Manifestation of cruelty and humanity in Dubrovsky's novel. Composition based on the novel "Dubrovsky" by A. Pushkin: protection of the human personality
At all times there were people who resigned themselves to the force and inevitability of circumstances and were ready to accept fate as it is with their heads bowed. But at all times there have been people who are ready to fight for their happiness, people who do not want to endure injustice, people who have nothing to lose. We can meet such people on the pages of A.S. Pushkin's novel "Dubrovsky".
This piece is deep and interesting. It impressed me with its idea, plot twists, sad ending, heroes. Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov, Vladimir Dubrovsky, Masha Troekurova - all these are strong and outstanding personalities. But the difference between them is that Troekurov was by nature a good person, he had good comradely relations with the poor landowner Dubrovsky, he was characterized by human impulses, but at the same time he was a despot and a petty tyrant. Troyekurov is a typical feudal lord, in whom a sense of his own superiority and permissiveness, depravity and ignorance is developed to the limit. Whereas Dubrovsky and Masha are noble, sincere, pure and honest natures.
The main problem of the novel is the problem of protecting human dignity. But, one way or another, it is connected with all the characters of the work. First of all, this problem concerns the Dubrovsky family, which Troekurov deprived not only of the family estate, but also encroached on their noble honor and dignity.
Andrei Gavrilovich was sure that he was right, he cared little about the lawsuit that Troekurov started against him, and therefore he could not defend his rights. Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky could not stand the unequal fight with a stronger opponent and died. Then Dubrovsky Jr. had to defend his own honor. By chance, he became the head of the peasant movement in order to "administer his own court." But from the very beginning he did not agree with the methods of struggle against the landlords. His pure and sincere nature did not allow him to become a real thug - cruel and merciless. He was fair and merciful, so Vladimir led the peasants for a short time. The peasant revolt was spontaneous, their actions were often contradictory, so they obeyed the order of Dubrovsky, stopped the armed uprising and dispersed. “... Terrible visits, fires and robberies have ceased. The roads are free."
But why does Vladimir not touch the property of his offender, the richest landowner in the district - Troekurov? As it turned out, Dubrovsky fell in love with the daughter of Kirilla Petrovich, Masha, and forgave his blood enemy for her sake. Masha also fell in love with Vladimir. But these heroes could not be together - Kirilla Petrovich forcibly married his daughter to the old Count of Vereisky. Vladimir did not have time to save his beloved from marriage with an unloved person.
It seems to me that A.S. Pushkin shows that a person in Russia is defenseless against evil and injustice by such a plot twist, a sad ending. Neither law nor society can protect him. He can only rely on his own strength.
Therefore, I understand Vladimir Dubrovsky, who became a robber. What else was there for him to do? Not finding protection from the law, he also decided to live by the unwritten rules - the rules of force and cruelty. But his noble, pure and sincere nature still limited the hero in this, made him a "noble robber."
At all times there were people who resigned themselves to the force and inevitability of circumstances and were ready to accept fate as it is with their heads bowed. But at all times there have been people who are ready to fight for their happiness, people who do not want to endure injustice, people who have nothing to lose. We can meet such people on the pages of A.S. Pushkin's novel "Dubrovsky".
This piece is deep and interesting. It impressed me with its idea, plot twists, sad ending, heroes. Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov, Vladimir Dubrovsky, Masha Troekurova - all these are strong and outstanding personalities. But the difference between them is that Troekurov was by nature a good person, he had good comradely relations with the poor landowner Dubrovsky, he was characterized by human impulses, but at the same time he was a despot and a petty tyrant. Troyekurov is a typical feudal lord, in whom a sense of his own superiority and permissiveness, depravity and ignorance is developed to the limit. Whereas Dubrovsky and Masha are noble, sincere, pure and honest natures.
The main problem of the novel is the problem of protecting human dignity. But, one way or another, it is connected with all the characters of the work. First of all, this problem concerns the Dubrovsky family, which Troekurov deprived not only of the family estate, but also encroached on their noble honor and dignity.
Andrei Gavrilovich was sure that he was right, he cared little about the lawsuit that Troekurov started against him, and therefore he could not defend his rights. Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky could not stand the unequal fight with a stronger opponent and died. Then Dubrovsky Jr. had to defend his own honor. By chance, he became the head of the peasant movement in order to "administer his own court." But from the very beginning he did not agree with the methods of struggle against the landlords. His pure and sincere nature did not allow him to become a real thug - cruel and merciless. He was fair and merciful, so Vladimir led the peasants for a short time. The peasant revolt was spontaneous, their actions were often contradictory, so they obeyed the order of Dubrovsky, stopped the armed uprising and dispersed. “... Terrible visits, fires and robberies have ceased. The roads are free."
But why does Vladimir not touch the property of his offender, the richest landowner in the district - Troekurov? As it turned out, Dubrovsky fell in love with the daughter of Kirilla Petrovich, Masha, and forgave his blood enemy for her sake. Masha also fell in love with Vladimir. But these heroes could not be together - Kirilla Petrovich forcibly married his daughter to the old Count of Vereisky. Vladimir did not have time to save his beloved from marriage with an unloved person.
It seems to me that A.S. Pushkin shows that a person in Russia is defenseless against evil and injustice by such a plot twist, a sad ending. Neither law nor society can protect him. He can only rely on his own strength.
Therefore, I understand Vladimir Dubrovsky, who became a robber. What else was there for him to do? Not finding protection from the law, he also decided to live by the unwritten rules - the rules of force and cruelty. But his noble, pure and sincere nature still limited the hero in this, made him a "noble robber."
Plan for the topic: 1. Who is Shabashkin. 2. His appearance. 3. How Shabashkin reacted to Troekurov's desire to take possession of someone else's estate. Why did he not refuse to participate in this wrong case. 5. In what ways did Shabashkin achieve the fulfillment of Troekurov's desire. 6....
The novel "Dubrovsky" is one of the most significant prose works of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin. Work on this novel began in October 1832, and in January 1833 Pushkin completed the first two volumes. "History of Pugachev", and then "Captain's ...
In the novel "Dubrovsky" A. S. Pushkin speaks of honor and meanness, love and hatred, nobility and meanness. One of the important storylines of the novel is the history of the relationship between Vladimir Dubrovsky and Masha Troekurova. There are many in the fates of these heroes...
A.S. Pushkin is a great reformer not only of the Russian literary language, but also of Russian prose. He made it a rule that "accuracy and brevity are the first virtues of prose." The novel "Dubrovsky" confirms this. This is a novel about a young man who...
Usually this question is answered from the end. From the last chapters of the story, when Dubrovsky, having received her message late, could not appear before the wedding. We see a girl in tears, pale, detached from everything around her, having lost her last hope,...
Students are working on the episode "Vladimir Dubrovsky in the Kistenevskaya grove." Let's reread the passage: Vladimir “deepened into a thicket of trees, trying to drown out spiritual grief with movement and fatigue. He walked without looking at the road; boughs constantly touched and scratched ...
Answer left Guest
The inner world turns out to be more powerful for the hero than the laws of society, desires are more imperative than the consciousness of necessity. This is the essence of the romantic hero. Pushkin preserves it in the novel, where he wants to realistically explore the reasons for the defeat of a romantic personality in the face of the force of circumstances. Speaking of Vladimir Dubrovsky as a hero endowed with romantic impulses, we mean precisely the direct romanticism of his behavior and feelings, and not a complete romantic worldview system, which he doesn't have. He is often not fully aware of his conflict with reality. The process of self-awareness and reality is not shown in Dubrovsky, as, say, it is done in Lermontov's A Hero of Our Time. Pushkin’s interest in the problem of the relationship between romantic impulses and the laws of society was created by the post-December situation, when the bitterness of the heroes’ experience on December 14, 1825 required clarification of the causes of the disaster. V. Klyuchevsky pointed out the connection between the romantic hero Vladimir Dubrovsky and the inner world and impulses of the Decembrists: the pole of the century and together its negation. The features of a gentle, noble, romantically protesting and bitterly deceived by fate Alexander, a member of the Union of Welfare, are already noticeable in him. It is significant that this idea belongs to a historian who managed to see in Pushkin's novel a reaction to the social situation of the era. Pushkin recognized the idea of individual independence as one of the conditions for social progress. In “Refutation of Critics,” he wrote about the historical significance of the idea of honor, about the ancient nobility, the bearer of nobility and independence: “Whatever my way of thinking, I never shared democratic hatred of the nobility with anyone. It always seemed me the necessary and natural estate of a great educated people. Looking around me and reading our old chronicles, I regretted, seeing how the ancient noble families were destroyed, how the rest fall and disappear ... and how the name of a nobleman, hour by hour more humiliated, finally became a parable and a mockery of the raznochintsy who came out in the nobility , and even idle jokers! These notes by Pushkin, written in Boldin in 1830, are very close to the feelings that animate the old Dubrovsky. But for Pushkin "there are virtues higher than the nobility of the family, namely: personal dignity." The idea of honor, the protection of the rights of the human person were at the heart of Pushkin's humanistic worldview. Loyalty to this idea determined both poetic creativity and personal behavior. No wonder Lermontov called the deceased Pushkin "a slave of honor." Vladimir Dubrovsky is presented as a noble defender of this idea. Even having become a robber, he remains a servant of justice. This is how V. Dubrovsky appears in Globova's story. He is endowed with excellent qualities of determination, courage, self-control. Getting into the situation of Hamlet, Vladimir Dubrovsky also does not avenge his father. For Hamlet, “murder is vile in itself”, the humanistic worldview does not allow the Danish prince to turn into a blind instrument of revenge. To shed blood, Hamlet needs grandiose grounds and the immediacy of indignation. He cannot commit primitive revenge, for he is endowed with love for humanity and the consciousness of the impossibility of defiling himself with a crime. Vladimir Dubrovsky is constrained in his action by love for Masha Troekurova. Pushkin's hero is usually accused of this, just as Hamlet has been accused of reflection and passivity for many centuries. However, for all the equal size of these heroes, their refusal to take revenge is explained by high reasons. In Hamlet, revenge for his father develops into a struggle for the restoration of humanity in the world. Hamlet's reflection led him to reject low motives of action. Throwing them away, Hamlet goes to a tragic victory. In Dubrovsky, revenge for his father involuntarily develops into a social protest. He becomes the intercessor of the offended. But Vladimir Dubrovsky does not overcome low motives of action, like Hamlet, but refuses revenge for the sake of love. Urging Masha not to be afraid of a robber in him, Vladimir says: “It's all over. I told him
The problem of protecting human dignity.
At all times there were people who resigned themselves to the force and inevitability of circumstances and were ready to accept fate as it is with their heads bowed. But at all times there have been people who are ready to fight for their happiness, people who do not want to endure injustice, people who have nothing to lose. We can meet such people on the pages of A.S. Pushkin's novel "Dubrovsky".
This piece is deep and interesting. It impressed me with its idea, plot twists, sad ending, heroes. Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov, Vladimir Dubrovsky, Masha Troekurova - all these are strong and outstanding personalities. But the difference between them is that Troekurov was by nature a good person, he had good comradely relations with the poor landowner Dubrovsky, he was characterized by human impulses, but at the same time he was a despot and a petty tyrant. Troyekurov is a typical feudal lord, in whom a sense of his own superiority and permissiveness, depravity and ignorance is developed to the limit. Whereas Dubrovsky and Masha are noble, sincere, pure and honest natures.
The main problem of the novel is the problem of protecting human dignity. But, one way or another, it is connected with all the characters of the work. First of all, this problem concerns the Dubrovsky family, which Troekurov deprived not only of the family estate, but also encroached on their noble honor and dignity.
Andrei Gavrilovich was sure that he was right, he cared little about the lawsuit that Troekurov started against him, and therefore he could not defend his rights. Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky could not stand the unequal fight with a stronger opponent and died. Then Dubrovsky Jr. had to defend his own honor. By chance, he became the head of the peasant movement in order to "administer his own court." But from the very beginning he did not agree with the methods of struggle against the landlords. His pure and sincere nature did not allow him to become a real thug - cruel and merciless. He was fair and merciful, so Vladimir led the peasants for a short time. The peasant revolt was spontaneous, their actions were often contradictory, so they obeyed the order of Dubrovsky, stopped the armed uprising and dispersed. “... Terrible visits, fires and robberies have ceased. The roads are free."
But why does Vladimir not touch the property of his offender, the richest landowner in the district - Troekurov? As it turned out, Dubrovsky fell in love with the daughter of Kirilla Petrovich, Masha, and forgave his blood enemy for her sake. Masha also fell in love with Vladimir. But these heroes could not be together - Kirilla Petrovich forcibly married his daughter to the old Count of Vereisky. Vladimir did not have time to save his beloved from marriage with an unloved person.
It seems to me that A.S. Pushkin shows that a person in Russia is defenseless against evil and injustice by such a plot twist, a sad ending. Neither law nor society can protect him. He can only rely on his own strength.
Therefore, I understand Vladimir Dubrovsky, who became a robber. What else was there for him to do? Not finding protection from the law, he also decided to live by the unwritten rules - the rules of force and cruelty. But his noble, pure and sincere nature still limited the hero in this, made him a "noble robber."
