Briggs: Russian behaved like a duellist who dropped his rapier and seized a cudgel.
Maude (chapters 1-2): National character of the war. A duellist who drops his rapier and seizes a cudgel. Guerrilla warfare. The spirit of the army.
Pevear and Volokhonsky: Unusual character of the war of 1812. A national war.
Part the Third.
I.
The Borodino battle with the consistent behind it occupation of Moscow and running of the French, without new battles — is one of the most instructive phenomena in history.
All historians agree that the external activity of states and peoples, in their collisions between themselves, expressed in wars; that directly, owing to the large or less successful military, increase or decrease the political power of states and peoples.
How strange are historical descriptions as some king or emperor, quarrelled with another emperor or king, collected the army, fought with the army of the enemy, won a victory, killed three, five, or nine thousand people, and, owing to this submitted the state and the whole people to a few million; as unclear, why is defeated one army, one hundredth of all the forces of the people, made people submit, — all the facts of history (as far as we known it), confirm the justice that the bigger or smaller successes of the troops of one people, against the troops of another people, the crux of causes or, at least, the essential signs of increased or reduced forces of peoples. The army won victory, and immediately again increased the right of the vanquished people in the damage of the vanquished. The army incurred defeat, and immediately again by the extent of the defeated people lose the right, but in perfect defeat their troops completely submit.
So was (by history) from the oldest times and to the current time. All the wars of Napoleon serve as the confirmation of this rule. By the extent of the defeat of the Austrian troops, Austria lost their right, and increased the right and forces of France. The victory of the French below Jena and Auerstedt destroyed the independent existence of Prussia.
Yet suddenly in the 1812th year the French won the victory under Moscow, Moscow was taken, and following behind that without new battles Russia did not stop to exist, but stopping to exist was the 600-thousand army, then Napoleonic France. Pulling on the facts on the rules of history, they say that the field of battle at Borodino was left behind by the Russians, that after Moscow was the battle destroying the army of Napoleon, — is impossible.
After the Borodino victory the French, was not one general and somewhat significant battle, and the French army stopped existing. What does this mean? Would this be an example from the history of China, we could say that this is a phenomenon not historical (a loophole of historians, when that does not approach under their measure); should the business have touched on a short collison, in which would have participated a small quantity troops, we could accept this phenomenon for an exception; but this event was subjected in the eyes of our fathers, for which decided the question of life and death of the fatherland, and this war was the greatest of all famous wars...
The period of the campaigns of the year of 1812 from the Borodino battle to the exile of the French proved that a won battle is not only not the cause of conquests, but even not the permanent sign of conquests; — proved that power, the decisive fate of peoples, lies not in conquerors, even not in armies and battles, but in something other.
The French historians, describing the position of the French troops before the exit from Moscow, assert that all in the great army was alright, excluding the cavalry, artillery and wagons, and there was not fodder for feeding the horses and horned cattle. This disaster could not help anything, because of how the surrounding men burned their hay and did not give it to the French.
The won battle did not bring ordinary results, because of how the men Karp and Vlas, who after the performances of the French arrived in Moscow with carts to rob the city and did not show all a personally heroic feeling, and all of the countless number of these peasants did not carry hay in Moscow for good money, which they were offered, but burned it.
Represent to yourself two people, leaving to swords in a duel to all the rules of fencing art: the fencing went on quite a long time; suddenly, one of the opponents, feeling himself wounded — realizing that this business is not a joke, but concerns his life, throws his sword and, taking the first caught club, started to toss over by it. Yet represent to yourself that the person, so reasonably used to the best and simplest means for achieving the goals, together with that inspired legends of chivalry, would want to hide the essence of affairs and would insist that he by all the rules of art conquered in swords. Can you represent to yourself, how confusion and indefiniteness would occur from such descriptions of what happened in the duel!
The swordsman, demanding to fight by the rules of art, were the French; its enemy, throwing the sword and lifting the club, were the Russians; The people trying to explain all the rules of fencing, — the historians that wrote about this event.
With the time of the fire of Smolensk began a war, not suitable under what was the former legend of wars. The burning of cities and villages, retreating after battles, the stroke of Borodino and again retreating, the fire of Moscow, the catching of marauders, capturing the transports, the partisan war, all these were retreats from rules.
Napoleon felt this and with himself at this time, when he in the correct pose of fencing has stopped in Moscow and instead of the swords of the adversary, saw raised above himself a club, he did not stop complaining to Kutuzov and Emperor Aleksandr in that the war was conducted nasty to all rules (as if exists some rules for killing people). Despite the complaints of the French about the unfulfilled rules, despite that how for the highest by the position of the Russian people it seemed for some reason ashamed to fight with a cudgel, but wanted by all the rules to become in the position of the fourth, third, to do a skillful dropping out at the first967 and etc., — the cudgel folk war went up with all its threatening and majestic force and, not asking drawing flavors and rules with stupid simplicity, but with expediency, not sorting anything, rose, descended and nailed the French while not dying all the invasion.
And good to that people, which not as the French in the 1813th year, saluting by all the rules of art and inverted sword hilt, gracefully and courteously deliver its generous vanquished, but good to that people, who in the moment of trials, not asking about how by the rules acted others in similar cases, with simplicity and ease lift the first caught club and nails by it while in his soul a sense of insult and revenge will not be replaced by contempt and pity.
967 en quarte or en tierce...prime (in fourth or third...prime)
Mentioned: 1813
Locations: Moscow
Mentioned: Borodino, France (and French), Austria (and Austrian), Jena, Auerstadt, Prussia, Russia (and Russian), China, Smolensk
Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: "however incomprehensible the reason why the defeat of one army, one hundredth of all the forces of the nation, made the nation submit--all the facts of history (insofar as it is known to us) confirm the correctness of the statement that the greater or lesser successes of the army of one nation against the army of another nation are the cause or at least the essential sign of an increase or decrease in the strength of the nation."
The contradiction is that the French "win" by conquering Moscow, but lose power. Ellipsis after "this war was the greatest of all known wars".
Tolstoy puts the emphasis on the peasant class, who burned their hay and looted Moscow, which was not heroic, but stopped the French from gaining victory, proving that it was not individual conquerors but masses of people determining historical events. Line break after "but burned it."
We are asked to imagine two dueling fencers that get interrupted when one of them throws down their sword and picks up a club instead. The French are the one who fought according to art, while the Russians were the one who picked up the club. The Russians, essentially, broke the rules, just as Andrei had suggested they do.
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 *):
Napoleon
Karp (the following two names are used essentially as types and are dropped by Bell.)
Vlas
Kutuzof
Emperor Alexander
Abridged Versions: Start of Chapter 10 in Bell. No break at the end.
Start of Part Fourteen in Garnett.
Start of Part Third in Dole.
Start of Part the Fourteenth in Wiener
Start of Book Fourteen in Maude
Start of Part Three in Edmonds, Briggs, Dunnigan, and Mandelker.
Line break after "but burned it" in Wiener.
Gibian: Start of Book Fourteen 1812
Dates of Principal Historical Event
OLD STYLE NEW STYLE
Oct. 28-- Nov. 9--
Nov. 2 Nov. 14 The French at Smolensk.
Line break instead of chapter break.
Fuller: Entire chapter is cut.
Komroff: Entire chapter is cut.
Kropotkin: Entire chapter is cut.
Simmons: Start of 1812 Book Fourteen: only a small fraction of the chapter, the information about the French winning Moscow, like they won Jena and Auerstadt, but losing the war, remains, with all the discussion of the duellists being removed. No break.
Additional Notes:
No comments:
Post a Comment