Talk:Leo Tolstoy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has an assessment summary page.
Peer review This Langlit article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated B-Class on the assessment scale (comments).


Contents

[edit] Muslim

I am surprised because I cannot see here anything about the claims that Tolstoy had actually converted to Islam or -at least- sympatize with this religion. This claim seems like sound and has to be checked in detail. Here is a source: [1] --theperuvian 85.101.139.32 (talk) 17:37, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Audio

Have the "cylinders" of his voice been uploaded online? Can they be added here? There was a link that said Leos Voice but it just linked to some religious website which had nothing to do with anything.

-G —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.117.158.83 (talk) 07:44, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opening comments

God, you'd think Tolstoy didn't write any novels, reading this article. Wish I had time to remedy the outrageous deficiency of mention of the actual reason he's famous. --Larry Sanger

I agree completely with Larry Sanger. Added two lines, but still no justice. I know that there's no longer any copyright on the Britannica article, but it still makes me leery about the Wikipedia content. Couldn't someone else, with appropriate knowledge, rewrite this article?

His political contributions, while maybe not well-known today (because only the length of "War and Peace" is palatable to the modern brain), are significant, and by far outweigh the influence of his writing. Significantly, his philosophy birthed the modern concept of non-violent resistance, and he had a profound influence in shaping the philosophy of Mahatma Gandhi (through a long-running correspondence that lasted until Tolstoy's death that began with Tolstoy's A Letter to a Hindu). 90% of people might know Tolstoy for Anna Karenina and War and Peace, but this is hardly a guide for what belongs in an encyclopedia (i.e., what people already know and expect to find there). Not that I'm saying no discussion of him as an author is in order - I just think that his politics are more important. Graft

Graft, this is clearly your own idiosyncratic opinion and not something that should be reflected in this article. Philosophers do not generally regard Tolstoy as a major philosopher. The only context in which I have read or taught his philosophy is his article "What is Art?" in a class about aesthetics. If not for his literature, his ideas would almost certainly be long since forgotten. Yes, the fact that Tolstoy is famous for his novels is precisely why this article be focused first and foremost on his art. Not because he articulated a political view that you like. --Larry Sanger

Yeah, you're right. Graft
Actually, his political and philosophical views were frequently reflected in his art. See today's additions. And that a Russian nobleman (and one of the greatest novelists of all time) sided with his serfs in the half century before the Russian Revolution, surely that is news. However, and nonetheless, there is still a paucity of information about his art. Ortolan88 05:45 Dec 7, 2002 (UTC)
Thanks very much Graft and Ortolan--by no means do I want to say that Tolstoy's political thought was unimportant or deserves no coverage in Wikipedia, and I'm liking this article more and more. --Larry Sanger

I would argue that whereas Tolstoy is best if not exclusively known amongst the wider public for War and Peace and Anna Karenina, that he has been far more influential in the modern world for his non-violent resistance ideas than for those books, and that the article should reflect this. The fact that most people do not know that he was the creator of these ideas is irrelevant to their importance or the fact that he was their originator, and something that wikipedia can help remedy. Right now the section on his later life needs a lot of improving. I have done a bit and will try to do a bit more. --SqueakBox 17:14, Feb 28, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] More

Thanks. Also took a most inadequate crack at War and Peace. Ortolan88

This is a really good looking article. It doesn't seem like it needs all that much to make the jump to authoritative, and from there to FA maybe. I think that further mention should be made of Tolstoy's philosophy in relation to the way Russian aristocrats face death. This is particularly important in his later works such as The Death of Ivan Ilych. In many ways, his analysis of Ivan Ilych's dilemma resembles the proto-existentialism of Kirkegaard. However, I am not sure if this theme exists in works previous to The Death of Ivan Ilych or how (if at all) Tolstoy interacted with the early literature of Existentialism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.112.94.117 (talk • contribs) 14 April 2006.

[edit] New comment

There is no way in hell that "War and Peace" includes 580 characters, unless "includes" also covers people who are only seen once, briefly, at a party or in a battle or so forth. I doubt there are even that many people who speak, although I'd only be a little surprised if that turned out to be the number of people who either speak or are named. Is there a source for that number?

[edit] The link to "Childhood" is incorrect.

At the bottom of the article there is a list of books written by Tolstoy. I clicked on "Childhood" and it took me to an entry for the generic "childhood" not the Tolstoy book. Fyi. -Raj

Fixed. It now links to Childhood (novel), which doesn't exist yet. -- Sam 18:15, 4 Aug 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Copyvio

I have deleted the section entitled "private life" as it appears to be directly taken out of another website: [2](Scroll down to Tolstoy)Refdoc 21:03, 23 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "What Then Must We Do?"

Is this the same piece that is also known as "What is to be done?" If so, I believe the latter is at least an equally well-known title, partly because it was later borrowed by Lenin. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:08, Mar 1, 2005 (UTC)

Nope, "what is to be done," a favourite of lenin's, was written by the subversive journalist chernychevsky. (sp) An interesting character in his own right, but without much bearing on Tolstoy. Very important to Dostoevsky's work though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.159.98.230 (talk • contribs) 12 September 2006.

[edit] Tolstoy on Nietzsche

Tolstoy once said, "Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal." Does anyone know the context of this quote and when it was said? (anon 28 May 2005)

I presume it would have been in his journals if at all. I'd say he disagreed with Nietzsche's interpratation of Schopenhauer more than anything else. And the usual 'pacifism' vs. Nietzsche's glorification of war.Conor 13:12, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Anybody who believes Nietzsche literally "glorified" war would do well to pick up Thus Spake Zarathustra again. One need not go any further than part one, section eleven: "On the New Idol." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.240.49.43 (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Dates

Normally I would expect to see both modern Gregorian dates and "Old Style" dates from the Julian calendar for a Russian of this era. The article used to give his birth and death date as (September 9 (August 28, O.S.), 1828 – November 20 (November 7, O.S.), 1910), which I would consider correct (although I think it could be better formatted). The O.S. dates have now been removed. Maybe I missed something encyclopedia-wide at a policy level—if I did, please let me know— but otherwise, I intend to restore this. -- Jmabel | Talk June 28, 2005 05:56 (UTC)

  • Restoring. -- Jmabel | Talk June 30, 2005 06:32 (UTC)

[edit] Opinions sought about recently added link

Tolstoy and His Message is not, as described, "A very comprehensive biography of Tolstoy, with excellent information on his philosophy." It is a (pro-Tolstoy, Christian) polemic. It is also rife with pop-ups, ads, etc. I'd be inclined to remove it; failing that, it should certainly be more accurately described. I'd like to get opinions from at least two more experienced Wikipedians before I act on this. -- Jmabel | Talk 20:45, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not wait on people, they don't have time anyway. Garbage site should be deleted on spot. Pavel Vozenilek 18:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Serfs / peasants

[3]: w.r.t. Anna Karenina, "works alongside his serfs" became "works alongside the peasants". Were they not his serfs? Or should this be reverted? -- Jmabel | Talk 19:57, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bias!

Reading this article you'd think Tolstoy should be deified. It manages to glance over him writing about the evils of adultery while he was sleeping with anyone he could talk into it. This is a HEAVILY biased article and I hope that someone with more time than I do will edit it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.35.165.82 (talk • contribs) 18 Nov 2005.

Find someone citable who condemns his sexual practices and add it to the article. -- Jmabel | Talk 01:16, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

This might not really - totally - apply to what the first poster of this thread said, but the part about his marriage with Sophie, and her relationship with her husband, is actually quite questionable... I would cite book II of The Second Sex, by Simone de Beauvoir, where she herself cites many times Sophie's journal to talk about another subject. In those many citations, Sophie says she is totally disliking her marriage and relationships with her husband and her kids, that she was extremely shy in front of the gloriuous reputation of her husband, and so on. I can not cite the exact pages (althought the citations are scathered over all the book, at one point...) and the version I have is the original in French. But, yes, I think there are some bias in the Sophie/marriage part of this article, although this wouldn't affect at all the genius of Tolstoy in his writing and ideologic fields. And sorry for my bad English, it's not my mother language !! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.201.175.7 (talk • contribs) 16 January 2007.

[edit] New quote

I was reading Anton Chekhov's "A Life In Letters" recently, and he had a memorable quote (at least to me) about Tolstoy on pg. 434 of the paperback edition. I added into the section where contemporaries comment on him. It's a bit lengthy, so I figured I'd note it and give a source and see if anyone objected. Frailgesture 04:56, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Tolstoy's ( Fables And Fairy Tales?)

I have in my posession A 1st Printing (june, 1962) of Leo Tolsty's Fables and Fairy Tales, A New Tranlation By Ann Dunnigan. I would like to find out as much as i can about it. It is in excelent condition, Almost New, If anyone can tell me anything about this book please e-mail me at adt437@mchsi.com

I'd suggest that you look at prices on AbeBooks.com. - Jmabel | Talk 01:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] on his attraction to men

I have come across the following excerpt from his diaries, written before his marriage, at the age of 23: "I have never been in love with a woman,” the entry read, “but I have quite often fallen in love with a man. . . . I feel in love with a man before I knew what pederasty was. . . . Beauty has always been a powerful factor in my attractions; there is D—, for example. I shall never forget the night we left Pirogovo together, when, wrapped up in my blanket, I wanted to devour him with kisses and weep. Sexual desire was not totally absent, but it was impossible to say what role it played." (edit-- source: htt(p)://philosopedia.org/index.php?title=T. This link was blacklisted and cannot be linked to if any further changes to this discussion page are to be made.—oac old american century talk @ 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)) It seems like a very significant aspect of his personal history, and worthy of inclusion in the article. Comments? Haiduc 23:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Although I was enraged when Category:Lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender people was deleted in ru.wiki a week ago and left the project because of that, I'm equally annoyed with the tendency to homosexualize the straightest people in history. There is hardly a man who recorded his inner life so meticulously as Tolstoy; his diaries take up thirty volumes. We know all about his sexual preferences or lack thereof, so two lines written when he was a youth hardly count that much. It may be reasonably doubted that there has been a man who didn't experience attraction to motss once or twice in his life. Tolstoy, the father of thirteen children, hardly stands out of line in this respect. As a sidenote, he was the first high-profile Russian writer to describe a homosexual couple - in Anna Karenina, that is, as pointed out by Nabokov - yet the fact is too trivial to warrant attention. --Ghirla -трёп- 14:03, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
It may well be that everything lends itself to being homosexualized, the only thing we know to date is that everything also lends itself to being heterosexualized. Tolstoy's desires are fair game, especially since they do not at all seem to have been a "flash in the pan" but rather a theme in his early life, and perhaps, indirectly, later. The fact that he had 13 children is not an indication of anything. The fact that he says that he was attracted by masculine beauty but rejected it in favor of an intellectual attraction to women is thunderous. Look at this: [4] Haiduc 18:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
Your claim was that it seemed like a very significant aspect of his personal history, which is blatently false, since he never, historically had any homosexial encounters. Furthermore, he certainly did not only have an 'intellectual' attraction to women, he, by all accounts had frequent affairs with his female serfs, one of which he maintained for years (into his marriage) and seemed to be completely obsessed with. If you made a big deal over every opinion worth two or three lines in Tolstoy's journals, your head would explode, he's one of the most contradictory writers ever. I'm not going to try and reference all this. I know Natasha's Dance by Orlando Figes gives one pretty good overview.Conor 13:21, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

As anyone who observes contemporary entertainment media knows, homosexuals are sworn to display their behavior as much as possible in order to eventually have it considered acceptable. It seems that every great man is now said to have been homosexual. It is possible that many have passed through that phase in adolescence. Adult homosexuality is the inability to develop beyond that teenage behavior. Tolstoy was not a homosexual.Lestrade 20:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)Lestrade

There's no doubt that Tolstoy had serious issues (as the "contemporary entertainment media" would put it) when it came to sex. It might be worth devoting a section of the article to themes of sexuality in Tolstoy's life and work, from his early homoerotic feelings (kept in perspective) through his later promiscuity, and ultimately his "Kreutzer Sonata" phase. I think it would add to the article, or it could be split off. Any takers? And Lestrade, if you have a comment about Tolstoy, this is the place. If you feel the need to disparage homosexuals, homosexuality, or the refusal of homosexuals to hide their behavior when you're around, do it elsewhere. MastCell 03:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree with you MastCell. And whether he can be labeled as "gay" or "straight" is beside the point. The history of his sexuality in both directions is information that's interesting enough to include in the article.--Will.i.am 02:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
Tolstoy was the straightest man ever. His trouble is that he kept recording his most intimate and passing feelings in a diary for years. Those who wish to prove that he was a homosexual should consult his diaries in their entirety. As a very young man he once mentions that he felt a minute attraction to a peasant when they returned from a station together. That doesn't make him homosexual for life. Young Flaubert, for instance, openly declared in his letter to a friend that he dreams about a harem of three hundred young boys. Now you should pronounce him homosexual as well. --Ghirla -трёп- 10:20, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Tolstoy relates that as a youth he once fell in love, crying with desire for a young man and covering him with kisses. There is other material as well. Why keep it covered, just because he repressed his feelings? Haiduc 10:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

He wasn't gay, and I doubt it really matters. I would read his entire set of diary pages if I were you. There are people then who used this to show a sort of "feeling" rather than a form of homosexuality. It seems to me that to people today, almost every person in history has to be gay for some odd reason. This kind of frightens me, as history is history, and trying to change or modify a certain feeling often change it into something else nowadays. IronCrow 22:15, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] wealth

Article: "Tolstoy was an extremely wealthy member of the Russian nobility." According to C.P.Snow (The Realists, Macmillan 1978) Tolstoy was not so rich as some; Turgenev owned 5000 serfs whereas Tolstoy owned only 300. Tolstoy appears to have been more a country landowner than a great magnate. More a Levin than a Vronsky.

[edit] sexual conduct

Discussion: "Find someone citable who condemns his sexual practices and add it to the article. jmabel". C.P.Snow does just this.

Comma splice much?

just in case u guys didnt know, he changed his ways. he ended up taking a vow of chasitity.

Those two facts aren't necessarilly connected for Tolstoy. When he married he also vowed not to have relationships outside his marriage, but didn't.Conor 13:23, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

yes, then he made another vow, and he followed that one. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.173.247.136 (talk) 04:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tolstoy's definition of 'God'.

Just been reading through some of Tolstoy's work, but still have a lot to read. But what was his definition of 'God'? I'm still reading through his stuff, but so far it doesn't seem like the traditional idea held by Christians of a man up in the sky that controls everything. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.56.62.4 (talk • contribs) 13 June 2006.

"God is the infinite ALL. Man is only a finite manifestation of Him. "Or better yet: "God is that infinite All of which man knows himself to be a finite part." Leo Tolstoy said this on his death bed. If you would like to know anything more about Tolstoy's philosophy, let me know and i can tell you. 68.63.123.165 08:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] two tolstoys

Why are there two articles on tolstoy??? one is called tolstoy and the other is called leo tolstoy perhaps they should be merged... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.123.11.127 (talk • contribs) 15 June 2006.

As it says at the top of Tolstoy, "This article is about the Tolstoy family; for the famous novelist, see Leo Tolstoy." Different topic, two articles are justified. - Jmabel | Talk 23:34, 25 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seinfeld

Elain told Jerry that "War and Peace" was originally titled "War - what is it good for". It was not Jerry who told Elaine. - BJA —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.153.212.7 (talk) 22 July 2006

No, it was Jerry who told Elaine that, but he said it just to mess with her. Then she said it to the Russian guy and he thought she was a fool.

[edit] Philosophy section

Actually, Tolstoy considered hanging himself BEFORE his conversion to Christianity. That's what it says in Confessions. Afterwards he was happy because he found the meaning of life.

I don't think it is important to put Schopenhaeur in this article. He was interested in Schopenhaeur for a while, but it was nothing compared to his over-the-top obsession with the teachings of Jesus, which he would base his entire philosophy and his entire life on. Does anyone object to me removing Schopenhauer? 68.63.123.165 07:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I object. (John User:Jwy talk) 14:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

it would make sense if you said why you object.

Tolstoy's work in literature, which is by far the most important aspect of his life, was greatly influenced by Schopenhauer. He attempted to adhere to Schopenhauer's doctrine of the will being detrimental to the intellect's appreciation for art, and tried to reflect this in his work, ie, always attempting to be moralistic in most of his work. Further to your point, his 'over-the-top obsession with the teachings of Jesus' didn't begin until relatively late in his life, up to then he was anything but a model Christian, and even afterwards, his work doesn't particularly express a Christian message. And to say he based his entire life - his hundreds of affairs, his gambling, etc. - on the teachings of Jesus, would be an overstatement. On the other hand, he wrote nearly all his work with Schopenhauerian ethics in mind.Conor 13:32, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Conor you are right on one point- in the above post, "his entire life" should be changed to "the remaining 22 years of his life." That is the time he became a "moralist" and began to write philosophically, and his work after that point did express a "Christian" (by Christian here I mean the teachings of Jesus version, not the church institution version) message. This is the part of his life when he was a philosopher and that the philosophy section should reflect. Schopenhauer may have influenced Tolstoy's literature before his "conversion," but that is not his philosophy, and in fact he denounced that literature. In his major philosophical writings, he mentions Schopenhauer three times, in "A Confession," "Religion and Morality," and "On Life," and all three times in a negative light in order to refute him.

[edit] Conversion Section

Does the conversion section strike anyone as being unencyclopedic? It seems like it reads into reality a little too much. • Leon 13:16, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I saw the same. It keeps saying his "ratioanl" view on life was twarted by his conversion, however, I find that to be a bit biased, and it probably a bit offensive to some who view his conversion as being "rational." IronCrow 22:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Resurrection

Although he worked on it for ten years and it's characteristically monolithic, there doesn't seem to be anything about Resurrection (novel) in this article. Anyone want to remedy that? O'Hara 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cultural depictions of Leo Tolstoy

I've started an approach that may apply to Wikipedia's Core Biography articles: creating a branching list page based on in popular culture information. I started that last year while I raised Joan of Arc to featured article when I created Cultural depictions of Joan of Arc, which has become a featured list. Recently I also created Cultural depictions of Alexander the Great out of material that had been deleted from the biography article. Since cultural references sometimes get deleted without discussion, I'd like to suggest this approach as a model for the editors here. Regards, Durova 16:55, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Zulu Tolstoy

I think this falls under allusion.. does anyone know what does "a Zulu Tolstoy" refer to? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by SiriusAlphaCMa (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 December 2006 (UTC).

I presume it refers to a remark (I believe by Harold Bloom, but I could be wrong) defending the Western "Great Books" canon against multicultural inclusionism by saying that the Zulus have not produced a Tolstoy or a Shakespeare. - Jmabel | Talk 23:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Part of the Politics Series on Anarchism? =

If no one objects (and points out how this is worth so much space on the Tolstoy's article), I'll be removing this box. It has little relevence to the entire article and takes up an awful lot of space. Conor 13:41, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

well... he is considered to be the founder of an whole branch of anarchism thought. That is how some people may find "anarchism" to be relevant in relation to him.Maziotis 13:56, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Relevant in realation to him certainly, but saying the article is part of a series on Anarchism doesn't really sound right to me. Are we going to make every writer who wrote anything resembling anarchist thought (even if, like Tolstoy they never made any actual efforts to practice anarchism) a section in a series on anarchism? I mean Tolstoy was never even part of any real political movement, and never called himself an anarchist. This Christian Anarchism seems like a pseudo-analysis to me. Just look at the quotes on the Christian Anarchism main article from Tolstoy, it's seems like nonsense (but granted I'm no expert on politics). It seems like they're just looking for notable figures who they can 'technically' consider Christian Anarchsists based on their pacifism, spirituality or vegetarianism.

I wouldn't disagree with whatever texts the Christian Anarchists find so influential being part of this series, but do you not agree it seems out of place here? Conor 11:33, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I don't see a problem in removing it...Maziotis 17:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sevastopol Song

Can anybody help me find the song he wrote about the Battle of Chernaya River? I've had no luck.—oac old american century talk @ 21:18, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

               Как четвертого числа
               Нас нелегкая несла
               Гору забирать...
               Барон Вревский, генерал,
               К Горчакову приставал,
               Когда под шафе:
               Князь, возьми ты эту гору,
               Не входи со мною в ссору,
               Не то донесу.
               Собирались на советы
               Все большие эполеты,
               Даже плац Бекок...
               Полицмейстер плац Бекок
               Никак выдумать не мог,
               Что ему сказать.
               Долго думали, гадали,
               Топографы все писали
               На большом листу.
               Гладко писано в бумаге,
               Да забыли про овраги,
               А по ним ходить
               ***
               Глядь, Реад возьми да спросту
               И повел нас прямо к мосту:
               Ну-ка на "ура"!
               На "ура"! Мы зашумели,
               Да лезервы не поспели,
               Кто-то переврал.
               На Федюхины высоты
               Нас пришло всего три роты,
               А пошли полки.
               Наше войско небольшое,
               А француза было втрое
               И секурсу тьма.
               Ждали, выйдет с гарнизона
               Нам на выручку колонна,
               Подали сигнал.
               А там N N генерал
               Все акафисты читал...
               И пришлось нам отступать...

referenced by Eugeny Solovyev to original publication in Русская старина, т. 41, 1884 | Russkaya Starina vol 41, 1884 in pages by solovyev : http://www.ssga.ru/erudites_info/peoples/tolstoi/part04.html and identical quotation the first occasion of lyrics in page http://az.lib.ru/t/tolstoj_lew_nikolaewich/text_0328.shtml

This song was thought to be folklore for years afterwards. Its expression "gladko pisano v bumage, da zabyli pro ovragi" became proverbial for HQ irrelevance to real situation in the battlefield.

Some Russian songs of late XX century leading singers-songwriters (Yuri Vizbor, Boris Grebenshchikov) started from a variety of calendar dates, influenced by Tolstoy's opening of the song. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 12:22, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Schopenhauer/ Christian Anarchism

The Schopenhauer section should be deleted, because it didn't have a large influence on his philosophy. But when I deleted it i got a message from wikipedia saying i did something wrong. The only strong influence on his philosophy was Jesus. To the person above, while that section may not have been well-written, the whole essence of Tolstoy's philosophy is Christian anarchism. It is not that he had an influence on Christian anarchism- he was a flat out Christian anarchist. The section on Tolstoy's philosophy should be centered around that, but maybe someone else should edit it since i cant seem to get past the censures.

[edit] is this really vandalism ?

The addition of the external link: Free to read on a cell phone many works from BooksInMyPhone was undone as vandalism, but it seems essentially the same as the other external links to Tolstoys work. It seems reasonable to give people a link to another way to access his work. How does one undo the undo without starting an undo war? alternately what is really wrong with the site linked to?

The link is question likely falls under various WP:NOT guidelines. Perhaps WP:NOT#LINK and WP:NOT#SOAP. These include ridding the article of "Mere collections of external links or Internet directories" and "Advertising."—oac old american century talk @ 15:31, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

re WP:NOT#LINK & WP:NOT#SOAP: How does it differ from the other 5 links to Tolstoy works? I think it is a good to make the works more widely available, and the phone readable version of the work certainly does that. By your logic why not remove the others?

I think the SOAP gide is refering to articles rather than external links. Re LINKS it says "There is nothing wrong with adding one or more useful context relevant links to an article" In the external links guide it says under "what should be linked": "An article about a book, ... should link to a site hosting a copy of the work if none of the links normally to be avoided criteria apply" criteria 3 and 7/8 seem the only contenders. 3: "mainly intended to promote a website" - there is nothing on the website but public domain material, no advertising etc - the main effect of including the link is to make the works more widely readable. 7/8: the books can only be read on a phone, but that really seems to complement the sources that can be read on the computer and the whole mobile web thing will soon be seamless with the original web.

I would like to put the link back, what do you all think? 218.45.243.194 22:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see any need for linking to phone-readable Tolstoy works. Phone-readable books serve a niche market and I'd guess ~95% of readers wouldn't even consider using the link. I'd also guess most people who plan on reading books on their phone already know various sites to find these sorts of phone-readable e-texts. Why do you want the link on so badly?—oac old american century talk @ 22:59, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Originally it was just that I had been trying to figure how to read these PD works offline, I didnt want to lug a laptop and buying a handheld for that seemed silly - so I was very pleased when I found that the phone I already had could be used this way. Most people are probably like me, its not occured to them that they are not getting full value out of the phone they bought - it seemed like a good idea to share the realization. Here people who had no thought to read on the phone might actually read a Tolstoy they would not have otherwise (curl up in bed with a laptop :( lug hard copy war and peace around :(). I bet 99% of readers dont follow the existing sources links, 5% of readers is actually a lot, increasing readership by 5% is a good thing, exposing people to a new way to enjoy PD works is a good thing.

It seems like the link is within wiki guidelines and provides real benefits to people. 218.45.243.194 23:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not adverse to having the link on, nor am I the member that removed it. I was just trying to help explain others' possible reasons for not wanting to include the link. Go ahead and add it again, but ultimately it's the will of the other Wikipedians that will decide whether or not the link will remain. We do appreciate your civilized manner in discussing the issue (instead of becoming involved in an edit war). I personally do take my laptop to bed to read Wikipedia, and thoroughly enjoy owning a hard copy of books I read (so I can refer to them later, underline sentences, and make important notes in the margins, etc., etc.). To each their own :)—oac old american century talk @ 03:21, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

True enough was an Angel did it. Im just trying to go about this in a way that works, Im glad you had responded. I wonder how well the discussion page predicts what will happen when an edit is done? It would be neat if you could setup a vote / survey on proposed changes / additions - not just for this :) but for serious conflicts over content of articles.

I dont want to take up more discussion space than I have to, but before I edit Id like to ask for some yes/no indications on the link inclusion (and/or new reasons). 218.45.243.194 22:12, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The same discussion has been happening over at Charles Dickens; the decision there was to include the link and get rid of another that was offering very little. I don't myself read books on my phone, but I accept that others do; this is a link offering to complete works in a format that is not duplicated by the others, and it's not selling anything. Personally I'm inclined to support it. --Stephen Burnett 08:37, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Baha'i

Leo Tolstoy at least sympathized with the Baha'i Faith, if not accepted it as true. There are a myriad of quotes from him about Baha'u'llah (prisoner in persia/akka) being a true prophet, and the Faith of The Bab being the highest form of religion. However many of these quotes are hard to find outside of Baha'i publications. (Who else would have cared about them?) It is not even arguable however that he was at least sympathetic and interested in the Faith.

http://www.bahaindex.com/documents/tolstoy.pdf

How do I approach this topic while remaining verifiable whith lack of non-Baha'i documents? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aeroplane (talk • contribs) 04:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I think the key would be to find verifiable sources wherever they come from. We'll see what can be found....--Smkolins 15:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's some refs -

  • William P. COLLINS, and Jasion T. JAN, “Lev Tolstoy and the Báb’i and Bahá'i Religions: A Bibliography”, The Journal of Bahá'i Studies, vol. 3, n° 3, 1991, pp.1-10.

found an abstract

The great spiritual crisis of Tolstoi's life led him to a rejection of Christian dogma and the search for a pure faith. Late in Life, this search led to his examination of the Bábí-Bahá'í religions. A bibliography of material on Tolstoi's association with the religion has been needed for some time. This bibliography sets these sources in context for researchers.Abstract

Language: English (Hard Cover) ISBN-10: 0853982155 ISBN-13: 978-0853982159

This was the final conclusion about the Baha'i Faith of the great nineteenth-century writer, Leo Tolstoy, a few months before his death in 1910. Tolstoy first heard of the Baha'i teachings in 1894 at a time when the movement was known hardly at all in the West, and its leader was a prisoner in an obscure outpost of the Turkish Empire. This book traces the developments and fluctuations in Tolstoy's attitude as more information was made available to him. It is based on the author's correspondence and diaries, as well as the memoirs of those close to him and Baha'is who came into contact with him. Most of the material is here made available for the first time in English, translated from Russian, Persian and French, and includes a hitherto unpublished Tablet of 'Abdu'l-Baha."Leo Tolstoy and the Baha'i Faith by Luigi Stendardo, (Soft Cover) ISBN: 978-0-85398-215-5.

"The teachings of the Bábis," wrote Leo Tolstoy, ". . . have a great future before them . . . I therefore sympathize with Bábism with all my heart, inasmuch as it teaches people brotherhood and equality and sacrifice of material life for service to God . . . The teachings of the Bábis which come to us out of Islám have through Bahá'u'lláh's teachings been gradually developed, and now present us with the highest and purest form of religious teaching."

  • Another more obscure reference - Doukhobors and the Baha'i Faith: Tolstoy and his Appreciation of the Baha'i Faith by Dr. A.M. Ghadirian, Thornhill, Ontario: Baha'i Canada Publications, 1989.

--Smkolins 21:57, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Leo Tolstoy

I had just heard of Leo and I had to read one of his books, The 3 questions and his ways of writting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.42.90.144 (talk) 19:26, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Schopenhauer

The opening part of the section on Tolstoy's philosophy is a gross misrepresentation. His philosophy was not based on Schopenhauer. Tolstoy quoted Schopenhauer in "A Confession" as an example of someone who believed life was meaningless, and then went on to conclude that life does have a meaning. He also criticized Schopenhauer in "Religion and Morality" and in "On Life." Tolstoy's philosophy was completely and unequivocally based on [his interpretation of] the teachings of Jesus. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying or they haven't read Tolstoy's philosophical writings and shouldn't be editing this page. Schopenhauer should not be in it at all, let alone in a big box. If you are going to put a quote in a big box it should be something central to his philosophy, but the stuff you've done that with is not even in his philosophy at all!

Also what is under the heading of "Conversion," oddly, is not really about his conversion but mainly other things.

Someone who wants to put Schopenhauer in here and take out Christian anarchism, when Tolstoy's philosophy beyond all doubt had nothing to do with Schopenhauer and everything to do with Christian anarchism, is not editing in good faith.

The person who wrote the above must never have read the fourth book of Schopenhauer's main work. Schopenhauer's 1819 description of Christian asceticism is a blueprint for Tolstoy's behavior in his later years. It explains his desire to renounce wordly possessions and to live the life of a wandering religous ascetic. If Schopenhauer's writing is not taken into account, Tolstoy's behavior seems bizarre or mad because the true cause is not realized. Do the following words of Tolstoy himself mean anything?

Do you know what this summer has meant for me? Constant raptures over Schopenhauer and a whole series of spiritual delights which I've never experienced before. ... no student has ever studied so much on his course, and learned so much, as I have this summer. (Tolstoy's Letter to A.A. Fet, August 30, 1869)

This is related to Christian asceticism, not anarchism.Lestrade 13:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)Lestrade

[edit] His Christianity

I don't think this uncommented anonymous edit should pass without mention: it removed the sentences, "The teaching of mature Tolstoy is a rationalized "Christianity", stripped of all tradition and all positive mysticism. He rejected personal immortality and concentrated exclusively on the moral teaching of the Gospels." I have no opinion on what the article should say, but just felt that this probably merits discussion (and certainly this sort of edit merits an edit summary). - Jmabel | Talk 05:40, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging. Tolstoy wrote in My Religion (1884) that, "No matter how one might wish for the immortality of the soul, it does not exist, and it cannot exist because there is no soul. There is only the awareness of God." He wrote more afterwards, but it's certainly true that at one point in his life he disavowed personal immortality. Possibly we need a Tolstoy scholar to sort this one out, but it definitely shouldn't be removed without explanation. --JayHenry 06:03, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Conversion section not about conversion

The Conversion section doesn't talk about his conversion to anything. It doesn't state what religion or mode of thought he converted to. I'm not sure what the section is about. Tempshill (talk) 18:37, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

also it doesnt seem very well written, it seems as though some one is giving an opinion, it is written, at a time when he had a "elipse of rationality", could some one who is relitively free from bias, and well versed in english and wikipedia see to this. it just didnt seem right somehow.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.11.137 (talk) 16:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] 500 Years Old?????

Can someone alter his age under the photo on the right.

According to that he was born in 1328 and was 582 years old when he died, unlike the body of the text which states his correct D.O.B. (1828)

I'd do it myself but I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.106.62.127 (talk) 17:37, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] POV issue

Don't get me wrong, I think the article is wonderfully written, but this paragraph seems a bit POV. "Tolstoy had always been fundamentally a rationalist. But at the time he wrote his great novels, his rationalism was suffering an eclipse. The philosophy of War and Peace and Anna Karenina (which he formulates in A Confession as "that one should live so as to have the best for oneself and one's family") was a surrender of his rationalism to the inherent irrationality of life. Any notion that one could have control over one's own life and the lives of others was abandoned, in favor of the notion that the sum of the free wills of thousands made for the massive movements of history. Hence the greatest wisdom (according to War and Peace) consisted in accepting without sophistication one's place in life and making the best of it. But already in the last part of Anna Karenina a growing disquietude becomes very apparent. When he was writing it the crisis had already begun that is so memorably recorded in A Confession and from which he was to emerge with a new religious and ethical teaching." Seems kind of biased against Tolstoy at first, then goes on to being biased for him in that last sentence... thoughts before I change it up, because I may be reading it wrong or something.IronCrow (talk) 18:52, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't see it. Dlabtot (talk) 19:32, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Gay man

Leo Tolstoy was gay. His marriage, children and religious beliefs were a cover. You will not find openly gay people in Tolstoy's time because the consequences were too horrible to risk. Since the 17th century, Russia has been very oppressive toward gay people. Near the end of his life his beliefs on sexuality became more conservative at the same time his affection for men became more open so much so that his wife declared Tolstoy and his disciple, Vladimir Chertkov, lovers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.225.12 (talk) 11:31, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

View not supported by substantial evidence or life facts. Father of 13 well-documented children, before marriage commonly known for a number of "frivolous" relations with women, in the later years of his life Tolstoy abandons emotional attachments in favor of intellectual attachments. In his era, men were far more commonly known as partners in intellectual relationships than women.
In his later years, Tolstoy also shows negative attitude towards sex (see his Confession and some other non-fiction) or is witnessed as suffering from his inability to continue having sex as septuagenarian, as stated in Leo Tolstoy by Maxim Gorky. It is true that his much younger wife suffered from attention deficit from his side in these years, blaming his loss of interest on his supposed sexual interest in Vladimir Chertkov. This was a standalone sexual slur she used to attract her husband's attention, and to make Chertkov's influence and importance for her husband obsolete.
Altogether, several Russian gay contemporaries of Tolstoy are known, among them the famous composer Pyotr Ilyich Tchaikovsky and Grand Duke Konstantin Konstantinovich of Russia. Using common sense, we might observe that to systematically break with Russian Orthodox Church and express anarchist views (what Tolstoy did) was a far more dangerous diversion in the Russian Empire (that was absolute monarchy, with Orthodoxy as state religion and one of three essential elements) than to state an alternative sexuality. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 11:17, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
There is evidence Leo Tolstoy was gay. You act like gay men can't father childern and be married to conform to the straight supremacist ideal (that everyone is or should be straight) which is beaten into everyone from childhood until death. Jim McGreevey, once closeted gay man, got married and had a child. You also act like a gay man can't be self-hating because of all the hatred expressed toward gay people (in an effort to reaffirm straight supremacy). Roy Cohn, a closeted gay man, said vicious things about gay people and participated in the McCarthy hearings which outed several gay people and ruined their lives because of the prejudical reaction toward openly gay people.
In Tolstoy's journal at the age of 23 he wrote:
I have never been in love with a woman... But I have quite often fallen in love with a man.
He wrote this about an experience he had with a man:
I shall never forget the night we left Pirogovo together, when, wrapped up in my blanket, I wanted to devour him with kisses and weep. Sexual desire was not totally absent.
Lastly, Tchaikovsky and Konstantinovich were closeted in fact Konstantinovich was married and had NINE children. Their sexuality was not known to the public during their lifetime. The only way people today know of Konstantinovich's relationships with men is because of his journal which was made public long after his death. The fact that Tolstoy openly proclaimed his political views while keeping his homosexuality hidden disprove your claim that being an anarchist was more dangerous to one's self than being openly gay.


The idea of a "gay Tolstoy" does not hold up to scrutiny. As his diaries indicate, he couldn't keep his hands off women. Consider these excerpts, just a few of many entries on this subject:

"Must have a woman. Sensuality gives me not a moment's peace" (4 May 1853) "Terrible lust amounting to a physical illness" (6 June 1856) "Girls have led me astray" (25 June 1853) "I remember the nights spent there, and Dunyasha's beauty and youth . . . her strong womanly body..." "Today in the big old wood. I'm a fool, a brute. Her bronze flesh and her eyes. I'm in love as never before in my life" (May 1858)

The line about never being in love with a woman is best viewed in the context of his complicated lust-hate relationship to women, which tormented him for most of his life. There is also the problem of knowing what exactly he meant by "love" in that context, since we are separated from him by barriers of language, culture and time. Ozzy Mandi (talk) 11:16, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Tolstoy's attraction to men was PHYSICAL. His attraction to women was intellectual and spiritual. He states that clearly throughout his work. I don't know how many straight males are attracted to men physically. I think they would have to be gay for that to be the case.


"His attraction to women was intellectual and spiritual." In view of the diary entries posted above (and there are dozens of others in that vein); Tolstoy's 13 children with his wife and two with his peasant mistresses (and those are only the ones we know about); his constant visits to prostitutes in his youth; his confession to his biographer A. Maude that he lusted after women deep into old age; his autobiographical story "The Devil" about a landlord's lust for his female serfs (which he hid from his wife because he feared her reaction) - I think it is safe to conclude that Tolstoy's attraction to women was quite physical indeed. Ozzy Mandi (talk) 08:34, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

I think the word here is "bisexuality". Peter Deer (talk) 14:41, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lyoff???

... commonly referred to in English as Leo (Lyof, Lyoff) Tolstoy ....

I've never heard anyone pronounce his first name as anything other than "Leo" (English) or "Lyeff" (Russian). "Lyoff" is simply wrong, in either language. There are the diminutive forms Лёва (Lyova), Лёвушка (Lyovushka), and Лёвка (Lyoffka) - but the primary name Лев is pronounced Lyeff, not Lyoff. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Just try make a search on Lyoff Tolstoy to find that his childern were commonly referring (while writing in English) to their dad as Lyoff. Probably it is just another attempt to copy the Russian pronounciation which does not get any closer in English when we use Leo or Lev. I would rather instst on changing the entry, as the phrase "Lev Nikolayevich Tolstoy, commonly referred to in English as Leo (Lyof, Lyoff) Tolstoy" suggests that somehow "Lev" was his real name. It is just the way we use to transliterate the personal name Лев for use in English in today's fashion. In his own time, and without objections from him, Leo was internationally accepted, while the spelling Lyoff was used to show being close to the celebrated author. Compare Russian нет for No, which in English-language media is continiously spelled as "nyet", while Russians typically transliterate it as "net". Neither is phonetically precise. Tar-ba-gan (talk) 14:01, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main image

We're currently using Image:L.N.Tolstoy Prokudin-Gorsky.jpg. However, the website we sourced it from itself says that that is the scan from a postcard using the original colour photo from 1909; the same website has a gallery with a higher quality photo. I've also found another scan of the original with larger resolution. Is there any reason we're not using the original colour photo? Johnleemk | Talk 03:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Ironically I like the color of the first one better, but the third one's resolution is undeniably superior. Peter Deer (talk) 03:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)