Historical figures war and peace. The main historical figures of Russia in the novel L

M.I. Kutuzov Kutuzov in the novel “War and Peace” is often depicted as a person who is, as it were, an observer of current events and wisely evaluates certain facts. Thus, the image of Kutuzov, depicted by Tolstoy, is passive. He is only a tool in the hands of fate. Such a Kutuzov “despised intelligence and knowledge and knew something else that should have decided the matter.”

P.I. Bagration Bagration is one of the few who has qualities that, according to Tolstoy, correspond to the ideal of a people's commander. Bagration's leadership talent was also manifested in his moral influence on soldiers and officers. His mere presence in the positions raised their morale.

P.I. Bagration Unlike most other commanders, Bagration is depicted during battles, and not at military councils. Brave and decisive on the battlefield, in secular society he is timid and shy. At a banquet held in Moscow in his honor, Bagration was not at ease.

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

L. N. Tolstoy’s novel is of great importance not only within Russian and foreign literature. It is also important for understanding many historical, social and philosophical categories. The main task of the author was to create a work in which the personality would be revealed not psychologically, unlike the works of F. M. Dostoevsky, but, so to speak, socially, that is, in comparison with the masses, the people. It was also important for Tolstoy to understand the power that is capable of uniting individuals into a people, the means to manage and curb spontaneous popular power.

The writer’s history is a special flow, the interaction of the consciousnesses of millions of people. An individual, even the most outstanding and extraordinary, according to the author, is not capable of subjugating the people. However, some historical figures are shown to be outside the historical flow, and therefore unable to influence it or change it.

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

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

First of all, it is necessary to consider the image of Kutuzov as perceived by the protagonist. This is a person well known to Prince Andrei, because it was to him that he was sent for military service. The old prince, Andrei's father, lets his son go, completely trusting the commander-in-chief and “passing on the baton of fatherhood.” For both Andrei’s father and his commander, the main task is to preserve the life and health of the hero, and both of them cannot influence his fate, the development of his character and personality. Andrei loves Kutuzov, loves him sincerely, like an uncle or grandfather; for him he is a close and dear person in his own way. And it is thanks to Kutuzov that Andrei manages to reunite with the people.

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

Napoleon is unable to fight against the Russian army, just as the Antichrist turns out to be powerless against the holy army. Bonaparte himself understands his uselessness and powerlessness in the war he himself started. And all he can do is leave, admitting his defeat.

At the beginning of the novel, Andrei perceives Napoleon as a strong ruler of the world. This is again consistent with the biblical tradition of the Antichrist coming to earth to rule and inspire love among his slaves. Also Bonaparte, who wanted power. But you cannot conquer the Russian people, you cannot conquer Russia.

In this context, the Battle of Borodino has the meaning of Armageddon for Andrei. Here he is a symbol of angelic humility, contrasted with the holy rage of Kutuzov, giving battle. It is necessary to note the differences in character between Kutuzov and Napoleon, which largely lie in their views on the people and philosophy of life. Kutuzov is close to Andrei and represents the Eastern type of consciousness, practicing a policy of non-intervention. Napoleon is the personification of the Western worldview, alien to Russia.

The ruling figures, Emperors Alexander and Franz Joseph, look different through Andrei’s perception. These are the same ordinary, ordinary people elevated by fate to the throne. However, both cannot retain the power given to them from above.

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

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

Prince Bagration, performing the duties of a commander, is blessed by Mikhail Kutuzov for his feat: “I bless you, prince, for a great feat,” he says, and Prince Andrei decides to accompany Bagration in his righteous deeds for Russia.

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

This is how, through the unclouded gaze of Prince Andrei, the author gives the reader the characteristics of the first persons of the state, the most important historical figures of the Patriotic War of 1812.

There was a worker on the eternal throne
A.S. Pushkin

I The ideological concept of the novel.
II The 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 shapes the historical figure.
III Historical and cultural value of the novel.
The creation of the novel “Peter the Great” was preceded by A.N. Tolstoy’s long work on a number of works about the Peter the Great era. In 1917 - 1918 the stories "Obsession" and "The Day of Peter" 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 writer’s death, was dated 1945. The ideological concept of the novel is expressed in the construction of the work. When creating the novel, the last thing A.N. Tolstoy wanted was for 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, composition is needed..., establishing 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 to be an attempt to depict the formation of personality in history, in an era. The entire course of the narrative was supposed to prove the mutual influence of personality and era, to emphasize the progressive significance of Peter's transformations, their regularity and necessity. He considered another task to be “identifying the driving forces of the era” - solving the problem of the people. At the center of the novel's narrative is Peter. Tolstoy shows the process of formation of Peter's personality, 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, great personality begins to move the events of the era.” The image of Peter in Tolstoy’s depiction is very multifaceted and complex, shown in constant dynamics, in development. At the beginning of the novel, Peter is a lanky and angular boy, fiercely defending his right to the throne. Then we see how the youth grows into a statesman, an astute 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” leads 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 Streltsy, the reign of Sophia, the Crimean campaigns of Golitsyn, the Azov campaigns of Peter, the Streltsy revolt, 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 influence Peter, he actively interferes in life, changes it, disdaining the centuries-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 it gave the opportunity to develop their abilities! Using the technique of contrast, contrasting the scenes with Peter with 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 take the lead in the transformations. But the novel does not become a biography of Peter I. The era that shapes the historical figure is also important to Tolstoy. He creates a multifaceted composition, showing the life of the most diverse segments of the Russian population: peasants, soldiers, merchants, boyars, nobles. The action takes place in various places: in the Kremlin, in Ivashka Brovkin’s hut, in the German settlement, Moscow, Azov, Arkhangelsk, Narva. The era of Peter is also created by the image of his associates, real and fictitious: Alexander Menshikov, Nikita Demidov, Brovkin, who rose from the bottom and fought with honor for the cause of Peter and Russia. Among Peter's associates there are many descendants of noble families: Romodanovsky, Sheremetyev, 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 to 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, and jokes are used. Tolstoy did not have time to complete his work, the novel remained unfinished. But from its pages emerge images of that era and its central image - Peter I - a transformer and statesman, vitally connected with his state and era.

L. N. Tolstoy’s novel is of great importance not only within Russian and foreign literature. It is also important for understanding many historical, social and philosophical categories. The main task of the author was to create a work in which the personality would be revealed not psychologically, unlike the works of F. M. Dostoevsky, but, so to speak, socially, that is, in comparison with the masses, the people. It was also important for Tolstoy to understand the power that is capable of uniting individuals into a people, the means to manage and curb spontaneous popular power.

The writer’s history is a special flow, the interaction of the consciousnesses of millions of people. An individual, even the most outstanding and extraordinary, according to the author, is not capable of subjugating the people. However, some historical figures are shown to be outside the historical flow, and therefore unable to influence it or change it.

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

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

First of all, it is necessary to consider the image of Kutuzov as perceived by the protagonist. This is a person well known to Prince Andrei, because it was to him that he was sent for military service. The old prince, Andrei's father, lets his son go, completely trusting the commander-in-chief and “passing on the baton of fatherhood.” For both Andrei’s father and his commander, the main task is to preserve the life and health of the hero, and both of them cannot influence his fate, the development of his character and personality. Andrei loves Kutuzov, loves him sincerely, like an uncle or grandfather; for him he is a close and dear person in his own way. And it is thanks to Kutuzov that Andrei manages to reunite with the people.

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

Napoleon is unable to fight against the Russian army, just as the Antichrist turns out to be powerless against the holy army. Bonaparte himself understands his uselessness and powerlessness in the war he himself started. And all he can do is leave, admitting his defeat.

At the beginning of the novel, Andrei perceives Napoleon as a strong ruler of the world. This is again consistent with the biblical tradition of the Antichrist coming to earth to rule and inspire love among his slaves. Also Bonaparte, who wanted power. But you cannot conquer the Russian people, you cannot conquer Russia.

In this context, the Battle of Borodino has the meaning of Armageddon for Andrei. Here he is a symbol of angelic humility, contrasted with the holy rage of Kutuzov, giving battle. It is necessary to note the differences in character between Kutuzov and Napoleon, which largely lie in their views on the people and philosophy of life. Kutuzov is close to Andrei and represents the Eastern type of consciousness, practicing a policy of non-intervention. Napoleon is the personification of the Western worldview, alien to Russia.

The ruling figures, Emperors Alexander and Franz Joseph, look different through Andrei’s perception. These are the same ordinary, ordinary people elevated by fate to the throne. However, both cannot retain the power given to them from above.

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

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

Prince Bagration, performing the duties of a commander, is blessed by Mikhail Kutuzov for his feat: “I bless you, prince, for a great feat,” he says, and Prince Andrei decides to accompany Bagration in his righteous deeds for Russia.

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

This is how, through the unclouded gaze of Prince Andrei, the author gives the reader the characteristics of the first persons of the state, the most important historical figures of the Patriotic War of 1812.