War & Peace Podnotes, A Study Guide

This edition examines the second Sevastopol Sketch, where Tolstoy covers an all-too-common artillery battle and truce afterward. It focuses on May of 1855, roughly six months into the 11-month Siege during the Crimean War. In the recent W&P episode, Tolstoy describes how young soldiers are typically unable to speak the truth and will conform their wartime stories to the expectations of their audience, as well as put themselves in the best light. He plays this out using the fictional Rostov, who was fearful and shaky on this horse as he headed into one of his first calvary charges. Rostov’s horse was shot out from under him and he fell to the ground, disoriented. When he came to, Rostov quickly became in fear of losing his life and ran into the woods like an animal pursued, with the French in hot pursuit. He soon pondered, “Why did I even come here?” However, when he conveyed this event days later, he told his old friends (Boris & Berg) how he was in a frenzy while charging and slashing at the French. Truth was completely lost on the symbolic good-hearted lad. Tolstoy, a decade before publishing W&P, memorably wrote that the hero of his second Sevastopol Sketch (roughly 35 pages), whom he loves with all of his soul, was Truth. It is something War obscures. He succeeded in conveying a truth of War in this sketch, namely its brutality. Tolstoy describes how men, full of lofty and petty hopes, just hours before, now lie as corpses or hideously mangled casualties after an artillery battle typical to what he witnessed firsthand. He conveyed that the men involved, as opposed to the ideal of Truth, could not be said to symbolize good or evil. They made up of the spectrum of human behavior: good bad and ugly. Some were motivated by serving their fellow man and others by vane concerns. Some were men of resolve, others of fickleness. The same could be said of the French. He labels the mid-levels officers sending their fellow men to near-certain death as “petty Napoleons,” implying that they are enemies of each man fighting as much as those wearing opposing uniforms. At the end of this Sketch, Tolstoy focuses on the aftermath of a battle where white flags are raised and time is granted to collect the dead and wounded. The townspeople come out and many of the soldiers converge. Their better natures are manifest. They pat each other on the back, speak of the valour exhibited, and even exchange small gifts like tobacco. Tolstoy expresses that these men are Christians who should all profess the Love of Him above and discard their arms, fall on their knees in repentance, and embrace their brothers in Christ. Yet he acknowledges, this will not happen, as when the flags are raised, the malevolent cycle will repeat itself.

This second and final part of the first Sevastopol Sketch takes you from the Assembly Hall to the artillery fortifications/bastions. After taking in the majestic sky, you are brought back to earth, to the vulgarity of war. A funeral procession marches by. The music and banners cover up the beastliness you observed in the Hall. You reach the lively city center and pass inns, shops and street merchants. You notice the variety of officers, many finding relief in alcohol. You overhear the musings of soldiers covering the latest battles, logistics, leadership, and field conditions. Causalities are relayed with the ease of giving weather updates. The tales of these men will be told for generations. You hear reports from the infamous 4th bastion, which is spoken of with transcendent reverence. Those in the most critical positions find themselves best able to focus on the task at hand, much like the fictional Captain Tushin at the Battle of Shongräben. You drift towards the bastions amidst a frozen mist on an avenue destroyed by artillery. You notice pierced roofs and broken windows. A stone walkway gives way to crude boards and beams. As you near and ascend a steep hill, officers (in groups of four) are hauling the wounded on stretchers. Near the top of the hill, you observe the action as bullets whiz about. Below is a trench of foul-smelling muck that leads to more directly to the bastions. There is an elevated path on the hill, but it exposes you. You nevertheless use it as the alternative is dreadful. In a few hundred paces you reach a battery and notice broken guns and cannon balls. Artillery whistles and thuds about you. For a moment, you believe you reached the 4th Bastion. However, it is the relatively safer Yazonovsky Redoubt. After a short stay, you traverse a narrow trench leading you to the infamous stronghold. You pass sharp-shooters eating, smoking and chatting. Others are playing cards. This is their home and they make the best of their lot. A soldier of the 4th Bastion takes interest in you and tries to ease your nerves. There seems to be only one large working cannon in a battery, which a naval officer demonstrates the use of. Much was destroyed the day before. The enemy (French) are only 30 to 40 fathoms away. 60-80 yards. Naval officers are working the smaller guns. These wrinkled and sunburned men have wide shoulders, powerful torsos and stout legs. Their resolve is unimpeachable. A naval officer appears to have killed two of the enemy and you absorb their countenance, craving for revenge. Balls of death volley your way and the earth shatters. There are showers of dirt, stones and debris. Some of your own become casualties. You expect the next shell will end your life, but it passes and you become exuberant. You dare the enemy to strike you! You visualize a dying man being carried. His face is imbued with exaltation. His eyes shine bright as he uses all his energy to hold his head up. In a trembling voice, he says – Farewell brothers. You are transfixed by the valiance of the men as you take your leave – they are the defenders of Sevastopol. They are unwavering in spirit and demonstrate unparalleled courage under fire. This is the dynamic in the early days of the Siege - when holding out was viewed as a military impossibility. However, there was still no chance of a surrender. It was an effort worthy of the heroes of Greece.

The first Sevastopol Sketch focuses on December of 1854. Sevastopol is a name of Greek origin and is a well-known port city in Crimea. Before it was Ukrainian -- and before it was Russian or under Russian occupation -- it was part of the Crimean Khanate, heavily influenced by the Ottomans. Greek names were stamped on conquered cities just north of the Black Sea (think also Melitopol, Mariupol, and Kherson) by Czars & Czarinas as a show of respect for Greek culture. Notably, Greeks had a presence there going back thousands of years. The first Sketch focuses on a sunrise to sunset amidst the Siege. We take in Sevastopol through the perspective of an officer and get closer to the infamous bastions as the day goes on. Around 8 a.m., you (the officer) take notice of the rising sun above Sapun Ridge, which rises 240 meters. There is a changing of the guard, a soldier washing his face in frigid water, as well as doctors and nurses reporting to their stations. Life gets moving amidst the backdrop of death, which you can observe through wagons transporting the departed. You traverse a muddy beach, passing over a dead horse, and get into a small boat pulled by an old man and boy. The vessel sails around a disabled warship and soon reaches a wharf near the city center. Sevastopol remains a traditional city but has also become a war encampment. The surface bears the scars of cannon fire. There is a bustle – smoking, chatting, gambling and arguing. You take in: Cossacks with their horses, women with their children, and trades-folk. All their faces express enthusiasm in carrying on. Nobody is paralyzed by fear. Most importantly, you approach the Sevastopol Assembly Hall, which is serving as a hospital. You enter to the sights, sounds and smell of the wounded. Some are in hammocks, but the majority are on the floor. You are overcome through absorbing the pervasive suffering. You address a few of the men and they respond to your empathy. You meet one who lost his leg, who graciously thanks God that he will get his discharge. He tells you that it is best not to dwell. You come across housewives, one visiting her husband and another who was severely wounded while delivering food to her husband. You come across a blonde man with swollen face and labored breathing who is near death. You sense his internal fire of pain. You see an old gaunt solder changing his clothes. His body displays a lifetime of hardship. You can’t find words to convey your admiration. You take in the horrors of the operating area. Sleepless doctors are at work administering chloroform and hacking limbs. You see repeated -- the placing a sharp curved knife into a healthy part of the body and the men coming to with piercing cries. What follows is an arm or leg being thrown onto a pile. The men in queue for such treatment obsess over the terror that lies ahead. Tolstoy’s point is that such is the reality of War, not the music and drum beats and gallantry, and waving flags. This is the grim nature of suffering and death. You leave and head to an actual bastion. You reflect on what you observed and grasp your insignificance. You take a moment to behold the majestic sky -- The Lord’s sky. For any War & Peace reader, this scene bring to mind Andrei on the field of Austerlitz, gazing from the grass at the brilliant sky. Your mind soars above the fine city with a lovely church; and Your mind is restored.

In his Sevastopol Sketches, Tolstoy develops his ability to depict the reality of death within military conflict. His proficiency stemmed from service including three years in the Caucuses as well as action during the Crimean War (1853-56), both as a junior artillery officer. During his time near Chechnya (north of Georgia and west of Dagestan), Tolstoy observed such brutal Russian tactics as punitive raids and the indiscriminate the shelling of small villages. He was also affected by the burning of forests to deny Chechens cover. This area hosts a Muslim population by reason of Ottoman influence. Russia has attempted to purge Chechens from what Russia claimed as a southern frontier multiple times and this area remains filled with tension. With respect to the Crimean War, in 1853, Czar Nicholas declared war on the Ottoman Empire, Russia’s historic rival. Nicholas asserted the obligation to protect Christians in Ottoman territory and reasserted land-claims in the Danubian principalities. Russian leadership has long dreamed of retaking Istanbul (Constantinople), which was a center of Christianity for centuries. Napoleon III was at the forefront of the response to the Czar’s ambitions in 1853. A coalition (Turks, French & English) united to neutralize Russian expansion and protect the balance of power in Europe. It was hardly lost on Tolstoy that Russia served as a similar bulwark against Napoleon I. Tolstoy lived through the great humiliation of the Crimean War but immortalized one of Russia’s triumphs in repelling Napoleon I in 1812. This makes the great influences on him A Tale of Two Napoleons. A thread through The Sevastopol Sketches and War & Peace is the horrific nature of war. The subject is not glorified. The Sketches involve three vignettes of the 11-month Siege: November of 1854, May of 1855, and August of 1855. It was late in the Summer of 1855 when Sevastopol finally fell. The Sketches read like novellas. The first takes the reader on tour of Sevastopol – from the relative safety of a bay, through an infirmary, marketplace, and finally toward the front line. We are taken inside the Assembly Hall -- a make-shift hospital filled with causalities and disease. Tolstoy then depicts the activity of soldiers and citizens. He discusses merchants going about their trade as well as carriage drivers delivering goods and transporting the dead. The second vignette delves into the senseless vanity of war and pursuit of truth, which Tolstoy describes as the hero of any effort. The last and longest story provides a view of the end of the Siege through the eyes of fictional brothers. We are given a glimpse of the spectacle of incoming and outgoing artillery, the charges of the allies, and the valiant defense. Amidst the Crimean war, Czar Nicholas died in March of 1855 and Alexander II took the throne, who holds the reputation of a reformer. There was societal reflection that so much of the fighting was done by serfs tied to the land. These serfs were exposed to ideas of freedom and nationhood and there was a reckoning that their system could not stand. The serfs (over 20 million souls) were freed in 1861. Tolstoy proceeds on one of his great explorations - regarding the cause of historical events. He finds that people hold the ultimate power and are somehow (all at once), ready to be moved. This is opposed to the theory that a few great leaders move men. Lastly, the experience of the Crimean War transformed Tolstoy from traditional patriot to an everlasting dissident.

Note: There are NO spoilers in the the 2nd Epilogue to War & Peace, which is analyzed in bonus chapters. This final part of the novel involves a metaphysical exploration of the philosophy underlying W&P. This is a complex chapter easy to get lost in. Tolstoy wrestles with one of his common themes -- Are people led or are they ready to move and inevitably pops up someone to guide them in the direction they were going? Tolstoy emphasizes that the life of the nations is not symbolically expressed by the lives of great men such as like Napoleon, Czar Alexander or Kutuzov. Thus, Napoleon cannot be said to sum up the French people at the turn of the 19th Century. It is people themselves who are always the story of their times! Tolstoy proffers that prominent historians/academics tend to teach, using animals as an allegory for historical movements — a herd of cattle goes in a direction because the animal in front leads and the collective will of the others vest in that leader; and if the one at the top changes, it is because of another transfer of collective will. Tolstoy preaches there is a false appeal in believing any such theory. For the academic, watching the aforesaid herd, pays no attention to the varying quality of the cows in different parts of the field or the driving of the herdsman. Such assessments are made with the benefit of hindsight and attribution of bias. Academics tend to prop up figures they find important based on values they wish to advance. Historians are mistaken when they regard historical persons, from monarchs to artists to journalists, as expressions of their age. A significant aspect of power lies with the people. The responsibility for what happens in this world, remains with each of us. Tolstoy then explores concept of “power” and how that word is understood. When we look at what causes historical events, we cannot help but incorporate this force. “Power” is something you can’t see – as you can visualize a cannon or statue -- yet it exists. There is an ineffability of the word. Yet we all give “power” significance because of our ability to reason and life experience. Whenever a major event occurs, a man will appear by whose will it took place. To him we attach power. Examples given are: Napoleon III issues a decree and the French go to Mexico; the Kings of Prussia and Bismarck issue decrees and an army enters Bohemia; Napoleon I issues a decree Russia is invaded; Alexander I gives a command and the French submit to the Bourbons. However, reflection shows that it is more than such words that moves men. A prominent man’s orders are only part of the story, as there is also the physical act of the multitudes agreeing and going along. History shows that a monarch’s expression of the will often produces no effect, as such commands are often not executed; and other times the very opposite of what is ordered occurs. Power, from the standpoint of experience, is better defined as the relation that exists between the expression of someone’s will and the execution of that will by others. When there is a bilateral relationship – then there can be said to be power! Tolstoy ends the chapter referencing an ancient school of thought, where historians took for granted a divine role in human affairs. When a deity issues a command, the expression of that will is independent of time and is not caused by anything, for divinity is not controlled or tied down by our concept of power. He finds the ancients more useful than most academics with respect to studying the nature of power and causality.

Note: There are NO spoilers in the the 2nd Epilogue to War & Peace, which is analyzed in bonus chapters. This final part of the novel involves a metaphysical exploration of the philosophy underlying W&P. As Tolstoy (through Marya Bolkonskaya) expressed early in the novel, it is preferable to abide by the laws of Christ rather than academic sources. Tolstoy posits that history cannot take a step forward {meaning an understanding of history can’t be approached} until there is a return to belief in a divinity that interferes in human affairs. Though Tolstoy wants to advance his Faith in an all-knowing and omni-benevolent God, he realizes within the age of Enlightenment, such a switch is not possible. The subtext is to trust the wisdom of God more than “enlightened minds” trying to interpret history. Tolstoy attempts to conceptualize the concept of power and what he means is the force that produces historical events, a province formerly attributed to God. His memorable definition of power is “the collective will of a people transferred to a ruler by either express or unspoken consent.” Essentially, he sets up a nature of power only to challenge it. Tolstoy stresses that power comes from the people and is given away. He argues that we take for granted Napoleon could raise 600,000 men from a cross-section of Europe to go to war. In Tolstoy’s view, Napoleon had no supernatural qualities nor moral force. Though critical, Tolstoy feels studying Napolean leads to a closer understanding of the nature of power – even if the efforts lays bare our limitations. Tolstoy points out how various historical figures had immense influence but lacked morality. He references Louis XI and the Austrian diplomat, Klemens Von Metternich. He was searching for the set of qualities they had allowing them to wield such influence. Tolstoy then questions whether leaders regarded as subpar are representative of any collective will. He then acknowledges how mistakes, accidents and unexpected developments precipitate major events. Palace coups, for example, begin with designs of such a small group that it is difficult to associate them with a collective will. Rebellions can also begin with the most unlikely causes – such a Cossack rebellion led by Yemelyan Pugachev, which began after taxation on fishing. We are asked to consider: Are those who led such rebellions motivated by any collective will? When lands are conquered is it ever representative of the will of the people conquered? Tolstoy also ponders: when power is transferred (by a supposed collective will) is it conditionally or unconditionally transferred? He explores whether rulers break spoken or unspoken covenants and forfeit power. He expresses that leaders must be held to do the right thing but acknowledges the complexity of determining what is right. It is something of a magical formula. Such unknowns can include: taxing a population too much or too little; not granting freedoms vs. being too permissive; not keeping up with the times vs. respecting tradition. He appears to be comparing the values of a given time (such as “equality,” “enlightenment” and “progressivism”) with the timeless values found in Scripture. He speaks to the changing values of historians/academics and highlights how such perceptions effect how they judge events. Ultimately, Tolstoy sees a problem with historical analysis and presses on the inability to determine causes. He argues that the belief in a God who controls events, common among peasants, is just as valid as any level of historical analysis. This chapter is something of a challenge to intelligentsia. Tolstoy wrote 300+ chapters of W&P to express that it is impossible for humans to pin down the causes of Napoleon's invasion of Russia. Nevertheless amidst the tumult -- he was able to portray the greatness that can’t help but shine through the most trying of circumstances.

Envision a locomotive the way many would circa 1860. What technology! It wasn’t brand new (as they were invented in 1804) but it was a Monster of the age in terms of making the world move. Tolstoy envisions the locomotive as a symbol of great historical movements and uses this symbolism to describe the limitations historians face in finding causes for such movements. He posits three people viewing the mighty locomotive and trying to explain the cause of the movement. The first, Tolstoy deals with a simple peasant. The man is overawed by the train and thinks the Devil (or some divine force) makes it move. With no understanding of mechanics, he concludes that something beyond man is at play. That is all the simple man needs for an explanation. Tolstoy doesn't discount this view out-of-hand. Instead, he finds as much value in this posture as with more scientific thinkers. The second hypothetical person looking at the locomotive is a more sophisticated and inquisitive type from the Age of Enlightenment. He sees the wheels moving and estimates that is the cause. Like historians looking for the cause of a great event, the inquisitive man is attempting to break down possible causes of the train's movement but can not get at it with any efficiency. Instead, he only finds a piece of the puzzle. If he studies the matter long enough, he may also discover that the pressure of steam in the boiler is another cause. However, one can continue the exercise infinitely through asking what process generates steam and so on. Basically, the inquisitor will go from cause to cause and pick ones that stand out to him while neglecting ones just as valid. Tolstoy is trying to exemplify the limited analysis historians often perform. The third hypothetical observer notices awe-inspiring black smoke rising out of the train’s chimney. Seeing such a powerful manifestation, perhaps for the first time, this person may wrongly attribute the “cause” of the train's movement to something that stands out. Tolstoy is making the point: historians can mistake byproducts for causes. Tolstoy believes it is theoretically possible that some super-intelligence could see the big picture and know all the reasons for events. In other words, this all-seeing-eye could see everything that every happened at every point in history. But as to human capability, our vision only goes so far. Tolstoy describes that we generally describe the force that compels men to do something as “power,” but that word does not do the concept justice. One of his goals is to further explore "power" in this Epilogue. He believes a great deal of the "power" that makes our world move it is not understood. The same reasoning applies to movements of people. The causes are complex and often inaccessible. Tolstoy compares the process of trying to understand history to the types of money in circulation – paper money, metal coins and gold. He feels that most efforts of historians can be compared to paper money; not worth their weight and fungible. People may believe certain theories; but that is because of their Faith in a certain currency and not because of any true value of the theory. Gold is what Tolstoy seems to have stumbled upon in writing War & Peace. He gets to the essence of power through creating fictional characters symbolizing how each level of society reacted to the Napoleonic wars in a way that has stood the test of time. The second half of the19th century was a time of great consideration of metaphysics and Tolstoy was an essential part of that Locomotive.

Tolstoy presents his view on how academics view history. He essentially argues that historians have limited reliability. Tolstoy embarks on the path of grappling with the nature of power. He urges avoiding the trap of thinking Great Men move people. Instead, it is actually people (like You) who combine when they are willing to move. It is people (like You) who do all the heavy lifting and rarely get any of the credit. Tolstoy initially describes biographers of famous personages as well as authors of histories related to specific people of a country (say the French or Danish). He views these authors as attributing power to rulers or heroes in a superficial manner. This is the way he sees the way Julius Caesar or Napoleon are analyzed - as super-humans with incredible logistical knowledge who moved the course of humanity. He feels such works are limited by subjective views. Some works try to deify so-called Great Men but others are overly critical of them. Tolstoy believes accuracy is undermined through authors having an agenda. In present times, let’s take someone writing about the United States: Do they present it our history as a land of opportunity," or are they presenting it more in accord with the N.Y Times 1619 project? The question of history, in Tolstoy’s view, is too often determined by what lens the author wishes to see it through. For another example, Tolstoy would probably argue that Doris Kearns Goodwin set out to laud Lincoln when she wrote Team of Rivals: The Political Genius of Abraham Lincoln. She walked down a path of re-introducing the virtue of Lincoln to an audience ready to accept it. Tolstoy then examines “universalist” or generalist historians, who look beyond one person or country. These are non-specialists who look at the multiplicity of forces at work in leading to movements. Such authors make the effort to see the overall interplay of people and causes. Tolstoy finds it to be a noble attempt but still problematic. These academics would tend to say someone like Napoleon was destined to come along because of the excesses of the French Revolution. Or that a man of prudence and great leadership like George Washington was destined to rise from colonial aristocracy. Tolstoy believes such laudatory analysis involves too much bias and guesswork. He infers that historians usually know exactly where they want to wind up when they start a project. Tolstoy finds this generalist brand of historian gets one thing right: historical characters are products of their time and age. What is neglected, however, is the millions of citizens who in Napoleon’s day, who wished to support him or the various coalitions that united against him. There is a call to war but also an attraction of the people to the movements. Then Tolstoy takes on historians of arts and culture, meaning those who place significance on men with ideas that are thought to move people – such as Martin Luther (posting of his 95 Theses), Thomas Paine (writing Common Sense), or Marx & Engels (Communist Manifesto). He finds that even Rousseau’s Social Contract (from 1762) was connected to the moralities and whims of the time. Another contemporary example: what led to violence in the streets in 1789 in France or in 2020 in the United States; the stirring of people up through ideas?, or people just ready to take to the streets for reasons they though justified? Tolstoy posits that there is an atmosphere to an age, a collective experience ready for one message or another -- and the people who act are those who move mountains. Tolstoy assigned to this last class of academics the sins of arrogance and pride for believing just a tiny class of persons with ideas they think original have more influence than they actually have. To sum it up: War & Peace is about the invasion of 1812 and Tolstoy advances the notion that the effort was much more than Napoleon thinking the military effort was a good idea.

Tolstoy starts his infamous epilogue by giving his definition of the term "history" as the life of nations and humanity. He describes that a limitation of this definition is the inability of man to sufficiently pin down the history of any nation or human movement. He posits there is more to it than the scientific approach of piecing together what happened and then attributing motivations based on objective analysis. For the most part, piecing together history is inadequate guesswork, some efforts more eloquent than others. Tolstoy then focuses on ancient civilizations and how they dealt with explaining reasons for historical events. He suggests ancient historians tended to regard rulers (say a Julius Caesar, Hannibal, or famous King), as symbolic of the group ruled. Tolstoy thinks that approach has shortcomings. He then asks the most important question of the Second Epilogue, How do rulers get the masses to act as they wished? He doesn’t think it is just a question of acquiring the raw power to impose one's will. Rulers obviously held tremendous influence but Tolstoy feels they are figureheads. Notably, an under-appreciated amount of power is in the hands of the masses whose actions make up historical events. Said in another way: there is a symbiotic energy between the ruler and ruled. Tolstoy very much agreed with the ancients on not look too deeply for the reasoning of monumental events - they often believed that God willed events to be so. Tolstoy laments the role of God being cast aside by Enlightenment historians, especially in discussing the Napoleonic Wars. He doesn’t think the great movements between 1793-1812 can all be attributed to Napoleon -- despite the adulation Napoleon received during his own lifetime and from the generations that followed. Tolstoy is suggesting Napoleon (who was no great man of Faith) was a tool in God’s arsenal for His divine plan. Like the ancients, Tolstoy believed God acts, at least in part, to reward, punish or teach. Perhaps it was a reaction to his time’s attempt to remove the perception of God’s influence that led to creation of what is widely regarded as the greatest novel written.

This subset of episodes, will take on the twelve chapters of the second epilogue of War & Peace. This somewhat controversial epilogue is a presentation of the author’s philosophy that underlies the book. A common critique of the second epilogue is how confusing and apart it seems from the rest. The first epilogue revolves around the characters and resolves some of their journeys. The readers are then presented with an epilogue that takes on metaphysical questions – i.e., questions about the nature of reality, space and time, as well as change. It tackles the following issues: the of nature of history, nature of man, reverence for the Almighty, God as the ultimate mover of events (favoring Classical thinkers over Enlightenment ones), the relationship of the citizenry to the leaders they march off to war for, the lack of an ability to determine human causality, the nature of free will, as well as other mysteries of the ages. Tolstoy suggests never having the pride to think you can figure out something so complicated as the reasons, from a historical perspective, for the epic movements such as the Napoleonic wars and in particular, Bonaparte’s invasion of Russia. Instead, the epilogue highlights the author’s presumption that “Man is the creation of all powerful, all good, and all seeing God,” who moves the course of history in accord with His mysterious Will. That ideal drove Tolstoy and his novel. The epilogue, as well as the very title of the book, also explores the duality of man. War and peace, for example, like light and darkness, is within each of us. Tolstoy posits we are all connected, in that we often make individual choices in similar patterns with comparable motivations. Therefore, when working together (knowingly or not) we can pull the world in virtuous or troublesome destinations (including war-mongering or peace-making). Another lesson of the epilogue: try not to let you inner state of war overtake your peaceful nature more than necessary; such decisions can effect you more than you realize. Tolstoy discusses 'free will' in this epilogue. He questions how free we can be when so many circumstances constrain our freedom. For example, if we have three young children - how free can one be with respect to a subset of their decisions. And when discussing free will, are we even talking about the freedom to do something (like live in some unorthodox way); or freedom from something (like poverty or an oppressive leader). No matter, Tolstoy argues human actions, as the ancients posited, all work to effect God’s ultimate purpose, which we can explore but have lack the complete ability to understand. In Tolstoy's own exploration of these heady concepts, he created one of the great novels of the ages.

The doomed advance commenced around 5 a.m., when still quite dark. The idea was for General Bagration’s left flank to initiate the attack on the French right flank and drive the enemy into the mountains. Officers were hurriedly drinking tea and eating a decent breakfast while buttoning their coats and buckling their swords. Battalion and regimental commanders, along with their adjuncts, mounted their horses and gave final instructions. Austrian guides were now moving among the troops and heralding the advance. Those who would be moving were anxious amidst the cold and mist. The soldiers had been eating their rations, which consisted of a biscuit, while some beat their feet (while sitting around fires) to a tolerable warmth. The allied army reached a critical point, to either keep what they had or destroy it. Thus, into the fires went chairs, tables, wheels and everything that was not needed or could not be carried. The men then hoisted their bags onto carts, readied their muskets, and ran to form rank. There were a lot of non-combatant equipment men and logistics people who harnessed and packed the wagons. Soon the tramp of thousands of marching feet resounded. The throng moved without seeing where they were headed, as great masses of familiar men were surrounded by smoke and fog. For most, their senses heightened and they listened intently and looked about, each strengthened by their numbers. The columns thus advanced, descending and ascending hills, going over new and unknown ground. Nowhere did they encounter the French. The troops marched with enthusiasm for about an hour before the greater part had to halt and an unpleasant consciousness of some blunder spread. Tolstoy notes how such a mindset moves through such a body so rapidly is impossible to define. It was understood that large units were crossing one other. For example, in one area, several thousand cavalry crossed in front of the infantry. In contrast to the jovial spirit with which the troops had started, they were now filled with vexation and anger. The disorder was attributed to “those stupid Germans,” often called “sausage-eaters.” There were even visible altercations between some Austrian and Russian leaders. While stationary, the troops grew listless and dispirited. After this inauspicious development that lasted the better part of an hour, some soldiers started to hear shots. It was beyond the fog and irregular but then came at more frequent intervals. A small contingent who expected to come upon the enemy down by a stream stumbled upon the French in the fog. Similar interactions, of advancing and halting and exchanging uneven shots with the enemy, played out among the first, second and third columns in the lowlands, amidst thick fog. The 4th column, which Kutuzov was with, stood on the Infamous Pratzen Heights. On this higher ground, much of the field was becoming observable as the day developed and sun rose. High up in the village of Schlappanitz –the Great Napoleon stood with his marshals, observing the field and the Pratzen Heights. He was basking in the crimson sun that was rising in a striking blue sky. He donned the famous blue cloak he wore on his Italian campaign, sitting on his gray Arab horse. He gazed at the hills which seemed to rise out of the sea of mist and on which his adversaries were moving, listening to the sounds of firing. He is imbued by as already having the air of having victory. One part of the Russian forces already descended into a valley toward the ponds and lakes and another were leaving the Pratzen Heights, which Napolean abandoned before the battle but intended to retake and regarded as the key position. Napoleon plainly noticed the disorderly movement of his enemy and that the columns moving near The Pratzen Heights constituted the center of the Russian army, which was sufficiently weakened to be successfully attacked.

In the early morning hours of December 2nd, 1805, Rostov was patrolling the skirmishing line near Bagration’s detachment. Behind him he could see his army’s campfires glowing. In front the French were covered by misty darkness. Rostov was exhausted. His eyes would close and his fancy appeared—now the Emperor, then Denísov or whirling Moscow memories. His hussar companion occasionally alerted him to steer his horse out of bushes. He was disappointed his unit was not advancing and wanted to ask for permission to join the attack. He was dreaming about The Czar, envisioning how they would have a chance encounter and he would receive an assignment. He was confident he would do a superb job and develop a relationship with the sovereign. How faithfully he would guard Alexander, tell him the truth and unmask any deceivers! Rostov pictured how he would humiliate and kill an enemy of the state, either a Frenchman or a deceitful German ally, all in the presence of Alexander. Suddenly, a distant shout aroused him. He opened his eyes but only noticed the surrounding hills and white patches of snow. His mind veered toward his sister, who he wished to tell of his acquaintance with the Czar. Soon enough, there noticeable sounds in the distance. It appeared to be commotion from a group. He noticed fires igniting all along the landscape. The shouting grew louder. He was near one of the main French camps. Rostov could hear French spoken but not the words. The voices merged into a roar only an army could produce. The lights spread and he heard the triumphant shouting of the enemy – the famous, “Vive l’Empereur! Vive l’Empereur!” He was witnessing inspired men, more genuine than anything in Rostov’s camp. The spectacle was so obvious that it attracted Generals Bagration and Dulgarukov. The latter suggested it was just a decoy. Dulgarukov felt the main force retreated but Bagration realized his adversary was a force to be reckoned with and directed Rostov and a few others to investigate. Rostov was frightened but thrilled to propel into danger. Bagration called out for the group to not go beyond a certain stream. Rostov pretended not to hear the order. The French voices grew closer and soon enough there was shooting. The Hussars presence may have been noticed but it also could have been excited French firing into the air. Rostov’s group retreated back to Bagration. Rostov reported that the French presence was consistent with previous scouting. Bagration thanked Rostov, who leaped at the opportunity to ask to join a squadron that would advance. Bagration allows Rostov to join his own unit, sensing he is meeting Ilya Rostov’s son. Rostov thanks the Lord and felt he was a step closer to becoming involved with the Emperor. Tolstoy, as Narrator, lets us in on what was happening among the French. There was celebration because Napoleon was riding and sometimes walking through the camps while his written orders were being read. This would cause the fires, as soldiers would light wisps of straw and run after him; and others would fire guns into the air. Further, the soldiers knew the critical battle would be fought on the anniversary of Napoleon's coronation, just a year prior at Notre Dame. This was considered a good omen. Tolstoy conveys Napoleon’s inspirational and historic message. It includes: Soldiers! I direct all your battalions. I will keep out of fire if you -- with your habitual valor carry disorder and confusion into the enemy’s ranks -- but should victory be in doubt, even for a moment, you will see your Emperor exposing himself to the first blows of the enemy, for there must be no doubt of victory, especially on this day when the honour of the French infantry is at stake, so necessary to the honour of our nation.

In a few chapters, you will read one of the triumphs in literature, borrowed from the Wisdom Literature of the Old Testament. Tolstoy will have the fictional Andrei recognize the Vanity of our world. On the battlefield, Andrei is placed in a posture that makes him attuned to absorbing the nature of war & peace; and much more. In preparation for this moment, I ask you to take a tiny step toward developing the ability to see behind the vanity & vexation of our existence. If inclined, read the beginning of Ecclesiastes – as Andrei will paraphrase this material while speaking to the meaningless and futility of not seeing beyond the issues of the day. Conceding most will never going to do that… the critical and initial part of Ecclesiastes 1 reads: Vanity of vanities, saith the Preacher (often identified as Solomon); All is vanity. What profit hath a man of all his labour, which he taketh under the sun? Then Scripture references then unrelenting cycles of nature -- One generation passeth away, and another cometh: but the earth abideth; The sun also ariseth, and the sun goeth down, and hasteneth to his place where it arose. The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and returneth again according to his circuits. All the rivers run into the sea, yet the sea is not full; unto the place from where the rivers come, thither they return again. War & Peace is an everlasting work, in part, by reason of Tolstoy’s influence from Scripture. Within this vein, Tolstoy has been able to capture the artist’s ability to see beyond and touch the Transcendent! Tolstoy was able to skillfully -- not to just look to the baseness of what is in front, or below us, in creating something entertaining -- but he is able to enter the sacred space of fulfilling the spiritual need of appreciating the infiniteness above. So, this chapter is a reminder open yourself to this dynamic. For you ALL have Your own wars and periods of peace. Therefore, take a moment, to recognize what is here and now is not as significant as it seems, whether it is the Battle at Austerlitz or the so-call grand historical events of Your life. All of that is microscopic compared to what is above. If you are not interested in wrestling with the Bible, you can at least, take a look up to the sky and concentrate for a few seconds. This simple exercise gives us a sense of our size and the ineffability of what we are taking in. Consider our quarrels and even the wars men are so-often thrown into and what really mean in the grand sense. The exercise will build and appreciation for a pivotal moment in the book and more importantly, life in general. You will catch this moment soon, if you don’t know it already, on the fields of Austerlitz. Moreover, most readers fail realize something rather obvious, that the title and phrase War & Peace appears in the famous poetry of Chapter 3 of Ecclesiastes, where the Scripture notes that there is a Time for every purpose under Heaven, including a time for War; and a Time of Peace.

The night before the Battle, General Weyrother, who coordinated the advance, traveled to Kutuzov’s quarters in a castle near Austerlitz for a council of war. Kutuzov was a reluctant and relegated host. Weyrother is presented as full of vigor while Kutuzov was morose, with his uniform unbuttoned and nearly asleep in a chair. Weyrother was familiar with the terrain but was unable to competently explain the nature of this Moravian land. He spoke in front of an enormous map and went through the battle-plan. It involved a flanking maneuver and pursuit over a forest as well as descriptions of how the columns would march. He was exhausted and lost all sense of deference to the other attendees. Kutuzov’s response was to snore – at one point waking up startled and giving a condescending “YES! YES!,” and nodding off again. Tolstoy then symbolizes how some high-level officers are said to have reacted at the historic encounter. Friedrich Wilhelm Graf von Buxhöwden, hardly paid attention. Like many of the Russian officer class, his name had German roots. Mikhail Miloradovich “with wide-open eyes and a mustache twisted upwards,” sat in a military posture remaining silent. Unimpressed, he complained to himself but loud enough to be heard, “A geography lesson!?” Dimitry Dohktúrov, a small and modest man was studying the unfamiliar localities on the map and found the plan confusing. There was also Count Louis Langeron, a French émigré, who gazed at his delicate fingers twirling a gold snuffbox. He tried to contribute his own ideas but was rebuffed. A prominent Polish official, Ignacy Przebyszéwski, was described as carrying a dignified politeness. Thus, the command was an eclectic mix of ethnic Germans, aristocratic Russians, a Frenchman and even a Pole. Late in the council, Langeron finally got a chance to convey how difficult it would be to carry out such a strategy since the enemy’s position was only assumed and Bonaparte might attack and render the plan worthless. Tolstoy expresses that those spoken down to could have advised Weyrother about military matters. It is a hindsight presentation of a doomed mission. Historically, Weyrother would not have been spearheading the effort if Gen. Johann Schmit had not been killed. Weyrother met all objections with contempt, finding it ridiculous to debate a disposition approved by the Emperors. He felt the only thing to fear was the French retreating. He noted: “If Napolean could attack us, he would have done so today.” When Weyrother is nearly finished, Tolstoy brings in the fictional Andrei to get into the mindset of the noble officer who faces such an affair. Andrei asks for a clarification but Weyrother cuts him off with “Gentlemen, the dispositions for tomorrow—or rather for today, for it is past midnight—cannot be altered. You have heard them and we shall all do our duty. Before a battle, there is nothing more important than to have a good sleep.” Andrei could sense that nobody was inspired by the talk. He wondered how Alexander was not influenced by Kutuzov’s reticence. He realized all their lives were placed at needless risk. He considers, “It is very likely that I shall be killed tomorrow” and a series of memories arose. Andrei remembered parting from his father and dwelled on his wife and her pregnancy. In a softened mood he went out into the early December night. “Tomorrow everything may be over for me and these memories will be no more.” He became certain he would be called to account as a soldier and man. He pictured the battle in light of the sober analysis from Kutuzov. He imagined having the opportunity to firmly express his opinion of the futility of the present course to Kutuzov, Weyrother and the Emperors. While they would be impressed, no one would listen to him. He visualizes the forthcoming hesitation. He senses that his Toulon (the famous battle that catapulted Napoleon’s career) will present itself and envisions taking a regiment and leading it victory. He even pictures Kutuzov being removed appointed in the Commander’s place! However, another voice suggesting he would be wounded or killed. He considered, “I don’t know what will happen, but admits he desires Glory -- to be known to men and loved by them.” He finds no Fault that earthly glory is all that he lives for! In pursuit of such esteem, he fears nothing, neither his own death nor the loss of his family. Though his family is precious, he has psyched himself up to point that he would trade them all for just a moment of that glory.

This chapter continues to examine the precipice of Austerlitz, where misguided confidence continues to build. Yet we can observe cracks in that veneer, namely relating to how Tolstoy portrays the Czar. As the Emperor occupied Wischau, his French physician was summoned. While Alexander was initially excited by the movement of the troops, calvary charges, and clashes, he became ill upon observing casualties and the reality of war. Ten days prior, while in Olmütz, French General Anne-Jean-Marie-René-Savary, requested and received an audience with the Czar. Savary quickly noticed the overconfidence of Alexander’s inexperienced advisers and that Kutuzov (who advocated patience) was sidelined. Alexander explained to Savary how it was Napoleon’s ambition that brought them all to the precipice of slaughter. This was where Savary was presented with the infamous letter addressed “to the head of the French Government.” Ultimately, the allied army left in five large columns, toward Austerlitz, around 11/17/1805. In this section, Tolstoy focuses on Savory being sent to the Czar a second time in an 11th hour attempt to negotiate when near the battlefield. Alexander read this outreach as weakness. Savary was admitted, but Alexander refused a proposal to meet directly with Napoleon. The Czar’s army was overjoyed upon learning of this notable rejection. Instead, Prince Dolgorúkov was sent to meet Napoleon. Tolstoy doesn’t mention this here, but Napoleon keenly set up his camp to show Dolgorúkov miserable surroundings and dispirited men. Dolgorúkov told Napoleon that for peace, he must withdraw from Belgium, Holland, Switzerland, & Lombardy. Napoleon announced in reply: “Then we must fight.” Dolgorúkov later assured the Czar that the French were ripe to be vanquished. The day before the Battle, there a bustling of activity, which lead to 80,000 men being stretched out over six miles, ready to advance. Information would have to travel along that chain, which would prove a challenge. Tolstoy poetically explains how like the working of an intricate clock, decisions have results. He speaks of wheels interlocking and gathering momentum based on an initial push from the Emperor’s headquarters. "One wheel slowly moved and another was set in motion, and then third, and then wheels began to revolve faster and faster, levers and cogwheels, chimes to play, figures pop out, and the hands advance with regular motion. Just as with clock, so it is with a military machine…" The result was 160,000 men — all their passions, desires, remorse, humiliations, sufferings, outbursts of pride, fear, and enthusiasm — ready to embark on the Battle of Three Emperors. The story turns to the fictional Andrei, who was in constant attendance of those who made the critical decisions relating to Austerlitz. Andrei became aware how Kutuzov was dissatisfied – as most at headquarters were dismissive of him. Dolgorúkov relays his impression of Napoleon, namely that the General was afraid of a battle and that his hour had come! Dolgorúkov finds Napoleon vain and superficial: “He is a man in a gray overcoat, very anxious that I should call him ‘Your Majesty,’ but who, to his chagrin, got no title from me!” He continues: “We mustn’t forget Suvórov and his rule—not to put yourself in a position to be attacked, but yourself to attack. Believe me in war the energy of young men often shows the way better than all the experience than the old procrastinators” Dolgorúkov went on to explain the battle plan, a flanking attack formulated by Austrian General Weyrother. Andrei offered one of his own, but was shut down and told to bring up any such suggestions at the next council. Bilibin, the fictional diplomat, enters this dynamic. He proffers how no Russian officers are involved in spearheading the advance, and the three discuss who is said to be leading the units. After a long and frenetic day, Andrei gets a quiet moment with Kutuzov and asks him what he thinks will come of the upcoming battle: Kutúzov looked sternly at his adjutant and, after a pause, replied: "I think the battle will be lost, and so I told Count Tolstoy and asked him to tell the Emperor. What do you think he rep

On the precipice of the Battle of Austerlitz, Tolstoy illustrates the bravado and immaturity of youth. Here, I explore how Tolstoy incorporates elements of his own vice from his younger days, including pride and ambition. Both his early and late material speak to this, most notably personal journals from his time at university as well as the spiritual work, My Confession, written in 1879, when in his early 50s. The latter was an attempt to grapple with eternal questions such as: What am I doing?, and Why am I here? Tolstoy pursues answers in the mold of how Solomon (or “the Preacher”) is presented as taking them on in Ecclesiastes. Tolstoy appears to have reached the conclusion that those outside his social class (most notably humble peasants) have a higher chance of living in virtue and connecting with the Almighty. He implicitly argues for a reversion to a more simple Faith based on the Teachings of Christ. Early in Confession, Tolstoy famously wrote: I cannot think of those years without horror….. I killed men in war and challenged men to duels…. I lost at cards, consumed the labor of the peasants, sentenced them to punishments, lived loosely and deceived people. Lying, robbery, adultery of all kinds, drunkenness, violence, murder -- there was no crime I did not commit, and in spite of that people praised my conduct and my contemporaries considered and consider me to be a comparatively moral man. He could barely imagine such depravity among the peasant class. Tolstoy also references his early skepticism of the Russian Orthodox Church, especially as to rituals and teachings found outside the Gospel, such as certain prayers and the veneration of saints. He reflects that his “false faith” became trying to become the perfect earthly man and he rigorously tried to formulate methods to achieve success. Some of Tolstoy’s suggestions, taken from his journals, are: never hesitate to speak before onlookers; lead the conversation and speak deliberately; do not constantly move from conversation to conversation or language or language; seek the company of High Society; and invite the most important ladies – as that will be the event to be at! An aunt who helped raise him strongly suggested that he have relations with a married woman of the highest status – as she believed nothing so fully formed a young man. She also wanted him to become an aide-de-camp, if possible to the Emperor. She further advised to marry into extreme wealth and become possessed of as many serfs as possible. Tolstoy’s journals continue in a self-help fashion, suggesting: do not put off what you set out to do; make an effort and the thoughts and ideas of how to achieve goals will come; write down your plan and do not get up from the table until you make sufficient progress. Tolstoy also set regimented schedules for himself: 9-10 a.m.: Bathe and exercise, 10-12 a.m,: Music, play a least four pages of sheets, all scales and chords; 6-8 p.m.: Attend to his studies; 8-10 p.m.: Estate management. His time at the University of Kazan was an intense period of self-observation and served as a preparatory stage, filled with experimentation and vice, for where he wound up. Ultimately, Tolstoy came to realize his aristocratic peers developed this heightened arrogance, believing they are in the best position guide their fellow man. The rejection of such self-perfection efforts was significant to Tolstoy developing into an elderly sage, where pilgrimages were made to his estate. It is manifestly important to consider how Tolstoy embraces General Kutuzov as Napoleon’s opposite - as more Godly and attuned to the unknowable nature of life. This symbolic depiction made the old general a national hero. This episode finishes by examining how the sinful ambitions he very much shared are fused into the characters of Napoleon, Boris, Berg, Anatole, Vasilly, Andrei, Pierre and Nicholas.

Three days after the review and a near 40 mile march south, Denisov’s squadron was assigned to be a reserve unit in the early stages of the monumental Battle of Austerlitz. Rostov was in something of a depression, as he wasted the inner struggle it took to conquer his apprehension. While idle, he observed squadrons of Cossacks, hussars, infantry and artillery pass. Around 9 a.m., he heard firing and shouts. Later, a handful of French prisoners were brought back. A successful small affair culminated and the Village of Wishau was taken, building false confidence. The morning glitter of the sun was in keeping with news of the victory. Denisov tried to cheer up Rostov, “Come here. Let’s dwink to dwown our gwief!” A fellow Hussar soon noticed: “There! They are bringing another!,” pointing to a captive French dragoon along with his horse. Denisov was able to buy the horse for two gold pieces with money from Rostov. The prisoner was from Alsace, a Rhine border area heavily influenced by German speakers. The Hussars realized their prisoner brought aspects of culture so alien to them. Such contacts and influences would have profound impact on the progression of history. The day takes a dramatic upon shouts of “The Emperor! The Emperor!” as The Imperial Guard was spotted. All regret at not getting into action vanished and Rostov mounted his horse with joy. Nearer to him came that human sun and Rostov felt enveloped in his rays. Rostov again heard Alexander’s voice, so kindly and calm, inquiring if he was passing “The Pavlograd Hussars.” The Emperor drew level with Rostov and halted. Alexander’s face shone with gaiety and youth. Rostov believed the Emperor’s light blue eyes met his but could only hope Alexander understood what was within his soul. The Czar soon signaled his horse and galloped away. Tolstoy describes how Alexander could not resist being present and was thrilled by news of the successful engagement. The battle was represented as a brilliant victory, however, there was a mistaken belief that a solid portion of the French were retreating. The Pavlograds were ordered to advance to Wischau -- described as a quant German town. Rostov saw the Emperor for a third time, here at a market place where there had been heavy firing and lay several killed and wounded. The Emperor was riding a mare and leaning while holding at some magnifying glasses (a lorgnette). He gazed at a bleeding soldier who was so revolting that his proximity to royalty bothered Rostov. An adjutant lifted the soldier to place him on a stretcher, causing the soldier to groan. The Czar, so enthusiastic to put men in peril, instructed: “Gently, gently! Can’t you do it more gently?” Soon enough he rode away. Rostov saw tears filling the Emperor’s eyes and heard him say to his close advisor, Adam Czartorýski: “What a terrible thing war! Quelle terrible chose que la guerre!” Soon enough, the Pavlograd Hussars were stationed before Wischau. The Emperor’s gratitude was announced, rewards were promised and the men received a double ration of vodka. The campfires crackled and soldiers’ songs resounded. Denisov celebrated a promotion to the rank of major, and Rostov, quite inebriated, proposed a toast. To the “the health of our Sovereign, that good, enchanting and great man! Let us drink to his health and to the certain defeat of the French! If we fought before, not letting the French pass at Schön Grabern, what shall we not do now when he is at the front? We will all die for him gladly! Is it not so? Perhaps I am not saying it right, I have drunk a good deal—but that is how I feel, and so do you! To the health of Alexander the First!" Hurrah! Hurrah!” responded the Hussars. Even the old cavalry captain, Kirsten, shouted no less sincerely. Later that night, Denisov patted Rostov and announced: “As there’s no one to fall in love with on campaign, he’s fallen in love with the Czar!.” Rostov told Denisov not to belittle his emotions and walked off to wander among the campfires, dreaming of what happiness it would be to die—not in saving the Emperor’s life but simply to die before his eyes. He was in love with the Czar and the hope of future triumph. He was hardly the only one to experience such pathos in those memorable moments preceding the true affair at Austerlitz.

The day after the review, Boris rides to Olmütz to build on his burgeoning relationship with Andrei, with the goal of obtaining a position of adjutant. He reflected, “It is all well for Rostov, whose father sends him 20,000 rubles at a time, to NOT wish to be anyone’s lackey, but I who have little but my brains, must not miss any opportunity!” Olmütz was transformed into the headquarters where the Emperors resided. When Boris inquired of Andrei, he was shunned by officials who grew tired of the number of low-level officers who were coming and going. He learned Andrei would return the next day, so at that time Boris visited Kutuzov’s quarters and found Andrei in a reception room. He noticed Andrei with an older General, who was hardly keeping Andrei’s interest. Andrei, clearly part of the inner circle of influence, was ecstatic to interrupt the old man and turned to Boris with a smile. Boris realized that besides discipline, subordination and order prescribed in the official Army code, there was a more important way of life, which forced the General to the sideline. Boris resolved to become part of this higher world. Andrei informed Boris that he had been occupied with the Austrian command and references the historic General Franz von Weyrother, who plays a critical role in the upcoming Battle of Austerlitz. Boris could only pretend to understand who Andrei was alluding to. Andrei conveys that he will recommend Boris for a position as an adjunct. Boris is thankful and very much desires an audience with Kutuzov but Andrei explains the commander’s staff is overflowing with many who have no use. Andrei wishes to refer Boris to the historic advisor to the Czar, Peter Dolgorúkov, who Andrei labels “a good friend and excellent fellow.” Therefore, they went to the local palace where a significant council of war of the Hofkriegsrat and Russian Command just finished. The consensus was to advance and vanquish Napoleon. Dolgorúkov was under the spell of the event, where the ambitions misguided youth prevailed. This was contrary to the views of Kutuzov. All voices who counseled delay were silenced by conclusive evidence of the victory that awaited. The advantages included: superior numbers, the perceived quality of troops, knowledge of the terrain, and that the allies were inspired by the Emperors. Dolgorúkov was exhausted but eager for inevitable victory. Andrei introduced his protégé, but Dolgorúkov was unable to get beyond the impending action. Dolgorúkov referenced how Napoleon sent a letter, proposing peace, which was viewed as a ruse to gain time. Tolstoy brings out the historic affront crafted in response. Dolgorúkov explains “What was most amusing was how we could not think how to address our reply! Not to Napolean as ‘Consul’ nor ‘Emperor,’ or ‘General Bonaparte.’” The fictional Diplomat Bilibin jokingly suggested “Usurper and Enemy of Mankind.” What was agreed on was: To the Head of the French Government / Au chef du gouvernement français. Andrei acknowledges how much Napoleon will be insulted, which makes Dolgorúkov recall a tale about Napoleon, who held held a reputation “as the most cunning and subtle diplomat, a combination of French adroitness and Italian play-acting!” On one purported occasion, Bonaparte wished to take the measure of a Russian ambassador, Count Markov, and purposely dropped a handkerchief and then stood looking at Markov, expecting Markov to assist. Instead, Markov dropped his own and picked it up without touching Bonaparte’s. When Andrei reintroduces Boris, the young man receives passing acknowledgment, but is told his appeal will be addressed another time. Still, Boris was enraptured by his surroundings. He recognized he was among the springs that set in motion enormous movements of men. If left just in his regiment, he would consider himself an obedient and insignificant atom. As exiting, they all noticed a short man with a clever face and sharply projecting jaw, who nodded to Dolgorúkov as to an intimate friend but stared at Andrei with cool intensity. “Who was that?” asked Boris. Andrei explained, “He is one of the most remarkable, but to me most unpleasant of men—the Minister of Foreign Affairs, Prince Adam Czartorýski.... It is such men as he who decide the fate of nations.” Tolstoy is referencing an extremely significant Polish statesman, who lived to just over 90. At the time of the novel is set, Czartorýski was a close friend and trusted advisor to Tsar Alexander, but was later famous for trying restore sovereignty to Poland.

This second episode on the Calvary Maiden takes you through some of the formative years of the author, Nadezhda Durova. Durova wrote briefly of her years growing up then focused on her time dressing as a man and serving for 10 years as a low-level officer in the Czar’s army, starting around 1806. Her journals were source material for Tolstoy as to the lives of those who served in the period War & Peace is set, 1805-1812. It is presented to give you a glimpse into those frequently nameless and overlooked, who often gave their lives in the Napoleonic conflicts. Durova’s story brings up still-relevant issues of identify, in terms how some who grew up in modern-day Ukraine or partitioned Poland, had different ties, (some to Polish nobility, others to Cossacks, some to Turks, others to runaway serfs), identified themselves. A number, like Durova, graciously accepted a life of service to the Czar. Others, like the former serf, Taras Shevchenko, or the Polish Diplomat, Adam Czartoryski, advanced the idea of nationhood and identity separate from Russian domination. This episode is a brief overview of Durova’s experience from when she was 4 months-old, when she begins to articulate the ever-present animosity with her mother. This is illustrated with Durova being thrown out of a moving carriage upon her mother became frustrated while nursing. Her father then gave her to the primary care of one of his male servants, who Durova clung to at the sight of her mother. For her first four years of life, Durova’s family remained on the road, in military service, where she was affected by hussars shouting, drilling and riding their horses. This lifestyle attracted her. Her Muscovite father recognized life with a growing family mandated a different position and traveled to Moscow in search of same. It was at that time that Durova and her mother returned to her parents’ home near the Poltova region in Ukraine. She spent time on the property marching, making forts, and pretending to be in hussar service. Her maternal grandparents, who initially rejected their Ukrainian daughter marrying a Muscovite, reconciled with the situation. Durova’s father eventually received a commission to become a district mayor in Sarapul, near the Kama River in the foothills of the Ural Mountains. She spent the better part of a decade in this colder climate. She would often run away and explore nearby forests and rivers. Her father accepted her adventurous inclinations and gifted her horse, Alcides, who remained with Durova well into her military service. Durova would often wake up at the crack-of-dawn and take Alcides for a liberating run, with servants becoming accustomed to this unusual dynamic. This frustrated her mother to no end. However, her kind father and the rest of the family got a kick out of Durova’s precociousness. She remained in Sarapul until her mother grew tired of her presence and encouraged sending her back to Ukraine to live with her grandmother.

Tolstoy addresses the over-confidence of Napoleon’s adversaries prior to the battle of Austerlitz, when Kutuzov’s forces and the Austrians reached their limit of no further retreat, winding up near Olmütz. Here, Emperors Alexandr & Francis would review their troops that numbered around 80K (both seasoned and reinforcements) before a 40-mile march south to fight the French, who had around 50K soldiers near Brünn. Napoleon’s supply lines were extended after traveling so far into the Holy Roman Empire and Kutuzov is historically thought to have been reticent to engage Napoleon as he thought it better to draw the French further east and wait for Prussia to align against Napoleon. Yet he recognized with two Emperors meeting face-to-face and the French occupying Vienna, there was a compelling reason to fight. He also recognized Alexandr wanted to be the first Czar since Peter I to lead a battle of such magnitude. Moreover, the recent skirmishes created a consensus, this would be where Napoleon’s magnificent run ended. We are brought to the morning of the review. From the crack of dawn, there was preparation, with throngs of men moving and halting upon command. Groups turned with banners and wheeled around each other. Prominent was the rhythmic beating of hooves and drums while calvary soldiers were carried on their steeds. From the artillery wagons, polished cannons and guns glimmered. Every soldier was shaved, with weapons clean and polished and generals strutted in their fancy parade uniforms. Even the horses were groomed to the point their coats shined like satin. This Review bordered on the sacred. The men held inner feelings of insignificance before Majesty but were also conscious of their strength as a part of an enormous tempest. By 10:00 a.m., the army was extended in three lines: cavalry in front, then artillery, and in the third row - infantry. All were ready to greet Alexandr and Francis. Soon enough, ran an excited whisper, “They’re coming!” Joy swept over the troops as hundreds of riders guarding the leaders moved closer as trumpets heralded. At the head where the two Emperors. Alexander’s youthful but majestic voice was heard. Those nearby roared “Hurrah!” so deafeningly that the men were awed by their own power. Rostov was in that throng and experienced what all others had: self-forgetfulness, a proud consciousness of might and devotion. He knew a single word from him would lead all to go through fire and and perform deeds of the highest heroism. “Hurrah! continued to thunder. Rostov was near the trumpeters and recognized the Tsar. He could distinguish every detail of his face. Alexandr’s every movement was enchanting. The Tsar said something in French to Francis. Every sound from him was a gift from heaven. Rostov felt the most powerful flow of love for his sovereign, which he longed to demonstrate and considered, “if the Emperor would speak to me, I would die of happiness.” The Tsar addressed the officers: “I thank you all, gentlemen, I thank you with my whole heart.” When Alexandr moved down the line, he was accompanied by a sea of high-level aides. Rostov noticed Bolkonsky among them. When thinking of their recent quarrel, Rostov realized Andrei was correct to suggest the matter be dropped. Such a disagreement was “not even worth thinking of at such a moment! At a time of such love, rapture and such self-sacrifice. What do any such affronts matter? For, I love and forgive everybody!” When the troops saw their Emperors, they instantly felt they could lay down their lives. It a phenomena that exists through the ages and Tolstoy gets you to question such devotion. After some time, select soldiers began a ceremonial march past Alexandr, including Rostov, a who was a fine horseman. He rode Bedouin, recently purchased from Denísov and it seemed the animal knew he was in the presence of royalty. “Fine fellows, those Pavlograds!” commented the Emperor. When it was over, the soldiers collected in groups and began to talk. All discussion soon turned to Bonaparte and how he would be vanquished, especially if reinforcements came from Prussia. Soon enough the conversation in every group centered on Emperor Alexandr. His every word and movement was described with ecstasy. They all had one wish: to advance as soon as possible! All felt they could not fail.