Which COUNTRY has produced the greatest literature?

[WyattGwyon]

And focusing solely upon his critical comments, almost anyone knowledgeable of classical music would tear Tolstoy's comments to shreds. Beethoven's late works, rather than suffering as a result of his increasing deafness, rise to an ever more profound and innovative level. His late piano sonatas, late quartets, and 9th symphony (among other works) are recognized as towering works within the whole of classical music... pushing the form toward Romanticism.

Today Beethoven's late works are recognized as works of genius, but to many great professional musicians and critics among his contemporaries and among the next couple of generations, they were problematic and challenging. Long after the 9th Symphony was composed, as astute a critic as Eduard Hanslick described it as like a torso in white marble with a green head attached (bad paraphrase from memory, sorry)—meaning it didn't gel as a unified work. So Tolstoy's opinion of late Beethoven was not particularly eccentric and certainly not indefensible. (Attributing its alleged aesthetic defects to deafness seems dumb however.) Now if he had made such statements about the big middle-period masterpieces, that would be another matter.

Also, Beethoven was considered by many among his contemporaries and successive generations to be the quintessential Romantic artist. It is a modern convention to lump him with Haydn and Mozart.

[hypatia_]

You can't take a critique seriously if it is of a "masterpiece" but by a person from the same era. Genius work will always be considered so unique to the time that even the best known artists that lived at that period would have strong opinions about it.

It makes perfect sense that well-respected artists would often-times judge other masterpieces from the same time period as horrid.

[Ecurb]

Tolstoy's essay on Shakespeare is available on this very site! Here's a short exerpt. Although most of us may disagree with it, to call it illogical, irrational, irrascible or silly seems inappropriate. It is plainly, logically, and simply written and argued:

Dramatic art, according to the laws established by those very critics who extol Shakespeare, demands that the persons represented in the play should be, in consequence of actions proper to their characters, and owing to a natural course of events, placed in positions requiring them to struggle with the surrounding world to which they find themselves in opposition, and in this struggle should display their inherent qualities.

In "King Lear" the persons represented are indeed placed externally in opposition to the outward world, and they struggle with it. But their strife does not flow from the natural course of events nor from their own characters, but is quite arbitrarily established by the author, and therefore can not produce on the reader the illusion which represents the essential condition of art.

Lear has no necessity or motive for his abdication; also, having lived all his life with his daughters, has no reason to believe the words of the two elders and not the truthful statement of the youngest; yet upon this is built the whole tragedy of his position.

Similarly unnatural is the subordinate action: the relation of Gloucester to his sons. The positions of Gloucester and Edgar flow from the circumstance that Gloucester, just like Lear, immediately believes the coarsest untruth and does not even endeavor to inquire of his injured son whether what he is accused of be true, but at once curses and banishes him. The fact that Lear's relations with his daughters are the same as those of Gloucester to his sons makes one feel yet more strongly that in both cases the relations are quite arbitrary, and do not flow from the characters nor the natural course of events. Equally unnatural, and obviously invented, is the fact that all through the tragedy Lear does not recognize his old courtier, Kent, and therefore the relations between Lear and Kent fail to excite the sympathy of the reader or spectator. The same, in a yet greater degree, holds true of the position of Edgar, who, unrecognized by any one, leads his blind father and persuades him that he has leapt off a cliff, when in reality Gloucester jumps on level ground.

These positions, into which the characters are placed quite arbitrarily, are so unnatural that the reader or spectator is unable not only to sympathize with their sufferings but even to be interested in what he reads or sees. This in the first place.

[stlukesguild]

Beethoven died in 1827. Tolstoy's "What is Art?" was written 70 years after. By this time Hugo Wolf, Franz Liszt, Hector Berlioz, Richard Wagner, Piotr Tchaikovsky, Anton Bruckner, and even Johannes Brahms were all dead, and Mahler had composed his first three symphonies, Richard Strauss had composed almost all of his major "tone poems" including "Also Sprach Zarthustra", and Debussy had already churned out a good portion of his oeuvre, including Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune and Pelléas et Mélisande. By this point in time, Hanslick was recognized for what he was, a conservative critic who championed the structure and form of "classicism" believing that music began with Mozart, reached its culmination in Beethoven, and continued in the work of Schumann and Brahms. He was the most influential critic in Austria in the mid-to late 1800s and was known for abusing his power with his endless attacks upon the so-called "New Music" School... including Liszt, Bruckner, Wolf, and Richard Wagner first and foremost. Of course Wagner was not known for taking any criticism lying down, and viciously attacked Hanslick as part of a Jewish/anti-German element that was most certainly detrimental to music.

Beethoven's music was almost wholly absorbed and recognized as the work of genius by this time... with the possible exception of the Grosse Fugue. The late quartets served as the model for the chamber works of Schubert and Brahms. The 9th Symphony was the model for Berlioz' grand symphonic/operatic/choral constructions, Bruckner's and Mahler's greatly expanded symphonies... and even Brahms' First Symphony.

By the time of Tolstoy's "What is Art?" old Tolstoy was far out of the loop concerning contemporary music. Wagner had become quite possibly the single most influential artist... not merely composer... of the second half of the 19th century, and we were but a decade of so from the earth-shattering Modernist innovations of Stravinsky, Bartok, and Schoenberg.

I agree that our notion of "Romanticism" is not the same as that of the Romantic period... but then this is commonly true across history. I doubt that the Renaissance artists themselves as "Renaissance Artists." Beethoven, however, is most certainly part of the "Classical" tradition moving toward Romanticism. As innovative and daring as he can be, he retains the traditional classical structures. It is Schubert (who lacked Beethoven's formal training) and Schumann who really break outside of this mold and might be seen as the first true Romantics.

One wonders what Tolstoy's take was on the painting of the era. Degas? Monet? Gauguin? Van Gogh? Munch? Was he, like the German Expressionist, Emil Nolde, repulsed by the sight of a nude woman?

[Ecurb]

Was Tolstoy repulsed by the sight of a nude? Need you ask? Although Tolstoy had 13 (I think) children, he became abstinent later in life. In that respect, he resembled his disciple, Mahatma Gandhi, who also refused to have sex with his wife, as reported in G. Orwell's superb essay "Reflections on Gandhi". In Tolstoy's case, his rejection of prurient interests seems based on a rejection of his own highly sexual nature. One need not give up drinking (or tempatations to drink) unless one has a tendency to dypsomania.

[WyattGwyon]

Luke, the version of the story as you recount it is widely accepted in its general outlines. But it is simplistic and misses a lot of important nuance and factual detail.

Beethoven died in 1827. Tolstoy's "What is Art?" was written 70 years after. By this time Hugo Wolf, Franz Liszt, Hector Berlioz, Richard Wagner, Piotr Tchaikovsky, Anton Bruckner, and even Johannes Brahms were all dead, and Mahler had composed his first three symphonies, Richard Strauss had composed almost all of his major "tone poems" including "Also Sprach Zarthustra", and Debussy had already churned out a good portion of his oeuvre, including Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune and Pelléas et Mélisande.

This is all true. But none of these composers had fully grasped, let alone gotten beyond, the conception of musical structure and its relation to content and expression that Beethoven explored in even his middle-period works. Sergei Rachmaninoff, widely acknowledged as one of the greatest pianists and conductors of his age, a genius of musical interpretation and a man who had met Tolstoy and whose first symphony is based on Anna Karenina, never worked late Beethoven into his repertoire, though he performed the big middle-period sonatas with regularity. The music didn't speak to him and he apparently didn't grasp it. It is difficult music—it was difficult then and it is difficult today. I don't think one can fault a non-musician like Tolstoy for not understanding it.

By this point in time, Hanslick was recognized for what he was, a conservative critic who championed the structure and form of "classicism" believing that music began with Mozart, reached its culmination in Beethoven, and continued in the work of Schumann and Brahms. He was the most influential critic in Austria in the mid-to late 1800s and was known for abusing his power with his endless attacks upon the so-called "New Music" School... including Liszt, Bruckner, Wolf, and Richard Wagner first and foremost.

I might start by pointing out that Hanslick was pretty much right about Liszt and Bruckner and to some extent about Wolf as well:-). And his treatise On the Musically Beautiful (or The Beautiful in Music, whichever you prefer) had more influence on twentieth-century music theory and musical aesthetics than any other work of nineteenth-century criticism. Hanslick was in fact a champion of some of Wagner's early work and I'm not sure the conservative vs. new school opposition is particularly helpful in getting at his problems with late Wagner. His critique of Tristan and Isolde, for example, focuses primarily on the libretto, which he found to be full of tedious and infantile symbolism (light/dark, day/night, blah blah) and about two hours too long. It wasn't really conservatism per se that made him prefer Mozart's operas over Wagner . . . but this post is going to be long already so let's not get too far into those weeds.

Beethoven's music was almost wholly absorbed and recognized as the work of genius by this time... with the possible exception of the Grosse Fugue.

Most critical opinion had acknowledged the greatness of the late works, but, once again, many did not really grasp it and very few if any composers of the nineteenth century followed up on it or adequately responded to it.

The late quartets served as the model for the chamber works of Schubert and Brahms.

This is simply incorrect. Schubert was just coming to terms with middle-period Beethoven at the time of his death and I see no particular influence of the late works. In matters of form, Brahms was far more conservative than Beethoven and composed nothing in the realm of chamber music that even begins to grapple with the issues raised in Beethoven's late quartets.

The 9th Symphony was the model for Berlioz' grand symphonic/operatic/choral constructions, Bruckner's and Mahler's greatly expanded symphonies... and even Brahms' First Symphony.

Berlioz ran with the idea of fusing vocal and instrument symphonic music, but the term "model" isn't really appropriate in any but the most vague and general sense. Mahler's and Brahms's first symphonies, on the other hand, and countless other works, were in fact modeled on the Ninth. The influence of the Ninth is undeniable.

I agree that our notion of "Romanticism" is not the same as that of the Romantic period... but then this is commonly true across history. I doubt that the Renaissance artists themselves as "Renaissance Artists." Beethoven, however, is most certainly part of the "Classical" tradition moving toward Romanticism. As innovative and daring as he can be, he retains the traditional classical structures. It is Schubert (who lacked Beethoven's formal training) and Schumann who really break outside of this mold and might be seen as the first true Romantics.

Everyone in the nineteenth century (excepting Liszt) retains the traditional classical structures, more of less, when it comes to any kind of sonata cycle (sonata, symphony, string quartet). In fact, it is a general criticism of this music that they held too slavishly to classical forms (see Charles Rosen's The Classical Style). Many of Beethoven's works in these genres are indeed fully within the classical tradition. Others are more radically Romantic in the most essential sense than any composed over the next fifty years. Beethoven doesn't fit neatly or simplistically into either era. Schubert and Schumann are indeed true Romantics, especially in their emphasis on songs and song cycles, solo piano cycles, small genre piano works, etc.

One wonders what Tolstoy's take was on the painting of the era. Degas? Monet? Gauguin? Van Gogh? Munch? Was he, like the German Expressionist, Emil Nolde, repulsed by the sight of a nude woman?

Oddly enough, considering how much time I just spent disagreeing on musical issues, but I essentially agree with your position on Tolstoy as a critic. I would have been inclined to tell him: "Oh shut up and write another novel already."

[mona amon]

Let's face it. Tolstoy was one of the worst critics of art ever. Among those he disliked were all of the Greek playwrights, Dante, Tasso, Milton, Shakespeare, Goethe, Zola, Ibsen, Beethoven, and Wagner.

Which artists did Tolstoy actually like?

[Emil Miller]

Also, Beethoven was considered by many among his contemporaries and successive generations to be the quintessential Romantic artist. It is a modern convention to lump him with Haydn and Mozart.

Is it a modern convention? To my mind, Beethoven is usually seen as the composer who effectively broke the mould that Haydn and Mozart's classicism had come to represent.

[JBI]

Is it a modern convention? To my mind, Beethoven is usually seen as the composer who effectively broke the mould that Haydn and Mozart's classicism had come to represent.

transitioned not broke. Art is constantly changing.

[Darcy88]

Excluding the non-Western cultures I am not well acquainted with, I want to say that Great Britain has the greatest literature, but that is the country whose literature I've consumed the most of, and so I am wary of making such a declaration. Others have mentioned Russia, and while Russia certainly has a great literary tradition, it having produced two of my favourite writers in Dostoevsky and Chekhov, I don't think the overall stature of that tradition can compete with the likes of England, France, Italy, Germany and America. England has Chaucer, Shakespeare, Milton, Marlowe, Johnson, Wordsworth, Shelley, Keats, the Brontes, Dickens and so many, many more. Spain is one country I don't know where I would rank, not having explored its literature near enough, though Don Quixote may just top my list of greatest ever novels.

If instead of nation the discussion was about which LANGUAGE possesses the greatest literature I believe it could be argued that it is English. That would add American, Irish, Canadian and Australian literatures to what is already arguably the greatest literary nation in England.

[Ecurb]

Which artists did Tolstoy actually like?

I believe he praises the Bible (especially the story of Joseph and his Brothers and the psalms), Victor Hugo’s Les Miserable (we can only guess what he might think of Ann Hathaway’s Oscar winning performance as Fantine, which induced me to hide my eyes because it was so embarrassingly bad), Dickens (he places some of Dickens’ stories in the first class of great art with a religious message of brotherly love, and others in the second class of great non-religious art), and George Eliot’s “Adam Bede”. He also like some of Dostoevsky’s work. Although he doesn’t say so in “What is Art”, I believe he was a Chekov fan, too (he admired Chekov as both an artist and a person).

[WyattGwyon]

Is it a modern convention? To my mind, Beethoven is usually seen as the composer who effectively broke the mould that Haydn and Mozart's classicism had come to represent.

I meant convention in the sense that if one is studying music history, he will always be classified as a composer of the Classical era, along with Haydn and Mozart. By contrast, some influential contemporary critics (E.T.A. Hoffman, for example) were way out in front in declaring him a Romantic.

Some of his works broke the mold, others were happily constructed using it.

[JCamilo]

He admired Chekhov talent, we can see even some short Tolstoy stories playing with Chekhov theme. But Tolstoy once told Chekhov that his plays were worst than shakespeare. Chekhov once said:

"I admire him greatly. What I admire the most in him is that he despises us all; all writers. Perhaps a more accurate description is that he treats us, other writers, as completely empty space. You could argue that from time to time, he praises Maupassant, or Kuprin, or Semenov, or myself. But why does he praise us? It is simple: it's because he looks at us as if we were children. Our short stories, or even our novels, all are child's play in comparison with his works. However, Shakespeare … For him, the reason is different. Shakespeare irritates him because he is a grown-up writer, and does not write in the way that Tolstoy does."

Overall he was very well learned man, reader of Plato, Homer, Rosseau, Pascal, Stendhal, Lao Tzu, admire Madame Bovary, etc. In a way, his sensibility is all turned to the novels. I am not so sure, but Tolstoy disdain towards Shakespeare and Dante seems an echo of Voltaire, so the french dude was probally a favorite of Tolstoy. (altough voltaire in his style, does not care about explaning anything, he will just use his witty). He was ambigous towards Dostoievisky, not a real fan, but like I said, Tolstoy perhaps felt that Dostoievisky had the freedom, he Tolstoy wanted. He started well with Turgeniev, but latter had personal issues. Admired Gogol. Also liked some Pushkin.

[WICKES]

England probably has the deepest literary culture out of any country.

Yes, that's the extraordinary thing about the literature of England- the timespan. England's culture over the last 600 years is pretty much unbroken. Being an island it wasn't subjected to invasions or colonisations, which meant its literature was able to sort of snowball, with each new writer linked into and drawing upon a common past. Plus it has remained free of any profound revolutionary change (communism or fascism). It is a unique culture in many ways- an island somewhat detached from the European continent, with its own church (which in itself has a rich literary tradition- think of the King James Bible and book of common prayer) and now, because of a common language, access to the best of American culture. Then of course there is Shakespeare, who is both a universal genius and yet also a very English poet, deeply rooted in the English countryside, seasons and history.

[Ecurb]

He admired Chekhov talent, we can see even some short Tolstoy stories playing with Chekhov theme. But Tolstoy once told Chekhov that his plays were worst than shakespeare. Chekhov once said:

"I admire him greatly. What I admire the most in him is that he despises us all; all writers. Perhaps a more accurate description is that he treats us, other writers, as completely empty space. You could argue that from time to time, he praises Maupassant, or Kuprin, or Semenov, or myself. But why does he praise us? It is simple: it's because he looks at us as if we were children. Our short stories, or even our novels, all are child's play in comparison with his works. However, Shakespeare … For him, the reason is different. Shakespeare irritates him because he is a grown-up writer, and does not write in the way that Tolstoy does."

.

However we rank Tolstoy as a critic (I still think any critique he wrote is entertaining, at least), I think we can safely say that he was himself unlikely to be influenced by the critical opinions of others. As some hack playwright might have had one of his foolish characters say, "To thine own self be true, and it must follow, as the night the day, thou cans't not then be false to any man."

Since I looked at Tolstoy’s essay on “King Lear” (available on this site), I discovered that George Orwell wrote an analytical essay, "Lear, Tolstoy, and the Fool" in which he suggests a motive for Tolstoy's hostility towards Shakespeare - with particular reference to the character of Lear.

Lear brings about his own tragedy by foolishly relinquishing his property and power. Though he has renounced his throne and authority, he still expects to be treated like a king. He is not.

Lear's folly is strikingly similar to Tolstoy's own bad judgment. In his old age, Tolstoy also renounced his estates, his title, and copyrights in order to escape from his privileged status and live the life of a simple peasant. This act of abdication did not bring the happiness he expected. On the contrary, Tolstoy was almost driven insane by vulgar people who persecuted him because of his renunciation.

There is no direct evidence that Tolstoy was consciously aware of his resemblance to Lear, and perhaps he would have rejected the idea if it had been pointed out to him. But Orwell emphasizes that his attitude towards the play must have been influenced by its theme - even if only at an unconscious level.

Whether Tolstoy actually regretted his "bad judgment" is questionable -- he seems a man generally confident in his decisions.