Book 3 Part 1 Chapter 1 (Chapter 165 overall)

Chapter Summaries: Dole: The alleged causes of the war of 1812. Theory of Fatalism. Co-operation of causes. Personal freedom and necessity. Emperors subordinated to laws. The complexity of causes. "Great Men." Napoleon.
Briggs: The events of 1812, despite the 'planning', were unforeseen and fortuitous.
Maude: The year 1812. Rulers and generals are 'history's slaves'" Pevear and Volokhonsky: Thoughts about the causes of historical events.

Translation:

Volume the third Part the first. I. With the end of the year 1811 started the enhanced armament and concentration of the forces of Western Europe, and in the year 1812 these forces — millions of people (considering those that transported and fed the army), moved from West to East, to the borders of Russia, to which exactly so the same from the year 1811 pulled together the forces of Russia. On the twelfth of June the forces of Western Europe got over the border of Russia, and began the war, i.e. subjected a disgusting to the human mind and all of human nature event. Millions of people committed against each other such a countless number of atrocities, deceptions, treasons, thefts, counterfeiting and issuing false banknotes, robberies, arsons and murders, which in whole centuries were not collected in the chronicle of all the courts of the world, and in which, at this period of time, the people committing them did not look at as crimes. What made this extraordinary event? What were the causes of it? Historians with naive certainty speak that the reasons for these events were the hurt inflicted on duke Oldenburg, the noncompliance of the continental system, the lust for power of Napoleon, the hardness of Aleksandr, the mistakes of diplomats and so on. Therefore the cost of only Metternich, Rumyantsev or Talleyrand, between exit and reception, very well trying to write a more searching piece of paper, or Napoleon writing to Aleksandr: Sire, my brother, I agree to return the Duchy of Oldenburg to the duke562 — and war would not be. Understand how so presented the business to contemporaries. Understand that to Napoleon it seemed that the cause of war was the intrigue of England (as he spoke this on the island of St. Elen); understand that to the members of the English chambers it seemed that the cause of war was the lust for power of Napoleon; that to the prince of Oldenburg it seemed that the cause of war was a perfect force against him; that to the merchants it seemed that the cause of war was the continental system, ravaging Europe, that to the old soldiers and generals it seemed that the main cause was the miserable consuming of their business; to the legitimists of that time that it was necessary to restore good principles,563 but to the diplomats of that time that all happened from how the union of Russia with Austria in the year 1809 was not skillfully hidden enough from Napoleon, and how awkwardly was written the memorandum for № 178. Understand that these and still a countless, endless number of reasons, a number which depends on countless differences in points of view, were presented to contemporaries; but for us — the descendants, contemplating to all its volume the immensity of accomplished events and delving into them searched their terrible meaning, these causes present as insufficient. For us it is unclear that millions of Christian people killed and tortured each other because of how Napoleon was lusting for power, Aleksandr was hard, the politics of England were sly, and the duke of Oldenburg was offended. It cannot be understood by who have recognized these circumstances with the very fact of killings and violence; why owing to how the duke was offended, thousands of people from other edges of Europe were killed and the people of Smolensk and the Moscow provinces were ravaged, and were killed by them. For us — descendants, not historians, not passionate about the process of research, and because with unshadowed common sense we contemplate the event, its causes present an incalculable quantity. The more we go deeper into the research of reasons, by that the more we open them, and any separately taken cause or whole row of reasons present us as equally fair by themselves, and equally false by their insignificance in comparison with the enormity of the events, and equally false by their invalidity (without participation of all other coincided reasons) to produce the accomplished event. Such the same the cause, as the failure of Napoleon to take his troops somewhere behind the Vistula and give back the Duchy of Oldenburg, present us as the wish or unwillingness of the first French сorporal to do secondary service: for, if he would not have wanted to go into service and would another and the third and the thousandth corporal and soldier have not wanted to, so many less people would be in the troops of Napoleon, and the war could not be. If Napoleon would not have been offended by the demand to retreat behind the Vistula and had not told to advance troops, there would not be war; but if all sergeants would not have wished to do secondary service, war also would not be. There could also not be war, if there was not the intrigue of England and there was not the Prince of Oldenburg, and the feeling of insults to Alexander, and there were not autocratic authorities in Russia, and there was not the French revolution and the ensuing dictatorship and empire, and only what made the French revolution, and so onwards. Without one of these reasons nothing could be. It has become, that all the causes — billions of reasons — coincided so to produce that what was. And therefore nothing was the exceptional cause of the event, but the event must have taken place only because of how it must have taken place. There must have been millions of people, renouncing their human feeling and their intelligence, going from East to West and killing those similar to themselves, exactly so the same as a few centuries to that backwards with East to West went a crowd of people, killing those similar to themselves. The actions of Napoleon and Aleksandr, from whose words it depended on, it seemed, so that the event was subjected or not subjected — were so the same a little arbitrary, as the action of each soldier, walking on a trip by lot or by set. This could not be otherwise because of how if the will of Napoleon and Aleksandr (those people, from whom, it seemed, the event depended on) was executed, necessary were coincidences of countless circumstances, without one of which the event could not have taken place. It was necessary so that millions of people, in the hands of which was real power, soldiers, that fired, carried provisions and guns, were needed, so that they agreed to perform this free will of single and weak people, and were given to these countless quantities of complex, diverse reasons. Fatalism in history is inevitable for explanations of unreasonable phenomena (that is those which the intelligence of we do not understand). The more we try to reasonably explain these phenomena in history, by that they become for us unreasonable and incomprehensible. Every person lives for themselves, enjoys freedom for achieving their personal goals and feels to all their essence that they may now do or not do such an action; but as soon as they do it, so this action, perfect in a known moment of time, becomes irreversible and is made the property of history, in which it is not spared, but predetermined matters. There are two parts of life in each man: the life of the personal, which by that is more free, the more abstract its interests, and the life of the spontaneous swarm, where a person inevitably carries out prescribed for him laws. A person consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious weapon for achieving historical, universal goals. The absolute act is irrecoverable, and his action, coinciding in time with millions of actions of other people, gets historical matter. The higher worth a person is in the public stairs, with big people he is bound, by that more authority he has to other people, by that is the obvious predestination and inevitability of each of his acts. "The heart of the tsar is in the hands of God." The tsar — the slave of history. History, i.e. the unconscious, common, swarm life of humanity, every minute of the life of the tsar enjoys for itself, as for its goals. ————— Napoleon, despite that, how to him more than anyone, now, in the year 1812, it seemed, that from him depended on to spill or not spill the blood of his peoples564 (as in the last letter he wrote to Aleksandr) never more as now was he subject by those inevitable laws which forced him (an act in regarding himself, as to him it seemed, by arbitrariness) to do for common affairs, of history that what must have taken place. The people of the West moved to the East so that to kill each other. And by the law of coincidences reasons faked themselves and coincided with this event a thousand small reasons for these movements and for war: the reproach for the noncompliance of the continental system, and the duke of Oldenburg, and moving troops into Prussia, undertaken (as it seemed to Napoleon) only so that to reach an armed peace, and the love and habit of the French emperor to war, coincident with the location of his people, the enthusiasm and grandeur of preparations, and the expenditures of preparing, and the need of the acquisitions of these benefits which would have paid off these expenditures, and the intoxicated honors at Dresden, and the diplomatic talks which, by the look of contemporaries, were conducted with the sincere desire of achieving peace that only hurt the pride of different parties, and millions and millions of other reasons, forged below the having taken place event, coinciding with it. When a ripe apple falls, — from what does it fall? Whether it is because of how it is attracted to land, whether it is because of how it dries up to a kernel, whether it is because of how drying in the sun, it gets heavier, that the wind shakes it, whether it is because of how a standing below it boy wants to eat it? Nothing causes it. All these are only coincidences of those conditions which are committed in all vital, organic, elemental events. And that botanist, which finds out that the apple falls because of how the fiber decomposes and to the like of that, will so the same be right, as that child, standing below it, who will say that the apple fell from how he wanted to eat it and that he prayed about this. So the same right and not right will be that who will say that Napoleon went into Moscow because of how he wanted this, and perished because of how Aleksandr wanted his destruction: as right and not right will be that who will say that the collapsed million pood of dug mountain fell because of how the last worker stroked below it a last time with a pick. In historical events so called great people are the crux of labels, giving names to an event that so the same as labels, only having less communication with the very event. Each of their actions, seeming to them arbitrary for themselves, in the historical sense involuntarily, but located in the communication with all underway history and defined eternally. 562 Monsieur, mon frère, je consens à rendre le duché au duc d'Oldenbourg (Sir, my brother, I consent to return the duchy to the Duke of Oldenburg) 563 les bons principes, (good principles,) 564 verser or not verser le sang de ses peuples (shed or not shed the blood of its peoples)
Time: end of the year 1811, 1812, 12th of June, 1809

Locations: Western Europe, West, East, boundaries (borders in Pevear and Volokhonsky. frontier(s) in Maude, Dunnigan, and Briggs.) of Russia, Russia (and Russian), Oldenberg (Oldenbourg in the French.), St. Helena, England (and English), Europe, Austria, Smolensk, Moscow, Vistula, French, Dresden

Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Start of Volume 3

End of 1811 and start of 1812 with expository background: “millions of men (including those who transported and fed the army)--moved from west to east, to the borders of Russia, towards which, since the year 1811, the
forces of Russia had been drawn in exactly the same way.”

“The war began--that is, an event took place contrary to human reason and to the whole of human nature..at that period of time, the people who committed them did not look upon as crimes.”  

In some ways this is the start of the abstract narration, but to me, this seems to be just an extenuation of what has been the author style thus far. One of the interesting aspects of the essay/chapter is the “now” (that is,
when Tolstoy was writing) detachment of events, the self-awareness it has about talking about past events, the historical irony which Tolstoy flips on its head, saying that these are the reasons people believed the war
began, while in a Sermon on the Mount-esque way, saying that what people have heard and said is actually not right, listing the many reasons people, including those contemporary to the events (“understandably” he
says) put for the reasons of the war, but dismissing them.

“But for us, the descendants, who contemplate the enormity of the event in all its scope and delve into its simple and terrible meanings, these causes seem insufficient. For us it is not understandable that millions of
Christians killed and tortured each other because…(list of reasons)”.

“For us descendants--who are not historians...The willingness or unwillingness of one French corporal to enlist for a second tour of duty appears to us as good a cause as Napoleon’s refusal to withdraw his army
beyond the Vistula and give back the duchy of Oldenburg; for if he had been unwilling to serve, and another had been unwilling, and a third, and a thousandth corporal and soldier, there would have been so many less
men in Napoleon’s army, and there could have been no war.”

“Without any one of these causes, nothing could have happened. Therefore, all these causes--billions of causes--coincided so as to bring about what happened...but the event had to take place simply because it had
to take place.”

“It was necessary that millions of men, in whose hands the actual power lay, the soldiers who shot, transported provisions and cannon--it was necessary that they agree to fulfill this will of isolated and weak men and
be brought to that by a countless number of complex, diverse causes. Fatalism in history is inevitable for the explanation of senseless phenomena”.

Andrei split Napoleon into two sides early in the novel. Here we have “There are two sides to each man’s llife: his personal life...and his elemental, swarmlike life..”

“Kings are the slaves of history.”

Line break after “every moment of a king’s life as an instrument for its purposes.” Now we flip to Napoleon, who has the laws of history Tolstoy sets down prescribed to him.

“When an apple ripens and falls--what makes it fall?” Is it that it is attracted to the ground, is it that the stem withers, is it that the sun has dried it up, that it has grown heavier, that the wind shakes it, that the boy
standing underneath wants to eat it? Not one thing is the cause.”

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 *):

The Duke of Oldenbourg (Dole, also calling him Prince, uses this alternative spelling. Garnett, Edmonds, and Maude do not.)

Napoleon (also “French Emperor”)

Alexander

Metternich (Dunnigan replaces the reference to him with Napoleon)

Rumyantsef (formerly “Rumyantsof” in Dole)

Talleyrand

(historians and diplomatists, as well as different generals, veterans, and legitimists just as a whole are also mentioned. Importantly there is also the theoretical “single French corporal”, the boy who wants
the apple, and the botanist.)

Abridged Versions: Start of Book 3 in Dunnigan, Edmonds, and Mandelker.

Start of Volume 3 in Briggs and Dole.

Start of Book 9 in Maude. Start of Part 9 in Garnett.

Start of Volume 3 and Part the Ninth in Wiener, Volume 7 in his works of Tolstoy.

Start of Volume II of The Invasion 1807-1812 in Bell (note that Google calls this Part 2 of Volume 2).

Line break in Dole after “the accomplishment of its own ends.” Line break in the same place in Maude, Dunnigan, Mandelker, Briggs, Wiener, and Edmonds.
Gibian: Start of Book 9. 1812 Dates of Principal Historical Events
Old Style New Style
May 17 May 29 Napoleon leaves Dresden.
June 12 June 24 Napoleon crosses the Niemen and enters Russia.
June 14 June 26 Alexander sends Balashev to Napoleon.
July 13 July 25 The Pavlograd hussars in action at Ostrovna.
Chapter 1.

Fuller: Start of Part 7. The chapter is reduced to one paragraph, ending after “the war began”.

Komroff: Entire chapter is cut.

Kropotkin: Start of 1812 Part Ninth: “Growing ever bolder, the Tsar Alexander rejects the “Continental System,” by which trade with England was forbidden; but, still fearful of Napoleon’s power, tries to avoid war.
It is too late; by the spring of 1812 Napoleon has advanced a huge army into the Duchy of Warsaw. Confident of success in any cause of arms, and made more so by the signs of weakness revealed when the
Tsar’s government offers concession after concession to the French, Napoleon invades Russia late in June.”

Some of the historical background and reasons rejected are removed and then everything after the line break is removed besides the final paragraph.

Bromfield: As we start Part Six in Bromfield, the closest chapter to this chapter in Bromfield is chapter 3. That chapter opens with a short letter from Napoleon to Alexander and then Alexander to Napoleon. The
chapter is worked out a little bit differently and the analogies are different, including the idea of a hill weighing “millions of poods” falling because a man named Ivan dug under it. “Napoleon did not bring Europe
into Russia, it was the people of Europe who brought him them and made him lead them.” The “zoological law of bees” is discussed, as is Attila leading his hordes from the east to the west. Bismark is also
discussed, “all of Bismarck’s cleverness was only fitted to a historical event that inevitably had to happen.” Tolstoy compares placing meaning to historical events to a dream and a fox tricking a dog with its tail.
Solomon is explicitly referenced for “the king’s heart is in God’s hand.”

Chapter 1 in Bromfield follows Andrei in Turkey (like chapter 8 below), but he doesn’t have the motivation of wanting to duel Kuragin. I like this parenthetical after discussing his relationship with those below him
“Nothing provokes disdain like inequality and its reverse, firmness.” There is also a discussion of how soldiers are people that you will never meet again. Andrei is actually happy, and has an episode with some
villagers, including a gypsy girl who makes him weep. He decides to leave the army and ask Natasha to marry him. However, Napoleon has crossed in to Russia and he is not allowed to resign.

Chapter 2 corresponds to Natasha’s religious actions, but this plays out differently, as Natasha writes a letter to Andrie, asking to be forgiven and sees a Father Anisim to receive communion and confession. This
lifts up her spirits. The chapter now flips to Pierre and his conversations with Natasha, in which Sonya helps to intercede. Pierre also has a visit with Andrei in which Andrei gives him the portrait of Natasha and
the letters and they have the discussion about Anatole. Andrei also talks a little about his father and sister.
Simmons: 1812 Book Nine Chapter 1: The chapter is shortened, with the second half removed almost entirely, removing the kings are the slaves of history portion.

Additional Notes:

Maude: “In December 1810, Tsar Alexander allowed neutral shipping (particularly British vessels sailing under American flags) to enter Russian ports and simultaneously imposed levies on French goods. Both
Great Britain and Prussia actively supported Alexander’s actions, prompting Napoleon to seek ways to isolate Russia diplomatically.” The American flag fact is particularly amazing, as Britain would of course be
at war with America in 1812. As in the Gibian notes: “These Orders occasioned much inconvenience to neutral nations and, together with the intrigues conducted by Napoleon, led to the war between England
and the United States of America in 1812-1814.”

Garnett on No. 178: “In 1809 Napoleon’s foreign minister advised him in a memorandum against forming an alliance with Russia.”

“Some centuries before hordes of men had moved from east to west to slaughter their fellows: This is a reference to the battle of Chudskoye Lake in 1242, also known as Ledovoyepoboische (“Icy Massacre”),
near what is now St. Petersburg. In this battle, heavily armed Scandinavian knights from the north-west of Russia were badly beaten by Russian units led by Alexander Nevsky (c.1220-1263).”

Briggs: “Prince Clemens von Metternich (1773-1859) was the Austrian Foreign Minister; Count N. P. Rumyantsev (1754-1826) was a Russian diplomat, Charles Maurice de Talleyrand Perigord (1754-1838) was
a French statesman and Foreign Minister (1797-1807), who opposed Napoleon’s Russian campaign.”

Okey: Page 73: Prince Clemens von Metternich (1773-1859) was, next to Emperor Francis, the most important political figure in the empire from the settlement of 1815 to the revolution of 1848. Page 75: “Human nature did not change, he (Metternich) opined; the mass of the people were always conservative and the oscillation of the forces of change and stability permitted only a cyclical view of

history; hence, revolutionary utopias were a dangerous folly attractive only to naive idealists...Equality was a chimera, for what equality could there be between a wise man and a foolish one? Monarchy

and sound religion cemented the bonds of loyalty necessary in a hierarchical society; democracy dissolved them...The conviction of his superior rationality, which made him reluctant to abandon doctrines

(page 76) gradually outstripped by events was already an irritant to his colleagues.

Without Government by Max Baginski: 

Page 9: “The Gist of the anarchistic idea is this, that there are qualities present in man which permit the possibilities of social life, organization, and co-operative work without the application of force. Such

qualities are solidarity, common actin, and love of justice. Today they are either crippled or made ineffective through the influence of compulsion; they can hardly be fully unfolded in a society in which

groups, classes, and individuals are placed in hostile, irreconcilable opposition to one another. In human nature today such traits are fostered and developed which separate instead of combining, call

forth hatred instead of a common feeling, destroy the humane instead of building it up...The exteriors of prisons, armories, and churches show that they are institutions in which the body and soul are

subdued.”

The Law of Love and the Law of Violence:

Page 159: “And this slaughter has been, and is, committed, and cannot but be committed, since all the Christian peoples (not individually, but as nations) are united in States that hate both one another and

the other non-Christian States, and are prepared to attack one another at any moment. Moreover, there is not one large Christian State which, following some unnecessary patriotic tradition,

does not hold one or several smaller nations in its power against their will, compelling them to participate in the life of the larger State they hate: Austria, Prussia, England, Russia, France, with

their subject nations: Poland, Ireland, India, Finland, Caucasus, Algeria, etc. Thus, apart from the growing hatred between good and rich and between the large nations, there is an ever-increasing

hatred between the oppressed nations and their subjugators. What is worst of all is that all this hatred, which is so contrary to human nature (as for instance between the larger nations and

between the subjected and the subjugators), is not only condemned like all other malicious sentiments between people, but, quite the opposite, it is praised and elevated as laudable service and

virtue. The hatred of the oppressed workers for the rich and powerful is extolled as love of liberty, brotherhood and equality.