'War and Peace:' Done and Dusted

The Economist recently recommended that subscribers might find solace reading War and Peace: “The rhythm of the epic novel is eerily suited to life in lockdown.”
 
I was ahead of the game having ordered an edition for Kindle back in April 2013 as part of my cultural literacy catch-up game.  I had many times previously tried reading the book in paperback only to cast it aside. The print was too small and, more to the point, the pace too slow.

 
Yet the digital edition also gathered virtual dust.
 
Then came Donald Trump. 
 
I had become accustomed to watching a YouTube rebroadcast of the nightly PBS NewsHour mornings while on the treadmill in my Jerusalem gym. After Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, the coverage out of the White House was so bizarre, unnerving, and relentlessly draining that I experimented with reading one thing or another on my early-generation Kindle device.
 
In June 2018, during a visit to the Lake District in England, we met up a relative who years earlier had read Russian at university. He spoke passionately about War and Peace as practically a life-changing experience.
 
I decided definitively – Tolstoy would exclusively replace Trump at the gym on Kindle in 30-minute treadmill installments.
 
When the gym shuttered after COVID-19 hit planet Earth I determined to read the book while seated and maybe for longer than 30 minutes at a stretch.
 
And that is how I managed to reach “the end” on May 3, 2020.
 
War and Peace is a melodramatic novel with heavy doses of Tolstoyan history and philosophy. It is set between 1805 when France defeated Russia at Austerlitz and 1812 when an exhausted France snatched defeat from the jaws of victory while deep inside Russia.
 
The overarching theme is the contest between Tsarist Russia and Napoleonic France for geostrategic hegemony. Tolstoy does not make explicit but the two sides were also fighting over how best to organize European political society.
 
Tolstoy's main take-aways:

Fog of war – It is impossible to know how a battle much less the war will turn out. Fighting occurs under chaotic conditions. Military command and planning are not determinative; if anything, wild luck probably matters more. Napoleon did everything right in carrying out his 1812 invasion of Russia yet still lost. 

Human nature – People don’t think, much less behave, coherently. What we ultimately do is therefore unpredictable; we are pulled in opposite directions in love, friendship, religion. We are steadfast until we are not.

Quest of understanding – Human perspective is limited. We can’t “grasp the cause of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul.”
 
So far, so good.
 
This is not a history book so you will need to go elsewhere to learn that Napoleon’s defeat does have an earthly explanation. For one, he lost many of his troops to typhus.
 
The author's thinking and conduct evolved over a lifetime that began in 1828 and ended in 1910.
 
The Tolstoy, who brought out War and Peace in 1869, identified as a Christian believer and Russian nationalist.
 
He opposed modernity and the enlightenment in favor of authoritarianism and monarchy. The characters in the book are grappling with determining which course of life is best. Arguably, though, individuals can only pursue their ideals in a nurturing political environment. How Tsarist Russia could be such a place is hard to fathom. 
 
My experience as a reader was uneven – which is fair enough in a book that has 587,287 words. The grisly battle scenes are cinematic and harrowing. 
 
Main characters are vividly drawn. Tolstoy lets us feel the intensity of platonic friendships; there’s romance and fraught family relationships. There are grand "Upstairs Downstairs" country estates and city mansions, fancy balls, debauchery, nihilism, incense, deathbeds, and icons.
 
Serfdom – a form of economic bondage in which the peasant class depends on the landed aristocracy for their livelihood – is another constant in the book. The serfs are presented as primitive, basically loyal, and satisfied.
 
It must be special to read Tolstoy in Russian.  In translation, the narrative is only episodically compelling. The dying and dream scenes are strikingly memorable. However, there are long dry stretches that tested my patience starting with the scene-setting opening soiree chapter. By the time I got to the second epilogue or was it the first epilogue, my eyes had glazed over. My twitch to check Twitter (and the several Leo Tolstoy’s who are active there) was intense.
 
Tolstoy sees God as the unfathomable transcendent cause of all causes. His “ultimate purpose is beyond our comprehension.” Yet He is the power that moves people. All other explanations as to why things are as they are, fall short in Tolstoy’s analysis. 
 
Also omniscient in War and Peace is Tolstoy’s narrative voice. As he says about Prince Andrew: “He had read everything, knew everything, and had an opinion about everything.”
 
The cast of characters is long (and many have those difficult Russian names). Over 14+ sections and innumerable chapters, there were indeed stretches where I gave up worrying about who was who.
 
My book came with a list of characters in the back. Anyway, with months of reading and dogged efforts at recall, the important actors did become distinct personalities.
 
Among those that resonated for me was Mary, the long-suffering daughter of a curmudgeonly old prince. And her brother Andrew who falls out of love with his wife Elizabeth (who then dies in childbirth).
 
Pierre is arguably the most prominent personality of the book. The illegitimate son of Count Bezukhov, we meet him at that boring opening soiree. He inherits his father’s fortune (with the help of his mother who I think gets written out in the first season) and spends many a chapter dithering. He becomes super enthusiastic about various schemes searching for a place for himself in which he can maybe do the right thing. His idealism is matched by his naiveté.
 
He mercifully gets it right at the end.
 
My favorite minor character is Denisov, who thanks to a lisp, and a good heart emerges from a very crowded field. But don't confuse him with Dolokhov as I did for much of the book.
 
Be aware that the Tsar of War and Peace is Alexander I.
 
Remember the scene in “Fiddler on the Roof”?
 
Leibesh: Is there a proper blessing for the Tsar?
Rabbi: A blessing for the Tsar? Of course. May God bless and keep the Tsar... far away from us.
 
Alexander I is the Tsar who restricted one million Jews living under his rule to a Pale of Settlement (and later added more Jewish subjects after Poland was annexed in 1815).
 
A nasty piece of work, historians nonetheless consider Alexander I as not being among Russia's worst of rulers.  They set a low bar. While some advisers urged him to slaughter the Jews, he was willing to see if they could be absorbed into Slavic society. Pursuing a "resistance is futile" approach he stripped Jewish institutions of communal autonomy. As if rabbis depended on him for their moral legitimacy. 

To inspire acculturation, he held out the prospect of granting Jews the right to attend university. In practice those that had not completed Christian secondary school were ill-equipped to enter university and few did
.
He forbade Jews from leasing Russian land. He was ready to uproot thousands by tightening residential restrictions when in France (1806), Napoleon offered his Jews new rights and freedoms.
 
Alexander did not want Russian Jews sympathizing with Napoleon, so he rescinded the most egregious of his anti-Semitic decrees.
 
Naturally, in War and Peace, I was rooting for Napoleon.
 
In real life, the story is more complicated. Napolean had mixed motives. And France’s Orthodox rabbinate was wary of him fearful (not unreasonably) that religious liberty would contribute to assimilation. 

Back in Russia, rank and file Jews preferred to keep a low-profile during Franco-Russian fighting. Ultimately, Napoleon’s forces pulled out of Mother Russia in disarray.
 
The departure of French forces spurred on the Tsar to ever more oppressive measures against the Jews.  
 
When Alexandar I died in 1825, his even more malevolent brother Nicholas I took over. 

Now, maybe, you understand why the "blessing" for the Tsar.
 
Tolstoy’s own record toward Jewish people adds up to ambivalent. His literary references to Jews were condescending. By my count, Jews are thrice mentioned in War and Peace always in passing and never in a positive way. In his later years, he condemned state-sanctioned Jew-killing sprees known as pogroms.
   
To sum up my experience with War and Peace. Done and dusted.
 
 
FURTHER READING

TOLSTOY

Howard Sachar in The Course of Modern Jewish History.  

“What Is A Jew?”
https://blogs.timesofisrael.com/what-is-a-jew-written-by-count-leo-tolstoy-1891/


“Was Leo Tolstoy Really an Anti-Semite?”
https://forward.com/culture/208545/was-leo-tolstoy-really-an-anti-semite/


N.B.


The translation of War and Peace I read on Kindle was by Louise and Aylmer Maude. Various publishers use their translation.

ALEXANDER I

NAPOLEON

 

Malcolm and Martin: Martyrs for the Revolution

The Sword and the Shield: The Revolutionary Lives of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr.

By Peniel E. Joseph

Martin Luther King and Malcolm X were the two most influential African-American figures of the 1950s and 1960s whose legacies continue to have an impact on the 21st century. They met only once, leaving the visitor’s gallery of the U.S. Senate in March 1964. The accepted view holds that King was a moderate, conciliatory, integrationist while Malcolm was a militant, inflammatory, black-firster. 

Peniel Joseph, a professor of history at the University of Texas at Austin and engaging biographer, has crafted this dual biography of Malcolm X and Martin Luther King to demonstrate that the two leaders’ worldview was not all that far apart and that each influenced the other. Both led revolutionary lives.

A dual biography technique works when two portraits can be played off against each other to demonstrate both commonality and contrast. This book does that well. 

Malcolm was born in 1925, King, in 1929. Malcolm was assassinated in 1965, reportedly at the behest of the Nation of Islam from whose leader Elijah Muhammad he had broken. White racist James Earl Ray was convicted for King’s 1968 murder.

King grew up as a member of Atlanta’s black elite reared with middle-class values. His strong-willed father was a respected Baptist pastor. His mother, Alberta trained as a teacher. (She was tragically murdered by a follower of a Black Hebrew Israelite cult six years after Martin’s assassination.)

Martin studied divinity at Morehouse College (not that he necessarily wanted to follow in his father’s footsteps). From there, it was on to Crozer Theological Seminary in Pennsylvania and for a doctorate at Boston College.

Along the way, he became enamored with the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi.

Malcolm X and Martin Luther King

Malcolm Little was born in Omaha, Nebraska. His father Earl was also a large personality, also a Baptist minister but more itinerant and less successful partly because he was an argumentative fearless follower of the black separatist Marcus Garvey. A white racist gang probably murdered him.

Malcolm’s light-skinned Caribbean-born mother Louise suffered a nervous breakdown, and the family of eight children disintegrated. Placed in foster care, Malcolm wound up a street hustler, then graduated as “Detroit Red” to prison after a burglary conviction. There Malcolm read voraciously on black issues. His brother Reginald introduced him to the Nation of Islam, and soon he was corresponding with the Hon. Elijah Muhammad. The sect’s leader recognized his talents and, upon his release, Malcolm quickly became Muhammad’s protégé and spokesman.

Neither King nor Malcolm served in WWII. King was a divinity student and Malcolm primarily because he didn’t see why he should.

The book explores the personal lives of the two men, their intellectual and political development, how they competed, what they had in common, and how they influenced each other. Neither man was without fear, but both persevered notwithstanding violence and intimidation. 

Sword and the Shield also provides context for Black America’s human rights struggle focusing on the 60s’ and 70s’ when the civil rights and black power movements competed for paramountcy.

The persistent, intractable viciousness of Jim Crow – violent and institutional racism that kept blacks from enjoying their rights as U.S. citizens – comes through clear.

Politics is not just about principles; it’s also about rivalries and personalities. Joseph sketches some of the big names who tangled or collaborated with his two central figures, among them Bayard Rustin, Stokely Carmichael, Ralph Abernathy, LeRoi Jones, Roy Wilkins, Elijah Muhammad, Adam Clayton Powell, and Ella Baker.

One of the book's messages is that by the end of his career, King had embraced a radical understanding of American politics and economics. His analysis of the root cause of the black predicament is not dissimilar to Malcolm’s. King’s civil disobedience was a middle course between Malcolm’s revolution and waiting for white America to come to its senses. It was by no means passive resistance.

Both men favored a radical restructuring of society. King tempered his message to white audiences. Malcolm played the racial arsonist even when I suspect he knew better.

King was close to black power SNCC militant and future Black Panther leader Stokely Carmichael; Carmichael, for his part, came to see himself as an inheritor of Malcolm’s constituency.

Though the author is sympathetic to the two leaders and their cause, this is not iconography. He does not gloss over Malcolm’s criminal background or King foibles (adultery and plagiarism). As products of their time, both men tended to denigrate women especially those who demonstrated political acumen.

Malcolm was ultimately open to understated coalition-building even as he remained the foremost prosecuting attorney against white America. The more he traveled, the harder it was for him to stay loyal to the crackpot theology – my characterization, not Peniel Joseph’s – of the Nation of Islam. 

Both men wielded the sword alongside the shield even if King was associated more with the shield of non-violence and Malcolm the sword of “by any means necessary.” King's warnings about the likelihood of "counterproductive" violent summer rioting sounded to some like threats.

Both leaders sought to connect the struggle of African Americans to the global human rights and national liberation movements. Malcolm saw European colonialism in Africa and racism in the US as motivated by the same mindset and interests.

Malcolm identified with pan-African, pan-Islamic, and Third World leaders whom he wanted to coopt as supporters of his campaign in the US. He was the foreign minister of the black power movement. King understandably leveraged his 1964 Nobel Peace Prize so he could lobby for civil rights back home. 

Both worked to rebrand, refashion and reimagine blackness. "Black is beautiful" was a necessary campaign because white America had been inculcating across society the idea that it was anything but. 

The book is illuminating but leaves some gaps. I am not faulting Peniel Joseph for telling the story his way. My parochial concern is that Jewish readers will get no hint of the role anti-Semitism plays in the black power movement. For from Marcus Garvey to Louis Farrakhan and from Leroi Jones to Stockley Carmichael – not to mention Malcolm X himself – the pernicious scapegoating of Jews is a ubiquitous feature of black chauvinism.


King-era establishment figures were friendly to Jews (as was King himself). 

But the persistence of disproportionate raw anti-Semitism in the African-American community (across its socio-economic divide) needs to be acknowledged. Indeed, not a few leaders who had been in King's orbit went on to dabble in Jew-baiting and anti-Israelism.

This history matters to me because, as a yarmulke-wearing yeshiva kid growing up in New York’s Alphabet City in the 60s and 70s, avoiding random black (and Puerto Rican) violence was a daily concern. 

Financially comfortable Jews had joined in white flight from the inner city. Left behind were thousands of “identifiable” poor Jews like me.

In those days I had not heard of Jim Crow. But I knew that blacks were once slaves. 

How did that history explain torching synagogues (many of whose congregants were Holocaust survivors), or hurling New York City telephone directories out of housing project windows down at elderly Jewish passersby?

Time and distance provide some perspective: to appreciate the enormity (and distinctiveness) of racial slavery and its attendant dehumanization. How bondage was followed not by rehabilitation and reconstruction but by extreme poverty. Education and enlightenment were mostly blocked. Jim Crow made the exercise of U.S. citizenship nearly impossible. Migration from the south to the north led to further dislocation. Too many black families were dysfunctional, illegitimacy was rampant, hopelessness prevailed, and catalyzed deviant behaviors among swaths of the African American population. 

We inner-city Jews felt the end results of these phenomena and had cause to feel helpless, prejudiced, and fearful. 

We thought that the Jews who disproportionately contributed, politically and financially, to the civil rights establishment (from the 1940s onward) were, certainly, by the late 1960s naive. All these years later their help proferred to black colleges, organizations, and causes seems to have bred more suspicion than appreciation. 

That said, our greatest animus was directed against “limousine liberals” like Leonard Bernstein, who in 1970 was stuping cash at the Black Panthers. 

I feel differently about the contributions made by the Marxist Stanley Levinson. Perhaps because he wasn't a “limousine" or "white flight" liberal but an enigmatic Red. 

Peniel Joseph raises Levinson's profile in Sword and the Shield and this reader is grateful.

Levinson was born in 1912 into a lower-middle-class Far Rockaway, NY, non-observant, Yiddish-reading, left-leaning family. He became a macher in the Communist Party but, disillusioned with Stalin, broke inalterably with the CPUSA in 1956. 

Besides being a highly educated, intellectual, and passionate Marxist, Levinson was also a successful businessman. Civil rights activist Bayard Rustin made the match between Levinson and Martin Luther King in 1956. The relationship between the reverend and the red evolved into an intellectual and strategic partnership.

Levinson was an administrative wiz and King’s collaborative editor. He was instrumental in helping to bankroll the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott, and in the founding of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference. 

King and Levinson also, apparently, became genuine friends.

Their relationship drew the attention of the FBI’s sinister J. Edgar Hoover, who informed President John F. Kennedy and Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy that Levinson was manipulating King and the civil rights movement to destabilize America. FBI wiretaps ostensibly aimed at Levinson had uncovered King’s womanizing. The unscrupulous Hoover tried to blackmail King into abandoning the civil rights struggle and even to drive him to suicide.

The Kennedy’s insisted that King break his relationship with Levinson if he wanted administration support for civil rights legislation. With Hoover lurking, the White House did not want to be tainted by hints that it was on the same side as the communists.

King resisted their pressures. Nonetheless, Levinson and he began working more secretly to take the heat off. 

Levinson was not shilling for Moscow. He had channeled his progressive energies into civil rights. He even discouraged King from speaking out against the Viet-Nam War, fearing doing so would make it harder to fundraise for the movement.  

To his credit, King did no such thing even at the price of jeopardizing his relationship with President Lyndon Johnson.  

My narrow criticisms notwithstanding, I can think of no better place to begin exploring the legacies of Martin Luther King and Malcolm X than with Peniel Joseph's The Sword and the Shield.

N.B., I listened to the audio version of this book adeptly read by Zeno Robinson.

FURTHER READING

Dangerous Friendship: Stanley Levison, Martin Luther King Jr., and the Kennedy Brothers by Ben Kamin.

 

The Romance of American Communism by Vivian Gornick

&

New York Review of Books 

Messianic Times Just Like Always

When the going gets tough, the traumatized Jewish imagination gets messianic. That’s the way it has been probably since the destruction of the First Temple (in 586 BCE) and across centuries of travail, persecution, and genocide.

But what do Jews even mean when they invoke the messiah?

Is the messiah human or divine or both? Do we expect the messiah to herald a preternatural epoch? Will humanity’s characteristics be radically transformed? I mean will man no longer be a wolf to man.

Alternatively, are we to think of the messiah as a charismatic monarch with unparalleled talents who would unite the Jewish tribes and spread sovereignty, peace, and security over the Land of Israel?

In The Messianic Controversy, Israel Knohl, a leading Hebrew University Bible scholar succinctly lays out the evolution of the Jews’ understanding of the messiah. Presently his book is available in Hebrew only as מחלוקת המשיח – the subtitle –?למי מחכים היהודים -- “Who are the Jews Awaiting? –  identifies the crux of the issue.

Each Bible author and redactor inserted their view about the messiah. The Five Books of Moses make no explicit mention of a messiah, nor do they characterize God as a king, if I read Knohl correctly.

At a certain later point deity and king become synonymous. The role of King, God, messiah become interchangeable. Throughout the Middle East kings were seen as Godlike. And elsewhere Knohl argues that the messiah idea originated even before Israel came on the historical stage.

The author of Isaiah (740 BCE) portrays the prophet as despondent at the fall of Samaria and the dispersal of the northern kingdom’s Ten Tribes by the Assyrians. He has given up on any new improved temporal monarchy. Salvation will come from God alone. The prophet refers to the messiah in the sense of an anointed one (recall kings were ceremonially daubed with olive oil).

Hosea (8 century BCE) is likewise portrayed as critical of the Northern Kingdom’s political leadership and not keen on a temporal messiah.  For salvation Israel need only stop betraying God. Knohl posits that Hosea’s message endured in altered form in the surviving southern Kingdom of Judea and evolved in a way that blended God and messiah into a singular savior.

The Psalms that originated during the Kingdom of Judea and were redacted during the Second Temple period are similarly replete with messianic overtones.

And so, the idea evolves.

Then Jeremiah (who witnesses the destruction of the First Temple) associates the messiah with divinity.

Deutero-Isaiah, whom Knohl sees as a product of the Babylonian exile (in the time after Persia becomes the paramount regional power), ties the messianic idea to the House of David.

The Pharisees were, Knohl tells us, the most popular stream during the Second Temple period. They championed the messianic idea, the Davidic-messianic connection, belief in an afterlife, and in the resurrection. 

In contrast, the Sadducee stream rejected the concepts of reward and punishment, messiah, and afterlife. The religious ideas of the Sadducees have been assigned to the dustbin of theology. Much of what we know about them is filtered through the lens of the victorious Pharisees.

During late antiquity, this messianic idea and attendant beliefs about the hereafter and resurrection was codified in the liturgy and the Talmud – (redacted by 500 CE). And later echoed by Maimonides (d. 1204) in his broad synthesis of the Talmud, Mishna Torah.

Some scholars read Maimonides as supporting the view of a divine-like messiah and a supernatural messianic era. Others point to his description of the messianic age as a time when king messiah working within the confines of ordinary nature will deliver peace and sovereignty over the Land of Israel. 

Maimonides may have calibrated his message to his audience: Jews desperate for a ray of hope got the superman messiah. Rationalists were told that Israel’s messianic era need not involve hocus pocus.

Each of history’s dozens of claimants to be savior – including the Yemenite Messiah, Sabbatai Zevi, and Jacob Joseph Frank – were exposed as frauds at a significant psychic cost to the Jewish people. One reason for the Vilna Gaon’s (d. 1797) opposition to Hassidism was his fear that the movement could spawn messiah wannabes.  

Knohl gingerly addresses Chabad’s messianic platform. He thinks that the Lubavitcher Rebbe believed that by spreading knowledge of God to all of humanity he was fulfilling the task of the messiah. He thinks Chabad’s messianic impulse was ignited by the trauma of the Holocaust – both the Rebbe Menachem Mendel Schneerson and his predecessor (and father in law) Rabbi Yosef Yitzchak Schneersohn escaped Hitler’s clutches.

Knohl’s bottom line message is that the messiah idea has generated controversy perhaps as far back as the destruction of the First Temple. It is reflected in the Hebrew bible to discerning readers. This accessible primer puts the messiah controversy into perspective – including also chapters on where Jesus fits in the Jewish scheme of things. 

He pushes the envelope yet the book is unlikely to offend rational traditionalists.

As for which messiah the Jews are now awaiting? My answer is that each Jewish tribe is anticipating – some literally others figuratively – a messiah created in their own image.

FOR MORE...

Here is a lecture Prof. Knohl gave at the Israel National Library.

A long, long time ago, in the era before COVID-19...

A long, long time ago, in the era before COVID-19, I was asked by Israel My Glory, a Christian magazine to write an essay anticipating the dangers Israel might face on the domestic and international fronts in 2020.

The article was finished in October 2019 but because of repeat Israeli elections, my deadline was extended to Christmas 2019.

And because of the magazine’s bimonthly print schedule, the article has appeared only now.

So, if for the sake of variety, you want to read a piece that makes no mention of Corona – follow the link below.

·       I argue that the most significant foreign policy danger Israel faces is the Trump administration’s withdrawal from the world stage.

·       And that the most significant domestic threat is our loss of a shared Jewish/Zionist ethos.

If nothing else, the US president’s go-it-alone approach to the global pandemic and the way some ultra-Orthodox Jewish “tribes” have flouted physical and social distancing requirements bolster my thesis.

Wishing you safety and good health,

Elliot

https://israelmyglory.org/article/israels-precarious-situation/

Friday morning

Shabbat Shalom safe and healthy.