Which life experience can be purchased by reading A.S. Pushkin's novel "Dubrovsky"
Hypothesis
I believe that any work of domestic and foreign literature, and in particular the works of A.S. Pushkin as a progressive poet and writer of the 19th century, has educational significance. This means that by reading books, we involuntarily gain a certain life experience. So what kind of experience have we acquired? me, reading A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky”?
Study plan
- Read A.S. Pushkin's novel "Dubrovsky".
- Determine the problems of the novel and the attitude of the main characters to these problems.
- Analyze the behavior of the characters in the novel and your attitude towards their actions.
- Formulate my own conclusions about what life experience I received after reading the novel "Dubrovsky".
Study
I read A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky”, identified the group of main characters of the work around whom the main plot develops, these are: friends - landowners - Kirila Petrovich Troekurov and Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky, Vladimir Dubrovsky. The beginning of the novel does not foreshadow any conflict: before us old landowners, whose fates are in many ways similar: they were both widowed early, both are raising children, both are owners of a certain fortune. But the further I read into the work, the more I realized that in front of me were people of the same class, but completely different in their views on life. Kirila Petrovich is accustomed to the admirable views of his landowner neighbors regarding his rich kennel, where kennels and dogs live better than many of Dubrovsky’s subjects. Troekurov is the owner of a rich fortune and a luxurious estate. But this does not prevent him from being friends with Dubrovsky. Thus, one of the problems of the novel is the attitude towards friendship, manifestation of oneself in friendship. I will try to comment on the attitude of the heroes of the novel to this problem. Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, accustomed to the adulation of his person on the part of his neighboring landowners, does not at all feel a similar attitude on the part of Dubrovsky, but he maintains a relationship with this person, I think, for good reason. Troyekurov does not see in Dubrovsky a worthy rival in wealth, but, apparently, he is captivated by Andrei Gavrilovich’s integrity, honesty, self-esteem. Next to Dubrovsky, Kirila Petrovich can be absolutely calm in the fact that that he will never receive a stab in the back, which cannot be said about Troyekurov. The fact that Kirila Petrovich literally destroys his friend, at first without reacting in any way to Dubrovsky’s insult by his dogmaster, and subsequently without even punishing him, and in the future, remains completely incomprehensible by human standards. depriving Dubrovsky of his estate, the only thing that forms the basis of the landowner’s material condition. Andrei Gavrilovich, as a man of high duty and honor, could not bear the cruel insult of his friend, became seriously ill and died. Thus, the attitude of the heroes to the concept of friendship is very different. Troekurov surrounds himself with people who are necessary, but not capable of demonstrating this quality. The only person capable of friendship was Dubrovsky, who was not burdened by Troekurov’s position and could safely talk about his feelings and thoughts. Troekurov clearly lacked such a person. Dubrovsky, in my opinion, saw Troekurov more as a friend than a friend, but this does not prevent him from respecting the human dignity of Kiril Petrovich. Dubrovsky, as a man of high moral principles, became the victim of an unprincipled man, incapable of repentance even after the death of a friend. Thus, analyzing the relationship of the main characters, another of the problems of the novel “Dubrovsky” becomes obvious - this is the problem of honor and dishonor. Having identified some of the problems of the novel and Having commented on the attitude of the characters to these problems, I can draw a conclusion about what kind of life experience I acquired. Firstly, I saw one of the models of friendship and was able to relate it to the idea that was formed in my mind. Secondly, I also Once I was convinced that people of honor are people with high moral principles.
Result
After reading the novel "Dubrovsky" I gained experience in human relationships. Friendship is not always called what it seems to be. The choice of friends must be approached very responsibly. People who call themselves friends should be connected and united by something. Friends are capable of self-sacrifice, help in both word and deed. A true friend will never hit back, even if the relationship ended for some reason. Perhaps different social status will be an obstacle to true friendship. Along with the concept of friendship, I also defined for myself what honor and dishonor are. Having an idea of these concepts, I will be able to adjust my behavior, thoughts, and actions from the point of view of honor.
The work “Dubrovsky”, created by Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin in 1833, is one of the main creations in Russia. Despite the fact that the whole scene takes place at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the novel has not lost its relevance to this day. The main theme is the diversity of two classes - the lower and upper class.
The landowner's child, after the death of his father, is deprived of everything he had through illegal interference. The young man decides to rebel against the upper class and take back everything that was taken from him, thus turning into a bully. Revenge is the main task of his life. Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin tries to describe the young man not as a hooligan, but as a fighter for the truth. Vladimir is literate, frail, charming. Everything he does, his battles, the resulting sympathy for his opponent’s daughter, all this leaves an indelible typo on the reader himself.
All actions and descriptions of the main characters in the work “Dubrovsky” are determined by the time in which they are located. The work describes the main current moment of that century: the relationship of ordinary residents with landowners.
But for a young man to believe that he is only on the side of the peasants and that he is their main protector is very difficult. Since the main thing for him is revenge on Troekurov. The main theme of the work is how immorality can affect a person’s life. A young man becomes a hooligan by accident, and not by his own discretion. He had to become a robber, challenge the public population. But this did not help solve his problem, since everything was in vain. All his actions did not bring any success, he could not achieve anything.
Thus, it is fair to consider that Vladimir is a victim of what happened. The young man is alien to the common population. A young man is against all rules, against love. He cannot do anything and cannot change his fate in any way. He is lost to the entire society.
Several interesting essays
- Essay The influence of a book on a person
A person becomes familiar with books almost from birth. Kids learn about the world by leafing through albums with bright pictures. Cute little animals, cartoon characters, funny stories greet the little explorer on paper pages
- Essay based on Bryullov’s painting The Last Day of Pompeii (description)
Artists are the keepers of history, depicting many events in their paintings. The tragedy that happened to the ancient city of Pompeii as a result of the eruption of Vesuvius was reflected in the canvas of Karl Pavlovich Bryullov.
- Essay on reasoning Indifference and responsiveness
Indifference and responsiveness are two completely opposite concepts. As a rule, each of these concepts cannot be embedded in one person. It seems to me that a person can either be absolutely indifferent and callous to everything, or sympathetic and kind.
Each of us has made a promise in our lives. Everyone knows this. But some do not know about the existence of such a saying as: Strengthen your word with deeds.
Most often, the feeling of courage is attributed to men, while the feeling of cowardice, on the contrary, is considered more feminine. However, such a classification is conditional and in reality these feelings are universal and inherent in representatives of any gender
The problem of good and evil has been and remains very relevant in the history of Russian literature. This topic begins its development with oral folk poetry - fairy tales, epics, legends. In many works of folklore, a good hero fights or grapples with an evil rival or enemy and always wins, good always triumphs. A. S. Pushkin in the novel “Dubrovsky” (1832-1833) complicates this problem. And in this work we wanted to show how ambiguously the author solves this problem. And although the work is based on a case that was quite typical for relations between landowners and for judicial arbitrariness that existed at a time when, using his influence, a strong and rich landowner could always oppress a poor neighbor and even take away his property legally belonging to him, no in the novel there is a purely good and a purely evil character. This is what we will try to prove.
At first glance, the “villain” in the novel is the landowner Kirill Petrovich Troekurov. There can be no doubt that Troekurov is the personification of all vices: gluttony, drunkenness and fornication, idleness, pride and anger, rancor and stubbornness thoroughly corrupted his soul. He started a low and dark business: he decided to take away the estate from his former friend Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky because he demanded an apology from the huntsman Paramoshka for insulting him and for not following Troekurov’s order to return immediately. Troekurov considered himself insulted by the fact that they were demanding an apology from him. “In the first minute of anger, he wanted to launch an attack on Kistenevkur with all his servants, destroy it to the ground and besiege the landowner himself in his estate - such feats were not unusual for him.” But then he chooses the lowest method. Why is he doing this? He did not pursue selfish goals when he wanted to take possession of Kistenevka. He wanted to create such conditions for his former friend that he would become dependent on him, humiliate himself in front of him, he wanted to break his pride, trample on his human dignity. By the way, it should be noted that the serfs were a match for their landowner. “Troyekurov treated the peasants and servants strictly and capriciously, but they were vain about the wealth and glory of their master and, in turn, allowed themselves a lot in relation to their neighbors, hoping for his strong patronage.” Suffice it to remember that it was the huntsman Paramoshka who turned out to be the culprit in the quarrel between Troekurov and Dubrovsky.
When the court ruled in favor of Troekurov, the “villain” should have only rejoiced at the victory, but the opposite happens: “Dubrovsky’s sudden madness had a strong effect on his imagination and poisoned his triumph.” Why does Troekurov react this way? Having analyzed his image, we find in him the makings of nobility and generosity. Despite the difference in wealth, he respects and loves his old comrade Dubrovsky, expresses his intention to marry his daughter Masha to Dubrovsky’s son Vladimir, and is going to make amends for his injustice and return the confiscated estate to old man Dubrovsky. Thus, we see that he is characterized by human impulses. Pushkin writes: “He was not selfish by nature, the desire for revenge lured him too far, his conscience grumbled. He knew the state of his opponent, the old comrade of his youth, and victory did not bring joy to his heart.” In Troekurov’s soul there is a struggle between base and nobler feelings. “Satisfied revenge and lust for power” struggled with attachment to an old comrade. The latter won, and Troekurov headed to Kistenevka with “ good intentions“make peace with the old neighbor, “destroy even traces of the quarrel, returning property to him. Unfortunately, he did not have time to do this. The sick Dubrovsky died at the sight of his friend.
We see that Troekurov had good inclinations, but they all perish in the atmosphere in which he lives: everyone indulges his whims, he never encounters resistance from anyone. “Spoiled by everything that surrounded him,” says Pushkin, “he was accustomed to giving full rein to all the impulses of his character and all the ideas of his rather limited mind.” He acquired this power over people thanks to his wealth. And this unlimited power over the people who belong to him turns him into a despot, a tyrant.
Pushkin seeks to show that wealth does not make people better. Impunity makes Troekurov a vengeful, cruel and soulless person. And Troekurov’s best human traits take on ugly forms. He destroys Dubrovsky only because he dared to contradict him; Despite all his love for his daughter, he, on his whim, gives her in marriage to the old Prince Vereisky. Troekurov is a typical serf-owner, vicious and ignorant.
There is a lot of evil on him, but this time it was not he who struck the match.
The antithesis of Troekurov in the novel is the “kind” landowner, old man Dubrovsky. The same noble breed is evident in him, only in different forms. Poverty (relative, of course) not only does not reduce, but also exacerbates noble pride. However, we see that in a clash with Troekurov, in essence, he is the attacking party, since the first one hurt him: the hunter himself, “he could not resist some envy at the sight of this magnificent establishment” of his rich neighbor and told him a caustic thing.
Dubrovsky, who according to the scheme should have been completely virtuous, in fact was himself in many ways the same as Troekurov, with whom “they were partly similar in character and inclinations.” Without deluding himself at all about his hero, Pushkin is extremely frank with the reader about the motivation for his behavior. Dubrovsky’s small fortune did not allow him to keep many dogs, for which he was a great hunter, and therefore he “could not resist some envy” at the sight of Troekurov’s kennel. His “severe” answer is not dictated by directness of character or sympathy for Troekurov’s serfs, but by banal envy and the desire to at least somehow belittle Troekurov’s superiority over himself.
This is how this scene is described in the novel. “Why are you frowning, brother,” Kirila Petrovich asked him, “or don’t you like my kennel?” “No,” he answered sternly, it’s a wonderful kennel, it’s unlikely that your people will live the same as your dogs.” Pushkin repeatedly emphasizes that Dubrovsky and Troekurov were old friends, which means that Andrei Gavrilovich knew his comrade well, knew his wayward character, could imagine where this would lead, but, nevertheless, could not resist harsh words. Thus, it was he who provoked the quarrel.
The final break between friends followed when it was Dubrovsky, true to his firm noble rules, who demanded that Troekurov’s huntsman be sent to him to punish him for his daring answer (“We, thanks to God and the master, don’t complain about our lives, and what’s true is true, It wouldn’t be bad for another nobleman to exchange his estate for any local kennel. He would be better fed and warmer.”
The quarrel that arises from trifles grows and ultimately leads to dire consequences, both for the old man Dubrovsky himself and for the young heroes of the story - Vladimir and Masha. But, with all the compassion for his position as a destitute and robbed man, it is still impossible not to note that it was not despair and grief that darkened his mind, but uncontrollable anger. Suffice it to recall his behavior at the trial. : he “stamped his foot, pushed the secretary with such force that he fell, and, grabbing an inkwell, threw it at the assessor.”
Yes, myself main character works Vladimir Dubrovsky is an ambiguous, complex personality. In St. Petersburg, he lived as most of his fellow officers lived: he played cards, allowed himself “luxurious whims,” and did not think about how his father managed to send him more money than he could have expected. But at the same time, Vladimir loves his father (“the thought of losing his father painfully tormented his heart”). Having received news of his father’s illness, he, without hesitation, hurries to Kistenevka.
Because of Troekurov, Vladimir lost his father, lost his home, estate, and livelihood, so he could not return to the regiment. Then Dubrovsky plotted to take revenge on his enemy (and revenge was never positive feature character). He became the ataman of the peasants, who were afraid of the tyranny of the new master: “he sometimes has a bad time with his own people, but if they get strangers, he will not only tear off their skin, but also their meat.” He provided military leadership and maintained discipline. And the peasants supported the young master, because only in him they hoped to find at least some kind of protection. “We don’t need anyone but you, our breadwinner. Don’t give us away, and we’ll stand for you.” It is characteristic that in the depiction of Pushkin, the more humane and generous master and peasants are better, more humane, they have more self-esteem and independence.
They become robbers, but exactly the kind of robbers that are sung about in folk songs: they do not kill anyone, but only rob the rich, and the sympathy of the people is on their side. So far they see no other way out for their protest and anger. Robbery for them is the only possible path.
From the description of the bandit camp, you understand that the ordinary nature of their activities and peaceful life indicate that Pushkin did not seek to show a “nest of villains”; the fortress, surrounded by a ditch and a rampart, on which a guard sits next to a small cannon, suggests that Dubrovsky used his knowledge of military affairs and trained his accomplices in combat.
Like-minded people of Dubrovsky also sympathized with the personal fate of their young leader: the loss of his father, sudden poverty, unhappy love. Let us remember that Vladimir and his accomplices took money and property only from the rich, that he did not shed a single drop of blood, and did not offend anyone in vain. The landowner Globova spoke about the nobility of the “robber” Dubrovsky, who “attacks not just anyone, but famous rich people, but even here he shares with them, and does not rob completely.”
Vladimir Dubrovsky, proud, who valued his noble honor just like his father, repeatedly proved capable of noble deed: because of his love for Masha Troekurova, he refused to take revenge; he showed generosity when he ordered his accomplices not to touch Vereisky.
The penultimate chapter occupies a very important place in the novel. Thanks to this chapter, the triumph of good over evil, not accomplished in the plot, is accomplished in the souls of readers. Before us is Pushkin’s beloved female image- a pure, meek soul, weak in its defenselessness and strong in its virtue. It is easy to offend her, to cause harm, but it is impossible to force her to pay for her happiness with someone else's misfortune. She will endure any torment, except the torment of conscience. “For God’s sake,” Masha implores Dubrovsky from the crime against the prince, “don’t touch him, don’t dare touch him. I don’t want to be the cause of some horror.” And his promise reflects her moral height: “Never will a crime be committed in your name. You must be pure even in my crimes.”
But Vladimir Dubrovsky is a nobleman, brought up in noble prejudices, therefore, in his attitude towards the members of the gang, at times there is a lordly disdain, similar to contempt. This is especially evident in his last speech addressed to his accomplices: “but you are all swindlers and probably will not want to leave your craft.” The author seems to be telling us: Vladimir was mistaken in believing that his “comrades” would not give up robbery. It can be assumed that most of them were sincerely attached to Dubrovsky, so they will do as he tells them, as the last lines of the story tell us.
Thus, we see that Vladimir is not an ideally “evil” or ideally “good” character.
The complexity and depth of the theme of good and evil in the novel can also be traced by analyzing individual images of peasants. One of the most living images among the peasants is the blacksmith Arkhip. The spirit of rebellion and rebellion awakens in him first; he acts independently of Vladimir, it is not young Dubrovsky, but it is Arkhip who speaks out against the unfair verdict of the court and he is the first to take up the ax. Arkhip locks the clerks in during a fire, and they die through his fault. This cruelty is generated by the long-accumulated resentment of the people. And, it is characteristic that already in the next episode Pushkin shows the humanity and spiritual beauty of this Russian peasant: at the risk of his life, the blacksmith Arkhip saves a cat that found itself on a burning roof: “Why are you laughing, you little devils,” the blacksmith said angrily to the boys. “You are not afraid of God: God’s creation is perishing, and you are foolishly rejoicing,” and, placing the ladder on the fire roof, he climbed after the cat.”
Conclusion.
Having analyzed the character traits of the main characters of the novel from the point of view of the manifestation of good and evil in their actions, we determined that all the characters are very complex individuals. Each of characters bears signs of his social affiliation and is depicted in the novel with the greatest artistic perfection. Thanks to this, the story gives a broad social picture, written with deep realism.
Thus, from all that has been said above, we can conclude that the problem of good and evil, posed and solved in the novel “Dubrovsky,” is an artistic device in the depiction of the characters in the novel, which helps to imagine the life of Russia in the mid-nineteenth century in all its diversity.
Zubenko Olga Viktorovna
Job title: teacher of Russian language and literature
Educational institution: MOBUSOSH No. 89
Locality: Sochi
Name of material: methodological development lesson
Subject: Moral problems of A.S. Pushkin's novel "Dubrovsky"
Publication date: 24.08.2017
Chapter: secondary education
Technological map of a lesson in 6th grade on the topic “
Moral problems of the novel by A.S. Pushkin “
Dubrovsky"
literature. UMK edited by G.S. Merkin
Lesson topic.
TECHNOLOGICAL LESSON MAP.
Subject LITERATURE
UMK Edited by G.S. Merkin
Lesson topic: Moral problems of A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky”
1.Create conditions for the development of positive motivation for learning.
2. Organize students’ activities to consolidate knowledge of A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky”.
3. To develop students’ abilities to correctly formulate their thoughts in the process of solving educational problems,
improve students' skills in working with text
4. To form through the lesson the moral and aesthetic ideas of students, an adequate attitude towards
moral values
5. Form the UUD:
cognitive UUD: search and selection of necessary information, conscious and voluntary construction
speech utterance in oral form, free orientation and perception of artistic text
works, semantic reading;
personal UUD: self-determination, moral and ethical orientation, ability to self-assess one’s
actions, deeds;
regulatory UUD: goal setting, planning, self-regulation, highlighting and students’ awareness of
what has already been learned and what still needs to be learned;
communicative educational activities: planning educational cooperation with the teacher and peers, following the rules
speech behavior, the ability to express and justify one’s point of view.
Planned educational results
Subject
Metasubject
Personal
Understanding the Key Issues
reflected in the novel.
Understanding the connection between the novel and the era
its writing, identifying
morals embedded in it
values and their modern
sound.
Formation of the skill of meaningful
reading and adequate perception.
Ability to analyze literary
work
Cognitive UUD:
search and selection
necessary information,
conscious and voluntary
construction of speech
oral statements
form, free
orientation and perception
Regulatory UUD:
goal setting,
planning,
self-regulation, excretion and
student awareness
what has already been learned and what
still needs to be learned.
Communicative UUD:
educational planning
cooperation with the teacher and
Formation by means of a lesson
moral - aesthetic
student submissions,
adequate attitude towards
moral values (friendship,
nobility). Personal UUD:
self-determination, moral
ethical orientation, ability
to self-assessment of one’s actions,
actions.
peers, following rules
speech behavior, skill
express and justify your
point of view.
Cognitive: form
the concept of "moral
problems"; test knowledge
work of art,
summarize the material studied.
Developmental: develop
mental-speech
student activities, skills
generalize, logically correct
express your thoughts.
Educational: develop
system of value relations in
society.
Lesson type: lesson of generalization of knowledge
Equipment: projector, interactive board.
Visual demonstration materials: task cards
Technologies used: collective learning technology, health-saving technologies,
technology of critical thinking.
Forms of work: individual, collective.
Teaching methods: verbal, partially search.
New concepts and terms: moral
ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE OF THE LESSON
STAGE 1. Entering into the topic of the lesson and
creating conditions for conscious
perception
new
material
PROGRESS OF THE LESSON
Formation
specific
educational
result/group
results
Ability to lead
dialogue. Start and
end
conversation in
in accordance with
standards, format
Greetings.
Formation of groups based on proverbs.
Students were given cut proverbs on the topics: friendship, love,
honor, justice
Each group names the topic of their proverbs.
Assignment: Draw a logo for your group according to your theme
Children protecting their emblems.
Teacher's word. What do all these words have to do with the novel? (answers
students)
Considerations
cluster.
Central
cluster
to be completed at the end of the lesson)
Main type of educational activity
students, aimed at developing
of this educational result
Form of organization
student activities
Individual
Group
Functions/role,
main types
teacher's activities on
at this stage
Preparation
class to work
Teaching methods,
techniques, techniques
psychological
What is
real
Honor, ots.
Moral
e problems
Justice and
injustice
Devotion
feeling of duty.
mood, gaming
STAGE 2. Organization and self-organization
students during further
assimilation
material. Organization of feedback
Each group works with its own problem, answering the question:
How this problem is solved by Pushkin in the novel.(The groups were given
sub-questions that guide their reasoning.)
Group 1 What is true friendship?
1. Who is to blame for the quarrel - Dubrovsky or Troekurov?
2. Does Troekurov survive the quarrel? Where can you see this?
3. Why is Dubrovsky insolent? He didn't know how they lived before
Troyekurov’s peasants, didn’t know the extent of his friend’s wealth?
4. Is Dubrovsky going through a quarrel? What feelings do they have?
5. How does a quarrel develop into hostility?
5. Describe Troekurov’s experiences when he goes to make peace with
Dubrovsky.
Can the friendship between Dubrovsky and Troekurov be called
real?
Formation
specific
educational
result/group
results
Ability to discuss and analyze
text in terms of content.
Ability to work in a group and listen
each other
2nd group
Justice and injustice - what does it depend on?
What episodes of the novel made you think about these
questions.
1. Describe the behavior of judges during the trial (verbal drawing.)
2.Describe
behavior
Shabashkina
Troekurov? (verbal drawing)
3. Why didn’t Dubrovsky win the trial?
4. Was Troekurov happy with the outcome of the case? Prove it with text. What is it for?
then started it?
Conclusion: Why does the humanity that has awakened in Troekurov not
won victories
over the real laws of life?
the way of life destroys people deprived of position and rights).
3rd group. Analysis of the problem of love
1.What is a person capable of in his desire for revenge?
2.What can stop him?
3.Who in the novel was stopped by love?
4. Did Vladimir love Masha? Prove it with text.
5. Did Masha love Dubrovsky?
How did your love for Dubrovsky arise? What was the attitude
reacted to the news that Dubrovsky and Deforge
the same face? Why did she hesitate
with a request
Why didn’t Masha accept freedom from Dubrovsky’s hands?
How did Pushkin react to Masha’s decision?
To justify their opinion, students are asked to draw up
a condensed retelling of a montage of scenes for expressive reading on
New tutor.(chapter 8)-chapter 8 from the words “This teacher..to..unexpected
Main view
activities
students,
aimed at
formation
of this education
body
result
Work with the textbook, highlight
The main thing. Perform the simplest
research (select, compare,
compare), generalize.
Form of organization
activities
students
Group, individual.
Functions/role,
main types
activities
teachers at this
Reveals the level of knowledge.
Activates students' knowledge
creates a problematic situation.
Teaching methods,
techniques, techniques
Critical Thinking Technology
In this way she received a completely new concept about him.”
“Masha fell in love with him”(chapter 8) from the words “Kirilla Petrovich
entered amazed until the end of the chapter.
Bal.(10gl
) from the beginning of the chapter to the words “….the young ladies mockingly
they noticed him"
"All
loved
young
teachers"(
11ch) from the words “Dubrovsky,
having taken possession of the Frenchman’s papers” to the words “... in the absence of the boss”
“I need to talk to you” (chapter 12) to the words "Between"
but the Frenchman was not found"
Letter
(beginning 14
chapters) to the words “Kirilla Petrovich was not
Kirillovna
took advantage
permission to leave."
“I know everything” chapter 15.
"Now
late"
(18ch) from the words “The ritual was over” to the end
STAGE
3.Speech
groups.
The main type of training
student activities,
aimed at
formation of this
educational
result
Distribute functions and roles in
group work, create
performance
Student performances. Each group speaks
1 person.
Functions/role,
main types
teacher's activities on
at this stage
Establishes awareness
perception
organizes
application activities
new knowledge.
Teaching methods,
techniques, techniques
Technology critical
thinking
STAGE 4. Checking the results obtained.
Correction
Types of activities
students for
verification of received
educational
results
Exercise self-control and
adjusting the progress of work and
final result
Students mark the successful answers of their classmates,
evaluate them.
Control methods
Self-esteem, mutual assessment
Correction methods
Bug fixes
Form of organization
student activities
Carry out self-assessment
own creative work And
the work of his comrades, and
correlate the goal and results,
the degree of their compliance.
Functions/role,
main types
teacher's activities on
at this stage
Organizes activities for
Analysis and self-analysis of students
Teacher. Guys, what do you think are the questions we
Did they look at you today, did you care about Pushkin?
Do they worry you?
Why they worried people in the 19th century, they still worry people in the 21st
century? (these are the moral laws of life, moral
problems)
What can happen to a person if he violates
these laws?
Do you think Troekurov was worried about this?
Filling the central part of the cluster.
STAGE 5. Summing up, homework
Reflection on what has been achieved or not achieved
educational results
Did you like or dislike the lesson?
What did you find difficult?
Continue the sentence:
This lesson helped me understand...
In this lesson I became convinced that...
During the lesson I was... because...
Have you drawn any conclusions for yourself? What have you learned?
Among the unfinished prose works Pushkin's unusual combination of acute for Russian prose of that time social issues with an adventurous plot, the novel on which he worked from October 1832 to February 1833 stands out. The untitled manuscript was published in 1841 under the title “Dubrovsky” in volume X posthumous edition Works of Pushkin.
Already by the first readers, the novel was perceived as completely complete in plot, despite the fact that, without receiving the final artistic “finishing,” it seemed to remain in “scaffolding” (some plot episodes were not worked out, the motives for the characters’ behavior are not always clear, one can feel the sketchiness in the depiction of Vladimir Dubrovsky, Masha Troekurova, Prince Vereisky). The study of plans and drafts allowed researchers to identify the movement of the writer’s plan and put forward a number of hypotheses about the reasons for the incompleteness of the work and its possible continuation. Pushkin, who enthusiastically wrote the novel in the fall of 1832 and winter of 1832/33, suddenly lost interest in it and subsequently did not return to work on the manuscript. The main reason was, apparently, the author’s heightened interest in historical material: “The History of Pugachev” was being created, the first drafts of a novel about Pugachev were being made. In Pushkin’s work, the unfinished novel became both a milestone on the path from “Belkin’s Tales” (1830) to the modern socio-psychological novel, and a serious step towards the historical novel - “The Captain’s Daughter”.
In “Dubrovsky,” as earlier in “Belkin’s Tales,” Pushkin was guided by his idea of prose, which, in his opinion, should satisfy the requirements of “brevity,” “precision,” and “naked simplicity.” The main narrative principle implemented in the novel is the alternation of concise, concentrated author's characteristics of characters with the depiction of specific scenes with their participation. About people and events, life and customs landed nobility told with restraint and extremely concisely. Each author's description- an example of aphoristically precise analytical prose. Revealing the most important social, moral and psychological qualities of the participants in the events, the narrator tries to be as objective as possible, although sometimes he cannot resist direct assessments and ironic remarks.
The novel evokes many associations with the works of Western European and Russian writers of the 18th - first thirds of the XIX V. However, Pushkin was not given the creative impulse literary stories about “noble robbers”, the flow of which did not dry up after the appearance of F. Schiller’s drama “The Robbers” (1781), not “accusatory” plays about corrupt servants of Russian justice (their images were created, in particular, by V.V. Kapnist in the famous comedy “ Yabeda”, staged in 1798). The writer was inspired by a story told by a Moscow friend P.V. Nashchokin's life story of the poor Belarusian nobleman Ostrovsky. The landowner, whose estate was illegally taken away, became a robber and eventually ended up in prison. This story, coupled with other historical and modern facts judicial arbitrariness, became the lifeblood of “Dubrovsky”. The realist writer sought maximum authenticity, even “documentary” quality of the novel. This is evidenced, for example, by the following episode: at Pushkin’s request, Nashchokin obtained the text of a court decision in the case of one of the landowners, who, as a result of litigation that ended in October 1832, lost his estate. The original document was included in the text of the second chapter practically unchanged, only the real names of the plaintiff and defendant were replaced by the names of fictional characters - Troekurov and Dubrovsky.
The writer did not limit himself to “raw”, although very expressive material from Russian judicial chronicles and oral stories about lawlessness that have long become an “everyday phenomenon” in Russia. The fate of the victims of landowner and judicial arbitrariness served Pushkin as a starting point for staging more wide range social and moral problems. “Dubrovsky,” even remaining unfinished, is, according to V.G. Belinsky, one of those “poetic creations” in which “Russian society is reflected.”
A few months before work began on the novel, in February 1832, Pushkin received as a gift from Emperor Nicholas I the newly published “ Complete collection laws of the Russian Empire” in 55 volumes. This sign of the tsar’s “favor”, obviously, was supposed to clearly demonstrate the power of Russian legislation to the poet, who in his youth proclaimed: public good is possible only where “where the combination is strong with Holy Liberty / Powerful Laws.” In “Dubrovsky”, already without the romantic pathos characteristic of early freedom-loving poems, Pushkin showed how laws are violated in everyday life nobles “The disastrous shame of laws,” which the poet wrote about in the ode “Liberty,” in the novel became not only an everyday reality for powerless serfs, but also a monstrous “norm” of noble life, deforming personality, breaking people’s destinies. In the life of the local nobility depicted in the novel, state laws and moral laws are, in fact, replaced by one, unwritten, but most authoritative - the “law” of the power that wealth and nobility give.
In “Dubrovsky”, two conflicts, different in nature and social significance, develop, successively replacing each other.
First conflict , expanded in the first volume, intra-class, with a bright social overtones. Neighbors, former colleagues and long-time friends collided there - a small nobleman, retired lieutenant Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky and a wealthy landowner, retired general-in-chief Kirila Petrovich Troekurov. The conflict was provoked by a daring remark from Troekurov’s hound Paramoshka, which humiliated Dubrovsky’s human dignity: “... it would not be bad for another nobleman to exchange his estate for any local kennel.” Fueled by the clash of pride between Dubrovsky and Troekurov, the quarrel between friends soon turned into a property conflict between neighboring landowners. They came to the fore social inequality, which predetermined the outcome of the litigation started by Troekurov. A poor landowner, the owner of the only village of Kistenevka with 70 serfs, became a victim of the vengeful “fun” of a large landowner, who was helpfully helped by corrupt judicial officials and some neighbors who bore false witness in his favor (in particular, Anton Pafnutich Spitsyn). The result of the judicial farce was quite predictable: Dubrovsky, a completely insignificant figure in the eyes of assessor Shabashkin and other members of the court, lost his estate, and his serfs, who understood that Troekurov “would not only tear the skin off them, but also the meat,” almost rebelled on the day of his old master's funeral, which coincided with the transfer of the estate to the new owner.
Compile a chronicle of the feudal “war” between Troekurov and Dubrovsky. How are the heroes’ actions related to their sense of justice and basic personal qualities?
Second conflict , developed in the second volume of the novel, is family and everyday life. Pushkin talks about another typical everyday situation. The marriage of Masha Troekurova is a marriage “in captivity”, common among the nobility (Pushkin already touched on this topic in “Eugene Onegin”: the mother of the Larin sisters was married “in captivity”). Troekurov forces Masha, who is in love with the robber Dubrovsky, to marry Prince Vereisky, whom she hates. The writer raised the problem of family lawlessness, the question of the right of lovers to happiness, regardless of the social barriers and prejudices separating them, and touched upon a topical issue for European literature 1830s the theme of the struggle between love passion and moral duty.
In which works does Pushkin raise similar problems? Why is the writer so attentive to issues of family, marriage, the status of women and raising children in noble families?
The central figure in both conflicts is Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, who became an “evil genius” both for the Dubrovskys and for his own daughter. The image of an “old Russian gentleman” - artistic embodiment arbitrariness and tyranny in their most disgusting features. A large landowner, accustomed to commanding the entire neighborhood, is convinced that any person below him on the social ladder is obliged to obey him unquestioningly. In the family he is the same despot as in relations with his neighboring landowners. Feeling absolutely unpunished (“often he is his own judge”), the owner of Pokrovsky does not value the honor and dignity of people, regardless of their class affiliation.
Troekurov’s human qualities are a consequence of his social status. He is rude, uneducated, spoiled and voluptuous, accustomed to completely surrendering to “all the impulses of an ardent disposition” and “the undertakings of a rather limited mind.” The house of Troekurov, who loves to play the role of a hospitable host, is always full of guests, but it costs him nothing to humiliate any guest, play a lordly joke on him, putting him in a cart drawn by bears, or pushing him into a room with a “groomed” bear. Troekurov can simply kick out all the guests if he is in a bad mood. The master’s special pride is a huge kennel, where “more than five hundred hounds and greyhounds lived in contentment and warmth.” In their “dog language” they glorified the owner, just as numerous guests did not skimp on noisy praise for Troekurov, just to earn his favor. Troyekurov’s exquisite amusement - together with the courtyard “robbers”, corrupted by their master, to “besiege” the estate of a neighbor who did not please him in some way (“such exploits,” the narrator bitterly ironizes, “were not unusual for him”). Teacher Deforge, who was on his way to Pokrovskoye, told Vladimir Dubrovsky that, according to rumors, Troekurov “specified to death” two of his predecessors. The picture of Troekurov’s tyranny is particularly vivid and detailed in the history of the feudal “war” with Dubrovsky. However, the author also finds other colors in Troekurov’s appearance - “more noble feelings”, suppressed by an unbridled thirst for revenge and lust for power. Troekurov experiences remorse, thinking about Dubrovsky, who was robbed by him (“his conscience grumbled”), and makes an unsuccessful attempt to reconcile with him and return the taken away Kistenevka. But the glimpses of humanity in Troekurov are short-lived: the habit of being a despot drowns out living feelings and the voice of conscience.
The vast majority of district nobles are ready to be Troekurov’s slaves, meekly recognizing his “right” to humiliate and insult them only because he is a rich and influential landowner. Representatives of state power (police officer and assessor) are happy to fulfill his every whim, even if it is contrary to the law. Only Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky Troekurov for the time being allowed to be a “black sheep” in his environment. But as soon as the friendship collapsed, Dubrovsky experienced the full force of Troekurov’s lordly anger, who took advantage of the “venal conscience of the ink tribe.” Pushkin, free, according to the apt remark of the philosopher B.P. Vysheslavtseva, “from the lust of domination and from the lust of servility,” condemns both Troekurov and those nobles and officials who support in him the destructive habit of omnipotence and permissiveness.
Andrey Gavrilovich Dubrovsky , who tried to defend his rights and human dignity in an unequal battle with Troekurov, undoubtedly evokes participation and sympathy, and the sad ending of his life evokes feelings of pity and compassion. However, Pushkin does not idealize his hero. Dubrovsky is by no means a “model of perfection.” His temper and stubbornness make him similar to Troekurov; in his actions he is often guided by momentary emotions, rather than by reason. Envy is no stranger to him. Dubrovsky is an unimportant owner; he never managed to correct his “upset” state.
This honest and noble man, decisive and firm, with a heightened sense of self-esteem, has many prejudices characteristic of the people of his environment. Dubrovsky is not ready to put the law above his feudal right to execute and pardon offenders at his own discretion. The demand to send the daring huntsman Paramoshka “to confess” (“and it will be my will to punish him or have mercy”), which enraged Troekurov, and especially the lynching of the Troekurov men who stole the forest from Dubrovsky, indicate that the disregard for the rule of law, the replacement of laws with lordly arbitrariness is deeply rooted in the consciousness of even the best representatives of the nobility.
The main character trait of Dubrovsky is noble pride, which did not allow him to accept the patronage of Troekurov when his “upset state” forced him to resign and settle in Kistenevka. Dubrovsky ruled out the very possibility of his son marrying a rich bride, Masha Troekurova, as his neighbor and friend “often used to tell” him. For Dubrovsky, this is a humiliating favor, unworthy of a nobleman. Troyekurov's intention to return the taken away property would undoubtedly also be rejected with indignation.
Compare Dubrovsky with Andrei Petrovich Grinev (property status, family life, attitude towards raising sons). How life principles heroes affected the destinies of their children?
The hero's legal carelessness, shown by him in the legal battle, combined with pride and intransigence, largely determined the drama of his personal fate. Dubrovsky, knowing about judicial fraud, reacted to Troekurov’s “sneak” quite frivolously, relying on the force of the law and the fairness of the judges. In response to the court’s demand to prove his rights to Kistenevka, he, being a hot-tempered man, wrote a “rather rude attitude”, which pleased the assessor Shabashkin, and only after some time, having come to his senses, he sent a “rather efficient paper”, which seemed insufficient to the judges. Instead of signing his “displeasure” under the decision of the district court, Dubrovsky angrily threw an inkwell at the assessor. Broken by illness, he was no longer able to file an appeal, and, apparently, he did not intend to. The fate of Dubrovsky the father is a clear example of how lawlessness and injustice do honest man completely helpless, driving him to illness and madness. The straightforward and proud nobleman Dubrovsky was unable to overcome the “boorish tribe” of corrupt judges - the legal mirror of the cynical lordship and self-righteous noble servility.
How does the narrator characterize the behavior of the participants in the court hearing - Troekurov, Dubrovsky and the judges? Analyze the court decision, paying attention to the argumentation and style of the document. What caused the outbreak of madness in Dubrovsky, what is its meaning?
The fate of Vladimir Dubrovsky - a logical continuation of the fate of his father. Troekurov's tyranny and judicial arbitrariness, which killed his father, not only pushed Vladimir out of his native social environment, but also outlawed him.
When creating the image of Dubrovsky, Pushkin took into account the literary tradition: the hero had to be perceived against the background of the images of “noble robbers” and avengers, well known to readers of that time, created by F. Schiller (drama “Robbers”, 1781), H.A. Vulpius (novel “Rinaldo Rinaldini, leader of the robbers”, 1797-1800), C. Nodier (novel “Jean Sbogar”, 1818), V. Scott (novels “Rob Roy”, 1818 and “The Bride of Lammermoor”, 1819) , D.N. Begichev (novel “The Kholmsky Family”, 1832) and other writers. However, the writer needed the “recognition” of a common literary type in Dubrovsky, apparently, in order to emphasize: life itself can make a Russian person the hero of a “robber” novel. The unusual nature of Dubrovsky’s fate is motivated by quite ordinary everyday circumstances.
Dubrovsky is not like romantic heroes whose souls are filled with “worldly sorrow” and who ultimately rebel against an unjust world order. It is impossible to detect a philosophical meaning in his rebellion, because Pushkin’s hero does not seek to oppose himself to the entire imperfect world. He has nothing in common with the romantic “villains” that Pushkin ironized in “Eugene Onegin.” The writer, as promised in the humorous outline of the novel “on old way”, showed in his “noble robber” “not the secret torments of villainy.” The hero’s robbery is an open protest against the “robber” state, which helped Troekurov take away his future. “Yes, I am that unfortunate person whom your father deprived of a piece of bread, kicked out of his father’s house and sent to rob on the highways,” Dubrovsky says bitterly to Masha. The poet and philosopher S.P. precisely determined the reasons for this amazing, but at the same time very vital, socially and morally motivated metamorphosis of the hero. Shevyrev: “This robber Dubrovsky, conceived in an honest and noble man, is the fruit of public brigandage, covered by the law. Any violation of the truth under the guise of a trial, any violence by the authorities called upon to establish order, any robbery of public<...>give rise to personal robbery, with which the offended citizen takes revenge for the injustices of the entire social body.”
Frequent changes in appearance and behavior patterns make Dubrovsky, a nobleman left without an estate, an avenger forced to engage in robbery, in common with Pushkin's impostor heroes - Grigory Otrepyev and Emelyan Pugachev. He appears in the novel as a guards officer, accustomed to a luxurious and carefree life (Chapter II); sometimes as a son, “romantically” attached to his father, whom he hardly knew, since he was taken to St. Petersburg as a child (chap. II-III); sometimes as an avenger robbing the false witness Spitsyn (chap. X), and the ataman of a bandit gang (chap. XVIII-XIX). Dubrovsky appears as a brave and cold-blooded “impostor”, penetrating Troekurov’s house under the guise of a teacher, the Frenchman Deforge, but in the scenes of love dates it unexpectedly turns out that he is a sentimental and timid lover.
Analyze portrait descriptions Dubrovsky in various episodes. What role does the portrait play in creating his image and the images of other characters in the novel?
In the depiction of Dubrovsky, the plot device of omission is used very effectively. Until Chapter XI, the narrator does not tell us who the calm and courageous teacher Deforge, who appeared in Troekurov’s house, actually was (Chapter VIII). Silence also becomes the main technique in the story about Dubrovsky’s predatory activities. Already in the final chapters of the first volume, the “omniscient” narrator disappears, having directly reported on his intentions and actions right up to his departure from Kistenevka and reincarnation as Deforge. Direct characteristics of the “gang leader,” who was “famous for his intelligence, courage and some kind of generosity,” are practically absent. Limiting himself to “rumour” - rumors and rumors about him from frightened landowners - the narrator seems to be moving away from Dubrovsky the robber, trying to make him a legendary person (part of the emerging legend about Dubrovsky is the story of the landowner Anna Savishna Globova). In the second volume there are even more silences, the atmosphere of mystery around the “noble robber” thickens. Having left the house of his enemy, he is nevertheless well aware of everything that is happening in the Troekurov family, in particular about the appearance of Prince Vereisky and his possible matchmaking with Masha. And only in last chapters(XVIII and XIX) the hero appears among the robbers as an ataman.
Dubrovsky is an avenger, but his vengeance did not affect Troekurov. The moral prohibition on revenge on the main offender was imposed by love for Masha. “I understood,” Dubrovsky admitted to Masha on their first date, “that the house where you live is sacred, that not a single creature connected with you by blood is subject to my curse.” Dubrovsky calls himself Masha’s guardian, and considers the three weeks spent in Troekurov’s family to be true bliss, “days of happiness.” It turned out that he started the dangerous adventure of reincarnating as teacher Deforge in order to be close to Masha, and not at all out of a desire to overtake the enemy in his own home. Passion for love defeated Dubrovsky’s thirst for personal revenge: “I forgave him. Look, you saved him.” This is perhaps one of the most attractive features of Pushkin’s “noble robber”.
It is difficult to agree with the widespread opinion about “inorganicity”, excessive “melodrama” and conventionally literary content love line novel. The depiction of the characters' love relationships fits perfectly into moral issues novel. It is only important to correctly determine the nature and meaning of these relationships, the connection with the family and everyday conflict unfolded in the final chapters of the novel.
The dominant image of the hero in the second volume is the tragedy of his unfulfilled love, the impossibility for him, an outcast, of ordinary “family” happiness, to which, as the narrator has repeatedly emphasized, he strove with all his soul. However, the love affair in the novel is actually only outlined and significant role doesn't play into the plot.
Only before leaving Troyekurov’s house did the imaginary Deforge-Dubrovsky open up to Masha and confess his love to her. The stunned heroine did not, however, express any reciprocal feelings, limiting herself to a promise to resort to his help in case of danger. Dubrovsky did not persuade Masha to escape, have a secret wedding, etc. On the contrary, he emphasized in every possible way his role as her “guardian” and intercessor, without pretending to be more. Between chapters XII and XIII, the usual time gap for Pushkin’s works is about seven months. Not a word is said about meetings between the heroes. After three weeks of staying in Troekurov’s house, the loving robber did not reveal himself. There was no love correspondence between the characters either. Masha, of course, remembered Dubrovsky, but it is hardly possible to talk about the strength and depth of her feelings. If Dubrovsky, under the guise of Deforge, attracted Masha with his courage (before killing the bear, she perceived him not as a man, but as a teacher-“servant”) and awakened in her a feeling of love strictly controlled by class prejudices, then her interest in Dubrovsky the robber was obviously “romantic.” origins.
Compare the “love stories” of Tatyana Larina, Masha Troekurova and Masha Mironova. Which artistic techniques Are images of heroines' love experiences used in Pushkin's novels?
Dubrovsky's declaration of love did not destroy the social barrier between lovers. On the contrary, the personality of Dubrovsky the robber both attracts and frightens Masha. She listens with excitement to stories about him, but in her perception he is more likely the hero of one of the novels she read, rather than her lover. It is impossible for her to both enter into a marriage relationship with a French teacher and become the wife of the robber Dubrovsky - only an extreme measure that the heroine decided on, just so as not to marry Prince Vereisky (“the fate of the robber’s wife seemed like paradise to her in comparison with the lot, prepared for her").
Thus, it is not the love relationship between Masha and Dubrovsky, but the decision of the despot father to marry his daughter to Prince Vereisky, whom she hates, that determines the course of events.
The moral basis of the family and everyday conflict is the humiliation of Masha’s human dignity, whom her “loving” father, despite her desperate resistance, forces to marry a man she hates: “...marriage frightened her like a chopping block, like a grave.”
Masha’s marriage to the prince cannot be called unequal: Troekurov is marrying off to a landowner with 3,000 souls on the family estate, not a dowry, but a rich bride. His decision is dictated solely by family despotism and complete disrespect for the human dignity and feelings of his daughter. An equally sinister figure in the history of the “hated marriage” is the aging dandy Prince Vereisky. Unlike Troekurov, who is capable of being embarrassed at least for a moment after Masha’s desperate requests not to destroy her, the prince is cold, dry and businesslike. The bride’s indifference did not bother him; he perceived Masha only as beautiful and expensive thing, which will decorate his estate. The European gloss of the prince, behind which hides the lack of feelings, voluptuousness and cynicism of a man satiated with idleness and luxury, is perhaps even more disgusting than Troekurov’s rude straightforwardness. Masha’s letter, with which she wanted to arouse a “feeling of generosity” in her disliked fiancé, not only did not touch him, but also prompted him to prepare the wedding even more actively. And after the wedding ceremony, Vereisky was not at all embarrassed by Masha’s “cold appearance”.
The only person who could save Masha from this marriage “in captivity” was Dubrovsky. Having intervened in the family and everyday conflict of the Troekurovs, Dubrovsky tried to protect Masha from her father’s tyranny, to “free” her. At the same time, the hero himself persistently convinced Masha to use all means of influencing Troekurov (“beg your father, throw yourself at his feet, imagine all the horror of the future”) before resorting to the last resort - his help.
Dubrovsky, dreaming of a “family” life, perceives the inability to start a family as a personal tragedy. His nobility lies in the fact that at the climax, when the fate of his love was being decided, he did not even have the thought of forcing Masha to follow him. “Your will is sacred to me,” he said to Masha in the midst of family conflict, promising not to harm Prince Vereisky. IN last episode, in which Masha and Dubrovsky appear, it is not about love at all, but about freedom. “You are free” - these words are pronounced by the hero, throwing open the door of the carriage, giving Masha the right to freely choose her fate. And after the heroine made this choice, saying: “No.<...>It’s too late, I’m married, I’m the wife of Prince Vereisky,” Dubrovsky left her with her husband, in last time fulfilling the “sacred” will of his beloved for him. “ Noble Rogue” put moral duty before Masha above his personal happiness.
Analyze the wedding scene and the episode of Dubrovsky’s attack on the newlyweds’ carriage. Why was Dubrovsky’s help late? How convincingly is Masha’s refusal to follow him motivated? Do Masha’s words correspond to reality: “I agreed, I took an oath”? How did she solve for herself the problem of choosing between love and marital duty?
In “Dubrovsky,” Pushkin touched upon the theme of the Russian rebellion, which, due to the peculiarities of the conflictual relations underlying the novel, turned out to be on the periphery of the narrative. It is not a rebellion that is shown, but only an impulse to revolt among the serfs of Kistenevka, where the clerks came to bring Troekurov into possession (volume one, chapter V). By their attempt to rebel, the Kistenevsky peasants declared their devotion to the old masters: “...order, sir, we will deal with the trial. We’ll die rather than hand him over.” In response to the police officer’s demand to find the insolent person who dared to boldly disagree (“how could he not?” with the fact that their master is now Troekurov, the crowd that had gathered in the courtyard of the master’s house responded very emotionally: “... a murmur arose in the back rows, began to intensify and in one minute turned into the most terrible screams.” The peasants were ready to tie up the clerks who were taking Kistenevka away from the “young master,” but Vladimir Dubrovsky himself stopped them: “Stop! Fools! What are you? You are ruining both yourself and me. Go through the yards and leave me alone. Do not be afraid, sir, I will ask him. He won't hurt us. We are all his children." After these words, “the people calmed down, dispersed, the courtyard was empty.”
The peasants obeyed the “young master,” but their rebellious feelings did not disappear. Their spokesman was the blacksmith Arkhip, whom Dubrovsky discovered at night in the manor's house with an ax in his hands. To the peasant’s proposal to kill the sleeping clerks (“everyone at once, it would be a waste”) Dubrovsky responded with a decisive refusal: “It’s not the clerks’ fault.” Having disobeyed the master, locking them in a burning house, Arkhip not only in his own way, “like a robber,” took revenge on the state “robbers” who gave Kistenevka to Troyekurov, but also deprived Dubrovsky of the opportunity to achieve justice in a legal way, resorting to the “mercy” of the sovereign. It was Arkhip’s act that put Dubrovsky outlawed. An important touch to the appearance of the peasant is the touching episode with the cat, which he, “looking at the fire with an evil smile,” and refusing to save the “damned,” removes from the roof of the burning barn. The burning of the clerks, therefore, does not at all indicate his natural hardness of heart. This is a manifestation of popular ideas about the inevitability of retribution for harm caused to people.
The indignation of the peasants and the night fire in Kistenevka are only a harbinger of a popular revolt. Without developing his full picture, Pushkin showed possible reasons mass popular unrest, which, having begun as a spontaneous manifestation of peasant discontent, turns into a full-scale people's war. However, such a war became the object of depiction already in “The Captain’s Daughter.” The “daring robberies” of the formidable gang led by the nobleman Dubrovsky (“formidable visits, fires and robberies”), despite their scale, which alarmed the government, are devoid of social and ideological signs of popular rebellion.
Speaking about Dubrovsky’s robbers, the narrator does not specify them social composition. One can only assume that among his “accomplices,” in addition to the former Kistenev servants, there were fugitive peasants and soldiers. From last words Dubrovsky shows that the interests of the robbers and their leader do not coincide. Having satisfied his thirst for revenge and having lost the slightest hope for a happy “family” life with his beloved woman after Masha’s marriage, Dubrovsky understands the pointlessness of the further existence of his criminal community. The hero’s attitude towards the robbers, devoted to their “ataman,” is lordly and dismissive. He considers them “fraudsters” who are unlikely to follow his advice to “spend the rest of their lives in honest labor” and will not want to leave their robber craft. After Dubrovsky said goodbye to the robbers, the gang ceased to exist. Further fate The hero could develop without any connection with these people.
The last, XIX chapter of the novel is full of images and motifs that evoke the novel “ Captain's daughter" The bandit’s song “Don’t make noise, mother green Dubrovushka...”, which the guard Stepka sang “at the top of his lungs”, disturbing the peace of the wounded Dubrovsky, is sung at the request of Pugachev by his comrades (chapter “Uninvited Guest”). The assault by soldiers of the forest “fortress” of robbers, arranged according to all the rules of military art: with a rampart, a ditch and a cannon that came from nowhere, is easily correlated with a siege Belogorsk fortress and the actions of its commandant, Captain Mironov. In the final chapter of “Dubrovsky,” a vague silhouette of another novel appears, in which Pushkin wrote about how the “fire raged” of a real people’s war.