Troekurov and Dubrovsky: comparative characteristics of the heroes. Essay “Characteristics of Troekurov Father and Daughter

One of the best works of A. S. Pushkin is the novel “Dubrovsky,” written in the adventure genre. In this work, the author gives a number of vivid images characteristic of the 19th century. One of them is Kirila Petrovich Troekurov.

Ardent disposition and rather limited mind

That's exactly what we can say about the hero briefly. The eldest Troekurov is a gentleman, of old upbringing, a retired general. He is a rich and famous widower throughout the area, who is raising an adult daughter of marriageable age. They are afraid of him. People around him begin to worry as soon as they hear his first or last name. They please him in the most insignificant whims, because they are afraid of incurring the wrath of the all-powerful landowner Troekurov.

Kirila Petrovich himself takes this behavior of others for granted. It shouldn’t be any other way, he believes. There are no differences for him; he behaves arrogantly with everyone. Without bothering anyone with his attention and visits, he demands the opposite of himself. He should be the center, all the attention of others should be directed to him.
This is a spoiled, proud and perverted person. The author embodied in his image all the vices of human dementia. Troekurov's description is a description of a man of short minds who cannot restrain his ardent temper and addictions.

Troekurov is allowed everything and he knows nothing is denied. He allows himself to treat others with disrespect. But his servants are devoted to him, as they understand his position well: Troekurov’s estate is the richest in the area, and the master himself enjoys unlimited power.

Relationship with Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky

Troekurov despises, humiliates those around him, and tries every time to show his superiority. However, in his relationship with the elder Dubrovsky, Troekurov’s character is shown differently. This independent, poor landowner evokes a feeling of respect in him. They had known each other for a long time, served together, became widowers almost simultaneously, each raised a child. Dubrovsky is the only person who could afford to express his own opinion under Troekurov.
But when Andrei Gavrilovich tries to point out that the people in Troekurov’s house live worse than dogs, the all-powerful master gets angry and begins to take revenge, choosing the most terrible way - to illegally take away the estate, crush the neighbor, forcing him to humiliate himself and submit to his power. Nothing is impossible for him because he is rich. He is not concerned about the moral side of the action.
His temper is known to everyone, and when it subsided a little and the landowner decided to forgive his former friend, it was too late. In an instant, the wayward and power-hungry master Troekurov managed to destroy destinies.

Father and daughter

The characterization of Troekurov from the novel “Dubrovsky” in his relationship with his daughter Masha is no less clearly revealed. Even despite his love for her, he makes no exceptions, treating his daughter the same as others. He is harsh and capricious, at some moments cruel, so Masha does not trust him with her feelings and experiences. She grew up reading books, which managed to replace communication with her cruel father.

The main goal of his life is wealth and he tries to get it in any way. Deciding to give his daughter as a wife to an old man who has a lot of money and power, he stops at nothing. Masha's happiness means nothing to her father - the main thing is to be rich and powerful.

The image of Troekurov in the novel “Dubrovsky” indicates the majority of human vices. This is callousness of the soul, and dementia, and depravity, and immoderate lust for power and greed.
But not everything in life is valued by wealth. Troyekurov’s story is instructive and the author makes you think about one simple truth, which was voiced by the priest at the beginning of the novel, at the funeral of Dubrovsky the elder: “Vanity of vanities... and they will sing eternal memory to Kiril Petrovich... will the funeral be richer... but does God care!”

Work test

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.

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 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-headed 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, 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

TROEKUROV

TROEKUROV is the central character of A.S. Pushkin’s story “Dubrovsky” (1832-1833), a rich, well-born landowner, retired general-in-chief (in drafts Ilya Petrovich Narumov, Gavrila Evgrafovich).

Troekurov was a landowner who actually lived in the Nizhny Novgorod district and owned huge estates. The character also has many features of Pushkin's great-uncle, Major General Pyotr Abramovich Hannibal, who was distinguished by his tough disposition and unbridled temperament.

In Pushkin's story, the figure of T. is very important. It is no coincidence that the story begins with his characterization: “In his home life, Kirila Petrovich showed all the vices of an uneducated person. Spoiled by everything that surrounded him, he was accustomed to giving full rein to all the impulses of his ardent disposition and all the ideas of his rather limited mind.” For Pushkin, what is significant is not the everyday appearance of T., but the study of the nature of the Russian “wild nobility” and the inevitable consequences to which it led. The ignorant Russian nobility, captured by Fonvizin and Griboyedov, is delicately and subtly described by Pushkin in Dubrovsky. It is with this that the review of I.S. Turgenev is connected, who admired the “epic powers” ​​of Pushkin, which were reflected in the creation of the person of Troekurov (letter to Annenkov, May 12, 1853).

As the draft manuscripts testify, Pushkin developed the character of T. in the story very carefully: parallels are constantly drawn in the fate and appearance of T. with his neighbor, the landowner Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. They turn out to be, as it were, two hypostases of the same person, and Pushkin repeatedly emphasizes their duality in the text of the story: “Being the same age, born in the same class, brought up in the same way, they were partly similar in character and inclinations. In some respects, their fate was the same: both married for love, both were soon widowed, both had a child.”

One of the traditions of Pushkin studies is to contrast the images of T. and the elder Dubrovsky, emphasizing their social inequality. In fact (and A.A. Akhmatova was the first to note this) both of Pushkin’s landowners were well-born, old service comrades (albeit in different ranks); impatience and decisiveness of character were inherent in both of them. The main thing that distinguished them was the proud poverty of one, not devoid of envy, and the wealth of the other, which allowed him to be a tyrant.

An absurd, ambitious quarrel, a desire to put each other “in their place” made the old friends such irreconcilable enemies that they brought them to court, in which T. managed to take away Dubrovsky’s estate. Having satisfied his pride, he experiences complex feelings: “He was not selfish by nature, the desire for revenge lured him too far, his conscience grumbled... He decided to make peace with his old neighbor, to destroy even traces of the quarrel, returning his property to him.” . Dubrovsky's son, in a fit of rage and despair, drives T. away, and old Dubrovsky dies from hatred of T.

In his human manifestations, T. sometimes looks prettier than Dubrovsky, mutilated by arrogant poverty. He repeatedly makes efforts to reconcile with his old comrade, while he responds with unbridled anger and hatred. The insanity and death of the elder D. seem more likely to be a consequence of his anger than the hopelessness of the situation in which he found himself, having lost his estate. If you try to mentally swap them, it is very difficult to guarantee that Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky, endowed with wealth and power, will turn out to be kinder, fairer, better than T.

T. and his former friend, the elder Dubrovsky, in their main, defining character traits, are like two sides of the same coin. Their third hypostasis turns out to be Vladimir Dubrovsky, whose moral system is also extremely inconsistent. He acts in exactly the same way as the older heroes: realizing that the clerks carrying out the decisions to confiscate the estate are not guilty of anything, he immediately gives the command to lock all the doors and burn his home along with the clerks, after which he is left with no other choice how to become a robber. This is how the fate of the ruined nobleman ends in the novel. The completion is historically visionary. A few years later, Pushkin would write: “God forbid that we see a Russian rebellion - senseless and merciless.”

Yu.B. Bolshakova

Literary heroes. - Academician. 2009 .

See what "TROEKUROV" is in other dictionaries:

TREKHDENNOV THREE YEARS TRIGORLOV TRIGOROV TRIGORIEV TRIPOLSKY TROEKASHIN TROEKUROV TROEPOLSKY TROYAKOV TRIKUR It was no coincidence that Pushkin awarded the rich, despotic landowner in Dubrovsky this surname: there was a noble family of Troekurovs. But... ...Russian surnames

TROEKUROV- (AT TROEKUROV) Tavern Troekurov in the Troekurov House on the 6th line of Vasilievsky Island ... Petersburger's Dictionary

Voivode of a large regiment, commander of the forward detachment during the capture of Kazan; took Neyshlot, 1552 3. Addition: Troekurov, Prince Fyodor Ivanovich, voivode of Novgorod, 1557 participated in the Livonian war. campaign, consisting of 1 warrior. Great Regiment (chronicle... ...

Okolnichy 1658, boyar from 1673, † 1674 September 18. (Polovtsov) ... Large biographical encyclopedia

He was a governor in Kolomna in anticipation of a Crimean raid, 1559 (Polovtsov) ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Boyar from 1677 (1676 7 okolnichy from room stoln.), governor of Kiev; was in charge of various orders: the Great Treasury, Inozem. Reitarsky and Moscow Judgment (1679 86); R. 1633, † 1703 November 25. (Polovtsov) ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Boyar, governor of Ivangorod, 1535, † 1564 (Polovtsov) ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Boyarin, voivode of Pskov from 1619; † May 29, 1621; wives on Anna Nik., sister of Patriarch Filaret. (Polovtsov) ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Voivode; was at the council that elected Boris Godunov as king (1598); wrote to Hetman Sapega about the removal of the Lithuanian lords from the village of Novoselok Pereyaslavsk, which was granted to him by the impostor. county, 1608; self-willed, like a “thieves’ man”, ... ... Large biographical encyclopedia

Boyar and governor of Astrakhan, concluded a truce with Batory and went to Warsaw to explain the demands of Russia, 1581, † 1597 (Polovtsov) ... Large biographical encyclopedia

The collected works of our beloved poet and writer Alexander Sergeevich Pushkin total more than 10 volumes. “Dubrovsky” is a novel known to us from our school years. Wide in scope and deep in psychological content, it touches the soul of every reader. The main characters of the novel are Troekurov and Dubrovsky. We will study the main characters, as well as the main events of the work in more detail.

Russian gentleman

The action in the novel takes place in the 19th century. It is described in sufficient detail in the works of many classics of that time. As you know, serfdom existed in those days. The peasants, or souls as they were also called, were owned by the nobles.

The Russian master, the arrogant Kirila Petrovich Troekurov, was very much in awe of him. Not only his serf wards, but also many officials were in awe of him.

Troekurov's lifestyle left much to be desired: he spent his days idly, often drank and suffered from gluttony.

The peasants were in awe of him, and he, in turn, treated them rather capriciously, showing his complete dominance over them.

Troekurov's favorite pastime was mockery and ridicule of animals and people. Suffice it to recall the bear who rolled a barrel with protruding nails and was angry from the pain. This made the master laugh. Or the scene with the bear that was chained in a small room. Anyone who entered it was attacked by the poor animal. Troekurov took pleasure in the fury of the bear and human fear.

Humble Nobleman

Troekurov and Dubrovsky, whose comparative characteristics we will consider in detail, are very different people. Andrei Gavrilovich was honest, valiant, calm in character, he was strikingly different from his comrade. Once upon a time, the elder Dubrovsky and Troekurov were colleagues. But the careerist Kirila Petrovich, betraying his honor, sided with the new tsar, which earned himself a high rank. Andrei Gavrilovich, who remained devoted to his ruler, ended his service as a humble lieutenant. But nevertheless, the relationship between Troekurov and Dubrovsky was quite friendly and mutually respectful. They often met, visited each other's estates, and had conversations.

Both heroes had similar fates: they began serving together, were widowed early, and had a child to raise. But life took them in different directions.

Argument

There were no signs of trouble. But one day the relationship between Troekurov and Dubrovsky cracked. The phrase expressed by Kirila Petrovich’s clerk greatly offended Andrei Gavrilovich. The serf said that Troekurov’s slaves lived better than some nobles. This meant, of course, the modest Dubrovsky.

Immediately after this he left for his estate. Kirila Petrovich ordered to return it, but Andrei Gavrilovich did not want to come back. Such insolence offended the master, and he decided to achieve his goal at all costs.

A comparison of Dubrovsky and Troekurov will be incomplete without describing the method by which Kirila Petrovich decided to take revenge on his comrade.

Insidious plan

Having no influence on Dubrovsky, Troekurov conceived a terrible idea - to take away his friend’s estate. How dare he disobey him! Undoubtedly, this was very cruel to an old acquaintance.

Were Troekurov and Dubrovsky real friends? A comparative description of these heroes will help you figure this out.

Kirila Petrovich bribed officials indiscriminately and forged papers. Dubrovsky, having learned about the legal battle, remained quite calm, because he was confident of his absolute innocence.

Shabashkin, hired by Troekurov, took care of all the dirty deeds, although he knew that the Kistenevka estate legally belonged to the Dubrovskys. But everything turned out differently.

Scene in court

And now that exciting hour has come. Having met at the courthouse, Troekurov and Dubrovsky (whose comparative assessment will be given by us later) behaved proudly and walked into the courtroom. Kirila Petrovich felt very at ease. He already felt the taste of victory. Dubrovsky, on the contrary, behaved very calmly, stood leaning against the wall and was not worried at all.

The judge began reading a long decision. When it was all over, there was silence. Dubrovsky was completely bewildered. At first he was silent for some time, and then he became furious and forcefully pushed away the secretary who invited him to sign the papers. He began to rave, shouting something loudly about kennels and dogs. With difficulty they sat him down and took him home on a sleigh.

The triumphant Troekurov did not expect such a turn of events. Seeing his former comrade in a terrible state, he became upset and even stopped celebrating his victory over him.

Andrei Gavrilovich was taken home, where he became ill. He spent more than one day under the supervision of a doctor.

Repentance

The comparison of Dubrovsky and Troekurov is based on the complete opposition of the heroes. Kirila Petrovich, so arrogant and domineering, and Andrei Gavrilovich, a kind and honest person, could not continue their communication for long. But still, after the court hearing, Troekurov’s heart thawed. He decided to go to his former friend and talk.

However, he had no idea that by that time Vladimir, his son, was already in the house of Dubrovsky Sr.

Seeing Kirila Petrovich arriving in the window, the shocked Andrei Gavrilovich could not bear it and died suddenly.

Troekurov was never able to explain the reason for his arrival, and he was never able to repent to his friend for the crime he had committed.

And here the novel changes its turn: Vladimir decides to take revenge on the enemy for his father.

The appearance of Vladimir

It is worth saying a few words about the personality of this young man. Left without a mother early, the boy was in the care of his father. At the age of twelve he was sent to the cadet corps, and then continued his military studies at a higher institution. The father spared no expense in raising his son and provided for him well. But the young man spent his time in carousing and card games, and had large debts. Now that he is left completely alone, and even practically homeless, he feels strong loneliness. He had to grow up quickly and change his life dramatically.

Troekurov and Vladimir Dubrovsky become fierce enemies. The son is thinking over a plan of revenge against his father's offender.

When the estate was taken away and came into the possession of Kirila Petrovich, Vladimir was left without a livelihood. He has to become a robber in order to earn a living. Beloved by his serfs, he was able to gather a whole team of like-minded people. They rob rich people, but avoid Troekurov's estate. He undoubtedly thinks that the young man is afraid of him, so he does not go to him with robbery.

Troekurov in the novel “Dubrovsky” showed himself to be a proud man, but at the same time he is afraid that Vladimir will one day come to take revenge on him.

Dubrovsky in Troekurov's house

But our young hero turned out to be not so simple. He unexpectedly appears at the estate of Kirila Petrovich. But no one knows him there - he has not been to his homeland for many years. After exchanging documents with the French teacher and paying him well, Vladimir introduces himself to the Troyekurov family as teacher Deforge. He speaks French well, and no one can suspect Dubrovsky in him.

Perhaps the young man would be able to bring all his plans for revenge to life, but one circumstance prevents him - love. Unexpectedly for himself, Vladimir is fascinated by Masha, the daughter of his enemy Troekurov.

This love changes the lives of all the characters in the novel. Now Dubrovsky Jr. doesn’t want revenge at all. He renounces evil thoughts in the name of his beloved woman. But Masha still doesn’t know who this Deforge really is.

Troekurov himself began to respect the young Frenchman and was proud of his courage and modesty. But the time has come, and Vladimir confesses to Masha about his feelings and who he really is. The girl is confused - her father will never allow them to be together.

When Kirila Petrovich finds out the truth, he resolves the issue radically - he marries his daughter to the rich Prince Vereisky against her wishes.

Vladimir does not have time to arrive at the church during the wedding, and now she is no longer his Mashenka, but Princess Vereiskaya. Vladimir has no choice but to go far. Kirila Petrovich is more than satisfied with the current situation.

Conclusion

Troekurov and Dubrovsky, whose comparative characteristics are presented in detail by us, are completely different types of heroes. It cannot be said that Kirila Petrovich was a terrible person - he nevertheless repented of his vile act. But life did not give him a chance to be forgiven.

Both Andrei and Vladimir Dubrovsky are very ambitious. The serfs respect them, and they, in turn, do not oppress them in any way. However, Pushkin teaches us all: no circumstances should lead to extreme measures. Friendship is more than just communication, and you need to be able to value it.

A.S. Pushkin is the greatest, brilliant Russian poet and playwright. Many of his works trace the problem of the existence of serfdom. The issue of the relationship between landowners and peasants has always been controversial and caused a lot of controversy in the works of many authors, including Pushkin. Thus, in the novel “Dubrovsky”, representatives of the Russian nobility are described by Pushkin vividly and clearly. A particularly notable example is Kirila Petrovich Troekurov.

Kirila Petrovich Troekurov can be safely attributed to the image of a typical old Russian gentleman. He is a retired general-in-chief and the first hero we meet on the pages of the novel. This hero is a rich, noble, influential man with many connections in the provinces. As the author writes, from an early age Troekurov was spoiled by “everything that surrounded him” and indulged impulses of selfishness. The neighbors around him are flatterers and people-pleasers who follow any whim and are ready to endure Troekurov’s “wild amusements.”

When Pushkin gives a description of Troekurov as a serf landowner - a rich man, he emphasizes the unlimited power over a person. Despite the strict and capricious treatment of peasants and servants, Troekurov's servants treated him with pride for his wealth and power.

Troekurov is a person who loves to have fun. Almost all of his days are spent in search of entertainment, traveling around his estates, celebrating and feasting.

Kirila Petrovich does not deny himself anything, everything is allowed to him. He has no sense of proportion even in food.

This hero often commits rash, hasty actions in a fit of feelings, the result of which can be unexpected and unpleasant, causing rejection and hostility.

For a sane person, Troekurov’s amusements will seem far from reasonable and adequate. For many guests, an encounter with a bear is a terrifying and cruel torture. Troekurov, watching how a frightened and exhausted man goes crazy when meeting a bear one on one, experiences extraordinary pleasure.

Everyone around him feared Troekurov not only because of his power, but also because of his arrogant character. Troekurov showed respect for only one person. This was a retired guard lieutenant, comrade in service and neighbor Andrei Gavrilovich Dubrovsky. Dubrovsky was distinguished by his “humble state,” determination and impatience. In a sense, these two heroes were similar in character, and this is explained by the fact that they were the same age, equally brought up in the same class. Their fates were also similar: both married for love, and both soon became widowers. Those around them were perplexed and envied their friendship and harmony, but chance, misunderstanding and the unwillingness to make concessions of each of the heroes destroyed not only their friendship, but also their lives.

Kirila Petrovich owned the best kennel in the area. He was proud of this and was ready to boast to the guest at the right opportunity. Dubrovsky, once, while visiting Troekurov, noticed that Troekurov’s people were unlikely to live the same way as his dogs. To which one of Troekurov’s servants said: “... it would not be bad for another nobleman to exchange the estate for any local kennel,” pointing to Dubrovsky and his modest income. This is where the quarrel began. Troekurov, in response to his friend’s defense of his dignity, wished to show his strength by taking away Dubrovsky’s estate. Taking advantage of his numerous connections, influence, power and dishonest means, Troekurov embodied this idea, leaving his only true friend on the street.

The peasants of the village of Kistenevka, which belonged to Dubrovsky, stubbornly did not want to take possession of Troyekurov. Pushkin points out that the Kistenev peasants never stood out for their favorable attitude towards Troekurov because of his cruel treatment even of his own peasants. What can we say about strangers?

For example, he was not a selfish person, and what he did in a fit of revenge awakened his conscience. Troekurov did not consider the case with his former friend a victory, since he knew what state Dubrovsky might be in. These conscientious feelings directed him to the thought of reconciliation. The hero followed her, but it was already too late. Dubrovsky already had hatred, indignation and disappointment in his heart, which severely hit Dubrovsky’s unhealthy state. This caused the death of the only person Troekurov respected.

In his relationship with his daughter, the author describes Troekurov’s character no less vividly. Along with warm feelings for his daughter, Kirila Petrovich is also self-willed, sometimes cruel and harsh. Therefore, there is no mutual trust between daughter Masha and father. Reading novels replaces live communication with Masha’s father. Troekurov shows indifference, coldness, and insensitivity to his daughter’s tears and pleas not to give her in marriage to an unloved old rich man. He is unshakable in his decision. For Troekurov, money is the most important value and goal of life, rather than the happiness of his daughter.

Troekurov is a feudal despot and wayward tyrant - a classic example of the Russian nobility. Pushkin, showing his negative character traits, describes a negative attitude not towards all landowners, but towards cruel, despotic, narrow-minded power-hungry tyrants.

Pushkin contrasts Troekurov with another hero of the work - the son of A. G. Dubrovsky - Vladimir. He is a passionate, impetuous, addicted, determined nature. This is a man who fights against landowners who abuse power, position and influence.

Despite the fact that the novel takes place in the 1820s, this work is urgent, vital and modern.