Secondary school No. 10 of the city of Vladimir.

Abstract on the topic:

“Napoleon and Kutuzov in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace".

Work completed: Work checked:

Student 10th grade teacher

Schmidt Semyon Mikhailovich. L.F. Fesenko.

2002

Abstract plan.

I . Tolstoy on the role of personality in history.

II . The image of Napoleon and Kutuzov in the work.

1. Kutuzov:

a) biography;

b) review in Braunau;

c) Battle of Austerlitz;

d) Borodino;

e) council in Fili;

2. Napoleon:

a) biography;

b) Battle of Austerlitz;

c) Napoleon at the Neman River;

d) Napoleon on Poklonnaya Hill;

3. Comparative characteristics of Napoleon and Kutuzov.

III . The importance of personality in history (as a conclusion).

The formation of history, who or what determines the chain of events large and small on different historical scales, which has a key, guiding influence on the course of history - one of the main and controversial issues that interest historians and not only them, but many people whose activities are not related only directly, but even in general, it would seem not to be connected with historical science. Moreover, this question interests every person. Since this issue is a complex problem, it is not possible to solve it definitely. There are different views on the role of the individual in the historical process, as a broad, multifaceted problem. This topic is also largely addressed in the literature. Interesting conclusions can be drawn by considering one of the most fundamental works related to the wars of 1805-1807 and 1812. - epic novel by Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy “War and Peace”.

In 1867, Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy completed work on the work "War and Peace". In this work, the author denied the possibility of an individual’s active influence on history, since it is impossible to foresee or change the direction of historical events, because they depend on everyone and no one individually. In his philosophical and historical digressions, Tolstoy viewed the historical process as a sum made up of “countless human arbitrariness,” that is, the efforts of each person. The totality of these efforts results in a historical necessity that no one can cancel. According to Tolstoy, history is made by the masses, and its laws cannot depend on the desire of an individual historical person. L.D. Opulskaya wrote: “Tolstoy refuses to recognize as the force guiding the historical development of mankind any kind of “idea,” as well as the desires or power of individual, even “great” historical figures.” There are laws that govern events partly unknown, partly groped by us, writes Tolstoy. “The discovery of these laws is possible only when we completely renounce the search for causes in the will of one person, just as the discovery of the laws of planetary motion became possible only when people renounced the idea of ​​the solidity of the Earth." Tolstoy sets the task for historians "instead of finding causes... finding laws." Tolstoy stopped in bewilderment before realizing the laws that determine the "spontaneous swarm" life of the people. According to his view, a participant in a historical event cannot know the meaning and significance, much less the result of the actions performed Because of this, no one can intelligently direct historical events, but must obey their spontaneous, unreasonable course, as the ancients obeyed fate. However, the internal, objective meaning of what was depicted in “War and Peace” led closely to the awareness of these patterns. specific historical phenomena, Tolstoy himself came very close to determining the actual forces that guided the events. Thus, the outcome of the war of 1812 was determined, from his point of view, not by a mysterious fate inaccessible to human understanding, but by the “club of the people’s war,” which acted with “simplicity” and “expediency.” Tolstoy's people act as the creator of history: the millions of ordinary people, and not heroes and generals, create history, move society forward, create everything valuable in material and spiritual life, accomplish everything great and heroic. And Tolstoy proves this thought - “people's thought” using the example of the War of 1812.

To prove this, the writer uses in “War and Peace” two important images in the history of mankind: Kutuzov and Napoleon. These are, as it were, two ideological centers in the work.

Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov.

On September 5 (16), 1745, a son was born into the family of Illarion Matveevich, who was destined to become a great Russian commander, his name - Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov - was immortalized by history.

Engineer-General Illarion Matveevich Kutuzov instilled in his son hard work and an interest in books from childhood. The boy successfully studied Russian and foreign languages, arithmetic at home, and read a lot. When Mikhail grew up, his father sent him to artillery and engineering school.

Not all nobles did this then, although they were obliged to serve in the army and train their sons in military affairs.

Under these conditions, young Mikhail Kutuzov, gifted by nature with intelligence and abilities, very inquisitive, precocious, prepared at home for training at a military school, immediately stood out from among the students of the artillery and engineering school.

He grew up as a healthy, handsome boy, cheerful, seemingly somewhat phlegmatic, able to notice the characteristic features of his peers and imitate them in a comically gentle manner.

His comrades loved Kutuzov for his cheerful disposition, his teachers valued him for his abilities and diligence.

The future commander studied successfully. He mastered engineering and artillery well, loved military history, and knew languages:

French, German, Latin, and subsequently studied English, Swedish, Turkish and Polish.

Kutuzov had a special passion for engineering and was appointed to help officers train students on December 10, 1759.

Years will pass, officer and general Kutuzov will always and everywhere improve himself in military science, will continue the search for knowledge, read Russian and foreign literature, ancient classics, and master human culture.

His interests will forever include literature, art, theater, and international politics. His house in St. Petersburg will be open to Russian and foreign artists and writers.

Kutuzov was married to Ekaterina Ilyinichna, née Bibikova, and had five daughters - Praskovya, Anna, Elizaveta, Ekaterina, Daria; the Kutuzovs' only son died in infancy.

High culture and education became the support of his military calling, became the basis of military affairs to which Kutuzov devoted all the powers of his mind, his

souls, all my life.

An easy and safe career as a courtier opened up for Kutuzov. He was well prepared for it.

The young warrant officer, who knew foreign languages, was intelligent and polite in his manners, was appointed adjutant to the Governor General of Revel, Field Marshal General Prince Golyptein-Beksky. Kutuzov was with him at meetings with titled persons and diplomats arriving in Russia from abroad. But he did not stay as an adjutant for long.

His father’s upbringing had an impact, his own character had an impact, and the young officer asked to join the ranks.

Five long decades of military service, campaigns and wars dragged on for him.

Ensign Kutuzov began his military career and grew as an officer when the Russian army began to revive its military traditions from the time of Peter I.

He was brought up from childhood under the echoes of the glory of Peter's victories; The heroes of the Poltava battle were still alive, and in the family of Illarion Matveyevich the memory of the founder of the regular Russian army was honored.

But the point was not only the educational significance of heroic traditions. An analysis of the general art of Kutuzov clearly shows the common features that bring him closer to the general art of Peter I.

He comprehended the nature of battle and war, the essence of military leadership in the actions of commanders Rumyantsev and Suvorov. On this basis his talent as a commander grew and developed.

In 1764, when Russian troops moved into Poland, Captain Kutuzov achieved a transfer to the active army. Over the years 1764, 1765, 1769, he participated in a number of small battles (there were no major operations there), became involved in military life, but, as he himself later admitted, “he did not yet understand war.”

Then Kutuzov took part in two Crimean wars (1786-1787)

Since 1793, a new stage began in Kutuzov’s life: he became a diplomat - the Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary of Russia in Constantinople. The descriptions of Kutuzov’s diplomatic activities that have reached us indicate that here too he turned out to be talented.

In September 1794, Mikhail Illarionovich was appointed director of the land cadet corps, where he supervised the training and education of future officers of the Russian army. He himself lectured them on military history, and for the first time introduced the teaching of tactics in the corps.

Continuing this activity, Kutuzov simultaneously serves as commander of the ground forces in Finland, inspects them, builds fortifications there, and participates in diplomatic relations aimed at improving relations between Russia and Sweden.

For about a year, Mikhail Illarionovich was the Governor-General of St. Petersburg, but Alexander was dissatisfied with him “for malfunctions in the police service.”

In August 1802, he was “dismissed by request,” and in essence, he was simply removed from St. Petersburg. Kutuzov left for his village of Goroshki, Volyn province.

But still, in those days, Kutuzov’s talent as a commander had not yet faded, glory awaited him ahead. In 1805-1807 he became commander-in-chief of the Russian army.

For the first time in the novel, the commander-in-chief of the Russian army appeared before us in the scene of the review of the Russian regiment in Braunau. Walking along the lined rows, he carefully peers into the faces of the officers and soldiers, stops near those he knows from the Turkish War, and says a few kind words to almost everyone. Recognizing Timokhin, a brave Russian officer who distinguished himself in the battle of Shengraben, Kutuzov stops and says that Timokhin is an “Izmailovsky comrade,” a “brave officer,” and, hinting at Timokhin’s commitment to wine, adds: “We are all not without weaknesses.”

Vanity is alien to Kutuzov; he does not value the opinion of empty and envious people about himself.

At Austerlitz, Kutuzov was powerless. He spoke out firmly against the offensive. They didn't listen to him.

The battle plan was prepared by the German Weyrother. It seemed that everything in this huge, complex plan had been thought out. But the prudent German could not take into account the fact that instead of defensive actions, Napoleon would go on the attack. On the day of the battle, Kutuzov was irritated and bilious. Even before this event, he openly expressed his dissatisfaction with the conduct of the battle planned by Emperors Franz and Alexander. Perhaps Kutuzov understood that Napoleon was not as powerless as it seemed at first glance. He also did not like Weyrother’s plan, since in addition to strategy, one also needed the will to win, spiritual closeness to the battlefield, to the soldiers, as well as extensive experience of commanders.

Kutuzov had only hope for the unparalleled courage of the Russian soldiers, that during the battle he would be able to save the situation with the right decision.

And Kutuzov went with the soldiers under the bullets of the French. When the French troops began a rapid offensive, the Russian soldiers, who did not expect this, fled. Kutuzov in the novel by L.N. Tolstoy is shown precisely at this moment. Despite the fact that the crowd of running people was pushing him back, the commander himself tried to get ahead and follow the sounds of gunfire. He shouted: “Stop them (the running)! Stop these scoundrels!”

This episode reveals Kutuzov’s firmness, steadfastness, courage, and his disdain for traitors to the Motherland.

L.N. Tolstoy says in his work: “Just as in a clock the result of the complex movement of countless different wheels and blocks is only the slow and steady movement of the hand indicating the time, so is the result of all the complex human movements of these one hundred and sixty thousand Russians and French - all the passions, desires, repentances , humiliation, suffering, outbursts of pride, fear, delight of these people - there was only the loss of the Battle of Austerlitz, the so-called battle of the three emperors, that is, the slow movement of the world-historical hand on the dial of human history.” Therefore, according to Tolstoy, the culprit of the defeat of the Russian army can be considered not the emperor with his plan for accepting the battle, but the people. This is contrary to reality.

When everyone knew that the Russian emperor himself, and not Kutuzov, was the culprit of the Austerlitz defeat, Alexander I hated Kutuzov even more and, having removed him from the army, appointed him governor-general of Kiev.

But already “Since 1811, increased armament and concentration of forces in Western Europe began, and in 1812 these forces moved from West to East, to the borders of Russia, to which, in the same way, since 1811, the forces of our army were concentrated. On June 12, 1812, the forces of Western Europe crossed the borders, and war began." (War and Peace)

And in this dangerous, tense situation, Kutuzov again becomes the head of the entire Russian army. But, despite the experience and genius of Mikhail Illarionovich, events were not in Russia’s favor: Russian troops began to slowly but surely retreat. Cities such as Smolensk, Kaluga, and Ryazan were given to the French. The turning point in the Russian-French war was the battle near the village of Borodino on August 26.

Kutuzov had a premonition of victory in the Battle of Borodino. During the battle, Kutuzov was excited. He did not make any orders, but only agreed or disagreed with what was offered to him: “Yes, yes, do it,” he answered various proposals. “Yes, yes, go, my dear, have a look,” he addressed first one or the other of those close to him; or: “No, no, it’s better to wait.” Kutuzov knew that one person could not decide the fate of the battle. This is done by that elusive force called the spirit of the army, and he monitored this force and led it as far as it was in his power. Therefore, after receiving the first news of the victory, the field marshal immediately sent an adjutant to travel through the troops with this news. Kutuzov understood the significance of the Battle of Borodino. The wheel of Napoleonic army, having received a rebuff from Borodin, lost the power with which it moved and captured Russian lands. Therefore, having rolled by inertia to Moscow, the wheel rolled back, pushed by Russian soldiers.

In the episode of the Battle of Borodino, Kutuzov appears to us as modest, easy to deal with others, and accessible to the people. As proof of his devotion to the people and love for the Motherland, one can cite an episode of the participation of M.I. Kutuzov at a prayer service before the Battle of Borodino. As an example to those around him, as a simple Russian man, a Christian, he approached the icon, knelt down, and bowed to the ground. Then he stood up with difficulty, kissed the icon and bowed again, touching the ground with his hand. Everyone else, including soldiers and militia, did the same. It seems to us that this is a common occurrence when Kutuzov is constantly among the common people. But in fact, even in our time, it rarely happens that high ranks can be seen among ordinary people.

The reader’s next meeting with Kutuzov takes place in the episode “Council in Fili.”

“In the spacious, best hut of the peasant Andrei Sevastyanov, at two o’clock, the council met.” Almost all members of the council (Barclay de Tolly, Tol, Kaisarov, Konevnitsyn) were convinced that Moscow should be surrendered to the enemy. The main question facing Kutuzov was: “When, when was it finally decided that Moscow was abandoned? When was what was done that resolved the issue, and who is to blame for this?” All the actions of the meeting participants were observed by a six-year-old girl Malasha, the granddaughter of Andrei Sevastyanov. She carefully watched “grandfather” Kutuzov. It seemed to her that it was only a matter of personal struggle between Kutuzov and Count Bennigsen, who insisted on the defense of Moscow, only because of personal considerations. In her soul, Malasha sided with her “grandfather.” With this fact, Tolstoy emphasizes Kutuzov’s undoubted closeness to the people; Tolstoy’s phrase is confirmed here: “There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.”

At the end of the council, Kutuzov addressed everyone who was at the meeting: “And so, gentlemen, it means that I have to pay for the broken pots,” he said. And slowly getting up, he walked over to the table. - Gentlemen, I heard your opinions. Some will disagree with me. But I, by the power entrusted to me by my sovereign and the Fatherland, I order a retreat.” Everyone left quietly, without obvious emotions. Kutuzov sat for a long time, leaning on the table, and asked himself the same question: “When, when was it finally decided that Moscow was abandoned?”

After much thought, Kutuzov shouted: “No! They will eat horse meat like the Turks!”

This passage shows Kutuzov’s sense of responsibility to his Motherland, the sovereign, and the people.

In 1812, for the sake of the interests of Russia, Kutuzov, against the will of the tsar, surrendered Moscow to Napoleon.

When things got better in the Russian army, and Napoleon’s army began to retreat, everyone realized that Russia had been saved, and this largely happened thanks to the great Russian commander M.I. Kutuzov.

Russia celebrated the victory with glory and legitimate pride, the name of M.I. Kutuzov thundered throughout the country.

“I could say,” Mikhail Illarionovich wrote to his wife Ekaterina Ilyinichna, “that Bonaparte, this proud conqueror, is running before me like a schoolboy from a teacher,” but... “God humbles pride.” “I keep wandering, surrounded by smoke, which they call glory,” he adds in another letter. At the same time, Kutuzov wants the true meaning of his actions to be understood. When Ekaterina Ilyinichna sent an ode from St. Petersburg in which it was said that he surrendered Moscow in order to save the blood of soldiers, the commander replied: “I weighed Moscow not with the blood of soldiers, but with the whole of Russia and with the salvation of St. Petersburg and with the freedom of Europe.” Then, standing on Poklonnaya Hill, the strategist and politician found the only path to victory and temporarily sacrificed his native capital. He foresaw that there would be spiteful critics who would distort the essence of his decisions, and a month later he wrote to St. Petersburg again: “Still, I didn’t weigh Moscow that way, not with the blood of soldiers, but with all of Russia.”

Kutuzov's health was getting worse every day. And on April 11, Mikhail Illarionovich dictates his last letter to Ekaterina Ilyinichna: “I am writing to you, my friend, for the first time in someone else’s hand, which will surprise you, and perhaps even frighten you - a disease of such a kind that the sensitivity of the fingers in your right hand has been lost. ..”

The commander-in-chief was dying in a small corner room of a two-story house on Bunzlau Square.

Shortly before his death, Alexander I came to see him. The hypocrite, who had persecuted Mikhail Illarionovich since the first year of his reign, now sanctimoniously asked the dying man for forgiveness.

“I, Your Majesty, forgive, but will Russia forgive,” answered the field marshal.

The death of the commander-in-chief was hidden from the Russian army for several days; obeying the orders issued in his name, she continued to advance to the west.

Thus, based on the text I wrote, we can make a brief description of M.I. Kutuzova.

He is brave, decisive, full of ideas, expedient, attentive to his subordinates. Kutuzov is great as a commander because he, like all the best representatives of the Russian officers, acted in complete unity with the entire Russian people.

Napoleon Bonaparte.

Napoleon was born into a poor Corsican noble family of Charles and Letizia Buonaparte (there were 5 sons and 3 daughters in the family) on August 15, 1769 on the island of Corsica (Ajaccio). He studied at the Royal Military School in Brienne and at the Paris Military School (1779-85), from which he graduated with the rank of lieutenant. Napoleon grew up as a gloomy and withdrawn boy, became irritated quickly and for a long time, did not seek rapprochement with anyone, looked at everyone without respect and sympathy, and was very confident in himself, despite his youth and small stature. He did not have time to graduate from the academy. The father died, and the family was left almost without a livelihood. Napoleon entered the army with the rank of junior officer.

Life was hard for the young officer. Most of the already small salary had to be sent to the family, leaving only meager food for themselves. He avoided society: his clothes were so plain that he did not want and could not lead a social life. But he worked tirelessly, spending all his free time from work reading books; I read voraciously, with unheard-of greed, filling my notebooks with notes and notes. He was most interested in books on military history, mathematics, geography, and travel descriptions. The progressive youth of that time were keen on the writings of enlightenment philosophers. Napoleon showed an early aversion to the views of revolutionary writers.

Appointed chief of artillery in the army besieging Toulon occupied by the British, Bonaparte carried out a brilliant military operation. Toulon was taken, and at the age of 24 he himself received the rank of brigadier general (1793). After the Thermidorian coup, Bonaparte distinguished himself during the dispersal of the royalist rebellion in Paris (1795), and then was appointed commander of the Italian army. During the Italian campaign (1796-97), Napoleon's military genius was revealed in all its splendor. The Austrian generals were unable to oppose anything to the lightning-fast maneuvers of the French army, poor, poorly equipped, but inspired by revolutionary ideas and led by Bonaparte. She won one victory after another: Montenotto, Lodi, Milan, Castiglione, Arcole, Rivoli. The Italians enthusiastically greeted the army, which carried the ideals of freedom, equality, and liberated them from Austrian rule. Austria lost all its lands in Northern Italy, where the Cisalpine Republic, allied with France, was created. The name of Bonaparte resounded throughout Europe. After his first victories, Napoleon began to claim an independent role. The Government of the Directory, not without pleasure, sent him on an Egyptian expedition (1798-1799). Its idea was connected with the desire of the French bourgeoisie to compete with the English, which was actively asserting its influence in Asia and North Africa. However, it was not possible to gain a foothold here: while fighting the Turks, the French army did not find support from the local population.

Meanwhile, the power crisis in Paris reached its climax. The corrupt Directory was unable to ensure the gains of the Revolution. In Italy, Russian-Austrian troops under the command of A.V. Suvorov liquidated all of Napoleon’s acquisitions, and there was even a threat of invasion of France. Under these conditions, the returning popular general, relying on an army loyal to him, dispersed the representative bodies and the Directory and proclaimed the consulate regime (November 9, 1799). According to the new constitution, legislative power was divided between the State Council, the Tribunate, the Legislative Corps and the Senate, which made it helpless and clumsy. The executive power, on the contrary, was gathered into one fist by the first consul, i.e. Bonaparte. The second and third consuls had only advisory votes. The constitution was approved by the people in a plebiscite (about 3 million votes against 1.5 thousand) (1800). Later, Napoleon passed through the Senate a decree on the lifetime of his powers (1802), and then proclaimed himself Emperor of the French (1804). Already the head of a strong state, Napoleon set himself the goal of eradicating all memories of revolution and freedom. He mercilessly dealt with the Jacobins who survived the revolutionary upheavals. A despot to the core, he persecuted every idea, even the most remote, of freedom. It was forbidden not only to write about the revolution, but also to mention it and the figures of that time; even the word “revolution” itself was prohibited in the press. Bonaparte was very afraid of betrayal and rebellion. Therefore, I tried in every possible way to find out about it before it happened and to prevent it, starting from the roots - not to give rise to conspiracies. He pursued a tough policy that kept him in control.

When Napoleon came to power, France was at war with Austria and England. Bonaparte's new Italian campaign resembled the first. Having crossed the Alps, the French army unexpectedly appeared in Northern Italy, enthusiastically greeted by the local population. The decisive victory was the Battle of Marengo (1801). The threat to the French borders was eliminated.

The economic policy pursued by Napoleon was to ensure the primacy of the French industrial and financial bourgeoisie in the European market. This was hampered by English capital, the predominance of which was determined by the industrial revolution that had already taken place in England. England put together coalitions against France one after another, trying to win over the largest European powers - primarily Austria and Russia. She financed military operations on the continent. Napoleon planned a direct landing on the British Isles, but England was stronger at sea (at Trafalgar, the French fleet was destroyed by the English fleet, commanded by Admiral Nelson (1805). However, a month later, at Austerlitz (now Slavkov, Czech Republic), Napoleon dealt a crushing blow to the combined Austrian and Russian troops. Frightened by the growing influence of France, Prussia opposed it, but was quickly defeated (Battle of Jena, 1806), French troops entered Berlin. Russian troops inflicted great damage on the French army at the Battle of Eylau (1807), but were defeated at Friedland. (1807). As a result of the war, France included the territories of Belgium, Holland, northern Germany, and parts of Italy. In the rest of Italy, in the center of Europe, in Spain (1809) kingdoms dependent on Napoleon were created, where members of his family ruled. extremely reduced Prussia and Austria were forced to conclude an alliance with France. Russia also did this (Tilsit Peace, 1807).

Having won, Napoleon signed the decree on the continental blockade (1806). From now on, France and all its allies stopped trade relations with England. The Continental blockade damaged the British economy.

Napoleon's policies in the first years of his reign enjoyed the support of the population - not only owners, but also the poor (workers, farm laborers). The fact is that the revival in the economy caused an increase in wages, which was also facilitated by constant recruitment into the army. Napoleon looked like the savior of the fatherland, wars caused national upsurge, and victories caused a sense of pride. After all, Napoleon Bonaparte was a man of the revolution, and the marshals around him, brilliant military leaders, sometimes came from the very bottom. But gradually the people began to get tired of the war, which had lasted for about 20 years. Military recruitment began to cause dissatisfaction. In addition, the economic crisis broke out again (1810). The bourgeoisie realized that it was not within its power to economically subjugate all of Europe. Wars in the vastness of Europe were losing their meaning for her; the costs of them began to irritate her. The security of France had not been threatened for a long time, and in foreign policy the emperor’s desire to extend his power and ensure the interests of the dynasty played an increasingly important role. In the name of these interests, Napoleon divorced his first wife Josephine, with whom he had no children, and married the daughter of the Austrian Emperor, Marie-Louise (1810). An heir was born (1811), but the Emperor's Austrian marriage was extremely unpopular in France.

Napoleon's allies, who accepted the continental blockade against their interests, did not strive to strictly observe it. Tensions grew between them and France. The contradictions between France and Russia became increasingly obvious. Patriotic movements expanded in Germany, and guerrilla violence continued unabated in Spain. Having broken off relations with Alexander I, Napoleon decided to invade Russia. The Patriotic War of 1812 was the beginning of the end of the Empire. Napoleon's huge, multi-tribal army did not carry within itself the former revolutionary spirit; far from its homeland in the fields of Russia, it quickly melted away and finally ceased to exist. As the Russian army moved west, the anti-Napoleonic coalition grew. Russian, Austrian, Prussian and Swedish troops opposed the hastily assembled new French army in the “Battle of the Nations” near Leipzig (October 16-19, 1813). Napoleon was defeated and abdicated the throne after the Allies entered Paris. He took possession of the small island of Elba in the Mediterranean Sea (1814).

The Bourbons and emigrants returned to France in the convoy of foreign troops, anticipating the return of their property and privileges. This caused discontent and fear in French society and in the army. Taking advantage of this, Napoleon fled from Elba and, greeted by the enthusiastic cries of the crowd, returned to Paris. The war resumed, but France was no longer able to bear its burden. The "Hundred Days" ended with Napoleon's final defeat near the Belgian village of Waterloo (June 18, 1815). He became a prisoner of the British and was sent to the distant island of St. Helena in the Atlantic Ocean. There Napoleon spent the last six years of his life, dying from a serious illness and the petty bullying of his jailers. And in 1821, on May 5, he died.

In the novel L.N. Tolstoy's "War and Peace" we learn about Napoleon from various events and battles.

Napoleon, oddly enough, won the Battle of Austerlitz. Perhaps this happened because our generals were too confident in the Russian victory, perhaps this happened due to some other reasons.

Before the battle, Napoleon's address was read to the French soldiers. It said that if the soldiers won this battle, they would be able to return home to their winter quarters, that the emperor himself would lead the troops, etc.

After the battle, Napoleon rode along Pratsen Mountain, gave the last orders to strengthen the batteries firing at the Augesta Dam, and examined the dead and wounded remaining on the battlefield. He approached the wounded Prince Andrei and said: “This is a wonderful death.” At that moment Napoleon himself and his words seemed insignificant and petty to Andrei. Bolkonsky was completely disillusioned with Napoleon Bonaparte. This disappointment is justified. Is it possible to praise a man who loves to walk around the battlefield after a victory and look at the wounded, killed and prisoners. This nasty feature of Napoleon is confirmed by the words of the French escort officer: “We must stop here: the emperor will pass by now; it will give him pleasure to see these captive gentlemen.” When Napoleon won, he showed nobility, which was more like arrogance, boasting.

On the Neman River, Napoleon is also not shown from the best side in the novel. Tolstoy wrote: “Napoleon, despite the fact that more than ever, now, in 1812, it seemed to him that it depended on him whether or not to shed the blood of his people.” In fact, according to Tolstoy, the entire outcome of events, as well as the decision to “shed blood,” was made not by the will of Bonaparte himself, but by the will of the people. But be that as it may, Napoleon transferred his troops across the Neman on June 12, 1812, and the war began.

Even at the beginning of the war, Bonaparte had already divided Russia, “gave Bose a palace in Moscow and made him minister of Kashmir in India. Being among his troops crossing the Neman, Napoleon could hardly withstand the enthusiastic cries of the soldiers. “On the faces of these people there was one common expression of joy at the beginning of the long-awaited campaign and delight and devotion to the man in a gray frock coat standing on the mountain.” The devotion and patriotism of his subordinates was so strong that one of the Uhlan colonels, in front of Napoleon's eyes, forced his regiment to swim across the Viliya River without looking for a ford. Many people and horses drowned. But they “were proud of the fact that they were floating and drowning in this river under the gaze of a man sitting on a log and not even looking at what they were doing.” The episode shows indifference to others, contempt for patriotism, and Napoleon's hypocrisy.

Now let's look at the personal qualities of Napoleon Bonaparte using the example of the episode of the Battle of Borodino.

On August 25, Napoleon spent the whole day on horseback, he inspected the area, and gave orders for the conduct of troops. Tolstoy in this passage talks about how absurd the orders of the French emperor were, while he did not explain the reasons why, for example, he forbade the Russian left flank to be bypassed, but allowed the division to move through the forest, despite the fact that this movement is dangerous and could upset army. Napoleon's disposition also had no success. None of the points of this disposition were implemented.

Before the battle, Bonaparte was cheerful and active, despite his runny nose. But during the battle, Napoleon’s mood worsened; adjutants continued to come to him from different sides. They said the same thing: “Reinforcements are needed, the Russians are holding their ground and producing hellish fire, from which the French army is melting.”

After the battle, Napoleon experienced a heavy feeling of grief and anger: all the same techniques, which were invariably crowned with success, the same disposition as all the previous ones, but no success. For the first time in his life, Napoleon realized that he could not stop the work that was being done in front of him and which was considered to be guided and dependent on him. It is clear from the episode that despite Napoleon’s extensive military experience, the emperor was a commander much worse than Kutuzov. Bonaparte did not know such concepts as the military spirit of the soldiers, which in most cases decides the outcome of the battle, did not understand that it is impossible to resist the course of some events, that winning the battle largely depends on the closeness of the commander-in-chief to his soldiers.

After the Battle of Borodino, Napoleon approached Moscow and looked at it from Poklonnaya Hill. He admired the spectacle that opened before him. He still couldn’t believe that he was at the gates of Moscow, the capital of the Tsars. And so he, giving a sign with his hand, sent troops to Moscow. But before that, he asked his retinue to gather all the boyars to propose to them his resolution. Napoleon had already prepared his speech and felt that his acting talent would be demonstrated in it. But there were no boyars in Moscow, and when this was announced to him, he became angry: “The denouement of the theatrical performance failed.” After Napoleon's troops entered Moscow and dispersed there, it was difficult to gather them again. Some soldiers remained in Moscow. Therefore, the army was greatly weakened and could no longer conduct an offensive. The invincible French army began to retreat under the pressure of Russian soldiers. Napoleon, on his way back to France, obsessed with failure, abandoned his army, thereby completely upsetting the situation among the French soldiers.

Thus, from all this we can conclude about the true image of Napoleon Bonaparte. The French commander is the embodiment of conceit, complacency, ambition, callousness, and vanity. The only thing that was positive about his image was his great acting abilities. Perhaps it was only thanks to them that Napoleon became famous throughout Europe.

Power and glory are Napoleon’s main passions, and moreover, power is more than glory. He wanted to lead everyone and command everyone.

The sharp contrast between Kutuzov and Napoleon is given by the author of the novel, primarily from the point of view of the attitude of each of them to the people and in relation to their personality. Tolstoy believes that Kutuzov embodied the best features of a public figure of that time: patriotism, simplicity, modesty, sensitivity, firmness and sincerity in achieving goals, subordinating his interests to the interests and will of the people. Napoleon, according to Leo Tolstoy, is a selfish man, neglecting the interests of the people, striving to play at will with the lives and destinies of people.

All thoughts, feelings and actions of Kutuzov are aimed at achieving a goal that corresponds to the interests of the people - to preserve their independence, to get rid of an evil and insidious enemy. All his activities are of a national character, determined by his love for the Motherland, the people, and faith in their strength.

Appointed commander-in-chief against the will of the tsar, but at the unanimous desire of the people, Kutuzov sees the decisive condition for victory over the enemy in the patriotic inspiration of the army and population, in their love for the Motherland and hatred of the enemy. Therefore, the efforts of the great commander were aimed primarily at maintaining this inspiration.

Napoleon's activities had a completely different, anti-national character. It is directed against the interests of the European peoples whom he enslaved, including against the interests of the French people, forced to endure all the difficulties of the war, and later the shame and consequences of defeat. He is the indirect killer of many thousands of people. This gave him the right to greatness and glory. Preoccupied exclusively with his own personality, imagining himself as a superman, he does not want to know the mental state of the people around him.

In the behavior of the Russian commander, Tolstoy notes modesty, accessibility to the people, and indifference to glory. Vanity is alien to Kutuzov; he does not value the opinion of empty and envious people about himself.

Napoleon appears to us completely differently. The Emperor of the French is distinguished by extreme arrogance, empty vanity, and a desire for pomp and luxury. Napoleon's entire appearance is unnatural and deceitful. He could not meet high moral requirements, and therefore there is no true greatness in him.

And the last, most important difference between these two commanders is that Kutuzov always tried to act completely alone in battles with the entire Russian people, which is why Russia won this difficult war of 1812. Napoleon did not even think about this fact; he was mentally far from his subordinates, and not only did not understand, but also did not strive to understand the mood of his people in a given period of time.

So, to show the role of personality in history, L.N. Tolstoy resorts to two main images in the work: the image of Kutuzov and the image of Napoleon. But on the way to proving his point of view that the course of events is influenced not by an individual, but by some factors unknown to mankind, Tolstoy encounters many contradictions. Sometimes, the author himself indirectly proves that he is wrong. So, for example, saying that the course of history is influenced by forces unknown to people, Tolstoy at the same time writes about the enormous importance of the masses in influencing the general course of events.

Another example. Tolstoy speaks of Kutuzov’s enormous service to the Fatherland. But according to the same theory, anyone could have been in Kutuzov’s place, say Count Bennigsen, and Russia would still have defeated Napoleon’s army. In fact, this is far from the case. The true role of the individual in history is great. This is confirmed by many facts, starting with the formation of Rus', the Time of Troubles, the reign of Peter I, and ending with the revolution in the political system of the 1990s.

List of used literature.

1).P. Zhilin “Patriotic War of 1812” M. 1988

2).F. Wilkinson “Commanders” M., “word” 1994

3).M. Bragin “Kutuzov” M., “young guard” 1995

4).F. Glinka “Letters of a Russian Officer” M. 1982

5). "The Great Encyclopedia of Cyril and Methodius 2000."

Lesson objectives:

• To trace the portrayal of historical figures Kutuzov and Napoleon in the novel "War and Peace", based on Tolstoy's views on history.
• Compare the images of Kutuzov and Napoleon shown in the novel with real personalities.
• Develop the ability to systematize the studied material, give a comparative description of the images, based on the portrait, speech, and attitude of these characters to what is happening.
• Prepare students to write an essay.
• Foster independent judgment and the ability to defend one’s point of view.

• Equipment:
• multimedia design (computer, projector, screen);
• portraits of L.N. Tolstoy, Kutuzov, Napoleon;
• presentation of reproductions of paintings by V.V. Vereshchagin “On the high road. Retreat, flight...", "Before Moscow, awaiting the deputation of the boyars", "With hostility! Hooray! Hurray!”, “Night halt of the great army”, “With weapons in hand - shoot!”, “At the stage. Bad news from France";
• map “Patriotic War of 1812”;
• fragments of the feature film “War and Peace” dir. S. Bondarchuk
• Internet access to work with the MindMeister program.

1. Organizational moment.

Teacher: Hello, dear guests! Hello guys! Today we have an unusual lesson. We continue to work on Leo Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace”. But in order to reveal the topic of the lesson, we have to use our knowledge of both literature and history. I suggest you formulate this topic yourself by answering a few questions.
2. Determining the topic of the lesson.

Teacher: You have read the novel. What or who, according to L.N. Tolstoy, plays the main role in history?

(Personality, predestination, people, circumstances)

Teacher: You uttered a wonderful word - personality.

What is personality? What traits must a person have to be outstanding?

Teacher: What can be the assessment of a historical figure?

(Negative, positive, ambiguous).

Teacher: What are the main criteria for you in this assessment?

(Service for the benefit of the state, the people, conscientiousness, courage, the ability to show independence, the ability to bear responsibility for one’s choices, one’s decisions, one’s activities).

Teacher: Are there any outstanding personalities on the pages of the novel?

We took the words of L.N. Tolstoy as the epigraph for the lesson. Read the epigraph. How do you understand it?

Can you now formulate lesson topic:“The role of personality in history. Kutuzov and Napoleon in L.N. Tolstoy’s novel “War and Peace.” (slide)

3. Statement of the lesson problem.

Teacher: I bring to your attention information about the role of personality in history . The English philosopher Thomas Carlyle (1795-1881) was one of those who returned to the idea of ​​​​the prominent role of individuals, “heroes” in history. One of his most famous works, which had a very strong influence on his contemporaries and descendants, was called “Heroes and the Heroic in History.” According to Carlyle, world history is the biography of great men. Carlyle focuses in his works on certain individuals and their roles, preaches high goals and feelings, and writes a number of brilliant biographies. He says much less about the masses. In his opinion, the masses are often only instruments in the hands of great personalities.

L.N. Tolstoy had his own point of view on the role of personality in history.

Based on the topic of the lesson and information, we will have to pose a problem.

L.N. Tolstoy took responsibility for the artistic depiction of Kutuzov and Napoleon. What are we going to find out?

(Identify Tolstoy’s attitude towards Kutuzov and Napoleon, based on the author’s views on history. What is the role of personality in history according to L.N. Tolstoy in the novel “War and Peace”?)

Teacher : Why is this important to us?

(In order to decide for yourself: “Who am I, am I going down that road?”)

4. Introduction by the history teacher.

Group Green hat receives the task of compiling diamond and syncwine. Present the result of the work on the board when ready.

7. Word to groups. Results of independent research work on a given topic.

Literature teacher(introduction before the red hat):

It is probably difficult to find a more popular hero in the literature of the 19th century than Napoleon. Krylov's fable "The Wolf in the Kennel", A. Pushkin's poems "To the Sea", "Anchar", the story "The Queen of Spades", the novel "Eugene Onegin", the works of M. Lermontov "Borodin's Field", "Borodino", "Vadim", Gogol "Dead Souls", Dostoevsky "Crime and Punishment", and finally, "War and Peace" by Tolstoy. Famous writers made Napoleon the hero of their works, poets praised or overthrew him in their poems. One way or another, Napoleon became an odious figure in world literature.

The entire nineteenth century is permeated with echoes of the Napoleonic myth. He shook the imagination of several generations. Eyes are riveted on him, on his glory and fate, on his rise and fall. Russian writers, having overcome the “Napoleonism” in themselves, sought to debunk such an attractive idea through their heroes, exposing the immoral essence of a person who claimed to be a genius.

Red hat: red hat thinking is associated with emotions and feelings (presentation)

Student: A.S. Pushkin

Napoleon's personality worried A. S. Pushkin. At the same time, the poet’s attitude towards him underwent its natural evolution. In early romantic works, the image of Napoleon attracted the poet with its exclusivity, mystery, courage, and independence. But over the years, the attitude towards the proud emperor changes radically. Napoleon is assessed by Pushkin from a moral, human point of view.

Here the emperor turns out to be not so free and strong; he appears as an unhappy, lonely man, whose ideas are destructive and have no future. A striking example of this is the theme of “Napoleonism” in the poetic novel “Eugene Onegin”. This topic sounds somewhat casual, indirect. But in fact, Napoleon’s ideas have a decisive influence on the main character, indulging his selfishness, pride, and sense of exclusivity. Many young people fell under the influence of Napoleon's tempting ideas. Pushkin subtly exposes them, shows their anti-human essence. There is a bust of Napoleon in Onegin’s office; Tatyana understands Onegin’s interest in Bonaparte’s ideas when she finds herself in his library. The author's remark sounds aphoristic: “We all look at Napoleons/There are millions of two-legged creatures - for us there is only one weapon.”

Student: M.Yu.Lermontov

M.Yu. Lermontov’s passion for the Napoleonic theme was evident in the poet from the first years of his work. The Napoleonic cycle, conventionally distinguished in the poetry of M.Yu. Lermontov, is a group of poems devoted to two topics.

Firstly, a separate group includes works where Napoleon is the central character and the historical fate of the French commander is chosen as the subject of poetic understanding: “Napoleon” - (1829); "Napoleon" (Duma) - (1830); "Saint Helena" - (1830); "Airship" - (1840); "The Last Housewarming" - (1841).

Secondly, an independent group consists of works about the victory of the Russian people in the Patriotic War of 1812 over the Napoleonic army: “Borodin’s Field” - (1831); "Two Giants" - (1832); "Borodino" - (1837). M.Yu. Lermontov’s interest in his great contemporary, in his heroic achievements, determined the poet’s enduring fascination with the personality of Napoleon. That is why the theme of glory, transitory and eternal, arises in the poet’s work. M.Yu. Lermontov is concerned with the question of how worthy the descendants are of the hero of the recent past. To resolve this issue, the image of a romantic rebel appears in the poet’s work, which will turn out to be the most important in the poetry of M.Yu. Lermontov (“Demon”, “Mtsyri”).

Why did he chase fame so much? For the sake of honor, did you despise happiness?

Did you fight against innocent peoples? And broke crowns with a steel scepter?

M.Yu. Lermontov makes attempts to portray Napoleon as an ordinary person who is characterized by experiences and suffering. Of course, in the eyes of his contemporaries, Napoleon has long been part of history. M.Yu. Lermontov comprehends the personality of the French commander. The poet depicts the cyclical nature of Napoleon's actions, his unsuccessful desire to return to the past. The innovation of M.Yu. Lermontov is that the poet pays enough attention to the inner experiences and feelings of the main character. The general tone of the work is the impossibility of returning the past.

Student: Dostoevsky

“The world would be full of this name,” General Ivolgin says to Prince Myshkin in Dostoevsky’s novel “The Idiot,” “I, so to speak, sucked it in with milk.”

In Dostoevsky’s novels “Crime and Punishment” and “Notes from Underground,” the author proves that the ideas of power and permissiveness are destructive for humans. They contradict the moral laws of existence. Rodion Raskolnikov is convinced of this after much torment and torment. The hero, who no longer wants to put up with poverty and lawlessness, under the influence of Napoleon and similar bloody rulers, was born with the tempting idea of ​​murder for the benefit of others and at the same time for the sake of his own aggrandizement. He thought that by crime he would free himself from the moral law, but this eternal law turned out to be stronger. According to this moral law of history, Napoleon was condemned. The moral law cannot be proven logically, by reason. But it was he who put an end to Napoleon’s destructive plans, allowed Raskolnikov to start a new life, to find purification through enormous suffering. “Well, come on, who in Rus' doesn’t consider himself Napoleon now?” - says the smart investigator Porfiry Petrovich.

Comparison with Napoleon Dostoevsky always mockingly. To call someone Napoleon is to play short. Pathetic creatures are compared (or compare themselves) with Napoleon. In Dostoevsky's views, Napoleon was thought of as a Western phenomenon; It is alien to Russia and contraindicated. Napoleon remade the outside world with violence - Dostoevsky resolutely rejects this path, he advocates for changing a person from the inside, in the spirit of love and humility. Napoleon personifies a great man who has risen above fate, for whom the very principle of individualism, personal success through evil is important; the path through the violation of human and divine laws. This, in his opinion, is the foundation of Western civilization, laid by the French Revolution and Napoleon.

Student: L. N. Tolstoy

The image of Napoleon is finally debunked in L. N. Tolstoy’s epic novel “War and Peace.” In the very first pages of the novel, a dispute arises over his identity. It ends only at the end of the work. For the author, not only was there nothing attractive about Napoleon, but on the contrary, L.N. Tolstoy considered him a man whose “mind and conscience were darkened.” All his actions “were too contrary to truth and goodness.” Not a statesman, not a “ruler of thoughts” who reads in the souls and minds of people, but a spoiled, capricious, self-satisfied poser - this is how the Emperor of France appears in many scenes of the novel. The author draws attention to the fact that Napoleon did not look at people, but past them. “It was clear that only what was happening in his soul was of interest to him. 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.”

Napoleon's personal interests were deeply at odds with the objective demands of reality and the interests of the people. The emperor loved to drive across the field after a won battle. At the same time, the author notes his complete indifference to the killed. Tolstoy exposes the imaginary greatness of Napoleon in various ways.

He debunked the cult of the strong personality, the superman. The image of Napoleon was largely created using satirical means. This is observed in the portrait characteristics: thick thigh, chest, trembling calf of the left leg. He pronounces the words as if they were immediately written down in history books. Tolstoy reduces this superficial grandeur.

The author compares Napoleon with the image of a child who can ride in a carriage, hold on to the strings and naively believe that he controls history. In another episode of the novel, he is likened to a gambler who, it would seem, had calculated everything, but in an instant found himself a loser.

Tolstoy evaluates the image of Napoleon not from the position of his military leadership talents, but from the moral, ethical side. Kutuzov is truly brilliant and great, because he corresponds to Tolstoy’s formula of greatness: “There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.”

Napoleon was condemned to be the executioner of his people, although he had long believed that he was their benefactor. Kutuzov understands that there is something more significant in the world than his will. Napoleon considers himself the master of other people's lives. Tolstoy denies him talent, because genius and villainy are incompatible.

White hat: reports objective facts and figures.

Student: “I created my age for myself, just as I was created for it” (Napoleon).

Napoleon I Bonaparte (1769-1821)

French emperor, brilliant commander. Born into the family of a small nobleman. In 1785, he graduated from the Paris Military School with the rank of lieutenant and served in a regiment in Southern France.

Napoleon, at the age of 24, was promoted from captain to brigadier general. In 1799 he carried out a military coup in Paris, becoming one of the three consuls of France. In 1804 he became Emperor of France. Striving for world domination, Napoleon attacked Russia in 1812 and, as a result of the heroic resistance of the Russian army and people, was defeated. The Napoleonic Empire was defeated, and Paris was taken by Allied troops in 1814.

Napoleon abdicated the throne and was exiled to the island of Elba, retaining the title of emperor. A year later he landed on the shores of France and moved towards Paris, where the government of King Louis XVIII was located.

The emperor's new reign lasted only one hundred days and ended with his defeat at the Battle of Waterloo in June 1815.

He had to abdicate the throne a second time. Napoleon was exiled to St. Helena, where he died six years later.

“Napoleon’s appearance was replete with many physical signs of degeneration: short stature (1 meter 51 centimeters), disproportionate and disproportionate arms to the body, short legs, disproportionate to other parts of the body... The mesocephalic head with depressed temples also had many anomalies: huge jaws, prominent cheekbones and deep sockets of the eyes, a sparse beard. Facial asymmetry; the head sat deep between the shoulders. The back is somewhat hunched, strange phenomena of hyperesthesia" (Segalin, 1926: 146).

“Napoleon’s character from early childhood turned out to be impatient and restless. “Nothing appealed to me,” he later recalled, “I was prone to quarrels and fights, I was not afraid of anyone. I beat one, scratched another, and everyone was afraid of me” (Tarle, 1991: 9).

Student: Kutuzov

Years of life: 1745—1813

Brief description: great Russian commander, His Serene Highness Prince (July 29, 1812), Field Marshal General (August 31, 1812), Prince of Smolensk (December 6, 1812).

Description:

Mikhail Illarionovich Kutuzov came from a noble family. His father had a great influence on the fate of the future military leader: he was a military engineer and also a senator. Despite his status as an only son, young Mikhail received a fairly harsh upbringing. The boy successfully studied Russian and foreign languages, arithmetic at home, and read a lot. When Mikhail grew up, his father sent him to artillery and engineering school. Under these conditions, young Mikhail Kutuzov, gifted by nature with intelligence and abilities, very inquisitive, precocious, prepared at home for training at a military school, immediately stood out from among the students of the artillery and engineering school.

He grew up as a healthy, handsome boy, cheerful, seemingly somewhat phlegmatic, able to notice the characteristic features of his peers and imitate them in a comically gentle way. His comrades loved Kutuzov for his cheerful disposition, his teachers valued him for his abilities and diligence. The future commander studied successfully. He mastered engineering and artillery well, loved military history, knew languages: French, German, Latin, and later also studied English, Swedish, Turkish and Polish.

Kutuzov’s character combined all the traits of a real commander: he had an inquisitive mind at the same time, was enterprising, but also had a kind heart.

Kutuzov was a master of PR(as they say now): his friendly greeting to the troops “With such good fellows, let’s retreat,” a hand-made eagle, which was recorded by many eyewitnesses, hovering above the general’s head, and other “little things” created confidence in ordinary soldiers in victory over the enemy. Even the saying that spread in the army immediately after the arrival of the commander-in-chief speaks of raising the morale of the troops: “Kutuzov came to beat the French.” In the conditions of military operations at the beginning of the 19th century, when small arms were far from perfect and often much was decided in hand-to-hand combat, the morale of the soldiers played a decisive role in the results of such a battle.

OPINIONS ABOUT KUTUZOV

“Kutuzov was a smart man, but cunning<...>. They said that he had a stubborn disposition, unpleasant and even rude, however, that he knew how to kindly, if necessary, instill trust and affection. The soldiers really loved him, because he knew how to deal with them. Kutuzov was short, fat, ugly and crooked in one eye.”

(Notes of Nikolai Nikolaevich Muravyov-Karsky)

Kutuzov bandage

Kutuzov never wore an eye patch. Despite the fact that Kutuzov’s right eye saw worse after being wounded in the head, he did not hide it with bandages. The “one-eyed” Kutuzov first appeared in 1944 in the feature film “Kutuzov”. Then the directors of the musical comedy film “The Hussar Ballad” (1962) put a bandage on Kutuzov’s right eye, which is a distortion of historical reality.

Literature teacher(introduction in front of the black hat): Speaking about the role of the individual in history, Tolstoy writes: “Man consciously lives for himself, but serves as an unconscious tool for achieving historical, universal goals: The higher a person stands on the social ladder, the more connected he is with great people, the more power he has over other people, the more obvious is the predetermination and inevitability of his every action.” Thus, Tolstoy pursues the idea that the closer a person is to natural life, the more he depends on it; the further away, the less. From these positions the author examines Kutuzov and Napoleon. Let's compare the historical truth and the author's vision of these two heroes.

Black hat: logic of correspondence and inconsistency of historical facts with artistic depiction

Student:“He was in a blue uniform, open over a white vest that hung down to his round belly, in white leggings that hugged the fat thighs of his short legs, and in boots.” (Napoleon).
“There was an unpleasantly feigned smile on his face.” (Napoleon).
“The trembling of my left calf is a great sign,” he said later.” (Napoleon).
“In his mind, everything he did was good... because he did it.” (Napoleon).

He behaves like a person who understands that all his words and gestures are a story. “The expression of a gracious and majestic imperial greeting” does not leave his face. (Napoleon).

All his actions and phrases are all pretentious and theatrical. His life is a kind of intrigue, he “had to renounce truth and goodness and everything human.” (Napoleon).

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.” (Napoleon).
He simply turned out to be weaker than his opponent - “the strongest in spirit,” as Tolstoy put it. (Napoleon).

Student: The antipode of Napoleon - Kutuzov - is the embodiment of folk morality, true greatness, “simplicity, goodness and truth.” The “Kutuzovian”, popular principle is contrasted with the “Napoleonic”, egoistic one.

It is difficult to call a Russian commander a “hero”: after all, he does not strive for superiority over other people. In general, Kutuzov in Tolstoy’s portrayal does not correspond to traditional ideas about a military genius. The writer deliberately exaggerates the decrepitude of the Russian commander. So, the commander-in-chief falls asleep during one of the military councils. This happens not because Kutuzov wanted to “show his contempt for the disposition or for anything else,” but because “for him it was about the irrepressible satisfaction of a human need - sleep.”
Kutuzov does not give orders, approving what seems reasonable to him and rejecting what is unreasonable; he seems to be doing nothing, not looking for a fight. At the council in Fili, it is this commander who outwardly calmly decides to leave Moscow, although this costs him terrible mental anguish.
Tolstoy shows that, without trying to influence the course of history, Kutuzov obeys the logic of the historical process and intuitively sees the highest meaning of what is happening. This explains his external inactivity and reluctance to force the course of events. This man, the writer emphasizes, is endowed with true wisdom, a special instinct, which prompts him during the Patriotic War to act in accordance with the principle “what must happen, will happen on its own.”
The source of the “extraordinary power of insight into the meaning of occurring phenomena” that Kutuzov possessed was his folk feeling. He “carried within himself in all its purity and strength” this feeling, which placed the hero at the “highest human heights.” It was this feeling that was recognized by the people in Kutuzov - and the Russian people chose the commander “to represent the people’s war.”
Napoleon won almost all the battles. Kutuzov lost most of the battles - the Russian army suffered setbacks at Krasnoe and Berezina. But, in the end, it was the Russian army that defeated the French army, commanded by the “brilliant commander” Napoleon.
Thus, true greatness, according to Tolstoy, is not measured by any “false formulas” of historians, it is in closeness to the people and to the very essence of life. That is why Napoleon's genius turns out to be a great historical lie. Tolstoy found true greatness in Kutuzov, a modest war worker, a man of the people and for the people.

“An intelligent, kind and at the same time subtly mocking expression shone on his plump face” (Kutuzov).
“He was weak to tears,” like a mere mortal, “the expression of fatigue in his face and figure was still the same” (Kutuzov).
He "reluctantly played the role of chairman and leader of the military council." He is kind towards his soldiers; for him they are “wonderful, incomparable people.” (Kutuzov).
“He understands that there is something stronger and more significant than his will - this is the inevitable course of events. He knows how to renounce participation in these events, his personal will aimed at something else.” (Kutuzov)

Student: Kutuzov the commander is truly great and brilliant, but his greatness and genius lie in his exceptional sensitivity to the collective will of the majority. Kutuzov is wise and heroic in his own way. More than all the heroes of War and Peace, he is free from actions and deeds dictated by personal considerations, vain goals, and individualistic arbitrariness. He is completely imbued with a sense of common necessity and is endowed with the talent of living “in peace” with the many thousands of people entrusted to him. Kutuzov's wisdom lies in the ability to accept "the need for submission to the general course of affairs", in the talent to listen to the "echoes of a common event" and in the willingness to "sacrifice one's personal feelings for the common cause."

In time Battle of Borodino Kutuzov is “inactive” only from the point of view of those ideas about the vocation of a brilliant historical figure that are characteristic of the “formula” of a European hero. No, Kutuzov is not inactive, but he acts distinctly differently from Napoleon. Kutuzov “did not make any orders, but only agreed or disagreed with what was offered to him,” that is, he made a choice and, with his consent or disagreement, directed events in the right direction to the extent of the powers and capabilities that are given to mortal man on earth. The spiritual appearance and even the appearance of Kutuzov the commander is a direct protest against vain projectism and personal tyranny in all its forms.

The "Napoleonic idea" is equivalent to the "idea of ​​war" itself. Really, the literary character has very little in common with the real prototype. Tolstoy does not strive for historical authenticity, setting a fundamentally different task: he constructs the image of a conqueror, an enslaver - as if an impersonal, generalized historical personification of the “Napoleonic idea” itself. Napoleon occupied the minds of his contemporaries by the fact that, relying only on his own strength and luck, he made a dizzying career. “He inspires an invincible dream of glory, power, power. And - unscrupulousness in means, the terrible principle of “winners are not judged.” Napoleon’s guilt before history is enormous and irredeemable: having instilled his bloody idea in those around him, he causes terrible events with unpredictable, tragic consequences. “Napoleon allowed himself to get used to the idea that he was almost a deity, that he could and should decide the destinies of other people, doom them to death, make them happy or unhappy: Tolstoy knows: such an understanding of power always leads to crime, always brings evil. Therefore, he sets himself the task of debunking Napoleon, destroying the legend of his extraordinary nature.” Tolstoy reconstructs history as a continuous struggle between the “Napoleonic idea” and the “idea of ​​peace.” "The image of the invading enemy is determined only by his act - the invasion." Tolstoy.

Green Hat representatives come to the board.

Yellow hat:positive thinking

(positive results of the Patriotic War of 1812)

Factors, significance and consequences of the Patriotic War of 1812

Problem: what did Russia’s victory in the War of 1812 contribute to: strengthening the autocracy or weakening it? What would be more favorable for Europe: a victory for Napoleon or a victory over Napoleon?

V. M. Bezotosny: The victory of Russian weapons led to the final defeat of Napoleon in 1814. For the first time, Russian officers had the opportunity to travel around Europe, see and compare Europe with the Russian order. See and ask the question: what did they liberate Europe from? Many drew conclusions not in favor of serf Russia and asked other questions: “what to do?” and “who is to blame?”, and eventually found themselves among the Decembrists. It was 1812 that served as the initial impetus for the creation of the revolutionary movement in Russia.

Many famous Russian figures of the 19th century. they believed that the “thunderstorm of the twelfth year” awakened Russia, and not only in terms of the revolutionary movement. It was in the post-war period that Russian literature and art flourished; elements of capitalist relations in industry began to develop faster. If we talk about foreign policy, then in 1815 the Vienna Peace Treaty was concluded, which fixed the borders of states and the inviolability of monarchies.

The Holy Alliance (union of monarchs) was formed, which actively suppressed revolutionary explosions, with Russia playing an important role.

The personalities of Napoleon and Kutuzov undoubtedly left an indelible mark on history, and the attitude of descendants towards them changed depending on the era.

Tarle writes about Kutuzov that “in terms of his strategic and tactical talents, simply in the size of these talents, he is not equal to Suvorov and certainly not equal to Napoleon.” How fair is this assessment? What place does Kutuzov occupy in the galaxy of Russian military leaders?

To understand the above phrase, it is necessary to take into account the conditions in which Tarle wrote these lines, after the start of the war, it was necessary to rely on the heroic past of Russia and the attitude of the “leader of the peoples” towards Kutuzov changed, and the attitude of historians towards the field marshal also changed: Kutuzov became a hero, and “by two Heads up" Barclay.

Napoleon's personality is even more significant, we will not dispute this.

It’s curious and incomprehensible: why does humanity adore its destroyers so much?

The Swedes pray to Charles XII, who ruined his country in countless wars and gave away all the territories he could. In the end, everyone was so tired of him that he “died suddenly,” but then there were monuments and good memories.

The Greeks pray similarly for their Alexander the Great. As a result of his bloody epic, Macedonia practically disappeared - it all fell in wars. When Egypt was already conquered, his comrades-in-arms realized: this madman would not stop, and would certainly drag everyone to die somewhere in China. The result was “malaria”, the instant collapse of the empire and... the admiration of descendants.

In Mongolia, the best-selling brand is Genghis Khan. It is worth it because hundreds of thousands of skulls lie in the ground over vast areas, delighting the Mongols and the descendants of their victims.

We also have something to be proud of. The “innocently murdered” Tukhachevsky, who gassed thousands of Tambov peasants and shot countless hostages, is canonized.

Not an article, but with perseverance it is small, beaten men who rise to the top, and today entire states are suffering from “Bonapartism.”

Today, because of the events in Ukraine, calling for roughly punishing Russia, the European Union and the United States resemble the notorious Napoleonic France... they are already brazenly trampling on the threshold of someone else’s house, demandingly knocking on the door with their fists and threatening the owners. As you know, history teaches absolutely nothing to arrogant Persians. The lessons of Napoleon and Hitler never made Western politicians smarter. They still look lustfully to the east.

By staging “orange revolutions” all over the world in batches, they finally lost their sense of reality, mistakenly considering themselves the masters of the Universe.

Unfortunately for everyone, Western politicians are so caught up in permissiveness that they simply cannot understand one simple thing: in their desire to rule the world and pull the blanket over themselves, they can end up just like Napoleon

Literature teacher: A word from the representatives of the Green Hat.

Green hat: search for creative ideas and a new way of looking at things.

Student: Diamond . (A short message about this type of creative work).

Wise, patient.

Waits, preserves, holds back.

Luring the invader Napoleon into a trap.

Devastates, kills, loses.

Self-righteous, cruel.

Napoleon.

Literature teacher: We invite the Blue Hat group to summarize the received material.

Blue hat: drawing up a program; generalizations and conclusions.

Materials for the mental table

Borodino

Kutuzov - Napoleon

Student: Reading the novel “War and Peace”, you are convinced of the rightness of the great humanist writer, who stated that “... a question not resolved by diplomats is even less resolved by gunpowder and blood”, “... war is madness, or if people do this madness, then They are not intelligent creatures at all.

Napoleon did not achieve his goals - the defeat of the Russian army - and for the first time he was unable to win a major general battle. Under Borodin, “the French army was crushed by the Russian one.” Assessing Borodino, Kutuzov wrote in a report to the emperor: “This day will remain an eternal monument to the courage and excellent bravery of Russian soldiers. Where all the infantry, cavalry and artillery fought desperately. Everyone’s desire was to die on the spot and not yield to the enemy. French army led by

Napoleon himself, being in superior strength, was not overcome by the firmness of spirit of the Russian soldier, who cheerfully sacrificed his life for his fatherland.”

Napoleon, already a prisoner on the island of St. Helena, wrote: “It was a battle of giants. More than a quarter of a million soldiers and officers were brought into battle on both sides. Volleys of 1,200 guns thundered over the Borodino field.”

In the order for the army, Kutuzov wrote: “Declare my complete gratitude to all the troops in general who were in the last battle.”

The novel “War and Peace” talks about mercy, about the greatness of the people, about the fact that a person in war is often deprived of the right to ask for mercy, and even more often deprived of the right to be spared. That’s why Kutuzov’s words amaze us so much: “Here’s what, brothers... I know it’s difficult for you, but what can you do? Be patient; not long left...It’s difficult for you, but you’re still at home; “And you see what they have come to,” he said, pointing to the prisoners. “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 also people. Right, guys?" The whole people understood this; it was not without reason that in honor of the victory in the Patriotic War of 1812, the Cathedral of Christ the Savior was built with public money (Slide. Cathedral of Christ the Savior). In the 30s of the XX century. The temple was blown up by order of Stalin, today it is again restored and shines with its domes as a symbol of a resurgent Russia.

Lesson summary:

History teacher: Let us remember how we formulated problem lesson? Which conclusions what will we do from today's lesson?

History teacher. No historical figure can be assessed either negatively or positively; they are too complex and contradictory for unambiguous assessments. All personalities who went down in history are significant. Their negative actions do not diminish their significance. Even now, there are many “blank spots” in history, and we cannot fully understand why people behaved the way they did. History is a science that allows us to lift the veil of the past in order to prevent mistakes made once in the future. But we still have to evaluate historical figures based on historical sources, and not on works of fiction.

Literature teacher. When studying the reflection of reality in a work of art, we should not limit ourselves to the question: “true or false” - and admire only fidelity, accuracy, correctness.

Tolstoy denied the role of personality in history. But it is impossible to talk about complete denial: he, denying the arbitrariness of the individual, the unwillingness to take into account the will of the people, denied the individual who places himself above the people. We see an explanation of the role of personality in history in the words of the author himself: “There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.” The driving force of history, according to Tolstoy, is always the people.

Homework:

Write an essay on the topic “Kutuzov and Napoleon - the moral poles of the epic novel “War and Peace.”

The problem of personality in history: Kutuzov and Napoleon. (Based on the novel by L.N. Tolstoy) and received the best answer

Answer from Angelica[guru]
The images of the main commanders, Kutuzov and Napoleon, created in the novel are a vivid embodiment of Tolstoy’s principles of depicting historical figures. The Russian commander-in-chief is presented as a truly Russian man, close to his people. He understands and appreciates every soldier, wants to win with the least losses. For Kutuzov, it is not personal glory or ambition that is important, but the result. That is why he listens to the general “current of thought” and tries to give instructions in accordance with it. Napoleon, on the contrary, is the embodiment of selfishness and personal ambitions. He craves glory only for himself, and every death for him is another step towards victory. The French commander is far from the common people; for him he is just cannon fodder. That is why he loses in disgrace, suffering huge losses. Napoleon's army pursued aggressive goals; it did not have a true goal.
According to Tolstoy, Napoleon played “the cruel, sad and difficult, inhuman role that was intended for him.” It is unlikely that he would have been able to bear the full weight of this historical role if his mind and conscience had not been darkened. Napoleon is a deeply unhappy man who does not notice this only due to a complete lack of moral sense. This “European hero” is morally blind, unable to 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 for him to understand their meaning.”
However, despite the fact that Napoleon is doomed to play his “negative” role in history, Tolstoy does not at all diminish his moral responsibility for what he did: “He, destined by providence for the sad, unfree role of the executioner of nations, assured himself that the purpose of his actions was good peoples and that he could lead the destinies of millions and do good deeds through power! ..He imagined that by his will there was a war with Russia, and the horror of what had happened did not strike his soul.”
Napoleon's antipode - Kutuzov - is the embodiment of folk morality, true greatness, “simplicity, goodness and truth.” The “Kutuzovian”, popular principle is contrasted with the “Napoleonic”, egoistic one. Without trying to influence the course of history, he submits to the logic of the historical process and intuitively perceives the highest meaning of what is happening. Kutuzov, as Tolstoy emphasized, is endowed with true wisdom, a special instinct, which prompts him during the Patriotic War to act in accordance with the principle: what must happen will happen on its own.

Reply from 2 answers[guru]

Hello! Here is a selection of topics with answers to your question: The problem of personality in history: Kutuzov and Napoleon. (Based on the novel by L.N. Tolstoy)

There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.

L. N. Tolstoy

People evaluate the events of private and historical life using the criterion of morality: goodness, selflessness, spiritual clarity and simplicity, spiritual connection with people, with society, with the people.

Kutuzov and Napoleon are exponents of the historical trends of the time. The novel clearly shows the extreme contrast between these two personalities. The wise Kutuzov, free from the passion of vanity and ambition, easily subordinated his will to “providence”, saw through the “higher laws” governing the movement of humanity, and therefore became a representative of the people's liberation war. That popular feeling that Kutuzov carried within himself gave him the moral freedom that appeared in the insight of the “higher laws.” This insight of Kutuzov was the result of a spiritual merger with the people: “The source of this unusual power of insight in the sense of occurring phenomena lay in the national feeling that he carried within himself in all its purity and strength.”

A keen national moral feeling guided Kutuzov and inspired him with disgust for violence and cruelty, for the merciless and useless shedding of human blood. The same feeling united Kutuzov with the soldiers and separated him from the highest ranks of the army, who wanted to “distinguish themselves, cut off, intercept, captivate, overthrow the French, and everyone demanded an offensive.”

Napoleon, thanks to his complete indifference to man and lack of moral sense, was placed by history at the head of a war of conquest. In his subjective qualities, Napoleon is the exponent of a sad historical necessity - “the movement of peoples from West to East,” which resulted in the death of Napoleonic army. Napoleon, according to Tolstoy, was destined “by providence for the sad, unfree role of the executioner of nations,” and performed “that cruel, sad and difficult inhuman role that was destined for him.”

Thus, Kutuzov and Napoleon, regardless of their intentions and understandings, perform a superpersonal task. At the same time, one imagines himself as a hero, the ruler of nations, on whose will their destinies depend, the other does not think about himself, does not play any role, but only wisely leads the spirit of the army entrusted to him.

Tolstoy divides life into upward and downward, centrifugal and centripetal. Kutuzov, to whom the natural course of world events within its national-historical boundaries is open and who, thanks to the people's moral sense, sees the will of “providence,” is a classic embodiment of the centripetal, ascending forces of history.

The centrifugal, downward forces of history were embodied by Napoleon, this “superman”. He does not feel the inner necessity in the spiritual phenomena of life, believes in the power of his individual will, imagines himself as the creator of history, the leader and ruler of nations, but in reality he is only a “toy of fate,” “the most insignificant instrument of history.” He leads historical forces that are misdirected and is therefore doomed. Tolstoy saw the internal lack of freedom of individual consciousness, expressed in the personality of Napoleon, because true freedom is associated with the fulfillment of the law, with the voluntary submission of one’s will to the “higher goal.” Tolstoy exposes the ideal of boundless freedom, which led to the cult of a strong and proud personality.

The great man in Tolstoy’s portrayal receives his strength from the people, carries in his heart a feeling close to the people. Tolstoy's merit is that he portrays the personality of a great man as a folk hero who achieved independence and freedom only in alliance with the people and the nation as a whole.

He is firmly connected with the mass of “ordinary people”, common national goals and actions, and love for Russia.

Tolstoy emphasizes the moral height of Kutuzov. “And only this feeling brought him to that highest human height from which he, the commander-in-chief, directed all his strength not to exterminate people and kill, but to save and take pity on them. This simple, modest and therefore truly majestic figure could not fit into that deceitful form of a European hero, ostensibly ruling people, which history has invented.”

Tolstoy emphasizes the merits of Kutuzov as a commander, whose activities were invariably directed towards one goal that was of national importance. “It is difficult to imagine a goal more worthy and more consistent with the will of the entire people.” More than once in the novel, Tolstoy emphasizes the purposefulness of all Kutuzov’s actions, the concentration of all forces on the task that confronted the entire Russian people in the course of history. An exponent of popular patriotic feeling, Kutuzov also becomes the guiding force of popular resistance, leads and raises the spirit of the troops.

Tolstoy does not recognize Napoleon as great because Napoleon does not understand the significance of the events taking place, in all his actions only ambitious claims and pride are manifested. Napoleon's insignificance lies in the fact that, imagining himself as the ruler of the world, he is deprived of that inner spiritual freedom that is expressed in the recognition of necessity. He “never, until the end of his life, 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, for him to understand their meaning. He could not renounce his actions, praised by half the world, and therefore had to renounce truth, goodness and everything human.”

Tolstoy sees the significance of a great personality in the insight of the people's meaning of events, in the feeling of unfolding history as the will of providence. Great people, leaders of humanity, like Kutuzov, who carry in their chests a national moral feeling, with their experience, intelligence and consciousness guess the requirements of historical necessity.

“For us,” L.N. Tolstoy concludes his reasoning, “with the measure of good and bad given to us by Christ, there is nothing immeasurable. And there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth.”

Kutuzov.- one of the most important characters through whom the image of the people is created. The image of the people appears not only in the course of the narrative - in the review of Russian life, in the description of the military events of the era - but finds its complete expression in individuals, in the characters of many participants, especially in the character of Kutuzov. Kutuzov is a great commander, an outstanding representative of the Russian nation, but in his face, national-Russian features are expressed with even greater completeness. Tolstoy’s task in portraying Kutuzov is that he, as a person, was a complete expression of the Russian “world”, which raised its banner in the fight against foreign invasion. At the pinnacle of power, Kutuzov remains a simple man. One of the main qualities is simplicity in communication, and this simplicity is a feeling, a moral trait. He does not isolate himself from the mass of soldiers. Directness and fearlessness, concentration of will and decision are the leading features of his character. He alone declared the Battle of Borodino a victory and took responsibility for the abandonment of Moscow. A feeling of connection with the Russian land, with your country, people. In his activities as commander-in-chief, he was guided not by the interest of political success, but by concern for the honor and well-being of the country. The goal was not to win the fight against Napoleon, but to save the country. Therefore, Kutuzov’s main concern was to preserve the combat effectiveness of the army at any cost and to achieve the weakening and then death of the enemy army. His role as a father, “patriarch,” shown by Tolstoy, is not a replacement for the role of military leadership, but that highest form of military leadership, when power by order develops into the highest moral authority.

The wise Kutuzov, free from the passion of vanity and ambition, easily subordinated his will to “carrying out”, saw and understood the “higher laws” governing the movement of humanity, and therefore became a representative of the people's liberation war. The national feeling that Kutuzov carried within himself gave him moral freedom, which manifested itself in the insight of the “higher laws.” This insight of Kutuzov was the result of a spiritual merger with the people. A keen national moral feeling guided Kutuzov and inspired him with disgust for violence and cruelty, for the merciless shedding of human blood. The same feeling united Kutuzov with the soldiers and separated him from the highest ranks of the army, who wanted to “distinguish themselves, cut off, intercept, captivate, overthrow the French and everyone demanded an offensive.”

Napoleon was placed by history at the head of a war of conquest. In his subjective qualities, Napoleon is the exponent of a sad historical necessity - the “movement of peoples from West to East”, which resulted in the death of Napoleonic army. Napoleon, according to Tolstoy, was destined by “providence for the sad, unfree role of the executioner of nations,” fulfilling “that cruel, sad and difficult, inhuman role that was destined for him.” Napoleon is alien to knightly bravado, and war for him is not a competition, but a mortal battle on the path to world domination, in which it is necessary to win by any means and forces.

Thus, Kutuzov and Napoleon, regardless of their intentions and understandings, perform a super-personal task. At the same time, one imagines himself as a hero, the ruler of nations, on whose will their destinies depend, the other does not think about himself and does not play any role, but only wisely leads the spirit of the army entrusted to him. Tolstoy exposes the ideal of boundless freedom, which led to the cult of a strong and proud personality.

The great man in Tolstoy’s portrayal receives his strength from the people, carries in his heart a feeling close to the people. Tolstoy's merit is that he portrays the personality of a great man as a folk hero who achieved independence and freedom only in alliance with the people and the nation as a whole. He is firmly connected with the mass of ordinary people through common national goals and actions, love for Russia.