#ClassicsCommunity 2021 Reading Challenge discussion
Buddy Reads
>
Would anyone like to read War and Peace with me.
they spoke French in gentile company and that their class would be judged by their ability to speak French. It feel like France reprensented a noble lifestyle and that they mimicked them in a lot of ways. I wonder whether that is a lot of the reason why many of the characters idolised Napolean even though he is the enemy at this point. I think that the book will be a representation of how the Russians rediscover patriotism and a love for all things Russian
and maybe this is the reason why they idolise their leaders so much! Also, the tone is cutting and quite sarcastic and I wonder whether Tolstoy is exaggerating this hero worship to prove the ridiculousness of it and to mock it xx
Ashley wrote: "Was there a conversation in the first part where Andrew talks about Napoleon. Why is Napoleon his hero? It says that at the end of the 3rd part. All these characters as so funny the way they idoliz..."I think lots of people idolized him at the time.
His career, coming from such a low status, and becoming a conqueror and an emperor made him an idol. He was like a second Alexander the Great for lots of people, and he did act like wanting to become just that (that's why he went to Egypt for instance).
Also, he liked to show himself as a champion of freedom. Most of it was pure propaganda, but it worked. What he took very seriously was that in his army anyone was given the possibility to reach very high positions, no matter how low their birth was. As opposed to that, just look at the Russian army. All the officers are of noble birth, no one else stands a chance.
that is a really interesting point x
Melissa wrote: "and maybe this is the reason why they idolise their leaders so much! Also, the tone is cutting and quite sarcastic and I wonder whether Tolstoy is exaggerating this hero worship to prove the ridic..."
I agree with you: the tone is sarcastic. Already at that point Andrei begins to doubt whether his hero-worship will last.
Thanks! I am reading a few books that I’m trying to finish by the end of the month. I overloaded myself with big reads this month, so I haven’t given W&P the attention it deserves. I’m glad we’re reading it together so I can process more of it. I also agree that the hero worship is presented in a sarcastic, almost mocking way. It seems purposefully over done. I’m interested to see where it goes. And a rediscovering of Russian patriotism or love would be interesting.
Yeah, it seems that both the hero worship and the gentile class of Russians are both being mocked quite openly in the book (in fact, the humour is one of the aspects that makes it more readable lol)! Ironically, the background of Napolean thay you discuss is what Tolstoy would respect (rising up from the bottom) but never experienced because he was an arisocrat himself.
Ashley, I feel the same !! It has been good discussing this book in a group because it had helped me process. Again, I havent picked it up in a few days. need to start book 5 today haha!! I think that I make so many notes, that it stops me from picking it up. if that makes sense ?
Hey, How are you ?
we have started but you're free to read when ever is good for you and discuss!!
So I’m now comparing the ridiculous relationships between the young people with the hero worship. I wonder if this is intentional. The hero worship is exaggerated. And the relationships seem similar. Neither the young men or women can decide what they want. You have Helene and Pierre who married for who knows what reason. And Pierre admitting he didn’t love her from the beginning. He knew that, but married her anyway. Then Nicholas comes home and Sonya is all weird, giving him space. It’s probably smart not to tie him down right from the start and let him decide, but they are so awkward. They both know they love the other and they know the other loves them, but he’s off with prostitutes and partying and she’s....well....just being weird. Then Sonya and Natasha get proposals which they have no intention of accepting. Sonya is still holding strong to Nicholas. And Natasha at least is better than Pierre at not doing something stupid. She knows she doesn’t love Denisov, so turns him down. But it sounds like she might have accepted him if her mom didn’t help her see that she’s right to say no. I feel like Tolstoy is having fun writing these “silly” young characters. But I also am interested to see the message he is sending because he doesn’t do anything for fun.
You make some really good points. im going to have to have a think haha x
Ashley wrote: "So I’m now comparing the ridiculous relationships between the young people with the hero worship. I wonder if this is intentional. The hero worship is exaggerated. And the relationships seem simila..."So far I think the teenagers are behaving in a silly way just because they are teenagers. That's the time when you ride a bike down a slope with your hands off the handlebar, just to know how it feels. Only it's the beginning of the nineteenth century, with no bikes, so they have to make do with marriage proposals and war. And they can do something much worse to your life than riding bikes.
I think Pierre lets the others manipulate him into marrying Hélène because he wants her so much, and the social expectations of the age give him no other chance to have sex with her. It's his libido working, nothing else, and he knows that. (So does she.) It's not enough for a marriage, and he knows that, too. He would never marry her if he was left alone, but then he isn't left alone. Prince Vasily wants his daughter to get Pierre's money, and everyone else is busy matchmaking just for the fun of it.
I would find it a pleasure to read, it's such a perfect description of how society works, only I'm so sorry for Pierre. Even if he is not utterly without responsibility. At the beginning of Book 5 he is told off because of his irresponsible behaviour, which is really unfair, but there is some point about it. However tiny.
So far Natasha seems to be the only one who understands herself perfectly, and knows how far she can go - which is the point where she can still retain her personal integrity without breaking the rules of society. She seems to be dancing on a blade, though. Sooner or later she'll probably hurt herself, like Pierre. I'm keeping my fingers crossed for her.
Li wrote: "I'm in Book Eight and I'm in shock! It is about Natasha, and I'm in shock!The novel is beginning to look like a John Grisham thriller."
No spoilers, PLEASE!!! Or I'll have to speed up, too. :)))
Li wrote: "Timár_Krisztina wrote: No spoilers, PLEASE!!! Or I'll have to speed up..."
Sorry, I was aiming for a teaser, didn't mean to write a spoiler."
OK. :)
Oh man! Don’t do this to me!! I am reading slow and steady. Actually barely keeping up because this was a crazy month! I’m deciding whether to keep at the pace or make this book a priority and power through! I want to know what’s happening with Natasha though and don’t know if I can wait weeks for book 8!!! I really like her as a character and I like that description of her, that she knows how far she can go. She also warns her brother of his follies and seems to be level headed. Your comment really made me laugh about not having bikes....so they do it with war. Sad, but kind of funny!
Edit: they do it with marriage proposals and war. When I typed just war I was thinking “that’s not very funny. Why did I think it was funny?” Haha. It was the marriage proposals part and then the stark contrast to war- though they are using both to show how invincible they think they are, as teenagers always do. It’s very strange to consider all these other books with young people doing grownup things. We know it was more normal in times last because of a shortened life span . But we also know that brain development is the same across time. Our brains aren’t fully developed until our mid 20s. But when you die between 30 and 40, that doesn’t leave much time for mature thinking in life. Very interesting to consider the life span that is most natural for humans. That seems too short. Now we are prolonging life so long, it may get too long. There should be a happy medium where you have the luxury of enjoying your youth and enough time to be an adult with experience and appropriate development.
I can fully understand you finding it both sad and funny. :)Ashley wrote: "But we also know that brain development is the same across time. "
I'm not so sure about that. I mean it IS the same that you need time for brain development, but the time spans can slightly change with the historical period. You only have to compare photos taken of 18-year-olds in, say, the '40s and today. The faces on the '40s photos look years older than the faces today. It was a period which made them mature much more quickly. Unfortunately.
Which doesn't mean that the teenagers of Tolstoy's book have to be so very mature. Only that they can grow up faster than we'd expect, but at this point they still behave like today's teenagers.
I definitely agree that experience ages us and that in that way youth have been more mature in different times. But I’m just talking about brain development. Youths do not have the ability to logically think things through the way adults do because their brains are not fully mature until their mid 20s. I’m not sure that has changed. Do you think it has? It seems to me that that’s more of an evolutionary process, which would take more than 100 years to shift drastically. Maybe it has slowly been lengthening with each generation, but I’m not sure how much change that really is. So that’s why I think it’s interesting to see these youth who are acting more mature and have had adult experiences because that is the cultural expectation, while they have the same biology as kids today- the inability to reason or have completely sound logic. So they are sent to war or getting married because it’s expected and they feel mature and it’s normal, but they still have these biological set backs.
Ashley wrote: "I definitely agree that experience ages us and that in that way youth have been more mature in different times. But I’m just talking about brain development. Youths do not have the ability to logic..."Now I see what you mean.
Do you think that’s true? I wonder if scientists know. I’m only mildly familiar with neurology and brain development. I would love to see a study about how brains have changed recently (last 100-200 years).
I've deleted the ill-considered teaser. Sorry about that.I also have a few half finished books lying around, but I decided I can only focus on one book at a time for this kind of classics. So I'm only reading this one book at this time.
I enjoyed the teaser! It made me more excited to keep reading!
Ashley wrote: "Do you think that’s true? I wonder if scientists know. I’m only mildly familiar with neurology and brain development. I would love to see a study about how brains have changed recently (last 100-20..."I've no idea. I'm a complete outsider. :) I don't think it's only biology that counts when it comes to development, I think psychology should also have its say... but then I'm not an expert in the least, and I wouldn't dare to start a debate with one.
Li wrote: "I've deleted the ill-considered teaser. Sorry about that.I also have a few half finished books lying around, but I decided I can only focus on one book at a time for this kind of classics. So I'm..."
No problem at all, that's why I sent you all those smileys. :) Your teaser was not ill-considered. :) Soon we'll know what happens to her anyway. :)
Sorry I'm late to last week's reading! Here are my summaries: Book 2 part 1
1. Nicholas visits home, where he finds Sonya no longer expects him to keep his promise to her, but wishes to set him free.
2. We learn that Nicholas looks down on women and takes romantic love for granted, the Moscovites don’t believe in blaming the Russian army for their loss at Austerlitz, and Andrew is presumed dead.
3. Pr. Bagration is being celebrated, for what exactly?
4. Dolokhov is a bully who allegedly has an affair with Pierre’s wife, whereupon Pierre challenges him to a duel.
5. Dolokhov is wounded in the duel.
6. Pierre is paying the price for not being able to stand up for himself, or for not knowing himself well enough to know what to stand up for.
7. Prince Andrew’s father and sister are greatly affected by his disappearance, but choose not to tell his pregnant wife.
8. Lise is giving birth and Prince Andrew returns.
9. Princess Lise dies during childbirth, and Prince Andrew is now free from his dislike for her, but also lost his chance for a new beginning (if that was what he wanted).
10. Dolokhov recovers and tells Nicholas that he is bad, but it is a woman’s job to make him better as a person, and right now, Sonya seems to be it.
11. Nicholas is a selfish ass and Sonya can do much better.
12. Denisov dances passionately with Natasha.
13. Nicholas looses more than he has at cards to his “friend” Dolokhov.
14. Nicholas ends up with a huge debt to Dolokhov, which is his revenge for Sonya loving Nicholas and not him.
15. Nicholas is devastated about having to ask his father for the money, but his spirit is uplifted by Natasha’s beautiful singing.
16. Denisov proposes to Natasha, is denied, and Nicholas, deeply ashamed, finally gets the money from his father.
Book 2 part 2
1. Pierre flees Moscow after the duel and is plagued by spiritual questions at a post-station.
2. A freemason opens Pierre’s eyes to this opportunity to change his lifestyle for the better.
3. Pierre is convinced to become a freemason himself and starts on his initiation journey.
4. Pierre is now a freemason through a ceremony bordering on the ridiculous, which probably means Tolstoy didn’t like them.
5. Pierre rebuffs Prince Vasili, who comes to take him back to Moscow to smooth things over.
6. Boris has developed the kind of opportunistic characteristics which help him advance in life – like mother, like son.
7. Boris, having met Hélène at a soiré of Anna Pavlovna’s, becomes a regular in her home.
8. Prince Andrew, disillusioned with war, has the luxury to withdraw from active duty and is helping his father with recruitment for the army (ironic), but right now, he is taking care of his sick son.
9. Prince Andrew battles with his emotions about his sick son and the life situation he has chosen.
10. Pierre’s so-called attempts at “bettering humanity” only make things worse for his serfs.
11. Pierre visits Prince Andrew, who has grown depressed, and they have an intense discussion on the motive for living – and apparently disagree.
12. Pierre wants Prince Andrew to join the Freemasons, but Prince Andrew, who regrets not having had the chance to reconcile with his wife, is not convinced, despite a glimmer of joy that sparks new life in him.
13. Pierre and Prince Andrew meet Princess Mary at the house, where she sits with some pilgrims.
14. Pierre receives a warm welcome by the other family members and stays another two days.
15. Nicholas is back with his regiment, and thus relieved to come back to a simpler life.
16. Denisov steals provisions from an infantry regiment after his soldiers have been starving for weeks and gets into trouble.
17. Nicholas tries to find Denisov in the hospital where he was taken after his bullet wound, and he sees how horrible the conditions are.
18. Nicholas finds Denisov, who seems greatly altered and broken.
19. Nicholas brings Denisov’s request for a pardon to Boris to be given to the emperor, but Boris has things to do and people to meet who have surpassed Nicholas Rostov in importance.
20. Nicholas tries to get Denisov’s petition to the Emperor and is as enamored by him as the first time.
21. Nicholas, like Prince Andrew, begins to awaken to the futility of the war.
There were several things I reacted to: - Nicholas' and Dolokhov's attitudes towards women - idiotic, but also interesting how Tolstoy makes them so obviously idiotic.
- Sonya and Nicholas - children shouldn't marry. He really is a complete ass towards her. He knows she loves him, but he doesn't want to settle down (who would at his age?), and so "let's her go", knowing she isn't going to want anybody else.
- Pierre finally has some kind of awakening. I'm not sure it's the good kind, but better than nothing I suppose.
- How Tolstoy depicted Pierre's "work" with the serfs I found really interesting. This is in part 2 chapter 10 and, I find, a really interesting commentary, both on the futility of trying to "improve lives" of people who are fundamentally unfree, and on wealthy people's separation from reality.
It's sad how Pierre can't be bothered to learn about, and thereby taking responsibility for, his estate.
Maybe it's because he is so young, or maybe because he never had any kind of mentor.
- The Freemasons - the ceremony is as ridiculous as Nicholas' reaction to the Emperor at the end of part II. At this point it seems obvious that Tolstoy is ridiculing both.
In general, I find it really interesting to see how the young people, particularly the men, develop. Prince Andrew's depression, Pierre's "awakening", Boris opportunistic nature, and Nicholas' naivité.
To me, the women's development is less or less apparent.
I'll try to catch up on this week's reading, although I gather we're all at different points in the book :)
Some day I’ll post summaries....but I’m not sure. Haha. I enjoy scanning others’ but not sure how valuable mine would be so maybe I should just keep them in my notebook. Haha. Nelle Im in Book 5, as were some others a few days ago. I assume they are further along now. I know Li is reading ahead and is beyond Book 8. It’s kind of all over the place I suppose.
Ashley wrote: "Some day I’ll post summaries....but I’m not sure. Haha. I enjoy scanning others’ but not sure how valuable mine would be so maybe I should just keep them in my notebook. Haha. Nelle Im in Book 5,..."
I'll probably stick to the original plan posted here, particularly since I'm a bit behind right now.....
Ashley wrote: "...I know Li is reading ahead and is beyond Book 8. It’s kind of all over the place I suppose."Even though we are all reading at different paces, I still would hesitate to start a book of this size without a group. I feel motivated to continue when there is a group and it's good to know that when I have a question, I know where I can ask.
If I finish this book by the end of the month, I will find a shorter novel, something like Madam Bovary, to fill the time before the next buddyreads start for Middlemarch in October.
Li wrote: "Even though we are all reading at different paces, I still would hesitate to start a book of this size without a group. I feel motivated to continue when there is a group and it's good to know that when I have a question, I know where I can ask."Same here.
I'm sorry I haven't posted any summaries yet. It's just that I can hardly ever find the time. I am able to find the time to read, but summarising each chapter requires a different kind of energy. I do find others' summaries useful to read, but I very much prefer discussing the book. Your questions and answers give me insight.
I'm in Book 5 by the way. I'm going to finish it today. I'll soon finish Hugo's book, too. Then I might speed up a bit with Tolstoy perhaps. It depends on how many times I'll have to travel by train in the following weeks. :)
For my next read I've chosen Balzac's Illusions perdues.
Neele wrote: "There were several things I reacted to: - Nicholas' and Dolokhov's attitudes towards women - idiotic, but also interesting how Tolstoy makes them so obviously idiotic.
- Sonya and Nicholas - ch..."
One of my friends has recently shared a blog post on "bad guys" in both classic and contemporary literature. She brought up a few figures who seem "bad guys" at first (and therefore shown as interesting) and then it turns out they do have a heart, love their mothers/sisters, etc., and of course they end up marrying the heroine.
In the blog post she discussed why that pattern works really well in, say, Austen's novels, and why not in certain contemporary popular books I'm not going to name. (It still does sell well, though. The question is how authentic or rather INauthentic it is.)
It made me think of Dolokhov's behaviour at once. First, he looks like the classic "bad guy". Lots of friends and admirers (but very few he's really close to), lots of parties, lots of women, seduction, adultery, gambling, duels, breaking the law in "cool" ways which require creativity and ridicule people in power. And then suddenly it turns out he is a devoted son and brother, and only wants a pure woman he can love with all his heart. Oh so wonderful.
And what happens? He falls in love with Sonya RIGHT BECAUSE she's in love with someone else, and proposes to her. And then gets the surprise of his life as she turns him down, not only because she loves someone else, but also because she doesn't trust him. Oh my. The only woman the bad-but-actually-only-misunderstood-and-oh-so-wonderful guy can love somehow doesn't think he could change for her and turn out to have a good heart. I wonder how that's even possible. :P
And next we see Dolokhov making Rostov gamble with him and lose an immense lot of money JUST BECAUSE he knows Sonya loves Rostov, and practically asks Rostov to persuade Sonya to marry him instead, or else he'll take his money. He wants to punish Rostov for his own failure, and wants to buy Sonya. And he is supposed to be the bad guy who has a heart. Oh wait...
I liked that part immensely. I always like seeing clichés twisted in clever ways. It's made even better (and more complex) for Nikolai not being worthy of Sonya's love.
That was also the point where I realised: GUYS WE'RE ACTUALLY READING A SOAP OPERA, don't you think so? :)))
I really want to know how much of this is almost satire. It seems such extreme situation that are just silly, but make you think or prove a point. We have talked about the relationships, but now I’m thinking about Pierres conversion and acceptance into the Masons. This book is so long, but he gets a short chapter about his decision, which he makes in one conversation with a random old guy. And then 2 longer chapters are dedicated to the induction process. There is a weeks time between his decision and the induction, so that doesn’t seem rushed. And he has the moment of doubt, but still goes through with it. I wonder if part of it is his stubbornness that he must stick to his decision. And I’m sure his guilt plays into it. But do you think Tolstoy purposefully has him all of a sudden believe in God? He can’t think that’s normal behavior right? He’s so in tune with how people think. So he must be creating another extreme example. I’m interested to see where it’s all going. Oh! Now I’m thinking about the adoration of the leaders of war and countries. Obviously extreme and silly, so yes I really do think he’s doing this on purpose. Where do we turn our loyalty or admiration? Women/men? Heroes/leaders? God/religion?
I am also confused about whether he meant all of this to be taken seriously as in things similar to these happened at that time or he was just writing a satire as Ashley suggested.In any case I find the whole conversation between Pierre and Andrey very interesting. Pierre meets his only friend in the world after so long and he turns out to actually oppose his point of view that Pierre now considers as being rude. Both of them seem to be in same case of dilemma over what is right to do and what is wrong.
It really makes you ponder over philosophical questions which Tolstoy embed in his storytelling armament. Based on the reading I've done till now I think Tolstoy wrote all types of genres in this tome.
Timár_Krisztina wrote: "Neele wrote: "There were several things I reacted to: - Nicholas' and Dolokhov's attitudes towards women - idiotic, but also interesting how Tolstoy makes them so obviously idiotic.
- Sonya and..."
I completely agree with you on the soap opera! The book actually reminds me of an older American television series, I believe it was called North and South, or something like that, about families who were on opposing sides during the Civil War in the US.
Ashley wrote: "I really want to know how much of this is almost satire. It seems such extreme situation that are just silly, but make you think or prove a point. We have talked about the relationships, but now I’..."I definitely get the idea that Tolstoy is making fun of the freemasons, mostly their ridiculous induction ceremony, but also how he points out that people join to network for their own benefit, rather than for the freemason ideals.
As for Pierre, I somehow feel that this is in line with his character - including the part where he rushes into this. Remember at the beginning, when he admired Napoleon for being a man of the people, and the concept of the rights of the common man.
I think he has been internally searching for something to give him direction, and when he finds the freemasons he jumps at the chance.
From the discussion with Andrew it seems as if Pierre has at least found something that gives him the backbone to disagree with someone.
Neele wrote: "I completely agree with you on the soap opera! The book actually reminds me of an older American television series, I believe it was called North and South, or something like that, about families who were on opposing sides during the Civil War in the US."That's right, I remember that, too. It was based on a novel by John Jakes. Probably a fan of Tolstoy's work. :)
"From the discussion with Andrew it seems as if Pierre has at least found something that gives him the backbone to disagree with someone."
I like that. Just the right words for Pierre's experience. Which makes me think however ironic Tolstoy's portrayal of the freemasons is, they are still very important in Pierre's development. I also like the way the freemasons warn him about his own responsibility in whatever has happened to him. So far the reader has only been invited to pity him for everyone manipulating him. This is a new point of view. Of course the freemasons are unfair, but they do have a point.
Pierre is such a strange character. So many of you felt a connection or fascination with hm from the beginning and I just didn’t. And he’s still all over the place. But I really like the perspective that it fits his character. There were clues that he might get to this type of place, so it makes sense. Tolstoy doesn’t so anything accidentally, so I’m sure he had this in mind and was building to it. It’s also interesting to consider all that’s happening in the context of why the book was written. Tolstoy was planning to write a book in more modern (to him) times, but felt he couldn’t without the background, so he went way back and wrote this entire story. He obviously thought it was very important. And it was interesting to him. So each detail is probably important to something.
Seems to me that the whole reason for Helena's existence, her raison d'être in this book, lies in helping readers to see Pierre from one more angle.
It was kind of a shocking to see her beg him to come back and then she had all the influence. And he sat in the background. Is that what she wanted from him? Tolstoy doesn’t mention her feelings on the lack of intimate relationship with her husband, so it seems like she’s ok with things as they are. Or maybe I need to read further. Pierre responds as he did to the duel and the leaving his wife- he’s racked with guilt about it. And with the masons, he can’t be confident in his decision, even when he’s forcing himself to. What does Helene show us about him? Is there more beyond book 6 (they get back together in book 5)? Or are you referring to their entire relationships a whole?
I don't believe Tolstoy is interested in setting up a person (Helena) for readers to condemn. Yes, there are more happenings later on, which convinced me that this character is created just for the purpose of providing the necessary background/challenge/environment so that we readers can have a deeper glimpse into the inner world of the main character (Pierre).But I haven't finished the book yet, so it is better that I hold any opinions till second reading because any opinions I have at this stage are liable to change later on.
Li wrote: "I don't believe Tolstoy is interested in setting up a person (Helena) for readers to condemn."I agree with you. And I have similar thoughts about what the others said about the irony. I think EVERY character is seen at one time or another from an ironic perspective, even Prince Andrei. And on the other hand: there is no one who cannot be considered as having a positive effect from a certain point of view.
That's the key expression: point of view. This book is an intricate web of points of view I think. How they all contribute to others' lives and thoughts. I'm not even sure there is such a thing as a main character.
By the way, I've just got to the end of the second volume. I've read half of the book. Last time I tried reading it, I gave up exactly here. Now I'm sure I won't give up.
Talking about point of view, Tolstoy works like a tour operator - he arranges for a particular tour guide, a character in the novel, to take us, the readers, through each stage of the series of events that make up the whole campaign. And I think the tour guide is all very well chosen for each section of the tour.Sometimes when we watch a TV series, main characters are killed off senselessly because we later learned that the one-year contract for that actor or actress has expired and he or she doen't want to renew the contract, so the scriptwriter has to scramble to write the character off, arranging a car accident or death during child birth. (Two main characters from Downton Abbey come to mind). I hope Tolstoy has a better reason for doing this to us.
Li wrote: "Talking about point of view, Tolstoy works like a tour operator - he arranges for a particular tour guide, a character in the novel, to take us, the readers, through each stage of the series of eve..."I like that. :)
Pushkar wrote: "It really makes you ponder over philosophical questions which Tolstoy embed in his storytelling armament. Based on the reading I've done till now I think Tolstoy wrote all types of genres in this tome."I can agree with that, too.
I fancy I may have spotted another translation error in Anthony Briggs' translation. In chapter 7 of the second epilogue, (4th last paragraph):"In moral terms power is the cause of the event; in physical terms it is those who are subject to that power."
I puzzled over this sentence for quite a while and could not make sense of it (because Tolstoy just defined power as the relationship between a person issuing an order and a person receiving it, in the previous paragraph), until I checked Maude's translation, which says it is not the 'power' that is the cause of the event, rather, it is the 'wielder of power'. That makes everything clear. This is Maude's translation:
"Morally the wielder of power appears to cause the event, physically it is those who submit to the power (who cause the event)."
I'd like to hear what you guys make of this when you reach the second epilogue (in late September or early October?).
Li wrote: "I fancy I may have spotted another translation error in Anthony Briggs' translation. In chapter 7 of the second epilogue, (4th last paragraph):"In moral terms power is the cause of the event; in ..."
I guess we didn't forget your question, it's just we're not there yet. :) I'm at the beginning of volume 4 at the moment. I'll check my translation when I get there. I agree that the second translation makes more sense when it comes to Tolstoy's world view. It matches other passages in the book about reasons and responsibility, too.
Ashley, I think thay Russia in general were very inspired by the French and what they represented. It is is interesting that