Introduction

“The truth is that, despite the most difficult trials, we prevailed.”

War is a terrible word. War... How much this word says. War - the suffering of mothers, hundreds of dead soldiers, hundreds of orphans and families without fathers, terrible memories of people. And we, who have not seen the war, are not laughing. The soldiers served honestly, without self-interest. They defended the fatherland, family and friends. The Nazis treated Russian people and soldiers cruelly.

The world must not forget the horrors of war, the separation, suffering and death of millions. This would be a crime against the fallen, a crime against the future, we must remember the war, the heroism and courage that passed along its roads. Fighting for peace is the responsibility of everyone living on Earth, therefore one of the most important topics modern literature is the theme of the feat Soviet people in the Great Patriotic War.

War as a tragedy of the people in the literature of the twentieth century. Many works have been written about her. The authors of books about the war explored the everyday life of war, accurately depicted battles, and they also spoke about courage. native land, about pricelessness human life, about how ordinary people, having a conscience and a sense of duty to the Motherland, sacrificed themselves.

This topic is complex, diverse, inexhaustible. The task of modern writers writing about war is enormous. They need to be shown the significance of struggle and victory, the origins of the heroism of the Soviet people, their moral strength, ideological conviction, and devotion to the Motherland; show the difficulties of the fight against fascism, convey to contemporaries the feelings and thoughts of the heroes of the war years, give a deep analysis in one of the most critical periods in the life of the country and their own life.

Writers such as Vasil Bykov (“Sotnikov”) and Boris Vasiliev (“Not on the lists”) develop this topic in their own unique way.

Subject tragic fate Russian man in a totalitarian state appears in Russian literature of the 20th century already in the 1920s, when the very formation totalitarian state it was just beginning.

The writer does not spare the reader; in his stories there appear terrible details that cannot be understood without mental pain - cold and hunger, which sometimes deprive a person of reason, purulent ulcers on the legs...

“War is a state contrary to human nature,” wrote L. Tolstoy, and we are forced to agree with this statement, because war brings fear, blood, and tears. War is also a test for a person.

Vasil Bykov. Ideological content novel “Sotnikov”, assessment of heroes

Vasil Bykov is a seventeen-year-old participant in the war, a writer, who in his works reflects on man, his behavior in war, the duty and honor that guide the hero of the story of the same name “Sotnikov”.

In Bykov's works there are few battle scenes or spectacular historical events, but he manages to convey with amazing depth the feelings of an ordinary soldier in a big war. Using the example of the most strategically insignificant situations, the author gives answers to difficult questions war.

The problem of the moral choice of a hero in war is characteristic of all the works of V. Bykov. This problem is posed in almost all of his stories: “The Alpine Ballad”, “Obelisk”, “Sotnikov” and others. In Bykov's story "Sotnikov" the problem of genuine and imaginary heroism, which is the essence of plot collision works. The writer gives artistic research moral foundations of human behavior in their social and ideological conditioning.

Vasil Bykov builds plots only on dramatic moments of war of local, as they say, significance with the participation of ordinary soldiers. Step by step, analyzing the motives for the behavior of soldiers in extreme situations, the writer gets to the bottom of the psychological states and experiences of his heroes. This quality of Bykov’s prose distinguishes him early works: “The Third Rocket”, “Trap”, “It Doesn’t Hurt the Dead” and others.

In each new story, the writer puts his characters in even more difficult situations. The only thing that unites the heroes is that their actions cannot be assessed unambiguously. The plot of the story “Sotnikov” is psychologically twisted in such a way that critics were confused in assessing the behavior of Bykov’s heroes. And there are almost no events in the story. The critics had a lot to be confused about: main character-- traitor?! In my opinion, the author deliberately tries to blur the lines of the image of this character.

But in fact, the plot of the story is simple: two partisans Sotnikov and Rybak go to the village on a mission - to get a sheep to feed the detachment. Before this, the heroes almost did not know each other, although they managed to fight and even helped each other out in one battle. Sotnikov is not entirely healthy and could well have shied away from a generally trivial task, but he feels like he doesn’t belong among the partisans enough and therefore still volunteers to go. By this, he seems to want to show his comrades in arms that he does not shy away from “dirty work.”

The two partisans react differently to the upcoming danger, and it seems to the reader that the strong and quick-witted Rybak is more prepared to commit a brave act than the frail and sick Sotnikov. But if Rybak, who all his life “managed to find some way out,” is internally ready to commit betrayal, then Sotnikov remains faithful to the duty of a man and citizen until his last breath: “Well, we must I had to gather my last strength to face death with dignity... Otherwise, why would there be life? It is too difficult for a person to be careless about its end.”

In the story, it is not representatives of the two who collide different worlds, but people of one country. The heroes of the story - Sotnikov and Rybak - under normal conditions, perhaps would not have shown their true nature. But during the war, Sotnikov goes through difficult trials with honor and accepts death, without renouncing his convictions, and Rybak, in the face of death, changes his convictions, betrays his Motherland, saving his life, which after betrayal loses all value. He actually becomes an enemy. He leaves for another world, alien to us, where personal well-being is placed above all else, where fear for one’s life forces one to kill and betray. In the face of death, a person remains as he really is. Here the depth of his convictions and his civic fortitude are tested.

In Bykov’s work, everyone took their place among the victims. Everyone except Rybak completed their mortal journey to the end. The fisherman took the path of betrayal only in the name of saving his own life. The traitor investigator felt a thirst for continuation of life, a passionate desire to live, and, almost without hesitation, stunned Rybak point-blank: “Let’s save your life. You will serve great Germany.” The fisherman had not yet agreed to join the police, but he had already been spared torture. The fisherman did not want to die, and blurted out something to the investigator.

Sotnikov lost consciousness during the torture, but did not say anything. The policemen in the story are depicted as stupid and cruel, the investigator - cunning and cruel. Sotnikov came to terms with death. He would like to die in battle, but this has become impossible for him. The only thing that remained for him was to decide on his attitude towards the people who were nearby. Before the execution, Sotnikov demanded an investigator and declared: “I am a partisan, the rest have nothing to do with it.” The investigator ordered Rybak to be brought in, and he agreed to join the police. The fisherman tried to convince himself that he was not a traitor, that he would run away.

IN last minutes life Sotnikov suddenly lost his confidence in the right to demand from others the same thing that he demands from himself. The fisherman became for him not a bastard, but simply a foreman who, as a citizen and a person, did not achieve something. Sotnikov did not look for sympathy in the crowd surrounding the execution site. He did not want people to think badly of him, and was only angry with Rybak, who was performing his duties as the executioner. The fisherman apologizes: “Sorry, brother.” "Go to hell!" - follows the answer.

What happened to Fisherman? He did not overcome the fate of a man lost in war. He sincerely wanted to hang himself. But circumstances got in the way, and there was still a chance to survive. But how to survive? The police chief believed that he had “picked up another traitor.” It is unlikely that the chief of police saw what was going on in the soul of this man, confused, but shocked by the example of Sotnikov, who was crystal honest, fulfilling the duty of a man and citizen to the end. The boss saw Rybak's future in serving the occupiers. But the writer left him the possibility of another path: continuing the fight against the enemy, possible recognition of his fall by his comrades, and ultimately, atonement.

The characters' personalities emerge slowly. The fisherman becomes unpleasant to us, arouses hatred, since he is capable of betrayal. Sotnikov reveals himself as a strong-willed, courageous nature. The writer is proud of Sotnikov, whose last feat was an attempt to take all the blame upon himself, removing it from the headman and Demchikha, who fell to the Nazis for helping partisan intelligence officers. Duty to the Motherland, to people, as the most important manifestation of one’s own self - this is what the author draws attention to. Consciousness of duty, human dignity, soldier's honor, love for people - such values ​​exist for Sotnikov. It is about people in trouble that he thinks. The hero sacrifices himself, knowing that life is the only real value. But Rybak simply had a thirst for life. And the main thing for him is to survive at any cost. Of course, a lot depends on the person, his principles and beliefs. Rybak has many virtues: he has a sense of camaraderie, he sympathizes with the sick Sotnikov, shares the remains of steamed rye with him, and behaves with dignity in battle. But how did it happen that he becomes a traitor and participates in the execution of his comrade? In my opinion, in Rybak’s mind there is no clear boundary between moral and immoral. Being in the ranks with everyone, he conscientiously bears all the hardships of partisan life, without thinking deeply about either life or death. Duty, honor - these categories do not disturb his soul. Faced face to face with inhumane circumstances, he finds himself spiritually weak person. If Sotnikov thought only about how to die with dignity, then Rybak is cunning, deceives himself and, as a result, surrenders to his enemies. He believes that in moments of danger everyone thinks only of themselves.

Sotnikov, despite the failures: captivity, escape, then captivity again, escape, and then the partisan detachment, did not become embittered, did not become indifferent to people, but retained loyalty, responsibility, and love. The author does not pay attention to how one day in battle Sotnikov saves the life of Rybak, how the sick Sotnikov still goes on a mission. Sotnikov could not refuse, since it contradicted his life principles. On the last night of his life, the hero remembers his youth. Lying to his father as a child became a lesson in pangs of conscience for him. Therefore, the hero judges himself strictly and answers to his conscience. He remained a man in the brutal conditions of war. This is Sotnikov’s feat. It seems to me that in tragic situations of war it is difficult to remain true to oneself and one’s moral principles. But it is precisely such people of duty and honor who fight evil, make life more beautiful, and they make us think: do we know how to live according to our conscience.

The situation changes after their arrest. The fisherman does not believe until the last minute that it is impossible to escape from this trap. He decides to stall for time, telling during interrogation only what the Germans already know about the partisan detachment. But Rybak is too simple for such a complex game with the enemy, and, unwittingly, he lets it slip, falling into a skillfully placed trap. From this moment his moral decline begins. He finally realized that he could only stay alive by betraying his comrades in arms. For Rybak, the process of transition to another psychological state passes quickly and without suffering, since he was already internally disposed to this. The fisherman, like any traitor, begins to live according to special psychological laws that exclude everything good and bright that was before that moment in the human soul. At the end of the story, he becomes the executioner of his former comrade.

Sotnikov, unlike Rybak, immediately realized the hopelessness of the situation, but in the last minutes of his life he unexpectedly lost his confidence in the right to demand from others the same as from himself. The fisherman became for him not a bastard, but simply a foreman who, as a citizen and a person, did not achieve something. Sotnikov did not look for sympathy in the eyes of the people present at the execution. He did not want anyone to think badly of him, and was only angry with Rybak, who was performing his duties as the executioner. The fisherman apologized: “Sorry, brother.” Sotnikov threw only the phrase in his face: “Go to hell!”

What is the depth of the writer Bykov’s creativity? The fact is that he left the traitor Rybak the possibility of a different path even after such a serious crime. This is both a continuation of the fight against the enemy and a confessional confession of one’s betrayal. The writer left his hero the opportunity to repent, an opportunity that is more often given to a person by God, and not by man. The writer, in my opinion, assumed that this guilt could be redeemed.

The work of V. Bykov is tragic in its sound, just as the war itself is tragic, taking tens of millions of human lives. But the writer talks about people who are strong in spirit, capable of rising above circumstances and death itself. And today, I believe, it is impossible to assess the events of the war, those terrible years, without taking into account the views on this topic of the writer Vasil Bykov.
The work is imbued with thoughts about life and death, about
human duty and humanism, which are incompatible with any manifestation of selfishness. In-depth psychological analysis every action and gesture of the characters, fleeting thoughts or remarks - the bottom of the strongest sides of the story "Sotnikov".

The Pope presented the writer V. Bykov with a special prize from the Catholic Church for the story “Sotnikov”. This fact speaks of what kind of moral universal principle is seen in this work. Sotnikov’s enormous moral strength lies in the fact that he was able to accept suffering for his people, managed to maintain faith, and not succumb to that base thought that Rybak succumbed to: “Anyway, now death has no meaning, it will not change anything.” This is not so - suffering for the people, for the faith always has meaning for humanity. The feat instills moral strength in other people and preserves faith in them. Another reason why the church prize was awarded to the author of “Sotnikov” lies in the fact that religion always preaches the Idea of ​​understanding and forgiveness. Indeed, it is easy to condemn Rybak, but in order to have every right to do so, one must at least be in the place of this person. Of course, Rybak is worthy of condemnation, but there are universal principles that call for refraining from unconditional condemnation even for such serious crimes.

In the development of man, the fundamental principle should be the noble ideals of people who fought and gave their lives for the future of their people and their country.

The work of Vasil Bykov is almost entirely devoted to the theme of the Great Patriotic War. Already in the first stories, the writer tried to free himself from stereotypes when showing military operations and the behavior of soldiers and officers. Bykov's works always depict acute situations in war. His heroes are usually faced with the need to make urgent decisions. develops a heroic-psychological version of the story, focusing on the tragic side of the war.
The writer makes you think about the meaning of the concept of “feat”. Can teacher Moroz from the story “Obelisk” be considered a hero if he only accepted death at the hands of the Nazis along with his students? Lieutenant Ivanovsky from the story “Until Dawn” risked the lives of his soldiers and died along with them without completing the task. Is he a hero? In almost every story by Bykov there is a traitor. This confused critics and they preferred not to write about it.
For artistic manner The writer is characterized by bringing together contrasting characters in one work, with the help of which he conducts a moral experiment. A striking example This is a story written in 1970. The author puts his heroes before a difficult choice: either save their lives and betray, or die at the hands of the Nazis.
Sotnikov and Rybak are partisan scouts who set out to get food for a detachment hidden in the forest. We get to know them when they make their way from the Burnt Swamp to the farm in winter for food in order to save the partisans from starvation. Their detachment caused a lot of harm to the invaders. After this, three companies of gendarmes were sent to destroy the partisans. “During a week of fighting and running through the forests, people were exhausted, exhausted on only potatoes, without bread, and four were wounded, two were carried along on stretchers. And here the police and gendarmerie surrounded us in such a way that, perhaps, we couldn’t stick our heads out anywhere.”
Rybak, a strong, resourceful fighter, was a foreman in a rifle company. When he was wounded, he ended up in the remote village of Korchevka, where local residents came out to help him. After recovery, Rybak went into the forest.
We learn about Sotnikov that before the war he graduated from a teacher’s institute and worked at a school. In 1939 he was drafted into the army, and when the war began, he commanded a battery. In the first battle, the battery was destroyed, and Sotnikov was captured, from which he escaped on the second attempt.
Bykov was distinguished by his ability to build psychological and moral paradoxes. The reader cannot guess how his heroes will behave in extreme conditions. The writer shows that fate several times provides the hero with the opportunity to make a choice, but What will he choose? Often a person does not know himself. Everyone has a certain opinion about themselves, sometimes even confidence in how they will act in a given situation. But this is just a fictitious image of one’s own self. In a situation of tough choice, everything that is deep down in the soul, the true face of a person, is revealed.
In the story, the author simultaneously reveals the characters of his heroes; he wants to find out what moral qualities give a person the strength to resist death without losing his own dignity. Bykov does not raise the question of who is a hero and who is not; he knows that anyone can become a hero, but not everyone becomes a hero. Only a person with strong moral principles, which are laid in the family and strengthened throughout his life, when a person does not allow himself to morally fall under any conditions, can become a hero. Sotnikov reflects that “in the fight against fascism, no reasons, even the most valid ones, can be taken into account.” It was possible to win only against all odds. Those who think that you can’t jump above your head, and you can’t trample on force, will never win.
In the story, Rybak constantly helps the sick Sotnikov. He takes upon himself negotiations with the headman to keep Sotnikov warm, drags the carcass of a sheep on himself, and returns to him when the wounded Sotnikov was unable to escape the shelling. The fisherman could have left, abandoned his comrade, but it was his conscience that prevented him from doing so. In general, the Fisherman behaves correctly until the last moment, when he must choose: life or death. Rybak doesn't have those moral values, which could be relied upon at the moment of choice. He cannot pay with his life for his beliefs. For him, “the opportunity to live has appeared - this is the main thing. Everything else will come later.” Then you can try to somehow get out and harm the enemy again.
Bykov in his story explores not a life situation, which always has several solutions, but a moral one, for which it is necessary to perform only one act. For Sotnikov, the last act was an attempt to take the blame on himself so that the headman and Demchikha would not be shot for helping the partisans. The author writes: “Essentially, he sacrificed himself for the sake of saving others, but no less than others, he himself needed this sacrifice.” According to Sotnikov, better death than to live as a traitor.
The scene of Sotnikov's torture and beating makes a painful impression. At this moment, the hero understands that, in comparison with bodily life, there is something more significant, something that makes a person human: “If anything else bothered him in life, then these were his last responsibilities towards people, by the will of fate or chance that is now nearby. He realized that he had no right to die before defining his relationship with them, for these relationships, apparently, would become the last manifestation of his “I” before it disappeared forever.”
A simple truth becomes a discovery for Rybak: physical death is not as terrible as moral death. Every inhumane act brings moral ruin closer. Fear of physical death forces Rybak to become a policeman. The hero must pass the first loyalty test new government. He executes Sotnikov, and he dies like a hero. The fisherman remains to live, but to live, every day remembering the scene of the death of Sotnikov, the elder Peter, Demchikha, and the Jewish girl Basya. After Sotnikov’s execution, the fisherman wants to hang himself, but the writer does not allow him to do this. Bykov does not give his hero any relief; it would be too easy a death for Rybak. Now he will remember the gallows, the eyes of people, torment and curse the day he was born. He will hear Sotnikov’s words “Go to hell!” in response to a whispered request to forgive him, Rybak.

Vasil Bykov in his work “Sotnikov” raises the problem of moral choice, responsibility and spiritual maturity. This book is on the list of one hundred books recommended for schoolchildren to read by the Ministry of Education. The main characters of “Sotniki” are partisans going on a mission, their images are in sharp contrast. An exemplary soldier, a loyal comrade, a dexterous and resourceful Fisherman at the end of Bykov’s story becomes a traitor in exchange for his life. Sotnikov, weak and sickly, in the face of death turns out to be firmer and spiritually stronger than his comrade. His characterization is typical, but life position– an example for others!

Characteristics of the heroes of “Sotnikov”

Main characters

Minor characters

In the story “Sotnikov,” the heroes make a choice that determines their future. The author is harsh and adamant in his portrayal of a man at war; there is no definite position in the story - to make the reader think and choose is the main goal of the master of words. The name of Vasil Bykov in literature is pain, however, the life of an entire generation, which he reflected in his work.

Work test

Literature lesson

11th grade

using modern educational technologies

“The problem of moral choice in the story by V.V. Bykov "Sotnikov"

Gulimova T.O.

Teacher GBOU secondary school No. 210

Saint Petersburg

Lesson objectives:

Personal

1. improvement spiritual and moral qualities, respectful attitude to Russian literature;
2. improving the ability to solve cognitive problems using various sources of information.

Metasubject

1. develop the ability to understand a problem and put forward a hypothesis;
2. develop the ability to select material to argue one’s own position and formulate conclusions;
3. develop the ability to work with different sources of information.

Subject

1. develop the ability to understand the connection of literary works with the era of their writing, to identify the timeless moral values ​​inherent in the work and their modern meaning;
2. develop the ability to analyze literary work, determine its belonging to one of literary families and genres;
3. develop the ability to understand and formulate the theme and idea of ​​the work, the moral pathos of the work;
4. develop the ability to characterize heroes, compare heroes of one or more works;
5. consolidation of the ability to determine the elements of the plot of a work, the role of figurative and expressive means of language;
6. strengthening the ability to understand author's position and formulate your position in relation to it;
7. strengthening the skill of answering questions based on the text read, conducting a dialogue
8. consolidation of the ability to write an essay related to the problems of the studied work.

Lesson progress

A moral person does a lot for the sake of

their friends and for the sake of the fatherland, even if

He had to lose his life in the process.

Aristotle

1. Statement of the problem

The 20th century is a century of global changes, disasters, revolutions and brutal wars. This is a turning point in human history. People who fell into the millstones of history were forced to make their own moral choice: to perform a noble deed and die, to abandon one’s moral principles and save one’s life. What is more important is something everyone decides for themselves. Sometimes this choice was unbearably difficult, crushing a person who had retreated from the concepts of honor, justice and goodness. Sometimes decent honest people could not cope with the natural desire to save their lives at all costs. The era was breaking human souls and destroyed a person’s ideas about morality and ethics, forcing him to renounce his usual moral values. And only those people who managed to preserve human dignity, who remained true to their convictions, who did not betray their ideals, are worthy of being called heroes.

In Vasil Bykov's story, as in many other works of the 20th century, the problem of moral choice is the main one. We are dedicating our literature lesson today to discussing this problem. It is impossible to reveal the topic of moral choice without comparative characteristics The main characters of the story are Sotnikov and Rybak.

(On the board) “... first of all and mainly I was interested in two moral points, which can be simply defined as follows: what is a person before the crushing force of inhumane circumstances? What is he capable of when his ability to defend his life has been completely exhausted and it is impossible to prevent death?

1. A word about the writer (student message)

Vasil Vladimirovich Bykov (1924 – 2003)

Born in the village of Bychki, Ushachi district, Vitebsk region in peasant family. In June 1941, he passed the 10th grade exams as an external student. The war found him in Ukraine, where he participated in defense work. During the retreat, in Belgorod, he fell behind his column and was arrested and almost shot as a German spy. He fought as part of an army engineering battalion. Drafted into the army in 1942, he graduated from the Saratov Infantry School. In the fall of 1943, he was awarded the rank of junior lieutenant. He took part in the liberation of Romania, marched with the active army through Bulgaria, Hungary, Yugoslavia, and Austria; senior lieutenant, platoon commander of regimental, then army artillery. About the war in the book of memories " Long road home" recalled this:

In 1955 he was finally demobilized from the army. Since the end of 1997, he lived abroad in political exile in Finland, Germany, and the Czech Republic. Buried in Minsk.

1. Analysis of the work

The story "Sotnikov" was written in 1970.

1. Comparative characteristics of Sotnikov and Rybak

- Compare the portraits of the heroes. What conclusion can be drawn?

What character qualities are favorable to the Fisherman?

At what point does one become wary of him?

2) At the headman's

How did Rybak’s refusal to shoot the elder Peter, contrary to Sotnikov’s demands, reveal the difference in the moral positions of his comrades? Whose side is the author on?

Tendency to compromise

1. Shootout with police

(Only the thought of how he would explain what happened to the detachment commander forced Rybak to return for the wounded)

Attitude towards a friend

1. In Demchikha's house

How does Demchikha behave during the arrest of the partisans?

Compare the behavior of the woman and the Fisherman.

(Dyomchikha does not blame the partisans for her tragedy, despite the fact that her children will remain orphans.)

- What worries each of the characters?

1. Images of policemen

How are the policemen depicted in the story: Stas, Budila, Portnov?

Find words in the text that give expressive characteristics of these characters.

(The author deeply despises traitors. Having deviated from moral laws, they ceased to be people. The policemen in the story “squeal,” “go wild,” “bristle,” that is, they behave like mongrels currying favor with their masters. Stas even betrayed native language, speaking in a wild mixture of Belarusian and German": "Yavol to the basement! Bitta please!”)

1. Captured

(Concessions to evil in the name of good are impossible. Having embarked on the path of treason, you will not turn away from it later. The colonel’s refusal to make any compromises became his last victory over the enemy. The colonel’s act is the ideal behavior of a true patriot.)

– What horrified Rybak when he saw Sotnikov returning after interrogation?

(Peter: “Beasts.” Fisherman: the same will happen to him.)

– What position did Rybak take during the interrogation?

(Adjust, be cunning.)

- What irritates him about Sotnikov? (Principle.)

- And Sotnikova? (Silence. At first I wanted to take everything upon myself in order to cover others.)

– Why wasn’t Rybak tortured?

– How will his journey end?

– What does Sotnikov see as the reason for the fall (betrayal) of Rybak? (He’s a good partisan, but human qualities don't make it.)

1. Moral choice

What moral choice do Sotnikov and Rybak make?

1. Sotnikov's dream

Comment on the hero's dream.

Dream: the father says in a dream: “There was fire, and there was the highest justice in the world...”. There is a Supreme Court, before which everyone, without exception, is responsible. The boy in Budenovka is the personification of the coming generation: Sotnikov must repeat the feat of the Russian colonel in the face of the future, pass on the testament to future generations.

(Sotnikov takes all the blame on himself, trying to save other people - it is important for him to die with dignity, having done good.)

1. Final

Notice how the hero's vocabulary changes in the finale. Physical weakness recedes into the background. We hear the voice of a wise, tired man. His speech contains words of high spirituality, timeless.

(Conscience is the measure of actions. Mercy, patience, conscience, morality, Btbliya)

There is no word God, no prayer sounds, but the words of the prayer are read in the semantics of the text. Prophet Isaiah:

Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who consider darkness to be light and light to be darkness, who consider bitter to be sweet and sweet to be bitter!
Woe to those who are wise in their own eyes and understanding in their own eyes!..
Wash yourself, make yourself clean; remove your evil deeds from before my eyes; stop doing evil;
Learn to do good; seek the truth...
(Book of the prophet Isaiah: ch. 5: 20-21; ch. 1:16-17)

- It’s as if lines from my father’s Bible sound. It seems that Sotnikov ascended not to the scaffold, but to some unimaginable height from which he could even look at Rybak without anger.

– Confirm with text this height of Sotnikov and the fall of Rybak.

– What does Sotnikov see from this height?

(Nature, the eyes of a child, the church - a world that will not betray him.)

(The fisherman personally executes his comrade. And although he is saved from physical death, he condemns himself to the long, shameful death of the traitor, Judas. The fisherman, like Judas, tries to hang himself, and nowhere else than in the restroom, among the stench of human waste, is even ready to throw himself head down, but does not dare. The humiliating existence of slavery becomes a lifelong punishment for him.)

There is a picture of an old church on the board.

– Church... Describe it... (“Abandoned by people, but not far from the village” - the hope that maybe people will turn their gaze to it again, and then what their souls have lost will return again.)

- The eyes of a boy. In Russian literature there is artistic technique, which Blok would later call “meeting the eyes.” The spark—spiritual understanding—continuity is here.

L.N. Thanks to such a meeting of Tolstoy's eyes, the French officer did not send Pierre Bezukhov to death. In Dostoevsky, the meeting of Sonechka’s light eyes and Raskolnikov’s dark eyes unites them.

- In a difficult situation of choice, Rybak turned out to be Judas, betraying both Sotnikov and his comrades; he himself determined the price of his life in the face of impending death. Sotnikov, in the face of inexorable death, makes the only possible choice for himself - the behests of his father - the salvation of honor, conscience, and soul. And, who knows, maybe if Sotnikov had his father’s Bible in the last minutes of his life, he would have re-read these very lines...

Listen to them too. Try to find an echo in your own soul:

When they betray you, do not worry about how or what to say; for at that hour it will be given to you what to say...
And do not be afraid of those who kill the body, but cannot kill the soul; but fear Him more who can destroy both soul and body in Gehenna...
Enter through the narrow gate; For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many go therein;
Because narrow is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life, and few find it.
(Gospel of Matthew: ch. 10:19, 28; ch. 7:13-14)

How do you understand the ending of the story?

(Having stumbled once, a person can no longer stop, no matter how much he wants to. A life bought by betrayal is worthy only of contempt. A person who has not betrayed his moral convictions, even if he dies, remains forever alive in the memory of his descendants.)

1. Results

A) Teacher's word

Bykov's prose is characterized by a contrast between the physical and moral health of a person. However, the inferiority of the soul is not revealed immediately, not in everyday life: it is necessary"moment of truth" , a situation of categorical moral choice. To partisan intelligencetwo are sent: Rybak, full of vitality, and the intelligent Sotnikov, who is not distinguished by his strength, who himself volunteered to go on the mission, despite his illness. Sotnikov is a purely civilian who worked as a school teacher before the war. Physical strength is replaced by stubbornness and strength of character.

From the age of 12, the fisherman was engaged in hard peasant labor; he could more easily endure the physical stress and hardships of partisan life. The fisherman is more prone to moral compromise. He refuses to shoot the elder Peter, who served the Nazis. But what is good in peaceful life is destructive in war. Sotnikov perfectly understands the laws of war, he knew what captivity and betrayal were, and therefore he did not compromise with his conscience.

Bykov does not spare black paint for depicting policemen: people who deviate from moral laws cease to be people for him.

The fisherman tries to outwit his enemy, not realizing that he has already embarked on the path of betrayal, because he has put his own salvation above the laws of honor and camaraderie. Step by step, he gradually gives in to the enemy, betraying first Demchikha, then Sotnikov. Sotnikov, unlike Rybak, tries to take on the blame of other people in order to save them; for him it is important to die with dignity. Like Christ, Sotnikov goes to death for “his friends,” in the name of humanity. Like Christ, he will be betrayed by his comrade.

B ) Evaluation of students' performances and work in class.

(Report on the decision made in the group, on how the group worked. The students themselves evaluate the work in groups.)

C) Assignment for those who failed to prove themselves during the seminar:

Give an interpretation to the following words and expressions:morality, moral choice, honor, betrayal, nobility, patriotism.

G) Write down your conclusion on the topic of the lesson in your workbook.

1. Homework:

Write a detailed answer to the questions:

- « What is the essence of Sotnikov’s feat?»

- « How does Rybak become a traitor?»

Application

Lesson assignment in groups

Assignment for all groups:

Find portraits of Sotnikov and Rybak in the text of the story and compare them. How do the characters in the story differ from each other? How did each of them become part of the partisans?

How do you understand the ending of the story? Explain its meaning.

1st group:

How did Rybak’s refusal to shoot the elder Peter, contrary to Sotnikov’s demands, reveal the difference in the moral positions of his comrades? Whose side is the author on?

How do the heroes of the story behave in the episode of the shootout with the police?

Group 2:

Why does the fisherman, who was cowardly, still return to the rescue of his comrade?

What role does the scene of the interrogation of the Russian colonel, which Sotnikov witnessed during the interrogation in captivity, play in the story?

Group 3:

How does Demchikha behave during the arrest of the partisans? Compare the behavior of the woman and the Fisherman in this situation?

How are the policemen depicted in the story: Stas, Budila, Portnov? Find words in the text that give expressive characteristics of these characters.

Group 4:

What moral choice does the Fisherman make in trying to escape?

Can he be called an inveterate scoundrel?

What moral choice does Sotnikov make? How does he behave on the eve of death? Comment on the hero's dream.

Why does Sotnikov, looking at the loop prepared for him, think: “One for two”?

Bykov wrote the story “Sotnikov” in 1969. Original title works – “Liquidation”. In the story, Bykov raises the existential problems of heroism and betrayal, the influence of circumstances on a person. The author reveals the struggle between good and evil in the souls of the heroes, explores the psychological state of people during the war. Bykov does not give final assessments of the characters, leaving this right to the reader.

Main characters

Sotnikov– former commander of an artillery battalion, graduated from a teacher’s institute before the war; Red Army soldier, partisan; was hanged by the police.

Fisherman– former infantry sergeant major; Red Army soldier, partisan; to avoid death, he agreed to become a policeman.

Other characters

Petr Kachan- the headman of the village of Lyasiny, involuntarily began to serve the Germans.

Avginya Demchikha– mother of four children; hid Sotinkov and Rybak, which is why she ended up with the police and was hanged.

Portkov- a police investigator who interrogated the prisoners.

Chapter 1

Rybak and Sotnikov walked through the forest, “along a remote, snow-covered road.” Sotnikov could hardly drag himself: he had a bad cold and was coughing. The fisherman asked why he agreed to go on the mission. Sotnikov replied: “That’s why I didn’t refuse because others refused.”

Chapter 2

After a recent crossing of the highway, when Rybak and Sotnikov fell to cover the detachment’s retreat, the Red Army men became close and last days stuck together.

Chapter 3

The men went to the village. The woman who lived in the last hut said that the village was called Lyasiny and showed where the local headman, Petr Kachan, lived. Rybak and Sotnikov entered the headman’s house without knocking. The owner was not surprised. When asked by Rybak whether he serves the Germans, Kachan replied that “he has to.” On the wall in the house there was a photograph of the headman’s son, who had gone to the front. The fisherman noted that the headman had disgraced his son, who fought against the Germans.

The headman's wife set the table. Sotnikov refused to eat, he felt very bad. The fisherman ate with pleasure. The Red Army men were surprised that there was a Bible in the headman’s house.

Chapter 4

The fisherman told the owner to go outside with him. The hostess began to lament, but Sotnikov did not fall for it. The Red Army soldier remembered how last year “excessive trust in the same woman almost cost him his life”: that woman offered to feed him, and while the soldier was eating, she called the police.

The fisherman took the sheep from the elder.

Chapter 5

The men moved back. Rybak began to feel slightly dissatisfied with his partner: without him, he would have gone far. The men walked for a long time across the field, but there was still no necessary road. The fisherman noticed the approaching people and ordered Sotnikov to run. The fisherman did not have time to get his bearings and ended up on the road along which the police were driving. With the sheep on his back, he ran forward even faster, overcame the hill, leaving Sotnikov behind.

The pursuers started shooting. The fisherman hurried forward, but at the last moment he came to his senses, abandoned the sheep and decided to return to his friend.

Chapter 6

Sotnikov, trying to escape, was shot in the thigh. Sitting down in the snow, the man began shooting at his pursuers, trying to detain them. He was not afraid of death - “it was scary to become a burden to others.” Sotnikov was getting worse when he suddenly heard Rybak’s voice nearby.

Chapter 7

The fisherman and Sotnikov crawled towards the bushes. The fisherman, helping his friend, began to lose his strength. They barely reached the road and headed towards the grove.

Chapter 8

Sotnikov couldn’t feel his feet, his hip hurt excruciatingly, but he continued to walk. The men went to the village cemetery and went into the nearest hut. There were only four children at home. The owner's daughter said that Demchikha's mother was not at home and treated the men to potatoes and cucumbers.

Chapter 9

The fisherman was angry with Sotnikov because he could not leave his wounded comrade with the children, and he had to wait for the mistress to arrive. Returning home, Demchikha was angry at the uninvited guests, but when she saw that Sotnikov was wounded, she bandaged him. The fisherman noticed three policemen through the window. Demchikha told the partisans to hide in the attic.

When the police were searching the hut, Sotnikov began coughing loudly. The partisans had to surrender.

Chapter 10

Sotnikov was not afraid that he might be killed, but “he was painfully worried that he had let Rybak and Demchikha down in such a way.” Because the woman hid the “bandits,” the police also arrested her. On the way, Rybak “cursed himself for his imprudence.” He “was already clearly aware that if it weren’t for Sotnikov, his cold, and then his injury, they would probably have reached the forest.”

Chapter 11

“Sotnikov did not doubt for a minute that they were missing.” Sotnikov was taken to investigator Portnov and began to be interrogated. The prisoner realized that the police knew about their visit to the headman. Despite the investigator’s pressure, Sotnikov refused to give information about his squad. Then Portkov called Budila, “the local police executioner.”

Chapter 12

Rybak and Demchikha were locked in the basement. In the cell where the Red Army soldier was put, there was the elder Peter. The fisherman tried to come up with a way, if not to avoid, then at least to delay the punishment.

The fisherman was summoned for questioning. He began to lie plausibly, giving the name of the captain of another detachment and saying that their detachment was supposedly in the forest. Satisfied with the interrogation, Portnov said that he might pardon Rybak and help him join the police and serve Germany.

Chapter 13

“Sotnikov was saved by his weakness: as soon as Budila began the torture, he quickly lost consciousness.” The prisoner's hand bones were broken and his nails were torn off. After half an hour of torture, Sotnikov was thrown into a cell with the headman and Rybak. Rybak thought that “if Sotnikov dies, then his chances will improve significantly. He can say whatever he wants."

The fisherman tried to negotiate with Sotnikov so that they would give the same testimony, but he refused. Sotnikov, realizing that his comrade was being called to the police, said: “This is a car! Either you will serve her, or she will grind you into dust! .

Chapter 14

After interrogation, Peter said that he was asked to find out from Rybak and Sotnikov about the detachment, but he refused. After interrogation, a Jewish girl and Demchikha were thrown into their cell.

Chapter 15

The fisherman began to understand that “now there was no way out,” although “always and everywhere he managed to find some way out.” “No, he could not agree to die, he would never accept death in submission.”

Chapter 16

Sotnikov decided that “tomorrow he will tell the investigator that he went on reconnaissance mission.” He dreamed of his father, who, as it seemed to Sotnikov, was quoting the Bible.

Chapter 17

In the morning, five prisoners were taken out into the street. Sotnikov shouted to the authorities who came out: “I am a partisan. It was I who wounded your policeman.<…>The rest have nothing to do with it. Take me alone." But the police did not react to his words.

Rybak noticed Portnov among his superiors and personally addressed him with the words that he was not guilty of anything. Portnov called Rybak over and asked if he agreed to join the police. The fisherman agreed. "Bastard!" - Sotnikov shouted.

Chapter 18

Sotnikov was offended because he was going to save others.

On the crossbar of the street arch hung “five flexible hemp loops.” One by one, the prisoners “began to be led along the gallows.” Sotnikov climbed onto the block of wood standing under the noose. The fisherman was holding the stand at this time. The policeman threw a noose around his neck, and Demchikha was crying loudly nearby. The fisherman said to his comrade: “Forgive me, brother!” - “Go to hell! - Sotnikov said briefly.

Chapter 19

“The fisherman let go of the stand and stepped back - Sotnikov’s legs swayed nearby, the hat they had knocked off fell onto the snow.” After the execution, the Germans began to disperse “in a cheerful, high spirits, as if after a successfully completed<…>interesting activity."

Seeing Rybak standing on the sidewalk, the senior policeman ordered him to get into line. Mixed for a minute, Rybak joined the column. He realized that “there was no longer a way to escape from this formation” and “with this liquidation he was tied more securely than with a belt.” “Now he is the enemy of everyone and everywhere. And, apparently, to myself too.”

During a smoke break, Rybak went into the outhouse, hoping to hang himself with a belt, but only now remembered that the belt had been taken away before the interrogation. Yesterday's dream of becoming a policeman turned into a disaster for him. “Such is fate. The insidious fate of a man lost in war.”

Conclusion

In the story “Sotnikov” Vasil Bykov contrasts two main characters - Rybak and Sotnikov. From the first chapters, it seems that the active, cunning Rybak is more adapted to the conditions of war than the sickly, low-initiative Sotnikov. However, with the revelation of the characters, it becomes clear that Sotnikov has greater morality and spiritual strength. Until his death, he remains true to his principles, unlike the Fisherman, who becomes his own enemy.

Test on the story

Test your memorization summary test:

Retelling rating

Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 1272.