When I write history, I like to be true to reality down to the smallest detail. LN Tolstoy What is simplicity, truth, kindness? Is a person with all these character traits omnipotent? These questions are often asked by people, but they are not easy to answer. Let's go back to the classics. Let her help you figure it out.
The name of Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoy is familiar to us from early childhood. But here the novel "War and Peace" is read. This great work makes you look at the questions posed differently. How often Tolstoy was reproached for distorting the history of 1812, which he distorted actors Patriotic War. According to the great writer, history-science and history-art have differences. Art can penetrate into the most distant epochs and convey the essence of past events and inner world the people who participated in them.
Indeed, history-science focuses on particulars and details of events, limiting itself only to their external description, and history-art captures and conveys the general course of events, at the same time penetrating into their depth. This must be kept in mind when evaluating the historical events in the novel War and Peace. Let's open the pages of this work.
Salon of Anna Pavlovna Sherer. Here for the first time there is a sharp dispute about Napoleon. It is started by the guests of the salon of a noble lady. This dispute will end only in the epilogue of the novel.
For the author, not only was there nothing attractive in Napoleon, but, on the contrary, Tolstoy always considered him a man whose mind and conscience were darkened, and therefore all his actions “were too contrary to truth and goodness. “. Not statesman, who can read in the minds and souls of people, and a spoiled, capricious and narcissistic poseur - this is how the Emperor of France appears in many scenes of the novel. Here, having met the Russian ambassador, he “looked into Balashev’s face with his big eyes and immediately began to look past him. Let us linger a little on this detail and conclude that Napoleon was not interested in the personality of Balashev. It was evident that only what was going on in his soul was of interest to him. It seemed to him that everything in the world depends only on his will.
Perhaps it is too early to draw a conclusion from such a particular case as Napoleon's inattention to the Russian ambassador? But this meeting was preceded by other episodes in which this manner of the emperor “look past” people also manifested itself. Let us recall the moment when the Polish uhlans, in order to please Bonaparte, rush into the Viliya River. They were drowning, and Napoleon sat quietly on a log and did other things. Let us recall the scene of the emperor's trip to the Austerlitz battlefield, where he showed complete indifference to the dead, wounded and dying. The imaginary greatness of Napoleon is denounced with particular force in the scene depicting him on Poklonnaya Hill from where he admired the wondrous panorama of Moscow. “Here it is, this capital; she lies at my feet, awaiting her fate.
One word of mine, one movement of my hand, and this ancient capital perished. So Napoleon thought, waiting in vain for the deputation of the “boyars” with the keys to the majestic city that stretched out before his eyes. No. Moscow did not go to him “with a confession”. Where is this greatness? It is where goodness and justice are, where the spirit of the people is.
According to the "thought of the people" and created the image of Tolstoy Kutuzov. Of all historical figures, depicted in "War and Peace", one of his writer calls a truly great man. The source, which gave the commander an extraordinary power of insight into the meaning of the events taking place, “lay in this popular feeling, which he carried in himself in all purity and strength.”
The scene of the military review. Kutuzov walked through the ranks, “stopping occasionally and saying a few affectionate words to the officers whom he knew from Turkish war and sometimes soldiers. Glancing at the shoes, he shook his head sadly several times. The field marshal recognizes and cordially greets his old colleagues. He enters into a conversation with Timokhin.
Meeting with soldiers, the Russian commander knows how to find a common language with them, often uses funny joke, and even an old man's good-natured curse. The feeling of love for the Motherland was embedded in the soul of every Russian soldier and in the soul of the old commander in chief. Unlike Bonaparte, the Russian commander did not consider the leadership of military operations a kind of chess game and never attributed to himself leading role in the successes achieved by his armies. The field marshal, not in a Napoleonic way, but in his own way, led the battles. He
was convinced that the “spirit of the army” was of decisive importance in the war, and directed all his efforts to leading it.
During the battles, Napoleon behaves nervously, trying to keep in his hands all the threads of controlling the battle. Kutuzov, on the other hand, acts with concentration, trusts the commanders - his combat comrades-in-arms, believes in the courage of his soldiers. Not Napoleon, but the Russian commander-in-chief takes full responsibility on his shoulders when the situation calls for the heaviest sacrifices. It is difficult to forget the alarming scene of the military council in Fili. Kutuzov announced his decision to leave Moscow without a fight and retreat into the depths of Russia! Those scary clock the question arose before him: “Is it really I who allowed Napoleon to reach Moscow? And when did I do it?
” It is difficult and painful for him to think about this, but he gathered all his spiritual and physical forces and did not give in to despair. The Russian commander-in-chief retains confidence in victory over the enemy, in the rightness of his cause to the end. He inspires this confidence in everyone - from the general to the soldier. Only one Kutuzov could guess battle of Borodino. Only he alone could give Moscow to the enemy for the sake of saving Russia, for the sake of saving the army, in order to win the war.
All the actions of the commander are subordinated to one goal - to defeat the enemy, to expel him from the Russian land. And only when the war is won, Kutuzov ceases his activities as commander in chief. The most important aspect of the image of the Russian commander is a living connection with the people, a penetrating understanding of their moods and thoughts. In the ability to take into account the mood of the masses - the wisdom and greatness of the commander in chief. Napoleon and Kutuzov - two commanders, two historical figures with different essence, purpose and purpose in life. The "Kutuzov" beginning as a symbol of the people is opposed to the "Napoleonic", anti-people, inhuman.
That is why Tolstoy leads all his beloved heroes away from “Napoleonic” principles and puts them on the path of rapprochement with the people. Truly "there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth."
(No ratings yet)
It would seem that in this campaign of the flight of the French, when they did everything that was possible to destroy themselves; when there was not the slightest sense in any movement of this crowd, from the turn to the Kaluga road to the flight of the chief from the army, it would seem that during this period of the campaign it is already impossible for historians who attribute the actions of the masses to the will of one person to describe this retreat in their meaning. But no. Mountains of books have been written by historians about this campaign, and everywhere Napoleon's orders and his thoughtful plans are described - the maneuvers that led the army, and the brilliant orders of his marshals. Retreat from Maloyaroslavets when he is given a road to a rich land and when that parallel road is open to him, along which Kutuzov later pursued him, an unnecessary retreat along a ruined road is explained to us for various profound reasons. For the same profound reasons, his retreat from Smolensk to Orsha is described. Then his heroism at Krasny is described, where he is supposedly preparing to accept the battle and command himself, and walks with a birch stick and says: - J "ai assez fait l" Empereur, il est temps de faire le général, - and, despite the fact, immediately after that he runs further, leaving to the mercy of fate the scattered parts of the army behind. Then they describe to us the greatness of the soul of the marshals, especially Ney, the greatness of the soul, consisting in the fact that at night he made his way through the forest around the Dnieper and without banners and artillery and without nine-tenths of the troops ran to Orsha. And, finally, the last departure of the great emperor from the heroic army is presented to us by historians as something great and brilliant. Even this last act flight, in human language called the last degree of meanness, which every child learns to be ashamed of, and this act in the language of historians is justified. When it is no longer possible to stretch further such elastic threads of historical reasoning, when the action is already clearly contrary to what all mankind calls good and even justice, historians have a saving concept of greatness. Greatness seems to exclude the possibility of a measure of good and bad. For the great, there is no evil. There is no horror that can be blamed on one who is great. - "C" est grand! - say historians, and then there is no longer either good or bad, but there is "grand" and "not grand". Grand is good, not grand is bad. Grand is a property, according to their concepts, of some special animals that they call heroes And Napoleon, getting home in a warm coat from not only his comrades, but (in his opinion) the people he brought here, is dying, he feels que c "est grand, and his soul is at peace. "Du sublime (he sees something sublime in himself) au ridicule il n" y a qu "un pas," he says. And the whole world repeats for fifty years: “Sublime! Grand! Napoleon le grand! Du sublime au ridicule il n "y a qu" un pas. And it would never occur to anyone that the recognition of greatness, immeasurable by the measure of good and bad, is only the recognition of one's insignificance and immeasurable smallness. For us, 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.Enough already I represented the emperor, now it's time to be a general. "It's majestic!" ... majestic... "There is only one step from the majestic to the ridiculous..." "Majestic! Great! Great Napoleon! From the majestic to the ridiculous is only a step.
What is simplicity, truth, kindness? Is a person with all these character traits omnipotent? These questions are often asked by people, but they are not easy to answer. Let's go back to the classics. Let her help you figure it out. The name of Leo Nikolayevich Tolstoy is familiar to us from early childhood. But here the novel "War and Peace" is read. This great work makes you look at the questions posed differently. How often Tolstoy was reproached for distorting the history of 1812, for distorting the actors of the Patriotic War. According to the great writer, history-science and history-art have differences. Art can penetrate into the most distant eras and convey the essence of past events and the inner world of the people who participated in them. Indeed, history-science focuses on the particulars and details of events, limiting itself only to their external description, while history-art covers and conveys the general course of events, at the same time penetrating into their depth. This must be kept in mind when evaluating the historical events in the novel War and Peace.
Let's open the pages of this work. Salon of Anna Pavlovna Sherer. Here for the first time there is a sharp dispute about Napoleon. It is started by the guests of the salon of a noble lady. This dispute will end only in the epilogue of the novel.
For the author, not only was there nothing attractive in Napoleon, but, on the contrary, Tolstoy always considered him a man whose mind and conscience were darkened, and therefore all his actions “were too contrary to truth and goodness ...”. Not a statesman who can read in the minds and souls of people, but a spoiled, capricious and narcissistic poseur - this is how the emperor of France appears in many scenes of the novel. So, having met the Russian ambassador, he "looked into Balashev's face with his big eyes and immediately began to look past him." Let us linger a little on this detail and conclude that Napoleon was not interested in the personality of Balashev. It was evident that only what was going on in his soul was of interest to him. It seemed to him that everything in the world depends only on his will.
Perhaps it is too early to draw a conclusion from such a particular case as Napoleon's inattention to the Russian ambassador? But this meeting was preceded by other episodes in which this manner of the emperor “look past” people also manifested itself. Let us recall the moment when the Polish uhlans, in order to please Bonaparte, rush into the Viliya River. They were drowning, and Napoleon sat quietly on a log and did other things. Let us recall the scene of the emperor's trip to the Austerlitz battlefield, where he showed complete indifference to the dead, wounded and dying.
The imaginary greatness of Napoleon is denounced with particular force in the scene depicting him on Poklonnaya Hill, from where he admired the wondrous panorama of Moscow. “Here it is, this capital; she lies at my feet, waiting for her fate... One word of mine, one movement of my hand, and this ancient capital perished...” So Napoleon thought, waiting in vain for the deputation of the “boyars” with the keys to the majestic city spread out before his eyes . No. Moscow did not go to him “with a confession”.
Where is this greatness? It is where goodness and justice are, where the spirit of the people is. According to the "thought of the people" and created the image of Tolstoy Kutuzov. Of all the historical figures depicted in "War and Peace", one of his writer calls a truly great man. The source, which gave the commander an extraordinary power of insight into the meaning of the events that took place, “lay in this popular feeling, which he carried in himself in all purity and strength.”
In "War and Peace" L. N. Tolstoy argues with the cult of the outstanding historical figure. This cult was based on the doctrine German philosopher Hegel. According to Hegel, the closest conductors of the World Mind, which determines the fate of peoples and states, are great people who are the first to guess what is given to understand only to them and is not given to understand the human mass, the passive material of history. Hegel's great people are always ahead of their time, and therefore they turn out to be loners of genius, forced to despotically subjugate the inert and inert majority to themselves. LN Tolstoy did not agree with Hegel.
L. N. Tolstoy does not have an exceptional personality, but the life of the people as a whole turns out to be the most sensitive organism that responds to hidden meaning historical movement. The vocation of a great man lies in the ability to listen to the will of the majority, to the "collective subject" of history, to folk life. Napoleon in the eyes of the writer is an individualist and ambitious, brought to the surface historical life dark forces that for a time took possession of the consciousness of the French people. Bonaparte is a toy in the hands of these dark forces, and Tolstoy denies him greatness because "there is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth."
L. Tolstoy argues as follows: the people are the decisive force of history, but this force is only an instrument of Providence. The greatness of Kutuzov lies in the fact that he acts, taking into account the will of Providence. He understands this will better than others and obeys it in everything, giving the appropriate orders. So, for example, the path of the French in 1812 to Moscow and back was determined from above. Kutuzov is great because he understood this and did not interfere with the enemies, which is why he surrendered Moscow without a fight, saving the army. If he had given battle, the result would have been the same: the French would enter Moscow, but Kutuzov would not have an army, he could not win.
For Tolstoy’s understanding of the meaning of Kutuzov’s activities, the scene of the military council in Fili is typical, where Kutuzov laments: “When, when was it done that Moscow was abandoned, and who is to blame for this?” So it was Kutuzov half an hour ago in the same hut who gave the order to retreat for Moscow! Kutuzov the man is grieving, but Kutuzov the commander cannot do otherwise.
Revealing the greatness of Kutuzov the commander, Tolstoy emphasized: "Kutuzov knew that there is something stronger and more significant than his will - this is an inevitable course of events, and he knows how to see them, understand their significance, and in view of this significance, he knows how to refuse to participate in these events, from his personal will directed to something else." Overall score Kutuzov in Tolstoy repeats Pushkin's characterization: "Kutuzov alone was clothed in a people's power of attorney, which he so wonderfully justified!" For Tolstoy, this remark forms the basis of the artistic image.
The antithesis of the image of Kutuzov is Napoleon, who in the image of Tolstoy is focused not on the "inevitable course of events", but on his own arbitrariness, in his decisions he does not take into account the circumstances. That is why Napoleon is defeated and Tolstoy ridicules him. This antithesis is consistently carried out in the novel: if Kutuzov is characterized by the rejection of everything personal, subordinating his interests to the interests of the people, then Napoleon is the embodiment of the egg principle with the idea of himself as the creator of history, Kutuzov is characterized by modesty and simplicity, sincerity and truthfulness, Napoleon is arrogance , vanity, hypocrisy and posturing. Kutuzov treats war as an evil and inhuman cause, I recognize only a defensive war, for Napoleon, war is a means of enslaving peoples and creating a world empire,
The final characterization of Napoleon is very bold, it expresses Tolstoy's original understanding of his role: "Napoleon throughout his activity was like a child who, holding on to the ribbons tied inside the carriage, imagines that he rules."
For Tolstoy, Bonaparte in the huge moving picture that stood before his eyes was not at all main force, but was a particular: if subjectively he believed that he was reshaping the fate of peoples, objectively life went on as usual, she did not care about the plans of the emperor. Such is the conclusion reached by Tolstoy in his study of Napoleon. The writer is not interested in the number of battles won by the brilliant commander, the number of conquered states, he approaches Napoleon with a different measure.
In the epic novel, Tolstoy gives a universal Russian formula for the heroic. He creates two symbolic characters, between which, in varying proximity to one or the other pole, all the others are located.
At one extreme is the classically vain Napoleon, at the other, the classically democratic Kutuzov. These heroes represent the element of individualistic isolation ("war") and the spiritual values of "peace", or the unity of people. "The simple, modest and therefore truly majestic figure" of Kutuzov does not fit "into that deceitful formula of a European hero who supposedly controls people that history has come up with."
Kutuzov is free from actions and deeds dictated by personal considerations, conceited goals, individualistic arbitrariness. He is all imbued with a sense of common necessity, and endowed with the talent of living in "peace" with the many thousands of people entrusted to him. Tolstoy sees the "source of extraordinary strength" and special Russian wisdom of Kutuzov in "that popular feeling that he carries in himself in all its purity and strength."
"Recognition of greatness, immeasurable measure of good and bad," Tolstoy considers ugly. Such "greatness" "is only the recognition of one's insignificance and immeasurable smallness." Insignificant and weak in his ridiculous egoistic "greatness" Napoleon appears. "There is no deed, no crime or petty deceit that he would commit, and which would not immediately be reflected in the mouths of those around him in the form of a great deed." The aggressive mob needs the cult of Napoleon to justify their crimes against humanity.
"There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth"
(based on the novel by L.N. Tolstoy "War and Peace")
Nature has given poison to those who crawl. He's not strong at all.
A. Mitskevich
The main idea of the epic novel "War and Peace" is the affirmation of communication and unity of people and the denial of separation, separation.
In the novel, two camps of the then Russia turned out to be sharply opposed: popular and anti-people. Tolstoy considered the people the main, decisive force in history. According to the writer, the leading role in the national liberation movement is played not by the nobility, but by the masses. The proximity of this or that hero of the novel "War and Peace" to the people's camp is his moral criterion.
The opposition between Kutuzov and Napoleon plays an important role in the novel. Kutuzov is a true people's leader, nominated by the people. Unlike historical figures such as Alexander I and Napoleon, who think only about glory and power, Kutuzov is not only able to understand common man but he himself is by nature a simple man.
In the guise of Kutuzov, Tolstoy is primarily distinguished by his simplicity. “There is nothing from the ruler in that plump, flabby old man, in his diving gait and stooped figure. But how much kindness, innocence and wisdom are in him!”
Describing Napoleon, the writer emphasizes the coldness, complacency, feigned profundity in Napoleon's facial expression. One of his features stands out most sharply - posturing. Napoleon behaves like an actor on stage, he is convinced that everything he says and does "is a story."
For Tolstoy, Kutuzov is the ideal of a historical figure, the ideal of a person. Tolstoy wrote about the goal to which Kutuzov devoted himself: "It is difficult to imagine a goal more worthy and more in line with the will of the whole people." Contrasting Kutuzov with Napoleon, the writer notices that Kutuzov did not say anything at all about himself, did not play any role, always seemed to be the simplest and most ordinary person and said the most simple and ordinary things. All Kutuzov's activities were not aimed at exalting his person, but at defeating and driving the enemy out of Russia, alleviating, as far as possible, the calamities of the people and troops.
In contrasting Napoleon - Kutuzov, which is the core of the novel, it is proved that the one who acts in accordance with the course will win. historical events, the one "whose personality most fully shows the general."
Tolstovsky Kutuzov is constantly in the very center of military events. Kutuzov always sees his army, thinks and feels with every soldier and officer, in his soul there is everything that is in the soul of every soldier.
Tolstoy constantly emphasizes humanity in his Kutuzov, which, according to the writer, could justify Kutuzov's power. Humanity, combined with power, represented "that human height from which he directed all his forces not to kill people, but to save and pity them." For Kutuzov, the life of every soldier is a treasure.
When Napoleon went around the battlefield after the battle, we see on his face "the radiance of complacency and happiness." The ruined lives, the misfortunes of people, the very sight of the dead and wounded are the basis of Napoleon's happiness.
Kutuzov’s “highest human height” finds expression in his speech to the Preobrazhensky Regiment, in which he says that as long as the French “were strong, we did not feel sorry for them, but now you can feel sorry for them. They are people too."
One cannot speak of Tolstoy's complete denial of the role and significance of the individual in history, in the movement of the masses. Tolstoy persistently emphasized that Kutuzov alone felt the true meaning of events.
How could this man guess the meaning so correctly? folk sense events?
The source of this extraordinary power of insight lay in the "popular feeling" that Kutuzov carried in himself in all its purity and strength.
Kutuzov for Tolstoy is the true leader of the people, chosen by the people. The image of Kutuzov in the novel is the image national unity, the image of the people's war itself.
Napoleon, on the other hand, appears in the novel as the main, "concentrated expression of the very spirit of separation."
The strength and greatness of Kutuzov is precisely in unity with the army and the people. characteristic feature Napoleon, as the writer notes, is that the French commander placed himself outside of people and above people and therefore could not understand either goodness, beauty, truth or simplicity.
Tolstoy wrote that where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth, there can be no true greatness. The greatness of Kutuzov is the greatness of kindness, simplicity and truth.
The main argument that the writer puts up against those who considered Napoleon great is the following: "There is no greatness where there is no simplicity, goodness and truth." In assessing the deeds of a historical personality, Tolstoy applies a moral criterion. Following Pushkin, Tolstoy argues that "genius and villainy are two incompatible things."
Tolstoy not only does not deny, he affirms great personality, a great man with all his novel, because he affirms the greatness of the people. For the first time in world literature, these concepts have merged into a single whole. Tolstoy was the first to state that the more fully a person embodies folk traits, the more and more great it is.
“Among the thunders, among the fires, among the seething passions, in spontaneous fiery discord, she flies from heaven to us”
(according to the lyrics by F.I. Tyutchev)
Poetry is a fire that kindles in the human soul. This fire burns, warms and illuminates.
L.N. Tolstoy
Poetry is truly the ocean of the soul. A real poet himself involuntarily burns with suffering, and burns others. This is my favorite poet - F.I. Tyutchev.
It is curious that ten years after the death of Fyodor Ivanovich Tyutchev, Fet composed the inscription "On the book of Tyutchev's poems."
Time has confirmed Fetov's assessment of the significance of Tyutchev's poetry:
But the muse, observing the truth,
She looks - and on the scales she has
This is a small book
Volumes are much heavier.
“One cannot live without Tyutchev,” said Leo Tolstoy.
ON THE. Nekrasov wrote that Tyutchev's poems "belong to a few brilliant phenomena in the field of Russian poetry."
Dostoevsky revered Tyutchev as the first poet-philosopher, who had no equal, except for Pushkin.
Such is this "small book" as we present Tyutchev's poetry ...
Meanwhile, Tyutchev never sought to collect his poems into books, to publish these books. Two small collections of his poems, published during the life of the poet, were published, in essence, without the participation of Tyutchev, and upon release they left him indifferent to fame or obscurity ...
We are not allowed to predict.
How our word will respond,
And sympathy is given to us,
How do we get grace...
Tyutchev has a poem "Two Voices", which Blok considered a symbol of his faith. It contains two fatal voices. First voice: “Be of good courage, O friends, fight diligently, though the battle is unequal, the struggle is hopeless!” And the second voice: “Be of good cheer, fight, O brave friends, no matter how hard the battle is, how hard the fight is!” Both voices are infinitely harsh and tragic. Sounds like high heroics.
Let the Olympians with an envious eye
They look at the struggle of adamant hearts.
Who, fighting, fell, defeated only by Fate,
He snatched the victorious end from their hands.
Tyutchev is not “in the mountainous Olympus”, where “the gods are blissful”, he was neither an Olympian nor an abstract philosopher. The poet lived with the anxieties and passions of the time. World politics, the fate of Europe and Russia deeply occupied Tyutchev until his last minutes.
In my opinion, in Tyutchev's poetry, the Universe opens up before a person, before humanity:
vault of heaven, burning with star glory,
Mysteriously looks from the depths, -
And we are sailing, a flaming abyss
Surrounded on all sides.
It should be noted that for Tyutchev, nature is not a subject of cold conclusions, but a dramatic change in living states that are one with the spiritual life of a person. The poet is endowed with an indefatigable need to love, worship, believe, and the atmosphere of love, love passion, memories of experienced love envelops all of Tyutchev's poetry.
There's not just one memory
Then life spoke again, -
And the same charm in you,
And the same love in my soul! ..
Love, if you look deeper, is the sun of Tyutchev's poetry. "The novel in the novel" in Tyutchev's poetry is a marvelous "Denisiev" cycle. Here is the whole meaning of Tyutchev's understanding of life. For if time and space absorb everything, then the victory of man is in the power of emotions, in passion that challenges the starry abyss, in the feat of love and service.
O my prophetic soul!
O heart full of anxiety,
Oh how you beat on the threshold
What a double existence!
And yet, if you highlight the main thing - what was Tyutchev's heart given to, the anxieties and hopes of the poet's whole life? We must say: “Motherland, Russia, Russia ...” The poet was ready to shield the Motherland from enemies, to give everything so that Russia could stand:
They prepare captivity for you
They prophesy shame to you, -
You are the best, future times
Verb, and life, and enlightenment!
So immeasurable and adamant is Tyutchev's faith in Russia...
Of course, there were many utopian and conservative features in the poet's views. In my opinion, Tyutchev foresaw the "world destiny" of Russia, but did not guess by the will of what historical forces Russia would acquire this "world destiny".
The life of the people is in the heart of the poet. Tyutchev was especially hurt by what he saw in the Bryansk region:
These poor villages
This meager nature
The land of native long-suffering,
The land of the Russian people!
How many declarations of love do Tyutchev have for native land, people, Russian nature! Recall the poem "There is in the autumn of the original ..."
This is more than a landscape, than a picture of nature. This is the Motherland itself. And what a new, folk expressiveness comes into Tyutchev's poetry!
This is how the famous "non-logical", swift, like a Russian attack, Tyutchev's quatrain is born:
Russia cannot be understood with the mind,
Do not measure with a common yardstick:
She has a special become -
One can only believe in Russia.
It seems to me that it is quite possible to compose a whole article or even a book in refutation of this one stanza of Tyutchev. However, it is much more difficult to explain what her indisputable charm and poetic passion are. After all, here is not a denial of the mind, but the rejection of a preconceived mind, a ready-made "arshin". And faith in that people's mind, which in due time will find its own word and offer its own path. Truly modern thought! Many of the poet's worries about the fate of Russia, the fate of the world make him our contemporary. However, despite all the worries, the poet expresses confidence in the future:
Wonderful day! Centuries will pass
They will be the same, in eternal order,
flow and sparkle river
And the fields breathe in the heat.
Today, all mankind, our people are faced with the task of preserving, saving the "eternal order" of life from the "last cataclysm" that nuclear madmen threaten the planet with. The poet's concern for all living things is even clearer to us, contemporaries of the greatest confrontation between the forces of peace and the forces of war.
Turgenev wrote that Tyutchev "created speeches that are not destined to die." Poetry is the will to immortality, the will to live. The pledge of this will is our people, saving the word, the land, the song.
“When a person loves feats, he always knows how to do them and finds where it is possible. In life, you know, there is always a place for exploits.
(based on the early romantic works of M. Gorky)
Actions are needed! We need words that would sound like a tocsin bell, disturbing everything and, shaking, pushing forward.
M. Gorky
Romanticism as a new style Russian literature appeared in early XIX century. His features were pathos, intense excitement of the speech of the heroes, the brightness of the images and the extreme exaggeration of the qualities of the heroes, the unusualness of events.
Romantics adopted from their time the idea of individual freedom put forward by the revolution, while at the same time realizing the defenselessness of a person in a society where monetary interests win.
That is why the attitude of many romantics is characterized by confusion and confusion in front of the outside world, the tragedy of the individual. The romantic artist does not set himself the task of accurately reproducing reality; rather, he tries to express his attitude towards it. Create your own, fictional image of the world, so that through this fiction, this contrast, convey to the reader your ideal, your rejection of the world he denies. The heroes of romanticism are restless, passionate and indomitable.
Almost all heroes early works Gorky are the embodiment of courage, determination, selflessness, faith in a lofty ideal.
In The Old Woman Izergil, Gorky develops the theme of the meaning of life. The story consists of three parts, each of which can serve as the basis individual work. The author builds the story on the principle of contrast. He contrasts two heroes - Larra and Danko. People doom Larra, selfish and arrogant, to eternal loneliness. The greatest good - life - becomes eternal torment. The meaning of this legend is that a person cannot live for himself, away from society - he dies morally, dies of suffering. The author emphasizes this with the following sentence: “There was so much longing in his eyes that one could poison all the people of the world with it.” And since the eyes are the mirror of the soul, this determines everything. state of mind hero.
The opposite of Larra is the image of Danko, brave, proud, beautiful and strong. Everything that he possesses, Danko gives to people. His life becomes a feat because he follows a lofty goal - to save people; he is proud, but proud not for himself, but for the person as a whole. He sacrifices himself. But Gorky shows that this life is also maximalistic.
In the center of the work, Gorky placed a story about Izergil herself. At first, one might think that the image of the old woman combines the features of both Larra and Danko, that her personality is a balance between two extremes. But upon closer examination, Izergil becomes closer to Larra, and not to Danko. She lived only for herself, and although she says that a person is free, she herself wants freedom only for herself.
That is why, describing her portrait, the author focuses his attention on her incineration, emptiness: “... dry, cracked lips, a pointed chin with gray hair on it and a wrinkled nose, curved like an owl's beak. In place of the cheeks there were black pits ... the skin on the face, neck and arms was all cut with wrinkles, and with every movement of the old Izergil one could expect that this dry skin would tear all over, fall apart in pieces and a naked skeleton with dull black eyes would stand before me. M. Gorky also emphasizes the creakiness of her voice, which “sounded as if everyone was murmuring forgotten centuries, embodied in her chest as shadows of memories. All this suggests that fate punished Izergil for an incorrectly lived life.
In the story "Makar Chudra" the story is told on behalf of a young man. Here the author shows us two types of attitude to life. Chudra himself believes that the meaning of life is in the glorious lot of a tramp, and the narrator is convinced that the meaning of life is to "learn and teach."
Makar Chudra says amazing legend about Rudd and Loiko. Both are beautiful and strong personalities both domineering and proud. They love each other but cannot be together. The heroes of the story do not want to compromise, they do not want to obey anyone, even a loved one. And in the choice between submission and death, Loiko prefers the latter. Heroes die, but the legend continues to live in the mouths of people.
Indeed, "in life ... there is always a place for exploits," and everyone decides for himself whether to commit them or not. However, to live means to feel and think, to suffer and be blessed, and any other life means death. Gorky heroes-maximalists reveal their truth to us: to live means to burn oneself with the fire of struggle, searching and anxiety.
"I'm not afraid to portray the harsh truth of life as it is"
(based on the play by M. Gorky "At the Bottom")
Option 1
Freedom - no matter what! This is her spiritual essence. That freedom, for the sake of which people sink to the bottom of life, not knowing that there they become slaves.
K.S. Stanislavsky
M. Gorky's play "At the Bottom" was written in 1902. She sharply puts not only social problems, but also philosophical, the main of which is the essence of man, his purpose. In the play "At the Bottom" Gorky depicted the life of the tramps living in the Kostylevo rooming house, which at the same time looks like a cave and a prison cell.
In the course of the plot, each character throws the cruel truth in the face of his interlocutor, hearing it in his own address. Satin and Bubnov offer to test a person for a break with a similar truth: “In my opinion, bring down the whole truth as it is! Why be ashamed? The inhabitants of the rooming house are people without a future, and not everyone has a past, if the Baron is a former baron, and Satin is a former telegraph operator, Actor - former actor provincial theatre, then Vaska Pepel is a born thief, and Nastya has no past at all - there were no parents, no family. In the present, everyone is equal in poverty and lack of rights.
Under these conditions, the true essence of man is revealed. When asked whether a person deprived of all conditions remains normal life, a man, Gorky answers in the affirmative. The human in these people has not died, it breaks through in everyday trifles. The Wanderer Luka, who has endured a lot in his life, managed to retain the best human qualities: attention to each person, a sense of compassion. His arrival illuminated the rooming house with a ray of kindness and affection for people, with a desire to help them. The atmosphere in the rooming house with the arrival of Luka became more humane, something long forgotten began to awaken in the soul of everyone, they began to remember the past, when they had not nicknames, but names.
Luke brought to the rooming house not only kindness, but also his philosophy, his truth about man, the truth is controversial and contradictory. The essence of Luke's position is revealed in two parables. Luke's story about how he took pity on two robbers who were plotting a murder, fed and warmed, that is, responded to evil with good, confirms how some characters speak of him: "He was a good old man!" (Nastya); “He was compassionate…” (Tick); “Man - that's the truth ... He understood this ...” (Satin).
The parable of the “righteous land” raises the question of whether a person needs the truth. The man hung himself when he found out that the "righteous land" does not exist. Luke believes that people do not need the truth, since their situation is hopeless. Pitying them, he invents them as a consolation beautiful fairy tales, instills in them faith in the unrealizable. “I lied out of pity for you,” Satin says. And this lie gave people the strength to live, resist fate and hope for the best.
The play "At the Bottom" is an allegory about a man for whom life and truth are polar opposites. The truth of a person and the truth about a person cannot coincide with the heroes of the play. For example, Nastya. Bubnov and Baron laugh at the story she made up about Raul's love for her. Behind this fiction is Nastya's inner need for this love and the belief that such love would change her and her life. For her, this is the most sacred truth. But the truth of Nastya cannot move from the realm of dreams to the realm of reality. She did not separate from Nastya and did not pass into the fact of her life.
The contradiction between the truth of the hero and the truth about the hero is characteristic of almost every character, including Sateen, who likes to repeat: "It's good to feel like a man!" But in reality he is “a prisoner, a murderer, a cheater”. Gorky in the play "At the Bottom" threw a bridge between the concepts of "man" and "truth". In the final disputes about truth and man in Sateen's monologues, this idea is clearly formulated: “What is truth? The man is the truth." "There is only man, everything else is the work of his hands and his brain." According to Gorky, the bare truth is of no value. The truth-seeker Bubnov is described by the playwright with frank hostility. He confesses the truth of the fact. You should not try to change something in life, you need to come to terms with evil and go with the flow: "People all live ... like chips floating in the river."
This position undermines the desire of every person for the best, deprives him of hope, makes him passive, cruel and heartless. Satin enters into an argument with Luka and Bubnov, who, in his famous monologue, asserts his truth about a person. Rejecting the wretched ideal of satiety, based on the power of money, Satin speaks of the inherent value of the human person. Man is the center of the universe, he is the creator, the transformer of life. “There is only man, everything else is the work of his hands and brain.”
He speaks of the equality of all people, regardless of their social position and nationality. You just need to face the truth, believe in yourself and change the world for the better. The words of Sateen, instilling faith in a person, in his mind and creative energy, only temporarily affected the overnight stays. Gorky is not so much looking for a ready-made answer to the question in the play: “Is there a way in the world to break free from this vicious circle?” As he raises the question: “Can one be considered a person who has resigned himself and is no longer looking for an answer to this question? ?
Hence the pivotal motive of the play - the contradiction between the Truth of a slave and the freedom of Man. Artistic value play is that she asked this sharp and painful question, and not that the answer is found. There was no answer in life. And the question sounded like a hope for those who despaired and resigned, and as a challenge to those who preferred to philosophize in comfort.
