He then goes on to argue that these smaller events are the result of an inverse relationship between necessity and free will, necessity being based on reason and therefore explicable through historical analysis, and free will being based on consciousness and therefore inherently unpredictable. Tolstoy also ridicules newly emerging Darwinism as overly simplistic, comparing it to plasterers covering over the windows, icons, and scaffolding with plaster, impressed with the smooth result. He wrestles with the tension between our consciousness of freedom and the apparent need for necessity to develop laws of science and history, saying at times that the first is as real as the second, and yet that its reality would destroy the second.
He concludes that just as astronomy had to adopt the Copernican hypothesis of the earth’s movement, not because it fits our immediate perceptions, but to avoid absurdities, so too must historical science accept some conception of necessary laws of human action, even though we feel free in our ordinary lives. In an appendix, he tries to further resolve the tension with the suggestion that we are most free, or feel most free, in arbitrary acts affecting us alone, but less free in acts affecting other people, where moral or other principles force or forbid certain responses.
Philosophical chapters
War and Peace is Tolstoy’s longest work, consisting of 361 chapters. Of those, 24 are philosophical chapters with the author’s comments and views, rather than narrative. These chapters discuss historical events but do not touch on the fictional plot of the novel.
Reception
The novel that made its author “the true lion of the Russian literature” (according to Ivan Goncharov) enjoyed great success with the reading public upon its publication and spawned dozens of reviews and analytical essays, some of which (by Dmitry Pisarev, Pavel Annenkov, Dragomirov and Strakhov) formed the basis for the research of later Tolstoy scholars. Yet the Russian press’s initial response to the novel was muted, with most critics unable to decide how to classify it. The liberal newspaper Golos (The Voice, April 3, #93, 1865) was one of the first to react. Its anonymous reviewer posed a question later repeated by many others: “What could this possibly be? What kind of genre are we supposed to file it to?… Where is fiction in it, and where is real history?”
Writer and critic Nikolai Akhsharumov, writing in Vsemirny Trud (#6, 1867), suggested that War and Peace was “neither a chronicle, nor a historical novel”, but a genre merger, this ambiguity never undermining its immense value. Annenkov, who praised the novel too, was equally vague when trying to classify it. “The cultural history of one large section of our society, the political and social panorama of it in the beginning of the current century,” was his suggestion. “It is the social epic, the history novel and the vast picture of the whole nation’s life,” wrote Ivan Turgenev in his bid to define War and Peace in the foreword for his French translation of “The Two Hussars” (published in Paris by Le Temps in 1875).
In general, the literary left received the novel coldly. They saw it as devoid of social critique, and keen on the idea of national unity. They saw its major fault as the “author’s inability to portray a new kind of revolutionary intelligentsia in his novel”, as critic Varfolomey Zaytsev put it. Articles by D. Minayev, Vasily Bervi-Flerovsky and N. Shelgunov in Delo magazine characterized the novel as “lacking realism”, showing its characters as “cruel and rough”, “mentally stoned”, “morally depraved” and promoting “the philosophy of stagnation”. Still, Mikhail Saltykov-Schedrin, who never expressed his opinion of the novel publicly, in private conversation was reported to have expressed delight with “how strongly this Count has stung our higher society”. Dmitry Pisarev in his unfinished article “Russian Gentry of Old” (Staroye barstvo, Otechestvennye Zapiski, #2, 1868), while praising Tolstoy’s realism in portraying members of high society, was still unhappy with the way the author, as he saw it, ‘idealized’ the old nobility, expressing “unconscious and quite natural tenderness towards” the Russian dvoryanstvo. On the opposite front, the conservative press and “patriotic” authors (A. S. Norov and P. A. Vyazemsky among them) were accusing Tolstoy of consciously distorting 1812 history, desecrating the “patriotic feelings of our fathers” and ridiculing dvoryanstvo.
One of the first comprehensive articles on the novel was that of Pavel Annenkov, published in #2, 1868 issue of Vestnik Evropy. The critic praised Tolstoy’s masterful portrayal of man at war, marveled at the complexity of the whole composition, organically merging historical facts and fiction. “The dazzling side of the novel,” according to Annenkov, was “the natural simplicity with which the author transports the worldly affairs and big social events down to the level of a character who witnesses them.” Annekov thought the historical gallery of the novel was incomplete with the two “great raznotchintsys”, Speransky and Arakcheyev, and deplored the fact that the author stopped at introducing to the novel “this relatively rough but original element.” In the end the critic called the novel “the whole epoch in the Russian fiction.”
Slavophiles declared Tolstoy their “bogatyr” and pronounced War and Peace “the Bible of the new national idea”. Several articles on War and Peace were published in 1869–70 in Zarya magazine by Nikolay Strakhov. “War and Peace is the work of genius, equal to everything that the Russian literature has produced before”, he pronounced in the first, smaller essay. “It is now quite clear that from 1868 when the War and Peace was published the very essence of what we call Russian literature has become quite different, acquired the new form and meaning”, the critic continued later. Strakhov was the first critic in Russia who declared Tolstoy’s novel to be a masterpiece of a level previously unknown in Russian literature. Still, being a true Slavophile, he could not fail to see the novel as promoting the major Slavophiliac ideas of “meek Russian character’s supremacy over the rapacious European kind” (using Apollon Grigoryev’s formula). Years later, in 1878, discussing Strakhov’s own book The World as a Whole, Tolstoy criticized both Grigoryev’s concept (of “Russian meekness vs. Western bestiality”) and Strakhov’s interpretation of it.
Among the reviewers were military men and authors specializing in war literature. Most assessed highly the artfulness and realism of Tolstoy’s battle scenes. N. Lachinov, a member of the Russky Invalid newspaper staff (#69, April 10, 1868) called the Battle of Schöngrabern scenes “bearing the highest degree of historical and artistic truthfulness” and totally agreed with the author’s view on the Battle of Borodino, which some of his opponents disputed. The army general and respected military writer Mikhail Dragomirov, in an article published in Oruzheiny Sbornik (The Military Almanac, 1868–70), while disputing some of Tolstoy’s ideas concerning the “spontaneity” of wars and the role of commander in battles, advised all the Russian Army officers to use War and Peace as their desk book, describing its battle scenes as “incomparable” and “serving for an ideal manual to every textbook on theories of military art.”
Unlike professional literary critics, most prominent Russian writers of the time supported the novel wholeheartedly. Goncharov, Turgenev, Leskov, Dostoevsky and Fet have all gone on record as declaring War and Peace the masterpiece of Russian literature. Ivan Goncharov in a July 17, 1878, letter to Pyotr Ganzen advised him to choose for translating into Danish War and Peace, adding: “This is positively what might be called a Russian Iliad. Embracing the whole epoch, it is the grandiose literary event, showcasing the gallery of great men painted by a lively brush of the great master …
This is one of the most, if not the most profound literary work ever”. In 1879, unhappy with Ganzen having chosen Anna Karenina to start with, Goncharov insisted: “War and Peace is the extraordinary poem of a novel, both in content and execution. It also serves as a monument to Russian history’s glorious epoch when whatever figure you take is a colossus, a statue in bronze. Even the novel’s minor characters carry all the characteristic features of the Russian people and its life.” In 1885, expressing satisfaction with the fact that Tolstoy’s works had by then been translated into Danish, Goncharov again stressed the immense importance of War and Peace. “Count Tolstoy really mounts over everybody else here in Russia”, he remarked.
Fyodor Dostoevsky (in a May 30, 1871, letter to Strakhov) described War and Peace as “the last word of the landlord’s literature and the brilliant one at that.” In a draft version of The Raw Youth he described Tolstoy as “a historiograph of the dvoryanstvo, or rather, its cultural elite.” “The objectivity and realism impart wonderful charm to all scenes, and alongside people of talent, honour and duty he exposes numerous scoundrels, worthless goons and fools,” he added. In 1876 Dostoevsky wrote: “My strong conviction is that a writer of fiction has to have most profound knowledge—not only of the poetic side of his art, but also the reality he deals with, in its historical as well as contemporary context. Here in Russia, as far as I see it, only one writer excels in this, Count Lev Tolstoy.”
Nikolai Leskov, then an anonymous reviewer in Birzhevy Vestnik (The Stock Exchange Herald), wrote several articles praising highly War and Peace, calling it “the best ever Russian historical novel” and “the pride of the contemporary literature”. Marveling at the realism and factual truthfulness of Tolstoy’s book, Leskov thought
