The role of Tolstoy in history. Tolstoy's assessment of the role of personality in history

How does Tolstoy solve the question of the role of the individual in history? ("War and Peace") and got the best answer

Answer from GALINA[guru]
Tolstoy had his own view on the role of the individual
in history.
Every person has two lives: personal and spontaneous.
Tolstoy said that man consciously lives
for itself, but serves as an unconscious instrument
to achieve common human goals.
The role of the individual in history is negligible.
Even the most brilliant person cannot
desire to direct the movement of history.
It is created by the masses, the people, and not by an individual,
towering over the people.
But Tolstoy believed that he deserved the name of a genius
one of the people who is gifted with the ability to penetrate
in the course of historical events, comprehend their general
meaning.
The writer refers Kutuzov to such people.
He is an exponent of the patriotic spirit
and moral strength of the Russian army.
This is a talented commander.
Tolstoy emphasizes that Kutuzov is a folk hero.
In the novel, he appears as a truly Russian person,
alien to pretense, a wise historical figure.
Napoleon, who is opposed to Kutuzov,
exposed to destruction,
because he chose for himself the role of the “executioner of the nations”;
Kutuzov is exalted as a commander,
able to subordinate all his thoughts and actions
popular feeling.

Answer from 3 answers[guru]

Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: How does Tolstoy solve the question of the role of the individual in history? (" War and Peace ")

so supportive of Pierre? Why did he change his original mind? 3) How does L.N. Tolstoy, the role of personality in history? What importance does he attach to the private and swarm life of man? 4) Crossing of the Polish Lancers across the Neman. How does the writer reveal his attitude to Bonapartism in this scene?

1. How did Tolstoy show the importance of a common collective principle in the military life of soldiers?
2. Why did confusion and disorder arise in the movement of the Russian army?
3. Why did Tolstoy describe the foggy morning in detail?
4. How was the image of Napoleon (details), who looked after the Russian army?
5. What does Prince Andrei dream about?
6. Why did Kutuzov sharply answer the emperor?
7. How does Kutuzov behave during the fight?
8. Can Bolkonsky's behavior be considered a feat?

Volume 2
1. What attracted Pierre to Freemasonry?
2. What underlies the fears of Pierre and Prince Andrei?
3. Analysis of the trip to Bogucharovo.
4. Analysis of the trip to Otradnoye.
5. For what purpose does Tolstoy give the scene of the ball (name day)? Did Natasha remain "ugly, but alive"?
6. Dance of Natasha. The property of nature, which delighted the author.
7. Why did Natasha get carried away by Anatole?
8. What is the basis of Anatole's friendship with Dolokhov?
9. How does the author feel about Natasha after the betrayal of Bolkonsky?

Volume 3
1. Tolstoy's assessment of the role of personality in history.
2. How does Tolstoy reveal his attitude towards Napoleonism?
3. Why is Pierre dissatisfied with himself?
4. Analysis of the episode "retreat from Smolensk". Why do soldiers call Andrei "our prince"?
5. Bogucharov rebellion (analysis). What is the purpose of the episode? How is Nikolai Rostov shown?
6. How to understand the words of Kutuzov "your road, Andrei, this is the road of honor"?
7. How to understand the words of Andrei about Kutuzov "he is Russian, despite the French sayings"?
8. Why is Shengraben given through the eyes of Rostov, Austerlitz - Bolkonsky, Borodino - Pierre?
9. How to understand the words of Andrei “as long as Russia is healthy, anyone could serve it”?
10. How does the scene with the portrait of his son characterize Napoleon: “Chess is set, the game will start tomorrow”?
11. Raevsky's battery is an important episode of Borodin. Why?
12. Why does Tolstoy compare Napoleon to darkness? Does the author see the mind of Napoleon, the wisdom of Kutuzov, the positive qualities of the characters?
13. Why did Tolstoy depict advice in Fili through the perception of a six-year-old girl?
14. Departure of residents from Moscow. What is the general mood?
15. The scene of a meeting with the dying Bolkonsky. How is the connection between the fate of the heroes of the novel and the fate of Russia emphasized?

Volume 4
1. Why did the meeting with Platon Karataev return to Pierre a sense of the beauty of the world? Meeting analysis.
2. How did the author explain the meaning of guerrilla warfare?
3. What is the significance of the image of Tikhon Shcherbatov?
4. What thoughts and feelings does the death of Petya Rostov give rise to in the reader?
5. In what does Tolstoy see the main significance of the war of 1812 and what is the role of Kutuzov in it according to Tolstoy?
6. Determine the ideological and compositional significance of the meeting between Pierre and Natasha. Could there be another ending?

Epilogue
1. What conclusions does the author come to?
2. What are Pierre's true interests?
3. What underlies Nikolenka's relationship to Pierre and Nikolai Rostov?
4. Analysis of the sleep of Nikolai Bolkonsky.
5. Why does the novel end with this scene?

the writer was the drama of Russian life. He dreamed that these two principles would unite, so that Russia would become one. But being a realist writer, he depicted the reality that he saw and evaluated from the point of view of his artistic and historical views. writer in the story "After the Ball"?

called war and peace. Tolstoy's views on war. (3 sentences approximately)

2) the main part (the main image of the war of 1812, the thoughts of the heroes, war and nature, the participation in the war of the main characters (Rostov, Bezukhov, Bolkonsky), the role of commanders in the war, how the army behaves.

3) conclusion, conclusion.

Please help, I just read for a long time, but now there was no time to read. PLEASE HELP

The meaning of the historical process. The role of personality in history.

Exercise. Underline the abstracts of the article, prepare an answer to the questions:

- What is the meaning of the historical process, according to Tolstoy?

What are Tolstoy's views on the causes of the war of 1812 and his attitude towards the war?

What is the role of the individual in history?

- What does the personal and swarm life of a person mean? What is the ideal human being? Which heroes are characterized by this ideal being?

This theme in the novel is considered in detail for the first time in the historical and philosophical discourse on the causes of the war of 1812 (the beginning of the second and the beginning of the third parts of the third volume). This reasoning is polemically directed against the traditional concepts of historians, which Tolstoy considers a stereotype that requires rethinking. According to Tolstoy, the start of the war cannot be explained by someone's individual will (for example, by the will of Napoleon). Napoleon is objectively involved in this event in the same way as any corporal who goes to war that day. The war was inevitable, it began according to the invisible historical will, which is made up of "billions of wills." The role of the individual in history is practically negligible. The more people are connected with others, the more they serve "necessity", i.e. their will is intertwined with other wills and becomes less free. Therefore, public and state figures are less subjectively free. "The king is a slave of history." (How does this thought of Tolstoy manifest itself in the depiction of Alexander?) Napoleon is mistaken when he thinks that he can influence the course of events. “... The course of world events is predetermined from above, depends on the coincidence of all the arbitrariness of the people participating in these events, and ... the influence of Napoleons on the course of these events is only external and fictitious” (vol. 3, part 2, ch.XXVII). Kutuzov is right in that he prefers to strictly follow an objective process, and not to impose his own line, "not to interfere" with what should happen. The novel ends with the formula of historical fatalism: “... it is necessary to abandon the non-existent freedom and recognize the dependence that we do not feel.”

attitude towards war. The war turns out not to be a duel between Napoleon and Alexander or Kutuzov, it is a duel between two principles (aggressive, destructive and harmonious, creative), which are embodied not only in Napoleon and Kutuzov, but also in characters appearing on other levels of the plot (Natasha, Platon Karataev and etc.). On the one hand, war is an event contrary to everything human, on the other hand, it is an objective reality that means personal experience for the characters. Tolstoy's moral attitude to war is negative.

In peaceful life, a kind of “war” also takes place. Heroes representing a secular society, careerists - a kind of "little Napoleons" (Boris, Berg), as well as those for whom war is a place for the realization of aggressive impulses (nobleman Dolokhov, peasant Tikhon Shcherbaty) are condemned. These heroes belong to the sphere of "war", they embody the Napoleonic principle.

"Personal" and "swarm" life of a person. It may seem that such a vision of the world is deeply pessimistic: the concept of freedom is denied, but then a person's life loses its meaning. Actually it is not. Tolstoy separates the subjective and objective levels of human life: a person is in the small circle of his biography (microcosm, "personal" life) and in the large circle of universal history (macrocosm, "swarm" life). A person is subjectively aware of his "personal" life, but cannot see what his "swarm" life consists of.

At the “personal” level, a person is endowed with sufficient freedom of choice and is able to be responsible for his actions. A "swarm" life a person lives unconsciously. At this level, he himself cannot decide anything, his role will forever remain the one assigned to him by history. The ethical principle that follows from the novel is as follows: a person should not consciously relate to his “swarm” life, put himself in any relationship with history. Any person who tries to consciously participate in the general historical process and influence it is mistaken. The novel discredits Napoleon, who mistakenly believed that the fate of the war depended on him - in fact, he was a plaything in the hands of an inexorable historical necessity. In reality, he was only a victim of a process started, as he thought, by himself. All the heroes of the novel, who tried to be Napoleons, sooner or later part with this dream or end badly. One example: Prince Andrei overcomes the illusions associated with state activities in Speransky's office (and this is correct, no matter how "progressive" Speransky is).

People fulfill the law of historical necessity without knowing it, blindly, knowing nothing but their private goals, and only truly (and not in the "Napoleonic" sense) great people are able to renounce the personal, to be imbued with the goals of historical necessity, and this is the only way to become a conscious conductor of a higher will (an example is Kutuzov).

Ideal being is a state of harmony, agreement (with the world, i.e., a state of “peace” (in the sense: not war). For this, personal life must be reasonably consistent with the laws of “swarm” life. Wrong being is hostility to these laws, the state of "war", when the hero opposes himself to people, tries to impose his will on the world (this is the path of Napoleon).

Positive examples in the novel are Natasha Rostova and her brother Nikolai (harmonious life, taste for it, understanding of its beauty), Kutuzov (the ability to be sensitive to the course of the historical process and take their reasonable place in it), Platon Karataev (this hero has a personal life practically dissolves in the “swarm”, as if he does not have his own individual “I”, but only a collective, national, universal “We”).

Prince Andrey and Pierre Bezukhov at different stages of their life journey are likened to Napoleon, thinking that they can influence the historical process with their personal will (Bolkonsky's ambitious plans; Pierre's passion first for Freemasonry, and then for secret societies; Pierre's intention to kill Napoleon and become the savior of Russia) , then they acquire the correct view of the world after deep crises, emotional upheavals, disappointments. Prince Andrei, after being wounded in the Battle of Borodino, died, having experienced a state of harmonious unity with the world. A similar state of enlightenment came to Pierre in captivity (let us note that in both cases, along with simple, empirical experience, the characters also receive mystical experience through a dream or vision). (Find it in the text.) However, it can be assumed that Pierre's ambitious plans to return to Pierre again, he will be carried away by secret societies, although Platon Karataev might not have liked this (see Pierre's conversation with Natasha in the epilogue).

In connection with the concept of "personal" and "swarm" life, the dispute between Nikolai Rostov and Pierre about secret societies is indicative. Pierre sympathizes with their activities (“Tugendbund is a union of virtue, love, mutual help; this is what Christ preached on the cross”), and Nikolai believes that "a secret society - therefore, hostile and harmful, which can only give rise to evil,<…>if you form a secret society, if you begin to oppose the government, whatever it may be, I know that it is my duty to obey it. And tell me now Arakcheev to go at you with a squadron and cut down - I won’t think for a second and go. And then judge as you wish. This dispute does not receive an unequivocal assessment in the novel; it remains open. You can talk about "two truths" - Nikolai Rostov and Pierre. We can sympathize with Pierre along with Nikolenka Bolkonsky.

The epilogue ends with Nikolenka's symbolic dream about this conversation. Intuitive sympathy for the cause of Pierre is combined with dreams of the glory of the hero. This is reminiscent of Prince Andrei's youthful dreams of "his own Toulon", which were once debunked. Thus, in Nikolenka's dreams there is a "Napoleonic" beginning that is undesirable for Tolstoy - it is also in Pierre's political ideas. In this regard, the dialogue between Natasha and Pierre in Ch. XVI of the first part of the epilogue, where Pierre is forced to admit that Platon Karataev (the person with whom the main moral criteria are connected for Pierre) “would not approve” of his political activity, but would approve of “family life”.

Napoleon's Way.

The conversation about Napoleon comes on the very first pages of the novel. Pierre Bezukhov, realizing that he is shocking the society gathered in the salon of Anna Pavlovna Scherer, solemnly, "with desperation", "more and more animated", asserts that "Napoleon is great", "that the people saw him as a great man." Smoothing over the “blasphemous” meaning of his speeches (“The revolution was a great thing,” Monsieur Pierre continued, showing his great youth with this desperate and defiant introductory sentence ...”), Andrei Bolkonsky admits that “it is necessary to distinguish between the actions of a private person, a commander or an emperor in the actions of a statesman”, also believing that in the embodiment of these last qualities, Napoleon is "great".

Pierre Bezukhov's conviction is so deep that he does not want to participate in the "war against Napoleon", as this would be a fight with the "greatest man in the world" (vol. 1, part 1, ch. 5). A sharp change in his views, which occurred in connection with the internal and external events of his life, leads to the fact that in 1812 he sees in Napoleon the Antichrist, the embodiment of evil. He feels the “necessity and inevitability” to kill his former idol, die, or end the misfortune of all of Europe, which, according to Pierre, came from Napoleon alone” (vol. 3, part 3, ch. 27).

For Andrei Bolkonsky, Napoleon is an example of the implementation of ambitious plans that form the basis of his spiritual life. In the upcoming military campaign, he thinks in terms of "no worse" than Napoleon's (vol. 1, part 2, ch. 23). All the objections of his father, the “arguments” about the mistakes, which, in his opinion, Bonaparte “made in all wars and even in state affairs”, cannot shake the hero’s confidence that he is “after all, a great commander” (t .1, part 1, ch.24). In addition, he is full of hopes, following the example of Napoleon, to start his own “path to glory” (“As soon as he learned that the Russian army was in such a hopeless position, it occurred to him that ... here it is, that Toulon ...” - vol. 1, part 2, chapter 12). However, having accomplished the planned feat (“Here it is! - Prince Andrei, grabbing the staff of the banner and hearing with pleasure the whistle of bullets, obviously directed precisely against him” - part 3, ch. 16) and having received the praise of his “hero”, he “not only was not interested” in Napoleon’s words, but “did not notice or immediately forgot them” (vol. 1, part 3, ch. 19). He seems to Prince Andrei insignificant, petty, self-satisfied in comparison with the high meaning of life revealed to him. In the war of 1812, Bolkonsky was one of the first to take the side of the "general truth."

Napoleon is the embodiment of voluntarism and extreme individualism. He seeks to impose his will on the world (that is, on the vast masses of people), but this is impossible. The war began in accordance with the objective course of the historical process, but Napoleon thinks that he started the war. Having lost the war, he feels despair and confusion. The image of Napoleon in Tolstoy is not devoid of grotesque and satirical shades. Napoleon is characterized by theatrical behavior (see, for example, the scene with the "Roman King" in Chapter XXVI of the second part of the third volume), narcissism, vanity. The scene of the meeting between Napoleon and Lavrushka is expressive, wittily “thought-out” by Tolstoy in the wake of historical materials.

Napoleon is the main emblem of the voluntaristic path, but many other heroes follow this path in the novel. They, too, can be likened to Napoleon (cf. "little Napoleons" - an expression from the novel). Vanity and self-confidence are characteristic of Bennigsen and other military leaders, the authors of all kinds of "dispositions" who accused Kutuzov of inaction. Many people in secular society are also spiritually similar to Napoleon, because they always live as if in a state of "war" (secular intrigues, careerism, the desire to subordinate other people to their own interests, etc.). First of all, this applies to the Kuragin family. All members of this family aggressively interfere in the lives of other people, try to impose their will, use the rest to fulfill their own desires.

Some researchers pointed to the symbolic connection between the love story (the treacherous Anatole’s invasion of Natasha’s world) and the historical one (Napoleon’s invasion of Russia), especially since the episode on Poklonnaya Hill uses an erotic metaphor (“And from this point of view, he [Napoleon] looked at lying in front of him, an oriental beauty [Moscow] that they had never seen before,<…>the certainty of possession excited and terrified him” — ch. XIX of the third part of the third volume).

Its embodiment and antithesis to Napoleon in the novel is Kutuzov. A conversation about him also arises in the very first chapter, with the fact that Prince Andrei is his adjutant. Kutuzov is the commander-in-chief of the Russian army opposing Napoleon. However, his concerns are not aimed at victorious battles, but at preserving the "undressed, exhausted" troops (vol. 1, part 2, ch. 1-9). Not believing in victory, he, the old military general, is experiencing "despair" (The wound is not here, but here! - said Kutuzov, pressing the handkerchief to his wounded cheek and pointing to the fugitives "-vol. 1, part 3, ch. 16 ). For others, the slowness and immediacy of his behavior

The true meaning of life. The final phrase in the novel provokes the reader to make a pessimistic conclusion about the meaninglessness of life. However, the internal logic of the plot of "War and Peace" (in which it is no coincidence that all the diversity of human life experience is recreated: as A. D. Sinyavsky said, "at once the whole war and the whole world") suggests the opposite.

Libmonster ID: RU-14509

There are many links between historical science and fiction. The creative heritage of the great Russian writers contains a number of such works that historians are professionally interested in, and among them one of the first places is occupied by Leo Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace". L. I. Brezhnev spoke about the enduring relevance of those universal human problems that are touched upon in it at a solemn meeting dedicated to the presentation of the Gold Star medal to the hero city of Tula. “The writer,” he noted, “thought a lot about the problems that concern us too, about the problems of war and peace. Not all of Tolstoy’s ideas are in tune with our era. But the main idea of ​​his great novel, the idea that ultimately the people, the masses decide the fundamental questions of history, determine the fate of states and the outcome of wars - this profound thought is true today, as always.

Hundreds of studies have been devoted to Tolstoy's worldview and his work, in which "War and Peace" occupies a place worthy of this remarkable work. The novel is considered in general works on the historical views of the writer, there are a number of works specially devoted to the philosophy of history of the author of "War and Peace", the historical realities described in the novel 2 . The purpose of this article is to analyze Tolstoy's views on the laws of the historical process, on the role of the individual and the masses in history, as well as to compare these views with public opinion in those years when the writer worked on the text of the novel.

The aggravation of social and ideological and political contradictions, which ended with the fall of serfdom in Russia, led to very significant shifts in the literary process, including a new rise in the historical genre. Reality required writers to respond to the burning questions of our time, and sometimes this was possible only through a rethinking of the country's historical past with a direct or veiled comparison of it with modernity. "War and Peace" Tolstoy wrote in 1863 - 1868, but the appearance

1 Pravda, January 19, 1977.

2 See N. I. Kareev. Historical Philosophy in the Novel of Count Leo Tolstoy "War and Peace". "Bulletin of Europe", 1887, N 7; A. K. Borozdyan. Historical element in the novel "War and Peace". "Past Years", 1908, No. 10; M. M. Rubinshtein. Philosophy of history in Leo Tolstoy's romance "War and Peace". "Russian Thought", 1911, No. 7; V. N. Pertsev. Philosophy of history of L. N. Tolstoy "War and peace. In memory of L. N. Tolstoy". M. 1912; K. V. Pokrovsky. Sources of the novel "War and Peace". Same place; P. N. Apostolov (Ardens). Leo Tolstoy over the pages of history. M. 1928; A. P. Skaftymov. The image of Kutuzov and the philosophy of history in L. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace". "Russian Literature", 1959, N 2; L. V. Tcherepnin. Historical views of LN Tolstoy. "Questions of history", 1965, N 4.

The idea of ​​the novel dates back to a much earlier time and is associated with the intention to take on the Decembrist theme. The writer himself spoke in detail about how in 1856 he began to write a story "with a certain direction, the hero of which was supposed to be a Decembrist returning with his family to Russia", but then moved from the present to 1825 - the era of "delusions and misfortunes "his hero, and later moved the action "to the era of the war of 1812 and the events preceding it" 3 .

Literary critics have argued and still continue to argue about how much the final text of "War and Peace" corresponds to the author's intention 4 . Without interfering in these disputes, we can state that in fact we are talking, of course, not about a family romance, but about a huge epic canvas. In "War and Peace" there are over 500 characters, about 200 of them are real historical figures, including those of the highest rank, among the rest, many also had very real prototypes.

To what historians might call the source base of the novel, Tolstoy was highly responsible and serious. Even in preparation for work on the novel "The Decembrists" he collected many memoirs and epistolary texts, asked contemporaries of the events in detail. When the idea was transformed, Tolstoy extended the search to an earlier era, began to collect scientific and scientific journalism publications about the Napoleonic wars. Being in Moscow on August 15, 1863, he acquired six volumes of works by A. I. Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky on the wars of 1805, 1812, 1813 and 1814, "Notes on 1812" by S. Glinka, "Brief notes of Admiral A. Shishkov "," Marching notes of the artillery of Lieutenant Colonel I. Radozhitsky "(in 4 vols.), A. Thiers' seven-volume "History of the Consulate and Empire" and some other books 5 . Later, the writer continued to collect literature personally and through his relatives. In the article “A few words about the book War and Peace” (1868), Tolstoy noted: “An artist must be guided, like a historian, by historical materials. Wherever historical figures speak and act in my novel, I did not invent, but used materials from which, during my work, a whole library of books was formed, the titles of which I do not find it necessary to write out here, but which I can always refer to "(t 16, p. 13).

It does not at all follow from what has been said that Tolstoy believed that the writer has the same ends and means as the historian. On the contrary, he emphasized in every possible way that "the task of the artist and the historian is completely different", that the latter shows the "doer", and the writer must portray the "man", that "the historian deals with the results of the event, the artists deal with the very fact of the event", which is often used historian sources to the writer "do not say anything, do not explain anything" (vol. 16, pp. 12 - 13). Tolstoy clearly distinguished fictional or semi-fictional characters from real historical figures. In the first case, he strove to preserve the spirit of the times, not freely conjecturing what he needed, while in the second case "he tried not to allow fiction, but, selecting real facts, subordinated them to his own plan" 6 .

If we talk about the results of the writer's assimilation of historical sources and literature, then they are assessed by experts as follows: "In general, the sources of the novel indicate a colossal

3 L. N. Tolstoy. Full composition of writings. In 90 vols. T. 13. M. 1955, pp. 54 - 56 (further references to this edition are given in the text).

4 See in particular: S. M. Petrov. Russian historical novel of the 19th century. M. 1964, p. 325 and others; E. E. Zaidenshnur. "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy. Creation of a great book. M. 1966, pp. 5 - 7.

5 E. E. Zaydenshnur. Decree. cit., p. 329.

6 Ibid., p. 334.

Tolstoy's preparatory work on the study of the era of the 12th year, clarify the nature and process of his artistic creativity, give a clear idea that "War and Peace" is a kind of artistic mosaic, composed of scenes and images infinitely diverse in their origin, that this novel for the most part not only historically plausible, but historically real, and that at the time of its creation there was a constant struggle between the objective artist and the subjective thinker" 7 .

As you know, the novel contains a significant number of historical and philosophical digressions, where the writer openly intrudes into areas that scientists usually deal with. Together with the article "A Few Words...", already mentioned above, the digressions set out in detail and argue the "methodological creed" of the author of "War and Peace", that is, they provide what is usually so lacking in the analysis of works of historical fiction. In this case, as N. I. Kareev rightly noted, "the artist turns into a scientist, the novelist becomes a historian" 8 . Tolstoy's historical views reflect his complex and highly contradictory worldview; Naturally, they themselves are internally contradictory.

The article "A Few Words..." consists of six paragraphs. "Studying the epoch," Tolstoy declares in one of them, "... I came to the realization that the reasons for the ongoing historical events are inaccessible to our mind" (vol. 16, p. 13). And although the belief in the "pre-eternity" of everything that happens is an idea innate in people, each person realizes and feels "that he is free at any moment when he performs some action" (vol. 16, p. 14). From this, the writer continues, a contradiction arises, which seems insoluble, since, considering history from a general point of view, a person inevitably sees in it a manifestation of the "eternal law", and looking at events from individual positions, he cannot and does not refuse faith. in the effectiveness of individual intervention in history. Tolstoy finds another contradiction not in the minds of people, but in Reality itself: it lies in the fact that there are actions that depend and do not depend on the will of an individual person. "The more abstract and therefore the less our activity is connected with the activities of other people, the freer it is, and, conversely, the more our activity is connected with other people, the more unfree it is." Power, according to the writer, is the strongest, inseparable, difficult and constant connection with other people, and therefore it "in its true meaning is only the greatest dependence on them" (vol. 16, p. 16). It follows that those whom historians call historical figures are the least free in their actions. “The activities of these people,” says Tolstoy, “was amusing to me only in the sense of illustrating that law of predestination, which, in my opinion, governs the historian), and that psychological law that causes a person who performs the most unfree act to fake in his imagination a whole series of retrospective conclusions aimed at proving to him his freedom" (vol. 16, p. 16).

Similar thoughts are repeatedly expressed in the novel, either in concrete form in connection with any of the events described, or in the form of abstract arguments of a historical and philosophical nature. One of them is placed at the beginning of the second part of the fourth volume: “The totality of the causes of phenomena is inaccessible to the human mind. But the need to find the causes is embedded in the human soul.

7 K. V. Pokrovsky. Decree. cit., p. 128.

8 N. I. Kareev. Decree. cit., p. 238.

of the causes, each of which separately can be represented as a cause, seizes on the first, most understandable approximation and says: here is the cause ... There are no and cannot be causes of a historical event, except for the only cause of all causes. But there are laws that govern events, partly unknown, partly groping for us. The discovery of these laws is possible only when we completely renounce the search for causes in the will of one person, just as the discovery of the laws of planetary motion became possible only when people renounced the representation of the affirmation of the earth "(vol. 12, p. 66 - 67).

With references to the mysterious regularities of history, to the "cause of all causes," Tolstoy substantiated the uselessness of any conscious attempts to slow down or speed up the development of events. In one of the philosophical digressions of the novel, he wrote: "If we assume that human life can be controlled by reason, then the possibility of life is destroyed." And he continued a little lower: “If we assume, as historians do, that great people lead mankind to the achievement of certain goals, consisting either in the magnitude of Russia or France, or in the balance of Europe, or in spreading the ideas of the revolution, or in general progress, or in whatever it is, it is impossible to explain the phenomena of history without the concepts of chance and genius... Chance has made a point; genius has taken advantage of it, says history" (vol. 12, p. 238).

In the above reasoning, the idea that the historical process develops independently of the will of an individual and under the influence of objective causal relationships that are formed outside of his consciousness, that is, is quite clearly expressed. This proposition, correct in its basic essence, was in tune with the progressive tendencies in the historical thought of the decades under consideration. After all, "War and Peace" appeared when the recognition of historical determinism in one form or another was by no means characteristic of all professional historians, when the majority of official historiography did not recognize it and continued to periodize civil history according to reigns, and the history of wars according to great commanders.

Quite rightly pointing out the existence of objective causal relationships that determine the development of society and the fact that the historical process does not depend on the conscious efforts of an individual, Tolstoy, firstly, proclaimed the laws of history not only unknown, but practically unknowable, and secondly , could not see the dialectical relationship between the individual efforts of individuals with the direction and pace of social development. All this led the writer to fatalistic conclusions. “Fatalism in history,” he declared, “is inevitable for explaining unreasonable phenomena (that is, those whose rationality we do not understand). The more we try to rationally explain these phenomena in history, the more unreasonable and incomprehensible they become for us” (vol. 11, p. 6).

Tolstoy was driven to fatalism by the fact that all causal dependencies in history seemed to him equal in significance, and the results of individual efforts were equal in terms of their decisive influence on the course of events. In one of the philosophical digressions of "War and Peace" he wrote: "The actions of Napoleon and Alexander, on whose word it seemed that the event took place or not took place, were as little arbitrary as the action of every soldier who went on a campaign along It could not be otherwise, because in order for the will of Napoleon and Alexander (those people on whom the event seemed to depend) to be carried out, the coincidence of countless

circumstances without one of which the event could not have taken place. It was necessary that millions of people who had real power in their hands, soldiers who fired, carried provisions and guns, it was necessary that they agreed to fulfill this will of individual and weak people and were led to this by countless complex and diverse reasons "( vol. 11, p. 5).

Such an assessment of the role of individual activity in the history of mankind did not correspond to the advanced views of the era in which the novel "War and Peace" was written. The Russian revolutionary democrats, not to mention K. Marx and F. Engels, have made great progress in understanding the dialectic of the relationship between the natural and the accidental in this area. The first of them, in one of his letters dating back to 1871, summing up the thoughts expressed more than once, wrote: “Creating world history would, of course, be very convenient if the struggle were undertaken only under the condition of infallibly favorable chances. On the other hand, history would have a mystical character if "accidents" did not play any role. These accidents are, of course, themselves an integral part of the general course of development, balanced by other accidents. But acceleration and deceleration depend to a large extent on "accidents", among which there is also such a "case" as the character of the people at the beginning at the head of the movement" 9 .

The question of the ideological origins of Tolstoy's historical views has been considered by researchers more than once. Some of them refer to the German idealistic philosophy of the first half of the 19th century. "Tolstoy's theory," wrote M. M. Rubinshtein in 1912, "is of a metaphysical nature and ... approaches the character of previous constructions of this kind, such as those given, for example, by Herder or the metaphysics of German idealism" 10 . Later AP Skaftymov named Kant, Schelling and especially Hegel among the ideological "predecessors" of Tolstoy's views on the philosophy of history. Other scholars categorically deny the influence of Hegelianism on Tolstoy, referring to his statements, which testify that he sharply ridiculed Hegel's writings for the way of presentation adopted in them, that he condemned the Hegelian philosophy of history for completely ignoring the moral principle 12.

We think that the contradiction here is largely apparent. After all, firstly, Tolstoy's attitude towards Hegel was not unchanged, and the usually negative statements cited date back to the end of the 60s of the 19th century. or later. Secondly, the main provisions of the Hegelian philosophical system were so often expounded in the Russian press of the 40s - 60s of the 19th century. without reference to its creator, that acquaintance with these provisions, their partial perception by the writer was not only possible, but inevitable, despite the fact that he did not like Hegel and did not consider it necessary to read his works. It is no coincidence that Tolstoy himself, criticizing Hegel in his treatise So What Should We Do?, wrote: “When I began to live, Hegelianism was the basis of everything: it was in the air, expressed in newspaper and magazine articles, in historical and legal lectures, in stories and treatises, in art, in sermons, in conversations. A person who did not know Hegel had no right to speak; whoever wanted to know the truth studied Hegel. Everything relied on him" (vol. 25, p. 332). Although "pure" Hegelianism in Russian social

9 K. Marx and F. Engels. Op. T. 33, p. 175.

10 M. M. Rubinstein. Decree. cit., p. 80.

11 A. P. Skaftymov. Decree. cit., p. 80.

12 N. N. Gusev. Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy. Materials for a biography from 1855 to 1869. M. 1957, pp. 222, 678.

there was almost no thought, it had a significant impact on its main currents 13 . If at the first stage the philosophical constructions of Hegel were creatively mastered by progressive thinkers, including revolutionary democrats, then after the Crimean War the Hegelian system increasingly turned into an ideological weapon of reaction.

Noting the ongoing shifts and expressing a general attitude towards the philosophy of Hegel, I. G. Chernyshevsky wrote in 1856: “We are just as few followers of Hegel as Descartes or Aristotle. Hegel now already belongs to history, the present time has a different philosophy and sees well shortcomings of the Hegelian system" 14 . However, such statements by Chernyshevsky reflected self-awareness rather than the actual state of affairs. “The sharply critical, negative attitude of the Russian socialists of the 60s and 70s towards Hegel,” A. I. Volodin rightly notes, “does not mean that they remained outside the influence of his philosophy. It would be wrong to say that this philosophy is not included into the composition of the ideological sources of their worldview" 15 .

The same can be said about Tolstoy. Regardless of how much he realized it, his historical views essentially had a lot in common with Hegelianism, which is easily confirmed by comparing the philosophical digressions of the novel with the text of Hegel's work "Philosophy of History". Skaftymov, who partly carried out such a comparison, made the following conclusion regarding the theory of the historical process by the author of War and Peace: the power of the "world spirit" or "providence", and also Tolstoy, in the end, elevates the same "necessity" or set of reasons to the will and goals of "providence". In the end, the will of people loses all significance, and some otherworldly one turns out to be the driving force of history ( inhuman) will... The difference in the assessment of "great people" lies in the fact that Hegel completely rejected the moral criterion... while Tolstoy, on the contrary, brought this criterion to the fore.

Tolstoy's way of mastering other people's theoretical doctrines through their critical processing was even more evident in the case of Proudhon, whom the writer met in 1861 during a trip abroad. Proudhon liked Tolstoy's independence of thought and directness in presenting his opinions. However, it was then that the theoretician of anarchism was finishing a book in which he acted as an apologist for war and a defender of the right of force, which in no way corresponded to the views of the great Russian writer. Proudhon's book was called "War and Peace", that is, exactly the same as the novel that Tolstoy began writing two years later. This makes it possible to assume that Tolstoy "invested in his title a certain polemical meaning and this polemic was directed entirely against Proudhon" 18 .

The decisive influence on Tolstoy was exerted by the ideological and theoretical clashes within Russia and the whole real world around him.

13 "Hegel and Philosophy in Russia. 30s of the 19th century - 20s of the 20th century". M. 1974 pp. 6 - 7, etc.

14 N. G. Chernyshevsky. Full composition of writings. T. III. M. 1947, pp. 206 - 207.

15 A. I. Volodin. Hegel and Russian socialist thought of the 19th century. M. 1973, p. 204.

16 A. P. Skaftymov. Decree. cit., pp. 85 - 86.

17 N. N. Gusev. Decree. cit., p. 411.

18 N. N. Ardens (N. N. Apostolov). To questions of the philosophy of history in "War and Peace". "Scientific Notes" of the Arzamas Pedagogical Institute, 1957, no. I, p. 49.

reality. However, the ways of this influence were very complex. One of the most knowledgeable biographers of the writer, after analyzing the content of the entries in his diary of the late 50s of the 19th century, stated: “Based on these entries, we cannot rank Tolstoy among any of the socio-political trends that existed at that time. democrat, not a liberal, not a conservative, not a Westerner, not a Slavophile. This final correct conclusion deserves a certain concretization, especially in regard to Slavophilism and revolutionary democracy.

When it comes to Slavophiles, Tolstoy’s statement is most often quoted: “I hate all these choral principles and structures of life, and communities, and brothers of the Slavs, some kind of fictitious, but I just love certain, clear and beautiful and moderate, and I find all this in folk poetry and language and life" (vol. 61, p. 278). But it should not be forgotten that these words refer to 1872, that is, to the time when very serious shifts took place both in the views of the writer and in Slavophilism. Tolstoy's complete rejection of Slavophile concepts, which is embodied in the above statement, did not appear immediately. B. I. Bursov, who studied Tolstoy’s ideological and artistic searches in the second half of the 50s of the XIX century, stating the writer’s negative attitude towards the Slavophiles, makes a reservation that he nevertheless had “a few more or less sympathetic remarks about them, in particular about their views on family life. Pointing out the direction and reasons for the writer's ideological evolution in this area, Bursov writes: "The critical attitude towards the Slavophiles intensifies and grows as Tolstoy gets to know the state of affairs in Russia better and better" 20 .

During the period when work was underway on the novel "War and Peace", the attitude of its author to the revolutionary-democratic ideology was very contradictory. Bursov notes: "The revolutionary democrats are the true figures of their era, the true defenders of the people. Tolstoy must have felt this one way or another. But, of course, he could not agree with them: his attitude to political reality was the opposite of the position of the revolutionary democrats" In fact, the writer was attracted by many things to N. G. Chernyshevsky, N. A. Dobrolyubov, A. I. Herzen, but many things repelled them, because, condemning the existing order and wanting to make the people happy, Tolstoy denied the path of revolutionary transformations of society and called only for the moral self-improvement of each individual. Speaking of the 60s of the 19th century, Tolstoy's biographers and researchers of his work rightly note that at that time he "hardly saw the positive significance of the ideas of the revolutionary camp and, in any case, had a sharply negative attitude towards the type of revolutionary raznochinets", that many pages "War and Peace" was a polemic against the ideology and practical activities of the sixties revolutionaries 22 .

However, what has been said does not at all exclude the fact that between the revolutionary-democratic ideology of the 60s and the philosophy of history

19 N. N. Gusev. Decree. cit., p. 215.

20 B. I. Bursov. Ideological and artistic searches of L. N. Tolstoy in the second half of the 1850s. "Tolstoy's work". M. 1959, p. 30.

21 Ibid., p. 32.

22 V.V. Ermilov. Tolstoy is a novelist. "War and Peace", "Anna Karenina", "Resurrection". M. 1965, pp. 34 - 35. It is known that simultaneously with the first books of War and Peace, Tolstoy enthusiastically composed the plays The Infected Family (1863) and The Nihilists (1866) for the home theater in Yasnaya Polyana. ), which were directed against the revolutionary underground (for details, see: M. P. Nikolaev. L. N. Tolstoy and N. G. Chernyshevsky. Tula. 1969, pp. 65 - 71; N. N. Gusev. Decree. Op. ., pp. 617 - 618, 664 - 665).

The author of "War and Peace" had a certain similarity, that his views were influenced by the works of the most prominent revolutionary democrats. This will become clear if we recall how the writer understood the role of the masses in history.

Assessing the merits of Tolstoy and having in mind, first of all, "War and Peace", literary critics note that he "made a huge step forward in portraying the people" 23 . The question of the attitude towards the people attracted the attention of the progressive public, but it became especially acute in the era of the fall of serfdom. It is safe to say that Tolstoy opted for the events of 1805-1812. precisely because they allowed him to make this most relevant in the 60s of the XIX century. question is the ideological core of his novel. It is no coincidence that R. Rolland wrote in his book "The Life of Tolstoy": "The greatness of War and Peace lies primarily in the resurrection of the historical era, when whole peoples set in motion and nations clashed on the battlefield. The peoples are the true heroes of this novel" 24 .

Based on the ideas outlined above, Tolstoy compared "great people" with labels that give a name to what is happening, but "least of all have links with the event itself" (vol. 11, p. 7). The driving force of history is, in his opinion, not rulers or governments, but the spontaneous actions of the masses. Reading "History of Russia from ancient times" by S. M. Solovyov, Tolstoy was very critical of the concept of the state school in historiography, which asserted that the state has a decisive influence on the historical process. The writer categorically rejected the conclusion of S. M. Solovyov that the Russian centralized state arose as a result of the actions of the then rulers 25 . He declared: "It was not the government that made history," but the people, and not "a series of outrages made the history of Russia," but people's labor. And then Tolstoy posed questions, a completely obvious answer to which confirmed his point of view: “Who made brocades, cloth, dresses, damask, in which tsars and boyars flaunted? Who caught black foxes and sables, which were given to ambassadors who mined gold and iron, who bred horses, bulls, rams, who built houses, palaces, churches, who transported goods? en] Khmelnytsky was transferred to R[russia], and not to T[urtia] and P[olsha]?" (vol. 48, p. 124).

According to Tolstoy, the spontaneous actions of people, diverse in their aspirations, form a resultant in each specific situation, the direction and strength of which are strictly determined by the laws of social development. History, the writer claims in War and Peace, is "the unconscious, common, swarming life of mankind," and explains: "There are two aspects of life in every person: personal life, which is all the more free, the more abstract its interests, and life spontaneous, swarming, where a person inevitably fulfills the laws prescribed to him. A person consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious instrument for achieving historical, universal goals. A perfect deed is irrevocable, and his actions, coinciding in time with millions of actions of other people, acquire historical significance. The higher a person stands on the social ladder, the more he is connected with great people, the more power he has over other people, the more obvious is the predestination and inevitability of his every act "(vol. 11, p. 6).

23 B. L. Suchkov. Historical fate of realism. M. 1973, pp. 230 - 231.

24 Romain Rolland. Collected works. In 14 vols. T. 2. M. 1954, p. 266.

25 For more details, see: L. V. Cherepnin. Historical views of the classics of Russian literature. M. 1968, p. 304.

One of the philosophical digressions in the 3rd volume of "War and Peace" contains the following statement: "While the historical sea is calm, the ruler-administrator, with his flimsy little boat resting against the ship of the people with his frail boat and moving himself, it should seem that the ship is moving by his efforts, But as soon as a storm rises, the sea stirs up, and the ship itself moves, then delusion is impossible. , a useless and weak person" (vol. 11, p. 342). Recognition of the historical role of the people and the simultaneous indication of the "weakness" of the forces of the individual, the futility of the conscious efforts of the individual are characteristic of Tolstoy. It is precisely in the same way that his reasoning proceeds in the fragment of the 4th volume of the novel, ending with the words: “In historical events, the prohibition of eating the fruit of the tree of knowledge is most obvious. Only one unconscious activity bears fruit, and the person who plays a role in a historical event never understands it meaning. If he tries to understand it, he is amazed at the futility" (vol. 12, p. 14).

Tolstoy's views on the role of the masses and the individual in history were, as it were, personified in the image of M. I. Kutuzov. The great Russian commander exerts a more significant influence on the course of events in War and Peace than any other historical figure, but not because he imposes his will on people, but because he surrenders himself to the flow of life and consciously helps the cause to move in the direction of the resultant, which is formed by the unconscious efforts of many people. In this sense, the image of Kutuzov is very contradictory, and the researchers who see in this a reflection of the features inherent in the worldview of the writer as a whole are absolutely right. “The historical inconsistency in the creation of the image of Kutuzov,” wrote, for example, N. N. Ardens, “was undoubtedly a direct consequence of the inconsistency of the writer’s artistic idea contained in this image. Something more needs to be said: it was the result of all the complex inconsistency of views Tolstoy as an artist-thinker" 26 .

In search of the "laws" and "causes" of history, scientists, according to Tolstoy, should first of all turn to the study of the interests and actions of ordinary people. “To study the laws of history,” he wrote, “we must completely change the subject of observation, leave the kings, ministers and generals alone, and study the homogeneous, infinitely small elements that guide the masses. No one can say how much it is given to a person to achieve this by understanding the laws of history; but it is obvious that on this path only lies the possibility of capturing historical laws, and that on this path the human mind has not yet put one millionth of the effort that historians have put into describing the deeds of various kings, commanders and ministers and expounding their considerations on the occasion of these acts" (vol. 11, p. 267).

Such, in the briefest summary, are the general theoretical premises on which the author of "War and Peace" based his concepts of people's war and patriotism, his views on military science, strategy and tactics, from which he proceeded in specific assessments of events and historical figures. With the provision on the "swarm life" of people in society, for example, the "club of the people's war" is connected, which, with "stupid simplicity, but expediency", until then "nailed the French",

26 N. N. Ardens (N. N. Apostolov). The creative path of L. N. Tolstoy. M. 1962, p. 188.

until the Napoleonic invasion of Russia suffered a complete collapse. From this and other general provisions - neglect of the patriotic phrase of the upper strata and praise for the artless selflessness of the common people, hence the condemnation of chauvinism and very tangible pacifist notes in the novel, hence the treatment of not only figures like General Pfuel, but military theory in general, hence partly justified, and sometimes an exaggerated belief in the moral factor of military affairs. Tolstoy proceeded from the same general assumptions in his assessments of the generals. All the fuss of Napoleon does not, judging by the novel, give any real military results, while Kutuzov's wise calmness, his manner of intervening in affairs only in the most necessary cases, bear fruit that is much more tangible.

How did all this correlate with what was expressed in the then press?

In a number of works, undoubtedly known to Tolstoy, N. A. Dobrolyubov also condemned the underestimation of the role of the people in historical development. "Unfortunately," he declared, "historians almost never avoid a strange fascination with personalities, to the detriment of historical necessity. At the same time, in all cases, contempt for people's life is strongly expressed in favor of some exceptional interests" 27 . Protesting against the transformation of history into a “general biography of great people,” Dobrolyubov wrote: “There are many stories written with great talent and knowledge of the matter, both from the Catholic point of view, and from the rationalist, and from the monarchist, and from the liberal, - you can’t count them all. But how many historians of the people appeared in Europe who would look at events from the point of view of popular benefits, consider that the people won or lost in a certain era, where it was good and bad for the masses, for people in general, and not for a few titled individuals, conquerors, commanders, etc.? 28.

Tolstoy regularly read Sovremennik and could hardly fail to pay attention to the review prepared by N. G. Chernyshevsky in the first issue of the magazine in 1859. The review contained thoughts consonant with those that were later set forth in the philosophical digressions of War and Peace. In particular, it said: “The law of progress is nothing more, nothing less than a purely physical necessity, like the need for rocks to weather a little, rivers to flow from mountain heights to lowlands, water vapor to rise, rain to fall down. Progress is simply the law of growth.. "To reject progress is as absurd as to reject the force of gravity or the force of chemical affinity. Historical progress proceeds slowly and heavily, so slowly that if we confine ourselves to too short periods, the fluctuations produced in the progressive course of history by accidents of circumstances may obscure the in our eyes, the operation of the general law" 29 .

It would be a mistake not to see that Tolstoy's assessment of the role of the people in history and the very concept of "people" could be influenced to a certain extent by the theoretical doctrines of early Slavophilism formed in the pre-reform period. Some points of contact in this area are evidenced by the memoirs of the Austrian and German public figure J. Frebel, whom Tolstoy met in Kissingen in August 1860. In their

27 N. A. Dobrolyubov. Collected works. In 9 vols. T. 3. M. -L. 1962, page 16.

28 Ibid. Vol. 2, pp. 228-229.

29 N. G. Chernyshevsky. Collected works. T. VI. M. 1949, pp. 11 - 12.

In his memoirs, Fröbel wrote: “Count Tolstoy had a completely ... mystical idea about the“ people ”... commitment to communal ownership of land, which, in his opinion, should have been preserved even after the liberation of the peasants. In the Russian artel, he also saw the beginnings of a future socialist structure "30. The memoirist points to the similarity of Tolstoy's ideas with the views of M. A. Bakunin; however, in many respects they can be compared with the doctrines of the early Slavophilism, in which there was no desire for a socialist reorganization of society, but otherwise there was a lot in common with what Fröbel heard from Tolstoy.

Reviews of the first books of War and Peace began to appear long before the end of the novel. Tolstoy equally disagreed both with those who accused him of lack of patriotism and with those to whom he seemed to be a Slavophile patriot. In the versions of "War and Peace" passages have been preserved that are a response to reproaches in the writer's predominant attention to the upper strata of society and the aristocracy. They assert that the life of merchants, coachmen, seminarians, convicts, peasants cannot be interesting, because it is monotonous, boring and too connected with "material passions." Saying this, Tolstoy clearly had in mind the heroes of A. N. Ostrovsky, F. M. Dostoevsky, N. G. Pomyalovsky, G. I. and N. V. Uspensky and opposed himself to these authors, declaring: "I am an aristocrat because that he was brought up from childhood in love and respect for the upper classes and in love for the elegant, expressed not only in Homer, Bach and Raphael, but also in all the little things of life ... All this is very stupid, perhaps criminal, impudent, but it so. And I announce to the reader in advance what kind of person I am and what he can expect from me" (vol. 13, pp. 238 - 240).

Of course, in the above words there is a lot of transient irritation, vehemence and that internal inconsistency that has already been mentioned. Similar factors are largely due to the place in Tolstoy's letter to A. A. Tolstoy dated July 1862, where the writer, having learned about the search in Yasnaya Polyana, he is indignant that the gendarmes are looking for lithographic and printing presses from him for reprinting proclamations (vol. 60, p. 429). However, we cannot ignore these testimonies, which in one way or another confirm the negative attitude of the author of "War and Peace" to certain features of the ideology of the sixties and show that the conclusions of researchers who note in Tolstoy of those years not only the "aristocratism of thought", but and "some commitment ... to external aristocracy" 31 .

To compare Tolstoy's views with other views on the events he describes, it is advisable to consider the responses to the well-known work of M. I. Bogdanovich on the war of 1812, which appeared in 1859. This court historiographer, under the influence of public opinion, which strongly turned to the left after the Crimean War, was forced to abandon the straightforwardness characteristic of his predecessor A.I. Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky, remaining, of course, in completely loyal positions.

One of Bogdanovich's reviewers was a certain A. B., who published a detailed analysis of his work in two issues of the Military Collection for 1860. It is symptomatic that A. B. puts the sources of

30 Cit. Quoted from: N. N. Gusev. Decree. cit., p. 369.

31 T. I. Polner. "War and Peace" by Leo Tolstoy. M. 1912, p. 7.

the intentions of the belligerents into an inextricable connection with the existing "forms of social order" and "aspirations of the people's life" 32 . At first, the reviewer writes, Napoleon invariably had success in military operations, as he relied on new "aspirations" and destroyed "obsolete forms." But in 1812 the picture became completely different, for France was waging a war of conquest and could not have internal unity. "Revolutionary force ... - writes A. B., - left Napoleon from the moment he betrayed his revolutionary vocation" 33 . A direct continuation of these thoughts of the reviewer are his judgments about the relationship between war and politics. Outlining the "modern view of science and foundations" that should guide the readers of the reviewed essay, A. B. wrote, in particular, the following: "In the description of the Patriotic War, in our opinion, the most important issue is the influence of the political structure and the national spirit on the the course of the war and its consequences for the state and Russian life; the depiction of military operations is an important, but not exclusive task of the whole work. For the organization of the military element in the state is always in close connection with its body, and the quality of the troops is with the spirit of the people and its civilization " 34 .

The same ideas, only in a more generalized form, were expressed by the reviewer when he tried to characterize the changes that had taken place in historical science after the publication of Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky's "descriptions": "The view of science has changed so much over the past twenty-five years that, starting to historical research, one has to completely part not only with the concepts made about it from the school bench, but also developed subsequently, under the influence of recent authorities of science.We are talking here about the significance that people's life in all its manifestations has acquired in historical contemplation: biographies of government figures , the foreign relations of states, appearing in the background, acquire a completely different meaning in relation to their relation to people's life; but the development of this essential element of history, in addition to hard work and extensive knowledge, requires a view free from social prejudices, a bright understanding of the instincts of the masses and a warm him feelings" 35 .

Speaking a lot about the "folk spirit", A. B. sharply dissociates himself from any attempts to pass off all sorts of superstitions as manifestations of it. For example, the reviewer met with a sharp rebuke to that place of work where Bogdanovich interprets the rumors spreading in 1812 about a comet, the Last Judgment, etc. from this point of view. We believe, the reviewer declares, that there were rumors, "but we do not think so that such qualities could characterize the spirit of the Russian people Superstition, as a sign of the lack of education among the masses, as a temporary condition of their life, cannot be the main element of the national spirit, especially the Russian one, when religious mysticism has not taken root in our common people, despite the duration Byzantine influence of our civilization" 36 .

It is interesting to get acquainted with how the reviewer relates to the Zemstvo militia. Bogdanovich, having covered the relevant facts in some detail, stated: “People's armaments on a large scale, like the militia of 1807 and the militias of 1812 and 1855, cannot be useful, because, requiring food supplies on a par with regular troops, they are far inferior to them in combat power. -

32 "Military collection", 1860, N 4, p. 486.

33 Ibid., p. 487.

34 Ibid., p. 489.

36 Ibid., p. 520.

le" 37. The reviewer sharply objected to such a formulation of the question, arguing that the zemstvo army would cost less than regular troops, and would fight at least as well as them, especially if the warriors "will be inspired by the cause for which the war is being waged." In confirmation, he cited a number of examples from the history of people's liberation and revolutionary wars, and emphasized in this case that the issue under consideration is closely connected "with one of the important branches of state life - the organization of the armed force" 38. Thus, he, as it were, urged the reader to criticize the upcoming bourgeois military reforms and tried to prove that the zemstvo militia is the most consistent and most revolutionary of the possible solutions to this issue.

Of the private assessments regarding the coverage of historical figures, we will focus on two. The first of these refers to M. B. Barclay de Tolly. The reviewer noted with satisfaction that the Russian Minister of War was described by Bogdanovich "in Pushkin's way." While fully agreeing with the general interpretation of this figure, the reviewer argued with the author on only one issue: he argued that Barclay did not have a pre-prepared and detailed plan for "luring" Napoleonic troops deep into Russia. "The retreat to the capital," A. B. declared, "was forced by circumstances, and did not happen because of a preconceived intention." And then he continued: "The author, challenging the idea of ​​retreat among foreigners out of patriotism, took the general character of the war of 1812, formed under the influence of a variety of data, for following a well-known definite plan" 39 . On the whole, Bogdanovich's characteristic desire to exalt Barclay finds the sympathy and support of the reviewer 40 .

As for Kutuzov, here the reviewer not only does not argue with Bogdanovich, but goes even further in unreasonably belittling the role of this commander, in denigrating his image as a whole. According to A. B., foreign historians are not impartial to Kutuzov to the same extent as the former Russian historians, only "some are disposed to unconditionally blame, others unconditionally glorify the Smolensk prince" 41 . The reviewer considers Bogdanovich's position to be ambivalent and contradictory. “The image of the personality and military activities of the prince in the essay under review,” the review says, “came out not quite distinctly under the influence, as it seems, of two conflicting aspirations: to preserve the popularity that he enjoyed among his contemporaries for the new commander-in-chief, not to reduce him from the pedestal of the savior of the Fatherland , erected to him by some of our writers with the light hand of Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky, and at the same time not to completely distort the facts for this purpose, which inexorable logic does not obey a pre-composed sentence "42.

The review published by the "Military Collection" reflected the perception of Bogdanovich's work by the progressive part of society 43 . This is confirmed by the closeness of her conclusions to those assessments of the war of 1812, which were expressed by Russian revolutionary democrats, in particular Belinsky and Chernyshevsky. Estimates first detail

37 M. I. Bogdanovich. History of the Patriotic War of 1812. T. III. SPB. 1860, p. 400.

38 "Military collection", 1860, N 6, pp. 456, 457.

39 Ibid., No. 4, p. 514.

40 Ibid., No. 6, pp. 469 - 470 and others.

41 Ibid., p. 473.

42 Ibid., p. 472.

43 See V. A. Dyakov. About the features of the development of Russian military-historical thought in the pre-reform thirty years. "Issues of military history of Russia". M. 1969, pp. 85 - 86.

analyzed in the literature 44 . As for Chernyshevsky, his views can be judged, for example, by a review of the work of I.P. Liprandi "Some remarks, gleaned mainly from foreign sources, on the real reasons for the death of the Napoleonic hordes in 1812." In this review, dated 1856, Chernyshevsky wrote that "the Russian people and Russian troops, and not only frost and hunger" contributed to the victory over the French army. At the same time, he condemned Liprandi for abusive epithets in relation to Napoleon, argued that "one must be moderate, even speaking of the enemy" 45 .

Thus, the most important area where Tolstoy's point of view was significantly closer to the position of the progressive public in the era of the fall of serfdom was the attitude towards the people and the definition of the role of the masses in history. Differences prevailed in two areas. One of them - the general theoretical one - is connected with the role of the individual in the historical process: neither the revolutionary democrats nor the revolutionary populists, who developed the doctrine of subjective sociology, could, of course, in any way agree with the preaching of the fatalistic passivity of the individual, which was contained in War and Peace. Another area is specific assessments of such historical figures as Alexander I, Napoleon, Kutuzov, Barclay de Tolly and some others. Here, the progressive public was more likely on the side of Bogdanovich, whose position corresponded to the views of liberal figures who actively participated in the preparation and implementation of reforms in the 60s of the XIX century, while Tolstoy basically followed Mikhailovsky-Danilevsky, whose point of view was in those years more close to the opponents of even truncated bourgeois reforms 46 .

The foregoing does not exhaust the topics, but allows us to draw some general conclusions.

Tolstoy's sociological views cannot be studied statically and in isolation from the specific conditions of the ideological and socio-political struggle of that time. The constantly developing worldview of the writer has undergone a number of significant changes, including at the turn of the 50s - 60s and in the 70s of the XIX century. N. N. Gusev is right when he declares that "the philosophical and philosophical-historical views set forth in War and Peace are only a stage in the complex and difficult evolution of Tolstoy's worldview, which continued for a long period" 47 . The views of the writer were not unchanged even during those few years when he worked on the novel. "Some of the novel's tendencies," experts reasonably note, "grew as it was created... The greatness of the 'heroes' is exposed more decisively, the significance of the individual is destroyed more consistently, and the protest against the senselessness of war and its horrors becomes brighter" 48 .

As for the specific conditions that influenced the author of War and Peace, it is not enough to take into account only the moral and psychological conflicts through which he went through, it is not enough to have in mind only the factors of the literary process associated with the development of the Russian historical novel. Absolutely necessary

44 V. E. Illeritsky. Historical views of VG Belinsky. M. 1953, pp. 126 - 127, 208 - 211, etc.

45 N. G. Chernyshevsky. Full composition of writings. Vol. III, pp. 490 - 494.

46 The ideological and political essence of the differences between various trends in social thought and the author of "War and Peace" was revealed in reviews of the novel, among which voices expressing the opinion of the revolutionary camp, liberals and conservatives can be quite easily distinguished (for a detailed review of reviews, see N.N. Gusev, op. cit., pp. 813 - 876).

47 Ibid., p. 812.

48 K. V. Pokrovsky. Decree. op. page 111.

also know and take into account the socio-political situation, the ups and downs of ideological and theoretical clashes, including philosophical and historical discussions. Without this, it is difficult to identify the origins of Tolstoy's historical views and even more difficult to correctly assess these views, because the task is not so much to state their coincidence or disagreement with our own views, but to find out the relationship between Tolstoy's views and the corresponding doctrines of the mid-60s of the past. century, to determine the place of the novel in the socio-political life of its time.

Tolstoy's worldview was contradictory at all stages of his evolution. “The contradictions in the views of Tolstoy,” wrote V. I. Lenin, “are not the contradictions of his only personal thought, but a reflection of those highly complex, contradictory conditions, social influences, historical traditions that determined the psychology of various classes and various strata of Russian society in pre-reform, but pre-revolutionary era" 49 . Special studies make it possible to concretize this deep definition in relation to the individual stages of the writer's work. Some researchers characterize the period under consideration as follows: “On the one hand, emancipation from Christian moral norms and the recognition of objective laws that limit the moral freedom of a person brings Tolstoy closer to the most advanced thinkers of the time. On the other hand, if in his early work he was distinguished from revolutionary democrats by exaggeration moral freedom of a person, now, on the contrary, he differs from them in the extremes of its denial and in the conclusions that he draws in connection with the defense of the right of the individual.In the novel War and Peace, just as in the diaries of the 60s, personality is uniquely combined with the proposition that the conscious will of a person cannot change life, and with a fatalistic acceptance of the current course of things" 50 .

The inconsistency of the ideological and political positions of the author of "War and Peace" determined the discrepancies in the assessments of the novel that appeared in the first years after its publication. Tolstoy's historical views have been criticized from diametrically opposed points of view. Particularly sharp criticism from progressive forces was explained by the fact that noble liberalism still prevailed in the views of the writer, and the democratic stream, although very tangible, had not yet received its full development. Criticism from the left regarding Tolstoy's historical views did not stop later, but its political sharpness weakened, while criticism from the right intensified and its political intensity increased.

Lenin not only pointed out the inconsistency of Tolstoy's worldview and condemned any attempts to use the "anti-revolutionary side" of his teaching, but also called for studying the views and work of the writer. With the death of Tolstoy, Vladimir Ilyich wrote, "pre-revolutionary Russia, whose weakness and impotence were expressed in philosophy, were depicted in the works of the brilliant artist, receded into the past. But in his legacy there is something that has not receded into the past, which belongs to the future" 52. These Leninist words are especially important for Soviet historians, because they are interested in both the part of Tolstoy's legacy that has passed away and that part of it that belongs to our time and will be needed by our descendants.

Writing "War and Peace", Leo Tolstoy created not just a novel, he created a historical novel. Many pages in it are devoted to Tolstoy's specific understanding of the historical process, his philosophy of history. In this regard, the novel contains many real historical characters who in one way or another influenced the state of European and Russian society at the beginning of the 19th century. These are Emperor Alexander I and Napoleon Bonaparte, General Bagration and General Davout, Arakcheev and Speransky.
And among them, a sign-character with a very special semantic content is Field Marshal Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov, His Serene Highness Prince Smolensky, a brilliant Russian commander, one of the most educated people of his time.
Kutuzov, depicted in the novel, is strikingly different from the real historical person. Kutuzov for Tolstoy is the embodiment of his historical innovations. He is a special figure, a person endowed with the instinct of wisdom. It is like a vector, the direction of which is determined by the sum of thousands and millions of causes and actions performed in historical space.
"History, that is, the unconscious, swarming, common life of mankind, uses every minute of the life of kings for itself, as a tool for its own purposes."
And one more quote: "Each action ... in the historical sense is involuntary, is in connection with the entire course of history and is determined eternally."
Such an understanding of history makes any historical personality a fatal personality, makes its activity meaningless. For Tolstoy, in the context of history, it acts as a passive pledge of the social process. Only by understanding this, it is possible to explain the actions, or rather, the non-actions of Kutuzov on the pages of the novel.
In Austerlitz, having a superior number of soldiers, an excellent disposition, generals, the same one that he would later lead to the Borodino field, Kutuzov melancholy remarks to Prince Andrei: “I think that the battle will be lost, and I said so to Count Tolstoy and asked me to convey this to the sovereign ".
And at a meeting of the military council before the battle, he simply, in an old man's way, allows himself to fall asleep. He already knows everything. He knows everything in advance. He undoubtedly has that "swarm" understanding of life, which the author writes about.
However, Tolstoy would not have been Tolstoy if he had not shown the field marshal also as a living person, with passions and weaknesses, with the ability for generosity and malice, compassion and cruelty. He is having a hard time with the 1812 campaign. "To what ... to what they brought it! - Kutuzov suddenly said in an excited voice, clearly imagining the situation in which Russia was." And Prince Andrei sees tears in the eyes of the old man.
"They will eat my horsemeat!" he threatens the French. And he carries out his threat. He knew how to keep his word!
In his inaction, collective wisdom is embodied. He does things not at the level of their understanding, but at the level of some kind of innate instinct, just as a peasant knows when to plow and when to sow.
Kutuzov does not give a general battle to the French, not because he does not want it - the sovereign wants it, the whole staff wants it - but because it is contrary to the natural course of things, which he is not able to express in words.
When this battle takes place, the author does not understand why, out of dozens of similar fields, Kutuzov chooses Borodino, no better and no worse than others. Giving and accepting the battle at Borodino, Kutuzov and Napoleon acted involuntarily and senselessly. Kutuzov on the Borodino field does not make any orders, he only agrees or disagrees. He is focused and calm. He alone understands everything and knows that at the end of the battle the beast received a mortal wound. But it takes time for him to die. Kutuzov takes the only textbook historical decision in Fili, one against all. His unconscious folk mind defeats the dry logic of military strategy. Leaving Moscow, he wins the war, subordinating himself, his mind, his will to the elements of the historical movement, he became this element. This is what Leo Tolstoy convinces us of: "Personality is the slave of history."

In 1867, Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy completed work on the work "War and Peace". Speaking about his novel, Tolstoy admitted that in "War and Peace" he "loved the thought of the people." The author poetizes simplicity, kindness, morality...

"War and Peace" is a Russian national epic that reflects the character of a great nation at the moment when its historical destinies were being decided. Tolstoy, trying to cover everything that he knew and felt at that time, gave in the novel a set of everyday life, morals, ...

Tolstoy portrays the Rostov and Bolkonsky families with great sympathy, because: they are participants in historical events, patriots; they are not attracted by careerism and profit; they are close to the Russian people. Characteristic features of the Rostov Bolkonsky 1. The older generation ....

In the novel by L.N. Tolstoy describes the life of several families: the Rostovs, Bolkonskys, Kuragins, Bergs, and in the epilogue also the families of the Bezukhovs (Pierre and Natasha) and the Rostovs (Nikolai Rostov and Marya Bolkonskaya). These families are very different, each is unique, but without a common...

1. New!

I The ideological concept of the novel.
II Formation of the personality of Peter I.
1) The formation of the character of Peter I under the influence of historical events.
2) Intervention of Peter I in the historical process.
3) The era that forms the historical figure.
III Historical and cultural value of the novel.
The creation of the novel "Peter the Great" was preceded by a long work by A.N. Tolstoy on a number of works about the Petrine era. In 1917 - 1918 the stories "Delusion" and "Peter's Day" were written, in 1928 - 1929 he wrote the historical play "On the Rack". In 1929, Tolstoy began work on the novel "Peter the Great", the third book, unfinished due to the death of the writer, is dated 1945. The ideological idea of ​​the novel found its expression in the construction of the work. When creating the novel, A.N. Tolstoy least of all wanted it to turn into a historical chronicle of the reign of a progressive tsar. Tolstoy wrote: "A historical novel cannot be written in the form of a chronicle, in the form of history. First of all, a composition is needed ..., the establishment of a center ... of vision. In my novel, the center is the figure of Peter I." The writer considered one of the tasks of the novel an attempt to depict the formation of a person in history, in an era. The entire course of the narrative was to prove the mutual influence of the individual and the era, to emphasize the progressive significance of Peter's transformations, their regularity and necessity. He considered another task to be "identification of the driving forces of the era" - the solution of the problem of the people. In the center of the narrative of the novel is Peter. Tolstoy shows the process of formation of the personality of Peter, the formation of his character under the influence of historical circumstances. Tolstoy wrote: "Personality is a function of the era, it grows on fertile soil, but, in turn, a large, big personality begins to move the events of the era." The image of Peter in the image of Tolstoy is very multifaceted and complex, shown in constant dynamics, in development. At the beginning of the novel, Peter is a lanky and angular boy who fiercely defends his right to the throne. Then we see how a statesman grows out of a young man, a shrewd diplomat, an experienced, fearless commander. Life becomes Peter's teacher. The Azov campaign leads him to the idea of ​​the need to create a fleet, the "Narva embarrassment" to the reorganization of the army. On the pages of the novel, Tolstoy depicts the most important events in the life of the country: the uprising of the archers, the reign of Sophia, the Crimean campaigns of Golitsyn, the Azov campaigns of Peter, the Streltsy rebellion, the war with the Swedes, the construction of St. Petersburg. Tolstoy selects these events to show how they influence the formation of Peter's personality. But not only circumstances affect Peter, he actively intervenes in life, changes it, defying the age-old foundations, orders "nobility to be counted according to suitability." How many "chicks of Petrov's nest" this decree united and rallied around him, how many talented people he gave the opportunity to develop their abilities! Using the technique of contrast, opposing the scenes with Peter to the scenes with Sophia, Ivan and Golitsyn, Tolstoy assesses the general nature of Peter's intervention in the historical process and proves that only Peter can lead the transformation. But the novel does not become a biography of Peter I. The era that forms the historical figure is also important to Tolstoy. He creates a multifaceted composition, shows the life of the most diverse segments of the population of Russia: peasants, soldiers, merchants, boyars, nobles. The action takes place in various places: in the Kremlin, in the hut of Ivashka Brovkin, in the German settlement, Moscow, Azov, Arkhangelsk, Narva. The era of Peter is also created by the image of his associates, real and fictional: Alexander Menshikov, Nikita Demidov, Brovkin, who came up from the bottom and fought with honor for the cause of Peter and Russia. Among the associates of Peter there are many descendants of noble families: Romodanovsky, Sheremetiev, Repnin, who serve the young tsar and his new goals not out of fear, but out of conscience. Roman A.N. Tolstoy's "Peter the Great" is valuable for us not only as a historical work, Tolstoy used archival documents, but as a cultural heritage. The novel contains many folklore images and motifs, folk songs, proverbs, sayings, jokes are used. Tolstoy did not have time to complete his work, the novel remained unfinished. But images of that era emerge from its pages and its central image is Peter the Great, a reformer and statesman who is vitally connected with his state and era.

He raised the question of the role of the individual and the people in history. Tolstoy was faced with the task of comprehending the war of 1812 artistically and philosophically: “The truth of this war is that it was won by the people.” Carried away by the thought of the popular character of the war, Tolstoy was unable to resolve the question of the role of the individual and the people in history; in Part III of Volume 3, Tolstoy enters into an argument with historians who assert that the course of the entire war depends on "great people." Tolstoy tries to convince that the fate of a person does not depend on their will.

Depicting Napoleon and Kutuzov, the writer almost never shows them in the sphere of state activity. He focuses his attention on those properties that characterize him as a leader of the masses. Tolstoy believes that not a man of genius directs events, but events direct him. Tolstoy draws the council in Fili as advice that makes no sense, because Kutuzov has already decided that Moscow should be abandoned: “The power given to me by the sovereign and the fatherland is an order to retreat.”

Of course, this is not so, he has no power. Leaving Moscow is a foregone conclusion. It is not in the power of individuals to decide where history will turn. But Kutuzov was able to understand this historical inevitability. This phrase is not spoken by him, fate speaks through his mouth.

It is so important for Tolstoy to convince the reader of the correctness of his views on the role of the individual and the masses in history that he considers it necessary to comment on each episode of the war from the standpoint of these views. The thought does not develop, but is illustrated by new facts in the history of the war. Any historical event was the result of the interaction of thousands of human wills. One person cannot prevent what must come about from the confluence of many circumstances. The offensive became a necessity for many reasons, the sum of which led to the Battle of Tarutino.

The main reason is the spirit of the army, the spirit of the people, which played a decisive role in the course of events. Tolstoy wants to emphasize with the most diverse comparisons that great people are sure that the fate of mankind is in their hands, that ordinary people do not talk and do not think about their mission, but do their own thing. The individual is powerless to change anything. The story of Pierre's meeting with Karataev is the story of a meeting with the people, a figurative expression of Tolstoy. Tolstoy suddenly saw that the truth is in the people, and therefore he knew it, having become close to the peasants. Pierre must come to this conclusion with the help of Karataev.

Tolstoy decided this at the last stage of the novel. The role of the people in the war of 1812 is the main theme of the third part. The people are the main force that determines the fate of the war. But the people do not understand and do not recognize the game of war. poses a question of life and death. Tolstoy - historian, thinker, welcomes the guerrilla war.

Finishing the novel, he sings of the "club of the people's will", considering the people's war as an expression of just hatred for the enemy. In War and Peace, Kutuzov is shown not at headquarters, not at court, but in the harsh conditions of war. He makes a review, affectionately speaks with officers, soldiers. Kutuzov is a great strategist, he uses all means to save the army. He sends a detachment led by Bagration, entangles the French in the nets of their own cunning, accepting the offer of a truce, energetically pushes the army to join forces from Russia.

During the battle, he was not just a contemplative, but did his duty. Russian and Austrian troops were defeated. Kutuzov was right - but the realization of this did not soften his grief.

To the question: “Are you injured?” - he replied: “The wound is not here, but here!” - and pointed to the fleeing soldiers.

For Kutuzov, this defeat was a severe emotional wound. Having taken command of the army when the war of 1812 began, Kutuzov set his first task to raise the spirit of the army. He loves his soldiers.

The battle of Borodino shows Kutuzov as an active, exceptionally strong-willed person. With his bold decisions, he influences the course of events. Despite the Russian victory at Borodino, Kutuzov saw that there was no way to defend Moscow. All of Kutuzov's latest tactics were defined by two tasks: the first was the destruction of the enemy; the second is the preservation of the Russian troops, for his goal is not personal glory, but the fulfillment of the will of the people, the salvation of Russia. Kutuzov is shown in various situations of life.

A peculiar portrait characteristic of Kutuzov is a “huge nose”, the only sighted eye in which thought and care shone. Tolstoy repeatedly notes senile obesity, Kutuzov's physical weakness. And this testifies not only to his age, but also to the hard military labors, a long military life.

Kutuzov's facial expression conveys the complexity of the inner world. On the face lies the stamp of concern before decisive matters. The speech characteristic of Kutuzov is unusually rich. With the soldiers, he speaks in simple language, refined phrases - with an Austrian general.

The character of Kutuzov is revealed through the statements of soldiers and officers. Tolstoy, as it were, sums up this whole multifaceted system of methods for constructing an image with a direct characterization of Kutuzov as the bearer of the best features of the Russian people.

Philosophy of history in L. N. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" the role of the individual and the role of the masses

In the epic novel War and Peace, Leo Tolstoy was especially interested in the question of the driving forces of history. believed that even outstanding personalities were not given a decisive influence on the course and outcome of historical events. He argued: "If we assume that human life can be controlled by reason, then the possibility of life will be destroyed." According to Tolstoy, the course of history is controlled by the highest superintelligent foundation - God's providence. At the end of the novel, historical laws are compared with the Copernican system in astronomy: "As for astronomy, the difficulty of recognizing the movement of the earth was to abandon the immediate sense of the immobility of the earth and the same sense of the movement of the planets, so for history, the difficulty of recognizing the subordination of the individual to the laws of space, time and the reason is to give up the immediate sense of the independence of his personality.

But just as in astronomy the new view said: "True, we do not feel the motion of the earth, but, assuming its immobility, we come to nonsense; assuming a movement that we do not feel, we arrive at laws," so in history the new view says : "True, we do not feel our dependence, but, assuming our freedom, we come to nonsense; assuming our dependence on the external world, time and causes, we arrive at laws." In the first case, it was necessary to renounce the consciousness of immobility in space and recognize the movement that we do not feel; in the present case, in the same way, it is necessary to renounce conscious freedom and recognize dependence that we do not feel. "The freedom of a person, according to Tolstoy, consists only in realizing such dependence and trying to guess what is destined in order to follow it to the maximum extent. For the writer, the primacy of feelings over the mind, the laws of life over the plans and calculations of individual people, even brilliant ones, the real course of the battle over the disposition that preceded it, the role of the masses over the role of great commanders and rulers.

Tolstoy was convinced that "the course of world events is predetermined from above, depends on the coincidence of all the arbitrariness of the people participating in these events, and that the influence of Napoleons on the course of these events is only external and fictitious", since "great people are labels that give a name to an event, which, like labels, have the least connection with the event itself. And wars do not come from the actions of people, but by the will of providence. According to Tolstoy, the role of the so-called "great people" is reduced to following the highest command, if they are given to guess it. This is clearly seen in the example of the image of the Russian commander M. I. Kutuzov.

The writer tries to convince them that Mikhail Illarirnovich "despised both knowledge and intelligence and knew something else that should have decided the matter." In the novel, Kutuzov is opposed to both Napoleon and the German generals in the Russian service, who are united by the desire to win the battle, only thanks to a detailed plan developed in advance, where they try in vain to take into account all the surprises of living life and the future actual course of the battle. The Russian commander, unlike them, has the ability to "calmly contemplate events" and therefore "does not interfere with anything useful and will not allow anything harmful" thanks to supernatural intuition. Kutuzov only affects the morale of his troops, since "with many years of military experience, he knew and understood with an senile mind that it was impossible for one person to lead hundreds of thousands of people fighting death, and he knew that it was not the orders of the commander-in-chief who decide the fate of the battle, not the place, on which the troops stand, not the number of guns and dead people, but that elusive force called the spirit of the army, and he followed this force and led it, as far as it was in his power. This also explains the angry Kutuzov rebuke to General Wolzogen, who, on behalf of another general with a foreign surname, M.B.

Barclay de Tolly, reports the retreat of the Russian troops and the capture of all the main positions on the Borodino field by the French. Kutuzov shouts at the general who brought the bad news: “How dare you ... how dare you! .. How dare you, dear sir, tell me this. You don’t know anything. Tell General Barclay from me that his information is unfair and that the real move the battle is known to me, the commander-in-chief, better than to him ... The enemy was beaten off on the left and defeated on the right flank ...

If you please, go to General Barclay and convey to him tomorrow my indispensable intention to attack the enemy ... Repulsed everywhere, for which I am grateful
aryu God and our brave army. The enemy is defeated, and tomorrow we will drive him out of the sacred Russian land. "Here, the field marshal is prevaricating, because the actual outcome of the Battle of Borodino, which was unfavorable for the Russian army, which resulted in the abandonment of Moscow, is known to him no worse than Voltsogen and Barclay. However, Kutuzov prefers to draw such a picture of the course of the battle, which will be able to preserve the morale of the troops subordinate to him, to preserve that deep patriotic feeling that “lay in the soul of the commander-in-chief, as well as in the soul of every Russian person.” Tolstoy sharply criticizes Emperor Napoleon. troops on the territory of other states, the writer considers Bonaparte an indirect killer of many people.

In this case, Tolstoy even comes into conflict with his fatalistic theory, according to which the outbreak of wars does not depend on human arbitrariness. He believes that Napoleon was finally put to shame on the fields of Russia, and as a result, "instead of genius, there are stupidity and meanness that have no examples." Tolstoy believes that "there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth."

The French emperor, after the occupation of Paris by the allied forces, "does not make any more sense; all his actions are obviously pathetic and disgusting ...". And even when Napoleon again seizes power during the hundred days, he, according to the author of "War and Peace", is only needed by history "to justify the last cumulative action." When this action was completed, it turned out that “the last role was played. The actor was ordered to undress and wash off the antimony and rouge: he will no longer be needed.

And several years pass in that this man, alone on his island, plays a miserable comedy in front of himself, intrigues and lies, justifying his deeds, when this justification is no longer needed, and shows the whole world what it was that people accepted for strength when an invisible hand led them. The steward, having finished the drama and undressed the actor, showed him to us. - Look what you believed! Here he is! Do you see now that it was not he but I who moved you? But, blinded by the power of the movement, people did not understand this for a long time.

Both Napoleon and other characters of the historical process in Tolstoy are nothing more than actors playing roles in a theatrical production staged by a force unknown to them. This latter, in the face of such insignificant "great people", reveals itself to humanity, always remaining in the shadows. The writer denied that the course of history could be determined by "countless so-called accidents." He defended the complete predetermination of historical events.

But, if in his criticism of Napoleon and other conquering commanders Tolstoy followed Christian teachings, in particular, the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", then with his fatalism he actually limited the ability of God to endow a person with free will. The author of "War and Peace" left behind people only the function of blindly following what was destined from above. However, the positive significance of Leo Tolstoy's philosophy of history lies in the fact that, unlike the overwhelming majority of contemporary historians, he refused to reduce history to the deeds of heroes, who were called upon to drag along an inert and thoughtless crowd. The writer pointed to the leading role of the masses, the totality of millions and millions of individual wills.

As for what exactly determines their resultant, historians and philosophers argue to this day, more than a hundred years after the publication of War and Peace.

You have read the finished development: Philosophy of history in L. N. Tolstoy's novel "War and Peace" the role of the individual and the role of the masses

Teaching aids and thematic links for schoolchildren, students and anyone involved in self-education

The site is addressed to students, teachers, applicants, students of pedagogical universities. The Student's Handbook covers all aspects of the school curriculum.