"Honor and Dishonor"
Official comment:
The direction is based on polar concepts associated with a person’s choice: to be faithful to the voice of conscience, to follow moral principles, or to follow the path of betrayal, lies and hypocrisy. Many writers focused their attention on depicting various manifestations of man: from loyalty to moral rules to various forms of compromise with conscience, right up to the deep moral decline of the individual.
Honor is that high spiritual force that keeps a person from meanness, betrayal, lies and cowardice. This is the core that strengthens the individual in choosing an action; this is a situation where conscience is the judge. Life often tests people, presenting them with a choice - to act in honor and take the blow or be cowardly and go against their conscience in order to gain benefit and avoid troubles, possibly death. A person always has a choice, and how he will act depends on his moral principles. The path of honor is difficult, but retreat from it, the loss of honor is even more painful. Being a social, rational and conscious being, a person cannot help but think about how others treat him, what they think about him, what assessments are given to his actions and his entire life. At the same time, he cannot help but think about his place among other people. This spiritual connection between a person and society is expressed in the concepts of Honor and Dignity. “Honor is my life,” wrote Shakespeare, “they have grown into one, and to lose honor is for me the same as losing life.” Moral decay, the decline of moral principles leads to the collapse of both an individual and an entire nation. That is why the importance of the great Russian classical literature, which is the moral foundation for many generations of people, is so great.
Aphorisms and sayings of famous people :
Gain honor neither by vanity, nor by the beauty of clothes or horses, nor by adornment, but by courage and wisdom. Theophrastus
Every courageous, every truthful person brings honor to his homeland. R. Rolland
Shame and honor are like a dress: the more shabby they are, the more careless you treat them. Apuleius
True honor cannot tolerate untruth. G. Fielding
The worth and dignity of a man lies in his heart and in his will; it is here that the basis of his true honor lies. Michel de Montaigne
Never leave the path of duty and honor - this is the only thing from which we will find happiness. Georges Louis Leclerc
List of literature in the direction of “Honor and dishonor”
L. N. Tolstoy “War and Peace”
M. Yu. Lermontov “Hero of Our Time”
A. S. Pushkin “Shot”
A. S. Pushkin “The Captain's Daughter”
M. A. Sholokhov “The Fate of Man”
M. Yu. Lermontov “Song about the merchant Kalashnikov”
F. M. Dostoevsky “Crime and Punishment”
A. S. Pushkin “Eugene Onegin”
N.V. Gogol “Dead Souls”
A. S. Griboyedov “Here from the mind”
Code of noble honor on the pages of literary works.
The history of the Russian duel of the 19th century is a history of human tragedies, high impulses and passions. The dueling tradition is associated with the concept of honor in the noble society of that time. There was even a code of noble honor. The willingness to pay with one's life for the inviolability of one's personal dignity presupposed an acute awareness of this dignity. A.S. Pushkin, the “slave of honor,” defending the honor of his wife and his own, challenged Dantes to a duel, who with dubious behavior could discredit the name of the Pushkin couple. The poet could not live “slandered by rumor” and put an end to the dishonor at the cost of his own life. M.Yu. Lermontov also fell victim to dishonest and evil envious people. Among the duelists there were not uncommon braters - people who flaunted their readiness and ability to fight anywhere and with anyone. The risk of the raider was of an ostentatious nature, and the killing of the enemy was part of his calculations. It was a mixture of posturing and cruelty. Such negative versions of the duel are depicted in the story by A.S. Pushkin "Shot". The hero of the story, Silvio, “the first brawler in the army,” is looking for an excuse for a fight in order to assert his primacy in the hussar regiment. He boasts of his superiority and luck, demonstrates contempt for death, eats cherries at gunpoint to please his pride. His goal is not to kill, but to prove that he is strong and can dominate people. He is sick with narcissism and selfishness. Leaving the shot behind him, the hero did not kill the count, but was content with making him tremble. The question of honor, as the reader understands, is not even worthwhile - the hero’s courage is also in doubt. Often duels broke out at the slightest provocation. Due to unreasonable jealousy, Lensky challenges his friend Onegin to a duel. In the novel by M.Yu. Lermontov's "Hero of Our Time" Pechorin kills Grushnitsky in a duel, standing up for the honor of the slandered lady. Grushnitsky's cowardice and cowardice found expression in his dishonest behavior towards Princess Mary and his comrade, whom he envied. In the drama M.Yu. Lermontov's "Masquerade" Arbenin, defending his honor, kills his own wife, believing in a skillfully woven intrigue. A selfish and villain ruined an innocent soul for the sake of his ambitions. Painful pride
and a false idea of honor made him a toy in the hands of ill-wishers and pushed him into villainy. The duel between Pierre Bezukhov and Dolokhov in the epic novel by L.N. also deserves attention. Tolstoy "War and Peace". Pierre sincerely trusted his old friend, brought him into his house, helped with money, and Dolokhov disgraced his name. The hero stood up for his honor. But, realizing that stupid, “fake” Helen does not deserve to have a murder happen because of her, he is ready to repent not out of fear, but because he is confident in his wife’s guilt. Literary heroes of the 19th century called offenders to the barrier and sometimes took desperate actions, defending their honor, the price of which was life itself.
Materials for literary arguments.
L. N. Tolstoy novel “War and Peace”
(Pierre and Dolokhov. Analysis of the duel scene).
The episode telling about the duel between Pierre Bezukhov and Dolokhov can be called “Unconscious Act.” It begins with a description of a dinner at the English Club. Everyone sits at the table, eats and drinks, toasts to the emperor and his health. Bagration, Naryshkin, Count Rostov, Denisov, Dolokhov, Bezukhov are present at the dinner. Pierre “does not see or hear anything happening around him and thinks about one thing, difficult and insoluble.” He is tormented by the question: are Dolokhov and his wife Helen really lovers? “Every time his gaze accidentally met Dolokhov’s beautiful, insolent eyes, Pierre felt something terrible, ugly rising in his soul.” And after a toast made by his “enemy”: “To the health of beautiful women and their lovers,” Bezukhov realizes that his suspicions are not in vain.
A conflict is brewing, the beginning of which occurs when Dolokhov snatches a piece of paper intended for Pierre. The Count challenges the offender to a duel, but he does it hesitantly, timidly, one might even think that the words: “You... you... scoundrel!.., I challenge you...” - accidentally escape him. He does not realize what this fight can lead to, and neither do the seconds: Nesvitsky, Pierre’s second, and Nikolai Rostov, Dolokhov’s second.
On the eve of the duel, Dolokhov sits all night in the club, listening to gypsies and songwriters. He is confident in himself, in his abilities, he has a firm intention to kill his opponent, but this is only an appearance, “his soul is restless. His opponent “has the appearance of a man busy with some considerations that are not at all related to the upcoming matter. His haggard face is yellow. He apparently did not sleep at night.” The Count still doubts the correctness of his actions and wonders: what would he do in Dolokhov’s place?
Pierre doesn't know what to do: either run away or finish the job. But when Nesvitsky tries to reconcile him with his rival, Bezukhov refuses, while calling everything stupid. Dolokhov doesn’t want to hear anything at all.
Despite the refusal to reconcile, the duel does not begin for a long time due to the lack of awareness of the act, which Lev Nikolaevich Tolstoy expressed as follows: “For about three minutes everything was ready, and yet they hesitated to start. Everyone was silent.” The indecision of the characters is also conveyed by the description of nature - it is sparing and laconic: fog and thaw.
It has begun. Dolokhov, when they began to disperse, walked slowly, his mouth had the semblance of a smile. He is aware of his superiority and wants to show that he is not afraid of anything. Pierre walks quickly, straying from the beaten path, as if he is trying to run away, to finish everything as quickly as possible. Perhaps that is why he shoots first, at random, flinching from the strong sound, and wounds his opponent.
Dolokhov, having fired, misses. Dolokhov's wounding and his unsuccessful attempt to kill the count are the climax of the episode. Then there is a decline in the action and a denouement, which is what all the characters experience. Pierre does not understand anything, he is full of remorse and regret, barely holding back his sobs, clutching his head, he goes back somewhere into the forest, that is, he runs away from what he has done, from his fear. Dolokhov does not regret anything, does not think about himself, about his pain, but is afraid for his mother, to whom he causes suffering.
In the outcome of the duel, according to Tolstoy, the highest justice was accomplished. Dolokhov, whom Pierre received in his house as a friend and helped with money in memory of an old friendship, disgraced Bezukhov by seducing his wife. But Pierre is completely unprepared for the role of “judge” and “executioner” at the same time; he repents of what happened, thanks God that he did not kill Dolokhov.
Pierre's humanism is disarming; even before the duel, he was ready to repent of everything, but not out of fear, but because he was sure of Helene's guilt. He tries to justify Dolokhov. “Maybe I would have done the same thing in his place,” thought Pierre. “Even, probably, I would have done the same thing. Why this duel, this murder?”
Helene’s insignificance and baseness are so obvious that Pierre is ashamed of his action; this woman is not worth taking a sin on her soul - killing a person for her. Pierre is scared that he almost ruined his own soul, as he had previously ruined his life, by connecting it with Helen.
M. Yu. Lermontov novel “Hero of Our Time”
(Pechorin and Grushnitsky)
Pechorinmet the young cadet Grushnitsky, a hot and ardent young man in love with the beautiful Princess Mary Ligovskaya. Pechorin was amused by the young man’s feelings.At first, Pechorin irritated Mary.Soon Grushnitsky, with ardent feeling, began to prove to Pechorin that after all his antics he would never be received in the princess’s house. Pechorin argued with his friend, proving the opposite.
Pechorin went to the ball with Princess Ligovskaya. Here he began to behave unusually courteously towards Mary: he danced with her like a wonderful gentleman, protected her from a tipsy officer, and helped her cope with fainting. Pechorin began to visit the Ligovskys. He became interested in Mary as a woman, but the hero was still attracted to Vera.Pechorin, however, became friends with Mary.Pechorin, using his charm, out of nothing to do, made the princess fall in love with him. He couldn’t even explain to himself why he needed this: either to have fun, or to annoy Grushnitsky, or perhaps to show Vera that someone needed him too and, thereby, to provoke her jealousy.Gregory got what he wanted: Mary fell in love with him, but at first she hid her feelings.Meanwhile, Vera began to worry about this novel. On a secret date, she asked Pechorin never to marry Mary and promised him a night meeting in return.Pechorin began to get bored in the company of both Mary and Vera. He was tired of Grushnitsky with his passion and boyishness.Grushnitsky began to get seriously jealous. He understood that Mary’s heart was given to Pechorin. He was also amused by the fact that Grushnitsky stopped greeting him and began to turn away when he appeared.Pechorin, driven by passion for Vera, late in the evening went to the Ligovskys’ house, where she lived. In the window he saw the silhouette of Mary. Grushnitsky tracked down Pechorin, believing that he had an appointment with Mary. Despite the fact that Pechorin managed to return to his house, Grushnitsky is full of resentment and jealousy. He challenged Grigory Alexandrovich to a duel. Werner and a dragoon unfamiliar to him acted as seconds. Grushnitsky's duel is a dirty game from start to finish. Together with the dragoon captain, even before the open clash with Pechorin, he decided to “teach him a lesson”, exposing him as a coward in front of everyone. But already in this scene it is obvious to the reader that Grushnitsky himself is a coward, who agrees to the vile proposal of the dragoon captain to leave the pistols unloaded. Pechorin accidentally learns about this conspiracy and decides to seize the initiative: now he, and not his opponents, is leading the party, planning to test not only the extent of Grushnitsky’s meanness and cowardice, but also entering into a kind of duel with his own destiny. Werner informs Pechorin that the opponents' plans have changed: now they are planning to load one pistol. And then Pechorin decides to put Grushnitsky in such conditions that he has no choice but to either admit himself to everyone as a scoundrel by revealing the conspiracy, or become a real murderer. After all, the possibility of simply satisfying his revenge by slightly wounding Pechorin and without exposing himself to danger was now excluded: Pechorin demanded that the duel be held on the edge of a cliff and that they shoot one by one. Under such conditions, even a slight wound to the enemy became fatal. Pechorin wanted to show generosity to his opponent, hoping for his reciprocity. But Grushnitsky was angry and offended. As a result of the duel, Pechorin killed Grushnitsky.It would be wrong to accuse Pechorin of murder. From the very beginning he was ready for reconciliation. He constantly leaves Grushnitsky a loophole into which he could escape. But in his stupid arrogance, the cadet is not able to understand simple things, to see and appreciate the nobility of Pechorin. He does not understand that the performance he staged has gone too far and it’s time to stop. “The captain blinked at Grushnitsky, and this one, thinking that I was a coward, took on a proud look, although until that moment a dull pallor covered his cheeks.”
A. S. Pushkin novel “Eugene Onegin”
In A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin,” each of the heroes is faced with the need to defend their idea of honor. So, Tatyana decides to be the first to confess her love to Onegin, although she understands that if her reputation is made public, irreparable damage will be caused.
According to the ethical standards of Pushkin’s contemporary era, a love letter from an unmarried girl to an unfamiliar man should have been regarded as a dangerous and immoral act. However, the author ardently stands up for his heroine, speaks of the depth and sincerity of her experiences, of the innocence of her soul:
Why is Tatyana more guilty?
Because in sweet simplicity
She knows no deception
And believes in his chosen dream?
Because he loves without art...
Defending Tatyana's honor, Pushkin places the heroine at a height unattainable for secular beauties. On her side is authenticity of feeling, inner purity, readiness to sacrifice herself for the sake of her beloved.
For Tatyana, honor is, first of all, inner truth and loyalty to oneself (remember that already as a child the heroine avoided demonstrative displays of feelings - “she didn’t know how to caress”). Having become a princess, Tatiana rejects the advances of Onegin, whom she still loves, since fidelity is consistent with her spiritual structure, is her internal need, and not a rule imposed from the outside:
I love you (why lie?),
But I was given to another;
I will be faithful to him forever.
If the plot situations associated with Tatyana contain only the presumptive possibility of the heroine losing “honor,” then in the events associated with the duel between Onegin and Lensky, the problem of honor comes to the fore and acts as the main driving force determining the actions of the heroes. Onegin's act (courting Olga at the ball) seems to Vladimir to be a black betrayal. By challenging his yesterday's friend to a duel, the young man believes that he is defending his own honor and the honor of his bride:
He thinks: “I will be her savior.
I will not tolerate the corrupter
Fire and sighs and praises
Tempted a young heart...
The hero's nobility and ardor are aimed at the wrong goals. Firstly, nothing threatens Olga’s honor (Onegin had no idea of seriously courting Olga), and secondly, the episode at the ball revealed not so much Onegin’s deceit as Olga’s feminine vanity, her infidelity and lack of deep
feelings for the groom. But Vladimir stubbornly views what happened through the prism of literary cliches familiar to him: Olga (“two-morning flower”) is an innocent victim of the insidious “corrupter” - Onegin. The lesson that Onegin intended to teach his young friend was not learned by him. Having never parted with his romantic illusions, Lensky dies in vain, but the hero’s willingness to defend his ideals at the cost of his own life cannot but arouse sympathy. Lensky, with all his naivety, certainly personifies the best features of the noble youth of Pushkin’s time (including uncompromisingness in matters of honor).
The author puts the main character of the novel, Onegin, in the face of a tragically insoluble situation: on the one hand, Eugene, “loving the young man with all his heart,” does not want his friend to die, but, on the other hand, Onegin’s refusal to duel would forever dishonor him in the opinion of “the world.” “, would make him a laughing stock in the eyes of the “fools.”
Onegin, unlike Lensky, considers the conflict that has arisen from the position of a sane and experienced person. He blames himself for everything and regrets that because of a momentary outburst of anger, “he played such a careless joke on timid, tender love.” However, both for the hero and for the reader - a contemporary of Pushkin - it is obvious that there is no turning back, refusing a duel is unthinkable:
The old duelist intervened;
He is angry, he is a gossip, he is loud...
The morning of the duel arrives, the heroes arrive at the appointed time. True, Onegin is late, he... overslept. Is it conceivable!.. And now they converge
But everyone takes what is happening seriously, except Onegin, who even chose a servant as his second, thus offending Lensky’s second, Zaretsky. Onegin explains this by saying that he has no “acquaintances” in the village.
And yet it should be noted that the duel of the heroes took place with many serious violations. So, according to the rules, being late was counted as a loss, and a latecomer was recognized as a coward. Therefore, the duel between Onegin and Lensky should no longer take place. Second violation: Eugene’s second is Monsieur Guillaume’s servant. According to the rules, the seconds had to belong to the same class. Therefore, Lensky could also cancel the duel and consider himself satisfied. But the duel is not canceled
Lensky was killed. Onegin becomes an involuntary killer, he is struck by this news. From this moment a turning point in his life begins. He goes on a journey because he can no longer stay in the village, and returning to St. Petersburg is too boring.
The fate of the Larin sisters is also changing. Olga will no longer marry Lensky, and Tatyana is deprived of her last opportunity to see the object of her love - Onegin. Therefore, the hope for their reunion also disappears...
Thus, the duel between the heroes becomes a turning point in the lives of all key characters.
A. S. Pushkin story “Shot”
Late in the evening, when everyone was leaving Silvio's house, the owner asked the officer he liked most to stay and revealed his secret to him.
Several years ago, Silvio received a slap in the face, and his offender is still alive. This happened during the years of his service, when Silvio had a violent temper. He was the leader in the regiment and enjoyed this position until “a young man of a rich and noble family” joined the regiment. He was the most brilliantly lucky man, who was always fabulously lucky in everything. At first he tried to achieve Silvio's friendship and affection, but, not succeeding in this, he moved away from him without regret. Silvio's championship wavered, and he began to hate this favorite of fortune. Once, at a ball held by a Polish landowner, they quarreled, and Silvio received a slap in the face from his enemy. At dawn there was a duel, to which the offender Silvio came with a cap full of ripe cherries. By lot, he got the first shot, having fired it and shot through Silvio’s cap, he stood calmly at the point of his pistol and happily feasted on cherries, spitting out the seeds, which sometimes flew to his opponent. His indifference and equanimity infuriated Silvio, and he refused to shoot. His opponent indifferently said that Silvio would have the right to use his shot whenever he pleased. Soon Silvio retired and retired to this place, but not a day passed that he did not dream of revenge. And finally his time has come. They inform him “that a famous person will soon enter into a legal marriage with a young and beautiful girl.” And Silvio decided to see “whether he will accept death as indifferently before his wedding as he once waited for it behind the cherries!” The friends said goodbye and Silvio left. On the wall of the living room, the narrator's attention is drawn to a painting riddled with "two bullets embedded in one another." He praised the successful shot and said that he knew in his life a man whose shooting skill was truly amazing. When asked by the count what the shooter's name was, the narrator named Silvio. At this name, the Count and Countess were embarrassed. The Count asks if Silvio told his friend about a strange story, and the narrator guesses that the Count is the same old offender of his friend. It turns out that this story had a continuation, and the shot-through picture is a kind of monument to their last meeting.
It happened five years ago in this very house, where the Count and Countess spent their honeymoon. One day the count was informed that a certain person was waiting for him, who did not want to give his name. Entering the living room, the count found Silvio there, whom he did not immediately recognize and who reminded him of the shot left behind him and said that he had come to unload his pistol. The countess could come in any minute. The Count was nervous and in a hurry, Silvio hesitated and finally forced the Count to draw lots again. And again the count got the first shot, he fired and shot through the picture hanging on the wall. At that moment the frightened countess ran in. The husband began to assure her that they were just joking with an old friend. But what was happening did not look too much like a joke. The Countess was on the verge of fainting, and the enraged Count shouted at Silvio to shoot quickly, but Silvio replied that he would not do this, that he saw the main thing - the Count’s fear and confusion, and he had had enough. The rest is a matter of conscience for the count himself. He turned and walked towards the exit, but stopped right at the door and, almost without aiming, fired and hit exactly the place in the painting shot through by the count. The narrator did not meet Silvio again, but heard that he died while participating in the Greek uprising led by Alexander Ypsilanti.
Silvio is written as a romantic hero. This is confirmed by his portrait: “his usual gloominess, harsh disposition and evil tongue had a strong influence on our young minds.” Silvio is different from the officers around him and stands out from the crowd. He is about thirty-five years old and, by the standards of ordinary people, leads a strange lifestyle. Not being a military man, he communicates only with them, lives wastefully and meagerly at the same time.
Silvio had one trait that can be called talent and for which the young officers respected him so much. This hero was a masterful shooter, always hitting the target from any position.
Silvio also had his own secret, which determined his whole life and became his obsession. Silvio told this secret to the narrator, for whom he had sincere sympathy. Being a marksman, the hero refused a duel with the officer who insulted him. Everyone in the garrison was perplexed: why did Silvio do this?
In a conversation with the narrator, he explained that he did not shoot himself out of noble motives. Of course, the hero could easily shoot his opponent. But he did not do this because he believed that he had a duty, an obligation that he must fulfill. Therefore, the hero has no right to risk his life.
As it turned out, in his youth, when Silvio served in the hussar regiment, he had a rival who later became his enemy. This rival was handsome, smart, rich, witty, and successful in all matters. Silvio envied him because he was always used to being first in everything: “I hated him. His successes in the regiment and in the society of women led me to complete despair.” This young man took his place. At least that's what Silvio thought. Therefore, he did not accept any signs of friendship or reconciliation from the count. Silvio was deliberately looking for a quarrel with him.
Finally, he achieved his goal: he was rude to the count at the ball. A duel was scheduled. The right to fire the first shot fell to Silvio's opponent. He took aim and hit the hero's cap. It was Silvio's turn to shoot. But the count behaved so calmly and at ease, eating cherries while awaiting his fate. Silvio most of all wanted to hurt his opponent, to hurt him, so that he would suffer spiritually in the same way as the hero himself. In the duel he did not have such an opportunity.
Silvio still had his shot. He was waiting for an opportunity to take revenge. And now, many years later, his expectation came true. In the scene of the second duel, all the positive qualities of the hero are revealed. He couldn't just shoot an unarmed man. The opponents again cast lots, and the count again shot first. His bullet pierced the painting. Fate prevented Silvio from shooting.
He saw the count frightened, confused, humiliated. This was more than enough for the hero. He had achieved his goal, so he no longer had to shoot. Silvio tells the count: “I won’t... I’m pleased: I saw your confusion, your timidity; I made you shoot at me, I've had enough. You will remember me. I commend you to your conscience."
At first glance, Silvio seems to be an exceptional person. But all his energy is spent on satisfying petty pride. He is looking for championship, but not in anything serious, but in what is considered important in an empty hussar company (drunkenness, duels, rowdy behavior).
Silvio devotes all his mature years to preparing for revenge on the count. He waits for the moment when it will be difficult for his opponent to give up his life, and achieves his goal: he sees not only the count’s confusion, but also the horror of his young wife. But something prevented Silvio from killing the count? Maybe he took pity on his wife, maybe because she was no longer the former brilliant rival, the careless brave man who treated himself to cherries at the point of his gun, but a family man whose murder no longer flattered his pride. Or maybe because natural human feelings awoke in him, and he freed himself from false romantic concepts.
One way or another, this bloodless outcome is characteristic of the spirit of humanity.
The topic is of undoubted interest to me, with the help of it I will try to reveal my vision. What is honor and dishonor? In Ozhegov’s dictionary, the word honor is given the following concept: moral qualities of a person worthy of respect and pride; its corresponding principles. And in the same dictionary they define the word dishonor - desecration of honor, insult, shame.
The theme is “eternal” because it reveals the essence of honor and dishonor.
Writers of world literature turn to it, for example, A.S. Pushkin in the works “Eugene Onegin” and “The Captain’s Daughter”, and responsible literature, since for our people this topic has always been important: touching on it, we think about spiritual, moral life of a person, about honor and dishonor. Remembering the heroes of the novel “Eugene Onegin”, in which A.S. Pushkin raises problems of honor on the part of Lensky. He challenges Eugene Onegin to a duel, out of honor for himself and his beloved. After all, it was clear to everyone then that Evgeniy was jealous of Lensky, wanted to anger him by dancing the entire evening ball with Lensky’s beloved, thereby not giving him a chance to dance with her. Honor is very important, because if Lensky had not challenged Onegin to a duel, he would have considered him a coward and a dishonest person. The essence of the main problem comes down to the fact that not respecting oneself means being a dishonest, shameful person. The importance of the problem, according to the author, it seems to me, is that honor is the ability to stand up for oneself, not to offend loved ones, and dishonor is the inability to stand up for oneself and relatives. I completely agree with the opinion of the author of this work, because Lensky and Onegin are two completely different personalities who are completely different in their worldview and character. Lensky is a cheerful person who looks at this world with a smile and optimism. Onegin, in turn, is a capricious person, he quickly gets bored with everything, that is, housing, food, the world around him, people. He considers the most important thing in life to be a good rest in the company of friends, which then bores him. Completely different views of the world.
The famous classic of world literature A.S. Pushkin, in his work “The Captain's Daughter,” tells how the hero Grinev treats well and respectfully with his sincere actions. Even when he and Savelich got into a snowstorm and a tramp helped them get out of there, and Peter thanked him by giving him a hare sheepskin coat. Soon, Pugachev’s army captures the city and leads everyone to execution, but Pugachev himself spared Grinev, because he once gave him a sheepskin coat. Grinev did not know that it was that poor man and was at a loss, but soon found out and asked for help to save Masha from Shvabrin. This work shows how open and honest people are to each other. Grinev acted proudly, and his action requires respect from Masha. He, in turn, did not tarnish his honor and saved it; he is responsible for his loved ones. But when Pugachev’s army was defeated, and everyone stood before the court, and Grinev ended up there. Masha immediately went to the Empress to ask her to have mercy on him. They walked through the garden and Masha told the whole story, and the Empress approved. This is how Masha saved Grinev; we can say that she was not indebted to him. She stood heroically and, just like Grinev then, did not tarnish her honor.
I think that these works not only teach us to live, understand its complexity and beauty, preserve the humanity in ourselves, and think about honor, but they are also of no small importance for future generations. After all, the main characters of both works are completely different. In the work “Eugene Onegin” the main characters conflict, they go to a duel, I think, because they are completely different. But in the work “The Captain's Daughter”, everything depends on reciprocity and there are many examples of the mutual relationship of the heroes. Of course, honor is an integral part of a self-respecting person, and no one has the right to tarnish it, but dishonor means giving offense to yourself, including your family, or betraying someone close to you, which is what we see in novel "Eugene Onegin".
Updated: 2017-03-26
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
Why is honor compared to clothing? “Take care of your dress again,” demands a Russian proverb. And then: “.. and honor from a young age.” And the ancient Roman writer and poet, philosopher, author of the famous novel “Metamorphoses” (A.S. Pushkin wrote about him in the novel “Eugene Onegin”) states: “Shame and honor are like a dress: the more shabby they are, the more careless you treat them.” . Clothing is external, but honor is a deep, moral, internal concept. What's in common? We meet people by their clothes... How often, behind the external gloss, we see a fiction, and not a person. It turns out that the proverb is true.
In N.S. Leskov’s story “Lady Macbeth of Mtsensk” the main character Katerina Izmailova is a young beautiful merchant’s wife. She got married “... not out of love or any attraction, but because Izmailov wanted to marry her, and she was a poor girl, and she didn’t have to go through suitors.” Married life was torture for her. She, not being a woman gifted with any talents, not even faith in God, spent her time empty, wandering around the house and not knowing what to do with her idle existence. The daring and desperate Seryozha, who suddenly turned up, completely took over her consciousness. Having surrendered to his power, she lost all moral guidelines. The murder of the father-in-law, and then the husband, became something ordinary, simple, like a cotton dress, shabby and out of use, fit only for a doormat. It’s the same with feelings. They turned out to be rags. Honor is nothing compared to the passion that completely possessed her. Completely dishonored, abandoned by Sergei, she decides to commit the most terrible act: suicide, but in such a way as to take away from life the one whom her former lover found as a replacement. And the terrible icy darkness of the winter freezing river swallowed them both up. Katerina Izmailova remained a symbol of stupid, immoral dishonor.
Katerina Kabanova, the main character of A.N. Ostrovsky’s drama “The Thunderstorm,” has a completely different attitude towards her honor. Her love is a tragic feeling, not vulgar. She resists her thirst for true love until the last second. Her choice is not much better than Izmailova's. Boris is not Sergei. He is too soft and indecisive. He can't even seduce the young woman he loves. In fact, she did everything herself, because she also very much loved a handsome young man from the capital, dressed differently from the locals and speaking differently. Varvara pushed her to this act. For Katerina, her step towards love is not dishonor, no. She makes a choice in favor of love because she considers this feeling sanctified by God. Having given herself to Boris, she did not think of returning to her husband, because it was a dishonor for her. Living with an unloved person would be a dishonor for her. Having lost everything: love, protection, support - Katerina decides to take the last step. She chooses death as a deliverance from sinful living next to the vulgar, sanctimonious philistines of the city of Kalinov, whose morals and foundations never became dear to her.
Honor must be preserved. Honor is your name, and your name is your status in society. There is a status - a worthy person - happiness smiles at you every morning. But there is no honor - life is dark and dirty, like a dark cloudy night. Take care of your honor from a young age... Take care!
According to the ethical standards of Pushkin’s contemporary era, a love letter from an unmarried girl to an unfamiliar man should have been regarded as a dangerous and immoral act. However, the author ardently stands up for his heroine, speaks of the depth and sincerity of her experiences, of the innocence of her soul:
Why is Tatyana more guilty?
Because in sweet simplicity
She knows no deception
And believes in his chosen dream?
Because he loves without art...
Defending Tatyana's honor, Pushkin places the heroine at a height unattainable for secular beauties. On her side is authenticity of feeling, inner purity, readiness to sacrifice herself for the sake of her beloved.
For Tatyana, honor is, first of all, inner truth and loyalty to oneself (remember that already as a child the heroine avoided demonstrative displays of feelings - “she didn’t know how to caress”). Having become a princess, Tatiana rejects the advances of Onegin, whom she still loves, since fidelity is consistent with her spiritual structure, is her internal need, and not a rule imposed from the outside:
I love you (why lie?),
But I was given to another;
I will be faithful to him forever.
If the plot situations associated with Tatyana contain only the presumptive possibility of the heroine losing “honor,” then in the events associated with the duel between Onegin and Lensky, the problem of honor comes to the fore and acts as the main driving force determining the actions of the heroes. Onegin's act (courting Olga at the ball) seems to Vladimir to be a black betrayal. By challenging his yesterday's friend to a duel, the young man believes that he is defending his own honor and the honor of his bride:
He thinks: “I will be her savior.
I will not tolerate the corrupter
Fire and sighs and praises
Tempted a young heart...
The hero's nobility and ardor are aimed at the wrong goals. Firstly, nothing threatens Olga’s honor (Onegin had no idea of seriously courting Olga), and secondly, the episode at the ball revealed not so much Onegin’s deceit as Olga’s feminine vanity, her infidelity and lack of deep
feelings for the groom. But Vladimir stubbornly views what happened through the prism of literary cliches familiar to him: Olga (“two-morning flower”) is an innocent victim of the insidious “corrupter” - Onegin. The lesson that Onegin intended to teach his young friend was not learned by him. Having never parted with his romantic illusions, Lensky dies in vain, but the hero’s willingness to defend his ideals at the cost of his own life cannot but arouse sympathy. Lensky, with all his naivety, certainly personifies the best features of the noble youth of Pushkin’s time (including uncompromisingness in matters of honor).
The author puts the main character of the novel, Onegin, in the face of a tragically insoluble situation: on the one hand, Eugene, “loving the young man with all his heart,” does not want his friend to die, but, on the other hand, Onegin’s refusal to duel would forever dishonor him in the opinion of “the world.” “, would make him a laughing stock in the eyes of the “fools.”
Onegin, unlike Lensky, considers the conflict that has arisen from the position of a sane and experienced person. He blames himself for everything and regrets that because of a momentary outburst of anger, “he played such a careless joke on timid, tender love.” However, both for the hero and for the reader - a contemporary of Pushkin - it is obvious that there is no turning back, refusing a duel is unthinkable:
The old duelist intervened;
He is angry, he is a gossip, he is loud...
Without removing responsibility from Onegin for the death of Lensky (Eugene “had to disarm the young heart”), the author points out the real culprits of the tragedy - Zaretsky, the secular “fools”.
In Pushkin's romance, the idea of honor in its traditional interpretation is correlated with the moral content of what is happening, with real life, and it turns out that this fundamental (in the system of ethics of Russian noble society) concept needs a serious reassessment. The author does not reduce the ideal of honor to the level of “practical expediency,” but by all means (through the development of the plot, through the internal monologues of the characters, through the author’s direct commentary) he proves: the true dignity of a person cannot be assessed through formal criteria of honor; it should not be devalued because for philistine prejudices or “the chatter of fools.” The ideal of honor makes sense only in the context of an integral system of moral values, going back to folk ethical principles, otherwise this ideal turns into a mechanical rule of behavior and kills all the best in a person.
The theme of honor in A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin”
In A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Eugene Onegin,” each of the heroes is faced with the need to defend their idea of honor. So, Tatyana decides to be the first to confess her love to Onegin, although she understands that if her reputation is made public, irreparable damage will be caused.
According to the ethical standards of Pushkin’s contemporary era, a love letter from an unmarried girl to an unfamiliar man should have been regarded as a dangerous and immoral act. However, the author ardently stands up for his heroine, speaks of the depth and sincerity of her experiences, of the innocence of her soul:
Why is Tatyana more guilty?
Because in sweet simplicity
She knows no deception
And believes in his chosen dream?
Because he loves without art...
Defending Tatyana's honor, Pushkin places the heroine at a height unattainable for secular beauties. On her side is authenticity of feeling, inner purity, readiness to sacrifice herself for the sake of her beloved.
For Tatyana, honor is, first of all, inner truth and loyalty to oneself (remember that already as a child the heroine avoided demonstrative displays of feelings - “she didn’t know how to caress”). Having become a princess, Tatiana rejects the advances of Onegin, whom she still loves, since fidelity is consistent with her spiritual structure, is her internal need, and not a rule imposed from the outside:
I love you (why lie?),
But I was given to another;
I will be faithful to him forever.
If the plot situations associated with Tatyana contain only the presumptive possibility of the heroine losing “honor,” then in the events associated with the duel between Onegin and Lensky, the problem of honor comes to the fore and acts as the main driving force determining the actions of the heroes. Onegin's act (courting Olga at the ball) seems to Vladimir to be a black betrayal. By challenging his yesterday's friend to a duel, the young man believes that he is defending his own honor and the honor of his bride:
He thinks: “I will be her savior.
I will not tolerate the corrupter
Fire and sighs and praises
Tempted a young heart...
The hero's nobility and ardor are aimed at the wrong goals. Firstly, nothing threatens Olga’s honor (Onegin had no idea of seriously courting Olga), and secondly, the episode at the ball revealed not so much Onegin’s deceit as Olga’s feminine vanity, her infidelity and lack of deep
feelings for the groom. But Vladimir stubbornly views what happened through the prism of literary cliches familiar to him: Olga (“two-morning flower”) is an innocent victim of the insidious “corrupter” - Onegin. The lesson that Onegin intended to teach his young friend was not learned by him. Having never parted with his romantic illusions, Lensky dies in vain, but the hero’s willingness to defend his ideals at the cost of his own life cannot but arouse sympathy. Lensky, with all his naivety, certainly personifies the best features of the noble youth of Pushkin’s time (including uncompromisingness in matters of honor).
The author puts the main character of the novel, Onegin, in the face of a tragically insoluble situation: on the one hand, Eugene, “loving the young man with all his heart,” does not want his friend to die, but, on the other hand, Onegin’s refusal to duel would forever dishonor him in the opinion of “the world.” “, would make him a laughing stock in the eyes of the “fools.”
Onegin, unlike Lensky, considers the conflict that has arisen from the position of a sane and experienced person. He blames himself for everything and regrets that because of a momentary outburst of anger, “he played such a careless joke on timid, tender love.” However, both for the hero and for the reader - a contemporary of Pushkin - it is obvious that there is no turning back, refusing a duel is unthinkable:
The old duelist intervened;
He is angry, he is a gossip, he is loud...
Without removing responsibility from Onegin for the death of Lensky (Eugene “had to disarm the young heart”), the author points out the real culprits of the tragedy - Zaretsky, the secular “fools”.
In Pushkin's romance, the idea of honor in its traditional interpretation is correlated with the moral content of what is happening, with real life, and it turns out that this fundamental (in the system of ethics of Russian noble society) concept needs a serious reassessment. The author does not reduce the ideal of honor to the level of “practical expediency,” but by all means (through the development of the plot, through the internal monologues of the characters, through the author’s direct commentary) he proves: the true dignity of a person cannot be assessed through formal criteria of honor; it should not be devalued because for philistine prejudices or “the chatter of fools.” The ideal of honor makes sense only in the context of an integral system of moral values, going back to folk ethical principles, otherwise this ideal turns into a mechanical rule of behavior and kills all the best in a person.