The main provisions of the philosophy of history of Tolstoy:

1. The historical process is not explained by the will, desires, actions of individual great people - "historical personalities". History is the result of the coincidence of interests and actions of many people who make up the mass of the people. This is the "swarm", unconscious life of millions of people. The description of history should not be a biography of kings, heroes, generals.

2. The higher a person climbs the social ladder, the more dependent on the will of people and not free in their desires. This is the meaning of power.
"The king is a slave to history," Tolstoy argued.

3. Just as people themselves do not realize the significance of their actions for history, so the meaning of a historical event can be assessed only by descendants.

4. As such, there is no reason for the historical event. Everything happens spontaneously and is governed by the general laws of mass movement. It is impossible to consciously and reasonably influence the historical process.

In the novel, private and historical life are combined. Bolkonsky and Bezukhov begin to feel part of the common world during the events of 1812. Kutuzov wins the war because he understands what the “spirit of the army” is, which cannot be controlled, and Napoleon loses, because he believes that everything is subject to his personal will. The novel contrasts Napoleon and Kutuzov, and not Napoleon and Alexander I, as it would be in traditional historical works.

The novel shows how, after the Battle of Borodino, Muscovites left their homes. They did not understand the important meaning of their actions, did not understand that a great historical event was taking place. It became possible to assess this only over time.
The philosophy of history of Tolstoy is connected with the genre of the work in the following way. Only in unity with others, with a "common life", the hero can develop and improve himself, receive Truly worthy reward for his efforts and searches in this direction. “The interest of the individual and the people in each other” - for Tolstoy, this means a synthesis of the novel and epic principles.

In the novel by F.M. Dostoevsky's "Crime and Punishment" debunks Raskolnikov's theory, the essence of which is that great people have the right to crime, because they are above moral laws. Throughout the novel, the writer refutes this idea. A great man cannot be free from human laws that prescribe conscience, self-sacrifice, and kindness. The individual is destructive to man, while the common to man is salvation. For Dostoevsky, the main thing was to preserve the moral foundations in the historical process. The theory of soil cultivation, created by the writer, recognized that a huge country was transformed by the will of Peter. This means that Dostoevsky recognized the role of personality in history. On the other hand, in the novel "Crime and Punishment" Raskolnikov in hard labor sees a symbolic dream about trichines that infect people with individualism. The result is the apocalypse.

M.E. Saltykov-Shchedrin in The History of a City showed a parody of the traditional presentation of the history of the state in the form of a chain of successive rulers. The writer parodied episodes from "The Tale of Bygone Years", "History of the Russian State" by Karamzin. In the center of attention of Saltykov-Shchedrin is the problem of relations between the authorities and the people. The coming of the city governors to power is accidental, as well as sudden death. They arise out of nowhere and go nowhere. Of course, they transform Foolov with their power, but Saltykov-Shchedrin showed that the rulers and the Foolovites are one whole. The Foolovites themselves went to look for who would rule over them. “The mayors whip, but the townsfolk tremble” - this is an indissoluble unity.

As a result of the activities of the mayors, “history has stopped its course”, i.e. the end of the world has come. But the river swept away the dam that Gloom-Grumblev had erected and returned to the old channel. It is a symbol of natural development, which is contrasted with absurd state power. Thus, Saltykov-Shchedrin also showed that personal power is destructive, and the natural course of life is stronger than far-fetched laws.

I.S. Turgenev in his novels reflected the history of Russia from the social upsurge of 1855 to the “going to the people” of the 1870s. The novels "Rudin", "The Noble Nest" showed that the hero-thinker leaves the historical stage. The writer formulated the idea of \u200b\u200bthe novel "On the Eve" (1860) as "the necessity of consciously heroic natures in order for the matter to move forward." Such a heroic nature in the novel is the Bulgarian Insarov, a fighter for the independence of his homeland.

So, Tolstoy's idea of \u200b\u200bthe role of personality in history differs from that accepted in the 19th century by historical science. It also differs from the Westernizing (and therefore individualistic) ideas of I.S. Turgenev. Some convergence is observed in the performances of Tolstoy and Dostoevsky, Saltykov-Shchedrin.

Aug 31 2014

The philosophy of Tolstoy's history. Philosophy of history - views on the origin, essence and change of historical events. The main provisions of the philosophy of history of Tolstoy 1. believes that it is impossible to explain the origin of historical events by separately taken actions of individual people. The will of an individual historical person can be paralyzed by the desires or not desires of the mass of people.

2. For a historical event to happen, billions of reasons must coincide, that is, the interests of individual people who make up the masses of the people, just as the movement of a swarm of bees coincides, when a general movement is born from the movement of individual quantities. This means that history is made not by individuals, but by their totality, the people. 3. Why do the infinitely small values \u200b\u200bof human desires coincide? Tolstoy was unable to answer this question.

"The event should have happened only because it had to happen," writes Tolstoy. In his opinion, fatalism in history is inevitable. 4. T. correctly believes that.

and even the historical does not play a leading role in history, that it is connected with the interests of all who are below it and next to it. 5. T. incorrectly assert that personality does not and cannot play any role in history. “The king is a slave to history,” Tolstoy believes. So T. comes to the idea of \u200b\u200bobedience to fate and sees the task of a historical person in following events. to the essay "Tolstoy's Image of the Great Patriotic Year of 1812" I. Introduction.

The image of the war of 1812 is the main one in T.'s novel "V and M". II. The main part 1. What is from the point of view of the history of Tolstoy's philosophy. 2. The attitude of T. to the war, revealed by various methods: A) through the thoughts of favorite heroes B) by comparing the clear harmonious life of nature and the madness of people killing each other C) through the description of individual combat episodes 3. The variety of forms of struggle against Napoleon put forward by the people: A) patriotic copying is prohibited 2005 inspiration among the troops and among the population B) the scope and grandeur of the partisan war 4. The people in the war of 1812: A) true, unseen love for the homeland, latent warmth of patriotism; B) fortitude in battle, selfless heroism, courage, endurance; C) deep conviction in the correctness of their cause 5. Indifference to the fate of the country and the people on the part of secular circles: a) loud “patriotism” of the Rastopga posters; b) false patriotism of St. Petersburg salons c) careerism, selfishness, vanity of some military 6. Participation in the war of the main characters. The place they found in life, as a result of the war. 7. The role of generals in war III. Conclusion 1. The death of Napoleon's army as a result of the national upsurge. 2. The triumph of peace over

Let us note a number of Tolstoy's statements that convey the main provisions of his philosophy of history:

“On June 12, the forces of Western Europe crossed the borders of Russia, ... - What produced this extraordinary event? What were the reasons for it? "

(The writer is convinced that it is impossible to explain the origin of historical events by separately taken actions of individual people. The will of an individual historical person can be paralyzed by the desires or unwillingness of a mass of people.)

For a historical event to take place, "billions of reasons" must coincide, that is, the interests of individual people who make up the mass of the people, just as the movement of a swarm of bees coincides, when a general movement is born from the movement of individual quantities. This means that history is made not by individuals, but by the people.

"To study the laws of history, we must completely change the subject of observation ... - who lead the masses" (vol. III, part III, ch. 1). (Tolstoy argues that historical events occur when the interests of the popular masses coincide.)

And why do the small values \u200b\u200bof individual human desires coincide? Tolstoy was unable to answer this question: “Nothing is the reason. All this is just the coincidence of those conditions under which any vital, organic, elemental event occurs "," a person inevitably fulfills the laws prescribed to him "," ... the event had to take place only because it had to happen "," fatalism in history "Is inevitable. This is how the weakness of Tolstoy's views is manifested.

Tolstoy's fatalism is associated with his understanding of spontaneity. History, he writes, is "the unconscious, common, swarming life of mankind." Any committed unconscious act "becomes the property of history." And the more unconsciously a person lives, the more, according to Tolstoy, he will participate in the accomplishment of historical events. The preaching of spontaneity, refusal of conscious, rational participation in events is the weakness of Tolstoy's views.

Correctly believing that a person, and even a historical person, that is, one who stands high "on the social ladder", does not play a leading role in history, that she is connected with the interests of all who are below her and next to her, Tolstoy is wrong claims that personality does not play and cannot play any role in history. According to Tolstoy, the spontaneity of the movements of the masses does not lend itself to leadership, and therefore the historical personality can only obey the direction of events prescribed from above. So Tolstoy comes to the idea of \u200b\u200bsubmission to fate and reduces the task of a historical person to following events.

When studying Vol. III, one should see a nationwide patriotic upsurge and the unity of the bulk of Russian society in the struggle against the invaders. If in the analysis of Volumes II the focus was on the individual person with his individual, sometimes isolated from others, fate, then in the analysis of Volumes III-IV we will see the person as a particle of mass. The main idea of \u200b\u200bTolstoy is that only then the individual person finds his final, real place in life when he becomes a part of the people.

Scientists say that one of the least developed topics in philosophy is war.

In most works devoted to this problem, the authors, as a rule, do not go beyond the moral assessment of this phenomenon. The article will consider the history of the study of the philosophy of war.

Relevance of the topic

Even ancient philosophers talked about the fact that mankind is in a state of military conflict for most of its existence. In the 19th century, researchers published statistics confirming the sayings of ancient sages. The period from the first millennium BC to the nineteenth century BC was chosen as the time period for the study.

Researchers have come to the conclusion that for three millennia of history, only more than three hundred years fall in peacetime. More precisely, there are twelve years of armed conflict for each quiet year. Thus, we can conclude that about 90% of human history took place in an atmosphere of emergency.

Positive and negative vision of the problem

War in the history of philosophy has been assessed both positively and negatively by various thinkers. So, Jean Jacques Rousseau, Mahatma Gandhi, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, Nicholas Roerich and many others spoke of this phenomenon as the greatest vice of humanity. These thinkers argued that war is one of the most meaningless and tragic events in people's lives.

Some of them even built utopian concepts of how to overcome this social ailment and live in eternal peace and harmony. Other thinkers, such as Friedrich Nietzsche and Vladimir Soloviev, argued that since the war continues almost continuously from the moment of statehood to the present day, then it certainly has a certain meaning.

Two different points of view

The prominent Italian philosopher of the 20th century was inclined to see the war in a somewhat romanticized light. He based his teaching on the idea that since during armed conflicts a person is constantly on the verge of life and death, he is in contact with the spiritual, immaterial world. According to this author, it is at such moments that people are able to realize the meaning of their earthly existence.

Russian philosopher and religious writer Vladimir Soloviev considered the essence of war and its philosophy through the prism of religion. However, his opinion was fundamentally different from that of his Italian colleague.

He argued that war, in itself, is a negative event. Its cause is human nature, corrupted by the fall of the first people. However, it happens, like everything that happens, by the will of God. According to this point of view, the point of armed conflict is to show humanity how deeply it is mired in sins. After this realization, everyone has the opportunity to repent. Therefore, even such a terrible phenomenon can be of benefit to sincere believers.

The philosophy of war according to Tolstoy

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy did not adhere to the opinion that the Russian Orthodox Church had. The philosophy of war in the novel "War and Peace" can be expressed as follows. It is well known that the author adhered to pacifist views, which means that in this work he preaches the rejection of any violence.

It is interesting that in the last years of his life the great Russian writer was keenly interested in Indian religions and philosophical thought. Lev Nikolayevich was in correspondence with the famous thinker and public figure Mahatma Gandhi. This man became famous for his concept of nonviolent resistance. It was in this way that he managed to achieve the independence of his country from the colonialist policy of England. The philosophy of war in the novel of the great Russian classic is in many ways similar to these convictions. But Lev Nikolaevich outlined in this work the foundations of his vision not only of interethnic conflicts and their causes. In War and Peace, the philosophy of history is presented to the reader from a hitherto unknown point of view.

The author says that, in his opinion, the meaning that thinkers put into some events is visible and far-fetched. In fact, the true essence of things always remains hidden from human consciousness. And only the heavenly forces are given to see and know the whole real relationship of events and phenomena in the history of mankind.

He adheres to a similar opinion regarding the role of individuals in the course of world history. According to Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy, the influence on destinies that is rewritten by an individual politician is in fact a pure invention of scientists and politicians, who thus try to find the meaning of some events and justify the fact of their existence.

In the philosophy of the war of 1812, the main criterion for everything that happens for Tolstoy is the people. It was thanks to him that the enemies were driven out of Russia with the help of the "Cudgel" of the general militia. In War and Peace, the philosophy of history appears before the reader in an unprecedented form, since Lev Nikolayevich presents events as the participants in the war saw them. Its narrative is emotional because it seeks to convey the thoughts and feelings of people. This "democratic" approach to the philosophy of the war of 1812 was an indisputable innovation in Russian and world literature.

New military theorist

The war of 1812 in philosophy inspired yet another thinker to create a fairly capital work about armed conflicts and the ways of waging them. This author was the Austrian officer von Clausewitz, who fought on the side of Russia.

This participant in legendary events, two decades after the victory, published his book containing a new method of warfare. This work is distinguished by its simple and accessible language.

For example, von Clausewitz interprets the goal of the country's entry into an armed conflict in this way: the main thing is to subordinate the enemy to his will. The writer proposes to conduct the battle until the moment when the enemy is completely destroyed, that is, the state - the enemy is completely wiped off the face of the earth. Von Clausewitz says that the fight must be waged not only on the battlefield, but also it is necessary to destroy the cultural values \u200b\u200bthat exist in the enemy territory. In his opinion, such actions will lead to the complete demoralization of enemy troops.

Followers of the theory

The year 1812 became a landmark for the philosophy of war, since this armed conflict inspired one of the most famous theorists of army management to create a work that guided many European military leaders, and which became programmatic in many universities of the corresponding profile around the world.

It was this merciless strategy that the German generals adhered to in the First and Second World Wars. This philosophy of war was new to European thought.

Largely for this reason, many Western states were unable to resist the inhuman aggression of German troops.

The philosophy of war before Clausewitz

To understand what radically new ideas were contained in the book of an Austrian officer, one should trace the development of the philosophy of war from ancient times to modern times.

So, the very first violent clashes that happened in the history of mankind took place due to the fact that one people, experiencing a food crisis, sought to plunder the wealth accumulated by neighboring countries. As can be seen from this thesis, this campaign did not contain any political overtones. Therefore, as soon as the soldiers of the aggressor army seized a sufficient amount of material wealth, they immediately left a foreign country, leaving its people alone.

Separation of spheres of influence

As powerful highly civilized states emerged and developed more and more, war ceased to be an instrument for obtaining food and acquired new, political goals. Stronger countries sought to subordinate the smaller and weaker ones to their influence. The winners, as a rule, did not want to achieve anything other than the ability to collect tribute from the losers.

Such armed conflicts usually did not end with the complete destruction of the defeated state. The commanders also did not want to destroy any values \u200b\u200bbelonging to the enemy. On the contrary, the winning side often tried to establish itself as highly developed in terms of the spiritual life and aesthetic education of its citizens. Therefore, in ancient Europe, as in many countries of the East, there was a tradition to respect the customs of other peoples. It is known that the great Mongolian commander and ruler Genghis Khan, who conquered most of the states of the world known at that time, treated the religion and culture of the conquered territories with great respect. Many historians wrote that he often celebrated the holidays that existed in those countries that were supposed to pay tribute to him. The descendants of the outstanding ruler adhered to a similar foreign policy. Chronicles indicate that the khans of the Golden Horde almost never gave orders to destroy Russian Orthodox churches. The Mongols had great respect for all kinds of artisans who skillfully mastered their profession.

Code of honor for Russian soldiers

Thus, it can be argued that the technique of influencing the enemy in all possible ways, up to its final destruction, completely contradicted the European military culture that had developed by the 19th century. Von Clausewitz's recommendations did not receive a response among the Russian military either. Despite the fact that this book was written by a man who fought on the side of Russia, the thoughts expressed in it came into sharp conflict with Christian Orthodox morality and therefore were not approved by the Russian high command personnel.

The charter, which was used until the end of the 19th century, said that fighting should not be in order to kill, but with the sole purpose of winning. The high moral qualities of Russian officers and soldiers were especially clearly manifested when our army entered Paris, during the Patriotic War of 1812.

Unlike the French, who, on the way to the capital of the Russian state, plundered the population, the officers of the Russian army behaved with appropriate dignity even in the enemy territory they captured. There are cases when they, celebrating their victory in French restaurants, paid their bills in full, and when the money ran out, they took out a loan from the establishments. For a long time, the French remembered the generosity and magnanimity of the Russian people.

Whoever enters us with a sword will die by the sword

Unlike some Western denominations, primarily Protestantism, as well as a number of Eastern religions, such as Buddhism, the Russian Orthodox Church has never preached absolute pacifism. Many outstanding soldiers in Russia are glorified as saints. Among them can be called such outstanding commanders as Alexander Nevsky, Mikhail Ushakov, and many others.

The first of these was revered not only in tsarist Russia among believers, but also after the Great October Revolution. The famous words of this statesman and commander, which served as the title of this chapter, became a kind of motto for the entire Russian army. From this we can conclude that the defenders of their native land have always been highly valued in Russia.

Influence of Orthodoxy

The philosophy of war, characteristic of the Russian people, has always been based on the principles of Orthodoxy. This can be easily explained by the fact that it is this faith that is culture-forming in our state. Almost all Russian classical literature is saturated with this spirit. And the state language of the Russian Federation itself would be completely different without this influence. Confirmation can be found by considering the origin of words such as "thank you", which, as you know, means nothing more than a desire for the interlocutor to be saved by the Lord God.

And this, in turn, indicates the Orthodox religion. It is this confession that preaches the need for repentance of sins in order to earn mercy from the Almighty.

Therefore, it can be argued that the philosophy of war in our country is based on the same principles. It is no coincidence that St. George the Victorious has always been among the most revered saints in Russia.

This righteous warrior is also depicted on the metal banknotes of Russia - kopecks.

Information war

Currently, the importance of information technology has reached unprecedented strength. Sociologists and political scientists argue that at this stage of its development, society has entered a new era. She, in turn, replaced the so-called industrial society. The most important area of \u200b\u200bhuman activity during this period is the storage and processing of information.

This circumstance influenced all aspects of life. It is no coincidence that the new educational standard of the Russian Federation speaks of the need to educate the next generation, taking into account the constantly accelerating technical progress. Therefore, the army, from the point of view of the philosophy of the modern period, must have in its arsenal and actively use all the achievements of science and technology.

Battles on a different level

The philosophy of war and its significance at the present time is most easily illustrated by the example of the reforms that are being carried out in the defense sphere of the United States of America.

The term "information war" first appeared in this country in the early nineties of the XX century.

In 1998, it acquired a clear, generally accepted definition. According to him, information war is the impact on the enemy with the help of various channels through which new information about various aspects of life comes to him.

Following such a military philosophy, it is necessary to influence the public consciousness of the population of the enemy country, not only at the time of hostilities, but also in a peaceful period. Thus, the citizens of an enemy country, without knowing it themselves, will gradually acquire a worldview, assimilate ideas that are beneficial for the aggressor state.

The armed forces can also influence the moods prevailing on their own territory. In some cases, this is required to raise the morale of the population, instill patriotic feelings, and solidarity with the current policies. An example would be the American operations in the mountains of Afghanistan, with the aim of destroying Osama bin Laden and his associates.

It is known that these actions were carried out exclusively at night. From the point of view of military science, there is no logical explanation for this. Such operations would be much more convenient to carry out during daylight hours. In this case, the reason lies not in a special strategy for conducting air strikes on points where the militants are supposedly located. The fact is that the geographical location of the United States and Afghanistan is such that when it is night in an Asian country, in America it is day. Accordingly, live television broadcasts from the scene can be seen by many more TV viewers if they are broadcast when the vast majority of people are awake.

In the American literature on the philosophy of war and modern principles of warfare, the term "battlefield" has now changed somewhat. Now the content of this concept has expanded significantly. Therefore, the very name of this phenomenon now sounds like "battle space". This implies that war in its modern sense is taking place not only in the form of combat battles, but also at the informational, psychological, economic and many other levels.

This is in many ways consistent with the philosophy of the book "On War", written almost two centuries ago by the veteran of the Patriotic War of 1812, von Clausewitz.

Causes of the war

This chapter will consider the causes of war, as seen by various thinkers from the adherents of the pagan religion of antiquity to Tolstoy's theory of war. The most ancient Greek and Roman ideas about the essence of interethnic conflicts were based on the mythological worldview of a person at that time. The Olympic gods, who were worshiped by the inhabitants of these countries, seemed to people to be creatures that did not differ from themselves in anything except their omnipotence.

All the passions and sins inherent in an ordinary mortal were not alien to the inhabitants of heaven. The gods of Olympus often quarreled with each other, and this enmity, according to religious teachings, led to a clash of different peoples. There were also individual gods whose purpose was to create conflict situations between different countries and incite conflicts. One of these higher beings, who patronized the people of the military class and organized numerous battles, was Artemis.

Later, ancient philosophers of war were more realistic. Socrates and Plato talked about its reasons for economic and political reasons. Therefore, Karl Marx took the same path, and in their opinion, most of the armed conflicts in the history of mankind occurred due to differences between classes of society.

In addition to the philosophy of war in the novel "War and Peace", there were other concepts, within the framework of which attempts were made to find reasons for interstate conflicts other than economic and political ones.

For example, the famous Russian philosopher, artist and public figure Nicholas Roerich argued that the root of the evil that generates armed clashes is cruelty.

And she, in turn, is nothing more than materialized ignorance. This quality of the human person can be described as the sum of ignorance, lack of culture and foul language. And accordingly, in order to establish eternal peace on earth, it is necessary to overcome all the vices of humanity listed below. An ignorant person, from the point of view of Roerich, does not have the ability to be creative. Therefore, in order to realize his potential energy, he does not create, but seeks to destroy.

Mystical approach

In the history of the philosophy of war, along with others, there were concepts that were distinguished by their excessive mysticism. One of the authors of this doctrine was the writer, thinker and ethnographer Carlos Castaneda.

His philosophy in The Way of War is based on a religious practice called nagualism. In this work, the author claims that overcoming the delusions that prevail in human society is the only true way of life.

Christian point of view

Religious teaching, based on the commandments given to mankind by the Son of God, considering the issue of the causes of wars, says that all the bloody events in the history of mankind have occurred because of the tendency of people to sin, or rather, because of their corrupted nature and inability to cope with it on their own ...

Here, in contrast to Roerich's philosophy, it is not about individual atrocities, but about sinfulness as such.

A person cannot get rid of many atrocities without God's help, including envy, condemnation of others, foul language, greed, and so on. It is this property of the soul that underlies small and large conflicts between people.

It must be added that the same reason is behind the emergence of laws, states, and so on. Even in ancient times, realizing their sinfulness, people began to fear each other, and often themselves. Therefore, they invented an instrument of protection from the unseemly actions of their fellows.

However, as already mentioned in this article, the protection of one's own country and oneself from enemies in Orthodoxy has always been viewed as a blessing, since in this case such use of force is perceived as a fight against evil. Failure to act in these situations can amount to sin.

However, Orthodoxy is not inclined to excessively idealize the military profession. So, one holy father, in a letter to his spiritual disciple, reproaches the latter for the fact that his son, having the ability to exact and humanitarian sciences, chose the army service for himself.

Also, in the Orthodox religion, priests are prohibited from combining their service to the church with a military career.

Many holy fathers recommended that Orthodox soldiers and generals should pray before the beginning of the battle, as well as at the end of it.

Also, those believers who, by the will of circumstances, need to serve in the army, need to do their best to fulfill what is indicated in the military regulations by the words "with dignity to endure all the hardships and hardships."

Conclusion

This article was devoted to the topic of war from the point of view of philosophy.

It presents the history of addressing this problem, from ancient times to the present day. The points of view of such thinkers as Nicholas Roerich, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy and others are considered. A significant part of the material is occupied by the theme of the novel "War and Peace" and the philosophy of war in 1812.

Literature

Grade 10

Lesson number 47

The philosophy of Tolstoy's history. True and False Patriotism

List of issues addressed in the topic

The purpose of the lesson:

1. Unity between the philosophy of history of Tolstoy and the artistic depiction of historical events in the novel;
2. Features of Tolstoy's creation of the image of the people as the leading force of historical events;
3. Tolstoy's concept of "people's thought" in the novel.

Glossary

Author's digression (lyrical digression) -non-plot element of the work; a special form of the author's speech, the author's deviation from the direct course of the plot narration; the author's assessment of the heroes or the plot situation, the author's reasoning on philosophical, journalistic, aesthetic, moral and other topics, the author's memories of the events of his own life, and so on.

The idea of \u200b\u200bthe work- the main idea about the range of phenomena that are depicted in the work; expressed by the writer in artistic images.

Concept -a system of views on something, the main idea of \u200b\u200bsomething.

Philosophy of history -views on the origin, essence and change of historical events.

List of references

Basic literature on the topic of the lesson

Lebedev Yu. V. Russian language and literature. Literature. Grade 10. Textbook for educational organizations. A basic level of. At 2 h. Part 2. M .: Education, 2016. - 368 p.

Additional literature on the topic of the lesson

Bilinkis Ya. S. Russian classics and the study of literature at school. M .: Education, 1986 .-- 208 p.

Linkov V. Ya. War and Peace of L. Tolstoy. Moscow: Moscow State University Publishing House, 2003 .-- 104 p.

Lysyi Yu. I. Russian literature of the XIX century: Grade 10: Workshop. Auth.-comp. G. I. Belenky, E. A. Krasnovsky and others. M .: Education, 1997 .-- 380 p.

Theoretical material for self-study

The 60s of the XIX century in Russia is an amazing time: after a long silence (1825-1855) it becomes possible, albeit under the supervision of censorship, to express publicly political views through magazines. In just four years, from 1856 to 1860, 145 publications appeared in Russia. A new era is beginning in the development of society and the country.

In the literature, the decisive question is who and how should control the course of history, who will lead the country to a happy future. All the literary heroes of this era (Bazarov, Oblomov, Stolz, Rakhmetov, Rudin) are inseparable from the temporal context.

The concept of history in War and Peace is clearly polemical. The writer wants to show his contemporaries what her driving forces are, and who controls them. Lev Nikolaevich believes: in order for a historical event to take place, “billions of reasons” must coincide. History, according to Tolstoy, is made not by individuals, but by the people. The clearest illustration of this idea is the description of the abandonment of Moscow by its inhabitants. People leave the city not by order, but by their own will, not thinking about glory, or heroism, or greatness. They "left, each for himself, and at the same time only because they left, that magnificent event took place, which will forever remain the best glory of the Russian people."

Prominent figures - generals, sovereigns - are the least free in their decisions: "The king is the slave of history." Following this concept gives a peculiar coloring to the images of Kutuzov, Napoleon, Alexander I, Rostopchin. There are episodes in the epic novel when Alexander I appoints Kutuzov as commander-in-chief against his will, fulfilling the will of the people.

But there are also examples in War and Peace when a fateful decision depends on the will of one person. This is, for example, Kutuzov's order to leave Moscow without a fight.

The historical movement, according to the writer, stems from "an uncountable number of human arbitrariness." Here you can also recall the comparison of the course of history with the work of the clockwork, when dozens of small gears turn and transfer impulse to each other, but the main action takes place unexpectedly, as if by itself and has nothing to do with the independent rotation of every detail. The human mind “is inaccessible to the totality of the causes of phenomena,” and therefore fatalism in history is inevitable.

That is why for his work the writer chooses an era of true patriotic upsurge: at such a time, in the face of a common misfortune, the people massively unite, the differences between classes and estates are erased.

It was not by chance that the author portrayed two wars in the novel: in the first, the Russians were defeated, because the struggle as part of the allied army on the territory of Austria had no moral goal. The Patriotic War of 1812 is a just battle, "the club of the people's war rose with all its formidable and majestic strength and ... nails the French until the entire invasion was killed."

The writer depicts the will to victory both in mass scenes (the surrender of Smolensk, preparation for the Battle of Borodino and others), and in vivid individual images of real folk heroes: captains Tushin and Timokhin, partisan Tikhon Shcherbaty. Their names are associated in the novel with the concept of true heroism, modest, inconspicuous, devoid of solemnity and loudness. These "little heroes" of the big war are the most important characters in the novel for Tolstoy.

How unpleasant compared to them are the staff officers who strive only to “get a cross or a ribbon”! How insignificant are the representatives of the highest nobility, pompously ranting about the fact that the Fatherland is in danger, and imposing fines for French words.

All heroes, all their thoughts and actions are tested by the national cause - the Patriotic War: thus, Prince Andrey feels an unprecedented enthusiasm before the Battle of Borodino. The highest praise that Bolkonsky is awarded is the nickname "our prince" given to him by the soldiers.

All of Pierre's thoughts are aimed at helping to drive out the invaders. At his own expense, he equips a thousand militias, develops a plan to assassinate Napoleon, and during the Battle of Borodino he is at the Rayevsky battery.

Natasha Rostova, overwhelmed by a sense of unity with the people, gives carts to the wounded, and her younger brother Petya dies in a battle with the enemy. This is how all the beloved heroes go their way of unity with the people, which for Tolstoy is the highest measure of a real personality.

So, in the epic novel War and Peace, Tolstoy expresses his own special view of the development of history, claiming that it happens spontaneously. In fact, many small events eventually led to the expulsion of Napoleon's troops. But the majority of Russian people acted on the basis of one and the same feeling that lay in the soul of each of them - "the latent warmth of patriotism." The idea of \u200b\u200bunity, which is clearly visible at all levels of brilliant creation, was a decisive factor in such a large-scale historical achievement - the victory of the Russian people in the Patriotic War of 1812.

Examples and analysis of solving tasks of the training module

1. Single choice.

Continue Leo Tolstoy's statement: "In War and Peace, I loved thought ..."

• folk
• family
• philosophical
• historical

The correct answer is folk.

Hint: Tolstoy mentions "family thoughts" in connection with the novel "Anna Karenina".

“In the epic, the writer built a huge artistic pyramid, set on a solid foundation, whose name is the people. The image of the people in Tolstoy's epic is not only and not so much the object of the depiction as the artistic concept of the world, ”notes the literary critic Nikolai Gay. Tolstoy wrote "War and Peace" for the sake of one simple thought that permeates all of his creation - this is "people's thought."

1. Sort items by category.

Read the statements. Which of them reflect the main provisions of Tolstoy's philosophy of history, and which contradict it?

Correct answer.