Presentation on the topic "depiction of the Russian nobility in the novel by Dubrovsky." The topic of the essay is Noble Society in the story “Dubrovsky Tasks and Methods

28.06.2020

“Life and customs of the Russian nobility in A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky” and “Tales of Belkin”

Completed by student 7 “B”

Bochkarev Ilya

Lyutikas Natalya Petrovna

1. Introduction

4. Conclusion

5. List of references used

1. Introduction

The socio-political situation in Russia after the War of 1812 can be characterized as the moment when the nobility became the main, decisive force in society. It is the best representatives of the nobles, people who have gone through the path of rapprochement with the people during the Patriotic War, who come to Senate Square on December 14, 1825. But are all nobles worthy of their social position?

The great Russian poet A.S. Pushkin also analyzes the problem of the nobility. He develops his own personal view on this topic, connected, in many ways, with the facts of Pushkin’s biography and with his attitude to the present and future of Russia. In the poem “My Genealogy,” Pushkin ironizes the new Russian nobles who took high positions in the state thanks to intrigues and palace coups.

2.Russian nobility in A.S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky”

One of the main characters of the story is Kirila Petrovich Troekurov.

The depiction of the life and customs of the provincial nobility is connected primarily with its image. In Troekurov, 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 terms 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, spending their time idly and wildly. They did not want any democratic changes in the country, since such events threatened their undivided rule and well-being.

As for Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, “his wealth, noble family and connections gave him great

One of the ideas intended to amuse the guests, and most of all - for himself, was an idea with a bear, which Troekurov specially kept on the estate in order to play a trick on the guest on occasion. Almost every one of the guests of the extremely spoiled landowner visited the room with the bear and not only experienced inhuman fear, but also received physical injuries. But no one dared to complain about Kirila Petrovich - his power in the district was too limitless.

More than any other entertainment, Kirila Petrovich loved hunting with dogs; he prepared for it in advance and carefully. After the hunt, there was usually a long drinking party for all the participants on the master’s estate. Very often, the friends of the hospitable owner went home only in the morning.

What care for animals, what nobility - isn’t it? Yes, all this would look exactly like this if this master’s serfs, on whom his well-being rested, lived better than dogs, or at least the same.

It costs Troekurov nothing to humiliate a person, even one for whom he has respect. And not to submit to the will of a despot and tyrant means to become his sworn enemy. And then Kirila Petrovich will stop at nothing to demonstrate her superiority. This is exactly what he did with Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky.

He “loved his daughter madly, but treated her with his characteristic waywardness, sometimes trying to please her slightest whims, sometimes frightening her with harsh and sometimes cruel treatment.” He built his relationship with Masha, as well as with everyone else, on the demand for her complete submission to his person.

Kirila Petrovich didn’t even bother to listen to any of Masha’s words and requests to cancel the wedding with her unloved person.

Of course, this can be attributed to his excessive concern for the fate of his daughter, but is Masha happy because of this, will she be lucky enough to learn what mutual love is? We can say with almost certainty - no! Masha, like Onegin’s Tatiana, was brought up on the principle: “But I was given to another; I will be faithful to him forever.”

So, in the image of Troekurov, the author showed a part of the local nobility that was far from reformist ideas, leading a riotous life, an idle lifestyle. The distinctive features of these nobles are lack of education, primitiveness, greed and pride. Standing firmly on its feet, this part of the landed nobility fiercely defends the ancient way of life, based on the enslavement of man by man, and is ready to take the most brutal measures to ensure its dominance.

It is precisely such nobles, under a positive set of circumstances, who would be supporters of democratic reforms in Russia.

“Belkin's Tales” were written by Pushkin in the fall of 1830 in Boldin. The creative upsurge that the writer usually felt in the fall was felt this autumn with particular force. In Boldin, in his own words, he “wrote as he had not written for a long time.”

In addition to a number of works, Pushkin wrote five stories in prose, which he published in 1831, entitled: “Tales of the late Ivan Petrovich Belkin.” The writer wanted to hide his authorship because this was his first experience in the field of everyday prose.

In Belkin's Tales, Pushkin expanded the range of his observations. In "The Undertaker" he outlined the morals of the urban philistinism, in "The Station Agent" he first showed in the person of Samson Vyrin a humiliated man, a petty official, whose pitiful fate arouses the reader's pity.

What is also remarkable in “Belkin’s Tales” is the mastery of storytelling - economical, quick, and not dwelling on details. An entertaining plot, secrets that are revealed only towards the end, unexpected but deeply justified endings - all this continuously maintains the interest of readers and makes the stories extremely fascinating. Thus, the richness of social content is combined in Pushkin’s stories with grace and harmony of form.

The first two stories - “The Shot” and especially “The Blizzard” - depict the romantic interests characteristic of noble youth. The main theme of “The Shot” is the question of the duel, which was a widespread fashion among the nobility in the early 20s of the 19th century. Participation in duels was considered some kind of heroism and constituted a style of romantic behavior.

All this was reflected in “The Shot,” which is based on Pushkin’s observations during his stay in exile in Chisinau in the early 20s.

Marya Gavrilovna, the heroine of the story “Blizzard,” is completely in the grip of “romantic” moods, borrowed from the French novels on which she was brought up. “Romantic imagination” pushed her to agree to run away from her parents’ home and to a secret marriage with a poor army ensign, to whom her rich parents did not want to marry her.

Marya Gavrilovna's feelings are rather superficial. It is unknown how serious her love for Vladimir was and whether this was a consequence of her passion for French novels, to which there is an ironic hint in the story: “Marya Gavrilovna was brought up on French novels and, consequently, was in love.”

But there is one thing that adds a serious note to the ironic picture of provincial landowner life: this is the war of 1812-1814, which is included in the action of the story. This describes the general patriotic delight that gripped all the Russian people when the troops returned from abroad in glory: “Unforgettable time! Time of glory and delight! How strongly the Russian heart beat at the word Fatherland! How sweet were the tears of the date!”

In the story “The Undertaker” we enter from the military and landowner world into the environment of small Moscow artisans and traders. In this small world they are only interested in profits. The undertaker Adrian cannot wait for the death of the merchant Tryukhina on Razgulyai and is worried that other undertakers, taking advantage of his relocation from Basmannaya to Nikitskaya Street, will steal his rich funeral.

Adrian treats the dead as customers, consumers of his products. He is not interested in what kind of people they were during their lifetime. And even in a dream, when they come to congratulate him on his housewarming, the hero distinguishes them only from the point of view of profit or loss from the funeral.

The main feature of Pushkin’s prose in general and “Belkin’s Tales” in particular is the conciseness and simplicity of presentation, from which you cannot throw out a single word, because every word is in place and necessary. Pushkin avoids all unnecessary decorations. Every little thing is characteristic of him - it leads to something, is connected with everything else. So, for example, the bullet-riddled walls in the “poor mud hut” where Silvio lives speak of the severity of his character, of his pastime, of the secret goal to which he strives: “The walls of his room were all worn out by bullets, all in holes, like honeycombs.” bees."

And then, when describing Silvio’s departure, when the moment comes for the realization of what he had been preparing for whole years: “All his belongings had already been packed; there were only bare, bullet-riddled walls left.”

Pushkin never goes into detailed explanations of the actions of his heroes, but he always guesses with his brilliant artistic instinct what such and such a person should do due to his individual qualities, social skills and other reasons. And he guesses unmistakably, so that without any explanation, we immediately feel the living truth, we see living people with all their contradictions.

"Belkin's Tales" were a turning point in the history of Russian fiction. They were followed by other prose works of Pushkin: “Dubrovsky”, “The Queen of Spades”,

“The Captain's Daughter,” which reflected Russian life even more truthfully, even more broadly and deeply.

There is nothing simpler than what is written, and at the same time there is nothing more complex than Pushkin’s “Belkin’s Tales”. Surprisingly, a century and a half after they were written, debates do not cease about whether this is a literary parody or a good-natured, humane, heartfelt “world of Russian life” depicted under the cover of irony.

It’s interesting that the more you reread Belkin’s Tales, the more complex they seem to you. Not a trace remains of the original simplicity and clarity. The behavior of the characters, which initially seems very logical, suddenly appears completely devoid of logic and common sense.

(For example, why does Silvio, who has dreamed of revenge all his life, spare the count and even talk about his conscience? Why is S. Vyrin so upset about his daughter, because she is happy?)

In all the stories, one way or another, questions of conscience and Christian morality are raised. Without understanding the foundations of Russian Christian culture, it is impossible to understand the literature of the 19th century in general, especially Pushkin’s “Belkin’s Tales”.

A.S. Pushkin is ourselves. Our essence.

We have been going to Pushkin all our lives. This road has no end for each of us. Every time at a new, more adult stage of our life, a new Pushkin is with us. The works “Dubrovsky” and “Belkin’s Tales” introduced us to the history of our country and taught us high morality. The positive heroes of his works teach courage, teach them to fight evil for bright ideals.

A. S. Pushkin depicted the life and customs of the provincial nobility with the idealized moral principles of the ancient nobility. He contrasted honesty with meanness, generosity with greed, love with hatred, restraint with revelry.

When you say, our land, our people, at the same time you want to say, our Pushkin. And then add – RUSSIA! The homeland cannot be cut into pieces like a pie and placed on a plate - the homeland is a feeling. For every Russian, Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin is one of the strongest feelings of the Motherland. That’s why we treat everything connected with the name of the most beloved Russian poet with such care, so we continue to collect bit by bit the story of his life and re-read his immortal creations.

5. List of used literature:

1. Schoolchild’s educational reference book.-3rd ed., stereotype. -M. : Bustard, 2001.-1664 p. Authors: P.I. Altynov, S.G. Antonenko, N.S. Akhmetov and others.

2. Korovin V.I. A.S. Pushkin in life and work, 2004 - Russian Word - Moscow. 2004. – 85 pp.

3. Literary Petersburg, Petrograd – album – Moscow. "Soviet Russia". 1991 – 334 p.

4. Boldino Estate Museum/Information and reference publication, 2009.

5. Offenbach P. All about Pushkin - St. Petersburg, A. Gromov Publishing House, 1997 - 317 pp.

Noble society in the story “Dubrovsky” is represented by a number of characters, some of whom are depicted comprehensively and fully (Troekurov, Dubrovsky), others in less detail (Prince Vereisky), and others are remembered in passing (Anna Savishna and other guests of Troekurov).
One of the main characters of the story is Kirila Petrovich Troekurov. The depiction of the life and customs of the provincial nobility is connected primarily with its image. In Troekurov, 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 terms to the country and felt at ease, especially in the outback of Russia. The image of Troekurov is an image of a typical character in typical circumstances.
Receiving huge profits from the exploitation of the peasants under their control, the landowners did not bother themselves with any business, spending their time idle and riotous. They did not want any democratic changes in the country, since such events threatened their undivided rule 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 happy to cater to his slightest whims; provincial officials trembled at his name; Kirila Petrovich accepted signs of servility as a proper tribute; his house was always full of guests, ready to entertain his lordly idleness... No one dared to refuse his invitation or on certain days not to appear with due respect in the village of Pokrovskoye.” This wayward Russian gentleman did not bother himself with science. The author says with obvious irony and condemnation that “Kirila Petrovich showed all the vices of an uneducated person.” And since Troekurov had more than enough physical strength, he often organized all sorts of entertainment events on his estate and gave “full freedom to all the impulses of his ardent disposition and all the ideas of his rather limited mind.” One of the ideas intended to amuse the guests, and most of all - for himself, was an idea with a bear, which Troekurov specially kept on the estate in order to play a trick on the guest on occasion.
Almost every one of the guests of the extremely spoiled landowner visited the room with the bear and not only experienced inhuman fear, but also received physical injuries. But no one dared to complain about Kirila Petrovich - his power in the district was too limitless.
More than any other entertainment, Kirila Petrovich loved hunting with dogs; he prepared for it in advance and carefully. After the hunt, there was usually a long drinking party for all the participants on 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 understanding of the spoiledness and tyranny of Kirila Petrovich, the author introduces an episode into the story that describes in detail the landowner’s kennel, the 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 Kirila Petrovich in their canine language. There was also an infirmary for sick dogs, under the supervision of the staff doctor Timoshka, and a department where noble bitches gave birth and fed their puppies.” What care for animals, what nobility - isn’t it? Yes, all this would look exactly like this if this master’s serfs, on whom his well-being rested, lived better than dogs, or at least the same.
It costs Troekurov nothing to humiliate a person, even one for whom he has respect. And not to submit to the will of a despot and tyrant means to become his sworn enemy. And then Kirila Petrovich will stop at nothing to demonstrate her superiority. This is exactly what he did with Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky.
He “loved his daughter madly, but treated her with his characteristic waywardness, sometimes trying to please her slightest whims, sometimes frightening her with harsh and sometimes cruel treatment.” He built his relationship with Masha, as well as with everyone else, on the demand for her complete submission to his person. Kirila Petrovich didn’t even bother to listen to any of Masha’s words and requests to cancel the wedding with her unloved person. Of course, this can be attributed to his excessive concern for the fate of his daughter, but is Masha happy because of this, will she be lucky enough to learn what mutual love is? We can say with almost certainty - no! Masha, like Onegin’s Tatiana, was brought up on the principle: “But I was given to another; I will be faithful to him forever.”
So, in the image of Troekurov, the author showed a part of the local nobility that was far from reformist ideas, leading a riotous life, an idle lifestyle. The distinctive features of these nobles are lack of education, primitiveness, greed and pride. Standing firmly on its feet, this part of the landed nobility fiercely defends the ancient way of life, based on the enslavement of man by man, and is ready to take the most brutal measures to ensure its dominance.
The image of another local nobleman, Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky, appears completely different to us. It combines realism in the depiction of the nobility with the idealization of the ancient nobility. “Being the same age, born in the same class, raised in the same way...”, having similar characters and inclinations, Troekurov and Dubrovsky Sr. looked at the peasant and the meaning of life differently. The Kistenevsky master did not oppress his peasants, and therefore they treated him with love and respect. Andrei Gavrilovich condemned Troekurov’s attitude towards the serfs, which is why he said to his friend: “. ..the kennel is wonderful, it’s unlikely that your people’s lives will be the same as your dogs’.” Just as fond of hunting as Troekurov, Dubrovsky, however, treated his neighbor’s idle, riotous drinking sessions unfavorably and attended them with reluctance. This person has a highly developed sense of self-esteem and pride.
Neither in the first years of his life on the estate, nor later did Andrei Gavrilovich agree to take advantage of 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, caring not only about his own wallet, but also about the peasants entrusted to him. It is precisely such nobles, under a positive set of circumstances, who would be supporters of democratic reforms in Russia.

June 19 2015

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 happy to cater to his slightest whims; provincial officials trembled at his name; Kirila Petrovich accepted signs of servility as a proper tribute; his house was always full of guests, ready to entertain his lordly idleness... No one dared to refuse his invitation or on certain days not to appear with due respect in the village of Pokrovskoye.”

This wayward Russian gentleman did not bother himself with science. The author says with obvious irony and condemnation that “Kiril and Petrovich showed all the vices of an uneducated person.” And since Troekurov had more than enough physical strength, he endlessly organized all kinds of entertainment events on his estate and gave “full freedom to all the impulses of his ardent disposition and all the ideas of his rather limited mind.” One of the ideas that was intended to amuse his guests, and most of all, himself, was the idea of a bear, which Troekurov specially fattened on his estate in order to play a trick on the new guest on occasion.

Despite the fact that almost every one 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 limitless. More than any other entertainment, Kirila Petrovich loved hunting with dogs; he prepared for it in advance and carefully. After the hunt, there was usually a long drinking party for all the participants on 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 the spoiledness and tyranny of Kiril Petrovich, the author introduces an episode that describes in detail the landowner’s kennel, the 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 canine language. There was also an infirmary for sick dogs, under the supervision of the staff doctor Timoshka, and a department where noble bitches gave birth and fed their puppies.” What care for animals, what nobility - isn’t it? Yes, all this would look exactly like this if this master’s serfs, on whom his well-being rested, lived better than dogs, or at least the same. It costs Troekurov nothing to humiliate a person, even one for whom he has respect.

And not to submit to the will of a despot and tyrant means to become his sworn enemy. And then Kirila Petrovich will stop at nothing to demonstrate her superiority. This is exactly what he did with Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. He “loved his daughter madly, but got by

Need a cheat sheet? Then save - “Images of nobles in A. S. Pushkin’s story “Dubrovsky”. Literary essays!

On the pages of “Dubrovsky” we are acquainted
we communicate with many people of the nobility
Slovenia Some of them are fully outlined and all
externally (Troekurov, Dubrovsky), others -
fragmentary (Prince Vereisky), about the third
and it’s said in passing (Anna Savishna
and other guests of Troekurov). Need to say,
that the landowners differed from each other as
the number of peasants they have, so
and attitude towards them.
The plot of the story revolves around
conflict between two landowners - Ki-
Rila Petrovich Troekurov and Andrey
Gavrilovich Dubrovsky, but unwittingly
other dualities are also drawn into it
Ryans. Everything, in fact, was divided into two camps -
rya. In one - Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrov-
skiy and his son Vladimir, another significantly
more numerous - Troekurov and all the others
landowners, regulars at his house.
As for Kirila Petrovich Troekurov,
“an old Russian gentleman,” then the first
the pages of the work make us understand how
what a powerful, selfish man he was,
despot, wealth and ancient origins
whom “they gave him great weight in the province-
yah, where his estate was located. The neighbors are happy
were to please his slightest whims; gu-
Berne officials trembled at his presence.
neither; Kirila Petrovich accepted signs of acceptance
passion as a proper tribute... At home
Kirila Petrovich showed everything to his everyday life
vices of an uneducated person. Spoiled-
Known to everyone that surrounded him, he got used to
give full vent to all impulses of ardent
his character and all his undertakings are quite limited
of a great mind." Troekurov had two children:
Masha is a seventeen-year-old daughter and son -
“a black-eyed boy, a naughty boy of about nine years old.”
Sasha was also the son of Mamzel Mimi, re-
nurse Masha, whom “Kirila Pet-
Rovich seemed to love... more than others.” Daughter
Kirila Petrovich loved his, “but got by
with her with his characteristic waywardness, then
trying to please her slightest whims, then
frightening her with a harsh and sometimes cruel manner
woe. Confident of her affection, neither
when he could not obtain her power of attorney.”
Kirila Petrovich was only interested in this -
Xia, that he was driving around his spacious
possessions, arranged noisy feasts with pro-
Kazami. Hunting occupied almost the main
new place in Troekurov’s life. By this
reason and his kennel was the envy of
everyone, there are “more than five hundred hounds and greyhounds
lived in contentment and warmth, glorifying
Kirila Petrovich's strength on his dog
I eat language."
It was the kennel that was the reason
discord between Troekurov and the closest
his neighbor Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrov-
sky, whom only Kirila Petrovich respected
stung, “despite his humble state,”
and to whom I could easily go for a visit.
Troekurov's respectful attitude towards Du-
Brovsky arose in his youth; "Not-
when they were comrades in the service, and
Troekurov knew from experience impatience and
the decisiveness of his character." Andrey Gav-
Rilovich was offended by a remark from one of the
neighbor's hounds regarding his alleged infirmity
same condition and humiliating life. At-
Why was Dubrovsky not so offended by the replacement itself?
I wonder how much it is that Troekurov
"laughed loudly" and did not accept any
measures to punish the impudent slave. With dinner-
the offended Dubrovsky left, and the order
Troekurov’s return was ignored.
Forgive even Kiril Dubrovsky
Petrovich could not and, as punishment, decided to leave
to borrow an estate from a friend, which is what he did.
This act shows spiritual use
the depravity of Troekurov, for whom there is no
nothing sacred, who is ready to pro-
give. True, the author emphasizes that in
which moments the landowner's conscience awakens
worries, he begins to feel sorry for Dubrovsky and
ready to forgive him, but the feeling of false pride
pride and their superiority do not allow him
ask for an apology.
Prince Verey is also close to Troekurov.
skiy. And although it is not so fully outlined
in the story, but one thing is that the prince is pleased
visits the house of Kirila Petrovich,
that, despite Masha’s tears and pleas,
still beats her hands, puts him in one
next to Troekurov.
With satirical colors in the novel,
Troekurov's guests are in - small premises -
ki-sycophants who, fearing the anger of the powerful
th master, they didn’t dare say a word to him
against. However, on their own estate they hardly
were timid...
Troekurov, Prince Vereisky and others like them
new - far from reformist ideas,
a firmly standing part of the local
nobility, fiercely defending the fortress
nihilism.
Unlike these characters, Andrey
Gavrilovich Dubrovsky - landowner lib-
ral. Idleness and debauchery are not his thing.
once in a lifetime. Having seventy people baptism
Ian, Dubrovsky treats them differently than
tyrant neighbor. Therefore, the peasants responded
They give him respect and love, that’s why they
you would have to die just to avoid being taken into bondage
to Troekurov. Abolition of serfdom-
probably wouldn’t have scared Andrei Gavrilo-
Vich, and he was unlikely to interfere with her.
Neither in the first years of life on the estate, nor in
Tom Andrei Gavrilovich did not agree to restore
use the gifts he offered
him Troekurov. Moreover, unlike
other landowners, Dubrovsky never
I was afraid to speak out in the presence of an arrogant
neighbor's thoughts. It speaks of pride
this man, and real pride,
not Troekurov's.
The image of the young Dubrovsky is given in development
tii: at first an ambitious and careless spendthrift,
then - defender of the oppressed, noble
avenger, rebel. Him, the nobleman-robber-
ka, makes him the leader of the peasants.
But he immediately makes it clear that Vladimir is not
in everything they are like-minded, that he is a collaborator
interacts with peasants and for the sake of personal interests
owls That's why when Masha gets married
for the prince, Dubrovsky leaves his comrades
riches, declaring to them; "You are all scammers."
Vladimir Dubrovsky is not against the nobility
as a class in general, it is only against
cruelties - perpetrated by nobles such as
Troekurov.
However, at that time this was also progressive.
a new step towards the liberation of the peasantry
yang, that’s why we have restored the main character of the story
we accept him as a leading nobleman, perhaps
perhaps the predecessor of the Decembrists.

Noble society in the story “Dubrovsky” is represented by a number of characters, some of whom are depicted comprehensively and completely (Troekurov, Dubrovsky), others in less detail (Prince Vereisky), and others are 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 terms 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, spending their time idly and wildly. They did not want any democratic changes in the country, since such events threatened their undivided rule and well-being.
As for Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov, “his wealth, noble family and connections gave him great weight in the provinces where his estate was located. The neighbors were happy to cater to his slightest whims; provincial officials trembled at his name; Kirila Petrovich accepted signs of servility as a proper tribute; his house was always full of guests, ready to entertain his lordly idleness... No one dared to refuse his invitation or on certain days not to appear with due respect in the village of Pokrovskoye.” This wayward Russian gentleman did not bother himself with science. The author says with obvious irony and condemnation that “Kiril and Petrovich showed all the vices of an uneducated person.” And since Troekurov had more than enough physical strength, he endlessly organized all kinds of entertainment events on his estate and gave “full freedom to all the impulses of his ardent disposition and all the ideas of his rather limited mind.” One of the ideas that was intended to amuse his guests, and most of all, himself, was the idea of a bear, which Troekurov specially fattened on his estate in order to play a trick on the new guest on occasion.
Despite the fact that almost every one 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 limitless.
More than any other entertainment, Kirila Petrovich loved hunting with dogs; he prepared for it in advance and carefully. After the hunt, there was usually a long drinking party for all the participants on 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 understanding of the spoiledness and tyranny of Kiril Petrovich, the author introduces an episode into the story that describes in detail the landowner’s kennel, the 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 canine language. There was also an infirmary for sick dogs, under the supervision of the staff doctor Timoshka, and a department where noble bitches gave birth and fed their puppies.” What care for animals, what nobility - isn’t it? Yes, all this would look exactly like this if this master’s serfs, on whom his well-being rested, lived better than dogs, or at least the same.
It costs Troekurov nothing to humiliate a person, even one for whom he has respect. And not to submit to the will of a despot and tyrant means to become his sworn enemy. And then Kirila Petrovich will stop at nothing to demonstrate her superiority. This is exactly what he did with Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky.
He “loved his daughter madly, but treated her with his characteristic waywardness, sometimes trying to please her slightest whims, sometimes frightening her with harsh and sometimes cruel treatment.” He built his relationship with Masha, as well as with everyone else, on the demand for her complete submission to his person. Kirila Petrovich didn’t even bother to listen to any of Masha’s words and requests to cancel the wedding with her unloved person. Of course, this can be attributed to his excessive concern for the fate of his daughter, but is Masha happy because of this, will she be lucky enough to learn what shared love is? We can almost say with certainty - no. Masha, like Onegin’s Tatiana, was brought up on the principle: “But I was given to another; I will be faithful to him forever.”
So, in the image of Troekurov, the author showed a part of the local nobility that was far from reformist ideas, leading a riotous, idle lifestyle. The distinctive features of these nobles are lack of education, primitiveness, greed and pride. Standing firmly on its feet, this part of the landed nobility fiercely defends the ancient way of life, based on the enslavement of man by man, and is ready to take the most brutal measures to ensure its dominance.
The image of another local nobleman, Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky, appears completely different to us. “Being the same age, born in the same class, raised in the same way...”, having similar characters and inclinations, Troekurov and Dubrovsky Sr. looked at the peasant and the meaning of life differently. The Kistenevsky master did not oppress his peasants, so they treated him with love and respect. Andrei Gavrilovich condemned Troekurov’s attitude towards the serfs, which is why he said to his friend: “...a wonderful kennel, it’s unlikely that your people will live the same as your dogs.” Just as fond of hunting as Troekurov, Dubrovsky, however, treated his neighbor’s idle and riotous drinking sessions unfavorably and attended them with reluctance. This person has a highly developed sense of self-esteem and pride.
Neither in the first years of his life on the estate, nor later did Andrei Gavrilovich agree to take advantage of 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 it is precisely such nobles, under a positive set of circumstances, who would be supporters of democratic reforms in Russia.