Artistic and philosophical understanding of the essence of war in L. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”. Philosophy of history L.N.

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy - a great Russian writer, by birth - a count from the famous noble family. He was born on August 28, 1828 in the Yasnaya Polyana estate located in the Tula province, and died on October 7, 1910 at the Astapovo station.

The writer's childhood

Lev Nikolaevich was a representative of a large noble family, the fourth child in it. His mother, Princess Volkonskaya, died early. At this time, Tolstoy was not yet two years old, but he formed an idea of ​​​​his parent from the stories of various family members. In the novel "War and Peace" the image of the mother is represented by Princess Marya Nikolaevna Bolkonskaya.

Biography of Leo Tolstoy early years marked by another death. Because of her, the boy became an orphan. Leo Tolstoy's father, a participant in the War of 1812, like his mother, died early. This happened in 1837. At that time the boy was only nine years old. Leo Tolstoy's brothers, he and his sister, were entrusted to the upbringing of T. A. Ergolskaya, a distant relative who had enormous influence on the future writer. Childhood memories have always been the happiest for Lev Nikolaevich: family legends and impressions of life in the estate became rich material for his works, reflected, in particular, in the autobiographical story “Childhood”.

Study at Kazan University

Biography of Leo Tolstoy early years marked by such an important event as studying at the university. When the future writer turned thirteen years old, his family moved to Kazan, to the house of the children’s guardian, a relative of Lev Nikolaevich P.I. Yushkova. In 1844, the future writer was enrolled in the Faculty of Philosophy at Kazan University, after which he transferred to the Faculty of Law, where he studied for about two years: studying did not arouse keen interest in the young man, so he devoted himself passionately to various social entertainments. Having submitted a request for dismissal in the spring of 1847, due to poor health and “domestic circumstances,” Lev Nikolaevich left for Yasnaya Polyana with the intention of studying a full course of legal sciences and passing an external exam, as well as learning languages, “practical medicine,” history, and rural studies. economics, geographical statistics, study painting, music and write a dissertation.

Years of youth

In the fall of 1847, Tolstoy left for Moscow and then to St. Petersburg in order to pass candidate exams at the university. During this period, his lifestyle often changed: he either studied various subjects all day long, then devoted himself to music, but wanted to start a career as an official, or dreamed of joining a regiment as a cadet. Religious sentiments that reached the point of asceticism alternated with cards, carousing, and trips to the gypsies. The biography of Leo Tolstoy in his youth is colored by the struggle with himself and introspection, reflected in the diary that the writer kept throughout his life. During the same period, interest in literature arose, and the first artistic sketches appeared.

Participation in the war

In 1851, Nikolai, Lev Nikolaevich’s older brother, an officer, persuaded Tolstoy to go to the Caucasus with him. Lev Nikolaevich lived for almost three years on the banks of the Terek, in Cossack village, traveling to Vladikavkaz, Tiflis, Kizlyar, participating in hostilities (as a volunteer, and then was recruited). The patriarchal simplicity of the life of the Cossacks and the Caucasian nature struck the writer with their contrast with the painful reflection of representatives of educated society and the life of the noble circle, and provided extensive material for the story “Cossacks,” written in the period from 1852 to 1863 on autobiographical material. The stories “Raid” (1853) and “Cutting Wood” (1855) also reflected his Caucasian impressions. They also left a mark in his story “Hadji Murat,” written between 1896 and 1904, published in 1912.

Returning to his homeland, Lev Nikolaevich wrote in his diary that he really fell in love with this wild land, in which “war and freedom,” things so opposite in their essence, are combined. Tolstoy began to create his story “Childhood” in the Caucasus and anonymously sent it to the magazine “Sovremennik”. This work appeared on its pages in 1852 under the initials L.N. and, along with the later “Adolescence” (1852-1854) and “Youth” (1855-1857), formed the famous autobiographical trilogy. His creative debut immediately brought real recognition to Tolstoy.

Crimean campaign

In 1854, the writer went to Bucharest, to the Danube Army, where the work and biography of Leo Tolstoy received further development. However, soon a boring staff life forced him to transfer to besieged Sevastopol, to the Crimean Army, where he was a battery commander, showing courage (awarded with medals and the Order of St. Anne). During this period, Lev Nikolaevich was captured by new literary plans and impressions. He began writing "Sevastopol stories", which were a great success. Some ideas that arose even at that time allow one to discern in the artillery officer Tolstoy the preacher of later years: he dreamed of a new “religion of Christ,” purified of mystery and faith, a “practical religion.”

In St. Petersburg and abroad

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy arrived in St. Petersburg in November 1855 and immediately became a member of the Sovremennik circle (which included N. A. Nekrasov, A. N. Ostrovsky, I. S. Turgenev, I. A. Goncharov and others). He took part in the creation of the Literary Fund at that time, and at the same time became involved in conflicts and disputes among writers, but he felt like a stranger in this environment, which he conveyed in “Confession” (1879-1882). Having retired, in the fall of 1856 the writer left for Yasnaya Polyana, and then, at the beginning of the next year, 1857, he went abroad, visiting Italy, France, Switzerland (impressions from visiting this country are described in the story “Lucerne”), and also visited Germany. In the same year in the fall, Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich returned first to Moscow and then to Yasnaya Polyana.

Opening of a public school

In 1859, Tolstoy opened a school for peasant children in the village, and also helped organize more than twenty similar educational institutions in the Krasnaya Polyana area. In order to get acquainted with the European experience in this area and apply it in practice, the writer Leo Tolstoy again went abroad, visited London (where he met with A.I. Herzen), Germany, Switzerland, France, and Belgium. However, European schools somewhat disappoint him, and he decides to create his own pedagogical system based on personal freedom, publishes teaching aids and works on pedagogy, applies them in practice.

"War and Peace"

Lev Nikolaevich in September 1862 married Sofya Andreevna Bers, the 18-year-old daughter of a doctor, and immediately after the wedding he left Moscow for Yasnaya Polyana, where he devoted himself entirely to household concerns and family life. However, already in 1863, he was again captured by a literary idea, this time creating a novel about the war, which was supposed to reflect Russian history. Leo Tolstoy was interested in the period of our country's struggle with Napoleon at the beginning of the 19th century.

In 1865, the first part of the work “War and Peace” was published in the Russian Bulletin. The novel immediately evoked many responses. Subsequent parts provoked heated debate, in particular, the fatalistic philosophy of history developed by Tolstoy.

"Anna Karenina"

This work was created in the period from 1873 to 1877. Living in Yasnaya Polyana, continuing to teach peasant children and publish his pedagogical views, Lev Nikolaevich in the 70s worked on a work about the life of contemporary high society, building his novel on the contrast of two storylines: family drama Anna Karenina and the domestic idyll of Konstantin Levin, close in psychological pattern, and in beliefs, and in lifestyle to the writer himself.

Tolstoy strove for an externally non-judgmental tone of his work, thereby paving the way for a new style of the 80s, in particular, folk stories. The truth of peasant life and the meaning of existence of representatives of the “educated class” - these are the range of questions that interested the writer. “Family thought” (according to Tolstoy, the main one in the novel) is translated into a social channel in his work, and Levin’s self-exposures, numerous and merciless, his thoughts about suicide are an illustration of what he experienced in the 1880s spiritual crisis author, which matured while working on this novel.

1880s

In the 1880s, Leo Tolstoy's work underwent a transformation. The revolution in the writer’s consciousness was reflected in his works, primarily in the experiences of the characters, in the spiritual insight that changes their lives. Such heroes occupy a central place in such works as “The Death of Ivan Ilyich” (years of creation - 1884-1886), “The Kreutzer Sonata” (a story written in 1887-1889), “Father Sergius” (1890-1898), drama "The Living Corpse" (left unfinished, begun in 1900), as well as the story "After the Ball" (1903).

Tolstoy's journalism

Tolstoy's journalism reflects his spiritual drama: depicting pictures of the idleness of the intelligentsia and social inequality, Lev Nikolayevich posed questions of faith and life to society and himself, criticized state institutions, going so far as to deny art, science, marriage, court, and the achievements of civilization.

The new worldview is presented in “Confession” (1884), in the articles “So what should we do?”, “On hunger”, “What is art?”, “I cannot remain silent” and others. The ethical ideas of Christianity are understood in these works as the foundation of the brotherhood of man.

As part of a new worldview and a humanistic understanding of the teachings of Christ, Lev Nikolaevich spoke out, in particular, against the dogma of the church and criticized its rapprochement with the state, which led to him being officially excommunicated from the church in 1901. This caused a huge resonance.

Novel "Sunday"

Tolstoy wrote his last novel between 1889 and 1899. It embodies the entire range of problems that worried the writer during the years of his spiritual turning point. Dmitry Nekhlyudov, main character, is a person internally close to Tolstoy who goes through the path of moral purification in the work, ultimately leading him to comprehend the need for active good. The novel is built on a system of evaluative oppositions that reveal the unreasonable structure of society (the deceit of the social world and the beauty of nature, the falsehood of the educated population and the truth of the peasant world).

Last years of life

The life of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy in recent years was not easy. The spiritual turning point turned into a break with one’s environment and family discord. The refusal to own private property, for example, caused discontent among the writer’s family members, especially his wife. The personal drama experienced by Lev Nikolaevich was reflected in his diary entries.

In the fall of 1910, at night, secretly from everyone, 82-year-old Leo Tolstoy, whose life dates were presented in this article, accompanied only by his attending physician D.P. Makovitsky, left the estate. The journey turned out to be too much for him: on the way, the writer fell ill and was forced to disembark at the Astapovo railway station. Lev Nikolaevich spent the last week of his life in a house that belonged to her boss. The whole country was following reports about his health at that time. Tolstoy was buried in Yasnaya Polyana; his death caused a huge public outcry.

Many contemporaries came to say goodbye to this great Russian writer.

Scholars say that one of the least developed topics in philosophy is war.

In most works devoted to this problem, the authors, as a rule, do not go further than a moral assessment of this phenomenon. The article will examine the history of the study of the philosophy of war.

Relevance of the topic

Even ancient philosophers talked about the fact that humanity has been in a state of military conflict for most of its existence. In the 19th century, researchers published statistics confirming the sayings of the ancient sages. The period chosen as the time period for study was from the first millennium BC to the nineteenth century AD.

The researchers came to the conclusion that in three thousand years of history, only more than three hundred years are in peacetime. More precisely, for every year of peace there are twelve years of armed conflict. Thus, we can conclude that about 90% of human history took place in an atmosphere of emergency.

Positive and negative vision of the problem

War in the history of philosophy has been assessed both positively and negatively by various thinkers. Thus, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Mahatma Gandhi, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, Nicholas Roerich and many others spoke about this phenomenon as the greatest vice of humanity. These thinkers argued that war is one of the most senseless and tragic events in people's lives.

Some of them even built utopian concepts of how to overcome this social ill and live in eternal peace and harmony. Other thinkers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Vladimir Solovyov, argued that since war has continued almost continuously from the emergence of statehood to the present day, then there is certainly certain meaning.

Two different points of view

The prominent Italian philosopher of the 20th century tended to see war in a somewhat romanticized light. He based his teaching on the idea that since during armed conflicts a person is constantly on the verge of life and death, he is in contact with the spiritual, immaterial world. According to this author, it is at such moments that people are able to realize the meaning of their earthly existence.

The Russian philosopher and religious writer Vladimir Solovyov also viewed the essence of war and its philosophy through the prism of religion. However, his opinion was fundamentally different from that of his Italian colleague.

He argued that war, in itself, is a negative event. Its cause is human nature, corrupted as a result of the fall of the first people. However, it happens, like everything that happens, by the will of God. According to this point of view, the point of armed conflicts is to show humanity how deeply sinful it is. After such realization, everyone has the opportunity to repent. Therefore, even such a terrible phenomenon can benefit sincerely believing people.

Philosophy of war according to Tolstoy

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy did not adhere to the opinion that the Russian Orthodox Church had. The philosophy of war in the novel “War and Peace” can be expressed as follows. It is well known that the author adhered to pacifist views, which means that in this work he preaches the rejection of any violence.

It is interesting that in the last years of his life the great Russian writer was keenly interested in Indian religions and philosophical thought. Lev Nikolaevich corresponded with the famous thinker and public figure Mahatma Gandhi. This man became famous for his concept of nonviolent resistance. It was in this way that he managed to achieve the independence of his country from the colonialist policies of England. The philosophy of war in the novel of the great Russian classic is in many ways similar to these beliefs. But Lev Nikolaevich outlined in this work the foundations of his vision of not only interethnic conflicts and their causes. In the novel “War and Peace,” the philosophy of history appears before the reader from a hitherto unknown point of view.

The author says that, in his opinion, the meaning that thinkers put into some events is visible and far-fetched. In fact true essence things always remain hidden from human consciousness. And only the heavenly powers are given the ability to see and know all the real interconnections of events and phenomena in the history of mankind.

He holds a similar opinion regarding the role of individuals in the course of world history. According to Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, the influence on destinies that is rewritten by an individual politician is in fact a pure invention of scientists and politicians who thus try to find the meaning of certain events and justify the fact of their existence.

In the philosophy of the war of 1812, the main criterion for everything that happens for Tolstoy is the people. It was thanks to him that the enemies were expelled from Russia with the help of the “Cudgel” of the general militia. In “War and Peace,” the philosophy of history appears before the reader in a previously unprecedented form, since Lev Nikolaevich presents the events as the participants in the war saw them. His storytelling is emotional because he strives to convey people's thoughts and feelings. This “democratic” approach to the philosophy of the War of 1812 was an undeniable innovation in Russian and world literature.

New military theorist

The War of 1812 in philosophy inspired another thinker to create a fairly comprehensive work on armed conflicts and methods of waging them. This author was the Austrian officer Von Clausewitz, who fought on the side of Russia.

This participant in the legendary events, two decades after the victory, published his book containing new technique conducting military operations. This work is distinguished by its simple and accessible language.

For example, Von Clausewitz interprets the purpose of a country’s entry into an armed conflict this way: the main thing is to subjugate the enemy to your will. The writer proposes to wage a battle until the enemy is completely destroyed, that is, the enemy state is completely wiped off the face of the earth. Von Clausewitz says that the fight must be waged not only on the battlefield, it is also necessary to destroy cultural values ​​existing on enemy territory. In his opinion, such actions will lead to complete demoralization of the enemy troops.

Followers of the theory

The year 1812 became a landmark year for the philosophy of war, since this armed conflict inspired one of the most famous theorists of army management to create a work that guided many European military leaders, and which became a program in many universities of the corresponding profile around the world.

It was precisely this merciless strategy that German commanders followed during the First and Second World Wars. This philosophy of war was new to European thought.

Largely for this reason, many Western states proved unable to withstand the inhuman aggression of German troops.

Philosophy of war before Clausewitz

To understand what radically new ideas were contained in the book of the Austrian officer, one should trace the development of the philosophy of war from ancient times to modern times.

So, the very first violent clashes that occurred in the history of mankind occurred because one nation, experiencing a food crisis, sought to plunder the wealth accumulated by neighboring countries. As can be seen from this thesis, this campaign did not contain any political background. Therefore, as soon as the warriors of the aggressor army captured a sufficient amount of material wealth, they immediately left the foreign country, leaving its people alone.

Division of spheres of influence

With the emergence and increasing development of powerful, highly civilized states, war ceased to be a tool for obtaining food and acquired new, political goals. Stronger countries sought to subordinate smaller and weaker ones to their influence. The winners, as a rule, did not want to achieve anything other than the opportunity to collect tribute from the losers.

Such armed conflicts usually did not end with the complete destruction of the defeated state. The commanders also did not want to destroy any valuables belonging to the enemy. On the contrary, the winning side often tried to establish itself as highly developed in terms of the spiritual life and aesthetic education of its citizens. Therefore, in ancient Europe, as in many countries of the East, there was a tradition of respecting the customs of other peoples. It is known that the great Mongol commander and ruler Genghis Khan, who conquered most of the states of the globe known at that time, treated the religion and culture of the conquered territories with great respect. Many historians wrote that he often celebrated holidays that existed in those countries that had to pay tribute to him. Similar foreign policy The descendants of the outstanding ruler also adhered to this. Chronicles indicate that the khans of the Golden Horde almost never gave orders to destroy Russian Orthodox churches. The Mongols had great respect for various kinds of artisans who skillfully mastered their profession.

Code of honor for Russian soldiers

Thus, it can be argued that the method of influencing the enemy in all possible ways, right up to his final destruction, was completely contrary to the European military culture that had developed by the 19th century. Von Clausewitz's recommendations did not receive a response among the domestic military. Despite the fact that this book was written by a man who fought on the side of Russia, the thoughts expressed in it came into sharp conflict with Christian Orthodox morality and therefore were not approved by the Russian high command.

The charter, used until the end of the 19th century, stated that war should not be to kill, but for the sole purpose of winning. The high moral qualities of Russian officers and soldiers were especially clearly demonstrated when our army entered Paris during the Patriotic War of 1812.

Unlike the French, who, on the way to the capital of the Russian state, robbed the population, officers Russian army behaved with due dignity even in enemy territory they had captured. There are known cases when, celebrating their victory in French restaurants, they paid off their bills in full, and when the money ran out, they took out a loan from the establishments. The French have long remembered the generosity and generosity of the Russian people.

Whoever comes to us with a sword will die by the sword

Unlike some Western faiths, primarily Protestantism, as well as a number of Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, the Russian Orthodox Church has never preached absolute pacifism. Many outstanding warriors in Russia are glorified as saints. Among them we can name such outstanding commanders as Alexander Nevsky, Mikhail Ushakov, and many others.

The first of those named was revered not only in tsarist Russia among believers, but also after the Great October Revolution. The famous words of this statesman and commander, which served as the title of this chapter, became a kind of motto for the entire Russian army. From this we can conclude that defenders have always been highly valued in Rus' native land.

Influence of Orthodoxy

The philosophy of war, characteristic of the Russian people, has always been based on the principles of Orthodoxy. This can be easily explained by the fact that this particular faith is culture-forming in our state. Almost all domestic classical literature imbued with this spirit. And the state language itself Russian Federation would be completely different without this influence. Confirmation can be found by considering the origin of words such as “thank you,” which, as is known, means nothing more than a wish for the interlocutor to be saved by the Lord God.

And this, in turn, points to the Orthodox religion. It is this denomination that preaches the need to repent of sins in order to earn pardon from the Almighty.

Therefore, it can be argued that the philosophy of war in our country is based on the same principles. It is no coincidence that St. George the Victorious has always been among the most revered saints in Rus'.

This righteous warrior is also depicted on Russian metal banknotes - kopecks.

Information war

Currently, the importance of information technology has reached unprecedented strength. Sociologists and political scientists argue that at this stage of its development, society has entered new era. It, in turn, replaced the so-called industrial society. The most important area of ​​human activity in this period is the storage and processing of information.

This circumstance affected all aspects of life. It is no coincidence that the new educational standard of the Russian Federation speaks of the need to educate the next generation, taking into account the constantly accelerating pace of technological progress. Therefore, from the point of view of the philosophy of the modern period, the army must have in its arsenal and actively use all the achievements of science and technology.

Battles on another level

The philosophy of war and its significance today can most easily be illustrated by the example of the reforms that are being carried out in the defense sector of the United States of America.

The term “information war” first appeared in this country in the early nineties of the 20th century.

In 1998, it acquired a clear, generally accepted definition. According to him, information warfare is influencing the enemy through various channels through which he receives new information about various aspects of life.

Following such a military philosophy, it is necessary to influence the public consciousness of the population of the enemy country not only during hostilities, but also during peacetime. Thus, citizens of an enemy country, without even knowing it, will gradually acquire a worldview and assimilate ideas that are beneficial to the aggressor state.

Also, the armed forces can influence the mood prevailing on their own territory. In some cases, this is required to raise the morale of the population, instill patriotic feelings, and solidarity with the policies being pursued at the moment. An example would be American operations in the mountains of Afghanistan, with the goal of destroying Osama bin Laden and his associates.

It is known that these actions were carried out exclusively at night. From the point of view military science There is no logical explanation for this. It would be much more convenient to carry out such operations during daylight hours. In this case, the reason does not lie in a special strategy for conducting air strikes on points where militants are supposedly located. The fact is that the geographical location of the United States and Afghanistan is such that when it is night in the Asian country, it is day in America. Accordingly, live television broadcasts from the scene may be seen by many more viewers if they are broadcast when the vast majority of people are awake.

IN American literature about the philosophy of war and modern principles of its conduct, the term “battlefield” has now changed somewhat. Now the content of this concept has expanded significantly. Therefore, the very name of this phenomenon now sounds like “battle space.” This implies that war in its modern meaning no longer takes place only in the form of military battles, but also at the informational, psychological, economic and many other levels.

This largely corresponds to the philosophy of the book On War, written almost two centuries ago by the veteran of the Patriotic War of 1812, Von Clausewitz.

Causes of the war

This chapter will examine the causes of war as they were seen by various thinkers, from adherents of the pagan religion of antiquity to Tolstoy's theory of war. The most ancient Greek and Roman ideas about the essence of interethnic conflicts were based on the mythological worldview of the people of that time. The Olympian gods, who were worshiped by the inhabitants of these countries, seemed to people to be creatures that did not differ from themselves in anything except their omnipotence.

All the passions and sins inherent in an ordinary mortal were not alien to the celestials. The gods of Olympus often quarreled with each other, and this enmity, according to religious teachings, led to a clash between different peoples. There were also individual gods whose purpose was to create conflict situations between different countries and inciting conflicts. One of these higher beings who patronized people of the military class and organized numerous battles was Artemis.

Later ancient philosophers about war adhered to more realistic views. Socrates and Plato spoke about its causes based on economic and political considerations. That is why Karl Marx followed the same path and, in their opinion, most armed conflicts in human history occurred due to disagreements between classes of society.

In addition to the philosophy of war in the novel “War and Peace,” there were other concepts within which attempts were made to find reasons other than economic and political for interstate conflicts.

For example, the famous Russian philosopher, artist and public figure Nicholas Roerich argued that the root of evil that gives rise to armed conflicts is cruelty.

And she, in turn, is nothing more than materialized ignorance. This quality of the human personality can be described as the sum of ignorance, lack of culture and foul language. And accordingly, in order to establish eternal peace on earth, it is necessary to overcome all the vices of humanity listed below. An ignorant person, from Roerich’s point of view, does not have the ability to be creative. Therefore, in order to realize his potential energy, he does not create, but strives to destroy.

Mystical approach

In the history of the philosophy of war, along with others, there were concepts that were distinguished by their excessive mysticism. One of the authors of such a doctrine was the writer, thinker and ethnographer Carlos Castaneda.

His philosophy in The Way of War is based on a religious practice called nagualism. In this work, the author argues that overcoming the misconceptions that reign in human society is the only true life path.

Christian point of view

Religious teaching, based on the commandments given to humanity by the Son of God, considering the issue of the causes of wars, says that all the bloody events in the history of mankind occurred due to people’s tendency to sin, or rather, due to their corrupted nature and inability to cope with it on their own .

Here, in contrast to Roerich’s philosophy, we are not talking about individual atrocities, but about sinfulness as such.

Without God's help, a person cannot get rid of many atrocities, including envy, condemnation of neighbors, foul language, greed, and so on. It is this property of the soul that underlies small and large conflicts between people.

It must be added that the same reason lies behind the emergence of laws, states, and so on. Even in ancient times, having realized their sinfulness, people began to fear each other, and often themselves. Therefore, they invented a tool to protect themselves from the unseemly actions of their fellow humans.

However, as already mentioned in this article, protecting one’s own country and oneself from enemies in Orthodoxy has always been viewed as a good deed, since in this case such use of force is perceived as a fight against evil. Inaction in such situations can be equated to sin.

However, Orthodoxy is not inclined to overly idealize the military profession. Thus, one holy father, in a letter to his spiritual disciple, reproaches the latter for the fact that his son, having an aptitude for the exact sciences and humanities, chose military service for himself.

Also in the Orthodox religion, priests are prohibited from combining their service to the church with a military career.

Many holy fathers recommended that Orthodox warriors and generals perform prayer before the start of a battle, as well as at its end.

Also, those believers who, due to circumstances, need to serve in the army, must try with all their might to fulfill what is indicated in the military regulations with the words “endure all hardships and hardships with dignity.”

Conclusion

This article was devoted to the topic of war from a philosophical point of view.

It presents the history of addressing this problem, from ancient times to the present day. The points of view of such thinkers as Nicholas Roerich, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy and others are considered. A significant part of the material is occupied by the topic of the novel “War and Peace” and the philosophy of the War of 1812.

The article examines the historiosophical views of L.N. Tolstoy, as they appear in the novel “War and Peace”: his understanding of the causes historical events and the driving forces of history, the place and role of the human masses in its movement. The author focuses on two problems. The first is Tolstoy’s interpretation of a historical event as the result of a “resultant set of wills.” The basis of this interpretation, the author believes, is, on the one hand, the writer’s denial of manifestations of teleologism (the historical process is not subject to pressure from either man or God), on the other hand, the recognition of man’s ability to freely express his will in his actions and in this regard a plurality of wills as “the only cause of all causes of history.” This explains why, in the context of his understanding of the causes of history, Tolstoy introduces the concept of “historical differential,” which makes it possible to integrate elementary individual aspirations into the force that gives rise to the inevitability of mass movements and the obligatory nature of historical events. The second problem discussed in the article is Tolstoy’s interpretation of the role of a leading personality in history. Understanding historical necessity as the resultant of a multitude of wills leads to the recognition that such individuals are only “labels” that give names to historical events. The author of the article, however, warns against a straightforward interpretation of this thesis, showing that, firstly, behind the latter there is the writer’s search for the moral foundations of history: the question of the role of a leading personality for him is transformed into the question of her moral responsibility for the course of events in which she participates. Secondly, behind this thesis lies the main tenet of Tolstoy’s philosophy of history: the driving force of history is the people.

In this paper considered L.N. Tolstoy's historico-philosophical outlooks that appear in the novel "War and Peace": his understanding of the historical events" reasons and driving forces of history, location and role of the masses in the history. There are two crucial problems. First is Tolstoy"s interpreting of the historical event as the effect of "resultant force of the multitude of wills". As the author suggests, in the base of this interpretation there is, on the one hand, writer"s negation of teleological manifestations: the historical process is independent to the pressure neither on the part of Man nor on the part of God. On the other hand, there is the acknowledgment of man"s ability for the free command in his activities and thereby the acknowledgment of the multitude of wills qua "single reason of all reasons of history". It explains why Tolstoy introduces the concept "historical differential" in the context of his understanding of reasons of history as that which allows integrate elementary individual aspirations in the force bearing inevitability of the national movements and determining obligate character of the historical events. Second problem considered in this paper is Tolstoy"s interpreting of the leading personality"s role in history. Understanding of the historical necessity as the resultant force of the multitude of wills led to acknowledge that these personalities are only "labels", giving denominations to the historical events. Author, however, admonishes of straightforward interpretation of this thesis and explains that, firstly, this thesis derived from the Tolstoy"s quest of moral foundations of history: question about leading personality"s role transforms for him into the question about moral obligation of this personality for the course of events in which it takes part. Secondly, there is the main principle of Tolstoy's philosophy of history behind this thesis - the nation is the driving force of the history.

KEY WORDS: historical necessity, driving forces and causes of history, historical event, reasonable goal setting, individual freedom, “swarm life”, multiple wills, historical differential, people, leading personality, moral mode of historical events.

KEYWORDS: historical necessity, driving forces and reasons of history, historical event, reasonable targeting, individual liberty, "swarmed life", multitude of wills, historical differential, people, leading personality, moral modus of the historical events.

For history there are lines of movement

human wills, one end of which

hiding in the unknown, and on the other

the end of which moves in space,

over time and depending on the reasons

consciousness of free people in the present.

L.N. Tolstoy

Any problem related to creative heritage L.N. Tolstoy, is so polysemantic and multifaceted that when turning to it, fear immediately arises: is it possible to consider it as adequate to the understanding of the writer himself? Tolstoy is both a brilliant writer and a perspicacious, deep thinker, so it is difficult to draw a line between his artistic images, storylines and the philosophical ideas behind them. And the point is not only that Tolstoy the philosopher “interrupts” Tolstoy the writer, as happens, for example, in the novel “War and Peace” in numerous digressions and reflections on the causes and laws of history, on the role of heroes and people in its movement mass, etc. The point is also that literary text with all the descriptions of life, details of the events taking place, characteristics of the psychological state of the heroes and characters Always multifaceted. It carries a special internal meaning, has its own philosophical intention, taking the reader, against his will, beyond the event framework, forcing him to see a world of other meanings behind them. Let us at least recall the description of the scene of the wounding of Prince Andrei, who was looking for “his Toulon” in the battle near Austerlitz, or the internal state of Pierre Bezukhov in captivity, as if reliving his life “in the world,” or his meeting with Platon Karataev. In these and many other scenes, the writer’s split into “artist” and “philosopher” is obscured by Tolstoy the thinker, for whom literary creativity and philosophizing are one. Is this a feature of his genius? Yes, but not only.

Artistic creativity is internal, intimate, connected with philosophy. “Therefore, there is an organic spiritual affinity between the artist and the thinker, due to which all genuine and great representatives of each of these forms of creativity not only as individuals, to a greater or lesser extent, combine both spiritual principles, but also have in themselves precisely their inner unity, because both types of creativity ultimately flow from one source, the ramifications of which they are,” wrote S.L. Frank [Frank 1996, 315]. Their common source is spiritual culture, which includes two complementary sides - conceptual and existential. I.T. Kasavin characterizes them as “two versions of fundamental reality - objectively detached and scientific-analytical, on the one hand, and human-dimensional, emotionally loaded, on the other. This is where two methods of expression as transcendence originate - logical and artistic, problematization and mythologization" [Philosophy and Literature... 2009, 75]. These two dimensions of a person’s spiritual life are essentially its attributive properties, forcing culture to live on the verge of dual existence (in thought and in image) regardless of its national forms and the creativity of specific subjects, although to varying degrees depending on time and place, i.e. .e. the national cultural space in which culture lives. And in this sense, the intention of Tolstoy’s work towards “philosophical problematization” is not an exception; it only most clearly expresses the features of its time: Russian philosophy throughout the 19th century, starting from A.N. Radishchev, developed in close alliance with literature, and literature (its best examples) was characterized by philosophical reflection. Let us remember V.F. Odoevsky, A.S. Khomyakova, I.V. Kireevsky, A.I. Herzen, S.K. Aksakova, N.G. Chernyshevsky, V.V. Rozanova, D.S. Merezhkovsky, poetry by V.D. Venevitinova, F.I. Tyutcheva, A.A. Feta, Vl. Solovyov, who were equally philosophers and writers. The connection between the two types of creativity for a long time determined the face of Russian spiritual culture: philosophy was a kind of guide in literary searches, and literature clothed the abstractions of “pure reason” in living flesh artistic images. In philosophy and literature, as V.K. rightly notes. Kantor, it turned out general semantic field(mysteries of space and human existence, life and death, violence and freedom, the theme of man), which each equally considered theirs. Therefore, conceptual-logical and artistic-figurative ways of relating to the world developed in fruitful synthesis. This is exactly the assessment they adhered to when speaking about the Russian XIX culture V., N.A. Berdyaev, I.A. Ilyin, V.V. Zenkovsky, N.O. Lossky, S.F. Franc.

On the one hand, behind the desire for synthesis was an unconditional constant of Russian spirituality that historically developed on the basis of Orthodoxy - recognition of the integrity of being and the complementarity of all forms of its comprehension: conceptual thinking and figurative perception, dispassionate rationality and the believing mind, intuition and mystical worldview. On the other hand, the fact that Russia entered the Age of Enlightenment later than Europe and quite soon was able to relate to the European experience had its consequences critically, in particular, to see the costs of absolutizing the role of “rationality”. Thought (concept) and artistic perception (image) were brought under the “common denominator” of Reason. As a result, philosophical constructs, starting with the Slavophiles, were filled with living objectivity - “not in violation of fact and law, but in the vision of an integral object hidden behind them” [Ilyin 1922, 442], while literary creativity was filled with the depth of a philosophical vision of the world.

The article proposes to consider the problem of historical necessity and the driving forces of history as L.N. saw it. Tolstoy in the novel "War and Peace". "War and Peace" is the only one historical novel writer. As you know, the work is huge not only in volume, but also in its coverage of spheres of human life. In the novel, Tolstoy’s philosophical and historical views on the meaning of history, on understanding the place and role of man and the human masses in its movement, on war and peace as polar states of being, including the everyday life of human generations, found a complete expression. History in the writer’s understanding is “the history of all, without one exception, people taking part in events.”

Tolstoy on the causes of historical events

The only concept by which

the movement of peoples can be explained,

there is a concept of force equal to the entire movement

L.N. Tolstoy

The problem posed in the title of the paragraph was one of the main ones for Tolstoy in his understanding of all historiosophical problems. The question of historical reason, i.e. about the force that sets history in motion, determines the interconnection of historical events, thanks to which what must happen, always happens, constantly worried the writer: “If the purpose of history is to describe the movement of humanity and peoples, then the first question, without an answer to which everything else is incomprehensible, is the following: what force moves peoples?” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 4, epilogue, 616]. What/who should this power be associated with? With the Providence of God? But this would be too simple an answer, and for Tolstoy it was also unacceptable because the writer rejected teleologism in any of its manifestations as an attempt to “make history.” The historical process is not subject to pressure either from man or from God. Tolstoy also did not agree with the prevailing opinion of historians who connect the guiding force of historical events with the will of individuals (Napoleon, Emperor Alexander, Kutuzov), because behind their actions, which are of a private nature, the main thing is hidden: “a force equal to the entire movement of peoples.” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 4, epilogue, 621]. And if we assume the causality of historical events when interpreting history, then, according to Tolstoy, no other reason can be found.

In general, looking for reasons in history is not very promising, since due to their multitude, searches lead either “to bad infinity” or to the recognition of the exclusive role of historical figures [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 4, part 2, ch. 1]. But most importantly, in the course of such searches, “every single reason or a whole series of reasons seems to us equally fair in itself and equally false in its insignificance in comparison with the enormity of the event, and equally false in its invalidity (without the participation of all other coinciding reasons) produce an accomplished event. The same reason as Napoleon’s refusal to withdraw his troops beyond the Vistula and give back the Duchy of Oldenburg seems to us to be the desire or reluctance of the first French corporal to enter secondary service: for if he did not want to go to service and the other and third and thousandth did not want corporal and soldier, so fewer people would have been in Napoleon’s army and there could have been no war” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 3, part 1, 4-5]. At the same time, the more we “split” the elements of history, the more inaccessible the reasons themselves will appear. Therefore, exceptional, explanatory move There are simply no stories or events. The historian who seeks them will find the wrong answers. The correct answer will be to recognize that the course of world events “depends on the coincidence of all the arbitrariness of the people participating in these events” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 3, part 1, 197].

In explaining the movement of history, Tolstoy proceeds from the assumption that every historical event (the defeat of the Russian troops at Austerlitz, the course of the battle at Smolensk, the victorious “draw” for the Russians at Borodin, the entry of the French army into Moscow) is determined actions of all people participating in it. Therefore, behind any historical event there is “ resultant of multidirectional wills", playing the role of the starting force that does its historically inevitable. This means one thing - the historian must, “putting aside the concepts of causes, look for laws common to all equal and inextricably linked infinitesimal elements of freedom” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 4, epilogue, 651] - laws that, permeating the fabric of the historical field , set the vector of necessity for “individual wills”, and which explain why what should happen happens.

But the question arises: in what a moment from many individual wills is born required the nature of a specific event, what gives it, born by the will of the masses, the “status of historical necessity”? Analyzing the answers of historians to this question, Tolstoy comes to the conclusion that an obligatory component of historical necessity is coincidence will with the conditions under which a historical event occurs. Insisting on such an understanding of historical necessity, the writer, on the one hand, comes to deny the voluntaristic view of history (the coincidence of individual wills with conditions external to them is required), on the other hand, he leaves the right to freedom of choice for each of the participants in a historical event.

Reflections on the coincidence of wills as a constant of historical necessity lead Tolstoy to the idea of "differentials of history" as elementary (the same for everyone) aspirations that form the motivational basis of mass actions of people: “Only by allowing an infinitely small unit for observation - the differential of history, i.e. homogeneous attractions of people, and having achieved the art of integrating (taking the sums of these infinitesimals), we can hope to comprehend the laws of history” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 3, part 3, 237]. Developing this idea in numerous digressions and in the plot narration, he formulates the thesis: the necessary ordering of the multitude of wills, i.e. bringing them to a certain “common denominator” is carried out if there is some similarity or homogeneity between them. Thus, at the basis of the military impulse of the French soldiers on the Borodino field was a common desire to enter Moscow, where they, exhausted by previous battles and the difficulties of the military campaign, hoped to get rest and food. “The soldiers of the French army went to kill Russian soldiers in the Battle of Borodino not as a result of Napoleon’s orders, but of their own free will. The entire army: the French, Italians, Germans, Poles - hungry and exhausted from the campaign, in view of the army blocking Moscow from them, felt that “the wine was uncorked and they had to drink it.” If Napoleon had now forbidden them to fight the Russians, they would have killed him and gone to fight the Russians, because they needed it” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 1, part 2, 198]. These considerations lead the writer to the conclusion: “To study the laws of history, we must completely change the subject of observation, leave kings, ministers and generals alone, and study the homogeneous, infinitesimal elements that lead the masses. No one can say to what extent it is possible for a person to achieve an understanding of the laws of history along this path; but it is obvious that on this path only lies the possibility of grasping historical laws” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 3, part 3, 239].

The idea of ​​a “historical differential” was perceived by Tolstoy as extremely important for explaining not only history. He believed that all sciences followed the path of finding the elementary component in their development. Having come to an understanding of the infinitely small as the basis of existence, each knowledge went further - to the search for common features, i.e. integration of small quantities, which ultimately led to the identification of the desired pattern. This is how mathematics, astronomy, and all natural sciences developed. Tolstoy is sure that history is on the same path. In it, just as, for example, once in astronomy, all differences in views are associated with the recognition or non-recognition of the “absolute unit”, which serves as a measure of visible phenomena. In history, such a unit is the independent will of an individual person; it is precisely this “small quantity” that, integrated with the wills of other people, explains their behavior as participants in mass actions. The interconnection of many wills, as an expression of individual efforts, underlying historical events, “multiplied” by the conditions of the same moment in time, introduces the researcher into the desired sphere of regularity, i.e. historical necessity.

The interpretation of historical life through an appeal to the “resultant of many wills”, reduced to elementary psychological states, led Tolstoy (both as an artist and as a philosopher) to comprehend basic fact of human existence- connecting the life of an individual with the historical life of society. For Tolstoy, consideration of this problem became possible through the emphasis on the inclusion of the individual, personal life of a person in his social, faceless, as he called, “swarm” life, which in his understanding is carried out in the sphere of necessity. “There are two sides of life in every person: personal life, which is the more free the more abstract its interests are, and spontaneous, swarm life, where a person inevitably fulfills the laws prescribed to him” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 3, parts 1, 6] . This idea runs through everything storylines novel. The novel itself, as the researcher rightly notes, literary heritage Tolstoy E.N. Kupreyanova, became the realization of the potential aspirations of the entire art of Russian classical realism, which sought ways to understand and improve society through the knowledge and self-improvement of the individual [Kupreyanova 1966, 197] It can be added: the realism of the novel was an expression of the writer’s disagreement with the established mentality, the dominant of which was the recognition of the leading role social component in the moral and spiritual life of people.

There is another problem directly related to the idea of ​​the “differential of history” - this is the question of the role of a leading personality in history. History is not faceless. The masses are its driving force, the course and style of historical events, the proximity or remoteness of their outcome depend on their will, but what is the role of the generals, rulers, and diplomats who make specific decisions?

The role of the “leading personality” in history

In historical events, the so-called great

people are labels that give a name to an event,

which, just like labels, least of all have

connection with the event itself.

L.N. Tolstoy

“You just have to delve into the essence of each historical event, i.e. into the activities of the entire mass of people who participated in the event, in order to make sure that the will of the historical figure not only does not guide the actions of the masses, but is itself constantly led,” - this is how the writer begins his presentation of the events and actions of the Russian army after the Battle of Borodino and the occupation of Moscow by the French [Tolstoy 1948 , vol. 2, part 2, 199]. Neither Napoleon, nor Alexander I, nor Kutuzov were blind “performers of history.” But they weren't and its creators, moreover, did not always become its real heroes. “Napoleon in the Battle of Borodino performed his job as a representative of the government just as well and even better than in other battles. He did nothing harmful to the progress of the battle; he leaned toward more prudent opinions; he did not confuse, did not contradict himself, did not get scared and did not run away from the battlefield, but with his great tact and experience of war, he calmly and with dignity fulfilled his role as an apparent commander” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 2, part 2, 198] . But only in the sense that by his behavior he did not determine the outcome of the battle: Napoleon " it only seemed, that the whole thing happened according to his will” [Ibid.]. In this " it only seemed" - the essence of the problem. Napoleon, throughout his entire career as a battle commander, was like a child who, holding on to the strings tied inside the carriage, imagines that he is in charge. It is not difficult to see that such an explanation of the situation is directly related to Tolstoy’s ideas about historical necessity, because in the sphere of the latter, the actions of one person, no matter how wise, talented and far-sighted he may be, cannot turn the tide. A historical figure can only speed up or slow down the course of events, adjusting his actions to the desires of the masses and circumstances. And what should happen will happen regardless from her will. “The actions of Napoleon and Alexander, on whose word it seemed that the event would happen or not happen, were as little arbitrary as the action of each soldier who went on a campaign by lot or by recruitment. This could not be otherwise because in order for the will of Napoleon and Alexander (those people on whom the events seemed to depend) to be fulfilled, it was necessary for the coincidence of countless circumstances, without one of which the event could not have happened” [Tolstoy 1948 , vol. 3, part 1, 5]. In other words, a leading personality is an “instrument of history,” even when, due to his insight, he makes decisions that are adequate to the situation.

Historians of the past, Tolstoy believed, thinking about the outstanding role, i.e. historical personalities in the implementation of events significant for the history of states, as a rule, resorted to one simple technique: “they described the activities of individual people ruling the people; and this activity expressed for them the activity of the entire people” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 4, epilogue, 613]. New historians rejected this method of interpreting history. But, following the new logic, they nevertheless came to the old views: nations are led by individual people - heroes, endowed the most diverse, but always special, character traits and natural properties. They perform his will transferred to them by the people, they are representatives of the masses, which makes them historical figures, and sometimes heroes. Partially agreeing with such judgments, Tolstoy poses the question: does all (and is it always) the activities of historical figures serve as an expression of the will of the masses? And he comes to the conclusion: no, because, on the one hand, “the life of the people does not fit into the lives of several people,” on the other hand, as soon as personal actions (including the actions of an outstanding personality) are included in the “total sum” made up of other personal actions, they are woven into the general connection of historical events. From this moment on, individual actions belong not to an individual person, but to the historical life of humanity, the people, the state. Therefore, “the theory of the transfer of the totality of the wills of the masses to historical figures, perhaps, explains quite a lot in the field of science of law and, perhaps, is necessary for its purposes; but when applied to history, as soon as revolutions, conquests, civil strife occur, as soon as history begins, this theory gives nothing” [Tolstoy 1948, vol. 4, epilogue, 628]. But this thesis should not be understood in the literal sense of the word, and certainly not as an expression of the writer’s nihilism or agnosticism. What are the reasons for such a warning? One thing, but an important one. Tolstoy as a historian was interested in historical necessity, its adequate interpretation, he believed, required abandoning the search for causes in the will of an individual person (that’s why it is a historical necessity!), just as astronomers, in search of the laws of planetary motion, at one time abandoned the idea of ​​“the solidity of the earth.” History is defined resultant set of wills, the will of one person does not change or explain anything in its movement. Therefore, the above conclusion of the writer does not indicate his historical nihilism, it testifies to something else - about recognition of the leading role of the masses, i.e. people, in history. Moreover, this recognition is the initial principle of all his historiosophical constructions. Drawing attention to the importance of this recognition for understanding the essence of the latter, V.F. Asmus emphasized: “ Last word Tolstoy's philosophy of history is not fatalism, not determinism, not historical agnosticism, although formally all these points of view are evident and even striking in Tolstoy. The last word in Tolstoy’s philosophy of history is the people” [Asmus, 1959, 210].

Being a rationalist by mentality, Tolstoy categorically denied that history moves according to anyone’s rational plans, including orders, plans historical figures. Nobody can “make history.” Everyone can only participate, but the character and method of participation can be different - much depends on the moral characteristics of the participant in the historical event, his understanding of the current situation and his ability to develop the most optimal line of behavior that does not contradict moral standards. This vision of the problem emphasized the question of moral responsibility political and military figures (as well as every participant in mass events). This question, the writer believed, is one of the most important ethical problems in history. Of course, as Lurie rightly notes in his comments, Tolstoy understood that it was not Napoleon or Davout who killed people in Moscow, but a certain inevitable order of events, but an order determined, among other things, by their orders, which set specific goals for the soldiers. At some point, both Davout and Napoleon could abandon their “sad inhuman role” [Lurie 1993, 36]. They didn’t refuse - this is the problem for Tolstoy, who sought, first of all, a moral basis in everything that happens and in all human actions. Claiming that history in its movement is subordinated to necessity, Tolstoy constantly returned to the idea that what a person involved in the historical process can do: Prince Andrei with a banner in his hands rush ahead of the soldiers, Pierre save a child in burning Moscow, Platon Karataev find words of consolation for his comrades in captivity. It is through these actions that they enter history and have a real impact on it. They reveal hidden behind the abstract and dispassionate “resultant of the set of wills” moral mode of historical events, This is their historical role, if it makes sense for a historian to talk about it.

Literature

Asmus 1959 - Asmus V.F. Reason and purpose in history based on the novel by L.N. Tolstoy “War and Peace” // From the history of Russian literary relations of the 18th-20th centuries. M.-L., 1959.

Ilyin 1922 - Ilyin I.A. Russian idea. M., 1922.

Kupreyanova 1966 - Kupreyanova E.N.. Aesthetics of Leo Tolstoy. M., 1966.

Lurie 1993 - Lurie I.WITH. After Leo Tolstoy. Historical views of Tolstoy and problems of the 20th century. St. Petersburg, 1993.

Tolstoy 1948 - Tolstoy L.N.. War and Peace. In 4 volumes. M., 1948.

Philosophy and literature... 2009 - Philosophy and literature (“round table”) // Questions of philosophy. 2009. No. 9.

Frank 1996 - Frank S.L. Russian worldview. St. Petersburg, 1996.

Notes

There are many studies on the topic of Tolstoy’s historiosophical views. Cm.: Asmus V.F.. Reason and purpose in history based on the novel by L.N. Tolstoy “War and Peace” // From the history of Russian literary relations of the 18th-20th centuries. M.-L., 1959; Bocharov S. L. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace.” M., 1978; Dyakov V.A. L.N. Tolstoy on the laws of the historical process" // Questions of history. 1978. No. 8; Kareev N.I. Historical philosophy gr. L.N. Tolstoy in "War and Peace". St. Petersburg, 1888; Kvitko D.Yu. Philosophy of Tolstoy. M., 1928 (2nd ed. 1930); Kupreyanova E.N. Aesthetics of Leo Tolstoy. M.-L., 1966; Lazerson M. Philosophy of the history of “War and Peace” // Social Science Issues. M., 1910. Issue 11; Pertsev V. Philosophy of history L.N. Tolstoy // Collection in memory of L.N. Tolstoy. M., 1912; Rubinstein M. Philosophy of history in the novel “War and Peace” // Russian Thought. 1911. July; Saburov A.A."War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy. Problematics and poetics. M., 1959. They wrote about Tolstoy’s philosophical views and his understanding of history V.V. Zenkovsky, V.I. Lenin, D.S. Merezhkovsky, N.N. Strakhov, P.B. Struve, S.L. Franc. Of particular interest is the study by Ya.S. Lurie “After Leo Tolstoy. Tolstoy’s historical views and problems of the 20th century” (St. Petersburg, 1993), where Tolstoy’s interpretation of the historical process became subject of philosophical analysis.

E.N. Kupreyanova was one of the first to pay special attention to this idea of ​​Tolstoy. See her work “The Aesthetics of Leo Tolstoy” (pp. 194-199). S. Lurie in his study “After Tolstoy. Tolstoy’s historical views and problems of the 20th century” continued this line of analysis.

The position could be called completely materialistic and even dialectical if the mechanism of connecting these two components were revealed. But this question remained beyond the attention of the writer.

Behind this idea you can, if you wish, see an “inverted” Marxist thesis: only by understanding a person as a “set of social relations”, and with this the mechanism for including him in the life of society, will we understand him inner world, since his social existence determines his consciousness. Tolstoy’s logic is “from the opposite”: only by understanding a person as “a set of many mental states, wills”, we will understand his actions in the sphere of social necessity external to him.

See the writer's reflections on Kutuzov's actions near Krasnoye during the famous flank march of Russian troops and his assessment as a leader people's war(War and Peace. M., 1948. Vol. 4. Part 2. Ch. 1, 2; Part 3. Ch. 16, 18, 19; Part 4. Ch. 5).

What, according to Tolstoy, is the reason for this event? Tolstoy cites the views of historians.

But he doesn’t agree with any of them. “Every single reason taken or a whole series of reasons seems to us... equally erroneous in its insignificance in comparison with the scale of the event...” A huge, terrible phenomenon - war, must be born of the same “huge” reason. Tolstoy does not undertake to find this reason. He says that “the more cleverly we try to explain these phenomena in nature, the more incomprehensible they become to us.”

But if a person cannot know the laws of history, then he cannot influence them. Man is an insolvent grain of sand in the historical stream. But within what boundaries is a person still free? “There are two sides of life in every person: personal life, which is freer the more detached its interests are, and spontaneous life, where a person inevitably fulfills the laws proposed to him.” This is a clear expression of the thoughts in the name of which the novel was created: a person is free at any given moment to act as he wants, but “a perfect act cannot be returned, and its action, coinciding in time with millions of actions of other people, will have historical significance.” Napoleon himself sincerely did not want war, but he, a slave of history, gives more and more new orders that accelerate the outbreak of war.

Napoleon is confident in his right to plunder and is confident that the looted valuables are his legal property. Admired deification surrounded Napoleon. He is accompanied by “admiring people”; he places the telescope on the back of the “lucky page who ran up.” One general mood reigns here. The French army is also some kind of closed “world”. The people of this world have their own common desires and joys, but this is a “false common” because it is based on untruth, predatory aspirations, and the misfortunes of something else common. Participation in this common pushes people to do stupid things and turns human society into a herd.

Carried away by a single thirst for enrichment, a thirst for robbery, having lost their inner will, the soldiers and officers of the French army sincerely believe that Napoleon is leading them to happiness. And he, even more a slave of history than they, considers himself God, since “it was not new to him the conviction that his presence in all corners of the world... equally amazes and leads people into crazy self-forgetfulness.” People tend to create idols, and idols easily forget that they did not create history, but history created them. Tolstoy puts Napoleon on a par with Anatoly Kuragin. For Tolstoy, these are people of one party - egoists, for whom the whole world is contained in their “I”.

Answer

The epic genre model of reality difficultly corresponds to Tolstoy's philosophy of history.

The main question of Tolstoy's historiosophy: who creates history? The Russian writer conducts intense polemics with the post-Napoleonic model of history (for example, with the philosophy of Hegel). The latter assumes that history is made exclusively by outstanding individuals, and other people for them are just material, a means, an instrument; The faceless human mass itself does not affect history. According to Tolstoy, history is made by the entire people, which, in turn, presupposes that every (even the most inconspicuous) person, through his actions and decisions, participates in the total sum of human actions, which shapes the course of history.

Once again we see a rejection of the usual division of the important and the unimportant; the author of War and Peace is interested in kings, ordinary people, war, and everyday life (Tolstoy’s philosophy of history really comes to the results that are set by the genre model of the epic).

S.G. Bocharov suggests literally seeing the principle of everyone’s participation in history - in the very plot of the novel. The scientist recalls Tolstoy’s words that the essence of his concept is embodied in the fates of the heroes, and philosophical digressions are written for those who did not understand it from the plot. What about the defeat of 1805-1807? or does the victory of 1812 consist (even if indirectly, through the total sum of human actions) from the actions of the heroes?

In the context of 1805-1807 Andrei goes to war, leaving his pregnant wife; Pierre marries Helene - we know the moral background and history of this marriage. At this time, heroes (note, the best people of their time) commit such actions - which means that this will be the sum of human actions.

A mistake is possible here when, in search of the influence of the heroes on history, we exaggerate the significance of such plot points, such as, for example, the famous episode when Bolkonsky picked up the banner and delayed the retreat on the Field of Austerlitz. Such actions also influence the general course of events, but still one cannot identify history with such narrow contexts as was done before Tolstoy. History is made not only on the battlefield, not only at the headquarters of a military leader or at the court of the emperor - the daily life of ordinary people is just as important. And, perhaps, for Tolstoy the everyday dimension is even more important, because it is closer to the moral foundations of human existence, namely, they shape the nature of the movement of history.

Before us is a concept of history that presupposes the maximum degree of human responsibility for his actions. Our decisions in private life concern not only us, they can also affect the general course of events.

In 1812, the heroes commit actions that are directly opposite to the context of 1805-1807: Pierre, who remains in Moscow to make an attempt on Napoleon's life (he still thinks that this is how history works), instead saves a girl during a fire; To save the wounded, Natasha gives away carts intended for the removal of the Rostovs’ property. The total amount, i.e. The logic of history will correspond to the nature of the terms and actions performed by specific people.

Note that the heroes do not think that they are doing this in the name of saving the Motherland or fighting Napoleon. This is also an important element of Tolstoy’s historiosophy, which required the emergence of the concept of “hidden warmth of patriotism.”

It is necessary to resolve the contradiction that has arisen at the intersection of the different models we have identified. According to Tolstoy's philosophy, man always influences history; the contrast between the heroic and the prosaic suggests that the degree of human participation in history is different. This contradiction can be resolved as follows: if in the heroic world a person forms history directly, then in the prosaic world - negatively, negatively, when the overall result is absurd, inhuman, something that no one wanted.

The second most important question of Tolstoy's philosophy of history is of a more specialized nature: how do human free will and Providence (historical necessity) relate? Events such as Patriotic War, show not only the role of man in history, but also the presence of higher meaningfulness, Divine plan. What dominates? After all, logically one excludes the other: either a person makes a free choice, or everything is predicted by the Divine plan.

In Tolstoy, these antinomies are conjugated and act simultaneously (we talked about this in the context of the epic as a “double motivation” for the hero’s actions). This can be explained by the Russian writer’s model of God. A higher power is not something external, acting from another reality, “from above”; it exists only in people, manifests itself through them (“The Kingdom of God is within us” - this formula of the Apostle Paul is defining for Tolstoy). But God manifests itself precisely in the totality of the people’s wills, not in one person, but in all of them at once, and in this sense, an individual person can “break away”, go against his will.

It must be borne in mind that when criticizing the Napoleonic model of freedom, Tolstoy can claim that there is no freedom at all, there is only necessity (the epilogue ends with this thesis; this is, in fact, the last statement in the text of the novel). Should this be taken literally, crossing out what we have learned in connection with the role of personal choice, the free participation of everyone in history within the heroic world?

There is no place for Napoleonic permissiveness, the ability to do whatever you want. Tolstoy compares the logic of history with the physical resultant of forces. The result (amount) will be something average; for each participant in the event it will be unexpected, objective, and will not correspond to his personal goal and plans. Napoleonic freedom is impossible because a person lives among other people.

However, when your will, your aspirations coincide with the direction of the national will, necessity, Providence, you will achieve your goals, get exactly what you wanted. Only in this case - on the basis of necessity - can a person be free. This is exactly how Kutuzov lives, who, according to Andrei, can renounce his will if it contradicts the general course of events: “He understands that there is something stronger and more significant than his will - this is the inevitable course of events, and he knows how to see them , knows how to understand their meaning and, in view of this meaning, knows how to renounce participation in these events, from his personal will aimed at something else.” Here we are not talking about the lack of will, the passivity of Kutuzov, as is often stated (Tolstoy polemicizes right on the pages of the novel with such an interpretation of the character of the Russian commander), on the contrary, this is the only true form of free will. This understanding of freedom does not coincide with the commonly used one; it presupposes self-restraint and self-discipline. But who is freer: the one who can realize any whim, desire (Napoleonic model), or the one who can live in accordance with the essence of the personality, without falling under the power of momentary impulses, random whims?

Kutuzov is important for Tolstoy not only as an example of how to manage one’s own will, but also as a truly (as opposed to Napoleon) brilliant commander. He knows how to influence precisely the sum of wills, the “spirit of the army.” Let us recall the specific nature of Kutuzov’s military leadership in Tolstoy: he almost never gives orders himself (except for one very important exception, when he used his power as commander-in-chief and ordered the abandonment of Moscow). He either accepts (as in the case of Denisov’s partisan detachment) or does not accept (as in the case of the aggressive pursuit of the retreating French) initiatives that come from below. According to Tolstoy, during the Battle of Borodino, Kutuzov “did not make any orders, but only agreed or disagreed with what was offered to him.” That which corresponds to the general will is supported by it, that which contradicts is cut off.