Читаем The Hedgehog and the Fox полностью

And yet there is surely a paradox here. Tolstoy’s interest in history and the problem of historical truth was passionate, almost obsessive, both before and during the writing of War and Peace. No one who reads his journals and letters, or indeed War and Peace itself, can doubt that the author himself, at any rate, regarded this problem as the heart of the entire matter – the central issue round which the novel is built. ‘Charlatanism’, ‘superficiality’, ‘intellectual feebleness’ – surely Tolstoy is the last writer to whom these epithets seem applicable: bias, perversity, arrogance, perhaps; self-deception, lack of restraint, possibly; moral or spiritual inadequacy – of this he was better aware than his enemies; but failure of intellect, lack of critical power, a tendency to emptiness, liability to ride off on some patently absurd, superficial doctrine to the detriment of realistic description or analysis of life, infatuation with some fashionable theory which Botkin or Fet can easily see through, although Tolstoy, alas, cannot – these charges seem grotesquely unplausible. No man in his senses, during this century at any rate, would ever dream of denying Tolstoy’s intellectual power, his appalling capacity to penetrate any conventional disguise, that corrosive scepticism in virtue of which Prince Vyazemsky tarred War and Peace with the brush of netovshchina (negativism)1 – an early version of that nihilism which Vogüé and Albert Sorel later quite naturally attribute to him. Something is surely amiss here: Tolstoy’s violently unhistorical and indeed anti-historical rejection of all efforts to explain or justify human action or character in terms of social or individual growth, or ‘roots’ in the past; this side by side with an absorbed and lifelong interest in history, leading to artistic and philosophical results which provoked such queerly disparaging comments from ordinarily sane and sympathetic critics – surely there is something here which deserves attention.

III

Tolstoy’s interest in history began early in his life. It seems to have arisen not from interest in the past as such, but from the desire to penetrate to first causes, to understand how and why things happen as they do and not otherwise, from discontent with those current explanations which do not explain, and leave the mind dissatisfied, from a tendency to doubt and place under suspicion and, if need be, reject whatever does not fully answer the question, to go to the root of every matter, at whatever cost. This remained Tolstoy’s attitude throughout his entire life, and is scarcely a symptom either of ‘trickery’ or of ‘superficiality’. With it went an incurable love of the concrete, the empirical, the verifiable, and an instinctive distrust of the abstract, the impalpable, the supernatural – in short an early tendency to a scientific and positivist approach, unfriendly to romanticism, abstract formulations, metaphysics. Always and in every situation he looked for ‘hard’ facts – for what could be grasped and verified by the normal intellect, uncorrupted by intricate theories divorced from tangible realities, or by other-worldly mysteries, theological, poetical and metaphysical alike. He was tormented by the ultimate problems which face young men in every generation – about good and evil, the origin and purpose of the universe and its inhabitants, the causes of all that happens; but the answers provided by theologians and metaphysicians struck him as absurd, if only because of the words in which they were formulated – words which bore no apparent reference to the everyday world of ordinary common sense to which he clung obstinately, even before he became aware of what he was doing, as being alone real. History, only history, only the sum of the concrete events in time and space – the sum of the actual experience of actual men and women in their relation to one another and to an actual three-dimensional, empirically experienced, physical environment – this alone contained the truth, the material out of which genuine answers – answers needing for their apprehension no special sense or faculties which normal human beings did not possess – might be constructed.

Перейти на страницу:

Похожие книги

Эра Меркурия
Эра Меркурия

«Современная эра - еврейская эра, а двадцатый век - еврейский век», утверждает автор. Книга известного историка, профессора Калифорнийского университета в Беркли Юрия Слёзкина объясняет причины поразительного успеха и уникальной уязвимости евреев в современном мире; рассматривает марксизм и фрейдизм как попытки решения еврейского вопроса; анализирует превращение геноцида евреев во всемирный символ абсолютного зла; прослеживает историю еврейской революции в недрах революции русской и описывает три паломничества, последовавших за распадом российской черты оседлости и олицетворяющих три пути развития современного общества: в Соединенные Штаты, оплот бескомпромиссного либерализма; в Палестину, Землю Обетованную радикального национализма; в города СССР, свободные и от либерализма, и от племенной исключительности. Значительная часть книги посвящена советскому выбору - выбору, который начался с наибольшего успеха и обернулся наибольшим разочарованием.Эксцентричная книга, которая приводит в восхищение и порой в сладостную ярость... Почти на каждой странице — поразительные факты и интерпретации... Книга Слёзкина — одна из самых оригинальных и интеллектуально провоцирующих книг о еврейской культуре за многие годы.Publishers WeeklyНайти бесстрашную, оригинальную, крупномасштабную историческую работу в наш век узкой специализации - не просто замечательное событие. Это почти сенсация. Именно такова книга профессора Калифорнийского университета в Беркли Юрия Слёзкина...Los Angeles TimesВажная, провоцирующая и блестящая книга... Она поражает невероятной эрудицией, литературным изяществом и, самое главное, большими идеями.The Jewish Journal (Los Angeles)

Юрий Львович Слёзкин

Культурология