Protection of the human personality in A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky”
At all times, there have been people who resign themselves to the strength and inevitability of circumstances and were ready to accept fate as it is with their heads bowed. But at all times there have been people who were ready to fight for their happiness, people who did not want to tolerate injustice, people who had nothing to lose. We can meet such people on the pages of A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky”.
This work is deep and interesting. It impressed me with its idea, plot twists, sad ending, and characters. Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov, Vladimir Dubrovsky, Masha Troekurov - all these are strong and extraordinary personalities. But the difference between them is that Troekurov was by nature a good person, he had good friendly relations with the poor landowner Dubrovsky, he was characterized by human impulses, but at the same time he was a despot and a tyrant. Troekurov is a typical serf-owner, in whom a sense of his own superiority and permissiveness, depravity and ignorance is developed to the limit. Whereas Dubrovsky and Masha are noble, sincere, pure and honest natures.
The main problem the novel is the problem of protection human dignity. But, one way or another, she is connected with all the characters in the work. First of all, this problem concerns the Dubrovsky family, which Troekurov deprived not only of the family estate, but also encroached on their noble honor and dignity.
Andrei Gavrilovich was confident that he was right, cared little about court case, which Troekurov started against him, and therefore could not defend his rights. Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky could not stand the unequal battle with a stronger opponent and died. Then Dubrovsky Jr. had to defend his own honor. By chance, he became the head of the peasant movement in order to “administrate his own justice.” But from the very beginning he did not agree with the methods of struggle against the landowners. His pure and sincere nature did not allow him to become a real thug - cruel and merciless. He was fair and merciful, so Vladimir did not lead the peasants for long. The peasant revolt was spontaneous, their actions were often contradictory, so they submitted to Dubrovsky’s order, stopped the armed uprising and dispersed. “...Terrible visits, fires and robberies stopped. The roads have become clear."
But why doesn’t Vladimir touch the property of his offender, the richest landowner in the area - Troekurov? As it turned out, Dubrovsky fell in love with Kirill Petrovich’s daughter, Masha, and for her sake forgave his blood enemy. Masha also fell in love with Vladimir. But these heroes could not be together - Kirill Petrovich forcibly married his daughter to the old Count Vereisky. Vladimir did not have time to save his beloved from a marriage with an unloved person.
With such a plot twist, a sad ending, it seems to me that A.S. Pushkin shows that people in Russia are defenseless against evil and injustice. Neither the law nor society can protect him. He can only rely on his own strength.
Therefore, I understand Vladimir Dubrovsky, who became a robber. What else could he do? Finding no protection from the law, he also decided to live by unwritten rules - the rules of force and cruelty. But his noble, pure and sincere nature still limited the hero in this, making him a “noble robber.”
At all times, there have been people who resign themselves to the strength and inevitability of circumstances and were ready to accept fate as it is with their heads bowed. But at all times there have been people who were ready to fight for their happiness, people who did not want to tolerate injustice, people who had nothing to lose. We can meet such people on the pages of A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky”.
This work is deep and interesting. It impressed me with its idea, plot twists, sad ending, and characters. Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov, Vladimir Dubrovsky, Masha Troekurov - all these are strong and extraordinary personalities. But the difference between them is that Troekurov was by nature a good person, he had good friendly relations with the poor landowner Dubrovsky, he was characterized by human impulses, but at the same time he was a despot and a tyrant. Troekurov is a typical serf-owner, in whom a sense of his own superiority and permissiveness, depravity and ignorance is developed to the limit. Whereas Dubrovsky and Masha are noble, sincere, pure and honest natures.
The main problem of the novel is the problem of protecting human dignity. But, one way or another, she is connected with all the characters in the work. First of all, this problem concerns the Dubrovsky family, which Troekurov deprived not only of the family estate, but also encroached on their noble honor and dignity.
Andrei Gavrilovich was confident that he was right, cared little about the court case that Troekurov started against him, and therefore could not defend his rights. Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky could not stand the unequal battle with a stronger opponent and died. Then Dubrovsky Jr. had to defend his own honor. By chance, he became the head of the peasant movement in order to “administrate his own justice.” But from the very beginning he did not agree with the methods of struggle against the landowners. His pure and sincere nature did not allow him to become a real thug - cruel and merciless. He was fair and merciful, so Vladimir did not lead the peasants for long. The peasant revolt was spontaneous, their actions were often contradictory, so they submitted to Dubrovsky’s order, stopped the armed uprising and dispersed. “...Terrible visits, fires and robberies stopped. The roads have become clear."
But why doesn’t Vladimir touch the property of his offender, the richest landowner in the area - Troekurov? As it turned out, Dubrovsky fell in love with Kirill Petrovich’s daughter, Masha, and for her sake forgave his blood enemy. Masha also fell in love with Vladimir. But these heroes could not be together - Kirill Petrovich forcibly married his daughter to the old Count Vereisky. Vladimir did not have time to save his beloved from a marriage with an unloved person.
With such a plot twist, a sad ending, it seems to me that A.S. Pushkin shows that people in Russia are defenseless against evil and injustice. Neither the law nor society can protect him. He can only rely on his own strength.
Therefore, I understand Vladimir Dubrovsky, who became a robber. What else could he do? Finding no protection from the law, he also decided to live by unwritten rules - the rules of force and cruelty. But his noble, pure and sincere nature still limited the hero in this, making him a “noble robber.”
Left a reply Guest
The inner world turns out to be more powerful for the hero than the laws of society, desires are more imperative than the consciousness of necessity. That's the point romantic hero. Pushkin preserves it in the novel, where he wants to realistically explore the reasons for the defeat of a romantic personality before the force of circumstances. When speaking about Vladimir Dubrovsky as a hero endowed with romantic impulses, we mean precisely the direct romanticism of his behavior and feelings, and not the complete romantic system of worldview that he doesn't have it. He often does not fully realize his conflict with reality. The process of awareness of oneself and reality in Dubrovsky is not shown, as, say, it is done in Lermontov’s “Hero of Our Time.” Pushkin’s interest in the problem of the relationship between romantic impulses and the laws of society was created by the post-December situation, when the bitterness of the heroes’ experience on December 14, 1825 required clarification of the causes of the disaster. On the connection between the romantic hero Vladimir Dubrovsky and inner world and with the impulses of the Decembrists, V. Klyuchevsky pointed out: “Dubrovsky the son is the other pole of the century and at the same time its negation. The features of a gentle, noble, romantically protesting and bitterly deceived by fate Aleksandrovite, a member of the Union of Welfare, are already noticeable in him.” It is significant that this idea belongs to a historian who was able to see in Pushkin’s novel a reaction to the social situation of the era. Pushkin recognized the idea of individual independence as one of the conditions for social progress. In "Rebuttal to Critics" he wrote about historical significance ideas of honor, about the ancient nobility - the bearer of nobility and independence: “Whatever the image of my thoughts, I never shared with anyone democratic hatred of the nobility. It always seemed to me a necessary and natural class of a great educated people. Looking around me and reading our old chronicles, I regretted seeing how the ancients noble families were destroyed, just as the rest fall and disappear... and how the name of a nobleman, hour by hour more humiliated, finally became a byword and a joke to commoners who had become nobles, and even to idle jokesters!” These notes by Pushkin, written in Boldin in 1830, are very close to the feelings animating the old Dubrovsky. But for Pushkin “there are virtues higher than the nobility of the family, namely: personal dignity.” The idea of honor, protection of rights human personality lay at the heart of Pushkin’s humanistic worldview. Fidelity to this idea determined both poetic creativity and personal behavior. It is not for nothing that Lermontov will call the deceased Pushkin a “slave of honor.” Vladimir Dubrovsky is presented as a noble defender of this idea. Even having become a robber, he remains a servant of justice. This is how V. Dubrovsky appears in Globova’s story. He is endowed with the magnificent qualities of determination, courage, and self-control. Finding himself in Hamlet’s situation, Vladimir Dubrovsky also does not avenge his father. For Hamlet, “murder is vile in itself,” the humanistic worldview does not allow the Danish prince to turn into a blind instrument of revenge. To shed blood, Hamlet needs grandiose reasons and spontaneity of indignation. He cannot commit primitive revenge, for he is endowed with love for humanity and the consciousness of the impossibility of desecrating himself with a crime. Vladimir Dubrovsky is constrained in his actions by his love for Masha Troekurova. This is what Pushkin’s hero is usually accused of, just as Hamlet has been accused of reflection and passivity for many centuries. However, despite the equal size of these heroes, their refusal to take revenge is explained high reasons. In Hamlet, revenge for his father develops into a struggle to restore humanity to the world. Hamlet's reflection led him to abandon the base motives of action. Rejecting them, Hamlet goes to tragic victory. In Dubrovsky, revenge for his father involuntarily develops into social protest. He becomes the protector of the offended. But Vladimir Dubrovsky does not overcome the base motives of action, like Hamlet, but refuses revenge for the sake of love. Urging Masha not to be afraid of the robber in him, Vladimir says: “It’s all over. I told him
The idea of protecting the human person in the work “Dubrovsky” plays quite an important role. A. S. Pushkin depicts a difficult life situation and strong-willed people who defend their opinions without fear and suppress any manifestation of injustice. My story consists of the following sections:
- contrasting honor with dishonor;
- protection of the human personality using the example of the actions of the main character;
- conclusion.
Contrasting honor with dishonor
Contrasting honor with dishonor - this is the topic with which I will begin my story. By displaying an unpleasant picture of the landowner's way of life, in which sycophancy, hypocrisy and venality play a predominant role. Some images stand out against their background, first of all main character works - Dubrovsky. It is these images that protect the human personality. They are noble, honest and worthy.
Protection of the human personality using the example of the actions of the protagonist
After the scandal that erupted between Vladimir’s father and his former friend, after all the attempts at revenge on the part of the main character, he still refuses the desire for revenge. Why? What's the matter? The fact is that Dubrovsky understood that by wanting and carrying out revenge he was showing a certain anger, aggression and harshness, and therefore he abandoned it.
The protection of the human person can also be judged by his other actions. For example, by the way Dubrovsky treats ordinary men, he respects them, which, in fact, was completely uncharacteristic for the landowners of that time. From this we can judge not that Dubrovsky loves the working people, but that he is educated and noble man
Conclusion and results
In conclusion, I would like to say that, judging by the sad plot of the work, any person, no matter how strong he may be, is still defenseless and hopeless before the cruelty of fate. Even a strong, self-confident, strong-willed person who does everything possible to achieve a goal does not always achieve what he wants. Masha and Dubrovsky also did not receive help from the law and society.
What is meanness and honor? This is one of the questions he answers in his novel. “Dubrovsky” A. S. Pushkin.
The novel “Dubrovsky” is a work of adventure. This is a story about the dramatic fate of a poor nobleman, whose estate was illegally taken away, and about the fate of his son.
One of the heroes of the novel - Kirila Petrovich Troekurov. This is an old Russian gentleman, a very rich and noble man. He is famous not only for his numerous connections, but also for his immense power and willfulness. Indeed, nothing can resist the will of Kirila Petrovich - he is capable of carrying out raids on neighboring villages for the sake of boredom, seducing courtyard girls and, as it turns out, controlling court decisions.
Troekurov is very friendly with his neighbor - Andre Gavrilovich Dubrovsky, the only person who dares to freely express his opinion in the presence of Troekurov. Dubrovsky is poor, but this does not prevent him from remaining faithful to his own honor and independence in his relationship with Kirila Petrovich. These rare qualities endear the rich gentleman to his neighbor. However, from a good friend, Troekurov quickly turns into a real scoundrel when Andrei Gavrilovich, for reasons of honor, dares to contradict Troekurov’s will.
Kirila Petrovich chooses the most severe punishment for his offender: he intends to deprive him of his blood, force him to humiliate himself, and ask for forgiveness. For the sake of this, he enters into a conspiracy with another scoundrel - the judicial employee Shabashkin. Shabashkin, seeking Troekurov’s favor, is ready to even commit lawlessness. Nothing embarrassed him in Kirila Petrovich’s request, and he cleverly arranged everything, although the wayward master did not make any effort to do so.
The neighbor's angry behavior at the trial gave Troyakurov little pleasure. Kirila Petrovich expected tears of repentance, but what he saw was a sparkling gaze of malice, self-hatred and the ability to stand up for his own dignity to the end.
Troekurov’s numerous amusements also characterize him. One of them is fun with a bear. It gives Troyekurov extraordinary pleasure to see his guest frightened to death, who is unexpectedly pushed into a room with an angry, hungry animal and left alone with him for some time. Kirila Petrovich does not value either the dignity of others or the lives of others, which he puts in danger.
Vladimir Dubrovsky emerges from this test with honor, because “he does not intend to tolerate offense.” Not a single muscle flinched in the brave young man when the bear rushed at him - Vladimir pulled out a pistol and shot at the beast.
Having set out on the robber's path, Dubrovsky remains a noble man. There are amazing rumors about his nobility. At the same time, Vladimir is intolerant of meanness and brutally deals with scoundrels.
Despite the existing danger, Dubrovsky decides to explain himself to Masha, whom he fell in love with and to whom he could not reveal the truth about himself ahead of time. Vladimir makes an appointment with Marya Kirilovna and, like an honest person, explains to her.
The heroine, who is proposed to by the instantly hated fifty-year-old Vereisky, seeks compassion from her father, but although he loves his daughter, he remains deaf to her pleas. Hoping for Vereisky's decency, Masha honestly tells him about her dislike and asks him to upset the upcoming wedding. But Vereisky does not intend to deviate from his goal - the old dragnet is eager to get the young beauty. He not only does not feel sympathy for Marya Kirilovna, but also talks about Masha’s letter to Kiril Petrovich, who, angry, only brings the wedding closer.
An unfortunate fate did not force Masha to deviate from her moral principles. When Vladimir makes an attempt to save her, she refuses him, since she already manages to get married to Vereisky, and this vow is sacred to her.
In the novel “Dubrovsky” A.S. Pushkin talks about eternal human values, which is why today his novel is relevant and interesting to the reader no less than many decades ago.