What vices does the author ridicule in the novel by Dubrovsky. The theme of the composition Noble Society in the story “Dubrovsky

Shy away from evil and do good.

(Ps. 33 and 36, cf .: "Dubrovsky", ch. V)

In the 30s of the XIX century, Pushkin's interest was firmly focused on the topic of popular revolt. "The history of the village of Goryukhina" - "Dubrovsky" - "The Captain's Daughter" - these are the milestones that marked this theme in Pushkin's legacy. And if in the first, just begun and abandoned story, the description of the peasant uprising was preserved only in rough sketches, then in the next two novels it forms the basis of the plot and the main subject of the author's thoughts, concretized in the question: on which side of the barricade is the place of a positive hero of noble origin?

Illustration for the novel "Dubrovsky" by R.F. Stein. Engraving by Yu.S. Baranovsky. 1887 g.

In the initial presentation of Pushkin, the progressive nobleman is a natural ally of the people - this is how the image of a nobleman who betrayed his class appears in the novel "Dubrovsky". A descendant of an ancient family, Dubrovsky, heading a peasant bandit gang, becomes a defender of the humiliated and insulted, an avenger for trampled upon justice.
But almost simultaneously with his work on Dubrovsky, Pushkin was thinking about the main plot of his future historical novel, The Captain's Daughter. Interestingly, here, too, according to the original plan, the main character was to be a noble officer who voluntarily sided with Pugachev and served him "with zeal." However, the deeper Pushkin delved into the archival documents of the Pugachev revolt, the farther he departed from this idea, leading his hero to the camp of Pugachev with each new version of the text in less and less dependent on his own will the crooked paths of chance. Ultimately, the traitorous nobleman, nevertheless represented in the novel, began to play a sharply negative role as an antipode to the virtuous hero, although connected with Pugachev, but not at all by official, but by deeply personal relations.
Tracing this change of pluses and minuses in Pushkin's moral orientation, it is not difficult to see that we are, in essence, talking about an assessment of the peasant uprising as such. Studying the history of the issue, Pushkin, from a sympathetic attitude towards popular actions, as natural and just, very soon comes to a sharp rejection of the Russian revolt, as "senseless and merciless."
And although at the stage of the creation of Dubrovsky, Pushkin had not yet qualified the popular uprising as evil, the ethical philosophy of the novel as a whole amazes with the clear focusing of the categories of good and evil, the accuracy of evaluative criteria, and the transparent clarity of the conditionality of causes and effects. In short, Orthodox Truth is clearly visible in the moral concept of the novel. Let us recall, for example, the following words: "Evil does not destroy evil. But if someone does evil to you, then you do good to him in order to destroy evil with a good deed" ( Monk Pimen the Great). But it was evil that was the beginning of the whole chain of events in the novel. Let's see how it was.

Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, a rich and noble tyrant lord, before whom everyone bowed and trembled, was for the time being friends with the poor landowner Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. But one day they quarreled. Boasting his kennel to the guests and accepting their servile admiration, Troekurov remarked that "Dubrovsky alone was silent and frowned." Wanting to find out the reason for this, he heard the following words: "Wonderful kennel, it is unlikely that your people live as well as your dogs." One of the hounds answered for everyone that it was a sin for them to complain about their life, but "it would not be bad for another nobleman to exchange the estate for any local kennel." The offended Dubrovsky quietly disappeared as soon as Troekurov distracted himself from him. Twice a servant was sent for him, but he refused to return before a daring hound was sent to him, with whom he was free to do whatever he wanted. Troekurov fell into anger and decided to roughly punish his former comrade.
"Just like a fire, if it is not extinguished immediately, eats many at home, so anger, if it does not stop soon, will cause a lot of evil and is the cause of many troubles," says Tikhon Zadonsky. And so it happened.
But let's see who struck the match. In the past, not so distant times, this question was solved by itself, since psychological analysis was replaced by sociological one: the rich means a despot and an offender, the poor means honest and just, and therefore suffers an offense. However, life is not measured by templates, and in this particular case Troyekurov fits into the scheme, but Dubrovsky does not.
The fact that Troyekurov is the personification of all vices, what doubt can there be: gluttony, drunkenness and fornication, idleness, pride and anger, rancor and stubbornness have thoroughly corrupted his soul. There is a lot of evil on him, but this time it was not he who struck the match. Dubrovsky, who according to the scheme was supposed to be quite virtuous, in fact was himself in many ways the same Troyekurov, with whom "they partly resembled both in characters and inclinations." Not in the least deluded about his hero himself, Pushkin and before the reader is extremely frank in motivating his behavior. His small fortune did not allow Dubrovsky to keep many dogs, to which he was a great hunter, and therefore he "could not refrain from some envy" at the sight of Troekurov's kennel. His "harsh" answer was dictated not by his straightforward disposition or sympathy for the Troyekurov serfs, but by banal envy and a desire to at least somehow belittle Troyekurov's superiority over himself.

May the sun not go down in your anger- says the Apostle Paul (Eph. 4:26). Alas! - the sun went down, leaving both friends in anger. Without letting the fire of evil dry up, Dubrovsky, with his claim to give him a huntsman, fanned the flame again. “I’m not a jester, but an old nobleman,” he proudly adds in his note and either bends his soul to Troyekurov, or is cunning before his own conscience: the one who started the whole incident with the action of base feelings has no right to appeal to lofty concepts.
Do not be defeated by evil, but conquer evil with good(Rom. 12, 21). From the moment the serfs joined the quarrel between the masters (Dubrovsky found Troekurov in his forest and punished the peasants for cutting down a tree), the fire of evil turns into a destructive fire and really "eats" the house - the one who first lit the fire: Troekurov decides to "take "estate at Dubrovsky.
Dubrovsky, described by the author as an impatient and decisive person, hot and imprudent, is in no way capable of defeating evil with good: he writes a "rather rude attitude" to the court's request, and when he meets his opponent he exchanges a proud glance with him.
The decision of the case in favor of Troyekurov plunges Dubrovsky into "sudden madness." But, with all the compassion for his position as a dispossessed and robbed person, one cannot fail to note that it was not despair and grief that darkened his mind, but uncontrollable anger: he "stamped his foot, pushed the secretary away with such force that he fell, and, grabbing inkwell, let it into the assessor. " In a fit of madness, he thinks that he is protecting God's church from sacrilege, and one might think that this ghostly idea expresses a deep meaning. The soul preserves the sanctity, justice for it is commensurate with the truth of God, and all the iniquity that the world is doing is trampling on sanctity, although the soul itself in this world does not live according to the law of God's righteousness: Where there is envy and contentiousness, there is disorder and everything bad(James 3:16).
However, it was at this stage of events that the fire of evil could be extinguished. Troekurov is uncomfortable: "Dubrovsky's sudden madness strongly influenced his imagination and poisoned his triumph." "Kirila Petrovich was embarrassed. By nature he was not greedy, the desire for revenge lured him too far, his conscience grumbled. He knew in what state his opponent, an old friend of his youth, was, and the victory did not please his heart."

Make peace with your rival rather, while you are still on the way with him ...(Matthew 5:25). And Troekurov takes this decisive step: he goes to put up with Dubrovsky. And then a tragic scene follows. And its tragedy - we are not afraid to say this - is not so much that it ends with the death of old Dubrovsky, but that it tells about the next terrible victory of evil over good.
On the way, Troyekurov experiences contradictory feelings: "satisfied vengeance and lust for power drowned out to some extent the more noble feelings, but the latter finally triumphed." And this is Troekurov! He did not know noble feelings from his childhood and, perhaps for the first time in his life, tasted the sweetness of repentance and the elimination of his sin: "... he decided to make peace with his old neighbor, to destroy the traces of a quarrel, returning him his property." Mercy Exalted Over Judgment- says the Apostle James (James 3:16), and this is also new to Troekurov. At a trot he rushes to the neighbor's estate.
Blessed is the one who contributes to the restoration of the fallen soul, and woe to the one who stops it in this striving. Even with justifying circumstances.
Old Dubrovsky saw Troekurov through the window, and "a terrible confusion appeared on his face." He uttered indistinct sounds and pointed to the courtyard "with an air of horror and anger." A minute later, he falls, broken by paralysis, and at this time the servant comes in to report on Troekurov. Young Dubrovsky orders: "Tell Kiril Petrovich to get out as soon as possible, until I ordered him to be kicked out of the yard." The servant "joyfully" runs to fulfill the order, all the servants run to gloat over the humiliation of Troyekurov, and he himself, having listened to the answer with a face "gloomier than a cloud," "smiled with contempt" and "looked menacingly at the courtyard."

Scary scene! There is no one to blame directly, but - alas! - there are no right ones either. A hand does not rise to throw a stone at the old man Dubrovsky, "who has fallen into a perfect childhood." Even if he were sane, his confusion is understandable: it was logical to assume that Troekurov was going to drive him out into the street. In the same state in which he was, his feelings were not controlled by the mind at all, arising reflexively. It is difficult to blame the young Dubrovsky either: Troekurov, who robbed and plunged his father into madness, reappears (of course, with a new atrocity!) And becomes the cause of the death of the sick old man. How many in such a situation will be able to rise above the small, human in themselves in the name of the highest truth and justice? Is Troekurov to blame? Yes, I am to blame for all my past iniquities. But he has already retired from evil and is ready to create good.
There are no guilty ones today, because everyone is right in their own way, but there are no right ones either, because everyone was guilty before each other yesterday. This is the phenomenon of evil, that, not immediately stopped, it grows like a snowball, and a moment comes when it is no longer people who control evil, but evil directs the will of people, creating dead-end situations and blocking good intentions.
And now one of the two warring parties has already passed away, having shown by his death all the futility of earthly claims. The days of man are like grass: like the flower of the field, so it blooms. The wind will pass over it, and it will be gone, and its place will no longer recognize it.(Psalm 102). But who can understand this wisdom? Is it only for the priest: "Vanity of vanities ... and Kiril Petrovich will sing for eternal memory, everything is like today for Andrei Gavrilovich, unless the funeral will be richer and more guests will be called, but does God care!"
Young Dubrovsky "... did not cry or pray, but his face was scary." This is the face of a man possessed by the same malice. He has no time for prayers - he is all in the power of a contemplated vengeance. Later, he would tell Troekurov's daughter: "My first bloody feat was to be accomplished over him. I walked around his house, appointing where to start a fire, from where to enter his bedroom, how to stop him from all escape routes ..." No, now, in church, of course, he does not yet know his future concretely, but the content of his thoughts is the same.

Troyekurov is also in a hurry with revenge: returning from the cemetery, Vladimir Dubrovsky finds clerks in his estate, who have come "to take possession of this Kiril Petrovich." The noblewoman, who has long been involved in the feuds of the Lord, is ready to arrange a real massacre, but ...
Shy away from evil and do good; seek peace and strive for it, - teaches the Apostle Peter (1 Pet. 3, 11). And Vladimir seems to be taking this path. Although he was "seething with indignation," he nevertheless spoke "with feigned cold-bloodedness," not giving vent to his feelings, and addressed truly wise words to the servants: "Fools, what are you doing? You are ruining yourself and me. Go to the courtyards .. Do not be afraid, sir merciful, I will ask him. He will not offend us. We are all his children. And how will he intercede for you if you start to rebel and rob. "
And this is not an empty admonition of the serfs: "I am no longer the master here," he says to the orderly and thinks the same to himself: "Tomorrow I will have to leave the house ..." But the trouble is that Vladimir, like his father, He is used to living not according to the commandments of God, but according to his own will, and therefore, starting to inflame himself with evil thoughts, he quickly changes his decision: "No, no! Let him not get the sad house from which he kicks me out."
Why would you rather not be offended, why would you rather not endure hardship? But you yourself offend and take away, and, moreover, from the brothers, - again teaches the Apostle Paul (1 Cor. 6, 7-8), but - alas! - in a few minutes the symbolic fire of evil will turn into a real fire: Vladimir will burn his estate.
again, a terrible illustration of what in the modern world is usually defined by the word "escalation" - the escalation of evil. The phenomenon of evil consists in the fact that every time it passes through the barriers limiting it, making a new leap upward. Having met Arkhip the blacksmith with an ax near the office of the clerks, Dubrovsky suppresses his criminal intent: "You have not started a business. Not the clerks are to blame." And before setting fire to the house, he sends the same Arkhip to check whether the doors are unlocked so that the officers can leave. Further, the text reads: "The doors were unlocked. Arkhip locked them with a key." The clerks burned down along with the house.
By the will of the author, as already mentioned above, Vladimir is clothed in the clothes of a "noble robber". Having organized a gang of robbers from his peasants, he is nevertheless famous for his "intelligence, courage and some kind of generosity": on the road "he attacks not everyone, but famous rich people, but even here he shares with them, and does not rob clean, but no one accuses him of the murders. " His gang is in awe of their leader, obeys him unquestioningly, and therefore, they do not go out of those rules that he established. This theatrical hero, who appeared on the pages of the novel after the first six chapters, resembles the former Dubrovsky as little as the actions of his gang do not resemble a real peasant revolt. The soul of the romantic hero, as usual, is open to all lofty feelings: by the strength of his love for Troekurov's daughter, he forgave her father and renounced "revenge like madness."

So really the bonfire of evil, which before our very eyes "ate at home" and scorched souls, finally dried up in such a theatrical manner that all that remains is to applaud the actors coming out to bow? Yes and no. Pushkin's creative imagination was pleased to choose a melodramatic cut of clothes for the hero of this novel, but nevertheless, unlike the new dress of the Andersen king, it is by no means woven out of thin air. The basis of the novel and in its melodramatic part is an image of genuine Russian reality, and therefore the "old Russian gentleman" Troyekurov, without leaving the stage with Dubrovsky, remains with all his unthinkable vices and quirks, fraught with new conflicts.
It also arises, a new moral conflict. A loving father intends to make his daughter happy by passing her off as a rich, depraved old man, and, meeting respectful resistance, uses parental authority. Only Dubrovsky can save Masha.
Let's leave all the adventure accessories of this story alone. Pushkin masterfully combined the seemingly incompatible: he put a deep vital content into the theatrical-conventional form. The plot lines are theatrical - the denouements are real, because all the spectacularly romantic moves are parodically ineffectual, and the events take place as usual. Indeed, there is a hollow oak tree, a ring for signaling "SOS", two nimble messengers, a whole crowd of armed robbers led by a "half-masked man" in the bushes on the road, and the unfortunate bride, with all her expectations and hopes, nevertheless, she turns out to be married to the prince she hates. No, a truly romantic hero does not have such misfires, life obeys him like a crooked racing stallion, and does not slip under the arm of young boys who fought (well, how could not it be a parody!) At the most crucial moment because of the same ring.
The penultimate chapter occupies a very important place in the novel. Not only because, by the absence of a happy ending, the Machine of History returns the action from the stage to real life, but also because it provides a counterbalance to the first six chapters in the general moral concept of the novel. Thanks to this chapter, the triumph of good over evil, without being accomplished in the plot, takes place in the souls of the readers.
Before us is the female image so beloved by Pushkin - a pure, meek soul, weak in its defenselessness and strong in its virtue. It is easy to hurt her, to hurt her, but it is impossible to force her to pay for her happiness with someone else's misfortune. She will bear any torment, except for the torment of conscience. "For God's sake," Masha implores Dubrovsky from the crime against the prince, "don't touch him, don't you dare touch him ... I don't want to be the fault of any horror." And his promise reflects her moral height: "Never will an evil deed be committed in your name. You must be pure even in my crimes."

And now he was late, and her life was "forever bound" by marriage, which "frightened her like a block, like a grave." But when, on the way from the church, Dubrovsky offers her freedom, she rejects her: "It's too late, I'm married, I'm the wife of Prince Vereisky." Despair Dubrovsky prompts a way out: "No, you are not his wife, you were forced, you could never agree ..." But not only the refusal of transactions with conscience sounds in Masha's answer: "I agreed, I swore an oath," she objected with firmness, - prince my husband, order to release him and leave me with him ... "Besides the moral law, the Orthodox soul knows another Law:" the irrevocable words "of a priest cannot be bypassed or canceled. And her involuntary lie ("I agreed, I took an oath," although the priest finished the ceremony, "without waiting for her answer" to his "usual questions") is not a lie, because in the closing words of the wedding: "Lord, our God, with glory and crown them with honor "- everything already sounds: both consent, and an oath, and refusal of one's own will.
It is this virtue of humility and obedience to the will of God, opposed - in the restoration of the moral law of the victory of good - to the arbitrariness of the evil will at the beginning of the story, so heals the soul of the reader.
The novel with the provisional title "Dubrovsky" was not completed by Pushkin and in the manuscript has a plan for its continuation. Literary critics see the reason for the termination of work on this work in the fact that the image of an almost patriarchal, "domestic" riot of peasants led by a "noble robber" robbing in the name of justice was too contrary to the historical reality of the 1830s, when terrible cholera riots broke out in Russia and in Novgorod settlements, for example, more than a hundred generals and officers were slaughtered, in the words of Pushkin, "with all the refinements of malice."
But we dare to assert that the novel does not look unfinished, and this happens, undoubtedly, because the main thing in it is not a plot of one length or another and ramification, but a moral concept, which, as we have already seen, has a semantic and philosophical completeness.
And the objective truth about popular uprisings appeared on the pages of the novel, clearly defining the place of this phenomenon in the general system of values.

How long has Dubrovsky been able to calm his conscience by the fact that no one can accuse him of the murders, and here he is - the potential murderer of Prince Vereisky ("He owes you his life," Dubrovsky says to Masha). How long has he had the right to proudly declare: "Know that Dubrovsky himself was a guard officer, he will not want to offend a comrade." And in a fight with a detachment of soldiers, he "went up to the officer, put a pistol to his chest and fired." The rules of the game, as they say, are binding. But who is he after that? It turns out that a murderer and a traitor, no matter how you twist the objective truth. After all, the sixth commandment of God - Do not kill- does not imply the division of assassins into ordinary and noble ones.
Pushkin is still trying to feel like a confidant of Dubrovsky and look at events through his eyes. This is what comes out of this: "Dubrovsky put the wick on, the shot was successful: one was blown off his head, two were wounded ... The robbers ... began to defend the shaft with axes, on which the furious soldiers were climbing, leaving twenty wounded comrades in the ditch." Sounds scary, doesn't it? - this approving word "successful"! Yes, and the soldiers are called "frenzied" it is clear why. A dangerous thing is a tendentious view, but Pushkin's high authority is also incapable of presenting evil as good.
Maybe that's why the novel remained unfinished? Some estimates required adjustment. And in "The Captain's Daughter" we will read completely different words: "... Those who are plotting impossible coups in our country, are either young and do not know our people, or they are hard-hearted people, whose little head is a stranger, and their own neck is a penny." ...

The noble society in the story "Dubrovsky" is represented by a number of characters, some of whom are depicted in a comprehensive and complete manner (Troekurov, Dubrovsky), others - in less detail (Prince Vereisky), the third is remembered in passing (Anna Savishna and other guests of Troekurov).
One of the main characters of the story is Kirila Petrovich Troekurov. In this man, the author depicted the most firmly standing part of the nobility, the rulers of the world, ardent supporters of serfdom. It was this part of the nobility at the beginning of the eighteenth century that dictated its conditions to the country and felt at ease, especially in the outback of Russia.
Receiving huge profits from the exploitation of the peasants under their control, the landlords did not bother themselves with any business, idly and riotously passing their time. They did not want any democratic reforms in the country, since such events threatened their undivided dominion and well-being.
As for Kirill Petrovich Troekurov, “his wealth, noble family and connections gave him great weight in the provinces where his estate was located. The neighbors were glad to please his slightest whim; provincial officials trembled at his name; Kirila Petrovich accepted the signs of servility as a proper tribute; his house was always full of guests, ready to indulge his lordly idleness ... No one dared to refuse his invitation or on certain days not to come with due respect to the village of Pokrovskoye. " This wayward Russian gentleman did not bother himself with the sciences. The author, with obvious irony and condemnation, says that "Kiril and Petrovich showed all the vices of an uneducated person." And since Troyekurov had more than enough physical strength, he endlessly arranged all kinds of entertainment events in his estate and gave "full freedom to all the impulses of his ardent disposition and all the ventures of a rather limited mind." One of the ventures that had the purpose of entertaining their guests, and most of all - themselves, was the venture with the bear, which Troekurov specially fed on his estate in order to play a trick on the new guest on occasion.
Despite the fact that almost each of the guests of the utterly spoiled landowner visited the room with the bear and not only experienced inhuman fear, but also received physical injuries, no one dared to complain about Kiril Petrovich - his power in the district was too unlimited.
Kirila Petrovich loved hunting with dogs more than other entertainments, he prepared for it in advance and carefully. After the hunt, a long drinking party for all its participants was usually arranged in the master's estate. Very often the friends of the hospitable owner went home only in the morning.
In order for the reader to get a complete picture of Kiril Petrovich's spoiled and petty tyranny, the author introduces an episode into the story that describes in detail the landowner's kennel, an object of his pride and admiration. In this kennel “... more than five hundred hounds and greyhounds lived in contentment and warmth, glorifying the generosity of Kiril Petrovich in their dog's tongue. There was also an infirmary for sick dogs, under the supervision of the head physician Timoshka, and a department where noble bitches bred and fed their puppies. " What care for animals, what nobility - isn't it? Yes, it would all look exactly like this if the serfs of this master, on whom his well-being rested, lived better than dogs, or at least the same.
It costs nothing to Troyekurov to humiliate a person, even the one for whom he has respect. And not to obey the will of a despot and tyrant means to become his sworn enemy. And even then Kirila Petrovich will stop at nothing to demonstrate his superiority. This is exactly what he did with Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky.
He "loved his daughter to madness, but treated her with his characteristic willfulness, now trying to please her slightest whims, now frightening her with harsh and sometimes cruel treatment." Relations with Masha, as, indeed, with everyone else, he built on the requirement of her complete submission to his person. Kirila Petrovich did not even bother to listen to any of Masha's words-requests to cancel the wedding with an unloved person. Of course, this can be attributed to his excessive concern for the fate of his daughter, but is Masha happy with this, will it be her lot to find out what shared love is? It's almost safe to say no. Masha, like Tatyana Oneginskaya, was brought up on the principle: “But I am given to someone else; I will be faithful to him forever ”.
So, in the image of Troyekurov, the author showed a part of the local nobility, far from reformist ideas, leading a riotous, idle lifestyle. The distinctive features of these nobles are ignorance, primitiveness, greed and pride. Standing firmly on their feet, this part of the local nobility fiercely defends the ancient way of life based on the enslavement of man by man, and is ready to take the most cruel measures to ensure its domination.
The image of another local nobleman, Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky, appears before us in a completely different way. “Being the same age, born in the same estate, brought up the same ...”, having similar characters and inclinations, Troekurov and Dubrovsky Sr. looked differently at the peasant and at the meaning of life. Kistenev's master did not oppress his peasants, therefore they treated him with love and respect. Andrei Gavrilovich condemned Troekurov's attitude to the serfs, and therefore said to his friend: "... the kennel is wonderful, your people can hardly live like your dogs." Just as loving, like Troekurov, hunting, Dubrovsky, however, treated the idle and riotous drinking of his neighbor unfavorably and was reluctant to visit them. Self-esteem and pride are highly developed in this person.
Neither in the first years of his life on the estate, nor later did Andrei Gavrilovich agree to use the gifts that Troekurov offered him. Moreover, unlike other landowners, Dubrovsky was never afraid to express his thoughts in the presence of Kirila Petrovich. Currying favor with a rich neighbor was not in his rules. The image of Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky is the image of a noble nobleman who cares not only about his wallet, but also about the peasants entrusted to him. I think that just such nobles, given a positive set of circumstances, would be supporters of democratic reforms in Russia.

Many contemporaries of A.S. Pushkin, who wrote in the genre of prose, were characterized by significant pomp, mannerism, and cunning. In contrast to them, Alexander Sergeevich strove to write accurately, concisely and simply. “What can I say,” he said, “about our writers, who, considering it as mean to explain just the most ordinary things, think to revive children's prose with additions and sluggish metaphors. These people will never say: friendship, without adding: "this is a sacred feeling, which is a noble flame" and so on. Totality and brevity are the first virtues of prose. It requires thoughts and thoughts - without them brilliant expressions are useless ... "

One of Pushkin's outstanding prose works is the story "Dubrovsky", which is based on the real story of the nobleman Ostrovsky, who had a lawsuit for land with a neighbor, who was later ousted from his estate and gradually came to robbery. In "Dubrovsky", among other problems, the question of the relationship between peasants and nobles is posed with great acuteness. As in most of his prose works, Pushkin vividly and truthfully portrayed the life of the local nobility, painted a picture of the life and customs of the landlord environment of that time. Critic V. G. Belinsky noted: "The ancient life of the Russian nobility, in the person of Troyekurov, is depicted with terrible fidelity."

Troekurov is a rich and powerful landowner-serf-owner spoiled by life, who knows no bounds for self-will. He demonstrates contempt for the small local nobles around him, whom the author portrays with subtle humor. Nobles and provincial officials cater to the slightest whims of Kirila Petrovich. He himself "took the signs of servility as a proper tribute." Spoiled by the environment and surroundings, Troekurov gave full vent to all his whims, "showed all the vices of an uneducated person." His usual activities were limited to traveling around his own estates, prolonged feasts and pranks: "... he suffered from gluttony twice a week and was drunk every evening."

The author comes out with sharp criticism of the moral character of the noble aristocratic society, creating the image of Prince Vereisky, in whom external culture and gloss are combined with a low feudal disposition. "He had an incessant need for dispersion and incessantly bored." Accustomed to always being in society, the prince showed considerable courtesy, especially towards women. Without any doubts or remorse, he persistently seeks marriage with Masha, who loves another.

With satirical colors, AS Pushkin and the "ink tribe" depicts corrupt officials-hookers, hated by the peasants no less than Troyekurov. The picture of a landlord province would be. incomplete without these police officers and assessors, without the image of the cowardly, indifferent to the people Kistenevsky priest and other similar characters.

Among the disgusting picture of landlord life, the image of Dubrovsky stands out clearly - a rebel protesting against slavery and despotism. This image is close to the images of the peasants, who are forced by serfdom and the cruelty of the landowners to revolt, to raise a revolt. Although Dubrovsky does not become like-minded peasants. Probably, feeling this, the blacksmith Arkhip deals with the court of his own free will and against the will of Dubrovsky. Arkhip has no pity for those who perished in the fire and after the reprisals declares: "Now everything is all right."

The poet continued and developed the theme of peasant uprisings, begun in the story "Dubrovsky", in many of his works, acting as an active defender of the serf peasantry. It was Pushkin who was one of the first to show attention to the serf issue, which from the 40s of the last century became the leading one in the advanced Russian literature.

The problem of good and evil has been and remains very relevant in the history of Russian literature. This theme begins its development even with oral folk poetry - fairy tales, epics, legends. In many works of folklore, a kind hero fights or fights with an evil rival or enemy and always wins, good always triumphs. A. Pushkin in the novel "Dubrovsky" (1832-1833) complicates this problem. And in this work, we wanted to show how this problem is ambiguously solved by the author. And although the work is based on a case that is 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 of a purely kind and 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. The fact that Troyekurov is the personification of all vices, what doubt can there be: gluttony, drunkenness and fornication, idleness, pride and anger, rancor and stubbornness have thoroughly corrupted his soul. He started a low and dark deed: he decided to take the estate from his former friend Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky for the fact that he demanded an apology from the huntsman Paramoshka for the insult, for not following Troekurov's order to return immediately. Troekurov considered himself insulted that an apology was demanded of him. “In the first minute of anger, he wanted with all his servants to launch an attack on Kistenyovkuravish her to the ground and besiege the landowner himself in his estate - such feats were not unusual for him” But then he chooses the lowest way. Why is he doing this? He pursued not selfish goals, wishing to take possession of Kistenyovka. He wanted to create such conditions for his former friend that he would be dependent on him, humiliated in front of him, he wanted to break his pride, trample on 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 took pride in 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 recall that it was the huntsman Paramoshka who was the culprit of the quarrel between Troyekurov 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 strongly influenced 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 friend Dubrovsky, expresses his intention to marry his daughter Masha for the son of Vladimir Dubrovsky, is going to make amends for his injustice and return the seized estate to old man Dubrovsky. Thus, we see that he is characterized by human impulses. Pushkin writes: “By nature he was not selfish, the desire for revenge lured him too far, his conscience grumbled. He knew the state of his opponent, an old friend of his youth, and the victory did not please his heart. " In the soul of Troekurov, there is a struggle between lower and more noble feelings. "Satisfied vengeance and lust for power" fought against attachment to an old comrade. The latter won, and Troekurov went to Kistenyovka with a “good intention” to make peace with his old neighbor, “to destroy the traces of a quarrel, returning his property. 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 meets resistance in anyone. "Spoiled by everything that only surrounded him," says Pushkin, "he used to give full vent to all the impulses of his temper and all the ventures of a rather limited mind." He acquired this power over people thanks to his wealth. And this unlimited power over the people belonging to him turns him into a despot, tyrant.

Pushkin seeks to show that wealth does not make people better. Impunity makes Troekurov a vengeful, cruel and soulless person. And the best human features of Troyekurov take on ugly forms. He ruins Dubrovsky only because he dared to contradict him; despite all his love for his daughter, he, on a whim, gives her in marriage to the old prince of Vereysk. 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 antipode of Troyekurov in the novel is the "good" landowner old man Dubrovsky. It reflects the same noble breed, only in different forms. Poverty (of course relative) not only does not reduce, but also sharpens the pride of the nobility. However, we see that in a confrontation with Troekurov, in essence, he is the attacker, since the first offended him: the hunter himself, “he could not refrain from some envy at the sight of this magnificent institution” of his rich neighbor and told him a taunt.

Dubrovsky, who, according to the scheme, was supposed to be quite virtuous, in fact was himself in many ways the same Troekurov, with whom "they partly resembled both in characters and inclinations." Not in the least deluded about his hero himself, Pushkin and before the reader is extremely frank in motivating his behavior. His small fortune did not allow Dubrovsky to keep many dogs, to which he was a great hunter, and therefore he "could not refrain from some envy" at the sight of Troekurov's kennel. His "harsh" response was dictated not by his straightforward disposition or sympathy for the Troyekurov serfs, but by banal envy and a desire to belittle Troyekurov's superiority over himself in some way.

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, the kennel is wonderful, it is unlikely that your people live as well 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 guess what this would lead to, but, nevertheless, he could not refrain from 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 hunter be sent to him to punish him for his daring answer (“We do not complain about our life, thanks to God and the master, but what is true is true, it would not be bad for another nobleman to exchange the estate for any local kennel. He would have been safer and warmer ").

A quarrel that has arisen from trifles grows and leads, in the end, to grave consequences, both for the old man Dubrovsky and for the young heroes of the story - Vladimir and Masha. But, with all the compassion for his position as a dispossessed and robbed person, one cannot fail to note that it was not despair and grief that darkened his mind, but irrepressible anger. Suffice it to recall his behavior at the trial. : he "stamped his foot, pushed the secretary away with such force that he fell, and, seizing the inkwell, let it go at the assessor."

And the main character of the work, Vladimir Dubrovsky, is an ambiguous and complex personality. In St. Petersburg he lived as most of his fellow officers lived: he played cards, allowed himself "luxurious whims", did not think about how his father was able 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 tormented his heart painfully"). Having received news of his father's illness, he, without hesitation, hurries to Kistenyovka.

Because of Troekurov, Vladimir lost his father, lost his home, estate, livelihood, so he could not return to the regiment. Then Dubrovsky planned to take revenge on his enemy (and revenge was never a positive character trait). He became the chieftain of the peasants, who were afraid of the tyranny of the new master: "he has a bad time with his own people, but strangers will get it, so he will not only take the skin from them, but also the meat". He exercised 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. Do not give us away, and we will become yours. " It is characteristic that in the depiction of Pushkin, the more humane and magnanimous master and the peasants are better, more humane, they have more sense of their own dignity and independence.

They become robbers, but they are precisely the kind of robbers that are sung about in folk songs: they do not kill anyone, they rob only the rich, and the sympathy of the people is on their side. Until they see another way out for their protest and anger. For them, robbery is the only possible way.

From the description of the camp of robbers, you understand that the usualness of their occupations and peaceful life testifies to the fact that Pushkin did not seek to show the "nest of villains"; the fortress, surrounded by a moat and a rampart, on which a guard sits at a small cannon, says that Dubrovsky used his knowledge of military affairs and trained his accomplices in combat.

Dubrovsky's associates sympathized with the personal fate of their young leader: the loss of his father, sudden poverty, unhappy love. Let us recall that Vladimir and his accomplices took money and property only from the rich, that he did not shed a single drop of blood, he did not offend anyone in vain. The landowner Globova spoke about the nobility of the "robber" Dubrovsky, who "attacks not everyone, but the famous rich, but even here shares with them, and does not rob clean."

Vladimir Dubrovsky, proud, who valued his noble honor just like his father, repeatedly proved capable of a noble deed: because of his love for Masha Troekurova, he refused revenge, showed magnanimity 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, without being accomplished in the plot, takes place in the souls of the readers. Before us is the female image so beloved by Pushkin - a pure, meek soul, weak in its defenselessness and strong in its virtue. It is easy to hurt her, to hurt her, but it is impossible to force her to pay for her happiness with someone else's misfortune. She will bear any torment, except for the torment of conscience. "For God's sake," Masha implores Dubrovsky from a crime against the prince, "don't touch him, don't dare to touch him. I don't want to be the fault of any horror." And his promise reflects her moral height: "Never will an evil deed 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 to his accomplices: "but you are all swindlers and, probably, you will not want to leave your craft." It can be assumed that most of them were sincerely attached to Dubrovsky, therefore they will act 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 “kind” 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 vivid images among the peasants is the blacksmith Arkhip. The spirit of rebellion and rebellion awakens in him first; he acts independently of Vladimir, not young Dubrovsky, namely Arkhip speaks out against the unjust verdict of the court and he is the first to take up the ax. Arkhip locks the clerks during a fire, and they die through his fault. This cruelty is engendered by a long-accumulated resentment of the people. And, it is characteristic that in the next episode Pushkin shows the humanity and spiritual beauty of this Russian peasant: at the risk of his life, the blacksmith Arkhip rescues a cat that finds himself on a burning roof: “Why are you laughing, devil,” the blacksmith said angrily to the boys. "You are not afraid of God: God's creation is dying, and you are foolishly rejoicing," and, placing the ladder on the burning 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 personalities. Each of the characters bears the signs of their social belonging 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 depicting the characters of the novel, which helps to represent the life of Russia in the middle of the nineteenth century in all its diversity.

A.S. Pushkin wrote the story "Dubrovsky". In it, the main character is Vladimir Dubrovsky. Dubrovsky was tall, handsome, brave. He bore the rank of an officer. He loved his father very much, for whom he resigned. Vladimir received a letter in which it was ...

Troekurov Kirila Petrovich - a nobleman of birth, a wealthy owner of the village. Pokrovsky, retired general-in-chief, tyrant, the threat of all the surrounding landowners; father of Masha, Dubrovsky's beloved. The prototype of T. - the landowner of the Kozlovsky district, the guard lieutenant colonel ...

Dubrovsky (1832-1833). In the last years of his life, Pushkin, in a number of his works (and above all in "Dubrovsky" and "The Captain's Daughter"), addresses the most acute and topical problem of Russian reality of those years, the problem of the growth of peasant discontent, ...

The noble society in the story "Dubrovsky" is represented by a number of characters, some of which are depicted in a comprehensive and complete manner (Troekurov, Dubrovsky), others - in less detail (Prince Vereisky), the third are remembered in passing (Anna Sa-vishna and other guests ...

The novel "Dubrovsky" is an adventurous work. This is a story about the dramatic fate of a poor nobleman, whose estate was illegally taken away from him, and the fate of his son. One of the heroes of the novel is Kirila Petrovich Troekurov. This is an old Russian ...

Plan for the topic: 1. Who is Shabashkin. 2. His appearance. 3. How did Shabashkin react to Troekurov's desire to take possession of someone else's estate. Why did he not refuse to participate in this wrong case. 5. In what ways did Shabashkin achieve the fulfillment of Troekurov's wishes. 6 ....