Death And Violence In Tolstoy's Hadji Murat

In his final novel, Hadji Murat, Tolstoy depicts the Caucasian campaigns of the mid 19th century, condemning Nicholas I’s attacks on the Islamic people of the region, as well as the tsar’s use of violence in general. However, Tolstoy also criticizes the Islamic leader Imam Shamil, even drawing some comparisons between Shamil and the tsar. In this sense, Tolstoy condemns the Russians but in doing so does not condone the leaders of the Islamic people; rather his criticism focuses on violence and cruelty as traits that can be seen in different forms of authority. This is exemplified in the character of Hadji Murat, torn between these two sides and ultimately destroyed because of them.
From the novel’s introduction, there is clear evidence …show more content…
In war, Butler only focuses on the possibility of glory by exposing himself to danger. However, “the other side of war – the death, the wounds of soldiers, officers, mountaineers- strange as it is to say, did not present itself to his imagination. Unconsciously, to preserve his poetic notion of war, he never even looked at the killed and wounded.” (78) Though these soldiers do not seem inherently bad, they do not care about the consequences of their military campaigns, and in fact actively ignore those they kill and destroy. There is no evidence that the soldiers believe in the cause they are promoting, or that what they are doing is right, furthering the idea that Tolstoy does not see justification in the Caucasian …show more content…
In a scene that mirrors one of the Russian soldiers earlier in the novel, as they sing songs after an attack, Tolstoy describes how “Shamil, surrounded by the party of murids, caracoling around him, firing off their rifles and pistols, and ceaselessly singing ‘La ilaha il Allah,” rode up to his place of residence” after an attack (84). In holding the family of Hadji Murat hostage and subjecting them to mistreatment, Shamil clearly has some taste for cruelty. He also seems to share similar types of delusion to the tsar, each leader tries to convince themselves they are successful and good. After an attack in Vedeno, it is described how in Shamil’s “own opinion and that of all the murids, he had been victorious and had routed the Russians” (84). However, shortly after, Tolstoy writes that “despite the public recognition of his campaign as victorious,” Shamil “knew that his campaign had been a failure” (85). Shamil makes no effort to change the opinion of his supporters and in fact encourages it. Though Tolstoy seems somewhat more critical of the tsar than of Imam Shamil, he shows that the leaders on both sides do not fight for valid or moral reasons, and lead people into campaigns of violence and