Literature. 10 class

Lesson number 103.

Lesson topic: Artistic and philosophical understanding of the essence of war in the novel.

Goal: To reveal the compositional role of philosophical chapters, to clarify the main provisions of Tolstoy's historical and philosophical views.

Epigraphs: ... between them lay ... a terrible line of uncertainty and fear, like a line separating the living from the dead.

Tom I , part II , head XIX .

“In peace - all together, without distinction of estates, without enmity, and united by brotherly love - we will pray,” Natasha thought.

Tom III , part II , head XVIII .

Just say the word, we will all go ... We are not any Germans.

Count Rostov, head XX .

During the classes

Introduction.

There were different points of view on the war of 1812 during the life of Leo Tolstoy. Leo Tolstoy in his novel expounds his understanding of history and the role of the people as the creator and moving force of history.

(Chapter AnalysisI first part and chapterI third part of the volumeIII.)

VolumeIII andIV, written by Tolstoy later (1867-69), reflected the changes that had occurred in the worldview and work of the writer by this time. Taking another step along the path of rapprochement with the folk, peasant truth,the path of transition to the position of the patriarchal peasantry, Tolstoy embodied his idea of \u200b\u200bthe people through the scenes of people's life, through the image of Platon Karataev. Tolstoy's new views were reflected in the views of individual characters.

Changes in the writer's worldview changed the structure of the novel: journalistic chapters appeared in it, which precede and explain the artistic description of events, lead to their understanding; therefore these chapters are either at the beginning of the parts or at the end of the novel.

Consider the philosophy of history, according to Tolstoy (views on the origin, essence and change of historical events) -h.I, ch. 1; h.III, ch. 1.

What is war, according to Tolstoy?

Starting with the Sevastopol Stories, Leo Tolstoy acts as a humanist writer: he denounces the inhuman essence of war. “A war has begun, that is, an event that is contrary to human reason and all human nature has taken place. Millions of people committed against each other such a countless number of atrocities, deceptions, exchanges, robberies, fires and murders, which for centuries will be collected by the chronicle of all the fate of the world and which, in this period of time, the people who committed them did not look at as a crime " ...

2. 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 individual actions of individual people. The will of an individual historical person can be paralyzed by the desires or unwillingness of the mass of people.

For a historical event to take place, "billions of reasons" must coincide, ie. the interests of individual people who make up the mass of the people, how the movement of a swarm of bees coincides, when from the movement of individual quantities a general movement is born. 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 ... - which lead the masses" (i.e.III, h.I, Ch. 1) - Tolstoy claims that historical events occur when the interests of the masses coincide.

What is necessary for a historical event to happen?

For a historical event to happen, “billions of reasons” must fall, 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.

4. 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 a coincidence of the conditions under which any vital, organic, elemental event occurs "," a person inevitably fulfills the laws prescribed to him. "

5. What is the attitude of Tolstoy to fatalism?

Tolstoy is a supporter of fatalistic views: "... an event must happen only because it must happen," "fatalism in history" is inevitable. Tolstoy's fatalism is associated with his understanding of spontaneity. History, he writes, is "the unconscious, common, swarming life of mankind." (And this is fatalism, that is, belief in the predestination of fate, which cannot be overcome). But any perfect unconscious deed "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. But the preaching of spontaneity and the refusal of conscious, rational participation in events should be characterized, defined as a weakness in Tolstoy's views on history.

What role does personality play in history?

Correctly believing that a person, and even a historical one, i.e. one that stands high "on the social ladder" does not play a leading role in history, that it is connected with the interests of everyone below her and next to her, Tolstoy incorrectly asserts that personality does not play and cannot play any role in history : "The king is the slave of 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.

This is the philosophy of history, according to Tolstoy.

But, reflecting historical events, Tolstoy does not always succeed in following his speculative conclusions, since the truth of history says something different. And we see, studying the contents of the volumeI, nationwide patriotic enthusiasm and the unity of the bulk of Russian society in the struggle against the invaders.

If the analysisII i.e. the focus was on the individual person with his individual, sometimes isolated from others, fate, then in the analysis of the so-calledIII- IV inwe go man as a particle of mass. At the same time, Tolstoy's main idea is that only then an individual person finds his final, real place in life, always becomes a part of the people.

For Leo Tolstoy, war is an event committed by the people, not by individuals, commanders. And that commander, that people, whose goals are united and united by the high ideal of serving the Fatherland, wins.

Can't defeat the French army , since she obeys the adoration of the genius of Bonaparte. Therefore, the novel opens in the third volume with a description of senseless death on the crossing of the Neman:chapterII, partI, page 15.The result of the crossing.

But the war within the fatherland is portrayed differently - as the greatest tragedy for the entire Russian people.

Home assignment:

1. Answer the questions on parts 2 and 3, vol. 1 "War of 1805-1807":

Is the Russian army ready for war? Do the soldiers understand her goals? (chap. 2)

What is Kutuzov doing (ch. 14)

How did Prince Andrew imagine the war and his role in it? (chap. 3, 12)

Why, after meeting with Tushin, Prince Andrey thought: "All this was so strange, so unlike what he had hoped for"? (chap. 12, 15.20-21)

What role does the Battle of Shengraben play in changing the views of Prince Andrew?

2. Make bookmarks:

a) in the image of Kutuzov;

b) the Shengraben battle (chap. 20-21);

c) the behavior of Prince Andrew, his dreams of "Toulon" (Part 2, Ch. 3,12,20-21)

d) the battle of Austerlitz (part 3, chap. 12-13);

e) the feat of Prince Andrew and his disappointment in the "Napoleonic" dreams (part 3, chap. 16, 19).

3. Individual tasks:

a) Timokhin's characteristics;

b) Tushin's characteristic;

c) Dolokhov's characteristic.

4. Scene analysis

"Review of the troops in Braunau" (Chapter 2).

"Review of the troops by Kutuzov"

"The first fight of Nikolai Rostov"

Year twelve thunderstorm

It has arrived - who helped us here:

The frenzy of the people

Barclay, winter or Russian God?

A. S. Pushkin

One of the most important problems that Leo Tolstoy posed in his work was his attitude to the war. A brave officer, a participant in the Crimean War and the defense of Sevastopol, the writer thought a lot about the role of war in the life of human society. Tolstoy was not a pacifist. He distinguished between just and unjust wars, aggressive ones. We are convinced of this when we reflect on how two wars are shown in War and Peace - the campaign of 1805-1807 and the Patriotic War of 1812.

Russia in 1805 entered the war against Napoleonic France, as the tsarist government was afraid of the spread of revolutionary ideas and wanted to interfere with the aggressive policy of Napoleon. Tolstoy himself has a sharply negative attitude to this war and this attitude to the senseless destruction of people is conveyed through the experiences of the inexperienced, naive, sincere Nikolai Rostov. Let us recall Nikolai's morning conversation with a German, the owner of the house in which Rostov lives, their friendliness, joy caused by a beautiful morning, and the exclamation: "Long live the whole world!"

Why war, if Russian and German, military and civilian, feel the same, love each other and the whole world ?!

But during the truce, Russian and French soldiers talk. They laugh so cheerfully that after that they would have to throw their guns and go home, "but the guns remained loaded ... And just as before, they remained opposite each other ... the guns removed from the limbs." These lines contain the bitterness of the author, who hates war.

Tolstoy was sure that the reasons for the defeat were the lack of unity in the Allied army, the lack of coordination of actions, and most importantly, the goals of this war were incomprehensible and alien to the soldiers.

In War and Peace, the theme of war receives a fundamentally new solution when depicting the events of 1812. Tolstoy convincingly proves the need for a just, defensive war, the goals of which are clear and close to the people.

We observe how unity is born - a community of a people who understands that their fate, the fate of future generations, and, if simpler, the fate of children and grandchildren is being decided. "Love for the native ashes, love for fatherly graves" (A. Pushkin) does not allow inaction.

People of different classes, different estates unite to repel the enemy. "They want to pile on all the people!" - this is the key to understanding why the merchant Ferapontov burns his goods during the abandonment of Smolensk; The Rostovs, leaving Moscow, give carts to the wounded, losing all their property; Prince Andrew, forgetting about his misfortunes, goes into the army; Pierre goes to the Borodino field, and then remains in Moscow, captured by the French, to kill Napoleon.

National unity is what, in Tolstoy's opinion, determined the moral and then military victory of Russia in 1812.

The principles of depicting war by Tolstoy also changed. If, talking about the military events of 1805-1807, he mainly reveals the psychology of an individual or groups of people, then when depicting the Patriotic War in the center of the writer's attention, the mass of the people, the individual is of interest to him as a particle of this mass. Material from the site

Before us are unfolding broad pictures of people's life at the front and in the rear. Each of the heroes of the novel, albeit in different ways, is involved in this life, begins to feel what the people feel, and to relate to the events taking place the way the people treat them. For Prince Andrey, for example, it is very important that Timokhin and the whole army think about the war just like him; Before the Battle of Borodino, the militias put on "white shirts", and Dolokhov brings his excuses to Pierre - this is also a kind of "white shirt", a purification before a holy cause, and maybe before death. The soldiers and officers of Raevsky's battery are fearless and calm; majestic Kutuzov, confident that victory will be won, that Borodino will be the beginning of the death of the army of conquerors.

And so it all happened. "The club of the people's war rose ... and nailed the French call until the entire invasion was killed."

Thus, depicting military events in War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy emphasizes the sharp difference between the nature of the war with Napoleon (1805-1807), the goals of which were incomprehensible and alien to the people, and the Patriotic War of 1812 as a people's war, just and necessary for the salvation of Russia.

Didn't find what you were looking for? Use search

On this page material on topics:

• military battles in Tolstoy's novel
• two wars in Leo Tolstoy's epic war and peace
• compare two wars in war and peace
• how the participants in the war of 1805 behave war and peace
• message about 2 wars in the novel War and Peace

The central event of the novel "War and Peace" is the Patriotic War of 1812, which stirred up the entire Russian people, showed the whole world its power and strength, put forward simple Russian heroes and a genius commander, revealing at the same time the true essence of every certain person.

Tolstoy in his work portrays the war as a realist writer: in hard work, blood, suffering, death.

Here is a picture of the campaign before the battle: “Prince Andrey looked with contempt at these endless, interfering teams, carts, parks, artillery ... from all sides, behind and in front, as long as he could hear the sound of wheels, the rumble of bodies, carts and gun carriages, horse stomp , blows with a whip, cries of prodding, cursing soldiers, orderlies and officers ... The soldiers, sinking knee-deep in mud, were picking up guns and trucks in their hands ... ”Reading the description, we feel a tremendous strain of human strength, the heaviness of labor, reaching the limit of fatigue.

And here is a complex and multicolored picture of the Battle of Schoengraben: “Infantry regiments, caught unawares in the forest, ran out of the forest, and companies, mixing with other companies, left in disorderly crowds ... on ours, suddenly, for no apparent reason, they ran back ... and Russian arrows appeared in the forest. It was Timokhin's company ... The runners returned, the battalions gathered, and the French were ... driven back. "

Elsewhere, "four unprotected cannons boldly fired" under the command of Captain Tushin. Here a significant number of soldiers were killed, an officer was killed, two cannons were destroyed, a horse with a broken leg fought, and the gunners, forgetting all fear, beat the French and set fire to the village they occupied. In this battle, as well as in the attack of Timokhin's company, there was nothing particularly effective and nothing ostentatious, people here were just doing their duty, not thinking that they were heroes.

After the battle “an invisible gloomy river seemed to flow in the darkness ... In the general roar because of all other sounds, the moans and voices of the wounded were heard clearest of all ... Their moans seemed to fill all this darkness that surrounded the troops. Their groans and the darkness of this night were one and the same. " War brings suffering and death to people. Started with aggressive goals, it is hateful and repulsive to Tolstoy. A just war can only be caused by absolute necessity. The Shengraben battle was needed to save the Russian army in a difficult situation. On the part of the Russians, the Patriotic War of 1812 was just. The enemy entered the borders of Russia and moved towards Moscow. An unknown soldier, expressing the general opinion of the Russians, told Pierre that they “want to pile on the enemy with all the people; one word - Moscow. They want to do one end ”.

The greatest manifestation of Russian patriotism was the Battle of Borodino, in which the Russian army defeated the French: "the Russians hold their ground and produce hellish fire, from which the French army melts."

"Our fire tears them out in rows, and they stand," the adjutants reported to Napoleon. And Napoleon felt "how a terrible sweep of his hand fell magically powerlessly." In the episodes of the novel dedicated to the people's struggle for their national independence, there is no place for theatrical effects and beautiful phrases.

“Since the fire of Smolensk,” writes Tolstoy, “a war has begun that does not fit any previous legends of wars. The burning of towns and villages, retreat after battles, a blow by Borodin and again retreat, the fire of Moscow, the capture of marauders, the transfer of transport, partisan war - all these were deviations from the rules. "

The theme of war in the great epic novel War and Peace begins with a depiction of the war of 1805 by L.N. Tolstoy shows both the careerism of staff officers and the heroism of ordinary soldiers, modest army officers such as Captain Tushin. Tushin's battery bore the brunt of the blow of the French artillery, but these people did not flinch, did not abandon the battlefield even when the order to retreat was given to them - they still took care not to leave the enemy guns. And the courageous captain Tushin is timidly silent, afraid to argue with the senior officer in response to his unfair reproaches, fearing to let another boss down, does not disclose the true state of affairs and does not make excuses. L.N. Tolstoy admires the heroism of the humble artillery captain and his men, but he shows his attitude to the war by drawing the first battle of Nikolai Rostov, then a novice in the hussar regiment. There is a ferry across the Enns near its confluence with the Danube, and the author depicts a landscape of remarkable beauty: "bluish mountains beyond the Danube, a monastery, mysterious gorges, pine forests flooded to the tops with fog." In contrast to this, what is happening on the bridge is drawn: shelling, groans of the wounded, stretchers ... Nikolai Rostov sees this through the eyes of a man for whom war has not yet become a profession, and he is horrified at how easily the idyll and beauty of nature are destroyed. And when he first meets the French in an open battle, the first reaction of an inexperienced person is bewilderment and fear. "The enemy's intention to kill him seemed impossible," and Rostov, frightened, "grabbed a pistol and, instead of firing it, threw it at the Frenchman and ran to the bushes with all his might." "One inseparable feeling of fear for his young, happy life possessed his entire being." And the reader does not blame Nikolai Rostov for cowardice, sympathizing with the young man. The writer's anti-militarist position was manifested in the way L.N. Tolstoy's attitude to the war of soldiers: they do not know for what and with whom they are fighting, the goals and objectives of the war are not clear to the people. This was especially evident in the depiction of the war of 1807, which, as a result of complex political intrigues, ended with the Peace of Tilsit. Nikolai Rostov, who visited his friend Denisov's hospital, saw with his own eyes the appalling situation of the wounded in hospitals, dirt, illness, and the absence of the essentials for caring for the wounded. And when he arrived in Tilsit, he saw the fraternization of Napoleon and Alexander I, the ostentatious rewarding of the heroes from both sides. Rostov cannot get out of his head the thought of Denisov and the hospital, of Bonaparte, "who was now the emperor, whom the emperor Alexander loves and respects."
And Rostov is frightened by the naturally arising question: "What are the severed arms, legs, and killed people for?" Rostov does not allow himself to go further in his reflections, but the reader understands the author's position: condemnation of the senselessness of war, violence, pettiness of political intrigues. War of 1805-1807 he assesses it as a crime against the people of the ruling circles.
The beginning of the war of 1812 is shown by JI.H. Tolstoy as the beginning of a war, no different from others. “An event that is contrary to human reason and all human nature has taken place,” the author writes, arguing about the causes of the war and not considering them in any way justified. It is incomprehensible to us that millions of Christian people kill and torture each other "due to political circumstances." “It is impossible to understand what connection these circumstances have with the very fact of murder and violence,” the writer says, confirming his idea with numerous facts.
The character of the war of 1812 changed since the siege of Smolensk: it became popular. This is convincingly confirmed by the scenes of the fire in Smolensk. The merchant Ferapontov and the man in the frieze overcoat, setting fire to the barns with bread with their own hands, the governor of Prince Bolkonsky Alpatych, the inhabitants of the city - all these people, with "lively joyful and exhausted faces" watching the fire, are seized by a single patriotic impulse, the desire to resist the enemy. The best of the nobility have the same feelings - they are one with their people. Prince Andrey, who once refused to serve in the Russian army after deep personal experiences, explains his changed point of view: “The French have ruined my house and are going to ravage Moscow, and they insulted and insulted me every second. They are my enemies, they are all criminals, according to my ideas. And Timokhin and the whole army think the same. This unified patriotic impulse is especially vividly shown by Tolstoy in the scene of the prayer service on the eve of the Borodino battle: soldiers and militiamen "monotonously greedily" look at the icon taken from Smolensk, and this feeling is understandable to any Russian person, as Pierre Bezukhov understood him, who was touring the positions near the Borodino field. The same feeling of patriotism forced the people to leave Moscow. “They went because for the Russian people there could be no question: will it be good or bad under the control of the French in Moscow. It was impossible to be under the control of the French: it was the worst of all, ”writes Leo Tolstoy. Having a very extraordinary view of the event of that time, the author believed that it was the people who were the driving force of history, since their hidden patriotism is not expressed in phrases and "unnatural actions", but is expressed "imperceptibly, simply, organically and therefore always produces the strongest results." ... People left their property, like the Rostov family, gave all carts to the wounded, and it seemed shameful to them to do otherwise. "Are we any Germans?" - Natasha is indignant, and the countess-mother asks forgiveness from her husband for recent reproaches that he wants to ruin the children, not caring about the property left in the house. People burn houses with all the good so that the enemy does not get it, so that the enemy does not triumph - and they achieve their goal. Napoleon tries to rule the capital, but his orders are sabotaged, he has absolutely no control over the situation and, according to the author's definition, "is like a child who, holding on to the ribbons tied inside the carriage, imagines that he is ruling." From the point of view of the writer, the role of a person in history is determined by how much this person understands his correspondence to the course of the current moment. It is precisely the fact that Kutuzov feels the mood of the people, the spirit of the army and monitors its change, in accordance with his orders, explains L.N. Tolstoy is the success of the Russian military leader. No one except Kuguzov understands this need to follow the natural course of events; Ermolov, Miloradovich, Platov and others - all want to hasten the defeat of the French. When the regiments went on the attack near Vyazma, they "beat and lost thousands of people," but "they did not cut off or overturn anyone." Only Kutuzov, with his senile wisdom, understands the uselessness of this offensive: "Why all this, when one third of this army melted away from Moscow to Vyazma without a battle?" “The cudgel of the people's war rose with all its formidable and majestic strength,” and the whole course of subsequent events confirmed this. The partisan detachments united the officer Vasily Denisov, the demoted militia Dolokhov, the peasant Tikhon Shcherbaty - people of different classes. But it is difficult to overestimate the significance of the great common cause that united them — the destruction of Napoleon's “Great Army”.
It should be noted not only the courage and heroism of the partisans, but also their generosity and mercy. The Russian people, destroying the enemy's army, were able to pick up and feed the boy drummer Vincent (whose name they changed into Spring or Visenya), to warm Morel and Rambal, an officer and a batman, by the fire. About this - about mercy to the vanquished - Kutuzov's speech under Krasny: “While they were strong, we did not feel sorry for ourselves, but now you can feel sorry for them. They are people too. " But Kutuzov had already played his role - after the expulsion of the French from Russia, the sovereign did not need him. Feeling that "his calling was fulfilled," the old commander retired from business. Now the former political intrigues of those in power begin: the sovereign, the grand duke. Politics requires the continuation of the European campaign, which Kutuzov did not approve of, for which he was dismissed. According to L.N. Tolstoy's foreign campaign was possible only without Kutuzov: “The representative of the people's war had no choice but death. And he died. "
Appreciating the people's war, which united people “for the salvation and glory of Russia,” J1.H. Tolstoy condemns a war of European significance, considering the interests of politics unworthy of man's destiny on earth, and the manifestation of violence - inhuman and unnatural to human nature.

Throughout the novel, we see Tolstoy's aversion to war. Tolstoy hated murders - it makes no difference why these murders are committed. There is no poetic deed of a heroic personality in the novel. The only exception is the episode of the Shengraben battle and Tushin. Describing the war of 1812, Tolstoy poeticizes the collective feat of the people. Studying the materials of the war of 1812, Tolstoy came to the conclusion that no matter how disgusting the war with its blood, death of people, dirt, lies, sometimes people are forced to wage this war, which may not touch a fly, but if a wolf attacks it, defending himself, he kills this wolf. But in killing, he does not enjoy it and does not believe that he has done something worthy of rapturous chanting. Tolstoy reveals the patriotism of the Russian people, who did not want to fight according to the rules with the beast - the French invasion.

Tolstoy speaks with contempt of the Germans, in whom the instinct of self-preservation of the individual turned out to be stronger than the instinct of preserving the nation, that is, stronger than patriotism and speaks with pride of the Russian people, for whom preserving their “I” was less important than saving the fatherland. Negative types in the novel are those heroes who are frankly indifferent to the fate of their homeland (visitors to the Kuragina salon), and those who cover up this indifference with a beautiful patriotic phrase (almost all the nobility, with the exception of a small part of it - people like Kutuzov, Andrei Bolkonsky, Pierre, Rostovs), as well as those for whom war is a pleasure (Napoleon).

The closest to Tolstoy are those Russian people who, realizing that war is a dirty, cruel, but in some cases necessary, do the great work of saving the motherland without any pathos and do not experience any pleasure in killing enemies. These are Kutuzov, Bolkonsky, Denisov and many other episodic characters. With special love, Tolstoy paints scenes of a truce and scenes where the Russian people show pity for the defeated enemy, care for the captured French (Kutuzov's call to the army at the end of the war - to pity the frostbitten unfortunate people), or where the French show humanity towards the Russians (Pierre on interrogation by Davout). This circumstance is connected with the main idea of \u200b\u200bthe novel - the idea of \u200b\u200bthe unity of people. Peace (absence of war) unites people into a single world (one common family), war divides people. So in the novel the idea is patriotic with the idea of \u200b\u200bpeace, the idea of \u200b\u200bdenying war.

Despite the fact that an explosion in Tolstoy's spiritual development took place after the 70s, in an embryonic state many of his later views and moods can be found in the works written before the turning point, in particular in War and Peace. This novel was published 10 years before the turning point, and all of it, especially as regards Tolstoy's political views, is a phenomenon of a transitional moment for a writer and thinker. It contains the remnants of Tolstoy's old views (for example, on the war), and the embryos of new ones, which will later become decisive in this philosophical system, which will be called "Tolstoyism." Tolstoy's views changed even during his work on the novel, which was expressed, in particular, in the sharp contradiction of the image of Karataev, which was absent in the first versions of the novel and was introduced only at the last stages of the work, to the patriotic ideas and moods of the novel. But at the same time, this image was caused not by Tolstoy's whim, but by the entire development of the moral and ethical problems of the novel.

With his novel, Tolstoy wanted to tell people something very important. He dreamed, by the power of his genius, to spread his views, in particular, his views on history, "on the degree of freedom and dependence of man on history", he wanted his views to become universal.

How does Tolstoy characterize the war of 1812? War is a crime. Tolstoy does not divide the fighting into attackers and defenders. "Millions of people have committed such an innumerable number of atrocities against each other ... which for centuries will not be collected by the chronicle of all the world's judgments and which, during this period of time, the people who committed them did not look at as crimes."

And what, in Tolstoy's opinion, is the cause of this event? Tolstoy cites various considerations of historians. But he disagrees with any of these considerations. "Any single reason or a number of reasons seem to us ... equally false in their insignificance in comparison with the enormity of the event ...". A huge, terrible phenomenon - war, must be generated by the same "huge" cause. Tolstoy does not undertake to find this reason. He says that "the more we try to reasonably explain these phenomena in nature, the more unreasonable and incomprehensible they become for us." But if a person cannot learn the laws of history, then he cannot influence them. He is a powerless grain of sand in the historical stream. But within what boundaries is a person still free? "There are two sides of life in every person: personal life, which is freer the more abstract its interests are, and spontaneous, swarm life, where a person inevitably fulfills the laws prescribed to him." This is a clear expression of the thoughts in the name of which the novel was created: a person is free at any given moment to do as he pleases, but "a perfect act is irreversible, and its action, coinciding in time with millions of actions of other people, acquires historical significance."

Man is not able to change the course of a swarm life. This is a spontaneous life, which means that it does not lend itself to conscious influence. A person is free only in his personal life. The more connected he is to history, the less free he is. "The king is a slave to history." A slave cannot command a master, a king cannot influence history. "In historical events, so-called people are labels that give a name to the event, which, like labels, have the least connection with the event itself." These are the philosophical considerations of Tolstoy.

Napoleon himself sincerely did not want war, but he is a slave to history - he gave all new orders that accelerate the start of the war. Sincere liar Napoleon is confident in his right to rob and is sure that the stolen values \u200b\u200bare his legal property. Rapid admiration surrounded Napoleon. He is accompanied by "enthusiastic cries", before him are jumping "frozen with happiness, enthusiastic ... huntsmen", he puts a telescope on the back of the "running up happy page". One general mood reigns here. The French army is also some kind of closed "world"; the people of this world have their common desires, common joys, but this is a "false common", it is based on lies, pretense, predatory aspirations, on the misfortunes of something else in common. Participation in this general pushes us to stupid actions, turns human society into a herd. Driven by a single thirst for enrichment, a thirst for plunder, who have lost their inner freedom, the soldiers and officers of the French army sincerely believe that Napoleon is leading them to happiness. And he, to an even greater extent a slave to history than they, imagined himself to be God, for "the conviction that his presence at all ends of the world ... equally strikes and plunges people into a madness of self-forgetfulness was not new for him." People tend to create idols, and idols easily forget that they did not create history, but history created them.

How incomprehensible why Napoleon gave the order to attack Russia, so are Alexander's actions. Everyone was waiting for the war, "but nothing was ready" for it. “There was no general commander over all the armies. Tolstoy, as a former artilleryman, knows that without a "general commander" the army finds itself in a difficult situation. He forgets the philosopher's skepticism about the possibility of one person to influence the course of events. He condemns the inaction of Alexander and his courtiers. All their aspirations "were directed only to ... have a good time, forget about the upcoming war."

Tolstoy puts Napoleon on a par with Anatol Kuragin. For Tolstoy, these are people of one party - egoists, for whom the whole world is enclosed in their "I". The artist reveals the psychology of a person who believes in his sinlessness, in the infallibility of his judgments and actions. He shows how the cult of such a person is created and how this person himself begins to naively believe in the universal love of mankind for her. But Tolstoy has very rare single-line characters.

Each character is built on a certain dominant, but it is not limited to it. Lunacharsky wrote: "Everything positive in the novel" War and Peace "is a protest against human egoism, vanity ... the desire to raise a person to universal human interests, to expand his sympathies, to raise his heartfelt life." Napoleon personifies this human egoism, vanity against which Tolstoy stands against. General human interests are alien to Napoleon. This is the dominant of his character. But Tolstoy also shows his other qualities - the qualities of an experienced politician and military leader. Of course, Tolstoy believes that a tsar or a commander cannot learn the laws of development and even more so influence them, but the ability to understand the situation is being developed. To fight Russia, Napoleon had to recognize at least the commanders of the enemy army, and he knew them.

Need to download an essay? Press and save - "How does Tolstoy characterize the war of 1812? ... And the finished composition appeared in the bookmarks.