One of the legendary works of the greatest man of all time A.S. Pushkin's novel "Dubrovsky". The main characters of the work are Dubrovsky and Troekurov.
These characters are somewhat similar to each other. They both started their lives in the same way. They were nobles and served together. Then they got married, but soon both became widows. They have a common hobby - hunting.
But there are also many differences between the characters.
Our experts can check your essay according to the Unified State Exam criteria
Experts from the site Kritika24.ru
Teachers of leading schools and current experts of the Ministry of Education of the Russian Federation.
For example, the attitude towards peasants. Dubrovsky behaved nobly with them, treated them with love. But Troekurov oppressed the peasants all the time and had no respect for them.
Although Dubrovsky was an impoverished nobleman, he tried to be independent. He treated all people with dignity. But Troekurov didn’t care about other people. The only person he was in awe of was Andrei Dubrovsky, since he pursued the goal of marrying their children. But here, too, Dubrovsky showed his character, refusing due to the poverty of his family.
The characters of the main characters are very complex. And they led to a big quarrel between former comrades. In the end, Troekurov took away Dubrovsky's estate. Dubrovsky could not come to terms with this, and his experiences led him to death.
Updated: 2017-06-12
Attention!
Thank you for your attention.
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefits to the project and other readers.
Dubrovsky and Troekurov are two personalities, two human destinies, who have much in common. For example, the fact that they belong to a noble family and the pre-revolutionary era of the nineteenth century.
Dubrovsky and Troekurov, when they were young, served with the tsar, after which they were awarded with honor, and as a result received an officer rank.
Andrei Gavrilovich and Kirill Petrovich married for love, but, unfortunately, quickly became widowers.
There were children from the marriages. Dubrovsky had a son whose name was Volodya. Troekurov had a daughter, Maria.
After serving the tsar, Dubrovsky and Troekurov resigned. They settled on their estates.
In Pushkin’s work, the main characters have the same powers, the right to dispose of rights and privileges, but due to their lifestyle and character, they use them in completely opposite ways.
The strong temperament of the two landowners helped not only create a position in society, but also make friends with each other.
The domineering, arrogant Troekurov loves to always be the center of attention. He is boastful in front of guests, showing off his rich mansions. He is especially demanding and strict with his subordinates. He keeps everything under control and does not allow outsiders the familiar, impudent communication that he forgives Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky.
Dubrovsky himself is a closed, hidden person who does not like to be in society, in plain sight. Not so rich, but won the sympathy of his arrogant and arrogant friend Troekurov.
Kirill Petrovich saw in Dubrovsky: independence, determination, courage, straightforwardness of statements. These main features attracted Troekurov to Andrei Gavrilovich.
Friendship between neighbors cracks during another everyday conversation. In it, Andrei Dubrovsky touches the pride of his comrade, and he, as a hot-tempered person, cannot forgive him for this.
The provoked conflict on the part of Dubrovsky has an unpleasant turn of the situation.
Troekurov threatens to take revenge on his comrade for such insolence, promising to deprive him of everything he has.
Kirill Petrovich hoped to disgrace Dubrovsky so that he would come to him with an apology, and in the future, he would obey him.
An ordinary conflict worsens the life of Andrei Gavrilovich and destroys the friendship between the landowners.
The novel contains revenge and cruelty that influence the destinies of two people. Morality and morality, in the novel, fade into the background.
We cannot imagine Russian literature without the poet and prose writer Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin, the founder of the realistic movement. Every person, having familiarized himself with the writer’s work, does not remain indifferent to his creations. One of the classic masterpieces is the novel "Dubrovsky". When writing, Pushkin was guided by the truthful story of Pavel Voinovich Nashchokin, who was a close friend of the writer.
In this novel, Pushkin touched on topics that worried many in those years: the lack of rights of serfs, the permissiveness of rich landowners, the injustice of the royal court and robbery as a protest of the common people.
The essence of the plot of the novel is about how a conflict arises between two landowners Kirill Troekurov and Andrei Dubrovsky after many years of friendship. The rich landowner Troekurov allowed his huntsman to make a free statement, in which he offended the honor and dignity of his friend Dubrovsky. The matter comes to trial. Due to the false testimony of the legislator Spitsyn, the estate of Andrei Gavrilovich Kistenevka goes to Kirill Petrovich. Dubrovsky was already not living on a grand scale, leading a modest lifestyle compared to Troekurov. And then there’s this misfortune - his best friend takes all his property. Severe nervous shock affects Andrei Gavrilovich’s health. He is struck by an illness that leads to death. Vladimir, the son of Andrei Dubrovsky, leaves military service due to his father’s illness and returns home. Having learned all the circumstances that have developed with his father’s estate, he cannot stand it and sets his house on fire. In this case, the clerks die. He becomes a robber with one desire to take revenge on his father's former friend.
Kirill Troekurov is one of the main characters of the novel. Very rich. A strong, strong man. Despite his lack of education, he has great influence in secular circles, which allows him to do whatever he wants. To achieve his goals, he shamelessly allows himself to lie. He respects only wealthy people, and expresses clear disdain for the poor.
Andrei Dubrovsky is not a rich man, but with self-esteem. By origin he belongs to a noble family. Proud, independent. For him, having a thick wallet does not matter when communicating with people. Honest, direct. Not afraid to express his opinion. Believes that justice will always prevail. But, unfortunately, Russia at that time lived according to Troekurov’s laws. And all his positive qualities do not keep him alive.
A friendship that ended never really began.
Pushkin A.S. - a man to be proud of. We should be grateful to him that we can enjoy the great works of this unique writer. He is the treasure of our Motherland. “Dubrovsky” is one of many novels by A.S. Pushkin. The plot of the novel is based on real events, which makes it more exciting and touching.
At the center of the work are two people, Kirila Troekurov and Andrei Dubrovsky. With the help of these heroes, A.S. Pushkin showed the problems of noble society and the human qualities characteristic of the noble class of that time.
Kirila Petrovich Troekurov and Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky are characters of the same age, belonging to the noble class, and therefore received the same upbringing. They had little similarity in character and inclinations. Fate, at the beginning of life’s journey, also turned out the same way. Both have a love marriage behind them, early widowhood and small children in their arms. But despite this, these characters are completely different in temperament and goals in life.
Troekurov is a character with a “rather limited mind.” A.S. Pushkin collected in one person all the terrible vices of humanity. Kirila Petrovich considers himself the center of the universe, he is used to everyone being afraid of him. He doesn't know what failure is. He has the power that can open all doors for him. His fiery personality spreads to everyone. He doesn't know who's in front of him. His name alone terrifies people. They experience insurmountable fear; people don’t even think about contradicting it. Everyone, on the contrary, tries to please him even if it goes against the law. He is the law itself. One word from him can destroy a person. Troyekurov is a tyrant. His cruel attitude extends to his servants, despite their devotion to him. His hobbies are primitive: gluttony and drunkenness. Kirila Petrovich does not spare her only daughter, she does not marry her out of love.
Troekurov respected only one person. It was Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. They were once united by service in the guard. Then the friends' paths diverged and they met years later. Dubrovsky was ruined and forced to leave service. Andrei Gavrilovich settled not far from Kiril Petrovich, who “offered him his patronage.” But Dubrovsky chose to remain poor and independent. Pride prevailed over the fear of venturing out into the world.
Dubrovsky was the only one who could express his opinion under Troyekurov. This was his undoing. Andrei Gavrilovich could not stand the insult from the kennel worker towards him. Pride and temper took over. Andrei silently left the estate. Troekurov and did not return after a serf was sent for him. After another mistake was made, Dubrovsky demanded that Troekurov send him the employee who had insulted him. For which his now former friend decided to take away Dubrovsky’s estate. Troekurov wanted unconditional power over Dubrovsky.
The tragedy of this novel lies in the fact that Troekurov realized his mistake too late. He decides to make peace with his friend and return his estate, but it was already too late. Dubrovsky dies.
A.S. Pushkin showed with his novel how easy it is to destroy another person. To do this you need to have money and be a dishonest person. Unfortunately, nothing has changed and today you can meet a person with the same vices as the character in this novel.
Despite the fact that “Alice in Wonderland” belongs to a number of children's works, this book contains a lot of charismatic characters with quite distinct characters. Who belongs to them?
Since ancient times, people have tried to stick together to achieve their goals and solve common problems, in particular, in order to survive and feed themselves
- this is a work that introduced us to the fate of a poor nobleman, deprived of his property on illegal grounds. Moreover, this was facilitated by a seemingly friend who instantly turned into an enemy. The novel is interesting and it’s worth getting to know it better, which is what we did in literature class, and now we’ll make a comparison of Dubrovsky and Troekurov.
I’ll probably start characterizing the heroes and comparing them with what brought the two heroes together.
Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky and Kirila Petrovich Troekurov had known each other for a long time. Their destinies were intertwined in their careers, and then moved into friendly neighborly relations. Two different people, with almost the same fate, because one and the other’s wife died early, leaving a child in their arms. So Andrei Gavrilovich had a son, and Kirill Petrovich had a daughter. Besides, they were the same age, but that was probably all they had in common. After all, Troekurov, unlike Dubrovsky, was a wealthy landowner with connections. Everyone was afraid of him and tried not to contradict him.
Troekurov was also rude to those above him in rank. He loves to show off his possessions, his kennel. This spoiled, vain man was also self-willed and proud. And he doesn’t respect anyone, except for Dubrovsky. It was him that Troekurov respected. In his neighbor he saw a person who could stand up for himself and defend his point of view. He saw in him not only a poor nobleman, but also an independent person who was not afraid to express his position on a variety of issues.
Relations between the neighbors were developing well until Dubrovsky went against Troekurov. Then Andrei Gavrilovich fell out of favor, and here Troekurov’s revenge was cruel. Having bribed the judges, Kirill Petrovich deprives Dubrovsky of his possessions, without thinking about further consequences; he was indifferent to the moral side of the issue. Dubrovsky, being decent, did not take into account the fact that judges can be corruptible, and the neighbor can be so cruel, and therefore does not worry about the case, thereby dooming his son and himself to poverty.
Roman by A. S. Pushkin “Dubrovsky”- a work about the dramatic fate of a poor nobleman whose estate was illegally taken away. Imbued with compassion for the fate of a certain Ostrovsky, Pushkin in his novel reproduced a true life story, without, of course, depriving it of the author’s fiction.
Hero of the novel, Andrey Gavrilovich Dubrovsky- a retired lieutenant of the guard, a poor landowner.
He lives very modestly, but this does not prevent him from maintaining good neighborly relations with Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, a gentleman known throughout the district, a retired chief general, a very rich and noble man with numerous connections and significant authority. Everyone who knows Troekurov and his character trembles at the mere mention of his name; they are ready to please his slightest whims. The eminent master himself takes such behavior for granted, because, in his opinion, this is precisely the attitude his person deserves.
Troekurov is arrogant and rude even to people of the highest rank. No one and nothing can make him bow his head. Kirila Petrovich constantly surrounds himself with numerous guests, to whom he shows off his rich estate, kennel, and shocks them with crazy fun. This is a wayward, proud, vain, spoiled and perverted person.
The only one who enjoys Troekurov’s respect is Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. Troyekurov was able to discern in this poor nobleman a courageous and independent person, capable of passionately defending his self-esteem before anyone, able to freely and directly express his own point of view. Such behavior is rare in Kirila Petrovich’s circle, which is why his relationship with Dubrovsky developed differently than with others.
True, Troekurov’s mercy quickly gave way to anger when Dubrovsky went against Kirila Petrovich.
Who is to blame for the quarrel? Troekurov is power-hungry, and Dubrovsky is decisive and impatient. This is a hot-tempered and imprudent person. Therefore, it would be unfair to place the blame only on Kirila Petrovich.
Troekurov, of course, behaved incorrectly, not only allowing the huntsman to insult Andrei Gavrilovich, but also supporting the words of his servant with loud laughter. He was also wrong when he became angry at his neighbor’s demand to hand over Paramoshka for punishment. However, Dubrovsky is also to blame. He used rods to teach a lesson to the caught Pokrov peasants who were stealing timber from him, and took away their horses. Such behavior, as the author claims, contradicted “all concepts of the law of war,” and the letter written somewhat earlier to Troekurov was “very indecent” according to the then concepts of ethics.
The scythe landed on a stone. Kirila Petrovich chooses the most terrible method of revenge: he intends to deprive his neighbor of the roof over his head, even if in an unjust way, to humiliate, crush him, and force him to obey. “That’s the power,” Troekurov asserts, “to take away property without any right.” A rich gentleman bribes the court without thinking about the moral side of the matter or the consequences of the lawlessness being committed. Willfulness and lust for power, ardor and ardent disposition quickly destroy the friendship of neighbors and the life of Dubrovsky.
Kirila Petrovich is quick-witted, after some time he decides to reconcile, since “by nature he is not selfish,” but it turns out to be too late.
Troekurov, according to the author, always “showed all the vices of an uneducated person” and “was accustomed to giving full rein to all the impulses of his ardent disposition and all the ideas of a rather limited mind.” Dubrovsky did not want to come to terms with this and suffered a heavy punishment, dooming not only himself, but also his own son to poverty. Heightened ambition and wounded pride did not allow him to take a sober look at the current situation and compromise, seeking reconciliation with his neighbor. Being a deeply decent person, Andrei Gavrilovich could not imagine how far Troekurov could go in his desire for revenge, how easily the court could be bribed, how he could be put out on the street without legal grounds. He measured those around him by his standards, was confident in his own rightness, “had neither the desire nor the opportunity to sprinkle money around him,” and therefore “was little worried” about the case brought against him. This played into the hands of his ill-wishers.
Having outlined the conflict between Troyekurov and Dubrovsky Sr., A.S. Pushkin exposed rigidity and vindictiveness, showed the price of ardor, and acutely posed the moral questions of his time, which are very close to today’s reader.
