- "War and Peace" is a novel about the greatness of the Russian people.
- Kutuzov - "representative of the people's war."
- Kutuzov is a man and Kutuzov is a commander.
- The role of personality in history according to Tolstoy.
- Philosophical and historical optimism of Tolstoy.
There is no other work in Russian literature where the power and greatness of the Russian people would be conveyed with such persuasiveness and strength, as in the novel "War and Peace". With the whole content of the novel, Tolstoy showed that it was the people who had risen to fight for independence that expelled the French and ensured victory. Tolstoy said that in every work the artist must love the main idea, and admitted that in "War and Peace" he loved "the thought of the people." This idea illuminates the development of the main events of the novel. "The thought of the people" also lies in the assessment of historical figures and all other heroes of the novel. Tolstoy in the image of Kutuzov combines historical grandeur and folk simplicity. The image of the great national commander Kutuzov occupies a significant place in the novel. Kutuzov's unity with the people is explained by the "people's feeling that he carried in himself in all its purity and strength." Thanks to this spiritual quality, Kutuzov is the "representative of the people's war."
For the first time Tolstoy shows Kutuzov in the military campaign of 1805-1807. at the review in Braunau. The Russian commander did not want to look at the dress uniform of the soldiers, but began to inspect the regiment in the state in which it was, pointing out to the Austrian general the broken soldier's shoes: he did not reproach anyone for this, but he could not help but see how bad it was. Kutuzov's life behavior is, first of all, the behavior of a simple Russian person. He "always seemed to be a simple and ordinary person and spoke the most simple and ordinary speeches." Kutuzov is really very simple with those whom he has reason to consider comrades in the difficult and dangerous business of war, with those who are not busy with court intrigues, who love their homeland. But far from all Kutuzov is so simple. This is not a simpleton, but a skilled diplomat, a wise politician. He hates court intrigues, but understands their mechanics very well and with his folk cunning often takes precedence over experienced intriguers. At the same time, in a circle of people alien to the people, Kutuzov knows how to speak an exquisite language, so to speak, hitting the enemy with his own weapon.
In the battle of Borodino, the greatness of Kutuzov was manifested, which consisted in the fact that he led the spirit of the army. L. N. Tolstoy shows how much the Russian spirit in this people's war surpasses the cold prudence of foreign military leaders. So Kutuzov sends the Prince of Witembourg "to take command of the first army", but he, before reaching the army, asks for more troops, and then the commander recalls him and sends the Russian - Dokhturov, knowing that he will stand for the Motherland to death. The writer shows that the noble Barclay de Tolly, seeing all the circumstances, decided that the battle was lost, while the Russian soldiers fought to the death and held back the onslaught of the French. Barclay de Tolly is a good commander, but there is no Russian spirit in him. But Kutuzov is close to the people, the national spirit, and the commander gives the order to attack, although the army could not attack in this state. This order proceeded "not from cunning considerations, but from a feeling that lay in the soul of every Russian person", and, having heard this order, "the exhausted and wavering people were comforted and encouraged."
Kutuzov the man and Kutuzov the commander in War and Peace are inseparable, and this has a deep meaning. In the human simplicity of Kutuzov, the same nationality is manifested, which played a decisive role in his military leadership. Commander Kutuzov calmly surrenders to the will of events. In essence, he leads the troops little, knowing that "the fate of battles" is decided by "an elusive force called the spirit of the army." Kutuzov, the commander-in-chief, is as unusual as the "people's war" is not like an ordinary war. The meaning of his military strategy is not to "kill and exterminate people", but to "save and spare them." This is his military and human feat.
The image of Kutuzov from beginning to end is built in accordance with Tolstoy's conviction that the cause of war went on, "never coinciding with what people thought up, but proceeding from the essence of mass relations." Thus Tolstoy denies the role of the individual in history. He is sure that not a single person is able to turn the course of history according to his own will. The human mind cannot play a directing and organizing role in history, and military science, in particular, cannot have practical meaning in the live course of war. For Tolstoy, the greatest force of history is the element of the people, irresistible, indomitable, not amenable to leadership and organization. However, the writer denied only such a person who puts himself above the masses, does not want to reckon with the will of the people. If the actions of a person are historically conditioned, then it plays a certain role in the development of historical events.
Although Kutuzov does not attach decisive importance to his "I", however, Tolstoy is shown not as a passive, but as an active, wise and experienced commander, who, with his orders, helps the growth of popular resistance, strengthens the spirit of the army. Here is how Tolstoy assesses the role of the individual in history: “The historical personality is the essence of the label that history hangs on this or that event. Here is what happens to a person, according to the writer: "A person consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious tool for achieving historical universal goals." Therefore, fatalism is inevitable in history when explaining "illogical", "unreasonable" phenomena. A person must learn the laws of historical development, but due to the weakness of the mind and the wrong, or rather, according to the writer, unscientific approach to history, the awareness of these laws has not yet come, but it must come. This is the peculiar philosophical and historical optimism of the writer.
The meaning of the historical process. The role of personality in history.
Exercise. Underline the abstracts of the article, prepare an answer to the questions:
- What is the meaning of the historical process, according to Tolstoy?
What are Tolstoy's views on the causes of the war of 1812 and his attitude towards the war?
What is the role of the individual in history?
- What does the personal and swarm life of a person mean? What is the ideal human being? Which heroes are characterized by this ideal being?
This theme in the novel is considered in detail for the first time in the historical and philosophical discourse on the causes of the war of 1812 (the beginning of the second and the beginning of the third parts of the third volume). This reasoning is polemically directed against the traditional concepts of historians, which Tolstoy considers a stereotype that requires rethinking. According to Tolstoy, the start of the war cannot be explained by someone's individual will (for example, by the will of Napoleon). Napoleon is objectively involved in this event in the same way as any corporal who goes to war that day. The war was inevitable, it began according to the invisible historical will, which is made up of "billions of wills." The role of the individual in history is practically negligible. The more people are connected with others, the more they serve "necessity", i.e. their will is intertwined with other wills and becomes less free. Therefore, public and state figures are less subjectively free. "The king is a slave of history." (How does this thought of Tolstoy manifest itself in the depiction of Alexander?) Napoleon is mistaken when he thinks that he can influence the course of events. “... The course of world events is predetermined from above, depends on the coincidence of all the arbitrariness of the people participating in these events, and ... the influence of Napoleons on the course of these events is only external and fictitious” (vol. 3, part 2, ch.XXVII). Kutuzov is right in that he prefers to strictly follow an objective process, and not to impose his own line, "not to interfere" with what should happen. The novel ends with the formula of historical fatalism: “... it is necessary to abandon the non-existent freedom and recognize the dependence that we do not feel.”
attitude towards war. The war turns out not to be a duel between Napoleon and Alexander or Kutuzov, it is a duel between two principles (aggressive, destructive and harmonious, creative), which are embodied not only in Napoleon and Kutuzov, but also in characters appearing on other levels of the plot (Natasha, Platon Karataev and etc.). On the one hand, war is an event contrary to everything human, on the other hand, it is an objective reality that means personal experience for the characters. Tolstoy's moral attitude to war is negative.
In peaceful life, a kind of “war” also takes place. Heroes representing a secular society, careerists - a kind of "little Napoleons" (Boris, Berg), as well as those for whom war is a place for the realization of aggressive impulses (nobleman Dolokhov, peasant Tikhon Shcherbaty) are condemned. These heroes belong to the sphere of "war", they embody the Napoleonic principle.
"Personal" and "swarm" life of a person. It may seem that such a vision of the world is deeply pessimistic: the concept of freedom is denied, but then a person's life loses its meaning. Actually it is not. Tolstoy separates the subjective and objective levels of human life: a person is in the small circle of his biography (microcosm, "personal" life) and in the large circle of universal history (macrocosm, "swarm" life). A person is subjectively aware of his "personal" life, but cannot see what his "swarm" life consists of.
At the “personal” level, a person is endowed with sufficient freedom of choice and is able to be responsible for his actions. A "swarm" life a person lives unconsciously. At this level, he himself cannot decide anything, his role will forever remain the one assigned to him by history. The ethical principle that follows from the novel is as follows: a person should not consciously relate to his “swarm” life, put himself in any relationship with history. Any person who tries to consciously participate in the general historical process and influence it is mistaken. The novel discredits Napoleon, who mistakenly believed that the fate of the war depended on him - in fact, he was a plaything in the hands of an inexorable historical necessity. In reality, he was only a victim of a process started, as he thought, by himself. All the heroes of the novel, who tried to be Napoleons, sooner or later part with this dream or end badly. One example: Prince Andrei overcomes the illusions associated with state activities in Speransky's office (and this is correct, no matter how "progressive" Speransky is).
People fulfill the law of historical necessity without knowing it, blindly, knowing nothing but their private goals, and only truly (and not in the "Napoleonic" sense) great people are able to renounce the personal, to be imbued with the goals of historical necessity, and this is the only way to become a conscious conductor of a higher will (an example is Kutuzov).
Ideal being is a state of harmony, agreement (with the world, i.e., a state of “peace” (in the sense: not war). For this, personal life must be reasonably consistent with the laws of “swarm” life. Wrong being is hostility to these laws, the state of "war", when the hero opposes himself to people, tries to impose his will on the world (this is the path of Napoleon).
Positive examples in the novel are Natasha Rostova and her brother Nikolai (harmonious life, taste for it, understanding of its beauty), Kutuzov (the ability to be sensitive to the course of the historical process and take their reasonable place in it), Platon Karataev (this hero has a personal life practically dissolves in the “swarm”, as if he does not have his own individual “I”, but only a collective, national, universal “We”).
Prince Andrey and Pierre Bezukhov at different stages of their life journey are likened to Napoleon, thinking that they can influence the historical process with their personal will (Bolkonsky's ambitious plans; Pierre's passion first for Freemasonry, and then for secret societies; Pierre's intention to kill Napoleon and become the savior of Russia) , then they acquire the correct view of the world after deep crises, emotional upheavals, disappointments. Prince Andrei, after being wounded in the battle of Borodino, died, having experienced a state of harmonious unity with the world. A similar state of enlightenment came to Pierre in captivity (let us note that in both cases, along with simple, empirical experience, the characters also receive mystical experience through a dream or vision). (Find it in the text.) However, it can be assumed that Pierre's ambitious plans to return to Pierre again, he will be carried away by secret societies, although Platon Karataev might not have liked this (see Pierre's conversation with Natasha in the epilogue).
In connection with the concept of "personal" and "swarm" life, the dispute between Nikolai Rostov and Pierre about secret societies is indicative. Pierre sympathizes with their activities (“Tugendbund is a union of virtue, love, mutual help; this is what Christ preached on the cross”), and Nikolai believes that "a secret society - therefore, hostile and harmful, which can only give rise to evil,<…>if you form a secret society, if you begin to oppose the government, whatever it may be, I know that it is my duty to obey it. And tell me now Arakcheev to go at you with a squadron and cut down - I won’t think for a second and go. And then judge as you wish. This dispute does not receive an unequivocal assessment in the novel; it remains open. You can talk about "two truths" - Nikolai Rostov and Pierre. We can sympathize with Pierre along with Nikolenka Bolkonsky.
The epilogue ends with Nikolenka's symbolic dream about this conversation. Intuitive sympathy for the cause of Pierre is combined with dreams of the glory of the hero. This is reminiscent of Prince Andrei's youthful dreams of "his own Toulon", which were once debunked. Thus, in Nikolenka's dreams there is a "Napoleonic" beginning that is undesirable for Tolstoy - it is also in Pierre's political ideas. In this regard, the dialogue between Natasha and Pierre in Ch. XVI of the first part of the epilogue, where Pierre is forced to admit that Platon Karataev (the person with whom the main moral criteria are connected for Pierre) “would not approve” of him political activity, but would approve of "family life."
Napoleon's Way.
The conversation about Napoleon comes on the very first pages of the novel. Pierre Bezukhov, realizing that he is shocking the society gathered in the salon of Anna Pavlovna Scherer, solemnly, "with desperation", "more and more animated", asserts that "Napoleon is great", "that the people saw him as a great man." Smoothing over the “blasphemous” meaning of his speeches (“The revolution was a great thing,” Monsieur Pierre continued, showing his great youth with this desperate and defiant introductory sentence ...”), Andrei Bolkonsky admits that “it is necessary to distinguish between the actions of a private person, a commander or an emperor in the actions of a statesman”, also believing that in the embodiment of these last qualities, Napoleon is "great".
Pierre Bezukhov's conviction is so deep that he does not want to participate in the "war against Napoleon", as this would be a fight with the "greatest man in the world" (vol. 1, part 1, ch. 5). A sharp change in his views, which occurred in connection with the internal and external events of his life, leads to the fact that in 1812 he sees in Napoleon the Antichrist, the embodiment of evil. He feels the “necessity and inevitability” to kill his former idol, die, or end the misfortune of all of Europe, which, according to Pierre, came from Napoleon alone” (vol. 3, part 3, ch. 27).
For Andrei Bolkonsky, Napoleon is an example of the implementation of ambitious plans that form the basis of his spiritual life. In the upcoming military campaign, he thinks in terms of "no worse" than Napoleon's (vol. 1, part 2, ch. 23). All the objections of his father, the “arguments” about the mistakes, which, in his opinion, Bonaparte “made in all wars and even in state affairs”, cannot shake the hero’s confidence that he is “after all, a great commander” (t .1, part 1, ch.24). In addition, he is full of hopes, following the example of Napoleon, to start his own “path to glory” (“As soon as he learned that the Russian army was in such a hopeless position, it occurred to him that ... here it is, that Toulon ...” - vol. 1, part 2, chapter 12). However, having accomplished the planned feat (“Here it is! - Prince Andrei, grabbing the staff of the banner and hearing with pleasure the whistle of bullets, obviously directed precisely against him” - part 3, ch. 16) and having received the praise of his “hero”, he “not only was not interested” in Napoleon’s words, but “did not notice or immediately forgot them” (vol. 1, part 3, ch. 19). He seems to Prince Andrei insignificant, petty, self-satisfied in comparison with the high meaning of life revealed to him. In the war of 1812, Bolkonsky was one of the first to take the side of the "general truth."
Napoleon is the embodiment of voluntarism and extreme individualism. He seeks to impose his will on the world (that is, on the vast masses of people), but this is impossible. The war began in accordance with the objective course of the historical process, but Napoleon thinks that he started the war. Having lost the war, he feels despair and confusion. The image of Napoleon in Tolstoy is not devoid of grotesque and satirical shades. Napoleon is characterized by theatrical behavior (see, for example, the scene with the "Roman King" in Chapter XXVI of the second part of the third volume), narcissism, vanity. The scene of the meeting between Napoleon and Lavrushka is expressive, wittily “thought-out” by Tolstoy in the wake of historical materials.
Napoleon is the main emblem of the voluntaristic path, but many other heroes follow this path in the novel. They, too, can be likened to Napoleon (cf. "little Napoleons" - an expression from the novel). Vanity and self-confidence are characteristic of Bennigsen and other military leaders, the authors of all kinds of "dispositions" who accused Kutuzov of inaction. Many people in secular society are also spiritually similar to Napoleon, because they always live as if in a state of "war" (secular intrigues, careerism, the desire to subordinate other people to their own interests, etc.). First of all, this applies to the Kuragin family. All members of this family aggressively interfere in the lives of other people, try to impose their will, use the rest to fulfill their own desires.
Some researchers pointed to the symbolic connection between the love story (the treacherous Anatole’s invasion of Natasha’s world) and the historical one (Napoleon’s invasion of Russia), especially since the episode on Poklonnaya Hill uses an erotic metaphor (“And from this point of view, he [Napoleon] looked at lying in front of him, an oriental beauty [Moscow] that they had never seen before,<…>the certainty of possession excited and terrified him” — ch. XIX of the third part of the third volume).
Its embodiment and antithesis to Napoleon in the novel is Kutuzov. A conversation about him also arises in the very first chapter, with the fact that Prince Andrei is his adjutant. Kutuzov is the commander-in-chief of the Russian army opposing Napoleon. However, his concerns are not aimed at victorious battles, but at preserving the "undressed, exhausted" troops (vol. 1, part 2, ch. 1-9). Not believing in victory, he, the old military general, is experiencing "despair" (The wound is not here, but here! - said Kutuzov, pressing the handkerchief to his wounded cheek and pointing to the fugitives "-vol. 1, part 3, ch. 16 ). For others, the slowness and immediacy of his behavior
The true meaning of life. The final phrase in the novel provokes the reader to make a pessimistic conclusion about the meaninglessness of life. However, the internal logic of the plot of "War and Peace" (in which it is no coincidence that all the diversity of human life experience is recreated: as A. D. Sinyavsky said, "at once the whole war and the whole world") suggests the opposite.
How does Tolstoy solve the question of the role of the individual in history? ("War and Peace") and got the best answer
Answer from GALINA[guru]
Tolstoy had his own view on the role of the individual
in history.
Every person has two lives: personal and spontaneous.
Tolstoy said that man consciously lives
for itself, but serves as an unconscious instrument
to achieve common human goals.
The role of the individual in history is negligible.
Even the most brilliant person cannot
desire to direct the movement of history.
It is created by the masses, the people, and not by an individual,
towering over the people.
But Tolstoy believed that he deserved the name of a genius
one of the people who is gifted with the ability to penetrate
in the course of historical events, comprehend their general
meaning.
The writer refers Kutuzov to such people.
He is an exponent of the patriotic spirit
and moral strength of the Russian army.
This is a talented commander.
Tolstoy emphasizes that Kutuzov is a folk hero.
In the novel, he appears as a truly Russian person,
alien to pretense, a wise historical figure.
Napoleon, who is opposed to Kutuzov,
exposed to destruction,
because he chose for himself the role of the “executioner of the nations”;
Kutuzov is exalted as a commander,
able to subordinate all his thoughts and actions
popular feeling.
Answer from 3 answers[guru]
Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: How does Tolstoy solve the question of the role of the individual in history? (" War and Peace ")
In the epic novel "War and Peace" Leo Tolstoy was especially interested in the question of the driving forces of history. The writer believed that even outstanding personalities were not given a decisive influence on the course and outcome of historical events. He argued: "If we assume that human life can be controlled by reason, then the possibility of life will be destroyed." According to Tolstoy, the course of history is controlled by the highest superintelligent foundation - God's providence. At the end of the novel, historical laws are compared with the Copernican system in astronomy: “As for astronomy, the difficulty of recognizing the movement of the earth was to abandon the immediate sense of the immobility of the earth and the same sense of the movement of the planets, so for history, the difficulty of recognizing the subordination of the individual to the laws of space, time and the reason is to give up the immediate sense of the independence of his personality. But as in astronomy the new view said: “True, we do not feel the movement of the earth, but, assuming its immobility, we come to nonsense; allowing a movement that we do not feel, we arrive at laws,” so in history the new view says: “it is true that we do not feel our dependence, but, having allowed our freedom, we arrive at nonsense; admitting our dependence on the external world, time and causes, we arrive at laws.”
In the first case, it was necessary to renounce the consciousness of immobility in space and recognize the movement that we do not feel; in the present case, it is just as necessary to renounce conscious freedom and recognize an imperceptible dependence.
The freedom of man, according to Tolstoy, consists only in realizing such a dependence and trying to guess what is destined in order to follow it to the maximum extent. For the writer, the primacy of feelings over reason, the laws of life over the plans and calculations of individuals, even brilliant ones, the real course of the battle over the previous disposition, the role of the masses over the role of great commanders and rulers was obvious. Tolstoy was convinced that "the course of world events is predetermined from above, depends on the coincidence of all the arbitrariness of the people participating in these events, and that the influence of Napoleons on the course of these events is only external and fictitious", since "great people are labels that give a name to an event, which, like labels, have the least connection with the event itself. And wars do not come from the actions of people, but by the will of providence.
According to Tolstoy, the role of the so-called "great people" is reduced to following the highest command, if they are given to guess it. This is clearly seen in the example of the image of the Russian commander M.I. Kutuzov. The writer is trying to convince us that Mikhail Illarionovich "despised both knowledge and intelligence and knew something else that should have decided the matter." In the novel, Kutuzov is opposed to both Napoleon and the German generals in the Russian service, who have in common the desire to win the battle, only thanks to a previously developed detailed plan where they try in vain to take into account all the surprises of living life and the future actual course of the battle. The Russian commander, unlike them, has the ability to “calmly contemplate events” and therefore “does not interfere with anything useful and will not allow anything harmful” thanks to supernatural intuition. Kutuzov only affects the morale of his troops, since “with many years of military experience, he knew and understood with an senile mind that it was impossible for one person to lead hundreds of thousands of people fighting death, and he knew that it was not the orders of the commander-in-chief who decided the fate of the battle, not the place, on which the troops stand, not the number of guns and dead people, but that elusive force called the spirit of the army, and he followed this force and led it, as far as it was in his power. This explains the angry Kutuzov rebuke to General Wolzogen, who, on behalf of another general with a foreign surname, M.B. Barclay de Tolly, reports the retreat of the Russian troops and the capture of all the main positions on the Borodino field by the French. Kutuzov shouts at the general who brought the bad news: “How dare you ... how dare you! .. How dare you, dear sir, say this to me. You don't know anything. Tell General Barclay from me that his information is unfair and that the real course of the battle is known to me, the commander-in-chief, better than to him... intention to attack the enemy ... Repulsed everywhere, for which I thank God and our brave army. The enemy is defeated, and tomorrow we will drive him out of the sacred Russian land. Here
the field marshal is prevaricating, for the true unfavorable outcome of the battle of Borodino for the Russian army, which resulted in the abandonment of Moscow, is known to him no worse than Voltsogen and Barclay. However, Kutuzov prefers to draw such a picture of the course of the battle that can preserve the morale of the troops subordinate to him, preserve that deep patriotic feeling that "lies in the soul of the commander in chief, as well as in the soul of every Russian person."
Tolstoy sharply criticizes Emperor Napoleon. As a commander who invades the territory of other states with his troops, the writer considers Bonaparte an indirect killer of many people. In this case, Tolstoy even comes into conflict with his fatalistic theory, according to which the outbreak of wars does not depend on human arbitrariness. He believes that Napoleon was finally put to shame on the fields of Russia, and as a result, "instead of genius, there are stupidity and meanness that have no examples." Tolstoy believes that "there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth." The French emperor after the occupation of Paris by the allied forces “does not make sense anymore; all his actions are obviously pathetic and vile ... ". And even when Napoleon again seizes power during the hundred days, he, according to the author of War and Peace, is only needed by history "to justify the last cumulative action." When this action was completed, it turned out that “the last role has been played. The actor is ordered to undress and wash off the antimony and rouge: he will no longer be needed.
And several years pass in that this man, alone on his island, plays a miserable comedy in front of himself, intrigues and lies, justifying his deeds, when this justification is no longer needed, and shows the whole world what it was that people accepted for strength when an invisible hand led them.
The steward, having finished the drama and undressed the actor, showed him to us.
See what you believed! Here he is! Do you see now that it was not he but I who moved you?
But, blinded by the power of the movement, people did not understand this for a long time.
Both Napoleon and other characters of the historical process in Tolstoy are nothing more than actors playing roles in a theatrical production staged by a force unknown to them. This latter, in the face of such insignificant "great people", reveals itself to humanity, always remaining in the shadows.
The writer denied that the course of history could be determined by "countless so-called accidents." He defended the complete predetermination of historical events. But, if in his criticism of Napoleon and other conquering commanders, Tolstoy followed Christian teachings, in particular, the commandment “Thou shalt not kill,” then with his fatalism he actually limited the ability of God to endow a person with free will. The author of "War and Peace" left behind people only the function of blindly following what was destined from above. However, the positive significance of Leo Tolstoy's philosophy of history lies in the fact that, unlike the overwhelming majority of contemporary historians, he refused to reduce history to the deeds of heroes, who were called upon to drag along an inert and thoughtless crowd. The writer pointed to the leading role of the masses, the totality of millions and millions of individual wills. As for what exactly determines their resultant, historians and philosophers argue to this day, more than a hundred years after the publication of War and Peace.