War and Peace (Leo Tolstoy, 1869) (re-read)

After finishing Lonesome Dove - I much enjoyed the "big canvas" type of very-long-book - so seemed like a good time to re-read War and Peace.  Last time was in 2012, summarized here.  It continues to delight.  Partly because it's interesting how much of the details, even some key plot items, get forgotten over the years (at least by me).

I won't repeat the 2012 thoughts. A couple additional items - 

There is a super-charming minor scene - the hunt - Natasha and Petya accompany Nicholas.  “Uncle’s” low-rent borzoi catches the hare. Later they gather at Uncle’s home for food and music. Natasha dancing to the peasant music.  Everyone happy.

The hunt scene is followed pretty shortly by another charming evening - Nicholas, Natasha, Petya, Sonya accompany some of the serfs etc as “mummers” on sleigh ride across the snow to a neighbor’s house.  Nicholas charmed (re-charmed?) by Sonya just when getting pressured to marry a wealthy heiress (Julie Karagin).

Prince Andrew facing death after Borodino, encounters Natasha.  Looking to the next world rather than this one. These passages are really well done.

I had forgotten the parts about Natasha growing up a lot between packing up the Moscow house and caring for post-Borodino Prince Andrew. I had remembered her mostly for immaturity, which wasn't complete.

Re-reads are great pleasures. 

The Writing of the Gods - The Race to Decode the Rosetta Stone (Edward Dolnick, 2021)

I had previously read a lot about Napoleon (and his "savants") in Egypt but this still was a useful take.  The understandable ensuing craze for things Egyptian.  (Reading "The Ambassadors" by Henry James right now - protagonist visits a house with a history, including items from Napoleonic era - including a sphinx figurine, of course.)

Thomas Young and Jean-Francois Champollion are the key workers on the project.  It was really difficult!

Reiterated some ideas that appeared in this book (about deciphering Linear B) in an interesting way - this author made more of an effort to explain the decipherer's challenges in terms of challenges encountered in dealing with the English language - helpful.

A good way of describing the incredible importance of writing in human development (if it started rather humbly largely to record transactions) - can speak across distance and time!  Things can be remembered in large measure.

The idea of speaking as something babies learn - long evolutionary history - writing came along so much later, no one learns it without being taught.

The art of deciphering - discussed the skillset in similar terms as the fellows that made the breakthrough contributing to US success in Battle of Midway (per here) - some folks have gut instinct to go along with knowledge of languages, ability to comprehend and retain complex visual fields - seems like you can't get there without educated guesses; and that successful decipherers may not even be able to fully explain how they do it.

In These Times - Living in Britain Through Napoleon's Wars, 1793-1815 (Jenny Uglow, 2014)

(641 pp)

I very much like this kind of history - the author delves into what must be an incredible stack of period correspondence and documents, then finds a way to condense, organize and present it in a compelling manner.  Small-bore experiences playing out against the wide-ranging Napoleonic wars.

And it was an ideal follow-on to this just-read biography of Napoleon - useful to read it while the Napoleon sequences are freshly in mind.

A few thoughts -

1.  Virtually entirely from a British perspective - Napoleon from across the Channel.  Somewhat distant - yet very worried about invasion in the pre-Trafalgar days.

2.  Gave a better appreciation for how long these wars lasted - partly through stories of British families that sent more than one generation off to the war.

3.  Disruption of the British economy over a prolonged period - with, as usual, the common folk bearing the brunt of the economic pain.  (As well as providing the bulk of the cannon fodder - though I'd think a much higher percentage of "higher class" folks went into the military in those days, as compared to 2017 America.)  Smugglers take advantage of the trade restrictions - like always.

4.  While all this seems "long ago" - the letters consistently reveal attitudes and concerns so reminiscent of current times.

5.  After all - we have our own version of perpetual war.  British also masters at government propaganda to prop up the war effort.  (Never mind if the economy is harmed and so many folks are getting maimed and killed - be patriotic!  The threat is terrible!)

6.  Lots of dissent.  Lots of repression.  Free speech under attack.  What we would call "protesters" injured or killed by militia - who are acquitted.  Getting in trouble for not vigorously saying "God Save the King."

7.  Everybody hated the press gangs.  Many communities fought back, hard.  Led into some discussion of how the War of 1812 fit in.

8.  Much correspondence from well-known families - such as the Austens.  Lord Byron, Dickens relative, Walter Scott.  Etc.

9.  Nelson and Wellington as big-time heroes.

10.  Enclosure and agricultural improvement underway.  First railways.  War promotes some types of industrial or mechanical development.  Britain an impressive place, deeply struggling with working class, but staving off any real reform until 1832, per this.

11.  Sadness of injuries and deaths of soldiers on campaign - as reported in the correspondence.  Prisoners; prison brigs.

12.  Waterloo - culmination of a trend of higher casualty rates (better guns, etc.)  So many visitors picking up souvenirs on the battlefield; recall scenes in famous novels such as Vanity Fair or Les Miserables.   Can better see why this made such an impression.

Author ends by giving some follow-up on the families of some of the prolific letter writers, which was a nice touch.

The returning veterans had it tough - low or no pensions, injuries, too many returnees to incorporate into the economy - selling trinkets on the streets - quite a change from chasing Napoleon' armies.

Napoleon - A Life (Andrew Roberts, 2014)

(810 pages)

Napoleon's story line is pretty familiar by now . . . pops up in so many books/contexts . . . but this author had access to more of his letters than previous biographers - 33,000 letters in total . . . so it seemed like a good idea to re-up.  And it was - this bio is readable, useful.

After reading all those letters - the author was generally sympathetic to Napoleon.

I have the impression that the "great man" [person] theory of history is pretty much out of fashion, and I'd think for good reason.  Still - if any one person can be said to have moved the needle - Napoleon is a pretty good candidate.  Amazing accomplishments across a broad range of topics at a very young age.  Everyone is reacting to him across all of Europe for many decades - politics, military, legal, arts.  (Interesting that Tolstoy was sufficiently moved by Napoleon to include as a central theme of this novel a refutation of "great man" theory.)

A few thoughts:

1.  Only in the chaos resulting from the Revolution could someone like this advance so rapidly.  (Not a criticism - he dealt with the circumstances as they existed.)

2.  In his youth - into adulthood - he read high quality books incessantly.  Viewed this as the best possible preparation.  Agreed!

3.  Of course ambitious - very much so - wanted to be remembered like Alexander or Caesar.

4.  Yet able to connect with common soldiers; really with pretty much anyone - including British jailers - generally a good listener, able to absorb competing viewpoints and modify his own.

5.  Author cites some major blind spots - economics (believed the Continental System would work); naval operations; putting his brothers in charge of key tasks; obsessed with Britain.

6.  Biggest blind spot in my view - perhaps willful - pursuing policies/campaigns that resulted in the deaths of so many soldiers.  And exhausted France.  There had to be a better way.  The "ambition" problem.

7.  Military genius - seems definitely yes - innovator; though he fared less well as opponents adopted his innovations.  Stories of the famous battles.  Perceptive, decisive, personally brave.

8.  Must have been an all-around genius - not just military.  Rapid-fire and on-target decision-making in an astonishing array of subjects.  Could handle both big picture and details - rare.  Prolific letter writer - how things got done.

9.  "Enlightenment on horseback" - gets back to Paris after initial wars, implements Code Napoleon - the truly lasting contribution; influence throughout Europe.

10.  Information on Elba and St. Helena largely new to me.

Napoleon impresses, mightily.

War and Peace (Leo Tolstoy, 1869) (2007 translation by Richard Pevear and Larissa Volokhonsky)

I last read this book during either my sophomore or junior year at Notre Dame (somewhere between 1975 and 1977).  I'm surprised about how little of the plot that I remembered - which made the re-reading all the more delightful.  (I do recall that Prince Andrei was musing about various deep issues and looking at the sky, but I probably recall that only because it was the subject of a paper I wrote.  I now can't find the paper, just the professor's comments (below).  Don't know which professor, but he or she apparently wasn't that thrilled with my efforts.) 

This is a new (2007) translation that I was anxious to read.  Birthday gift from PJr and Nedda.

As I perhaps too often write - the experience of reading a book like this is enhanced to an incredible degree by other reading.  Sure, a book like this also would stand on its own.  But incomparably better with some background.  A simple example - Tolstoy started writing this as a different novel, focusing on the Decembrists.  I wouldn't have had a decent idea where to place that concept until just a few years ago (good discussion here).  Meaning Pierre's activities in the Epilogue would have meant nothing to me during my first reading (not that those activities are central to the book, but still).  Also:  this book about the invasion of Russia was very helpful.  And this on Napoleon's early years.  And this on Tolstoy himself.  Etc. 

The story line moves among a large group of characters, primarily focused on three families:  Rostov, Bolkonsky, Bezukov.  (Also, to a lesser extent, the Kuragin family, annoying as each of its members was.)  Napoleonic war provides background.  It's a novel, it's history, it's also philosophy, extensive musings about the relative importance of the collective will and the individual in history, etc.  Famously long, which permits the story to develop, strong identification with characters, etc.  I was really worried about Natasha and Kuragin, and about what would happen with Prince Andrei.  Among other things.

I think Tolstoy got carried away with the idea of history as a collection of individual wills, little influenced by the actions of individuals.  I think that's wrong.  It was a constant theme in the book.  Tolstoy must have felt pretty strongly about it, had to know it cluttered the story line.  Napoleon clearly inspired so many writers and historians to focus on the role of the "great man" in history.  (For example, this is a great exploration of the topic.) 

Something wonderful about Tolstoy - after I read him for awhile, I feel like I can "see myself" better.  All good novelists achieve this, but I find the effect strongest with with Tolstoy and Proust.  Tolstoy has a wonderfully effective way of casting light on the multiple motivations that affect all of us pretty much all of the time - some mixture of vanity, self-interest, kindness, undue concern about others' opinions, etc.  The effect of "seeing myself" better is strong during and immediately after reading these books, then it starts to wear off.

Example:  how about this description of listening - focused on Natasha vis-à-vis Pierre but more broadly applicable - "Now, as he told it all to Natasha, he experienced that rare pleasure which is granted by women when they listen to a man - not intelligent women, who, when they listen, try either to memorize what they are told in order to enrich their minds and on occasion retell the same thing, or else to adjust what is being told to themselves and quickly say something intelligent of their own . . . "  If one doesn't permit oneself to be distracted by what would nowadays instantly be jumped on as "sexist" in this passage - who doesn't too often listen in precisely this fashion?

Karataev's little sayings while Pierre was a prisoner (and on the march away from Moscow) were great.

Austerlitz, Borodin, occupation of Moscow, Kutuzov.  Pierre trying to find himself; Masons.  Echoes of The Death of Ivan Ilych.  Russian upper classes speaking French, of all things - more fluently than Russian in many cases.  (I can understand how the courtiers in the various countries needed a lingua franca, but the effect here is ironic to say the least.)  Intrigues among courtiers and military staffers.  Tsar Alexander.

Simply wonderful.

[Update 6/24/12:  by coincidence, it is almost exactly the 200th anniversary of Napoleon crossing into Russia, see summary here.]  

---------------------------

Here are my professor's comments - apparently he or she was hoping for some critical thinking . . .  w&p

Napoleon - The Path to Power (Philip Dwyer, 2007)

I've never known much about Napoleon's early years - was vaguely aware that he wasn't French per se; knew of the expedition to Egypt etc. But mostly had just read that he showed up in Paris as an artillery expert and helped put down some sort of insurrection in the years following the start of the revolution, after which his career took off.

So this book was very interesting - looked in-depth at Napoleon right up to the time of the 1799 coup. Starting with his days in Corsica - he was very focused on events there and learned a ton about politics. (Corsica was being passed between Genoa and France, and considering (or pipe-dreaming about) independence.) Idolized "Paoli," the local leader.

Earlier, he had been lined up for schooling in France thanks to his father's intervention. So he had something of a dual background - initially strongly Corsican, but with enough French background to handle the transition.

The French Revolution, and Napoleon himself, were responsible for so many modern innovations (many quite terrible). First mass conscription. Adroit manipulation of newspapers to sell false imagery. Pillaging of art works from Italy in a manner that would have impressed the Nazis. Creation of puppet states to serve as allies or buffers, or both.

Napoleon definitely had something remarkable in his military leadership - after gaining popularity and credibility with the politicians, he had great success in charge of the Army of Italy.

Infatuated with Josephine (who apparently had plenty of charms that outweighed her bad teeth). Pulled a David and Bethsheba scene when taking up with a soldier's wife in Egypt - sent the poor fellow on a mission where he was almost certain to be captured. British spies knew what was up so, to the surprise and consternation of all the principals, they released him back to Egypt.

Awful scenes in Egypt as Napoleon demonstrated an insensitivity to loss of human life that would be repeated. It was a bad campaign, but skillful propaganda left him pretty much untouched if not aggrandized - notwithstanding his abandoning his army there.

This should be good background reading for The Charterhouse of Parma. A good follow-on to this book.

Moscow 1812: Napoleon's Fatal March (Adam Zamoyski, 2004)

I'd read a book or two already about this situation so was a bit unsure whether to read another one . . . but this one was well worth it.

The basic story line involves a long list of larger-than-life elements, which are pretty well known. Napoleon. Alexander. Etc.

Some other thoughts:

1. Zamoya thinks the criticism Napoleon took for starting the campaign late was unfair - felt he had no real choice due to the logistics around the horses and fodder. (Though this failed in the end, creating huge problems.)

2. Examples of Russian incompetence - political fallout as the Russian armies retreated. Kutuzov considered a national hero for various political reasons over time; Zamoya thinks he was ineffective.

3. Interesting information about the Russian army - 20-year hitches, pretty much everyone other than serfs bought their way out. The villages held a funeral when a serf went to the army because it was so unlikely that he would be seen again. Yet somehow they fought like dogs.

4. Marshal Ney unbelievably courageous.

5. The famous battle at Borodino - where the French win but lose. War and Peace based on this.

6. Moscow; fires.

7. The too-late retreat - I don' t think the author was gratuitously gory and violent in describing this, it plainly was just awful. Freezing, nothing to eat, both armies suffering mightily; the French would finally reach a destination and find out the logistics had failed again. Heroic bridge builders at river crossings (esp. the Berezina, where an unbelievable escape was achieved).

8. To some extent the peasants were armed and involved; this led to some agitation for political and social change; some of the military types ultimately became the 1825 Decembrists.

9. Alexander sold liberalism/reform to Europe. But things ended up very reactionary in Russia; and Prussia took a leading role in what much later became became Germany - also reactionary.

10. Stendahl part of the retreat - but early, lucky for him. He made it back to France. An incredibly small percentage of the Grande Armee survived.

Wellington – the Years of the Sword (Elizabeth Longford)

Biography through Waterloo.  The lines at Torres.