The contrast between Napoleon and Kutuzov's war is peace. Contrast between Kutuzov and Napoleon

And the World" is, according to most famous writers and critics, the greatest novel in the history of mankind. “War and Peace” is an epic novel that tells about significant and grandiose events in the history of Russia, highlighting important aspects of people’s life that characterize the views, ideals, life and morals of various strata of society.

The main artistic device that L.N. uses is antithesis. This technique is the core of the work, which permeates the whole. The philosophical concepts in the title of the novel, the events of two wars (1805-1807 and the War of 1812), battles (Austerlitz and Borodino), societies (Moscow and St. Petersburg, secular society and provincial nobility), and characters are contrasted.

In the novel, two commanders are contrasted and compared - Kutuzov and Napoleon. glorified Commander-in-Chief Kutuzov, in whom he saw the inspirer and organizer of the victories of the Russian people. Tolstoy emphasizes that Kutuzov is a truly folk hero, guided in his actions by the national spirit. Kutuzov appears in the novel as a simple Russian, alien to pretense, and at the same time as a wise historical figure and commander. The main thing in Kutuzov for Tolstoy is his blood connection with the people, “that national feeling that he carries within himself in all its purity and strength.” That is why, Tolstoy emphasizes, the people chose him “against the will of the tsar as representatives of the people’s war.” And only this feeling put him at the “highest human heights.” Tolstoy portrays Kutuzov as a wise commander who deeply and correctly understands the course of events. It is no coincidence that Kutuzov’s correct assessment of the course of events is always confirmed later. Thus, he correctly assessed the significance of the Battle of Borodino, declaring that it was a victory. As a commander, he is clearly superior to Napoleon. It was precisely such a commander that Russia needed to wage the people's war of 1812, and Tolstoy emphasizes that after the war moved to Europe, the Russian army needed another commander in chief: “The representative of the people's war had no choice but death. And he died."

In Tolstoy's depiction, Kutuzov is a living person. Let us remember his expressive figure, gait, gestures, facial expressions, his famous single eye, sometimes affectionate, sometimes mocking. It is noteworthy that Tolstoy gives this in the perception of persons of different character and social status, delving into psychological analysis. What makes Kutuzov deeply human and alive are scenes and episodes depicting the commander in conversations with people close and pleasant to him (Bolkonsky, Denisov, Bagration), his behavior at military councils, in the battles of Austerlitz and Borodino.

At the same time, it should be noted that the image of Kutuzov is somewhat distorted and is not without flaws, and the reason for this is the incorrect position of Tolstoy the historian. Based on the spontaneity of the historical process, Tolstoy denied the role of the individual in history. The writer ridiculed the cult of “great personalities” created by bourgeois historical science. He believed that the course of history is decided exclusively by the masses. Tolstoy even came to accept fatalism, arguing that all historical events are predetermined from above. It is Kutuzov who expresses these views of the writer in the novel. He, according to Tolstoy, “knew that the fate of the battle was decided not by the orders of the commander-in-chief, not by the place where the troops stood, not by the number of guns and killed people, but by that elusive force called the spirit of war, and he followed this force and led it "as far as it was in his power." Kutuzov has a Tolstoyan fatalistic view of history, according to which the outcome of historical events is predetermined.

Tolstoy's mistake was that, denying the role of the individual in history, he sought to make Kutuzov only a wise observer of historical events. And this led to some inconsistency in his image: after all, Kutuzov still appears in the novel as a commander, with all his passivity, accurately assessing the course of military events and guiding them perfectly. And ultimately, Kutuzov appears as an active figure, hiding enormous volitional tension behind external calm.

Kutuzov's antipode in the novel is Napoleon. Tolstoy resolutely opposed the cult of Napoleon. For the writer, Napoleon is an aggressor who attacked Russia. He burned cities and villages, exterminated Russian people, plundered, destroyed great cultural values, and ordered the Kremlin to be blown up. Napoleon is an ambitious man striving for world domination. In the first parts of the novel, he speaks with evil irony about the admiration of Napoleon in the highest secular circles of Russia after the Peace of Tilsit. Tolstoy characterizes these years as “a time when the map of Europe was redrawn in different colors every two weeks,” and Napoleon “was already convinced that intelligence, constancy and consistency were not needed for success.” From the very beginning of the novel, the writer clearly expresses his attitude towards the statesmen of that era. He shows that Napoleon's actions, other than whims, had no meaning, but "he believed in himself, and the whole world believed in him."

If Pierre sees “greatness of soul” in Napoleon, then for Scherer Napoleon is the embodiment of the French Revolution and therefore a villain. Young Pierre does not understand that, having become emperor, Napoleon betrayed the cause of the revolution. Pierre defends both the revolution and Napoleon in equal measure. The more sober and experienced one sees the cruelty of Napoleon and his despotism, and Andrei’s father, old Bolkonsky, complains that Suvorov is not alive, who would show the French emperor what it means to fight.

Each character in the novel thinks about Napoleon in his own way, and this commander occupies a certain place in everyone’s life. It must be said that in relation to Napoleon, Tolstoy was not objective enough, asserting: “He was like a child who, holding on to the ribbons tied inside the carriage, imagines that he is ruling.” But Napoleon was not so powerless in the war with Russia. He simply turned out to be weaker than his opponent - “the strongest in spirit,” as Tolstoy put it.

The writer depicts this famous commander and outstanding figure as a “little man” with an “unpleasantly feigned smile” on his face, with “fat breasts”, “a round belly” and “fat thighs of short legs”. Napoleon appears in the novel as a narcissistic, arrogant ruler of France, intoxicated with success, blinded by glory, considering himself the driving force of the historical process. Crazy pride forces him to take acting poses and utter pompous phrases. This is facilitated by the servility of those around the emperor. Tolstoy's Napoleon is a “superman” for whom “only what happened in his soul” is interesting. And “everything that was outside of him did not matter to him, because everything in the world, as it seemed to him, depended only on his will.” It is no coincidence that the word “I” is Napoleon’s favorite word.

As much as Kutuzov expresses the interests of the people, Napoleon is so petty in his egocentrism. Comparing the two great commanders, Tolstoy concludes: “There is and cannot be greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.” Therefore, it is Kutuzov who is truly great - the people’s commander, who thinks first of all about the glory and freedom of the Fatherland.

Napoleon in the novel is the antipode of Kutuzov. The writer, speaking out against the cult of the Emperor of France, sees in him an aggressor who treacherously attacked Russia, an ambitious man for whom “everything that was outside of him had no meaning, because everything in the world, as it seemed to him, depended only on his will”. It is no coincidence that the character’s favorite word is “I”. All of Napoleon's activities are an attempt to force peoples to live according to his own will, to direct history according to his own wishes. The writer is ironic: “He was like a child who, holding on to the strings tied inside the carriage, imagines that he is driving.”. Tolstoy emphasizes his narcissism and individualism. Suffice it to recall the crossing of a regiment of lancers across the Viliya, when Napoleon indifferently looks at the senselessly dying people. In the scenes of the reception of Balashov and Bosse, the writer shows the character’s conceit, posing, and the absence in him of that simplicity and naturalness that distinguished Kutuzov. A typical episode is when, standing on Poklonnaya Hill and admiring the view of defeated Moscow, Napoleon mentally rehearses a speech for the residents. Tolstoy belittles Napoleon by emphasizing his physical shortcomings: round belly, short legs, thick shoulders, trembling left leg - and showing that before us is an ordinary, ordinary person, and not a demigod. And how can one forget the flight of the French from Russia, when Napoleon ran ahead of his army, not thinking about its fate, that is, commits an act that “every child is ashamed of?”

PORTRAIT:

“He was wearing a blue uniform, open over a white vest that hung down over his round belly, white leggings that hugged the fat thighs of his short legs, and boots.”

“There was an unpleasantly feigned smile on Napoleon’s face,” “a man in a gray frock coat, who really wanted to be told “Your Majesty,” “The trembling of my left calf is a great sign,” Napoleon said later.” Such a trait of his is especially sharply indicated as posturing. Napoleon behaves like an actor on stage. In front of the portrait of his son, he “made an appearance of thoughtful tenderness,” and this happens almost in front of the entire army. He behaves like a person who understands that all his words and gestures are history. It doesn't leave his face"an expression of gracious and majestic imperial greeting."

ATTITUDE TO WAR:

For him, war is the path to the elevation of himself, his soldiers, his country: “the love and habit of the French emperor for war.” Throughout the entire Austerlitz campaign, Napoleon is shown in his military successes as a commander who is well versed in the combat situation. He quickly realized the cunning of Kutuzov, who proposed a truce near Shengraben, and the unfortunate mistake of Murat, who agreed to begin peace negotiations. Before Austerlitz, Napoleon subtly outwitted the Russian parliamentarian, instilling in him the false idea of ​​his fear of a general battle, which then ensured that he won the battle. When describing the crossing of the French across the Neman, Tolstoy considers it necessary to mention that Napoleon was tired of applause when he indulged in military concerns. Napoleon in all his actions was guided by the desire for personal glory and unlimited power.

ATTITUDE TO SOLDIERS:

For Napoleon, soldiers are pawns in a great chess game. “The screams and lights in the enemy army came from the fact that while Napoleon’s order was being read among the troops, the emperor himself was riding around his bivouacs on horseback. The soldiers, seeing the emperor, lit bunches of straw and ran after him, shouting “vive l" Empereur.” He wants to see signs of veneration for his person everywhere, subordinating the entire order of his daily life to this. He is indifferent to losses in his army, so strategy and tactics battles subordinates to victory. With a feeling of satisfaction, he travels around the battlefield (Battle of Austerlitz), smugly looking at the bodies of the killed and wounded. Ambition makes him cruel and insensitive to the suffering of people

WAYS TO ACHIEVE THE GOAL :

“I could not renounce my actions, praised by half the world, and therefore had to renounce truth, goodness and everything human.” For Napoleon, human life has no value(an episode of the crossing of the Napoleonic army across the Neman, when, in a hurry to fulfill 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 , entertained his attention. His statement on the eve of the Battle of Borodino, which was supposed to cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, emanates extraordinary cynicism: “The chess is set, the game will start tomorrow.”

CONCLUSION:

1. Debunking Napoleon, Tolstoy exposes the Napoleonic element in people.

2. Kutuzov and Napoleon are the two poles of the novel: Kutuzov embodies folk wisdom and represents the collective principle, the will of the people, Napoleon is the exponent of narcissism and individualism.

3. Tolstoy, first of all, sees the greatness of Kutuzov the commander in the unity of his spirit with the spirit of the people and the army, and in the fact that the hero embodies the features of the Russian national character. In creating the image of the old field marshal, Tolstoy undoubtedly took into account Pushkin’s characterization: “Kutuzov alone was invested with the people’s power of attorney, which he so wonderfully justified!”

4. Kutuzov and Napoleon are shown with everyday features as people, but at the same time differently than all the other heroes of the novel. They are something more than just “characters”, more generalized figures, personifying those world forces whose conflict is described in “War and Peace”. This antithesis helps to reveal “folk thought” as the main idea of ​​the epic novel “War and Peace.”

5. “The source... of the extraordinary power of insight in the sense of the events taking place lay in that popular feeling that he (Kutuzov) carried within himself in all its purity and strength.

6. Everything that was outside of him (Napoleon) did not matter to him, because everything in the world, as it seemed to him, depended only on his will” (L. N. Tolstoy)

Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy completed work on his novel War and Peace in 1867. The events of 1805 and 1812, as well as military leaders who took part in the confrontation between France and Russia, are the main theme of the work.

Like any peace-loving person, Lev Nikolaevich condemned armed conflicts. He argued with those who found “the beauty of horror” in warfare. When describing the events of 1805, the author acts as a pacifist writer. However, when talking about the War of 1812, Lev Nikolaevich moves to the position of patriotism.

Image of Napoleon and Kutuzov

The images of Napoleon and Kutuzov created in the novel are a vivid embodiment of the principles used by Tolstoy in depicting historical figures. Not all characters coincide with real prototypes. Lev Nikolaevich did not strive to draw reliable documentary portraits of these figures when creating the novel “War and Peace”. Napoleon, Kutuzov and other heroes act primarily as carriers of ideas. Many well-known facts are omitted from the work. Some qualities of both commanders are exaggerated (for example, the passivity and decrepitness of Kutuzov, the posturing and narcissism of Napoleon). Assessing the French and Russian commander-in-chief, as well as other historical figures, Lev Nikolaevich applies strict moral criteria to them. The image of Napoleon in the novel "War and Peace" is the topic of this article.

The French emperor is the antithesis of Kutuzov. If Mikhail Illarionovich can be considered a positive hero of that time, then in Tolstoy’s depiction Napoleon is the main anti-hero in the work “War and Peace”.

Portrait of Napoleon

Lev Nikolaevich emphasizes the limitations and self-confidence of this commander, which is manifested in all his words, gestures and actions. The portrait of Napoleon is ironic. He has a “short”, “plump” figure, “fat thighs”, a fussy, swift gait, a “white plump neck”, “a round belly”, “thick shoulders”. This is the image of Napoleon in the novel War and Peace. Describing the morning toilet of the French emperor before the Battle of Borodino, Lev Nikolaevich reinforces the revealing nature of the portrait characteristics given initially in the work. The emperor has a “groomed body”, “overgrown fat chest”, “yellow” and These details show that Napoleon Bonaparte (“War and Peace”) was a man far from working life and alien to folk roots. The leader of the French is shown as a narcissistic egoist who thinks that the entire Universe obeys his will. People are of no interest to him.

Napoleon's behavior, his manner of speaking

The image of Napoleon in the novel "War and Peace" is revealed not only through a description of his appearance. His manner of speaking and behavior also reveals narcissism and narrow-mindedness. He is convinced of his own genius and greatness. Good is what came into his head, and not what is actually good, as Tolstoy notes. In the novel, every appearance of this character is accompanied by the author's merciless commentary. So, for example, in the third volume (first part, sixth chapter) Lev Nikolaevich writes that it was clear from this man that only what was happening in his soul was of interest to him.

In the work "War and Peace" the characterization of Napoleon is also marked by the following details. With subtle irony, which sometimes turns into sarcasm, the writer exposes Bonaparte's claims to world domination, as well as his acting and constant posing for history. The French emperor played all the time; there was nothing natural or simple in his words and behavior. This is shown very expressively by Lev Nikolaevich in the scene when he admired the portrait of his son. In it, the image of Napoleon in the novel "War and Peace" acquires some very important details. Let's describe this scene briefly.

Episode with a portrait of Napoleon's son

Napoleon approached the picture, feeling that what he would do and say now “is history.” The portrait depicted the emperor's son playing with a globe in a bilbok. This expressed the greatness of the leader of the French, but Napoleon wanted to show “fatherly tenderness.” Of course, this was pure acting. Napoleon did not express any sincere feelings here, he was only acting, posing for history. This scene shows a man who believed that all of Russia would be conquered with the conquest of Moscow and thus his plans for domination over the entire world would be realized.

Napoleon - actor and player

And in a number of further episodes, the description of Napoleon (“War and Peace”) indicates that he is an actor and player. He says on the eve of the Battle of Borodino that the chess has already been set, the game will begin tomorrow. On the day of the battle, Lev Nikolaevich remarks after the cannon shots: “The game has begun.” Further, the writer shows that it cost tens of thousands of people their lives. Prince Andrei thinks that war is not a game, but only a cruel necessity. A fundamentally different approach to it was contained in this thought of one of the main characters of the work “War and Peace”. The image of Napoleon is shaded thanks to this remark. Prince Andrei expressed the opinion of a peaceful people who were forced under exceptional circumstances to take up arms, as the threat of enslavement loomed over their homeland.

Comic effect produced by the French Emperor

It didn’t matter to Napoleon what was outside of himself, since it seemed to him that everything in the world depended only on his will. Tolstoy makes such a remark in the episode of his meeting with Balashev (“War and Peace”). The image of Napoleon in it is complemented by new details. Lev Nikolaevich emphasizes the contrast between the insignificance of the emperor and his comic conflict that arises at the same time - the best proof of the emptiness and powerlessness of this one, which pretends to be majestic and strong.

The spiritual world of Napoleon

In Tolstoy’s understanding, the spiritual world of the French leader is an “artificial world” inhabited by “ghosts of some kind of greatness” (volume three, part two, chapter 38). In fact, Napoleon is living proof of one old truth that “the king is a slave of history” (volume three, part one, chapter 1). Believing that he was carrying out his own will, this historical figure merely played the “difficult,” “sad,” and “cruel” “inhuman role” that was intended for him. He would hardly have been able to bear it if this man’s conscience and mind had not been darkened (volume three, part two, chapter 38). The writer sees the darkening of the mind of this commander-in-chief in the fact that he consciously cultivated spiritual callousness in himself, which he mistook for true greatness and courage.

So, for example, in the third volume (part two, chapter 38) it is said that he loved to look at the wounded and killed, thereby testing his spiritual strength (as Napoleon himself believed). In the episode when a squadron of Polish lancers was swimming across and the adjutant, in front of his eyes, allowed himself to draw the attention of the emperor to the devotion of the Poles, Napoleon called Berthier to him and began to walk with him along the shore, giving him orders and occasionally looking displeasedly at the drowned lancers who were entertaining his attention . For him, death is a boring and familiar sight. Napoleon takes for granted the selfless devotion of his own soldiers.

Napoleon is a deeply unhappy man

Tolstoy emphasizes that this man was deeply unhappy, but did not notice this only due to the absence of at least some moral feeling. The "Great" Napoleon, the "European hero" is morally blind. He cannot understand beauty, goodness, truth, or the meaning of his own actions, which, as Leo Tolstoy notes, were “the opposite of good and truth,” “far from everything human.” Napoleon simply could not understand the meaning of his actions (volume three, part two, chapter 38). According to the writer, one can come to truth and goodness only by renouncing the imaginary greatness of one’s personality. However, Napoleon is not at all capable of such a “heroic” act.

Napoleon's responsibility for what he did

Despite the fact that he is doomed to play a negative role in history, Tolstoy does not at all diminish the moral responsibility of this man for everything he has done. He writes that Napoleon, destined for the “unfree”, “sad” role of the executioner of many peoples, nevertheless assured himself that their good was the goal of his actions and that he could control and guide the destinies of many people, do things through his power of beneficence. Napoleon imagined that the war with Russia took place according to his will; his soul was not struck by the horror of what had happened (volume three, part two, chapter 38).

Napoleonic qualities of the heroes of the work

In other heroes of the work, Lev Nikolaevich associates Napoleonic qualities with the characters’ lack of moral sense (for example, Helen) or with their tragic errors. Thus, in his youth, Pierre Bezukhov, who was carried away by the ideas of the French emperor, remained in Moscow in order to kill him and thereby become the “savior of mankind.” In the early stages of his spiritual life, Andrei Bolkonsky dreamed of rising above other people, even if this required sacrificing loved ones and family. In the image of Lev Nikolaevich, Napoleonism is a dangerous disease that divides people. It forces them to wander blindly along the spiritual “off-road.”

Portrayal of Napoleon and Kutuzov by historians

Tolstoy notes that historians extol Napoleon, thinking that he was a great commander, while Kutuzov is accused of excessive passivity and military failures. In fact, the French emperor developed vigorous activity in 1812. He fussed, gave orders that seemed brilliant to him and those around him. In a word, this man behaved as a “great commander” should. Lev Nikolaevich’s image of Kutuzov does not correspond to the ideas about genius accepted at that time. The writer deliberately exaggerates his decrepitude. Thus, Kutuzov falls asleep during a military council not to show “contempt for the disposition,” but simply because he wanted to sleep (volume one, part three, chapter 12). This commander-in-chief does not give orders. He only approves of what he considers reasonable, and rejects everything unreasonable. Mikhail Illarionovich is not looking for battles, he is not doing anything. It was Kutuzov, while maintaining external calm, who made the decision to leave Moscow, which cost him great mental anguish.

What determines the true scale of a personality, according to Tolstoy?

Napoleon won almost all the battles, but Kutuzov lost almost all of them. The Russian army suffered failures near Berezina and Krasny. However, it was she who ultimately defeated the army under the command of the “brilliant commander” in the war. Tolstoy emphasizes that historians devoted to Napoleon believe that he was precisely a great man, a hero. In their opinion, for a person of such magnitude there cannot be good and bad. The image of Napoleon in literature is often presented from this angle. Various authors believe that the actions of a great man fall outside moral criteria. These historians and writers even evaluate the shameful flight of the French emperor from the army as a majestic act. According to Lev Nikolaevich, the real scale of a personality is not measured by the “false formulas” of various historians. The great historical lie turns out to be the greatness of a man like Napoleon (“War and Peace”). The quotes we have given from the work prove this. Tolstoy found true greatness in Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov, a humble worker of history.

The contrast between Kutuzov and Napoleon in Leo Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”
L. N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace” is, according to most famous writers and critics, the greatest novel in the history of mankind. “War and Peace” is an epic novel that tells about significant and grandiose events in the history of Russia, highlighting important aspects of people’s life that characterize the views, ideals, life and morals of various strata of society.
The main artistic device used by L.N. Tolstoy is antithesis. This technique is the core of the work, which permeates the entire novel. The philosophical concepts in the title of the novel, the events of two wars (the war of 1805-1807 and the war of 1812), battles (Austerlitz and Borodino), societies (Moscow and St. Petersburg, secular society and provincial nobility), characters are contrasted.
In the novel, two commanders are contrasted and compared - Kutuzov and Napoleon. The writer glorified Commander-in-Chief Kutuzov, in whom he saw the inspirer and organizer of the victories of the Russian people. Tolstoy emphasizes that Kutuzov is a truly folk hero, guided in his actions by the national spirit. Kutuzov appears in the novel as a simple Russian man, free from pretense, and at the same time as a wise historical figure and commander. The main thing in Kutuzov for Tolstoy is his blood connection with the people, “that national feeling that he carries within himself in all its purity and strength.” That is why, Tolstoy emphasizes, the people chose him “against the will of the tsar as representatives of the people’s war.” And only this feeling put him at the “highest human heights.” Tolstoy portrays Kutuzov as a wise commander who deeply and correctly understands the course of events. It is no coincidence that Kutuzov’s correct assessment of the course of events is always confirmed later. Thus, he correctly assessed the significance of the Battle of Borodino, declaring that it was a victory. As a commander, he is clearly superior to Napoleon. It was precisely such a commander that Russia needed to wage the people's war of 1812, and Tolstoy emphasizes that after the war moved to Europe, the Russian army needed another commander in chief: “The representative of the people's war had no choice but death. And he died."
In Tolstoy’s depiction, Kutuzov is a living person. Let us remember his expressive figure, gait, gestures, facial expressions, his famous single eye, sometimes affectionate, sometimes mocking. It is noteworthy that Tolstoy gives this image in the perception of persons of different character and social status, delving into psychological analysis. What makes Kutuzov deeply human and alive are scenes and episodes depicting the commander in conversations with people close and pleasant to him (Bolkonsky, Denisov, Bagration), his behavior at military councils, in the battles of Austerlitz and Borodino.
At the same time, it should be noted that the image of Kutuzov is somewhat distorted and is not without flaws, and the reason for this is the incorrect position of Tolstoy the historian. Based on the spontaneity of the historical process, Tolstoy denied the role of the individual in history. The writer ridiculed the cult of “great personalities” created by bourgeois historical science. He believed that the course of history is decided exclusively by the masses. Tolstoy even came to accept fatalism, arguing that all historical events are predetermined from above. It is Kutuzov who expresses these views of the writer in the novel. He, according to Tolstoy, “knew that the fate of the battle was decided not by the orders of the commander-in-chief, not by the place where the troops stood, not by the number of guns and killed people, but by that elusive force called the spirit of war, and he followed this force and led it, as far as it was in his power.” Kutuzov has a Tolstoyan fatalistic view of history, according to which the outcome of historical events is predetermined.
Tolstoy's mistake was that, denying the role of the individual in history, he sought to make Kutuzov only a wise observer of historical events. And this led to some inconsistency in his image: after all, Kutuzov still appears in the novel as a commander, with all his passivity, accurately assessing the course of military events and unerringly directing them. And ultimately, Kutuzov acts as an active figure, hiding enormous volitional tension behind external calm,
Kutuzov's antipode in the novel is Napoleon. Tolstoy resolutely opposed the cult of Napoleon. For the writer, Napoleon is an aggressor who attacked Russia. He burned cities and villages, exterminated Russian people, plundered, destroyed great cultural values, and ordered the Kremlin to be blown up. Napoleon is an ambitious man striving for world domination. In the first parts of the novel, the author speaks with evil irony about the admiration of Napoleon in the highest secular circles of Russia after the Peace of Tilsit. Tolstoy characterizes these years as “a time when the map of Europe was redrawn in different colors every two weeks,” and Napoleon “was already convinced that intelligence, constancy and consistency were not needed for success.” From the very beginning of the novel, the writer clearly expresses his attitude towards the statesmen of that era. He shows that Napoleon's actions, other than whims, had no meaning, but "he believed in himself, and the whole world believed in him."
If Pierre sees “greatness of soul” in Napoleon, then for Scherer Napoleon is the embodiment of the French Revolution and therefore a villain. Young Pierre does not understand that, having become emperor, Napoleon betrayed the cause of the revolution. Pierre defends both the revolution and Napoleon in equal measure. The more sober and experienced Prince Andrei sees the cruelty of Napoleon and his despotism, and Andrei’s father, old Volkonsky, complains that Suvorov is not alive, who would show the French emperor what it means to fight.
Each character in the novel thinks about Napoleon in his own way, and this commander occupies a certain place in the life of each character. It must be said that in relation to Napoleon, Tolstoy was not objective enough, asserting: “He was like a child who, holding on to the ribbons tied inside the carriage, imagines that he is ruling.” But Napoleon was not so powerless in the war with Russia. He simply turned out to be weaker than his opponent - “the strongest in spirit,” as Tolstoy put it.
The writer depicts this famous commander and outstanding figure as a “little man” with an “unpleasantly feigned smile” on his face, with “fat breasts,” “a round belly,” and “fat thighs of short legs.” Napoleon appears in the novel as a narcissistic, arrogant ruler of France, intoxicated with success, blinded by glory, considering himself the driving force of the historical process. Crazy pride forces him to take acting poses and utter pompous phrases. This is facilitated by the servility of those around the emperor. Tolstoy’s Napoleon is a “superman” for whom “only what happened in his soul” is interesting. And “everything that was outside of him did not matter to him, because everything in the world, as it seemed to him, depended only on his will.” It is no coincidence that the word “I” is Napoleon’s favorite word.
As much as Kutuzov expresses the interests of the people, Napoleon is so petty in his egocentrism. Comparing the two great commanders, Tolstoy concludes: “There is and cannot be greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.” Therefore, it is Kutuzov who is truly great - the people’s commander, who thinks first of all about the glory and freedom of the Fatherland.

“War and Peace” is the deepest work of L.N. Tolstoy, covering all the subtleties of the life of people of different classes of that period of time, thanks to which we can see the causes and consequences of many historical events related to our Fatherland. Of course, it is incredibly difficult to immediately comprehend an epic novel, but Tolstoy did a lot to make the postulates of his philosophy clear to every person. Therefore, the work is built on an antithesis that is so easily perceived by the reader, and which can be found already in the title itself. In my opinion, the most obvious is the clash between two opposing personalities - Kutuzov and Napoleon.

As a “father,” he shows kindness and compassion to the “troops” on the battlefield, no matter who you are - French or Russian, because “they are people too.” For him, the lives of soldiers always stood above some “patch of land,” which is why, at the sight of senseless deaths, Kutuzov immediately “tears trembled.” It is also impossible not to note faith in God as one of the characteristic features of our military leader. Remember, before the start of the Battle of Borodino: all the generals, and then the infantry and militia, following the example of the commander-in-chief, “bowed down to the ground” to the Smolensk icon. Thus, he turns out to be one with society and is part of the national spirit.

Another thing is the French emperor - a merciless and “brazen murderer” with “madness of self-adoration.”

For him, the battlefield is not a place of bloodshed, not a place of death, but a “game.” This man is most interested in his own greatness; he has nothing to do with the soldiers. Tolstoy, in addition to the image, describes Bonaparte not in the most pleasant light: “chubby neck”, “white arms”, “thick shoulders”, which tells us about his effeminacy and spoiledness. Thus, a boundary is established between Napoleon and other military men: I am a deity, therefore everything must bow before me, and his subordinates are left to the will of fate.

Finally, we smoothly come to the very essence, that is, the philosophical aspect of the conflict between the two commanders. Lev Nikolayevich, developing his theories of “small deeds” and “non-resistance to evil through violence,” shows readers the smug “Bonaparte”, who captured half of Europe, whom secular people admire, talk about his unsurpassed “genius and talent,” but there is nothing beyond superficial brilliance - there's emptiness there. Here the writer brings in the hero-antagonist Kutuzov - the most “ordinary” person with his own characteristics and quirks, but with a living soul, with morality in his actions. And what do we see? - They sincerely love him!

Thus, Tolstoy believes that the French lost not because of the weakness of the army, but because of fragile spiritual ties, built solely on false ideals. While Russia “by its people” won.

Updated: 2017-05-04

Attention!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.