Aesthetic views of L.N. Tolstoy at the end of the 19th century. Leo Tolstoy - what is art

Each of us can remember that the pleasures of taste were truly aesthetic (Fr.)].
And he tells how a glass of milk he drank in the mountains gave him aesthetic pleasure.
So the concept of art as a manifestation of beauty is not at all as simple as it seems, especially now that this concept of beauty includes, as the latest aesthetics do, our senses of touch, taste and smell.
But the average person either does not know or does not want to know this and is firmly convinced that all questions of art are very simply and clearly resolved by recognizing beauty as the content of art. For the average person it seems clear and understandable that art is a manifestation of beauty; and beauty explains for him all the questions of art.
But what is beauty, which, in his opinion, is the content of art? How is it defined and what is it?
As it happens in any business, the more obscure, more confusing the concept that is conveyed by the word, the more aplomb and self-confidence people use this word, pretending that what is meant by this word is so simple and clear that it is not worth even saying about what it actually means. This is what people usually do in relation to superstitious religious questions, and this is how people act in our time in relation to the concept of beauty. It is assumed that what is meant by the word beauty is known and understood by everyone. Meanwhile, this is not only unknown, but after mountains of books have been written about this subject for 150 years - since 1750, the time of the founding of aesthetics by Baumgarten - by the most learned and thoughtful people, the question of what beauty is is still still remains completely open and with each new work on aesthetics is solved in a new way. One of recent books which, by the way, I read on aesthetics, is a pretty little book by Julius Mithalter called "Ratsel des Schonen" (the riddle of the beautiful). And this title quite correctly expresses the position of the question of what beauty is. The meaning of the word "beauty" has remained a mystery after 150 years of reasoning by thousands of scientists about the meaning of this word. The Germans solve this riddle in their own way, albeit in hundreds of different ways: aesthetic physiologists, mostly Englishmen of the Spencer-Grant-Allen school, also each in their own way; eclectic French and followers of Guyot and Taine - also each in his own way, and all these people know all the previous decisions of Baumgarten, and Kant, and Schelling, and Schiller, and Fichte, and Winckelmann, and Lessing, and Hegel, and Schopenhauer, and Hartmann, and Schassler, and Cousin, and Levek, etc.
What is this strange concept of beauty, which seems so understandable to those who do not think about what they say, and in the definition of which all philosophers of the most diverse trend cannot agree for a century and a half? different peoples? What is the concept of beauty on which the reigning doctrine of art is based?
By the word "beauty" in Russian we mean only what pleases our eyesight. Although in Lately and they began to say: "ugly act", "beautiful music", but this is not in Russian.
A Russian person from the people who does not know foreign languages ​​will not understand you if you tell him that the person who gave another his last clothes or something like that acted "beautifully", or, deceiving another, acted "ugly", or that the song is beautiful. In Russian, an act can be kind, good, or unkind and bad; music can be pleasant and good, and unpleasant and bad, but music can be neither beautiful nor ugly.
A person, a horse, a house, a look, a movement can be beautiful, but about actions, thoughts, character, music, if we really like them, we can say that they are good and bad if we don’t like them; “beautiful” can only be said about what pleases the eye. So the word and the concept of "good" includes the concept of "beautiful", but not vice versa: the concept of "beautiful" does not cover the concept of "good". If we say "good" about an item that is valued in its own way appearance, then we also say by this that this object is beautiful; but if we say "beautiful", then this does not mean at all that this object was good.
Such is the meaning attributed by the Russian language - therefore, the Russian folk sense - to words and concepts - good and beautiful.
In all European languages, in the languages ​​of those peoples among whom the doctrine of beauty as the essence of art is widespread, the words "beau", "schon", "beautiful", "bello", retaining the meaning of the beauty of the form, began to mean goodness - kindness , that is, they began to replace the word "good".
So in these languages, expressions like "belle ame, schone Gedanken, beautiful deed" [Beautiful soul, beautiful thoughts, beautiful deed (French, German, English)] are already quite naturally used, to determine the beauty of the form, these languages do not have a corresponding word, and they must use a compound of the words "beau par la forme" [Beautiful in shape (fr.)], etc.
Observation of the meaning that the word "beauty", "beautiful" has in our language, as well as in the languages ​​of the peoples among whom the aesthetic theory has been established, shows us that the word "beauty" is given by these peoples some special meaning, namely, the meaning of good.
At the same time, it is remarkable that since we Russians have been assimilating European views on art closer and closer, the same evolution has begun to take place in our language, and, already quite confidently and without surprising anyone, they speak and write about beautiful music. and ugly deeds and even thoughts, while 40 years ago, in my youth, the expressions "beautiful music" and "ugly deeds" were not only not common, but incomprehensible. Obviously, this new meaning, given by European thought to beauty, is beginning to be assimilated by Russian society.
What is this meaning? What is beauty, as the European peoples understand it?
In order to answer this question, I will write out here at least a small part of those definitions of beauty that are most common in existing aesthetics. I strongly ask the reader not to get bored and read these extracts or, what would be even better, read at least some learned aesthetics. Leaving aside the voluminous aesthetics of the Germans, Kralik's German book, Knight's English book, and Leveque's French book are very good for this purpose. It is necessary to read some learned aesthetics in order to form for oneself an idea of ​​the variety of judgments and of the terrifying obscurity that reigns in this area of ​​judgments, and not to take the word of another on this important question.
Here is what the German esthetician Schassler says, for example, about the nature of all aesthetic research in the preface to his famous lengthy and detailed book of aesthetics: ways of exposition, as in the field of aesthetics.On the one hand, elegant phrasing without any content, distinguished for the most part by the most one-sided surface; on the other hand, with an indisputable depth of research and richness of content, the repulsive clumsiness of philosophical terminology, dressing the simplest things in the clothes of abstract scientificity as if in order to make them worthy of entry into the illuminated halls of the system, and, finally, between these two methods of research and presentation, a third, constituting, as it were, a transition from one to the other, a device consisting in eclecticism, flaunting now elegant phrases, then pedantic scientific ... The same form of presentation, which would not fall into any of these three shortcomings, but would be truly concrete and, with essential content, would express it in a clear and popular philosophical language, nowhere can be found less often than in the field of aesthetics " .
It is worth reading at least the very book of the same Schassler to be convinced of the validity of his judgment.
"Il n" y a pas de science, - the French writer Veron also speaks about this subject in the preface to his very good book of aesthetics, - qui ait ete de plus, que l "esthetique, livree aux reveries des metaphysiciens. Depuis Platon jusqu" aux doctrines officielles de nos jours, on a fait de l "art je ne sais quel amalgame de fantaisies quintessenciees et de mysteres transcendentaux, qui trouvent leur expression supreme dans la conception absolue du beau ideal prototype immuable et divin des choses reelles" .
This judgment is more than just, as the reader will be convinced of this if he takes the trouble to read the following definitions of beauty that I wrote out from the main writers on the aesthetics.
I will not write out the definitions of beauty attributed to the ancients: Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and before Plotinus, because, in essence, the ancients did not have that concept of beauty, separated from good, which is the basis and goal of the aesthetics of our time. By matching the judgments of the ancients about beauty to our concept - beauty, as is usually done in aesthetics, we give the words of the ancients a meaning that they did not have (see the excellent book by Benard "a -" L "esthetique d" Aristote "and Walter" a - "Geschichte der Aesthetik im Altertum" [Benard, Aristotle's Aesthetics; Walter, History of Ancient Aesthetics.]).
III
I'll start with the founder of aesthetics, Baumgarten (1714-1762).
According to Baumgarten [See. Schassler, ref. cit., p. 361. (Note by LN Tolstoy)], the object of logical knowledge is truth; the object of aesthetic (that is, sensual) cognition is beauty. Beauty is perfect (absolute), cognized by feeling. Truth is perfect, known by reason. Good is perfect, achieved moral will.
Beauty is defined, according to Baumgarten, by correspondence, that is, by the order of the parts in their mutual relation to each other and in their relation to the whole. The purpose of beauty itself is to please and arouse desire (Wohlgefallen und Erregung eines Verlanges), a position that is directly opposite to the main property and sign of beauty, according to Kant.
Regarding the manifestation of beauty, Baumgarten believes that we cognize the highest realization of beauty in nature, and therefore the imitation of nature, according to Baumgarten, is the highest task of art (the same position, directly opposite to the judgments of later aesthetics).
Ignoring the unremarkable followers of Baumgarten: Meyer, Eschenburg, Ebergart, who only slightly change the views of the teacher, separating the pleasant from the beautiful, I write out definitions of beauty from writers who appeared immediately after Baumgarten, who define beauty in a completely different way. These writers were Schutz, Sulzer, Mendelssohn, Moritz. These writers recognize, in contrast to Baumgarten's main proposition, that the goal of art is not beauty, but goodness. So, Sulzer (1720-1779) says that only that which contains goodness can be recognized as beautiful. According to Sulzer [See Schassler, ref. cit., p. 361. (Note by L. N. Tolstoy)], the goal of all human life is the good of social life. It is achieved by cultivating a moral sense, and art must be subordinated to this goal. Beauty is what evokes and nurtures this feeling.
Almost the same understanding of beauty and Mendelssohn (1729-1786). Art, according to Mendelssohn, is bringing the beautiful, cognizable by a vague feeling, to the true and good. The goal of art is moral perfection.
For the aesthetics of this trend, the ideal of beauty is a beautiful soul in a beautiful body. So, these aestheticians completely erase the division of the perfect (absolute) into its three forms: truth, goodness and beauty, and beauty again merges with goodness and truth.
But such an understanding of beauty is not only not held by later aestheticians, but the aesthetics of Winckelmann is again completely opposite to these views, separating the tasks of art from the goal of goodness in the most decisive and sharp way and setting the goal of art to external and even one plastic beauty.
According to the famous work of Winckelmann (1717-1767), the law and goal of all art is only beauty, completely separate and independent from good. Beauty, on the other hand, is of three kinds: 1) the beauty of forms, 2) the beauty of the idea, expressed in the position of the figure (relative to plastic art), and 3) the beauty of expression, which is possible only if the first two conditions are present; this beauty of expression is the highest goal of art, which is realized in ancient art, as a result of which the art of the present should strive to imitate the ancient.
Beauty is understood in the same way by Lessing, Herder, then by Goethe, and by all the outstanding aestheticians of Germany up to Kant, from whose time another understanding of art begins again.
In England, France, Italy, Holland at the same time, independently of the writers of Germany, their own aesthetic theories were born, just as obscure and contradictory, but all aesthetics, just like the German ones, based on the concept of beauty, understand beauty. as something absolutely existing and more or less merging with good or having the same root with it. In England, almost at the same time as Baumgarten, even a little earlier, Shaftesbury, Gutchison, Gom (Note), Burke, Gogart and others write about art.
According to Shaftesbury (1670-1713), what is beautiful is harmonious and proportionate; what is beautiful and proportionate is true (true); what is beautiful and at the same time true is pleasant and good (good). Beauty, according to Shaftesbury, is known only by the spirit. God is the basic beauty - beauty and goodness come from the same source. So, according to Shaftesbury, although beauty is considered as something separate from good, it again merges with it into something inseparable.
According to Hutchison (1694-1747), in his Origin of our ideas of beauty and virtue, the aim of art is beauty, the essence of which is the manifestation of unity in multitude. In the knowledge of what beauty is, we are guided by the ethical instinct (an internal sense). This instinct may be the opposite of the aesthetic. So, according to Hutchison, beauty no longer always coincides with goodness and is separated from it and is opposite to it.
According to Home (1696-1782), beauty is that which is pleasing. And because beauty is determined only by taste. The foundation of true taste is that greatest wealth, the fullness, strength and variety of impressions lies in the most limited limits. This is the ideal of a perfect work of art.
According to Burke (1730-1797), "Enquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and the beautiful", the majestic and beautiful that constitute the purpose of art, have as their basis a sense of self-preservation and a sense of publicity. These feelings, considered in their sources, are the means for maintaining the lineage of the individual. The first is achieved by food, protection and war, the second by communication and reproduction. And therefore self-preservation and the war associated with it are the source of the majestic, the public and the sexual need associated with it are the source of beauty [Kralik, Weltschonheit, Versuch einer allgemeinen Aesthetik, 304-306. K. Kralik, 124. (Note by L. H. Tolstoy.)].
These are the main English definitions of art and beauty in the 18th century.
At the same time in France they write about the art of Pere Andre, Bathe and then Diderot, d'Alembert, partly Voltaire.
According to Pere Andre ("Essai sur le Beau") (1741), there are three kinds of beauty: 1) divine beauty, 2) natural beauty and 3) artificial beauty.
According to Bathe (1713-1780), art consists in imitation of the beauty of nature and its purpose is pleasure. This is also the definition of Diderot's art. Taste is supposed to be the decider of what is beautiful, as is the case with the English. The laws of taste are not only not established, but it is recognized that this is impossible. The same opinion is held by d'Alembert and Voltaire.
According to the Italian aesthetics of the same time, Pagano, art is a combination into one of the beauties scattered in nature. The ability to see these beauties is taste, the ability to combine them into one whole is artistic genius. Beauty, according to Pagano, merges with goodness in such a way that beauty is manifested goodness, while goodness is inner beauty.
According to other Italians - Muratori (Muratori) (1672-1750), "Riflessioni sopro il buon gusto intorno le scienze e le arti" ["Reflections on good taste in science and art" (it.)] and especially Spalletti ( "Saggio sopro la belezza" ["Study on beauty" (it.)], 1765), art is reduced to an egoistic feeling, based, like Burke, on the desire for self-preservation and the public.
Of the Dutch, Gemsterhuis (1720-1790), who had an influence on German aesthetics and Goethe, is remarkable. According to him, beauty is that which gives the greatest pleasure, and that which gives us the greatest number of ideas in the most is the greatest pleasure. shortest time. The enjoyment of the beautiful is the highest knowledge that a person can reach, because it gives the greatest number of perceptions in the shortest time.
Such were the theories of aesthetics outside Germany during the last century. In Germany, after Winckelmann, there is again a completely new aesthetic theory of Kant (1724-1804), which more than all others explains the essence of the concept of beauty, and therefore of art.
Kant's aesthetics is based on the following: man, according to Kant, cognizes nature outside himself and himself in nature. In nature, outside of himself, he seeks truth, in himself he seeks goodness - there is one thing pure mind, the other - practical reason (freedom). In addition to these two tools of knowledge, according to Kant, there is also the faculty of judgment (Urtheilskraft), which makes judgments without concepts and produces pleasure without desire: "Urtheil ohne Begriff und Vergnugen ohne Begehren." This ability is the basis of aesthetic feeling. Beauty, according to Kant, in the subjective sense, is that which, without a concept and without practical benefit, is generally necessary to please, but in the objective sense, it is the form of an expedient object to the extent that it is perceived without any idea of ​​the goal.
Beauty is defined in the same way by the followers of Kant, among other things by Schiller (1759-1805). According to Schiller, who wrote a lot about aesthetics, the goal of art is, just like according to Kant, beauty, the source of which is pleasure without practical use. So art can be called a game, but not in the sense of an insignificant occupation, but in the sense of the manifestation of the beauty of life itself, which has no other goal than beauty.
Besides Schiller, the most remarkable followers of Kant in the field of aesthetics were Jean Paul and Wilhelm Humboldt, although they did not add anything to the definition of beauty, they made it clear different kinds her like drama, music, comic, etc. .
After Kant, they write about aesthetics, in addition to minor philosophers, Fichte, Schelling and Hegel and their followers. According to Fichte (1762-1814), the consciousness of beauty follows from the following. The world, that is, nature, has two sides: it is the product of our limitations and it is the product of our free ideal activity. In the first sense the world is limited, in the second it is free. In the first sense, every body is limited, distorted, compressed, constrained, and we see ugliness; in the second, we see inner fullness, vitality, rebirth, we see beauty. So the ugliness or beauty of an object, according to Fichte, depends on the point of view of the beholder. And therefore beauty is not in the world, but in the beautiful soul (schoner Geist). Art is the manifestation of this beautiful soul, and its goal is to educate not only the mind - this is the work of a scientist, not only the heart - this is the work of a moral preacher - but the whole person. And therefore, the sign of beauty lies not in anything external, but in the presence of a beautiful soul in the artist.
Behind Fichte, Friedrich Schlegel and Adam Müller define beauty in the same direction. According to Schlegel (1778-1829), beauty in art is understood too incompletely, one-sidedly and in isolation; beauty is found not only in art, but also in nature, but also in love, so that true beauty is expressed in the combination of art, nature and love. Therefore, Schlegel recognizes moral and philosophical art as inseparable from aesthetic art.
According to Adam Müller (1779-1829), there are two beauties: one is public beauty, which attracts people as the sun attracts planets - this is predominantly antique beauty, and the other is individual beauty, which becomes such, because the contemplator becomes the sun himself, attracting beauty - this is the beauty of the new art. A world in which all contradictions are coordinated is the highest beauty. Every work of art is a repetition of this universal harmony. The highest art is the art of life.
Schelling (1775-1854) was the philosopher who followed Fichte and his followers and had a great influence on the aesthetic concepts of our time. According to Schelling, art is a product or a consequence of that worldview, according to which the subject turns into its object or the object becomes its own subject. Beauty is the representation of the infinite in the finite. AND main character works of art are unconscious infinity. Art is a combination of the subjective with the objective, nature and reason, the unconscious with the conscious. And therefore art is the highest means of knowledge. Beauty is the contemplation of things in themselves, as they are at the basis of all things (in den Urbildern). The beautiful is produced not by the artist by his knowledge or will, but by the very idea of ​​beauty.
Of Schelling's followers, the most notable was Solger (1780-1819) ("Vorlesungen uber Aesthetik" ["Readings in Aesthetics" (German)]). According to Solger, the idea of ​​beauty is the basic idea of ​​every thing. In the world we see only a perversion of the basic idea, while art, by fantasy, can rise to the height of the basic idea. And therefore art is a semblance of creativity.
According to another follower of Schelling - Krause (1781-1832), true real beauty there is a manifestation of an idea in an individual form; art is the realization of beauty in the realm of the human free spirit. The highest degree of art is the art of living, which directs its activity to adorn life so that it is a wonderful place of residence for a wonderful person.
After Schelling and his followers, a new one, hitherto consciously in many, and unconsciously in the majority, begins Hegel's aesthetic teaching, which has been retained. This teaching is not only no more clear and definite than the former teachings, but even more, if only possible, vague and mystical.
According to Hegel (1770-1831), God appears in nature and art in the form of beauty. God is expressed in two ways: in object and subject, in nature and spirit. Beauty is the translucence of an idea through matter. Truly beautiful is only the spirit and everything that is part of the spirit, and therefore the beauty of nature is only a reflection of the beauty inherent in the spirit: the beautiful has only a spiritual content. But the spiritual must manifest itself in a sensual form. The sensuous manifestation of the spirit is only the appearance of Schein). And this appearance is the only reality of the beautiful. So that art is the realization of this semblance of an idea, and is a means, together with religion and philosophy, to bring to consciousness and express the deepest tasks of people and the highest truths of the spirit.
Truth and beauty, according to Hegel, are one and the same; the only difference is that truth is the idea itself, as it exists in itself and is conceivable. The idea, manifested outside, for consciousness becomes not only true, but also beautiful. The beautiful is the manifestation of an idea.
Hegel is followed by numerous followers of him: Weisse, Arnold Ruge, Rosencrantz, Theodor Fischer, and others.
According to Weiss (1801-1867), art is the introduction (Einbildung) of the absolutely spiritual essence of beauty into external dead and indifferent matter, the concept of which, in addition to the beauty introduced into it, is the negation of any existence in itself (Negation alles Fursichsein "s) .
In the idea of ​​truth, says Weisse, lies the contradiction between the subjective and objective sides of cognition; in the fact that the one I cognizes the Almighty. This contradiction can be eliminated through a concept that would unite in one moment of universality and unity, splitting into two in the concept of truth. Such a concept would be reconciled (aufgehoben) truth, and beauty is such reconciled truth.

Genealogy of Tolstoy

Lev Nikolaevich belongs to the rich and noble, who occupied an eminent position already in times. His great-grandfather, the count, had a sad role in history. The features of the great-grandson of Peter Andreevich, Ilya Andreevich, are given in War and Peace to the most good-natured, impractical old Count Rostov. The son of Ilya Andreevich, (1794-1837), was the father of Lev Nikolaevich. In some character traits and biography facts, he was similar to Nikolenka's father in "Childhood" and "Boyhood" and partly to Nikolai Rostov in "War and Peace". However, in real life Nikolai Ilyich differed from Nikolai Rostov not only in his good education, but also in his convictions, which did not allow him to serve under. A participant in the foreign campaign of the Russian army, including participating in the "" near Leipzig and being captured by the French, after the conclusion of peace, he retired with the rank of lieutenant colonel. Soon after his resignation, he was forced to go to official service so as not to end up in a debtor's prison because of the debts of his father, the Kazan governor, who died under investigation for official abuse. For several years, Nikolai Ilyich had to save money. The negative example of his father helped Nikolai Ilyich develop his own life ideal- private independent life with family joys. To put his frustrated affairs in order, Nikolai Ilyich, like Nikolai Rostov, married an ugly and no longer very young princess. The marriage, however, was a happy one. They had four sons: Nikolai, Sergei, Dmitry and Lev, and a daughter, Maria. In addition to Leo, Nikolai was an outstanding person, whose death (abroad, in) Tolstoy so surprisingly described in one of his letters to.

Tolstoy's maternal grandfather, Catherine's general, served as the prototype for the stern rigorist - the old prince Bolkonsky in War and Peace. Lev Nikolaevich undoubtedly borrowed the best features of his moral temper from the Volkonskys. Lev Nikolayevich's mother, similar to Princess Marya depicted in War and Peace, possessed a wonderful gift for storytelling, for which, with her shyness passed on to her son, she had to lock herself with a large number of listeners who gathered around her in a dark room. In addition to the Volkonskys, Tolstoy is closely related to a number of other aristocratic families - princes, and others.

Childhood

Lev Nikolaevich was born on August 28 () in Krapivensky district, in the mother's hereditary estate -. By that time, Tolstoy already had three older brothers - Nikolai (-), Sergey (-) and Dmitry (-). Sister Maria (-) was born. Tolstoy was not even two years old when his mother died. Many are misled by the fact that Childhood"Irtenyev's mother dies when the boy is already 10-12 years old and he is quite conscious of his surroundings, but in fact the mother is depicted here by Tolstoy according to the stories of others.

A distant relative, T. A. Ergolskaya, took up the upbringing of orphaned children (some of her features were transferred to Sonya from “ War and peace"). The family moved to, settling on, because the eldest son had to prepare for entering the university, but soon his father died suddenly, leaving things in a rather upset state, and the three younger children again settled in Yasnaya Polyana under the supervision of T. A. Ergolskaya and paternal aunts, Countess A. M. Osten-Saken. Here Lev Nikolaevich remained until when Countess Osten-Saken died and the children moved to, to the new one - the father's sister P. I. Yushkova. This ends the first period of Tolstoy's life, with great accuracy in the transfer of thoughts and impressions and only with a slight change in external details, described by him in " Childhood».

The Yushkovs' house, somewhat provincial in style, but typically secular, was one of the most cheerful in Kazan; all members of the family highly valued external brilliance. “My good aunt,” says Tolstoy, “the purest being, always said that she would want nothing more for me than for me to have a connection with married woman: rien ne forme un jeune homme comme une liaison avec une femme comme il faut" (" Confession»).

Two strong principles of Tolstoy's nature - great pride and a desire to achieve something real, to know the truth - now entered into a struggle. He passionately wanted to shine in society, earn a reputation young man comme il faut. But he did not have external data for this: he was ugly, as it seemed to him, awkward, and, moreover, he was disturbed by natural. At the same time, there was an intense internal struggle and the development of a strict moral ideal. Everything that is said in adolescence" And " Youth” about the aspirations of Irtenyev and Nekhlyudov for self-improvement, taken by Tolstoy from the history of his own attempts. The most diverse, as Tolstoy himself defines them, "thinking" about the main issues of our existence - happiness, death, God, love, eternity - painfully tormented him in that era of life, when his peers and brothers devoted themselves entirely to the fun, easy and carefree pastime of the rich and noble people. All this led to the fact that Tolstoy developed "a habit of constant moral analysis," as it seemed to him, "destroying the freshness of feeling and clarity of mind" (" Youth»).

Education

Tolstoy's education went at first under the guidance of a rude tutor, Saint-Thomas (Mr. Jerome "Boyhood"), who replaced the good-natured Reselman, whom Tolstoy so lovingly portrayed in "Childhood" under the name of Karl Ivanovich.

It was at this time, while in the Kazan hospital, that Tolstoy begins to keep a diary, where, imitating Franklin, he sets himself goals and rules for self-improvement and notes successes and failures in completing these tasks, analyzes his shortcomings and the train of thought and motives for his actions. In 1904, Tolstoy recalled: "... for the first year I ... did nothing. In the second year I began to study ... there was Professor Meyer, who ... gave me a job - comparing Catherine's "Order" with " Esprit des lois "Montesquieu. ... I was fascinated by this work, I went to the village, began to read Montesquieu, this reading opened up endless horizons for me; I began to read Rousseau and left the university, precisely because I wanted to study ". Without completing the university course, Tolstoy subsequently acquired vast knowledge through self-education, using, among other things, the skills of working with literature obtained at the university.

The beginning of literary activity

Having left the university, Tolstoy settled in Yasnaya Polyana in the spring of 1847. What he did there is partly evident from The Morning of the Landowner: it describes Tolstoy's attempts to establish new relations with the peasants.

Tolstoy's attempt to become a benefactor of his peasants is remarkable as an illustration of the fact that lordly philanthropy is not capable of improving serf life, and as a page from the history of Tolstoy's impulses. He stands apart from the democratic currents of the second half of the 1840s, which did not touch Tolstoy at all.

He followed journalism very little; although his attempt to somehow smooth over the guilt of the nobility before the people dates back to the same year when "Anton Goremyka" and the beginning "" appeared, but this is a mere accident. If there were literary influences here, then they were of a much older origin: Tolstoy was very fond of, a hater of civilization and a return to primitive simplicity.

However, this is only a small part of the activities. In his diary, Tolstoy sets himself a huge number of goals and rules. Only a small number of them succeed. Among the successful ones are serious studies in English, music, and jurisprudence. In addition, neither the diary nor the letters reflected the beginning of Tolstoy's studies in pedagogy and charity - in 1849 he opened a school for peasant children for the first time. The main teacher was Foka Demidych, a serf, but L.N. often taught.

The peasants, however, did not completely capture Tolstoy: he soon left for Russia and in the spring of 1848 began to take the exam for a candidate of rights. He successfully passed two exams, from criminal law and criminal law, then he got tired of it, and he left for the village.

Later, he traveled to Moscow, where he often succumbed to an inherited passion for the game, which greatly upset his financial affairs. During this period of his life, Tolstoy was especially passionately interested in music (he played the piano quite well and was very fond of classical composers). Exaggerated in relation to most people, the description of the effect that “passionate” music produces, the author drew from the sensations excited by the world of sounds in his own soul.

The development of Tolstoy's love for music was also facilitated by the fact that during a trip to St. Petersburg in 1848 he met, in a very unsuitable dance class setting, with a gifted but misguided German musician, whom he later described in Alberta. Tolstoy had the idea to save him: he took him to Yasnaya Polyana and played a lot with him. A lot of time was also spent on carousing, playing and hunting.

This is how 4 years passed after leaving the university, when Nikolai, who served under Tolstoy's brother, came to Yasnaya Polyana and began to call him there. Tolstoy did not give in to his brother's call for a long time, until a major loss in Moscow helped the decision. To pay off, it was necessary to reduce their expenses to a minimum - and in the spring of 1851 Tolstoy hurriedly left Moscow for the Caucasus, at first without any specific goal. He soon decided to enter military service, but there were obstacles in the form of a lack of the necessary papers, which were difficult to obtain, and Tolstoy lived for about 5 months in complete seclusion in, in a simple hut. He spent a significant part of his time hunting, in the company of Epishka, who appears in The Cossacks under the name Eroshka.

All the horrors, hardships and suffering that befell his heroic defenders were also endured by Tolstoy. He lived for a long time on the terrible 4th bastion, commanded a battery in the battle of Chernaya, was during the hellish bombardment during the assault. Despite all the horrors of the siege, to which he soon became accustomed, like all the other epic-brave Sevastopolites, Tolstoy wrote at that time a combat story from the Caucasian life “Cutting the Forest” and the first of three “ Sevastopol stories» «Sevastopol in December 1854». He sent this last story to Sovremennik. Immediately printed, the story was eagerly read by all of Russia and made a stunning impression with the picture of the horrors that befell the defenders of Sevastopol. The story was seen; he ordered to take care of the gifted officer, which, however, was impossible for Tolstoy, who did not want to go into the category of the "staff" he hated.

For the defense of Sevastopol, Tolstoy was awarded with the inscription "For Courage" and medals "For the Defense of Sevastopol" and "In Memory of the War of 1853-1856." Surrounded by the brilliance of fame and, using the reputation of a very brave officer, Tolstoy had every chance of a career, but he “spoiled” it for himself. Almost the only time in my life (except for the “Connection” made for children different options epics in one "in his pedagogical writings) he indulged in poetry: he wrote a satirical song, in the manner of soldiers, about the unfortunate deed of the year, when the general, having misunderstood the order of the commander in chief, imprudently attacked the Fedyukhin heights. The song (Like on the fourth day, it was not easy to carry the mountain to pick us up, etc.), which touched on a number of important generals, was a huge success and, of course, damaged the author. Immediately after the assault on August 27 (), Tolstoy was sent by courier to Petersburg, where he wrote "Sevastopol in May 1855." and "Sevastopol in August 1855".

The “Sevastopol Tales”, which finally strengthened Tolstoy’s fame as one of the main “hopes” of the new literary generation, is to a certain extent the first sketch of that huge canvas that 10-12 years later Tolstoy unfolded with such brilliant skill in War and Peace. The first in Russian, and almost in world literature, Tolstoy took up a sober analysis of combat life, the first to react to it without any exaltation. He brought down military prowess from the pedestal of solid "heroism", but at the same time exalted it like no one else. He showed that he was brave this moment a minute before and a minute later, the same person as everyone else: good - if he is always like that, petty, envious, dishonest - if he was like that, until circumstances demanded heroism from him. Destroying the idea of ​​​​military prowess in style, Tolstoy vividly exposed the greatness of the heroism of a simple, not draped in anything, but climbing forward, doing only what is necessary: ​​if necessary, hide like that, if necessary, die like that. For this, Tolstoy near Sevastopol fell infinitely in love with a simple soldier and in his person the whole Russian people in general.

Travel Europe

noisy and happy life Tolstoy lived in St. Petersburg, where he was greeted with open arms both in high-society salons and in literary circles. He became especially close friends with Turgenev, with whom at one time he lived in the same apartment. Turgenev introduced Tolstoy into the circle "" and other literary luminaries: he became on friendly terms with Nekrasov, Goncharov, Grigorovich, Druzhinin,.

“After the hardships of Sevastopol, life in the capital had a double charm for a rich, cheerful, impressionable and sociable young man. Drinking parties and cards, carousing with Tolstoy took whole days and even nights ”(Levenfeld).

A cheerful life was not slow to leave a bitter aftertaste in Tolstoy's soul, especially since he began to have a strong discord with a circle of writers close to him. Even then he understood “what holiness is”, and therefore did not want to be satisfied, like some of his friends, with the fact that he “ wonderful artist”, could not recognize literary activity as something especially sublime, something that frees a person from the need to strive for self-improvement and devote himself entirely to the good of his neighbor. On this basis, fierce disputes arose, which were complicated by the fact that the always truthful and therefore often harsh Tolstoy did not hesitate to note traits of insincerity and affectation in his friends. As a result, "people got sick of him and he got sick of himself" - and at the beginning of 1857 Tolstoy, without any regret, left Petersburg and went abroad.

An unexpected impression was made on him -, - where Tolstoy spent only about a year and a half (in 1857 and 1860-61). In general, this impression was definitely negative. Indirectly, it was expressed in the fact that nowhere in his writings Tolstoy uttered some kind word about certain aspects of life abroad, nowhere did he set the cultural superiority of the West as an example for us. He directly expressed his disappointment in European life in the story "Lucerne". The underlying contrast between wealth and poverty in European society is captured here by Tolstoy with striking force. He was able to see it through the magnificent outer veil of European culture, because he never left the idea of ​​\u200b\u200ba device human life on the basis of brotherhood and

Abroad, he was only interested in public education and institutions aimed at raising the level of the working population. He closely studied the issues of public education in Germany both theoretically and practically, and through conversations with specialists. Of the prominent people in Germany, he was most interested in him as the author of the "Black Forest Tales" dedicated to folk life and the publisher of folk calendars. Proud and reticent, never the first to seek acquaintance, Tolstoy made an exception for Auerbach, paid him a visit and tried to get close to him. During his stay in Tolstoy, he met with and.

Tolstoy's deeply serious mood during his second trip to the south was also facilitated by the fact that his beloved brother Nikolai died in his arms. The death of his brother made a huge impression on Tolstoy.

Pedagogical experiments

Tolstoy returned to Russia immediately and became a mediator. This was done least of all under the influence of the democratic currents of the sixties. At that time they looked at the people as younger brother, which must be lifted onto itself; Tolstoy thought, on the contrary, that the people are infinitely higher than the cultural classes, and that the masters must borrow the heights of spirit from the peasants. He actively took up the organization of schools in his Yasnaya Polyana and throughout the Krapivensky district.

The Yasnaya Polyana School is one of the most original pedagogical attempts ever made. In an era of boundless admiration for the latest German pedagogy, Tolstoy resolutely rebelled against any regulation in the school; the only method of teaching and education that he recognized was that no method was needed. Everything in teaching should be individual - and, and, and their mutual relationship. In the Yasnaya Polyana school, the children sat where they wanted, for as long as they wanted, and for as long as they wanted. There was no specific curriculum. The teacher's only job was to keep the class interested. The classes were going great. They were led by Tolstoy himself with the help of several regular teachers and a few random, from the closest acquaintances and visitors.

This curious misunderstanding lasted for about 15 years, bringing together with Tolstoy such, for example, an organically opposite writer as. Only in 1875, in the article "and Count Tolstoy", striking with the brilliance of analysis and foreseeing Tolstoy's future activities, he described the spiritual image of the most original of Russian writers in a real light. The little attention that was paid to Tolstoy's pedagogical articles is partly due to the fact that little attention was paid to him at that time.

Apollon Grigoriev had the right to title his article about Tolstoy ("", g.) "Phenomena of Modern Literature Missed by Our Criticism." Having extremely cordially met Tolstoy's debits and credits and "Sevastopol Tales", recognizing in him the great hope of Russian literature (Druzhinin even used the epithet "brilliant" in relation to him), criticism then for 10-12 years, until the appearance of "War and Peace", not only ceases to recognize him as a very important writer, but somehow grows cold towards him. In an era when the interests of the minute and the party were in the foreground, this writer, who was interested only in eternal questions, did not capture.

Meanwhile, even before the appearance of War and Peace, Tolstoy provided material for criticism that was paramount. In "" appeared "Snowstorm" - a real artistic pearl in its ability to interest the reader in a story about how someone traveled in a snowstorm from one postal station to another. There is no content, no plot at all, but all the little things of reality are depicted with amazing brightness, and the mood is reproduced actors. "Two Hussars" give an extremely colorful picture of the past and are written with that freedom of attitude to the plot, which is inherent only to great talents. It was easy to fall into the idealization of the former hussars with the charm that is characteristic of the elder Ilyin - but Tolstoy provided the dashing hussar with exactly the number of shadow sides that charming people actually have - and the epic shade was erased, the real truth remained. The same freedom of attitude is the main advantage of the story "The Morning of the Landowner".

To fully appreciate it, we must remember that it was printed at the end of 1856 (“ Domestic notes", No. 12). The peasants at that time appeared in literature only in the form of Grigorovich's sentimental "peizans" and Turgenev's peasant figures, standing incomparably higher in purely artistically, but certainly elevated. In the muzhiks of The Morning of the Landowner there is not a shadow of idealization, just as there is not - and this is exactly what Tolstoy's creative freedom showed itself - and anything resembling anger against the muzhiks for the fact that they reacted with such little gratitude to good intentions his landowner. The whole task of the autobiographical confession was to show the groundlessness of Nekhlyud's attempt. The master's idea takes on a tragic character in the story "Polikushka" related to the same period; a person dies here because the lady who wants to be kind and just took it into her head to believe in the sincerity of repentance, and she entrusts the delivery of a large amount to the yard Polikushka, not completely dead, but not without reason enjoying a bad reputation. Polikushka loses money and, out of despair that they will not believe him, that he really lost it, and did not steal it, hangs himself.

Among the stories and essays written by Tolstoy in the late 1850s are the above-mentioned "Lucerne" and excellent parallels: "Three Deaths", where the effeminacy of the nobility and its tenacious attachment to life are contrasted with the simplicity and calmness with which the peasants die . The parallels end with the death of the tree, described with that pantheistic insight into the essence of the world process, which both here and later succeeded so splendidly by Tolstoy. This ability of Tolstoy to generalize the life of man, animals and "inanimate nature" into one concept of life in general received its highest artistic expression in the "History of the Horse" ("Strider"), published only in the 1870s, but written in 1860. Especially the final scene makes a stunning impression: full of tenderness and care for her wolf cubs, she tears pieces of meat from the body of the once famous horse Kholstomer, abandoned by the flayers, and then slaughtered for old age and uselessness, chews these pieces, then coughs them out and thus feeds the wolf cubs. Here, the joyful pantheism of Platon Karataev (from War and Peace) has already been prepared, who is so deeply convinced that life is a cycle, that the death and misfortunes of one are replaced by the fullness of life and joy for another, and that this is what the world order consists of, from century unchanged.

Family

In the late 1850s, Tolstoy met (1844-1919), the daughter of a Moscow doctor from the Baltic Germans. He was already in his fourth decade, Sofya Andreevna was only 17 years old. It seemed to him that this difference was very great, that even if his love were crowned with reciprocity, the marriage would be unhappy and sooner or later the young woman would fall in love with another, also young and not “obsolete” person. Based on a personal motive that worried him, he writes his first novel, "Family Happiness", in which the plot develops precisely along this path.

In reality, Tolstoy's novel played out quite differently. Having endured the passion for Sophia in his heart for three years, Tolstoy married her in the fall, and the greatest fullness of family happiness fell to his lot, which only happens on earth. In the person of his wife, he found not only the most faithful and devoted friend, but also an indispensable assistant in all matters, practical and literary. Seven times she rewrote the works he endlessly altered, supplemented and corrected, moreover, a kind of transcripts, that is, thoughts not finally agreed, words and phrases not completed, under her experienced hand in deciphering this kind of hand, often received a clear and definite expression. For Tolstoy, the brightest period of his life is coming - intoxication with personal happiness, very significant due to practicality, material well-being, the greatest, easily given tension literary creativity and in connection with it, unprecedented fame all-Russian, and then worldwide.

Recognized by the critics of the whole world as the greatest epic work of new European literature, "War and Peace" is already striking from a purely technical point of view with the size of its fictional canvas. Only in painting can one find some parallel in the huge paintings in the Doge's Palace in Venice, where hundreds of faces are also painted with amazing distinctness and individual expression. In Tolstoy's novel, all classes of society are represented, from emperors and kings to the last soldier, all ages, all temperaments, and in the space of an entire reign.

On December 6, 1908, Tolstoy wrote in his diary: “People love me for those trifles - War and Peace, etc., which seem very important to them”

In the summer of 1909, one of the visitors to Yasnaya Polyana expressed his delight and gratitude for the creation of War and Peace and Anna Karenina. Tolstoy replied: “It’s the same as someone coming to the house and saying: “I respect you very much because you dance the mazurka well.” I attribute meaning to my completely different books (religious ones!).”

In the sphere of material interests, he began to say to himself: “Well, well, you will have 6,000 acres in - 300 heads of horses, and then?”; in the literary sphere: "Well, well, you will be more glorious than Gogol, Shakespeare, Moliere, all the writers in the world - so what!". Starting to think about raising children, he asked himself: “why?”; discussing “how the people can achieve prosperity,” he “suddenly said to himself: what does it matter to me?” In general, he "felt that what he stood on had given way, that what he had lived for was gone." The natural result was the thought of .

“I, a happy man, hid the string from me so as not to hang myself on the crossbar between the cabinets in my room, where I was alone every day, undressing, and stopped going hunting with a gun, so as not to be tempted by a too easy way to rid myself of life. I myself did not know what I wanted: I was afraid of life, strove to get away from it and, meanwhile, hoped for something else from it.

religious quest

In order to find an answer to the questions and doubts that tormented him, Tolstoy first of all took up the study and wrote and published in 1891 in Geneva "Study of Dogmatic Theology", in which he criticized Orthodox dogmatic theology in five volumes. He began to conduct conversations with and, went to the elders in, read theological treatises, studied languages ​​​​(a Moscow rabbi helped him in studying the latter) in order to know the original sources in the original. At the same time, he looked closely at, became close to a thoughtful peasant, talked with,. With the same feverishness he sought the meaning of life in the study of philosophy and in acquaintance with the results of the exact sciences. He made a series of attempts at greater and greater simplification, striving to live a life close to nature and agricultural life.

Gradually he gives up the whims and conveniences of a rich life, does a lot of physical labor, dresses in the simplest clothes, becomes a man, gives his entire large fortune to his family, and renounces the rights of literary property. On this basis of an unadulterated pure impulse and striving for moral improvement, a third period is created. literary activity Tolstoy, whose distinguishing feature is the denial of all established forms of state, social and religious life. A significant part of Tolstoy's views could not be openly expressed in Russia and are fully presented only in foreign editions of his religious and social treatises.

No unanimous attitude was established even in relation to Tolstoy's fictional works written during this period. Thus, in a long series of short stories and legends intended primarily for popular reading (“How do people live”, etc.), Tolstoy, in the opinion of his unconditional admirers, reached the pinnacle of artistic power - that elemental skill that is given only to folk tales, because that they embody the creativity of an entire nation. On the contrary, in the opinion of people who are indignant at Tolstoy for turning from an artist into one, these artistic teachings, written with a specific purpose, are grossly tendentious. high and terrible truth"The Death of Ivan Ilyich", according to fans, placing this work along with the main works of the genius of Tolstoy, according to others, is deliberately harsh, deliberately sharply emphasizes soullessness higher strata society to show the moral superiority of a simple "kitchen man" Gerasim. The explosion of the most opposite feelings, caused by the analysis of marital relations and the indirect demand for abstinence from married life, made me forget about the amazing brightness and passion with which this story was written. The folk drama “The Power of Darkness”, according to Tolstoy’s admirers, is a great manifestation of his artistic power: in the narrow framework of the ethnographic reproduction of Russian peasant life, Tolstoy managed to fit so many universal features that the drama went around all the stages of the world with tremendous success. But for others, Akim alone, with his indisputably one-sided and tendentious condemnations of urban life, is enough to declare the whole work immeasurably tendentious.

Finally, in relation to Tolstoy's last major work - the novel "" - fans do not find enough words to admire the completely youthful freshness of feeling and passion shown by the 70-year-old author, the ruthlessness in depicting judicial and high-society life, the complete originality of the first reproduction in Russian literature world of political criminals. Opponents of Tolstoy emphasize the pallor of the protagonist - Nekhlyudov, harshness regarding the depravity of the upper classes and the "state church" (in response to which the Synod issued the so-called "", opening the accompanying public and journalistic conflict).

In general, opponents of the last phase of Tolstoy's literary and preaching activity find that his artistic power has certainly suffered from the predominance of theoretical interests, and that creativity is now only necessary for Tolstoy to propagate his socio-religious views in a generally accessible form. In his aesthetic treatise (“On Art”), one can find enough material to declare Tolstoy an enemy of art: in addition to the fact that Tolstoy here partly completely denies, partly significantly diminishes artistic value, (at the performance of "Hamlet" he experienced "special suffering" for this "false semblance of works of art"), etc., he directly comes to the conclusion that "the more we surrender to beauty, the more we move away from goodness."

Excommunication

In response to an indignant letter from the wife of Lev Nikolaevich Sofya Andreevna Tolstaya, written by her regarding the publication of the Synod's decision in the newspapers, St. Petersburg wrote: “Gracious Empress Countess Sofia Andreevna! It’s not cruel what the Synod did when it announced your husband’s falling away from the Church, but what he did to himself when he renounced his faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, our Redeemer and Savior, is cruel. It was on this renunciation that your bitter indignation should have poured out long ago. And not from a scrap, of course, of printed paper, your husband perishes, but from the fact that he turned away from the Source of eternal life. .

... The fact that I renounced the Church that calls itself Orthodox is absolutely fair. But I renounced it not because I rebelled against the Lord, but on the contrary, only because I wanted to serve him with all the strength of my soul. Before I renounced the Church and unity with the people, which was inexpressibly dear to me, I doubted the correctness of the Church by some indications and devoted several years to researching theoretically and practically the teachings of the Church: theoretically, I re-read everything I could about the teachings of the Church, studied and critically analyzed dogmatic theology; in practice, he strictly followed, for more than a year, all the prescriptions of the Church, observing all fasts and attending all church services. And I became convinced that the teaching of the Church is theoretically an insidious and harmful lie, but in practice it is a collection of the grossest superstitions and sorcery, which completely hides the whole meaning of Christian teaching.

... The fact that I reject the incomprehensible Trinity and the fable about the fall of the first man, which has no meaning in our time, the blasphemous story about God, who was born of the Virgin, who redeems the human race, is completely fair. God - the Spirit, God - love, the only God - the beginning of everything, I not only do not reject, but I do not recognize anything really existing, except God, and I see the whole meaning of life only in the fulfillment of the will of God, expressed in Christian teaching.

... It is also said: "Does not recognize the afterlife and bribes." If we understand life after death in the sense of the second coming, hell with eternal torment, devils, and paradise - permanent bliss, then it is quite fair that I do not recognize such an afterlife; but I acknowledge eternal life and retribution here and everywhere, now and always, to such an extent that, standing on the edge of the grave in my years, I often have to make efforts not to desire carnal death, that is, birth to a new life, and I believe that any good deed increases the true good of my eternal life, and every evil deed reduces it.

… It is also said that I reject all sacraments. This is absolutely fair. I consider all the sacraments base, rude, inconsistent with the concept of God and Christian teaching, witchcraft and, moreover, a violation of the most direct instructions of the Gospel ...

In infant baptism, I see a clear perversion of all the meaning that baptism could have for adults who consciously accept Christianity; in the performance of the sacrament of marriage over people who were obviously united before, and in the permission of divorces and in the consecration of divorced marriages, I see a direct violation of both the meaning and the letter of the gospel teaching. In the periodic forgiveness of sins at confession, I see a harmful deception that only encourages immorality and destroys the fear of sinning. In unction, as well as in chrismation, I see methods of gross witchcraft, as well as in the veneration of icons and relics, as well as in all those rites, prayers, spells that the breviary is filled with. In communion I see the deification of the flesh and the perversion of Christian teaching. In the priesthood, in addition to a clear preparation for deceit, I see a direct violation of the words of Christ, which expressly forbids anyone to be called teachers, fathers, mentors (Matt. XXIII, 8-10). It is said, finally, as the last and highest degree of my guilt, that I, "swearing at the most sacred objects faith, did not shudder to mock the most sacred of the sacraments - the Eucharist.

The fact that I did not shudder to describe simply and objectively what the priest does to prepare this so-called sacrament is completely just; but the fact that this so-called sacrament is something sacred, and that it is blasphemy to describe it simply as it is done, is completely unjust. It is not blasphemy to call a partition, a partition, and not an iconostasis, and a cup a cup, and not a chalice, etc., but the most terrible, incessant, outrageous blasphemy lies in the fact that people, using all possible means of deception and hypnotization, - assure children and simple-minded people that if you cut known way and when pronouncing famous words pieces of bread and put them into wine, then God enters into these pieces; and that the one in whose name a living piece is taken out will be healthy; in the name of whom such a piece is taken out of the deceased, then it will be better for him in the next world; and that whoever has eaten this piece, God Himself will enter into him.

Dedicated to the theme of Leo Tolstoy's excommunication famous story"Anathema".

Philosophy

Leo Tolstoy was the founder of the movement, one of the fundamental theses of which is the Gospel “non-resistance to evil by force”.

This position of non-resistance is fixed, according to Tolstoy, in numerous places and is the core of the doctrine, as, indeed, and.

Moscow census of 1882. L. N. Tolstoy - participant in the census

The 1882 census in Moscow is famous for the fact that he took part in it great writer Count L. N. Tolstoy. Lev Nikolayevich wrote: “I suggested using the census in order to find out poverty in Moscow and help her with business and money, and make sure that there were no poor in Moscow.”

Tolstoy believed that the interest and significance of the census for society is that it gives it a mirror in which you want it, you don’t want it, the whole society and each of us will look. He chose for himself one of the most difficult and difficult sections, Protochny Lane, where there was a rooming house, among the Moscow squalor, this gloomy two-story building was called the Rzhanov Fortress. Having received an order from the Duma, a few days before the census, Tolstoy began to walk around the site according to the plan that he was given. Indeed, the dirty rooming house, filled with destitute, desperate people who had sunk to the very bottom, served as a mirror for Tolstoy, reflecting the terrible poverty of the people. Under the fresh impression of what he saw, L. N. Tolstoy wrote his famous article "On the census in Moscow." In this article, he writes:

The purpose of the census is scientific. The census is a sociological study. The goal of the science of sociology is the happiness of people. "This science and its methods differ sharply from other sciences. The peculiarity is that sociological research is not carried out by scientists working in their offices, observatories and laboratories, but is carried out by two thousand people from society. Another feature "that research in other sciences is carried out not on living people, but here on living people. The third feature is that the goal of other sciences is only knowledge, and here the benefit of people. Foggy spots can be explored alone, but to explore Moscow, 2000 people are needed. The purpose of the study foggy spots only to learn everything about foggy spots, the purpose of the study of the inhabitants is to derive the laws of sociology and, on the basis of these laws, establish better life of people. Foggy patches do not care if they are investigated or not, they have been waiting and are ready to wait for a long time, but the inhabitants of Moscow are not all the same, especially those unfortunate ones who constitute the most interesting subject of the science of sociology. The counter comes to the doss house, to the basement, finds a man dying of starvation and politely asks: title, name, patronymic, occupation; and after a slight hesitation as to whether to list him as alive, he writes it down and passes on.

Despite Tolstoy's declared good intentions of the census, the population was suspicious of this event. On this occasion, Tolstoy writes: “When they explained to us that the people had already learned about the rounds of the apartments and were leaving, we asked the owner to lock the gates, and we ourselves went to the yard to persuade the people who were leaving.” Lev Nikolaevich hoped to arouse sympathy for urban poverty in the rich, to raise money, to recruit people who wanted to contribute to this cause, and together with the census to go through all the dens of poverty. In addition to fulfilling the duties of a copyist, the writer wanted to enter into communication with the unfortunate, find out the details of their needs and help them with money and work, expulsion from Moscow, placing children in schools, old men and women in shelters and almshouses.

According to the results of the census, the population of Moscow in 1882 amounted to 753.5 thousand people, and only 26% were born in Moscow, and the rest were “newcomers”. Of the Moscow residential apartments, 57% faced the street, 43% faced the yard. From the 1882 census, one can find out that in 63% the head of the household is a married couple, in 23% - the wife, and only in 14% - the husband. The census recorded 529 families with 8 or more children. 39% have servants and most often they are women.

The last years of Leo Tolstoy's life

Grave of Leo Tolstoy

Tormented by his belonging to high society, the opportunity to live better than the peasants who were nearby, Tolstoy in October, fulfilling his decision to live his last years in accordance with his views, renouncing the "circle of the rich and scientists." He began his last journey at the station. On the way, he fell ill and was forced to make a stop at a small station (now Leo Tolstoy,), where he died.

Criticism of Tolstoy

Bibliography

• Childhood - a story, 1852
• Adolescence - a story, 1854
• Sevastopol stories - 1855

• "Sevastopol in December"
• "Sevastopol in May"
• "Sevastopol in August 1855"

• Snowstorm - short story, 1856
• Two Hussars - a story, 1856
• Youth is a story, 1857
• Albert - story, 1858
• Family happiness - a novel, 1859
• Polikushka - a story, 1863
• Cossacks - story, 1863

Attention! Danger! Alert! An attempt is being made to send a highly moral message through the Internet!

Once Dima Hardy, in the comments to my post about the Bible, executed on calfskin parchment and decorated with luxurious illustrations, said that this is the art of our time. At that time I could neither agree nor argue with this statement, and went off to read Tolstoy - just shortly before that, I came across his treatise on art. Apparently, the time has come to read it, I decided, printed out this rather voluminous work and began to read it in the subway.

It should be noted that the term of art itself is quite multifaceted, it often means craftsmanship, creativity, aesthetics, and craft, and the definitions of this concept - from everyday, stereotypical to those based on ancient philosophical schools - can not be counted at all. But not Leo Tolstoy, of course.

Although the work is quite voluminous, I read it avidly. By the way, Tolstoy has a very subtle humor, if you try, you can see it behind the most neutral, verified, I would not even be afraid to say, politically correct, formulations.

What a question?

The question of art is not at all idle, as it may seem. I googled about his role in his native federation.

It turned out that, however! The state considers culture (and therefore art as a direction of human activity in the field of culture) an important tool for ensuring "social stability, economic growth and national security of the state" and has set itself the task of forming a "singlecultural space ".

It is gratifying that the concepts of "culture" and "mass communications" are still divorced at the level of understanding of the Ministry of Culture. It is sad that at the same time they are already like Yin and Yang with a single budget, by the way, considerable. IN In 2007, federal budget expenditures on support for culture and the media amounted to 1.2% of GDP. For comparison - 3.8% was spent in 2007 on healthcare and sports, 5.7% on education, about 2.7% on defense.

If you look at the structure spending within the budget, it becomes obvious that the main emphasis is on supporting the carriers (or carriers?) of cultural beats, such as museums, exhibitions, libraries, theaters, circuses, television and radio, cinema, news agencies (for some reason, it still does not appear there Internet, probably it is in the budget of the Ministry of Defense). For the reproduction of those who create these beats, apparently, the Ministry of Education is responsible.

During the time of Lev Nikolayevich, less money was spent on education than on the dissemination of its results in the form of art. Apparently, this is how the foundations of the consumer society were laid and the era of mass culture was born, in which the satisfaction of cultural needs will be for a person beforeonly a service, and not the result of his life.

To support the arts in Russia, where only one hundredth of what is needed to provide the entire people with the means of education is spent on public education, millions of government subsidies are given for academies, conservatories, and theaters. Hundreds of thousands of workers - carpenters, masons, dyers, joiners, upholsterers, tailors, hairdressers, goldsmiths, bronzers, compositors - spend their whole lives in hard labor to satisfy the demands of art, so that there is hardly any other human activity than military, which would absorb as much power as this one.

But not only are such enormous labors spent on this activity, human lives are spent on it, just like on war: hundreds of thousands of people from a young age devote all their lives to learning how to twirl their legs very quickly (dancers) ; others (musicians) to learn how to play keys or strings very quickly; still others (painters) to be able to draw with colors and write everything that they see; the fourth is to be able to turn every phrase in every way and find a rhyme for every word. And such people, often very kind, intelligent, capable of any useful work, run wild in these exceptional, stupefying occupations and become dull to all the serious phenomena of life, one-sided and quite self-satisfied specialists who can only twirl their legs, tongue or fingers.

To art!

Lev Nikolaevich wrote his treatise "What is art?" Fifteen years. You readily believe this after reading his analysis of approaches to the definition of art. I can't imagine how it was possible to stock up with so much patience to read - and, moreover, in the originals - all these French aestheticians and German philosophers?

Tolstoy first showed that understanding beauty must be taken beyond the definition of art as a subjective characteristic of an object of art, and there is no dispute about tastes. Thus, he deprived the vast majority of the definitions of art made before him - almost all of them were based on an attitude towards beauty. The rest, based on the fact that the purpose of art is the pleasure received from it, he rejected as devoid of vital pragmatism and proposed to consider art as one of the conditions of human life. Here he comes close to the foundation of his understanding of art - it is one of the means of communication between people.

Art is not, as metaphysicians say, a manifestation of some mysterious idea, beauty, God; it is not, as aesthetic physiologists say, a game in which a person releases an excess of accumulated energy; is not a manifestation of emotions by external signs; is not the production of pleasant objects, the main thing is not pleasure, but a means of communication between people, necessary for life and for moving towards the good of the individual and humanity, uniting them in the same feelings.

This is the most interesting thing - art is, firstly, a feeling, and secondly, its transfer to another.

Feelings are different, for example, base, they, of course, cannot form the basis of a work of art. And which ones can? Lev Nikolayevich figured it out:

Humanity is constantly moving from the lower, more particular and less clear to the higher, more general and clearer understanding of life. And as in any movement, in this movement there are advanced ones: there are people who understand the meaning of life more clearly than others, and of all these advanced people there is always one, more vividly, accessible, strongly - in word and life - expressing this meaning of life. The expression by this person of this meaning of life, together with those traditions and rituals that usually develop around the memory of this person, is called religion. Religions are indicators of that higher understanding of life, accessible at a given time and in a given society to the best advanced people, to which all other people of this society inevitably and invariably approach. And therefore only religions have always served and serve as the basis for assessing the feelings of people. If feelings bring people closer to the ideal that religion indicates, agree with it, do not contradict it, they are good; if they move away from it, do not agree with it, contradict it, they are bad.

However, not everything is so simple, and we still have to think in order not to put in the place of God what is not God (as happened in the Renaissance, for example). To begin, you need to check for the identity of the concepts of "church" and "true". Tolstoy advises Christians to strive for a religious consciousness based not on a religious cult, which is secondary, but on the essential provisions of the teachings of Christ - "the direct relationship of each person to the Father and arising from this brotherhood and equality of all people and therefore replacing any kind of violence with humility and love" . However, in comparison with barbarism, the church version also offers a higher moral standard, notes Tolstoy. It's like where to start for those who still believe in horoscopes, the difference between democrats and liberals, or work in gibedade.

However, not everything is so complicated - real art should be clear to everyone:

The point of art is precisely to make understandable and accessible what could be incomprehensible and inaccessible in the form of reasoning. Usually, when receiving a truly artistic impression, it seems to the recipient that he already knew this before, but he just did not know how to express it.

Good Christian art "transmits feelings arising from the religious consciousness of a person in the world, or the simplest worldly feelings available to all people of the whole world."

White and black

Fun post!Now I will list what Lev Nikolaevich attributed to real art, and what not.

Tolstoy himself stipulates that he does not attribute to his choice heavy weight, since it refers to the class "with a perverted false education of taste." Tolstoy refers to all his work as "bad" art, except for the story "God sees the truth" and "Prisoner of the Caucasus".

Briefly speaking

I am close to Tolstoy's idea that art is "an instrument of communication, which means progress,progress of mankind towards perfection". AndArt is not just a source of aesthetic pleasure, it has an important task in society. To quote Tolstoy himself:

The task of art is enormous: art, real art, guided by religion with the help of science, must ensure that the peaceful coexistence of people, which is now observed by external measures - courts, police, charitable institutions, work inspections, etc. - is achieved freely. and joyful activities of people. Art must eliminate violence. And only art can do that.

Attention! Danger! Alert! An attempt is being made to send a highly moral message through the Internet!

Once Dima Hardy, in the comments to my post about the Bible, executed on calfskin parchment and decorated with luxurious illustrations, that this is the art of our time. At that time I could neither agree nor argue with this statement, and went off to read Tolstoy - just shortly before that, I came across his treatise on art. Apparently, the time has come to read it, I decided, printed out this rather voluminous work and began to read it in the subway.

It should be noted that the term of art itself is quite multifaceted, it often means craftsmanship, creativity, aesthetics, and craft, and the definitions of this concept - from everyday, stereotypical to those based on ancient philosophical schools - can not be counted at all. But not Leo Tolstoy, of course.

Although the work is quite voluminous, I read it avidly. By the way, Tolstoy has a very subtle humor, if you try, you can see it behind the most neutral, verified, I would not even be afraid to say, politically correct, formulations.

What a question?

The question of art is not at all idle, as it may seem. I googled about his role in his native federation.

It turned out that, however! The state considers culture (and therefore art as a direction of human activity in the field of culture) an important tool for ensuring "social stability, economic growth and national security of the state" and has set itself the task of forming a "singlecultural space ".

It is gratifying that the concepts of "culture" and "mass communications" are still divorced at the level of understanding of the Ministry of Culture. It is sad that at the same time they are already like Yin and Yang with a single budget, by the way, considerable. IN In 2007, federal budget expenditures on support for culture and the media amounted to 1.2% of GDP. For comparison - 3.8% was spent in 2007 on healthcare and sports, 5.7% on education, about 2.7% on defense.

If you look at the structure spending within the budget, it becomes obvious that the main emphasis is on supporting the carriers (or carriers?) of cultural beats, such as museums, exhibitions, libraries, theaters, circuses, television and radio, cinema, news agencies (for some reason, it still does not appear there Internet, probably it is in the budget of the Ministry of Defense). For the reproduction of those who create these beats, apparently, the Ministry of Education is responsible.

During the time of Lev Nikolayevich, less money was spent on education than on the dissemination of its results in the form of art. Apparently, this is how the foundations of the consumer society were laid and the era of mass culture was born, in which the satisfaction of cultural needs will be for a person beforeonly a service, and not the result of his life.

To support the arts in Russia, where only one hundredth of what is needed to provide the entire people with the means of education is spent on public education, millions of government subsidies are given for academies, conservatories, and theaters. Hundreds of thousands of workers - carpenters, masons, dyers, joiners, upholsterers, tailors, hairdressers, goldsmiths, bronzers, compositors - spend their whole lives in hard labor to satisfy the demands of art, so that there is hardly any other human activity than military, which would absorb as much power as this one.

But not only are such enormous labors spent on this activity, human lives are spent on it, just like on war: hundreds of thousands of people from a young age devote all their lives to learning how to twirl their legs very quickly (dancers) ; others (musicians) to learn how to play keys or strings very quickly; still others (painters) to be able to draw with colors and write everything that they see; the fourth is to be able to turn every phrase in every way and find a rhyme for every word. And such people, often very kind, intelligent, capable of any useful work, run wild in these exceptional, stupefying occupations and become dull to all the serious phenomena of life, one-sided and quite self-satisfied specialists who can only twirl their legs, tongue or fingers.

To art!

Lev Nikolaevich wrote his treatise "What is art?" Fifteen years. You readily believe this after reading his analysis of approaches to the definition of art. I can't imagine how it was possible to stock up with so much patience to read - and, moreover, in the originals - all these French aestheticians and German philosophers?

Tolstoy first showed that understanding beauty must be taken beyond the definition of art as a subjective characteristic of an object of art, and there is no dispute about tastes. Thus, he deprived the vast majority of the definitions of art made before him - almost all of them were based on an attitude towards beauty. The rest, based on the fact that the purpose of art is the pleasure received from it, he rejected as devoid of vital pragmatism and proposed to consider art as one of the conditions of human life. Here he comes close to the foundation of his understanding of art - it is one of the means of communication between people.

Art is not, as metaphysicians say, a manifestation of some mysterious idea, beauty, God; it is not, as aesthetic physiologists say, a game in which a person releases an excess of accumulated energy; is not a manifestation of emotions by external signs; is not the production of pleasant objects, the main thing is not pleasure, but a means of communication between people, necessary for life and for moving towards the good of the individual and humanity, uniting them in the same feelings.

This is the most interesting thing - art is, firstly, a feeling, and secondly, its transfer to another.

Feelings are different, for example, base, they, of course, cannot form the basis of a work of art. And which ones can? Lev Nikolayevich figured it out:

Humanity is constantly moving from the lower, more particular and less clear to the higher, more general and clearer understanding of life. And as in any movement, in this movement there are advanced ones: there are people who understand the meaning of life more clearly than others, and of all these advanced people there is always one, more vividly, accessible, strongly - in word and life - expressing this meaning of life. The expression by this person of this meaning of life, together with those traditions and rituals that usually develop around the memory of this person, is called religion. Religions are indicators of that higher understanding of life, accessible at a given time and in a given society to the best advanced people, to which all other people of this society inevitably and invariably approach. And therefore only religions have always served and serve as the basis for assessing the feelings of people. If feelings bring people closer to the ideal that religion indicates, agree with it, do not contradict it, they are good; if they move away from it, do not agree with it, contradict it, they are bad.

However, not everything is so simple, and we still have to think in order not to put in the place of God what is not God (as happened in the Renaissance, for example). To begin, you need to check for the identity of the concepts of "church" and "true". Tolstoy advises Christians to strive for a religious consciousness based not on a religious cult, which is secondary, but on the essential provisions of the teachings of Christ - "the direct relationship of each person to the Father and arising from this brotherhood and equality of all people and therefore replacing any kind of violence with humility and love" . However, in comparison with barbarism, the church version also offers a higher moral standard, notes Tolstoy. It's like where to start for those who still believe in horoscopes, the difference between democrats and liberals, or work in gibedade.

However, not everything is so complicated - real art should be clear to everyone:

The point of art is precisely to make understandable and accessible what could be incomprehensible and inaccessible in the form of reasoning. Usually, when receiving a truly artistic impression, it seems to the recipient that he already knew this before, but he just did not know how to express it.

Good Christian art "transmits feelings arising from the religious consciousness of a person in the world, or the simplest worldly feelings available to all people of the whole world."

White and black

Fun post!Now I will list what Lev Nikolaevich attributed to real art, and what not.

Tolstoy himself stipulates that he does not attach much weight to his choice, since he belongs to the class "with a perverted false education of taste." Tolstoy refers to all his work as "bad" art, except for the story "God sees the truth" and "Prisoner of the Caucasus".

Briefly speaking

I am close to Tolstoy's idea that art is "an instrument of communication, which means progress,progress of mankind towards perfection". AndArt is not just a source of aesthetic pleasure, it has an important task in society. To quote Tolstoy himself:

The task of art is enormous: art, real art, guided by religion with the help of science, must ensure that the peaceful coexistence of people, which is now observed by external measures - courts, police, charitable institutions, work inspections, etc. - is achieved freely. and joyful activities of people. Art must eliminate violence. And only art can do that.

Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich

What is art

L.N. Tolstoy

WHAT IS ART?

[PREFACE TO THE ENGLISH EDITION

"WHAT IS ART?"]

This book is mine "What is art?" comes out now for the first time in its present form. It was published in Russia in several editions, but in all in such a censored form that I ask all those who are interested in my views on art to judge them only by the book in its present form. The printing of the book in a mutilated form with my name occurred for the following reasons. In accordance with my decision long ago not to submit my writings to censorship, which I consider an immoral and unreasonable institution, but to publish them only in the form in which they are written, I intended to publish this book only abroad, but my good friend, Professor Groth, The editor of a Moscow psychological journal, having learned about the content of my work, asked me to publish the book in his journal. Groth promised me to pass the article through the censorship in its entirety, if I would only agree to the most minor changes, softening some of the expressions. I had the weakness to agree, and ended up with a book signed by me, from which not only certain essential thoughts were excluded, but also alien and even completely contrary to my convictions thoughts were introduced.

It happened in this way. At first, Grotto softened my expressions, sometimes weakening them, for example. replaced the words "always" with the words "sometimes"; the words "all" with the words "some"; the word "ecclesiastical" - the word "catholic"; the word "Virgin" - the word "Madonna"; the word "patriotism" - the word "false patriotism"; the word "palaces" - the word "chambers", etc., and I did not find it necessary to protest. When the whole book was already printed, it was demanded that the censorship replace, black out entire sentences, and instead of what I said about the harm of landed property, put the harm of the landless proletariat. I agreed to this and some other changes. I thought it was not worth it to upset the whole thing because of one expression. When one change was allowed, it was not worth protesting about another, because of a third. Thus, little by little, expressions crept into the book that changed their meaning and attributed to me what I could not wish to say. So, when the book ended in printing, some of its integrity and sincerity had already been taken out of it. But one could take comfort in the fact that the book in this form, if it contained anything good, would be of use to Russian readers, for whom otherwise it would be inaccessible. But that was not the case. Nous comptions sans notre hote [We count without a host (fr.)]. After the four-day period established by law, the book was arrested and, by order from St. Petersburg, handed over to spiritual censorship. Then Grot refused any participation in this matter, and spiritual censorship was in charge of the book as it pleased. Spiritual censorship is one of the most ignorant, corrupt, stupid and despotic institutions in Russia. Books that do not agree in any way with the religion recognized as the state religion in Russia, which end up there, are almost always banned altogether and burned, as was the case with all my religious writings published in Russia. Probably, this book would have suffered the same fate if the editors of the journal had not used all means to save the book. The result of these troubles was that the spiritual censor, a priest, probably as interested in art as I am in worship, and understanding as much in it, but receiving a good salary for destroying everything that his superiors might not like, crossed out from the book everything that seemed to him dangerous for his position, and replaced, where he found it necessary, my thoughts with his own, so, for example, where I speak of Christ going to the cross for the truth he professed, the censor crossed it out and put "for the human race", i.e. e. attributed to me, therefore, the assertion of the dogma of redemption, which I consider one of the most unfaithful and harmful church dogmas. Having corrected everything in this way, the spiritual censor allowed the book to be printed.

It is impossible to protest in Russia: not a single newspaper will print it; it was also impossible to take away one's article from the journal and thereby embarrass the editor in front of the public.

The matter remains the same. A book has appeared, signed with my name, containing thoughts that are presented as mine, but do not belong to me.

I submitted my article to a Russian journal so that, as I was convinced, my thoughts, which might be useful, could be assimilated by Russian readers, and ended up signing my name under the essay, from which it can be concluded that I I only consider false patriotism bad, but in general I consider patriotism very good feeling that I deny only the absurdities of the Catholic Church and do not believe only in the Madonna, but believe in Orthodoxy and the Mother of God, that I consider all the writings of the Jews, combined in the Bible, to be sacred books, and I see the main significance of Christ in his redemption by his death of the human race. And most importantly, I assert things that are contrary to the generally accepted opinion, without any foundation, since the reasons for which I assert are omitted, and statements that are not based on anything are left.

I have told this whole story in such detail because it strikingly illustrates the undoubted truth that any compromise with an institution that does not agree with your conscience - a compromise that is usually made in view of the common good, inevitably draws you, instead of good, not only in recognition of the legitimacy of the institution you reject, but also participation in the harm that this institution produces.

I am glad that though with this statement I can correct the mistake in which I was involved in my compromise.

Take any newspaper of our time, and in each you will find a department of theater and music; in almost every issue you will find a description of this or that exhibition or a single painting, and in each you will find reports on the emerging new books of artistic content, poems, stories and novels.

It is described in detail and immediately how this happened, how such and such an actress or actor in such and such a drama, comedy or opera played or played this or that role, and what virtues they showed, and what is the content new drama, comedies or operas, and their faults and virtues. With the same detail and care, it is described how such and such an artist sang or played such and such a piece on the piano or violin, and what are the advantages and disadvantages of this piece and his playing. In every big city there is always, if not several, then probably already one exhibition of new paintings, the merits and demerits of which are analyzed with the greatest profundity by critics and connoisseurs. Almost every day new novels and poems come out, separately and in magazines, and the newspapers consider it their duty to report to their readers in detail about these works of art.

To support the arts in Russia, where only one hundredth of what is needed to provide the entire people with the means of education is spent on public education, millions of government subsidies are given for academies, conservatories, and theaters. In France eight millions are assigned for the arts, and the same in Germany and England. Huge buildings are being built in every big city for museums, academies, conservatories, drama schools, for performances and concerts. Hundreds of thousands of workers - carpenters, masons, dyers, joiners, upholsterers, tailors, hairdressers, goldsmiths, bronzers, compositors - spend their whole lives in hard labor to satisfy the requirements of art, so that there is hardly any other human activity than military, which would absorb as much power as this one.

But not only are such enormous labors spent on this activity, but human lives are spent on it, just like on war: hundreds of thousands of people from a young age devote all their lives to learning how to twirl their legs very quickly (dancers) ; others (musicians) to learn how to play keys or strings very quickly; still others (painters) to be able to draw with colors and write everything that they see; the fourth is to be able to turn every phrase in every way and find a rhyme for every word. And such people, often very kind, intelligent, capable of any useful work, run wild in these exceptional, stupefying occupations and become dull to all the serious phenomena of life, one-sided and quite self-satisfied specialists who can only twirl their legs, tongue or fingers.

But even this is not enough. I remember how I was once at a rehearsal of one of the most ordinary latest operas which are staged at all theaters in Europe and America.

I arrived when the first act had already begun. To enter the auditorium, I had to go through the wings. I was led through the dark passages and dungeons of a huge building, past huge machines for changing scenery and lighting, where I saw people working in the darkness and dust. One of these workers with a gray, thin face, in a dirty blouse, with dirty workers, with protruding fingers and hands, obviously tired and dissatisfied, walked past me, angrily reproaching me for something else. Climbing up the dark stairs, I went to the stage backstage. Between the fallen scenery, curtains, some kind of poles, dozens, if not hundreds, of painted and dressed up men in suits with covered thighs and calves, and women, as always, with their bodies as bare as possible, stood and moved in circles. All these were singers, choristers, chorus girls and ballet dancers waiting for their turn. My leader led me across the stage and across the bridge of planks across the orchestra, in which there were about a hundred different kinds of musicians, into the dark stalls. On a dais between two lamps with reflectors sat on an armchair, with a stick, in front of the music stand, the head of the musical department, managing the orchestra and singers and, in general, staging the entire opera.