Describing his work on War and Peace, Tolstoy pointed out that he collected and studied historical materials "with the zeal of a scientist", while emphasizing that the historian and the artist use these materials in different ways. He argued that there are "history-science" and "history-art" and that they have their own distinct tasks. History-science, as the writer believed, focuses on particulars, details of events and is limited to their external description, while history-art captures the general course of events, penetrating into the depths of their inner meaning.
In the novel "War and Peace" L. N. Tolstoy paid great attention not only to psychology, but also to philosophy and history. He wanted to show not individual characters, like Dostoevsky, but the human mass and ways of influencing it.
Tolstoy's history is the interaction of millions of people. The writer is trying to show that an individual, a historical figure, is not able to influence humanity. Individual figures in Tolstoy are shown as people who stand outside the historical process and cannot influence it. For him, it's just people, and above all - people. They interact with other heroes of the work, and each hero forms his own opinion about him, first of all, as a person. So does Andrei Bolkonsky - he encounters almost all the historical figures of his time: Napoleon, Alexander, Kutuzov, Franz Joseph. It is interesting to see how Prince Andrei relates to each of them.
First of all, consider the attitude of Prince Andrei to Kutuzov. This is a man who is well known to Bolkonsky, it was to Kutuzov that his father sent Prince Andrei to serve. The old prince "passes on the baton of paternity" to this commander. The task of both is to keep Prince Andrei. Neither one nor the other is able to influence his fate. Prince Andrei loves Kutuzov as a good grandfather and father of his army, and it is through Kutuzov that he connects with the people.
The commander is unable to influence the course of history and change it. He appears here as the Archangel Michael - the leader of the holy host. The Russian army is a holy army, it defends its country from the Antichrist - Napoleon and the army of the devil. And like the Archangel Michael, Kutuzov practically does not interfere with Napoleon by any actions. He believes that the Frenchman will come to his senses and repent, as it happened. Napoleon understands the futility of the war against the Russians, he understands that he cannot fight the Russians. The Antichrist cannot fight the holy host. And he can only leave, admitting his defeat.
This struggle unfolds in the highest celestial spheres, and Prince Andrei, as a being of a higher order, understands that Napoleon and Kutuzov are not just commanders-in-chief of two hostile armies. These are beings whose personalities were formed somewhere in another world. Borodino is a kind of Armageddon, the last fight, the last battle between Good and Evil. And in this battle, Napoleon was defeated. At the beginning of the novel, Prince Andrei perceives Napoleon as the ruler of the world, smart and honest. This is consistent with the biblical apocryphal words that the Antichrist will come to rule and all will love him. So did Napoleon - he came to rule and wanted power over everyone. But Rus' cannot be conquered, Rus' is a holy land, it cannot be conquered. Prince Andrei under Borodino, under the allegorical Armageddon, had his own role - he was a symbol of angelic humility, and here he is opposed to Kutuzov, who gives battle to the Antichrist. And Kutuzov is perceived by Prince Andrei exactly as an angel is perceived - as a kind universal father.
In a completely different way, Prince Andrei perceives the two emperors - Alexander and Franz Joseph. These are ordinary people whom fate elevated to the highest level of power. But they do not know how to dispose of this power. Prince Andrei feels hostility towards both emperors. They are earthly rulers, but they are not worthy to be them. They entrust power to their generals, commanders, advisers - to anyone, and not always to the most worthy. So, Alexander entrusts his function as commander-in-chief to Benigsen.
Andrei is antipathetic to people who are not able to take responsibility for their actions. If you cannot rule, why be called an emperor? Power is, first of all, responsibility for those people who obey you. Alexander could not answer for them. Franz Joseph too. Prince Andrei still respects the Russian emperor more because he understood his inability to command the army and transferred powers to Kutuzov. Franz Joseph is unable to understand even his own impotence. He is stupid and disgusting to Prince Andrei, who feels his superiority over both emperors.
And to the commanders who were defeated, Prince Andrei has a sympathetic attitude. For example, to General Mack. He sees him, humiliated, defeated, having lost all his army, and does not feel indignation. General Mack came to Kutuzov "with confession" - with his head uncovered, wet, downcast. He does not hide his guilt, and Kutuzov forgives him. And after him, Prince Andrei forgives him.
The attitude of Prince Andrei to Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky is also interesting. Bolkonsky does not perceive her as a living person. He notes details such as metallic laughter and Speransky's cold hands. This is a machine created by someone for the "good" of the state. Its task is to reform and renew. Prince Andrei soon realizes the futility of dead reforms and parted ways with the statesman.
Thus, historical figures are evaluated by Prince Andrei in different ways, but none is perceived as a force capable of influencing the world historical process. They are not part of the people and fall out of humanity, because they are too big for this, and therefore too weak.

The epic novel "War and Peace" can be regarded as a historical literary work. In this case, the reader is primarily interested in:

• what is
• and what is his view of the events described.

The history of the creation of the novel is well known. LN Tolstoy conceived a novel about contemporary post-reform Russia. This new Russia was supposed to be looked at by a man who had returned from hard labor, a former Decembrist.

But it turned out that from Tolstoy's point of view, in order to comprehend the present, it is necessary to look into the past. Tolstoy's gaze turned to 1825, and after that to 1812,

"our triumph in the fight against Bonaparte France, and then - the era of" our failures and shame "

- the war of 1805-1807.

The writer's approach to historical phenomena is also fundamental.

“In order to study the laws of history,” Tolstoy wrote, “we must completely change the subject of observation and leave the tsars, ministers and generals alone, and study the homogeneous, infinitesimal elements that guide the masses.”

This view was reflected in the pages of "War and Peace" and in the description of military events and in the description of

Tolstoy shows that history is made up of thousands of wills and deeds different people, the activity of different people is a result not realized by them, carrying out the will of providence. Historical personalities do not play the role that historians usually ascribe to them. Thus, in describing the Battle of Borodino and the entire campaign of 1812, Tolstoy claims that the victory over Napoleon was a foregone conclusion by that warehouse of the Russian character, which could not tolerate foreigners on its own land:

• this is the merchant Ferapontov,
• and Timokhin's soldiers (refused to drink vodka before the battle:

Not a day like this they say

• this and a wounded soldier saying

"All the people go to pile on",

• and the Moscow lady and other residents of Moscow, who left the city long before the Napoleonic army entered it,
• and Tolstoy's favorite heroes (Pierre, Prince Andrei, and Petya Rostov, Nikolai Rostov),
• People's commander Kutuzov
• ordinary peasants, such as Tikhon Shcherbaty in Denisov's partisan detachment, and many, many others.

Tolstoy's view of the role of personality in history

With this approach, the writer understands in a peculiar way the role of the individual in history. At first glance, it seems that Tolstoy preaches fatalism, because he claims that those who are called historical figures do not really play any role in history. The writer likens Napoleon, who believes that it is he who controls the troops, to a child sitting in a carriage, holding on to the ribbons and thinking that he is driving the carriage.

The writer denies Napoleon greatness. Tolstoy is passionate. He has everything:

• portrait of Napoleon (repetitive details - round belly, thick thighs),
• demeanor (admiring oneself),
• consciousness of greatness

- disgusting writer.

The image of Napoleon is opposed to the image of Kutuzov. Tolstoy intentionally

• emphasizes the senile age of Kutuzov (trembling hands, senile tears, an unexpected dream, sentimentality),
• but at the same time it shows that it is this person who is the historical figure who does what is necessary.

At first glance, the hero of Kutuzov illustrates the author's idea that a historical leader is required to passively submit to the prevailing circumstances. And this is exactly how Kutuzov behaves on the Borodino field. He does not know the role of providence, but to some extent he is aware, feels common sense events and helps or does not hinder them.

“... he ... 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 army, that decide the fate of the battle, and he followed this force and led it as far as it was in his power.

Tolstoy shows the greatness of Kutuzov. The commander was entrusted with a historic mission - to lead the troops and expel the French from Russia. Tolstoy sees his greatness in the fact that "comprehending the will of Providence", he "subordinated his personal will to it."

Tolstoy's position in the descriptions of the war

In describing the events of both war and peace, the writer proceeds from the criterion:

"There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth."

And therefore, when depicting, he draws a clear line between the secular circle, headed by Alexander I, and the nobles, who, in their perception of life, are close to the people - the nation. The former are characterized by the desire to gain profit, make a career, build their own personal affairs, they are arrogant and proud, their own, personal, is always more important for them. So, Alexander I asks Kutuzov in front of Austerlitz:

"Why don't you start? We are not in the Tsaritsyno Meadow.”

The moral deafness of the tsar is exposed by Kutuzov's answer:

“That’s why I don’t start, because we are not on the Tsaritsyn meadow.”

Secular society is expressed in fines for French words in speech, although sometimes they do not know how to say this or that in Russian. Boris Drubetskoy speaks in front of Borodin about the special mood of the militias, so that Kutuzov can hear him and note him. There are an endless number of such examples in the novel. Nobles close to the people are people with a constant search for the truth. They do not think about themselves, they know how to subordinate the personal to the national. Naturalness is their feature. These are Kutuzov (the girl present at the council in Fili affectionately calls him “grandfather”), the Bolkonskys, the Rostovs, Pierre Bezukhov, Denisov, even Dolokhov.

For each of them, a meeting with a person from the people becomes an important stage in life - this is the role:

• Platon Karataev in the fate of Pierre,
• Tushin - in the fate of Prince Andrei,
• Tikhon Shcherbatov - in the fate of Denisov.

Tolstoy constantly emphasizes these qualities - naturalness and simplicity.

Each of Tolstoy's heroes finds its place in the war of 1812:

• Alexander is forced to appoint Kutuzov commander-in-chief, because the army wants it.
• Part larger world Andrey Bolkonsky realizes himself before the Battle of Borodino,
• Pierre experiences the same feeling on Raevsky's battery,
• Natasha demands that the carts intended for things be given to the wounded,
• Petya Rostov goes to war because he wants to defend his Motherland

In a word, they are the flesh of the flesh of the people.

A broad picture of the life of Russian society, global world issues raised in the novel "War and Peace" make Tolstoy's novel a real one. historical work standing one step above the ordinary historicism of other works.

Did you like it? Do not hide your joy from the world - share

An important place in the plot is occupied by his original historical views and ideas. “War and Peace” is not just a historical novel, it is a novel about History. She - acts, and her actions have a direct impact on the fate of all heroes without exception. She is not a background or an attribute of the plot. History is the main thing that determines the smoothness or swiftness of its movement.

Let us recall the final phrase of the novel: "... in the present case... it is necessary to renounce non-existent freedom and recognize the dependence that we do not feel."

Anything historical event- the result of the unconscious, "swarm" action of natural historical forces. A person is denied the role of a subject of social movement. “The subject of history is the life of peoples and mankind,” writes Tolstoy, assigning to her, history, the place of the acting subject and character. Its laws are objective and independent of the will and actions of people. Tolstoy believes: "If there is one free act of a person, then there is not a single historical law and no idea about historical events."

A person can do little. The wisdom of Kutuzov, like the wisdom of Platon Karataev, consists in unconscious obedience to the elements of life. History, according to the writer, acts in the world as a natural force. Its laws, like physical or chemical laws, exist independently of the desire, will and consciousness of thousands and millions of people. That is why, according to Tolstoy, it is impossible to explain anything in history based on these desires and wills. Every social cataclysm, every historical event is the result of the action of an impersonal non-spiritual character, somewhat reminiscent of Shchedrin's “It” from “The History of a City”.

Here is how Tolstoy assesses the role of the individual in history: "The historical personality is the essence of the label that history hangs on this or that event." And the logic of these arguments is such that, in the final analysis, not only the concept of free will disappears from history, but also God as its moral principle. On the pages of the novel, she appears as an absolute, impersonal, indifferent force, grinding into powder human lives. Any personal activity is ineffective and dramatic. As if in an ancient proverb about fate, which attracts the obedient, and drags the recalcitrant, it disposes of the human world. Here is what happens to a person, according to the writer: "A person consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious tool for achieving historical universal goals." Therefore, fatalism is inevitable in history when explaining “illogical”, “unreasonable” phenomena. The more we, according to Tolstoy, try to rationally explain these phenomena in history, the more incomprehensible they become for us.

“What is the force that moves the nations?

Private biographical historians and historians of individual peoples understand this power as the power inherent in heroes and rulers. According to their descriptions, events are produced exclusively by the will of Napoleons, Alexanders, or in general those persons who are described by a private historian. The answers given by this kind of historians to the question of the force that drives events are satisfactory, but only as long as there is one historian for each event. Conclusion: the people "create" history.

The life of mankind does not depend on the will and intentions of individuals, therefore a historical event is the result of a coincidence of many causes.

The novel by L. N. Tolstoy is of great importance not only within the framework of Russian and foreign literature. It is also important for understanding many historical, social and philosophical categories. The main task of the author was to create such a work where the personality would not be revealed psychologically, in contrast to the works of F. M. Dostoevsky, but, so to speak, socially, that is, in comparison with the masses, the people. It was also important for Tolstoy to understand the power that can unite individuals into a people, the means to control and curb the elemental people's power.

The history of the writer is a special stream, the interaction of the minds of millions of people. A separate personality, even the most outstanding and extraordinary, according to the author, is not capable of subjugating the people. However, some historical figures are shown as standing outside the historical flow, and therefore unable to influence it, change it.

The novel shows many historical figures of the times Patriotic War. But they are presented as ordinary, ordinary people, with passions and fears, and the heroes of the novel build their opinion about them based on their human qualities. Of great importance for understanding the nature of this or that historical person is the opinion of Prince Andrei Bolkonsky in the novel. He manages to pass through himself, as through a filter, the attitude towards this or that high-ranking person and, discarding everything superfluous and superficial, sanctify the pure and truthful character of this person.

This hero manages to meet and communicate with many prominent historical figures: Napoleon, Alexander I, Kutuzov, Franz Joseph. Each of these gentlemen received a special, individual characteristic in the text of the novel.

First of all, it is necessary to consider the image of Kutuzov in the perception of the main character. This is a person well known to Prince Andrei, because it was to him that he was sent for military service. The old prince, Andrei's father, lets go of his son, fully trusting the commander in chief and "passing on the baton of paternity." Both for father Andrei and for his commander, the main task is to save the life and health of the hero, and both of them cannot influence his fate, the formation of his character, personality. Andrei loves Kutuzov, loves sincerely, like an uncle or grandfather, he is for him a close and dear person in his own way. And it is thanks to Kutuzov that Andrei manages to reunite with the people.

The image of Kutuzov in the novel echoes the biblical image of the Archangel Michael. The commander-in-chief of the Russian army leads the holy Russian army into battle to defend the homeland from the Antichrist - Napoleon. And like the Archangel, Kutuzov does not interfere with his actions against the enemy. He is sure that Napoleon will suffer repentance, which, in fact, happens.

Napoleon is not able to fight against the Russian army, just as the Antichrist is powerless against the holy host. Bonaparte himself understands his uselessness and powerlessness in the war he himself started. And he can only leave, admitting his defeat.

At the beginning of the novel, Andrei perceives Napoleon as a strong ruler of the world. This again is consistent with the biblical tradition of the image of the Antichrist coming to earth to rule and arouse the love of his slaves. So did Bonaparte, who wanted power. But you can't conquer the Russian people, you can't conquer Russia.

In this context battle of Borodino has for Andrey the meaning of Armageddon. Here he is a symbol of angelic humility, opposed to the holy fury of Kutuzov, who is giving battle. It should be noted the differences in characters between Kutuzov and Napoleon, which lie largely in the views on the people and the philosophy of life. Kutuzov is close to Andrey and represents the eastern type of consciousness practicing the policy of non-intervention. Napoleon is the personification of the worldview of the West, alien to Russia.

The ruling persons, the emperors Alexander and Franz Joseph, look different through the perception of Andrei. These are all the same ordinary, ordinary people, elevated by fate to the throne. However, both cannot keep the power given to them from above.

For Andrei, both monarchs are unpleasant, just as people who are unable to bear responsibility for their actions are unpleasant to him. And if a person cannot bear the burden of power, then there is no need to take it on. Power is, first of all, responsibility, responsibility for subordinates, for one's people, one's army - for the whole people. Neither Alexander nor Franz Joseph can be responsible for their actions, and therefore cannot be at the head of the state. It is precisely because Alexander was able to admit his inability to command and agreed to the return of this position to Kutuzov that Prince Andrei treats this emperor with more sympathy than Franz Joseph.

The latter, from Andrey's point of view, turns out to be too stupid, he is unable to understand his mediocrity, impotence. He is disgusting to Andrei - against the background of his prince feels higher and more significant than the monarch's face. It is noticeable that in relation to the emperors, the hero has a feeling of an unforgiving angel, when, as for less significant persons - commanders and generals, Andrei feels undisguised sympathy and sympathy. For example, it is necessary to consider the attitude of the hero towards General Mack. Andrei sees him, defeated, humiliated, having lost his army, but at the same time, the hero does not have indignation or anger. He came to Kutuzov with his head uncovered, downcast and penitent to the leader of the holy Russian army, and the leader forgave him. Following this, the Apostle Andrei, in the person of Prince Andrei Bolkonsky, also forgives him.

Prince Bagration, acting as a commander, Mikhail Kutuzov blesses for a feat: “I bless you, prince, for a great feat,” he says, and Prince Andrei decides to accompany Bagration in his righteous deeds for Russia.

Andrey's special attitude towards Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky. Main character subconsciously refuses to perceive him as a person - in particular because of the constantly cold hands and metallic laughter. This suggests that Speransky is a machine created for the benefit of the state. His program is to reform and renew, but Andrei cannot work with a mechanism devoid of a soul, so he parted with it.

So, through the uncomplicated look of Prince Andrei, the author gives the reader the characteristics of the first persons of the state, the most important historical figures of the Patriotic War of 1812.

In Leo Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" great importance is given not only to psychology, but also to philosophy and history. Tolstoy wanted to show not individual characters, like Dostoevsky, but the human mass and ways of influencing it. Tolstoy's history is the interaction of millions of people. He tries to show that an individual, a historical figure is not able to influence humanity. Individual figures in Tolstoy are shown as people who stand outside the historical process and cannot influence it. In Tolstoy they are just people and, above all, people. They interact with other heroes of the work, and each hero forms his own opinion about him, first of all, as a person. So does Andrei Bolkonsky - he is in contact with almost all the historical figures of his time: Napoleon, Alexander, Kutuzov, Franz Joseph. It is interesting to see how Prince Andrei relates to each of them.

First of all, one should consider the attitude of Prince Andrei towards Kutuzov. This is a man who is well known to Prince Andrei, it was to Kutuzov that his father sent Prince Andrei to serve. The old prince “hands over the baton of paternity” to Kutuzov. The task of both is to keep Prince Andrei. Neither one nor the other is able to influence his fate. Prince Andrei loves Kutuzov as a kind grandfather and father of his army, and it is through Kutuzov that Prince Andrei unites with the people. Kutuzov is unable to influence anyone, the course of history and change it. He appears here as the Archangel Michael - the leader of the holy host. The Russian army is a holy army, it defends its country from the Antichrist - Napoleon and the army of the devil. And like the Archangel Michael, Kutuzov practically does not interfere with Napoleon by any actions. He believes that Napoleon will come to his senses and repent, as it happened. Napoleon understands the futility of the war against the Russians. Napoleon cannot fight the Russians. The Antichrist cannot fight the holy host. And he can only leave, admitting his defeat. This struggle unfolds in the highest celestial spheres, and Prince Andrei, as a being of a higher order, understands that Napoleon and Kutuzov are not just commanders-in-chief of two hostile armies. These are beings whose personalities were formed somewhere in another world. Borodino is a kind of Armageddon, the last fight, the last battle between Good and Evil. And so it happened - in this battle Napoleon was defeated. Prince Andrey understands this, he has this understanding somewhere on subconscious level. He is not aware of this. At the beginning of the novel, he perceives Napoleon as the ruler of the world, intelligent and honest. This is consistent with the biblical apocryphal words that the Antichrist will come to rule and be loved by all. So did Napoleon - he came to rule and wanted power over everyone. But Rus' cannot be conquered, Rus' is a holy land, a holy army, it cannot be conquered. Prince Andrei under Borodino, under the allegorical Armageddon, had his own role - he was a symbol of angelic humility, and here he is opposed to Kutuzov, who gives battle to the Antichrist. And Kutuzov here is perceived by Prince Andrei exactly as an angel is perceived - as a kind universal father.

Here, in order to finish the conversation about Kutuzov and Napoleon in the perception of Prince Andrei, it is necessary to say about the difference between Kutuzov and Napoleon, about the differences in their philosophy and worldview. Kutuzov is closer to Prince Andrei, because he is an oriental type human consciousness. Prince Andrei himself is close to him. And this brings him closer to Kutuzov. Napoleon is the personification of Western philosophy and the Western worldview.

In a completely different way, Prince Andrei perceives the two emperors - Alexander and Franz Joseph. These are ordinary people whom fate elevated to the highest level of power. They cannot keep this power in their hands. Prince Andrei feels hostility towards both emperors. They are earthly rulers, but they are not worthy to be them. They are afraid of this power and entrust it to their generals, commanders, advisers and other servants of power. Alexander has the same philosophy, he entrusts his function as commander-in-chief to Bennigsen and other foreigners. Andrei does not like people who are not able to take responsibility for their actions. If you cannot rule, why be called an emperor? Power is, first of all, responsibility for those people who obey you. Alexander could not answer for them. Franz Joseph too. Prince Andrei respects Alexander more because he realized his inability to command the army and handed it over to Kutuzov. Franz Joseph is not able to understand even his lack of talent. He is stupid and disgusting to Prince Andrei, who feels his superiority over both emperors. It is felt somewhere on a subconscious level. Andrei has an attitude of an unforgiving angel towards them.

And to the commanders who were defeated, Prince Andrei has a sympathetic attitude. For example, he has the attitude of an officer towards General Mack. He sees him, humiliated, defeated, having lost all his army - and indignation is not born in him. General Mack came to the apostle Michael - Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov. He came with his head uncovered, wet, downcast. He does not hide his guilt, and Archangel Michael forgives him. And after him, the Apostle Andrew forgives him. Another commander, already Russian, Prince Bagration, Mikhail blesses for a feat. “I bless you, prince, for a great feat,” says Kutuzov, and Prince Andrei asks permission to accompany him as his guardian angel.

The attitude of Prince Andrei to Mikhail Mikhailovich Speransky stands apart. Prince Andrei does not perceive him as a person. Such a detail as metallic laughter and Speransky's cold hands are very important here. This speaks of Speransky as a machine created by someone for the “good” of the state. Its task is to reform and renew. He's programmed for it. Prince Andrei cannot work with the machine and parted ways with him.

Thus, historical figures are evaluated by Prince Andrei in different ways, but none is perceived as a being capable of influencing the world historical process. This creature is not of this world, and they do not even have the power to influence history, even as a common people. They are not a people and fall out of humanity because they are too strong for him, and therefore too weak.