Если у вас возникли сложности с курсовой, контрольной, дипломной, рефератом, отчетом по практике, научно-исследовательской и любой другой работой - мы готовы помочь.
Предоплата всего
Подписываем
Ruth Alice Williams
Tolstoy’s view of history, the role of the individual in history,
and his portrayal of historical figures
RUS4930
It is Tolstoy’s apparent belief that history cannot be altered significantly by supposedly pivotal historical figures, but rather that history is “nothing short of the totality of unobtrusive and largely unconscious actions of the people as a whole,” (Christian, 95) and that the actions of individuals are naught but part of this whole, both inevitably influenced by it and part of a totality of its causes. These views are reflected in his depiction of historical events (such as particular battles and the taking of Moscow), the character development of Prince Andrei and Pierre Bezukhov, and his portrayal of Napoleon Bonaparte and Mikhail Kutuzov.
The scenes of warfare paint the most vivid picture in the novel as to what the author’s conception of history is: a culmination of seemingly random events, generated by the collective wills of different individuals. In essence, Tolstoy feels, a battle- and history itself- can be but one thing: chaos. The notion that the orders an officer gives are capable of being the thing which wins a battle is false; before the Battle of Schongrabern even begins, Prince Andrei observes the “endless confused mass of detachments, carts, guns, artillery, and… vehicles of all kinds” which the officers attempted to direct, however “their voices were but feebly heard amid the uproar and one saw by their faces that they despaired of the possibility of checking the disorder.” (Tolstoy, pg 132) It is later revealed that the true success of this battle laid not in the obeying of commands, which were often misheard, erroneously carried out or simply ignored, but in General Bagration’s ability to create the illusion of events resulting from commands issued: “…no orders were really given but that Prince Bagration tried to make it appear as if everything done by necessity, by accident, or by the will of subordinate commanders, was done, if not by his direct demand then at least in accord with his intentions.” This self-assuredness resulted in the soldiers’ being “anxious to display their courage before him,” (Tolstoy, pg 145) and their motivation- as a collective- ultimately resulted in a Russian victory. “To the morale of the men in the ranks, to the common soldiers, and ultimately to the unconscious spirit of the Russian people he (Tolstoy) attributes most of the success in war.” (Jepsen, 84) In the same vein was the “saving” of Moscow by the Russian people- the narod. Deeply imbedded in their hearts was not an artificial patriotism like that of the aristocracy or of Rostopchin who desperately tried to change the current of events himself. Rather they abandoned their houses and their belongings, doing so “from that latent patriotism which expresses itself not by phrases or by giving one’s children to save the fatherland, and by similar unnatural exploits, but unobtrusively, organically, and therefore in the way that always produces the most powerful results.” (Tosltoy, 677) Thus it is the Russians’ intuitive, natural patriotism, executed as a whole by the common civilian and common soldier, that truly affects the outcome of history.
Upon examining Tolstoy’s major characters of War and Peace as individuals having been borne upon the tides of the War of 1812, one can see that they are undoubtedly major instruments in the author’s portrayal of the role of the individual in history- i.e. that individuals ought to accept their lack of free will or influence upon history and their oneness with the will and fate of the rest of the human race. Prince Andrei and Pierre Bezukhov, through their character development, come to terms with their existence as being irrevocably tied to a greater whole. Prince Andrei begins as an individualist, a man focused on obtaining personal glory through success as an officer in the war, “vividly imagining the… wounds, the smoke of gunpowder, the sounds of firing, and the glory that awaited him” (Tolstoy, 129) and exalting Napoleon as a military genius in his mind. It is during the scene, however, in which Napoleon himself stands over a wounded Prince Andrei on that battlefield that we are given the first impression of an individual’s true relationship with the vast infinity of life (and by extent, of course, history): “Looking into Napoleon’s eyes Prince Andrei thought of the insignificance of greatness, the unimportance of life which no one could understand” but he feels the “greatness of something incomprehensible but all-important.” (Tolstoy, 231-232) Following these experiences with war, and following the death of his wife during childbirth he becomes disillusioned, accepting his “hopelessness” and content to live doing “no harm, and not disturbing himself or desiring anything.” (Tolstoy, 344) Natasha- the embodiment of life and nature- “resurrects” him (“…my life may not be lived for myself alone while others live so apart from it, but so that it may be reflected in them all, and they and I may live in harmony. [Tolstoy, pg 347]). However, witnessing the futility and horrors borne of war for the second time, he again becomes disillusioned. Especially poignant is the scene during which Andrei watches his soldiers floundering about naked as they bathe in a pond- “Flesh, bodies, cannon-fodder!” (Tolstoy, 570), he observes with disgust. It is only his own death- and his final encounter with Natasha- that ultimately brings him to calmly, even joyously, accept his being tied to the greater whole of history and existence. He feels that he is a “particle of love” returning to “the general and eternal source.” (Tolstoy, 793) The character of Pierre also demonstrates Tolstoy’s belief that an individual will find his actions relatively useless in the face of the greater motion of history: in his personal life he finds himself swept away by his sexual passion for Helene and proposes to her out of a sense of helpless necessity. (“And at that moment he felt that Helene not only could, but must, be his wife, and that it could not be otherwise.” [Tolstoy, pg 165]) His attempts to take the initiative as an individual are ultimately foiled; inspired by the energy and action taken by the soldiers at Borodino, he plans to assassinate Napoleon- only to discover that he has already gone. His imprisonment is truly what brings him to accept his role as a mere individual: as he is interrogated by French officers, he realizes with dismay that the thing which was “killing him, depriving him of life” was “no one. It was a system- a concurrence of circumstances.” (Tolstoy, pg 777) Most significant is his interaction with the character of Platon Karataev, “the personification of everything Russian.” A simple peasant man, “his life had no meaning as a separate thing. It had meaning only as part of a whole of which he was always conscious. His words and actions flowed from him as evenly, inevitably, and spontaneously, as fragrance exhales from a flower. He could not understand the value or significance of any word or deed taken separately.” (Tolstoy, pg 785) Thus, his very existence embodies Tolstoy’s perception of an individual’s true role in history: he lives and performs his duties out of a sense of natural necessity, knowing himself to be merely part of a whole. As a prisoner, Pierre is forced to come to terms with his own insignificance, feeling a greater sense of harmony than he ever has before: he is reduced to uncontrollable laughter at the now ridiculous notion that he as an individual has been captured by the French, as if he could truly have had an effect on the events of history. (Tolstoy, 820)
Additionally important are his characterizations of major historical figures, namely those of Napoleon Bonaparte- usually greatly renowned as a military genius- and General Mikhail Kutuzov- a man often given a less than preferential treatment in most historical accounts. Napoleon is indeed exalted by various characters initially- referred to both as the “antichrist” and a “genius”. However, by portraying Napoleon as a ridiculous, slightly comical figure, Tolstoy intends to bring him down from the level of this “great man” and emphasize that such supposedly “powerful” historical figures in fact have less influence than they are perceived as having. Prince Andrei at one point reflects upon what makes a “great” general great: “(they are) invested with pomp and power… the best generals I have known were… stupid or absentminded men… I remember his (Napoleon’s) limited, self-satisfied face… a good army commander does not need any special qualities, on the contrary he needs the absence of the highest and best human attributes- love, poetry, tenderness, and philosophic inquiring doubt. He should be limited, firmly convinced that what he is doing is very important.” (Tolstoy, 521) This description very much fits the way Napoleon is portrayed in Tolstoy’s novel: during his conversation with Balashev he is stubborn, self-important, screams over him when he feels he may be interrupted- it is quite apparent that this ridiculous little man who cannot even control “his own words” could not possibly be the sole pivotal figure in one of history’s most important events. He thinks with great pleasure about the majestic light in which he must appear to his troops before the taking of Moscow, very cognizant with his “actor’s instinct” (Tolstoy, pg 710) of the sense of grandeur with which he so much longs to appear. During a majority of the novel he does not realize that he is nothing but a slave to history. Kutuzov, by contrast, is a much wiser, more likeable figure than Napoleon. At times likened to an “experienced sportsman,” he is well aware of the impossibility of controlling the events of war; during a war council he falls asleep, giving the impression that he understands discussion of battle plans is useless. (“It seems to them that when they have thought of two or three contingencies they have foreseen everything. But the contingencies are endless,” [Tolstoy, 824] he later thinks to himself of his officers) Before the Battle of Tarutino he knows that “nothing but confusion” would come of it and thus “as far was as in his power he held his troops back,” and indeed, the battle plans did not run as anticipated and many men were lost “uselessly,” but despite this Kutuzov received a diamond decoration- highlighting the absurdity of glorifying individuals within the context of war. Tolstoy does not exalt Kutuzov, nor does he demonize him; he is simply depicted as a man with the best interests of his country and troops in mind who has come to terms with the reality of his powerlessness.
Ultimately, Tolstoy believes that any one action an individual takes cannot directly be the cause of any historical event, as “the more we consult the connections and relationships that are a part of our individual actions, the more we seem circumscribed by the boundaries of space, time, and causality” (Barnhart, 34) and that any perception that we may have of individuals- well-known or otherwise- as having direct and crucial influence upon the course of events is but an illusion.
Bibliography
Tolstoy, Leo. War and Peace. Hertfordshire: Wordsworth Editions Limited, 1993.
Print.
Gunn, Elizabeth. A Daring Coiffeur: Reflections on War and Peace and Anna Karenina.
London: Chatto and Windus Ltd, 1971. Print.
Christian, R. F. Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’: A Study. London: Oxford University Press,
1962. Print.
Jepsen, Laura. From Achilles to Christ: The Myth of the Hero in Tolstoy’s War and
Peace. USA: Library of Congress, 1978. Print.
Itriyeva, Irina. “An Examination of Free Will in Tolstoy’s War and Peace.”
WesScholar. 2008. Web.
Barnhart, Joe. “Tolstoy on Free Will.” The Personalist Forum, Vol 11, no. 1 (Spring
1995), pp. 33-54. Web.