Class,
We have some questions going on about happiness, and whether or not this novel points us toward a best, or most sure way toward felicity. Or whether it is doing something to which the quest for happiness is merely peripheral, or secondary. The purpose of life? What drives humans to act?

Though I didn't see Kate's post until after class (where she elaborates a bit on Pierre taking off his glasses to see reality) it touches on the question of where one can find reality, authenticity--or a world that is less shot through with deception and conflicting perspectives. Do we best find this world in war, nature, marriage, lust, convention, ritual, mystical religion, pilgrimages, in a solipsistic trek, in community---or like Miriam writes, when subjects are "drawn out of themselves" through other people or contact with beauty, human or natural.

For clarity, I want your though pieces to be suggestive and contemplative in tone. You can place one, two, or three passages up front if you need to supply the reader grist. Context is important, but you will need to find a balance as what I most want to see is penetrating reflection and commentary.

md

Thought Piece

Thought Piece

“Pierre, his eyes wet with tears, gazed joyfully at this bright star, which…seemed to have struck here its one chosen spot in the black sky and stopped…It seemed to Pierre that this star answered fully to what was in his softened and encouraged soul, now blossoming into new life.”

Just as Tolstoy closed Volume I with a wounded Andrei contemplating the beauty of the sky, he ends Volume II with Pierre having his own moment in nature, gazing joyously at the comet of 1812.

The comet signifies both what is happening internally to Pierre and Pierre himself.  Pierre’s soul was withering under the strain of his frivolous lifestyle and the disappointment of his loveless marriage.  Natasha is the sun to Pierre’s comet.  Interestingly, a comet is not actually a star as Pierre thinks.  It is a collection of ice, dust, and rocks that orbit the sun and glow whenever they get close enough to the sun to be acted upon by solar radiation.  Natasha ignites Pierre, a loose pile of rubble if there ever was one, so that his soul shines within him like the comet in the sky. Pierre has had little opportunity both to love and to be loved, and this act of loving someone and having that love be appreciated is of such significance for Pierre that it renews his very soul.  With this experience Tolstoy stresses how important but also rare this real kind of love is.

As with Andrei, Pierre’s moment in nature is one of revelation and character development.  In these moments, the characters are alone and for the moment free from the concerns of the war, of society, aka what is manmade and fallible.  They are preoccupied with the beauty of nature, which represents what is eternal and true, and in this escape the two men realize what is important to them and how they want to live.  The whole volume builds to both of these moments as turning points for these two characters.

The tension in these moments is that the characters need to be drawn out of themselves and/or society in order to transform in this way, and the transformation may or may not hold when the characters enter the real world again.  Andrei’s revelation comes too late.  His wife dies before he has the chance to renew their love, and he struggles not to slip back into the man he was before.  Also, given Pierre’s constant failures to live up to the standards he sets for himself, we must wonder if he will be strong enough to allow his newly reborn soul to direct him or whether it will be destroyed again, especially since he cannot always be with Natasha.  The challenge for both of these men is to maintain what they learned in these moments over the long term or else these moments will be fruitless.

(428 words)

Marriage

Marriage

" You see," Said Berg to his comrade, whom he called "friend" only because he knew that everyone has friends, "you see, I have considered it all, and should not marry if I had not thought it all out or if it were in any for-- I have arranged that rent for them in the Baltic provinces-- and I can live in Petersburg on my pa, and with her fortune and my good management we can get along nicely. I am not marrying for money-- I consider that dishonorable-- But a wife should bring her share and a husband his. I have my position in the service, she has connections and some means. In our times that is worth something, isn't it? But above all, she is a handsome, estimable girl, and she loves me."

P. 393

 Although Berg is the one speaking, I wanted to evaluate the reasons for marriage in the book. In particular, I wanted to point to Pierre's heartbreak and disgust, as he finds out his wife has not been loyal to him. In the early 19th Century Russia, we see the reasons for marriage to be flawed, and perhaps not valid. We see hopes for a grand life, but when it comes down to it, disappointment is the common feeling. Andrew, whose wife dies in labor, is left in book 5 and 6 with a cold heart, and feeling pretty miserable. According to Berg, he married not for money, but for connections, beauty, and love... Where might have other characters gone wrong in their view of love, and their view on life? It seems that these men have great intentions and great expectations of their life, but seem to be let down in the end. The blindness that Pierre shows when choosing his wife could possibly point out some flaws that males have. Particulary in the pursuit of a mate that will actual love him. It seems that marriage is out of practicality, instead of passion. Why are these men, in particular Pierre, so delusional and wrapped up in something that inevitably might fail?

You Don't Know What You've Got 'Til It's Gone

You Don't Know What You've Got 'Til It's Gone

In the first reading, the immediacy of death at Austerlitz puts into perspective the value of life for Prince Andrew : "He [Andrew] wished that they would help bring him back to life, which seemed to him so beautiful now that he had today learned to understand it so differently" (Book 3, Chp. 13). Episodes similar to this one continue throughout the reading for today. For example, Nicholas Rostov finds himself most deeply appreciating his family, fortune and circumstances in the moment that he gambles them away (Book 4, Chp. 13). In another example, Natasha Rostov joyously commits herself to loving Andrew at the same moment that the intensity of his ability to love her back begins to  fade (Book 6, Chp. 14). 

In this reading, we observe Pierre's very literal and somewhat misguided search for happiness, as well as Andrew and Nicholas' turbulent relationships with what it is to be happy. Happiness is not easy to find, especially since calamity seems to befall the characters of War and Peace often and unexpectedly. 

Does Tolstoy make the argument that perhaps happiness is not so hard to find? It seems to be right in front of his characters, even if they are too blind to acknowledge its presence. Do we need calamity/suffering to more fully appreciate/identify happiness? Is the fragility of happiness what makes it beautiful?   

Pierre and Don Giovanni

Pierre and Don Giovanni

When I was reading Pierre's conversion, I could not help but think of Don Giovanni, the last book we read in Seminar IV. It seemed to me that the life Pierre lived pre-conversion was similar to Don Giovanni's. Both men were guided by passion and were self-centered. But Pierre converts when he realizes that "he had been depraved simply because he had somehow forgotten how nice it is to be virtuous". This brings an interest contrast that raises larger (perhaps too broad) philosophical questions. Are humans able to be happy by simply doing what they want with little regard for others? Or is there some greater, more universal purpose that brings people together? Basically, is a life like Pierre post-conversion any more "right" than the life Don Giovanni lived?

There was a second moment from the conversion scene that struck me. The mason tells Pierre that God "is not attained through reason, but through living". Tolstoy is surely suggesting that an over-reliance on reason brings one away from God. But what exactly does he mean by "living"? Isn't living for human beings connected to being rational? If so, then what is the proper use of reason in Tolstoy's mind?

Tolstoy, 8/31

Tolstoy, 8/31

One of the recurrent themes that I have observed through the text so far is the idea of heroism. Tolstoy seems to be turning the traditional concept of heroism on its head. He time and again demonstrates that the real heroes are not getting the recognition they deserve, while those men that feel that have made a significant impact openly talk about their actions and are thus rewarded for their bravery. For example, in our reading for last time Berg is wounded at the front line, but chooses to hold his sword in his other hand and continue to fight. He says to Nicholas:

"Count! I am wounded in my right hand" (and he showed his bleeding hand with a handkerchief tied round it) "and I remained at the front. I held my sword in my left hand. Count. All our family - the von Bergs - have been knights!" (247)

Another key passage in understanding what Tolstoy is trying to do to the traditional concept of heroism comes at the end of Book 5. When Denisov is court-martialed after he steals provisions for his troops, Rostov takes a petition for pardon to the Tsar. Although Denisov was jeopardizing his own career for the lives and sake of the men serving under him, he was chastised by the Russian army for his actions. Yet Rostov witnesses the ceremony with Napoleon and Alexander in which a Russian soldier is arbitrarily awarded the Legion of Honor for bravery. We should look at the passage on page 364 in which Rostov reflects on the justice of this event.

What is Tolstoy trying to do with the concept of heroism both in these passages and the rest of the novel?

Evangelization of Whom?

Evangelization of Whom?

Come, let's argue then. You talk of schools, education and so forth; that is, you want to raise him (a peasant/serf) from his animal condition and awaken in him spiritual needs, while it seems to me that animal happiness is the only happiness possible, and that is just what you want to deprive him of. I envy him, but you want to make him what I am, without giving him my means. Then you say, 'lighten his toil.' But as I see it, physical labor is as essential to him, as much a condition of his existence, as mental activity is to you or me. You can't help thinking. I go to bed after two in the morning, thoughts come and I can't sleep but toss about till dawn, because I think and can't help thinking, just as he can't help plowing and mowing; if he didn't, he would go to the drink shop or fall ill. Just as I could not stand his terrible physical labor but should die of it in a week, so he could not stand my physical idleness, but would grow fat and die. (336; Bk V, Chpt 9)

This segment comes in the heart of the argument between Prince Andrew and Pierre, in which Prince Andrew argues for living for one's self, and Pierre for living for others. Overall, I found myself aligning with Pierre's argument, and it seemed to me Prince Andrew wanted to as well. Pierre's new-found Masonic outlook has many good points and at least in theory seems to be something worth believing in. However, in this portion of the argument I couldn't help but agree with what Prince Andrew is saying here, especially considering the view we got of Pierre's "help" to his serfs through his head serf. Am I wrong to agree with Prince Andrew, that knowledge is not something necessary or good for all people? I feel like this is a topic we've touched on often through PLS, especially in Sem 4, and now I am left uncertain of which way, if any, Tolstoy is trying to persuade us. Are we to assume that Pierre's whole argument is correct, and therefore Prince Andrew's account here is incorrect? Or does Prince Andrew have something here that we should take real consideration of, regardless of the rest of the argument? Or am I totally off or missing something?