Tolstoy on History

Leo Tolstoy wrote his most famous novel, "War and Peace," between 1864 and 1870, coinciding with the 50th anniversary of the victory over Napoleon. Tolstoy extensively researched contemporary documents, military histories, and even conducted field inspections on the Borodino battlefield. However, he didn't create a typical historical novel; instead, he embedded a moral tale within historical events. For him, individual happiness and the attainment of human faith were more important than historical events. He quotes Lermontov: "The history of the human soul, even the most insignificant, is probably more interesting and useful than the history of an entire nation."

Through Tolstoy's philosophical reflections on history, we can learn about his worldview, and "War and Peace" is exceptionally suitable for this purpose. In his time, similar to previous eras, he raised historical questions such as: Is world history the sum of individual wills, or a series of random events? Who, and what laws, determine events? 

According to Tolstoy, the old historiography believed in a deity subordinating nations to the will of a chosen individual, and that deity directed the chosen individual's will. They believed in divine intervention.

Post-Enlightenment historiography replaced divinely directed leaders with heroes. These heroes were moved by different forces: ideas and power. Tolstoy sees that only the deity can determine the direction of humanity's movements. The power of the people comes from the deity and can be vested in a leader. ("an invisible hand guides") With this perspective, he returns to the traditions of old (Christian) historiography, which posited that humans enact God's will; humans are just instruments in executing a pre-written script.

Tolstoy accepts the existence of a deity because, without it, there would be chaos in the human world; without a master, humanity would be lost. His depiction of the deity is uncertain. The true deity is incomprehensible. "It is difficult to know Him; we consider our weakness and His greatness as a sign that we do not reach Him." Mostly, we can approach Him through nature, echoing his previous writings with a pantheistic worldview. "Here is God, here is everywhere."

God is boundless, and nothing exists outside Him, making Him impersonal. Tolstoy follows a philosophical interpretation rather than a biblical one. Nature's contemplation leads to the Beautiful, the Beautiful to the Good, and the Good to God. Enlightenment, particularly the influence of Rousseau, is evident here: according to him, there exists a rewarding and punishing Supreme Being. Tolstoy is right in the sense that divine laws can be known through the observation of the natural world.

According to Tolstoy's thought process, an individual walking the path of divine providence is not free. The issue of freedom or necessity in history was a challenging one for Tolstoy. His era, following the latest philosophical and scientific views, tended to emphasize determinism. Tolstoy thinks complete freedom or complete necessity is inconceivable. Without freedom, humans are dead, but "if the will of every individual were free...history would be a series of unrelated accidents." Therefore, he sees humans as dependent on law (from God) in their common life but free outside of it.

Contrary to the biblical perspective that humans are responsible beings who can change the course of history, Tolstoy believes that both total freedom and total necessity are unthinkable. Humans are dependent on law (God's will) in their shared life with humanity but are free outside of it. Humans have a personal life, consciously lived for themselves, and a social life, where they unconsciously serve the historical goals of humanity. History is nothing but the unconscious, social life of humanity. Human freedom can only be realized when it perfectly aligns with divine will.

In contrast, the Bible's standpoint is clear: humans are not programmed but responsible beings who can change the course of history. Whether their decisions align with the divine plan is another question. God doesn't prevent free human choices; He fulfills His plan despite human will.

In Tolstoy's novel, the higher the rank of an individual, the more noticeable is the predetermined, unavoidable nature of their actions. Higher forces strengthen the leaders, making them suitable for their tasks.

The historical figures in the novel understood their historical roles to varying degrees. Napoleon is portrayed as an aging, arrogant figure. He lacks emotion, joyfully observing the battlefield's carnage and wounded. He represents the arrogant Western spirit trying to align the world's flow to his will. He overestimated his own talents and historical role. He stepped forward with the aspiration to bring happiness to humanity, but did so out of selfish motives to maintain power. Tolstoy portrays him as an Antichrist figure. The Providence made him the executioner of nations. He not only disapproves of Napoleon's personality but also challenges the Western historical perspective emphasizing the role of great individuals.

On the other end is the Russian military commander Kutuzov. He lets events carry him, showing a fatalistic attitude. He lacks any initiative. "Everything will be as it must be." He understood the will of Providence and relinquished his own will: "he knows there is something stronger than his will." Tolstoy judges him to be higher than Napoleon, not considering himself a genius. He walked the only "Russian" path, the path that could confront Napoleon. Tolstoy sees qualities like a sense of justice, moral greatness, and humility in him.

The portrayal of Tsar Alexander is that of a radiant angel. His character exemplifies a self-sacrificing life willing to submit to the will of Providence. Only through this could he resist the Western invasion: a sense of justice, moral greatness, and humility characterize him.

The characters in the novel are not free; their actions are determined. Tolstoy rejects the explanations of his contemporaries in 1812, attributing the war to personal flaws: ambition, blunders, and grievances. Tolstoy already believed that war contradicted human nature. Human beings are vulnerable, and global events are determined by higher forces. Tolstoy doesn't adhere to the biblical understanding that human nature is captive to sin.

According to the Orthodox Church, every war is the battlefield of good and evil. Tolstoy also believes this; the presentation of the Russian side is unequivocally positive. The victory demonstrates to other nations that Russia is God's people. Tolstoy contrasts loyal Russia with the rebellious enemy. The victory is the triumph of Russian morality over the West.

The goal and conclusion of history were essential questions for the author. He questioned how war could occur in a world supervised by God.

Contemporaries in 1812 explained it with character flaws: a lust for power, mistakes, and grievances were the main causes.

Tolstoy already thought war was contrary to human nature. Humanity is vulnerable, and global events are determined by higher forces. He doesn't understand the biblical concept that human nature is captive to sin.

He viewed the world with sin-infused values, seeking an exit from our sinful world: the establishment of a millennium on Earth through the pursuit of divine love. The goal of history is the search for God's kingdom. The end of human history is the brotherhood of mankind, gradually maturing for humanity. Tolstoy uses a biblical concept, but without biblical content.

translate by ChatGPT 3.5