Duel Kuprin problems and arguments. Essay Kuprin duel analysis
A. N. Ostrovsky in each of his plays created and showed multifaceted characters whose lives are interesting to watch. One of the playwright’s works tells about a girl who committed suicide, unable to withstand the pressure of circumstances. The development of Katerina’s character in Ostrovsky’s play “The Thunderstorm,” as well as her emotional experiences, are the main driving forces of the plot.
In the list of characters, Ostrovsky designates Katerina as the wife of Tikhon Kabanov. As the plot develops, the reader gradually reveals the image of Katya, realizing that this character’s function as a wife is not exhausted. The character of Katerina in the drama “The Thunderstorm” can be called strong. Despite the unhealthy situation in the family, Katya managed to maintain purity and firmness. She refuses to accept the rules of the game, living by her own. For example, Tikhon obeys his mother in everything. In one of the first dialogues, Kabanov convinces his mother that he does not have his own opinion. But soon the topic of conversation changes - and now Kabanikha, as if casually, accuses Katerina of the fact that Tikhon loves her more. Until this moment, Katerina did not participate in the conversation, but now she is offended by her mother-in-law’s words. The girl addresses Kabanikha on a personal level, which can be regarded as hidden disrespect, as well as a kind of equality. Katerina puts herself on an equal footing with her, denying the family hierarchy. Katya politely expresses her dissatisfaction with the slander, emphasizing that in public she is the same as at home, and she has no need to pretend. This line actually speaks of Katya as strong man. As the story progresses, we learn that Kabanikha’s tyranny extends only to the family, and in society the old woman talks about preserving family order and proper upbringing, covering up her cruelty with words about benefactor. The author shows that Katerina, firstly, is aware of her mother-in-law’s behavior; secondly, I disagree with this; and thirdly, he openly declares to Kabanikha, to whom even his own son cannot object, about his views. However, Kabanikha does not give up trying to humiliate her daughter-in-law, forcing her to kneel in front of her husband.
Sometimes a girl remembers how she lived before. Katerina's childhood was quite carefree. The girl went to church with her mother, sang songs, walked, and according to Katya, she didn’t have everything she could have. Katya compares herself before marriage to a free bird: she was left to her own devices, she was in charge of her life. And now Katya often compares herself to a bird. " Why do people don't fly like birds? - she says to Varvara. “You know, sometimes I feel like I’m a bird.” But such a bird cannot fly away. Once in a cage with thick bars, Katerina gradually suffocates in captivity. A freedom-loving person like Katya cannot exist within the rigid confines of the kingdom of lies and hypocrisy. Everything in Katya seems to breathe with feelings and love for the most unique thing - for life itself. Once in the Kabanov family, the girl is deprived of this inner feeling. Her life is similar to life before marriage: the same songs, the same trips to church. But now, in such a hypocritical environment, Katya feels false.
It’s surprising that with such inner strength, Katya does not oppose herself to others. She is “a martyr, a captive, deprived of the opportunity to grow and develop,” but she does not consider herself such. She tries to pass through the “millstone of hostility and malicious envy” with dignity, without losing or vulgarizing her essence.
Katya can easily be called brave. Indeed, the girl tried to fight the feelings that flared up in her for Boris, but still decided to meet with him. Katya takes responsibility for her destiny and decisions. In a sense, during her secret meetings with Boris, Katya gains freedom. She is not afraid of "neither sin nor human court" Finally, a girl can do as her heart tells her.
But with Tikhon’s return, their meetings stop. Katya’s desire to talk about her relationship with Dikiy’s nephew does not please Boris. He hopes that the girl will remain silent, dragging her into the net " dark kingdom", from which Katya tried so desperately to escape. One of the critics of the drama, Melnikov-Pechersky, surprisingly aptly described Katerina: “a young woman, having fallen under the yoke of this old woman, experiences thousands of moral torments and at the same time realizes that God has put an ardent heart in her, that passions are raging in her young chest , are not at all compatible with the seclusion of married women, which prevails in the environment where Katerina found herself.”
Neither the confession of treason nor the conversation with Boris met Katerina’s hopes. For her, the difference and discrepancy between the real world and ideas about the future turned out to be fatal. The decision to rush into the Volga was not spontaneous - Katya had long felt her approaching death. She was afraid of the approaching thunderstorm, seeing in it retribution for sins and bad thoughts. Katerina's frank confession becomes like a desperate communion, a desire to be honest to the end. It is noteworthy that between the events of the confession of treason - the conversation with Boris - the suicide, some time passes. And all these days the girl endures insults and curses from her mother-in-law, who wants to bury her in the ground alive.
You cannot condemn the heroine or talk about the weakness of Katerina’s character in “The Thunderstorm”. Nevertheless, even having committed such a sin, Katya remains as pure and innocent as in the first acts of the play.
A discussion about the strength or weakness of Katerina’s character can be useful for 10th grade students when writing an essay on the topic “The Character of Katerina in the play “The Thunderstorm”.”
Work test
2. The image of Katerina in the play “The Thunderstorm”
Katerina is a lonely young woman who lacks human participation, sympathy, and love. The need for this draws her to Boris. She sees that outwardly he is not like other residents of the city of Kalinov, and, not being able to recognize his inner essence, considers him a person from another world. In her imagination, Boris seems to be a handsome prince who will take her from the “dark kingdom” to the fairy-tale world that exists in her dreams.
In terms of character and interests, Katerina stands out sharply from her environment. The fate of Katerina, unfortunately, is a vivid and typical example of the fate of thousands of Russian women of that time. Katerina is a young woman, the wife of the merchant son Tikhon Kabanov. She recently left her home and moved into her husband’s house, where she lives with her mother-in-law Kabanova, who is the sovereign mistress. Katerina has no rights in the family; she is not even free to control herself. She remembers with warmth and love parents' house, my girlhood life. There she lived freely, surrounded by the affection and care of her mother. The religious upbringing she received in the family developed in her impressionability, daydreaming, belief in the afterlife and retribution for man's sins.
Katerina found herself in completely different conditions in her husband’s house. At every step she felt dependent on her mother-in-law, endured humiliation and insults. From Tikhon she does not meet any support, much less understanding, since he himself is under the power of Kabanikha. Out of her kindness, Katerina is ready to treat Kabanikha as her own mother. "But Katerina's sincere feelings do not meet with support from either Kabanikha or Tikhon.
Life in such an environment changed Katerina’s character. Katerina’s sincerity and truthfulness collide in Kabanikha’s house with lies, hypocrisy, hypocrisy, and rudeness. When love for Boris is born in Katerina, it seems like a crime to her, and she struggles with the feeling that washes over her. Katerina's truthfulness and sincerity make her suffer so much that she finally has to repent to her husband. Katerina's sincerity and truthfulness are incompatible with the life of the “dark kingdom”. All this was the cause of Katerina’s tragedy.
"Katerina's public repentance shows the depth of her suffering, moral greatness, and determination. But after repentance, her situation became unbearable. Her husband does not understand her, Boris is weak-willed and does not come to her aid. The situation has become hopeless - Katerina is dying. It is not Katerina's fault one specific person. Her death is the result of the incompatibility of morality and the way of life in which she was forced to exist. The image of Katerina was of great importance for Ostrovsky’s contemporaries and for subsequent generations educational value. He called for a fight against all forms of despotism and oppression human personality. This is an expression of the growing protest of the masses against all types of slavery.
Katerina, sad and cheerful, compliant and obstinate, dreamy, depressed and proud. Such different mental states are explained by the naturalness of each mental movement of this simultaneously restrained and impetuous nature, the strength of which lies in the ability to always be itself. Katerina remained true to herself, that is, she could not change the very essence of her character.
I think that the most important character trait of Katerina is honesty with herself, her husband, and the world around her; it is her unwillingness to live a lie. She does not want and cannot be cunning, pretend, lie, hide. This is confirmed by the scene of Katerina’s confession of treason. It was not the thunderstorm, not the frightening prophecy of the crazy old woman, not the fear of hell that prompted the heroine to tell the truth. “My whole heart was exploding! I can’t stand it anymore!” - this is how she began her confession. For her honest and integral nature, the false position in which she found herself is unbearable. Living just to live is not for her. To live means to be yourself. Its most precious value is personal freedom, freedom of the soul.
With such a character, Katerina, after betraying her husband, could not stay in his house, return to a monotonous and dreary life, endure constant reproaches and “moral teachings” from Kabanikha, or lose freedom. But all patience comes to an end. It is difficult for Katerina to be in a place where she is not understood, her human dignity is humiliated and insulted, her feelings and desires are ignored. Before her death, she says: “It’s all the same whether you go home or go to the grave... It’s better in the grave...” It’s not death that she desires, but life that is unbearable.
Katerina is a deeply religious and God-fearing person. Since according to Christian religion suicide is a great sin, then by deliberately committing it, she showed not weakness, but strength of character. Her death is a challenge to the “dark power”, the desire to live in the “light kingdom” of love, joy and happiness.
The death of Katerina is the result of a collision of two historical eras. With her death, Katerina protests against despotism and tyranny, her death indicates the approaching end of the “dark kingdom.” The image of Katerina belongs to the best images of the Russian fiction. Katerina is a new type of people in Russian reality in the 60s of the 19th century.
arguments for an essay
Essays on the topic of honor on our website:
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
The problem of honor and dishonor is one of the most important in a person’s life. We are taught from childhood that acting dishonestly is bad. Walking past the playground, we hear every now and then: “This is not fair! We must replay!”
That's the definition honor we find in the dictionary S.I. Ozhegova:
There you can see the definition of the word "honest":
In the dictionary V.I. Dahl gives the following sayings about dishonor:
Honor is a moral category. The concept of honor is inextricably linked with the concept of conscience, that is, to be an honest person is to live according to conscience, according to deep inner convictions that one thing is good and the other is bad.
A person faces the problem of what to do: honestly or dishonestly (lie or tell the truth; betray or remain faithful to the country, person, word, principles, etc.) literally every day. That's why all world literature addressed her one way or another.
the problem of honor and dishonor is one of the most important. Erast, a flighty young man, a nobleman, carried away by Lisa, a peasant girl, thinks of leaving his usual society for her sake and abandoning his previous way of life. But in the end his dreams turn out to be self-deception. Liza, deeply in love with Erast, sincerely believes young man and gives him the most precious thing that she, a poor girl, has - her maiden honor. Karamzin bitterly reproaches Lisa for this act:
But if we can understand and justify Lisa (she is truly in love!), then it is impossible to justify Erast. Brought up in a noble environment in such a way that he cannot earn a living on his own, the hero, who is facing a debt trap because he lost his entire fortune at cards, decides to marry a rich widow. Liza, waiting for her lover from the war, accidentally finds out about everything, and Erast, taken by surprise, wants to pay off the girl with money. The act is deeply dishonest, showing Erast’s cowardice, his lack of will, and selfishness. Lisa turned out to be more decent than Erast, paying for her love and lost honor at a very high price - her own life.
All heroes are tested for honor. Take care of honor from a young age - this is the main instruction of his father to Pyotr Grinev, who is going to serve. And the hero honorably fulfills the parent’s order. He refuses to swear allegiance to Pugachev, while another hero, Alexey Shvabrin, does this without much hesitation. Shvabrin is a traitor, but if his action could be explained only by a completely understandable fear of death, then it could at least somehow be justified. But Shvabrin is a vile, low person. We know this from how he tried to denigrate Masha Mironova in the eyes of Grinev, how he meanly wounded Peter during a duel. Therefore, his betrayal is quite natural and cannot be justified.
Pugachev’s henchmen, who betrayed him, also show themselves to be dishonest people. While Pugachev himself, although presented by Pushkin as an ambiguous figure, turned out to be a man of honor (he gratefully remembers the sheepskin coat given by Grinev; at the request of the main character, he immediately stands up for Masha and frees her from Shvabrin’s captivity).
the problem of honor is also key. Both main characters, Evgeny Onegin and Tatyana Larina, pass the test of honor. For Onegin, this test consists of refusing or agreeing to a duel with Lensky. Although, according to the unwritten rules of secular society, refusing a duel was cowardly and dishonorable (if you committed an act - answer!), in the case of Lensky, greater dignity and honor for Onegin would have been to apologize and refuse the duel. But Evgeny showed cowardice, fearing the condemnation of the world: he did not explain to Vladimir. The result of the duel is known to everyone: the young poet died in the prime of his life. Thus, formally, Onegin was not guilty of anything: he accepted the challenge and fate turned out to be more favorable to him than to Lensky. But the hero's conscience was unclean. It was the consciousness that he acted dishonestly, dishonestly, in our opinion, that forced Evgeniy to leave society for seven long years.
Tatyana passed her honor exam with great dignity. She still loves Onegin, which she sincerely admits to him, but refuses a relationship with him because she wants to preserve the good name of her family. For her, a married woman, this connection is impossible.
A.S. himself Pushkin died tragically at the dawn of his strength, defending the honor of his wife, Natalya Nikolaevna, who was accused of having an affair with the young Frenchman Dantes. On his death M.Yu. Lermontov wrote wonderful words:
the concept of honor is replaced by the concept of benefit. It is not without reason that the writer characterizes him as a person of a cautious and cool character. Since childhood, Chichikov has well learned his father’s order to “take care and save a penny.” And so little Pavlusha sells food to his classmates, makes a wax bullfinch and sells it the same way. Having matured, he does not shun a shameless scam with the purchase of “dead souls”, finding an approach to each seller, deceiving someone, making up an incredible story for this (as he did with Manilov), and simply not explaining anything to someone (Korobochka). But other landowners (Nozdryov, Sobakevich, Plyushkin) are fully aware of the meaning of this event, but nevertheless their “honor” does not suffer in the least from Chichikov’s proposal. Each of these landowners happily sells “dead souls” to the main character, thereby improving their financial situation.
Officials in the poem are also shown as unscrupulous and dishonest people. And although the work does not contain large, detailed images, Gogol gives beautiful miniature portraits of government servants. So, Ivan Antonovich Kuvshinnoe Rylo is a typical official who, taking advantage of his official position, extorts bribes from visitors. It is he who introduces Chichikov to all the intricacies of the bureaucratic machine.
Unlike the poem
a detailed description of the life and morals of officials of the small town of N is presented. All of them are dishonest, since they do not hesitate to take bribes, and they do not really hide it. The officials feel like the rightful owners of the town, and the only thing the mayor is afraid of is denunciation. The habit of taking and giving bribes is so deeply rooted in the minds of officials that they also consider a bribe to be the best way to appease Khlestakov, whom they mistake for an auditor. Khlestakov, a young man, according to Gogol’s definition, “without a king in his head,” not brought up in strict concepts of honor and dignity, having lost at cards in St. Petersburg and sitting in a hotel in the town of N penniless in his pocket, happily accepts money from officials, at first even not understanding what was the matter and why suddenly he was so incredibly lucky. He doesn't care about the consequences of his words and actions. And he is happy to deceive, attributing to himself more and more merits (and on friendly terms with Pushkin, and he writes and publishes in magazines, and knows all the ministers), he is not embarrassed by the fact that he declared his love to Marya Antonovna, his daughter the mayor, and his wife Anna Andreevna, and then even promised to marry Marya Antonovna.
honor turned out to be an empty phrase for Andriy, the youngest son of Taras, an old Cossack colonel. Andriy easily betrays the Cossacks for the sake of his beloved, the Polish lady. Taras and Andriy’s brother, Ostap, are not like that. For them, Cossack honor is most important. The father, no matter how hard it was for him, mad with anger after seeing his son slashing at his own Cossacks in battle, kills his son with a shot.
speaks for itself. The hero of the story is a boy who was entrusted by teenagers during a game to guard an imaginary military warehouse, having taken his word of honor not to leave his post. And he didn’t leave, despite the fact that everyone had long since left and the park was getting dark and scary. Only the permission of a military man, who happened to be nearby, freed the child from this promise.
In life it also often happens that the word, given by man, turns out to be above any personal benefits, circumstances, etc. All this speaks of the high honor of such people. This is what happened with A.P. Chekhov, who refused the title of academician after the same title was deprived of M. Gorky, for whom Anton Pavlovich at one time warmly voted and whom he warmly congratulated on his election. But the Academy of Sciences decided to reverse its decision. Chekhov categorically disagreed with this. He said that his vote in favor of electing Gorky as an academician was sincere and the Academy’s decision was absolutely inconsistent with his personal opinion.
In the works of A.P. Chekhov's problem of honor, including professional honor, was raised more than once.
he talks about Doctor Osip Stepanovich Dymov, who remained faithful to his medical duty to the end. He decides to suck out diphtheria films from a sick boy, although this was very dangerous for the doctor, and therefore was not prescribed as a mandatory treatment measure. But Dymov goes for it, gets infected and dies.
Story by A.I. Kuprin's "Duel" became a kind of explosion, a shock for readers. This work told the whole truth about Russian army late 19th – early 20th centuries. And this truth was terrifying.
Kuprin himself, as you know, served in the army and knew “from the inside” all its laws and procedures. For the first time in Russian literature, he openly and in detail showed how the military disfigures people, deliberately destroying their personality. The writer argued that it is not beneficial for the army to have thinking, critical people in its ranks. The very specifics of the army required machines in their ranks that could only obey and kill. And when all this was superimposed on Russian reality, the army turned for a person into an unbearable torture, the ending of which was known in advance - death, spiritual or physical.
At the center of the story is the fate of the young officer Georgy Romashov. The writer portrays him as a subtle, deep, thinking and feeling nature. Romashov is a romantic. He came to the army to serve the Motherland, to defend the fatherland. But, plunging into the painful everyday life of the army, the hero begins to see the true face of the Russian army. And this truth repels Romashov.
The hero enters into a kind of duel with the life around him, the army machine. He tries to approach everything from the point of view of human morality, morality. Romashov tries to treat people with love and understanding. Therefore, his heart breaks, and his mind cannot understand what the hero sees around him.
Struck by the case of Khlebnikov, who was driven to despair by the bullying of the officers, Romashov begins to sympathize with him. But, besides this, he realizes that the downtrodden “gray Khlebnikovs with their monotonously submissive and exhausted faces are in fact living people, and not mechanical quantities called a company, battalion, regiment...” That is, the hero begins to see a personality in each soldier . And with such an approach and view it is impossible to exist in the army, where the individual is deliberately ignored and destroyed.
Here, in the army, Romashov falls in love. Shurochka Nikolaeva, the wife of Lieutenant Nikolaeva, becomes his “goddess”. This woman can also be boldly called a victim of the army system. Talented, capable, with a sharp mind and beautiful appearance, she could make the happiness of some outstanding person. Moreover, Alexandra Petrovna is very ambitious. She strives to go to St. Petersburg, where, in her opinion, real life happens.
That is why Shurochka so wants her husband to finally pass the exams and enter the General Staff Academy. This would open the way for him to further career growth. The heroine makes every effort to ensure that Lieutenant Nikolaev masters the program, but it is given to him with great difficulty. Unfortunately, Shurochka’s husband is a narrow-minded and not very capable person.
Romashov adores Alexandra Petrovna. Everything about her seems beautiful to him. But gradually we begin to understand that the romantic hero largely invented the image of his beloved, endowed her with ideal features. In fact, Shurochka turned out to be quite eccentric and selfish. Carried away by “dear Romochka” out of boredom and emptiness, she practically becomes the culprit of his death. A duel takes place between Lieutenant Nikolaev and Romashov over Shurochka. And Romashov dies.
This death is very natural in the logic of the story's development. Let us remember that as a result of his reflections, Romashov comes to the conclusion that the army is not needed at all. But he doesn’t know what he personally can do to improve the situation. We can say that Romashov finds himself at a moral and ideological crossroads. He is aware of the depravity and incorrectness of the system and the way of life around him, but does not see a way out, has no idea how to fix it.
In general, at the end of the story, all the fights that the hero fought throughout his life are revealed and brought together. This is Romashov’s duel with himself, with his weakness, daydreaming, indecision. This is also his duel with society, which destroys the individual in a person and interferes with the awakening of the individual’s self-awareness. As a result, all this is embodied in a literal duel between Romashov and his “rival” - Lieutenant Nikolaev.
Romashov dies in a duel. And this sad ending of his life is very symbolic. The hero lost the fight with life, or rather, with its absurd order. In such a life there is no place for pure and bright souls, says Kuprin. It is important that Romashov dies precisely at the moment when his soul is full of love for Shurochka Nikolaeva. Thus, Kuprin once again emphasizes that the existing system and way of life destroys all that is best, living, and sincere. In the army and life described by the writer, there is no place for people. Only dullness, slaves, and cannon fodder survive there.
Even the power of love is unable to change anything in the current system. Or was it not there, a real feeling? Kuprin shows that in the army there is no place for Christian love - for one’s neighbor, for man in general. Everything here is built only on violence and destruction. There is no place here for a person to love himself, because the system destroys it from the roots.
There is no place in the army for a man to love a woman. Shurochka does not love her husband, but lives with him, hoping for his promotion. She likes young Romashov, but she does not see her “hero” in him. And, despite this, she plays with him and becomes the reason for his death.
Thus, Kuprin makes us understand that in the Russian army of the early 20th century there is no place for love, which means there is no place for life. The Russian army is doomed to death, extinction.
A writer must study life without turning away from anything. A.I.Kuprin
Man and army machine - this, in my opinion, is the main problem of Kuprin’s story “The Duel”. This is a realistic story about Russian officers. At its center is the conflict of a dreamer with an inhuman world that degrades human dignity.
The plot of the work is everyday tragic: Second Lieutenant Romashov dies as a result of a duel with Lieutenant Nikolaev. A city intellectual in the uniform of a second lieutenant, Romashov suffers from the vulgarity and meaninglessness of life, “monotonous, like a fence, and gray, like a soldier’s cloth.” The general atmosphere of cruelty and impunity that reigned among officers creates the preconditions for a conflict to arise.
“The non-commissioned officers brutally beat their soldiers for an insignificant mistake in literature, for a lost leg while marching...” Violence in the story is an integral attribute of the spirit of the army: military subordination and discipline rest on it, the entire army was created by violence.
Kuprin writes about the recruits: “They stood in the regimental yard, huddled together, in the rain, like a herd of frightened and submissive animals, looking incredulously, from under their brows.” Once in the army, these young boys quickly lose their individuality: “They danced, but in this dancing, as in the singing, there was something wooden, dead, that made you want to cry.” They themselves begin to beat the soldiers: “They beat him (Khlebnikov) every day, laugh at him, mock him...”
Romashov experiences “a surge of warm, selfless, endless compassion” for the hunted soldier Khlebnikov. The author does not idealize young Romashov and does not at all make him a fighter against the way of army life. Romashov is only capable of timid disagreement, of hesitant attempts to convince that decent people should not attack an unarmed man with a saber: “It is dishonest to beat a soldier. That's shameful."
The atmosphere of contemptuous alienation strengthens Lieutenant Romashov. By the end of the story, he reveals firmness and strength of character. The fight becomes inevitable. His love for a married woman, Shurochka Nikolaeva, who was not ashamed to conclude a cynical deal with a man in love with her, in which his life was the stake, accelerated the denouement.
It must be said that the theme of the duel runs throughout Russian literature of the 19th century century. Let us remember the knightly duel of Petrusha Grinev with the slanderer Shvabrin in “ The captain's daughter” Pushkin and compare it with the actual murder of Baron Tuzenbach by Staff Captain Solyony in Chekhov’s “Three Sisters”. And we see that there are different generations before us, different people, different duels. “Combat of honor” loses its meaning over time, just as the system of human values loses its meaning. This is what worries Kuprin most of all. Therefore, before us is not just a duel between two military men, it is a duel of good and evil, cynicism and purity.
Kuprin raised in his story a painful, acute problem of the Russian army of the early 1900s. Alienation, mute misunderstanding between officers and soldiers, narrow-mindedness, caste isolation, and the poverty of the educational level of Russian officers are outlined by Kuprin cruelly, but accurately.
The more murder weapons are improved, the more important the question becomes about the state of morality of those who hold these weapons in their hands. Reading Kuprin’s story, we discover that among officers there is the following concept about army life: “Today we get drunk, tomorrow we go to the company - one, two, left, right. We’ll drink again in the evening, and the day after tomorrow we’ll join the company.” Is this really what life is all about?
But nothing else was offered. The officers and their wives had to be content with this routine. How wretched are their entertainments and hobbies: “In the regiment, a rather naive, boyish game was common among young officers: teaching orderlies various outlandish, unusual things.” And a person, cut off from his environment, often lost his face and succumbed to the general “decay” of the army. Most officers are on a low moral level. Their conversations are dirty and vulgar. They are not interested in lofty matters. I completely agree with Nazansky’s opinion: “They laugh: ha-ha-ha, this is all philosophy!.. It’s funny, and wild, and impermissible for an army infantry officer to think about sublime matters. This is philosophy, damn it, therefore it is nonsense, idle and absurd chatter.”
The creators of the army machine are deliberately lowering the moral level of officers. And this is not surprising. In order to force a person to kill his own kind, it is necessary to destroy his ideas about good and evil, about justice. But the officers are the core of the army. Consequently, the entire army was subjected to moral decay.
I believe that instilling false, unnatural moral concepts into a person is the root of the army’s evil. And Kuprin blames the army for distorting the natural purpose of man. It’s not for nothing that critics called Kuprin’s “Duel” a duel with the army.
But among the heroes of the story there are individual officers who are worried about what is happening. Let's listen to the words of those who have experienced the soullessness of the army machine: “The only question is: where will we go if we don’t serve? Where are we good for when all we know is left, right, and nothing else, no me, no crow. We know how to die, that’s true,” says Lieutenant Vetkin. Such officers had nowhere to go. They had no specialty, they did not know how to earn bread except by serving in the army. This hopelessness seems to me the most difficult in their situation. The officers who risked breaking with the army returned back, unable to find a place for themselves in life.
However, Romashov still found the strength to break with the army, although he was unable to complete his break due to his death in a duel. Romashov did not allow the army machine to erase his personal “I”. Main character the story does not see and does not feel the meaning in the very existence of the army.
Of course, the army has its own laws, its own power, its own methods. So it was and will be. It seems to me that a brave daredevil who dares to challenge the army machine is an eminently humanist. Kuprin warned humanity about the danger lurking in the army.
The prophecy and undoubted talent of Kuprin is that he saw in the military’s hatred of the “shpaks” the beginning of the future civil war. His book, bearing the truthful word, containing such a brilliant prophecy, is immortal.
“The Duel” was published during the days of the defeat of the Russian fleet at Tsushima. The cruel, shameful reality of the Russian-Japanese War of 1904-1905 confirmed the pathos of the story and Kuprin’s diagnosis. “The Duel” became a literary and social sensation in 1905, the first months of the first Russian revolution. The story was highly appreciated by Gorky, Stasov, Repin.
In 1918, Kuprin wrote with anger and sorrow about the collapse of the front of the First World War: “We had a wonderful army that amazed the whole world. She melted, leaving behind dirty traces...”
I share the opinion of the great writer. And I think the army traits he debunked remain in the modern army. The story of our contemporary S. Kaledin “Stroibat” proves the relevance of this topic in our days: “There is no government for the Gubars, there is no legal one. But without the law, you can find it.” Our young generation still hopes for a new humane law that will revive the glory of the Russian army and change the situation of military personnel in our country.
Composition
A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel” is the pinnacle of creativity, his final work, in which he addresses the problem of the individual and society, their tragic disharmony. “The Duel” is a politically topical work: the story itself does not say anything about the Russian-Japanese War, but contemporaries perceived it in the context of those events. Kuprin revealed the essence of the state of society that led to the explosion, essentially pointing out the reasons that caused the defeat of the Russian army in the war with Japan.
The documentary style in “The Duel” is obvious (the consonance of the names of the officers - the heroes of the story with those with whom Lieutenant Kuprin served in the 46th Dnieper Infantry Regiment, details of the biography of Romashov and the author himself). Kuprin said: “The main thing is actor- it’s me”, “Romashov is my double”. With all this, the work contained a broad generalizing meaning. The author's attention is drawn to the topic of life in Russia in the first decade of the 20th century. The depiction of the military environment was by no means an end in itself. Starting from a local “army” theme, Kuprin raised problems that worried the entire society; they determined the moral pathos of the story: the fate of the people, the intrinsic value of the human personality, the awakening of its activity.
The title of the story is symbolic; the story became a duel between Kuprin himself and the tsarist army, autocratic orders that were destroying people. This is a duel with lies, immorality, injustice. The decline of morality, the apology for war, robbery, and violence are especially hateful to the humanist writer.
Kuprin shows the path the main character of the story, Romashov, takes in search of the truth. When the hero begins to see clearly and comes to the conclusion about the intrinsic value of the “I”, he recognizes the right to respect for human dignity not only in relation to himself, but also extends it to the soldiers. Before our eyes, Romashov is becoming morally mature: “Beating a soldier is dishonorable. You cannot hit a person who cannot answer you and does not have the right to raise his hand to his face to protect himself from a blow. He doesn’t even dare to tilt his head. That's shameful!" Romashov, who asserts: “The Khlebnikovs are my brothers,” realizing the spiritual kinship with the people, takes a huge step forward in his development. This is a completely different person: not the young dreamer we meet at the beginning of the story. However, Romashov dies. The author brought his hero to such a point that, if he had remained alive, it would have been necessary to open up some clear prospect for his future. And this did not seem clear to Kuprin himself.
Loving his hero, Kuprin mourns his death and clearly points out those who are guilty of this, speaks honestly and directly, because he himself more than once suffered cruelly from human indifference.
Is Shurochka Nikolaeva to blame for the death of Romashov? To a greater extent - yes. Her character combines contrasting qualities. She is predatory and smart, beautiful and dexterous. The high and the low and the crudely pragmatic are intertwined in her. The trouble is that these negative qualities of Shurochka are hidden from Romashov for the time being. A pragmatic lady, unscrupulous in the means of achieving goals, the cynical Shurochka removes Romashov as an obstacle in her path. She is betting on her husband - albeit unloved, but she will make sure that he will help her achieve what she wants.
The author's position helps to understand the image of Nazansky. This hero is no less complex and contradictory than Shurochka. Deep understanding of reality, originality of thinking - and reflection, inertia, silence. However, despite all the contradictory nature of Nazansky’s judgments, in his famous monologues, which define the moral pathos of the story, the most important ideas for Kuprin are openly expressed in a journalistic way. Nazansky’s monologues outline two lines: sharp criticism of the autocracy and dreams of have a wonderful life.
The mass of officers shown by Kuprin in the story are people different in their human qualities. Almost each of them has a minimum of “good” feelings, bizarrely mixed with cruelty, rudeness, and indifference. These “good” feelings are distorted beyond recognition by caste military prejudices. Let the regiment commander Shulgovich, under his thunderous bourbonism, hide his concern for the officers, or Lieutenant Colonel Rafalsky loves animals and devotes all his free and non-free time to collecting a rare domestic menagerie - no real relief, no matter how much they want, they cannot bring. The officers are just an obedient instrument of inhuman statutory conventions.
Kuprin's biography was full of various events that gave the writer rich food for his literary works. The story “The Duel” is rooted in that period of Kuprin’s life when he acquired the experience of a military man. The desire to serve in the army was passionate and romantic in my youth. Kuprin graduated from the cadet corps and the Moscow Alexander Military School. Over time, service and the ostentatious, elegant side of an officer’s life turned out to be its wrong side: tiresomely monotonous classes in “literature” and practicing gun techniques with soldiers dull from drill, drinking in a club and vulgar affairs with regimental libertines.
However, it was these years that gave Kuprin the opportunity to comprehensively study provincial military life, as well as get acquainted with the impoverished life of the Belarusian outskirts, the Jewish town, and the morals of the “low-ranking” intelligentsia. The impressions of these years were, as it were, a reserve for many years to come (Kuprin gleaned material for a number of stories and, first of all, the story “The Duel” during his officer service). Work on the story “The Duel” in 1902-1905 was dictated by the desire to carry out a long-conceived plan - to “enough” of the tsarist army, this concentration of stupidity, ignorance and inhumanity.
All the events of the work take place against the backdrop of army life, without ever going beyond it. Perhaps this was done in order to emphasize the real need to at least think about the problems that are shown in the story. After all, the army is a stronghold of autocracy, and if there are shortcomings in it, then we must strive to eliminate them. Otherwise, all the importance and exemplary character of the existing system is a bluff, an empty phrase, and there is no great power.
The main character, Second Lieutenant Romashov, will have to realize the horror of army reality. The author’s choice is not accidental, because Romashov is in many ways very close to Kuprin: both of them graduated from military school and enlisted in the army. From the very beginning of the story, the author sharply immerses us in the atmosphere of army life, painting a picture of company exercises: practicing service at the post, the lack of understanding by some soldiers of what is required of them (Khlebnikov, carrying out the orders of the arrested; Mukhamedzhinov, a Tatar who poorly understands Russian and , as a result, incorrectly executing orders). It is not difficult to understand the reasons for this misunderstanding. Khlebnikov, a Russian soldier, simply does not have any education, and therefore for him everything said by Corporal Shapovalenko is nothing more than an empty phrase. In addition, the reason for such misunderstanding is a sharp change in the situation: just as the author abruptly immerses us in this kind of situation, many recruits had no idea about military affairs before, did not communicate with military people, everything is new for them: “ ...they still did not know how to separate jokes and examples from the real requirements of the service and fell first to one extreme and then to the other.” Mukha-medzhinov does not understand anything due to his nationality, and this is also a big problem for the Russian army - they are trying to “bring everyone under the same brush”, without taking into account the characteristics of each people, which are, so to speak, innate and cannot be eliminated no training, much less shouting or physical punishment.
In general, the problem of assault appears very clearly in this story. This is the apotheosis of social inequality. Of course, we must not forget that corporal punishment for soldiers was abolished only in 1905. But in this case we are no longer talking about punishment, but about mockery: “The non-commissioned officers brutally beat their subordinates for an insignificant mistake in literature, for a lost leg during marching - they beat them bloody, knocked out teeth, broke their eardrums with blows to the ear, They threw their fists on the ground.” Would a person with a normal psyche behave this way? The moral world of everyone who joins the army changes radically and, as Romashov notes, not for the better. Even Captain Stelkovsky, commander of the fifth company, the best company in the regiment, an officer who always “possessed patient, cold-blooded and confident persistence,” as it turned out, also beat soldiers (as an example, Romashov cites how Stelkovsky knocks out a soldier’s teeth along with his horn, incorrectly who gave the signal through this same horn). In other words, there is no point in envying the fate of people like Stelkovsky.
The fate of ordinary soldiers causes even less envy. After all, they do not even have the basic right to choose: “You cannot hit a person who cannot answer you, who does not have the right to raise his hand to his face to protect himself from a blow. He doesn’t even dare to tilt his head.” The soldiers must endure all this and cannot even complain, because they know perfectly well what will happen to them then.
In addition to the fact that the privates are subjected to systematic beatings, they are also deprived of their livelihood: the small salary they receive, they give almost all of it to their commander. And this same money is spent by the gentlemen officers on all sorts of gatherings in bars with drinking, dirty games (again with money), and in the company of depraved women.
Having officially left the serfdom 40 years ago and paid a huge amount for it human lives, Russia at the beginning of the 20th century had a model of such a society in the army, where the officers were exploitative landowners, and ordinary soldiers were serf slaves. The army system is destroying itself from within. It does not sufficiently perform the function assigned to it.
Those who try to go against this system will face a very difficult fate. It is useless to fight such a “machine” alone; it “absorbs everyone and everything.” Even attempts to understand what is happening plunges people into shock: Nazansky, who is constantly ill and goes on a drinking binge (obviously, thereby trying to hide from reality), is finally the hero of the story, Romashov. For him, every day the glaring facts of social injustice, all the ugliness of the system, become more and more noticeable. With his characteristic self-criticism, he also finds in himself the reasons for this state of affairs: he became part of the “machine”, mixed with this common gray mass of people who understand nothing and lost people. Romashov is trying to isolate himself from them: “He began to retire from the company of officers, dined most of the time at home, did not go to dance evenings in the assembly at all, and stopped drinking.” He “seemed to have matured, become older and more serious over the years.” last days" This “growing up” was not easy for him: he went through a social conflict, a struggle with himself, he even had close thoughts about suicide (he clearly imagined a picture depicting his dead body and a crowd of people gathered around).
Analyzing the position of the Khlebnikovs in the Russian army, the way of life of the officers and looking for ways out of such a situation, Romashov comes to the idea that an army without war is absurd, and, therefore, in order for this monstrous phenomenon to not exist, the “army” it must be necessary for people to understand the uselessness of war: “... Let’s say, tomorrow, let’s say, this very second this thought came to everyone’s minds: Russians, Germans, British, Japanese... And now there’s no more war, no more officers and soldier, everyone went home.” I am also close to a similar idea: to solve such global problems in the army, in order to solve global problems in general, it is necessary that the need for change is understood by the majority of people, since small groups of people, and even more so a few, are unable to change the course of history.
Other works on this work
The author and his characters in A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel” Ideological and artistic originality of A. Kuprin’s story “The Duel” Test of love (based on the story “The Duel” by A. I. Kuprin) CRITICAL IMAGE OF ARMY SOCIETY IN A. I. KUPRIN’S STORY “DUEHL” The world of human feelings in prose of the early 20th century Moral and social problems in A. Kuprin’s story “The Duel.” Moral and social problems of Kuprin’s story “The Duel” The moral quest of Kuprin’s heroes using the example of the heroes of the story “The Duel” Story by A.I. Kuprin's "Duel" as a protest against depersonalization and spiritual emptiness Duel in “Duel” (based on the story of the same name by A.I. Kuprin) Duel of violence and humanism Debunking the romance of military service (based on the story “The Duel”) Russia in the works of A. I. Kuprin (based on the story “The Duel”) The strength and weakness of the nature of Second Lieutenant Romashov (based on the story “The Duel” by A. I. Kuprin) The power of love (based on the story “The Duel” by A. I. Kuprin)Answers
What is the theme of the story?
The crisis of Russia, all spheres of Russian life
What three main thematic lines did you see in the story?
The life of officers, soldiers, relationships between people
How does Kuprin paint images of officers?
With cruel strokes, Kuprin paints the army environment. The images of officers were created from many years of experience. Almost all are careerists, drunkards, stupid and ignorant. Service for them is boring, a painful duty. They have no intellectual interests, they can’t read or think, and they don’t want to.
Kuprin managed to create a whole gallery of portraits. These are also representatives of the older generation - Colonel Shulgovich, Captain Sliva, Captain Osadchiy, who is distinguished by his inhumanity towards soldiers and recognizes only cane discipline.
There are also younger officers - Naznansky, Vetkin, Bek-Agamalov. Their lives are no better. Having come to terms with the oppressive order in the army, they try to escape from reality by drinking.
Do you agree that the officers in the story “The Duel” have a single “typical” face? How does this “unity” manifest itself?
Comparison with animals, Kuprin uses the epithet “animal” in describing officers
Kuprin depicts how in the conditions of the army there is a “dehumanization” of a person - a soldier and an officer, how the Russian army is dying
How are the “regimental ladies” depicted?
Officers' wives are just as predatory and bloodthirsty as their husbands. Evil, stupid, ignorant, hypocritical. Regimental ladies are the personification of extreme squalor. Their everyday life is woven from gossip, the provincial game of secularism, boring and vulgar connections. The most repulsive image is Raisa Peterson, the wife of Captain Talman. Evil, stupid, depraved and vindictive. "Oh, how disgusting she is!” - Romashov thinks about her with disgust. "And from the thought of his previous physical intimacy with this woman, he felt as if he had not washed for several months and had not changed his linen” (chapter 9).
The rest of the “ladies” are no better . Even the outwardly charmingShurochka Nikolaeva features of Osadchy, who seem to be unlike him, appear: she advocates fights with a fatal outcome, says: “I would shoot such people like rabid dogs " There is no truly feminine thing left in her: “I don't want a child. Ugh, what disgusting ! - she admits to Romashov (chapter 14).Thoughts about the possibility of another life are combined with thoughts about love forShurochka Nikolaeva . Sweet, feminine Shurochka, with whom Nazansky is in love, essentiallyguilty of the murder of Romashov in a duel.Self-interest, calculation, lust for power, double-mindedness , « some kind of evil and proud force ", Shurochka’s resourcefulness is not noticed by the loving Romashov. She demands: "You definitely have to shoot tomorrow “- and Romashov agrees for her sake to a duel that could have been avoided.
What does Kuprin say about soldiers?
A) poorly thinking, slow-witted BOndarenko ,
B) intimidated, deafened by shoutsArkhipov , which "does not understand and cannot learn the simplest things »,
B) loserKhlebnikov. His image is more detailed than others. A ruined, landless and impoverished Russian peasant, "shaved into a soldier." Khlebnikov's lot as a soldier is painful and pitiful. Corporal punishment and constant humiliation are his lot. Sick and weak, with a face "in the fist ", on which a dirty nose stuck up absurdly, with eyes in which "frozen in dull, submissive horror “, this soldier became a general ridicule in the company and an object for mockery and abuse. He is driven to thoughts of suicide, from which Romashov saves him, who sees a human brother in Khlebnikov. Feeling sorry for Khlebnikov, Romashov says: “Khlebnikov, are you feeling bad? And I don’t feel good, my dear... I don’t understand anything that’s going on in the world. Everything is some kind of wild, senseless, cruel nonsense! But we must endure, my dear, we must endure. …» Khlebnikov, although he sees in Romashov a kind person who has a humane attitude toward a simple soldier, but, first of all, sees in himmaster . The cruelty, injustice, and absurdity of life become obvious, but the hero sees no way out of this horror other than patience.
G) educated, smart, independentFokin.
Depicting gray, depersonalized, oppressed« own ignorance, general slavery, bosses’ indifference, arbitrariness and violence » soldiers, Kuprin evokes compassion in the reader for them, shows that in fact these are living people, and not faceless “cogs” of a military machine.
So Kuprin addresses another, very important topic.– theme of personality.
Image of Romashov.
Lieutenant Romashov is given in continuous movement, in the process of his internal change and spiritual growth. He is fundamentally different from all the officers in the story.
The main character of the story is Second Lieutenant Yuri Alekseevich Romashov. Kuprin will say about him: “He is my double.” Indeed, this hero embodies the best features of Kuprin’s heroes: honesty, decency, intelligence, but at the same time a certain dreaminess, a desire to change the world for the better. Naznansky says about Romashov: “You have... some kind of inner light. But in our den it will be extinguished"
Which of the characters in the story experiences a “serious moral revolution”? What is it connected with?
Romashov. Mercy has triumphed over the sinful essence of man.
What is the meaning of the title of the story?
1. Officer's duel – Romashov and Nikolaev
2. Romashov loses in a duel with reality. If he had survived, he would have faced moral death in the army environment
But the name is also metaphorical , symbolic meaning. Kuprin wrote: “with all the strength of my soul I hate the years of my childhood and youth, the years of the corps, the cadet school and service in the regiment. About everything. What I have experienced and seen, I must write. And with my novel I will challenge the tsar’s army to a duel.” The name also has another, much greater social aspect. Tale –Kuprin's duel with the entire army , with the whole system that kills the personality in a person and kills the person himself. In 1905, this story, of course, was perceived by revolutionary forces as a call to fight. But almost a hundred years after it was written, the story remains a call for respect for the human person, for reconciliation and brotherly love.
3. The meaning of the name isRomashov's duel with the bad that is in himself . This conflict is presented as philosophical, the hero’s comprehension of freedom and necessity.
Theme of the fight – a sign of reality itself, the disunity of people, the misunderstanding of one person by another.
Appearing during the Russo-Japanese War and in the context of the growth of the first Russian revolution, the work caused a huge public outcry, since it undermined one of the main pillars of the autocratic state - the inviolability of the military caste.
The problems of “The Duel” go beyond the traditional war story. Kuprin also touches on the issue of the causes of social inequality among people, on possible ways to liberate a person from spiritual oppression, and raises the problem of the relationship between the individual and society, the intelligentsia and the people.
The plot of the work is built on the vicissitudes of the fate of an honest Russian officer, whom the conditions of army barracks life make him think about the wrong relationships between people. Feeling spiritual decline pursues not only Romashov, but also Shurochka.
The comparison of two heroes, who are characterized by two types of worldviews, is generally characteristic of Kuprin. Both heroes strive to find a way out of the impasse. At the same time, Romashov comes to the idea of protesting against bourgeois prosperity and stagnation, and Shurochka adapts to it, despite the outward ostentatious rejection. The author’s attitude towards her is ambivalent; he is closer to Romashov’s “reckless nobility and noble lack of will.” Kuprin even noted that he considers Romashov to be his double, and the story itself is largely autobiographical.
Romashov is a “natural man”, he instinctively resists injustice, but his protest is weak, his dreams and plans are easily destroyed, since they are immature and ill-conceived, often naive. Romashov is close to Chekhov's heroes. But the emerging need for immediate action strengthens his will for active resistance. After meeting with the soldier Khlebnikov, “humiliated and insulted,” a turning point occurs in Romashov’s consciousness; he is shocked by the man’s readiness to commit suicide, in which he sees the only way out of a martyr’s life. The sincerity of Khlebnikov’s impulse especially clearly indicates to Romashov the stupidity and immaturity of his youthful fantasies, which only aimed to prove something to others. Romashov is shocked by the intensity of Khlebnikov’s suffering, and it is the desire to sympathize that makes the second lieutenant think for the first time about the fate of the common people. However, Romashov’s attitude towards Khlebnikov is contradictory: conversations about humanity and justice bear the imprint of abstract humanism, Romashov’s call for compassion is in many ways naive.
In “The Duel,” A. I. Kuprin continues the traditions of psychological analysis of L. N. Tolstoy: in the work, in addition to the protesting voice of the hero himself, who saw the injustice of a cruel and stupid life, one can hear the author’s accusatory voice (Nazansky’s monologues). Kuprin uses Tolstoy's favorite technique - the technique of substituting a reasoner for the main character. In “The Duel,” Nazansky is the bearer of social ethics. The image of Nazansky is ambiguous: his radical mood (critical monologues, romantic premonition of a “radiant life”, anticipation of future social upheavals, hatred of the lifestyle of the military caste, the ability to appreciate high, pure love, feel the beauty of life) conflicts with his own way of life. The only salvation from moral death is for the individualist Nazansky and for Romashov to escape from all social ties and obligations.
The story takes place in the mid-90s of the 19th century. Contemporaries saw in it a condemnation of the army order and an exposure of the officers. And this opinion will be confirmed by history itself a few years later, when the Russian army suffers a crushing defeat in the battles of Mukden, Liaoliang, and Port Arthur. Why did this happen? It seems to me that “” clearly and clearly answers the question posed. Can an army be combat-ready where an anti-human, corrupting and stultifying atmosphere reigns, where officers are at a loss when it comes to showing resourcefulness, intelligence and initiative, where soldiers are driven to stupefaction by senseless drills, beatings and bullying?
“With the exception of a few ambitious and careerists, all officers served as forced, unpleasant, disgusting corvée, languishing in it and not loving it. Junior officers, just like schoolboys, were late for classes and slowly ran away from them if they knew that they would not get punished for it... At the same time, everyone drank heavily, both in the meeting and when visiting each other... On The company officers went to service with the same disgust as the subaltern officers...” we read. Indeed, the regimental life that Kuprin depicts is absurd, vulgar and desolate. There are only two ways to break out of it: go into the reserves (and find yourself without a specialty and means of subsistence) or try to enter the academy and, after graduating, climb to a higher level on the military ladder, “make a career.” However, only a few are capable of this. The fate of the bulk of the officers is to pull an endless and tedious burden with the prospect of retiring with a small pension.
The daily life of officers consisted of leading drill exercises, monitoring the study of “literature” (i.e., military regulations) by soldiers, and attending an officers’ meeting. Drunkenness alone and in company, cards, affairs with other people's wives, traditional picnics and "balki", trips to the local brothel - these are all the entertainments available to officers. “The Duel” reveals the dehumanization, mental devastation to which people are subjected in the conditions of army life, the crushing and vulgarization of these people.
But sometimes they see the light for a while, and these moments are terrible and tragic: “Occasionally, from time to time, days of some kind of general, general, ugly revelry would come in the regiment. Maybe this happened in those strange moments when people, accidentally connected with each other, but all together condemned to boring inactivity and senseless cruelty, suddenly saw in each other’s eyes, there, far away, in a confused and oppressed consciousness, some mysterious spark of horror, melancholy and madness, and then calm , well-fed like breeding bulls, life seemed to be thrown out of its channel." Some kind of collective madness began, people seemed to lose their human appearance. "On the way to the meeting, the officers did a lot of mischief. They stopped a passing Jew, called him over and, tearing off his hat, "They drove the cabman forward; then they threw this hat somewhere over the fence, onto a tree. Bobetinsky beat the cabman. The rest sang loudly and shouted stupidly."
Army life, cruel and senseless, also gives rise to its own kind of “monsters.” These are degraded and stupefied people, ossified in prejudices - campaigners, vulgar philistines and moral monsters. One of them is Captain Plum. This is a stupid campaigner, a narrow-minded and rude person. “Everything that went beyond the boundaries of the system, regulations and company and which he contemptuously called nonsense and mandrake, certainly did not exist for him. Having endured the harsh burden of service all his life, he did not read a single book or a single newspaper...”
Although Sliva is attentive to the needs of the soldiers, this quality is negated by his cruelty: “This sluggish, dejected-looking man was terribly harsh with the soldiers and not only allowed the non-commissioned officers to fight, but he himself beat him cruelly, to the point of blood. that the offender fell off his feet under his blows.” Even more terrifying is Captain Osadchy, who inspires “inhuman awe” in his subordinates. Even in his appearance there is something bestial, predatory. He is so cruel to the soldiers that every year someone in his company committed suicide.
What is the reason for such spiritual devastation and moral ugliness? Kuprin answers this question through the mouth of Nazansky, one of the few positive characters in the story: “... so all of them, even the best, the most tender of them, wonderful fathers and attentive husbands, - all of them in the service become base, cowardly, evil , stupid animals. You will ask why? Yes, precisely because none of them believes in the service and does not see the reasonable purpose of this service”; “...for them, service is a complete disgust, a burden, a hated yoke.”
Fleeing from the deadening boredom of army life, officers try to come up with some kind of side activity for themselves. For most, this, of course, is drunkenness and cards. Some are engaged in collecting and handicrafts. Lieutenant Colonel Rafalsky indulges his soul in his home menagerie, Captain Stelkovsky has turned the corruption of young peasant women into a hobby.
What makes people rush into this pool and devote themselves to military service? Kuprin believes that the ideas about the military that have developed in society are partly to blame for this. Thus, the main character of the story, Second Lieutenant Romashov, trying to comprehend the phenomena of life, comes to the conclusion that “the world was divided into two unequal parts: one - the smaller one - the officers, which is surrounded by honor, strength, power, the magical dignity of the uniform and, for some reason, together with the uniform and patented courage, and physical strength, and arrogant pride; the other - huge and impersonal - civilians, otherwise shpak, shtafirka and hazel grouse; they were despised...” And the writer pronounces his verdict military service, which with its ghostly valor was created by a “cruel, shameful, pan-human misunderstanding.”
Honor and dishonor
The story “The Duel” is considered one of best works A. I. Kuprin. The story centers on the lives of army officers. The author managed to create a whole gallery of portraits worthy of analysis. Among them are representatives of the older generation, and young, inexperienced officers, and timid recruits, and wives of soldiers. Kuprin endowed each character with personal qualities. It is no coincidence that he touched upon the soldier’s theme. The writer spent his childhood in an orphanage and he, inspired by the victory of the Russian army, being already in high school,
decided to enter the military academy, which he easily succeeded.
Later, he retold his army experience in some novels and short stories. The story “The Duel” was published in 1905. In it we see how officers, in the fight for their honor, take different, sometimes rash, steps. The main character of the work is the young second lieutenant Georgy Romashov, who serves under the command of Vladimir Efimovich Nikolaev. Romashov himself is a kind, honest and romantic person by nature. He has been serving in the regiment for two years now, but he cannot come to terms with the rough and cruel morals of army life. It so happened that he was artificially
was drawn into a conflict with Lieutenant Nikolaev, who challenged him to a duel.
The situation was such that Romashova was pestered for some time by the married lady Raisa Aleksandrovna Peterson. When he told her that everything was over between them, she began sending countless anonymous letters to Nikolaev, revealing in them the second lieutenant’s true attitude towards his wife Shurochka. In fact, Romashov was not indifferent to Shurochka, but he did not pretend to reciprocate feelings. Tired of letters addressed to him, Nikolaev nevertheless challenged the second lieutenant to a duel. Nazansky tried to persuade his friend to refuse this challenge, but Shurochka came to Romashov and begged him not to refuse the fight for the sake of her husband’s career. Unable to refuse her, the second lieutenant agreed.
At the end of the work, we learn from a report with the testimony of a junior doctor that Romashov died from a wound in the stomach. Did he do the right thing by accepting Nikolaev’s challenge? Perhaps he should have listened to the philosophical Nazansky, who told him that life is infinitely good and it is not worth risking it so much. In any case, the second lieutenant chose to die with dignity. He's in Lately was at an ideological and moral crossroads, and this duel became a kind of solution to all problems.
Other works on this topic:
- Friendship and enmity The story “Duel” is one of the few works by Kuprin dedicated to the theme of the Russian army. The author himself studied at the military academy, which was later transformed into...
- The power of love A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel” appeared at the beginning of the 19th century and the best way conveyed army life of that period. The main character of the work is a young...
- The meaning of the title of A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel” The story “The Duel” was written by A. I. Kuprin at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century. This period was characterized by Russian-Japanese...
- Women's images A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel” was first published in 1905. In it, the author showed all the shortcomings of officer life, which he himself knew about...
- Once again returning from the parade ground, Second Lieutenant Romashov decided for himself that he would not go to the Nikolaevs’ house today. It's not good to constantly pester people with your visits. All of a sudden...
- Romashov Romashov Georgy Alekseevich – main character A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel”, young officer. He has been serving in the regiment for two years now and still not...
- Depiction of the Russian army in the work The action of A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel” dates back to the 90s. XIX century. The author openly condemned the army regulations adopted at that time...
- Nikolaev Nikolaev Vladimir Efimych is a character in A. I. Kuprin’s story “The Duel”, lieutenant, Shurochka’s husband. Each officer in the story is endowed with a bright personality and personal characteristics. If...