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 (French)].
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 when 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 questions of art.
But what is beauty, which, in his opinion, constitutes the content of art? How is it defined and what is it?
As happens in any matter, the more unclear and confusing the concept that is conveyed by a word, the more with 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 saying about what it actually means. This is what people usually do with regard to superstitious religious issues, and this is what people do in our time with regard 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 The problem remains completely open and is solved in a new way with each new work on aesthetics. One of latest books, which, by the way, I read on aesthetics is a good little book by Julius Mithalter, called “Ratsel des Schonen” (the mystery of beauty). And this title quite correctly expresses the position of the question of what beauty is. The meaning of the word "beauty" remains a mystery after 150 years of speculation by thousands of scientists about the meaning of this word. The Germans solve this riddle in their own way, although in hundreds of different ways: physiologists-aesthetics, mainly Englishmen of the Spencer-Grant-Allen school - also each in their own way; French eclectics and followers of Guyot and Taine - also each in their 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 Leveque, 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 directions have not been able to agree for a century and a half? different nations? 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 started saying: “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 a person who gave another his last clothes or something similar acted “beautifully”, or, having deceived another, acted “ugly”, or that the song is "beautiful". In Russian, an action can be kind, good, or unkind and not good; music can be pleasant and good, or unpleasant and bad, but music can be neither beautiful nor ugly.
A person, a horse, a house, a view, a movement may 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 concept “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 object that is valued in its own way appearance, then we also say that this object is beautiful; but if we say “beautiful,” this does not at all mean that the object is good.
This is the meaning attributed by the Russian language - therefore, by the Russian folk meaning - to the 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 beauty of form, began to mean goodness - kindness , that is, they began to replace the word “good”.
So in these languages ​​it is quite natural to use expressions such as “belle ame, schone Gedanken, beautiful deed” [Beautiful soul, beautiful thoughts, beautiful deed (French, German, English)], to determine the beauty of form, these languages do not have a corresponding word, and they must use the combination of words “beau par la forme” [Beautiful in form (French)], 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 aesthetic theory was established, shows us that the word “beauty” is given by these peoples some special meaning, namely, the meaning of good.
The remarkable thing is that since we, Russians, have become more and more familiar with European views on art, the same evolution begins to take place in our language, and, quite confidently and without surprising anyone, we speak and write about beautiful music and ugly actions and even thoughts, whereas 40 years ago, in my youth, the expressions “beautiful music” and “ugly actions” were not only not used, but incomprehensible. Obviously, this new meaning attached to beauty by European thought is beginning to be assimilated by Russian society.
What is this meaning? What is beauty, as European peoples understand it?
In order to answer this question, I will write down here at least a small part of those definitions of beauty that are most common in existing aesthetics. I beg the reader not to get bored and read these extracts or, what would be even better, read at least some scientific aesthetics. Not to mention the extensive aesthetics of the Germans, the German book by Kralik, the English by Knight and the French by Leveque are very good for this purpose. It is necessary to read some scientific aesthetics in order to form an understanding for yourself about the variety of judgments and about the terrifying ambiguity that reigns in this area of ​​judgment, and not to take the word of another on this important issue.
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: “Hardly in any field of philosophical sciences,” he says, “one can find such crude methods of research and methods of presentation, as in the field of aesthetics. On the one hand, elegant phrasing without any content, distinguished for the most part by a very one-sided surface; on the other hand, despite the undeniable depth of research and richness of content, the repulsive clumsiness of philosophical terminology, clothing the simplest things in the clothes of abstract scientificism as if in order to make them worthy of entry into the illuminated palaces of the system, and, finally, between these two methods of research and presentation, the third, constituting, as it were, a transition from one to another, a method consisting of eclecticism, flaunting either elegant phrasing, or pedantic scientificism... The same form of presentation, which would not fall into any of these three shortcomings, but would be truly concrete and, with significant content, would express it in a clear and popular philosophical language, nowhere less often than in the field of aesthetics" .
It is worth reading at least the 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 says 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 fair, as the reader will be convinced of this if he takes the trouble to read the following definitions of beauty that I have copied from the main writers on aesthetics.
I will not write down 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 goodness, which forms the basis and goal of the aesthetics of our time. By relating 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 about this by Benard - "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, mention. cit., p. 361. (Note by L.N. Tolstoy)], the object of logical knowledge is truth; the object of aesthetic (that is, sensory) knowledge is beauty. Beauty is perfect (absolute), cognized by feeling. Truth is perfect, known by reason. Good is perfect, achievable moral will.
Beauty, according to Baumgarten, is determined by correspondence, that is, 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 know the highest realization of beauty in nature, and therefore imitation of nature, according to Baumgarten, is the highest task of art (the same position, directly opposite to the judgments of later aesthetics).
Skipping over Baumgarten’s unnoticeable followers: Meyer, Eschenburg, Ebergart, who only slightly change the teacher’s views, separating the pleasant from the beautiful, I write down the definitions of beauty from the writers who appeared immediately after Baumgarten, who define beauty completely differently. These writers were Schutz, Sulzer, Mendelssohn, Moritz. These writers recognize, in contrast to Baumgarten’s main position, that the goal of art is not beauty, but goodness. Thus, Sulzer (1720-1779) says that only that which contains goodness can be recognized as beautiful. According to Sulzer [See. Schassler, mention. 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.
Mendelssohn (1729-1786) understands beauty in almost the same way. Art, according to Mendelssohn, is the bringing of the beautiful, cognizable by a vague sense, to the true and good. The goal of art is moral perfection.
For aestheticians of this trend, the ideal of beauty is a beautiful soul in a beautiful body. So for these aestheticians, the division of the perfect (absolute) into its three forms: truth, goodness and beauty is completely erased, and beauty again merges with goodness and truth.
But such an understanding of beauty is not only not maintained by later aesthetics, but Winckelmann’s aesthetics is again completely opposite to these views, most decisively and sharply separating the tasks of art from the goal of good and setting the goal of art as external and even plastic beauty alone.
According to the famous work of Winckelmann (1717-1767), the law and goal of all art is only beauty, completely separate and independent from goodness. Beauty is of three kinds: 1) beauty of forms, 2) beauty of the idea, expressed in the position of the figure (relative to plastic art), and 3) beauty of expression, which is possible only in the presence of the first two conditions; this beauty of expression is the highest goal of art, which is realized in ancient art, as a result of which modern art should strive to imitate the ancient.
Lessing, Herder, then Goethe and all the outstanding aestheticians of Germany until Kant understood beauty in the same way, from whose time a different understanding of art began again.
In England, France, Italy, Holland at the same time, regardless of the writers of Germany, their own aesthetic theories were born, equally unclear and contradictory, but all aestheticians, just like the German ones, who base their considerations 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 somewhat earlier, Shaftesbury, Hutchison, Hom (Note), Burke, Gogarth and others wrote about art.
According to Shaftesbury (1670-1713), what is beautiful is harmonious and proportional; what is beautiful and proportionate is true; what is beautiful and at the same time truthful is pleasant and good. Beauty, according to Shaftesbury, is known only by the spirit. God is the fundamental beauty - beauty and goodness come from the same source. So, according to Shaftesbury, although beauty is seen as something separate from goodness, it again merges with it into something inseparable.
According to Hutchison (1694-1747), in his "Origin of our ideas of beauty and virtue", the goal of art is beauty, the essence of which is the manifestation of unity in diversity. In knowing what beauty is, we are guided by an ethical instinct (an internal sense). This instinct may be the opposite of 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 pleasant. And therefore beauty is determined only by taste. The basis of correct taste is that greatest wealth, the completeness, strength and variety of impressions lies within the most limited limits. This is the ideal of a perfect work of art.
According to Burke (1730-1797), "Inquiry into the origin of our ideas of the sublime and the beautiful," the sublime and the beautiful which constitute The purpose of art is based on a sense of self-preservation and a sense of community. These feelings, considered in their sources, are the means for maintaining the race of the individual. The first is achieved by nutrition, 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 serve as the source of beauty [Kralik, Weltschonheit, Versuch einer allgemeinen Aesthetik, 304-306. K. Kralik, 124. (Note by L. N. 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, Bate and then Diderot, D'Alembert, and 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 Bata (1713-1780), art consists of imitation of the beauty of nature and its goal is pleasure. This is also Diderot's definition of art. Taste is supposed to be the decider of what is beautiful, just as it is with the English. The laws of taste are not only not established, but it is recognized that this is impossible. D'Alembert and Voltaire hold the same opinion.
According to the Italian aesthetician of the same time, Pagano, art is the 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 (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" ["Inquiry into Beauty" (Italian)], 1765), art is reduced to an egoistic feeling based, like Burke's, on the desire for self-preservation and the public.
Of the Dutch, Hemsterhuis (1720-1790) is remarkable, having an influence on German aestheticians and Goethe. According to his teaching, beauty is what gives the greatest pleasure, and what gives us the greatest pleasure is what gives us the greatest number of ideas in the most shortest time. The enjoyment of beauty is the highest knowledge that a person can achieve, 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, a completely new aesthetic theory of Kant (1724-1804) appeared again, which more than any other clarifies the essence of the concept of beauty, and therefore art.
Kant's aesthetics is based on the following: man, according to Kant, cognizes nature outside himself and himself in nature. In nature, outside himself, he seeks truth, in himself, he seeks good - one thing is pure reason, the other is 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 necessarily liked; in the objective sense, it is the form of a purposeful object to the extent that it is perceived without any idea of ​​purpose.
Beauty is also defined 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 Kant, beauty, the source of which is pleasure without practical benefit. So art can be called a game, but not in the sense of an insignificant activity, but in the sense of a manifestation of the beauty of life itself, which has no other purpose than beauty.
Besides Schiller, the most remarkable of Kant's followers in the field of aesthetics were Jean Paul and Wilhelm Humboldt, although they did not add anything to the definition of beauty, but they clarified different kinds it, 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 found in the world, but in the beautiful soul (schoner Geist). Art is the manifestation of this beautiful soul, and its goal is the education of 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.
Following 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 inseparably from aesthetic art.
According to Adam Müller (1779-1829), there are two beauties: one is social beauty, which attracts people as the sun attracts planets - this is predominantly ancient beauty, and the other is individual beauty, which becomes such because the beholder becomes the sun himself, attracting beauty - this is the beauty of new art. A world in which all contradictions are reconciled is the highest beauty. Every work of art is a repetition of this universal harmony. The highest art is the art of life.
Following Fichte and his followers, a contemporary philosopher who had a great influence on the aesthetic concepts of our time was Schelling (1775-1854). According to Schelling, art is the product or consequence of the worldview according to which the subject turns into its object or the object itself becomes its 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 and the objective, nature and reason, the unconscious and 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 not produced by the artist through his knowledge or will, but rather by the idea of ​​beauty itself.
Of Schelling's followers, the most notable was Solger (1780-1819) (“Vorlesungen uber Aesthetik” [“Readings on Aesthetics” (German)]). According to Zolger, the idea of ​​beauty is the basic idea of ​​every thing. In the world we see only a perversion of the main idea, but art, through fantasy, can rise to the heights of the main idea. And therefore art is a semblance of creativity.
According to another follower of Schelling - Krause (1781-1832), the true real beauty there is a manifestation of an idea in an individual form; art is the realization of beauty in the sphere of the human free spirit. The highest degree of art is the art of living, which directs its activities to decorate life so that it is a wonderful place of residence for a wonderful person.
After Schelling and his followers, a new one begins - in many consciously, and in most unconsciously - the retained aesthetic teaching of Hegel. This teaching is not only no more clear and definite than previous teachings, but even more, if this is 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 illumination of ideas through matter. The truly beautiful is only the spirit and everything that is involved in the spirit, and therefore the beauty of nature is only a reflection of the beauty inherent in the spirit: the beautiful has only spiritual content. But the spiritual must manifest itself in a sensual form. The sensual manifestation of the spirit is only an appearance (Schein). And this appearance is the only reality of the beautiful. So art is the realization of this appearance of an idea, and is a means, together with religion and philosophy, of bringing into consciousness and expressing 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 and is conceivable in itself. The idea, manifested externally, becomes for consciousness not only true, but also beautiful. The beautiful is the manifestation of an idea.
Hegel is followed by numerous followers: Weisse, Arnold Ruge, Rosenkrantz, 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 all existence in itself (Negation alles Fursichsein's) .
In the idea of ​​truth, says Weisse, lies the contradiction between the subjective and objective sides of knowledge; that the one self knows the All-Existent. This contradiction can be eliminated through a concept that would unite into one the moment of universality and unity, which splits into two in the concept of truth. Such a concept would be a reconciled (aufgehoben) truth - beauty is such a reconciled truth.

Genealogy of the Tolstoys

Lev Nikolaevich belongs to the rich and noble, who occupied a prominent position already in the times. His great-grandfather, the Count, played a sad role in history. The traits of Pyotr Andreevich’s great-grandson, Ilya Andreevich, are given in “War and Peace” to the good-natured, impractical old Count Rostov. The son of Ilya Andreevich, (1794-1837), was the father of Lev Nikolaevich. In some character traits and biographical facts, he was similar to Nikolenka’s father in “Childhood” and “Adolescence” 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 into bureaucratic service in order not to end up in debtor's prison because of the debts of his father, the Kazan governor, who died under investigation for official abuses. For several years, Nikolai Ilyich had to save. His father’s negative example helped Nikolai Ilyich develop his own life ideal- private independent life with family joys. To put his upset affairs in order, Nikolai Ilyich, like Nikolai Rostov, married an ugly and no longer very young princess. The marriage, however, was happy. They had four sons: Nikolai, Sergei, Dmitry and Lev and a daughter Maria. Besides Leo, an outstanding person was Nikolai, whose death (abroad, in) Tolstoy so amazingly 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 character from the Volkonskys. Lev Nikolaevich's mother, similar to Princess Marya depicted in War and Peace, had a remarkable gift for storytelling, for which, with her shyness passed on to her son, she had to lock herself with the 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, on his mother’s hereditary estate -. By that time, Tolstoy already had three older brothers - Nikolai (-), Sergei (-) and Dmitry (-). Sister Maria (-) was born. Tolstoy was not even two years old when his mother died. Many are misled by the fact that in “ 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 based on the stories of others.

A distant relative, T. A. Ergolskaya, took up the upbringing of orphaned children (some of her features were passed on to Sonya from “ War and Peace"). The family moved to, settling on, because the eldest son had to prepare to enter the university, but soon the father suddenly died, leaving affairs 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-Sacken. Here Lev Nikolaevich remained until Countess Osten-Sacken died and the children moved to their new home - their father’s sister P. I. Yushkova. This ends the first period of Tolstoy’s life, described by him in “ Childhood».

The Yushkov house, somewhat provincial in style, but typically secular, was one of the most cheerful in Kazan; All family members highly valued external shine. “My good aunt,” says Tolstoy, “a pure 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 - enormous pride and the desire to achieve something real, to know the truth - have now entered into a struggle. He passionately wanted to shine in society, to earn a reputation young man comme il faut. But he did not have the external qualities for this: he was ugly, as it seemed to him, awkward, and, in addition, his natural personality was in the way. At the same time, there was an intense internal struggle and the development of a strict moral ideal. Everything that is told in " adolescence" And " Youth"about the aspirations of Irtenyev and Nekhlyudov for self-improvement, Tolstoy took from the history of his own attempts. The most varied, as Tolstoy himself defines them, “philosophies” about the most important questions of our existence - happiness, death, God, love, eternity - painfully tormented him in that era of life when his peers and brothers were completely devoted to the cheerful, 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, “which destroyed the freshness of feelings and clarity of reason” (“ Youth»).

Education

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

It was at this time, while in a Kazan hospital, that Tolstoy began to keep a diary, where, imitating Franklin, he set goals and rules for self-improvement and noted successes and failures in completing these tasks, analyzed his shortcomings and train of thoughts 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. ... this work fascinated me, 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." Having never completed his university course, Tolstoy subsequently acquired enormous knowledge through self-education, including using the skills of working with literature acquired at the university.

Beginning of literary activity

Having left the university, Tolstoy settled in Yasnaya Polyana in the spring of 1847. What he did there is partly clear from “The Morning of the Landowner”: Tolstoy’s attempts to establish new relations with the peasants are described here.

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

He followed journalism very little; although his attempt to somehow attenuate the guilt of the nobility before the people dates back to the same year when “Anton the Miserable” and the beginning of “” appeared, but this is a simple accident. If there were literary influences here, they were of a much older origin: Tolstoy was very keen, 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 can be followed. Among those who succeeded were serious studies in English, music, and law. In addition, neither the diary nor the letters reflected the beginning of Tolstoy's studies in pedagogy and charity - in 1849 he first opened a school for peasant children. The main teacher was Foka Demidych, a serf, but also L.N. himself. often taught classes.

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

Later, he visited Moscow, where he often succumbed to his inherited passion for gambling, greatly upsetting 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). The author drew an exaggerated description of the effect that “passionate” music produces in relation to most people 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 lost German musician, whom he later described in Alberta. Tolstoy came up with the idea of ​​saving him: he took him to Yasnaya Polyana and played a lot with him. A lot of time was also spent on carousing, gaming and hunting.

This is how 4 years passed after leaving the university, when Tolstoy’s brother Nikolai, who served for him, came to Yasnaya Polyana and began inviting 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. In order to pay off, it was necessary to reduce his expenses to a minimum - and in the spring of 1851, Tolstoy hastily left Moscow for the Caucasus, at first without any specific purpose. Soon he decided to enroll in military service, but obstacles arose in the form of a lack of necessary papers, which were difficult to obtain, and Tolstoy lived for about 5 months in complete solitude in a simple hut. He spent a significant part of his time hunting, in the company of Epishka, who appears in “Cossacks” under the name Eroshka.

Tolstoy also endured all the horrors, hardships and suffering that befell his heroic defenders. He lived for a long time on the terrible 4th bastion, commanded a battery in the battle of Chernaya, and was during the hellish bombardment during the assault. Despite all the horrors of the siege, to which he soon became accustomed, like all other epically brave Sevastopol residents, Tolstoy at this time wrote a battle story from 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 noticed; 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 the medals “For the defense of Sevastopol” and “In memory of the war of 1853-1856.” Surrounded by the brilliance of fame and enjoying the reputation of a very brave officer, Tolstoy had every chance of a career, but he “ruined” 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 works) he dabbled in poetry: he wrote a satirical song, in the manner of soldiers, about the unfortunate case of the year, when the general, having misunderstood the order of the commander-in-chief, unwisely attacked the Fedyukhinsky heights. The song (As on the fourth, it was not easy for us to take away the mountain, etc.), which affected a number of important generals, was a huge success and, of course, harmed the author. Immediately after the assault on August 27 () Tolstoy was sent by courier to St. Petersburg, where he wrote “Sevastopol in May 1855.” and "Sevastopol in August 1855".

“Sevastopol Stories,” 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.” Tolstoy was the first in Russian, and perhaps in world literature, to engage in a sober analysis of military life; he was the first to approach it without any exaltation. He demoted military valor from the pedestal of pure “heroism,” but at the same time exalted it like no one else. He showed himself to be brave at this moment a minute before and a minute later, the same person as everyone else: good - if he was always like that, petty, envious, dishonest - if he was like that until circumstances demanded heroism from him. Destroying the idea of ​​military valor in the style, Tolstoy vividly exposed the greatness of simple heroism, not draping in anything, but climbing forward, doing only what is necessary: ​​if necessary, then hide, if necessary, then die. For this, Tolstoy endlessly fell in love with a simple soldier near Sevastopol and, in his person, the entire Russian people.

Traveling around Europe

Noisy and have a fun 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 he lived in the same apartment for a while. Turgenev introduced Tolstoy to the circle of "" 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. Tolstoy spent whole days and even nights on drinking and gambling, carousing with Tolstoy” (Levenfeld).

The cheerful life was not slow to leave a bitter aftertaste in Tolstoy’s soul, especially since he began to have a strong discord with the 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 particularly 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, complicated by the fact that Tolstoy, always truthful and therefore often harsh, did not hesitate to note traits of insincerity and affectation in his friends. As a result, “people became disgusted with him and he became disgusted with himself” - and at the beginning of 1857, Tolstoy left St. Petersburg without any regret and went abroad.

An unexpected impression was made on him by - where Tolstoy spent only about a year and a half (in 1857 and 1860-61). In general, this impression was definitely negative. It was expressed indirectly in the fact that nowhere in his writings did Tolstoy say any kind words about one or another aspect of life abroad, and 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 the thought of the structure never left him. human life on the basis of brotherhood and...

Abroad, he was interested only in public education and institutions aimed at raising the level of the working population. He carefully studied issues of public education in Germany, both theoretically and practically, and through conversations with specialists. Of the outstanding people in Germany, he was most interested in him as the author of the “Black Forest Stories” dedicated to folk life and the publisher of folk calendars. Proud and reserved, 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 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 world mediator. This was done less under the influence of the democratic movements of the sixties. At that time they looked at the people as younger brother, which must be lifted up; Tolstoy thought, on the contrary, that the people are infinitely higher than the cultural classes and that the gentlemen need to borrow the heights of spirit from the peasants. He actively began setting up 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 the era of boundless admiration for the latest German pedagogy, Tolstoy resolutely rebelled against any regulation in school; the only method of teaching and education that he recognized was that no method was needed. Everything in teaching should be individual - both, and, and their mutual relationships. At the Yasnaya Polyana school, the children sat where they wanted, as much as they wanted, and as they wanted. There was no specific teaching program. The teacher's only job was to get the class interested. The classes were going great. They were led by Tolstoy himself with the help of several permanent teachers and several random ones, from close friends and visitors.

This curious misunderstanding lasted for about 15 years, bringing closer to Tolstoy such a writer as organically opposed to him as. Only in 1875, in the article “And Count Tolstoy,” striking with the brilliance of his analysis and prediction of Tolstoy’s future activities, he outlined the spiritual appearance of the most original of Russian writers in the present light. The little attention that was paid to Tolstoy's pedagogical articles is partly due to the fact that little attention was paid to it 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 greeted Tolstoy’s debits and credits and “Sevastopol Tales”, recognizing in him the great hope of Russian literature (Druzhinin even used the epithet “genius” in relation to him), critics then 10-12 years before 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 moment and the party were in the foreground, this writer, who was interested only in eternal questions, was not captivated.

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

To fully appreciate it, one must remember that it was published at the end of 1856 (“ Domestic notes", No. 12). At that time, men appeared in literature only in the form of sentimental “paisans” of Grigorovich and Turgenev’s peasant figures, standing incomparably higher in purely artistically, but undoubtedly upbeat. In the peasants of “The Morning of the Landowner” there is not a shadow of idealization, just as there is not - and this is precisely where Tolstoy’s creative freedom was reflected - and anything similar to bitterness against the peasants for the fact that they treated good intentions with such little gratitude his landowner. The whole purpose of the autobiographical confession was to show the groundlessness of Nekhlyudov’s attempt. The master's idea takes on a tragic character in the story “Polikushka”, which dates back to the same period; here a man dies because a lady who wants to be kind and fair decided to believe in the sincerity of repentance and she entrusts the delivery of a large sum to the not completely dead, but not without reason, the disreputable yard servant Polikushka. Polikushka loses money and, out of despair that they won’t believe him that he really lost it and didn’t steal it, hangs himself.

The stories and essays written by Tolstoy in the late 1850s include the above-mentioned “Lucerne” and excellent parallels: “Three Deaths,” where the delicacy 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 a tree, described with that pantheistic insight into the essence of the world process, which Tolstoy so magnificently succeeds in both here and later. 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 a Horse” (“Kholstomer”), 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 due to old age and unfitness, chews these pieces, then coughs them up and thus feeds the wolf cubs. The joyful pantheism of Platon Karataev (from War and Peace) has already been prepared here, 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 centuries 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 had been reciprocated, the marriage would have been unhappy and sooner or later the young woman would have fallen in love with another, also young and not “outdated” man. Based on a personal motive that worried him, he wrote his first novel, “Family Happiness,” in which the plot develops precisely along this path.

In reality, Tolstoy's novel played out completely differently. Having carried a passion for Sophia in his heart for three years, Tolstoy married her in the fall, and to his lot fell the greatest completeness of family happiness that can ever be found on earth. In his wife, he found not only his most faithful and devoted friend, but also an irreplaceable assistant in all matters, practical and literary. Seven times she endlessly rewrote the works he reworked, supplemented and corrected, and a kind of shorthand, that is, thoughts that were not fully agreed upon, words and phrases that were not completed, often received a clear and definite expression under her experienced hand in deciphering this kind. For Tolstoy, the brightest period of his life begins - the rapture of personal happiness, very significant due to practicality, material well-being, the greatest, easily given tension literary creativity and in connection with him unprecedented all-Russian and then worldwide glory.

Recognized by critics all over the world as the greatest epic work of new European literature, War and Peace amazes 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 Venetian Doge's Palace, where hundreds of faces are also painted with amazing clarity 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 throughout the 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 if someone came to you and said: “I respect you very much because you dance the mazurka well.” I attribute meaning to completely different books of mine (religious ones!).”

In the sphere of material interests, he began to say to himself: “Well, okay, you will have 6,000 acres - 300 heads of horses, and then?”; in the literary sphere: “Well, okay, you will be more famous than Gogol, Shakespeare, Moliere, all the writers in the world - so what!” Starting to think about raising children, he asked himself: “why?”; arguing “about 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 on was no longer there.” The natural result was the idea of ​​.

“I, a happy man, hid the cord from myself 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 too easy a way to rid myself of life. I myself didn’t know what I wanted: I was afraid of life, I wanted to get away from it and, meanwhile, I hoped for something else from it.”

Religious quest

To find an answer to the questions and doubts that tormented him, Tolstoy first of all took up research and wrote and published in 1891 in Geneva “A Study of Dogmatic Theology,” in which he criticized Orthodox Dogmatic Theology in five volumes. He began to have 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 learn the original sources. At the same time, he looked closely at, became close to the thoughtful peasant, talked with,. With the same feverishness he sought the meaning of life in the study of philosophy and in becoming acquainted with the results of the exact sciences. He made a number of attempts at greater and greater simplification, striving to live a life close to nature and agricultural life.

He gradually renounces the whims and comforts of a rich life, does a lot of physical labor, dresses in simple clothes, becomes a man, gives his entire large fortune to his family, and renounces literary property rights. On this basis of unalloyed pure impulse and desire for moral improvement, the third period is created literary activity Tolstoy, whose distinctive feature is the denial of all established forms of state, social and religious life. A significant part of Tolstoy’s views could not receive open expression in Russia and were presented in full 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 people live”, etc.), Tolstoy, in the opinion of his unconditional admirers, reached the pinnacle of artistic power - that elemental mastery that is given only to folk tales, because that they embody the creativity of an entire people. On the contrary, according to people who are indignant at Tolstoy for turning from an artist into an artist, these artistic teachings, written for 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 callousness upper strata society to show the moral superiority of the 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 us 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: within the tight framework of an ethnographic reproduction of Russian peasant life, Tolstoy was able to accommodate so many universal human traits that the drama with tremendous success went around all the stages of the world. But for others, Akim alone with his undoubtedly one-sided and tendentious condemnations of city life is enough to declare the entire work immensely 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 mercilessness in the depiction of 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 main character, Nekhlyudov, and his harshness towards the depravity of the upper classes and the “state church” (in response to which the Synod issued the so-called “”, opening the accompanying social and journalistic conflict).

In general, opponents of the last phase of Tolstoy’s literary and preaching activity find that his artistic power certainly suffered from the predominance of theoretical interests and that creativity is now only needed by Tolstoy in order to propagate his socio-religious views in a publicly 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 in part completely denies, in part significantly belittles artistic value, (at the performance of “Hamlet” he experienced “special suffering” for this “false likeness 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 the indignant letter from Lev Nikolaevich’s wife Sofia Andreevna Tolstoy, written by her regarding the publication of the Synod’s definition in newspapers, St. Petersburgsky wrote: “Dear Empress Countess Sofia Andreevna! It is not cruel what the Synod did by announcing your husband’s fall from the Church, but cruel what he did to himself by renouncing his faith in Jesus Christ, the Son of the Living God, our Redeemer and Savior. It is this renunciation that should have given vent to your woeful indignation long ago. And it’s not because of a piece of printed paper that your husband is dying, of course, but because he has turned away from the Source of eternal life.” .

...The fact that I renounced the Church that calls itself Orthodox is completely 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 renouncing the Church and unity with the people, which was inexpressibly dear to me, I, having some signs of doubting the correctness of the Church, devoted several years to theoretically and practically studying the teachings of the Church: theoretically, I re-read everything I could about the teachings of the Church, studied and critically examined dogmatic theology; in practice, he strictly followed, for more than a year, all the instructions 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 witchcraft, completely hiding the entire 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 born of the Virgin, redeeming the human race, is absolutely fair. I not only do not reject God - the Spirit, God - love, the one God - the beginning of everything, but I do not recognize anything as truly 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 retribution.” If we understand the afterlife in the sense of the second coming, hell with eternal torment, devils, and heaven - constant bliss, then it is absolutely fair that I do not recognize such an afterlife; but eternal life and retribution here and everywhere, now and always, I recognize to such an extent that, standing at my age on the edge of the grave, I often have to make an effort 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 act decreases it.

…It is also said that I reject all sacraments. This is completely fair. I consider all sacraments to be base, rude, incompatible 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 distortion of the entire meaning that baptism could have for adults who consciously accept Christianity; in performing the sacrament of marriage over people who had obviously been united before, and in allowing divorces and in sanctifying the marriages of divorced people, I see a direct violation of both the meaning and the letter of the Gospel teaching. In the periodic forgiveness of sins in confession, I see a harmful deception that only encourages immorality and destroys the fear of sin. In the consecration of oil, just as in the anointing, I see methods of crude witchcraft, as in the veneration of icons and relics, as in all those rituals, prayers, and spells with which the missal is filled. In communion I see the deification of the flesh and a perversion of Christian teaching. In the priesthood, in addition to obvious preparation for deception, I see a direct violation of the words of Christ, who directly forbids calling anyone teachers, fathers, mentors (Matt. XXIII, 8-10). Finally, it was said, as the last and highest degree of my guilt, that I, “cursing at the most sacred objects faith, did not shudder to mock the most sacred of 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 fair; but the fact that this so-called sacrament is something sacred and that to describe it simply as it is done is blasphemy is completely unfair. The blasphemy is not in calling a partition a partition and not an iconostasis, and a cup a cup and not a chalice, etc., but the most terrible, never-ending, outrageous blasphemy is that people, using all possible means of deception and hypnotization, - they assure children and simple-minded people that if you cut in a known way and when pronouncing famous words pieces of bread and put them in 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 whomever has died such a piece is taken out, it will be better for him in the next world; and that whoever ate this piece, God Himself will enter into him.

Dedicated to the theme of Leo Tolstoy’s excommunication from the church 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 recorded, according to Tolstoy, in numerous places and is the core of the teaching, as well as.

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

The 1882 census in Moscow is famous for the fact that he took part in it great writer Count L.N. Tolstoy. Lev Nikolaevich wrote: “I proposed to use the census in order to find out poverty in Moscow and help it with deeds and money, and make sure that there are no poor people in Moscow.”

Tolstoy believed that the interest and significance of the census for society is that it gives it a mirror into which, like it or not, the whole society and each of us can look. He chose one of the most difficult and difficult sites, Protochny Lane, where the shelter was located; among the Moscow chaos, this gloomy two-story building was called “Rzhanova Fortress.” Having received the order from the Duma, Tolstoy, a few days before the census, began to walk around the site according to the plan that was given to him. Indeed, the dirty shelter, filled with beggars and 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 survey. 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 through the work of scientists in their offices, observatories and laboratories, but is carried out by two thousand people from society. Another feature , that the research of 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, but here the good of people. Foggy spots can be explored alone, but to explore Moscow you need 2000 people. The purpose of the research foggy spots is only to find out everything about foggy spots, the purpose of studying the inhabitants is to derive the laws of sociology and, on the basis of these laws, establish better life of people. The foggy spots don’t care whether they are being investigated or not, they have waited and are ready to wait for a long time, but the residents of Moscow care, especially those unfortunate people who make up the most interesting subject of the science of sociology. The census taker comes to the shelter, in the basement, finds a man dying from lack of food and politely asks: rank, name, patronymic, occupation; and after a slight hesitation about whether to add him to the list as alive, he writes it down and moves on.

Despite the good goals of the census declared by Tolstoy, 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 bypass of the apartments and were leaving, we asked the owner to lock the gate, and we ourselves went into the yard to persuade the people who were leaving.” Lev Nikolaevich hoped to arouse sympathy among the rich for urban poverty, collect money, recruit people who wanted to contribute to this cause and, together with the census, 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 census results, the population of Moscow in 1882 was 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 courtyard. From the 1882 census we can find out that in 63% the head of the household is a married couple, in 23% it is the wife, and only in 14% it is the husband. The census noted 529 families with 8 or more children. 39% have servants and most often they are women.

The last years of Leo Tolstoy's life

Leo Tolstoy's grave

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

Criticism of Tolstoy

Bibliography

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

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

• Blizzard - story, 1856
• Two Hussars - a story, 1856
• Youth - a story, 1857
• Albert - story, 1858
• Family Happiness - Novel, 1859
• Polikushka - a story, 1863
• Cossacks - a story, 1863

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

Once Dima Hardy, in the comments to my post about the Bible, executed on calfskin parchments 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 on the subway.

It should be noted that the term art itself is quite multifaceted, it often means skill, creativity, aesthetics, and craft, and there are countless definitions of this concept - from everyday, stereotypical ones to those based on ancient philosophical schools. 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 might 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 “unifiedcultural space ".

It is gratifying that the concepts of “culture” and “mass communications” are still separated at the level of understanding of the Ministry of Culture. It’s sad that at the same time they are already like Yin and Yang with a single budget, which, by the way, is considerable. IN In 2007, federal budget expenditures on supporting 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, and about 2.7% on defense.

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

During the time of Lev Nikolaevich, less money was spent on education than on disseminating its results in the form of art. Apparently, this was how the foundations of a consumer society were laid and the era of mass culture arose, in which the satisfaction of cultural needs would be the first thing for a person.only a service, and not the result of his life activity.

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 dollars in government subsidies are given to academies, conservatories, and theaters. Hundreds of thousands of workers - carpenters, masons, dyers, joiners, upholsterers, tailors, hairdressers, jewelers, bronzers, typesetters - spend their entire lives in hard work to satisfy the demands of art, so that there is hardly any other human activity except military, which would absorb as much power as this one.

But not only is such enormous effort spent on this activity, but just like on war, human lives are wasted: hundreds of thousands of people from a young age devote their entire lives to learning to twirl their legs very quickly (dancers) ; others (musicians) to learn to pluck keys or strings very quickly; still others (painters) to be able to paint and paint everything they see; the fourth is to be able to turn every phrase in every possible way and find a rhyme for every word. And such people, often very kind, intelligent, capable of any useful work, run wild in these exclusive, stupefying activities and become dull to all the serious phenomena of life, one-sided and completely self-satisfied specialists who only know how to 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 defining art. I can’t imagine how it was possible to have so much patience to read - and in the originals - all these French aesthetics and German philosophers?

First Tolstoy showed that understanding beauty it is necessary to move beyond the definition of art as a subjective characteristic of an object of art, and there is no arguing about tastes. Thus, he deprived the vast majority of definitions of art made before him - almost all of them were based on an attitude towards beauty. He rejected the rest of the part, based on the fact that the purpose of art is the pleasure obtained from it, 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 excess 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 is a means of communication between people, necessary for life and for the movement 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 can be different, for example, base; they, of course, cannot form the basis of a work of art. Which ones can? Lev Nikolaevich figured this out too:

Humanity continually moves from a lower, more specific and less clear understanding of life to a higher, more general and clearer understanding. 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, accessiblely, powerfully - in word and in life - who has expressed this meaning of life. The expression by this person of this meaning of life, together with those legends and rituals that usually develop around the memory of this person, is called religion. Religions are indicators of that highest understanding of life, available 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 people’s feelings. If feelings bring people closer to the ideal that religion indicates, agree with it, and do not contradict it, they are good; if they move away from him, do not agree with him, contradict him, they are bad.

However, not everything is so simple, and we still have to think so as not to put in the place of God something that is not God (as happened in the Renaissance, for example). To begin, you need to check the identity of the concepts of “church” and “true”. Tolstoy advises Christians to strive for 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 every person to the Father and the resulting brotherhood and equality of all people and therefore the replacement of all kinds of violence with humility and love.” . However, compared to barbarism, the church option offers a higher moral standard, notes Tolstoy. This is kind of about 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 understandable to everyone:

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

Good Christian art “conveys feelings arising from the religious consciousness of man in the world, or the simplest everyday feelings accessible to all people throughout the world.”

White and black

Fun part of the post!Now I will list what Lev Nikolaevich considered real art and what not so much.

Tolstoy himself stipulates that he does not attach any importance to his choice. heavy weight, since he belongs to the class “with taste perverted by false education.” Tolstoy classifies all of 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 “a tool of communication, and therefore of progress,movement forward of humanity 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 this.

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

Once Dima Hardy, in the comments to my post about the Bible, executed on calfskin parchments 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 on the subway.

It should be noted that the term art itself is quite multifaceted, it often means skill, creativity, aesthetics, and craft, and there are countless definitions of this concept - from everyday, stereotypical ones to those based on ancient philosophical schools. 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 might 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 “unifiedcultural space ".

It is gratifying that the concepts of “culture” and “mass communications” are still separated at the level of understanding of the Ministry of Culture. It’s sad that at the same time they are already like Yin and Yang with a single budget, which, by the way, is considerable. IN In 2007, federal budget expenditures on supporting 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, and about 2.7% on defense.

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

During the time of Lev Nikolaevich, less money was spent on education than on disseminating its results in the form of art. Apparently, this was how the foundations of a consumer society were laid and the era of mass culture arose, in which the satisfaction of cultural needs would be the first thing for a person.only a service, and not the result of his life activity.

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 dollars in government subsidies are given to academies, conservatories, and theaters. Hundreds of thousands of workers - carpenters, masons, dyers, joiners, upholsterers, tailors, hairdressers, jewelers, bronzers, typesetters - spend their entire lives in hard work to satisfy the demands of art, so that there is hardly any other human activity except military, which would absorb as much power as this one.

But not only is such enormous effort spent on this activity, but just like on war, human lives are wasted: hundreds of thousands of people from a young age devote their entire lives to learning to twirl their legs very quickly (dancers) ; others (musicians) to learn to pluck keys or strings very quickly; still others (painters) to be able to paint and paint everything they see; the fourth is to be able to turn every phrase in every possible way and find a rhyme for every word. And such people, often very kind, intelligent, capable of any useful work, run wild in these exclusive, stupefying activities and become dull to all the serious phenomena of life, one-sided and completely self-satisfied specialists who only know how to 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 defining art. I can’t imagine how it was possible to have so much patience to read - and in the originals - all these French aesthetics and German philosophers?

First Tolstoy showed that understanding beauty it is necessary to move beyond the definition of art as a subjective characteristic of an object of art, and there is no arguing about tastes. Thus, he deprived the vast majority of definitions of art made before him - almost all of them were based on an attitude towards beauty. He rejected the rest of the part, based on the fact that the purpose of art is the pleasure obtained from it, 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 excess 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 is a means of communication between people, necessary for life and for the movement 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 can be different, for example, base; they, of course, cannot form the basis of a work of art. Which ones can? Lev Nikolaevich figured this out too:

Humanity continually moves from a lower, more specific and less clear understanding of life to a higher, more general and clearer understanding. 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, accessiblely, powerfully - in word and in life - who has expressed this meaning of life. The expression by this person of this meaning of life, together with those legends and rituals that usually develop around the memory of this person, is called religion. Religions are indicators of that highest understanding of life, available 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 people’s feelings. If feelings bring people closer to the ideal that religion indicates, agree with it, and do not contradict it, they are good; if they move away from him, do not agree with him, contradict him, they are bad.

However, not everything is so simple, and we still have to think so as not to put in the place of God something that is not God (as happened in the Renaissance, for example). To begin, you need to check the identity of the concepts of “church” and “true”. Tolstoy advises Christians to strive for 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 every person to the Father and the resulting brotherhood and equality of all people and therefore the replacement of all kinds of violence with humility and love.” . However, compared to barbarism, the church option offers a higher moral standard, notes Tolstoy. This is kind of about 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 understandable to everyone:

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

Good Christian art “conveys feelings arising from the religious consciousness of man in the world, or the simplest everyday feelings accessible to all people throughout the world.”

White and black

Fun part of the post!Now I will list what Lev Nikolaevich considered real art and what not so much.

Tolstoy himself makes a reservation that he does not attach much weight to his choice, since he belongs to the class “with taste perverted by false education.” Tolstoy classifies all of 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 “a tool of communication, and therefore of progress,movement forward of humanity 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 this.

Tolstoy Lev Nikolaevich

What is art

L.N. Tolstoy

WHAT IS ART?

[ PREFACE TO ENGLISH EDITION

"WHAT IS ART?"]

This book of mine "What is art?" is now coming out for the first time in its present form. It was published in Russia in several editions, but in all of them in such a mutilated form by censorship 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 publication of the book in a mutilated form with my name on it happened for the following reasons. In accordance with the decision I had long ago made not to subject my writings to censorship, which I consider an immoral and unreasonable institution, but to print them only in the form in which they were written, I intended to print this book only abroad, but my good friend, Professor Grote, the editor of a Moscow psychological magazine, having learned about the content of my work, asked me to publish a book in his magazine. Grot promised me to pass the article through the censors in its entirety, if I only agreed to the most insignificant changes, softening some expressions. I had the weakness to agree, and the end result was that a book was published, signed by me, from which not only some essential thoughts were excluded, but also thoughts that were alien and even completely contrary to my convictions were introduced.

It happened this way. At first Groth 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 "church" - the word "Catholic"; the word "Mother of God" is the word "Madonna"; the word "patriotism" - the word "false patriotism"; the word “palaces” is the word “chambers”, etc., and I did not find it necessary to protest. When the book was already completely printed, the censorship demanded that whole sentences be replaced, erased, 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. It was thought that it was not worth upsetting the whole matter because of one expression. When one change was allowed, there was no point in protesting about another or a third. So little by little expressions crept into the book, changing the meaning and attributing to me something that I could not wish to say. So, when the book finished printing, a certain amount of its integrity and sincerity had already been taken out of it. But one could be consoled by the fact that the book, even in this form, if it contains anything good, will bring its benefits to Russian readers, for whom it would otherwise be inaccessible. But that was not the case. Nous comptions sans notre hote [We calculate without a master (French)]. After the four-day period established by law, the book was arrested and, by order from St. Petersburg, was handed over to the ecclesiastical censorship. Then Grotto refused all participation in this matter, and spiritual censorship managed the book as it pleased. Spiritual censorship is one of the most ignorant, corrupt, stupid and despotic institutions in Russia. Books that disagree in any way with the religion recognized as the state religion in Russia that get there are almost always completely prohibited and burned, as was the case with all my religious works published in Russia. Probably, this book would have suffered the same fate if the editors of the magazine had not used all means to save the book. The result of these efforts was that the spiritual censor, a priest, probably interested in art as much as I am in worship, and understanding it just as much, but receiving a good salary for destroying everything that his superiors might not like, crossed out from the book everything that seemed dangerous to his position, and replaced, where he found it necessary, my thoughts with his own, so, for example, where I talk about Christ going to the cross for the truth he professed, the censor crossed it out and set "for the human race", i.e. e. thus attributed to me the affirmation of the dogma of atonement, which I consider one of the most untrue and harmful church dogmas. Having corrected everything in this way, the spiritual censor allowed the book to be printed.

You can’t protest in Russia: not a single newspaper will publish it; It was also impossible to take away your article from the magazine and thereby put the editor in an awkward position in front of the public.

The matter remains the same. A book appeared, signed with my name, containing thoughts purported to be mine, but not mine.

I submitted my article to a Russian magazine so that, as I was convinced, my thoughts, which could be useful, would be assimilated by Russian readers - and it ended with me signing my name to the essay, from which it can be concluded that I I think only false patriotism is bad, but I think patriotism in general is 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 affirm things that are contrary to generally accepted opinion, without any basis, since the reasons for which I affirm are omitted, and statements based on nothing are abandoned.

I 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 general benefit, inevitably drags you down, instead of benefit, 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 although with this statement I can correct the mistake into which I was involved by my compromise.

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

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 merits they showed, and what the content new drama, comedy or opera, and their disadvantages and advantages. 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 experts. New novels and poems are published almost every day, separately and in magazines, and newspapers consider it their duty to give detailed reports to their readers 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 dollars in government subsidies are given to academies, conservatories, and theaters. In France, eight million are allocated for the arts, the same in Germany and England. In every big city huge buildings are being built for museums, academies, conservatories, drama schools, for performances and concerts. Hundreds of thousands of workers - carpenters, masons, dyers, joiners, upholsterers, tailors, hairdressers, jewelers, bronzers, typesetters - spend their whole lives in hard work to satisfy the demands of art, so that there is hardly any other human activity except military, which would absorb as much power as this one.

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

But this is not enough. I remember how I was once at a rehearsal of one of the most ordinary the latest operas, which are staged in 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 passages of the dungeon 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 arms, obviously tired and dissatisfied, walked past me, angrily reproaching me for something else. Climbing up the dark stairs, I walked out onto the stage behind the scenes. Between the dumped 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. These were all singers, choristers, choristers and ballet dancers, waiting for their turn. My leader led me across the stage and a bridge made of planks through the orchestra, in which about a hundred musicians of all kinds were sitting, into a dark stalls. On a raised platform between two lamps with reflectors sat on an armchair, with a baton, in front of a music stand, the head of the musical department, managing the orchestra and singers and, in general, the production of the entire opera.