War and Peace by Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy - Research Paper Example

number 2 May What is the relationship between the realist historical novel as a form War and Peace as example and major event revolutionary social change? Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy primarily authored short stories and novels. War and Peace won him widespread acclamation and is deemed to be one of the influential novels of all times. After experiencing mystical awakening during the 1870s, he also became a renowned social reformer and principled sage. He is counted amongst the top-notch novelists and his notions regarding peaceful resistance expressed in ‘The Kingdom of God is within You’ greatly impressed imperative figures like Mohandas Gandhi and Martin Luther King (Briggs). War and Peace is ranked as one the best literary works because it revolves around realist fiction; thereby readers can relate to the content. With regard to this novel, his personal comment was “not a novel, even less is it a poem, and still less a historical chronicle” (Tolstoy). The novel offers brilliant pragmatic depiction of the French invasion of Russian and the consequences of the Napoleonic era on the Tsarist regime as witnessed by five aristocratic families. The content of the novel reflects detailed historical research and the influence of other works on Tolstoy. Being a veteran of the Crimean War, he condemns conventional history, in particular the norms of military history throughout the novel. He assimilated knowledge from reading Russian and French literary works with regard to Napoleonic Wars. Although, the story is set almost six decades before Tolstoy inscribed it yet it is even relatable to this day. He utilized letters, journal, autobiographical accounts, and biographical material that shed light on Napoleon and other historical figures (Emerson). In addition, he consulted the survivors of the French invasion of Russian in 1812; thus, we can conclude that this novel depicts a precise ethnography in fictional terms. What makes War and Peace a remarkable success is not that its characters are concerned about God, death or countries but because they concoct unusual words. The subject matter of the novel is not flamboyance but simply ‘chance’. This is what exalts Tolstoy as one of the most brilliant miniaturist in literary history. To sum it all up, to present fictionalized ethnography requires a deep comprehension of history. This comprehension of theoretical knowledge serves to combine the abundant material and is the true subject matter of this novel. He is of the view that actions can be categorized into two branches, namely actions that are determined by individual conscious, will power and those that are dependent on other factors. He advocates that freedom is limited in the historical process. The actions of the apparent makers of history actually rest upon the actions of innumerable other people who compose a society; thus, action of leaders is predetermined. The aforementioned point appears quite sensible in the light of current circumstances. Democracy is fundamentally based on the perceptions of the majority of the population. The elected leaders operate within the broad parameters established by societal norms. If we take a look at the war against terror in the modern era, we will realise that it was not triggered by a handful of international presidents. In fact, those leaders were only acting in accordance with the perspective of the majority of the population. Similarly, if we review history, we will encounter plenty of events that illustrate the above principal. The twentieth century witnessed fundamental transformation in the lifestyles of people, because of changes in political, ideological, economic, cultural, scientific, medical, and technological domains. Unfortunately, in today’s world, words such as genocide, world war, nuclear arms have become daily words. World Wars will help us in delineating Tolstoy’s point of view. The actions of Nazi Germany were largely driven not only by Hitler, but also in reality by the German population. Hitler could have never invaded countries and led massacres without the help of his massive armies. On the other hand, England and France would not have entered the war to protect other countries if the public did not dispute with Hitler’s policies. Every raindrop is essential for forming a sea. Likewise, every person in a society serves as its pillars. A noteworthy development over the centuries is that the general people have gained more power as opposed to medieval times and are no longer subject to monarchical rule. The same conditions applied at the time that Tolstoy has portrayed. Back then, leaders were in a better position to impose their decisions but people today can also relate to the so-called fictional plot of Tolstoy’s novel (Feuer). Moreover, going back to the medieval times, social change was viewed with negativity. Social order was considered a pre-requisite, not open for negotiation. The conception of social change was disapproved, opposed. The kings, religious organizations, customs, and authorities had deeply embedded these norms in the minds of the normal population. Therefore, people continued to live under monarchical rule until the desire for freedom established on an individual scale. One can see how the tremendous cultural pressure during the Renaissance, religious reformation and the enlightenment ages triggered changes in the social structures. The concord amongst infinite amount of people equipped them with enough power as to defy unilateral customary monarchs and drove the movement for a social change. This example demonstrates how individuals on a small scale can overturn the thrones of the powerful, and how they determine history. Furthermore, Tolstoy links characters like Tushin or Karatev to eminent and critical historical events. He takes into account the aggregate of their individual actions. He is a proponent of the conception that illustrious people like Hitler or Napoleon shaped history. Tolstoy’s plot revolves around not only the actions of fictional characters but extends to historical ones as well. He holds that instead of contemplating over the records of eminent men in history, attention should be directed towards the amalgamation of a substantial amount of infinitesimally minute activities. He termed this notion as “the differential of history” which in his eyes enables one to comprehend history. Russia and China were two of the largest countries in the world and both comprised of socialist economies. For centuries, the Russian people lived harmoniously but after the defeat of Russian at the hands of Afghanis, unrest and economic crisis rose to peak. Consequently, the general population united in an attempt to compel the government to divide Russia. Despite being the largest country, it had to submit to the will of people in 1990. This exhibits that power lies in the hands of people; they define history instead of prominent presidents who in reality are their puppets. Likewise, Chinas economic growth accelerated at the fastest rate during the twentieth century but people starting becoming aware of the flaws in the socialist structure. Ultimately, the rulers had to give in. He reckons that although a man’s life is based on conscious yet he unconsciously serves as a vehicle to realise historical as well as universal goals of humankind. In his conviction, a deed when performed becomes irrevocable, and if its outcomes correspond with the actions of other at that point in time, then a historical event occurs. He views the historical figures as mere labels, used to assign names to events. Like labels, they enjoy little association with the event. He opposes the practice of historians who attribute historical occurrences to particular individuals labelled as great men and assigned heroic traits. He accentuated that history should not be confused with science; no systematic or logical laws exist in history. He is of the opinion that attempting to delineate people or historical events through technical reasons or genius are futile. As opposed to this, he holds that a natural law governs and regulates our lives like other processes of nature. He insists that our actions are led by inexorable determinism. Tolstoy belittles the historical reputations enjoyed by those believed to have a bearing on history. He contends that in reality, events are out of active control and his fictional characters are also subject to the same condition. Tolstoy’s extremely real, well-formed and immensely fundamental characters appear to be deluded by one fallacy that they are the masters of their own fate. However chance, accidents, luck with women or resolutions imposed upon them actually influence critical occurrences in the lives of Sonya, Nicholas, Natasha, Princess Mary, Prince Andrew and many others. Several real life illustrations conform to his theory. Nonetheless, he avoids debating over this hypothesis, which is one of the factors that this theory was not widely considered. Another striking point is how Tolstoy accentuates the importance of chance rather than control over our actions. In his perspective, the actions of an individual are based more on fortune than independent will. Combining these actions would result in determination of events. The worldview of scientists was drastically altered by the scientific discoveries of things such as theory of relativity or quantum physics. This proved that the universe was far more byzantine than the previously held belief. Escalating scientific knowledge, more effective and rampant channels of communications and swift transport system revolutionized the world. Mankind advanced tremendously during the previous century, in contrary to any other century. The twentieth century began simply with animals or basic automobiles but concluded with the inventions of airlines, space rockets, sedans and the like. Humans even became capable enough to reach the Moon. Mass media, communication lines, and especially information technology spread knowledge in every corner of the world. The world has now organized into one culturally homogenised unit with the advancements in technology and establishment of transnational businesses. The world has truly developed into a global economy transcending national and social barriers. Here is the important question: who could have ever imagined, conceptualized, and envisaged such a world in the beginning of this century? Which scientist could have been sure that his experiment and research will ensue in a magnificent invention? Who could have envisioned that a message from the farthest corner of the Earth could be received in the blink of an eye? Did not aeroplanes or mechanical birds in the sky seem idiotic in the beginning of the century? Who could have thought that the heart of an individual could be transplanted in another? Were not these astounding accomplishments all a matter of chance? Tolstoy’s stance is undeniably correct for no knows the outcome of their actions. Sometimes the probability of failure holds despite giving something your best shot. The Greeks and many of our ancestral civilizations possessed the same amount of genius and intellect but they were simply not destined to progress like scientists during the previous century. Another example to elucidate this concept is World War II. Initially Germany did not predict retaliation from the French or the Americans. They were triumphantly progressing for the major part of the war. However, was not it merely fate and an accident that America joined the Allied forces? Was not it an accidental adversity when the relentless Nazi army was overwhelmed by the harsh Russian winters? If outcome was only dependent on will power, then the Nazi aim should have undoubtedly borne the palm of victory because of their devotion to Hitler. However, reality proved otherwise. Similarly, the smaller countries such as Poland had no hope against the advanced and organized Nazi military but in the end, by chance they were saved. Similarly, British and French colonies had been combating since decades and even for more than a century to attain freedom. For instance, Subcontinent was colonized by the British Empire during eighteenth century. The Hindus, Muslims, Sikhs had persistently waged battles against the British rulers but in vain. . Surprisingly, they enormously outnumbered the British rulers; and tried every tactic, from warfare to negotiations but failed to attain freedom. At the end of World War II, Britain was afflicted with countless social and economic plights. Finally, after more than two centuries, it declared its departure from British India. Again, this example corresponds to Tolstoy’s hypothesis of chance, fate, and accidental luck. The aspect of chance is of paramount importance. The greatest religions of today that constitute the underlying reasons for wars also advocate a similar perception. Several religions and beliefs emphasize that God controls destiny of individuals. This conception gives birth to chance, accidents, and unexpected events. It is astounding how in the age of technology and scientific reasoning, wars are being waged on such chances of victory. Taliban have been persistently fighting since 11 years against the world’s most technologically advance, massive and well-equipped rival. Their hope for victory motivates them to go on. Tolstoy’s magnificent portrayal of the battle scenes and of figures makes it clear that he had first-hand knowledge of war. His depiction of Petya Rostov, a young boy longing for glory, distributing raisins to his comrades and dead the next moment is extraordinarily marvellous and rouses pity. After the conclusion of the World Wars, Vietnam War, it was observed that the soldiers who had psychically participated were never the same. This can be attributed to scenarios similar to Tolstoy’s novel. Watching a comrade full of life and robust one moment, and lying in a pool of blood and lifeless the next, distorts ones personality. After witnessing and participating in the horrors of war, majority of people never return with the same state of mind (Gat). This in turn triggers a social change. For instance, after World War a tremendous number of returning soldiers ended in divorces and suffered psychological trauma. Vom Kriege authored by Carl von Clausewitz, a Prussian general is deemed as a controversial work yet an influential book for strategic thinking at the same time. Three fundamental concepts have been presented in this book. He writes, “War is not merely a political act, but also a real political instrument, a continuation of political commerce, a carrying out of the same by other means.” This conviction holds weight since the chronicles of history are filled with examples of war, primarily driven more for commercial profitability than ideology. The recent war on Iraq is a prime illustration. Likewise, colonization and the industrial revolution correspond. Thereby, it can be construed that back then the countries, which were progressing required more resources to fuel their developing industries. Secondly, he offers a classification of military aims in a war, those in turn back political goals. War can either be fought to achieve limited aims or for disarmament of a rival to render him politically helpless or militarily impotent.” The current debate under deliberation in the United Nations regarding the nuclear disarmament of Iran seems to correspond to this principal. After the drastic repercussions of the nuclear bomb in Hiroshima, the United Nations was established with the crucial responsibility of preventing such a re-occurrence. The war against Vietnam in 1973 was also initiated for the same reason. Lastly, he advocates that the war will be favourable for the party driven by better ideological and political purposes. What makes this theory stand out and appear rather unusual is the concept of the defender being in a more favourable position? This theory perplexes and leaves one speechless when you analyse Nazi Army. They initiated the war and advocated violent and belligerent warfare. On the other hands, Hitler did have a political ideology. Thus, this theory offers less help and rouses more confusion (Clausewitz). It is worth remembering that writers are humans; therefore, no matter how fictional a story but the plot and characters are always inspired from reality. Similarly, times might have evolved but history repeats itself. Works Cited Briggs, Anthony. "Introduction" to War and Peace. London: Penguin Classics, 2005. Clausewitz, Carl von. On War translated by J. J. Graham. Wiley: New York, 2009. Emerson, Caryl. "The Tolstoy Connection in Bakhtin." PMLA 100 (1) (1985): 68–80. Feuer, Kathryn B. Tolstoy and the Genesis of "War and Peace". Cornell University Press, 2008. Gat, Azar. A History of Military Thought: From the Enlightenment to the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press, 2001. Tolstoy, Leo. War and Peace. London: NTC Publishing Company, 1997. Read More