Briggs: Kutuzov's natural good sense and total consistency.
Pevear and Volokhonsky: Defense of Kutuzov.
Translation:
V.
In the 12th and 13th years Kutuzov was blamed for all mistakes. The sovereign was displeased with him. And in history, written recently by the highest imperative, it is said that Kutuzov was a сunning court liar, afraid of the name of Napoleon and his own mistakes under Red and under the Berezina hardships the Russian troops fame — complete victory above the French.1006
Such is the fate of not great people, the not grand-homme, which do not recognize the Russian mind, but the fate of those rare, always lonely people, on which befalls the will of providence, subordinating it to their personal free will. Hatred and contempt of the crowd punishes these people for the insight of the higher laws.
For Russians historians (it is weird and fearful to say!) Napoleon, — this insignificant weapon of history, — never and nowhere, even in exile, showing human virtues,— Napoleon is the subject of admiration and delight; he is grand. Kutuzov, that same person, who from the beginning and to the end of his activities in the year 1812, from Borodino and to Vilna, not once by one action, or word changed himself, reveals an extraordinary in history example of selflessness and consciousness in the present future meanings of events, — Kutuzov presents to them something uncertain and miserable, and, talking about Kutuzov and the 12th year, they always are as if a little bit ashamed.
But between that it is difficult to represent to themselves the historical face, the activity of whom is so invariably and constantly directed to one and that same goal. It is difficult to imagine to themselves an objective more worthy and more coinciding with the will of only the people. It is still harder to find other examples in history, where an objective, which was placed to a historical face, was so completely achieved, as that objective, which to achieve was directed all the activity of Kutuzov in the 12th year.
Kutuzov never spoke about 40 centuries, which watching from the pyramids, about the victims that he would bring to the homeland, about what he found to commit or committed: he at all spoke nothing about himself, did not play any roles, seemed always a very simple and ordinary human and spoke the most simple and ordinary things. He wrote letters to his daughters and m-me Staël, was reading novels, loved the society of beautiful women, joked with generals, officers and soldiers and was never contradicted by those people that would like him to prove something. When Count Rastopchin at the Yauzsky bridge jumped up to Kutuzov with personal reproaches about who was to blame in the destruction of Moscow, and said: —"How again did you promise not to abandon Moscow, not giving battles?" — Kutuzov responded: "I did not leave Moscow without a battle," despite that Moscow was already abandoned. When the arrived to him from the sovereign Arakcheev said that it would be needed to appoint Ermolov as chief of the artillery, Kutuzov responded: "Yes, I myself only spoke this," — although he for a moment spoke really another. What business was it to him, alone understanding then all the huge meaning of events, among the stupid crowd surrounding him, what business was it to him, to himself or to Count Rastopchin carried off the calamity of the capital? Still less could it occupy him that who was appointed chief of the artillery.
Not only in these cases, but incessantly this old person, reaching the experience of life to beliefs that thoughts and words, serve their expression, not the crux engines of people, spoke words completely senseless, — the first that came to his head.
Yet this very person, so neglecting their own words, not once in all his activity said one word which was not according to his only purpose, to achieve which he was walking in the time throughout the war. Obviously, unwittingly, with heavy certainly, not understanding it, he repeatedly in the most diverse circumstances expressed his idea. Beginning from the Borodino battle, from which had begun his discord with the surrounding, he only spoke that the Borodino battle was a victory, and repeated this orally, and in reports, and in informing to his death. He only said that the loss of Moscow was not the loss of Russia. He in answer to Lauriston’s offers about peace responded that peace may not be because of how such is the will of the people; he only in the time fo the retreats of the French spoke that all our maneuvers were not needed, that all do themselves better than we wish, that the enemy needed to be given a golden bridge, that the Tarutinskaya, Vyazemsky, or Krasnensky (Red) battles were not needed, that from something was need to come to abroad, that for nine French he would not give back one Russian.
And he only, this court person, as we depict him, the person, who lied to Arakcheev with the purpose of pleasing the sovereign, — he only, this court person, at Vilna, by that deserving the disgrace of the sovereign, spoke that the further war abroad was harmful and useless.
Yet words alone would not prove that he so understands the matters of events. His actions — all without the slightest retreats, all directed to one and that same goal, consisted in three deeds: 1) strain all his forces for a confrontation with the French, 2) conquer them and 3) expel from Russia, facilitating, in how much was possible, the disasters of the people and troops.
He, that slow Kutuzov, whose motto was patience and time, gave the enemy a decisive action, he gave the Borodino battle, donning the preparation to it in unparalleled solemnity. He, that Kutuzov, which at the Austerlitz battle, before beginning it, spoke that it will be lost, at Borodino, despite the assurances of the generals that the battle was lost, despite the unheard of in history example of how after a won battle the army must go back, he only, against all, to his very death stated that the Borodino battle — was a victory. He only in all the time of the retreats insisted in that to not give battles that were now useless, not to begin a new war and not go over the boundary of Russia.
Now understanding the matters of events, if only not applying to the activities of the masses’ goals which were in the heads of ten people, easily, so as all events from it the consequences lie before us.
Yet in what way then this old person, one against the opinion of all, could guess so right in the matters of the popular sense of events that not once in all his activity it did not change?
This spring of extraordinary force of insights in the meaning of committed phenomena, lied in the folk feeling, which he carried in himself throughout his cleanliness and strength.
Only in the acknowledgement of this feeling made people in such strange ways disgrace the old man, chosen, against the commitment of the tsar, as a representative of the folk war. And only this feeling placed of his in that higher than human height, from which he, the commander in chief, directed all his forces not so to kill and exterminate people, but so that to save and pity them.
The simple, modest, and because of it truly majestic figure could not lie down in that lying uniform of the European hero, the imaginary manager of people, who thinks up history.
For the lackey there may not be a great human because of how a lackey is their concept about greatness.
1006
The history of the year 1812 by Bogdanovich: the characteristics of Kutuzov and reasoning about the unsatisfactory results of the Krasnensky battle.
Time: 1812
Mentioned: 1813, forty centuries
Locations: Krasnoe
Mentioned: Berezina, Russia (and Russian), French, Borodino, Vilna, Yauza Bridge, Moscow, Tarutino, Vyazma, Austerlitz
Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Tolstoy spends time talking about how contemporaries of Kutuzov saw him as incompetent or unfaithful.
"The hatred and contempt of the crowd punish these men for their insight into the higher law."
Tolstoy contrasts how Napoleon is viewed by Russian historians versus Kutuzov, who is mentioned in the context of embarrassment. The long description of how he acted with Rastopchin and Arakcheev reminds us of Bagration, who did not contradict what those lower ranked than him said, but merely agreed with them.
"this old man, who, through the experience of life, had reached the conviction that thoughts and the words which serve to express them are not what move people, spoke completely meaningless words--the first that came to his head."
"The source of this extraordinary power of penetration into the meaning of events taking place lay in that national feeling, which he bore within himself in all its purity and force."
"The simple, modest, and therefore truly majestic figure could not fit into that false form of the European hero, the imaginary ruler of the people, which history has invented. For a lackey there can be no great man, because a lackey has his own idea of greatness."
Characters (characters who do not appear, but are mentioned are placed in italics. First appearances are in Bold. First mentions are underlined. Final appearance denoted by *):
Kutuzof (also "old man", "deceitful courtier", and "general-in-chief".)
Alexander ("sovereign")
Napoleon
Madame Stahl
Count Rostopchin
Arakcheyef
Yermolof
Lauriston
(also Russian historians, pretty women, generals, officers, and soldiers.)
Abridged Versions: Line break rather than chapter break in Bell.
Gibian: end of Chapter 2.
Fuller: Entire chapter is cut.
Komroff: Entire chapter is cut.
Kropotkin: A lot of the discussions about historians, as well as the comparison between Kutuzof and Napoleon is removed. End of chapter 3.
Simmons: some of the information about Russian historians' view of Kutuzov is removed, as is the discussion of his episodes with Rostopchin, Arakcheev, and Lauriston. End of Chapter 2.
Additional Notes: Tolstoy note: "Bogdanovich's "History of the Year 1812": The characterization of Kutuzov, and the reflections on the unsatisfactory results of the battles at Krasnoe."
No comments:
Post a Comment