Dubrovsky for a reader's diary: analysis and brief retelling of the novel, description of the characters, main idea

Analysis of the work

The novel tells the story of the protagonist's love for Maria Troekurova. The lovers were the children of two warring landowners.

Summary

Kirila Petrovich Troekurov is a rich landowner who, with his temper and whims, kept the entire neighborhood in fear and did not like people.

The only person who aroused his sympathy was his neighbor Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. He is an honest and incorruptible person, for which he received respect from the outside. Both men were widowed and raising children. Troekurov had a daughter, Maria, and Dubrovsky had a son, Vladimir. Friends were increasingly talking about their children's marriage.

After some time, a conflict arose between them . Troekurov bribed the court to prove his superiority over his neighbor. He took away from Andrei Gavrilovich his family estate Kistenevka. Dubrovsky could not stand such a betrayal and lost his mind. His son Vladimir had to leave his service to come to his seriously ill father.

Troekurov was tormented by his conscience, and he decided to make peace with Dubrovsky. Only when Andrei Gavrilovich saw the enemy did he have a seizure. Vladimir drove Troekurov away, and at the same hour his father died.

The young man became obsessed with revenge . He set Kistenevka on fire along with the bailiffs who arrived to formalize the deal. Suspicions of arson and murder of officials fell on Dubrovsky. At this moment, robbers appeared in the province and robbed the landowners. Only Troekurov’s estate was not touched by anyone. Soon the main character became the leader of the robbers. Their gang terrified the landowners. Moreover, they only robbed the cruel and greedy rich.

After some time, Dubrovsky got a job as a teacher in the Troyekurovs’ house. There he fell in love with the daughter of his enemy. And there he heard the landowner and his guests discussing the leader of the robbers, thinking that it was Dubrovsky. Visitors tell how they gave false testimony in court against his father. Nobody guessed that he heard everything. Vladimir confesses his love to Maria and reveals who he really is. He forgot about revenge and forgave her father. Only Kirila Petrovich at that moment already knew that there was a fake teacher in the house.

Against Masha's will, her father married her to the old Prince Vereisky . The girl begged her parent not to do this, but he did not want to hear her. As a result, the wedding took place, Vladimir did not have time to rescue his beloved. On the way from the church, the wedding cortege was surrounded by Dubrovsky's armed men.

Vladimir told Maria that she was free, only she said that it was too late.

The main character's dreams and hopes for a happy life collapsed. He disbanded his gang and went abroad.

Description of the characters and the main idea

The work presents both main and secondary characters.

The main characters include the following:

Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky is a poor, but decent, straightforward, honest, noble person.
Kirila Petrovich Troekurov is a rich, influential, nasty, cruel, self-confident, domineering and capricious man.
Vladimir Dubrovsky is a brave, courageous, decisive, principled young man.
Masha is a beautiful and romantic person, kind and faithful.

In this novel, A.S. Pushkin revealed important problems of society that are still relevant today, namely the corruption of officials and social inequality.

He showed that the authorities take the side of the rich, for whom such concepts as dignity, nobility and honor do not matter. This is the main idea of the work.

In addition, the writer raised the issue of the crippled destinies of children who are forced to obey the will of their parents. The work teaches the following:

nobility;
honor and dignity;
mercy;
justice;
the ability to find compromises;
honesty;
fidelity;
getting rid of egoism.

Let’s re-read Pushkin: is “Dubrovsky” as simple as they say about him?

author: Ekaterina 09/17/2021 0 Comments

articles

school program

In terms of plot and concept, “Dubrovsky,” at first glance, is simple, unpretentious and not at all Pushkin’s work. Akhmatova, who considered the author of “Poltava” and “Eugene Onegin” to be a guiding star and creative inspiration, spoke extremely harshly about this, from her point of view, the disastrous experience of her idol.

She even suggested that the classic writer, while working on the manuscript, was bogged down in debt and in dire need of money, and therefore was simply hacking away, making money by writing almost a soap opera, romantic ladies' consumer goods.

Then why do they talk so much about “Dubrovsky” and argue so fiercely? How did he captivate critics and literary scholars? Why scrutinize something that doesn’t seem to require deep analysis? Pushkin is a great provocateur and cunning man. No matter how much you untie the semantic knots tied by him, you still won’t get a smooth thread.

What questions will the reader never find answers to?

Well, at least about the genre. Story or novel? An excellent opportunity for discussion. But does the average book lover care about this? When he savors Pushkin’s crystal-clear prose, admiring the master’s impeccable taste in choosing words, weaving a plot, constructing plot labyrinths, he does not think about genre features (if he uses this term at all).

Second mystery: is the story told by Pushkin complete or was it intended to continue? The author's notes indicate that the chapters were planned, but they were definitely not completed. But, you must admit, not all plans are realized. The great man thought - and changed his mind. Inconsistency is inherent in many geniuses.

And let’s think again: what do we care? Gogol's manuscript, contrary to Bulgakov's thesis, took an excellent job in the oven and turned to ash. Pushkinskaya burned out in his thoughts - there was no need for fire. Neither “Dead Souls” nor “Dubrovsky” have lost the charm, meaning and status of their greatest creations due to the connivance of their creators. So why tear your caftan, making your way through the thicket of someone’s unfulfilled ideas?

Big mystery

Vladimir Dubrovsky - hero or villain? This problem (by the way, not quite correctly formulated) is suggested for schoolchildren to consider in some textbooks. The decision of the trial of the young robber master will depend on the composition of the jury. If, for example, it includes pious girls, meek as the fawn Bambi, then the conclusion is predictable: Dubrovsky is a scoundrel! He did such things - quiet horror!

As soon as you nominate guys in crimson jackets (the eagles of the dashing 90s) to the panel of judges, the verdict will completely change: yes, a normal guy - he fought for his good and honor. Just think, he burned the sovereign's officials in the house alive, walked around with a flail. Well, they got him, the kid himself is not cocky!

The examples are figurative and exaggerated, but necessary and illustrative. They make it clear that there is no point in condemning or acquitting Vladimir, because it will not be possible to focus the lens on him from one point. For wise readers, it seems more productive to analyze the general situation that Pushkin sought to outline.

The conflict arose not between two landowners, but between two opposite types: a tyrant and one who cannot stand tyranny. The era offered the main character to choose the path of struggle. He could not appeal to the Hague court or stir up the public in a blog (computers were not brought to Russian villages at that time). I had to become a noble worker of the knife and axe. Considering the socio-historical realities, it is difficult to recommend other options to Dubrovsky...

Much has also been said about the banality of the love line “Masha - Vladimir”. Indeed, it’s a shame for Alexander Sergeevich. He could have brought in some colorful character like the Venetian Moor. However, Pushkin’s impeccable taste apparently opposed this: the master did not want to make orations for the public’s needs. Perhaps the description of feelings in the story lacks epic power, but this is not the main plot line.

Summary

Anyone who sees only flaws in Dubrovsky does not need to reread it. We passed it at school - and okay. For everyone else, every new contact with the story will bring aesthetic pleasure.

Review provided by Fyodor Korneychuk.

Reviews of the book

In my opinion, this is a beautiful love story. I would like to believe that there was a continuation and Vladimir ended up with his beloved. He proposed to her, they got married and had children. But, alas, we don’t know this for sure.

In short, two landowners began to quarrel with each other, one took the estate from the other. Vladimir was the son of the man from whom the estate was taken. He wanted to take revenge on this man for the death of his parent, but ended up falling in love with his daughter. Masha's father was against their relationship and married her to someone else. The lovers were never able to get married. I hope my review of Dubrovsky will be useful.

Irina

Just recently in class we analyzed this novel, wrote a short retelling of it and described the main characters for the reader's diary. "Dubrovsky" left a pleasant impression. I really liked the love story of the main characters, it’s a pity that they didn’t get to get married. Yes, and I would like there to be a slightly different conclusion. I recommend reading the novel, and I also want to recommend the stories “The Blizzard” and “The Station Agent.” These are also stories about love that Pushkin wrote.

Zhanna

I first read this novel in a short retelling, since I did not have time to master it completely.
We were asked to read it in literature. As a result, the plot turned out to be so fascinating that I read the entire work, and even watched the film based on it. A.S. Pushkin always touches on important social issues. In the novel, he explored the themes of love, power, lawlessness, and social inequality. I recommend reading it, you can first read the review or summary of the book. Michael

Review of the book “Dubrovsky”

Pushkin lived, Pushkin lives, Pushkin will live! In our hearts. forever

“Dubrovsky” A. S. Pushkin

It is curious that the story “Dubrovsky” is based on a real life story. Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin only changed the names of the main characters and introduced small adjustments to the plot. Despite the small volume of the book, there is a lot I want to tell about it.

In my opinion, the most important problem in the story is morality and spiritual values: in his novel the author depicts two types of nobles who personify good and evil. On the one hand, A.S. Pushkin paints Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky - a noble, educated, honest nobleman with the best qualities of mind and heart. It is safe to say that this is the best representative of the nobility. Andrei Gavrilovich is proud and honest, above all he values his good name and noble honor, and treats his serfs strictly but fairly.

In contrast to Dubrovsky, the writer portrays Kirila Petrovich Troekurov - a rich, uneducated, rude, arrogant person. This hero is not worthy of the title of nobleman, therefore A.S. Pushkin speaks of him as a “Russian gentleman,” thereby emphasizing that there were many such “three-courts” in Russia.

“In his home life, Kirila Petrovich showed all the vices of an uneducated person. Spoiled by everything that surrounded him, he was accustomed to giving full rein to all the impulses of his ardent disposition and all the ideas of his rather limited mind.”

Since Kirila Petrovich is an uneducated fellow, he has remarkable vices. Gluttony, drunkenness, cruelty, 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.”

The “Russian gentleman” believes that since he is rich, he can mock other people. Kirila Petrovich Troekurov tortured not only his peasants:

“In one of the wings of his house lived 16 maids, doing handicrafts characteristic of their sex. The windows in the outbuilding were blocked by wooden bars; the doors were locked with locks, the keys to which 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 mocked his neighbors and guests. For example, the whole neighborhood knew his fun with the bear. The master scared a new person in his circle with a wild beast. It was not for nothing that A.S. Pushkin introduced such different people into his novel. By describing the characters in the persons of Andrei Gavrilovich and Kiril Petrovich, the writer shows his ideal of a nobleman: he should have pride, self-esteem, honor. Neither money nor power can spoil such a person. The author does not hide his admiration for the poor man Andrei Gavrilovich and shows that people like the Dubrovskys are the future of Russia.

Source

Everyone is talking about Dubrovsky

Guests gather at Troyekurov's house for the holiday. We are talking about Dubrovsky. It turns out that he is a noble robber. One lady reports that her clerk first reported the robbery by Vladimir. However, it later turned out that when Dubrovsky read the letter and found out that the mother was sending money to her son, he did not rob anyone. The clerk himself wanted to hide 2,000 rubles.

At the end of the holiday at the ball, Deforge dances with Masha. One of the guests stays overnight in Troyekurov’s house, asks to go to Deforge’s room, because he has heard about his bravery, and counts on protection in the event of a robbery.

In the middle of the night, Deforge with a pistol takes all the money from the landowner. It turns out that he is Dubrovsky. The latter bribed the teacher at the post station for 10,000 rubles. With the Frenchman’s documents, he arrived at the Troyekurovs’ house.

It was not by chance that he robbed the landowner Spitsyn. The day before, he admitted that he had perjured himself in court against his father. The next morning Spitsyn leaves without saying a word to anyone.