A message on the topic of Dubrovsky and Troekurov. Troekurov and Dubrovsky: comparative characteristics of heroes

- 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.

Comparative characteristics 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 wayward 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.

Kirilla Petrovich Troekurov and Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky (based on the novel “Dubrovsky” by A. S. Pushkin)

A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky” is a work in 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 own reproduced a true life story, without leaving it, of course, as the author’s fiction.

Hero of the novel,

He lives very modestly, but this does not prevent him from maintaining good neighborly relations with Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, a well-known gentleman throughout the area, a retired general-in-chief, 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 exactly the attitude his face deserves.

Troekurov is arrogant and gets nasty even with people of the highest rank. No one and nothing is capable of laying him down and bowing his head. Kirilla 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. Troekurov was able to discern in this poor nobleman a courageous and independent person, capable of ardently 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, so his relationship with Sdubrovsky developed differently than with the latter.

True, Troekurov’s mercy quickly gave way to anger when Dubrovsky went against Kirill Petrovich

Who is to blame for the quarrel? Troekurov is power-hungry, and Dubrovsky is decisive and impatient. This is a hot-headed and imprudent person. Therefore, it would be unfair to place the blame only on Kirill 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. Vaughn used rods to teach a lesson to the caught Pokrovsky men who were stealing loess from him, and took away their horses. Such behavior, as the author claims, contradicted “all the concepts of right-wing war, and the letter written somewhat earlier to Troekurov on the then concepts of etiquette was “very indecent.

The spleen found a stone. Kirilla Petrovich chooses the most terrible method of revenge: he intends to leave the roof over his neighbor’s head, even if in an unjust way, to humiliate him, crush him, and force him to obey. “This is the power,” Troekurov asserts, “to take away property without any right. A rich gentleman bribes the court, without thinking either about the moral side of the matter or the consequences of the lawlessness being committed. Willfulness and lust for power, ardor and ardent disposition in two counts destroy the friendship of neighbors and the life of Dubrovsky.

Kirill Petrovich is easy-going, after a while he decides to reconcile, because “by nature he is not selfish, but it turns out it’s 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 his rather limited mind. Dubrovsky did not want to come to terms with this and suffered a heavy punishment, condemning 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. Vaughn measured those around him by his standards, was confident in his own rightness, “had neither the desire nor the opportunity to sprinkle money around himself, and therefore” he was worried about the case brought against him. This played into the hands of his ill-wishers.

Having outlined the conflict between Troyekurov and Dubrovsky the Elder, A.S. Pushkin exposed harshness and vindictiveness, showed the price of ardor, and sharply posed the moral questions of his time, which are very close to today’s reader.

Essay, Pushkin

Kirila Petrovich Troekurov and Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky (based on the novel by A. S. Pushkin “Dubrovsky”)

A. S. Pushkin’s novel “Dubrovsky” is 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,

He lives very modestly, but this does not prevent him from maintaining good neighborly relations with Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, a gentleman known throughout the area, a retired general-in-chief, 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 exactly 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.

True, Troekurov’s mercy quickly gave way to anger when Dubrovsky went against 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, according to the then concepts of etiquette, was “very indecent.

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 him, crush him, and force him to obey. “This is 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 in two counts destroy the friendship of neighbors and the life of Dubrovsky.

Kirila Petrovich is easy-going, after a while 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 his rather limited mind. Dubrovsky did not want to come to terms with this and suffered a heavy punishment, condemning 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” he was little worried about the case brought against him. This played into the hands of his ill-wishers.

Having outlined the conflict between Troekurov and Dubrovsky Sr., A. S. Pushkin exposed harshness and vindictiveness, showed the price of ardor, and sharply raised moral issues
questions of his time, which are very close to today's reader.

Essay, Pushkin

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.

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.

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!
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and click Ctrl+Enter.
By doing so, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.

Thank you for your attention.