We have a glimpse of what Nikolai and Sonya’s marriage would have been like—living in poverty and with a certain distance between them. Prince Andrei’s death allows prosperous, new life to stir among those he left behind.
War and Peace…the Sequel (?) and Pierre as a Decembrist
Sara pointed a few historical facts about the Decembrist Revolt of 1825. “It started when the officers (like Nikolai Rostov) went with the Russian Army to Paris after defeating Napoleon. They were exposed to Western values and ideas, which they brought back to Russia. There were basically two groups - one that was more radical and actually thought about assassinating the tsar, the other just wanted a constitutional monarchy. But they were arrested, sent into exile (five were executed). Originally, War and Peace was supposed to be a novel about a Decembrist who returns to Russia from Siberian exile. But as he did research, he found the causes of the Decembrist Revolt in the War with Napoleon, and that's what the novel turned into. So there are hints at the end of the novel that Pierre (with his ‘secret society’) and the date - 1820 - is going to be one of these Decembrists and be sent into Siberian exile, with Natasha following him as one of the famous ‘Decembrist wives.’ Here he is getting involved with yet another group, yet another plot, yet another attempt to control the world and events.” So Pierre’s visit to St. Petersburg was hinting at the Decemberist movement. Sara explained, “When Tolstoy was writing the novel in the 1860s, ideas about revolution (from Europe, especially French socialist thinkers) were becoming more and more common. So the question of revolution at the time was very much in the air.” Many found that Pierre’s new trajectory is quite characteristic of him: “Pierre is a seeker, that's for sure. He's never really content with himself, always striving for something better.” One noted, “He learns from Platon Karatayev to be quiet and content and accept life as it is. He even admits that Platon wouldn't like what he's doing. But the circle of life pulls us back in.” Many saw Pierre as an idealist, “a person who, once again, strives to make his mark in society or in history.”
Some wondered, was there supposed to be a sequel? Sara answered, “The original conception of the book was to set it in a period of time more or less contemporary to when Tolstoy wrote it. He wrote it in the 1860s, and in 1856 the tsar pardoned the Decembrists and allowed them to return to European Russia. So it was supposed to be about a Decembrist (Pierre) returning from exile in 1856. But as he started doing the research on the Decembrists, he started to realize how important the Napoleonic Wars were, so he went back farther and farther...”
The Second Epilogue
Understandably, many found Tolstoy’s “more philosophical writing is pretty difficult,” and “disjointed and abstract. Something that I could read many times and still not understand.” He seems to hint at things, but doesn’t quite come out and say them straightforwardly. A few responses to the epilogue were: “He starts by explaining that events cannot be satisfactorily attributed either to God or to a king, but falls short of offering an alternative”; “and I was disappointed that he seemed to be saying history could become a scientific study of laws controlling human action”; “It seemed to me to be a bit of stream of consciousness writing, with ideas being tossed around, but what was lacking for me was pulling it all together.” Sara clarified by pointing out, “It seems like Tolstoy is ultimately arguing for the actions of a Deity in guiding human affairs. He doesn't come right out and say it in this section, but he says it elsewhere, and the book is constructed along these lines. In this epilogue, he states that ancient historians believed in the Deity, but modern historians have rejected that notion. But if we look at the notions of modern historians, they leave us with nothing but contradictions. So his conclusion (as I fill in his blank) is that the only way to resolve the contradictions is to accept the involvement of a deity.” Tolstoy debunks the idea that great men and power move history, so he makes the case of history being moved by human beings acting within the bounds of free will and the law of necessity. He goes into detail explaining that you can never have pure free will, with no necessity, and no pure necessity with no free will. He says that understanding the laws of history is beyond man’s intellect because human knowledge is limited to reason. In order to lay out the laws of history perfectly, one must suspend reason. Sara noted, “His astronomy analogy explains that before Copernicus, we thought the sun revolved around the earth and we refused to believe the opposite because we couldn't FEEL the earth revolving around the sun. Just like we refuse to believe we are dependent on a higher power because we FEEL our free will. We feel like we are free and can do whatever we want. So even though we don't feel ourselves revolving around the sun, we have to accept it as truth - as a law - just like we have to accept our dependence on a higher force.” Tolstoy’s final line in the novel, “It is essential to get away from a sense of freedom and accept a dependence we do not feel,” reinforces the idea that man’s decisions that are made with free will actually constitute a small part of a larger force moving humanity, a force with already determined “generalized aims” that are perhaps dictated by God and unintelligible to man. "It is essential to get away from a sense of freedom and accept a dependence we do not feel."
Unfortunately, Tolstoy decided not to write any more epilogues or sequels, so this is it—you’ve finished War and Peace! Thanks goes out to Sara, of whom many said that without her guidance getting through the novel wouldn’t have been possible or as rich and rewarding an experience. Thanks also goes out to all the motivated readers who participated and contributed their insights during the weekly meetings and stuck it out to the very end.
No comments:
Post a Comment