Analysis of the work "Dubrovsky" by Pushkin, images of heroes. The theme of the composition Noble Society in the story "Dubrovsky Condemnation of the vices of society in the story Dubrovsky

The collected works of our beloved poet and writer Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin have more than 10 volumes. "Dubrovsky" is a novel known to us since school years. Wide in scope and deep in psychological content, it touches the soul of every reader. The main characters of the novel are Troekurov and Dubrovsky. We will study the main characters, as well as the main events of the work in more detail.

Russian master

The novel takes place in the 19th century. It is described in sufficient detail in the works of many classics of that time. As you know, serfdom existed in those days. The peasants, or as they were called, souls, were owned by the nobles.

The Russian master, the arrogant Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, was very much Before him trembled not only the wards of the serfs, but also many officials.

Troyekurov's lifestyle left much to be desired: he spent his days idly, often drank and suffered from gluttony.

The peasants were in awe of him, and he, in turn, treated them quite capriciously, showing his complete domination over them.

Troyekurov's favorite entertainment was mockery and mockery of animals and people. Suffice it to recall the bear who rolled a barrel with protruding nails and was angry with pain. This made the master laugh. Or the scene with a bear chained in a small room. Everyone who entered it was attacked by a poor animal. Troekurov enjoyed the bear's rage and human fear.

Humble nobleman

Troekurov and Dubrovsky, whose comparative characteristics will be considered in detail by us, are very different people. Andrei Gavrilovich - honest, valiant, calm in character, he was strikingly different from his comrade. Once the elder Dubrovsky and Troekurov were colleagues. But the careerist Kirila Petrovich, betraying his honor, sided with the new tsar, which earned himself a high rank. Andrei Gavrilovich, who remained loyal to his ruler, finished his service as a modest lieutenant. Nevertheless, the relationship between Troekurov and Dubrovsky was quite friendly and mutually respectful. They often met, visited each other's estates, and had conversations.

Both heroes had similar fates: they began the service together, became a widow early, had a child in raising. But life has separated them on different sides.

Argument

Nothing foreshadowed trouble. But once the relationship between Troekurov and Dubrovsky cracked. The phrase uttered by Kirila Petrovich's clerk greatly offended Andrei Gavrilovich. The serf said that the slaves lived with Troekurov better than some of the nobles. I meant, of course, the modest Dubrovsky.

Immediately after that, he left for his estate. Kirila Petrovich ordered to return it, but Andrei Gavrilovich did not want to come back to any one. Such insolence touched the master, and he decided by all means to achieve his goal.

Comparison of Dubrovsky and Troyekurov will be incomplete if you do not describe by what method Kirila Petrovich decided to take revenge on his comrade.

Insidious design

Having no influence on Dubrovsky, Troekurov conceived a terrible thing - to take away his friend's estate. How - he dared to disobey him! Undoubtedly, this was very cruel to an old acquaintance.

Were Troyekurov and Dubrovsky real friends? The comparative characteristics of these heroes will help to understand this.

Kirila Petrovich bribed all officials indiscriminately, forged papers. Dubrovsky, having learned about the litigation, remained rather calm, since he was sure of his absolute innocence.

Shabashkin, hired by Troyekurov, was busy with all the dirty deeds, although he knew that the Kistenevka estate rightfully belonged to the Dubrovsky. But everything turned out differently.

Court scene

And then came that exciting hour. Having met at the courthouse, Troekurov and Dubrovsky (whose comparative assessment will be given by us later) behaved proudly and went into the courtroom. Kirila Petrovich felt very at ease. He already tasted victory. Dubrovsky, on the contrary, behaved very calmly, stood leaning against the wall, and did not worry at all.

The judge began reading the lengthy decision. When it was all over, there was silence. Dubrovsky was completely at a loss. At first he was silent for a while, and then he was furious, with force pushed the secretary, who invited him to sign the papers. He began to rave, loudly shouting something about hunters and dogs. They sat him down with difficulty and took him home on a sleigh.

Triumphant Troekurov did not expect such a turn of events. Seeing his former comrade in a terrible state, he was upset and even stopped triumphant over his victory over him.

Andrei Gavrilovich was taken home, where he felt bad. He spent more than one day under the supervision of a doctor.

Repentance

Comparison of Dubrovsky and Troyekurov is based on a complete opposition of heroes. Kirila Petrovich, so arrogant and domineering, and Andrei Gavrilovich, a kind and honest person, could not continue their communication for a long time. But still, after the trial, Troekurov's heart thawed. He decided to go to his former friend and talk.

However, he did not even suspect that by that time, Vladimir, his son, was already in the house of Dubrovsky Sr.

Seeing Kirila Petrovich arrived in the window, the shocked Andrei Gavrilovich could not bear it and died suddenly.

So Troekurov could not explain the reason for his arrival, and could not repent to a friend for his atrocity.

And on this the novel changes its turn: Vladimir decides to avenge the enemy for his father.

The appearance of Vladimir

It is worth saying a few words about the personality of this young man. Left without a mother early, the boy was in the care of his father. At the age of twelve, he was sent to the cadet corps, and then continued his military studies at a higher institution. The father did not spare any funds for raising his son, he provided him well. But the young man spent his time in revelry and card games, and had large debts. Now that he was left all alone, and even practically homeless, he feels intense loneliness. He had to grow up quickly and change his life drastically.

Troekurov and Vladimir Dubrovsky become fierce enemies. The son thinks over a plan of revenge on the offender of his father.

When the estate was taken away and passed into the possession of Kirila Petrovich, Vladimir was left without a livelihood. He has to become a robber in order to earn his livelihood. Loved by his serfs, he was able to assemble a whole team of like-minded people. They rob rich people, but bypass Troyekurov's estate. He, undoubtedly, thinks that the young man is afraid of him, so he does not go to him with robbery.

Troyekurov in the novel "Dubrovsky" showed himself to be a proud man, but at the same time he is afraid that Vladimir will one day come to him to take revenge.

Dubrovsky in Troyekurov's house

But our young hero turned out to be not so simple. He unexpectedly appears at the estate of Kirila Petrovich. But no one knows him there - he has not been in his homeland for many years. Having exchanged documents with a French teacher and having paid him well, Vladimir introduces himself to the Troekurov family as Deforge's teacher. He speaks good French, and no one can suspect Dubrovsky of him.

Perhaps the young man would be able to translate all his plans for revenge into life, but one circumstance prevents him - love. Unexpectedly for himself, Vladimir is fascinated by Masha, the daughter of his enemy Troekurov.

This love changes the lives of all the heroes of the novel. Now Dubrovsky Jr. does not want revenge at all. He refuses evil thoughts in the name of his beloved woman. But Masha does not yet know who this Deforge really is.

Troyekurov himself began to respect the young Frenchman, was proud of his courage and modesty. But the time has come, and Vladimir confesses to Masha his feelings and who he really is. The girl is confused - her father will never allow them to be together.

When Kirila Petrovich finds out the truth, he decides the issue radically - he gives his daughter in marriage to the rich prince Vereisky against her wishes.

Vladimir does not have time to arrive at the church during the wedding, and now she is no longer his Mashenka, but Princess Vereiskaya. Vladimir has no choice but to go far. Kirila Petrovich is more than satisfied with the current situation.

Conclusion

Troekurov and Dubrovsky, the comparative characteristics of which are presented by us in all details, are completely different in type of heroes. It cannot be said that Kirila Petrovich was a terrible person - he nevertheless repented of his vile deed. But life did not give him a chance to be forgiven.

Both Andrei and Vladimir Dubrovsky are very ambitious, they are respected by serfs, and they, in turn, do not oppress them in any way. However, Pushkin teaches us all: no circumstances should lead to extreme measures. Friendship is more than just communication, and you need to know how to cherish it.

In the story "Dubrovsky" Pushkin depicts two types of noblemen. They, by and large, are the embodiment of good and evil. On the one hand, the writer draws Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky - a noble nobleman. This is the image of an enlightened person. He is educated, intelligent, honest and noble. According to Pushkin, because this hero is educated, he has the best qualities of mind and heart. We can say with all confidence that this is the best representative of the nobility.

Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky was a very proud and honest man. Above all, he valued his good name and noble honor. This hero never humiliated himself in front of anyone, always spoke the truth in the face. Dubrovsky kept himself on an equal footing with Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, who was much richer and more noble than him. Dubrovsky dealt with his serf peasants severely, but justly. He considered them the same people as the nobles.

Next to Dubrovsky, Pushkin depicts Troekurov. He is rich but uneducated. This hero is not worthy of the title of a nobleman, therefore the writer speaks of him as a "Russian master". Thus, he emphasizes that there were a lot of such triplets in Russia.

This hero was haughty, rude and cruel: “In his home life, Kirila Petrovich showed all the vices of an uneducated person. Spoiled by everything that only surrounded him, he used to give full vent to all the impulses of his ardent disposition and all the ventures of a rather limited mind. "

Kirila Petrovich is uneducated. Hence - all his vices. Gluttony, drunkenness, cruelty, petty tyranny - this is an incomplete list of the qualities of this hero: "Despite the extraordinary strength of his physical abilities, he suffered from gluttony twice a week and was tipsy every evening."

This "old Russian master" was very rich, so he believed that he could mock other people. Kirila Petrovich Troekurov tortured not only his peasants: “16 maids lived in one of the wings of his house, doing handicrafts inherent to their sex. The windows in the wing were barred with wooden bars; the doors were locked with locks, from which the keys were kept by Kiril Petrovich. The young hermits, at the appointed hours, went to the garden and walked under the supervision of two old women. "

Troekurov cruelly ridiculed his neighbors and guests. So, for example, the whole district was known for his fun with the bear. This gentleman frightened a new man in his entourage with a wild beast.

Why does Pushkin portray Dubrovsky Sr. and Troyekurov so different? Andrey Gavrilovich Dubrovsky is a positive hero, Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov is a negative one. I think that with the help of these images the writer shows his ideal of a nobleman. He must have nobility, pride, self-esteem. Pushkin admires the fact that in his youth Dubrovsky refused the help of his influential and wealthy friend Troekurov. He did not want to regain his fortune in this way, did not want to lose his freedom: “Dubrovsky, in a frustrated state, was forced to resign and settle in the rest of his village. Kirila Petrovich, upon learning of this, offered him his protection, but Dubrovsky thanked him and remained poor and independent. "

And later, when a serious quarrel occurred between him and Kirila Petrovich, the hero put his honest name and human dignity above all else. As a result, Dubrovsky lost everything. But he never regretted his choice.

According to Pushkin, a nobleman should be educated and enlightened. Such a person cannot be spoiled by either power or money. But this is only the ideal of the writer. It shows that people like the Dubrovskys are the future of the country.

In reality, Pushkin saw the dominance of the Troekers. Narcissistic despots corrupted by the government, who cannot benefit not only Russia, but also their loved ones. For the sake of their whim, their will, such people are ready to break someone else's fate and even life. Troekurov forcibly marries his daughter to an old but very rich prince: “The poor girl fell at his feet and burst into tears. “Daddy… daddy…” she said in tears, and her voice died away. Kirila Petrovich was in a hurry to bless her - they lifted her up and almost carried her to the carriage. "

Why does Pushkin paint the defeat of Dubrovsky the elder and the triumph of Troyekurov? Andrey Gavrilovich dies, having lost his Kistenevka. Troekurov gets this village in his possession. He realizes that in his domain he is a god and a king, and no one decides to him.

It seems to me that Pushkin thought that the Troekurovs were invincible, at least for now. There are a great many of them in Russia, they are a huge force. The Dubrovskys are negligible in comparison with them. But, in spite of everything, the future of Russia, according to the writer, lies only with the enlightened nobles. Such as Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky.

Thus, depicting two types of Russian nobility, two landlord families, Pushkin expresses his attitude to the problem of good and evil, to the problem of their existence in contemporary Russia.

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 landowners 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 undertakings that had the purpose of entertaining their guests, and most of all - themselves, was the undertaking 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 just like that 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 to 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 learn 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 rule.
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 that is why he 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 his neighbor's idle and riotous drinking bouts 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.

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 is remembered in passing (Anna Savishna and other guests of Troyekurov). 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 landowners 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 Kirila 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 "Kirila 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 undertakings that had the purpose of entertaining their guests, and most of all - themselves, was the undertaking 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 just like that 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 to Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky.

He "loved his daughter to the point of 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 a divided one is?

love? 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 rule.

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. The Kist-Nevsky master did not oppress his peasants, therefore they treated him with love and respect. Andrei Gavrilovich condemned Troekurov's attitude to the serfs, and that is why he 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 his neighbor's idle and riotous drinking bouts 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.

The problem of good and evil was 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 good hero fights or fights with an evil rival or enemy and always wins, good always triumphs. AS Pushkin in his 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 because 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 to launch an attack on Kistenyovku with all his servants to destroy her to the ground and lay siege to 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 himself 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 protection." 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" was only supposed to rejoice 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 human impulses are characteristic of him. Pushkin writes: “He was not by nature greedy, 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 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 was used to giving full vent to all the impulses of his temper and all the undertakings 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 to 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" answer 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 Troyekurov 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 impudent 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. It is enough 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 off 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 betray us, and we will become yours. " It is characteristic that in the depiction of Pushkin, the more humane and magnanimous master and 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 usual nature 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 a 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 here too he 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 take any torment, except 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 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, addressed 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 the young Dubrovsky, namely Arkhip, who 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 already in the next episode, Pushkin shows the humanity and spiritual beauty of this Russian peasant: at the risk of his life, the blacksmith Arkhip 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.