Coursework: L. Tolstoy's epic novel "War and Peace": from conception to its implementation

Much has been written about Leo Tolstoy, too much. It may seem pretentious to want to say something new about him. And yet it must be admitted that the religious consciousness of L. Tolstoy was not subjected to a sufficiently in-depth study, it was little evaluated in essence, regardless of utilitarian points of view, from its usefulness for liberal-radical or conservative-reactionary purposes. Some, with utilitarian-tactical goals, praised L. Tolstoy as a true Christian, while others, often with equally utilitarian-tactical goals, anathematized him as a servant of the Antichrist. Tolstoy was used in such cases as a means for their own ends, and thereby insulted a man of genius. The memory of him was especially insulted after his death, his very death was turned into a utilitarian tool. The life of L. Tolstoy, his quest, his rebellious criticism is a great, world-wide phenomenon; it requires a sub specie evaluation of eternal value, not temporal utility. We would like the religion of Leo Tolstoy to be examined and evaluated without regard to Tolstoy's accounts with the ruling spheres and without regard to the feud between the Russian intelligentsia and the Church. We do not want, like many of the intelligentsia, to recognize L. Tolstoy as a true Christian precisely because he was excommunicated from the Church by the Holy Synod, just as we do not want to see in Tolstoy only a servant of the devil for the same reason. We are essentially interested in whether L. Tolstoy was a Christian, how he related to Christ, what is the nature of his religious consciousness? Clerical utilitarianism and intellectual utilitarianism are equally alien to us and equally prevent us from understanding and appreciating Tolstoy's religious consciousness. From the extensive literature on L. Tolstoy it is necessary to single out a very remarkable and very valuable work by D.S. Merezhkovsky "L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky", in which for the first time the religious element and the religious consciousness of L. Tolstoy were studied in essence and the paganism of Tolstoy was revealed. True, Merezhkovsky used Tolstoy too much to carry out his religious concept, but this did not prevent him from telling the truth about Tolstoy's religion, which Merezhkovsky's later utilitarian-tactical articles about Tolstoy will not obscure. Yet Merezhkovsky's work remains the only one to evaluate Tolstoy's religion.

First of all, it must be said about L. Tolstoy that he is a brilliant artist and a brilliant personality, but he is not a brilliant and even not a gifted religious thinker. He was not given the gift of expression in words, of expressing his religious life, his religious quest. A mighty religious element raged within him, but it was wordless. Brilliant religious experiences and untalented, banal religious thoughts! Every attempt of Tolstoy to express in words, to logicize his religious element gave rise to only banal, gray thoughts. In essence, Tolstoy of the first period, before the revolution, and Tolstoy of the second period, after the revolution, are one and the same Tolstoy. The worldview of the young man Tolstoy was banal, he kept wanting "to be like everyone else." And the worldview of the brilliant husband of Tolstoy is just as banal, he also wants to "be like everyone else." The only difference is that in the first period "everyone" is a secular society, and in the second period "everyone" is the peasants, the working people. And throughout his life, L. Tolstoy, who thought banally and wanted to become like secular people or peasants, not only was not like everyone else, but was like no one, he was the only one, he was a genius. And the religion of the Logos and the philosophy of the Logos were always alien to this genius, his religious element always remained wordless, not expressed in the Word, in consciousness. L. Tolstoy is an exceptional but original and brilliant, and he is also exceptionally banal and limited. This is Tolstoy's eye-catching antinomy.

On the one hand, L. Tolstoy impresses with his organic secularism, his exclusive belonging to the noble life. In Childhood, Adolescence and Youth, the origins of L. Tolstoy, his secular vanity, his ideal of a man comme il faut, are revealed. This leaven was in Tolstoy. From "War and Peace" and "Anna Karenina" one can see how close to his nature was the secular table of ranks, the customs and prejudices of the world, how he knew all the curves of this special world, how difficult it seemed to him to defeat this element. He longed to leave the secular circle for nature ("Cossacks") as a person too connected with this circle. In Tolstoy one feels the whole burden of the world, the life of the nobility, the whole force of the vital law of gravity, attraction to the earth. There is no airiness, lightness in it. He wants to be a wanderer and cannot be a wanderer, he cannot become one until the last days of his life, chained to his family, to his family, to his estate, to his circle. On the other hand, the same Tolstoy, with an unprecedented force of denial and genius, rises against the "light" not only in the narrow but also in the broad sense of the word, against the godlessness and nihilism not only of the entire noble society, but also of the entire "cultural" society. His rebellious criticism turns into a denial of all history, all culture. Since childhood, imbued with secular vanity and conventionality, worshiping the ideal of "comme il faut" and "be like everyone else," he knew no mercy in scourging the lies that society lives in, in tearing the veils from all conventions. Noble, secular society and the master classes must go through Tolstoy's negation in order to purify themselves. Tolstoy's negation remains a great truth for this society. And here is Tolstoy's antinomy. On the one hand, Tolstoy's peculiar materialism, his apology for animal life, his exceptional penetration into the life of the spiritual body and the alienness of his life of the spirit are striking. This animal materialism is felt not only in his artistic work, where he reveals an exceptionally brilliant gift of penetrating into the primary elements of life, into the animal and plant processes of life, but also in his religious and moral preaching. L. Tolstoy preaches sublime, moralistic materialism, animal-vegetable happiness as the realization of the highest, divine law of life. When he talks about a happy life, he does not have a single sound that even hints at the spiritual life. There is only spiritual life, soul-body life. And the same L. Tolstoy turns out to be a supporter of extreme spirituality, denies the flesh, preaches asceticism. His religious and moral teaching turns out to be some kind of unprecedented and impossible, lofty moralistic and ascetic materialism, some kind of spiritualistic bestiality. His consciousness is crushed and limited by the soul-body plane of being and cannot break through into the realm of the spirit.

And also Tolstoy's antinomy. In everything and always, L. Tolstoy amazes with his sobriety, rationality, practicality, utilitarianism, lack of poetry and dreams, misunderstanding of beauty and dislike, turning into a persecution of beauty. And this unpoetic, soberly utilitarian persecutor of beauty was one of the world's greatest artists; who denied beauty has left us creations of eternal beauty. Aesthetic barbarism and rudeness were combined with artistic genius. No less antinomic is the fact that L. Tolstoy was an extreme individualist, anti-social so much that he never understood the social forms of the struggle against evil and the social forms of the creative creation of life and culture, which denied history, and this anti-social individualist did not feel the personality and, in essence, denied personality, was all in the elements of the family. We will even see that the fundamental features of his world perception and world consciousness are connected with the absence of sensation and consciousness of the individual. The extreme individualist in "War and Peace" enthusiastically showed the world a baby diaper soiled in green and yellow, and found that the self-consciousness of the individual had not yet conquered the generic element in him. Isn't it antinomic that denies the world and world values ​​with unprecedented audacity and radicalism, one who is completely riveted to the immanent world and cannot even imagine another world in his imagination? Isn’t it antinomic that a man full of passions, angry to the point that when his estate was searched, he became furious, demanded that this matter be reported to the sovereign, that he be given public satisfaction, threatened to leave Russia forever, that a man this one preached a vegetarian, anemic ideal of non-resistance to evil? Isn't it antinomic that Russian to the marrow of his bones, with a national peasant-lordly face, he preached an Anglo-Saxon religiosity alien to the Russian people? This man of genius searched all his life for the meaning of life, thought about death, did not know satisfaction, and he was almost deprived of the feeling and consciousness of the transcendent, was limited by the outlook of the immanent world. Finally, the most striking Tolstoyan antinomy: the preacher of Christianity, exclusively occupied with the gospel and teaching of Christ, he was so alien to the religion of Christ, as few people were alien after the appearance of Christ, he was deprived of any sense of the person of Christ. This striking, incomprehensible antinomy of L. Tolstoy, to which insufficient attention has yet been paid, is the secret of his brilliant personality, the secret of his fate, which cannot be completely unraveled. The hypnosis of Tolstoy's simplicity, his almost biblical style cover up this antinomy, create the illusion of wholeness and clarity. L. Tolstoy is destined to play a big role in the religious revival of Russia and the whole world: with a genius power he turned modern people back to religion and the religious meaning of life, he marked the crisis of historical Christianity, he is a weak, weak religious thinker, according to his element and consciousness alien to the mysteries of the religion of Christ, he is a rationalist. This rationalist, a preacher of rationally-utilitarian well-being, demanded madness from the Christian world in the name of the consistent fulfillment of the teachings and commandments of Christ and forced the Christian world to think about its non-Christian life, full of lies and hypocrisy. He is a terrible enemy of Christianity and the forerunner of the Christian revival. On the brilliant personality and life of Leo Tolstoy lies the seal of some special mission.

The attitude and worldview of Leo Tolstoy is completely extra-Christian and pre-Christian in all periods of his life. This must be said decisively, regardless of any utilitarian considerations. A great genius first of all demands that the truth be told about him in essence. L. Tolstoy is all in Old Testament , in paganism, in the Hypostasis of the Father. Tolstoy's religion is not a new Christianity, it is an Old Testament, pre-Christian religion, preceding the Christian revelation of the person, the revelation of the second, filial, Hypostasis. L. Tolstoy is so alien to the self-consciousness of the individual, as it could be alien only to a person of the pre-Christian era. He does not feel the uniqueness and uniqueness of any person and the mystery of his eternal destiny. For him, there is only the world soul, and not a separate person, he lives in the elements of the family, and not in the consciousness of the individual. The element of the family, the natural soul of the world, was revealed in the Old Testament and paganism, and the religion of the pre-Christian revelation of the Hypostasis of the Father is connected with them. The self-consciousness of a person and his eternal destiny are connected with the Christian revelation of the Son Hypostasis, Logos, Personality. Every person religiously abides in the mystical atmosphere of the Son Hypostasis, Christ, the Personality. Before Christ, in the deep, religious sense of the word, there is still no personality. Personality finally realizes itself only in the religion of Christ. The tragedy of personal fate is known only to the Christian era. L. Tolstoy does not feel at all the Christian problem of personality, he does not see the face, the face sinks for him in the natural soul of the world. Therefore, he does not feel and does not see the face of Christ. He who does not see any face does not see the face of Christ either, for truly in Christ, in His filial Hypostasis, every person abides and is conscious of himself. The very consciousness of the face is connected with the Logos, and not with the soul of the world. L. Tolstoy does not have a Logos and therefore there is no personality for him, for him an individualist. Yes, and all individualists who do not know the Logos do not know the personality, their individualism is faceless, it abides in the natural soul of the world. We will see how alien the Logos is to Tolstoy, how alien Christ is to him, he is not an enemy of Christ the Logos in the Christian era, he is simply blind and deaf, he is in the pre-Christian era. L. Tolstoy is cosmic, he is all in the soul of the world, in created nature, he penetrates into the depths of its elements, primary elements. This is the strength of Tolstoy as an artist, an unprecedented strength. And how different he is from Dostoevsky, who was anthropological, who was all in the Logos, who brought the self-consciousness of the individual and his fate to the extreme limits, to the point of illness. With Dostoevsky's anthropologism, with a tense sense of personality and its tragedy, his extraordinary sense of the personality of Christ, his almost frenzied love for the Face of Christ, is connected. Dostoevsky had an intimate relationship to Christ, Tolstoy has no relationship to Christ, to Christ Himself. For Tolstoy, there is not Christ, but only the teachings of Christ, the commandments of Christ. The "pagan" Goethe felt Christ much more intimately, saw the Face of Christ much better than Tolstoy. The face of Christ is obscured for L. Tolstoy by something impersonal, spontaneous, general. He hears the commandments of Christ and does not hear Christ Himself. He is unable to understand that the only important thing is Christ Himself, that only His mysterious and close to us Personality saves. He is alien, foreign to the Christian revelation about the Person of Christ and about any Person. He accepts Christianity impersonally, abstractly, without Christ, without any Face.

L. Tolstoy, like no one else and never before, longed to fulfill the will of the Father to the end. All his life he was tormented by a devouring thirst to fulfill the law of life of the Master who sent him into life. No one can meet such a thirst for the fulfillment of a commandment, a law, except for Tolstoy. This is the main thing, root in it. And L. Tolstoy believed, like no one else ever, that it is easy to fulfill the will of the Father to the end, he did not want to admit the difficulties of fulfilling the commandments. Man himself, with his own strength, must and can fulfill the will of the Father. This fulfillment is easy, it gives happiness and well-being. The commandment, the law of life, is fulfilled exclusively in relation to man to the Father, in the religious atmosphere of the Father's Hypostasis. L. Tolstoy does not want to fulfill the will of the Father through the Son, he does not know the Son and does not need the Son. The religious atmosphere of divine sonship, the filial hypostasis is not necessary for Tolstoy to fulfill the will of the Father: he himself, he himself will fulfill the will of the Father, he himself can. Tolstoy considers it immoral when the will of the Father is recognized as possible to fulfill only through the Son, the Redeemer and Savior, he treats with disgust the idea of ​​redemption and salvation, i.e. treats with disgust not Jesus of Nazareth, but Christ the Logos, who sacrificed himself for the sins of the world. The religion of L. Tolstoy wants to know only the Father and does not want to know the Son; The Son prevents him from fulfilling the law of the Father on his own. L. Tolstoy consistently professes the religion of law, the religion of the Old Testament. The religion of grace, the religion of the New Testament, is alien and unknown to him. Tolstoy is more likely a Buddhist than a Christian. Buddhism is a religion of self-salvation, just like the religion of Tolstoy. Buddhism does not know the personality of God, the personality of the Savior, and the personality of the one being saved. Buddhism is a religion of compassion, not love. Many say that Tolstoy is a true Christian and contrast him with the false and hypocritical Christians with whom the world is full. But the existence of false and hypocritical Christians, who do deeds of hatred instead of deeds of love, does not justify the abuse of words, the play on words that breed lies. One cannot be called a Christian to whom the very idea of ​​redemption, the very need for a Savior, was alien and disgusting; alien and disgusting was the idea of ​​Christ. Such hostility to the idea of ​​redemption, such scourging of it as immoral, has not yet known the Christian world. In L. Tolstoy, the Old Testament religion of law rebelled against the New Testament religion of grace, against the mystery of redemption. L. Tolstoy wanted to turn Christianity into a religion of rule, law, moral commandment, i.e. into the religion of the Old Testament, pre-Christian, not knowing grace, into a religion not only not knowing redemption, but also not thirsting for redemption, as the pagan world thirsted for it in its last days. Tolstoy says that it would be better if Christianity did not exist at all as a religion of redemption and salvation, that then it would be easier to fulfill the will of the Father. All religions, in his opinion, are better than the religion of Christ the Son of God, since they all teach how to live, give a law, a rule, a commandment; the religion of salvation transfers everything from man to the Savior and to the mystery of redemption. L. Tolstoy hates church dogmas because he wants a religion of self-salvation as the only moral one, the only one fulfilling the will of the Father, His law; these dogmas speak of salvation through the Savior, through His atoning sacrifice. For Tolstoy, the commandments of Christ, carried out by a person with his own strength, are the only salvation. These commandments are the will of the Father. Christ himself, who said of himself: “I am the way, the truth and the life,” Tolstoy does not need him at all, he not only wants to do without Christ the Savior, but considers any appeal to the Savior, any help in fulfilling the will of the Father, to be immoral. The Son does not exist for him, only the Father exists, that is, he is completely in the Old Testament and does not know the New Testament.

It seems easy for L. Tolstoy to fulfill to the end, with his own strength, the law of the Father, because he does not feel and does not know evil and sin. He does not know the irrational element of evil, and therefore he does not need redemption, he does not want to know the Redeemer. Tolstoy looks at evil rationalistically, Socratically, in evil he sees only ignorance, only a lack of rational consciousness, almost a misunderstanding; he denies the bottomless and irrational mystery of evil, connected with the bottomless and irrational mystery of freedom. According to Tolstoy, he who has realized the law of goodness, by virtue of this consciousness alone, wishes to fulfill it. Evil does only deprived of consciousness. Evil is rooted not in irrational will and not in irrational freedom, but in the absence of rational consciousness, in ignorance. You can't do evil if you know what good is. Human nature is naturally good, sinless, and does evil only out of ignorance of the law. Good is reasonable. This is especially emphasized by Tolstoy. To do evil is stupid, there is no calculation to do evil, only good leads to well-being in life, to happiness. It is clear that Tolstoy looks at good and evil the way Socrates did, i.e. rationalistically, identifying good with rational, and evil with unreasonable. A reasonable consciousness of the law given by the Father will lead to the final triumph of good and the elimination of evil. It will happen easily and joyfully, it will be accomplished by the own forces of man. L. Tolstoy, like no one else, castigates evil and lies of life and calls for moral maximalism, for the immediate and final realization of goodness in everything. But his moral maximalism in relation to life is precisely connected with ignorance of evil. He, with a naivety that contains ingenious hypnosis, does not want to know the power of evil, the difficulty of overcoming it, the irrational tragedy associated with it. At a superficial glance, it may seem that it was L. Tolstoy who saw the evil of life better than others, and revealed it deeper than others. But this is an optical illusion. Tolstoy saw that people do not fulfill the will of the Father who sent them into life; people seemed to him walking in darkness, since they live according to the law of the world, and not according to the Law of the Father, Whom they do not recognize; people seemed to him unreasonable and insane. But he saw no evil. If he had seen evil and comprehended its secret, he would never have said that it is easy to fulfill to the end the will of the Father by the natural forces of man, that good can be overcome without atonement for evil. Tolstoy did not see sin, for him sin was only ignorance, only a weakness of the rational consciousness of the law of the Father. He did not know sin, he did not know redemption. Tolstoy's denial of the burden of world history, Tolstoy's maximalism, also springs from naive ignorance of evil and sin. Here we again come to what we have already said, where we started. L. Tolstoy does not see evil and sin because he does not see the individual. The consciousness of evil and sin is connected with the consciousness of the personality, and the selfhood of the personality is recognized in connection with the consciousness of evil and sin, in connection with the resistance of the personality to the natural elements, with the setting of boundaries. The absence of personal self-consciousness in Tolstoy is also the absence of consciousness of evil and sin in him. He does not know the tragedy of personality, the tragedy of evil and sin. Evil is invincible by consciousness, reason, it is bottomlessly deep embedded in a person. Human nature is not good, but fallen nature, human reason is fallen reason. The mystery of redemption is needed in order for evil to be defeated. And Tolstoy had a kind of naturalistic optimism.

L. Tolstoy, rebellious against the whole society, against the whole culture, came to extreme optimism, denying the depravity and sinfulness of nature. Tolstoy believes that God Himself brings about good in the world and that only one should not resist His will. Everything natural is good. In this Tolstoy approaches Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the eighteenth-century doctrine of the state of nature. Tolstoy's doctrine of non-resistance to evil is connected with the doctrine of the state of nature as good and divine. Do not resist evil, and good will come true without your activity, there will be a natural state in which the divine will is directly realized, the highest law of life, which is God. L. Tolstoy's teaching about God is a special form of pantheism, for which there is no personality of God, just as there is no personality of man and no personality at all. For Tolstoy, God is not a being, but a law, a divine principle poured into everything. For him, just as there is no personal God, just as there is no personal immortality. His pantheistic consciousness does not allow the existence of two worlds: the natural-immanent world and the divine-transcendent world. Such a pantheistic consciousness presupposes that the good, i.e. the divine law of life, is carried out in a natural-immanent way, without grace, without the entry of the transcendent into this world. Tolstoy's pantheism confuses God with the soul of the world. But his pantheism is not sustained and at times acquires a taste of deism. After all, the God who gives the law of life, the commandment, and does not give grace, help, is the dead God of deism. Tolstoy had a powerful feeling of God, but a weak consciousness of God, he spontaneously abides in the Hypostasis of the Father, but without the Logos. Just as L. Tolstoy believes in the goodness of the natural state and in the feasibility of goodness by natural forces, in which the divine will itself operates, he also believes in the infallibility, infallibility of the natural mind. He does not see the fall of reason. Mind for him is sinless. He does not know that there is a mind that has fallen away from the Divine Mind, and there is a mind united with the Divine Mind. Tolstoy clings to a naive, natural rationalism. He always appeals to reason, to the rational principle, and not to will, not to freedom. In Tolstoy's rationalism, at times very rude, the same faith in the blissful state of nature, in the goodness of nature and the natural, is reflected. Tolstoy's rationalism and naturalism are unable to explain deviations from the rational and natural state, and yet human life is filled with these deviations, and they give rise to that evil and that lie of life that Tolstoy so powerfully castigates. Why did humanity fall away from the good natural state and the rational law of life that reigned in this state? So, there was some kind of apostasy, a fall? Tolstoy will say: all evil comes from the fact that people walk in darkness, do not know the divine law of life. But where does this darkness and ignorance come from? We inevitably come to the irrationality of evil as the ultimate secret - secret freedom. In Tolstoy's worldview there is something in common with the worldview of Rozanov, who also knows no evil, does not see the Face, also believes in the goodness of the natural, also abiding in the Father's Hypostasis and in the soul of the world, in the Old Testament and paganism. L. Tolstoy and V. Rozanov, for all their differences, equally oppose the religion of the Son, the religion of redemption.

There is no need to expound the teachings of L. Tolstoy in detail and systematically in order to confirm the correctness of my characterization. Tolstoy's teaching is too well known to everyone. But usually books are read in a biased way and they see in them what they want to see, they do not see what they do not want to see. Therefore, I will nevertheless cite a number of the most striking passages that confirm my view of Tolstoy. Let me take, first of all, quotations from Tolstoy's main religious-philosophical treatise "What is my faith". “It always seemed strange to me why Christ, knowing in advance that the fulfillment of His teachings is impossible only by the forces of man, gave such clear and beautiful rules that apply directly to each individual person. Reading these rules, it always seemed to me that they apply directly to me , from me alone they demand execution. "Christ says, 'I find that the way you provide for your life is very foolish and bad. I offer you a completely different "". "It is human nature to do what is best. And any teaching about people's lives is only a teaching about what is best for people. If people are shown what is best for them to do, then how can they say that they want to do what better, but they can't? People can't only do what's worse, but they can't not do what's better." "As soon as he (a person) reasons, he is aware of himself as reasonable, and, realizing himself as reasonable, he cannot but recognize what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Reason does not order anything; it only illuminates." "Only a false idea that there is something that is not, and that there is not something that is, can lead people to such a strange denial of the feasibility of what, according to them, gives them good. The false idea that led to this is that , which is called the dogmatic Christian faith - the very one that is taught from childhood to all who profess the church Christian faith according to various Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant catechisms. "It is stated that the dead continue to be alive. And since the dead cannot in any way confirm that they are dead, nor that they are alive, just as a stone cannot confirm that it can or cannot speak, then this the absence of negation is taken as evidence and it is affirmed that people who died did not die, and with even greater solemnity and certainty it is affirmed that after Christ, by faith in Him, a person is freed from sin, i.e. that a person after Christ does not need to to illuminate his life with reason and choose what is best for him.He only needs to believe that Christ has redeemed him from sin, and then he is always sinless, i.e. absolutely good. According to this teaching, people must imagine that reason is powerless in them and that for this reason they are sinless, i.e. cannot err." "That which, according to this teaching, is called the true life, is personal, blessed, sinless, and eternal life; such as no one has ever known and which does not exist.” “Adam sinned for me; I made a mistake (italics mine)". L. Tolstoy says that, according to the teachings of the Christian Church, "true, sinless life is in faith, that is, in imagination, that is, in madness (my italics)." And after a few lines adds about the church teaching: "After all, this is complete madness"!. "Church teaching has given the basic meaning of people's lives in that a person has the right to a blessed life and that this blessedness is achieved not by human efforts, but by something external, and this worldview and became the basis of all our science and philosophy." "Reason, the one that illuminates our lives and makes us change our actions, is not an illusion, and it can no longer be denied. Following the mind to achieve good - this has always been the teaching of all the true teachers of mankind, and this is the whole teaching of Christ (my italics), and his something, i.e. reason cannot be denied by reason." "Before and after Christ, people said the same thing: that the divine light lives in man, descended from heaven, and this light is reason, and that he alone must be served and in him alone seek the good." "People heard everything, understood everything, but they only let past their ears the fact that the teacher only said that people should make their own happiness here, in the yard where they met, and imagined that this the yard is an inn, but somewhere there will be a real one.” “No one will help if we don’t help ourselves. And there is nothing to help. Just do not expect anything from heaven or earth, but stop destroying yourself." "In order to understand the teaching of Christ, you must first come to your senses, think again." "On the carnal, personal resurrection, He never spoke." "The concept of the future personal life came to us not from the Jewish teachings and not from the teachings of Christ. It entered the church teaching completely from the outside.

Strange as it may seem, one cannot but say that belief in a future personal life is a very base and crude idea, based on the confusion of sleep with death and characteristic of all savage peoples. "Christ contrasts personal life not with the afterlife, but with common life connected with the life of the present, past and future of all mankind. "" The whole teaching of Christ is that His disciples, realizing the illusory nature of personal life, renounced it and transferred it to the life of all mankind, to the life of the Son of Man. The doctrine of the immortality of personal life not only does not call for the renunciation of one's personal life, but fixes this personality forever... Life is life, and it must be used as best as possible. Living for yourself alone is unreasonable. And therefore, since there are people, they have been looking for goals outside themselves for life: they live for their child, for the people, for humanity, for everything that does not die with personal life. "If a person does not grab for what saves him, it only means that the person has not understood his position.” “Faith comes only from the consciousness of one's position. Faith is based only on a rational consciousness of what is better to do, being in a certain position. "It is terrible to say: were it not for the teachings of Christ with the church teaching that grew on it, then those who are now called Christians would be much closer to the teachings of Christ , i.e. to a reasonable doctrine of the good of life than they are now. The moral teachings of the prophets of all mankind would not be closed to them." "Christ says that there is a true worldly calculation not to take care of the life of the world ... It is impossible not to see that the position of the disciples of Christ should be better already because the disciples of Christ, making good, they will not arouse hatred in people." "Christ teaches us exactly how to get rid of our misfortunes and live happily." Listing the conditions of happiness, Tolstoy cannot find almost a single condition associated with spiritual life, everything is connected with the material, animal-vegetative life, like physical labor, health, etc. “One must not be a martyr in the name of Christ, this is not what Christ teaches. He teaches to stop torturing oneself in the name of the false teaching of the world... Christ teaches people not to do stupid things (italics mine). This is the simplest, accessible meaning of the teachings of Christ ... Do not do stupid things, and you will be better. "" Christ ... teaches us not to do what is worse, but to do what is best for us here, in this "The gap between the doctrine of life and the explanation of life began with the preaching of Paul, who did not know the ethical teaching expressed in the Gospel of Matthew, and preached a metaphysical-kabbalistic theory alien to Christ." "All that is needed for a pseudo-Christian is the sacraments. But the sacrament is not made by the believer himself, but others perform it over him." "The concept of a law, undoubtedly reasonable and obligatory for all from an inner consciousness, has been lost in our society to such an extent that the existence of a law among the Jewish people that determined their whole life, which would be obligatory not by coercion, but according to the internal consciousness of everyone, is considered exclusive property of one Jewish people". "I believe that the fulfillment of this teaching (of Christ) is easy and joyful."

I will cite more characteristic passages from L. Tolstoy's letters. “So: “Lord, be merciful to me a sinner,” I don’t quite love now, because this is an egoistic prayer, a prayer of personal weakness and therefore useless. “I would very much like to help you,” he writes M.A. Sopotsko, “in that difficult and dangerous situation in which you are. I am talking about your desire to hypnotize yourself into the church faith. This is very dangerous, because with such hypnotization the most precious thing in a person is lost - his mind (emphasis mine)". “It is impossible to allow anything unreasonable, anything that is not justified by reason, into your faith with impunity. Reason is given from above to guide us. If we stifle it, it will not go unpunished. And the death of reason is the most terrible death (italics mine) ". "Gospel miracles could not have happened, because they violate the laws of the reason through which we understand life, miracles are not needed, because they cannot convince anyone of anything. In the same wild and superstitious environment in which Christ lived and acted, Traditions about miracles could not help but develop, as they, without ceasing, and in our time, are easily formed in the superstitious environment of the people. “You ask me about Theosophy. I myself was interested in this teaching, but, unfortunately, it admits the miraculous; and the slightest assumption of the miraculous already deprives religion of that simplicity and clarity that are characteristic of a true relationship to God and neighbor. there are many very good things, both in the teachings of the mystics, and even in spiritualism, but one must beware of it. The main thing, I think, is that those people who need the miraculous do not yet understand the completely true, simple Christian teaching." “In order for a person to know what He Who sent him into the world wants from him, He put in him a mind, through which a person can always, if he wants it exactly, know the will of God, i.e. then what He who sent him into the world wants from him ... If we stick to what reason tells us, then we will all unite, because everyone has one mind and only mind unites people and does not interfere with the manifestation of love inherent in people to friend". "The mind is older and more reliable than all scriptures and traditions, it was already when there were no traditions and scriptures, and it is given to each of us directly from God. The words of the Gospel that all sins will be forgiven, but not blasphemy against the Holy Spirit , in my opinion, refer directly to the assertion that reason should not be believed in. Indeed, if you do not believe the reason given to us by God, then whom to believe? Really those people who want to force us to believe what is not in accordance with the reason given by God. and it is impossible.” “It would be possible to ask God and come up with means of how to improve ourselves only when some obstacles were put up for this work and we ourselves would not have the strength for this.” “We are here, in this world , as in an inn, in which the owner arranged everything that we, travelers, definitely needed, and left himself, leaving instructions on how to behave in this temporary shelter. Everything we need is at our fingertips; so what else can we invent and what to ask for? Just to do what we are told. So it is in our spiritual world - everything we need is given, and it's up to us." "There is no more immoral and harmful teaching than that a person cannot improve on his own." cannot approach the truth by his own efforts, comes from the same terrible superstition, as well as the one according to which a person cannot approach the fulfillment of the will of God without help from outside. The essence of this superstition is that the complete, perfect truth is allegedly revealed by God himself ... Superstition is terrible ... Man ceases to believe in the only means of knowing the truth - the efforts of his mind. "Apart from the mind, no truth can enter the human soul" "Reasonable and moral always coincide. " "Faith in communication with the souls of the dead to such an extent, not to mention the fact that I do not need it at all, violates everything that is based on reason, my worldview, to such an extent that, if I heard the voice of spirits or saw their manifestation, I would turn to a psychiatrist, asking him to help my obvious brain disorder. "You say," writes L.N. to the priest S.K., - that since a person is a person, then God is also a Person. It seems to me that a person's consciousness of himself as a personality is a person's consciousness of his limitations. Any limitation is incompatible with the concept of God. If we assume that God is a Personality, then the natural consequence of this will be, as it always happened in all primitive religions, the attribution of human properties to God ... Such an understanding of God as a Personality and such His law, expressed in any book, is completely impossible for me." One could cite many more passages from various works L. Tolstoy to confirm my view of Tolstoy's religion, but this is enough.

It is clear that the religion of Leo Tolstoy is a religion of self-salvation, salvation by natural and human forces. Therefore, this religion does not need a Savior, does not know the Sons of Hypostasis. L. Tolstoy wants to be saved by virtue of his personal merits, and not by the expiatory power of the bloody sacrifice offered by the Son of God for the sins of the world. The pride of L. Tolstoy is that he does not need the grace-filled help of God to fulfill the will of God. The fundamental thing in L. Tolstoy is that he does not need redemption, since he does not know sin, does not see the invincibility of evil in a natural way. He does not need a Redeemer and Savior and is alien, like no one else, to the religion of redemption and salvation. He considers the idea of ​​redemption the main obstacle to the implementation of the law of the Father-Master. Christ, as the Savior and Redeemer, as "the way, the truth and the life," is not only unnecessary, but hinders the fulfillment of the commandments that Tolstoy considers Christian. L. Tolstoy understands the New Testament as a law, a commandment, a rule of the Father-Host, i.e. understands it as the Old Testament. He does not yet know the mystery of the New Testament, that in the Son's hypostasis, in Christ, there is no longer law and subordination, but there is grace and freedom. L. Tolstoy, as living exclusively in the Hypostasis of the Father, in the Old Testament and paganism, could never comprehend the mystery that not the commandments of Christ, not the teachings of Christ, but Christ Himself, His mysterious Person, is "the truth, the path and the life." The religion of Christ is the doctrine of Christ, and not the doctrine of Christ. The doctrine of Christ, i.e. the religion of Christ has always been madness for L. Tolstoy, he treated it like a pagan. Here we come to another, no less clear side of L. Tolstoy's religion. It is a religion within reason, a rationalistic religion that rejects all mysticism, all mystery, all miracles as contrary to reason, as madness. This reasonable religion is close to rationalist Protestantism, Kant and Harnack. Tolstoy is a crude rationalist in relation to dogmas, his criticism of dogmas is elementary and rational. He triumphantly rejects the dogma of the Trinity of the Godhead on the simple ground that it cannot be equal. He directly says that the religion of Christ, the Son of God, Redeemer and Savior, is madness. He is an implacable enemy of the miraculous, the mysterious. He rejects the very idea of ​​revelation as nonsense. It is almost unbelievable that such a brilliant artist and a brilliant person, such a religious nature, was possessed by such a crude and elementary rationalism, such a demon of rationality. It is monstrous that such a giant as L. Tolstoy reduced Christianity to the fact that Christ teaches not to do stupid things, teaches prosperity on earth. The ingenious religious nature of L. Tolstoy is in the grip of elementary rationality and elementary utilitarianism. As a religious person, this is a dumb genius who does not have the gift of the Word. And this incomprehensible mystery of his personality is connected with the fact that his whole being abides in the Father's Hypostasis and in the soul of the world, outside the Son's Hypostasis, outside the Logos. L. Tolstoy was not only a religious nature, burning with religious thirst all his life, he was also a mystical nature, in a special sense. There is mysticism in "War and Peace", in "Cossacks", in its relation to the primary elements of life; there is mysticism in his very life, in his destiny. But this mysticism never meets the Logos, i.e. can never be realized. In his religious and mystical life, Tolstoy never encounters Christianity. The non-Christian nature of Tolstoy is artistically revealed by Merezhkovsky. But what Merezhkovsky wanted to say about Tolstoy also remained outside the Logos, and he did not pose the Christian question of the individual.

It is very easy to confuse Tolstoy's asceticism with Christian asceticism. It was often said that in his moral asceticism L. Tolstoy is flesh and blood from the blood of historical Christianity. Some said this in defense of Tolstoy, others blamed him for it. But it must be said that L. Tolstoy's asceticism has very little in common with Christian asceticism. If we take Christian asceticism in its mystical essence, then it has never been a preaching of the impoverishment of life, simplification, descent. Christian asceticism always has in mind the infinitely rich mystical world, the highest stage of being. In the moral asceticism of Tolstoy there is nothing mystical, there are no riches of other worlds. How different is the asceticism of poor St. Francis of God from Tolstoy's simplification! Franciscanism is full of beauty, and there is nothing in it that resembles Tolstoy's moralism. From St. Francis was born the beauty of the early Renaissance. Poverty was for him a Beautiful Lady. Tolstoy didn't have beautiful lady. He preached the impoverishment of life in the name of a happier, more prosperous order of life on earth. He is alien to the idea of ​​a messianic feast, which mystically inspires Christian asceticism. The moral asceticism of L. Tolstoy is populist asceticism, so characteristic of Russia. We have developed a special type of asceticism, not mystical asceticism, but populist asceticism, asceticism in the name of the good of the people on earth. This asceticism is found in the form of the lordly, among the penitent nobles, and in the form of the intelligentsia, among the populist intellectuals. This asceticism is usually associated with the persecution of beauty, metaphysics and mysticism as an unlawful, immoral luxury. This asceticism religiously leads to iconoclasm, to the denial of the symbolism of the cult. L. Tolstoy was an iconoclast. Icon veneration and all the symbolism of the cult associated with it seemed an immoral, impermissible luxury, forbidden by his moral and ascetic consciousness. L. Tolstoy does not admit that there are sacred luxury and sacred wealth. Beauty seemed to the brilliant artist an immoral luxury, wealth, not allowed by the Master of life. The master of life gave the law of good, and only good is a value, only good is divine. The master of life did not set before man and the world perfect image beauty as the supreme goal of being. Beauty is from the evil one, only the moral law is from the Father. L. Tolstoy is a persecutor of beauty in the name of goodness. He affirms the exclusive predominance of good not only over beauty, but also over truth. In the name of exceptional goodness, he denies not only aesthetics, but also metaphysics and mysticism as ways of knowing the truth. And beauty and truth-luxury, wealth. The feast of aesthetics and the feast of metaphysics are forbidden by the Master of life. One must live by the simple law of goodness, by exceptional morality. Never has moralism been carried to such extreme limits as in Tolstoy's. Moralism becomes terrible, it makes you suffocate. For beauty and truth are no less divine than good, no less valuable. Good does not dare to dominate truth and beauty, beauty and truth are no less close to God, to the Primary Source than good. Exceptional, abstract moralism, taken to its extreme limits, raises the question of what can be demonic good, good, destroying being, lowering the level of being. If there can be demonic beauty and demonic knowledge, then there can be demonic goodness. Christianity, taken in its mystical depths, not only does not deny beauty, but creates an unprecedented, new beauty, not only does not deny gnosis, but creates a higher gnosis. Beauty and gnosis are rather denied by rationalists and positivists, and often do so in the name of illusory goodness. The moralism of L. Tolstoy is connected with his religion of self-salvation, with the denial of the ontological meaning of redemption. But Tolstoy's ascetic moralism has only one side directed towards the impoverishment and suppression of being, while with its other side it is turned towards the new world and boldly denies evil.

In Tolstoy's moralism there is an inertly conservative beginning and there is a revolutionary rebellious beginning. L. Tolstoy, with unprecedented strength and radicalism, rose up against the hypocrisy of a quasi-Christian society, against the lies of a quasi-Christian state. He brilliantly exposed the monstrous untruth and the deadness of state-owned, official Christianity, he set a mirror in front of the feigned and deadly Christian society and made people with a sensitive conscience horrified. As a religious critic and as a seeker L. Tolstoy will forever remain great and dear. But Tolstoy's strength in the matter of religious rebirth is exclusively negative and critical. He did an immeasurable amount to awaken from religious hibernation, but not to deepen religious consciousness. However, it must be remembered that L. Tolstoy addressed with his quests and criticism to a society that was either openly atheistic, or hypocritically and feignedly Christian, or simply indifferent. This society could not be damaged religiously, it was completely damaged. And the deadly-everyday, outward-ritual Orthodoxy was useful and important to disturb and excite. L. Tolstoy is the most consistent and most extreme anarchist-idealist that the history of human thought only knows. It is very easy to refute Tolstoy's anarchism; this anarchism combines extreme rationalism with real madness. But the world needed Tolstoy's anarchist revolt. The "Christian" world was so lied to in its foundations that there was an irrational need for such a revolt. I think that it is precisely Tolstoy's anarchism, essentially untenable, that is purifying and its significance is enormous. Tolstoy's anarchist revolt marks the crisis of historical Christianity, a turning point in the life of the Church. This rebellion anticipates the coming Christian revival. And it remains a mystery to us, rationally incomprehensible, why the cause of the Christian rebirth was served by a person who was alien to Christianity, who was entirely in the elements of the Old Testament, pre-Christian. The last fate of Tolstoy remains a mystery known only to God. It's not for us to judge. L. Tolstoy himself excommunicated himself from the Church, and the fact of his excommunication by the Russian Holy Synod pales before this fact. We must directly and openly say that L. Tolstoy has nothing in common with the Christian consciousness, that the “Christianity” invented by him has nothing in common with that genuine Christianity, for which the image of Christ is invariably preserved in the Church of Christ. But we dare not say anything about the last secret of his final relationship to the Church and about what happened to him at the hour of death. As for humanity, we know that with his criticism, his searches, his life, L. Tolstoy awakened the world, religiously dormant and dead. Several generations of Russian people passed through Tolstoy, grew up under his influence, and God forbid this influence be identified with "Tolstoyism" - a very limited phenomenon. Without Tolstoy's criticism and Tolstoy's quest, we would be worse off and wake up later. Without L. Tolstoy, the question of the vital, and not the rhetorical meaning of Christianity would not have become so acute. The Old Testament truth of Tolstoy was needed by the lied Christian world. We also know that without L. Tolstoy Russia is unthinkable and that Russia cannot refuse him. We love Leo Tolstoy like our motherland. Our grandfathers, our land is in "War and Peace". He is our wealth, our luxury, he is not fond of wealth and luxury. The life of L. Tolstoy is a brilliant fact in the life of Russia. And everything ingenious is providential. The recent "departure" of L. Tolstoy excited the whole of Russia and the whole world. That was a brilliant "care". That was the end of Tolstoy's anarchist revolt. Before his death, L. Tolstoy became a wanderer, broke away from the earth, to which he was chained by the whole burden of life. At the end of his life, the great old man turned to mysticism, mystical notes sound stronger and drown out his rationalism. He was preparing for the last coup.

In this novel, a whole series of vivid and varied pictures, painted with the most majestic and imperturbable epic calmness, raises and solves the question of what is done with human minds and characters under such conditions that enable people to do without knowledge, without thoughts, without energy. and labor .... It is very likely that the author simply wants to draw a series of pictures from the life of the Russian nobility during the time of Alexander I. He himself sees and tries to show others clearly, to the smallest details and shades, all the features that characterize the time and the people of that time, - people of the circle that is more and more interesting to him or accessible to his study. He tries only to be truthful and accurate; his efforts do not tend to support or refute any theoretical idea created by images; he, in all likelihood, treats the subject of his long and careful research with that involuntary and natural tenderness that a gifted historian usually feels for the distant or near past, resurrected under his hands; he perhaps finds in the features of this past, in the figures and characters of the personalities drawn, in the concepts and habits of the depicted society, many features worthy of love and respect. All this is possible, all this is even very likely. But precisely because the author has spent a lot of time, labor and love on studying and depicting the era and its representatives, precisely because its representatives live their own lives, independent of the author’s intentions, enter into direct relations with themselves with readers, speak for themselves and irresistibly lead the reader to such thoughts and conclusions that the author did not have in mind and which he, perhaps, would not even approve of ... ( From an article by D.I. Pisarev "Old nobility")

Count Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" is interesting for the military in a twofold sense: by describing the scenes of military and military life and by striving to draw some conclusions regarding the theory of military affairs. The first, that is, the scenes, are inimitable and ... can constitute one of the most useful additions to any course in the theory of military art; the latter, that is, the conclusions, do not withstand the most condescending criticism due to their one-sidedness, although they are interesting as a transitional stage in the development of the author's views on military affairs ...

In the foreground is a domestic peaceful-military picture; but what! Ten battle paintings of the the best master, most big size you can give for it. We boldly say that not a single military man, having read it, involuntarily said to himself: yes, he copied it from our regiment.

The battle scenes of Count Tolstoy are no less instructive: the entire inner side of the battle, unknown to most military theorists and peace-military practitioners, and meanwhile giving success or failure, comes to the fore in his magnificently relief paintings. The difference between his descriptions of battles and descriptions of historical battles is the same as between the landscape and the topographical plan: the first gives less, gives from one point, but makes it more accessible to the eye and heart of a person. The second gives any local object from a large number of sides, gives the area for tens of miles, but gives in a conditional drawing, which in appearance has nothing in common with the objects depicted; and therefore everything on it is dead, lifeless, even to the prepared eye... The moral physiognomy of the leading personalities, their struggle with themselves and with those around them, preceding any determination, all this disappears - and something remains from the fact that has been formed from thousands of human lives. like a badly worn coin: outlines are visible, but what kind of face? The best numismatist does not recognize. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are extremely rare and, in any case, far from bringing events to life in front of you in the way that a landscape event brings them to life, that is, representing what an observant person could see at a given moment from one point ...

Tolstoy's heroes are fictional, but living people; they suffer, perish, do great deeds, cowardly: all this is just like real people; and for this reason they are highly instructive, and for this reason that military leader will be worthy of pity who, thanks to Tolstoy’s story, does not kill himself, how imprudently it is to draw gentlemen like Zherkov closer to him, how keenly one must look closely in order to see the Tushins, Timokhins in the real light; how permeably cautious one must be so as not to make some kind of Zherkov a hero or a nameless regimental commander who was serviceable and so smart and efficient after the battle ... ( M.I. Dragomirov. "War and Peace" by Count Tolstoy from a military point of view)

Documents testify that Tolstoy did not have the gift of easy creativity, he was one of the most exalted, most patient, most diligent workers, and his grandiose world frescoes are an artistic and labor mosaic, composed of an infinite number of multi-colored pieces, from a million tiny individual observations. Behind the seeming easy straightforwardness lies the most persistent handicraft work - not a dreamer, but a slow, objective, patient master who, like the old German painters, carefully primed the canvas, deliberately measured the area, carefully outlined the contours and lines, and then applied paint after paint before meaningful by the distribution of light and shadow, give vital illumination to your epic story. Two thousand pages of the enormous epic "War and Peace" were copied seven times; sketches and notes filled large drawers. Every historical trifle, every semantic detail is substantiated by selected documents; in order to give the description of the Battle of Borodino real accuracy, Tolstoy travels for two days with a map of the General Staff of the battlefield, travels many miles along railway in order to get one or another decorating detail from some surviving participant in the war. He digs up not only all books, searches not only all libraries, but even turns to noble families and archives for forgotten documents and private letters in order to find a grain of truth in them. So, for years, small balls of mercury are collected - tens, hundreds of thousands of small observations, until they begin to merge into a rounded, pure, perfect form. And only then the struggle for truth is over, the search for clarity begins ... One bulging phrase, an inappropriate adjective, caught among tens of thousands of lines - and in horror, following the sent proofs, he telegraphs the madam to Moscow and demands to stop the car, to satisfy the tonality of a syllable that did not satisfy him. This first proof-reading again enters the retort of the spirit, once again melts and pours back into the form - no, if for someone art was not easy work, then it is precisely for him, whose art seems natural to us. For ten years Tolstoy has been working eight, ten hours a day; it is not surprising that even this husband, possessing the strongest nerves, is psychologically depressed after each of his big novels ...

Tolstoy's accuracy in observations is not connected with any gradations in relation to the creatures of the earth: there are no predilections in his love. Napoleon, to his incorruptible gaze, is no more a man than any of his soldiers, and this latter again is no more important and no more essential than the dog that runs after him, or the stone that she touches with her paw. Everything in the earthly circle - man and mass, plants and animals, men and women, old men and children, generals and peasants - flows with crystal clear uniformity into his senses, in order to also, in the same order, pour out. This gives his art a resemblance to the eternal uniformity of incorruptible nature and his epic - a marine monotonous and still the same magnificent rhythm, always reminiscent of Homer ... ( S. Zweig. From the book “Three singers of their lives. Casanova. Stendhal. Tolstoy")

That Tolstoy loves nature and depicts it with such skill, to which, it seems, no one has ever risen, this is known to everyone who has read his works. Nature is not described, but lives with our great artist. Sometimes she is even, as it were, one of the characters in the story: remember the incomparable scene of the Rostovs' Christmas skating in "War and Peace" ...

The beauty of nature finds in Tolstoy the most sympathetic connoisseur... But this extremely sensitive person, who feels how the beauty of nature pours through his eyes into his soul, does not admire just any beautiful area. Tolstoy loves only such views of nature that awaken in him the consciousness of his unity with her ... ( G.V. Plekhanov. "Tolstoy and nature")

And with less development of creative forces and artistic features, a historical novel from an era so close to modern society would arouse the intense attention of the public. The venerable author knew very well that he would touch on the still fresh memories of his contemporaries and respond to many of their needs and secret sympathies when he based his novel on a characterization of our high society and the main political figures of the era of Alexander I, with the undisguised goal of building this characterization on the revealing evidence of legends. , rumors, folk dialect and notes of eyewitnesses. The work ahead of him was not unimportant, but in the highest degree grateful ...

The author belongs to the number of dedicated. He owns the knowledge of their language and uses it to open under all forms of secularism the abyss of frivolity, insignificance, deceit, sometimes completely rude, wild and ferocious inclinations. There is one thing that is most remarkable. The faces of this circle are as if under some kind of vow that condemned them to a heavy punishment - never to comprehend any of their assumptions, plans and aspirations. As if driven by an unknown hostile force, they run past the goals that they themselves set for themselves, and if they achieve something, it is always not what they expected ... They fail at nothing, everything falls out of their hands ... Young Pierre Bezukhov, capable of understanding goodness and moral dignity, marries a woman who is as dissolute as she is stupid by nature. Prince Bolkonsky, with all the makings of a serious mind and development, chooses as his wife a kind and empty secular doll, which is the misfortune of his life, although he has no reason to complain about her; his sister, Princess Maria, escapes from the yoke of her father’s despotic habits and the constantly solitary village life into a warm and bright religious feeling, which ends with connections with vagabond saints, etc. This deplorable story returns so insistently in the novel with the best people of the described society, that at the end, with every picture of a young and fresh life beginning somewhere, with every story about a gratifying phenomenon that promises a serious or instructive outcome, the reader takes fear and doubt: behold, they will deceive all hopes, will voluntarily betray their content and turn into the impenetrable sands of emptiness and vulgarity, where they will disappear. And the reader is almost never wrong; they really turn there and disappear there. But, one wonders - what a merciless hand and for what sins weighed down on all this environment ... What happened? Apparently, nothing much happened. Society lives imperturbably on the same serfdom as its ancestors; Catherine's loan banks are open to him in the same way as before; the doors to the acquisition of fortune and to the ruin of oneself in the service are just as wide open, letting in all who have the right to pass through them; finally, no new figures interrupting the road, spoiling his life and confusing his ideas, are not shown in Tolstoy's novel at all. Why, however, this society, which even at the end of the last century believed in itself without limits, was distinguished by the strength of its composition and easily coped with life - now, according to the author, cannot arrange it at will, has broken up into circles that almost despise each other, and is struck by the impotence that prevents his best people from even defining themselves and clear goals for spiritual activity ... ( P.V. Annenkov. "Historical and aesthetic questions in the novel "War and Peace"")

Extraordinary powers of observation, subtle analysis of spiritual movements, distinctness and poetry in pictures of nature, elegant simplicity are the hallmarks of Count Tolstoy's talent... The image of an internal monologue, without exaggeration, can be called amazing. And, in our opinion, that side of Count Tolstoy's talent, which makes it possible for him to catch these psychic monologues, constitutes in his talent a special, peculiar strength only to him ... A special feature in Count Tolstoy's talent is so original that one must peer with great attention her, and only then will we understand its full importance for the artistic merit of his works. Psychological analysis is perhaps the most essential of the qualities that give strength to creative talent... Of course, this ability must be innate by nature, like any other ability; but it would not be enough to dwell on this too general explanation: talent develops only independently (by moral) activity, and in this activity, the extraordinary energy of which is evidenced by the peculiarity of the works of Count Tolstoy we noticed, we must see the basis of the strength acquired by his talent.

We are talking about self-deepening, about striving for tireless observation of oneself. The laws of human action, the play of passions, the concatenation of events, the influence of events and relationships, we can study by carefully observing other people; but all the knowledge acquired in this way will have neither depth nor precision unless we study the most secret laws of mental life, the play of which is open to us only in our (own) self-consciousness. Whoever has not studied man in himself will never reach a deep knowledge of people. That feature of Count Tolstoy's talent, which we spoke about above, proves that he studied the secrets of human spirit in oneself; this knowledge is precious, not only because it enabled him to paint pictures of the inner movements of human thought, to which we drew the attention of the reader, but also, perhaps more because it gave him a solid basis for studying human life in general, to unravel the characters and springs of action, the struggle of passions and impressions ...

There is yet another force in Mr. Tolstoy's talent, which imparts to his works a special dignity with its extremely remarkable freshness - the purity of moral feeling ... Public morality has never reached such a high level as in our noble time - noble and beautiful, despite the remnants of decrepit dirt, because it strains all its forces in order to wash itself and be cleansed of hereditary sins... The beneficial effect of this trait of talent is not limited to those stories or episodes in which it prominently comes to the fore: it constantly serves as a quickener, a refresher of talent . What in the world is more poetic, more charming than a pure youthful soul, responding with joyful love to everything that seems to her sublime and noble, pure and beautiful, like herself? ..

Count Tolstoy has a true talent. This means that his works are artistic, that is, in each of them the very idea that he wanted to implement in this work is very fully realized. He never says anything superfluous, because that would be contrary to the conditions of artistry, he never disfigures his works with an admixture of scenes and figures that are alien to the idea of ​​the work. This is one of the main virtues of art. It takes a lot of taste to appreciate the beauty of the works of Count Tolstoy, but on the other hand, a person who knows how to understand true beauty, true poetry, sees in Count Tolstoy a real artist, that is, a poet with remarkable talent. ( N.G. Chernyshevsky. “Military stories of L.N. Tolstoy")

The images of human personalities by L. Tolstoy resemble those semi-convex human bodies in high reliefs, which, it seems sometimes, are about to separate from the plane in which they are sculptured and which holds them, finally come out and stand in front of us, like perfect statues, visible from all sides , tangible; but this is an optical illusion. They will never completely separate, they will not become completely round from semicircular ones - we will never see them from the other side.

In the image of Platon Karataev, the artist made the impossible seem to be possible: he managed to define a living, or at least for a while, seeming living personality in impersonality, in the absence of any definite features and sharp corners, in a special “roundness”, the impression of which is strikingly visual, even as if the geometric arises, however, not so much from the internal, spiritual, but from the external, bodily appearance: Karataev has a “round body”, “round head”, “round movements”, “round speeches”, “something round even in the smell. He is a molecule; he is the first and the last, the least and the greatest, the beginning and the end. It does not exist by itself: it is only a part of the All, a drop in the ocean of universal, universal, universal life. And he reproduces this life with his personality or impersonality, just as a water drop reproduces the world sphere with its perfect roundness. Be that as it may, the miracle of art or the most ingenious deception of the eye is being accomplished, almost accomplished. Platon Karataev, despite his impersonality, seems to be personal, special, unique. But we would like to know it to the end, to see it from the other side. He is kind; but maybe he's been annoyed with someone for once in his life? he is chaste; but perhaps he looked at one woman differently from the other? but speaks in proverbs; but, perhaps, but inserted at least once into these sayings a word from himself? If only one word, one unforeseen dash broke this too regular, mathematically perfect "roundness" - and we would believe that he is a man of flesh and blood, that he is.

But, precisely at the moment of our closest and most greedy attention, Platon Karataev, as if on purpose, dies, disappears, dissolves like a water balloon in the ocean. And when he is even more determined in death, we are ready to admit that he could not have been determined in life, in human feelings, thoughts and actions: he did not live, but only was, precisely was, precisely was “completely round” and this fulfilled his purpose, so that he had only to die. And in our memory, just as in the memory of Pierre Bezukhov, Platon Karataev is forever imprinted not with a living face, but only with a living personification of everything Russian, good and “round”, that is, a huge, world-historical religious and moral symbol .... ( D.S. Merezhkovsky. From the treatise "L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, 1902)

The success and scale of the epic novel. Ambiguous responses and articles, criticism of the 4th "Borodino" volume and the philosophical chapters of the epilogue. Liberal criticism of Annenkov in the journal "Bulletin of Europe". Unity of scale in depicting different characters in Strakhov's articles.

Send your good work in the knowledge base is simple. Use the form below

Students, graduate students, young scientists who use the knowledge base in their studies and work will be very grateful to you.

Posted on http://www.allbest.ru/

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution of higher professional education

"Ryazan State University named after S.A. Yesenin"

Faculty of Russian Philology and National Culture

Department of Literature

Test

The controversy surrounding the novel by L.N. Tolstoy" War and Peace" (P.V.Annenkov, D.I.Pisarev, N.N.Strakhov)

Prepared by:

Somova Yu.A.

Ryazan

2015

Introduction

1. P.V. Annenkov about the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"

2. N.N. Strakhov about L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"

3. D.I. Pisarev about the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Art is a historical phenomenon,

consequently, its content is public,

the form is taken from the forms of nature ...

Already after the completion of the publication of the novel, by the beginning of the 70s. there were mixed reviews and articles. The critics became more and more strict, especially the 4th, "Borodino" volume and the philosophical chapters of the epilogue caused a lot of objections. But, nevertheless, the success and scale of the epic novel became more and more obvious - they manifested themselves even through disagreement or denial.

Writers' judgments of their colleagues' books are always of particular interest. After all, the writer considers someone else's artistic world through the prism of his own. Such a view, of course, is more subjective, but it can reveal unexpected sides and facets in the work that professional criticism does not see.

1. P.V. Annenkov about the novel by L.N. Tolstoy" War and Peace"

One of the first with an article on "War and Peace" was Pavel Vasilievich Annenkov, an old acquaintance of the writer since the mid-1950s. In his article, he revealed many features of Tolstoy's design.

Tolstoy boldly destroys the boundary between "romantic" and "historical" characters, Annenkov believes, drawing both in a similar psychological vein, that is, through everyday life: "The dazzling side of the novel lies precisely in the naturalness and simplicity with which it brings down world events and major events public life to the level and horizon of vision of any witness chosen by him ... Without any sign of the rape of life and its usual course, the novel establishes a permanent connection between the love and other adventures of its faces and Kutuzov, Bagration, between historical facts of enormous importance - Shengraben, Austerlitz and the unrest of the Moscow aristocratic circle ... ".

“First of all, it should be noted that the author adheres to the first life of any artistic narrative: he does not try to extract from the subject of description what he cannot do, and therefore does not deviate a single step from a simple mental study of it.”

However, the critic found it difficult to discover in "War and Peace" the "knot of romantic intrigue" and found it difficult to determine "who should be considered the main characters of the novel": "It can be assumed that we were not the only ones who, after the delightful impressions of the novel, had to ask: where is he himself, this novel, where did he put his real business - the development of a private incident, his "plot" and "intrigue", because without them, no matter what the novel does, it will still seem like an idle novel.

But, finally, the critic perceptively noticed the connection of Tolstoy's heroes not only with the past, but also with the present: "Prince Andrei Bolkonsky introduces into his criticism of current affairs and in general into his views on his contemporaries the ideas and ideas that have been formed about them in our time. He has the gift of foresight, which came to him like an inheritance, without difficulty, and the ability to stand above his age, received very cheaply. He thinks and judges reasonably, but not with the mind of his era, but with another, later one, which was revealed to him by a benevolent author. Annenkov ended his article by stating that "War and Peace" "constitutes an epoch in the history of Russian fiction." Here he closely converged with the assessment of the novel by I. N. Strakhov. “War and Peace is a work of genius, equal to all the best and truly great that Russian literature has produced,” Strakhov wrote in a short note in Literary News, announcing the release of Volume 5. In a critical article written after the release of the entire epic novel, Strakhov stated: “It is quite clear that since 1868, that is, from the appearance of War and Peace, the composition of what is actually called Russian literature, that is, the composition of our fiction writers, Count L. N. Tolstoy took first place in this composition, a place immeasurably high, placing him far above the level of the rest of literature: Western literature at the present time does not represent anything equal and even nothing close to what what we now have."

An intermediate position, as always, was occupied by liberal criticism. P. Annenkov, in an article published in 1868 in the liberal journal Vestnik Evropy No. 2, noted Tolstoy's extraordinary skill in depicting scenes of military life and the psychology of a person in war, the complexity of the composition, which organically combines historical narrative with a story about the private life of heroes.

2. N.N. Strakhov about L.N. Tolstoy" War and Peace"

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (pseudonym - Kositsa) is the most active critic of the "soil" trend. If A. Grigoriev was a bridge from "neo-Slavophilism" to "pochvennichestvo", then Strakhov was a bridge from "pochvenniki" to the symbolists.

N.N. Strakhov paused before speaking about the work. His first articles on the novel appeared at the beginning of 1869, when many opponents had already expressed their point of view.

Strakhov rejects the reproaches of the "elitism" of Tolstoy's book, which were made by a variety of critics: "Despite the fact that one family is a count and the other is a prince, War and Peace does not have even a shadow of a high society character ... The Rostov family and the Bolkonsky family, according to their inner life, according to the relations of their members, they are the same Russian families as any others. Unlike some other critics of the novel, N.N. Strakhov does not utter the truth, but seeks it.

"The idea of ​​War and Peace," the critic believes, "can be formulated in various ways. It can be said, for example, that the guiding thought of the work is the idea of ​​a heroic life."

"But the heroic life does not exhaust the author's tasks. His subject is obviously wider. The main idea that he is guided by when depicting heroic phenomena is to discover their human basis, to show people in heroes." This is how the main principle of Tolstoy's approach to history is formulated: the unity of scale, in the depiction of different characters. Therefore, Strakhov fits the image of Napoleon in a very special way. He convincingly demonstrates why this artistic image the French commander was needed in "War and Peace": "So, in the face of Napoleon, the artist seemed to want to present to us the human soul in its blindness, he wanted to show that a heroic life can contradict true human dignity, that goodness, truth and beauty can be much more accessible to simple and small people than to other great heroes.A simple person, a simple life, are placed above heroism in this - both in dignity and in strength; for simple Russian people with such hearts as those of Nikolai Rostov, Timokhin and Tushin, won Napoleon and his great army."

These formulations are very close to Tolstoy's future words about "people's thought" as the main one in "War and Peace".

3. D.I. Pisarev about the novel by L.N. Tolstoy" War and Peace"

Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev rightfully considered the "third", after Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, the great Russian critic of the sixties. The fact that he occasionally argued with Sovremennik in The Russian Word (1861-1866) does not in the least change the basic idea of ​​him as a theoretician and defender of the realistic trend in Russian literature.

D.I. Pisarev spoke positively about the novel: "The new, yet unfinished novel by Count L. Tolstoy can be called an exemplary work in terms of the pathology of Russian society."

He considered the novel as a reflection of the Russian, old nobility.

"The novel "War and Peace" presents us with a whole bunch of diverse and excellently finished characters, male and female, old and young." In his work "The Old Nobility" he very clearly and fully analyzed the characters of not only the main, but also the secondary characters of the work, thereby expressing his point of view.

With the publication of the first volumes of the work, responses began to arrive not only from Russia, but also abroad. The first large critical article appeared in France more than a year and a half after the publication of Paskevich's translation - in August 1881. The author of the article, Adolf Baden, managed to give only a detailed and enthusiastic retelling of "War and Peace" over almost two printed sheets. Only in conclusion did he make a few remarks of an appraisal nature.

Noteworthy are the early responses to the work of Leo Tolstoy in Italy. It was in Italy at the beginning of 1869 that one of the first articles in the foreign press and "War and Peace" appeared. It was a "correspondence from St. Petersburg" signed by M.A. and entitled "Count Leo Tolstoy and his novel "Peace and War". Its author spoke in an unfriendly tone about the "realistic school" to which Leo Tolstoy belongs.

In Germany, as in France, as in Italy, the name of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy by the end of the last century fell into the orbit of a sharp political struggle. The growing popularity of Russian literature in Germany caused anxiety and irritation among the ideologists of imperialist reaction.

The first detailed review of War and Peace to appear in English was by critic and translator William Rolston. His article, published in April 1879 in the English magazine "The Nineteenth Century", and then reprinted in the USA, was called "The Novels of Count Leo Tolstoy", but in fact it was, first of all, a retelling of the contents of "War and Peace" - namely retelling, not analysis. Rolston, who spoke Russian, tried to give the English public at least an initial idea of ​​​​L.N. Tolstoy.

Conclusion

As we can see, during the first publications, the novel was characterized by different authors in different ways. Many tried to express their understanding of the novel, but not many were able to feel its essence. A great work requires great and deep thought. The epic novel "War and Peace" allows you to think about many principles and ideals.

A work of enormous scale, deeply original in content and form, War and Peace did not find a complete and quite worthy assessment in the criticism of the 60s, despite the fact that many newspapers and magazines immediately after the release of the first volumes and at the exit of each of the subsequent ones responded to his appearance. The novel was a huge success with readers and all outstanding writers- by Tolstoy's contemporaries - was greeted as an unprecedented work in Russian literature. The universality of this high appraisal was confirmed in his review by I. A. Goncharov, who said that with the appearance of War and Peace, Tolstoy became "a real lion of Russian literature." novel Borodinsky criticism of the Annenkovs

List of used literature

1. Annenkov P.V. Critical Essays. - SPb., 2000. S. 123-125, 295-296, 351-376.

2. Bocharov S.G. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace". - M., 1978. S. 5.

3. War over War and Peace. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S. 8-9, 21-23, 25-26.

4. Writer and criticism of the XIX century. Kuibyshev, 1987, pp. 106-107.

5. Tolstoy L.N. War and Peace. - M., 1981. - T. 2. - S. 84-85.

6. http://www.kniga.ru/books/258864

7. http://www.livelib.ru/book/1000017639

8. http://bookz.ru/authors/pavel-annenkov/istori4e_066/1-istori4e_066.html

Hosted on Allbest.ru

Similar Documents

L. Tolstoy's work on the novel "War and Peace". The complex structure of the content of the epic novel. The main characteristics of the language, semantic and stylistic accents, causal (causal) phrase, the interaction of figurative and expressive means.

term paper, added 05/01/2009


Determination of the main features of the psychological style of L.N. Tolstoy in the image inner peace heroes of constant movement, development. Consideration of the "dialectics of the soul" as the leading method of recreating the spiritual life of the characters in the novel "War and Peace".

abstract, added 03/23/2010


Stages of life and ideological and creative development of the great Russian writer Leo Tolstoy. Rules and program of Tolstoy. The history of the creation of the novel "War and Peace", features of its problems. The meaning of the title of the novel, its characters and composition.

presentation, added 01/17/2013


The study of the history of the creation of the novel "Sunday", its place in the work of L.N. Tolstoy. Characterization of the artistic and ideological and thematic specificity of the novel in the context of the philosophical currents of the era. Analysis of the problems raised by the writer in his work.

term paper, added 04/22/2011


Life and creative way L. Tolstoy. Ideological and artistic analysis of the epic novel "War and Peace" as a response to the cultural and spiritual situation that has developed in post-reform Russia: the image of the era of breaking the foundations of life, the selfishness of the interests of society.

abstract, added 06/20/2010


Russian criticism of the novel "Oblomov" (D.N. Ovsyaniko-Kulikovsky, N.F. Dobrolyubov, D. Pisarev). Evaluation of Oblomov's character by Yu. Loshchits. The love story of Oblomov and Olga in modern literary criticism, its place and significance in the plot space of the novel.

term paper, added 07/13/2014


The concept and classification of metaphor, its use in a literary text. Features of its creation and functioning in the structure of L.N. Tolstoy "Resurrection". metaphorical characteristics of the characters. Image of objects of the world of culture and nature.

thesis, added 03/20/2011


The first accurate evidence dating the beginning of the work of L.N. Tolstoy on the novel "War and Peace". The war of liberation waged by the Russian people against foreign invaders. Variants of the beginning of the novel. Description of the events of the Patriotic War of 1812.

presentation, added 05/04/2016


Studying the novel literary genre, its originality and stages of development at the present stage, requirements and features, prerequisites for prevalence. Constitutive features of the epic and characteristics of the epic man. Relationship between novel and epic.

summary of the work, added 07/04/2009


The idea and intention of the work. Birth, ideological and thematic originality of the epic novel. Characters of the main characters and their evolution. The novel "War and Peace" and its characters in the assessments literary criticism, opinions of various writers and critics about the work.

Author of the article: Weil P.
When the first part of "War and Peace" was published in the "Russian Messenger" in 1865 - then the novel was still called "1805" - Turgenev wrote to a friend: "To my true chagrin, I must admit that this novel seems to me positively bad , boring and unsuccessful. Tolstoy did not go into his monastery - and all his shortcomings bulged out. All these little things, cunningly noticed and pretentiously expressed, petty psychological remarks that he, under the pretext of "truth", picks out from under the armpits and other dark places of his heroes - how scanty it all is on the wide canvas of a historical novel!
This one of the earliest assessments (later Turgenev changed his mind) turned out to be prophetic to a certain extent. Descendants, by no means condemning the "stuff", perceived "War and Peace" precisely and primarily as a historical novel, as a wide epic canvas, only incidentally noting small details - like the heavy tread of Princess Marya or the little princess's mustaches - as techniques portrait features.
In the case of Tolstoy's novel, the effect of monumental painting affected. Contemporary Turgenev still stood too close and looked at individual strokes. Over the years, from a distance, "War and Peace" finally turned into a huge fresco, on which, God forbid, to distinguish the overall composition and catch the flow of the plot - the nuances in the fresco are invisible and therefore insignificant.
Probably, this is why the monument erected by Tolstoy so encouraged the temptation of imitation. Russian literature does not know such an example: practically everything that is written in Russian about the war bears the stamp of Tolstoy's influence; almost every work that claims to be an epic (at least in terms of temporal coverage, in terms of the number of characters) came out of War and Peace in one way or another. This impact was experienced by writers of such varying degrees talents such as Fadeev, Sholokhov, Simonov, Solzhenitsyn, Grossman, Vladimov and others, less noticeable (the only obvious exception is Pasternak's Doctor Zhivago, who followed the poetic tradition.) Following Tolstoy bribed with apparent simplicity: it was enough to master the basic principles - historicism, nationality , psychologism - and lead the story, evenly alternating characters and storylines.
However, "War and Peace" still stands in our literature as a lonely pinnacle of a grandiose novel in its scope, which - above all - is incredibly exciting to read. With all the historicism and psychologism, even in some kind of fifth reading, I really want to simply, like a reader, find out what will happen next, what will happen to the heroes. Tolstoy's book is captivating, and one gets the feeling that the author was also carried away by his narration in exactly the same way - when suddenly phrases burst onto the pages as if from action-packed novels of a romantic nature: “Despite his seemingly slight build, Prince Andrei could endure physical fatigue much better than most strong people." Or: “Prince Andrei was one of the best dancers of his time. Natasha danced superbly."
These infrequent inclusions in "War and Peace" are nevertheless not accidental. Tolstoy's book is full of admiration for the characters and admiration for the beauty of man. What is remarkable - more masculine beauty than feminine. In fact, there is only one unconditional beauty in the novel - Helen Bezukhova, but she is also one of the most repulsive characters, the personification of the debauchery and evil unconditionally condemned by the author. Even Natasha Rostova is only ugly charming, and in the epilogue she turns into a "fertile female." For this metamorphosis, Tolstoy was unanimously criticized by all Russian lovers of female images, and although conjectures were made that the epilogue about nepotism and motherhood was written in polemics with the movement for emancipation, nevertheless, the secondary, “complementary” nature of a woman next to a man is clear throughout the text of “War and Peace ” - it is not women who act at the forefront of history.
There are so many beautiful men in the novel that Pierre Bezukhov and Kutuzov are especially distinguished by their ugliness, as the author repeatedly emphasizes. Not to mention the leading handsome men, like Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, Anatole Kuragin or Boris Drubetskoy, the most random people are good-looking, and Tolstoy considers it necessary to say about some silently flashed adjutant - “handsome man”, although the adjutant will immediately disappear without a trace and the epithet will disappear for nothing.
But the author of epithets is not sorry, just as he is not sorry for words at all. The novel does not miss a single opportunity to add a clarifying touch to the overall picture. Tolstoy skillfully alternated broad strokes with small ones, and it is small ones that create the face of the novel, its uniqueness, its fundamental originality. Of course, this is not a fresco, and if we stick to comparisons from the same row, "War and Peace" is rather a mosaic in which each pebble is both brilliant in itself and included in the brilliance of a holistic composition.
Thus, the abundance of handsome men creates the effect of war as a holiday - this impression is present in the novel even when describing the bloodiest battles. Tolstoy's Borodino stylistically correlates with Lermontov's sublime anniversary poem, which Tolstoy called the "grain" of his novel, and there are direct indications of this: someone with dry clay, powdering it in their palms, polished the bayonet ... "Of course, this is Lermontov's" Borodino ":" Who cleaned the shako all beaten, Who sharpened the bayonet, grumbling angrily ... "
All these beautiful adjutants, colonels and captains in smart uniforms go out to fight, as if on a parade somewhere on Tsaritsyn Meadow. And therefore, by the way, the ugly Pierre looks so strikingly alien on the battlefield.
But later, when Tolstoy unfolds his historical and philosophical digressions about the horrors of war, the same stroke has the opposite effect: war may be beautiful, but war kills beautiful people and thereby destroys the beauty of the world. This is how an expressive detail works ambivalently.
Tolstoy's small detail almost always looks more convincing and colorful than his own detailed description. For example, Pierre Bezukhov’s reflections on Platon Karataev are largely nullified by a remark about this hero that flashed almost without explanation: “Often he said the exact opposite of what he said before, but both were true.”
It is this optional presence of meaning, which in the form of a direct consequence turns into just the presence of meaning in everything - and then leads Pierre to the conclusion that God is greater in Karataev than in the complex constructions of Masons.
Divine nonsense is the most important element of the book. It appears in the form of small episodes and replicas, without which, it seems, one could completely do without in a historical novel - but nonsense invariably appears and, which is very significant, as a rule, at moments of the strongest dramatic tension.
Pierre pronounces nonsense known even to himself (but not to the author!) Pointing to someone else's girl during the Moscow fire and pathetically declaring to the French that this is his daughter, saved by him from the fire.
Kutuzov promises Rastopchin not to give up Moscow, although both know that Moscow has already been given up.
In a period of acute longing for Prince Andrei, Natasha dumbfounded the governesses: “The island of Madagascar,” she said. “Ma da gas car,” she repeated each syllable distinctly and, without answering questions ... left the room.
Isn't it from this Madagascar, which is in no way connected with the previous conversation and has arisen literally from nowhere, that the famous Chekhov's Africa, in which there is a terrible heat, came out? But Madagascar itself did not become famous, it was not remembered - of course, because of the attitude towards reading the epic that generations of Russian readers wanted to see in War and Peace. Meanwhile, Tolstoy managed not only to reproduce normal - that is, incoherent and illogical - human speech, but also to render meaningless tragic and fateful events, as in the episodes with Pierre and Kutuzov.
This is a direct result of the worldview of Tolstoy the thinker and the mastery of Tolstoy the artist. Almost the main philosophical line of the novel is the theme of an infinite number of sources, causes and causes of phenomena and events occurring on earth, the fundamental inability of a person to embrace and realize this multitude, his helplessness and pity in the face of the chaos of life. The author repeats this favorite thought persistently, sometimes even importunately, varying situations and circumstances.
The human organism is incomprehensible and disease is incomprehensible, for suffering is the sum total of many sufferings. Battles and wars are unpredictable because too many multidirectional forces affect their outcome, and "sometimes it seems that salvation lies in running back, sometimes in running forward." The vicissitudes of the political and social activity of man and of all mankind are unknowable, since life is not subject to unambiguous control of the mind.
It seems that the author also had himself in mind when he wrote about Kutuzov, in which there was “instead of the mind (grouping events and drawing conclusions) one ability to calmly contemplate the course of events ... He will not invent anything, will not do anything, ... but he will listen to everything, remember everything He will put everything in its place, will not interfere with anything useful and will not allow anything harmful.
Tolstovsky Kutuzov despises knowledge and the mind, putting forward something inexplicable as the highest wisdom, a certain substance that is more important than knowledge and mind - the soul, the spirit. This, according to Tolstoy, is the main and exclusive dignity of the Russian people, although when reading a novel it often seems that the characters are divided on the basis of good French pronunciation. True, one does not contradict the other, and a real Russian, one might assume, has already surpassed and absorbed the European. The more diverse and complex is the mosaic of a book written largely in a foreign language.
In War and Peace, Tolstoy believes so sacredly in the superiority and supremacy of the spirit over the mind that in his famous list of the sources of self-confidence of different peoples, when it comes to Russians, even caricature notes sound. Explaining “the self-confidence of the Germans by their scholarship, the French by their belief in their charm, the British by statehood, the Italians by temperament,” Tolstoy finds a universal formula for Russians: “A Russian is self-confident precisely because he knows nothing and does not want to know, because he does not believe, so that you can know something."
One of the consequences of this formula is the eternal absolution of sins, an indulgence given in advance to all future Russian boys who undertake to correct the map of the starry sky. And in fact, there is no mockery here, for Tolstoy of the period of "War and Peace" attributed this formula to himself, and most importantly, to the people he sang, as if admiring their stupidity and tongue-tied tongue. Such are the scenes of the Bogucharov rebellion, conversations with soldiers, and indeed almost any appearance of the people in the novel. There are not many of them, contrary to popular belief: it is estimated that only eight percent of the book is devoted to the topic of the people itself. (After the release of the novel, responding to critics' reproaches that the intelligentsia, raznochintsy, few folk scenes were not depicted, the author admitted that these sections of the Russian population were not interesting to him, what he knows and wants to describe - what he described: the Russian nobility.)
However, these percentages will increase dramatically if we take into account that, from the point of view of Tolstoy, the people's soul and spirit are no less than Platon Karataev or Tikhon Shcherbaty expressed by Vasily Denisov, Field Marshal Kutuzov, and, finally - and most importantly - he himself, the author. And the already seeing Pierre does without decoding: “- They want to pile on all the people, one word - Moscow. They want to make one end. “Despite the vagueness of the soldier’s words, Pierre understood everything he wanted to say and nodded his head approvingly.”
According to Tolstoy, one cannot correct, but one can not interfere, one cannot explain, but one can understand, one cannot express, but one can name.
The thinker determined the direction of the artist's actions. In the poetics of "War and Peace", this author's worldview was expressed in the smallest detail. If events and phenomena arise from a variety of reasons, it means that there are no insignificant ones among them. Absolutely everything is important and significant, each pebble of the mosaic takes its rightful place, and the absence of any of them removes the mosaic from completeness and perfection. The more named, the better and more correct.
And Tolstoy calls. His novel, especially the first half (in the second, the war generally overcomes the world, the episodes are enlarged, there are more philosophical digressions, fewer nuances), full of small details, fleeting scenes, side, as if "aside", replicas. Sometimes it seems that all this is too much, and the bewilderment of Konstantin Leontiev, with his subtle aesthetic taste, is understandable: “Why ... Tolstoy these excesses?” But Tolstoy himself - for the sake of striving to name everything and not omit anything - is even capable of sacrificing style, leaving, for example, blatant three “whats” in a short sentence, which resulted in an awkward construction of the type: she knew that this meant that he was glad that she didn't leave.
If Tolstoy is sometimes ruthless in his details, it is only from an artistic principle that encourages not to miss anything. Only Napoleon is frankly tendentious in him, to whom the author flatly denied not only greatness, but also significance. Other characters only strive for the fullness of the incarnation, and again - a fleeting touch not only clarifies the outline of the image, but often conflicts with it, which is one of the main pleasures when reading a novel.
Princess Mary, famous for her cordiality, to which (cordiality) many pages are devoted, appears coldly worldly, almost like Helen: “Princess and Princess ... clasping their hands, tightly pressed their lips to those places that they hit in the first minute.” And of course, the princess, with her inaccessible high spirituality, immediately turns into a living person. Rough-necked Denisov becomes alive when he makes "sounds like barking dogs" over the body of the murdered Petya Rostov.
These metamorphoses are even clearer in the description of historical figures, which explains why they are reliable in Tolstoy, why one does not feel (or almost does not feel: the exceptions are Napoleon, partly Kutuzov) artificiality and falsity in episodes with characters who have real prototypes.
So, having devoted a lot of space to the statesman Speransky, the author finds an opportunity to actually do away with him in a very indirect way - by conveying the impressions of Prince Andrei from dinner in the Speransky family: “There was nothing bad or inappropriate in what they said, everything was witty and could be funny; but something of the very thing that makes up the salt of fun, not only did not exist, but they did not even know that it happens. These last words so expressively convey the "fakeness," the lack of life of Speransky so disgusting to the author, that no further explanation is required why Prince Andrei, and Tolstoy with him, left him.
The “French Arakcheev” - Marshal Davout - was written in “War and Peace” in one black paint, and however, the most striking and memorable characteristic is the generally unimportant circumstance that he chose a dirty barn for his headquarters - because “Davout was one of those people who deliberately put themselves in the most gloomy conditions of life in order to have the right to be gloomy. And such people, as everyone knows, were not only in France and not only in the time of Tolstoy.
Tolstoy's detail reigns supreme in the novel, being responsible for literally everything: it draws images, directs storylines, builds a composition, and finally creates a complete picture of the author's philosophy. More precisely, it initially follows from the author's worldview, but, forming Tolstoy's unique mosaic poetics, the detail - the abundance of details - clarifies this worldview, makes it clearly visible and convincing. And dozens of touching pages about Natasha's love for Prince Andrei can hardly be compared in touchingness and expressiveness with one - the only question that Natasha asks her mother about her fiancé: "Mom, is it not a shame that he is a widower?"
In the description of the war, the detail fights with the superior forces of the epic just as successfully - and wins. A huge event in the history of Russia was, as it were, deliberately chosen by the author to prove this writer's hypothesis. In the foreground are the drowsiness of Kutuzov, the irritability of Napoleon, the thin voice of Captain Tushin. Tolstoy's detail was intended to destroy the genre of the heroic historical novel and did so, once and for all making it impossible to revive the heroic epic.
As for Tolstoy's book itself, the "little things" that so outraged Leontiev and upset Turgenev, which Tolstoy allegedly "picks out from under the arms of his heroes" - as it turned out, determined both the heroes themselves and the narrative, which is why "War and Peace" did not turn into a monument , but has become a novel that is enthusiastically read by generations.

Article author: Pisarev D.I.
The new, still unfinished novel by Count L. Tolstoy can be called an exemplary work in terms of the pathology of Russian society. In this novel, a whole series of vivid and varied pictures, painted with the most majestic and imperturbable epic calmness, raises and solves the question of what is done with human minds and characters under such conditions that enable people to do without knowledge, without thoughts, without energy. and without difficulty.
It is very possible, and even very likely, that Count Tolstoy does not have in mind the formulation and solution of such a question. It is very likely that he simply wants to draw a series of pictures from the life of the Russian nobility during the time of Alexander I. He himself sees and tries to show others, clearly, to the smallest details and shades, all the features that characterize the time and the people of that time, people of that circle that most interesting to him or accessible to his study. He tries only to be truthful and accurate; his efforts do not tend to support or refute any theoretical idea by the images he creates; he, in all likelihood, treats the subject of his lengthy and careful research with that involuntary and natural tenderness that a gifted historian usually feels for the distant or near past, resurrecting under his hands; he, perhaps, even finds in the features of this past, in the figures and characters of the personalities drawn, in the concepts and habits of the depicted society, many features worthy of love and respect. All this is possible, all this is even very likely. But it is precisely because the author has spent a lot of time, labor and love on studying and depicting the era and its representatives, that is why the images created by him live their own life, independent of the author’s intentions, enter into direct relations with readers, speak for themselves and irresistibly lead the reader to such thoughts and conclusions that the author did not have in mind and which he, perhaps, would not even approve of.
This truth, springing forth from the facts themselves, this truth, breaking through beyond the personal sympathies and convictions of the narrator, is especially precious in its irresistible persuasiveness. This is the truth, this awl, which cannot be hidden in a sack, we will now try to extract from the novel of Count Tolstoy.
The novel "War and Peace" presents us with a whole bunch of diverse and excellently finished characters, male and female, old and young. The choice of young male characters is especially rich. We shall begin precisely with them, and begin from below, that is, with those figures about whom disagreement is almost impossible and whose unsatisfactoriness will, in all probability, be recognized by all readers.
The first portrait in our art gallery will be Prince Boris Drubetskoy, a young man of noble birth, with a name and connections, but without a fortune, paving his way to wealth and honors with his ability to get along with people and take advantage of circumstances. The first of those circumstances that he uses with remarkable skill and success is his own mother, Princess Anna Mikhailovna. Everyone knows that a mother who asks for her son is always and everywhere the most zealous, efficient, persistent, tireless and fearless of lawyers. In her eyes, the end justifies and sanctifies all means, without the slightest exception. She is ready to beg, to cry, to curry favor, to crawl, to annoy, to swallow all sorts of insults, if only she, even out of annoyance, out of a desire to get rid of her and stop her annoying cries, finally threw an annoyingly demanded handout for her son. Boris is well aware of all these virtues of his mother. He also knows that all the humiliations to which a loving mother voluntarily exposes herself do not in the least drop her son, if only this son, using her services, behaves at the same time with sufficient, decent independence.
Boris chooses for himself the role of a respectful and obedient son, as the most profitable and convenient role for himself. It is profitable and convenient, firstly, because it imposes on him the obligation not to interfere with those feats of servility with which his mother lays the foundation for his brilliant career. Secondly, it is profitable and convenient in that it puts him in the best possible light in the eyes of those strong people on whom his success depends. "What an exemplary young man! - everyone around him should think and talk about him. - How much noble pride is in him and what generous efforts he uses in order to suppress in himself, out of love for his mother, the too impetuous movements of young inexperienced obstinacy, such movements that could upset the poor old woman, who concentrated all her thoughts and desires on her son's career. And how carefully and how successfully he hides his magnanimous efforts under the guise of outward calmness! How he understands that these efforts, by the very fact of their existence, could serve as a heavy reproach to his poor a mother completely blinded by her ambitious motherly dreams and plans. What intelligence, what tact, what strength of character, what a heart of gold and what refined delicacy!
When Anna Mikhailovna walks on the thresholds of merciful and benefactors, Boris keeps himself passive and calm, like a person who has decided once and for all, respectfully and with dignity, to submit to his difficult and bitter fate, and to submit in such a way that everyone sees it, but that no one dares to tell him with warm sympathy: "Young man, in your eyes, in your face, in all your dejected appearance, I clearly see that you are patiently and courageously bearing a heavy cross." He goes with his mother to the dying rich man Bezukhov, on whom Anna Mikhailovna pins some hopes, mainly because "he is so rich, and we are so poor!" He goes, but even makes his mother feel that he is doing it exclusively for her, that he himself does not foresee anything from this trip but humiliation, and that there is such a limit beyond which his humility and his artificial calmness can betray him. The hoax is carried out so skillfully that Anna Mikhailovna herself is afraid of her respectful son, like a volcano, from which a destructive eruption can be expected every minute; it goes without saying that this fear increases her respect for her son; she looks back at him at every step, asks him to be affectionate and attentive, reminds him of his promises, touches his hand, in order, depending on the circumstances, now to calm him down, now to excite him. Anxious and fussing in this way, Anna Mikhailovna is in the firm conviction that without these skillful efforts and diligence on her part, everything will go to waste, and the inflexible Boris, if he does not forever anger strong people with an outburst of noble indignation, then at least he will surely freeze with icy coldness of treatment all the hearts of patrons and benefactors.
If Boris so successfully mystifies his own mother, an experienced and intelligent woman, in whose eyes he grew up, then, of course, he is even easier and just as successfully fooling strangers with whom he has to deal. He bows to benefactors and patrons courteously, but so calmly and with such modest dignity that strong faces immediately feel the need to look at him more closely and distinguish him from the crowd of needy clients, for whom annoying mothers and aunts ask. He answers them to their careless questions precisely and clearly, calmly And respectfully, showing neither annoyance at their harsh tone, nor desire to enter into further conversation with them. Looking at Boris and listening to his calm answers, patrons and benefactors are immediately imbued with the conviction that Boris, remaining within the boundaries of strict politeness and impeccable deference, will not allow anyone to push him around and will always be able to stand up for his noble honor. Being a beggar and a seeker, Boris knows how to shift all the dirty work of this matter onto his mother, who, of course, with the greatest readiness lends her old shoulders and even begs her son to allow her to arrange his promotion. Leaving his mother to grovel before strong people, Boris himself knows how to remain clean and elegant, a modest but independent gentleman. Cleanliness, elegance, modesty, independence, and gentlemanliness, of course, give him such advantages that plaintive begging and mean servility could not give him. That handout, which can be thrown to a timid mess who hardly dares to sit on the tip of a chair and strives to kiss a benefactor on the shoulder, is extremely inconvenient, embarrassing and even dangerous to offer to a graceful young man in whom decent modesty coexists in the most harmonious way with an indestructible and eternally vigilant sense of his own. dignity. Such a post, in which it would be absolutely impossible to place a simply and frankly groveling petitioner, is extremely decent for a modestly independent young man who knows how to bow in time, smile in time, make a serious and even stern face in time, give in in time or to change his mind, to show noble steadfastness in time, not for a moment losing calm self-control and decently respectful swagger of address.
Patrons are generally fond of flatterers; they are pleased to see in the reverence of the people around them an involuntary tribute of delight, brought to the genius of their mind and the incomparable superiority of their moral qualities. But in order for flattery to make a pleasant impression, it must be subtle enough, and the smarter the person being flattered, the finer the flattery should be, and the thinner it is, the more pleasant it works. When flattery turns out to be so crude that the person to whom it is addressed can recognize its insincerity, then it can produce a completely opposite effect on him and seriously harm the unskillful flatterer. Let's take two flatterers: one is thrilled by his patron, agrees with him in everything and clearly shows with all his actions and words that he has neither his own will nor his own conviction, that he, having now praised one judgment of the patron, is ready in a minute to exalt another a judgment diametrically opposed, if only it were expressed by the same patron; the other, on the contrary, is able to show that, in order to please his patron, he does not have the slightest need to renounce his mental and moral independence, that all judgments of the patron subdue his mind by the power of his own irresistible inner persuasiveness, that he obeys the patron at any given moment. not with a feeling of slavish fear and slavish selfish obsequiousness, but with the lively and deep pleasure of a free man who had the good fortune to find himself a wise and generous leader. It is clear that of these two flatterers the second will go much further than the first. The first will be fed and despised; the first will dress up as jesters; the former will not be allowed beyond that lackey role which he assumed in the short-sighted expectation of future blessings; the second, on the contrary, will be consulted; he can be loved; they may even feel respect for him; he can be made into friends and confidants. The high-society Molchalin, Prince Boris Drubetskoy follows this second path and, of course, carrying his beautiful head high and not soiling the tip of his nails with any kind of work, he will easily and quickly get this way to such well-known degrees that a simple Molchalin will never crawl , innocently scolding and trembling before the boss and humbly making himself an early stoop behind stationery papers. Boris acts in life as a dexterous and quick gymnastic climbs a tree. Standing with his foot on one branch, he is already looking for another with his eyes, for which he could grasp with his hands in the next moment; his eyes and all his thoughts are directed upwards; when his hand has found a reliable point of support, he already completely forgets about that branch on which he just now stood with all the weight of his body and from which his leg is already beginning to separate. Boris looks at all his acquaintances and at all those people with whom he can get to know just as at branches located one above the other, at a more or less distant distance from the top of a huge tree, from that peak where the desired calm awaits a skilled gymnastics among luxury, honors and attributes of power. Boris immediately, with the penetrating gaze of a gifted commander or a good chess player, grasps the mutual relations of his acquaintances and the paths that can lead him from one acquaintance already made to another, still beckoning him to him, and from this other to a third, still wrapped in golden fog of majestic inaccessibility. Having managed to seem to the good-natured Pierre Bezukhov _a sweet, intelligent and firm young man_, having even managed to embarrass and touch him with his mind and firmness at the very time when he and his mother came to old Count Bezukhov to ask for poverty and for guards uniforms, Boris earns himself from this Pierre, a letter of recommendation to Kutuzov's adjutant, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, and through Bolkonsky he gets acquainted with Adjutant General Dolgorukov and himself becomes an adjutant to some important person.
Having placed himself on friendly terms with Prince Bolkonsky, Boris immediately carefully separates his leg from the branch on which he was holding. He immediately begins to gradually weaken his friendly ties with a friend of his childhood, the young Count Rostov, with whom he lived in the house for whole years and whose mother had just presented him, Boris, with five hundred rubles for uniforms, received by Princess Anna Mikhailovna with tears of tenderness and joyful gratitude. . After a six-month separation, after the campaigns and battles sustained by the young Rostov, Boris meets with him, with a childhood friend, and on the same first meeting, Rostov notices that Boris, to whom Bolkonsky comes at the same time, seems ashamed to have a friendly conversation with army hussar. The graceful guards officer, Boris, is jarred by the army uniform and army manners of young Rostov, and most importantly, he is embarrassed by the thought that Bolkonsky will form an unfavorable opinion of him, seeing his friendly shortness with a man of bad taste. In Boris's relationship with Rostov, a slight tension is immediately revealed, which is especially convenient for Boris precisely because it is impossible to find fault with it, that it is impossible to eliminate it with frank explanations, and that it is also very difficult not to notice and not feel it. Thanks to this subtle tension, thanks to this subtle dissonance, slightly scratching the nerves, a person of bad taste will be quietly removed, having no reason to complain, be offended and break into ambition, and a person of good taste will see and notice that an elegant guards officer , Prince Boris Drubetsky, indelicate young people climb into friends, whom he meekly and gracefully knows how to push back to their real place.
On a campaign, at war, in secular salons - everywhere Boris pursues the same goal, everywhere he thinks exclusively, or at least first of all, about the interests of his career. Using with remarkable understanding all the smallest indications of experience, Boris soon turns into a conscious and systematic tactic what had previously been a matter of instinct and happy inspiration for him. He formulates an unerringly correct theory of career, and acts on this theory with the most unswerving constancy. Having met Prince Bolkonsky and approaching through him the highest spheres of military administration, Boris clearly understood what he had foreseen before, exactly what was in the army, except for the subordination and discipline that was written in the charter and which was known in the regiment and he knew , there was another more significant subordination, one that forced this tightened with a purple-faced general to respectfully wait while the captain, Prince Andrei, for his own pleasure, found it more convenient to talk with Ensign Drubetskoy. More than ever, Boris decided to continue to serve not according to that written in the charter, but according to this unwritten subordination. He now felt that only as a result of the fact that he was recommended to Prince Andrei, he had already immediately risen above the general, who in other cases, in the front, could destroy him, the ensign of the Guards "(1, 75) (1).
Based on the clearest and most unambiguous indications of experience, Boris decides once and for all that it is incomparably more profitable to serve persons than to serve a cause, and, as a man who is not in the least bound in his actions by an inconsiderate love for any idea or any was the case, he makes it a rule to always serve only individuals and always place all his hope not in any of his own real merits, but only in his good relations with influential persons who know how to reward and promote their faithful and obedient servants .
In an accidental conversation about the service, Rostov tells Boris that he will not go to anyone as an adjutant, because this is a "servant position." Boris, of course, turns out to be so free from prejudices that he is not embarrassed by the harsh and unpleasant word "lackey". First, he understands that _comparaison nest pas raison_ (Comparison is not proof (fr. - Ed.) and that there is a huge difference between an adjutant and a footman, because the first is welcomed with pleasure in the most brilliant drawing rooms, and the second is forced to stand in front and keep the master's coats. Secondly, he also understands that many lackeys live much more pleasantly than other gentlemen who have every right to consider themselves valiant servants of the fatherland. Thirdly, he is always ready to put on any kind of livery himself, if only it will quickly and surely lead him to the goal. This is what he expresses to Rostov, telling him, in response to his trick about the adjutant, that "I would very much like to become adjutant", "because, having already gone through the career of military service, we must try to make, if possible, a brilliant career" (I, 62) (2). This frankness of Boris is very remarkable. She clearly proves that the majority of the society in which he lives and whose opinion he values, completely approves of his views on paving the way, on the service of persons, on unwritten subordination and on the undoubted conveniences of a livery as a means leading to an end. Boris calls Rostov a dreamer for his stunt against serving persons, and the society to which Rostov belongs would, without any doubt, not only confirm, but also strengthen this sentence to a very large extent, so that Rostov, for his attempt to deny the system of patronage and unwritten subordination, would turn out not to be a dreamer, but simply a stupid and rude army brawler, incapable of understanding and appreciating the most legitimate and laudable aspirations of well-bred and respectable youths.
Boris, of course, continues to prosper under the shadow of his infallible theory, which is fully consistent with the mechanism and spirit of the society among which he seeks wealth and honor. “He completely mastered for himself that unwritten subordination that he liked in Olmutz, according to which the ensign could stand incomparably higher than the general and according to which, for success in the service, not efforts in the service, not labor, not courage, not constancy, were needed, but it was necessary only the ability to deal with those who reward service - and he himself was often surprised at his rapid success and how others could not understand this. As a result of this discovery, his whole way of life, all his relationships with former acquaintances, all his plans for the future - completely changed. He was not rich, but he used the last of his money to be better dressed than others; he would rather deprive himself of many pleasures than allow himself to ride in a bad carriage or appear in an old uniform on the streets of Petersburg. and looked for acquaintances only with people who were taller than him and therefore could be useful to him "(II, 106) (3).
With a special sense of pride and pleasure, Boris enters the houses of high society; he takes an invitation from the maid of honor Anna Pavlovna Sherer for "an important promotion"; at her party, of course, he is not looking for entertainment; he, on the contrary, works in his own way in her living room; he carefully examines the terrain on which he will have to maneuver in order to win new advantages for himself and flood new benefactors; he carefully observes each person and evaluates the benefits and opportunities for rapprochement with each of them. He enters this high society with the firm intention of imitating it, that is, to shorten and narrow his mind as much as necessary, so as not to advance in any way from the general level and not under any pretense to irritate with his superiority this or that limited person who is capable of being useful from the side of unwritten subordination.
At Anna Pavlovna's evening, a very stupid young man, the son of the Minister Prince Kuragin, after repeated attacks and long preparations, produces a stupid and hackneyed joke. Boris, of course, is so intelligent that such jokes must jar him and arouse in him that feeling of disgust that is usually born in a healthy person when he has to see or hear an idiot. Boris cannot find this joke witty or amusing, but, being in a high society salon, he does not dare to endure this joke with a serious face, because his seriousness can be mistaken for a tacit condemnation of a pun, over which, perhaps, the cream of St. Petersburg society will be pleased laugh. So that the laughter of this cream does not take him by surprise, prudent Boris takes his measures at the very second when a flat and alien sharpness flies from the lips of Prince Ippolit Kuragin. He smiles cautiously, so that his smile can be attributed to derision or approval of the joke, depending on how it is received. The cream laughs, recognizing in the sweet wit the flesh of his flesh and the bone of his bones - and the measures taken in advance by Boris turn out to be salutary for him in a high degree.
The stupid beauty, worthy sister of Ippolit Kuragin, Countess Helen Bezukhova, who enjoys the reputation of a charming and very smart woman and attracts to her salon everything that shines with intelligence, wealth, nobility or high rank, finds it convenient to bring the handsome and dexterous adjutant Boris closer to her person. Boris approaches with the greatest readiness, becomes her lover, and in this circumstance sees, not without reason, a new important promotion. If the path to rank and money passes through the boudoir of a beautiful woman, then, of course, there are no sufficient grounds for Boris to stop in virtuous bewilderment or turn aside. Grasping the hand of her stupid beauty, Drubetskoy cheerfully and quickly continues to move forward towards the golden goal.
He asks his closest superior for permission to be in his retinue in Tilsit, during the meeting of both emperors, and makes him feel on this occasion how carefully he, Boris, follows the political barometer and how carefully he thinks through all his smallest words and actions. with the intentions and desires of high people. The person who until now has been General Bonaparte for Boris, a usurper and enemy of mankind, becomes for him Emperor Napoleon and a great man from the moment that, having learned about the proposed meeting, Boris begins to ask to go to Tilsit. Once in Tilsit, Boris felt that his position was strengthened. “He was not only known, but they got accustomed to him and got accustomed to him. Twice he carried out assignments for the sovereign himself, so that the sovereign knew him by sight, and all those close to him not only did not shy away from him, as before, considering him a new face, but would be surprised if it weren't there" (II, 172) (4).
On the path that Boris is on, there are no stops, no bundles. An unexpected catastrophe can happen, which suddenly collapses and breaks the entire career that has started well and continues successfully; such a catastrophe may overtake even the most cautious and prudent person; but it is difficult to expect from her that she would direct the forces of man to a useful work and open wide scope for their development; after such a catastrophe, a person usually finds himself flattened and crushed; a brilliant, cheerful and prosperous officer or official most often turns into a pitiful hypochondriac, a frankly low beggar, or simply into a bitter drunkard. In addition to such an unexpected catastrophe, with an even and favorable course everyday life, there is no chance for a person in the position of Boris to suddenly break away from his constant diplomatic game, which is always equally important and interesting for him, for him to suddenly stop, look back at himself, be aware of how small and wither living forces of his mind, and with an energetic effort of will he suddenly jumped from the path of skillful, decent and brilliantly successful begging to the completely unknown path of ungrateful, tedious and not at all masterly work. The diplomatic game has such addictive properties and gives such brilliant results that a person who has immersed himself in this game soon begins to consider everything that is outside it small and insignificant; all events, all phenomena of private and public life are evaluated according to their relation to gain or loss; all people are divided into means and obstacles; all the feelings of one's own soul are divided into laudable, that is, leading to a win, and reprehensible, that is, distracting attention from the game process. In the life of a person drawn into such a game, there is no place for such impressions from which a strong feeling could unfold, not subordinated to the interests of a career. Serious, pure, sincere love, without an admixture of mercenary or ambitious calculations, love with all the bright depth of its pleasures, love with all its solemn and holy duties cannot take root in the withered soul of a man like Boris. Moral renewal through happy love is unthinkable for Boris. This is proved in Count Tolstoy's novel by his story with Natasha Rostova, the sister of that army hussar, whose uniform and manners jar Boris in the presence of Prince Bolkonsky.
When Natasha was 12 years old and Boris 17 or 18 years old, they played among themselves in love; once, shortly before Boris left for the regiment, Natasha kissed him, and they decided that their wedding would take place four years later, when Natasha was 16 years old. These four years have passed, the bride and groom - if they did not forget their mutual obligations, then at least they began to look at them as a childish prank; when Natasha could really be a bride, and when Boris was already a young man, standing, as they say, on the best road, they saw each other and became interested in each other again. After the first date, "Boris said to himself that Natasha was just as attractive to him as before, but that he should not give in to this feeling, because marrying her, a girl with almost no fortune, would be the death of his career, and the resumption of the former relations without the purpose of marriage - it would be an ignoble act "(III, 50) 5.
Despite this prudent and saving consultation with himself, despite the decision to avoid meeting Natasha, Boris gets carried away, begins to often visit the Rostovs, spends whole days with them, listens to Natasha's songs, writes poems for her in an album, and even stops visiting Countess Bezukhova , from which he receives daily invitation and reproachful notes. He is going to explain to Natasha that he can never and never become her husband, but he still lacks the strength and courage to begin and complete such a delicate explanation. He gets more and more confused every day. But some temporary and fleeting inattention to the great interests of a career is the extreme limit of hobbies possible for Boris. To inflict any serious and irreparable blow on these great interests is unimaginable for him, even under the influence of the strongest passion available to him.
As soon as the old Countess Rostova has a serious word with Boris, she only has to let him feel that his frequent visits have been noticed and taken into account, and Boris immediately, so as not to compromise the girl and spoil his career, takes a prudent and noble flight. He ceases to visit the Rostovs and even, having met them at the ball, passes by them twice and turns away each time (III, 65) (6).
Having sailed safely between the pitfalls of love, Boris is already non-stop, in full sail, flying to a reliable pier. His position in the service, his connections and acquaintances, give him entrance to such houses where very rich brides are found. He begins to think that it is time for him to secure a profitable marriage. His youth, his handsome appearance, his presentable uniform, his cleverly and prudently conducted career, are such a commodity that can be sold for a very good price. Boris looks out for a buyer and finds her in Moscow.
TALENT L.N. TOLSTOY AND NOVINA "WAR AND PEACE" IN ASSESSMENT OF CRITICS
In this novel, a whole series of vivid and varied pictures, painted with the most majestic and imperturbable epic calm, raises and decides the question of what is done with human minds and characters under such conditions that enable people to do without knowledge, without thoughts, without energy and labor .... It is very likely that the author simply wants to draw a series of pictures from the life of the Russian nobility during the time of Alexander I. He himself sees and tries to show others clearly, to the smallest details and shades, all the features that characterize the time and then people, people of the circle that is more and more interesting to him or accessible to his study. He tries only to be truthful and accurate; his efforts do not tend to support or refute any theoretical idea created by images; he, in all likelihood, treats the subject of his long and careful research with that involuntary and natural tenderness that a gifted historian usually feels for the distant or near past, resurrected under his hands; he perhaps finds in the features of this past, in the figures and characters of the personalities drawn, in the concepts and habits of the depicted society, many features worthy of love and respect. All this is possible, all this is even very likely. But precisely because the author has spent a lot of time, labor and love on studying and depicting the era and its representatives, precisely because its representatives live their own lives, independent of the author’s intentions, enter into direct relations with themselves with readers, speak for themselves and irresistibly lead the reader to such thoughts and conclusions that the author did not have in mind and which he, perhaps, would not even approve of ... (From the article by D.I. Pisarev "The Old Nobility")
Count Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" is interesting for the military in a twofold sense: by describing the scenes of military and military life and by striving to draw some conclusions regarding the theory of military affairs. The first, that is, the scenes, are inimitable and ... can constitute one of the most useful additions to any course in the theory of military art; the latter, that is, the conclusions, do not withstand the most condescending criticism due to their one-sidedness, although they are interesting as a transitional stage in the development of the author's views on military affairs ...
In the foreground is a domestic peaceful-military picture; but what! Ten battle paintings of the best master, of the largest size, can be given for her. We boldly say that not a single military man, having read it, involuntarily said to himself: yes, he copied it from our regiment.
The battle scenes of Count Tolstoy are no less instructive: the entire inner side of the battle, unknown to most military theorists and peace-military practitioners, and meanwhile giving success or failure, comes to the fore in his magnificently relief paintings. The difference between his descriptions of battles and descriptions of historical battles is the same as between the landscape and the topographical plan: the first gives less, gives from one point, but makes it more accessible to the eye and heart of a person. The second gives any local object from a large number of sides, gives the area for tens of miles, but gives in a conditional drawing, which in appearance has nothing in common with the objects depicted; and therefore everything on it is dead, lifeless, even for the prepared eye... The moral physiognomy of the leading personalities, their struggle with themselves and with those around them, preceding any determination, all this disappears - and something remains from the fact that has been formed from thousands of human lives. like a badly worn coin: outlines are visible, but what kind of face? The best numismatist does not recognize. Of course, there are exceptions, but they are extremely rare and, in any case, far from bringing events to life in front of you in the way that a landscape event brings them to life, that is, representing what an observant person could see at a given moment from one point ...
The heroes of Tolstoy are fictional, but living people; they suffer, perish, do great deeds, cowardly: all this is just like real people; and for this reason they are highly instructive, and for this reason that military leader will be worthy of pity who, thanks to Tolstoy’s story, does not kill himself, how imprudently it is to draw gentlemen like Zherkov closer to him, how keenly one must look closely in order to see the Tushins, Timokhins in the real light; how penetrably careful one must be so as not to make some kind of Zherkov a hero or a nameless regimental commander who was serviceable and so smart and efficient after the battle ... (M.I. Dragomirov. ““War and Peace” by Count Tolstoy from a military point of view "")
Documents testify that Tolstoy did not have the gift of easy creativity, he was one of the most exalted, most patient, most diligent workers, and his grandiose world frescoes are an artistic and labor mosaic, composed of an infinite number of multi-colored pieces, from a million tiny individual observations. Behind the seeming easy straightforwardness lies the most persistent handicraft work - not a dreamer, but a slow, objective, patient master who, like the old German painters, carefully primed the canvas, deliberately measured the area, carefully outlined the contours and lines, and then applied paint after paint before meaningful by the distribution of light and shadow, give vital illumination to your epic story. Two thousand pages of the enormous epic "War and Peace" were copied seven times; sketches and notes filled large drawers. Every historical trifle, every semantic detail is substantiated by selected documents; in order to give the description of the Battle of Borodino real accuracy, Tolstoy travels for two days with a map of the general staff around the battlefield, travels many miles by rail in order to get this or that decorating detail from some surviving participant in the war. He digs up not only all books, searches not only all libraries, but even turns to noble families and archives for forgotten documents and private letters in order to find a grain of truth in them. So for years little balls of mercury are collected - tens, hundreds of thousands of small observations, until they begin to merge into a rounded, pure, perfect form. And only then the struggle for truth is over, the search for clarity begins ... One bulging phrase, not quite a suitable adjective, caught among tens of thousands of lines - and in horror, following the sent proofs, he telegraphs the madam to Moscow and demands to stop the car, to satisfy the tonality of a syllable that did not satisfy him. This first proofreading again enters the retort of the spirit, once again melts and pours back into the form - no, if for someone art was not easy work, then it is precisely for him, whose art seems natural to us. For ten years Tolstoy has been working eight, ten hours a day; it is not surprising that even this husband, possessing the strongest nerves, is psychologically depressed after each of his big novels ...
Tolstoy's accuracy in observations is not connected with any gradations in relation to the creatures of the earth: there are no predilections in his love. Napoleon, to his incorruptible gaze, is no more a man than any of his soldiers, and this latter again is no more important and no more essential than the dog that runs after him, or the stone that she touches with her paw. Everything in the earthly circle - man and mass, plants and animals, men and women, old people and children, generals and peasants - flows with crystal clear uniformity into his senses, in order to also, in the same order, pour out. This gives his art a resemblance to the eternal uniformity of incorruptible nature and his epic - a marine monotonous and still the same magnificent rhythm, always reminiscent of Homer ... (S. Zweig. From the book "Three singers of his life. Casanova. Stendhal. Tolstoy")
That Tolstoy loves nature and depicts it with such skill, to which, it seems, no one has ever risen, this is known to everyone who has read his works. Nature is not described, but lives with our great artist. Sometimes she is even, as it were, one of the characters in the story: remember the incomparable scene of the Rostovs' Christmas skating in "War and Peace" ...
The beauty of nature finds in Tolstoy the most sympathetic connoisseur... But this extremely sensitive person, who feels how the beauty of nature pours through his eyes into his soul, does not admire just any beautiful area. Tolstoy loves only such views of nature that awaken in him the consciousness of his unity with her ... (G.V. Plekhanov. "Tolstoy and Nature")
And with less development of creative forces and artistic features, a historical novel from an era so close to modern society would arouse the intense attention of the public. The venerable author knew very well that he would touch on the still fresh memories of his contemporaries and respond to many of their needs and secret sympathies when he based his novel on a characterization of our high society and the main political figures of the era of Alexander I, with the undisguised goal of building this characterization on the revealing evidence of legends. , rumors, folk dialect and notes of eyewitnesses. The work ahead of him was not unimportant, but in the highest degree grateful ...
The author belongs to the number of dedicated. He owns the knowledge of their language and uses it to open under all forms of secularism the abyss of frivolity, insignificance, deceit, sometimes completely rude, wild and ferocious inclinations. There is one thing that is most remarkable. The faces of this circle are as if under some kind of vow that condemned them to a heavy punishment - never to comprehend any of their assumptions, plans and aspirations. As if driven by an unknown hostile force, they run past the goals that they themselves set for themselves, and if they achieve something, it is always not what they expected ... They fail at nothing, everything falls out of their hands ... Young Pierre Bezukhov, capable of understanding goodness and moral dignity, marries a woman who is as dissolute as she is stupid by nature. Prince Bolkonsky, with all the makings of a serious mind and development, chooses as his wife a kind and empty secular doll, which is the misfortune of his life, although he has no reason to complain about her; his sister, Princess Maria, escapes from the yoke of her father’s despotic habits and the constantly secluded village life into a warm and bright religious feeling, which ends with connections with vagabond saints, etc. This deplorable story with the best people of the described society returns so insistently in the novel, that in the end, with every picture of a young and fresh life beginning somewhere, with every story about a gratifying phenomenon that promises a serious or instructive outcome, the reader takes fear and doubt: behold, they will deceive all hopes, voluntarily betray their content and turn into the impenetrable sands of emptiness and vulgarity, where they will disappear. And the reader is almost never wrong; they really turn there and disappear there. But, one wonders, what kind of merciless hand and for what sins weighed down on all this environment... What happened? Apparently, nothing much happened. Society lives imperturbably on the same serfdom as its ancestors; Catherine's loan banks are open to him in the same way as before; the doors to the acquisition of fortune and to the ruin of oneself in the service are just as wide open, letting in all who have the right to pass through them; finally, no new figures interrupting the road, spoiling his life and confusing his ideas, are not shown in Tolstoy's novel at all. Why, however, is this society, which at the end of the last century believed in itself boundlessly, distinguished itself by the strength of its composition and easily coped with life - now, according to the author, can in no way arrange it at will, has broken up into circles that almost despise each other, and is struck by the impotence that prevents the best people from even defining themselves and clear goals for spiritual activity. .. (P.V. Annenkov. "Historical and aesthetic issues in the novel" War and Peace "")
Extraordinary powers of observation, subtle analysis of spiritual movements, distinctness and poetry in pictures of nature, elegant simplicity are the hallmarks of Count Tolstoy's talent... The image of an internal monologue, without exaggeration, can be called amazing. And, in our opinion, that side of Count Tolstoy's talent, which makes it possible for him to catch these psychic monologues, constitutes in his talent a special, peculiar strength only to him ... A special feature in Count Tolstoy's talent is so original that one must peer with great attention her, and only then will we understand its full importance for the artistic merit of his works. Psychological analysis is perhaps the most essential of the qualities that give strength to creative talent... Of course, this ability must be innate by nature, like any other ability; but it would not be enough to dwell on this too general explanation: talent develops only independently (by moral) activity, and in this activity, the extraordinary energy of which is evidenced by the peculiarity of the works of Count Tolstoy we noticed, we must see the basis of the strength acquired by his talent.
We are talking about self-deepening, about striving for tireless observation of oneself. The laws of human action, the play of passions, the concatenation of events, the influence of events and relationships, we can study by carefully observing other people; but all the knowledge acquired in this way will have neither depth nor precision unless we study the most secret laws of mental life, the play of which is open to us only in our (own) self-consciousness. Whoever has not studied man in himself will never reach a deep knowledge of people. That feature of Count Tolstoy's talent, which we spoke about above, proves that he studied the secrets of the human spirit in himself extremely carefully; this knowledge is precious not only because it gave him the opportunity to paint pictures of the inner movements of human thought, to which we drew the reader's attention, but also, perhaps more because it gave him a solid basis for studying human life in general, for guessing characters. and springs of action, struggle of passions and impressions...
There is yet another force in Mr. Tolstoy's talent, which imparts to his works a special dignity with its extremely remarkable freshness - the purity of moral feeling ... Public morality has never reached such a high level as in our noble time - noble and beautiful, despite the remnants of decrepit dirt, because it strains all its forces in order to wash itself and be cleansed of hereditary sins... The beneficial effect of this trait of talent is not limited to those stories or episodes in which it prominently comes to the fore: it constantly serves as a quickener, a refresher of talent . What in the world is more poetic, more charming than a pure youthful soul, responding with joyful love to everything that seems to her sublime and noble, pure and beautiful, like herself? ..
Count Tolstoy has a true talent. This means that his works are artistic, that is, in each of them the very idea that he wanted to implement in this work is very fully realized. He never says anything superfluous, because that would be contrary to the conditions of artistry, he never disfigures his works with an admixture of scenes and figures that are alien to the idea of ​​the work. This is one of the main virtues of art. It takes a lot of taste to appreciate the beauty of the works of Count Tolstoy, but on the other hand, a person who knows how to understand true beauty, true poetry, sees in Count Tolstoy a real artist, that is, a poet with remarkable talent. (N.G. Chernyshevsky. “Military stories of L.N. Tolstoy”)
The images of human personalities by L. Tolstoy resemble those semi-convex human bodies in high reliefs, which, it seems sometimes, are about to separate from the plane in which they are sculptured and which holds them, finally come out and stand in front of us, like perfect statues, visible from all sides , tangible; but this is an optical illusion. They will never completely separate, they will not become completely round from semicircular ones - we will never see them from the other side.
In the image of Platon Karataev, the artist made the impossible seem to be possible: he managed to define a living, or at least for a while, seeming living personality in impersonality, in the absence of any definite features and sharp corners, in a special “roundness”, the impression of which is strikingly visual, even as if the geometric arises, however, not so much from the internal, spiritual, but from the external, bodily appearance: Karataev has a “round body”, “round head”, “round movements”, “round speeches”, “something round even in the smell. He is a molecule; he is the first and the last, the least and the greatest, the beginning and the end. It does not exist by itself: it is only a part of the All, a drop in the ocean of universal, universal, universal life. And he reproduces this life with his personality or impersonality, just as a water drop reproduces the world sphere with its perfect roundness. Be that as it may, the miracle of art or the most ingenious deception of the eye is being accomplished, almost accomplished. Platon Karataev, despite his impersonality, seems to be personal, special, unique. But we would like to know it to the end, to see it from the other side. He is kind; but maybe he's been annoyed with someone for once in his life? he is chaste; but perhaps he looked at one woman differently from the other? but speaks in proverbs; but, perhaps, but inserted at least once into these sayings a word from himself? If only one word, one unforeseen dash violated this too regular, mathematically perfect "roundness" - and we would believe that he is a man of flesh and blood, that he is.
But, precisely at the moment of our closest and most greedy attention, Platon Karataev, as if on purpose, dies, disappears, dissolves like a water balloon in the ocean. And when he is even more defined in death, we are ready to admit that he could not have been defined in life, in human feelings, thoughts and actions: he did not live, but only was, precisely was, precisely was “completely round” and by this he fulfilled his purpose, so that he had only to die. And in our memory, just as in the memory of Pierre Bezukhov, Platon Karataev is forever imprinted not with a living face, but only with a living personification of everything Russian, good and “round”, that is, a huge, world-historical religious and moral symbol .... ( D. S. Merezhkovsky, from the treatise "L. Tolstoy and Dostoevsky", 1902)
Genre and plot originality
The novel "War and Peace" is a work of great volume. It covers 16 years (from 1805 to 1821) of the life of Russia and more than five hundred different heroes. Among them are real characters of the historical events described, fictional heroes and many people whom Tolstoy does not even give names, for example, "the general who ordered", "the officer who did not arrive." Thus, the writer wanted to show that the movement of history occurs not under the influence of any specific individuals, but thanks to all the participants in the events. In order to combine such huge material into one work, the author created a genre that had not been used before by any of the writers, which he called the epic novel.
The novel describes real historical events: the battles of Austerlitz, Shengraben, Borodino, the conclusion of the Tilsit peace, the capture of Smolensk, the surrender of Moscow, the partisan war and others, in which real historical figures manifest themselves. Historical events in the novel also play a compositional role. Since the battle of Borodino largely determined the outcome of the war of 1812, 20 chapters are devoted to its description, it is the climax of the novel. The work contains pictures of the battle, which are replaced by the image of the world as the complete opposite of war, peace, as the existence of a community of many and many people, as well as nature, that is, everything that surrounds a person in space and time. Disputes, misunderstanding, hidden and open conflicts, fear, hostility, love... All this is real, alive, sincere, like the heroes of a literary work themselves.
Being close at certain moments of their lives, people who are completely different from each other unexpectedly help themselves to better understand all the shades of feelings and motives of behavior. So, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky and Anatole Kuragin will play an important role in the life of Natasha Rostova, but their attitude towards this naive and fragile girl is different. The situation that has arisen makes it possible to discern a deep abyss between the moral ideals of these two men from high society. But their conflict does not last long - seeing that Anatole is also wounded, Prince Andrei forgives his opponent right on the battlefield. As the action of the novel develops, the worldview of the characters changes or gradually deepens. Three hundred and thirty-three chapters of four volumes and twenty-eight chapters of the epilogue add up to a clear, definite picture.
The narration in the novel is not in the first person, but the presence of the author in each scene is palpable: he always tries to assess the situation, to show his attitude to the hero's actions through their description, through the hero's internal monologue, or through the author's digression - reasoning. Sometimes the writer gives the reader the right to understand what is happening by showing the same event from different points of view. An example of such an image is the description of the Battle of Borodino: first, the author gives a detailed historical background on the alignment of forces, on readiness for battle on both sides, talks about the point of view of historians on this event; then he shows the battle through the eyes of a non-professional in military affairs - Pierre Bezukhov (that is, he shows a sensual, rather than logical perception of the event), reveals the thoughts of Prince Andrei and Kutuzov's behavior during the battle. In his novel L.N. Tolstoy sought to express his point of view on historical events, to show his attitude to important life problems, to answer the main question: "What is the meaning of life?" And Tolstoy's call on this issue sounds so that one cannot but agree with him: "We must live, we must love, we must believe."
Portrait characteristics of heroes
In the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace" over five hundred heroes. Among them are emperors and statesmen, generals and ordinary soldiers, aristocrats and peasants. Some characters, as it is easy to see, are especially sympathetic to the author, while others, on the contrary, are alien and unpleasant. Means portrait characteristics- one of the most important artistic means in the novel "War and Peace".
The writer singles out some separate feature in the portrait of the hero and constantly draws our attention to it: this is Natasha's big mouth, and Mary's radiant eyes, and the dryness of Prince Andrei, and the massiveness of Pierre, and the old age and decrepitude of Kutuzov, and the roundness of Platon Karataev. But the rest of the characters' traits change, and Tolstoy describes these changes in such a way that one can understand everything that happens in the souls of the characters. Often Tolstoy uses the technique of contrast, emphasizing the discrepancy between the appearance and the inner world, the behavior of the characters and their inner state. For example, when Nikolai Rostov, upon returning home from the front, when meeting Sonya dryly greeted her and addressed her as “you”, in their hearts they “called each other for “you” and kissed tenderly.”
Some portraits are overly detailed, while others are barely outlined. However, almost every stroke complements our idea of ​​a hero. For example, introducing us to one of the main characters, Andrei Bolkonsky, the writer notes that he was "a very handsome young man with definite and dry features." This phrase alone suggests that the hero is distinguished by restraint, practicality and strong will. In addition, we can also guess about the “pride of thought” inherent in him, which his sister Marya Bolkonskaya will feel in him. And in her portrait, the author will especially highlight one single detail that conveys the essence of the heroine's nature. Marya has “an ugly, weak body and a thin face,” but “the princess’s eyes, large, deep and radiant ... were so good that very often, despite the ugliness of her whole face, these eyes became more attractive than beauty.” These “radiant” eyes speak more eloquently than any words about the spiritual beauty of Marya Bolkonskaya. Tolstoy's beloved heroine Natasha Rostova, “black-eyed, with a big mouth, ugly, but alive ...” With her liveliness, cheerfulness, she is especially dear to the author. But Sonya, Natasha's cousin, according to the writer, resembles "a beautiful, but not yet formed kitten, which will be a lovely kitty." And the reader feels that Sonya is far from Natasha, she seems to lack that spiritual wealth with which Tolstoy's favorite is generously endowed.
The most internally beautiful heroes of the novel are not distinguished by their external beauty. First of all, this applies to Pierre Bezukhov. A permanent portrait feature - the massive, thick figure of Pierre Bezukhov can be either clumsy or strong, depending on the circumstances. It can express confusion, anger, kindness, and rage. In other words, with Tolstoy, the constant artistic detail acquires new, additional shades every time. Pierre's smile is not the same as the others. When a smile appeared on his face, the serious face suddenly instantly disappeared and another appeared - childish, kind. Andrei Bolkonsky says about Pierre: "One living person among our whole world." And this word "alive" inextricably links Pierre Bezukhov with Natasha Rostova, whose antipode is the brilliant St. Petersburg beauty Helen Kuragina. The author repeatedly draws attention to Helen's unchanging smile, full white shoulders, glossy hair and Helen's beautiful figure. But, despite this “undoubtedly, and too strong and victoriously acting beauty,” she, of course, loses to both Natasha Rostova and Marya Bolkonskaya, because the presence of life is not felt in her features. The same can be said about the brother of Helen Kuragina - Anatole.
Turning to the portraits of ordinary people, it is easy to see that Tolstoy appreciates in them, above all, kindness and liveliness of character. It is no coincidence that he emphasizes this, for example, in Platon Karataev, drawing his smiling round face.
However, Tolstoy used portrait characteristics not only when depicting fictional heroes, but also when depicting historical figures, such as Emperor Napoleon and commander Kutuzov. Kutuzov and Napoleon are philosophically opposed to each other. Outwardly, Kutuzov is in no way inferior to the French emperor: “Kutuzov, in an unbuttoned uniform, from which, as if freed, his fat neck floated onto the collar, was sitting in a Voltaire chair.” Napoleon "was in a blue uniform, open over a white waistcoat, descending on a round stomach, in white leggings, tight-fitting fat thighs of thick legs, and in over the knee boots." However, the expressions on their faces are noticeably different: “Napoleon had an unpleasantly feigned smile on his face,” but “a smart, kind, and at the same time subtly mocking expression shone on Kutuzov’s plump face.” If the portrait of Kutuzov emphasizes ease and naturalness, then in the face of Napoleon - pretense.
Kutuzov, as a mere mortal, "was weak in tears", he "reluctantly played the role of chairman and head of the military council", spoke "clearly and distinctly" with the sovereign, considered his soldiers "wonderful, incomparable people." He "understood that there is something stronger and more significant than his will - this is an inevitable course of events ..." Despite his obesity and old man's infirmity, he feels inner peace and purity of soul.
In the image of Napoleon, Tolstoy emphasizes a certain mystery. Portrait characteristics of the French commander
etc.................

Introduction

Today we can say that the epic novel "War and Peace" is a valuable asset of world literature. Few works of famous writers could compare with the richness of the content of the novel. It reflects a historical event of great importance, and the deep foundations of the national life of Russia, and the fate of individual people.

AT modern society, in the midst of moral desolation, it is very important to turn to life examples presented in Russian classics. The epic novel "War and Peace" can convey to us irreplaceable values ​​that modern man may lack. On the pages of this work rise such ideals as nobility, truth, family unity, obedience, respect and, of course, love. In order to develop spiritually, one should pay attention to these principles.

The relevance of the chosen topic is manifested in the possibility of applying some of the aspects disclosed in the work in practice in modern life.

The purpose of the work is to understand the meaning of creating an epic novel, to study its features.

Presented tasks:

1. Define the idea of ​​the novel, understand what the author of the work wanted to convey.

2. Present the context of events and the conditions for the creation of the novel.

3. To reveal the development of the main characters of the novel.

4. Rate global importance epic novel from the point of view of famous classics and literary critics of the 19th century.

When creating this work, materials from various researchers of Leo Tolstoy's work were used, who considered the epic novel "War and Peace" from various angles. In the works of various authors, the moral ideal of the characters, the style of the work were studied, the characteristics of the main events and their meaning were given. Also, in preparing the work, materials of correspondence and writings of writers, critical essays of Russian and foreign contemporaries were studied. All this together made it possible to present a complete picture of the work, its place in world literature, and its significance for contemporaries and descendants.

1 The history of the creation of the epic novel

1.1 Idea and concept of the work

Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy is one of the most outstanding personalities in the domestic life of the last two centuries. Already at an early stage of his work, he was spoken of as a future master of the word. “I got new Russian magazines - a lot of interesting things. Little story of Tolstoy (“Snowstorm”) is a miracle, in general, a huge movement, ”wrote A. Herzen to M.K. Reichel back in 1856.

However, the end of the 1950s was characterized by a crisis in Leo Tolstoy's creative biography. A brilliant beginning (“Childhood”, 1852), Sevastopol essays (1855), success among St. Petersburg writers turned out to be, albeit recent, but the past. Almost everything that Tolstoy writes in the second half of the 1950s has no success. Lucerne (1857) was accepted with bewilderment, Albert (1858) failed, and there was a sudden disappointment in Family Happiness (1859), which was worked on with enthusiasm. This is followed by eight years of fruitless work, the result of which is merciless: “Now, as a writer, I am no longer good for anything. I do not write and have not written since the time of "Family Happiness" and, it seems, I will not write. - Why is that? Long and hard to tell. The main thing is that life is short, and it is shameful to spend it in adult years writing such stories as I wrote. You can and should and want to do something. If only there were good content that would languish, ask to come out, would give impudence, pride, strength, then it would be so. And to write stories that are very sweet and pleasant to read at 31, by God, hands do not rise.

In search of solace, Tolstoy moves to Yasnaya Polyana, "home". Here, spending a quiet and peaceful life (in 1862 he marries S. A. Bers), the writer communicates more and more with the peasants. As a conciliator, he settles land disputes after the abolition of serfdom (“Mediation is interesting and exciting, but it’s not good that all the nobility hated me with all the strength of their souls ...”). Classes are going on with peasant children in the Yasnaya Polyana school (“The urgent need of the Russian people is public education”). Tolstoy tries not to engage in literary activities: “I live out the winter well. There is an abyss of employment, and good employment, not like writing novels ”

However, the need to write still prevails. In 1862, "Cossacks" was completed - a story begun ten years ago, the story "Polikushka" was written, "Kholstomer" was started, which would be completed only in twenty years. But through this work, the main idea imperceptibly and inevitably grows. In February 1863, S. A. Tolstaya wrote to her sister Tatyana: “Leva has begun a new novel.” Thus began a book on which seven years of unceasing labor under the best conditions of life will be spent, a book in which years of historical research are included.

To understand what served as the prerequisites for the creation of the greatest masterpiece, let's go back to the beginning creative activity L.N. Tolstoy.

In the early days, for the writer, the "main interest" of creativity was in the history of characters, in their continuous and complex movement, development. V.G Korolenko, who arrived in Yasnaya Polyana in 1910, remarked: “You gave the types of changing people…”. - In response to L.N. Tolstoy clarified: "One can speak of the ability to guess by direct feeling a type that does not change, but moves." Tolstoy believed in the "power of development". The ability of the protagonist to overcome the usual framework of being, not to stagnate, but constantly change and renew, "flow" is fraught with a guarantee of change, gives a solid moral support and, at the same time, the ability to resist attacks environment. This was a fundamental feature of the writer's creative quest. L.N. Tolstoy believed that it was important not only to change depending on external changes, but also to grow morally, improve, resist the world, relying on the strength of one's own soul.

In the genre framework of the narrative about childhood, adolescence and youth, there was no place for historical digressions and philosophical reflections on Russian life, which occupied such an important place in War and Peace. However, the writer found an opportunity to express all the general disorder and anxiety that his hero - like himself during the years of working on the first book - experienced as a spiritual conflict, as an internal discord and anxiety.

L.N. Tolstoy did not paint a self-portrait, but rather a portrait of a peer who belonged to that generation of Russian people whose youth fell on the middle of the century. The war of 1812 and Decembrism were the recent past for them, the Crimean War was the immediate future; in the present, they found nothing solid, nothing to rely on with confidence and hope. All this was reflected in the early work of Tolstoy and gave an imprint for the future.

In the story "Boyhood" the writer begins to express his feelings through images, landscapes. In Tolstoy's narrative, the landscapes are far from being impersonal; they are dramatized and animated. This technique, widely developed by the writers of the late 19th century, and especially perfected by Chekhov, is common with the early Tolstoy. These landscape sketches foreshadow the paintings of War and Peace.

During the period of work on the first book, when Tolstoy's aesthetic views, poetics, and style were being formed, his attitude to various trends and schools of Russian literature was also determined. His reading circle included French (Lamartine, Rousseau), German (Goethe), English (Stern, Dickens) and, of course, Russian writers. As a reader, Tolstoy early adopted the tradition of Russian realistic prose and even defended it in a dispute in creative manner romanticism.

Each time he promises the reader to continue the story at the end, Tolstoy hardly imagines that none of his books will receive a traditional ending. Apparently, only at the time of "War and Peace" did he understand that the open ending is a literary law, first founded by Pushkin and then approved by his successors. Thus, the writer left the right to decide the fate of the characters to the readers, only hinting at a possible outcome.

The theme of war, expressed in the epic novel, was born over many years. Military impressions were experienced by the author himself so strongly that it was embodied on the pages of the work. Without his own study of the simple realities of war, human behavior in war, which is carried out by the writer on the material of the Crimean campaign in Sevastopol essays, of course, there could not have been "War and Peace". Among these realities, first of all, is the problem of man in war. In the article "A few words about the book" War and Peace "", published in 1868, at the end of the novel, Tolstoy explained his depiction of the war. In Sevastopol, the writer fully learned what danger and military prowess are, how the fear of being killed is experienced, and what is the courage that overcomes and destroys this fear. He saw that the appearance of war is inhuman, that it manifests itself “in blood, in suffering, in death,” but also that in battles the moral qualities of the fighting parties are tested and the main features of the national character appear.

In the Caucasus and in Sevastopol, Tolstoy got to know and fell in love with ordinary Russian people better - soldiers, officers. He felt like a part of a huge whole - a people, an army defending their land. In one of the drafts of the novel War and Peace, he wrote about this feeling of belonging to a common action, a military feat: “This is a feeling of pride, joy of expectation and, at the same time, insignificance, consciousness of brute strength - and supreme power.” The main thing that Tolstoy saw and learned in the war was the psychology of different types of soldiers, different - both base and sublime - feelings that guided the behavior of officers. The truth, which is so difficult to tell about the war, paves a wide road on the pages of the epic about the Patriotic War. In this truth, the disclosure of psychology, spiritual experiences is of fundamental importance. It is in military stories that Tolstoy's "dialectic of the soul" includes ordinary people in the field of study, as if not at all inclined to in-depth work. Revealing his hero, Tolstoy does not erase the individual in a person, but, on the contrary, reveals him in all his richness. He shows the general experiences of the people through individual characters, while not typifying them, but endowing them with special, only inherent properties.

Following the Caucasian stories, the writer continues to explore human behavior in war, this time in the most difficult conditions of unsuccessful battles. He bows "before this silent, unconscious grandeur and firmness of spirit, this bashfulness before his own dignity." In the faces, posture, movements of the soldiers and sailors defending Sevastopol, he sees "the main features that make up the strength of the Russian." He sings of the resilience of ordinary people and shows the failure of "heroes" - more precisely, those who want to seem like a hero. Here the world of repulsions and oppositions is much richer than the world of attraction. In contrast, ostentatious courage and modest courage are put in contrast. Moreover, entire vital regions, social strata, and not just individuals, are opposed. At the same time, the writer shows people with their own characters, habits, manners. He conveys with feeling the "wrong" colloquial speech of the soldiers. Tolstoy, both in his youth and in the later days of his work, knew and loved the simple folk language. In his writings, this looked like an ornament to speech, and not as its flaw.

The defense of Sevastopol and the victory over Napoleon in 1812 for Tolstoy are events of different historical scale, but equal in moral outcome - the “consciousness of the insubordination” of the people. Insubordination, despite a different outcome: Sevastopol, after almost a year of heroic defense, was surrendered, and the war with Napoleon ended with his expulsion from Russia. The meaning of this comparison is that ordinary people, sacrificing themselves for the common cause, deserve more honors than "heroes". Here, perhaps, there is even a feature of the moral perfection of the common people.

One cannot fail to say that in the ideological plan War and Peace was prepared by Tolstoy's pedagogical articles, just as in terms of the work of art it was prepared throughout the writer's entire creative life. In the articles of the early 60s, in addition to pedagogical issues (as you know, Tolstoy was engaged in the education of peasant children), the writer poses the most important, from his point of view, question - about the right of the people to decide the matter of their education, as well as all historical development, about social reorganization - by educating the people. Later in his work, he will touch on this issue: “You say schools,<…>teachings and so on, that is, you want to bring him [a man] out of his animal state and give him moral needs. But it seems to me that the only possible happiness is the happiness of an animal, and you want to deprive him of it ... "

The strength of Tolstoy's position lies in his deep, convinced democracy. About his love for the people and peasant children, about their advantages over city children, Tolstoy speaks passionately and strongly:

“The advantage of intelligence and knowledge is always on the side of a peasant boy who has never studied, in comparison with a lordly boy who has studied with a tutor since he was five”;

“The people of the people are fresher, stronger, more powerful, more independent, fairer, more humane and, most importantly, more necessary than people, no matter how educated”;

“... in the generations of workers lies more strength and more consciousness of truth and goodness than in the generations of barons of bankers and professors.”

Despite the fact that the main events are built around representatives of high society, the theme of the people, its simple Russian soul, is constantly found on the pages of War and Peace. This characterizes the need of the soul of Tolstoy himself to express his affection for ordinary people.

As a result of the first chapter, I would like to note that the epic novel "War and Peace" was not born thanks to an instant idea. It became a meaningful fruit of a long creative life of the writer. It was already the creation of an accomplished, experienced and life-taught author. It should be noted that the work has a solid and solid foundation based on Tolstoy's personal experiences, on his memoirs and reflections. All the bright episodes of the writer's life, his moral principles, which originated in the early days of his work, are reflected in the great masterpiece of Russian classics "War and Peace". Next, I would like to touch on some features of the creation of an epic novel.

1.2 Birth of the epic novel

The meaning of a completed work becomes clearer when we know its history, the path traveled by the writer before starting work, and the creative history of the work.

Seven years of "continuous and exceptional work, under the best conditions of life" (L.N. Tolstoy was calm, happy, living with his young wife almost without a break in Yasnaya Polyana), devoted to the creation of a great book: 1863 - 1869. During these years, the writer almost did not keep a diary, made rare notes in notebooks, was very little distracted by other ideas - all his energy was spent on the novel.

In the history of the creation of the novel, the most important feature of the artistic genius of Leo Tolstoy was manifested - the desire to "reach the end", to explore the deepest layers of national life.

The history of the initial stage is told in one of the rough drafts of the preface:

“In 1856, I began to write a story with a well-known title, the hero was supposed to be a Decembrist returning with his family to Russia. Involuntarily, I moved from the present to 1825, the era of my hero's delusions and misfortunes, and left what I had begun. But even in 1825 my hero was already a mature family man. In order to understand him, I had to go back to his youth, and his youth coincided with the glorious era for Russia in 1812. Another time I gave up what I had begun, and began to write from the time of 1812, whose smell and sound are still audible and dear to us, but which is now already so distant from us that we can think about it calmly. But for the third time I left what I had begun, but not because I had to describe the first youth of my hero, on the contrary: between those semi-historical, semi-social, semi-fictional great characteristic faces of a great era, the personality of my hero receded into the background, but into the foreground. became, with equal interest to me, both young and old people, and men and women of that time. For the third time, I came back with a feeling that may seem strange to most readers, but which, I hope, will be understood by those whose opinion I value; I did it for a feeling that is similar to shyness and which I cannot define in one word. I was ashamed to write about our triumph in the struggle against Bonaparte France without describing our failures and our shame. Who has not experienced that hidden, but unpleasant feeling of shyness and distrust when reading patriotic writings about the 12th year. If the reason for our triumph was not accidental, but lay in the essence of the character of the Russian people and troops, then this character should have been expressed even more clearly in an era of failures and defeats. So, having returned from 1856 to 1805, from now on I intend to lead not one, but many of my heroines and heroes through the historical events of 1805, 1807, 1812, 1825 and 1856.

“... You cannot imagine how interested I am in all the information about the Decembrists in the Polar Star. About four months ago I started a novel, the hero of which was supposed to be a returning Decembrist. I wanted to talk to you about this, but I never had time. My Decembrist must be an enthusiast, a mystic, a Christian, returning to Russia in 1956 with his wife, son and daughter and trying on his strict and somewhat ideal view of the new Russia ... Turgenev, to whom I read the beginning, liked the first chapters.

But then the novel about the Decembrist did not develop beyond the first chapters. From a story about the fate of one Decembrist hero, he moved on to a story about a generation of people who lived during the period of historical events that formed the Decembrists. It was assumed that the fate of this generation would be traced to the end - until the return of the Decembrists from exile. The search for the right beginning went on for a whole year. Only the 15th option satisfied Tolstoy.

One of the first sketches is entitled “Three pores. Part 1. 1812 year. It begins with a chapter about Catherine's General-in-Chief "Prince Volkonsky, father of Prince Andrei." Apparently, the three times are 1812, 1825 and 1856. Then the time of the action is preserved, and the place is transferred to St. Petersburg - to the "ball at the Catherine's nobleman." But this did not suit the writer. Only in the 7th version was the final countdown found: “On November 12, 1805, Russian troops, under the command of Kutuzov and Bagration ... in Olmutz were preparing for a review of the Austrian and Russian emperors.” But this fragment did not become the beginning of the novel. Military operations will be discussed in the second part of the first volume.

The twelfth version is entitled: “From 1805 to 1814. The novel of Count L.N. Tolstoy. 1805 year. Part 1 ”- and begins with a direct indication that the future Pierre Bezukhov belongs to Decembristism:

“Those who knew Prince Peter Kirillovich B. at the beginning of the reign of Alexander II, in the 1850s, when Peter Kirillich was returned from Siberia white as a harrier old man, it would be difficult to imagine him as a carefree, stupid and extravagant youth, what he was at the beginning of the reign of Alexander I, shortly after his arrival from abroad, where, at the request of his father, he completed his education. Prince Pyotr Kirillovich, as you know, was the illegitimate son of Kirill Vladimirovich B. ... According to the papers, he was called not Pyotr Kirillich, but Pyotr Ivanovich, and not B., but Medynsky, after the name of the village in which he was born.

Peter's closest friend is Andrey Volkonsky; Together with him, Peter is going to “go to the old lady-in-waiting Anna Pavlovna Sherer, who really wanted to see the young Medynsky”20. This was the beginning of the epic novel.

From the first months of 1864 to the beginning of 1867, the first edition of the entire novel was being created. In November 1864, a part of the manuscript had already been submitted for publication to Russkiy vestnik. Under the title "Year 1805" (meaning the name of the first "time"), the chapters appeared in 1865 in a magazine with subtitles: "In Petersburg", "In Moscow", "In the countryside". The next group of chapters is called "War", and is dedicated to the Russian campaign abroad, ending with the Battle of Austerlitz. The content of the first three parts: “1 hour - what is printed. 2 hours - to Austerlitz inclusive. 3 hours - up to and including Tilsit. It was necessary to write: “4 hours - Petersburg until Andrey's explanation with Natasha and Andrey's explanation with Pierr, inclusive. 6 hours - to Smolensk. 7 hours - to Moscow. 8 hours - Moscow. 9 am - Tambov. 10 "The number 10 is set, but not deciphered.

The composition of the book was determined: the alternation of parts and chapters that tell about peaceful life and military events. A plan written by Tolstoy with a count of sheets has been preserved.

Throughout 1866 and the beginning of 1867, the first edition of the novel was being created. In a letter to A. A. Fet, L. N. Tolstoy gives her the name "All's well that ends well." There are no titles in the manuscripts.

This first draft of the novel differs from the final one. Here, the fate of the heroes develops differently: Andrei Bolkonsky and Petya Rostov do not die, and Andrei Bolkonsky, who, like Nikolai Rostov, sets off on a foreign campaign of the Russian army, "yields" Natasha to his friend Pierre. But the main thing here is that the historical-romantic narrative has not yet become an epic, it has not yet been imbued, as it will become in the final text, with the “thought of the people” and is not the “history of the people”. Only at the final stage of the work, in the outline of the epilogue, Tolstoy will say: "... I tried to write the history of the people."

Of course, "1805", and even more so the first completed edition of the entire novel, was not a chronicle of several noble families. History, historical characters from the very beginning were part of the author's intention. There is an opinion that at the beginning "War and Peace" was created as a family chronicle. L.N. Tolstoy himself wrote about this: “In my work, only princes speak and write in French, counts, etc., as if all Russian life of that time was concentrated in these people. I agree that this is wrong and illiberal, and I can give one but irrefutable answer. The life of officials, merchants, seminarians and peasants is uninteresting and half incomprehensible to me, the life of the aristocrats of that time, thanks to the monuments of that time and other reasons, is more understandable and sweet. It is hard to believe that this is said by the creator of War and Peace, but it is true.

Three years of intense creative work at the final stage just led to the fact that the historical novel - "a picture of morals built on a historical event", a novel about the fate of a generation - turned into an epic novel, into a "history of the people". The book became not about people, not about events, but about life in general, about the course of life. The philosophical thought of Leo Tolstoy (about freedom and necessity, about the causes and laws of historical movement, etc.) was looking for ways of universal truth.

In the summer of 1967, an agreement was signed on the publication of the novel with the owner of the Lazarev Institute of Oriental Languages, F. F. Rees. But the novel did not yet have its final form; its second half, dedicated to the Patriotic War, was still waiting for revision and changes.

In September, Leo Tolstoy decided to inspect the field of the Battle of Borodino. Together with his wife's younger brother, 12-year-old Stepan Bers, he stayed in Borodino for two days; took notes, drew a plan of the area in order to understand the actual location of the troops, and on the day of departure, “got up at dawn, traveled around the field again” in order to clearly see the area just at the hour when the battle began. Returning to Moscow, he said in a letter to his wife: “I am very pleased, very - with my trip ... If only God would give health and tranquility, and I will write such a battle of Borodino as never before ... In Borodino I was pleased, and there was a consciousness of that that I'm doing business".

To describe the Battle of Borodino, only a copy of the first edition was used to a small extent; almost the entire description of the battle, Pierre's observations, Napoleon's hesitation, confidence in Kutuzov's victory and the author's reasoning about the significance of the Battle of Borodino, which "remained forever ... the best military feat unparalleled in history" - all this is almost entirely written anew.

The latest volume has new details. Added a description of the guerrilla war, the author's reasoning about its national character.

On December 17, 1867, the Moskovskie Vedomosti newspaper announced the release of the first three volumes of the epic novel. The fourth volume has already been printed.

The success of the novel with readers was so great that in 1868 a second building was needed. It was printed in the same printing house. The two final volumes (5th and 6th) were printed in both editions from one set. The announcement of the 6th volume appeared in the same newspaper on December 12, 1869.

At the beginning of 1869, a relative of A. Fet, I.P. Borisov, saw L.N. maybe - and so on ... Much, much has been written, but all this is not to the Vth, but forward. As you can see, there were many plans.

However, as happened with L.N. Tolstoy before, a grandiose plan to include in the narrative "two more pores" in 1825, 1856. has not been implemented. The epic was over. In essence, on the material of other, subsequent eras, it could not take place as an epic. Rather, it would be a trilogy of independent works, like "Childhood", "Boyhood" and "Youth". The realized end is the only possible one.

As a result, I would like to note that "War and Peace" can proudly bear the title of an epic novel. It was a truly titanic work of the writer, which was born more than one year. This is a whole epoch in the life of the author, which changed the idea of ​​the war of 1812, its representatives and events. Here the reader can see and feel the spirit of the people, in the form in which it was during the Patriotic War. Of course, the original idea to create the image of the Decembrist failed, the novel did not include the planned "three pores". But this led to the fact that now "War and Peace" is a "mirror" of the era, through which we, the descendants, can learn about the life and customs of Russia, learn about moral values.

2 The ideological and thematic originality of the epic novel

2.1 Characters of the main characters and their evolution

There is hardly another work in world literature that so widely embraces all the circumstances of man's earthly existence. At the same time, L.N. Tolstoy always knew how not only to show the changing situations of life, but to imagine in these situations to the last degree truthfully the “work” of feeling and reason in people of all ages, nationalities, ranks and positions, always unique in their nervous system. Not only waking experiences, but also the realm of dreams, daydreams, semi-forgetfulness was depicted in War and Peace with Unsurpassed Art.

The era when the new book was being created was alarming. The abolition of serfdom and other governmental reforms responded in Russian society with real spiritual trials. The spirit of doubt and discord visited the once united people. The European principle "how many people, so many truths", penetrating everywhere, gave rise to endless disputes. A multitude of "new people" have appeared, ready, at their own whim, to rebuild the life of the country to the ground. The Russian world during the Patriotic War was, according to the writer, the exact opposite of modernity. This clear, stable world, Tolstoy understood well, concealed in itself the strong spiritual guidelines necessary for the new Russia, largely forgotten. But he himself was inclined to see in the national celebration of 1812 the victory of precisely the values ​​of "living life" dear to him.

Tolstoy strove to cover the events of the past with an unprecedented breadth. As a rule, he also made sure that everything he said strictly to the smallest detail corresponded to the facts of real history. In the sense of documentary, actual reliability, his work noticeably pushed the boundaries of literary creativity. It absorbed non-fictional situations, statements of historical figures and details of their behavior, texts of authentic documents of the era. Leo Tolstoy knew the works of historians well, he studied notes, memoirs, diaries of famous people of the 19th century.

The spiritual world of the writer's heroes, as a rule, set in motion under the influence of external impressions, which gave rise to the most intense activity of feeling and thought in them. The sky of Austerlitz, seen by the wounded Andrei Bolkonsky, the view of the Borodino field, which so struck Pierre Bezukhov at the beginning of the battle, "the most not for the battlefield, ... but the simplest room face" of a French officer captured by Nikolai Rostov - large and small, the details were included in the soul of the characters, became active facts of his innermost life.

The concept of happiness, which was at the origins of War and Peace, would be wrong to reduce to worldly well-being. Fortunately, the heroes' feelings led an easy life. The rich world of feelings contained an indestructible, ever-living "instinct of love." In War and Peace, he found a diverse, but almost always physically tangible manifestation. The moments of the "roll call of souls" formed the core of the work.

The statement of L.N. Tolstoy: “... In “Anna Karenina” I love family thought, in “War and Peace” I loved people's thought, as a result of the war of 12 th year ... ". Nevertheless, the writer's folk thought could not, even to a small extent, develop outside the family thought, which is essential for War and Peace. The family is a free unity of people. It is not limited only to family ties, it is rather the unity of kindred souls. In this unity lies happiness. In the novel, the family is not a clan closed in itself, not separated from everything surrounding it, on the contrary, it interacts with others.

Pictures of family life constituted the strongest, ever unfading side of War and Peace. The Rostov family and the Bolkonsky family, new families that arose as a result of the long journey traveled by the heroes: Pierre Bezukhov and Natasha, Nikolai Rostov and Princess Marya, captured the truth of the Russian way of life as fully as possible within Tolstoy's philosophy.

The family appeared here both as a connecting link in the fate of generations, and as the environment where a person receives the first experiences of “love”, discovers elementary moral truths, learns to reconcile his own will with the desires of other people.

The description of family life has always had a deeply Russian character in War and Peace. Whichever of the truly living families shown on its pages fell into the field of view of Leo Tolstoy, it was a family where moral values ​​meant more than earthly success. There is no family selfishness, no turning the house into an impregnable fortress, no indifference to the fate of those who are behind its walls, here. The most striking example, of course, is the Rostov family. But the Bolkonsky family, completely different, sometimes even opposite, closed, also included a variety of people: from the architect Mikhail Ivanovich to the teacher Desal.

In the family, earthly life is manifested, in the family it flows, and in the family it ends. The family seemed to Leo Tolstoy a kind of "crossroads" of living emotions. In it, he believed, responsiveness, not overshadowed by reason, always abides, which, without any truths, will itself tell a person what is good and what is bad in the world. Such concepts were most fully reflected in the image of Natasha Rostova. In relation to Natasha as a kind of center of the work, the hidden essence of all the main characters was revealed. In contact with her fate, Pierre Bezukhov, Andrei Bolkonsky found a foothold independent of their convictions. To a certain extent, Natasha in War and Peace served as a measure of the authenticity of everything that happened.

Outlining the preliminary characteristics of the future heroes of the book, the writer wrote: “Natalya. 15 years. Generous insanely. Believes in himself. Capricious, and everything works out, and bothers everyone, and is loved by everyone. Ambitious. Music possesses, understands and feels to madness. Suddenly sad, suddenly insanely happy. Dolls". Even then, in the character of Natasha, one could easily guess the very quality that most met the requirement of true being: complete ease. Starting from the first appearance of the heroine in front of the guests of the Rostov house, she was all movement, impulse, the incessant beat of life. This eternal restlessness only manifested itself in different ways. Tolstoy saw here not just the childish mobility of Natasha the teenager, the enthusiasm and willingness to fall in love with the whole world of Natasha the girl, the fear and impatience of Natasha the bride, the anxious troubles of the mother and wife, but the infinity of feelings, manifested in the most unclouded form.

Natasha Rostova was endowed with the mind of the heart to the highest degree. The concept of prudence was excluded by the very structure of War and Peace. Instead, there remained an independent sensibility in a new meaning for the heroine. It was she who revealed to Natasha who is who, forced, as happened once in the novel, to look for definitions of familiar people “free” from general concepts.

In the epilogue of his work, Tolstoy already showed another heroine: deprived of charm, with which the writer so often characterized the young Natasha, carried away family concerns. And yet, he could not fail to mention that Natasha-mother is a strong, beautiful, prolific female. Richly gifted living nature remained truly sacred to him. The former "beautiful" beginnings are now only more closely united with their source. This was the natural result of the development of the image.

"Family thought" and "people's thought" appeared in "War and Peace" as mutually penetrating thoughts, ascending to the same philosophical fundamental principle. The image of Natasha in its own way connected them together. The moral values ​​of the Russian people, like the ideal features in the image of the heroine, seemed to Tolstoy just as natural and earthly, rooted directly in the harmony of the world.

There were no negative characters in the generally accepted sense of the word on the pages of War and Peace. Tolstoy's characters were initially divided into two inconsistent groups: those who understand and those who do not understand. And if the first of these worlds included natural life with its moral course, then the second was artificial, dead and, accordingly, devoid of any moral foundations. On one side were the Rostovs, Bolkonskys, soldiers, officers; on the other - Kuragins, Bergi, Drubetskoy. The concepts of nepotism adopted in their environment differed sharply from those that the Rostovs' house breathed. In contrast to the former, in the latter, the family was only a means of achieving a momentary interest.

Among the many characters in War and Peace, Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov occupied an exceptional place. Both characters had different paths to the same goal. Open, careless, naive, idle Pierre Bezukhov. Restrained, outwardly cold, concentratedly active Prince Andrei. In the fate of each of them, a single logic came true, but in its own way.

Throughout the book, Bolkonsky and Bezukhov were distinguished by a kind of “honesty of thought”, both of them sincerely served what they considered the truth at the moment. Their own mind was not a toy for them. Conviction and life followed inseparably. That is why the catastrophes of their soul and life were so painful, deeply comprehending them.

During the first volumes of the novel, Bolkonsky and Bezukhov were defeated more than once. Prince Andrei had a Napoleonic dream, there was a lonely, philosophically justified life in Bogucharovo, broken hopes of family happiness and a desire to take revenge on his offender Anatoly Kuragin ... Bezukhov was "led astray" by an imposed marriage with a secular whore Helen, Masonic mysticism.

In 1812, the heroes were to be "reborn" through participation in people's war, discover deep truths about human life and the world. For many of those who lived in Russia at that time, the decisive struggle against Napoleon really proved to be a moment of such enlightenment. It cannot be said that the fates of the heroes at the first stage of the war were free from the previous "obscurations". Prince Andrei only pushed back the proud plans of his revenge on Kuragin. The fascinated Pierre took an active part in the Moscow meeting of the sovereign and even volunteered to put up a new regiment with his own money.

The war of 1812 will find Prince Andrei at the moment of the highest spiritual crisis. But it is the nationwide misfortune that brings him out of this state.

The fate of Prince Andrei, mortally wounded on the field of Borodino, was similar in almost everything to the fate of thousands of Russian soldiers who died in this battle. But the hero of the novel made his sacrifice in such an artistic world, where exceptional morality was assumed. The last weeks on earth became for the dying Bolkonsky the time of her final comprehension. Simply and directly, the hero discovered in himself the very values ​​in whose name he went into battle.

Borodino finally delivered Prince Andrei from his vengeful plans, his ambitious hopes. Love for all people came to him after he saw his past enemy, Anatole Kuragin, sobbing on the operating table. But this new love, acquired by the hero with a fullness almost impossible on earth, already foreshadowed his inevitable departure.

“Living Life” took Pierre out of the “knurled path”, saved him from the “habits of civilization” for a while, occupied him with the simplest interests related to maintaining his own body. "Yawning infinity" was revealed to Bezukhov through the figure of his fellow captive soldier Platon Karataev.

In the long path of searches that Bezukhov followed throughout the four volumes of the novel, the moment of death of the “righteous” Karataev meant the achievement of the ultimate goal. The vivid picture of the universe that Bezukhov saw went far beyond the hero's own experiences. What Karataev unconsciously included in himself, Bezukhov discovered already quite meaningfully. Taught by the life of a soldier and more - by his death, he approached the comprehension of precisely the Karataev truths, the very ones that, the writer believed, the entire Russian people profess. Platon Karataev was a reflection of the Russian people, his breath and life. This is what Pierre realized, this was the result of his many years of searching for the truth, which was in this simple soldier.

The last chapters in "War and Peace" showed its heroes already in a different historical era, directly striving towards the modern Tolstoy of the 60s of the 19th century. The epilogue depicted the post-war period: the time of the Decembrist secret meetings, the time of government reaction. Pierre Bezukhov thought about how to rebuild Russia on a humane, "love" basis. His relative Nikolai Rostov kept to the official line, which did not allow for change, oppressive and inflexible.

Depicting the ideological split between the characters, the writer did not seek to take the side of one or the other of them, almost without revealing his attitude to what was happening. Both were dear to him. Here, one might say, the characters began to "live their own lives."

Pierre, possibly the future Decembrist, whom the writer wanted to approach at the beginning of the novel, appears before us in the epilogue as a man with already stable humanistic convictions, a desire to change everything around.

Conclusion: the characters throughout the novel changed their views and beliefs more than once. Of course, first of all, this was due to the decisive, turning points in their lives. Those searches for the main characters, to which they came, were born in them for more than one year. And this is natural. This is the manifestation of human nature. Just going through your life path, you can know the truth to which the soul aspires.

2.2 The novel "War and Peace" and its characters in the assessments of literary criticism

Already after the completion of the publication of the novel, by the beginning of the 70s. there were mixed reviews and articles. Critics became more and more strict, especially the 4th, "Borodino" volume and the philosophical chapters of the epilogue caused a lot of objections. But, nevertheless, the success and scale of the epic novel became more and more obvious - they manifested themselves even through disagreement or denial.

Writers' judgments of their colleagues' books are always of particular interest. After all, the writer considers someone else's artistic world through the prism of his own. Such a view, of course, is more subjective, but it can reveal unexpected sides and facets in the work that professional criticism does not see.

F.M. Dostoevsky's statements about the novel are fragmentary. He agreed with Strakhov's articles, denying only two lines. At the request of the critic, these two lines are named and commented: “Two lines about Tolstoy, with which I do not fully agree, is when you say that L. Tolstoy is equal to everything that is great in our literature. It is absolutely impossible to say! Pushkin, Lomonosov are geniuses. To appear with “Arap of Peter the Great” and with “Belkin” means resolutely appearing with a brilliant new word, which until then had never been said anywhere and never. To appear with “War and Peace” means to appear after this new word, already expressed by Pushkin, and this is all in any case, no matter how far and high Tolstoy goes in developing the new word already spoken for the first time by a genius. At the end of the decade, while working on A Teenager, Dostoevsky once again recalls War and Peace. But it remained in drafts, detailed reviews of F. M. Dostoevsky are no longer known.

Even less is known about the reader's reaction of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. In T.A. Kuzminskaya was given his remark: “These military scenes are nothing but lies and vanity. Bagration and Kutuzov are puppet generals. In general, - the chatter of nannies and mothers. But our so-called “high society” the count famously snatched.

Close to Leo Tolstoy poet A.A. Fet wrote several detailed analysis letters to the author himself. Back in 1866, having read only the beginning of 1805, Fet foresaw the judgments of Annenkov and Strakhov about the nature of Tolstoy's historicism: “I understand that the main task of the novel is to turn a historical event inside out and consider it not from the official side of the front caftan, but from a shirt, that is, a shirt that is closer to the body and under the same shiny general uniform. The second letter, written in 1870, develops similar ideas, but A. Fet's position becomes more critical: “You write a lining instead of a face, you turned the content upside down. You are a freelance artist and you are quite right. But the artistic laws for all content are unchanging and inevitable, like death. And the first law is the unity of representation. This unity in art is achieved in a completely different way than in life ... We understood why Natasha lost her resounding success, we realized that she was not drawn to sing, but was drawn to be jealous and feed her children intensively. They realized that she did not need to think about belts and ribbons and ringlets of curls. All this does not harm the whole idea of ​​her spiritual beauty. But why was it necessary to stress that she had become a slut. This may be in reality, but this is an unbearable naturalism in art ... This is a caricature that breaks harmony.

The most detailed writer's review of the novel belongs to N.S. Leskov. The series of his articles in Birzhevye Vedomosti, dedicated to volume 5, is rich in thoughts and observations. The stylistic compositional form of Leskov's articles is extremely interesting. He breaks the text into small chapters with characteristic headings (“Upstarts and choronyaks”, “Hereless Bogatyr”, “Enemy Force”), boldly introduces digressions (“Two anecdotes about Yermolov and Rostopchin”).

Difficult and changing was the attitude towards the novel by I.S. Turgenev. Dozens of his responses in letters are accompanied by two printed ones, very different in tone and direction.

In 1869, in the article "On the occasion of "Fathers and Sons"," I.S. Turgenev casually mentioned "War and Peace" as a wonderful work, but still devoid of "true meaning" and "true freedom." Turgenev's main reproaches and claims, which were repeatedly repeated, are collected in a letter to P.V. Annenkov, written after reading his article “A historical increase, from which readers are delighted, puppet comedy and charlatanism ... Tolstoy strikes the reader with the toe of Alexander’s boot, Speransky’s laughter, making him think that he knows about all this, if he even reached these trifles, and He only knows the little things... There is no real development in any character, but there is an old habit of conveying vibrations, vibrations of one and the same feeling, position, what he so mercilessly puts into the mouth and into the consciousness of each of the characters ... Tolstoy does not seem to know another psychology or with the intention of it ignores." This detailed assessment clearly shows the incompatibility of Turgenev's "secret psychologism" and Tolstoy's "penetrating" psychological analysis.

The final review of the novel is equally ambiguous. “I read the sixth volume of War and Peace,” writes I.S. Turgenev to P. Borisov in 1870, “of course, there are first-class things; but, not to mention children's philosophy, it was unpleasant for me to see the reflection of the system even on the images drawn by Tolstoy ... Why does he try to assure the reader that if a woman is smart and developed, then she is certainly a phrase-monger and a liar? How did he lose sight of the Decembrist element that played such a role in the 1920s - and why are all decent people with him some kind of blockheads - with a little bit of foolishness? .

But time passes, and the number of questions and claims gradually decreases. Turgenev comes to terms with this novel, moreover, he becomes his faithful propagandist and admirer. “This is a great work of a great writer, and this is true Russia” - this is how I.S. Turgenev’s fifteen-year reflections on “War and Peace” come to an end.

One of the first with an article on "War and Peace" was P.V. Annenkov, old, from the mid-50s. acquaintance of the writer. In his article, he revealed many features of Tolstoy's design.

Tolstoy boldly destroys the boundary between “romantic” and “historical” characters, Annenkov believes, drawing both in a similar psychological vein, that is, through everyday life: “The dazzling side of the novel lies precisely in the naturalness and simplicity with which it brings down world events and large phenomena of social life to the level and horizon of vision of any witness chosen by him ... Without any sign of the rape of life and its usual course, the novel establishes a permanent connection between the love and other adventures of its faces and Kutuzov, Bagration, between historical facts of tremendous importance - Shengraben, Austerlitz and worries Moscow aristocratic circle ... ".

“First of all, it should be noted that the author adheres to the first life of any artistic narrative: he does not try to extract from the subject of description what he cannot do, and therefore does not deviate a single step from a simple mental study of it.”

However, the critic found it difficult to discover in "War and Peace" the "knot of romantic intrigue" and found it difficult to determine "who should be considered the main characters of the novel": "It can be assumed that we were not the only ones who, after the delightful impressions of the novel, had to ask: where is he himself, this novel, where did he put his real business - the development of a private incident, his "plot" and "intrigue", because without them, no matter what the novel does, it will still seem like an idle novel.

But, finally, the critic perceptively noticed the connection of Tolstoy's heroes not only with the past, but also with the present: “Prince Andrei Bolkonsky introduces into his criticism of current affairs and, in general, into his views on his contemporaries the ideas and ideas that have been formed about them in our time. He has the gift of foresight, which came to him like an inheritance, without difficulty, and the ability to stand above his age, obtained very cheaply. He thinks and judges rationally, but not with the mind of his era, but with another, later one, which was revealed to him by a benevolent author.

N.N. Strakhov paused before speaking about the work. His first articles on the novel appeared at the beginning of 1869, when many opponents had already expressed their point of view.

Strakhov rejects the accusations of the “elitism” of Tolstoy’s book, which were made by a variety of critics: “Despite the fact that one family is a count, and the other is a prince, “War and Peace” does not have even a shadow of a high society character ... The Rostov family and the Bolkonsky family, according to their inner life, according to the relations of their members, they are the same Russian families as any other. Unlike some other critics of the novel, N.N. Strakhov does not utter the truth, but seeks it.

“The idea of ​​War and Peace,” the critic believes, “can be formulated in various ways. It can be said, for example, that the guiding thought of the work is the idea of ​​a heroic life.

“But the heroic life does not exhaust the tasks of the author. Its subject matter is obviously wider. The main idea by which he is guided in depicting heroic phenomena is to reveal their human basis, to show people in heroes. This is how the main principle of Tolstoy's approach to history is formulated: the unity of scale, in the depiction of different characters. Therefore, Strakhov fits the image of Napoleon in a very special way. He convincingly demonstrates why such an artistic image of the French commander was needed in War and Peace: “So, in the person of Napoleon, the artist seemed to want to present to us the human soul in its blindness, he wanted to show that a heroic life can contradict true human dignity, that goodness, truth and beauty can be much more accessible to simple and small people than to other great heroes. A simple person, a simple life, are placed above heroism in this - both in dignity and in strength; for simple Russian people with such hearts as those of Nikolai Rostov, Timokhin and Tushin defeated Napoleon and his great army.

These formulations are very close to Tolstoy's future words about "people's thought" as the main one in "War and Peace".

D.I Pisarev spoke positively about the novel: “A new, not yet finished novel by Count. L. Tolstoy can be called an exemplary work in terms of the pathology of Russian society.”

He considered the novel as a reflection of the Russian, old nobility.

"The novel War and Peace presents us with a whole bunch of diverse and excellently finished characters, male and female, old and young." In his work “The Old Nobility”, he very clearly and fully analyzed the characters of not only the main, but also the secondary characters of the work, thereby expressing his point of view.

With the publication of the first volumes of the work, responses began to arrive not only from Russia, but also abroad. The first major critical article appeared in France more than a year and a half after the publication of Paskevich's translation - in August 1881. The author of the article, Adolf Baden, managed to give only a detailed and enthusiastic retelling of "War and Peace" over almost two printed sheets. Only in conclusion did he make a few remarks of an appraisal nature.

Noteworthy are the early responses to the work of Leo Tolstoy in Italy. It was in Italy at the beginning of 1869 that one of the first articles in the foreign press and "War and Peace" appeared. It was "correspondence from St. Petersburg" signed by M.A. and entitled "Count Leo Tolstoy and his novel "Peace and War". Its author spoke in an unfriendly tone about the "realistic school" to which L.N. Tolstoy.

In Germany, as in France, as in Italy, the name of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy by the end of the last century fell into the orbit of a sharp political struggle. The growing popularity of Russian literature in Germany caused anxiety and irritation among the ideologists of imperialist reaction.

The first extended review of War and Peace to appear in English was by critic and translator William Rolston. His article, published in April 1879 in the English magazine "The Nineteenth Century", and then reprinted in the USA, was called "The Novels of Count Leo Tolstoy", but in fact it was, first of all, a retelling of the content of "War and Peace" - namely retelling, not analysis. Rolston, who spoke Russian, tried to give the English public at least an initial idea of ​​​​L.N. Tolstoy.

As we see at the end of the last chapter, during the first publications, the novel was characterized by different authors in different ways. Many tried to express their understanding of the novel, but not many were able to feel its essence. A great work requires great and deep thought. The epic novel "War and Peace" allows you to think about many principles and ideals.

Conclusion

The work of L.N. Tolstoy is undoubtedly a valuable asset of world literature. Over the years, it has been studied, criticized, admired by many generations of people. The epic novel "War and Peace" allows you to think, analyze the course of events; this is not just a historical novel, although the details of significant events are revealed before us, it is a whole layer of moral and spiritual development of the characters, to which we should pay attention.

In this work, materials were studied that made it possible to consider the work of L. Tolstoy in the context of historical significance

In the first chapter, the features of the novel, its composition were considered, here the history of the creation of the work is presented. We can note that what we have now appeared thanks to the long and hard work of the writer. It was a reflection of his life experience, developed skills. Both family traditions and folk experiences have found their place here. “Family thought” and “folk thought” in the novel merge into a single whole, creating harmony and unity of the image. Studying this work, one can understand the life and customs of the people of the time of 1812, catch the mentality of the people through its characteristic representatives.

The epic novel "War and Peace" changed the idea of ​​the war of 1812. The writer's intention was to show the war not only glorifying the victory, but also conveying all the psychological and physical torments that had to go through to achieve it. Here the reader can feel the situation of events, in the form in which it was during the Patriotic War.

In the second chapter, the features of the development of the destinies of the main characters of the work, their spiritual and moral quests were considered. The characters throughout the novel changed their views and beliefs more than once. Of course, first of all, this was due to the decisive, turning points in their lives. The paper considers the development of the characters of the main characters.

For a full evaluation of the work, the points of view of various writers and critics were presented. In the course of the work, it was revealed that, despite the significance of the epic novel "War and Peace", in the first years of its publication, the assessment of contemporaries was not unambiguous. There is an opinion that contemporaries were not ready to understand the meaning of the work. However, those small critical responses were a natural reaction to the appearance of a huge, complex work. Having comprehended all its significance, most literary critics agreed that this is a truly remarkable legacy of the "Golden Age" of literature.

Summing up the work, we can say that the epic novel "War and Peace" with dignity can bear the title of a masterpiece of Russian literature. Here, not only the main events of the beginning of the 19th century are reflected in their full breadth, but also the main principles of the nationality, both its high society and ordinary people, are manifested. All this in a single stream is a reflection of the spirit and life of the Russian people.

List of used literature

1. Annenkov P.V. Critical Essays. - St. Petersburg, 2000. S. 123-125, 295-296, 351-376.

2. Annenkov P.V. Literary Memories. - M., 1989. S. 438-439.

3. Bocharov S.G. Tolstoy's novel War and Peace. - M., 1978. S. 5.

4. War over War and Peace. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - St. Petersburg, 2002. S. 8-9, 21-23, 25-26.

5. Herzen A.I. Thoughts on art and literature. - Kyiv, 1987. S. 173.

6. Gromov P.P. On the style of Leo Tolstoy. "Dialectics of the Soul" in "War and Peace". - L., 1977. S. 220-223.

7. Gulin A.V. Leo Tolstoy and the ways of Russian history. - M., 2004. S.120-178.

8. Dostoevsky F.M. Complete works in 30 volumes - L., 1986. - T. 29. - P. 109.

9. Kamyanov V. The poetic world of the epic, about Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace". - M., 1978. S. 14-21.

10. Kurlyandskaya G.B. The moral ideal of L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky. - M., 1988. P. 137-149.

11. Libedinskaya L. Living heroes. - M., 1982, S. 89.

12. Motyleva T.L. "War and Peace" abroad. - M., 1978. S. 177, 188-189, 197-199.

13. Ogarev N.P. About literature and art. - M., 1988. S. 37.

14. Opulskaya L.D. Epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1987. pp. 3-57.

15. Writer and criticism of the XIX century. Kuibyshev, 1987, pp. 106-107.

16. Slivitskaya O.V. "War and Peace" L.N. Tolstoy. Problems of human communication. - L., 1988. S. 9-10.

17. Tolstoy L.N. War and Peace. - M., 1981. - T. 2. - S. 84-85.

18. Tolstoy L.N. Correspondence with Russian writers. - M., 1978. S. 379, 397 - 398.

19. Tolstoy L.N. Full coll. cit.: In 90 vols. - M., 1958 - T. 13. - S. 54-55.

Motyleva T.L. "War and Peace" abroad. - M., 1978. S. 177.