This episode examines some likely influences in Tolstoy’s writing of the Duel between Pierre & Dolokhov.

Dueling is a romanticized part of aristocratic life that stemmed from Western Europe, where the precursor were the jousts and mêlées of medieval knights. With the later development of militaries, there were where occasions were tribunals & commanders could order disputing officers to fight it out in organized affairs.

In Moscow of the early 19th century, engaging in a duel was a mark of sovereignty among the nobility. Just like in Western Europe and America, the practice was carried out with secrecy, explaining why Pierre’s duel was held around 8 a.m in the outskirts of a forest.

Some of the Decembrists, who rebelled against the Czar in 1825 and were veterans of the Napoleonic Wars, built a reputation for dueling. The affairs themselves could be quite full of pageantry and tension. Only on the rare occasion would duels result in permanent injury or death. Alexander Pushkin, Russia’s national poet, was in 20+ duels yet never killed anyone. He ultimately lost his life in his final duel, in 1837, with George D’Anthès, over the French officer’s pursuit of Pushkin’s wife. Pushkin was shot in the stomach and died two days later. Like America’s Alexander Hamilton, great sympathy lied with the loser.

It also appears that one of Tolstoy’s uncles , Fyodor Tolstoy, contributed to the characterization of Pierre’s adversary, Fyodor Dolokhov. The uncle was this wild man and adventurer of the 19th century, who died in 1848. He was born to a so-called poorer branch of the family and made the most of the opportunities his military service presented. A Polish friend, Faddey Bulgarin, once said: “Count Tolstoy was reckless to the point of frenzy.”

Fyodor holds a reputation as a successful duelist. Though there is little proof of victims, there are reports Fyodor defeated over 10 adversaries, either wounding or killing them – or at least claiming credit for same. Leo Tolstoy relayed that when a close friend of his uncle was challenged, his uncle eagerly stepped up to take his friend's place. There are accounts that Fyodor came close to dueling the aforementioned Alexander Pushkin, after the writer accused Fyodor of cheating at cards. This matter was resolved amicably and the two became close friends.

Fyodor really lived against the grain for a nobleman. Notably, he was bailed out of a massive gambling debt by a gypsy singer. He felt indebted and married her. From his travels, he even acquired a number of tattoos, which were exotic for one of his status. He would display these designs (reportedly of a gaudy bird, snakes and various patterns) to ladies and men in awe. He held the nickname, The American or Amerikanets, which appears to be based on his tales of traveling to Alaska, ventures which have been questioned by scholars.

Part of early fun of W&P was Dolokhov leading his friends, including Pierre, in a night out in Petersburg, which led to tying a hapless police officer to a small bear and throwing them both into a River. The real Fyodor is reported to have done something similar. Fyodor let either a small bear or monkey loose in the Captain’s quarters of a military vessel. For that he was exiled at the next stop.

Tolstoy's uncle was also a notorious gambler, which further influenced the character of Dolokhov. The uncle would take any occasion to gain an angle or cheat and Leo Tolstoy knows his relative to have said something like: “only fools rely on luck.”

Leo Tolstoy likely crafted his famous duel involving Pierre, in part, through his own experience in with a fellow nobleman and writer. The only notable instance of any such Demand of Satisfaction is his well-known affair with Ivan Turganev, who was ten years Tolstoy's senior. The challenge came around May of 1861 when Tolstoy was working on W&P. His rage over what was a fairly silly dispute likely helped frame Pierre’s mindset.

The quarrel was over a comment about childrearing within a years-long relationship that often involved debate. Turgenev relayed how proud he was that his only daughter was doing a salt-of-the-earth chore, mending clothes that the peasants could use. Tolstoy labeled the act "theatrical." Turgenev was insulted and threatened to slap Tolstoy. The two then sent caustic letters to one another, which resulted in Tolstoy issuing a challenge to Duel with rifles. They didn’t speak for 17 years but reconciled after some friendly missives and would meet at each other’s estates until Turgenev died in 1883.

Pierre wins the Duel and thereafter cannot stand to be in the presence of his wife. The night after the conflict he avoids the marital bedroom in preference of his late father’s room. Pierre desires to fall asleep and forget all. Yet a storm of emotions prevents any rest.

Pierre relives his rash decision to marry, which he now realizes would inevitably lead to dreadful consequences. He acknowledges that even when he first expressed love for Hélène, it was not a genuine.

Tolstoy brings you into Pierre’s soul. Pierre recognizes his own sinful pride in his wife’s majestic beauty and appreciation of how she glides through Society. She is so out-of-reach that he could not resist. Yet at her core, he knows her to be depraved. He recalls how her corrupt brother, Anatole, would come to borrow money and take un-natural liberties, like kissing her naked shoulders. He notes how she would assent to the affection. He then relives the time he asked if she felt any symptoms of pregnancy. She belittled him, laughing contemptuously, and voiced she was not the type of fool to want to have children and especially not with Pierre.

Pierre digested these moral sufferings while his adversary faced physical wounds. He agonizes: Why did I say “I love you” (Je vous aime).

His minds wonder to both philosophy and history – including the notion of causation and justification, a topic which Tolstoy pours over in his Second Epilogue. Pierre considers how Louis XVI was executed during the French Revolution when those who gained power labeled him dishonorable and a criminal. From a certain point, the King’s enemies were right. Yet so were those who canonized Louis. Everyone is right depending on their perspective. Pierre is paraphrasing a theme of the Biblical Book of Judges – where there was no King and every man did what was right in his own eyes.

Pierre concludes that it is not worth tormenting oneself over life’s endless complexity when one has only a moment of life in comparison with eternity. He senses: if you are alive— one must live! Tolstoy is such a reader of the Biblical Wisdom literature that he is infusing his character with some of notions from the Book of Job and Ecclesiastes, namely: that our lives are but a shadow in the face of the vast heavens; that we will never understand the nature of the world; and that there is much more beyond cause and effect. For Pierre, he will never be able to fully grasp how his marriage led to such anguish.

Pierre then references Moliére, the 17th Century French playwright. The famous quote goes through his mind – “But what the devil was he doing in that galley?” This phrase was a popular way of voicing frustration when someone gets tangled up in a mess of their own making. It is taken from 'The Imposture of Scapin,' 1671, where the cunning main character tricks an older man into believing his son was lured onto a Turkish ship and would be sold into slavery unless the father pays a ransom. As the father is tricked, he can only replay the quote in his mind. Pierre sees himself as someone caught in such a web of deceit.

This frustration led Pierre to instruct his valet to pack as he would be leaving for Petersburg. He could not be around Hélène another moment. She does not let him leave without giving him a piece of her mind. She confronts him and lectures, “So it seems you’re a hero?, What was this duel about?” He doesn’t answer and she continues: “You believe everything you’re told….including that Dolokhov was my lover. Well, what have you proved? That you’re a fool,(que vous êtes un sot). But everybody knew that! And what will be the result? That I shall be a laughingstock…that everyone will say that you, drunk… challenged a man you are jealous of -- a man who’s a better man than you in every way!”

She denies any affair while announcing that she should have taken a lover and concedes preferring Dolokhov’s company. Pierre begs her to stop, while violent feelings stir within. Pierre keeps composure at first and suggests they separate. Hélène demands a fortune for said privilege. Pierre then leaps up from the sofa and rushes at Hélène and threatens to kills her as he seized the marble top of a table with a strength he never felt. Her face expressed a base fear and she screamed. Some of Pierre’s father’s nature showed itself. Pierre felt the delight of frenzy. He flung down the slab, smashing it and swooped toward Hélène and shouted, “Get out!” Hélène retreated.

A week later Pierre gave his wife what she asked for -- full power to control much of his land. He gave her control on one of the vastest estates in the land and left for Petersburg.

This chapter involves Tolstoy’s craftsmanship of one of the most famous duels in fiction.

It starts with Captain Denísov announcing the formalities and giving a vigorous countdown. On the count of three, each can advance and fire their one shot before reaching sabres that marked ten paces from the other.

Dolokhov walked calmly without raising his pistol. He donned a wry smile and looked intently as he traveled though a fairly clear path. Pierre, however, ambulated clumsily and found himself encumbered by snow. Pierre held the pistol in a way that made little sense, with his right hand fully extended from his body. He was afraid of shooting himself. Pierre visualized Dolokhov through the mist then bent his finger. He had fired his only shot. Pierre shuddered at the sound and then stood still

The smoke from the gun mixed with the mist, making it difficult for anyone to see. There was no return fire! Eventually, Pierre saw and heard Dolokhov coming toward him through the smoke. Dolokhov’s face was pale and he was pressing a hand to his left side, where he had been hit. The hand was visibly bloody by reason a wound to the body. The other hand now clutched a drooping pistol.

Rostov ran toward Dolokhov and tried to ascertain his condition but Dolohov repelled him saying “No! It’s not over.” After a few staggering steps up to the sabre, Dolokhov sank in the snow.

Pierre was about to cry and began running toward his adversary, with the result being that this big man was making himself a bigger target. He was ready to cross the space between the barriers, when Dolokhov cried out: “To your barrier!”

Pierre stopped and only ten paces divided them. Dolokhov, though severely weakened, had every intention of returning fire. He sat up, with his breathing consisting of sucking in and swallowing the cold air. His eyes found their target and with effort and exasperation he raised the pistol. Both Nesvitski and Denisov cried out for Pierre, who did not know the customs of dueling, to make himself a smaller target.

Nevertheless, Pierre was overcome with remorse and become that gentle soul consistent with his nature. Each duelist is brought back to their essence. Dolokhov is trying take Pierre with him and Pierre, wearing a gentle smile of pity and remorse, involuntarily holds his arms and legs helplessly spread with his broad chest facing Dolokhov.

Denísov, Rostov and Nesvítski closed their eyes…….and heard the return fire. What followed was Dolokhov’s angry cry of “Missed!” The experienced soldier and duelist was then reduced to a helpless mess, lying face down on the snow.

Pierre clutched his temples and stumbled around muttering incoherently: “Folly! Vanity! Death! Lies!” Nesvitski soon took Pierre home while Rostov and Denisov carried Dolokhov to a sleigh.

Dolokhov felt he was dying and became focused on what would be the reaction of his poor and elderly mother. This shocked Denisov and Rostov and is meant to surprise you – that this rogue and gambler who been through worst of war, was from a small family were he adored and cared for an elderly mother and crippled sister in Moscow. Dolokhov held Rostov’s hand and cried: “Mamma, my angel, my adored angelic mother.” He implored Nicholas to go on ahead and prepare her for the worst

After Oleksandr Usyk defeated Tyson Fury in late 2024 for the heavyweight championship, the Ukrainian boxer held up a sabre that once belonged to the 17th Century Ukrainian Cossack Hetman, Ivan Mapeza, who this episode is dedicated to.

Usyk’s fortitude spoke to Ukraine’s resilience against a larger foe who initiated the type of vainglorious War Tolstoy condemns, with all of his soul, in W&P.

Showcasing the weapon was a transcendent moment of Usyk bringing history to Life. This ability is something Tolstoy shares given who often he reaches into the past to make literary points. In W&P, for example, Tolstoy cites the Classical world and more recent influences. He skillfully adapts the famous quote from Voltaire: "If god did not exist, it would be necessary to invent him." The Frenchman also had a well-known correspondence with Catherine II, who some of W&P’s characters look to as illustrative of an idealized past. Yet part of her reputation involves keeping so many under serfdom. Voltaire urged her to release her serfs.

Quite forgotten is how Voltaire contributed to Mazepa becoming an icon of the Romantic age. Victor Hugo, Lord Byron & Franz List, also elevated Mazepa to a status Tolstoy himself briefly references in his 1857 work “Youth.” Tolstoy wrote that if he reaches the age of 70, he envisions that a lovely young woman could love him as easily as she could love….a Mazeppa.

Mazepa was born to a noble Cossack family near Kyiv. His father was a town otaman (leader) and his mother instilled in her son a deep devotion to God and Cossack culture. Mazepa received a European education and served at the Polish royal court. While quite young, he is said to have fallen in love with the wife of a Polish nobleman and to have been punished through being tied to a wild horse and carried back to the Land of the Cossacks, where he was adopted by one of their communities and rose to leader. He was Hetman from 1687 – 1709.

Mazepa remains a key figure in Ukrainian-Russian relations given he decided to turn his allegiance to Sweden over the Czar during the Great Northern War. This conflict was fought between Sweden and an anti-Swedish coalition led by Moscow. This intermittent affair lasted about 20 years and involved control over Northern Europe and the Baltics. Sweden initially did well causing Peter to move his troops inward and draw Charles to invade.

The conflict made its way to Mazepa’s Cossacks, whose status and allegiance greatly changed over the previous generation. Since 1654, many were uneasy allies with the Czar after withdrawing support for Poland. They now felt subject to excessive demands for troops to be used in projects like building canals and fortresses, where they could be worked to sickness and death and used as proverbial “cannon fodder”

Thus, in 1708, Mazepa aligned with Charles, giving him 5,000 Cossacks. Mazepa felt he was choosing the lesser of two evils. Later that year, there was a race of belligerents to Mazepa’s home city of Baturyn. 20,000 Russian soldiers commanded by Alexander Menshikov overwhelmed this military arsenal and food store. When the city fell, there was this infamous slaughter of the civilian population. A number were tied to makeshift crosses or boards and floated down the local river.

The next summer, on June 27, 1709, the armies faced off near Poltava, where Peter & Charles were on-hand directing troops. The Czar prevailed and this turn in history explains why Sweden never became a great power. This battle also had a major role in propelling Russia to their status. Yet that fire in the hearts of Ukrainians for independence was not extinguished over the next few centuries. Today, a Ukrainian state exists which exacts quite the toll on Russian aggression. Ukrainians revere Mazepa for making the best choice he could.

Mazepa was excommunicated from the Russian Orthodox Church and Czar Peter also ordered all portraits of the man destroyed. Similarly, Tolstoy, was separated from the Orthodox Church in 1901 through a Church Proclamation. Tolstoy’s writing on religion led to the church to declare him as a “false teacher” imbued with “intellectual pride.” This leads me to the second reference to I have found from Tolstoy on Mazppa, which is the book “Life of Tolstoy” by Tolstoy’s long-time English friend and translator, Alymer Maude. Maude describes how Tolstoy studied the life of Mazepa upon a friendly wager as a law student.

Tolstoy addresses how divided opinions persist through the ages. There will be a prominent crisis grabbing Your attention where every opinion under the sun is stated. He posits there is a perception afforded to a select few people involved in whatever conflict is at hand. There will naturally be some who get close to an accurate prediction of how a matter turns out and are often mistaken with being responsible for the event. For example, if Napoleon orders an advance and wins the field, he will get credit for taking ground. Tolstoy has us examine if there is more to the story.

To illustrate this, Tolstoy has us imagine the hypothetical of men hauling a log, where each expresses an opinion as to how and where to take it. Eventually, the log will be hauled to some location in a manner most similar to how one, or a small group, predict. We are led to the conclusion that those who predict most accurately are responsible for the task. However, Tolstoy’s goal is to relate to the complexity of attributing causes for events. He proffers that there is merely a perception of command and illusory nature of power.

With the Log-haul, there will be various men doing most of the physical work and because of their attention to the task, do not often think so much about what they are doing. Tolstoy proposes that they are as much responsible for the result as so-called decision makers.

Tolstoy infers that certain men who take initiative to “talk more” are often given accolades and find themselves with decision-making capacity and work less with his hands. Napoleon was one such man.

In affairs of the military or other large-scale enterprises, masses direct themselves with grander objectives than hauling a log. The commanding is often done in small teams, who do little of the actual fighting. Tolstoy attributes to this group similar attributes to how man perceives himself when he works alone and develops values to draw from. Basically, considerations which directed past activity, justify present activity, as serve as a guide for his future actions.

Tolstoy finds that this analytical process does not take the overriding values bestowed through the Gospel into account and allows us to devise justifications or rationalizations for collective activity. Tolstoy provides an example through the French Revolution. He notes: for reasons known or unknown the French began to drown and kill one another in that affair of 1789. There was an overriding belief that such was necessary for the welfare of France and for Liberty, Fraternity, and Equality.

The People later felt differently and ceased to kill one another. It was then believed that a centralization of power was necessary as well as resistance to those who desired to stay attached to monarchies. This resolve led to another effort that involved marching out of country to kill at the behest of men like Napoleon. This was accompanied by phrases about the glory of France and baseness of England.

It is such that every movement that occurs inevitably coincides with someone’s expressed wish and receives some justification. Tolstoy proclaims that the justifications made for such wars have no logic but have formidable significance. They serve to release people from moral responsibility for our collective crimes, such as how we kill millions of our fellows. Our intellect can excuse, reframe, or justify anything!

Tolstoy is wrestling with the nature of life, like the Preacher in Ecclesiastes, who Tolstoy often cites. He is expressing that man must rely on more than what other men say -- no matter how convincing. As Andrei realized on the field of Austerlitz, man must look above and beyond himself and act as if he is accountable to the Almighty even when he is flowing with the strongest currents of conventional thinking. We all have a voice in where we are going and for the wars and oppression around us. We share the responsibility of not justifying the unjustifiable.

He uses a metaphor to make the point: Think of a person on a boat who does not perceive the degree to which he is moving, as compared to someone who can see the ship from the shoreline. We are moving but do not feel it. We are all akin to passengers being led somewhere. This can be the narrow path of virtue or the wider path of frailty and sin. Tolstoy essentially is asking you to consider, while on board and looking at the sky: What is Your North Star?

This is a stark reminder to not lose sight of the essential connection that those few names in history have to the masses. Power also lies with the people. It was not one man who led to the excesses of any movement. It was a combination of those considered leaders and the rest of us who actually haul the log.

On his return as a lieutenant in a fancy military jacket laced with silver as well as possessing a St. George’s Cross for bravery, Nicholas is treated magnificently. Nicholas gets used to it and develops an ego that leaves him open to being taken advantage of. The finances of his aristocratic family are brought out, noting how his affable father, Ilya, was bestowing a trove on his Prodigal son, as well as other celebratory events after remortgaging his estates. Illya purchased his son a fine horse that could enter races and also the most fashionable outfits.

With his new look and demeanor, Nicholas would be seen at the elite social events. He also visited a woman on the boulevard…a fairly clear reference to a prostitute. He relished being home as a young man aware of the world. He left behind childish things, such as once feeling disconcerted about sneaking around his mansion kissing Sonya. He also visited the historical English Club – a social institution started by English merchants around 1770 that gathered at various stately houses. Men used the Club to socialize, drink, gamble and make connections. Tolstoy, Pushkin and Nikolai Gogol were members. Gogol is a writer with Ukrainian roots, from a Cossack family, which both Ukraine & Russia claim as theirs.

Like much of Moscow, Rostov’s passion for the Czar cooled but he still expressed that there was something in his feelings for Alexandr that could not be understood by others. Rostov drifted even away further from Sonya, as Tolstoy expertly catches the nature of a young man who must have his freedom. He knew there were more women to know and Love would come later.

It was now early March, and Ilya is arranging a dinner in honor of General Bagration at the aforementioned English Club. Ilya is presented as a long-time member.

This celebration for actually happened and it is important to recognize why. The reason was that Bagration was viewed as the saving grace of the recent war. Tolsoty reveals how the news of Austerlitz traveled. High Society had generally been accustomed to victories, especially from era of Catherine the Great & General Suvorov, where the triumphs were common over the Ottomans and Poles. On receiving news of the absolute defeat at Austerlitz – much of Moscow did not believe it or chose not to. However, the truth could not be contained. When it spread, it had to be dealt with.

Blame was cast on many, including Kutuzov. Many felt it was the general’s age, health, and lack of ingenuity that led to defeat. More quietly blame was cast the Czar, by way of his youth, inexperience and trust in worthless advisors. Still, a good portion considered Alexandr as the “angel incarnate.” Most vocally, the Austrians were blamed.

The public felt compelled to throw their support behind the army. Some were singled out for having performed miracles of valor. The chief hero of was General Bagration, hailed for his effort at Schön Grabern and command of the rear-guard. It also helped that Moscow’s new hero was a stranger to the City. Tolstoy has Shinshin (a quick wit and relative of the Rostovs) parody the master of satire, Voltaire by voicing, “Had there been no Bagration, it would have been necessary to invent him.” The original quote was “Had there been no God, it would have been necessary to invent him.” The Frenchman reached something profound in few words.

Tales of valor of numerous men were embellished and spread and characters like Rostov, Boris and Berg symbolized that wave. One may have saved a standard, another had reportedly killed five Frenchmen, while another was said to fight valiantly with an injury.

There is a reference that nobody spoke of Andrei. Reports were that he was killed, leaving a pregnant wife with his eccentric father. Tolstoy references Andrei to symbolize the many, with such promise, who were wasted.

This chapter plays up the elaborateness of the preparation for the event at the English Club, going through the choice of cook, food and entertainment. Nicholas jokes with his father that Bagration prepared less for battle at Schön Grabern. Ilya tells his son to go to Pierre’s, invite him and obtain the best fruit – strawberries and pineapples, as they are not available anywhere else.

Anna Drubetskaya shows up and introduces the sordid affair that Pierre is affected by. There is a rumor that Dolokhov, who survived Austerlitz, is having an affair with Helene, Pierre’s wife. Helene, has always been presented as the type of woman who is a snare -- something of Delilah to the Biblical Sampson. She reveals that Pierre gave Dolokhov a place to stay upon his return and was betrayed. This has filled Pierre with a rage of biblical proportions.