Midnight's Children by Salman Rushdie (novel #198)

…above all things, I fear absurdity. ~ Saleem Sinai

 

Midnight’s Children is an allegory, using magical realism, and I think you’d have to call it historical fiction as well. The fictional narrator recalls real events and persons in India, just prior to independence from Great Britain in 1947 and continuing another 30 years.

 

The narrator Saleem Sinai is born at the stroke of midnight August 15, 1947 at the very moment India becomes independent. At the same moment another child is born, whose mother does not survive.

 

At the stroke of the midnight hour, while the world sleeps, India awakens to life and freedom…And beneath the roar of the monster there are two more yells, cries, bellows, the howls of children arriving in the world, their unavailing protests mingling with the din of independence which hangs saffron-and-green in the night sky.

 

Shortly after birth the babies are switched, unbeknownst to the parents. Saleem is raised in affluence while the other, Shiva, lives as an orphan in extreme poverty, a life that should have been Saleem’s.

 

Saleem, and all of India’s Midnight Children, born in the first hour of independence, are endowed with magical powers. The closer their birth to midnight, the greater their powers. Hence Saleem and Shiva are the most powerful, and eventually become enemies. Saleem can communicate telepathically with all the Midnight Children, and hopes to use their collective powers to help the young nation, while Shiva is more personally ambitious.

 

I didn’t love it; I didn’t hate it, but I respect it. I’m certain I’d appreciate this book more if I had better knowledge of Indian history. I thought it was a fascinating premise, and I think it’s probably rather brilliant…just mostly wasted on me. My deficiency, not the authors. I am reminded of John Updike’s first rule of literary criticism: 

 

“Try to understand what the author wished to do, and do not blame him for not achieving what he did not attempt.”

 

I think Rushdie wished to tell the world of India’s struggles in her early life. I think he did that admirably, but it wasn’t particularly compelling for me.

 

My rating 3 ½ out of 5 stars

 

 

.

King Henry IV, Second Part by William Shakespeare

Henry IV, part two is the third play in Shakespeare’s tetralogy or Henriad: four plays regarding the succession from King Richard II – Henry IV – Henry V. Written in the late 16^thcentury, it covers the final days of Henry IV (1413) and the ascension of his son Henry V who reigned from 1413 – 1422.

 

In the previous play, Prince Henry (aka Hal, aka Harry) is chided by the King for being a wastrel, and for his association with Sir John Falstaff – who although a Knight and loyal to Henry is two-faced, craven, and hedonistic. Prince Henry vows to become a better man, but at the outset of part two – the change is not yet apparent. 

 

This is probably my least favorite thus far, of the historical plays. I liked Henry IV part one very much, but in part two, the various acts seem disconnected. Prince Henry begins to see Falstaff for the scoundrel that he is, there is the putting down of the rebellion, and the death of the King even as he learns the rebellion is ended. There is a good deal of comic relief – perhaps more than most of Shakespeare’s historical plays – but it didn’t really work for me.

 

There is a touching scene between the dying King and his successor.

 

King Henry: …God knows, my son,

By what by-paths and indirect crook’d ways

I met this crown; and I myself know well

How Troublesome it sat upon my head:

To thee it shall descend with better quiet,

 

and…

 

How I came by the crown, O God forgive;

And grant it may with thee in true peace live!

 

And the response:

Prince Henry: My gracious liege,

You won it, wore it, kept it, gave it me;

Then plain and right must my possession be:

Which I with more than with a common pain

‘Gainst all the world will rightfully maintain

 

Shorthly thereafter, one official inquires of another

 

Chief Justice: How doth the King?

Earl of Warwick: Exceedingly well; his cares are now all ended.

 

Henry makes a good start, and appears to be the man a king should be. The audience is given an epilogue by an unnamed dancer…that there is more of this tale yet to tell…which of course will be the play: King Henry V.

 

Modern day colloquialisms from Henry IV part two

Falstaff asks Pistol: What wind blew you hither, Pistol?

Pistol: Not the ill wind which blows no man to good.

Modern rendering: It’s an ill wind that blows no good

 

Later Falstaff asks Pistol: What, Is the old king dead?

Pistol: As a nail in the door

Modern rendering: as dead as a door nail

.

Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare

Julius Caesar by William Shakespeare 

He is a dreamer; let us leave him ~ Julius Caesar regarding the Soothsayer who told him Beware the ides of March

The fault, dear Brutus, is not in our stars,

But in ourselves that we are underlings ~ Cassius, one of Caesar’s betrayers

Cry Havoc, and let slip the dogs of war… ~ Marc Antony

Julius Caesar is a tragedy by Shakespeare, though it is also historical. It was written very late 16^thCentury and, in spite of the name, is really more about Marcus Brutus and the dilemma he faces regarding his friend Julius Caesar. 

The setting:  Rome, 44 BC, during the Roman Republic, not the Roman Empire. Julius Caesar was not emperor, there was no Roman emperor; he was the greatest military leader of his day, who was becoming increasingly powerful and popular. A group of Senators and Generals fear Caesar will soon be made King, and so, ostensibly for the love of Rome, they plot Caesars death. They need Brutus to join the conspiracy if they hope to keep the peace in the aftermath.

Brutus is greatly conflicted.

But you probably know the outcome. Ironically, the attempt to preserve the republic, causes its demise and ushers in the Roman Empire (or dictatorship), when Caesar’s adopted son Octavius becomes the first Roman Emperor, Caesar Augustus.

This may be my favorite of Shakespeare’s plays. It is an intriguing mess of conflicted ideals: friendship vs patriotism, law vs justice, idealism vs pragmatism, and honor vs necessity. It is filled with powerful quotations, many of which are part of today’s vernacular. 

And a couple great speeches. First, Brutus who convinces the pro-Caesar mob that the assassination was necessary for the good of greater Rome. 

If, then that friend demand why Brutus rose against Caesar, this is my answer, - Not that I loved Caesar less, but that I loved Rome more.

He is followed immediately by Marc Antony’s eulogy of Caesar. Antony was not one of the conspirators, but he is allowed to speak kindly of Caesar, in hopes of bringing about some healing and unity to the nation.

But Antony, has a different agenda, and with crafty words, words that ostensibly place no shame on the conspirators, he subtly lays bare the treachery and ambition of the assassins, and turns the crowd against them. Antony’s speech, begins with some of Shakespeare’s most famous lines:

Friends, Romans, countrymen, lend me your ears…

And later concludes:

Now let it work: mischief, thou art afoot.Take thou what course thou wilt!

I ached for Caesar at his betrayal. When he cries:

et tu, Brute? – Then fall, Caesar!

I was dubious of his betrayers – I think most acted from jealousy and ambition rather than altruism. I sympathized with Brutus, in a disappointed sort of way, and I admired Marc Antony, in a devious sort of way. Most of all, I despaired for Rome.

In the end, there is much death, much falling on swords, much suffering before the rise of an Empire.

I’d love to see this enacted on stage. In the meantime, any recommendations for a good film rendering?

I read this for the 2019 Year of Shakespeare Challenge, and although I didn’t read it as part of R.I.P. 14, I could have – because it has a ghost, ya gotta love a play with a ghost.

Other excerpts:

It was Greek to me ~ Casca, on not being able to understand Cicero who was speaking Greek

For let the gods so speed me as I love

The name of honour more than I fear death. ~ Brutus

Good night then Casca: this disturbed sky is not to walk in. ~ Cicero

Let’s be sacrificers, but not butchers… ~ Brutus

O ye gods, Render me worthy of this noble wife ~ Brutus

No, Cassius, no: think not, thou noble Roman

That ever Brutus will go bound to Rome;

He bears too great a mind. But this same day

Must end that work the ides of March began;

And whether we shall meet again, I know not.

Therefore our everlasting farewell take:

For ever, and for ever, farewell Cassius!

If we do meet again, why, we shall smile;

If not, why then, this parting was well made. ~ Brutus

O, coward that I am, to live so long,

To see my best friend ta’en before my face. ~ Cassius on seeing Titinius captured

Like most of Shakespeare’s plays, Julius Caesar is filled with phrases that have made their way into the modern vernacular – many of which I’ve already cited: The Dogs of War, It’s Greek to me, Cowards die a thousand deaths, etc. There is probably one more modern colloquialism that should be attributed to this play…

Great Caesar’s Ghost!

.

King Henry IV, First Part by William Shakespeare

King Henry IV, first part by William Shakespeare 

England did never owe so sweet a hope ~ Sir Richard Vernon regarding Prince Henry

Henry IV, part one is the second play in Shakespeare’s tetralogy or Henriad: four plays regarding the succession from King Richard II – Henry IV – Henry V. Written in the late 16^thcentury, it covers part of the reign of Henry IV, who reigned from 1399 – 1413.

In the previous play, Henry Bolingbroke usurps the crown from his cousin King Richard II, and becomes King Henry IV. Although this play is named for Henry IV, it is really more about his son Prince Henry, who will later become King Henry V.

If this were a novel, I’d call it the coming of age tale of Prince Henry.

Early in the play, Prince Henry is something of a wastrel. 

But when his father’s reign is in peril, and after being chided by the King, Prince Henry vows to become a better man and worthy of his line to the throne. The prince assures his father, that he will redeem himself in defense of the Kingdom.

     And God forgive them that have so much sway’d

     Your Majesty’s good thoughts away from me!

     I will redeem all this on Percy’s head,

     And, in the closing of some glorious day,

     Be bold to tell you that I am your son:

     When I will wear a garment all of blood,

     And stain my favours in a bloody mask,

     Which, wash’d away, shall scour my shame with it

And in short, the prince makes good on his vow. 

Although this is a historical play, it contains a bit of comedy. Prince Henry, who associates with the craven Sir John Falstaff, often mocks him for his laziness, cowardice, and hedonism. Prince Henry says to Falstaff, who is quite fat:

How long is’t ago, Jack, since thou sawest thine own knee?

In the rebel camp, Lady Percy, wife of Henry Percy aka Hotspur is coaxing Lady Mortimer to sing.

Lady Percy:…hear the lady sing in Welsh

Hotspur: I had rather hear Lady, my brach Howl in Irish

Lady Percy: Woulds’t thou have thy head broken? 

Hotspur: No 

Lady Percy: Then be still

I enjoyed this play very much, mostly because as I said, it is the coming of age of Prince Henry. I am vaguely familiar with the noble character he will become – at least in Shakespeare’s rendering – and so it was satisfying to see the prince abandon his youthful indiscretions and become a Prince.

The quotation at the beginning of this review:

England did never owe so sweet a hope ~ Sir Richard Vernon regarding Prince Henry

…is notable, as Vernon was among the conspirators, or enemy of the King and prince, and yet he would still make such a testimony to the prince.

I read this for the 2019 Year of Shakespeare Challenge

Modern day colloquialisms from Henry IV part one

Give the devil his due

The better part of valour is discretion

.

Richard II by William Shakespeare

Richard II by William Shakespeare 

The Life and Death of King Richard II commonly referred to as Richard II is a historical play written by Shakespeare, late 16^thCentury and concerns King Richard II who ruled England from 1377 to 1399.

Richard was the son of Edward the Black Prince, who in turn was the son of King Edward III. The Black Prince was in line to be King Edward IV, but he died before his father, therefore Richard became King Richard II* age of 10, at the death of his grandfather the King.

I mentioned in my review of Edward III that I liked the Black Prince more than King Edward III, and thought it a pity he did not succeed to the throne. Unfortunately, his son, King Richard II does not earn the same respect as I held for his father.

However, these opinions are based on only a very short segment of their lives, and that based only on Shakespeare’s plays, which although historical are not truly history and not completely reliable. Still, there is a general opinion among historians: King Edward III – not so great, King Richard II – ditto, Edward the Black Prince – a model of chivalry and knighthood.

So, what were Richard’s shortcomings? He was indecisive, impetuous, arbitrary, and aloof – not qualities for the making of a great king. They all led to his being deposed and eventually murdered. 

At the outset of the play, the King is called upon to settle a bitter dispute between Thomas Mowbray, Duke of Norfolk, and Henry Bolingbroke, son of the Duke of Lancaster, cousin to the King, and grandson of King Edward III.

In short, the King makes a very bad show of it all. First, he cannot decide (indecisive) and defers to have the dispute settled in battle. At the day of the battle, he stops the proceedings at the last moment (impetuous), and banishes both from England – Mowbray for life, Bolingbroke for 10 years later reduced to 6 (arbitrary).

I especially liked this dialogue between Richard and John Gaunt Duke of Lancaster, who is understandably distraught by his son’s banishment. This takes place some time later. The Duke is on his deathbed when Richard visits. The Duke foresees that the King does not have much longer himself to live.

     Gaunt: Since thou dost seek to kill my name in me,

     I mock my name, great king, to flatter thee.

     King: Should dying men flatter with those that live?

     Gaunt: No, no; men living flatter those that die.

     King: Thou, now a-dying, say’st thou flatter’st me.

     Gaunt: O, no! thou diest, though I the sicker be

     King: I am in health, I breathe, and see thee ill

     Gaunt: Now, He that made me knows I see thee ill

When the Duke of Lancaster dies, Richard seizes the Duke’s land and fortune (aloof) – which of course was rightfully to fall to Bollingbroke. Word of this outrage reaches Bollingbroke who returns to England, in spite of his banishment, to reclaim his own.

The King is not exactly conciliatory, and Bolingbroke easily wins more noblemen to his cause. Richard is deposed and Bollingbroke becomes King Henry IV.

I enjoyed this play. It is the third of Shakespeare’s historical plays that I’ve read. I’ve noticed two things: 1. Shakespeare gets easier to read the more I do it, and 2. In spite of the limitations I mentioned earlier, I am still learning a bit of English history. Richard II is the first in a tetralogy of Shakespeare’s plays, sometimes called the Henriad, because all include either Henry IV or Henry V (Richard II, Henry IV part one, Henry IV part two, and Henry V).

I read this for the 2019 Year of Shakespeare Challenge

Modern day colloquialisms from Richard II:

A leopard cannot change its spots – from Act 1, Scene 1

     Richard: …lions make leopards tame

     Duke of Norfolk: Yea, but not change his spots: take but my shame

To seek shelter from the storm – from Act 2, Scene 1

     Earl of North Umberland: But, lords, we hear this fearful tempest sing,

     Yet seek no shelter to avoid the storm

* Regarding numerical designations of the Kings. You probably know this, but I feel compelled to explain. The numbers following the King’s name, (Edward III, Richard II, Henry IV), are not the same as for us commoners. If I had a son named Joseph – he would be Joseph Jr. If he had a son Joseph – he would be Joseph III, etc. However, for the Kings it means something different. King Henry IV, son of John of Gaunt, was simply the fourth king of England named Henry.

.

Edward III by William Shakespeare

Edward III by William Shakespeare 

For, from the instant we begin to live,

We do pursue and hunt the time to die: ~ Lord Audley

The Raigne of King Edward the Third commonly referred to simply as Edward III is a play at least partially attributed to Shakespeare. It was written late 16^thCentury and concerns King Edward III of England, 14^thCentury.

But in my opinion it is more about his son, Prince Edward, the Black Prince who is nearly as prominent in the play, and much more noble than his father.

The play has two distinct plots. Acts I and II concern a conflict with the Scotts, but are really about a dalliance Edward attempts. Acts III – V, cover an English foray into France. There is very little connecting the two plots. Edward does not come off very well in either.

In the first part, after putting down a Scottish uprising and rescuing the Countess of Salisbury, Edward is enamored with the Countess and attempts to seduce her. The Countess puts up a brilliant defense.

     But that your lips were sacred, my Lord,

     You would profane the holy name of love.

     That love you offer me you cannot give,

     For Caesar owes that tribute to his Queen;

     That love you beg of me I cannot give,

     For Sara owes that duty to her Lord.

When Edward persists, and determines to have the Queen and Count killed, so that he may have the Countess, she rebukes him

     Either swear to leave thy most unholy suit

     And never hence forth to solicit me;

     Or else, by heaven this sharp pointed knife

     Shall stain thy earth with that which thou would stain,

     My poor chaste blood. Swear, Edward, swear,

     Or I will strike and die before thee here.

That does the trick. Edward repents in shame and that’s the end of that.

Next, the English invade France – all part of Edward's belief that King John of France is a usurper and that he, Edward, is the rightful King of France. In this section of the play, Prince Edward comes to the fore and outshines his father.

The English advance along several fronts, and Prince Edward is hopelessly outnumbered, 8,000 against 60,000. Count Artois, urges the King to send reinforcements to the prince. Edward answers curtly

     Tut, let him fight; we gave him arms to day,

     And he is laboring for a knighthood man.

When an emissary from King John offers to spare Prince Edward his life if he surrenders, Prince Edward rebuffs

     I will not give a penny for life,

     Nor half a halfpenny to shun grim death,

     Since for to live is but to seek to die,

     And dying but beginning of new life.

     Let come the hour when he that rules it will!

     To live or die I hold indifferent.

Somehow Prince Edward prevails, but King John, ever haughty, complains

     They fortune, not thy force, hath conquered us.

Prince Edward replies

     An argument that heaven aides the right.

I liked this play, and would be very near loving it, but for one major flaw – the parts are so without transition; it hardly seems like a single play. But there is some great dialogue in each, (duh…it’s Shakespeare). 

It leaves me thinking it’s a shame Prince Edward never took the throne. (in true English history, he died before his father, but his son, Richard II did wear the crown.)

I read this for the 2019 Year of Shakespeare Challenge

.

War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy (69 down, 31 to go)

(translation by Louise and Aylmer Maude)

 

“O Lord, my Creator, Thou has heard our payer”…”Russia is saved. I think Thee, O Lord!” and he wept. ~ Supreme commander of the Russian Army, Prince Kutuzov

 
This is the first time I’ve read War and Peace and the second novel I’ve read by Tolstoy. War and Peace is a realist novel, historical fiction, third-person narrative set in Russia from 1805-1820, or during the Napoleonic invasion of Russia. It relates the intertwined lives of five Russian aristocratic families. 

My rating: 4 of 5 stars

 

This novel satisfied category six: an Adventure Classic from the Back to the Classics Challenge 2016.

 

War and Peace is one of the longest novels ever written, though not the longest as is sometimes asserted. It is curious how it could ever be given such a distinction, as it is not a matter of opinion. I will surmise that it may be because War and Peace may be considered: The greatest long novel and the longest great novel ever written.

 

At any rate, it is long – 560,000 to 580,000 words depending on translation. It took me a bit more than two months to read and I feel it is quite an accomplishment, something of a literary bucket list item. I probably would have been intimidated, had I not previously read and enjoyed Anna Karenina.

 

Contrary to what you may have heard, War and Peace was not originally titled War: What’s it Good For, but it was originally titled War and Society. This a more descriptive title as it is two tales: the tale of war, and the tale of Russian society.

 

It is challenging to review such a lengthy and complex story. It touches on nearly every theme imaginable. If I must summarize Tolstoy’s half-million words, I’d summarize it thus:

 

War – Russia wins (apologies for the spoiler)

Society – The best man in the tale marries the best woman. The most complex man in the tale marries the simplest woman.

 

To be fair, there are a few other things going on. To do more justice to the “simple” woman, she is not dim-witted. She is simply without avarice; it nearly ruins her.

 

And although War and Society is more descriptive, I prefer the later title War and Peace for its poetic quality.

 

War and Peace is divided into four books, 15 parts, varying number of chapters per part, and two epilogues. The 15 parts switch between accounts of the war and the personal affairs of the five families. A number of the characters join the army, so the war parts are not entirely without family drama.

 

The war sections use the fictional characters to describe historical battles, maneuvers, tactics, and strategies of the war. They also include numerous historical persons, most notably and most obviously, Napoleon and Alexander I.

 

The society sections center on the fictional families of:

• Bezukhov – really just one character Count Pyotr (Pierre) Kirillovich Bezukhov: an illegitimate son, but made rightful heir. He is deeply philosophical and Tolstoy’s alter ego.
• Bolkonsky – Prince Andrei (Andrew) Nikolayevich Bolkonsky: proud and honorable. His sister, Princess Maria (Mary) Nikolayevna Bolkonskaya: pious and generous.
• Rostov – I would call the Rostovs the main family, the one the reader empathizes with most. The Count is loving and kindly, but inept at managing the family fortune. There are four children and an orphaned cousin. The story deals mostly with the eldest son Count Nikolai Ilyich (Nicholas) Rostov and his younger sister Countess Natalya (Natasha) Ilyinichna Rostova. 

 

These three are the main families. All made up of mostly likeable, but definitely flawed individuals. Of lesser importance are the families:

• Kuragina – These are pretty awful people from the patriarch on down.
• Drubetskoy – Friends of the Rostovs.

 

 

Of course, there are many, many other characters – nearly 600.

 

Throughout the book, and particularly in the first epilogue, Tolstoy offers philosophical insight and his opinion of the distortion historians have made of the war and personages. I wouldn’t dare try and summarize his views on this complex issue. It’s worth a read though. He makes some very good points, and I believe Tolstoy to be reliable. As a Russian, he did not vilify Napoleon, though he is certainly not his apologist. Tolstoy seems to approve of Tsar Alexander, but is a much firmer defender of Prince Mikhail Illarionovich Golenishchev-Kutuzov, the supreme commander of the Russian Army. Kutuzov is a Russian hero, but some historians blame him for the fall of Moscow. Tolstoy portrays most of the Russian military leadership as motivated by ambition, whereas he portrays the aged, discerning, ambitionless Kutuzov as driven by only one goal: to expel the invading army. Kutuzov was thoughtful and patient, sacrificing even sacred Moscow, that the army would live to fight another day. He was of course, ultimately successful.

 

It is truly overwhelming to attempt anything more in this review. I find War and Peace is an astonishing literary accomplishment, though not quite the pleasure as Anna Karenina.

 

At one point, the narrator Tolstoy quotes a favorite Bible verse of mine: "The King’s heart is in the hands of the Lord".  It is from Proverbs 21:1 and continues with…"as rivers of water, he turneth it withersoever he will."

 

Other excerpts:

 

Every general and every soldier was conscious of his own insignificance, aware of being but a drop in that ocean of men, and yet at the same time was conscious of his strength as part of that enormous whole.

 

Just as in a clock, the result of the complicated motion of innumerable wheels and pulleys is merely a slow and regular movement of the hands which show the time, so the result of all the complicated human activities of one hundred and sixty thousand Russians and French – all their passions, desires, remorse, humiliations, sufferings, outbursts of pride, fear, and enthusiasm – was only the loss of the battle of Austerlitz, the so-called battle of the three emperors – that is to say a slow movement of the hand on the dial of human history.

 

His head was burning, he felt himself bleeding to death, and he saw above him the remote, lofty, and everlasting sky. ~ Prince Andrew Bolkonsky

 

To know Him is hard….For ages, from our forefather Adam to our own day, we labor to attain that knowledge and are still infinitely far from our aim; but in our lack of understanding we see only our weakness and His greatness. ~ a teacher of Count Pierre Buzukhov’s

 

Natasha was happier than she had ever been in her life. She was at that height of bliss when one becomes completely kind and good and does not believe in the possibility of evil, unhappiness, or sorrow.

 

Man lives consciously for himself, but is an unconscious instrument in the attainment of the historic, universal, aims of humanity.

 

This is a long excerpt, but I found it a telling glimpse of the prejudice of Tolstoy, an extraordinary writer whom I ordinarily find fair and objective: 

Pfuel was one of those hopelessly and immutably self-confident men, self-confident to the point of martyrdom as only Germans are, because only Germans are self-confident on the basis of an abstract notion – science, that is, the supposed knowledge of absolute truth. A Frenchman is self-assured because he regards himself personally, both in mind and body, as irresistibly attractive to men and women. An Englishman is self-assured, as being a citizen of the best-organized state in the world, and therefore as an Englishman always knows what he should do and knows that he does as an Englishman is undoubtedly correct. An Italian is self-assured because he is excitable and easily forgets himself and other people. A Russian is self-assured just because he knowns nothing and does not want to know anything, since he does not believe that anything can be known. The German’s self-assurance is worst of all, stronger and more repulsive than any other, because he imagines that he knows the truth – science – which he himself has invented but which is for him the absolute truth.

 

But what is war? What is needed for success in warfare? What are the habits of the military? The aim of war is murder; the methods of war are spying, treachery, and their encouragement, the ruin of a country’s inhabitants, robbing them or stealing to provision the army, and fraud and falsehood termed military craft. The habits of the military class are the absence of freedom, that is, discipline, idleness, ignorance, cruelty, debauchery, and drunkenness. And in spite of all this it is the highest class, respected by everyone.

 

…he knew that the result of a battle is decided not by the orders of a commander-in-chief, nor the place where the troops are stationed, nor by the number of cannon or of slaughtered men, but by that intangible force called the spirit of the army… ~ Supreme Commander Kutuzov

 

Never to the end of his life could he understand goodness, beauty, or truth, or the significance of his actions which were too contrary to goodness and truth, too remote from everything human, for him ever to be able to grasp their meaning. He could not disavow his actions, belauded as they were by half the world, and so he had to repudiate truth, goodness and all humanity. ~ Napoleon

 

Man’s mind cannot grasp the causes of events in their completeness, but the desire to find those causes is implanted in man’s soul.

 

O Lord, my Creator, Thou has heard our payer…Russia is saved. I think Thee, O Lord! and he wept. ~ Supreme Commander Kutuzov

 

For us with the standard of good and evil given us by Christ, no human actions are incommensurable. And there is no greatness where simplicity, goodness, and truth are absent.

 

.