Literature lesson on the topic "A.S. Pushkin" Dubrovsky. Quarrel of landowners (grade 6)
The proposed methodical development will allow 6th grade students to enter the world of the work gradually, to acquaint with the history of creation, to identify the cause of the conflict of the main characters, to understand the motives of their actions. Dialogue technology and technology of cooperation are used, developing the ability to work with text, analyze episodes, students' speech.
Download:
Preview:
Topic: Roman A.S. Pushkin's "Dubrovsky". Quarrel between Andrey Gavrilovich Dubrovsky and Troekurov.
Lesson objectives:
- Acquaintance with the history of the creation of the novel
- Clarification of the reasons for the conflict between Dubrovsky and Troekurov
- Development of students' speech
Tasks:
- Know genre features novel
- Tell about the history of the creation of the novel "Dubrovsky"
- Reveal the motivation for the actions of the heroes
- Learn to analyze text
Technology: collaborative learning technology, dialogue technology, collaboration technology, health-preserving technology.
Means of health-saving technologies: fulfillment of sanitary and hygienic requirements, regulated by SanPiNs.
Methods: analytical conversation, work with a book, episode analysis, expressive reading, vocabulary work, teacher's story.
During the classes:
1. Genre features of the novel "Dubrovsky" (teacher's word)
V xix century the adventure novel genre has become very popular. Numerous works appeared, where honesty was opposed to meanness, generosity - greed, love - hate. In order to make the work more entertaining, writers often used the “dressing up” of the characters and the violation of the chronology of the narrative. The main character such a story was invariably handsome, noble, honest and courageous. The adventure novel ended with the victory of the protagonist. A.S. Pushkin made an attempt to write a similar work, but the depth of the problems revealed in his novel real life did not allow him to finish the piece. Pushkin cannot fit living heroes into rigid schemes.
2. Vocabulary work.
Adventure - a risky, questionable business undertaken with the expectation of accidental success.
Adventure - an incident, unexpected case in life, in adventures.
Popular - 1. publicly available, quite understandable for simplicity, clarity of presentation;
2. widely known.
novel (from French - narration) - a large narrative work, usually characterized by a variety of characters and a branching plot.
Plot - sequence and connection of events in a work of art.
3. Realization of the individual homework(prepared student answers).
The history of the novel.
Above the novel "Dubrovsky" by A.S. Pushkin worked from 1832 to 1833. The novel was not completed and was not published during the poet's lifetime. The publishers themselves named the manuscript after the name of the protagonist. The novel is based on the message of P.V. Nashchokin, who was a friend of the poet, “about a poor nobleman by the name of Ostrovsky, who had a trial with a neighbor on the ground. He was ousted from the estate and, being left with some peasants, began to plunder ”. It is also known that before starting work on the novel, Pushkin visited Boldino and Pskov, where similar cases of the Nizhny Novgorod landowners Dubrovsky, Kryukov, Muratov were considered. Thus, the basis of the novel by A.S. Pushkin's life circumstances formed. The novel takes place in the 1820s and develops over a year and a half.
4. Exchange of impressions about the heroes of the novel.
A) Reading an excerpt from the novel (from the words “Several years ago, an old Russian gentleman lived in one of his estates .. " to words "Nobody dared to refuse his invitation ..").
B) Conversation on the 1st chapter:
What gave Troekurov "a lot of weight in the province"?
What was the attitude of the landowners-neighbors, provincial officials to him? And how did Troekurov feel about them?
What kind of person was Kirila Petrovich in the home?
Why did Troekurov respect Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky?("..They were partly similar both in characters and inclinations").
How is this similarity manifested?
5. Analysis of the first event - the quarrel between Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky and Troyekurov.
What is the reason for the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov? (in order to deepen the understanding of this event, which is the outset of the action, it is necessary to draw the attention of students to the circumstances under which the quarrel occurred, how they behave in this case characters what caused their actions).
1) Reading by the teacher from the first chapter of the scene in the kennel ("Once, at the beginning of autumn ..») And commenting on it.
Guys, pay attention to the innermost thoughts and feelings of Dubrovsky, who was a passionate hunter and"I could not refrain from some envy at the sight of this magnificent institution."Dubrovsky involuntarily compares the kennel with peasant huts and he cannot but tell Troyekurov about his impressions, especially since he always openly expressed his opinion. And this time he remains true to himself, saying to Troekurov:"... a wonderful kennel, - hardly your people live the same as your dogs."
Is Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky right in making such a remark, and if he is right, then why did the huntsman Paramoshka disagree with him, although he probably lived worse than his charges?
What offended Dubrovsky and why did he leave the kennel?
2) Students' independent reading of Andrei Gavrilovich's letter and preparation a little story about how the quarrel of the landowners deepened.
Questions for independent work (distributed to each desk).
1. What can be said about Dubrovsky on the basis of his letter?
2. Why did Dubrovsky's letter arouse Troyekurov's anger and how strongly did it influence the quarrel? (it is important to draw the attention of students to the content and tone of the letter).
(students' answers: Andrei Gavrilovich does not at all look like Troekurov. He is softer and more just than his neighbor. He is an honest and courageous man. But he is also the owner of serfs, a master and a landowner. Every word of the letter speaks about this. Dubrovsky is a nobleman and is proud of it. offended, hurt not only the noble honor, but also his human dignity, and he demands satisfaction. Not trusting Kirila Petrovich, Dubrovsky asks to send him the hunter who insulted him in order to pardon him or punish him. He is no different, judging by the letter, from the usual master and serf owner).
Conclusion: The letter deepened the quarrel. Troekurov is offended and is waiting for an opportunity to take revenge on Dubrovsky.
3) The work on the first chapter ends with an examination of illustrations by B. Kustodiev and A. Pakhomov or a drawing by artist V. Ermolov "At the kennel" (this work will help students to better imagine the manor house, garden, estate, heroes, their environment, to better understand the content of the novel ).
When considering the picture "In the kennel", students need to pay attention to central figures drawing, find out what moment of the inspection of the kennel the artist depicted and how he showed it in the drawing.
How (in your opinion) are Troekurov, Dubrovsky, guests and hounds correctly portrayed?
Where do you agree with the artist, and where do you disagree?
6. Lesson summary
Topic: Roman A.S. Pushkin's "Dubrovsky". Court.
Goals:
2. To foster moral purity, creative awareness of life
3. Development of students' speech.
Tasks:
2.Find out how the wrong judgment happened
Technology: technology of collective way of learning, dialogue technology, technology of cooperation.
Methods: analytical conversation, work with a book, episode analysis, expressive reading, teacher additions.
Forms: collective, partly individual.
During the classes:
Guys, as a homework assignment, you were asked to think about the answer to the question "How did the court case about Kistenyovka arise and how did the wrong trial come about?"
(children's answers: The thought of the trial as revenge on Dubrovsky arose in Troekurov's mind unexpectedly. It became a reality when Shabashkin appeared at Pokrovsky).
The teacher's reading of the scene of the meeting and conversation between Troyekurov and Shabashkin (since he will be able to convey with the necessary intonation the arrogance of Troyekurov and the servility of Shabashkin, who is not touched by the fate of Dubrovsky).
How do the heroes behave in this situation? (children's answers: Troyekurov is unfamiliar with remorse, hesitation and doubts. Officials like him help him create a lawsuit about Kistenyovka, take away the estate from Dubrovsky, knowing that the documents for ownership were burnt during the fire).
2. Reading of the second chapter (judgment) by children in the lesson.
How should you convey in reading the state of Dubrovsky, Troekurov's self-confidence and the baseness of judicial officials?
3. Conversation (goal: to find out what shocked Dubrovsky the most and how the wrong judgment happened).
How can you explain the madness of Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky?
(children's answers: the reason for Dubrovsky's madness was the treachery and meanness of Troyekurov; the injustice of the court; Dubrovsky's powerlessness before this court; he lost his estate, he is in danger of poverty).
Pay attention to the complexity of Andrei Gavrilovich's experiences. At the trial, the honor of Dubrovsky was insulted, his human dignity was humiliated. After all, if he illegally owned Kistenyovka for many years, it means that he lived out of favor with a wealthy landowner, and then appropriated his estate.
Output: both were intolerably humiliating for the proud Dubrovsky. Unable to withstand the mockery, Dubrovsky goes crazy.
4. Lesson summary.
Teacher's word.
Dubrovsky did not sign the court decision, but his trial had already taken place to please Troyekurov. So Troekurov took revenge on his former friend... An unexpected quarrel ended tragically for Dubrovsky. Injustice and lawlessness triumphed, honest people were defeated.
Topic: Roman A.S. Pushkin's "Dubrovsky". Fire in Kistenyovka.
Target:
1. Continuing work on the novel.
3. Development of students' speech.
Tasks:
1.Continue learning how to analyze a work of art
2.Find out how the fire in Kistenyovka is connected with the incident in court
3.Tell about the history of popular uprisings
During the classes:
1. Implementation of homework.
Why the fire in Kistenyovka is closely related to dramatic events in a court?
(children answer the question, give examples from the text, but it is difficult for them to understand why Vladimir Dubrovsky became a robber and united with the peasants, opposed himself to his class).
2. The teacher's story about popular uprisings.
The history of popular uprisings, the fate of opposition-minded nobles deeply worried Pushkin. His reflections on popular unrest are reflected in the novel. Vladimir Dubrovsky, a nobleman and an officer, relies on the peasants in his protest. Only they support him. After the fire and death of the clerks, Vladimir becomes a renegade, and therefore joins the peasants.
3. Work on the episodes "Arrival of clerks to Kistenyovka", "Revolt of the peasants", "Fire", "Death of clerks" (this work is necessary to show sixth graders how Pushkin portrays the protest of peasants and Vladimir's protest against arbitrariness and injustice).
What happened in Kistenyovka and how did the clerks, the clergy, Vladimir Dubrovsky and his peasants react to the decision of the district court? (working with the text of chapters 5, 6 and 7, reading fragments where it is said about the clerks who arrived in Kistenyovka).
Task of this analysis is to trace how the orders behavebefore the indignation of the peasants and during the riot.This comparison reveals particularly clearly the attitude of Pushkin to the clerks. (The students' attention is drawn to how boldly and self-confident Shabashkin is, how rude he is with the peasants and Vladimir:"Shabashkin, with a cap on his head, stood with his hands akimbo and proudly looked around him ..".He looked at Vladimir insolent gaze , referring to him on you:"And who are you?"
Did Shabashkin recognize Vladimir? (Yes, he immediately guessed that Vladimir was the son of Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky, but he seeks to humiliate him, show his power, deliberately insults Vladimir:"... the former landowner Andrei Gavrilov, son of Dubrovsky, will die by the will of God - we do not know you, and we do not want to know."
Vladimir had about the same conversation with"An intricate official"who also did not want to recognize Dubrovsky in him. He impudently and rudely offers"Get out, pick up, hello."
How do the peasants behave in such a situation? (The intoxication with power does not last long. When a crowd of indignant peasants moved on them, they became frightened and humiliatedly asked Dubrovsky to shelter them for the night. Not a trace of impudence and arrogance remained. Vladimir for them is now the only protector from the rage and anger of the peasants.“.. Finally, Shabashkin quietly unlocked the doors and went out onto the porch and with humiliated bows began to thank Dubrovsky for his gracious intercession.
Vladimir listened to him with contempt and didn't answer
We decided, - the assessor continued, -with your permissionstay here overnight; otherwise it’s dark, and yourmen can attackat us on the way.Do such a favor: order us to lay at least some hay in the living room; than light, we will go home. "
Conclusion: before Vladimir stood pitiful people who had lost their conscience, shame, honor. The behavior and appearance of the clerks arouse anger and contempt in the reader. Shabashkin, when the speech about Kistenyovka first came up, said to Troekurov:“How, Your Excellency, his papers were burned! What is better for you - in that case, if you please, act according to the laws, and without any doubt you will receive your perfect pleasure. "That is, in an effort to please a rich and noble landowner, the clerks committed a crime. Therefore, they were so scared when they felt that the hour of reckoning had come.
How do the clergy behave? Which side is it on? (not much is said about this in the novel, but it is enough to refer to Yegorovna's dialogue with the deacon, who is surprised at the courage of Grisha, who chased Troekurov out of the courtyard:“..I would rather agree, it seems, to bark at Vladyka than to look askance at Kirila Petrovich. As you see him, fear and awe and bows down, but the back itself bends and bends ... "
Conclusion: the sexton is a coward, and the priest is not braver. (Chapter 5 (excerpt about the priest and the priest). The main thing is the fear of Troyekurov and indifference to the fate of the peasants And Vladimir Dubrovsky. Vladimir hears the priest, referring to the priest, says: “We have nothing to stay here. It’s not your problem, no matter how it ends. ”Thus, officials commit lawlessness, want to cash in on the Dubrovskys' misfortune and please Troyekurov, while the clergy flees at the first danger, leaving their parishioners to the mercy of fate.
What is the attitude of Vladimir Dubrovsky and his peasants to the court decision? (students collectively draw up a table, displaying their observations in it. This view work will help focus attention on the nature of the protest of the peasants and Vladimir, will give an opportunity to see how they acted differently under the same conditions, to understand which of them turned out to be bolder, more consistent and more decisive. The facts are compared, therefore, this will help students better understand the author's intention, his relationship to the rebellious nobleman and rebellious peasants).
Vladimir Dubrovsky | The peasants of Dubrovsky |
Thoughts about the future "The future for him was covered with formidable clouds" | Thoughts about the future “In the possession of Kirila Petrovich! God forbid and deliver: - he has a bad situation there and for his own, but strangers will get it, so he will not only take the skin from them, but he will also take away the meat " |
Vladimir's indignation "Vladimir was seething with indignation" | Outrage at the injustice "... we will cope with the court, we will die, but we will not betray .." |
Vladimir saves the clerks “Stop,” Dubrovsky shouted, “you fools! What are you doing this? You are ruining yourself and me. Go through the courtyards .. " | Peasant revolt “.. guys! Down with them! And the whole crowd moved. " |
The thought of revenge "... let him not get the sad house from which he kicks me out" | Arkhip's formidable intentions "... all at once, and ends in the water." |
The arson of the house "Dubrovsky brought the torch closer, the hay flared up, the flame soared .." | Fire in Kistenyovka "... Tea, it's nice to watch from Pokrovskoe!" |
Death of the clerks "Wait," he said to Arkhip, "it seems in a hurry I locked the doors to the hall, go quickly unlock them." | The death of the clerks "Arkhip locked them with a key, saying in an undertone:" How not so open! .. How not so, "said Arkhip. Looking at the fire with an evil smile " |
Ataman of robbers "The chief of the gang was famous for his intelligence, courage and some kind of generosity." | The robbers "Stopped travelers and mail, came to villages, robbed landowners' houses and set them on fire." |
Conclusion: the peasants are full of anger and determination. They were outraged by the insolent behavior of the officials, and they are guided by the fear of Troyekurov, who has "even bad for his own people." They were deeply outraged by the unjust trial, in which clerks played an important role. The riot of the peasants reflected the age-old hatred of the tsarist officials and masters. And if not for Vladimir, the orders would have been dealt with much earlier and no less decisively. Vladimir is seized with grief, but the thought of resisting the authorities does not occur to him. He was indignant, was shocked by what had happened, but did not share the feelings of his serfs. The thought of arson is the desire to save your family from mockery. He was finally confirmed in his decision to set fire to the house only after meeting with the blacksmith Arkhip. But Vladimir and Arkhip have different views of the fire. For Vladimir, a house is a symbol of family happiness and well-being, a fire is the death of a family nest. For Arkhip, the manor house is a symbol of slavery. He looks at the fire "with an evil smile": enemies were burning, people hated by him, the manor house, which already belonged to Troekurov. He cannot hide his joy.
Why did Arkhip not obey Yegorovna and did not save the clerks, at the same time risking his life to save the cat? (he is decisive, courageous, hates clerks, expresses a spontaneous protest against oppression and at the same time is kind, mentally gentle, seeks to help an innocent and defenseless creature - these features attracted Pushkin most of all in the participants in popular unrest).
Conclusion: this is Arkhip, who is more active and irreconcilable than everyone else. He has many similarities with other peasants, they are united by hatred of the oppressors. All of them are more determined than their young master.
Why does Vladimir take the path of robbery? (he understood that neither the clergy nor the clerks would help and the nobles would not support because of fear of Troekurov, just as they did not help Andrei Gavrilovich. Vladimir only had peasants left. But from the moment the house was set on fire, he was outlawed. Now he has no choice: either immediately leave these places, or continue the work started by Arkhip, that is, oppose the law and society. Vladimir becomes a robber).
4. Lesson summary.
Homework: Review chapters 8 through 18, questions.
Topic: Roman A.S. Pushkin's "Dubrovsky". Vladimir Dubrovsky in Troyekurov's house
Goals:
1. Continuing work on the novel.
2. Education moral purity, creative awareness of life
3. Development of students' speech.
Tasks:
1.Continue learning how to analyze a work of art
2. To find out why Vladimir Dubrovsky refused to take revenge on Troekurov and Prince Vereysky.
3.Learn to write a work creative nature
During the classes:
1. Statement of the problematic question.
Why did Vladimir Dubrovsky refuse to take revenge on Troekurov? In this issue we have to figure it out today in the lesson. What is your attitude towards the heroes of the novel? (Children tend to admire Vladimir and blame Masha for not following him.)
Note: the question arises, to what extent can the problem of personal relationships be dealt with in grade 6? It will be correct to carefully read the pages of the novel dedicated to Vladimir and Masha. Practice has shown that children consider this period of the hero's life to be heroic. The fact that they harshly condemn Masha (and I have most boys in my class) suggests that they thought of love as strong feeling that must be protected. But sixth graders, in order to understand the heroine, must imagine her life, environment, family. Therefore, we need to understand the complex events, which we conditionally called "Vladimir Dubrovsky in Troyekurov's house."
2.Conversation
For what purpose and under what circumstances did Vladimir Dubrovsky enter Troekurov's house? Why did he refuse to take revenge on Troekurov and Prince Vereysky?
To find the most correct answer, let us turn to chapters eight and twelve (reading those passages that speak of Masha and Vladimir). "In your careless walks, I followed you, sneaking from bush to bush, happy with the thought that I was guarding you, that there was no danger for you where I was present in secret. Finally the opportunity presented itself. I settled in your house .. "(Ch. 12).
What case does Vladimir have in mind? (Chapter 11 - retelling of Vladimir's meeting with Deforge at the post station).
Output: Love for Masha made Vladimir risk himself; only because of her, he decided to settle in Troekurov's house. And this, of course, is the main thing in his deed. But staying in the house made it possible to learn about Spitsyn and take revenge on him, hear about the actions of the police chief and Troyekurov's decision to go with his serfs to the robbers.
Vladimir nevertheless took revenge on Spitsyn (took the money) and harmed Troekurov (killed the bear) - the sixth graders believe in goodness and believe that the villain should be punished.
3.The teacher's word
Vladimir Dubrovsky refused to take revenge on Troekurov and Vereisky. He noble man, deeply loves Masha, faithful to the word given to her. Therefore, we cannot condemn him for refusing to take revenge.
How does Masha feel about Vladimir? (to answer this question, you need to understand her lifestyle (occupations, interests), her relationship with her father and brother, Deforge, and then Vladimir Dubrovsky and Prince Vereysky. (She is the daughter of Troekurov, a noblewoman and aristocrat. family and the world she lives in. The fate of the robber's wife really scares her. She understood that everyone would be against her. Therefore, she decided to use Vladimir's protection only when the situation was hopeless. And she waited for Vladimir until the last minute. A tragedy happened, he was late. Masha could not, after the wedding, after the church ceremony, leave the prince. If this happened, she would treat her act as a crime. Children say that she could resist, not give consent, but she said nothing:"... the priest, without waiting for her answer, uttered irrevocable words."And she says to Vladimir that she gave her consent to the marriage, although she did not give it: “I agreed, I took an oath, - she objected with firmness, - the prince is my husband .. "These reflections suggest that Masha was only carried away by Vladimir. Therefore, she did nothing, hoping for his help.
4. Independent work(held at the last stage study of the novel).
Creative essay "Spitsyn in the Bear's Room".
Note: to complete this work, it is necessary to present what Pushkin only hinted at, counting on the reader's imagination, leaving room for his imagination. Let us recall Troekurov's words about Spitsyn's behavior in the bear's room, re-read the description of Anton Pafnutyevich's appearance, draw attention to his conversation with Deforge and his strange awakening. It is also necessary to re-read the description of the bear's room.
Compare Spitsyn with Desforge and write about how Anton Pafnutevich behaved in the bear's room. (Children write about Spitsyn as a cowardly person, a sycophant and a hypocrite, they speak of their contempt for him. In this work, it is positive that the image is understood and revealed by children correctly.
5. Face reading chapter 17 will allow children to imagine the characters in action, to imagine the whole scene and the sequence of episodes.
6. Lesson summary
Topic: Roman A.S. Pushkin's "Dubrovsky". The last battle
Goals:
1 completing the novel
2. Development of students' speech
Tasks:
1.Continue learning how to analyze a work of art
2.Find out what made Vladimir Dubrovsky become the leader of the peasants, and then leave them and hide abroad
3.learning to write an essay about the hero
During the classes:
1.The teacher's word
To find out what made Vladimir Dubrovsky become the leader of the peasants, and then leave them and hide abroad, it is necessary to say about the limited nature of the protest of Vladimir Dubrovsky, all of whose misfortunes are explained by the tyranny of Troyekurov. ... his protest is much more limited than the growing peasant anger. (MN Saltykova. Study of the story by AS Pushkin "Dubrovsky").
2. Reading and commenting on chapter 19 (you should pay attention to the living conditions of Vladimir and his peasants). Even in the forest, they lived in different ways. At that time it could not be otherwise. Vladimir, although he became the chieftain of the robbers, nevertheless remained a nobleman and master, and his peasants still consider themselves serfs of the Dubrovskys.
Egorovna's conversation with Stepan (Chapter 19), who, sitting on a cannon, sang an old song at the top of his lungs, also testifies to patriarchal relations:“Enough for you, Styopka,” she said angrily, “the master is resting, and you know you are bawling — you have neither conscience nor pity.
I'm sorry, Yegorovna, - replied Styopka. - Okay, I will no longer, let him, our father, rest and recover. "
3. Analysis of the final episode of the novel.
How does Vladimir Dubrovsky behave and how does this characterize him? (At the time of parting, Vladimir remained true to himself. Despite joint actions with the peasants, he remained a master, albeit a caring one: they became rich under his command and each of them received a "look" to spend the rest of their lives in some province.
Conclusion: It became dangerous for Vladimir to remain in Russia. Having set up a fire in Kistenyovka, having dealt with the clerks, and then faced with government troops, Vladimir opposed himself not only to his class, but together with the peasants became outlawed. And at the most acute moment, when they collided with the troops, Vladimir stops fighting. He no longer had a goal: there was no home, no estate, Masha got married, he refused revenge.
But what will happen to the peasants? How Pushkin portrayed these complicated relationship? Vladimir and the peasants were united at first by common interests. When Vladimir refused to take revenge on Troekurov, their interests diverged. The peasants rebelled against social injustice, court, landowners, personal interests prevail in Dubrovsky's protest. Therefore, only for a while the rebellious nobleman unites with the peasants.
Unlike his peasants, Vladimir Dubrovsky cannot rise above personal interests, his requests are limited. And most importantly, his interests do not coincide with the interests and aspirations of the peasants. Therefore, he disbands the gang and leaves Russia.
4. Final written work
Themes "The Life of Vladimir Dubrovsky" and "Kirila Petrovich Troekurov".
References:
1. Lakhostsky K.P., Frolova V.F. Pushkin at school. Uchpedgiz, Leningrad, 1966
2. Shadrina V.P. Lesson plans in literature, grade 6 according to the textbook of V.P. Polukhina, Volgograd, 2006.
6th grade
G.S. Merkin's program
Lesson number 20.
Theme. The reasons for the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov.
Target :
determine the reasons for the quarrel between Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky and Kiril Petrovich Troekurov; compare the characters of the heroes, determine the motives of their behavior;
improve the skills of expressive reading, composing oral retellings, develop the logical thinking of students;
to form moral and aesthetic ideas of students in the course of identifying the meanings of the concepts of "self-esteem" and "arrogance".
Equipment: multimedia presentation.
DURING THE CLASSES.
І. Organizing time.
III. Learning new material. Analysis of the content of the first chapter of the novel.
1. Title of the first chapter.
2. Expressive reading of the passage from the beginning of the chapter to the words "An accident upset and changed everything."
3. Comparison of images of Dubrovsky and Troekurov.
The attitude of neighborsWere glad to please, trembled at his name
Everyone envied the agreement with Troekurov, marveled at the courage, tried to imitate
Attitude towards peasants
Strictly and willfully
Common in the fate of heroes
Married for love, soon widowed
4. Conversation.
What explains Troekurov's behavior?
Troekurov's character is determined by his position on the social ladder. Public weight Troekurov and the readiness of everyone to please the slightest whims of his despotic disposition contributed to the development of the most base qualities in him: pride, arrogance, idleness.
Why A.S. Pushkin, characterizing the attitude of the landowners to Troyekurov, uses the combinationshappy to please (and not just: please);trembled (not afraid)were ready (not forced)those sewing it idleness, no one dared to refuse (and did not take risks, did not dare).
Emphasizing the servility of the landowners to the all-powerful master, A.S. Pushkin selects words that more accurately indicate the complete dependence of those around him.
Why Dubrovsky remains “out of general law»?
Andrey Dubrovsky is an exception to the general rule. He is not hypocritical, does not seek benefits from friendship with Troyekurov. A frustrated state forces him to resign, but Dubrovsky refuses the offer of patronage, which is quite sincere. He does not want to marry his son to Masha Troekurova, so that he does not "become the clerk of a spoiled wench."
Is the incident at the kennel an accident or a pattern?
The combination of a proud character and a "humble state" puts Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky in a position "outside the general law." It is impossible to remain in this status for a long time. An "accidental accident" in a kennel is a manifestation of a social pattern.
What brought together and separated Dubrovsky and Troyekurov? WhatdistinguishedAndrey Gavrilovich from other neighbors of Troyekurov?
Memories of the past bring heroes closer together. However, in the present, Troyekurov is the owner of a huge estate, and Dubrovsky is just a poor nobleman.
Troyekurov is characterized by extreme arrogance in relation to others, Dubrovsky - a sense of his own dignity.
5. Lexical work.
Define the meaning of the words "dignity", "arrogance".
Name the words that are opposite in meaning to the concept of "self-esteem."
Subservience, servility, ingratiation, servility.
6.Is self-reliant research with text. Who is to blame for the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov?
6.1. Assignments for groups: find in the read excerpt episodes proving the guilt of Troyekurov (group 1), Dubrovsky (group 2), the huntsman Paramoshka (group 3) in the incident.
6.2. Independent reading of the episode from the words “Once at the beginning of autumn, Kirila Petrovich gathered in a field away” to the words “But his thoughts soon took a different direction ...” (Chapter I). Representatives of the groups read out quotes proving the guilt of the heroes and fill out the table.
"Kirila Petrovich laughed loudly at the impudent remark of his slave, and the guests burst out laughing after him, although they felt that the huntsman's joke could apply to them as well.""I got angry and sent the same servant a second time to tell Andrei Gavrilovich that if he did not immediately come to spend the night at Pokrovskoye, then he, Troekurov, would quarrel with him forever."
“... But does he know who he is contacting? Here I am ... he will cry at me, he will find out what it is like to go to Troekurov! "
"On the way back, with all my eagerness, I deliberately drove through the fields of Dubrovsky."
“His condition allowed him to keep only two hounds and one pack of greyhounds; he could not refrain from some envy at the sight of this magnificent institution. "
"The kennel is wonderful - it is unlikely that your people live the same as your dogs."
“Meanwhile, Andrei Gavrilovich disappeared, and no one noticed. Andrei Gavrilovich did not want to obey and did not want to return. "
"... And I do not intend to tolerate jokes from your lackeys, and I will not tolerate them from you either, because I am not a jester, but an old nobleman."
“One of the hounds was offended. “We are for our living,” he said, “thanks to God and the master, we do not complain, but what is true is true, it would not be bad for another and a nobleman to exchange the estate for any local kennel. He would have been safer and warmer. "
6.3. Conversation "Who is to blame for the quarrel?"
Why did Paramoshka dare to humiliate best friend master?
He is accustomed to counting on the patronage of the master and is confident of his impunity.
Why was Troekurov glad of the "impudent remark" of the huntsman?
The faithful servant's remark flattered his pride.
Did Troekurov immediately understand that he had offended an old friend?
Kirila Petrovich does not understand that he has offended Dubrovsky. Troekurov treated him as he usually treated everyone.
Does he regret what happened?
Kirila Petrovich is surprised and saddened by Dubrovsky's absence at dinner (he sends him twice, he is so upset that he "dismissed the guests and went to bed," "the next day his first question was" about Dubrovsky).
Why did Dubrovsky's letter offend Troekurov?
In the letter, Dubrovsky demands the impossible - equality with Troyekurov himself. Kirila Petrovich cannot forgive this!
Why did Troekurov refrain from intending to destroy Dubrovsky's estate? How does this decision characterize Troekurov? What is the meaning of the word "feat" used in author's description?
The similarity in the characters and inclinations of Kirila Petrovich and Andrei Garilovich, a long friendship that stood the test - everything that united lost its strength as soon as Troekurov, wounded by the defiant behavior of his former friend, decided to show how deep the social abyss separating the poor nobleman and the imperious landowner ...
The unbridled disposition was also reflected earlier in the actions, which the author ironically calls "exploits" with the aim of "besieging" the neighbors. Now he decides not just to take revenge on his former friend, but to destroy him.
Why is Troekurov sure that his plans will come true?
6.4. Reading the episode of the meeting with Shabashkin from the words "Walking with heavy steps up and down the hall ..." to the words "Shabashkin bowed almost to the ground, went out ...".
How is Troekurov's arrogance manifested? Why does he twice turn to Shabashkin: "What, you mean, is your name?"
In sloppy repetitions "What the fuck is your name?" my undisguised contempt for Shabashkin is felt. He does not ask, but orders, knowing full well that the authorities are at his service: "Drink vodka and listen."
How is Shabashkin's servility conveyed?
Shabashkin, a representative of the authorities, specially visits Troekurov to find out if there are any orders, makes bow after bow, awaiting with reverence the expression of the master's will, incessantly repeats "Your Excellency", bows almost to the ground.
– What is the meaning of the phrase “ small man"In this episode?
The phrase "little man" takes on a special meaning. The author emphasizes the insignificance of the power, which allows the manifestation of disrespect from the outside the mighty of the world this.
Compare the behavior of Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky and the representative of the legal authority.
Dubrovsky dares to defend his dignity and feels himself equal to Troyekurov, while the representative of the authorities Shabashkin obsequiously serves Troyekurov. Dubrovsky behaves independently and proudly, while the "authorities" curry favor with Troekurov and humiliate themselves. The episode emphasizes the dramatic nature of Dubrovsky's position, who dared to violate the "general law".
III. Summing up the lesson.
What caused the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov?
IV. Homework.
2. Give titles to chapters II – IV.
3.Individual tasks:
Prepare a retelling of the episode in court on behalf of Troekurov and Dubrovsky;
Write out quotes describing the state of Troyekurov after the trial;
Make a retelling-analysis "The Life of Vladimir Dubrovsky in St. Petersburg";
Prepare an expressive reading of the letter of Orina Egorovna Buzyreva;
Prepare reading on the roles of dialogue between Vladimir Dubrovsky and coachman Anton.
K. Troekurov and A. Dubrovsky What was Troekurov famous for? Troyekurov's lessons. How did Andrei Dubrovsky differ from Troekurov? Why did he not want his son to marry Masha? What does the author emphasize in Troekurov, and what in Dubrovsky? Are they retreating human feelings front social conditioning their relationship? Friendship of fathers --- love children. Wealth and Poverty.
Kirila Petrovits Troekurov - landlord - serf, general - in-chief Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky - poor nobleman Vladimir Dubrovsky Masha Troekurova Arrogant, wayward, impractical, imprudent; poor, but direct and independent, noble. ... "I'm not a jester, but an old nobleman." Which hero do these words belong to? Explain their meaning. Make a conclusion about the characters and foundations of the noble society.
Quarrel of two landowners (pp. 76, 77) Read and explain who, in your opinion, is guilty of the quarrel. Why did the friendship of the two landowners turn out to be fragile? The conflict between social law and human will. How can you explain the meaning of this phrase? Honesty is poverty; love is hate; restraint is revelry. Compare these words in relation to each of the landowners.
In his novel "Dubrovsky9 A.S. Pushkin described the life of serfs, the tyranny of the landowners. He tells about a quarrel between two neighbors, the landowners Troekurov and Dubrovsky. Dubrovsky - educated, intelligent person, who respects first of all a person, and not his titles and wealth, for him serfs are not slaves, not animals, but individuals. For Troyekurov, serfs are of no value, he is rude to them, wayward, at times cruel.
When the district court ruled on the transfer of Dubrovsky's peasants into the ownership of Troekurov, it is natural that all Dubrovsky's servants were indignant. People knew about Troyekurov's arbitrariness and did not want to leave the previous owner. Dubrovsky stopped his people when they wanted to deal with the clerks who brought the decision from the district court. The peasants obeyed the owner, but some of them did not accept, they understood that the decision would be carried out and it was in their power to change their fate.
At night, the young master Vladimir Dubrovsky set fire to his house, a riot was also brewing in it, and the peasants supported him. The house with the sleeping clerks was on fire, and a cat was rushing about on the roof of the barn. Blacksmith Arkhip, one of the most brave rebels, risking his life, saved the animal. Why is cruelty and kindness so combined in people? I think because a person protests against violence, injustice, evil and, when humane arguments do not lead to a positive result, he understands that he cannot win without a cold and calculating struggle. And the innocent, weak, downtrodden, if you are stronger, you need to protect. Therefore, those who had a strongly developed sense of freedom and justice, went with Dubrovsky to the forest.
After the fire, a group of robbers appeared in the vicinity, robbing and burning landowners' houses. Dubrovsky was at the head of this gang. Those who wanted freedom received it, those who wanted to fight for their rights became a forest robber.
15503 person viewed this page. Register or log in and find out how many people from your school have already copied this essay.
/ Works / Pushkin A.S. / Dubrovsky / Riot of the peasants against injustice (Based on the novel by A.S. Pushkin "Dubrovsky")
See also the work "Dubrovsky":
We will write a great essay for your order in just 24 hours. Unique composition in a single copy.
Kirila Petrovich Troekurov and Andrey Gavrilovich Dubrovsky (based on the novel by A. Pushkin "Dubrovsky")
Alexander Pushkin's novel “Dubrovsky9raquo;- a work about the dramatic fate of a poor nobleman, whose estate was illegally taken away. Imbued with compassion for the fate of a certain Ostrovsky, Pushkin in his novel reproduced a true life history, without, of course, depriving it of the author's fiction.
Hero of the novel, Andrey Gavrilovich Dubrovsky- a retired guard lieutenant, a poor landowner.
He lives very modestly, but this does not prevent him from maintaining good-neighborly relations with Kirila Petrovich Troyekurov, a well-known barin throughout the district, a retired general-in-chief, a very rich and noble man with numerous connections and weighty authority. Everyone who knows Troekurov and his disposition trembles at the mere mention of his name, they are ready to please his slightest whims. The eminent gentleman himself takes such behavior for granted, because, in his opinion, it is precisely this attitude that his person deserves.
Troekurov is arrogant and rude even to people of the highest rank. Nobody and nothing can make him bow his head. Kirila Petrovich constantly surrounds himself with numerous guests, to whom he demonstrates his rich estate, kennel and who are shocked with crazy fun. This is a wayward, proud, vain, spoiled and perverted person.
The only one who enjoys the respect of Troyekurov is Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. Troeko-ditch was able to discern in this poor nobleman a bold and independent person, capable of ardently defending his self-esteem before anyone else, able to freely and directly express his own point of view. Such behavior is a rarity in the environment of Kirila Petrovich, therefore, his relationship with Dubrovsky developed differently than with others.
True, Troekurov's mercy quickly changed to anger when Dubrovsky went against Kirila Petrovich.
Who is to blame for the quarrel? Troyekurov is power-hungry, and Dubrovsky is decisive and impatient. This is a hot-headed and imprudent person. Therefore, it would be unfair to blame only Kirila Petrovich.
Troekurov, of course, behaved incorrectly, not only allowing the huntsman to offend Andrei Gavrilovicha, but also supporting the words of his courtyard with a loud laugh. He was also wrong when he got angry at the neighbor's demand to extradite Paramoshka for punishment. However, Dubrovsky is also to blame. He taught the captured Pokrovsky peasants who were stealing the forest from him with rods, and took the horses away from them. Such behavior, according to the author, contradicted “all concepts of the right of war”, and a letter written a little earlier to Troekurov, according to the then concepts of ethics, was “completely indecent9raquo ;.
The scythe found on the stone. Kirila Petrovich chooses the most terrible way of revenge: he intends to deprive his neighbor of a roof over his head, even if in an unjust way, humiliate him, crush him, make him blame. "This is the strength," says Troeku-dvor, "to take away property without any right." A rich gentleman bribes the court, not thinking about either the moral side of the matter or the consequences of the ongoing lawlessness. Self-will and lust for power, ardor and passionate disposition in no time destroy the friendship of neighbors and the life of Dubrovsky.
Kirila Petrovich is quick-witted, after a while he decides to reconcile, since “by nature he is not greedy,” but it is too late.
Troekurov, according to the author, always "showed all the vices of an uneducated person" and limited mind". Dubrovsky did not want to come to terms with this and suffered a heavy punishment, condemning not only himself to poverty, but also his own son. Heightened ambition and wounded pride did not allow him to take a sober look at the current situation and compromise, seeking reconciliation with his neighbor. Being a deeply decent man, Andrei Gavrilovich could not imagine how far Troyekurov could go in the desire to revenge, how easily a court can be bribed, how they can be put on the street without a legal basis. He measured those around him by his own yardstick, was sure of his own righteousness, “had neither the desire nor the opportunity to pour money around him,” and therefore “worried little about 9raquo; about the case brought against him. This played into the hands of his ill-wishers.
Outlining the conflict between Troyekurov and Dubrovsky Sr., A.S. Pushkin denounced harshness and vindictiveness, showed the price of fervor, sharply raised the moral questions of his time, which are very close to today's reader.
Attention, only TODAY!Some critics and colleagues of the great Pushkin believed that he had no failures in creativity, except for one. This failure, in their opinion, was the novel "Dubrovsky". The famous Anna Akhmatova noticed that by writing this work, the author wanted to save himself from financial problems for a long time, since the creation was clearly designed to be successful with the public - the notes of a tabloid novel were too slipping in it. We, of course, have no right to subject the works of the genius Pushkin to such harsh criticism. But it is worthwhile to deal with the peculiarities of the behavior of some of his heroes.
The idea of the novel
According to researchers of Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin's creativity, the novel "Dubrovsky" was conceived back in 1832. There is information that for the sake of this story the author has suspended the implementation of other, no less grandiose literary plans... Probably, he himself was interested in the reason for the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov, so the work went very quickly. Perhaps Pushkin was so impressed by the story of the real prototype of Dubrovsky that writing progressed at an accelerated pace. The work is based on actual events that took place in Belarus. All the details were told to Pushkin by his longtime friend Nashchokin in Moscow. And since the author could not write about real character, who bore the consonant surname Ostrovsky, the work describes the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov.
Characteristic of Troekurov
To better understand what kind of people the work is talking about, a detailed description of Troekurov and Dubrovsky is needed. It is better to start with a negative, according to the author, hero. So, Troekurov, who is he really? Many critics under Troekurov give a capacious definition of "tyrant". It is this word that most clearly characterizes the style of the hero's behavior. Unbridled character, insane, often dangerous antics, arrogance and self-confidence - this is a short list of the key qualities of his character. There is information that Troekurov also had a double in real life. It is quite possible that Pushkin copied this character from his cousin uncle, also a landowner, and also of a very difficult disposition. To understand what is the reason for the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov, you need to pay attention to the other hero of the work.
Dubrovsky Sr.
It would seem that old comrades with a similar past should have similar characters. But no, something strikingly distinguishes Dubrovsky-father and Troekurov from each other. The author himself writes many pages, conveying similarities and how destinies developed. And career advancement is mentioned here, and the fact that both got married, following the call of their hearts, and that they never enjoyed a long marriage for love, had a child. Persistence and irascibility are inherent in such people, our heroes have them to the fullest. But, despite the close proximity, these people are very peculiar, and as a result, a quarrel arises between Dubrovsky and Troekurov. A chasm divides their wealth. Poverty Dubrovsky is proud, envy is not inherent in it, therefore he is more inclined to himself. This hero appears before the readers in a noble light. Here is a rough description of Troyekurov and Dubrovsky, Pushkin's characters.
How it all happened
Pushkin in this work makes us understand that the friendship between such by different people possible up to a certain point. It becomes clear that the neighbors do not value it equally. The episode of the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov looks very tragic, and its consequences are even worse. One day, when Troekurov had a regular reception, he took the guests to his kennel. It so happened that his friend Dubrovsky made a remark to him, as a result of which a quarrel broke out, which forever crossed out many years of friendship. The author reveals a very sad fact here to the readers: Troekurov is arrogant, arrogant and does not put a penny on his old comrade. It was not difficult for Troekurov. After all, he only recognizes the language of money, not taking into account the feelings of other people.
Attempts to fix everything
Still, Pushkin gave Troyekurov the opportunity to correct the situation and ask for forgiveness. Yes, the eccentric landowner comes home to his old friend and wants to apologize. But by that time Dubrovsky was already seriously ill. His son blames Troekurov for everything and does not let him close to the patient, but drives him away with a scandal. The reason for the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov is very absurd, but it affected both of them in different ways. For one it is just an unpleasant moment, but for another mental drama leading to serious illness and death. One can understand the feelings of Dubrovsky Jr.: he is sincerely sorry for his father, who simply turned out to be a devotee. But he does not yet know what Troekurov is up to. Soon, the news of litigation... Yes, the one whose money is heavier is better at being dishonest, because bribe-takers in court also need to put something in their pocket, it comes about colossal bribes. Distributing them to the right and to the left, Troekurov ruins a close friend until recently and revels in victory. Meanwhile, Dubrovsky Sr. lies, finally finished off with grief and illness, and soon dies.
Reckless or purposeful cruelty?
Death and ruin are not all grave consequences, and yet the reason for the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov is so banal. This should also include the broken happiness of Troekurov's daughter Marusya. I am very sorry for the young girl who, at the behest of her father, is marrying an elderly landowner. She really loved Dubrovsky Jr. This is how children suffer because of their father's cruelty, which goes hand in hand with greed. Researchers of Pushkin's work argue that in the continuation of this work, a happy ending was still envisaged. Dubrovsky Jr., forced to take a predatory path, will go into hiding abroad. But in a few years she will return and reunite with her beloved. Unfortunately, the novel was never finished, and there were several options for the development of events. And we will never know which one is genuine. Only the reason for the quarrel between Dubrovsky and Troekurov remains clear.
