Previous
Oxymorons
Definition of Paradox
A paradox is a figure of speech that seems to contradict itself, but which, upon further examination, contains some kernel of truth or reason. Oscar Wilde's famous declaration that "Life is... read full definition
A paradox is a figure of speech that seems to contradict itself, but which, upon further examination, contains some kernel of truth or reason. Oscar... read full definition
A paradox is a figure of speech that seems to contradict itself, but which, upon further examination, contains some kernel... read full definition
Volume 2, Part 4: Chapters 7–13
Explanation and Analysis—Sonya and the Countess:
Tolstoy uses paradox in his description of the Countess's unmerited resentment of Sonya. As Nikolai and Sonya become increasingly close following Nikolai's first return from the war, the narrator notes that
Nikolai did not go to Moscow, the countess did not renew the conversation about marriage with him, and saw with sadness, and sometimes with anger, the signs of a greater and greater intimacy between her son and the dowerless Sonya [...] Most of all, the kindly countess was angry with Sonya precisely because this poor, dark-eyed niece was so meek, so kind, so devotedly grateful to her benefactors, and so faithfully, so unfailingly, so selflessly in love with Nikolai, that there was nothing to reproach her for.
Though the Countess is usually "kindly," she takes her family's financial woes very seriously. Ultimately, she comes to despise Sonya, whom she regards as an obstacle to Nikolai marrying a wealthy young woman, such as Julie Karagin. "The countess was angry with Sonya," Tolstoy writes, "precisely because" she is "so meek, so kind, so devotedly grateful to her benefactors." Paradoxically, then, Sonya's own positive and amiable traits draw out the anger of the Countess because, Tolstoy implies, they make the Countess feel guilty for her own poor treatment of the girl. Further, Sonya is "so unfailingly, so unselflessly in love with Nikolai" that the Countess cannot "reproach" her for it, further adding to her annoyance.
Related Themes:
Volume 2, Part 5: Chapters 1–4
Explanation and Analysis—Marya and Prince Nikolai:
In a surprising paradox, Tolstoy suggests that Prince Nikolai Bolkonsky is particularly effective at tormenting his daughter, Princess Marya, because of his love for her. As Prince Andrei throws himself into the defense of Russia, Prince Nikolai's treatment of Marya becomes increasingly cruel and abusive:
The greatest of all the princess’s griefs, came from her father’s irritability, which was always directed against her and lately had reached the point of cruelty. If he had made her bow to the ground all night, if he had beaten her, made her carry firewood and water, it would not even have occurred to her that her position was difficult; but this loving tormentor—the more cruel because he loved her and because of that tormented himself and her—knew not only how to insult and humiliate her deliberately, but also how to prove to her that she was always to blame for everything.
Prince Nikolai has mistreated Princess Marya for much of her life, subjecting her to grueling lessons and tests and mocking her physical appearance. Upon his last visit to the family, Prince Andrei fought with his father over his treatment of Marya and his intimacy with Mlle. Bourienne. Rather than treating Marya better, however, Prince Andrei doubles down on his abuse, even while he does follow his son's advice in distancing himself from Mlle. Bourienne.
If, Tolstoy writes, her father had merely beaten Marya physically, she could have borne this pain in a saint-like manner. However, Prince Nikolai is a "loving tormentor," an oxymoron that suggests that he loves and despises her simultaneously. He is, Tolstoy suggests, "more cruel because he loved her and because of that tormented himself and her." Paradoxically, his love for her contributes to his cruelty, as his own self-hatred, bolstered by his poor treatment of her, further contributes to his anger. Because of their close relationship as father and daughter, he is better able to "insult and humiliate her" in ways that truly cause her pain and grief.
Related Themes:
Volume 3, Part 1: Chapters 1–7
Explanation and Analysis—Kings and Slaves:
Tolstoy uses a striking paradox when describing the relationship between political power and fate in an extended reflection upon the nature of history:
An action once committed is irrevocable, and its effect, coinciding in time with millions of actions of other people, acquires historical significance. The higher a man stands on the social ladder, the greater the number of people he is connected with, the more power he has over other people, the more obvious is the predestination and inevitability of his every action. “The hearts of kings are in the hands of God.” Kings are the slaves of history. History, that is, the unconscious, swarmlike life of mankind, uses every moment of a king’s life as an instrument for its purposes.
First, Tolstoy notes that an individual's actions "acquire historical significance" when "coinciding in time with millions of other people." One person deciding to take up arms and fight, he suggests, does not constitute a historical event. Many thousands of people deciding to take up arms and fight, however, constitutes a war. Those "higher" on the "social ladder," he reasons, are "connected" with many more people. For this reason, he concludes counterintuitively, "the more power" an individual has over others, the more "obvious is the predestination and inevitability of his every action."
Those with power over others, he suggests, are circumscribed to the broader, more structural patterns of history in more obvious ways. Their choices, then, are never truly individual. "Kings," he notes paradoxically, "are the slaves of history" insofar as they can only ever act alongside a multitude that has likewise chosen to act. Here as elsewhere in the novel, Tolstoy critiques "Great Man Theory," which assumes that the personalities of famous historical figures shape history.
Related Themes:
Volume 3, Part 3: Chapters 1–4
Explanation and Analysis—Zeno's Paradoxes:
While reflecting upon the nature of history and historical narratives, Tolstoy alludes to one of the famous paradoxes of the Ancient Greek philosopher Zeno:
A well-known so-called sophism of the ancients posits that Achilles can never overtake a tortoise that is walking ahead of him, even though Achilles walks ten times faster than the tortoise: while Achilles covers the distance that separates him from the tortoise, the tortoise will get ahead of him by one tenth of that distance; Achilles covers that one tenth, the tortoise gets ahead by one hundredth, and so on to infinity. The ancients considered this problem insoluble.
In Zeno's well-known thought problem, "Achilles can never overtake a tortoise" in a race because the tortoise, despite its slower speed, will still continuously advance in the interval of time that it takes Achilles to reach the tortoise. By the time Achilles has gotten halfway to the tortoise, the tortoise has already moved past its original point, requiring Achilles to, again, catch up with it.
Here, Tolstoy alludes to this apparent paradox in order to explain his theory of history. Humans, he notes, must divide the "continuous" flow of time into "arbitrarily chosen units." While time is constantly moving forward, then, historians must nevertheless divide history into a series of sequential but distinct events in order to create an intelligible "story" with a beginning and end. For Tolstoy, the human inability to perceive time, and history, as a continuous and eternal flow leads to various fallacies in our understanding of history, such as our focus on the personalities of famous individuals such as Napoleon.
Related Themes:
