Analysis
Theme: Events that character go Through Change and Impact their thinking and Behaviour
Executive Summary
This essay explores the theme of whether events in characters’ life in the epic novel War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy affect the thinking and behavior of the character. This essay explores arguments related to historical context of the novel and vastly analysis the character development of Nikolai Rostov to understand the stance taken by the novel on this theme.
The Russian novel War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy is a recognized epic that was initially published in series but was later released in its full form in 1869. The novel is extremely profound in its nature as it does not encompass a single theme or adds to a single idea but explores human sublimity by mentioning topics such as psychological themes, philosophy, historical commentary, social dilemmas, ideological conflicts, and political struggles. Like other intellectual pieces of Tolstoy, this work as well gives an insight into the great mind of the author who made his mark in establishing the nuanced nature of a human mind. As expected from Tolstoy, the novel has many interesting and timeless themes such as individual desires versus the worldly “right”, the dynamics of social classes and many more. Ones of the most important themes explores the human tendency to be affected by what goes through their lives and how the events they go through effect and change their thinking. This theme is important because understanding this enables the readers to realize why this novel came to be about.
The historical context plays an important role in the plot, character development and thematic concerns of the novel and how the events affect the character is a major theme in the academia of history. It is important to note that this novel is fundamentally a thrilling example of history as much as it is an interesting story. It is important to note that it was in 1863 that Tolstoy endeavoured to write about a political dissident who was returning from exile in Siberia. The process took him five years, and he came up with a book that looked nothing like what he had planned initially. The story was instead spread around themes of love-stories, battlefields, economic strife, and religious teachings. This stemmed from his fascination of the Decembrist Revolution of 1825, whereby around 3000 Russian soldiers protested against the Nicholas I’s ascension to the throne after Tsar Alexander I. So his ideas tilted towards the events of 1825. Then he realized how can he comment on the events of 1825 without mentioning the story of 1812 when Napoleon’s tremendous invasion of Russia helped propel authoritarianism that the Decembrists were primarily rebelling against. Even after this, he realized how could he talk about Napoleon’s invasion without mentioning 1805 when the Russians first learned about the danger Napoleon posed after their defeat at the Battle of Austerlitz. This ordeal of what to incorporate led him to come up with something that would integrate his initial aspiration of mentioning the individual struggle and do so in the background provided by the significant historical context.
The starting of the novel is significant in establishing its overall stance as it opens with the scene of war between France and Russia. While he also mentions the tales of Aristocrats at the cocktail party and their indifference concerning the war. Their conversations subdue to money, sex and all the lavish niceties of life. This indicates the norm set by the author as he considers the upper class to have such conversations. This sheds light at the aspect of the events in people’s life affecting their behaviours as here the aristocrats are affected by the luxuries nature of their status so much so that it consumes them and blinds them to the real pains, struggles and actual reality of the world that they live in by large. The aristocratic conversations that take place in Anna Pavlovna’s salon serve as a microcosm of the upper strata of the society (chapter 1-6, pages 3-52).
Moreover, the historical significance of the novel is established as it questions the idea of the “great man”. Tolstoy is famous for bringing about the elephant in the room into the highlight. The nineteenth-century witnessed a boom in wars and invasions, whereby the cult of Napoleon was extremely prevalent. He was a recognized great man and was also an opportunist. The novel is set in 1805-1820 and describes the war between France and Germany. In doing so, a commentary on leadership is also given, and Tolstoy rejects the notion of the “Great Man” by mentioning the Battle of Borodino that was fought between Napoleon’s 130,000 troops, about 500 guns, versus Russians’ 120,000 men and about 600 guns. About 30,000 French men lost their lives, and 45,000 Russians were killed. The concept is stated brilliantly in Book 10, chapter 28, pages 1848-1849, “And it was not Napoleon who directed the course of the battle, for none of his orders was executed, and during the battle, he did not know what was going on before him. So the way in which these people killed one another was not decided by Napoleon’s will but occurred independently of him, in accord with the will of hundreds of thousands of people who took part in the common action. It only seemed to Napoleon that it all took place by his will. And so the question whether he had or had not a cold has no more historical interest than the cold of the least of the transport soldiers. Moreover, the assertion made by various writers that his cold was the cause of his dispositions not being as well planned as on former occasions, and of his orders during the battle not being as good as previously, is quite baseless, which again shows that Napoleon’s cold on the twenty-sixth of August was unimportant. The dispositions cited above are not at all worse, but are even better, than previous dispositions by which he had won victories. His pseudo-orders during the battle were also no worse than formerly, but much the same as usual. These dispositions and orders only seem worse War and Peace 1849 of 2882 than previous ones because the battle of Borodino was the first Napoleon did not win. The profoundest and most excellent dispositions and orders seem very bad, and every learned militarist criticizes them with looks oks importance, when they relate to a battle that has been lost, and the very worst dispositions and orders seem very good, and serious people fill whole volumes to demonstrate their merits, when they relate to a battle that has been won. The dispositions drawn up by Weyrother for the battle of Austerlitz were a model of perfection for that kind of composition, but still they were criticized- criticized for their very perfection, for their excessive minuteness. Napoleon at the battle of Borodino fulfilled his office as representative of authority as well as, and even better than, at other battles. He did nothing harmful to the progress of the battle; he inclined to the most reasonable opinions, he made no confusion, did not contradict himself, did not get frightened or run away from the field of battle, but with his great tact and military experience carried out his role of appearing to command, calmly and with dignity.” This lengthy quote gives an insight into the author’s mind that he believes that history is not only shaped by great men, but rather other cultural, social, societal and economic factors come into play. Also, the events of the past are so significant that they affect the people who later change the way events happen as hinted in this quote. This quote largely brings out Tolstoy’s way of criticizing people who believe in the “Great Man” concept. It is Tolstoy’s effort to highlight the importance of “ordinary” people that sort of cement the concept that people’s experiences shape people, shape them to become who they inevitably become. Hence, by that logic, they should not be given special attention, treatment or titles such as that of “Great Man” as Napoleon was recognized as.
This novel is a literary genius of Tolstoy’s imagination and sheds light on his own ideas of what causation means for him. The natural metaphor of a bee’s activity used is reflective of his own ideas in the complex novel War and Peace. In the First Epilogue, pages 2692-2693, it is mentioned, “A bee settling on a flower has stung a child. And the child is afraid of bees and declares that bees exist to sting people. A poet admires the bee sucking from the chalice of a flower and says it exists to suck the fragrance of flowers. A beekeeper, seeing the bee collect pollen from flowers and carry it to the hive, says that it exists to gather honey. Another beekeeper who has studied the life of the hive more closely says that the bee gathers pollen dust to feed the young bees and rear a queen, and that it exists to War and Peace 2693 of 2882 perpetuate its race. A botanist notices that the bee flying with the pollen of a male flower to a pistil fertilizes the latter, and sees in this the purpose of the bee’s existence. Another, observing the migration of plants, notices that the bee helps in this work, and may say that in this lies the purpose of the bee. But the ultimate purpose of the bee is not exhausted by the first, the second, or any of the processes the human mind can discern. The higher the human intellect rises in the discovery of these purposes, the more obvious it becomes, that the ultimate purpose is beyond our comprehension.” Hence, this quote proves that Tolstoy does not necessarily believe in the process of causation or he believes that the human mind is not enough or sufficient to encapsulate the entire process that goes behind an action and even though many of Tolstoy’s characters exhibit change after experiencing formative experiences, he also believes that one cannot truly understand or point out what is actually the decisive watershed moment.
Tolstoy also comments on the human tendency to find an answer in Book 13, Chapter 1, page 2324, as he states in an omnipresent tone, “Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul. And without considering the multiplicity and complexity of the conditions any one of which taken separately may seem to be the cause, he snatches at the first approximation to a cause that seems to him intelligible and says: ‘This is the cause!’” Thus, it must be established that Tolstoy did not reject absolutely the notion that causation must not be made, but rather he pointed out the human weakness in the process of coming to a conclusion in a hasty manner whereby many important details are termed as unimportant.
Book 7 is highly important in demonstrating the theme that events shape character developments. The character of Nikolai (Nicholas) Rostov although had impactful moments in his life before book 7, it is here that his changed self is shown to emerge. However, book 4, chapter 2, pages 690-691, also marks the beginning of his change in character from an immature child to a young mature adult, “He felt that he had grown up and matured very much. His despair at failing in a Scripture examination, his borrowing money from Gavril to pay a sleigh driver, his kissing Sonya on the sly- he now recalled all this as childishness he had left immeasurably behind. Now he was a lieutenant of hussars, in a jacket laced with silver, and wearing the War and Peace 691 of 2882 Cross of St. George, awarded to soldiers for bravery in action, and in the company of well-known, elderly, and respected racing men was training a trotter of his own for a race…” It is important to note that the first six books prepare Nikolai’s transition from his war values into peace values. This also shows the strong connection between the entirely opposite concepts, and perhaps explores that the existence of one causes the other. But coming back to the importance of Nikolai’s character development, the pattern is evident in book seven during the scene of hunt and Christmas games. In the hunting scene, Nikolai is shown to develop a fascination for the land, and in the Christmas scene, for the first time ever, he decides to marry. The following sentence from book 9, chapter 12, page 1510, mentions his change, “The autumn in Otradnoe with the hunting, and the winter with the Christmas holidays and Sonya’s love, had opened out to him a vista of tranquil rural joys and peace such as he had never known before, and which now allured him.” This decision to marry has been visible in the metaphors used in the novel. In book 7, it is clear that despite the arrival of Christmas, the atmosphere is gloomy and sad, but things change on the third day of Christmas. This all can be seen as a precursor to the romantic meeting of Sonya and Nikolai in the upcoming chapter. It is important to note that this meeting marks a stark change in his character and this can be viewed in the light of an event changing the course of a character’s life as book 7, chapter 13, page 1246, mentions, “Firmly resolved, after putting his affairs in order in the regiment, to retire from the army and return and marry Sonya, Nicholas, serious, sorrowful, and at variance with his parents, but, as it seemed to him, passionately in love, left at the beginning of January to rejoin his regiment.”
Nikolai arrives at his first-ever win when he captures the young French Officer but rather than feeling good about it or feeling an air of victory; he feels “moral nausea” (book 9, chapter 15, page 1533). The cause for this can be traced back to book seven as his values were changed then during the hunting experience. The author reminds us of that by comparing war with the hunt and Nicholas in his soldier state with a huntsman by mentioning in book 9, chapter 15, pages 1529-, “Rostov, with his keen sportsman’s eye, was one of the first to catch sight of these blue French dragoons pursuing our Uhlans…He acted as he did when hunting, without reflecting or considering…With the same feeling with which he had galloped across the path of a wolf, Rostov gave rein to his Donets horse…” Now from this point ahead, the usage of comparing the French to the hurt animal and the Russians to the hunter becomes a recurrent theme in the novel such as stated in book 11, chapter 2, page 1941, “For five weeks after that there was not a single battle. The French did not move. As bleeding, mortally wounded animal licks its wounds, they remained inert in Moscow for five weeks, and then suddenly, with no fresh reason, fled back…” Hence, the events in Nikolai’s life are moved and shaped by his experiences in the past, and his feelings too are overshadowed by the working of the past. Similar to Nikolai, many other characters of this novel too face the same destiny of being moved by the events that have occurred, and their actions are shaped by the happenings in their life.
However, it must be pointed out that Tolstoy does not take a single stance on the debate under consideration of whether events shape character’s life as he mentions the complexity that lies in giving a distinct answer. It appears that the themes and the characters of this novel, such as Nikolai, indicate that human and living being’s behaviour is not merely dictated by the actions of the past. Instead, it is important to highlight that there are many reasons that lead to behavioural changes. By subtly communicating that “Great” people like Napoleon are not the supreme reasons that led to supreme happenings, but rather the happenings were a combination of environmental factors as well, including cultural, social and many other factors. Hence, the denial of “Great Man” theory in this novel sheds light in the belief that characters are more than the events and experiences that they endure as they actions that come as being attributed to them may not be only there doing as lots go behind an action that is undocumented. To respond to this quandary, the author Tolstoy also wrote a note to historians to improve on their work, but though this might not be directly related to the thematic discussion at hand, it is, however, interesting that he recognized the importance of historians and that in itself proves that he does believe in some sort of causation relationship, though a blind trust is not to be found.
So, conclusively it can be said that the theme of past events shaping people’s thoughts and lives is mentioned in both ways in the novel, both it is agreed upon, but at the same time it is discredited as well. This is the genius of the profound author Leo Tolstoy who managed to communicate the nuanced version of this debate in an understandable manner by fully mentioning the attached complexities of the theme at hand. It must be recognized that he is in no way discouraging humans from refraining from establishing such causal relationships but is, in essence, offering his view and conveying the nuances he thinks exist in dealing with such a complex theme.