249. The Karamazov Brothers by Fyodor Dostoevsky

The Karamazov Brothers (870; 1880)* is the second book by Fyodor Dostoevsky I have read, in addition to Crime and Punishment. The book counts towards two reading challenges: the Year of Russian Literature and Top 100 Books to be Read in Five Years. In this book, which happened to be the author's last work, Dostoevsky traversed several grounds and themes and perhaps knowing (or through serendipity) completely and fully invested himself and his knowledge in this book. I am not sure of this, but The Karamazov Brothers could be a cauldron of a major part of Dostoevsky's ideas. In effect, this author-researcher, this psychologist of a novelist, this student of human nature and thoughts, produced a seminal work, worth studying in different fields of social sciences, in this novel. Thus, to describe The Karamazov Brothers as a novel is an understatement. It does the book a huge injustice and undermines its quality. This is a compendium of human thoughts, psyche, and behaviour, morality, God and Devil, good and evil, societal decadence, belief and non-belief, the hereafter, and more.

The story is narrated by an unnamed character who lives in a monastery and in the town - Skotoprigonyevsk - where the Karamazov brothers and the patriarch, Fyodor Pavlovitch, live. Though this unnamed narrator reports directly what he saw and heard, he could possibly be described as a quasi-omniscient narrator. For he knew and reported more than a mere third person could possibly have known. The Karamazovs were sensualists and were ruled by it; and they lived their lives with reckless abandon. They were neither at the top of Russian society nor at the bottom. The patriarch began with nothing, struggled to earn some income, through marriage, and through hard work built up his wealth. But the patriarch was also egoistic and thought not about anyone more than himself, including his children. The Karamazov sons - Dmitri, Ivan, and Alyosha - were therefore bereft of familial love and unity, from having lived in diverse families. As sensual as the Karamazovs were, they were also prone to act on whims and when gripped by a single idea, remained its slave until that idea was realised.

These variables collided when Fyodor and Dmitri both fell in love with a young woman, Grushenka - who was herself carrying the poison of a rejected. The struggle between the father and son in the matter of who would earn this young woman's love set the premise for the novel and the events that lie therein. It is this struggle for love, this obsession on both sides, that would define the future of the Karamazovs. For there would be murder and a man would be charged for it, and another would fall into psychosis. 

Through this the author discussed several issues germane to the Russian society of the times and of today, for issues of human psyche, thoughts, belief, and behaviour do not change with the times. The questions are relevant even when the times change. Dostoevsky creates scenarios, experimental situations, drops in a variable or two and analyses how the specimens would react to the experimental conditions and through this discusses life and its purpose, God and his existence. It is clear that to Dostoevsky the novel is a means to interrogating life and seeking answers, explanations, and reasons from life's complexities. He builds a theory in the telling of his story.

For instance, Dmitri - the eldest of the Karamazov is reckless, unrestrained in speech and behaviour, and diametric; Ivan is an intellectual and the philosopher who can argue on both sides of issues but has a dark hidden spot in his heart; Alyosha dropped from school to become a novice monk. His naivety and innocence is equal only to his kind heart. And the patriarch is a buffoon who preferred making fun of himself in public. Yet from within this diverse family emanates discussions of the presence or absence of God, immorality and immortality (life after death), and the role of the church in the state. Thus through these incongruent characters Dostoevsky discusses both the merits and demerits of having the church morphing into a state,  arguments for and against the existence of God and his importance, and more of such dipolar views.

In studying the human behaviour and psyche, Dostoevsky analyses the inner and outer being and which dominates the other. For instance, he showed that though one may be sordid, slothful and sloven in his appearance, he could have an inner being that is pure, gentle, matured, and priceless. Example is Dmitri, whose inner life became clearer during his trial for parricide and Nikolay Ilyitch Snegiryov, the disgraced captain whom Dmitri beat out of rage. On the other hand, Ivan, respected by all for his gentle manners, and Smerdyakov, trusted by all, later proved to be far from what their appearances suggested. Dostoevsky has an almost unparalleled ability to describe human anguish and the ontogenesis of evil and ponerology itself. The gradual development of Dmitri's near psychotic state arising from his singular obsession of love towards Grushenka was superb, in its treatment. Can an idea - its realisation, its execution - lead one to damnation? Dmitri's his love for Grushenka bred a deadly jealousy for anybody including his father Fyodor leading almost to a parricide. And this is where Dmitri's duality comes clear. For whereas he was not afraid of what he says, even those things that would implicate him in his fathers death, he was afraid to giving information that would make him dishonourable in the sight of his betrothed, Katerina Ivanovna. It is that which led the description 

You have to deal with a man of honour, a man of the highest honour; above all don't lose sight of it - a man who's done a lot of nasty things, but has always been, and still is, honourable at bottom, in his inner being. [518]

Thus, there is a clear disconnect between the inner and outer beings of Dmitri resulting from that single obsessive and possessive idea. Dmitri also suffered because he couldn't lie. Or couldn't hide his feelings. For if he were cunning even for a second he might have come out of his problem unscathed. But he was not! Mitya (Dmitri) spoke freely and with reckless abandon. He spoke from his heart without the restraint of those who know of their guilt; even of things that the heart conceives but the hand cannot implement. Thus, with a bit of censure, an ounce of cunning and deception and an ability to restraint his feelings he would have survived. But isn't his unrestrained behaviour a virtue? Isn't restraint, deception; censure, vice? For isn't it deceptive and therefore lies if one thinks of A and speaks B? So Mitya suffered for his frankness, his virtues, and his honesty.

Ivan and Alyosha's discussions on the existence or otherwise of God was based on both the logical and the scientific. According to Ivan it is inconceivable for a mind that perceives the world in only three dimensions of Euclidian geometry to conceptualise the existence of God. He argued that though he accept the existence of God, he does not accept his world in relation to the suffering of the innocent, children, and sometimes animals. Ivan discussed justice on earth, justice for the present evil and justice at some remote infinite time and space. People who play wickedness, who wreak havoc on the innocent (including children) must be made to face justice; however, the class system has shown that if one were an aristocrat there will be no such justice and if one were to have a good lawyer one may go free though one might have committed a grievous crime. For instance, Ivan questions why people - including children - face tribulations for some future harmony. He argues that an unfair, unjust, evil world was not a necessity for heaven and that's why he might accept God but will not accept the world he has created. He saw it as unnecessary for for an evil world to be a conduit to eternal peace or eternal suffering. That for a God to create a world where children and the innocent and the unprotected could suffer and be tortured only for them to be resurrected and be judged to heaven (harmony) or hell (suffering) is unjustifiable. That no man should create such a world; so why should God of whom it is said "Thou art just, o Lord" do that? And yet children pray to him and address him "dear, kind God", even in their suffering. He argues that man could not accept eternal happiness built on the foundation of the unexpiated blood of little children (victim).

However, the crunch of Ivan's argument, which is also a central part of The Karamazov Brothers, is his invocation and discussion of the parable of the Grand Inquisitor. This parable of the Grand Inquisitor is set during the period of the Spanish Inquisition with Christ having come back to earth and performing his miracles. He is arrested by the ninety-year old Grand Inquisitor who imprisons him pending his sentence of auto-da-fé. However, the GI visits Christ in prison and holds a conversation with him centring more on why Christ is not necessary at this point in time. Using the Grand Inquisitor, Ivan showed how God, through his demonstration of freedom, left many a man to their doom only to be rescued by the church. The parable of the GI is based on the three temptations of Jesus Christ as recorded in the Gospels of the New Testament. For instance, on Jesus' refusal to turn stone into bread, the GI informed him that in refusing this, he left the majority of the people to their doom. For how many of them could live without food? In doing that, he set the kingdom of God for a few to the detriment of the masses. The section discusses the idea of an infallible man with divine powers to act God on earth; whose words are final. Like the entire story, this section is also ambiguous, diametric in spirit, and amenable to different interpretations. For instance, The Grand Inquisitor was at once an atheist and Satan and Alyosha (to whom this is being told) was almost Christ-like. Further, whereas the GI blames God for handing over a thing as harmful as freedom to man, knowing that freedom is man's burden, he also blamed the inhumane and power-seeking posture of the GI, who has assumed for himself a God-position on earth and who know well enough that he is leading the masses to him (possibly the Devil) but not to God. In fact, the GI would have crucified Jesus Christ again.

But man seeks to worship what is established beyond dispute, so that all men would agree at once to worship it. For these pitiful creatures are concerned not only to find what one or the other can worship, but to find something that all would believe in and worship; what is essential is that all may be together in it. This craving for community of worship is the chief misery of every man individually and of all humanity from the beginning of time. For the sake of common worship they've slain each other with the sword. They have set up gods and challenged one another, 'Put away your gods and come and worship ours, or we will kill you and your gods!' And so it will be to the end of the world, even when gods disappear from the earth; they will fall down before idols just the same. [278]

Nothing is more seductive for man than his freedom of conscience, but nothing is a greater cause of suffering. [279]

The GI concluded that the three temptations Christ refused contained miracle, mystery, and authority - the forces or power required to conquer and hold the conscience of men captive. The GI says 

Hadst Thou taken the world and Caesar's purple, Thou wouldst have founded the universal peace. For who can rule men if not he who holds their conscience and their bread in his hands? [282]

According to Ivan and Father Zossima, the church with its ethics provide the moral compass that direct society away from crime. Thus, the non-belief in God and church erases the idea of sin and crime, making any act permissible and it is this permissibility introduced into the weaker mind of Smerdyakov by Ivan that spelt Dmitri's doom. Dostoevsky, through Father Zossima (the mentor of Alyosha), discusses the concept of modern freedom embedded in individuality and self-aggrandisement and communality in Christ. Arguing that today's kind of freedom leads to trouble and catastrophe.

They have science; but in science there is nothing but what is the object of sense. The spiritual world, the higher part of man's being, is rejected altogether, dismissed with a sort of triumph, even with hatred. The world has proclaimed the reign of freedom, especially of late, but what do we see in this freedom of theirs? Nothing but slavery and self-destruction! For the world says: 'You have desires and so satisfy them, for you have the same rights as the most rich and powerful. Don't be afraid of satisfying them and even multiply your desires.' That is the modern doctrine of the world. In that they see freedom. And what follows from this right of multiplication of desires? In the rich, isolation and spiritual suicide; in the poor, even and murder; for they have been given rights, but have not been shown the means of satisfying their wants. [346]

The devil as a physical manifestation (or projection) of Ivan's thoughts played a role in this beautiful work. As events unfolded and Ivan, realising the extent of his role in the crime, lapsed into psychosis, he began seeing the devil, who held conversations with him, using Dmitri's ideas to debate him. The devil explains (or argues) why his existence is required. He says that without him life will be monotonous that he was commanded to be so there would be events and things that are irrational. He says that life will be one tedious and endless church service without suffering. He defends himself that his destiny was carved out for him; such that unlike Mephistopheles, he only desired good but receives only bad; that somebody (probably God) takes all that is good whilst he is blamed for all that is bad. That though there is the secret that will make him do good they won't show him lest the 

indispensable minus disappear at once and good sense reigns supreme throughout the whole world. [728]

There were also issues of existentialism and socialism. For instance, does Mitya accepting to be sentenced for all the suffering babes he saw who had no one to care for them and saying that we must care and be responsible for all an indication of his socialist stand and his condemnation of us as a people? Issues of existentialism run subtly or overtly through the stories. They are found in the addresses of both the defence and prosecution lawyers. In Fetyukovitch's defence of Dmitri, he says, in proving that evidence, real evidence not conjectural and anecdotal evidence, is all that is required to prove guilt

That's what I call evidence, gentlemen of the jury! In that case I know, I see, I touch the money, and cannot deny its existence. [821]

Just as the book is a duality of ideas, of belief and non-belief, of the presence and absence of God, there was also the opposite of this Thomasian phenomenon of seeing expressing itself into believing. On the two occasions that they appear, they were narrated by Ivan. The first instance this appeared was in the parable of the Grand Inquisitor where Ivan told Alyosha that one need not to see to believe; that he who believes after seeing has already made up his mind to believe in the first place and that any good atheist could find several reasons to explain what he was seeing.

One who does not not believe in God's people will not believe in God's people. He who believes in God's people will see His Holiness, even though he had not believed in it till then. Only the people and their future spiritual power will convert our atheists., who have torn themselves away from their native soil. [323]

In the other instance where such anti-existentialist discussion cropped up, it was Ivan's phantasmagorical doppelganger who appeared to him in the form of the devil and held discussions with him. During these encounters the devil used Ivan's own arguments against him. Responding to an issue of belief, the Devil says

Besides, proofs are no help to believing, especially material proofs. Thomas believed, not because he saw Christ risen, but because he wanted to believe, before he saw. [715]

Prior to this meeting with the Devil, Ivan in his earlier discussions had categorically stated that one need not see to believe; that belief in itself is a decision made prior to seeing.

It is not miracles that dispose realists to belief. The genuine realist, if he is an unbeliever, will always find strength and ability to disbelieve in the miraculous, and if he is confronted with a miracle as an irrefutable fact he would rather disbelieve his own senses than admit the fact. Even if he admits it, he admits it as a fact of nature till then unrecognised by him. Faith does not, in the realist, spring from the miracle but the miracle from faith. If the realist once believes, then he is bound by his very realism to admit the miraculous also. The Apostle Thomas said that he would not believe till he saw, but when he did see he said, 'My Lord and my God!' Was it the miracle forced him to believe? Most likely not, but he believed solely because he desired to believe and possibly he fully believed in his secret heart even when he said, 'I do not not believe till I see.' [24]

 The Karamazov Brothers is a criticism of the morality of Russia of the time. It is Russia with its extremes; these extremes did exist and manifest within the same time and space. And the pendulum swung from pole to pole. Dostoevsky also brought out the discriminatory class system embedded in feudal Russia at the time - the difference between peasants and the educated elite or aristocrats. This created two somewhat distinct strands of conversations: the peasant-like conversation, which concentrated on equality and the unfairness of the Russian class system, including such discussants as Smerdyakov and Snegiryov; and the aristocratic talk which mostly concentrated on the presence or otherwise of God.

Dostoevsky's dramatic characterisation is interesting and brings out, albeit comedic, the exact situation he is describing. His descriptions of people, places and spaces is so vivid that the picture easily builds in the reader's mind. He provides the minutest detail down to 'half-eaten piece of bread, and a small bottle with a few drops of vodka' on the table. Also making the narrator remind the reader of earlier events was helpful; especially for such a long story, this helped the reader to keeping track of events that are relevant as the story progresses.

This is a beautiful novel. It has a lot more than just a story in its pages. Personally, I think this novel is under-hyped. For what it is worth, more noise should have been made about it, especially since we make useless noise about novels of inferior quality. If you have not read this novel, you are losing out.

_______________________________

Notes:

i. *Version published by Wordsworth Classics and translated by Constance Garnett

ii. Read Quotes I and II from The Karamazov Brothers

iii. Dmitri vs Rodya: Rodya was the main character in Crime and Punishment. There are some similarities, and of course differences, between these two characters. Both Rodya and Dmitri were gripped by a single idea; for Rodya, it was the idea of an ordinary and extraordinary man. And both came to grief from that. Even in TKB the idea of ordinary and extraordinary man came to the fore, somewhat:

"Didn't you know?" he said laughing, "a clever man can do what he likes,"

In C&P Rodya committed the crime; he killed the Ivanovna sisters but because of his universal kindness attested to by many, no one believed him and each wanted to keep him from jail. Thus, his outward appearance saved him. Testaments from witnesses gave him a lessened sentence though he didn't defend himself. Mitya, on the other hand, didn't commit the crime but his demeanour, his poor outward behaviour made him guilty in the eyes of the people and all believed that he was a criminal even when he put up a strong defence of an honour unknown to them.

244. Auto da Fe by Elias Canetti

Reading Elias Canetti's Auto da Fe (Penguin Modern Classics, 1935; 522)* after Fyodor Dostoevsky's Crime and Punishment is like travelling on an underground railway connecting two cities in different countries - the transition is seamless and without notice. Not only were both books translations - one from Russian, the other from German - but they both address identical issues: introducing new elements into a hyper-functioning cognitive process leading to an imbalance that bothers on insanity. Again, both books discuss matters of knowledge or ideas, albeit in different forms; whereas Canetti discusses an intelligent bibliomania, Dostoevsky discusses a deductive theorist hoping to practicalise his theories. Finally, both books make references to ideas in other important books. It was therefore a unique privilege to have read these books in succession.*

Professor Kien is a Sinologist, the best of his time. He has an extraordinarily boundless memory and can read several Eastern Languages. He has time for nothing else apart from scholastic writings and his four-roomed library. Apart from his housekeeper, he virtually lives alone. And only for his books for which he has spent a fortune to acquire. His daily activities are routine: he writes early in the morning, goes for a walk with his briefcase, comes home to his library, et al. This was Professor Kien's life, until he misread the intentions of his housekeeper. A misreading that would go on for a long time and which would lead him to his doom. 

When Therese - a woman about sixteen years older than the Professor - made a request for a book to read, the Professor, who brooked no nonsense especially from individuals outside the intelligentsia fraternity (sometimes even including some of whom he considered inferior), was amazed. However, it was not only the request that surprised him but Therese's personal relationship with the book she was given: first, she received the book in a clean wrapper; second, she bought brand-new hand-gloves which she wore when she handled the book. And to stretch matters, when the Kien spied on her to see if she was reading or pretending to be so, he found the book resting on a sewn pillow. Seeing a book he considered to be of no or little value treated this way surprised him, for he found that he - a lover of books - did not even treat his books in such a reverential manner as Therese did. When questioned why she had not read that far, Therese made it known that she read a page several dozens of time to absorb them before opening the next page. All these endeared Therese to the professor and a man who had remained unmarried, unattached, and a virgin, for four decades decided to marry his housekeeper of fifty-seven.

Whereas Kien married her for her devotion to knowledge and books, Therese married for love, money and property. And this is the point where the pathogen was introduced into the organism. Therese sought to claim ownership of Kien's entire properties including the books, the flat, his money and all. She started with part of the flat but gradually allocated three of the four rooms to herself and finally shared the remaining room with the professor. Later, she would throw the Professor onto the street, and Kien would become psychotic, of sorts - twisting reality (believing that she had locked her wife in the flat and that it was his strategy to leave home), believing the friends he picked up (like the dwarf who conned him out of his savings through his weakness for saving books and who planted a dangerous idea in his mind - that his wife was dead, which would later lead to the Professor's death).

Therese and Kien were opposites. Therese was limited in her vocabulary, but loquacious; Kien's language skills are unrivalled but taciturn. Kien's love is for books and knowledge (intangible); Therese's love is for the material properties and she considered the books only because of their financial value; so great was Therese's love for property and wealth that she thought Kien a thief for not giving her his savings at the bank and not willing her his properties. Kien was a virgin at forty; Therese knew what love should be, even at fifty-seven. And even though she was this age, she saw herself not a shade over thirty. These differences set the marriage up for failure even before it began. Kien was unsure how to consummate his marriage and if it was even necessary. He wondered if he should call his gynaecologist-turn-psychologist brother or if he should just buy a book on sex and if the latter who should get the book. These thought processes would later lead to his fall and his inability to fulfill Therese's marital expectations left her bitter and vengeful. These events together with her own psychotic tendencies would lead her to claim proprietorial ownership from the tall, lanky, spineless Kien - a man whose understanding of the world beyond books is as infantile as it could possibly be.

Kien sought solace in his books and partnered with them to fight the enemy, Therese. This provided enough allusion to Nazi Germany and its reaction towards Jews at the time. For instance, Therese's gradual takeover of Kien's apartment and his property could be an allusion Nazi Germany's occupation of foreign lands.

The enemy believes we shall not dare to render void conquests in territory already occupied; trusting in our ignorance of these new conditions, the enemy seeks to initiate a policy of abduction, unnoticed by us, and without an open declaration of war. Have no doubts of this, the enemy will lay hands first upon the noblest among your ranks, upon those whose ransom will be highest. [104]

He continues as he addresses his books to prepare to battle Therese:

Who among you would be reft from your native land, scattered through all the world, treated as slaves, to be priced, examined, bought, but never spoken to - slaves who are but half listened to when they speak in the performance of their duties, but in whose souls no man cares to read, who are possessed but not loved, left to rot or sold for profit, used but never understood? [104]

In this warfare address, Kien made reference to the song the Israelites sang as they were being taken into captivity recorded at Psalm 137. This reference extends to the Jews and their migration from their homeland into the diaspora. He writes

We have no time now for songs of lamentation, ..., or we shall be singing them next by the waters of Babylon. [105] 

In relation to this, Canetti discussed argued that the world remained blind to the events that took place during the Inquisition leading to the loss of several souls. He argued this by stating that sometimes only a small action is required to avert a bigger problem and that though our contribution towards the alleviation of a universal misery might be small, we should not hold it out. No one should think he is too small or too weak to make an impact.

Our widow's mite for the alleviation of universal misery is small, but we must cast in. If a man should say: alone I am too weak, then nothing would be done, and misery would devour further. [245]

But one can say that Kien was the cause of his own victimisation; he's responsible for his own problems by refusing to defend himself and allowing others to direct his life, by believing everybody and misinterpreting people's actions and statements. And after people have told him the things he want to hear, those he had been wishing for, he internalised them and make them his. He retells them as facts they coming from his prodigious mind. Besides, his narrow world-view beyond books made him not a master of people or of the world. Only of books. In his pathetic and often times comedic situations filled with glaring misunderstandings and misinterpretations, which a child of five might not even make, resulting mostly from the superimposition of his thoughts and beliefs on other people's actions and statements, Canetti might be deriding such narrow-mindedness and limited search for knowledge. Also, Kien never consulted anyone and worked in isolation, he was overly opinionated and thought that if it did not come from him, it wasn't important. Clearly, Canetti expects intellectuals to be involved in the discourse of the time, to participate and speak against evil and even if all you can do is little, do it. Else, in the end you might get what you fear the most.

Some aspects of the narrative investigate mob action - its causes and its mind. Canetti shows clearly that each person in a mob has his own unique motive and understanding of what is happening and most often these run counter to those of the others in the mob. He also discussed humanity as a single mass lodged within the individual. Thus, the individual carries within him the mass-soul and it is this mass-soul that is being attacked.

We wage the so-called war of existence for the destruction of the mass-soul in ourselves, no less than for hunger and love. In certain circumstances it can become so strong as to force the individual to selfless acts or even acts contrary to their own interests. 'Mankind' has existed as a mass for long before it was conceived of and watered into an idea. [461]

These deductions percolate into Nash's Equilibrium. Thus, Canetti might be discussing what is referred to in Xhosa as Ubuntu - I am because We are. The universal philosophy of togetherness; the oneness of purpose or of mind distilled into the Buddhist concept of Itai Doshin, or many in body but one in mind. This universal principle is antithetical to the individuality and self-centredness of current political and economic principles. Canetti's discourse showed that though mankind has lost this togetherness, a time will come when humanity shall realise its singularity of purpose, which would be translated into unity.

There will come a time when it will not be scattered again, possibly in a single country at first, eating its way out from there, until no one can doubt any more, for there will be no I, you, he, but only it, the mass. [461/2]

Issues of existentialism were also touched upon. Kien could be described as an Existentialist in the mould of Descartes whose existentialist thought is summed up in the maxim 'I think therefore I am'. Through Kien, Canetti discussed what is it to be dead. For him, since one cannot see the soul, there is no need in discussing it. What one sees is the skeleton and that's the most important thing.

When they found her, on the floor before the writing desk, she was a skeleton; not a soul...' [357; author's emphasis]

Esse percipi, to be is to be perceived. [79]

Marriage as a social contract and its overrating of sex and the relationship between the genders were all discussed. Women were both vilified and praised. But the motherhood role was magnified. Also, with the exception of Therese who did the abusing, most of the women in the story were abused.

Canetti employed comedy, caricaturing and augmented reality to tell this unique story. The turn in his imagery are sometimes sharp, unpredictable, and therefore fulfilling. For instance, two jaguars attacking from the flanks of a man suddenly become sacrificial priests of ancient Mexico. Some of Canetti's descriptions are fantastic; like how Kien packs an entire library into his head and unpacks them every night before going to sleep. He also wrote most of the story from the consciousness of his characters, especially Kien, thus conflating the real and the surreal. The distinction between reality and fantasy is therefore thin. Characters easily see what they have been wishing for or dreaming about, like Kien believing that he had killed his wife or Fisherle - the hump and dwarf - seeing himself as the Chess World Champion to the extent of adopting the title Dr. There are several moments of laughter interspersed with broader intellectual discourse.

Finally, the author's love for the German language was visible in this story. He made references to accurate use of words, people's inability to speak properly and those with limited diction.

There is more in this book than could be discussed here. It would be more beneficial if one reads the book instead. This book is highly recommended.

________________________

* Translated by C. V. Wedgewood
*After this I read Ben Okri's Infinite Riches and then followed it up with The Palm-Wine Drinkard by Amos Tutuola. The progression with these four books is seamless.
* Read quotes from this book here.

243. Crime and Punishment by Fyodor Dostoevsky*

Crime and Punishment (485; 1866)* by Fyodor Dostoevsky is the first book I have read by the author and the third by a Russian. It contributes towards fulfilling the Year of Russian Literature objective. A lot has been said about how great this book is; it is on almost every 'Best Books' list including my reading challenge list - the Hundred Books to be Read in Five Years. It has been reviewed so much that there possibly is nothing more to add. However, like Leo Tolstoy's War and Peace, and all my reviews here on this blog, I will attempt to put down how I understood the book; not how it has generally been received.

Crime and Punishment introduced me to the oft-quoted statement or insinuation that the Russians are 'the world's hardest writers'. Perhaps one could also include the Germans. In C&P, Dostoevsky takes the reader on a mental or psychological tour of the thought-processes, the minutest details, of decision-making; of creating or establishing reasons to influence, positively or negatively, responsibility-taking; of the arduous workings of the conscience and how guilt or otherwise is established, psychologically; and how the latter could have physical effects on the victim or the perpetrator.

In addition to the above, which was treated through the life of Rodya - or Raskolnikov Romanovich, Dostoevsky discussed the essence of a crime: when is crime a crime? Is there anything like negative Iatrogenics in crime (or is a crime to a crime if it averts future crimes)? Are you a criminal if your crime goes to prevent a more devastating crime or a series of crimes whose cumulative impact would have been greater than that singular crime? What happens if you murder a person whose existence would have confined others to a life of torture? Is there any difference between an individual who kills another individual and a soldier who goes to war to kill people?

Raskolnikov is a student. He is kindhearted. All who knew him attest to his kindness. He cares not that he had not. He could and did spend his last rouble (or copeck) on complete strangers if he finds that they needed it more than he did. Yet, upon hearing of a rich old spinster who is a pawn-broker and had acquired wealth through such means in connivance with some unscrupulous individuals and through deviousness and wickedness and who mistreated her step-sister and had made a slave out of her, Rodya set out to commit a crime. This crime was to eliminate this woman, this stain. In effect, to correct a wrong. There is, however, a conundrum as to the cause for which the murder was committed.

First, Rodya has a theory about men. He believes that there are two groups of men: ordinary men and extraordinary men. Ordinary men are conservative in temperament and law-abiding and are meant to be controlled. Extraordinary men 'make new laws, transgress the law, are destroyers or disposed to destruction according to their capacities'. They have the right to commit crimes or transgress the laws if it shall lead to a better future. They go all lengths to realise their ideas and that includes transgression. These individuals live in the future. They are killed today and worshipped tomorrow, unlike the first category which lived only in the present. 

The first category is always the man of the present, the second the man of the future. The first preserves the world and the people in it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal. Each class has an equal right to exist.  [223]

Thus, the two categories are required to complement each other. However, once in a while an ordinary man attempts to behave like an extraordinary man, which leads to chaos. Thus, in the killing of the Ivanovna sisters - one planned, the other an inevitable occurrence - Rodya wanted to take power. He wanted to find out, which group he exactly belonged to. He says that 

'... power is only vouchsafed to the man who dares to stoop and pick it up. There is only one thing, one thing needful: one has only to dare!...' [352]

Thus with this, Rodya claimed that he committed the murder not for the wealth or power, he only did it for himself. One would have thought that power lies in becoming an extraordinary man who could step over moral barriers. He tells Sonia - a girl of numerous problems,

It wasn't to help my mother I did the murder - that's nonsense - I didn't do the murder to gain wealth and power and to become a benefactor of mankind. Nonsense! I simply did it; I did the murder for myself, for myself alone, and whether I became a benefactor to others, or spent my life like a spider catching men in my web and sucking the life out them, I couldn't have cared at that moment ... [353]

Prior to Rodya's confession to Sonia, he had explained to Luzhin - a man who wanted to marry Dounia (Rodya's sister) - that his explanation of the trickle-down effect of wealth, which requires that an individual should first seek his self-interest, will cause people to commit murder.

'Why, carry out logically the theory you were advocating just now, and it follows that people may be killed...' [131]

The particular reason for the crime is unresolved. Though he had argued and explained that the murder results directly from his wish to be a man - an extraordinary man - and was not for the money, during his trial he stated his poverty, his financial hopelessness, his deprivation and his zeal to provide the first steps in his life, as the causes of the murder.

To the decisive question as to what motive impelled him to the murder and the robbery, he answered very clearly with the coarsest frankness that the cause was his miserable position, his poverty and helplessness, and his desire to provide for his first steps in life with the help of the three  thousand roubles he had reckoned on finding. [450]

And was he sorry for it? On the issue of guilt, his was not expressed in the light of 'shouldn't have been'. He however, described himself a coward due to his behaviour after the crime and not because of the crime. For the crime, he cogently defended it that it will save forty sins:

'Crime? what crime?' he cried in a sudden fury. 'That I killed a vile noxious insect, an old pawnbroker woman, of use to no one!... Killing her was atonement for forty sins. She was sucking the life out of poor people. Was that a crime? I am not thinking of it and I am not thinking of expiating it, ... [436]

Further he compared his crime to soldiers who after battle receive medals. He explained that there was no difference between what he has done for which he is being crucified and what soldiers do for which they are decorated.

I fail to understand why bombarding people by regular siege is more honourable. [437]

Yet as an ordinary man, Rodya was tormented by his sin. He fell into the very mental state he had written about in an article whose publication he was oblivious of. In that article, he had explained the psychological state of criminals after they have committed a crime. These torments made him want to give himself up; he was prepared to face his just punishment and be relieved.

There was also the love-story thread between Sonia and Rodya. In his time of solitude and torture, Rodya sought solace in Sonia. To her he confessed. To her he sought salvation. And it was she who saved him. It was the persistence of her love, even when it was unrequited and shunned. It was her willingness not to demand answers, explanations, but to share in Rodya's sorrows that saved them - for she was herself described as 'a woman of questionable character' - and renewed him. In the end, love overcame all.

Just as in War and Peace, Dostoevsky - as an author - at two places or more showed himself in addressing the reader or included himself in the people. Also, like Tolstoy and other authors of classics, they quote or refer to works of fiction or non-fiction or emerging ideas in several fields of knowledge. They show their full involvement in the intellectual discourse of the times and indirectly indicate their positions. This is interesting as it can lead to a chain-reaction of learning.

Crime and Punishment is a book that is worth the read. It belongs to that category of books that provide knowledge and discuss ideas. These are my preferred books.

__________________

* This is my 700th post at ImageNations, since I began in the middle of 2009. As a milestone blogpost, I dedicate this to all my readers.
*Version by Wordsworth Classics (2000) translated by Constance Garnett.
*Some Quotes from the book

238. The Government Inspector by Nikolai Gogol

Unlike novels, or even novellas, plays focus on a micro-theme or subject matter and treat it in a way as to make the observer (or reader) think and to effect a change, possibly. Again, unlike novels and novellas which are always originally meant to be read (but which have recently been adapted to the screens), plays are written for the stage and therefore their message is taken in as and when they unfold and the curtains furl and must therefore be short and precise and employing different theatrical devices grab the attention of listeners and deliver their messages. Thus, a play must dramatise events. And Nikolai Gogol's The Government Inspector (1836; translated and adapted by D. J. Campbell) meets these features excellently.

The Government Inspector is a satirical and comic representation of corruption in the public service of Tsarist Russia with cartoonish characters. Officials in a town, headed by a Mayor, receive information of the visit of a Government Inspector travelling incognito from Saint Petersburg, the seat of government, into their town, perhaps as monitoring exercises. This was the period where any minor offence or infringement could lead its perpetrator to Siberia. Located far away from Petersburg, this undercover visit comes as a surprise to the town's officials - the Charity Commissioner, the Postmaster, the Mayor, the Judge, and the School Superintendent; also because the town had almost never been officially visited by any such high-ranking official in a long while, things had been led to neglect and rot. When  two friends, Bob and Dob, came to inform the gathered officials in the Mayor's room that the Petersburg official they are expecting had arrived and staying at an inn (where he eats and sleeps without payment), the officials sought to visit him and, if possible, bribe him out of any negative report he might have prepared for the authorities. But each official also had a personal egoistic ambition to advance.

What was clear, as events unfold and the officials strategise on how to keep the Government Inspector in the dark about the true state of affairs, was that the town was in a dilapidated state; nothing seemed to work in the town. Corruption had become endemic and the Mayor held absolute power and did whatever he wanted. He robbed the traders of their wares, physically abused them; the streets were dirty and most of the buildings were crumbling. Yet, it was not as if these officials did not know what they were supposed to do. For to cover their actions and inactions, they sought to literally whitewash reality. Thus, what is right is psychologically ingrained in man. It is known by default. And therefore any departure from it is a personal decision or choice. The parallelism with current events show that corruption is a human condition and is therefore not specific to a country or continent. On the other hand, it also shows clearly the importance of leadership. The Mayor, being the head of the town, was the most corrupt official. He condoned and, in most cases, showed the people he contracted for government business the means to cheat the system; consequently, everybody became corrupt. 

But Hlestakov (or Ivan Alexandrovitch) was not an Inspector; he was a junior rank official passing through the town from Petersburg to his father's farm with his servant, Yosif. He was not paying for food not because he was a government officer but because he had run-out of money and genuinely wanted to borrow. Upon meeting the town officials, Hlestakov's first thought was that the inn-keeper had reported him for arrest. But when he began explaining himself stating emphatically that he would go nowhere with the officials, the town's officials who had come with the motive of bribing the Government Inspector took it as a smart move by a Government Inspector to throw them off-guard. They hardened their stance and within a short time had settled the bill (food and accommodation) and had requested that he accompanied them to inspect the public buildings and offices, which they had rehashed up. The Mayor wouldn't listen to Hlestakov's ignorant responses and statements; for him they were all an attempt by an Inspector to remain incognito. When word got round that the Government Inspector had arrived and staying at the Mayor's house, almost the entire townfolks, including the traders, would bribe him to do one thing or another for him. Though Hlestakov would not take the items, the townfolks had come to believe that they had to bribe him for him to save them from the Mayor's clutches of compulsory bribes. Thus, the endemicity of corruption had normalised bribery that they forced it upon Hlestakov. Hlestakov himself became a convert to corruption, having been influenced by the people, to the extent that he forcefully extorted the little amount of money Bob and Dob had on them, when they had not voluntarily offered it to him. This incident indicates the interrelationships and interactions between people and the environment they lived in. Why should a completely innocent man - a man who showed that he was not street-smart unlike his servant - be suddenly transformed to take advantage of his benefactors?

Again, man's belief in his fellow man as the key to his problems when the man himself may harbour doubts about himself, came to the fore. Hlestakov knew he had no such powers the people had attributed to him. He knew he could solve none of the problems he was being told. Yet, the people - traders, officials - had complete faith in him. They believed he was the only one who could solve their problems for them. This is most relevant today when people seemed to depend entirely on priests and supernatural powers, and not themselves, for their problems to be solved.

This series of comedic errors of stupendous proportions would reach its apogee when both the Mayor's wife and his daughter fell in love with and fought over this young twenty-three year old Petersburg official. And the Mayor himself, with smiles and enthusiasm, would engage his daughter to Hlestakov, when the latter - on bended knees and with teary eyes - asked for it. For him, moving to Petersburg was a dream come true. What was provincial life when one could dine with royalty? This clearly symbolises man quest and affinity for power. Most people would do everything to associate with power, no matter the source. But definitely, this becomes absurd when mother and daughter fights over a man young enough to be her daughter.

However, all these would come crushing into smithereens when a gendarme announced to a gathering of officials and townfolks, who had come to congratulate the Mayor upon the engagement of his daughter to the Inspector, that the Inspector-General appointed by Imperial decree had arrived from St. Petersburg. Prior to this ominous declaration, the Postmaster, who read every letter that passed through him, was informing the officials of Hlestakov's letter to his friend in Petersburg narrating his windfall increase in fortune in the town.

The Government Inspector may be a funny, even cartoonish, representation of provincial life in the nineteenth century, but stripped of all the comedy, of all the theatrical innuendos, it is the reality of many a country today. Today, politics and governance have become the fastest routes to economic and financial security. It is no longer a call to duty. In developing countries, the corruption is all clear to see. In developed countries, it is subtle and manifests itself when politicians leave office and become lobbyists for private companies. This is after the companies have sponsored their campaigns and they in turn have passed several policies that profited their companies. Like the provincial officials, it is not as if these politicians do not know what is right. They do. The question is whether they have the moral suasion to do what they know is right.

233. War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (FP: 1869) translated by Anthongy Briggs (Penguin, 2005; 1392) is divided into four volumes and an epilogue and other extras. The reviews were carried out in the volumes and this is to consolidate for easy reference.

Volume I: This 313-page volume introduces the reader to the Bolkonskys - Prince Nikolay Bolkonsky, the father; Prince Andrey, the son married to little princess Liza, and Princess Marya, the daughter; the Rostovs - Natasha, the daughter; Nikolay, the son; Petya, the younger son, Vera, the eldest daughter; the Kuragins - the scheming Prince Vasily Kuragin who, unable to outwit Pierre (later Count Bezukhov of his inheritance), married his daughter, Helene, to him and was about to marry his son, the troublesome Anatole to Princess Marya because of Prince Nikolay Bolkonsky's riches but he failed. There was also the scheming Anna Mikhaylovna and his son Boris. (continue here)

Volume II: In this part, Prince Andrey Bolkonsky comes home the day his wife delivers and dies. This took the Prince into a period of gloom only to fall in love with Natasha Rostov and get his heart broken after she falls in love with the careless Anatole Kuragin. Pierre (Count Bezukhov) hears stories about his cheating wife, Helene, with his friend Dolokhov and challenges him to a duel of which both survives but Dolokhov left with a bullet wound. Pierre could be said to be the most frustrated person in the novel. He is seeking the meaning of life but finds that even for those who claim they have found the way, their lives is antithetical to what they preach and unable to reconcile how this could be, Pierre reverts to his earlier life of heavy drinking and gloom. This is after he has been introduced to Freemason and found its teachings lacking in the lives of its adherents. However, Pierre who comes back to live with his wife again after the separation that resulted after the duel, cannot resolve the meaning of his feelings for Natasha and knowing that his Prince Andrey is engaged to her, he left Moscow to Petersburg. (Continue here)

Volume III: Volume III begins with a critical analyses of the human condition and human nature and man's place and role in world events and history and the misconception and false attributions that is fraught in our analyses of causes. Tolstoy's essay discusses predestination, man's role in humanity's history and the belief that man has control over historical events. Tolstoy agrees with (or Nassim Taleb rather agrees with Tolstoy) on man's epistemic arrogance regarding man's quest to understand events. He argued that man, with the benefit of hindsight, pretends to understand historical events when in fact he understands nothing and only isolates some actions as having caused such events because he can now, post-facto, look back and select any of the numerous causes and claim boldly that what he has identified is (or are) the real (true, actual) cause(s) of the event, when in actual fact what he has found played no role or played a very minute role in a series of sequential actions that culminated into that event. This was the third characteristic of a Black Swan event as described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb. (continue here)

Volume IV (and Epilogue): Volume IV begins with a life in Petersburg after the abandonment of Moscow. It also shows how the Russians struggled to uplift themselves from the clutches of French culture and its recherche lifestyle. It should be noted that this is a period where the speaking of French is seen as the ultimate achievement of Russian gentry. However, this invasion blossomed in their hearts a sense of belonging and a sense of patriotism that traverse all aspects of life, including language.

Life in Petersburg initially seemed to be unaffected and untouched by the invasion of Moscow; the aristocrats still held their parties, loose talks still flew around, and all thoughts of war and death were suppressed. However, as the news of Moscow's abandonment gradually filtered to the people, a general despondency overcame the people.

In Moscow, Pierre who had been arrested and accused of arson, for helping a woman who was being robbed by a French soldier, and has refused, initially, to declare who he was escaped execution by providence; but he couldn't escape witnessing the death of several others. Pierre was taken as a prisoner and was later rescued by the guerrilla unit of Denisov and Dolokhov, a mission that led to the death of Piotyr Rostov, the youngest Rostov who, following the footsteps of his brother, Nikolay, had enlisted himself and set out to defend the fatherland and had at that moment enthusiastically galloped into death when he allowed his youthful exuberance to override Denisov's military advice. (continue here)

Volume IV: War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

Volume IV (1035 - 1256) of War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (FP: 1896) and translated by Anthony Briggs (Penguin, 2005; 1392) begins with a life in Petersburg after the abandonment of Moscow. It also shows how the Russians struggled to uplift themselves from the clutches of French culture and its recherche lifestyle. It should be noted that this is a period where the speaking of French is seen as the ultimate achievement of Russian gentry. However, this invasion blossomed in their hearts a sense of belonging and a sense of patriotism that traverse all aspects of life, including language.

Life in Petersburg initially seemed to be unaffected and untouched by the invasion of Moscow; the aristocrats still held their parties, loose talks still flew around, and all thoughts of war and death were suppressed. However, as the news of Moscow's abandonment gradually filtered to the people, a general despondency overcame the people.

In Moscow, Pierre who had been arrested and accused of arson, for helping a woman who was being robbed by a French soldier, and has refused, initially, to declare who he was escaped execution by providence; but he couldn't escape witnessing the death of several others. Pierre was taken as a prisoner and was later rescued by the guerrilla unit of Denisov and Dolokhov, a mission that led to the death of Piotyr Rostov, the youngest Rostov who, following the footsteps of his brother, Nikolay, had enlisted himself and set out to defend the fatherland and had at that moment enthusiastically galloped into death when he allowed his youthful exuberance to override Denisov's military advice.

But Dolokhov's role in Petya's death, and his whole behaviour in the affairs of men, is vile, to say the least.  He's not much different from Heathcliff in Emily Bronte's Wuthering Heights. He is evil in a coy way. His treatment of Nikolay Rostov, gambling him out of several thousands of roubles and enforcing payment, after Sonya (in love with Nikolay) had rejected his proposal and after Rostov himself had taken him home and nursed him out of his duelling wounds. Dolokhov played to the fancy and exuberance of young and totally befuddled Petya, taking him on dangerous spy mission and finally taking him to the frontier where there was likely to be heavy artillery, leading to his death.

Pierre (Count Bezukhov) having being released from the French would fall sick but upon recovery will be told all the events that had taken place in his absence, including the death of Helene, his (ex)wife, the death of his close friend Prince Andrey, and the defeat of the French, who were at that moment retreating and escaping from Russian guerrilla assault. His release, his recovery, his near death experiences and his (near) witnessing of deaths of those close to him, such as Platon Karatayev, and the miserableness of life triggered the enlightenment Pierre had been searching for. He suddenly discovered that man was made for happiness and happiness lies in man and that there is no situation where a man can be happy and perfectly free neither is there a situation where he should be unhappy and not free (page 1179); he discovered that the infinite, the eternal, the great are in everything around him and he need not search faraway as he had been doing; that even in those places where he sought for happiness the 'workaday trivialities' he detested could still be found; he found his answer to his question in the eternal presence of God. After Pierre's discovery - this enlightenment - that happiness is not in the faraway places, dealing with people and his workers became easy. 

Nikolay Rostov will save Princess Marya and this would be the beginning of a salvation that would take his family from financial ruin. This meeting, though purely by happenstance, will lead Nikolay to think of Sonya and his relationship with her. A series of events would lead Sonya to break up their engagement. For Nikolay unlike Countess Rostov, it was not a matter of Marya's wealth. But it will take a long time, the Countess's insistence, the Count's (Count Rostov) death, and a huge dose of humility and discipline for the two to meet again after Nikolay, upon the death of his father, slid into poverty when he inherited his father's debt which far outweighed the properties he bequeathed.

In Volume, Tolstoy continued to provide further explanation for is multiple-causes hypothesis. He strongly wrote against the belief that events triggered by unique single causes. He states that several coincidences working together cause an event and no single person can decide an action or fate. As an example, he explained that the Russian manoeuvre and its results were not caused by Kutuzov alone.

He also explored, elaborately, the inaccuracies and illogicality in the thesis historians posits for the war in the practice of their profession in general. He addresses them and sought to provide alternative interpretation of events, giving different but broader reasons for certain historical incidences. For instance, he says that historians having described Napoleon as great attribute every decision, action or inaction of his as good, great or genius including his desertion of his troops (a major military faux pas), which historians describe as being the work of a master tactician.

Tolstoy's essay is argumentative, complex, and compelling. For instance he writes, and this permeates throughout the novel especially when he is using analogies to explain his point or when using such detailed descriptions as a preamble to the emotions and behaviour of his characters,

When a man sees an animal dying he is seized with horror. What he himself consists of, his own substance, is being visibly destroyed, ceasing to exist before his very eyes. But when the dying creature is a man, and a man deeply loved, there is more to it than the horror experienced at the extinction of life: it feels like a laceration, a spiritual wound, which, like a physical wound, may heal up or may prove fatal, but it always hurts and shrinks away from any abrasive external contact. [1196]

This is not a consequence of translation (which sometimes even water-down the beauty of the prose). It is Tolstoy's writing style, keen observation, and intellect that is at work here.

In debunking historians preferred analytical methodology of single-cause single-person heroism, Tolstoy compares Napoleon to Kutuzov; he listed the great things Kutuzov did, including no less saving of Russia, but was still referred to as a 'scheming courtier' afraid of Napoleon because he would not allow the Russian army to totally annihilate the French army and arrest of Napoleon. Kutuzov, having observed events and relying on his abundant experience considered the spending more men to achieve an end they were achieving with minimal loss pointless and unnecessary. The Russian army had at the time lost about half of its strength just chasing a retreating and defeated French army and Kutuzov saw no reason why a spent and exhausted army should be further burdened with a war which they are not sure to win, should it ensued, and which would increase the losses on the Russian side. Yet, Napoleon, the man who left his troops in the lurch, the man who went off to kill people in Africa when it was not necessary, is rather given the accolades of great man and genius.

Thus, an uncelebrated, frequently chastised Kutuzov left the army when he realised that his powers had waned; especially the Tsar said he was displeased by the slow progress of events (meaning not annihilating the French and arresting Napoleon) and was therefore coming to the war front himself; because Kutuzov was unwilling to cut-off the French, thus allowing them to escape. Kutuzov saw the aim of the war on the French as the salvation of Russia and nothing beyond that; when the Tsar (Alexander I), upon arrival at the war front, talked about the saving of Europe, after Russia has already been saved (thus taking the war abroad), Kutuzov realised that his end has come and there was nothing left for him to do. He therefore resigned into civilian life.

The effects of the war were felt in the Volume IV. It showed man's willingness to fight back from devastation. However, there was nowhere where the effects of the war were felt more than on the lives of Natasha and Marya; Natasha losing an ex-fiancé, a brother and later a father; and Marya losing a brother and a father. Even Countess Rostov, who didn't care much when Prince Andrey died, perhaps because of the pecuniary benefit that might come the family's way should Marya marries Nikolay, was totally devastated when her son, Petya died. But even these individuals grew out of their sorrows and sombreness, with time.

Epilogue (1257 - 1358)

The Epilogue is in two parts: first it tells of the lives of some of the novel's major characters after a lapse of seven years: Nikolay married Marya; Pierre married Natasha; both had children and there was some sort of stabilisation and back to normalcy of family life and the nation's life.

However, the chunk of the epilogue brings together, somewhat repetitively, most of the arguments Tolstoy had been making in his essays, expanded on others to include new threads. In his essays, he discussed the concept of power, what makes people (the masses) behave in a certain way - what are the causes of events? Tolstoy says that there are several commands but those that meet the right circumstances and are likely to coincide with an event are interpreted as the cause of that event whereas the numerous orders and commands not obeyed or carried-out are forgotten. This is a truncated sort of data where only observations meeting a certain criteria (those that meet events) are observed and therefore could lead to bias in judgement, if the observer (historian) does not bear this in mind.

He also discussed free will as against the laws of necessity and the relationship between them and how they affect judgement. On the existence of free will, he writes

If every man enjoyed free will - in other words, if every man could do what he wanted - the whole history would be a tissue of sporadic accidents. [1342]

He stated that certain factors determine what we ascribe to an action - free will or necessity. And this includes the relationship between the man committing the act and the external world; his relationship to time; and the relationship between him and the causes which led to the act. For instance, he says that if a man commits murder and has gone on to live calmly and innocently in society for over twenty years, his action would more likely be described as a necessity. Alternatively, if he was arrested immediately, he would have been judged to have committed the crime from his own free will. Thus, expanding the inter-temporal space (& in the examination of historical events) shows that man is ruled more by necessity (or laws) than by his free will. He says that free will is the unexplained part of actions (perhaps like the errors which capture other unexplained factors in any regression model). Tolstoy argues that there is an inverse relationship between free will and law of necessity

[I]f we consider the situation of a man with maximum known association with the external world, a maximum time-lapse between his action and any judgement of it and maximum access to the causes behind his action, we get an impression of maximum necessity and minimum free will. Whereas if we consider a man with minimal dependence on external circumstances, whose action has been committed at the nearest possible moment to the present, and for reasons beyond our ken, then we get an impression of minimal necessity and maximum freedom of action. [1351]

In all these, Tolstoy was arguing for an appropriate methodology (or so it seems) for the study of history, historical events, and historical personages. He was looking for a scientific approach that is robust and precise and not subject to the writer's whims and hubris, his epistemic limitation and opacity.

Conclusion

War and Peace is a tome of Russian life at that period in time, Russian culture, history and the newfangled ideas (in mathematics, mechanics (physics)) that were coming up then. It shows how a country began to look inward to itself rather than external. A cultural revolution? Perhaps. Tolstoy showed the life of a country and the lives of the people in the country and how the war changed both lives. His essays were compelling but repetitive. His analogies, symbols, metaphors, were deep and excellent. His introduction to every chapter is beautiful. War and Peace is lived not read; it is experienced, and the reader will come out differently, with new thoughts and challenging questions.

Its weakness could perhaps be attributed to the writer's passionate, and eagerness to expose the faults fraught with textbook histories provided by historians and their methodological approach to historical analyses, which led to repetitions. But each repeated idea came with a new analogy to further expound what had previously been said. 

Though the characters were numerous (some say over hundred), and there were several real historical figures, it was never confusing for some families kept appearing; they carried the novel. Others like Boris Drubetskoy and her mother Anna suddenly tapered off, without a mention almost throughout the fourth volume; their role having ended. Regardless, of the number of characters, Tolstoy showed that he understood them. Sometimes one's facial expression, his demeanour, is enough to leave a huge impression on the reader; an example being that young French soldier who was forced to execute those accused of arson in Moscow and the other who was given the duty of killing Platon Karatayev, when his weakness prevented him from further travel.

If you will read only one Russian novel, read War and Peace.
______________
Volume I, II, & III

Volume III: War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

Volume III (665 - 1034) of War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (Penguin, 2005 (1392); FP: 1869) translated by Anthony Briggs begins with a critical analyses of the human condition and human nature and man's place and role in world events and history and the misconception and false attributions that is fraught in our analyses of causes. Tolstoy's essay discusses predestination, man's role in humanity's history and the belief that man has control over historical events. Tolstoy agrees with (or Nassim Taleb rather agrees with Tolstoy) on man's epistemic arrogance regarding man's quest to understand events. He argued that man, with the benefit of hindsight, pretends to understand historical events when in fact he understands nothing and only isolates some actions as having caused such events because he can now, post-facto, look back and select any of the numerous causes and claim boldly that what he has identified is (or are) the real (true, actual) cause(s) of the event, when in actual fact what he has found played no role or played a very minute role in a series of sequential actions that culminated into that event. This was the third characteristic of a Black Swan event as described by Nassim Nicholas Taleb.

For instance, Tolstoy says it is wholly untrue and a characteristic of hindsight  (or what Nassim refers to as Epistemic Opacity or Arrogance or The Triplet of Opacity) and a result of flawed methodological approach employed by historians when they undertake the analysis of events in discrete units that the Russian Generals knew exactly what they were doing when they retreated towards Moscow and when they later abandoned it. According to Tolstoy, every man plays a tiny part in any great event and that those who are usually deemed great men to whom great events are attributed to are nothing more than pawns or tools history uses to write itself. He describes how events are predetermined and how it is impossible to influence or change the course of an action. He writes of Napoleon:

Every action they perform, which they take to be self-determined and independent, is in historical sense quite the opposite; it is interconnected with the whole course of history, and predetermined from eternity. [671]

It is this interconnectivity of smaller actions across several millions of years and of people, that determines what happens on any given day. Thus, according to Tolstoy there was not one single event that could be fingered as being the cause of the 1812/13 war between Russia and France and that the Russian victory at Borodino and their subsequent retreat beyond Moscow, the withdrawal of the French from Moscow and the fear that gripped them as they also retreated to Smolensk (in Vol. IV), and the sudden boldness of the Russian army and the guerrilla tactics they wreaked upon the French army are not necessarily fortuitous but rather have no specific cause. Any attempt by historians to find causes for these would be an exercise in futility. To back his thesis Tolstoy asks what would have happened if the people had refused to fight when Napoleon asked them to? He argues that the war feeling in the French army had reached such a fever-pitch that if Napoleon had said anything different from declaring war on the Russians, he might himself have been charged upon. He says that several incidences came together at the right time and burst into uncontrollable exudation of energy. He refers to this as a kind of 'law of coincidences'.

He compared this phenomenon with history; where historians break events up into discrete units for analysis though no event can have a unique beginning since all events are continuous and results from other actions coming before it. He used this in explaining how wrong it is to use a tiny part of the whole to explain the results of the whole; for instance, how Napoleon's life is used to explain the revolution instead of the total sum of every individual's will. For instance, Tolstoy says that it is wrong to ascribe the defeat of the French to Napoleon catching cold, as historians do; according to him, the defeat of the French was long settled. He says that great events are caused by a series of events working together and not by the will of of an individual. Assuming that the defeat to Napoleon's army at Borodino was because he contracted cold and therefore couldn't get his orders carried out, then it is also because his valet didn't get him his boots on time leading to him getting cold etc. but this is not so. Again, he questions why an army that has captured a city will not preserve its provisions but will loot its treasures or why the French did not push towards Petersburg when it has the military strength for it.

Tolstoy also explains that sometimes it isn't those who are deemed great who played the most important role in great events just as a part of a machine that unhinges itself and make loud clanging noise is not necessarily the most important part of that machine. He blamed historians for seeking out causes and for identifying 'great men' or 'heroes'. He discusses the fallacy of human deductions, which in search of solutions break down continuous motions into discrete units for analyses and end up misunderstanding events. He makes his explanation using the tortoise and Achilles as a case in point and also blames the lack of appropriate methodology for such pedantic hubris. In discussing this Tolstoy mentioned a new branch of mathematics, possibly calculus, which unknown to the ancient now

allows for infinitely small quantities and by doing so creates the basic conditions of motion... [911]

It is this suddenness with which Tolstoy's story evolves into a discursive essay that makes this book an important treatise - a treasure tome - of life in Russia in the 19th Century. His subject matter are wide-ranging as seen in his varied analogies which ranges from the fields of mechanics to mathematics to Opera and Cinemas.

Another theme that runs through the 3rd Volume is the trinity concept of  love, forgiveness, and death; or more specifically, love, forgiveness at the point of death. As the French approached Moscow, the Russian aristocrats, unwilling to surrender their recherche lifestyle, migrated to Petersburg and other areas leaving behind the peasants and serfs. This is a period where the French cultural influence on Russian life was very palpable. In fact even as as Russia was going to war with France, there were those glitterati high-society people who still revered France (example are those who patronised Countess Bezukhov's salon); though this was counterbalanced by the personages who patronised Anna Pavlovna's salon. Regardless, the general mood of the people was one of hatred towards the French to the extent that the to be caught speaking French, which was common, is to be suspiciously looked upon as a (potential) spy.

However, not all Muscovites could separate their umbilical cords from their homes and Old Prince Nikolay Bolkonsky is one such person. He suffered his first stroke when he moved from Bald Hills to Prince Andrey's house at Bogucharovo but did not survive the second attack. However, what is more significant here is not the Old Prince's love for his home and the fatherland and his anger over its possible desecration by the French. The significance of his death is in his declaration of his confused and withheld love and appreciation towards Princess Marya, his daughter, to whom he had always been unduly harsh. On his deathbed, the Old Prince asked for forgiveness and blurted out his filial love for his daughter, which for some reason was expressed only in vitriolic vituperation.

But the Old Prince was not the only one who saw the importance of love at the point of death and the uselessness of a life fraught with hatred. He was not the only one whose understanding of life blossomed exponentially at the point of death. His son, Prince Andrey Bolkonsky, also did. After he was hit by a bullet in the stomach that would prove fatal, Prince Andrey was sent to an infirmary where he met Anatole Kuragin whose leg had at the time been amputated; this being their first meeting after Anatole's deception of the former's fiance, Natasha Rostov. Prince Andrey's emotional reaction towards Anatole was one of love and forgiveness. And when he - Andrey - later found himself in the presence of Natasha, a woman who rejected his proposal, he would ask for forgiveness and declare his love for her. Natasha would be by his bedside, tending and turning him and treating his wound day and night. 

Similarly, Dholokov meeting Pierre for the first time after the duel that resulted when he was accused of having had an affair with Helene (Countess Bezukhov, Pierre's wife) asked for forgiveness, with teary eyes, for any misunderstanding that might had occurred between them in the past. Thus, on the battlefield and on the deathbed each realise how fickle life is and how meaningless the things we fight for or against are when death will neutralise everything, like anti-matter. In the face of death, love prevailed over hatred.

However, unlike the others who saw life's futility when they were near death, Helene (or Countess Bezukhov - Pierre's wife) excluded everybody from her deathbed. Prior to that she continued to lead her high-society life, dissolved her marriage to Pierre after joining a church and married two different individuals at the same time. Instead of this polyandrous behaviour causing societal isolation, Countess Bezukhov was admired for her boldness, panache, and intelligence. Pierre on the other hand was blamed and lambasted as continued his search for life's meaning and for the ingredients of happiness. He had also not resolved his feeling for Natasha Rostov but have identified that his destiny and Napoleon's are interconnected in a mysterious way. He has found (rather been told) that Napoleon is the anti-Christ whose name, when arranged and numbered in a sequence, the sum of which comes to six hundred and sixty-six (666), the number of the beast John mentioned in Revelation. Pierre has also found that if he Frenchified his name and add his origin and do some elimination his name l'russe Besuhof will also come to the same sum as Napoleon's. Believing that he has been chosen by destiny to be the destroyer of the beast, he set out to defend Moscow, in whichever way he can, even as the Russian army retreated beyond the city and the city was ensconced in conflagrations and looting by the French army.

Pierre is one person who is difficult to understand and appreciate as he wastes his wealth and his life on a wife who he does not love and she in turn hates. Pierre is a conundrum. His representation is based on life itself. Can we really understand it? For instance he sold one of his estates to raise a militia for the war. Though he was unsure of his participation and usefulness of the war, he went to the war front to observe events and came face to face with death and was almost taken a prisoner but for a cannon ball that came hurling past. Later, Pierre will be arrested for arson, after he fought a French Officer who was busily robbing a woman of her necklace; later (in Vol. IV) he will by providence escape execution and become a prisoner.

Another important observation, which runs through the whole book, is Tolstoy's ability to capture mob-thought, describing the complex of decisions, positions, and thought-processes that go on to influence mob action. For instance, Tolstoy describes the general mood as the French approached Moscow and the various opinions that were bobbing around. This phenomenon is balanced by his detailed description of the minutest action such as the sun rising behind someone's back or how a tiny bit of biscuit fell from the Tsar's hand, rolled into the crowd and caused excitement among the masses. This also supports his thesis that millions of tiny actions are the cause of any event.

Finally, Leo Tolstoy portrayed man's quest for wealth and how it influences decisions and rules actions. Countess Rostov's eagerness to safeguard the family's lifestyle and protect the next generation of Rostovs led her to take certain decisions, which were not unique of the time. Countess Rostov, upon hearing that Prince Andrey was dying from war wounds, saw God's providence in this because earlier she had read a letter from Nikolay Rostov, his eldest son, about meeting Princess Marya, Andrey's sister. Should Prince Andrey die the Princess will become the sole heir and should he marry Nikolay, as the countess is working tirelessly to see it come through including manipulating Sonya (her niece) to break her engagement to Nikolay, then wealth of the Rostovs will be restored and their father's profligate behaviour wouldn't matter.

The story blooms in this volume.
_____________________________
See also: Volume I, Volume II, & Volume IV

Volume II: War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy

Volume II (315 - 664) of War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (Penguin, 2005 (1392); FP: 1869) translated by Anthony Briggs concentrates less on the war with France and more with the shenanigans and trickery of the elite and those who pretend to be. There was also a lot marital unrest with, cheating, ranking highest.

In this part, Prince Andrey Bolkonsky comes home the day his wife delivers and dies. This took the Prince into a period of gloom only to fall in love with Natasha Rostov and get his heart broken after she falls in love with the careless Anatole Kuragin. Pierre (Count Bezukhov) hears stories about his cheating wife, Helene, with his friend Dolokhov and challenges him to a duel of which both survives but Dolokhov left with a bullet wound. Pierre could be said to be the most frustrated person in the novel. He is seeking the meaning of life but finds that even for those who claim they have found the way, their lives is antithetical to what they preach and unable to reconcile how this could be, Pierre reverts to his earlier life of heavy drinking and gloom. This is after he has been introduced to Freemason and found its teachings lacking in the lives of its adherents. However, Pierre who comes back to live with his wife again after the separation that resulted after the duel, cannot resolve the meaning of his feelings for Natasha and knowing that his Prince Andrey is engaged to her, he left Moscow to Petersburg.

Boris Drubetskoy and Nikolay Rostov are still in the army, finding ways to move up higher the ranks. Boris is determined, like her mother Anna Mikhaylovna, to engineer his way into elitism even if it has to be to marry into riches and this he did by marrying Julie Karagin. In the military he did everything that will see him rise including holding the Russia's enemy, Emperor Bonaparte, in high esteem. For him, not born a count or prince, he must force his way through. Boris is balanced perfectly, or somewhat, by Nikolay Rostov who is extremely patriotic and sought favour in the Tsar and Russia and is prepared to die for both for they are one and the same thing. He is much more open-minded and does not need to do anything extraordinary to be respected. But he will still do anything for his mother, Countess Rostov. However, when it comes to marriage he wants to be his own man and this means marrying Sonya, a woman with no dowry, as the countess describes her. This wouldn't have been a problem but the profligate lifestyle of Count Rostov is sending the family into ruin and unless Nikolay marries into riches the family will fall off the social status and have to live in poverty. Nikolay himself cares less about that but the countess does.

Prince Andrey falls in love with Natasha and is prepared to marry her against his father's wishes. But he wants to travel through Europe to recuperate from depression that came upon him following the death of his wife. And Natasha is flighty. Her decisions are guided by her heart and once if flutters her mind also flutters. She is very much unlike Sonya who was prepared to go through everything, including taunts from her benefactors - the Rostovs, to marry Nikolay. when Anatole promised her love, Natasha was ready to elope.

Tolstoy has a way of writing both at the micro and macro level. He describes both the unit and the heap. However, what is more interesting is his unique understanding of the human condition. He clearly articulates the injustices that abounds in the world; where people who do great things and plays important roles are despised only for those who praises the most but do nothing to be rewarded. He also shows how people are quick to despise you if you fall out of favour and will quickly come around to support you, pretending that they never despised you, if you once again finds favour with authority. Suddenly, Helene's relationship with his brother Anatole is forgotten and is rather regarded as the most intelligent person one could meet. She who cheated on his husband Pierre was rather pitied and Pierre was lambasted and had it not been his riches, something he really don't care about, he would have become an outcast. Kutuzov was respected until Tsar Alexander showed no favour in him; there and then he became the enemy until he once again found favour. This is what makes this book worth the read: Tolstoy's understanding of the world and the way it works.

Volume II ends on a new preparation for war against France, as Napoleon's determination to invade Russia takes on a whole new meaning. This leads to the call-up of Russia's old Generals. This is not just a novel. It is a thesis of life.

_____________________________

See also: Volume I, Volume III, & Volume IV