Is war and peace rubbish, the opinions of critics? “War and Peace”: masterpiece or “wordy rubbish”? What is the meaning of the book

In the early 60s, as already mentioned, I greeted the epic novel with irritation, not finding in it an image of the revolutionary intelligentsia and a denunciation of serfdom. The well-known critic V. Zaitsev in his article “Pearls and Adamants of Russian Journalism” (“Russian Word”, 1865, No. 2) described “1805” as a novel about “high-society figures.” The magazine “Delo” (1868, No. 4, 6; 1870, No. 1), in articles by D. Minaev, V. Bervi-Flerovsky and N. Shelgunov, assessed “War and Peace” as a work that lacks “deeply vital content”, its characters as “rude and dirty”, as mentally “petrified” and “morally ugly”, and the general meaning of Tolstoy’s “Slavophile novel” is as an apology for the “philosophy of stagnation”.

It is characteristic, however, that the critical side of the novel was sensitively grasped by the most perspicacious representative of democratic criticism of the 60s, M. E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. He did not appear in print with an assessment of “War and Peace,” but in an oral conversation he noted: “But the so-called “high society” the Count famously grabbed.” D. I. Pisarev, in the remaining unfinished article “The Old Nobility” (“Otechestvennye zapiski”, 1868, No. 2), noted the “truth” in Tolstoy’s portrayal of representatives of high society and gave a brilliant analysis of the types of Boris Drubetsky and Nikolai Rostov; however, he was not satisfied with the “idealization” of the “old nobility”, the “involuntary and natural tenderness” with which the author treats his noble heroes.

The reactionary noble press and official “patriots” criticized “War and Peace” from a different perspective. A. S. Norov and others accused Tolstoy of distorting the historical era of 1812, that he outraged the patriotic feelings of his fathers, and ridiculed the highest circles of the nobility. Among the critical literature about “War and Peace,” the reviews of some military writers who were able to correctly assess Tolstoy’s innovation in depicting war stand out.

An employee of the newspaper “Russian Invalid” N. Lachinov published an article in 1868 (No. 96, dated April 10) in which he highly valued Tolstoy’s artistic skill in the military scenes of the novel, characterized the description of the Battle of Shengraben as “the height of historical and artistic truth” and agreed with Tolstoy's interpretation of the Battle of Borodino.

The article by the famous military figure and writer M.I. Dragomirov, published in 1868-1870 in the “Weapons Collection”, is informative. Dragomirov believed that “War and Peace” should become a reference book for every military man: military scenes and scenes of military life “are inimitable and can constitute one of the most useful additions to any course in the theory of military art.” Dragomirov especially highly appreciated Tolstoy’s ability, when talking about “fictional” but “living” people, to convey “the inner side of the battle.” Polemicizing with Tolstoy’s statements about the spontaneity of war, about the insignificance of the guiding will of the commander during the battle, Dragomirov rightly noted that Tolstoy himself presented wonderful pictures (for example, Bagration’s detour of troops before the start of the Battle of Shengraben), depicting the ability of true commanders to lead the spirit of the army and thereby the best way to control people during battle.

In general, “War and Peace” received the most profound assessment in the reviews of outstanding Russian writers - Tolstoy’s contemporaries. Goncharov, Turgenev, Leskov, Dostoevsky, Fet perceived “War and Peace” as a great, extraordinary literary event.

I. A. Goncharov, in a letter to P. B. Ganzen dated July 17, 1878, advising him to start translating Tolstoy’s novel into Danish, wrote: “This is a positively Russian “Iliad”, embracing a huge era, a huge event and representing a historical gallery great faces, copied from life with a living brush by a great master!.. This work is one of the most capital, if not the most capital.” In 1879, objecting to Hansen, who decided to first translate Anna Karenina, Goncharov wrote: “War and Peace is an extraordinary poem-novel - both in content and in execution. And at the same time, this is also a monumental history of the glorious Russian era, where - either a figure, or a historical colossus, a statue cast in bronze. Even minor characters embody the characteristic features of Russian folk life.” In 1885, expressing satisfaction with the translation of Tolstoy’s works into Danish, especially the novel War and Peace, Goncharov remarked: “Count Tolstoy is positively superior to all of us.”

We find a number of remarkably correct judgments about “War and Peace” in articles by N. S. Leskov, published without a signature in 1869-1870 in the newspaper “Birzhevye Vedomosti”. Leskov called “War and Peace” “the best Russian historical novel”, “the pride of modern literature.” Highly appreciating the artistic truth and simplicity of the novel, Leskov especially emphasized the merit of the writer, who “did more than anything” to raise the “national spirit” to a worthy height.

Turgenev’s final opinion agreed with this assessment of “War and Peace,” which he arrived at by abandoning numerous initial critical judgments about the novel, especially about its historical and military side, as well as about the manner of Tolstoy’s psychological analysis.

The novel “War and Peace” by Leo Tolstoy introduced us to many heroes, each of whom is a bright personality and has individual traits. One of the most attractive characters in the novel is Pierre Bezukhov. His image stands at the center of “War...

Natasha Rostova is the central female character in the novel “War and Peace” and, perhaps, the author’s favorite. Tolstoy presents us with the evolution of his heroine over the fifteen-year period of her life, from 1805 to 1820, and over more than one and a half thousand...

In 1867, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy completed work on the work “War and Peace”. Speaking about his novel, Tolstoy admitted that in War and Peace he “loved popular thought.” The author poetizes simplicity, kindness, morality...

The image of Andrei Bolkonsky in the novel is one of the most complex, perhaps even the most complex. Throughout the entire narrative, he is looking for something, suffering, trying to understand the meaning of existence and find his place in it. Andrei's concepts of happiness and unhappiness change...

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 dozens 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)

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

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

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

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

Federal Agency for Education

State educational institution of higher professional education

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

Faculty of Russian Philology and National Culture

Department of Literature

Test

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

Prepared by:

Somova Yu.A.

Ryazan

2015

Introduction

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

2. N.N. Strakhov about the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"

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

Conclusion

Bibliography

Introduction

Art is a historical phenomenon,

consequently, its content is public,

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.

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

One of the first to write an article about “War and Peace” was Pavel Vasilyevich Annenkov, a long-time acquaintance of the writer since the mid-50s. 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 one 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 he himself, this novel, where did he put his real business - the development of a private incident, his “plot” and “intrigue”, because without them, no matter what the novel does, it will still seem like an idle novel.

But, finally, the critic 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 as 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." Annenkov ended his article with the statement that “War and Peace” “constitutes an era in the history of Russian fiction.” Here he came into close agreement with I. N. Strakhov’s assessment of the novel. “War and Peace is a work of genius, equal to all the best and truly great that Russian literature has produced,” Strakhov wrote in a short article “Literary News,” announcing the release of the “5th volume.” In a critical article written after the release of the entire epic novel, Strakhov stated: “It is absolutely clear that since 1868, that is, since the appearance of War and Peace, the composition of what is actually called Russian literature, that is, the composition of our artistic writers, received a different look and a different meaning. GR. L. N. Tolstoy took first place in this composition, an immeasurably high place, placing him far above the level of other literature: Western literature at the present time does not represent anything equal or even anything close to what what we now have."

Liberal criticism, as always, occupied an intermediate position. P. Annenkov, in an article published in 1868 in the liberal magazine "Bulletin of Europe" No. 2, noted Tolstoy's extraordinary skill in depicting scenes of military life and human psychology in war, the complexity of the composition, organically combining the historical narrative with the story of the private life of the heroes.

2. N.N. Strakhov about the novel by L.N. Tolstoy" War and Peace"

Nikolai Nikolaevich Strakhov (pseudonym - Kositsa) is an active critic of the "soil" trend. If A. Grigoriev was a bridge from “neo-Slavophilism” to “soilism,” then Strakhov was a bridge from “soilists” to the symbolists.

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 inner 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 various ways. We can say, for example, that the guiding thought of the work is the idea of ​​a heroic life.”

“But heroic life does not exhaust the author’s tasks. His 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 simple Russian people with hearts like theirs Nikolai Rostov, at 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.”

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

Dmitry Ivanovich Pisarev is rightfully considered the “third”, after Chernyshevsky and Dobrolyubov, the great Russian critic of the sixties. The fact that in “Russian Word” (1861-1866) he polemicized from time to time with “Sovremennik” does not in the least change the basic idea of ​​him as a theorist and defender of the realistic trend in Russian literature.

D.I. Pisarev spoke positively about the novel: “The new, not yet finished novel by Count 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 finished 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. Tolstoy belongs.

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.

Conclusion

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

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

List of used literature

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

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

3. 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.

4. Writer and criticism of the 19th century. Kuibyshev, 1987. pp. 106-107.

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

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

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

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

Posted on Allbest.ru

Similar documents

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

course work, added 05/01/2009


Determination of the main features of L.N.’s psychological style Tolstoy in depicting the inner world of heroes in constant movement and development. Consideration of the “dialectics of the soul” as the leading technique for recreating the mental life of the characters in the novel “War and Peace”.

abstract, added 03/23/2010


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

presentation, added 01/17/2013


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

course work, added 04/22/2011


The life and creative path of L. Tolstoy. Ideological and artistic analysis of the epic novel “War and Peace” as a response to the cultural and spiritual situation that has developed in post-reform Russia: depiction of the era of disruption of the foundations of life, selfishness of the interests of society.

abstract, added 06/20/2010


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

course work, added 07/13/2014


The concept and classification of metaphor, its use in literary text. Features of its creation and functioning in the structure of the novel by L.N. Tolstoy's "Resurrection". Metaphorical characterization of characters. Image of objects of the world of culture and nature.

thesis, added 03/20/2011


The first accurate evidence dating the beginning of the work of L.N. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace". The war of liberation waged by the Russian people against foreign invaders. Options for starting a novel. Description of the events of the Patriotic War of 1812.

presentation, added 05/04/2016


The study of the novel as a literary genre, its originality and stages of development at the present stage, requirements and features, prerequisites for its prevalence. Constitutive features of the epic and characteristics of the epic man. The relationship between the novel and the epic.

synopsis of the work, added 07/04/2009


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

N.N. Strakhov

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.

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 it feels and brings into the event.

One can... say that the highest point of view to which the author rises is a religious view of the world. When Prince Andrei, an unbeliever like his father, experienced all the vicissitudes of life hard and painfully and, mortally wounded, saw his enemy Anatoly Kuragin, he suddenly felt that a new outlook on life was opening up for him.

“Compassion, love for brothers, for those who love, love for those who hate us, love for enemies, yes, that love that God preached on earth, which Princess Marya taught me and which I did not understand; that’s why I felt sorry for life, that’s it what was left for me if I were alive..."

And not only Prince Andrei, but also many people in “War and Peace”, this high understanding of life is revealed to varying degrees, for example, the long-suffering and much-loving Princess Marya, Pierre after his wife’s betrayal, Natasha after her betrayal of her fiancé, etc. With amazing clarity and strength the poet shows how a religious view is the constant refuge of a soul tormented by life, the only point of support for thought struck by the variability of all human goods. A soul that renounces the world becomes higher than the world and discovers new beauty - forgiveness and love.

ON THE. Berdyaev

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L. Tolstoy, rebelling against the entire society, against the entire culture, came to extreme optimism, denying the depravity and sinfulness of nature. Tolstoy believes that God himself brings about good in the world and that there is no need to resist His will. Everything natural is good. In this, Tolstoy approaches Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the 18th century doctrine of the state of nature. Tolstoy's doctrine of non-resistance to evil is connected with the doctrine of the natural state as good and divine. Do not resist evil, and good will come true on its own without your activity; there will be a natural state in which the divine will, the highest law of life, which is God, is directly realized. L. Tolstoy's teaching about God is a special form of pantheism, for which there is no personality of God, just as there is no personality of man and no personality at all. For Tolstoy, God is not a being, but a law, a divine principle diffused throughout everything. For him, there is no such thing as a personal God, just as there is no personal immortality. His pantheistic consciousness does not allow the existence of two worlds: the natural-immanent world and the divine-transcendent world. Such pantheistic consciousness presupposes that good, i.e. the divine law of life is carried out in a natural-immanent way, without grace, without the entry of the transcendent into this world. Tolstoy's pantheism confuses God with the soul of the world. But his pantheism is not sustained and at times acquires a taste of deism. After all, God, Who gives the law of life, the commandment and does not give grace, help, is the dead God of deism. Tolstoy had a powerful feeling for God, but a weak consciousness of God; he spontaneously abides in the Father’s Hypostasis, but without the Logos. Just as L. Tolstoy believes in the goodness of the natural state and in the feasibility of good by natural forces, in which the divine will itself operates, he also believes in the infallibility, infallibility of natural reason. He does not see the decline of reason. Reason for him is sinless. He does not know that there is a mind that has fallen away from the Divine Mind, and there is a mind united with the Divine Mind. Tolstoy clings to naive, natural rationalism. He always appeals to reason, to the rational principle, and not to will, not to freedom. In Tolstoy's rationalism, at times very crude, the same faith in the blissful natural state, in the goodness of nature and the natural, is reflected. Tolstoy's rationalism and naturalism are unable to explain deviations from the rational and natural state, but human life is filled with these deviations and they give rise to that evil and that lie of life that Tolstoy so powerfully castigates. Why did humanity fall away from the good natural state and the rational law of life that reigned in this state? So, there was some kind of falling away, a fall? Tolstoy will say: all evil comes from the fact that people walk in darkness and do not know the divine law of life. But where does this darkness and ignorance come from? We inevitably come to the irrationality of evil as the ultimate mystery - the mystery of freedom. Tolstoy’s worldview has something in common with the worldview of Rozanov, who also knows no evil, who does not see the Face, who also believes in the goodness of the natural, who also abides in the Father’s Hypostasis and in the soul of the world, in the Old Testament and paganism. L. Tolstoy and V. Rozanov, with all their differences, are equally opposed to the religion of the Son, the religion of redemption.

There is no need to present in detail and systematically the teachings of L. Tolstoy in order to confirm the correctness of my characterization. Tolstoy's teachings are known to everyone too well. But usually books are read with bias and they see in them what they want to see, and do not see what they do not want to see. Therefore, I will still cite a number of the most striking passages that confirm my view of Tolstoy. First of all, I will take quotes from Tolstoy’s main religious and philosophical treatise “What Is My Faith.” “It has always seemed strange to me why Christ, knowing in advance that the fulfillment of His teachings is impossible by human forces alone, gave such clear and beautiful rules that apply directly to each individual person. Reading these rules, it always seemed to me that they apply directly to me , they only require execution from me.” “Christ says: “I find that the way of providing for your life is very stupid and bad. I offer you something completely different." “It is human nature to do what is best. And every teaching about people’s lives is only a teaching about what is best for people. If people are shown what is best for them to do, then how can they say that they want to do what better, but they can't? People can't do only what's worse, but they can't help but do what's better." “As soon as he (a person) reasons, he recognizes himself as reasonable, and, recognizing himself as reasonable, he cannot help but recognize what is reasonable and what is unreasonable. Reason does not command anything; it only illuminates.” “Only the false idea that there is something that is not, and there is no something that is, can lead people to such a strange denial of the feasibility of what, according to them, gives them good. The false idea that led to this is that , which is called the dogmatic Christian faith - the same one that is taught from childhood to all those who profess the church Christian faith according to various Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant catechisms." "It is stated that the dead continue to be alive. And since the dead can in no way confirm that they are dead or that they are alive, just as a stone cannot confirm that it can or cannot speak, then this the absence of denial is taken as proof and it is affirmed that people who died did not die. And with even greater solemnity and confidence it is affirmed that after Christ, by faith in Him, a person is freed from sin, i.e. that a person after Christ no longer needs illuminate his life with reason and choose what is best for him. He only needs to believe that Christ has redeemed him from sin, and then he is always sinless, i.e. absolutely good. According to this teaching, people should imagine that reason is powerless in them and that that is why they are sinless, i.e. cannot be mistaken." "What according to this teaching is called true life is personal, blessed, sinless and eternal life, i.e. such as no one has ever known and which does not exist." "Adam sinned for me, i.e. made a mistake (my italics)." L. Tolstoy says that, according to the teachings of the Christian Church, "true, sinless life is in faith, that is, in the imagination, that is, in madness (my italics)." And a few lines later adds about church teaching: “After all, this is complete madness”! “Church teaching gave the main meaning of people’s lives in that a person has the right to a blissful life and that this bliss is achieved not through human efforts, but by something external, and this is a worldview and became the basis of all our science and philosophy." "Reason, the one that illuminates our lives and forces us to change our actions, is not an illusion, and it can no longer be denied. Following reason to achieve good - this has always been the teaching of all the true teachers of mankind, and this is the entire teaching of Christ (emphasis added), and his, i.e. reason, it is absolutely impossible to deny with reason." "Before and after Christ, people said the same thing: that in man lives the divine light that came down from heaven, and this light is reason, and that it is necessary to serve him alone and in him alone seek good." "People heard everything, understood everything, but they just ignored what the teacher said only about the fact that people need to make their own happiness here, in the courtyard where they met, and imagined that this an inn, and somewhere there will be a real one." "No one will help if we don't help ourselves. And there is nothing to help ourselves. Just don’t expect anything from heaven or earth, but stop destroying yourself.” “To understand the teaching of Christ, you must first come to your senses, come to your senses.” “He never spoke about the carnal, personal resurrection.” “The concept of the future personal life did not come to us from Jewish teaching and not from the teaching of Christ. It entered church teaching completely from the outside.

Strange as it may seem, one cannot help but say that belief in a future personal life is a very base and crude idea, based on confusing sleep with death and characteristic of all savage peoples." "Christ contrasts personal life not with the afterlife, but with a common life, connected with the present, past and future life of all mankind." "The whole teaching of Christ is that His disciples, realizing the illusory nature of personal life, renounced it and transferred it to the life of all mankind, to the life of the Son of Man. The doctrine of the immortality of personal life not only does not call for renunciation of one’s personal life, but forever secures this personality... Life is life, and it must be used as best as possible. Living for yourself alone is unwise. And therefore, since there have been people, they have been looking for goals for life outside of themselves: they live for their child, for the people, for humanity, for everything that does not die with personal life." "If a person does not grab onto what saves him, then this only means that the person did not understand his position." "Faith comes only from the awareness of his position. Faith is based only on the rational consciousness of what is best to do, being in a certain position." "It is terrible to say: if there were no teaching of Christ at all with the church teaching that grew on it, then those who are now called Christians would be much closer to the teaching of Christ , i.e. to a reasonable teaching about the good of life than they are now. The moral teachings of the prophets of all mankind would not be closed to them." "Christ says that there is a true worldly calculation not to care about the life of the world... One cannot help but see that the position of the disciples of Christ should be better already because the disciples of Christ, doing everything good, will not arouse hatred in people." "Christ teaches exactly how we can get rid of our misfortunes and live happily." Listing the conditions for happiness, Tolstoy cannot find almost a single condition related to spiritual life; everything is connected with material, animal and plant life, such as physical labor, health, etc. “You should not be a martyr in the name of Christ, this is not what Christ teaches. He teaches us to stop torturing ourselves in the name of the false teachings of the world... Christ teaches people not to do stupid things (my italics). This is the simplest meaning of Christ’s teaching, accessible to everyone... Don’t do stupid things, and you will be better off.” “Christ... teaches us not to do what is worse, but to do what is best for us here, in this life." "The gap between the teaching about life and the explanation of life began with the preaching of Paul, who did not know the ethical teaching expressed in the Gospel of Matthew, and preached a metaphysical-kabbalistic theory alien to Christ." “All that is needed for a pseudo-Christian is the sacraments. But the believer himself does not perform the sacraments, but others perform them on him.” “The concept of a law, undoubtedly reasonable and obligatory in the inner consciousness of everyone, has been lost to such an extent in our society that the existence among the Jewish people of a law that determined their entire life, which would have been obligatory not by force, but by the inner consciousness of everyone, is considered exclusive property of one Jewish people." "I believe that the fulfillment of this teaching (of Christ) is easy and joyful."

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

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

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

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

A.E. In 1863, Bersom wrote a letter to his friend, Count Tolstoy, reporting on a fascinating conversation between young people about the events of 1812. Then Lev Nikolaevich decided to write a grandiose work about that heroic time. Already in October 1863, the writer wrote in one of his letters to a relative that he had never felt such creative forces in himself; the new work, according to him, would not be like anything he had done before.

Initially, the main character of the work should be the Decembrist, returning from exile in 1856. Next, Tolstoy moved the beginning of the novel to the day of the uprising in 1825, but then the artistic time moved to 1812. Apparently, the count was afraid that the novel would not be released for political reasons, since Nicholas the First tightened censorship, fearing a repeat of the riot. Since the Patriotic War directly depends on the events of 1805, it was this period that in the final version became the foundation for the beginning of the book.

“Three Pores” - that’s what Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy called his work. It was planned that the first part or time would tell about the young Decembrists, participants in the war; in the second - a direct description of the Decembrist uprising; in the third - the second half of the 19th century, the sudden death of Nicholas 1, the defeat of the Russian army in the Crimean War, an amnesty for members of the opposition movement who, returning from exile, expect changes.

It should be noted that the writer rejected all the works of historians, basing many episodes of War and Peace on the memoirs of participants and witnesses of the war. Materials from newspapers and magazines also served as excellent informants. In the Rumyantsev Museum, the author read unpublished documents, letters from ladies-in-waiting and generals. Tolstoy spent several days in Borodino, and in letters to his wife he enthusiastically wrote that if God grants health, he will describe the Battle of Borodino in a way that no one has described before.

The author spent 7 years of his life creating War and Peace. There are 15 variations of the beginning of the novel; the writer repeatedly abandoned and started his book again. Tolstoy foresaw the global scope of his descriptions, wanted to create something innovative and created an epic novel worthy of representing the literature of our country on the world stage.

Themes of War and Peace

1. Family theme. It is the family that determines the upbringing, psychology, views and moral principles of a person, and therefore naturally occupies one of the central places in the novel. The forge of morals shapes the characters' characters and influences the dialectic of their souls throughout the entire narrative. The description of the Bolkonsky, Bezukhov, Rostov and Kuragin families reveals the author’s thoughts about house building and the importance he attaches to family values.
2. The theme of the people. The glory for a won war always belongs to the commander or emperor, and the people, without whom this glory would not have appeared, remain in the shadows. It is this problem that the author raises, showing the vanity of the vanity of military officials and elevating ordinary soldiers. became the topic of one of our essays.
3. Theme of war. Descriptions of military operations exist relatively separately from the novel, independently. It is here that phenomenal Russian patriotism is revealed, which became the key to victory, the boundless courage and fortitude of a soldier who goes to any length to save his homeland. The author introduces us to war scenes through the eyes of one or another hero, plunging the reader into the depths of the bloodshed taking place. Large-scale battles echo the mental anguish of the heroes. Being at the crossroads of life and death reveals the truth to them.
4. Theme of life and death. Tolstoy's characters are divided into “living” and “dead”. The first include Pierre, Andrey, Natasha, Marya, Nikolai, and the second include old Bezukhov, Helen, Prince Vasily Kuragin and his son Anatole. The “living” are constantly in motion, and not so much physical as internal, dialectical (their souls come to harmony through a series of trials), while the “dead” hide behind masks and come to tragedy and internal split. Death in “War and Peace” is presented in 3 forms: bodily or physical death, moral death, and awakening through death. Life is comparable to the burning of a candle, someone’s light is small, with flashes of bright light (Pierre), for someone it burns tirelessly (Natasha Rostova), Masha’s wavering light. There are also 2 hypostases: physical life, like that of “dead” characters, whose immorality deprives the world of the necessary harmony within, and the life of the “soul”, this is about the heroes of the first type, they will be remembered even after death.

Main characters

• Andrey Bolkonsky- a nobleman, disillusioned with the world and seeking glory. The hero is handsome, has dry features, short stature, but athletic build. Andrei dreams of being famous like Napoleon, and that’s why he goes to war. He is bored with high society; even his pregnant wife does not give him any relief. Bolkonsky changes his worldview when, wounded at the battle of Austerlitz, he encountered Napoleon, who seemed like a fly to him, along with all his glory. Further, the love that flared up for Natasha Rostova also changes the views of Andrei, who finds the strength to live a full and happy life again after the death of his wife. He meets death on the Borodino field, because he does not find the strength in his heart to forgive people and not fight with them. The author shows the struggle in his soul, hinting that the prince is a man of war, he cannot get along in an atmosphere of peace. So, he forgives Natasha for betrayal only on his deathbed, and dies in harmony with himself. But finding this harmony was possible only in this way - for the last time. We wrote more about his character in the essay "".
• Natasha Rostova– a cheerful, sincere, eccentric girl. Knows how to love. He has a wonderful voice that will captivate the most picky music critics. In the work, we first see her as a 12-year-old girl, on her name day. Throughout the entire work, we observe the growing up of a young girl: first love, first ball, Anatole’s betrayal, guilt before Prince Andrei, the search for her “I”, including in religion, the death of her lover (Andrei Bolkonsky). We analyzed her character in the essay "". In the epilogue, the wife of Pierre Bezukhov, his shadow, appears before us from a cocky lover of “Russian dances”.
• Pierre Bezukhov- a plump young man who was unexpectedly bequeathed a title and a large fortune. Pierre discovers himself through what is happening around him, from each event he learns a moral and a life lesson. His wedding with Helen gives him confidence; after being disappointed in her, he finds interest in Freemasonry, and in the end he gains warm feelings for Natasha Rostova. The Battle of Borodino and capture by the French taught him not to philosophize and find happiness in helping others. These conclusions were determined by acquaintance with Platon Karataev, a poor man who, while awaiting death in a cell without normal food and clothing, looked after the “little baron” Bezukhov and found the strength to support him. We've already looked at it too.
• Graph Ilya Andreevich Rostov- a loving family man, luxury was his weakness, which led to financial problems in the family. Softness and weakness of character, inability to adapt to life make him helpless and pitiful.
• Countess Natalya Rostova– the Count’s wife, has an oriental flavor, knows how to present herself correctly in society, and loves her own children excessively. A calculating woman: she strives to upset the wedding of Nikolai and Sonya, since she was not rich. It was her cohabitation with a weak husband that made her so strong and firm.
• NickOlai Rostov– the eldest son is kind, open, with curly hair. Wasteful and weak in spirit, like his father. He squanders his family's fortune on cards. He longed for glory, but after participating in a number of battles he understands how useless and cruel war is. He finds family well-being and spiritual harmony in his marriage to Marya Bolkonskaya.
• Sonya Rostova– the count’s niece – small, thin, with a black braid. She had a reasonable character and good disposition. She has been devoted to one man all her life, but lets her beloved Nikolai go after learning about his love for Marya. Tolstoy exalts and appreciates her humility.
• Nikolai Andreevich Bolkonsky- Prince, has an analytical mind, but a heavy, categorical and unfriendly character. He is too strict, therefore he does not know how to show love, although he has warm feelings for children. Dies from the second blow in Bogucharovo.
• Marya Bolkonskaya– modest, loving her family, ready to sacrifice herself for the sake of her loved ones. L.N. Tolstoy especially emphasizes the beauty of her eyes and the ugliness of her face. In her image, the author shows that the charm of forms cannot replace spiritual wealth. are described in detail in the essay.
• Helen Kuragina– Pierre’s ex-wife is a beautiful woman, a socialite. She loves male company and knows how to get what she wants, although she is vicious and stupid.
• Anatol Kuragin- Helen's brother is handsome and belongs to high society. Immoral, lacking moral principles, wanted to secretly marry Natasha Rostova, although he already had a wife. Life punishes him with martyrdom on the battlefield.
• Fedor Dolokhov- officer and leader of the partisans, not tall, has light eyes. Successfully combines selfishness and care for loved ones. Vicious, passionate, but attached to his family.

Tolstoy's favorite hero

In the novel, the author's sympathy and antipathy for the characters is clearly felt. As for female characters, the writer gives his love to Natasha Rostova and Marya Bolkonskaya. Tolstoy valued the true feminine in girls - devotion to a lover, the ability to always remain blooming in the eyes of her husband, the knowledge of happy motherhood and caring. His heroines are ready for self-denial for the benefit of others.

The writer is fascinated by Natasha, the heroine finds the strength to live even after the death of Andrei, she directs love to her mother after the death of her brother Petya, seeing how hard it is for her. The heroine is reborn, realizing that life is not over as long as she has a bright feeling for her neighbor. Rostova shows patriotism, without a doubt helping the wounded.

Marya also finds happiness in helping others, in feeling needed by someone. Bolkonskaya becomes a mother for Nikolushka’s nephew, taking him under her “wing”. She worries about ordinary men who have nothing to eat, passing the problem through herself, and does not understand how the rich can not help the poor. In the final chapters of the book, Tolstoy is fascinated by his heroines, who have matured and found female happiness.

The writer’s favorite male characters were Pierre and Andrei Bolkonsky. Bezukhov first appears to the reader as a clumsy, plump, short young man who appears in Anna Scherer’s living room. Despite his ridiculous, ridiculous appearance, Pierre is smart, but the only person who accepts him for who he is is Bolkonsky. The prince is brave and stern, his courage and honor come in handy on the battlefield. Both men risk their lives to save their homeland. Both are rushing around in search of themselves.

Of course, L.N. Tolstoy brings his favorite heroes together, only in the case of Andrei and Natasha, happiness is short-lived, Bolkonsky dies young, and Natasha and Pierre find family happiness. Marya and Nikolai also found harmony in each other's company.

Genre of the work

“War and Peace” opens the genre of the epic novel in Russia. The features of any novels are successfully combined here: from family novels to memoirs. The prefix “epic” means that the events described in the novel cover a significant historical phenomenon and reveal its essence in all its diversity. Typically, a work of this genre has a lot of plot lines and characters, since the scale of the work is very large.

The epic nature of Tolstoy’s work lies in the fact that he not only invented a story about a famous historical event, but also enriched it with details gleaned from the memories of eyewitnesses. The author did a lot to ensure that the book was based on documentary sources.

The relationship between the Bolkonskys and the Rostovs was also not invented by the author: he depicted the history of his family, the merger of the Volkonsky and Tolstoy families.

Main problems

1. The problem of finding real life. Let's take Andrei Bolkonsky as an example. He dreamed of recognition and glory, and the surest way to earn authority and adoration was through military exploits. Andrei made plans to save the army with his own hands. Bolkonsky constantly saw pictures of battles and victories, but he was wounded and went home. Here, in front of Andrei’s eyes, his wife dies, completely shaking the prince’s inner world, then he realizes that there is no joy in the murders and suffering of the people. This career is not worth it. The search for oneself continues, because the original meaning of life has been lost. The problem is that it is difficult to find.
2. The problem of happiness. Take Pierre, who is torn away from the empty society of Helen and the war. He soon becomes disillusioned with a vicious woman; illusory happiness has deceived him. Bezukhov, like his friend Bolkonsky, tries to find a calling in the struggle and, like Andrei, abandons this search. Pierre was not born for the battlefield. As you can see, any attempts to find bliss and harmony result in the collapse of hopes. As a result, the hero returns to his former life and finds himself in a quiet family haven, but only by making his way through thorns did he find his star.
3. The problem of the people and the great man. The epic novel clearly expresses the idea of ​​commanders-in-chief inseparable from the people. A great man must share the opinion of his soldiers and live by the same principles and ideals. Not a single general or king would have received his glory if this glory had not been presented to him on a “platter” by the soldiers, in whom the main strength lies. But many rulers do not cherish it, but despise it, and this should not happen, because injustice hurts people painfully, even more painfully than bullets. The People's War in the events of 1812 is shown on the side of the Russians. Kutuzov protects the soldiers and sacrifices Moscow for their sake. They sense this, mobilize the peasants and launch a guerrilla struggle that finishes off the enemy and finally drives him out.
4. The problem of true and false patriotism. Of course, patriotism is revealed through images of Russian soldiers, a description of the heroism of the people in the main battles. False patriotism in the novel is represented in the person of Count Rostopchin. He distributes ridiculous pieces of paper throughout Moscow, and then saves himself from the wrath of people by sending his son Vereshchagin to certain death. We have written an article on this topic, called “”.

What is the point of the book?

The writer himself speaks about the true meaning of the epic novel in the lines about greatness. Tolstoy believes that there is no greatness where there is no simplicity of soul, good intentions and a sense of justice.

L.N. Tolstoy expressed greatness through the people. In the images of battle paintings, an ordinary soldier shows unprecedented courage, which causes pride. Even the most fearful aroused in themselves a feeling of patriotism, which, like an unknown and frantic force, brought victory to the Russian army. The writer protests against false greatness. When put on the scales (here you can find their comparative characteristics), the latter flies up: its fame is lightweight, since it has very flimsy foundations. The image of Kutuzov is “folk”; none of the commanders has ever been so close to the common people. Napoleon is only reaping the fruits of fame; it is not without reason that when Bolkonsky lies wounded on the field of Austerlitz, the author, through his eyes, shows Bonaparte like a fly in this huge world. Lev Nikolaevich sets a new trend of heroic character. He becomes the “people's choice”.

An open soul, patriotism and a sense of justice won not only in the War of 1812, but also in life: the heroes who were guided by moral principles and the voice of their hearts became happy.

Thought Family

L.N. Tolstoy was very sensitive to the topic of family. Thus, in his novel “War and Peace,” the writer shows that the state, like a clan, transmits values ​​and traditions from generation to generation, and good human qualities are also sprouts from roots going back to the forefathers.

Brief description of families in the novel “War and Peace”:

1. Of course, the beloved family of L.N. Tolstoy's were the Rostovs. Their family was famous for its cordiality and hospitality. It is in this family that the author’s values ​​of true home comfort and happiness are reflected. The writer considered the purpose of a woman to be motherhood, maintaining comfort in the home, devotion and the ability to self-sacrifice. This is how all the women of the Rostov family are depicted. There are 6 people in the family: Natasha, Sonya, Vera, Nikolai and parents.
2. Another family is the Bolkonskys. Restraint of feelings, the severity of Father Nikolai Andreevich, and canonicity reign here. Women here are more like “shadows” of their husbands. Andrei Bolkonsky will inherit the best qualities, becoming a worthy son of his father, and Marya will learn patience and humility.
3. The Kuragin family is the best personification of the proverb “no oranges are born from aspen trees.” Helen, Anatole, Hippolyte are cynical, seek benefits in people, are stupid and not the least bit sincere in what they do and say. “A show of masks” is their lifestyle, and in this they completely took after their father, Prince Vasily. There are no friendly and warm relations in the family, which is reflected in all its members. L.N. Tolstoy especially dislikes Helen, who was incredibly beautiful on the outside, but completely empty on the inside.

People's thought

She is the central line of the novel. As we remember from what was written above, L.N. Tolstoy abandoned generally accepted historical sources, basing “War and Peace” on memoirs, notes, letters from ladies-in-waiting and generals. The writer was not interested in the course of the war as a whole. Individual personalities, fragments – that’s what the author needed. Each person had his own place and significance in this book, like pieces of a puzzle, which, when assembled correctly, will reveal a beautiful picture - the power of national unity.

The Patriotic War changed something inside each of the characters in the novel, each made their own small contribution to the victory. Prince Andrei believes in the Russian army and fights with dignity, Pierre wants to destroy the French ranks from their very heart - by killing Napoleon, Natasha Rostova without hesitation gives carts to crippled soldiers, Petya fights bravely in partisan detachments.

The people's will to victory is clearly felt in the scenes of the Battle of Borodino, the battle for Smolensk, and the partisan battle with the French. The latter is especially memorable for the novel, because volunteers who came from the ordinary peasant class fought in the partisan movements - the detachments of Denisov and Dolokhov personified the movement of the entire nation, when “both old and young” stood up to defend their homeland. Later they would be called the “club of the people’s war.”

The War of 1812 in Tolstoy's novel

The War of 1812, as a turning point in the lives of all the heroes of the novel War and Peace, has been mentioned several times above. It was also said that it was won by the people. Let's look at the issue from a historical perspective. L.N. Tolstoy draws 2 images: Kutuzov and Napoleon. Of course, both images are drawn through the eyes of a person from the people. It is known that the character of Bonaparte was thoroughly described in the novel only after the writer was convinced of the fair victory of the Russian army. The author did not understand the beauty of war, he was its opponent, and through the mouths of his heroes Andrei Bolkonsky and Pierre Bezukhov, he speaks of the meaninglessness of its very idea.

The Patriotic War was a national liberation war. It occupied a special place on the pages of volumes 3 and 4.