I have to admit that I generally did not enjoy War and Peace. However, one positive aspect of Tolstoy's work here stands out: a respect for everyday things, and the importance of everyday things, which is clearly fundamental in War and Peace. Indeed, that which is "ordinary" is foundational for history in Tolstoy's understanding. Descriptions of ordinary life among ordinary people appear alongside the actions of generals and emperors. Accounts of dances, hunting and even seemingly pointless conversations are given as much attention as (or even more attention than) battles and the movements of armies. Moreover, Tolstoy clearly sees these aspects of life at the family level as authentic history, and as the foundations for the unified reality of Russia.

The family (including the traditional structure of the family) is central for a society which respects how things really are. Various portrayals of marriages and families run throughout the book, culminating in the deep and detailed examination of the families of Pierre and Natasha, and Nicholas and Mary, in the First Epilogue. In that epilogue Tolstoy makes explicit what it seems was already implicit throughout this work in his understanding of marriage and family: that marriage is meaningless without reference to the community of the family. To select a negative instance from earlier in the work, for example, there is something wrong with the marriage of Pierre and Helene, as Pierre senses in the beginning, and the key manifestation of the problem is that the marriage is not to bear fruit in the natural community of a family (nor for that matter does the marriage even begin with any serious sense of community, of common life, between Pierre and Helene). The community of the family grounds a sense of Russia as a community unified in a deep way, regardless of divisions which may exist, such as those between classes, the division between urban and rural, and so forth.

The theme of the unity of Russia can be looked at from a variety of perspective, but one clear aspect of this vision of Russia as an organic whole—in reality a huge and extended family—is the sense in War and Peace of relationship between the classes. There is a hierarchy in society, and perhaps there are indications of conflict and opposition that a modern might wish to see as related to issues of class warfare. However, it is clear that the classes are not (or at least should not be) simply unrelated and external to one another, so that one class is only "pushing around," as it were, a lower class. Rather, people on different levels of society participate in a whole that is greater than themselves, and as such are truly related. This idea is vividly illustrated in the scene in Book Seven, in the hunt and the evening at Uncle's which follows. In the hunt, Nicholas, Ilagin, and "Uncle" (a serf) all share in the hunt, but it is Uncle who triumphs, and Nicholas "felt flattered that, after what had happened, 'Uncle' deigned to speak to him." Even more striking is the following scene of Natasha’s traditional Russian dance in Uncle's house, which Tolstoy explicitly presents as embodying a mysterious Russianness, which the countess understands on some level without it being taught to her, and which is common to her and to serfs and all Russians.

The recognition of the fundamental unity of society and common human dignity of its members can also be seen, in a way that both is Russian and transcends Russia, in Tolstoy’s conception of greatness as intrinsically linked to moral goodness, presented most clearly in Book Fourteen. "For us with the standard of good and evil given us by Christ, no human actions are incommensurable. And there is no greatness where simplicity, goodness, and truth are absent." Greatness therefore is not restricted to some small group of "great men," but in a certain sense is opened to society as a whole, because the standard of greatness does not correspond to a person's rank in society, government, or the military. One does not achieve greatness by leaving the "lower" level of everyday (family-based) life to seek glory through leadership in politics or in battle.

At the same time, while acknowledging that a certain understanding of history and of Russia leads to an appreciation and consideration of “the low” in War and Peace, it is also interesting that ultimately it seems to be predominantly the upper classes of society which are examined from inside, as it were. Lower classes are primarily examined from outside, and usually (though by no means exclusively) in a more generalized way. This point is not intended to prove any conclusion beyond itself here. Perhaps it is only a reflection of the fact that Tolstoy describes things as he himself is best equipped to describe them: from within an aristocratic background. However, it is an interesting phenomenon in the work given the themes of Russian unity, the importance of ordinary life, and respect for that which seems lowly.

There can be no doubt that an emphasis on the ordinary corresponds to a Christian sense of the dignity of every human person as human and creature. However, an emphasis on the ordinary also corresponds, as has already been noted, to Tolstoy’s view of history. He himself clearly understands his philosophy of history as integral to his work in War and Peace, so this philosophy cannot just be ignored in interpreting the work. The Russian society described by Tolstoy was grounded in Christian realism, but that obviously does not make Tolstoy’s view of history identical with Christian realism. In fact, the philosophy of Tolstoy seems to face perhaps insoluble problems in his understanding of freedom. In the end it is problematic for Tolstoy to retain any authentic freedom, and arguably any meaning for personal human action, in the face of an inevitability which he sees as directly opposed to freedom. In fact, I would argue that the dignity of the human person in love is ultimately lost in Tolstoy, at least in War and Peace. I think this comes through in the entire story, and even in the way the families are presented in the "happy ending"” of the first epilogue. At a minimum, though, there can be no question that freedom and the importance of the person in history are seriously problematic issues for Tolstoy. Even if one tried to interpret Tolstoy’s view in War and Peace in terms of a Christian belief in Divine Providence, such an interpretation would seem to reduce Providence to a force directing history, a force which ultimately is not mysterious because under it there is no true causal significance for human actions and human freedom. In a way, Tolstoy, while portraying human life in a striking way, perhaps taints his own portrayal through the philosophy on which he attempts to ground it.