How did you perceive Troyekurov? "How did Troekurov decide to take revenge on Dubrovsky?"

How can one explain Troekurov’s rudeness and willfulness? (2nd question in the textbook).

“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...” Troyekurov’s rudeness and willfulness can be explained by his great wealth and unlimited power over people. We can say that he treated his guests the same way as he treated his serfs. He believed that he could buy everything and humiliated people's dignity.

We will ask children to find answers to the 3rd question in the textbook directly in the text:

What kind of person was Kirila Petrovich at home? What did his regular “activities” consist of?

“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.” Troekurov drank every evening and suffered from gluttony twice a week. “Troekurov’s constant occupations consisted of traveling around his extensive domains, long feasts and pranks, which were invented daily...”

Questions 4, 5, 6 of the textbook help us characterize two landowner neighbors and identify their similarities and differences.

Troekurov, “arrogant in relations with people of the highest rank,” respected Dubrovsky because “he knew from experience the impatience and decisiveness of his character.” Dubrovsky was the only one of the people around him who behaved proudly, was independent and refused the patronage of his former colleague.

Troekurov and Dubrovsky “were partly similar in character and inclinations.” This similarity manifested itself in pride, but Troekurov supported this feeling in himself with an awareness of wealth and power, and Dubrovsky with an awareness of the antiquity of his family and noble honor. Both landowners had a hot, quick-tempered character. Both loved hound hunting and kept dogs.

The incident at the kennel characterizes Dubrovsky as a proud man who does not want to turn into a buffoon and has a sense of self-esteem. Dubrovsky assessed the huntsman’s remark as an insult to the noble honor by the slave.

What do you think, if Troekurov were visiting a richer and more noble person who would insult his dignity, what would Troekurov do in that case?

Choose a quote that matches the drawing by B. M. Kustodiev (p. 68 of the textbook).

What method of revenge did Troekurov choose?

What was Kirila Petrovich’s main law?

It is important that students, answering this question, find the most expressive phrase that characterizes Troekurov: “This is the power to take away property without any right.”

How did Shabashkin act on Troekurov’s instructions?

Let us conclude that for the assessor, the assistant judge, who was the representative of the law, money became the main law of life.
Chapter II

District court officials greeted Dubrovsky and Troekurov differently. No one paid attention to Dubrovsky. When Kirila Petrovich arrived, the clerks “stood up and put feathers behind their ears. The members greeted him with an expression of deep servility, and pulled out a chair for him out of respect for his rank, age and stature.”

The picture of the trial evokes a feeling of annoyance, pity for Dubrovsky, indignation against the triumph of Troekurov and protest against the servility and servility of the judges. Pushkin emphasizes the unnaturalness of this trial with such details: the assessor addresses Troyekurov with a low bow, and Dubrovsky is simply presented with a paper; At the same time, Troekurov is sitting in a chair, and Dubrovsky is standing, leaning against the wall.

“Dubrovsky’s sudden madness had a strong effect” on Troekurov’s imagination and “poisoned his triumph” because he did not get to see how Dubrovsky was humiliated. He went crazy, but his pride and honor were not broken.

Commented reading

Vladimir Dubrovsky led a life in St. Petersburg, in his opinion, decent for a guards officer. His father sent him money, leaving almost nothing for himself, and Dubrovsky, a wasteful and ambitious young man, “allowed himself to luxurious whims, played cards and went into debt, not caring about the future.” He hoped for his father and that he could find himself a rich bride.

Dubrovsky received the news of his father’s illness “with extraordinary excitement.” He was horrified by his father's situation, and he "reproached himself for criminal negligence." Dubrovsky's character showed love for his family and a willingness to come to the aid of his father.

The dialogue between Vladimir Dubrovsky and the coachman Anton can be read by role.

The servants and peasants did not like and were afraid of Troekurov. The coachman Anton told Dubrovsky that Troekurov’s “at times it’s bad for his own people, but if they get strangers, he’ll not only rip off their skin, but also the meat.”

Dubrovsky is a person who has self-esteem, and such a person will not humiliate the dignity of another. Dubrovsky was fair to his serfs, and they did not want another master.

Reading the description of Pokrovsky and Kistenevka, we ask:

How did Dubrovsky Sr. meet his son?

Prepare a retelling of the episode “Fire in the Dubrovsky estate.”
Individual task

Prepare an expressive reading of Chapter VIII.

Lesson 23

Vladimir Dubrovsky's protest against lawlessness and injustice.

Peasant revolt
I. Vladimir Dubrovsky’s protest against lawlessness and injustice. Peasant revolt

Conversation

We talk about questions from the textbook for the chapters that were assigned to be read at home (pp. 146-147, part 1).

If Chapter III was read and commented on in the previous lesson, we begin the discussion on the questions from Chapter IV. It is important that students master working with text and learn to support their thoughts with quotes.

How did Troekurov take the news of taking possession of the estate?

Troekurov was embarrassed: “He was not selfish by nature, the desire for revenge lured him too far, his conscience grumbled. He knew the state of his opponent, the old comrade of his youth, and victory did not bring joy to his heart.”

What opposite feelings did Troekurov experience? “Satisfied revenge and lust for power drowned out to some extent nobler feelings, but the latter finally triumphed.”

Why was the reconciliation of former friends impossible?

The repentance that Troekurov experienced came too late.

After the death of his father, Vladimir Dubrovsky felt spiritual grief. Pushkin writes that Vladimir’s face was scary, that he could neither cry nor pray. The author does not directly name the feelings that the young man experienced, but we can assume that he became embittered, that he felt a sense of wounded pride and a desire to avenge his father’s death. Christianity commands to forgive your enemies, but Vladimir Dubrovsky did not want to forgive Troekurov and therefore could not pray.

Find and read the episode in which the feelings of Vladimir Dubrovsky are revealed. What technique does the author use to describe the hero’s state?

Pushkin conveys Dubrovsky’s experiences by describing the thicket where he went after the funeral. Vladimir walked through the thicket, not making out the road, “...boughs constantly touched and scratched him, his legs constantly got stuck in the swamp, he did not notice anything.”

Just as Dubrovsky could not make out the roads in the thicket, so he could not make out his confused feelings: “...thoughts, one darker than the other, were cramped in his soul... He strongly felt his loneliness.”

In the passage describing Vladimir in the thicket of the forest, find epithets. How do they help the reader understand the character's condition? (From the words: “At last he reached...” to “He felt his loneliness strongly.”)

How do the judicial officials who came to “take possession” of Troekurov behave? (2nd question in the textbook.)

Judicial officials, representatives of the law, who came to “take possession” of Troekurov, behave defiantly. They allow shameless statements about Dubrovsky, threaten his peasants, because they feel the strength and power behind them, backed up by Troekurov’s money.

The anger and indignation of the peasants grows gradually, but the peasants experience particular indignation when the official insults Dubrovsky himself, the master and legal owner of the estate, and inspires the peasants that their master is Troekurov. First, a voice from the crowd answers the officials, then a murmur rises in the crowd, it intensifies and turns into the most terrible screams. The crowd begins to move.

Why doesn’t Vladimir Dubrovsky give angry peasants the opportunity to deal with officials? (4th textbook question.)

Vladimir Dubrovsky does not allow angry peasants to deal with officials, because he does not want to become a toy in the hands of a crowd of peasants, does not want to become an accomplice in the massacre and hopes for the justice of the tsar.

Vladimir Dubrovsky came to the decision to burn down the “sad house” after he saw the portrait of his mother in a new way, read her letters to his father, where she talked about her little son, and heard the voices of clerks who demanded one thing or another with their presence and by behavior desecrating the bright memory of Dubrovsky’s father and mother. Let us help schoolchildren see the antithesis in the second paragraph of the chapter: the “world of family happiness” into which Dubrovsky plunged while reading letters from his mother is contrasted with the reality in which Vladimir Dubrovsky sees his father’s trampled honor and the defiant behavior of his clerks.

What prompted the peasants to join Dubrovsky? (2nd question in the textbook.)

The peasants joined Dubrovsky because they were outraged that they were going to be commanded and controlled not by natural nobles (whose right to own land and people they considered unshakable), but by clerks, people of ignoble origin. The archipelago blacksmith says: “...have you heard of the matter, the clerks are planning to own us, the clerks are driving our masters out of the lord’s courtyard...” The peasants perceived the insult inflicted on their master as their own insult.

Why does the blacksmith Arkhip destroy clerks, but at the risk of death? own life saves a cat? (3rd question in the textbook.)

Question 3 is quite difficult for sixth graders. The blacksmith Arkhip destroys the clerks, but at the risk of his life saves a cat from the roof of a burning barn. He says to the children who are laughing at the pitiful animal: “You are not afraid of God: God’s creation is perishing, and you are foolishly rejoicing...” Arkhip perceives the cat as God’s creature, saving which will be a matter pleasing to God, but he does not perceive clerks as people, worthy of salvation: in his understanding, they violated the law established by God and the king. By helping Troekurov carry out an unjust trial, they violated God's commandments: they helped one person steal property from another, they lied and broke the oath by which they were obliged to tell the truth.

Let's pay attention to speech characteristics Arkhip the blacksmith in his conversation with Egorovna:

“Arkhipushka,” Yegorovna told him, “save them, the damned, God will reward you.”

“Why not,” answered the blacksmith.”

Where have we heard these words before?

Let us conclude that in the scene with the clerks (Chapter V) the “voice from the crowd” belonged to the blacksmith.

Let's look at the illustration by D. A. Shmarinov “Fire in the Dubrovsky estate” (p. 93 of the textbook).

Make up an oral story based on this drawing.

In the illustration by D. A. Shmarinov “Fire in Dubrovsky’s estate,” the young gentleman Vladimir Andreevich Dubrovsky is depicted in the center of the picture. It was as if he had just brought a splinter to the hay, which flared up brightly; “The flames shot up and lit up the whole house.” Dubrovsky took off his cap from his head, saying goodbye to his home, and looks at the fire. To his left stands, leaning on his hand, the nanny Orina Egorovna Buzyreva, in a white scarf and apron, with her head sadly bowed. Behind her we recognize the figures of the Dubrovsky serfs: this is the coachman Anton with black hair and beard, the fair-haired Grisha, Yegorovna’s son, and - behind the figure of Anton - the blacksmith Arkhip, who locked the clerks, but at the risk of his life saved a cat from the roof of a burning barn .

On the left we see the flames of the fire. The flames are reaching towards Dubrovsky. There are horses standing in the background, above a group of people, sparks from the fire flying towards the black sky.

Dubrovsky's entire figure expresses pride and a sense of inner dignity. The figures of the serfs express a gloomy determination to follow their proud master: “... we will die, we will not leave you, we will go with you.”

Students read Chapter VII.

Commenting on the chapter, let's say that Vladimir Dubrovsky was forced to become a robber by the death of his father and lack of livelihood, but main reason the fact that he, knowing the greed and corruption of officials, lost hope in a fair decision of the court and did not even hope to find protection from the tsar, because this required money, and Dubrovsky did not have it.
Chapter VIII

The student who completed the individual task expressively reads Chapter VIII or the episode “Deforge in the Bear’s Room” (with the words: “In Kirila Petrovich’s yard...”).

What qualities did Deforge show in the bear room?

What fact made an indelible impression on Marya Kirilovna? How did Marya Kirilovna’s attitude towards Deforge change?
Homework

Prepare an expressive reading of chapters IX-XI. Answer the textbook questions for the relevant chapters (pp. 147-148).

Lesson 24

The surrounding nobility visiting Troekurov. The owner's despotism

disrespect for human personality. Cowardice, servility,

greed of Anton Pafnutich Spitsyn. Composition
I. The surrounding nobility visiting Troekurov. Despotism of the owner, disrespect for the human person
Chapter IX

We begin the lesson with an expressive reading of Chapter IX. Then we talk about the following questions:

How does Spitsyn explain his lateness?

What action does Spitsyn consider to be an action “in accordance with conscience and justice”? What really motivated Anton Pafnutich?

How does the owner behave during lunch? Pay attention to his dialogue with the police officer.

What qualities does Troekurov exhibit during lunch?

Let's help schoolchildren answer that Troekurov treats his guests rudely and despotic, mocks them, humiliates their human dignity (“We know you; where should you spend money, you live like a pig at home...”).

“The police officer got cold feet, bowed, smiled, stuttered and finally said:

Let's try, Your Excellency?

Compare the stories of Spitsyn and Globova. What characterization does each of them give to Dubrovsky?

Anton Pafnutich Spitsyn in his story says about Dubrovsky: “He’s no slouch, he won’t let anyone down, and he’ll probably take two skins off me.”

Anna Savishna Globova does not give a direct characterization of Dubrovsky, but retells the words of the visiting general: “... Dubrovsky attacks not just anyone, but famous rich people, but even here he shares with them, and does not rob outright, and no one accuses him of murder. ..” Globova says: “I guessed who His Excellency was, I had no need to talk to him.” But in the words of the landowner one can feel some sympathy and respect for the man who exposed the clerk’s tricks and thus returned her money.

The author introduces the stories of Spitsyn and Globova into the narrative in order to show the idea that the surrounding landowners have about Dubrovsky, to express the conflicting feelings of people towards the reluctant robber, and to more fully present to readers the appearance of the main character. The author uses antithesis to show the cowardice of Anton Pafnutich and the dignified behavior of Anna Savishna.

What did Troekurov say when the police officer read Dubrovsky’s signs? Why did Troekurov come to this conclusion?

What qualities did Dubrovsky show during the festive dinner in Pokrovsky? Why didn’t any of the guests guess that Deforge was Dubrovsky?

None of Troekurov’s guests guessed that Deforge was Dubrovsky, because no one could even expect that Troekurov’s enemy would appear at his home in the role of a French teacher. Dubrovsky did not give himself away in any way. He did not react to stories about himself and spoke only to Sasha and only to French. No one even suspected that he knew Russian.

What did Troekurov do when some guests wanted to go home?

How did the character of the evening change after Troekurov left?

Why did Spitsyn decide to spend the night with Deforge? Pupils read Chapter X expressively (from the words “Having come to the outbuilding...” to the end).

What qualities of his character does Anton Pafnutich show?
III. Composition

Chapter XI

How did Dubrovsky become Deforge?

We invite students to briefly answer this question.

Dubrovsky at the post station met a Frenchman who was traveling to Troekurov to serve as a teacher for little Sasha. Dubrovsky offered the Frenchman money to give him all the documents and immediately leave for France. The Frenchman agreed. So Dubrovsky became Deforge.

During his stay at Troekurov's estate, Dubrovsky showed restraint, composure, acting qualities, nobility and the ability to control himself.

Why did A. S. Pushkin break the sequence of presentation?

Pushkin disrupted the sequence of events so that the reader felt like a guest at a dinner who listens to conversations about Dubrovsky and does not know that he is sitting next to him; so that the reader experiences the same surprise as Anton Pafnutich, whose precious bag is taken away. Pushkin wanted to create mystery, intrigue, and he succeeded.
Homework

Draw up (in writing) a plan for the main events of Chapters VIII-XI. Read Chapter XII.

Lesson 25

Composition. Plot. Romantic love story of Vladimir and Masha
I. Composition. Plot

Let's ask the student to write on the board the plan of events in Chapters VIII-XI that he compiled at home.

Plan of main events of chapters VIII-XI

1) A French teacher arrived in Pokrovskoye.

2) Conversation between Kirila Petrovich and the Frenchman.

3) “Noble amusements of a Russian master.”

4) Deforge kills the bear.

5) “...The guests began to arrive.”

6) Festive lunch in Pokrovsky.

7) Stories by Spitsyn and Globova.

8) Signs of Dubrovsky.

9) End of the holiday.

10) Anton Pafnutich goes to bed in Dubrovsky’s room.

11) Deforge-Dubrovsky robs Spitsyn.

12) The French teacher is waiting for the horses in the caretaker’s house.

13) Dubrovsky buys documents from the Frenchman.

14) Dubrovsky comes to Troekurov with the Frenchman’s papers and becomes Sasha’s teacher.

15) Morning departure of the robbed Spitsyn.

Working collectively, to the right of the notes we use numbers (colored pencil or green pen) to indicate the true course of events.

We have restored the plot of the work.

* Plot - sequence and connection of events in a work of art.

Pushkin breaks the temporal sequence of events in order to create mystery, intrigue, and arouse the intense interest of readers.

We read the article in the textbook “Composition” (pp. 149-150). Let's write down the definition of composition.

* Composition - this is a construction work of art, location and relationship of all its parts, images, episodes.
II. Romantic love story of Vladimir and Masha

Why did Dubrovsky look for an opportunity to live in Troekurov’s house and abandon plans for revenge?

Remember how Masha treated Deforge at first. Why?

What event made her change her attitude towards the teacher?

How did she feel when she received the note from Deforge?

How did Masha think through her behavior on a date? Was she able to behave the way she wanted?

Find Dubrovsky’s words that explain the refusal to take revenge.

“I realized that the house where you live is sacred, that not a single creature connected with you by blood ties is subject to my curse. I gave up revenge as if it were madness.”

What promise did Marya Kirilovna give to Dubrovsky?

Sixth graders may not immediately understand what a promise not to reject devotion means. Let's tell them about what's going on medieval Europe there was a tradition of knightly serving one's lady, demanding nothing from her other than that the lady accept the devotion of her knight. Dubrovsky understands that Marya Kirilovna cannot become his wife. He only wants to serve her and asks that she not reject his help. This is the kind of love we now call romantic.

Why was Dubrovsky forced to flee from Pokrovsky?

How did Troekurov part with his guests?

Let us ask the students to remember how Troekurov ordered the gates to be locked so that guests could not go home on the day of the temple holiday in Pokrovskoye. Let's compare this act with how Troekurov, at eleven o'clock, being out of sorts, sent the guests home. Let us draw a conclusion about Troekurov’s despotism and tyranny.
Homework

Lesson 26

Image of the Russian nobility. Troekurov and the prince

Vereisky. The fate of Marya Kirilovna and Dubrovsky
I. Image of the Russian nobility. Troekurov and Prince Vereisky. The fate of Marya Kirilovna

Conversation on textbook issues

How do you imagine Prince Vereisky? What does he have in common with Troekurov and what is their difference?

Prince Vereisky is a man of fifty years old, but he seems “much older.” Pushkin writes:

“Excesses of all kinds exhausted his health and left their indelible mark on him. Despite this, his appearance was pleasant and remarkable, and his habit of always being in society gave him a certain courtesy, especially with women. He had a constant need for distraction and was constantly bored.”

The prince was an empty man. He spent his whole life abroad, lived on money that the steward from the estate sent him, and came to see this estate for the first time at the age of fifty. This is how he differs from his neighbor: Kirila Petrovich Troekurov lived on his estate and managed the farm himself. But Troekurov also exhausted himself with all sorts of excesses: let us remember that he was tipsy every evening and suffered from gluttony twice a week.

The two neighbors are also united by the fact that each of them cared only about their own well-being and believed that everyone else was created to serve them and give them pleasure.

How did Kirila Petrovich treat his daughter and how did he decide her fate?

Kirila Petrovich treated his daughter as property and, without her consent, decided to marry Marya Kirilovna to a prince who was much older than her. Masha's emotional experiences were an annoying misunderstanding for him. He considered only the question of the dowry to be a matter.

To illustrate Marya Kirilovna’s conversation with her father, the teacher can use a reproduction of F. S. Zhuravlev’s painting “Before the Crown,” stored in the State Tretyakov Gallery. The painting depicts a young girl in a wedding dress decorated with flowers. She kneels in front of her father, covering her face with her hands. Her father apparently tells her that his decision is final.

Retell the episode with the ring.

How did Mitya and Sasha behave during the interrogation?

Mitya and Sasha behaved differently during interrogation. When Sasha let it slip, Kirila Petrovich realized that Marya Kirilovna was involved in the matter, and began to threaten Sasha that he would beat him off with rods. Sasha got scared and gradually, word by word, told about his sister’s request.

When Troyekurov’s attention turned to Mitya, he replied that he was “the courtyard man of the Dubrovsky gentlemen.” This was a very bold answer, because after the court’s decision, Dubrovsky’s serfs belonged to Troekurov. To Troekurov’s next question, the boy answered “with great indifference” that he “stole raspberries.” After that, Mitya didn’t say another word. He assumed “the appearance of a real fool” and did not respond to Troekurov’s threats.

Troyekurov and the police chief released Mitya to track where he would run: “He will help us catch the chieftain himself.” The consequence of this was that the bandits' camp was discovered and attacked by soldiers.

After Dubrovsky confessed his love to Marya Kirilovna, she promised to call Dubrovsky for help if necessary. However, she herself, in despair, told her father that she could resort to Dubrovsky’s intercession. The father did everything possible to prevent this from happening. Marya Kirilovna could not leave the house to warn Dubrovsky, she could not put the ring in the hollow of the oak tree in time. Marya Kirilovna did not dare to tell her father in time that she did not want to marry Vereisky, and did not dare to say “no” in church. She waited for a mysterious romantic deliverer, without doing anything for her own deliverance. When Dubrovsky and his people stopped the carriage, she reproached him for not arriving on time and said: “I agreed, I took an oath...”

Marya Kirilovna refused Dubrovsky's help because she was married and could no longer act according to her own will. Marya Kirilovna became a princess and a rich woman. Only after the death of her old husband would she gain independence.

If possible, the teacher will show the students a reproduction of V.V. Pukirev’s painting “Unequal Marriage.” The social types of this picture are somewhat different from those of Pushkin: a rich official cynically buys himself a young wife, a dowry bride; but the lack of rights of women of that time in Russia remains unchanged.

Consider the illustration by E. E. Lansere (p. 140, part 1 of the textbook). What phrase from the novel “Dubrovsky” could you call it? Describe what you see in this illustration.

I. Vladimir Dubrovsky’s protest against lawlessness and injustice. Peasant revolt
Conversation
We talk about questions from the textbook for the chapters that were assigned to be read at home (p., part 1).
If Chapter III was read and commented on in the previous lesson, we begin the discussion on the questions from Chapter IV. It is important that students master working with text and learn to support their thoughts with quotes.
— How did Troekurov take the news of taking possession of the estate?
Troekurov was embarrassed: “He was not selfish by nature, the desire for revenge lured him too far, his conscience grumbled. He knew the state of his opponent, the old comrade of his youth, and victory did not bring joy to his heart.”

— What opposite feelings did Troekurov experience?“Satisfied revenge and lust for power drowned out to some extent nobler feelings, but the latter finally triumphed.”
— Why was the reconciliation of former friends impossible?
The repentance that Troekurov experienced came too late.

Chapter V
After the death of his father, Vladimir Dubrovsky felt spiritual grief. Pushkin writes that Vladimir’s face was scary, that he could neither cry nor pray. The author does not directly name the feelings that the young man experienced, but we can assume that he became embittered, that he felt a sense of wounded pride and a desire to avenge his father’s death. Christianity commands to forgive your enemies, but Vladimir Dubrovsky did not want to forgive Troekurov and therefore could not pray.
— Find and read the episode in which the feelings of Vladimir Dubrovsky are revealed. What technique does the author use to describe the hero’s state?
Pushkin conveys Dubrovsky’s experiences by describing the thicket where he went after the funeral. Vladimir walked through the thicket, not making out the road, “...boughs constantly touched and scratched him, his legs constantly got stuck in the swamp, he did not notice anything.”
Just as Dubrovsky could not make out the roads in the thicket, so he could not make out his confused feelings: “...thoughts, one darker than the other, were cramped in his soul... He strongly felt his loneliness.”
— In the passage describing Vladimir in the thicket of the forest, find epithets. How do they help the reader understand the character's condition?(From the words: “At last he reached...” to “He felt his loneliness strongly.”)
— How do the judicial officials who came to “take possession” of Troekurov behave?(2nd question in the textbook.)
Judicial officials, representatives of the law, who came to “take possession” of Troekurov, behave defiantly. They allow shameless statements about Dubrovsky, threaten his peasants, because they feel the strength and power behind them, backed up by Troekurov’s money.
The anger and indignation of the peasants grows gradually, but the peasants experience particular indignation when the official insults Dubrovsky himself, the master and legal owner of the estate, and inspires the peasants that their master is Troekurov. First, a voice from the crowd answers the officials, then a murmur rises in the crowd, it intensifies and turns into the most terrible screams. The crowd begins to move.
- Find and read the remark of the “voice from the crowd”, the police officer’s response to it and the objection of the same voice. Why was the police officer so indignant at the peasant’s words?
— Why doesn’t Vladimir Dubrovsky give angry peasants the opportunity to deal with officials?(4th textbook question.)
Vladimir Dubrovsky does not allow angry peasants to deal with officials, because he does not want to become a toy in the hands of a crowd of peasants, does not want to become an accomplice in the massacre and hopes for the justice of the tsar.

Chapter VI
Vladimir Dubrovsky came to the decision to burn down the “sad house” after he saw the portrait of his mother in a new way, read her letters to his father, where she talked about her little son, and heard the voices of clerks who demanded one thing or another with their presence and by behavior desecrating the bright memory of Dubrovsky’s father and mother. Let us help schoolchildren see the antithesis in the second paragraph of the chapter: the “world of family happiness” into which Dubrovsky plunged while reading letters from his mother is contrasted with the reality in which Vladimir Dubrovsky sees his father’s trampled honor and the defiant behavior of his clerks.
— What prompted the peasants to join Dubrovsky?(2nd question in the textbook.)
The peasants joined Dubrovsky because they were outraged that they were going to be commanded and controlled not by natural nobles (whose right to own land and people they considered unshakable), but by clerks, people of ignoble origin. The archipelago blacksmith says: “...have you heard of the matter, the clerks are planning to own us, the clerks are driving our masters out of the lord’s courtyard...” The peasants perceived the insult inflicted on their master as their own insult.
- Why does the blacksmith Arkhip destroy clerks, but at the risk of his own life saves a cat?(3rd question in the textbook.)
The 3rd question is quite complicated. The blacksmith Arkhip destroys the clerks, but at the risk of his life saves a cat from the roof of a burning barn. He says to the children who are laughing at the pitiful animal: “You are not afraid of God: God’s creation is perishing, and you are foolishly rejoicing...” Arkhip perceives the cat as God’s creature, saving which will be a matter pleasing to God, but he does not perceive clerks as people, worthy of salvation: in his understanding, they violated the law established by God and the king. By helping Troekurov carry out an unjust trial, they violated God's commandments: they helped one person steal property from another, they lied and broke the oath by which they were obliged to tell the truth.
Let us pay attention to the speech characteristics of Arkhip the blacksmith in his conversation with Egorovna:
“Arkhipushka,” Yegorovna told him, “save them, the damned, God will reward you.”
“Why not,” answered the blacksmith.”
-Where have we heard these words before?
Let us conclude that in the scene with the clerks (Chapter V) the “voice from the crowd” belonged to the blacksmith.
Let's look at the illustration by D. A. Shmarinov “Fire in the Dubrovsky estate” (p. 93 of the textbook).
— Make up an oral story based on this drawing.
In the illustration by D. A. Shmarinov “Fire in Dubrovsky’s estate,” the young gentleman Vladimir Andreevich Dubrovsky is depicted in the center of the picture. It was as if he had just brought a splinter to the hay, which flared up brightly; “The flames shot up and lit up the whole house.” Dubrovsky took off his cap from his head, saying goodbye to his home, and looks at the fire. To his left stands, leaning on his hand, the nanny Orina Egorovna Buzyreva, in a white scarf and apron, with her head sadly bowed. Behind her we recognize the figures of the Dubrovsky serfs: this is the coachman Anton with black hair and beard, the fair-haired Grisha, Yegorovna’s son, and - behind the figure of Anton - the blacksmith Arkhip, who locked the clerks, but at the risk of his life saved a cat from the roof of a burning barn .
On the left we see the flames of the fire. The flames are reaching towards Dubrovsky. There are horses standing in the background, above a group of people, sparks from the fire flying towards the black sky.
Dubrovsky's entire figure expresses pride and a sense of inner dignity. The figures of the serfs express a gloomy determination to follow their proud master: “... we will die, we will not leave you, we will go with you.”

Conversation

We talk about questions from the textbook for the chapters that were assigned to be read at home (pp. 146-147, part 1).

If Chapter III was read and commented on in the previous lesson, we begin the discussion on the questions from Chapter IV. It is important that students master working with text and learn to support their thoughts with quotes.

How did Troekurov take the news of taking possession of the estate?

Troekurov was embarrassed: “He was not selfish by nature, the desire for revenge lured him too far, his conscience grumbled. He knew the state of his opponent, the old comrade of his youth, and victory did not bring joy to his heart.”

What opposite feelings did Troekurov experience? “Satisfied revenge and lust for power drowned out to some extent nobler feelings, but the latter finally triumphed.”

Why was the reconciliation of former friends impossible?

The repentance that Troekurov experienced came too late.

Chapter V

After the death of his father, Vladimir Dubrovsky felt spiritual grief. Pushkin writes that Vladimir’s face was scary, that he could neither cry nor pray. The author does not directly name the feelings that the young man experienced, but we can assume that he became embittered, that he felt a sense of wounded pride and a desire to avenge his father’s death. Christianity commands to forgive your enemies, but Vladimir Dubrovsky did not want to forgive Troekurov and therefore could not pray.

Find and read the episode in which the feelings of Vladimir Dubrovsky are revealed. What technique does the author use to describe the hero’s state?

Pushkin conveys Dubrovsky’s experiences by describing the thicket where he went after the funeral. Vladimir walked through the thicket, not making out the road, “...boughs constantly touched and scratched him, his legs constantly got stuck in the swamp, he did not notice anything.”

Just as Dubrovsky could not make out the roads in the thicket, so he could not make out his confused feelings: “...thoughts, one darker than the other, were cramped in his soul... He strongly felt his loneliness.”

In the passage describing Vladimir in the thicket of the forest, find epithets. How do they help the reader understand the character's condition? (From the words: “At last he reached...” to “He felt his loneliness strongly.”)

How do the judicial officials who came to “take possession” of Troekurov behave? (2nd question in the textbook.)

Judicial officials, representatives of the law, who came to “take possession” of Troekurov, behave defiantly. They allow shameless statements about Dubrovsky, threaten his peasants, because they feel the strength and power behind them, backed up by Troekurov’s money.

The anger and indignation of the peasants grows gradually, but the peasants experience particular indignation when the official insults Dubrovsky himself, the master and legal owner of the estate, and inspires the peasants that their master is Troekurov. First, a voice from the crowd answers the officials, then a murmur rises in the crowd, it intensifies and turns into the most terrible screams. The crowd begins to move.

Why doesn’t Vladimir Dubrovsky give angry peasants the opportunity to deal with officials? (4th textbook question.)

Vladimir Dubrovsky does not allow angry peasants to deal with officials, because he does not want to become a toy in the hands of a crowd of peasants, does not want to become an accomplice in the massacre and hopes for the justice of the tsar.

Chapter VI

Vladimir Dubrovsky came to the decision to burn down the “sad house” after he saw the portrait of his mother in a new way, read her letters to his father, where she talked about her little son, and heard the voices of clerks who demanded one thing or another with their presence and by behavior desecrating the bright memory of Dubrovsky’s father and mother. Let us help schoolchildren see the antithesis in the second paragraph of the chapter: the “world of family happiness” into which Dubrovsky plunged while reading letters from his mother is contrasted with the reality in which Vladimir Dubrovsky sees his father’s trampled honor and the defiant behavior of his clerks.

What prompted the peasants to join Dubrovsky? (2nd question in the textbook.)

The peasants joined Dubrovsky because they were outraged that they were going to be commanded and controlled not by natural nobles (whose right to own land and people they considered unshakable), but by clerks, people of ignoble origin. The archipelago blacksmith says: “...have you heard of the matter, the clerks are planning to own us, the clerks are driving our masters out of the lord’s courtyard...” The peasants perceived the insult inflicted on their master as their own insult.

Why does the blacksmith Arkhip destroy the clerks, but save the cat at the risk of his own life? (3rd question in the textbook.)

Question 3 is quite difficult for sixth graders. The blacksmith Arkhip destroys the clerks, but at the risk of his life saves a cat from the roof of a burning barn. He says to the children who are laughing at the pitiful animal: “You are not afraid of God: God’s creation is perishing, and you are foolishly rejoicing...” Arkhip perceives the cat as God’s creature, saving which will be a matter pleasing to God, but he does not perceive clerks as people, worthy of salvation: in his understanding, they violated the law established by God and the king. By helping Troekurov carry out an unjust trial, they violated God's commandments: they helped one person steal property from another, they lied and broke the oath by which they were obliged to tell the truth.

Let us pay attention to the speech characteristics of Arkhip the blacksmith in his conversation with Egorovna:

“Arkhipushka,” Yegorovna told him, “save them, the damned, God will reward you.”

“Why not,” answered the blacksmith.”

Where have we heard these words before?

Let us conclude that in the scene with the clerks (Chapter V) the “voice from the crowd” belonged to the blacksmith.

Let's look at the illustration by D. A. Shmarinov “Fire in the Dubrovsky estate” (p. 93 of the textbook).

- Make up an oral story based on this drawing.

In the illustration by D. A. Shmarinov “Fire in Dubrovsky’s estate,” the young gentleman Vladimir Andreevich Dubrovsky is depicted in the center of the picture. It was as if he had just brought a splinter to the hay, which flared up brightly; “The flames shot up and lit up the whole house.” Dubrovsky took off his cap from his head, saying goodbye to his home, and looks at the fire. To his left stands, leaning on his hand, the nanny Orina Egorovna Buzyreva, in a white scarf and apron, with her head sadly bowed. Behind her we recognize the figures of the Dubrovsky serfs: this is the coachman Anton with black hair and beard, the fair-haired Grisha, Yegorovna’s son, and - behind the figure of Anton - the blacksmith Arkhip, who locked the clerks, but at the risk of his life saved a cat from the roof of a burning barn .

On the left we see the flames of the fire. The flames are reaching towards Dubrovsky. There are horses standing in the background, above a group of people, sparks from the fire flying towards the black sky.

Dubrovsky's entire figure expresses pride and a sense of inner dignity. The figures of the serfs express a gloomy determination to follow their proud master: “... we will die, we will not leave you, we will go with you.”

Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky” gives us an example of senseless enmity between people, which leads to death and destroys destinies. General Troekurov has a lot of arrogance and ambition, everyone in the area respects and fears him (or just pretends to be). He considers himself entitled to administer justice. The novel was received ambiguously by critics, but became one of the writer's most popular works among the reading public.

Conflict between neighbors

Troyekurov leads a wide lordly life, receives many guests, and invents entertainment. Essentially, he despises everyone except his old comrade, Dubrovsky. The great weakness of the general, his dogs and kennels. One day, Troekurov's hound insulted Dubrovsky, the neighbor asked the general for an explanation, but he ignored his request. These circumstances gave rise to a number of misunderstandings, as a result of which Dubrovsky went home, and Troekurov harbored a grudge against him and decided to take revenge.

Revenge

Troekurov took a number of illegal and unfounded measures that ruined Dubrovsky and launched a chain of disastrous events:

• bribed officials;
• falsified ownership documents for Dubrovsky's estate;
• sued Dubrovsky for his family estate, thus dishonoring him, depriving his children of sources of income;
• caused the death of his old comrade, who, unable to withstand the shock, died;
• did not apologize to his comrade’s son, did not repent, took everything for granted.

Thus, the general's revenge was a success. He satisfied his ambitions and pride. Troekurov did not take into account that the old man had a son who rebelled against injustice. Young Dubrovsky created a detachment of peasants and united them against the general, in a fit of anger he burned down his old house along with corrupt officials. Under the guise of a French teacher, he settled in the estate of his enemy and studied the life of the general well. Dubrovsky is in love with Troekurov’s daughter, he opens up to her, the young people plan a plan to escape from the general’s house. The plans were upset due to a combination of circumstances, Maria’s father forcibly gave her in marriage, and Dubrovsky fled abroad.

In the first minute of anger, he wanted to launch an attack on Kistenevka with all his servants... to ruin it to the ground and besiege the landowner himself in his estate - such feats were not strange to him...” (the attention of schoolchildren is drawn to what the meaning is Pushkin puts it in this case in the word “feat”). But the appearance of assessor Shabashkin gave his thoughts a different direction. For his revenge, Troekurov chooses the lowest method. Knowing the corruption of the “ink tribe” and the servile attitude towards himself on the part of the bureaucrats, he starts a deliberately wrong business, deciding to “take”, “take away” the estate from Dubrovsky and thus completely ruin it. “That’s the power of taking away property without any right,” says the owner of Pokrovsky.

His main motivation is to prove to everyone that no one can “go after Troekurov,” even when defending his human dignity, his honor. A.G. Dubrovsky behaves completely differently than Troekurov. He breaks off all relations with his arrogant neighbor after not receiving an apology for the offense he suffered. True, he punished Troekurov’s people who stole the forest from him, but this was not revenge. He had no idea what Troekurov was planning, and was not very worried when he received a request from the court about his right to own Kistenevka.

An honest and straightforward man, he did not admit that he could become a “victim of a sneak.” Troekurov started such a low and dark business that Andrei Gavrilovich could not even imagine the extent of the danger that threatened him.

What goal did Troekurov pursue in taking away Dubrovsky’s estate? It is important that children realize that the rich Troekurov did not need to increase his estates. He did not pursue selfish goals when he wished to take possession of Kistenevka. He intended to create such conditions for his former friend that he would be completely dependent on him, Troekurov, so that Dubrovsky would ask him for leniency and humiliate himself in front of him. The arrogant rich man wanted to bring ex-friend to complete poverty, break his pride, trample on human dignity. The court's ruling expresses the Pokrovsky master's complete disdain for the acquired estate. And at the same time, this is a kind of bribe, “payment” for the efforts of the clerks: after all, Kistenevka with its peasants was actually transferred to them.

Continuing the conversation, the teacher will ask: “How did the court decision affect Dubrovsky the father?” An unexpected and wrong decision caused terrible blow old Dubrovsky, depriving him of his home, land, all his modest property, stunning him with cruelty. The poor old man went mad, and although his life was saved for a short time, he fell into complete childhood.

This is how the trial ended tragically, to which Kirila Petrovich went with an “evil smile.” Let us ask: “What should Troekurov’s mood have been like when he won the case, and why did the court’s decision not bring him joy?”

From the point of view of schoolchildren, the “villain” Troekurov should only rejoice at his victory. They do not always understand why “Dubrovsky’s sudden madness had a strong effect on her (Troekurov’s) imagination and poisoned his triumph.” And it is very important to understand Troekurov’s experiences, since they largely explain the motives that prompted him to subsequently strive for reconciliation with the old man Dubrovsky.

The court scene is the climax in the history of Troekurov's quarrel with Dubrovsky. Troekurov's arrival in Kistenevka is the denouement that serves as the beginning of other events - the story of Dubrovsky the robber. In the process of further work, we will activate the material in Chapter III. When talking with schoolchildren, the teacher poses the following question to them: “What character traits of Vladimir are manifested in St. Petersburg and which ones in Kistenevka?” This question is very important because it makes us think about the complexity of human characters. The teacher strives to ensure that the children understand why Vladimir allowed himself “luxurious whims”, “played cards and went into debt.” The father loved his son dearly, sent him more than Vladimir should have expected, and Vladimir, not feeling a lack of funds, did not think about his father’s position. He lived as most of his fellow officers lived.

But at the same time, Vladimir loved his father very much: “the thought of losing his father painfully tormented his heart.” Fifth-graders will imagine the strength of Vladimir’s attachment to his father, they will realize that care and concern for a sick old man forced young Dubrovsky, after receiving alarming news from home, to abandon his carefree St. Petersburg life and hastily go to Kistenevka.

The question of what prompted Kiril Petrovich to attempt to make peace with Dubrovsky deepens the schoolchildren’s understanding of Troekurov (the schoolchildren will remember what feelings he experienced after the trial). Together with the children we read: “He was not selfish by nature, the desire for revenge lured him too far, his conscience grumbled. He knew the state of his opponent, the old comrade of his youth, and victory did not please his heart.”

Let us explain to the students the meaning of the words and phrases we have highlighted. Schoolchildren are able to understand that in Troekurov’s soul there was a struggle between lower and “nobler” feelings. “Satisfied revenge and lust for power” fought with attachment to an old comrade. The latter won, and Troekurov headed off to Kistenevka with the “good intention” to make peace with his old neighbor, “to destroy even traces of the quarrel, returning his property.”

Reconciliation did not take place. The sick Dubrovsky died at the sight of his “friend.” Kirila Petrovich, having heard from Grisha the order of young Dubrovsky to quickly get out before he was kicked out, was driven into indescribable rage: “his face became gloomier than the night, he smiled with contempt, looked menacingly at the servants and walked at a pace near the yard.”

Now Vladimir has acquired a formidable enemy in the person of Troekurov, who will not forgive the daring insult inflicted on him in the presence of the serfs.

The question of the attitude of the serfs towards the landowners Troyekurov and Dubrovsky requires serious work. In order to clarify this issue, let us return to Chapter I, where the relationship between landowners and serfs is characterized, we will read: “Troekurov treated the peasants and servants ... strictly and capriciously, but they were vain about the wealth and glory of their master and, in turn, allowed themselves a lot in relation to their neighbors, hoping for his strong patronage.”

It is impossible not to recall here the remark of Andrei Gavrnlovich Dubrovsky, which served as the beginning of a quarrel between two neighbors; “...the kennel is wonderful,” says Andrei Gavrilovich, “it’s unlikely that your people (i.e. Troekurov) will have the same life as your dogs.” Dubrovsky knew the tough character of his friend, knew how he robbed his peasants, and his remark was not only envy. It was caused by thinking about the bitter fate of many people, including Troekurov’s serfs.

The coachman Anton expressively speaks to the young Dubrovsky about the attitude of the peasants towards both landowners. In response to Vladimir’s question: “So, you don’t want to go into Troyekurov’s possession?” - he answers: “Take possession of Kiril Petrovich!” God forbid and deliver: he sometimes has a bad time with his own people, but if he gets strangers, he will tear off not only the skin, but also the meat.” There is a completely different feeling in his address to the young master: “We don’t need anyone but you, our breadwinner. Don’t give us away, and we’ll stand for you.”

The Dubrovskys' courtyard people are accustomed to their poor masters, who do not despise serfs and treat them humanely. It is no coincidence that Pushkin talks in detail about the serf servants in the Dubrovsky house (coachman Anton, nanny Orina Egorovna Buzyreva, her son Grisha - Vladimir’s servant, blacksmith Arkhip, etc.), but the names of Troekurov’s servants are not mentioned at all, except for the arrogant huntsman Paramoshka, although in the house many serf servants. This indicates that the only form of relationship between the masters and the servants on the Troekurov estate is order and submission.

All the Kistenev peasants came to say goodbye to the deceased Andrei Gavrilovich: “the women howled loudly, the men occasionally wiped away tears with their fists.” And this was not so much an expression of grief as of fear of the difficult changes that were expected from the new owner of Kistenevka.