Views of L. N. Tolstoy

On the story in the novel "War and Peace" “I tried to write the history of the people,” said L. N. Tolstoy about his novel “ War and Peace". And this is not just a phrase: the great Russian writer really depicted in the work not so much individual heroes how much the whole nation as a whole. "People's thought" defines in the novel and philosophical Tolstoy's views, and image historical events, specific historical figures, and a moral assessment of the actions of heroes. What is the power that drives the nations? Who is the creator of history - the individual or the people? The writer asks such questions at the beginning of the novel and tries to answer them with the whole course of the story. According to Tolstoy, the historical path of the country is determined not by the will of a historical figure, not by his decisions and actions, but by the totality of the aspirations and desires of all the people who make up the people. “A person consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious tool” to achieve historical goals, writes Tolstoy. He convincingly proves that one person, even the most brilliant, cannot control millions, this is only the appearance of power, but it is these millions that govern the country and determine the historical process, that is, it is the people who make history. And a brilliant personality is able to guess, feel the desire of the people and ascend to the people's "wave". Tolstoy states: "Will historical hero not only does not direct the actions of the masses, but she herself is constantly led. Therefore, the attention of the writer is attracted primarily by the life of the people: peasants, soldiers, officers - those who form the basis of it. Leo Tolstoy on the pages of the novel shows that the historical process does not depend on whim or bad mood one man. War 1812 was inevitable and did not depend on the will of Napoleon, but was determined by the whole course of history, so Napoleon, according to the writer, could not help but cross the Neman, and the defeat of the French army on the Borodino field was also inevitable, because there Napoleonic France was “the hand of the strongest enemy in spirit” was laid, that is, the Russian army. We can say that the will of the commander does not affect the outcome of the battle, because not a single commander can lead tens and hundreds of thousands of people, but it is the soldiers themselves (that is, the people) who decide the fate of the battle. “The fate of the battle is decided not by the orders of the commander-in-chief, not by the place on which the troops stand, not by the number of guns and killed people, but by that elusive force called the spirit of the army,” writes Tolstoy. Therefore, Napoleon did not lose battle of Borodino or Kutuzov won it, and the Russian people won this battle, because the "spirit" of the Russian army was immeasurably higher than that of the French.

A look at history (based on the novel by L. N. Tolstoy "War and Peace")

Essay on literature.

Topic: A Look at History: "Which Power Governs Everything?" based on the novel by L. N. Tolstoy "War and Peace".

The epic novel by L. N. Tolstoy "War and Peace", created by the writer in the sixties of the last century, became a great event in Russian and world literature. Back in 1860, the writer tried to turn to the genre of the historical novel. The attempt to write The Decembrists led Tolstoy to the idea of ​​War and Peace, in which the writer seeks to understand the course and meaning of history, the role of the individual in the historical process, and most importantly, the role of the people in its turning points.

The peculiarity of the novel lies in the fact that the story, imperceptibly for the reader, passes into the novel, and the novel into history. Historical persons that exist in reality (Kutuzov, Napoleon, Alexander, Bagration, Dokhturov) coexist and act together with fictional characters (Prince Andrei, Natasha and Petya Rostov, Pierre Bezukhov, Princess Marya). Vyazemsky, a participant in the Battle of Borodino, the poet and writer, drew attention to this feature of the novel, in his article “Memoirs of 1812”, noting that the author of the novel was not a “strict historical painter” in this work.

Indeed, Tolstoy's work is polemical in relation to official historiography, which glorifies the exploits of heroes and ignores the decisive role of the individual in Patriotic War 1812. Having studied many books, historical documents, memoirs before writing, having talked with contemporaries and participants in the war, visiting places major battles, Tolstoy understood the events of more than half a century ago better than those who believed in fictitious feats that passed off as historical reality.

The subtle psychologist Tolstoy knew such important feature human soul as a tendency to exaggerate the significance of events and betray to others what they want to hear. So one of the most honest heroes of the novel, Nikolai Rostov, telling Berg about his first fight, began with a desire to tell everything as it was, but as the story progressed, “imperceptibly, involuntarily and inevitably for himself, he turned into a lie”: “They wanted a story about how he burned all over in flames, not remembering himself, how he flew into a square like a storm; how he cut into him, chopped right and left; how the saber tasted the meat, and how he fell exhausted, and the like. And he told them all this." Proceeding from this feature of the human soul, the writer put forward in the novel his own subjective view of the historical events of that time, sometimes radically different from the views of researchers.

Many historians reproached Tolstoy for the fact that the historical figures of the novel are far from reality, largely changed and implausible. But in his characters, the writer was primarily interested in them. moral character. Portraits of Bagration, Kutuzov, Napoleon are far from reality and are often rather conditional, far from what is known about them from historical documents, books and words of contemporaries. So Napoleon in the work - artistic image, but not historical person. Tolstoy does not want to see the courage, greatness and genius of the French commander praised by so many writers and poets, he ridicules his orders and dispositions. Even appearance Napoleon is deliberately distorted: when describing him, the main emphasis is on "hairy chest" and "fat thighs", with the help of which the Napoleonic myth is debunked. Negative sides The personality of the hero (selfishness, rudeness, narcissism, cruelty) Tolstoy draws more vividly, while the value of positive ones (military genius) is deliberately reduced. However, despite this, the behavior moral side personalities french emperor the writer reproduced accurately. Tolstoy does not deny the outstanding abilities of Napoleon, even speaking of them ironically (“The trembling of my left calf is great sign”), but the writer denies him as a person who puts himself above the people. In the author's interpretation, the beauty of the human soul is impossible without "simplicity, goodness and truth", which are absent in an unprincipled conqueror who brought ruin and enslavement to the peoples.

The whole novel is imbued not only with the idea of ​​debunking the personal heroism of historical figures, real faces and characters, but also a complete denial of the special role of the individual in history. It is no coincidence that the most important feats in the novel are not real. existing people, but fictional characters such as Tushin and Timokhin. Tolstoy says that one person is not able to radically influence the course of historical events, and only by uniting, as the Russian people did in the Patriotic War of 1812, it is possible to become the creator of history.

The complete denial of military art by the author is especially pronounced in the novel. Through the lips of Andrei Bolkonsky, the author’s point of view on the need for war is expressed in the novel: “War is contrary to the human mind and all human nature event". In the description of the battles, the writer ridicules military symbols and traditions (banners are “sticks with pieces of cloth”) and highlights the moral factor of war. Using the example of several battles, Tolstoy shows that victory does not depend on the number of troops, not on the location of the army, and not on the plans of the commanders-in-chief, but on the morale of ordinary soldiers. So in Shengraben, the four thousandth Russian army defeated the forty thousandth French, while at Austerlitz it was defeated, having powerful allies and a numerical superiority. But the mood of the Russian troops in the two battles is different. In Shengraben, the feeling of unity of all participants in the battle ("invisible river") prevails, as well as fortitude and confidence in the victory of each soldier ("It has begun! Here it is - scary and fun!"), while under Austerlitz, even though the situation of forces and changed towards the Russians, there is no enthusiasm in the ranks of the soldiers, apathy and indifference reign. The indifference of the troops is great, and Tolstoy emphasizes the mechanical movement of the masses with the words "as in the mechanism of a clock."

But the main thing that distinguishes the views of the writer and historians is a different understanding of what victory in the war depends on. If historians considered the well-chosen position of the troops, the number and professionalism of the army, as well as the precisely calculated tactics and strategy of the commander-in-chief, to be the main components of victory, then Tolstoy saw the key to success in the moral and psychological state of the troops, the patriotism of the soldiers and their understanding of the meaning and goals of the war. The writer emphasizes that the campaign of 1805 was lost because the people did not understand its meaning and could not fight for what they did not understand. Tolstoy rebels against the war of predatory and predatory, cruel and unjust, but he considers it as a holy war, caused by the need to defend the Fatherland. The writer believes that the Patriotic War of 1812 was won thanks to the "hidden feeling of patriotism" of the Russian people, who massively stood up to defend the Motherland from invaders and robbers. External danger united all people, regardless of their social position: the headman Vasilisa and the sexton "destroyed the great army in parts", Prince Andrei and Tushin shot together the village occupied by the French, Count Bezukhov ate from the same pot with ordinary soldiers. It is in this universal unity that Tolstoy sees main reason victory in the Patriotic War. The writer emphasizes that it is the participation of the people in them that gives a socially significant role to events, and depicts the entire war as a people's war, contrary to the opinion of historians, that it was won only thanks to the ingenious calculation of Kutuzov, who forced the weakened Napoleonic army to march along the Smolenskaya ravaged by them themselves. road.

Throughout the novel we see Tolstoy's distaste for war. Tolstoy hated murders - it makes no difference in the name of what these murders are committed. There is no poeticization of the feat of a heroic personality in the novel. The only exception is the episode of the Battle of Shengraben and the feat of 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 the 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 when he kills, he does not feel pleasure from this and does not consider that he has done something worthy of enthusiastic 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 for self-preservation of the individual turned out to be stronger than the instinct for the preservation of the nation, that is stronger than patriotism and proudly speaks of the Russian people, for whom the preservation of their "I" was less important than the salvation of the fatherland. Negative types in the novel are those heroes who are frankly indifferent to the fate of their homeland (visitors to the salon of Helen Kuragina), 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, Pierre, Rostovs), as well as those for whom war is a pleasure (Dolokhov, Napoleon).

The closest to Tolstoy are those Russian people who, realizing that war is a dirty, cruel, but in some cases necessary, work without any pathos on the great work of saving the motherland and do not experience any pleasure in killing enemies. This is, Bolkonsky, Denisov and many others episodic heroes. With special love, Tolstoy paints scenes of a truce and scenes where the Russian people show pity for defeated enemy, caring 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 being interrogated by Davout). This circumstance is connected with the main idea of ​​the novel - the idea of ​​the 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 ​​peace, the idea of ​​the negation of war.

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

With his novel, Tolstoy wanted to say something very important to people. He dreamed of using 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 combatants into attackers and defenders. “Millions of people have committed against each other such an innumerable number of atrocities ... that in whole centuries the annals of all the judgments of the world will not collect and which, during this period of time, the people who committed them did not look at as crimes.”

And what, according to Tolstoy, is the reason for this event? Tolstoy cites various considerations of historians. But he does not agree with any of these considerations. “Any single reason or a whole series of reasons seems to us ... equally false in its insignificance in comparison with the enormity of the event ...”. 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 rationally explain these phenomena in nature, the more unreasonable, incomprehensible they become for us." But if a person cannot know the laws of history, then he cannot influence them. He is a powerless grain of sand in the historical stream. But within what limits is a person still free? “There are two aspects of life in every person: personal life, which is the freer, the more abstract its interests, and spontaneous, swarm life, where a person inevitably fulfills the laws prescribed for him.” This is a clear expression of those thoughts in the name of which the novel was created: a person is free in every this moment act as he pleases, but "a perfect deed is irrevocable, and its action, coinciding in time with millions of actions of other people, acquires historical significance."

A person is not able to change the course of swarm life. This life is spontaneous, and therefore not amenable to conscious influence. A person is free only in his personal life. The more he is connected with history, the less he is free. "The king is the slave of 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 an event, which, like labels, has the least connection with the event itself.” Such are the philosophical arguments of Tolstoy.

Napoleon himself sincerely did not want war, but he is a slave of history - he gave more and more new orders, accelerating the start of the war. The sincere liar Napoleon is confident in his right to plunder and is sure that the stolen valuables are his rightful property. Enthusiastic adoration surrounded Napoleon. He is accompanied by "enthusiastic cries", before him jump "fading with happiness, enthusiastic ... huntsmen", he puts a telescope on the back of the "happy page that has run up". One reigns here general mood. The French army is also some kind of closed "world"; the people of this world have their own 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 common pushes to stupid actions, turns human society into the herd. Driven by a single thirst for enrichment, a thirst for robbery, having 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 of history than they, imagined himself to be God, because “for him, the conviction was not new that his presence at all ends of the world ... equally strikes and plunges people into the madness of self-forgetfulness.” People tend to create idols, and idols easily forget that they did not create history, but history created them.

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

"War and Peace" by L. N. Tolstoy - historical novel. Why do certain historical events occur? Who drives history? In his historical and philosophical views, Tolstoy is a fatalist. He believes that the course of historical events is predetermined from above and does not depend on the arbitrariness of people. "Man consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious tool for achieving historical, universal goals."

From this postulate follows a conclusion proved by the entire logic of the novel. The decisive influence on the course of events is exerted not by an individual (even if exceptional) personality, but by the people. To reveal the character of a whole people - this is the most important artistic task of "War and Peace". “The unresolved, hanging question of life or death, not only over Bolkonsky, but over all of Russia, overshadowed all other assumptions,” writes Tolstoy, emphasizing the inextricable connection between the fate of his favorite heroes with the life of the people, with the outcome of the struggle that he is waging.

Pierre, having visited the Borodino field, having become a witness of true heroism ordinary people, saw that "hidden warmth of patriotism", "which kindles patriotic feelings in every soldier." “To be a soldier, just a soldier,” Pierre thinks. Tolstoy portrayed the Russian people in crucial moment stories.

Throughout the novel, the author emphasizes that it was thanks to the people that Russia emerged victorious from the war. Russian soldiers fought and died not in the name of crosses, ranks and glory. In moments of feat, they least of all thought about glory. “There is no true greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth,” writes Tolstoy. However, while affirming the idea that history is created by people, the masses, the people, and not by a person who has risen above the people, Tolstoy does not deny the role of man in history in general.

Individuals have the freedom to choose their own actions. He who enjoys every moment of such freedom, intuition penetrates into common sense events, deserves the name of a great man.

This is how Kutuzov is depicted in the novel. Outwardly, he is passive, giving orders only when circumstances require it. He considers his main task to be the leadership of the "spirit of the army" - this is the key to victory. Being a wise commander close to the people, he feels this "spirit", "that people's feeling that he carries in himself in all its purity and strength." Kutuzov knew that it was not the orders of the commander-in-chief, not the place on which the troops stood, not the number of guns and killed people, but that elusive force called the spirit of the troops, that decide the fate of the battle, and he followed this force and led it, as far as it was in his authorities. The antipode of Kutuzov in the novel is Napoleon. According to its historical concept, the writer draws this famous commander and prominent figure as " little man with an "unpleasantly feigned smile on his face".

He is narcissistic, arrogant, blinded by fame, considers himself driving force historical process. His insane pride makes him take acting poses, utter pompous phrases. For him, "only what happened in his soul" is of interest. And "everything that was outside of him did not matter to him, because everything in the world, as it seemed to him, depended only on his will." In the novel "War and Peace" Tolstoy solved a difficult task that corresponded to his historical views: he created the image of an entire people at a turning point in the history of Russia.

There is a war going on in Austria. General Mack is defeated at Ulm.

The Austrian army surrendered. The threat of defeat hung over the Russian army.

And then Kutuzov decided to send Bagration with four thousand soldiers through the rugged Bohemian mountains towards the French. Bagration had to quickly make difficult transition and to detain the forty-thousandth French army until the arrival of Kutuzov.

His detachment needed to accomplish a great feat in order to save the Russian army. So the author brings the reader to the image of the first great battle. In this battle, as always, Dolokhov is bold and fearless. Dolokhov's courage is manifested in battle, where "he killed one Frenchman at point-blank range and was the first to take a surrendered officer by the collar." But after that, he goes to the regimental commander and reports on his “trophies”: “Please remember, Your Excellency! Then he untied the handkerchief, pulled it and showed the gore: “Wound with a bayonet, I stayed at the front.

Remember, Your Excellency." Everywhere, always, he remembers first of all about himself, only about himself, everything he does, he does for himself. We are not surprised by Zherkov's behavior either. When, at the height of the battle, Bagration sent him with an important order to the general of the left flank, he did not go forward, where the shooting was heard, but began to look for the general away from the battle. Due to an untransmitted order, the French cut off the Russian hussars, many died and were wounded.

There are many such officers. They are not cowardly, but they do not know how to forget themselves, their careers and personal interests for the sake of a common cause.

However, the Russian army consisted not only of such officers. In the chapters depicting the Battle of Shengraben, we meet true heroes. Here he sits, the hero of this battle, the hero of this "case", small, thin and dirty, sitting barefoot, taking off his boots. This is artillery officer Tushin. "Big, smart and kind eyes he looks at the commanders who have entered and tries to joke: “The soldiers say that they are more agile when they take off their shoes,” and he is embarrassed, feeling that the joke has failed.

Tolstoy is doing everything so that Captain Tushin appears before us in the most unheroic form, even ridiculous. But this one funny man was the hero of the day.

Prince Andrey will rightly say about him: "We owe the success of the day most of all to the action of this battery and the heroic stamina of Captain Tushin with the company." The second hero of the Shengraben battle is Timokhin. He appears at the very moment when the soldiers succumbed to panic and ran. Everything seemed lost. But at that moment the French, advancing on ours, suddenly ran back ... and Russian arrows appeared in the forest. It was Timokhin's company.

And only thanks to Timo-Khin did the Russians have the opportunity to return and gather battalions. Courage is varied. There are many people who are unrestrainedly brave in battle, but are lost in everyday life. With the images of Tushin and Timokhin, Tolstoy teaches the reader to see truly brave people, their low-key heroism, their great will, which helps to overcome fear and win battles. In the war of 1812, when every soldier fought for his home, for relatives and friends, for his homeland, the consciousness of danger increased tenfold strength. The deeper Napoleon advanced into the depths of Russia, the more the strength of the Russian army grew, the more weakened french army, turning into a bunch of thieves and marauders.

Only the will of the people, only the people's will makes the army invincible. This conclusion follows from L.

N. Tolstoy "War and Peace".

Views of L. N. Tolstoy
On the story in the novel "War and Peace"

“I tried to write the history of the people,” said L. N. Tolstoy about his novel “ War and Peace". And this is not just a phrase: the great Russian writer really depicted in the work not so much individual heroes as the whole people as a whole. "People's thought" defines in the novel and philosophical Tolstoy's views, and the image of historical events, specific historical figures, and the moral assessment of the actions of the heroes.

What is the power that drives the nations? Who is the creator of history - the individual or the people? The writer asks such questions at the beginning of the novel and tries to answer them with the whole course of the story.

According to Tolstoy, the historical path of the country is determined not by the will of a historical figure, not by his decisions and actions, but by the totality of the aspirations and desires of all the people who make up the people. “A person consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious tool” to achieve historical goals, writes Tolstoy. He convincingly proves that one person, even the most brilliant, cannot control millions, this is only the appearance of power, but it is these millions that govern the country and determine the historical process, that is, it is the people who make history. And a brilliant personality is able to guess, feel the desire of the people and ascend to the people's "wave". Tolstoy claims: "The will of the historical hero not only does not guide the actions of the masses, but is itself constantly guided." Therefore The writer's attention is attracted primarily by the life of the people: peasants, soldiers, officers - those who form the basis of it.

Leo Tolstoy on the pages of the novel shows that the historical process does not depend on the whim or bad mood of one person. War 1812 was inevitable and did not depend on the will of Napoleon, but was determined by the whole course of history, so Napoleon, according to the writer, could not help but cross the Neman, and the defeat of the French army on the Borodino field was also inevitable, because there Napoleonic France was “the hand of the strongest enemy in spirit” was laid, that is, the Russian army. We can say that the will of the commander does not affect the outcome of the battle, because not a single commander can lead tens and hundreds of thousands of people, but it is the soldiers themselves (that is, the people) who decide the fate of the battle. “The fate of the battle is decided not by the orders of the commander-in-chief, not by the place on which the troops stand, not by the number of guns and killed people, but by that elusive force called the spirit of the army,” writes Tolstoy. Therefore, Napoleon did not lose the Battle of Borodino or Kutuzov won it, but the Russian people won this battle, because the "spirit" of the Russian army was immeasurably higher than that of the French.

This historical pattern Kutuzov felt ingeniously. Leo Tolstoy contrasts on the pages of the novel two generals (Kutuzov and Napoleon) and two battles - Borodino and Auster-Litskoe.

Russian soldiers did not want to fight in Austria for no reason. Kutuzov understood this very well, and therefore he was not sure of the victory of the allied Russian-Austrian army over the French, despite the numerical superiority and more advantageous position. We see how Kutuzov delayed the start of the battle, trying to save the lives of Russian soldiers in this senseless massacre. Conversely, Kutuzov was notified in advance
Wren in the victory at Borodino, because he knew that every soldier, every Russian officer was literally burning with the desire to fight the French. Andrei Bolkonsky spoke about this desire to fight to his friend Pierre Bezukhov on the eve of the battle: “The French have ruined my house and are going to ruin Moscow, insulted and insult me ​​every second. They are my enemies, they are all criminals, according to my concepts. And Timokhin and the whole army think the same way. They must be executed." Therefore, Bolkonsky himself, and Kutuzov, and all Russian people were sure of victory. We see that during the battle Kutuzov is inactive, he almost does not lead the army. But the brilliant commander knows that the soldiers themselves determine the course of the battle, and Kutuzov is confident in them. Napoleon, on the contrary, is very active: he is constantly interested in the course of the battle, gives orders...But all his activity leads to nothing, because > because he does not determine the outcome of the battle, and this outcome is already historically predetermined.

Tolstoy writes that Kutuzov was able to "guess so correctly the meaning folk sense events”, that is, “guess” the whole pattern of historical events. And the source of this brilliant insight was the "popular feeling" that he carried in his soul great commander. It is understanding folk character historical processes allowed Kutuzov, according to Tolstoy, to win not only the Battle of Borodino, but the entire military campaign and fulfill his mission - to save Russia from the Napoleonic invasion. And how fussy, helpless, even comical Napoleon looks against his background! There is nothing great and ingenious in it, because "there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth."

Thus we see that Leo Tolstoy had his own A look at history, and this view differs in many respects from modern understanding historical process, but this does not make it less interesting for us.