War and peace articles. Strakhov War and Peace

The novel "War and Peace" is deservedly considered one of the most impressive and grandiose works of world literature. The novel was created by L.N. Tolstoy over the course of seven long years. The work was a great success in the literary world.

Title of the novel "War and Peace"

The title of the novel itself is very ambiguous. The combination of the words “war” and “peace” can be perceived as meaning war and peacetime. The author shows the life of the Russian people before the start of the Patriotic War, its regularity and calm. Next comes a comparison with wartime: the absence of peace threw the usual course of life off track and forced people to change their priorities.

Also, the word “peace” can be considered as a synonym for the word “people”. This interpretation of the title of the novel speaks of the life, exploits, dreams and hopes of the Russian nation in the conditions of hostilities. The novel has many plot lines, which gives us the opportunity to delve into not only the psychology of one particular hero, but also to see him in various life situations, to evaluate his actions in the most diverse conditions, from sincere friendship to his life psychology.

Features of the novel "War and Peace"

With unsurpassed skill, the author not only describes the tragic days of the Patriotic War, but also the courage, patriotism and insurmountable sense of duty of the Russian people. The novel is filled with many storylines, a variety of characters, each of whom, thanks to the author’s subtle psychological sense, is perceived as an absolutely real person, along with his spiritual quests, experiences, perception of the world and love, which is so common to all of us. The heroes go through a complex process of searching for goodness and truth, and, having gone through it, they comprehend all the secrets of universal human problems of existence. The heroes have a rich, but rather contradictory inner world.

The novel depicts the life of the Russian people during the Patriotic War. The writer admires the indestructible majestic power of the Russian spirit, which was able to withstand the invasion of Napoleonic army. The epic novel masterfully combines pictures of grandiose historical events and the life of the Russian nobility, who also selflessly fought against opponents who were trying to capture Moscow.

The epic also inimitably describes elements of military theory and strategy. Thanks to this, the reader not only expands his horizons in the field of history, but also in the art of military affairs. In describing the war, Leo Tolstoy does not allow a single historical inaccuracy, which is very important in creating a historical novel.

Heroes of the novel "War and Peace"

The novel “War and Peace” first of all teaches you to find the difference between real and false patriotism. The heroes of Natasha Rostova, Prince Andrey, Tushin are true patriots who, without hesitation, sacrifice a lot for the sake of their Motherland, without demanding recognition for it.

Each hero of the novel, through long searches, finds his own meaning in life. So, for example, Pierre Bezukhov finds his true calling only during participation in the war. The fighting revealed to him a system of real values ​​and life ideals - something that he had been looking for so long and uselessly in the Masonic lodges.

2.2 The novel “War and Peace” and its characters in literary criticism

“Art is a historical phenomenon, and therefore its content is social, but its form is taken from the forms of nature.”

After the publication of the novel was completed, by the beginning of the 70s. There were mixed responses and articles. Critics became more and more strict, especially the 4th, “Borodinsky” 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' opinions about the books of their colleagues are always of particular interest. After all, the writer examines someone else’s artistic world through the prism of his own. This view, of course, is more subjective, but it can reveal unexpected sides and facets in a 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 on: “Two lines about Tolstoy, with which I do not completely agree, are 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 to decisively appear with a brilliant new word, which until then had never been said anywhere and never been said. To appear with “War and Peace” means to appear after this new word, already spoken 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 “The Adolescent,” Dostoevsky once again recalled “War and Peace.” But this remained in drafts; detailed reviews of F.M. Dostoevsky are no longer known.

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

Poet close to Leo Tolstoy A.A. Fet wrote several detailed letters of analysis 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 view it not from the official gold-embroidered side of the front door.” 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 the lining instead of the face, you have turned the content around. You are a free artist and you are quite right. But artistic laws for all content are unchangeable and inevitable, like death. And the first law is unity of representation. This unity in art is achieved completely differently than in life... We understood why Natasha gave up her roaring success, we realized that she was not drawn to sing, but was drawn to be jealous and strained to feed her children. They realized that she didn’t 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 insist on the fact that she had become a slob? This may be in reality, but this is intolerable naturalism in art... This is a caricature that violates harmony.”

The most detailed writer's review of the novel belongs to N.S. Leskov. His series of articles in the Stock Exchange Gazette, dedicated to the 5th volume, 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 horonyaks”, “The unreasoning hero”, “Enemy power”), and boldly introduces digressions (“Two anecdotes about Yermolov and Rastopchin”).

The attitude towards the novel by I.S. was complex and changing. Turgenev. Dozens of his reviews in letters are accompanied by two printed ones, very different in tone and focus.

In 1869, in the article “About “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 complaints, repeated several times, are collected in a letter to P.V. Annenkov, written after reading his article “Historical addition, from which readers are delighted, puppet comedy and quackery... Tolstoy amazes the reader with the toe of Alexander’s boot, Speransky’s laugh, making him think that he knows about all this, if he even got to these little things, and he only knows these little things... There is no real development in any character, but there is an old habit of conveying vibrations, vibrations of the same feeling, position, what he so mercilessly puts into the mouth and consciousness of each of the heroes... Tolstoy seems to not know another psychology or with the intention of it ignores." In this detailed assessment, the incompatibility of Turgenev’s “secret psychologism” and Tolstoy’s “penetrating” psychological analysis is clearly visible.

The final review of the novel is equally mixed. “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, which played such a role in the 20s, - and why are all his decent people some kind of blockheads - with a little bit of foolishness?

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

One of the first to write an article about “War and Peace” was P.V. Annenkov, long-standing, from the mid-50s. acquaintance of the writer. In his article, he revealed many features of Tolstoy's plan.

Tolstoy boldly destroys the boundary between “romantic” and “historical” characters, Annenkov believes, depicting both in a similar psychological key, 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 phenomena of social life to the level and horizon of vision of any witness he has chosen... Without any sign of rape of life and its usual course, the novel establishes a constant connection between the love and other adventures of its persons and Kutuzov, Bagration, between historical facts of enormous significance - Shengraben, Austerlitz and troubles Moscow aristocratic circle...".

“First of all, it should be noted that the author adheres to the first vital principle 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 had difficulty finding “a knot of romantic intrigue” in “War and Peace” 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 rapturous impressions of the novel, had to ask: where is 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 astutely 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 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 wisely, 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 about the novel appeared in early 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 a prince, “War and Peace” does not have even a shadow of a high-society character... The Rostov family and the Bolkonsky family, in their internal life, in the relationships of their members, they are the same Russian families as any other.” Unlike some other critics of the novel, N.N. Strakhov does not speak the truth, but seeks it.

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

“But the heroic life does not exhaust the author’s tasks. Its subject is obviously broader. The main idea that guides him when depicting heroic phenomena is to reveal their human basis, to show people in the heroes.” This is how the main principle of Tolstoy’s approach to history is formulated: unity of scale in the depiction of different characters. Therefore, Strakhov has a very special approach to the image of Napoleon. He convincingly demonstrates why exactly 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, 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 ordinary Russian people with hearts like 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 gr. L. Tolstoy can be called an exemplary work regarding the pathology of Russian society.”

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

“The novel War and Peace presents us with a whole bouquet of varied and superbly crafted characters, male and female, old and young.” In his work “The Old Nobility” he very clearly and completely 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, was able to give only a detailed and enthusiastic retelling of “War and Peace” over almost two printed pages. Only in conclusion did he make several evaluative remarks.

The early responses to Leo Tolstoy's work in Italy are noteworthy. 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 unkind tone about the “realistic school” to which L.N. belongs. Tolstoy.

In Germany, as in France, as in Italy, the name of Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy by the end of the last century fell into the orbit of intense political struggle. The growing popularity of Russian literature in Germany caused concern and irritation among the ideologists of the imperialist reaction.

The first extensive 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 “Nineteenth Century”, and then reprinted in the USA, was called “The Novels of Count Leo Tolstoy,” but in essence 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 its 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

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

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

The first chapter examined the features of the novel, its composition, and presents the history of the creation of the work. We can note that what we have now is thanks to the long and hard work of the writer. This was a reflection of his life experience and developed skill. Family legends and folk experiences found their place here. “Family thought” and “folk thought” in the novel merge into a single whole, creating harmony and unity of the image. By studying this work, you can understand the life and morals of the people of the time of 1812, grasp the mentality of the people through its characteristic representatives.

The epic novel “War and Peace” changed the understanding of the war of 1812. The writer’s idea was to show the war not only by exalting the victory, but also by conveying all the psychological and physical torment that had to be endured to achieve it. Here the reader can experience the situation of events as they were during the Patriotic War.

The second chapter examined the peculiarities of the development of the destinies of the main characters of the work, their spiritual and moral quests. Throughout the novel, the characters changed their views and beliefs more than once. Of course, first of all, this was due to decisive, turning points in their lives. The work examines the development of the characters of the main characters.

To fully evaluate 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 reviews were a natural reaction to the appearance of a huge, complex work. Having comprehended its full significance, most literary scholars agreed that this is a truly remarkable legacy of the “Golden Age” of literature.

To sum up the work, we can say that the epic novel “War and Peace” can with dignity bear the title of a masterpiece of Russian literature. Here, not only are the main events of the early 19th century reflected in their full breadth, but also the main principles of the nationality, both its high society and ordinary people, are revealed. 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. P. 123-125, 295-296, 351-376.

2. Annenkov P.V. Literary Memoirs. – M., 1989. P. 438-439.

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

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

5. Herzen A.I. Thoughts on art and literature. – Kyiv, 1987. P. 173.

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

7. Gulin A.V. Leo Tolstoy and the paths of Russian history. – M., 2004. P.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. P. 14-21.

10. Kurlyandskaya G.B. The moral ideal of the heroes of L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky. – M., 1988. pp. 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. P. 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 19th century. Kuibyshev, 1987. pp. 106-107.

16. Slivitskaya O.V. “War and Peace” L.N. Tolstoy. Problems of human communication. – L., 1988. P. 9-10.

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

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

19. Tolstoy L.N. Full collection cit.: In 90 volumes - M., 1958 - T. 13. - P. 54-55.

20. Tolstoy L.N. Full collection cit.: In 90 volumes - M., 1958 - T. 60. - P. 374.

21. Tolstoy L.N. Collected works in 20 volumes - M., 1984. - T. 17.- P. 646-647, 652, 658-659, 663-664.

22. Khalishchev V.E., Kormilov S.I. Roman L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". – M., 1983. P. 45-51.

Herzen A.I. Thoughts on art and literature. – Kyiv, 1987. P. 173

War over "War and Peace". Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. – St. Petersburg, 2002. P. 8-9

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

Right there. S. 5

Tolstoy L.N. War and Peace. – M., 1981. – T. 2. – P. 84-85.

Tolstoy L.N. Full collection cit.: In 90 volumes - M., 1958 - T. 13. - P. 54-55.

Tolstoy L.N. Full collection cit.: In 90 volumes - M., 1958 - T. 60. - P. 374.

Right there. P. 374.

Opulskaya L.D. Epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1987. P. 53..

Right there. P. 54.

War over "War and Peace". Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. – St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 21-23.

Opulskaya L.D. Epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1987. P. 56.

Right there. P. 56.

Gulin A.V. Leo Tolstoy and the paths of Russian history. – M., 2004. P.130.

Opulskaya L.D. Epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1987. P. 40.

Gulin A.V. Leo Tolstoy and the paths of Russian history. – M., 2004. P. 131.

17 Ibid. P.133.

Right there. P. 139

Libedinskaya L. Living heroes. – M., 1982, S. 89.

Gulin A.V. Leo Tolstoy and the paths of Russian history. – M., 2004. P.168.

Ogarev N.P. About literature and art. – M., 1988. P. 37.

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

Tolstoy L.N. Correspondence with Russian writers. – M., 1978. P. 379.

Right there. pp. 397 – 398.

War over "War and Peace". Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. – St. Petersburg, 2002. pp. 25-26.

Right there. P. 26.

Right there. P. 22.

Annenkov P.V. Critical Essays. – St. Petersburg, 2000. P. 123-125.

War over "War and Peace". Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. – St. Petersburg, 2002. P. 22

Right there. P. 26

Right there. P. 26.

Motyleva T.L. "War and Peace" abroad. – M., 1978. P. 177.

A single scale for the depicted phenomena and persons, without violating the proportions between the human and the national. Understanding the causes of wars, Tolstoy reveals the mechanisms of action of the laws of history, strives for a deep philosophical understanding of the idea of ​​war and peace, embodied in the novel at various thematic levels. The potential of the title lies in the possibility of interpreting the concepts of “war” and “...

Labor, turning a person into an appendage of a machine. He denies scientific and technological progress aimed at increasing luxury and pleasure, at increasing material needs, and, consequently, at corrupting man. Tolstoy preaches a return to more organic forms of life, calls for the abandonment of the excesses of civilization, which is already threatening the destruction of the spiritual foundations of life. Tolstoy's teaching on family...

In all its purity and strength. Only the recognition of this feeling in him made the people, in such strange ways, choose him, an old man in disgrace, against the will of the tsar, as a representative of the people’s war.” 3. Victory and its heroes In the novel, Tolstoy expresses his thoughts about the reasons for Russia’s victory in the War of 1812: “No one will argue that the reason for the death of Napoleon’s French troops was, with...

Nest", "War and Peace", "The Cherry Orchard". It is also important that the main character of the novel opens up a whole gallery of "superfluous people" in Russian literature: Pechorin, Rudin, Oblomov. Analyzing the novel "Eugene Onegin", Belinsky pointed out , that at the beginning of the 19th century the educated nobility was the class “in which the progress of Russian society was almost exclusively expressed,” and that in “Onegin” Pushkin “decided...

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 positively bad to me , boring and unsuccessful. Tolstoy entered the wrong monastery - and all his shortcomings stuck out. All these little things, cunningly noticed and pretentiously expressed, small psychological remarks that he, under the pretext of “truth,” picks out from the armpits and other dark places of his heroes - how insignificant all this is on the broad canvas of a historical novel!
This one of the earliest assessments (later Turgenev changed his opinion) turned out to be prophetic to a certain extent. Descendants, however, without condemning the “stuff,” perceived “War and Peace” precisely and primarily as a historical novel, as a broad epic canvas, only incidentally noting small details - like the heavy tread of Princess Marya or the little princess’s mustache - as devices portrait characteristics.
In the case of Tolstoy's novel, the effect of monumental painting was felt. Contemporary Turgenev was still standing too close and looking at individual strokes. Over the years, from a distance, “War and Peace” has finally turned into a huge fresco, on which, God willing, one can discern the overall composition and grasp the flow of the plot - the nuances in the fresco are invisible and therefore insignificant.
This is probably why the monument erected by Tolstoy was so tempting to imitate. Russian literature does not know such an example: almost everything that is written in Russian about the war bears the stamp of Tolstoy’s influence; Almost every work that claims to be called an epic (at least in terms of time span, in terms of the number of characters) came out of War and Peace in one way or another. This influence was experienced by writers of such varying degrees of talent as Fadeev, Sholokhov, Simonov, Solzhenitsyn, Grossman, Vladimov and others, less noticeable (the only obvious exception is “Doctor Zhivago” by Pasternak, who followed the poetic tradition.) Following Tolstoy was captivating with its apparent simplicity. : it is enough to master the basic principles - historicism, nationality, psychologism - and lead the story, evenly alternating heroes and storylines.
However, “War and Peace” still stands in our literature as the 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 fifth reading, I really want to simply, from a reader’s perspective, find out what will happen next, what will happen to the characters. Tolstoy’s book is captivating, and one gets the feeling that the author was captivated by his narrative in the same way - when suddenly phrases burst onto the pages as if from action-packed novels of a romantic nature: “Despite his seemingly weak build, Prince Andrei could endure physical fatigue much better than the best 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 heroes and admiration for the beauty of man. What is noteworthy is that it is more masculine 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 depravity and evil, which the author certainly condemns. Even Natasha Rostova is just ugly charming, but 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 there were speculations that the epilogue on nepotism and motherhood was written in polemics with the movement for emancipation, the secondary nature, the “complementarity” 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 handsome men in the novel that Pierre Bezukhov and Kutuzov especially stand out for their ugliness, as the author repeatedly emphasizes. Not to mention the leading handsome men, like Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, Anatoly Kuragin or Boris Drubetsky, the most random people are good-looking, and Tolstoy considers it necessary to say about some silently flashed adjutant - “a handsome man,” although the adjutant will immediately disappear without a trace and the epithet will disappear for nothing.
But the author doesn’t feel sorry for epithets, just as he doesn’t feel sorry for words in general. The novel does not miss a single opportunity to add a clarifying touch to the overall picture. Tolstoy masterfully alternated broad strokes with small ones, and it is the 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 series, “War and Peace” is rather a mosaic in which each pebble is both brilliant in itself and included in the brilliance of the entire 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: “Who, having taken off his shako, carefully unraveled and reassembled the assemblies; who polished the bayonet with dry clay, spreading it in his palms...” Of course, this is Lermontov’s “Borodino”: “Who cleaned the shako, all beaten up, 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 that, by the way, is why 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 gives the exact 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 detailed description. For example, Pierre Bezukhov’s thoughts about Platon Karataev are largely nullified by the remark that flashed almost without explanation about this hero: “He often said the exact opposite of what he said before, but both were true.”
It is this non-obligatory presence of meaning, which, as a direct consequence, turns out to be the presence of meaning in everything - and then leads Pierre to the conclusion that in Karataev God is greater than in the complex constructions of the Freemasons.
Divine nonsense is the most important element of the book. It appears in the form of small episodes and replicas, which one could, it seems, completely do without in a historical novel - but nonsense invariably appears and, which is very significant, as a rule, at moments of strong dramatic tension.
Pierre utters nonsense that is obvious even to himself (but not to the author!), pointing at someone else’s girl during the fire of Moscow and pathetically declaring to the French that this is his daughter, whom he saved from the fire.
Kutuzov promises Rastopchin not to give up Moscow, although both know that Moscow has already been given up.
During a period of acute longing for Prince Andrei, Natasha stuns the governesses: “The island of Madagascar,” she said. “Ma da gas kar,” she repeated each syllable clearly and, without answering the questions... left the room.”
Is it not from this Madagascar, which had nothing to do with the previous conversation and appeared literally out of nowhere, that Chekhov’s famous Africa, where the heat is terrible, came out? But Madagascar itself did not become famous, was not remembered - of course, because of the focus on reading the epic, which 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 present tragic and fateful events as meaningless, as in the episodes with Pierre and Kutuzov.
This is a direct result of the worldview of Tolstoy the thinker and the skill of Tolstoy the artist. Perhaps the main philosophical line of the novel is the theme of the infinite number of sources, causes and causes of phenomena and events occurring on earth, the fundamental inability of man to embrace and realize this multitude, his helplessness and pitifulness in the face of the chaos of life. The author repeats this favorite thought persistently, sometimes even intrusively, varying situations and circumstances.
The human body is incomprehensible and disease is incomprehensible, for suffering is the sum total of many sufferings. Battles and wars are unpredictable because too many divergent forces influence 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 all humanity are unknowable, since life is not subject to unambiguous control by reason.
It seems that the author also had himself in mind when he wrote about Kutuzov, in whom there was “instead of a mind (grouping events and drawing conclusions) only the ability to calmly contemplate the course of events... He won’t come up with anything, won’t do anything,... but he will listen to everything, remember everything , will put everything in its place, will not interfere with anything useful and will not allow anything harmful.”
Tolstoy's Kutuzov despises knowledge and 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 is, according to Tolstoy, the main and exclusive advantage of the Russian people, although when reading the novel it often seems that the heroes are divided on the basis of good French pronunciation. True, one does not contradict the other, and the real Russian, one might assume, has already surpassed and absorbed the European. The more varied and complex the mosaic of a book written largely in a foreign language.
In War and Peace, Tolstoy so firmly believes in the superiority and primacy of spirit over reason that in his famous list of the sources of self-confidence of different peoples, when it comes to Russians, there are even caricature notes. Having explained “the self-confidence of the Germans by their learning, the French by their belief in their charm, the English by their statehood, and the Italians by their temperament, Tolstoy finds a universal formula for the 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 fully know anything.”
One of the consequences of this formula is eternal absolution, an indulgence given in advance to all future Russian boys who undertake to correct the star chart. And in fact, there is no ridicule here, because Tolstoy during the period of “War and Peace” applied this formula both to himself and, most importantly, to the people he glorified, as if admiring their stupidity and tongue-tiedness. These are the scenes of the Bogucharov riot, conversations with soldiers, and indeed almost any appearance of the people in the novel. Contrary to popular belief, there are few of them: it is estimated that only eight percent of the book is devoted to the actual topic of the people. (After the release of the novel, responding to critics’ reproaches that the intelligentsia, commoners, and few folk scenes were not depicted, the author admitted that he was not interested in these layers of the Russian population, that he knew and wanted to describe what he described: the Russian nobility.)
However, these percentages will increase sharply if we consider that from Tolstoy’s point of view, the people’s soul and spirit are expressed no less than by Platon Karataev or Tikhon Shcherbaty by Vasily Denisov, Field Marshal Kutuzov, and, finally - and most importantly - he himself, the author. And Pierre, who is already beginning to see the light, does without deciphering: “They want to attack all the people, one word - Moscow. They want to do 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, you cannot correct, but you can not interfere, you cannot explain, but you can understand, you cannot express, but you can name.
The thinker determined the direction of the artist's actions. In the poetics of War and Peace, this author’s worldview is expressed in the smallest detail. If events and phenomena arise from many causes, it means that there are no unimportant ones among them. Absolutely everything is important and significant, every 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 it. His novel, especially the first half (in the second, the war generally overcomes the world, the episodes become larger, there are more philosophical digressions, fewer nuances), is full of small details, fleeting scenes, side, as if “to the side”, remarks. Sometimes it seems that all this is too much, and the bewilderment of Konstantin Leontyev, with his subtle aesthetic taste, is understandable: “Why... Why does Tolstoy need these excesses?” But Tolstoy himself - for the sake of the desire to name everything and not miss anything - is capable of even sacrificing style, leaving, for example, the glaring three “whats” in a short sentence, which resulted in a clumsy construction like: she knew that this meant that he was glad that she didn't leave.
If Tolstoy is merciless in his details, it is only out of an artistic principle that encourages him not to miss anything. Only Napoleon is openly tendentious, to whom the author flatly denied not only greatness, but also significance. Other characters only strive for full embodiment, and again - a fleeting touch not only clarifies the outline of the image, but often comes into conflict with it, which is one of the main pleasures of reading the novel.
Princess Marya, famous for her cordiality, to which many pages are devoted (to cordiality), appears coldly secular, almost like Helen: “The princess and princess... clasped their hands, firmly pressed their lips to the places where they fell in the first minute.” And of course, the princess, with her inaccessible high spirituality, immediately turns into a living person. The rollicking Denisov becomes alive when he makes “sounds like a dog barking” over the body of the murdered Petya Rostov.
These metamorphoses are even more clear in the description of historical figures, which explains why in Tolstoy they are reliable, why one does not feel (or almost does not feel: the exceptions are Napoleon, partly Kutuzov) artificiality and falsehood in episodes with characters who have real prototypes.
Thus, having devoted a lot of space to the statesman Speransky, the author finds the opportunity to actually put an end to 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 that very thing that is the essence of fun not only didn’t happen, but they didn’t even know that it happened.” These last words so expressively convey the “unreality”, the lifelessness of Speransky, so disgusting to the author, that no further explanation is required why Prince Andrei, and with him Tolstoy, left him.
“The French Arakcheev” - Marshal Davout - is written in “War and Peace” with only black paint, and yet 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 darkest 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 plot lines, builds composition, and finally creates a holistic picture of the author's philosophy. More precisely, it initially follows from their author’s worldview, but, forming Tolstoy’s unique mosaic poetics, the detail - the abundance of details - clarifies this worldview, makes it clearly visual and convincing. And dozens of the most 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, isn’t it a shame that he is a widower?”
In the description of the war, the detail just as successfully fights against the superior forces of the epic - 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. Kutuzov's drowsiness, Napoleon's irritability, and the thin voice of Captain Tushin remain in the foreground. Tolstoy's detail was intended to destroy the genre of the heroic historical novel and did this, once and for all making the revival of the heroic epic impossible.
As for Tolstoy’s book itself, the “little things” that outraged Leontyev and upset Turgenev, which Tolstoy supposedly “picks out from under the armpits 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 read with enthusiasm by generations.

Author of the article: Pisarev D.I.
The new, not yet finished novel by Count L. Tolstoy can be called an exemplary work regarding the pathology of Russian society. In this novel, a whole series of bright and varied pictures, written with the most majestic and imperturbable epic calm, poses and resolves the question of what happens to human minds and characters under such conditions that give people the opportunity to do without knowledge, without thoughts, without energy and without difficulty.
It is very possible, and even very likely, that Count Tolstoy does not mean to pose and resolve such a question. It is very likely that he simply wants to paint a series of pictures from the life of the Russian nobility during the time of Alexander I. He sees for himself and tries to show others, clearly, down to the smallest details and shades, all the features characterizing the time and the people of that time, people of the circle who 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 with the images he creates; 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 even in the features of this past, in the figures and characters of the personalities depicted, in the concepts and habits of the depicted society, many features worthy of love and respect. All this can happen, all this is even very probable. But precisely because the author spent a lot of time, labor and love on studying and depicting the era and its representatives, precisely because the images he created live their own life, independent of the author’s intentions, enter into direct relationships with readers, speak for themselves and irresistibly lead the reader to thoughts and conclusions that the author did not have in mind and which he, perhaps, would not even approve of.
This truth, gushing out as a living spring from the facts themselves, this truth, breaking through beyond the personal sympathies and beliefs of the narrator, is especially precious in its irresistible persuasiveness. We will now try to extract this truth, this awl that cannot be hidden in a bag, from Count Tolstoy’s novel.
The novel "War and Peace" presents us with a whole bouquet of diverse and superbly finished characters, male and female, old and young. The selection of young male characters is especially rich. We will begin with them, and begin from the bottom, that is, with those figures about which disagreement is almost impossible and whose unsatisfactoriness will, in all likelihood, be recognized by all readers.
The first portrait in our art gallery will be Prince Boris Drubetskoy, a young man of noble origin, with a name and connections, but without a fortune, paving his way to wealth and honor 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 asking for her son always and everywhere turns out to be 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, cry, ingratiate herself, fawn, grovel, bother, swallow all sorts of insults, if only out of annoyance, out of a desire to get rid of her and stop her annoying cries, they finally throw an annoyingly demanded handout for her son. Boris knows all these advantages of his mother well. He also knows that all the humiliations to which a loving mother voluntarily exposes herself does not harm her son at all, if only this son, using her services, behaves with sufficient, decent independence.
Boris chooses the role of a respectful and obedient son, as the most profitable and convenient role for himself. It is beneficial and convenient, firstly, because it imposes on him the obligation not to interfere with those feats of sycophancy with which his mother lays the foundation for his brilliant career. Secondly, it is beneficial and convenient in that it puts him in the best 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 he has and what magnanimous efforts he uses in order, out of love for his mother, to suppress in himself the too impetuous movements of young, uncalculated obstinacy, such movements that could have upset the poor old woman, who had 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 calm! How he understands that these efforts, by the very fact of their existence, could serve as a heavy reproach to his poor mother, completely blinded by her ambitious maternal dreams and plans. What intelligence, what tact, what strength of character, what a heart of gold and what refined delicacy! "
When Anna Mikhailovna knocks on the thresholds of benefactors and benefactors, Boris behaves passively and calmly, like a man who has decided once and for all to respectfully and with dignity submit to his difficult and bitter fate, and to submit so that everyone can see it, but so that no one dares to tell him with warm sympathy: “Young man, in your eyes, in your face, in your entire dejected appearance, I see clearly 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 places some hopes, mainly because “he is so rich, and we are so poor!” He goes, but he makes even his mother feel that he is doing this exclusively for her, that he himself does not foresee anything from this trip except humiliation, and that there is a limit beyond which his obedience and his artificial calm can betray him. The hoax is carried out so skillfully that Anna Mikhailovna herself fears 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, so that, depending on the circumstances, she either calms or excites him. Anxious and fussing in this way, Anna Mikhailovna remains in the firm confidence that without these skillful efforts and diligence on her part everything will go to waste, and the adamant Boris, if he does not anger strong people forever with an outburst of noble indignation, then at least will probably freeze them with the icy coldness of his treatment. all the hearts of patrons and benefactors.
If Boris so successfully mystifies his own mother, an experienced and intelligent woman, under whose eyes he grew up, then, of course, he is even easier and just as successful in fooling strangers with whom he has to deal. He bows to benefactors and patrons courteously, but so calmly and with such modest dignity that powerful people immediately feel the need to look at him more closely and distinguish him from the crowd of needy clients for whom annoying mothers and aunties ask. He answers their casual questions precisely and clearly, calmly and respectfully, showing neither annoyance at their harsh tone, nor any desire to engage in 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 respect, will not allow anyone to push him around and will always be able to stand up for his noble honor. Being a supplicant and seeker, Boris knows how to shift all the dirty work of this matter onto his mother, who, of course, lends her old shoulders with the greatest readiness 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 pure and graceful, a modest but independent gentleman. Purity, grace, modesty, independence and gentlemanliness, of course, give him benefits that plaintive begging and base servility could not give him. That sop that can be thrown to a timid, dirty little fellow who barely dares to sit on the end of a chair and strives to kiss his benefactor on the shoulder is extremely inconvenient, embarrassing and even dangerous to offer to an elegant young man, in whom decent modesty coexists in the most harmonious way with an ineradicable and ever-vigilant sense of self. dignity. Such a post, to which it would be absolutely impossible to place a simply and openly groveling petitioner, is extremely decent for a modestly independent young man who knows how to bow at the right time, smile at the right time, make a serious and even stern face at the right time, and yield at the right time. or to be convinced, to reveal noble steadfastness in time, without even for a moment losing calm composure and decently respectful ease of manner.
Patrons usually love flatterers; They are pleased to see in the reverence of the people around them an involuntary tribute to the admiration brought by the genius of their minds and the incomparable superiority of their moral qualities. But for flattery to make a pleasant impression, it must be quite subtle, and the smarter the person who is being flattered, the subtler the flattery must be, and the subtler it is, the more pleasant it acts. 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 damage the inexperienced flatterer. Let's take two flatterers: one is in awe of 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 his patron, is ready to extol another in a minute a judgment that is diametrically opposed, as long as it was expressed by the same patron; the other, on the contrary, knows how to show that, in order to please the patron, he does not have the slightest need to renounce his mental and moral independence, that all the patron’s judgments conquer his mind by the power of their own irresistible inner persuasiveness, that he obeys the patron at any given moment not with a feeling of slavish fear and slavish selfish servility, but with the living and deep pleasure of a free man who had the good fortune of finding 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 be dressed as a jester; the first will not be allowed further than the lackey role that he assumed in the short-sighted expectation of future benefits; the second, on the contrary, will be consulted; he may 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, holding his beautiful head high and not staining the tips of his nails with any work, will easily and quickly reach this path to such well-known degrees that simple Molchalin will never crawl to. , innocently being mean and in awe of his boss and humbly earning himself an early stoop behind office papers. Boris acts in life the way a deft and agile gymnast climbs a tree. Standing with his foot on one branch, he already looks with his eyes for another, which he could grab with his hands in the next moment; his eyes and all his thoughts are directed upward; when his hand has found a reliable support point, he completely forgets about the 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 acquainted precisely as at branches located one above the other, at a more or less distant distance from the top of a huge tree, from that top 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 those paths that can lead him from one already made acquaintance to another, still beckoning him to himself, and from this other to a third, still wrapped in golden a fog of majestic inaccessibility. Having managed to appear to the good-natured Pierre Bezukhov as a sweet, intelligent and firm young man, even managing to confuse and touch him with his intelligence and firmness at the very time when he and his mother came to the old Count Bezukhov to ask for poverty and for guards uniforms, Boris gets for himself This Pierre sent a letter of recommendation to Kutuzov’s adjutant, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, and through Bolkonsky he met Adjutant General Dolgorukov and himself became 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 on. He immediately begins to gradually weaken his friendly connection with his childhood friend, the young Count Rostov, with whom he lived in the house for entire years and whose mother had just given him, Boris, five hundred rubles for uniforms, which were accepted by Princess Anna Mikhailovna with tears of tenderness and joyful gratitude. . After a six-month separation, after campaigns and battles endured by the young Rostov, Boris meets with him, his childhood friend, and on the same first date Rostov notices that Boris, to whom Bolkonsky comes at the same time, seems ashamed to have a friendly conversation with army hussar. The elegant guards officer, Boris, is offended by the army uniform and army habits 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 cannot be eliminated by frank explanations, and that it is also very difficult not to notice and not to feel. 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 to the elegant Guards officer , Prince Boris Drubetsky, indelicate young people try to be his friends, whom he meekly and gracefully knows how to push back to their real place.
On a campaign, in war, in social salons - everywhere Boris pursues the same goal, everywhere he thinks exclusively, or at least primarily, about the interests of his career. Using with remarkable intelligibility all the smallest indications of experience, Boris soon turns into conscious and systematic tactics what was previously for him a matter of instinct and happy inspiration. He forms an unmistakably correct theory of career and acts according to this theory with the most unwavering constancy. Having become acquainted with Prince Bolkonsky and having approached through him to the highest spheres of military administration, Boris clearly understood what he had foreseen before, precisely what was in the army, in addition to the subordination and discipline that was written in the regulations and which was known in the regiment and he knew , there was another more significant subordination, the one that forced this drawn-out, purple-faced general to respectfully wait while captain Prince Andrei, for his own pleasure, found it more convenient to talk with ensign Drubetsky. More than ever, Boris decided to serve henceforth not according to what is written in the charter, but according to this unwritten subordination. He now felt that only due to the fact that he had been recommended to Prince Andrei, he had already become immediately superior to the general, who in other cases, at the front, could destroy him, the guards ensign" (1, 75) (1).
Based on the clearest and most unambiguous indications of experience, Boris decides once and for all that serving individuals is incomparably more profitable than serving a cause, and, as a person who is not in the least bound in his actions by an uncalculated love for any idea or for any was the case, he makes it a rule to always serve only individuals and always place all his trust not in any of his own real merits, but only in his good relations with influential persons who know how to reward and bring their faithful and obedient servants into the people .
In a casual conversation about service, Rostov tells Boris that he will not become an adjutant to anyone, because this is a “lackey position.” Boris, of course, turns out to be so free from prejudices that he is not embarrassed by the harsh and unpleasant word “lackey”. Firstly, he understands that _comparaison nest pas raison_ (Comparison is not proof (French). - Ed.) and that there is a huge difference between an adjutant and a footman, because the first is gladly received in the most brilliant drawing rooms, while the second is forced to stand in the hall and hold the master's fur 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 livery himself, if only it will quickly and correctly lead him to his goal. This is what he expresses to Rostov, telling him, in response to his outburst about the adjutant, that “he would really like to become an adjutant,” “because, having already started a career in military service, one must try to make, if possible, a brilliant career.” (I, 62) (2). This frankness of Boris is very remarkable. It 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 road, on serving individuals, on unwritten subordination and on the undoubted convenience of livery as a means leading to an end. Boris calls Rostov a dreamer for his outburst against serving individuals, and the society to which Rostov belongs would, without any doubt, not only confirm, but also strengthen this verdict to a very significant extent, so Rostov, for his attempt to deny the system of patronage and unwritten chain of command, would have turned out to be not 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 young men.
Boris, of course, continues to succeed 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 fully adopted the unwritten subordination that he liked in Olmutz, according to which an ensign could stand without comparison above a general and according to which, for success in the service, what was needed was not effort in the service, not labor, not courage, not constancy, but it was necessary only the ability to deal with those who reward for service - and he was often surprised at his rapid successes and how others could not understand this. As a result of this discovery, his entire 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 St. Petersburg. He became closer and sought acquaintance only with people who were higher than him and therefore could be useful to him" (II, 106) (3).
With a special feeling of pride and pleasure, Boris enters the houses of high society; he takes the invitation from the maid of honor Anna Pavlovna Scherer for an “important promotion”; At an evening with her, he, of course, is not looking for entertainment; he, on the contrary, works in his own way in her living room; he carefully studies the terrain in which he has to maneuver in order to win new benefits and attract new benefactors; he carefully observes each face and evaluates the benefits and possibilities of 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 push himself in any way from the general level and under no circumstances irritate with his superiority this or that limited person capable of being useful in terms of unwritten chain of command.
At Anna Pavlovna's party, one 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 smart that such jokes should offend 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 funny, but, being in a high society salon, he does not dare to stand this joke with a serious face, because his seriousness could be mistaken for a silent condemnation of a pun, over which, perhaps, the cream of St. Petersburg society would like laugh. So that the laughter of these cream of the crop does not take him by surprise, the prudent Boris takes his measures at the very second when a flat and alien wit falls from the lips of Prince Ippolit Kuragin. He smiles cautiously, so that his smile can be attributed to ridicule 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 highly saving for him.
The stupid beauty, the worthy sister of Ippolit Kuragin, Countess Helen Bezukhova, who enjoys the reputation of a charming and very intelligent woman and attracts to her salon everything that sparkles with intelligence, wealth, nobility or high rank, finds it convenient for herself 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 and important promotion. If the path to rank and money passes through the boudoir of a beautiful woman, then, of course, there is no sufficient reason for Boris to stop in virtuous bewilderment or turn aside. Grabbing the hand of his stupid beauty, Drubetskoy cheerfully and quickly continues to move forward towards the golden goal.
He begs 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 readings of the political barometer and how carefully he considers all his smallest words and actions with the intentions and desires of high-ranking persons. That person who until now was for Boris General Bonaparte, a usurper and enemy of humanity, becomes for him Emperor Napoleon and a great man from the moment when, having learned about the proposed meeting, Boris begins to ask to go to Tilsit. Once in Tilsit, Boris felt that his position was strengthened. “They not only knew him, but they took a closer look at him and got used to him. Twice he carried out orders for the sovereign himself, so 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 have been surprised , if he did not exist" (II, 172) (4).
There are no stops or packages on the path that Boris follows. An unexpected catastrophe may occur, which suddenly crushes and breaks an entire career that has begun well and continues successfully; such a catastrophe can overtake even the most cautious and prudent person; but it is difficult to expect from her that she would direct a person’s strength to useful work and open up wide scope for their development; after such a catastrophe a person usually finds himself flattened and crushed; a brilliant, cheerful and successful officer or official most often turns into a pathetic hypochondriac, into an openly low beggar, or simply into a bitter drunkard. Apart from such an unexpected catastrophe, given the smooth and favorable flow of everyday life, there is no chance that a person in Boris’s position would suddenly break away from his constant diplomatic game, which is always equally important and interesting for him, that he would suddenly stop and look back at himself. himself, gave himself a clear account of how the living forces of his mind were shrinking and withering, and with an energetic effort of will he suddenly jumped from the road of skillful, decent and brilliantly successful begging onto the completely unknown to him road of thankless, tedious and not at all lordly labor. The diplomatic game has such addictive properties and produces such brilliant results that a person immersed in this game soon begins to consider everything that is outside of it small and insignificant; all events, all phenomena of private and public life are assessed according to their relationship to winning or losing; all people are divided into means and hindrances; all feelings of one’s own soul are divided into laudable, that is, leading to winning, 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 develop that is not subordinated to the interests of his career. Serious, pure, sincere love, without any admixture of selfish 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 dried-out soul of a person like Boris. Moral renewal through happy love is unthinkable for Boris. This is proven in Count Tolstoy’s novel by his story with Natasha Rostova, the sister of that army hussar whose uniform and manners offend Boris in the presence of Prince Bolkonsky.
When Natasha was 12 years old, and Boris was 17 or 18 years old, they played love with each other; 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 turned 16. These four years passed, the bride and groom - both, if they did not forget their mutual obligations, then at least began to look at them as a childish prank; when Natasha could actually be a bride and when Boris was already a young man standing, as they say, on the best road, they met and became interested in each other again. After the first date, “Boris told 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 ruin of his career, and the resumption of previous relationship without the goal of marriage would be an ignoble act" (III, 50) 5.
Despite this prudent and saving consultation with himself, despite the decision to avoid meeting with Natasha, Boris gets carried away, begins to visit the Rostovs often, spends whole days with them, listens to Natasha’s songs, writes poetry for her in an album, and even stops visiting Countess Bezukhova. , from whom he receives daily invitations and reproachful notes. He keeps going to explain to Natasha that he can never and can never become her husband, but he still doesn’t have enough strength and courage to start and finish such a delicate explanation. He is becoming more and more confused every day. But some temporary and fleeting inattention to the great interests of his career constitutes 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 passions available to him.
As soon as the old Countess Rostova has a serious word with Boris, as soon as she lets him feel that his frequent visits are noticed and taken into account, Boris immediately, so as not to compromise the girl and not spoil his career, turns to a prudent and noble flight. He stops visiting 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 flying non-stop, with full sails, to a reliable pier. His position in the service, his connections and acquaintances give him entry into houses where there are very rich brides. He begins to think that it is time for him to secure a profitable marriage. His youth, his handsome appearance, his presentable uniform, his intelligently and prudently managed career constitute 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 THE NOVEL “WAR AND PEACE” IN THE EVALUATION OF CRITICS
In this novel, a whole series of bright and varied pictures, written with the most majestic and imperturbable epic calm, poses and resolves the question of what happens to human minds and characters under such conditions that give people the opportunity 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, down to the smallest details and shades, all the features that characterized the time and the people of that time people - people of the circle that is increasingly 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 the 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 depicted, in the concepts and habits of the depicted society, many features worthy of love and respect. All this can happen, all this is even very probable. But precisely because the author spent a lot of time, labor and love on studying and depicting the era and its representatives, that is why its representatives live their own lives, independent of the author’s intentions, enter into direct relationships with themselves with readers, speak for themselves and uncontrollably lead the reader to 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 double sense: for its description of scenes of the military and military life and for its desire 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 second, that is, the conclusions, do not withstand the most lenient 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 an everyday peace-war 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 this from our regiment.
Count Tolstoy's combat scenes are no less instructive: the entire internal side of the battle, unknown to most military theorists and peaceful military practitioners, and yet 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 a landscape and a topographical plan: the first gives less, gives from one point, but gives more accessible to the human eye and heart. The second gives every local object from a large number of sides, gives the terrain for tens of miles, but gives it in a conventional drawing that has nothing in common with the objects depicted; and therefore everything on it is dead, lifeless, even to the trained eye... The moral physiognomy of the leading personalities, their struggle with themselves and with others, which precedes any determination, all this disappears - and from the fact that has developed from thousands of human lives, something remains like a heavily worn coin: the outline is 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 do not bring events to life before you in the same way as a landscape event brings it 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, they die, they perform great feats, cowardly: all this is like real people; and that is why they are highly instructive, and that is why the military leader who does not kill himself, thanks to Tolstoy’s story, will be worthy of regret, how unwise it is to bring gentlemen like Zherkov closer to oneself, how vigilantly you need to look closely to see the Tushins and Timokhins in the real light; how you need to be perceptively careful so as not to make a hero of some Zherkov or a serviceable and so smart and managerial nameless regimental commander after a battle... (M.I. Dragomirov. “War and Peace” of 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 sublime, most patient, most diligent workers, and his grandiose world frescoes represent an artistic and labor mosaic, composed of an infinite number of multi-colored pieces, of a million tiny individual observations. Behind the apparent easy straightforwardness lies the most persistent work of craftsmanship - not of a dreamer, but of 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 meaningfully the distribution of light and shadow to give vital illumination to your epic plot. Two thousand pages of the huge epic “War and Peace” were rewritten seven times; sketches and notes filled large drawers. Every historical detail, every semantic detail is substantiated based on selected documents; In order to give the description of the Battle of Borodino real accuracy, Tolstoy travels around the battlefield for two days with a map of the General Staff, travels many miles by rail to obtain this or that decorative detail from some surviving participant in the war. He not only digs up all the books, searches not only all the 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. This is how small balls of mercury are collected over the years - tens, hundreds of thousands of small observations, until they begin to merge into a rounded, pure, perfect form. And only then is the struggle for truth over, the search for clarity begins... One sticking out phrase, a not quite appropriate adjective, caught among tens of thousands of lines - and in horror, following the sent proofs, he telegraphs the metro page in Moscow and demands to stop the car, to satisfy the tonality of a syllable that did not satisfy him. This first proof again enters the retort of the spirit, is once again melted and again poured into 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 works eight, ten hours a day; It is not surprising that even this husband, who has the strongest nerves, is psychologically depressed after each of his big novels...
Tolstoy's accuracy in observations is not associated with any gradations in relation to the creatures of the earth: there are no partialities in his love. Napoleon, to his incorruptible gaze, is no more a man than any of his soldiers, and this latter is again no more important and no more significant than the dog that runs after him, or the stone that it touches with its paw. Everything in the circle of the earth - man and mass, plants and animals, men and women, old people and children, generals and men - flows with crystal clear regularity into his senses, in order to also pour out in the same order. This gives his art a resemblance to the eternal uniformity of incorruptible nature and his epic - sea 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 before, anyone who has read his works knows this. Nature is not described, but lives in our great artist. Sometimes she is even one of the characters in the story: remember the incomparable scene of the Rostovs’ Yule skating in “War and Peace”...
The beauty of nature finds in Tolstoy the most sympathetic connoisseur... But this extremely sensitive man, who feels how the beauty of nature flows through his eyes into his soul, does not admire every beautiful area. Tolstoy loves only those types of nature that awaken in him the consciousness of his unity with it... (G.V. Plekhanov. “Tolstoy and Nature”)
And with less development of creative powers 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 upon the still fresh memories of his contemporaries and would respond to many of their needs and secret sympathies when he based his novel on the 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, folklore and eyewitness accounts. The work ahead of him was not unimportant, but extremely rewarding...
The author is one of the initiates. He has knowledge of their language and uses it to discover under all forms of secularism an abyss of frivolity, insignificance, deceit, and sometimes completely rude, wild and ferocious attempts. One thing is most remarkable. The people of this circle seem to be under some kind of vow, condemning them to severe 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 have set for themselves, and if they achieve something, it is always not what they expected... They succeed in 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, who is the misfortune of his life, although he has no reason to complain about her; his sister, Princess Maria, is saved from the yoke of her father’s despotic manners and constantly secluded village life into a warm and bright religious feeling, which ends in connections with vagabond saints, etc. So persistently this deplorable story with the best people of the described society returns in the novel, that in the end, with every picture of a young and fresh life beginning somewhere, with every story about a joyful phenomenon that promises a serious or instructive outcome, the reader is overcome with fear and doubt: behold, 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 actually turn there and disappear there. But, the question arises - what kind of merciless hand and for what sins has it been burdened over this entire environment... What happened? Apparently nothing special happened. Society calmly lives on the same serfdom as its ancestors; Catherine's loan banks are open to him as before; the doors to the acquisition of fortune and to ruining oneself in the service in the same way stand wide open, letting in everyone who has the right to pass through them; finally, no new figures blocking the way, spoiling his life and confusing his thoughts are shown at all in Tolstoy’s novel. Why, however, is this society, which at the end of the last century believed in itself boundlessly, was distinguished by the strength of its composition and easily coped with life, - now, according to the author’s testimony, cannot arrange it in any way at will, has broken up into circles that almost despise each other, and is struck by the impotence that prevents its best people from even defining both themselves and clear goals for spiritual activity. .. (P.V. Annenkov. “Historical and aesthetic issues in the novel “War and Peace””)
Extreme observation, subtle analysis of mental movements, clarity and poetry in pictures of nature, elegant simplicity are the hallmarks of Count Tolstoy's talent... The depiction of an internal monologue, without exaggeration, can be called amazing. And, in our opinion, that side of Count Tolstoy’s talent, which gives him the opportunity to capture these psychic monologues, constitutes a special strength in his talent, unique to him... The special feature in Count Tolstoy’s talent is so original that one needs to look at it with great attention it, 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: only through independent (moral) activity does talent develop, and in this activity, the extraordinary energy of which is evidenced by the peculiarity of Count Tolstoy’s works that we noticed, we must see the basis of the strength acquired by his talent.
We are talking about self-deepening, about the desire for tireless observation of oneself. We can study the laws of human action, the play of passions, the concatenation of events, the influence of events and relationships by carefully observing other people; but all the knowledge acquired in this way will have neither depth nor accuracy if we do not study the most intimate laws of mental life, the play of which is open to us only in our (own) self-consciousness. He who has not studied man within himself will never achieve a deep knowledge of people. That feature of Count Tolstoy’s talent, which we spoke about above, proves that he extremely carefully studied the secrets of the human spirit within himself; this knowledge is precious not only because it gave him the opportunity to paint pictures of the internal movements of human thought, to which we drew the reader’s attention, but also, perhaps more, because it gave him a solid basis for the study of human life in general, for unraveling characters and the springs of action, the struggle of passions and impressions...
There is another force in Mr. Tolstoy’s talent that gives his works a very 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 old dirt, because it strains all its strength to wash itself and cleanse itself from inherited sins... The beneficial influence of this trait of talent is not limited to those stories or episodes in which it comes to the fore noticeably: it constantly serves as a revitalizer, 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 sublime and noble, pure and beautiful, like herself?..
Count Tolstoy has true talent. This means that his works are artistic, that is, in each of them the very idea that he wanted to realize in this work is very fully realized. He never says anything superfluous, because this would be contrary to the conditions of artistry; he never disfigures his works with an admixture of scenes and figures alien to the idea of ​​the work. This is precisely one of the main advantages of artistry. You need to have a lot of taste to appreciate the beauty of Count Tolstoy’s works, but 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. “War stories of L.N. Tolstoy”)
L. Tolstoy’s images of human personalities resemble those semi-convex human bodies on high reliefs, which sometimes seem to be about to separate from the plane in which they are sculptured and which holds them, will finally come out and stand before us like perfect sculptures, visible from all sides , tangible; but this is an optical illusion. They will never separate completely, from semicircular they will not become completely round - we will never see them from the other side.
In the image of Platon Karataev, the artist made the seemingly impossible possible: he was able to define a living, or at least temporarily seemingly 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 smallest and the greatest - the beginning and the end. He does not exist in himself: he is only a part of the Whole, a drop in the ocean of nationwide, all-human, universal life. And he reproduces this life with his personality or impersonality, just as a water drop with its perfect roundness reproduces the world sphere. Be that as it may, a miracle of art or a most ingenious optical illusion is accomplished, almost accomplished. Platon Karataev, despite his impersonality, seems personal, special, unique. But we would like to know him to the end, to see him from the other side. He is kind; but maybe at least once in his life he got annoyed with someone? he is chaste; but maybe he looked at at least one woman differently from the others? but speaks in proverbs; but maybe, but did he insert a word of his own into these sayings at least once? If only one word, one unexpected line would break this too regular, mathematically perfect “roundness” - and we would believe that he is a man of flesh and blood, that he exists.
But, precisely at the moment of our closest and 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 “perfectly round” and with this he fulfilled his purpose, so that all he could do was die. And in our memory, just as in the memory of Pierre Bezukhov, Platon Karataev is forever imprinted not by a living face, but only by the 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 large volume. It covers 16 years (from 1805 to 1821) of the life of Russia and more than five hundred different heroes. Among them there are real characters in the historical events described, fictional characters and many people to whom Tolstoy does not even give names, for example, “the general who ordered”, “the officer who did not arrive.” In this way, the writer wanted to show that the movement of history occurs not under the influence of any specific individuals, but thanks to all participants in the events. To combine such a huge material into one work, the author created a genre that had not been used by any writer before, which he called the epic novel.
The novel describes real historical events: the Battle of Austerlitz, Shengraben, Borodino, the conclusion of the Peace of Tilsit, the capture of Smolensk, the surrender of Moscow, partisan warfare 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 culminating center of the novel. The work contained pictures of battle, giving way to images of the world as the complete opposite of war, peace as the existence of a community of many, many people, as well as nature, that is, everything that surrounds a person in space and time. Disputes, misunderstandings, hidden and overt conflicts, fear, hostility, love... All this is real, living, sincere, like the heroes of a literary work themselves.
By being nearby 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. Thus, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky and Anatol 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 allows us to discern the deep chasm 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 novel progresses, the worldview of the characters changes or gradually deepens. Three hundred thirty-three chapters of four volumes and twenty-eight chapters of the epilogue form a clear, definite picture.
The narration in the novel is not conducted in the first person, but the presence of the author in every scene is palpable: he always tries to assess the situation, 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 figure out what is happening for himself, 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 detailed historical information about the balance of forces, the readiness for battle on both sides, talks about the point of view of historians on this event; then shows the battle through the eyes of a non-professional in military affairs - Pierre Bezukhov (that is, shows a sensory, 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, show his attitude to important life problems, and 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 L.N. Tolstoy's "War and Peace" has over five hundred heroes. Among them are emperors and statesmen, generals and ordinary soldiers, aristocrats and peasants. Some characters, as is easy to see, are especially attractive to the author, while others, on the contrary, are alien and unpleasant. The means of portraiture is one of the most important artistic means in the novel "War and Peace".
The writer singles out a particular feature in the portrait of the hero and constantly draws our attention to it: this is Natasha’s large mouth, and Marya’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 remaining features of the heroes change, and Tolstoy describes these changes in such a way that you can understand everything that happens in the souls of the heroes. Tolstoy often uses the technique of contrast, emphasizing the discrepancy between the appearance and the inner world, the behavior of the characters and their internal state. For example, when Nikolai Rostov, upon returning home from the front, upon meeting Sonya, greeted her dryly and addressed her as “you,” in their hearts they “called each other “you” and kissed tenderly.”
Some portraits are characterized by excessive detail, while others, on the contrary, are barely sketched. However, almost every stroke complements our idea of ​​the 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 guess about the inherent “pride of thought” that 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 beautiful that very often, despite the ugliness of her entire 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 favorite heroine, Natasha Rostova, is no different in external beauty, “black-eyed, with a big mouth, ugly, but alive...” With her liveliness and cheerfulness, she is, above all, 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 cat.” And the reader feels that Sonya is far from Natasha, as if she lacks that spiritual wealth with which Tolstoy’s favorite is generously endowed.
The most internally beautiful characters in the novel are not distinguished by their external beauty. First of all, this applies to Pierre Bezukhov. A constant portrait feature is the massive, thick figure of Pierre Bezukhov, which, depending on the circumstances, can be either clumsy or strong. It can express confusion, anger, kindness, and rage. In other words, in Tolstoy’s work, the constant artistic detail acquires new, additional shades each time. Pierre's smile is different from others. When a smile appeared on his face, then suddenly the serious face instantly disappeared and another one appeared - a childish, kind one. Andrei Bolkonsky says about Pierre: “One living person among all our light.” And this word “alive” inextricably connects 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, white full shoulders, glossy hair and beautiful figure. But, despite this “undoubtedly and too powerfully and victoriously acting beauty,” she certainly 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 Helen Kuragina’s brother, Anatole.
Turning to the portraits of ordinary people, it is easy to notice that Tolstoy values ​​in them, first of 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 portraiture not only when depicting fictional characters, 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, sat in a Voltaire chair.” Napoleon “was in a blue uniform, open over a white vest that hung down to his round belly, in white leggings that hugged the fat thighs of his thick legs, and in boots.” However, the expressions on their faces are noticeably different: “Napoleon had an unpleasantly feigned smile on his face,” but “an intelligent, 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 it is pretense.
Kutuzov, like a mere mortal, “was weak to tears,” he “reluctantly played the role of chairman and head of the military council,” he spoke “clearly and distinctly” with the sovereign, and considered his soldiers “a wonderful, incomparable people.” He “understood that there was something stronger and more significant than his will - this was the inevitable course of events...” Despite his obesity and old man’s frailty, he felt inner peace and purity of soul.
In the image of Napoleon, Tolstoy emphasizes a certain mystery. Portrait characteristics of the French commander
etc.................

In this novel, a whole series of bright and varied pictures, written with the most majestic and imperturbable epic calm, poses and resolves the question of what happens to human minds and characters under such conditions that give people the opportunity to do without knowledge, without thoughts, without energy and labor.... It is very likely that the author simply wants to paint 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, down to the smallest details and shades, all the features that characterized the time and the people of that time, - people of the circle that is increasingly 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 the 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 depicted, in the concepts and habits of the depicted society, many features worthy of love and respect. All this can happen, all this is even very probable. But precisely because the author spent a lot of time, labor and love on studying and depicting the era and its representatives, that is why its representatives live their own lives, independent of the author’s intentions, enter into direct relationships with themselves with readers, speak for themselves and uncontrollably lead the reader to 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 "The Old Nobility")

Count Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" is interesting for the military in a double sense: for its description of scenes of the military and military life and for its desire 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 second, that is, the conclusions, do not withstand the most lenient 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 an everyday peace-war 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 this from our regiment.

Count Tolstoy's combat scenes are no less instructive: the entire internal side of the battle, unknown to most military theorists and peaceful military practitioners, and yet 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 a landscape and a topographical plan: the first gives less, gives from one point, but gives more accessible to the human eye and heart. The second gives every local object from a large number of sides, gives the terrain for tens of miles, but gives it in a conventional drawing that has nothing in common with the objects depicted; and therefore everything on it is dead, lifeless, even to the trained eye... The moral physiognomy of the leading personalities, their struggle with themselves and with those around them, which precedes any determination, all this disappears - and from the fact that has developed out of thousands of human lives, something remains like a heavily worn coin: the outline is 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 do not bring events to life before you in the same way as a landscape event brings it 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, they die, they perform great feats, cowardly: all this is like real people; and that is why they are highly instructive, and that is why the military leader who does not kill himself, thanks to Tolstoy’s story, will be worthy of regret, how unwise it is to bring gentlemen like Zherkov closer to oneself, how vigilantly you need to look closely to see the Tushins and Timokhins in the real light; how you need to be perceptively careful so as not to make a hero of some Zherkov or a serviceable and so smart and managerial nameless regimental commander after a 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 sublime, most patient, most diligent workers, and his grandiose world frescoes represent an artistic and labor mosaic, composed of an infinite number of multi-colored pieces, of a million tiny individual observations. Behind the apparent easy straightforwardness lies the most persistent work of craftsmanship - not of a dreamer, but of 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 meaningfully the distribution of light and shadow to give vital illumination to your epic plot. Two thousand pages of the huge epic “War and Peace” were rewritten seven times; sketches and notes filled large drawers. Every historical detail, every semantic detail is substantiated based on selected documents; In order to give the description of the Battle of Borodino real accuracy, Tolstoy travels around the battlefield for two days with a map of the General Staff, travels many miles by rail to obtain this or that decorative detail from some surviving participant in the war. He not only digs up all the books, searches not only all the 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. This is how small balls of mercury are collected over the years - tens, hundreds of thousands of small observations, until they begin to merge into a rounded, pure, perfect form. And only then is the struggle for the truth over, the search for clarity begins... One sticking out phrase, a not quite appropriate adjective, caught among tens of thousands of lines - and in horror, following the sent proofs, he telegraphs the manager in Moscow and demands to stop the car, to satisfy the tonality of a syllable that did not satisfy him. This first proof again enters the retort of the spirit, is once again melted and again poured into 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 works eight, ten hours a day; It is not surprising that even this husband, who has the strongest nerves, is psychologically depressed after each of his big novels...

Tolstoy's accuracy in observations is not associated with any gradations in relation to the creatures of the earth: there are no partialities in his love. Napoleon, to his incorruptible gaze, is no more a man than any of his soldiers, and this latter is again no more important and no more significant than the dog that runs after him, or the stone that it touches with its paw. Everything in the circle of the earth - man and mass, plants and animals, men and women, old people and children, generals and men - flows with crystal clear regularity into his senses, in order to also pour out in the same order. This gives his art a resemblance to the eternal uniformity of incorruptible nature and his epic - sea 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 before, anyone who has read his works knows this. Nature is not described, but lives in our great artist. Sometimes she is even one of the characters in the story: remember the incomparable scene of the Rostovs’ Yule skating in “War and Peace”...

The beauty of nature finds in Tolstoy the most sympathetic connoisseur... But this extremely sensitive man, who feels how the beauty of nature flows through his eyes into his soul, does not admire every beautiful area. Tolstoy loves only those types of nature that awaken in him the consciousness of his unity with it... ( G.V. Plekhanov. "Tolstoy and Nature")

And with less development of creative powers 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 upon the still fresh memories of his contemporaries and would respond to many of their needs and secret sympathies when he based his novel on the 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, folklore and eyewitness accounts. The work ahead of him was not unimportant, but extremely rewarding...

The author is one of the initiates. He has knowledge of their language and uses it to discover under all forms of secularism an abyss of frivolity, insignificance, deceit, and sometimes completely rude, wild and ferocious attempts. One thing is most remarkable. The people of this circle seem to be under some kind of vow, condemning them to severe 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 have set for themselves, and if they achieve something, it is always not what they expected... They succeed in 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, who is the misfortune of his life, although he has no reason to complain about her; his sister, Princess Maria, is saved from the yoke of her father’s despotic manners and constantly secluded village life into a warm and bright religious feeling, which ends in connections with vagabond saints, etc. So persistently this deplorable story with the best people of the described society returns in the novel, that in the end, with every picture of a young and fresh life beginning somewhere, with every story about a joyful phenomenon that promises a serious or instructive outcome, the reader is overcome with fear and doubt: behold, 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 actually turn there and disappear there. But, the question arises - what kind of merciless hand and for what sins has it been burdened over this entire environment... What happened? Apparently nothing special happened. Society calmly lives on the same serfdom as its ancestors; Catherine's loan banks are open to him as before; the doors to the acquisition of fortune and to ruining oneself in the service in the same way stand wide open, letting in everyone who has the right to pass through them; finally, no new figures blocking the way, spoiling his life and confusing his thoughts are shown at all in Tolstoy’s novel. Why, however, is this society, which at the end of the last century believed in itself boundlessly, was distinguished by the strength of its composition and easily coped with life, - now, according to the author’s testimony, cannot arrange it in any way at will, has broken up into circles that almost despise each other, and is struck by the impotence that prevents its best people from even defining both themselves and clear goals for spiritual activity. .. ( P.V. Annenkov. “Historical and aesthetic issues in the novel “War and Peace””)

Extreme observation, subtle analysis of mental movements, clarity and poetry in pictures of nature, elegant simplicity are the hallmarks of Count Tolstoy's talent... The depiction of an internal monologue, without exaggeration, can be called amazing. And, in our opinion, that side of Count Tolstoy’s talent, which gives him the opportunity to capture these psychic monologues, constitutes a special strength in his talent, unique to him... The special feature in Count Tolstoy’s talent is so original that one needs to look at it with great attention it, 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: only through independent (moral) activity does talent develop, and in this activity, the extraordinary energy of which is evidenced by the peculiarity of Count Tolstoy’s works that we noticed, we must see the basis of the strength acquired by his talent.

We are talking about self-deepening, about the desire for tireless observation of oneself. We can study the laws of human action, the play of passions, the concatenation of events, the influence of events and relationships by carefully observing other people; but all the knowledge acquired in this way will have neither depth nor accuracy if we do not study the most intimate laws of mental life, the play of which is open to us only in our (own) self-consciousness. He who has not studied man within himself will never achieve a deep knowledge of people. That feature of Count Tolstoy’s talent, which we spoke about above, proves that he extremely carefully studied the secrets of the human spirit within himself; this knowledge is precious not only because it gave him the opportunity to paint pictures of the internal movements of human thought, to which we drew the reader’s attention, but also, perhaps more, because it gave him a solid basis for the study of human life in general, for unraveling characters and springs actions, struggle of passions and impressions...

There is another force in Mr. Tolstoy’s talent that gives his works a very special dignity with its extremely remarkable freshness - the purity of moral feeling... Never has public morality reached such a high level as in our noble time - noble and beautiful, despite the remnants old dirt, because it strains all its strength to wash itself and cleanse itself from inherited sins... The beneficial influence of this trait of talent is not limited to those stories or episodes in which it comes to the fore noticeably: it constantly serves as a revitalizer, 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 sublime and noble, pure and beautiful, like herself?..

Count Tolstoy has true talent. This means that his works are artistic, that is, in each of them the very idea that he wanted to realize in this work is very fully realized. He never says anything superfluous, because this would be contrary to the conditions of artistry; he never disfigures his works with an admixture of scenes and figures alien to the idea of ​​the work. This is precisely one of the main advantages of artistry. You need to have a lot of taste to appreciate the beauty of Count Tolstoy’s works, but 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. “War stories by L.N. Tolstoy")

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

In the image of Platon Karataev, the artist made the seemingly impossible possible: he was able to define a living, or at least temporarily seemingly 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 smallest and the greatest - the beginning and the end. He does not exist in himself: he is only a part of the Whole, a drop in the ocean of nationwide, all-human, universal life. And he reproduces this life with his personality or impersonality, just as a water drop with its perfect roundness reproduces the world sphere. Be that as it may, a miracle of art or a most ingenious optical illusion is accomplished, almost accomplished. Platon Karataev, despite his impersonality, seems personal, special, unique. But we would like to know him to the end, to see him from the other side. He is kind; but maybe at least once in his life he got annoyed with someone? he is chaste; but maybe he looked at at least one woman differently from the others? but speaks in proverbs; but maybe, but did he insert a word of his own into these sayings at least once? If only one word, one unexpected line would break this too regular, mathematically perfect “roundness” - and we would believe that he is a man of flesh and blood, that he exists.

But, precisely at the moment of our closest and 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 it was impossible for him to be determined in life, in human feelings, thoughts and actions: he did not live, but only was, precisely was, precisely “perfectly round” and this fulfilled his purpose, so all he had to do was die. And in our memory, just as in the memory of Pierre Bezukhov, Platon Karataev is forever imprinted not by a living face, but only by the 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)

Second edition. Moscow, 1868

Article one

Everything that is done in our literature and literary criticism is forgotten quickly and, so to speak, hastily. Such, however, is the generally amazing course of our mental progress; Today we forget what we did yesterday, and every minute we feel as if there is no past behind us - every minute we are ready to start all over again. The number of books and magazines, the number of readers and writers increases every year; Meanwhile, the number of established concepts - concepts that would receive a clear and definite meaning for the majority, for the mass of readers and writers - apparently not only does not increase, but even decreases. Observing how, over the course of decades, the same questions have appeared on the stage of our mental world, constantly raised and constantly not taking a single step forward - how the same opinions, prejudices, misconceptions are repeated endlessly, each time in the form of something - something new - how, not just an article or a book, but the entire activity of another person, who worked ardently and for a long time on a certain area and managed to bring some light into it, disappears, apparently, without any trace, and again everyone appears in an endless procession the same opinions, the same mistakes, the same misunderstandings, the same confusion and nonsense - observing all this, one might think that we are not developing at all, not moving forward, but are only hovering in one place, spinning in a vicious circle. “We are growing,” said Chaadaev, “but we are not maturing.”

Since Chaadaev’s time, things have not only not improved, but worsened. The essential defect that he noticed in our development was revealed with greater and greater force. In those days, things moved more slowly and concerned a relatively small number of people; Nowadays the attacks of the disease have accelerated and affected a huge mass. “Our minds,” wrote Chaadaev, “are not haunted by the indelible features of the consistent movement of ideas”; and so, as literature develops externally, the number of writers and readers who are alien to any foundations, who do not have any support points for their thoughts, who do not feel any connection with anything, is growing more and more. Denial, which was once courage and took its first steps with effort, finally became common place, routine, officialdom; Nihilism was formed as a general basis, as a starting point for all kinds of wanderings and vacillations of thought, that is, an almost direct denial of everything that had passed, a denial of any need for any kind of historical development. “Every person, no matter when and where he is born, has a brain, a heart, a liver, a stomach: what else is needed for him to think and act like a human being?” Nihilism, which has thousands of forms and manifests itself in thousands of attempts, it seems to us, is only the consciousness that has broken through to the surface of our intelligentsia that its education has no lasting roots, that no ideas have left traces in its minds, that it has no past at all.

Many are indignant at this course of affairs, and how is it sometimes possible to contain indignation? How can one not call all these ugliest opinions, which apparently form without any participation of correct thought, stupidity and absurdity? How can one not call this complete misunderstanding and oblivion of the past - these reasonings, not only not based on the study of the subject, but clearly breathing complete contempt for any study, gross and wild ignorance? And, however, we would be completely wrong if we attributed the deplorable phenomena of our mental world to these two reasons, that is, the weakness of Russian minds and the ignorance prevailing among them. Weak and ignorant minds are not therefore wandering and forgetful minds. Obviously, the reason here is different, deeper. Rather, the trouble is that we not only do not consider, but even have some right not to consider ourselves ignorant; the trouble is that we actually have some kind of education, but that this education only instills in us courage and swagger and does not bring any sense to our thoughts. Another reason, parallel to the first and constituting the main, root source of evil, is obviously that with this false education we lack real present formation, which by its action would paralyze all deviations and wanderings generated by any reasons.

So, the matter is much more complex and deeper than is usually thought. General formula we need more education like other general formulas, it does not resolve the issue. For now, every new influx of education will only result in an increase in our meaningless, rootless, in a word, fake education, education will not bring us any benefit. And this will not stop and cannot stop until the sprouts and shoots of real education develop and strengthen in us - until the movement of ideas, “leaving indelible features in our minds,” receives full strength.

The matter is difficult to a high degree. For in order for education to deserve its name, so that its phenomena have the proper strength, proper connection and consistency, so that today we do not forget what we did and what we thought about yesterday - this requires a very difficult condition, an independent, original mental development. It is necessary that we live not someone else’s, but our own mental life, so that other people’s ideas are not simply imprinted or reflected on us, but turn into our flesh and blood, processed into parts of our body. We should not be wax cast into ready-made forms, but should be a living being who gives everything he perceives its own forms, formed by him according to the laws of his own development. Such is the high price at which alone we can buy real education. If we take this point of view, if we think how inevitable this condition is, how difficult and high it is, then much will be explained to us in the phenomena of our mental world. We will no longer marvel at the ugliness that fills it, and we will not hope for a quick cleansing of these ugliness. All this should have been and should have been for a long time. Is it possible to demand that our intelligentsia, without fulfilling the essential conditions for correct development, produce something good? Shouldn't this ghostly activity naturally, necessarily, arise, this imaginary movement, this progress that leaves no traces behind? Evil, in order to cease, must be exhausted to the end; effects will continue as long as causes exist.

Our entire mental world has long been divided into two areas, only occasionally and briefly merging with each other. One region, the largest, encompassing the majority of readers and writers, is the region of progress that leaves no traces, the region of meteors and mirages, smoke blowing in the wind as Turgenev put it. Another region, incomparably smaller, contains everything that is really done in our mental movement, there is a channel fed by living springs, a stream of some continuous development. This is the area in which we not only grow, but also mature, in which, therefore, the work of our independent spiritual life is accomplished in one way or another. For the real thing in this case can only be that which bears the stamp of originality, and (according to a fair remark made long ago by our criticism) every remarkable figure in our development certainly discovered in himself a completely Russian person. The contradiction that exists between these two areas is now clear - a contradiction that should increase as their mutual relations become clearer. For the first, dominant area, the phenomena of the second have almost no significance. She either does not pay any attention to them, or understands them incorrectly and distortedly; she either doesn’t know them at all, or recognizes them superficially and quickly forgets.

They forget, and it is natural for them to forget; but who remembers? It would seem that we should have people for whom it is just as natural to remember as it is for those to forget - people who are able to appreciate the dignity of any phenomena of the mental world, who are not carried away by the momentary moods of society and who are able, through smoke and fog, to see real movement forward and distinguish it from empty, fruitless fermentation. Indeed, we have people who are apparently quite capable of this task; but, unfortunately, such is the power of things that they do not do this, do not want to do it, and in essence cannot. Our serious and thoroughly educated people are inevitably under the unfortunate influence of the general vice of our development. First of all, their own education, which usually constitutes some exception, and although high, is mostly one-sided, inspires them with arrogance towards the phenomena of our mental world; they don't give him undivided attention. Then, according to their relationship to this world, they are divided into two categories: some have complete indifference to something, as to a phenomenon that is more or less alien to them; others, theoretically recognizing their kinship with this world, dwell in it on some isolated phenomena and look at everything else with greater contempt. The first attitude is cosmopolitan, the second is national. Cosmopolitans rudely, inattentively, without love and insight, bring our development to European standards and do not know how to see anything particularly good in it. Nationalists, with less rudeness and inattention, apply the requirement of originality to our development and on this basis deny it all, except for a few exceptions.

Obviously, the whole difficulty lies in the ability to appreciate manifestations of originality. Some people don’t want to find them at all and don’t know how to find them; no wonder they don’t see them. Others want just that; but, being too quick and demanding in their desires, they are always dissatisfied with what actually is. Thus, a work that is priceless and accomplished with hard work is constantly neglected. Some will believe in Russian thought only when it produces great world-wide philosophers and poets; others - only when all its creations take on a vivid national imprint. Until then, both of them consider themselves entitled to treat her work with contempt - to forget everything she does - and continue to suppress her with the same high demands.

Such thoughts came to our minds when we decided to begin analyzing War and Peace. And it seems to us that these thoughts are most appropriate when it comes specifically to a new work of art. Where to begin? Where should we base our judgments? Whatever we refer to, whatever concepts we rely on, everything will be dark and incomprehensible to most of our readers. New work by gr. L.N. Tolstoy, one of the most beautiful works of Russian literature, is, firstly, the fruit of the movement of this literature, its deep and difficult progress; secondly, it is the result of the development of the artist himself, his long and conscientious work on his talent. But who has a clear understanding of the movement of our literature and... about the development of talent gr. L.N. Tolstoy? True, our criticism once carefully and thoughtfully assessed the features of this amazing talent *; but who remembers this?

____________________

* Here, of course, is an article by Apollon Grigoriev.

____________________

Recently, one critic announced that before the appearance of "War and Peace" everyone had already forgotten about gr. L.N. Tolstoy and no one else thought about him. The remark is absolutely fair. Of course, there were probably still backward readers who continued to admire the previous works of this writer and find in them priceless revelations of the human soul. But our critics were not among these naive readers. Our critics, of course, remembered the gr. less than all others. L.N. Tolstoy and thought about him. We will be right even if we extend and generalize this conclusion. We probably have readers who value Russian literature, who remember and love it, but these are by no means Russian critics. Critics are not so much interested in our literature as they are disturbed by its existence; they don’t want to remember or think about her at all and are only annoyed when she reminds them of herself with new works.

Such, indeed, was the impression produced by the appearance of War and Peace. For many, who enjoyed reading the latest books of magazines and their own articles in them, it was extremely unpleasant to realize that there was some other area that they did not think about and did not want to think about and in which, however, phenomena of enormous proportions are being created and brilliant beauty. Everyone values ​​their own tranquility, self-loving confidence in their own mind, in the meaning of their activities - and this explains the embittered cries that we raise, in particular, against poets and artists, and in general against everything that accuses us of ignorance, oblivion and misunderstanding.

From all this we will first draw one conclusion: it is difficult to talk about literature in our country. In general, it has been noticed that it is difficult for us to talk about anything without causing countless misunderstandings, without causing the most incredible distortions of our thoughts. But it is most difficult to talk about what is called literature par excellence, about works of art. Here we should not assume that readers have any established concepts; one should write as if no one knew anything either about the present state of our literature and criticism, or about the historical development that led them to this state.

That's what we'll do. Without referring to anything, we will directly state the facts, describe them as accurately as possible, analyze their meaning and connection, and from here draw our conclusions.

I

The fact that prompted the present investigation and the explanation of which, due to its enormity, we undertake not without doubt in our abilities, is the following.

In 1868, one of the best works of our literature, War and Peace, appeared. His success was extraordinary. It has been a long time since a book has been read with such greed. Moreover, it was a success of the highest level. “War and Peace” was carefully read not only by ordinary readers who still admire Dumas and Feval, but also by the most discerning readers - all with a solid or unfounded claim to scholarship and education; read even by those who generally despise Russian literature and do not read anything in Russian. And since the circle of our readers is increasing every year, it turned out that not one of our classic works - of those that not only have success, but deserve success - has sold out so quickly and in so many copies as "War and peace". Let us add to this that not one of the remarkable works of our literature has had such a large volume as the new work of gr. L.N. Tolstoy.

Let us proceed directly to the analysis of the accomplished fact. The success of War and Peace is an extremely simple and clear phenomenon, containing no complexity or intricacy. This success cannot be attributed to any collateral or extraneous reasons. Gr. L.N. Tolstoy did not try to captivate his readers with any intricate and mysterious adventures, nor with descriptions of dirty and terrible scenes, nor with images of terrible mental torments, nor, finally, with any daring and new trends - in a word, with none of those means that tease the thought or imagination of readers painfully irritate curiosity with pictures of an unknown and untested life. Nothing could be simpler than the many events described in War and Peace. All cases of ordinary family life, conversations between brother and sister, between mother and daughter, separation and meeting of relatives, hunting, Christmastide, mazurka, playing cards, etc. - all this is elevated to the pearl of creation with the same love as the Battle of Borodino . Simple objects occupy as much space in “War and Peace” as, for example, in “Eugene Onegin” the immortal description of the Larins’ life, winter, spring, trip to Moscow, etc.

True, next to this gr. L.N. Tolstoy brings to the stage great events and persons of enormous historical significance. But it cannot be said that this is precisely what aroused the general interest of readers. If there were readers who were attracted by the depiction of historical phenomena or even a feeling of patriotism, then, without any doubt, there were many who did not like to look for history in works of art or were strongly armed against any bribery of patriotic feelings and who, however, , read “War and Peace” with the liveliest curiosity. Let us note in passing that “War and Peace” is not at all a historical novel, that is, it does not at all intend to make romantic heroes out of historical figures and, by telling their adventures, combine the interests of the novel and history.

So, the matter is pure and clear. Whatever goals and intentions the author may have, no matter what high and important subjects he touches, the success of his work depends not on these intentions and objects, but on what he did, guided by these goals and touching on these subjects, that is - from high artistic performance.

If gr. L.N. Tolstoy achieved his goals, if he forced everyone to fix their eyes on what occupied his soul, it was only because he completely mastered his instrument, art. In this regard, the example of War and Peace is extremely instructive. Hardly many were aware of the thoughts that guided and animated the author, but everyone was equally amazed by his work. People who approached this book with preconceived views, with the idea of ​​finding a contradiction to their tendency or its confirmation, were often perplexed, did not have time to decide what to do - be indignant or admired, but everyone equally recognized the extraordinary mastery of the mysterious work. It has been a long time since art has demonstrated its all-conquering, irresistible effect to such a degree.

But artistry does not come for free. Let no one think that it can exist separately from deep thoughts and deep feelings, that it can be a frivolous phenomenon that has no important meaning. In this case, it is necessary to distinguish true artistry from its false and ugly forms. Let's try to analyze the creativity found in the book of gr. L.N. Tolstoy, and we will see what depth lies at its foundation.

What was everyone amazed by in "War and Peace"? Of course, objectivity, imagery. It is difficult to imagine images more distinct, colors more vibrant. You see exactly everything that is being described, and you hear all the sounds of what is happening. The author does not say anything on his own; he directly brings out faces and makes them speak, feel and act, and every word and every movement is true to amazing accuracy, that is, it fully bears the character of the person to whom it belongs. It’s as if you are dealing with living people, and, moreover, you see them much more clearly than you can see in real life. It is possible to distinguish not only the image of expressions and feelings of each character, but also each person’s manners, favorite gestures, and gait. The important Prince Vasily once had to walk on tiptoe in unusual and difficult circumstances; the author knows perfectly how each of his faces walks. “Prince Vasily,” he says, “did not know how to walk on tiptoes and awkwardly bounced with his whole body” (vol. I, p. 115). With the same clarity and distinctness, the author knows all the movements, all the feelings and thoughts of his characters. Once he has brought them onto the stage, he no longer interferes in their affairs, does not help them, leaving each of them to behave in accordance with his own nature.

From the same desire to maintain objectivity, it happens that gr. There are no paintings or descriptions of Tolstoy that he would do on his own. Nature appears to him only as it is reflected in the characters; he does not describe the oak tree standing in the middle of the road, or the moonlit night on which Natasha and Prince Andrei could not sleep, but describes the impression that this oak tree and this night made on Prince Andrei. In the same way, battles and events of all kinds are told not according to the concepts that the author has formed about them, but according to the impressions of the persons acting in them. The Sheigraben case is described mostly based on the impressions of Prince Andrei, the Battle of Austerlitz - based on the impressions of Nikolai Rostov, the arrival of Emperor Alexander in Moscow is depicted in Petya's unrest, and the action of the prayer for salvation from the invasion is depicted in Natasha's feelings. Thus, the author nowhere appears from behind the characters and depicts events not abstractly, but, so to speak, with the flesh and blood of those people who made up the material of the events.

In this respect, "War and Peace" represents true miracles of art. What is captured is not individual features, but the entire atmosphere of life, which varies among different individuals and in different strata of society. The author himself talks about loving and family atmosphere Rostov's houses; but remember other images of the same kind: the atmosphere surrounding Speransky; the atmosphere that prevailed around uncles Rostov; the atmosphere of the theater hall that Natasha found herself in; the atmosphere of the military hospital where Rostov went, etc., etc. Persons entering one of these atmospheres or moving from one to another inevitably feel their influence, and we experience it with them.

Thus, the highest degree of objectivity has been achieved, that is, we not only see before us the actions, figures, movements and speeches of the characters, but their entire inner life appears before us in the same distinct and clear features; their soul, their heart is not obscured from our gaze. Reading "War and Peace", we are in the full sense of the word we contemplate those objects that the artist chose.

But what are these objects? Objectivity is a general property of poetry, which must always be present in it, no matter what objects it depicts. The most ideal feelings, the highest life of the spirit must be depicted objectively. Pushkin is completely objective when he recalls some majestic wife; He says:

Her brow I remember the veil
And eyes as bright as heaven.

In exactly the same way, he quite objectively depicts the feelings of the “Prophet”:

And I heard the sky tremble,
And the heavenly flight of angels,
And the reptile of the sea underwater,
And the valley of the vine is vegetated.

Objectivity gr. L.N. Tolstoy is obviously turned in the other direction - not to ideal objects, but to what we oppose - to the so-called reality, to that which does not achieve the ideal, deviates from it, contradicts it and, however, exists as would indicate his powerlessness. Gr. L.N. Tolstoy is realist, that is, it belongs to a long-dominant and very strong trend in our literature. He deeply sympathizes with the desire of our minds and tastes for realism, and his strength lies in the fact that he knows how to fully satisfy this desire.

Indeed, he is a magnificent realist. One might think that he not only depicts his faces with incorruptible fidelity to reality, but as if he even deliberately pulls them down from the ideal height to which we, according to the eternal property of human nature, so willingly place people and events. Mercilessly, mercilessly gr. L.N. Tolstoy reveals all the weaknesses of his heroes; he does not hide anything, does not stop at anything, so that he even instills fear and melancholy about human imperfection. Many sensitive souls cannot, for example, digest the thoughts of Natasha’s passion for Kuragin; If it weren’t for this, what a beautiful image would have emerged, drawn with amazing truthfulness! But the realist poet is merciless.

If you look at "War and Peace" from this point of view, then you can take this book as the most ardent denunciation Alexander's era, for the incorruptible exposure of all the ulcers from which she suffered. The self-interest, emptiness, falsity, depravity, and stupidity of the then upper circle were exposed; the meaningless, lazy, gluttonous life of Moscow society and rich landowners like the Rostovs; then the greatest unrest everywhere, especially in the army, during the war; People are shown everywhere who, amidst blood and battles, are guided by personal benefits and sacrifice the common good to them; terrible disasters were exposed that occurred from disagreement and petty ambition of the bosses, from the lack of a firm hand in management; a whole crowd of cowards, scoundrels, thieves, libertines, cheaters was brought onto the stage; the rudeness and savagery of the people is clearly shown (in Smolensk, a husband beating his wife; a riot in Bogucharovo).

So, if someone had decided to write an article about “War and Peace” similar to Dobrolyubov’s article “The Dark Kingdom,” he would have found in the work gr. L.N. Tolstoy provides abundant materials for this topic. One of the writers belonging to the foreign department of our literature, N. Ogarev, once brought all of our current literature under the formula of denunciation - he said that Turgenev is an exposer of landowners, Ostrovsky - of merchants, and Nekrasov - of officials. Following this view, we could rejoice at the appearance of a new accuser and say: gr. L.N. Tolstoy is an exposer of the military - an exposer of our military exploits, our historical glory.

It is very significant, however, that such a view found only faint echoes in literature - clear evidence that the most biased eyes could not help but see its injustice. But that such a view is possible, we have precious historical evidence for this: one of the participants in the War of 1812, a veteran of our literature A.S. Norov, carried away by a passion that inspired involuntary and deep respect, accepted gr. L.N. Tolstoy as an accuser. Here are the true words of A.S. Norova:

“Readers are amazed, during the first parts of the novel (“War and Peace”), first by the sad impression of the empty and almost immoral upper circle of society presented in the capital, but at the same time having influence on the government, and then by the absence of any meaning in military actions and barely not the lack of military prowess, of which our army has always been so justly proud." “The year 1812, resounding with glory, both in military and civilian life, is presented to us as a soap bubble; the whole phalanx of our generals, whose military glory is chained to our military chronicles and whose names still pass from mouth to mouth of the new military generation, seemed to be composed of mediocre, blind instruments of chance, who sometimes acted successfully, and even these successes are spoken of only in passing and often with irony. Was this really how our society was, was this really what our army was like?" “Being among the eyewitnesses of great domestic events, I could not finish reading this novel, which had a claim to be historical, without an offended patriotic feeling.”*

_____________________

* "War and Peace" (1805 - 1812) from a historical point of view and according to the memoirs of a contemporary. Regarding the essay of Count L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace" by A.S. Norova. St. Petersburg, 1868, pp. 1 and 2.

____________________

As we said, this side of the work of gr. L.N. Tolstoy, which so painfully affected A. S. Norov, did not make a noticeable impression on most readers. From what? Because it was too much overshadowed by other aspects of the work, because other motives of a more poetic nature came to the fore. Obviously, gr. L.N. Tolstoy depicted the dark features of objects not because he wanted to show them off, but because he wanted to depict objects completely, with all their features, and therefore with their dark features. His goal was Truth in the image - unchanging fidelity to reality, and it was this truthfulness that attracted all the attention of readers. Patriotism, the glory of Russia, moral rules, everything was forgotten, everything faded into the background before this realism, which came out fully armed. The reader eagerly followed these pictures; as if the artist, without preaching anything, without denouncing anyone, like some magician, transported him from one place to another and let him see for himself what was happening there.

Everything is bright, everything is figurative and at the same time everything is real, everything is true to reality, like a daguerreotype or a photograph, that’s the power of gr. L.N. Tolstoy. You feel that the author did not want to exaggerate either the dark or the light sides of the objects, did not want to throw any special color or spectacular lighting on them - that he with all his soul strove to convey the matter in its real, actual form and light - this is an irresistible charm that conquers the most persistent readers! Yes, we, Russian readers, have long been stubborn in our attitude towards works of art, have long been strongly armed against what is called poetry, ideal feelings and thoughts; We seem to have lost the ability to be carried away by idealism in art and stubbornly resist the slightest temptation in this direction. We either do not believe in the ideal, or (which is much more correct, since a private person can not believe in the ideal, but not the people) we place it so highly that we do not believe in the power of art - in the possibility of any embodiment of the ideal. In this state of affairs, there is only one road left for art - realism; What will you do than arm yourself against the truth - against the portrayal of life as it is?

But realism is different from realism; art, in essence, never renounces the ideal, it always strives for it; and the clearer and more vividly this desire is heard in the creations of realism, the higher they are, the closer they are to real artistry. There are quite a few people among us who understand this matter crudely, namely, they imagine that for the best success in art they must turn their soul into a simple photographic device and take from it whatever pictures they come across. Our literature presents many similar pictures: but simple-minded readers, imagining that real artists were speaking before them, were later surprised to see that absolutely nothing came of these writers. The point, however, is understandable; These writers were faithful to reality not because it was brightly illuminated by their ideal, but because they themselves did not see beyond what they wrote. They stood in line with the reality they described.

Gr. L.N. Tolstoy is not a realist exposer, but he is not a realist photographer either. This is why his work is so valuable, this is its strength and the reason for its success, that, while fully satisfying all the requirements of our art, he fulfilled them in their purest form, in their deepest sense. The essence of Russian realism in art has never been revealed with such clarity and strength; in "War and Peace" he rose to a new level and entered a new period of his development.

Let's take another step in characterizing this work, and we will already be close to the goal.

What is the special, prominent feature of the gr.’s talent? L.N. Tolstoy? In an unusually subtle and faithful depiction of mental movements. Gr. L.N. Tolstoy can be called par excellence realist psychologist. Based on his previous works, he has long been known as an amazing master in the analysis of all kinds of mental changes and states. This analysis, developed with some kind of passion, reached the point of pettiness, to the point of incorrect tension. In the new work, all his extremes disappeared and all his former accuracy and insight remained; the artist's power found its limits and settled into its shores. All his attention is directed to the human soul. His descriptions of the furnishings, costumes - in a word, of the entire outer side of life are rare, brief and incomplete; but nowhere is the impression and influence made by this external side on the soul of people lost, and the main place is occupied by their internal life, for which the external serves only as a reason or an incomplete expression. The slightest shades of mental life and its deepest shocks are depicted with equal clarity and truthfulness. The feeling of festive boredom in the Otradnensky house of the Rostovs and the feeling of the entire Russian army in the midst of the Battle of Borodino, the young spiritual movements of Natasha and the excitement of the old man Bolkonsky, who is losing his memory and is close to a stroke of paralysis - everything is bright, everything is alive and accurate in the story of gr. L.N. Tolstoy.

So, this is where the entire interest of the author, and therefore the entire interest of the reader, is concentrated. No matter what huge and important events take place on the stage - whether it be the Kremlin, choked with people as a result of the arrival of the sovereign, or a meeting between two emperors, or a terrible battle with the thunder of guns and thousands of dying - nothing distracts the poet, and with him the reader from gazing closely into the inner world of individuals. It is as if the artist is not interested in the event at all, but is only interested in how the human soul acts during this event - what does it feel and bring into the event?

Now ask yourself, what is the poet looking for? What persistent curiosity makes him follow the slightest sensations of all these people, from Napoleon and Kutuzov to those little girls whom Prince Andrei found in his ruined garden?

There is only one answer: the artist is looking for traces of the beauty of the human soul, looking for in each depicted face that spark of God in which the human dignity of the individual lies - in a word, he tries to find and determine with all accuracy how and to what extent a person’s ideal aspirations are realized in real life .

II

It is very difficult to present, even in its main features, the idea of ​​a deep work of art; it is embodied in it with such completeness and versatility that an abstract presentation of it will always be something inaccurate, insufficient - it will not, as they say, completely exhaust the subject.

The idea of ​​"War and Peace" can be formulated in various ways.

We can say, for example, that the guiding thought of the work is the idea of ​​a heroic life. The author himself hints at this when, among the description of the Battle of Borodino, he makes the following remark: “The ancients left us examples of heroic poems in which heroes make up the entire interest of history, and we still cannot get used to the fact that for our human time a story of this kind has no meaning” (Vol. IV, p. 236).

The artist, thus, directly tells us that he wants to depict for us the kind of life that we usually call heroic, but to depict it in its real sense, and not in those incorrect images that were bequeathed to us by antiquity; he wants us lost the habit from these false ideas, and for this purpose gives us true ideas. Instead of the ideal, we must get the real.

Where to look for a heroic life? Of course, in history. We are accustomed to thinking that the people on whom history depends, who make history, are heroes. Therefore, the artist’s thought settled on 1812 and the wars that preceded it, as a predominantly heroic era. If Napoleon, Kutuzov, Bagration are not heroes, then who is the hero after that? Gr. L.N. Tolstoy took enormous historical events, the terrible struggle and tension of the people's forces, in order to capture the highest manifestations of what we call heroism.

But in our human time, as gr. L.N. Tolstoy, heroes alone do not constitute the entire interest of history. No matter how we understand heroic life, it is necessary to determine the attitude of ordinary life to it, and this is even the main point. What is an ordinary person compared to a hero? What is a private person in relation to history? In a more general form, this will be the same question that has long been developed by our artistic realism: what is ordinary everyday reality in comparison with the ideal, with a beautiful life? Gr. L.N. Tolstoy tried to resolve the issue as completely as possible. He presented to us, for example, Bagration and Kutuzov in incomparable, amazing greatness. They seem to have the ability to become above everything human. This is especially clear in the depiction of Kutuzov, weak from old age, forgetful, lazy, a man of bad morals who, as the author puts it, has retained all the habits of passions, but no longer having the passions themselves. For Bagration and Kutuzov, when they have to act, everything personal disappears; the expressions: courage, restraint, calmness are not even applicable to them, since they do not dare, do not restrain themselves, do not tense up and do not plunge into peace... Naturally and simply they do their job, as if they were spirits capable of only contemplating and unmistakably guided by the purest feelings of duty and honor. They look straight into the face of fate, and for them the very thought of fear is impossible - no hesitation in actions is possible, because they do everything, what they can, submitting to the flow of events and his own human frailty.

But beyond these lofty spheres of valor, reaching its highest limits, the artist presented to us the whole world where the demands of duty struggle with all the disturbances of human passions. He showed us all kinds of courage and all types of cowardice... What a distance from the initial cowardice of the cadet Rostov to the brilliant courage of Denisov, to the firm courage of Prince Andrei, to the unconscious heroism of Captain Tushin! All sensations and forms of battle - from panic fear and flight at Austerlitz to invincible stamina and bright burning hidden spiritual fire under Borodin - described to us by the artist. These people are what we see scoundrels as Kutuzov called the fleeing soldiers, then fearless, selfless warriors. In essence, they are all simple people, and the artist with amazing skill shows how, in varying degrees and degrees, in the soul of each of them the spark of valor that is usually inherent in a person arises, goes out or flares up.

And most importantly, it is shown what all these souls mean in the course of history, what they “wear in great events, what share of participation they have in heroic life. It is shown that kings and generals are great because they constitute, as it were, centers in which they strive to concentrate heroism living in the souls of simple and dark. Understanding of this heroism, sympathy for it and faith in it constitute all the greatness of the Bagrations and Kutuzovs. Misunderstanding of it, neglect of it or even contempt for it constitute the misfortune and smallness of Barclay de Tolly and the Speranskys.

War, state affairs and upheavals constitute the field of history, the heroic field par excellence. Having depicted with impeccable truthfulness how people behave, what they feel and what they do in this field, the artist, to complete his thoughts, wanted to show us the same people in their private sphere, where they are simply as people. “Meanwhile,” he writes in one place, “life (real life people with their own essential interests of health, illness, work, leisure, with their interests of thought, science, poetry, music, love, friendship, hatred, passions, proceeded, as always, independently and beyond political affinity or enmity with Napoleon Bonaparte and beyond all possible transformations” (vol. III, pp. 1 and 2).

These words are followed by a description of how Prince Andrey traveled to Otradnoye and met Natasha there for the first time.

Prince Andrei and his father in the sphere of common interests are real heroes. When Prince Andrei leaves Brunn to join an army in danger, the mocking Bilibin twice, without any ridicule, gives him the title of hero (vol. I, pp. 78 and 79). And Bilibin is absolutely right. Perzoerige all the actions and thoughts of Prince Andrei during the war, and you will not find a single reproach on him. Remember his behavior in the Shengraben affair, no one understood Bagration better than him, and he alone saw and appreciated the feat of Captain Tushin. But Bagration knew little about Prince Andrei, Kutuzov knows him better and turned to him during the Battle of Austerlitz, when it was necessary to stop the fleeing and lead them forward. Remember, finally, Borodino, when Prince Andrei stands for long hours with his regiment under fire (he did not want to stay at headquarters and did not fall into the ranks of the fighting), all human feelings speak in his soul, but he never for a moment loses complete composure in shouts to the adjutant lying on the ground: “Shame on you, Mr. Officer!” at the very moment when a grenade explodes and inflicts a serious wound on him. The path of such people is truly a mountain of honor, as Kutuzov put it, and they can, without hesitation, do everything that is required by the strictest concept of courage and self-sacrifice.

Old Bolkonsky is not inferior to his son. Remember that Spartan parting word that he gives to his son going to war and loved by him with bloody fatherly tenderness: “Remember one thing, Prince Andrei, if they kill you, I will give you the old man hurt will be... And if I find out that you did not behave like the son of Nikolai Bolkonsky, I will... ashamed!"

And his son is such that he had every right to object to his father: “You could not tell me this, father” (vol. I, p. 165).

Remember later that all the interests of Russia become for this old man as if his own, personal interests, constitute the main part of his life. He avidly follows affairs from his Bald Mountains. His constant ridicule of Napoleon and our military actions is obviously inspired by a feeling of insulted national pride; he does not want to believe that his mighty homeland suddenly lost its strength; he would like to attribute this to mere chance, and not to the strength of the enemy. When the invasion began and Napoleon advanced to Vitebsk, the decrepit old man was completely lost; At first he doesn’t even understand what he reads in his son’s letter: he pushes away from himself a thought that is impossible for him to bear - which should crush his life. But I had to be convinced, I finally had to believe: and then the old man dies. More accurately than a bullet, he was struck by the thought of a general disaster.

Yes, these people are real heroes; Such people make strong nations and states. But why, the reader will probably ask, is it that their heroism seems to be devoid of anything amazing, and they are more likely to appear to us as ordinary people? Because the artist depicted them completely for us, he showed us not only how they act in relation to duty, honor, and national pride, but also their private, personal life. He showed us the home life of the old man Bolkonsky with his painful relationship with his daughter, with all the weaknesses of a decrepit man - an involuntary tormentor of his neighbors. In Prince Andrei gr. L.N. Tolstoy revealed to us the impulses of terrible pride and ambition, his cold and at the same time jealous relationship with his wife, and in general his entire difficult character, which in its severity resembles the character of his father. “I’m afraid of him,” Natasha says about Prince Andrei just before his proposal.

Old Bolkonsky amazed strangers with his greatness; Having arrived in Moscow, he became the head of the opposition there and aroused in everyone a feeling of respectful respect. "For visitors, this entire old house with huge dressing tables, pre-revolutionary furniture, these footmen in powder, and the of the last century, a cool and smart old man with his meek daughter and a pretty French girl, who revered him, presented a majestic and pleasant sight."(Vol. III, p. 190). In the same way, Prince Andrei inspires involuntary respect in everyone and plays some kind of regal role in the world. Kutuzov and Speransky caress him, the soldiers idolize him.

But all this has full effect for outsiders, and not for us. The artist introduced us to the most intimate life of these people; he initiated us into all their thoughts, into all their worries. The human weakness of these persons, those moments in which they become on an equal footing with ordinary mortals, those positions and mental movements in which all people feel equally, equally - people - all this is revealed to us clearly and completely; and this is why the heroic features of faces seem to drown in the mass of simply human features.

This should apply to all persons of War and Peace, without exception. Everywhere it’s the same story as with the janitor Ferapontov, who inhumanly beats his wife, who asked to leave, bargains stingily with cab drivers at the very moment of danger, and then, when he sees what’s going on, shouts: “I’ve made up my mind! Russia!” and sets his house on fire. So accurately, in each person, the author depicts all aspects of mental life - from animal tendencies to that spark of heroism that often lurks in the smallest and most perverted souls.

But let no one think that the artist thus wanted to humiliate heroic faces and actions by exposing their imaginary greatness; on the contrary, his whole goal was only to show them in the real light and, therefore, rather to teach us to see them where we could not see them before. Human weaknesses should not obscure human virtues from us. In other words, the poet teaches his readers to penetrate into the poetry that is hidden in reality. It is deeply closed from us by vulgarity, pettiness, the dirty and stupid vanity of daily life, it is impenetrable and inaccessible to our own indifference, drowsy laziness and selfish fussiness; and now the poet illuminates before us all the mud that entangles human life, so that we can see the spark of the Divine flame in its darkest corners, - we can understand those people in whom this flame burns brightly, although myopic eyes do not see it, - we can sympathize with matters that seemed incomprehensible to our cowardice and selfishness. This is not Gogol, illuminating the whole world with the bright light of the ideal. vulgarity vulgar person; This is an artist who, through all the vulgarity visible to the world, knows how to discern in a person his human dignity. With unprecedented courage, the artist undertook to depict for us the most heroic time of our history - the time from which the conscious life of the new Russia actually begins; and who will not say that he emerged victorious from a competition with his subject?

Before us is a picture of that Russia that withstood Napoleon’s invasion and dealt a mortal blow to his power. The picture is painted not only without embellishment, but also with sharp shadows of all the shortcomings - all the ugly and pitiful sides that plagued the society of that time in mental, moral and governmental terms. But at the same time, the power that saved Russia is clearly shown.

The thought that makes up military theory gr. L.N. Tolstoy, which caused so much noise, is that each soldier is not a simple material tool, but is strong primarily in his spirit, that in the end the whole thing depends on this spirit of the soldier, which can either fall to panic fear, or rise to heroism. Generals are strong when they control not only the movements and actions of soldiers, but are able to control them in spirit. To do this, the commanders themselves need to stand in spirit above all his army, above all accidents and misfortunes - in a word, to have the strength to bear the entire fate of the army and, if necessary, the entire fate of the state. Such, for example, was the decrepit Kutuzov during the Battle of Borodino. His faith in the strength of the Russian army and the Russian people is obviously higher and stronger than the faith of every warrior; Kutuzov, as it were, concentrates all their inspiration in himself. The fate of the battle is decided by his own words, spoken to Wolzogen: “You know nothing. The enemy is defeated, and tomorrow we will drive him out of the sacred Russian land.” At this moment Kutuzov, obviously, stands immeasurably above all the Wolzogens and Barclays, he stands on a par with Russia.

In general, the description of the Battle of Borodino is quite worthy of its subject. The considerable praise that Mr. L.N. Tolstoy managed to snatch even from such biased connoisseurs as A.S. Norov. “Count Tolstoy,” writes A.S. Norov, “in chapters 33 - 35 beautiful and true depicted the general phases of the Battle of Borodino."* Let us note in parentheses that if the Battle of Borodino is depicted well, then one cannot help but believe that such an artist was able to depict well all kinds of other military events.

____________________

* See: "Russian Archive", 1868 N 3. A few explanatory words gr. L.N. Tolstoy.

____________________

The power of the description of this battle follows from the entire previous story; it is, as it were, the highest point, the understanding of which was prepared by everything previous. When we get to this battle, we already know all types of courage and all types of cowardice, we know how all members of the army behave or can behave, from the commander to the last soldier. Therefore, in the story of the battle the author is so concise and brief; There is not just one captain Tushin, described in detail in the Shengraben case, operating here, there are hundreds of such Tushins. From a few scenes - on the mound where Bezukhov was, in Prince Andrei's regiment, at the dressing station - we feel all the tension in the spiritual strength of each soldier, we understand that single and unshakable spirit that animated this entire terrible mass of people. Kutuzov appears to us as if connected by some invisible threads to the heart of every soldier. There has scarcely ever been another such battle, and scarcely anything like it has been told in any other language.

So, heroic life is depicted in its most sublime manifestations and in its actual form. How war is made, how history is made - these questions, which deeply occupied the artist, were resolved by him with skill and insight that are beyond all praise. One cannot help but recall the author’s own explanations about his understanding of history*. With a naivety that can rightfully be called genius, he almost directly asserts that historians, by the very nature of their techniques and research, can only depict events in a false and distorted form - that the real meaning, the real truth of the matter is accessible only to the artist. And what? How not to say that gr. L.N. Does Tolstoy have considerable rights to such insolence regarding history? All historical descriptions of the twelfth year are really some kind of lie in comparison with the living picture of “War and Peace”. There is no doubt that our art in this work stands immeasurably higher than our historical science and therefore has the right to teach it an understanding of events. So once upon a time Pushkin with his Chronicle of the village of Gorokhina wanted to expose the false features, false tone and spirit of the first volumes History of the Russian State Karamzin.

_____________________

* See: "Russian Archive", 1868 N 3. A few explanatory words, gr. L.N. Tolstoy.

_____________________

But a heroic life does not exhaust the author’s tasks. Its subject is obviously much broader. The main idea that guides him when depicting heroic phenomena is to reveal them human the basis, show in the heroes - of people. When Prince Andrei meets Speransky, the author notes: “If Speransky were from the same society from which Prince Andrei was - the same upbringing and moral habits, then Bolkonsky I would soon find his weak, human, unheroic sides; but now this logical mindset, strange to him, inspired him with respect all the more because he did not fully understand it (vol. III, p. 22). What Bolkonsky was not able to do in this case, the artist with the greatest skill can do in relation to all his faces: he reveals to us their human sides. Thus, his entire story takes on a human rather than a heroic character; this is not the story of exploits and great events, but the story of the people who participated in them. So, the author's broader subject is simply Human; people obviously interest the author completely regardless of their position in society and the great or small events that happen to them.

Let's see how gr. L.N. Tolstoy depicts people.

The human soul is depicted in War and Peace with a reality unprecedented in our literature. We see before us not abstract life, but completely defined beings with all the limitations of place, time, and circumstances. We see, for example, how grow faces gr. L.N. Tolstoy. Natasha running out into the living room with a doll in the first volume, and Natasha entering the church in the fourth, are really the same person at two different ages - girls and girls, and not two ages just assigned to one person (as is often the case happens with other writers). The author also showed us all the intermediate stages of this development. Exactly like this - Nikolai Rostov is growing before our eyes, Pyotr Bezukhov is turning from a young man into a Moscow gentleman, old Bolkonsky is decrepit, etc.

Mental characteristics of persons gr. L.N. Tolstoy are so clear, so imprinted with individuality that we can follow family resemblance those souls who are related by blood. Old Bolkonsky and Prince Andrei are clearly the same in nature; only one is young, the other is old. The Rostov family, despite all the diversity of its members, presents amazingly captured common features - reaching those shades that can be felt, but not expressed. For some reason, one feels, for example, that Vera is the real Rostov, while Sonya clearly has a soul of a different root.

There is nothing to say about foreigners. Remember the Germans: General Mack, Pfuhl, Adolf Berg, the Frenchwoman Mlle Bourienne, Napoleon himself, etc. The mental difference between nationalities is captured and maintained to the point of subtlety. Regarding Russian faces, it is not only clear that each of them is a completely Russian face, but we can even distinguish between the classes and states to which they belong. Speransky, who appears in two small scenes, turns out to be a seminarian from head to toe, and the peculiarities of his mental structure are expressed with the greatest brightness and without the slightest exaggeration.

And everything that happens in these souls, which have such definite features - every feeling, passion, excitement - has exactly the same definiteness, is depicted with the same exact reality. There is nothing more ordinary than an abstract depiction of feelings and passions. The hero is usually credited with some one emotional mood - love, ambition, thirst for revenge - and the case is told as if this mood constantly exists in the soul of the hero; Thus, a description is made of the phenomena of a certain passion, taken separately, and is attributed to the person brought onto the stage.

Not so with gr. L.N. Tolstoy. For him, every impression, every feeling is complicated by all the responses that it finds in the various abilities and aspirations of the soul. If we imagine the soul in the form of a musical instrument with many different strings, then we can say that the artist, depicting some kind of shock of the soul, never stops at the predominant sound of one string, but captures all the sounds, even the weakest and barely noticeable. Remember, for example, the description of Natasha, a being in whom mental life has such intensity and completeness; in this soul everything speaks at once: pride, love for the groom, cheerfulness, thirst for life, deep affection for family, etc. Remember Andrei when he stands over a smoking grenade.

“Is this really death?” thought Prince Andrey, looking with a completely new, envious gaze at the grass, at the sand and at the stream of smoke curling from the spinning black ball. “I can’t, I don’t want to die; I love life, I love this grass, this earth.” , air"... He thought this and at the same time remembered that they were looking at him."(Vol. IV, p. 323).

And further, whatever feeling possesses a person, it is depicted by gr. L.N. Tolstoy with all its changes and fluctuations - not in the form of some constant value, but in the form of only the ability to a certain feeling, in the form of a spark, constantly smoldering, ready to burst into flames, but often drowned out by other feelings. Remember, for example, the feeling of malice that Prince Andrei has towards Kuragin, the strange contradictions and changes in the feelings of Princess Marya, religious, amorous, boundlessly loving her father, etc.

What was the author's purpose? What thought guides him? Depicting the human soul in its dependence and variability - in its subordination to its own characteristics and the temporary circumstances surrounding it - he seems to belittle spiritual life, as if depriving it of unity - a permanent, essential meaning. Inconsistency, insignificance, vanity of human feelings and desires - this is, apparently, the main theme of the artist.

But here too we will be mistaken if we dwell on the realistic aspirations of the artist, which appear with such extraordinary force, and forget about the source that inspired these aspirations. Reality in the depiction of the human soul was necessary so that even a weak, but real realization of the ideal would appear to us the brighter, the more truthful and the more undoubted. In these souls, agitated and suppressed by their desires and external events, sharply imprinted with their indelible characteristics, the artist is able to capture every feature, every trace of true spiritual beauty - true human dignity. So, if we try to give a new, broader formula for the problem of the product of gr. L.N. Tolstoy, we will have to express it like this, it seems.

What is human dignity? How should we understand the life of people, from the most powerful and brilliant to the weakest and most insignificant, so as not to lose sight of its essential feature - the human soul in each of them?

We found a hint of this formula from the author himself. Discussing how small Napoleon's participation was in the Battle of Borodino, how undoubtedly every soldier participated in it with his soul, the author notes: "Human Dignity tells me, that each of us, if not more, then in no way no less a man than the great Napoleon"(Vol. IV, p. 282).

So, to depict that in which each person is no less than any other - that in which a simple soldier can be equal to Napoleon, a limited and stupid person can be equal to the greatest clever man - in a word, that which we must respect in a person, in what they should supply him price,- this is the broad goal of the artist. For this purpose, he brought to the stage great people, great events and, nearby, the adventures of the cadet Rostov, high-society salons and everyday life uncles, Napoleon and the janitor Ferapontov. For this purpose, he told us family scenes of simple, weak people and the strong passions of brilliant, rich in strength natures - he depicted impulses of nobility and generosity and pictures of the deepest human weaknesses.

The human dignity of people is hidden from us either by their shortcomings of all kinds, or by the fact that we value other qualities too highly and therefore measure people by their intelligence, strength, beauty, etc. The poet teaches us to penetrate through this appearance. What could be simpler, more dozens, so to speak, more humble than the figures of Nikolai Rostov and Princess Marya? They don’t shine in anything, they don’t know how to do anything, they don’t stand out from the lowest level of ordinary people in anything, and yet these simple beings, walking without struggle along the simplest paths of life, are obviously beautiful beings. The irresistible sympathy with which the artist managed to surround these two faces, apparently so small, but in essence not inferior to anyone in spiritual beauty, constitutes one of the most masterful aspects of “War and Peace.” Nikolai Rostov is obviously a very limited person in intelligence, but, as the author notes in one place, “he had a common sense of mediocrity, which showed him what was due” (vol. III, p. 113).

And indeed, Nikolai does a lot of stupid things, understands little about people and circumstances, but always understands what should; and this invaluable wisdom in all cases protects the purity of his simple and ardent nature.

Should we talk about Princess Marya? Despite all her weaknesses, this image achieves almost angelic purity and meekness, and at times it seems that a holy radiance surrounds him.

Here we are involuntarily stopped by a terrible picture - the relationship between the old man Bolkonsky and his daughter. If Nikolai Rostov and Princess Marya represent clearly sympathetic faces, then, apparently, there is no way to forgive this old man for all the torment that his daughter endures from him. Of all the faces drawn by the artist, none seems to deserve more indignation. Meanwhile, what happens? With amazing skill, the author depicted for us one of the most terrible human weaknesses, which cannot be overcome by either mind or will, and most of all capable of arousing sincere regret. In essence, the old man loves his daughter infinitely - literally could not live without her; but this love was distorted in him into a desire to inflict pain on himself and his beloved being. He seems to be constantly tugging at the inextricable connection that unites him with his daughter, and finds painful pleasure in like this feeling this connection. All the shades of these strange relationships are captured by gr. L.N. Tolstoy with inimitable fidelity, and the denouement - when the old man, broken by illness and close to death, finally expresses all his tenderness for his daughter - makes a stunning impression. And to such an extent the strongest, purest feelings can be distorted! People can inflict so much torment on themselves through their own fault! It is impossible to imagine a picture that more clearly proves how little control a person can sometimes have over himself. The relationship of the stately old man Bolkonsky to his daughter and son, based on a jealous and perverted feeling of love, constitutes an example of the evil that often nests in families, and proves to us that the most sacred and natural feelings can take on a crazy and wild character.

These feelings, however, constitute the root of the matter, and their perversion should not obscure their pure source from us. In moments of strong upheaval, their true, deep nature often comes out completely; Thus, love for his daughter takes possession of the entire being of the dying Bolkonsky. To see what lurks in a person’s soul under the play of passions, under all forms of selfishness, self-interest, animal drives - this is what the great master Count L.N. Tolstoy. The hobbies and adventures of such people as Pierre Bezukhov and Natasha Rostova are very pathetic, very unreasonable and ugly; but the reader sees that, behind all that, these people hearts of gold, and he will not doubt for a minute that where self-sacrifice was involved - where selfless sympathy for the good and the beautiful was needed - in these hearts there would be complete response, complete readiness. The spiritual beauty of these two faces is amazing. Pierre - an adult child, with a huge body and with terrible sensuality, like an impractical and unreasonable child, combines childish purity and tenderness of soul with a naive mind, but for that same reason - with a character to which everything ignoble is not only alien, but even and unclear. This person, like children, is not afraid of anything and knows no evil behind him. Natasha is a girl gifted with such fullness of spiritual life that (in Bezukhov’s words) she doesn't deserve to be smart, those. has neither the time nor the inclination to translate this life into abstract forms of thought. The immeasurable fullness of life (leading it sometimes to Drunk, as the author puts it) involves her in a terrible mistake, in an insane passion for Kuragin, a mistake that is later redeemed by severe suffering. Pierre and Natasha are people who, by their very nature, must experience mistakes and disappointments in life. As if in contrast to them, the author also brought out a happy couple, Vera Rostova and Adolf Berg, people who are alien to any mistakes, disappointments and who are quite comfortable in life. One cannot help but marvel at the extent to which the author, exposing all the baseness and smallness of these souls, never once succumbed to the temptation of laughter or anger. This is real realism, real truthfulness. The same truthfulness is in the depiction of the Kuragins, Helen and Anatole; these heartless creatures are exposed mercilessly, but without the slightest desire to scourge them.

What comes out of this even, clear, daylight with which the author illuminated his picture? We have neither classic villains nor classic heroes; The human soul appears in an extreme variety of types; it appears weak, subordinate to passions and circumstances, but, in essence, in the mass it is guided by pure and good aspirations. Among all the diversity of persons and events, we feel the presence of some solid and unshakable principles on which this life rests. Family responsibilities are clear to everyone. The concepts of good and evil are clear and strong. Having depicted with the greatest truthfulness the false life of the upper strata of society and the various headquarters surrounding high-ranking officials, the author contrasted them with two strong and truly living spheres - family life and real military, that is, army life. Two families, the Bolkonskys and the Rostovs, present us with a life guided by clear, undoubted principles, in observance of which the members of these families place their duty and honor, dignity and consolation. In the same way, army life (which Count L.N. Tolstoy compares in one place to paradise) presents us with complete certainty of concepts about duty, about human dignity; so that the simple-minded Nikolai Rostov even once preferred to stay in the regiment rather than go to a family where he did not quite clearly see how he should behave.

Thus, in large and clear terms, Russia of 1812 is depicted to us as a mass of people who know what their human dignity requires of them - what they should do in relation to themselves, to other people and to their homeland. The whole story gr. L.N. Tolstoy depicts only every kind of struggle that this sense of duty endures with the passions and accidents of life, as well as the struggle that this strong, most populous layer of Russia endures with the upper, false and bankrupt layer. The twelfth year was the moment when the lower layer took over and, due to its hardness, withstood the pressure of Napoleon. All this is clearly visible, for example, in the actions and thoughts of Prince Andrei, who left the headquarters for the regiment and, talking with Pierre on the eve of the Battle of Borodino , constantly remembers his father, killed by the news of the invasion. Feelings similar to those of Prince Andrei saved Russia then. “The French ruined my house,- he says, - and they are going to ruin Moscow, they insulted and insult me ​​every second. They are my enemies, they are all criminals, according to my concepts" (vol. IV, p. 267).

After these and similar speeches, Pierre, as the author says, “understood the whole meaning and the whole significance of this war and the upcoming battle.”

The war was defensive on the part of the Russians and, therefore, had a holy and popular character; whereas on the part of the French it was offensive, that is, violent and unfair. Under Borodin, all other relations and considerations smoothed out and disappeared; Two peoples stood opposite each other - one attacking, the other defending. Therefore, here the power of those two was revealed with the greatest clarity. ideas, which this time moved these peoples and put them in such a mutual position. The French appeared as representatives of a cosmopolitan idea, capable, in the name of common principles, of resorting to violence, to the murder of peoples; Russians were representatives of the people's idea - with love, protecting the spirit and structure of an original, organically formed life. The question of nationalities was raised on the Borodino field, and the Russians decided it here for the first time in favor of nationalities.

It is therefore clear that Napoleon did not understand and could never understand what happened at Borodino okay; it is clear that he should have been overwhelmed with bewilderment and fear at the spectacle of an unexpected and unknown force that rebelled against him. Since the matter, however, was apparently very simple and clear, it is clear, finally, that the author considered himself entitled to say the following about Napoleon: “And not only for this hour and day were darkened mind and conscience this man, who bore the full weight of what had happened more heavily than all the other participants in this case, but never until the end of his life, he could not understand goodness, beauty, or truth, nor the meaning of his actions, which were too opposite to goodness and truth, too far from everything human, for him to understand their meaning. He could not renounce his actions, praised by half the world, and therefore had to renounce from truth and goodness and all humanity"(Vol. IV, pp. 330, 331).

So, here is one of the final conclusions: in Napoleon, in this hero of heroes, the author sees a man who has reached the complete loss of true human dignity - a man comprehended by darkness of mind and conscience. The proof is there. Just as Barclay de Tolly is forever damaged by the fact that he did not understand the situation of the Battle of Borodino, - just as Kutuzov is extolled beyond all praise because he completely clearly understood what was happening during this battle - so Napoleon is forever condemned by the fact that he did not understand that holy, simple the work that we did under Borodin and which every soldier understood. In a case that screamed so loudly about its meaning, Napoleone realized that the truth was on our side. Europe wanted to strangle Russia and in its pride dreamed that it was acting beautifully and fairly.

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. The poet places a simple person, a simple life above heroism - both in dignity and in strength; for ordinary Russian people with hearts like those of Nikolai Rostov, Timokhin and Tushin, defeated Napoleon and his great army.

IV

Until now we have spoken as if the author had completely definite goals and objectives, as if he wanted to prove or explain well-known thoughts and abstract propositions. But this is only an approximate way of expressing it. We said this only for clarity, for emphasis of speech; we deliberately gave the matter rude and sharp forms so that they would catch the eye more vividly. In reality, the artist was not guided by such bare considerations as we have attributed to him; the creative force acted more widely and deeply, penetrating into the most intimate and highest meaning of phenomena.

Thus, we could give a few more formulas for the purpose and meaning of War and Peace. True is the essence of every truly artistic work, and therefore, no matter what philosophical height of contemplation of life we ​​rise to, we will find in “War and Peace” points of support for our contemplation. Much has been said about historical theory Count L.N. Tolstoy. Despite the excessiveness of some of his expressions, people of the most diverse opinions agreed that he was, if not entirely right, then one step from the truth.

This theory could be generalized and said, for example, that not only historical, but all human life is governed not by the mind and will, that is, not by thoughts and desires that have reached a clear conscious form, but by something darker and stronger, so called in kind of people. The sources of life (both of individuals and of entire nations) are much deeper and more powerful than the conscious arbitrariness and conscious consideration that apparently guides people. Similar faith in life- recognition of a greater meaning behind life than what our mind is capable of grasping - is diffused throughout the work of Count L.N. Tolstoy; and one could say that this entire work was written on this idea.

Let's give a small example. After his trip to Otradnoye, Prince Andrei decides to leave the village for St. Petersburg. “A whole series,” says the author, “of reasonable logical arguments why he needed to go to St. Petersburg and even serve, was ready at his service every minute. Even now he did not understand how he could ever doubt the need to take an active part in life , just as a month ago he did not understand how the idea of ​​leaving the village could have come to him. It seemed clear to him that all his experiences in life should have been in vain and be meaningless if he had not put them to work and again took an active part in life. He did not even remember how before, on the basis there were obviously the same poor reasonable arguments that he would be humbled if now, after his life lessons, he again believed in the possibility of being useful and in the possibility of happiness and love” (vol. III, p. 10).

The same subordinate role is played by reason in all other persons of the group. L.N. Tolstoy. Everywhere life turns out to be broader than poor logical considerations, and the poet excellently shows how it reveals its power beyond the will of people. Napoleon strives for what should destroy him, the disorder in which he found our army and government saves Russia, because it lures Napoleon to Moscow - allows our patriotism to mature - makes it necessary to appoint Kutuzov and generally change the whole course of affairs. The true, deep forces that control events take precedence over all calculations.

So, the mysterious depth of life is the idea of ​​​​War and Peace.<...>

In one place the author notes in parentheses that narrow-minded people like to talk "in our time, in our time, because they imagine that they have found and appreciated the peculiarities of our time, and think that properties of people change over time"(Vol. III, p. 85). Gr. L.N. Tolstoy obviously rejects this gross error, and, on the basis of everything that has gone before, we seem to have every right to say that in War and Peace he is true throughout unchangeable, eternal properties of the human soul. Just as in a hero he sees the human side, so in a man of a certain time, a certain circle. and education, he first of all sees a person - so in his actions, determined by the century and circumstances, he sees the unchangeable laws of human nature. This is where it comes from, so to speak. universal the entertaining nature of this amazing work, which combines artistic realism with artistic idealism, historical fidelity with general mental truth, a bright folk originality with a universal breadth.

These are some of the general points of view into which War and Peace fits. But all these definitions do not yet indicate the private nature of the work of gr. L.N. Tolstoy - his features, which give him, in addition to the general meaning, a certain meaning for our literature. This particular characteristic can be made only by showing the place of “War and Peace” in our literature, explaining the connection of this work with the general course of our literature and with the history of the development of the author’s talent itself. We will try to do this in the next article.

Article two and last

It is now hardly possible to make a final judgment about “War and Peace.” Many years will pass before the meaning of this work is fully understood. And we say this not in special praise of him, not for the sake of his exaltation, no, such is the general fate of facts that are too close to us, that we weakly and poorly understand their meaning. But, of course, such misunderstanding is most deplorable and its source is most clearly revealed when it comes to important phenomena. Often great and beautiful things pass before our eyes, but we, due to our own smallness, do not believe and do not notice that we have been given the opportunity to be witnesses and eyewitnesses of the great and beautiful. We judge everything by ourselves. Hastily, carelessly, inattentively, we judge everything modern, as if we could handle it all, as if we had every right to treat it in a familiar manner; Most of all, we love not just to judge, but to condemn, because by this we think to undoubtedly prove our mental superiority. Thus, about the deepest and most luminous phenomenon are indifferent or arrogant reviews, of which those who utter them are unaware of their amazing insolence. And it’s good if we come to our senses and finally understand what we dared to judge, what giants we compared ourselves with in our naivety. For the most part, this does not happen, and people stick to their opinions with the tenacity of that chief under whom Gogol served for several months and who then, until the end of his life, could not believe that his subordinate had become a great Russian writer.

We are blind and shortsighted to the modern. And although works of art, as intended directly for contemplation and those who use all the means by which it is possible to achieve clarity of impression, apparently, should be more striking to our eyes than other phenomena, but they do not escape the common fate. Gogol’s remark is constantly coming true: “Go get along with man! He doesn’t believe in God, but believes that if the bridge of his nose itches, he will certainly die; will pass by the poet’s creation, clear as day, all imbued with harmony and the lofty wisdom of simplicity, but he will rush to the very place where some daredevil will confuse, weave, break, twist nature, and he will like it, and he will begin to shout: here it is, here is the real knowledge of the secrets of the heart!

There is, however, in this inability to appreciate the present and what is close to us, there is another, deeper side. While a person develops and strives forward, he cannot correctly appreciate what he possesses. Thus, a child does not know the charms of his childhood, and a young man does not suspect the beauty and freshness of his spiritual phenomena. Only later, when all this has become the past, do we begin to understand what great benefits we possessed; then we find that these goods have no price, since it is impossible to return them or acquire them again. The past, the unique, becomes unique and irreplaceable, and therefore all its advantages appear before us clearly, not obscured by anything, not obscured by either worries about the present or dreams of the future.

It is clear, therefore, why, moving into the realm of history, everything acquires a clearer and more definite meaning. Over time, the meaning of “War and Peace” will cease to be a question, and this work will occupy that irreplaceable and unique place in our literature that is difficult for contemporaries to discern. If we now want to have some indications of this place, then we can get them no other way than by considering the historical connection of “War and Peace” with Russian literature in general. If we find living threads connecting this modern phenomenon with phenomena whose meaning has already become clearer and more definite for us, then its meaning, its importance and features will become clearer to us. The fulcrum for our judgments in this case will no longer be abstract concepts, but solid historical facts that have a very definite physiognomy.

So, moving on to a historical view of the work of gr. L.N. Tolstoy, we are entering a clearer and more distinct area. Having said this, we must, however, add that this is only true in general and comparatively. For the history of our literature, in essence, is one of the most obscure stories, the least generally known, and the understanding of this history? - as one would expect from the general state of our enlightenment - is highly distorted and confused by prejudices and false views. But, as our literature moves, the meaning of this movement must, however, become clearer, and such an important work as “War and Peace,” of course, should reveal to us a lot about what our literature internally lives and feeds on, where it strives main current.

I

There is a classic work in Russian literature with which “War and Peace” has more similarities than with any other work. This is Pushkin's "Captain's Daughter". There are similarities in the external manner, in the very tone and subject of the story, but the main similarity is in the inner spirit of both works. “The Captain's Daughter” is also not a historical novel, that is, it does not at all mean to depict in the form of a novel life and morals that have already become alien to us, and persons who played an important role in the history of that time. Historical figures, Pugachev, Ekaterina, appear briefly in Pushkin in a few scenes, just as in “War and Peace” Kutuzov, Napoleon, etc. appear. The main attention is focused on the events of the private lives of the Grinevs and Mironovs, and historical events are described only in to the extent that they touched the lives of these ordinary people. "The Captain's Daughter", strictly speaking, is chronicle of the Grinev family; this is the story that Pushkin dreamed of back in the third chapter of Onegin - a story depicting

Traditions of the Russian family.

Subsequently, we had many similar stories, among which the highest place is occupied by Family chronicle S.T. Aksakova. Critics noticed the similarity of this chronicle with Pushkin’s work. Khomyakov says: “The simplicity of Pushkin’s forms in stories and especially Gogol, with whom S. T. was so friendly, influenced him."*

______________________

* Sochin. Khomyakova, vol. 1, p. 665.

______________________

It’s worth looking a little closer at “War and Peace” to make sure that this is also some family chronicle. Namely, this chronicle of two families: the Rostov family and the Bolkonsky family. These are memories and stories about all the most important events in the lives of these two families and how contemporary historical events affected their lives. The only difference from a simple chronicle is that the story is given a brighter, more picturesque form in which the artist could better embody his ideas. There is no bare story; everything is in scenes, in clear and distinct colors. Hence the apparent fragmentation of the story, which is essentially extremely coherent; hence the fact that the artist, of necessity, limited himself to a few years of the life he described, and did not begin to tell it gradually from the very birth of this or that hero. But even in this story, concentrated for greater artistic clarity, don’t all the “family legends” of the Bolkonskys and Rostovs appear before the readers’ eyes?

So, guided by comparison, we finally found the one genus verbal works, which should include "War and Peace". This is not a novel at all, not a historical novel, not even a historical chronicle; This - family chronicle. If we add that we certainly mean a work of art, then our definition will be ready. This unique kind, which is not found in other literatures and the idea of ​​which troubled Pushkin for a long time and was finally realized by him, can be characterized by two features indicated by its name. Firstly, this is - chronicle, those. a simple, ingenuous story, without any complications or intricate adventures, without outward unity and connection. This form is obviously simpler than a novel - closer to reality, to the truth: it wants to be taken as a fact, and not as a simple possibility. Secondly, this is true family, those. not the adventures of an individual, on whom all the reader’s attention should be focused, but events that are somehow important for the whole family. For the artist, it is as if all members of the family whose chronicle he is writing are equally dear, equally heroes. And the center of gravity of the work is always in family relationships, and not in anything else. "The Captain's Daughter" is a story about how Pyotr Grinev married the daughter of Captain Mironov. The point is not at all about curious sensations, and all the adventures of the bride and groom do not concern changes in their feelings, simple and clear from the very beginning, but are random obstacles that prevented a simple outcome - not obstacles to passion, but obstacles to marriage. Hence the natural diversity of this story; There is actually no romantic thread in it.

One cannot help but marvel at Pushkin’s genius, revealed in this case. "The Captain's Daughter" has all the external forms of Walter Scott's novels, epigraphs, division into chapters, etc. (Thus, the external form of “History of the Russian State” was taken from Hume.) But, having decided to imitate, Pushkin wrote a work that was highly original. Pugachev, for example, is brought onto the stage with such amazing caution that can only be found in gr. L.N. Tolstoy, when he brings before us Alexander I, Speransky, etc. Pushkin, obviously, considered the slightest deviation from strict historical truth to be a frivolous matter and unworthy of poetic labor. In the same way, the romantic story of two loving hearts is brought to simplicity, in which everything romantic disappears.

And thus, although he considered it necessary to base the plot on love and introduce a historical figure into this plot, due to his unwavering poetic truthfulness, he wrote us not a historical novel, but a family chronicle of the Grinevs.

But we cannot show all the deep similarities between “War and Peace” and “The Captain’s Daughter” if we do not delve into the inner spirit of these works - if we do not show that significant turn in Pushkin’s artistic activity, which led him to the creation of our first family chronicle. Without understanding this turn, reflected and developed in gr. L.N. Tolstoy, we will not understand the full meaning of War and Peace. External similarity means nothing in comparison with the similarity of the spirit that is instilled in both works that we are comparing. Here, as always, it turns out that Pushkin is the true founder of our original literature - that his genius comprehended and combined in himself all the aspirations of our creativity.

II

So, what is "The Captain's Daughter"? Everyone knows that this is one of the most precious assets of our literature. Due to the simplicity and purity of its poetry, this work is equally accessible and equally attractive to adults and children. On "The Captain's Daughter" (as well as on "Family Chronicle" by S. Aksakov), Russian children educate their minds and their feelings, since teachers, without any outside instructions, find that there is no book in our literature that is more understandable and entertaining and, together with those so serious in content and high in creativity. What is "The Captain's Daughter"?

We no longer have the right to take the decision on this issue solely on ourselves. We have literature and we also have criticism. We wish to show that there is a constant development in our literature - that in it, to varying degrees and in different forms, all the same basic inclinations are revealed; worldview gr. L.N. We associate Tolstoy with one of the aspects of Pushkin’s poetic activity. In the same way we are obliged and would like to connect our judgments with the views already expressed by our criticism. If we have criticism, then it could not help but appreciate that important trend in our art, which began with Pushkin, lived until the present time (about forty years) and, finally, gave birth to such a huge and lofty work as “War and Peace” . A fact of this size is the best way to test the insight of criticism and the depth of its understanding.

We have written a lot about Pushkin, but of all that has been written, two works stand out: we have two books, about Pushkin, of course, known to all readers: one - the 8th volume of his works Belinsky, containing ten articles about Pushkin (1843 - 1846), the other - “Materials for the biography of Pushkin” P.V. Annenkova, constituting the 1st volume of his edition of Pushkin’s works (1855). Both books are quite wonderful. Belinsky, for the first time in our literature (the Germans already wrote about Pushkin in a manner worthy of a poet, Varnhagen von Enze) made a clear and firm assessment of the artistic merit of Pushkin’s works; Belinsky clearly understood the high dignity of these works and accurately indicated which of them were lower, which were higher, which reached heights, according to the critic exhausting all surprise. Belinsky's verdicts regarding the artistic value of Pushkin's works remain true to this day and testify to the amazing sensitivity of our critic's aesthetic taste. It is known that our literature at that time did not understand the great significance of Pushkin; Belinsky has the glory that he firmly and consciously stood for its greatness, although he was not given the opportunity to comprehend the full extent of this greatness. That’s exactly how he got the glory - to understand the heights of Lermontov and Gogol, who were also treated in a friendly manner by contemporary literary judges. But an aesthetic assessment is another matter, and an assessment of the significance of a writer for public life, his moral and national spirit is another. In this regard, Belinsky’s book about Pushkin, along with correct and beautiful thoughts, contains many erroneous and vague views. This is, for example, Article IX about Tatyana. Be that as it may, these articles represent a complete and, aesthetically speaking, extremely accurate overview of Pushkin's works.

Another book, “Materials” by P.V. Annenkov, contains the same review, presented in close connection with the biography of the poet. Less original than Belinsky's book, but more mature, compiled with the greatest care and love for the work, this book provides the most food for those who want to study Pushkin. It is superbly written; as if the spirit of Pushkin descended on the biographer and gave his speech simplicity, brevity and certainty. The “materials” are unusually rich in content and free of any ranting. As for judgments about the poet’s works, then, guided by his life, closely adhering to the circumstances that surrounded him and the changes that took place in him, the biographer made precious instructions and drew with great fidelity, with a loving understanding of the matter, the history of Pushkin’s creative activity. There are no erroneous views in this book, since the author did not deviate from his subject, which he loved so much and understood so well: there is only incompleteness, which is fully justified by the modest tone and the too modest title of the book.

And it is to such and such books that we naturally turn to for a solution to our question about “The Captain's Daughter.” What turns out to be? In both books, only a few careless lines are devoted to this amazing work. Moreover, about the entire cycle of Pushkin’s works adjacent to “The Captain’s Daughter” (which are: Belkin's stories, Chronicle of the village of Gorokhina, Dubrovsky), both critics respond either with disapproval or with indifferent, casually spoken praise. Thus, an entire side in Pushkin’s development, which culminated in the creation of “The Captain’s Daughter,” was lost sight and attention, considered unimportant and even unworthy named after Pushkin. Both critics missed something that significantly influenced the entire course of our literature and was finally reflected in such works as War and Peace.

This is a highly significant fact and can only be explained by the internal history of our criticism. It is very clear that it took a long time to understand such a versatile and profound poet as Pushkin, and that more than one person had to work in this field; There is still a lot of work ahead. First, we had to understand that side of Pushkin that is most accessible, most merging with the general direction of our education. Already before Pushkin and in his time, we understood European poets - Schiller, Byron and others; Pushkin was their rival, their competitor; This is how we looked at him, measuring his merits with a yardstick familiar to us, comparing his works with the works of Western poets. Both Belinsky and Annenkov are Westerners; that is why they could only feel well the universal beauties of Pushkin. The same features in which he was an original Russian poet, in which his Russian soul revealed a kind of reaction against Western poetry, should have remained inaccessible or completely incomprehensible to our two critics. To understand them, another time was needed, when views other than Westernism would appear, and another person who would experience a turn in his soul similar to the turn of Pushkin’s creativity.

III

This man was Apollo Aleksandrovich Grigoriev. For the first time, he pointed out the important meaning of that side of Pushkin’s poetic activity, the best fruit of which was “The Captain’s Daughter.” Grigoriev’s views on this subject and, in general, on the significance of Pushkin, were often repeated and developed by him, but for the first time they were presented in the “Russian Word” of 1859. This was the first year of this magazine, which then had three editors: gr. G.A. Kusheleva-Bezborodko, Ya.P. Polonsky and An. A. Grigorieva. Before this, Grigoriev had not written anything for two years and lived abroad, mostly in Italy and mostly contemplating works of art. Articles about Pushkin were the fruit of his long thoughts abroad. There are actually six of these articles; the first two under the title: A look at Russian literature from the death of Pushkin; the other four are called - I.S. Turgenev and his activities, regarding the novel "The Noble Nest", and contain the development of the same views and their application to Turgenev*.

___________________

* These articles are reprinted in the first volume of the works of Ap. Grigoriev, concluding all his general articles. Works of Apollon Grigoriev. T 1. St. Petersburg, 1876, pp. 230 - 248.

___________________

What is Grigoriev’s thought? Let us try to express it more clearly, limiting ourselves to the issue that we are examining. Grigoriev found that Pushkin’s activity represented a spiritual struggle with various ideals, with various fully developed historical types that disturbed his nature and was experienced by it. These ideals or types belonged to alien, non-Russian life; it was a muddy-sensual stream of false classicism, foggy romanticism, but most of all the Byronian types of Childe Harold, Don Juan, etc. These forms of other life, other folk organisms aroused sympathy in Pushkin’s soul, found in it the elements and strength to create corresponding ideals. This was not imitation, external mimicry of well-known types; it was their actual assimilation, their experience. But the poet’s nature could not completely and completely submit to them. It was discovered that Grigoriev calls fight with types, that is, on the one hand, the desire to respond to a certain type, to grow up to it with one’s spiritual strength and, thus, to measure oneself against it, on the other hand, the inability of a living and original soul to completely surrender to a type, the uncontrollable need to treat it critically and even discover and recognize in oneself as legitimate sympathies that are completely inconsistent with the type. Pushkin always emerged from this kind of struggle with alien types himself, a special type, completely new. In it, for the first time, our Russian physiognomy, the true measure of all our social, moral and artistic sympathies, the full type of Russian soul, was isolated and clearly defined. This type could be isolated and characterized only in that person who really lived other types, but had the strength not to succumb to them and to put his own type on an equal footing with them, to boldly legitimize the desires and demands of his original life. That is why Pushkin is the creator of Russian poetry and literature, because in him our typical not only was reflected, but also expressed, that is, it was clothed in the highest poetry, equal to everything great that he knew and to which he responded with his great soul. Pushkin's poetry is an expression of the ideal Russian nature, measured against the ideals of other peoples.

Awakening Russian mental type with his rights and demands can be found in many of Pushkin’s works. One of the most important passages is that passage from Onegin’s journey, which talks about Tavrida(simply - about Crimea):

A sacred land to the imagination!
Pylades argued with Atrid there,
Mithridates stabbed himself there,
Mickiewicz sang there, inspired
And among the coastal rocks
I remembered my Lithuania.
You are beautiful, shores of Taurida,
When I see you from the ship,
In the light of morning Cypris,
How I saw you for the first time!
You appeared to me in bridal splendor:
In the sky blue and transparent
The piles of your mountains shone;
Valleys, trees, villages pattern
It was spread out in front of me.
And there, between the Tatar huts...
What a fever awoke in me!
What magical melancholy
The fiery breast was embarrassed!
But, Muse! forget the past.
Whatever feelings are hidden
Then in me - now they are not:
They have passed or changed...
Peace to you, worries of past years!
At that time I seemed to need
Deserts, edges of pearly waves,
And the noise of the sea, and piles of rocks,
And the ideal of a proud maiden,
And nameless suffering...
Other days, other dreams!
You have humbled yourself, my spring
High-flown dreams
And into a poetic glass
I mixed a lot of water.
I need other paintings;
I love the sandy slope,
There are two rowan trees in front of the hut,
A gate, a broken fence,
There are gray clouds in the sky,
Heaps of straw in front of the threshing floor
Yes, a pond under the shadow of thick willows -
The expanse of young ducks;
Now the balalaika is dear to me.
Yes, the drunken tramp of a trepak
In front of the threshold of the tavern;
My ideal now is a mistress,
My desires are peace,
Yes, a pot of cabbage soup, a big one.
Sometimes on a rainy day,
I turned into the barnyard...
Ugh! prosaic nonsense,
The Flemish school is a motley litter!
Was this what I was like when I was blooming?
Say, fountain of Bakhchisarai,
Are these the thoughts that come to my mind?
Your endless noise has caused
When I'm silent in front of you
Zarema I imagined?
(Ed. Isakov, 1st, vol. III, p. 217).

What happens in the poet's soul? We would be very mistaken if we find any bitter feeling here; cheerfulness and clarity of spirit are heard in every verse. In the same way, it is wrong to see here a mockery of the lowliness of Russian nature and Russian life; otherwise one could perhaps interpret this passage and quite the opposite, as a mockery of the high-flown dreams of youth, over those times when the poet seemed to need nameless suffering and he imagined Zarem, following Byron, “who drove me crazy then” (see ibid., vol. IV, p. 44).

The matter is much more complicated. Obviously, something new arises in the poet next to the previous ideals. There are many items that have been around for a long time sacred to his imagination; and the Greek world with its Cypris, Atrid, Pylades; and Roman heroism, which Mithridates fought against; and the songs of alien poets, Mickiewicz, Byron, which inspired him proud maiden ideal; and pictures of southern nature appearing to the eyes in bridal splendor. But at the same time, the poet feels that love for a different way of life, for a different nature has begun to speak in him. This a pond under the canopy of thick willows, probably the same pond over which he wandered

We languish with longing and rhymes

and from which he flushed ducks singing mellifluous stanzas(see Eug. On., ch. qt., XXXV); this simple life in which fun is expressed trepak's tramp, whose ideal is mistress, and desires - a pot of cabbage soup, a big one; this whole world, so unlike what is sacred to the poet’s imagination, nevertheless has an irresistible appeal for him. “It’s amazing,” says A. Grigoriev, “this most simple-minded mixture of the most heterogeneous sensations - indignation and desire to throw the most gray color onto the picture with an involuntary love for the picture, with a feeling of its special, original beauty! This poet’s escapade is indignation at the prosaism and pettiness of his surroundings, but at the same time involuntary the consciousness that this prosaism has inalienable rights over the soul,- that he remained in the soul as a remnant after all the fermentation, after all the stress, after all the vain attempts to petrify into Byron’s forms” (Works by Ap. Grigoriev, vol. I, pp. 249, 250).

In this process taking place in the poet’s soul, three moments must be distinguished: 1) fiery and broad sympathy for everything great that he encountered ready-made and given, sympathy for all the light and dark sides of this great; 2) the impossibility of completely escaping into these sympathies, of petrifying in these alien forms; therefore - a critical attitude towards them, a protest against their predominance; 3) love for one’s own, for the Russian typical, “for one’s own soil,” as Ap put it. Grigoriev.

“When the poet,” says this critic, “in the era of mature self-awareness, brought into evidence for himself all these apparently completely opposite phenomena that took place in his own nature, then, above all truthful and sincere, He belittled himself, once a Captive, Girey, Aleko, to the image of Ivan Petrovich Belkin..." (ibid., p. 251).

“The type of Ivan Petrovich Belkin was almost the favorite type of poet in the last era of his activity. In the tone and look of this type, he tells us many good-natured stories, among other things, “The Chronicle of the Village of Gorokhin” and the family chronicle of the Grinevs, this ancestor of all the current “family chronicles” (p. 248).

What is Pushkin Belkin?

“Belkin is a simple common sense and common sense, meek and humble, - blatantly legal against our abuse of our broad ability to understand and feel” (p. 252). "In this type it was legitimized, and only for a while, only negative, critical, purely typical side" (ibid.).

Protest against high-flown dreams against the fascination with gloomy and brilliant types was expressed by Pushkin, love for simple types, the ability for moderate understanding and feeling. Pushkin contrasted one poetry with another, Byron - Belkin, being a great poet, he descended from his height and managed to approach the poor reality that surrounded him and involuntarily loved him in such a way that it revealed to him all the poetry that was in it. Therefore Al. Grigoriev could quite rightly say:

"Everything is simple, neither exaggerated humorously nor idealized tragically the relationship of literature to the surrounding reality and to Russian life - in a straight line, originates from a look at the life of Ivan Petrovich Belkin" (ibid., p. 248).

Thus, Pushkin accomplished the greatest poetic feat in creating this type; for in order to understand a subject, you need to take the proper attitude towards it, and Pushkin found such an attitude towards a subject that was completely unknown and required all the strength of his vigilance and truthfulness. "The Captain's Daughter" cannot be told in a different tone and with a different point of view than how it is told. Otherwise, everything in it will be distorted and perverted. Our Russian typical, our spiritual type was embodied here for the first time in poetry, but it appeared in such simple and small forms that it required a special tone and language; Pushkin should have change the sublime structure of your lyre. For those who did not understand the meaning of this change, it seemed like a prank of the poet, unworthy his genius; but we see now that it was here that the brilliant breadth of vision and the completely original power of our Pushkin’s creativity was revealed.

IV

For the sake of clarity, we must dwell a little longer on this subject. The discovery of Belkin's significance in Pushkin's work is Ap's main merit. Grigorieva. At the same time, this was for him the starting point from which he explained the internal course of all post-Pushkin fiction. Thus, even then, in 1859, he saw the following main elements in the mood of our literature:

1) “It is a futile effort to forcibly create in oneself and establish in one’s soul the charming ghosts and ideals of someone else’s life.”

2) “An equally futile struggle against these ideals and equally futile efforts to break away from them altogether and replace them with purely negative and humble ideals.”

Even then, Apollo Grigoriev, following his point of view, defined Gogol as follows: “Gogol was only the measure of our antipathies and the living organ of their legality, the poet purely negative he could not personify our blood, tribal, and life sympathies, firstly, as a Little Russian, and secondly, as a solitary and sickly ascetic" (ibid., p. 240).

The entire general course of our literature, its significant development, is expressed by Grigoriev as follows: “In Pushkin, for a long time, if not forever, our entire spiritual process was completed, outlined in a broad outline - and the secret of this process is in his next, deeply spiritual and fragrant poem (Revival):

Barbarian artist with a sleepy brush
The picture of a genius is being blackened,
And your drawing is lawless
He draws senselessly on it.
But the colors become alien with age
They fall off like old scales,
Creating a shadow before us
It comes out with the same beauty.
This is how misconceptions disappear
From my tormented soul.
And visions arise from her
Initial, pure days.

“This process took place with all of us individually and with our social life and is still taking place today. Those who do not see the powerful growths of the typical, indigenous, folk nature have been deprived of their sight and in general sense of feeling” (ibid., p. 246).

So, from a look at Belkin, from insight into the meaning of the struggle that took place in Pushkin, from Al. Grigoriev’s view of Russian literature flows, with which all its works are connected into one chain. Each link of this goal can serve as proof and verification that their mutual connection has really been found. Each post-Pushkin writer can be fully explained in no other way than if we take as a basis the general thought of Ap. Grigorieva. Even then, the attitude of our modern writers towards Pushkin was formulated by our critic in the following general terms.

“Pushkin’s Belkin,” writes A. Grigoriev, “is the Belkin who laments in Turgenev’s stories that he is the eternal Belkin, that he belongs to the number of “superfluous people” or “short people” - who in Pisemsky would like to die (but completely in vain) to laugh at the brilliant and passionate type, whom Tolstoy wants to excessively and forcibly poetize, and before whom even Pyotr Ilyich of Ostrovsky’s dramas: “Don’t live the way you want” - humbles himself... at least until the new Maslenitsa and until the new Pear" (ibid., p. 252).<...>

VI

General principles of criticism Al. Grigoriev are very simple and well-known, or at least should be considered well-known. These are the deep principles that were bequeathed to us by German idealism, the only philosophy to which everyone who wants to understand history or art must still resort. These principles are adhered to, for example, by Renan and Carlyle; These very principles have recently been applied with such brilliance and with considerable success by Taine to the history of English literature. Since German philosophy, due to our responsiveness and the weakness of our original development, was accepted among us much earlier than in France or England, it is not surprising that our critic has long held those views that are currently news to the French and for the first time successfully spread between them.

In general terms, as we said, these views are simple. They consist in the fact that each work of art represents a reflection of its century and its people, that there is a significant inextricable connection between the mood of the people, its unique mental make-up, the events of its history, its morals, religion, etc., and the creations that the artists of this produce people. The principle of nationality dominates in art and literature, as in everything. To see the connection of literature with the tribe to which it belongs, to find the relationship between literary works and those vital elements among which they appeared, means to understand the history of this literature.

Let us note here a significant difference that distinguishes Ap. Grigoriev from other critics, most notably, for example, from Taine. For Taine, every work of art is nothing more than a certain sum of all those phenomena under which it appeared: the properties of the tribe, historical circumstances, etc. Each phenomenon is nothing more than a consequence of previous ones and the basis of subsequent ones. Grigoriev, fully recognizing this connection, also saw that all literary phenomena have one common root, that they are all private and temporary manifestations of the same spirit. In a given people, works of art represent, as it were, diverse attempts to express all the same thing - the spiritual essence of this people; in humanity as a whole, they constitute an expression of the eternal demands of the human soul, its unchanging laws and aspirations. Thus, in the particular and temporary we should always see only the isolated and embodied expression of the general and unchangeable.

It's all very simple; these provisions have long become, especially in our country, current phrases; partly consciously, and mostly unconsciously, they are recognized by almost everyone. But there is still a long way to go from the general formula to its application. No matter how firmly a physicist is convinced that every phenomenon has its own cause, this conviction cannot guarantee that he will discover the cause of even one, the simplest phenomenon. Discovery requires research and requires close and precise acquaintance with the phenomena.

Ap. Grigoriev, considering the new Russian literature from the point of view of the people, saw in it a constant struggle between European ideals, poetry alien to our spirit, with the desire for original creativity, for the creation of purely Russian ideals and types. Again, the idea in its general form is very clear, very simple and believable. The beginnings of this view can be found in others, in I. Kireevsky, in Khomyakov, who clearly pointed out the predominance of alien ideals among us, the necessity and possibility for us of our own art. Khomyakov, in particular, contains truly thoughtful, amazingly correct remarks about Russian literature, considered from the point of view of the people. But these are nothing more than general remarks, and not without one-sidedness. Strange affair! Because of the very height of their demands, the very thing that should have pleased them most has escaped the eyes of these thinkers; They did not see that the struggle between their own and the foreign had long since begun, that art, by virtue of its ever-present sensitivity and truthfulness, had prevented abstract thought.

In order to see this, deep general views and a clear theoretical understanding of essential issues were not enough; what was needed was an unshakable faith in art, a fiery passion for his works, a merging of one’s life with the life that is poured into them. This is what Ap was like. Grigoriev, a man who until the end of his life remained invariably devoted to art, did not subordinate it to theories and views alien to him, but, on the contrary, expected revelations from it, looked for it new word.

It is difficult to imagine a person whose literary vocation would merge even more closely with life itself. In his "Literary Wanderings" this is what he says about his university years:

“Youth, real youth, began late for me, and it was something in between adolescence and youth. The head works like a steam engine, gallops at full speed to ravines and abysses, and the heart lives only a dreamy, bookish, affected life. It’s definitely not me who lives it, but different images and literatures that live in me. On the entrance threshold of this era it is written: “Moscow University” after the transformation of 1836, - the university of Redkin, Krylov, Moroshkin, Kryukov, the university of mysterious Hegelism with its severe forms and a swift, irresistibly rushing forward force - Granovsky University "...

Moscow University was followed by St. Petersburg and the first era of literary activity, then again Moscow and the second era of activity, more important. He talks about her like this:

“The dreamy life is over. Real youth begins, with a thirst for real life, with hard lessons and experiences. New meetings, new people - people in whom there is nothing or very little bookish - people who “pull” in themselves and in others everything is feigned, everything is warmed up and they carry in their souls unpretentiously, naively to the point of unconsciousness, faith in the people and nationality. Everything is “folk”, even local(i.e. Moscow) that surrounded my upbringing, everything that I managed to almost drown out in myself for a while, surrendering to the powerful trends of science and literature, rises in the soul with unexpected strength and grows, grows to a fanatical exclusive faith, to intolerance, to propaganda..." The two-year stay abroad that followed this era produced a new fracture in mental and mental life criticism.

“Western life,” he says, “is unfolding before my eyes with the wonders of its great past and again teases, lifts, captivates. But even in this living clash, faith in one’s own, in the people’s, did not break. It softened only the fanaticism of faith."("Time", 1862, Dec.)

Here, in brief, is the process in which our critic’s beliefs were formed and at the end of which he wrote his first articles about Pushkin. Ap. Grigoriev experienced a fascination with Western ideals and a return to his own, to the people's, which lived indestructibly in his soul. Therefore, with the greatest clarity he saw in the development of our art all phenomena, all phases of that struggle, which we were talking about. He knew perfectly well how the types created by other people’s art act on the soul, how the soul strives to accept the forms of these types and, in some kind of sleep and fermentation, lives their life - how suddenly it can wake up from this feverishly anxious sleep and, looking back at God light, shake out her curls and feel fresh and young, the same as she was before her fascination with ghosts... Art then comes into some discord with itself; it sometimes laughs, sometimes regrets, sometimes even falls into vivid indignation (Gogol), but with invincible force it turns to Russian life and begins to look in it for its types, its ideals.

This process is revealed more closely and more accurately in the results that come from it. Grigoriev showed that almost everything that bears the stamp belongs to the alien types that dominated our literature. heroic,- brilliant or gloomy types, but in any case strong, passionate, or, as our critic put it, predatory. Russian nature, our spiritual type, appeared in art primarily in types simple and meek, apparently alien to everything heroic, like Ivan Petrovich Belkin, Maxim Maksimych in Lermontov, etc. Our fiction represents a continuous struggle between these types, the desire to find the right relationship between them - either debunking or exalting one of them. two types, predatory or docile. Thus, for example, one side of Gogol’s activity is reduced to Ap. Grigoriev to the following formula:

"Heroic there is no longer in the soul and life: what seems heroic is in essence Khlestakov’s or Poprishchin’s..."

“But it’s strange,” adds the critic, “that no one bothered to ask themselves what it is precisely the heroic that no longer exists in the soul and in nature - and Which in nature it does not exist. Some people preferred either to stand for the heroic, which had already been ridiculed (and it is remarkable that gentlemen who were more inclined towards practical-legal views in literature stood for the heroic), or to stand for nature.”

“They didn’t pay attention to a very simple circumstance. Since the time of Peter the Great, the people’s nature has tried on elaborate forms of the heroic, not made by it. The caftan turned out to be either narrow or short; there were a handful of people who somehow put it on and began to walk around in it with dignity Gogol told everyone that they were flaunting someone else's caftan - and this caftan fits them like a saddle on a cow. It only followed that they needed a different caftan based on thickness and height, and not at all that they would be left without a caftan altogether or continue to stare at yourself with a worn-out caftan" (Op. Grigoriev, I, p. 332).

As for Pushkin, he was not only the first to sense the question in all its depth, not only the first to bring out in all truth the Russian type of a meek and complacent person, but, due to the high harmony of his genius nature, he was the first to indicate the correct attitude towards the predatory type . He did not deny it, did not think of debunking it; As examples of a purely Russian passionate and strong type, Grigoriev cited Pugachev in “The Captain’s Daughter” and “Rusalka”. In Pushkin, the struggle had the most correct character, just like him. the genius clearly and calmly felt equal to everything great that was and is on earth; he was, as Grigoriev puts it, a “caster and master” of those diverse elements that were aroused in him by alien ideals.

Here is a brief outline of Grigoriev’s direction and the view that he achieved by following this direction. This view still retains its strength and is still justified by all the phenomena of our literature. Russian artistic realism began with Pushkin. Russian realism is not a consequence of the impoverishment of the ideal among our artists, as happens in other literatures, but, on the contrary, a consequence of an intensified search for a purely Russian ideal. All the strivings for naturalness, for the strictest truth, all these images of small, weak, sick people, the careful avoidance of the premature and unsuccessful creation of heroic faces, the execution and debunking of various types who have claims to heroism, all these efforts, all this hard work have the goal and hope is to see the once Russian ideal in all its truth and undeceiving greatness. And there is still a struggle between our sympathies for a simple and kind person and the inevitable demands of something higher, with the dream of a powerful and passionate type. Indeed, what is Turgenev’s “Smoke” if not a desperate new fight between the artist and the predatory type whom he so clearly wanted to brand and humiliate in the person of Irina? What is Litvinov if not the type of a meek and simple person, on whose side, obviously, all the sympathies of the artist are and who, however, in essence, shamefully gives in in a clash with a predatory type?

Finally, the gr. L.N. Isn’t Tolstoy clearly trying to elevate the common man to the ideal? "War and Peace", this huge and motley epic - what is it if not the apotheosis of the tame Russian type? Isn't it here? it is told how, on the contrary, the predatory type gave in to the humble one - how on the Borodino field ordinary Russian people defeated everything that one can imagine, the most heroic, the most brilliant, passionate, strong, predatory, i.e. Napoleon I and his army?

Readers now see that our digressions concerning Pushkin, our criticism and Ap. Grigoriev, were not only appropriate, but even absolutely necessary, since all this is closely connected with our subject. Let's say straight away that, explaining private the character of "War and Peace", that is, the most essential and difficult aspect of the matter, we could not be original even if we wanted it. So correctly and deeply indicated by Ap. Grigoriev represents the most essential features of the movement of our literature, and yet we feel so little able to compete with him in critical understanding.

VII

History of artistic activity of gr. L.N. Tolstoy, which our only critic had seen and appreciated all the way up to War and Peace, is remarkable to a high degree. Now that we see that this activity led to the creation of “War and Peace,” we understand even more clearly its importance and character, and we can see more clearly the correctness of Ap’s instructions. Grigorieva. And vice versa, the previous works of gr. L.N. Tolstoy most directly leads us to an understanding of the private nature of War and Peace.

This can be said about every writer in general; Everyone has a connection between the present and the past, and one is explained by the other. But it turns out that none of our artistic writers has such depth and strength of this connection, that no one’s activity is more harmonious and integral than the activity of gr. L.N. Tolstoy. He entered his field together with Ostrovsky and Pisemsky: he appeared with his works a little later than Turgenev, Goncharov, and Dostoevsky. But meanwhile... as all his peers in literature have long since spoken out, they have long discovered the greatest strength of their talent, so that one could fully judge its extent and direction, - gr. L.N. Tolstoy continued to work hard on his talent and fully developed its strength only in War and Peace. It was a slow and difficult ripening, which produced an even more juicy and huge fruit.

All previous works by gr. L.N. Tolstoy is nothing more than sketches, sketches and attempts in which the artist did not have in mind any complete creation, a complete expression of his thoughts, a complete picture of life, as he understood it, but only the development of particular issues, individuals, special characters, or even special mental states. Take, for example, the story "Blizzard"; Obviously, all the artist’s attention and all the interest of the story is focused on those strange and subtle sensations experienced by a person, covered in snow, constantly falling asleep and waking up. This is a simple sketch from life, similar to those sketches in which painters depict a patch of field, a bush, part of a river under special lighting and a difficult to convey state of water, etc. All the previous works of the gr. have this character, to a greater or lesser extent. L.N. Tolstoy, even those that have some external integrity. "Cossacks", for example, apparently present a complete and masterful picture of the life of the Cossack village; but the harmony of this picture is obviously violated by the huge space that is given to Olenin’s feelings and emotions; the author's attention is too one-sidedly directed in this direction, and, instead of a harmonious picture, it turns out sketch from mental life some Moscow youth. Thus, “completely organic, living creatures” Ap. Grigoriev admitted from gr. L.N. Tolstoy only “Family Happiness” and “War Stories”. But now, after War and Peace, we must change this opinion. "War stories" that seemed to critics completely organic works, in comparison with “War and Peace,” also turn out to be nothing more than sketches, preparatory sketches. Consequently, only one “Family Happiness” remains, a novel which, in the simplicity of its task, in the clarity and distinctness of its solution, really constitutes a completely living whole. “This work is quiet, deep, simple and highly poetic, with the absence of any showiness, with a direct and unbroken posing of the question of the transition of a feeling of passion into another feeling.” So says Ap. Grigoriev.

If this is true, if indeed, with one exception, before “War and Peace” gr. L.N. Tolstoy made only sketches, then one wonders why the artist struggled, what tasks delayed him on the path of creativity. It is easy to see that all this time there was some kind of struggle going on in him, some difficult mental process was going on. Ap. Grigoriev saw this well and in his article argued that this process was not over yet; we now see how true this opinion is: the artist’s mental process was completed, or at least significantly matured, not before the creation of “War and Peace.”

What's the matter? An essential feature of the internal work that took place in the group. L.N. Tolstoy, Ap. Grigoriev believes negation and refers this work to that negative process which began already in Pushkin. That's right - denial everything superficial, feigned in our development- this is what dominated the activities of gr. L.N. Tolstoy up to "War and Peace".

So, the internal struggle taking place in our poetry has acquired a partly new character, which it did not yet have in Pushkin’s time. A critical attitude is no longer applied simply to “pompous dreams”, not to those spiritual moods when the poet “seemed to need”

Deserts, edges of pearly waves,
And the ideal of a proud maiden,
And nameless suffering.

Now the truthful gaze of poetry is directed at our society itself, at the actual phenomena taking place in it. In essence, however, it is the same process. People have never lived and will never live except under the power of ideas, under their leadership. No matter how insignificant in content a society we imagine, its life will always be governed by certain concepts, perhaps perverted and vague, but still unable to lose their ideal nature. So, a critical attitude towards society is essentially a struggle with the ideals that live in it.

The process of this struggle is not described by any of our writers with such deep sincerity and truthful clarity as by Count. L. N. Tolstoy. The heroes of his previous works usually suffer from this struggle, and the story about it represents the essential content of these works. For example, let's take what one of them, Nikolai Irtenev, writes in the chapter bearing the French title "Comme il faut."

“My favorite and main division of people at the time about which I am writing was - into people comme il faut and into comme il ne faut pas. The second kind was also divided into people not actually comme il faut and the common people. People comme il faut I respected and considered worthy to have equal relations with me; secondly, I pretended that I despised, but in essence he hated them, harboring some kind of offended sense of personality towards them; the third did not exist for me - I completely despised them."

“It even seems to me that if we had a brother, mother or father who were not comme il faut, I would say that this is a misfortune, but that there can be nothing in common between me and them.”

This is what the power of French and other concepts can be, and here is one of the most striking examples of the social falsehood among which the heroes of the gr. L. N. Tolstoy.

“I knew and know,” concludes Nikolai Irtenyev, “very, very many people old, proud, self-confident, harsh in judgment, who, in response to the question, if one asks them in the next world: “Who are you? And what did you do there?” - will not be able to answer otherwise than: “je fus un homme tres comme il faut.”

This fate awaited me."*

_________________________

* Works of Count L.N. Tolstoy. St. Petersburg, 1864, part 1, p. 123.

_________________________

What happened, however, was completely different, and in this internal turn, in that difficult rebirth that these young men are performing on themselves, lies the greatest importance. Here's what Al says about it. Grigoriev:

“The mental process that is revealed to us in “Childhood and Adolescence” and the first half of “Youth” is a process incredibly original. The hero of these wonderful psychological studies was born and raised in a society so artificially formed, so exclusive that it essentially has no real existence - in the so-called aristocratic sphere, in the sphere of high society. It is not surprising that this sphere formed Pechorin - its largest fact - and several smaller phenomena, such as the heroes of various high society stories. It is surprising, and at the same time significant, what comes out of it, this narrow sphere, i.e. renounces it through analysis, the hero of Tolstoy's stories. After all, Pechorin did not leave it, despite all his intelligence; the heroes of Count Sollogub and Mrs. Eugenia Tur did not emerge from it!.. On the other hand, it becomes clear when you read Tolstoy’s sketches how, despite that the exclusive sphere, Pushkin’s nature retained in itself a living stream of folk, broad and common life, the ability to understand this living life, and to deeply sympathize with it, and at times even to identify with it.”

So, the artist’s inner work had extraordinary power, extraordinary depth, and produced a result incomparably higher than that of many other writers. But what a hard and lengthy job it was! Let us point out here at least its most important features.

Former heroes of the gr. L.N. Tolstoy usually harbored a very strong and completely vague idealism, that is, a desire for something lofty, beautiful, valiant; all shapes and forms. These were, as Ap puts it. Grigoriev, “ideals in the air, creation from above, not from below - that is what ruined Gogol morally and even physically.” But with these airy ideals the heroes of the gr. L.N. Tolstoy is not satisfied, they do not dwell on them as something undoubted. On the contrary, twofold work begins: first, the analysis of existing phenomena and proof of their inconsistency in relation to ideals; Secondly, a persistent, tireless search for such phenomena of reality in which the ideal would be realized.

The artist’s analysis, aimed at exposing all kinds of spiritual falsehood, is striking in its subtlety, and it was this that primarily caught the readers’ eyes. “Analysis,” writes A. Grigoriev, “develops early in the hero of “Childhood, Adolescence and Youth” and digs deep under the foundations of everything conventional that surrounds him, that conventional thing that is in him.” “He rummages patiently and mercilessly strictly into each of his own feelings, even in the very one that seems completely holy in appearance (chapter Confession), - incriminates every feeling in everything that is in the feeling made, even leads every thought, every childhood or adolescent dream forward to its extreme edges. Remember, for example, the hero's dreams "Adolescence" when he was locked in a dark room for disobeying his tutor. Analysis in its mercilessness forces the soul to admit to itself what it is ashamed to admit to itself.

The same ruthlessness of analysis guides the hero in Youth. Succumbing to his conventional sphere, accepting even its prejudices, he constantly executes himself and emerges victorious from this execution.”

Thus, the essence of this process lies in “the execution he carries out on everything false, purely made in the sensations of modern man, which Lermontov superstitiously deified in his Pechorin.” Tolstoy's analysis reached the deepest level of disbelief in everything upbeat, unusual feelings of the human soul in a certain sphere. He brought to life ready-made, established, partly alien ideals, strengths, passions, energies.”

In relation to such purely false phenomena, Tolstoy’s analysis, Ap further notes. Grigoriev, “is completely right, more right than Turgenev’s analysis, sometimes, and even often, incense towards our false sides, and on the other hand, more right than Goncharov’s analysis, for he executes in the name of deep love for truth and sincerity of feelings, and not in the name of narrow bureaucratic “practicality.”

Such is the purely negative work of the artist. But the essence of his talent is revealed much more clearly in the positive aspects of his work. Idealism does not inspire him with either contempt for reality or hostility towards it. On the contrary, the artist humbly believes that reality contains truly beautiful phenomena; he is not content with contemplating airy ideals that exist only in his soul, but stubbornly seeks at least a partial and incomplete, but in fact, personally existing embodiment of the ideal. On this path, along which he walks with constant truthfulness and vigilance, he comes to two exits: either he - in the form of weak sparks - comes across phenomena, mostly weak and small, in which he is ready to see the realization of his cherished thoughts, or he does not is content with these phenomena, becomes tired of his fruitless searches and falls into despair.

Heroes gr. L.N. Tolstoy is sometimes directly presented as if wandering around the world, through Cossack villages, St. Petersburg Spitz balls, etc., and trying to resolve the question: is there true valor, true love, true beauty of the human soul in the world. And in general, even starting from childhood, they involuntarily focus their attention on phenomena that come across them by chance, in which some other life is revealed to them, simple, clear, alien to the hesitation and duality they experience. They take these phenomena for what they were looking for. “Analysis,” says A. Grigoriev, “when it reaches phenomena that are not amenable to it, it stops before them. In this regard, the chapters about the nanny, about Masha’s love for Vasily, and especially the chapter on holy fool, in which analysis encounters a phenomenon that constitutes something rare, exceptional, eccentric even in the simple life of the people. Analysis contrasts all these phenomena with everything conventional that surrounds it.”

IN War stories, in the story Meeting in the squad, V Two hussars the analysis continues its work. Stopping in front of everything that is beyond his control, and here turning either into pathos before the enormously grandiose, like the Sevastopol epic, or into amazement before everything humbly great, like the death of Valenchuk or Captain Khlopov, he is merciless towards everything artificial and made, whether it is in the bourgeois captain Mikhailov, in the Caucasian hero a 1a Marlinsky, in the completely broken personality of the cadet in the story Meeting in the squad.

This difficult, painstaking work of the artist, this persistent search for truly bright points in the continuous darkness of gray reality for a long time, however, does not give any lasting result, it gives only hints and fragmentary indications, and not a complete, clear view. And often the artist gets tired, he is often overcome by despair and disbelief in what he is looking for, and he often falls into apathy. Finishing one of the Sevastopol stories, in which he greedily searched and, apparently, did not find the phenomena true valor in people, the artist says with deep sincerity:

"Heavy thoughts overcome me. Maybe I shouldn’t have said this, maybe what I said belongs to one of those evil truths that, unconsciously lurking in everyone’s soul, should not be expressed so as not to become harmful, like the sediment of wine that does not you have to shake it so as not to spoil it.”

"Where is the expression of evil that should be avoided? Where is the expression of good that should be imitated in this story? Who is the villain, who is her hero? All are good and all are bad."(Works by L.N. Tolstoy, part II, p. 61).

The poet often and with surprising depth expressed his despair, although this was not noticed by readers, who were generally not very inclined to such questions and feelings. For example, despair is heard in “Lucerne”, “Alberta” and even earlier - in “Notes of a Marker”. “Lucerne,” as Ap notes. Grigoriev, - represents the obvious expression pantheistic sorrow for life and its ideals, for everything somewhat artificial and made in the human soul." The same idea is expressed even more clearly and sharply in “Three Deaths.” Here the death of a tree is the most normal thing for the artist. “She is placed by consciousness,” says Ap. Grigoriev, “above the death of not only a developed lady, but also above the death of a common man.” Finally, “Family Happiness” itself expresses, as the same critic notes, “severe submission to fate, which does not spare the color of human feelings.”

Such is the difficult struggle taking place in the poet’s soul, such are the phases of his long and tireless search for the ideal in reality. It is no wonder that in the midst of this struggle he could not produce harmonious artistic creations, that his analysis was often tense to the point of morbidity. Only great artistic power was the reason that the sketches, generated by such deep inner work, retained the stamp of unchanging artistry. The artist was supported and strengthened by the high aspiration that he expressed with such force at the end of the very story from which we wrote him out hard thinking.

“The hero of my story,” he says, “ an undoubted hero, whom I love with all the strength of my soul, which I tried to reproduce in all its beauty and which always was, is and will be beautiful - Truth".

Truth is the slogan of our fiction; truth guides her both in her critical attitude towards other people’s ideals and in the search for her own.

What is the final conclusion from this story of the development of the talent of gr. L.N. Tolstoy, a story so instructive and in such vivid and truthful artistic forms lying before us in his works? What did the artist come to and where did he stop?

When Ap. Grigoriev wrote his article, gr. L.N. Tolstoy fell silent for some time, and the critic attributed this stop to the apathy we were talking about. “Apathy,” wrote Ap. Grigoriev, “certainly waited in the middle of such a deeply sincere process, but that she is not the end of him,- in this, probably, none of the believers in the power of Tolstoy’s talent I don’t even doubt it.” The critic's faith did not deceive him, and his prediction came true. Talent unfolded with all its strength and gave us “War and Peace.”

But where did this talent go in his previous works? What sympathies developed and strengthened in him amid his internal struggle?

Already in 1859 Ap. Grigoriev noted that gr. L.N. Tolstoy didn't moderately and violently strives to poeticize the Belkin type; in 1862 the critic writes:

"Tolstoy's analysis shattered the ready-made, established, partly ideals, strengths, passions, energies that are alien to us. In Russian life he sees only the negative type of a simple and meek person and became attached to him with all my soul. Everywhere he follows the ideal of simplicity of spiritual movements: in the nanny’s grief (in “Childhood” and “Adolescence”) about the death of the hero’s mother - grief, which he contrasts with the somewhat spectacular, although deep, grief of the old countess; in the death of the soldier Valenchuk, in the honest and simple courage of Captain Khlopov, which clearly surpasses in his eyes the undoubted, but extremely spectacular courage of one of the Caucasian heroes a 1a Marlinsky; in the humble death of a simple man, contrasted with the death of a suffering, but capriciously suffering lady..."

This is the most essential feature, the most important feature that characterizes the artistic worldview of the gr. L.N. Tolstoy. It is clear that this feature also contains some one-sidedness. Ap. Grigoriev finds that gr. L.N. Tolstoy came to love the meek type - mainly due to disbelief in the brilliant and predatory type,- that he sometimes overdoes his severity with “elevated” feelings. “Few,” says the critic, “will, for example, agree with him about the greater depth of the nanny’s grief compared to the grief of the old countess.”

Predilection for the simple type, however, is a common feature of our fiction; therefore, how about gr. L.N. Tolstoy, and in general regarding our art, the following general conclusion of the critic is of great importance and deserves the greatest attention.

"Tolstoy's analysis is wrong because it does not attach importance to the brilliant really and passionate really and predatory really a type that has its justification both in nature and in history, i.e. justification of one’s possibility and reality.”

“Not only would we be a people not very generously gifted by nature if we saw our ideals in only meek types, be it Maxim Maksimych or Captain Khlopov, even the meek types of Ostrovsky; but the types we experienced with Pushkin and Lermontov are alien to us only partly, only, perhaps, in their forms and in their own, so to speak, gloss. They are experienced by us because, in fact, our nature is just as capable of perceiving them as any European one. Not to mention the fact that in our history there were predatory types, and not to mention that Stenka Razin from the world of epic tales of the people, you won’t survive,- no, the most established types in an alien life are not alien to us and among our poets they were clothed in unique forms. After all, Turgenev’s Vasily Luchinov is the 18th century, but the Russian 18th century, and his, for example, Veretyev, passionate and carefree, burning through life, even more so.”

VIII

These are the points of view from which we can judge the private character of War and Peace. The late critic set them out clearly, and all that remains for us to do is apply them to a new work of talent, so truly and deeply understood by him.

He guessed that the apathy and feverish tension of analysis must pass. They passed completely. In War and Peace, talent is in full control of its own powers and calmly manages the gains of long and hard work. What firmness of hand, what freedom, confidence, simple and distinct clarity in the image! For the artist, it seems, nothing is difficult, and wherever he turns his gaze - to Napoleon’s tent or to the top floor of the Rostovs’ house - everything is revealed to him down to the smallest detail, as if he has the power to see at will in all places and then what is and what was. He stops at nothing; Difficult scenes, where various feelings struggle in the soul or subtle sensations run through, he, as if jokingly and on purpose, draws to the very end, to the smallest line. Not only, for example, he depicted to us with the greatest truth the unconsciously heroic actions of Captain Tushin; He also looked into his soul, overheard the words that he whispered without noticing it.

“In his head,” the artist says as simply and freely, as if he were talking about the most ordinary thing in the world, “he had his own fantastic world established in his head, which was his pleasure at that moment. The enemy’s guns were not in his imagination guns, but pipes from which an invisible smoker released smoke in rare puffs."

"Look, he puffed again," Tushin said in a whisper to himself, while a puff of smoke jumped out of the mountain and was blown to the left by the wind - now wait for the ball to send back.

The sound of a rifle fire that died down and then intensified again under the mountain seemed to him like someone's breath. He listened to the fading and flaring up of these sounds.

Look, I’m breathing again, I’m breathing,” he said to himself. He himself imagined himself to be of enormous stature, a powerful man who threw cannonballs at the French with both hands" (vol. I, part 2, p. 122).

So, this is the same subtle, all-penetrating analysis, but now given complete freedom and firmness. We saw what happened from here. The artist calmly and clearly treats all his faces and all the feelings of his faces. There is no struggle in him, and just as he does not actively arm himself against “elevated” feelings, he does not stop in amazement in front of simple feelings. He knows how to portray both of them in their entirety. true, in flat daylight.

In "Lucerne", one of the minutes hard thinking which we mentioned, the artist asked himself with despair: “Who has this so unshakable in his soul? measure of good and evil so that he can measure running facts with them?”

In “War and Peace” this standard has obviously been found, is in the artist’s full possession, and he confidently measures with it any facts that he decides to take.

From the previous it is clear, however, what the results of this measurement should be. Everything that is false and brilliant only in appearance is mercilessly exposed by the artist. Beneath the artificial, outwardly elegant relationships of high society, he reveals to us a whole abyss of emptiness, low passions and purely animal drives. On the contrary, everything simple and true, no matter how base and crude forms it may appear, finds deep sympathy in the artist. How insignificant and vulgar are the salons of Anna Pavlovna Scherer and Helen Bezukhova and with what poetry humble life is clothed uncles!

We must not forget that the Rostov family, although they are counts, is a simple family of Russian landowners, closely connected with the village, preserving the entire system, all the traditions of Russian life and only accidentally coming into contact with the big world. The Great Light is a sphere, completely separate from them, a pernicious sphere, the touch of which has such a disastrous effect on Natasha. As usual, the author draws this sphere according to the impressions that Natasha experiences from it. Natasha is vividly struck by the falseness, the absence of any naturalness, which dominates in Helen’s attire, in the singing of the Italians, in Duport’s dances, in the recitation of Mlle George, but at the same time the ardent girl is involuntarily carried away by the atmosphere of artificial life, in which lies and affectation constitute a brilliant cover of all passions, all thirst for pleasure. In the wider world we inevitably come across French and Italian art; the ideals of French and Italian passion, so alien to Russian nature, act on it in this case in a corrupting way.

Another family, the chronicle of which belongs to what is told in “War and Peace,” the Bolkonsky family, in the same way, does not belong to the big world. One might rather say that it higher of this light, but in any case it is outside of it. Remember Princess Marya, who has no semblance of a society girl; Remember the hostile attitude of the old man and his son towards the little princess Lisa, the most charming society woman.

So, despite the fact that one family is a count and the other a prince, “War and Peace” does not have even a shadow of a high-society character. “Greatness” once greatly seduced our literature and gave rise to a whole series of false works. Lermontov did not have time to free himself from this hobby, which Ap. Grigoriev called it “the disease of moral lackeyness.” In "War and Peace" Russian art appeared completely free from any sign of this disease; this freedom is all the more powerful because here art has captured the very spheres where high society seems to dominate.

The Rostov family and the Bolkonsky family, in their internal life, in the relationships of their members, are the same Russian families as any other. For members of both families, family relationships are of significant, dominant importance. Remember Pechorin, Onegin; these heroes do not have a family, or at least the family does not play any role in their lives. They are busy and absorbed in their personal, individual lives. Tatyana herself, remaining completely faithful to family life, without betraying it in anything, is somewhat aloof from it:

She is in her own family
The girl seemed like a stranger.

But as soon as Pushkin began to depict simple Russian life, for example, in “The Captain's Daughter,” the family immediately took all its rights. The Grinevs and Mironovs appear on stage as two families, as people living in close family relationships. But nowhere did Russian family life appear with such vibrancy and strength as in War and Peace. Young men, like Nikolai Rostov, Andrei Bolkonsky, live their own special, personal life, ambition, revelry, love, etc., they often and for a long time are separated from their home by service and occupation, but the house, the father, the family - constitutes a shrine for them and absorbs the better half of their thoughts and feelings. As for women, Princess Marya and Natasha, they are completely immersed in the family sphere. The description of the happy family life of the Rostovs and the unhappy family life of the Bolkonskys, with all the variety of relationships and cases, constitutes the most essential and classically excellent side of War and Peace.

Let us make one more rapprochement. In "The Captain's Daughter", as in "War and Peace", the clash between private life and public life is depicted. Both artists obviously felt a desire to peek and show the attitude in which the Russian people have towards their state life. Do we not have the right to conclude from this that among the most essential elements of our life is a double connection: the connection with the family and the connection with the state?

So, this is the kind of life depicted in War and Peace - not a personal egoistic life, not a history of individual aspirations and suffering; Communal life is depicted, connected in all directions by living ties. In this feature, it seems to us, the truly Russian, truly original character of the work of gr. L.N. Tolstoy.

And what about passions? What role do personalities and characters play in War and Peace? It is clear that passions cannot in any case have a primary place here and that personal characters will not stand out from the overall picture by the enormity of their size.

Passions have nothing brilliant or picturesque in War and Peace. Let's take love as an example. This is either simple sensuality, like Pierre’s in relation to his wife, like Helen herself towards her admirers; or, on the contrary, it is a completely calm, deeply human attachment, like Sophia’s for Nikolai, or like the gradually emerging relationship between Pierre and Natasha. Passion, in its pure form, appears only between Natasha and Kuragin; and here, on Natasha’s part, she represents some kind of insane intoxication, and only on Kuragin’s part it turns out to be what the French call passion, a concept that is not Russian, but, as we know, has become strongly rooted in our society. Remember how Kuragin admires his goddess, how he, “with the techniques of an expert, examines in front of Dolokhov the dignity of her arms, shoulders, legs and hair” (vol. III, p. 236). This is not how the truly loving Pierre feels and expresses himself: “She is charming,” he says about Natasha, “but why, I don’t know: that’s all that can be said about her” (ibid., p. 203).

In the same way, all other passions, everything in which a person’s individual personality is revealed, anger, ambition, revenge - all this either manifests itself in the form of instant outbursts, or turns into permanent, but calmer relationships. Remember Pierre’s relationship to his wife, to Drubetsky, etc. In general, “War and Peace” does not elevate passions to an ideal; this chronicle is obviously dominated by faith in family and, just as obviously, disbelief in passion, that is, disbelief in their duration and durability - the conviction that no matter how strong and beautiful these personal aspirations are, they will fade and disappear over time.

As for the characters, it is absolutely clear that the artist’s heart remains invariably sweet to simple and meek types - a reflection of one of the most beloved ideals of our national spirit. Compassionate and humble heroes, Timokhin, Tushin, complacent and simple people, Princess Marya, Count Ilya Rostov, are depicted with that understanding, with that deep sympathy that is familiar to us from the previous works of the gr. L.N. Tolstoy. But anyone who followed the artist’s previous activities cannot help but be amazed by the courage and freedom with which the gr. L.N. Tolstoy also began to portray strong, passionate types. In "War and Peace" the artist seemed to have mastered for the first time the secret of strong feelings and characters, which he had previously always treated with such distrust. The Bolkonskys - father and son - no longer belong to the meek type. Natasha represents a charming reproduction of a passionate female type, at the same time strong, ardent and tender.

The artist, however, declared his dislike for the predatory type in the depiction of a number of such persons as Helen, Anatole, Dolokhov, the coachman Balaga, etc. All these natures are predominantly predatory; the artist made them representatives of evil and depravity, from which the main persons of his family chronicle suffer.

But the most interesting, most original and masterful type created by gr. L.N. Tolstoy, there is the face of Pierre Bezukhov. This is obviously a combination of both types, meek and. passionate, purely Russian nature, equally filled with good nature and strength. Gentle, shy, childishly simple-minded and kind, Pierre at times discovers in himself (as the author says) the nature of his father. By the way, this father, a rich and handsome man of Catherine’s time, who in “War and Peace” appears only as a dying man and does not utter a single word, makes up one of the most striking pictures of “War and Peace.” This is quite a dying lion, striking with its power and beauty until its last breath. The nature of this lion sometimes resonates in Pierre. Remember how he shakes Anatole by the collar, this brawler, the head of the rake who did things that an ordinary person would have deserved Siberia long ago(Vol. III, p. 259).

Whatever, however, the strong Russian types depicted by gr. L.N. Tolstoy, it is still obvious that in the totality of these individuals there was little that was brilliant or active, and that the strength of Russia at that time relied much more on the staunchness of the meek type than on the actions of the strong. Kutuzov himself, the greatest force depicted in War and Peace, does not have a brilliant side to him. This is a slow old man, whose main power is revealed in the ease and freedom with which he carries the heavy burden of his experience. Patience and time his slogan (Vol. IV, p. 221).

The very two battles in which the extent to which the strength of Russian souls can reach with the greatest clarity are shown - the Shengraben affair and the Battle of Borodino - are obviously of a defensive rather than offensive nature. According to Prince Andrei, we owe our success under Shengraben most of all to heroic fortitude of Captain Tushin(Vol. I, Part I, p. 132). The essence of the Battle of Borodino was that the attacking French army was struck with horror before the enemy, who, “having lost half troops, stood just as menacingly at the end, as at the beginning of the battle" (vol. IV, p. 337). So, here the long-standing remark of historians was repeated that the Russians are not strong in attack, but that in defense they have no equal in the world.

We see, therefore, that all the heroism of the Russians comes down to the strength of the selfless and fearless type, but at the same time meek and simple. A truly brilliant type, full of active force, passion, and rapacity, is obviously represented, and in essence should be represented by the French with their leader Napoleon. In terms of active strength and brilliance, the Russians could in no way equal this type, and, as we have already noted, the entire story of “War and Peace” depicts the clash of these two very different types and the victory of the simple type over the brilliant type.

Since we know our artist’s fundamental, deep dislike for the brilliant type, it is here that we should look for a biased, incorrect image; although, on the other hand, passion, which has such deep sources, can lead to priceless revelations - can reach the truth, not noticed by indifferent and cold eyes. In Napoleon, the artist seemed to directly want to expose, to debunk the brilliant type, to debunk him in his greatest representative. The author is positively hostile to Napoleon, as if completely sharing the feelings that Russia and the Russian army had for him at that moment. Compare how Kutuzov and Napoleon behave on the Borodino field. What purely Russian simplicity one has and how much affectation, falsehood and falsehood the other has!

With this kind of image, we are overcome with involuntary distrust. Napoleon at gr. L.N. Tolstoy is not quite smart, deep and not even quite scary. The artist captured in him everything that is so disgusting to Russian nature, so outrageous to her simple instincts; but one must think that these features in their own, that is, French, world do not represent the unnaturalness and harshness that Russian eyes see in them. That world must have had its own beauty, its own greatness.

And yet, since this greatness gave way to the greatness of the Russian spirit, since Napoleon suffered the sin of violence and oppression, since the valor of the French was, indeed, darkened by the radiance of Russian valor, one cannot help but see that the artist was right in casting a shadow on the brilliant type of emperor, one cannot help but sympathize with the purity and correctness of those instincts that guided him. The portrayal of Napoleon is still amazingly true, although we cannot say that the inner life of him and his army was captured in such depth and completeness as the Russian life of that time is presented to us with our own eyes.

These are some of the traits private characteristics of "War and Peace". From them, we hope, it will be clear at least how much purely Russian heart is put into this work. Once again, everyone can be convinced that real, real creations of art are deeply connected with the life, soul, and whole nature of the artist; they constitute a confession and the embodiment of his spiritual history. As a completely alive, completely sincere creation, imbued with the best and most sincere aspirations of our national character, “War and Peace” is an incomparable work and constitutes one of the greatest and most original monuments of our art. We will express the meaning of this work in our fiction in the words of Ap. Grigoriev, which were said by him ten years ago and were not confirmed by anything so brilliantly as the appearance of “War and Peace”.

“Whoever does not see the mighty growths of a typical, indigenous, folk one, nature has deprived him of his sight and, in general, his sense of smell.”

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (1828 - 1896). Russian philosopher, publicist, literary critic, corresponding member of the St. Petersburg Academy of Sciences.