The ORIGINAL VERSION of WAR and PEACE

[olichka]

Perhaps you're right : Natasha became dazzled by Anatole because she waited too long for Andrey to come back and was just yearning for passion and affection. Perhaps that incident with Anatole was just a "transference" of her passion for Andrey to Anatole. I'll take your word for it that you have to be a man to fully understand Andrey.

With regard to Volkonsky family, Tolstoy's own mother was actually a Volkonsky (Maria Volkonsky) and in describing the Bolkonsky family, Tolstoy actually used family chronicles. Thus, Princess Marya and Prince Nikolay were based on his mother and grandfather respectively. Except that his mother was an only child and didn't have a brother --- so Andrey is just a fictional character.

Before writing " War and Peace ", Tolstoy wanted to write " The Decembrists " , and for that he interviewed a distant relative of his mother --- Prince Sergei Volkonsky, a Decembrist who had recently returned from Siberia. So perhaps we can surmise that Andrey was destined for a fate of a Decembrist, based on the fact that there was a Volkonsky Decembrist in Tolstoy's family.

Have you read Nekrassov's " The Russian women " ? In it, he describes two women Princess Maria Volkonskaya ( wife of Sergey ) and Princess Ekaterina Troubetzkaya who follow their husbands into exile to Siberia. It's a very interesting read.

With regard to revolutions in Russia, the autocratic regime was so severe and inhuman that all thise revolutions were justified. However, I do agree that the massacre of Nicholas II ' s family was monstrous, particularly of their children ! But, in a way, Nicholas and Alexandra through their own stupid actions contributed to that end --- i.e. Alexandra listening to Rasputin when choosing ministers, Nicholas appointing himself Commander-in-Chief and his inexperienced and unpopular wife to rule the country during WWI, Nicholas' stubborn refusal to create a constitutional monarchy in Russia --- the list goes on !

[bazarov]

What is purpose of October Revolution?

[olichka]

What is purpose of October Revolution?

It was to improve the lives of the Russian workers and peasants by distributing the land owned by the Tsar and aristocracy and by giving them education, medical care and improving their factory conditions. Frankly, their lives did improve in these particular areas.

I've seen many pictures of the Russian workers/peasants from the pre-revolutionary period , and they do look down--trodden, miserable and over-worked. Compare these images to those of the Tsar's family --- refined, gorgeously-dressed, well--fed and serene ( and not having done back-breaking work to earn it ! ).

This is not to say that I approve of their murder !

[stankovb]

It was to improve the lives of the Russian workers and peasants by distributing the land owned by the Tsar and aristocracy and by giving them education, medical care and improving their factory conditions. Frankly, their lives did improve in these particular areas.

I've seen many pictures of the Russian workers/peasants from the pre-revolutionary period , and they do look down--trodden, miserable and over-worked. Compare these images to those of the Tsar's family --- refined, gorgeously-dressed, well--fed and serene ( and not having done back-breaking work to earn it ! ).

This is not to say that I approve of their murder !

Bazarov & Olichka: Greetings, Bazarov! I like your nickname and I am sure we both know that your favorite character wanted passionately to become a very successful “nihilist”, but he only succeeded to fall in a passionate love with lady Odintzova.

Just simple explanation: the “Decembrist Revolution” refers to upheaval led by some patriotic-minded Russian war veterans / officers /soldiers against bad internal (perhaps also external?) politics of Russian Tsar, in December 1825. They were unsuccessful in performing of their “revolution” and Tsarist regime remained to reign.

On the other hand, the “October Revolution” was led by Russian social-democratic leader Vladimir Iljic Lenin and his Bolshevistic party in October 1917. As Olichka already said, the main goals of the Revolution were: improvement of lives of Russian workers and peasants by distributing (confiscating) the land owned by the Tsar and aristocracy and obtaining education, medical care and improvement of factory conditions for them. As we all know, this revolution was highly successful and afterwards a new empire was established – the Soviet Union.

I am sure we all know that the S.U. was “ultimately principled, just and perfect community of happy and successful working people” in Russia and elsewhere in the S.U. It disappeared sensationally in 1990. It lasted only 70 years; so bright, just and prosperous state, the best state ever in the history of Earth. Do we know the reason for its disintegration? Of course, because all the enumerated state virtues were just imaginative, they existed just on paper. In reality, nothing similar took place.

Besides, there was also one more important reason for organizing and launching the October Revolution – making things easier for Germans and Austro-Hungarians in the First World War, 1917. For this reason, Germans logistically supported Lenin and his group, enabling them to entry into Russia (behind the front lines) via Finland. Once into Russia and using that “miserable, over-worked and depressed” workers/peasants and their enthusiasm for social changes, they very effectively ejected Russia from the I WW, captured the Tsar and his family and destroyed old and unjust Russian Empire. So, they built a new kind of state, society and order on behalf of building “better social conditions for all people”. That was really a “revolution”!

But in fact, it is really somewhat similar to French Revolution in 1789. The French revolutionists destroyed French as a kingdom, monarchy and established the “Republic of France”, on the basis of “liberty, equality and brotherhood”.

What is common for all “revolutions”? To destroy existing “evil” states/societies and to build “better” ones in the name of the most humane goals: better life and ample freedom for all people. Like many other systems, this one is also a utopia in practice.

One would also become interested in one amazing revolutionary similarity: all revolutions appear to be attempting to overturn monarchies. Why monarchies? To be able to answer to this question, I would need to open a new topic and to quote many sources, historic and religious above all. But, I will only try to quote one of the greatest ancient-Greek philosophers – Aristotle – from his tract “About State”: “The most just, the fairest mode of state appears to be the KINGDOM. It is based on the rule of only one man – state ruler – which is assumed to be almost perfectly just and gentle. This is something very much resembling God (Zeus - my remark) and His Kingdom (of God, that is, Jesus Christ – my remark). However, in reality, in practice this is very rarely possible and almost impossible. Therefore, A FIRST APPROXIMATION of the kingdom appears to be the democracy, the rule of many.” Today, we all have opportunity to estimate successfulness of democracies as well.

My conclusion would be: though everything in this MATERIAL world is relative and of questionable reliability and quality, we have to try to form creations that resemble the perfect and righteous DIVINE-SPIRITUAL world. This is also true for the state-society modes and configurations.

[olichka]

I think that it's impossible to ever establish a just, perfect state anywhere. Partly, it's due to human nature. No matter what the nature of society is, human beings are such that they always want to impose their will/desires on someone else to assert themselves or to make themselves superior. This type of behaviour appears everywhere : at work, recreation, friendships and family relationships. Everywhere people try to climb over each other to " rise above " whoever is upstaging them ( daughter, son, sister, friend, cousin, co--worker, etc, etc...) at that particular moment. So that there's always conflict and friction and hierarchy even in the most democratic of societies.

[lisahead]

I don't like Natasha. I only liked her right at the beiginning, when her Aunt would point at her and say "Cossack"! She became a bore and Pierre is a bore.

[lisahead]

And what about Petya? A truly loveable although minor character.

[bazarov]

I don't like Natasha. I only liked her right at the beiginning, when her Aunt would point at her and say "Cossack"! She became a bore and Pierre is a bore.

Yeah, like those womens who find boyfriend or a husband and then forget to live, they became like a furniture in their own house. Awful!

[Bleakhills]

Has anyone gotten an original version of W. and P. yet ?
I bought it last week and am reading it right now. It`s actually an interesting read, and gives additional info about the characters, as well as insight into their motivations.

Andrey does survive, but he and Natasha do not end up together --- he gives her up to secure the happiness of his sister Marya who loves Nikolay. However, he realizes that Natasha never truly loved him --- so, is it really a sacrifce then ?

It would be interesting to see what you guys think of this version.

There is an in depth study of all of Tolstoy's early versions of War and Peace by Kathryn Feuer. She traces the evolution of the major characters as they were split joined and mixed. For instance, the original Boris split into Boris Drubestkoi and Andry Bolkonskii; and Anaotole and Pierre came from a character named Petr Mosalskii.

[Belka]

Hi, everyone ! I'm new to this forum. I've heard of the " original version " and have seen it in bookstores. Has anyone here read it ? And is it worth getting and reading it ? Your advice will be greatly appreciated.

[Agatha]

Hi everybody, what a interesting discussion. Unfortunately I didn't read The original version of War and Peace. But I've recently read “War and Peace” and I have some conclusion. After reading book I was very sad that Andrei and Natasha won't be together. I felt, exactly like someone wrote before that Pierre was “consolation prize”(but I like him very much and he was my favourite character). And I was very surprised that Natasha has changed from a light-hearted, inexperience young girl to a sedate mother. And besides, I never liked her and I couldn't fully understand some of her actions. But after I watch 2 filming(Russian version and that new) of book and I've been thinking about this matter deeply I changed my opinion. Now I don't regret that Natasha didn't married to Andrei, because I doubt seriously, that so different characters could be happy together. I was wondering that Andrei would be happy with that Natasha form Epilogue- is it possible? Because we know that he wasn't happy in his first marriage- he was disappointed with his wife who liked only going to parties and talking about acquaintances. Lise never tried to understand her husband and Andrei was so miserable in this marriage. But before first marriage Andrei was in love and enchanted by her beauty – it reminds me a bit his feeling to Natasha. But of course he loved more Natasha than Lise- and I think he wouldn't like to make the same mistake again(I mean improper marriage). Maybe Natasha would be a better wife to Andrei, maybe she would try to undrestand his complex nature? We can only guess...

[Swanduckling]

Hello, Belka and Agatha !

This is, indeed, an interesting thread. Everyone has such interesting ideas !

To Belka : I've read the original version, and it's quite interesting, even
though it has an unpolished feel to it. The characters feel somewhat different, but it's also possible to understand them better.


To Agatha : I felt that Tolstoy was right to not unite Natasha and Andrey in incompatible matrimony. Their marriage would probably be only interesting during their honeymoon, and then picky Andrey would probably get bored with Natasha's preoccupation with the ordinary domestic matters. He'd probably become pretty disgusted with her sloppy ways, too !

As one critic has said ( paraphrasing here ) : When reading the Epilogue, the first question that comes to mind is : what would Prince Andrey have thought of Natasha ? I think he would have experienced the same feeling that Denisov did : one of disappointment and surprise.

[Belka]

Hi everybody, what a interesting discussion. Unfortunately I didn't read The original version of War and Peace. But I've recently read “War and Peace” and I have some conclusion. After reading book I was very sad that Andrei and Natasha won't be together. I felt, exactly like someone wrote before that Pierre was “consolation prize”(but I like him very much and he was my favourite character). And I was very surprised that Natasha has changed from a light-hearted, inexperience young girl to a sedate mother. And besides, I never liked her and I couldn't fully understand some of her actions. But after I watch 2 filming(Russian version and that new) of book and I've been thinking about this matter deeply I changed my opinion. Now I don't regret that Natasha didn't married to Andrei, because I doubt seriously, that so different characters could be happy together. I was wondering that Andrei would be happy with that Natasha form Prologue- is it possible? Because we know that he wasn't happy in his first marriage- he was disappointed with his wife who liked only going to parties and talking about acquaintances. Lise never tried to understand her husband and Andrei was so miserable in this marriage. But before first marriage Andrei was in love and enchanted by her beauty – it reminds me a bit his feeling to Natasha. But of course he loved more Natasha than Lise- and I think he wouldn't like to make the same mistake again(I mean improper marriage). [B]Maybe Natasha would be a better wife to Andrei, maybe she would try to [/B]..undrestand his complex nature? We can only guess.

I agree with a lot of your points, Agatha !

The most essential --- that Andrey was much more in love with Natasha than Lise. I think he married Lise because he had nothing else going on in his life at that time and because his father would have wanted him to marry her because of her wealth and connections. And she was pretty and charming, off course, and he became infatuated ( but only just ).


But I think that he would have become very disillusioned with Natasha in the Epilogue. As Swanduckling said, he probably would become disgusted with her sloppiness, since he liked grooming and tidiness, as well as attractiveness in a woman. And he wouldn't be too pleased with her abandoning her singing, etc. But then maybe Natasha would not have changed in this way, maybe she would have tried to please Andrey more than Pierre ? As you said, we can only guess...

You're also right that Natasha would have probably tried to understand Andrey more, since she was so giving. And she seemed to enjoy staying at home and taking care of her family, rather than partying like Lise, so in that respect she would have greatly pleased him.


Maybe someone should write a different Epilogue ... ??

[Swanduckling]

After reading numerous intellectual and grand posts on this thread, I felt that this discussion is getting a bit too serious. So I decided to post some delightful jokes to lighten the mood :


1 ) On the nature of pride :

Natasha is dancing at her first ball with Pierre Bezukhov. She notices dirt on his boots and points it out airily :

" Pierre, you have dirt on your boots ! ". Pierre walks out of the ballroom and, feeling dishonoured, shoots himself.

Next, Natasha is dancing with Prince Andrey. The same situation occurs. Andrey leaves the ballroom and shoots himself out of shame.

Lastly, Natasha is dancing with a simple army officer Rzhevsky. She points out the dirt on his boots. He laughs it off and says : " Oh, it's not dirt, it's " cow-mud " that I stepped in this morning as I was walking thru the cow-shed. Don't worry, as soon as it dries, it will fall off all by itself ! "



2 ) On the nature of romantic love :


Beautiful lake. Graceful swans floating by. Lovely Natasha and simple army officer Rzhevsky walking by. Natasha turns to him and asks him rapturously :

" Lieutenant Rzhevsky, could you love someone the way these swans do ? ".

Scandalized, Rzhevsky shoots back : " What ?!! Right there... , in the ice-cold water ?!! "

[jessface]

Aren't the very qualities that Andrei falls for Natasha, her graceful and nimble dancing, her singing, her quick and expressive face and natures, the ones that disappear after she has children? So if Andrei did marry her it would all fall apart once natasha lost such things which attracted him. Pierre, although i still don't quite get how Natasha could have sexual attraction for someone who throughout the book is described as portly and rounded, on the other hand falls for Natasha over a period of years (instead of at one dance) and gets to know her for herself instead of the outside childish exterior.