“Art is a historical phenomenon, therefore, its content is public, while the form is taken from the forms of nature” Ogarev N.P. About literature and art. - M., 1988. S. 37.
Already after the completion of the publication of the novel, by the beginning of the 70s. there were mixed reviews and articles. Critics became more and more strict, especially the 4th, "Borodino" volume and the philosophical chapters of the epilogue caused a lot of objections. But, nevertheless, the success and scale of the epic novel became more and more obvious - they manifested themselves even through disagreement or denial.
Writers' judgments of their colleagues' books are always of particular interest. After all, the writer considers someone else's artistic world through the prism of his own. Such a view, of course, is more subjective, but it can reveal unexpected sides and facets in the work that professional criticism does not see.
F.M. Dostoevsky's statements about the novel are fragmentary. He agreed with Strakhov's articles, denying only two lines. At the request of the critic, these two lines are named and commented: “Two lines about Tolstoy, with which I do not fully agree, is when you say that L. Tolstoy is equal to everything that is great in our literature. It is absolutely impossible to say! Pushkin, Lomonosov - geniuses. To appear with “Arap of Peter the Great” and with “Belkin” means resolutely appearing with a brilliant new word, which until then had never been said anywhere and never. To appear with “War and Peace” means to appear after this new word, already expressed by Pushkin, and this is all in any case, no matter how far and high Tolstoy goes in developing the new word already spoken for the first time by a genius. Dostoevsky F.M. Complete works in 30 volumes - L., 1986. - T. 29. - S. 109.
At the end of the decade, while working on A Teenager, Dostoevsky once again recalls War and Peace. But it remained in drafts, detailed reviews of F. M. Dostoevsky are no longer known.
Even less is known about the reader's reaction of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. In T.A. Kuzminskaya was given his remark: “These military scenes are nothing but lies and vanity. Bagration and Kutuzov are puppet generals. In general, - the chatter of nannies and mothers. And here is our so-called " high society”Count famously snatched” War because of “War and Peace”. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S. 25-26.
Close to Leo Tolstoy poet A.A. Fet wrote several detailed analysis letters to the author himself. Back in 1866, having read only the beginning of One Thousand Eight Hundred and Fifth Year, Fet foresaw the judgments of Annenkov and Strakhov about the nature of Tolstoy's historicism: “I understand that the main task novel - to turn the historical event inside out and view it not from the official gold-embroidered side of the front caftan, but from the shirt, that is, the shirt, which is closer to the body and under the same brilliant general uniform "Tolstoy L.N. Correspondence with Russian writers. - M., 1978. S. 379 .. The second letter, written in 1870, develops similar ideas, but A. Fet's position becomes more critical: “You write a lining instead of a face, you turned the content upside down. You are a freelance artist and you are quite right. But the artistic laws for all content are unchanging and inevitable, like death. And the first law is the unity of representation. This unity in art is achieved in a completely different way than in life ... We understood why Natasha lost her resounding success, we realized that she was not drawn to sing, but was drawn to be jealous and feed her children intensely. They realized that she did not need to think about belts and ribbons and ringlets of curls. All this does not harm the whole idea of her spiritual beauty. But why was it necessary to stress that she had become a slut. This may be in reality, but this is an unbearable naturalism in art ... This is a caricature that breaks harmony ”Ibid. S. 397 - 398 ..
The most detailed writer's review of the novel belongs to N.S. Leskov. The series of his articles in Birzhevye Vedomosti, dedicated to volume 5, is rich in thoughts and observations. The stylistic compositional form of Leskov's articles is extremely interesting. He breaks the text into small chapters with characteristic headings (“Upstarts and choronyaks”, “Hereless Bogatyr”, “Enemy Force”), boldly introduces digressions (“Two anecdotes about Yermolov and Rostopchin”). War over War and Peace. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S. 25-26.
Difficult and changing was the attitude towards the novel by I.S. Turgenev. Dozens of his responses in letters are accompanied by two printed ones, very different in tone and direction.
In 1869, in the article "On the occasion of "Fathers and Sons"," I.S. Turgenev casually mentioned "War and Peace" as a wonderful work, but still devoid of "true meaning" and "true freedom." Turgenev's main reproaches and claims, which were repeatedly repeated, are collected in a letter to P.V. Annenkov, written after reading his article “A historical increase, from which readers are delighted, puppet comedy and charlatanism ... Tolstoy strikes the reader with the toe of Alexander’s boot, Speransky’s laughter, forcing him to think that he knows about all this, if he even reached these trifles, and He only knows the little things... There is no real development in any character, but there is an old habit to convey vibrations, vibrations of one and the same feeling, position, what he so mercilessly puts into the mouth and into the consciousness of each of the characters ... Tolstoy does not seem to know another psychology or with the intention of it ignores." This detailed assessment clearly shows the incompatibility of Turgenev's " secret psychologism"and "penetrating" Tolstoy's psychological analysis.
The final review of the novel is equally ambiguous. “I read the sixth volume of War and Peace,” writes I.S. Turgenev to P. Borisov in 1870, “of course, there are first-class things; but, not to mention children's philosophy, it was unpleasant for me to see the reflection of the system even on the images drawn by Tolstoy ... Why does he try to assure the reader that if a woman is smart and developed, then she is certainly a phrase-monger and a liar? How did he lose sight of the Decembrist element that played such a role in the 1920s - and why are all decent people with him some kind of blockheads - with a little bit of foolishness? There. S. 26..
But time is running, and the number of questions and claims is gradually decreasing. Turgenev comes to terms with this novel, moreover, he becomes his faithful propagandist and admirer. "This is a great work of a great writer, and this is true Russia" - this is how I.S. Turgenev's fifteen-year reflections on "War and Peace" come to an end.
One of the first with an article on "War and Peace" was P.V. Annenkov, old, from the mid-50s. acquaintance of the writer. In his article, he revealed many features of Tolstoy's design.
Tolstoy boldly destroys the boundary between “romantic” and “historical” characters, Annenkov believes, drawing both in a similar psychological vein, that is, through everyday life: “The dazzling side of the novel lies precisely in the naturalness and simplicity with which it brings down world events and major phenomena of social life to the level and horizon of vision of any witness chosen by him ... Without any sign of the rape of life and its usual course, the novel establishes a permanent connection between the love and other adventures of its faces and Kutuzov, Bagration, between historical facts of enormous importance - Shengraben, Austerlitz and worries Moscow aristocratic circle…” Ibid. S. 22..
“First of all, it should be noted that the author adheres to the first life of every artistic narrative: he does not try to extract from the subject of the description what he cannot do, and therefore does not deviate a single step from a simple mental study of it ”Annenkov P.V. Critical Essays. - SPb., 2000. S. 123-125 ..
However, the critic found it difficult to find in "War and Peace" the "knot of romantic intrigue" and found it difficult to determine "who should be considered the main actors novel”: “It can be assumed that we were not the only ones who, after the delightful impressions of the novel, had to ask: where is he himself, this novel, where did he put his real business - the development of a private incident, his “plot” and “intrigue”, because that without them, whatever the novel does, it will always seem like an idle novel.
But, finally, the critic perceptively noticed the connection of Tolstoy's heroes not only with the past, but also with the present: “Prince Andrei Bolkonsky introduces into his criticism of current affairs and, in general, into his views on his contemporaries the ideas and ideas that have been formed about them in our time. He has the gift of foresight, which came to him like an inheritance, without difficulty, and the ability to stand above his age, obtained very cheaply. He thinks and judges rationally, but not with the mind of his era, but with another, later one, which was revealed to him by a benevolent author. War over War and Peace. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S. 22.
N.N. Strakhov paused before speaking about the work. His first articles on the novel appeared at the beginning of 1869, when many opponents had already expressed their point of view.
Strakhov rejects the accusations of the “elitism” of Tolstoy’s book, which were made by a variety of critics: “Despite the fact that one family is a count and the other is a prince, “War and Peace” does not have even a shadow of a high society character ... The Rostov family and the Bolkonsky family, according to them inner life, according to the relations of their members, are the same Russian families as any others. Unlike some other critics of the novel, N.N. Strakhov does not utter the truth, but seeks it.
“The idea of War and Peace,” the critic believes, “can be formulated in various ways. It can be said, for example, that the guiding thought of the work is the idea of a heroic life.
“But the heroic life does not exhaust the tasks of the author. Its subject matter is obviously wider. The main idea, which he is guided by when depicting heroic phenomena, is to open their human basis, to show people in heroes. This is how the main principle of Tolstoy's approach to history is formulated: the unity of scale, in the depiction of different characters. Therefore, Strakhov fits the image of Napoleon in a very special way. He convincingly demonstrates why this artistic image the French commander was needed in War and Peace: “So, in the person of Napoleon, the artist seemed to want to present to us the human soul in its blindness, he wanted to show that a heroic life can contradict true human dignity, that goodness, truth and beauty can be much more accessible to simple and small people than to other great heroes. Ordinary person, simple life, placed in this above heroism - both in dignity and in strength; for ordinary Russian people with such hearts as those of Nikolai Rostov, Timokhin and Tushin defeated Napoleon and his great army” Ibid. S. 26.
These formulations are very close to Tolstoy's future words about "people's thought" as the main one in "War and Peace".
D.I Pisarev spoke positively about the novel: “A new, not yet finished novel by Count. L. Tolstoy can be called an exemplary work in terms of the pathology of Russian society.”
He considered the novel as a reflection of the Russian, old nobility.
"The novel War and Peace presents us with a whole bunch of diverse and excellently finished characters, male and female, old and young" Ibid. P. 26 .. In his work “The Old Nobility”, he very clearly and completely analyzed the characters of not only the main ones, but also secondary characters works, thus expressing their point of view.
With the publication of the first volumes of the work, responses began to arrive not only from Russia, but also abroad. The first major critical article appeared in France more than a year and a half after the publication of Paskevich's translation - in August 1881. The author of the article, Adolf Baden, managed to give only a detailed and enthusiastic retelling of "War and Peace" for almost two printed sheets. Only in conclusion did he make a few remarks of an appraisal nature.
Noteworthy are the early responses to the work of Leo Tolstoy in Italy. It was in Italy at the beginning of 1869 that one of the first articles in the foreign press and "War and Peace" appeared. It was "correspondence from St. Petersburg" signed by M.A. and entitled "Count Leo Tolstoy and his novel "Peace and War". Its author spoke in an unfriendly tone about the "realistic school" to which L.N. Tolstoy Motyleva T.L. "War and Peace" abroad. - M., 1978. S. 177 ..
In Germany, as in France, as in Italy, the name of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy by the end of the last century fell into the orbit of a sharp political struggle. The growing popularity of Russian literature in Germany caused anxiety and irritation among the ideologists of imperialist reaction.
The first detailed review of "War and Peace", which appeared on English, belonged to critic and translator William Rolston. His article, published in April 1879 in the English magazine "The Nineteenth Century", and then reprinted in the USA, was called "The Novels of Count Leo Tolstoy", but in fact it was, first of all, a retelling of the content of "War and Peace" - namely retelling, not analysis. Rolston, who spoke Russian, tried to give the English public at least an initial idea of L.N. Tolstoy.
As we see at the end of the last chapter, during the first publications, the novel was characterized by different authors in different ways. Many tried to express their understanding of the novel, but not many were able to feel its essence. A great work requires great and deep thought. The epic novel "War and Peace" allows you to think about many principles and ideals.
DI. Pisarev
old nobility
("War and Peace", a work by Count L. N. Tolstoy. Volumes I, II and III. Moscow. 1868)
DI. Pisarev. Literary criticism in three volumes. Volume three. Articles 1865-1868 L., "Fiction", 1981 Compilation, preparation of the text and notes by Yu. S. Sorokin The new, not yet finished novel by Count L. Tolstoy can be called an exemplary work in terms of the pathology of Russian society. In this novel, a whole series of vivid and varied pictures, painted with the most majestic and imperturbable epic calmness, raises and solves the question of what is done with human minds and characters under such conditions that enable people to do without knowledge, without thoughts, without energy. and without difficulty. It is very possible, and even very likely, that Count Tolstoy does not have in mind the formulation and solution of such a question. It is very likely that he simply wants to draw a series of pictures from the life of the Russian nobility during the time of Alexander I. He himself sees and tries to show others, clearly, to the smallest details and shades, all the features that characterize the time and the people of that time, people of that circle that most interesting to him or accessible to his study. He tries only to be truthful and accurate; his efforts do not tend to support or refute created images any theoretical idea; he, in all likelihood, treats the subject of his lengthy and careful research with that involuntary and natural tenderness that a gifted historian usually feels for the distant or near past, resurrecting under his hands; he, perhaps, even finds in the features of this past, in the figures and characters of the personalities drawn, in the concepts and habits of the depicted society, many features worthy of love and respect. All this is possible, all this is even very likely. But it is precisely because the author has spent a lot of time, labor and love on studying and depicting the era and its representatives, that is why the images created by him live their own life, independent of the author’s intentions, enter into direct relations with readers, speak for themselves and irresistibly lead the reader to such thoughts and conclusions that the author did not have in mind and which he, perhaps, would not even approve of. This truth, springing forth from the facts themselves, this truth, breaking through beyond the personal sympathies and convictions of the narrator, is especially precious in its irresistible persuasiveness. This is the truth, this awl, which cannot be hidden in a sack, we will now try to extract from the novel of Count Tolstoy. The novel "War and Peace" presents us with a whole bunch of diverse and excellently finished characters, male and female, old and young. The choice of young male characters is especially rich. We shall begin precisely with them, and begin from below, that is, with those figures about whom disagreement is almost impossible and whose unsatisfactoriness will, in all probability, be recognized by all readers. The first portrait in our art gallery will be Prince Boris Drubetskoy, a young man of noble birth, with a name and connections, but without a fortune, paving his way to wealth and honors with his ability to get along with people and take advantage of circumstances. The first of those circumstances that he uses with remarkable skill and success is his own mother, Princess Anna Mikhailovna. Everyone knows that a mother who asks for her son is always and everywhere the most zealous, efficient, persistent, tireless and fearless of lawyers. In her eyes, the end justifies and sanctifies all means, without the slightest exception. She is ready to beg, to cry, to curry favor, to crawl, to annoy, to swallow all sorts of insults, if only she, even out of annoyance, out of a desire to get rid of her and stop her annoying cries, finally threw an annoyingly demanded handout for her son. Boris is well aware of all these virtues of his mother. He also knows that all the humiliations to which he voluntarily exposes himself loving mother, do not drop their son at all, if only this son, using her services, behaves at the same time with sufficient, decent independence. Boris chooses for himself the role of a respectful and obedient son, as the most profitable and convenient role for himself. It is profitable and convenient, firstly, because it imposes on him the duty not to interfere with those feats of servility with which the mother lays the foundation of his brilliant career . Secondly, it is profitable and convenient in that it puts him in the best possible light in the eyes of those strong people on whom his success depends. "What an exemplary young man! - all those around him should think and talk about him. - How much noble pride is in him and what generous efforts he uses in order to suppress in himself, out of love for his mother, the too impetuous movements of young inexperienced obstinacy, such movements, which might upset the poor old woman who concentrated all her thoughts and desires on her son's career. And how carefully and how successfully he hides his magnanimous efforts under the guise of outward calm! How he understands that these efforts, by the very fact of their existence, could serve as a heavy reproach poor mother, completely blinded by her ambitious motherly dreams and plans. What intelligence, what tact, what strength of character, what a heart of gold and what refined delicacy! When Anna Mikhailovna walks on the thresholds of merciful and benefactors, Boris keeps himself passive and calm, like a person who has decided once and for all, respectfully and with dignity, to submit to his difficult and bitter fate, and to submit in such a way that everyone sees it, but that no one dares to tell him with warm sympathy: "Young man, in your eyes, in your face, in all your dejected appearance, I clearly see that you are patiently and courageously bearing a heavy cross." He goes with his mother to the dying rich man Bezukhov, on whom Anna Mikhailovna pins some hopes, mainly because "he is so rich, and we are so poor!" He goes, but even makes his mother feel that he is doing it exclusively for her, that he himself does not foresee anything from this trip but humiliation, and that there is such a limit beyond which his humility and his artificial calmness can betray him. The hoax is carried out so skillfully that Anna Mikhailovna herself is afraid of her respectful son, like a volcano, from which a destructive eruption can be expected every minute; it goes without saying that this fear increases her respect for her son; she looks back at him at every step, asks him to be affectionate and attentive, reminds him of his promises, touches his hand, in order, depending on the circumstances, now to calm him down, now to excite him. Anxious and fussing in this way, Anna Mikhailovna is in the firm conviction that without these skillful efforts and diligence on her part, everything will go to waste, and the inflexible Boris, if he does not forever anger strong people with an outburst of noble indignation, then at least he will surely freeze with icy coldness of treatment all the hearts of patrons and benefactors. If Boris so successfully mystifies his own mother, an experienced and intelligent woman, in whose eyes he grew up, then, of course, he is even easier and just as successfully fooling strangers with whom he has to deal. He bows to benefactors and patrons courteously, but so calmly and with such modest dignity that strong faces immediately feel the need to look at him more closely and distinguish him from the crowd of needy clients, for whom annoying mothers and aunts ask. He answers them to their careless questions precisely and clearly, calmly And respectfully, showing neither annoyance at their harsh tone, nor desire to enter into further conversation with them. Looking at Boris and listening to his calm answers, patrons and benefactors are immediately imbued with the conviction that Boris, remaining within the boundaries of strict politeness and impeccable deference, will not allow anyone to push him around and will always be able to stand up for his noble honor. Being a beggar and a seeker, Boris knows how to shift all the dirty work of this matter onto his mother, who, of course, with the greatest readiness lends her old shoulders and even begs her son to allow her to arrange his promotion. Leaving his mother to grovel before strong people, Boris himself knows how to remain clean and elegant, a modest but independent gentleman. Cleanliness, elegance, modesty, independence, and gentlemanliness, of course, give him such advantages that plaintive begging and mean servility could not give him. That handout, which can be thrown to a timid mess who hardly dares to sit on the tip of a chair and strives to kiss a benefactor on the shoulder, is extremely inconvenient, embarrassing and even dangerous to offer to a graceful young man in whom decent modesty coexists in the most harmonious way with an indestructible and eternally vigilant sense of his own. dignity. Such a post, in which it would be absolutely impossible to place a simply and frankly groveling petitioner, is extremely decent for a modestly independent young man who knows how to bow at the right time, smile at the right time, make a serious and even stern face at the right time, give in at the right time or to change his mind, to show noble steadfastness in time, not for a moment losing calm self-control and decently respectful swagger of address. Patrons are generally fond of flatterers; they are pleased to see in the reverence of the people around them an involuntary tribute of delight, brought to the genius of their mind and the incomparable superiority of their moral qualities. But in order for flattery to produce pleasant impression, it should be subtle enough, and the smarter the person being flattered, the finer the flattery should be, and the finer it is, the more pleasant it acts. When flattery turns out to be so crude that the person to whom it is addressed can recognize its insincerity, then it can produce a completely opposite effect on him and seriously harm the unskillful flatterer. Let's take two flatterers: one is thrilled by his patron, agrees with him in everything and clearly shows with all his actions and words that he has no own will , nor his own conviction that he, having now praised one judgment of the patron, is ready in a minute to exalt another judgment, diametrically opposed, if only it was expressed by the same patron; the other, on the contrary, is able to show that, in order to please his patron, he does not have the slightest need to renounce his mental and moral independence, that all judgments of the patron subdue his mind by the power of his own irresistible inner persuasiveness, that he obeys the patron at any given moment. not with a feeling of slavish fear and slavish selfish obsequiousness, but with the lively and deep pleasure of a free man who had the good fortune to find himself a wise and generous leader. It is clear that of these two flatterers the second will go much further than the first. The first will be fed and despised; the first will dress up as jesters; the former will not be allowed further than that lackey role which he has taken upon himself in the short-sighted expectation of future blessings; the second, on the contrary, will be consulted; he can be loved; they may even feel respect for him; he can be made into friends and confidants. The high-society Molchalin, Prince Boris Drubetskoy follows this second path and, of course, carrying his beautiful head high and not soiling the tip of his nails with any kind of work, he will easily and quickly get this way to such well-known degrees that a simple Molchalin will never crawl , innocently scolding and trembling before the boss and humbly making himself an early stoop behind stationery papers. Boris acts in life as a dexterous and quick gymnastic climbs a tree. Standing with his foot on one branch, he is already looking for another with his eyes, for which he could grasp with his hands in the next moment; his eyes and all his thoughts are directed upwards; when his hand has found a reliable point of support, he already completely forgets about that branch on which he just now stood with all the weight of his body and from which his leg is already beginning to separate. Boris looks at all his acquaintances and at all those people with whom he can get to know just as at branches located one above the other, at a more or less distant distance from the top of a huge tree, from that peak where the desired calm awaits a skilled gymnastics among luxury, honors and attributes of power. Boris immediately, with the penetrating gaze of a gifted commander or a good chess player, grasps the mutual relations of his acquaintances and the paths that can lead him from one acquaintance already made to another, still beckoning him to him, and from this other to a third, still wrapped in golden fog of majestic inaccessibility. Having managed to appear to the good-natured Pierre Bezukhov sweet, smart and tough young man, having even managed to embarrass and touch him with his mind and firmness at the very time when he and his mother came to the old Count Bezukhov to ask for poverty and for guard uniforms, Boris gets himself a letter of recommendation from this Pierre to Kutuzov’s adjutant, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, and through Bolkonsky he met Adjutant General Dolgorukov and himself became an adjutant to some important person. Putting yourself in friendly relations with Prince Bolkonsky, Boris immediately carefully separates his leg from the branch on which he was holding. He immediately begins to gradually weaken his friendly ties with a friend of his childhood, the young Count Rostov, with whom he lived in the house for whole years and whose mother had just presented him, Boris, with five hundred rubles for uniforms, received by Princess Anna Mikhailovna with tears of tenderness and joyful gratitude. . After a six-month separation, after the campaigns and battles sustained by the young Rostov, Boris meets with him, with a childhood friend, and on the same first meeting, Rostov notices that Boris, to whom Bolkonsky comes at the same time, seems ashamed to have a friendly conversation with army hussar. The graceful guards officer, Boris, is jarred by the army uniform and army manners of young Rostov, and most importantly, he is embarrassed by the thought that Bolkonsky will form an unfavorable opinion of him, seeing his friendly shortness with a man of bad taste. In Boris's relationship with Rostov, a slight tension is immediately revealed, which is especially convenient for Boris precisely because it is impossible to find fault with it, that it is impossible to eliminate it with frank explanations, and that it is also very difficult not to notice and not feel it. Thanks to this subtle tension, thanks to this subtle dissonance, slightly scratching the nerves, a person of bad taste will be quietly removed, having no reason to complain, be offended and break into ambition, and a person of good taste will see and notice that an elegant guards officer , Prince Boris Drubetsky, indelicate young people climb into friends, whom he meekly and gracefully knows how to push back to their real place. On a campaign, in a war, in secular salons- everywhere Boris pursues the same goal, everywhere he thinks exclusively or at least primarily about the interests of his career. Using with remarkable understanding all the smallest indications of experience, Boris soon turns into a conscious and systematic tactic what had previously been a matter of instinct and happy inspiration for him. He formulates an unerringly correct theory of career, and acts on this theory with the most unswerving constancy. Acquainted with Prince Bolkonsky and approached through him to higher spheres military administration, Boris clearly understood what he had foreseen before, namely, that in the army, in addition to the subordination and discipline that was written in the charter and which was known in the regiment and he knew, there was another more significant subordination, one that forced to wait respectfully for this tightened, purple-faced general, while Captain Prince Andrei, for his own pleasure, found it more convenient to talk with Ensign Drubetskoy. More than ever, Boris decided to continue to serve not according to that written in the charter, but according to this unwritten subordination. He now felt that only as a result of the fact that he had been recommended to Prince Andrei, he had already immediately risen above the general, who in other cases, in the front, could destroy him, the ensign of the guards "(1, 75) 1. Based on the most clear and unambiguous indications of experience, Boris decides once and for all that it is incomparably more profitable to serve persons than to serve a cause, and, as a man who is not in the least bound in his actions by inconsiderate love for any idea or any business, he puts it is a rule for oneself to always serve only persons and always place all one’s hope in no way on one’s own real merits, but only on one’s own a good relationship to influential persons who know how to reward and bring out their faithful and obedient servants. In an accidental conversation about the service, Rostov tells Boris that he will not go to anyone as an adjutant, because this is a "servant position." Boris, of course, turns out to be so free from prejudices that he is not embarrassed by the harsh and unpleasant word "lackey". First, he understands that comparaison nest pas raison(Comparison is not a proof (fr. - Ed.) and what is between an adjutant and a lackey huge difference, because the first is welcomed with pleasure in the most brilliant drawing rooms, and the second is forced to stand in the hall and hold the master's coats. Secondly, he also understands that many lackeys live much more pleasantly than other gentlemen who have every right to consider themselves valiant servants of the fatherland. Thirdly, he is always ready to put on any kind of livery himself, if only it will quickly and surely lead him to the goal. This is what he expresses to Rostov, telling him, in response to his trick about the adjutant, that "I would very much like to become adjutant", "because, having already gone through the career of military service, we must try to do, if possible, brilliant career "(I, 62) 2. This frankness of Boris is very remarkable. It clearly proves that the majority of the society in which he lives and whose opinion he values, completely approves of his views on paving the way, on serving persons, on unwritten subordination and on the undoubted comforts of the livery as a means leading to an end. Boris calls Rostov a dreamer for his trick against serving persons, and the society to which Rostov belongs would, no doubt, not only confirm, but also strengthen this sentence to a very large extent, so that Rostov, for his attempt to deny the system of patronage and unwritten subordination, would turn out not to be a dreamer, but simply a stupid and rude army brawler, incapable of understanding and appreciating the most legitimate and laudable aspirations of well-mannered and respectable youths.Boris, of course, continues to succeed under the shadow of his an infallible theory, fully consistent with the mechanism and spirit of the society among which he seeks wealth and honor. “He completely mastered for himself that unwritten subordination that he liked in Olmutz, according to which the ensign could stand incomparably higher than the general and according to which, for success in the service, not efforts in the service, not labor, not courage, not constancy, were needed, but it was necessary only the ability to deal with those who reward service - and he himself was often surprised at his rapid success and how others could not understand this. As a result of this discovery, his whole way of life, all relations with former acquaintances, all his plans for He was not rich, but he used the last of his money to be better dressed than others, he would rather deprive himself of many pleasures than allow himself to ride in a bad carriage or appear in an old uniform on the streets of Petersburg. He approached and sought acquaintance only with people who were taller than him and therefore could be useful to him "(II, 106) 3. With a special sense of pride and pleasure, Boris enters the houses of high society; he takes an invitation from the maid of honor Anna Pavlovna Sherer for "an important promotion"; at her party, of course, he is not looking for entertainment; he, on the contrary, works in his own way in her living room; he carefully examines the terrain on which he will have to maneuver in order to win new advantages for himself and flood new benefactors; he carefully observes each person and evaluates the benefits and opportunities for rapprochement with each of them. He enters this high society with the firm intention of imitating it, that is, to shorten and narrow his mind as much as necessary, so as not to advance in any way from the general level and not under any pretense to irritate with his superiority this or that limited person who is capable of being useful from the side of unwritten subordination. At Anna Pavlovna's evening, a very stupid young man, the son of the Minister Prince Kuragin, after repeated attacks and long preparations, produces a stupid and hackneyed joke. Boris, of course, is so intelligent that such jokes must jar him and arouse in him that feeling of disgust that is usually born in a healthy person when he has to see or hear an idiot. Boris cannot find this joke witty or amusing, but, being in a high society salon, he does not dare to endure this joke with a serious face, because his seriousness can be mistaken for a tacit condemnation of a pun, over which, perhaps, the cream of St. Petersburg society will be pleased laugh. So that the laughter of this cream does not take him by surprise, prudent Boris takes his measures at the very second when a flat and alien sharpness flies from the lips of Prince Ippolit Kuragin. He smiles cautiously, so that his smile can be attributed to derision or approval of the joke, depending on how it is received. The cream laughs, recognizing in the dear wit the flesh of his flesh and the bone of his bones - and the measures taken in advance by Boris turn out to be salutary for him in a high degree. Silly beauty, worthy sister of Ippolit Kuragin, Countess Helen Bezukhova, who has a reputation for being charming and very smart woman and attracting to her salon everything that shines with intelligence, wealth, nobility or high rank , - finds it convenient to bring the handsome and dexterous adjutant Boris closer to his person. Boris approaches with the greatest readiness, becomes her lover, and in this circumstance he sees, not without reason, a new important promotion. If the path to rank and money passes through the boudoir of a beautiful woman, then, of course, there are no sufficient grounds for Boris to stop in virtuous bewilderment or turn aside. Grasping the hand of her stupid beauty, Drubetskoy cheerfully and quickly continues to move forward towards the golden goal. He asks his closest superior for permission to be in his retinue in Tilsit, during the meeting of both emperors, and makes him feel on this occasion how carefully he, Boris, follows the political barometer and how carefully he thinks through all his smallest words and actions. with the intentions and desires of high people. The person who until now has been General Bonaparte for Boris, a usurper and enemy of mankind, becomes for him Emperor Napoleon and a great man from the moment that, having learned about the proposed meeting, Boris begins to ask to go to Tilsit. Once in Tilsit, Boris felt that his position was strengthened. “He was not only known, but they got accustomed to him and got accustomed to him. Twice he carried out assignments for the sovereign himself, so that the sovereign knew him by sight, and all those close to him not only did not shy away from him, as before, considering him a new face, but would be surprised , if it weren't there" (II, 172) 4 . On the path that Boris is on, there are no stops, no bundles. An unexpected catastrophe can happen, which suddenly collapses and breaks the entire career that has started well and continues successfully; such a catastrophe may overtake even the most cautious and prudent person; but it is difficult to expect from her that she would direct the forces of man to a useful work and open wide scope for their development; after such a catastrophe, a person usually finds himself flattened and crushed; a brilliant, cheerful and prosperous officer or official most often turns into a pitiful hypochondriac, a frankly low beggar, or simply into a bitter drunkard. Apart from such an unexpected catastrophe, given the smooth and favorable course of everyday life, there is no chance that a person in the position of Boris would suddenly break away from his constant diplomatic game, which is always equally important and interesting for him, so that he would suddenly stop, look back at himself. himself, gave himself a clear account of how the living forces of his mind were shrinking and withering, and with an energetic effort of will he suddenly jumped from the path of skillful, decent and brilliantly successful begging to the completely unknown path of ungrateful, tedious and not at all lordly work. The diplomatic game has such addictive properties and gives such brilliant results that a person who has immersed himself in this game soon begins to consider everything that is outside it small and insignificant; all events, all phenomena of private and public life are evaluated according to their relation to gain or loss; all people are divided into means and obstacles; all the feelings of one's own soul are divided into laudable, that is, leading to a win, and reprehensible, that is, distracting attention from the game process. In the life of a person drawn into such a game, there is no place for such impressions from which a strong feeling could unfold, not subordinated to the interests of a career. Serious, pure, sincere love, without an admixture of mercenary or ambitious calculations, love with all the bright depth of its pleasures, love with all its solemn and holy duties cannot take root in the withered soul of a man like Boris. Moral renewal through happy love Boris is unthinkable. This is proved in Count Tolstoy's novel by his story with Natasha Rostova, the sister of that army hussar, whose uniform and manners jar Boris in the presence of Prince Bolkonsky. When Natasha was 12 years old and Boris 17 or 18 years old, they played among themselves in love; once, shortly before Boris left for the regiment, Natasha kissed him, and they decided that their wedding would take place four years later, when Natasha was 16 years old. These four years passed, the bride and groom - if they did not forget their mutual obligations, then at least they began to look at them as a childish prank; when Natasha could really be a bride, and when Boris was already a young man, standing, as they say, on the best road, they saw each other and became interested in each other again. After the first date, "Boris said to himself that Natasha was just as attractive to him as before, but that he should not give in to this feeling, because marrying her, a girl with almost no fortune, would be the death of his career, and the resumption of the former relations without the goal of marriage - it would be an ignoble act "(III, 50) 5. Despite this prudent and saving meeting with himself, despite the decision to avoid meeting with Natasha, Boris gets carried away, begins to travel often to the Rostovs, spends whole days, listens to Natasha's songs, writes poetry for her in an album, and even stops visiting Countess Bezukhova, from whom he receives daily invitation and reproachful notes. He is going to explain to Natasha that he can never and never become her husband, but he still lacks the strength and courage to begin and complete such a delicate explanation. He gets more and more confused every day. But some temporary and fleeting inattention to the great interests of a career is the extreme limit of hobbies possible for Boris. To inflict any serious and irreparable blow on these great interests is unimaginable for him, even under the influence of the strongest passion available to him. As soon as the old Countess Rostova has a serious word with Boris, she only has to let him feel that his frequent visits are noticed and taken into account, and Boris immediately, so as not to compromise the girl and spoil his career, turns into a prudent and noble flight. He ceases to visit the Rostovs and even, having met them at the ball, passes by them twice and turns away each time (III, 65) 6 . Having sailed safely between the pitfalls of love, Boris is already non-stop, in full sail, flying to a reliable pier. His position in the service, his connections and acquaintances, give him entrance to such houses where very rich brides are found. He begins to think that it is time for him to secure a profitable marriage. His youth, his handsome appearance, his presentable uniform, his cleverly and prudently conducted career, are such a commodity that can be sold for a very good price . Boris looks out for a buyer and finds her in Moscow. Julie Karagina, the owner of huge Penza estates and Nizhny Novgorod forests, a twenty-seven-year-old girl with a red face, moist eyes and a chin almost always sprinkled with powder, buys Boris for herself. Before making a bargain, Boris behaves like a clean cat whose hunger tells him to cross a very dirty street and who at the same time does not want to get his velvet paws soaked and soiled to death. Boris, like the same clean cat, is not embarrassed by any moral considerations. To deceive a girl by pretending to be in love with her, to take upon himself the obligation to create her happiness and then turn out to be shamefully untenable in front of her, to ruin her life - all these are such thoughts that do not occur to Boris and do not bother him in the least. If only that, he would not have thought for a minute, just as a clean cat would not have thought to steal and eat a badly cleaned piece of meat. The voice of moral feeling, already quite weak in a 17-year-old boy, thanks to the lessons of such a skillful mother as Princess Anna Mikhailovna was, has long been silent in a young man who has created for himself a whole harmonious theory of unwritten subordination. But the last human weakness has not yet died in Boris; his senile wisdom had not yet crushed in him the ability to feel physical disgust; his body is still young, fresh and strong; this body has its needs, its attractions, its likes and dislikes; this body cannot always and everywhere be an obedient and uncomplaining instrument of the spirit striving for a consolidated position in high society; the body is indignant, the body is in revolt, and the frost cuts Boris's skin at the thought of the price that he will have to pay for the Penza estates and the Nizhny Novgorod forests. It was easy and pleasant for Boris to pass through the boudoir of Countess Bezukhova, it was easy and pleasant for Boris to pass through it, because Napoleon himself, seeing Countess Bezukhova in the box of the Erfurt theater, said about her: "c" est un superbe animal! animal (fr. - Ed.) But in order to get through the bedroom of Julie Karagina to the desk in which the income from the Penza estates is deposited, Boris had to endure a stubborn and prolonged struggle with the rebellious body. "Julie had long been expecting an offer from her melancholic adorer and was ready to receive him; but some secret feeling of disgust for her, for her passionate desire to marry, for her unnaturalness, and a feeling of horror at the renunciation of the possibility true love still stopped Boris ... Every day, reasoning with himself, Boris told himself that tomorrow he would make an offer. But in the presence of Julie, looking at her red face and chin, almost always sprinkled with powder, at her moist eyes and at the expression on her face, expressing her always readiness to immediately move from melancholy to the unnatural rapture of marital happiness, Boris could not utter a decisive word, despite the fact that for a long time in his imagination he considered himself the owner of the Penza and Nizhny Novgorod estates and distributed the use of income in them "(III, 207) 7. It goes without saying that Boris emerges victorious from this painful struggle, just as he emerged victorious from another struggle with the same whimsical body that pulled him to Natasha Rostova.Both victories pleased maternal heart Anna Mikhailovna; both would no doubt be strongly approved by the verdict public opinion always disposed to sympathize with the triumph of the spirit over the mother. At that moment, when Boris, flushing with a bright blush and paying with this blush the last tribute to his youth and human weakness, proposes to Julie Karagina and declares his love for her, he consoles and reinforces himself with the thought that "he can always arrange it so that he rarely sees her" (III, 209) 8 . Boris adheres to the rule that only hopelessly stupid people act frankly in a commercial business and that clever deceit is the soul of a commercial operation. And in fact, if, having sold himself, he thought of handing over to the buyer all the goods sold, what pleasure and what benefit would the arranged transaction give him? Let us now deal with the young army hussar, Nikolai Rostov. This is the complete opposite of Boris. Drubetskoy is prudent, restrained, cautious, measures and weighs everything and acts in everything according to a pre-compiled and carefully thought-out plan. Rostov, on the contrary, is bold and ardent, incapable of and does not like to think, always acts headlong, always gives himself over to the first impulse, and even feels some contempt for those people who know how to resist perceived impressions and process them in themselves. Boris, without any doubt, is smarter and deeper than Rostov. Rostov, in turn, is much more gifted, more responsive and versatile than Boris. Boris has much more ability to carefully observe and carefully generalize the surrounding facts. In Rostov, the ability to respond with all your being to everything that asks, and even to that which has no right to ask the heart for an answer, prevails. Boris, at proper development his abilities, he could become a good researcher. Rostov, with the same correct development, would, in all likelihood, become an outstanding artist, poet, musician or painter. The essential difference between the two young people is indicated from their first step in the worldly field. Boris, who has nothing to live on, by the grace of his reptile mother, squeezes into the guards and lives there at someone else's expense, in order only to be in sight and more often come into contact with high-ranking persons. Rostov, who receives 10,000 rubles a year from his father and has the full opportunity to live in the guards no worse than other officers, goes, blazing with militant and patriotic fervor, to the army cavalry in order to quickly get into business, ride a zealous horse and surprise himself and others feats of dashing horsemanship. Boris is looking for lasting and tangible benefits. Rostov desires, above all and at all costs, noise, brilliance, strong sensations, spectacular scenes and bright pictures The image of a hussar, as he flies into the attack, waves his saber, sparkles with his eyes, tramples on a trembling enemy with the steel hooves of an indomitable horse, mustaches, jingling with spurs, shining with the golden laces of the Hungarian, with his eagle gaze sows anxiety and confusion in the hearts of young beauties - all these images, merging into one vaguely charming impression, decide the fate of the young and ardent Count Rostov and encourage him, leaving the university, in which, no doubt, he found little attraction for himself, to rush headlong and plunge headlong into the life of an army hussar. Boris enters his regiment calmly and coolly, behaves decently and meekly with everyone, but neither with the regiment in general, nor with any of the officers in particular, does he establish any close and sincere relations. Rostov literally throws himself into the arms of the Pavlograd Hussar Regiment, becomes addicted to him as to his new family, immediately begins to cherish his honor as his own, out of enthusiastic love for this honor, makes rash acts, puts himself in awkward situations, quarrels with the regimental commander, repents of his negligence before the synod of old officers and, with all his youthful resentment and irascibility, dutifully listens to the friendly remarks of the old men, teaching him reason and teaching him the basic principles of Pavlograd hussar morality. Boris strives to sneak out of the regiment as soon as possible to become adjutants. Rostov considers the transition to adjutant as some kind of betrayal of the dear and dear Pavlograd regiment. For him, this is almost the same as leaving the woman he loves in order to marry a rich bride for convenience. All the adjutants, all the “staff thugs,” as he contemptuously calls them, in his eyes are some kind of soulless and unworthy apostates who sold their brothers in arms for a dish of lentils. Under the influence of this contempt, he, without any good reason, to horror and annoyance Boris, in the latter's apartment, starts a quarrel with Bolkonsky's adjutant, a quarrel that remains without bloody consequences only thanks to Bolkonsky's calm firmness and self-control.Rostov, to Boris's surprise, throws under the table a letter of recommendation procured for him, Rostov, by caring parents to Prince Bagration; In this, as we already know, he directly calls the adjutant service a lackey.He does not reflect on the fact that adjutants are absolutely necessary in the general system of military affairs; true benefit to the general course of hostilities and not in the least humiliating his personal human dignity before anyone. He is obviously unable to grasp and define the difference between written and unwritten subordination, between serving individuals and serving a cause. He indignantly denies adjutantship for himself and despises it in others, simply because the Pavlograd officers, taking into consideration him county title and a good condition, at first he was suspected of intending to jump out of the regiment into adjutant, and he immediately began to deny and spit from such an insulting suspicion of heartlessness with virtuous horror. Boris does not get into an enthusiastic, obsequious student relationship with anyone; he is always ready to subtly and decently flatter the person from whom he somehow hopes to make himself a cash cow; he is always ready to notice in another, to adopt and assimilate for himself some skill that can bring him success in society and promotion; but the disinterested and simple-hearted adoration of anyone or anything was completely uncharacteristic of him; he can strive only for benefits, and not for the ideal; he can only envy and imitate people who have overtaken or are overtaking him in service, but he is decidedly incapable of reverence for them, as before the bright and beautiful embodiments of the ideal. In Rostov, on the contrary, ideals, idols and authorities, like mushrooms, grow out of the ground at every step. For him, Vaska Denisov is an ideal, and Dolokhov is an idol, and the staff captain Kirsten is an authority. To believe and love blindly, passionately, boundlessly, pursuing with hatred the fanatic of those who do not kneel before erected idols - this ineradicable need its ebullient nature. This need is manifested most clearly in an enthusiastic look at the sovereign. These are the features of Count Tolstoy depicting his feelings during the highest review in Olmutz. These features characterize both the time and the stratum of society to which Rostov belongs, and personal characteristics Rostov himself. "When the sovereign approached at a distance of 20 steps and Nicolas clearly, to all the details, examined the beautiful, young and happy face of the emperor, he experienced a feeling of tenderness and delight, like which he had not yet experienced." Seeing the sovereign's smile, "Rostov himself involuntarily began to smile and felt an even stronger surge of love for his sovereign. He wanted to show his love for the sovereign in some way. He knew that this was impossible, and he wanted to cry." When the sovereign spoke to the commander of the Pavlograd regiment, Rostov thought that he would have died of happiness if the sovereign had turned to him. When the sovereign began to thank the officers, then "every word was heard by Rostov, like a sound from heaven," and he realized in himself and formulated quite clearly the passionate desire "only to die, to die for him." When the soldiers, "stuffing their hussar breasts," shouted hurray, then "Rostov also shouted, bending down to the saddle, that was his strength, wanting to hurt himself with this cry, only to fully express his delight to the sovereign." When the sovereign stood for several seconds against the hussars, as if in indecision, then "even this indecision seemed majestic and charming to Rostov." Among the masters of the retinue, Rostov noticed Bolkonsky, recalled his quarrel with him at Drubetskoy, which had happened the day before, and asked himself the question: should or should not call him. “Of course it shouldn’t,” thought Rostov now ... “And is it worth thinking and talking about it at such a moment as now? At a moment of such a feeling of love, delight and self-sacrifice, what do all our quarrels and insults mean? I love you, I forgive everyone now." When the regiments pass the sovereign in a ceremonial march, when Rostov, on his Bedouin, most spectacularly passes after his squadron, and when the sovereign says: "well done, Pavlograd!", then Rostov thinks: "My God, how happy I would be if he ordered me to throw myself into the fire." All these features have been collected by me and transferred here with accuracy from pages 70-73 of the first volume 9. Three days later, Rostov once again sees the sovereign and feels happy, "like a lover who has waited for the expected date." He, without looking back, with an enthusiastic instinct feels the approach of the sovereign. Here the colors used by Count Tolstoy flare up with such dazzling brightness that I, fearing to weaken or somehow spoil the impression they should make on the reader, consider it necessary to quote in all its inviolability. “And he felt this (approach) not just by the sound of the hooves of the horses of the approaching cavalcade, but he felt it because, as he approached, everything became brighter, more joyful and more significant and more festive around him. This sun for Rostov moved closer and closer spreading rays of gentle and majestic light around him, and now he already feels himself captured by these rays, he hears his voice - this gentle, calm, majestic and at the same time so simple voice "(I, 84). Fanatic priests are usually more exclusive in their passions than the deity they serve. Burning with an all-consuming and blinding love for their deity, these priests often reach such extreme, ugly and unnatural feelings through this love that they could only offend, anger and anger the deity if it knew of their existence. Rostov sees the sovereign on the square of the town of Vishau, where a rather strong exchange of fire took place a few minutes before the arrival of the sovereign. The bodies of the dead and wounded lie still untidy on the square. The sovereign, "leaning to one side, holding a golden lorgnette by his eye with a graceful gesture," looks at a wounded soldier lying face down, without a shako, with a bloodied head. The sovereign, obviously, sympathizes with the suffering of the wounded; his shoulders tremble, as if from a passing frost, and his left leg convulsively beats the side of the horse with a spur; one of the adjutants, guessing the thoughts and desires of the sovereign, raises the soldier under his arms, and the sovereign, hearing the groan of the dying man, says: "Hush, hush, can't it be quieter?" and at the same time, according to Count Tolstoy, apparently suffers more than the dying soldier himself. Tears filled the sovereign's eyes, and turning to Czartoryski, he said to him: "quelle terrible chose que la guerre!" (What a terrible thing war is! (fr.) - Ed.) At the same time, Rostov, all absorbed in his enthusiastic love, mainly directs his attention to the fact that the soldier is not neat, delicate and magnificent enough to be close to the sovereign and keep his eyes on you. In the soldier, Rostov sees at this moment not a dying man, not a martyr who courageously accepted suffering also for the sovereign’s work, but only a dirty bloody stain, soiling the picture on which the sovereign’s eyes are turned, a stain that gives the sovereign unpleasant sensations, dissonance, capable of up to some degree to upset the nerves of the sovereign, finally, such an object that is to blame for the fact that it cannot feel with an enthusiastic flair for his approach and become, as this approach approaches, brighter, and happier, and more significant, and more festive. Here are the true words of Count Tolstoy: "The wounded soldier was so unclean, rude and vile that Rostov was offended by his closeness to the sovereign" (I, 85) 10 . The sovereign, in all likelihood, would not have been satisfied if he could imagine that love for him prompts the young officers of his loyal and brave army to look with disgust and almost hatred at the suffering of dying soldiers. Boris also feels special excitement when he approaches person of the sovereign, but his excitement is completely different from that experienced by the ingenuous Rostov. He is worried because he feels himself near the source of power, awards, honors, wealth, and in general all those earthly goods, the acquisition of which he firmly decided to devote his whole life. He thinks: oh, if only I could settle down here nearby, and establish myself in such a way that the sun's rays constantly warm me from day to day! That selfish excitement that in such cases takes possession of Boris only strengthens his attentiveness, quickness and resourcefulness. He fulfills completely satisfactorily two instructions to the sovereign given to him during his service, and even in the eyes of Emperor Alexander acquires a reputation as a smart and diligent officer. The excitement that seizes Rostov when he sees the sovereign and approaches him, takes away from him the ability to reflect and discuss his position. On the day of the Battle of Austerlitz, sent with an assignment that he, if not obliged, then at least has every right and even is authorized to convey to the sovereign, Rostov meets the sovereign at a time when the battle is finally and irrevocably lost. Seeing the sovereign, Rostov, as usual, feels immensely happy, partly because he sees him, partly and mainly because he is convinced with his own eyes of the inaccuracy of the rumor that has spread about the wound of the sovereign. Rostov knows that he can and even must directly turn to the sovereign and convey what he was ordered to. But the excitement surging over him robs him of the opportunity to make up his mind in time; “like a young man in love trembles and trembles, not daring to say what he dreams of all night, and looks around frightened, looking for help or an opportunity to escape, when the desired minute has come and he is standing alone with her: so is Rostov now, having reached what he wanted more than anything in the world, did not know how to approach the sovereign, and he had thousands of reasons why it was inconvenient, indecent and impossible" (I, 136) 11. Without deciding to What did he want most in the world?, Rostov drives away, with sadness and despair in the heart , and at the same moment he sees that another officer, seeing the sovereign, directly drives up to him, offers him his services and helps him cross the ditch on foot. Rostov from a distance, with envy and repentance, sees how this officer says something to the sovereign for a long time and with fervor, and how the sovereign shakes hands with this officer. Now, when a minute has passed, Rostov is presented with new thousands of reasons why it was convenient, decent and necessary for him to drive up to the sovereign. He thinks to himself that he, Rostov, could have been in the place of that officer to whom the sovereign shook hands, that his own shameful weakness cut him off and that he had lost the only opportunity to express his enthusiastic devotion to the sovereign. He turns his horse, gallops to the place where the sovereign was - there is no one there. He leaves in complete despair, and in this despair - no matter how subtle and careful analysis we may subject him to - there is nothing in the least resembling the thought of the influence that a conversation with the sovereign could reveal on the further course of his service. This is the simple-hearted and disinterested despair of a young man in love, who, by the grace of his own timidity, has left as a heavy stone on his soul unspoken and long-simmering words of respectful passion. Rostov himself is incapable of analyzing his feelings; he cannot ask himself the question: why do I have this feeling? - cannot, firstly, because he is generally not accustomed to venturing into psychological research and giving himself any clear account of his feelings; and secondly, because in this matter he rightly senses the dangerous germ of corrupting doubt. Ask: why do I feel this or that feeling? means to ponder over the causes and foundations on which this feeling is based, to begin measuring, weighing and evaluating these causes and foundations and to submit in advance to the sentence that, after mature reflection, will be pronounced over them by the voice of our own reason. Who asks himself the question: why? - he obviously feels the need to indicate certain limits to his passion, on which it must stop, so as not to harm the interests of the whole. Who asks why? - he already recognizes the existence of such interests, which for him are more important and dearer than his feelings, and in the name of which and from the point of view of which it is desirable to demand from this feeling an account of its origin. Who asks why? - he already reveals the ability to some extent to renounce his feelings and look at him from the outside, as a phenomenon of the external world, and between feelings that have not experienced this operation on themselves at all, and feelings that we at least once, even for a minute , looked from the side, with the eye of an observer, an objective eye, there is a huge difference. No matter how victorious our feeling may stand the test, nevertheless, one essentially important change will inevitably take place over it: before it, not measured and not investigated, it seemed to us immense and boundless, because we knew neither its beginning, nor its end, nor his possible consequences, nor its actual grounds; but now it, although very large, is nevertheless brought within its limits, which are well known to us. Previously, it, in itself, was a whole world, not connected with anything, living its own independent life, obeying only their own laws, which we did not know, and irresistibly drawing us into their mysterious depths, into which we plunged with a trembling of painful joy and timid reverence; now it has become a phenomenon among other phenomena of our inner world, a phenomenon on which many other feelings, thoughts and impressions that come into contact and collide with it act, a phenomenon that obeys laws that exist outside of it and influences acting on it from outside. . Very many and very strong feelings do not stand the test at all. Question Why? becomes their grave. A satisfactory answer to this question is impossible. Rostov does not ask: Why? -- doesn't know why, and doesn't want to know. He understands with a correct instinct that all the strength of his feelings lies in his perfect immediacy and that that constantly heated mood serves as the firmest bulwark for this feeling, as a result of which he, Rostov, is always ready to see an insult to the shrine in any attempt, his own or someone else's, to become to this feeling or to any of its manifestations into somewhat calm or rational relations. "I," said St. Louis, "will never and never argue with a heretic; I will simply go at him and cut his belly with my sword." This is exactly how Rostov thinks and feels. He is sensitive to the last extreme to everything that deviates in any way from the tone of enthusiastic reverence. Here is the scene played out near Vishau between Rostov and Denisov: Late at night, when everyone had dispersed, Denisov patted his beloved Rostov on the shoulder with his short hand. “There’s no one to fall in love with on a campaign, so he fell in love with a tza,” he said. “Denisov, don’t joke with that,” shouted Rostoz, “this is such a high, such a wonderful feeling, such .. - Ve "yu, ve" yu, d "uzhok, and" I separate, and approve "I am. - No, you don't understand. And Rostov got up and went to wander between the fires, dreaming about how happy it would be to die without saving his life (he did not even dare to dream about this), but simply to die in the eyes of the sovereign (I, 87) 12. Denisov, of course, cannot be suspected of Jacobinism. In this respect, he stands above all doubt, and Rostov knows this, but due to his delicacy, he cannot refrain from screaming when Denisov allows himself a good-natured friendly joke. In this joke, Rostov nevertheless feels the ability to treat, even for a minute, calmly and coolly to the subject of his enthusiastic adoration. This is already enough to cause an outburst of indignation on his part. Put in the place of the dashing Pavlograd hussar and excellent comrade Denisov some stranger , replace a good-natured friendly joke with words expressing serious doubt, and then, of course, you will get as a result from Rostov not a cry, but some kind of sharp, violent act, reminiscent of the program of St. Louis. Two years pass. The second war with Napoleon ends with the defeat of our troops at Friedland and the rendezvous of the emperors in Tilsit. Many events, political and non-political, many perceived impressions, large and small, give Rostov’s mind a painful work that exceeds his strength, and arouse in him a swarm of heavy doubts that he cannot cope with. Arriving in his regiment in the spring of 1807, Rostov finds him in such a position that horses, ugly thin, eat thatched roofs from houses, and people, not receiving any provisions, stuff their stomachs with some sweet machine root, a plant similar to asparagus, from which their hands and feet swell and face. In clashes with the enemy, the Pavlograd regiment lost only two wounded, and hunger and disease destroyed almost half of the people. Those who ended up in the hospital probably died; and the soldiers, sick with fever and swelling, served, dragging their feet in the front by force, if only not to go to the hospital, to a certain and painful death. In the society of officers, the conviction prevails that all these disasters result from colossal abuses in the food department; and this conviction is supported by the fact that all the supplies brought in are of the worst quality. The terrible and disgusting condition of the hospitals and the disorder in the delivery of provisions also cannot be explained by any natural disasters independent of the will of man. Vaska Denisov, a good-natured, honest and brave hussar major, loves his squadron as his family, and sees with bitterness how his soldiers wither and die before his eyes. Having heard that provisions were being transported to the infantry regiment stationed next door, Denisov goes by force to recapture these supplies and really fulfills his intention, arguing that the Pavlograd hussars really do not die from hunger and from the sweet Mashkin root. The regimental commander, having learned about this feat of Denisov, tells him that he is ready to look at it through his fingers, but advises Denisov to go to headquarters and settle the matter in the food department. Denisov goes and begins to explain himself to the provisions official, whom he later, in a conversation with Rostov, calls the chief thief. From the very first words, Denisov tells the chief thief that "it is not the one who takes food to feed his soldiers who does the robbery, but the one who takes it to put it in his pocket." After such a debut, an amicable ending becomes impossible. At the invitation of the chief thief, Denisov goes to sign with the commission agent and here at the table he already sees a real thief, the former Pavlograd officer Telyanin, who stole from him, Denisov, a purse with money, caught in this by Rostov, turned off from the regiment and then attached to the food department. Here a scene is played out, which Denisov himself describes to Rostov as follows: "How are you starving us ?!" Once, once in the face, deftly so it was necessary ... "Ah ... rasprokat-and-so," and ... began to roll. “But I’ve had fun, I can say,” Denisov shouted, showing his white teeth joyfully and angrily from under his black mustache. - I would kill him if they didn't take it away (II, 161) 13 . Of course, the case is tied. Major Denisov is accused of having repulsed the transport, without any call, in a drunken state, appeared to the chief provisions master, called him a thief, threatened to beat him, and when he was taken out, he rushed to the office, beat two officials and dislocated one arm . While the preliminary correspondence on this case is dragging on, Denisov, in one reconnaissance, receives a wound and leaves for the hospital. After the Battle of Friedland, during the armistice, Rostov goes to visit Denisov and sees with his own eyes what kind of care the wounded heroes get. At the very entrance, the doctor warns him that here is a house of lepers, typhus; whoever ascends - death and that a healthy person should not enter unless he wants to stay here. In the dark corridor of Rostov, such a strong and disgusting hospital smell covers him that he is forced to stop and gather his strength to move on. Rostov enters the soldiers' chambers and sees that here the sick and wounded are lying in two rows, with their heads to the walls, on straw or on their own overcoats, without beds. One sick Cossack lies supine, across the aisle, spreading his arms and legs, rolling his eyes and repeating in a hoarse voice: "drink - drink - drink!" No one raises him, no one gives him a sip of water, and the hospital attendant, whom Rostov orders to help the patient, only diligently rolls his eyes and says with pleasure: "I'm listening, your honor," but does not budge. In another corner, Rostov sees a young dead man next to an old legless soldier and learns from a legless old man that his neighbor "has ended in the morning" and that, despite the intensified and repeated requests of the sick, they still have not been removed. Denisov at first passionately talks about what he brings to clean water embezzlers and robbers, and for more than an hour read to Rostov his poisonous papers, written in response to requests from the military commission, but then he becomes convinced that you can’t break a butt with a whip, and hands Rostov a large envelope with a request for pardon in the name of the sovereign. Rostov travels to Tilsit, finds an opportunity to convey Denisov's request to the sovereign through one cavalry general, and hears with his own ears how the sovereign replies loudly: "I can't, general, and therefore I can't, because the law is stronger than me." In Tilsit, Rostov sees joyful faces, brilliant uniforms, beaming smiles, bright pictures of the world, abundance and luxury - the sharpest contrast to everything that he saw in the dugouts of the Pavlograd regiment, and on the battlefields, and in that house of lepers in which the wounded languishes defendant Denisov. This contrast confuses him, drives whirlwinds of uninvited thoughts into his head and raises clouds of unprecedented doubts in his soul. Boris immediately, without the slightest struggle, recognized General Bonaparte as Emperor Napoleon and a great man, and even tried to arrange so that his readiness and diligence in this regard would be noticed by the authorities and imputed to him as a dignity. Boris would just as willingly and with the same pleasant smile recognize the convicted thief Telyanin as honest man and for the most valiant patriot, if such a recognition could please the authorities. Boris, no doubt, would not have allowed himself a robbery attack on his own Russian transports in order to deliver lunch and dinner to the hungry soldiers of his company. Boris, of course, would not have carried out savage violence against a particular Russian official, no matter how ambiguous deeds this official's past may have been filled with. Boris, of course, would rather stretch out his hand to Telyanin, whom the authorities recognize as an honest citizen, than to Denisov, whom the military court will be forced to punish as a robber and a brawler. If Rostov were able to assimilate for himself the shameless and fearless flexibility of Boris, if he once and for all put aside the desire to love what he serves and serve what he loves, then, of course, the Tilsit scenes with their brilliance would have produced on the most pleasant impression on him, the hospital miasma would only make him hold his nose tighter, and the Denisov case would lead him to instructive reflections on how harmful it is for a person to not be able to curb his passions. He would not be embarrassed by contrasts and contradictions; content with the truth that what exists exists and that in order to successfully pass the service career, one must study the requirements of reality and adapt to them, he would not urgently wish that everything that exists was harmonious, reasonable and beautiful in itself. But Rostov does not see and does not understand for what merits General Bonaparte was promoted to Emperor Napoleon; he does not see and does not understand why he, Rostov, must today be kind to those Frenchmen whom he yesterday had to cut with a saber; why Denisov, for his love for the soldiers, whom he was obliged to protect and cherish, and for his hatred for the thieves, whom no one ordered him to love, should be shot or at least demoted to the soldiers; why people who fought bravely and honestly performed their duty, under the supervision of paramedics and military doctors, should die a slow death in leper houses, into which it is dangerous for a healthy person to enter; why scoundrels like the expelled officer Telyanin should have an extensive and active influence on the fate of the Russian army. An experienced person in Rostov's place would have calmed down on the consideration that absolute perfection is unattainable, that human strength is limited, and that mistakes and internal contradictions are the inevitable fate of all human undertakings. But experience is gained at the cost of disappointments, and the first disappointment, the first violent collision of brilliant childish illusions with the crude and unkempt facts of real life, usually constitutes a decisive turning point in the history of the person who experiences it. After this first collision, the integral beliefs of childhood in the easy, inevitable and everlasting triumph of good and truth, beliefs arising from ignorance of evil and lies, are shattered; man sees himself among the shattering ruins; he tries to cling to the fragments of the building in which he hoped to safely spend his whole life; he is looking for something strong and durable in a pile of shattered illusions; he is trying to build himself a new building from the surviving debris, more modest, but more reliable than the first; this attempt leads to failure and breeds new disappointment. The ruins decay into their component parts; the wreckage crumbles into small pieces and turns into fine dust under the hands of a person who conscientiously tries to keep them intact. Going from disappointment to disappointment, a person finally comes to the conclusion that all his thoughts and feelings, sent into him no one knows when and grown with him, need the most careful and strict verification. This conviction becomes the starting point of that process of development, which can lead a person to a more or less clear and distinct understanding of everything around him. Not everyone is capable of courageously enduring the first disappointment. Our Rostov belongs to the number of those incapable. Instead of peering into the facts that overturn his infantile illusions, with cowardly obstinacy and cowardly bitterness, he closes his eyes and drives away his thoughts as soon as they begin to take a direction too unusual for him. Rostov not only closes his eyes, but also, with fanatical zeal, tries to close the eyes of others. Having failed in the Denisov case and having seen enough of the Tilsit brilliance that pricked his eyes, Rostov chooses a good part, which is never taken away from the poor in spirit and rich in cash. He pours over his doubts with two bottles of wine and, having brought his hussar daring to the proper size, begins to shout at two officers who expressed their displeasure at the peace of Tilsit. “And how can you judge which would be better!” he shouted, his face suddenly flushed with blood. - How can you judge the actions of the sovereign, what right do we have to reason ?! We cannot understand either the purpose or the actions of the sovereign. “Yes, I didn’t say a word about the sovereign,” the officer justified himself, except by the fact that Rostov was drunk, unable to explain his temper to himself. But Rostov did not listen to him. “We are not diplomatic officials, but we are soldiers and nothing more,” he continued. - They tell us to die - so die (with these words, Rostov resolves the doubts aroused in him by the leper house). And if they are punished, then it means that they are guilty; it is not for us to judge (this is in the Denisov case). It is pleasing to the sovereign emperor to recognize Bonaparte as emperor and conclude an alliance with him, which means that this is how it should be (and this is reconciliation with the Tilsit scenes). Otherwise, if we began to judge and reason about everything, nothing sacred would remain that way. So we say that there is no God, there is nothing, - Nikolai shouted, striking the table, very inappropriately according to the concepts of his interlocutors, but very consistently in the course of his thoughts. “Our business is to do our duty, to fight and not to think, that’s all,” he concluded. “And drink,” said one of the officers, who did not want to quarrel. “Yes, and drink,” Nikolai picked up. -- Hey, you! Another bottle! he shouted (II, 185). Two bottles drunk on time rewarded the young Count Rostov with the surest medicine against disappointments, doubts and all sorts of painful internal breaking and bulkheads. Who was lucky during the first mental storm to discover the saving formula: our job is not to think _, and calm himself with this formula, even for a minute, even with the assistance of two bottles - he, in all likelihood, will always run away under the protection of this formula, as soon as uncomfortable doubts begin to stir in him and he begins to be overcome by an anxious urge to free exploration. Our job is not to think- this is such an unassailable position that no evidence of experience can break and before which all evidence will remain powerless. Free thought has nowhere to land, and it is impossible for it to gain a foothold on the shore on which this stronghold rises. The saving formula undercuts it at its first appearance. As soon as a person captures himself in the matter of weighing and comparing the impressions he has received, as soon as he notices in himself an inclination to reflect and generalize involuntarily collected facts, he immediately, relying on his formula and remembering the wonderful calm that it brought him, will say to himself, that this is a sin, that this is a devilish obsession, that this is a disease, and he will go to be treated with wine, screaming, gypsies, dog hunting, and in general that motley change of strong sensations that a densely built and wealthy Russian nobleman can give himself. If you begin to prove to such a strengthened person that his saving formula is unreasonable, then your evidence will be wasted, in vain. The formula will show its indestructibility from this side as well. Its most precious virtue lies precisely in the fact that it does not need any reasonable grounds and even excludes the possibility of such grounds. Indeed, in order to prove the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a formula, in order to attack or defend it, one must think, and since our job is not to think, then all kinds of proofs, in themselves, regardless of the goals to which they tend, must be recognized as superfluous and reprehensible. Rostov remains invariably true to the rule opened in the Tilsit tavern, with the assistance of two bottles of wine. Thinking does not show any influence on his whole future life. Doubts no longer disturb his peace of mind. He knows and wants to know only his service and the noble entertainments characteristic of a rich landowner and a dashing hussar. His mind refuses all work, even that which is necessary to save the family property from the machinations of the roguish, but obviously illiterate clerk Mitenka. He shouts with great energy at Mitenka and very deftly pushes him with his foot and knee in the ass, but after this stormy scene Mitenka remains the sovereign manager of the estate, and things continue to go on as before. Not even knowing how to put his money affairs in order and appease a house thief, Rostov, all the more, does not know how and does not want to comprehend his life by some kind of occupation that requires any complex and consistent mental operations. Books don't seem to exist for him. Reading does not seem to occupy any place in his life, even as a means of killing time. Even Moscow Savor seems to him too tangled and intricate, too crowded with complex considerations and puzzling subtleties. He is completely satisfied only by life in the regiment, where everything is defined and measured, where everything is clear and simple, where there is absolutely nothing to think about and where there is no room for hesitation and free choice . He likes regimental life in peacetime, he likes it precisely because it is unbearable to a person who is at all capable of thinking: he likes it with its calm idleness, imperturbable routine, sleepy monotony and the fetters that it imposes on all kinds of manifestations of personal ingenuity and originality. Since the world of thought is closed to Rostov, his development in the twentieth year of his life is completed. By the age of twenty, all the content of life for him has already been exhausted; it only remains for him to first become coarse and stupid, and then to grow decrepit and decompose. This lack of future, this fatal sterility and inevitable decay are hidden from the eyes of the superficial observer by the appearance of freshness, strength and responsiveness. Looking at Rostov, a superficial observer will say with pleasure: "How much fire and energy is in this young man! How boldly and cheerfully he looks at life! What an abundance of unspoiled and unspent youth is in him!" In all likelihood, Rostov will make a favorable impression on such a superficial observer, he will like Rostov, as many readers no doubt liked him, and even, perhaps, the author of the novel himself. It would not occur to a superficial observer that in Rostov there is not precisely that which constitutes the most essential and deeply touching charm of a healthy and fresh youth. When we look at a strong and young being, we are excited by the joyful hope that his forces will grow, unfold, apply themselves to the cause, take an active part in the great worldly struggle, increase at least a little the mass of life-giving happiness existing on earth and destroy at least a particle of the accumulated absurdities, ugliness and suffering. We do not yet know the limit at which the development of these forces will stop, and it is precisely this uncertainty that in our eyes constitutes the greatest charm of a young creature. Who knows? - we think: perhaps something very large, pure, bright, strong and fearless is being worked out here before us. The young creature, full of life and energy, is the most entertaining mystery for us, and this mystery gives it a special attraction. It is precisely this charming mystery that Rostov lacks, and only a superficial observer, looking at him, can maintain an indefinite hope that his unspent forces will concentrate on something good and apply to something sensible. Only a superficial observer can, admiring his liveliness and ardor, leave aside the question of whether this liveliness and ardor is useful for anything. A superficial observer is able to admire the youthful ardor of Rostov, for example, during a dog hunt, when he turns to God with a prayer that the wolf come out on him, when he says, exhausted from excitement: “Well, what should you do for me? I know that you are great and that it’s a sin to ask you about it; but, for God’s sake, make a hardened one get out on me and so that Karay, in front of his uncle, who is looking over there, grabs him with a death grip on the throat, "- - when, during the persecution, He passes from boundless joy to the most gloomy despair, weepingly calls the old dog Karay his father and, finally, feels happy seeing a wolf surrounded and torn apart by dogs. He who does not stop at the cheerful appearance of phenomena, that noisy and lively stage hunting will lead to the saddest reflections. If such a trifle, such rubbish as a fight between a wolf and several dogs, can give a person a complete set of strong sensations, from frenzied despair to insane joy, with all the intermediate semitones and modulations, then why would this person care about expanding and deepening his life? Why should he look for work, why should he create interests for himself in the vast and stormy sea of social life, when the stable, the kennel and the nearest forest satisfy all the needs of his nervous system in abundance? Analysis of Rostov's relationship to his beloved woman, analysis of other characters, more complex, namely: Pierre Bezukhov, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky and Natasha Rostova, as well as general conclusions regarding the entire society depicted in the novel, I consider it necessary to postpone until the publication of the fourth volume,
NOTES
The following abbreviations are adopted in the notes: 1st ed. -- Pisarev D. I. Op. Ed. F. Pavlenkov at 10 pm St. Petersburg, 1866-1869.
OLD GENERAL
For the first time - "Domestic Notes", 1868, No 2, otd. II. " Modern review", pp. 263-291, unsigned. Then - 1st ed., Part 10 (1869), pp. 254-283. Here it is reproduced according to the text of the 1st ed. with the correction of individual proofreading errors of the journal publication. Table of Contents #2" Domestic notes"It is indicated:" Article one. "This indicates Pisarev's intention to give a number of articles about Tolstoy's novel and his heroes. However, this plan remained unfulfilled. "War and Peace" is quoted in the article on the first edition of the novel (1868). In the first and second editions "War and Peace" (1868-1869) the novel was divided into six volumes.The first volume of these editions contained parts 1-3 of the first volume according to the later (starting from the 3rd edition of 1873) division of the novel into four volumes, the second volume contained parts 12, and volume three - parts 3-5 of volume 2. Pisarev's article concerned the content of the three volumes of the first edition published by the beginning of 1868, which corresponds to the first two volumes according to the later division of the novel.Volume 1 in the first edition of 1868 had a separate pagination included in parts 1 to 3. In the following notes to the references to volumes and pages of the 1868 edition, available in the text of the article, indications are given to the corresponding parts and chapters of the first and second volumes according to the accepted division. 1.2 See Ch. VII part 3 v. 1. 3 See Ch. VI h. 2 v. 2. 4 See Ch. XIX part 2 v. 2. 5 See Ch. XII part 3 v. 2. 6 Mention is made of the events referred to in ch. XIII and XVI hours. 3 v. 2. 7 See Ch. V h. 5 v. 2. 8 Quote from Ch. V h. 5 v. 2 with slight changes in the text. 9 See Ch. VIII h. 3 v. I. 10 See ch. X h. 3 v. I. 11 See ch. XVIII part 3 v. 1. 12 See Ch. X h. 3 v. 1. 13 See Ch. XVI part 2 v. 2. 14 Quote from ch. XXI part 2 v. 2. Pisarev's remarks in parentheses.
2.2 The novel "War and Peace" and its characters in the assessments of literary criticism
“Art is a historical phenomenon, therefore, its content is social, while the form is taken from the forms of nature.”
Already after the completion of the publication of the novel, by the beginning of the 70s. there were mixed reviews and articles. Critics became more and more strict, especially the 4th, "Borodino" volume and the philosophical chapters of the epilogue caused a lot of objections. But, nevertheless, the success and scale of the epic novel became more and more obvious - they manifested themselves even through disagreement or denial.
Writers' judgments of their colleagues' books are always of particular interest. After all, the writer considers someone else's artistic world through the prism of his own. Such a view, of course, is more subjective, but it can reveal unexpected sides and facets in the work that professional criticism does not see.
F.M. Dostoevsky's statements about the novel are fragmentary. He agreed with Strakhov's articles, denying only two lines. At the request of the critic, these two lines are named and commented: “Two lines about Tolstoy, with which I do not fully agree, is when you say that L. Tolstoy is equal to everything that is great in our literature. It is absolutely impossible to say! Pushkin, Lomonosov - geniuses. To appear with “Arap of Peter the Great” and with “Belkin” means resolutely appearing with a brilliant new word, which until then had never been said anywhere and never. To appear with “War and Peace” means to appear after this new word, already expressed by Pushkin, and this is all in any case, no matter how far and high Tolstoy goes in developing the new word already spoken for the first time by a genius. At the end of the decade, while working on A Teenager, Dostoevsky once again recalls War and Peace. But it remained in drafts, detailed reviews of F. M. Dostoevsky are no longer known.
Even less is known about the reader's reaction of M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin. In T.A. Kuzminskaya was given his remark: “These military scenes are nothing but lies and vanity. Bagration and Kutuzov are puppet generals. In general, - the chatter of nannies and mothers. But our so-called “high society” the count famously snatched.
Close to Leo Tolstoy poet A.A. Fet wrote several detailed analysis letters to the author himself. Back in 1866, having read only the beginning of 1805, Fet foresaw the judgments of Annenkov and Strakhov about the nature of Tolstoy's historicism: “I understand that the main task of the novel is to turn a historical event inside out and consider it not from the official side of the front caftan, but from a shirt, that is, a shirt that is closer to the body and under the same shiny general uniform. The second letter, written in 1870, develops similar ideas, but A. Fet's position becomes more critical: “You write a lining instead of a face, you turned the content upside down. You are a freelance artist and you are quite right. But the artistic laws for all content are unchanging and inevitable, like death. And the first law is the unity of representation. This unity in art is achieved in a completely different way than in life ... We understood why Natasha lost her resounding success, we realized that she was not drawn to sing, but was drawn to be jealous and feed her children intensely. They realized that she did not need to think about belts and ribbons and ringlets of curls. All this does not harm the whole idea of her spiritual beauty. But why was it necessary to stress that she had become a slut. This may be true, but this is an intolerable naturalism in art ... This is a caricature that breaks harmony.
The most detailed writer's review of the novel belongs to N.S. Leskov. The series of his articles in Birzhevye Vedomosti, dedicated to volume 5, is rich in thoughts and observations. The stylistic compositional form of Leskov's articles is extremely interesting. He breaks the text into small chapters with characteristic headings (“Upstarts and choronyaks”, “Hereless Bogatyr”, “Enemy Force”), boldly introduces digressions (“Two anecdotes about Yermolov and Rostopchin”).
Difficult and changing was the attitude towards the novel by I.S. Turgenev. Dozens of his responses in letters are accompanied by two printed ones, very different in tone and direction.
In 1869, in the article "On the occasion of "Fathers and Sons"," I.S. Turgenev casually mentioned "War and Peace" as a wonderful work, but still devoid of "true meaning" and "true freedom." Turgenev's main reproaches and claims, which were repeatedly repeated, are collected in a letter to P.V. Annenkov, written after reading his article “A historical increase, from which readers are delighted, puppet comedy and charlatanism ... Tolstoy strikes the reader with the toe of Alexander’s boot, Speransky’s laughter, forcing him to think that he knows about all this, if he even reached these trifles, and He only knows the little things... There is no real development in any character, but there is an old habit to convey vibrations, vibrations of one and the same feeling, position, what he so mercilessly puts into the mouth and into the consciousness of each of the characters ... Tolstoy does not seem to know another psychology or with the intention of it ignores." This detailed assessment clearly shows the incompatibility of Turgenev's "secret psychologism" and Tolstoy's "penetrating" psychological analysis.
The final review of the novel is equally ambiguous. “I read the sixth volume of War and Peace,” writes I.S. Turgenev to P. Borisov in 1870, “of course, there are first-class things; but, not to mention children's philosophy, it was unpleasant for me to see the reflection of the system even on the images drawn by Tolstoy ... Why does he try to assure the reader that if a woman is smart and developed, then she is certainly a phrase-monger and a liar? How did he lose sight of the Decembrist element that played such a role in the 1920s - and why are all decent people with him some kind of chumps - with a little bit of foolishness?
But time passes, and the number of questions and claims gradually decreases. Turgenev comes to terms with this novel, moreover, he becomes his faithful propagandist and admirer. “This is a great work of a great writer, and this is true Russia” - this is how I.S. Turgenev’s fifteen-year reflections on “War and Peace” come to an end.
One of the first with an article on "War and Peace" was P.V. Annenkov, old, from the mid-50s. acquaintance of the writer. In his article, he revealed many features of Tolstoy's design.
Tolstoy boldly destroys the boundary between “romantic” and “historical” characters, Annenkov believes, drawing both in a similar psychological vein, that is, through everyday life: “The dazzling side of the novel lies precisely in the naturalness and simplicity with which it brings down world events and large phenomena of social life to the level and horizon of vision of any witness chosen by him ... Without any sign of the rape of life and its usual course, the novel establishes a permanent connection between the love and other adventures of its faces and Kutuzov, Bagration, between historical facts of tremendous importance - Shengraben, Austerlitz and worries Moscow aristocratic circle ... ".
“First of all, it should be noted that the author adheres to the first life of any artistic narrative: he does not try to extract from the subject of description what he cannot do, and therefore does not deviate a single step from a simple mental study of it.”
However, the critic found it difficult to discover in War and Peace the “knot of romantic intrigue” and found it difficult to determine “who should be considered the main characters of the novel”: “It can be assumed that we were not the only ones who, after the delightful impressions of the novel, had to ask: where is he himself, this novel, where did he put his real business - the development of a private incident, his "plot" and "intrigue", because without them, no matter what the novel does, it will still seem like an idle novel.
But, finally, the critic perceptively noticed the connection of Tolstoy's heroes not only with the past, but also with the present: “Prince Andrei Bolkonsky introduces into his criticism of current affairs and, in general, into his views on his contemporaries the ideas and ideas that have been formed about them in our time. He has the gift of foresight, which came to him like an inheritance, without difficulty, and the ability to stand above his age, obtained very cheaply. He thinks and judges rationally, but not with the mind of his era, but with another, later one, which was revealed to him by a benevolent author.
N.N. Strakhov paused before speaking about the work. His first articles on the novel appeared at the beginning of 1869, when many opponents had already expressed their point of view.
Strakhov rejects the accusations of the “elitism” of Tolstoy’s book, which were made by a variety of critics: “Despite the fact that one family is a count, and the other is a prince, “War and Peace” does not have even a shadow of a high society character ... The Rostov family and the Bolkonsky family, according to their inner life, according to the relations of their members, they are the same Russian families as any other. Unlike some other critics of the novel, N.N. Strakhov does not utter the truth, but seeks it.
“The idea of War and Peace,” the critic believes, “can be formulated in various ways. It can be said, for example, that the guiding thought of the work is the idea of a heroic life.
“But the heroic life does not exhaust the tasks of the author. Its subject matter is obviously wider. The main idea by which he is guided in depicting heroic phenomena is to reveal their human basis, to show people in heroes. This is how the main principle of Tolstoy's approach to history is formulated: the unity of scale, in the depiction of different characters. Therefore, Strakhov fits the image of Napoleon in a very special way. He convincingly demonstrates why such an artistic image of the French commander was needed in War and Peace: “So, in the person of Napoleon, the artist seemed to want to present to us the human soul in its blindness, he wanted to show that a heroic life can contradict true human dignity, that goodness, truth and beauty can be much more accessible to simple and small people than to other great heroes. A simple person, a simple life, are placed above heroism in this - both in dignity and in strength; for ordinary Russian people with such hearts as those of Nikolai Rostov, Timokhin and Tushin defeated Napoleon and his great army.
These formulations are very close to Tolstoy's future words about "people's thought" as the main one in "War and Peace".
D.I Pisarev spoke positively about the novel: “A new, not yet finished novel by Count. L. Tolstoy can be called an exemplary work in terms of the pathology of Russian society.”
He considered the novel as a reflection of the Russian, old nobility.
"The novel War and Peace presents us with a whole bunch of diverse and excellently finished characters, male and female, old and young." In his work “The Old Nobility”, he very clearly and fully analyzed the characters of not only the main, but also the secondary characters of the work, thereby expressing his point of view.
With the publication of the first volumes of the work, responses began to arrive not only from Russia, but also abroad. The first major critical article appeared in France more than a year and a half after the publication of Paskevich's translation - in August 1881. The author of the article, Adolf Baden, managed to give only a detailed and enthusiastic retelling of "War and Peace" over almost two printed sheets. Only in conclusion did he make a few remarks of an appraisal nature.
Noteworthy are the early responses to the work of Leo Tolstoy in Italy. It was in Italy at the beginning of 1869 that one of the first articles in the foreign press and "War and Peace" appeared. It was "correspondence from St. Petersburg" signed by M.A. and entitled "Count Leo Tolstoy and his novel "Peace and War". Its author spoke in an unfriendly tone about the "realistic school" to which L.N. Tolstoy.
In Germany, as in France, as in Italy, the name of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy by the end of the last century fell into the orbit of a sharp political struggle. The growing popularity of Russian literature in Germany caused anxiety and irritation among the ideologists of imperialist reaction.
The first extended review of War and Peace to appear in English was by critic and translator William Rolston. His article, published in April 1879 in the English magazine "The Nineteenth Century", and then reprinted in the USA, was called "The Novels of Count Leo Tolstoy", but in fact it was, first of all, a retelling of the content of "War and Peace" - namely retelling, not analysis. Rolston, who spoke Russian, tried to give the English public at least an initial idea of L.N. Tolstoy.
As we see at the end of the last chapter, during the first publications, the novel was characterized by different authors in different ways. Many tried to express their understanding of the novel, but not many were able to feel its essence. A great work requires great and deep thought. The epic novel "War and Peace" allows you to think about many principles and ideals.
Conclusion
The work of L.N. Tolstoy is undoubtedly a valuable asset of world literature. Over the years, it has been studied, criticized, admired by many generations of people. The epic novel "War and Peace" allows you to think, analyze the course of events; this is not just a historical novel, although the details of significant events are revealed before us, it is a whole layer of moral and spiritual development of the characters, to which we should pay attention.
In this work, materials were studied that made it possible to consider the work of L. Tolstoy in the context of historical significance
In the first chapter, the features of the novel, its composition were considered, here the history of the creation of the work is presented. We can note that what we have now appeared thanks to the long and hard work of the writer. It was a reflection of his life experience, developed skills. We have found our place here and family lore and folk experiences. “Family thought” and “folk thought” in the novel merge into a single whole, creating harmony and unity of the image. Studying this work, one can understand the life and customs of the people of the time of 1812, catch the mentality of the people through its characteristic representatives.
The epic novel "War and Peace" changed the idea of the war of 1812. The writer's intention was to show the war not only glorifying the victory, but also conveying all the psychological and physical torments that had to go through to achieve it. Here the reader can feel the situation of events, in the form in which it was during the Patriotic War.
In the second chapter, the features of the development of the destinies of the main characters of the work, their spiritual and moral quest. The characters throughout the novel changed their views and beliefs more than once. Of course, first of all, this was due to the decisive, turning points in their lives. The paper considers the development of the characters of the main characters.
For a full evaluation of the work, the points of view of various writers and critics were presented. In the course of the work, it was revealed that, despite the significance of the epic novel "War and Peace", in the first years of its publication, the assessment of contemporaries was not unambiguous. There is an opinion that contemporaries were not ready to understand the meaning of the work. However, those small critical responses were a natural reaction to the appearance of a huge, complex work. Having comprehended all its significance, most literary critics agreed that this is a truly remarkable legacy of the "Golden Age" of literature.
Summing up the work, we can say that the epic novel "War and Peace" with dignity can bear the title of a masterpiece of Russian literature. Here, not only the main events of the beginning of the 19th century are reflected in their full breadth, but also the main principles of the nationality, both its high society and ordinary people, are manifested. All this in a single stream is a reflection of the spirit and life of the Russian people.
List of used literature
1. Annenkov P.V. Critical Essays. - St. Petersburg, 2000. S. 123-125, 295-296, 351-376.
2. Annenkov P.V. Literary Memories. - M., 1989. S. 438-439.
3. Bocharov S.G. Tolstoy's novel War and Peace. - M., 1978. S. 5.
4. War over War and Peace. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - St. Petersburg, 2002. S. 8-9, 21-23, 25-26.
5. Herzen A.I. Thoughts on art and literature. - Kyiv, 1987. S. 173.
6. Gromov P.P. On the style of Leo Tolstoy. "Dialectics of the Soul" in "War and Peace". - L., 1977. S. 220-223.
7. Gulin A.V. Leo Tolstoy and the ways of Russian history. - M., 2004. S.120-178.
8. Dostoevsky F.M. Complete works in 30 volumes - L., 1986. - T. 29. - P. 109.
9. Kamyanov V. poetic world epic about Tolstoy's novel War and Peace. - M., 1978. S. 14-21.
10. Kurlyandskaya G.B. The moral ideal of L.N. Tolstoy and F.M. Dostoevsky. - M., 1988. P. 137-149.
11. Libedinskaya L. Living heroes. - M., 1982, S. 89.
12. Motyleva T.L. "War and Peace" abroad. - M., 1978. S. 177, 188-189, 197-199.
13. Ogarev N.P. About literature and art. - M., 1988. S. 37.
14. Opulskaya L.D. Epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1987. pp. 3-57.
15. Writer and criticism of the XIX V. Kuibyshev, 1987, pp. 106-107.
16. Slivitskaya O.V. "War and Peace" L.N. Tolstoy. Problems of human communication. - L., 1988. S. 9-10.
17. Tolstoy L.N. War and Peace. - M., 1981. - T. 2. - S. 84-85.
18. Tolstoy L.N. Correspondence with Russian writers. - M., 1978. S. 379, 397 - 398.
19. Tolstoy L.N. Full coll. cit.: In 90 vols. - M., 1958 - T. 13. - S. 54-55.
20. Tolstoy L.N. Full coll. cit.: In 90 vols. - M., 1958 - T. 60. - S. 374.
21. Tolstoy L.N. Collected works in 20 volumes - M., 1984. - T. 17.- S. 646-647, 652, 658-659, 663-664.
22. Khalishchev V.E., Kormilov S.I. Roman L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1983. S. 45-51.
Herzen A.I. Thoughts on art and literature. - Kyiv, 1987. S. 173
War over War and Peace. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S. 8-9
Opulskaya L.D. Epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1987. S. 3
There. S. 5
Tolstoy L.N. War and Peace. - M., 1981. - T. 2. - S. 84-85.
Tolstoy L.N. Full coll. cit.: In 90 vols. - M., 1958 - T. 13. - S. 54-55.
Tolstoy L.N. Full coll. cit.: In 90 vols. - M., 1958 - T. 60. - S. 374.
There. S. 374.
Opulskaya L.D. Epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1987. S. 53..
There. S. 54.
War over War and Peace. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S. 21-23.
Opulskaya L.D. Epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1987. S. 56.
There. S. 56.
Gulin A.V. Leo Tolstoy and the ways of Russian history. – M., 2004. P.130.
Opulskaya L.D. Epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace". - M., 1987. S. 40.
Gulin A.V. Leo Tolstoy and the ways of Russian history. - M., 2004. S. 131.
17 Ibid. P.133.
There. S. 139
Libedinskaya L. Living heroes. - M., 1982, S. 89.
Gulin A.V. Leo Tolstoy and the ways of Russian history. - M., 2004. P.168.
Ogarev N.P. About literature and art. - M., 1988. S. 37.
Dostoevsky F.M. Complete works in 30 volumes - L., 1986. - T. 29. - P. 109.
Tolstoy L.N. Correspondence with Russian writers. - M., 1978. S. 379.
There. pp. 397 - 398.
War over War and Peace. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S. 25-26.
There. S. 26.
There. S. 22.
Annenkov P.V. Critical Essays. - SPb., 2000. S. 123-125.
War over War and Peace. Roman L.N. Tolstoy in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S. 22
There. S. 26
There. S. 26.
Motyleva T.L. "War and Peace" abroad. - M., 1978. S. 177.
A single scale for the depicted phenomena and persons, without violating the proportions between the human and the national. Comprehending the causes of wars, Tolstoy reveals the mechanisms of action of the laws of history, strives for a deep philosophical understanding of the idea of war and peace, embodied in the novel at various thematic levels. The potential of the name lies in the possibility of interpreting the concepts of "war" and "...
Labor that turns man into an appendage of the machine. He denies scientific and technological progress aimed at increasing luxury and pleasure, at multiplying material needs, and, consequently, at corrupting man. Tolstoy preaches a return to more organic forms of life, calls for the rejection of the excesses of civilization, which already threatens the death of the spiritual foundations of life. Tolstoy's doctrine of the family...
In all its purity and power. Only the recognition of this feeling in him made the people, in such strange ways, choose him, an old man in disgrace, against the will of the king, as a representative people's war". 3. Victory and its heroes In the novel, Tolstoy expresses his thoughts on the reasons for Russia's victory in the war of 1812: “No one will argue that the cause of the death of Napoleon's French troops was, with ...
Nests", "War and Peace", "The Cherry Orchard". It is also important that main character The novel, as it were, opens up a whole gallery of "superfluous people" in Russian literature: Pechorin, Rudin, Oblomov. Analyzing the novel "Eugene Onegin", Belinsky pointed out that at the beginning of the 19th century the educated nobility was the estate "in which the progress of Russian society was almost exclusively expressed", and that in "Onegin" Pushkin "decided ...
In 1869, Leo Tolstoy completed work on the greatest epic novel War and Peace. Contemporaries perceived the book in different ways: from stormy enthusiasm to complete rejection. Many opinions were biased, personal, an amateurish approach was felt.
What was needed here was an "equal artist" who would express a real assessment of "War and Peace" in the voice of "those in power." This is exactly what Ivan Sergeevich Turgenev, an older contemporary of Tolstoy and partly his teacher in literature, did.
Tolstoy was an intractable student. His relationship with Turgenev was complex both in life and in literature. It was a strange enmity and a strange friendship between two great contemporaries, which attracted the attention and puzzled biographers. “Not a single writer, not a single critic has paid so much attention to War and Peace,” notes N. N. Gusev, “as Tolstoy's friend-foe, Turgenev.
Turgenev read "War and Peace" as a historical novel and judged this work as he used to judge works of this genre. “Where are the features of the era - where are the historical colors? Turgenev wondered. “The figure of Denisov is smartly drawn, but it would be good as a pattern on the background - but there is no background.”
Turgenev was also surprised by reasoning, “philosophical chapters” that unexpectedly interrupted the narrative: “Tolstoy’s novel is bad not because he, too, has become infected with “reasoning”: he has nothing to fear from this misfortune; he is bad because the author has not studied anything, knows nothing, and under the names of Kutuzov and Bagration brings us some slavishly decommissioned modern generals. Turgenev's first and most significant remark is that War and Peace is not historical enough for a historical novel. “All these little things, cunningly noticed and pretentiously expressed, small psychological remarks. How scanty all this is on the broad canvas of a historical novel.
In a historical novel, the entire chronicle should be "in a single collection." Meanwhile, in Tolstoy the events of 1812 are presented in large scale, and the perspective of 1825 is outlined and, as it were, dissolved in the psychological details of the life of Pierre, Nikolai Rostov and Nikolenka Bolkonsky. “How did he lose sight of the entire Decembrist element that played such a role in the 1920s?” Turgenev wondered.
Besides. Turgenev perceived "War and Peace" as Russian psychological novel who drew much from modern dialectical philosophy. “Aren’t Tolstoy tired,” writes Turgenev, “these eternal arguments about whether I’m a coward, whether I’m or not, all this pathology of the battle?” What Turgenev calls "eternal reasoning" is precisely what he himself paid tribute to in "The Hunter's Notes" ("Hamlet of the Shchigrovsky District") and in the novel "Rudin".
As for aesthetic issues, they caused Turgenev even more concern. “And how cold, dry it all is, how one feels the lack of imagination and naivety in the author, how tediously one memory works before the reader, the memory of the small, random, unnecessary.” Turgenev preferred "Cossacks" to the new historical novel Tolstoy, who seemed to him "an unfortunate product."
But at the same time, Turgenev eagerly awaits the continuation of the novel and carefully reads the new chapters. “But with all that - there are so many first-class beauties in this novel,” he admitted, “such vitality, and truth, and freshness - that it is impossible not to admit that since the appearance of War and Peace, Tolstoy has become in first place among all our modern writers. . I look forward to the fourth volume." Turgenev not only clarified, he posed historical and aesthetic questions in a completely new way. “There are things in this novel that, apart from Tolstoy, no one in the whole of Europe can write, and which aroused chills and a fever of delight in me.”
Turgenev began to read "War and Peace" not only as a historical chronicle of a certain era or a modern novel, but as an eternal book of Russian life. “There are dozens of completely amazing, first-class pages,” Turgenev admits, “everything everyday, descriptive (hunting, riding at night, etc.) ...”
It is a different matter when Tolstoy turns to philosophy. Turgenev did not sympathize religious ideas Tolstoy. It is not surprising, therefore, that he was so skeptical about his philosophy: "The trouble is, if an autodidact, and even in the taste of Tolstoy, will undertake to philosophize."
Reasoning logically (after all, he was not an autodidact, but a professional philosopher with a Berlin diploma), Turgenev came to disappointing conclusions. But he was not only a philosopher, but also a great artist. And when his direct perception received "freedom", the conclusions turned out to be different: "Tolstoy is a real giant between the rest of the literary brothers," Turgenev admitted, "and makes me feel like an elephant in a menagerie: clumsy, even ridiculous - but huge and how smart! May God grant him another twenty volumes to write!”
In his Literary Memoirs, Turgenev stated that Tolstoy, by the strength of his creative talent stands at the head of everything that appeared in European literature since 1840. In other words, he compared his name with the names of such famous Western writers as Balzac, Flaubert, Stendhal.
Turgenev sent Flaubert the first "somewhat weak, but done" with diligence and love "translation of War and Peace." Flaubert was shocked by this book. “Thank you for giving me the opportunity to read Tolstoy's novel,” he wrote to Turgenev. “This is first class work.” Flaubert, like Turgenev, did not feel much sympathy for Tolstoy's philosophical digressions and even said with regret: "He repeats himself and philosophizes." But even his repetition and philosophizing seemed to him an important feature of the very form of the novel, not to mention its content.
It is also characteristic that Flaubert read "War and Peace" as a book about "nature and humanity", while noting that here "he is visible everywhere, the author and the Russian", "What an artist and what a psychologist! writes Flaubert. “The first two volumes are great… Sometimes he reminds me of Shakespeare.”
The controversy about Tolstoy was not all in sight. Part of this intense "search for the truth" was hidden, in personal correspondence. Flaubert's opinion is captured in his letter to Turgenev. Turgenev reported this opinion to Yasnaya Polyana "with diplomatic precision." Turgenev really did a lot to ensure that Russian literature was read in a timely manner and appreciated in Europe. His high prestige in literary circles in the West helped him to fulfill with honor and dignity the historical role that he assumed.
As Turgenev notes, in "War and Peace" main value represents the epic art of storytelling itself. “This extensive work is fanned with an epic spirit; in it, the private and public life of Russia in the first years of our century is recreated with a masterful hand.
“War and Peace” is complex because it presents national life in its historical and eternal forms, “A whole era passes before the reader, rich in great events and great people ... A whole world is unfolding with many types snatched directly from life., belonging to all strata of society."
In an open letter to the publisher (and readers) of a Parisian newspaper, Turgenev characterized this book as a whole. But in general, it seemed to him a kind of encyclopedia, containing universal knowledge about Russia.
“Count Tolstoy is a Russian writer to the marrow of his bones,” writes Turgenev, “and those French readers who are not repelled by some lengthiness and the strangeness of some judgments will have the right to say that War and Peace gave them a more direct and true idea of the character and temperament of the Russian people and about Russian life in general than if they had read hundreds of works on ethnography and history.
Newspaper and magazine criticism In the 60s, at the first appearance of "War and Peace" in the press, she expressed some fundamental provisions about the artistic form of this book, about its historical and aesthetic content.
Not everything that was said then entered the history of literature, not everything was equally valuable. Time has made a selection of material. But even what turned out to be “screened out” played a role in the history of the knowledge of the artistic world of Tolstoy. The era of the 60s demanded "folk thought" in literature and found "War and Peace".
The novel "War and Peace" and its characters in the assessments of literary criticism
“Art is a historical phenomenon, consequently, its content is social, while the form is taken from the forms of nature” On Literature and Art. - M., 1988. S. 37.
Already after the completion of the publication of the novel, by the beginning of the 70s, ambiguous responses and articles appeared. Critics became more and more strict, especially the 4th, "Borodino" volume and the philosophical chapters of the epilogue caused a lot of objections. But, nevertheless, the success and scale of the epic novel became more and more obvious - they manifested themselves even through disagreement or denial.
Writers' judgments of their colleagues' books are always of particular interest. After all, the writer considers someone else's artistic world through the prism of his own. Such a view, of course, is more subjective, but it can reveal unexpected sides and facets in the work that professional criticism does not see.
Statements about the novel are fragmentary. He agreed with Strakhov's articles, denying only two lines. At the request of the critic, these two lines are named and commented: “Two lines about Tolstoy, with which I do not fully agree, is when you say that L. Tolstoy is equal to everything that is great in our literature. It is absolutely impossible to say! Pushkin, Lomonosov - geniuses. To appear with “Arap of Peter the Great” and with “Belkin” means resolutely appearing with a brilliant new word, which until then had never been said anywhere and never. To appear with “War and Peace” means to appear after this new word, already expressed by Pushkin, and this is all in any case, no matter how far and high Tolstoy goes in developing the new word already spoken for the first time by a genius. Dostoevsky collected works in 30 volumes - L., 1986. - T. 29. - S. 109.
At the end of the decade, while working on A Teenager, Dostoevsky once again recalls War and Peace. But it remained in drafts, detailed reviews are no longer known.
Even less is known about the reader's reaction to Shchedrin. His remark was transmitted to B: “These military scenes are one lie and vanity. Bagration and Kutuzov are puppet generals. In general, - the chatter of nannies and mothers. But our so-called “high society” the count famously snatched” War because of “War and Peace”. The novel in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S.
A poet close to Leo Tolstoy wrote to the author himself several detailed analysis letters. Back in 1866, having read only the beginning of “One thousand eight hundred and five,” Fet foresaw the judgments of Annenkov and Strakhov about the nature of Tolstoy historicism: “I understand that the main task of the novel is to turn the historical event inside out and consider it not from the official side of the front door embroidered with gold caftan, but from a shirt, that is, a shirt that is closer to the body and under the same brilliant general uniform ”Tolstoy with Russian writers. - M., 1978. S. 379 .. The second letter, written in 1870, develops similar ideas, but A. Fet's position becomes more critical: “You write a lining instead of a face, you turned the content upside down. You are a freelance artist and you are quite right. But the artistic laws for all content are unchanging and inevitable, like death. And the first law is the unity of representation. This unity in art is achieved in a completely different way than in life ... We understood why Natasha lost her resounding success, we realized that she was not drawn to sing, but was drawn to be jealous and feed her children intensely. They realized that she did not need to think about belts and ribbons and ringlets of curls. All this does not harm the whole idea of her spiritual beauty. But why was it necessary to stress that she had become a slut. This may be in reality, but this is an unbearable naturalism in art ... This is a caricature that breaks harmony ”Ibid. WITH.
The most detailed writer's review of the novel belongs to. The series of his articles in "Birzhevye Vedomosti", devoted to the 5th volume, is rich in thoughts and observations. The stylistic compositional form of Leskov's articles is extremely interesting. He breaks the text into small chapters with characteristic headings (“Upstarts and choronyaks”, “Hereless Bogatyr”, “Enemy Force”), boldly introduces digressions (“Two anecdotes about Yermolov and Rostopchin”). War over War and Peace. The novel in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S.
The relationship to the novel was complex and changing. Dozens of his responses in letters are accompanied by two printed ones, very different in tone and direction.
In 1869, in an article "On "Fathers and Sons"," he casually mentioned "War and Peace" as a wonderful work, but still devoid of "true meaning" and "true freedom." Turgenev's main reproaches and claims, which were repeatedly repeated, are collected in a letter written after reading his article “A historical increase, from which readers are delighted, puppet comedy and charlatanism ... Tolstoy strikes the reader with the toe of Alexander's boot, Speransky's laughter, making him think that he is about everything we know this, if even these trifles have reached, and he knows only these trifles .... There is no real development in any character, but there is an old habit to convey vibrations, vibrations of one and the same feeling, position, what he so mercilessly puts into the mouth and into the consciousness of each of the characters ... Tolstoy does not seem to know another psychology or with the intention of it ignores." This detailed assessment clearly shows the incompatibility of Turgenev's "secret psychologism" and Tolstoy's "penetrating" psychological analysis.
The final review of the novel is equally ambiguous. “I read the sixth volume of War and Peace,” writes P. Borisov in 1870, “of course, there are first-class things; but, not to mention children's philosophy, it was unpleasant for me to see the reflection of the system even on the images drawn by Tolstoy ... Why does he try to assure the reader that if a woman is smart and developed, then she is certainly a phrase-monger and a liar? How did he lose sight of the Decembrist element that played such a role in the 1920s - and why are all decent people with him some kind of blockheads - with a little bit of foolishness? There. S. 26..
But time passes, and the number of questions and claims gradually decreases. Turgenev comes to terms with this novel, moreover, he becomes his faithful propagandist and admirer. "This is a great work of a great writer, and this is true Russia" - this is how fifteen years of reflections on "War and Peace" come to an end.
One of the first with an article on "War and Peace" was an old acquaintance of the writer from the mid-1950s. In his article, he revealed many features of Tolstoy's design.
Tolstoy boldly destroys the boundary between “romantic” and “historical” characters, Annenkov believes, drawing both in a similar psychological vein, that is, through everyday life: “The dazzling side of the novel lies precisely in the naturalness and simplicity with which it brings down world events and major phenomena of social life to the level and horizon of vision of any witness chosen by him ... Without any sign of the rape of life and its usual course, the novel establishes a permanent connection between the love and other adventures of its faces and Kutuzov, Bagration, between historical facts of enormous importance - Shengraben, Austerlitz and worries Moscow aristocratic circle…” Ibid. S. 22..
“First of all, it should be noted that the author adheres to the first life of any artistic narrative: he does not try to extract from the subject of description what he cannot do, and therefore does not deviate a single step from a simple mental study of it” Annenkov essays. - SPb., 2000. S. 123-125 ..
However, the critic found it difficult to discover in "War and Peace" the "knot of romantic intrigue" and found it difficult to determine "who should be considered the main characters of the novel": "It can be assumed that we were not the only ones who, after the delightful impressions of the novel, had to ask: where is he himself, this novel, where did he put his real business - the development of a private incident, his “plot” and “intrigue”, because without them, no matter what the novel does, it will still seem like an idle novel.
But, finally, the critic shrewdly noticed the connection of Tolstoy's heroes not only with the past, but also with the present: “he brings into his criticism of current affairs and in general into his views on his contemporaries the ideas and ideas that have been formed about them in our time. He has the gift of foresight, which came to him like an inheritance, without difficulty, and the ability to stand above his age, obtained very cheaply. He thinks and judges rationally, but not with the mind of his era, but with another, later one, which was revealed to him by a benevolent author. War over War and Peace. The novel in Russian criticism and literary criticism. - SPb., 2002. S. 22.
paused before speaking about the work. His first articles on the novel appeared at the beginning of 1869, when many opponents had already expressed their point of view.
Strakhov rejects the accusations of the “elitism” of Tolstoy’s book, which were made by a variety of critics: “Despite the fact that one family is a count and the other is a prince, “War and Peace” does not have even a shadow of a high society character ... The Rostov family and the Bolkonsky family, according to their inner life, according to the relations of their members, they are the same Russian families as any other. Unlike some other critics of the novel, he does not speak the truth, but seeks it.
“The idea of War and Peace,” the critic believes, “can be formulated in various ways. It can be said, for example, that the guiding thought of the work is the idea of a heroic life.
“But the heroic life does not exhaust the tasks of the author. Its subject matter is obviously wider. The main idea, which he is guided by when depicting heroic phenomena, is to open their human basis, to show people in heroes. This is how the main principle of Tolstoy's approach to history is formulated: the unity of scale, in the depiction of different characters. Therefore, Strakhov fits the image of Napoleon in a very special way. He convincingly demonstrates why such an artistic image of the French commander was needed in War and Peace: “So, I wanted to show that a heroic life can be contrary to true human dignity, that goodness, truth and beauty can be much more accessible to simple and small people, than other great heroes. A simple person, a simple life, are placed above heroism in this - both in dignity and in strength; for ordinary Russian people with such hearts as those of Nikolai Rostov, Timokhin and Tushin defeated Napoleon and his great army"
