Footnotes for the new edition of Russian Thinkers



Download 120.46 Kb.
Page1/3
Date conversion29.03.2017
Size120.46 Kb.
  1   2   3


Footnotes for the new edition of Russian Thinkers

= to be filled in at proof

Author’s preface

vii/1 [See 00 below.]
Introduction

15/1 H vi 7. For abbreviations used in the notes see 000 below.

15/2 The Autobiography of Bertrand Russell, vol. 2 (London, 1968), 122.

15/3 John Gray, Isaiah Berlin (London, 1995), 1.

17/1 ‘Historical Inevitability’, in Liberty (Oxford and New York, 2002), 164.

17/2 London, 1969; now incorporated in ‘Five Essays on Liberty’, in Liberty (see previous note).

17/3 ‘John Stuart Mill and the Ends of Life’, ibid. 243.

18/1 ‘Historical Inevitability’, ibid. 160.

18/2 Introduction, ibid. 20.

19/1 Included in Berlin’s The Power of Ideas and Against the Current respectively: for details see 000 and 000 above.

19/2 83 below.

20/1 197–8 below.

20/2 On Liberty, chapter 3, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, ed. J. M. Robson and others (Toronto/London, 1963–91), xviii 268 [misquoted as ‘conglomerated mediocrity’ by Herzen in ‘Kontsy i nachala’ (1863), first letter, H xvi 141].

21/1 51 below.

21/2 262 below.

22/1 Leszek Kolakowski, ‘Responsibility and History’, in his Marxism and Beyond, trans. Jane Zielonko Peel (London, 1969), 163.

23/1 270 below.

23/2 197 below.

23/3 Joseph A. Schumpeter, Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy (London, 1943), 243.
Main text

2/1 Letter to P. V. Annenkov, written in Berlin, 29 September 1847, B xii 402.

3/1 ‘Bor´ba partii vo Frantsii pri Lyudovike XVIII i Karle X’ (1858), C v 217.

3/2 Kolokol No 210 (15 December 1865), 1720.

4/1 Introduction to the 1858 edition, H v 13–14; L 9–10.

6/1 ‘Konstantin Sergeevich Aksakov’ (1861), H xv 9–10. See also H ix 170; M ii 549.

8/1 ‘ Za rubezhom’ (1881), in M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin, Sobranie sochinenii (Moscow, 1965–77), xiv 112–13.

9/1 N. K. Shil´der, ‘Imperator Nikolai I v 1848 i 1849 godakh’, Imperator Nikolay Pervyi, ego zhizn´ i tsarstvovanie (St Petersburg, 1903), second supplementary volume, Primechaniya i prilozheniya ko vtoromu tomu (‘Notes and Supplements to Volume 2’), 619–39, at 619–20.

10/1 ibid. 626–9; my account of this episode is based on Shil´der’s.

11/1 Tolstoy, War and Peace, vol. 1, part 1, chapter 1, T ix 5; W 4.

12/1 There is a story still to be found in the latest Soviet lives of the great critic that at the time of his death a warrant had gone out for his arrest, and it is true that Dubelt later said that he regretted his death, as otherwise ‘We would have rotted him in a fortress’: M. K. Lemke, Nikolaevskie zhandarmy i literatura 1826–1855 godov, 2nd ed. (St Petersburg, 1909), 190. But Lemke has conclusively shown that no such warrant had ever been signed and that the invitation to Belinsky to visit Dubel´t, which had largely inspired the story, was due mainly to a desire of the Third Department to get a specimen of his handwriting in order to compare it with that of a subversive anonymous letter circulating at the time (ibid. 187–90).

13/1 Shil´der, op. cit. (9 above, note 1), 638–9.

13/2 ‘Shikhmatov is Shakmat [checkmate] to all education’ was a popular pun in St Petersburg.

13/3 N. I. Grech, Zapiski o moei zhizni (St Petersburg, 1886).

14/1 Sochineniya Gleva Uspenskogo (St Petersburg, 1889), i 175–6.

14/2 See the account in M. K. Lemke, op. cit. (12 above, note 1), 451.

15/1 Du développement des idées révolutionnaires en Russie (Paris, 1851). See H vii 91–3/221–3.

15/1a M. Zhikarev, ‘Petr Yakovlevich Chaadaev iz vospominanii sovremennika’, Vestnik Evropy, 1871 No 5, 9–54, at 51. [Zhikarev’s phrase for Chaadaev’s behaviour was ‘bassesse gratuite’.]

15/2 ‘Byloe i dumy’ (1852–68), part 5, ‘Russkie teni’, ‘II: Engel´sony’ (1865), H x 335; ‘C. Russian Shadows’, ‘2. The Engelsons’, M ii 969.

16/1 Delo petrashevtsev (Moscow/Leningrad, 1937–51).

17/1 ibid. ii 93.

18/1 [Perhaps a paraphrase of ‘Kontsy i nachala’, 00 letter (18??), H xvi 176, 191–2.]

19/1 Zapiski Aleksandra Ivanovicha Kosheleva (Berlin, 1884), 81–4.

20/1 Approximately, ‘way of life’.


The Hedgehog and the Fox

436/1 Le Roman russe (Paris, 1886), 282.

436/2 ‘po¢ll’ oiÅd’ a)lw¢phc, a)ll’ e)xi¤noj eÁn me¢ga.’ Archilochus fragment 201 in M. L. West (ed.), Iambi et elegi graeci ante Alexandrum canatati, vol. 1, 2nd ed. (Oxford, 1989), 78.

439/1 For the purpose of this essay I propose to confine myself almost entirely to the explicit philosophy of history contained in War and Peace, and to ignore, for example, Sevastopol Stories, The Cossacks, the fragments of the unpublished novel on the Decembrists, and Tolstoy’s own scattered reflections on this subject except in so far as they bear on views expressed in War and Peace.

439/2 Letters of 14 February and 13 April 1868: P vii 64, 122.

439/3 ibid.

440/1 Letter to Tolstoy of 29 June 1883, P xiii 180.

440/2 ‘He repeats himself and he philosophises.’ Letter of 21 January 1880, Gustave Flaubert, Lettres inédites à Tourguéneff, ed. Gérard Gailly (Monaco, 1946), 218 [‘cris d’admiration’ ibid.].

440/3 A. A. Fet, Moi vospominaniya (Moscow, 1890), part 2, 175.

440/4 See the severe strictures of A. Vitmer, a very respectable military historian, in his 1812 god v ‘Voine i mire’: po povodu istoricheskikh ukazanii IV toma ‘Voiny i mira’ grafa L. N. Tolstogo (St Petersburg, 1869), and the tones of mounting indignation in the contemporary critical notices of S. Navalikhin (‘Izyashchnyi romanist i ego izyashchnye kritiki’, Delo 1868 No 6, section XII, 1–28), A. S. Norov (‘“Voina i mir” (1805–1812) s istoricheskoi tochki zreniya i po vospominaniyam sovremennikov (po povodu sochineniya grafa L. N. Tolstogo: “Voina i mir”)’, Voennyi sbornik 1868 No 11, 189–246) and A. P. Pyatkovsky (‘Istoricheskaya epokha v romane gr. L. N. Tolstogo’, Nedelya 1868: No 22, cols 698–704: No 23, cols 713–17: No 26, cols 817–28). The first served in the campaign of 1812 and, despite some errors of fact, makes criticisms of substance. The last two are, as literary critics, almost worthless, but they seem to have taken the trouble to verify some of the relevant facts.

440/5 See Viktor Shklovsky, Mater´yal i stil´ v romane L´va Tolstogo ‘Voina i mir’ (Moscow, 1928), passim, but particularly chapters 7 and 8. See also 42 below.

441/1 [More literally: ‘Fortunately, the author […] is a poet and an artist ten thousand times more than a philosopher.’] N. D. Akhsharumov, Voina i mir, sochinenie grafa L. N. Tolstogo, chasti 1–4: razbor (St Petersburg, 1868), 40.

441/2 e.g. Professors Il´in, Yakovenko, Zenkovsky and others. [When invited to identify the specific works in question, IB replied that their omission was deliberate.]

441/3 Honourable exceptions to this are provided by the writings of the Russian writers N. I. Kareev and B. M. Eikhenbaum, as well as those of the French scholars E. Haumant and Albert Sorel. Of monographs devoted to this subject I know of only two of any worth. The first, ‘Filosofiya istorii L. N. Tolstogo’, by V. N. Pertsev, in ‘Voina i mir’: sbornik, ed. V. P. Obninsky and T. I. Polner (Moscow, 1912), 129–53, after taking Tolstoy mildly to task for obscurities, exaggerations and inconsistencies, swiftly retreats into innocuous generalities. The other, ‘Filosofiya istorii v romane L. N. Tolstogo, “Voina i mir” ‘, by M. M. Rubinshtein, in Russkaya mysl´, July 1911, [section 2,] 78–103, is much more laboured, but in the end seems to me to establish nothing at all. Very different is Arnold Bennett’s judgement, of which I learnt since writing this: ‘The last part of the Epilogue is full of good ideas the johnny can’t work out. And of course, in the phrase of critics, would have been better left out. So it would; only Tolstoy couldn’t leave it out. It was what he wrote the book for.’ The Journals of Arnold Bennett, ed. Newman Flower (London etc., 1932–3), ii (1911–21) 62. As for the inevitable efforts to relate Tolstoy’s historical views to those of various latter-day Marxists – Kautsky, Lenin, Stalin etc. – they belong to the curiosities of politics or theology rather than to those of literature.

443/1 P. A. Vyazemsky, ‘Vospominaniya o 1812 god’, Russkii arkhiv 7 (1869), columns 181–92, 01–016, esp. 185–7.

444/1 ‘Accursed questions’– a phrase which became a cliché in nineteenth-century Russia for those central moral and social issues of which every honest man, in particular every writer, must sooner or later become aware, and then be faced with the choice of either entering the struggle or turning his back upon his fellow men, conscious of his responsibility for what he was doing. [Although ‘voprosy’ was widely used by the 1830s to refer to these issues, it seems that the specific phrase ‘proklyatye voprosy’ was coined in 1858 by Mikhail L. Mikhailov when he used it to render ‘die verdammten Fragen’ in his translation of Heine’s poem ‘Zum Lazarus’ (1853/4): see ‘Stikhotvoreniya Geine’, Sovremennik 1858 No 3, 125; and Heinrich Heines Sämtliche Werke, ed. Oskar Walzel (Leipzig, 1911–20), iii 225. Alternatively, Mikhailov may have been capitalising on the fact that an existing Russian expression fitted Heine’s words like a glove, but I have not yet seen an earlier published use of it.]

445/1 Instructions to her legislative experts.

445/2 T xlvi 4–28 (18–26 March 1847).

445/3 ibid. 97, 113, 114, 117, 123–4, 127 (20 March to 27 June 1852).

445/4 ibid. – Rousseau: 126, 127, 130, 132–4, 167, 176 (24 June 1852 to 28 September 1853), 249 (‘Journal of daily tasks’, 3 March 1847); Sterne: 82 (10 August 1851), 110 (14 April 1852); Dickens: 140 (1 September 1852).

445/5 ibid. 123 (11 June 1852).

445/6 ibid. 141–2 (22 September 1852).

445/7 ‘Filosoficheskie zamechaniya na rechi Zh. Zh. Russo’ (1847), T i 222, where the next two quotations also appear.

446/1 V. N. Nazar´ev, ‘Lyudi bylogo vremeni’, L. N. Tolstoy v vospominaniyakh sovremennikov (Moscow, 1955), i 52.

446/2 ibid. 52–3.

446/3 N. N. Gusev, Dva goda s L. N. Tolstym etc. (Moscow, 1973), 188.

447/1 War and Peace, epilogue, part 1, chapter 1 (end), T xii 238; W 1248.

449/1 ibid. vol. 4, part 1, chapter 4 (beginning), T xii 14; W 1039–40.

449/2 On the connection of this with Stendhal’s La Chartreuse de Parme see Paul Boyer (1864–1949) chez Tolstoï: Entretiens à Iasnaïa Poliana (Paris, 1950), 40.

451/1 War and Peace, vol. 2, part 3, chapter 1, T x 151; W 453.

451/2 Cf. the profession of faith in his celebrated – and militantly moralistic – introduction to an edition of Maupassant, whose genius, despite everything, he admires: ‘Predislovie k sochineniyam Gyui de Mopassana’ (1893–4), T xxx 3–24. He thinks much more poorly of Bernard Shaw, whose social rhetoric he calls stale and platitudinous (diary entry for 31 January 1908, T lvi 97–8).

453/1 Empire chairs of a certain shape are to this day called ‘Talleyrand armchairs’ in Russia.

453/2 War and Peace, epilogue, part 2, chapter 1, T xii 298–300; W 1307–9.

455/1 One of Tolstoy’s Russian critics, M. M. Rubinshtein, referred to above (27 note 2), 80 ff., says that every science employs some unanalysed concepts, to explain which is the business of other sciences; and that ‘power’ happens to be the unexplained central concept of history. But Tolstoy’s point is that no other science can ‘explain’ it, since it is, as used by historians, a meaningless term, not a concept but nothing at all – vox nihili.

457/1 War and Peace, epilogue, part 1, chapter 2, T xii 239; W 1249.

457/2 See V. B. Shklovsky, op. cit. (26 above, note 3), chapters 7 and 8, and also K. Pokrovsky, ‘Istochniki romana “Voina i mir” ‘, in Obninsky and Polner, op. cit. (27 above, note 2), 113–28.

458/1 War and Peace, epilogue, part 2, chapter 1, T xii 297; W 490.

459/1 ‘Neskol´ko slov po povodu knigi: “Voina i mir”’ (1868), T xvi 5–16.

459/2 War and Peace, vol. 3, part 3, chapter 1, T xi 264–7; W 909–11.

460/1 op. cit. (26 above, note 4).

460/2 N. I. Kareev, ‘Istoricheskaya filosofiya v “Voine i mire” ‘, Vestnik Evropy 22 No 4 (July–August 1887), 227–69.

461/1 ibid. 230; cf. War and Peace, vol. 3, part 1, chapter 1, T xi 16; W 665 (‘There are two sides to the life of every man […]’).

463/1 B. M. Eikhenbaum, Lev Tolstoy (Leningrad, 1928–60), i 123–4.

464/1 Here the paradox appears once more; for the ‘infinitesimals’, whose integration is the task of the ideal historian, must be reasonably uniform to make this operation possible; yet the sense of ‘reality’ consists in the sense of their unique differences.

464/2 In our day French existentialists, for similar psychological reasons, have struck out against all explanations as such because they are a mere drug to still serious questions, short-lived palliatives for wounds which are unbearable but must be borne, above all not denied or ‘explained’; for all explaining is explaining away, and that is a denial of the given – the existent – the brute facts.

468/1 For example, both Shklovsky (passim) and Eikhenbaum (259–60) in the works cited above (26, note 3; 48 note 1).

468/2 ‘On n’a pas rendu justice à Rousseau […] J’ai lu tout Rousseau, oui, tous les vingt volumes, y compris le Dictionnaire de musique. Je faisais mieux que l’admirer; je lui rendais une culte véritable’; ‘Justice has not been done to Rousseau […] I have read all of Rousseau, yes, all twenty volumes, including the Dictionary of Music. I did better than admire him, I truly worshipped him’: loc. cit. (35 above, note 1).

472/1 ibid.

472/2 See Adolfo Omodeo, Un reazionario: Il conte J. de Maistre (Bari, 1939), 112, note 2.

472/3 ‘Chitayu Maistr´a’, T xlviii 66.

474/1 See Eikhenbaum, op. cit. (48 above, note 1), 308–17.

474/2 War and Peace, vol. 3, part 2, chapter 6, T xi 127, 128; W 782, 783.

474/3 ibid. vol. 1, part 1, chapter 3, T ix 13–16; W 10–13. For the note see T xiii 687.

474/4 ibid. vol. 4, part 3, chapter 19, T xii 167; W 1182.

474/5 S. P. Zhikharev, Zapiski sovremennika: dnevnik chinovnika (Moscow, 1934), ii 112–13.

476/1 Les Soirées de Saint-Pétersbourg (1821), seventh conversation: OC v 33–4; SPD (from which the translations of this conversation in the notes are taken) 222–3. ‘People talk a lot about battles without knowing what they are really like. In particular, they tend to consider them as occurring at one place, whereas they cover two or three leagues of country. They ask you seriously: How is it that you don’t know what happened in this battle, since you were there? Whereas it is precisely the opposite that would often have to be said. Does the one on the right know what is happening on the left? Does he even know what is happening two paces from him? I can easily imagine one of these frightful scenes. On a vast field covered with all the apparatus of carnage and seeming to shudder under the feet of men and horses, in the midst of fire and whirling smoke, dazed and carried away by the din of firearms and cannon, by voices that order, roar, and die away, surrounded by the dead, the dying, the mutilated corpses, seized in turn by fear, hope, and rage, by five or six different passions, what happens to a man? What does he see? What does he know after a few hours? What can he know about himself and others? Among this crowd of warriors who have fought the whole day, there is often not a single one, not even the general, who knows who the victor is. I will restrict myself to citing modern battles, famous battles whose memory will never perish, battles that have changed the face of Europe and that were only lost because such and such a man thought they were lost; they were battles where all circumstances being equal and without a drop of blood more being shed on either side, the other general could have had a Te Deum sung in his own country and forced history to record the opposite of what it will say.’

477/1 ibid. 35; SPD 223. ‘Have we not even seen won battles lost? […] In general, I believe that battles are not won or lost physically.’

477/2 ibid. 29; SPD 220. ‘In the same way, an army of 40,000 men is physically inferior to another army of 60,000, but if the first has more courage, experience, and discipline, it will be able to defeat the second, for it is more effective with less mass. This is what we can see on every page of history.’

477/3 ibid. 31 (omitted in SPD). ‘It is opinion that loses battles, and it is opinion that wins them.’

477/4 ibid. 32; SPD 221. ‘What is a lost battle? […] It is a battle one believes one has lost. Nothing is more true. One man fighting with another is defeated when he has been killed or brought to earth and the other remains standing. This is not the way it is with two armies; the one cannot be killed while the other remains on its feet. The forces are in equilibrium, as are the deaths, and especially since the invention of gunpowder has introduced more equality into the means of destruction, a battle is no longer lost materially, that is to say because there are more dead on one side than the other. It was Frederick II, who understood a little about these things, who said: To win is to advance. But who is the one who advances? It is the one whose conscience and countenance makes the other fall back.’

478/1 ibid. 33; SPD 222. ‘It is imagination that loses battles.’

478/2 Letter of 14 September 1812 to Count de Front: OC xii 220–1. ‘Few battles are lost physically – you fire, I fire […] the real victor, like the real loser, is the one who believes himself to be so.’

478/3 [More literally: ‘We told ourselves very early on that we had lost the battle, and we did lose it.’] War and Peace, vol. 3, part 2, chapter 25, T xi 206; W 855.

478/3 Albert Sorel, ‘Tolstoï historien’, Revue bleue 41 (January–June 1888), 460–9. This lecture, reprinted in revised form in Sorel’s Lectures historiques (Paris, 1894), has been unjustly neglected by students of Tolstoy; it does much to correct the views of those –e.g. P. I. Biryukov and K. V. Pokrovsky in their works cited above (25 note 1, 42 note 1), not to mention later critics and literary historians who almost all rely upon their authority) who omit all reference to Maistre. Emile Haumant is almost unique among earlier scholars in ignoring secondary authorities and discovering the truth for himself: see his La Culture française en Russie (1700–1900) (Paris, 1910), 490–2.

478/4 op. cit. (previous note), 462. This passage is omitted from the 1894 reprint (270).

479/1 OC v 10; SPD 210. ‘Explain why the most honourable thing in the world, according to the judgement of all of humanity, without exception, has always been the right to shed innocent blood innocently?

482/1 Tolstoy visited Proudhon in Brussels in 1861, the year in which the latter published a work which was called La Guerre et la paix, translated into Russian three years later. On the basis of this fact Eikhenbaum tries to deduce the influence of Proudhon upon Tolstoy’s novel. Proudhon follows Maistre in regarding the origins of wars as a dark and sacred mystery; and there is much confused irrationalism, puritanism, love of paradox, and general Rousseauism in all his work. But these qualities are widespread in radical French thought, and it is difficult to find anything specifically Proudhonist in Tolstoy’s War and Peace, besides the title. The extent of Proudhon’s general influence on all kinds of Russian intellectuals during this period was, of course, very large; it would thus be just as easy, indeed easier, to construct a case for regarding Dostoevsky – or Maxim Gorky – as a proudhonisant as to look on Tolstoy as one; yet this would be no more than an idle exercise in critical ingenuity; for the resemblances are vague and general, while the differences are deeper, more numerous and more specific.

482/2 Letter of 8 October 1834 to the Comtesse de Senfft: Félicité de Lamennais, Correspondance générale, ed. Louis le Guillou (Paris, 1971–81), letter 2338, vi 307.

482/3 Yet Tolstoy, too, says that millions of men kill each other, knowing that it is ‘physically and morally evil’, because it is ‘necessary’; because ‘in doing so men fulfilled an elemental, zoological law’: op. cit. (44 above, note 1), 15. This is pure Maistre, and very remote from Stendhal or Rousseau.

487/1 Almost in the sense in which the phrase ‘les rapports nécessaires qui dérivent de la nature des choses’ (‘necessary relationships which derive from the nature of things’) is used by Montesquieu in the opening sentence of De l’esprit des lois (1748).


[Return to main text]

82/1 H xi 48.

82/2 To G. Mazzini, 13 September 1850, H xxiv 140.

88/1 ‘S togo berega’ (1850, 2nd. ed. 1855), H vi 124; F 133–4.

88/2 ibid. 23; F 24.

89/1 ‘Pis´ma iz Frantsii i Italii’, tenth letter (1848), H v 175–6; L 160–1.

89/1a ibid., H v 176; L 161.

89/2 ‘S togo berega’, H vi 125–6; F 135.

90/0 ‘Doctor Krupov’ (1847), H iv 263.

90/1 ibid. 263–4.

90/2 ibid. 264.

91/1 ‘S togo berega’, H vi 140; F 159.

91/2 ‘Pis´ma iz Frantsii i Italii’, fifth letter (1847), H v 89; L 80. See also the remarkable analysis of the universal desire to evade intellectual responsibility by the creation of idols and the transgression of the Second Commandment in ‘Novye variatsii na starye temy’ (H ii 86–102), which originally appeared in Sovremennik in 1847.

91/3 ‘S togo berega’, H vi 46; F 51.

91/4 ibid. 35; F 38.

93/1 ibid. 34–5, 36; F 36–7, 38–9.

93/2 ibid. 31; F 33.

93/3 ibid. 32; F 34.

94/1 ibid. 94; F 108.

95/1 ‘Lettre sur le libre arbitre’ (to his son Alexander, 1868), H xx/1 437–8.

95/2 ‘S togo berega’, H vi 131; F 141.

95/3 ibid. 29; F 31.

96/1 ibid. 51; F 57.

96/2 ‘K staromu tovarishchu’ (1869), H xx/2 584.

96/3 ibid. 578.

96/4 ‘S togo berega’, H vi 472 (variant of ‘the slave labours of Egypt offered by the Communists’, F 132).

96/5 ‘K staromu tovarishchu’, H xx/2 578.

96/6 ‘Pis´ma iz Frantsii i Italii’, fourteenth letter (1851), H v 211; L 194.

97/0 ‘Myaso osvobozhdeniya’ (1862), H xvi 29.

97/0a [Untraced, but cf. ‘Du développement des idées révolutionnaires en Russie’, H vii 185.]

97/1 ‘S togo berega’, H vi 104; F 120.

98/1 ‘Pis´ma iz Frantsii i Italii’, fourteenth letter, H v 215–17; L 198–9.

98/2 ‘S togo berega’, H vi 58–9; F 66–7.

98/3 ibid. 110; F 147.

99/1 ibid. 53; F 60.

99/2 ‘K staromu tovarishchu’, H xx/2 576.

99/3 ‘Byloe i dumy’, part 6, ‘Dzhon-Styuart Mill´ i ego kniga “On Liberty”’ (1859), H xi 70; ‘John Stuart Mill and his Book on Liberty’, M iii 1079.

100/1 ‘Pis´ma iz Frantsii i Italii’, fourth letter (1847), H v 62; L 56.

100/1a loc. cit. (96 above, note 3).

100/2 ‘S togo berega’, H vi 36, 93; F 39, 107.



  1   2   3


The database is protected by copyright ©hestories.info 2017
send message

    Main page