There is a clear significance to Anna Pavlovna getting the first words of the book and that speech being about Napoleon, but there is also a significance of French being the first spoken language in the book. This is traditionally understood as the court being out of touch, a one-percenter mentality that has broken them off with their home, separating them from their Mother Russia and the peasants that are so important in the progress of events of the novel (at least in the abstract and in the climax of the novel). Tolstoy has them not only speaking in French, but thinking in it, referring to them as “our grandparents” (as the note in Garnett’s version says, Russian nobility still used French until the Russian Revolution). In doing this, as well as having Pavlovna refer to Napoleon as the Anti-Christ immediately, but again in French, Tolstoy shows both patriotism (a little more on the opposing views of the two characters of the chapter below) in these characters, as well as disconnect. Tolstoy vacillates between using the French and Russian in this conversation and others not only for (probably) readability for his Russian audience, but to show that the disconnect is there, but perhaps not complete. Instead of being for the French, they appear, especially Pavlovna, and the evolution of the Russian court during the latter war is important to note in sections later in the novel, to be against the French, but in some weird way, more European (and thus, for Tolstoy, Dostoevsky, and others, 18th-19th century modernism separating itself from the Christian religion) than any Russian should be. At a Russian party, wealthy Russians and French emigres discuss European politics in a way that, as we’ll see with Pavlovna, pits two “great men,” Czar Alexander (using Pavlovna’s words, "the Savior") and Napoleon Bonaparte (the "Anti-Christ"), against each other.
Prince Vassily is the first to arrive to the party for reasons we see later in the chapter and has the first words of book spoken to him. His first words of the book is to use God in a way that might colloquially be called “vain” and refer to Pavlovna’s words as “virulent” (literal French translation, “fierce” or “vicious” work just as well, with some translations using “savage”). Later on in the chapter, he suggests that they should send Pavlovna to the front lines to lead the troops into battle in a way that feels overly-complimentary (an alternative reading is referred to below). This conversation goes from politics to information more directly relevant to the party, and back again a couple of times. Tolstoy explicitly lays out when the political and social conversations supposedly end and the “heart-to-heart” begins (which of course it doesn’t, as it is still about social setups, perhaps the point being that there cannot be authentic conversations in this context as Pierre's attempt at a dissenting opinion at this party will later demonstrate) in what you might consider the second half of the chapter, where we move more to Vassily’s concerns and away from Pavlovna’s.
Anna Pavlovna, or Annette Scherer as she is also called, is a 40-year-old unmarried woman, always animated, enthusiastic, who does not feel that she needs to correct herself. According to the text, she is like a spoiled child in this way. She stands for patriotism, not only calling the Czar a savior, but saying Russia needs to save Europe. We see her equate Napoleon with the French Revolution, an idea that puts her in contrast with the ending of the book with Pierre and Natasha’s optimistic view leading into the Decembrist revolt and fitting in more with Rostov’s views at the end of the novel (more on that later), which for a modern reader, could operate as an alienating reference. She considers England as commercial, a country that does not understand the soul, which again seems to highlight the clear contradiction of her fiery religious patriotism and her reliance on specific agents being the prime movers of history.
Tolstoy immediately sets up Vassily as patronizing, insincere, like a wound-up clock or “like an actor in an old play.” In the Bromfield version, his speaking style is described “as though the words were not the product of his reason, not spoken from the mind or heart, but by rote, with his lips alone.” At the heart of his character is insincerity, perhaps one of the greatest sins a person could have according to Tolstoy, especially in the context of his essay on Shakespeare, in which he says, “Without this condition there can be no work of art” (considering Tolstoy’s rather objective style of literary criticism and moralism, it is no big leap to say that Tolstoy also means that sincerity as a person would be necessary to be a “moral person”). Vassily casually tries to get his son appointed to a post by talking negatively about Baron Funke, which pains Pavlovna as a societal misstep in the same way Pierre’s mistakes (though much more sincere) starting in the next chapter will. The first mention of the name of one of his kids is Anatole, who is not liked by Pavlona and the first real bit of emotion by Vassily is described as “disagreeable” and is about his sons. His kids, by both himself and by Pavlona in some way, are seen as a burden for him; he is “fettered” by them. In Bromfield’s version, Vassily says “Ah yes, if only one could choose to have them or not at will...I am certain that in our time such an invention will be made.’ Anna Pavlovna did not much like the idea of such an invention.” In some way, especially taking into account Tolstoy’s love for naturalism and children (he had 14), this is a very obvious defining differentiation between the two characters. Pavlovna’s religiosity and Vasily’s irreligiosity are on full display.
However, as much as they are different, they are also of the same circles and use the same kind of social morality, demonstrated clearly by their view of marriage as a social contract, as a means of calming down a man or woman. Money and the cost of Anatole makes Vassily melancholy, so the two of them begin to scheme to get him to marry Princess Bolkonsky, which will cure (they hope) both problems, as she is very rich (or her father is) and the marriage could domesticate Anatole. Vassily is not stupid, or at least, he has a “quickness of grasp and memory characteristic of society people” (Dole suggests this is about Anna Pavlovna, but seems redundant considering Tolstoy has already shown her thinking quickly on her feet to redirect a conversation twice already in the chapter).
Bromfield’s version gives us a little more about both characters, telling us that Pavlovna is “not good-looking” but her smile and enthusiasm makes her, according to other people, “interesting.” People considered her “sweet, good-hearted,” a “patriot who...took things to extremes, but was lovable…” Vassily appears here as a slightly different character, calling Pavlovna “bloodthirsty” and is condescending to her opinions in this version, not seeing her political opinions as worthwhile (even “teasing” her). In the later more received versions, Vassily is transformed to someone more languid, more apathetic, or at least someone who is more selfish in his considerations in a way that would prevent him from even considering having such condescension to someone he needs or plans to use.
No matter what version or translation you find yourself reading, in this conversation, we see Tolstoy clearing laying out how these people do not act sincere and rather, put on a falsity of emotion. Vassily means little of what he says and is described using language that barely considers him human, likening him more to a machine or a trinket, a single-minded and uncomplicated flat character being categorically fashioned as a character without real “humanness” in a place that doesn’t seem to value “humanness” (which should make us cast our doubt on Pavlovna and her contradictory attitudes).
A modern reader might be surprised by Tolstoy’s insistence in making these character details and asides so definite and distinct in a way that is rather glaring and may seem contradictory in a novel that wants to capture the complications of humanity. Does he need to tell us Vassily’s motivations or to tell us that he is being insincere? Can’t he let the reader ferret this out themselves? I think this demonstrates two important points to keep in mind when looking at War and Peace or any other Tolstoy work. First, Tolstoy is a maximalist writer. As the sheer weight and word count of a copy of War and Peace proves, Tolstoy sweats the small stuff and cares about details. He (contrary to the school of someone like Ernest Hemingway) believes every extra detail and every piece of information possible immerses (or “infects,” as he would say) the reader and to tell a story like War and Peace, you need every piece possible. Secondly and more important to Tolstoy, is clear character motivation and definition. He wants (again as his essay on Shakespeare shows) his audience to know his characters, know who they are, and why they do what they do. In the first chapter of War and Peace, not only are Pavlovna and Vassily defined, but Russia and Napoleon are also defined and from the very first chapter we see why what happens in War and Peace is what has to happen because as Tolstoy will show us, history is not driven by the actions of certain “great” individuals, but by the complex, ignorant, and collective actions and motivations of whole people.
No comments:
Post a Comment