Epilogue Part 2 Chapter 3 (Chapter 353 overall)

Chapter Summaries: Dole: The parable of the locomotive. The idea of Power. Metaphor of money.
Briggs: The force of history is power, but how is it used to direct events?

Translation:

III.

Going is an engine. It is asked, from what does it move? The peasant speaks: the devil moves it. Another speaks that the engine is going because of how on it moves wheels. The third states that the cause of the movements conclude in the smoke, attributable to the wind.

The peasant is irrefutable: he thought up a complete explanation. For him to be disproved, it is needed so that someone proves to him that there is no devil, or so that a different peasant explains that there is not a devil, but a German moving the engine. Only then from the contradiction will they see that they are both not right. Yet that one which speaks that the cause is the move of the wheels, itself is disproved, for if he marched into the soil of analysis, he should go farther and farther: he should explain the cause of the movements of the wheels. And while he will not come to the last reason of the movements of the engine, to the compressed in the engine time, he will not have the right to stay in finding causes. That same one which explained the move of the engine is attributable to backwards smoke, obviously entered so: noticing that the explanation about the wheels does not give causes, he takes the first caught sign and, with their parties, gave out it for the cause.

Only the concept, which may explain the move of an engine, is the concept of forces, equal to apparent movement.

Only the concept, through which may be explained the move of peoples, is the concept of forces, equal to all the movement of peoples.

Between that concept this is understood by various historians completely variously, and quite by the unequal apparent movement of forces. One sees in it force, directly inherent in the hero, as the peasant the devil in the engine; another, — a force produced from some other forces, as the move of the wheels; a third, — mental influence, as carries off smoke.

To those writing the history of individual persons, — be they Caesars, Aleksandrs or Luthers and Voltaires, but not the story of all, without one exception all, people, hosting participation in an event, — there is no opportunity to attribute the separate faces of the forces, forcing other people to direct their activity to one goal. And only to famous history is such a concept power.

This concept is only a knob, through which can be controlled the material history in the present to it statement, and that, which would break off this would know, as did Buckle, not upon learning another reception of treating historical material, then only would deprive would themselves the last opportunity to handle with it. The inevitable idea about authorities for the explanations of historical phenomena, is better only proven itself by general historians and historians of culture, imaginarily renouncing from the idea about authorities and inevitably in each step using it.

Historical science, by the relation to questions of humanity, is similar to the addressing of money, — banknotes and ringing coins. Biographical and private folk history is similar to banknotes. They may walk and be handled, satisfactory to appointment without the harm that would be or was, and even with benefit, while does not spring up a question about what they provide. It is worth only to forget about the question about in what way will heroes produces events, and the history of Thier will be interesting, instructive and, besides that, will have a shade poetry. Yet exactly so the same, as doubt in the valid worth of pieces of paper arises or from what they do is easy, then they begin to do much, or from that one wants to take them for gold, — exactly so the same arises doubt in the valid meaning of stories of this family or from what they are is too much, or from what someone, in simplicity of soul, asks: what the same forcibly did this to Napoleon? I.e. they will want to exchange the walking piece of paper to a pure gold valid idea.

The same general historians and historians of culture are similar to people that, recognizing the inconvenience of banknotes, would decide, instead of pieces of paper, to make a ringing coin from metal, not having the density of gold. And the coin really would excite in the ringing, but only the ringing. The note still could betray the ignorant; but the coin ringing, but not being valuable, may not deceive anybody. So the same as gold is then only gold when it may be used not only for barter, but for affairs, so the same general historians then will only be gold, when they will be forced to answer the substantial question of history: what such is power? General historians answer this question contradictingly, but historians of culture quite remove it, answering something really another. And as tokens, similar to gold, may be used only between people, agreeing to admit them for gold, and between those that do not know the properties of gold, so general historians and historians of culture, not answering the essential questions of humanity, serve for some kind of goals, walking in the coin of universities and a crowd of readers— hunters to serious books, as they call them.

Time: undefined

Locations:
Mentioned: German

Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: A "why does a locomotive move" analogy is used here and operates in the way that the apple analogy worked earlier in the novel.
History cannot work unless it includes "all the people" to describe the movement of mankind and historians only know the concept of power.
Tolstoy develops a paper money analogy (relevant to the novel because of the chapters that talk about how Napoleon forged currency) to show how historians do something that appear useful until you ask what the true meaning and force behind events are.

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 *):

Alexander

Napoleon

Thiers

(Caesar, Voltaire, and Luther are also referenced. Buckle is also referenced again and historians are talked about in general. Also the hypothetical people including the peasant that try to figure out why the locomotive moves.)

Abridged Versions: End of chapter 1 in Bell.

Gibian: Line break instead of chapter break.

Additional Notes:

Epilogue Part 2 Chapter 2 (Chapter 352 overall)

Chapter Summaries: Dole: Contradictory views. Thiers and Lanfrey. General historians. Power and its factors. Personal power. Historians of culture. Intellectual activity. The Contract Social. Faulty reasoning.
Briggs: Historians, inconsistent and contradictory, stop short of real analysis.

Translation: 

II.

How does power move peoples?

Private historians of biography and historians of individual peoples understand this force as power, inherent in heroes and lords. By their writings, events are produced exclusively by the will of Napoleons, Alexanders or all those persons that are described by the private historian. The answer, given to this family of historians to the question about that strength which moves events, is satisfactory, but only while exists one historian for each event. Yet as soon as historians of institutions and nationalities begin to view and to describe one and the same event, those answers, given by them, immediately again lose all meaning, for this power is understood by every one of them not only differently, but often completely oppositely. One historian approves that the event was produced by the power of Napoleon; another approves that it was produced by the power of Aleksandr; a third, — the power of some third face. Besides this, the historians of this family contradict one another even in the explanations of those forces, in which were found one power and the same face. Thier, a Bonapartist, speaks that the power of Napoleon was found in his virtues and genius; Lanfrey, a republican, speaks that it was found in his fraud and in the deceit of the people. So it is that historians of this family, mutually destroying the situation of each other, by that very thing destroy the concept about strength producing events, and do not give an answer to the substantial question of history.

General historians, having business with all peoples, as if recognize the injustice of the view of private historians in force producing events. They do not recognize these forces for the power inherent in heroes and lords, but consider it the result of the diverse direction of many forces. Describing war or conquered people, the common historian seeks out the cause of events not in the authorities of one face, but in the interaction of each other with the many persons related with the event.

By this view the power of historical persons presenting the work of many forces, it would seem, it may now not be considered power by itself producing the events. Between that general historians, in most cases, use the concept about authorities again as force, the very thing by itself producing events and related to it, as a cause. By their outlining that historical face is the composition of its time, and its power is only the composition of the institutions of forces; that power is the power producing events. Gervinus and Schlosser, for example, and others that prove that Napoleon is the composition revolution, the ideas of the year 1789 and etc., all speak that the trip of the 12th year and other not liked by them events have a crux only in the works of the falsely directed commitment of Napoleon and that the very ideas of the year 1789 were stopped in its development owing to the arbitrariness of Napoleon. The ideas of revolution and common mood made the power of Napoleon. The power of the same Napoleon suppressed the ideas of revolution and the common mood.

This strange contradiction is not accidental. It not only meets in each step, but from the consistent number of these contradictions is drawn up all the descriptions of common historians. This contradiction is going on from that, marching in the soil of analysis, general historians stop at half roads.

So that the component of forces gives a famous integral or resultant, it is necessarily so that the amount of the component equals the integral. This is a condition never to be observed by general historians, and because of it, so to explain the resultant force, they necessarily must admit, besides their insufficient component, a still unexplained force, acting on the integral.

The private historian, if describing the trip of the 13th year, or the recovering of the Bourbons, all speak that these events were produced by the will of Aleksandr. Yet the common historian of Gervinus, refuting this view of private history, strives to show that the trip of the 13th year and the recovering of the Bourbons, besides the commitment of Aleksandr, had reasons in the activity of Stein, Meternich, m-me Staël, Talleyrand, Fichte, Chateaubriand and others. The historian obviously spreads out the power of Aleksandr to a composite: Talleyrand, Chateaubriand, and etc.; the amount of this composite, i.e. the action of Chateaubriand, Talleyrand, m-me Staël and others, obviously does not equal throughout the resultant, i.e. to that phenomenon that millions of French submitted to the Bourbons. And because of it, so to explain, how the way of this composite leaked out conquered millions, i.e. the composite, equal to one but, flowed out by the resultant, equal to a thousand, but the historian necessarily should allow again that same force of authorities, which he denies, recognizing the result of forces, i.e. he should allow an unexplained force, acting on the integral. This very thing is done by general historians. And owing to this, they do not only contradict private history, but themselves.

The village residents, not having a clear idea about the reasons of rain, speak, looking by that, if they want rain in buckets: the wind disperses the clouds and the wind catches up the clouds. So exactly general historians: sometimes, when they want this, when this is the approach to their theory, they speak that power is the result of events; but sometimes when they need to prove another, — they speak that power produces events.

The third historians, called historians of culture, following by the way paved by general historians, recognize sometimes writers and give forces, producing events, still completely otherwise understand this force. They see it in so-called culture, in mental activities.

Historians of culture are completely consistent by relation to their ancestors, — common history, for if historical events can explain by that, how some people are such and such related to each other, then why are they not to be explained by that how such and such people wrote such and such books? These historians of only a huge number of signs, accompanying all living phenomenon, choose the sign of mental activities and speak that this sign is the cause. Yet, despite all of them trying hard to show that the cause of events lie in mental activities, only with large compliance can it be to agree with that between mentally activities and the movement of peoples is something common, but now in which case it cannot be allowed for mental activity to have led the actions of people, for such phenomena as the cruel killings of the French revolution, flowing out of sermons about the equality of humanity, and the worst wars and executions, flowing out from sermons about love, contradict this assumption.

Yet allowing even that correct is all the intricate reasoning which is filled with this history; allowing that peoples are managed by some uncertain force, called an idea, — the substantial question of history all the same stays without answer, to previous authorities of monarchs and to the introduced by general historians influence of advisers and other persons joins still the new power of ideas, which recognized with masses requires explanations. It is possible to understand that Napoleon had power, and because of it subjected an event; with some compliance it can still be to understand that Napoleon, together with other influences, was the cause of events; but in what way the book The Social Contract1029 made the French to begin to drown each other, — may not be understood without the explanations of the casual communication of these new forces with the event.

Undoubtedly exists the recognized between all at the same time living, and because of it there is the opportunity to find some recognition between the mental activity of people and their historical movement, exactly so the same as this recognition can be found between the movement of humanity and trades, crafts, gardening and what is wanted. Yet why the mental activity of people presents to the historians of culture the cause or expression of only historical movements, — this is difficult to understand. Such the conclusion of historians can explain only next: 1) the story is the spell of scientists, and because to them it is natural and nice to think that the activity of their estates is the only foundation of movements of humanity, exactly so the same as this is natural and nice to think for merchants, farmers, soldiers (this is not spoken out only because of how merchants and soldiers do not write history), and 2) spiritual activity, education, civilization, culture, ideas, — all this idea is obscure, undefined, under the banner which quite conveniently uses the words, having still less clear meanings and because of it is easily substitutable under all sorts of theory.

Yet not speaking about the inner dignity of these family of stories (it may be, they for someone or for something is needed), the history of culture, which begins more and more to come down to all general history, is significant by that, they, in detail and seriously sorting various religious, philosophical, political teachings, as the causes of events, any time, as they only have to describe a valid historical event, as for example the trip of the 12th year, describe it unwittingly as the composition of authorities, all saying that this trip is a composition of the commitment of Napoleon. Said in such a way, historians of culture unwittingly contradict themselves, proving that that new power, which they think does not express historical events, but that the only means to understand the story is that power which they as if would not recognize.

1029 Contrat Social (Social contract)

Time:
Mentioned: 1789, 1812, 1813

Locations:
Mentioned: French

Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Tolstoy recognizes the subjectivity of how historians understand the force that drives history depending on what culture they come from. More unbiased historians, whom Tolstoy calls "general historians", are seen by him as having a contradiction that stops halfway on the path of analysis and he develops this by showing how their math doesn't add up. He does this by showing that how the power of rulers can not be broken up into components (that is, ministers or thinkers) unless it explains how millions submit to that power and that attempting to explain whether people's power comes from events or produces them is a hopeless circle. He also shows how understanding intellectual movements does not help develop the explanation for events, just as the idea of equality of man should not have lead to the murders of the revolution. He believes this thinking exists precisely because historians are themselves scholars and like to believe that intellectual activity provides events.

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

Alexander

Thiers

Lanfrey (as in Dole, Edmonds, and Bell. "Lanvrey" in Wiener.)

Gervinus 

Schlosser

Stein

Metternich

Madame de Stael

Talleyrand

Fichte

Chateaubriand

(also different kinds of biographers and historians. The Bourbons are mentioned in relation to being restored. Briggs attaches Rousseau's name to The Social Contract.)

Abridged Versions: No break in Bell.

Gibian: Line break instead of chapter break.

Additional Notes: Mandelker: "Dr C. G. Gervinus (1805-71) was a German historian and Shakespearean commentor with whom Tolstoy disagreed on both counts."
Garnett: "Pierre Lanfrey (1828-1877) wrote the Histoire de Napoleon Ier (History of Napoleon I), which appeared in print just as Tolstoy was completing his novel."

Epilogue Part 2 Chapter 1 (Chapter 351 overall)

Chapter Summaries: Dole: The object of history. The two schools of History. The chosen Man. The Will of the Divinity. The old theories still obtain. the movement of the nations. Legitimate questions. The New History's statement of facts. A caricature disclaimed. "What force moves the Nations?" A new force.
Briggs: The different faults of ancient and modern historians.
Maude (chapters 1-12): A general discussion on the historians' study of human life, and on the difficulty of defining the forces that move nations. the problem of freewill and necessity
Pevear and Volokhonsky (chapters 1-12): Reflections on history and historians, greatness and power, freedom and necessity.

Translation:

Part the Second.

I.

The subject of history is the life of peoples and of humanity. To directly catch and embrace in a word, — to describe the life not only of humanity, but of one people, presents as impossible.

The former historians often used one searching reception so to describe and catch the seemingly elusive — the life of the people. They described the activity of a single people, the ruling people; and this activity expressed for them the only activity of the people.

To the questions about: how the way of the single people forced the act of peoples by their will and what managed the will of these people itself, historians answered, to the first question the recognition of the commitment of God, subordinating the peoples’ wills to one elected human and to the second question — the recognition of this same God, who directed this free will of the elected to the intended goals.

In such a way these questions allowed by faith the direct participation of God in the deeds of humanity.

The new science of history in its theory has rejected both of these situations.

It would seem that rejecting the beliefs of the ancients about the subordination of people by a Deity and about definite goals, to which were conducted peoples, the new science should study not the manifestations of authorities, but the causes forming it. Yet it did not do this. Rejecting in theory the view of former historians, it should in practice.

Instead of people, gifted by divine power and directly led by the will of God, the new story places heroes, gifted by extraordinary, inhuman abilities, or simply people of the most diverse properties, from monarchs to journalists, leading the masses. Instead of the former, pleasing the Deity, the goals of peoples: Jewish, Greek, Roman, which to the ancients presented the goals of the movements of humanity, the new story places their goals — the good of the French, German, English and, in its highest distraction, good civilizations of only humanity, under which was understood usually peoples occupying a little northwestern corner of much of the mainland.

The new story rejected the former beliefs, not putting in place their new view, and the logic of the situation forced historians, rejecting the imaginary divine power of the tsar and the fate of the ancients, to come to another path to that very same: to the recognition that, 1) peoples are led by a single person, and 2) that exists a famous objective, to which move peoples and humanity.

In all the essays of the newest historians from Gibon to Buckle, despite their seeming disagreement and the seeming novelty of their views, lies the basis of these two old inevitable situations.

First, the historian describes the activity of individual persons, by his opinion, leading humanity: one considers only the same monarchs, generals, and ministers; another, — besides monarchs — orators, scientists, reformers, philosophers and poets. Second, the objective to which is underway for humanity, known to history: for one this objective is the greatness of Roman, Spanish, and French states; for another — this is freedom, equality, the famous family of civilization in a small corner of the world, called Europe.

In the 1789th year lifted a ferment in Paris; it grows up, spills over and expresses the movement of people from west to east. A few times this move is directly to the east, coming in collision with an opposing movement from east to west; in the 12th year it reaches to its extreme limit — Moscow, and, with wonderful symmetry, was committed the opposing movement from east to west, exactly so the same as in the first movement, enthralling behind itself the middle peoples. The reverse move reaches to the point of exodus movements to the west, — to Paris, and quiets down.

In this 20-year period of time a huge number of fields are not plowed; homes are burned; trade changes direction; millions of people poor and rich, move, and millions of Christian people, confessing the law of loving those near, kill each other.

What such does all this mean? From what did this happen? What forced these people to burn homes and kill the similar to themselves? What were the causes of these events? How did power force people to act in such a way? Here are the involuntary, ingenuous and most legitimate questions that a person offers oneself, stumbling on the monuments and legends of the past period of movements.

For approval of these issues we turn to the science of history, having the purpose of the self-knowledge of peoples and of humanity.

If the story would have kept the old view, it would have said: the Deity, in reward or in punishment of his people, gave Napoleon power and led his will for the achieving of its divine goals. And the answer would be full and clear. It can be to believe or not believe in the divine matters of Napoleon; but for the believer in it, throughout the history of this time, all would understand and there could not be one contradiction.

Yet the new science of history may not respond in such a way. Science does not recognize the view of the ancients in the direct participation of God in the deeds of humanity and because of it, it should give other answers.

The new science of history, answering to these questions, speaks: you want to know what means this move; from what it happened and how power produced these events? Listen.

"Louis XIV was a very proud and presumptuous person; he had such mistresses and such ministers, and he badly governed France. The heirs of Louis also were weak people and also badly managed France. And they had such favorites and such mistresses. Moreover, some people wrote in this time books. At the end of the ХVІІI century, in Paris gathered dozens of people that began to speak about how all people were wounded and free. From this throughout France people began to cut and drown each other. These people killed the king and many more. At this same time in France was an ingenious person— Napoleon. He everywhere won all, i.e. killed many people, because of how he was an extreme genius. And he went to kill for something Africans, and so well killed them and was so сunning and smart, that, having arrived in France, told all to obey himself. And all obeyed him. Made emperor, he again went to kill people in Italy, Austria and Prussia. And there many were killed. In Russia already was the Emperor Aleksandr, who decided to restore order in Europe and because of it waged war with Napoleon. Yet in the 7th year he suddenly made friends with him, but in the 11th again quarreled, and again they began to kill many people. And Napoleon brought 600 thousand people in Russia and conquered Moscow; but then he suddenly ran from Moscow, and then the Emperor Aleksandr, with the help of the advice of Stein and others, united Europe for a militia against the intruder of its calmness. All the allies of Napoleon were made suddenly his enemies; and this militia went against the gathered new forces of Napoleon. The allies conquered Napoleon, marched in Paris, made Napoleon deny from kidnapper and sent him to the island of Elba, not depriving him of the dignity of emperor and manifesting to him all respect, despite that, five years to that backwards, and the year after this, all counted him a robber beyond the law. But the reign of Louis XVIII began, above which to that since the French and the allies only laughed at. Napoleon again, spilling tears before the old guard, abdicated from kidnapper and went into banishment. Then skillful, government people and diplomats (in particular Talleyrand, having time to sit before another in the famous chair and by that increasing the borders of France), talked in Vienna and by this conversation made peoples happy or unhappy. Suddenly the diplomats and monarchs were a little bit not quarreling; they now were ready again to command their troops to kill each other; but at this time Napoleon with a battalion had arrived in France, and the French, who hated him, immediately again all submitted to him. But the allied monarchs for this were angered and went again to fight with the French. And the ingenious Napoleon was conquered and carried to the island of Elen, suddenly recognizing him as a robber. And there in exile, torn apart from his lovely heart and from the beloved by them France, he died on the rock, a slow death, and delivered his great deeds to his offspring. But in Europe had occurred a reaction, and all the sovereigns began again to hurt their peoples."

In vain would one think that this is a mockery, — a caricature of historical descriptions. The opposite, this is a very soft expression of those contradicting and not responding to questions answers, which gives all stories, from compilers of memoirs and the stories of individual states to common stories and the new family of stories of the culture of this time.

The strangeness and comedy of these answers flow out from that this new story is similar to a deaf person responding to questions, which nobody makes to him.

If the objective of history is the description of the movements of humanity and peoples, that first question, without an answer to which all the rest is unclear, — next: how does power move peoples? To this question the new story concerningly tells that Napoleon was an extreme genius, or that Louis XIV was very proud, or still that such writers wrote such books.

All this very well may be, and humanity is ready in this to agree; but it did not about this ask. All of this is could be interesting, if we recognized a divine power, established in its very self and always the same, managing its own peoples through Napoleons, Louis and writers; but this authority we do not know and because of it, before speaking about Napoleons, Louis and writers, we need to show the existing recognition between these faces and the movement of peoples.

If instead of divine authority has become another power, then it is needed to explain in what consists this new power, for it was in this strength that concludes all the interest of history.

The story as if alleges that this power itself of course is to all known. Yet, despite all of the wishes to acknowledge that this new force is known, then, who reads very many historical essays, unwittingly doubts that this new power, differently understood by historians themselves, was to all completely known.

Time:
Mentioned: 1789, 1812, twenty years, eighteenth century, 1807, 1811

Locations:
Mentioned: Judean (Jews in Pevear and Volokhonsky, Bell, and Briggs. Jewish in Maude.), Greek, Roman, French, German, English, Spanish, France (also French), Europe, Paris, West, East, Moscow, African, Italy, Austria, Prussia, Russia, Elba, Vienna, St. Helena

Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Start of Part Two.
Ancient historians used singular people (such as rulers) to stand in for the whole people and used a divinity to justify this (i.e. the divine right of kings). Modern history rejects the "direct participation of a divinity in the affairs of mankind", but only in theory, not in practice because they do not study the causes that form power, instead replacing divinity with extraordinary men that guide the masses.
"...the good of all human civilization, usually understood as the people occupying the small northwest corner of a large continent."
Tolstoy returns to what I believe is the central question of the philosophical sections of the novel (and perhaps the central question of the novel, though it doesn't seem to be treated this way in the way the book is generally talked about): why did (or do) millions of people kill each other during the Napoleonic era (or in any era)?
The ancient answer is that a divinity drove Napoleon to perform the actions he did, dragging people along with him. Modern history gives an overly long answer that starts with the corruption of Louis XIV, goes through revolutionary writing, the king was killed and Napoleon eventually took his place, tried to invade Russia, was repelled by Alexander, abdicated, came back, was then defeated, and the kings went back to mistreating their people.
The section has some great sarcasm directed at Napoleon: "He defeated everybody everywhere--that is, he killed a lot of people--because he was a great genius. And he went off for some reason to kill Africans, and he killed them so well..."
"modern people is like a deaf man, answering questions that no one has asked him."
Tolstoy wraps up the chapter by asking what force drives men if we have replaced the theory of God driving history.

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

Emperor Alexander

Stein

Louis XVIII 

Louis XIV

Talleyrand

(historians and peoples are mentioned in general, as are monarchs, statesmen, and generals. Gibbon and Buckle are referenced. Louis XIV's ministers and mistresses, as are Africans and French people, as well as other people in Europe.)

Abridged Versions:
Start of Part Second in Dole.
Start of Part the Second in Wiener.
Start of Epilogue Second Part in Bell with the footnote that "These two volumes--the third part of this work--have been revised and corrected by Mr. Edward Hamilton Bell." and "The remaining portion of this volume has been translated from the original Russian expressly for this edition." No break.
Start of Part Two in Briggs, Edmonds, Garnett, Mandelker, and Dunnigan.
Start of Second Epilogue in Maude.

Gibian: Line break instead of chapter break.

Additional Notes: Garnett: "In the days before the opening of the Council of Vienna in October 1814, Prince Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand (1754-1838), France's representative, was a guest in the home of Prince Metternich (1773-1859), the Austrian diplomat and host of the council. Seeing an empty chair between his host and Lord Robert Stewart Castlereagh (1769-1822), the English diplomat, Talleyrand promptly took it and, in the course of the ensuing conversation, prevailed on his interlocutors to agree to returning France to its pre-revolutionary borders."

Mandelker: "Thomas Henry Buckle (1821-62) is known primarily for his History of Civilization in England, which, although unfinished, represents a landmark in philosophy of history and theory of historical method."

Epilogue Part 1 Chapter 16 (Chapter 350 overall)

Chapter Summaries: Dole: Natasha and Pierre. Other domestic confidences. Would Karatayef approve? A hint of jealousy. Young Bolkonsky's dream. His vow.
Briggs: Natasha's jealous love. Little Nikolay's desire to be worthy of his father.

Translation:

XVI.

Natasha, staying with her husband alone, also talked so, as only talks a wife with her husband, i.e. with extraordinary clarity and speed of understanding and informing the thoughts of each other, a path nasty to all rules of logic, without means of judgments, reasoning and conclusions, but in a completely special way. Natasha to such an extent was used to speaking with her husband by this way, that the surest sign of how something was not okay between her and her husband, for her served the logical movement of the thoughts of Pierre. When he started to prove, speaking judiciously and calmly, and when she, carried away by his example, began to do the same, she knew that this indispensably led to a quarrel.

With this time itself, as they stayed alone, Natasha with wide open, happy eyes came up to him quietly, and suddenly, quickly grabbing him behind the head, pressed it to her breast and said: "Now all, all mine, mine! Do not leave!" — with this time began this conversation, horrid to all laws of logic, horrid now because of how at one and that same time was spoken about a complete institution of subjects. This simultaneous discussion of a lot not only did not hinder the clarity of understanding, but, the opposite, was the surest sign that they quite understand each other.

As in dreaming all to be wrong, pointless and contradicting, besides the feeling, leading to dreaming, so in this communication, otherwise to all laws of reason, consistent and not clear speech, was but only the feeling which led them.

Natasha told Pierre about the everyday living of her brother, about how she suffered, living without husband, and about how she still more had fallen in love with Marie, and about how Marie in all relations bettered her. Saying this, Natasha recognized sincerely that she saw the superiority of Marie, but together with that she, saying this, demanded from Pierre for him all the same to prefer her to Marie and to all other women, and now again, especially after how he saw many women in Petersburg, would repeat this to her.

Pierre, answering the words of Natasha, told her how unbearable it was for him in Petersburg to visit evenings and dinners with ladies.

— I really have forgotten how to speak with ladies, — he said, — I was simply bored. Especially, as I was so busy.

Natasha intently looked at him and continued:

— Marie, this is such a beauty! — she said. — She knows how to understand children. She as if only their soul sees. Yesterday, for example, Mitenka had become capricious...

— Ah how he looks like his father, — interrupted Pierre.

Natasha understood why he made this comment about the similarities of Mitenka and Nikolay: to him was unpleasant the memory about his dispute with his brother-in-law and he wanted to know about this the opinion of Natasha.

— In Nikolenki is this weakness that if that is not acceptable by all, he for that will not agree. But I understand, you cherish an open field,1025 — she said, repeating words, once said by Pierre.

— No, the main thing, — said Pierre, — for Nikolay thought and reasoning, — is fun, almost a transmission of time. Here he collects a library and for a rule puts not to buy new books, not reading the purchased— Sismondi, Rousseau, and Montesquieu, — with a smile added Pierre. — Because you know, as I to him... — he was starting to mitigate his words; but Natasha interrupted him, giving the feeling that this was not needed.

— So you speak, for him thought is fun...

— Yes, but for me all the rest is fun. I all the time in Petersburg as in a dream saw all. When I take an idea, then all the rest is fun.

— Ah, how I pity that I did not see how you greeted with the children, — said Natasha. — Who was more than all gladdened? Liza, right?

— Yes, — said Pierre and continued that what occupied him. — Nikolay speaks, we must not think. And I cannot. I have not talked already about how in Petersburg I felt (I to you can say this), that without me all this is broken apart, everyone pulling on their side. Yet I succeeded in uniting all, and then my idea was so simple and clear. Because I did not speak that we must oppose something and someone. We can make a mistake. But I speak: take hand with hand those that love good, and let one know — active virtue. Prince Sergius is a nice person and smart.

Natasha would not doubt that the idea of Pierre was a great idea, but one thing embarrassed her. This was that he was her husband. "Is it really such an important and desired person for society — together with that is my husband? From what did this happen?" She wanted to express to him this doubt. "Who and who are those people that could solve, if he really is smarter than all?" she asked herself and sorted out in her imagination those people that were very respected by Pierre. Nobody of all people, judging by his stories, he so respected, as Platon Karataev.

— Do you know about what I think? — she said: — About Platon Karataev. How was he? Would he have approved of you now?

Pierre was not at all surprised by this question. He got the movement of the thoughts of his wife.

— Platon Karataev? — he said and thought, apparently sincerely trying to represent to himself the judgment of Karataev about this subject. — He would not have got it, however, maybe, yes.

— I terribly love you! — said suddenly Natasha. — Terribly. Terribly!

— No, he would not have approved, — said Pierre, thinking. — What he would have approved of, this is our family life. He so desired to see in all goodness, happiness, calm, and I with pride would have shown him us. Here you speak of parting. But you do not believe what special feeling I have to you after separation...

— Yes here still... — was beginning Natasha.

— No not that. I never stopped loving you. And to love more cannot be; but this is especially... Well, yes... — he did not finish talking, because of how their meeting look finished the rest of the talking.

— What nonsense, — suddenly said Natasha, — the honeymoon and that very happiness in the first time. The opposite, now is very best. If only would you not leave. Remember, how we quarreled. And always I was to blame. Always I. And about what we quarreled — I do not even remember.

— All about the same, — said Pierre smiling, — jealousy...

— Do not say it, I cannot stand it, — cried out Natasha. And a cold, evil shine lit up in her eyes. — You saw her, — she added, keeping silent.

— No, and would I have seen her, I did not find out.

They kept silent.

— Ah, do you know? When you in the office spoke, I watched you, — began talking Natasha, apparently trying to drive away an oncoming cloud. — Well as two drops of water you now look like the boy. (She so called her son.) Ah, time to go to him... It has come... But a pity to go away.

They fell silent for a few seconds. Then suddenly at one and that same time they turned to each other and began to speak something. Pierre started with complacency and hobby; Natasha, — with a quiet, happy smile. Facing, they both stopped, giving each other the road.

— No, what did you say? Say it, say it.

— No, you say it, mine is such nonsense, — said Natasha.

Pierre said that what he started. This was the continuation of his arrogant reasoning about his success in Petersburg. To him it seemed in this moment that he was called up to give a new direction to all Russian society and all the world.

— I wanted to say only that all thoughts that have huge consequences are always simple. All my idea is that should people viciously be tied between themselves and form a force, then people honestly need to do only that very same. Because it is so simple.

— Yes.

— But what did you want to say?

— Mine is such nonsense.

— No, all the same.

— Yes nothing, nonsense, — said Natasha, still lighter came out a smile; — I only wanted to say about Petya: now the nurse approaches to take him from me, he bursted out laughing, squinted and snuggled up to me — I rightly thought that he hid. — Terrible dear. — Here he shouts. Well, goodbye! — and she went from the room.

In that same time downstairs, separate Nikolinki Bolkonsky, in his bedroom, as always, burned a lamp (the boy was afraid of the dark, and he could not wean from this lack of). Desala slept high on his four pillows and his Roman nose issued uniform sounds of snoring. Nikolinka, only now waking up, in a cold sweat, with wide-open eyes, sat on his bed and watched before himself. A terrible dream woke him up. He saw in the dream Pierre and himself in helmets, these what were drawn in the issuing of Plutarch. He with Uncle Pierre went ahead of huge troops. This army was drawn up of white, oblique lines, filling the air like that spiderweb that flies in autumn and which Desala called the threads of the Virgin1026, and ahead was a glory, such the same as this thread, but only somewhat tighter. — They — he and Pierre — carried easily and happily all nearer and nearer to the goals. Suddenly the thread which moved them became weak, got confused; and became heavy. And Uncle Nikolay Ilyich stopped before them in a formidable and strict pose.

— This you have done? — he said, pointing at the broken sealing wax and feathers. — I loved you, but Arakcheev told me, and I will kill the first who moves forward. — Nikolinka turned back to Pierre; but Pierre already was not. Pierre was his father — Prince Andrey, and his father did not have an image or form, but he was, and seeing him, Nikolinka felt the weakness of love: he felt himself powerless, boneless and liquid. His father caressed and pitied him. Yet Uncle Nikolay Ilyich all nearer and nearer loomed on them. Horror swept Nikolinka and he awoke.

"Father, — he thought. — Father (despite that in the house were two similar portraits, Nikolinka never imagined Prince Andrey in human style), father was with me and caressed me. He approved of me, he approved of Uncle Pierre. — What he would say — This I will do. Mutsiy Stsevola burned his hand. Yet from what in my life will there not be the same? I know, they want for me to be taught. And I will learn. Yet at sometime I will stop; and then I will do. I only about one thing beg God: so that will with me be that, what was with the people of Plutarch, and I will do that same. I will do better. All will recognize, all will fall in love, all will be delighted by me." And suddenly Nikolinka felt sobbing, grabbed his chest, and cried.

— Are you unhealthy?1027 — was heard the voice of Desala.

— No,1028 — was the response of Nikolinka and he lied down on the pillow. "He is kind and good, I love him," he thought about Desala. "But Uncle Pierre! Oh, what a marvelous person! But father? Father! Father! Yes, I will do that what even he would be satisfied..."

1025 ouvrir une carrière, (to open a quarry,)

1026 le fil de la Vierge. (the thread of the Virgin.)

1027 Etes-vous indisposé? (Are you indisposed?)

1028 Non, (No,)

—————

Time: see previous chapter

Locations: see previous chapter
Mentioned: St. Petersburg, Russian, Roman

Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: We go to the Natasha and Pierre side of the conversation. Just as when Pierre and Andrei saw each other after not seeing each other for years, a variety of conversations flow into each other but "This simultaneous discussion of many things not only did not hinder their clarity of understanding, but, on the contrary, was the surest sign that they fully understood each other...it was not the words that were consistent and clear, but only the feeling that guided them."
Pierre says that "for Nikolai thoughts and arguments are an amusement, almost a pastime. Here he's collecting a library and has made it a rule not to buy a new book before he's read what he's bought". The two wonder if Platon Karataev would approve of what they are doing.
Pierre believes "since vicious people band together and constitute a fore, honest people need only do the same." Natasha brings up a story about their son Pety and we line break into Nikolenka Bolkonsky, who has woken up from a dream where he and Pierre were wearing helmets and charging while Nikolai stood in front of them. Nikolenka decides that he will do something that even his father will be proud of (with the "he" in italics like his pronoun was referred to by Natasha when she was waiting for him earlier in the novel).
End of Part One.

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 *):

Natasha

Pierre (also "husband" and "uncle Pierre".)

Nikolai Ilyitch (also "brother", "brother-in-law", "uncle", and "father". See chapter 133 for variations on "Ilyitch".)

Countess Marya ("Marie")

Mitya (or "Mitenka")

Liza (or "Lisa")

Prince Sergii ("Prince Sergi" in Wiener and Mandelker. "Prince Sergey" in Garnett, Briggs, and Maude.)

Platon Karatayef

Petya (also "our little lad"

The nurse (see the nyanya in the last few chapters)

Nikolenka Bolkonsky 

Dessalles

Prince Andrei (also "father")

Arakcheyef

(also Rousseau, Sismondi, Montesquieu, and Plutarch are referenced, as is Mucius Scaevola.)

Abridged Versions: In Bell, all the Natasha and Pierre conversation is cut, going straight to the Little Nicolas section. Bell adds The End, see next chapter for a note on how the Bell translation handles the second epilogue.
Line break in Briggs after "and she walked away". Line break in the same place in Dole, Maude, and Mandelker.
End of Part First in Dole.
End of Part the First in Wiener.
End of Part One in Edmonds, Dunnigan, Mandelker, Garnett, and Briggs.
End of First Epilogue in Maude

Gibian: line break after "and she left the room". End of First Epilogue.

Komroff: Chapter is preserved and is the end of the book.

Kropotkin: Chapter 10: Chapter is preserved and is the end of the book.

Simmons: A little bit of the discussion about logic going out the window during these conversations is removed. The mention of Nicholas's books are removed. The end of their episode is removed, removing the jealousy section and the last discussion Pierre gives about his time in Petersburg (including one of the most notable quotes of the novel), and Natasha going to feed her son. The Nicholas Bolkonsky section is preserved. End of book. 

Additional Notes:

Epilogue Part 1 Chapter 15 (Chapter 349 overall)

Chapter Summaries: Dole: Extracts from Countess Mariya's journal. Nikolai's approval. Plans for Nikolenka. Domestic confidences.
Briggs: The mutual, though different, love that exists between Marya and Nikolay.
Maude: The two married couples and their mutual relations. Natasha's jealousy. Little Nicholas Bolkonski's aspirations

Translation:

XV.

Behind dinner the conversation was not walking more about politics and societies, but the opposite started the most agreeable for Nikolay about the memories of the 12th year, to which called Denisov, and to which Pierre was especially dear and funny. And the relatives dispersed to the most astounding relations.

When after dinner Nikolay, undressing in the office and giving back orders to the waiting manager, came in in a smock in the bedroom, he caught his wife still behind the writing table: she wrote something.

— What do you write, Marie? — asked Nikolay. Countess Marya blushed. She was afraid that what she wrote would not be understood and approved by her husband.

She would want to hide from him that what she wrote, but together with that was happy that he caught her and now needed to tell him.

— This is a diary, Nicolas, — she said, giving him the blue notebook, scribbled in her solid, large handwriting.

— A diary?.. — with a tint of mockery said Nikolay and took in his hand the notebook. It was written in French:

"4th of December. Now Andryusha (the older son), waking up, did not want to dress, and m-lle Louise sent for me. He was caprice and stubborn. I tried to threaten him but he only was still more angered. Then I took him in myself, left him and began with the nanny to raise the other children, but to him I told that I did not love him. He for long kept silent, as would be wondering; then in only a shirt jumped out to me and burst into tears so that I for long could not reassure him. It was seen that he was tormented more only by that he upset me; then, when I at night gave him his ticket, he again pitifully burst into tears, kissing me. With him all can be made tender."

— What such ticket? — asked Nikolay.

— I began to give the older ones in the evenings little notes of how they lead themselves.

Nikolay looked at the radiant eyes watching him, and continued to leaf over and read. In the diary was written down all that from the children’s life, what for the mother seemed wonderful, expressing the character of children or directing in the general thought about the receptions of upbringing. This was for the most part the most insignificant little things; but they did not seem the same for the mother or the father, when he now for the first time was reading this children's diary.

On the 5th December was written:

"Mitya was naughty behind the table. Papa told for him not to be given cake. He was not given; but he so pitifully and greedily watched the others while they ate. I think that to punish, not giving sweets, — only develops greed. Tell Nicolas."

Nikolay left the book and looked at his wife. The radiant eyes interrogatively (did he approve or not approve of the diary?) looked at him. It could not be doubted only the approval, but the admiration of Nikolay before his wife.

"Maybe this is not needed to do so pedantically, maybe it is quite not needed," thought Nikolay; but this relentless, eternal mental voltage, having the purpose only for the moral good of children — delighted him. If Nikolay could be aware of the feeling that he was found, it would be the chief foundation of his solid, tender and proud love to his wife was always this feeling of wonder before her soulfulness, before that almost inaccessible to Nikolay sublime, moral peace, in which always lived his wife.

He was proud of that she was so smart, and was well aware of his insignificance before her confessing peace, and by that was more rejoiced to that she with his soul not only belonged to him, but formed part of himself.

— I extremely, extremely approve, my friend, — he said, with a significant look. And, keeping silent a little, he added: — But I now badly led myself. You were not in the office. We argued with Pierre, and I got excited. And impossible. This is such a child. I do not know what would be with him, should Natasha not hold him under bridles. Can you represent what for he drove to Petersburg?.. They there arranged...

— Yes, I know, — said Countess Marya. — Natasha told me.

— Well so you know, — getting hot in the same recollections about the dispute continued Nikolay, — he wanted to assure me that the duty of any honest human consists in that, so to go against the amazing, then as oath and duty... I regret that you were not there. But then I was by all attacked, and Denisov and Natasha... Natasha is hilarious. Because as she under her shoe holds him, but a little bit business to reasoning — in her are no words — she his words speaks, — added Nikolay, succumbing to those irresistible aspirations, which are called in judgment about the most dear and loved people. Nikolay forgot that word to word that same that he spoke about Natasha, can be said about him regarding his wife.

— Yes, I noticed this, — said Countess Marya.

— When I told him that duty and oath are only higher, he began to prove God knows what. It is a pity that you were not; what would you have said?

— To me, you are completely right. I told Natasha so. Pierre spoke that all suffer, are tormented, are corrupted, and that our duty is to help neighbors. Of course, he is right, — said Countess Marya; — but he forgot that we have other responsibilities nearer, which God himself pointed out to us, and that we can risk ourselves, but not the children.

— Well here, here, this is the very thing I spoke to him, — picked up Nikolay, to whom it really seemed that he spoke this very thing. — But them, now love to neighbor and Christianity, and all this at Nikolinka, which here climbed up in the office and broke all.

— Ah, whether you know, Nicolas, Nikolinka so often torments me, — said Countess Marya. — This is such an unusual boy. And I am afraid that I forget him for my own. We all have children, all have kin; but he has nobody. He forever is alone with his own thoughts.

— Well really, it seems, there is nothing for you to reproach yourself for him. All that may be done by a tender mother for their son, you did and do for him. And I, of course, am glad at that. He is a nice, nice boy. Now he in some unconsciousness listens to Pierre. And you can yourself represent: we exit to dinner; I look, he broke to smithereens all I had on the table, And now already told me. I never have seen him say an untruth. A nice, nice boy! — repeated Nikolay, to which by his soul did not like Nikolinka, but whom he always would want to admit as glorious.

— Not all that that is a mother, — said Countess Marya, — I feel that I am not that, and this torments me. A wonderful boy; but I am terribly afraid for him. Society will be helpful for him.

— What, but a short time; now in summer I will take him to Petersburg, — said Nikolay.

— Yes, Pierre always was and will remain a dreamer, — he continued, returning to the conversation in the office, which apparently worried him. — Well what business to me is there, — that Arakcheev is bad and all, — what for me was this business, when I married and I had so many debts that I was planted in a pit, and my mother, who may not see and understand. But then you, children, affairs. Am I for my pleasure from morning to evening at deeds and in the office? No, I know that I should be working, so to reassure my mother, repay you, and my children not be left as such beggars as I was.

Countess Marya wanted to say to him, that not unifying bread will well feed a person, that he ascribes too much importance by these deeds; but she knew that to speak this was not needed and useless. She only took his hand and kissed it. He accepted this gesture of his wife as okay and a confirmation of his thoughts, and thinking some time silently, out loud he continued his thought.

— You know, Marie, — he said, — now arrived Ilya Mitrofanych (this was the manager of business) from the Tambov village and he tells that for the forest now will be given 80 thousand. — And from Nikolay’s busy face he began telling about the opportunity in quite a soon time to redeem Otradnoe. — Nine more years of life, and I will leave the children...in an excellent position.

Countess Marya listened to her husband and understood all that he spoke to her. She knew that when he so thought out loud, he sometimes asked her what he said and was angered, when he noticed that she thought about others. Yet she made for this large efforts, because of how she did not have any interest in that what he spoke. She burned in him and not that — now thinking about others, but feeling about others. She felt submissive, tender love to this person, who never will understand only what she understands, and as would from this she still stronger, with a tint of passion tenderness, loved him. Besides this feeling, absorbing all of her and interfering with her delving into the details of the plans of her husband, in her head flashed a thought, not having anything in common with that what he spoke. She thought about her nephew (the story of her husband about his agitation at the conversation of Pierre strongly struck her), and the various features of his tender, sensitive character presented to her; and she, thinking about her nephew, thought about her children. She did not compare her nephew and her children, but she compared her feelings to him, and with sadness found that in her feelings to Nikolinka something was not gotten.

Sometimes to her came the idea that this difference was going on from age; but she felt that she was to blame before him and in her soul promised herself to correct and to do the impossible — i.e. in this life of love to her husband, children, Nikolinka and all the neighbors so, as Christ loved humanity. The soul of Countess Marya always sought to the endless, eternal and perfect, and because of it never could be calm. On her face came forward the strict expression of hidden high misery of the soul, gravitating her body. Nikolay looked at her.

"My God! What with us will be, if she will die, as this seems to me, when on her is such a face," he thought and, becoming before the way, he began to read the evening prayers.

Time: supper, after supper
Mentioned: December 4th, December 5th, to-night

Locations: see previous chapter
Mentioned: 1812, Tambov, Otradnoe

Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Denisov and Nikolai reflect on 1812 and the families depart friendly. Nikolai discovers Marya writing in her diary and reads it. It is about her children as she documents their behavior and personality.
"If Nikolai could have been conscious of his feeling, he would have found that this firm, tender, and proud love for his wife had always been based on this feeling of wonder before her inner life before that lofty moral world, almost inaccessible to him, in which his wife lived always."
Nikolai talks about his argument with Pierre and Marya says that Pierre "forgets that we have other, closer responsibilities, which God himself has indicated to us, and that we can risk ourselves, but not our children."
Nikolai speaks about business and what he plans to leave the children and Marya knows she has to pay attention because he will ask her and get angry if she hasn't been paying attention but "what he said did not interest her at all."
"Countess Marya's soul always strove towards the infinite, eternal, and perfect, and therefore could never be at peace."

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 *):

Nikolai (also "husband", "papa", and "Nicolas")

Denisof

Pierre

Countess Mariya (also "Marie", "mother", "darling", and "wife")

Andryusha 

Mlle. Luisa ("Mlle. Louise" in Wiener, Maude, and Garnett (the latter two use "Mademoiselle". The nurse is also mentioned by Marya, but it is unclear who this is supposed to be.)

Mitya 

Natasha

Nikolenka (also "nephew")

Arakcheyef

Countess Rostova ("mother")

Ilya Mitrofanuitch ("...Mitrofanych" in Briggs, Dunnigan, and Edmonds.)

(all the relatives are mentioned in general. Also an overseer.)

Abridged Versions: In Bell, the diary section is cut. The chapter also cuts off without a break when Nikolai says he wants to send Nikolenka to St. Petersburg.

Gibian: Chapter 4: Line break instead of chapter break.

Komroff: The diary section and the section where Nikolai talks about his monetary goals and Marya fears his death are removed. Followed by a line break.

Kropotkin: Chapter 9: The Nikolenka section is removed.

Simmons: Chapter 4: Andrusha's diary section is removed. The section discussing Pierre is shortened. Nicholas's section discussing his plans to buy back Otradnoe is shortened. Line break instead of chapter break.

Additional Notes:

Epilogue Part 1 Chapter 14 (Chapter 348 overall)

Chapter Summaries: Dole: Nikolenka asks to stay with his elders. Denisof's criticisms on the government. Rottenness in public affairs. The discussion. The secret society. Nikolenka's excitement. Nikolai's threat. Natasha's calming influence. The broken quills.
Briggs: Pierre attacks the government, Nikolay defends, and little Nikolay listens.

Translation:

XIV.

Soon after this the children came to say goodbye. The children kissed with all, the governors and governesses bowed and came out. Stayed only Desala with his pupil. The governor whisperingly invited his pupil to go downwards.

— No, monsieur Desala, I will ask my aunt to stay,1019 — was the response, also in a whisper, of Nikolinka Bolkonsky.

— Ma tante (my aunt), let me stay, — said Nikolinka, coming up to his aunt. His face expressed supplication, excitement and delight. Countess Marya saw him and turned to Pierre.

— When you are here, he may not rip off,... — she said to him.

— I will now bring you him Monsieur Desala; good night,1020 — said Pierre, giving the Swiss his hand and, smiling, turning to Nikolinka. — I really have not seen you. Marie, how he begins to look like, — he added, turning to Countess Marya.

— Father? — said the boy, blushingly flaring up and from below looking at Pierre with admired, brilliant eyes. Pierre nodded his head and continued to interrupt the children’s story. Countess Marya worked by hands on the canvas; Natasha, not lowering her eyes, watched her husband. Nikolay and Denisov got up, asked for pipes, smoked, took tea at Sonya’s, sitting depressingly and stubbornly behind the samovar, and questioned Pierre. The curly, painful boy, with his own brilliant eyes, sat unnoticed in the corner, and only turning his curly head on his fine neck, coming out of the turning down collar, on that side where Pierre was, he occasionally shuddered and whispered something with himself, apparently testing some new and strong feeling.

The conversation spun around on that modern gossip from higher management, in which the majority of people usually see the most important interest of the internal politicians. Denisov, displeased with the government for his failures by service, with joy found out all nonsense that by his opinion, was made now in Petersburg, and in strong and sharp expressions made his remarks to the words of Pierre.

— Before it was needed to be German, now it is needed to dance with Tatarinov and m-me Krudner, to read... Eckarsthausen and fraternity. Oh! Would again lower our fine fellow Bonaparte. He would drive all nonsense out. Well in what will appear the soldier Schwartz to give the Semenovsky regiment? — he shouted.

Nikolay, although without this willingness to find out everything bad, which was at Denisov, also counted it quite a worthy and important business to judge about the government and counted that A. was assigned as minister of that, but that B. was the general-governor there, and that the sovereign said that, but a minister that, and that all these affairs were very significant. And he counted it fit to be interested in this and asked Pierre. Behind the asking of these two interlocutors the conversation did not go out from this ordinary character of gossip of the higher, governmental spheres.

Yet Natasha, who knew all the tricks and thoughts of her husband, saw that Pierre for a long time wanted to and could not bring out the conversation to another road and express his sincere idea, that very one for which he drove to Petersburg to advise with his new friend Prince Fedor, and she aided his issue: what again of his business with Prince Fedor?

— About what is this? — asked Nikolay.

— All about the same and about the same, — said Pierre, looking back around himself. — All see that the business goes so bad, that this cannot be so left, and that the duty of all honest people is to oppose by the least forces.

— What may honest people do? — a little frowning, said Nikolay — What again can we do?

— But here is what...

— Let's go into the office, — said Nikolay.

Natasha, now a long time guessing that came her call to feed, heard the call of the nanny and went in the children's room. Countess Marya went with her. The men went in the office, and Nikolinka Bolkonsky, unnoticed by his uncle, came there again and sat down in the shadows, to the window, at the writing desk.

— Well what are you to do? — said Denisov.

— Forever fantasies, — said Nikolay.

— Here is what, — started Pierre, not sitting down and then going by the room, then stopping, lisping and making quick gestures with his hands in that time as he spoke. — Here is what. The position in Petersburg here is what: the sovereign does not enter in anything. He is all loyal to this mysticism (mysticism Pierre did not forgive anyone now). He is looking for only calmness, and his calm may give only those people without conscience and honor,1021 that fell and choke all immediately: Magnitsky, Arakcheev, and those similar...1022 You agree that should you yourself not be occupied by economy, but wanted only calmness, that the tougher would be your steward, by that the sooner you would reach your goals, — he turned to Nikolay.

— Well yes, why do speak this? — said Nikolay.

— Well, and everything dies. In the courts is theft, in the army is only the stick: marchers, settlements, — tormented people; education choked. What is young, honest is then ruined! All see that this may not go so. All too tightly and indispensably bursts, — spoke Pierre (as always, peering at the action which would be amazing, speaking with people since, as exists the government). — I spoke to one of them in Petersburg.

— Who? — asked Denisov.

— Well, you know who, — said Pierre looking very sneakily: — Prince Fedor and them all. To complete education and charity, all this is okay, of course. The objective is beautiful and everything; but in present circumstances we need another.

At this time Nikolay saw the presence of his nephew. His face was made gloomy; he came up to him.

— What for are you here?

— From what? Leave him, — said Pierre, taking for the hand of Nikolay, and continued: — This little, I speak to them: now we need another. When you stand and wait, now here bursts this stretched string; when all wait for an imminent coup, we need to as we can closer and more people to take hand with hand, so that to resist the general catastrophe. All young, strong are attracted there and corrupted. One is seduced by women, another honors, a third vanity, money, and they go over in that camp. Independent, free people, as you and I, really do not stay. I speak: expands a circle of society: a slogan1023 will not let only virtue, but independence and activity.

Nikolay, leaving his nephew, angrily moved his chair, sat down in it and, listening to Pierre, displeasingly coughed and all more and more frowned.

— And with what purpose is your activity? — he cried out. — And in what relationship do you stand to the government?

— Here is what! In the relationship of assistants. Society may not be secret, should government admit it. It is not only not hostile to the government, but this society presents conservatives. A society of gentlemen in the full meaning of these words. We only so that Pugachev does not come to slaughter your and my children, and for Arakcheev not to send me to a military settlement, — We only for this take hand with hand, with one purpose, the common good and general safety.

— Yes; but a secret society, therefore hostile and harmful, which may give birth to only evil.

— From what? Did the Tugenbund, which saved Europe (then still it was not dared to think that Russia saved Europe), produce something harmful? The Tugenbund — this is the union of virtues: this is love, mutual help; this is that what on the cross preached Christ...

Natasha, in the middle of the conversation entered in the room, happily watching her husband. She was not gladdened to that what he spoke. This she was even not interested in, because of how to her it seemed that all this was extremely simple, and that she all this long time knew (to her it seemed this was because of how she knew all that from what this came out — all the soul of Pierre); but she was gladdened, looking at his brisk, enthusiastic figure.

Still more happy and enthusiastically watched Pierre the forgotten by all boy, with the subtle neck, leaving from the turned down collar. All the words of Pierre burned in his heart and in a nervous movement of fingers broke, himself not noticing this, — falling in his hands sealing wax and feathers on the table of his uncle.

— It is really not that what you think, but here such was the German Tugenbund, and that which I offer.

— Well, brother, these sausages of the Tugenbund are okay, but I do not understand this, and I will not reprimand, — was the heard loud, resolute voice of Denisov. — All is bad and vile, I agree, only the Tugenbund I do not understand, but not like — so riot, here this is so! Then I am yours!1024

Pierre smiled, Natasha laughed, but Nikolay still more pushed his eyebrows and began to prove to Pierre that no coup was foreseen and that all the danger about which he spoke was located only in his imagination. Pierre argued the opposite and, as his mental abilities were stronger and more resourceful, Nikolay felt himself delivered at a dead end. This still more angered him, as he in his soul not by reason, but for some reason stronger than reasoning, knew the undoubted justice of his opinions.

— I here say what to you, — he spoke, getting up and in nervous movements setting on the corner his pipe and finally throwing it. — I cannot prove it to you. You speak that we are all bad and that there will be a coup; I do not see this; but you speak that the oath is conditional business, and to this I say to you: that you are my best friend, you know this, but you make up a secret society, you start to oppose the government, what would be, I know that my duty is to obey it. And led me now Arakcheev to go at you with a squadron and hack — not for a second to  think about it and I will go. But there judge as you want.

After these words happened an awkward silence. Natasha was the first to begin talking, defending her husband and attacking her brother. Her protection was weak and awkward, but her objective was achieved. The conversation again resumed and now not in that unpleasant hostile tone in which were said the last words of Nikolay.

When all had risen to dinner, Nikolinka Bolkonsky came up to Pierre, pale, with brilliant, radiant eyes.

— Uncle Pierre... Do you... No...Should papa be alive...Would he agree with you? — he asked.

Pierre suddenly got how the special, independent, complex and strong work of feeling and thought was happening in this boy in the time of conversation and, remembering all that he spoke, he had become annoyed that the boy heard him. However the need was to answer him.

— I think that yes, — he said reluctantly, and got out from the office.

The boy bent down his head and here for the first time as if saw what he had done at the table. He flared up and came up to Nikolay.

— Uncle, excuse me, this I did — accidentally, — he said, showing the breaking of sealing wax and feathers.

Nikolay angrily flinched.

— Okay, okay, — he said, throwing under the table the pieces of sealing wax and feathers. And apparently, with labor holding the lifted in him wrath, he turned away from him.

— You quite should not have been here, — he said.

1019 Non, mr Dessales, je demanderai à ma tante de rester, (No, Mr. Dessales, I will ask my aunt to stay,)

1020 Je vous le ramènerai tont-à-l’heure, m-r Dessales; bonsoir, (I will bring it back to you right on time, Mr. Dessales, Good evening,)

1021 sans foi ni loi (without faith or law)

1022 tutti quanti..

1023 Mot d’ordre (Word of order)

1024 Je suis vot’e homme! (I am your man!)

Time: see previous chapter

Locations: see previous chapter
Mentioned: Swiss, St. Petersburg, German, Europe, Russia

Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: The focus is on Nikolenka watching the other characters as he doesn't go to bed with the children but stays up with the adults, "clearly experiencing some new and strong feeling."
Denisov's dislike for the government is tied to "his own unsuccesses in the service". Nikolai is different in that he doesn't see everything as negative but is very interested and invested in how the government operates. Natasha knows that Pierre sees everything differently, and that is why he had gone away, and probes him to input. She leaves the conversation to nurse the baby and Pierre puts forth the idea that "the sovereign doesn't enter into anything. He's totally given up to this mysticism...All he seeks is peace, and peace can be given only by those people without faith or law who hack up and stifle everything far and wide: Magitsky, Arakcheev...There's thievery in the courts, in the army only the rod: drill, settlements --they torment the people, stifle enlightenment...It's all too strained and bound to snap...people must join hands, as many and as closely as possible...One is seduced by women, another by honors, a third by vainglory or money...let the watchword be not only virtue, but independence and activity....Not only is it not hostile to the government, but it is a society of true conservatives. A society of gentlemen in the full sense of the word. It's only so as not have Pugachev come tomorrow and put a knife into my and your children, or to have Arakcheev send me to a military settlement"
There is an interesting parenthetical in "they still did not dare to think then that Russia had saved Europe"
Denisov's objection is that the thinking, which is tied to the Tugenbund, is "fine for sausage makers". Nikolai becomes angry because he feels himself right but his mental powers are not as strong as Pierre's and claims "if Arakcheev ordered me right now to go against you with a squadron and cut you down--I'd go without thinking for a second."
Nikolenka asks Pierre if his father Andrei would agree with him and Pierre says that he thinks so. Nikolai doesn't think he should have been there at all.

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 *):

M. Dessalles

Nikolenka Bolkonsky (also "nephew")

Countess Mariya (also "aunt" and "Marie")

Pierre (also "husband" and "Uncle Pierre")

Prince Andrei ("father" and "papa")

Natasha

Nikolai (also "uncle")

Denisof

Sonya

Tatawinova

Madame Kwudener (as in Dole and Maude. "...Krudner" in Garnett, Bell (who doesn't use Madame), and Wiener.)

Eckarsthausen ("Ecka'tshausen" in Edmonds, Maude, and Mandelker. "Eckartshausen" in Briggs and Garnett.)

Napoleon ("Bonaparte")

Schwartz

Prince Feodor

nyanya

Alexander ("sovereign")

Magnitsky

Arakcheyef

Pugachof ("Pougatchew" in Bell. "Pugachov" in Mandelker, Edmonds, and Briggs.)

(the children are referenced in general.)

Abridged Versions: Chapter is here in Bell with no break.

Gibian: End of Chapter 3.

Komroff: Chapter is preserved. Followed by a line break.

Kropotkin: Chapter 8: Chapter is preserved.

Simmons: Some of Denisov's comments are removed. The broken pens are also removed, ending the chapter slightly earlier. End of Chapter 3.

Additional Notes:

Epilogue Part 1 Chapter 13 (Chapter 347 overall)

Chapter Summaries: Dole: The old countess's moods. Anna Timofeyevna Byelova. Gossip. Denisof. The Bible Society. Dangerous ground. The children's hour. The mysterious stocking.
Briggs: Pierre is worried about growing repression in the capital.

Translation:

XIII.

When Pierre with his wife came in the living room, the countess was found out in the familiar condition of needing to take herself in the mental work of solitaire and because of it, despite that she by habit said words, she always spoke by the return of Pierre or her son: "it is time, it is time, my sweet; we have been waiting. Well, thank God." And at the delivery of her gifts— she said other habitual words: "Not a dear present, my friend, thanks that I as an old woman am given a present..." Apparently it was that the coming of Pierre was to her unpleasant in that moment because of how it distracted her from the understated solitaire. She graduated the solitaire and then only began for the gifts. The gifts took the place of the beautiful work of the case for the cards, a sevres brightly blue cup with a lid and with the image of shepherds, and from the golden snuff boxes with a portrait of the count, which Pierre ordered from a Petersburg miniaturist. (The countess for a long time wanted this.) She now did not want to cry, and because of it she indifferently looked at the portrait and occupied another case.

— Give thanks, my friend, you comforted me, — she said, as she always said. — Yet better only that yourself brought it. But that this was or in what you do not appear; though would you have scolded your wife. What is this? How she is crazy without you. She sees nothing, remembers nothing, — she said in habitual words. — Look, Anna Timofeevna, — she added, — what a case my son brought us.

Belova praised the gifts and delighted in its matter.

Although Pierre, Natasha, Nikolay, Countess Marya and Denisov were needed to talk much of such that was not spoken to the countess, not because so that to hide something from her, but because of how she was so behind from the lot, that, beginning to speak about something to her, it would be needed to respond to her questions, inappropriately inserted, and to repeat again the now a few times repeated to her: telling how one died, then married, what she could not again to remember; but they by custom were sitting behind tea in the living room at the samovar and Pierre was responding to the questions of the countess, her most unnecessary and interesting nobody, about how Prince Vasiliy was aged and that Countess Marya Alekseevna ordered a bow and remembering and etc...

Such a conversation, to anyone uninteresting, but necessary, was conducted in all the time of tea. Behind tea around the round desk at the samovar, at which sat Sonya, were going to all the grownup members of the family. The children, governors and governesses now drank tea and their voices were heard at the neighboring sofa. Behind tea all were sitting in ordinary places; Nikolay sat down at the stove behind the little table, to which he was served tea. Old with a completely gray face, from which still sharper rolled out the large, black eyed, greyhound Milka, the daughter of the first Milka, lying on the armchair beside him. Denisov with grayish half curly hair, mustache and whiskers, in an unfastened general's frock coat sat beside Countess Marya. Pierre sat between his wife and the old countess. He talked that what — he knew, — could interest the old and be understandable to her. He spoke about external, social events and about those people that at some time formed the club of peers of the old countess, which at sometime were a valid, alive separate circle, but that now, for the most part scattered by the world, so the same as she, surviving their century, collecting the rest of the ears that they sowed in life. Yet they, these peers, seemed to the old countess exclusively severe and in the world. By the revitalization of Pierre Natasha saw that the trip to him was interesting, that he wanted to say much, but he did not dare to speak to the countess. Denisov, not being a member of the family, therefore not understanding the care of Pierre, besides how he was displeased, was quite interested by that what was done in Petersburg, and incessantly called Pierre to stories about that what happened to the history of Semenovsky regiment, then about Arakcheev, then about the Biblical Society. Pierre sometimes was fond of them and started telling, but Nikolay and Natasha at any time returned him to the health of Prince Ivan and Countess Marya Antonovna.

— Well what again, all this is madness, and Gosner and Tatarinova, — asked Denisov, — is it really all continuing?

— How continuing? — cried out Pierre, stronger than at some time. — The Biblical Society, this is now all the government.

— This is what again, kind friend?1018 — asked the countess, drinking her tea and apparently wishing to find a pretext so that to get angry after food. — How again do you speak this: the government; I do not understand this.

— Yes, you know, maman (mama), — intervened Nikolay, knowing how it was needed to translate to the tongue of his mother, — this is Prince Aleksandr Nikolaevich Golitsyn arranging a society, so he is in big strength, they say.

— Arakcheev and Golitsyn, — carelessly said Pierre, — this is now all the government. And what! In all they see conspiracies, only fear.

— What, but, Prince Aleksandr Nikolatvich again is to blame? He is a very venerable person. I met him then at Marya Antonovna’s, — offended said the countess, and still more offended by that how all fell silent, continued: — now all become judges. An Evangelical Society, well what is evil? — and she got up (all got up too) and with a strict look swam from the sofa to her table.

Among the established sad silence from the neighboring room was heard children's laughter and voices. Obviously, between the children was happening some joyful excitement.

— Ready, ready! — was heard from behind all the joyous cry of little Natasha. Pierre exchanged glances with Countess Marya and Nikolay (Natasha he always saw) and happily smiled.

— Here that music is wonderful! — he said.

— This is Anna Makarovna’s finished stocking, — said Countess Marya.

— Oh, I will go to look, — jumping up said Pierre. — You know, — he said, stopping at the door: — from what I especially love this music — they were the first to let me know that everything is okay. Now I went: the nearer to home, by that the more I feared. As I entered in the hall, I heard the flooded Andryusha about something, well, it meant all was okay...

— I know, I know this feeling, — confirmed Nikolay. — I cannot go because of the tights — a surprise to me.

Pierre entered to the children, and the laughter and shouting still more intensified. — Well, Anna Makarovna, — was heard the voice of Pierre; — Here you are in the middle and by command — one, two, and when I say three, you stand here. You are at hand. Well, one, two... — spoke the voice of Pierre; there was a silence. — Three! — and an enthusiastic moan of the children’s voices rose in the room.

— Two, two! — shouted children.

These were two stockings, which by one of her famous secrets Anna Makarovna right away knitted in needles, and which she always solemnly to the children took out one from another, when the stocking was tied.

1018 mon cher ami? (my dear friend?)

Time: see previous chapter
Mentioned: Sevres, St. Petersburg

Locations: see previous chapter

Pevear and Volokhonsky Notes: Most of the early chapter builds off the end of the last chapter with the focus on the relationship everyone has with the countess, that is, avoidance.
Denisov and Pierre talk about how the biblical society is now the whole government.
"Arakcheev and Golitsyn," Pierre said imprudently, "that's now the whole government. And what a government! They see conspiracies everywhere, the're afraid of everything."
The countess mentions how she used to always see Golitsyn in society and there is nothing wrong with an evangelical society. Tolstoy peppers this conversation with children laughing in the background. This breaks up the conversation and changes the focus to the children.

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 *):

Pierre

Natasha ("his wife")

Countess Rostova ("countess", "maman", "mother", and "old countess")

Nikolai (also "son")

Anna Timofeyevna Byelova ("....Timofeevna" in Maude, Mandelker, and Wiener. "...Timofyevna" in Garnett. "...Timofeyevna" in Dunnigan and Edmonds.) 

Countess Mariya

Denisof

Prince Vasili

Countess Marya Alekseyevna (as in Dole and Dunnigan. "...Alexeyevna" in Briggs, Garnett, and Edmonds (though she uses "Maria").)

Sonya

Borzaya Milka ("Milka the swift". "Old greyhound Milka" in Wiener. "the old grey borzoi bitch" in Mandelker and Maude (Dunnigan just drops "grey").)

Milka ("Milka I")

Arakcheyef

Countess Marya Antonovna 

Hosner ("Gossner" in Wiener, Mandelker, and Maude.)

Tatarinof ("Madame Tatarinov" in Garnett. Briggs and Mandelker use "Madame Tatawinova", but the endnotes makes it clear that it is "Tatarinova" and the w is because of Densiof's speech impediment. Dunnigan does have a note that corrects it. "Madame Tatawinov" in Edmonds.)

 Prince Aleksandr Nikolayevitch Golitsuin (the Dole footnote spells it "Galitzin". "Prince Alexander Golitsin" in Maude. "Prince Alexander Nikolaevitch Golitsin" in Garnett. "Prince Aleksandr Nikolayevich Golitsyn" in Dunnigan. "Prince Alexander Golitsyn" in Edmonds, Mandelker, and Briggs.)

little Natasha

Anna Makarovna (since she knitted the stockings, I think it is likely that Tolstoy had already forgotten the second name for Byelova.)

little Andryusha

(also the children, tutors, and governesses. There is a reference to a Prince Ivan, but it is unclear if this is supposed to actually be anyone.)

Abridged Versions: Bell seems out of order.

Gibian: Line break instead of chapter break.

Komroff: Chapter appears preserved and followed by a line break.

Kropotkin: The focus on the countess is almost completely removed. The ending of the chapter that focuses on the children is removed. End of chapter 7.

Simmons: The bit about the countess's gift is removed. The mentions of Gossner and Tatawinova are removed. Nicholas's explanation to his mom is also removed. The dancing at the end is also removed. Line break instead of chapter break.

Additional Notes: