Attitude towards prisoners of Kutuzov and Napoleon. The essay “Images of Kutuzov and Napoleon in the epic novel “War and Peace.” Implications for Russian domestic policy

Images of Kutuzov and Napoleon in the epic novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace"

An important feature of the style literary prose L.N. Tolstoy is the technique of contrasting comparisons. The writer contrasts lies with truth, the beautiful with the ugly. The principle of antithesis underlies the composition of the epic novel War and Peace. Tolstoy here contrasts war and peace, false and true life values, Kutuzov and Napoleon, two heroes representing two polar points of the novel.

While working on the novel, the writer was amazed that Napoleon aroused the constant interest and even admiration of some Russian historians, while Kutuzov was considered by them as ordinary, nothing outstanding personality. “Meanwhile, it’s hard to imagine historical figure, whose activity would be so invariably and constantly directed towards the same goal. It is difficult to imagine a goal more worthy and more consistent with the will of the entire people,” the writer notes. Tolstoy, with his inherent great insight as an artist, correctly guessed and perfectly captured some of the character traits of the great commander: his deep patriotic feelings, love for the Russian people and hatred of the enemy, sensitive attitude towards the soldier. Contrary to the opinion of official historiography, the writer shows Kutuzov at the head of a fair people's war.

Kutuzov is depicted by Tolstoy as an experienced commander, a wise, straightforward and courageous person who sincerely cares for the fate of the Fatherland. At the same time, his appearance is ordinary, in a certain sense “down to earth.” The writer emphasizes in the portrait characteristic details: “fat neck”, “plump old hands”, “stooped back”, “bleaky white eye”. However, this hero is very attractive to readers. His appearance is contrasted with the spiritual strength and intelligence of the commander. “The source of this extraordinary power of insight in the sense of occurring phenomena lay in that popular feeling that he carried within himself in all its purity and strength. Only the recognition of this feeling in him made the people, in such strange ways, choose him, an old man in disgrace, against the will of the tsar as representatives of the people’s war,” notes L.N. Tolstoy.

In the novel, Kutuzov first appears before us as the commander of one of the armies in the military campaign of 1805-1807. And here the writer outlines the character of the hero. Kutuzov loves Russia, cares about the soldiers, and is easy to deal with them. He strives to protect the army and opposes senseless military operations.

He is a sincere, straightforward, courageous person. Before the Battle of Austerlitz, having heard from the sovereign a demand for immediate action, Kutuzov was not afraid to hint at the tsar’s love for ostentatious shows and parades. “After all, we are not in Tsaritsyn Meadow,” noted Mikhail Illarionovich. He understood the doom of the battle at Austerlitz. And the scene at the military council when reading Weyrother’s disposition (Kutuzov was dozing at this military council) also has its own explanation. Kutuzov did not agree with this plan, but understood that the plan had already been approved by the sovereign and a battle could not be avoided.

During the difficult time of the Napoleonic army’s attack on Russia, the people elect a commander “against the will of the tsar as representatives of the people’s war.” And the writer explains what is happening this way: “While Russia was healthy, a stranger could serve her, and there was an excellent minister; but as soon as she is in danger, you need yours, dear person" And Kutuzov becomes such a person. In this war they reveal best qualities an outstanding commander: patriotism, wisdom, patience, insight and foresight, closeness to the people.

On the Borodino field the hero is depicted in the concentration of all moral and physical strength, as a person who cares, first of all, about preserving the morale of the troops. Having learned about the capture of the French marshal, Kutuzov conveys this news to the troops. And vice versa, he tries to prevent unfavorable news from leaking into the mass of soldiers. The hero carefully monitors everything that happens, being firmly confident in victory over the enemy. “He knew from long military experience and understood with his senile mind that it is impossible for one person to lead hundreds of thousands of people fighting death, and he knew that the fate of the battle is not decided by the orders of the commander-in-chief, not by the place where the troops stand, not by the number of guns and killed people , and that elusive force called the spirit of the army, and he watched over this force and led it, as far as it was in his power,” writes Tolstoy. Kutuzov attaches great importance to the Battle of Borodino, since it is this battle that becomes the moral victory of the Russian troops. Assessing the commander, Andrei Bolkonsky thinks about him: “He will have nothing of his own. He won’t come up with anything, won’t do anything, but he will listen to everything, remember everything and won’t allow anything harmful. He understands that there is something stronger and more significant than his will - this is the inevitable course of events, and he knows how to see them, knows how to understand their meaning, and in view of this meaning knows how to renounce participation in these events, from his personal will aimed at different."

Tolstoy's depiction of Napoleon and Kutuzov is contrasting. Napoleon always counts on the audience, he is effective in his speeches and actions, strives to appear before others in the image of a great conqueror. Kutuzov, on the contrary, is far from our traditional ideas about a great commander. He is easy to communicate with and his behavior is natural. And the writer emphasizes this idea by depicting him at the military council in Fili, before the surrender of Moscow. Russian generals, together with the commander-in-chief, gather in a simple peasant hut, and the peasant girl Malasha sees them. Kutuzov here decides to leave Moscow without a battle. He surrenders Moscow to Napoleon in order to save Russia. When he then finds out that Napoleon has left Moscow, he cannot contain his feelings and cries with joy, realizing that Russia has been saved.

It is worth noting that the novel reveals the views of L.N. Tolstoy on history, on the art of war. The writer claims that “the course of world events is predetermined from above, depends on the coincidence of all the arbitrariness of the people participating in these events, and that the influence of Napoleon on the course of these events is only external and fictitious.” Thus, Tolstoy denies the role of the commander’s personality in this war, his military genius. Kutuzov in the novel also underestimates the role of military science, attaching importance only to the “spirit of the army.”

The commander Kutuzov is contrasted in the novel by Napoleon Bonaparte. From the very beginning, the writer debunks Napoleon, highlighting everything small and insignificant in his appearance: he is a “little man”, “with small hands” and an “unpleasantly cloying smile” on his “swollen and yellow face.” The author persistently emphasizes Napoleon’s “physicality”: “fat shoulders”, “thick back”, “overgrown fat chest”. This “physicality” is especially emphasized in the morning toilet scene. By undressing his hero, the writer, as it were, removes Napoleon from his pedestal, brings him down to earth, and emphasizes his lack of spirituality.

Tolstoy's Napoleon is a gambler, a narcissistic, despotic man, thirsty for fame and power. “If Kutuzov is characterized by simplicity and modesty, then Napoleon is like an actor playing the role of the ruler of the world. His theatrically false behavior in Tilsit during the awarding of the Russian soldier Lazarev with the French Order of the Legion of Honor. Napoleon behaves no less unnaturally before the Battle of Borodino, when... the courtiers present him with a portrait of his son and he pretends to be a loving father.”

On the eve of the Battle of Borodino, the emperor says: “Chess is set, the game will begin tomorrow.” However, the “game” here turns into defeat, blood, and human suffering. On the day of the Battle of Borodino, “the terrible sight of the battlefield defeated that mental strength, in which he believed his merit and greatness." “Yellow, swollen, heavy, with dull eyes, a red nose and a hoarse voice, he sat on a folding chair, involuntarily listening to the sounds of gunfire and not raising his eyes... He endured the suffering and death that he saw on the battlefield. The heaviness of his head and chest reminded him of the possibility of suffering and death for him. At that moment he did not want Moscow, victory, or glory for himself.” “And never, however,” writes Tolstoy, “until the end of his life he could understand neither goodness, nor beauty, nor truth, nor the meaning of his actions, which were too opposite to goodness and truth, too far from everything human...”

Tolstoy finally debunks Napoleon in the scene on Poklonnaya Hill, before entering Moscow. “Waiting for a deputation from Moscow, Napoleon is thinking about how he should appear before the Russians at such a majestic moment for him. As an experienced actor, he mentally played out the entire scene of the meeting with the “boyars” and composed a speech to them with his generosity. Using artistic technique“internal” monologue of the hero, Tolstoy reveals in the French emperor the petty vanity of the player, his insignificance, his posturing.” “Here it is, this capital; she lies at my feet, awaiting her fate... And this is a strange and majestic minute!” “...One word of mine, one movement of my hand, and this ancient capital perished... Here it lies at my feet, playing and trembling with golden domes and crosses in the rays of the sun.” The second part of this monologue contrasts sharply with the first. “When it was announced to Napoleon with due caution that Moscow was empty, he looked angrily at the person who reported this and, turning away, continued to walk in silence... “Moscow is empty. What an incredible event!” - he spoke to himself. He did not go to the city, but stopped at an inn in the Dorogomilovsky suburb.” And here Tolstoy notes that the denouement of the theatrical performance was unsuccessful - “the power that decides the fate of peoples does not lie in the conquerors.” Thus, Tolstoy denounces Bonapartism as a great social evil, “contrary to human reason and all human nature.”

It is characteristic that the writer strove for an objective assessment of Napoleon's military talent. Thus, before the Battle of Austerlitz, Bonaparte was able to correctly assess the military situation: “his assumptions turned out to be correct.” But still, according to Tolstoy, “in historical events great people are only labels that give a name to an event...” “Napoleon,” the writer notes, “during all this time of his activity, he was like a child who, holding on to the ribbons tied inside the carriage, imagines that he is ruling.”

So the main driving force history, according to Tolstoy, is the people. And the writer’s truly great personalities are simple, natural, and bearers of “national feeling.” Kutuzov appears as such a person in the novel. And “there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth,” therefore Napoleon appears in Tolstoy as the embodiment of extreme individualism, aggression, and lack of spirituality.

Searched here:

images of Kutuzov and Napoleon in the novel War and Peace
the image of Napoleon and Kutuzov in the novel War and Peace
image of Kutuzov and Napoleon

One of the unique and brilliant writers known all over the world, “the great hope of Russian literature,” a man who tried to rethink life, understand its laws and unravel its mysteries. Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy had a special view of the world order, including his theory about the role of man in history and his significance in the context of eternity. In the novel War and Peace, this concept was embodied by the commanders of two great armies. A comparative description of Kutuzov and Napoleon (a table with brief conclusions on the topic will be presented below) allows us to fully reveal the writer’s attitude to the question: “Can one person create history?”

Life and work of L. N. Tolstoy

The life of Lev Nikolaevich is eventful. His youth was spent in St. Petersburg, where he was one of the main ringleaders and a famous rake. Then fate threw him into the Crimean War, after which the writer returned to the capital again. Here, already matured and having seen a lot, he begins to collaborate with the Sovremennik magazine, communicating closely with the editorial staff (N. A. Nekrasov, A. N. Ostrovsky, I. S. Turgenev). Tolstoy publishes Sevastopol Stories, where he paints pictures of the war he went through. Then he travels around Europe and remains very dissatisfied with it.

In 1956 he resigns and begins the life of a landowner in Yasnaya Polyana. Marries, takes care of housework and writes his most famous novels and stories: “War and Peace”, “Anna Karenina”, “Sunday”, “The Kreutzer Sonata”.

Novel "War and Peace"

The epic novel describes the events of the Napoleonic War (1805-1812). The work was a huge success both in Russia and in Europe. “War and Peace” is an artistic canvas that has no analogues in literature. Tolstoy managed to portray all social classes, from emperors to soldiers. An unprecedented evolution of characters and integrity of images, each hero appears as a living, full-blooded person. The writer managed to feel and convey all facets of the psychology of the Russian people: from sublime impulses to the ruthless, almost bestial moods of the crowd.

The image of Kutuzov, closely connected with Russia and its people, turned out to be surprising. The opposite of him in everything is the narcissistic and selfish Napoleon. It is these characters that will be examined in detail.

The role of personality in history: Kutuzov and Napoleon

Tolstoy, who always extolled the greatness and power of the Russian people, showed in his novel that it was he who won the war. Moreover, the feeling of nationality formed the basis for the main assessment of the actions of the characters in the novel. Therefore, Kutuzov - a commander and an outstanding military man - appears as one of the Russian people; he is not so much a person as a part of the country. It is unity with the people that guarantees Kutuzov’s victory.

The opposite of him is Napoleon, who separated himself from the world and considered himself practically a god. The differences between these characters are illustrated in more detail by Kutuzov and Napoleon (the table is located below). However, it can already be said that, according to Tolstoy, a person who decides to change the world alone is doomed to defeat.

Image of Kutuzov

Tolstoy portrayed Kutuzov in the novel as a kind of old man, beautifully those who know life and understanding what lies ahead. He knows he will lose and talks about it calmly. He falls asleep during the council, knowing full well where all the conversations will ultimately lead. Kutuzov feels the beat of life, understands its laws. His inaction turns into folk wisdom; his actions are guided by intuition.

Kutuzov is a commander, but all his actions are subordinated to the great will of history itself, he is its “slave.” But this was the only way to win, by taking a wait-and-see attitude. It was this thought of Tolstoy that was embodied in the character of Kutuzov.

Image of Napoleon

Emperor Napoleon Bonaparte is the complete opposite of Kutuzov. In contrast to the integral personality of the Russian general, Tolstoy portrays the French emperor in two forms: a man and a commander. As a commander, Napoleon is talented, has rich experience and knowledge of military affairs.

But for Lev Nikolaevich the main thing is the human component, spiritual qualities, It is in this regard that the writer debunks romantic image enemy commander. Already in Napoleon one can see the attitude of the author: “small”, “fat”, unremarkable, a poser and an egoist.

Napoleon is the Emperor of France, but he has little power over his country, he sees himself as the ruler of the world, considers himself superior to others. The desire for possession has consumed him; he is morally poor and incapable of feeling, loving, and rejoicing. Napoleon walks over the corpses towards his goal, because it justifies any means. “Winners are not judged” is his motto.

Comparative characteristics of Kutuzov and Napoleon: table

Kutuzov	Napoleon
Appearance
An affectionate, mocking look; the corners of the lips and eyes are wrinkled from a gentle smile; expressive facial expressions; confident gait.	Short, puffy and overweight figure; thick thighs and belly; a false, sweet and unpleasant smile; fussy gait.
Character
Does not extol his merits and does not flaunt them; does not hide his feelings, is sincere; patriot.	Boastful, selfish, full of narcissism; extols his merits; cruel and indifferent to others; conqueror.
Behavior
Always explained clearly and simply; does not leave the troops and participates in all key battles.	Stays away from hostilities; on the eve of a battle he always makes long, pathetic speeches to the soldiers.
Mission
Saving Russia.	Conquer the whole world and make Paris its capital.
Role in history
He believed that nothing depended on him; did not give specific orders, but always agreed with what was being done.	He considered himself a benefactor, but all his orders were either carried out long ago or were not carried out because they could not be carried out.
Attitude towards soldiers
He was kind to the soldiers and showed sincere concern for them.	Indifferent to the soldiers, does not show any sympathy for them; their fates were indifferent to him.
Conclusion
A brilliant commander; exponent of patriotism and high morality of the Russian people; patriot; wise politician.	Executioner; invader; all his actions are directed against people.

Table summary

The comparative characteristics of Kutuzov and Napoleon (the table is presented above) are based on the opposition of individualism and nationality. Only a person who imagined himself higher and better than others could start a bloody war in order to achieve his selfish goals. Such a character cannot become a hero, so Tolstoy, with his humanism and faith in folk wisdom, paints him negatively and repulsively. Napoleon's appearance, gait, manners, even the character - all this is a consequence of his desire to become a superman.

Kutuzov, wise, calm, seemingly inactive, carries within himself all the power of the Russian people. He doesn't make decisions - he follows the course of events. He doesn't try to create history - he submits to it. This humility contained his spiritual and moral strength, which helped win the war.

Conclusion

L.N. Tolstoy encapsulated the incredible power of the people in his novel “War and Peace.” Brief description this power is given by the example of the image of Kutuzov, which is contrasted with the spiritually poor, who does not understand his people, Napoleon. The great Russian commander and the French emperor embodied two principles: creative and destructive. And, of course, the humanist Tolstoy could not give Napoleon any positive feature. Just as he could not denigrate the image of Kutuzov. The characters in the novel have little in common with the real ones. historical figures. But Lev Nikolaevich created them with the aim of illustrating his historical concept.

Drunk with unchanging glory,
You walked through the world, crushing, crushing...
And finally the universe became
I can't bear to carry you.
V.Ya.Bryusov

In the novel War and Peace, Tolstoy poses a philosophical question: what is great man? - and formulates his answer as follows: there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth. The images of Napoleon and Kutuzov most clearly illustrate the author's understanding of the great man.

In Napoleon the writer constantly emphasizes the outstanding acting skills, that is, lack of simplicity. Very indicative in this sense is the scene when the emperor, on the eve of the Battle of Borodino, examines the portrait of his son (3, 2, XXVI). Tolstoy shows that Napoleon is concerned about how he will look in the eyes of others, and decides to himself what expression he should give to his own face. After some hesitation, Napoleon chooses, as the most appropriate, an expression of tenderness and with this expression on his face enters the section of the tent where the courier of the Empress Bosset is installing the portrait. At this moment, an unexpected glitch occurs in the touching scene of the meeting loving parent with a portrait of his son: they didn’t have time to install the portrait. Then Napoleon turns to some courtier and starts a conversation with him to give him time to prepare the portrait. And when the courier, with a theatrical gesture, tears the blanket from the picture, Napoleon’s face again receives the desired expression, and everyone around him remembers the tenderness with which the great man looks at the portrait of his little son playing the globe, like a ball for a billboke. An excellent acting instinct saves Napoleon in many situations when, in his own words, there is only one step from the great to the ridiculous. Tolstoy also agrees with this Napoleonic aphorism, painting a scene of the emperor standing on Poklonnaya Hill and waiting for the boyars with the keys to Moscow (3, 3, XIX). The wait was clearly prolonged, and the retinue behind the emperor’s back was already whispering that the boyars could not be found in Moscow. No one dares to tell Napoleon about this, and he himself feels that the solemn scene that he wanted to play here is turning into a comedy. He gets into the carriage and quietly enters Moscow.

In the image of Kutuzov, Tolstoy, on the contrary, emphasizes naturalness and simplicity. In the midst Battle of Austerlitz Kutuzov cries as he watches Russian soldiers flee in droves from the battlefield (1.3, XVI). At this critical moment, Prince Andrei sees him, but Kutuzov is not afraid to appear weak. In the scene of the prayer service on the eve of the Battle of Borodino (3.2, XXI), the field marshal behaves very naturally: he kneels with difficulty in front of the shrine, crosses himself, and then, groaning and breathing heavily, cannot get up for several minutes, because he is old and fat. But it never even occurs to him to be ashamed of his senile infirmity. The prim German officer standing right there (to maintain the morale of the Russians!) only emphasizes the simplicity of Kutuzov’s behavior.

Tolstoy does not see kindness in Napoleon's behavior. For example, the emperor is proud of those habits that the nature of a normal person opposes. This refers to Napoleon's interest in viewing those killed on the battlefield after another victory French army. This interest in corpses, according to the author, is unnatural, but Napoleon, in his morbid curiosity, sees the greatness of his own spirit. The dying Prince Andrei, observing the emperor just during such an inspection of the battlefield, saw before him not a great man, but a petty, self-satisfied egoist playing the role of a great man. Now Napoleon loses the halo of a hero for Prince Andrei and becomes insignificant in comparison with the sky of Austerlitz, with the truth of life, which was revealed to Bolkonsky on the verge of life and death: “At that moment all the interests that occupied Napoleon seemed so insignificant to him, the hero himself seemed so petty to him him, with this petty vanity and joy of victory, in comparison with this high, fair and kind sky, which he saw and understood...” (1.3, XIX).

Kutuzov is portrayed by Tolstoy as a wise and therefore kind (but not kind) person. General Bennigsen, a Hanoverian in Russian service, opened the council in Fili with the question: “Should we leave the sacred and ancient capital of Russia without a fight or defend it?” (3.3, IV). The question is posed in such a way that, most likely, the answer that Count Bennigsen sought from the young Russian generals will follow: we will die, but we will not surrender Moscow to the enemy. However, Bennigsen’s patriotism is explained by the intrigue that he started against Kutuzov: if the defense of Moscow is successful, attribute the success to himself; if unsuccessful, blame Kutuzov; if his, Bennigsen’s, proposal is not accepted, relieve himself of responsibility for leaving Moscow (3, 3, III). All the generals on the council are excited, making their proposals for saving Moscow, and only Kutuzov calmly (even sleepily) observes this skirmish and does not succumb to Bennigsen’s provocation, covered with a patriotic phrase. Finally, without entering into fruitless disputes, he says: “... with the power entrusted to me by my sovereign and fatherland, I order a retreat” (3.3, IV). It is the peasant girl Malasha who sympathizes with Kutuzov, and not Bennigsen, who observes the military council, hiding on the stove. She does not understand the meaning of what is happening, but she feels that “grandfather” Kutuzov is right in his dispute with the “long-haired” Bennigsen.

Prince Andrei respects Kutuzov for his responsiveness and fairness. These qualities of the field marshal were evident during their last meeting in the summer of 1812. Kutuzov found simple words sympathy when he spoke about the recent death of old Prince Bolkonsky and about his respect for his son. Prince Andrei refused to transfer to serve from the regiment to the headquarters, and Kutuzov agreed with this decision: “I’m sorry, I would need you; but you’re right, you’re right. We don’t need people here. There are always a lot of advisers, but no people. (. ..) I remember you from Austerlitz... I remember, I remember, I remember with the banner,” said Kutuzov, and a joyful color rushed into the face of Prince Andrei at this memory” (3, 2, XVI).

A striking scene for the characterization of Kutuzov is his arrival at the regiment at the end of the novel. The soldiers show him captured French banners and prisoners - pitiful and frostbitten. The field marshal utters his famous words addressed to the Russian soldiers: “It’s difficult for you, but still you are at home; and what have they come to? Worse than the last beggars. While they were strong, we did not feel sorry for them, but now we can feel sorry for them. They are people too” (4, 4, VI). After this short speech, all the Russians began to smile, because Kutuzov expressed feelings that they carried in their souls, but did not know how to formulate so simply and correctly. And Napoleon on the Field of Austerlitz counts the corpses of French and enemy soldiers and rejoices that for every Frenchman killed, there are several foreign dead. He compares the battle to a chess game (3, 2, XXIX), people for him are chess pieces, which the commander rearranges according to his desire and plan. Prince Andrei and the author dispute this view of the war (3, 2, XXV).

Napoleon, according to Tolstoy, never understood the truth. This idea is expressed in the description of the French emperor during the Battle of Borodino. Napoleon demonstrates vigorous activity and self-confidently thinks that he controls people and events, that is, he creates history. In this delusion, he is like a child who is sure that he controls the carriage with the help of ribbons sewn to the front wall of the carriage (4, 1, XI). In fact, according to Tolstoy, Napoleon is only an instrument of history. This truth was revealed to him once when, tired and frightened, he drove along the edge of the Borodino field, returning to headquarters. He, a seasoned commander, was horrified by the number of corpses in a small space. And suddenly, as Tolstoy writes, the thought of the error of his entire life, connected with continuous wars, crept into his head. He was horrified because the truth was revealed to him. But this terrible thought for Napoleon quickly disappeared, and he again believed in his infallibility, in his greatness. So “never, until the end of his life, could he understand either goodness, beauty, truth, or the meaning of his actions, which were too opposite to goodness and truth, too far from everything human for him to understand their meaning.” (3, 2, XXXVIII).

Kutuzov in Tolstoy's novel, unlike Napoleon, understands very well, on the one hand, that not a single person can change history. A wise historical figure, Kutuzov does not interfere with the course of history, but puts everything in its place, does not interfere with anything useful and does not allow anything harmful (3, 2, XVI). On the other hand, General Kutuzov understands that war is a tragic event in the life of the people. Therefore, before Austerlitz, he pulls Emperor Alexander back, reminding him that war is not a parade on Tsaritsyn Meadow. And when in the winter of 1813 Russian troops reached the Polish border, he wrote a report to the emperor that Patriotic War ended, and therefore there is no sufficient reason to fight further.

Kutuzov is shown in the Napoleonic wars of 1805-1807, his participation in Russian-Turkish war(1806-1812), but he certainly became a great historical figure precisely in the war of 1812, when he understood the idea of the Patriotic War (to liberate the Russian land from enemy invasion) and received the trust of the people and the army. Kutuzov is a man who, according to philosophical views Tolstoy, like no one else, was able to “guess so correctly the meaning folk meaning events that he never once betrayed him throughout his entire career... The source of this extraordinary power of insight into the meaning of occurring phenomena lay in that popular feeling that he carried within himself in all its purity and strength” (4, 4, V). In the novel, Kutuzov renounces personal glory, which always guides the actions of Emperor Napoleon and the “Napoleons” (staff officers of the Russian army), and devotes all his activities to the main goal - the expulsion of the French from Russia.

So, the images of Napoleon and Kutuzov allow the author to express his own view of history and the great historical figure.

Napoleon, according to the writer, is an arrogant, cruel conqueror, whose activities cannot be justified either by the goals of history or by the interests of France. All his actions contradict the moral ideal of humanity - goodness, simplicity, truth. If Kutuzov embodies folk wisdom in the novel, then Napoleon is extreme individualism. If Kutuzov correctly understands the laws of history and obeys them, then Napoleon wants to control events according to his will and thereby dooms himself and his people to inevitable defeat. Thus, Tolstoy denies Napoleon greatness, because the French (for patriotic reasons) and the Germans declared him great (to justify their military defeats: after all, it is not offensive to a genius to lose a war). The Russians paid with blood and numerous victims for the right not to consider Napoleon great (4, 1, VIII).

Kutuzov, according to Tolstoy, is a great man: his glory is inseparable from the victorious glory of Russia. At the same time, debunking Napoleon as a commander, the writer willy-nilly belittles historical significance the activities of Kutuzov and the Russian army in the defeat of Napoleonic France. The writer’s reasoning, of course, deserves serious attention and respect, but many historians will not agree with them. Tolstoy, for example, writes that Kutuzov did not want a war abroad (4, 4, V), but historical documents indicate otherwise. While in Poland at the beginning of 1813, Kutuzov was already considering the foreign campaign of the Russian army, as he understood that only after the capture of Paris could lasting peace be achieved in Europe.

The French consider their emperor a great man not even for his military victories (although for them too), but for his civil reforms. These government reforms were so successful that the judicial, administrative, and educational systems, created during the era of Napoleon and with his personal participation, still function in France. Tolstoy does not discuss this aspect of Napoleon’s activities in the novel because, probably, the civil laws of France do not have serious significance for Russia, but the Russians were directly affected by Napoleon’s military activities: Napoleon came to Russia with an army of five hundred thousand as an aggressor. In the novel, the author shows that the smug and arrogant emperor turns into a cowardly fugitive who has lost all his greatness when faced with a people who have risen to defend their independence.

The victory of the army depends on the experience and skill of the military leader. Leo Tolstoy admires Kutuzov's military skill. At the cost of burning Moscow, the great commander managed to save the army, and therefore preserve the country’s statehood. A comparative description of Kutuzov and Napoleon in the novel “War and Peace” makes it possible to analyze the reasons for the defeat of the Russian army in the first half of the Patriotic War of 1812 and its victory during the second half of the military campaign.

Comparison of the appearance of the two heroes

Main facial feature Kutuzova there is a smile and a lonely tear against the background of a one-eyed facial expression (the Russian field marshal lost an eye due to a wound received in a battle with a Turkish landing force in 1774). The hero met the Patriotic War of 1812 as a very old man in his seventh decade, and went through it with heavy steps. The plump, bright face of Mikhail Illarionovich was adorned with the wise expression of a lonely eye socket; he was corpulent and stooped due to his venerable age, but this did not prevent the prince from skillfully leading the army.

Napoleon was forty years old when he attacked Russia, his prominent belly looked ridiculous given his small stature. Bonaparte carefully monitored his appearance. The emperor's hands stood out with aristocratic whiteness, and his body was enveloped in the aroma of exquisite cologne. Excessive fullness of the legs was revealed by tight leggings white, and his fat neck was emphasized by the blue collar of his military jacket.

Character traits of Kutuzov and Napoleon

Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov became famous among the soldiers for his kindness, often showed concern for the rank and file, about ordinary people. The prince was distinguished by his attentiveness, noticing individual details of what was happening around him. His Excellency was not embarrassed by the complexity of any situation; he remained calm and unperturbed under any circumstances. The field marshal moved slowly, sleepily shifting from foot to foot.

Kutuzov expressed his thoughts clearly, concisely, with special charm and fatherly intonation. Leo Tolstoy emphasizes the simplicity of the military leader and closeness with the people. Neither by his posture nor by his demeanor does the hero play any specific role, but remains an ordinary person. It's common for an old man to be interested beautiful women, joke in your circle with subordinates.

Contemporaries noted Kutuzov's habit of addressing officers and soldiers kindly. Bolkonsky knows that the boss is weak to tears, capable of sincerely expressing sympathy, and a person who believes to the depths of his soul. The heroes of the novel speak of the field marshal as a wise commander who recognizes that in some moments of the war it is better not to interfere, giving history the opportunity to develop arbitrarily.

Napoleon On the contrary, he has a high opinion of his actions. The egocentrism of the Emperor of France makes him think that his own decisions are the only correct ones. Tolstoy paints a portrait of a narcissistic little man. Provoking the murder of millions of soldiers is baseness, insignificance and intellectual limitation, dictated by the whim of unlimited power.

Table of comparative characteristics of Kutuzov and Napoleon

Kutuzov:

The field marshal smiled sincerely at the corners of his lips, thereby decorating his disfigured face.
Unpretentious to the conditions of life in the field, he could stay in any hut.
He considers it his mission to save Russia from enslavement by an enemy army.
Fatherly attitude towards soldiers, parting words before battle are short and to the point. For example: “Get some sleep!”
Personally takes part in the main battles of the military campaign of 1812.
Understands that the outcome of the war depends on many factors, including the morale of ordinary soldiers.
How a religious person recognizes his small significance in the historical process.

Napoleon:

The imperial smile was deceitful, but his eyes remained indifferent.
Gravitating towards luxury, the courtyard amazes with its splendor.
Wants to conquer the whole world in order to impose his cultural values and enrich themselves at the expense of other states.
He believes that the army wins only thanks to his craft of waging war, known for pathetic long speeches before battles.
Tries to stay at a distance from the line of fire.
He thinks that everything in life depends solely on his will.
He believes that the world revolves around him, his role in everything that happens is key, he is destined to change the picture of Europe.

Leo Tolstoy repeatedly reminds: Kutuzov kept his soldiers from bloody battles, tried in every possible way to avoid the death of the army, even at the cost of the surrender of Moscow. For the commander-in-chief, war is a national disaster, his fate is to help the people survive, to free themselves from the fate of suffering a foreign conqueror on their land.

Napoleon obsessed with war, sees himself as a key figure in history who changed the map of the world in direct meaning these words. Examining the Borodino field, strewn with the corpses of soldiers from both armies, the emperor admires the mortal appearance of the wounded Bolkonsky.

The reason for Russia's victory in the Patriotic War of 1812 lies in the unity of the state and the people. Leo Tolstoy shows each person, be it a peasant or a nobleman, as an insignificant grain of sand in society. As soon as people unite in a single historical process, their strength increases many times over and turns into a victorious wave, sweeping away in its path any campaign launched by an evil genius. Kutuzov loved his people and appreciated their patriotic power and natural will to freedom.

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. By creating these heroes, the writer does not give detailed characteristics. Our impression is formed on the basis of actions, individual phrases, appearance characters.

The main technique of 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 work of art, not a documentary work. Some of the characters' features 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 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.

Main goal

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. 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 boots, tattered uniforms of the army, recognizes familiar faces in the total mass of the army of many thousands. He won't risk his life simple soldier for the sake of the approval of the sovereign emperor or another award. Talking with subordinates in simple and clear 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 their 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 own person. 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