The Blue Flower: A sad story

The first of the great Romantic theorists was Friedrich Leopold, Baron von Hardenberg (Novalis) (see left). Wasn't he a pretty boy! Both his looks and his life show him to be a text-book case of a Romantic poet: an intense love affair followed an early death of tuberculosis (like John Keats) (below right).

In 1790-91 he studied law at the University of Jena, where he met the great Friedrich von Schiller (left) and Friedrich Schlegel. By 1793 when the ideas of the French Revolution were sweeping though Germany, he dreamed of a time when ‘the walls of Jericho’ would tumble down. In 1795 he read Goethe’s Wilhelm Meister’s Apprenticeship, which he considered the Bible of the ‘new age’.


In 1798 he published his Fragments and two years later he published his beautiful Hymns to the Night, dedicated to the memory of his first love, Sophie von Kühn.

Novalis had met Sophie when she was twelve. He became engaged to her a few years later, but she died of tuberculosis in 1797 aged fifteen. After this he saw everything in his life in relation to his lost love. Eight months after her death he began to study mining at the Academy of Freiberg. In 1798 he again became engaged (to Julie von Charpentier) and in 1799 he became (rather unpoetically, you might think) a mine inspector at the saltworks at Weissenfels. He died of tuberculosis in 1801 before he could marry.

The last nine years of his short life was a period of intense creativity in which he attempted to unite poetry, philosophy and science in an allegorical interpretation of the world. In Glaube und Liebe (Faith and Love) (1798), he expresses the belief that universal spirituality will supersede all forms of human government. His romance Heinrich von Ofterdingen (published posthumously in 1802), set in an idealized Middle Ages, was one of the earliest historical novels. It describes (what else?) the romantic searchings of a young poet. The central image of his visions was a mysterious blue flower, the object of his quest, which later became a symbol of longing among the Romantics: what Schiller called ‘exiles pining for a homeland’.

‘ “It's not the treasures I care about" he said to himself "such coveting is miles from my mind, but I long to see the blue flower. I can’t get rid of the idea, it haunts me. I never felt like this before, it’s as if I dreamed of it years ago, or had a vision of it in another world, for who would be so concerned about a flower in this world? And I've never heard of anyone being in love with a flower. … I can’t even express the strange state I'm in. Sometimes rapt in delight......but when I forget about the blue flower, a nameless longing takes possession of me, no one can understand this. I'd think I was mad, if it were not for the fact that my thoughts are so clear and connected, and I understand so many new things. ...” ’ From Heinrich von Ofterdingen (1802)

Penelope Fitzgerald’s wonderful Booker winning novel of 1995, The Blue Flower (scroll down) tells the tragic story of Novalis and Sophie von Kühn. Highly recommended.

Romanticism

[Above is the Goethe and Schiller monument at Weimar.]

For a recent Observer article on Schiller, see here.

Romanticism emerged in the last decades of the eighteenth century and dominated the first four decades of the nineteenth century. It challenged the predominant classicism of the 18th century in literature, politics and music. Its prominent characteristics were:

• An emphasis on feeling and impulse
• An attraction to the spiritual, the obscure and the unknown
• A recognition of nature as an autonomous and dynamic force.
• A love of wild scenery
• Individualism
• An exalted concept of the hero
• A preference for the Gothic and the medieval over the classical
  
  
  
  
  
  

The theory of Romanticism became widely known with the publication of Madame de Stäel’s On Germany (1813). Of course, Romantic works of art were known long before this.

The Origins of Romanticism
Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been seen as the last of the philosophes and the first of the Romantics. In his Nouvelle Héloïse (1761) he appealed to emotion and to ‘sensibility’. He despised cities and urban life and his love for the Swiss Alps contributed to a change in attitudes to wild nature. At the same time the Scottish schoolteacher James Macpherson (1736-96) pulled off an audacious literary forgery with his purported translations from the Gaelic bard, Ossian: Fragments of Ancient Poetry (1760) and Fingal (1761). Napoleon took Ossian with him on his campaigns.

German Romanticism
Sturm und Drang (‘Storm and Stress’) was a movement in German literature and music that emphasized the volatile emotional life of the individual. It is most commonly viewed as occurring in the years 1767-85, but sometimes 1769-86 or 1765-95. The name was derived from a play by Friedrich Maximilian von Klinger. The chief exponents of Sturm und Drang were Johann Wolfgang von Goethe (1749-1832) and his friend and collaborator Friedrich von Schiller (1759-1805). Chief Sturm und Drang works are Goethe's historical play Götz von Berlichingen, his sensationally successful epistolary novel The Sorrows of Young Werther (right) and the poem ‘Prometheus’.
In the German states of the 1790s educated young men were excluded from careers that were monopolized by the nobility. They initially welcomed the French Revolution but became disillusioned.

Why did Romanticism begin in Germany?
The first phase of Romanticism in German literature, centred in the eastern city of Jena from about 1798 to 1804. The Jena circle included Schiller and the brothers Schlegel, August Wilhelm and Friedrich. In 1798 they issued their journal, the Athenaeum. In it they argued that art was the way of expressing man’s spiritual dimension. They valued the Middle Ages as the great period of Christian civilization and Gothic architecture as the purest expression of this civilization.

Johann Christoph Friedrich Schiller
His play The Robbers (Die Räuber, on January 13, 1782 in Mannheim, is considered by many critics to be the first European melodrama. The play pits two brothers against each other in alternating scenes as one quests for money and power, while the other attempts to create a revolutionary anarchy in the Bohemian Forest. The play strongly critiques the hypocrisy of class and religion, the economic inequities of German society, and conducts a complicated inquiry into the nature of evil. The language of The Robbers is highly emotional and the depiction of physical violence in the play marks it as part of the Sturm und Drang movement.

You can read Schiller's Ode to Joy (1785) in German and English.

Schiller wrote the play William Tell in 1803-4, after encouragement from Goethe. Tell, who might not even have existed, had become a hero of the French Revolution in the wake of the 1766 play by Antoine-Marin Lemierre. As the revolutionary armies overran Switzerland, he became the symbol of the short-lived Helvetic Republic. The play had its debut performance on March 17, 1804, in Weimar. Gioacchino Rossini in turn used it as the basis for his 1829 opera William Tell.

Romanticism in Britain
In 1798 William Wordsworth and Samuel Taylor Coleridge published Lyrical Ballads. In the preface to the 1800 edition Wordsworth defined poetry as

‘the spontaneous overflow of powerful feelings’.

In 1802 Walter Scott published The Minstrelsy of the Scottish Border (1802) and The Lay of the Last Minstrel (1805). His publication of Waverley in 1814 brought the historical novel to Britain. In order to pay off his debts he later turned to medieval pot-boilers. In 1826 Rossini composed his opera Ivanhoe.

Turner used light and colour to suggest the effects of nature. The essayist, William Hazlitt (1816):

‘The artist delights to go back to the first chaos of the world. … All is without form and void.’

Romanticism in France
Chateaubriand's The Genius of Christianity (1802) showed a royalist conservative, Christian romanticism.
Eugène Delacroix' s 'Liberty leading the People' depicted the July Revolution of 1830 in terms of radical romantic nationalism.

His sojourn in Algiers inspired him to paint exotically oriental scenes. For more on Delacroix, see this very interesting site.

Géricault's, 'The Raft of the Medusa' (1819) was based on the story of a shipwreck and showed the extremes of human emotion.

He had to fail

[Above: Napoleon's tomb at Les Invalides, Paris.]

'Napoleon was bound to fail because his appetite for gloire was insatiable. Like the French Revolution, from whose culture he sprang, he never had any war aims beyond victory.'
From Tim Blanning, The Pursuit of Glory: Europe 1648-1815 (Penguin, 2019), p. 669.

Napoleon: rise and fall

You might enjoy this very schematic diagram, taken from my O Level text book, Denis Richards' An Illustrated History of Modern Europe (Longmans, 1950) to help you remember the main events of Napoleon's career. Click to enlarge.

Napoleon as administrator

[Jacques-Louis David, The Emperor Napoleon in his Study (1812)]

Here are some thoughts about Napoleon's achievements in France.
Centralization: Napoleon created the agencies of centralized administration and the administrators to run them. These included the gendarmerie, the state-controlled paramilitary police force; the prefect, the head of departmental administration, appointed by the central government and accountable exclusively to it; a cadre of trained experts for the state, products of the École Polytechnique, founded in 1794; new state-run secondary schools, the lycées, whose curriculum centred on Latin and Mathematics.

Financial reform: In 1800 the Bank of France was founded and along with it the creation of a currency on the gold standard. A land register ensured that the propertied classes paid taxes and an efficient tax collecting system meant that the money actually reached the government.


The Church: Napoleon’s Concordat of 1801/1802 recognized the Catholic Church as ‘the religion of the great majority of French people’. The Church renounced its former privileges and property, but freedom of worship was restored. Pius VII was a (somewhat humiliated?) spectator at Napoleon’s coronation. Napoleon issued an amnesty to the émigrés (apart from the royal family) and many returned.

The law: The Code Napoléon codified the law of France. The civil code rationalized inheritance but entrenched masculine privilege. The Criminal Code did not take up the presumption of innocence or the right of habeas corpus as enshrined in the Declaration of the Rights of Man. But torture was prohibited and jury trials remained in force.

The return of the old regime?
Napoleonic France became increasingly monarchical. ‘Equality meant the equal subjection of every citizen to the state power.’ In 1802 Napoleon proclaimed himself First Consul for life and he crowned himself emperor in Notre Dame in 1804. The creation of a ‘Legion of Honour’ was followed up by the re-establishment of nobility and an imperial court. Was the Revolution over?

The imperial regime brooked little opposition. The two-house legislature was powerless. Newspapers were censored and their numbers greatly reduced. Political clubs were banned. Under the direction of the minister of police Joseph Fouché (Duke of Otranto), potential opponents – both royalists and Jacobins - were closely surveyed.

However access to the new nobility was by merit not birth, and Protestants and Jews enjoyed equality under the law. This was part of the Enlightenment legacy.

Napoleon: the downfall

[The above picture is Goya's, The Second of May, 1808: The Charge of the Mamelukes, depicting the brutal suppression of the Spanish revolt.]

The first major test of Napoleon’s rule was the Spanish crisis of 1808. The military presence of the French in Madrid led to a popular revolt against French occupation on 2 May. Napoleon forced the abdication of Charles IV and his son Ferdinand and placed his brother Joseph on the throne. This triggered off the Spanish War of Independence, known in British history as the Peninsular War, a popular counter-revolution which was exploited by the British. In August British troops under Sir Arthur Wellesley landed in Portugal, and the ensuing war forced Napoleon to commit 300,000 troops to the country to fight the British and Portuguese armies and the Spanish insurgents.

Napoleon’s troubles in Spain inspired an Austrian invasion on French positions in Bavaria, the Tyrol, Venetia and the Adriatic in April 1809. But the French struck back, taking Pius VII prisoner and reaching Vienna in May 1809. After their defeat at Wagram on July, the Austrians signed the Treaty of Schönbrunn in October, and their new leader Metternich pursued a policy of co-operation with France. The policy of conciliation was seen most starkly in the marriage of the Emperor's daughter, Marie-Louise, to Napoleon in March 1810.

Prussia pursued a different policy. Inspired by the reformers Karl von Stein and Carl August von Hardenberg, the country reorganized itself militarily and politically. In an edict of 1808 Stein abolished serfdom in Prussia. His successor Hardenberg reformed secondary and university education and gave full civil rights to the Jews. Recognizing the force of nationalism in inspiring the French armies, writers and intellectuals espoused German nationalism. (You will revisit these themes in Block 6.)

Napoleon’s biggest mistake was his invasion of Russia in 1812, the result of Russia’s failure to enforce the Continental System against Britain. In the summer of 1812 the (by now multinational) Grande Armée of 650,000 men (an unprecedented size) marched into Russia. In September they occupied the evacuated and burned city of Moscow and in October Napoleon gave the order to retreat. By the time it reached the Prussian border, fewer than 100,000 soldiers were left. Napoleon abandoned his army and returned to France in December. At the end of the year the Russians advanced west and captured Vilnius, the capital of Lithuania.

On 2 February 1813 Johann Gottlieb Fichte ended his lecture at the University of Berlin with the words

‘This course will be suspended until the close of the campaign, when we will resume it in a free fatherland or reconquer our liberty by death’.

Young men from all over Germany flocked to join a Freikorps (a volunteer army) of at least 100,000, dedicated to the liberation of Germany. The weapons of the French Revolution were now turned against France in what the Prussians called the ‘War of Liberation’. At the ‘Battle of the Nations’ fought at Leipzig in October 1813 over half a million soldiers and 2,000 pieces of artillery were in action, the largest military engagement fought until the First World War. On the left is the memorial to the battle.

On the evening of 18 October the French retreated to the Rhine. Of the more than 300,000 men under Napoleon’s command three months earlier, only 40-50,000 remained. The allied victory was decisive. Metternich wrote to his wife:

‘I have just returned from the battlefield on which the cause of the world has been won (Quoted Adam Zamoyski, Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon and the Congress of Vienna, Harper, 2007, p. 115.)

But the cost of victory was horrific. The British ambassador-extraordinary, Lord Aberdeen, wrote to his sister-in-law:

‘For three or four miles the ground is covered with the bodies of men and horses, many not dead. Wretches wounded unable to crawl, crying for water amidst heaps of putrefying bodies. Their screams are heard at an immense distance, and still ring in my ears. The living as well as the dead are stripped by the barbarous peasantry, who have not sufficient charity to put the miserable wretches out of their pain. Our victory is most complete. It must be a owned that victory is a fine thing, but one should be at a distance.’ (Quoted Zamoyski, p. 115.

At the end of 1813 the Allies reached Frankfurt, completed the liberation of Germany and the Prussian army under Blücher marched into France. In 1814 the French were driven out of Spain. In March Russian, Prussian, and Austrian soldiers entered Paris, and Napoleon was forced by his generals to abdicate. The count of Provence became king of France as Louis XVIII, and Napoleon was sent to rule the island of Elba.

In March 1815 Napoleon escaped from Elba and returned to France for his ‘Hundred Days’. After his final defeat at Waterloo on 18 June 1815 he was exiled to St Helena where he died in 1821. The Napoleonic Wars were brought to a final end by the Second Treaty of Paris of 20 November 1815.

Wordsworth laments the end of a great city state

Lodovico Manin, the last doge of Venice.

ON THE EXTINCTION OF THE VENETIAN REPUBLIC (1797)
          ONCE did She hold the gorgeous east in fee;
          And was the safeguard of the west: the worth
          Of Venice did not fall below her birth,
          Venice, the eldest Child of Liberty.
          She was a maiden City, bright and free;
          No guile seduced, no force could violate;
          And, when she took unto herself a Mate,
          She must espouse the everlasting Sea.
          And what if she had seen those glories fade,
          Those titles vanish, and that strength decay;              
          Yet shall some tribute of regret be paid
          When her long life hath reached its final day:
          Men are we, and must grieve when even the Shade
          Of that which once was great, is passed away.

Napoleon on the web.

There's loads of material on Napoleon on the web.

Here, for example.

What if.. Nahhh, Better Not Go There.

I recently found myself mourning the loss of Prince Andrew. In my depressed state of mind I thought of an irrational and just as bad alternative I wish would have happened instead: what if Pierre would have died instead of Andrew? When this idea popped into my mind I was at the bargaining stage of grief, and as soon as it passed I realized that was a stupid idea. As much as I feel emotionally attached to Andrew, I love Pierre too and the novel would not be the same without him. I realized my "what if" would never work because Andrew has completed his journey while Pierre has not. What do I mean by this? Andrew led good life. While he and Natasha never ended up married (insert sobbing), he had a pretty fulfilled life, and in the end he figured out where his place was (i.e. actually on the battlefield instead of in a high-ranking position and discovering a divine love over the worldly love he previously experienced). If one of the main characters had to rip our hearts out, it is better Andrew dies than Pierre because the latter has so much to learn still. Pierre has yet to discover what his purpose in life is or even to hold a single purpose for longer than a few weeks. I think his own foolishness might save Pierre from being killed off in the novel because he has yet to discover what the heck he is doing, and it certainly would not be a fulfilling ending if he died without discovering so! What do you think?

Why is War and Peace so long?

Tolstoy had A LOT to say and concise writing was not the dominant form of the time.

Well, okay, while I don't refute that those two reasons are pretty valid, I've been thinking about this question for some time and I'd like to offer another response.

When people ask me about War and Peace, the only somewhat suitable phrase I can come up with to describe War and Peace is "a slice of life." Tolstoy isn't telling us a 1200 page story or writing a purely philosophical discourse. What stands out about War and Peace to me from other books is that we, the readers, get to know the character's and their world similar to how we get to know people and our world in real life. To meaningfully accomplish that method of writing Tolstoy certainly needs 1200 pages. For many details in War and Peace you could argue that they are unimportant, which is in part a valid argument. If Tolstoy was writing in a style where he wished to explicitly describe each character and drive the story forward without "distraction," then I'm sure many details would be unnecessary. I think, however, that Tolstoy is attempting to draw us into the book slowly but surely by revealing characters to us the way we meet people in our own life. We get to know people around us simply by the sum of all their little actions and their conversations with us and those around them. That is how we begin to get to know characters in War and Peace; however, as we are accustomed to reading a different style of writing, we desperately want to know exactly how old the character's are, exactly where Pierre studied abroad, and what drives a character to act a certain way at a soiree. Much as in real life, we are left to just continue observing a character's actions and thoughts. One example that struck me is when Andrew has an epiphany, that something has changed in him is obvious, but we are not told what this epiphany is. This seems reflective of in real life when we can tell that something in someone has changed, but rarely would we be told in an all too explicit sentence what their "epiphany" was. While one could probably write a quite sufficient 15 page essay on Prince Andrew's character, the effect would not be the same as getting to know him the way we do in War and Peace. Those seemingly unimportant snippets of character's lives are important simply because of their "unimportance;" we get to know people by endlessly sifting through thousands of minute interactions.

Adversity

As I was reading chapter 3 in Book 13 of War and Peace, I was struck by Tolstoy's description of Pierre. Pierre is now solid and strong and has a calmness in his eyes. With all of the turmoil Pierre has had in his life, it is interesting that he now shows these changes.

It made me think about quality of life and what kind of life is best for one in order to be the most satisfied. Pierre seems to have been brought into the best version of himself in conditions that are far less luxurious than those he is used to. Tolstoy was critical of the elite class, yet it is hard to argue against the peace of mind that having money--now and in his time--brings. Yet Pierre is a great example of how sometimes less is more. The growth that can be had from having less is invaluable and reconfirms my belief that adversity makes you grow stronger.

Locked Up & in Need of HOPE

Pierre is going through a major identity crisis. He was uncertain of who he was from the beginning of the novel when he was introduced as the “awkward” and “illegitimate child.” He is an outcast from his physically awkward attributes to his sincerity that distinguishes him from the fake Russian aristocracy. He’s simply an outsider.

Furthermore, when he’s taken as a prisoner, he is traumatized by the unjustified executions and even more depressed then before. He then refuses to tell the French officers his true identity and it can be inferred that he is still uncertain of who he is. Pierre is need of hope!

Enter Platon Karataev, the saintliest peasant ever! Platon Karataev makes an important appearance in Book Twelve. Tolstoy presents him as an optimistic, kind Russian peasant who lives in the moment, forgetful of the past (he cannot even remember what he said a few minutes earlier!), and oblivious of the future. He quotes Russian proverbs at key moments, talks to the dog, and is pretty cheery. Pierre likes Platon's sincerity and enjoys his company.

What is your opinion of Platon Karataev? Knowing of Pierre’s sudden urges to pursue new ideas, do you think he will be influenced by Platon and have some kind of epiphany? 

Napoleon: the rise to power

[Above is Jacques-Louis David's Napoleon Crossing the Alps, commemorating his campaign of 1800. Note the references to Hannibal and Charlemagne who also crossed the Alps on military campaigns. The rearing horse is highly unrealistic. Napoleon actually crossed the Alps on a mule!]

The posts on Napoleon are based on a wide range of reading. I have found Jonathan Sperber's Revolutionary Europe, 1780-1850 (Longman, 2000) especially helpful.

Napoleon institutionalized the changes brought about by the French Revolution and spread them throughout Europe. This makes him easily the most influential figure of the period. He was the heir both of the Revolution and the Enlightenment and the changes he brought about outlasted his military defeat.

He was undoubtedly a dictator, but he also issued constitutions and through plebiscites claimed to represent the will of the people. (The device of the plebiscite was of course copied by Mussolini and Hitler.)


How did he come to power?
Throughout the entire period of the war from 1792 to 1815 France faced two main enemies: the Austrians on land and the British at sea. The other two great powers, Prussia and Russia, came and went as did the smaller European powers.

The armies of the French Republic, created by the levée en masse of 1793, were composed of patriotic volunteers and newly drafted conscripts. Their numbers reached as high as 800,000, guaranteeing the French numerical superiority of almost 2:1 in important engagements. They did not fight in a line, but skirmished, breaking up into smaller groups to take advantage of the terrain and to fire, from cover, on the enemy, still standing neatly in rows. Following a new strategic doctrine, they abandoned the old regime armies’ slow pace of advance, and moved rapidly, living off the country – a convenient strategy for a bankrupt government!

Napoleon benefited from these changes. He distinguished himself in the war of the First Coalition (1792-7) by defeating the Austrians at Arcole and Rivoli in northern Italy in 1796-7. In the spring of 1797 he led his forces through north-eastern Italy into Austria, his vanguard coming within 74 miles of Vienna. Austria was forced to make peace and Italy was divided into French and Austrian spheres of influence. This campaign established Napoleon’s reputation as a liberator of peoples, but the Treaty of Campo Formio (October 1797) shows this claim to be spurious: France surrendered Venetia to Austria in return for Venice’s Adriatic Empire along the Dalmatian coast. These were useful stepping stones to the Levant.

For Wordsworth's lament over the extinction of the Venetian Republic see here.

In late 1797 the Directory endorsed a plan of Napoleon’s for a Mediterranean offensive against Britain. In May 1798 a French expeditionary force landed in Egypt, supposedly to threaten India (though a glance at the map might have shown that this was unlikely!). The French defeated the Turkish armies at the Battle of the Pyramids, but Nelson’s navy destroyed and sank the French fleet at Aboukir Bay, leaving the French army stranded in Egypt.

To forestall an Ottoman invasion, Napoleon invaded Syria, but, unable to take Acre in Palestine, his forces retreated on May 20, 1799. The French slaughter of the Turkish prisoners at Jaffa is a stain on Napoleon's reputation.

In November 1799 Napoleon deserted his army, took ship to France and overthrew the Directory in the coup d’état of 18-19 Brumaire in which he became First Consul. He consolidated his power by crossing the Alps (depicted here by David) and defeating the Austrians at Marengo in 1800. By the Treaty of Lunéville of 1801 the French annexation of Belgium, Luxembourg and the left bank of the Rhine was confirmed.
This involved a redrawing of the map of Germany. The number of petty states was drastically reduced and most of the free cities were abolished. The reduction of the number of imperial states from more than 300 to fewer than 100 severely diminished the authority of the Hapsburgs.

Napoleon as conqueror
Marengo ended the War of the Second Coalition and Napoleon was able to take advantage of Britain’s war weariness in the Peace of Amiens (1802). But the peace broke down in the following year, and Napoleon’s concentrated his energies on the invasion of Britain.

In 1804-5 Tsar Alexander I negotiated the Third Coalition: Austria, Prussia, Sweden and Britain.

The British victories of Cape Finisterre and Trafalgar in 1805 put an end to the attempt to invade England. However, in October Napoleon defeated the Austrians at Ulm in Bavaria and occupied Vienna. On 2 December he defeated a combined Austrian and Russian army at Austerlitz. The resulting Treaty of Pressburg (Bratislava) eliminated the Austrian position in Italy and turned most of Germany into a French protectorate. On 6 August 1806 Francis II bowed to the inevitable and resigned the title of Holy Roman Emperor which his ancestors had worn for almost four centuries. He retreated into being hereditary Emperor of Austria. A thousand years of history had come to an end.

Early in 1806 the Bourbon Kingdom of Naples was conquered and set up as a separate kingdom.
On 14 October 1806 the Prussians were defeated at Jena and Auerstädt. The French occupied Berlin and the royal family retreated to East Prussia. This was Napoleon’s sweet revenge for the Prussian defeat of the French at Rossbach in 1757. What were his feelings as he entered Frederick the Great’s city and viewed his tomb? Prussia’s old enemy Saxony allied with Napoleon and joined the Confederation of the Rhine. Napoleon created the Kingdom of Westphalia for his brother Jerome and pressurized all the German states except Austria to join the Confederation.

After several fierce battles in East Prussia in the first half of 1807 Napoleon and Tsar Alexander I signed the Treaty of Tilsit, marking the end of the War of the Third Coalition. It was an astonishing achievement. The Grande Armée had marched nearly 2,500 miles and fought five great battles. It had destroyed the armies of two Great Powers and defeated those of a third, a record of conquest not seen since the days of classical antiquity.

Britain was now left alone and in an attempt to defeat her by economic warfare, Napoleon (from Berlin) instigated his ‘Continental System’, an embargo on British goods in the entire European continent.

Spin doctoring à la française

The battle of Arcola, 17 November 1796: a case study in propaganda

This is what happened as described in Philip Dwyer, Napoleon: The Path to Power, 1769-1799 (Bloomsbury, 2007), 1-3, 248-58.

Arcola is a village in northern Italy, 32 kilometres east of Verona. French and imperial forces confronted each other there, separated by the river Alpone and a small wooden bridge. The countryside around was marshy and crossed by dykes as a defence against flooding. Napoleon believed he had to cross this bridge in order to take Arcola.


Facing the French were two battalions of Croatians who had positioned their cannon so that they could fire on anyone approaching the bridge. The French troops took cover behind the dykes. When some of Bonaparte’s leading generals – Lannes, Bon, Verdier and Verne tried to advance towards the bridge, they were wounded. But General Augereau rushed through the ranks of frightened soldiers, tore the flag from the standard bearer, and advanced towards the enemy. A few of his men tried to follow him, but when five or six of their number were killed, they retreated. Augereau escaped without injury.

According to one eye-witness account, Bonaparte then attempted to repeat Augereau’s heroic gesture. He dismounted, drew his sword, took the flag and rushed onto the middle of the bridge, while the troops looked on, afraid to follow him. The officers who surrounded him were killed or wounded.

When the Austrians opened fire again, Bonaparte withdrew and his troops followed him in a headlong retreat, only stopping when they were out of range of the cannon. In the confusion that followed Bonaparte was pushed into a ditch full of water and nearly drowned, but he was dragged to safety by his men.

Two more days of fighting followed and the French failed to capture the bridge. On the third day Bonaparte sent the trusted and competent General Masséna to cross the Alpone further north and take Arcola in the rear. He was now very disillusioned with his troops and he complained about their ‘unpredictable’ behaviour in a letter to the French government. His comments were echoed by General Joubert: ‘Never have we fought so badly, never have the Austrians fought so well.’ Others made similar derogatory remarks. The army had performed below par.

This is how it was described
Bonaparte sent a doctored account that was printed in the Moniteur on 2 December in which he noted Augereau’s action in seizing the flag and carrying it onto the bridge, and his own action in imitation. Shortly after this, however, another account reached the Council of Five Hundred. This time Augereau was described as following Bonaparte’s lead and the prudent (or cowardly) refusal of the troops to follow him was not mentioned. Neither was it made at all clear that the crossing had failed.

However, Arcola had fallen and the imperial flag had been captured, and on the basis of these two facts a myth was created. In the first engravings of Arcola to appear, Bonaparte is accompanied by Augereau. Both are portrayed side by side, crossing the bridge that was never crossed, each carrying a flag with the inscription ‘The French People’. But over time the representations give way to those of Bonaparte crossing the bridge alone, and the myth of his heroic capture of the bridge became the accepted story, represented in numerous paintings and engravings, of which Antoine-Jean Gros’ Bonaparte at the Bridge of Acole [above] is the most celebrated. But it is not the only one. Horace Vernet's Bridge of Arcole is another example.

Dwyer suggests,

‘It is just possible that Arcola represented a psychological turning point for Bonaparte…It was from this moment on that Bonaparte as an individual breaks away from the Army of Italy, which until then had always been portrayed collectively (p. 249-50).’

It is the start of Bonapartist propaganda.

Paine on the web

Thomas Paine is greatly revered in the United States and there are many American websites that deal with his life and writing. Here is one.

Edmund Burke: counter-revolutionary

There is a very scholarly post here on Burke's contribution to philosophy. The Wikipedia biography is also useful.

Olympe de Gouges (1748-93)

Olympe de Gouges was one of the more prominent victims of the Terror. She supported the Revolution but opposed the execution of Louis XVI. In 1793 she was guillotined for writing a piece critical of the government.

You can read about her life here. As you read it, you may enjoy - or not! - the splendidly misogynistic comment of the eminent French historian, Jules Michelet. Basically he believed she was troubling her pretty little head about matters she didn't understand.

You can read a translation of her Declaration of the Rights of Woman and the Citizeness here.

Mary Wollstonecraft

Mary Wollstonecraft's biographer, Janet Todd, has posted an illuminating essay here.

Knowledge and Scientific Research: an Islamic perspective

Importance of knowledge in Islam:

Islam provided great impetus for the human pursuit of knowledge. The first verse that descended on the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ Was Iqra, meaning "read,” opening the door to read, write, and ponder. The Quran urges the mankind to think, ponder, reflect and acquire knowledge that would bring them closer to God and his creation. 

The Quran uses repetition to embed certain key concepts in the consciousness of its listeners. Allah (God) and Rab (the Sustainer) are repeated 2,800 and 950 times, respectively, in the Quran; Ilm (knowledge) comes third with 750 mentions.

The Quran lays so much importance on knowledge that God commanded his Prophet Muhammad ﷺ to pray for increase in knowledge:

...say, "My Lord, increase me in knowledge."

-Quran (20:114)

Categories Of knowledge:

Knowledge is divided into two categories: 

a. ‘Ilm e Naafi’ – Beneficial knowledge 

b. ‘Ilm e Ghair Naafi` – Non-beneficial knowledge. 

The Messenger of Allah ﷺ said, “Ask Allah for beneficial knowledge and seek refuge in Allah from knowledge without benefit.”

Source: Sunan Ibn Mājah 3843 (Grade: Hasan)

Nabi ﷺ himself used to do Du’aa for ‘Ilm e Naafi`:

“Oh Allah! I ask you for beneficial knowledge”. -Ibn Majah

And he ﷺ sought refuge from ‘Ilm e Ghair Naafi’: 

“Oh Allah! I seek your protection from non-beneficial knowledge”. -Sahih Muslim

It's to be noted that Islam includes both the worldly knowledge and the religious knowledge in both the above categories. So beneficial scientific knowledge and research is included in the first category of desirable beneficial knowledge.

So our learning and research efforts should be only in those things which are beneficial and constructive and not of a purposeless or destructive nature.

Research as perpetual charity:

Prophet Muhammad (peace and blessings be upon him) said,

“When a man dies, his good deeds come to an end except three: ongoing charity, beneficial knowledge (he leaves behind), and righteous offspring who will pray for him.” (Muslim)

So, doing research and leaving behind knowledge which is beneficial for mankind will keep on multiplying one's good deeds even after one's death.

The aim of research:

The most important goal of studying and researching the creation is to know the reality and attain the knowledge of the Creator. The Quran says,

"We shall show them Our signs in the universe and within themselves, until it becomes clear to them that this is the Truth". -Quran (41:53)

"Indeed, in the creation of the heavens and the earth and the alternation of the night and the day are signs for those of understanding." -Quran (3:190)

Secondly, our research efforts should be to benefit the humanity and to attain the pleasure of God through it.

This is amply demonstrated in a prayer the prophet ﷺ taught us to pray to God not to make the worldly material gains as the ultimate goal of gaining knowledge:

اللهم لا تجعل الدنيا أكبر همنا ولا مبلغ علمنا ولا غاية رغبتنا

"O Allah!  let not worldly affairs (Dunya) be our principal concern (greatest aim), nor the ultimate limit of our knowledge nor the limit of our aspiration."

-Tirmidhi & Nasai 

Islamic concept of knowledge is unique as it is fundamentally based on a form of humility that one will be inspired by truth only when one turns to the Creator of knowledge (God) whilst demonstrating to Him the effort one has exerted in attaining it! My Lord increase me in knowledge!

One of the all time great Muslim scientists and the greatest medieval physician- Ibn Sina never slept the night fully in the period he was busy with ilm. His days were exclusively reserved for studying. When an issue emerged which he couldn't make sense of, he would make wudhu, go to the mosque, pray and make dua to Allah that he makes that issue easier for him and open to him the elusive details of the issue. He was among the leading scholars in knowledge, intellect, and productivity.
-Safahat min Sabri'l Ulama, p. 131.

Today all the misuse of science and technology occurs due to pursuing knowledge for purely materialistic or narrow nationalistic or capitalist purposes, removing God and humanity from the equation.

The Burning of Moscow

From early on in "War and Peace" we are shown that while St. Petersburg is becoming the new thriving metropolis and social capital of Russia, Moscow remains the older and more conservative city. Older characters want to stay in Moscow while the younger characters desire to run off to the up and coming city of St. Petersburg. While St. Petersburg is young and fun, Moscow is old and boring. When the French invade Moscow in the war of 1812 the city is abandoned and left to be burned. What does the burning of Moscow symbolize? Along with the death of Old Bolkonsky, the burning of the city could represent the emergence of the younger generation as the primary figures in Russia. Perhaps the older generation has met it's end and it is time for them to take a back seat to their children. It could also symbolize the changing of culture and behavior in Russia. Maybe the burning of the city is a symbol for the loss of old customs and ways. Any thoughts on what the burning of Moscow means to "War and Peace"?

The Death of Prince Andrew Bolkónski.

It is no secret that Prince Andrew Bolkónski is my favorite character in the novel and so his death definitely saddens me but I am very happy and impressed by the way Tolstoy depicts the event as Andrew in my opinion is given the most dignified sendoff so far in the novel, and he is well deserving of one. As true as ever to Andrew's nature, he dies contemplating the meaning of life and death and putting things in perspective for himself. To be honest, that is what I admire the most about him. Andrew is surrounded by those who love him and these people bond over their love and grief for him. The fact that Natasha is a source of comfort for Princess Mary and little Nicholas I find very heartwarming and as a positive reflection on Natasha's character, showing her to be genuine and caring. Princess Mary finds Natasha a "comrade in grief" and begins to "cry on her shoulder" when they first see each other. There is a beautiful but sorrowful moment when little Nicholas stays strong when he sees his father but after he leaves the room " leaning against her (Natasha) he began to cry." Through Prince Andrew's death, Princess Mary and Natasha get to see the "consciousness of the simple and solemn mystery of death." As Prince Andrew is in the dividing line between life and death for the final time,  he sees "death as an awakening" and the unknown is "lifted from his spiritual vision." Prince Andrew as a man always seeking truth and answers to life's hardest questions I feel can now rest with all the answers.  Prince Andrew gets to understand the mysteries of life as his life is ending and realizes that love removes the "dreadful barrier" between life and death. He is rewarded by Tolstoy for his virtues.

As a parting note, Prince Andrew Bolkónski's character has been an enjoyable one for me to follow and watch grow and has been a learning experience as I see traits portrayed by Tolstoy in him that I greatly admire and find amiable. The genuine, honest and responsible thinker plays a great part in the novel as being the one to bring calamity to the plot when all the other characters are in mayhem. Prince Andrew's practicality and rationale is not something to be disliked, it does not make him bland and boring, it is Tolstoy portraying a human being who seeks self-betterment and luckily for him always finds it.

Blog #5 A Woman's Worth ~ Alicia Keys By Beverly Ball

Alicia Keys - A Woman's Worth Lyrics

You could buy me diamonds, you could buy me pearls
Take me on a cruise around the world
Baby you know I'm worth it
Dinner lit by candles, run my bubble bath
Make love tenderly to last and last
Baby you know I'm worth it
Wanna please wanna keep wanna treat your woman right
Not just told but to show that you know she is worth your time
You will lose if you choose to refuse to put her first
She will if she can't find a man who knows her worth, mhmn

Cuz a real man knows a real woman when he sees her
And a real woman knows a real man ain't afraid to please her
And a real woman knows a real man always comes first
And a real man just can't deny a woman's worth

If you treat me fairly I'll give you all my goods
Treat you like a real woman should
Baby I know you're worth it
If you never play me, promise not to bluff
I'll hold you down when shit gets rough
Baby I know you're worth it
She rolls the mile makes you smile all the while being true
Don't take for granted the passion that she has for you
You will lose if you choose to refuse to put her first
She will if she can't find a man who knows her worth, oh

Cuz a real man knows a real woman when he sees her
And a real woman knows a real man ain't afraid to please her
And a real woman knows a real man always comes first
And a real man just can't deny a woman's worth

No need to read between the lines, spell it out for you
Just hear this song cuz you can't go wrong when you value
A woman, woman, woman, a woman's worth

Cuz a real man knows a real woman when he sees her
And a real woman knows a real man ain't afraid to please her
And a real woman knows a real man always comes first
And a real man just can't deny a woman's worth

Cuz a real man knows a real woman when he sees her
And a real woman knows a real man ain't afraid to please her
And a real woman knows a real man always comes first
And a real man just can't deny a woman's worth

Mhmn mhmn mhmn mhmn mhmn mhmn….

"Alicia Keys: Beauty’s Only Skin Deep"

"Keys emerges as the latest “Black feminist” that relies on constructing her own musical agenda and beauty absent of her highly publicized youth and music industry guidance from label executives".

"Linda Seida says that “wisdom and experience transcends Alicia Keys’ youth” (All Music Guide, 2006). Perhaps this relates to Keys’ multi racial immersion into musical training and interests. The daughter of a White mother and African American father, Keys was born Alicia Augello Cook on January 25, 1981 in the rough “Hell’s Kitchen” section of Manhattan, New York (Denziel, 2003; Samuels, 2001). As a child, Keys is recognized as a musical prodigy with extensive training in ballet, classical piano, and voice. Keys is intrigued by diverse musical tastes that includes Prince, Stevie Wonder, Donny Hathaway, Mary J. Blige, Chopin, Beethoven, and the Notorious B.I.G. Keys’ interest in music allows her to find inspiration in various artists rather than one specific genre of music.
Keys manages to incorporate numerous influences to create “Black feminism” that allows her youth to determine her musical abilities.

Keys’ education further drives her musical talents and objectives. At age 14, Keys begins to write songs and compose her own music. Keys enrolls into the Professional Performing Arts School in Manhattan only to graduate as the valedictorian at age 16 (Denziel, 2003; Seida, 2006). Keys briefly enters Columbia University but leaves to pursue her career in music. Keys lands a recording deal with Columbia Records but is confronted with pressure and reservations from the label to allow a young prodigy to take control of her debut project. Keys exemplifies taking a stance against powerful music hierarchies to define her potential and credibility to produce music of substance and focus.

Keys embodies “Black feminism” for her ability to stand up against a recording industry hierarchy to encourage her own vision to define her talent. The record label attempts to market her and construct an image that she does not want. Columbia Records supports Keys to become a conventional pop vocalist with sequined gowns, exposed cleavage, and high heels. The label even encourages Keys to abandon her piano and intentions to become a songwriter and producer. Keys says the label wants to mold her into another “Mariah or Whitney” clone (Samuels, 2001). This resistance from Keys symbolizes what Audre Lorde says is a “a refusal to be delineated by male establishment modes of femininity” (Tate, 1983). Keys leaves Columbia Records because of what bell hooks describes as “courageously claiming a right to personal integrity and refusal to don a false sense of self for anyone” (2001). Keys contends that she wants to be assertive in constructing her own intentions and motive in the music business outside of sex and being attractive to the male gaze".

Keys states,“People are into looks, but I don’t have to play into that. I’m not about showcasing myself like that. I’m not wearing booty shorts, low cut blouses, or see-through dresses for anybody. The music’s all I’m selling” (Samuels, 2003)".

“Black feminism” is displayed in part to Keys’ demanding self-esteem and willingness to define her own image based on her musical abilities".

Keys displays a music first work ethic over glamour and beauty. “Keys is not an artist that can be pigeonholed, so people expect her to create new paths rather than trying to fit into today’s scene. She is the ultimate artist – she writes, produces, performs, and arranges” (Hall, 2003)".



This song examines a woman's worth within the sphere of the public and private domains of black femininity especially in the context of of life in the ghetto. In the "you tube" video I have attached it opens with Keys walking across a ghetto street. The video tries to show the connection of her previous video "Fallin" in which she laments for falling for the wrong men. In "A Woman's Worth" she tried to detail his struggles in finding work. The song and video focus on the choices made by some women forced to work the streets. This song also depicts that these women make this choice with full knowledge of the social implications. She shows how these women have a sense of empowerment and dignity in our world today that for black women offer few substantive choices for economic empowerment. Their only other choices would be marriage, menial labor or low paying jobs as nurturers. Alicia Keys refers to these women as "proud walkin' women.
I do not think this song offers reliable choices for black women in general and certainly nothing to overcome sexist oppression. I think this song does address the choices and effects of women working the streets to survive and attain some economic freedom and allows us a chance to see street women and their profession in a different maybe even more acceptable light for gaining possible financial freedom.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-PWunLT7Wgw

http://www.nbgsa.org/journal/html/0106

http://national black graduate student association

L.O.V.E

I would not dare to say that love is one of the most important themes of War and Peace, but I do believe that it is essential to pay attention at the description of how this feeling develops in each of the characters. Beside the moonlight, the night and the comets, how is this portrayed?  When I read War and peace I feel that most descriptions of love are not straightforward, that characters fall in love suddenly and abruptly and, as a consequence, their love does not last as long as it should. Pierre acknowledges that his love for Natasha has started a long time ago, but we had no previous hints of his love having been such a profound and deep feeling that developed over the years. Is it that Pierre realizes the fact that he has always loved Natasha while he is talking to the French soldier, or rather he knew it all along but it is the first time he allows himself to think about it and to speak it? Is this love as pure as the one Prince Andrew experiences as he is approaching death? 

Prince Andrew, the character in perpetual evolution, claims that he has " experienced that feeling of love which is the very essence of the soul and does not require an object". Also, another quote that drew my attention is: " When loving with human love one may pass from love to hatred, but divine love cannot change. No, neither death nor anything else can destroy it. It is the very essence of the soul."(p.817). What is this love that one experiences only at the closeness of death? What does Prince Andrew know that us, as part of the ignorant humanity do not know? Did Tolstoy actually know how this kind of love feels or is this just a philosophical idea he just wanted to bring into the attention of his readers? 

What is love in Tolstoy's view? Is it innocent as Natasha is when she falls in love with Andrew? Is it the fruit of a comparison with bad past experiences and a desire of renewal and of a new life as it is for Pierre and Andrew? Is it selfish love as it is in Helene's case? Is it caring and worrying about your family, as it is in the Rostov family? And if we admit that love is each of the above and more, does this combination of the types of love presented in War and Peace result in the divine love Prince Andrew experiences?

What is Tolstoy telling us about love?

Save the "Shallow" Women of War and Peace 2k14

Yet another woman has been killed off in War and Peace!!! And yes, it was Helene, who no one liked, but still! We've now seen both Lise and Helene get killed because of their inabilities to be good wives. While Lise's death was framed as the product of childbirth and Helene's as sickness and then drugs, we have to look beyond that to Tolstoy's purpose to really understand these characters and their ends. Lise had to die in order for Andrew to move on and have his story arch with Natasha, a girl deemed more worth at the time because of her innocent and energetic nature. What was Tolstoy saying by comparing these two women but putting priority on Natasha? She wasn't actually that much smarter than Lise. The thing that made her a better fit for Andrew was her ability to engage him, which Lise couldn't do no matter how hard she tried, and she did try. So, unsurprisingly, Tolstoy is sending the message that a "good" wife should be able to keep her husband entertained, while there is no mention of this going the both ways. Helene, on the other hand, did not have to die in order for Pierre to pursue whoever he's going to pursue from here on out (probably Natasha). She'd already divorced him and left him a free man. Instead, Tolstoy seems to be punishing her for pursuing her own interests instead of wanting to stay with her childish and unloving husband. Not only that, but her punishment is death, which just makes me mad! These two characters in particular are women who are framed as disposable and whose fates are driven by Tolstoy's sexism. And yes, all of this can be dismissed with the simple explanation of "he was writing War and Peace in then 1860s" but still, I think it is important to be critical of texts using contemporary lenses in order to see the story from all angles. No text is without its flaws, especially older ones, and War and Peace is no exception.

A Sudden Burst of Feminism

When Natasha is finally reunited with Andrew as they leave Moscow, the narrator tells us that, "Natasha never left the wounded Bolkonsky, and the doctor had to admit that he had not expected from a young girl either such firmness or such skill in nursing a wounded man" (819). This passage struck me in particular because it didn't match the usual way Tolstoy depicted women. In the past, we have seen the women of the story as completely separate from the war, and unable to be of use during it. However, we now have a description of Natasha that says she is not only willing but effective at nursing Andrew. As late as this change is, do you think it betokens a new role for the women of the story as not merely ornamental, but also useful? The sudden burst of feminism seems out of place for Tolstoy, and I wonder if it will continue throughout the novel, or disappear when Andrew regains his health.

Blog #4 Girl Interrupted, Tyler Van Drei

Girl Interrupted was a movie about a female who was forced to spend time in a private mental institution. The psychiatrist she seen considered taking aspirin and drinking alcohol as a suicide attempt and decided Susanna needed to spend time there. The storyline follows Susanna and all the people she meets at Claymoore. She meets people with many different disorders and problems, from family abuse to sociopaths and even pathological liars. Throughout the film Susanna becomes more comfortable with her institutionalized female friends and that begins to make her family nervous who are on the outside looking in. Eventually, after an 18 month stay at the institution, Susanna returns home and has a better knowledge of herself.

Girl Interrupted deals, almost exclusively, with women. Obviously in this film women are not being represented at their best. The main women in the film have mental disorders so it doesn’t really show them being empowered either. The women are represented as being mentally ill, since they are in a hospital and cannot control whether or not they leave it hurts the image of women. Suicides, pathological liars, and abused women are the types of people that are associated with the film. I would not consider Girl Interrupted a feminist film at all. The movie does represent women almost exclusively, but they are not represented in a positive or negative fashion.

I really enjoyed the film. The way that the writers incorporated all different kinds of illnesses into all the different women’s personalities was very interesting to watch. The women played their roles very well, it was very believable the way they acted out their illnesses and sicknesses. The storyline also played out well, throughout Susanna’s experience of finding herself and making friends in a place where she never thought either of those things could happen. Seeing as how the film played out in a mental institution and that is was primarily all women the movie doesn’t really relate to my personal experiences at all.

Some Sources I used:
http://movies.yahoo.com/movie/1800022026/details
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0172493/plotsummary
http://movies.go.com/girl-interrupted/d790992/drama

Talking to the Artists of the War and Peace Project

I don't know about the rest of the class but getting to hear from the creators of the War and Peace Project was one of the highlights of the tutorial.  I know we all had already looked at the pieces, and Kelly explained where most of them came from but it was just fascinating to hear how these were created and why the project was started.

I found it really interesting that they had so many rules.  Each piece had to be done in one sitting and once they left the studio they couldn't change it again.  I've done a little art and I would find that terrible.  I feel like sometimes you need perspective and space from your work to decide what you want to do or get new inspiration, but I think rather than causing these artists pressure, this constraint really allowed them to put all their effort into it once, and than move on. This struct me as a really unique way of doing art.  This along with the rule that no one got to pick which page they wanted to do I feel like would be hard to stick too (especially because all the artists had read the novel and probably have emotional attachments to certain parts).  I loved the fact that they shared materials even across the country and that no one could work alone.  I think although all these rules made the work harder and sometimes probably delayed the project it really made it a collaboration.

The pieces themselves are amazing.  But I really just thought it was so cool to hear about the whole process behind it.  What did you guys think?

Is it Love?

Why is Tolstoy so cynical about love?

Love in War and Peace so far has been an enigma- it is inexplicable, unachievable, or unreciprocated. Is this theme of unrequited love based on his own disillusionment? Tolstoy married his wife for the same reasons that Prince Andrew married Lise, and Pierre married Helene- sexual attraction. Clearly this was never foundation enough for a marriage, and he reinforces this throughout the novel. 

However, admittedly, Tolstoy and his wife were very happy while the novel was still being written. Why then is the novel riddled with the theme of love governed by passion that doesn't come to anything? Was it perhaps a foreshadowing of the future of love for him? Towards the end of his life Tolstoy and his wife were very unhappy— Perhaps his writing in War and Peace was an unconscious foreshadowing of this.

All characters seem to be governed by passion and not logic. Pierre and Helene got married spontaneously, in a daze of passion. Natasha’s love for Anatole cost her the person whom she was truly in love with- Prince Andrew. These instances seem to repeatedly reinforce the stereotype of young love and rushed decisions. Perhaps this is why War and Peace has so often been called a novel for the young- it encapsulates adolescent passion like no other.