The confrontation between the images of Kutuzov and Napoleon. What is the moral and philosophical meaning of the contrast between Napoleon and Kutuzov in the novel? based on the epic novel War and Peace (Tolstoy Lev N.)
There is no true greatness where there is no
simplicity, kindness and truth.
L. N. Tolstoy
The images of Kutuzov and Napoleon in “War and Peace” are the embodiment of Tolstoy’s views on the role of an outstanding personality in history. Two commanders - two poles of the novel. The writer does not just contrast two historical figures - he brilliantly reveals the Kutuzov and Napoleonic principles in people, convincing that the standards of life that are embodied in these great historical figures are in constant confrontation.
The high moral character of Kutuzov as a national hero is contrasted with the individualism and cruelty of Napoleon, who imagined himself to be the arbiter of the destinies of the world.
The writer was indignant at historians who did not see a great man in Kutuzov and admired Napoleon.
According to Tolstoy, Kutuzov is elevated by the national feeling that always guided him in life. Confident that the Battle of Austerlitz will be lost, the commander-in-chief tries in every possible way to avoid it so as not to destroy the army, even dares to remind the sovereign that they are “not in Tsarina’s Meadow,” but they do not listen to his opinion... It is difficult to describe his despair when he sees his soldiers running, miracle heroes who were drawn into a senseless slaughter. “The wound is here,” he points to his heart...
And a few hours later, another commander, Napoleon, appears on the Pratsek Mountain, strewn with corpses. He appears here as a “small, insignificant man” before the wounded Prince Andrei. Napoleon, according to Tolstoy, imagined himself to be a deity, a genius who has the right to decide the destinies of other people and doom them to death. An unforgettable scene was the crossing of the Viliya by the Polish Uhlan regiment, when hundreds of Uhlans rushed to swim across the river, “despite the fact that the crossing was half a mile away, they were proud that they were swimming and drowning in this river under the gaze of a man,” who didn't even look at what they were doing.
Kutuzov is a commander of a completely different, opposite type. His thoughts and feelings are aimed at saving his homeland, but not at any cost: he does everything possible to save the lives of the soldiers whom he loves, values, and cares about. Having ordered to leave Moscow, he was sure that “the loss of Moscow is not the loss of Russia,” and life confirmed him to be right. “The source of this extraordinary power of insight into the meaning of occurring phenomena,” writes Tolstoy, “lay in that popular feeling that he carried within himself in all its purity and strength.”
The writer does not hide Kutuzov’s old age, obesity, and physical weakness. His strength lies in his ability to understand the “inevitable course of events”; understand that the outcome of the battle is decided not by him, the commander-in-chief, but by the soldiers, “that elusive force called the spirit of the army,” which he strives to support.
Kutuzov is extremely natural, there is no artificiality, posturing, or falsehood in him. He never cares about the impression he makes and cannot stand unnaturalness in others.
Opposite to him is Napoleon, a proud power-lover and poseur, for whom “everything that was outside of him did not matter to him, because everything in the world, as it seemed to him, depended only on his will.” Two episodes are noteworthy: before the Battle of Borodino, when Bonaparte acts in front of a portrait of his son, and on Poklonnaya Hill, where the Emperor of France awaits a delegation with the keys to Moscow, pompously reflecting on his greatness and glory. Material from the site
Showing the two commanders-in-chief, Tolstoy does not resort to direct opposition, providing such an opportunity to the reader. We cannot always agree with Tolstoy’s assessments of Napoleon and his activities, but, without a doubt, the moral principles that guide the life of the Emperor of France seem inhumane to us. Perhaps Tolstoy is being unfair when he writes about Napoleon that “he was like a child who, holding on to the strings tied inside the carriage, imagines that he is ruling.” But you believe the writer, because you really want people to be wise, humane and fair, like Kutuzov, so that they do not have Napoleonic narcissism, his egocentrism and falsehood.
It seems to me that there is no need to argue with Tolstoy about the role of the individual in history - you just need to live according to the laws of goodness and truth. This is exactly what L.N. Tolstoy taught his readers, contrasting Kutuzov and Napoleon in “War and Peace.”
Didn't find what you were looking for? Use the search
On this page there is material on the following topics:
- Two commanders in the novel. Kutuzov and Napoleon. Contrast of images
- third volume war and peace essay topics
- Kutuzov and Napoleon Natasha Helen in the novel War and Peace
- what is the meaning of the opposition between Kutuzov and Napoleon
- quote about napoleon's cruelty war and peace
The cult of an outstanding historical figure capable of deciding the destinies of peoples and states was very widespread among historians, writers, and philosophers of the nineteenth century. Thus, according to Hegel, “great people are conductors of the world’s mind...”. However, in the novel “War and Peace” L.N. Tolstoy, convinced that history is “the unconscious, common, swarm life of humanity...”, denies the leading role of the individual in the historical process, because, according to the writer, history only “uses every minute of the life of great people<...
>as a tool for one’s own purposes.” Tolstoy, a believer in history, believed that it is not driven by the will of an individual, but by a confluence of coincidences, “the intertwining of the destinies of countless people...”. That is why Tolstoy, who professed the philosophy of “swarm” history, the unity of people as a manifestation of the highest harmony, was so alien to the image of Napoleon, who personified the individualistic principle, always rejected by the writer. The image of Bonaparte, “the most insignificant instrument of history,” who gained power thanks to “a million accidents” and was only “led by the unknown hand of fate,” according to Tolstoy, in the novel embodies the idea of false greatness.
According to the writer, “there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.” Napoleon in Tolstoy’s depiction is absolutely opposed to this definition. First of all, he exposes the extreme individualism of the emperor, his complete concentration on his own personality. “...Only what was happening in his soul mattered to him,” and he remained deeply indifferent to the rest, “because everything in the world, as it seemed to him, depended on his will.”
Napoleon is absolutely convinced of the unlimited power of his own, of his greatness, and, finally, that he is the master of destinies, the creator of history. “He felt that everything he said and did was history,” “and everything he did was good<...>because he did it.” The Emperor argues that “if Russia restores Prussia against him, then he will “erase” the latter from the map of Europe, and he will “throw Russia beyond the Dvina, beyond the Dnieper...” with his own will alone.
Narcissistic, confident in his own chosenness and exclusivity, Napoleon is deeply indifferent to other people, considering them only material, one of the means to achieve his goals, “pawns” in his game. But although Napoleon’s contempt for those around him is expressed in his behavior, he shows extreme hypocrisy, in particular, saying when meeting with Balashov after crossing the Neman that he “does not want and did not want war with Russia,” “but he was forced into it,” and that he “remains devoted to Emperor Alexander and appreciates his high qualities.” Tolstoy denounces in every possible way the acting and unnaturalness of Napoleon, his inherent insincerity and falsehood. So, for example, when they brought him a portrait of his son, he “put on an appearance of thoughtful tenderness,” and later “ordered the portrait to be taken out in front of the tent so as not to deprive the old guard<...>happiness to see the son and heir of their adored sovereign,” which he thought was most impressive, which became a “beautiful gesture” showing how much he appreciated the loyalty of the soldiers. So, Tolstoy debunks the imaginary greatness and splendor of Napoleon, for whom only “the sincerity of lies and brilliant and self-confident limitations” help to retain power, who ultimately treacherously abandons the remnants of his army in Russia and himself flees, in which “instead of genius, stupidity and meanness appear” .
As Tolstoy said, “the last role was played, the actor was ordered to undress, wash off the antimony and rouge...”. Napoleon, this “man of the titan race,” “capable of making history,” who destroyed the French army and almost destroyed France, “alone on his island plays a pathetic comedy in front of himself,” until the end “pettyly intrigues and lies,” which makes him pathetic and insignificant... It must be said that Napoleonism, to one degree or another, in its various manifestations, is inherent in many of the heroes of the novel. Thus, Emperor Alexander, who was haunted by Napoleon’s laurels, wanted to become the liberator of Europe, the conqueror of the “evil genius” Bonaparte, and entered the war in 1805, guided not by the interests of Russia, but to satisfy his ambitions. Napoleonism is also characteristic of Boris Drubetsky, who wanted to make a career and take a good position in society at all costs, while selfishly using the feelings of other people as a means of achieving his goals.
Marrying Julie Ka
Ragina, he decided that it would always be possible to arrange things so as to “see her as little as possible,” but at the same time use her money. Dolohov, he strives to assert himself by humiliating other people. So, he beat Nikolai Rostov at cards for a huge amount only out of revenge, because Sonya preferred Nikolai to him. At the same time, Dolokhov does not even think that such a loss dooms the entire Rostov family to ruin... Tolstoy’s best heroes also go through the worship of Napoleon and through Napoleonic individualism. In particular, Prince Andrei, going to the war in 1985, dreamed of “his own Toulon.”
Napoleon was his ideal, his hero, and Andrei strove for personal glory, for “human love,” and “for a moment of triumph over people” he was even ready to sacrifice his loved ones. But the great moment did not come for him. Tolstoy debunks Napoleonism, showing that the course of a battle, like the course of history, cannot be determined by one person.
Prince Andrei, who grabbed the banner during the flight of the soldiers and rushed forward, wanting to accomplish something that would bring victory in the Battle of Austerlitz, is wounded. Having fallen, he sees the sky, which for Tolstoy is a symbol of the meaning of life, a symbol of the lofty, beautiful, but distant and unknown. The hero understands that “everything is empty, everything is deception, except this endless sky...
" "To him<...>all the interests that occupied Napoleon seemed insignificant, and his hero himself seemed petty<...>compared to<...>high, fair and kind sky” - Prince - Andrei saw all the “insignificance of greatness” of his idol... Pierre, in turn, considered Napoleon “the greatest man in the world,” for the latter “became above the revolution, suppressed its abuses, retaining all the good things - and equality of citizens, and freedom of speech and press.”
Later, having become a member of the Masonic lodge, Pierre tried to reorganize the lives of his peasants, to make changes that would improve their situation, while being guided by his own interests, doing this for the sake of his peace of mind, the consciousness of his generosity, that is, for selfish purposes, which is a kind of manifestation of Napoleonism and one of the reasons why his conversions failed. Finally, after the Battle of Borodino, the retreat of the Russian troops and the abandonment of Moscow, Pierre, hating Napoleon and wanting to kill him, behaves like an individualist, believing that by killing one person he can save Russia from the invasion of the French, change the course of history... Like the prince Andrey, Pierre does not immediately come to an understanding of true and false greatness, but gradually comprehends the meaning of existence. Both heroes, throughout their lives, either become disillusioned with the ideas of Napoleonism, or, without realizing it, return to them. But in the end, as a result of spiritual quests, having gone through suffering, having gained life experience, both Prince Andrei and Pierre come to Tolstoy’s favorite thought about the need to connect their lives with the lives of others, about not separating themselves from the world around them, they come to the understanding that form a single whole with other people, that is, to ideas opposite to individualism. Thus, Tolstoy, contrasting Napoleonism with the philosophy of unity, shows the inconsistency and falsity of individualistic values, life goals aimed at satisfying one’s personal needs, traits, the bearer of which in Tolstoy is Napoleon. And although Bonaparte aroused the admiration of many of Tolstoy’s contemporaries, although this, of course, obvious and extraordinary personality excited many minds, Tolstoy portrays Napoleon as an anti-hero.
According to Chekhov, in the novel “War and Peace” “like Napoleon, now there is a stretch and all sorts of tricks to prove that he is stupider than he really was.” Indeed, Tolstoy’s interpretation of this image does not correspond to historical truth. But it was important for the writer to refute and debunk the individualistic principle, the opposition of oneself to others, leading to fragmentation, hostility, war, as well as unnaturalness and pretense, falsehood and hypocrisy, creating the illusion of splendor, showiness, that is, false greatness, which the writer combined and embodied in image of Napoleon.
Antithesis in the novel
The images of Kutuzov and Napoleon in Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” occupy one of the central places. Depicting the war with France, the author populates his novel with real historical figures: Emperor Alexander, Speransky, General Bagration, Arakcheev, Marshal Davout. Chief among them, of course, are two great commanders. Their large-scale figures appear before us as if alive. We respect and sympathize with Kutuzov and despise Napoleon. When creating these characters, the writer does not give detailed characteristics. Our impression is formed based on the actions, individual phrases, and appearance of the characters.
The main technique of the composition of the work is the technique of antithesis. The opposition sounds already in the title itself, as if anticipating events. The figures of Kutuzov and Napoleon in “War and Peace” are also opposed to each other. Both, according to Tolstoy, played a big role in history. The difference is that one of them is a positive hero, and the other is negative. When reading a novel, one must keep in mind that this is a work of fiction, not a documentary work. Some features of the characters are deliberately exaggerated and grotesque. This is how the writer achieves the greatest effect and evaluates the characters.
Portrait of heroes
First of all, Kutuzov and Napoleon are compared externally. The Russian field marshal is an old, overweight, sick man. It is difficult for him to move and lead an active lifestyle, which is required by the wartime situation. A half-blind old man, tired of life, cannot, according to representatives of secular society, stand at the head of the army. This is the first impression of Kutuzov.
Whether it’s the cheerful young French emperor. Healthy, active, full of strength and energy. Only the reader strangely feels sympathy for the elderly man, and not for the brilliant hero. The writer achieves this effect with the help of minor details in the portrait of his characters. Kutuzov's description is simple and truthful. The description of Napoleon is imbued with irony.
the main objective
The life goals of the heroes are also contrasted. Emperor Napoleon strives to conquer the whole world. Confident in his genius, he considers himself an impeccable commander, capable of controlling the course of historical events. “He imagined that by his will there was a war with Russia, and the horror of what had happened did not strike his soul.” This person will stop at nothing to achieve his goals. He is ready to sacrifice people's lives in order to please his pride and vanity. Doubts, remorse, repentance for what they have done are concepts and feelings unfamiliar to the hero. For Napoleon, “only what was happening in his soul” was important, and “everything that was outside of him did not matter to him, because everything in the world depended only on his will.”
Field Marshal Kutuzov sets himself completely different goals. He does not strive for power and honors, and is indifferent to people's rumors. The old man found himself at the head of the army at the request of the Russian people and at the behest of duty. His goal is to protect his homeland from the hated invaders. His path is honest, his actions are just and prudent. Love for the Fatherland, wisdom and honesty guide the actions of this person.
Attitude towards soldiers
Two great generals lead two great armies. Millions of lives of ordinary soldiers depend on them. Only the old and feeble Kutuzov understands the full extent of responsibility. He is attentive to each of his fighters. A striking example is the review of troops near Braun, when the commander, despite his poor eyesight, notices worn-out boots, tattered uniforms of the army, recognizes familiar faces in the total mass of the army of many thousands. He will not risk the life of a simple soldier for the approval of the sovereign emperor or another award. Speaking with his subordinates in a simple and understandable language, Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov instills hope in the soul of everyone, well understanding that victory in the battle depends on the mood of each soldier. Love for the Motherland, hatred of the enemy and the desire to defend one’s independence and freedom unite the commander with his subordinates and make the Russian army stronger, raising its spirit. “They will eat my horse meat,” Kutuzov promises and fulfills his promise.
The narcissistic Emperor Napoleon has a different attitude towards his brave army. For him, only his own person has value. The fate of the people around him is indifferent to him. Napoleon enjoys looking at the battlefield littered with dead and wounded bodies. He does not pay attention to the lancers swimming across the stormy river, ready to die in front of their adored emperor. Without feeling responsible for the lives of people who blindly believe in him, Napoleon cares about his comfort, well-being and glory as a winner.
Strengths and weaknesses of commanders
History has put everything in its place. The Patriotic War of 1812 was lost in disgrace by the French army, despite Napoleon's great plans. In the decisive battle of Borodino, the emperor was confused and depressed. His brilliant mind is unable to understand what force forces the enemy to rise to the attack again and again.
The motives for the heroism and courage of his soldiers are well understood by Field Marshal Kutuzov. He feels the same pain for Russia, the same determination to go as millions of people around him did during the great battle of Moscow. “What... what have they brought us to!” – Kutuzov exclaims excitedly, worried about the country. An elderly, exhausted man, with his wisdom, experience and fortitude, leads Russia to victory over its strongest enemy. Kutuzov, contrary to the will of the emperor and the majority of the generals, courageously takes responsibility at the council in Fili. He makes the only correct, but very difficult decision to retreat and leave Moscow. This manifestation of great fortitude and self-denial saved the Russian army and subsequently helped to deliver an indestructible blow to the enemy.
The essay “Kutuzov and Napoleon in the novel “War and Peace” makes it possible to analyze the actions of the great commanders, their role in the historical events of 1812, to understand whose side is right and what is the greatness and strength of human character.
Work test
In the novel "War and Peace" Tolstoy created two symbolic characters completely opposite to each other, concentrating polar features. These are the French Emperor Napoleon and the Russian commander Kutuzov. The contrast of these images, embodying two different ideologies - ambitious, aggressive and humane, liberating - prompted Tolstoy to retreat somewhat from the historical truth. The importance of Napoleon as one of the greatest commanders in the world and the greatest statesman of bourgeois France is well known. But the French emperor organized a campaign against Russia at a time when he had turned from a bourgeois revolutionary into a despot and conqueror. While working on War and Peace, Tolstoy sought to debunk the unjustified greatness of Napoleon. The writer was an opponent of artistic exaggeration, both in the depiction of good and in the depiction of evil. Tolstoy managed to debunk the French emperor without violating historical and everyday authenticity, removing him from the pedestal and showing him at normal human height.
Kutuzov and Napoleon- the main human and moral-philosophical problem of the novel “War and Peace”. These figures, deeply connected to each other, occupy a central place in the narrative. They are compared not only as two outstanding commanders, but also as two extraordinary personalities. They are connected with many of the novel's characters by different threads, sometimes obvious, sometimes hidden. The writer embodied the ideal idea of a people's commander in the image of Kutuzov. Of all the historical figures shown in the novel, only Kutuzov is called by Tolstoy a truly great man.
For the writer, Kutuzov is a type of military leader who exists in inextricable connection with the people. Appointed commander-in-chief against the will of Alexander I, he set himself a goal that, at a decisive moment for Russia, coincided with the will of the entire people. Based on historical materials, in the process of working on the novel, Tolstoy created the image of a military leader, in all of whose actions there was a national and therefore true and great principle. There are completely no personal motives in Kutuzov’s activities. All his actions, orders, instructions were dictated by the humane and noble task of saving the Fatherland. Therefore, the highest truth is on his side. He appears in the novel as an exponent of patriotic “people's thought”, relying on the support and trust of the broad masses.
Tolstoy deliberately focuses on the apparent indifference of the commander at defining moments for Russia. And in the scene before the Battle of Austerlitz, and during the military council in Fili, and even on the Borodino field, he is depicted as a dozing old man. He didn't even listen to what other military leaders suggested. But this external passivity of Kutuzov is a unique form of his wise activity. After all, Kutuzov categorically told the emperor that the battle at Austerlitz could not be fought, but they did not agree with him. Therefore, when the Austrian General Weyrother read out his disposition, Kutuzov was openly asleep, because he understood that it was already impossible to change anything. But still, already during the battle, which ended in the defeat of the Allied army, the old general honestly fulfilled his duty, giving clear and expedient orders. When Alexander I arrived during the formation of the army, Kutuzov, giving the command “at attention”, took on the appearance of a subordinate and unreasoning person, for he really was put in such a position. Unable to interfere with the imperial will, Kutuzov nevertheless managed to express his attitude towards it with incomprehensible courage. When the emperor asked why he did not start the battle, Kutuzov replied that he was waiting for all the columns to gather. The tsar did not like the defiant answer, who noticed that they were not in Tsarina’s Meadow. “That’s why I’m not starting, sir, that we are not at the parade and not in Tsaritsyn’s Meadow,” Kutuzov said clearly and distinctly, causing murmurs and glances in the sovereign’s court retinue. The Russian Tsar poorly understood the nature of the war, and this greatly bothered Kutuzov.
Despite the fact that outwardly Kutuzov looks passive, he acts intelligently and concentratedly, trusts the commanders - his military comrades-in-arms, and believes in the courage and fortitude of the troops entrusted to him. His independent decisions are balanced and deliberate. At the right moments, he gives orders that no one would dare to make. The Battle of Shengraben would not have brought success to the Russian army if Kutuzov had not decided to send Bagration’s detachment forward through the Bohemian Mountains. The remarkable strategic talent of the great commander was especially clearly manifested in his firm decision to leave Moscow without a fight. At the council in Fili, the words of the foreigner Bennigsen: “the sacred ancient capital of Russia” sound false and hypocritical. Kutuzov avoids loud patriotic phrases, transferring this issue to a military plane. He shows firmness, determination and amazing courage, taking the burden of a difficult decision on his senile shoulders. When he gave the order to leave Moscow, he understood that the French would scatter throughout the huge city, and this would lead to the disintegration of the army. And his calculation turned out to be correct - the death of Napoleonic troops began in Moscow, without battles and losses for the Russian army.
Talking about the events of the Patriotic War of 1812, Tolstoy introduces Kutuzov into the narrative at the moment of the retreat of the Russian army: Smolensk has been surrendered, the enemy is approaching Moscow, the French are ruining Russia. The commander-in-chief is shown through the eyes of various people: soldiers, partisans, Prince Andrei Bolkonsky and the author himself. The soldiers consider Kutuzov a folk hero, capable of stopping the retreating army and leading it to victory. The Russian people believed in Kutuzov and worshiped him. At decisive moments for Russia, he is always next to the army, speaking to the soldiers in their language, believing in the strength and fighting spirit of the Russian soldier.
The Russian people won the War of 1812 thanks to Kutuzov. He turned out to be wiser than Napoleon, because he understood better the nature of the war, which was not similar to any of the previous wars. According to Tolstoy, it was detachment that helped Kutuzov see what was happening more clearly, maintain an independent mind, have his own point of view on what was happening and use those moments of the battle when the enemy was at a disadvantage in the interests of the Russian army. The defense of the Motherland and the salvation of the army are in the first place for Kutuzov. When inspecting a regiment on a march, he carefully notes the slightest details of the soldiers’ appearance in order to draw a conclusion about the state of the army on the basis of this. The high position of the commander-in-chief does not separate him from the soldiers and officers. Possessing a remarkable memory and deep respect for people, Kutuzov recognizes many participants in previous campaigns, remembers their exploits, names, and individual characteristics.
If Napoleon, in his tactics and strategy, completely does not take into account the moral factor, then Kutuzov, having taken command of the army, sees his first task as raising the morale of the troops, instilling in the soldiers and officers faith in victory. So, having approached the guard of honor, he uttered just one phrase with a gesture of bewilderment: “And with such fine fellows, keep retreating and retreating!” His words were interrupted by loud cries of “Hurray!”
Kutuzov, according to the author, was not only an outstanding historical figure, but also a wonderful person, an integral and uncompromising personality - “a simple, modest and therefore truly majestic figure.” His behavior is always simple and natural, his speech is devoid of pomposity and theatricality. He is sensitive to the slightest manifestations of falsehood and hates exaggerated feelings, sincerely and deeply worries about the failures of the military campaign of 1812. This is how he appears before the reader at the beginning of his activities as a commander. “What... have they brought us to!” “Kutuzov suddenly said in an excited voice, clearly imagining the situation in which Russia was.” And Prince Andrei, who was next to Kutuzov when these words were spoken, noticed tears in the old man’s eyes. “They will eat my horse meat!” - he promises the French, and at this moment it is impossible not to believe him.
Tolstoy portrays Kutuzov without embellishment, repeatedly emphasizing his senile decrepitude and sentimentality. So, at an important moment of a general battle, we see the commander at dinner, with fried chicken on his plate. For the first time, a writer will call Kutuzov decrepit, speaking about the Battle of Tarutino. The month of the French's stay in Moscow was not in vain for the old man. But the Russian generals are also forcing him to lose his last strength. On the day he appointed for the battle, the order was not transmitted to the troops and the battle did not take place. This infuriated Kutuzov: “Shaking, gasping for breath, the old man, having entered into that state of rage into which he was able to enter when he was rolling on the ground in anger,” he attacked the first officer he came across, “shouting and swearing in vulgar words. ..” However, all this can be forgiven for Kutuzov, because he is right. If Napoleon dreams of glory and feat, then Kutuzov first of all cares about the Motherland and the army.
The image of Kutuzov was influenced by Tolstoy’s philosophy, according to which a person’s actions are driven by a higher power, fate. The Russian commander in the novel "War and Peace" is a fatalist, convinced that all events are predetermined by a will from above, who believes that there is something in the world stronger than his will. This idea is present in many episodes of the novel. At the conclusion of the story, the author seems to sum it up: “...at the present time... it is necessary to abandon the perceived freedom and recognize the dependence that we do not feel.”
The personality of Napoleon, opposed to Kutuzov in the novel, is revealed differently. Tolstoy destroys Bonaparte's cult of personality, which was created as a result of the victories of the French army. The author's attitude towards Napoleon is felt from the first pages of the novel. Where the French emperor acts like one of the heroes of the novel, Tolstoy emphasizes his ineradicable desire to always look great, an outright thirst for glory. He “could not renounce his actions, praised by half the world, and therefore had to renounce truth, goodness and everything human,” says Tolstoy.
Until the Battle of Borodino, Napoleon was surrounded by an atmosphere of glorification. This is a vain, selfish person who thinks only about his own personal interests. Wherever he appears - on the Pratzen Heights during the Battle of Austerlitz, in Tilsit at the conclusion of peace with the Russians, on the Neman, when French troops crossed the Russian border - everywhere he is accompanied by a loud “Hurray!” and stormy applause. According to the writer, admiration and universal adoration turned Napoleon’s head and pushed him to new conquests.
If Kutuzov constantly thinks about how to avoid the unnecessary death of soldiers and officers, then for Napoleon human life is of no value. Suffice it to recall the episode of the Napoleonic army crossing the Neman, when, hastening to carry out the emperor’s order to find a ford, many of the Polish lancers began to drown. Seeing the senseless death of his people, Napoleon makes no attempt to stop this madness. He calmly walks along the shore, occasionally glancing at the lancers who entertained his attention. His statement on the eve of the Battle of Borodino, which was to cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, emanates extraordinary cynicism: “The chess is set, the game will begin tomorrow.” People for him are chess pieces that he moves as he pleases, for the sake of his ambitious goals. And this reveals the main features of the French commander: vanity, narcissism, confidence in one’s own rightness and infallibility. With a feeling of satisfaction, he circles the battlefield, smugly examining the bodies of the killed and wounded. Ambition makes him cruel and insensitive to the suffering of people.
Revealing the character of Napoleon, Tolstoy focuses on his acting, because everywhere and in everything he tries to play the role of a great man. So, in front of the portrait of his son, which is brought to him, he “takes on an appearance of thoughtful tenderness,” because he knows that he is being watched and his every movement and word is recorded for history. Unlike Napoleon, Kutuzov is simple and humane. He does not cause awe or fear in his subordinates. His authority is based on trust and respect for people.
Kutuzov's strategy in Tolstoy's novel is sharply contrasted with Napoleon's limitations. The writer focuses on the tactical mistakes of the French emperor. So, Napoleon is rapidly advancing into the depths of such a huge and unknown country, not caring about strengthening the rear. In addition, the forced idleness of the French army in Moscow corrupted its discipline, turning soldiers into robbers and marauders. The ill-conceived actions of Napoleon are evidenced by his retreat along the Smolensk road, which he had destroyed. Tolstoy not only talks about these mistakes of Napoleon, but also comments on them, giving the French commander a direct authorial description. He does not hide his deep indignation at the meanness of the emperor-commander-in-chief, who, fleeing for his life, abandoned and doomed the army he had led to death in a foreign country.
Admiring Kutuzov’s humanity, wisdom, and leadership talent, the writer considers Napoleon an individualist and ambitious man who suffered a well-deserved punishment. In the images of Napoleon and Kutuzov, Tolstoy showed two human types that were important to him, embodying two worldviews. One of them, expressed in the image of Kutuzov, is close to the writer, the other, revealed in the image of Napoleon, is false. At the center of Tolstoy's epic is a high and deep thought about the dignity of the majority of humanity. For the author of War and Peace, the view “established to please the heroes” is a false view of reality, and “human dignity tells” him “that each of us, if not more, then no less, is a man than the great Napoleon.” Throughout his entire work, Tolstoy instills in the reader this conviction, which morally strengthens everyone who gets acquainted with the novel “War and Peace.”
- New!
Natasha Rostova is not a small force; This is a goddess, an energetic, gifted nature, from which in another time and in another environment a woman could have emerged as a far from remarkable woman, but the fatal conditions of a woman’s life weigh heavily on her, and she lives fruitlessly and almost...
Natasha Rostova is the central female character in the novel “War and Peace” and, perhaps, the author’s favorite. Tolstoy presents us with the evolution of his heroine over the fifteen-year period of her life, from 1805 to 1820, and over more than one and a half thousand...
In the novel 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...
Pierre Bezukhov in his character, in his nature, differs from Prince Andrei Bolkonsky. Prince Andrei is primarily a strong-willed, intellectual nature. He has a sober, positive mind, practical, strong-willed character. His path is...
At first glance, it may seem that the novel “War and Peace” is named this way because it reflects two eras in the life of Russian society at the beginning of the 19th century: the period of the wars against Napoleon of 1805-1814 and the peaceful period before and after wartime. However...
There are more than 600 characters in the novel War and Peace. But a special role, of course, belongs to female images. Among them are those who live by love and give joy to loved ones, but there are also those who are focused only on themselves and are indifferent to others. Both Natasha and Helen are women...
